Radiative lepton model in a non-invertible fusion rule
Extracted source text ยท arXiv 2510.17156
\documentclass[11pt,showpacs,preprintnumbers,superscriptaddress,amsmath,amssymb,aps,nofootinbib]{revtex4}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\usepackage{graphicx}% Include figure files
%\usepackage{graphicx}% Include figure files
\usepackage{dcolumn}% Align table columns on decimal point
\usepackage{bm}% bold math
\usepackage{amssymb}
\usepackage{amsmath}
\usepackage{epsfig}
\usepackage{color}
\usepackage{slashed}
\usepackage{hhline}
\usepackage{ulem}
\usepackage{bbm}
\usepackage{tikz-feynman}
\tikzfeynmanset{compat=1.1.0}
%%%%%%%%%%%%
\newcommand{\bi}{\bibitem}
\def\be{\begin{equation}}
\def\ee{\end{equation}}
\newcommand{\bea}{\begin{eqnarray}}
\newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}}
%\newcommand{\bers}{\begin{eqnarray*}}
%\newcommand{\eers}{\end{eqnarray*}}
\newcommand{\nn}{\nonumber}
\newcommand{\eV}{\mbox{eV}}
\newcommand{\MeV}{\mbox{MeV}}
\newcommand{\TeV}{\mbox{TeV}}
\newcommand{\GeV}{\mbox{GeV}}
\newcommand{\secref}[1]{Section~\ref{#1}}
%\renewcommand{\eqref}[1]{Eq.~(\ref{#1})}
\newcommand{\figref}[1]{Fig.~\ref{#1}}
\newcommand{\red}[1]{\textcolor{red}{#1}}
\newcommand{\ecm}{e \, {\rm cm}}
%\numberwithin{equation}{section}
\newcommand{\ET}{\mbox{$\not \hspace{-0.10cm} E_T$ }}
\newcommand{\modYS}[1]{\textcolor{magenta}{#1}}
\begin{document}
%{\begin{flushright}{APCTP Pre2023 - 0XX}\end{flushright}}
%%%%%%%%%
%\title{Same origin of charged-lepton masses and LFVs, lepton $g-2$, and leptonic EDMs in a non-invertible fusion rule}
\title{Radiative lepton model in a non-invertible fusion rule}
%\preprint{KYUSHU-HET-268}
\author{Takaaki Nomura}
\email{nomura@scu.edu.cn}
\affiliation{College of Physics, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610065, China}
\author{Hiroshi Okada}
\email{hiroshi3okada@htu.edu.cn}
\affiliation{Department of Physics, Henan Normal University, Xinxiang 453007, China}
\author{Yoshihiro Shigekami}
\email{shigekami@htu.edu.cn}
\affiliation{Department of Physics, Henan Normal University, Xinxiang 453007, China}
\date{\today}
\begin{abstract}
%
{
We propose a radiatively induced lepton mass model introducing a $Z_2$ gauging $Z_5$ fusion rule.
In our framework, the charged-lepton mass matrix is generated at one loop level via dynamical breaking of the fusion rule.
On the other hand, the neutrino mass matrix is induced at one-loop level without breaking the fusion rule.
As a direct consequence of the loop induced charged lepton masses, we can also consider lepton flavor violations, electron and muon $g-2$, and charged-lepton electric dipole moments that come into our valid phenomenological discussion.
%{\it Therefore, the }
Then, we perform numerical analysis and show some interesting tendency on Dirac CP phase, two Majorana phases, charged-lepton electric dipole moments and the neutrinoless double beta decay, all of which depends on their arguments where we fix the absolute values of our free parameters in order to satisfy experimental data of the lepton masses and mixing angles. }
%$A_4$
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%
\end{abstract}
\maketitle
\newpage
\section{Introduction}
%
The radiative seesaw model is one of the attractive scenarios to understand a mechanism of minuscule masses such as active neutrinos and electron at low energy scale beyond the standard model (BSM).
In addition, we can potentially discuss plenty of phenomenology such as lepton flavor violations (LFVs), electron/muon anomalous magnetic dipole moments (electron/muon $g-2$), charged-lepton electric dipole moments (EDMs), and dark matter (DM), all of which can be connected to such tiny mass particles inside the loop.
%
To obtain relevant terms in order to induce loop diagrams as leading contributions,
non-invertible fusion rules are recently applied to these kinds of models.
These selection rules possess some intriguing nature.
The first remarkable nature is that the rules can forbid undesired terms at tree level but violate at loop level in a dynamical manner.
The second one is that these rules provide an exact symmetry such as $Z_2$ that never be broken at any orders and play a role in stabilizing the DM candidate.
The third one is that they give some mass textures to reduce mass parameters in quark and lepton sectors, and possibly lead to predictions~\footnote{See the following refs.~\cite{Jiang:2025psz, Kobayashi:2025rpx, Jangid:2025krp, Okada:2025kfm, Choi:2022jqy,Cordova:2022fhg,Cordova:2022ieu,Cordova:2024ypu,Kobayashi:2024cvp,Kobayashi:2024yqq,Kobayashi:2025znw,Suzuki:2025oov,Liang:2025dkm,Kobayashi:2025ldi,Kobayashi:2025lar,Kobayashi:2025cwx,Nomura:2025sod,Dong:2025jra,Nomura:2025yoa,Chen:2025awz, Kobayashi:2025thd, Suzuki:2025bxg}, in which authors proposed several ways to apply these rules for phenomenology.}.
Note here that the second and third nature can be replaced by the other symmetries such as discrete flavor symmetries~\cite{Altarelli:2010gt,Ishimori:2010au,Kobayashi:2022moq,Ishimori:2012zz}.
{ However, the first one is totally unique for the case of non-invertible fusion rule.
These nature would pave the way for constructing new models and it is worth for exploring applications of the rule.}
In this work, we apply $Z_2$ gauging $Z_5$ fusion rule ${\bf Z_5^{NI}}$, which consists of three elements $\{ {\mathbbm I}, a, b\}$, where all are supposed to be real and commutable each other; {backgrounds and rules for $Z_2$ gauging $Z_N$ symmetry can be referred to refs.~\cite{Kobayashi:2024yqq,Kobayashi:2024cvp}}.
For these elements, we have
\begin{align}
a \otimes a = {\mathbbm I} \oplus b, \quad a \otimes b = a \oplus b, \quad b \otimes b = {\mathbbm I} \oplus a, \quad {\mathbbm I} \otimes ({\mathbbm I}, a, b) = ({\mathbbm I}, a, b).
\label{eq:Z5NIrules}
\end{align}
For a radiative lepton mass model, we introduce left- and right-handed Majorana fermions, isospin doublet inert boson $\eta$, singly charged-boson $S^-$~\footnote{We can also realize the same interactions by applying Fibonacci fusion rules that is the minimum fusion ones.
However, this scenario induces terms that are forbidden at tree level, by radiative corrections. Some of these radiative corrections include infinity that never be able to be canceled out. We thus do not adopt the minimal Fibonacci fusion rules to keep predictability of the model. We briefly show some more detail in the model part.}.
We make use of the first and second nature in the ${\bf Z_5^{NI}}$ fusion rules. Therefore, the charged-lepton mass matrix can be induced at one-loop via dynamical breaking of ${\bf Z_5^{NI}}$.
On the other hand, the neutrino mass matrix is generated at one-loop level where ${\bf Z_5^{NI}}$ provides an accidental $Z_2$ symmetry that never be broken at any order. This is the same as the case of Ma model~\cite{Ma:2006km}.
In addition, through the charged-lepton sector, we can also discuss LFVs, electron/muon $g-2$ and charged-lepton EDMs~\footnote{Even though we can discuss the nature of DM candidate, we focus on the other phenomenology such as EDMs in this paper.}.
%Before reviewing our model, we show the fusion rules of ${\bf Z_5^{NI}}$~\cite{Kobayashi:2024cvp}.
%
%${\bf Z_5^{NI}}$ consists of three elements ${\mathbbm I}, a, b$ where all are supposed to be real and commutable each other. Then, we have
%\begin{align}
%a\otimes a ={\mathbbm I}\oplus b,\quad a\otimes b =a\oplus b,\quad b\otimes b={\mathbbm I}\oplus a,\quad
%{\mathbbm I}\otimes ({\mathbbm I},a,b) = ({\mathbbm I},a,b).
%\end{align}
%%%
This paper is organized as follows.
%In section~\ref{sec:II},
In section~\ref{sec:II}, we review our lepton seesaw model and explain how to induce the small charged-lepton masses as well as the neutrino masses.
%Then, We discuss several phenomenology suhc as LFVs, charged-lepton $g-2$, and EDMs.
%
We also discuss several phenomenology related to the charged-leptons.
%
%we discuss our DM candidate and show the relevant annihilation cross sections to explain the relic density.
In section~\ref{sec:III}, we demonstrate several numerical $\chi^2$ results satisfying neutrino observables, LFVs, electron/muon $g-2$, and charged-lepton EDMs in cases of normal and inverted hierarchies.
In section~\ref{sec:IV}, we summarize and conclude.
\section{Model setup}
\label{sec:II}
%
{Here, we review our model setup in which we introduce $Z_2$ gauging $Z_5$ fusion rule ${\bf Z_5^{NI}}$.
Firstly the lepton masses at tree-level are forbidden by assigning ${\bf Z_5^{NI}}$ charge to lepton particles.
}
Then, in order to generate the lepton mass matrix at one-loop level, we introduce three families of left/right neutral Majorana fermions $N_{L/R}$, an isospin doublet inert boson $\eta \equiv [\eta^+,(\eta_R+i\eta_I)/\sqrt2]^T$ and an isospin singlet singly-charged-boson $S^-$ in addition to the SM particles.
%To forbid the lepton mass matrix at tree-level, we impose .
Moreover, $\eta$ and $S^-$ do not acquire non-zero vacuum expectation values (VEVs).
Note here that the charged-lepton mass matrix is generated by dynamically breaking of this symmetry, and LFVs, $g-2$, and EDMs have the same origin as the charged-lepton mass matrix~\cite{Khaw:2022qxh, Okada:2013iba, Okada:2014nsa}.
On the other hand the neutrino mass matrix is obtained without violating the fusion rule, as we will show later.
The particle contents and their charge assignments are summarized in Table~\ref{tab:1}.
\begin{table}[t!]
\begin{tabular}{|c||c|c|c|c||c|c|c|}\hline\hline
& ~$L_L$~ & ~$\ell_R$~ & ~${N_L}$~ & ~${N_R}$~ & ~$H$~ & ~{$\eta$}~ & ~{$S^-$}~ \\\hline\hline
$SU(2)_L$ & $\bm{2}$ & $\bm{1}$ & $\bm{1}$ & $\bm{1}$ & $\bm{2}$ & $\bm{2}$ & $\bm{1}$ \\\hline
$U(1)_Y$ & $-\frac12$ & $-1$ & $0$ & $0$ & $\frac12$ & $\frac12$ & $-1$ \\\hline
${\bf Z_5^{NI}}$ & ${b}$ & $a$ & $a$ & $a$ & $\mathbb{I}$ & $ b$ & $b$ \\\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Charge assignments of relevant fermions and bosons
under $SU(2)_L\otimes U(1)_Y \otimes {\bf Z_5^{NI}}$.
All fermions have to have three generations, and all new particles are singlet under $SU(3)_c$. }
\label{tab:1}
\end{table}
%
%
Under the symmetry, the renomalizable Lagrangian is given by
\begin{align}
- {\cal L}_\ell &=
y^\ell_{ii} \overline{L_{L_i}} \eta \ell_{R_i}
+
f^R_{ia} \overline{L_{L_i}} {\tilde \eta} N_{R_a}
+
f^L_{ia} \overline{L_{L_i}} {\tilde \eta} N_{L_a}^C
+
g^R_{ai} \overline{N_{R_a}^C} \ell_{R_i} S^+
+
g^L_{ai} \overline{N_{L_a}} \ell_{R_i} S^+ \nn\\
%%%
&
+
(M_D)_{aa} \overline{N_{L_a}} N_{R_a}
+
(M_R)_{ab} \overline{N_{R_a}^C} N_{R_b}
+
(M_L)_{ab} \overline{N_{L_a}} N_{L_b}^C+{\rm h.c.},
%
\label{eq:lpy}
\end{align}
where $\tilde\eta\equiv i\tau_2 \eta^*$ being $\tau_2$ the second Pauli matrix.
%
$y^\ell$ and $M_D$ can be diagonal matrices without loss of generality.
%
The Higgs potential is given by
\begin{align}
{\cal V} &=
-\mu_H^2 |H|^2 - \mu_\eta^2|\eta|^2 - \mu_S^2|S^-|^2
+\mu_0 \left(H^T(i\tau_2) \eta S^- +{\rm h.c.}\right)
\nn\\
&\hspace{1.2em} +\lambda_H |H|^4 +\lambda_\eta |\eta|^2 + \lambda_S |S^-|^4
+ \lambda_{H\eta} |H|^2|\eta|^2
+ \lambda'_{H\eta} |H^\dag\eta|^2
+ \lambda''_{H\eta} \left((H^\dag\eta)^2+{\rm h.c.}\right)\nn\\
%
&\hspace{1.2em} + \lambda_{H S} |H|^2 |S^-|^2 + \lambda_{\eta S} |\eta|^2 |S^-|^2 .
\label{eq:vp}
\end{align}
Especially, $\lambda''_{H\eta}$ term contributes to generating the neutrino mass matrix at one-loop level, and {$\mu_0$ term} contributes to the radiative charged-lepton mass matrix. %as can be seen later.
Before moving to see radiative mass generation for each fermion sector, we comment on the physical phases of the model.
In the Higgs potential in Eq.~\eqref{eq:vp}, there are two possible complex parameters, $\mu_0$ and $\lambda''_{H\eta}$.
These phases can be absorbed into the two phases of $H$, $\eta$ and $S^{\pm}$.
Since other parameters in the Higgs potential are real by definition, there is no physical CP source from the potential.
In the Lagrangian in Eq.~\eqref{eq:lpy}, on the other hand, we have lots of complex parameters.
It is clear that all these phases cannot be removed by considering phase redefinition for remaining fields.
As a results, we truly have physical CP sources which result in non-zero (and non-trivial) predictions for charged-lepton EDMs.
For example, following phases are invariant under any rephasing for fields:
\begin{align}
\theta_{\rm phys} = \arg \left[ \frac{f^R_{ia} g^L_{ia}}{f^L_{ia} g^R_{ia}} \right], ~ \arg \left[ \frac{(M_D)_{aa}^2}{(M_R)_{aa} (M_L)_{aa}} \right], ~ \cdots,
\label{eq:CPexample}
\end{align}
with no summation for $i, a$.
{Notice that if we use the Fibonacci rules, $1 \otimes \tau =\tau$ and $\tau \otimes \tau = 1 \oplus \tau$, assigning $\tau$ to $\eta$ and $S^-$, we can write term $(H^\dagger \eta)(\eta^\dagger \eta)$. This term can induce terms such as $(H^\dagger \eta)(H^\dagger H)$ and $\eta^\dagger H$ through radiative correction. Those radiative corrections would induce divergence which could not be eliminated as the tree level coupling is absent. In addition, $\eta^\dagger H$ term spoils inert nature of $\eta$ and the mechanism of the model does not work. Therefore we need ${\bf Z_5^{NI}}$ as a relevant minimal selection rules where $(H^\dagger \eta)(\eta^\dagger \eta)$ is forbidden as $b \otimes b \otimes b$ does not contain ${\mathbbm I}$.}
\subsection{Neutral fermion mass matrix}
The mass matrix of neutral fermion is induced via the second line of Lagrangian in Eq.~\eqref{eq:lpy}, and its form is given by
\begin{align}
\left( \begin{array}{cc}
\overline{N^C_R} & \overline{N_L}
\end{array} \right)
%
\left(\begin{array}{cc}
M_R & M_D \\
M_D &M_L
\end{array} \right)
%
\left(\begin{array}{c}
{N_R} \\ {N^C_L}
\end{array} \right) \equiv \left( \begin{array}{cc}
\overline{N^C_R} & \overline{N_L}
\end{array} \right)
%
M_N
%
\left(\begin{array}{c}
{N_R} \\ {N^C_L}
\end{array} \right)
\label{eq:cgd-mtrx},
\end{align}
where we omit generation indices, and each block is understood as $3 \times 3$ matrix.
$M_N$ is then understood as a $6 \times 6$ symmetric matrix.
Note that due to our assumption about absence of VEVs for $\{\eta, S^-\}$, neutrinos do not mix with $N_{L, R}$.
%
In order to diagonalize the above mass matrix, we suppose
\begin{align}
M_R,M_L\ll M_D,
\end{align}
which is an appropriate hypothesis when we consider the 't Hooft sense.
% that is sometimes adopted in inverse seesaw.
Then, we first transform $M_N$ as follows:
\begin{align}
M'_N \equiv V^{(1)T}_N M_N V^{(1)}_N& \equiv
%
\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\frac1{\sqrt2} & \frac1{\sqrt2} \\
-\frac1{\sqrt2}&\frac1{\sqrt2}
\end{array} \right)
%
\left(\begin{array}{cc}
M_R & M_D \\
M_D &M_L
\end{array} \right)
%
\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\frac1{\sqrt2} & -\frac1{\sqrt2} \\
\frac1{\sqrt2}&\frac1{\sqrt2}
\end{array} \right)\nn\\
&=
\left(\begin{array}{cc}
M_D+\frac{M_L+M_R}{2} & \frac{M_L-M_R}{2} \\
\frac{M_L-M_R}{2} & -M_D+\frac{M_L+M_R}{2}
\end{array} \right) \equiv
\left(\begin{array}{cc}
M_D+m_+ & m_- \\
m_- & -M_D+m_+
\end{array} \right),
\label{eq:cgd-mtrx_tree}
\end{align}
where $m_- \lesssim m_+ \ll M_D$.
$M'_N$ is then block-diagonalized as follows:
\begin{align}
&(\Omega P)^T M'_N (\Omega P)
%
=
\left(\begin{array}{cc}
M_D-m_+& {\bf 0} \\
{\bf 0} & M_D + m_+
\end{array} \right)\equiv M''_N ,
\\
& \Omega P U_N =
\left(\begin{array}{cc}
{\bf 1} & -\frac12 M^{-1}_D m_- \\
\frac12 m_-^\dag M^{-1}_D & {\bf 1}
\end{array} \right)
%
\left(\begin{array}{cc}
{\bf 0} & {\bf 1} \\
i \cdot {\bf 1} & {\bf 0}
\end{array} \right).
\end{align}
Here, bold number ${\bf 0} ({\bf 1})$ represents $3 \times 3$ zero (unit) matrix.
Finally, the above mass matrix is diagonalized by
\begin{align}
U_N^T M''_N U_N=
%
\left(\begin{array}{cc}
U_R^T & {\bf 0} \\
{\bf 0} & U_L^T
\end{array} \right)
\left(\begin{array}{cc}
M_D-m_+& {\bf 0} \\
{\bf 0} & M_D + m_+
\end{array} \right)
\left(\begin{array}{cc}
U_R & {\bf 0} \\
{\bf 0} & U_L
\end{array} \right)
=
\left(\begin{array}{cc}
D_R & {\bf 0} \\
{\bf 0} & D_L^C
\end{array} \right).
\end{align}
$M_N$ is approximately diagonalized via $V_N \equiv V^{(1)}_N \Omega P U_N$ as $V_M^T M_N V_N \sim {\rm diag} (D_R,D_L^C)$.
Note that we have used an assumption that $M_D$ should be proportional to the $3 \times 3$ unit matrix in order to achieve our diagonalization~\cite{Catano:2012kw, Kajiyama:2012xg};
\begin{align}
M_D\approx M_0 \times {\bf 1}.
\label{eq:MDsimdiag}
\end{align}
Then, $M_D\pm m_+$ is given by
\begin{align}
M_D\pm m_+
\simeq
%
\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
M_0\pm \delta_{11} &\pm \delta_{12}&\pm \delta_{13} \\
\pm \delta_{12} & M_0\pm \delta_{22} &\pm \delta_{23} \\
\pm \delta_{13} & \pm \delta_{23} &M_0 \pm \delta_{33} \\
\end{array} \right)
.
\end{align}
Since the diagonal elements are greater than all the off-diagonal elements, $M_D\pm m_+$ is approximately diagonalized by the following mixing matrices:
\begin{align}
U_{R(L)}
&\approx
\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
1 &\epsilon_{12}^{R(L)}&\epsilon_{13}^{R(L)} \\
-\epsilon_{12}^{R(L)} & 1 &\epsilon_{23}^{R(L)}\\
-\epsilon_{13}^{R(L)}&-\epsilon_{23}^{R(L)}& 1
\end{array} \right),\quad
%%%
\epsilon_{ij}^{R(L)} \approx - \frac{\delta_{ij}}{\delta_{ii}-\delta_{jj}},\quad (i\neq j)\ .
%
\end{align}
%where $i\neq j$.
%
Since $\epsilon^{R(L)}$ is expected to be tiny, we suppose $|\delta_{ij}|
\ll |\delta_{ii}|$ for $i \neq j$ with $i/j = 1, 2, 3$.
As a result, we find mass eigenstates for $N_{R, L}$ as
%
\begin{align}
N_{R_a} \equiv \sum_{\alpha=1} ^6 (V_N)_{a\alpha} \psi_{R_\alpha},\quad
N^C_{L_a} \equiv \sum_{\alpha=1}^6 (V_N)_{a+3, \alpha} \psi_{R_\alpha}.
\label{eq:masseigenNRL}
\end{align}
Hereafter, mass eigenvalues for $\psi_{R_\alpha}$ are indicated by $D_{\alpha}$.
%
%
%respectively.
\subsection{Charged-lepton mass matrix}
The mass matrix of charged-leptons is induced at one-loop level via the following relevant Lagrangian:
\[
f_{ia}^R \overline{L_{L_i}} {\tilde \eta} N_{R_a}
+
g_{bj}^L \overline{N_{L_b}} \ell_{R_j} S^+
+
f_{ia}^L \overline{L_{L_i}} {\tilde \eta} N_{L_a}^C
+
g_{bj}^R \overline{N_{R_b}^C} \ell_{R_j} S^+ +{\rm h.c.},
%-\mu_0 H^T(i\tau_2) \eta S^-
\]
where $\mu_0 H^T(i\tau_2) \eta S^- $ plays a role in connecting $S^{\pm}$ and $\eta^{\pm}$ to construct the one-loop diagram~\footnote{Hereafter, we compute the loop diagrams with a method of mass insertion approximation.
In particular, we do not perform diagonalizatoin for new scalar particles. }.
%
Then, these terms are rewritten in terms of mass eigenstates of $N_{L,R}$ ($\psi_{R_\alpha}$ in Eq.~\eqref{eq:masseigenNRL}) as follows (summation for $a, b$ are implicitly understood):
\begin{align}
&\frac{f_{ia}^R (V_N)_{a\alpha}}{\sqrt2} \overline{\ell_{L_i}} \eta^- \psi_{R_\alpha}
+
(V_N^T)_{\alpha,b+3}g_{bj}^L \overline{\psi^C_{R_\alpha}} \ell_{R_j} S^+
+
\frac{f_{ia}^L (V_N)_{a+3,\alpha}}{\sqrt2} \overline{\ell_{L_i}} \eta^- \psi_{R_\alpha}
+
(V_N^T)_{\alpha,b}g_{bj}^R \overline{\psi^C_{R_\alpha}} \ell_{R_j} S^+ \nn \\
%+-\mu_0 H^T(i\tau_2) \eta S^- +{\rm h.c.}
%%%
&\equiv
F_{i\alpha} \overline{\ell_{L_i}} \eta^- \psi_{R_\alpha}
+
G_{\alpha j} \overline{\psi^C_{R_\alpha}} \ell_{R_j} S^+ ,
%
%+F^L_{i\alpha} \overline{\ell_{L_i}} \eta^- \psi_{R_\alpha} + G^R_{\alpha j} \overline{\psi^C_{R_\alpha}} \ell_{R_j} S^+
\end{align}
where we define $F_{i \alpha} \equiv \sum_{a = 1}^3 \left[f_{ia}^R (V_N)_{a\alpha}+f_{ia}^L (V_N)_{a+3,\alpha}\right]/\sqrt2$ and $G_{\alpha j} \equiv \sum_{b = 1}^3 \left[(V_N^T)_{\alpha,b+3}g_{bj}^L+ (V_N^T)_{\alpha,b}g_{bj}^R\right]$. %are defined.
%where $F \equiv \sum_{\alpha=1}^6\left[f_{ia}^R (V_N)_{a\alpha}+f_{ia}^L (V_N)_{a+3,\alpha}\right]/\sqrt2$ and $G\equiv \sum_{\alpha=1}^6\left[(V_N^T)_{\alpha,b+3}g_{bj}^L+ (V_N^T)_{\alpha,b}g_{bj}^R\right]$.
The resultant mass matrix for charged-lepton is given by
\begin{align}
(m_\ell)_{ij} &= \frac{v_H \mu'_0}{\sqrt{2} (4\pi)^2 M_0}
\frac{ \tilde F_{i\alpha} \tilde D_\alpha \tilde G_{\alpha j}} { \tilde D_\alpha^2 - \tilde m_S^2}
%
\left[
\frac{ \tilde D_\alpha^2 } { \tilde D_\alpha^2 - \tilde m_S^2} \ln\left(\frac{\tilde D^2_\alpha}{\tilde m^2_S}\right)
+
\frac{ \tilde D_\alpha^2 } { \tilde D_\alpha^2 - \tilde m_\eta^2} \ln\left(\frac{\tilde D^2_\alpha}{\tilde m^2_\eta}\right)
\right],
\end{align}
where $\mu'_0\equiv f^R_{33} g^R_{33} \mu_0$, $M_0$ is a typical scale of $M_D$ (see Eq.~\eqref{eq:MDsimdiag}), $\tilde m_{S,\eta} \equiv m_{S,\eta}/M_0$, $\tilde D_\alpha \equiv D_\alpha/M_0$, $\tilde F\equiv F/f^R_{33}$, and $\tilde G\equiv G/g^R_{33}$ with $f^R_{33},\ g^R_{33}$ being respectively $(3, 3)$ component of $f^R$ and $g^R$.
We define the diagonalization of $m_{\ell}$ as $D_\ell \equiv V^\dag_{e_L} m_\ell V_{e_R}$.
\subsection{Active neutrino mass matrix}
%In this subsection,
The active neutrino mass is induced at one-loop level through interaction terms with couplings $F$ and $(H^\dag \eta)^2$, and given by~\cite{Ma:2006km}
%
\begin{align}
(m_\nu)_{ij} &= \frac{(f^R_{33})^2 M_0}{(4\pi)^2}
\tilde F_{ia} \tilde D_\alpha \tilde F^T_{aj}
%
\left[
\frac{\tilde m_R^2}{\tilde m_R^2- \tilde D_\alpha^2} \ln\left[\frac{\tilde m_R^2}{ \tilde D_\alpha^2}\right]
-
\frac{\tilde m_I^2}{\tilde m_I^2- \tilde D_\alpha^2} \ln\left[\frac{\tilde m_I^2}{ \tilde D_\alpha^2}\right]
\right]\\
&\equiv
\kappa_\nu (\tilde m_{\nu})_{ij},
%
\label{eq:neutmass}
\end{align}
where $\kappa_\nu\equiv (f^R_{33})^2 M_0$, $m_R\equiv M_0 \tilde m_R$ is the mass of $\eta_R$ and $m_I \equiv M_0 \tilde m_I$ is that of $\eta_I$.
We define
$m_\nu$ is diagonalized by $D_\nu = U^T_\nu m_\nu U_\nu$.
%%
Then, the observed mixing matrix $U\equiv V_{e_L}^\dag U_\nu$ and
$\kappa_\nu$ can be rewritten in terms of rescaled neutrino mass eigenvalues $\tilde D_\nu(\equiv D_\nu/\kappa_\nu)$ and atmospheric neutrino
mass-squared difference $\Delta m_{\rm atm}^2$ as follows:
\begin{align}
({\rm NH}):\ \kappa^2_\nu= \frac{|\Delta m_{\rm atm}^2|}{\tilde D_{\nu_3}^2-\tilde D_{\nu_1}^2},
\quad
({\rm IH}):\ \kappa^2_\nu= \frac{|\Delta m_{\rm atm}^2|}{\tilde D_{\nu_2}^2-\tilde D_{\nu_3}^2},
\end{align}
where NH and IH respectively stand for the normal
and inverted hierarchies, respectively.
Subsequently, the solar neutrino mass-squared difference is determined by the relation
\begin{align}
\Delta m_{\rm sol}^2= {\kappa^2_\nu}({\tilde D_{\nu_2}^2-\tilde D_{\nu_1}^2}).
\end{align}
%
The {effective mass for} neutrinoless double beta decay can be written by
\begin{align}
\langle m_{ee}\rangle=\kappa_\nu
|\tilde D_{\nu_1} \cos^2\theta_{12} \cos^2\theta_{13}+\tilde D_{\nu_2} \sin^2\theta_{12} \cos^2\theta_{13}e^{i\alpha_{2}}+\tilde D_{\nu_3} \sin^2\theta_{13}e^{i(\alpha_{3}-2\delta_{CP})}|,
\end{align}
where $\theta_{12,23,13}$ are mixing angles for $U$ in the standard parametrization, $\delta_{CP}$ is a Dirac CP phase, and $\alpha_{2, 3}$ are Majorana phases, defined in Majonara phase matrix $P$ as $P \equiv {\rm diag} (1,e^{\alpha_2/2},e^{\alpha_3/2})$.
%is Majorana phase matrix.
%
A predicted value of $\langle m_{ee} \rangle$ is constrained by the current KamLAND-Zen data; $\langle m_{ee}\rangle<(28-122)$ meV at 90 \% confidence level~\cite{KamLAND-Zen:2024eml}.
%
Furthermore the sum of neutrino masses is constrained by the minimal standard cosmological model $\Lambda_{\rm CDM} + \sum D_{\nu}$ that provides the upper bound $\sum D_{\nu}\le$ 120 meV~\cite{Vagnozzi:2017ovm, Planck:2018vyg}, although it becomes weaker if the data are analyzed in the context of extended cosmological models~\cite{ParticleDataGroup:2014cgo}.
%%%
Recently, DESI and CMB data combination provides more stringent upper bound on the sum as $\sum D_{\nu}\le$ 72 meV~\cite{DESI:2024mwx}.
%%%
Direct search for neutrino mass is done by the Karlsruhe Tritium Neutrino (KATRIN) experiment~\cite{KATRIN:2021uub},
which is the first sub-eV sensitivity on $m_{\nu_e}^2=(0.26\pm0.34)$ eV$^2$ at 90 \% CL.
Here,
$m_{\nu_e}^2$%\equiv \sum_i|U_{ei}|^2 D^2_{\nu_i}$
is defined by
\begin{align}
\kappa^2_\nu
\left[(\tilde D_{\nu_1} \cos\theta_{13}\cos\theta_{12})^2+(\tilde D_{\nu_2} \cos\theta_{13}\sin\theta_{12})^2+(\tilde D_{\nu_3} \sin\theta_{13})^2\right].
\end{align}
%We also take this experiment in account in our numerical analysis below.
In numerical analysis, we will adopt NuFit 6.0~\cite{Esteban:2024eli} to experimental ranges of neutrino observables in addition to the above constraints of neutrino masses.
\subsection{LFVs, charged-lepton $g-2$ and EDMs}
\label{sec:pheno}
In this subsection, we will discuss LFVs, charged-lepton $g-2$ and EDMs, in order to compare with the experimental constraints in the numerical analyses.
%to compare the experimental constraints.
%
The dominant LFVs and charged-lepton $g-2$ and EDMs
%muon $g-2$
are induced via the following terms:
\begin{align}
F'_{i \alpha} \overline{\ell_{L_i}} \psi_{R_\alpha} \eta^-
+
G'_{\alpha j}\overline{\psi^C_{R_\alpha}} \ell_{R_j} S^+
+{\rm h.c.},
\end{align}
where $F'\equiv V^\dag_{e_L} F$, $G'\equiv G V_{e_R}$, and all the above partices are supposed to be mass eigenstates.
Then, the branching ratios for LFVs, charged-lepton $g-2$ and EDMs are respectively given by
\begin{align}
&{\rm BR}(\ell_i\to \ell_j\gamma)\approx
\frac{48\pi^3 C_{ij} \alpha_{\rm em} }{G^2_F m_{\ell_i}^2}
\left[ |a_{R_{ij}}|^2 + | a_{L_{ij}} |^2 \right], \\
%
& \Delta a_{\ell_i} \approx - m_{\ell_i}
\left[ a_{R_{ii}}+ a_{L_{ii}} \right],
\quad
d_{\ell_i} =\frac{e}{2}{\rm Im} \left[a_{R_{ii}} - a_{L_{ii}} \right],
\end{align}
where $G_F$ is Fermi constant, $\alpha_{\rm em}\approx 1/137$ is fine structure constant, and $C_{21}\approx1$, $C_{31}\approx0.1784$, $C_{32}\approx0.1736$, $(\ell_1, \ell_2, \ell_3) \equiv (e, \mu, \tau)$.
%$(m_{\ell_1}, m_{\ell_2}, m_{\ell_3}) \equiv (m_e, m_{\mu}, m_{\tau})$.
%, $m_{\ell_2}\equiv m_\mu$, and $m_{\ell_3}\equiv m_\tau$.
$a_R$ and $a_L$ in our model are respectively computed as follows:
\begin{align}
a_{R_{ij}} &\approx \frac{\sqrt2 v_H \mu'_0}{(4\pi)^2 M^3_0} \tilde F'_{j\alpha} \tilde D_\alpha \tilde G'_{\alpha i} F_{lfvs},
\quad
a_{L_{ij}} \approx \frac{\sqrt2 v_H \mu'_0}{(4\pi)^2 M^3_0} \tilde G'^\dag_{j\alpha} \tilde D_\alpha \tilde F'^\dag_{\alpha i} F_{lfvs},\\[0.5ex]
%%%
F_{lfvs} &=\int dx_1dx_2dx_3dx_4x_5\delta(1-x_1-x_2-x_3-x_4-x_5)
\left(
\frac{3}{\Delta^2} + \frac{\tilde m_S^2+\tilde m^2_\eta}{\Delta^3} \right),
\end{align}
where $\Delta\equiv x_1 \tilde D^2_\alpha + (x_2 +x_4) \tilde m^2_S+ (x_3 +x_5) \tilde m^2_\eta$ and $x_i$s are Feynman parameters.
%
%
Experimental upper bounds and future prospects for the branching ratios of the LFV decays are given by~\cite{MEG:2016leq, BaBar:2009hkt,Renga:2018fpd,MEGII:2023ltw}
\begin{align}
& {\rm Current}:
{\rm BR}(\mu \to e \gamma)\lesssim 3.1\times10^{-13},\quad
{\rm BR}(\tau \to e \gamma)\lesssim 3.3\times10^{-8},\quad
{\rm BR}(\tau \to \mu \gamma)\lesssim 4.4\times10^{-8},\\
%%%
& {\rm Future}:
{\rm BR}(\mu \to e \gamma)\lesssim 6.0\times10^{-14},\quad
{\rm BR}(\tau \to e \gamma)\lesssim 9.0\times10^{-9},\quad
{\rm BR}(\tau \to \mu \gamma)\lesssim 6.9\times10^{-9}.
\end{align}
%
%
%Lepton $g-2$ is recently close to the prediction of the SM~\cite{Aliberti:2025beg} adopting current Lattice results which is within 1$\sigma$;
Experimental results for charged-lepton $g-2$ at 1$\sigma$ are given by~\cite{Fan:2022oyb,Fan:2022eto,ParticleDataGroup:2024cfk,Morel:2020dww}~\footnote{For $\Delta a_e$, there is another result by using the fine-structure constant $\alpha$ determined by ${}^{133}{\rm C_s}$, whose result has opposite sign, $\Delta a_e = (-10.1 \pm 2.7) \times 10^{-13}$~\cite{Parker:2018vye}. }
\begin{eqnarray}
&& {\rm Current}:
\Delta a_e \simeq (3.41 \pm 1.64) \times 10^{-13}, \quad
\Delta a_\mu \simeq (39 \pm 64) \times 10^{-11},
\\
&& {\rm Past}:
\Delta a_e \simeq (4.8 \pm 3.0) \times 10^{-13}, \quad \Delta a_\mu \simeq (25.1 \pm 5.9) \times 10^{-10}~[49]
%~\cite{Muong-2:2021ojo}
\ {\rm or}\
(24.9 \pm 4.8) \times 10^{-10}~[50].\nn\\
%~\cite{Muong-2:2023cdq}
\end{eqnarray}
%
%
%
Experimental upper bounds for EDMs are respectively given by~\cite{Abada:2024hpb}
\begin{align}
& |d_e| < 4.1\times 10^{-30} \ \ecm \ ({\rm JILA}),
\quad
|d_\mu| < 1.9\times 10^{-19} \ \ecm \ ({\rm Muon\ g-2}), \\
%%%
& |{\rm Re}(d_\tau)| < 4.5\times 10^{-17} \ \ecm \ ({\rm Belle}),
\quad
|{\rm Im}(d_\tau)| < 2.5\times 10^{-17} \ \ecm \ ({\rm Belle}).
\end{align}
%
Furthermore, indirect bounds for the muon and tau EDMs provide more stringent constraints than the direct experimental ones, which are obtained by evaluating the muon-loop induced light-by-light CP odd amplitude~\cite{Ema:2021jds, Ema:2022wxd}:
\begin{align}
%%%
|d_\mu| < 6.3\times 10^{-21} \ \ecm,
%|d_\mu| < 1.7\times 10^{-20} \ \ecm,
\quad
|d_\tau| < 4.1\times 10^{-19} \ \ecm,
%|d_\tau| < 1.1\times 10^{-18} \ \ecm.
%\ ({\rm Belle}).
\end{align}
by using the latest electron EDM bound.
Note that these bounds are obtained by the current electron EDM bound, and therefore, an improvement of the electron EDM bound will also push down these upper bounds.
%We compare these experimental bounds with our results.
\section{Numerical results}
\label{sec:III}
Here, we perform $\Delta \chi^2$ numerical analysis and investigate our allowed regions to satisfy whole the experimental results discussed above.
% We apply for the best fit values of the neutrino oscillation data referred to Nufit 6.0~\cite{Esteban:2024eli} without SK atmospheric data.
Here, we assume all the relevant observables to be the Gaussian distribution under the $\Delta \chi^2$ analysis, and hence,
\begin{align}
\Delta \chi^2 = \sum_{i} \left( \frac{O_i^{\rm obs} - O_i^{\rm th}}{\delta O_i^{\rm exp}} \right)^2, \label{eq:chi-square}
\end{align}
where $O_i^{\rm obs (th)}$ is observed (theoretically obtained) value of corresponding observables and $\delta O_i^{\rm exp}$ indicates the experimental error at $1\sigma$.
%
We adopt four reliable observables; $\{\sin^2 \theta_{12}, \sin^2 \theta_{13}, \Delta m^2_{\rm atm}, \Delta m^2_{\rm sol} \}$, to estimate the $\Delta \chi^2$ analysis and take our allowed regions up to 5$\sigma$~\footnote{$3\sigma$ with four degrees of freedom corresponds to $\Delta\chi^2\approx34.555$~\cite{Okada:2019lzv}. }.
On the other hand, we independently request $\sin^2 \theta_{23}$ to be within 3$\sigma$ level of Nufit 6.0, since the experimental error is deviated from Gaussian distribution.
%
%
In our parameter space, we fix $f^R = f^L$ and $g^R=g^L$ for simplicity~
\footnote{Note that, this simplification does not eliminate all physical CP phases in our model: As mentioned in Eq.~\eqref{eq:CPexample}, we still have second example of the physical CP phase, as well as other ones which coming from, e.g., off-diagonal elements of $f^{R (L)}$, $g^{R (L)}$ and $M_{R, L}$.
Therefore, we can discuss predictions for charged-lepton EDMs in our models.}. Then, we randomly select our input parameters as follows:
\begin{align}
&
10^{-3} \le \frac{|\delta_{11,22,33}|}{\rm GeV} \le 0.1, \quad
10^{-5} \le \frac{|\delta_{12,13,23}|}{\rm GeV} \le 10^{-3}, \quad
10^{-5} \le \frac{|m_{-}|}{\rm GeV} \le 0.1, \label{eq:input1}\\
%
&
10^{-7}\le \delta \tilde m \le 10^{-5}, \quad
10^{-5} \le {|f_R|} \le 1, \quad
10^{-5} \le {|g_R|} \le 0.1, \\
%
&
100\le \frac{M_0}{\rm GeV} \le 10^5, \quad
0.1\le \frac{\mu'_0}{\rm GeV} \le 10, \quad
0.1\le \tilde m_I \le 10, \quad
10^{-6} \le \tilde m_S \le 10^{-4}, \label{eq:input3}
%&
%10^{-7}\le \delta \tilde m \le 10^{-5}, \quad
%10^{-6}\le \tilde m_S \le 10^{-4},
\end{align}
where $\delta_{ij}$ is the component of $m_+$, $\tilde m_R\equiv \tilde m_I+\delta \tilde m$, $\tilde m_\eta\equiv \tilde m_I$.
%$\delta'_{ij}$ is the component of $m_-$,
Arguments run over $[-\pi,+\pi]$.
~\footnote{If there are no symbols of absolute values $|\cdots|$ in Eqs.~(\ref{eq:input1})-(\ref{eq:input3}), such parameters are considered as real parameters.}
Note that arbitrary three components of $g^R$ can directly be determined by charged-lepton mass matrix putting experimental results for charged-lepton masses.
Here, we select $g^R_{11,22,32}$.
Starting at the above regions in our input parameters, we specify the parameter space of their absolute values to fit the neutrino mass-square differences, three mixing angles, LFVs, and lepton $g-2$~\footnote{This is because there are too many parameters and too much time to find out all the allowed regions. }.
%
%While
But, we keep the wide ranges of their arguments that play a crucial role in determining the Dirac CP phase $\delta_{CP}$, two Majorana phases $\alpha_{2,3}$ and EDMs $d_{e,\mu,\tau}$.
\subsection{NH}
At first, we show our benchmark point that does not depend on phases in Table~\ref{tab:BF_nh}.
The best fit (BF) value corresponds to $\Delta\chi_{\rm min} \approx 1.06$.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\begin{table}[tb]
\setlength\tabcolsep{0.2cm}
\begin{tabular}{c|c||c|c||c|c}
% \toprule
\hline
parameter & BF & parameter & BF & parameter & BF \\ \hline \hline
$s_{12}$ & $0.553$ & $s_{23}$ & 0.763 &$s_{13}$ &0.147 \\ \hline
$\Delta m^2_{\rm sol}$ & $7.32\times10^{-23}$ GeV$^2$
& $\Delta m^2_{\rm atm}$ & $2.54\times10^{-21}$ GeV$^2$ &
$~$ & $~$ \\ \hline
$m_{\nu_e}$ & 27.9 meV &
$\sum D_\nu $ & 111 meV & $D_{\nu_1}$ & 26.5 meV \\ \hline
$m_e$ & 0.000511\ GeV & $m_\mu$ & 0.106\ GeV & $m_\tau$ & 1.777\ GeV \\ \hline
$\Delta a_e$ & $8.74\times10^{-17}$ &$\Delta a_\mu$ & $2.52\times10^{-12}$ &$~$ & ~ \\ \hline
%
BR($\mu\to e\gamma$) & $3.54\times10^{-24}$
&BR($\tau\to e\gamma$) & $2.35\times10^{-27}$
& BR($\tau\to \mu\gamma$) & $4.08\times10^{-21}$ \\
% \bottomrule
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{\label{tab:BF_nh}%
Best-fit experimental values in the NH case, corresponding to $\Delta\chi_{\rm min} \approx 1.06$.
Here we display these values that only depend on absolute values. }
\end{table}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
It is clear that the branching ratios for LFVs are enough small to satisfy current bounds.
Moreover, the prediction of $\Delta a_{\mu}$ is within $1\sigma$ of current results, while that of $\Delta a_e$ is within $3\sigma$.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\begin{figure}[tb]\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=100mm]{figs/mee_nh.pdf}
\caption{Allowed regions for $\langle m_{ee}\rangle$ in terms of phases $\delta_{\rm CP}$ (blue), $\alpha_2$ (red), and $\alpha_3$ (green) in case of NH.
Brown (lower) and purple (upper) dashed lines correspond to $\langle m_{ee} \rangle = 28 \ {\rm meV}$ and $122 \ {\rm meV}$, respectively.
% \modYS{(correct?)} -> Yes, correct!
}
\label{fig:nh1}
\end{center}\end{figure}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%
Under Table~\ref{tab:BF_nh}, we figure out the neutrinoless double beta decay in terms of phases $\delta_{\rm CP}$, $\alpha_2$, and $\alpha_3$ in Fig.~\ref{fig:nh1}, as blue, red and green points, respectively.
The maximum value of neutrinoless double beta decay just reaches the upper limit of 28 meV.
We find the following allowed region-tendencies of phases; $30^\circ \lesssim \delta_{\rm CP} \lesssim 60^\circ$, $200^\circ \lesssim \delta_{\rm CP} \lesssim 240^\circ$, $-10^\circ \lesssim \alpha_2 \lesssim 0^\circ$ and $-10^\circ \lesssim \alpha_3 \lesssim 20^\circ$.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\begin{figure}[tb]\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=56mm]{figs/de_nh.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=53mm]{figs/dmu_nh.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=53mm]{figs/dtau_NH.pdf}
\caption{Allowed regions for EDMs in terms of phases $\delta_{\rm CP}$, $\alpha_2$, and $\alpha_3$ in case of NH, with same color manner as in Fig.~\ref{fig:nh1}.
Black dashed line is the direct experimental upper bound, while brown one corresponds to the indirect upper bound. }
\label{fig:nh2}
\end{center}\end{figure}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Next, we show our EDM predictions of $|d_e|$ (left), $|d_\mu|$ (center) and $|d_\tau|$ (right) for the case of NH in Fig.~\ref{fig:nh2}, in term of three phases, where each of color plots are the same as the one in Fig.~\ref{fig:nh1}.
These figures suggest that $|d_e|$ reaches the experimental upper bound $4.1 \times 10^{-30} \ \ecm$, while typical values of muon and tau EDM are $|d_{\mu}| \simeq (1$-$4) \times 10^{-25} \ \ecm$ and $|d_{\tau}| \simeq (2$-$6) \times 10^{-24} \ \ecm$.
%$|d_{\mu,\tau}|$ are respectively $10^{-25}$ecm and $(1-5)\times10^{-24}$ecm.
Interestingly, the constraint $|d_e| < 4.1 \times 10^{-30} \ \ecm$ results in $\langle m_{ee} \rangle \lesssim 28$ meV, which is more stringent upper limit of the neutrinoless double beta decay.
It is also emphasized that the predictions of $|d_{\mu}|$ and $|d_{\tau}|$ are several orders of magnitude larger than those from the minimal-flavor violation relation: $|d_{\mu}| \simeq |d_e| (m_{\mu} / m_e) \lesssim 8.5 \times 10^{-28} \ \ecm$ and $|d_{\tau}| \simeq |d_e| (m_{\tau} / m_e) \lesssim 1.4 \times 10^{-26} \ \ecm$.
This is because origins of physical CP phases for $d_{e, \mu, \tau}$ are different from each other.
Another interesting point is mostly fixed predictions of $|d_{\mu}|$ and $|d_{\tau}|$ are obtained %almost fixed
by the focused benchmark point. {
%where
This is because they tend to be determined by the arguments whose allowed region is narrow
%depend only on narrower regions of arguments
for our input parameters,
while $|d_e|$ tends to be predicted by
%depend on
wide ones.~\footnote{{In fact, we found that some arguments are required to be narrow range for fitting the experimental observables, while some of them are not so strictly constrained.
Although it might be interesting to explore its dependence, we will not show them in detail, since we have a lot of parameters.
Note here that absolute values of $d_\mu$ and $d_\tau$ are much larger than those of $d_e$.}}}
%
%\if0
%\modYS{\bf I want to confirm whether the following statement is correct or not.}
%This is because $d_e$ is determined mainly by $\delta_{CP}$, while $d_{\mu, \tau}$ is mainly by $\alpha_{2, 3}$.
%\fi
%
%{\color{red}
%%While allowed range of $|d_e|$ is wider than the one of $|d_\mu|$ and $|d_\tau|$.
%This is because $|d_e|$ tends to depend on wider allowed regions of arguments for our input parameters.}~\footnote{{\color{red} In fact, we found some arguments allow wider ranges, while some arguments narrower, in our input parameters. However since we have a lot parameters, we will not show them in details. }}
\subsection{IH}
%
Next, we show our benchmark point that does not depend on phases in Table~\ref{tab:BF_ih}.
The BF value results in $\Delta\chi_{\rm min} \approx 0.539$.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\begin{table}[tb]
\setlength\tabcolsep{0.2cm}
\begin{tabular}{c|c||c|c||c|c}
% \toprule
\hline
parameter & BF & parameter & BF & parameter & BF \\ \hline \hline
$s_{12}$ & $0.557$ & $s_{23}$ & 0.695 &$s_{13}$ &0.150 \\ \hline
$\Delta m^2_{\rm sol}$ & $7.60\times10^{-23}$ GeV$^2$
& $\Delta m^2_{\rm atm}$ & $2.47\times10^{-21}$ GeV$^2$ &
$~$ & $~$ \\ \hline
$m_{\nu_e}$ & 48.6 meV &
$\sum D_\nu $ & 98.6 meV & $D_{\nu_3}$ & 0.0166 meV \\ \hline
$m_e$ & 0.000511\ GeV & $m_\mu$ & 0.106\ GeV & $m_\tau$ & 1.777\ GeV \\ \hline
$\Delta a_e$ & $7.35\times10^{-16}$ &$\Delta a_\mu$ & $2.95\times10^{-11}$ &$~$ & ~ \\ \hline
%
BR($\mu\to e\gamma$) & $3.93\times10^{-20}$
&BR($\tau\to e\gamma$) & $1.78\times10^{-23}$
& BR($\tau\to \mu\gamma$) & $2.64\times10^{-17}$ \\
% \bottomrule
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{\label{tab:BF_ih}%
Best-fit experimental values in the IH case, corresponding to $\Delta\chi_{\rm min} \approx 0.539$. Here we select the above values that dominantly depends on absolute values. }
\end{table}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Compared with the case of NH, we obtain about one order of magnitude larger $\Delta a_e$ and $\Delta a_{\mu}$.
On the other hand, we found that the IH case predicts about four orders of magnitude larger LFVs than those in the NH case, which still satisfy the current bounds.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\begin{figure}[tb]\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=100mm]{figs/mee_ih.pdf}
\caption{Allowed regions for $\langle m_{ee}\rangle$ in terms of phases $\delta_{\rm CP}$ (blue), $\alpha_2$ (red), and $\alpha_3$ (green) in case of IH.
The meanings of dashed lines are same as in Fig.~\ref{fig:nh1}. }
\label{fig:ih1}
\end{center}\end{figure}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%
Under Table~\ref{tab:BF_ih}, we figure out the neutrinoless double beta decay in terms of phases $\delta_{\rm CP}$, $\alpha_2$, and $\alpha_3$ in Fig.~\ref{fig:ih1}, with same color manner as in Fig.~\ref{fig:nh1}.
The several points exceed the upper limit of 28 meV, and the maximum value reaches 33.5 meV.
We find $\delta_{\rm CP}$ is localized at nearby $0^{\circ}$ and $180^\circ$, while Majorana phases are $\alpha_2 \sim 355^\circ$ and $-20^\circ \lesssim \alpha_3 \lesssim 0^\circ$.
%localized at $0^{\circ}$.
%$30^\circ\lesssim\delta_{\rm CP}\lesssim60^\circ$, $200^\circ\lesssim\delta_{\rm CP}\lesssim250^\circ$, $\alpha_{2,3}\approx 0^\circ$,
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\begin{figure}[tb]\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=53mm]{figs/de_ih.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=53mm]{figs/dmu_ih.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=53mm]{figs/dtau_ih.pdf}
\caption{Same plot as Fig.~\ref{fig:nh2}, but for the case of IH. }
%\caption{Allowed regions for EDMs in terms of phases $\delta_{\rm CP}$(blue plots), $\alpha_2$(red ones), and $\alpha_3$(green ones) in case of IH.}
\label{fig:ih2}
\end{center}\end{figure}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
In Fig.~\ref{fig:ih2}, we show EDMs $|d_e|$ (left), $|d_\mu|$ (center), and $|d_\tau|$ (right),
%for the case of IH,
in term of three phases, where each of color plots are the same as the one in Fig.~\ref{fig:nh1}.
These figures suggest that $|d_e|$ can reach the experimental upper bound $4.1 \times 10^{-30} \ \ecm$, but typical values of $|d_{\mu, \tau}|$ are respectively $10^{-24} \ \ecm$ and $10^{-23} \ \ecm$.
Interestingly, the constraint $|d_e| < 4.1 \times 10^{-30} \ \ecm$ leads us to the similar result of the NH case; $\langle m_{ee} \rangle \lesssim 33.5$ meV which is just above the stringent upper limit of the neutrinoless double beta decay.
The EDM dependencies are similar to those in the NH case.
\if0
\modYS{\bf I want to confirm whether the following statement is correct or not.}
However, due to smaller ranges for $\alpha_{2, 3}$, $|d_{\mu, \tau}|$ are not largely deviated from its typical values, compared with the case of NH.
\fi
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\section{Summary and discussion}
\label{sec:IV}
We have proposed a radiatively induced lepton mass model by introducing a $Z_2$ gauging $Z_5$ fusion rule {to forbid tree level lepton masses while keeping relevant interactions to induce them via radiative corrections.}
%However, each the mass generation mechanism is different between the charged-lepton and neutrino sector.
The charged-lepton mass matrix is generated at one loop level via dynamical breaking of the fusion rule.
On the other hand, the neutrino mass matrix is induced at one-loop level without breaking the fusion rule.
These facts lead us to discuss LFVs, electron and muon $g-2$ and charged-lepton EDMs, where these phenomenology originate from the charged-lepton sector.
%These facts result in that LFVs, electron and muon $g-2$ and charged-lepton EDMs come into our valid discussion, where these phenomenology originate from the charged-lepton sector.
%Then, we have performed the numerical analysis.
Due to too many free parameters, we have specified the absolute values of parameter set in order to fit the neutrino oscillation data and the charged-lepton mass observables.
In addition, we have fixed the set of best fit values in cases of NH and IH.
Then, once we have randomly selected the arguments of our free parameters and scanned whole their ranges, we have obtained our observables such as the Dirac CP phase, two Majorana phases, charged-lepton EDMs and the neutrinoless double beta decay, all of which depends on their arguments.
As results of our numerical analyses, we have found several interesting tendencies; $30^\circ \lesssim \delta_{\rm CP} \lesssim 60^\circ$, $200^\circ \lesssim \delta_{\rm CP} \lesssim 240^\circ$, $-10^\circ \lesssim \alpha_2 \lesssim 0^\circ$ and $-10^\circ \lesssim \alpha_3 \lesssim 20^\circ$ in NH, and
%$30^\circ\lesssim\delta_{\rm CP}\lesssim60^\circ$, $200^\circ\lesssim\delta_{\rm CP}\lesssim250^\circ$, and $\alpha_{2,3}\approx 0^\circ$ in NH,
$\delta_{\rm CP} \sim 0^{\circ}, \ 180^\circ$, $\alpha_2 \sim 355^\circ$ and $-20^\circ \lesssim \alpha_3 \lesssim 0^\circ$ in IH.
%$\alpha_{2,3}\approx0^{\circ}$ in IH.
%
We have also discovered that the constraint $|d_e| < 4.1 \times 10^{30} \ \ecm$ has led us to the maximum prediction of $\langle m_{ee} \rangle$ to be $28 \ {\rm meV}$ for NH and $33.5 \ {\rm meV}$ for IH,
%have led us to $\langle m_{ee} \rangle \lesssim 28$ meV or 33.5 meV,
both of which are around more stringent upper limit of the neutrinoless double beta decay.
Furthermore, the predictions of the muon and tau EDMs are several orders of magnitude larger than those obtained by the rough minimal-flavor violation relation, due to different origin of the CP phase.
%
Before closing our paper, we comment on a possible dark matter candidate in the model.
Potentially, we have two dark matter candidates; the lightest neutral fermion $\psi_{R_1}$ or the lightest neutral component of $\eta$ which are similar to the case of the Ma model.
However, our allowed mass region through the numerical analysis suggests that these masses are ${\cal O}(1)$ PeV scale in case of $m_S \sim 100 \ {\rm GeV}$,
{and DMs decay so quickly
that they cannot be DM candidates. In case of bosonic one, it decays into {\it e.g.}, pairs of $\bar\ell\ell$ through $y^\ell$. In case of fermionic one, it decays into $\ell^- W^+\nu$ through $g^{L/R}$ and kinetic term of $\eta$ due to mixing between $S^+$ and $\eta^+$.}
%which are too heavy to be a weak interacting massive particles.
Thus, we concentrate on the other phenomenology in the current paper, instead of dark matter phenomenology.
In a different parameter set, however, it would be a promising dark matter candidate which would be discussed in elsewhere.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\section*{Acknowledgments}
%\vspace{0.3cm}
TN is supported by the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities.
%
HO is supported by Zhongyuan Talent (Talent Recruitment Series) Foreign Experts Project.
%
YS is supported by Natural Science Foundation of China under grant No. W2433006.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
% Ref Style
% Including title
%\bibliographystyle{utphys}
\bibliography{ctma4.bib}
\end{document}
\begin{thebibliography}{52}
\expandafter\ifx\csname natexlab\endcsname\relax\def\natexlab#1{#1}\fi
\expandafter\ifx\csname bibnamefont\endcsname\relax
\def\bibnamefont#1{#1}\fi
\expandafter\ifx\csname bibfnamefont\endcsname\relax
\def\bibfnamefont#1{#1}\fi
\expandafter\ifx\csname citenamefont\endcsname\relax
\def\citenamefont#1{#1}\fi
\expandafter\ifx\csname url\endcsname\relax
\def\url#1{\texttt{#1}}\fi
\expandafter\ifx\csname urlprefix\endcsname\relax\def\urlprefix{URL }\fi
\providecommand{\bibinfo}[2]{#2}
\providecommand{\eprint}[2][]{\url{#2}}
\bibitem[{\citenamefont{Jiang et~al.}(2025)\citenamefont{Jiang, Qu, and
Ding}}]{Jiang:2025psz}
\bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Z.}~\bibnamefont{Jiang}},
\bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{B.-Y.} \bibnamefont{Qu}}, \bibnamefont{and}
\bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{G.-J.} \bibnamefont{Ding}}
(\bibinfo{year}{2025}), \eprint{2510.07236}.
\bibitem[{\citenamefont{Kobayashi
et~al.}(2025{\natexlab{a}})\citenamefont{Kobayashi, Otsuka, Tanimoto, and
Yanagida}}]{Kobayashi:2025rpx}
\bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.}~\bibnamefont{Kobayashi}},
\bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{H.}~\bibnamefont{Otsuka}},
\bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Tanimoto}}, \bibnamefont{and}
\bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.~T.} \bibnamefont{Yanagida}}
(\bibinfo{year}{2025}{\natexlab{a}}), \eprint{2510.01680}.
\bibitem[{\citenamefont{Jangid and Okada}(2025)}]{Jangid:2025krp}
\bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{Jangid}} \bibnamefont{and}
\bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{H.}~\bibnamefont{Okada}}
(\bibinfo{year}{2025}), \eprint{2508.16174}.
\bibitem[{\citenamefont{Okada and Shigekami}(2025)}]{Okada:2025kfm}
\bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{H.}~\bibnamefont{Okada}} \bibnamefont{and}
\bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Y.}~\bibnamefont{Shigekami}}
(\bibinfo{year}{2025}), \eprint{2507.16198}.
\bibitem[{\citenamefont{Choi et~al.}(2022)\citenamefont{Choi, Lam, and
Shao}}]{Choi:2022jqy}
\bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Y.}~\bibnamefont{Choi}},
\bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{H.~T.} \bibnamefont{Lam}}, \bibnamefont{and}
\bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.-H.} \bibnamefont{Shao}},
\bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{129}},
\bibinfo{pages}{161601} (\bibinfo{year}{2022}), \eprint{2205.05086}.
\bibitem[{\citenamefont{Cordova
et~al.}(2024{\natexlab{a}})\citenamefont{Cordova, Hong, Koren, and
Ohmori}}]{Cordova:2022fhg}
\bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.}~\bibnamefont{Cordova}},
\bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{Hong}},
\bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{Koren}}, \bibnamefont{and}
\bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{K.}~\bibnamefont{Ohmori}},
\bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. X} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{14}},
\bibinfo{pages}{031033} (\bibinfo{year}{2024}{\natexlab{a}}),
\eprint{2211.07639}.
\bibitem[{\citenamefont{Cordova and Ohmori}(2023)}]{Cordova:2022ieu}
\bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.}~\bibnamefont{Cordova}} \bibnamefont{and}
\bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{K.}~\bibnamefont{Ohmori}},
\bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. X} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{13}},
\bibinfo{pages}{011034} (\bibinfo{year}{2023}), \eprint{2205.06243}.
\bibitem[{\citenamefont{Cordova
et~al.}(2024{\natexlab{b}})\citenamefont{Cordova, Hong, and
Koren}}]{Cordova:2024ypu}
\bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.}~\bibnamefont{Cordova}},
\bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{Hong}}, \bibnamefont{and}
\bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{Koren}}
(\bibinfo{year}{2024}{\natexlab{b}}), \eprint{2402.12453}.
\bibitem[{\citenamefont{Kobayashi et~al.}(2024)\citenamefont{Kobayashi, Otsuka,
and Tanimoto}}]{Kobayashi:2024cvp}
\bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.}~\bibnamefont{Kobayashi}},
\bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{H.}~\bibnamefont{Otsuka}}, \bibnamefont{and}
\bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Tanimoto}},
\bibinfo{journal}{JHEP} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{12}}, \bibinfo{pages}{117}
(\bibinfo{year}{2024}), \eprint{2409.05270}.
\bibitem[{\citenamefont{Kobayashi and Otsuka}(2024)}]{Kobayashi:2024yqq}
\bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.}~\bibnamefont{Kobayashi}} \bibnamefont{and}
\bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{H.}~\bibnamefont{Otsuka}},
\bibinfo{journal}{JHEP} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{11}}, \bibinfo{pages}{120}
(\bibinfo{year}{2024}), \eprint{2408.13984}.
\bibitem[{\citenamefont{Kobayashi
et~al.}(2025{\natexlab{b}})\citenamefont{Kobayashi, Nishioka, Otsuka, and
Tanimoto}}]{Kobayashi:2025znw}
\bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.}~\bibnamefont{Kobayashi}},
\bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Y.}~\bibnamefont{Nishioka}},
\bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{H.}~\bibnamefont{Otsuka}}, \bibnamefont{and}
\bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Tanimoto}},
\bibinfo{journal}{JHEP} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{05}}, \bibinfo{pages}{177}
(\bibinfo{year}{2025}{\natexlab{b}}), \eprint{2503.09966}.
\bibitem[{\citenamefont{Suzuki and Xu}(2025)}]{Suzuki:2025oov}
\bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Suzuki}} \bibnamefont{and}
\bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{L.-X.} \bibnamefont{Xu}}
(\bibinfo{year}{2025}), \eprint{2503.19964}.
\bibitem[{\citenamefont{Liang and Yanagida}(2025)}]{Liang:2025dkm}
\bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Q.}~\bibnamefont{Liang}} \bibnamefont{and}
\bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.~T.} \bibnamefont{Yanagida}}
(\bibinfo{year}{2025}), \eprint{2505.05142}.
\bibitem[{\citenamefont{Kobayashi
et~al.}(2025{\natexlab{c}})\citenamefont{Kobayashi, Otsuka, Tanimoto, and
Uchida}}]{Kobayashi:2025ldi}
\bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.}~\bibnamefont{Kobayashi}},
\bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{H.}~\bibnamefont{Otsuka}},
\bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Tanimoto}}, \bibnamefont{and}
\bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{H.}~\bibnamefont{Uchida}}
(\bibinfo{year}{2025}{\natexlab{c}}), \eprint{2505.07262}.
\bibitem[{\citenamefont{Kobayashi
et~al.}(2025{\natexlab{d}})\citenamefont{Kobayashi, Mita, Otsuka, and
Sakuma}}]{Kobayashi:2025lar}
\bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.}~\bibnamefont{Kobayashi}},
\bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{H.}~\bibnamefont{Mita}},
\bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{H.}~\bibnamefont{Otsuka}}, \bibnamefont{and}
\bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{R.}~\bibnamefont{Sakuma}}
(\bibinfo{year}{2025}{\natexlab{d}}), \eprint{2506.10241}.
\bibitem[{\citenamefont{Kobayashi
et~al.}(2025{\natexlab{e}})\citenamefont{Kobayashi, Okada, and
Otsuka}}]{Kobayashi:2025cwx}
\bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.}~\bibnamefont{Kobayashi}},
\bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{H.}~\bibnamefont{Okada}}, \bibnamefont{and}
\bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{H.}~\bibnamefont{Otsuka}}
(\bibinfo{year}{2025}{\natexlab{e}}), \eprint{2505.14878}.
\bibitem[{\citenamefont{Nomura and Okada}(2025)}]{Nomura:2025sod}
\bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.}~\bibnamefont{Nomura}} \bibnamefont{and}
\bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{H.}~\bibnamefont{Okada}}
(\bibinfo{year}{2025}), \eprint{2506.16706}.
\bibitem[{\citenamefont{Dong et~al.}(2025)\citenamefont{Dong, Jeric, Kobayashi,
Nishida, and Otsuka}}]{Dong:2025jra}
\bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.}~\bibnamefont{Dong}},
\bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.}~\bibnamefont{Jeric}},
\bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.}~\bibnamefont{Kobayashi}},
\bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{R.}~\bibnamefont{Nishida}}, \bibnamefont{and}
\bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{H.}~\bibnamefont{Otsuka}}
(\bibinfo{year}{2025}), \eprint{2507.02375}.
\bibitem[{\citenamefont{Nomura and Popov}(2025)}]{Nomura:2025yoa}
\bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.}~\bibnamefont{Nomura}} \bibnamefont{and}
\bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{O.}~\bibnamefont{Popov}}
(\bibinfo{year}{2025}), \eprint{2507.10299}.
\bibitem[{\citenamefont{Chen et~al.}(2025)\citenamefont{Chen, Geng, Okada, and
Wu}}]{Chen:2025awz}
\bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.}~\bibnamefont{Chen}},
\bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.-Q.} \bibnamefont{Geng}},
\bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{H.}~\bibnamefont{Okada}}, \bibnamefont{and}
\bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.-J.} \bibnamefont{Wu}}
(\bibinfo{year}{2025}), \eprint{2507.11951}.
\bibitem[{\citenamefont{Kobayashi
et~al.}(2025{\natexlab{f}})\citenamefont{Kobayashi, Otsuka, and
Yanagida}}]{Kobayashi:2025thd}
\bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.}~\bibnamefont{Kobayashi}},
\bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{H.}~\bibnamefont{Otsuka}}, \bibnamefont{and}
\bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.~T.} \bibnamefont{Yanagida}}
(\bibinfo{year}{2025}{\natexlab{f}}), \eprint{2508.12287}.
\bibitem[{\citenamefont{Suzuki et~al.}(2025)\citenamefont{Suzuki, Xu, and
Zhang}}]{Suzuki:2025bxg}
\bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Suzuki}},
\bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{L.-X.} \bibnamefont{Xu}}, \bibnamefont{and}
\bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{H.~Y.} \bibnamefont{Zhang}}
(\bibinfo{year}{2025}), \eprint{2508.14970}.
\bibitem[{\citenamefont{Altarelli and Feruglio}(2010)}]{Altarelli:2010gt}
\bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{G.}~\bibnamefont{Altarelli}} \bibnamefont{and}
\bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{F.}~\bibnamefont{Feruglio}},
\bibinfo{journal}{Rev. Mod. Phys.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{82}},
\bibinfo{pages}{2701} (\bibinfo{year}{2010}), \eprint{1002.0211}.
\bibitem[{\citenamefont{Ishimori et~al.}(2010)\citenamefont{Ishimori,
Kobayashi, Ohki, Shimizu, Okada, and Tanimoto}}]{Ishimori:2010au}
\bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{H.}~\bibnamefont{Ishimori}},
\bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.}~\bibnamefont{Kobayashi}},
\bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{H.}~\bibnamefont{Ohki}},
\bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Y.}~\bibnamefont{Shimizu}},
\bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{H.}~\bibnamefont{Okada}}, \bibnamefont{and}
\bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Tanimoto}},
\bibinfo{journal}{Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{183}},
\bibinfo{pages}{1} (\bibinfo{year}{2010}), \eprint{1003.3552}.
\bibitem[{\citenamefont{Kobayashi et~al.}(2022)\citenamefont{Kobayashi, Ohki,
Okada, Shimizu, and Tanimoto}}]{Kobayashi:2022moq}
\bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.}~\bibnamefont{Kobayashi}},
\bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{H.}~\bibnamefont{Ohki}},
\bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{H.}~\bibnamefont{Okada}},
\bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Y.}~\bibnamefont{Shimizu}}, \bibnamefont{and}
\bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Tanimoto}},
\emph{\bibinfo{title}{{An Introduction to Non-Abelian Discrete Symmetries for
Particle Physicists}}} (\bibinfo{year}{2022}), ISBN
\bibinfo{isbn}{978-3-662-64678-6, 978-3-662-64679-3}.
\bibitem[{\citenamefont{Ishimori et~al.}(2012)\citenamefont{Ishimori,
Kobayashi, Ohki, Okada, Shimizu, and Tanimoto}}]{Ishimori:2012zz}
\bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{H.}~\bibnamefont{Ishimori}},
\bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.}~\bibnamefont{Kobayashi}},
\bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{H.}~\bibnamefont{Ohki}},
\bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{H.}~\bibnamefont{Okada}},
\bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Y.}~\bibnamefont{Shimizu}}, \bibnamefont{and}
\bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Tanimoto}},
\emph{\bibinfo{title}{{An introduction to non-Abelian discrete symmetries for
particle physicists}}}, vol. \bibinfo{volume}{858} (\bibinfo{year}{2012}).
\bibitem[{\citenamefont{Ma}(2006)}]{Ma:2006km}
\bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{E.}~\bibnamefont{Ma}}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys.
Rev. D} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{73}}, \bibinfo{pages}{077301}
(\bibinfo{year}{2006}), \eprint{hep-ph/0601225}.
\bibitem[{\citenamefont{Khaw et~al.}(2023)\citenamefont{Khaw, Nakai, Sato,
Shigekami, and Zhang}}]{Khaw:2022qxh}
\bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{K.~S.} \bibnamefont{Khaw}},
\bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Y.}~\bibnamefont{Nakai}},
\bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{R.}~\bibnamefont{Sato}},
\bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Y.}~\bibnamefont{Shigekami}},
\bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Z.}~\bibnamefont{Zhang}},
\bibinfo{journal}{JHEP} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{02}}, \bibinfo{pages}{234}
(\bibinfo{year}{2023}), \eprint{2212.02891}.
\bibitem[{\citenamefont{Okada and Yagyu}(2014{\natexlab{a}})}]{Okada:2013iba}
\bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{H.}~\bibnamefont{Okada}} \bibnamefont{and}
\bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{K.}~\bibnamefont{Yagyu}},
\bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. D} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{89}},
\bibinfo{pages}{053008} (\bibinfo{year}{2014}{\natexlab{a}}),
\eprint{1311.4360}.
\bibitem[{\citenamefont{Okada and Yagyu}(2014{\natexlab{b}})}]{Okada:2014nsa}
\bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{H.}~\bibnamefont{Okada}} \bibnamefont{and}
\bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{K.}~\bibnamefont{Yagyu}},
\bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. D} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{90}},
\bibinfo{pages}{035019} (\bibinfo{year}{2014}{\natexlab{b}}),
\eprint{1405.2368}.
\bibitem[{\citenamefont{Catano et~al.}(2012)\citenamefont{Catano, Martinez, and
Ochoa}}]{Catano:2012kw}
\bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.~E.} \bibnamefont{Catano}},
\bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{R.}~\bibnamefont{Martinez}}, \bibnamefont{and}
\bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{F.}~\bibnamefont{Ochoa}},
\bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. D} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{86}},
\bibinfo{pages}{073015} (\bibinfo{year}{2012}), \eprint{1206.1966}.
\bibitem[{\citenamefont{Kajiyama et~al.}(2013)\citenamefont{Kajiyama, Okada,
and Toma}}]{Kajiyama:2012xg}
\bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Y.}~\bibnamefont{Kajiyama}},
\bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{H.}~\bibnamefont{Okada}}, \bibnamefont{and}
\bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.}~\bibnamefont{Toma}},
\bibinfo{journal}{Eur. Phys. J. C} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{73}},
\bibinfo{pages}{2381} (\bibinfo{year}{2013}), \eprint{1210.2305}.
\bibitem[{\citenamefont{Abe et~al.}(2024)}]{KamLAND-Zen:2024eml}
\bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{Abe}} \bibnamefont{et~al.}
(\bibinfo{collaboration}{KamLAND-Zen}) (\bibinfo{year}{2024}),
\eprint{2406.11438}.
\bibitem[{\citenamefont{Vagnozzi et~al.}(2017)\citenamefont{Vagnozzi, Giusarma,
Mena, Freese, Gerbino, Ho, and Lattanzi}}]{Vagnozzi:2017ovm}
\bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{Vagnozzi}},
\bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{E.}~\bibnamefont{Giusarma}},
\bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{O.}~\bibnamefont{Mena}},
\bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{K.}~\bibnamefont{Freese}},
\bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Gerbino}},
\bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{Ho}}, \bibnamefont{and}
\bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Lattanzi}},
\bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. D} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{96}},
\bibinfo{pages}{123503} (\bibinfo{year}{2017}), \eprint{1701.08172}.
\bibitem[{\citenamefont{Aghanim et~al.}(2020)}]{Planck:2018vyg}
\bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{N.}~\bibnamefont{Aghanim}} \bibnamefont{et~al.}
(\bibinfo{collaboration}{Planck}), \bibinfo{journal}{Astron. Astrophys.}
\textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{641}}, \bibinfo{pages}{A6} (\bibinfo{year}{2020}),
\bibinfo{note}{[Erratum: Astron.Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)]},
\eprint{1807.06209}.
\bibitem[{\citenamefont{Olive et~al.}(2014)}]{ParticleDataGroup:2014cgo}
\bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{K.~A.} \bibnamefont{Olive}} \bibnamefont{et~al.}
(\bibinfo{collaboration}{Particle Data Group}), \bibinfo{journal}{Chin. Phys.
C} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{38}}, \bibinfo{pages}{090001}
(\bibinfo{year}{2014}).
\bibitem[{\citenamefont{Adame et~al.}(2024)}]{DESI:2024mwx}
\bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.~G.} \bibnamefont{Adame}} \bibnamefont{et~al.}
(\bibinfo{collaboration}{DESI}) (\bibinfo{year}{2024}), \eprint{2404.03002}.
\bibitem[{\citenamefont{Aker et~al.}(2022)}]{KATRIN:2021uub}
\bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Aker}} \bibnamefont{et~al.}
(\bibinfo{collaboration}{KATRIN}), \bibinfo{journal}{Nature Phys.}
\textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{18}}, \bibinfo{pages}{160} (\bibinfo{year}{2022}),
\eprint{2105.08533}.
\bibitem[{\citenamefont{Esteban et~al.}(2024)\citenamefont{Esteban,
Gonzalez-Garcia, Maltoni, Martinez-Soler, Pinheiro, and
Schwetz}}]{Esteban:2024eli}
\bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{I.}~\bibnamefont{Esteban}},
\bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.~C.} \bibnamefont{Gonzalez-Garcia}},
\bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Maltoni}},
\bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{I.}~\bibnamefont{Martinez-Soler}},
\bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.~a.~P.} \bibnamefont{Pinheiro}},
\bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.}~\bibnamefont{Schwetz}},
\bibinfo{journal}{JHEP} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{12}}, \bibinfo{pages}{216}
(\bibinfo{year}{2024}), \eprint{2410.05380}.
\bibitem[{\citenamefont{Baldini et~al.}(2016)}]{MEG:2016leq}
\bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.~M.} \bibnamefont{Baldini}}
\bibnamefont{et~al.} (\bibinfo{collaboration}{MEG}), \bibinfo{journal}{Eur.
Phys. J. C} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{76}}, \bibinfo{pages}{434}
(\bibinfo{year}{2016}), \eprint{1605.05081}.
\bibitem[{\citenamefont{Aubert et~al.}(2010)}]{BaBar:2009hkt}
\bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{B.}~\bibnamefont{Aubert}} \bibnamefont{et~al.}
(\bibinfo{collaboration}{BaBar}), \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.}
\textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{104}}, \bibinfo{pages}{021802}
(\bibinfo{year}{2010}), \eprint{0908.2381}.
\bibitem[{\citenamefont{Renga}(2018)}]{Renga:2018fpd}
\bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{F.}~\bibnamefont{Renga}}
(\bibinfo{collaboration}{MEG}), \bibinfo{journal}{Hyperfine Interact.}
\textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{239}}, \bibinfo{pages}{58} (\bibinfo{year}{2018}),
\eprint{1811.05921}.
\bibitem[{\citenamefont{Afanaciev et~al.}(2024)}]{MEGII:2023ltw}
\bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{K.}~\bibnamefont{Afanaciev}}
\bibnamefont{et~al.} (\bibinfo{collaboration}{MEG II}),
\bibinfo{journal}{Eur. Phys. J. C} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{84}},
\bibinfo{pages}{216} (\bibinfo{year}{2024}), \bibinfo{note}{[Erratum:
Eur.Phys.J.C 84, 1042 (2024)]}, \eprint{2310.12614}.
\bibitem[{\citenamefont{Fan}(2022)}]{Fan:2022oyb}
\bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{X.}~\bibnamefont{Fan}}, Ph.D. thesis,
\bibinfo{school}{Harvard U.} (\bibinfo{year}{2022}).
\bibitem[{\citenamefont{Fan et~al.}(2023)\citenamefont{Fan, Myers, Sukra, and
Gabrielse}}]{Fan:2022eto}
\bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{X.}~\bibnamefont{Fan}},
\bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.~G.} \bibnamefont{Myers}},
\bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{B.~A.~D.} \bibnamefont{Sukra}},
\bibnamefont{and}
\bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{G.}~\bibnamefont{Gabrielse}},
\bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{130}},
\bibinfo{pages}{071801} (\bibinfo{year}{2023}), \eprint{2209.13084}.
\bibitem[{\citenamefont{Navas et~al.}(2024)}]{ParticleDataGroup:2024cfk}
\bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{Navas}} \bibnamefont{et~al.}
(\bibinfo{collaboration}{Particle Data Group}), \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev.
D} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{110}}, \bibinfo{pages}{030001}
(\bibinfo{year}{2024}).
\bibitem[{\citenamefont{Morel et~al.}(2020)\citenamefont{Morel, Yao, Clad{\'e},
and Guellati-Kh{\'e}lifa}}]{Morel:2020dww}
\bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{L.}~\bibnamefont{Morel}},
\bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Z.}~\bibnamefont{Yao}},
\bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.}~\bibnamefont{Clad{\'e}}},
\bibnamefont{and}
\bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{Guellati-Kh{\'e}lifa}},
\bibinfo{journal}{Nature} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{588}}, \bibinfo{pages}{61}
(\bibinfo{year}{2020}).
\bibitem[{\citenamefont{Parker et~al.}(2018)\citenamefont{Parker, Yu, Zhong,
Estey, and M{\"u}ller}}]{Parker:2018vye}
\bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{R.~H.} \bibnamefont{Parker}},
\bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.}~\bibnamefont{Yu}},
\bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{W.}~\bibnamefont{Zhong}},
\bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{B.}~\bibnamefont{Estey}}, \bibnamefont{and}
\bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{H.}~\bibnamefont{M{\"u}ller}},
\bibinfo{journal}{Science} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{360}},
\bibinfo{pages}{191} (\bibinfo{year}{2018}), \eprint{1812.04130}.
\bibitem[{\citenamefont{Abada and Toma}(2024)}]{Abada:2024hpb}
\bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{Abada}} \bibnamefont{and}
\bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.}~\bibnamefont{Toma}},
\bibinfo{journal}{JHEP} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{08}}, \bibinfo{pages}{128}
(\bibinfo{year}{2024}), \eprint{2405.01648}.
\bibitem[{\citenamefont{Ema et~al.}(2022{\natexlab{a}})\citenamefont{Ema, Gao,
and Pospelov}}]{Ema:2021jds}
\bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Y.}~\bibnamefont{Ema}},
\bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.}~\bibnamefont{Gao}}, \bibnamefont{and}
\bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Pospelov}},
\bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{128}},
\bibinfo{pages}{131803} (\bibinfo{year}{2022}{\natexlab{a}}),
\eprint{2108.05398}.
\bibitem[{\citenamefont{Ema et~al.}(2022{\natexlab{b}})\citenamefont{Ema, Gao,
and Pospelov}}]{Ema:2022wxd}
\bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Y.}~\bibnamefont{Ema}},
\bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.}~\bibnamefont{Gao}}, \bibnamefont{and}
\bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Pospelov}},
\bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Lett. B} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{835}},
\bibinfo{pages}{137496} (\bibinfo{year}{2022}{\natexlab{b}}),
\eprint{2207.01679}.
\bibitem[{\citenamefont{Okada and Orikasa}(2019)}]{Okada:2019lzv}
\bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{H.}~\bibnamefont{Okada}} \bibnamefont{and}
\bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Y.}~\bibnamefont{Orikasa}}
(\bibinfo{year}{2019}), \eprint{1908.08409}.
\end{thebibliography}