Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 6 cited by

A Z2-gauged Z5 fusion rule can generate both charged-lepton and neutrino masses at one loop.

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

2026-08-04 09:05 UTC pith:U2676NCN

load-bearing objection A plausible new construction for radiative lepton masses using a non-invertible fusion rule, but the EDM–0νββ correlation is only shown at one benchmark per hierarchy. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2510.17156 v2 pith:U2676NCN submitted 2025-10-20 hep-ph

Radiative lepton model in a non-invertible fusion rule

Takaaki Nomura , Hiroshi Okada , Yoshihiro Shigekami This is my paper
classification hep-ph
keywords non-invertible fusion ruleradiative mass generationcharged-lepton electric dipole momentneutrinoless double beta decaylepton flavor violationanomalous magnetic momentneutrino massZ2 gauged Z5 symmetry
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 proposes a model in which the usual tree-level Yukawa couplings for leptons are forbidden by a Z2-gauged Z5 non-invertible fusion rule, so charged-lepton masses first appear at one loop through the rule's dynamical breaking, while neutrino masses also appear at one loop without breaking it. The same loop diagrams that give charged leptons their masses generate lepton-flavor-violating decays, anomalous magnetic moments, and electric dipole moments, connecting these observables to CP phases and to the effective mass for neutrinoless double beta decay. After fixing the absolute values of the model's free parameters to reproduce measured lepton masses and neutrino mixing, random scans over phases yield two benchmark fits, one for normal and one for inverted neutrino mass ordering, with Δχ² minima around 1.06 and 0.54. A central quantitative result is that the current electron EDM bound forces the neutrinoless double beta decay mass parameter to be at most about 28 meV for normal ordering and 33.5 meV for inverted ordering. A sympathetic reader would care because the model turns an abstract symmetry structure into concrete, testable correlations among lepton-flavor and CP observables.

Core claim

The charged-lepton mass matrix is generated at one-loop level via dynamical breaking of the Z2-gauged Z5 fusion rule, while the neutrino mass matrix is generated at one-loop level without breaking it; the light neutrino masses then come out naturally small with an accidental Z2 that stabilizes the lightest new particle. Because the same effective couplings F and G feed both mass generation and the dipole/EDM operators, the model predicts specific phase-dependent values for muon and tau EDMs several orders of magnitude above the naive flavor-scaling expectation, and the electron EDM bound |d_e| < 4.1×10^-30 ecm translates into an upper ceiling on ⟨m_ee⟩ of about 28 meV for normal ordering and

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Z2-gauged Z5 non-invertible fusion rule Z^NI_5, with elements {I, a, b} and fusion products such as a⊗a = I⊕b and b⊗b = I⊕a. It forbids tree-level lepton Yukawa couplings and permits the one-loop operators that produce charged-lepton masses (through the μ0 term that mixes charged scalars after the rule is dynamically broken) and neutrino masses (through the (H†η)2 term and the η_R–η_I mass splitting). The analytic formulas express both mass matrices in terms of effective couplings F, G and the neutral-fermion spectrum, with the key simplification M_D ≈ M0×1 used to block-diagonalize the 6×6 neutral mass matrix.

Load-bearing premise

The central prediction hinges on assuming the 3×3 Dirac mass matrix for the new neutral fermions is proportional to the identity (M_D ≈ M0×1); if that flavor degeneracy is not realized, the block diagonalization used to derive the charged-lepton and neutrino mass formulas breaks down.

What would settle it

A future electron EDM measurement giving |d_e| > 4.1×10^-30 ecm would contradict the benchmark fits shown here, since phase scans keep |d_e| at or below this bound and the bound is what forces the ⟨m_ee⟩ ceilings of 28 meV (NH) and 33.5 meV (IH). Alternatively, observing neutrinoless double beta decay with ⟨m_ee⟩ above 33.5 meV while the electron EDM bound holds would exclude the inverted-hierarchy scenario.

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

If this is right

  • Lepton-flavor-violating decays μ→eγ, τ→eγ, and τ→μγ are generated at one loop with branching ratios below current upper bounds; future searches for μ→eγ would probe the model directly.
  • If the electron EDM bound stands, the model caps ⟨m_ee⟩ at roughly 28 meV (normal ordering) and 33.5 meV (inverted ordering), placing the prediction near the most stringent experimental limits on neutrinoless double beta decay.
  • The Dirac and Majorana CP phases are confined to narrow allowed ranges in each hierarchy (NH: δ_CP ≈ 30–60° or 200–240°, α2 ≈ –10–0°, α3 ≈ –10–20°; IH: δ_CP ≈ 0° or 180°, α2 ≈ 355°), giving specific targets for future CP-violation and 0νββ experiments.
  • Muon and tau EDMs are predicted several orders of magnitude above the minimal-flavor-violation scaling, making them distinctive signatures that next-generation EDM searches could test.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The paper fixes absolute values of parameters to best-fit benchmarks and scans only phases; a full global scan over absolute parameter space could reveal whether the phase correlations (e.g., NH δ_CP ≈ 30–60° or 200–240°) are robust or artifacts of the chosen benchmark.
  • The M_D ≈ M0×1 assumption is the model's main structural weakness; if future data or a UV completion forced off-diagonal entries in the Dirac mass matrix, the charged-lepton mass formula and the derived EDM/0νββ correlations would change, so the predictions are conditional on this flavor-degenerate input.
  • In the benchmark region the new neutral fermions and inert scalar decay too quickly to be dark matter, but a different parameter region could revive a dark matter candidate, letting the model connect lepton-flavor and CP observables to the relic density.
  • The link between electron EDM and ⟨m_ee⟩ suggests a practical test: improving the electron EDM sensitivity by an order of magnitude would either push the predicted ⟨m_ee⟩ ceiling down or exclude the benchmark fits.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a Standard Model extension with a Z2-gauged Z5 non-invertible fusion rule. Tree-level charged-lepton and neutrino masses are forbidden by the assignments; charged-lepton masses are generated at one loop through the μ0 H^T(iτ2)ηS^- term, while neutrino masses are induced at one loop through the (H†η)^2 term, similar to the Ma model. The authors compute LFV branching ratios, electron/muon g-2, charged-lepton EDMs, and the neutrinoless double-beta decay amplitude in terms of the new couplings. After fixing the absolute values of the free parameters by hand to two benchmark points, they perform phase scans and report acceptable fits (Δχ²_min ≈ 1.06 for NH and 0.539 for IH), and claim that the JILA electron EDM bound |d_e|<4.1×10^-30 ecm forces ⟨m_ee⟩≲28 meV (NH) and ≲33.5 meV (IH), together with characteristic phase ranges for δ_CP, α_2, and α_3.

Significance. If the claimed correlation between the electron EDM and ⟨m_ee⟩ were established over the full viable parameter space, it would be a notable example of a radiative mass model making a sharp, testable connection between a CP-violating observable and neutrinoless double-beta decay. The use of non-invertible fusion rules to forbid tree-level masses while allowing radiative generation is timely, and the loop formulas are standard. However, the quantitative claims rest on only two hand-picked benchmark points and on a load-bearing assumption about the Dirac mass matrix that is not derived from the symmetry. The model-building framework is of interest, but the headline phenomenological claims require substantially more support.

major comments (3)
  1. [§III, Tables II–III, Figs. 1–4] The central numerical claim that the bound |d_e|<4.1×10^-30 ecm forces ⟨m_ee⟩≲28 meV (NH) and ≲33.5 meV (IH) is not demonstrated. The absolute values of the parameters are fixed by hand to one benchmark point per hierarchy, and only the phases are scanned; footnote 9 admits that the full allowed parameter region was not explored. Since d_e and ⟨m_ee⟩ depend on different combinations of the same couplings, other absolute-value configurations that also fit the low-energy observables could in principle allow larger ⟨m_ee⟩ while satisfying the EDM bound. To support the claim, the authors should either scan the full viable parameter space (or a representative sample thereof) or provide an analytic inequality. At minimum, the joint distribution of (|d_e|, ⟨m_ee⟩) over many random absolute-value points passing all constraints should be shown.
  2. [§II.A, Eq. (11)] The assumption M_D ≈ M_0 × 1 is load-bearing but is introduced with no symmetry or dynamical justification. It enables the block diagonalization in Eqs. (7)–(10), determines V_N, F, and G, and through Eq. (16) controls the entire charged-lepton mass matrix and all subsequent phenomenological results. The text correctly notes that y^ℓ and M_D can be chosen diagonal without loss of generality, but proportionality to the identity is not without loss of generality. The authors should either derive this flavor degeneracy from the fusion-rule structure or treat it as an explicit ansatz and study the sensitivity of the conclusions to relaxing it (e.g., to M_D = diag(M_1,M_2,M_3)).
  3. [§III, Eq. (35) and Tables II–III] The χ² statistic includes only four neutrino observables (sin²θ12, sin²θ13, Δm²sol, Δm²atm); sin²θ23 is imposed by a separate 3σ cut, and charged-lepton masses, LFVs, and g−2 are used only to fix parameter values. Thus the reported Δχ²_min values are not goodness-of-fit measures for the full model. More importantly, the phase 'allowed regions' in Figs. 1–4 are conditional on the single chosen absolute-value point and are not model predictions. The language of 'predictions' and 'allowed regions' should be qualified accordingly.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§IV, summary] In the summary, '|d_e|<4.1×10^30 ecm' should be '|d_e|<4.1×10^-30 ecm'; the minus sign in the exponent is missing.
  2. [§II.D, Eq. (30)] The current Δa_μ is quoted as (39±64)×10^-11, which appears to be inconsistent by an order of magnitude with the past value quoted in Eq. (31). Please check the normalization and the PDG source.
  3. [Footnote 9] The caveat that 'there are too many parameters and too much time to find out all the allowed regions' is important and should appear in the main text, not only in a footnote. It directly limits the strength of the numerical conclusions.
  4. [§III, Tables II–III] The notation P Dν for the sum of neutrino masses is not defined; please introduce it explicitly (e.g., Σ m_i).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: phase-dependent outputs are not fixed by the fitted inputs.

full rationale

The derivation is self-contained in the relevant sense. Charged-lepton and neutrino mass matrices are computed from the explicit Lagrangian and loop integrals (Eqs. (16)-(18)); no phase observable is inserted by hand. The numerical procedure fixes only absolute values of parameters to reproduce charged-lepton masses and neutrino mass-squared differences/mixing angles, while the Dirac CP phase, Majorana phases, EDMs, and ⟨m_ee⟩ are obtained by scanning arguments that were explicitly left free ('we keep the wide ranges of their arguments that play a crucial role in determining ... EDMs'). These outputs are therefore not equal by construction to the fit inputs. The ad hoc proportionality MD ≈ M0×1 (Eq. (11)) is an explicitly stated assumption, not a consequence derived from the fusion rule; citing [31,32] for it is a model-building reference, and one of those references overlaps with the present authors, but the numerical predictions do not reduce to that citation. Footnote 9 ('too many parameters and too much time to find out all the allowed regions') and the one-benchmark-per-hierarchy presentation weaken the claimed |d_e|–⟨m_ee⟩ correlation as a global bound, but that is a parameter-coverage limitation, not circularity. No self-definitional step and no fitted input renamed as a prediction are exhibited.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

11 free parameters · 7 axioms · 3 invented entities

The model is highly parameter-rich: mass scales (M0, μ'_0, scalar masses), Yukawa magnitudes (f_R, g_R), and the neutral-fermion mass matrix entries are scanned or fitted, with only two benchmark sets shown. The key structural input M_D ≈ M_0×1 is ad hoc, and the new fields have no independent experimental handle outside the loop processes they generate.

free parameters (11)
  • M0 (scale of M_D) = scanned 10^2–10^5 GeV; benchmark value not stated
    Sets overall mass scale for charged-lepton and neutrino loop formulas (Eqs. 16, 17, 26).
  • μ'_0 (effective trilinear for charged-lepton loop) = scanned 0.1–10 GeV
    Controls the charged-lepton mass and LFV/g−2/EDM amplitudes (Eqs. 16, 26).
  • m̃_S (dimensionless S^- mass) = scanned 10^-6–10^-4
    Mass of the singly-charged scalar entering the charged-lepton and LFV/g−2 loops.
  • m̃_I (dimensionless η neutral mass) = scanned 0.1–10
    Mass scale of the inert doublet scalar in loop functions.
  • δ̃m = m̃_R − m̃_I = scanned 10^-7–10^-5
    Mass splitting between CP-even and CP-odd neutral components of η; required for the Ma-type neutrino mass (Eq. 17).
  • δ_11, δ_22, δ_33 (diagonal components of m_+) = scanned 10^-3–0.1 GeV
    Small corrections to M_D ± m_+ that set neutral fermion masses and mixings (Eq. 12).
  • δ_12, δ_13, δ_23 (off-diagonal components of m_+) = scanned 10^-5–10^-3 GeV
    Off-diagonal entries generating the ϵ mixings U_R and U_L (Eq. 13).
  • m_- (off-diagonal neutral fermion mass block) = scanned 10^-5–0.1 GeV
    Appears in the block-diagonalization of M_N (Eq. 7).
  • f_R = f_L magnitudes = scanned 10^-5–1
    Yukawa couplings entering F and the neutrino mass matrix (Eq. 17).
  • g_R = g_L magnitudes = scanned 10^-5–0.1; g_R^11,22,32 fixed by charged-lepton masses
    Yukawa couplings entering G and the charged-lepton mass matrix (Eq. 16).
  • Phases/arguments of all complex couplings = scanned over [-π, +π]
    The paper states the absolute values are fixed while arguments are scanned; these arguments determine δ_CP, Majorana phases, and EDMs.
axioms (7)
  • domain assumption Z2-gauged Z5 non-invertible fusion rule algebra in Eq. (1): a⊗a = I⊕b, etc.
    The fusion rule is taken from the cited category-theory and model-building literature [9,10] and used to assign charges in Table I. The paper does not derive it.
  • ad hoc to paper M_D ≈ M_0 × 1 (Eq. 11)
    Needed to block-diagonalize the 6×6 neutral fermion mass matrix; stated as an assumption with no symmetry justification.
  • domain assumption M_R, M_L ≪ M_D (Eq. 6)
    Invoked to perform the seesaw-like expansion of M_N; justified as a 't Hooft naturalness hypothesis.
  • domain assumption η and S^- acquire no VEVs
    The model requires inert scalars; otherwise lepton masses would be generated at tree level and the fusion-rule mechanism fails.
  • standard math Ma-model one-loop neutrino mass formula (Eq. 17) from ref. [27]
    The neutrino mass formula is imported from the Ma model; the paper does not re-derive the loop function.
  • domain assumption Physical CP sources counted via rephasing invariance (Eq. 4)
    Assumes all Higgs potential parameters except μ_0 and λ''_Hη are real; used to argue that EDMs are nonzero.
  • ad hoc to paper Minimal Fibonacci fusion rule would lead to incurable divergences
    Stated without explicit computation (Sec. II, after Eq. 4); used to motivate the choice of Z5 over Fibonacci. Not proven in the text.
invented entities (3)
  • Three families of neutral Majorana fermions N_L, N_R no independent evidence
    purpose: Mediate the one-loop charged-lepton and neutrino mass diagrams via interactions with η and S^-.
    No direct search predictions or mass benchmarks are given; they are heavy (M0 ~ 10^2–10^5 GeV) and decoupled.
  • Inert SU(2) doublet scalar η no independent evidence
    purpose: Carries the one-loop neutrino mass (Ma mechanism) and, together with S^-, generates charged-lepton masses.
    No independent collider or DM signal predicted in the benchmark region; the paper only notes potential DM in other parameter regions.
  • Singly-charged SU(2) singlet scalar S^- no independent evidence
    purpose: Completes the charged-lepton one-loop diagram via the μ_0 H η S^- coupling.
    No direct detection or collider signature is quantified; its mass is a scanned parameter (m̃_S).

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 11589 in / 15984 out tokens · 132368 ms · 2026-08-04T09:05:55.761006+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We propose a radiatively induced lepton mass model introducing a $Z_2$ gauging $Z_5$ fusion rule. In our framework, the charged-lepton mass matrix is generated at one-loop level via dynamical breaking of the fusion rule. On the other hand, the neutrino mass matrix is induced at the one-loop level without breaking the fusion rule. As a direct consequence of the loop induced charged lepton masses, we can also consider lepton flavor violations, electron and muon $g-2$, and charged-lepton electric dipole moments that come into our valid phenomenological discussion. Then, we perform numerical analysis and show some interesting tendency on the Dirac $CP$ phase, two Majorana phases, charged-lepton electric dipole moments and the neutrinoless double beta decay, all of which depends on their arguments where we fix the absolute values of our free parameters in order to satisfy experimental data of the lepton masses and mixing angles.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.17156 by Hiroshi Okada, Takaaki Nomura, Yoshihiro Shigekami.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: Allowed regions for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: Allowed regions for EDMs in terms of phases [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: Allowed regions for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Same plot as Fig. 2, but for the case of IH. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_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.

Forward citations

Cited by 6 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

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

    hep-ph 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Non-invertible symmetry from the minimal Fibonacci fusion rule forbids tree-level VEVs for multi-Higgs fields H4 and H5, generating them radiatively at one-loop with naturally small values of 10^{-3}-10^{-2} GeV that ...

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

    hep-ph 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    A general prescription is formulated for spurion analysis of commutative non-invertible fusion algebras in particle physics, unifying prior specific cases and enabling systematic tracking of coupling constants in tree...

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

    hep-ph 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    A one-loop Dirac neutrino mass model stabilized by a non-invertible fusion rule from Z3 x Z3' accommodates oscillation data and provides a viable bosonic dark matter candidate.

  4. More about modular symmetries and non-invertible properties in magnetized compactifications

    hep-th 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Incomplete zero-mode multiplets under Scherk-Schwarz phases in magnetized compactifications violate modular symmetry as a group but retain control over couplings via full modular forms.

  5. Zee models with a non-invertible $Z_M$ symmetry

    hep-ph 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Zee models are classified under non-invertible Z_M symmetries; viable candidates are identified from data consistency, and a Z_7 benchmark yields numerical predictions for neutrino parameters and CLFV rates.

  6. Dynamical CP Violation from Non-Invertible Selection Rules

    hep-ph 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Dynamical generation of leptonic CP violation and light sterile neutrino masses via radiative breaking of non-invertible selection rules, illustrated in the Inverse Seesaw model.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 41 linked inside Pith · cited by 6 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Jiang, B.-Y

    Z. Jiang, B.-Y. Qu, and G.-J. Ding (2025), 2510.07236

    arXiv 2025

  2. [2]

    Kobayashi, H

    T. Kobayashi, H. Otsuka, M. Tanimoto, and T. T. Yanagida (2025), 2510.01680

    arXiv 2025

  3. [3]

    Jangid and H

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  4. [4]

    Okada and Y

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  5. [5]

    Y. Choi, H. T. Lam, and S.-H. Shao, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 161601 (2022), 2205.05086

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  6. [6]

    Cordova, S

    C. Cordova, S. Hong, S. Koren, and K. Ohmori, Phys. Rev. X14, 031033 (2024), 2211.07639

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    Cordova and K

    C. Cordova and K. Ohmori, Phys. Rev. X13, 011034 (2023), 2205.06243. 15

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  8. [8]

    Cordova, S

    C. Cordova, S. Hong, and S. Koren (2024), 2402.12453

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  9. [9]

    Kobayashi, H

    T. Kobayashi, H. Otsuka, and M. Tanimoto, JHEP12, 117 (2024), 2409.05270

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  10. [10]

    Kobayashi and H

    T. Kobayashi and H. Otsuka, JHEP11, 120 (2024), 2408.13984

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  11. [11]

    Kobayashi, Y

    T. Kobayashi, Y. Nishioka, H. Otsuka, and M. Tanimoto, JHEP05, 177 (2025), 2503.09966

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  12. [12]

    Suzuki and L.-X

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

    arXiv 2025

  13. [13]

    Liang and T

    Q. Liang and T. T. Yanagida (2025), 2505.05142

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  14. [14]

    Kobayashi, H

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  15. [15]

    Kobayashi, H

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  16. [16]

    Kobayashi, H

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

    arXiv 2025

  17. [17]

    Nomura and H

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  18. [18]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  19. [19]

    Nomura and O

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  20. [20]

    Chen, C.-Q

    J. Chen, C.-Q. Geng, H. Okada, and J.-J. Wu (2025), 2507.11951

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  21. [21]

    Kobayashi, H

    T. Kobayashi, H. Otsuka, and T. T. Yanagida (2025), 2508.12287

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  22. [22]

    Suzuki, L.-X

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  23. [23]

    Altarelli and F

    G. Altarelli and F. Feruglio, Rev. Mod. Phys.82, 2701 (2010), 1002.0211

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  24. [24]

    Ishimori, T

    H. Ishimori, T. Kobayashi, H. Ohki, Y. Shimizu, H. Okada, and M. Tanimoto, Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl.183, 1 (2010), 1003.3552

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  25. [25]

    Kobayashi, H

    T. Kobayashi, H. Ohki, H. Okada, Y. Shimizu, and M. Tanimoto, An Introduction to Non-Abelian Discrete Symmetries for Particle Physicists (2022), ISBN 978-3- 662-64678-6, 978-3-662-64679-3

    2022

  26. [26]

    Ishimori, T

    H. Ishimori, T. Kobayashi, H. Ohki, H. Okada, Y. Shimizu, and M. Tanimoto, An introduction to non-Abelian discrete symmetries for particle physicists, vol. 858 (2012)

    2012

  27. [27]

    Ma, Phys

    E. Ma, Phys. Rev. D73, 077301 (2006), hep-ph/0601225

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  28. [28]

    K. S. Khaw, Y. Nakai, R. Sato, Y. Shigekami, and Z. Zhang, JHEP02, 234 (2023), 2212.02891

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  29. [29]

    Okada and K

    H. Okada and K. Yagyu, Phys. Rev. D89, 053008 (2014), 1311.4360

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  30. [30]

    Okada and K

    H. Okada and K. Yagyu, Phys. Rev. D90, 035019 (2014), 1405.2368

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  31. [31]

    M. E. Catano, R. Martinez, and F. Ochoa, Phys. Rev. D86, 073015 (2012), 1206.1966

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  32. [32]

    Kajiyama, H

    Y. Kajiyama, H. Okada, and T. Toma, Eur. Phys. J. C73, 2381 (2013), 1210.2305

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  33. [33]

    Abe et al

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

    arXiv 2024

  34. [34]

    Vagnozzi, E

    S. Vagnozzi, E. Giusarma, O. Mena, K. Freese, M. Gerbino, S. Ho, and M. Lattanzi, Phys. Rev. D96, 123503 (2017), 1701.08172

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  35. [35]

    Aghanim et al

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  36. [36]

    K. A. Olive et al. (Particle Data Group), Chin. Phys. C38, 090001 (2014)

    2014

  37. [37]

    A. G. Adame et al. (DESI) (2024), 2404.03002

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  38. [38]

    Aker et al

    M. Aker et al. (KATRIN), Nature Phys.18, 160 (2022), 2105.08533. 16

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  39. [39]

    Esteban, M

    I. Esteban, M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, M. Maltoni, I. Martinez-Soler, J. a. P. Pinheiro, and T. Schwetz, JHEP12, 216 (2024), 2410.05380

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  40. [40]

    A. M. Baldini et al. (MEG), Eur. Phys. J. C76, 434 (2016), 1605.05081

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  41. [41]

    Aubert et al

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  42. [42]

    Renga (MEG), Hyperfine Interact.239, 58 (2018), 1811.05921

    F. Renga (MEG), Hyperfine Interact.239, 58 (2018), 1811.05921

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  43. [43]

    Afanaciev et al

    K. Afanaciev et al. (MEG II), Eur. Phys. J. C84, 216 (2024), [Erratum: Eur.Phys.J.C 84, 1042 (2024)], 2310.12614

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  44. [44]

    Fan, Ph.D

    X. Fan, Ph.D. thesis, Harvard U. (2022)

    2022

  45. [45]

    X. Fan, T. G. Myers, B. A. D. Sukra, and G. Gabrielse, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 071801 (2023), 2209.13084

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  46. [46]

    Navas et al

    S. Navas et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D110, 030001 (2024)

    2024

  47. [47]

    Morel, Z

    L. Morel, Z. Yao, P. Clad´ e, and S. Guellati-Kh´ elifa, Nature588, 61 (2020)

    2020

  48. [48]

    R. H. Parker, C. Yu, W. Zhong, B. Estey, and H. M¨ uller, Science360, 191 (2018), 1812.04130

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  49. [49]

    Abada and T

    A. Abada and T. Toma, JHEP08, 128 (2024), 2405.01648

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  50. [50]

    Y. Ema, T. Gao, and M. Pospelov, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 131803 (2022), 2108.05398

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  51. [51]

    Y. Ema, T. Gao, and M. Pospelov, Phys. Lett. B835, 137496 (2022), 2207.01679

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  52. [52]

    Okada and Y

    H. Okada and Y. Orikasa (2019), 1908.08409

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019