- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review D

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Open Access

New physics contamination to precision luminosity measurements at future e+e− colliders

Mauro Chiesa1,*, Clara L. Del Pio2,†, Guido Montagna3,1,‡, Oreste Nicrosini1,§, Fulvio Piccinini1,∥, and Francesco P. Ucci3,1,¶

  • *Contact author: mauro.chiesa@pv.infn.it
  • †Contact author: cdelpio@bnl.gov
  • ‡Contact author: guido.montagna@unipv.it
  • §Contact author: oreste.nicrosini@pv.infn.it
  • ∥Contact author: fulvio.piccinini@pv.infn.it
  • Contact author: francesco.ucci@pv.infn.it
PDF

Phys. Rev. D 112, 013010 – Published 28 July, 2025

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/z4fk-52jy

Abstract

Several key observables of the high-precision physics program at future lepton colliders will critically depend on the knowledge of the absolute machine luminosity. The determination of the luminosity relies on the precise knowledge of some reference process, which is, in principle, not affected by unknown physics, so that its cross section can be computed within a well-established theory, like the Standard Model. Quantifying the uncertainties induced by possible new physics effects on such processes is, therefore, crucial. We present an investigation of light and heavy new physics contributions to the small-angle Bhabha process at future e+e− colliders, and we discuss possible strategies to remove the contamination due to heavy degrees of freedom by relying on observables that are independent of the absolute luminosity.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (103)

  1. S. Actis et al. (Working Group on Radiative Corrections and Monte Carlo Generators for Low Energies Collaborations), Quest for precision in hadronic cross sections at low energy: Monte Carlo tools vs experimental data, Eur. Phys. J. C 66, 585 (2010).
  2. J. Altmann et al., ECFA higgs, electroweak, and top factory study, CERN Reports No. CERN-2025-005, 2025.
  3. S. Schael et al. (ALEPH, DELPHI, L3, OPAL, SLD, LEP Electroweak Working Group, SLD Electroweak Group, SLD Heavy Flavour Group), Precision electroweak measurements on the Z resonance, Phys. Rep. 427, 257 (2006).
  4. G. Voutsinas, E. Perez, M. Dam, and P. Janot, Beam-beam effects on the luminosity measurement at LEP and the number of light neutrino species, Phys. Lett. B 800, 135068 (2020).
  5. P. Janot and S. Jadach, Improved Bhabha cross section at LEP and the number of light neutrino species, Phys. Lett. B 803, 135319 (2020).
  6. P. Azzi, P. Azzurri, S. Biswas, F. Blekman, G. Corcella, S. D. Curtis, J. Erler, N. Foppiani, I. Helenius, S. Jadach, P. Janot, F. Jegerlehner, P. Langacker, E. Locci, F. Margaroli, B. Mele, F. Piccinini, J. Reuter, M. Steinhauser, R. Tenchini, M. Vos, and C. Zhang, Physics behind precision, arXiv:1703.01626.
  7. P. Azzurri, The W mass and width measurement challenge at FCC-ee, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 136, 1203 (2021).
  8. A. B. Arbuzov, V. S. Fadin, E. A. Kuraev, L. N. Lipatov, N. P. Merenkov, and L. G. Trentadue, Small angle Bhabha scattering for LEP, 10.5170/CERN-1995-003.369 (1995).
  9. G. Abbiendi et al. (OPAL Collaboration), Precision luminosity for Z0 line shape measurements with a silicon tungsten calorimeter, Eur. Phys. J. C 14, 373 (2000).
  10. G. Montagna, O. Nicrosini, and F. Piccinini, Precision physics at LEP, Riv. Nuovo Cimento 21N9, 1 (1998).
  11. J. de Blas et al., Focus topics for the ECFA study on Higgs / Top / EW factories, arXiv:2401.07564.
  12. S. Jadach, W. Płaczek, M. Skrzypek, B. F. L. Ward, and S. A. Yost, The path to 0.01% theoretical luminosity precision for the FCC-ee, Phys. Lett. B 790, 314 (2019).
  13. S. Abreu et al., Theory for the FCC-ee: Report on the 11th FCC-ee workshop theory and experiments, arXiv:1905.05078.
  14. B. F. L. Ward, S. Jadach, W. Placzek, M. Skrzypek, and S. A. Yost, Path to the 0.01% theoretical luminosity precision requirement for the FCC-ee (and ILC), in International Workshop on Future Linear Colliders (2019), arXiv:1902.05912.
  15. B. F. L. Ward, S. Jadach, W. Placzek, M. Skrzypek, and S. A. Yost, Overview of the path to 0.01% theoretical luminosity precision for the FCC-ee and its possible synergistic effects for other FCC precision theory requirements, Proc. Sci. ICHEP2020 (2021) 704 [arXiv:2012.11437].
  16. S. Jadach, W. Płaczek, M. Skrzypek, and B. F. L. Ward, Study of theoretical luminosity precision for electron colliders at higher energies, Eur. Phys. J. C 81, 1047 (2021).
  17. M. Skrzypek, W. Płaczek, B. F. L. Ward, and S. Y. Yost, How well could we calculate luminosity at FCCee?, Acta Phys. Pol. B Proc. Suppl. 17, 2 (2024).
  18. B. F. L. Ward, S. Jadach, W. Placzek, M. Skrzypek, and S. A. Yost, Outlook for the theoretical precision of the luminosity at future lepton colliders, Proc. Sci. ICHEP2024 (2025) 848 [arXiv:2410.09095].
  19. J. A. Maestre, Precision studies of quantum electrodynamics at future e+e− colliders, arXiv:2206.07564.
  20. C. M. Carloni Calame, M. Chiesa, G. Montagna, O. Nicrosini, and F. Piccinini, Electroweak corrections to e+e−→γγ as a luminosity process at FCC-ee, Phys. Lett. B 798, 134976 (2019).
  21. M. Dam, Challenges for FCC-ee luminosity monitor design, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 137, 81 (2022).
  22. A. Abada et al. (FCC Collaboration), FCC physics opportunities: Future circular collider conceptual design report volume 1, Eur. Phys. J. C 79, 474 (2019).
  23. A. Abada et al. (FCC Collaboration), FCC-ee: The lepton collider: Future circular collider conceptual design report volume 2, Eur. Phys. J. Spec. Top. 228, 261 (2019).
  24. M. Benedikt et al. (FCC Collaboration), Future circular collider feasibility study report: Volume 1, physics, experiments, detectors, 10.17181/CERN.9DKX.TDH9 (2025).
  25. The CEPC Study GroupCEPC conceptual design report: Volume 1—accelerator, arXiv:1809.00285.
  26. M. Dong et al. (CEPC Study Group), CEPC conceptual design report: Volume 2—physics & detector, arXiv:1811.10545.
  27. T. Behnke et al., The international linear collider technical design report—volume 1: Executive summary, arXiv:1306.6327.
  28. H. Baer et al., The international linear collider technical design report—volume 2: Physics, arXiv:1306.6352.
  29. C. Adolphsen et al., The international linear collider technical design report—volume 3.I: Accelerator R&D in the technical design phase, arXiv:1306.6353.
  30. C. Adolphsen et al., The international linear collider technical design report—volume 3.II: Accelerator baseline design, arXiv:1306.6328.
  31. H. Abramowicz et al., The international linear collider technical design report—volume 4: Detectors, arXiv:1306.6329.
  32. I. B. Jelisavčić, S. Lukić, G. M. Dumbelović, M. Pandurović, and I. Smiljanić, Luminosity measurement at ILC, J. Instrum. 8, P08012 (2013).
  33. L. Linssen, A. Miyamoto, M. Stanitzki, and H. Weerts, Physics and detectors at CLIC: CLIC conceptual design report, arXiv:1202.5940.
  34. M. J. Boland et al. (CLIC and CLICdp Collaborations), Updated baseline for a staged compact linear collider, CERN Yellow Rep. 4, 1 (2016).
  35. T. K. Charles et al. (CLICdp and CLIC Collaborations), The compact linear collider (CLIC)—2018 summary report, CERN Yellow Rep. Monogr. 2, 1 (2018).
  36. H. Abramowicz et al., A luminosity calorimeter for clic, https://edms.cern.ch/document/1644637483 (Year), cERN EDMS Document 1644637483.

  37. We remark that the fiducial volume for SABS events is smaller than the geometrical acceptance of the luminometer.

  38. T. Hahn, Generating Feynman diagrams and amplitudes with feynarts 3, Comput. Phys. Commun. 140, 418 (2001).
  39. R. Mertig, M. Bohm, and A. Denner, FEYN CALC: Computer algebraic calculation of Feynman amplitudes, Comput. Phys. Commun. 64, 345 (1991).
  40. V. Shtabovenko, R. Mertig, and F. Orellana, New developments in feyncalc 9.0, Comput. Phys. Commun. 207, 432 (2016).
  41. L. Darmé et al., UFO 2.0: The universal Feynman output’ format, Eur. Phys. J. C 83, 631 (2023).
  42. A. Dedes, W. Materkowska, M. Paraskevas, J. Rosiek, and K. Suxho, Feynman rules for the standard model effective field theory in Rξ -gauges, J. High Energy Phys. 06 (2017) 143.
  43. A. Dedes, M. Paraskevas, J. Rosiek, K. Suxho, and L. Trifyllis, smeftfr—Feynman rules generator for the standard model effective field theory, Comput. Phys. Commun. 247, 106931 (2020).
  44. A. Dedes, J. Rosiek, M. Ryczkowski, K. Suxho, and L. Trifyllis, smeftfr v3—Feynman rules generator for the standard model effective field theory, Comput. Phys. Commun. 294, 108943 (2024).
  45. I. Brivio, Y. Jiang, and M. Trott, The smeftsim package, theory and tools, J. High Energy Phys. 12 (2017) 070.
  46. I. Brivio, smeftsim 3.0—a practical guide, J. High Energy Phys. 04 (2021) 073.
  47. J. Alwall, R. Frederix, S. Frixione, V. Hirschi, F. Maltoni, O. Mattelaer, H. S. Shao, T. Stelzer, P. Torrielli, and M. Zaro, The automated computation of tree-level and next-to-leading order differential cross sections, and their matching to parton shower simulations, J. High Energy Phys. 07 (2014) 079.
  48. A. Alloul, N. D. Christensen, C. Degrande, C. Duhr, and B. Fuks, feynrules 2.0—A complete toolbox for tree-level phenomenology, Comput. Phys. Commun. 185, 2250 (2014).

  49. The running code and all the results are available on github.

  50. C. M. Carloni Calame, C. Lunardini, G. Montagna, O. Nicrosini, and F. Piccinini, Large angle Bhabha scattering and luminosity at flavor factories, Nucl. Phys. B584, 459 (2000).
  51. C. M. Carloni Calame, An improved parton shower algorithm in QED, Phys. Lett. B 520, 16 (2001).
  52. G. Balossini, C. M. Carloni Calame, G. Montagna, O. Nicrosini, and F. Piccinini, Matching perturbative and parton shower corrections to Bhabha process at flavour factories, Nucl. Phys. B758, 227 (2006).
  53. G. Balossini, C. Bignamini, C. M. Carloni Calame, G. Montagna, O. Nicrosini, and F. Piccinini, Photon pair production at flavour factories with per mille accuracy, Phys. Lett. B 663, 209 (2008).
  54. E. Budassi, C. M. Carloni Calame, M. Ghilardi, A. Gurgone, G. Montagna, M. Moretti, O. Nicrosini, F. Piccinini, and F. P. Ucci, Pion pair production in e+e− annihilation at next-to-leading order matched to Parton Shower, J. High Energy Phys. 05 (2025) 196.
  55. A. Masiero, P. Paradisi, and M. Passera, New physics at the MUonE experiment at CERN, Phys. Rev. D 102, 075013 (2020).
  56. Y. M. Andreev et al. (NA64 Collaboration), Constraints on new physics in electron g−2 from a search for invisible decays of a scalar, pseudoscalar, vector, and axial vector, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 211802 (2021).
  57. F. Acanfora, R. Franceschini, A. Mastroddi, and D. Redigolo, Fusing photons into nothing, a new search for invisible ALPs and dark matter at Belle II, J. High Energy Phys. 11 (2024) 156.
  58. F. Nguyen, F. Piccinini, and A. D. Polosa, e+e−→e+e−π0π0 at DAPHNE, Eur. Phys. J. C 47, 65 (2006).
  59. D. Babusci et al. (KLOE-2 Collaboration), Measurement of η meson production in γγ interactions and Γ(η→γγ) with the KLOE detector, J. High Energy Phys. 01 (2013) 119.
  60. E. Budassi, C. M. Carloni Calame, C. L. Del Pio, and F. Piccinini, Single π0 production in μe scattering at MUonE, Phys. Lett. B 829, 137138 (2022).
  61. S. J. Brodsky, T. Kinoshita, and H. Terazawa, Two photon mechanism of particle production by high-energy colliding beams, Phys. Rev. D 4, 1532 (1971).
  62. M. Bauer, P. Foldenauer, and J. Jaeckel, Hunting all the hidden photons, J. High Energy Phys. 07 (2018) 094.
  63. N. Nath, N. Okada, S. Okada, D. Raut, and Q. Shafi, Light Z′ and Dirac fermion dark matter in the B−L model, Eur. Phys. J. C 82, 864 (2022).
  64. B. Holdom, Two U(1)’s and epsilon charge shifts, Phys. Lett. 166B, 196 (1986).
  65. C. Boehm and P. Fayet, Scalar dark matter candidates, Nucl. Phys. B683, 219 (2004).
  66. M. Pospelov, A. Ritz, and M. B. Voloshin, Secluded WIMP dark matter, Phys. Lett. B 662, 53 (2008).
  67. J. P. Lees et al. (BABAR Collaboration, Search for invisible decays of a dark photon produced in e+e− collisions at BABAR, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 131804 (2017).
  68. A. J. Krasznahorkay, M. Csatlós, L. Csige, Z. Gácsi, J. Gulyás, M. Hunyadi, T. J. Ketel, A. Krasznahorkay, I. Kuti, B. M. Nyakó, L. Stuhl, J. Timár, T. G. Tornyi, and Z. Vajta, Observation of anomalous internal pair creation in Be8: A possible signature of a light, neutral boson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 042501 (2016).
  69. J. L. Feng, B. Fornal, I. Galon, S. Gardner, J. Smolinsky, T. M. P. Tait, and P. Tanedo, Protophobic fifth force interpretation of the observed anomaly in Be8 nuclear transitions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 071803 (2016).
  70. A. J. Krasznahorkay, M. Csatlós, L. Csige, J. Gulyás, A. Krasznahorkay, B. M. Nyakó, I. Rajta, J. Timár, I. Vajda, and N. J. Sas, A new anomaly observed in He4 supports the existence of the hypothetical X17 particle, Phys. Rev. C 104, 044003 (2021).
  71. A. J. Krasznahorkay, A. Krasznahorkay, M. Begala, M. Csatlós, L. Csige, J. Gulyás, A. Krakó, J. Timár, I. Rajta, I. Vajda, and N. J. Sas, New anomaly observed in C12 supports the existence and the vector character of the hypothetical X17 boson, Phys. Rev. C 106, L061601 (2022).
  72. K. Afanaciev et al. (MEG II Collaboration), Search for the X17 particle in Li7(p,e+e−)Be8 processes with the MEG II detector, arXiv:2411.07994.
  73. F. Bossi et al., Search for a new 17 MeV resonance via e+e− annihilation with the padme experiment, arXiv:2505.24797.
  74. F. Arias-Aragón, G. G. di Cortona, E. Nardi, and C. Toni, Combined evidence for the x17 boson after padme results on resonant production in positron annihilation, arXiv:2504.11439.
  75. D. Barducci, D. Germani, M. Nardecchia, S. Scacco, and C. Toni, On the atomki nuclear anomaly after the MEG-II result, J. High Energy Phys. 04 (2025) 035.
  76. L. Di Luzio, P. Paradisi, and N. Selimovic, Hunting for a 17 MeV particle coupled to electrons, arXiv:2504.14014.
  77. I. Brivio and M. Trott, The standard model as an effective field theory, Phys. Rep. 793, 1 (2019).
  78. A. Falkowski, M. González-Alonso, and K. Mimouni, Compilation of low-energy constraints on 4-fermion operators in the SMEFT, J. High Energy Phys. 08 (2017) 123.
  79. J. Aebischer, W. Dekens, E. E. Jenkins, A. V. Manohar, D. Sengupta, and P. Stoffer, Effective field theory interpretation of lepton magnetic and electric dipole moments, J. High Energy Phys. 07 (2021) 107.
  80. J. Kley, T. Theil, E. Venturini, and A. Weiler, Electric dipole moments at one-loop in the dimension-6 SMEFT, Eur. Phys. J. C 82, 926 (2022).
  81. B. Grzadkowski, M. Iskrzynski, M. Misiak, and J. Rosiek, Dimension-six terms in the standard model Lagrangian, J. High Energy Phys. 10 (2010) 085.

  82. We stress that if the electromagnetic coupling is not taken as an input also, an overall Δα≠0 shift is present at dimension six [46, 83].

  83. A. Biekötter, B. D. Pecjak, D. J. Scott, and T. Smith, Electroweak input schemes and universal corrections in SMEFT, J. High Energy Phys. 07 (2023) 115.

  84. We have verified that, by taking α(0) instead of α(MZ) as input, the results change by a factor α(MZ)/α(0), which is well within the 68% error ΔδSMEFT.

  85. S. Schael et al. (ALEPH, DELPHI, L3, OPAL, and LEP Electroweak Collaborations), Electroweak measurements in electron-positron collisions at W-boson-pair energies at LEP, Phys. Rep. 532, 119 (2013).
  86. S. Dawson and P. P. Giardino, Electroweak and QCD corrections to Z and W pole observables in the Standard Model EFT, Phys. Rev. D 101, 013001 (2020).
  87. S. Dawson and P. P. Giardino, New physics through Drell-Yan Standard Model EFT measurements at NLO, Phys. Rev. D 104, 073004 (2021).
  88. K. Asteriadis, S. Dawson, P. P. Giardino, and R. Szafron, Impact of next-to-leading-order weak Standard-Model-effective-field-theory corrections in e+e−→ZH, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 231801 (2024).
  89. K. Asteriadis, S. Dawson, P. P. Giardino, and R. Szafron, The e+e−→ZH process in the SMEFT beyond leading order, J. High Energy Phys. 02 (2025) 162.
  90. S. Dawson, M. Forslund, and P. P. Giardino, NLO SMEFT electroweak corrections to Higgs decays to 4 leptons in the narrow width approximation, Phys. Rev. D 111, 015016 (2025).
  91. R. Bartocci, A. Biekötter, and T. Hurth, Renormalisation group evolution effects on global SMEFT analyses, J. High Energy Phys. 05 (2025) 203.
  92. E. Celada, T. Giani, J. ter Hoeve, L. Mantani, J. Rojo, A. N. Rossia, M. O. A. Thomas, and E. Vryonidou, Mapping the SMEFT at high-energy colliders: From LEP and the (HL-)LHC to the FCC-ee, J. High Energy Phys. 09 (2024) 091.

  93. Should the real data give values for the WCs not compatible with zero, this would be a clear indication of NP.

  94. L. Berthier and M. Trott, Consistent constraints on the standard model effective field theory, J. High Energy Phys. 02 (2016) 069.

  95. Since we are considering a large-angle observable, going to higher energies could spoil the validity of the EFT. A low or intermediate energy run would, therefore, be important for precision measurements.

  96. K. Abe et al. (SLD Collaboration), Precise measurement of the left-right cross-section asymmetry in Z boson production by e+e− collisions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 73, 25 (1994).
  97. K. Abe et al. (SLD Collaboration), Direct measurement of leptonic coupling asymmetries with polarized Zs, Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 804 (1997).
  98. K. Abe et al. (SLD Collaboration), An improved direct measurement of leptonic coupling asymmetries with polarized Z bosons, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 1162 (2001).
  99. A. Aryshev et al. (ILC International Development Team), The international linear collider: Report to snowmass 2021, arXiv:2203.07622.
  100. S. Funatsu, H. Hatanaka, Y. Hosotani, Y. Orikasa, and N. Yamatsu, Bhabha scattering in the gauge-Higgs unification, Phys. Rev. D 106, 015010 (2022).
  101. C. Miller and J. M. Roney, Comparison of left-right asymmetry calculations in the Bhabha process at an upgraded SuperKEKB, arXiv:2411.16592.
  102. D. de Florian et al. (LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group), Handbook of LHC Higgs cross sections: 4. Deciphering the nature of the Higgs sector, CERN Yellow Rep. Monogr. 2, 1 (2017).
  103. R. Bartocci, A. Biekötter, and T. Hurth, A global analysis of the SMEFT under the minimal MFV assumption, J. High Energy Phys. 05 (2024) 074.

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. D 112, 013010– Published 28 July, 2025
  • Received 23 February 2025
  • Accepted 27 June 2025
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article’s title, journal citation, and DOI. Funded by SCOAP3.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation