Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Parity cancels strong CP in a unified seesaw model without an axion

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 13:12 UTC pith:JTRKR3Z4

load-bearing objection A serious universal-seesaw Pati-Salam model with a clean tree-level parity solution to strong CP; the one-loop θ̄ analysis is the real content, and the main gap is the failure to exhibit a single parameter point satisfying fermion, neutrino, and θ̄ constraints together. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2512.25028 v3 pith:JTRKR3Z4 submitted 2025-12-31 hep-ph

Universal Seesaw Pati-Salam Model with P for Strong CP

K.S. Babu , Sumit Biswas This is my paper
classification hep-ph PACS 12.10.Dm11.30.Er14.60.Pq
keywords Pati-Salam modeluniversal seesawstrong CP problemparity symmetrytheta-barradiative neutrino massleptoquarkcolor sextet
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper constructs a Pati-Salam unified theory in which all quark and lepton masses arise through a universal seesaw mechanism, driven by a single pair of Higgs fields. The central claim is that parity symmetry, spontaneously broken at about 5×10^13 GeV, forces the strong CP parameter θ̄ to zero at tree level and keeps the one-loop contributions below the experimental bound. The non-trivial part is that new leptoquark and color-sextet/octet loops appear, but the paper shows they either vanish or are suppressed by the ratio of an exotic fermion mass to the parity scale. If correct, this is a working axionless solution to the strong CP problem inside a quark-lepton unified gauge theory, alongside radiatively generated neutrino masses.

Core claim

The paper claims that in its minimal universal seesaw Pati-Salam model, θ̄ = 0 at tree level because parity forces the quark mass determinants to be real, and the color-sextet and color-octet mass matrices to be hermitian. At one loop, the paper shows that the vast majority of new diagrams—those with charged leptons, scalar and gauge leptoquarks, and corrections to sextet/octet masses—vanish individually, leaving only the neutral-lepton correction to the down-quark mass as a nonzero contribution. That contribution is parametrically suppressed by either M10/κR or M15/κR, so the model can keep θ̄ < 10^-10 by choosing the color sextet or the color octet fermion mass to lie well below the parity

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the universal seesaw mass matrices built from parity-symmetric Yukawa couplings: chiral fermions mix with vector-like fermions in the (1,1,15) and (1,1,10) multiplets, while parity forces the bare mass matrices M10 and M15 to be hermitian (with M15 also symmetric). This structure makes the tree-level determinants of all colored fermion mass matrices real, giving θ̄ = 0. The one-loop analysis exploits block-matrix decompositions and the fact that trace of products of hermitian matrices are real, so most loop corrections drop out; the only surviving diagram (Fig. 5c) is controlled by the neutral-lepton mass matrix that is complex symmetric, leading to the parametric su

Load-bearing premise

The suppression of the only non-vanishing one-loop contribution to θ̄ requires either the color-octet mass M15 or the color-sextet mass M10 to be about 10^5 GeV while the parity scale is about 5×10^13 GeV, an eight-order-of-magnitude hierarchy that is chosen, not derived.

What would settle it

If both the color-octet and color-sextet fermions are demonstrated to have masses above roughly 10^5 GeV, and an improved neutron EDM measurement pushes θ̄ below about 10^-11, then the parametric suppression M/κR cannot keep θ̄ small, falsifying the model's strong CP solution.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • The model provides an axionless strong CP solution inside a quark-lepton unified gauge theory, with the QCD θ-term forbidden by parity.
  • The predicted θ̄ lies just below the current neutron electric dipole moment bound, so an improved nEDM measurement can directly probe the mechanism.
  • Neutrino masses are generated radiatively and can match oscillation data, with one exotic fermion multiplet necessarily light.
  • Baryon number is violated only in the Higgs sector, predicting nucleon decay n → e+e−ν with a lifetime around 10^126 years, far beyond current sensitivity.
  • If exact parity is imposed, the model requires the same amount of fine-tuning for the 125 GeV Higgs as the Standard Model itself.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The requirement that either the color octet or color sextet fermion lie near 10^5 GeV, while the parity scale sits at 5×10^13 GeV, is a hierarchy chosen by hand; finding an independent dynamical origin for it would strengthen the proposal.
  • A combined numerical point that simultaneously satisfies the fermion-mass benchmarks, the neutrino-mass benchmarks, and the θ̄ bound has not been exhibited; constructing such a point is a concrete next step.
  • Because the parity restoration scale is fixed by gauge coupling unification, Planck-suppressed operators are non-negligible here; the paper notes this requires coefficients below about 10^-6, which is far less tuned than the axion quality problem.
  • The same suppression logic could be tested in a TeV-scale variant of the Pati-Salam model, though the parity scale would need to be lowered independently of gauge unification.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper constructs a Pati-Salam model based on SU(2)_L x SU(2)_R x SU(4)_c with a single {H_L, H_R} Higgs pair and vector-like fermions in (1,1,15) and (1,1,10)_L + (1,1,10)_R. Chiral fermion masses are generated through a universal seesaw, while parity is invoked to set the QCD theta-term to zero. The authors show that at tree level theta-bar = 0, and that most one-loop corrections to theta-bar vanish by hermiticity/trace arguments. The single surviving diagram (Fig. 5(c)) is estimated to give theta-bar ~ 10^-10 if either M_10 or M_15 is below about 10^5 GeV. They provide separate benchmark points for realistic charged-fermion masses (Sec. 4) and radiatively generated neutrino masses (Sec. 5), and claim these are compatible with the strong-CP solution.

Significance. If the full picture holds, this would be a significant step: an axionless, parity-based solution to strong CP within a quark-lepton unified gauge theory, requiring only a minimal Higgs sector and producing radiative neutrino masses. The tree-level theta-bar = 0 argument is clean, and the demonstration that many one-loop diagrams vanish via hermiticity of the flavor structures is a valuable technical contribution. The main weakness is that the three sectors (fermion masses, neutrino masses, and theta-bar) are examined with separate, non-overlapping benchmark points, and the surviving one-loop estimate is given under an order-one CP-phase assumption. The paper does not exhibit a single parameter point satisfying all constraints simultaneously, which is a load-bearing gap for the central claim.

major comments (3)
  1. [Secs. 4, 5, 6.1.1] No combined benchmark is presented. The central claim, stated in the abstract and Sec. 8, is that the model simultaneously yields realistic fermion masses, neutrino masses compatible with oscillation data, and |theta-bar| < 10^-10. However, the benchmarks provided are mutually incompatible: Sec. 4.1 takes (M_15)_3 = 4 kappa_R; Sec. 4.2 takes (M_10)_3 = 219 kappa_R; the first neutrino benchmark in Sec. 5 has M_15 = 10^5 GeV and M_10_3 = 1.5 x 10^15 GeV; and Sec. 6.1.1 requires either M_15 or M_10 to be below about 10^5 GeV. Since the same matrices M_10, M_15, Y_10, Y_15 enter Eqs. (2.17)-(2.19), (4.16), (5.10)-(5.11), and (6.44)-(6.45), it is not demonstrated that one point can satisfy all constraints. A single numerical point or a scan satisfying fermion masses, neutrino masses, and theta-bar is essential.
  2. [Eq. (6.44)] The first benchmark formula for theta-bar is dimensionally inconsistent as written. The function F in Eq. (4.4) has mass dimension -2, so the right-hand side of Eq. (6.44) is not dimensionless unless an additional mass-squared prefactor is present, but none is shown. As printed, the expression cannot yield the quoted theta-bar ~ 10^-10. This makes the quantitative estimate irreproducible from the text and must be corrected.
  3. [Sec. 6.1.1, after Eq. (6.44)] The numerical estimate assumes 'the combination of Yukawas and CP-violating phases is O(1)'. However, in the light-octet benchmark (M_15 = 10^5 GeV), the top-quark mass requires (Y_15)_33 ~ m_t M_15/(kappa_L kappa_R) ~ 10^-4, far from O(1). The text does not show how the trace in Eq. (6.42) is nevertheless order one. This reinforces the need for a combined benchmark that includes the fermion-mass constraints.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 5, after Eq. (5.1)] The text says 'It is clear from Eq. (5.2) that three of the neutrinos remain massless', but the matrix in question is Eq. (5.1), not Eq. (5.2).
  2. [Sec. 4.1, before Eq. (4.10)] The phrase 'The mass matrices of Eq. (4.17)' should refer to Eq. (4.10) in the first benchmark scenario; Eq. (4.17) is defined later in Sec. 4.2.
  3. [Sec. 7.3] The experimental limit is written as '|theta| <= 10^-10' but the physical quantity is |theta-bar|. Please use consistent notation.
  4. [Formulae and notation] Several expressions are ambiguous: Eq. (6.44) contains 'M15 kappa_R' without an explicit division sign, and 'mt mb' without a division sign. The authors should ensure all mathematical expressions are unambiguous.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the strong-CP estimate is a derived, parameter-dependent formula; mass and neutrino statements are consistency checks, not fitted predictions.

full rationale

The tree-level strong-CP result is derived from parity and the hermiticity of M10 and M15, not assumed. The one-loop estimate in Eqs. (6.44)-(6.45) is a formula computed from the model; the benchmark choices M15=10^5 GeV or M10=10^5 GeV are inputs, and theta-bar ~ 10^-10 is the resulting estimate, not a number fitted to the nEDM datum and then called a prediction. The fermion-mass benchmarks in Sec. 4 adjust Yukawa parameters to reproduce known masses; the paper presents these as consistency checks, not predictions. The neutrino benchmarks in Sec. 5 are explicitly order-of-magnitude illustrations, with the text stating 'We did not attempt a detailed fit to the oscillation data here.' The only potentially load-bearing self-citation is in Sec. 6.1, where null contributions from neutral scalars and neutral gauge bosons are imported from Ref. [5] (Babu-Mohapatra) rather than recalculated; however, Ref. [5] is earlier independent work for a different gauge group, used as a lemma, and the new Pati-Salam-specific diagrams are computed in the paper. The absence of a single numerical point satisfying fermion, neutrino, and theta-bar constraints together is a completeness/correctness gap, not a circularity: no output has been shown equal to an input by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

6 free parameters · 6 axioms · 4 invented entities

The model is built on a large set of unconstrained inputs: the 3×3 Yukawa matrices Y10 and Y15, the mass matrices M10 and M15, six Higgs quartic couplings, and the VEV ratio κL/κR. Benchmark values are hand-picked to reproduce fermion masses, mν ≈ 0.05 eV, and θ̄ < 10^-10; none are derived from a deeper principle. The structural inputs are parity and the PS gauge symmetry, which fix the form of the tree-level θ̄ = 0 result.

free parameters (6)
  • κL, κR = κL ≈ 174 GeV; κR ≈ 5.2×10^13 GeV
    Electroweak VEV and parity-restoration scale fixed by the condition g2L = g2R via SM RG running; sets the seesaw scale.
  • Y15 = benchmark: (Y15)33 = 1.434, (Y15)23 = 0.481, (Y15)13 = 0.068
    3×3 Yukawa coupling to ΣL; entries chosen to reproduce the top sector and to radiatively correct down-quark/charged-lepton masses.
  • Y10 = benchmark: (Y10)33 = 1.434, (Y10)23 = 0.481, (Y10)13 = 0.068 (Sec. 4.2); Y10 = 1 (Sec. 5)
    Yukawa coupling to Ω; fit to down-quark and charged-lepton masses and to neutrino-mass benchmarks.
  • M15 = M15_3 = 4 κR (Sec. 4.1); M15 ≈ 10^5 GeV (Secs. 5, 6)
    Real-symmetric vector mass matrix for Σ; a light M15 suppresses the one-loop θ̄ contribution from Fig. 5(c).
  • M10 = M10_3 = 219 κR (Sec. 4.2); M10 = 1.5×10^15 GeV or ≈ 10^5 GeV (Secs. 5, 6)
    Hermitian mass matrix for Ω; heavy in the Y10-driven fermion-mass benchmark, light in the strong-CP/neutrino benchmarks.
  • Higgs quartics λ1-λ6 = λ5 = 0.125/3/0.1; λ4 = −3.14; λ3+λ4 = 1.5; others unspecified
    Quartic couplings of the HL+HR potential; benchmark choices drive loop corrections, neutrino masses, and θ̄ estimates; λ6 controls baryon-number violation.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Exact parity symmetry at high scale with transformations of Eq. (2.9) and vanishing θQCD term.
    Central to the strong-CP solution; parity is imposed, not derived from a deeper principle.
  • ad hoc to paper Three families of vector-like fermions in (1,1,15) and [(1,1,10)L + (1,1,10)R] with hermitian M10 and real-symmetric M15.
    Chosen as the simplest set generating all fermion masses; no UV rationale is given.
  • domain assumption Seesaw approximations (Y†15 κR M15^-1) ≪ 1 and (Y†10 κR M10^-1) ≪ 1, with the top-quark sector allowed O(1).
    Used to derive the light-fermion mass formulas (2.17)-(2.19) and throughout the loop calculations.
  • standard math Standard QCD chiral-rotation formula for θ̄, Eq. (6.2), including sextet and octet mass determinants.
    Relies on standard QCD and on the hermiticity of the bare sextet/octet matrices from parity.
  • domain assumption Gauge-coupling matching gY^-2 = g2R^-2 + (2/3) g4^-2 and μP determined by g2L = g2R.
    Sets the Pati-Salam scale to 5.2×10^13 GeV; threshold corrections beyond SM RG are not included.
  • ad hoc to paper Quantum-gravity effects either have dim-5 coefficients |Aij|,|Bij| ≤ 10^-6 or parity is realized as a discrete gauge symmetry.
    Required in Sec. 7.3 to protect the parity solution from Planck-suppressed operators; the model supplies no mechanism enforcing this.
invented entities (4)
  • Color-octet Majorana fermion O in (1,1,15) no independent evidence
    purpose: Vector-like seesaw partner for up-type quarks; contributes to θ̄ through its mass determinant.
    Mass can be as low as ~10^5 GeV in benchmarks, but no collider, cosmological, or direct signal is analyzed.
  • Color-sextet fermion S in (1,1,10) no independent evidence
    purpose: Seesaw partner for down-type quarks and charged leptons; mediates one-loop neutrino masses; contributes to θ̄.
    No independent experimental handle is given; its mass scale is set by benchmarks.
  • Vector-like fermions U, D, E, N no independent evidence
    purpose: Provide universal-seesaw partners for all chiral fermions and the neutral singlet N for neutrino mass.
    New beyond-SM states with no direct detection signature discussed in this paper.
  • Leptoquark gauge boson X and W_R, Z' gauge bosons no independent evidence
    purpose: Mediate new loop corrections to fermion masses and θ̄; part of the PS gauge structure.
    Their masses are at the 10^13 GeV scale, beyond direct reach, and no observable signature is quantified.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 30754 in / 24177 out tokens · 252009 ms · 2026-08-03T13:12:29.293247+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We develop a universal seesaw version of the Pati-Salam model wherein quarks and leptons of each family are unified into common multiplets transforming as $\{\psi_L(2,1,4)+ \psi_R(1,2,4)\}$ under the $SU(2)_L \times SU(2)_R \times SU(4)_c$ gauge symmetry. Parity symmetry is spontaneously broken in the model, which helps in solving the strong CP problem without the axion. The Higgs sector of the model is very simple, consisting of a single pair of $\{H_L(2,1,4)+ H_R(1,2,4)\}$ fields. Fermion masses arise through mixing of the chiral fermions with vector-like quarks and leptons contained in $(1,1,15)$ as well as $\{(1,1,10)_L+(1,1,10)_R\}$ multiplets via a universal seesaw mechanism. Consistency of such a spectrum with the observed quark and lepton masses is established. The parity solution to the strong CP problem is shown to be effective in this framework, although there are new loop contributions to $\bar{\theta}$, compared to the analogous left-right symmetric model, arising from color sextet and octet fermions, as well as from diagrams mediated by leptoquark bosons. We also find that, in this setup, although lepton number is broken, neutrino masses remain zero at the tree-level. Small and finite Majorana neutrino masses are induced via one-loop diagrams, which we analyze and show to be compatible with oscillation experiments.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Flavor Hierarchies the Right Way

    hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.5

    Universal seesaw under a chiral U(1)_R forbids ordinary Yukawas except the top, generates charged-fermion and neutrino hierarchies, and realizes tree-level Nelson-Barr protection of strong CP.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 37 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Pati and A

    J.C. Pati and A. Salam,Lepton Number as the Fourth Color,Phys. Rev. D10(1974) 275

    1974

  2. [2]

    Saad,Fermion Masses and Mixings, Leptogenesis and Baryon Number Violation in Pati-Salam Model,Nucl

    S. Saad,Fermion Masses and Mixings, Leptogenesis and Baryon Number Violation in Pati-Salam Model,Nucl. Phys. B943(2019) 114630 [1712.04880]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  3. [3]

    Davidson and K.C

    A. Davidson and K.C. Wali,Universal Seesaw Mechanism?,Phys. Rev. Lett.59(1987) 393

    1987

  4. [4]

    Babu and R.N

    K.S. Babu and R.N. Mohapatra,CP Violation in Seesaw Models of Quark Masses,Phys. Rev. Lett.62(1989) 1079

    1989

  5. [5]

    Babu and R.N

    K.S. Babu and R.N. Mohapatra,A Solution to the Strong CP Problem Without an Axion, Phys. Rev. D41(1990) 1286

    1990

  6. [6]

    Hall and K

    L.J. Hall and K. Harigaya,Implications of Higgs Discovery for the Strong CP Problem and Unification,JHEP10(2018) 130 [1803.08119]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  7. [7]

    Hall and K

    L.J. Hall and K. Harigaya,Higgs Parity Grand Unification,JHEP11(2019) 033 [1905.12722]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  8. [8]

    Craig, I

    N. Craig, I. Garcia Garcia, G. Koszegi and A. McCune,P not PQ,JHEP09(2021) 130 [2012.13416]. – 35 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  9. [9]

    de Vries, P

    J. de Vries, P. Draper and H.H. Patel,Do Minimal Parity Solutions to the StrongCP Problem Work?,2109.01630

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  10. [10]

    Hisano, T

    J. Hisano, T. Kitahara, N. Osamura and A. Yamada,Novel loop-diagrammatic approach to QCDθparameter and application to the left-right model,JHEP03(2023) 150 [2301.13405]

    arXiv 2023

  11. [11]

    Beg, D.J

    M.A.B. Beg, D.J. Maloof and H.S. Tsao,StrongPandTNoninvariances in a Class of Gauge Theories,Phys. Rev. D19(1979) 2221

    1979

  12. [12]

    Mohapatra and G

    R.N. Mohapatra and G. Senjanovic,Natural Suppression of Strong p and t Noninvariance, Phys. Lett. B79(1978) 283

    1978

  13. [13]

    S.M. Barr, D. Chang and G. Senjanovic,Strong CP problem and parity,Phys. Rev. Lett.67 (1991) 2765

    1991

  14. [14]

    Mohapatra and A

    R.N. Mohapatra and A. Rasin,Simple supersymmetric solution to the strong CP problem, Phys. Rev. Lett.76(1996) 3490 [hep-ph/9511391]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  15. [15]

    Mohapatra, A

    R.N. Mohapatra, A. Rasin and G. Senjanovic,P, C and strong CP in left-right supersymmetric models,Phys. Rev. Lett.79(1997) 4744 [hep-ph/9707281]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  16. [16]

    K.S. Babu, B. Dutta and R.N. Mohapatra,Solving the strong CP and the SUSY phase problems with parity symmetry,Phys. Rev. D65(2002) 016005 [hep-ph/0107100]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  17. [17]

    Kuchimanchi,P/CP Conserving CP/P Violation Solves Strong CP Problem,Phys

    R. Kuchimanchi,P/CP Conserving CP/P Violation Solves Strong CP Problem,Phys. Rev. D82(2010) 116008 [1009.5961]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  18. [18]

    Kuchimanchi,P and CP solution of the strong CP puzzle,Phys

    R. Kuchimanchi,P and CP solution of the strong CP puzzle,Phys. Rev. D108(2023) 095023 [2306.03039]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  19. [19]

    Foot and R.R

    R. Foot and R.R. Volkas,Neutrino physics and the mirror world: How exact parity symmetry explains the solar neutrino deficit, the atmospheric neutrino anomaly and the LSND experiment,Phys. Rev. D52(1995) 6595 [hep-ph/9505359]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1995

  20. [20]

    Berezhiani and R.N

    Z.G. Berezhiani and R.N. Mohapatra,Reconciling present neutrino puzzles: Sterile neutrinos as mirror neutrinos,Phys. Rev. D52(1995) 6607 [hep-ph/9505385]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1995

  21. [21]

    Dolan, T.P

    M.J. Dolan, T.P. Dutka and R.R. Volkas,Lowering the scale of Pati-Salam breaking through seesaw mixing,JHEP05(2021) 199 [2012.05976]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  22. [22]

    Clarke, R

    J.D. Clarke, R. Foot and R.R. Volkas,Quark-lepton symmetric model at the LHC,Phys. Rev. D85(2012) 074012 [1112.3405]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  23. [23]

    K.S. Babu, S. Biswas and S. Saad,TeV Scale Quark-Lepton Unification,2512.11113

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  24. [24]

    Kuznetsov and N.V

    A.V. Kuznetsov and N.V. Mikheev,Vector leptoquarks could be rather light?,Phys. Lett. B 329(1994) 295 [hep-ph/9406347]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1994

  25. [25]

    Volkas,Prospects for mass unification at low-energy scales,Phys

    R.R. Volkas,Prospects for mass unification at low-energy scales,Phys. Rev. D53(1996) 2681 [hep-ph/9507215]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  26. [26]

    Foot,An AlternatVolkas:1995ynive SU(4) x SU(2)L x SU(2)R model,Phys

    R. Foot,An AlternatVolkas:1995ynive SU(4) x SU(2)L x SU(2)R model,Phys. Lett. B420 (1998) 333 [hep-ph/9708205]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  27. [27]

    Foot and G

    R. Foot and G. Filewood,Implications of TeV scale SU(4) x SU(2)-L x SU(2)-R quark lepton-lepton unification,Phys. Rev. D60(1999) 115002 [hep-ph/9903374]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  28. [28]

    Smirnov,Mass limits for scalar and gauge leptoquarks from K(L)0 —>e-+ mu+-, B0 —>e-+ tau+- decays,Mod

    A.D. Smirnov,Mass limits for scalar and gauge leptoquarks from K(L)0 —>e-+ mu+-, B0 —>e-+ tau+- decays,Mod. Phys. Lett. A22(2007) 2353 [0705.0308]. – 36 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  29. [29]

    Fileviez Perez and M.B

    P. Fileviez Perez and M.B. Wise,Low Scale Quark-Lepton Unification,Phys. Rev. D88 (2013) 057703 [1307.6213]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  30. [30]

    Calibbi, A

    L. Calibbi, A. Crivellin and T. Li,Model of vector leptoquarks in view of theB-physics anomalies,Phys. Rev. D98(2018) 115002 [1709.00692]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  31. [31]

    Greljo and B.A

    A. Greljo and B.A. Stefanek,Third family quark–lepton unification at the TeV scale,Phys. Lett. B782(2018) 131 [1802.04274]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  32. [32]

    Heeck and D

    J. Heeck and D. Teresi,Pati-Salam explanations of the B-meson anomalies,JHEP12(2018) 103 [1808.07492]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  33. [33]

    Iguro, J

    S. Iguro, J. Kawamura, S. Okawa and Y. Omura,TeV-scale vector leptoquark from Pati-Salam unification with vectorlike families,Phys. Rev. D104(2021) 075008 [2103.11889]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  34. [34]

    Fern´ andez Navarro and S.F

    M. Fern´ andez Navarro and S.F. King,B-anomalies in a twin Pati-Salam theory of flavour including the 2022 LHCbR K(∗) analysis,JHEP02(2023) 188 [2209.00276]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  35. [35]

    Butterworth, H

    J. Butterworth, H. Debnath, P. Fileviez Perez and P. Wang,Quark-Lepton Unification Signatures,2512.00143

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  36. [36]

    Worah,Radiatively generated fermion masses in SU(4) x SU(2)-L x SU(2)-R,Phys

    M.P. Worah,Radiatively generated fermion masses in SU(4) x SU(2)-L x SU(2)-R,Phys. Rev. D53(1996) 283 [hep-ph/9502222]. [37]Particle Data Groupcollaboration,Review of particle physics,Phys. Rev. D110(2024) 030001

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  37. [38]

    Z.-z. Xing, H. Zhang and S. Zhou,Updated Values of Running Quark and Lepton Masses, Phys. Rev. D77(2008) 113016 [0712.1419]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  38. [39]

    Aristizabal Sierra and C.E

    D. Aristizabal Sierra and C.E. Yaguna,On the importance of the 1-loop finite corrections to seesaw neutrino masses,JHEP08(2011) 013 [1106.3587]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  39. [40]

    Dev and A

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  40. [41]

    Lu and S.-H

    T.-T. Lu and S.-H. Shiou,Inverses of 2×2 block matrices,Computers & Mathematics with Applications43(2002) 119

    2002

  41. [42]

    Pati,Nucleon Decays Into Lepton + Lepton + Anti-lepton + Mesons Within SU(4) of Color,Phys

    J.C. Pati,Nucleon Decays Into Lepton + Lepton + Anti-lepton + Mesons Within SU(4) of Color,Phys. Rev. D29(1984) 1549

    1984

  42. [43]

    J.C. Pati, A. Salam and U. Sarkar,Delta B = - Delta L, neutron —>e- pi+, e- K+, mu- pi+ and mu- K+ DECAY modes in SU(2)-L X SU(2)-R X SU(4)-C or SO(10),Phys. Lett. B133(1983) 330

    1983

  43. [44]

    O’Donnell and U

    P.J. O’Donnell and U. Sarkar,Three lepton decay mode of the proton,Phys. Lett. B316 (1993) 121 [hep-ph/9307254]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1993

  44. [45]

    Mohapatra and R.E

    R.N. Mohapatra and R.E. Marshak,Local B-L Symmetry of Electroweak Interactions, Majorana Neutrinos and Neutron Oscillations,Phys. Rev. Lett.44(1980) 1316

    1980

  45. [46]

    Berezhiani, R.N

    Z.G. Berezhiani, R.N. Mohapatra and G. Senjanovic,Planck scale physics and solutions to the strong CP problem without axion,Phys. Rev. D47(1993) 5565 [hep-ph/9212318]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1993

  46. [47]

    Choi, D.B

    K.-w. Choi, D.B. Kaplan and A.E. Nelson,Is CP a gauge symmetry?,Nucl. Phys. B391 (1993) 515 [hep-ph/9205202]. – 37 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1993

  47. [48]

    Dine, R.G

    M. Dine, R.G. Leigh and D.A. MacIntire,Of CP and other gauge symmetries in string theory,Phys. Rev. Lett.69(1992) 2030 [hep-th/9205011]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1992

  48. [49]

    Grimus and L

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  49. [50]

    Lopez-Pavon, E

    J. Lopez-Pavon, E. Molinaro and S.T. Petcov,Radiative Corrections to Light Neutrino Masses in Low Scale Type I Seesaw Scenarios and Neutrinoless Double Beta Decay,JHEP 11(2015) 030 [1506.05296]. – 38 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015