Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 47 references

Seesaw neutrinos with one right-handed singlet field and a second Higgs doublet

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read One-loop corrections turn the seesaw model's six complex neutrino Yukawa couplings into functions of two free parameters.

desk verdict A solid, honest reparameterization of the Grimus-Neufeld model; the analytic inversion is genuinely new, but the one-loop approximation underpinning it is unquantified. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.00752 v2 pith:SCO6I4K4 submitted 2019-09-02 hep-ph

D. Jurčiukonis , T. Gajdosik , A. Juodagalvis This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph
keywords seesawmechanismtwo-Higgs-doubletmodelradiativeneutrinomassYukawacouplingsGrimus-NeufeldPMNSmatrixCP-conservingHiggspotentialone-loopself-energy
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper studies the Grimus-Neufeld model, a seesaw extension of the Standard Model with one right-handed neutrino and a second Higgs doublet that generates a radiative neutrino mass at one loop. Its central claim is that, in the CP-conserving two-Higgs-doublet case, the six complex neutrino Yukawa couplings are not free parameters: they can be expressed analytically through the measured neutrino mass differences, the PMNS matrix, the heavy neutrino mass, and two remaining parameters, the phase $\phi'$ and the ratio $\lambda_D$. If correct, this converts the model's neutrino sector into a nearly closed prediction, reducing a twelve-parameter numerical fit to a two-parameter scan and making the model directly testable by any future measurement that constrains a neutrino Yukawa coupling. The paper demonstrates the approach numerically, including a consistency check that reproduces the input mass differences and mixing angles.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the effective $3\times3$ light-neutrino mass matrix in the basis where the tree-level seesaw is diagonal: after the unitary matrix $V$ from the tree-level diagonalization, the one-loop corrected matrix has the rank-2 block form $\mathrm{diag}(0,M_{2\times2})$ with $M_{2\times2}=\begin{pmatrix}a&b\\b&c\end{pmatrix}$. The entries $a,b,c$ are quadratic in the Yukawa coefficients $d,d'$ and the loop functions $f_1,f_2,f_3$ of Eqs. (3.12)-(3.19), where these functions encode the neutral-Higgs and $Z$ self-energies through $L(m^2)$ and the $b$-vectors of the Higgs mass eigenfields. The determinant condition fixes $d$, while the trace condition on $M_{2\times2}^\dagger M_{2\times2}$ produces a fourth-order polynomial in $|d'|$; together with the Takagi factorization of the $2\times2$ block, this turns the measured mass-squared differences and the PMNS matrix into inputs that determine the Yukawa couplings.

What would settle it

Compute the neutrino self-energies at nonzero external momentum $p^2$, including charged-Higgs and $W$-boson loops, at the benchmark point B1 with $m_4=10^{10}\,\mathrm{GeV}$ and $\lambda_D=1$, then re-solve for $d$ and $|d'|$ from the resulting mass matrix; if the reconstructed neutrino mass-squared differences deviate from $\Delta m^2_{21}$ and $|\Delta m^2_{31}|$ by more than the experimental errors, the zero-momentum, neutral-only approximation that underpins Eqs. (3.12)-(3.14) is not subdominant and the parametrization fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes an inversion of the one-loop seesaw formula. Using the Grimus-Lavoura approximation for the effective light neutrino mass matrix, the tree-level seesaw leaves one massless and one massive state; at one loop the $2\times2$ block $\begin{pmatrix}a&b\\b&c\end{pmatrix}$ is built from Yukawa coefficients $d$, $d'$, and loop functions $f_1,f_2,f_3$. The determinant relation $ac-b^2=d^2(2m_D^2/v^2)(f_1f_3-f_2^2)$ gives $d^2$ directly, and the trace relation for $M_{2\times2}^\dagger M_{2\times2}$ yields a fourth-order polynomial in $|d'|$ whose real positive roots are the allowed couplings. Interpreting the orthogonal vectors as columns of the PMNS matrix then expresses the neutrino Yukawa couplings $\Delta_1$ and $\Delta_2$ through Eqs. (3.7) and (3.9). With the lightest neutrino massless, the two measured mass-squared differences and the PMNS matrix fix the Yukawa couplings up to the phase $\phi'$ and the scaling parameter $\lambda_D$.

Load-bearing premise

The inversion stands on the Grimus-Lavoura one-loop formula Eq. (2.22), which evaluates the neutral-Higgs and $Z$ self-energies at zero external momentum and drops charged-current contributions; if those neglected terms are not small, the derived couplings are not the model's true predictions.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the parametrization is correct, the neutrino Yukawa couplings are no longer scan parameters: choosing $\phi'$ and $\lambda_D$ together with the Higgs-sector masses and mixing angle produces a specific coupling matrix, so the model can be confronted directly with any observable sensitive to these couplings.
  • A scan over the two remaining parameters replaces a twelve-parameter numerical minimization; on the benchmark point the analytical method was about 430 times faster than the differential-evolution fit while giving the same distribution of $|\Delta_{23}|$.
  • The remaining freedom is mild: $\lambda_D$ is restricted to $[1/2,2]$ by loop-expansion sanity, and $\phi'$ is often confined to narrow intervals where the quartic has real positive roots.
  • The lightest neutrino stays massless at one loop, so the two measured mass-squared differences fix the masses directly for both hierarchies, keeping the sum of neutrino masses in agreement with the Planck bound.
  • The procedure extends in principle to a CP-violating Higgs potential by allowing $f_1$ to become complex, with the same qualitative structure.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A single future measurement that pins down one neutrino Yukawa coupling, for example a charged-lepton-flavour-violating rate or a collider signature involving the second Higgs doublet, would overconstrain the two-parameter plane and could by itself rule the model in or out.
  • The determinant-plus-trace trick is not specific to $n_R=1$: for two right-handed singlets one would instead solve a small polynomial system for the Yukawa coefficients, and it may be possible to reduce similarly large parameter spaces to a handful of physical inputs.
  • The observed speed-up suggests that the same inversion strategy could turn global fits of other minimal radiative-seesaw models into scans over one or two physically meaningful parameters.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper studies the Grimus-Neufeld model: type-I seesaw with a single right-handed singlet and a second Higgs doublet, so that one light neutrino mass arises at tree level and another at one loop. Using the Grimus-Lavoura one-loop approximation for the effective light neutrino mass matrix, the authors derive an analytic inversion in which the six complex parameters of the neutrino Yukawa couplings Δ1 and Δ2 are re-expressed in terms of the measured neutrino mass squared differences, the PMNS matrix, the heavy neutrino mass m4, the Higgs-sector parameters, and two additional real parameters λD and φ'. The derivation writes the effective 3x3 mass matrix in the tree-level seesaw basis, solves for the coefficients d and |d'| from the determinant and trace conditions, and then constructs Δ1 and Δ2 from the PMNS columns. The paper presents numerical distributions of d, |d'|, and the Yukawa couplings for a CP-conserving 2HDM Higgs sector subject to stability, unitarity, and oblique-parameter constraints, and it compares the analytic method with a numerical χ2 fitting approach. The central claim is that the neutrino Yukawa parameter space can be mapped analytically rather than by expensive scans.

Significance. If the central derivation is correct, the analytic parameterization is a useful technical result: it reduces the neutrino Yukawa sector of the Grimus-Neufeld model to two continuous parameters and provides explicit formulas, Eqs. (3.35) and (3.43), that are much cheaper to evaluate than a global fit over the twelve real Yukawa parameters. The paper is honest that neutrino masses and mixings are inputs, not predictions, and the algebraic inversion is internally consistent; the numerical consistency check confirms that the constructed couplings reproduce the input masses and angles. The main value is in mapping allowed Yukawa couplings for future phenomenological studies. The strength of the 'only two non-physical parameters' claim is, however, conditional on the one-loop approximation in Eqs. (2.21)-(2.22) and on the assumption in Eq. (3.8), so the paper should either quantify those limitations or temper the final testability statement.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 2.4, Eqs. (2.21)-(2.22)] The entire inversion in Sec. 3 is built on the approximation that the one-loop corrected neutrino mass matrix is Mν ≈ ((δML, M_D^T), (M_D, M_R)), with δML evaluated at zero external momentum and with charge-changing (charged-scalar/W) contributions neglected. Eq. (2.21) explicitly drops δM_D and δM_R, and the text says the charge-changing contributions are 'subdominant' but provides no estimate of their size over the scan range (m4 from 10^2 to 10^12 GeV, Higgs masses up to 3 TeV, Yukawa couplings spanning several orders of magnitude). Since Eqs. (3.35) and (3.43) determine d and |d'| from the f1, f2, f3 built out of this δML, a sizable neglected contribution would invalidate the central claim that only λD and φ' remain undetermined. The authors should either quantify δM_D, δM_R, the momentum dependence, and the charge-changing terms for representative benchmark points, or explicitly state that the parameterization is a property of the approximate one-loop formula rather than of the full model.
  2. [Sec. 4.1] The consistency check in Sec. 4.1 recomputes the neutrino masses and mixing angles from the derived Yukawa couplings using the same approximate formulas, Eqs. (2.21)-(2.22), that were used for the inversion. The agreement therefore validates the algebraic inversion but not the underlying approximation. The Summary's statement that 'a few measurements that restrict the neutrino Yukawa couplings can confirm or rule out our model' is stronger than what this check establishes; the analysis uses the measured masses and the PMNS matrix as input, so it does not provide an independent prediction of neutrino observables. I recommend softening the testability claim or adding a genuinely independent test, for example by computing a loop-induced observable that was not used as input.
  3. [Sec. 3, Eq. (3.8)] The reduction of Δ2 to two complex parameters via Δ2 = d V_r^† + d' V_s^† assumes that the massless state V_o is orthogonal to Δ2. The footnote argues that a vector orthogonal to both Δ1 and Δ2 always exists, but the identification of that vector with the physical massless neutrino and with a specific column of the PMNS matrix is not demonstrated. If the loop-corrected mass matrix in the general model can have a Δ2 component along V_o, or if the massless eigenstate is not exactly the orthogonal vector, then the parameterization covers only a subclass of the model. The paper should prove that Eq. (3.8) is not a loss of generality, or state explicitly that the analysis applies to the subclass of parameter space satisfying this condition.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Sec. 3.1, Eqs. (3.52)-(3.55)] The labels 'for NH' are repeated, and the second line uses Δm21^2 while the first uses |Δm31^2|; please clarify which scenario of Table 2 each formula refers to.
  2. [Sec. 3, Eqs. (3.37)-(3.43)] The polynomial coefficients a4, a3, ... are denoted with the same symbol a that was used for the matrix element in Eq. (3.11); renaming the coefficients would avoid confusion.
  3. [References] Reference [31] appears incomplete: it has no source, journal, or arXiv identifier, and should be updated or removed.
  4. [Sec. 4.2, Fig. 3] The caption and text contain typos such as 'a finer study of is shown'; please correct the wording.
  5. [Sec. 2.4, Eq. (2.22)] The text says the sum over k runs over all neutral physical Higgses, but the formula has three terms plus a separate Z term; please clarify whether the Goldstone boson contribution is included in the Z term or omitted.
  6. [General] The paper uses m4 and M_R almost interchangeably before defining their relation in Eq. (3.46); a short convention statement near Eq. (2.22) would improve readability.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

The central analytic parameterization is non-circular, but the Sec. 4.1 consistency check reproduces the input neutrino masses and PMNS matrix by construction, and the self-citations are not load-bearing.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. 4.1, with Eqs. (3.29), (3.34)-(3.35), (3.37), (3.42)-(3.43), and (3.30)-(3.33)]
    "we can again go back and 'predict' the neutrino masses and mixings, compare the result with the measured masses. ... These numerical values of the Yukawa couplings we treat as input in the sense of eq. (3.45) and calculate the masses and the mixing matrix between the neutrino mass eigenstates and the interaction states: as expected, the mass differences agree between input and output."

    The output masses are not independent predictions: d^2 is fixed by Eq. (3.35) from the determinant relation ac-b^2 = e^{-2i(alpha_r+alpha_s)} m_r m_s (Eqs. 3.29 and 3.34), and |d'| is fixed by Eq. (3.43), whose constant term (Eq. 3.42) enforces m_r^2 + m_s^2 = |a|^2 + 2|b|^2 + |c|^2 (Eq. 3.37). Re-substituting these solved values into the same mass-matrix formulas and finding the input mass differences is a tautology. The mixing angles are also reproduced by construction: V_o, V_r, V_s are defined from the measured PMNS columns via Eqs. (3.31)-(3.33), and Eq. (3.30) states V R3 = V_PMNS, so 'getting the neutrino mixing angles back' is an identity. The section is labeled a consistency check, so it verifies the algebra of the inversion, but it cannot validate the model against data.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is an analytic reparameterization: it solves for the Yukawa couplings Delta_1 and Delta_2 in terms of the measured light-neutrino mass differences, the PMNS matrix, and two remaining parameters (phi' and lambda_D), using the Grimus-Lavoura one-loop formula. This inversion is not circular in itself; expressing model parameters as functions of observables is a legitimate parameterization, and the paper does not claim to predict the neutrino masses or mixing angles from first principles. The only genuinely circular element is the Sec. 4.1 'numerical consistency of the model' check, where the constructed Yukawa couplings are fed back into the same equations used to determine them; the agreement of masses and mixing angles is guaranteed by construction, as the paper itself signals with 'as expected' and with scare quotes around 'predict.' This is a secondary validation step, not the load-bearing derivation. The paper also contains self-citations ([12]-[16], [33], [40]), but none is load-bearing: the massless-neutrino property is argued in the text from the rank of the loop correction and is attributed to the original Grimus-Neufeld model, not uniquely to the authors' own prior work. Concerns about the size of neglected loop contributions and the zero-momentum approximation in Eq. (2.22) are correctness risks, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central parameterization rests on the Grimus-Lavoura one-loop approximation, the massless lightest neutrino assumption, the CP-conserving 2HDM restriction, and the MR approximately m4 identification. The only hand-chosen free degrees of freedom are lambda_D and phi'; the Higgs masses, mixing angle, and m4 are scanned inputs with plausible ranges. No new particles are introduced beyond the right-handed neutrino and second doublet already present in the model.

free parameters (2)
  • lambda_D = scanned in [0.5, 2]; fixed to 1 in most figures
    Scale parameter relating the tree-level seesaw mass to the physical light neutrino mass (Eq. 3.48). Chosen by the educated guess that the loop expansion is sensible; it is one of the two free parameters of the parameterization.
  • phi' = scanned over [0, 2*pi]
    Phase of the complex coefficient d' in the Yukawa coupling Delta2 (Eq. 3.36). Not determined by neutrino measurements; it is the second free parameter and controls the solutions of the quartic equation (3.43).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The one-loop neutrino mass correction formula of Grimus-Lavoura (Eq. 2.22), evaluated at zero external momentum with charge-changing contributions neglected, gives the complete correction to the light neutrino mass matrix.
    Sec. 2.4 and Eq. (3.10): the entire analytic inversion relies on a, b, c being expressed through f1, f2, f3 built from this loop formula. If other diagrams or momentum dependence matter, the derived Yukawa couplings are wrong.
  • domain assumption The lightest neutrino mass is exactly zero at one loop in the Grimus-Neufeld model (from refs. [6,40]); the paper uses this to interpret the measured mass differences.
    Sec. 3.1, Eqs. (3.49)-(3.51). If radiative or higher-order corrections give the lightest neutrino a mass, the identification of measured Delta_m^2 with the model masses is invalid.
  • domain assumption The Higgs potential is CP-conserving with softly broken Z2 symmetry (lambda6=lambda7=0), reducing the neutral Higgs mixing to a single angle beta-alpha.
    Sec. 2.1, Table 1, and App. C. The analytic expressions for f1 and f3 being real (and hence the quartic coefficients) depend on this, and the numerical scans cover only this subspace.
  • domain assumption The heavy neutrino mass m4 is approximately the Majorana mass MR (Eq. 3.46), and the seesaw relation m_D^2/MR = m_tree_s is parameterized by lambda_D.
    Sec. 3.1, Eq. (3.48). The parameterization of m_D depends on this approximation; if MR differs from m4 by non-negligible corrections, the formulas shift.
  • domain assumption The massless neutrino state does not couple to the second Higgs doublet, Delta2 dot V_o = 0, ensuring the lightest state remains massless and enabling the 2x2 block structure of Eq. (3.11).
    Sec. 3, Eq. (3.8) and footnote 2. This is a choice of intermediate states that defines the model's parameterization; if violated, the effective mass matrix has an additional nonzero row/column and the analytic inversion changes.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Seesaw neutrinos with one right-handed singlet field and a second Higgs doublet." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SCO6I4K4

@misc{pith2026190900752,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Seesaw neutrinos with one right-handed singlet field and a second Higgs doublet},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SCO6I4K4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.00752}
}
read the original abstract

We study parameters of an extension of the Standard Model. The neutrino sector is enlarged by one right-handed singlet field, allowing for the seesaw mechanism type-I, and the Higgs sector contains one additional doublet, which contributes to light neutrino masses through one-loop radiative corrections. Employing an approximation for the effective light neutrino mass matrix we express the masses of the light neutrinos analytically, allowing us to parametrize the Yukawa couplings to neutrinos by the experimental measurements on the neutrino sector and only two free parameters. We focus on a CP-conserving Higgs potential for which we present the allowed ranges of the input parameters and a statistical overview over the possible values of the Yukawa couplings.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Tanabashi et al., Review of Particle Physics , Phys

    Particle Data Group Collaboration, M. Tanabashi et al., Review of Particle Physics , Phys. Rev. D98 (2018), no. 3 030001

    work page 2018

  2. [2]

    M. J. Dolinski, A. W. P. Poon, and W. Rodejohann, Neutrinoless Double-Beta Decay: Status and Prospects, arXiv:1902.04097

    arXiv 1902

  3. [3]

    Anton et al., Search for Neutrinoless Double-Beta Decay with the Complete EXO-200 Dataset , arXiv:1906.02723

    EXO-200 Collaboration, G. Anton et al., Search for Neutrinoless Double-Beta Decay with the Complete EXO-200 Dataset , arXiv:1906.02723

    arXiv 1906

  4. [4]

    Gando et al., Search for Majorana Neutrinos near the Inverted Mass Hierarchy Region with KamLAND-Zen , Phys

    KamLAND-Zen Collaboration, A. Gando et al., Search for Majorana Neutrinos near the Inverted Mass Hierarchy Region with KamLAND-Zen , Phys. Rev. Lett. 117 (2016), no. 8 082503, [arXiv:1605.02889]. [Addendum: Phys. Rev. Lett.117,no.10,109903(2016)]. – 34 –

    arXiv 2016

  5. [5]

    Aker et al., An improved upper limit on the neutrino mass from a direct kinematic method by KATRIN , arXiv:1909.06048

    KATRIN Collaboration, M. Aker et al., An improved upper limit on the neutrino mass from a direct kinematic method by KATRIN , arXiv:1909.06048

    arXiv 1909

  6. [6]

    Grimus and H

    W. Grimus and H. Neufeld, Radiative Neutrino Masses in an SU(2) X U(1) Model , Nucl.Phys. B325 (1989) 18

    work page 1989

  7. [7]

    Grimus and L

    W. Grimus and L. Lavoura, One loop corrections to the seesaw mechanism in the multiHiggs doublet standard model, Phys.Lett. B546 (2002) 86–95, [ hep-ph/0207229]

    arXiv 2002

  8. [8]

    Grimus and L

    W. Grimus and L. Lavoura, Soft lepton flavor violation in a multi Higgs doublet seesaw model, Phys.Rev. D66 (2002) 014016, [ hep-ph/0204070]

    arXiv 2002

Show all 47 references
  1. [9]

    Aristizabal Sierra and C

    D. Aristizabal Sierra and C. E. Yaguna, On the importance of the 1-loop finite corrections to seesaw neutrino masses , JHEP 1108 (2011) 013, [ arXiv:1106.3587]

    2011 arXiv

  2. [10]

    P. B. Dev and A. Pilaftsis, Minimal Radiative Neutrino Mass Mechanism for Inverse Seesaw Models, Phys.Rev. D86 (2012) 113001, [ arXiv:1209.4051]

    2012 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Ibarra and C

    A. Ibarra and C. Simonetto, Understanding neutrino properties from decoupling right-handed neutrinos and extra Higgs doublets , JHEP 11 (2011) 022, [ arXiv:1107.2386]

    2011 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Jurˇ ciukonis, T

    D. Jurˇ ciukonis, T. Gajdosik, A. Juodagalvis, and T. Sabonis, Parametrizing the Neutrino sector of the seesaw extension in tau decays , PoS ICHEP2012 (2013) 372, [arXiv:1212.5370]

    2013 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Jurciukonis, T

    D. Jurciukonis, T. Gajdosik, A. Juodagalvis, and T. Sabonis, Neutrino mass spectrum from the seesaw extension , Acta Phys.Polon.Supp. 6 (2013) 675–680, [ arXiv:1212.6912]

    2013 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Gajdosik, A

    T. Gajdosik, A. Juodagalvis, D. Jurˇ ciukonis, and T. Sabonis, Progress in the parametrisation of the Neutrino sector , Acta Phys.Polon. B44 (2013), no. 11 2347–2352, [ arXiv:1310.2476]

    2013 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Jurciukonis, T

    D. Jurciukonis, T. Gajdosik, and A. Juodagalvis, Light neutrino mass spectrum with one or two right-handed singlet fermions added , Nucl. Part. Phys. Proc. 273-275 (2016) 2687–2689, [arXiv:1410.4443]

    2016 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Gajdosik, D

    T. Gajdosik, D. Jurˇ ciukonis, and A. Juodagalvis, Impact of Majorana Neutrinos to Hadronic Tau Decays, Nucl. Part. Phys. Proc. 260 (2015) 257–259

    2015

  9. [17]

    P. F. de Salas, D. V. Forero, C. A. Ternes, M. Tortola, and J. W. F. Valle, Status of neutrino oscillations 2018: 3 σ hint for normal mass ordering and improved CP sensitivity , Phys. Lett. B782 (2018) 633–640, [ arXiv:1708.01186]

    2018 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Xing, A full parametrization of the 6 X 6 flavor mixing matrix in the presence of three light or heavy sterile neutrinos , Phys.Rev

    Z.-z. Xing, A full parametrization of the 6 X 6 flavor mixing matrix in the presence of three light or heavy sterile neutrinos , Phys.Rev. D85 (2012) 013008, [ arXiv:1110.0083]

    2012 arXiv

  11. [19]

    H. E. Haber and D. O’Neil, Basis-independent methods for the two-Higgs-doublet model III: The CP-conserving limit, custodial symmetry, and the oblique parameters S, T, U , Phys.Rev. D83 (2011) 055017, [ arXiv:1011.6188]

    2011 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Aghanim et al., Planck 2018 results

    Planck Collaboration, N. Aghanim et al., Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters , arXiv:1807.06209

    2018 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Planck Collaboration, P. A. R. Ade et al., Planck 2013 results. XVI. Cosmological parameters, Astron. Astrophys. 571 (2014) A16, [ arXiv:1303.5076]

    2014 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Emami, T

    R. Emami, T. Broadhurst, P. Jimeno, G. Smoot, R. Angulo, J. Lim, M. C. Chu, and R. Lazkoz, Evidence of Neutrino Enhanced Clustering in a Complete Sample of Sloan Survey Clusters, Implying ∑mν = 0.11± 0.03eV , arXiv:1711.05210. – 35 –

    arXiv

  15. [23]

    H. E. Haber and D. O’Neil, Basis-independent methods for the two-Higgs-doublet model. II. The Significance of tan beta , Phys.Rev. D74 (2006) 015018, [ hep-ph/0602242]

    2006 arXiv

  16. [24]

    P. B. Pal, Dirac, Majorana and Weyl fermions , Am. J. Phys. 79 (2011) 485–498, [arXiv:1006.1718]

    2011 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Hahn, Routines for the diagonalization of complex matrices , physics/0607103

    T. Hahn, Routines for the diagonalization of complex matrices , physics/0607103

    arXiv

  18. [26]

    Gell-Mann, P

    M. Gell-Mann, P. Ramond, and R. Slansky, Complex Spinors and Unified Theories, in Supergravity, Proceedings of the Workshop, Stony Brook, New York , Conf.Proc. C790927 (1979) 315–321, [ arXiv:1306.4669]

    1979 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Schechter and J

    J. Schechter and J. Valle, Neutrino Masses in SU(2) x U(1) Theories , Phys.Rev. D22 (1980) 2227

    1980

  20. [28]

    Pilaftsis, Radiatively induced neutrino masses and large Higgs neutrino couplings in the standard model with Majorana fields , Z

    A. Pilaftsis, Radiatively induced neutrino masses and large Higgs neutrino couplings in the standard model with Majorana fields , Z. Phys. C55 (1992) 275–282, [ hep-ph/9901206]

    1992 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Grzadkowski, H

    B. Grzadkowski, H. E. Haber, O. M. Ogreid, and P. Osland, Heavy Higgs boson decays in the alignment limit of the 2HDM , JHEP 12 (2018) 056, [ arXiv:1808.01472]

    2018 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Grzadkowski, O

    B. Grzadkowski, O. M. Ogreid, and P. Osland, The CP-symmetries of the 2HDM , in 6th Symposium on Prospects in the Physics of Discrete Symmetries (DISCRETE 2018) Vienna, Austria, November 26-30, 2018 , 2019. arXiv:1903.09894

    2018 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Ogreid, Physical parametrization of the 2HDM ,

    M. Ogreid, Physical parametrization of the 2HDM ,

  24. [32]

    Ogreid, Invariants and CP violation in the 2HDM , PoS CORFU2017 (2018) 065, [arXiv:1803.09351]

    M. Ogreid, Invariants and CP violation in the 2HDM , PoS CORFU2017 (2018) 065, [arXiv:1803.09351]

    2018 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Gajdosik, A

    T. Gajdosik, A. Juodagalvis, D. Jurˇ ciukonis, and T. Sabonis, Constraints on the Higgs Sector from Radiative Mass Generation of Neutrinos , Acta Phys. Polon. B46 (2015), no. 11 2323

    2015

  26. [34]

    Kunˇ cinas,Higgs sector data points, available from MIDAS: https: // doi

    A. Kunˇ cinas,Higgs sector data points, available from MIDAS: https: // doi. org/ 10. 18279/ MIDAS. 2HDMpar. 61451,

  27. [35]

    Kunˇ cinas,Constraints on the Higgs Sector from Radiative Mass Generation of Neutrinos: http: // talpykla

    A. Kunˇ cinas,Constraints on the Higgs Sector from Radiative Mass Generation of Neutrinos: http: // talpykla. elaba. lt/ elaba-fedora/ objects/ elaba: 23352542/ datastreams/ MAIN/ content,

  28. [36]

    Haller, A

    J. Haller, A. Hoecker, R. Kogler, K. M¨ onig, T. Peiffer, and J. Stelzer, Update of the global electroweak fit and constraints on two-Higgs-doublet models , Eur. Phys. J. C78 (2018), no. 8 675, [arXiv:1803.01853]

    2018 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Hespel, D

    B. Hespel, D. Lopez-Val, and E. Vryonidou, Higgs pair production via gluon fusion in the Two-Higgs-Doublet Model, JHEP 09 (2014) 124, [ arXiv:1407.0281]

    2014 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Baglio, O

    J. Baglio, O. Eberhardt, U. Nierste, and M. Wiebusch, Benchmarks for Higgs Pair Production and Heavy Higgs boson Searches in the Two-Higgs-Doublet Model of Type II , Phys. Rev. D90 (2014), no. 1 015008, [ arXiv:1403.1264]

    2014 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Arbey, F

    A. Arbey, F. Mahmoudi, O. Stal, and T. Stefaniak, Status of the Charged Higgs Boson in Two Higgs Doublet Models , Eur. Phys. J. C78 (2018), no. 3 182, [ arXiv:1706.07414]

    2018 arXiv

  32. [40]

    D¯ ud˙ enas and T

    V. D¯ ud˙ enas and T. Gajdosik,Gauge dependence of tadpole and mass renormalization for a seesaw extended 2HDM, Phys. Rev. D98 (2018), no. 3 035034, [ arXiv:1806.04675]

    2018 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Dziewit, S

    B. Dziewit, S. Zajac, and M. Zralek, Majorana neutrino mass matrix with CP symmetry breaking, Acta Phys.Polon. B42 (2011) 2509–2516, [ arXiv:1204.3665]. – 36 –

    2011 arXiv

  34. [42]

    I. F. Ginzburg and I. P. Ivanov, Tree-level unitarity constraints in the most general 2HDM , Phys. Rev. D72 (2005) 115010, [ hep-ph/0508020]

    2005 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Maniatis, A

    M. Maniatis, A. von Manteuffel, O. Nachtmann, and F. Nagel, Stability and symmetry breaking in the general two-Higgs-doublet model , Eur. Phys. J. C48 (2006) 805–823, [hep-ph/0605184]

    2006 arXiv

  36. [44]

    I. P. Ivanov and J. P. Silva, Tree-level metastability bounds for the most general two Higgs doublet model, Phys. Rev. D92 (2015), no. 5 055017, [ arXiv:1507.05100]

    2015 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Jurˇ ciukonis and L

    D. Jurˇ ciukonis and L. Lavoura,The three- and four-Higgs couplings in the general two-Higgs-doublet model, JHEP 12 (2018) 004, [ arXiv:1807.04244]

    2018 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Eriksson, J

    D. Eriksson, J. Rathsman, and O. Stal, 2HDMC: Two-Higgs-Doublet Model Calculator Physics and Manual , Comput.Phys.Commun. 181 (2010) 189–205, [ arXiv:0902.0851]

    2010 arXiv

  39. [47]

    J. F. Gunion and H. E. Haber, The CP conserving two Higgs doublet model: The Approach to the decoupling limit , Phys. Rev. D67 (2003) 075019, [ hep-ph/0207010]. – 37 –

    2003 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.