Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 3 minor 68 references

Neutrino mass generation via the inverse seesaw mechanism in a $U(1)_{B-L}$ gauge extension

T0 review · 4 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper establishes explicit anomaly-free $U(1)_{B-L}$ charge assignments for inverse seesaw neutrino mass, showing that rational charges require at least one spectator singlet fermion beyond the minimal mechanism content, and that a…

desk verdict Three rows of the central charge catalog fail the paper's own anomaly/constraint equations, so the main deliverable is not usable as printed; with those fixed, the paper is a useful toolkit. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.03795 v1 pith:4QADQ2HI submitted 2025-07-04 hep-ph

Higo Barros Nogueira , Job Saraiva Furtado Neto , Raimundo Nogueira da Costa Filho , Júlio Rafael da Silva Leite This is my paper
classification hep-ph
keywords inverseseesawU(1)_B-Lgaugeextensionanomalycancellationrationalchargesneutrinomassdarkmatterscalarsectorexoticfermions
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

The paper asks which $B-L$ charge assignments can support an inverse seesaw neutrino mass mechanism inside a gauged $U(1)_{B-L}$ extension of the Standard Model. It shows that the minimal fermion content forces irrational charges, so at least one extra spectator singlet is needed for rational, phenomenologically manageable charge sets, and a second spectator allows the scalar sector to shrink. It tabulates charge sets satisfying anomaly cancellation plus inequalities that block operators from deforming the seesaw matrix. If correct, these tables give model builders explicit, ready-to-use charge assignments for a testable low-scale neutrino mass mechanism, with one solution offering a dark matter candidate.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the inverse seesaw mass matrix $M_{\rm ISS}$ with entries $M_D$, $M_{NS}$, and $M_{SS}$, together with the two $U(1)_{B-L}$ anomaly equations $\sum_i x_i=-3$ and $\sum_i x_i^3=-3$ for the extra right-handed singlet fermions. The paper classifies charge sets by solution type ($2a\,2b$, $2a\,3b$, $3a\,3b$, each with zero, one, or two spectator singlets), and imposes 17 inequalities, listed in Appendix A, that forbid operators such as $\chi_{NC}(N_R)^c C_R$, $\chi_{SC}(S_R)^c C_R$, and $\Phi_{LS}\bar{L}_L S_R$ from deforming the texture or hierarchy of $M_{\rm ISS}$. These algebraic conditions turn anomaly cancellation plus texture preservation into explicit constraints on the $B-L$ charges of fermions and scalars.

What would settle it

For any Table V solution, enumerate all gauge-invariant operators up to mass dimension five built from the listed fermions and scalars. If one couples the spectator fields $C_R$ or $D_R$ to $N_R$ or $S_R$ with the charges given, the ISS mass matrix is deformed and the paper's neutrino-mass prediction fails; finding none would support the no-deformation claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper establishes the following: an anomaly-free $U(1)_{B-L}$ extension that realizes the inverse seesaw cannot be built from the minimal right-handed fermion content alone with rational charges. Solving the two anomaly equations $\sum_i x_i=-3$ and $\sum_i x_i^3=-3$ for the minimal sets $\{a,a,b,b\}$, $\{a,a,b,b,b\}$, and $\{a,a,a,b,b,b\}$ forces irrational charges, and reproducing the seesaw mass matrix then requires scalar fields with irrational $B-L$ charges. Adding one spectator singlet $C_R$ opens rational solutions; adding a second, $D_R$, lets the scalar sector be reduced so that some solutions need only two exotic singlets and the conjugate Higgs doublet. The paper tabulates charge sets satisfying the anomaly equations, a set of inequalities that forbid operators which would deform the mass matrix, and equations that minimize scalars. In the most economical solutions the spectator charges are irrational but conjugate in pairs, so all scalars remain rational and the spectator pair is stable enough to be a dark matter candidate.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes that the two anomaly equations plus the listed inequalities are the complete set of conditions on the $B-L$ charges, so no gauge-invariant operator built from the existing scalars and fermions, including higher-order combinations, can deform the inverse seesaw mass matrix; if an unlisted operator is invariant, the mass texture and the neutrino mass prediction change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • With the minimal ISS fermion content, a $U(1)_{B-L}$ anomaly-free model necessarily has irrational charges, so scalar fields must carry irrational charges to generate the seesaw entries.
  • Adding one spectator singlet yields exactly one rational three-variable solution meeting the paper's criteria: Sol. 4 with $a=-11/15$, $b=-16/15$, and $c=3/5$.
  • Adding a second spectator produces rational four-variable solutions, and Table V solutions use the conjugate Higgs ($a=-1$) to cut the exotic scalar count to two singlets.
  • In the Table V solutions the spectator pair $C_R$ and $D_R$ is stable because their irrational charges forbid decays to Standard Model fields, providing a dark-matter sector alongside neutrino mass.
  • The representative Solution 25 yields a spectrum with a $Z'$ near 5.7 TeV, a 12.5 TeV Dirac WIMP candidate, pseudo-Dirac pairs near 4.5 TeV, a keV scalar, and an axion-like pseudoscalar.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: the same charge-selection method, anomaly equations plus forbidden-operator inequalities, transfers directly to other abelian extensions, so the rational-versus-irrational trade-off found here is likely a general feature of gauged seesaw textures.
  • Beyond the paper: the Tables V solutions are presented as existence proofs; a full renormalizable model would still need scalar-potential stability and kinetic-mixing checks, which the paper does not carry out.
  • Beyond the paper: if the 17 inequalities are not sufficient, the no-deformation claim fails; the sharp test is an operator search at higher dimension, which would also reveal whether dark-matter stability survives loop effects.
  • Beyond the paper: Solution 25's dark-matter discussion is qualitative; computing the relic density of each candidate and comparing with direct-detection limits would decide whether the multi-component mix is viable.
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

4 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper studies anomaly-free charge assignments for a U(1)_{B-L} extension of the Standard Model that can realize the inverse seesaw (ISS) mechanism. It derives two anomaly equations for the B-L charges of additional right-handed singlet fermions, scans solutions with four to eight such fermions, and imposes inequalities and additional equations intended to prevent operators that would deform the ISS mass matrix and to minimize the scalar sector. The main deliverable is the catalog of charge sets in Tables I-V, together with the claims that irrational charges are necessary when only the ISS fermions are present and that rational solutions become possible after adding one or two extra singlets. A phenomenological discussion for one solution (Solution 25) explores dark matter candidates, including a WIMP-like Dirac fermion, pseudo-Dirac pairs, a light scalar, and an axion-like state.

Significance. If the catalog were correct as printed, the paper would provide a useful starting point for building inverse seesaw models in gauged U(1)_{B-L}, and the explicit rationality/irrationality statements are interesting constraints on model building. The paper also correctly recognizes that preserving the ISS texture requires additional operator-forbidding conditions, an often under-appreciated step. However, the central claim of the abstract, that all presented charge sets obey the anomaly equations and the stated constraints, is directly falsified by several table entries. Because the catalog is the main product of the paper, these errors are load-bearing: a reader cannot use the tables without redoing the scan. The remaining rows that do satisfy the equations indicate that the framework is salvageable, but the paper in its current form is not reliable as a reference catalog.

major comments (4)
  1. [Table III, Sol. 10] Sol. 10 in Table III lists a=-1/5, b=-6/5, c=2, d=-9/5. Substitution into Eq. (1) gives 2a+3b+c+d = -19/5, not -3, and substitution into Eq. (2) gives a cubic sum of -379/125, not -3. This row therefore does not satisfy the anomaly equations and contradicts the abstract's claim that all listed sets obey them; it must be removed or corrected.
  2. [Table IV, Sol. 18] Sol. 18 in Table IV lists a=4, b=-7/2, c=1, d=-4/9. Eq. (1) gives 2a+3b+c+d = -35/18, not -3, and the cubic sum also differs from -3. This row is not an anomaly-free solution and cannot appear in a table of solutions satisfying the stated criteria.
  3. [Table IV, Sol. 16] Sol. 16 in Table IV satisfies the anomaly equations (21), but none of the scalar-substitution conditions in Eqs. (25)-(26) holds: a+b-c-d=-9, a+b+c+d=1, 2b-c-d=-8, and 2b+c+d=2. Since one of these equations is the defining criterion of Table IV, this row should not be listed there.
  4. [Sec. V.C and Appendix A] The paper asserts that the inequalities (A5)-(A11) are sufficient to prevent any deformation of the ISS mass matrix, but it only enumerates renormalizable operators that are bilinear in the fermion fields. It does not demonstrate that no other gauge-invariant operator, for example one built from combinations of the required scalars or a higher-dimensional operator, can generate the forbidden mass terms. Please state the operator basis explicitly and either prove completeness or restrict the claimed guarantee to renormalizable bilinear operators.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Sec. VI, Eq. (30) and Table VIII] The quoted Z' mass of approximately 5.7 TeV is inconsistent with the stated charges and VEVs: for χNS with B-L charge 3 and vNS=10^4 GeV, the formula m_{Z'} = g_{B-L} sqrt(9vNS^2 + 16vSS^2) gives about 17 TeV for g_{B-L}=0.57. Please correct the numerical example or state the normalization convention for the U(1) generator.
  2. [Table IV caption] The caption of Table IV contains an incomplete phrase 'a b, c and d being rationals'; it should read 'a, b, c and d being rationals' or similar, and the wording should be checked for similar typographical issues throughout.
  3. [Throughout] There are numerous typographical and formatting problems, including 'di fferent', 'vev', missing punctuation in references, and hard-to-parse spacing in Table I. A thorough proofreading pass is needed before resubmission.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the charge catalog solves external anomaly equations, and the DM masses are explicit parameter choices rather than predictions.

full rationale

The derivation chain starts from the standard anomaly conditions (Eqs. (1)-(2)), which are external constraints not derived from the tables; the paper then solves the resulting polynomial systems for the stated fermion multiplicities and applies operator-avoidance inequalities (A5-A11) and scalar-minimization equations (24)-(26) as selection criteria. The tables are the outputs of these equations, not inputs to them, so there is no self-definitional reduction. The irrationality result for the minimal fermion sector follows from solving Eqs. (6)-(8), and the rational/irrational distinction is a derived property of the solutions rather than an imposed definition of the target. No 'fitted input called prediction' step appears: the dark matter and scalar masses in Section VI are obtained by explicitly chosen parameters (e.g., Lambda_break, lambda_break, Yukawa couplings, and VEVs), and the paper presents them as choices rather than as predictions extracted from the model. No load-bearing self-citation chain is present: the cited works for the inverse seesaw and anomaly structure are external to the present authors. The arithmetic inconsistencies some table rows may have with Eqs. (1)-(2) and (25)-(26) are, if confirmed, correctness defects in the catalog, not circular reductions: asserting that a row solves an equation is not the same as defining the equation by that row. The completeness of the inequality list is likewise a correctness or completeness risk, not a circularity. The central claim is therefore self-contained against an external benchmark, and the circularity score is zero.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The central charge solutions rest on the standard two anomaly equations and on the paper's own (unproven) completeness assumptions about which operators are forbidden. The phenomenological sections introduce several hand-picked scales and couplings, and the DM candidates carry no falsifiable handle because no relic density or detection rate is computed.

free parameters (6)
  • Lambda_break = 5.4e10 GeV
    Scale of the non-renormalizable operator V_break = (lambda_break/Lambda^3)(chi_NS)^4(chi_SS*)^3, chosen by hand in Section VI so that the axion-like state A has m_A ~ 10^-2 eV.
  • Yukawa couplings y_CD, y_NS, y_SS = 1.77, 0.63, 1
    Chosen in Section VI to set illustrative masses: m_psi_CD ~ 12.5 TeV, m_psi_NS+ ~ 4455 GeV, and a keV-scale mass splitting.
  • Scalar potential couplings = lambda_H-NS = 8e-5, lambda_H-SS = 5e-20, lambda_NS-SS = 5e-20, lambda_NS = 0.1, lambda_SS = 0.5
    Hand-picked in Section VI to keep the SM Higgs at 125 GeV and to fix the h2 and h3 masses; not fitted to data.
  • VEVs v_NS and v_SS = 10^4 GeV and 1 keV
    Input scales inherited from the inverse seesaw hierarchy (m_D ~ 100 GeV, m_NS ~ TeV, m_SS ~ eV to keV); treated as model inputs, not derived.
  • Charge scan bounds = |n| <= 20, d <= 20 for three variables; |n| <= 10, d <= 10 for four variables
    The rational-charge search windows are chosen by hand and define which solutions are found, affecting the claim that only one 2a2b1c solution exists.
  • g_B-L gauge coupling = 0.57
    Assumed in the DM section; inconsistent with the stated Z' mass of 5.7 TeV given v_NS = 10^4 GeV and charge 3, which give about 17 TeV.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Anomaly cancellation for U(1)_B-L reduces to Eqs. (1)-(2): sum of charges = -3 and sum of cubes = -3.
    Invoked in Section II; assumes the SM content plus three right-handed neutrinos with B-L = -1 cancels all mixed anomalies with hypercharge and gravity, leaving only the two conditions for the extra singlets.
  • domain assumption The inverse seesaw mass matrix (3) with the given texture and the operator set (18) yields correct neutrino masses and acceptable unitarity deviation.
    Invoked in Sections III and VII; the paper never diagonalizes the matrix or fits oscillation data for any listed solution.
  • domain assumption The inequalities (A1)-(A11) are sufficient to prevent every operator that would deform the ISS mass matrix.
    Stated in Section V.C and Appendix A; completeness of the list is asserted, not proven.
  • standard math Standard Model B-L charge assignments (quarks +1/3, leptons -1, Higgs 0) are fixed and untouchable.
    Baseline convention used throughout the anomaly equations and operator analysis.
  • ad hoc to paper A non-renormalizable dim-7 operator V_break is added to give the accidental Goldstone A a mass.
    Introduced ad hoc in Section VI to break a global symmetry of potential (27); the mass result m_A ~ 10^-2 eV follows from choosing Lambda_break by hand.
invented entities (2)
  • Exotic singlet fermions C_R and D_R
    purpose: Anomaly-free rational-charge solutions and a stable Dirac dark matter pair; D_R also enables reduced scalar content.
    Not required by observed physics; introduced to make rational charges possible (C_R) and to minimize scalars (D_R). No specific mass or signature is predicted that could falsify them outside the paper; the DM analysis is qualitative.
  • Axion-like particle A (accidental global Goldstone)
    purpose: Presented as a light dark matter component with m_A ~ 10^-2 eV.
    Its mass is set by the hand-chosen scale Lambda_break = 5.4e10 GeV; no independent observable is computed.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Neutrino mass generation via the inverse seesaw mechanism in a $U(1)_{B-L}$ gauge extension." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4QADQ2HI

@misc{pith2026250703795,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Neutrino mass generation via the inverse seesaw mechanism in a $U(1)_B-L$ gauge extension},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4QADQ2HI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.03795}
}
abstract

We present anomaly-free solutions suitable for an inverse seesaw realization within a $U(1)_{B-L}$ extension. Implementing such a mechanism, in a phenomenologically viable way, requires the inclusion of at least four exotic fermions, assumed to be Standard Model singlets. In order to build anomaly-free models, the $B-L$ charges of these exotic fermions must satisfy two constraint equations, known as the anomaly equations. Here, we focus on solutions involving four to eight new right-handed fermions, favoring cases where all the $B-L$ charges of these fermions are rational numbers. We showed that, when considering only the right-handed fermions necessary to realize the mechanism, the solutions must have irrational charge values. By adding one more exotic singlet fermion, which does not directly enter the mechanism mass matrix, it becomes possible to find solutions with rational charges, while the addition of a second one enables a reduction of the scalar sector. On top of the two anomaly equations, a set of inequalities and additional constraint equations were added to correctly account for neutrino masses and to minimize the scalar content. So here we present sets of charges that obey the anomaly equations as well as these additional constraints. Finally, we explore the phenomenological implications of such solutions by analyzing their capacity to provide a framework for dark matter candidates, choosing one particular solution as an example.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

68 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    The charges must obey (A1-A4)

    work page

  2. [2]

    This last feature distinguishes the scalar sector of solution 1 from the scalar sectors of solutions 2 and 3 because in these solutions all exotic scalar fields have irrational BL charges. Lastly, we note that, considering the assumptions a , 0 and b , 0, there are no 3 a 3b solutions and, due to an a↔ b symmetry in equations (6), it is possible to constr...

    work page

  3. [3]

    The charges have to be different in modulus:|a| ,|b| , |c|

    work page

  4. [5]

    These criteria, however, exclude the vast majority of possi- ble solutions if all of them are applied simultaneously

    Their rational values are such that the numerator n runs from−20 to 20 and the denominator d goes from 1 to 20. These criteria, however, exclude the vast majority of possi- ble solutions if all of them are applied simultaneously. Before going to the solutions themselves, let us examine the general solution to the case 2a 2b 1c. Starting with the solution ...

    work page

  5. [6]

    The charges must obey simultaneously all inequalities (A5-A11)

    work page

  6. [7]

    The following differences in charges modulus:|a| ,|b|, |a| ,|c|,|a| ,|d|,|b| ,|c|,|b| ,|d|

    work page

  7. [8]

    The charges may only assume rational non-zero values

    work page

  8. [9]

    Their rational values are such that the numerator n runs from−10 to 10 and the denominator d goes from 1 to 10

    work page

Show all 68 references
  1. [10]

    These solutions are shown in Table III

    They have to be solutions to one of the pairs of anomaly equations (21-23). These solutions are shown in Table III. Note that they do not satisfy any additional equations that would minimize the number of required scalar fields. Solution Sol. Type a b c d #Scalars Sol. 5 2a 2b...

  2. [11]

    The solutions should obey all criteria listed in Table III

  3. [12]

    We present the solutions that satisfy these criteria in Table IV

    Additionally, they have to obey one of the equations in (25) or (26). We present the solutions that satisfy these criteria in Table IV. In the last column we also indicate which energy scale the mass term mCD(CR)cDR acquires for each solution. Note that the solutions presented...

  4. [13]

    The solutions should obey all criteria listed in Table IV

  5. [14]

    Also, they have to obey Eq. (24). Unfortunately, as we have mentioned, there are no solutions compatible with Eq. (24) where all charges are rational num- bers. There are, however, some special solutions where only the charges c and d are irrational. Moreover, the irrational p...

  6. [15]

    − 1 2 + 1 4 (1 + √ 10) Sol 22 2a 2b c d -1 -1/4 − 1 4 (1− √

  7. [16]

    − 1 2 + 1 4 (1− √ 10) Sol 23 2a 3b c d -1 -1/5 − 1 5 (1 + 2 √

  8. [17]

    − 1 5 (1− 2 √ 5) Sol 24 2a 3b c d -1 -1/5 − 1 5 (1− 2 √

  9. [18]

    − 1 5 (1 + 2 √ 5) Sol 25 2a 2b c d -1 -2 1 6 (9− √

  10. [19]

    C., & Valle, J

    Gonzalez-Garcia, M. C., & Valle, J. W. F. (1989). Fast de- caying neutrinos and observable flavour violation in neu- trino oscillations. Physics Letters B, 216 (2-3), 360-366. https://doi.org/10.1016/0370-2693(89)91131-3

    1989 doi

  11. [20]

    (24); (5) |a| ,|b|,|a| ,|c|, |a| ,|d|,|b| ,|c|,|b| ,|d|; (6) |a|,|b|,|c|,|d|< 10; (7) a and b being rationals

    3 + 1 6 (−9− √ 33) Table V: Solutions with four variables whose charges obey the following criteria: (1) all inequalities (A5-A11); (2) one of the pairs of anomaly equations (21-23); (3) one of the equations (25-26); (4) Eq. (24); (5) |a| ,|b|,|a| ,|c|, |a| ,|d|,|b| ,|c|,|b| ,...

  12. [21]

    1 - DR 1 0 3 + 1 6 (−9 + √

  13. [22]

    1 - ΦH 2 1/2 0 1 246 GeV χNS 1 0 3 1 104 GeV χS S 1 0 4 1 1 keV Table VII: Charge assignments of both SM and exotic fields related to Solution 25. V25 =µ2 HΦ† HΦH +λH(Φ† HΦH)2 +µ2 NSχNS†χNS +λNS (χNS†χNS )2 +µ2 S SχS S†χS S +λS S(χS S†χS S)2 +λH−NS (Φ† HΦH)(χNS†χNS ) +λH−S S(Φ...

  14. [23]

    Evidence for Oscillation of Atmospheric Neutrinos,

    Y . Fukuda et al., “Evidence for Oscillation of Atmospheric Neutrinos,” Physical Review Letters, vol. 81, no. 8, pp. 1562– 1567, 1998. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.81.1562

    1998 doi

  15. [24]

    Direct Evidence for Neutrino Flavor Transformation from Neutral Current Interac- tions in the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory,

    Q. R. Ahmad et al. (SNO Collaboration), “Direct Evidence for Neutrino Flavor Transformation from Neutral Current Interac- tions in the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory,” Physical Review Letters, vol. 89, no. 1, p. 011301, 2002. doi: 10.1103 /Phys- RevLett.89.011301

    2002

  16. [25]

    First Results from KamLAND: Evidence for Reactor Anti-Neutrino Disap- pearance,

    K. Eguchi et al. (KamLAND Collaboration), “First Results from KamLAND: Evidence for Reactor Anti-Neutrino Disap- pearance,” Physical Review Letters, vol. 90, no. 2, p. 021802,

  17. [26]

    A., Lhuillier, D., Fallot, M., Letourneau, A., Cormon, S., Fechner, M., Giot, L., Lasserre, T., et al

    Mueller, T. A., Lhuillier, D., Fallot, M., Letourneau, A., Cormon, S., Fechner, M., Giot, L., Lasserre, T., et al. (2011). Improved predictions of reactor an- tineutrino spectra. Physical Review C, 83 (5), 054615. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.83.054615

    2011 doi

  18. [27]

    Neutrino mass and new physics,

    R. N. Mohapatra and A. Y . Smirnov, “Neutrino mass and new physics,” Annual Review of Nuclear and Parti- cle Science , vol. 56, pp. 569–628, 2006. doi: 10.1146 /an- nurev.nucl.56.080805.140228

    2006

  19. [28]

    Ma, E. (1998). Pathways to naturally small neutrino masses. Physical Review Letters, 81 (6), 1171-1174. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.81.1171

    1998 doi

  20. [29]

    M., Morisi, S., & Valle, J

    Boucenna, S. M., Morisi, S., & Valle, J. W. F. (2014). The low- scale approach to neutrino masses. Advances in High Energy Physics, 2014, 831598. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/831598

    2014 doi

  21. [30]

    N., & Senjanovic, G

    Mohapatra, R. N., & Senjanovic, G. (1980). Neutrino mass and spontaneous parity violation. Physical Review Letters, 44 (16), 912-915. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.44.912

    1980 doi

  22. [31]

    Schechter, J., & Valle, J. W. F. (1982). Neutrino masses in SU(2) × U(1) theories. Physical Review D, 25 (3), 774-783. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.25.774

    1982 doi

  23. [32]

    Bernal, N., Restrepo, D., Yaguna, C., & Zapata, O. (2019). Two-component dark matter and a massless neu- trino in a new B - L model. Physical Review D, 99(1), 015038. https: //doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.99.015038. arXiv:1808.03352 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  24. [33]

    3 + 1 6 (−9 + √ 33) Sol 26 2a 2b c d -1 -2 1 6 (9 + √

  25. [34]

    Gu, P.-H. (2020). Double type II seesaw mech- anism accompanied by Dirac fermionic dark matter. Physical Review D, 101 (1), 015006. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.101.015006. arXiv:1907.10019 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  26. [35]

    Patra, S., Rodejohann, W., & Yaguna, C. E. (2016). A new B - L model without right-handed neutri- nos. Journal of High Energy Physics, 2016 (9), 076. https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP09(2016)076. arXiv:1607.04029 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  27. [36]

    B., Dobrescu, B

    Costa, D. B., Dobrescu, B. A., & Fox, P. J. (2020). Chiral Abelian gauge theories with few fermions. Physical Review D, 101(9), 095032. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.101.095032

    2020 doi

  28. [37]

    ’t Hooft, G. (1976). Symmetry breaking through Bell- Jackiw Anomalies. Physical Review Letters, 37(1), 8–11. https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevlett.37.8

    1976 doi

  29. [38]

    C., & Pleitez, V

    Montero, J. C., & Pleitez, V . (2009). Gaug- ing . Physics Letters B, 675(1), 64–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2009.03.065

    2009 doi

  30. [39]

    Schwartz, M. D. (2014). Quantum field theory and the Standard Model. Cambridge University Press

    2014

  31. [40]

    Ma, E., & Srivastava, R. (2015). Dirac or inverse see- saw neutrino masses with B-L gauge symmetry and S3 flavor symmetry. Physics Letters B, 741 , 217-222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2014.12.049

    2015 doi

  32. [41]

    Nanda, D., & Borah, D. (2020). Connecting light Dirac neutrinos to a multi-component dark matter scenario in gauged B-L model. European Physical Journal C, 80 (6), 557. https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-020-8112-y

    2020 doi

  33. [42]

    N., & Valle, J

    Mohapatra, R. N., & Valle, J. W. F. (1986). Neu- trino mass and baryon-number nonconservation in su- perstring models. Physical Review D, 34 (6), 1642-1645. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.34.1642

    1986 doi

  34. [43]

    Deppisch, F., & Valle, J. W. F. (2005). Enhanced lep- ton flavor violation in the supersymmetric inverse 12 seesaw model. Physical Review D, 72 (3), 036001. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.72.036001

    2005 doi

  35. [44]

    Abada, A., & Lucente, M. (2014). Looking for the minimal inverse seesaw realisation. Nuclear Physics B, 885 , 651-678. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2014.06.020

    2014 doi

  36. [45]

    M., et al

    Baldini, A. M., et al. (MEG Collaboration). (2018). Search for the lepton flavour violating decay µ+ → e+γ with the full dataset of the MEG experiment. European Physical Journal C, 78(5), 380. https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-018-5961-0

    2018 doi

  37. [46]

    (Mu3e Collaboration)

    Blondel, A., et al. (Mu3e Collaboration). (2014). Re- search proposal for an experiment to search for the decay µ → eee. arXiv preprint , arXiv:1301.6113. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1301.6113

    2014 doi arXiv

  38. [47]

    DUNE Collaboration. (2020). Deep Underground Neutrino Ex- periment (DUNE), far detector technical design report, volume II: DUNE physics.Journal of Instrumentation, 15(08), T08009. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-0221/15/08/T08009

    2020 doi

  39. [48]

    Hyper-Kamiokande Proto-Collaboration. (2018). Hyper- Kamiokande design report. arXiv preprint, arXiv:1805.04163. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1805.04163

    2018 doi arXiv

  40. [50]

    A., et al

    Aguilar-Arevalo, A. A., et al . [MiniBooNE Collaboration]. (2013). Improved search for ¯νµ→ ¯νe oscillations in the Mini- BooNE experiment. Physical Review Letters, 110(16), 161801. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.161801

    2013 doi

  41. [51]

    Giunti, C., & Laveder, M. (2011). Statistical significance of the gallium anomaly. Physical Review C, 83 (6), 065504. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.83.065504

    2011 doi

  42. [52]

    N., & Marshak, R

    Mohapatra, R. N., & Marshak, R. E. (1980). Local B-L symme- try of electroweak interactions, majorana neutrinos, and neu- tron oscillations. Physical Review Letters, 44(20), 1316–1319. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.44.1316

    1980 doi

  43. [53]

    (XENON Collaboration)

    Aprile, E., et al. (XENON Collaboration). (2018). Dark matter search results from a one ton-year exposure of XENON1T. Physical Review Letters , 121(11), 111302. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.111302

    2018 doi

  44. [54]

    S., et al

    Akerib, D. S., et al. (LZ Collaboration). (2022). First dark matter search results from the LUX-ZEPLIN (LZ) experiment. Physical Review Letters , 129(8), 081803. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.129.081803

    2022 doi

  45. [55]

    (Fermi-LAT Collaboration)

    Ackermann, M., et al. (Fermi-LAT Collaboration). (2015). Searching for dark matter annihilation from Milky Way dwarf spheroidal galaxies with six years of Fermi- LAT data. Physical Review Letters , 115(23), 231301. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.115.231301

    2015 doi

  46. [56]

    (DARWIN Collaboration)

    Aalbers, J., et al. (DARWIN Collaboration). (2023). DARWIN: A next-generation liquid xenon observatory for dark matter and neutrino physics. Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics, 50(7), 070501. doi:10.1088/1361-6471/acd2b4

    2023 doi

  47. [57]

    Griest, K., & Seckel, D. (1991). Cosmic abundance of Kaluza- Klein dark matter. Physical Review D , 43(10), 3191–3203. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.43.3191

    1991 doi

  48. [58]

    ATLAS Collaboration. (2021). Search for new phenomena in final states with large jet multiplicities and missing trans- verse momentum using √s = 13 TeV proton-proton collisions recorded by ATLAS in run 2 of the LHC. Journal of High En- ergy Physics, 2021(10), 132. doi:10.1007/...

    2021 doi

  49. [59]

    CMS Collaboration. (2022). Search for heavy resonances de- caying to a pair of Higgs bosons in the four b-quark final state in proton-proton collisions at √s = 13 TeV. Journal of High Energy Physics, 2022(6), 148. doi:10.1007/JHEP06(2022)148

    2022 doi

  50. [60]

    Golling, T., et al. (2017). Physics at a 100 TeV pp collider: Be- yond the standard model phenomena. CERN Yellow Reports, 3, 441–575. doi:10.23731/CYRM-2017-003.441

    2017 doi

  51. [61]

    B., & Wilczek, F

    Preskill, J., Wise, M. B., & Wilczek, F. (1983). Cosmology of the invisible axion. Physics Letters B , 120(1–3), 127–132. doi:10.1016/0370-2693(83)90637-8

    1983 doi

  52. [62]

    Planck Collaboration. (2018). Planck 2018 results. VI. Cos- mological parameters. Astronomy & Astrophysics, 641, A6. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833910

    2018 doi

  53. [63]

    Chluba, J., et al. (2021). Spectral distortions of the CMB as a probe of new physics. Experimental Astronomy, 51(3), 1515–

    2021

  54. [65]

    T., Betz, M., Cantatore, G., Carmona, J

    Armengaud, E., Avignone, F. T., Betz, M., Cantatore, G., Carmona, J. M., Davoudiasl, H., ... Zioutas, K. (2014). Conceptual design of the International Axion Observa- tory (IAXO). Journal of Instrumentation, 9 (05), T05002. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-0221/9/05/T05002

    2014 doi

  55. [66]

    Arcusa, A., et al. (2025). The International Axion Obser- vatory (IAXO): Case, status and plans . arXiv:2504.00079. https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.00079

    2025 arXiv

  56. [67]

    A., & Hopper, T

    Appelquist, T., Dobrescu, B. A., & Hopper, T. (2003). A low- energy photon collider viaZ′ gauge bosons. Physical Review D, 68(3), 035012. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.68.035012 Appendix A: Inequalities to be obeyed in order to avoid extra operators

    2003 doi

  57. [68]

    Here, we establish a set of inequalities that the B− L charges of the relevant fields must satisfy to prevent such problematic operators in the three-variable case (Sec

    Three variables The addition of an exotic fermion CR may lead to opera- tors that can deform the general neutral fermion mass matrix. Here, we establish a set of inequalities that the B− L charges of the relevant fields must satisfy to prevent such problematic operators in the...

  58. [69]

    There are a total of seven operators we want to prohibit, four of them involves scalar S U(2)L singlets and the other three are built with scalar S U(2)L doublets

    Four variables Here we write all the inequalities mentioned in Sec.V C. There are a total of seven operators we want to prohibit, four of them involves scalar S U(2)L singlets and the other three are built with scalar S U(2)L doublets. This would give a to- tal of 4 × 6 + 3× 1...

  59. [1554]

    doi:10.1007/s10686-021-09722-7

    doi

  60. [2003]

    doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.90.021802

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.