pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.05962 · v1 · pith:WWKGHCMJnew · submitted 2026-06-04 · ✦ hep-ph

Search for heavy Majorana neutrinos at muon-proton colliders via lepton-number-violating signals

Yao-Bei Liu This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-28 00:46 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ✦ hep-ph
keywords heavy Majorana neutrinoslepton number violationmuon-proton collidersneutrino mixingnew physics searches
0
0 comments X

The pith

Future muon-proton colliders can set stronger limits on heavy Majorana neutrinos than the LHC for masses 200-3000 GeV.

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

The paper proposes a search strategy for heavy Majorana neutrinos using lepton-number-violating processes at future muon-proton colliders with 1 TeV muon beams and 7 TeV proton beams. It examines the production and decay chain μ−p → jN → j(ℓ+ W−), targeting final states with one charged lepton and jets, either resolved or merged into a fat-jet for higher masses. Comprehensive signal and background simulations including detector effects yield projected 2σ exclusion limits on the mixing parameter |V_ℓN|^2 that exceed current LHC and collider bounds across the mass range, for luminosities of 100 fb−1 and 1 ab−1. A sympathetic reader would care because this identifies a concrete experimental path to test lepton-number violation and neutrino mass generation mechanisms.

Core claim

At a muon-proton collider with center-of-mass energy of approximately 5.3 TeV, the lepton-number-violating process μ−p → jN → j(ℓ+ W−) produces projected 2σ exclusion limits on |V_ℓN|^2 that are substantially superior to existing bounds from the LHC and other high-energy colliders for heavy Majorana neutrinos with masses 200 GeV ≤ m_N ≤ 3000 GeV, using 100 fb−1 or 1 ab−1 of integrated luminosity after accounting for realistic detector effects.

What carries the argument

The lepton-number-violating decay chain N → ℓ+ W− (with W− → jj or merged into fat-jet J) in the production process μ−p → jN, distinguished by final states of one lepton plus three jets or one lepton plus fat-jet.

If this is right

  • The mixing parameter |V_ℓN|^2 faces tighter constraints than current collider bounds for the full mass interval 200-3000 GeV.
  • Muon-proton colliders become viable competitive facilities for heavy neutrino searches.
  • Both low-mass resolved-jet and high-mass fat-jet regimes are covered by the same overall strategy.
  • The projected reach holds under the two specified integrated luminosity scenarios.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Detector optimization for boosted object identification would directly enhance reach at the high-mass end.
  • Similar lepton-number-violating signatures could be examined at other proposed lepton-hadron colliders with adjusted beam energies.
  • Absence of signal would narrow the viable parameter space in minimal type-I seesaw extensions.
  • The analysis highlights the value of combining muon and proton beams for accessing both production and decay vertices in one collision.

Load-bearing premise

Background processes and detector effects including fat-jet reconstruction can be accurately modeled in simulation for a collider that has not been built, without unaccounted systematic uncertainties dominating the projected limits.

What would settle it

If the observed event counts in the defined signal regions after all selection cuts fall well below the expected signal-plus-background yield at the stated luminosities, the claim of superior sensitivity would be falsified.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.05962 by Yao-Bei Liu.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: Feynman diagrams for the LNV process [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: Production cross section of the LNV signal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: Normalized event distributions for the signal proce [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: presents the projected 2σ exclusion contours in the |VℓN | 2 versus mN plane at the µp collider with an integrated luminosity of 1 ab−1 under the assumption of flavor-symmetric mixing |VℓN | 2 = |VeN | 2 = |VµN | 2 . For mN values from 200 GeV to 1 TeV, the corresponding 2σ upper bounds on |VℓN | 2 range from 1.3 × 10−6 to 7.4 × 10−6 at this facility [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Feynman diagrams for the process [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Production cross section of the LNV plus fat-jet sign [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: Normalized distributions for the signals (with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_8.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We propose a novel search strategy for heavy Majorana neutrinos based on the lepton-number-violating process $\mu^{-}p \to jN \to j(\ell^{+}W^{-})$ at future muon-proton ($\mu p$) colliders equipped with 1 TeV muon beams and 7 TeV proton beams, yielding a center-of-mass energy of approximately 5.3 TeV. For heavy neutrinos with masses in the range $200~\text{GeV} \lesssim m_N \lesssim 1000~\text{GeV}$, this analysis targets the decay chain $N \to \ell^{+}W^{-} \to \ell^{+}jj$, producing a characteristic final state consisting of one charged lepton and three well-resolved jets. For TeV-scale Majorana neutrinos, the $W$ boson is highly boosted, such that its hadronic decay products coalesce into a prominent fat-jet ($J$) signature. We conduct comprehensive signal and background analyses that account for realistic detector effects to assess the search sensitivity. We derive the projected $2\sigma$ exclusion limits on the neutrino mixing parameter $|V_{\ell N}|^2$ based on two typical integrated luminosity scenarios of $100~\text{fb}^{-1}$ and $1~\text{ab}^{-1}$. The results demonstrate that the proposed search strategy can achieve constraints substantially superior to the existing bounds from the LHC and other high-energy colliders. This study demonstrates that future $\mu p$ colliders can provide competitive sensitivity for probing heavy Majorana neutrinos over the mass range $200~\text{GeV} \leq m_N \leq 3000~\text{GeV}$.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a search for heavy Majorana neutrinos at future μp colliders (1 TeV muon + 7 TeV proton beams, √s ≈ 5.3 TeV) via the LNV process μ−p → jN → j(ℓ+W−). It targets 200 GeV ≲ m_N ≲ 3000 GeV, using resolved three-jet final states for lower masses and fat-jet signatures for boosted W decays at higher masses. Comprehensive MC signal/background analyses including detector effects are performed, yielding projected 2σ exclusion limits on |V_ℓN|^2 for 100 fb−1 and 1 ab−1 luminosities that are claimed to be substantially stronger than existing LHC and other collider bounds.

Significance. If the simulated efficiencies and background rejection hold, the work would show that μp colliders can extend sensitivity to heavy Majorana neutrino mixing in a mass window where current LHC constraints weaken, using a distinctive LNV signature. The dual treatment of resolved and boosted topologies is a positive feature of the analysis design.

major comments (1)
  1. [Analysis and results sections] Analysis and results sections: The central claim that the μp search yields |V_ℓN|^2 limits substantially superior to LHC bounds for 200 GeV ≤ m_N ≤ 3000 GeV rests on MC-derived signal efficiencies and background rejection (including fat-jet tagging for boosted W → jj). Because the collider does not exist, all background rates, parton-shower modeling, and detector response are taken from Monte Carlo with assumed performance parameters; no data-driven validation or control-region closure test is possible. This assumption is load-bearing, as any under-estimate of QCD multijet or electroweak backgrounds directly inflates the projected sensitivity.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Introduction] The center-of-mass energy is given as 'approximately 5.3 TeV'; providing the exact formula used for √s would improve precision.
  2. [Analysis section] The abstract and text refer to 'comprehensive signal and background analyses that account for realistic detector effects' without specifying the jet algorithm, cone size, or fat-jet tagging efficiency parametrization; adding these details would aid reproducibility.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the thorough review and for highlighting the reliance on Monte Carlo modeling in our projections. We address this point directly below and have revised the manuscript to strengthen the discussion of assumptions and uncertainties.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The central claim that the μp search yields |V_ℓN|^2 limits substantially superior to LHC bounds for 200 GeV ≤ m_N ≤ 3000 GeV rests on MC-derived signal efficiencies and background rejection (including fat-jet tagging for boosted W → jj). Because the collider does not exist, all background rates, parton-shower modeling, and detector response are taken from Monte Carlo with assumed performance parameters; no data-driven validation or control-region closure test is possible. This assumption is load-bearing, as any under-estimate of QCD multijet or electroweak backgrounds directly inflates the projected sensitivity.

    Authors: We agree that the projections rest on Monte Carlo modeling with assumed detector performance, which is unavoidable for a future collider. We have used standard tools (MadGraph5_aMC@NLO, Pythia8, Delphes with a custom μp card) and adopted conservative background estimates by including all relevant SM processes at leading order with matching. In the revised manuscript we have added an explicit subsection (Section 4.3) discussing the main sources of theoretical and detector-related uncertainties, including variations in parton-shower parameters, jet-energy scale, and fat-jet tagging efficiency, and we quote the resulting variation on the projected limits. We also emphasize that our background rejection relies on kinematic features (e.g., same-sign lepton plus jets with large invariant mass) that are robust against moderate mis-modeling. While these steps do not replace data-driven validation, they follow the standard practice for phenomenological studies of proposed colliders and allow a transparent assessment of the sensitivity reach. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: projected limits from independent Monte Carlo simulation

full rationale

The paper's central result consists of projected 2σ exclusion limits on |V_ℓN|^2 obtained by running signal and background Monte Carlo samples through a cut-based analysis that includes detector effects and fat-jet tagging. No equation in the provided text reduces the final sensitivity to a fitted parameter by construction, nor does any load-bearing step rely on a self-citation chain, imported uniqueness theorem, or ansatz smuggled from prior work by the same author. The simulation framework is self-contained against external benchmarks (standard MC generators and assumed detector performance) and does not recycle its own output as input. This is the normal, non-circular case for a phenomenological collider-projection study.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review provides no explicit list of free parameters or axioms; the projections implicitly rest on standard Monte Carlo modeling assumptions for backgrounds and detector response.

free parameters (1)
  • integrated luminosity scenarios
    Two discrete values (100 fb^{-1}, 1 ab^{-1}) chosen to illustrate reach; not fitted but selected for presentation.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Standard Model processes accurately describe backgrounds at the proposed collider energies
    Required for the background analysis described in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5825 in / 1250 out tokens · 31716 ms · 2026-06-28T00:46:16.167676+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

100 extracted references · 42 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Henan Institute of Science and Technology, Xinxiang 453003, China

  2. [2]

    School of Electro-Mechanical Engineering, Zhongyuan Institute of Science and Technology, Xuchang 461000, China Abstract We propose a novel search strategy for heavy Majorana neutri nos based on the lepton-number- violating process µ − p → jN → j(ℓ+W − ) at future muon-proton ( µp ) colliders equipped with 1 TeV muon beams and 7 TeV proton beams, yielding ...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  3. [3]

    The signature, which consists of a high- pT lepton accompanied by three jets, receives contri- butions from several SM background processes

    83 fb. The signature, which consists of a high- pT lepton accompanied by three jets, receives contri- butions from several SM background processes. Table I lists the dominant backgrounds together with their production cross sections at the µp collider. All cross sections are computed at lead- ing order using M ADGRAPH 5_ AMC@NLO [ 84], with the NNPDF23L01...

    2000

  4. [4]

    8 × 10− 5 for L = 1000 fb− 1, respectively

    2 × 10− 6 to 8. 8 × 10− 5 for L = 1000 fb− 1, respectively. In Ref. [ 24], the authors investigated heavy Majorana neutrinos in the mass range 200 − 3200 GeV via the qqℓ final state at the 3 TeV CLIC, assuming an integrated luminosi ty of 4 ab − 1 and an electron beam polarization of − 80%. Reference [ 30] explored the physics po- tential of muon colliders...

  5. [5]

    Minkowski, Phys

    P . Minkowski, Phys. Lett. B 67 (1977), 421-428

    1977

  6. [6]

    Y anagida, Prog

    T. Y anagida, Prog. Theor. Phys. 64 (1980), 1103

    1980

  7. [7]

    Gell-Mann, P

    M. Gell-Mann, P . Ramond and R. Slansky, Conf. Proc. C790927 (1979), 315-321, arXiv:1306.4669 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1979

  8. [8]

    S. L. Glashow, NA TO Sci. Ser. B 61 (1980), 687

    1980

  9. [9]

    R. N. Mohapatra and G. Senjanovic, Phys. Rev. Lett. 44 (1980), 912

    1980

  10. [10]

    Agostini, G

    M. Agostini, G. Benato, J. A. Detwiler, J. Menéndez and F. Vissani, Rev. Mod. Phys. 95 (2023) no.2, 025002, arXiv:2202.01787 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2023

  11. [11]

    Y . Cai, T. Han, T. Li and R. Ruiz, Front. in Phys. 6 (2018), 40, arXiv:1711.02180 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  12. [12]

    A. M. Sirunyan et al. [CMS], Phys. Rev. Lett. 120 (2018) no.22, 221801, arXiv:1802.02965 [hep- ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  13. [13]

    Aad et al

    G. Aad et al. [A TLAS], JHEP10 (2019), 265, arXiv:1905.09787 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2019

  14. [14]

    A. M. Sirunyan et al. [CMS], JHEP 03 (2020), 051, arXiv:1911.04968 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2020

  15. [15]

    A. M. Sirunyan et al. [CMS], JHEP 01 (2019), 122, arXiv:1806.10905 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  16. [16]

    Aaboud et al

    M. Aaboud et al. [A TLAS], JHEP01 (2019), 016, arXiv:1809.11105 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  17. [17]

    Tumasyan et al

    A. Tumasyan et al. [CMS], Phys. Rev. Lett. 131 (2023) no.1, 011803, arXiv:2206.08956 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2023

  18. [18]

    Hayrapetyan et al

    A. Hayrapetyan et al. [CMS], arXiv:2405.17605 [hep-ex]

    arXiv

  19. [19]

    Hayrapetyan et al

    A. Hayrapetyan et al. [CMS], JHEP 06 (2024), 123, arXiv:2403.00100 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2024

  20. [20]

    A. Atre, T. Han, S. Pascoli and B. Zhang, JHEP 05 (2009), 030, arXiv:0901.3589 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  21. [21]

    P . S. B. Dev, A. Pilaftsis and U. k. Y ang, Phys. Rev. Lett.112 (2014) no.8, 081801, arXiv:1308.2209 [hep-ph]. 15

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  22. [22]

    J. C. Helo, M. Hirsch and S. Kovalenko, Phys. Rev. D 89 (2014), 073005, [erratum: Phys. Rev. D 93 (2016) no.9, 099902], arXiv:1312.2900 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  23. [23]

    Das and N

    A. Das and N. Okada, Phys. Rev. D 93 (2016) no.3, 033003, arXiv:1510.04790 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  24. [24]

    Antusch, E

    S. Antusch, E. Cazzato, O. Fischer, A. Hammad and K. Wang , JHEP 1810 (2018), 067, arXiv:1805.11400 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  25. [25]

    K. S. Babu, R. K. Barman, D. Gonçalves and A. Ismail, JHEP 06 (2024), 132, arXiv:2212.08025 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2024

  26. [26]

    P . D. Bolton, J. Kriewald, M. Nemevšek, F. Nesti and J. C. V asquez, Phys. Rev. D111 (2025) no.3, 035016, arXiv:2408.00833 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  27. [27]

    Zhang and B

    Y . Zhang and B. Zhang, JHEP 02 (2019), 175, arXiv:1805.09520 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  28. [28]

    M˛ ekała, J

    K. M˛ ekała, J. Reuter and A. F. ˙Zarnecki, JHEP 06 (2022), 010, arXiv:2202.06703 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2022

  29. [29]

    P . C. Lu, Z. G. Si, Z. Wang, X. H. Y ang and X. Y . Zhang, Chin. Phys. C 47 (2023) no.4, 043107, arXiv:2212.10027 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2023

  30. [30]

    A. Das, S. Mandal and S. Shil, Phys. Rev. D 108 (2023) no.1, 015022, arXiv:2304.06298 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2023

  31. [31]

    K. Wang, T. Xu and L. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D 95 no.7 (2017), 075021, arXiv:1610.02618 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  32. [32]

    M˛ ekała, J

    K. M˛ ekała, J. Reuter and A. F. ˙Zarnecki, Phys. Lett. B 841 (2023), 137945, arXiv:2301.02602 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2023

  33. [33]

    T. H. Kwok, L. Li, T. Liu and A. Rock, Phys. Rev. D 110 (2024) no.7, 075009, arXiv:2301.05177 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2024

  34. [34]

    P . Li, Z. Liu and K. F. Lyu, JHEP 03 (2023), 231, arXiv:2301.07117 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2023

  35. [35]

    J. L. Y ang, C. H. Chang and T. F. Feng, Chin. Phys. C 48 (2024) no.4, 043101, arXiv:2302.13247 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2024

  36. [36]

    Jiang, T

    R. Jiang, T. Y ang, S. Qian, Y . Ban, J. Li, Z. Y ou and Q. Li, P hys. Rev. D 109 (2024) no.3, 035020, arXiv:2304.04483 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2024

  37. [37]

    T. Li, C. Y . Y ao and M. Y uan, JHEP09 (2023), 131, arXiv:2306.17368 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2023

  38. [38]

    Z. Wang, X. H. Y ang and X. Y . Zhang, Phys. Lett. B 853 (2024), 138643, arXiv:2311.15166 [hep- ph]

    arXiv 2024

  39. [39]

    R. Y . He, J. Q. Huang, J. Y . Xu, F. X. Y ang, Z. L. Han and F. L. Shao, Chin. Phys. C 48 (2024) no.9, 093102, arXiv:2401.14687 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2024

  40. [40]

    Q. H. Cao, K. Cheng and Y . Liu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134 (2025) no.2, 021801, arXiv:2403.06561 16 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  41. [41]

    Bellagamba, G

    L. Bellagamba, G. Polesello and N. V alle, Eur. Phys. J. C 85 (2025), 1069, arXiv:2503.19464 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2025

  42. [42]

    Y . B. Liu and J. W. Lian, Chin. Phys. C 50 (2026), 033110, arXiv:2511.02557 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2026

  43. [43]

    V . D. Shiltsev, Conf. Proc. C 970512 (1997), 420-421

    1997

  44. [44]

    I. F. Ginzburg, Turk. J. Phys. 22 (1998), 607-610

    1998

  45. [45]

    Cheung, AIP Conf

    K. Cheung, AIP Conf. Proc. 441 no.1 (1998), 338-344, arXiv:hep-ph/9802219 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  46. [46]

    Cheung, AIP Conf

    K. Cheung, AIP Conf. Proc. 542 no.1 (2000), 160-170, arXiv:hep-ph/0001275 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  47. [47]

    Carena, D

    M. Carena, D. Choudhury, C. Quigg and S. Raychaudhuri, P hys. Rev. D 62 (2000), 095010, arXiv:hep-ph/0006144 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  48. [48]

    U. Kaya, B. Ketenoglu and S. Sultansoy, arXiv:1807.098 67 [physics.acc-ph]

  49. [49]

    U. Kaya, B. Ketenoglu, S. Sultansoy and F. Zimmermann, a rXiv:1905.05564 [physics.acc-ph]

    arXiv 1905

  50. [50]

    Keteno ˘glu, B

    B. Keteno ˘glu, B. Da ˘glı, A. Öztürk and S. Sultansoy, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 37 no.37n38 (2022), 2230013,

    2022

  51. [51]

    Dagli, B

    B. Dagli, B. Ketenoglu and S. Sultansoy, arXiv:2206.00 037 [physics.acc-ph]

  52. [52]

    U. Kaya, B. Ketenoglu, S. Sultansoy and F. Zimmermann, E PL 138 no.2 (2022), 24002,

    2022

  53. [53]

    Akturk, B

    D. Akturk, B. Dagli, B. Ketenoglu, A. Ozturk and S. Sulta nsoy, arXiv:2406.02647 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  54. [54]

    Caliskan, S

    A. Caliskan, S. O. Kara and A. Ozansoy, Adv. High Energy P hys. 2017 (2017), 1540243, arXiv:1701.03426 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  55. [55]

    Y . C. Acar, U. Kaya and B. B. Oner, Chin. Phys. C 42 no.8 (2018), 083108, arXiv:1703.04030 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  56. [56]

    Caliskan, Acta Phys

    A. Caliskan, Acta Phys. Pol. B 50 (2019), 1409, arXiv:1802.09874 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2019

  57. [57]

    Caliskan, Turk

    A. Caliskan, Turk. J. Phys. 42 no.4 (2018), 343-349,

    2018

  58. [58]

    Alici and M

    E. Alici and M. Köksal, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 34 no.36 (2019), 1950298, arXiv:1905.00588 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2019

  59. [59]

    Ozansoy, Phys

    A. Ozansoy, Phys. Sci. Eng. 61 no.1 (2019), 111-128,

    2019

  60. [60]

    S. Spor, A. A. Billur and M. Köksal, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 135 no.8 (2020), 683, arXiv:2002.01445 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2020

  61. [61]

    Cheung and Z

    K. Cheung and Z. S. Wang, Phys. Rev. D 103 (2021), 116009, arXiv:2101.10476 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2021

  62. [62]

    Aydin, Y

    G. Aydin, Y . O. Günaydin, M. T. Tarakcioglu, M. Sahin and S. Sultansoy, Acta Phys. Pol. B 53 no.11 (2022), 3, arXiv:2105.09686 [hep-ph]. 17

    arXiv 2022

  63. [63]

    Gurkanli, arXiv:2403.10263 [hep-ph]

    E. Gurkanli, arXiv:2403.10263 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  64. [64]

    Alici, Results Phys

    E. Alici, Results Phys. 70 (2025), 108167, arXiv:2410.19329 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  65. [65]

    J. Z. Han, Y . B. Liu and S. Moretti, Phys. Rev. D 112 no.3 (2025), 035016, arXiv:2501.01026 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  66. [66]

    Benbrik, M

    R. Benbrik, M. Berrouj, M. Boukidi, H. Chatoui, M. Ech-c haouy, K. Kahime and K. Salime, Eur. Phys. J. C 86, no.5, 511 (2026), arXiv:2601.07758 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2026

  67. [67]

    Sagheer, M

    H. Sagheer, M. T. Javaid, M. Hussain, M. D. Farooq, I. Ahm ed and J. Muhammad, arXiv:2602.01010 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  68. [68]

    Liang, X

    H. Liang, X. G. He, W. G. Ma, S. M. Wang and R. Y . Zhang, JHEP09 (2010), 023, arXiv:1006.5534 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  69. [69]

    Blaksley, M

    C. Blaksley, M. Blennow, F. Bonnet, P . Coloma and E. Fern andez-Martinez, Nucl. Phys. B 852 (2011), 353-365, arXiv:1105.0308 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  70. [70]

    Duarte, G

    L. Duarte, G. A. González-Sprinberg and O. A. Sampayo, P hys. Rev. D 91 no.5 (2015), 053007, arXiv:1412.1433 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  71. [71]

    Mondal and S

    S. Mondal and S. K. Rai, Phys. Rev. D 94 no.3 (2016), 033008, arXiv:1605.04508 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  72. [72]

    Antusch, E

    S. Antusch, E. Cazzato and O. Fischer, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 32 no.14 (2017), 1750078, arXiv:1612.02728 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  73. [73]

    Lindner, F

    M. Lindner, F. S. Queiroz, W. Rodejohann and C. E. Y aguna , JHEP 06 (2016), 140, arXiv:1604.08596 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  74. [74]

    S. Y . Li, Z. G. Si and X. H. Y ang, Phys. Lett. B 795 (2019), 49-55, arXiv:1811.10313 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  75. [75]

    A. Das, S. Jana, S. Mandal and S. Nandi, Phys. Rev. D 99 no.5 (2019), 055030, arXiv:1811.04291 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  76. [76]

    Antusch, O

    S. Antusch, O. Fischer and A. Hammad, JHEP 03 (2020), 110, arXiv:1908.02852 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2020

  77. [77]

    Azuelos et al

    G. Azuelos et al. [LHeC/FCC-eh Study Group], PoS ICHEP2020 (2021), 227,

    2021

  78. [78]

    A. Das, S. Mandal and T. Modak, Phys. Rev. D 102 no.3 (2020), 033001, arXiv:2005.02266 [hep- ph]

    arXiv 2020

  79. [79]

    Gu and K

    H. Gu and K. Wang, Phys. Rev. D 106 no.1 (2022), 015006, arXiv:2201.12997 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2022

  80. [80]

    H. Gu, Y . n. Mao, H. Sun and K. Wang, JHEP 09 (2023), 152, arXiv:2210.17050 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2023

Showing first 80 references.