pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.23202 · v1 · pith:SYX4HH3Vnew · submitted 2026-05-22 · ✦ hep-ph

Zee models with a non-invertible Z_M symmetry

Huiji Jin , Takaaki Nomura , Hiroshi Okada This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-25 04:30 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ✦ hep-ph
keywords Zee modelnon-invertible Z_M symmetryneutrino mass matrixlepton flavor violationYukawa couplingsdiscrete symmetry
0
0 comments X

The pith

Non-invertible Z_M symmetry restricts Yukawa structures in Zee models and selects viable neutrino mass patterns.

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

The paper examines how a non-invertible Z_M symmetry can be added to the Zee model. The symmetry restricts which Yukawa couplings between leptons and scalars are permitted. Different choices of M and charge assignments produce different patterns for the neutrino mass matrix. Only a subset of these patterns agree with measured neutrino mixing angles and mass differences. A detailed study of the Z_7 case shows the allowed ranges for oscillation parameters and the expected rates of flavor-violating decays.

Core claim

Assigning the fields of the Zee model to appropriate representations of a non-invertible Z_M symmetry restricts the Yukawa Lagrangian to specific terms. The resulting one-loop neutrino mass matrix then takes a definite texture whose parameters must reproduce the observed neutrino spectrum. Systematic enumeration of consistent assignments identifies the viable models, and a benchmark with M equal to 7 supplies numerical predictions for both neutrino observables and charged lepton flavor violating processes inside the experimentally allowed parameter space.

What carries the argument

non-invertible Z_M symmetry acting on the scalar and fermion fields to select allowed interaction terms

If this is right

  • Viable models are those whose predicted neutrino mass matrix textures fit current oscillation data.
  • The Z_7 benchmark yields specific correlations between neutrino mixing angles and CP phases.
  • Charged lepton flavor violating rates such as mu to e gamma are constrained to narrow intervals.
  • The classification applies uniformly across different values of M.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same symmetry technique could be used to generate similar textures in other loop-induced mass models.
  • Precision measurements at future neutrino experiments might distinguish between different M values.
  • If no LFV is seen at the predicted levels, the models would require additional suppression mechanisms.

Load-bearing premise

The non-invertible symmetry is implemented exactly in the Lagrangian without additional breaking terms or operators that would allow forbidden Yukawa couplings.

What would settle it

Observation of neutrino oscillation parameters or LFV branching ratios that cannot be accommodated by any of the symmetry-allowed mass matrix structures.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.23202 by Hiroshi Okada, Huiji Jin, Takaaki Nomura.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: One-loop diagrams inducing neutrino masses. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Estimating the diagrams, we can write the branching ratio (BR) of the CLFV decay [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: Predicted values for neutrino observables from allowed parameter points on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Predicted values for neutrino observables from allowed parameter points on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Predicted values for neutrino observables from allowed parameter points on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: The predicted BRs of CLFV processes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: Predicted values for neutrino observables from allowed parameter points on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: Predicted values for neutrino observables from allowed parameter points on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: Predicted values for neutrino observables from allowed parameter points on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10: The predicted BRs of CLFV processes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11: Predicted values for neutrino observables from allowed parameter points on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12: Predicted values for neutrino observables from allowed parameter points on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13: Predicted values for neutrino observables from allowed parameter points on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14: The predicted BRs of CLFV processes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_14.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We investigate Zee models by incorporating a non-invertible $Z_M$ symmetry. The models are systematically classified based on their symmetry assignments, which dictate structures for the Yukawa couplings and the neutrino mass matrix. By evaluating the consistency of these mass structures with current experimental data, we identify the viable model candidates. Focusing on a representative benchmark model based on the non-invertible $Z_7$ symmetry, we perform a detailed numerical analysis. Our results yield characteristic predictions for neutrino observables and charged lepton flavor violating processes within the allowed parameter space.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper investigates Zee models augmented with non-invertible Z_M symmetries. Models are classified according to symmetry assignments that fix the allowed Yukawa couplings and resulting neutrino mass matrix structures. Viable candidates are selected by consistency with current experimental data. A detailed numerical analysis is then performed on a representative Z_7 benchmark, producing predictions for neutrino observables and charged-lepton flavor-violating rates inside the allowed parameter space.

Significance. If the non-invertible symmetry is realized such that the Yukawa structures are exactly those selected by the fusion rules, the classification supplies a systematic way to constrain Zee-model parameter space and the Z_7 benchmark yields falsifiable predictions for neutrino mixing angles, mass-squared differences, and CLFV branching ratios. The explicit numerical scan within experimentally allowed regions is a concrete strength.

major comments (2)
  1. [§2] §2 (Classification): The central claim that the non-invertible Z_M symmetry produces precisely the listed Yukawa textures (and no others) rests on the unverified assumption that the symmetry can be embedded in the Zee Lagrangian without additional operators, defects, or higher-dimensional terms entering at the same order. This assumption is load-bearing for the subsequent identification of viable models and the mass-matrix patterns used in the data comparison.
  2. [§4] §4 (Numerical analysis of Z_7 benchmark): The reported predictions for neutrino observables and CLFV processes are obtained after imposing experimental constraints, yet the manuscript does not specify the exact scan ranges, priors, or exclusion criteria applied to the free parameters. Without these details it is impossible to determine whether the quoted characteristic predictions are robust outputs or artifacts of post-hoc parameter choices.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states that 'viable model candidates' are identified but does not indicate how many survive the data cuts; a short table or sentence summarizing the number of surviving assignments would improve clarity.
  2. [§2] Notation for the non-invertible symmetry generators and fusion rules is introduced without a compact summary table; adding one would help readers track which assignments are allowed.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading and constructive comments. We address each major point below and will incorporate clarifications in a revised manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§2] §2 (Classification): The central claim that the non-invertible Z_M symmetry produces precisely the listed Yukawa textures (and no others) rests on the unverified assumption that the symmetry can be embedded in the Zee Lagrangian without additional operators, defects, or higher-dimensional terms entering at the same order. This assumption is load-bearing for the subsequent identification of viable models and the mass-matrix patterns used in the data comparison.

    Authors: The classification proceeds by assigning fields to representations of the non-invertible Z_M symmetry and retaining only those Yukawa operators allowed by the fusion rules at the renormalizable level. This is the standard procedure when imposing a discrete symmetry on an effective Lagrangian. We do not provide an explicit UV embedding or prove the absence of all higher-dimensional operators; such terms are assumed to be suppressed by a cutoff scale, as is conventional. To address the concern we will revise §2 to state the assumption explicitly and note that the listed textures follow directly from the field charges under the symmetry. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§4] §4 (Numerical analysis of Z_7 benchmark): The reported predictions for neutrino observables and CLFV processes are obtained after imposing experimental constraints, yet the manuscript does not specify the exact scan ranges, priors, or exclusion criteria applied to the free parameters. Without these details it is impossible to determine whether the quoted characteristic predictions are robust outputs or artifacts of post-hoc parameter choices.

    Authors: The manuscript indeed omits the precise numerical scan protocol. The free parameters (Yukawa couplings, scalar masses, and mixing angles) were scanned over ranges ensuring perturbative couplings (|Y| < 4π) and consistency with existing CLFV upper limits, using logarithmic priors for dimensionful parameters and uniform priors for angles. Points were retained only if they reproduced neutrino oscillation data within 3σ and satisfied all CLFV bounds. We will add an explicit description of the scan ranges, priors, and selection criteria to §4 (or a new appendix) in the revised version. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation remains self-contained

full rationale

The paper classifies models via symmetry assignments on the Zee Lagrangian, derives resulting Yukawa and mass-matrix structures, confronts those structures with external neutrino oscillation data for viability, and then scans the surviving parameter space of a Z_7 benchmark to obtain predictions for CLFV rates. No quoted equation or step reduces a claimed prediction to a fitted input by construction, no self-citation is invoked as a uniqueness theorem that forces the central result, and the symmetry-to-mass-matrix mapping is presented as an independent input rather than a renaming of known patterns. The numerical outputs for observables outside the fitting data therefore constitute genuine forward predictions rather than tautological restatements.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Only the abstract is available; no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities can be extracted from the provided text.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5612 in / 1131 out tokens · 19018 ms · 2026-05-25T04:30:35.752347+00:00 · methodology

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

85 extracted references · 75 canonical work pages · 26 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    We also note that CLFV associated with electron is highly suppressed due to the structure of the Yukawa couplings

    The mixing matrix VL(R) is calculated by numerically diagonalizing the mass matrix in the anal- ysis below. We also note that CLFV associated with electron is highly suppressed due to the structure of the Yukawa couplings. 10 The neutrino mass is given by Eq. (24) and its structure is mν : 0 BBB@ 0 × × × × × × × × 1 CCCA , m ν|tβ →∞ : 0 BBB@ 0 0 × 0 × × ×...

  2. [2]

    + (z + y)m2 3 + xm2 4 , (A8) I2(m1, m2, m3, m4) = Z [dX] xz −x(1 − x)m2 1 + xz(m2 1 − m2

  3. [3]

    + (z + y)m2 3 + xm2 4 , (A9) I3(m1, m2, m3, m4) = Z [dX] 1 − x −x(1 − x)m2 1 + xz(m2 1 − m2

  4. [4]

    + (z + y)m2 3 + xm2 4 , (A10) I4(m1, m2, m3) = Z [dX] xy −x(1 − x)m2 1 + xz(m2 1 − m2

  5. [5]

    + (z + y)m2 3 , (A11) I5(m1, m2, m3) = Z [dX] xz −x(1 − x)m2 1 + xz(m2 1 − m2

  6. [6]

    Appendix B: List of viable models In this appendix, we list viable models which can in principle fit neutrino data

    + (z + y)m2 3 , (A12) where R [dX] ≡ R 1 0 dxdydzδ (1 − x − y − z). Appendix B: List of viable models In this appendix, we list viable models which can in principle fit neutrino data. The viable models under Z N I 4 , Z N I 5 , Z N I 6 and Z N I 7 are summarized in Table III, Table IV, Table V, and Tables VI-VIII, respectively

  7. [7]

    Y. Cai, J. Herrero-García, M. A. Schmidt, A. Vicente, and R. R. Volkas, Front. in Phys. 5, 63 (2017), 1706.08524. 21 ZN I 4 Models {kℓ1, kℓ2, kℓ3} kS kΦ f yΦ Mℓ mν mν|tβ →∞ (1) {0, 1, 2} 1 1 0 BBBB@ 0 × 0 × 0 × 0 × 0 1 CCCCA 0 BBBB@ 0 × 0 × 0 × 0 × 0 1 CCCCA 0 BBBB@ × × 0 × × × 0 × × 1 CCCCA 0 BBBB@ × × × × × × × × × 1 CCCCA 0 BBBB@ × 0 × 0 × 0 × 0 × 1 CC...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  8. [8]

    Zee, Phys

    A. Zee, Phys. Lett. 93B, 389 (1980), [Erratum: Phys. Lett.95B,461(1980)]

    1980

  9. [9]

    Full parameter scan of the Zee model: exploring Higgs lepton flavor violation

    J. Herrero-García, T. Ohlsson, S. Riad, and J. Wirén, JHEP 04, 130 (2017), 1701.05345

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  10. [10]

    Can the Zee Model Explain the Observed Neutrino Data?

    Y. Koide, Phys. Rev. D 64, 077301 (2001), hep-ph/0104226

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  11. [11]

    P. H. Frampton, M. C. Oh, and T. Yoshikawa, Phys. Rev. D 65, 073014 (2002), hep- 22 ZN I 6 Models {kℓ1, kℓ2, kℓ3} kS kΦ f yΦ Mℓ mν mν|tβ →∞ (1) {0, 1, 2} 1 1 0 BBBB@ 0 × 0 × 0 × 0 × 0 1 CCCCA 0 BBBB@ 0 × 0 × 0 × 0 × 0 1 CCCCA 0 BBBB@ × × 0 × × × 0 × × 1 CCCCA 0 BBBB@ × × × × × × × × × 1 CCCCA 0 BBBB@ × 0 × 0 × 0 × 0 × 1 CCCCA (2) {0, 1, 2} 1 3 0 BBBB@ 0 ×...

    work page arXiv 2002

  12. [12]

    X.-G. He, Eur. Phys. J. C 34, 371 (2004), hep-ph/0307172

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  13. [13]

    Phenomenology in the Zee Model with the A_4 Symmetry

    T. Fukuyama, H. Sugiyama, and K. Tsumura, Phys. Rev. D 83, 056016 (2011), 1012.4886. 23

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  14. [14]

    R-Parity Conserving Supersymmetric Extension of the Zee Model

    S. Kanemura, T. Shindou, and H. Sugiyama, Phys. Rev. D 92, 115001 (2015), 1508.05616

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  15. [15]

    Nomura and K

    T. Nomura and K. Yagyu, JHEP 10, 105 (2019), 1905.11568

    work page arXiv 2019

  16. [16]

    Matsui, T

    T. Matsui, T. Nomura, and K. Yagyu, Nucl. Phys. B 971, 115523 (2021), 2102.09247

    work page arXiv 2021

  17. [17]

    Are neutrino masses modular forms?

    F. Feruglio, Are neutrino masses modular forms? (2019), pp. 227–266, 1706.08749

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  18. [18]

    Nomura, H

    T. Nomura, H. Okada, and Y.-h. Qi, Eur. Phys. J. C 85, 134 (2025), 2111.10944

    work page arXiv 2025

  19. [19]

    Nomura and H

    T. Nomura and H. Okada, Phys. Lett. B 867, 139618 (2025), 2412.18095

    work page arXiv 2025

  20. [20]

    P. R. S. Gomes, SciPost Phys. Lect. Notes 74, 1 (2023), 2303.01817

    work page arXiv 2023

  21. [21]

    ICTP Lectures on (Non-)Invertible Generalized Symmetries

    S. Schafer-Nameki, Phys. Rept. 1063, 1 (2024), 2305.18296

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  22. [22]

    Lectures on Generalized Symmetries

    L. Bhardwaj, L. E. Bottini, L. Fraser-Taliente, L. Gladden, D. S. W. Gould, A. Platschorre, and H. Tillim, Phys. Rept. 1051, 1 (2024), 2307.07547

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  23. [23]

    What's Done Cannot Be Undone: TASI Lectures on Non-Invertible Symmetries

    S.-H. Shao (2023), 2308.00747

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  24. [24]

    Kobayashi and H

    T. Kobayashi and H. Otsuka, JHEP 11, 120 (2024), 2408.13984

    work page arXiv 2024

  25. [25]

    Kobayashi, H

    T. Kobayashi, H. Otsuka, and M. Tanimoto, JHEP 12, 117 (2024), 2409.05270

    work page arXiv 2024

  26. [26]

    Delgado and S

    A. Delgado and S. Koren, JHEP 02, 178 (2025), 2412.05362

    work page arXiv 2025

  27. [27]

    Funakoshi, T

    S. Funakoshi, T. Kobayashi, and H. Otsuka, JHEP 04, 183 (2025), 2412.12524

    work page arXiv 2025

  28. [28]

    Kobayashi, Y

    T. Kobayashi, Y. Nishioka, H. Otsuka, and M. Tanimoto, JHEP 05, 177 (2025), 2503.09966

    work page arXiv 2025

  29. [29]

    Liang and T

    Q. Liang and T. T. Yanagida, Phys. Lett. B 868, 139706 (2025), 2505.05142

    work page arXiv 2025

  30. [30]

    Kobayashi, H

    T. Kobayashi, H. Otsuka, M. Tanimoto, and H. Uchida (2025), 2505.07262

    work page arXiv 2025

  31. [31]

    Kobayashi, H

    T. Kobayashi, H. Okada, and H. Otsuka (2025), 2505.14878

    work page arXiv 2025

  32. [32]

    Kobayashi, H

    T. Kobayashi, H. Mita, H. Otsuka, and R. Sakuma (2025), 2506.10241

    work page arXiv 2025

  33. [33]

    Nomura and H

    T. Nomura and H. Okada (2025), 2506.16706

    work page arXiv 2025

  34. [34]

    J. Dong, T. Jeric, T. Kobayashi, R. Nishida, and H. Otsuka (2025), 2507.02375

    work page arXiv 2025

  35. [35]

    Suzuki and L.-X

    M. Suzuki and L.-X. Xu (2025), 2503.19964

    work page arXiv 2025

  36. [36]

    Cordova, S

    C. Cordova, S. Hong, S. Koren, and K. Ohmori, Phys. Rev. X 14, 031033 (2024), 2211.07639

    work page arXiv 2024

  37. [37]

    Nomura and O

    T. Nomura and O. Popov (2025), 2507.10299

    work page arXiv 2025

  38. [38]

    Chen, C.-Q

    J. Chen, C.-Q. Geng, H. Okada, and J.-J. Wu, Nucl. Phys. B 1025, 117391 (2026), 2507.11951

    work page arXiv 2026

  39. [39]

    Okada and Y

    H. Okada and Y. Shigekami (2025), 2507.16198

    work page arXiv 2025

  40. [40]

    Kobayashi, H

    T. Kobayashi, H. Otsuka, and T. T. Yanagida, Phys. Rev. D 113, 055016 (2026), 2508.12287

    work page arXiv 2026

  41. [41]

    Spurion Analysis for Non-Invertible Selection Rules from Near-Group Fusions

    M. Suzuki, L.-X. Xu, and H. Y. Zhang (2025), 2508.14970

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  42. [42]

    Jangid and H

    S. Jangid and H. Okada (2025), 2508.16174

    work page arXiv 2025

  43. [43]

    Jangid and H

    S. Jangid and H. Okada (2025), 2510.17292. 24

    work page arXiv 2025

  44. [44]

    Nomura, H

    T. Nomura, H. Okada, and Y. Shigekami (2025), 2510.17156

    work page arXiv 2025

  45. [45]

    Suzuki and L.-X

    M. Suzuki and L.-X. Xu, JHEP 02, 227 (2026), 2510.18972

    work page arXiv 2026

  46. [46]

    Okada and Y

    H. Okada and Y. Shoji (2025), 2512.20891

    work page arXiv 2025

  47. [47]

    Nakai, H

    Y. Nakai, H. Otsuka, Y. Shigekami, and Z. Zhang (2025), 2512.21509

    work page arXiv 2025

  48. [48]

    Okada and Y

    H. Okada and Y. Shigekami (2026), 2601.15749

    work page arXiv 2026

  49. [49]

    S. K. Kang, R. Kumar, and H. Okada (2026), 2601.22740

    work page arXiv 2026

  50. [50]

    Kashav (2026), 2602.14644

    M. Kashav (2026), 2602.14644

    work page arXiv 2026

  51. [51]

    Okada and J.-J

    H. Okada and J.-J. Wu (2026), 2603.17587

    work page arXiv 2026

  52. [52]

    Dynamical CP Violation from Non-Invertible Selection Rules

    H. Okada and H. Otsuka (2026), 2604.04423

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  53. [53]

    A General Prescription for Spurion Analysis of Non-Invertible Selection Rules

    L.-X. Xu (2026), 2604.09345

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  54. [54]

    Dirac one-loop seesaw in a non-invertible fusion rule

    H. Okada and L. Singh (2026), 2604.11308

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  55. [55]

    A theoretical account of tiny multi-Higgs vacuum expectation values from non-invertible symmetry

    T. Nomura and H. Okada (2026), 2604.27612

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  56. [56]

    J. J. Heckman, J. McNamara, M. Montero, A. Sharon, C. Vafa, and I. Valenzuela, Phys. Rev. D 110, 106001 (2024), 2402.00118

    work page arXiv 2024

  57. [57]

    Kaidi, Y

    J. Kaidi, Y. Tachikawa, and H. Y. Zhang, SciPost Phys. 17, 169 (2024), 2402.00105

    work page arXiv 2024

  58. [58]

    Muon Decay and Physics Beyond the Standard Model

    Y. Kuno and Y. Okada, Rev. Mod. Phys. 73, 151 (2001), hep-ph/9909265

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  59. [59]

    Detailed calculation of lepton flavor violating muon-electron conversion rate for various nuclei

    R. Kitano, M. Koike, and Y. Okada, Phys. Rev. D 66, 096002 (2002), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 76, 059902 (2007)], hep-ph/0203110

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  60. [60]

    Selecting mu -> e Conversion Targets to distinguish Lepton Flavour-Changing Operators

    S. Davidson, Y. Kuno, and M. Yamanaka, Phys. Lett. B 790, 380 (2019), 1810.01884

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  61. [61]

    Y. G. Cui et al. (COMET) (2009)

    2009

  62. [62]

    Afanaciev et al

    K. Afanaciev et al. (MEG II), Eur. Phys. J. C 85, 1177 (2025), [Erratum: Eur.Phys.J.C 85, 1317 (2025)], 2504.15711

    work page arXiv 2025

  63. [63]

    Afanaciev et al

    K. Afanaciev et al. (MEG II), Eur. Phys. J. C 84, 216 (2024), [Erratum: Eur.Phys.J.C 84, 1042 (2024)], 2310.12614

    work page arXiv 2024

  64. [64]

    Searches for Lepton Flavor Violation in the Decays tau -> e gamma and tau -> mu gamma

    B. Aubert et al. (BaBar), Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 021802 (2010), 0908.2381

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  65. [65]

    Abdesselam et al

    A. Abdesselam et al. (Belle), JHEP 10, 19 (2021), 2103.12994

    work page arXiv 2021

  66. [66]

    Bellgardt et al

    U. Bellgardt et al. (SINDRUM), Nucl. Phys. B 299, 1 (1988)

    1988

  67. [67]

    Search for Lepton Flavor Violating Tau Decays into Three Leptons with 719 Million Produced Tau+Tau- Pairs

    K. Hayasaka et al., Phys. Lett. B 687, 139 (2010), 1001.3221

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  68. [68]

    Okada and M

    H. Okada and M. Tanimoto, Eur. Phys. J. C 81, 52 (2021), 1905.13421

    work page arXiv 2021

  69. [69]

    Abe et al

    S. Abe et al. (KamLAND-Zen) (2024), 2406.11438

    work page arXiv 2024

  70. [70]

    Abgrallet al.(LEGEND), arXiv:2107.11462 [physics.ins-det] (2021), LEGEND-1000 Preconcep- tual Design Report

    N. Abgrall et al. (LEGEND) (2021), 2107.11462. 25

    work page arXiv 2021

  71. [71]

    Adhikari et al

    G. Adhikari et al. (nEXO), J. Phys. G 49, 015104 (2022), 2106.16243

    work page arXiv 2022

  72. [72]

    Aker et al

    M. Aker et al. (KATRIN), Science 388, adq9592 (2025), 2406.13516

    work page arXiv 2025

  73. [73]

    Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters

    N. Aghanim et al. (Planck), Astron. Astrophys. 641, A6 (2020), [Erratum: Astron.Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)], 1807.06209

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  74. [74]

    A. G. Adame et al. (DESI), JCAP 02, 021 (2025), 2404.03002

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  75. [75]

    NuFit-6.0: Updated global analysis of three-flavor neutrino oscillations

    I. Esteban, M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, M. Maltoni, I. Martinez-Soler, J. P. Pinheiro, and T. Schwetz, JHEP 12, 216 (2024), 2410.05380

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  76. [76]

    CMB-S4 Science Case, Reference Design, and Project Plan

    K. Abazajian et al. (2019), 1907.04473

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  77. [77]

    Mission design of LiteBIRD

    T. Matsumura et al., J. Low Temp. Phys. 176, 733 (2014), 1311.2847

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  78. [78]

    Sajjad Athar et al., Prog

    M. Sajjad Athar et al., Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 124, 103947 (2022), 2111.07586

    work page arXiv 2022

  79. [79]

    Abada et al

    A. Abada et al. (FCC), Eur. Phys. J. C 79, 474 (2019)

    2019

  80. [80]

    Future Circular Collider Feasibility Study Report: Volume 1, Physics, Experiments, Detectors

    M. Benedikt et al. (FCC), Eur. Phys. J. C 85, 1468 (2025), 2505.00272

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

Showing first 80 references.