pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.20239 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-22 · ✦ hep-ph

Recognition: unknown

When Does Leptogenesis Survive Lepton Flavor Violation Constraints? High- and Low-Scale Realizations in the Scotogenic Model

Avinanda Chaudhuri
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 00:31 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ✦ hep-ph
keywords leptogenesislepton flavor violationscotogenic modelCasas-Ibarra parametrizationneutrino massbaryogenesisresonant leptogenesisMEG bound
0
0 comments X

The pith

In the scotogenic model high-scale leptogenesis evades lepton flavor violation bounds while low-scale resonant leptogenesis survives only in a narrow window.

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

The paper studies how the same Yukawa couplings that generate neutrino masses in the minimal scotogenic model also control lepton flavor violation and the CP asymmetry needed for leptogenesis. It shows that high-scale hierarchical leptogenesis proceeds with little interference from flavor violation processes because the relevant scales decouple. Low-scale resonant leptogenesis faces tight restrictions from the current experimental limit on muon to electron gamma decay, yet a small slice of parameter space still permits enough asymmetry generation with acceptable washout and suppressed flavor violation. The analysis uses the Casas-Ibarra parametrization to expose these correlations across both regimes.

Core claim

High-scale leptogenesis remains naturally viable in the minimal scotogenic model due to effective decoupling between lepton flavor violation and baryogenesis, while low-scale resonant leptogenesis is strongly constrained by the MEG bound on muon to electron gamma decay yet admits a narrow but nonvanishing window in which successful baryogenesis, controlled washout, and lepton flavor violation safety coexist through quasi-degenerate heavy fermions and Casas-Ibarra phase alignment.

What carries the argument

The Casas-Ibarra parametrization of the Yukawa matrix, which encodes all correlations among neutrino masses, charged lepton flavor violation rates, and the CP asymmetry for baryogenesis.

If this is right

  • High-scale leptogenesis can generate the observed baryon asymmetry without additional adjustments to satisfy existing LFV limits.
  • Low-scale resonant leptogenesis requires quasi-degenerate heavy fermions and specific phase alignments to remain viable.
  • Fully allowed benchmark points exist that simultaneously satisfy neutrino mass generation, controlled washout, and LFV safety.
  • The resonant CP asymmetry enhancement must be balanced against flavor violation suppression through the same Yukawa structure.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Future improvements in LFV sensitivity could shrink or close the resonant window without affecting the high-scale case.
  • The decoupling at high scales may carry over to other radiative neutrino-mass models that share similar Yukawa structures.
  • Precise measurements of neutrino mixing parameters could further restrict the phase alignments needed for the surviving low-scale points.

Load-bearing premise

The analysis assumes the minimal scotogenic model with the Casas-Ibarra parametrization that fixes all relations between neutrino masses, LFV rates, and the CP asymmetry.

What would settle it

Observation of a muon to electron gamma branching ratio above the value predicted for the benchmark points in the resonant window, or a confirmed low-scale leptogenesis signal whose required CP asymmetry conflicts with the MEG bound.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.20239 by Avinanda Chaudhuri.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: High-scale hierarchical leptogenesis in the minimal scotogenic model. (a) Correlation between the baryon asymmetry YB and the lightest RHN mass M1. Suc￾cessful leptogenesis requires sufficiently large RHN masses, typically in the high-scale regime M1 ≳ 109–1010 GeV, where the CP asymmetry becomes large enough to overcome washout suppression. The horizontal dashed line denotes the observed baryon asymmetry.… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Interplay between lepton flavor violation and leptogenesis in the high-scale [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Low-scale resonant leptogenesis with quasi-degenerate right-handed neutrinos in the minimal scotogenic model. (a) Baryon asymmetry YB as a function of the lightest RHN mass M1. The horizontal dashed line denotes the observed baryon asymmetry of the Universe. Successful leptogenesis is achieved for comparatively low RHN masses once resonant enhancement is present, allowing viable baryogenesis far below the … view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Low-scale resonant parameter space after imposing leptogenesis and LFV constraints. (a) Distribution of scan points in the (λ5, M1) plane. The fully allowed points are concentrated in a restricted region with moderate values of the scalar coupling λ5 and sufficiently low RHN masses, reflecting the nontrivial interplay between radiative neutrino mass generation, perturbativity, and resonant leptogenesis. Ve… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We investigate the interplay between lepton flavor violation (LFV) and leptogenesis in the minimal scotogenic model, comparing high-scale hierarchical leptogenesis and low-scale resonant leptogenesis within a unified Casas--Ibarra framework. Since the same Yukawa couplings simultaneously govern radiative neutrino mass generation, charged LFV processes, and the CP asymmetry required for baryogenesis, strong phenomenological correlations arise. We show that high-scale leptogenesis remains naturally viable due to the effective decoupling between LFV and baryogenesis, while low-scale resonant leptogenesis is strongly constrained by the MEG bound on $\mu \rightarrow e\gamma$. Nevertheless, we identify a narrow but nonvanishing resonant window where successful baryogenesis, controlled washout, and LFV safety coexist simultaneously. In particular, we obtain fully allowed benchmark points characterized by quasi-degenerate heavy fermions, resonantly enhanced CP asymmetry, and suppressed flavor violation through Casas--Ibarra phase alignment.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript investigates the interplay between lepton flavor violation (LFV) and leptogenesis in the minimal scotogenic model, employing the Casas-Ibarra parametrization to relate the Yukawa couplings across radiative neutrino mass generation, charged LFV processes, and the CP asymmetry for baryogenesis. It concludes that high-scale hierarchical leptogenesis remains viable owing to effective decoupling from LFV constraints, whereas low-scale resonant leptogenesis is strongly constrained by the MEG bound on μ → eγ; nevertheless, a narrow but non-vanishing resonant window exists in which successful baryogenesis, controlled washout, and LFV safety can coexist, as illustrated by fully allowed benchmark points featuring quasi-degenerate heavy fermions and suitable Casas-Ibarra phase alignment.

Significance. If the benchmark points are robust under the full set of constraints, the result is significant for neutrino model building: it demonstrates that the scotogenic framework can simultaneously accommodate the observed baryon asymmetry and current LFV limits in both high- and low-scale regimes, with the phase structure of the Casas-Ibarra matrix providing a concrete mechanism for the required decoupling or alignment. The unified treatment of high- and low-scale cases within one parametrization offers a useful reference for assessing the viability of radiative neutrino mass models as complete explanations of the baryon asymmetry.

major comments (2)
  1. [low-scale resonant leptogenesis analysis] The central claim of a non-vanishing resonant window (abstract and the low-scale leptogenesis section) rests on the existence of Casas-Ibarra parameters R that simultaneously produce resonant CP enhancement (requiring small mass splitting and appropriate imaginary parts) and sufficiently suppressed off-diagonal Yukawa products to satisfy BR(μ → eγ) < 4.2 × 10^{-13}. The manuscript must explicitly demonstrate that this intersection remains non-empty after imposing the full neutrino oscillation data, the flavored Boltzmann equations for washout, and the one-loop neutrino mass formula; isolated benchmark points alone do not establish that the window survives the joint constraints.
  2. [numerical results / benchmark points] Table or figure presenting the benchmark points (presumably in the numerical results section): the reported values of the CP asymmetry, the resulting baryon asymmetry, and the LFV branching ratios should be accompanied by the explicit elements of the complex orthogonal matrix R and the heavy-fermion mass splittings used, so that the phase alignment responsible for LFV suppression can be independently verified and checked for consistency with the Casas-Ibarra reconstruction of the neutrino mass matrix.
minor comments (2)
  1. [abstract] The abstract states the existence of 'fully allowed benchmark points' but does not quote the numerical values of the heavy-fermion masses or the resulting BR(μ → eγ); adding one or two representative numbers would improve clarity without lengthening the text.
  2. [model and parametrization section] Notation for the Casas-Ibarra matrix R and the heavy-fermion mass matrix should be introduced once with a clear reference to the standard definition used in the literature, to avoid any ambiguity when comparing the high- and low-scale regimes.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading of our manuscript and the constructive comments. We address each major point below and outline the revisions we will make to strengthen the presentation.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [low-scale resonant leptogenesis analysis] The central claim of a non-vanishing resonant window (abstract and the low-scale leptogenesis section) rests on the existence of Casas-Ibarra parameters R that simultaneously produce resonant CP enhancement (requiring small mass splitting and appropriate imaginary parts) and sufficiently suppressed off-diagonal Yukawa products to satisfy BR(μ → eγ) < 4.2 × 10^{-13}. The manuscript must explicitly demonstrate that this intersection remains non-empty after imposing the full neutrino oscillation data, the flavored Boltzmann equations for washout, and the one-loop neutrino mass formula; isolated benchmark points alone do not establish that the window survives the joint constraints.

    Authors: We agree that isolated benchmark points are insufficient to establish the existence of a viable window and that an explicit demonstration under the joint constraints is required. Our benchmarks were obtained by scanning the Casas-Ibarra parameters R (including phases) and the heavy-fermion mass splittings while enforcing consistency with neutrino oscillation data, the one-loop neutrino mass formula, and solving the flavored Boltzmann equations to ensure the correct baryon asymmetry with controlled washout. The points lie within a narrow but non-empty region where LFV suppression occurs via phase alignment. To address the referee's concern, we will add a brief description of the scanning procedure and a supplementary figure or table illustrating the distribution of viable points in the relevant parameter space (e.g., mass splitting vs. imaginary parts of R), confirming the window remains non-empty after all constraints. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [numerical results / benchmark points] Table or figure presenting the benchmark points (presumably in the numerical results section): the reported values of the CP asymmetry, the resulting baryon asymmetry, and the LFV branching ratios should be accompanied by the explicit elements of the complex orthogonal matrix R and the heavy-fermion mass splittings used, so that the phase alignment responsible for LFV suppression can be independently verified and checked for consistency with the Casas-Ibarra reconstruction of the neutrino mass matrix.

    Authors: We thank the referee for this suggestion, which will improve transparency and allow independent verification. We will revise the numerical results section to include the explicit elements of the complex orthogonal matrix R (all nine entries) and the precise heavy-fermion mass splittings for each benchmark point, together with the corresponding CP asymmetry, baryon asymmetry, and LFV branching ratios. This will be presented in an expanded table or in the text immediately following the benchmark discussion. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: standard parametrization scan yields independent viability check

full rationale

The paper applies the Casas-Ibarra parametrization (a standard re-expression of the Yukawa matrix in terms of measured neutrino masses, mixing angles, and an arbitrary complex orthogonal matrix R) to generate consistent Yukawa values, then evaluates LFV branching ratios and the flavored CP asymmetry from the same expressions. This constitutes a parameter-space exploration under external constraints (oscillation data, MEG bound, washout dynamics) rather than any self-definition, fitted-input-as-prediction, or self-citation reduction. Benchmark points are exhibited as explicit numerical realizations within the allowed region; no equation is shown to equal its input by construction, and no load-bearing premise collapses to a prior self-authored theorem or ansatz. The derivation chain therefore remains self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the minimal scotogenic model plus the Casas-Ibarra parametrization; without the full text the exact free parameters and axioms cannot be enumerated, but typical inputs include the three heavy-fermion masses, the overall Yukawa scale, and the complex angles/phases in the Casas-Ibarra matrix.

free parameters (2)
  • heavy fermion masses
    Quasi-degenerate masses are chosen to enable resonant enhancement; their specific values are fitted or scanned to satisfy both baryogenesis and LFV bounds.
  • Casas-Ibarra phases
    Phases are aligned to suppress flavor violation while preserving CP asymmetry; these are additional free parameters beyond neutrino oscillation data.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption The scotogenic model is minimal and contains only the standard new fields (inert doublet and right-handed fermions).
    Invoked throughout the abstract as the framework for all correlations.
  • domain assumption The Casas-Ibarra parametrization fully captures the Yukawa matrix without additional flavor structures.
    Used to link neutrino masses, LFV, and leptogenesis.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5459 in / 1574 out tokens · 42104 ms · 2026-05-10T00:31:34.801185+00:00 · methodology

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

53 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Navaset al.),Phys

    S. Navaset al.(Particle Data Group), “Review of Particle Physics,” Phys. Rev. D 110, 030001 (2024). doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.110.030001

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.110.030001 2024

  2. [2]

    2020a, Astron

    N. Aghanimet al.(Planck Collaboration), “Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters,” Astron. Astrophys.641, A6 (2020) [Erratum: Astron. Astrophys.652, C4 (2021)] doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833910 arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833910 2018

  3. [3]

    Baryogenesis Without Grand Unification,

    M. Fukugita and T. Yanagida, “Baryogenesis Without Grand Unification,” Phys. Lett. B174, 45 (1986)

    1986

  4. [4]

    µ→eγat a Rate of One Out of 10 9 Muon Decays?,

    P. Minkowski, “µ→eγat a Rate of One Out of 10 9 Muon Decays?,” Phys. Lett. B 67, 421 (1977)

    1977

  5. [5]

    Horizontal Gauge Symmetry and Masses of Neutrinos,

    T. Yanagida, “Horizontal Gauge Symmetry and Masses of Neutrinos,” inProceedings of the Workshop on the Unified Theory and the Baryon Number in the Universe, Tsukuba, Japan, February 13–14, 1979, Conf. Proc. C7902131, 95 (1979)

    1979

  6. [6]

    Complex Spinors and Unified Theories

    M. Gell-Mann, P. Ramond and R. Slansky, “Complex Spinors and Unified Theories,” inSupergravity, eds. P. van Nieuwenhuizen and D. Z. Freedman, North Holland, Amsterdam (1979), p. 315, arXiv:1306.4669 [hep-th]. 26

    work page Pith review arXiv 1979

  7. [7]

    Neutrino Mass and Spontaneous Parity Non- conservation,

    R. N. Mohapatra and G. Senjanovic, “Neutrino Mass and Spontaneous Parity Non- conservation,” Phys. Rev. Lett.44, 912 (1980)

    1980

  8. [8]

    Neutrino Masses in SU(2)×U(1) Theories,

    J. Schechter and J. W. F. Valle, “Neutrino Masses in SU(2)×U(1) Theories,” Phys. Rev. D22, 2227 (1980)

    1980

  9. [9]

    Flavor effects in leptogenesis,

    P. S. B. Dev, P. Di Bari, B. Garbrecht, S. Lavignac, P. Millington and D. Teresi, “Flavor effects in leptogenesis,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. A33, 1842001 (2018), arXiv:1711.02861 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2018

  10. [11]

    Resonant enhancement in leptogenesis,

    B. Dev, M. Garny, J. Klaric, P. Millington and D. Teresi, “Resonant enhancement in leptogenesis,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. A33, 1842003 (2018), arXiv:1711.02863 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2018

  11. [12]

    Finite-temperature effects in leptogenesis,

    S. Biondini et al., “Finite-temperature effects in leptogenesis,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 33, 1842004 (2018), arXiv:1711.02864 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2018

  12. [13]

    Testable leptogenesis,

    E. J. Chun et al., “Testable leptogenesis,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. A33, 1842005 (2018), arXiv:1711.02865 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2018

  13. [14]

    CP Violation in Leptogenesis and Neutrino Mixing,

    C. Hagedorn, R. N. Mohapatra, E. Molinaro, C. C. Nishi and S. T. Petcov, “CP Violation in Leptogenesis and Neutrino Mixing,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. A33, 1842006 (2018), arXiv:1711.02866 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2018

  14. [15]

    A lower bound on the right-handed neutrino mass from leptogenesis

    S. Davidson and A. Ibarra, “A Lower Bound on the Right-Handed Neutrino Mass from Leptogenesis,” Phys. Lett. B535, 25 (2002), arXiv:hep-ph/0202239

    work page Pith review arXiv 2002

  15. [16]

    Asaka and M

    T. Asaka and M. Shaposhnikov, “TheνMSM, dark matter and baryon asymmetry of the Universe,” Phys. Lett. B620, 17 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0505013

    work page arXiv 2005

  16. [17]

    Resonant Leptogenesis

    A. Pilaftsis and T. E. J. Underwood, “Resonant leptogenesis,” Nucl. Phys. B692, 303 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0309342

    work page Pith review arXiv 2004

  17. [18]

    Hambye and D

    T. Hambye and D. Teresi, “Higgs doublet decay as the origin of the baryon asym- metry,” Phys. Rev. Lett.117, 091801 (2016), arXiv:1606.00017 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2016

  18. [19]

    ARS leptogenesis,

    M. Drewes, B. Garbrecht, P. Hernandez, M. Kekic, J. Lopez-Pavon, J. Racker, N. Rius, J. Salvado and D. Teresi, “ARS leptogenesis,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. A33, 1842002 (2018), arXiv:1711.02862 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2018

  19. [20]

    Klari ´c, M

    J. Klaric, M. Shaposhnikov and I. Timiryasov, “Uniting low-scale leptogenesis mech- anisms,” Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 111802 (2021), arXiv:2008.13771 [hep-ph]. 27

    work page arXiv 2021

  20. [21]

    Flavour mixing transport theory and resonant leptogenesis,

    H. Jukkala, K. Kainulainen and P. M. Rahkila, “Flavour mixing transport theory and resonant leptogenesis,” JHEP09(2021) 119, arXiv:2104.03998 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2021

  21. [22]

    On different approaches to freeze-in and freeze-out leptogenesis with quasi-degenerate neutrinos,

    J. Racker, “On different approaches to freeze-in and freeze-out leptogenesis with quasi-degenerate neutrinos,” Eur. Phys. J. C83, 170 (2023),

    2023

  22. [23]

    Canetti, M

    L. Canetti, M. Drewes, T. Frossard and M. Shaposhnikov, “Dark matter, baryogene- sis and neutrino oscillations from right handed neutrinos,” Phys. Rev. D87, 093006 (2013), arXiv:1208.4607 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2013

  23. [24]

    Sterile neutrino dark matter via GeV-scale leptogene- sis?,

    J. Ghiglieri and M. Laine, “Sterile neutrino dark matter via GeV-scale leptogene- sis?,” JHEP07(2019) 078, arXiv:1905.08814 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2019

  24. [25]

    Sterile neutrino dark matter via coinciding resonances,

    J. Ghiglieri and M. Laine, “Sterile neutrino dark matter via coinciding resonances,” JCAP07(2020) 012, arXiv:2004.10766 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2020

  25. [26]

    Radiative seesaw mechanism at weak scale,

    Z. j. Tao, “Radiative seesaw mechanism at weak scale,” Phys. Rev. D54, 5693 (1996)

    1996

  26. [27]

    Verifiable radiative seesaw mechanism of neutrino mass and dark matter,

    E. Ma, “Verifiable radiative seesaw mechanism of neutrino mass and dark matter,” Phys. Rev. D73, 077301 (2006), arXiv:hep-ph/0601225

    work page arXiv 2006

  27. [28]

    Common origin of neutrino mass, dark matter, and baryogenesis,

    E. Ma, “Common origin of neutrino mass, dark matter, and baryogenesis,” Mod. Phys. Lett. A21, 1777 (2006), arXiv:hep-ph/0605180

    work page arXiv 2006

  28. [29]

    Search for the lepton flavour violating decayµ + →e +γwith the full dataset of the MEG experiment,

    A. M. Baldini et al. (MEG Collaboration), “Search for the Lepton Flavour Violating Decayµ + →e +γwith the Full Dataset of the MEG Experiment,” Eur. Phys. J. C 76, 434 (2016), arXiv:1605.05081 [hep-ex]

    work page arXiv 2016

  29. [30]

    Afanacievet al.[MEG II], Eur

    K. Afanaciev et al. (MEG II Collaboration), “New limit on the Lepton Flavour Violating Decayµ + →e +γwith the MEG II Experiment,” Eur. Phys. J. C85 (2025), arXiv:2504.15711 [hep-ex]

    work page arXiv 2025

  30. [31]

    Pattern of Symmetry Breaking with Two Higgs Dou- blets,

    N. G. Deshpande and E. Ma, “Pattern of Symmetry Breaking with Two Higgs Dou- blets,” Phys. Rev. D18, 2574 (1978)

    1978

  31. [32]

    Cold Dark Matter, Radiative Neutrino Mass,µ→ eγ, and Neutrinoless Double Beta Decay,

    J. Kubo, E. Ma and D. Suematsu, “Cold Dark Matter, Radiative Neutrino Mass,µ→ eγ, and Neutrinoless Double Beta Decay,” Phys. Lett. B642, 18 (2006), arXiv:hep- ph/0604114

    work page arXiv 2006

  32. [33]

    Models with radiative neutrino masses and viable dark matter candidates

    D. Restrepo, O. Zapata and C. E. Yaguna, “Models with radiative neutrino masses and viable dark matter candidates,” JHEP11(2013) 011, arXiv:1308.3655 [hep-ph]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2013

  33. [34]

    Parity problem of the scotogenic neutrino model,

    A. Merle and M. Platscher, “Parity problem of the scotogenic neutrino model,” J. Phys. G42, 055002 (2015), arXiv:1502.03098 [hep-ph]. 28

    work page arXiv 2015

  34. [35]

    Radiative neutrino mass and Majorana dark matter within an inert Higgs doublet model,

    A. Ahriche, A. Jueid and S. Nasri, “Radiative neutrino mass and Majorana dark matter within an inert Higgs doublet model,” Phys. Rev. D97, 095012 (2018), arXiv:1710.03824 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2018

  35. [36]

    , keywords =

    Y. Fukudaet al.[Super-Kamiokande Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett.81, 1562 (1998) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.81.1562 [hep-ex/9807003]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.81.1562 1998

  36. [37]

    Q. R. Ahmadet al.[SNO Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett.89, 011301 (2002) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.89.011301 [nucl-ex/0204008]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.89.011301 2002

  37. [38]

    Eguchiet al.[KamLAND Collaboration], Phys

    K. Eguchiet al.[KamLAND Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett.90, 021802 (2003) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.90.021802 [hep-ex/0212021]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.90.021802 2003

  38. [39]

    F. P. Anet al.[Daya Bay Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 171803 (2012) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.171803 [arXiv:1203.1669 [hep-ex]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.108.171803 2012

  39. [40]

    J. K. Ahnet al.[RENO Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 191802 (2012) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.191802 [arXiv:1204.0626 [hep-ex]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.108.191802 2012

  40. [41]

    Abeet al.[Double Chooz Collaboration], Phys

    Y. Abeet al.[Double Chooz Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 131801 (2012) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.131801 [arXiv:1112.6353 [hep-ex]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.108.131801 2012

  41. [42]

    Abeet al.[T2K Collaboration], Phys

    K. Abeet al.[T2K Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett.107, 041801 (2011) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.107.041801 [arXiv:1106.2822 [hep-ex]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.107.041801 2011

  42. [43]

    Adamsonet al.[NOvA Collaboration], Phys

    P. Adamsonet al.[NOvA Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett.116, no.15, 151806 (2016) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.151806 [arXiv:1601.05022 [hep-ex]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.116.151806 2016

  43. [44]

    Direct neutrino-mass mea- surement with sub-electronvolt sensitivity,

    M. Akeret al.(KATRIN Collaboration), “Direct neutrino-mass mea- surement with sub-electronvolt sensitivity,” Science388, 202–206 (2025) doi:10.1126/science.adq9592

    work page doi:10.1126/science.adq9592 2025

  44. [45]

    J. A. Casas and A. Ibarra, Nucl. Phys. B618, 171–204 (2001) doi:10.1016/S0550- 3213(01)00475-8 [hep-ph/0103065]

    work page doi:10.1016/s0550- 2001

  45. [46]

    Pontecorvo, Sov

    B. Pontecorvo, Sov. Phys. JETP7, 172–173 (1958)

    1958

  46. [47]

    Z. Maki, M. Nakagawa and S. Sakata, Prog. Theor. Phys.28, 870–880 (1962) doi:10.1143/PTP.28.870

    work page doi:10.1143/ptp.28.870 1962

  47. [48]

    S. M. Bilenky and B. Pontecorvo, Phys. Rept.41, 225–261 (1978) doi:10.1016/0370- 1573(78)90095-9

    work page doi:10.1016/0370- 1978

  48. [49]

    Esteban, M

    I. Esteban, M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, M. Maltoni, T. Schwetz and A. Zhou, JHEP 09, 178 (2020) doi:10.1007/JHEP09(2020)178 [arXiv:2007.14792 [hep-ph]]; updated results available at:http://www.nu-fit.org. 29

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep09(2020)178 2020

  49. [50]

    A. D. Sakharov, Pisma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.5, 32–35 (1967) [JETP Lett.5, 24–27 (1967)] [Sov. Phys. Usp.34, 392–393 (1991)] doi:10.1070/PU1991v034n05ABEH002497

    work page doi:10.1070/pu1991v034n05abeh002497 1967

  50. [51]

    Lepton Flavor Violation in the Scotogenic Model,

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

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep01(2014)160 2014

  51. [52]

    Leptogenesis for pedestri- ans,

    W. Buchmuller, P. Di Bari and M. Plumacher, “Leptogenesis for pedestri- ans,” Annals Phys.315, 305–351 (2005) doi:10.1016/j.aop.2004.02.003 [arXiv:hep- ph/0401240]

    work page doi:10.1016/j.aop.2004.02.003 2005

  52. [53]

    Leptogenesis,

    S. Davidson, E. Nardi and Y. Nir, “Leptogenesis,” Phys. Rept.466, 105–177 (2008) doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2008.06.002 [arXiv:0802.2962 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2008.06.002 2008

  53. [54]

    Higgs doublet decay as the origin of the baryon asymme- try,

    T. Hambye and D. Teresi, “Higgs doublet decay as the origin of the baryon asymme- try,” Phys. Rev. Lett.117, no.9, 091801 (2016) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.091801 [arXiv:1606.00017 [hep-ph]]. 30

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.117.091801 2016