Experimental constraints on seesaw parameters in the Wigner-like parametrization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
By introducing three right-handed neutrino singlets, the popular canonical seesaw mechanism is able to simultaneously explain the tiny masses of Majorana neutrinos and the baryon asymmetry of the Universe. In this paper, we provide an explicit calculation in this model with the help of the Wigner-like parametrization. We work in a special ansatz where both ${\bf m}_{\rm D}^\dagger {\bf m}_{\rm D}^{}$ and ${\bf m}_{\rm R}^\dagger {\bf m}_{\rm R}^{}$ are diagonal, with ${\bf m}_{\rm D}^{}$ and ${\bf m}_{\rm R}^{}$ being accordingly the Dirac and Majorana neutrino mass matrices, and $[{\bf m}_{\rm D}^\dagger {\bf m}_{\rm D}^{}, {\bf m}_{\rm R}^\dagger {\bf m}_{\rm R}^{}] = {\bf 0}$ holds. Physical observables can be exactly calculated without any approximation, where three light Majorana neutrino masses $m_i^{}$, leptonic mixing angles $θ_{ij}^{}$, CP-violating phases $\{δ,ρ,σ\}$, and three rotation angles $\vartheta_i^{}$ describing the hierarchy between electroweak and seesaw scales are chosen as input parameters. For demonstration, we evaluate the branching fractions of the lepton-flavor-violating decays of charged leptons and the CP-violating asymmetries in the resonant thermal leptogenesis. The model parameters are constrained by the latest experimental limits.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".