Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 1 cited by

Wolfenstein corrections from the charged-lepton sector bring TM2 neutrino mixing into agreement with current LMA and dark-LMA oscillation data.

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 · grok-4.3

2026-06-30 20:34 UTC pith:OWWKYD4O

load-bearing objection TM2 plus two fitted charged-lepton parameters fits the data for LMA and dark-LMA but the fit is by construction. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2605.14724 v1 pith:OWWKYD4O submitted 2026-05-14 hep-ph

Reconciling TM₂ Mixing with LMA and Dark-LMA Data based on Minimal Corrections from Charged-Lepton Sector

Ayush Kumar Singh , Tapender , Labh Singh , Surender Verma This is my paper
classification hep-ph
keywords neutrino mixingTM2 mixingLMA solutiondark-LMAcharged lepton correctionsWolfenstein parameterizationCP violationneutrinoless double beta decay
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.

The paper examines how small mixing effects originating in the charged leptons can adjust the TM2 neutrino mixing pattern so that its predictions match measured oscillation parameters. It introduces a two-parameter description of those effects and derives the ranges of the parameters that work for both the standard large mixing angle solution and the dark large mixing angle solution. The same construction yields definite predictions for the size of CP violation and for the effective mass relevant to neutrinoless double beta decay. A sympathetic reader would care because the adjustment is minimal and does not require many new free parameters.

Core claim

Employing the Wolfenstein parameterization of the charged-lepton mixing matrix with two additional parameters λ and δ supplies the corrections needed to reconcile TM2 neutrino-mixing predictions with oscillation data. For the LMA solution the allowed ranges are 0.1 ≲ λ ≲ 0.33 and δ ∈ (20°-90°) ⊕ (270°-340°); for the dark-LMA solution they are λ > 0.24 and 125° < δ < 235°. The upper bound on λ for LMA is set by the atmospheric angle θ23. The construction predicts |J_CP| values as large as 0.13 and places the inverted-hierarchy region of m_ee within reach of future 0νββ experiments.

What carries the argument

The two-parameter Wolfenstein form of the charged-lepton mixing matrix that supplies the minimal corrections to TM2 neutrino mixing from the (1,2) sector.

Load-bearing premise

The corrections to TM2 mixing are assumed to arise solely from the (1,2) sector of the charged-lepton mixing matrix and to be fully captured by the two-parameter Wolfenstein form without contributions from other sectors or higher-order terms.

What would settle it

A precision measurement of θ23 that forces λ outside the interval 0.1 to 0.33 for the LMA case, or a determination that |J_CP| lies well below the upper values allowed by the model, would rule out the proposed reconciliation.

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

If this is right

  • The atmospheric mixing angle θ23 imposes an upper limit λ ≤ 0.33 for the LMA solution.
  • The construction yields sizeable CP violation with |J_CP| reaching 0.13.
  • The inverted-hierarchy region of the effective Majorana mass m_ee lies inside the sensitivity of future neutrinoless double beta decay experiments.
  • Only part of the normal-hierarchy region for m_ee can be tested by the same experiments.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same minimal correction mechanism could be applied to other discrete-symmetry neutrino mixing patterns that currently disagree with data.
  • Future high-precision measurements of the CP phase could directly test the predicted ranges of δ for each solution.
  • If the charged-lepton corrections prove necessary, they suggest that the underlying flavor symmetry acts primarily on the neutrino sector and is only mildly broken in the charged-lepton sector.

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

2 major / 0 minor

Summary. The manuscript examines corrections to the TM2 neutrino mixing framework arising from the (1,2) sector of the charged-lepton mixing matrix, parameterized via the two-parameter Wolfenstein form with λ and δ. It claims these corrections reconcile TM2 predictions with current LMA and dark-LMA oscillation data, quotes explicit allowed ranges (0.1 ≲ λ ≲ 0.33 and specific δ intervals for LMA; λ > 0.24 and 125° < δ < 235° for dark-LMA), notes that the LMA upper bound on λ is set by θ23, and analyzes predictions for |J_CP| (up to 0.13) and m_ee for neutrinoless double beta decay under normal and inverted hierarchies.

Significance. If the assumption that corrections are confined exactly to the (1,2) sector and captured by the Wolfenstein form holds, the work supplies a minimal two-parameter phenomenological extension of TM2 that accommodates data while generating testable predictions for large CP violation and partial coverage of m_ee by future 0νββ experiments. The explicit parameter ranges and the θ23-driven bound on λ provide concrete guidance for model building in the neutrino sector.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract (and results section on allowed ranges)] Abstract and the paragraph beginning 'Motivated by...': the allowed ranges for λ and δ are presented as the outcome of fitting the model to oscillation data, yet no derivation steps, explicit data sets, χ² functions, error analysis, or minimization procedure are supplied. This gap prevents verification that the quoted intervals (e.g., 0.1 ≲ λ ≲ 0.33) are supported by the underlying expressions for the mixing angles.
  2. [Abstract (and paragraph beginning 'Motivated by...')] The paragraph beginning 'Motivated by...': the central reconciliation claim rests on the assumption that corrections arise solely from the (1,2) block and are fully captured by the two-parameter Wolfenstein form without (1,3) or (2,3) contributions or O(λ²) terms. No explicit check is shown that relaxing this exclusion would still keep the angles inside 3σ ranges; if the assumption fails, the quoted intervals no longer guarantee agreement with θ12, θ23, and θ13.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading and constructive comments on our manuscript. We address the major comments point by point below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract (and results section on allowed ranges)] Abstract and the paragraph beginning 'Motivated by...': the allowed ranges for λ and δ are presented as the outcome of fitting the model to oscillation data, yet no derivation steps, explicit data sets, χ² functions, error analysis, or minimization procedure are supplied. This gap prevents verification that the quoted intervals (e.g., 0.1 ≲ λ ≲ 0.33) are supported by the underlying expressions for the mixing angles.

    Authors: The referee is correct that the manuscript does not provide explicit derivation steps or the precise experimental bounds used to obtain the quoted ranges for λ and δ. These ranges follow from requiring the corrected mixing angles (obtained analytically from the product of the TM2 neutrino mixing matrix and the charged-lepton Wolfenstein matrix) to lie inside the current 3σ global-fit intervals. We will revise the manuscript to include the explicit expressions for the three mixing angles in terms of λ and δ, the specific 3σ bounds employed, and the step-by-step procedure that yields the allowed intervals. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract (and paragraph beginning 'Motivated by...')] The paragraph beginning 'Motivated by...': the central reconciliation claim rests on the assumption that corrections arise solely from the (1,2) block and are fully captured by the two-parameter Wolfenstein form without (1,3) or (2,3) contributions or O(λ²) terms. No explicit check is shown that relaxing this exclusion would still keep the angles inside 3σ ranges; if the assumption fails, the quoted intervals no longer guarantee agreement with θ12, θ23, and θ13.

    Authors: The work is explicitly framed as a minimal phenomenological extension in which corrections are confined to the (1,2) sector and parameterized by the two-parameter Wolfenstein form. The quoted ranges are valid under this assumption; the manuscript does not claim they survive the inclusion of additional sectors or higher-order terms. A systematic study relaxing the assumption would require a more general parameterization and lies outside the scope of the present analysis, which focuses on the smallest correction capable of reconciling TM2 with data. revision: no

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; standard parameter fitting to external data

full rationale

The paper introduces two free parameters (λ, δ) via Wolfenstein parameterization of charged-lepton mixing corrections to TM2 and determines their allowed ranges by matching to oscillation data. It then derives predictions for |J_CP| and m_ee within those ranges. This is explicit phenomenological fitting with no reduction of any claimed result to the inputs by construction, no self-citations, and no uniqueness theorems. The assumptions on the (1,2)-sector form are stated but do not trigger the enumerated circularity patterns.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the TM2 mixing pattern as the unperturbed neutrino sector and on the assumption that all necessary corrections can be absorbed into two fitted parameters from the charged-lepton (1,2) sector; no independent evidence is supplied for either premise.

free parameters (2)
  • λ
    Magnitude parameter in Wolfenstein form; its allowed interval is determined by requiring agreement with measured mixing angles.
  • δ
    Phase parameter in Wolfenstein form; its allowed intervals are determined by requiring agreement with measured mixing angles and CP observables.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption TM2 mixing is the correct base neutrino mixing matrix before charged-lepton corrections.
    Invoked in the opening sentence as the starting framework whose predictions must be corrected.
  • domain assumption Wolfenstein parameterization restricted to the (1,2) sector fully captures the charged-lepton corrections.
    Stated as the method employed to reconcile the data.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5800 in / 1773 out tokens · 41960 ms · 2026-06-30T20:34:16.496958+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Motivated by the increasing precision of neutrino oscillation data, we study the corrections to the TM$_2$ neutrino mixing framework, emanating from $(1,2)$ sector of the charged lepton, for both the standard LMA and dark-LMA solutions. We employ the Wolfenstein parameterization of the charged-lepton mixing matrix, characterized by two additional parameters $(\lambda,\delta)$, which effectively reconciles the TM$_2$ neutrino-mixing predictions with current oscillation data. For the LMA solution, the allowed ranges are $0.1 \lesssim \lambda \lesssim 0.33$ and $\delta \in (20^\circ\!-\!90^\circ)\oplus(270^\circ\!-\!340^\circ)$, while the dark-LMA case requires $\lambda>0.24$ and $125^\circ<\delta<235^\circ$. Interestingly, for LMA case, the upper bound $\lambda \le 0.33$ is found to be dictated by the atmospheric mixing angle $\theta_{23}$. The model predicts sizeable CP violation, with $|J_{CP}|$ reaching values as large as $0.13$. We, also, analyze the effective Majorana mass parameter $m_{ee}$ relevant for neutrinoless double beta decay. The inverted hierarchy region lies within the sensitivity of future experiments for both solutions, whereas only part of the normal hierarchy region can be tested.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.14724 by Ayush Kumar Singh, Labh Singh, Surender Verma, Tapender.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The correlation between different parameters for the NH-LMA solution is shown. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The correlation between the effective Majorana mass [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The correlation between different parameters for NH-dark LMA solution. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The correlation between the effective Majorana mass [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Rephasing invariant CP phases and sum rules in TM$_{1,2}$ mixing

    hep-ph 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    CP phases φ1,2 in TM1,2 mixing equal rephasing invariants φ1 = -arg[U_e2 U_e3 U_μ1 U_τ1 / U_e1 det U] and φi = δ - arg[U_μi^0 U_τi^0].

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Tri-bimaximal mixing and the neutrino oscillation data,

    P. F. Harrison, D. H. Perkins, and W. G. Scott, “Tri-bimaximal mixing and the neutrino oscillation data,”Phys. Lett. B, vol. 530, p. 167, 2002

    work page 2002

  2. [2]

    Symmetries and generalizations of tri - bimaximal neutrino mixing,

    P. F. Harrison and W. G. Scott, “Symmetries and generalizations of tri - bimaximal neutrino mixing,”Phys. Lett. B, vol. 535, pp. 163–169, 2002

    work page 2002

  3. [3]

    Nearly tri bimaximal neutrino mixing and CP violation,

    Z.-z. Xing, “Nearly tri bimaximal neutrino mixing and CP violation,”Phys. Lett. B, vol. 533, pp. 85–93, 2002

    work page 2002

  4. [4]

    Comparing Trimaximal Mixing and Its Variants with Deviations from Tri-bimaximal Mixing,

    C. H. Albright and W. Rodejohann, “Comparing Trimaximal Mixing and Its Variants with Deviations from Tri-bimaximal Mixing,”Eur. Phys. J. C, vol. 62, pp. 599–608, 2009

    work page 2009

  5. [5]

    Possible Alternatives to Tri-bimaximal Mixing,

    C. H. Albright, A. Dueck, and W. Rodejohann, “Possible Alternatives to Tri-bimaximal Mixing,”Eur. Phys. J. C, vol. 70, pp. 1099–1110, 2010

    work page 2010

  6. [6]

    Unitarity constraints on trimaximal mixing,

    S. Kumar, “Unitarity constraints on trimaximal mixing,”Phys. Rev. D, vol. 82, p. 013010,

    work page

  7. [7]

    [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 85, 079904 (2012)]

    work page 2012

  8. [8]

    Magic neutrino mass matrix and the Bjorken-Harrison-Scott parameterization,

    C. S. Lam, “Magic neutrino mass matrix and the Bjorken-Harrison-Scott parameterization,” Phys. Lett. B, vol. 640, pp. 260–262, 2006

    work page 2006

  9. [9]

    On lepton flavor violation and dark matter in Scoto- genic model with trimaximal mixing,

    Tapender, S. Verma, and S. Kumar, “On lepton flavor violation and dark matter in Scoto- genic model with trimaximal mixing,”Eur. Phys. J. Plus, vol. 140, no. 1, p. 43, 2025. 11

    work page 2025

  10. [10]

    Trimaximal neutrino mixing from vacuum alignment in A4 and S4 models,

    S. F. King and C. Luhn, “Trimaximal neutrino mixing from vacuum alignment in A4 and S4 models,”JHEP, vol. 09, p. 042, 2011

    work page 2011

  11. [11]

    A combination of the neutrino trimaximal mixings andµ-τreflection symmetry in the type-I seesaw model,

    Z.-h. Zhao, “A combination of the neutrino trimaximal mixings andµ-τreflection symmetry in the type-I seesaw model,”Eur. Phys. J. C, vol. 82, no. 5, p. 436, 2022

    work page 2022

  12. [12]

    Minimal Modification to Tri-bimaximal Mixing,

    X.-G. He and A. Zee, “Minimal Modification to Tri-bimaximal Mixing,”Phys. Rev. D, vol. 84, p. 053004, 2011

    work page 2011

  13. [13]

    Models of Neutrino Mass, Mixing and CP Violation,

    S. F. King, “Models of Neutrino Mass, Mixing and CP Violation,”J. Phys. G, vol. 42, p. 123001, 2015

    work page 2015

  14. [14]

    Trimaximal mixing and extended magic symmetry in a model of neutrino mass matrix,

    L. Singh, Tapender, M. Kashav, and S. Verma, “Trimaximal mixing and extended magic symmetry in a model of neutrino mass matrix,”EPL, vol. 142, no. 6, p. 64002, 2023. [Erratum: EPL 154, 19901 (2026)]

    work page 2023

  15. [15]

    Magic neutrino mass model with brokenµ−τsymmetry and leptogenesis,

    S. Verma and M. Kashav, “Magic neutrino mass model with brokenµ−τsymmetry and leptogenesis,”J. Phys. G, vol. 47, no. 8, p. 085003, 2020

    work page 2020

  16. [16]

    Is the magic texture of Majorana neutrinos immanent in Dirac nature?,

    Y. Hyodo and T. Kitabayashi, “Is the magic texture of Majorana neutrinos immanent in Dirac nature?,”Chin. Phys. C, vol. 47, no. 4, p. 043103, 2023

    work page 2023

  17. [17]

    Two simple textures of the magic neutrino mass matrix,

    K. S. Channey and S. Kumar, “Two simple textures of the magic neutrino mass matrix,” J. Phys. G, vol. 46, no. 1, p. 015001, 2019

    work page 2019

  18. [18]

    Zeros in the magic neutrino mass matrix,

    R. R. Gautam and S. Kumar, “Zeros in the magic neutrino mass matrix,”Phys. Rev. D, vol. 94, no. 3, p. 036004, 2016. [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 100, 039902 (2019)]

    work page 2016

  19. [19]

    NuFit-6.0: updated global analysis of three-flavor neutrino oscillations,

    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,” JHEP, vol. 12, p. 216, 2024

    work page 2024

  20. [20]

    Modified trimaximal mixing for solar and reactor neutrino mixing angles,

    Y. Chen, Y. Hyodo, and T. Kitabayashi, “Modified trimaximal mixing for solar and reactor neutrino mixing angles,”Int. J. Mod. Phys. A, vol. 38, no. 33n34, p. 2350174, 2023

    work page 2023

  21. [21]

    Modified TM2 for reproducing all best-fit values of neutrino mixing angles,

    M. Fodroci and T. Kitabayashi, “Modified TM2 for reproducing all best-fit values of neutrino mixing angles,”Progress of Theoretical and Experimental Physics, vol. 2026, p. 043B02, 04 2026

    work page 2026

  22. [22]

    A model for large non-standard interactions of neutrinos leading to the LMA- Dark solution,

    Y. Farzan, “A model for large non-standard interactions of neutrinos leading to the LMA- Dark solution,”Phys. Lett. B, vol. 748, pp. 311–315, 2015. 12

    work page 2015

  23. [23]

    On Resolving the Dark LMA Solution at Neutrino Oscilla- tion Experiments,

    S. Choubey and D. Pramanik, “On Resolving the Dark LMA Solution at Neutrino Oscilla- tion Experiments,”JHEP, vol. 12, p. 133, 2020

    work page 2020

  24. [24]

    Implications of the Dark-LMA solution for neutrino mass matrices,

    M. Ghosh, S. Goswami, and A. Mukherjee, “Implications of the Dark-LMA solution for neutrino mass matrices,”Nucl. Phys. B, vol. 969, p. 115460, 2021. [Erratum: Nucl.Phys.B Proc.Suppl. 977, 115547 (2022)]

    work page 2021

  25. [25]

    New constraints on the dark side of non-standard interactions from reactor neutrino scattering data,

    P. B. Denton and J. Gehrlein, “New constraints on the dark side of non-standard interactions from reactor neutrino scattering data,”Phys. Rev. D, vol. 106, no. 1, p. 015022, 2022

    work page 2022

  26. [26]

    Testing large non-standard neutrino in- teractions with arbitrary mediator mass after COHERENT data,

    P. B. Denton, Y. Farzan, and I. M. Shoemaker, “Testing large non-standard neutrino in- teractions with arbitrary mediator mass after COHERENT data,”JHEP, vol. 07, p. 037, 2018

    work page 2018

  27. [27]

    Curtailing the Dark Side in Non-Standard Neutrino Interactions,

    P. Coloma, P. B. Denton, M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, M. Maltoni, and T. Schwetz, “Curtailing the Dark Side in Non-Standard Neutrino Interactions,”JHEP, vol. 04, p. 116, 2017

    work page 2017

  28. [28]

    Implications of the dark large mixing angle solution and a fourth sterile neutrino for neutrinoless double beta decay,

    K. N. Deepthi, S. Goswami, V. K. N., and T. K. Poddar, “Implications of the dark large mixing angle solution and a fourth sterile neutrino for neutrinoless double beta decay,” Phys. Rev. D, vol. 102, no. 1, p. 015020, 2020

    work page 2020

  29. [29]

    Neutrino Mass Matrix with Broken Scaling in Light of LMA and Dark-LMA Solutions,

    A. Kumar, D. Gautam, and S. Verma, “Neutrino Mass Matrix with Broken Scaling in Light of LMA and Dark-LMA Solutions,”Int. J. Theor. Phys., vol. 64, no. 6, p. 171, 2025

    work page 2025

  30. [30]

    Investigating two-zero textures of inverse neutrino mass matrix under the lamp post of LMA and LMA-D solutions and symmetry realization,

    L. Singh, M. Kashav, and S. Verma, “Investigating two-zero textures of inverse neutrino mass matrix under the lamp post of LMA and LMA-D solutions and symmetry realization,” Eur. Phys. J. C, vol. 82, no. 9, p. 841, 2022

    work page 2022

  31. [31]

    Resolving the LMA-dark NSI degeneracy with coherent neutrino-nucleus scattering,

    M. Chaves and T. Schwetz, “Resolving the LMA-dark NSI degeneracy with coherent neutrino-nucleus scattering,”JHEP, vol. 05, p. 042, 2021

    work page 2021

  32. [32]

    Neutrino mixing model for best-fit values ofθ 12 andθ 13,

    Y. Hyodo and T. Kitabayashi, “Neutrino mixing model for best-fit values ofθ 12 andθ 13,” Mod. Phys. Lett. A, vol. 39, no. 17n18, p. 2450081, 2024

    work page 2024

  33. [33]

    Unified triminimal parametrizations of quark and lepton mixing matrices,

    X.-G. He, S.-W. Li, and B.-Q. Ma, “Unified triminimal parametrizations of quark and lepton mixing matrices,”Phys. Rev. D, vol. 79, p. 073001, 2009

    work page 2009

  34. [34]

    Simple parametrization of neutrino mixing matrix,

    B.-Q. Ma, “Simple parametrization of neutrino mixing matrix,”Phys. Rev. D, vol. 87, no. 1, p. 017301, 2013

    work page 2013

  35. [35]

    Leptonic CP Violation and Wolfenstein Parametrization for Lepton Mixing,

    Z. Liu and Y.-L. Wu, “Leptonic CP Violation and Wolfenstein Parametrization for Lepton Mixing,”Phys. Lett. B, vol. 733, pp. 226–232, 2014. 13

    work page 2014

  36. [36]

    Wolfenstein parametrization revisited,

    Z.-z. Xing, “Wolfenstein parametrization revisited,”Phys. Rev. D, vol. 51, pp. 3958–3959, 1995

    work page 1995

  37. [37]

    Wolfenstein - like parametrization of the neutrino mixing matrix,

    Z.-z. Xing, “Wolfenstein - like parametrization of the neutrino mixing matrix,”J. Phys. G, vol. 29, pp. 2227–2234, 2003

    work page 2003

  38. [38]

    Leptonic Unitarity Triangles,

    S. A. R. Ellis, K. J. Kelly, and S. W. Li, “Leptonic Unitarity Triangles,”Phys. Rev. D, vol. 102, no. 11, p. 115027, 2020

    work page 2020

  39. [39]

    Neutrinoless Double-Beta Decay: a Probe of Physics Beyond the Standard Model,

    S. M. Bilenky and C. Giunti, “Neutrinoless Double-Beta Decay: a Probe of Physics Beyond the Standard Model,”Int. J. Mod. Phys. A, vol. 30, no. 04n05, p. 1530001, 2015

    work page 2015

  40. [40]

    Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters,

    N. Aghanimet al., “Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters,”Astron. Astrophys., vol. 641, p. A6, 2020. [Erratum: Astron.Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)]

    work page 2018

  41. [41]

    Present status and future perspectives of the NEXT experi- ment,

    J. J. Gomez-Cadenaset al., “Present status and future perspectives of the NEXT experi- ment,”Adv. High Energy Phys., vol. 2014, p. 907067, 2014

    work page 2014

  42. [42]

    NEXT, a HPGXe TPC for neutrinoless double beta decay searches,

    F. Granenaet al., “NEXT, a HPGXe TPC for neutrinoless double beta decay searches,” 7 2009

    work page 2009

  43. [43]

    The Sensitivity of the nEXO Experiment to Majorana Neutrinos,

    C. Licciardi, “The Sensitivity of the nEXO Experiment to Majorana Neutrinos,”J. Phys. Conf. Ser., vol. 888, no. 1, p. 012237, 2017

    work page 2017

  44. [44]

    Search for Majorana Neutrinos near the Inverted Mass Hierarchy Region with KamLAND-Zen,

    A. Gandoet al., “Search for Majorana Neutrinos near the Inverted Mass Hierarchy Region with KamLAND-Zen,”Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 117, no. 8, p. 082503, 2016. [Addendum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 117, 109903 (2016)]

    work page 2016

  45. [45]

    SeperNEMO double beta decay experiment,

    A. S. Barabash, “SeperNEMO double beta decay experiment,”J. Phys. Conf. Ser., vol. 375, p. 042012, 2012. 14

    work page 2012