Arxiv:1812.03790V2 [Hep-Ph] 27 Nov 2019 Mined at the LHC Or Future Hadronic Collider

Disentangling Seesaw in the Minimal Left-Right Symmetric Model

Goran Senjanovićand Vladimir Tello International Centre for Theoretical Physics, Trieste, Italy (Dated: November 28, 2019) In a recent Letter we presented a systematic way of testing the seesaw origin of neutrino mass in the context of the Minimal Left-Right Symmetric Model. The essence of the program is to exploit lepton number violating decays of doubly charged scalars, particles which lie at the heart of the Higgs-mechanism-based seesaw, to probe the Dirac neutrino mass term which in turn enters directly into a number of physical processes including the decays of right-handed neutrinos into the W boson and left-handed charged leptons. In this longer version we discuss at length these and related processes, and offer some missing technical details. We also carefully analyze the physically appealing possibility of parity conserving Yukawa sector showing that the neutrino Dirac mass matrix can be analytically expressed as a function of light and heavy neutrino masses and mixing, without resorting to any additional discrete symmetries, a context in which the seesaw mechanism can be disentangled completely. When parity does get broken, we show that, in the general case, only the Hermitian part of the Dirac mass term is independent which substantially simplifies the task of testing experimentally the origin of neutrino mass. We illustrate this program through some physical examples that allow simple analytical expressions. Our work shows that the Minimal Left- Right Symmetric Model is a self-contained theory of neutrino mass which can be in principle tested at the LHC or the next hadron collider.

I. INTRODUCTION The arbitrariness of MD in (2) provides a blow to the program of probing the seesaw origin of the neutrino mass. Understanding the origin of neutrino mass is a central Ironically, the same arbitrariness is often used to make task of the physics Beyond the Standard Model. After MD artificially large so that N could be produced at the all, a non-vanishing neutrino mass is the only true failure colliders (when MD vanishes N are decoupled) but that of the SM and thus provides a fundamental window into is against the spirit of the seesaw as a way of obtaining the new physics. Over the years, the seesaw mechanism small neutrino mass naturally. emerged as the main scenario behind the smallness of A clarification is called for at this point. When we neutrino mass [1–3]. By adding new neutral lepton sin- speak here of the origin of neutrino mass, we mean glets N (one per generation) to the SM, and allowing for the physical Higgs mechanism origin, as in the case of charged fermions and gauge bosons. We do not have in their gauge invariant masses MN , one gets for the light neutrino mass matrix mind the valid question of the values of these parameters. Before asking why the masses are what they are, T 1 we should first know where they come from. For exam- Mν = −MD MD (1) MN ple, a program aiming to solve for the mass hierarchies where M is the Dirac mass term between ν and N. The prior to the Higgs mechanism would have been obviously D doomed from its very beginning. In that same spirit, we above formula (1) is as valid as long as MN MD, a natural assumption for the gauge singlets N. In order wish to have a theory that tells us in a verifiable and pre- to probe the seesaw mechanism, ideally one would have dictive manner whether neutrinos owe their masses to the Higgs mechanism and in which manner. Only then one to find MD as a function of neutrino masses and mixing, namely of M , currently being probed in low energy can finally address the issue of the hierarchies of masses ν and mixings that we are all after. experiments, and MN , which could hopefully be deter- arXiv:1812.03790v2 [hep-ph] 27 Nov 2019 mined at the LHC or future hadronic collider. Hereafter, In the case of charged fermions the Higgs origin of their this is what we will mean by disentangling the seesaw, masses implies the knowledge of Yukawa couplings from and though in general it is not always guaranteed and the values of masses yf ∝ mf /MW , and in turn allows to should not be taken for granted a priori, an effective dis- predict the Higgs decay rates into fermion - anti fermion entangling would be analogous to the situation of charged pairs ¯ 2 fermions in which one can determine their Yukawa cou- Γ(h → ff) ∝ mh(mf /MW ) (4) plings from the knowledge of their masses. Understanding the origin of neutrino mass is comparable However, the situation arising from (1) is given by (for to finding a theory that does for neutrinos what the SM an equivalent parametrization see [4]) does for charged fermions, and in this sense the seesaw p p scenario by itself comes short. M = i M O M (2) D N ν This should not come out as a surprise. After all, the where O is an arbitrary complex orthogonal matrix seesaw mechanism is an ad-hoc extension of the SM and makes no attempt for a dynamical explanation of the V- OOT = 1 (3) A theory of weak interactions. This is to be contrasted 2 with its left-right (LR) symmetric extension [5,6] that of whether P is broken or not in the Yukawa sector, the attributes the left-handed nature of weak interactions to MLRSM is a self-contained theory of neutrino mass that the spontaneous breakdown of parity. The smoking gun allows for a direct probe of its Higgs origin. signature of left-right symmetry is the existence of RH We should stress an important, essential aspect of our neutrinos νR, leading to non-vanishing neutrino mass. work. We make no assumption whatsoever regarding the In the minimal version of the theory, coined Minimal breaking scale of the MLRSM, or equivalently the masses Left-Right Symmetric Model (MLRSM) based on extra of N’s. Needless to say, were they to be accessible at the Higgs scalars be LH and RH triplets [1,2, 16], the see- LHC or the next hadron collider, this would allow us in saw mechanism follows naturally from the spontaneous principle to verify this program, but our work is more symmetry breaking with general than this scenario since it applies to any scale or any other imaginable way of knowing the masses and

MN ∝ MWR (5) mixings of N’s. The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In the fol- where M is the mass of the right-handed charged WR lowing section we give the main features of the MLRSM, gauge boson. This offers a profound connection between those which play an essential role in arriving at our main the smallness of neutrino mass and the near maximality results, and set our formalism and notations. Its main of parity violation in weak interactions [2]. purpose is to ease the reader’s pain in following the tech- In the MLRSM the left-right symmetry is broken spon- nical aspects in later sections. In sectionIII we discuss taneously and can be either generalized parity P or gen- the lepton masses, both charged and neutral, with a focus eralized charge conjugation C. The impact of this sym- on the seesaw. This section plays a central role in under- metry on the properties of quarks and leptons is of fun- standing neutrino mass in the MLRSM and it could be damental importance. The case of C is easier to deal useful even to the experts in the field. It has two sub- with since it leads to symmetric Dirac mass matrices of sections, the first being devoted to the parity conserving quarks and leptons, even after the spontaneous symme- Yukawa sector that leads to Hermitian Dirac mass matri- try breaking. It implies same LH and RH mixing angles ces. In this case we managed to solve analytically for MD in the quark sector, while, on the lepton sector the condi- as a function of M and M . We give here a detailed T N ν tion MD = MD leads to the determination of MD which expose’ of this important result already found in [8]. The allows to disentangle the seesaw [7]. This in turn allows, general case is treated next in the second subsection, + for example, to predict the decay rates of N → W eL where we show that only the Hermitian part of MD is and N → hν, and thus probe the Higgs origin of neutrino independent, and prepare the setup for phenomenologi- mass. cal implications. The phenomenological analysis is left The case of P is however highly non-trivial since the for sectionIV, where we use a number of new processes, originally Hermitian Dirac mass matrices lose this essen- in particular the LNV violation decays of doubly charged tial property after the symmetry breaking due to the scalars, to determine MD and thus demonstrate mani- emergence of complex vacuum expectation values. In- festly that the MLRSM is a self-contained theory of neu- stead, we have recently suggested an alternative approach trino mass. Our conclusions and the outlook for future of utilizing the decays of doubly charged scalars and research are offered finally in sectionV. heavy SM doublet Higgs to probe MD [8]. We have also shown how to determine MD in the Hermitian case (unbroken parity in the Dirac Yukawa sector), which in a II. MINIMAL LEFT-RIGHT SYMMETRIC simple case of the so-called type I seesaw and same left MODEL and right leptonic mixing matrices takes the following unique form [8] The MLRSM is based on the following symmetry group √ M = i V m m V † (6) D L ν N L GLR = SU(2)L × SU(2)R × U(1)B−L (7)

This expression manifestly demonstrates the predictivity where on top of the LR symmetric gauge group, a discrete of the theory - all ambiguities are gone from the Dirac generalized parity P ensures a LR symmetric world prior neutrino mass matrix. The Hermitian case may not be to spontaneous symmetry breaking. of pure academic interest only; for light WR it may be We focus on the leptonic sector only - for the quark a must due to a constraint of strong CP violation as we sector see [9, 10]. Under (7) the leptonic ﬁelds transform discuss in the following section, below (21). as In this sequel of our paper [8], we describe at length how M can be computed in the case of being Hermi- ν D ` = . (8) tian, and we provide some simple appealing examples L,R e L,R that can lead to transparent analytic expressions. We also elaborate on the phenomenological aspects of new and under P as particle decays and on the subsequent determination of MD. The bottom line of our work is that, independently `L ↔ `R. (9) 3

The new Higgs sector consists of left and right SU(2) in the K and B-meson sectors. This implies a lower limit triplets ∆L(3, 1, 2) and ∆R(1, 3, 2), respectively, where mH & 20 TeV [11, 12], which is far above the LHC reach the quantum numbers denote the representation content (for a recent study regarding the future hadron collider, under (7). The RH triplet ∆R is responsible for the see [13]). breaking of GLR down to the SM gauge symmetry, and It is useful to rewrite the Yukawa interaction of the bi- its non-vanishing vev vR (notice that it can be made real) doublet Φ as the function of the physical fields h and H gives masses to the new heavy gauge bosons WR and ZR and the charged lepton and neutrino Dirac mass matrices and the RH neutrinos N. " # The field decomposition of the triplets has the follow- † −ia † MD Me + e s2βMD ing form LΦ = − `L h − H NR v vc2β + √ ++ ! " # δ / 2 δ M M † + eias M L,R L,R√ e ∗ D 2β e ∗ ∆L,R = 0 + (10) + `L iσ2h − iσ2H eR δL,R −δL,R/ 2 v vc2β (18) ± ± Besides the usual singly charged fields δL (δR gets eaten ± ++ by the WR fields), the doubly charged states δL,R play where Me and MD are the charged lepton and neutrino an important role in lepton number violating decays and Dirac mass matrices, respectively, and are given by in determining MD. As in the original work [6], at the 0 M = −v(c Y + e−ias Y ) (19) first stage of symmetry breaking vL = hδLi = 0, vR = D β 1 β 2 hδ0 i= 6 0. −ia R Me = v(e sβY1 + cβY2). (20) On top of the new Higgs multiplets, there must also exist a SU(2)L ×SU(2)R bi-doublet, containing the usual The measure of spontaneous CP violation is provided by SM Higgs field, Φ(2, 2, 0) with the decomposition the small parameter sat2β which can be shown to satisfy [9] φ0 Φ = [φ , iσ φ∗] , φ = i , i = 1, 2. (11) 1 2 2 i φ− 2m i s t b (21) a 2β . m The most general vev of Φ can be written as t It can be shown that the same parameter measures the −ia hΦi = v diag(cos β, − sin βe ) (12) difference between right and left-handed quark mixing matrix and thus controls the weak contribution to the Under parity one has as ¯ strong CP violating parameter θ. For light WR one has ¯ ∆ ↔ ∆ , Φ → Φ† (13) sat2β is practically vanishing [14] in order to keep θ ac- L R ceptably small. The point is that with the spontaneously ¯ The leptonic Yukawa interaction is given by broken parity the strong CP parameter θ is finite and calculable in perturbation theory [15]. ∗ LY = − `L(Y1Φ − Y2σ2Φ σ2)`R Once hΦi is turned on, the left-handed triplet ∆L gets 2 (14) a small induced vev vL ∝ v /vR providing a hierarchy of 1 T T − ` YLiσ2∆L`L + ` YRiσ2∆R`R + h.c. SU(2) breaking [16]. It is important to stress that v 2 L R L L is naturally small, since it is protected by a symmetry so that because of (13) one has [16] (for a recent discussion, see [17]). The small vL is thus a direct source of neutrino mass, the so-called type † Y1,2 = Y1,2,YL = YR (15) II seesaw. It is interesting to contrast this situation with the usual type II SM scenario where one adds ad-hoc a These relations are central to our discussion and to our SU(2) triplet in order to give neutrino a non-vanishing main results. mass [18]. The latter case is an example of an a posteriori T Introduce next NL = Cν¯R , which from (14) leads im- model building, while in the MLRSM this is a result of mediately to the heavy neutrino mass matrix the underlying structure of the theory. Just as the type I seesaw emerges naturally in this theory, since RH neu- ∗ MN = vRYR (16) trinos are a must, the same mechanism that gives them Majorana masses leads automatically to the direct type The SM Higgs doublet h and the new heavy doublet II contribution to light neutrino masses. H are the linear combination of φi

−ia ia h = cβφ1 + e sβφ2,H = −e sβφ1 + cβφ2, (17) III. LEPTON MASSES where cβ ≡ cosβ, sβ ≡ sinβ hereafter. The new doublet H is basically decoupled, i.e., out of the LHC reach, since This is the central section of our work. We go here it leads directly at the tree level to the ﬂavor violation from the weak to the mass basis, which requires some 4 care due to the common source of charged lepton and This in turn leads to the celebrated seesaw expression for neutrino masses in the MLRSM. the neutrino mass The charged lepton mass matrix can be diagonalized vL T ∗ T 1 by performing unitary transformations EL and ER on Mν = Ue MN Ue − MD MD (31) the LH and RH charged lepton ﬁelds, respectively vR MN

† Thus, at the leading level Mν and MN stand for the Me = ELmeER (22) approximate (Majorana) mass matrices for the light and heavy neutrinos, respectively. The neutrino mass matrix More precisely, one rotates the LH and RH doublets is given as a function of MD and MN . Together with (26) and (27), the above equation serves to compute MD `L → EL`L, `R → ER`R (23) and thus to disentangle the seesaw. so that at this point the gauge interactions of charged The next step is then to diagonalize these matrices by gauge bosons remain still diagonal. The leptonic mix- the unitary rotations VL and VR respectively. From (23) ings, i.e. the PMNS matrix VL and its right-handed ana- one gets immediately log V will then be simply the unitary transformations R ∗ † that diagonalize LH and RH neutrino mass matrices, re- Mν = VL mν VL (32) spectively. where m stands for the diagonal matrix of the light neu- Since parity is broken by the complex vev hΦi, in gen- ν trino masses and V is the standard PMNS mixing ma- eral E 6= E , and thus L L R trix, which amounts to † Ue = E EL (24) R νL → VLνL (33) provides a measure of parity breaking. Similarly, MN is diagonalized by the unitary VR Equation (23) implies a redefinition of the Dirac neutrino mass matrix T MN = VRmN VR (34) † MD → ERMDEL (25) where mN stands for the diagonal matrix of the heavy neutrino masses. This means equivalently From (19) and (20) it follows that ∗ NL → VRNL (35) † ia MD − UeMDUe = isat2β(e tβMD + me) (26) when going from the weak to the mass basis. The appar- −ia me − UemeUe = −isat2β(MD + e tβme) (27) ent difference in the rotations among the light and heavy neutrino masses is due to the fact that N corresponds From the above equations it is clear that Ue is actually to complex conjugate fields of the right-handed neutri- a function of MD and vice versa as discussed below. nos νR, so that one has νR → VRνR in complete analogy From the Yukawa interaction and (15), one gets for the with (33). (νL,NL) mass matrix It is easy to see that (33) and (35) give the usual form of the charged weak interaction  vL T ∗ T  Ue MN Ue MD g vR † †   (28) LW = −√ νLV W/ eL + N RV W/ eR + h.c. (36) 2 L L R R MD MN so that V is the right-handed counterpart of the PMNS This is a combination of both type II and type I seesaw R matrix, making clear the choices of the V and V rota- matrices, with the important proviso of U entering in the L R e tions. direct type II mass term. In other words, in the MLRSM Before we enter into the nitty-gritty of our program, not only M enters the neutrino mass, but also U - this D e we give a simple example where actually the canonical point is typically missed in the literature. type I seesaw becomes negligible - and yet, interestingly Under the usual seesaw assumption M M the N D enough, both M and U are calculable, as it turns out, matrix (20) can be readily block-diagonalized, through D e by the charged lepton masses and the mixing matrices V the ν − N mixing, to the leading order in M /M given L D N and V . In this case, the term v by definition dominates by R L the contribution to neutrino masses and from the (31) one ν 1 Θ† ν gets → (29) N −Θ 1 N L L |v | L −iθL † mν = mN ,Ue = e VRVL (37) with vR

−iθL 1 where we have used vL = |vL|e . Thus, the Dirac Θ = MD (30) MN masses can be determined from (27) as a function of the 5 diﬀerence of LH and RH leptonic mixing matrices and The condition H = H† now becomes the charged lepton masses √ √ sE = E s∗,ET = E∗ = E−1 (45) −2iθL † † e VRVLmeVRVL − me −ia MD = − e tβme (38) isat2β Using (41) and (44), one can achieve the task of disentangling the seesaw by determining MD as It is noteworthy that the Hermitian limit s t ' 0 is a 2β √ not smooth and it has to be dealt with carefully, as we p †p ∗ MD = MN O sEO M (46) discuss in the next section. This case exempliﬁes the fact N that the theory predicts MD, and it does it even when Since O, s and E all follow from the knowledge of Mν and the contribution of MD to neutrino masses is small. MN , this manifestly shows how in the parity conserving case MD can be determined from the knowledge of light and heavy neutrino masses and mixings. A. The tale of unbroken parity The above expression is valid for any Mν and MN , i.e., any normal form s. It is illustrative to focus on the What would happen if parity was not broken by the situation when s takes a diagonal form, in which case the vev of Φ, i.e., what if the small parameter sat2β was to constraints (42) imply only two distinct possibilities be negligible? Could MD be found analytically? The ∗ answer is yes as we show now. sI = diag(s1, s0, s2), sII = diag(s, s0, s ) (47) From (26) one would have with s0,1,2 belonging to R. The matrix E is found to be † MD = MD,Ue = I (up to signs) (39)  1 0 0   0 0 1  By taking the complex conjugate of (31) and dividing √ EI =  0 1 0  ,EII =  0 1 0  (48) on the left and right by MN , one readily obtains an 0 0 1 1 0 0 equation between symmetric matrices

v∗ 1 1 for the respective values sI and sII . Equation (47) can be HHT = L − √ M ∗ √ (40) v M ν M generalized to any number of generations n: for n even, R N N for every eigenvalue z, there is also an eigenvalue z∗. For where H is a Hermitian matrix deﬁned as n odd there is on top one real eigenvalue. The matrix E 1 1 in this case has a 1 in the diagonal for each corresponding H = √ MD (41) real eigenvalues and two 1’s symmetrically opposed in the M pM ∗ N N anti-diagonal for each corresponding complex eigenvalue n and its conjugate. Since Im Tr HHT = 0 for any n and Hermitian H, one has the following conditions A comment is called for. In [8] we have chosen a different decomposition of MD v∗ 1 n L ∗ √ √ † Im Tr − Mν = 0, n = 1, 2, 3. (42) M = V m H0 m V (49) vR MN D R N N R It turns out that the equations (26) and (27) allow which led to a diﬀerent decomposition of H0H0T in terms 0 0 for a direct determination of MD. The crucial step is to of O and s in full analogy with (43). It is straightfor- decompose the symmetric matrix (40) as ward to show that

T T HH = OsO (43) 0 1 †p 0 O = √ VR MN O, s = s (50) mN where O is a complex orthogonal matrix and s is known as the symmetric normal form [19], to be determined Since in general MN and Mν are arbitrary complex from the knowledge of neutrino masses and mixing. This matrices up to constraints (42), no general analytic ex- is an unorthodox method for particle physicists, since pression can be oﬀered for MD. The following examples one normally uses a unitary matrix instead of orthog- may help illustrate what is going on. onal, since it guarantees the diagonalization of a sym- (i) VR = VL. Imagine an idealized situation with parity metric matrix we are dealing with. However, the unitary unbroken in the leptonic sector. Clearly, O0 = 1 and thus matrix approach is not suitable for our task. In this case, however, the form s is not guaranteed to be diagonal. 1 √ v m O = √ V m , s = L − ν (51) From (43), when H is real and symmetric, it follows L N √ MN vR mN immediately that H becomes O sOT . It can be shown that in the general complex case this expression general- and izes to r √ vL mν † † MD = VLmN − VL (52) H = O sEO (44) vR mN 6

± which for vL = 0, i.e., in the type I seesaw limit, gives leptonic decays of doubly charged scalars δL,R, that de- the simple form of (6). Matrix (52) is defined up to pend crucially on MD and can serve to verify the Higgs signs since, strictly speaking, Ue is defined up to signs. seesaw origin of neutrino mass. We discuss these pro- This example is to be contrasted with the situation in cesses in the next section. the SM seesaw scenario, in which MD is plagued by the Now, although we found no way of computing MD an- arbitrariness of a complex orthogonal matrix, here fixed alytically in the general case, we show that only its Her- completely. mitian part is independent, which makes the predictions (ii) Case of two generations. It is always illustrative significantly easier to test. As a first step, we compute to imagine a two-generation world where one can offer the matrix Ue as a function of MD. Multiplying (27) simple analytic formulas. We focus on a physically ap- with me and taking the square root gives pealing situation of non-degenerate neutrinos, in which q case the form s becomes diagonal. For simplicity, choose 1 2 −ia 2 Ue = me + isat2β(tβe me + meMD) (57) again vL = 0 so that the constraints (42) become me

−1 ∗ −1 ∗ 2 Im Tr MN Mν = 0, Im det MN Mν = 0 (53) We keep a small term sat2βme in order to emphasise † that (57) is exact. Notice the fact that UeUe = 1 We can readily write down the eigenvalues of s = reduces by half the number of independent elements A diag(s−, s+) of MD, implying that the anti-Hermitian part MD = 1 † (MD − MD) becomes a function of the Hermitian part q 2 2 s = 1 Tr M −1M ∗ ± 1 Tr M −1M ∗ − detM −1M ∗ H 1 † ± 2 N ν 4 N ν N ν MD = 2 (MD + MD). This can be shown from (26). (54) Here we give the leading expression in sat2β, based on which shows explicitly that s± are either both real or the following expansion of the square root of a matrix form a complex conjugate pair. In turn, by writing (see Appendix A in [10])

cos θ sin θ p 2 2 Aij 2 O = (55) m + iA = miδij + i + O( ) (58) − sin θ cos θ ij mi + mj one gets Using this in (57) gives q q −1 ∗ −1 MN Mν MN tβδij 2 2 12 (Ue)ij = δij + isat2β + (HD)ij + O(sat2β) (59) sin 2θ = q (56) 2 1 −1 ∗2 −1 ∗ 4 Tr MN Mν − detMN Mν where we have defined We now turn to the general case, with one last com- H ment regarding the Hermitian M . In this case, the (MD )ij D (HD)ij = . (60) freedom in the RH quark mixing is all gone, and the mei + mej constraints from the K and B meson system imply WR too heavy to be accessible at the LHC [12]. The parity From (26) and (59) it follows readily conserving situation is then automatically postponed to is t a future hadron collider. M A = a 2β m +2t M H +H M H +M H H +O(s3t3 ) D 2 e β D D D D D a 2β (61) B. Broken parity: setting the stage H This is an important expression that says that only MD is physical, halving the effective degrees of freedom in the We have seen in the previous section how a parity con- H serving situation with M Hermitian allows for its deter- task of probing the seesaw. The elements of MD can be D determined numerically from the seesaw, and we address mination as a function of MN and Mν . This is in complete analogy with the SM situation where a knowledge this in a forthcoming publication. of charged fermion masses fixes their Yukawa couplings and allows to predict branching ratios for the Higgs boson decays. In the present case one needs to know both C. Broken parity: general situation Mν and MN due to their Majorana nature, but still, MD is then uniquely fixed and we can determine associated As we argued, the expression for Ue in (57) shows man- decay rates such as N → hν, N → Zν and N → W `. ifestly its dependence on MD. The trouble is that this When parity gets broken, however, we have not (yet) Ue is not automatically Hermitian and thus becomes re- managed to compute MD Not all is lost though, as we ally useful only when expanded in small sat2β. What one have argued in [8]. The crucial point is the existence of a needs is an explicit unitary expression for Ue, valid to all number of physical processes, in particular the same sign orders in sat2β which we now provide. 7

It turns out useful to rewrite equations (26) and (27) The memory of parity provides an important constraint, as written here to the leading order in sat2β √ † s t m m m UeM Ue − M = 0 (62) a 2β e ν N θD = ± 2tβ + √ + (70) 2 mν mN me UemeUe − me = isat2βM (63) A comment is called for. The reader familiar with the where M is given by RH quark mixing in the MLRSM can recognize here the −ia expression given in the formula (A11) of [10], with the M = MD + e tβme (64) understand that one here we have used the seesaw formula for |m |. The reason is simple: were neutrinos We leave as an exercise for the reader to show from the D Dirac particles, one would have a complete analogy be- above equations can be written as tween the leptonic and quark sectors and θD would cor- √ respond to the conjugate of the RH quark phase. An † M = MM Ue (65) interested reader can also find an exact expression for 1 isat2β θD analogous to (C1) of Appendix C in [10], true to all Ue = r me + 2 M orders in sat2β. isat2β isat2β † me + 2 M me − 2 M It is worthwhile to confront the MLRSM one- (66) generation case with the SM seesaw scenario. There the phase of mD is simply not physical since its impact can The last equation is what we were after and what we be countered by the phase of the electron field. Here, on promised: an explicitly unitary form of Ue as a function the contrary, the phase of mD is physical (see e.g. (82) of MD. It becomes explicitly unity when sat2β vanishes. in the next section) and related to the phase of VR - and There is actually more in these equations; they tell us furthermore it can be computed as a function of electron finally what is really going on. From (65) the matrix and neutrino masses, and the vevs of the bi-doublet. Ue can be viewed as the “phase” of M, and (66) shows The final message is clear. Whatever parametrization that due to parity this phase is determined in terms of one chooses to use, the important point is that P fixes 2 M itself. In other words, in spite of being broken spon- n elements of MD. We can say that the spontaneous taneously, P still acts and sets the phase of M equal to breaking of parity plays an equally important role as the i seesaw itself in determining MD. the phase of me + 2 sat2βM. This is seen nicely in the one-generation toy example The crucial point is all this is the softness of the spon- when the matrix M is just a complex number. From taneous symmetry breaking which makes the theory re- iθ −ia member that parity was there to start with. One is (64) one then has mD = ρe − e tβme and (66) shows that θ is not arbitrary, but actually a function of ρ itself: tempted to agree with Coleman on calling it a hidden, rather than spontaneously broken symmetry. sin θ = sat2β ρ/2me. Parity does its job by halving the number of independent degrees of freedom. Notice also that mD is bounded from above and below, as expected from (21) and an analogy with the quark system. IV. PHENOMENOLOGICAL IMPLICATIONS A word on the parametrization of MD. Instead of parametrizing the Hermitian degrees of freedom of MD We now turn our attention to the phenomenological issues, and we do it in full generality without assuming by its Hermitian part as we did above in√IIIB, one could have used the Hermitian matrix M = MM † as well, Hermitian MD. As stressed before, besides eliminating without any loss of generality. One has then from (65) the freedom in MD, the MLRSM offers a number of new and (66) physical processes which can pave the road for probing of MD and the origin of neutrino mass. M First of all, there is an exciting possibility of observing (U ) = δ + is t ij + O(s2t2 ) (67) ` ij ij a 2β a 2β direct Lepton Number Violation in the WR decays due to me + me i j the Majorana nature of RH neutrinos N. Namely, once M M −ia ik kj 2 2 produced W decays either into two jets or charged lep- (MD + e tβme)ij = Mij + isat2β + O(sat2β) R mek + mej tons and N’s which then further decay into charged lep- (68) tons and two jets. The main semi-leptonic decays consist then equally of same and opposite sign charged lepton The task now becomes to determine M from the seesaw. pairs accompanied by the pairs of jets. The former pro- Again, we have found no analytic form yet, but one can vide a direct LNV, and together with the latter allow for always use a numerical procedure. It can however be a unique direct test of the Majorana nature of N. The illustrated on our toy one-generation example, where one same sign process [20], coined Keung-Senjanovic (KS), is iθD has readily for mD = |mD|e a high-energy hadron collider analog of the neutrinoless √ double beta decay, with a clear signature that the out- mD = i mν mN VR (69) going charged leptons have RH chiralities. It has been 8 argued that the charged lepton chirality can actually be measure, complementary to the KS process, the masses measured at the LHC [21, 22]. In the MLRSM there and mixings of N’s is also a deep connection between the neutrinoless dou- mδ−− 2 ble beta decay and the high-energy KS process, studied −− R Γ(δ → eRi eRj ) ∝ (MN )ij (74) R M 2 in [23]. WR These decays have been studied recently at the lepton

A. Decays and the probe of MD colliders in [27]. The LH analog decays play an even more important role in verifying the seesaw mechanism due to the pres- The KS signature, if accessible at the LHC or the next ence of Ue matrix, since one has hadron collider, would allow for the determination of MN (for phenomenological studies, see e.g. [24]), i.e., mN and m −− −− δL † ∗ 2 Γ(δ → eLi eLj ) ∝ U MN U (75) the leptonic RH mixing matrix VR, the ﬁrst step towards L M 2 e e ij the probe of the seesaw origin of neutrino mass. Next, WR through ν − N mixing induced by the non-vanishing MD Up to a proportionality factor, this is precisely the di- elements, N can decay into LH charged leptons too with rect type II contribution to neutrino mass, i.e., the the following rate upper-left block of the neutrino mass matrix in (28). These decays can thus directly probe the pure type II + mNi † 2 Γ(Ni → W e ) ∝ (V MD)ij L Lj M 2 R (71) seesaw as discussed in [28] since in that case one has WL −− 2 Γ(δL → eLi eLj ) ∝ (Mν )ij . In our case it is MN that In the above and hereafter, we will not worry about the gets probed, together with the Ue matrix. precise rates; we give ﬂavour and mass dependence up to Using the formulas (57) and (60), one obtains, to the overall dimensionless constants. leading order in sat2β In the same manner, decays such as N → Zν and T Γ −− −− N → hν (we are assuming N to be also heavier than Z δ →eL eL m HDMN + MN H L i j δL D ij and h, otherwise the opposite happens) are less exciting ' 1+2sat2β Im −− ΓδR→eR eR mδ (MN )ij since they involve missing energy. We give anyway their i j R (76) decay rates for the sake of completeness This expression is of great importance, since it directly

mNi † 2 and manifestly probes, through the asymmetry or left Γ(Ni → Zνj) ∝ Γ(Ni → hνj) ∝ 2 (VRMDVL)ij MW and right doubly charged leptonic decays, the Hermitian L H (72) part MD of the Dirac mass matrix. It is straightforward to obtain higher orders of the above expression. + These processes, especially N → W eL, can serve in It cannot be overstressed: it is not just MD, as usu- the determination of MD; for phenomenological studies ally assumed, that enters into the seesaw formula. The see [7, 25]. matrix Ue also plays an essential role and there is a deep In the SM seesaw scenario these decays would of course connection between these quantities which can in princi- also happen [26], with an important difference being ple be probed through the above doubly charged scalar that MD is ambiguous there. Worse, the production of decays. N in the SM seesaw can only be achieved through MD, Of course, in the Hermitian limit sat2β ' 0, one simply which requires MD to be large, contrary to the seesaw ends up with a LR symmetric prediction of the same LH philosophy of MN MD as an explanation of the and RH doubly charged scalar decay rates. smallness of neutrino masses. Moreover, in the MLRSM + there are other fundamental processes which can probe • Decays of the singly charged scalars δL . M , discussed in what follows. − − D The decay δL → eL N which proceeds through the ν − N mixing Θ is of similar importance as the N → `LW decay • Decays of the doubly charged scalars δ++ . + L,R since they both proceed through MD. The δL interaction Doubly charged scalars are produced pairwise by the is given in (14), and it is easily shown to lead to the decay Z-boson and the photon, and unless are very light, are rate expected to be less accessible than the WR. Nonetheless, m − δL † ∗ T −1 2 their lepton number violating decays play an important Γδ−→e N ∝ 2 (Ue MN Ue MDMN VR)ij (77) L Li j M role in disentangling the seasaw. From (12), the relevant WR Yukawa interaction is which could in principle probe MD if MN was to be de- ∗ ∗ termined. It is a rather complicated expression in gen- 1 ++ T T MN 1 ++ T MN −Lδ = δL eL Ue Ue eL+ δR eR eR (73) eral and obviously hard to verify. It is illustrative to 2 vR 2 vR see what happens in the P conserving situation and the The matrix Ue provides the expected mismatch between same LH and RH mixing matrices VL = VR. Using (52) −− LH and RH states. Notice first that δR → eReR decays the above decay rate obtains a simple flavour structure 9

p 2 VLmN vL/vR − mν /mN . As before, the limit β ' 0 simplifies matters. The ij 0 H → ee¯ decay would then directly probe MD,while the 0 0 • Decays of the neutral scalars δL,R H → νN decay depends on the product of VL and VR, which makes it harder to disentagle. We should stress The decays δ0 → νN also proceed through Θ. The L,R once again that β ' 0 requires heavy W , beyond the relevant interactions are given in (14), which then gives R 0 LHC reach. Furthermore, the same flavour constraints the decay rate for δR indicate [12] that light WR in the LHC energy reach ba- m 0 sically fixes (modulo uncertainties) sat2β ' 0.02. This δR † † 2 Γ 0 ∝ V M VR (78) δR→νiNj 2 L D ij in return reduces substantially the freedom in the quark MW R RH mixing and MD. It has the same flavor dependence as the N → hν decay. In short, there are a plethora of high energy physical 0 processes that probe MD, on top of measuring MN as in This is to be expected since h and δR mix in general and the above decay can also proceed through this mixing the original KS case. If these states were to be accessible and the direct decay in (71). Since the mixing is propor- at the LHC or the next hadron collider, one would have a clear shot of verifying or disproving the MLRSM. Here tional to the ratio of WL/WR masses, the final result is naturally of the same order of magnitude. we have given the list and the associated decay rates for Similarly, one has for the left-handed δ0 decay these processes, their phenomenology shall be dealt with L in detail in a forthcoming publication. m 0 δL † † ∗ T −1 2 Γδ0 →ν N ∝ V Ue MN Ue MDM VR (79) L i j M 2 L N ij WR B. The limits on particle masses As expected, this decay has a rather different form due to the impact of Ue and is quite messy, not easy to probe. Before we turn to the conclusions it may be useful to It becomes illustrative in the VL = VR limit, since by us- the reader to have an idea of the limits on the masses of ing (52) the complicated flavour structure above becomes the relevant gauge boson and scalar particles. 2 diagonal m pv /v − m /m . N L R ν N ij • Limits on the masses of heavy charged and neutral gauge bosons W and Z . • Decay of the heavy charged scalars H+ R R − − The best limit on the WR mass comes from the di- The relevant decays here are H → eLN and H → eRν; they can be easily computed from (18) to be jet final state and is thus independent of the detailed properties of the RH neutrinos, and amounts to MWR ≥ mH −ia † 2 4 TeV [29]. The limit from the KS process depends on ΓH−→e N ∝ [(me + e s2βM )VR]ij (80) Li j M 2 D the mass of the RH neutrinos and it varies from 3.5 to 5 WL TeV for mN in the range from 0.1 to 1.8 TeV [30]. and The limit on ZR mass is MZR ≥4.6 TeV [30]. We should stress that the MLRSM prediction MZ ' 1.7MW im- mH † † ia 2 R R ΓH−→e ν ∝ V M + e s2βme (81) plies that the LHC cannot see the Z , and thus, if it Ri j M 2 L D ij R WL was to be seen, it would automatically invalidate the It is interesting to check what happens on the Her- MLRSM. mitian limit sat2β ' 0. The result depends how sat2β • Limit on the mass of the heavy doublet H from the vanishes: if a ' 0 nothing new happens, unlike the oppo- bi-doublet Φ. − site possibility β ' 0. In this case the decay H → eLN − measures directly VR, while the H → eRν decay probes As discussed in sectionII, since the couplings of the H, MD, which, as we know fromIIIA, gets predicted from given in (18), are determined by the structure of the bi- Mν and MN . doublet, the flavor conservation in neutral currents sets a stringent limit mH ≥ 20 TeV [11, 12]. This raises the 0 • Decays of the heavy neutral scalar H question of the perturbativity of the theory for a WR

The relevant interactions can be easily determined from accessible at the LHC, i.e., for MWR . 8 TeV, since H (18). The decay H0 → ee¯ is then given by and WR get the mass at the same large stage of symmetry breaking, and thus a particular scalar coupling must be mH † ia 2 large enough to ensure the heaviness of H. This implies ΓH0→e e¯ ∝ (M + e s2βme)ij i j M 2 D (82) WL stringent limits on other scalar masses to be discussed below. For a heavy WR, with MWR & 20 TeV, so that The decay H0 → νN is probably of secondary impor- the H mass does not require a large coupling, these limits tance, but nonetheless we give the relevant decay rate go away and the theory is of course highly perturbative.

mH † −ia † 2 • Limits on the masses of the heavy scalar triplet ∆L. ΓH0→ν N ∝ V me + e s2βM VR i j M 2 L D ij (83) WL The best direct limit is on the mass of the doubly 10 charged component and is roughly m ++ ≥ 400 GeV, but a function of Mν and MN in the Minimal LR Symmetric δL is flavor dependent [31]. Since the T parameter is sensi- Model, the same was never achieved for the P case, at tive to the mass splittings in the ∆L multiplet, one ob- least not in full generality. Instead, we recently suggested tains better limit from the high precision T constraints, an alternative approach using the exciting LNV violat- see Fig. 6 in [31]. For a relatively light WR accessible at ing decays of doubly charged scalars into the pair of the the LHC, this implies a limit on the (basically degener- same sign charged leptons as a probe of MD. Moreover ate) multiplet mass on the order of TeV. we managed to solve analytically the parity conserving † As discussed above, the heaviness of the second doublet case MD = MD, and to show that, when parity gets bro- H H brings the issue of perturbativity and a much stronger ken, only the Hermitian part MD is independent, simpli- limit emerges. By asking that the perturbative cutoff be fying thus considerably the experimental verification of the program of disentangling the seesaw. not below 10 MWR , for MWR = 6 TeV one gets m∆L ≥ 9 TeV [17], far from the LHC reach. For a WR at the In this longer follow-up of our original work, we have LHC energies, seeing the ∆L multiplet would invalidate filled in the missing gaps in obtaining our results. We the MLRSM. We should stress though that this is not a have given a pedagogical expose of the Hermitian case, generic prediction of the theory. For a heavy WR above illustrating it with a few illuminating examples, and pro- say 20 TeV the only limit that remains is the direct one. viding the relevant derivations. We have also provided a list of relevant decays that depend on MD, and can thus ++ 0 • Limits on the masses of the δR and δR. serve to probe the seesaw origin of neutrino mass. A number of these processes can test directly the Majorana The direct limit on the mass of δ++ is similar to the one R nature of N’s and are complementary to the neutrinoless of its left-handed counterpart, of roughly 400 GeV, also double beta decay. This is true in particular of the so- flavor dependent [31]. However, similar to the situation called KS process of the direct production of N’s, but it regarding ∆ , the perturbativity bound becomes huge for L applies also to the decays of doubly and singly charged a WR at the LHC and in this case mδ++ ≥ 12 TeV [17]. R scalars from the heavy Higgs triplets ∆ . Once again, the limit disappears for heavy W above 20 L,R R In principle also the neutral scalar decays can play the TeV. same role, especially the decay of δ0 into the pairs of On the other hand, δ0 can be arbitrarily light. One R R N’s, and possibly even through the same decays of the could hope for a cosmological limit from the stability of SM Higgs boson, in the case of appreciable h−δ0 mixing the scalar potential, but we may be living in a meta- R (for a recent phenomenological study, see [32]). All these stable vacuum. particles can also decay into final states that probe MD, as discussed in Section V. Moreover, the decays of the heavy scalar doublet H from the bi-doublet Φ also probe V. SUMMARY AND OUTLOOK directly MD, but due to the large limit on its mass are out of LHC reach. The origin and nature of neutrino mass is arguably one Before closing it is worthwhile to compare the MLRSM of the central issues in the quest for the theory beyond the with other gauge theories of neutrino mass. As we argued Standard Model. Over the years, the seesaw mechanism from the beginning it is the LR symmetry that leads to has emerged as the main scenario behind the smallness the existence of RH neutrinos N which then lead to the of neutrino mass, but by itself falls short of providing a seesaw and the rest of the story told here. In turn the full-fledged theory. First of all, the SM seesaw cannot be global B−L symmetry of the SM is gauged automatically, disentangled, and furthermore, the heavy RH neutrinos and the cancellation of new induced anomalies provides can be produced at the hadron colliders, such as the LHC, an additional raison d’etre for N besides the LR symme- only through the Dirac mass terms. This obviously forces try. What happens then in the more modest approach the Dirac mass terms to be incomparably larger than where one gauges just the GSM × U(1)B−L subgroup of their natural seesaw values. the MLRSM? First of all, N can be produced pairwise The situation changes dramatically in the context of through the new neutral gauge boson Z0, an improve- the LR symmetric theory, the same one that led origi- ment over the simple SM seesaw. Moreover, if one were + nally to non-vanishing neutrino mass and to the seesaw to observe the N → W eL process, this would require mechanism itself. The SM singlet RH neutrinos can be the ν − N mixing, and in a renormalizable theory that easily and naturally produced at the hadron colliders due mixing would require the Yukawa Dirac coupling with the to their gauge interactions with the WR boson, the RH SM Higgs. Thus one could argue that the above decay counterpart of the SM W boson. Equally important, would probe the Higgs origin of neutrino mass, just as the Dirac mass terms stop being plagued by ambiguities in the MLRSM. However, there is a profound difference. allowing for a verifiable seesaw based on the Higgs mech- In the U(1)B−L gauged model MD is arbitrary as in the anism as the origin of neutrino mass. This is manifest in SM seesaw, i.e. one has the situation described in (2). It the case of LR symmetry being charge conjugation, but is precisely here where the MLRSM stands out by hav- it turns out to be quite subtle in the case of parity. ing MD structurally predicted from the knowledge of Mν Whereas for C it is straightforward to compute MD as and MN , which is per se a great motivation for studying 11

MLRSM, besides the desire to understand the origin of and couplings of the superpartners, impedes the predic- the breaking of parity in weak interactions. tivity. One could also be more ambitious and embed the All in all, our work offers yet another conclusive evi- MLRSM in the SO(10) grand unified theory which be- dence in favor of the MLRSM standing out by being a sides providing the N’s and the seesaw, also links quark self-contained theory of neutrino mass, in complete anal- and charged lepton masses. This would be extremely ex- ogy with the SM as a theory of the origin of charged citing if the scale of LR symmetry breaking was accessi- fermion masses. ble to present day or near future colliders. Unfortunately, in the minimal predictive version of the SO(10) theory the scale of breaking of SU(2)R is predicted to be huge, above 1010GeV or so, and thus hopelessly out of reach. Acknowledgments The beauty of predicting MD or using MD to determine MN ends up being more a question of aesthetics than of We acknowledge the collaboration with Miha Ne- the directly verifiable physics. mevˇsek at the initial stages of this work. We thank Another natural theory of neutrino mass is the Min- Alessio Maiezza, Alejandra Melfo, Fabrizio Nesti and imal Supersymmetric Standard Model without the arti- Juan Carlos Vasquez for useful comments and discus- ficial assumption of R-parity conservation. It provides sions, and a careful reading of the manuscript. GS is the mixture of both the seesaw and the radiative origin deeply grateful to Biba and Miki center for healthy and of neutrino masses, and it offers the connection between happy living in the village of Vrboska, island of Hvar, the neutrinoless double beta decay and lepton number for a great hospitality extended to him during the last violation at hadronic colliders [33]. Unfortunately the stages of this work. He also acknowledges the hospitality proliferation of unknown parameters, such as the masses of Gira (Vrboska) and Karaka (Split) establishments.

[1] P. Minkowski, “Mu → E Gamma At A Rate Of One Out [9] G. Senjanović and V. Tello, “Right Handed Of 1-Billion Muon Decays?,” Phys. Lett. B 67 (1977) Quark Mixing in Left-Right Symmetric The- 421; ory,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, no. 7, 071801 (2015) [2] R. N. Mohapatra and G. Senjanović,“Neutrino Mass and doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.071801 [arXiv:1408.3835 Spontaneous Parity Violation,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 44, 912 [hep-ph]]. (1980). doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.44.912 [10] G. Senjanović and V. Tello, “Restoration of Par- [3] T. Yanagida, Workshop on unified theories and baryon ity and the Right-Handed Analog of the CKM number in the universe, ed. A. Sawada, A. Sugamoto Matrix,” Phys. Rev. D 94 (2016) no.9, 095023 (KEK, Tsukuba, 1979); doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.94.095023 [arXiv:1502.05704 S. Glashow, Quarks and leptons, Cargèse1979, ed. M. [hep-ph]]. Lévy(Plenum, NY, 1980); [11] Y. Zhang, H. An, X. Ji and R. N. Mohapatra, “General M. Gell-Mann et al., Supergravity Stony Brook workshop, CP Violation in Minimal Left-Right Symmetric Model New York, 1979, ed. P. Van Niewenhuizen, D. Freeman and Constraints on the Right-Handed Scale,” Nucl. Phys. (North Holland, Amsterdam, 1980). B 802 (2008) 247 [arXiv:0712.4218 [hep-ph]]; [4] J. A. Casas and A. Ibarra, “Oscillating neutrinos and A. Maiezza, M. Nemevˇsek,F. Nesti and G. Senjanović, muon —¿ e, gamma,” Nucl. Phys. B 618 (2001) 171 “Left-Right Symmetry at LHC,” Phys. Rev. D 82 (2010) [5] J.C. Pati, A. Salam, “Lepton Number As The Fourth 055022; [arXiv:1005.5160 [hep-ph]]. Color,” Phys. Rev. D 10 (1974) 275; M. Blanke, A. J. Buras, K. Gemmler and T. Heidsieck, R. N. Mohapatra, J.C. Pati, “A ’Natural’ Left-Right “∆F = 2 observables and B− > Xq gamma decays in the Symmetry, Phys. Rev. D 11 (1975) 2558; Left-Right Model: Higgs particles striking back,” JHEP [6] G. Senjanović,R. N. Mohapatra, “Exact Left-Right Sym- 1203 (2012) 024 [arXiv:1111.5014 [hep-ph]]; metry And Spontaneous Violation Of Parity,” Phys. Rev. S. Bertolini, J. O. Eeg, A. Maiezza and F. Nesti, “New D 12 (1975) 1502; physics in 0 from gluomagnetic contributions and limits G. Senjanović,“Spontaneous Breakdown Of Parity In A on Left-Right symmetry,” arXiv:1206.0668 [hep-ph]. Class Of Gauge Theories,” Nucl. Phys. B 153 (1979) 334. [12] S. Bertolini, A. Maiezza and F. Nesti, “Present [7] M. Nemevˇsek, G. Senjanović and V. Tello, “Con- and Future K and B Meson Mixing Constraints on necting Dirac and Majorana Neutrino Mass TeV Scale Left-Right Symmetry,” Phys. Rev. D 89, Matrices in the Minimal Left-Right Symmetric no. 9, 095028 (2014) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.89.095028 Model,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 110 (2013) no.15, 151802 [arXiv:1403.7112 [hep-ph]]. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.151802 [arXiv:1211.2837 [13] P. S. B. Dev, R. N. Mohapatra and Y. Zhang, [hep-ph]]. “Probing the Higgs Sector of the Minimal Left- [8] G. Senjanovićand V. Tello, “Probing Seesaw with Parity Right Symmetric Model at Future Hadron Colliders,” Restoration,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 119 (2017) no.20, 201803 JHEP 1605 (2016) 174 doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2016)174 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.201803 [arXiv:1612.05503 [arXiv:1602.05947 [hep-ph]]. [hep-ph]]. 12

[14] A. Maiezza and M. Nemevˇsek, “Strong P invariance, W. C. Huang and J. Lopez-Pavon, “On neutrinoless neutron electric dipole moment, and minimal left-right double beta decay in the minimal left-right sym- parity at LHC,” Phys. Rev. D 90, no. 9, 095002 (2014) metric model,” Eur. Phys. J. C 74, 2853 (2014) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.90.095002 [arXiv:1407.3678 [hep- doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-014-2853-z [arXiv:1310.0265 ph]]. [hep-ph]]. [15] M. A. B. Beg and H.-S. Tsao, “Strong P, T Noninvari- [24] S. P. Das, F. F. Deppisch, O. Kittel and J. W. F. Valle, ances in a Superweak Theory,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 41, 278 “Heavy Neutrinos and Lepton Flavour Violation in Left- (1978). doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.41.278 Right Symmetric Models at the LHC,” Phys. Rev. R. N. Mohapatra and G. Senjanović,“Natural Suppres- D 86, 055006 (2012) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.86.055006 sion of Strong p and t Noninvariance,” Phys. Lett. 79B, [arXiv:1206.0256 [hep-ph]]. 283 (1978). doi:10.1016/0370-2693(78)90243-5 J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra and F. R. Joaquim, “Measur- [16] R. N. Mohapatra, G. Senjanović,“Neutrino Masses And ing heavy neutrino couplings at the LHC,” Phys. Rev. Mixings In Gauge Models With Spontaneous Parity Vi- D 86, 073005 (2012) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.86.073005 olation,” Phys. Rev. D23 (1981) 165. [arXiv:1207.4193 [hep-ph]]. [17] A. Maiezza, G. Senjanović and J. C. Vasquez, J. C. Vasquez, “Right-handed lepton mix- “Higgs sector of the minimal left-right symmetric ings at the LHC,” JHEP 1605, 176 (2016) theory,” Phys. Rev. D 95, no. 9, 095004 (2017) doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2016)176 [arXiv:1411.5824 [hep- doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.95.095004 [arXiv:1612.09146 ph]]. [hep-ph]]. J. Gluza, T. Jelinski and R. Szafron, “Lepton num- [18] M. Magg and C. Wetterich, “Neutrino Mass Problem ber violation and ‘Diracness’ of massive neutrinos And Gauge Hierarchy,” Phys. Lett. B 94 (1980) 61. composed of Majorana states,” Phys. Rev. D 93, T. P. Cheng and L. F. Li, “Neutrino Masses, Mixings no. 11, 113017 (2016) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.93.113017 and Oscillations in SU(2) x U(1) Models of Electroweak [arXiv:1604.01388 [hep-ph]]. Interactions,” Phys. Rev. D 22, 2860 (1980). P. S. B. Dev, D. Kim and R. N. Mohapatra, “Dis- G. Lazarides, Q. Shafi and C. Wetterich, “Proton Life- ambiguating Seesaw Models using Invariant Mass Vari- time And Fermion Masses In An SO(10) Model,” Nucl. ables at Hadron Colliders,” JHEP 1601 (2016) 118 Phys. B 181 (1981) 287. doi:10.1007/JHEP01(2016)118 [arXiv:1510.04328 [hep- [19] Gantmacher F. R., The theory of matrices, Vol. 2. ph]]. Chelsea Pub. Co., New York, (1960). A. Das, P. S. B. Dev and R. N. Mohapatra, “Same [20] W.-Y. Keung, G. Senjanović,“Majorana Neutrinos And Sign versus Opposite Sign Dileptons as a Probe of The Production Of The Right-handed Charged Gauge Low Scale Seesaw Mechanisms,” Phys. Rev. D 97, Boson,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 50 (1983) 1427. no. 1, 015018 (2018) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.97.015018 [21] A. Ferrari et al., “Sensitivity study for new gauge bosons [arXiv:1709.06553 [hep-ph]]. and right-handed Majorana neutrinos in p p collisions at [25] C. Y. Chen, P. S. B. Dev and R. N. Mohapatra, “Prob- s = 14-TeV,” Phys. Rev. D 62, 013001 (2000). ing Heavy-Light Neutrino Mixing in Left-Right Seesaw [22] T. Han, I. Lewis, R. Ruiz and Z. g. Si, “Lep- Models at the LHC,” Phys. Rev. D 88, 033014 (2013) ton Number Violation and W 0 Chiral Couplings doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.88.033014 [arXiv:1306.2342 [hep- at the LHC,” Phys. Rev. D 87, no. 3, 035011 ph]]. (2013) Erratum: [Phys. Rev. D 87, no. 3, 039906 J. C. Helo, H. Li, N. A. Neill, M. Ramsey-Musolf and (2013)] doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.87.035011, 10.1103/Phys- J. C. Vasquez, “Probing Neutrino Dirac Mass in Left- RevD.87.039906 [arXiv:1211.6447 [hep-ph]]. Right Symmetric Models at the LHC and Next Genera- [23] V. Tello, M. Nemevˇsek, F. Nesti, G. Senjanović and tion Colliders,” arXiv:1812.01630 [hep-ph]. F. Vissani, “Left-Right Symmetry: from LHC to [26] W. Buchmuller and C. Greub, “Heavy Majorana neu- Neutrinoless Double Beta Decay,” Phys. Rev. Lett. trinos in electron - positron and electron - proton colli- 106, 151801 (2011) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.106.151801 sions,” Nucl. Phys. B 363, 345 (1991). doi:10.1016/0550- [arXiv:1011.3522 [hep-ph]]. 3213(91)80024-G M. Nemevˇsek, F. Nesti, G. Senjanović and V. Tello, A. Pilaftsis, “Radiatively induced neutrino masses and “Neutrinoless Double Beta Decay: Low Left-Right Sym- large Higgs neutrino couplings in the standard model metry Scale?,” arXiv:1112.3061 [hep-ph]. with Majorana fields,” Z. Phys. C 55 (1992) 275 [hep- See also ph/9901206]. J. Chakrabortty, H. Z. Devi, S. Goswami and S. Pa- [27] P. S. Bhupal Dev, R. N. Mohapatra and Y. Zhang, tra, “Neutrinoless double-β decay in TeV scale Left- “Probing TeV scale origin of neutrino mass at fu- Right symmetric models,” JHEP 1208, 008 (2012) ture lepton colliders via neutral and doubly-charged doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2012)008 [arXiv:1204.2527 [hep- scalars,” Phys. Rev. D 98, no. 7, 075028 (2018) ph]]. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.98.075028 [arXiv:1803.11167 F. F. Deppisch, M. Hirsch and H. Pas, “Neutrinoless [hep-ph]]. Double Beta Decay and Physics Beyond the Standard [28] M. Kadastik, M. Raidal and L. Rebane, “Direct Model,” J. Phys. G 39, 124007 (2012) doi:10.1088/0954- determination of neutrino mass parameters at fu- 3899/39/12/124007 [arXiv:1208.0727 [hep-ph]]. ture colliders,” Phys. Rev. D 77, 115023 (2008) J. Barry and W. Rodejohann, “Lepton number and doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.77.115023 [arXiv:0712.3912 [hep- flavour violation in TeV-scale left-right symmetric the- ph]]. ories with large left-right mixing,” JHEP 1309, 153 J. Garayoa and T. Schwetz, “Neutrino mass hierarchy (2013) doi:10.1007/JHEP09(2013)153 [arXiv:1303.6324 and Majorana CP phases within the Higgs triplet model [hep-ph]]. at the LHC,” JHEP 0803, 009 (2008) doi:10.1088/1126- 13

6708/2008/03/009 [arXiv:0712.1453 [hep-ph]]. ric model,” Phys. Rev. D 94, no. 3, 035008 (2016) [29] G. Aad et al. [ATLAS Collaboration], “Search for new doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.94.035008 [arXiv:1603.00360 resonances in mass distributions√ of jet pairs using 139 [hep-ph]]. fb−1 of pp collisions at s = 13 TeV with the ATLAS [32] A. Maiezza, M. Nemevˇsekand F. Nesti, “Lepton Num- detector,” arXiv:1910.08447 [hep-ex]. ber Violation in Higgs Decay at LHC,” Phys. Rev. Lett. [30] M. Aaboud et al. [ATLAS Collaboration], “Search 115, 081802 (2015) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.115.081802 for a right-handed gauge boson decaying into a [arXiv:1503.06834 [hep-ph]]. high-momentum heavy neutrino and a charged lep- M. Nemevˇsek, F. Nesti and J. C. Vasquez, “Majo- √ton in pp collisions with the ATLAS detector at rana Higgses at colliders,” JHEP 1704 (2017) 114 s = 13 TeV,” Phys. Lett. B 798 (2019) 134942 doi:10.1007/JHEP04(2017)114 [arXiv:1612.06840 [hep- doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2019.134942 [arXiv:1904.12679 ph]]. [hep-ex]]. [33] B. C. Allanach, C. H. Kom and H. Pas, Phys. Rev. Lett. [31] A. Maiezza, M. Nemevˇsekand F. Nesti, “Perturbativity 103, 091801 (2009) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.103.091801 and mass scales in the minimal left-right symmet- [arXiv:0902.4697 [hep-ph]].