SciPost logo

SciPost Submission Page

Lepton flavour violation and neutrino masses

by A. M. Teixeira

This Submission thread is now published as

Submission summary

Authors (as registered SciPost users): Ana M. Teixeira
Submission information
Preprint Link: scipost_201811_00022v1  (pdf)
Date accepted: 2019-01-08
Date submitted: 2018-11-15 01:00
Submitted by: Teixeira, Ana M.
Submitted to: SciPost Physics Proceedings
Proceedings issue: The 15th International Workshop on Tau Lepton Physics (TAU2018)
Ontological classification
Academic field: Physics
  • High-Energy Physics - Phenomenology
Approach: Theoretical


Neutrino oscillations provided the first evidence for the violation of flavour in the lepton sector, and established a clear need to consider extensions of the Standard Model. Many new phenomena can emerge from these New Physics (NP) constructions, among which processes violating lepton number and charged lepton flavour, all clear signals of New Physics. Following a short overview of the status of experimental searches, we comment on the prospects of several models of massive neutrinos, from minimal constructions to complete NP models, to the above mentioned observables.

Published as SciPost Phys. Proc. 1, 015 (2019)

Submission & Refereeing History

Reports on this Submission

Anonymous Report 1 on 2018-12-12 (Invited Report)

  • Cite as: Anonymous, Report on arXiv:scipost_201811_00022v1, delivered 2018-12-12, doi: 10.21468/SciPost.Report.736


The contribution provides a review about the possible new phenomena that one can expect from the established phenomenon of neutrino oscillations, per se necessitating an extension of the SM. These new phenomena notably include, among the others, charged-lepton flavour violation, lepton number violation and contributions to lepton dipole moments.

The contribution starts from a review of the experimental status of such searches, and proceeds with a reasoned discussion of their potential within chosen SM extensions. Given the fact that flavour observables are indirect probes of a given SM extension, crucial is the interplay among as many observables as possible. The discussion focuses precisely on this aspect.

The contribution is carefully written, and an enjoyable read. I have one minor comment, concerning fig. 5 (left). The caption mentions "light (dark) surfaces denote currently allowed (excluded) regimes due to the violation of the associated experimental bound", but I can't see such surfaces in the plot. In the original reference, such surfaces seem to be visible only in a different plot, not shown in this contribution. I also suppose that the two vertical lines on fig. 5 (left) denote the LQ-mass region explaining RK(*). If so, I would specify this in the caption.

  • validity: -
  • significance: -
  • originality: -
  • clarity: -
  • formatting: -
  • grammar: -

Author:  Ana M. Teixeira  on 2018-12-13  [id 380]

(in reply to Report 1 on 2018-12-12)
answer to question

Dear Editor, dear Referee,
thank you very much for the report.
Concerning the points raised in relation with Fig. 5 (left), I would like to clarify that there are indeed light /dark surfaces : these correspond to light/dark blue, light/dark yellow (red, violet), which are indeed present in this plot. Regarding the vertical lines, they are "lengthier" to explain (corresponding to the final regimes of the LQ masses for which all the experimental constraints are verified), and since I made no reference to them neither in the presentation nor in the proceedings, I chose not to refer to them. Of course these are described in the original paper. My goal in the presentation/proceedings was to highlight the constraining power of the cLFV observables. Should the Referee feel that edition is indeed required, I will then accordingly do so.
I hope that this clarifies the points raised by the Referee, and that the contribution can be accepted for publication.
Cordially yours,
Ana M. Teixeira

Login to report or comment