pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.28272 · v1 · pith:X3UEUY5Dnew · submitted 2026-06-26 · ✦ hep-ph

Neutrino oscillation data and a pseudo-Dirac heavy neutral lepton

Jan Hajer This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-29 03:12 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ✦ hep-ph
keywords neutrino oscillationsheavy neutral leptonspseudo-Diracseesaw modelslepton number violationMajorana phaseflavour mixingneutrinoless double beta decay
0
0 comments X

The pith

Light neutrino oscillation data fixes an ellipse in the flavour simplex for active-heavy mixing in the minimal pseudo-Dirac HNL model.

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

The paper examines symmetry-protected seesaw models that fit light neutrino oscillation data while allowing heavy neutral leptons to remain potentially reachable at colliders. It focuses on the minimal case of exactly one pseudo-Dirac HNL pair, where an approximate lepton number symmetry keeps the light neutrino masses small. The lepton-number conserving limit is diagonalized exactly without expanding in the mixing, after which the small violating entries are added perturbatively. This produces a symmetry-protected reconstruction of the active-heavy interaction matrix. The rank-two light neutrino mass matrix sets the active flavour direction, and after the amplitude and rotation cancel, the normalised weights lie on an ellipse fixed by the oscillation parameters and the Majorana phase.

Core claim

In the minimal pseudo-Dirac HNL scenario, exact diagonalization of the lepton-number conserving Dirac limit followed by perturbative inclusion of the violating entries yields a symmetry-protected flavour reconstruction of the active-heavy interaction matrix. The rank-two light-neutrino mass matrix fixes the normalised active-flavour direction, while the remaining high-energy information reduces to a single complex light-heavy amplitude. For the normalised leading active-heavy interaction weights, this amplitude and the heavy-sector rotation cancel, leaving an ellipse in the flavour simplex determined by light-neutrino oscillation data and the Majorana phase.

What carries the argument

the ellipse in the flavour simplex determined by light-neutrino oscillation data and the Majorana phase, obtained after exact diagonalization of the LN-conserving limit and perturbative treatment of LN-violating terms

If this is right

  • The rank-two light-neutrino mass matrix fixes the normalised active-flavour direction in the interaction matrix.
  • The remaining high-energy information is a single complex light-heavy amplitude whose phase defines a CP-odd light-heavy invariant.
  • Linear LN-violating terms enter coherent heavy-neutrino oscillations.
  • The neutrinoless double beta effective mass receives contributions from the linear LN-violating terms.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Collider searches for HNLs could test whether observed mixing ratios fall on the ellipse predicted by oscillation data.
  • A measured value of the Majorana phase would directly constrain the shape and orientation of the ellipse.
  • The cancellation between amplitude and rotation may appear in other symmetry-protected models with additional HNL pairs.

Load-bearing premise

The lepton-number violating entries are small enough to be treated perturbatively after exact diagonalization of the conserving limit, and the model contains exactly one pseudo-Dirac HNL pair.

What would settle it

Observation of a heavy neutral lepton decay whose active-flavour mixing ratios lie outside the ellipse fixed by current neutrino oscillation data and the Majorana phase.

read the original abstract

Symmetry-protected seesaw models can accommodate light-neutrino oscillation data while keeping heavy neutral leptons (HNLs) within collider reach. In these models, the smallness of the light-neutrino masses is protected by an approximate lepton number (LN)-like symmetry that is broken only by small parameters. We study the minimal scenario in which the new states form one pseudo-Dirac HNL pair. The exact LN-conserving Dirac limit is diagonalised without expanding in the active-sterile mixing, and the small LN-violating entries are then included perturbatively. This yields a symmetry-protected flavour reconstruction of the active-heavy interaction matrix. The rank-two light-neutrino mass matrix fixes the normalised active-flavour direction, while the remaining high-energy information is a single complex light-heavy amplitude whose phase defines a CP-odd light-heavy invariant. For the normalised leading active-heavy interaction weights, this amplitude and the heavy-sector rotation cancel, leaving an ellipse in the flavour simplex determined by light-neutrino oscillation data and the Majorana phase. We also identify how the linear LN-violating terms enter coherent heavy-neutrino oscillations and the neutrinoless double beta effective mass.

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

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper claims that symmetry-protected seesaw models with one pseudo-Dirac HNL pair allow exact diagonalization of the lepton-number conserving Dirac limit, after which small LN-violating entries are added perturbatively. This produces a symmetry-protected flavour reconstruction in which the rank-two light-neutrino mass matrix fixes the normalised active-flavour direction; the remaining information is a single complex light-heavy amplitude whose phase is a CP-odd invariant. For the normalised leading active-heavy interaction weights, this amplitude and the heavy-sector rotation cancel, leaving an ellipse in the flavour simplex fixed solely by light-neutrino oscillation data and the Majorana phase. The work also identifies how linear LN-violating terms enter coherent heavy-neutrino oscillations and the neutrinoless double-beta effective mass.

Significance. If the claimed cancellation survives the perturbative LN-violating corrections without shifting the leading normalised direction, the result supplies a direct, largely parameter-free link between oscillation parameters and HNL flavour structure. This would be useful for collider phenomenology and 0νββ predictions in symmetry-protected seesaws. The exact (non-expanded) diagonalization of the conserving limit is a methodological strength that avoids uncontrolled approximations in the active-sterile mixing.

major comments (1)
  1. [flavour reconstruction / perturbative LN-violating block] The central ellipse result (abstract and the flavour-reconstruction section) rests on the statement that, after exact LN-conserving diagonalization, the small LN-violating block does not modify the leading normalised active-heavy weights at the same order as the claimed cancellation. This assumption is load-bearing: if O(ε) corrections shift the direction of the normalised mixing vector, the amplitude-rotation cancellation would no longer leave an ellipse determined only by external oscillation data. An explicit order-by-order expansion of the normalised weights (or a symmetry argument showing the corrections vanish) is required to substantiate the claim.
minor comments (2)
  1. The abstract refers to 'the remaining high-energy information is a single complex light-heavy amplitude'; an explicit definition of this amplitude in terms of the mixing-matrix elements, together with its relation to the Majorana phase, would improve readability.
  2. The restriction to exactly one pseudo-Dirac pair is stated as part of the minimal scenario; a brief remark on why the rank-two light mass matrix would not fix a unique direction for two or more pairs would clarify the scope.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading and for identifying a load-bearing assumption in the flavour-reconstruction argument. We address the single major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [flavour reconstruction / perturbative LN-violating block] The central ellipse result (abstract and the flavour-reconstruction section) rests on the statement that, after exact LN-conserving diagonalization, the small LN-violating block does not modify the leading normalised active-heavy weights at the same order as the claimed cancellation. This assumption is load-bearing: if O(ε) corrections shift the direction of the normalised mixing vector, the amplitude-rotation cancellation would no longer leave an ellipse determined only by external oscillation data. An explicit order-by-order expansion of the normalised weights (or a symmetry argument showing the corrections vanish) is required to substantiate the claim.

    Authors: We agree that an explicit verification is required. The symmetry-protected construction fixes the leading normalised active-heavy direction in the exact LN-conserving limit; the subsequent perturbative inclusion of the LN-violating block modifies the overall mixing matrix at O(ε), but the normalised vector itself receives corrections only at O(ε²) because the leading eigenvector is protected by the rank-two light-neutrino mass matrix and the residual symmetry. Nevertheless, to make this transparent we will add an appendix containing the order-by-order expansion of the normalised weights through O(ε). This will confirm that the amplitude-rotation cancellation remains intact at the order relevant for the ellipse and that the result is determined solely by oscillation data and the Majorana phase. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; ellipse fixed by external oscillation data after exact LN-conserving diagonalization

full rationale

The derivation diagonalizes the LN-conserving limit exactly, then adds small LN-violating terms perturbatively. The central claim states that the normalised active-heavy weights are fixed by the rank-two light mass matrix from oscillation data plus the Majorana phase, with amplitude and rotation cancelling. No quoted equation reduces this output to a fitted parameter or self-citation by construction. The restriction to one pseudo-Dirac pair is an explicit model choice, not a hidden redefinition. Self-citation load-bearing is absent from the provided abstract and reader's summary. This is the normal case of an independent derivation from external data.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Based on abstract only; the claim rests on the domain assumption of an approximate lepton number symmetry broken by small parameters and the perturbative validity of that breaking.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Approximate lepton number symmetry protects light neutrino masses and is broken only by small parameters
    Stated as the foundation of symmetry-protected seesaw models in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5761 in / 1142 out tokens · 78573 ms · 2026-06-29T03:12:07.023687+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

55 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages · 20 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Evidence for oscillation of atmospheric neutrinos

    Super-Kamiokande. ‘Evidence for oscillation of atmospheric neutrinos’. In:Phys. Rev. Lett. 81(1998), pp.1562–1567.doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.81.1562. arXiv: hep-ex/9807003. №:BU-98-17,ICRR-REPORT-422-98-18,UCI-98-8,KEK-PREPRINT-98-95,LSU- HEPA-5-98,UMD-98-003,SBHEP-98-5,TKU-PAP-98-06, andTIT-HPE-98-09

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevlett.81.1562 1998

  2. [2]

    Direct Evidence for Neutrino Flavor Transformation from Neutral-Current Interactions in the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory

    SNO. ‘Direct evidence for neutrino flavor transformation from neutral current interactions in the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory’. In:Phys. Rev. Lett.89(2002), p.11301.doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.89.011301. arXiv: nucl-ex/0204008

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevlett.89.011301 2002

  3. [3]

    First Results from KamLAND: Evidence for Reactor Anti-Neutrino Disappearance

    KamLAND. ‘First results from KamLAND: Evidence for reactor anti-neutrino disappear- ance’. In:Phys. Rev. Lett.90(2003), p.21802.doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.90.021802. arXiv: hep-ex/0212021

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevlett.90.021802 2003

  4. [4]

    Evidence for muon neutrino oscillation in an accelerator-based experiment

    K2K. ‘Evidence for muon neutrino oscillation in an accelerator-based experiment’. In: Phys. Rev. Lett.94(2005), p.81802.doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.94.081802. arXiv: hep-ex/0411038

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevlett.94.081802 2005

  5. [5]

    ‘Observation of muon neutrino disappearance with the MINOS detectors and the NuMI neutrino beam’

    MINOS. ‘Observation of muon neutrino disappearance with the MINOS detectors and the NuMI neutrino beam’. In:Phys. Rev. Lett.97(2006), p.191801.doi: 10.1103/ PhysRevLett.97.191801. arXiv: hep-ex/0607088.№:FERMILAB-PUB-06-243and BNL-76806-2006-JA

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  6. [6]

    Measurements of neutrino oscillation in appearance and disappearance channels by the T2K experiment with 6.6E20 protons on target

    T2K. ‘Measurements of neutrino oscillation in appearance and disappearance channels by the T2K experiment with6.6×1020 protons on target’. In:Phys. Rev. D91.7(2015), p. 72010.doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.91.072010. arXiv: 1502.01550[hep-ex]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevd.91.072010 2015

  7. [7]

    Weinberg

    S. Weinberg. ‘Baryon and Lepton Nonconserving Processes’. In:Phys. Rev. Lett.43(1979), pp.1566–1570.doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.43.1566.№:HUTP-79-A050

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.43.1566 1979

  8. [8]

    Minkowski

    P. Minkowski. ‘µ→eγat a Rate of One Out of109 Muon Decays?’ In:Phys. Lett. B67 (1977), pp.421–428.doi:10.1016/0370-2693(77)90435-X.№:Print-77-0182(BERN). 31

    work page doi:10.1016/0370-2693(77)90435-x 1977

  9. [9]

    Yanagida

    T. Yanagida. ‘Horizontal gauge symmetry and masses of neutrinos’. In:Conf. Proc. C 7902131(1979). Ed. by O. Sawada and A. Sugamoto, pp.95–99.№:KEK-79-18-95

    1979

  10. [10]

    Gell-Mann, P

    M. Gell-Mann, P. Ramond, and R. Slansky. ‘Complex Spinors and Unified Theor- ies’. In:Conf. Proc. C790927(1979), pp.315–321. arXiv: 1306.4669[hep-th] .№: PRINT-80-0576

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1979

  11. [11]

    S. L. Glashow. ‘The Future of Elementary Particle Physics’. In:NATO Sci. Ser. B61 (1980). Ed. by M. Lévy, J.-L. Basdevant, D. Speiser, J. Weyers, R. Gastmans, and M. Jacob, p.687.doi: 10.1007/978-1-4684-7197-7_15.№:HUTP-79-A059

    work page doi:10.1007/978-1-4684-7197-7_15 1980

  12. [12]

    Schechter and J

    J. Schechter and J. W. F. Valle. ‘Neutrino Masses in SU(2)×U(1)Theories’. In: Phys. Rev. D22(1980), p.2227.doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.22.2227.№:SU-4217- 167andCOO-3533-167

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.22.2227 1980

  13. [13]

    R. N. Mohapatra and G. Senjanovic. ‘Neutrino Mass and Spontaneous Parity Nonconser- vation’. In:Phys. Rev. Lett.44(1980), p.912.doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.44.912.№: MDDP-TR-80-060,MDDP-PP-80-105, andCCNY-HEP-79-10

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.44.912 1980

  14. [14]

    Kersten and A

    J. Kersten and A. Y. Smirnov. ‘Right-Handed Neutrinos at CERN LHC and the Mechanism of Neutrino Mass Generation’. In:Phys. Rev. D76(2007), p.73005.doi: 10.1103/ PhysRevD.76.073005. arXiv: 0705.3221[hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  15. [15]

    Wyler and L

    D. Wyler and L. Wolfenstein. ‘Massless Neutrinos in Left-Right Symmetric Models’. In:Nucl. Phys. B218(1983), pp.205–214.doi: 10.1016/0550-3213(83)90482-0. №:CERN-TH-3435

    work page doi:10.1016/0550-3213(83)90482-0 1983

  16. [16]

    R. N. Mohapatra and J. W. F. Valle. ‘Neutrino Mass and Baryon Number Noncon- servation in Superstring Models’. In:Phys. Rev. D34(1986), p.1642.doi: 10.1103/ PhysRevD.34.1642.№:MdDP-PP-86-127

    1986

  17. [17]

    R. N. Mohapatra. ‘Mechanism for Understanding Small Neutrino Mass in Superstring Theories’. In:Phys. Rev. Lett.56(1986), pp.561–563.doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.56.561

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.56.561 1986

  18. [18]

    Nandi and U

    S. Nandi and U. Sarkar. ‘A Solution to the Neutrino Mass Problem in SuperstringE6 Theory’. In:Phys. Rev. Lett.56(1986), p.564.doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.56.564. №:DOE-ER40200-036

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.56.564 1986

  19. [19]

    E. K. Akhmedov, M. Lindner, E. Schnapka, and J. W. F. Valle. ‘Left-right symmetry breaking in NJL approach’. In:Phys. Lett. B368(1996), pp.270–280.doi: 10.1016/ 0370-2693(95)01504-3 . arXiv: hep-ph/9507275.№:IC-95-125,TUM-HEP-221-95, MPI-PHT-95-35,FTUV-95-34, andIFIC-95-36

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  20. [21]

    Novel Supersymmetric SO(10) Seesaw Mechanism

    M. Malinsky, J. C. Romao, and J. W. F. Valle. ‘Novel supersymmetric SO(10) seesaw mechanism’. In:Phys. Rev. Lett.95(2005), p.161801.doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.95. 161801. arXiv: hep-ph/0506296.№:IFIC-05-28

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevlett.95 2005

  21. [22]

    Antusch and O

    S. Antusch and O. Fischer. ‘Testing sterile neutrino extensions of the Standard Model at future lepton colliders’. In:JHEP05(2015), p.53.doi: 10.1007/JHEP05(2015)

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep05(2015 2015

  22. [23]

    arXiv: 1502.05915[hep-ph] .№:MPP-2015-24. 32

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  23. [24]

    Antusch, J

    S. Antusch, J. Hajer, and J. Rosskopp. ‘Simulating lepton number violation induced by heavy neutrino-antineutrino oscillations at colliders’. In:JHEP03(2023), p.110.doi: 10.1007/JHEP03(2023)110. arXiv: 2210.10738[hep-ph]

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep03(2023)110 2023

  24. [25]

    H. E. Haber. ‘A tale of three diagonalizations’. In:Int. J. Mod. Phys. A36.04(2021), p. 2130003.doi: 10.1142/S0217751X21300027. arXiv: 2009.03990[hep-ph]

    work page doi:10.1142/s0217751x21300027 2021

  25. [26]

    M. B. Gavela, T. Hambye, D. Hernandez, and P. Hernandez. ‘Minimal Flavour Seesaw Models’. In:JHEP09(2009), p.38.doi: 10.1088/1126-6708/2009/09/038. arXiv: 0906.1461[hep-ph] .№:FTUAM-09-09,IFT-UAM-CSIC-09-27,ULB-TH-09-15, IFIC-09-22, andFTUV-09-0607

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2009/09/038 2009

  26. [27]

    J. A. Casas and A. Ibarra. ‘Oscillating neutrinos andµ→eγ’. In:Nucl. Phys. B618 (2001), pp.171–204.doi: 10.1016/S0550-3213(01)00475-8. arXiv: hep-ph/0103065. №:IEM-FT-211-01,OUTP-01-11P, andIFT-UAM-CSIC-01-08

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1016/s0550-3213(01)00475-8 2001

  27. [28]

    Z.-z. Xing. ‘Casas-Ibarra Parametrization and Unflavored Leptogenesis’. In:Chin. Phys. C 34(2010), pp.1–6.doi: 10.1088/1674-1137/34/1/001. arXiv: 0902.2469[hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1088/1674-1137/34/1/001 2010

  28. [29]

    Master Majorana neutrino mass parametrization

    I. Cordero-Carrión, M. Hirsch, and A. Vicente. ‘Master Majorana neutrino mass parametriz- ation’. In:Phys. Rev. D99.7(2019), p.75019.doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.99.075019. arXiv: 1812.03896[hep-ph] .№:IFIC/18-46

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevd.99.075019 2019

  29. [30]

    SEOBNRv5PHM: Next generation of accurate and efficient multipolar precessing-spin effective-one-body waveforms for binary black holes

    I. Cordero-Carrión, M. Hirsch, and A. Vicente. ‘General parametrization of Majorana neutrino mass models’. In:Phys. Rev. D101.7(2020), p.75032.doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD. 101.075032. arXiv: 1912.08858[hep-ph] .№:IFIC/19-59

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd 2020

  30. [31]

    Herrero-García, S

    J. Herrero-García, S. Marciano, J. Racker, and D. Vatsyayan. ‘Generalized Casas-Ibarra parametrization for Majorana neutrino masses’. In:Phys. Rev. D113.3(2026), p.35035. doi: 10.1103/d38p-m3sj. arXiv: 2510.18962[hep-ph]

    work page doi:10.1103/d38p-m3sj 2026

  31. [32]

    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. ‘NuFit6.0: updated global analysis of three-flavor neutrino oscillations’. In: JHEP12(2024), p.216.doi: 10.1007/JHEP12(2024)216. arXiv: 2410.05380[hep-ph] . №:IFT-UAM/CSIC-24-140,YITP-SB-2024-24,IPPP/24/64,IPPP/24/64,IFT- UAM/CSIC-24-140, andYITP-SB-2024-24. ...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1007/jhep12(2024)216 2024

  32. [33]

    The seesaw portal in testable models of neutrino masses

    A. Caputo, P. Hernandez, J. Lopez-Pavon, and J. Salvado. ‘The seesaw portal in testable models of neutrino masses’. In:JHEP06(2017), p.112.doi: 10.1007/JHEP06(2017)112. arXiv: 1704.08721[hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1007/jhep06(2017)112 2017

  33. [34]

    Drewes, J

    M. Drewes, J. Hajer, J. Klaric, and G. Lanfranchi. ‘NA62sensitivity to heavy neutral leptons in the low scale seesaw model’. In:JHEP07(2018), p.105.doi: 10.1007/ JHEP07(2018)105. arXiv: 1801.04207[hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  34. [35]

    Tastet, O

    J.-L. Tastet, O. Ruchayskiy, and I. Timiryasov. ‘Reinterpreting the ATLAS bounds on heavy neutral leptons in a realistic neutrino oscillation model’. In:JHEP12(2021), p. 182.doi: 10.1007/JHEP12(2021)182. arXiv: 2107.12980[hep-ph]

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep12(2021)182 2021

  35. [36]

    Towards a muon collider.Eur

    M. Drewes, J. Klarić, and J. López-Pavón. ‘New benchmark models for heavy neut- ral lepton searches’. In:Eur. Phys. J. C82.12(2022), p.1176.doi: 10.1140/epjc/ s10052-022-11100-7. arXiv: 2207.02742[hep-ph] . 33

    work page doi:10.1140/epjc/ 2022

  36. [37]

    Abada, P

    A. Abada, P. Escribano, X. Marcano, and G. Piazza. ‘Collider searches for heavy neutral leptons: beyond simplified scenarios’. In:Eur. Phys. J. C82.11(2022), p. 1030.doi: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-022-11011-7. arXiv: 2208.13882[hep-ph] .№:IFT- UAM/CSIC-22-98

    work page doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-022-11011-7 2022

  37. [38]

    A. M. Abdullahi et al. ‘The present and future status of heavy neutral leptons’. In:J. Phys. G50.2(2023), p.20501.doi: 10.1088/1361-6471/ac98f9. arXiv: 2203.08039 [hep-ph].№:FERMILAB-CONF-22-184-T-V

    work page doi:10.1088/1361-6471/ac98f9 2023

  38. [39]

    Antusch and J

    S. Antusch and J. Rosskopp. ‘Heavy Neutrino-Antineutrino Oscillations in Quantum Field Theory’. In:JHEP03(2021), p.170.doi: 10.1007/JHEP03(2021)170. arXiv: 2012.05763[hep-ph]

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep03(2021)170 2021

  39. [40]

    A. Atre, T. Han, S. Pascoli, and B. Zhang. ‘The Search for Heavy Majorana Neut- rinos’. In:JHEP05(2009), p.30.doi: 10.1088/1126-6708/2009/05/030. arXiv: 0901.3589[hep-ph] .№:FERMILAB-PUB-08-086-T,NSF-KITP-08-54,MADPH- 06-1466,DCPT-07-198, andIPPP-07-99

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2009/05/030 2009

  40. [41]

    Unitarity of the Leptonic Mixing Matrix

    S. Antusch, C. Biggio, E. Fernandez-Martinez, M. B. Gavela, and J. Lopez-Pavon. ‘Unitarity of the Leptonic Mixing Matrix’. In:JHEP10(2006), p.84.doi: 10.1088/1126-6708/ 2006/10/084. arXiv:hep-ph/0607020.№:FTUAM-06-8andIFT-UAM-CSIC-06-30

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1088/1126-6708/ 2006

  41. [42]

    Non-unitarity of the leptonic mixing matrix: Present bounds and future sensitivities

    S. Antusch and O. Fischer. ‘Non-unitarity of the leptonic mixing matrix: Present bounds and future sensitivities’. In:JHEP10(2014), p.94.doi: 10.1007/JHEP10(2014)094. arXiv: 1407.6607[hep-ph] .№:MPP-2014-313

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1007/jhep10(2014)094 2014

  42. [43]

    Aloni and A

    D. Aloni and A. Dery. ‘Revisiting leptonic nonunitarity’. In:Phys. Rev. D109.5(2024), p.55006.doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.109.055006. arXiv: 2211.09638[hep-ph]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.109.055006 2024

  43. [44]

    Batra, P

    A. Batra, P. Bharadwaj, S. Mandal, R. Srivastava, and J. W. F. Valle. ‘Phenomenology of the simplest linear seesaw mechanism’. In:JHEP07(2023), p.221.doi: 10.1007/ JHEP07(2023)221. arXiv: 2305.00994[hep-ph]

    arXiv 2023

  44. [45]

    Jarlskog

    C. Jarlskog. ‘Commutator of the Quark Mass Matrices in the Standard Electroweak Model and a Measure of Maximal CP Nonconservation’. In:Phys. Rev. Lett.55(1985), p.1039. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.55.1039.№:USIP-85-14

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.55.1039 1985

  45. [46]

    The Interplay Between the "Low" and "High" Energy CP-Violation in Leptogenesis

    E. Molinaro and S. T. Petcov. ‘The Interplay Between the ’Low’ and ’High’ En- ergy CP-Violation in Leptogenesis’. In:Eur. Phys. J. C61(2009), pp.93–109.doi: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-009-0985-3. arXiv: 0803.4120[hep-ph] .№:SISSA-11-2008- EPandIPMU-08-0013

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-009-0985-3 2009

  46. [47]

    atmosenv.2020.117470

    A. Granelli, J. Klarić, and S. T. Petcov. ‘Tests of low-scale leptogenesis in charged lepton flavour violation experiments’. In:Phys. Lett. B837(2023), p.137643.doi: 10.1016/j. physletb.2022.137643. arXiv: 2206.04342[hep-ph] .№:SISSA10/2022/FISI

    work page doi:10.1016/j 2023

  47. [48]

    IceCube.‘MeasurementofAtmosphericNeutrinoOscillationParametersUsingConvolutional Neural Networks with9.3Years of Data in IceCube DeepCore’. In:Phys. Rev. Lett.134.9 (2025), p.91801.doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.134.091801. arXiv: 2405.02163[hep-ex]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.134.091801 2025

  48. [49]

    ‘Solar neutrino measurements using the full data period of Super- Kamiokande-IV’

    Super-Kamiokande. ‘Solar neutrino measurements using the full data period of Super- Kamiokande-IV’. In:Phys. Rev. D109.9(2024), p.92001.doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.109. 092001. arXiv: 2312.12907[hep-ex] .№:FERMILAB-PUB-24-1045-PPD. 34

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.109 2024

  49. [50]

    Cowan, K

    G. Cowan, K. Cranmer, E. Gross, and O. Vitells. ‘Asymptotic formulae for likelihood- based tests of new physics’. In:Eur. Phys. J. C71(2011), p.1554.doi: 10.1140/ epjc/s10052-011-1554-0. arXiv: 1007.1727[physics.data-an]. Erratum in:Eur. Phys. J. C73(2013), p.2501

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  50. [51]

    M. Beuthe. ‘Oscillations of neutrinos and mesons in quantum field theory’. In:Phys. Rept.375(2003), pp.105–218.doi: 10.1016/S0370-1573(02)00538-0. arXiv: hep-ph/ 0109119

    work page doi:10.1016/s0370-1573(02)00538-0 2003

  51. [52]

    Antusch, J

    S. Antusch, J. Hajer, and J. Rosskopp. ‘Decoherence effects on lepton number violation from heavy neutrino-antineutrino oscillations’. In:JHEP11(2023), p.235.doi: 10. 1007/JHEP11(2023)235. arXiv: 2307.06208[hep-ph]

    arXiv 2023

  52. [53]

    F. F. Deppisch, M. Hirsch, and H. Päs. ‘Neutrinoless Double Beta Decay and Physics Beyond the Standard Model’. In:J. Phys. G39(2012), p.124007.doi: 10.1088/0954-3899/ 39/12/124007. arXiv: 1208.0727[hep-ph] .№:IFIC-12-56

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1088/0954-3899/ 2012

  53. [54]

    Neutrinoless double beta decay: 2015 review

    S. Dell’Oro, S. Marcocci, M. Viel, and F. Vissani. ‘Neutrinoless double beta decay:2015re- view’. In:Adv. High Energy Phys.2016(2016), p.2162659.doi: 10.1155/2016/2162659. arXiv: 1601.07512[hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1155/2016/2162659 2016

  54. [55]

    Neutrinoless double beta decay in seesaw models

    M. Blennow, E. Fernandez-Martinez, J. Lopez-Pavon, and J. Menendez. ‘Neutrinoless double betadecayinseesawmodels’.In:JHEP07(2010), p.96.doi: 10.1007/JHEP07(2010)096. arXiv: 1005.3240[hep-ph] .№:MPP-2010-40,IFT-UAM/CSIC-10-26,FTUAM- 10-06, andEURONU-WP6-10-18

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1007/jhep07(2010)096 2010

  55. [56]

    F. L. Bezrukov. ‘νMSM-predictions for neutrinoless double beta decay’. In:Phys. Rev. D 72(2005), p.71303.doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.72.071303. arXiv: hep-ph/0505247. 35

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevd.72.071303 2005