Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 32 references

Radiative $\mu-\tau$ Corrections and Renormalization of Neutrino Mass Operators in Type II Seesaw Models

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper argues that Type II seesaw radiative corrections reduce the reactor mixing angle by about 3 percent, lowering it from 8.59° to 8.34°, with the shift potentially visible to future experiments if new physics strengthens the…

desk verdict The paper's central 3% suppression of θ13 is an arithmetic error wrapped around a circular fit, and the manuscript is internally inconsistent; it should be desk rejected. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.08406 v1 pith:5GNMJMHD submitted 2025-05-13 hep-ph

Gayatri Ghosh This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph
keywords Type-IIseesawmu-tausymmetrybreakingneutrinomassoperatorsrenormalizationgroupequationsreactormixingangledimension-sixscalartripletradiativecorrections
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

The paper tries to establish that quantum corrections in a Type II seesaw model—where neutrino masses come from a scalar triplet—push the predictions of mu-tau symmetry away from their tree-level values by a measurable amount. It fixes the reactor angle at $\theta_{13}=8.59^\circ$ using a combination of three small mu-tau breaking parameters, then runs those parameters from the grand unified theory scale down to the electroweak scale with one-loop renormalization-group equations that include both dimension-five and dimension-six neutrino mass operators. Because the tau Yukawa coupling dominates the running, every breaking parameter shrinks by the same factor, roughly $0.97$, so the predicted low-scale angle is $\theta_{13}(M_Z)\approx 8.34^\circ\pm 0.13^\circ$. The reason this matters is that the 3 percent suppression sits just below current precision, so a future long-baseline measurement could either confirm it or reveal enhanced running from new physics.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the renormalization-group equation for the effective neutrino mass operators, applied to the three small parameters that encode mu-tau breaking: $\bar{\epsilon}$ from the dimension-five operator, $\bar{\epsilon}'$ from the dimension-six operator, and $\delta\bar{\epsilon}$ from higher-order radiative corrections. Each obeys $dX/dt = \gamma X$ with the same $\gamma=-(3/8\pi^2)y_\tau^2$, so the solution is a shared exponential suppression $X(M_Z)\approx 0.97\,X(M_{\mathrm{GUT}})$. The argument is carried by the formula $U_{e3}\approx s_{12}c_{12}\,(m_3^2-m_2^2)/\Delta m^2_{\mathrm{atm}}\times(\bar{\epsilon}s_{12}^2+\bar{\epsilon}'c_{12}^2+\delta\bar{\epsilon})$, which converts the breaking parameters into the reactor angle, together with the neutrino mass ansatz $M_\nu = Y_\Delta v_\Delta$ with small mu-tau perturbations.

What would settle it

Two checks would settle it. First, compute the full two-loop renormalization-group evolution that includes the running of $y_\tau$ itself from about 0.7 at the grand unified theory scale to about 0.01 at $M_Z$; if the integrated exponent differs from $-0.001\times 34$, the 3 percent suppression and the $8.34^\circ$ prediction change. Second, measure $\theta_{13}$ at the 1 percent level at a long-baseline experiment: a value at the original $8.59^\circ$ rather than $8.34^\circ$ would contradict the common-anomalous-dimension assumption.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that radiative mu-tau corrections are not a negligible refinement in Type II seesaw models: the one-loop factor that renormalizes the dimension-five operator also applies, unchanged, to the dimension-six correction, so all three parameters $\bar{\epsilon}$, $\bar{\epsilon}'$, and $\delta\bar{\epsilon}$ evolve with the same anomalous dimension $\gamma = -(3/8\pi^2)\,y_\tau^2$. Setting the observed reactor angle $\theta_{13}=8.59^\circ\pm 0.13^\circ$ requires $\bar{\epsilon}s_{12}^2+\bar{\epsilon}'c_{12}^2+\delta\bar{\epsilon}\approx 0.0474$ at the high scale. Running this combination down to $M_Z$ with $\ln(M_Z/M_{\text{GUT}})\approx -34$ multiplies it by $e^{-0.001\times 34}\approx 0.97$, which produces $\theta_{13}(M_Z)\approx 8.34^\circ\pm 0.13^\circ$. The paper also asserts that current collider bounds on the triplet scalar leave this scenario viable, and that experiments could see 5 to 10 percent deviations if new physics contributes to the anomalous dimension.

Load-bearing premise

The prediction rests on the assumption that the three small mu-tau breaking parameters, including the dimension-six correction, all shrink at the same rate as the energy scale drops from the grand unified theory scale to the electroweak scale, with that rate set by the tau Yukawa coupling.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At the electroweak scale, the reactor angle is predicted to be about $8.34^\circ$ rather than $8.59^\circ$, a 3 percent suppression that percent-level measurements could resolve.
  • The ratios among $\bar{\epsilon}$, $\bar{\epsilon}'$, and $\delta\bar{\epsilon}$ are preserved under running in the minimal Standard Model, because all three share the same anomalous dimension.
  • If new physics adds a coupling $g_X$ to the anomalous dimension, the suppression factor changes to $e^{-(0.001 - C g_X^2/8\pi^2)\times 34}$, producing 5 to 10 percent deviations in $\theta_{13}$.
  • Current lower bounds on the triplet scalar mass do not exclude the scenario, so the radiative-correction prediction remains testable rather than ruled out.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Going beyond the paper: a precise measurement of $\theta_{13}$ would effectively measure the tau-Yukawa anomalous dimension of the neutrino mass operators, turning a mixing-angle measurement into a probe of the operator content at the grand unified theory scale.
  • The paper treats the three breaking parameters as sharing one anomalous dimension; if a future fit to atmospheric and reactor data prefers different scale dependences, that would signal operator mixing that the minimal Type II seesaw setup does not include.
  • The same tau-dominated running mechanism should appear in other high-scale flavor models with mu-tau symmetry, so a 3 percent suppression observed or excluded at a long-baseline experiment would constrain a broad class of neutrino mass models, not just Type II seesaw.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies radiative mu-tau symmetry breaking induced by renormalization-group (RG) running of dimension-five and dimension-six neutrino mass operators in the Type II seesaw model. The central numerical claim is that the tau Yukawa coupling drives a common anomalous dimension for the mu-tau breaking parameters (epsilon-bar, epsilon-prime-bar, delta-epsilon-bar), causing a roughly 3% suppression of the reactor angle from 8.59 degrees to 8.34 degrees, and that DUNE, Hyper-Kamiokande, or JUNO could detect 5-10% deviations if new physics enhances the running. The paper also presents RGEs for the effective operators, a semi-analytical solution, and phenomenological constraints from collider and oscillation experiments.

Significance. If the central claim were correct, it would provide a quantitative prediction for a small RG correction to theta_13 in Type II seesaw, testable by next-generation neutrino experiments. The paper does usefully frame the question of whether mu-tau symmetric high-scale models remain viable after RG evolution, and it collates a large set of RGEs for dimension-five and dimension-six operators in an appendix. However, the significance is severely limited because the numerical prediction is not a genuine prediction: it is the fitted high-scale combination of Eq. (70) rescaled by a common factor, and the rescaling factor is obtained through arithmetically inconsistent use of the anomalous dimension. The dimension-six operator is defined inconsistently across the paper, and the claimed two-loop analysis is not actually carried out.

major comments (5)
  1. [§9.1, Eqs. (74), (78)–(81)] The numerical evaluation is arithmetically inconsistent. With y_tau(M_Z) ≈ 0.01, Eq. (74) gives γ = −(3/(8π²)) y_tau² ≈ −3.8×10⁻⁵. For ln(M_Z/M_GUT) ≈ −34, the exponent is γ·(t_Z−t_GUT) ≈ +1.3×10⁻³, so e^{γΔt} ≈ 1.0013, not 0.97. The factor 0.97 quoted in Eqs. (79)–(81) requires γ ≈ −0.001, which corresponds to y_tau ≈ 0.16, not 0.01. The paper neither integrates the running of y_tau nor justifies evaluating γ at M_Z over the entire GUT-to-M_Z interval. Consequently, the 3% suppression and the headline value θ_13(M_Z) = 8.34° ± 0.13° in Eq. (85) are unsupported.
  2. [§8, Eq. (70) and §10, Eq. (85)] The central 'prediction' is a rescaling of a fitted input. Eq. (70) fixes the combination (epsilon-bar s12² + epsilon-prime-bar c12² + delta-epsilon-bar) to 0.0474 by requiring that it reproduce the measured θ_13 = 8.59°. Eq. (85) then multiplies the corresponding U_e3 by the common running factor 0.97 to obtain 8.34°. No independent input enters, so the claimed shift is not a prediction of the model; it is the fitted combination multiplied by a scale factor. This circularity is load-bearing because the paper presents Eq. (85) as a falsifiable prediction.
  3. [Eqs. (4), (57), (93), (118)] The dimension-six operator is defined inconsistently. Eq. (4) defines O^{(6)}_{ijkl} with four lepton doublets contracted as (D̄^c_L ε Δ D_L)(D̄^c_L ε Δ D_L) divided by Λ², while Eq. (57) defines O_6 = (C_6/Λ²)(L^c γ^μ L)(E^c γ_μ E), and Eqs. (93) and (118) define O_6 = (c_6/Λ²)(L̄ γ^μ L)(L̄ γ_μ L). These are different operators with different Lorentz and flavor structures. The RG evolution of δ-epsilon-bar in §9 is posited in Eqs. (71)–(73) without any derivation connecting it to the κ^{(6)} RGEs or to any of these operator definitions, so the running of the dimension-six contribution is not established.
  4. [§13, Eqs. (119)–(122)] Section 13 claims an analysis 'up to the two-loop level,' but the paper only presents one-loop RGEs in the main body, and Eqs. (119) and (120) are schematic statements of the generic form of one- and two-loop terms, not actual computed two-loop beta functions. No two-loop calculation is performed, and the claimed results do not use any two-loop coefficients. The claim of a two-loop analysis is therefore not supported by the manuscript.
  5. [§5, Eqs. (42)–(46), and Appendices A–E] The RGEs of Eqs. (42)–(46) contain many quantities that are never defined in the scalar potential of §1: the quartic couplings λ_6, λ_9, λ_10, λ_11, λ_12 and the Yukawa-like couplings y_3, y_4, y_5 appear without a specification of the full scalar sector. The tensor formalism of Appendices A–E introduces curvature tensors R_μν, R_μνρσ and field strengths F_μν and identifies them as relevant to the running of the operators, but no derivation shows how these geometric terms arise from the Type II seesaw Lagrangian, and no link is provided between this formalism and the simple RGEs (71)–(73) used for the numerical results.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Acknowledgements] The acknowledgement contains a duplicated phrase: 'GG would like to thank would like to thank University Grants Commission.' This should be corrected.
  2. [§7, Eqs. (64)–(66)] The formulas for U_e3 and cos 2θ_23 have ambiguous typesetting; for example Eq. (64) reads 'U_e3 ≈ s_12 c_12 (m_2^3 − m_2^2) m_2 ¯ϵ s_12 + ¯ϵ′ m_3' without clear parenthesization of the mass-difference factors. The expressions need to be rewritten in a readable, unambiguous form.
  3. [§2 and §2.5 and §13] The text states at the end of Section 2 and again at the end of Section 2.5 that 'Future studies should extend this analysis to two-loop RGE corrections,' yet Section 13 claims a two-loop analysis has been performed. These statements are contradictory and should be reconciled.
  4. [Fig. 5] The description of Figure 5 mentions that the three colors correspond to ϵ_μτ = 0.002, 0.005, 0.008, but the figure as described in the text does not include an explicit legend or reproducible generation procedure. The caption and text should be matched so the reader can identify the curves.
  5. [References [14], [15]] References [14] and [15] are self-citations concerning the Randall–Sundrum model and the Weak Gravity Conjecture; the connection of these works to the present Type II seesaw analysis is asserted but not explained. The relevance of these citations should be clarified or the citations removed.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Central predicted θ13 = 8.34° is the fitted input θ13 = 8.59° rescaled by an assumed 0.97 factor, and the 0.97 factor is inconsistent with the paper's own anomalous-dimension formula.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Eqs. (68)-(70), (79)-(85), Sections 8-10]
    "To reproduce the experimentally observed reactor mixing angle: θ13 = 8.59◦ ± 0.13◦, the correction term in parentheses must satisfy: ¯ϵs2 12 + ¯ϵ′c2 12 +δ¯ϵ ≈ 0.0474. ... Since ¯ϵ, ¯ϵ′,δ ¯ϵ decrease by 3%, Ue3(MZ) ≈ 0.97Ue3(MGUT). For θ13 ≈ 8.59◦, a 3% decrease gives θ13(MZ) ≈ 8.34◦ ± 0.13◦."

    The low-scale prediction is constructed entirely from the high-scale fit: Eq. (70) fixes the combination (¯ϵs12² + ¯ϵ′c12² + δ¯ϵ) to 0.0474 so that Ue3 corresponds to θ13 = 8.59°. Equations (79)-(81) then multiply each fitted parameter by the same assumed factor 0.97, and Eq. (84) multiplies Ue3(MGUT) by 0.97, so Eq. (85) is simply sin⁻¹(0.97 sin 8.59°) = 8.34°. No new datum or independent RG calculation enters. Moreover the 0.97 factor is not an output of the stated equations: with yτ(MZ) = 0.01, γ = −(3/8π²)yτ² ≈ −3.8×10⁻⁶, and e^{γ ln(MZ/MGUT)} ≈ 1.00013, not 0.97. Thus the headline 3% suppression and the 8.34° value reduce by construction to the fitted input plus an assumed, internally inconsistent rescaling.

full rationale

The paper's self-citations ([12], [14], [15]) are contextual and not load-bearing: the μ–τ breaking formalism and the RGE framework rest on standard external references ([16,17,18,24,25]), so the citation practice itself does not raise the circularity score. The RGEs (71)-(73) for ¯ϵ, ¯ϵ′, δ¯ϵ are asserted rather than derived from the κ RGEs in Section 5; this is an omitted derivation and a correctness problem, not itself a circularity. The circularity that matters is the central numerical claim. Eq. (70) fits the breaking-parameter combination to the measured θ13 = 8.59°, and Eq. (85) 'predicts' 8.34° by multiplying Ue3 by an assumed 0.97. That is a rescaling of the fitted input, not an independent prediction. Furthermore, the 0.97 factor does not follow from Eq. (74): with yτ(MZ) = 0.01 the exponent is about +1.3×10⁻⁴, so the stated solution gives ≈1.00013, not 0.97; the 3% suppression would require yτ ≈ 0.16. The paper neither integrates the running of yτ nor justifies evaluating γ at MZ over the entire GUT-to-MZ interval. Hence the central result is forced by construction: it equals the input θ13 multiplied by an assumed constant, and the constant's derivation is internally inconsistent. Score 6 reflects the partial circularity of the central prediction; the model-building and RGE apparatus itself is not circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 3 invented entities

The central numerical claim depends on the fitted breaking combination, the assumed mass matrix ansatz, and the common-runner assumption for the three breaking parameters. None of these is independently derived, and the appendix introduces formal objects that play no role in the main analysis.

free parameters (4)
  • Combined mu-tau breaking combination (¯ϵ s12² + ¯ϵ′ c12² + δ¯ϵ) = 0.0474
    Fixed in Eq. (70) to reproduce θ13 = 8.59°. No independent determination from the model.
  • ϵµτ values for Figure 5 = 0.002, 0.005, 0.008
    Chosen by hand for the scatter plot; the relation Δm²32 = 2.5×10⁻³ + ϵµτ×10⁻⁴ is introduced ad hoc.
  • Mass matrix parameters X, A, B, C, ϵ, ϵ′ in Eq. (60) = Unspecified
    Parameters of the assumed mu-tau symmetric mass matrix; not derived from the triplet Yukawa couplings.
  • Triplet mass scale M∆ = 10^10 to 10^14 GeV (scanned)
    Stated as a scanned range in Sec. 13, but no results are reported as a function of M∆.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption One-loop RGEs for Type II seesaw, Eqs. (6)-(21), are correct as taken from Refs. [16,17,18].
    Paper states consistency with [16,17,18] and does not re-derive them.
  • domain assumption The neutrino mass matrix has the mu-tau symmetric structure of Eq. (60) with free parameters X, A, B, C, ϵ, ϵ′.
    Imposed by hand instead of derived from the triplet Yukawa matrix.
  • ad hoc to paper The three breaking parameters ¯ϵ, ¯ϵ′, δ¯ϵ share the same anomalous dimension γ = -(3/8π²)yτ².
    No calculation of the dimension-six operator's anomalous dimension is given; equality is assumed to produce the common suppression factor.
  • domain assumption The integrated running factor from MGUT to MZ is e^{-0.001×34} ≈ 0.97.
    Uses yτ(MZ) ≈ 0.01 and a fixed exponent without solving the coupled RGE system.
  • ad hoc to paper The tensor RGEs in Appendices A-E describe the evolution of the operators.
    These equations introduce curvature tensors, field strengths, and D'Alembertians that are absent from the stated flat-space Type II seesaw model, with no derivation or reference.
invented entities (3)
  • Singlet scalar S
    purpose: Introduced in Eq. (62) to write a dimension-six operator L6 = (κ6/Λ²)(L H~)(H~† Lc) S.
    It appears in one equation and is never used elsewhere in the analysis or constrained by data.
  • Curvature and field-strength tensors in the operator RGEs (Rµν, Rµνρσ, Fµν)
    purpose: Appear in Appendices B and C as corrections to the running of κ operators.
    No model with gravity or non-trivial gauge field backgrounds is defined, so these objects are decorative.
  • Tensor-valued Wilson coefficients κµν(ij)
    purpose: Used in the appendix formulation of RGEs for dimension-five operators.
    Not connected to the mass matrix formalism used in the main text.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Radiative $\mu-\tau$ Corrections and Renormalization of Neutrino Mass Operators in Type II Seesaw Models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5GNMJMHD

@misc{pith2026250508406,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Radiative $\mu-\tau$ Corrections and Renormalization of Neutrino Mass Operators in Type II Seesaw Models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5GNMJMHD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.08406}
}
abstract

We explore the impact of radiative $\mu-\tau$ corrections on the renormalization of neutrino mass operators in the Type II Seesaw framework, incorporating both dimension-five and dimension-six operators. Using renormalization group equations (RGE), we analyze the evolution of flavor coupling matrices and their deviations from $\mu-\tau$ symmetric configurations due to quantum corrections. Given the stringent constraints from the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) on the triplet scalar masses and couplings, we examine how these bounds influence the viability of $\mu-\tau$ symmetric seesaw models. Our analysis highlights the interplay between high-scale $\mu-\tau$ symmetry predictions and low-scale phenomenology, revealing whether radiative corrections remain within experimentally allowed limits.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.08406 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A typical vertex correction in the renormalization of the operator [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Gauge boson interaction in the Type-II Seesaw model. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Scatter plot showing θ23 vs ϵµτ . The best−fit range of θ23 is 49.3 +0.8 −0.8 de￾grees, as determined by SK−ATM data. The three different colors correspond to ϵµτ = 0.002, 0.005, 0.008. In [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_5.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Pairwise parameter correlation plot for dimension-5 and dimension-6 operator [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Dimension-5 neutrino mass operator via triplet scalar exchange in Type II [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Dimension-6 operator mixing: radiative correction to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

32 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages

  1. [9]

    The µ−τ symmetry and its explicit breaking in neutrino oscillations and cosmology,

    Z. Z. Xing and Z. H. Zhao, “The µ−τ symmetry and its explicit breaking in neutrino oscillations and cosmology,” Rep. Prog. Phys. 79, 076201 (2016) [arXiv:1512.04207 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2016

  2. [1]

    Neutrino Mass Problem and Gauge Hierarchy,

    M. Magg and C. Wetterich, “Neutrino Mass Problem and Gauge Hierarchy,” Phys. Lett. B 94, 61 (1980)

    work page 1980

  3. [2]

    Proton Lifetime and Fermion Masses in an SO(10) Model,

    G. Lazarides, Q. Shafi and C. Wetterich, “Proton Lifetime and Fermion Masses in an SO(10) Model,” Nucl. Phys. B 181, 287 (1981)

    work page 1981

  4. [3]

    Neutrino Masses and Mixings in Gauge Models with Spontaneous Parity Violation,

    R. N. Mohapatra and G. Senjanovic, “Neutrino Masses and Mixings in Gauge Models with Spontaneous Parity Violation,” Phys. Rev. D 23, 165 (1981)

    work page 1981

  5. [4]

    Neutrino Masses, Mixings and Oscillations in SU(2) × U(1) Models of Electroweak Interactions,

    T. P. Cheng and L. F. Li, “Neutrino Masses, Mixings and Oscillations in SU(2) × U(1) Models of Electroweak Interactions,” Phys. Rev. D 22, 2860 (1980)

    work page 1980

  6. [5]

    Neutrino Masses in SU(2) × U(1) Theories,

    J. Schechter and J. W. F. Valle, “Neutrino Masses in SU(2) × U(1) Theories,” Phys. Rev. D 22, 2227 (1980)

    work page 1980

  7. [6]

    Implications of Gallium Solar Neutrino Data for the Resonant Spin-Flavor Precession Scenario

    K. S. Babu, “Model of ’Calculable’ Majorana Neutrino Masses,” Phys. Lett. B 306, 347 (1993) [arXiv:hep-ph/9301239]

    work page Pith review arXiv 1993

  8. [7]

    Neutrino mass operator renormalization in two Higgs doublet models and the MSSM,

    S. Antusch, M. Drees, J. Kersten, M. Lindner and M. Ratz, “Neutrino mass operator renormalization in two Higgs doublet models and the MSSM,” Phys. Lett. B 525, 130 (2002) [arXiv:hep-ph/0110366]

    arXiv 2002

Show all 32 references
  1. [8]

    Renormalization group equations for seesaw neutrino masses,

    P. H. Chankowski and Z. Pluciennik, “Renormalization group equations for seesaw neutrino masses,” Phys. Lett. B 316, 312 (1993) [arXiv:hep-ph/9306333]. 26

    1993 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Search for doubly charged Higgs bosons in the H±± → W±W± decay mode using 139 fb −1 of pp collision data at √s = 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector,

    ATLAS Collaboration, “Search for doubly charged Higgs bosons in the H±± → W±W± decay mode using 139 fb −1 of pp collision data at √s = 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector,” [arXiv:2303.14447 [hep-ex]]

    arXiv

  3. [11]

    Search for the Type-II Seesaw Triplet in Proton-Proton Colli- sions at√s = 13 TeV,

    CMS Collaboration, “Search for the Type-II Seesaw Triplet in Proton-Proton Colli- sions at√s = 13 TeV,” Phys. Rev. D 105, 092004 (2022) [arXiv:2203.02149 [hep-ex]]

    2022 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Non-zero θ13 andδCP Phase withA4 Flavor Symmetry and Deviations to Tri-Bi-Maximal Mixing viaZ2×Z2 Invariant Perturbations in the Neutrino Sector,

    G. Ghosh, “Non-zero θ13 andδCP Phase withA4 Flavor Symmetry and Deviations to Tri-Bi-Maximal Mixing viaZ2×Z2 Invariant Perturbations in the Neutrino Sector,” Nucl. Phys. B 979, 115759 (2022); G. Ghosh, “Charged Lepton Flavor Violation µ→ eγ in µ–τ Symmetric SUSY SO(10) mSUGRA,...

    2022

  5. [13]

    Neutrinos and Collider Physics,

    F. F. Deppisch, P. S. B. Dev, and A. Pilaftsis, “Neutrinos and Collider Physics,” New J. Phys. 17, 075019 (2015) [arXiv:1502.06541 [hep-ph]]

    2015 arXiv

  6. [14]

    CP Violation and Flavour-Violating Di-Higgs Couplings in the Randall– Sundrum Model,

    G. Ghosh, “CP Violation and Flavour-Violating Di-Higgs Couplings in the Randall– Sundrum Model,” arXiv:2411.06451 [hep-ph], (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  7. [15]

    The Weak Gravity Conjecture in Asymptotically Safe Quantum Grav- ity,

    G. Ghosh, “The Weak Gravity Conjecture in Asymptotically Safe Quantum Grav- ity,” arXiv:2504.20107 [hep-ph], (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  8. [16]

    J. A. Casas, J. R. Espinosa, A. Ibarra, and I. Navarro, Nucl. Phys. B 573, 652 (2000)

    2000

  9. [17]

    Antusch, J

    S. Antusch, J. Kersten, M. Lindner, M. Ratz, and M. A. Schmidt, JHEP 03, 024 (2005)

    2005

  10. [18]

    Djouadi, J

    A. Djouadi, J. Ellis, R. Godbole, and J. Quevillon, JHEP 06, 028 (2013)

    2013

  11. [19]

    Schechter, J

    J. Schechter, J. W. F. Valle, Phys. Rev. D22, 2227 (1980)

    1980

  12. [20]

    M. Magg, C. Wetterich, Phys. Lett. B94, 61 (1980)

    1980

  13. [21]

    R. N. Mohapatra, G. Senjanovic, Phys. Rev. D23, 165 (1981)

    1981

  14. [22]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Phys. Rev. D93, 112001 (2016)

    2016

  15. [23]

    Neutrino Masses in SU(2) x U(1) Theories,

    J. Schechter and J. W. F. Valle, “Neutrino Masses in SU(2) x U(1) Theories,” Phys. Rev. D 22, 2227 (1980). 27

    1980

  16. [24]

    Constraining a class of B-L extended models from vacuum stability and perturbativity,

    J. Chakrabortty, P. Konar, and T. Mondal, “Constraining a class of B-L extended models from vacuum stability and perturbativity,” Phys. Rev. D 89, 056014 (2014)

    2014

  17. [25]

    Neutrino mass operator renormalization revisited,

    S. Antusch, M. Drees, J. Kersten, M. Lindner, and M. Ratz, “Neutrino mass operator renormalization revisited,” Phys. Lett. B 519, 238-242 (2001)

    2001

  18. [26]

    Planck Collaboration, ”Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters,” Astron- omy & Astrophysics , vol. 641, A6, 2020

    2018

  19. [27]

    DUNE Collaboration, ”Long-Baseline Neutrino Facility (LBNF) and Deep Under- ground Neutrino Experiment (DUNE),” arXiv:1601.05471, 2016

    2016

  20. [28]

    JUNO Collaboration, ”Neutrino Physics with JUNO,” Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics , vol. 43, no. 3, 2016

    2016

  21. [29]

    Minkowski, Phys

    P. Minkowski, Phys. Lett. B 67, 421 (1977)

    1977

  22. [30]

    Schechter and J

    J. Schechter and J. W. F. Valle, Phys. Rev. D 22, 2227 (1980)

    1980

  23. [31]

    Antusch, J

    S. Antusch, J. Kersten, M. Lindner, and M. Ratz, Nucl. Phys. B 674, 401 (2003)

    2003

  24. [32]

    Particle Data Group (PDG) Review 2024: Neutrino Mixing, Reference: rpp2024- rev-neutrino-mixing.pdf 28

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.