Neutrino masses in effective rank-5 subgroups of<mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi>E</mml:mi><mml:mn>6</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math>. I. Nonsupersymmetric case
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The neutral fermion sectors of ${E}_{6}$-inspired low-energy models, in particular, the alternative left-right and inert models, are considered in detail within the nonsupersymmetric scenario. We show that in their simplest form, these models always predict, for each generation, the lightest neutrino to be a $SU(2{)}_{L}$ singlet, as well as two extra neutrinos with masses of the order of the up-quark mass. In order to recover standard model phenomenology, additional assumptions in the form of discrete symmetries and/or new interactions are needed. These are classified as the discrete symmetry, higher-dimensional operators, and additional neutral fermion methods. The discrete symmetry method can solve the problem, but requires additional Higgs doublets that do not get vacuum expectation values. The higher-dimensional operators method predicts no sterile neutrino, and that the active neutrinos mix with a heavy isodoublet neutrino, thus slightly suppressing the couplings of active neutrinos, with interesting phenomenological implications. The additional neutral fermion method also predicts this suppression, and also naturally includes one or more sterile neutrinos. This scenario allows the existence of sterile neutrino(s) in either a $\mathbf{3}+\mathbf{1}$ or $\mathbf{2}+\mathbf{2}$ structure at low energies, which are favored by the Los Alamos Liquid Scintillation Neutrino Detector result.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".