% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded.  This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.

@ARTICLE{Blondel:625038,
      author       = {Blondel, Alain and Grojean, Christophe and Janot, Patrick
                      and Wilkinson, Guy},
      title        = {{H}iggs {F}actory options for {CERN}: {A} comparative
                      study},
      reportid     = {PUBDB-2025-01011, arXiv:2412.13130},
      year         = {2024},
      note         = {27 pages, 7 figures, 11 tables},
      abstract     = {``All future $e^+e^-$ Higgs factories have similar reach
                      for the precise measurement of the Higgs boson
                      properties.'': this popular statement has often led to the
                      impression that all $\rm e^+e^-$ options are scientifically
                      equivalent when it comes to choosing the future post-LHC
                      collider at CERN. More recently, the concept of
                      sustainability has been added in attempts to rank Higgs
                      factories. A comparative analysis of the data currently
                      available is performed in this note to clarify these issues
                      for three different options: the future circular colliders
                      (FCC), and two linear collider alternatives (CLIC and
                      ILC@CERN). The main observation is as follows. For the
                      precise measurement of already demonstrated Higgs decays
                      (b\=b, $\tau^+\tau^-$, gg, ZZ, WW) and for $\rm H \to c\bar
                      c$, it would take half a century to CLIC and ILC@CERN to
                      reach the precisions that FCC-ee can achieve in 8 years
                      thanks to its large luminosity and its four interactions
                      points. The corresponding electricity consumption, cost and
                      carbon footprint would also be very significantly larger
                      with linear colliders than with FCC-ee. Considering in
                      addition that (i) [...]; (ii) [...]; (iii) [...]; and {\it
                      (iv)} the vast experimental programme achievable with both
                      FCC-ee and FCC-hh is out of reach of linear colliders; it is
                      found that FCC-ee is a vastly superior option for CERN, and
                      the only first step en route to the 100\,TeV hadron
                      collider.},
      cin          = {T},
      cid          = {I:(DE-H253)T-20120731},
      pnm          = {611 - Fundamental Particles and Forces (POF4-611) / DFG
                      project G:(GEPRIS)390833306 - EXC 2121: Quantum Universe
                      (390833306) / ASYMMETRY - Essential Asymmetries of Nature
                      (101086085)},
      pid          = {G:(DE-HGF)POF4-611 / G:(GEPRIS)390833306 /
                      G:(EU-Grant)101086085},
      experiment   = {EXP:(DE-MLZ)NOSPEC-20140101},
      typ          = {PUB:(DE-HGF)25},
      eprint       = {2412.13130},
      howpublished = {arXiv:2412.13130},
      archivePrefix = {arXiv},
      SLACcitation = {$\%\%CITATION$ = $arXiv:2412.13130;\%\%$},
      doi          = {10.3204/PUBDB-2025-01011},
      url          = {https://bib-pubdb1.desy.de/record/625038},
}