Bonilla, C., Lamprea, J. M., Peinado, E., & Valle, J. W. F. (2018). Flavour-symmetric type-II Dirac neutrino seesaw mechanism. Phys. Lett. B, 779, 257–261.
Abstract: We propose a Standard Model extension with underlying A(4) flavour symmetry where small Dirac neutrino masses arise from a Type-II seesaw mechanism. The model predicts the “golden” flavour-dependent bottom-tau mass relation, requires an inverted neutrino mass ordering and non-maximal atmospheric mixing angle. Using the latest neutrino oscillation global fit[ 1] we derive restrictions on the oscillation parameters, such as a correlation between delta(CP) and m(nu lightest).
|
de Salas, P. F., Gariazzo, S., Mena, O., Ternes, C. A., & Tortola, M. (2018). Neutrino Mass Ordering From Oscillations and Beyond: 2018 Status and Future Prospects. Front. Astron. Space Sci., 5, 36–50pp.
Abstract: The ordering of the neutrino masses is a crucial input for a deep understanding of flavor physics, and its determination may provide the key to establish the relationship among the lepton masses and mixings and their analogous properties in the quark sector. The extraction of the neutrino mass ordering is a data-driven field expected to evolve very rapidly in the next decade. In this review, we both analyse the present status and describe the physics of subsequent prospects. Firstly, the different current available tools to measure the neutrino mass ordering are described. Namely, reactor, long-baseline (accelerator and atmospheric) neutrino beams, laboratory searches for beta and neutrinoless double beta decays and observations of the cosmic background radiation and the large scale structure of the universe are carefully reviewed. Secondly, the results from an up-to-date comprehensive global fit are reported: the Bayesian analysis to the 2018 publicly available oscillation and cosmological data sets provides strong evidence for the normal neutrino mass ordering vs. the inverted scenario, with a significance of 3.5 standard deviations. This preference for the normal neutrino mass ordering is mostly due to neutrino oscillation measurements. Finally, we shall also emphasize the future perspectives for unveiling the neutrinomass ordering. In this regard, apart from describing the expectations from the aforementioned probes, we also focus on those arising from alternative and novel methods, as 21 cm cosmology, core-collapse supernova neutrinos and the direct detection of relic neutrinos.
|
de Salas, P. F., Pastor, S., Ternes, C. A., Thakore, T., & Tortola, M. (2019). Constraining the invisible neutrino decay with KM3NeT-ORCA. Phys. Lett. B, 789, 472–479.
Abstract: Several theories of particle physics beyond the Standard Model consider that neutrinos can decay. In this work we assume that the standard mechanism of neutrino oscillations is altered by the decay of the heaviest neutrino mass state into a sterile neutrino and, depending on the model, a scalar or a Majoron. We study the sensitivity of the forthcoming KM3NeT-ORCA experiment to this scenario and find that it could improve the current bounds coming from oscillation experiments, where three-neutrino oscillations have been considered, by roughly two orders of magnitude. We also study how the presence of this neutrino decay can affect the determination of the atmospheric oscillation parameters sin(2) theta(23) and Delta m(31)(2), as well as the sensitivity to the neutrino mass ordering.
|
Gariazzo, S., Mena, O., & Schwetz, T. (2023). Quantifying the tension between cosmological and terrestrial constraints on neutrino masses. Phys. Dark Universe, 40, 101226–8pp.
Abstract: The sensitivity of cosmology to the total neutrino mass scale E m & nu; is approaching the minimal values required by oscillation data. We study quantitatively possible tensions between current and forecasted cosmological and terrestrial neutrino mass limits by applying suitable statistical tests such as Bayesian suspiciousness, parameter goodness-of-fit tests, or a parameter difference test. In particular, the tension will depend on whether the normal or the inverted neutrino mass ordering is assumed. We argue, that it makes sense to reject inverted ordering from the cosmology/oscillation comparison only if data are consistent with normal ordering. Our results indicate that, in order to reject inverted ordering with this argument, an accuracy on the sum of neutrino masses & sigma;(m & nu;) of better than 0.02 eV would be required from future cosmological observations.
|
Reid, B. A., Verde, L., Jimenez, R., & Mena, O. (2010). Robust neutrino constraints by combining low redshift observations with the CMB. J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys., 01(1), 003–21pp.
Abstract: We illustrate how recently improved low-redshift cosmological measurements can tighten constraints on neutrino properties. In particular we examine the impact of the assumed cosmological model on the constraints. We first consider the new HST H-0 = 74.2 +/- 3.6 measurement by Riess et al. (2009) and the sigma(8)(Omega(m)/0.25)(0.41) = 0.832 +/- 0.033 constraint from Rozo et al. (2009) derived from the SDSS maxBCG Cluster Catalog. In a ACDM model and when combined with WMAP5 constraints, these low-redshift measurements constrain Sigma m(v) < 0.4 eV at the 95% confidence level. This bound does not relax when allowing for the running of the spectral index or for primordial tensor perturbations. When adding also Supernovae and BAO constraints, we obtain a 95% upper limit of Sigma m(v) < 0.3eV. We test the sensitivity of the neutrino mass constraint to the assumed expansion history by both allowing a dark energy equation of state parameter w not equal -1 and by studying a model with coupling between dark energy and dark matter, which allows for variation in w, Omega(k), and dark coupling strength xi. When combining CMB, H-0 and the SDSS LRG halo power spectrum from Reid et al. 2009, we find that in this very general model, Sigma m(v) < 0.51 eV with 95% confidence. If we allow the number of relativistic species N-rel to vary in a ACDM model with Sigma m(v) = 0, we find N-rel = 3.76(-0.68)(+0.63)(+1.38 -1.21) for the 68% and 95% confidence intervals. We also report prior-independent constraints, which are in excellent agreement with the Bayesian constraints.
|
