Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 76 references

Probing Type II Seesaw Leptogenesis Through Lepton Flavor Violation

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read The paper derives the most conservative experimental bounds on type II seesaw leptogenesis by scanning the 3σ range of neutrino oscillation parameters and applying muon lepton-flavor-violating processes.

desk verdict Useful scan of LFV in type II seesaw leptogenesis, but the 'most conservative' bounds for mu->3e and mu->e conversion rest on an arbitrary light-neutrino mass cutoff and are not globally conservative. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.12184 v1 pith:2XXXCX5Z submitted 2025-01-21 hep-ph

Chengcheng Han , Yijun Han , Sihui Huang , Zhanhong Lei This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph
keywords typeIIseesawleptogenesischargedleptonflavorviolationmutoegamma3emu-econversiontripletHiggsneutrinooscillationparameters
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper asks how strongly current and near-future experiments that search for a muon changing into an electron—via radiative decay, three-electron decay, or conversion inside a nucleus—can constrain type II seesaw leptogenesis, a scenario where neutrino masses, inflation, and the baryon asymmetry share one origin. The authors scan the allowed 3σ range of neutrino oscillation parameters with a Monte Carlo method and, for each process, keep the parameter point that predicts the smallest rate, so the resulting bounds are deliberately conservative. Their main finding is that in normal neutrino mass ordering the MEG limit on $\mu^+\to e^+\gamma$ is the strongest current constraint, while in inverted ordering the MEG and SINDRUM $\mu\to3e$ limits are comparable; future experiments would improve sensitivity by orders of magnitude. If correct, these bounds translate into lower limits on the lepton-number-violating cubic coupling $\mu$ that grow linearly with the triplet mass $m_\Delta$.

What carries the argument

The central object is the $SU(2)_L$ triplet Higgs field $\Delta$ of the type II seesaw, whose Yukawa couplings are fixed by the light-neutrino mass matrix, $h=(1/2v_\Delta)U^*\mathrm{diag}(m_i)U^\dagger$. This identity converts every lepton-flavor-violating amplitude into combinations of neutrino masses and PMNS parameters, notably $|(m^\dagger m)_{e\mu}|$, $|m^*_{ee}m_{\mu e}|$, and the effective coupling $C^{(II)}_{\mu e}$ that controls $\mu\to e$ conversion. The argument is carried by a Monte Carlo scan of the 3$\sigma$ ranges of the neutrino oscillation parameters, with the minimum predicted rate for each process selected to define the most conservative bound; the resulting limits on $\mu$ then follow from the seesaw relation $v_\Delta\simeq \mu v_{\rm EW}^2/(2m_\Delta^2)$.

What would settle it

Recalculate the minimum of $|(m^\dagger m)_{e\mu}|$ (and of $|m^*_{ee}m_{\mu e}|$ under $m_1\lesssim10^{-3}$ eV) using the same 3$\sigma$ Monte Carlo scan but with an updated global fit of neutrino oscillation parameters or a much finer sampling; if the true minimum drops below $2.2\times10^{-4}$ eV$^2$, the quoted MEG-derived bound $\mu>2.5\times10^{-8}$ GeV $(m_\Delta/800\ \text{GeV})$ is too strong and every $\mu\to e\gamma$-based limit in the paper weakens accordingly.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Within the type II seesaw leptogenesis framework, the paper claims that charged lepton flavor violation in the muon sector provides the most restrictive, and most conservative, current and future bounds on the $(m_\Delta,\,\mu)$ parameter space once all neutrino oscillation data are allowed to vary within their 3$\sigma$ ranges. Concretely, using the minimum value of $|(m^\dagger m)_{e\mu}|\simeq 2.2\times10^{-4}$ eV$^2$, the MEG bound on $\mu^+\to e^+\gamma$ yields $\mu>2.5\times10^{-8}$ GeV $(m_\Delta/800\ \text{GeV})$ in normal ordering; in inverted ordering, MEG and the SINDRUM $\mu\to3e$ bound give similar strength, with the latter expressed as $\mu>1.2(2.6)\times10^{-8}$ GeV $(m_\Delta/800\ \text{GeV})$ for NO (IO). The paper further shows that future MEG II, Mu3e, Mu2e, and COMET sensitivities will push these bounds upward by one to four orders of magnitude, making the leptogenesis parameter space experimentally accessible.

Load-bearing premise

The central claim assumes the Affleck-Dine type II seesaw leptogenesis framework is correct, specifically that avoiding washout requires $v_\Delta\lesssim10^{-5}$ GeV $(m_\Delta/1\ \text{TeV})^{-1/2}$ and that perturbativity requires $v_\Delta\gtrsim0.05$ eV, and additionally that the lightest neutrino mass can be restricted to $m_1\lesssim10^{-3}$ eV for the normal-ordering 'most conservative' $\mu\to3e$ bound.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In normal ordering, the current MEG $\mu^+\to e^+\gamma$ bound gives the strongest constraint on type II seesaw leptogenesis, stronger than the existing $\mu\to3e$ and $\mu\to e$ conversion limits.
  • In inverted ordering, the MEG and SINDRUM bounds are comparable, so both the radiative and three-electron channels must be tracked when deriving the lower limit on $\mu$.
  • The future Mu3e and Mu2e experiments will improve sensitivity by about four orders of magnitude and, in normal ordering, will surpass MEG II, while in inverted ordering Mu3e becomes the most sensitive single probe.
  • All these bounds scale linearly with $m_\Delta$, so the excluded region of the $(m_\Delta,\,\mu)$ plane grows proportionally with the assumed triplet mass.
  • The constraints automatically respect the framework's perturbativity and washout-avoidance conditions, meaning the surviving parameter space is consistent with successful Affleck-Dine leptogenesis.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • As an extension not developed in the paper, a future observation of $\mu\to3e$ with no accompanying $\mu\to e\gamma$ signal would favor normal-ordering regions where $|m^*_{ee}m_{\mu e}|$ is sizable while $(m^\dagger m)_{e\mu}$ is suppressed by cancellations, offering a way to distinguish mass ordering and CP phases.
  • The paper's normal-ordering $\mu\to3e$ bound deliberately restricts to $m_1\lesssim10^{-3}$ eV; if future measurements push the lightest neutrino mass above this, parts of the $\mu\to3e$ parameter space would open up and the MEG $\mu\to e\gamma$ constraint would become even more dominant.
  • A direct testable extension would be to repeat the same minimum-rate scan under a Bayesian profiling of the global-fit nuisance parameters rather than a flat 3$\sigma$ scan; the 'most conservative' bound could shift if future global fits narrow the allowed range of $\theta_{23}$ or the Dirac phase $\delta$.
  • The paper's method treats the minimum over the 3$\sigma$ scan as conservative, but the true exclusion also depends on how the experimental likelihood is folded with the neutrino-parameter distribution; combining these could give a sensitivity forecast that is both more realistic and still conservative.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript analyzes charged lepton flavor violation in the type II seesaw model extended by Affleck-Dine leptogenesis. It computes BR(mu -> e gamma), BR(mu -> 3e), and mu-e conversion in Ti and Al, expresses the rates in terms of neutrino oscillation parameters, vDelta, mDelta, and the cubic coupling mu, and performs a Monte Carlo scan over the 3sigma ranges of the oscillation parameters to minimize the rate prefactors. From experimental upper limits (MEG, SINDRUM, SINDRUM II) and future projections (MEG II, Mu3e, Mu2e, COMET), it derives lower bounds on mu as a function of mDelta. The paper concludes that MEG currently gives the strongest bound in normal ordering, that MEG and SINDRUM are comparable in inverted ordering, and that future experiments will test larger regions of the parameter space.

Significance. If the stated bounds are correct, the paper provides a useful translation of current and future muon LFV limits into the (mDelta, mu) parameter space of type II seesaw leptogenesis, with explicit control of the neutrino parameter uncertainties. The analytical formulas are explicit; the prefactor conversions from experimental limits to Yukawa and mu bounds are internally consistent; and the inclusion of mu-e conversion in aluminum in addition to titanium extends previous work. The MEG mu->e gamma bound is robust because |(m^dagger m)_e mu| is independent of the absolute neutrino masses and Majorana phases. However, the paper's central 'most conservative' claim is conditional on a lightest-neutrino-mass cutoff that is not data-driven, and the conversion constraints also need clarification of their mDelta dependence.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 3.2, Eqs. (3.19)-(3.20); Sec. 3.3, text after Fig. 5] The paper's 'most conservative' minima are not global minima over the parameter space described in Sec. 2. The authors restrict the NO mu->3e analysis to m1 < 10^-3 eV because |m*_ee m_mu e| can vanish at larger m1 (Sec. 3.2, Fig. 2), and they restrict the mu->e conversion analysis to m1(m3) < 10^-3 eV because 4 vDelta^2 |C_mu e^(II)| can vanish in both orderings (Sec. 3.3, Figs. 4-5). These zeros occur for mass values that are compatible with the cosmological bound Sigma m_i < 0.12 eV quoted in Sec. 2.1, and the corresponding CP-phase choices are not excluded by current oscillation data. The restriction is therefore not derived from the stated inputs but is an extra condition on the lightest neutrino mass. As a consequence, the NO mu->3e bound built on Eq. (3.20) and the conversion bounds built on the minima in Sec. 3.3 do not apply to the full allowed neutrino parameter space; if the full space is scanned, the relevant prefactors can vanish and no lower bound on mu follows from these channels. The mu->e gamma bound of Eq. (3.11), which is independent of the absolute mass scale, remains valid. The text should either justify the 10^-3 eV cutoff from the leptogenesis framework or explicitly state that the mu->3e and conversion constraints apply only in that restricted subregion.
  2. [Sec. 3.3, Eqs. (3.31)-(3.35), Figs. 6-7] The mu->e conversion coefficient C_mu e^(II) depends on mDelta through the loop function f(r,s_l) in Eq. (3.4), but the text quotes minimal values of 4 vDelta^2 |C_mu e^(II)| only at the two benchmarks mDelta = 800 GeV and 2 x 10^6 GeV. It is not explained how the blue (Ti) and purple (Al) bounds in Figs. 6 and 7 are obtained for arbitrary mDelta. If a single benchmark minimum is used across the whole mDelta range, the conversion constraints are not correct. The authors should state explicitly that the Monte Carlo minimization is repeated at each mDelta grid point, or provide the mDelta-dependent interpolation used for the plotted lines.
  3. [Sec. 2.2, Eq. (2.16); Sec. 4] The paper's interpretation of the LFV bounds as constraints on type II seesaw leptogenesis depends on the washout-avoidance condition vDelta < 10^-5 GeV (mDelta/1 TeV)^(-1/2) and on the perturbativity lower bound vDelta > 0.05 eV taken from Refs. [27,28]. These conditions are not re-derived or checked here, and the final figures adopt them as the region of interest. The authors should state explicitly in the conclusions that the constraints apply to the (mDelta, vDelta, mu) region defined by these conditions, and should note what changes if the Affleck-Dine framework is relaxed or if the reheating history is different.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and Sec. 1] The phrase 'most conservative' is used throughout the abstract and introduction without spelling out the prior on the lightest neutrino mass; this should be aligned with the treatment of Eq. (3.20) after the major revisions.
  2. [Eq. (3.12), Fig. 4, Table 2] There are several typographical errors: Eq. (3.12) ends with a stray comma and period, Fig. 4 has 'lighest' for 'lightest', and Table 2's heading 'Zef f' should be 'Zeff'.
  3. [Sec. 3, Monte Carlo description] The Monte Carlo minima are presented as 'most conservative', but uniform random sampling alone does not prove a global minimum; since the paper identifies analytic zeros and cancellations, it should state explicitly that the quoted minima are checked against the analytical expressions rather than relying solely on the random scan.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the LFV bounds are computed from external neutrino data and experimental upper limits, and the self-citations define the framework without entering the rate calculation.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained with respect to the quantities it claims to constrain. The LFV observables are computed from Eq. (3.5), Eq. (3.14), and Eq. (3.31), using the standard type II seesaw relations h = m_nu/(2 v_Delta) in Eq. (2.8) and v_Delta approximately mu v_EW^2/(2 m_Delta^2) in Eq. (2.6). The neutrino mass and mixing inputs come from the external NuFIT global fit (Table 1), and the experimental limits are the published MEG, SINDRUM, and SINDRUM II bounds together with projected sensitivities (Eqs. (3.6), (3.21), (3.33), (3.36)). The quoted bounds on mu are obtained by equating the fixed calculable expressions to these experimental limits and solving for mu; they are not fitted to the LFV data and therefore no 'prediction' reduces to its input by construction. The only self-citations are refs. [27,28,71], which are used to define the Affleck-Dine type II seesaw leptogenesis framework and the perturbativity condition v_Delta greater than about 0.05 eV; this is an adopted framework rather than a result derived from the LFV calculation, and the LFV rate formulas do not depend on it. The paper's restriction to m1 approximately less than 10^-3 eV when quoting the 'most conservative' SINDRUM, Mu3e, and Mu2e bounds is an arbitrary scope choice that may weaken the conservativeness claim, but it is not circular because the quoted limits still follow from the stated equations within the restricted neutrino-mass region.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests entirely on the standard type II seesaw model and the Affleck-Dine leptogenesis framework from the authors' earlier papers; no new particles or interactions are introduced, so the Axiom Ledger contains only domain assumptions inherited from prior literature.

free parameters (1)
  • m1 cutoff in NO scan = m1 ≲ 10^-3 eV
    Hand-chosen restriction in the normal-ordering scan to avoid regions where the µ→3e and µ-e conversion amplitudes vanish; the 'most conservative' bounds are therefore conditional on this cutoff rather than covering the full 3σ-allowed m1 range.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Type II seesaw Lagrangian with one SU(2)_L triplet scalar of hypercharge 1 (Eq 2.3-2.5)
    Defines the model; the LFV rates are computed from its Yukawa and Higgs couplings.
  • domain assumption The neutrino mass matrix is generated entirely by the triplet vev, h = mν/(2vΔ) (Eq 2.7-2.8)
    Locks the LFV Yukawa couplings to measured neutrino parameters; if other contributions to neutrino mass exist, the LFV rates would differ.
  • domain assumption Affleck-Dine leptogenesis with non-minimal gravitational couplings (from Refs [27,28]) gives a successful baryon asymmetry only if the washout conditions in Eqs (2.14)-(2.15) hold, leading to vΔ ≲ 10^-5 GeV (mΔ/1 TeV)^(-1/2) (Eq 2.16)
    This is what connects leptogenesis to the low-energy parameter space probed by LFV; if it fails, the constraints do not apply to leptogenesis.
  • domain assumption The effective LFV Lagrangian in Eq (3.1) and form factors in Eqs (3.2)-(3.3) from Ref [40] are correct at the one-loop level
    All LFV rates are derived from these standard expressions.
  • domain assumption The nuclear parameters for Ti and Al (Table 2) from Refs [40,76] are reliable
    Used for µ-e conversion rates.
  • domain assumption Neutrino oscillation parameters within 3σ ranges from NuFit (Table 1) describe the allowed parameter space
    The Monte Carlo scan is restricted to these ranges.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Probing Type II Seesaw Leptogenesis Through Lepton Flavor Violation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2XXXCX5Z

@misc{pith2026250112184,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Probing Type II Seesaw Leptogenesis Through Lepton Flavor Violation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2XXXCX5Z}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.12184}
}
abstract

Lepton flavor violation (LFV) offers a powerful probe of physics beyond the Standard Model, particularly in models addressing neutrino masses and the baryon asymmetry of the universe. In this study, we investigate LFV processes within the framework of type II seesaw leptogenesis, where the Standard Model is extended by an $SU(2)_L$ triplet Higgs field. We focus on key LFV processes including $\mu^+\to e^+\gamma$, $\mu^+ \to e^+e^-e^+$, and $\mu \rightarrow e$ conversion in nuclei, deriving stringent constraints on the parameter space from current experimental data. We scan the 3$\sigma$ range of neutrino oscillation parameters and identify the most conservative bounds consistent with existing measurements. Our results reveal that the MEG experiment currently provides the strongest constraints in the normal ordering (NO) scenario, while the SINDRUM experiment offers comparable sensitivity in the inverted ordering (IO) case. Future experiments, such as MEG II, Mu3e, Mu2e, and COMET, are predicted to significantly improve the sensitivity, testing larger regions of the parameter space. This work underscores the crucial role of LFV experiments in probing type II seesaw leptogenesis, providing an avenue to explore the connections between neutrino mass generation, baryogenesis, and inflation at experimentally accessible energy scales.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

76 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    B. T. Cleveland, T. Daily, R. Davis, Jr., J. R. Distel, K. Lande, C. K. Lee et al., Measurement of the solar electron neutrino flux with the Homestake chlorine detector , – 16 – Astrophys. J. 496 (1998) 505

    work page 1998

  2. [2]

    Fukuda et al., Evidence for oscillation of atmospheric neutrinos , Phys

    Super-Kamiokande collaboration, Y. Fukuda et al., Evidence for oscillation of atmospheric neutrinos , Phys. Rev. Lett. 81 (1998) 1562 [ hep-ex/9807003]

    arXiv 1998

  3. [3]

    SNO collaboration, Q. R. Ahmad et al., Direct evidence for neutrino flavor transformation from neutral current interactions in the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory , Phys. Rev. Lett. 89 (2002) 011301 [ nucl-ex/0204008]

    arXiv 2002

  4. [4]

    SNO collaboration, S. N. Ahmed et al., Measurement of the total active B-8 solar neutrino flux at the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory with enhanced neutral current sensitivity , Phys. Rev. Lett. 92 (2004) 181301 [ nucl-ex/0309004]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2004

  5. [5]

    Eguchi et al., First results from KamLAND: Evidence for reactor anti-neutrino disappearance, Phys

    KamLAND collaboration, K. Eguchi et al., First results from KamLAND: Evidence for reactor anti-neutrino disappearance, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90 (2003) 021802 [ hep-ex/0212021]

    arXiv 2003

  6. [6]

    K2K collaboration, M. H. Ahn et al., Measurement of Neutrino Oscillation by the K2K Experiment, Phys. Rev. D 74 (2006) 072003 [ hep-ex/0606032]

    arXiv 2006

  7. [7]

    Daya Baycollaboration, F. P. An et al., Observation of electron-antineutrino disappearance at Daya Bay , Phys. Rev. Lett. 108 (2012) 171803 [ 1203.1669]

    arXiv 2012

  8. [8]

    R. H. Bernstein and P. S. Cooper, Charged Lepton Flavor Violation: An Experimenter’s Guide, Phys. Rept. 532 (2013) 27 [ 1307.5787]

    arXiv 2013

Show all 76 references
  1. [9]

    Lindner, M

    M. Lindner, M. Platscher and F. S. Queiroz, A Call for New Physics : The Muon Anomalous Magnetic Moment and Lepton Flavor Violation , Phys. Rept. 731 (2018) 1 [ 1610.06587]

    2018 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Calibbi and G

    L. Calibbi and G. Signorelli, Charged Lepton Flavour Violation: An Experimental and Theoretical Introduction, Riv. Nuovo Cim. 41 (2018) 71 [ 1709.00294]

    2018 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Ardu and G

    M. Ardu and G. Pezzullo, Introduction to Charged Lepton Flavor Violation , Universe 8 (2022) 299 [ 2204.08220]

    2022 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Frau and C

    G. Frau and C. Langenbruch, Charged Lepton-Flavour Violation, Symmetry 16 (2024) 359

    2024

  5. [13]

    Minkowski, µ → eγ at a Rate of One Out of 109 Muon Decays?, Phys

    P. Minkowski, µ → eγ at a Rate of One Out of 109 Muon Decays?, Phys. Lett. B 67 (1977) 421

    1977

  6. [14]

    Yanagida, Horizontal gauge symmetry and masses of neutrinos , Conf

    T. Yanagida, Horizontal gauge symmetry and masses of neutrinos , Conf. Proc. C 7902131 (1979) 95

    1979

  7. [15]

    Gell-Mann, P

    M. Gell-Mann, P. Ramond and R. Slansky, Complex Spinors and Unified Theories , Conf. Proc. C 790927 (1979) 315 [ 1306.4669]

    1979 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Magg and C

    M. Magg and C. Wetterich, Neutrino Mass Problem and Gauge Hierarchy , Phys. Lett. B 94 (1980) 61

    1980

  9. [17]

    T. P. Cheng and L.-F. Li, Neutrino Masses, Mixings and Oscillations in SU(2) x U(1) Models of Electroweak Interactions, Phys. Rev. D 22 (1980) 2860

    1980

  10. [18]

    Lazarides, Q

    G. Lazarides, Q. Shafi and C. Wetterich, Proton Lifetime and Fermion Masses in an SO(10) Model, Nucl. Phys. B 181 (1981) 287

    1981

  11. [19]

    Schechter and J

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

    1980

  12. [20]

    R. N. Mohapatra and G. Senjanovic, Neutrino Masses and Mixings in Gauge Models with Spontaneous Parity Violation , Phys. Rev. D 23 (1981) 165. – 17 –

    1981

  13. [21]

    R. Foot, H. Lew, X. G. He and G. C. Joshi, Seesaw Neutrino Masses Induced by a Triplet of Leptons, Z. Phys. C 44 (1989) 441

    1989

  14. [22]

    Fukugita and T

    M. Fukugita and T. Yanagida, Baryogenesis Without Grand Unification , Phys. Lett. B 174 (1986) 45

    1986

  15. [23]

    C. H. Albright and S. M. Barr, Leptogenesis in the type III seesaw mechanism , Phys. Rev. D 69 (2004) 073010 [ hep-ph/0312224]

    2004 arXiv

  16. [24]

    G. F. Giudice, A. Notari, M. Raidal, A. Riotto and A. Strumia, Towards a complete theory of thermal leptogenesis in the SM and MSSM , Nucl. Phys. B 685 (2004) 89 [ hep-ph/0310123]

    2004 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Ma and U

    E. Ma and U. Sarkar, Neutrino masses and leptogenesis with heavy Higgs triplets , Phys. Rev. Lett. 80 (1998) 5716 [ hep-ph/9802445]

    1998 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Hambye, M

    T. Hambye, M. Raidal and A. Strumia, Efficiency and maximal CP-asymmetry of scalar triplet leptogenesis, Phys. Lett. B 632 (2006) 667 [ hep-ph/0510008]

    2006 arXiv

  19. [27]

    N. D. Barrie, C. Han and H. Murayama, Affleck-Dine Leptogenesis from Higgs Inflation , Phys. Rev. Lett. 128 (2022) 141801 [ 2106.03381]

    2022 arXiv

  20. [28]

    N. D. Barrie, C. Han and H. Murayama, Type II Seesaw leptogenesis, JHEP 05 (2022) 160 [2204.08202]

    2022 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Melfo, M

    A. Melfo, M. Nemevsek, F. Nesti, G. Senjanovic and Y. Zhang, Type II Seesaw at LHC: The Roadmap, Phys. Rev. D 85 (2012) 055018 [ 1108.4416]

    2012 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Y. Du, A. Dunbrack, M. J. Ramsey-Musolf and J.-H. Yu, Type-II Seesaw Scalar Triplet Model at a 100 TeV pp Collider: Discovery and Higgs Portal Coupling Determination , JHEP 01 (2019) 101 [ 1810.09450]

    2019 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Antusch, O

    S. Antusch, O. Fischer, A. Hammad and C. Scherb, Low scale type II seesaw: Present constraints and prospects for displaced vertex searches , JHEP 02 (2019) 157 [ 1811.03476]

    2019 arXiv

  24. [32]

    P. S. Bhupal Dev and Y. Zhang, Displaced vertex signatures of doubly charged scalars in the type-II seesaw and its left-right extensions , JHEP 10 (2018) 199 [ 1808.00943]

    2018 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Ashanujjaman and K

    S. Ashanujjaman and K. Ghosh, Revisiting type-II see-saw: present limits and future prospects at LHC, JHEP 03 (2022) 195 [ 2108.10952]

    2022

  26. [34]

    E. J. Chun, S. Khan, S. Mandal, M. Mitra and S. Shil, Same-sign tetralepton signature at the Large Hadron Collider and a future pp collider, Phys. Rev. D 101 (2020) 075008 [1911.00971]

    2020 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Mandal, O

    S. Mandal, O. G. Miranda, G. S. Garcia, J. W. F. Valle and X.-J. Xu, High-energy colliders as a probe of neutrino properties , Phys. Lett. B 829 (2022) 137110 [ 2202.04502]

    2022 arXiv

  28. [36]

    C. Han, Z. Lei and W. Liao, Testing type II seesaw leptogenesis at the LHC* , Chin. Phys. C 47 (2023) 093104 [ 2303.15709]

    2023 arXiv

  29. [37]

    E. J. Chun, K. Y. Lee and S. C. Park, Testing Higgs triplet model and neutrino mass patterns, Phys. Lett. B 566 (2003) 142 [ hep-ph/0304069]

    2003 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Kakizaki, Y

    M. Kakizaki, Y. Ogura and F. Shima, Lepton flavor violation in the triplet Higgs model , Phys. Lett. B 566 (2003) 210 [ hep-ph/0304254]

    2003 arXiv

  31. [39]

    A. G. Akeroyd, M. Aoki and H. Sugiyama, Lepton Flavour Violating Decays tau — > anti-l ll and mu — > e gamma in the Higgs Triplet Model , Phys. Rev. D 79 (2009) 113010 [0904.3640]. – 18 –

    2009 arXiv

  32. [40]

    D. N. Dinh, A. Ibarra, E. Molinaro and S. T. Petcov, The µ − e Conversion in Nuclei, µ → eγ, µ→ 3e Decays and TeV Scale See-Saw Scenarios of Neutrino Mass Generation , JHEP 08 (2012) 125 [ 1205.4671]

    2012 arXiv

  33. [41]

    C. Han, D. Huang, J. Tang and Y. Zhang, Probing the doubly charged Higgs boson with a muonium to antimuonium conversion experiment , Phys. Rev. D 103 (2021) 055023 [2102.00758]

    2021 arXiv

  34. [42]

    M. M. Ferreira, T. B. de Melo, S. Kovalenko, P. R. D. Pinheiro and F. S. Queiroz, Lepton Flavor Violation and Collider Searches in a Type I + II Seesaw Model , Eur. Phys. J. C 79 (2019) 955 [ 1903.07634]

    2019 arXiv

  35. [43]

    N. D. Barrie and S. T. Petcov, Lepton Flavour Violation tests of Type II Seesaw Leptogenesis, JHEP 01 (2023) 001 [ 2210.02110]

    2023 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Calibbi and X

    L. Calibbi and X. Gao, Lepton flavor violation in minimal grand unified type II seesaw models, Phys. Rev. D 106 (2022) 095036 [ 2206.10682]

    2022 arXiv

  37. [45]

    M. Ardu, S. Davidson and S. Lavignac, Distinguishing models with µ → e observables , JHEP 11 (2023) 101 [ 2308.16897]

    2023 arXiv

  38. [46]

    M. Ardu, S. Davidson and S. Lavignac, Constraining new physics models from µ → e observables in bottom-up EFT , Eur. Phys. J. C 84 (2024) 458 [ 2401.06214]

    2024 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Adam et al., The MEG detector for µ+ → e+γ decay search, Eur

    J. Adam et al., The MEG detector for µ+ → e+γ decay search, Eur. Phys. J. C 73 (2013) 2365 [1303.2348]

    2013 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Bellgardt et al., Search for the Decay µ+ → e+e+e−, Nucl

    SINDRUM collaboration, U. Bellgardt et al., Search for the Decay µ+ → e+e+e−, Nucl. Phys. B 299 (1988) 1

    1988

  41. [49]

    Dohmen et al., Test of lepton flavor conservation in mu — > e conversion on titanium , Phys

    SINDRUM IIcollaboration, C. Dohmen et al., Test of lepton flavor conservation in mu — > e conversion on titanium , Phys. Lett. B 317 (1993) 631

    1993

  42. [50]

    SINDRUM IIcollaboration, W. H. Bertl et al., A Search for muon to electron conversion in muonic gold , Eur. Phys. J. C 47 (2006) 337

    2006

  43. [51]

    MEG II collaboration, A. M. Baldini et al., The design of the MEG II experiment , Eur. Phys. J. C 78 (2018) 380 [ 1801.04688]

    2018 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Arndt et al., Technical design of the phase I Mu3e experiment , Nucl

    Mu3e collaboration, K. Arndt et al., Technical design of the phase I Mu3e experiment , Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 1014 (2021) 165679 [ 2009.11690]

    2021 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Bartoszek et al., Mu2e Technical Design Report, 1501.05241

    Mu2e collaboration, L. Bartoszek et al., Mu2e Technical Design Report, 1501.05241

    arXiv

  46. [54]

    Abramishvili et al., COMET Phase-I Technical Design Report , PTEP 2020 (2020) 033C01 [ 1812.09018]

    COMET collaboration, R. Abramishvili et al., COMET Phase-I Technical Design Report , PTEP 2020 (2020) 033C01 [ 1812.09018]

    2020 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Groupcollaboration, M

    C. Groupcollaboration, M. Aoki et al., A New Charged Lepton Flavor Violation Program at Fermilab, in Snowmass 2021 , 3, 2022, 2203.08278

    2021 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Aaboud et al., Search for doubly charged Higgs boson production in multi-lepton final states with the ATLAS detector using proton–proton collisions at√s = 13 TeV, Eur

    ATLAS collaboration, M. Aaboud et al., Search for doubly charged Higgs boson production in multi-lepton final states with the ATLAS detector using proton–proton collisions at√s = 13 TeV, Eur. Phys. J. C 78 (2018) 199 [ 1710.09748]

    2018 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Esteban, M

    I. Esteban, M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, M. Maltoni, T. Schwetz and A. Zhou, The fate of hints: updated global analysis of three-flavor neutrino oscillations , JHEP 09 (2020) 178 [2007.14792]

    2020 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Aghanim et al., Planck 2018 results

    Planck collaboration, N. Aghanim et al., Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters , Astron. Astrophys. 641 (2020) A6 [ 1807.06209]. – 19 –

    2020 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Mandal, O

    S. Mandal, O. G. Miranda, G. Sanchez Garcia, J. W. F. Valle and X.-J. Xu, Toward deconstructing the simplest seesaw mechanism , Phys. Rev. D 105 (2022) 095020 [2203.06362]

    2022 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Arhrib, R

    A. Arhrib, R. Benbrik, M. Chabab, G. Moultaka, M. C. Peyranere, L. Rahili et al., The Higgs Potential in the Type II Seesaw Model , Phys. Rev. D 84 (2011) 095005 [ 1105.1925]

    2011 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Bonilla, R

    C. Bonilla, R. M. Fonseca and J. W. F. Valle, Consistency of the triplet seesaw model revisited, Phys. Rev. D 92 (2015) 075028 [ 1508.02323]

    2015 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Affleck and M

    I. Affleck and M. Dine, A New Mechanism for Baryogenesis , Nucl. Phys. B 249 (1985) 361

    1985

  55. [63]

    A. A. Starobinsky, A New Type of Isotropic Cosmological Models Without Singularity , Phys. Lett. B 91 (1980) 99

    1980

  56. [64]

    F. L. Bezrukov and M. Shaposhnikov, The Standard Model Higgs boson as the inflaton , Phys. Lett. B 659 (2008) 703 [ 0710.3755]

    2008 arXiv

  57. [65]

    J. L. F. Barbon and J. R. Espinosa, On the Naturalness of Higgs Inflation , Phys. Rev. D 79 (2009) 081302 [ 0903.0355]

    2009 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Bezrukov, A

    F. Bezrukov, A. Magnin, M. Shaposhnikov and S. Sibiryakov, Higgs inflation: consistency and generalisations, JHEP 01 (2011) 016 [ 1008.5157]

    2011 arXiv

  59. [67]

    M. P. Hertzberg, On Inflation with Non-minimal Coupling , JHEP 11 (2010) 023 [1002.2995]

    2010 arXiv

  60. [68]

    C. P. Burgess, H. M. Lee and M. Trott, Comment on Higgs Inflation and Naturalness , JHEP 07 (2010) 007 [ 1002.2730]

    2010 arXiv

  61. [69]

    G. F. Giudice and H. M. Lee, Unitarizing Higgs Inflation , Phys. Lett. B 694 (2011) 294 [1010.1417]

    2011 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Lebedev and H

    O. Lebedev and H. M. Lee, Higgs Portal Inflation , Eur. Phys. J. C 71 (2011) 1821 [1105.2284]

    2011 arXiv

  63. [71]

    C. Han, S. Huang and Z. Lei, Vacuum stability of the type II seesaw leptogenesis from inflation, Phys. Rev. D 107 (2023) 015021 [ 2208.11336]

    2023 arXiv

  64. [72]

    V. A. Kuzmin, V. A. Rubakov and M. E. Shaposhnikov, On the Anomalous Electroweak Baryon Number Nonconservation in the Early Universe , Phys. Lett. B 155 (1985) 36

    1985

  65. [73]

    J. A. Harvey and M. S. Turner, Cosmological baryon and lepton number in the presence of electroweak fermion number violation , Phys. Rev. D 42 (1990) 3344

    1990

  66. [74]

    F. R. Klinkhamer and N. S. Manton, A Saddle Point Solution in the Weinberg-Salam Theory, Phys. Rev. D 30 (1984) 2212

    1984

  67. [75]

    Trodden, Electroweak baryogenesis, Rev

    M. Trodden, Electroweak baryogenesis, Rev. Mod. Phys. 71 (1999) 1463 [ hep-ph/9803479]

    1999 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Kitano, M

    R. Kitano, M. Koike and Y. Okada, Detailed calculation of lepton flavor violating muon electron conversion rate for various nuclei , Phys. Rev. D 66 (2002) 096002 [hep-ph/0203110]. – 20 –

    2002 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.