AG-2026.02-999·hep-ph
Charged lepton flavor violating decays $Z\to \ell_α\ell_β$ in the inverse seesaw
Authors
- Adrián González-Quiterio
- Héctor Novales-Sánchez
Abstract
After confirmation of massiveness and mixing of neutrinos, by neutrino oscillation data, the origin of neutrino mass and the occurrence of charged-lepton-flavor non-conservation in nature have become two main objectives for the physics of elementary particles. Taking inspiration from both matters, we address the decays $Z\to\ell_α\ell_β$, with $\ell_α\ne\ell_β$, thus violating charged-lepton flavor. We calculate the set of contributing one-loop diagrams characterized by virtual neutral leptons, both light and heavy, emerged from the inverse seesaw mechanism for the generation of neutrino mass. By neglecting charged-lepton and light-neutrino masses, and then assuming that the mass spectrum of the heavy neutral leptons is degenerate, we find that a relation $\textrm{Br}\big( Z\to\ell_α\ell_β\big)\propto\big| η_{βα} \big|^2$, with $η$ the matrix describing non-unitarity effects in light-lepton mixing, is fulfilled. Our quantitative analysis, which considers both scenarios of degenerate and non-degenerate masses of heavy neutral leptons, takes into account upper bounds on $η_{μe}$, imposed by current constraints on the decay $μ\to eγ$ from the MEG II experiment, while projected future sensitivity of this experiment is considered as well. We find that, even though current constraints on $Z\to\ell_α\ell_β$, by the ATLAS Collaboration, remain far from inverse-seesaw contributions, improved sensitivity from in-plans machines, such as the Future Circular Collider and the Circular Electron Positron Collider, shall be able to probe this mass-generating mechanism through these decays.
Submitted
4 February 20262 months ago
Version
v1
License
CC-BY-4.0
DOI
10.48550/arXiv.2602.04168
Chat with this PDF
Ask questions, probe assumptions, request a plain-English summary. Answers cite sections from the preprint itself.
Community
Questions and answers about this paper from other readers. No formal peer review — just a place to think out loud.