Ultraviolet Flavor Transmission to T-Violating Neutrino Oscillation Observables in a Seesaw Framework with Sterile Mixing and Planck-Suppressed Corrections

Bipin Singh Koranga; Poulastya Kar; Vivek Nautiyal

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 19 references

Ultraviolet Flavor Transmission to T-Violating Neutrino Oscillation Observables in a Seesaw Framework with Sterile Mixing and Planck-Suppressed Corrections

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Planck-suppressed corrections to the Weinberg operator shift the T-violating neutrino oscillation asymmetry by only about 1e-7 at natural size, leaving the effect unobservable at DUNE.

desk verdict Strong numerical hygiene and honest reporting, but the central perturbation linearizes the wrong Hamiltonian; the quantitative claims need a fix to Eq. (27) before they can be trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.07602 v1 pith:UXJ6N7QB submitted 2026-08-06 hep-ph

Poulastya Kar , Bipin Singh Koranga , Vivek Nautiyal This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-ph PACS 14.60.Pq11.30.Er

keywords neutrinooscillationsTviolationType-IseesawWeinbergoperatorPlanck-suppressedcorrectionsCasas-Ibarraparameterizationsterileneutrinosrenormalizationgroup

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper tries to show that if neutrino masses come from a Type-I seesaw and the effective Weinberg operator receives a Planck-scale correction of its natural size, then the T-violating asymmetry in muon-to-electron neutrino oscillations shifts by only about $10^{-7}$, far below current and near-future experimental reach. The authors construct a full pipeline from a spontaneously CP-violating ultraviolet boundary condition, through Casas-Ibarra reconstruction, threshold matching, one-loop renormalization-group running, and a 3+1 sterile sector, to a closed-form first-order formula for the correction. This is what makes the result more than an estimate: every step is numerically implemented and validated against known limits. If the calculation is right, Planck-scale physics is decoupled from the CP-violation observable at DUNE, which is a concrete, quantitative negative result.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the first-order perturbative formula of Eq. (30), which turns the Planck correction of the effective mass matrix into a shift of the T asymmetry. The correction enters through the parameterization $\delta\kappa_{\rm Pl} = (\varepsilon/M_{\rm Pl})\sum_{i=1}^6 c_i B_i$, where $B_i$ are the six complex symmetric basis matrices and $c_i$ are dimensionless coefficients; the entire pipeline (seesaw matching, Casas-Ibarra reconstruction, RG running, 3+1 Hamiltonian) exists to supply the renormalized operator that feeds this formula. The RG step is the part that makes the ultraviolet flavor information transport with high fidelity: mixing angles and phases run by at most a few times $10^{-3}\%$, while the overall operator normalization runs by about 50\%.

What would settle it

A dedicated experimental analysis that lowers the effective sensitivity floor for $A_{CP}$ by a factor of about 400, or finds that $\varepsilon$ must exceed roughly 200 to 400, would directly test the prediction; alternatively, a UV model that computes the coefficients $c_i$ from a specific spontaneous CP-breaking sector and finds them enhanced relative to order one would overturn the numerical range. Concretely, one could check whether $\mu$-$e$ conversion in nuclei, which the paper did not include, excludes parts of the allowed region and narrows or shifts the $3\times10^{-8}$ to $3\times10^{-7}$ band.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that generic Planck-suppressed corrections to the dimension-five Weinberg operator produce a first-order shift in the T-violating oscillation asymmetry, given by $\delta A_T = 2 \operatorname{Re}\left[S^*_{0,e\mu}\,\delta S_{e\mu} - S^*_{0,\mu e}\,\delta S_{\mu e}\right]$, and that at the naturalness point $\varepsilon=1$ this shift is confined to $3\times10^{-8}$ to $3\times10^{-7}$ across all parameter space surviving the phenomenological constraints. An additional claim is that this shift is exactly independent of the Casas-Ibarra angles at every allowed point, so the ultraviolet texture enters only through which heavy-neutrino spectra are allowed. The corresponding Planck-induced correction to the CP asymmetry that DUNE actually measures is 200 to 400 times below a sensitivity floor derived from DUNE's published $\delta_{CP}$ resolution. The paper also finds that a minimal 3+1 sterile sector can suppress or enhance the correction by up to a factor of forty, with no universal sign.

Load-bearing premise

The result assumes the Planck-suppressed operator has the form $\delta\kappa_{\rm Pl} = (\varepsilon/M_{\rm Pl})\sum c_i B_i$ with $\varepsilon=1$ and six complex coefficients $c_i$ of order one, and the paper does not derive these coefficients from the spontaneous CP-violating sector; if the coefficients are much smaller or the operator has a different flavor structure, the quoted range and the DUNE conclusion change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the paper is correct, Planck-suppressed effects on neutrino T-violating observables in Type-I seesaw frameworks are too small for DUNE and Hyper-Kamiokande to see, so any observed CP violation must come from other sources.
The per-mille-level RG distortion of mixing angles and phases means low-energy oscillation data faithfully encode the ultraviolet flavor structure, despite a 50% flavor-blind normalization run.
Because $\delta A_T$ is exactly independent of Casas-Ibarra angles, low-energy oscillation experiments cannot fix the ultraviolet texture; leptogenesis or lepton-flavor-violation observables are needed to resolve it.
The sterile-sector result warns that 3+1 interpretations cannot assume a universal enhancement or suppression of Planck-induced effects.
The factor 200 to 400 gap gives a quantitative target: improving $\delta_{CP}$ sensitivity by that factor, or finding $\varepsilon > 200$ to 400, would bring the effect into reach.

Reading between the lines

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

An immediate editorial extension: the same smallness argument likely applies to any Planck-suppressed dimension-five operator in seesaw frameworks, so the result suggests gravity-induced flavor violation is generally invisible in near-term neutrino experiments.
If future experiments do see T violation at the level of the unperturbed asymmetry, the explanation would have to be low-scale CP violation or non-Planckian new physics, not generic Planck corrections.
A testable extension would be to compute the coefficients $c_i$ in an explicit spontaneous CP-violation model; the paper leaves this open, and the numerical range would then become a genuine prediction rather than a benchmark.
The DUNE comparison uses a local linear translation; a full simulation-based analysis could either widen or narrow the 200 to 400 factor, so the paper's own limitation section should be read as defining the next calculation.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

First, what's worth knowing: this is a transparent, carefully validated pipeline paper, and the authors deserve credit for the hygiene. They assemble a full chain—spontaneous CP-violating seesaw boundary, Casas-Ibarra reconstruction, threshold matching, one-loop RGEs, a 3+1 sterile sector, and a Planck-suppressed perturbation of the Weinberg operator—into a closed-form first-order expression for δA_T. The combination is new. The numerical validation is unusually honest: RG convergence at 1e-13, perturbative-vs-exact agreement over fifteen decades, floating-point checks of the Casas-Ibarra invariance, and three implementation errors reported rather than hidden. The sterile-sector robustness check (suppression to 40x enhancement depending on texture) is also reported as a mess, which is the right thing to do.

The soft spot is central, not cosmetic. Eq. (21) defines H_vac = (1/2E) U M^2 U†, and Eq. (27) derives δH by linearizing the literal square of the complex symmetric mass matrix. That is not the operator that controls neutrino propagation. For Majorana neutrinos the vacuum Hamiltonian is (1/2E) M M† (equivalently U* D^2 U^T), not U M^2 U†. The perturbation should involve M_SS† δM_Pl + δM_Pl† M_SS. Dropping the conjugates changes the phases that enter δS, and δA_T is linear in δS, so the quoted 3e-8 to 3e-7 band and the DUNE comparison are not established by the equations as written. The paper compounds this in Sec. VIII.C by saying the diagonalization uses Mν Mν†, 'the same combination already used to construct the oscillation Hamiltonian in Sec. VIIA'—which contradicts Eq. (21). So either the code uses M M† and Eq. (27) is not the implemented formula, or the code uses M^2 and the Hamiltonian is not Hermitian. The authors need to say which and rerun. The analytic-vs-exact agreement in Fig. 4 only shows both computations share the same H; it does not validate the choice of H.

A smaller caveat: the size of δA_T is benchmarked, not predicted, because the six c_i and ε=1 are unconstrained inputs. The paper is explicit about that, so this is a limitation, not a deception.

Overall: the machinery is worth a serious referee and the fix is local—correct Eq. (27), rerun, restate. I would reject in the current form because the headline number isn't supported, but I'd send it to review, not desk-reject. I wouldn't cite the numbers until the Hermitian issue is resolved.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper constructs an ultraviolet-to-infrared chain starting from a Type-I seesaw boundary condition with spontaneous CP violation, reconstructed through the Casas-Ibarra parameterization, matched onto the Weinberg operator at seesaw thresholds, and evolved to the electroweak scale with one-loop RGEs. The renormalized operator is combined with a minimal 3+1 sterile sector to build an oscillation Hamiltonian, and a Planck-suppressed correction to the Weinberg operator is treated as a first-order perturbation, yielding a closed-form correction deltaA_T to the T-violating asymmetry. The numerical implementation is validated in multiple ways, then subjected to LFV, non-unitarity, and perturbativity constraints, giving |deltaA_T| in the range 3e-8 to 3e-7 at the naturalness point epsilon=1, with the corresponding deltaA_CP estimated to lie 200-400 times below a DUNE-derived sensitivity floor. The paper explicitly distinguishes A_T from the experimentally accessible A_CP and candidly lists several limitations, including the unconstrained coefficients of the Planck-suppressed operator.

Significance. If the quantitative claims were established, this would be a useful checked negative result: generic Planck-suppressed corrections to the Weinberg operator would produce tiny, calculable T-violating effects far below next-generation sensitivity. The paper has substantial strengths: it reports convergence checks at the 1e-13 level, agreement between perturbative and exact evolution over many decades in the perturbation parameter, explicit correction of three implementation errors, deterministic reproducible scans, and transparent self-assessment of limitations. These validation practices are exemplary. However, the central quantitative claims rest on the vacuum Hamiltonian of Sec. VII, which is not the Hermitian Hamiltonian for a complex symmetric Majorana mass matrix; the phase content of the perturbation is therefore incorrect, and the numerical conclusions in Figs. 4, 6, and 7 are not established by the presented equations.

major comments (2)

[Sec. VII.A, Eq. (21); Sec. VII.C, Eq. (27)] The vacuum Hamiltonian is not correctly defined. With the paper's own diagonalization convention U^T M_nu U = D_nu in Eq. (8), one has M_nu = U^* D_nu U^dagger, and the correct vacuum oscillation Hamiltonian is H_vac = (1/2E) U D^2 U^dagger = (1/2E)(M_nu M_nu^dagger)^*, not (1/2E) U M_nu^2 U^dagger. The object M_nu^2 is not Hermitian, and U M_nu^2 U^dagger is not diagonal in the mass basis. Consequently the first-order perturbation in Eq. (27) should read deltaH = (1/2E)(M_SS^dagger deltaM_Pl + deltaM_Pl^dagger M_SS) (up to the same transposition convention), not (1/2E) U [M_SS deltaM_Pl + deltaM_Pl M_SS] U^dagger. Since M_SS and deltaM_Pl are complex, the missing conjugations change the phases entering deltaS and hence deltaA_T through Eq. (30). The claim in Sec. VIII.C that M_nu M_nu^dagger is 'the same combination already used to construct the oscillation Hamiltonian in Sec. VIIA' is inconsistent with Eq. (21) as written. The agreement between Eq. (30) and the exact evolution operator in Fig. 4 only validates the linearization of this same incorrect Hamiltonian; it does not validate the Hamiltonian itself. The quantitative results of Figs. 4, 6, and 7 therefore need to be recomputed with the correct Hermitian Hamiltonian and its proper first-order variation.
[Sec. VIIIA, Eq. (32); Sec. IX] The central numerical range and the DUNE comparison are conditional on an unconstrained choice of the six complex coefficients c_i. Since deltaA_T is linear in these coefficients, the quoted range 3e-8 to 3e-7 at epsilon=1 is a benchmark under the prior c_i ~ O(1), not a prediction derived from the ultraviolet theory. The paper states this in Sec. IV.E and Sec. XI, but the abstract and the concluding summary present the range and the 200-400 times gap as 'confined' or 'genuine' results without the same emphasis. The phenomenological conclusion should be explicitly framed as: under a naturalness prior on an operator whose flavor structure is not derived, the effect is small and unobservable. This reframing does not require new calculations, but it changes the strength of the central claim.

minor comments (5)

[Sec. VII.A, Eq. (21)] The symbol M_nu^2 in Eq. (21) is ambiguous: if it denotes the literal matrix square, the equation is not the Hamiltonian; if it denotes diag(m_i^2), then Eqs. (26)-(27) and the surrounding text should be rewritten to make that replacement explicit.
[Sec. VIII.C] The statement that M_nu(µ)M_nu(µ)^dagger is 'the same combination already used to construct the oscillation Hamiltonian in Sec. VIIA' must be reconciled with Eq. (21); after correcting Eq. (21), the cross-reference should be rechecked.
[Abstract] The phrase 'confines the correction to the range between three in one hundred million and three in ten million' should be qualified by the assumed naturalness prior on the coefficients c_i; otherwise a reader may mistake a benchmark for a derived bound.
[Fig. 3 caption] The caption says the reconstructed masses are 'exactly invariant to floating-point precision'; the text below quotes a maximum fractional variation of 1.4e-14, so the word 'exactly' should be replaced by 'to floating-point precision' for consistency.
[Sec. VIII.H] The DUNE sensitivity floor is a local linear translation of a published delta_CP resolution and the paper properly labels it an estimate; however, the sentence 'the result is unambiguous' overstates the robustness of a comparison that depends on the unconstrained c_i prior and on the single fixed benchmark baseline and energy.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the Planck-suppressed operator is an openly stated input, and the computed δA_T is a conditional benchmark, not a fitted or self-referential prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central calculation, Eq. (30), is a first-order perturbative response to the assumed operator δκ_Pl = (ε/M_Pl) Σ_i c_i B_i of Eq. (32). The six complex coefficients c_i are deliberately left as generic, phenomenologically unconstrained inputs; they are not fitted to δA_T or to any T-violating datum. The smallness of the quoted 3×10^-8 to 3×10^-7 range therefore reflects the assumed 1/M_Pl normalization together with the computed flavor projection, but this is a transparent conditional benchmark, not a case where the output is defined in terms of the input or where a fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The paper repeatedly and explicitly labels the ε=1 choice as a naturalness assumption rather than a derived result. The claimed exact independence of δA_T from the Casas-Ibarra angles is a mathematical identity of the reconstruction: by Eq. (9), M_ν(M_R) is independent of R, and the paper says this is true 'by construction', so it is not a smuggled ansatz. Renormalization-group transport is checked against external literature RGEs and independent numerical limits, not against the paper's own conclusions. The phenomenological constraints (LFV bounds, non-unitarity, perturbativity, NuFIT inputs, DUNE's published δ_CP resolution) are externally anchored. There are no load-bearing self-citations, no imported uniqueness theorems, and no renaming of known results as new unifications. The skeptical concern about the correct Hermitian combination M^†M versus M^2 in the oscillation Hamiltonian is a correctness issue, not a circularity of the derivation chain, and therefore does not raise the circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The pipeline rests on standard seesaw and EFT machinery, plus an assumed Planck-operator parameterization and a set of benchmark choices. The central result is not fitted to the target observable, but the magnitude is strongly controlled by the assumed ε and coefficients. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (7)

Naturalness parameter ε = 1 (naturalness point); scanned up to about 10^3
Sets the overall size δκ_Pl = (ε/M_Pl) Σ c_i B_i; all central bounds are quoted at ε=1 and scale linearly with ε.
Six complex coefficients c_i of δκ_Pl = c_i=1 for one basis direction B_i at a time in Figs. 4-7; otherwise generic
The flavor structure of the Planck-suppressed operator is unconstrained; the paper evaluates each of the six basis directions separately rather than fitting them.
Casas-Ibarra angle z12 benchmark = 0.3 + i Im(z12), Im(z12) scanned in [-5,5]
Stand-in for the spontaneous-CP-breaking texture; δA_T is shown independent of it at allowed points, but the allowed region depends on it.
Casas-Ibarra angles z13, z23 = five representative combinations sampled at each grid point
Marginalized only over five samples, not fully; spot-checked, not exhaustive.
Sterile mixing angles θ14, θ24, θ34 = (0.15, 0.10, 0.05) benchmark plus eight benchmarks
Minimal 3+1 sterile sector; the ratio δA_T^4f/δA_T^3f varies from 0.16 to 42.5, so this choice is not neutral.
Heavy spectrum spacing and mass ordering = M_R = (0.1, 0.3, 1) × M_{R,3}, normal ordering; inverted ordering spot-checked
Assumed hierarchical pattern; not fully marginalized.
Baseline and energy = L=1300 km, E=2.5 GeV (DUNE-like)
Fixed evaluation settings; the paper notes baseline/energy dependence is not scanned.

assumptions (7)

domain assumption Type-I seesaw hierarchy M_R >> m_D and tree-level matching κ = -Y_ν^T M_R^{-1} Y_ν
Adopted from cited literature (Secs. IIB-IIIB); the entire UV boundary relies on this.
domain assumption One-loop RGEs of Antusch et al. describe the running of the Weinberg operator between seesaw and electroweak scales
Used without modification in Sec. VI; no independent derivation or check against higher loops.
standard math Casas-Ibarra parameterization Y_ν = i(√2/v) M_R^{1/2} R D_ν^{1/2} U† is the most general reconstruction
Adopted from Ref. [6]; the i factor is checked by round-trip reconstruction (Sec. VIIIA).
domain assumption First-order Dyson expansion of the evolution operator is valid for ε up to about 10^2 to 10^3
Validated numerically against the exact evolution operator in Fig. 4, not proven analytically.
ad hoc to paper Planck-suppressed correction is parameterized by a basis-complete set of six complex symmetric matrices with ε=1 naturalness
Eq. (32); the coefficients are not derived from the spontaneous CP-breaking sector (stated in Secs. IVE and XI).
domain assumption A minimal 3+1 sterile sector with eV-scale splitting and the listed sterile angles captures the sterile effect
Secs. VIIB, VIIIF; the paper itself finds the effect strongly texture-dependent, so this assumption is not neutral.
domain assumption DUNE sensitivity floor can be approximated by a local linear translation σ_A_CP approximately |dA_CP/dδ_CP| σ_δ_CP
Sec. VIIIH; the authors state this is an order-of-magnitude estimate, not a full χ² analysis.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Ultraviolet Flavor Transmission to T-Violating Neutrino Oscillation Observables in a Seesaw Framework with Sterile Mixing and Planck-Suppressed Corrections." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UXJ6N7QB

@misc{pith2026260807602,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Ultraviolet Flavor Transmission to T-Violating Neutrino Oscillation Observables in a Seesaw Framework with Sterile Mixing and Planck-Suppressed Corrections},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UXJ6N7QB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.07602}
}

read the original abstract

We construct, numerically validate, and phenomenologically constrain a pipeline connecting a spontaneously CP-violating ultraviolet Type-I seesaw boundary condition to Planck-suppressed corrections of the T-violating oscillation asymmetry and the CP asymmetry in a minimal 3+1 sterile-neutrino framework. The ultraviolet Yukawa structure is reconstructed via Casas-Ibarra parameterization, matched onto the Weinberg operator at seesaw thresholds, and evolved to the electroweak scale using one-loop RGEs. The renormalized operator is combined with a 3+1 sterile sector to build the oscillation Hamiltonian, with Planck-suppressed terms treated perturbatively to yield closed-form first-order corrections. We report three substantive implementation errors identified and corrected during independent module validation. Running transports ultraviolet flavor structure with high fidelity distorting mixing angles and phases at or below the per-mille level despite an overall flavor-blind operator normalization run of about fifty percent. Subjecting the ultraviolet texture to a four-channel phenomenological suite (muon to electron gamma, tau to muon gamma, tau to electron gamma, non-unitarity, and perturbativity) confines the correction to the range between three in one hundred million and three in ten million at the natural scale. We prove the asymmetry correction is exactly independent of Casas-Ibarra angles at all allowed points, affecting the correction only indirectly via allowed heavy spectra. Sterile sector effects are strongly texture-dependent, ranging from suppression to a forty-fold enhancement. Evaluating the corresponding antineutrino Hamiltonian for the CP asymmetry, we find the Planck-induced correction lies two to three orders of magnitude below DUNE's published CP-phase sensitivity floor. We present this as a checked, reproducible negative phenomenological result.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.07602 by the authors.

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. Physical content of the Casas-Ibarra reconstruction [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** FIG. 5. Effect of a minimal 3 + 1 sterile sector. (a) Base [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (2 more)

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: FIG. 6. Constrained, marginalized scan of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: FIG. 7. The experimentally accessible comparison. Solid line: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

19 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages

[1]

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. B67, 421 (1977)

work page 1977
[2]

Gell-Mann, P

M. Gell-Mann, P. Ramond, and R. Slansky, inSupergrav- ity, edited by P. van Nieuwenhuizen and D. Z. Freedman (North Holland, Amsterdam, 1979)

work page 1979
[3]

Yanagida, inProceedings of the Workshop on Unified Theory and Baryon Number in the Universe, edited by O

T. Yanagida, inProceedings of the Workshop on Unified Theory and Baryon Number in the Universe, edited by O. Sawada and A. Sugamoto (KEK, Tsukuba, 1979)

work page 1979
[4]

Neutrino Mass and Spontaneous Parity Nonconservation,

R. N. Mohapatra and G. Senjanovi´ c, “Neutrino Mass and Spontaneous Parity Nonconservation,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 44, 912 (1980)

work page 1980
[5]

Baryon and Lepton Nonconserving Pro- cesses,

S. Weinberg, “Baryon and Lepton Nonconserving Pro- cesses,” Phys. Rev. Lett.43, 1566 (1979)

work page 1979
[6]

Oscillating neutrinos and µ→e, γ,

J. A. Casas and A. Ibarra, “Oscillating neutrinos and µ→e, γ,” Nucl. Phys. B618, 171 (2001), arXiv:hep- ph/0103065

arXiv 2001
[7]

Running neutrino mass parameters in see-saw scenarios,

S. Antusch, J. Kersten, M. Lindner, M. Ratz, and M. A. Schmidt, “Running neutrino mass parameters in see-saw scenarios,” JHEP0503, 024 (2005), arXiv:hep- ph/0501272

work page arXiv 2005
[8]

Neutrino mass operator renormalization re- visited,

S. Antusch, M. Drees, J. Kersten, M. Lindner, and M. Ratz, “Neutrino mass operator renormalization re- visited,” Phys. Lett. B519, 238 (2001), arXiv:hep- ph/0108005

work page arXiv 2001

Show all 19 references

[9]

Pertur- bation Theory of Neutrino Oscillation with Nonstan- dard Neutrino Interactions,

T. Kikuchi, H. Minakata, and S. Uchinami, “Pertur- bation Theory of Neutrino Oscillation with Nonstan- dard Neutrino Interactions,” JHEP0903, 114 (2009), 15 arXiv:0809.3312

2009 arXiv
[10]

Models of Neutrino Mass, Mixing and CP Violation,

S. F. King, “Models of Neutrino Mass, Mixing and CP Violation,” J. Phys. G42, 123001 (2015)

2015
[11]

LeptonicCPviola- tion from the seesaw,

C. C. Nishi and J. I. Silva-Marcos, “LeptonicCPviola- tion from the seesaw,” Phys. Rev. D108, 095031 (2023), arXiv:2305.08980

2023 arXiv
[12]

CPviolation and flavor invariants in the seesaw effective field theory,

B. Yu and S. Zhou, “CPviolation and flavor invariants in the seesaw effective field theory,” JHEP08, 017 (2022), arXiv:2203.10121

2022 arXiv
[13]

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

I. Esteban, M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, M. Maltoni, I. Martinez-Soler, J. P. Perez-Gonzalez, and T. Schwetz, “NuFit-6.0: updated global analysis of three- flavor neutrino oscillations,” JHEP12, 216 (2024), arXiv:2410.05380

2024 arXiv
[14]

A less suppressed µ→eγloop amplitude and extra dimension theories,

B. He, T. P. Cheng, and L.-F. Li, “A less suppressed µ→eγloop amplitude and extra dimension theories,” Phys. Lett. B553, 277 (2003), arXiv:hep-ph/0209175

2003 arXiv
[15]

The search forµ→eγwith 10 −14 sensitivity: the first result of the MEG II experiment,

A. M. Baldiniet al.(MEG II Collaboration), “The search forµ→eγwith 10 −14 sensitivity: the first result of the MEG II experiment,” arXiv:2310.12614

arXiv
[16]

Searches for Lepton Flavor Violation in the Decaysτ→eγandτ→ µγ,

B. Aubertet al.(BaBar Collaboration), “Searches for Lepton Flavor Violation in the Decaysτ→eγandτ→ µγ,” arXiv:0908.2381

arXiv
[17]

Heavy neutrinos with dynamical mixing and non-unitarity constraints,

S. Pascoli, M. Ruiz, and C. Weiland, “Heavy neutrinos with dynamical mixing and non-unitarity constraints,” arXiv:1812.08750

arXiv
[18]

Long-Baseline Neutrino Facility (LBNF) and Deep Underground Neutrino Experiment (DUNE): Far Detector Tech- nical Design Report, Volume II: DUNE Physics,

B. Abiet al.(DUNE Collaboration), “Long-Baseline Neutrino Facility (LBNF) and Deep Underground Neutrino Experiment (DUNE): Far Detector Tech- nical Design Report, Volume II: DUNE Physics,” arXiv:2002.03005

2002
[19]

Abiet al.(DUNE Collaboration), sensitivity projec- tions forδ CP resolution as a function of exposure and true δCP , arXiv:2006.16043 (Fig

B. Abiet al.(DUNE Collaboration), sensitivity projec- tions forδ CP resolution as a function of exposure and true δCP , arXiv:2006.16043 (Fig. 21); see also comparison of DUNE and Hyper-Kamiokande/T2HKδ CP resolution at representative exposures, arXiv:2503.04432

2006

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

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. B67, 421 (1977)

work page 1977

[2] [2]

Gell-Mann, P

M. Gell-Mann, P. Ramond, and R. Slansky, inSupergrav- ity, edited by P. van Nieuwenhuizen and D. Z. Freedman (North Holland, Amsterdam, 1979)

work page 1979

[3] [3]

Yanagida, inProceedings of the Workshop on Unified Theory and Baryon Number in the Universe, edited by O

T. Yanagida, inProceedings of the Workshop on Unified Theory and Baryon Number in the Universe, edited by O. Sawada and A. Sugamoto (KEK, Tsukuba, 1979)

work page 1979

[4] [4]

Neutrino Mass and Spontaneous Parity Nonconservation,

R. N. Mohapatra and G. Senjanovi´ c, “Neutrino Mass and Spontaneous Parity Nonconservation,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 44, 912 (1980)

work page 1980

[5] [5]

Baryon and Lepton Nonconserving Pro- cesses,

S. Weinberg, “Baryon and Lepton Nonconserving Pro- cesses,” Phys. Rev. Lett.43, 1566 (1979)

work page 1979

[6] [6]

Oscillating neutrinos and µ→e, γ,

J. A. Casas and A. Ibarra, “Oscillating neutrinos and µ→e, γ,” Nucl. Phys. B618, 171 (2001), arXiv:hep- ph/0103065

arXiv 2001

[7] [7]

Running neutrino mass parameters in see-saw scenarios,

S. Antusch, J. Kersten, M. Lindner, M. Ratz, and M. A. Schmidt, “Running neutrino mass parameters in see-saw scenarios,” JHEP0503, 024 (2005), arXiv:hep- ph/0501272

work page arXiv 2005

[8] [8]

Neutrino mass operator renormalization re- visited,

S. Antusch, M. Drees, J. Kersten, M. Lindner, and M. Ratz, “Neutrino mass operator renormalization re- visited,” Phys. Lett. B519, 238 (2001), arXiv:hep- ph/0108005

work page arXiv 2001