Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 57 references

One-loop neutrino mass model yields dark matter visible at 163 fb⁻¹

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 07:42 UTC pith:GLAIHXN6

load-bearing objection A novel radiative Dirac neutrino model with real promise, but the cLFV, scalar DM, and collider claims each rest on an error; referee time is justified. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2601.19454 v2 pith:GLAIHXN6 submitted 2026-01-27 hep-ph

Radiative Dirac neutrino masses and dark matter in a U(1)_(B-L) extended model

Chayan Majumdar , Utkarsh Patel , Supriya Senapati , Sudhanwa Patra This is my paper
classification hep-ph MSC 81V1581V22 PACS 12.60.-i14.60.Pq95.35.+d
keywords Radiative Dirac neutrino massU(1)B−L gauge symmetryZ6 dark symmetryDark matterCharged lepton flavor violationMuon colliderInert scalar doubletRelic density
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.

The paper extends the Standard Model with a gauged U(1)_{B−L} symmetry that generates tiny Dirac neutrino masses radiatively and stabilizes dark matter through a residual Z6 symmetry. It shows that both a fermionic and a scalar dark matter candidate can satisfy relic density and direct detection constraints, and that the fermionic candidate should be observable at a future 10 TeV muon collider with far less luminosity than the proposed 10 ab⁻¹. The paper's broad claim is that neutrino mass generation and dark matter can share one predictive, testable framework.

Core claim

The paper establishes that the one-loop exchange of vector-like fermions and additional scalars generates Dirac neutrino masses of the observed size for TeV-scale new physics and Yukawa couplings of order 10⁻⁶. The residual Z6 symmetry forbids tree-level neutrino masses and stabilizes the dark sector. For a fermionic dark matter particle of mass 110 GeV (155 GeV), the model predicts a ℓ⁺ℓ⁻ plus missing-energy signal at a 10 TeV muon collider that reaches 3σ with 163 (164) fb⁻¹ and 5σ with 453 (455) fb⁻¹, well below the proposed integrated luminosity.

What carries the argument

The residual Z6 symmetry arising from U(1)_{B−L} breaking, the one-loop neutrino mass formula involving the trilinear couplings μ1 and μ2, and the electroweak pair production of Z6-odd inert scalars. The Z6 symmetry both forbids tree-level neutrino masses and guarantees dark matter stability; the loop formula sets the neutrino mass scale; and the scalar pair production provides the collider signature.

Load-bearing premise

The observable neutrino mass scale follows from the one-loop formula with the assumed Yukawa and trilinear couplings; in the scalar dark matter benchmark the chosen tiny trilinear couplings make the mass far too small, so that scenario rests on extra sources of neutrino mass.

What would settle it

A null search for ℓ⁺ℓ⁻ plus missing transverse momentum at a 10 TeV muon collider with roughly 500 fb⁻¹ would exclude the fermionic dark matter benchmarks with masses 110 and 155 GeV; a measurement of BR(μ→eγ) above about 10⁻¹³ would also rule out much of the allowed parameter space.

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

If this is right

  • If the model is correct, Dirac neutrino masses can emerge without unnaturally small Yukawa couplings, using TeV-scale states within reach of current and planned experiments.
  • Charged lepton flavor violating rates (μ→eγ, μ→3e, μ–e conversion) become correlated predictions that future experiments can test.
  • Fermionic dark matter satisfying the relic abundance concentrates near the Z′ resonance, where upcoming direct detection experiments can probe a significant part of the allowed region.
  • The predicted ℓ⁺ℓ⁻ + missing-energy signal at a 10 TeV muon collider would be discoverable with less than 500 fb⁻¹ for fermionic dark matter masses of 110–155 GeV.
  • The scalar dark matter scenario, as presented, is much harder to detect at these colliders and would require higher energy or luminosity.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The scalar dark matter benchmark fixes μ1 = μ2 = 10⁻⁴ GeV, which suppresses the radiatively generated neutrino mass to about 10⁻⁴ eV, two orders below the solar scale; making that scenario consistent with observed neutrino masses would require additional sources or larger trilinear couplings.
  • Because the collider production cross sections are fixed by electroweak quantum numbers, the quoted muon collider reach can be reinterpreted for any similar inert-doublet dark matter model.
  • The same mechanism may produce observable lepton flavor violation in upcoming muon experiments at rates correlated with the neutrino mass scale, offering a complementary test.
  • The muon collider luminosity requirements suggest that even a staged or reduced-luminosity run could cover the fermionic dark matter candidate, making the model a useful benchmark for future collider design studies.

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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a U(1)_{B-L} extension of the Standard Model with three right-handed neutrinos, vector-like fermions, and an extended scalar sector, in which Dirac neutrino masses are generated at one loop through Z6-odd fields. The residual Z6 symmetry stabilizes either a fermionic or a scalar dark matter candidate. The paper presents a correlated cLFV analysis (μ→eγ, μ→3e, μ-e conversion), fermionic and scalar dark matter relic-density and direct-detection studies, and collider projections for the LHC and a 10 TeV muon collider. The advertised headline is that fermionic dark matter can be discovered at a future muon collider with only 163 fb^-1 for 3σ, far below the proposed 10 ab^-1.

Significance. If the results were correct, the model would be a compact and testable framework combining radiative Dirac neutrino masses, a discrete-symmetry dark matter candidate, and promising collider signatures. The authors make use of standard public tools (SARAH, SPheno, micrOMEGAs, MadGraph, Delphes) and present useful Feynman diagrams and cross-section tables. However, three load-bearing parts of the paper are not supported as written: the cLFV amplitudes lack the flavor structure needed for μ→eγ-type transitions; the scalar dark matter benchmark uses trilinear couplings that cannot generate the observed neutrino masses; and the collider analysis applies acceptance cuts to unobservable individual invisible particles. These issues affect the central claims of the paper, not merely its presentation.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 3, Eqs. (3.1)–(3.5)] The cLFV calculation is internally inconsistent. In Eq. (2.23) the Yukawa couplings y1 and y2 are written without flavor indices, and Sec. 3 states that y1 and y2 are treated as real parameters corresponding to a single generation of active neutrinos. A process such as μ→eγ requires an off-diagonal flavor transition between the muon and electron generations. With a single real y1 coupling, the amplitude in Eq. (3.2), A_D ∝ y1^2, and the analogous box/penguin amplitudes in Eqs. (3.3)–(3.5) describe only flavor-diagonal transitions and give zero for μ→eγ, μ→3e, and μ-e conversion. The statement that this is done "without loss of generality" is not correct for cLFV observables. The scan in Fig. 5 is therefore not a prediction of the model unless y1 (and y2) are promoted to general 3×3 matrices with off-diagonal entries; the analysis must be redone with an explicit flavor structure.
  2. [Sec. 4.2.2, Figs. 9–11, Eq. (2.26)] The scalar dark matter benchmark uses μ1 = μ2 = 10^-4 GeV. From Eq. (2.26), the radiatively generated neutrino mass scales as mν ∝ μ1 μ2 vH vσ MΨ / M_loop^4. With MΨ ~ 2 TeV, M_loop ~ M_S ~ 2 TeV, vσ = 3 TeV, and y1y2 ≤ O(1), one obtains mν ≤ ~10^-6 eV, roughly four orders of magnitude below the solar neutrino mass scale. Thus the benchmark used to demonstrate a viable scalar dark matter candidate is incompatible with the model's stated goal of generating the observed neutrino masses. The scalar DM section either needs to use μ1, μ2 values large enough to satisfy neutrino mass constraints while maintaining the relic-density and direct-detection results, or it must explicitly state that the scalar DM scenario decouples from the neutrino-mass mechanism and therefore does not address the central motivation of the paper.
  3. [Sec. 5, Eqs. (5.3)–(5.4), Figs. 12–14, Table 4] The collider significance projections are based on acceptance cuts applied to the individual invisible particles: the DM particle Ψ1 in the signal and individual neutrinos in the WW/ZZ background. Equations (5.3) and (5.4) impose E, pT, η, and cosθ cuts on these particles, and Table 4 and Fig. 14 use the corresponding single-particle efficiencies. These quantities are not measurable. A detector observes only the charged leptons from ϕ±→ℓ±Ψ1 and the vector sum of the two invisible momenta as missing transverse momentum. One cannot apply a cut on the energy, pT, or pseudorapidity of an individual dark matter particle or neutrino. The post-cut signal and background event rates, and hence the quoted 3σ/5σ luminosities (163 fb^-1 etc.), are therefore not tied to any physical event selection. The problem is especially severe for MΨ1=110 GeV, where the decay lepton from ϕ±→ℓ±Ψ1 is extremely sof
  4. [Sec. 2.1, Eq. (2.23)–(2.26)] The neutrino sector as presented produces only one nonzero mass. Because y2 is a single coupling common to i=2,3 and ν1 does not participate in the loop, the model predicts one massless neutrino and two exactly degenerate massive neutrinos. This is inconsistent with the observed solar and atmospheric mass-squared differences; the text's statement that oscillation data support "at least two mass-degenerate light neutrino states" is not correct. To explain neutrino oscillations, y2 (and the scalar/fermion mixing) must be flavor-dependent and generate non-degenerate masses and a nonzero PMNS mixing matrix. The paper neither provides this structure nor fits the observed mass splittings. This is a central gap for a model whose primary motivation is radiative Dirac neutrino masses.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 5, text after Eq. (5.1)] The background final state is written as ℓ+ℓ+νν; it should be ℓ+ℓ−νν (or ℓ+ℓ− + missing energy).
  2. [Sec. 2.1, sentence on oscillation data] The phrase "two mass-degenerate light neutrino states" is misleading; neutrino oscillations require two independent nonzero mass-squared differences.
  3. [Table 4] The event-count columns appear garbled (entries such as "105 105 35.661" are not legible). The pre-cut and post-cut numbers should be written in readable scientific notation, and the significance formula should be stated explicitly.
  4. [Sec. 4.2.2, footnote] The footnote states that the label S2 corresponds to the ψ field in Fig. 15a but to the η2 field in earlier discussion. This makes the scalar mass-eigenstate labeling confusing; a single consistent convention is needed.
  5. [Fig. 8 caption] The caption says "bottom panel" when it should say "right panel" for gB-L = 0.08, vσ = 3 TeV.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circular derivation found; the only self-citation (Ref. [66]) is used for an algebraic scaling relation and is not load-bearing for the paper's central claims.

full rationale

I walked the paper's derivation chain. Neutrino masses are computed from the one-loop formula Eq. (2.24)/(2.26) using the Lagrangian couplings and scalar mixing matrix; the cLFV rates in Sec. 3 are calculated from the same parameters and then compared with external experimental limits, not fitted to those limits. The DM relic density and direct-detection cross sections in Sec. 4 are numerical outputs from SARAH/SPheno/micrOMEGAs, with Planck and LZ constraints used as filters on scanned parameter points rather than as inputs. The collider cross sections in Sec. 5 are generator outputs from MadGraph/Delphes. None of these predictions is used to define its own input. The only self-citation I could identify is Ref. [66], used for the scaling relation sigma_SIDD ∝ g^4_{B-L}/M^4_{Z'} ≈ 1/v_σ^4; this is algebraically implied by M_{Z'} = g_{B-L} v_σ and is not load-bearing for the central conclusions. The scalar-DM benchmark with mu_1 = mu_2 = 10^-4 GeV giving small neutrino masses is an internal consistency/correctness concern, not circularity, and the Sec. 5 acceptance cuts on invisible particles are a physical-correctness issue rather than a reduction of the prediction to its inputs. Overall, the paper is not circular in the sense of the requested patterns.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

7 free parameters · 4 axioms · 4 invented entities

The central claims rest on a large number of free parameters (Yukawa couplings, trilinear couplings, masses, mixing angles) and on domain assumptions about anomaly cancellation, the residual discrete symmetry, and standard cosmology. No parameter-free derivation is offered. The neutrino mass scale is not predicted; it is a target used to constrain parameter scans, and the scalar DM benchmarks violate that target. This is the main source of the model's weakness.

free parameters (7)
  • y₁, y₂ Yukawa couplings = scanned [1e-6, 1]; mν benchmark ~1e-6
    Control the neutrino mass scale, cLFV rates, and DM interactions; chosen by hand/scan rather than derived.
  • μ₁, μ₂ trilinear scalar couplings = scanned [1e-4, 500] GeV; scalar DM benchmark 1e-4 GeV
    Set the neutrino mass and scalar mixing; the tiny benchmark value suppresses mν far below the observed scale.
  • MΨi vector-like fermion masses = benchmarks 110, 155 GeV and 2, 2.1, 2.2 TeV
    Define the DM mass and co-annihilation structure.
  • M Si scalar masses and mass splittings ΔM = 2 TeV etc.; ΔM in [1-100] GeV
    Set the scalar DM mass and co-annihilation behaviour.
  • g_B−L and vσ (or M_Z′) = g=0.02/0.08, vσ=3/6/9 TeV; M_Z′=320-1440 GeV
    Govern Z′ mass, DM annihilation, and direct detection; chosen to satisfy the LEP bound.
  • λ_Hη1 Higgs portal coupling = 10⁻², 10⁻³, 10⁻⁴
    Sets the scalar DM spin-independent direct detection cross section.
  • Scalar quartic couplings λ_ij = not fully specified; scan range [−4π, 4π]
    Affect scalar masses and mixings; many are left implicit in the DM benchmarks.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption U(1)_{B−L} gauge anomaly cancellation with ν_R charges (5,−4,−4) and vector-like fermions
    The paper asserts anomaly freedom citing Refs. [30-32]; our check indicates the SM plus ν_R charges gives vanishing U(1)^3 and gravity anomalies, but the full mixed-anomaly set is not demonstrated in the text.
  • ad hoc to paper Residual Z6 symmetry from U(1)_{B−L} breaking by a charge-6 scalar σ
    The paper assumes a Z6 acts on fields with B−L charges like 3/2, 9/2, and 1/3; a strict representation of the unbroken discrete group on those fields would require charge rescaling to a Z36 (or larger), so the Z6 label is a normalization assumption.
  • domain assumption Standard thermal freeze-out cosmology and dark matter halo model
    Relic density and direct detection analyses rely on standard cosmology (radiation domination, thermal WIMP freeze-out) and the standard halo model used by micrOMEGAs.
  • standard math Perturbativity and bounded scalar potential
    The scan enforces |λ|<4π and the theoretical consistency conditions, but the paper does not demonstrate the potential is bounded below for the arbitrary scan points.
invented entities (4)
  • Vector-like fermions Ψ_i (three generations) no independent evidence
    purpose: Mediate the one-loop neutrino mass and provide a fermionic dark matter candidate.
    No external evidence; the model predicts their production at colliders as ℓ+ℓ−+MET, but nothing in present data points to them.
  • Scalars η₁, η₂, ϕ, σ no independent evidence
    purpose: Break U(1)_{B−L}, generate neutrino mass via the loop, and provide a scalar dark matter candidate.
    They are new states with no known independent evidence; their only predicted handles are loop effects and collider signatures.
  • Z′ gauge boson no independent evidence
    purpose: Mediates DM annihilation and direct detection, and defines the Z6 after symmetry breaking.
    A generic heavy neutral gauge boson; the paper uses the LEP bound M_Z′/g > 3.59 TeV to constrain benchmarks, but no direct evidence exists.
  • Right-handed neutrinos with non-universal charges (5,−4,−4) no independent evidence
    purpose: Cancel U(1) anomalies and forbid the tree-level Dirac mass while allowing the one-loop mass.
    The charge assignments are model-specific and have no independent support.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 54623 in / 35882 out tokens · 385015 ms · 2026-08-03T07:42:23.214360+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We study a $U(1)_{B-L}$ extension of the Standard Model (SM) in which Dirac neutrino masses are generated radiatively at the one-loop level through the exchange of new beyond the SM fields. This framework establishes a direct connection between neutrino mass generation and the dark sector, with the stability of the dark matter ensured by a residual discrete $Z_6$ symmetry arising from the spontaneous breaking of $U(1)_{B-L}$. We investigate the resulting charged lepton flavor violating processes and dark matter phenomenology, saturating relic observations and direct-detection constraints, and analyze the collider signatures of the dark sector at the Large Hadron Collider, its proposed high luminosity extension and at a future muon collider. We have identified excellent prospects for observing the considered dark matter candidates in these colliders, even with lower integrated luminosities than the proposed one.

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

57 extracted references · 43 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Minkowski,µ→eγat a Rate of One Out of10 9 Muon Decays?,Phys

    P. Minkowski,µ→eγat a Rate of One Out of10 9 Muon Decays?,Phys. Lett. B67(1977) 421–428. – 30 –

    1977

  2. [2]

    Gell-Mann, P

    M. Gell-Mann, P. Ramond and R. Slansky,Complex Spinors and Unified Theories,Conf. Proc. C790927(1979) 315–321, [1306.4669]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1979

  3. [3]

    R. N. Mohapatra and G. Senjanovic,Neutrino Mass and Spontaneous Parity Nonconservation,Phys. Rev. Lett.44(1980) 912

    1980

  4. [4]

    Schechter and J

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

    1980

  5. [5]

    Schechter and J

    J. Schechter and J. W. F. Valle,Neutrino Decay and Spontaneous Violation of Lepton Number,Phys. Rev. D25(1982) 774

    1982

  6. [6]

    R. Foot, H. Lew, X. G. He and G. C. Joshi,Seesaw Neutrino Masses Induced by a Triplet of Leptons,Z. Phys. C44(1989) 441

    1989

  7. [7]

    Zee,A Theory of Lepton Number Violation, Neutrino Majorana Mass, and Oscillation, Phys

    A. Zee,A Theory of Lepton Number Violation, Neutrino Majorana Mass, and Oscillation, Phys. Lett. B93(1980) 389

    1980

  8. [8]

    Zee,Quantum Numbers of Majorana Neutrino Masses,Nucl

    A. Zee,Quantum Numbers of Majorana Neutrino Masses,Nucl. Phys. B264(1986) 99–110

    1986

  9. [9]

    K. S. Babu,Model of ’Calculable’ Majorana Neutrino Masses,Phys. Lett. B203(1988) 132–136

    1988

  10. [10]

    K. S. Babu and E. Ma,Natural Hierarchy of Radiatively Induced Majorana Neutrino Masses, Phys. Rev. Lett.61(1988) 674

    1988

  11. [11]

    Ma,Verifiable radiative seesaw mechanism of neutrino mass and dark matter,Phys

    E. Ma,Verifiable radiative seesaw mechanism of neutrino mass and dark matter,Phys. Rev. D73(2006) 077301, [hep-ph/0601225]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  12. [12]

    Y. Cai, J. Herrero-García, M. A. Schmidt, A. Vicente and R. R. Volkas,From the trees to the forest: a review of radiative neutrino mass models,Front. in Phys.5(2017) 63, [1706.08524]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  13. [13]

    Ma and R

    E. Ma and R. Srivastava,Dirac or inverse seesaw neutrino masses withB−Lgauge symmetry andS 3 flavor symmetry,Phys. Lett. B741(2015) 217–222, [1411.5042]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  14. [14]

    E. Ma, N. Pollard, R. Srivastava and M. Zakeri,GaugeB−LModel with ResidualZ3 Symmetry,Phys. Lett. B750(2015) 135–138, [1507.03943]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  15. [15]

    Borah and A

    D. Borah and A. Dasgupta,Naturally Light Dirac Neutrino in Left-Right Symmetric Model, JCAP06(2017) 003, [1702.02877]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  16. [16]

    Z. A. Borboruah, D. Borah, L. Malhotra and U. Patel,Minimal Dirac seesaw dark matter, Phys. Rev. D112(2025) 015022, [2412.12267]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  17. [17]

    R. N. Mohapatra,A Model for Dirac Neutrino Masses and Mixings,Phys. Lett. B198 (1987) 69–72

    1987

  18. [18]

    R. N. Mohapatra,Left-right Symmetry and Finite One Loop Dirac Neutrino Mass,Phys. Lett. B201(1988) 517–524

    1988

  19. [19]

    G. C. Branco and G. Senjanovic,The Question of Neutrino Mass,Phys. Rev. D18(1978) 1621

    1978

  20. [20]

    Gu and U

    P.-H. Gu and U. Sarkar,Radiative Neutrino Mass, Dark Matter and Leptogenesis,Phys. Rev. D77(2008) 105031, [0712.2933]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  21. [21]

    Farzan and E

    Y. Farzan and E. Ma,Dirac neutrino mass generation from dark matter,Phys. Rev. D86 (2012) 033007, [1204.4890]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  22. [22]

    Ma and U

    E. Ma and U. Sarkar,Radiative Left-Right Dirac Neutrino Mass,Phys. Lett. B776(2018) 54–57, [1707.07698]. – 31 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  23. [23]

    Han and W

    Z.-L. Han and W. Wang,Z′ Portal Dark Matter inB−LScotogenic Dirac Model,Eur. Phys. J. C78(2018) 839, [1805.02025]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  24. [24]

    Bonilla, S

    C. Bonilla, S. Centelles-Chuliá, R. Cepedello, E. Peinado and R. Srivastava,Dark matter stability and Dirac neutrinos using only Standard Model symmetries,Phys. Rev. D101 (2020) 033011, [1812.01599]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  25. [25]

    Calle, D

    J. Calle, D. Restrepo, C. E. Yaguna and Ó. Zapata,Minimal radiative Dirac neutrino mass models,Phys. Rev. D99(2019) 075008, [1812.05523]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  26. [26]

    S. Jana, P. K. Vishnu and S. Saad,Minimal dirac neutrino mass models from U(1)R gauge symmetry and left–right asymmetry at colliders,Eur. Phys. J. C79(2019) 916, [1904.07407]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  27. [27]

    K. S. Babu, P. S. B. Dev, S. Jana and A. Thapa,Non-Standard Interactions in Radiative Neutrino Mass Models,JHEP03(2020) 006, [1907.09498]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  28. [28]

    S. Jana, P. K. Vishnu, W. Rodejohann and S. Saad,Dark matter assisted lepton anomalous magnetic moments and neutrino masses,Phys. Rev. D102(2020) 075003, [2008.02377]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  29. [29]

    ’t Hooft,Naturalness, chiral symmetry, and spontaneous chiral symmetry breaking,NATO Sci

    G. ’t Hooft,Naturalness, chiral symmetry, and spontaneous chiral symmetry breaking,NATO Sci. Ser. B59(1980) 135–157

    1980

  30. [30]

    J. C. Montero and V. Pleitez,Gauging U(1) symmetries and the number of right-handed neutrinos,Phys. Lett. B675(2009) 64–68, [0706.0473]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  31. [31]

    A. C. B. Machado and V. Pleitez,Schizophrenic active neutrinos and exotic sterile neutrinos,Phys. Lett. B698(2011) 128–130, [1008.4572]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  32. [32]

    A. C. B. Machado and V. Pleitez,Quasi-Dirac neutrinos in a model with local B - L symmetry,J. Phys. G40(2013) 035002, [1105.6064]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  33. [33]

    Farzan, S

    Y. Farzan, S. Pascoli and M. A. Schmidt,Recipes and Ingredients for Neutrino Mass at Loop Level,JHEP03(2013) 107, [1208.2732]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  34. [34]

    Restrepo, O

    D. Restrepo, O. Zapata and C. E. Yaguna,Models with radiative neutrino masses and viable dark matter candidates,JHEP11(2013) 011, [1308.3655]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  35. [35]

    S. Jana, P. K. Vishnu and S. Saad,Minimal realizations of Dirac neutrino mass from generic one-loop and two-loop topologies atd= 5,JCAP04(2020) 018, [1910.09537]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  36. [36]

    J. Kubo, E. Ma and D. Suematsu,Cold Dark Matter, Radiative Neutrino Mass,µ→eγ, and Neutrinoless Double Beta Decay,Phys. Lett. B642(2006) 18–23, [hep-ph/0604114]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  37. [37]

    Toma and A

    T. Toma and A. Vicente,Lepton Flavor Violation in the Scotogenic Model,JHEP01(2014) 160, [1312.2840]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  38. [38]

    Ilakovac and A

    A. Ilakovac and A. Pilaftsis,Flavor violating charged lepton decays in seesaw-type models, Nucl. Phys. B437(1995) 491, [hep-ph/9403398]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1995

  39. [39]

    Deppisch and J

    F. Deppisch and J. W. F. Valle,Enhanced lepton flavor violation in the supersymmetric inverse seesaw model,Phys. Rev. D72(2005) 036001, [hep-ph/0406040]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  40. [40]

    Deppisch, T

    F. Deppisch, T. S. Kosmas and J. W. F. Valle,Enhanced mu- - e- conversion in nuclei in the inverse seesaw model,Nucl. Phys. B752(2006) 80–92, [hep-ph/0512360]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  41. [41]

    Ilakovac and A

    A. Ilakovac and A. Pilaftsis,Supersymmetric Lepton Flavour Violation in Low-Scale Seesaw Models,Phys. Rev. D80(2009) 091902, [0904.2381]. – 32 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  42. [42]

    Alonso, M

    R. Alonso, M. Dhen, M. B. Gavela and T. Hambye,Muon conversion to electron in nuclei in type-I seesaw models,JHEP01(2013) 118, [1209.2679]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  43. [43]

    D. N. Dinh, A. Ibarra, E. Molinaro and S. T. Petcov,Theµ−eConversion in Nuclei, µ→eγ, µ→3eDecays and TeV Scale See-Saw Scenarios of Neutrino Mass Generation, JHEP08(2012) 125, [1205.4671]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  44. [44]

    Ilakovac, A

    A. Ilakovac, A. Pilaftsis and L. Popov,Charged lepton flavor violation in supersymmetric low-scale seesaw models,Phys. Rev. D87(2013) 053014, [1212.5939]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  45. [45]

    Abada, D

    A. Abada, D. Das, A. Vicente and C. Weiland,Enhancing lepton flavour violation in the supersymmetric inverse seesaw beyond the dipole contribution,JHEP09(2012) 015, [1206.6497]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  46. [46]

    C.-H. Lee, P. S. Bhupal Dev and R. N. Mohapatra,Natural TeV-scale left-right seesaw mechanism for neutrinos and experimental tests,Phys. Rev. D88(2013) 093010, [1309.0774]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  47. [47]

    Kuno and Y

    Y. Kuno and Y. Okada,Muon decay and physics beyond the standard model,Rev. Mod. Phys.73(2001) 151–202, [hep-ph/9909265]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  48. [48]

    Arganda, M

    E. Arganda, M. J. Herrero and A. M. Teixeira,mu-e conversion in nuclei within the CMSSM seesaw: Universality versus non-universality,JHEP10(2007) 104, [0707.2955]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  49. [49]

    H. C. Chiang, E. Oset, T. S. Kosmas, A. Faessler and J. D. Vergados,Coherent and incoherent (mu-, e-) conversion in nuclei,Nucl. Phys. A559(1993) 526–542

    1993

  50. [50]

    T. S. Kosmas, S. Kovalenko and I. Schmidt,Nuclear muon- e- conversion in strange quark sea,Phys. Lett. B511(2001) 203, [hep-ph/0102101]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  51. [51]

    Vicente and C

    A. Vicente and C. E. Yaguna,Probing the scotogenic model with lepton flavor violating processes,JHEP02(2015) 144, [1412.2545]. [52]MEG IIcollaboration, K. Afanaciev et al.,New limit on theµ + →e +γdecay with the MEG II experiment,Eur. Phys. J. C85(2025) 1177, [2504.15711]. [53]MEG IIcollaboration, A. M. Baldini et al.,The Search forµ+→e+γwith 10–14 Sensit...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  52. [58]

    Staub,SARAH 4 : A tool for (not only SUSY) model builders,Comput

    F. Staub,SARAH 4 : A tool for (not only SUSY) model builders,Comput. Phys. Commun. 185(2014) 1773–1790, [1309.7223]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  53. [59]

    Porod and F

    W. Porod and F. Staub,SPheno 3.1: Extensions including flavour, CP-phases and models beyond the MSSM,Comput. Phys. Commun.183(2012) 2458–2469, [1104.1573]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  54. [60]

    Bélanger, F

    G. Bélanger, F. Boudjema, A. Goudelis, A. Pukhov and B. Zaldivar,micrOMEGAs5.0 : Freeze-in,Comput. Phys. Commun.231(2018) 173–186, [1801.03509]. – 33 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  55. [61]

    Mathematica, Version 14.3

    W. R. Inc., “Mathematica, Version 14.3.” [62]Planckcollaboration, N. Aghanim et al.,Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters, Astron. Astrophys.641(2020) A6, [1807.06209]. [63]XENONcollaboration, E. Aprile et al.,Dark Matter Search Results from a One Ton-Year Exposure of XENON1T,Phys. Rev. Lett.121(2018) 111302, [1805.12562]. [64]LZcollaboration, ...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  56. [66]

    Taramati, R. Sahu, U. Patel, K. Ghosh and S. Patra,Singlet-doublet fermionic dark matter in gauge theory of baryons,2408.12424

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  57. [67]

    Alwall, R

    J. Alwall, R. Frederix, S. Frixione, V. Hirschi, F. Maltoni, O. Mattelaer et al.,The automated computation of tree-level and next-to-leading order differential cross sections, and their matching to parton shower simulations,JHEP07(2014) 079, [1405.0301]. [68]DELPHES 3collaboration, J. de Favereau, C. Delaere, P. Demin, A. Giammanco, V. Lemaître, A. Merten...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014