Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 85 references

A dedicated reinterpretation of an LHC search for heavy Majorana neutrinos in the same-sign dimuon plus dijet channel yields the first exclusion limits on the agnostic νSMEFT effective coupling α/Λ², excluding couplings down to about 5.8×10

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 06:54 UTC pith:Y7P3OEPN

load-bearing objection First direct LHC limits on the agnostic νSMEFT benchmark, but the recast is unvalidated against the original CMS limit, so treat the numbers as conditional. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.21711 v1 pith:Y7P3OEPN submitted 2026-07-23 hep-ph hep-ex

Direct constraints on the agnostic νSMEFT from heavy-neutrino searches at the LHC

Luc\'{\i}a Duarte , Agust\'{\i}n Guillenea This is my paper
classification hep-ph hep-ex
keywords νSMEFTheavy neutral leptonssame-sign dimuonLHC recastexclusion limitsMajorana neutrinoseffective field theoryneutrinoless double beta decay
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 asks whether existing LHC data can constrain the whole set of dimension-six operators in the neutrino-extended Standard Model Effective Field Theory (νSMEFT) at once, rather than operator by operator. By assuming a common effective coupling α/Λ² for every operator and recasting an LHC search for same-sign muon pairs plus two jets, the authors obtain the first exclusion limits on this 'agnostic' νSMEFT parameter space. For heavy-neutrino masses from 200 GeV to 15 TeV, they exclude couplings between 5.8×10⁻⁷ and 2.3×10⁻⁶ GeV⁻², with the strongest limit near m_N ≈ 1.5 TeV. The result matters because it shows that a single search, originally designed for Type-I seesaw vector-boson-fusion production, can also probe a broader class of lepton-number-violating effective interactions, and that adding low-energy neutrinoless-double-beta-decay bounds leaves that collider sensitivity mostly intact.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a recast of the LHC same-sign dimuon + dijet search excludes, at 95% confidence, a U-shaped region in the agnostic νSMEFT parameter space. The observed limits on the common effective coupling run from 5.8×10⁻⁷ GeV⁻² at m_N ≈ 1.5 TeV to 2.3×10⁻⁶ GeV⁻² at the edges of the 200 GeV–15 TeV mass range. Since the signal cross section is quadratic in the coupling, the contour traces the inverse square root of the selected signal rate as a function of mass. The paper also shows that imposing neutrinoless double-beta-decay bounds on the first-generation operators involved in the udNν vertex barely moves the exclusion contour, because the same-sign dimuon signal receiv

What carries the argument

The paper's central object is the 'agnostic νSMEFT benchmark,' in which every dimension-six operator in the neutrino-extended Standard Model Effective Field Theory (νSMEFT) basis is assigned the same Wilson coefficient α/Λ², so the parameter space reduces to (m_N, α/Λ²). The mechanism that carries the argument is the same-sign dimuon plus two jets signal, p p → μ± μ± j j, generated at tree level with all operators active simultaneously (including interference among amplitudes), and passed through a fast detector simulation plus the exact LHC analysis selection. The statistical workhorse is a simplified counting experiment: the public signal-region yields are merged into one bin and a Poisson

Load-bearing premise

The recast assumes that fast detector simulation and a simplified one-bin counting experiment reproduce the real detector response, event selection, and limit-setting of the LHC search for every νSMEFT topology; if the selection efficiencies are off, or if merging the search bins biases the limit, the reported excluded couplings would shift.

What would settle it

Take the recast's signal simulation, compute the 95% CL upper limit on the Type-I seesaw mixing parameter |V_μN|² with the same simplified counting procedure, and overlay it on the experimental collaboration's published limit curve; a significant discrepancy would indicate the efficiencies or the statistical treatment are not faithful.

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

If this is right

  • The LHC search, designed for t-channel heavy-neutrino exchange in Type-I seesaw, retains enough sensitivity to a broad set of νSMEFT topologies to set limits even though a substantial fraction of the signal is removed by VBF-oriented selection cuts.
  • The near-overlap of the pure-agnostic and 0νββ-constrained exclusion contours implies the LHC search and neutrinoless double-beta decay are complementary probes of the same effective operator space.
  • Couplings around 10⁻⁶ GeV⁻² are now directly constrained at the LHC, a range where νSMEFT contributions may be as relevant as the usual heavy–light neutrino mixing; the paper leaves the quantitative comparison for future work.
  • The U-shaped mass dependence of the limits, with a minimum near 1.5 TeV, tells future searches where to concentrate luminosity to maximize sensitivity to the agnostic framework.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • A closure test against the experimental collaboration's published limits in the Type-I seesaw model would establish whether the fast-simulation efficiencies and the simplified single-bin counting experiment are reliable; the paper does not present such a test.
  • Because the simplified statistical treatment omits systematic uncertainties, including them would likely shift the excluded couplings upward (weaker limits) by an amount set by the background systematic budget.
  • The single-common-coefficient benchmark is an idealization; generic ultraviolet completions generate correlated but unequal coefficients, so the derived contour is best read as the sensitivity of this search to the collective operator set, not as a model-specific bound.
  • The same agnostic recast could be applied to other same-sign-dilepton searches at the LHC (for example, the one in the e±e± and e±μ± channels), and the results combined; the paper restricts itself to the muonic channel.

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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper recasts the CMS search for heavy Majorana neutrinos in the same-sign dimuon plus dijet (VBF) final state [36] to constrain an 'agnostic' νSMEFT benchmark in which all dimension-six Wilson coefficients are set equal to α/Λ². Signal events are generated with MadGraph/Pythia/Delphes, processed through a MadAnalysis implementation of the CMS selection, and interpreted with a simplified Poisson counting experiment combining the public HEPData bins. The authors report observed 95% CL exclusions on α/Λ² for 200 GeV ≤ m_N ≤ 15 TeV, with the strongest bound 5.8×10⁻⁷ GeV⁻² near m_N ≈ 1.5 TeV, and find that imposing a 0νββ bound on first-generation operators modifies the contour only mildly.

Significance. If correct, this is a useful first direct recast of LHC data for the agnostic νSMEFT parameter space, going beyond single-operator studies and including interference among effective operators. The use of public HEPData, the clear benchmark definition, and the explicit focus on a model-independent scenario are strengths. However, the numerical limits are only as reliable as the unvalidated recast and the simplified statistical treatment; the paper would be substantially strengthened by a closure test against the official CMS Type-I seesaw result and by a quantitative account of systematic uncertainties.

major comments (3)
  1. [IV.B–IV.C, Eq. (5)] The central exclusion contours rely on ε_MC from the Delphes/MadAnalysis pipeline and on a merged-bin Poisson upper limit, but neither is validated by reproducing the official CMS Type-I seesaw result for the same search. Since this paper is a recast, a closure test is mandatory: generate the Type-I seesaw signal used in Ref. [36], apply the same pipeline, and compare the resulting |V_μN|² exclusions with the published ones. Without this, a factor-of-two error in ε_MC or in the statistical treatment translates directly into a ~40% shift in the quoted α/Λ² limits, so the numbers in Fig. 4 are not yet established.
  2. [IV.C] The statistical analysis collapses the H_T/p_T^μ and Δφ bins into a single counting experiment and ignores systematic uncertainties. The original selection separates Δφ<2 and Δφ>2 and uses H_T/p_T^μ shapes because signal and background populate them differently; merging can either lose sensitivity or, if background uncertainties are large, overstate sensitivity. The authors should provide the observed number n and expected background b used, include systematic uncertainties (background and signal) or justify their omission, and verify the simplified limit against the official result. At present the claimed 95% CL exclusion has unknown bias.
  3. [IV.B] The generation-level pseudorapidity cut |η_j|<2.7 is stricter than the analysis-level jet acceptance |η_j|<4.7 described in Sec. IV.A. Since the VBF topology has forward jets, this cut removes a sizable fraction of the signal before the final selection and can bias ε_MC and hence the derived limits. Either the generation-level cut should be relaxed to the final acceptance, or the choice must be justified explicitly with a validation/closure study.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 3] The cutflow plot shows efficiencies but no numerical values; provide a table or endpoint values so the efficiencies are reproducible.
  2. [IV.B / Fig. 4] The grid scan and the plotted contour should be described more precisely: clarify whether the lines are observed or expected limits, and explain how the interpolation between grid points is performed.
  3. [II.C, Eq. (4)] The 0νββ-constrained benchmark assigns the same upper limit to operators with different Lorentz structures and nuclear matrix elements. If this is only a benchmark definition, say so explicitly; if intended as a physics constraint, the uniform coefficient bound needs justification.
  4. [General] The paper does not discuss PDF/scale uncertainties or NLO corrections for the signal cross section; at least an estimate of these uncertainties is needed for a recast that quotes precise upper limits.
  5. [General] Typos and minor wording issues: 'contibutions' (Sec. III), 'interphased' (Sec. IV.A), and 'Número de corte' in Fig. 3 should be replaced by the English equivalent.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: limits follow from external CMS data and independent Monte Carlo; self-citations are inputs, not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is an exclusion limit on (m_N, α/Λ²) obtained by simulating νSMEFT signal events, processing them through a Delphes/MadAnalysis recast of the CMS same-sign dimuon+dijet analysis, and comparing the predicted yield s = L σ_MC ε_MC against s_up derived from CMS observed and background data. No parameter is fitted to the target exclusion: α/Λ² is scanned and the excluded region is where the independently predicted signal exceeds the published upper limit. The equal-coefficient agnostic benchmark is an openly stated modeling convention, not a disguised restatement of the result. The 0νββ bound in Eq. (4) is imported from earlier work, including two papers by the present authors, but it is used as an external low-energy constraint for a secondary benchmark; it is not derived from the CMS data and does not define the main agnostic limit. The absence of a closure test against the official CMS Type-I seesaw limit is a validation weakness—recast efficiencies and the merged-bin Poisson treatment could bias the quoted couplings—but this is a correctness or robustness risk, not circularity, because the simulation is independent of the target and the statistical comparison uses external published data.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

No genuinely new particles or forces are introduced; the heavy neutral lepton N is standard νSMEFT content. The main load-bearing assumptions are the equal-coefficient benchmark, the tree-level treatment, and the unvalidated fast-simulation/merged-statistics recast. The only numerical input carried from outside is the 0νββ bound used in the secondary benchmark.

free parameters (1)
  • 0νββ reference coefficient α_0νββ/Λ² = 3.2×10⁻⁸ (m_N/100 GeV)^{1/2} GeV⁻²
    Imposed as an upper bound on first-generation operators in the constrained benchmark (Eq. 4), taken from Refs. [20,48]. Not fitted in this paper, but it is a numerical input the 0νββ-contour depends on.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Single right-handed neutrino with vanishing active-heavy mixing V_ℓN ≈ 0
    Sec. II.A: the minimal setup cannot reproduce two observed mass splittings, and the mixing is neglected to isolate d=6 νSMEFT effects. This restricts the phenomenology and excludes seesaw-mediated production.
  • ad hoc to paper All dimension-six νSMEFT coefficients set to a common value α/Λ²
    Sec. II.B: the 'agnostic benchmark' collapses all operators to one parameter. It is a convenient parametrization, not a prediction of any UV completion, and the resulting limits apply only under this assumption.
  • domain assumption Tree-level matrix elements are sufficient; loop-generated O_NW contributions are negligible
    Sec. III and footnote 4: the one-loop-induced O_NW is dropped due to a (16π²)⁻² suppression. This is reasonable but unquantified for the parameter ranges scanned.
  • domain assumption Delphes fast simulation with the CMS card reproduces the CMS detector response for signal efficiencies
    Sec. IV.B: all efficiencies come from Delphes + MadAnalysis, with no closure test against the official CMS simulation or the official Type-I seesaw limit.
  • domain assumption The merged-bin counting experiment is a valid approximation to the CMS binned likelihood
    Sec. IV.C: the paper discards the HT/pT and Δφ binning and treats the signal region as a single count. This is a simplifying statistical assumption whose validity or conservativeness is not demonstrated.
  • domain assumption 0νββ bound formula Eq. (4) applies as an upper limit to the listed first-generation operators
    Sec. II.C: the relation is imported from prior work [20,48] and used without re-derivation to build the constrained benchmark.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 15336 in / 12288 out tokens · 149231 ms · 2026-08-01T06:54:11.363871+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

The observation of neutrino oscillations and masses motivates extensions of the Standard Model containing right-handed neutrinos. If additional new physics exists at scales beyond the direct reach of present experiments, its effects can be systematically described within the neutrino Standard Model Effective Field Theory ($\nu$SMEFT). In this framework, heavy neutral leptons provide a promising target for collider searches. In this work, we reinterpret a CMS search for heavy Majorana neutrinos in the same-sign dimuon plus two jets final state to constrain the parameter space of the dimension-six $\nu$SMEFT. Using a detailed recast of the experimental analysis, we present results for both a pure-agnostic benchmark and a benchmark incorporating neutrinoless double-beta-decay bounds. For heavy-neutrino masses in the range $200~\mathrm{GeV} \le m_N \le 15~\mathrm{TeV}$, the observed upper limits on the effective coupling strength range from $5.8\times10^{-7}\,\mathrm{GeV}^{-2}$ to $2.3\times10^{-6}\,\mathrm{GeV}^{-2}$. These results constitute the first experimental exclusion limits on the agnostic $\nu$SMEFT parameter space obtained from a dedicated recast of an LHC heavy-neutrino search.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.21711 by Agust\'{\i}n Guillenea, Luc\'{\i}a Duarte.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: Feynman diagrams for some realizations of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: Parton-level cross sections for the process [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: Cutflow of the CMS signal-region selection applied to the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Expected 95% C.L. exclusion limits in the agnostic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_4.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

85 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Minkowski,µ→eγat a rate of one out of 1-billion muon decays?, Phys.Lett.B67, 421 (1977)

    P. Minkowski,µ→eγat a rate of one out of 1-billion muon decays?, Phys.Lett.B67, 421 (1977)

    1977

  2. [2]

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

    1980

  3. [3]

    The numbers displayed are the averaged values across all signal points generated in the parameter space grid

    These are the number of selected MC events over the total MC generated events, which already include the pre-selection or generation cuts (εM C). The numbers displayed are the averaged values across all signal points generated in the parameter space grid. The electron, muon, hadronic-tau and b-tagged jets vetoes are followed by the selection of events wit...

    2024

  4. [4]

    Gell-Mann, P

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1979

  5. [5]

    Yanagida,Horizontal Symmetry and Masses of Neutrinos, Prog.Theor.Phys.64, 1103 (1980)

    T. Yanagida,Horizontal Symmetry and Masses of Neutrinos, Prog.Theor.Phys.64, 1103 (1980)

    1980

  6. [6]

    R.MohapatraandJ.Valle,Neutrino Mass and Baryon Number Nonconservation in Superstring Models, Phys. Rev. D34, 1642 (1986)

    1986

  7. [7]

    Schechter and J

    J. Schechter and J. W. F. Valle,Neutrino Masses in SU(2) x U(1) Theories, Phys. Rev.D22, 2227 (1980)

    1980

  8. [8]

    del Aguila, S

    F. del Aguila, S. Bar-Shalom, A. Soni and J. Wudka,Heavy Majorana Neutrinos in the Effec- tive Lagrangian Description: Application to Hadron Colliders, Phys.Lett.B670, 399 (2009), arXiv:0806.0876 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  9. [9]

    Malinsky, J

    M. Malinsky, J. Romao and J. Valle,Novel supersymmetric SO(10) seesaw mechanism, Phys. Rev. Lett.95, 161801 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0506296

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  10. [10]

    Liao and X.-D

    Y. Liao and X.-D. Ma,Operators up to Dimension Seven in Standard Model Effective Field Theory Extended with Sterile Neutrinos, Phys. Rev.D96, 015012 (2017), arXiv:1612.04527 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  11. [11]

    Aparici, K

    A. Aparici, K. Kim, A. Santamaria and J. Wudka,Right-handed neutrino magnetic moments, Phys. Rev.D80, 013010 (2009), arXiv:0904.3244 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  12. [12]

    H.-L. Li, Z. Ren, M.-L. Xiao, J.-H. Yu and Y.-H. Zheng,Operator bases in effective field theories with sterile neutrinos: d≤9, JHEP11, 003 (2021), arXiv:2105.09329 [hep-ph]. 19

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  13. [13]

    Bhattacharya and J

    S. Bhattacharya and J. Wudka,Dimension-seven operators in the standard model with right handed neutrinos, Phys. Rev.D94, 055022 (2016), [Erratum: Phys. Rev.D95,no.3,039904(2017)], arXiv:1505.05264 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  14. [14]

    R. N. Mohapatra and R. E. Marshak,Local B-L Symmetry of Electroweak Interactions, Ma- jorana Neutrinos and Neutron Oscillations, Phys. Rev. Lett.44, 1316 (1980), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 44, 1643 (1980)]

    1980

  15. [15]

    R. N. Mohapatra and G. Senjanovic,Neutrino Masses and Mixings in Gauge Models with Spontaneous Parity Violation, Phys. Rev. D23, 165 (1981)

    1981

  16. [16]

    S. Saha, A. Bhaskar and M. Mitra,Exploring eR2 Leptoquarks and Majorana Neutrinos via same-sign dimuons at the HL-LHC(3 2026), arXiv:2603.01903 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2026

  17. [17]

    Deppisch, S

    F. Deppisch, S. Kulkarni and W. Liu,Heavy neutrino production viaZ′ at the lifetime frontier, Phys. Rev. D100, 035005 (2019), arXiv:1905.11889 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  18. [18]

    Beltrán, R

    R. Beltrán, R. Cepedello and M. Hirsch,Tree-level UV completions for NRSMEFT d = 6 and d = 7 operators, JHEP08, 166 (2023), arXiv:2306.12578 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  19. [19]

    Bhaskar, Y

    A. Bhaskar, Y. Chaurasia, K. Deka, T. Mandal, S. Mitra and A. Mukherjee,Right-handed neutrino pair production via second-generation leptoquarks, Phys. Lett. B843, 138039 (2023), arXiv:2301.11889 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  20. [20]

    Duarte, I

    L. Duarte, I. Romero, J. Peressutti and O. A. Sampayo,Effective Majorana neutrino decay, Eur. Phys. J. C76, 453 (2016), arXiv:1603.08052 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  21. [21]

    Rev.D92, 093002 (2015), arXiv:1508.01588 [hep-ph]

    L.Duarte, J.PeressuttiandO.A.Sampayo,Majorana neutrino decay in an Effective Approach, Phys. Rev.D92, 093002 (2015), arXiv:1508.01588 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  22. [22]

    Caputo, P

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  23. [23]

    Duarte, J

    L. Duarte, J. Peressutti and O. A. Sampayo,Not-that-heavy Majorana neutrino signals at the LHC, J. Phys. G45, 025001 (2018), arXiv:1610.03894 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  24. [24]

    Cottin, J

    G. Cottin, J. C. Helo, M. Hirsch, A. Titov and Z. S. Wang,Heavy neutral leptons in effective field theory and the high-luminosity LHC, JHEP09, 039 (2021), arXiv:2105.13851 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  25. [25]

    Biekötter, M

    A. Biekötter, M. Chala and M. Spannowsky,The effective field theory of low scale see-saw at colliders, Eur. Phys. J. C80, 743 (2020), arXiv:2007.00673 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  26. [26]

    Duarte, J

    L. Duarte, J. Jones-Pérez and C. Manrique-Chavil,Bounding the Dimension-5 Seesaw Portal with non-pointing photon searches, JHEP04, 133 (2024), arXiv:2311.17989 [hep-ph]. 20

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  27. [27]

    Mitra, S

    M. Mitra, S. Mandal, R. Padhan, A. Sarkar and M. Spannowsky,Reexamining right-handed neutrino EFTs up to dimension six, Phys. Rev. D106, 113008 (2022), arXiv:2210.12404 [hep- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  28. [28]

    Beltrán, G

    R. Beltrán, G. Cottin, J. Günther, M. Hirsch, A. Titov and Z. S. Wang,Heavy neutral leptons and top quarks in effective field theory, JHEP05, 238 (2025), [Erratum: JHEP 08, 204 (2025)], arXiv:2501.09065 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  29. [29]

    L.Duarte, D.C.MaisianandT.Urruzola,Future collider sensitivities toνSMEFT interactions, J. Phys. G52, 065001 (2025), arXiv:2501.07618 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  30. [30]

    Mitra, S

    M. Mitra, S. U. Rahaman, S. Saha and M. Spannowsky,Differentiating Dimension-6 and Dimension-8 Effects inνSMEFT at the HL-LHC(2 2026), arXiv:2602.02720 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2026

  31. [31]

    P. D. Bolton, F. F. Deppisch, S. Kulkarni, C. Majumdar and W. Pei,Constraining the SMEFT extended with sterile neutrinos at FCC-ee, JHEP10, 199 (2025), arXiv:2502.06972 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  32. [32]

    Dekens, J

    W. Dekens, J. de Vries, K. Fuyuto, E. Mereghetti and G. Zhou,Sterile neutrinos and neu- trinoless double beta decay in effective field theory, JHEP06, 097 (2020), arXiv:2002.07182 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  33. [33]

    Bischer and W

    I. Bischer and W. Rodejohann,General neutrino interactions from an effective field theory perspective, Nucl. Phys. B947, 114746 (2019), arXiv:1905.08699 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  34. [34]

    Fernández-Martínez, M

    E. Fernández-Martínez, M. González-López, J. Hernández-García, M. Hostert and J. López- Pavón,Effective portals to heavy neutral leptons, JHEP09, 001 (2023), arXiv:2304.06772 [hep- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  35. [35]

    Beltrán, G

    R. Beltrán, G. Cottin, M. Hirsch, A. Titov and Z. S. Wang,Reinterpretation of searches for long-lived particles from meson decays, JHEP05, 031 (2023), arXiv:2302.03216 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  36. [36]

    The diagram on the left in Fig

    was originally targeted for theW ±W ± →µ ±µ± boson fusion sub-process from the Type-I seesaw model [56], we find many contributions from effective interactions that do not mimic this VBF signature. The diagram on the left in Fig. 1 is the only one that really resembles the searched signal. There, the heavyNproduced fromWbosons in a t-channel configuration...

  37. [37]

    de Vries, H

    J. de Vries, H. K. Dreiner, J. Groot, J. Y. Günther and Z. S. Wang,Probing light sterile neutrinos in left-right symmetric models with displaced vertices and neutrinoless double beta decay, JHEP04, 007 (2025), arXiv:2406.15091 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  38. [38]

    Tumasyanet al.(CMS),Probing Heavy Majorana Neutrinos and the Weinberg Operator through Vector Boson Fusion Processes in Proton-Proton Collisions at s=13 TeV, Phys

    A. Tumasyanet al.(CMS),Probing Heavy Majorana Neutrinos and the Weinberg Operator through Vector Boson Fusion Processes in Proton-Proton Collisions at s=13 TeV, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 011803 (2023), arXiv:2206.08956 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  39. [39]

    Wudka,A Short course in effective Lagrangians, AIP Conf.Proc.531, 81 (2000), arXiv:hep- ph/0002180 [hep-ph]

    J. Wudka,A Short course in effective Lagrangians, AIP Conf.Proc.531, 81 (2000), arXiv:hep- ph/0002180 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2000

  40. [40]

    Zapata, T

    G. Zapata, T. Urruzola, O. A. Sampayo and L. Duarte,Lepton collider probes for Majorana neutrino effective interactions, Eur. Phys. J. C82, 544 (2022), arXiv:2201.02480 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2022

  41. [41]

    Zapata, T

    G. Zapata, T. Urruzola, O. A. Sampayo and L. Duarte,Sensitivity prospects for lepton-trijet signals in theνSMEFT at the LHeC, Eur. Phys. J. C84, 326 (2024), arXiv:2305.16991 [hep- 21 ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  42. [42]

    J. M. Butterworth, M. Chala, C. Englert, M. Spannowsky and A. Titov,Higgs phenomenology as a probe of sterile neutrinos, Phys. Rev. D100, 115019 (2019), arXiv:1909.04665 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  43. [43]

    D.BarducciandE.Bertuzzo,The see-saw portal at future Higgs factories: the role of dimension six operators, JHEP06, 077 (2022), arXiv:2201.11754 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  44. [44]

    Mitra, S

    M. Mitra, S. Saha, M. Spannowsky and M. Takeuchi,Probing right-handed neutrinos via trilepton signals at the HL-LHC, Phys. Rev. D111, 015005 (2025), arXiv:2408.08565 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  45. [45]

    Alonso, M

    R. Alonso, M. Spannowsky, S. Bates, C. Hays and C. Pollard,Sensitivity of W-boson measure- ments to low-mass right-handed neutrinos, Phys. Rev. D112, 112007 (2025), arXiv:2508.08903 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  46. [46]

    Beltrán, G

    R. Beltrán, G. Cottin, J. C. Helo, M. Hirsch, A. Titov and Z. S. Wang,Long-lived heavy neutral leptons at the LHC: four-fermion single-NR operators, JHEP01, 044 (2022), arXiv:2110.15096 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  47. [47]

    Chala and A

    M. Chala and A. Titov,One-loop matching in the SMEFT extended with a sterile neutrino, JHEP05, 139 (2020), arXiv:2001.07732 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  48. [48]

    Ardu and X

    M. Ardu and X. Marcano,Completing the one-loopνSMEFT renormalization group evolution, JHEP10, 212 (2024), arXiv:2407.16751 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  49. [49]

    Datta, J

    A. Datta, J. Kumar, H. Liu and D. Marfatia,Anomalous dimensions from gauge couplings in SMEFT with right-handed neutrinos, JHEP02, 015 (2021), arXiv:2010.12109 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  50. [50]

    Duarte, G

    L. Duarte, G. A. González-Sprinberg and O. A. Sampayo,Majorana neutrinos production at LHeC in an effective approach, Phys. Rev.D91, 053007 (2015), arXiv:1412.1433 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  51. [51]

    Aadet al.(ATLAS),Search for heavy Majorana neutrinos in e±e±and e±µ±final states via WW scattering in pp collisions at s=13 TeV with the ATLAS detector, Phys

    G. Aadet al.(ATLAS),Search for heavy Majorana neutrinos in e±e±and e±µ±final states via WW scattering in pp collisions at s=13 TeV with the ATLAS detector, Phys. Lett. B856, 138865 (2024), arXiv:2403.15016 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  52. [52]

    A. M. Sirunyanet al.(CMS),Search for heavy Majorana neutrinos in same-sign dilepton channels in proton-proton collisions at√s= 13TeV, JHEP01, 122 (2019), arXiv:1806.10905 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  53. [53]

    Khachatryanet al.(CMS),Search for heavy Majorana neutrinos inµ ±µ±+jets events in proton-proton collisions at√s= 8 TeV, Phys

    V. Khachatryanet al.(CMS),Search for heavy Majorana neutrinos inµ ±µ±+jets events in proton-proton collisions at√s= 8 TeV, Phys. Lett. B748, 144 (2015), arXiv:1501.05566 [hep-ex]. 22

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  54. [54]

    Aadet al.(ATLAS),Search for heavy Majorana neutrinos with the ATLAS detector in pp collisions at √s= 8TeV, JHEP07, 162 (2015), arXiv:1506.06020 [hep-ex]

    G. Aadet al.(ATLAS),Search for heavy Majorana neutrinos with the ATLAS detector in pp collisions at √s= 8TeV, JHEP07, 162 (2015), arXiv:1506.06020 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  55. [55]

    A. Atre, T. Han, S. Pascoli and B. Zhang,The Search for Heavy Majorana Neutrinos, JHEP 0905, 030 (2009), arXiv:0901.3589 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  56. [56]

    del Aguila, J

    F. del Aguila, J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra and R. Pittau,Heavy neutrino signals at large hadron colliders, JHEP10, 047 (2007), arXiv:hep-ph/0703261 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  57. [57]

    Cirigliano, W

    V. Cirigliano, W. Dekens, J. de Vries, K. Fuyuto, E. Mereghetti and R. Ruiz,Leptonic anoma- lous magnetic moments inνSMEFT, JHEP08, 103 (2021), arXiv:2105.11462 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  58. [58]

    B. Fuks, J. Neundorf, K. Peters, R. Ruiz and M. Saimpert,Majorana neutrinos in same-sign W ±W ± scattering at the LHC: Breaking the TeV barrier, Phys. Rev. D103, 055005 (2021), arXiv:2011.02547 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  59. [59]

    del Aguila and J

    F. del Aguila and J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra,Distinguishing seesaw models at LHC with multi- lepton signals, Nucl. Phys. B813, 22 (2009), arXiv:0808.2468 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  60. [60]

    Degrande, O

    C. Degrande, O. Mattelaer, R. Ruiz and J. Turner,Fully-Automated Precision Predictions for Heavy Neutrino Production Mechanisms at Hadron Colliders(2016), arXiv:1602.06957 [hep- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  61. [61]

    D. Alva, T. Han and R. Ruiz,Heavy Majorana neutrinos fromW γfusion at hadron colliders, JHEP02, 072 (2015), arXiv:1411.7305 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  62. [62]

    Alloul, N

    A. Alloul, N. D. Christensen, C. Degrande, C. Duhr and B. Fuks,FeynRules 2.0 - A complete toolbox for tree-level phenomenology, Comput. Phys. Commun.185, 2250 (2014), arXiv:1310.1921 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  63. [63]

    Degrande, C

    C. Degrande, C. Duhr, B. Fuks, D. Grellscheid, O. Mattelaer and T. Reiter,UFO - The Universal FeynRules Output, Comput. Phys. Commun.183, 1201 (2012), arXiv:1108.2040 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  64. [64]

    D. A. Dicus, D. D. Karatas and P. Roy,Lepton nonconservation at supercollider energies, Phys. Rev. D44, 2033 (1991)

    2033

  65. [65]

    D. L. Rainwater, R. Szalapski and D. Zeppenfeld,Probing color singlet exchange inZ+ two jet events at the CERN LHC, Phys. Rev. D54, 6680 (1996), arXiv:hep-ph/9605444

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  66. [66]

    Probing heavy Majorana neutrinos and the Weinberg operator through vector boson fusion processes in proton-proton collisions at√s= 13 TeV,

    CMS Collaboration, “Probing heavy Majorana neutrinos and the Weinberg operator through vector boson fusion processes in proton-proton collisions at√s= 13 TeV,” HEPData (collec- tion) (2022),https://doi.org/10.17182/hepdata.130825 23

    work page doi:10.17182/hepdata.130825 2022

  67. [67]

    Alwall, R

    J. Alwall, R. Frederix, S. Frixione, V. Hirschi, F. Maltoni, O. Mattelaer, H. S. Shao, T. Stelzer, P. Torrielli and M. Zaro,The automated computation of tree-level and next-to-leading order differential cross sections, and their matching to parton shower simulations, JHEP07, 079 (2014), arXiv:1405.0301 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  68. [68]

    R. D. Ballet al.(NNPDF),Parton distributions from high-precision collider data, Eur. Phys. J. C77, 663 (2017), arXiv:1706.00428 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  69. [69]

    Bierlich, S

    C. Bierlich, S. Chakraborty, N. Desai, L. Gellersen, I. Helenius, P. Ilten, L. Lönnblad, S. Mrenna, S. Prestel, C. T. Preuss, T. Sjöstrand, P. Skands, M. Utheim and R. Verheyen, A comprehensive guide to the physics and usage of PYTHIA 8.3, SciPost Phys. Codebases, 8(2022),https://scipost.org/10.21468/SciPostPhysCodeb.8

    doi:10.21468/scipostphyscodeb.8 2022

  70. [70]

    Bierlich, S

    C. Bierlich, S. Chakraborty, N. Desai, L. Gellersen, I. Helenius, P. Ilten, L. Lönnblad, S. Mrenna, S. Prestel, C. T. Preuss, T. Sjöstrand, P. Skands, M. Utheim and R. Verheyen, Codebase release 8.3 for PYTHIA, SciPost Phys. Codebases, 8(2022),https://scipost.org/ 10.21468/SciPostPhysCodeb.8-r8.3

    work page doi:10.21468/scipostphyscodeb.8-r8.3 2022

  71. [71]

    Sjöstrand, S

    T. Sjöstrand, S. Ask, J. R. Christiansen, R. Corke, N. Desai, P. Ilten, S. Mrenna, S. Prestel, C. O. Rasmussen and P. Z. Skands,An Introduction to PYTHIA 8.2, Comput. Phys. Commun. 191, 159 (2015), arXiv:1410.3012 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  72. [72]

    de Favereau, C

    J. de Favereau, C. Delaere, P. Demin, A. Giammanco, V. Lemaître, A. Mertens and M. Selvaggi (DELPHES 3),DELPHES 3, A modular framework for fast simulation of a generic collider experiment, JHEP02, 057 (2014), arXiv:1307.6346 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  73. [73]

    Selvaggi,DELPHES 3: A modular framework for fast-simulation of generic collider exper- iments, J

    M. Selvaggi,DELPHES 3: A modular framework for fast-simulation of generic collider exper- iments, J. Phys. Conf. Ser.523, 012033 (2014)

    2014

  74. [74]

    Mertens,New features in Delphes 3, J

    A. Mertens,New features in Delphes 3, J. Phys. Conf. Ser.608, 012045 (2015)

    2015

  75. [75]

    J. Y. Araz, A. Buckley and B. Fuks,Searches for new physics with boosted top quarks in the MadAnalysis 5 and Rivet frameworks, Eur. Phys. J. C83, 664 (2023), arXiv:2303.03427 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  76. [76]

    G.Alguero, J.Y.Araz, B.FuksandS.Kraml,Signal region combination with full and simplified likelihoods in MadAnalysis 5, SciPost Phys.14, 009 (2023),https://scipost.org/10.21468/ SciPostPhys.14.1.009

    2023

  77. [77]

    J. Y. Araz, B. Fuks, M. D. Goodsell and M. Utsch,Recasting LHC searches for long-lived particles with MadAnalysis 5, Eur. Phys. J. C82, 597 (2022), arXiv:2112.05163 [hep-ph]. 24

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  78. [78]

    J. Y. Araz, B. Fuks and G. Polykratis,Simplified fast detector simulation in MADANALYSIS 5, Eur. Phys. J. C81, 329 (2021), arXiv:2006.09387 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  79. [79]

    J. Y. Araz, M. Frank and B. Fuks,Reinterpreting the results of the LHC with MadAnalysis 5: uncertainties and higher-luminosity estimates,Eur.Phys.J.C80,531(2020),arXiv:1910.11418 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  80. [80]

    Conte and B

    E. Conte and B. Fuks,Confronting new physics theories to LHC data with MADANALYSIS 5, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A33, 1830027 (2018), arXiv:1808.00480 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

Showing first 80 references.