Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 61 references

A portal-matter model built around an E6-like gauge structure can generate Dirac neutrino masses of order 0.05 eV at one loop, while the tree-level mass matrix leaves the neutrino massless.

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

2026-08-01 21:48 UTC pith:XO3PF5HN

load-bearing objection Plausible toy-model demonstration of radiatively generated Dirac neutrino mass in a portal-matter setup, but the key loop formula is asserted and the dark-sector completion is left open. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.15965 v2 pith:XO3PF5HN submitted 2026-07-17 hep-ph

Portal Matter and Scotogenic-like Dirac Neutrino Masses

Thomas G. Rizzo This is my paper
classification hep-ph
keywords Dirac neutrino massportal matterkinetic mixingdark photonscotogenic modelE6-inspired modelright-handed neutrino dark chargeone-loop mass generation
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 claims that a previously constructed E6-like portal-matter model, extended by one singlet fermion and two dark Higgs fields, can give neutrinos a small Dirac mass without any tree-level mass term. The mass is generated at one loop in a scotogenic-like fashion—dark-sector particles run inside the loop—and with O(1) couplings and ~1 GeV dark-Higgs vacuum expectation values it lands naturally on the observed ~0.05 eV scale. The tree-level neutral-fermion mass matrix has vanishing determinant, so the light neutrino is exactly massless until the loop contributes. A sympathetic reader would care because this ties the dark-photon portal and neutrino mass to a common dark sector, and predicts that right-handed neutrinos carry dark charge, a property that could be probed through the ratio of invisible to dilepton decays of the heavy Z_I gauge boson, although direct tests are pushed beyond the HL-LHC.

Core claim

The central claim is that the color-singlet portal-matter fields—particles carrying both SM and dark quantum numbers—and dark scalars assemble a one-loop diagram (Fig. 1) whose amplitude is m_ν = λ_m y_R y_E y_S v' v1 v2 / (16√2 π²) J, with J ≈ I(m_S/m_N)/m_N² when the dark scalars are light. Numerically this gives m_ν ≃ 0.056 eV for λ_m = 0.5, y_R y_E y_S = 0.1, v' = v1 = v2 = 1 GeV, and m_N = 2 TeV, with I(x) an order-one loop function. Because the tree-level mass matrix satisfies det(M M†) = 0, the SM neutrino is massless before the loop; the loop is the sole source of the Dirac mass. The paper is explicit that this is a semi-realistic toy example rather than a complete UV model, and that

What carries the argument

The key machinery is the one-loop Dirac mass diagram of Fig. 1, built from the Yukawa couplings y_E (N_R–ν_L–φ1b), y_S (N_R–S_L–H'), and y_R (ν_R–S_L–φ2a), together with the quartic coupling λ_m that mixes the two dark scalars φ1b and φ2a. The three small U(1)_D-breaking vevs (v', v1, v2) multiply into a ~1 GeV³ suppression, while the heavy N and S masses supply a ~TeV⁻² suppression, and the loop factor 1/16π² brings the result down to the observed neutrino scale. The supporting identity is det(M M†)=0 for the tree-level neutral-fermion matrix, which enforces a massless neutrino before radiative corrections, and the loop function I(x)=2 log x/(x²−1) governs the dependence on the S-to-N mass

Load-bearing premise

The result rests on the assumption that the additional SM-singlet fermions required to cancel the U(1)_YI anomaly and supply dark matter do not couple to ν_R, S_L, or the dark Higgs fields in a way that produces tree-level neutrino masses or substantially changes the one-loop amplitude.

What would settle it

A confirmed observation of neutrinoless double beta decay would falsify the Dirac-neutrino premise. Alternatively, once the Z_I is discovered, measuring the ratio of its invisible to dilepton decay widths to be 2—the q=0/Majorana expectation—rather than the q-dependent value of Eq. (18) would rule out the dark-charged ν_R that this mechanism requires.

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

If this is right

  • Neutrinos are Dirac particles in this setup, so neutrinoless double beta decay is predicted to be absent; a confirmed 0νββ signal would rule out the scenario.
  • The one-loop result is robust across a correlated parameter range: with O(1) Yukawa and quartic couplings and ~1 GeV dark vevs, Eq. (17) produces masses near 0.05 eV for TeV-scale portal fermions.
  • The particles running in the loop are mostly SM singlets with no direct SM couplings, so direct production of the neutrino-mass sector at colliders is very difficult; the practical signatures are the charged PM lepton E and its associated production with N, decaying to leptons plus missing energy.
  • If the heavy Z_I boson is discovered at a future machine, the ratio Γ(Z_I→ν̄ν)/Γ(Z_I→ℓ⁺ℓ⁻) is predicted to deviate from 2 in a way controlled by the dark charge q of ν_R, offering a discriminating test of this subclass versus standard Dirac/Majorana seesaw expectations.
  • The HL-LHC is unlikely to uniquely test this subclass; FCC-hh or a multi-TeV lepton collider would be needed for direct tests, and astrophysical/cosmological probes may provide the strongest constraints.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The paper leaves dark matter unspecified, but if the same dark sector hosts both the neutrino-mass loop and the DM candidate, then neutrino mass, kinetic mixing, and relic density would all stem from one portal sector; that unification is a natural next step beyond the present work.
  • The single-generation formula suggests a concrete three-generation generalization: neutrino mass splittings could be generated by hierarchies among the products y_R y_E y_S or among the heavy masses m_N, m_S, turning the loop into a potential origin of neutrino flavor structure.
  • Because ν_R carries a non-zero dark charge q, astrophysical and cosmological constraints—such as BBN/CMB bounds on additional relativistic degrees of freedom or star-cooling limits—may already exclude much of the parameter space the collider analysis cannot reach; the paper flags this as future work, so a dedicated study is a testable extension.
  • The same λ_m mixing and small vevs that produce the neutrino mass also mix the dark scalar sector with the SM Higgs at loop level, so precision measurements of the 125 GeV Higgs invisible width and electroweak observables could indirectly expose this mechanism even if the loop particles are never produced directly.

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 proposes a one-loop Dirac neutrino mass mechanism in an E6-like portal-matter model with gauge group GSM × SU(2)_I × U(1)_YI. The previous model is extended by the chiral singlet S_L, a dark-charged Higgs doublet H', a Z2-odd Higgs doublet Φ2, and a Z2 under which (ν_R, S_R) are odd. The tree-level neutral-fermion mass matrix (Eq. (12)) has det(M M†)=0, so the SM neutrino is massless at tree level. A one-loop diagram involving y_E, y_S, y_R, the scalar quartic λ_m, and three ~GeV U(1)_D-breaking vevs is claimed to produce mν ≃ 0.056 eV for benchmark parameters (Eq. (17)). The paper also discusses collider probes, especially the ratio Rνl = Γ(Z_I→νν)/Γ(Z_I→ℓℓ) and the production of the vector-like PM fields N, E. The model is explicitly a toy model; the U(1)_YI anomaly and DM are left to unspecified additional dark-sector fermions.

Significance. If the calculation is correct, the paper would demonstrate a novel scotogenic-like Dirac neutrino mass in a portal-matter framework, using only O(1) couplings and ~GeV dark-Higgs vevs, and it usefully identifies why the specific neutrino-mass sector is difficult to probe at colliders. The explicit determinant-zero tree-level check is a strength, and the benchmark expression (17) is dimensionally consistent and falsifiable in the sense that the loop parameters and masses are tied to the Lagrangian. The collider ratio Rνl is a concrete observable that could distinguish q≠0 dark-charged ν_R from conventional seesaw/dirac cases if Z_I is produced. However, the central one-loop formula is asserted rather than derived, the scalar-mixing term used to realize it appears to give the wrong vev suppression, and the uncompleted anomaly/DM sector can in principle spoil the tree-level masslessness. These are load-bearing gaps that prevent acceptance in the present form.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2.3, Eq. (10), Table 2] The scalar mixing needed for Fig. 1 is not generated as claimed. With the vev assignments of Table 2 (Φ1=(V1,v1)/√2, Φ2=(v2,V2)/√2), expanding λ_m(Φ1†Φ2)(Φ2†Φ1) yields a φ1b–φ2a bilinear proportional to V1V2 (the two ~10 TeV vevs), not λ_m v1v2. The invariant contraction is φ1b φ2a (Q_D=+1−1=0); the text's φ†_{2a}φ1b is not U(1)_D invariant for Q_D(φ2a)=+1 and Q_D(φ1b)=−1. Since Eq. (14) and the benchmark value Eq. (17) rely on the smallness of this mixing, the advertised suppression by v1v2 is not realized by the stated Lagrangian. This is a load-bearing issue: either a different scalar operator must be introduced, or the expansion and the resulting mass formula must be corrected and the phenomenology re-evaluated.
  2. [§3, Eq. (14)] The central one-loop formula is asserted without derivation: the loop function J is not defined, and the limiting form I(x) is given without an integral or Feynman-parameter calculation. The sign, the 16√2π^2 prefactor, and the dependence on m_{1,2}^2 therefore cannot be checked. Because the entire neutrino-mass claim rests on this formula, the paper should provide the derivation, or at least the full expression for J, and show that it corresponds to Fig. 1 with the specified couplings and scalar mixing.
  3. [§2.1 and §5] The text states that with the minimal content I_YI remains anomalous and that additional singlet fermions 'can (and must!) easily be included', while the paper 'can remain completely agnostic' about them. This is not a harmless omission: those fields are part of the theory needed for consistency and, depending on their Z2 parities and U(1)_D charges, they can form renormalizable Yukawa couplings with ν_R, S_L, N_R, or H′/Φ2. A single allowed term such as y(ν_R χ)Φ2 would add an entry to Eq. (12), generically lifting det(M M†)=0 and producing a tree-level Dirac mass. The tree-level masslessness and the 0.05 eV result are therefore conditional on a completion that is not exhibited. Please provide an explicit charge/parity assignment that forbids such couplings, or state the limitation prominently as a formal condition on the model.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Fig. 1] The caption and drawing are hard to decode. Give a standard momentum-routed diagram and identify each vertex and mass insertion so the reader can map Eq. (14) to the diagram.
  2. [Text] Typos and notation: 'discreet' should be 'discrete' (end of §2.1); 'the fessential problem' in §4; 'amS'/'cmS' in Eq. (13) should be 'a m_S'/'c m_S'.
  3. [Eq. (17)] The phrase 'interesting range' and the choice of benchmark parameters should be framed explicitly as a demonstration that O(1) parameters can reach 0.05 eV, not as a prediction; otherwise the target mass is partly an input.
  4. [§4, Eq. (18)] The ratio Rνl is given for a single generation. If the three generations are not universal, the numerical comparison with q=0 expectations should be stated; if they are universal, say so.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the one-loop neutrino mass is computed directly from the defined Lagrangian, with the 0.05 eV figure presented as an illustrative benchmark rather than a fitted prediction.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The neutral-fermion mass matrix M in Eq. (12), the tree-level determinant condition det(M M†)=0 in Eq. (13), and the one-loop formula Eq. (14) are all assembled from the Yukawa couplings, vevs, and scalar mixing term introduced in Eqs. (2)-(8), Table 2, and Eq. (10), with the loop integral J stated as the result of parametric integration. The numerical value in Eq. (17) is not obtained by fitting any measured neutrino mass or by extracting parameters from data; it follows an explicitly illustrative benchmark ('To get some numerical feel for this result, we will assume for purposes of demonstration the following set of suggestive values...'). Thus the ~0.05 eV figure is an output of a parameter scan, not a fitted input renamed as a prediction. The many self-citations (e.g., [13], [18]) supply the earlier E6-like PM framework and collider constraints, but the neutrino-mass mechanism and its one-loop amplitude are derived in the present paper and do not reduce to those citations. The paper itself flags the main caveat: with the minimal content 'I_YI remains anomalous', additional fermions 'can (and must!) easily be included', and the paper 'can remain completely agnostic' about them (§2.1). That is a genuine UV-completeness limitation—unwanted couplings of such fields to ν_R, S_L, or the dark Higgses could spoil det(MM†)=0 or add new loop contributions—but it is an incompleteness/robustness concern, not the construction-level identification of the claimed result with its inputs. No circular step satisfying the quoted-reduction standard is exhibited.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

6 free parameters · 4 axioms · 3 invented entities

The central claim rests on the new Z2 and Yukawa texture, the existence of an unspecified anomaly-canceling dark sector, and the assumed vev hierarchy; these are model assumptions rather than derived facts. The benchmark parameters are the main free inputs that set the 0.05 eV output.

free parameters (6)
  • λm (quartic scalar mixing) = 0.5 (benchmark)
    Sets the ϕ2a-ϕ1b mixing m12²=λm v1 v2; the neutrino mass is proportional to it; no independent determination.
  • yR yE yS (product of Yukawa couplings) = 0.1 (benchmark)
    The neutrino mass is proportional to this product; only a benchmark value is chosen to hit the 0.05 eV target.
  • v', v1, v2 (U(1)_D-breaking vevs) = 1 GeV each (benchmark)
    The neutrino mass is proportional to v'v1v2; required to be ≲1 GeV for a sub-GeV dark photon mass, but values are chosen for demonstration.
  • m_N (heavy neutral portal fermion mass) = 2 TeV (benchmark)
    Roughly above the LHC lower bound ~1-1.5 TeV; chosen central value controls the loop suppression (1/m_N²).
  • x = m_S/m_N = "not too far from unity"
    Enters through I(x); the paper shows I(x) can vary by more than an order of magnitude, so the mass prediction is not sharp.
  • q (dark charge of ν_R) = unspecified nonzero; examples q=-3,...,3
    Does not enter mν directly but sets the Z_I branching-ratio prediction Rνl; a free model parameter.
axioms (4)
  • ad hoc to paper The new Z2 symmetry is exact at the Lagrangian level and forbids every direct ν_L-ν_R Yukawa coupling while allowing the listed Yukawa terms.
    Central to making the tree-level neutrino mass vanish; no independent evidence for the symmetry; introduced for model-building purposes.
  • ad hoc to paper Unspecified SM-singlet dark fermions can cancel the U(1)_YI anomaly and provide DM without coupling to ν_R, S_L, or the dark Higgs in a way that affects neutrino mass.
    Explicitly acknowledged in §2.1; the paper stays "completely agnostic" about these fields, so the neutrino-mass result depends on their assumed neutrality.
  • domain assumption The full G_SM × G_D structure is a toy; it does not embed into E6, and the 10 TeV / 1 GeV vev hierarchy is achieved with fine-tuning.
    Stated in §1 and §2.1; this is a semi-realistic toy model, not a complete UV completion.
  • standard math Standard perturbative QFT loop integrals and the Dirac neutrino assumption (no Majorana mass for ν_R) are used.
    The loop formula (14) assumes standard one-loop parametric integration; Dirac neutrino nature is a model choice.
invented entities (3)
  • S_L no independent evidence
    purpose: New chiral SM singlet with dark charge q-1; needed as a loop fermion and to give S_R a TeV-scale Dirac mass.
    No direct production mechanism; mostly a SM singlet with invisible decays, so no independent falsifiable handle is provided.
  • H' (dark-charged Higgs doublet) no independent evidence
    purpose: Z2-even doublet with U(1)_D charge q; its vev v'~1 GeV provides the \bar S_L N_R mixing entering the neutrino loop.
    Contributes to dark photon mass and Z-DP mixing; no unique collider signature is identified.
  • Φ2 (Z2-odd Higgs doublet) no independent evidence
    purpose: Scalar doublet under SU(2)_I with components ϕ2a (v2~1 GeV) and ϕ2b (V2~10 TeV); generates the S mass and the ν_R-S_L coupling.
    A dark Higgs with no SM gauge interactions; direct tests are difficult and only indirect loop effects are discussed.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 16832 in / 30717 out tokens · 323567 ms · 2026-08-01T21:48:40.296387+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Loops of portal matter (PM) fields, carrying both Standard Model (SM) and dark charges, can generate the necessary kinetic mixing (KM) between the ordinary and dark photons (DP) in vector portal scenarios thus allowing for interactions between visible and dark sector fields. Here we show that the field content of a previously considered model based on a partial $E_6$-like UV-completion of such setups can generate light Dirac neutrino masses in the interesting range, $\sim 0.05$ eV, at the one-loop level similar to what happens in scotogenic dark matter (DM) scenarios. While general $E_6-$like PM scenarios have been shown to be easily probed at colliders, such as the HL-LHC, uniquely testing this specific subclass of these setups in a direct fashion is found to be somewhat more challenging.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.15965 by Thomas G. Rizzo.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Diagram leading Dirac neutrino mass generation in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The function I(x) as defined in the text with x being the mass ratio x = mS/mN . 4 Model Tests at Colliders The possibility that neutrinos are Dirac particles whose right-handed components carry dark quantum numbers is difficult to test, either directly or even indirectly, in terrestrial experiments as conventional sources produce neutrinos with MeV scale energies or above so that the neutrinos are always … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The ratio Rνl for a single generation, as defined in the text, as a function of xI assuming that q = −3, −2, −1, 1, 2, 3 corresponding to the red, blue, green, magenta, cyan and yellow curves, respectively. The red dashed line corresponds to the familiar q = 0 Dirac or the Majorana seesaw expectation, Rνl = 2, for purposes of comparison. In principle, the production and the decay of the heavy neutral GD an… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Cross sections for vector-like isodoublet (top) and isosinglet (bottom) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Same as in the previous Figure but now for the FCC-hh assuming, from bottom to top, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Cross sections for associated NE¯ + h.c. production via s-channel W± exchange at the LHC (top) with √ s = 13(14) TeV and at FCC-hh (bottom) assuming √ s = 60, 80, 100 TeV as in the previous Figures. 14 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_6.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 53 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Aghanimet al.[Planck], Astron

    N. Aghanimet al.[Planck], Astron. Astrophys.641, A6 (2020) [erratum: Astron. Astrophys.652, C4 (2021)] [arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  2. [2]

    Holdom, Phys

    B. Holdom, Phys. Lett.166B, 196 (1986) and Phys. Lett. B178, 65 (1986); K. R. Dienes, C. F. Kolda and J. March-Russell, Nucl. Phys. B492, 104 (1997) [hep-ph/9610479]; F. Del Aguila, Acta Phys. Polon. B25, 1317 (1994) [hep-ph/9404323]; K. S. Babu, C. F. Kolda and J. March-Russell, Phys. Rev. D54, 4635 (1996) [hep-ph/9603212]; T. G. Rizzo, Phys. Rev. D59, 0...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1986

  3. [3]

    Feldman, B

    There has been a huge amount of historical work on this subject; see, for example, D. Feldman, B. Kors and P. Nath, Phys. Rev. D75, 023503 (2007) [hep-ph/0610133]; D. Feldman, Z. Liu and P. Nath, Phys. Rev. D75, 115001 (2007) [hep-ph/0702123 [HEP-PH]].; M. Pospelov, A. Ritz and M. B. Voloshin, Phys. Lett. B662, 53 (2008) [arXiv:0711.4866 [hep-ph]]; M. Pos...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  4. [4]

    Gherghetta, J

    T. Gherghetta, J. Kersten, K. Olive and M. Pospelov, Phys. Rev. D100, no.9, 095001 (2019) [arXiv:1909.00696 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  5. [5]

    Fabbrichesi, E

    M. Fabbrichesi, E. Gabrielli and G. Lanfranchi, [arXiv:2005.01515 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  6. [6]

    Graham, C

    M. Graham, C. Hearty and M. Williams, [arXiv:2104.10280 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  7. [7]

    Barducci, E

    D. Barducci, E. Bertuzzo, G. Grilli di Cortona and G. M. Salla, JHEP12, 081 (2021) [arXiv:2109.04852 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  8. [8]

    Alonso-Gonz´ alez, D

    D. Alonso-Gonz´ alez, D. Cerde˜ no, P. Foldenauer and J. M. No, [arXiv:2507.11376 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  9. [9]

    A. W. R. Jorge, L. Sagunski, G. W. Yuan, T. Song and E. Bratkovskaya, [arXiv:2601.15066 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv

  10. [10]

    Caputo and R

    A. Caputo and R. Essig, [arXiv:2603.08430 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  11. [11]

    S. Li, J. M. Yang, M. Zhang and R. Zhu, [arXiv:2405.18226 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  12. [12]

    T. G. Rizzo, Phys. Rev. D99, no.11, 115024 (2019) [arXiv:1810.07531 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  13. [13]

    T. D. Rueter and T. G. Rizzo, Phys. Rev. D101, no.1, 015014 (2020) [arXiv:1909.09160 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  14. [14]

    J. H. Kim, S. D. Lane, H. S. Lee, I. M. Lewis and M. Sullivan, Phys. Rev. D101, no.3, 035041 (2020) [arXiv:1904.05893 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  15. [15]

    T. D. Rueter and T. G. Rizzo, [arXiv:2011.03529 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  16. [16]

    G. N. Wojcik and T. G. Rizzo, Phys. Rev. D105, no.1, 015032 (2022) [arXiv:2012.05406 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  17. [17]

    T. G. Rizzo, JHEP11, 035 (2021) [arXiv:2106.11150 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  18. [18]

    T. G. Rizzo, [arXiv:2202.02222 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  19. [19]

    G. N. Wojcik, [arXiv:2205.11545 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  20. [20]

    T. G. Rizzo, Phys. Rev. D106, no.3, 035024 (2022) [arXiv:2206.09814 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  21. [21]

    T. G. Rizzo, Phys. Rev. D106, no.9, 095024 (2022) [arXiv:2209.00688 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  22. [22]

    Carvunis, N

    A. Carvunis, N. McGinnis and D. E. Morrissey, [arXiv:2209.14305 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  23. [23]

    Verma, S

    S. Verma, S. Biswas, A. Chatterjee and J. Ganguly, [arXiv:2209.13888 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  24. [24]

    T. G. Rizzo, Phys. Rev. D107, no.9, 095014 (2023) [arXiv:2302.12698 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  25. [25]

    Bauer and P

    M. Bauer and P. Foldenauer, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, no.17, 171801 (2022) [arXiv:2207.00023 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  26. [26]

    G. N. Wojcik, L. L. Everett, S. T. Eu and R. Ximenes, Phys. Lett. B841, 137931 (2023) [arXiv:2211.09918 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  27. [27]

    G. N. Wojcik, L. L. Everett, S. T. Eu and R. Ximenes, Phys. Rev. D108, no.5, 055033 (2023) [arXiv:2303.12983 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  28. [28]

    T. G. Rizzo, Phys. Rev. D108, no.5, 055021 (2023) [arXiv:2307.08508 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  29. [29]

    T. G. Rizzo, Phys. Rev. D109, no.5, 055039 (2024) [arXiv:2312.00226 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  30. [30]

    T. G. Rizzo, Phys. Rev. D110, no.7, 075037 (2024) [arXiv:2408.01296 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  31. [31]

    M. Ardu, M. H. Rahat, N. Valori and O. Vives, [arXiv:2407.21100 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  32. [32]

    T. G. Rizzo, Phys. Rev. D111, no.7, 075018 (2025) [arXiv:2412.17174 [hep-ph]]. 16

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  33. [33]

    T. G. Rizzo, Phys. Rev. D112, no.1, 015029 (2025) doi:10.1103/h81b-ydmw [arXiv:2505.04474 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  34. [34]

    Tewary, S

    K. Tewary, S. Biswas and S. Verma, [arXiv:2511.00578 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  35. [35]

    T. G. Rizzo, [arXiv:2511.13632 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv

  36. [36]

    T. G. Rizzo, [arXiv:2602.24122 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv

  37. [37]

    For a recent review of vector-like fermions, see A. E. C´ arcamo Hern´ andez, K. Kowalska, H. Lee and D. Rizzo, [arXiv:2309.13968 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  38. [38]

    Hayrapetyanet al.[CMS], [arXiv:2405.17605 [hep-ex]]

    A. Hayrapetyanet al.[CMS], [arXiv:2405.17605 [hep-ex]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  39. [39]

    J. M. Alves, G. C. Branco, A. L. Cherchiglia, C. C. Nishi, J. T. Penedo, P. M. F. Pereira, M. N. Rebelo and J. I. Silva-Marcos, Phys. Rept.1057, 1-69 (2024) [arXiv:2304.10561 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  40. [40]

    Banerjee, E

    A. Banerjee, E. Bergeaas Kuutmann, V. Ellajosyula, R. Enberg, G. Ferretti and L. Panizzi, [arXiv:2406.09193 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  41. [41]

    Guedes and J

    G. Guedes and J. Santiago, JHEP01, 111 (2022) [arXiv:2107.03429 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  42. [42]

    Adhikary, M

    A. Adhikary, M. Olechowski, J. Rosiek and M. Ryczkowski, [arXiv:2406.16050 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  43. [43]

    Benbrik, M

    R. Benbrik, M. Boukidi, M. Ech-chaouy, S. Moretti, K. Salime and Q. S. Yan, [arXiv:2412.01761 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv

  44. [44]

    Albergaria, J

    F. Albergaria, J. F. Bastos, B. Belfatto, G. C. Branco, J. T. Penedo, A. Rodr ´ ıguez-S´ anchez and J. I. Silva-Marcos, [arXiv:2412.21201 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  45. [45]

    C. Y. Chen, S. Dawson and E. Furlan, Phys. Rev. D96, no.1, 015006 (2017) [arXiv:1703.06134 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  46. [46]

    Biek¨ otter, J

    A. Biek¨ otter, J. L. Hewett, J. S. Kim, M. Kr¨ amer, T. G. Rizzo, K. Rolbiecki, J. Tattersall and T. Weber, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A32, no.05, 1750032 (2017) [arXiv:1608.01312 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  47. [47]

    Arcadi, M

    G. Arcadi, M. Dutra, P. Ghosh, M. Lindner, Y. Mambrini, M. Pierre, S. Profumo and F. S. Queiroz, Eur. Phys. J. C78, no.3, 203 (2018) [arXiv:1703.07364 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  48. [48]

    Roszkowski, E

    L. Roszkowski, E. M. Sessolo and S. Trojanowski, Rept. Prog. Phys.81, no.6, 066201 (2018) [arXiv:1707.06277 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  49. [49]

    Arcadi, D

    G. Arcadi, D. Cabo-Almeida, M. Dutra, P. Ghosh, M. Lindner, Y. Mambrini, J. P. Neto, M. Pierre, S. Profumo and F. S. Queiroz, [arXiv:2403.15860 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  50. [50]

    J. L. Hewett and T. G. Rizzo, Phys. Rept.183, 193 (1989)

    1989

  51. [51]

    Shickele, L

    For a recent overview, see T. Shickele, L. Jokiniemi, A. Belley and J. D. Holt, [arXiv:2606.09288 [nucl-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  52. [52]

    See, for example: P

    The possibility that right-handed neutrinos carry a non-zero dark charge has been considered previ- ously in the literature, usually in the context of the Majorana neutrino mass see-saw mechanism. See, for example: P. Van Dong and D. Van Loi, Phys. Rev. D110, no.11, 115022 (2024) [arXiv:2311.09795 [hep-ph]]; P. Van Dong, D. Van Loi, D. T. Huong, N. T. Duy...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  53. [53]

    Ma, Phys

    E. Ma, Phys. Rev. D73, 077301 (2006) [arXiv:hep-ph/0601225 [hep-ph]]; C. Boehm, Y. Farzan, T. Hambye, S. Palomares-Ruiz and S. Pascoli, Phys. Rev. D77, 043516 (2008) [arXiv:hep- ph/0612228 [hep-ph]]. 17

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  54. [54]

    Farzan and E

    Y. Farzan and E. Ma, Phys. Rev. D86, 033007 (2012) [arXiv:1204.4890 [hep-ph]]. For a recent overview of Dirac neutrino mass generation in scotogenic models and original references, see S. Cen- telles Chuli´ a, R. Srivastava and S. Yadav, JHEP04, 038 (2025) [arXiv:2409.18513 [hep-ph]]; see also D. Bose, R. Pramanick and T. S. Ray, Phys. Rev. D113, no.5, 5 ...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  55. [55]

    See, e.g., J

    The possibility that the right-handed neutrino coupling to new BSM forces may be subject to strong astrophysical and cosmological constraints have been discussed in a number of earlier analyses. See, e.g., J. Heeck, Phys. Lett. B739, 256-262 (2014) [arXiv:1408.6845 [hep-ph]]; K. N. Abazajian and J. Heeck, Phys. Rev. D100, 075027 (2019) [arXiv:1908.03286 [...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  56. [56]

    T. G. Rizzo, work in progress

  57. [57]

    Combination of searches for invisible Higgs boson decays with the ATLAS experiment,

    ATLAS Collaboration, “Combination of searches for invisible Higgs boson decays with the ATLAS experiment,” ATLAS-CONF-2020-052; G. Aadet al.[ATLAS], Phys. Lett. B842, 137963 (2023) [arXiv:2301.10731 [hep-ex]]; V. Milosevic [CMS], PoSEPS-HEP2021, 602 (2022)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  58. [58]

    Aadet al.[ATLAS], Phys

    G. Aadet al.[ATLAS], Phys. Lett. B854, 138705 (2024) [arXiv:2312.02789 [hep-ex]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  59. [59]

    Tumasyanet al.[CMS], Phys

    A. Tumasyanet al.[CMS], Phys. Lett. B842, 137563 (2023) [arXiv:2206.07110 [hep-ex]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  60. [60]

    M. S. Chanowitz and M. K. Gaillard, Nucl. Phys. B261, 379 (1985); B. W. Lee, C. Quigg and H. B. Thacker, Phys. Rev. D16, 1519 (1977); J. M. Cornwall, D. N. Levin and G. Tiktopoulos, Phys. Rev. D10, 1145 (1974) Erratum: [Phys. Rev. D11, 972 (1975)]; G. J. Gounaris, R. Kogerler and H. Neufeld, Phys. Rev. D34, 3257 (1986)

    1985

  61. [61]

    Common ATLAS, CMS and LHCb summary plots for Heavy Neutral Leptons (Fall 2025),

    For a recent summary of the heavy neutral lepton searches at the LHC and original references, see [ATLAS], “Common ATLAS, CMS and LHCb summary plots for Heavy Neutral Leptons (Fall 2025),” ATL-PHYS-PUB-2025-048. 18

    2025