A Linear Collider Vision for the Future of Particle Physics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper we review the physics opportunities at linear $e^+e^-$ colliders with a special focus on high centre-of-mass energies and beam polarisation, take a fresh look at the various accelerator technologies available or under development and, for the first time, discuss how a facility first equipped with a technology mature today could be upgraded with technologies of tomorrow to reach much higher energies and/or luminosities. In addition, we will discuss detectors and alternative collider modes, as well as opportunities for beyond-collider experiments and R&D facilities as part of a linear collider facility (LCF). The material of this paper will support all plans for $e^+e^-$ linear colliders and additional opportunities they offer, independently of technology choice or proposed site, as well as R&D for advanced accelerator technologies. This joint perspective on the physics goals, early technologies and upgrade strategies has been developed by the LCVision team based on an initial discussion at LCWS2024 in Tokyo and a follow-up at the LCVision Community Event at CERN in January 2025. It heavily builds on decades of achievements of the global linear collider community, in particular in the context of CLIC and ILC.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.008 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".