Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 65 references

Dipole-driven leptogenesis can produce the baryon asymmetry while keeping μ→eγ, the electron EDM, and (g−2)_μ many orders of magnitude below current experimental reach.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 17:08 UTC pith:ALLLQHMJ

load-bearing objection A careful EFT calculation showing EMLG is invisible to low-energy probes, undermined by an abstract/body mismatch and an unconstrained Yukawa; worth refereeing after cleanup. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2512.10444 v2 pith:ALLLQHMJ submitted 2025-12-11 hep-ph

Yukawa-assisted charged-lepton dipoles in resonant electromagnetic leptogenesis

Rin Takada This is my paper
classification hep-ph
keywords electromagnetic leptogenesisresonant leptogenesischarged-lepton dipolemu to e gammaelectron EDMmuon g-2light neutrino massdimension-five operator
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper completes an effective-field-theory analysis in which the observed baryon asymmetry is generated by the electromagnetic dipole of right-handed neutrinos. Its central claim is that the same dipole texture that makes leptogenesis work produces charged-lepton dipole observables—BR(μ→eγ), the electron electric dipole moment, and the muon anomalous magnetic moment—that lie many orders of magnitude below current experimental sensitivities, throughout the parameter region consistent with the observed baryon asymmetry. It also shows that the radiative neutrino masses generated by double insertions of the dipole operator are generically tiny, so the measured neutrino spectrum has to come from an independent lepton-number-violating source such as a seesaw. If correct, this mechanism for baryogenesis is viable and effectively invisible to low-energy searches for the foreseeable future.

Core claim

Central claim: the charged-lepton dipole coefficient C_eγ(q^2=0) is analytic at the neutrino resonance, so the resonant enhancement that produces the baryon asymmetry does not amplify the low-energy dipole. C_eγ receives only a one-loop mixing contribution—linear in the neutrino-dipole coefficients and the neutrino mass couplings—and a two-loop pure-dipole term, both loop-suppressed. Consequently the paper derives analytic upper bounds, e.g. BR(μ→eγ) ≲ 3×10^{-28}, |d_e| ≲ 6×10^{-37} e cm, and |Δa_μ| ≲ 1.3×10^{-21} for the width-only benchmark, many orders below current limits. The same dipole double insertion yields radiative neutrino masses far below oscillation data, and no additional neut

What carries the argument

The argument turns on a single operator, O_NB = (L̄ σ^{μν} P_R N) H̃ B_{μν}, the gauge-invariant electromagnetic dipole of the right-handed neutrinos. Its Wilson coefficient C_NB is matched at one loop, evolved to the electroweak scale, and then used in two ways: one-loop mixing with the charged-lepton and neutrino mass couplings generates the charged-lepton dipole O_eγ in the symmetric phase, and two-loop pure-dipole graphs do the same in the broken phase; the coefficient is then run down to the lepton masses with the QED renormalization-group equations. The decisive mechanism is that the low-energy coefficient C_eγ(q^2=0) is analytic at the resonance, so the width-regularised pole that enh

Load-bearing premise

The bounds collapse unless the UV theory generates no direct charged-lepton dipole and the O_NW mixing contribution stays zero at all scales (Sec. 4.1, eqs. (4.12)–(4.14)); with a nonzero direct dipole, C_eγ acquires terms outside the EMLG texture and the analytic limits no longer follow.

What would settle it

A future measurement of BR(μ→eγ) above the paper's analytic upper bound (roughly 10^{-16} in the conservative case, or 3×10^{-28} in the width-only benchmark) in a parameter region that reproduces the observed baryon asymmetry would rule out the framework's predictions; equivalently, a UV-completion calculation showing that a nonzero direct charged-lepton dipole is unavoidable would invalidate the bounds.

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

If this is right

  • BR(μ→eγ) is bounded below roughly 10^{-16} (and as low as 3×10^{-28} in the width-only benchmark), so current and near-future searches should see no signal from this mechanism.
  • The radiatively generated neutrino masses are far below the oscillation scale; a separate ΔL=2 source such as a seesaw must provide the observed spectrum, and its details do not affect baryogenesis.
  • The baryon asymmetry and the low-energy dipoles are controlled by the same dipole texture, but the resonance decouples them: the BAU can be at its observed value while C_eγ stays analytic and tiny.
  • QED running between the electroweak and lepton scales rescales the predictions by only O(1) factors, so the analytic bounds are stable.
  • The transport approximations used for the asymmetry are stated to affect the final baryon asymmetry only at O(1), so the conclusion of invisible low-energy dipoles does not depend on thermal details.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The invisibility result rests on the structural boundary condition that no direct UV charged-lepton dipole is generated (Sec. 4.1); in UV completions that generate other charged-lepton dipole operators at tree level, the low-energy bounds would be completely different, so this robustness is a property of the minimal dipole-only EFT, not of electromagnetic leptogenesis in general.
  • The analyticity of C_eγ at the resonance suggests a design principle: baryogenesis mechanisms that amplify the asymmetry through self-energy poles need not leave detectable low-energy imprints, provided the probed low-energy operator is analytic in the resonance region.
  • A future positive μ→eγ or EDM signal would not falsify EMLG itself; it would point to extra sources of charged-lepton dipoles, and the ratio of the neutrino-dipole coefficients C_NW/C_NB would become a diagnostic of the UV completion.
  • Because the dipole-induced neutrino masses are so small, the seesaw scale that fixes the light neutrino masses can lie far above the electroweak EMLG scale without disturbing baryogenesis—a useful freedom for model building.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This is Part III of an EFT-consistent analysis of electromagnetic leptogenesis (EMLG). Starting from a renormalisable UV completion with heavy right-handed neutrinos N_i, a vector-like fermion Ψ and a charged scalar S, the paper uses the one-loop-matched neutrino dipole operator O_NB and its Wilson coefficient C_NB as the common source of the baryon asymmetry and of low-energy flavour/CP observables. It computes (i) the radiative Majorana neutrino mass generated by a double insertion of O_NB, concluding that it is generically far below the observed scale and therefore requires an additional ΔL=2 source; (ii) the charged-lepton dipole O_eγ in LEFT from one-loop operator mixing with the Dirac Yukawa matrix Y_ν and from a two-loop Barr–Zee-type pure-dipole contribution; (iii) the QED evolution of C_eγ down to m_μ and m_e. The paper then derives analytic upper bounds on BR(μ→eγ), the electron EDM and Δa_μ and argues that, for the resonant EMLG benchmarks of Parts I/II, these lie many orders of magnitude below current limits. The main conclusion is that EMLG can produce the observed BAU while remaining essentially invisible to present low-energy dipole searches.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper closes an important gap in the EMLG programme: it shows that the same dipole texture responsible for baryogenesis does not generate observable charged-lepton dipoles. The calculation is detailed and largely self-contained, with explicit one- and two-loop derivations, a closed-form QED RGE solution, and analytic bounds. A particular strength is that the low-energy observables are not fed back into determining the BAU; the dipole texture is taken from the earlier UV-matched analysis, so the low-energy predictions are genuine consistency checks. The neutrino-mass result is also informative: the dipole-induced Weinberg-operator contribution is tiny, so observed neutrino masses must come from an independent ΔL=2 source. However, the claimed robustness is conditional in a way the paper does not fully disclose: the one-loop CLFV bound scales as ||Y_ν||_2^2, and the size of Y_ν is not fixed by the EMLG inputs. The abstract introduces a width-based condition on Y_ν that is absent from the body, and the abstract and body quote different numerical envelopes. These issues are load-bearing for the main conclusion and must be resolved before the robustness s

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.4.1, §6.4.1, Eq. (6.50); abstract] The central bound BR(μ→eγ)≲8.6×10^-17 in Eq. (6.50) depends on ||Y_ν||_2, but the body fixes the Yukawa size only by the ad hoc choice |y_αj|∼O(10^-3) in Eqs. (3.26)/(6.33). The EMLG inputs (C_NB, m̃_1^EM, benchmark masses) do not determine Y_ν. Since the one-loop contribution in Eq. (4.27) is proportional to (y_e^T y_ν), a perturbatively allowed choice ||Y_ν||_2∼1 would raise Eq. (6.50) by a factor of 10^4, giving ≈8.6×10^-13, within a factor of about two of the MEG II limit 1.5×10^-13. The arXiv abstract instead imposes the width condition Γ_Y^(0)≤εΓ_EM^(0) and quotes BR≤2.77×10^-28; this condition and its derivation are not present in the body, and the two numerical prescriptions differ by many orders of magnitude. The claim that the bounds hold “throughout the BAU-compatible region” is therefore not established unless the width condition is derived from successful EMLG and implemente
  2. [§4.1, Eqs. (4.12)–(4.14)] All low-energy predictions rest on the boundary condition that the UV completion generates only O_NB and no direct C_eB/C_eW, together with C_NW(μ)=0. This is a property of the chosen UV model, not a consequence of the EMLG mechanism itself. If a direct charged-lepton dipole or an O_NW contribution existed, Eq. (4.14) would receive additional terms and the analytic bounds of Sec. 6 would not follow. The paper states this assumption in Sec. 4.1, but the abstract and conclusions present the robustness as a general feature of “electromagnetic leptogenesis in this EFT framework.” The conditional nature of the result should be made explicit in the abstract and conclusions; otherwise the central claim is stronger than what is demonstrated.
  3. [Abstract vs. §6.4.1] There is an unresolved numerical inconsistency between the abstract and the body. The abstract quotes BR(μ→eγ)≤2.77×10^-28, |d_e|≤5.71×10^-37 e cm, and |Δa_μ|≤1.31×10^-21, obtained from a width-only envelope with ε=10^-2. The body's analytic bounds in Eqs. (6.50), (6.54) and (6.56) instead give 8.6×10^-17, 4.9×10^-42 e cm and 1.7×10^-28 for the standard benchmark. These are not just renormalisation-scheme differences; they come from different treatments of Y_ν. The author must either implement the width-bound prescription in the main text and show that it is consistent with the BAU transport calculation, or remove the abstract numbers and present all conclusions under the body's explicit Yukawa assumption.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§6.4.1, Eq. (6.50)] The notation ||y_ν||_2 is used both as a spectral norm and as a flavour sum; the paper should define it precisely. Also, the normalization to 10^-2 in Eq. (6.50) is not clearly related to the stated |y_αj|∼O(10^-3) in Eq. (3.26); for three flavours of size 10^-3 the spectral norm is closer to 1.7×10^-3, so the quoted numerical coefficient is conservative but the rationale should be stated.
  2. [§6.3, Figure 5] Figure 5 is referenced repeatedly and is essential for the visual comparison with the experimental exclusion regions, but it is not included in the manuscript. The figure should be added or the references to it should be replaced by the analytic bounds in Sec. 6.4.
  3. [§4.5.2, Eq. (4.48)] The definition of g_ℓβ in Eq. (4.48) is clear after the derivation, but the sign convention for T_3 should be stated once at first use (it is only fixed later in the text). This is a presentation issue, not a technical one.
  4. [§3.4.2, Eq. (3.33)] In the numerical evaluation of m_β, the term |U_e1|^2 m_1^2 is omitted without comment; since m_1 is tiny in the displayed benchmark this is harmless, but the omission should be noted for consistency.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No construction-level circularity: the low-energy dipoles are derived from the Part I/II dipole texture and are not used as inputs; the abstract/body mismatch on y_nu is a robustness gap, not a circular step.

full rationale

The derivation chain is: UV matching gives C_NB (Sec. 2.1-2.2, Part I); the Part II resonant benchmark fixes the dipole texture mu_alpha i and the BAU-compatible window in tilde-m^EM_1; Part III then computes radiative m_nu (Sec. 3) and C_e_gamma (Sec. 4-5) as new loop-level outputs and compares them with BR(mu->e gamma), d_e, Delta a_mu (Sec. 6). No low-energy observable is inverted to fix C_NB, mu_alpha i, or the benchmark; the comparison is a consistency check, and the analytic bounds are derived inequalities in tilde-m^EM_1. The self-citations to Parts I/II are load-bearing inputs but are not a re-importation of the target low-energy result: Part II fitted the BAU, not mu->e gamma/EDM/g-2, and Part III computes observables not present in Parts I/II. No uniqueness theorem or ansatz is smuggled via citation. The one notable gap is that y_nu is not determined by the benchmark: the body assumes |y_alpha j| ~ O(10^-3) (Sec. 3.4.1, eq. 3.26) and quotes BR(mu->e gamma) <~ 8.6e-17 scaling as (||y_nu||_2/10^-2)^2 (eq. 6.50), while the abstract imposes a conditional width bound Gamma_Y^(0) <= epsilon Gamma_EM^(0) absent from the body and quotes 2.77e-28. This is an unstated robustness/correctness caveat -- the claimed 'throughout the BAU-compatible region' bounds are conditional on the assumed smallness of y_nu -- but it does not reduce any prediction to its own input. Hence the circularity score is low.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 5 axioms · 3 invented entities

The central claim rests on the Part II benchmark, on the UV boundary conditions of the author's three-part model, and on unconstrained Yukawa inputs. Standard field-theory tools (MS scheme, dimensional regularization, one-loop RGE) are assumed; the model-specific choices (no direct UV dipole, C_NW=0, C5(MΨ)=0, quasi-degenerate N_i) are not independently tested in this paper. Free parameters control the overall normalization of every bound; the observables are not used to fix them.

free parameters (4)
  • Benchmark heavy masses (M1, M2, MS, MΨ) = (0.5, 0.5, 8, 10) TeV standard; (0.3, 0.3, 1, 3) TeV extreme
    Chosen by hand from Parts I-II to realize resonant EMLG; all predicted observables scale with these masses.
  • Yukawa couplings λ, λ′ and Dirac Yukawa y_αj = |λ|∼O(10^-2), |y_αj|∼O(10^-3) standard; |λ|∼O(1), |y_αj|∼O(10^-2) extreme
    Control the size of C_NB and hence all dipole observables; not fixed by data in the paper. The abstract adds a width bound on Yν that is absent from the body.
  • Effective electromagnetic neutrino mass m̃_1^EM = 3.97×10^-2 eV (metadata abstract); used as horizontal axis in body
    Encodes the dipole couplings relevant for BAU; chosen within the Part II BAU-compatible window, not measured.
  • C_NW/C_NB ratio and phase φ_BW = 1.739 and 0 (metadata abstract only)
    Define the flavor alignment of dipole-sector coefficients in the submitted abstract; not defined or used in the body.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Quasi-degenerate right-handed neutrinos with ΔM ∼ Γ and Pilaftsis-Underwood resummation
    Resonant enhancement from Part II; not re-derived in this paper, but required for BAU compatibility.
  • domain assumption No direct UV charged-lepton dipole; C_NW(μ)=0 and C_eW(μ)=0
    Sec. 4.1, eqs. (4.12)-(4.14). If false, C_eγ receives additional contributions not controlled by the EMLG dipole texture.
  • domain assumption C5(MΨ)=0, i.e. no tree-level Weinberg operator in the UV
    Sec. 3.2.2, eq. (3.17). Used to identify the light-neutrino mass with the finite one-loop dipole contribution; the paper explicitly allows a UV seesaw piece for observed masses.
  • standard math MS scheme, 't Hooft-Feynman gauge, and one-loop perturbative EFT validity
    Standard QFT technique used throughout the matching and RGE calculations.
  • ad hoc to paper Yν is not determined by the EMLG inputs; a conditional width bound Γ_Y^(0) ≤ ε Γ_EM^(0) is imposed in the abstract
    Metadata abstract states this explicitly; the body instead fixes y~O(10^-3) without deriving it. This is an extra constraint needed to close the one-loop C_eγ prediction.
invented entities (3)
  • Heavy right-handed neutrinos N_i no independent evidence
    purpose: Provide the decaying states whose dipole coupling generates the baryon asymmetry and the low-energy dipoles
    Introduced in Part I; no direct experimental signature is presented here, and the computed low-energy observables are far below detection.
  • Vector-like fermion Ψ no independent evidence
    purpose: Loop mediator in the UV completion; integrating it out generates O_NB together with S
    TeV-scale charged fermion that could in principle be searched for, but the paper gives no production or decay signature.
  • Charged scalar S no independent evidence
    purpose: Loop mediator in the UV completion with hypercharge −1; required for the one-loop generation of O_NB
    No collider or other independent handle is described in this paper.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 45876 in / 17271 out tokens · 180394 ms · 2026-08-03T17:08:33.659464+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We study the charged-lepton dipole contribution that is linear in the neutrino-dipole coefficients $C_{NB,NW}$ and in the renormalizable neutrino Yukawa matrix $Y_\nu$. We consider a resonant EMLG benchmark with dipole-sector coefficients renormalized at $\kappa_N=M_1=1\,\mathrm{TeV}$ and evolved through the coupled one-loop RGE to $\kappa_{\rm match}=3\,\mathrm{TeV}$, a factorized flavor structure, and $\tilde{m}^{\rm EM}_1=3.97\times 10^{-2}\,\mathrm{eV}$. Since these inputs do not determine $Y_\nu$, we impose the conditional width bound $\Gamma_Y^{(0)}\leqslant\epsilon\Gamma_{\rm EM}^{(0)}$ and a vanishing direct ultraviolet charged-lepton dipole, derive the one-loop $\nu$SMEFT leading logarithm, and apply the tree-level electroweak projection and one-loop QED evolution in LEFT. For $\epsilon=10^{-2}$ and two coherently aligned heavy states, the width-only envelopes are $\mathrm{BR}(\mu\to e\gamma)\leqslant2.77\times10^{-28}$, $|d_e|\leqslant5.71\times10^{-37}\,e\,\mathrm{cm}$, and $|\Delta a_\mu|\leqslant1.31\times10^{-21}$. The factorized flavor structure and $C_{NW}/C_{NB}=1.739$ give smaller conditional bounds. The benchmark phase $\phi_{BW}=0$, for which $\rho_{BW}=+1.739$, lies near the charged-lepton photon-dipole blind direction. The vacuum local coefficient contains no resonant pole denominator. The two thermal pole prescriptions enter the low-energy comparison only through the mass splittings selected by the transport calculation, producing a relative change of order $\Delta M/M_1$.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

65 extracted references · 17 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Sakharov,Violation of CP Invariance, C asymmetry, and baryon asymmetry of the universe,Pisma Zh

    A.D. Sakharov,Violation of CP Invariance, C asymmetry, and baryon asymmetry of the universe,Pisma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.5(1967) 32

    1967

  2. [2]

    Manton,Topology in the weinberg-salam theory,Phys

    N.S. Manton,Topology in the weinberg-salam theory,Phys. Rev. D28(1983) 2019

    1983

  3. [3]

    Klinkhamer and N.S

    F.R. Klinkhamer and N.S. Manton,A saddle-point solution in the weinberg-salam theory,Phys. Rev. D30(1984) 2212

    1984

  4. [4]

    Fukugita and T

    M. Fukugita and T. Yanagida,Baryogenesis without grand unification,Physics Letters B174 (1986) 45

    1986

  5. [5]

    Minkowski,µ→eγat a Rate of One Out of10 9 Muon Decays?,Phys

    P. Minkowski,µ→eγat a Rate of One Out of10 9 Muon Decays?,Phys. Lett. B67(1977) 421

    1977

  6. [6]

    Yanagida,Horizontal gauge symmetry and masses of neutrinos,Conf

    T. Yanagida,Horizontal gauge symmetry and masses of neutrinos,Conf. Proc. C7902131 (1979) 95

    1979

  7. [7]

    Gell-Mann, P

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1979

  8. [8]

    Mohapatra and G

    R.N. Mohapatra and G. Senjanović,Neutrino mass and spontaneous parity nonconservation, Phys. Rev. Lett.44(1980) 912

    1980

  9. [9]

    Buchmuller, P

    W. Buchmuller, P. Di Bari and M. Plumacher,Leptogenesis for pedestrians,Annals of Physics 315(2005) 305

    2005

  10. [10]

    Davidson, E

    S. Davidson, E. Nardi and Y. Nir,Leptogenesis,Physics Reports466(2008) 105

    2008

  11. [11]

    C.S. Fong, E. Nardi and A. Riotto,Leptogenesis in the universe,Advances in High Energy Physics2012(2012) 158303. – 55 –

    2012

  12. [12]

    Bell, B.J

    N.F. Bell, B.J. Kayser and S.S.C. Law,Electromagnetic leptogenesis,Phys. Rev. D78(2008) 085024

    2008

  13. [13]

    Takada,Electromagnetic leptogenesis — an EFT-consistent analysis via Wilson coefficients

    R. Takada,Electromagnetic leptogenesis — an EFT-consistent analysis via Wilson coefficients. Part I. Low-scale, non-resonant regime,JHEP12(2025) 010 [2509.07698]

    arXiv 2025

  14. [14]

    Takada,Electromagnetic Leptogenesis — an EFT-Consistent Analysis via Wilson Coefficients

    R. Takada,Electromagnetic Leptogenesis — an EFT-Consistent Analysis via Wilson Coefficients. Part II. Low-Scale, Resonant Regime,2510.21089

    arXiv

  15. [15]

    Pilaftsis and T.E

    A. Pilaftsis and T.E. Underwood,Resonant leptogenesis,Nuclear Physics B692(2004) 303

    2004

  16. [16]

    Weinberg,Baryon- and lepton-nonconserving processes,Phys

    S. Weinberg,Baryon- and lepton-nonconserving processes,Phys. Rev. Lett.43(1979) 1566

    1979

  17. [17]

    Isidori, F

    G. Isidori, F. Wilsch and D. Wyler,The standard model effective field theory at work,Rev. Mod. Phys.96(2024) 015006

    2024

  18. [18]

    Barr and A

    S.M. Barr and A. Zee,Electric dipole moment of the electron and of the neutron,Phys. Rev. Lett.65(1990) 21

    1990

  19. [19]

    Barr and A

    S.M. Barr and A. Zee,Electric dipole moment of the electron and of the neutron,Phys. Rev. Lett.65(1990) 2920

    1990

  20. [20]

    Afanaciev et al.,New limit on the mu+ -> e+ gamma decay with the MEG II experiment, Eur

    K. Afanaciev et al.,New limit on the mu+ -> e+ gamma decay with the MEG II experiment, Eur. Phys. J. C85(2025) 1177 [2504.15711]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  21. [21]

    Roussy et al.,An improved bound on the electron’s electric dipole moment,Science381 (2023) 46

    T.S. Roussy et al.,An improved bound on the electron’s electric dipole moment,Science381 (2023) 46. [22]The Muong−2Collaborationcollaboration,Measurement of the positive muon anomalous magnetic moment to 0.20 ppm,Phys. Rev. Lett.131(2023) 161802

    2023

  22. [23]

    Aghanim, Y

    Planck Collaboration, N. Aghanim, Y. Akrami, M. Ashdown, J. Aumont, C. Baccigalupi et al., Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters,Astronomy & Astrophysics641(2020) A6 [1807.06209]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  23. [24]

    Aparici, K

    A. Aparici, K. Kim, A. Santamaria and J. Wudka,Right-handed neutrino magnetic moments, Phys. Rev. D80(2009) 013010

    2009

  24. [25]

    Patra and S

    S. Patra and S. Rao,A Simple Model for Magnetic Inelastic Dark Matter (MiDM),1112.3454

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  25. [26]

    Schwartz,Quantum Field Theory and the Standard Model, Cambridge University Press (2013)

    M.D. Schwartz,Quantum Field Theory and the Standard Model, Cambridge University Press (2013)

    2013

  26. [27]

    Machacek and M.T

    M.E. Machacek and M.T. Vaughn,Two-loop renormalization group equations in a general quantum field theory: (i). wave function renormalization,Nuclear Physics B222(1983) 83

    1983

  27. [28]

    Machacek and M.T

    M.E. Machacek and M.T. Vaughn,Two-loop renormalization group equations in a general quantum field theory (ii). yukawa couplings,Nuclear Physics B236(1984) 221

    1984

  28. [29]

    Grzadkowski, M

    B. Grzadkowski, M. Iskrzynski, M. Misiak and J. Rosiek,Dimension-Six Terms in the Standard Model Lagrangian,JHEP10(2010) 085 [1008.4884]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  29. [30]

    Brivio and M

    I. Brivio and M. Trott,The standard model as an effective field theory,Physics Reports793 (2019) 1

    2019

  30. [31]

    Law,Neutrino Models and Leptogenesis, Ph.D

    S.S.C. Law,Neutrino Models and Leptogenesis, Ph.D. thesis, Melbourne U., 2008.0901.1232

    arXiv 2008

  31. [32]

    Magill, R

    G. Magill, R. Plestid, M. Pospelov and Y.-D. Tsai,Dipole portal to heavy neutral leptons,Phys. Rev. D98(2018) 115015. – 56 –

    2018

  32. [33]

    Buchmuller, P

    W. Buchmuller, P. Di Bari and M. Plumacher,Cosmic microwave background, matter - antimatter asymmetry and neutrino masses,Nucl. Phys. B643(2002) 367 [hep-ph/0205349]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  33. [34]

    D’Onofrio, K

    M. D’Onofrio, K. Rummukainen and A. Tranberg,Sphaleron rate in the minimal standard model,Phys. Rev. Lett.113(2014) 141602

    2014

  34. [35]

    D’Onofrio and K

    M. D’Onofrio and K. Rummukainen,Standard model cross-over on the lattice,Phys. Rev. D 93(2016) 025003

    2016

  35. [36]

    K. Babu, C. Leung and J. Pantaleone,Renormalization of the neutrino mass operator,Physics Letters B319(1993) 191

    1993

  36. [37]

    Davidson, M

    S. Davidson, M. Gorbahn and A. Santamaria,From transition magnetic moments to majorana neutrino masses,Phys. Lett. B626(2005) 151 [hep-ph/0506085]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  37. [38]

    Z. Maki, M. Nakagawa and S. Sakata,Remarks on the unified model of elementary particles, Progress of Theoretical Physics28(1962) 870

    1962

  38. [39]

    Pontecorvo,Mesonium and Antimesonium,Sov

    B. Pontecorvo,Mesonium and Antimesonium,Sov. Phys. JETP6(1958) 429

    1958

  39. [40]

    Pontecorvo,Inverse Beta Processes and Nonconservation of Lepton Charge,Sov

    B. Pontecorvo,Inverse Beta Processes and Nonconservation of Lepton Charge,Sov. Phys. JETP7(1958) 172

    1958

  40. [41]

    Pontecorvo,Neutrino Experiments and the Problem of Conservation of Leptonic Charge, Sov

    B. Pontecorvo,Neutrino Experiments and the Problem of Conservation of Leptonic Charge, Sov. Phys. JETP26(1968) 984

    1968

  41. [42]

    Gribov and B

    V. Gribov and B. Pontecorvo,Neutrino astronomy and lepton charge,Physics Letters B28 (1969) 493

    1969

  42. [43]

    Esteban, M.C

    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,JHEP09(2020) 178 [2007.14792]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  43. [44]

    Esteban, M.C

    I. Esteban, M.C. Gonzalez-Garcia, M. Maltoni, I. Martinez-Soler, J.P. Pinheiro and T. Schwetz,NuFit-6.0: updated global analysis of three-flavor neutrino oscillations,JHEP12 (2024) 216 [2410.05380]. [45]KATRINcollaboration,Direct neutrino-mass measurement based on 259 days of KATRIN data,Science388(2025) adq9592 [2406.13516]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  44. [46]

    Mohapatra and G

    R.N. Mohapatra and G. Senjanović,Neutrino masses and mixings in gauge models with spontaneous parity violation,Phys. Rev. D23(1981) 165

    1981

  45. [47]

    Magg and C

    M. Magg and C. Wetterich,Neutrino Mass Problem and Gauge Hierarchy,Phys. Lett. B94 (1980) 61

    1980

  46. [48]

    Schechter and J.W.F

    J. Schechter and J.W.F. Valle,Neutrino masses in su(2)N u(1) theories,Phys. Rev. D22 (1980) 2227

    1980

  47. [49]

    Wetterich,Neutrino Masses and the Scale of B-L Violation,Nucl

    C. Wetterich,Neutrino Masses and the Scale of B-L Violation,Nucl. Phys. B187(1981) 343

    1981

  48. [50]

    Lazarides, Q

    G. Lazarides, Q. Shafi and C. Wetterich,Proton lifetime and fermion masses in an so(10) model,Nuclear Physics B181(1981) 287

    1981

  49. [51]

    R. Foot, H. Lew, X.G. He and G.C. Joshi,Seesaw Neutrino Masses Induced by a Triplet of Leptons,Z. Phys. C44(1989) 441

    1989

  50. [52]

    Ma,Pathways to naturally small neutrino masses,Phys

    E. Ma,Pathways to naturally small neutrino masses,Phys. Rev. Lett.81(1998) 1171

    1998

  51. [53]

    Ma and D.P

    E. Ma and D.P. Roy,Heavy triplet leptons and new gauge boson,Nucl. Phys. B644(2002) 290 [hep-ph/0206150]. – 57 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  52. [54]

    Jenkins, A.V

    E.E. Jenkins, A.V. Manohar and P. Stoffer,Low-Energy Effective Field Theory below the Electroweak Scale: Operators and Matching,JHEP03(2018) 016 [1709.04486]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  53. [55]

    Jenkins, A.V

    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 [1308.2627]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  54. [56]

    Jenkins, A.V

    E.E. Jenkins, A.V. Manohar and P. Stoffer,Low-Energy Effective Field Theory below the Electroweak Scale: Anomalous Dimensions,JHEP01(2018) 084 [1711.05270]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  55. [57]

    Passarino and M

    G. Passarino and M. Veltman,One-loop corrections fore+e− annihilation intoµ +µ− in the weinberg model,Nuclear Physics B160(1979) 151

    1979

  56. [58]

    Campbell, E.W.N

    J.M. Campbell, E.W.N. Glover and D.J. Miller,One loop tensor integrals in dimensional regularization,Nucl. Phys. B498(1997) 397 [hep-ph/9612413]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  57. [59]

    Kugo,Quantum Theory of Gauge Fields, Vol

    T. Kugo,Quantum Theory of Gauge Fields, Vol. II, no. 24 in New Physics Series, Baifukan, Tokyo (July, 1989)

    1989

  58. [60]

    Kuno and Y

    Y. Kuno and Y. Okada,Muon decay and physics beyond the standard model,Rev. Mod. Phys. 73(2001) 151

    2001

  59. [61]

    Griffiths,Introduction to elementary particles, Physics textbook, Wiley, New York, NY (2008)

    D.J. Griffiths,Introduction to elementary particles, Physics textbook, Wiley, New York, NY (2008)

    2008

  60. [62]

    Pospelov and A

    M. Pospelov and A. Ritz,Electric dipole moments as probes of new physics,Annals of Physics 318(2005) 119

    2005

  61. [63]

    Aoyama et al.,The anomalous magnetic moment of the muon in the Standard Model,Phys

    T. Aoyama et al.,The anomalous magnetic moment of the muon in the Standard Model,Phys. Rept.887(2020) 1 [2006.04822]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  62. [64]

    Froggatt and H

    C. Froggatt and H. Nielsen,Hierarchy of quark masses, cabibbo angles and cp violation, Nuclear Physics B147(1979) 277

    1979

  63. [65]

    Babu and C.N

    K.S. Babu and C.N. Leung,Classification of effective neutrino mass operators,Nucl. Phys. B 619(2001) 667 [hep-ph/0106054]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  64. [66]

    Bischer and W

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  65. [67]

    Peskin and D.V

    M.E. Peskin and D.V. Schroeder,An Introduction to quantum field theory, Addison-Wesley, Reading, USA (1995), 10.1201/9780429503559. – 58 –

    doi:10.1201/9780429503559 1995