Arxiv:2101.10476V2 [Hep-Ph] 10 May 2021 in This Work, We Consider a Muon-Proton Collider with Multi-Tev Beam Energies

Physics potential of a muon-proton collider

Kingman Cheung1, 2, ∗ and Zeren Simon Wang2, † 1Department of Physics, Konkuk University, Seoul 05029, Republic of Korea 2Department of Physics, National Tsing Hua University, Hsinchu 300, Taiwan We propose a muon-proton collider with asymmetrical multi-TeV beam energies and integrated luminosities of 0.1 − 1 ab−1. With its large center-of-mass energies and yet small Standard Model background, such a machine can not only improve electroweak precision measurements but also probe new physics beyond the Standard Model to an unprecedented level. We study its potential in measuring the Higgs properties, probing the R-parity-violating Supersymmetry, as well as testing heavy new physics in the muon g −2 anomaly. We ﬁnd that for these physics cases the muon-proton collider can perform better than both the ongoing and future high-energy collider experiments.

I. INTRODUCTION cular electron beam from obtaining high energies, this issue is much more tamed for a muon beam, allowing a µp The Large Hadron Collider (LHC) in Geneva, Switzer- collider to achieve a much higher center-of-mass energy land has culminated with the discovery of a Standard and thus much larger scattering cross sections in general Model (SM)-like Higgs boson in 2012 [1,2]. How- than an electron-proton collider. Further, a µp collider ever, the world’s largest machine has so far failed to shares the upside of an ep collider such that BSM stud- find any new fundamental particles predicted by mod- ies on this type of machine5s usually suffer from smaller els beyond the Standard Model (BSM), e.g., the sleptons QCD backgrounds, than at pp collisions. Moreover, with and squarks proposed by Supersymmetry (SUSY) mod- multi-TeV CM energies, a µp collider could produce TeV- els [3,4]. While the LHC program will be finished only scale new particles on shell, which is, however, more dif- in mid 2030’s, a wide range of next-generation collid- ficult to achieve at, e.g., a multi-TeV muon collider. ers have been proposed and intensively discussed. For There are admittedly downsides of a µp collider. No- example, various e+e− colliders to run as a Higgs or Z- tably muons are short-lived. This requires a sufficiently boson factory, have been suggested, including the Inter- large acceleration for the muon beam so that the muons national Linear Collider (ILC) [5,6], Compact Linear reach the interaction point before decaying, and a care- Collider (CLIC) [7], the Future Circular Collider in the ful examination of the beam-induced background (BIB). ee mode (FCC-ee) [8], and the Circular Electron Positron As Ref. [33] pointed out, the BIB can be reduced by a Collider (CEPC) [9]. Then, there are two main electron- large extent if the signal final-state particles are largely proton collider proposals, i.e., the Large Hadron-electron boosted towards the other beam side2. As we will see, Collider (LHeC) [10–13] and FCC in the hadron-electron because of the proton parton distribution, this is indeed mode (FCC-he) [14, 15], to be running concurrently with the case for µp collisions even if the proton beam energy and after the HL-LHC, respectively. In addition to these is one order of magnitude larger than the muon one. proposals, there are also higher-energy proton-proton col- Given the discussion of µp collisions above, one can liders: High Energy LHC (HE-LHC) [16–18], FCC in easily see that multi-TeV µp colliders can probe a much the hadron-hadron mode (FCC-hh) [14, 15], and Su- higher scale in deep-inelastic scattering than other col- per Proton Proton Collider (SPPC) [19], as well as re- lider experiments such as the LHeC. For instance, with a newed interests in muon colliders [20–32]1. The experi- CM energy of 5 TeV, the largest potential reach in mo- ments in these colliders would for instance excel in elec- mentum squared transfer, Q2, can be of order 107 GeV2. troweak (EW) precision measurements, Quantum Chro- In the present paper, however, we will focus on studying modynamics (QCD) tests, or BSM physics searches. the potential of µp colliders in probing BSM physics. arXiv:2101.10476v2 [hep-ph] 10 May 2021 In this work, we consider a muon-proton collider with multi-TeV beam energies. Historically this type of ma- The organization of this work is as follows. In Sec. II chine was first investigated in late 1990’s [35–37], and we introduce the relevant parameters of the two tentative more recently in Refs. [38, 39], focusing either on a setup µp collider setups we propose. We then study in detail of a center-of-mass (CM) energy of several hundred GeV in Secs. III, IV, and V, the sensitivity reach of these po- only or on compositeness models. Compared to the other tential experiments in Higgs coupling measurements, R- types of colliders, a µp collider has its unique advan- parity-violating Supersymmetry, and finally heavy new tages. First, while synchrotron radiation prevents a cir- physics (NP) in the muon g−2. We summarize in Sec. V.

∗ [email protected] † [email protected] 1 More recently electron-muon head-on collisons have also been 2 This strategy is, however, inapplicable for muon colliders which studied for the ﬁrst time in Refs. [33, 34]. suﬀer from the BIB issue on both sides of the beams. 2

√ int −1 pr-cut − pr-cut sig bgd ∆σ ∆ghbb Exp. Ep [TeV] Eµ− [TeV] s [TeV] L [ab ] Exp. σ(pµ → jνµZ) hbb zbb cut cut σ ghbb µp − 1 7 1 5.3 0.1 µp − 1 0.98 4.67 pb 0.99 0.21 0.022 0.97% 0.69% µp − 2 50 3 24.5 1 µp − 2 0.91 25.1 pb 0.97 0.17 0.018 0.15% 0.50%

TABLE I. Basic parameters of the two µp experiments con- TABLE III. Summary of parton-level and reconstructed-level sidered in this work. cut eﬃciencies, and inclusive production cross section of the background process at µp − 1 and µp − 2. The last columns list the ﬁnal reaches in ∆σ/σ and ∆ghbb/ghbb. VBF process µp − 1 µp − 2 LHeC FCC-he LHC-14 WW 0.978 5.103 0.110 [13] 0.577 [13] 4.233 [42] ZZ 0.216 1.263 0.020 [13] 0.127 [13] μp-1

TABLE II. The inclusive cross sections of VBF production of 0.30 the SM Higgs bosons at various experiments, in pb. 0.25 0.20 h(bb):b1 h(bb):b2 0.15 II. COLLIDER SETUPS Z(bb):b1 0.10 Z(bb):b2 0.05 In this work we focus on two possible beam combina- Distribution Probability 0.00 - tions: (1) “µp − 1” with Ep = 7 TeV and Eµ− = 1 TeV, 2 0 2 4 and (2) “µp − 2” with Ep = 50 TeV and Eµ− = 3 TeV. η The proton beam energies are in agreement with the HL- LHC and FCC, while the muon energies are inspired from μp-2 the current discussion on TeV-scale muon colliders. 0.30 Estimates on the instantaneous luminosity at muon- 0.25 proton colliders where performed in the past [35, 40, 41]. 0.20 In general, realistic estimates for the luminosity given the h(bb):b1 h(bb):b2 33 −2 0.15 current technologies should be at the order of 10 cm Z(bb):b1 −1 0.10 s , which we assume for µp − 1. As for µp − 2 which is Z(bb):b2 supposed to be an upgrade of µp − 1, we take a slightly 0.05

34 −2 −1 Distribution Probability optimistic value of 10 cm s . For the lifespan of 0.00 these experiments, we take as a benchmark operation -4 -2 0 2 4 time 107 s/year for 10 years, leading to an integrated η luminosity Lint of 0.1 ab−1 and 1 ab−1 for µp−1 and µp− 2, respectively. We summarize these collider parameters FIG. 1. Pseudorapidity distributions of the reconstructed b- in TableI. jets for the signal and background events at µp−1 and µp−2.

− ¯ III. HIGGS PRECISION MEASUREMENTS ment uncertainty√ of the cross section of pµ → jνµbb as ∆σ/σ = Ns + Nb/(Ns) including the statistical error One of the utmost tasks in Higgs physics is the preci- only, where Ns/b denotes the signal/background event sion measurements of the Higgs boson couplings. Here numbers, and perform a cut-based analysis to estimate we study the projected uncertainties in the measurement the sensitivity reach in ∆σ/σ. We generate the parton- j/b of the Higgs coupling to b-quarks at a µp collider. level events with MadGraph5, requiring pT > 5 GeV j/b Similar to ep collisions, the Higgs boson at µp is pro- and |η | < 5.5. The pT threshold avoids the collinear duced mainly via the WW and ZZ vector-boson-fusion limit, and the |ηj/b| cut corresponds to the geometry of (VBF) processes. In TableII we list the inclusive pro- the beam-asymmetric LHeC detector. The parton show- duction cross sections of the SM Higgs boson√ at µp − 1, ering and hadronization for asymmetrical lepton-hadron µp − 2, LHeC, FCC-he, and the LHC with s = 14 TeV. collisions are properly treated with a patched version of We find that the VBF cross sections at µp−1 and µp−2, Pythia 6.428 [44, 45]. Finally we perform jet clustering obtained at leading order with MadGraph5 3.0.2 [43], with FastJet 3.3.2 [46, 47] with the anti-kt algorithm [48], can be up to about one order of magnitude larger than and fast detector simulation with Delphes 3.4.2 [49]. For those at the LHeC and FCC-he,√ and even comparable to the latter we use an LHeC-specific Delphes card which those at the LHC with s = 14 TeV. Here, we choose includes the beam asymmetry. For b-tagging efficiency − ¯ to focus on the WW VBF process: pµ → jνµh, h → bb we take 75%. The following set of cuts at the recon- because of its larger rate than the ZZ process. The dom- structed level are imposed. We first keep only the events inant background is the corresponding WW VBF for Z- with exactly two b-jets. In Fig.1 we show the pseudora- boson production with Z → b¯b. We express the measure- pidity distributions of the b-jets. We find the produced 3 b’s are peaked at the proton beam side due to the proton offers rich phenomenology at colliders. With the broken parton distributions and expected to allow for BIB re- R-parity, the superpotential of the Minimal Supersym- duction. We then select only events where the b-jet pair metric Standard Model (MSSM) is extended with: invariant mass, mbb, is close to the Higgs mass 125 GeV: 1 ¯ 0 ¯ |m − m | < 25 GeV, intended to separate the signal WRPV =iLi · Hu + λijkLi · LjEk + λ Li · QjDk bb h 2 ijk and background events. After these event selections, we 1 00 ¯ ¯ ¯ compute the signal and background event numbers with + λijkUiDjDk, (1) int − ¯ pr-cut sig 2 Ns = L · σ(pµ → jνµh) · Br(h → bb) · hbb · cut and int − ¯ pr-cut bgd where the operators in the first line violate lepton num- Nb = L · σ(pµ → jνµZ) · Br(Z → bb) · Zbb · cut . − pr-cut pr-cut bers and those in the second line violate baryon numbers. σ(pµ → jνµh) was given in TableII, hbb and Zbb Allowing all these terms to be non-vanishing would lead measure the reduction on the signal and background pro- to a too fast proton decay rate unless the couplings are duction cross sections from the parton-level cuts, and sig bgd extremely small. For the purpose of this work, we focus and are the reconstructed-level cut efficiencies. 0 cut cut on the operator λ Li · QjD¯ k while assuming the others These are all listed in TableIII together with the in- ijk are vanishing3. In particular, here the RPV squark is a clusive cross sections σ(pµ− → jν Z). The projected µ specific leptoquark which was used to explain a number reaches in ∆σ/σ at µp − 1 and µp − 2 are thus esti- of flavor anomalies [64–66]. Ref. [37] from two decades mated as 0.97% and 0.15%, respectively. In order to ago performed an analytic estimate of sensitivity reach translate the uncertainties on σ to those on the Higgs- ¯ at a high-energy muon-proton collider (with Eµ± = 200 b-b coupling, ghbb, we need to take into account the 0 2 GeV and Ep = 1 TeV) to the RPV couplings λ2j1 and ghW W measurement uncertainties on where ghW W and 0 Γh λ21k for squark masses below 1 TeV. In this work, we Γh are the Higgs coupling to the W -bosons and the focus on one Drell-Yan-like signal process as an example: 2 2 ghW W ghW W − − Higgs total decay width. ∆ Γ / Γ can be de- pµ → µ u (neutral current, or denoted as “NC”), me- h h ˜ rived from the uncertainties on the Higgsstrahlung pro- diated by a right-chiral down-type squark dRk and the 0 duction cross section and its product with Br(h → WW ) RPV coupling λ21k, and perform a numerical study with at the FCC-ee as benchmark values: σ(e−e+ → Zh) and Monte Carlo simulations. As in the previous section we σ(e−e+ → Zh)·Br(h → WW ). These have been given as go through the tool chain: MadGraph 5 with a RPV- 0.4% and 0.9% in e.g., Ref. [50], allowing us to estimate MSSM UFO model file4 and the same parton-level cuts, g2 g2 ∆ hW W / hW W as p(0.4%)2 + (0.9%)2 = 0.985%, as Pythia 6, FastJet 3, and Delphes 3 with the LHeC card. Γh Γh 0 − + − + Here we switch on only one single RPV coupling λ21k, σ(e e → Zh)·Br(h → WW )/σ(e e → Zh) = −1 −1 2 − ¯ − for which the current (36 fb ) and projected (3 ab ) ghW W /Γh. Since σ(µ p → νµjbb) = σ(µ p → νµjh) · g2 g2 LHC bounds were recast in Ref. [67] from an ATLAS ¯ hW W hbb m Br(h → bb) = , the uncertainty on ghbb can 0 d˜ Γh mono-lepton search [68]: λ < 0.090 Rk + 0.014 and v 21k 1 TeV 2 2 m ˜ u g ! 0 dRk 2 ∆ hW W λ < 0.053 + 0.029. The background process is ∆ghbb 1 u ∆σ Γh 21k 1 TeV be computed with = t + g2 , − − ghbb 2 σ hW W pµ → jµ plus zero or one extra jet, for which we per- Γh form jet matching and merging. Note that we ignore the which leads to 0.69% and 0.50% for µp − 1 and µp − 2, subdominant effect from the interference terms. For the respectively, in comparison with 0.97% at the LHeC ob- cuts on the reconstructed events, we first select events tained by a cut-based analysis [51], and 4% at the CMS −1 with at least 1 jet. We then specifically require that experiment with 3 ab integrated luminosity [52, 53]. exactly one muon should be reconstructed. We finally We comment that a similar improvement in measur- keep only events with the pT sum of the two leading jets, ing the other Higgs couplings such as those to the gauge j1 j2 pT + pT , larger than certain values (for the events with bosons is also expected. j2 exactly one jet we take pT√= 0). We define the signal significance S as S = Ns/ Nb and determine the 95% C.L. (confidence level) exclusion limits at S = 2, where IV. R-PARITY-VIOLATING Ns/b labels the signal/background event numbers. The SUPERSYMMETRY 0 resulting limits on λ as a function of m ˜ for vari- 21k dRk ous pT sum thresholds are presented in Fig.2, which we Even though no new particles havee been discovered overlap in red with the current LHC (solid) and future at the LHC and TeV-scale lower mass bounds on the HL-LHC (dashed) bounds [67]. We find that increas- squarks and gluinos have been established [54–58], SUSY ing the lower threshold for the pT sum of the two lead- ˜ remains one of the most motivated BSM models. In ing jets allows to probe heavier dRk. We conclude that SUSY, a Z2 parity, known as R-parity, is usually as- sumed, rendering the proton stable and offering the lightest supersymmetric particle as a dark matter can- 3 This can be justified by e.g., imposing a baryon triality B3 sym- didate. However, it is equally legitimate to consider metry [62, 63]. the R-parity-violating Supersymmetry (RPV-SUSY) sce- 4 The model file can be found at https://github.com/ilmonteux/ nario (see Refs. [59–61] for reviews). The latter, in fact, RPVMSSM_UFO. 4

95% Exclusion Limits atμp-1 for the NC case imental results published by the E821 collaboration at BNL [71] and recently by the the Fermilab-based Muon

1 g−2 experiment [72], we are now faced with a discrepancy exp SM −11 5 of ∼ 4.2σ in aµ: ∆aµ = aµ − aµ = 251(59) × 10 . 0.50 One natural explanation could be weakly interacting NP appearing at the EW scale. However, given the nonob- ' k 21 λ j1 + j2> pT pT 0.0 TeV servation of NP at the LHC so far, two other possibilities j1 j2 0.10 pT +pT > 0.5 TeV j1 j2 might be more relevant: (1) light NP below the GeV pT +pT > 1.0 TeV 0.05 LHC 36 fb-1 HL-LHC 3000 fb-1 scale interacting feebly with the SM, and (2) much heavier NP (above the TeV scale) strongly coupled to the SM particles. In this work, we consider the latter possibil- 0.01 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 ity. If the NP scale, Λ, is much higher than the EW m ~ [GeV] scale, i.e., Λ 1 TeV, we can describe physics at ener- dR k 95% Exclusion Limits atμp-2 for the NC case gies much below Λ with the framework of the Standard Model Eﬀective Field Theory (SMEFT) [74–77], of which the operators up to dim-6 relevant to aµ are 1 µ l 0.500 C C L 3 eB (¯µ σµν µ )HB + eW (¯µ σµν µ )σiHW i Λ2 L R µν Λ2 L R µν µ ' k 21

λ C 0.100 T a b µν j1 + j2> ¯ pT pT 0.0 TeV + (¯µLσµν µR)ab(QLσ uR) + h.c. (2) j1 j2 2 pT +pT > 0.5 TeV Λ 0.050 j1 j2 pT +pT > 1.0 TeV j1 + j2> pT pT 1.5 TeV The NP contributions to aµ stem directly from the op- LHC 36 fb-1 µν LHC 3000 fb-1 erator (¯µLσµν µR)HF , which may be induced by the 0.010 operators in Eq. (2) at tree or one-loop level. Their cor- 0.005 5000 10 000 15 000 20 000 25 000 30 000 rections to aµ can be expressed as follows: m ~ [GeV] dR k 2 2 4mµv µ 3α cW − sW µ Λ ∆aµ ' √ C − C log 0 2 eγ 2π c s eZ m FIG. 2. 95% C.L. exclusion limits for λ21k vs. md˜ . e 2Λ W W Z Rk µq X 4mµmq C Λ − T log , (3) π2 Λ2 m q=c,t q 0 µp − 1(2) may exclude values of λ21k down to 0.02(0.01) for m ˜ ∼ O(TeV). Compared to the HL-LHC, these where v = 246 GeV is the SM Higgs vacuum expecta- dRk µp limits in λ0 are stronger by up to more than one tion value, sW and cW are sine and cosine of the Wein- 21k berg angle, and C = c C − s C and C = order of magnitude for d˜ light enough to be produced eγ W eB W eW eZ Rk −s C − c C . on shell. The future hadron-hadron colliders such as the W eB W eW At a µp collider, only a limited set of these opera- FCC-hh are expected to exclude SUSY squarks up to tors can be tested. To start with, Cµ can be probed, about 10 TeV [69]. This is comparable to the µp − 1/2 eγ either by considering the photon content inside the pro- considered here. As for future lepton colliders, e−e+ col- tons scattering an incoming muon, or by studying rare liders are expected to perform much worse because of the Higgs decays into a pair of muons and a photon. We find relatively small center-of-mass energies, while multi-TeV the former possibility, suppressed by the parton distribu- muon colliders have recently been shown to possess huge tion function of the photon in the protons, is insensitive potential for probing a similar theoretical scenario, i.e., to new physics that is sufficiently small to explaining the the leptoquarks, possibly excluding the leptoquark mass muon g − 2 anomaly. As for the rare Higgs decay, the at the order of 10 TeV [32]. We note that another possi- decay branching ratio of the Higgs into µ+µ−γ should be ble signature with the same mediator and RPV coupling at the order of ∼ 10−13 in order to test ∆a ∼ 3 × 10−9 is the charged-current process pµ− → dν . However, we µ µ [24]. However, at both µp − 1 and µp − 2 the production find that the exclusion limits in this scenario are simi- rates of the SM Higgs bosons are estimated to be roughly lar to the NC results shown in Fig.2, and hence do not 105 and 5 × 106 (see TableII), with 0.1 ab −1 and 1 ab−1 present the results here. integrated luminosities, respectively, which are far from sufficient for probing a branching ratio of 10−13. Con- sequently the only operator that could be confronted for V. MUON g − 2 ANOMALY

One of the main drives for BSM physics has been the 5 There is a controversy arising from a new lattice calculation [73] muon anomalous magnetic moment since about a decade which shows a larger hadronic vacuum polarization contribution, ago. With the latest world consensus on the SM compu- such that the total SM contribution to the muon g − 2 is within 1σ of the experimental value. tation of aµ ≡ (gµ − 2)/2 [70] combined with the exper- 5

2 2 bgd sig Λ should be implemented. σ [pb] σ 2 µc [pb] |∆aµ| 100 TeV CT −2 −8 We note that since only Λ . 10 TeV is valid for the µp − 1 120 1.29 × 10 1.13 × 10 considered operator, it is necessary to check whether the −1 −10 µp − 2 30 3.15 × 10 9.10 × 10 typical hard-interaction CM energies for the signal are

bgd lower than 10 TeV. We ﬁnd that for µp − 1, ∼ 100% of TABLE IV. Cross sections for the background (σ ) and the events have the invariant mass m of the outgoing signal (σsig) events, as well as the integrated luminosities and µc muon and c quark m < 5 TeV, and for µp − 2 it is the expected exclusion limits of |∆a |, at µp − 1 and µp − 2. µc µ about ∼ 70% despite the much higher CM energy.

−9 µc VI. CONCLUSIONS ∆aµ ∼ 3 × 10 at µp − 1 and µp − 2 is CT , with the parton-level process µ−c → µ−c and itsc ¯ counterpart. The corresponding background is µ−p → µ−j. Note that In this work we have proposed a muon-proton col- the unitarity constraint requires that Λ . 10 TeV for this lider with two tentative conﬁgurations. We performed operator. numerical simulations to investigate the physics poten- To explore the heavy NP in the muon g − 2 at µp − 1 tial of µp − 1 and µp − 2 in both Higgs precision mea- and µp − 2, we perform truth-level Monte Carlo sim- surement and search for BSM physics. Taking as bench- ulations with the event generator MadGraph5 and the mark physics cases the Higgs coupling to b-quarks, R- model package SMEFTsim [78, 79], with the parton-level parity-violating MSSM, and heavy new physics in the j j cuts pT > 5 GeV and |η | < 5.5. The computed cross sec- muon g − 2, we conclude that a multi-TeV muon-proton tions for the signal and background processes are given collider with 0.1 − 1 ab−1 integrated luminosities could in TableIV, assuming the contributions arise solely from show better performance than both current and future µc the single SMEFT operator CT . Therefrom we can eas- collider experiments. Besides the physics scenarios stud- ily obtain the signal and background event numbers, and ied here, we expect that this type of machine can also µc 2 hence the 2σ exclusion limits on CT /Λ . To convert excel in other aspects of the SM precision measurements these limits into those on |∆aµ|, we take Λ = 10 TeV and BSM physics searches. We believe this work could for the logarithmic function in the last term of Eq. (3), motivate more studies of TeV-scale muon-proton collid- µc 4mµmc CT 10 TeV ers in the high-energy physics community. reaching |∆aµ| = 2 | 2 |log . The exclusion π Λ mc limits on |∆aµ| are given in the last column of TableIV: 1.13 × 10−8 and 9.10 × 10−10. We conclude that in the limit of vanishing contributions from the other operators, ACKNOWLEDGMENTS the low-energy eﬀects from the high-scale NP associated µc with the tensor operator CT that would be small enough We would like to thank Florian Domingo and Jong Soo to explain the muon g − 2 anomaly can be probed at Kim for useful discussions. This work was supported by µp − 2. In order to make µp − 1 sensitive enough, further MoST with grant nos. MoST-109-2811-M-007-509 and improvements on e.g., luminosity and search strategies, 107-2112-M-007-029-MY3.

[1] ATLAS, G. Aad et al., Observation of a new particle arXiv:1812.06018. in the search for the Standard Model Higgs boson with [8] FCC, A. Abada et al., FCC-ee: The Lepton Collider: Fu- the ATLAS detector at the LHC, Phys. Lett. B 716, 1 ture Circular Collider Conceptual Design Report Volume (2012), arXiv:1207.7214. 2, Eur. Phys. J. ST 228, 261 (2019). [2] CMS, S. Chatrchyan et al., Observation of a New Boson [9] CEPC Study Group, M. Dong et al., CEPC Conceptual at a Mass of 125 GeV with the CMS Experiment at the Design Report: Volume 2 - Physics \& Detector, (2018), LHC, Phys. Lett. B 716, 30 (2012), arXiv:1207.7235. arXiv:1811.10545. [3] H. P. Nilles, Supersymmetry, Supergravity and Particle [10] M. Klein, The Large Hadron Electron Collider Project, in Physics, Phys. Rept. 110, 1 (1984). 17th International Workshop on Deep-Inelastic Scatter- [4] S. P. Martin, A Supersymmetry primer, Adv. Ser. Direct. ing and Related Subjects, p. 236, 2009, arXiv:0908.2877. High Energy Phys. 21, 1 (2010), arXiv:hep-ph/9709356. [11] LHeC Study Group, J. Abelleira Fernandez et al.,A [5] ILC, G. Aarons et al., International Linear Collider Ref- Large Hadron Electron Collider at CERN: Report on the erence Design Report Volume 2: Physics at the ILC, Physics and Design Concepts for Machine and Detector, (2007), arXiv:0709.1893. J. Phys. G 39, 075001 (2012), arXiv:1206.2913. [6] The International Linear Collider Technical Design [12] O. Bruening and M. Klein, The Large Hadron Elec- Report - Volume 1: Executive Summary, (2013), tron Collider, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 28, 1330011 (2013), arXiv:1306.6327. arXiv:1305.2090. [7] CLICdp, CLIC, T. Charles et al., The Compact Linear [13] LHeC, FCC-he Study Group, P. Agostini et al., The Collider (CLIC) - 2018 Summary Report, 2/2018 (2018), Large Hadron-Electron Collider at the HL-LHC, (2020), 6

arXiv:2007.14491. [37] M. Carena, D. Choudhury, C. Quigg, and S. Raychaud- [14] FCC, A. Abada et al., FCC Physics Opportunities: Fu- huri, Study of R-parity violation at a muon proton ture Circular Collider Conceptual Design Report Volume collider, Phys. Rev. D 62, 095010 (2000), arXiv:hep- 1, Eur. Phys. J. C 79, 474 (2019). ph/0006144. [15] FCC, A. Abada et al., FCC-hh: The Hadron Collider: [38] A. Caliskan, S. Kara, and A. Ozansoy, Excited Future Circular Collider Conceptual Design Report Vol- muon searches at the FCC based muon-hadron collid- ume 3, Eur. Phys. J. ST 228, 755 (2019). ers, Adv. High Energy Phys. 2017, 1540243 (2017), [16] X. Cid Vidal et al., Report from Working Group 3: Be- arXiv:1701.03426. yond the Standard Model physics at the HL-LHC and [39] Y. C. Acar, U. Kaya, and B. B. Oner, Resonant pro- HE-LHC, CERN Yellow Rep. Monogr. 7, 585 (2019), duction of color octet muons at Future Circular Collider- arXiv:1812.07831. based muon-proton colliders, Chin. Phys. C 42, 083108 [17] FCC, A. Abada et al., HE-LHC: The High-Energy Large (2018), arXiv:1703.04030. Hadron Collider: Future Circular Collider Conceptual [40] I. Ginzburg, Physics at future e p, gamma p (linac-ring) Design Report Volume 4, Eur. Phys. J. ST 228, 1109 and mu p colliders, Turk. J. Phys. 22, 607 (1998). (2019). [41] U. Kaya, B. Ketenoglu, S. Sultansoy, and F. Zimmer- [18] P. Azzi et al., Report from Working Group 1: Standard mann, Main parameters of HL-LHC and HE-LHC based Model Physics at the HL-LHC and HE-LHC, CERN Yel- mu-p colliders, (2019), arXiv:1905.05564. low Rep. Monogr. 7, 1 (2019), arXiv:1902.04070. [42] CERNYellowReportPageAt1314TeV2014, https: [19] J. Tang et al., Concept for a Future Super Proton-Proton //twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/LHCPhysics/ Collider, (2015), arXiv:1507.03224. CERNYellowReportPageAt1314TeV2014. [20] T. Han and Z. Liu, Potential precision of a direct mea- [43] J. Alwall et al., The automated computation of tree-level surement of the Higgs boson total width at a muon col- and next-to-leading order differential cross sections, and lider, Phys. Rev. D 87, 033007 (2013), arXiv:1210.7803. their matching to parton shower simulations, JHEP 07, [21] J. P. Delahaye et al., Muon Colliders, (2019), 079 (2014), arXiv:1405.0301. arXiv:1901.06150. [44] T. Sjostrand, S. Mrenna, and P. Z. Skands, PYTHIA 6.4 [22] A. Costantini et al., Vector boson fusion at multi-TeV Physics and Manual, JHEP 05, 026 (2006), arXiv:hep- muon colliders, JHEP 09, 080 (2020), arXiv:2005.10289. ph/0603175. [23] T. Han, Z. Liu, L.-T. Wang, and X. Wang, WIMPs at [45] Private communication with Uta Klein. High Energy Muon Colliders, (2020), arXiv:2009.11287. [46] M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez, Fast- [24] D. Buttazzo and P. Paradisi, Probing the muon g-2 Jet User Manual, Eur. Phys. J. C 72, 1896 (2012), anomaly at a Muon Collider, (2020), arXiv:2012.02769. arXiv:1111.6097. [25] W. Yin and M. Yamaguchi, Muon g − 2 at multi-TeV [47] M. Cacciari and G. P. Salam, Dispelling the N 3 myth for muon collider, (2020), arXiv:2012.03928. the kt jet-finder, Phys. Lett. B 641, 57 (2006), arXiv:hep- [26] R. Capdevilla, D. Curtin, Y. Kahn, and G. Krnjaic, A ph/0512210. Guaranteed Discovery at Future Muon Colliders, (2020), [48] M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez, The anti- arXiv:2006.16277. kt jet clustering algorithm, JHEP 04, 063 (2008), [27] T. Han, D. Liu, I. Low, and X. Wang, Electroweak Cou- arXiv:0802.1189. plings of the Higgs Boson at a Multi-TeV Muon Collider, [49] DELPHES 3, J. de Favereau et al., DELPHES 3, A mod- (2020), arXiv:2008.12204. ular framework for fast simulation of a generic collider [28] K. Long et al., Muon Colliders: Opening New Horizons experiment, JHEP 02, 057 (2014), arXiv:1307.6346. for Particle Physics, (2020), arXiv:2007.15684. [50] M. Ruan, Higgs Measurement at e+e− Circular Col- [29] G.-y. Huang, F. S. Queiroz, and W. Rodejohann, Gauged liders, Nucl. Part. Phys. Proc. 273-275, 857 (2016), Lµ−Lτ at a muon collider, (2021), arXiv:2101.04956. arXiv:1411.5606. [30] R. Capdevilla, D. Curtin, Y. Kahn, and G. Krnjaic, A [51] M. Tanaka, SM Higgs at the LHeC, https: No-Lose Theorem for Discovering the New Physics of (g− //indico.cern.ch/event/568360/contributions/ 2)µ at Muon Colliders, (2021), arXiv:2101.10334. 2523555/attachments/1440097/2216668/mtanaka_ [31] W. Liu and K.-P. Xie, Probing electroweak phase tran- DIS2017_SMhiggs_final.pdf. sition with multi-TeV muon colliders and gravitational [52] CMS, Projected Performance of an Upgraded CMS De- waves, (2021), arXiv:2101.10469. tector at the LHC and HL-LHC: Contribution to the [32] P. Asadi, R. Capdevilla, C. Cesarotti, and S. Homiller, Snowmass Process, in Community Summer Study 2013: Searching for Leptoquarks at Future Muon Colliders, Snowmass on the Mississippi, 2013, arXiv:1307.7135. (2021), arXiv:2104.05720. [53] M. Cepeda et al., Report from Working Group 2: Higgs [33] M. Lu et al., The physics case for an electron-muon col- Physics at the HL-LHC and HE-LHC, CERN Yellow lider, (2020), arXiv:2010.15144. Rep. Monogr. 7, 221 (2019), arXiv:1902.00134. [34] F. Bossi and P. Ciafaloni, Lepton Flavor Viola- [54] ATLAS, M. Aaboud et al., Search for photonic signa- tion at muon-electron colliders, JHEP 10, 033 (2020), tures of gauge-mediated supersymmetry in 13 TeV pp arXiv:2003.03997. collisions with the ATLAS detector, Phys. Rev. D 97, [35] V. Shiltsev, An Asymmetric muon - proton collider: 092006 (2018), arXiv:1802.03158. Luminosity consideration, Conf. Proc. C 970512, 420 [55] CMS, A. M. Sirunyan et al., Search for gauge-mediated (1997). supersymmetry in events with at least one photon√ and [36] K.-m. Cheung, Muon proton colliders: Leptoquarks, con- missing transverse momentum in pp collisions at s = tact interactions and extra dimensions, AIP Conf. Proc. 13 TeV, Phys. Lett. B 780, 118 (2018), arXiv:1711.08008. 542, 160 (2000), arXiv:hep-ph/0001275. [56] CMS, A. M. Sirunyan et al., Search for supersymmetry in final states with photons and missing transverse mo- 7

−1 mentum in proton-proton collisions at 13 TeV, JHEP 06, √ing transverse momentum in 36 fb of pp collisions at 143 (2019), arXiv:1903.07070. s = 13 TeV with the ATLAS experiment, Eur. Phys. [57] CMS, A. M. Sirunyan et al., Search for supersymmetry J. C 78, 401 (2018), arXiv:1706.04786. in proton-proton collisions at 13 TeV in final states with [69] J. I. Loukas Gouskos, Allan Sung, Top squark jets and missing transverse momentum, JHEP 10, 244 searches at 100 TeV, https://indico.cern.ch/ (2019), arXiv:1908.04722. event/704428/contributions/2957539/attachments/ [58] ATLAS, G. Aad et al., Search for new phenomena in final 1627650/2592608/fcc-hh-susystop-20180315-lg.pdf. states with large jet√ multiplicities and missing transverse [70] T. Aoyama et al., The anomalous magnetic moment of momentum using s = 13 TeV proton-proton collisions the muon in the Standard Model, Phys. Rept. 887, 1 recorded by ATLAS in Run 2 of the LHC, JHEP 10, 062 (2020), arXiv:2006.04822. (2020), arXiv:2008.06032. [71] Muon g-2, G. Bennett et al., Final Report of the [59] H. K. Dreiner, An Introduction to explicit R-parity viola- Muon E821 Anomalous Magnetic Moment Measurement tion, Adv. Ser. Direct. High Energy Phys. 21, 565 (2010), at BNL, Phys. Rev. D 73, 072003 (2006), arXiv:hep- arXiv:hep-ph/9707435. ex/0602035. [60] R. Barbier et al., R-parity violating supersymmetry, [72] Muon g-2, B. Abi et al., Measurement of the Positive Phys. Rept. 420, 1 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0406039. Muon Anomalous Magnetic Moment to 0.46 ppm, Phys. [61] R. N. Mohapatra, Supersymmetry and R-parity: Rev. Lett. 126, 141801 (2021), arXiv:2104.03281. an Overview, Phys. Scripta 90, 088004 (2015), [73] S. Borsanyi et al., Leading hadronic contribution to arXiv:1503.06478. the muon 2 magnetic moment from lattice QCD, (2020), [62] L. E. Ibanez and G. G. Ross, Discrete gauge symmetries arXiv:2002.12347. and the origin of baryon and lepton number conservation [74] W. Buchmuller and D. Wyler, Effective Lagrangian Anal- in supersymmetric versions of the standard model, Nucl. ysis of New Interactions and Flavor Conservation, Nucl. Phys. B 368, 3 (1992). Phys. B 268, 621 (1986). [63] H. K. Dreiner, M. Hanussek, and C. Luhn, What [75] B. Grzadkowski, M. Iskrzynski, M. Misiak, and J. Rosiek, is the discrete gauge symmetry of the R-parity vi- Dimension-Six Terms in the Standard Model Lagrangian, olating MSSM?, Phys. Rev. D 86, 055012 (2012), JHEP 10, 085 (2010), arXiv:1008.4884. arXiv:1206.6305. [76] E. E. Jenkins, A. V. Manohar, and M. Trott, Renormal- [64] E. Coluccio Leskow, G. D’Ambrosio, A. Crivellin, and ization Group Evolution of the Standard Model Dimen- D. Müller,(g −2)µ, lepton flavor violation, and Z decays sion Six Operators II: Yukawa Dependence, JHEP 01, with leptoquarks: Correlations and future prospects, 035 (2014), arXiv:1310.4838. Phys. Rev. D 95, 055018 (2017), arXiv:1612.06858. [77] R. Alonso, E. E. Jenkins, A. V. Manohar, and M. Trott, [65] A. Crivellin, C. Greub, D. Müller, and F. Sat- Renormalization Group Evolution of the Standard Model urnino, Scalar Leptoquarks in Leptonic Processes, Dimension Six Operators III: Gauge Coupling De- (2020), arXiv:2010.06593. pendence and Phenomenology, JHEP 04, 159 (2014), [66] A. Crivellin, D. Mueller, and F. Saturnino, Correlating arXiv:1312.2014. h → µ+µ− to the Anomalous Magnetic Moment of the [78] I. Brivio, Y. Jiang, and M. Trott, The SMEFT- Muon via Leptoquarks, (2020), arXiv:2008.02643. sim package, theory and tools, JHEP 12, 070 (2017), [67] S. Bansal, A. Delgado, C. Kolda, and M. Quiros, Lim- arXiv:1709.06492. its on R-parity-violating couplings from Drell-Yan pro- [79] I. Brivio, SMEFTsim 3.0 – a practical guide, (2020), cesses at the LHC, Phys. Rev. D 99, 093008 (2019), arXiv:2012.11343. arXiv:1812.04232. [68] ATLAS, M. Aaboud et al., Search for a new heavy gauge boson resonance decaying into a lepton and miss-