Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Left-Handed Physics is not right for EDMs

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that in new-physics models where heavy particles couple to lepton doublets but not to right-handed singlet leptons, one-loop electric dipole moments vanish exactly because the one-loop dipole coefficient matrix is a…

desk verdict Right in substance but 'vanish' overstates the proof: the dropped non-hermitian terms of relative order m_l^2/v^2 mean one-loop EDMs are suppressed, not exactly zero. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.19421 v1 pith:MRBIJIPW submitted 2025-07-25 hep-ph

Marco Ardu , Sacha Davidson , Nicola Valori This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph PACS 11.30.Er13.40.Em12.60.Cn
keywords electricdipolemomentsleptonflavourviolationSMEFThermitianstructurechargedmassmatrixradiativedecaysCPneutrinomodels
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 examines a class of new-physics models motivated by neutrino masses: heavy, lepton-flavour-changing extensions with complex couplings in which the heavy particles talk to the left-handed lepton doublets but not to the right-handed charged-lepton singlets. In such models, one-loop diagrams generate complex, flavour-changing dipole amplitudes such as $\mu\to e\gamma$, but the one-loop electric dipole moments (EDMs) are claimed to vanish. The worry is that new-physics corrections to the charged-lepton mass matrix could misalign the mass and Yukawa bases, rotating the complex off-diagonal dipole phases into diagonal, CP-violating entries. The paper shows this does not happen: the one-loop dipole coefficient matrix always has the form $H m_l$ with $H$ hermitian in flavour space and $m_l$ diagonal, so the diagonal entries are real and EDMs first appear at two loops.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the factorisation $C_D = (1/(16\pi^2 v))\, H D_m$ together with its analogue for the mass matrix, $C_{EH} = H' Y_l$. $H$ is hermitian in flavour space because it is built from the combination $y^J_{i\alpha} y^{J*}_{j\alpha}$ of complex couplings (or the analogous vector couplings), and the mass matrix appears on the right because the chirality flip comes from the external lepton line. The second ingredient is the SMEFT Green-basis reduction of the one-loop matching, which uses the lepton and Higgs equations of motion to express the dimension-six mass correction in terms of hermitian Green coefficients acting on the Yukawa matrix. The renormalisation-group running of $C_{EH}$ preserves this form because the Higgs minimisation condition cancels the potentially dangerous terms, so the misalignment between mass and Yukawa bases never creates a one-loop EDM.

What would settle it

Take any concrete model in this class (for instance the type-II seesaw, where the triplet does not couple to $e_R$), compute the complete one-loop dipole coefficient matrix in the mass basis without dropping the $m_l^2/v^2$ and $Y_l Y_l^\dagger C_{EH}$ terms, and check the diagonal imaginary part: if it is nonzero at any order, the claimed one-loop vanishing is false. A complementary check is to evaluate the two-loop Barr-Zee diagrams and confirm they are the first non-vanishing EDM contributions, as the argument predicts.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the one-loop dipole coefficient matrix in these models factorises as $C_D = (1/(16\pi^2 v))\, H D_m$, where $H$ is hermitian in lepton flavour space and $D_m$ is the diagonal charged-lepton mass matrix. Since the diagonal entries of a hermitian matrix are real, the imaginary parts of the diagonal dipole coefficients --- the electric dipole moments --- vanish at one loop, in both the mass eigenstate basis and the Yukawa eigenstate basis. The argument has two steps: one-loop matching diagrams with heavy particles produce a hermitian combination of couplings multiplied by an external mass insertion, and the new-physics correction to the charged-lepton mass matrix, encoded in the dimension-six SMEFT coefficient $C_{EH}$, is itself $H' Y_l$ up to corrections of order $m_l^2/v^2$, so any basis misalignment preserves the hermitian-times-mass structure. The residual EDM contributions are therefore two-loop effects, roughly the size quoted in eq. (1).

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the new heavy particles genuinely have no interactions with the right-handed singlet leptons $e_R$ in the physical mass-eigenstate basis at the new-physics scale, with all Standard-Model particles treated as massless; if that condition is basis-dependent or acquires loop corrections, or if the dropped order-$m_l^2/v^2$ terms matter numerically, the one-loop $e_R$-Higgs diagrams and their EDM contributions need not vanish.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The flavour-changing radiative decays $l_j \to l_i \gamma$ remain one-loop effects with complex off-diagonal coefficients, so $\mu\to e\gamma$ and $\tau\to l\gamma$ searches remain the most direct probes of this new-physics class.
  • The leading EDMs are two-loop and scale as $d_i \sim \frac{m_i}{(16\pi^2)^2 \Lambda_{\rm NP}^2}\,\mathrm{Im}\{\Pi_{ii}\}$, placing the muon and tau EDMs below foreseeable experimental sensitivity unless the CP-violating coupling products are large or the new-physics scale is low.
  • Because $H$ is hermitian, $|H_{ij}| = |H_{ji}|$, so the outgoing charged lepton in $l_j \to l_i \gamma$ is strongly left-handed; the right-handed polarisation rate is suppressed by $m_i^2/m_j^2$.
  • The electron EDM can probe a lower new-physics scale than $\mu\to e\gamma$ in this model class, because the EDM carries an extra loop factor and an $m_e/m_\mu$ suppression relative to the radiative decay; a future electron-EDM signal without $\mu\to e\gamma$ would require a hierarchy in the hermitian matrix $H$.
  • Accidental cancellations or imposed flavour and CP symmetries can modify the expected patterns, but the absence of one-loop EDMs is structural and independent of the size of the complex off-diagonal couplings.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A decisive check of the structural argument would be to compute the full one-loop $C_D$ in a concrete model of this class (for example the type-II seesaw) without dropping the $m_l^2/v^2$ and $Y_l Y_l^\dagger C_{EH}$ terms; a nonzero diagonal imaginary part at that order would mean the vanishing is approximate rather than exact.
  • The same hermitian-times-mass logic may extend to other chirality-flipping CP-violating observables, such as quark chromo-electric dipole moments, in models where new physics couples only to left-handed doublets; if so, the no-go would be a general feature of 'left-handed only' new physics rather than a lepton-specific accident.
  • A future positive muon EDM measurement would be difficult to accommodate in this model class, since the two-loop prediction lies roughly two orders of magnitude below the projected sensitivity; such a signal would point to new interactions with right-handed leptons or to CP violation in operators beyond the dipole.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies heavy new physics models with lepton flavour-changing couplings and complex phases, in which the new heavy mass eigenstates do not interact with the SM singlet charged leptons e_R. It claims that in such models the one-loop dipole coefficient matrix has the structure C_D = (1/(16 pi^2 v)) H m_l with H hermitian, so the diagonal imaginary parts—the electric dipole moments—vanish at one loop in both the mass and Yukawa eigenstate bases, and EDM contributions first appear at two loops. The argument is organised in two steps: one-loop heavy-particle contributions are shown to be hermitian-coupling times mass, and NP corrections to the charged lepton mass matrix, computed in SMEFT at dimension six, are shown to preserve the same structure up to terms of relative order m_l^2/v^2, which the paper drops. The manuscript also discusses phenomenological patterns for l_j -> l_i gamma and EDM observables.

Significance. The paper's structural observation is useful: if the heavy NP interacts only with lepton doublets, the one-loop dipole matrix is forced into a hermitian-times-mass form, which protects the EDMs from one-loop contributions even after flavour-basis rotations. The two-step proof is well organised and the phenomenological discussion is clear, with a nice summary of expected suppression patterns. However, the central claim as stated in the abstract is 'vanish', whereas the proof establishes only a suppression by relative order m_l^2/v^2, because the key structural condition C_EH = H Y_l is proven only up to explicitly neglected non-hermitian corrections. This mismatch between the headline and the proven content is the main obstacle to acceptance.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section IIIC, eq. (19)] The proof of [C_EH] = [H][Y_l] is not exact. After reducing the Green basis, eq. (19) gives [C_EH] = [H][m_l] + [m_l m_l^dagger][H][m_l] + ..., and the paper says 'We neglect these unwelcome terms, which contradict the claim we aim to prove, because they are numerically small.' In the mass basis, [m_l m_l^dagger][H][m_l] = D_m H D_m, which is not of the form H' D_m with H' hermitian, since D_m H is generally not hermitian. Therefore the effective Yukawa [Y_l] = (1/v)([m_l] + (v^2/Lambda^2)[C_EH]) is not of the form H'' D_m when this term is retained, and the vanishing of the diagonal imaginary parts of C_D in eq. (21) is not exact. The proven statement is a suppression by at most m_tau^2/v^2 ~ 1e-4 relative to the naive one-loop amplitude, not an exact zero. This should be stated honestly in the abstract and Section V, or the model class should be restricted so that the offending terms are absent (e.g., by a symmetry forcing [H,m_l] to vanish).
  2. [Appendix A, eqs. (A2)-(A3)] The RGE for C_EH contains the terms +4[C_EH][Y_l^dagger Y_l] + 5[Y_l Y_l^dagger][C_EH], which are not of the form H Y_l unless [C_EH] commutes with Y_l Y_l^dagger. These terms are dropped in the mass-matrix RGE (A4), as the text acknowledges. This is another place where the structural condition is only approximate: even if [C_EH] = H' Y_l at the matching scale, running to m_W generates non-hermitian corrections of relative order y_tau^2 or so. The paper should either prove the commutator vanishes for the model class or formulate the result as a one-loop-suppressed EDM rather than a vanishing one.
  3. [Section IIIC, paragraph after eq. (19)] The argument assumes 'we suppose that neither O_LEDQ nor O_LEQU are generated in matching the model to SMEFT.' This is a non-trivial model assumption. The stated model condition—heavy states do not interact with singlets at tree level—does not by itself exclude loop-generated O_LEDQ or O_LEQU. If these operators are present, their Yukawa-type mixing into C_EH through the RGE terms in (A3) can violate the H Y_l structure. The theorem should therefore state this as an explicit hypothesis, and the paper should comment on whether the neutrino-mass models it cites (type I/II/III seesaw, scotogenic) satisfy it.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section IV] The sentence 'Symmetries can be inposed to inhibit flavour change' contains a typo; 'inposed' should be 'imposed'.
  2. [Figure 3] The manuscript refers to Figure 3 but the figure does not appear in the text; please check that the submission includes it.
  3. [References] Reference [46] duplicates reference [9] (both cite Buras, hep-ph/9806471); please remove the duplicate.
  4. [Eq. (10)] The notation '(eQ)' inside the matrix entries of eq. (10) is confusing; the units should be defined in the caption or in the surrounding text.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the vanishing one-loop EDM result follows from a self-contained structural argument, not from fitting or from a load-bearing self-citation chain.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that, for NP models whose heavy states do not couple to e_R, the one-loop dipole coefficient has the form C_D = (1/(16 pi^2 v)) H D_m with H hermitian, so imaginary diagonal entries vanish. The derivation is self-contained: Section IIIB computes the one-loop NP diagrams and obtains [C_D] = [H D_m] because the relevant coupling combination y^J_{i alpha} y^{J*}_{i alpha} is real and hence H is hermitian; Section IIIC then addresses whether mass-basis rotations can reintroduce EDMs by showing, in SMEFT, that the dimension-six mass correction is [C_EH] = [H][Y_l] up to explicitly neglected terms. The two self-citations in the paper ([77,78], Ardu-Davidson-Lavignac) are used only to illustrate possible accidental cancellations in Type II seesaw phenomenology and play no role in the proof; the Green-basis reduction relies on the external reference [47]. The main caveat is a limitation, not circularity: the paper explicitly drops terms in Eq. (19) of the form [m_l m_l^dagger][H][m_l] and RGE terms [Y_l Y_l^dagger][C_EH] and [C_EH][Y_l^dagger Y_l] that violate the required hermitian structure, stating 'We neglect these unwelcome terms, which contradict the claim we aim to prove, because they are numerically small.' This makes the abstract's exact 'vanish' wording conditional on m_l^2/v^2 suppression, but the result is not obtained by fitting observables or by defining the conclusion into the input. No circular reduction is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The proof uses no fitted constants and introduces no new particles. It rests on the model class definition, the structural form of the dimension-six mass correction from SMEFT, and the import of standard SMEFT RGEs from the literature. The main caveat is the explicit neglect of small terms in C_EH that would otherwise spoil the exact vanishing statement.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The new heavy mass eigenstates do not interact with the SM singlet charged leptons e_R, implemented in the mass eigenstate basis at the NP scale with all SM particles massless.
    This defines the model class under study. If new physics couples to e_R, one-loop EDMs are known to arise, as stated in Section IIIB.
  • domain assumption The NP contributions to the charged lepton mass matrix are captured by the dimension-six SMEFT operator O_EH and the Green-basis reduction of reference [47], giving C_EH = H' Y_l up to negligible m_l^2/v^2 and Y_l Y_l^dagger C_EH terms.
    The proof of vanishing Higgs-mediated EDMs relies on this structural form. Section IIIC explicitly drops terms that contradict the claim.
  • ad hoc to paper Neither O_LEDQ nor O_LEQU are generated in matching the model to SMEFT, and bosonic or singlet-vector Green contributions either take the form H Y_l or do not affect tree-level matching.
    Section IIIC says 'Since the NP does not interact with singlet charged leptons, we suppose that neither O_LEDQ nor O_LEQU are generated...' This assumption is tailored to make the argument work and is not derived.
  • standard math The quoted SMEFT RGEs and Green basis from references [47,50-52] are correct as stated.
    The simplification of the mass-matrix RGE in Appendix A and the reduction formula of eq (19) are imported from the cited literature.
  • standard math The Higgs potential minimisation condition mu_H^2 = lambda v^2 is used and is valid.
    This cancellation is used in Appendix A to simplify the RGE for the charged lepton mass matrix.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Left-Handed Physics is not right for EDMs." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MRBIJIPW

@misc{pith2026250719421,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Left-Handed Physics is not right for EDMs},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MRBIJIPW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.19421}
}
abstract

Heavy New Physics models with lepton flavour-changing interactions are motivated by neutrino masses, and generically induce dipole interactions for leptons, which can be flavour-changing ($l_j\to l_i \gamma$) or flavour-diagonal (magnetic and electric dipole moments(edms)). We focus on models with complex couplings, and where the singlet Standard Model leptons ($\{e_R^i\}$) do not interact with the New Physics. In such models, edms are calculated to arise at two loops, despite that complex amplitudes for $l_j\to l_i \gamma$ appear at one loop. We explore whether the extra loop suppression of edms survives flavour basis rotations that could be induced by flavour-changing NP contributions to the charged lepton mass matrix. We show that one-loop edms vanish in both the mass and Yukawa eigenstate bases.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.19421 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. One-loop diagrams that might contribute to the dipole operator after using EoM. The photon attaches to either internal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Chirality-flip diagrams contributing to the dipole operator; since the BSM particles do not interact with singlet charged [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. The NP scale probed by the observables on the horizontal axis, in lepton flavour-changing models where the NP does [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Dark Sector Electroweak Baryogenesis In Light Of The Galactic Center Excess

    hep-ph 2025-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A dark-sector electroweak baryogenesis model with a ~50 GeV fermionic dark matter candidate can simultaneously match the baryon asymmetry, the dark matter relic density, and (at ~2 sigma) the galactic center gamma-ray...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

86 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    The Neutron EDM in the SM: A Review,

    S. Dar, “The Neutron EDM in the SM: A Review,” [arXiv:hep-ph/0008248 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv

  2. [2]

    Electric dipole moments as probes of new physics,

    M. Pospelov and A. Ritz, “Electric dipole moments as probes of new physics,” Annals Phys. 318 (2005), 119-169 doi:10.1016/j.aop.2005.04.002 [arXiv:hep-ph/0504231 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2005

  3. [3]

    Search for New Physics with Atoms and Molecules,

    M. S. Safronova, D. Budker, D. DeMille, D. F. J. Kimball, A. Derevianko and C. W. Clark, “Search for New Physics with Atoms and Molecules,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 90 (2018) no.2, 025008 doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.90.025008 [arXiv:1710.01833 [physics.atom-ph]]

    arXiv 2018

  4. [4]

    Beyond the Standard Model contributions to dipole moments,

    O. Vives and N. Valori, “Beyond the Standard Model contributions to dipole moments,” [arXiv:2505.06345 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv

  5. [5]

    Electric dipole moment of the W boson and the electron in the Kobayashi-Maskawa model,

    M. E. Pospelov and I. B. Khriplovich, “Electric dipole moment of the W boson and the electron in the Kobayashi-Maskawa model,” Sov. J. Nucl. Phys.53 (1991), 638-640

    1991

  6. [6]

    Quarklevelandhadroniccontributionstotheelectricdipolemomentofchargedleptonsin the standard model,

    Y.YamaguchiandN.Yamanaka, “Quarklevelandhadroniccontributionstotheelectricdipolemomentofchargedleptonsin the standard model,” Phys. Rev. D103 (2021) no.1, 013001 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.103.013001 [arXiv:2006.00281 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2021

  7. [7]

    Large long-distance contributions to the electric dipole moments of charged leptons in the standard model,

    Y. Yamaguchi and N. Yamanaka, “Large long-distance contributions to the electric dipole moments of charged leptons in the standard model,” Phys. Rev. Lett.125 (2020), 241802 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.125.241802 [arXiv:2003.08195 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2020

  8. [8]

    Effective field theory

    H. Georgi, "Effective field theory" Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 43 (1993), 209–252

    1993

Show all 86 references
  1. [10]

    Introduction to Effective Field Theories,

    A. V. Manohar, “Introduction to Effective Field Theories,” doi:10.1093/oso/9780198855743.003.0002 [arXiv:1804.05863 [hep-ph]]

  2. [11]

    A Note on Majorana neutrinos, leptonic CKM and electron electric dipole moment,

    D. Ng and J. N. Ng, “A Note on Majorana neutrinos, leptonic CKM and electron electric dipole moment,” Mod. Phys. Lett. A 11 (1996), 211-216 doi:10.1142/S0217732396000254 [arXiv:hep-ph/9510306 [hep-ph]]

    1996 arXiv

  3. [12]

    Electric dipole moments of leptons in the presence of majorana neutrinos,

    J. P. Archambault, A. Czarnecki and M. Pospelov, “Electric dipole moments of leptons in the presence of majorana neutrinos,” Phys. Rev. D70 (2004), 073006 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.70.073006 [arXiv:hep-ph/0406089 [hep-ph]]

    2004 arXiv

  4. [13]

    Gauge invariant Barr-Zee type contributions to fermionic EDMs in the two-Higgs doublet models,

    T. Abe, J. Hisano, T. Kitahara and K. Tobioka, “Gauge invariant Barr-Zee type contributions to fermionic EDMs in the two-Higgs doublet models,” JHEP 01 (2014), 106 [erratum: JHEP 04 (2016), 161] doi:10.1007/JHEP01(2014)106 [arXiv:1311.4704 [hep-ph]]

    2014 arXiv

  5. [14]

    Electric dipole moments in the minimal scotogenic model,

    A. Abada and T. Toma, “Electric dipole moments in the minimal scotogenic model,” JHEP04 (2018), 030 [erratum: JHEP 04 (2021), 060] doi:10.1007/JHEP04(2018)030 [arXiv:1802.00007 [hep-ph]]

    2018 arXiv

  6. [15]

    Electric dipole moments of charged leptons in models with pseudo-Dirac sterile fermions,

    A. Abada and T. Toma, “Electric dipole moments of charged leptons in models with pseudo-Dirac sterile fermions,” JHEP 08 (2024), 128 doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2024)128 [arXiv:2405.01648 [hep-ph]]

    2024 arXiv

  7. [16]

    Vanishing or non-vanishing rainbow? Reduction formulas of electric dipole moment,

    M. Fujiwara, J. Hisano and T. Toma, “Vanishing or non-vanishing rainbow? Reduction formulas of electric dipole moment,” JHEP 10 (2021), 237 doi:10.1007/JHEP10(2021)237 [arXiv:2106.03384 [hep-ph]]

    2021 arXiv

  8. [17]

    Electric dipole moments in the extended scotogenic models,

    M. Fujiwara, J. Hisano, C. Kanai and T. Toma, “Electric dipole moments in the extended scotogenic models,” JHEP04 (2021), 114 doi:10.1007/JHEP04(2021)114 [arXiv:2012.14585 [hep-ph]]

    2021 arXiv

  9. [18]

    The Electric Dipole Moment of the electron in the decoupling limit of the aligned Two-Higgs Doublet Model,

    J. M. Dávila, A. Karan, E. Passemar, A. Pich and L. Vale Silva, “The Electric Dipole Moment of the electron in the decoupling limit of the aligned Two-Higgs Doublet Model,” [arXiv:2504.16700 [hep-ph]]

  10. [19]

    Conditions for CP-violation in the general two-Higgs-doublet model,

    J. F. Gunion and H. E. Haber, “Conditions for CP-violation in the general two-Higgs-doublet model,” Phys. Rev. D72 (2005), 095002 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.72.095002 [arXiv:hep-ph/0506227 [hep-ph]]

    2005 arXiv

  11. [20]

    On Quantum electrodynamics and the magnetic moment of the electron,

    J. S. Schwinger, “On Quantum electrodynamics and the magnetic moment of the electron,” Phys. Rev.73 (1948), 416-417 doi:10.1103/PhysRev.73.416

    1948 doi

  12. [21]

    Effective Lagrangian Analysis of New Interactions and Flavor Conservation,

    W. Buchmuller and D. Wyler, “Effective Lagrangian Analysis of New Interactions and Flavor Conservation,” Nucl. Phys. B 268 (1986) 621. doi:10.1016/0550-3213(86)90262-2

    1986 doi

  13. [22]

    Dimension-Six Terms in the Standard Model Lagrangian,

    B. Grzadkowski, M. Iskrzynski, M. Misiak and J. Rosiek, “Dimension-Six Terms in the Standard Model Lagrangian,” JHEP 1010 (2010) 085 [arXiv:1008.4884 [hep-ph]]

    2010 arXiv

  14. [23]

    New limit on theµ+->e+γ decay with the MEG II experiment,

    K. Afanacievet al. [MEG II], “New limit on theµ+->e+γ decay with the MEG II experiment,” [arXiv:2504.15711 [hep-ex]]

    arXiv

  15. [24]

    The design of the MEG II experiment,

    A. M. Baldini et al. [MEG II], “The design of the MEG II experiment,” Eur. Phys. J. C 78 (2018) no.5, 380 doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-018-5845-6 [arXiv:1801.04688 [physics.ins-det]]

    2018 arXiv

  16. [25]

    Searches for Lepton Flavor Violation in the Decaysτ±→e±γ andτ±→µ±γ,

    B. Aubertet al. [BaBar], “Searches for Lepton Flavor Violation in the Decaysτ±→e±γ andτ±→µ±γ,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 104 (2010), 021802 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.104.021802 [arXiv:0908.2381 [hep-ex]]

    2010 arXiv

  17. [26]

    Snowmass 2021 White Paper: Charged lepton flavor violation in the tau sector,

    S. Banerjee, V. Cirigliano, M. Dam, A. Deshpande, L. Fiorini, K. Fuyuto, C. Gal, T. Husek, E. Mereghetti and K. Monálvez- Pozo, et al. “Snowmass 2021 White Paper: Charged lepton flavor violation in the tau sector,” [arXiv:2203.14919 [hep-ph]]

    2021 arXiv

  18. [27]

    Search for lepton-flavor-violating tau-lepton decays toℓγ at Belle,

    A. Abdesselam et al. [Belle], “Search for lepton-flavor-violating tau-lepton decays toℓγ at Belle,” JHEP 10 (2021), 19 doi:10.1007/JHEP10(2021)019 [arXiv:2103.12994 [hep-ex]]

    2021 arXiv

  19. [28]

    Determination of the fine-structure constant with an accuracy of 81 parts per trillion,

    L. Morel, Z. Yao, P. Cladé and S. Guellati-Khélifa, “Determination of the fine-structure constant with an accuracy of 81 parts per trillion,” Nature588 (2020) no.7836, 61-65 doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2964-7

    2020 doi

  20. [29]

    Improved limit on the electric dipole moment of the electron,

    V. Andreev et al. [ACME], “Improved limit on the electric dipole moment of the electron,” Nature562 (2018) no.7727, 355-360 doi:10.1038/s41586-018-0599-8

    2018 doi

  21. [30]

    Progress towards an improved measurement of the electric dipole moment of the electron,

    D. G. Ang, “Progress towards an improved measurement of the electric dipole moment of the electron,” Doctoral Disserta- tion, Harvard University 11

  22. [31]

    A new bound on the electron’s electric dipole moment,

    T. S. Roussy, L. Caldwell, T. Wright, W. B. Cairncross, Y. Shagam, K. B. Ng, N. Schlossberger, S. Y. Park, A. Wang and J. Ye,et al. “A new bound on the electron’s electric dipole moment,” [arXiv:2212.11841 [physics.atom-ph]]

    arXiv

  23. [32]

    Measurement of the Positive Muon Anomalous Magnetic Moment to 127 ppb,

    D. P. Aguillard et al. [Muon g-2], “Measurement of the Positive Muon Anomalous Magnetic Moment to 127 ppb,” [arXiv:2506.03069 [hep-ex]]

  24. [33]

    An Improved Limit on the Muon Electric Dipole Moment,

    G. W. Bennettet al. [Muon (g-2)], “An Improved Limit on the Muon Electric Dipole Moment,” Phys. Rev. D80 (2009), 052008 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.80.052008 [arXiv:0811.1207 [hep-ex]]

    2009 arXiv

  25. [34]

    A compact frozen-spin trap for the search for the electric dipole moment of the muon,

    A. Adelmann, A. R. Bainbridge, I. Bailey, A. Baldini, S. Basnet, N. Berger, L. Bianco, C. Calzolaio, L. Caminada and G. Cavoto, et al. “A compact frozen-spin trap for the search for the electric dipole moment of the muon,” Eur. Phys. J. C 85 (2025) no.6, 622 doi:10.1140/epjc/s...

    2025 arXiv

  26. [35]

    Muon g-2/EDM experiment at J-PARC,

    M. Otani [J-PARC muon g − 2/EDM C], “Muon g-2/EDM experiment at J-PARC,” PoS NuF act2021(2022), 139 doi:10.22323/1.402.0139

    2022 doi

  27. [36]

    Optimal observables for measuring three gauge boson couplings in e+ e- —> W+ W-,

    M. Diehl and O. Nachtmann, “Optimal observables for measuring three gauge boson couplings in e+ e- —> W+ W-,” [arXiv:hep-ph/9603207 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv

  28. [37]

    Snowmass White Paper: Belle II physics reach and plans for the next decade and beyond,

    L. Aggarwal et al. [Belle-II], “Snowmass White Paper: Belle II physics reach and plans for the next decade and beyond,” [arXiv:2207.06307 [hep-ex]]

    arXiv

  29. [38]

    The anomalous magnetic moment of the muon in the Standard Model: an update,

    R. Aliberti, T. Aoyama, E. Balzani, A. Bashir, G. Benton, J. Bijnens, V. Biloshytskyi, T. Blum, D. Boito and M. Bruno, et al. “The anomalous magnetic moment of the muon in the Standard Model: an update,” [arXiv:2505.21476 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv

  30. [39]

    Complete vectorlike fourth family and new U(1)’ for muon anomalies,

    J. Kawamura, S. Raby and A. Trautner, “Complete vectorlike fourth family and new U(1)’ for muon anomalies,” Phys. Rev. D 100 (2019) no.5, 055030 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.100.055030 [arXiv:1906.11297 [hep-ph]]

    2019 arXiv

  31. [40]

    The two scales of new physics in loop-induced Higgs couplings,

    F. Nortier, G. Rigo and P. Sesma, “The two scales of new physics in loop-induced Higgs couplings,” JHEP02 (2025), 172 doi:10.1007/JHEP02(2025)172 [arXiv:2412.14237 [hep-ph]]

    2025 arXiv

  32. [41]

    The two scales of new physics in Higgs couplings,

    R. T. D’Agnolo, F. Nortier, G. Rigo and P. Sesma, “The two scales of new physics in Higgs couplings,” JHEP08 (2023), 019 doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2023)019 [arXiv:2305.19325 [hep-ph]]

    2023 arXiv

  33. [42]

    Flavor effects on the electric dipole moments in supersymmetric theories: A beyond leading order analysis,

    J. Hisano, M. Nagai and P. Paradisi, “Flavor effects on the electric dipole moments in supersymmetric theories: A beyond leading order analysis,” Phys. Rev. D80 (2009), 095014 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.80.095014 [arXiv:0812.4283 [hep-ph]]

    2009 arXiv

  34. [43]

    Electric Dipole Moments in the MSSM Reloaded,

    J. R. Ellis, J. S. Lee and A. Pilaftsis, “Electric Dipole Moments in the MSSM Reloaded,” JHEP 10 (2008), 049 doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2008/10/049 [arXiv:0808.1819 [hep-ph]]

    2008 arXiv

  35. [44]

    Electric Dipole Moment of Quark in a Gauge Theory with Left-Handed Currents,

    E. P. Shabalin, “Electric Dipole Moment of Quark in a Gauge Theory with Left-Handed Currents,” Sov. J. Nucl. Phys.28 (1978), 75 ITEP-31-1978

    1978

  36. [45]

    THE ELECTRIC DIPOLE MOMENTS OF BARYONS IN THE KOBAYASHI-MASKAWA CP NONIN- VARIANT THEORY,

    E. P. Shabalin, “THE ELECTRIC DIPOLE MOMENTS OF BARYONS IN THE KOBAYASHI-MASKAWA CP NONIN- VARIANT THEORY,” Sov. J. Nucl. Phys.32 (1980), 228 ITEP-131-1979

    1980

  37. [46]

    Weak Hamiltonian, CP violation and rare decays,

    A. J. Buras, “Weak Hamiltonian, CP violation and rare decays,” hep-ph/9806471

    arXiv

  38. [47]

    Matching scalar leptoquarks to the SMEFT at one loop,

    V. Gherardi, D. Marzocca and E. Venturini, “Matching scalar leptoquarks to the SMEFT at one loop,” JHEP07 (2020), 225 [erratum: JHEP 01 (2021), 006] [arXiv:2003.12525 [hep-ph]]

    2020 arXiv

  39. [48]

    Two Loop Renormalization Group Equations in a General Quantum Field Theory. 2. Yukawa Couplings,

    M. E. Machacek and M. T. Vaughn, “Two Loop Renormalization Group Equations in a General Quantum Field Theory. 2. Yukawa Couplings,” Nucl. Phys. B236 (1984), 221-232 doi:10.1016/0550-3213(84)90533-9

    1984 doi

  40. [49]

    Two loop renormalization group equations in the standard model,

    M. x. Luo and Y. Xiao, “Two loop renormalization group equations in the standard model,” Phys. Rev. Lett.90 (2003), 011601 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.90.011601 [arXiv:hep-ph/0207271 [hep-ph]]

    2003 arXiv

  41. [50]

    Renormalization Group Evolution of the Standard Model Dimension Six Operators I: Formalism and lambda Dependence,

    E. E. Jenkins, A. V. Manohar and M. Trott, “Renormalization Group Evolution of the Standard Model Dimension Six Operators I: Formalism and lambda Dependence,” JHEP10 (2013), 087 doi:10.1007/JHEP10(2013)087 [arXiv:1308.2627 [hep-ph]]

    2013 arXiv

  42. [51]

    Renormalization Group Evolution of the Standard Model Dimension Six Operators II: Yukawa Dependence,

    E. E. Jenkins, A. V. Manohar and M. Trott, “Renormalization Group Evolution of the Standard Model Dimension Six Operators II: Yukawa Dependence,” JHEP1401 (2014) 035 doi:10.1007/JHEP01(2014)035 [arXiv:1310.4838 [hep-ph]]

    2014 arXiv

  43. [52]

    RenormalizationGroupEvolutionoftheStandardModelDimension Six Operators III: Gauge Coupling Dependence and Phenomenology,

    R.Alonso, E.E.Jenkins, A.V.ManoharandM.Trott, “RenormalizationGroupEvolutionoftheStandardModelDimension Six Operators III: Gauge Coupling Dependence and Phenomenology,” JHEP1404 (2014) 159 [arXiv:1312.2014 [hep-ph]]

    2014 arXiv

  44. [53]

    Search for the Higgs boson decay to a pair of electrons in proton-proton collisions at s=13TeV,

    A. Tumasyanet al. [CMS], “Search for the Higgs boson decay to a pair of electrons in proton-proton collisions at s=13TeV,” Phys. Lett. B846 (2023), 137783 doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2023.137783 [arXiv:2208.00265 [hep-ex]]

    2023

  45. [54]

    Evidence for Higgs boson decay to a pair of muons,

    A. M. Sirunyan et al. [CMS], “Evidence for Higgs boson decay to a pair of muons,” JHEP 01 (2021), 148 doi:10.1007/JHEP01(2021)148 [arXiv:2009.04363 [hep-ex]]

    2021 arXiv

  46. [55]

    Evidence for the dimuon decay of the Higgs boson in pp collisions with the ATLAS detector,

    G. Aad et al. [ATLAS], “Evidence for the dimuon decay of the Higgs boson in pp collisions with the ATLAS detector,” [arXiv:2507.03595 [hep-ex]]

  47. [56]

    Search for lepton-flavor violating decays of the Higgs boson in theµτ and eτ final states in proton-proton collisions at√s = 13 TeV,

    A. M. Sirunyanet al. [CMS], “Search for lepton-flavor violating decays of the Higgs boson in theµτ and eτ final states in proton-proton collisions at√s = 13 TeV,” Phys. Rev. D104 (2021) no.3, 032013 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.104.032013 [arXiv:2105.03007 [hep-ex]]

    2021 arXiv

  48. [57]

    Searches for lepton-flavour-violating decays of the Higgs boson intoeτ andµτ in√s = 13 TeVpp collisions with the ATLAS detector,

    G. Aadet al. [ATLAS], “Searches for lepton-flavour-violating decays of the Higgs boson intoeτ andµτ in√s = 13 TeVpp collisions with the ATLAS detector,” JHEP07 (2023), 166 doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2023)166 [arXiv:2302.05225 [hep-ex]]

    2023 arXiv

  49. [58]

    Search for the lepton-flavor violating decay of the Higgs boson and additional Higgs bosons in the eµ final state in proton-proton collisions at √s = 13 TeV,

    A. Hayrapetyan et al. [CMS], “Search for the lepton-flavor violating decay of the Higgs boson and additional Higgs bosons in the eµ final state in proton-proton collisions at √s = 13 TeV,” Phys. Rev. D 108 (2023) no.7, 072004 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.108.072004 [arXiv:2305.18106 [hep-ex]]

    2023 arXiv

  50. [59]

    Muon decay and physics beyond the standard model,

    Y. Kuno and Y. Okada, “Muon decay and physics beyond the standard model,” Rev. Mod. Phys.73 (2001), 151-202 doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.73.151 [arXiv:hep-ph/9909265 [hep-ph]]

    2001 arXiv

  51. [60]

    P odd and T odd asymmetries in lepton flavor violating tau decays,

    R. Kitano and Y. Okada, “P odd and T odd asymmetries in lepton flavor violating tau decays,” Phys. Rev. D63 (2001), 113003 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.63.113003 [arXiv:hep-ph/0012040 [hep-ph]]

    2001 arXiv

  52. [61]

    Testing Higgs triplet model and neutrino mass patterns,

    E. J. Chun, K. Y. Lee and S. C. Park, “Testing Higgs triplet model and neutrino mass patterns,” Phys. Lett. B566 (2003), 142-151 [arXiv:hep-ph/0304069 [hep-ph]]

    2003 arXiv

  53. [62]

    Lepton flavor violation in the triplet Higgs model,

    M. Kakizaki, Y. Ogura and F. Shima, “Lepton flavor violation in the triplet Higgs model,” Phys. Lett. B566, 210-216 (2003) [arXiv:hep-ph/0304254 [hep-ph]]

    2003 arXiv

  54. [63]

    Lepton Flavour Violating Decays tau —> anti-l ll and mu —> e gamma in the Higgs Triplet Model,

    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. D79, 113010 (2009) [arXiv:0904.3640 [hep-ph]]. 12

    2009 arXiv

  55. [64]

    Theµ−e Conversion in Nuclei,µ→eγ,µ → 3e Decays and TeV Scale See-Saw Scenarios of Neutrino Mass Generation,

    D. N. Dinh, A. Ibarra, E. Molinaro and S. T. Petcov, “Theµ−e Conversion in Nuclei,µ→eγ,µ → 3e Decays and TeV Scale See-Saw Scenarios of Neutrino Mass Generation,” JHEP08, 125 (2012) [erratum: JHEP09, 023 (2013)] [arXiv:1205.4671 [hep-ph]]

    2012 arXiv

  56. [65]

    Lepton Flavour Violation tests of Type II Seesaw Leptogenesis,

    N. D. Barrie and S. T. Petcov, “Lepton Flavour Violation tests of Type II Seesaw Leptogenesis,” JHEP01 (2023), 001 [arXiv:2210.02110 [hep-ph]]

    2023 arXiv

  57. [66]

    Nondecoupling of heavy neutrinos and lepton flavor violation,

    D. Tommasini, G. Barenboim, J. Bernabeu and C. Jarlskog, “Nondecoupling of heavy neutrinos and lepton flavor violation,” Nucl. Phys. B444 (1995), 451-467 [arXiv:hep-ph/9503228 [hep-ph]]

    1995 arXiv

  58. [67]

    Flavor violating charged lepton decays in seesaw-type models,

    A. Ilakovac and A. Pilaftsis, “Flavor violating charged lepton decays in seesaw-type models,” Nucl. Phys. B437 (1995), 491 [arXiv:hep-ph/9403398 [hep-ph]]

    1995 arXiv

  59. [68]

    Muon conversion to electron in nuclei in type-I seesaw models,

    R. Alonso, M. Dhen, M. B. Gavela and T. Hambye, “Muon conversion to electron in nuclei in type-I seesaw models,” JHEP 01 (2013), 118 [arXiv:1209.2679 [hep-ph]]

    2013 arXiv

  60. [69]

    Impact of sterile neutrinos on nuclear-assisted cLFV processes,

    A. Abada, V. De Romeri and A. M. Teixeira, “Impact of sterile neutrinos on nuclear-assisted cLFV processes,” JHEP02 (2016), 083 [arXiv:1510.06657 [hep-ph]]

    2016 arXiv

  61. [70]

    Effective approach to lepton observables: the seesaw case,

    R. Coy and M. Frigerio, “Effective approach to lepton observables: the seesaw case,” Phys. Rev. D99, no.9, 095040 (2019) [arXiv:1812.03165 [hep-ph]]

    2019 arXiv

  62. [71]

    On the role of leptonic CPV phases in cLFV observables,

    A. Abada, J. Kriewald and A. M. Teixeira, “On the role of leptonic CPV phases in cLFV observables,” Eur. Phys. J. C81 (2021) no.11, 1016 [arXiv:2107.06313 [hep-ph]]

    2021 arXiv

  63. [72]

    Tests of low-scale leptogenesis in charged lepton flavour violation experiments,

    A. Granelli, J. Klarić and S. T. Petcov, “Tests of low-scale leptogenesis in charged lepton flavour violation experiments,” Phys. Lett. B837 (2023), 137643 [arXiv:2206.04342 [hep-ph]]

    2023 arXiv

  64. [73]

    Comprehensive analysis of charged lepton flavour violation in the symmetry protected type-I seesaw,

    A. Crivellin, F. Kirk and C. A. Manzari, “Comprehensive analysis of charged lepton flavour violation in the symmetry protected type-I seesaw,” JHEP12 (2022), 031 [arXiv:2208.00020 [hep-ph]]

    2022 arXiv

  65. [74]

    Low Energy Signatures of the TeV Scale See-Saw Mechanism,

    A. Ibarra, E. Molinaro and S. T. Petcov, “Low Energy Signatures of the TeV Scale See-Saw Mechanism,” Phys. Rev. D84 (2011), 013005 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.84.013005 [arXiv:1103.6217 [hep-ph]]

    2011 arXiv

  66. [75]

    The See-saw mechanism, neutrino Yukawa couplings, LFV decays l(i) —> l(j) + gamma and leptogenesis,

    S. T. Petcov, W. Rodejohann, T. Shindou and Y. Takanishi, “The See-saw mechanism, neutrino Yukawa couplings, LFV decays l(i) —> l(j) + gamma and leptogenesis,” Nucl. Phys. B739 (2006), 208-233 doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2006.01.034 [arXiv:hep-ph/0510404 [hep-ph]]

    2006 arXiv

  67. [76]

    Lepton Flavor Violation in the Scotogenic Model,

    T. Toma and A. Vicente, “Lepton Flavor Violation in the Scotogenic Model,” JHEP 01 (2014), 160 doi:10.1007/JHEP01(2014)160 [arXiv:1312.2840 [hep-ph]]

    2014 arXiv

  68. [77]

    Distinguishing models with µ → e observables,

    M. Ardu, S. Davidson and S. Lavignac, “Distinguishing models with µ → e observables,” JHEP 11 (2023), 101 doi:10.1007/JHEP11(2023)101 [arXiv:2308.16897 [hep-ph]]

    2023 arXiv

  69. [78]

    Constraining new physics models fromµ→ e observables in bottom-up EFT,

    M. Ardu, S. Davidson and S. Lavignac, “Constraining new physics models fromµ→ e observables in bottom-up EFT,” Eur. Phys. J. C84 (2024) no.5, 458 doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-024-12782-x [arXiv:2401.06214 [hep-ph]]

    2024 arXiv

  70. [79]

    Comprehensive phenomenology of the Dirac Scotogenic Model: Novel low-mass dark matter,

    S. Centelles Chuliá, R. Srivastava and S. Yadav, “Comprehensive phenomenology of the Dirac Scotogenic Model: Novel low-mass dark matter,” JHEP04 (2025), 038 doi:10.1007/JHEP04(2025)038 [arXiv:2409.18513 [hep-ph]]

    2025 arXiv

  71. [80]

    Phenomenology of the simplest linear seesaw mechanism,

    A. Batra, P. Bharadwaj, S. Mandal, R. Srivastava and J. W. F. Valle, “Phenomenology of the simplest linear seesaw mechanism,” JHEP 07 (2023), 221 doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2023)221 [arXiv:2305.00994 [hep-ph]]

    2023 arXiv

  72. [81]

    Neutrino masses, leptonic flavor mixing, and muon (g−2) in the seesaw model with the gauge symmetry *,

    S. Zhou, “Neutrino masses, leptonic flavor mixing, and muon (g−2) in the seesaw model with the gauge symmetry *,” Chin. Phys. C 46 (2022) no.1, 011001 doi:10.1088/1674-1137/ac2a25 [arXiv:2104.06858 [hep-ph]]

    2022 arXiv

  73. [82]

    Neutrino masses from new seesaw models: low-scale variants and phenomenological implications,

    A. Giarnetti, J. Herrero-García, S. Marciano, D. Meloni and D. Vatsyayan, “Neutrino masses from new seesaw models: low-scale variants and phenomenological implications,” Eur. Phys. J. C84 (2024) no.8, 803 doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-024- 13149-y [arXiv:2312.14119 [hep-ph]]

    2024 arXiv

  74. [83]

    mu —> e gamma and tau —> l gamma decays in the fermion triplet seesaw model,

    A. Abada, C. Biggio, F. Bonnet, M. B. Gavela and T. Hambye, “mu —> e gamma and tau —> l gamma decays in the fermion triplet seesaw model,” Phys. Rev. D 78 (2008), 033007 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.78.033007 [arXiv:0803.0481 [hep-ph]]

    2008 arXiv

  75. [84]

    Lepton flavor violation and non-unitary lepton mixing in low-scale type-I seesaw,

    D. V. Forero, S. Morisi, M. Tortola and J. W. F. Valle, “Lepton flavor violation and non-unitary lepton mixing in low-scale type-I seesaw,” JHEP09 (2011), 142 [arXiv:1107.6009 [hep-ph]]

    2011 arXiv

  76. [85]

    Phenomenology of the Generalised Scotogenic Model with Fermionic Dark Matter,

    C. Hagedorn, J. Herrero-García, E. Molinaro and M. A. Schmidt, “Phenomenology of the Generalised Scotogenic Model with Fermionic Dark Matter,” JHEP11 (2018), 103 doi:10.1007/JHEP11(2018)103 [arXiv:1804.04117 [hep-ph]]

    2018 arXiv

  77. [86]

    Physics Briefing Book: Input for the European Strategy for Particle Physics Update 2020,

    R. K. Ellis, B. Heinemann, J. de Blas, M. Cepeda, C. Grojean, F. Maltoni, A. Nisati, E. Petit, R. Rattazzi and W. Verkerke, et al. “Physics Briefing Book: Input for the European Strategy for Particle Physics Update 2020,” [arXiv:1910.11775 [hep- ex]]

    2020 arXiv

  78. [87]

    U(2) and Minimal Flavour Violation in Supersym- metry,

    R. Barbieri, G. Isidori, J. Jones-Perez, P. Lodone and D. M. Straub, “U(2) and Minimal Flavour Violation in Supersym- metry,” Eur. Phys. J. C71 (2011), 1725 doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-011-1725-z [arXiv:1105.2296 [hep-ph]]

    2011 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.