Emergent large flavor mixing from canonical and inverse seesaws?

Zhi-zhong Xing

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 39 references

Emergent large flavor mixing from canonical and inverse seesaws?

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The canonical seesaw's exact mass-basis relation makes the observed large flavor mixing an emergent consequence, while the inverse seesaw requires a fine-tuned cancellation.

desk verdict A clean restatement of exact seesaw relations whose 'emergent mixing' claim rests on an unproven no-cancellation assumption; useful as a clarification, not a new result. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.09286 v1 pith:WEM6EOWX submitted 2025-02-13 hep-ph hep-exhep-th

Zhi-zhong Xing This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-phhep-exhep-th PACS 14.60.Pq

keywords canonicalseesawinverseneutrinomassflavormixingcrossexactrelationactive-sterilenon-unitarity

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 canonical seesaw mechanism explains why active neutrinos are extremely light but, on its face, says nothing about why they mix so strongly. The paper shows that if the exact seesaw relation is written in the mass basis of all six Majorana neutrinos, the observed large mixing angles become an emergent consequence, leaving a 'cross seesaw' picture in which the heavy sterile sector communicates with the light active sector only through tiny Yukawa couplings. It further argues that the inverse seesaw, which lowers heavy masses to the TeV scale, can reproduce small active masses only through a fine-tuned cancellation between two sets of new fermions, so the large active mixing there is likewise emergent. The comparison between approximate flavor-basis formulas and exact mass-basis relations is the paper's main analytical tool.

What carries the argument

Two exact mass-basis seesaw relations are the load-bearing objects: for the canonical seesaw, $U D_\nu U^T = (i R) D_N (i R)^T$ (Eq. 5), and for the inverse seesaw, $U D_\nu U^T = (i R) D_N (i R)^T + (i R') D_S (i R')^T$ (Eq. 14). These follow from a complete Euler-like block parametrization of the $6\times 6$ (or $9\times 9$) unitary flavor mixing matrix, in which the active, sterile, and extra-singlet sectors each carry their own mixing matrices $U_0$, $U_0'$, $S_0$ and the inter-sector blocks $A$, $R$, etc. The parametrization lets every physical seesaw flavor parameter take its place, so the structural symmetry between the light and heavy sectors becomes explicit. This is what makes 'cross seesaw' a natural read: the smallness of active masses and the largeness of active mixing are two sides of the same exact relation.

What would settle it

A measurement of a heavy sterile neutrino at TeV scale with an active-sterile mixing angle greater than about $10^{-6}$ in a process where no structural cancellation is engineered, or a fully natural inverse-seesaw model (no fine-tuning) that reproduces all neutrino oscillation data with TeV-scale heavy masses, would directly contradict the paper's central conclusion.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the exact seesaw relation $U D_\nu U^T = (i R) D_N (i R)^T$ — where $U$ is the PMNS matrix, $D_\nu$ the light Majorana masses, $R$ the active-sterile mixing matrix, and $D_N$ the heavy Majorana masses — is the right organizing principle for understanding why three active neutrinos mix so strongly. Under the naturalness condition that no severely contrived structural cancellation occurs on the right-hand side, all active-sterile mixing angles in $R$ are forced to be $O(10^{-6})$ or smaller, so the seesaw itself cannot generate the observed large active mixing; the observed pattern must emerge from the internal structure of the exact relation, i.e. from a cross seesaw framework. The same logic applied to the inverse seesaw yields the exact relation $U D_\nu U^T = (i R) D_N (i R)^T + (i R') D_S (i R')^T$, in which a fine-tuned cancellation between the two heavy contributions is needed to keep light masses tiny, again leaving the large active mixing as an emergent phenomenon.

Load-bearing premise

The key load-bearing premise is that the seesaw Lagrangian contains no severely contrived structural cancellation on the right-hand side of the exact mass-basis relation (Eq. 5), so the active-sterile mixing angles must be tiny; if such cancellations were admitted, larger active-sterile mixing could be accommodated and the cross seesaw conclusion would not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the cross seesaw picture is correct, the active-sterile mixing angles in any natural canonical seesaw are predicted to be $O(10^{-6})$ or smaller, well below current and near-future experimental sensitivities.
The non-unitarity of the PMNS matrix is bounded at $O(10^{-3})$ by precision electroweak and flavor data, so the deviation of $U$ from $U_0$ is small and the approximate identification $U\simeq U_0$ is safe.
A flavor symmetry imposed on the Yukawa coupling matrix in the mass basis automatically imprints on the effective light neutrino mass matrix through the exact relation, offering a dynamical route to observed patterns such as $\mu$-$\tau$ reflection symmetry.
For the inverse seesaw at the TeV scale, the exact relation shows that a cancellation between the two heavy contributions is likely and even unavoidable if both $D_N$ and $D_S$ are near the TeV scale with sizable Yukawa couplings.
The comparison between approximate flavor-basis and exact mass-basis relations sets up a framework for future precision tests that aim to distinguish seesaw mechanisms by computing all observable quantities from the original flavor parameters.

Reading between the lines

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

A testable extension would be to scan concrete textures of $R$ and $D_N$ in the exact mass-basis relation and see which ones reproduce the measured $U_0$; the paper does not perform this scan, but the relation shows it is a finite, well-posed problem.
If future data found a heavy neutrino with an active-sterile mixing angle much above $10^{-6}$, the natural cross seesaw picture would be falsified, but the exact relation could still be rescued by allowing structural cancellations — the paper's central assumption is precisely that such cancellations are excluded.
The same mass-basis treatment could be extended to other neutrino mass mechanisms (e.g. linear or double seesaw) where the interplay of multiple heavy sectors may similarly turn large active mixing into an emergent property.

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

Dear colleague,

Here is my read of Xing's seesaw note. The cleanest way to put it: the paper is a well-written clarification of what exact seesaw relations in the mass basis can and cannot tell you, dressed up with a more adventurous claim than the math supports.

What's actually there: Eqs. (5) and (14) are exact identities from the block parametrization, and the derivation via Autonne-Takagi is clean. The comparison in Table 1 between flavor-basis approximations and mass-basis exact forms is genuinely useful, and the author is upfront that the pattern of U0 remains a puzzle. If you want a self-contained statement of why the seesaw mass eigenvalues alone cannot fix the PMNS matrix, this is a good place to point someone.

The soft spot is the "emergent" language. The inference that active-sterile mixing angles are all below 10^{-6} depends on an explicitly adopted no-severe-cancellation naturalness assumption, cited to Kersten-Smirnov. That assumption is plausible but not derived, and it is doing all the work. Drop it, and Eq. (5) can accommodate large active-sterile mixing via cancellations; conversely, for any prescribed U0 and Dnu with the right eigenvalues you can solve for an A^{-1}R that reproduces them. So the relation transmits nothing by itself. Calling the large active mixing 'emergent' is a semantic choice about underdetermination, not a derived consequence.

The inverse seesaw part is similar: the exact relation (14) is correct, but the conclusion that TeV-scale inverse seesaw requires fine-tuning between the two sets of new fermions is a known point, and the 'emergent phenomenon' wording doesn't add predictive content. I also agree with the reader that much of the formalism (the parametrization, the exact relations) comes from Xing's earlier papers; the genuinely new bit is the 'cross seesaw' framing and the explicit comparison table.

Bottom line: this is an honest, competent conceptual note, not a research breakthrough. It would be acceptable after a serious rewrite that lowers the claim to 'the seesaw leaves the active mixing pattern unexplained unless one assumes no cancellations' — which is true and worth stating, but not new. I'd send it to a referee if it landed on my desk, mainly because the clarity of the exact mass-basis treatment is useful and the author engages with the counterarguments fairly. I wouldn't cite it for new results; I'd cite the original parametrization papers instead.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reformulates the canonical and inverse seesaw mechanisms in the mass basis of all Majorana neutrinos, using Euler-like block parametrizations of the 6x6 and 9x9 unitary diagonalization matrices. It derives exact seesaw relations (Eqs. (5) and (14)) linking the light-neutrino mass matrix to products of active-sterile mixing matrices with heavy masses. On this basis it argues that the observed large active flavor mixing is an emergent consequence of the seesaw, leading to a 'cross seesaw' picture, and that the inverse seesaw requires a fine-tuned cancellation between its two heavy sectors, in which case large mixing is again emergent. It concludes with a comparison of approximate flavor-basis and exact mass-basis formulas.

Significance. If the emergence claim held, this would be a conceptually notable reorganization of how large PMNS mixing is viewed in seesaw models. The exact mass-basis relations and the block parametrization are cleanly derived, and the comparison between approximate and exact relations is useful; the paper also correctly emphasizes that the standard approximate seesaw formula can obscure structural constraints. However, the paper offers no quantitative prediction, no concrete model, and no operational definition of 'emergence'; its main interpretation is conditional on an unquantified naturalness assumption. The strength of the paper lies in the exact relations and the clarification of the underdetermination, not in a demonstrated mechanism.

major comments (3)

[§2, Eq. (5)] The central inference that the canonical seesaw leaves large active mixing as an emergent consequence, and the associated claim that none of the active-sterile angles in R can exceed O(10^-6), rests on the unproved naturalness assumption introduced immediately after Eq. (5): 'there be no severely contrived structural cancellation on the right-hand side of Eq. (5)' (citing Ref. [32]). This assumption is not derived or quantified. Since Eq. (5) is an identity, for any prescribed U0 and Dnu with the same eigenvalues one can always find an A^{-1}R satisfying it; the three terms in (iA^{-1}R)D_N(iA^{-1}R)^T can cancel, allowing A^{-1}R elements much larger than 10^-6 while keeping the eigenvalues O(0.1 eV). In that case U0 simply inherits the large mixing from the Yukawa texture and the cross-seesaw picture does not follow. The paper's own concession that 'the emergent pattern of U remains a puzzle' shows that Eq. (5) alone does not transmit a mixing pattern. The claim would need a quantitative naturalness measure and a demonstration that the no-cancellation region is the only regime compatible with observations.
[§3, Eq. (14)] The analogous claim for the inverse seesaw, that it 'works under the condition of a fine-tuned cancellation between its two sets of new degrees of freedom' and that large active mixing is then emergent, is asserted but not demonstrated. The text states that at TeV scales with unsuppressed R and R' a cancellation is 'very likely and even unavoidable,' but no quantitative argument, explicit construction, or measure of fine-tuning is provided. Moreover, a fine-tuned cancellation is an input condition on the parameters, not a dynamical origin of U0; the texture of U0 still depends on the detailed forms of (iR)D_N(iR)^T and (iR')D_S(iR')^T. The non-unitarity bounds cited in the same section constrain R and R' only at the O(10^-3) level, which does not by itself imply the cross-seesaw regime. A concrete example showing large mixing robustly independent of the input Yukawa textures, or a weakened conditional statement, is needed.
[Abstract, §2, §4] The term 'emergent' is never defined or operationalized. It is not specified whether emergence means independence from input parameters, insensitivity to small variations of the seesaw parameters, or some other criterion, and no testable observable is associated with it. As used in the paper, 'emergent consequence' appears to be a label for the fact that U0 is determined by the seesaw parameters through Eq. (5), which is true by construction of the diagonalization and therefore cannot distinguish the proposed interpretation from the conventional one in which U0 is an input. The authors should either supply a precise definition and a derived condition, or consistently present their results as a conditional interpretation.

minor comments (4)

[§1 and §3] Typographical errors: 'anatural' in §1 should be 'a natural', and 'fined-tuned' in §3 should be 'fine-tuned'.
[§3, parameter count] The sentence beginning 'As three of the nine phases in A2 and R2...' says 'in the canonical seesaw mechanism' where the context is the inverse seesaw, and the count of 'eighteen rotation angles' is difficult to reconcile with the thirty-six Euler rotations introduced in Eq. (11); please clarify which angles are counted as original and which are derived after the twelve constraints.
[Figure 1 and Table 1] The captions use U and R in the exact relations, while the main text Eq. (5) uses U0 and A^{-1}R; please state explicitly that U = AU0 (or A2A1U0) when using the shorthand, to avoid apparent inconsistency.
[§4 and abstract] The abstract's strong wording 'should be an emergent consequence' is not matched by the cautious statement at the end of §4 that 'it is certainly difficult to draw more general and interesting conclusions'; the claims should be aligned.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The claim that large active flavor mixing is an 'emergent consequence' of the seesaw reduces, by construction, to the freedom of U0 in the parametrization; Eq. (5) is an identity, not a derivation.

renaming known result [Section 2, after Eq. (5) and the closing paragraph of the section]
"While the tiny eigenvalues of (iA−1R) DN (iA−1R)T assure that m1, m2 and m3 are extremely small ... they are unable to give any hints about the pattern of U0 even in a qualitative way. ... So treating the seesaw framework as a cross seesaw system should be quite reasonable, as illustrated in Fig. 1, although the emergent pattern of U remains a puzzle from the theoretical point of view."

Eq. (5) is an exact identity obtained by substituting the block parametrization into the Autonne-Takagi diagonalization. For any observed U0, Dν and DN, a solution A−1R exists, so the relation itself does not determine or 'transmit' the large mixing. The claimed O(10^-6) bound on R follows only from the additional no-cancellation assumption cited to [32], which is explicitly flagged but not derived. Thus the conclusion that large mixing is an 'emergent consequence' is not a derivation: the large angles are simply the input U0 renamed, and the cross-seesaw label restates that the active block U0 is unconstrained.
renaming known result [Section 3, around Eq. (14) and the final paragraph]
"Then a fined-tuned cancellation between the contribution from heavy Majorana neutrinos and that from extra neutral fermions is very likely and even unavoidable. ... the largeness of three active flavor mixing angles looks more like an emergent phenomenon."

In the inverse seesaw case, the smallness of the left-hand side of Eq. (14) is obtained by imposing a fine-tuned cancellation between the two terms on the right-hand side. That cancellation is an imposed condition, not a consequence of the mechanism. Once it is imposed, the active mixing matrix U (or U0) remains an arbitrary unitary factor in the parametrization, and the large mixing angles are not computed from the model parameters. Calling this 'emergent' is therefore equivalent to postulating the cancellation plus a free U0, rather than predicting the flavor pattern from the inverse seesaw.

full rationale

The exact seesaw relations (5) and (14) are algebraically correct identities derived from the standard Autonne-Takagi diagonalization, and the 6x6 and 9x9 block parametrizations are general tools rather than circular inputs. The circularity is confined to the paper's central interpretive claim that the observed large active flavor mixing is an 'emergent consequence' of the canonical or inverse seesaw. Equation (5) is an identity that admits a solution for any prescribed U0 and Dν; it cannot by itself transmit a hidden mixing pattern from the Yukawa sector. The only way the paper obtains small active-sterile mixing R is by invoking an extra naturalness assumption, namely no severely contrived structural cancellation in Eq. (5), cited to [32]. That assumption is stated and flagged, but it is not derived. Under it, one learns only that R is small; the large mixing angles then reside entirely in the free unitary matrix U0, which is an input of the parametrization. Calling this 'emergence' relabels the well-known underdetermination of U0 by the seesaw mechanism, and the paper itself concedes that 'the emergent pattern of U remains a puzzle'. The inverse seesaw discussion follows the same pattern: the fine-tuned cancellation is imposed to make the light mass matrix small, while U remains an arbitrary factor. No data are fitted and the core algebraic relations are independent, but the central conclusion that large mixing is emergent reduces by construction to the parameterization's free U0 rather than following from the seesaw dynamics. Accordingly, the circularity score is 6.

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

The paper's central interpretive claims rest on standard mathematical diagonalization and on an explicitly assumed naturalness criterion (no cancellations) for the canonical seesaw; the inverse seesaw discussion instead embraces a fine-tuned cancellation. No new physical entities are introduced; the cross seesaw is a descriptive label.

assumptions (5)

standard math Autonne-Takagi diagonalization applies to the complex symmetric seesaw mass matrices in Eqs. (2) and (10).
The mass-basis relations (5) and (14) depend on this theorem, which the paper invokes without proof.
domain assumption Lepton number is violated only through Majorana mass terms for the singlet fermions, giving the 6x6 and 9x9 mass matrices.
The entire seesaw setup assumes this field content and these mass terms as the low-energy theory.
ad hoc to paper There is no severely contrived structural cancellation in the right-hand side of Eq. (5), the naturalness criterion of Ref [32].
This assumption forces the active-sterile mixing angles to be O(10^-6) or smaller, which is essential for the claim that the canonical seesaw alone cannot produce large mixing.
domain assumption Heavy Majorana masses Mj are much larger than the electroweak scale v in the canonical seesaw.
The huge mass hierarchy is needed for the seesaw suppression of light neutrino masses; stated in Section 2 as a bighearted criterion.
domain assumption The PMNS matrix is approximately unitary (A approximately I), based on experimental bounds on non-unitarity at the 10^-3 level.
Used to identify U with U0 and R with A^{-1}R when discussing active mixing; supported by cited global analyses.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Emergent large flavor mixing from canonical and inverse seesaws?." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WEM6EOWX

@misc{pith2026250209286,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Emergent large flavor mixing from canonical and inverse seesaws?},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WEM6EOWX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.09286}
}

read the original abstract

While the canonical seesaw mechanism provides a most natural qualitative interpretation of tiny masses for the three active neutrinos, it offers no explanation for their large flavor mixing effects. The latter can be regarded as an emergent consequence of this mechanism, in which case we are left with an intriguing cross seesaw framework in the mass basis of all the six Majorana neutrinos. To lower the mass scales of heavy neutrinos, one is motivated to invoke the inverse seesaw mechanism but has to pay the price for a fine-tuned cancellation between its two sets of new degrees of freedom, in which case the largeness of active flavor mixing is an emergent phenomenon as well. A comparison between the approximate seesaw relations in the flavor basis and those exact ones in the mass basis is also made.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.09286 by the authors.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages

[32]

Right-Handed Neutrinos at CERN LHC and the Mechanism of Neutrino Mass Generation,

J. Kersten and A. Y. Smirnov, “Right-Handed Neutrinos at CERN LHC and the Mechanism of Neutrino Mass Generation,” Phys. Rev. D 76 (2007), 073005 [arXiv:0705.3221 [hep-ph]]

arXiv 2007
[1]

µ → eγ at a rate of one out of 10 9 muon decays?,

P. Minkowski, “ µ → eγ at a rate of one out of 10 9 muon decays?,” Phys. Lett. 67B (1977) 421

work page 1977
[2]

Horizontal gauge symmetry and masses of neutrinos,

T. Yanagida, “Horizontal gauge symmetry and masses of neutrinos,” Conf. Proc. C 7902131 (1979) 95

work page 1979
[3]

Complex spinors and unified theories,

M. Gell-Mann, P. Ramond and R. Slansky, “Complex spinors and unified theories,” Conf. Proc. C 790927 (1979) 315 [arXiv:1306.4669 [hep-th]]

arXiv 1979
[4]

The future of elementary particle physics,

S. L. Glashow, “The future of elementary particle physics,” NATO Sci. Ser. B 61 (1980) 687

work page 1980
[5]

Neutrino mass and spontaneous parity nonconserva- tion,

R. N. Mohapatra and G. Senjanovic, “Neutrino mass and spontaneous parity nonconserva- tion,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 44 (1980) 912

work page 1980
[6]

Baryogenesis Without Grand Unification,

M. Fukugita and T. Yanagida, “Baryogenesis Without Grand Unification,” Phys. Lett. B 174 (1986), 45-47

work page 1986
[7]

Baryon and Lepton Nonconserving Processes,

S. Weinberg, “Baryon and Lepton Nonconserving Processes,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 43 (1979), 1566-1570

1979

Show all 39 references

[8]

Naturalness and Testability of TeV Seesaw Mechanisms,

Z. z. Xing, “Naturalness and Testability of TeV Seesaw Mechanisms,” Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl. 180 (2009), 112-127 [arXiv:0905.3903 [hep-ph]]

2009 arXiv
[9]

Massless Neutrinos in Left-Right Symmetric Models,

D. Wyler and L. Wolfenstein, “Massless Neutrinos in Left-Right Symmetric Models,” Nucl. Phys. B 218 (1983), 205-214

1983
[10]

Neutrino Mass and Baryon Number Nonconservation in Superstring Models,

R. N. Mohapatra and J. W. F. Valle, “Neutrino Mass and Baryon Number Nonconservation in Superstring Models,” Phys. Rev. D 34 (1986), 1642

1986
[11]

Multiple seesaw mechanisms of neutrino masses at the TeV scale,

Z. z. Xing and S. Zhou, “Multiple seesaw mechanisms of neutrino masses at the TeV scale,” Phys. Lett. B 679 (2009), 249-254 [arXiv:0906.1757 [hep-ph]]

2009 arXiv
[12]

Naturally Speaking: The Naturalness Criterion and Physics at the LHC,

G. F. Giudice, “Naturally Speaking: The Naturalness Criterion and Physics at the LHC,” [arXiv:0801.2562 [hep-ph]]

arXiv
[13]

The formal seesaw mechanism of Majorana neutrinos with unbroken gauge sym- metry,

Z. z. Xing, “The formal seesaw mechanism of Majorana neutrinos with unbroken gauge sym- metry,” Nucl. Phys. B 987 (2023), 116106 [arXiv:2301.10461 [hep-ph]]

2023 arXiv
[14]

Correlation between the Charged Current Interactions of Light and Heavy Ma- jorana Neutrinos,

Z. z. Xing, “Correlation between the Charged Current Interactions of Light and Heavy Ma- jorana Neutrinos,” Phys. Lett. B 660 (2008), 515-521 [arXiv:0709.2220 [hep-ph]]

2008 arXiv
[15]

A full parametrization of the 6 ×6 flavor mixing matrix in the presence of three light or heavy sterile neutrinos,

Z. z. Xing, “A full parametrization of the 6 ×6 flavor mixing matrix in the presence of three light or heavy sterile neutrinos,” Phys. Rev. D 85 (2012), 013008 [arXiv:1110.0083 [hep-ph]]. 12

2012 arXiv
[16]

Flavor structures of charged fermions and massive neutrinos,

Z. z. Xing, “Flavor structures of charged fermions and massive neutrinos,” Phys. Rept. 854 (2020), 1-147 [arXiv:1909.09610 [hep-ph]]

2020 arXiv
[17]

On a generalization of Euler’s angles,

E. P. Wigner, “On a generalization of Euler’s angles,” in Group Theory and its Applications, edited by E. M. Loebl, Academic Press (1968), pp. 119-129

1968
[18]

Wigner-like Parametrization of Canonical Seesaw Models,

S. Zhou, “Wigner-like Parametrization of Canonical Seesaw Models,” [arXiv:2502.07301 [hep- ph]]

arXiv
[19]

Parametrization of Seesaw Models and Light Sterile Neutrinos,

M. Blennow and E. Fernandez-Martinez, “Parametrization of Seesaw Models and Light Sterile Neutrinos,” Phys. Lett. B 704 (2011), 223-229 [arXiv:1107.3992 [hep-ph]]

2011 arXiv
[20]

Mesonium and anti-mesonium,

B. Pontecorvo, “Mesonium and anti-mesonium,” Sov. Phys. JETP 6 (1957) 429 [Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 33 (1957) 549]

1957
[21]

Remarks on the unified model of elementary particles,

Z. Maki, M. Nakagawa and S. Sakata, “Remarks on the unified model of elementary particles,” Prog. Theor. Phys. 28 (1962) 870

1962
[22]

Neutrino Experiments and the Problem of Conservation of Leptonic Charge,

B. Pontecorvo, “Neutrino Experiments and the Problem of Conservation of Leptonic Charge,” Sov. Phys. JETP 26 (1968) 984 [Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 53 (1967) 1717]

1968
[23]

Review of particle physics,

S. Navas et al. [Particle Data Group], “Review of particle physics,” Phys. Rev. D 110 (2024) no.3, 030001

2024
[24]

Mapping the sources of CP violation in neutrino oscillations from the seesaw mechanism,

Z. z. Xing, “Mapping the sources of CP violation in neutrino oscillations from the seesaw mechanism,” Phys. Lett. B 856 (2024), 138909 [arXiv:2406.01142 [hep-ph]]

2024 arXiv
[25]

Confronting the seesaw mechanism with neutrino oscillations: a general and explicit analytical bridge,

Z. z. Xing and J. y. Zhu, “Confronting the seesaw mechanism with neutrino oscillations: a general and explicit analytical bridge,” [arXiv:2412.17698 [hep-ph]]

arXiv
[26]

Bounds on lepton non-unitarity and heavy neutrino mixing,

M. Blennow, E. Fern´ andez-Mart ´ ınez, J. Hern´ andez-Garc ´ ıa, J. L´ opez-Pav´ on, X. Marcano and D. Naredo-Tuero, “Bounds on lepton non-unitarity and heavy neutrino mixing,” JHEP 08 (2023), 030 [arXiv:2306.01040 [hep-ph]]

2023 arXiv
[27]

Tri-bimaximal Neutrino Mixing and Flavor-dependent Resonant Leptogenesis,

Z. z. Xing and S. Zhou, “Tri-bimaximal Neutrino Mixing and Flavor-dependent Resonant Leptogenesis,” Phys. Lett. B 653 (2007), 278-287 [arXiv:hep-ph/0607302 [hep-ph]]

2007 arXiv
[28]

mu-tau reflection symmetry in lepton mixing and neutrino oscillations,

P. F. Harrison and W. G. Scott, “mu-tau reflection symmetry in lepton mixing and neutrino oscillations,” Phys. Lett. B 547 (2002), 219-228 [arXiv:hep-ph/0210197 [hep-ph]]

2002 arXiv
[29]

A review of µ-τ flavor symmetry in neutrino physics,

Z. z. Xing and Z. h. Zhao, “A review of µ-τ flavor symmetry in neutrino physics,” Rept. Prog. Phys. 79 (2016) no.7, 076201 [arXiv:1512.04207 [hep-ph]]

2016 arXiv
[30]

The µ-τ reflection symmetry of Majorana neutrinos,

Z. z. Xing, “The µ-τ reflection symmetry of Majorana neutrinos,” Rept. Prog. Phys. 86 (2023) no.7, 076201 [arXiv:2210.11922 [hep-ph]]. 13

2023 arXiv
[31]

Identifying a minimal flavor symmetry of the seesaw mechanism behind neutrino oscillations,

Z. z. Xing, “Identifying a minimal flavor symmetry of the seesaw mechanism behind neutrino oscillations,” JHEP 06 (2022), 034 [arXiv:2203.14185 [hep-ph]]

2022 arXiv
[33]

A full parametrization of the 9 × 9 active-sterile flavor mixing matrix in the inverse or linear seesaw scenario of massive neutrinos,

H. c. Han and Z. z. Xing, “A full parametrization of the 9 × 9 active-sterile flavor mixing matrix in the inverse or linear seesaw scenario of massive neutrinos,” Nucl. Phys. B 973 (2021), 115609 [arXiv:2110.12705 [hep-ph]]

2021 arXiv
[34]

Unitarity of the Leptonic Mixing Matrix,

S. Antusch, C. Biggio, E. Fernandez-Martinez, M. B. Gavela and J. Lopez-Pavon, “Unitarity of the Leptonic Mixing Matrix,” JHEP 10 (2006), 084 [arXiv:hep-ph/0607020 [hep-ph]]

2006 arXiv
[35]

Non-unitary Leptonic Mixing and Leptogenesis,

S. Antusch, S. Blanchet, M. Blennow and E. Fernandez-Martinez, “Non-unitary Leptonic Mixing and Leptogenesis,” JHEP 01 (2010), 017 [arXiv:0910.5957 [hep-ph]]

2010 arXiv
[36]

Non-Unitarity, sterile neutrinos, and Non-Standard neutrino Interactions,

M. Blennow, P. Coloma, E. Fernandez-Martinez, J. Hernandez-Garcia and J. Lopez-Pavon, “Non-Unitarity, sterile neutrinos, and Non-Standard neutrino Interactions,” JHEP 04 (2017), 153 [arXiv:1609.08637 [hep-ph]]

2017 arXiv
[37]

Global oscillation data analysis on the 3 ν mixing without unitarity,

Z. Hu, J. Ling, J. Tang and T. Wang, “Global oscillation data analysis on the 3 ν mixing without unitarity,” JHEP 01 (2021), 124 [arXiv:2008.09730 [hep-ph]]

2021 arXiv
[38]

Non-unitary leptonic flavor mixing and CP violation in neutrino- antineutrino oscillations,

Y. Wang and S. Zhou, “Non-unitary leptonic flavor mixing and CP violation in neutrino- antineutrino oscillations,” Phys. Lett. B 824 (2022), 136797 [arXiv:2109.13622 [hep-ph]]

2022 arXiv
[39]

Study of tau neutrinos and non-unitary neutrino mixing with the first six detection units of KM3NeT/ORCA,

S. Aiello et al. [KM3NeT], “Study of tau neutrinos and non-unitary neutrino mixing with the first six detection units of KM3NeT/ORCA,” [arXiv:2502.01443 [hep-ex]]. 14

arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [32]

Right-Handed Neutrinos at CERN LHC and the Mechanism of Neutrino Mass Generation,

J. Kersten and A. Y. Smirnov, “Right-Handed Neutrinos at CERN LHC and the Mechanism of Neutrino Mass Generation,” Phys. Rev. D 76 (2007), 073005 [arXiv:0705.3221 [hep-ph]]

arXiv 2007

[2] [1]

µ → eγ at a rate of one out of 10 9 muon decays?,

P. Minkowski, “ µ → eγ at a rate of one out of 10 9 muon decays?,” Phys. Lett. 67B (1977) 421

work page 1977

[3] [2]

Horizontal gauge symmetry and masses of neutrinos,

T. Yanagida, “Horizontal gauge symmetry and masses of neutrinos,” Conf. Proc. C 7902131 (1979) 95

work page 1979

[4] [3]

Complex spinors and unified theories,

M. Gell-Mann, P. Ramond and R. Slansky, “Complex spinors and unified theories,” Conf. Proc. C 790927 (1979) 315 [arXiv:1306.4669 [hep-th]]

arXiv 1979

[5] [4]

The future of elementary particle physics,

S. L. Glashow, “The future of elementary particle physics,” NATO Sci. Ser. B 61 (1980) 687

work page 1980

[6] [5]

Neutrino mass and spontaneous parity nonconserva- tion,

R. N. Mohapatra and G. Senjanovic, “Neutrino mass and spontaneous parity nonconserva- tion,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 44 (1980) 912

work page 1980

[7] [6]

Baryogenesis Without Grand Unification,

M. Fukugita and T. Yanagida, “Baryogenesis Without Grand Unification,” Phys. Lett. B 174 (1986), 45-47

work page 1986

[8] [7]

Baryon and Lepton Nonconserving Processes,

S. Weinberg, “Baryon and Lepton Nonconserving Processes,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 43 (1979), 1566-1570

1979