Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Sensitivity Study of the Tau Lepton Electric Dipole Moment at the Super Tau-Charm Facility

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A planned tau-charm collider could measure the tau lepton EDM to 3.9e-18 e cm, about three times tighter than today's best limit.

desk verdict A careful STCF tau EDM projection that deserves refereeing, but the key calibration step is under-documented and the quoted limit does not trace from the tables. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.19469 v4 pith:5LPLYPZH submitted 2024-11-29 hep-ex

Xulei Sun , Yongcheng Wu , Xiaorong Zhou This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ex
keywords tauleptonelectricdipolemomentCPviolatione+e-collisionsoptimalobservablespincorrelationsMonteCarlosensitivitystudytau-charmcollider
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper argues that a future high-luminosity electron-positron collider in the tau-charm energy region can measure the tau lepton's electric dipole moment to $|d_\tau| < 3.89\times 10^{-18}\,e\cdot\mathrm{cm}$ at 68% confidence after ten years of data taking. This would be about three times tighter than the current best experimental limit. To get there, the paper constructs a complete analysis chain: machine-learning photon and event selection, joint kinematic fitting to pair decay products, analytic tau momentum reconstruction, and an optimal observable derived from the squared spin density matrix. The observable's mean value is calibrated against Monte Carlo samples with different EDM values, giving a linear relation that converts a measured shift in the observable into an EDM value. The projected sensitivity would probe CP-violating new physics in the tau sector beyond the Standard Model.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the optimal observable $\mathcal{O}_{\mathrm{Re}} = |M_{\mathrm{inter}}|^2/|M_{\mathrm{SM}}|^2$, where $|M_{\mathrm{inter}}|^2$ is the SM-EDM interference term in the squared production amplitude and $|M_{\mathrm{SM}}|^2$ is the Standard Model term. Constructed from the reconstructed tau momenta and the polarimeter vectors of the hadronic decays, its mean over phase space is $\langle\mathcal{O}_{\mathrm{Re}}\rangle = a_{\mathrm{Re}}\,\mathrm{Re}(d_\tau)/v + b_{\mathrm{Re}}$, so the EDM is read off from a measured shift in the mean. The squared spin density matrix decomposition $|M_i|^2 = |M_i|^2(1+h_i^+\cdot s_+ + h_i^-\cdot s_- + c_i\cdot s_+ s_-)$ connects the production spin correlations to the decay polarimeters; the two-fold ambiguity in the reconstructed tau momentum is handled by averaging the observable over the two solutions, following the earlier experimental approach.

What would settle it

Generate $e^+e^-\to\tau^+\tau^-$ events with the EDM operator included in a custom model, and compute the optimal observable distribution twice: once with tau decays carrying the full spin information from the production amplitude, and once with decays treated without spin correlations. If the mean shift of $\mathcal{O}_{\mathrm{Re}}$ as a function of $d_\tau$ differs between the two treatments, or deviates from the linear relation with the slope quoted in the paper's Table III, then the projected sensitivity is not reproducible.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that using the $\tau^\pm\to\pi^\pm\pi^0\nu_\tau$ (rho-rho) decay channel, the planned collider can constrain the tau EDM to $|d_\tau|<3.89\times10^{-18}\,e\cdot\mathrm{cm}$ at 68% confidence after ten years, roughly three times stronger than the limit from the previous B-factory experiment. The analysis chain achieves 80.0% signal purity with 6.3% efficiency, and the joint kinematic fitting pairs the final-state particles correctly in 82.5% of signal events. The EDM sensitivity comes from the optimal observable $\mathcal{O}_{\mathrm{Re}} = |M_{\mathrm{inter}}|^2/|M_{\mathrm{SM}}|^2$, whose phase-space mean is a linear function of $\mathrm{Re}(d_\tau)/v$; Monte Carlo samples with several input EDM values fix the slope of that line, and the statistical uncertainty on the mean observable translates into the quoted limit.

Load-bearing premise

The projection assumes the Monte Carlo samples used to calibrate the optimal observable reproduce the full spin correlation between tau production and tau decay exactly as in the analytic matrix element; the paper does not describe how tau decay and spin are handled in those samples, so if the simulation misses those correlations the fitted slope and the quoted limit would not hold.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A null result after ten years would set $|d_\tau| < 3.89\times10^{-18}\,e\cdot\mathrm{cm}$ at 68% CL, roughly three times stronger than the current best limit.
  • The selection chain yields 80.0% signal purity at 6.3% efficiency, corresponding to about $1.4\times10^7$ rho-rho signal events per year, two orders of magnitude more than the earlier B-factory sample.
  • Because the mean optimal observable is linear in $\mathrm{Re}(d_\tau)$, any future measurement of $\langle \mathcal{O}_{\mathrm{Re}}\rangle$ with the quoted uncertainty can be converted directly into an EDM value or limit.
  • The reconstructed tau momentum, after averaging the two analytical solutions, has a transverse-momentum relative deviation with FWHM 0.10 and a direction RMS of about 10 degrees, enough to keep the optimal-observable calibration stable.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paper leaves open how tau decays and spin correlations are realized in the calibration samples; a truth-level comparison between samples with spin correlations included and excluded would settle whether the fitted slope $a_{\mathrm{Re}}$ is biased.
  • Resolving the two-fold tau-momentum ambiguity with vertex-detector impact parameters, which the paper identifies as a possible future improvement, could push the limit below the quoted value by removing the averaging that dilutes the observable.
  • The same optimal-observable pipeline could, in principle, be applied to data already collected at existing tau-charm experiments, giving an intermediate EDM measurement before the new collider turns on.
  • Because the dominant remaining background is $\tau^\pm\to\pi^\pm\pi^0\pi^0\nu_\tau$ at about 14%, a further selection optimized against extra neutral pions would raise purity and may improve sensitivity beyond the quoted projection.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper presents a Monte Carlo sensitivity study of the tau lepton electric dipole moment (EDM) at the proposed Super Tau-Charm Facility (STCF). The authors simulate e+e- -> tau+tau- events with tau decays to rho nu (tau+ -> pi+ pi0 anti-nu_tau, tau- -> pi- pi0 nu_tau), develop a BDTG-based event selection achieving 80.0% signal purity with 6.3% efficiency, use a joint kinematic fit for particle pairing, reconstruct tau momenta analytically, and construct the optimal observable O_Re = |M_inter|^2 / |M_SM|^2. The central claim, stated in the abstract and Section V, is that after ten years of STCF operation the tau EDM can be constrained to |d_tau| < 3.89e-18 e cm at 68% confidence, based on a linear calibration of the mean optimal observable against d_tau using MadGraph samples with custom UFO model files and Delphes fast simulation.

Significance. If the quoted sensitivity is correct, this would be the most sensitive tau EDM projection to date, about a factor of three stronger than the current Belle limit near 1e-17 e cm, and it would be a useful input for the STCF physics program. The paper has genuine strengths: the optimal-observable framework is analytically derived and internally consistent, the selection chain is described in detail, the comparison with Belle yields a plausible statistical improvement, and the use of a linear calibration from MC samples is a standard and testable procedure. The main weakness is that the central numerical result depends on an incompletely documented simulation chain, and the quoted number is not directly derivable from the tabulated fit results as presented. The study is also statistical-only, with no systematic uncertainty assessment, which is acceptable for a first projection but should be stated explicitly.

major comments (3)
  1. The calibration of the optimal observable response rests on the MadGraph samples with custom UFO files reproducing the full spin correlations between tau production and tau decay. The analytic expressions in Eqs. (24)-(31) show that the observable depends on the polarimeter vectors h_+ and h_- and on the spin-correlation terms c_i^{mu nu}, which are constructed from the tau decay matrix elements. However, Section IV.C states only that MadGraph and custom UFO files are used to simulate tau-pair production, followed by Delphes detector simulation; it does not state how the tau decays to pi+ pi0 nu and pi- pi0 nu are generated, whether Tauola or MadSpin or another package preserves the spin correlations, or how the two-fold tau momentum ambiguity and the averaging over the two solutions are implemented in the calibration. If the MadGraph samples were generated with tau spins averaged at production or with uncorrelated decays, the dependence of <O_Re> on d_tau would be altered or could vanish, so the fitted slope a_Re in Table III would not calibrate the EDM. This unstated link is load-bearing for the central claim and must be documented and validated.
  2. The quoted sensitivity |d_tau| < 3.89e-18 e cm is not derived in the text and is not directly reproducible from Table III. Taking the statistical uncertainty on the mean observable as delta<O_Re> = 1.088e-4 and the fitted slope a_Re = 3.06e-5 (10^-18 e cm)^-1, the simple ratio delta<O_Re>/a_Re gives 3.55e-18 e cm, not 3.89e-18 e cm. The additional factor of about 1.09 presumably comes from an unstated propagation of the fit parameter uncertainties or from another statistical formula, but this is not shown. The paper should present the exact formula used for the 68% confidence bound, including how the uncertainties on a_Re, b_Re, and the number of selected events are propagated.
  3. The study provides no systematic uncertainty assessment. The selection has non-negligible background contamination (about 20% background, dominated by tau->pi pi0 pi0 nu), the tau momentum reconstruction has a two-fold ambiguity that is averaged over, and the photon and track resolutions are folded in through fast simulation. Any of these could bias the mean of the optimal observable or dilute the slope a_Re. Since the paper claims an 'estimated sensitivity' of 3.89e-18 e cm, it should at minimum state explicitly that this is a statistical-only projection and list the dominant expected sources of systematic uncertainty, with rough estimates where possible. Without this, the numerical claim is presented with unwarranted precision.
minor comments (6)
  1. The quantity v in the amplitude Mprod = M_SM + (Re(d_tau)/v) M_Re is not defined; it should be stated explicitly (presumably the Higgs vacuum expectation value) since it enters the definition of the slope in Eq. (7).
  2. The phrase 'we only keep the real part of Re(d_tau)' is confusing because Re(d_tau) is already the real part; the authors should say they assume d_tau is real and retain only the linear interference term.
  3. The sign conventions in Eq. (31) for the a_i, b_i, and c_i coefficients are not defined; they should be related to the quantities introduced in Eq. (4) or defined in the text.
  4. The legend in the left panel of Fig. 8 is described as 'Red: d_tau<0; Green: d_tau>0' in the caption, but the colored curves and the definition of the ratio r are not clearly identified in the figure itself; please clarify the plot and state where r is used.
  5. The paper does not state how many reconstructed signal events are used in the calibration fits for each injected d_tau value, nor the corresponding statistical uncertainty on each mean <O_Re>; providing this would improve reproducibility.
  6. There is a typo in the text before Eq. (31): 'produciton' should be 'production'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the d_tau sensitivity is a Monte Carlo projection with d_tau as an input, not a fitted quantity renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is a projected upper limit on the tau EDM, obtained from simulated e+e- -> tau+tau- events. The target d_tau is injected as a parameter in the MadGraph/UFO samples used for calibration, and the quoted limit is derived from the fitted slope a_Re and the statistical error on <O_Re>; this is a standard sensitivity projection, not a measurement in which d_tau is fitted and then called a prediction. The optimal observable in Eq. (5) is constructed analytically from the squared matrix element, and its linear relation to d_tau in Eqs. (6)-(8) follows from the assumed EDM Lagrangian, so the relationship is not imposed by fitting the final answer. The self-citation to Ref. [15] (sharing author Y. Wu) for the EDM Lagrangian and related formalism is not load-bearing because the same framework is credited to the external Belle papers [11,14] and to Atwood-Soni [16]; no uniqueness claim or unverified ansatz is imported solely from the authors' prior work. A separate validation concern, not a circularity, is that Section IV.C does not describe how tau decays and spin correlations are implemented in the MadGraph sample used for the <O_Re> calibration; if those decays are not spin-correlated, the fitted a_Re would not calibrate the EDM response. This is an unstated assumption about simulation correctness, not a reduction of the result to its inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central sensitivity projection depends on analysis cuts, STCF design assumptions, and the spin-correlated simulation chain. These are either fitted to MC, assumed from the CDR, or unstated in the paper. No new particles or forces are introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • Photon BDTG cut = 0.6
    Chosen in Section II.D to balance signal efficiency and noise retention; affects signal yield and purity.
  • Event-level BDTG cut = 0.2
    Chosen in Section II.F, retaining roughly 73% signal and 32% background; directly sets the event sample used for the EDM sensitivity.
  • Kinematic fit chi2 cut = <10
    Section II.E and III: rejects events with poor pairing; set on MC to improve purity.
  • Neutrino momentum sum cut = p_nu < E_total/2
    Section III Eq. 16: derived from MC truth information and applied as a physicality and selection cut.
  • Photon angular and energy thresholds = 20 degrees, 0.04 GeV
    Section II.D: suppresses noise photons; hand-set thresholds used in the selection chain.
  • Calibration slope and intercept (a_Re, b_Re) = a_Re = 3.06e-5 +/- 1.43e-7 (10^-18 e cm)^-1, b_Re = -1.85e-5 +/- 4.87e-5
    Fitted in Section IV.C from MC samples with different d_tau values; these fitted values determine the conversion from observable mean to EDM sensitivity.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Born-level, back-to-back tau pair production in the CM frame, so p_tau+ = -p_tau- and E_tau = E_total/2
    Used in Section IV.A Eqs. 17-23; ignores ISR, beam energy spread, and higher-order effects.
  • domain assumption The custom UFO implementation of the EDM operator in MadGraph and the decay chain preserve full tau spin correlations exactly as in the analytic formulas
    Required so the calibration of <O_Re> vs d_tau in Section IV.C is valid; the paper does not state whether MadSpin or TAUOLA handles spin correlations for these samples.
  • domain assumption SM backgrounds and cross sections from KKMC, TAUOLA, and PDG branching ratios accurately model the STCF environment
    Used in Section II.B to generate 5.57M events and in the purity and efficiency estimates.
  • domain assumption STCF design parameters from the CDR, 1 ab^-1 per year and 3.5e9 tau pairs per year at 4.2 GeV
    The ten-year yield and sensitivity projection scale directly from these assumed numbers.
  • domain assumption The linear relation <O_Re> = a_Re Re(d_tau)/v + b_Re holds and |M_Re|^2 can be neglected
    Sections I and IV.C; standard first-order optimal-observable approximation.
  • domain assumption Averaging over the two tau-momentum solutions does not bias the EDM observable
    Section IV.A adopts the Belle approach; no closure test is shown.
  • standard math Standard Lorentz kinematics and the optimality of O_Re = |M_inter|^2 / |M_SM|^2
    Equations 20-23 and Eq. 5 rely on established derivations from references 23 and 16.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Sensitivity Study of the Tau Lepton Electric Dipole Moment at the Super Tau-Charm Facility." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5LPLYPZH

@misc{pith2026241119469,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Sensitivity Study of the Tau Lepton Electric Dipole Moment at the Super Tau-Charm Facility},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5LPLYPZH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.19469}
}
abstract

This study investigates the intrinsic electric dipole moment (EDM) of the $\tau$ lepton, which is an important quantity in the search for physics beyond the Standard Model (BSM). In preparation for future measurements at the Super Tau-Charm Facility (STCF), we employ Monte Carlo simulations of the $e^+e^- \rightarrow \tau^+\tau^-$ process and optimize the analysis methodology for EDM extraction. Machine learning techniques are implemented to efficiently identify signal events ($\tau^\pm\rightarrow\pi^\pm\pi^0\nu_\tau$), which result in a significant improvement in signal-to-noise ratio. Our optimized event selection algorithm achieves $80.0\%$ signal purity with $6.3\%$ efficiency. We develop an analytical approach for $\tau$ lepton momentum reconstruction and derive the squared spin density matrix along with optimal observables, which maximize the sensitivity to $d_\tau$. The relationship between these observables and the EDM is established with the estimated sensitivity of $|d_\tau| < 3.89\times 10^{-18}\,e\cdot\mathrm{cm}$ at a $68\%$ confidence level. These results provide a foundation for future experimental measurements of the $\tau$ lepton EDM in STCF experiments.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.19469 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Variable distributions for signal and noise photons. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: ROC curves for BDT and BDTG for photon selection. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: BDTG response (left panel) and cut efficiency (right panel) for photon selection. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: BDTG response (left panel) and cut efficiency (right panel) for event selection. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Invariant mass distribution of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Distribution of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: Relative deviation of the transverse momentum (left panel) and the direction (right panel) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: Left panel: Distribution of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. CP violation studies at Super Tau-Charm Facility

    hep-ex 2025-02 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A future Super Tau-Charm Facility is projected to test CP violation in hyperon, tau, and charm decays at 1e-4 to 1e-3 sensitivities and improve the kaon CPT mass-difference limit tenfold.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

29 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    First,𝛾 (1),𝛾(2) arepairedinto𝜋 0 (1),and𝛾 (3),𝛾(4) into𝜋 0 (2),followed by a kinematic fitting (using the constraints in Eqs

    Method II: Stepwise Kinematic Fitting Thismethodhastwosteps. First,𝛾 (1),𝛾(2) arepairedinto𝜋 0 (1),and𝛾 (3),𝛾(4) into𝜋 0 (2),followed by a kinematic fitting (using the constraints in Eqs. (11) and (13)). Considering the equivalence of𝜋 0 (1) and𝜋 0 (2), there are𝐶2 𝑛𝐶2 𝑛−2/2possible pairings. The algorithm traverses all pairings and selects the one with t...

    work page

  2. [2]

    Method III: Kinematic Fitting with Resonance Mass of𝜌 In𝜏decays(𝜏 +→𝜋+𝜋0𝜈,𝜏−→𝜋−𝜋0𝜈,𝜋 0→2𝛾),𝜋 ± and𝜋 0 usuallyforma𝜌resonance[20], allowing the inclusion of the𝜌mass constraint: 𝐸𝜋++𝐸 𝜋0 (1) 2 = 𝒑𝜋++𝒑 𝜋0 (1) 2 𝑐2+𝑚 2 𝜌𝑐4, 𝐸𝜋−+𝐸 𝜋0 (2) 2 = 𝒑𝜋−+𝒑 𝜋0 (2) 2 𝑐2+𝑚 2 𝜌𝑐4. (A1) 17 Given the broad mass range of the𝜌resonance (indicating a large uncertainty), direct...

    work page

  3. [3]

    For the correct pairing, the angle between the momenta of the final-state particles and the𝜏lepton momenta (considering only the acute angle) should be smaller

    Method IV : Kinematic Fitting with Momentum Direction In this method, after performing the kinematic fitting for all possible pairings, the neutrino momenta𝒑 𝜈(1,2) are obtained, and the𝜏lepton momenta are calculated as𝒑𝜏+ =𝒑 𝜋++𝒑 𝛾(1)+ 𝒑𝛾(2)+𝒑 𝜈(1) and𝒑 𝜏− =𝒑 𝜋−+𝒑 𝛾(3)+𝒑 𝛾(4)+𝒑 𝜈(2). For the correct pairing, the angle between the momenta of the final-sta...

    work page

  4. [4]

    M.KobayashiandT.Maskawa,CPViolationintheRenormalizableTheoryofWeakInteraction,Prog. Theor. Phys. 49 (1973) 652

    work page 1973

  5. [5]

    M.J.Booth,TheElectricdipolemomentoftheWandelectronintheStandardModel,hep-ph/9301293

    arXiv

  6. [6]

    Mahanta, Dipole moments of𝜏as a sensitive probe for beyond standard model physics, Phys

    U. Mahanta, Dipole moments of𝜏as a sensitive probe for beyond standard model physics, Phys. Rev. D 54 (1996) 3377

    work page 1996

  7. [7]

    Kleinknecht, Symmetries, in: Uncovering CP Violation, Springer Tracts in Modern Physics, vol

    K. Kleinknecht, Symmetries, in: Uncovering CP Violation, Springer Tracts in Modern Physics, vol. 195, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2003

    work page 2003

  8. [8]

    Huang, W

    T. Huang, W. Lu, and Z.-j. Tao, Search for nonstandard model CP/T violation at tau charm factory, Phys. Rev. D 55 (1997) 1643

    work page 1997

Show all 29 references
  1. [9]

    Bernreuther, A

    W. Bernreuther, A. Brandenburg, and P. Overmann, CP violation beyond the standard model and tau pair production in𝑒+𝑒− collisions, Phys. Lett. B 391 (1997) 413. 18

    1997

  2. [10]

    Boeschoten, V.R

    A. Boeschoten, V.R. Marshall, T.B. Meijknecht, et al., Spin-precession method for sensitive electric dipole moment searches, Phys. Rev. A 110 (2024) L010801

    2024

  3. [11]

    C. Abel, S. Afach, N.J. Ayres, et al., Measurement of the Permanent Electric Dipole Moment of the Neutron, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124 (2020) 081803

    2020

  4. [12]

    Botella, L.M

    F.J. Botella, L.M. Garcia Martin, D. Marangotto, et al., On the search for the electric dipole moment of strange and charm baryons at LHC, Eur. Phys. J. C 77 (2017) 181

    2017

  5. [13]

    Pospelov, A

    M. Pospelov, A. Ritz, Electric dipole moments as probes of new physics, Ann. Phys. 318 (2005) 119

    2005

  6. [14]

    04 (2022) 110

    BelleCollaboration,Animprovedsearchfortheelectricdipolemomentofthe𝜏lepton,J.HighEnergy Phys. 04 (2022) 110

    2022

  7. [15]

    W.Bernreuther,L.Chen,andO.Nachtmann,Electricdipolemomentofthetauleptonrevisited,Phys. Rev. D 103 (2021) 096011

    2021

  8. [16]

    Achasov, X.C

    M. Achasov, X.C. Ai, L.P. An, et al., STCF conceptual design report (Volume 1): Physics & detector, Front. Phys. 19 (2024) 14701

    2024

  9. [17]

    Belle Collaboration, Search for the electric dipole moment of the𝜏lepton, Phys. Lett. B 551 (2003) 16-26

    2003

  10. [18]

    X. Chen, Y. Wu, Search for the Electric Dipole Moment and anomalous magnetic moment of the tau lepton at tau factories, J. High Energy Phys. 10 (2019) 089

    2019

  11. [19]

    Atwood, A

    D. Atwood, A. Soni, Analysis for magnetic moment and electric dipole moment form factors of the top quark via𝑒+𝑒−→𝑡𝑡, Phys. Rev. D 45 (1992) 2405

    1992

  12. [20]

    Jadach, B.F.L

    S. Jadach, B.F.L. Ward, Z. Was, The Precision Monte Carlo event generator KK for two fermion final states in𝑒+𝑒− collisions, Comput. Phys. Commun. 130 (2000) 260

    2000

  13. [21]

    Was, TAUOLA the library for𝜏lepton decay, and KKMC/KORALB/KORALZ/

    Z. Was, TAUOLA the library for𝜏lepton decay, and KKMC/KORALB/KORALZ/... status report, Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl. 98 (2001) 96

    2001

  14. [22]

    Shi, X.R

    X.D. Shi, X.R. Zhou, X.S. Qin, and H.P. Peng, A fast simulation package for STCF detector, JINST 16 (2021) P03029

    2021

  15. [23]

    Workman, et al

    R.L. Workman, et al. (Particle Data Group), Review of Particle Physics, PTEP 2022 (2022) 083C01

    2022

  16. [24]

    Hoecker, P

    A. Hoecker, P. Speckmayer, J. Stelzer, et al., TMVA - Toolkit for Multivariate Data Analysis, arXiv:physics/0703039 [physics.data-an]

    arXiv

  17. [25]

    X. Zhou, S. Du, G. Li, et al., TopoAna: A generic tool for the event type analysis of inclusive Monte- Carlo samples in high energy physics experiments, Comput. Phys. Commun. 258 (2021) 107540

    2021

  18. [26]

    Kühn, Tau kinematics from impact parameters, Phys

    J.H. Kühn, Tau kinematics from impact parameters, Phys. Lett. B 313 (1993) 458. 19

    1993

  19. [27]

    J.Alwall,M.Herquet,F.Maltoni,etal.,MadGraph5: GoingBeyond,J.HighEnergyPhys.06(2011) 128

    2011

  20. [28]

    High Energy Phys

    DELPHES Collaboration, DELPHES 3: a Modular Framework for Fast Simulation of a Generic Collider Experiment, J. High Energy Phys. 02 (2014) 057

    2014

  21. [29]

    Belle Collaboration, Observation of𝜏−→𝜋 −𝜈𝜏𝑒+𝑒− and search for𝜏−→𝜋 −𝜈𝜏𝜇+𝜇−, Phys. Rev. D 100 (2019) 071101. 20

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.