Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 57 references

Research of Extra Charged Gauge Boson $W^{\prime}$ in Alternative Left-Right Model at Future Muon Collider

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A 10 TeV muon collider could catch a 4.8 TeV W′ boson at 5.17σ.

desk verdict A genuine first look at W' pair production in the alternative left-right model at a muon collider, but the headline 5.17 sigma is inflated because the paper uses S/sqrt(B) with less than one expected background event; the real Poisson significance is about 3.4 sigma. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.05787 v1 pith:SGDC5RLS submitted 2024-12-08 hep-ph

Liuxin Zhao , Honglei Li , Zhi-Long Han , Fei Huang , Xinyi Yan This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph
keywords W'bosonalternativeleft-rightmodelmuoncolliderpairproductionforward-backwardasymmetryright-handedcouplingmissingtransverseenergy
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

This paper sets out to show that a future 10 TeV muon collider could discover the extra charged gauge boson $W'$ of the alternative left-right model by looking at the pair-production process $\mu^+\mu^- \to W^{\prime+}W^{\prime-} \to e^+e^- n_e \bar{n}_e$. With $1\,\mathrm{ab}^{-1}$ of data and two kinematic cuts — a transverse-momentum window on the electrons and a cut on the azimuthal angle between them — a $4.8\,\mathrm{TeV}$ $W'$ would rise above the combined $WW$, $ZZ$, and vector-boson-fusion backgrounds at $5.17\sigma$. The paper also argues that the forward-backward asymmetry of the final electron grows with the right-handed coupling constant $g_R$, giving a way to measure how strongly the $W'$ couples to leptons. If the projection holds, the same search that finds the $W'$ could also probe the model's dark-matter-candidate sector through the right-handed neutrinos in the decay chain.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the alternative left-right model's $W'$ boson and its clean leptonic decay. The model extends the gauge group to $SU(3)_C \times SU(2)_L \times SU(2)'_R \times U(1)_{B-L} \times U(1)_S$, and the mass formula $M_{W'}=\frac{1}{2}g_R v'$ ties the mass to the right-handed coupling, with no $W$–$W'$ mixing because the relevant neutral Higgs vev vanishes. On the collider side, the discriminating variables are the electron transverse momentum $P_T$ and the azimuthal angle $\alpha$ between the two final-state electrons, with missing transverse energy supplied by the two right-handed neutrinos; the background model consists of $WW$, $ZZ$, and vector-boson-fusion $Z$-plus-neutrinos production. The significance is the signal event yield divided by the square root of the background event yield at $1\,\mathrm{ab}^{-1}$.

What would settle it

Run the same signal and background processes at $\sqrt{s}=10\,\mathrm{TeV}$ with a detector simulation that includes electron reconstruction efficiency, acceptance, pileup, and systematic uncertainties, and apply the $600 < P_T < 3500\,\mathrm{GeV}$ and $0.5 < \alpha < 3$ cuts; if the number of $e^+e^-$ plus missing-energy events agrees with the $WW+ZZ+VBF$ background rather than with the $W'$ signal prediction, the $5.17\sigma$ claim is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a $4.8\,\mathrm{TeV}$ $W'$ in the alternative left-right model is observable at a $10\,\mathrm{TeV}$ muon collider through the decay chain $\mu^+\mu^- \to W^{\prime+}W^{\prime-} \to e^+e^- n_e \bar{n}_e$. In this model the $W'$ mass is fixed by the right-handed coupling and a vacuum expectation value, $M_{W'}=\frac{1}{2}g_R\sqrt{k^2+v_R^2}$, and because the neutral Higgs vev that would mix $W$ and $W'$ vanishes, the two charged bosons do not mix. For a $4.8\,\mathrm{TeV}$ $W'$ at $\sqrt{s}=10\,\mathrm{TeV}$, the paper finds that requiring $600 < P_T < 3500\,\mathrm{GeV}$ for the final electrons and $0.5 < \alpha < 3$ for their azimuthal separation gives $S/B = 5.42$ and $S/\sqrt{B} = 5.17$ with $1\,\mathrm{ab}^{-1}$. It further claims that the forward-backward asymmetry of the final electron rises from about $0.005$ at $g_R=0.37$ to $0.37$ at $g_R=0.765$ in the $v=6.5\,\mathrm{TeV}$ scenario, making $A_{FB}$ a useful observable for probing the right-handed coupling.

Load-bearing premise

The projection rests on the assumption that the simulated background list — $WW$, $ZZ$, and $Z$-plus-neutrinos via vector-boson fusion — is complete and that detector effects and systematic uncertainties will not remove enough of the signal or add enough background to push the $5.17\sigma$ significance below the discovery threshold.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A $4.8\,\mathrm{TeV}$ $W'$ in the alternative left-right model is within reach of a 10 TeV muon collider: with $1\,\mathrm{ab}^{-1}$ of data and the $P_T$–$\alpha$ cuts, the projected significance is $5.17\sigma$.
  • The same cut strategy works at lower masses: for a $2\,\mathrm{TeV}$ $W'$, the signal-to-background ratio reaches 17 with a significance of 32, so the method degrades gracefully as the mass approaches the pair-production threshold.
  • Because the decay chain produces two right-handed neutrinos, the search also targets the sector of the model that can supply dark-matter candidates, not just the gauge-boson sector.
  • The forward-backward asymmetry measurement gives a handle on the right-handed coupling $g_R$, allowing the discovery channel to be reused to measure a model parameter rather than only count events.
  • Existing collider bounds on $W'$ masses in related left-right models sit just below the $4.8\,\mathrm{TeV}$ benchmark, so the predicted signal is not already excluded and is a natural next target.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A detector-level study that includes reconstruction efficiency, acceptance, pileup, and systematic uncertainties would likely lower the quoted $5.17\sigma$; the paper's projection is an idealized generator-level estimate.
  • The same $P_T$ and $\alpha$ cuts should transfer to the muon and tau decay modes of the $W'$, since the analysis treats lepton couplings as flavour-universal, though those channels are not simulated here.
  • A combined fit of the cross section and the forward-backward asymmetry could break the degeneracy between $g_R$ and $v'$ left by the mass relation $M_{W'}=\frac{1}{2}g_R v'$, since the two observables depend on the coupling differently.
  • A simple robustness check would be to add a background such as $Z\gamma$ or $\gamma\gamma \to e^+e^-$ plus missing energy and rerun the cut optimisation; a meaningful rise in the expected background would invalidate the quoted significance.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

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. The manuscript studies the collider phenomenology of the extra charged gauge boson W' in the alternative left-right model (ALRM) at a future 10 TeV muon collider. The authors compute production cross sections and angular distributions for the process mu+ mu- -> W'+ W'- -> e+ e- n_e nbar_e as functions of the right-handed coupling g_R, the W' mass, and beam polarization, and propose the forward-backward asymmetry as an observable sensitive to the right-handed coupling. They also perform a Monte Carlo cut-based search for W' masses of 2, 4.5, and 4.8 TeV, simulating the WW, ZZ, and VBF backgrounds, and report signal-to-background ratios S/B and significances S/sqrt(B). The central quantitative claim is a 5.17 sigma significance for a 4.8 TeV W' with 1 ab^-1 of integrated luminosity (Abstract, Section III.B.3, Table IV).

Significance. If the quoted sensitivity were valid, the paper would provide a useful early projection for W' pair searches at a 10 TeV muon collider and a novel observable (the final-electron forward-backward asymmetry) for probing the right-handed coupling. The paper is clearly organized and the signal and background definitions are transparent; the parton-level cross-section and angular-distribution results are, in principle, reproducible from the model definitions and the stated cuts. However, the headline significance is not reliable as presented: the Gaussian estimator used in Eq. (13) is invalid in the low-count regime of the 4.8 TeV benchmark, and the background list appears incomplete because no missing-transverse-energy cut is described. The forward-backward asymmetry analysis is also purely parton-level. With corrected statistical treatment and a more complete background estimate, the paper could still make a meaningful phenomenological contribution, but the current quantitative claims are overstated.

major comments (3)
  1. [III.B.3, Eq. (13), Table IV] The quoted significances in Table IV are computed with the Gaussian estimator S/sqrt(B). For the m_W' = 4.8 TeV row, S/B = 5.42 and S/sqrt(B) = 5.17 imply, for I = 1 ab^-1, an expected background of about B = 0.91 events and an expected signal of about S = 4.93 events. In this low-count regime, the Gaussian approximation overstates the significance: the background-only Poisson probability to observe at least 6 events is approximately 3.6e-4, corresponding to about 3.4 sigma, and the Asimov likelihood-ratio approximation gives a similar value. The same issue affects the 4.5 TeV row (S/B = 9.47, S/sqrt(B) = 9.14 implies B = 0.93 events). The abstract and Section IV therefore overstate the discovery potential. Please recompute all significances using an exact Poisson likelihood or a profile-likelihood statistic and update the claims in the abstract and summary.
  2. [III.B.3, background processes] The final state under study contains two electrons plus missing transverse energy, but the event selection described in the text (basic two-electron trigger plus the PT and alpha cuts in Table IV) does not include a missing-transverse-energy cut. The simulated backgrounds in Eqs. (10)-(12) all have intrinsic missing energy. Other Standard Model processes producing two high-pT electrons, notably mu+ mu- -> e+ e- (Bhabha and Z/gamma*), leptonic tau+ tau- decays, and associated production with misidentified leptons, are not studied. If such events pass the PT and alpha cuts, they would contribute to the background and reduce S/B. The authors should either include these backgrounds in the simulation or impose and document a missing-energy veto (and show its effect on the distributions in Fig. 6) before the S/B values in Table IV can be considered reliable.
  3. [III.B.3, Eq. (13)] The significance calculation is purely statistical and ignores systematic uncertainties in the background normalization, as well as detector effects such as lepton identification efficiency, isolation, and momentum resolution. For the 4.8 TeV benchmark with only about 0.9 expected background events, even a modest 10-20% systematic uncertainty on the background rate could substantially change the significance. The paper should explicitly state that the quoted significances are statistical-only, parton-level projections, and either include systematic uncertainties or add a clear caveat in the abstract and conclusions.
minor comments (6)
  1. [III.B.3, Eq. (13)] The printed formula 'S/sqrt(B) = sigma_S x I sqrt(sigma_B) x I' is dimensionally inconsistent and appears malformed; it should read S/sqrt(B) = (sigma_S / sqrt(sigma_B)) * sqrt(I). Please correct.
  2. [IV (Summary)] The summary states that 'the significance can reach 5 sigma' while the abstract quotes 5.17 sigma; after the Poisson recomputation, ensure all numerical claims are consistent throughout.
  3. [III.B.3, benchmark choice] The value of g_R corresponding to the 4.8 TeV W' benchmark is not stated explicitly. Using Eq. (5) with v' = 13 TeV gives g_R = 0.738, which is close to the upper bound 0.765 of the allowed range; please state this choice and discuss the dependence of the significance on g_R.
  4. [III.B.3, Monte Carlo details] The paper says 'We utilize Monte Carlo simulations' with generic references but gives no details about the generator version, the model implementation (e.g., a FeynRules UFO), or validation of the model cross sections against analytic expressions or previous literature. Such details are needed for reproducibility.
  5. [II, Table II and text] The presentation of the LHC bounds would benefit from a clearer separation of the constraints from CMS and ATLAS and an explicit statement that those bounds are derived in the Sequential Standard Model or Left-Right Symmetric Model, not directly in the ALRM.
  6. [Figures] Several figure labels appear with LaTeX glyph artifacts such as 'uni03BC' and 'uni03C4' (e.g., in Figures 2, 3, and 4); please fix the PDF/LaTeX encoding so that the axes and legends are readable.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the ALRM parameters and cross-section predictions come from an external model definition and MC simulation, not from fitting the quoted 5.17σ significance.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained in the relevant sense. The ALRM gauge group, field content, Yukawa terms, and mass relations (Eqs. (1)-(6)) are imported from the model literature (refs. [10,11,22]), which is not authored by the present authors. Cross sections, branching ratios, angular distributions, and significance values are MC outputs from that Lagrangian; no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The 4.8 TeV benchmark is a scenario choice: fixing v'=13 TeV and taking gR within the cited allowed range 0.37-0.765 in Eq. (5) gives mW'≈4.8 TeV, rather than tuning a parameter to reproduce 5.17σ. The S/B and S/√B entries in Table IV are calculated after cuts, not used as inputs to determine the model. Self-citations (refs. [8,9,13,14,15]) appear only as general new-physics background citations in the introduction and are not load-bearing for the model, the event generation, or the claimed significance. Possible concerns about the Poisson validity of S/√B at low background counts would be a statistical-correctness issue, not a circularity issue. No quoted equation reduces a predicted observable to its own input.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The headline 5.17 sigma result rests on several hand-set inputs: the g_R range, v'=13 TeV, new fermion masses 300/500/700 GeV, 1 ab^-1 luminosity, and per-benchmark optimized cuts, plus the ALRM model itself. None of these are fitted to data or derived in this paper; they come from prior model papers or are chosen by the authors. The largest unverified input is the model-dependent decay pattern (W' -> e n_e with n_e invisible) and the completeness of the background simulation.

free parameters (5)
  • Right-handed gauge coupling g_R = 0.37 to 0.765; benchmark near 0.74 for M_W'=4.8 TeV
    Controls M_W' through M_W' = g_R v'/2 and the W' couplings. The allowed range is quoted from refs [10,32,33], not derived in this paper.
  • Right-handed breaking scale v' (vev) = 6.5 TeV or 13 TeV; 13 TeV used for the 4.8 TeV benchmark
    Together with g_R sets the W' mass; choosing v'=13 TeV and g_R near the upper range produces the headline 4.8 TeV mass.
  • New fermion masses (M_d',n_e; M_s',n_mu; M_t',n_tau) = 300 GeV, 500 GeV, 700 GeV
    Set by hand in Section III.A; they determine the W' branching ratios and hence the signal yield.
  • Integrated luminosity = 1 ab^-1
    Assumed luminosity used in Eq. (13) for the significance projection; not a model parameter but a fixed input.
  • Kinematic cuts per benchmark = 2 TeV: PT>400 GeV, 0.5<alpha<3.1; 4.8 TeV: 600<PT<3500 GeV, 0.5<alpha<3
    Cut windows are optimized on the simulated signal and background samples, with no trials factor, so they can inflate the reported significance.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The ALRM gauge group, field content, and S symmetry are as described in Section II and refs [10,22].
    The entire signal rate and decay pattern follow from this model; the paper does not derive the model from a more fundamental principle.
  • domain assumption The W and W' gauge bosons do not mix because the vev in Eq. (4) has <phi_1^0>=0.
    If mixing were nonzero, the W' could decay to Standard Model fermion pairs, changing both the signal and the background estimates.
  • domain assumption MadGraph-based Monte Carlo generation [43,44] accurately computes the 2-to-4 process and the three listed backgrounds.
    No validation against analytic cross sections or experimental data is provided in the paper.
  • domain assumption The right-handed neutrinos n_e escape detection and contribute only to missing transverse energy.
    This is required to map the final state to e+e- plus missing energy; the new neutrinos are assumed stable on detector scales.
invented entities (2)
  • W' boson of the alternative left-right model (as used here)
    purpose: Signal particle whose pair production and leptonic decay are studied.
    Inherited from the ALRM of refs [10,22], not introduced by this paper, and no independent production or decay handle is provided beyond the model.
  • Right-handed neutrino (scotino) n_e as invisible final-state particle
    purpose: Produced in the decay W' -> e n_e and treated as missing energy in the significance analysis.
    Inherited from the ALRM; its assumed mass (300 GeV) sets the phase space, but no independent experimental evidence is cited.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Research of Extra Charged Gauge Boson $W^{\prime}$ in Alternative Left-Right Model at Future Muon Collider." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SGDC5RLS

@misc{pith2026241205787,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Research of Extra Charged Gauge Boson $W^\prime$ in Alternative Left-Right Model at Future Muon Collider},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SGDC5RLS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.05787}
}
abstract

The study of extra charged gauge boson beyond the Standard Model has always been of great interest. Future muon colliders will have a significant advantage in discovering exotic particles. In this paper, by studying the $\mu^+ \mu^- \to W^{\prime +} W^{\prime -} \to e^+ e^- n_e \bar{n}_e$ process, we explore the properties of $W^\prime$ in the alternative left-right model. The cross section and angular distribution of the final electron are investigated in the scenario of different $W^\prime$ mass and right-handed coupling constant. The forward-backward asymmetry is also an important observable to reflect the properties of $W^\prime$. We provide a method to effectively suppress the background processes. With specific kinematic cuts, the significance can reach $5.17\sigma$ for 4.8 TeV $W^\prime$ at the collision energy of 10 TeV.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.05787 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Decay branching ratios of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. cross section for the process [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (b) and (c) is the same distribution as (a) but MW′ = 3.5 and 5 TeV. When the mass of W′ increases, the cross section changes significantly for Pµ− < 0. When Pµ− equals to −40, the cross section for MW′ at 2 TeV increases gradually with the positive polarization of µ +, but for MW′ at 3.5 TeV, the cross section shows a decreasing trend. It is important to note that when MW′ is 3.5 and 5 TeV with Pµ− = −100, the cros… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. The angular distributions between [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. The angular distributions between [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. The kinematic distributions of the final particles fo [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    The plot in figure 2 (a) shows the cross section with different collision energies of 3, 6, and 10 TeV (represented by r ed, green, and yellow solid lines, respectively)

    Cross Section Figure 2 shows the cross section distribution of µ +µ − → W ′+W ′− → e+e−ne¯ne process with the right-handed coupling constant gR. The plot in figure 2 (a) shows the cross section with different collision energies of 3, 6, and 10 TeV (represented by r ed, green, and yellow solid lines, respectively). In the ALRM model, the mass of the W ′ boso...

    work page 1950

  2. [2]

    Angular Distribution The angular distribution of the final particle is an important observa ble for the study of the properties of W ′ boson. The formula for the angular distribution is as follows, cos θ = p∗ f · pi |p∗ f | · |pi| , (7) where p∗ f and pi are the three momentum of the final and initial particle, respective ly. −1.00 −0.75 −0.50 −0.25 0.00 0....

    work page

  3. [3]

    (1) The alternative left-right model is based on the SU (3)C × SU (2)L × SU (2)R′ × U(1)B−L × U(1)S gauge group

    + (1, ¯ 3, 3) ≡ q + ¯q + l. (1) The alternative left-right model is based on the SU (3)C × SU (2)L × SU (2)R′ × U(1)B−L × U(1)S gauge group. In this context, the SU (3)C group represents the symmetry group of the strong interaction, corresponding to the strong force that bind s quarks together; SU (2)L is the symmetry of the weak interaction for left-hand...

    work page 2000

  4. [4]

    005 (100, 0) −0

    37 0 . 005 (100, 0) −0. 24 (100, −100) −0. 24

    work page

  5. [5]

    043 (70, 0) 0

    45 −0. 043 (70, 0) 0 . 0016 (70, −70) −0. 18

    work page

  6. [6]

    034 (40, 0) 0

    53 0 . 034 (40, 0) 0 . 14 (40, −40) 0 . 013

    work page

  7. [7]

    21 (−40, 0) 0

    61 0 . 21 (−40, 0) 0 . 34 (−40, 40) 0 . 39

    work page

  8. [8]

    31 (−70, 0) 0

    69 0 . 31 (−70, 0) 0 . 39 (−70, 70) 0 . 41

    work page

Show all 57 references
  1. [9]

    37 (−100, 0) 0

    765 0 . 37 (−100, 0) 0 . 42 (−100, 100) 0 . 42 TABLE III. The forward-backward asymmetry with different con ditions for µ +µ − → W ′+W ′− → e+e−ne ¯ne. The vacuum expectation value is fixed at 6.5 TeV in the first co lumn, and MW ′ is 2 TeV in the second and third column. Table I...

  2. [10]

    In our simulations, we pay attention to the signal process with the W ′ pair production as an intermediate state, µ +µ − → W ′+W ′− → e+e−ne¯ne

    Significance We utilize Monte Carlo simulations [41–44] to simulate collisions for signal and back- ground processes, focusing our study on the di-lepton processe s. In our simulations, we pay attention to the signal process with the W ′ pair production as an intermediate state...

    2000

  3. [11]

    1 17 32 4.5TeV Basic Cut 2

    5 < α < 3. 1 17 32 4.5TeV Basic Cut 2. 1 × 10−4 0. 047 600 < P T < 3700GeV 0. 066 0. 78

  4. [12]

    5 < α < 3 9. 47 9. 14 4.8TeV Basic Cut 1. 2 × 10−4 0. 025 600 < P T < 3500GeV 0. 038 0. 44

  5. [13]

    5 < α < 3 5. 42 5. 17 TABLE IV. The signal-to-noise ratio and significance after c uts with the mass of W ′ is 2, 4.5 and 4.8 TeV and the collision energy is 10 TeV. IV. SUMMAR Y Extra charged gauge bosons beyond the Standard Model have alw ays been a topic of interest. Future ...

  6. [14]

    X. Yin, H. Li, Y. Jin, Z. Han, and Z. Lu, Chin. Phys. C 46, 053106 (2022), arXiv:2112.13975 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  7. [15]

    A. A. Andrianov, N. V. Borisov, M. V. Ioffe, and M. I. Eides, Theor. Math. Phys. 61, 965 (1984)

    1984

  8. [16]

    M. V. Ioffe and A. I. Neelov, J. Phys. A 33, 1581 (2000), arXiv:quant-ph/0001063

    2000 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Seiberg, Nucl

    N. Seiberg, Nucl. Phys. B 435, 129 (1995), arXiv:hep-th/9411149

    1995 arXiv

  10. [18]

    C. H. Clemens and S. Raby, JHEP 04, 004, arXiv:2001.10047 [hep-th]. 16

    2001 arXiv

  11. [19]

    J. C. Baez and J. Huerta, Bull. Am. Math. Soc. 47, 483 (2010), arXiv:0904.1556 [hep-th]

    2010 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Croon, T

    D. Croon, T. E. Gonzalo, L. Graf, N. Koˇ snik, and G. White, Front. in Phys. 7, 76 (2019), arXiv:1903.04977 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Senjanovic and R

    G. Senjanovic and R. N. Mohapatra, Phys. Rev. D 12, 1502 (1975)

    1975

  14. [22]

    Liu, Z.-L

    J. Liu, Z.-L. Han, Y. Jin, and H. Li, JHEP 12, 057, arXiv:2207.07382 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  15. [23]

    He, J.-Q

    R.-Y. He, J.-Q. Huang, J.-Y. Xu, F.-X. Yang, Z.-L. Han, an d F.-L. Shao, Chin. Phys. C 48, 093102 (2024), arXiv:2401.14687 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Frank, B

    M. Frank, B. Fuks, and O. ¨Ozdal, JHEP 04, 116, arXiv:1911.12883 [hep-ph]

    1911 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Ashry and S

    M. Ashry and S. Khalil, Phys. Rev. D 91, 015009 (2015), [Addendum: Phys.Rev.D 96, 059901 (2017)], arXiv:1310.3315 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Aaltonen et al

    T. Aaltonen et al. (CDF), Science 376, 170 (2022)

    2022

  19. [27]

    Z. Lu, H. Li, Z.-L. Han, Z.-G. Si, and L. Zhao, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron. 67, 231012 (2024), arXiv:2312.17427 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Tumasyan et al

    A. Tumasyan et al. (CMS), JHEP 07, 067, arXiv:2202.06075 [hep-ex]

    arXiv

  21. [29]

    Gong, H.-L

    X. Gong, H.-L. Li, C.-F. Qiao, Z.-G. Si, and Z.-J. Yang, P hys. Rev. D 89, 055022 (2014), arXiv:1403.0347 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Kriewald, M

    J. Kriewald, M. Nemevˇ sek, and F. Nesti, (2024), arXiv: 2403.07756 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Frank, B

    M. Frank, B. Fuks, A. Jueid, S. Moretti, and O. Ozdal, JHE P 02, 150, arXiv:2312.08521 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  24. [32]

    Achiman and B

    Y. Achiman and B. Stech, Phys. Lett. B 77, 389 (1978)

    1978

  25. [33]

    Gursey, P

    F. Gursey, P. Ramond, and P. Sikivie, Phys. Lett. B 60, 177 (1976)

    1976

  26. [34]

    Mitra, R

    M. Mitra, R. Ruiz, D. J. Scott, and M. Spannowsky, Phys. R ev. D 94, 095016 (2016), arXiv:1607.03504 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Ma, Phys

    E. Ma, Phys. Rev. D 85, 091701 (2012), arXiv:1202.5828 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Frank, C

    M. Frank, C. Majumdar, P. Poulose, S. Senapati, and U. A. Yajnik, (2024), arXiv:2402.04192 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  29. [38]

    Aaboud et al

    M. Aaboud et al. (ATLAS), Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 161802 (2018), arXiv:1801.06992 [hep-ex]

    2018 arXiv

  30. [39]

    A. M. Sirunyan et al. (CMS), JHEP 05, 033, arXiv:1911.03947 [hep-ex]

    1911 arXiv

  31. [40]

    A. M. Sirunyan et al. (CMS), JHEP 06, 128, arXiv:1803.11133 [hep-ex]. 17

    arXiv

  32. [41]

    A. M. Sirunyan et al. (CMS), Phys. Lett. B 792, 107 (2019), arXiv:1807.11421 [hep-ex]

    2019 arXiv

  33. [42]

    M. P. Allen, Introduction to monte carlo simulation, in Observation, Prediction and Simulation of Phase Transitio ns in Complex Fluids , edited by M. Baus, L. F. Rull, and J.-P. Ryckaert (Springer Netherla nds, Dordrecht, 1995) pp. 339–356

    1995

  34. [43]

    Tumasyan et al

    A. Tumasyan et al. (CMS), JHEP 04, 047, arXiv:2112.03949 [hep-ex]

    arXiv

  35. [44]

    Aad et al

    G. Aad et al. (ATLAS), Phys. Rev. D 109, 112008 (2024), arXiv:2402.16576 [hep-ex]

    2024 arXiv

  36. [45]

    Aaboud et al

    M. Aaboud et al. (ATLAS), Phys. Lett. B 798, 134942 (2019), arXiv:1904.12679 [hep-ex]

    2019 arXiv

  37. [46]

    Brehmer, J

    J. Brehmer, J. Hewett, J. Kopp, T. Rizzo, and J. Tattersa ll, JHEP 10, 182, arXiv:1507.00013 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  38. [47]

    P. S. B. Dev, R. N. Mohapatra, and Y. Zhang, JHEP 05, 174, arXiv:1602.05947 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  39. [48]

    Accettura et al

    C. Accettura et al. , Eur. Phys. J. C 83, 864 (2023), [Erratum: Eur.Phys.J.C 84, 36 (2024)], arXiv:2303.08533 [physics.acc-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  40. [49]

    Casarsa, D

    M. Casarsa, D. Lucchesi, and L. Sestini 10.1146/annure v-nucl-102622-011319 (2023), arXiv:2311.03280 [hep-ex]

    2023 arXiv

  41. [50]

    Accettura et al

    C. Accettura et al. (International Muon Collider), (2024), arXiv:2407.12450 [physics.acc-ph]

    2024

  42. [51]

    Abada et al

    A. Abada et al. (FCC), Eur. Phys. J. ST 228, 261 (2019)

    2019

  43. [52]

    S. P. Das, F. F. Deppisch, O. Kittel, and J. W. F. Valle, Ph ys. Rev. D 86, 055006 (2012), arXiv:1206.0256 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  44. [53]

    Chen and H.-B

    M.-C. Chen and H.-B. Yu, Phys. Lett. B 672, 253 (2009), arXiv:0804.2503 [hep-ph]

    2009 arXiv

  45. [54]

    T. Han, I. Lewis, R. Ruiz, and Z.-g. Si, Phys. Rev. D 87, 035011 (2013), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 87, 039906 (2013)], arXiv:1211.6447 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  46. [55]

    Walter and G

    J.-C. Walter and G. Barkema, Physica A: Statistical Mec hanics and its Applications 418, 78–87 (2015)

    2015

  47. [57]

    Alwall, R

    J. Alwall, R. Frederix, S. Frixione, V. Hirschi, F. Malt oni, O. Mattelaer, H. S. Shao, T. Stelzer, P. Torrielli, and M. Zaro, JHEP 07, 079, arXiv:1405.0301 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  48. [58]

    Frixione, O

    S. Frixione, O. Mattelaer, M. Zaro, and X. Zhao, (2021), arXiv:2108.10261 [hep-ph]. 18

    2021 arXiv

  49. [100]

    We also give the search of W ′ pair production at the muon collider with the mainly backgrounds of ZZ , W W and VBF processes

    The forward-backward asymmetry defined from the angular distribution is an effective observable to study the interaction of W ′ coupling to leptons. We also give the search of W ′ pair production at the muon collider with the mainly backgrounds of ZZ , W W and VBF processes. Aft...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.