abstract: Lepton number violation is searched for at the LHC using same-sign leptons plus jets. The standard lore is that the ratio of same-sign lepton to opposite-sign lepton events, $R_{ll}$, is equal to $R_{ll}=1$ ($R_{ll}=0$) for Majorana (Dirac) neutrinos. We clarify under which conditions the ratio $R_{ll}$ can assume values different from 0 and 1, and we argue that the precise value $0 <
    R_{ll} < 1$ is controlled by the mass splitting versus the width of the quasi-Dirac resonances. A measurement of $R_{ll}\neq 0,1$ would then contain valuable information about the origin of neutrino masses. We consider as an example the inverse seesaw mechanism in a left-right symmetric scenario, which is phenomenologically particularly interesting since all the heavy states in the high energy completion of the model could be within experimental reach. A prediction of this scenario is a correlation between the values of $R_{ll}$ and the ratio between the rates for heavy neutrino decays into standard model gauge bosons, and into three body final states $ljj$ mediated by off-shell $W_R$ exchange.
author: G. Anamiati; M. Hirsch; E. Nardi
title: Quasi-Dirac neutrinos at the LHC

# Introduction

The tiny values of the standard model (SM) neutrino masses can be more elegantly explained under the assumption that neutrinos are Majorana particles. Majorana neutrinos necessarily imply lepton number violation (LNV), a well known LNV process is for example neutrinoless double beta decay (for reviews on $0\nu\beta\beta$ see for example ). LNV is also searched for at the LHC, using as a signature final states containing two same-sign (SS) leptons (plus jets and no missing energy in the event). This signature, specific for collider searches, was originally proposed in in the context of left-right (LR) symmetric extensions of the standard model (SM) .[^1]

A heavy Majorana neutrino, once produced on mass-shell, decays with equal probabilities to either a lepton ($l^{-}$) or an anti-lepton ($l^{+}$) (plus, for example, jets). Therefore, for dilepton events produced via $W\to l N \to lljj$ a ratio of SS to opposite sign (OS) dileptons $R_{ll}=1$ is expected.[^2] For a Dirac neutrino $R_{ll}=0$ since lepton number is conserved. In this paper we point out that in models with so-called "quasi-Dirac" neutrinos, $R_{ll}$ can instead assume any value in the interval \[0,1\]. Hence a measurement of $R_{ll}$, different from zero or one, would provide valuable informations on the mechanism underlying the generation of neutrino masses. Let us recall that "quasi-Dirac" refers to a pair of Majorana neutrinos with a small mass splitting and a relative CP-sign between the two states, and that would correspond to a Dirac neutrino in the limit of exact mass degeneracy. Pairs of quasi-Dirac neutrino often appear in seesaw-type models at scales not far from the electroweak scale, such as the inverse and the linear seesaw, so that the possibility of observing $R_{ll}\neq 1,0$ is naturally interweaved with the possibility of producing new heavy neutrinos in high energy collisions.[^3]

Both, the ATLAS and the CMS collaboration have published results for dilepton plus jets $\ell\ell jj$ events. In general, the sensitivities of ATLAS and CMS are quite similar. Nevertheless, there are some important differences in the analysis of the two collaborations. ATLAS, in its first publication , gave results for both, SS and OS lepton events separately. Since no excess was observed and the background in the OS sample is considerably larger than in the SS sample, the limits derived from the combined data are dominated by the SS sample. Note that this combination assumes implicitly $R_{ll}=1$. Probably for this reason, in the latest analysis ATLAS gives only the limits derived from the SS sample. CMS, on the other hand, gives only combined results for OS and SS samples , despite the fact that CMS routinely measures the lepton charge. In the latest CMS analysis, which uses the full $\sqrt{s}=8$ TeV statistics , an excess in the electron sample around $m_{eejj} \simeq 2$ TeV was reported. The excess contains 14 events with an estimated background of 4 events, corresponding to a local significance of about $2.8$ $\sigma$ c.l. No excess was observed in the muon sample. CMS points out that (i) only one of the 14 events is SS and (ii) no localized excess in $m_{\ell_2jj}$, as would be expected from the decay of an on-shell intermediate $N$, is observed, and thus it was concluded that the excess is not consistent with the expectations from LR symmetric models. ATLAS, on the other hand, has zero events in the same invariant mass bin, but since in ATLAS does not provide results for OS dileptons, their result is not inconsistent with CMS. The CMS excess has caused a flurry of theoretical activity , several of the proposed explanations are based on LR symmetric models, see for example the works in , where however $R_{ll}=1$ is generally expected. Note that $R_{ll}=0$ is expected in LR models with a linear seesaw , while $R_{ll}
< 1$ can be obtained in the $R$-parity violating supersymmetric model of . However, particularly relevant for our study is which also focuses on a LR symmetric model equipped with the inverse seesaw mechanism, and where it is stressed that heavy pseudo-Dirac neutrinos allow to arrange for a suppression of SS versus OS dilepton events, and hence for a value of $R_{ll}<1$. Although we agree on the general statement, we find disagreement as concerns the dependence of $R_{ll}$ on the relevant model parameters. In particular, differently from , we find that the value of $R_{ll}$ does not display a parametric dependence on the overall right-handed (RH) neutrino mass scale.[^4]

Neutrino oscillation experiments have established that neutrino flavor numbers are not conserved. By now we have very precise information on the active neutrino mixing angles, see for example . Basically the "solar", $\sin^2\theta_{\odot}\simeq 1/3$, and "atmospheric", $\sin^2\theta_{\rm Atm}\simeq 1/2$, angles are large, while the "reactor" angle, $\sin^2\theta_{\rm R}\simeq 0.0234$, is smaller. It is therefore quite unnatural to assume that heavy neutrinos, if they exist, would only decay to the same lepton flavor associated with their production (as for example in $W^+_R \to \ell_j^+ N_R \to \ell_j^+\ell_j^- W_R^*$). From the theoretical point of view, different flavor dilepton events $\ell^+_i\ell^-_j$ and $\ell^+_i\ell^+_j$ with $i\neq j$ are expected to contribute sizeably to the whole dilepton samples, and for some choices of the model parameters they could even dominate the total signal. The relative amount of different flavor dilepton events could also provide valuable information about the structure of the seesaw matrices. Unfortunately, both ATLAS and CMS use $e\mu$ dilepton samples to estimate the backgrounds, giving results only for $ee$ and $\mu\mu$ samples separately. We would like to stress that different flavor dilepton events should also be considered as a possible signal, and that presenting experimental results separately for each specific flavor channel would provide additional valuable information.

This paper is organized as follows. In the next section, we recall the main features of the inverse seesaw model , we describe in some details the steps to achieve approximate diagonalization of the full $9\times 9$ neutrino mass matrix, and we write down the heavy neutrino couplings to the LR gauge bosons and to the Higgs. In the same section we also introduce a convenient parametrization which, in the inverse seesaw, plays an analogous role as the Casas-Ibarra parametrization  in the type-I seesaw. In section we derive the expression for the ratio $R_{ll}$. Our result shows that the condition required for obtaining values of $R_{ll}\neq 0,1$ is that the mass degeneracy of the quasi-Dirac neutrino pairs must be of the order of their decay width. In section we discuss all relevant phenomenology (two and three body decays and branching ratios) that could be measured at the LHC. We close with a short summary.

# The inverse seesaw

In this section we discuss the inverse seesaw mechanism. In subsection we present the inverse seesaw mass matrix and parameter counting, in  we describe an approximate diagonalization procedure for the $9\times 9$ mass matrix, in  we give the neutrino couplings to gauge (and Higgs) bosons, and in  we provide a re-parametrization of the inverse seesaw that allows to fulfill automatically the experimental constraints from low-energy neutrino data. While we are mostly interested in a LR symmetric setup with a gauge group $SU(3)_C\times SU(2)_L \times SU(2)_R \times U(1)_{B-L}$, most of the discussion in this section applies also to inverse seesaw within the SM. We will formulate this section in the LR context and we will comment on differences between inverse seesaw within the LR symmetric and the SM scenarios at the end of the section.

## Setup

We work in the basis in which the mass matrix of the charged lepton is diagonal, with the $e,\mu,\tau$ flavors identified by the mass eigenvalues. We write the inverse seesaw mass matrix in the interaction basis for the neutral states ${\cal N} = \left( \nu_L, N^c_R, S^c_R\right)^T$ where $\nu_L = \left(\nu_e,\nu_\mu,\nu_\tau\right)^T$ is the vector of the $SU(2)$ partners of the LH charged leptons containing the (mainly light eigenstate) LH neutrinos, $N_R=\left(N_e,N_\mu,N_\tau\right)^T$ is the vector of the neutral member of the $SU(2)_R$ doublets $\ell_R=(N_R, e_R)$, and $S_R=\left(S_1,S_2,S_3\right)^T$ is a vector of gauge singlet fermions for which a Majorana mass term $\mu \overline{S^c} S$ is allowed. In $3\times 3$ block notation the mass matrix reads: $$\label{eq:M}
{\cal M} =
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & m_D^T & 0 \cr
m_D & 0  & M_R \cr
0 & M_R^T & \hat\mu
\end{pmatrix}\,,$$ where the Majorana sub-matrix $\hat\mu$ (as well as the full $\mathcal{M}$) is complex symmetric. Any complex symmetric matrix $m$ of any dimension can be factorized in a unique way as $m=W^*\hat m W^\dagger$ where $\hat m$ is diagonal with real and positive eigenvalues, and $W$ is unitary. Then, by redefining the gauge singlets $S$ via a unitary rotation $W(\mu)$ we can always bring $\mu$ into diagonal form $\hat \mu$ as is implicit in eq. (). As regards $M_R$, if the fields $N_R$ were unrelated to the SM leptons further field redefinitions would be possible. However, in the LR model the $N_R$'s sit in the same $SU(2)_R$ multiplets with the RH SM leptons, and once a redefinition of $\ell_R$ (together with a redefinition of $\ell_L$) is used to bring into diagonal form the charged lepton mass matrix, the only residual freedom is in three vectorlike phase redefinitions of $\ell_{L,R}$ proportional to the three diagonal $U(3)$ generators $I,\lambda_3,\lambda_8$ which commute with the diagonal mass matrix. This can be used to remove three phases from $M_R$ which remains otherwise generic with $9+6$ (real + imaginary) parameters. Finally, because of LR symmetry in exchanging the L and R labels, the complex matrix $m_D$ is symmetric.

Exact diagonalization of the mass matrix eq. () can be performed via a transformation of the field basis with a unitary matrix $\mathcal{V}$ such that $$\label{eq:Msymm}
\hat{\mathcal{M}}  =  \mathcal{V}^T \,  \mathcal{M} \, \mathcal{V} \,,$$ is diagonal. Of course, in the general case this can only be done numerically (our numerical study indeed relies on a precise numerical diagonalization of the full $9\times 9$ matrix). However, assuming that the three sub-matrices in eq. () have mass scales arranged hierarchically $\mu,\, m_D \ll M_R$, an approximate diagonalization can be performed in analytic form yielding: $$\label{eq:Mapp}
\hat{\mathcal{M}}' = {\mathcal{V}'}^T \, \mathcal{M} \, \mathcal{V}' \approx \hat{\mathcal{M}}$$ where $\mathcal{V}' \approx \mathcal{V}$ is non-unitary by terms of $\mathcal{O}(m_D/M_R)$ (we denote with a prime non-unitary transformation matrices, as well as mass matrices obtained via non-unitary transformations). Clearly $\hat{\mathcal{M}}'$ deviates from exact diagonal form: terms of $\mathcal{O}(\mu\, m_D/M_R)$ will appear in the non-diagonal entries coupling the light and heavy sectors, and terms of $\mathcal{O}(\mu)$ will appear in the non diagonal entries of the heavy sector. Below we give a brief description of this approximate diagonalization procedure, which will also be useful to establish notations.

## Stepwise approximate diagonalization

Approximate diagonalization can be carried out in four steps. The first step is to bring $M_R$ into diagonal form. Let us decompose $M_R$ in terms of two unitary matrices $U_R,\,V_R$ and a diagonal matrix of mass eigenvalues $\hat M_R$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:bidiMR}
M_R = U_R{\hat M}_RV_R^{\dagger} \,.
\end{aligned}$$ As we have remarked above, $M_R$ contains nine real and six imaginary parameters. Then, by matching the number of parameters between the LH and RH sides of eq. () we see that $U_R$ and $V_R$ can be taken as special unitary, with three real angles and three phases each. The matrix $U_R$ is an important quantity since, for example, it will appear in the RH charged currents coupling $N_R$ to the charged leptons. By defining a block-diagonal matrix $V_1={\rm diag}\left(\mathbb{I}_3,U_R^*,V_R\right)$, where $\mathbb{I}_3$ is the $3\times3$ identity matrix, it is easy too see that in the matrix $\mathcal{M}_1=V_1^T \mathcal{M} V_1$ an exact diagonalization $M_R\to \hat M_R$ is obtained, while at the same time $\hat \mu \to \mu^V\equiv V_R^T \hat \mu V_R$ and the entries $m_D$ ($m_D^T$) get replaced by $D$ ($D^T$) defined as: $$\label{eq:D}
D \equiv U^\dagger_R m_D\,.$$ The next step $\mathcal{M}_2=V_2^T \mathcal{M}_1 V_2$ with $V_2 = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}{\rm diag}(\sqrt{2},\sigma_1-\sigma_3)\otimes
\mathbb{I}_3$ brings $\hat M_R$ to the block-diagonal (2,2) and (3,3) entries and also adds to these entries small corrections of $\mathcal{O}(\mu^V)$. The $D$ terms eq. () remain in the first row $\left(\mathcal{M}_2\right)_{1j}=
v_D^T=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(0,-D^T,D^T)$ and first column $\left(\mathcal{M}_2\right)_{j1}= v_D$. Let us note that since $V_1$ and $V_2$ are both unitary, no approximation has been made so far in $\mathcal{M}_2$. The next step requires suppressing the off-diagonal entries of order $m_D$. This is obtained with a matrix $V'_3$ such that $\left(V'_3\right)_{1j}=
w_D^\dagger=(\mathbb{I}_3,D^\dagger,D^\dagger)\frac{1}{\sqrt{2} \hat
  M_R}$, $\left(V'_3\right)_{j1}=-w_D$ and $\left(V'_3\right)_{jj}=\mathbb{I}_3$. It can be easily checked that $V'_3 {V'_3}^\dagger$ deviates from the identity by $\mathcal{O}(m_D^2/M^2_R)$. With this rotation, the off-diagonal light-heavy entries in $\mathcal{M}'_3={V'_3}^T \mathcal{M}_2 V'_3$ get suppressed to $\mathcal{O}(\hat\mu D/M^2_R)$ which, in the seesaw approximation, can be neglected. We have thus singled out in the (1,1) block the light neutrino mass matrix $m_\nu$, which can now be expressed, as is customary, in terms of the initial matrices in eq. () as: $$\label{eq:mnueff}
  m_\nu \simeq m_D^T \frac{1}{M_R^T} \hat\mu\frac{1}{M_R}m_D \,.$$ We see from this equation that suppression of the light neutrino masses can be obtained thanks to small values of $\hat\mu$, without the need of exceedingly small values of $m_D/M_R$. This can allow for $N_R$ to live at relatively low energy scales, possibly within experimental reach. Being symmetric by construction, $m_\nu$ can be diagonalized as $$\label{eq:VL}
  \hat m_\nu = {V_L}^T\, m_\nu\, V_L\,,$$ with $V_L$ unitary. Note that $V_{L}$ differs from the exact (non-unitary) light neutrinos mixing matrix $V'_L$ by ${\cal O}(\frac{m_D}{M_R})$. In our study we will neglect these small terms and we will identify $V_L=V'_{L}$. A last rotation, by means of the unitary matrix $V_4 = {\rm diag}\left( V_L,\, i\, \mathbb{I}_3,\,
  \mathbb{I}_3\right)$, can now be performed on $\mathcal{M}'_3$ to bring $m_{\nu}$ into diagonal form (this also renders positive the heavy mass entries in the (2,2) block that have acquired a negative sign). Neglecting the small off-diagonal entries, the final matrix $\mathcal{M}' = V_4^T \mathcal{M}'_3 V_4$ reads:

$$\label{eq:Mat4}
\mathcal{M}'\simeq
\begin{pmatrix}
 {\hat m_{\nu}}  & 0 & 0 \\
 0 &   {\hat M_R}^{-} & 0\\
 0  &  0 &  {\hat M_R}^{+}
\end{pmatrix} .$$ The eigenvalues of the two $3\times 3$ heavy-heavy blocks ${\hat M_R}^{\pm}$ receive corrections of $\mathcal{O}(m_D^2/\hat M_R)$ after the $V_4$ rotation. However, these corrections are the same for both blocks, so that they can be conventionally absorbed into a common term $\hat M_R$. Instead, contributions of order $\hat\mu$ appear with opposite sign, and this is important because it generates small splittings between pairs of heavy states. For our analysis it is then sufficient to define the heavy mass eigenvalues in eq. () as ${\hat M_R}^{\pm} = {\hat M}_R \pm \frac{1}{2} \mu^V$, keeping in mind that they represent three pairs of almost degenerate (quasi-Dirac) neutrinos with large masses $(\hat M_R)_{ii}$, split by three small quantities $(\Delta M)_{ii}=(\hat M^+_R)_{ii} - (\hat M^-_R)_{ii} = (\mu^V)_{ii}$ where $\mu^V \equiv V_R^T \hat\mu V_R^T$ (this last definition is given here for the sake of precision, but being $V_R$ and $\hat \mu$ in any case arbitrary, in the following we will simply denote the mass splittings generically as $\Delta M=\mu$).

## Couplings to the gauge bosons and to the Higgs

The approximate mixing matrix $\mathcal{V}'=V_1\,V_2\,V'_3\,V_4$ derived in the previous section controls the structure of the couplings between the LR gauge bosons and the mass eigenstates. Its explicit form is: $$\label{eq:Vp}
  \mathcal{V}' =
\begin{pmatrix}
V_L &
\frac{i}{\sqrt{2}} \xi^\dagger  & \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \xi^\dagger \cr
0 & -\frac{i}{\sqrt{2}} U_R^* & \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} U_R^*  \cr
- V_R \xi  V_L & \frac{i}{\sqrt{2}} V_R & \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} V_R
\end{pmatrix}$$ where for convenience we have introduced the $3\times 3$ matrix of small mixings: $$\label{eq:Xi}
\xi = \frac{1}{\hat M_R}\,D =   \frac{1}{\hat M_R}\,U_R^\dagger\,
m_D\,.$$ The derivation of the charged current (CC) couplings to $W_{L,R}^\pm$ and of the neutral current (NC) couplings to $Z_{L,R}$ is outlined below. It is left understood that the known SM couplings fix the normalization modulo a factor of the ratio of the gauge couplings $g_R/g_L$. Let us introduce a vector $E=(e_L,e^c_R,0)^T$ for the left-handed (mass eigenstate) charged fermions, and recall that the neutral states are arranged in another vector $\mathcal{N}=(\nu_L,N^c_R,S^c_R )^T$. The LH and RH charged currents can be written (in two component notations) as: $$\begin{aligned}
  \label{eq:CCL0}
  J^{-\mu}_L &=& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\, E^\dagger \bar \sigma^\mu \, p_L\, \mathcal{N}\,,  \\
  \label{eq:CCR0}
  J^{-\mu}_R &=& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\, E^\dagger  \bar \sigma^\mu \, p_R\, \mathcal{N}\,,
\end{aligned}$$ where $\bar \sigma^\mu= (1,-\vec \sigma)$ are the spinor matrices, and $p_{L,R}$ are the projectors onto the neutral members of the L and R multiplets corresponding to $9\times 9$ matrices which, in $3\times 3$ block notation, are given by $(p_L)_{11}=\mathbb{I}_3$, $(p_R)_{22}=\mathbb{I}_3$ with zero in all other entries. In the seesaw approximation, the neutral mass eigenstates are related to the interaction eigenstates as $\mathcal{N} = {\mathcal{V}'}\, N$ with $N = (\nu,N_-,N_+)^T$, where $\nu$ represents the three light neutrinos and $N_{\pm}$ correspond to the heavy neutrinos respectively with mass eigenvalues $M_R^\pm$. Projecting onto the mass eigenstates and converting to the usual four-component spinor notation for gauge currents we have: $$\begin{aligned}
  \label{eq:CCL}
  J^{-\mu}_L  &=&
\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\, \bar e_L \gamma^\mu\,  V_L \nu
+ \frac{1}{2}  \; \bar e_L  \gamma^\mu \, \xi^\dagger\, (N_+ + i N_-) \,,
% +    e^\dagger_L  (i\bar\sigma^\mu)\, \xi^\dagger\, N_+ \, ,
\\
  J^{-\mu}_R  &\sim&
 \frac{1}{2} \;  \overline{e_R^c}\;  \gamma^\mu\, U_R^*\,
                     (N_+ - i N_-) \,.
% + \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}   {e_R^c}^\dagger  (i\bar\sigma^\mu)\, U_R^*\, N_+ \,.
\end{aligned}$$ NC couplings are also important since they can give rise to $N_\pm \to Z\nu$ decays. In the interaction basis the NC for the neutral states are: $$\begin{aligned}
  \label{eq:NCL0}
  J^{0\mu}_L &=&  \frac{1}{2}\,\mathcal{N}^\dagger i \bar \sigma^\mu \, p_L\, \mathcal{N}\,,  \\
  \label{eq:NCR0}
  J^{0\mu}_R &=&  \frac{1}{2}\,\mathcal{N}^\dagger i \bar \sigma^\mu \, p_R\, \mathcal{N}\,,
\end{aligned}$$ which in the mass eigenstate basis yields: $$\begin{aligned}
  \label{eq:NCL}
  J^{0\mu}_L &=&
\frac{1}{2} \bar\nu \gamma^\mu  \, \nu +
\frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}} \left[\bar\nu \gamma^\mu V^\dagger_L \xi^\dagger (N_++i
                 N_-) + H.c. \right] \,, \\
  \label{eq:NCR}
  J^{0\mu}_R
&=&
\frac{1}{4}\,
(\bar N_+ +i \bar N_-) \gamma^\mu  (N_+-i N_-)\,.
\end{aligned}$$ In the first equation we have neglected additional terms involving $N$-$N$ couplings which are suppressed as $\xi\xi^\dagger$. As can be seen from the second equation, in the approximation in which terms of order $\mu/{\hat M_R} \xi$ are neglected there are no R-handed neutral currents between heavy and light neutrinos. Finally, the fermion-scalar coupling $\frac{1}{v} N_R^\dagger m_D \nu_L\, H$ gives the following interactions between the heavy $N_\pm$'s, the Higgs and the light neutrinos: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Hcouplings}
{\mathcal L}_H
&=& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}  (\bar N_++i \bar N_-)\left[ U_R^T
\frac{m_D}{v}\, V_L \right] \nu\, H \\ % + H.c.
\nonumber
 &+&  \frac{1}{2}
 (\bar N_++i \bar N_-)\left[U_R^T \frac{m_D }{v} \xi^\dagger \right]  (N_++i
 N_-) H  + H. c. \,.
\end{aligned}$$

## A useful parametrization of the inverse seesaw in LR models

In  a clever parametrization of the Dirac mass matrix of the type I seesaw was put forth, and it is referred to as the Casas-Ibarra (CI) parametrization. In this parametrization $m_D$ is expressed in terms of low energy observables (light neutrino mass eigenvalues and mixing angles), of the seesaw heavy mass eigenvalues, and of an arbitrary complex orthogonal matrix $\mathcal{R}$. One of the most useful features of the CI parametrization is that it allows to generate random samples of $m_D$ which by construction reproduce all the low energy data, which is a quite valuable property when one wants to scan over the model parameter space. As we detail below, also for the inverse seesaw in LR models it is possible to introduce a parametrization that has analogous properties, namely that allows to scan over the unknown physical masses and couplings ($U_R,\,V_R,\, m_D,\, M_R,\,\hat\mu$) while automatically reproducing all the low energy data.

Let us start by writing the light neutrino mass matrix in diagonal form (see eq. () and eq. ()): $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:hatmnueff}
  \hat m_\nu &=&
V_L^T m_D^T \frac{1}{M_R^T} \hat\mu\frac{1}{M_R}m_D V_L \,.
\end{aligned}$$ Let us now write $m_D$ as: $$\begin{aligned}
  \label{eq:mD}
m_D &=&  M_R \,
\frac{1}{\sqrt{\hat\mu}}\, {\cal R} \,
\sqrt{\hat m} \, V_L^\dagger\,.
\end{aligned}$$ By inserting eq. () into the RH side of eq. () (or by extracting directly $\mathcal{R}$ from eq. ()) it can be verified that $\mathcal{R}$ must satisfy the condition $\mathcal{R}\mathcal{R}^T=\mathcal{R}^T\mathcal{R}=I$, but is otherwise arbitrary, and thus it can be written as a generic $3\times 3$ orthogonal matrix in terms of three complex angles. Rewriting $M_R$ in the previous equation according to eq. () we obtain $$\label{eq:Ddef}
D=  U_R^\dagger\,m_D =  \hat M_R \, V_R^\dagger \,
\frac{1}{\sqrt{\hat\mu}}\, {\cal R}\,
\sqrt{\hat m} \, V_L^\dagger\,.$$ The RH side of this equation is written in terms of the low energy observables ($\sqrt{\hat m} \, V_L^\dagger$) while the other quantities are arbitrary. The crucial point now is to factor the generic $3\times 3$ complex matrix $D$ as defined in eq. () into a unitary matrix ($U_R^\dagger$) and a symmetric matrix ($m_D$). This can be achieved by factorizing $D$ in its singular value decomposition (SVD) in terms of two unitary matrices $W$ and $Q$ and a real diagonal matrix with non-negative entries $\hat D$: $$\label{eq:Dsing}
  D = W \cdot\hat D \cdot Q^\dagger =  (WQ^T)\cdot (Q^*\hat D
  Q^\dagger) \equiv    \tilde U_R^\dagger    \tilde m_D
\,,$$ where, in the second step, we have inserted $Q^TQ^*=\mathbb{I}_3$ in order to build up a unitary matrix $\tilde U_R$ and the symmetric matrix $\tilde m_D$. However, $\tilde U_R$ and $\tilde m_D$ found in this way are just one among a threefold infinite class of possibilities, spanned by the freedom in switching phases between $\tilde U_R$ and $\tilde m_D$ (all the moduli are instead uniquely fixed). This is due to the fact that the SVD decomposition is not unique, since there are 9 phases in $D$ and $12$ in its decomposition in terms of $W,\hat D$ and $Q$. However, as discussed below eq. (), without loss of generality $U_R$ can be taken special unitary with just $3$ phases, and doing so the counting of parameters between the LH and RH sides of eq. () matches. Let us then introduce a diagonal matrix of phases $\Phi = \mathrm{diag}(e^{i \varphi_1}, e^{i \varphi_2},e^{i  \varphi_3})$ and make the identification $$\label{eq:URpar}
   U_R = Q^* \Phi^* W^\dagger\,,  \qquad
m_D = Q^* \Phi^*\hat D Q^\dagger \,,$$ which clearly preserves $U_R^\dagger m_D=D$ and the symmetric nature of $m_D$. The values of $\varphi_i$ can then be fixed to achieve the desired form for $U_R$. Therefore, in the LR inverse-seesaw, given for example a set of RH neutrino masses $\hat M_R$ and of LNV parameters $\hat \mu$ of specific interest, the parametrization eq. () together with eq. () yields both $m_D$ and $U_R$ in terms of two arbitrary matrices: a complex orthogonal matrix $\cal R$ and a special unitary matrix $V_R$ with just three phases, while, by construction, all the low energy neutrino data are automatically reproduced.

The discussion in this section assumed an inverse seesaw within the left-right symmetric group. However, it is straightforward to adapt most our discussion to inverse seesaw models with the same block structure of $\mathcal{M}$ as in eq. (), but for which $N_R$ is not related to $\ell_R$, i.e. the standard model gauge group. In this case $m_D$ is not constrained to be symmetric and we gain the freedom of redefining $N_R$ via a $U(3)$ transformation. This allows to reabsorb $U_R$ defined in eq. () via a field rotation, while $V_R$ remains defined in terms of three real and three imaginary parameters. Then $U^\dagger_R$ can be simply dropped from eq. () whereas $D=m_D$ remains generic. [^5]

# Opposite sign to same sign dilepton ratio

In this section we estimate the ratio of production of pairs of leptons with the same sign and we compare it with the rate of production of pairs of leptons of opposite sign. The ratio between these two observables is denoted as $R_{ll}$. In both cases the production rates are dominated by processes with on-shell (or nearly on-shell) $N_R$'s and therefore, under the natural assumption that the mass splitting between the different pairs is large (we typically expect $M_{Rj}^\pm - M_{Rk}^\pm \sim \mathcal{O}(M_R)$), it is sufficient to study just a single pair of quasi-Dirac $N_\pm$. SS dilepton production occurs for example through the LNV process $\bar q q \to W_R^+ \to \ell^+_\alpha N_\pm \to \ell^+_\alpha
\ell^+_\beta W_R^*$, where $(\bar q) q$ denote (anti-)quark partons inside the colliding protons, $N_+$ and $N_-$ are the two heavy neutrinos mass eigenstates, $W_R^*$ is an off-shell RH gauge boson that will eventually decay dominantly in two jets, and $\ell_\alpha,\, \ell_\beta$ are two leptons not necessarily of the same flavor. Opposite sign pairs of leptons can be produced via the LN conserving process $\bar q q\to W_R^+ \to \ell^+_\alpha N_\pm \to \ell^+_\alpha
\ell^-_\beta W_R^*$. Clearly, in order to produce the $N_\pm$ intermediate states on-shell via the decay of an on-shell $W_R$, $M_{W_R} > M_R^\pm$ is required. We further assume $M_{W_R} \not \gg M_R^\pm$ so that the $N_\pm$ mass eigenstates can be treated in the non-relativistic approximation.

Before entering into details let us try to figure out qualitatively what type of result we can expect. When the on-shell $W^+_R$ decays, an $\ell^+$ anti-lepton is produced together with a heavy neutrino of $\ell$-flavor $N_\ell$, which corresponds to a coherent superposition of the two mass eigenstates $N^\pm$. Given that the same decay channels are open for both $N^\pm$, the time-evolution of the initial $N_\ell$ will be characterized by a typical oscillating behavior with frequency $\Delta M = M^+-M^- = \mu$. There is another important scale in the problem, that is the $N^\pm$ lifetime $\tau = 1/\Gamma$.[^6] If $\Delta M \gg \Gamma$ the lifetime is long enough that complete separation of the $N^\pm$ wave packets can occur. Coherence between the two mass eigenstates is completely lost before the decays, and decays will then proceed as in the usual Majorana case, yielding equal probabilities for SS and OS dileptons events, i.e. $R_{ll}=1$. (Ideally, in this situation we can imagine that the mass of the intermediate state can be reconstructed from the invariant mass of the $N$ decay products $m_{\ell_2 jj}$ to be $M^+$ or $M^-$, in which case the above result is obvious.) In the opposite limit $\Delta M \ll \Gamma$ decays occur at a time $t_D \sim \tau \ll 1/\Delta M$, that is before the onset of oscillation effects, so that $N_\ell(t_D) \approx N_\ell(0)$. In this case only the LN conserving transition $N_\ell(t_D) \to \ell^-$ can occur and $R_{ll}=0$. Namely, when the $N^\pm$ mass degeneracy (in units of $\Gamma$) is sufficiently strong, the pure Dirac case is approached. It is then clear that the interesting regime occurs when the oscillation frequency is of the order of the lifetime, viz when $\mu =\Delta M \approx \Gamma$. Only in this case we can expect $R_{ll} \neq 0, 1$.

From eq. () we can write the $N_\ell$ heavy state produced in the decay $W^+_R \to \bar\ell N_\ell$ and its conjugate state $N_{\bar\ell}$ produced in the decay $W^-_R \to \ell N_{\bar\ell}$ in terms of the mass eigenstates as:[^7] $$\begin{aligned}
  \label{eq:NbarN1}
  N_\ell &=& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} (N_+ - i N_-)\,, \\
  \label{eq:NbarN2}
  N_{\bar\ell} &=& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} (N_+ + i N_-) \,.
\end{aligned}$$ In writing these linear combinations we have neglected for convenience the flavor mixing matrices $U_R$ (see eq. ()) since the products of their matrix elements appearing in the LN conserving and LNV amplitudes cancels in the ratio $R_{ll}$. However, it should be kept in mind that these matrix elements control the flavor composition of both the SS and OS dilepton final states $\ell_i\ell_j$, and we reiterate that for generic mixing structures, $i\neq j$ events have no reason to be suppressed with respect to $i=j$ events.

After a time $t$, the states in eq. () have evolved into $$\begin{aligned}
  \label{eq:gpm}
  N_\ell(t) &=& g_+(t) N_\ell + g_-(t)  N_{\bar\ell}\,, \\
  \label{eq:gmp}
  N_{\bar\ell} (t)&=& g_-(t) N_\ell + g_+(t) N_{\bar\ell} \,,
\end{aligned}$$ where the oscillating amplitudes read $$\begin{aligned}
  \label{eq:NbarN}
  g_+(t) &=& e^{-i M t}e^{-\frac{\Gamma}{2} t} \cos \left(\frac{\Delta M}{2}t \right)\,, \\
  g_-(t) &=& i \,e^{-i M t}e^{-\frac{\Gamma}{2} t} \sin \left(\frac{\Delta M}{2} t\right)\,,
\end{aligned}$$ with $M=\frac{1}{2}(M_++M_-)$ and, according to the discussion above, we have neglected the effects of $\Delta\Gamma$. Since the typical heavy neutrino widths are too large to allow observing displaced vertices (see next section), individual oscillation patterns cannot be resolved. The SS to OS ratio $R_{ll}$ is then given by the ratio of the time-integrated amplitudes squared (note that they include the time dependent weight factor of the heavy neutrinos lifetime): $$\label{eq:RatioR}
R_{ll} = \frac
{\int_0^\infty \left|g_-\right|^2 dt}
{\int_0^\infty\left|g_+\right|^2 dt}  = \frac{ \Delta M^2}{2 \Gamma^2 +
  \Delta M^2} \,.$$ This result correctly reproduces the limiting cases discussed at the beginning of this section, that is $R_{ll}\to 1$ as $\Gamma /\Delta
M\to 0$ (limiting Majorana case) and $R_{ll}\to 0$ as $(\Gamma/\Delta
M)^{-1} \to 0$ (limiting Dirac case).[^8]

# LHC Phenomenology

In searching for heavy RH neutrinos within the framework of LR symmetric models, both the ATLAS and the CMS collaboration assume that the heavy neutrino decays proceed via an off-shell $W_R$ bosons, with a branching ratio of 100% for the decay mode $N \to l^{\pm}jj$ where $l$ represents a charged lepton of any flavor and $N$ represents a generic heavy neutrino. While this is a reasonable expectation for LR models with an ordinary seesaw mechanism, the situation is very different in models based on the inverse seesaw. In our framework in fact all the following decay modes can occur, and all with sizeable branching ratios: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:ndec}
N \to W_L^{\pm} + l^{\pm}\,, &&  N \to Z_L + \nu\,,
\hskip5mm N \to h + \nu\,,  \\
\nonumber
N \to (W_R)^{*} + l^{\pm} \to jj l^{\pm}
& , &
N \to (Z_R)^{*} + \nu
\to  (jj\; {\rm or}\; l^{+} l^{-})\nu \,,
\end{aligned}$$ where $W_L$ and $Z_L$ are the (mostly) SM gauge bosons, $h$ is the SM Higgs with mass $m_{h} \simeq 125$ GeV, and $\nu$ represents a light neutrino of any flavor. In our analysis we also assume $m_{N} < m_{W_R}$, where $m_N$ denotes collectively the  pair of mass eigenvalues $(M_R^\pm)_{11}$ for the lightest heavy neutrinos, so that the RH gauge bosons $(W_R)^{*}$ and $(Z_R)^*$ from $N=N_{1\pm}$ decays are off-shell. We also assume for simplicity $(M_R^\pm)_{ii} > m_{W_R}$ for $i>1$ so that a single pair of RH neutrinos contributes to the signal (this second assumption is not necessary whenever the different pairs of heavy neutrinos are sufficiently separated in mass so that the different invariant masses of the decay products can be reconstructed with good confidence). In the numerical analysis we have also included the decay mode $N \to (Z_R)^{*} + \nu$ although its branching is seesaw suppressed, and therefore largely irrelevant with respect to the other decays (see the comment below eq. ()). In addition to the decay modes shown in eq. (), decays into additional scalars besides the Higgs could also be possible, if they are lighter than $N$. This however, depends on unknown details of the scalar sector. Therefore, for definiteness we will assume that any new scalar is heavier than $N$ so that the dominant decay modes are all listed in eq. ().

We first present some examples of numerical results corresponding to some fixed value of $m_{W_R}$ and of $m_N$. This is justified by the fact that detection of $lljj$ signals at the LHC would imply that $m_{W_R}$ and at least one $m_{N_i}$ will be measured. In all the plots low energy neutrino data are kept fixed at their best fit point values for a normally ordered hierarchical spectrum (no qualitative differences arise for inverted hierarchies). We start by showing results for some fixed arbitrary choice of the matrices $V_R$ and ${\cal R}$ (see section ).

Fig.  shows some typical values of the branching ratios for different final states as a function of the LNV parameter $\mu$ ranging within the interval $[10^{-5},10^{-1}]$ GeV. We have chosen the two representative values $m_N=0.2\,$TeV (solid lines) and $m_N=0.5\,$TeV (dashed lines), and two different values for the $W_R$ mass $m_{W_R}=2\,$TeV (left panel) and $m_{W_R}=5\,$TeV (right panel). The lowest $m_{W_R}$ value corresponds roughly to the mass of the CMS excess, while the largest one corresponds roughly to the maximum $m_{W_R}$ that the LHC can probe in the next few years of running. In the final states we sum over the different quark and lepton generations, so that the results are independent of neutrino mixing. For small values of $\mu$, decays to SM gauge bosons dominate the decay rates. The branching ratios for $N \to W_R^{*} + l^{\mp} \to l^{\mp}jj$ and for decays to SM gauge bosons become similar for intermediate values of $\mu$, the detailed ranges in which this occurs depend, however, rather strongly on the values of $m_{N}$ and of $m_{W_R}$. For large values of $\mu$ three body decays become dominant. The qualitative behavior shown in fig.  can be understood from the equations presented in the previous section. In the inverse seesaw, the light neutrino masses are given by eq. (). The equation contains the three matrices $m_D$, $M_R$ and $\mu$ as free parameters. Keeping fixed the light neutrino masses at values in agreement with the experimental data and for fixed values of $M_R$, a scaling $m_D \propto 1/\sqrt{\mu}$ is obtained. Since all the couplings of the heavy neutrinos to SM gauge bosons are proportional to $m_D$ (see the equations in section ) decays to SM gauge bosons dominate when $\mu$ is small.

Fig.  shows the partial widths and branching ratios for $N$ decays as a function of $m_{N}$ for the two values $\mu=10^{-5}\,$GeV (solid lines) and $\mu=10^{-4}\,$GeV (dashed lines). Typical widths are in the range of $\Gamma \simeq [10^{-7},10^{-2}]$ GeV, much too small to be directly measured at the LHC, and too large to produce a displaced vertex. For small values of $m_N$, $N\to W_L l^\pm$ decays dominate the other two-body decays. However, it is important to notice that for $m_{N} \gg m_{h}$ the branching ratios of $N$ decays to $W_L$, $Z_L$ and $h$ summed over light flavors become all equal. This can allow to infer the branching ratio for $N$ decays to $W_L+Z_L+h$ from the measurement of Br($N \to W^{\pm} + \sum_\alpha l^{\mp}_\alpha$) alone.

Note also that the $W_L$ gauge bosons decay to jets with a branching ratio of about $2/3 < 1$, and that $Z_L$ and $h$ do not lead to $ljj$ final states. This implies a reduction in the number of expected $lljj$ events. In the extreme case of very small $\mu$ and for $m_{N} \gg m_{h}$, when the decays into SM bosons dominates, only $1/9$ of the total number of decays are into $lljj$ final states occurring mainly via the $N \to W_L + l \to ljj$ decay chain. Let us recall that experimental estimates are instead based on the assumption that the only decay channel is $N\to W_R^* l^\pm$, implying that 100% of the decays correspond to $ljj$ final states. Therefore, we can expect that, within the present framework, the lower limit on $m_{W_R}$ should be somewhat looser than the one quoted by the LHC collaborations. Let us also note that since $W_L$'s are produced on-shell, for $N \to W_L + l \to ljj$ decays, the invariant mass of the jets should be peaked in correspondence to $m_{W_L}$. Thus it should be possible to separate kinematically these events from the off-shell $W_R$ events. Such a measurement could be important to establish large "heavy-light" mixing in the neutrino sector, that is a general prediction of the inverse seesaw model. Finally, the fact that in the inverse seesaw models decays to SM bosons can dominate in a wide region of parameter space is again apparent also from fig. .

Up to now we have kept the values of the entries of the $V_R$ and ${\cal R}$ matrices in the parametrization given in eq. () fixed at some arbitrary constant values. We recall that $V_R$ is a unitary matrix with three angles and three phases, while ${\cal R}$ is complex orthogonal and can be defined in the usual way in terms of $\sin$ and $\cos$ of three complex angles $\zeta_i$. For our numerical scan, we parametrize these angles as: $$\label{eq:defzi}
\zeta_i = \kappa \cdot e^{2i\pi\, x_i} ,$$ with $x_i$ a randomly generated real number $\in [0,1]$, and $\kappa \in [0,\kappa_{\rm max}]$. The upper limit $\kappa_{\rm max}$ represents a measure of how much fine tuning is allowed in the parametrization eq. () in order to allow for particularly large values of $m_D$ (or alternatively of the Yukawa couplings generating $m_D$) while still respecting all the constraints from low energy neutrino data. For $\kappa_{\rm max} \raise 0.3ex\hbox{$\;<$\kern-0.75em\raise-1.1ex\hbox{$\sim\;$}}1$ there is no fine tuning: all the tree-level formulas presented above remain valid and in particular loop corrections to neutrino masses and mixing angles remain at the level of few percent. However, for $\kappa_{\rm max} \raise 0.3ex\hbox{$\;>$\kern-0.75em\raise-1.1ex\hbox{$\sim\;$}}2-3$, similarly large values of $\kappa$ become possible and the corresponding results would be highly questionable, since the tree-level approximation starts to break down and in particular, when loop corrections are taken into account, some low energy neutrino parameters might well drop out the experimentally allowed range. We have then plotted the results in fig. () adopting the educated choice $\kappa_{\rm max} =1$.

In the left panel of fig.  we depict $R_{ll}$ versus $\Delta M/\Gamma$ for some arbitrary value of the heavy neutrino mass, scanning randomly over the entries in $V_R$ and ${\cal R}$. We see that for $\Delta M$ larger than a few times $\Gamma$, $R_{ll}$ approaches rapidly the Majorana limit $R_{ll}=1$. This result is independent of the absolute mass scale of the heavy neutrinos.

As we have already noticed, the expected widths for the heavy neutrino decays are too small to be directly measured at the LHC (see fig. ). However, the ratio of two-body versus three-body $N$ decays can be measurable. At fixed values of $m_N$ and $m_{W_R}$ this ratio is controlled by the value of $\mu$, which also fixes the mass splitting of the quasi-Dirac neutrino pair, therefore we can expect a correlation between the ratio of two body versus three body $N$ decays, and $R_{ll}$. This is shown in the right panel in fig. () where this ratio is plotted versus $R_{ll}$ (summed over lepton flavors). The sum of the two body decays in the numerator of the ratio ($y$-axis in the right panel), has been rescaled by $(m_{N}/m_{W_R})^4$ to compensate for the $W_R$-propagator suppression for the three body decay. This renders the correlation between the two observables nearly independent of the values of the $W_R$ and $N$ masses. As the figure shows, if a large value $R_{ll} \sim 1$ is measured, the present scenario predicts that the rate for decays into SM bosons should be smaller than a few percent of the rate for three body decays times $(m_{N}/m_{W_R})^4$. On the other hand, if a small value $R_{ll} \raise 0.3ex\hbox{$\;<$\kern-0.75em\raise-1.1ex\hbox{$\sim\;$}}10^{-2}$ is measured (or an upper bound of the same order is set), the prediction is that a sizeable fraction of RH neutrino decays should proceed via on-shell SM bosons. Note that this correlation does not depend on the type of light neutrino spectrum (normal versus inverted hierarchy). Thus, the inverse seesaw not only allows for generic values $R_{ll} < 1$, but it also implies a testable correlation between $R_{ll}$ and the RH neutrino decay modes.

As we have already said, the results depicted in the plots have been obtained by summing over the the final state lepton flavors. However, given that the mixing matrices controlling the flavor composition of the dilepton final states are in principle generic, different flavor final states such as $\mu e jj$ can naturally occur with large branching ratios, while respecting the full set of low energy constraints (we have checked that numerically generated dilepton samples do not show suppressions of different flavor dilepton events). Thus, we stress again that SS and OS dilepton events of different flavors should be included as a potential contribution to the signal and, most importantly, they should not be used as an estimate of the backgrounds in experimental analyses. In the attempt of scrutinizing further lepton flavor violating (LFV) effects in the inverse seesaw scenario, we have also calculated branching ratios for low energy LFV processes, the most relevant of which is Br($\mu\to e \gamma$). We have found that Br($\mu\to e \gamma$) can provide additional relevant constraints only for very small values of $\mu$ ($\mu \ll 10^{-6}$ GeV), which corresponds to the regime in which the pure Dirac limit is approached and $R_{ll}\approx 0$ is expected.

All in all, the main conclusion of this section is that LR models equipped with an inverse seesaw mechanism for the light neutrino masses naturally yield pairs of quasi-Dirac RH neutrinos. In the specific region of parameter space corresponding to $\Delta M \approx \Gamma$, the ratio $R_{ll}$ can have any value within the range \[0,1\]. Moreover, this value correlates in a specific way with the value of the ratio between two-body and three-body RH neutrino decays, and gross violations of this prediction would disfavor the scenario, and possibly rule it out.

# Summary

In this paper we have discussed signals of LNV that could originate in scenarios with quasi-Dirac neutrinos, that can be defined as a pair of Majorana neutrinos for which a mass splitting much smaller than their average mass is induced by small LNV terms. In particular, we have focused on the ratio of same-sign to opposite-sign dilepton events $R_{ll}$, which is the most promising LNV observable for experimental searches at the LHC. It is well known that if the dilepton events originate from production/decays of heavy Majorana neutrinos, then $R_{ll}=1$ is expected. We have shown that in the quasi-Dirac case, in the regime in which the mass splitting $\Delta M$ between the pair of heavy RH neutrino resonances becomes of the order of their widths, any value within the interval $R_{ll}\in [0,1]$ is possible, and $R_{ll}=0$ is approached in the limit $\Delta M/\Gamma \to 0$ which defines the pure Dirac limit of the quasi-Dirac neutrino pair. It is then clear that an experimental result $R_{ll} < 1 (\neq 0)$ could provide valuable information about the mechanism of generation of the light neutrino masses.

We stress that our main result on $R_{ll}$ does not depend on the particular model realization of the quasi-Dirac neutrino scenario (other features, as for example the total event rate for heavy neutrino production, obviously do depend on the specific model). For definiteness we have carried out our discussion in the framework of a LR symmetric model equipped with an inverse seesaw mechanism, since this setup appears to be of prominent experimental interest in view of the ongoing searches for signals of LNV and of RH neutrinos at the LHC. In discussing the LHC phenomenology, we have pointed out that specific values of $R_{ll}\neq 0,1$ can be correlated with special features of observables in the decay modes of the heavy neutrinos, and this correlation can help to test the scenario. Last but not least, in developing our analysis we have introduced a new parametrization of the inverse seesaw which allows to scan the parameter space of the fundamental theory while automatically respecting all the phenomenological constraints of the low energy effective theory. The use of this parametrization has proven to be very convenient in carrying out our numerical study.

# Acknowledgments

We thank R.N. Mohapatra and P. S. Bhupal Dev for discussion about their results. The work of E.N. is supported in part from the research grant "Theoretical Astroparticle Physics" number 2012CPPYP7 under the program PRIN 2012 funded by the Italian "Ministero dell' Istruzione, Università e della Ricerca" (MIUR) and from the INFN "Iniziativa Specifica" Theoretical Astroparticle Physics (TAsP-LNF). This work was supported by the Spanish grants FPA2014-58183-P, Multidark CSD2009-00064 and SEV-2014-0398 (from the *Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad*), as well as PROMETEOII/2014/084 (from the *Generalitat Valenciana*).

[^1]: Although it is not widely known, SS dilepton events are not a distinctive feature of LR scenarios. They can also arise, in principle, in a variety of LNV models some of which do not introduce right-handed neutrinos.

[^2]: Via loop corrections small departures from exact $R_{ll}\equiv 1$ are possible. This signals CP violation and is a necessary ingredient for models of leptogenesis (see for reviews).

[^3]: Scenarios with quasi degenerate right-handed neutrinos with masses and couplings allowing for their production at the LHC, but of the Dirac type , or effectively yielding lepton number conservation , have been also proposed.

[^4]: The authors of study the inverse seesaw within the standard model group. We agree with their expression for the LNV amplitude. However, different from the LR case, which we study in this paper, concludes that LNV events are not observable for heavy neutrino masses above 100 GeV in their setup.

[^5]: Of course, within the SM group there are no right-handed gauge interactions, see section .

[^6]: Since $N^\pm$ have the same decay channels, and only a tiny mass difference, we expect for the width difference $\Delta \Gamma = \Gamma^+ - \Gamma^- \ll \Delta M$ so that $\Delta \Gamma$ is always negligible. This is analogous to what happens in the $B^0-\bar B^0$ meson system (see e.g. ref. ).

[^7]: One remark is in order: in the presence of CP violating effects, the modulus of the ratio of the two coefficients in the linear combinations eqs. ()–() can deviate from unity (CP violation in mixing ). In the regime $\mu \sim \Gamma$ this type of CP violation can get resonantly enhanced, and in principle observable effects on the ratio $R_{ll}$ could be possible. We neglect this possibility in our treatment.

[^8]: This result disagrees with eq.(7) of ref.  which displays an explicit dependence of $R_{ll}$ on the heavy neutrino mass $M$.


abstract: Cross-lingual voice conversion (CLVC) is a quite challenging task since the source and target speakers speak different languages. This paper proposes a CLVC framework based on bottleneck features and deep neural network (DNN). In the proposed method, the bottleneck features extracted from a deep auto-encoder (DAE) are used to represent speaker-independent features of speech signals from different languages. A DNN model is trained to learn the mapping between bottleneck features and the corresponding spectral features of the target speaker. The proposed method can capture speaker-specific characteristics of a target speaker, and hence requires no speech data from source speaker during training. The performance of the proposed method is evaluated using data from three Indian languages: Telugu, Tamil and Malayalam. The experimental results show that the proposed method outperforms the baseline Gaussian mixture model (GMM)-based CLVC approach.
author: M Kiran Reddy and K Sreenivasa Rao
[^1] [^2]
title:  DNN-based cross-lingual voice conversion using Bottleneck Features

Shell *et al.*: Bare Demo of IEEEtran.cls for IEEE Journals

# Introduction

conversion (VC) is the process of modifying the speech utterances of a source speaker so that it sounds like it was uttered by a target speaker. There are several applications of VC such as voice restoration, customization of text-to-speech systems, etc . Based on the language that source and target speakers speak VC can be divided into two categories, namely, (1) *Intra-lingual VC* and (2) *cross-lingual VC*. Intra-lingual VC assumes that the source and target speakers speak in the same language. Several techniques have been proposed in the literature for intra-lingual VC based on Gaussian mixture models (GMMs) , deep neural networks (DNNs) , recurrent neural networks (RNNs) , restricted Boltzmann machines (RBMs) , exemplar-based framework  and generative adversarial nets (GANs) . These approaches either require parallel or non-parallel data to obtain the mapping function between source and target spectral features.

Cross-lingual VC (CLVC) is essential for developing mixed-language speech synthesis systems, customization of speaking devices, etc . In CLVC, it is assumed that the source and target speakers speak different languages (the languages should be acoustically closer), and the aim is to convert the utterance spoken by source speaker in such a way that it is spoken untranslated by the target speaker. Hence, there is no possibility of recording parallel data. Since, the languages spoken by source and target speakers are different, it is difficult to train conversion model even using non-parallel data. In the literature, very few attempts have been made to develop CLVC systems. In , vector quantization (VQ) based CLVC is developed for the languages, Japanese and English. This approach do not sufficiently preserve the speaker's identity, where the feature space of the converted envelope is limited to a discrete set of envelopes. In , vocal tract length normalization is empolyed for developing CLVC system for the languages German and English. Erro et al., employed an iterative frame selection approach to perform cross-language VC . An eigenvoice (EV) GMM-based method for CLVC is proposed in . Here, parallel data from source speaker and multiple pre-stored data from other speakers are used for training EV-GMM. The EV-GMM is adapted using few arbitrary utterances from the target speaker in a different language, to obtain the conversion model.

Though these methods avoid the need for parallel data, they still require non-parallel speech data from the source speakers to build the conversion models. This is a limitation to an application where an arbitrary source speaker's voice has to be transformed to a target speaker without recording anything *apriori*. Thus, recent research focus on investigating conversion models which can capture target speaker-specific characteristics, and avoid the need for source speaker's data in training stage. In , speaker-specific GMMs are trained using data from target speaker alone, to achieve CLVC for Indian languages. This approach can convert speech of an arbitrary source speaker into a given target speaker. However, it suffers from the oversmoothing effect due to GMM-based based conversion. Recently, attempts are being made to capture speaker-specific characteristics using neural network (NN) models. Training speaker-specific NN models is not as straightforward as in the case of GMM. Here, first we need to efficiently extract both speaker-dependent and speaker-independent features from speech signals . Then, a NN can be used to obtain the mapping function between the speaker-dependent and speaker-independent features computed from speech signals of the target speaker. While Mel-cepstral coefficients (MCEPs) can be used as speaker-dependent features, there is search for an efficient representation of speaker-independent information. Phonetic posteriorGrams (PPGs) have been explored as speaker-independent features for intra-lingual  and cross-lingual VC . PPGs are estimated by training an ASR system using a large multi-speaker database. Although PPGs perform well for intra-lingual VC, their extraction become difficult in a cross-lingual scenario . Hence, there is a need for an alternative representation for speaker-independent information.

In this work, we explore the bottleneck features derived from a deep auto-encoder (DAE) as speaker-independent features to perform CLVC. In training phase, a DNN is trained to learn mapping between the target speaker's bottleneck features and spectral features. The bottleneck features are extracted from a pretrained DAE model, trained using multi-speaker data. During conversion, the trained DNN model is used to convert DAE bottleneck features from an arbitrary source speaker to spectral features of the desired target speaker. The proposed approach can capture target speaker-specific characteristics, and does not require any source speaker data to train the VC model. The performance of the proposed method is evaluated using speech data from two Indian languages: Telugu, Tamil and Malayalam. The experimental results show that the proposed method outperform the GMM-based CLVC technique. This paper is organized as follows: Section II gives details of the baseline GMM-based CLVC approach. The proposed CLVC approach is described in Section III. The performance of the proposed method is evaluated and compared with GMM-based CLVC technique in Section IV. Section V summarizes and concludes the present work.

# Baseline GMM-based CLVC technique

For CLVC, approaches which can capture speaker-specific characteristics of a target speaker are required. Such approaches can transform the speech of any arbitary source speaker to a pre-defined target speaker, without recording anything $apriori$ from the source speaker. As mentioned earlier, GMMs can be directly trained with spectral features from target speaker alone to capture speaker-specific charactersitcs. Hence, the GMM-based approach  is chosen as baseline in this work. The steps in training a GMM to capture target speaker-specific characteristics for CLVC are as follows :

1.  Let $L_S$ and $L_T$ denote the source language and target language, respectively.

2.  In training phase, extract spectral features ( cepstral coefficients) corresponding to the utterances of $L_T$ and train a GMM with M mixture components that can be used as a tokenizer. The model is denoted as, $$\lambda _{L_\mathrm{T}} = \{w_{i}, \mu _{i}, {\varSigma }_{i}\};\quad i = 1,2,\ldots ,M$$

    here, $w_i$ , $\mu_i$ , and $\Sigma_i$ are the weight, mean vector, and the covariance matrix of the $i_{th}$ mixture component, respectively.

3.  During conversion stage, the feature vectors corresponding to the utterances spoken by the source speaker in the source language are extracted. Let $J$ denote the total number of utterances in the $L_S$. From each of these utterances, extract the spectral feature vectors. Let us denote the feature vectors as, $f_k^S$, where $k = 1, 2, ..., N$. Here, N is the total number of feature vectors.

4.  For each feature vector of the source speaker, $f_k^S$, given the GMM codebook for the target language $L_T$, the GMM-tokenizer outputs the mean vector ($\mu_k$) of the Gaussian mixture component scoring the highest in GMM likelihood computation as given below. $$\mu _{k} = \underset{i=1,2,\ldots ,M}{\arg \max }\left[ w_{i}\cdot g\left( f_{k}^{\mathrm{S}}|\mu _{i},{\varSigma }_{i}\right) \right]$$

    where, $$g\left( f_{k}^{\mathrm{S}}|\mu _{i},{\varSigma }_{i}\right) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{(2\pi )^{D}|{\varSigma }_i|}} e^{-\frac{1}{2} \left( f_{k}^{\mathrm{S}}-\mu _{i}\right) ^{t} {\varSigma }_{i}^{-1} \left( f_{k}^{\mathrm{S}}-\mu _{i}\right) }$$

5.  Feature vectors of the source speaker, $f_{k}^{\mathrm{S}}$, is now replaced by the target feature vectors (codeword), $\mu _{k}$, with the highest score (likelihood) ensuring the transformation of system features of the source speaker to that of the target speaker.

6.  The fundamental frequency ($F_0$) of the source speaker is transformed to that of the target speaker by a suitable $F_0$ modification factor $F_M$ given by, $$F_M = \frac{F_T}{F_S}$$

    where, $F_T$ is the average $F_0$ of target speaker computed from all the training utterances and $F_S$ is the average $F_0$ of the source speaker for a given utterance. The transformed spectral features and pitch period are given as input to synthesis filter/vocoder for synthesizing the transformed utterance.

# Proposed cross-lingual VC Framework

Training neural network models for capturing target speaker-specific characterisitcs is not as straightforward as with the case of GMMs. The idea in building a neural network model to capture speaker-specific characteristics is as follows . Let $l_q$ and $s_q$ be two different representations of the speech signal from a target speaker $q$. While $l_q$ could be interpreted as speaker independent representation of speech signal, $s_q$ could be interpreted as carrying message and speaker information. A mapping function $\Omega(l_q)$ has to be built for transforming $l_q$ to $s_q$. Such a function would be specific to the speaker and could be considered as capturing the essential speaker-specific characteristics. The choice of representation of $l_q$ and $s_q$ is important in developing the mapping functions.

Fig. 1 shows the block diagrams of the training and conversion modules of the proposed approach. In the proposed method, $l_q$ and $s_q$ are represented by deep auto-encoder (DAE) bottleneck features and Mel-generalized cepstral coefficients (MGCCs), respectively. The encoder part can cultivate the ability of speaker-independent encoding when an auto-encoder is trained using spectral frames from multiple speakers . As a result, the encoder can convert an observed frame into latent-variable (or bottleneck features in auto-encoder terminology) which contains information that is irrelevant to speaker, such as phonetic variations. Hence, the bottleneck features have been considered to represent speaker-independent information in the proposed method. In training phase, first bottleneck features corresponding to MGCCs of the target speaker are extracted from a pretrained DAE. The DAE is a feedforward neural network which is pre-trained for speaker-independent bottleneck features generation using a multi-speaker corpus (described in Section III-A). Then, a DNN is trained using back propagation algorithm to minimize the error $||s^{'}_{q}-s_q||^2$, where $s^{'}_{q}=\Omega(l_q)$ and $\Omega(\cdot)$ is the mapping or conversion function. During conversion phase, the trained DNN model is employed to convert $l_r$ to $s^{'}_{q}$, where $l_r$ represents the bottleneck features computed from signal signals of any arbitrary source speaker $r$.

```latex
\begin{table*}[]\centering
\caption{Description of the speech database.}
\label{tab:my-table}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
Language   & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{Male}                                                                                & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{Female}                                                                                \\ \hline
           & \#Speakers & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\#Train per\\ speaker\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\#Test per\\ speaker\end{tabular} & \#Speakers & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\#Train per\\ speaker\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\#Test per\\ speaker\end{tabular} \\ \hline
Telugu-DAE & 3          & 125 & 30                                                           & 3          & 125                                                           & 30                                                           \\ \hline
Telugu-VC  & 1  (TeM)        & 125 & 30                                                           & 1 (TeF)        & 125                                                           & 30                                                           \\ \hline
Tamil      & 1 (TaM)          & 125 & 30                                                           & 1 (TaM)        & 125                                                           & 30                                                           \\ \hline
Malayalam   & 1 (MaM)         & 125                                                           & 30                                                           & 1 (MaF)          & 125                                                           & 30                                                           \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table*}
```

## Deep Auto-encoder Bottleneck Features

An Autoencoder (AE) is a feed forward neural network (FFNN) used to learn a representation (encoding) for a set of input data . It consists of two blocks: Encoder and Decoder. In a simple auto-encoder having one-hidden-layer, the encoder maps a higher dimensional input vector $\boldsymbol{x}$ to a lower dimensional feature vector $\boldsymbol{y}$ as follows: $$\boldsymbol{y} = \textit{f}_\theta(\boldsymbol{x}) = s(\boldsymbol{Wx} + \boldsymbol{b})$$

Here, $\boldsymbol{y}$ is the bottleneck feature vector representation of the input feature vector $\boldsymbol{x}$. $\theta = \{ \boldsymbol{W}, \boldsymbol{b}\}$ is the encoder parameters. $\boldsymbol{W}$ and $\boldsymbol{b}$ are the weight matrix and a bias vector, respectively. $s$ is a non-linear activation function. The decoder reconstructs the input by using the output $\boldsymbol{y}$ given by the encoder as follows: $$\boldsymbol{z} = \textit{g}_{\theta^{'}}(\boldsymbol{y}) = s(\boldsymbol{W}^{'}\boldsymbol{y} + \boldsymbol{b}^{'})$$ Where, $\theta^{'} = \{\boldsymbol{W}^{'}, \boldsymbol{b}^{'}\}$ is the decoder parameters. $s$ is a linear or non-linear activation function. The weight matrix $\boldsymbol{W}^{'}$ is usually constrained to be the transpose of the matrix in the encoder, i.e., $\boldsymbol{W}^{'} = \boldsymbol{W}^\top$.

The AE parameters $\{\theta, \theta^{'}\}$ are typically optimized using the mean squared error (MSE) criterion. The model parameters are usually estimated using RMSprop algorithm. An AE can be extended to a deeper architecture by stacking up multiple layers of encoders and decoders, which is called deep auto-encoder (DAE) . The additional hidden layers enable the AE to learn mathematically more complex patterns in the data. Fig. 2 shows the basic structure of DAE. In the encoding phase, the units at each hidden layer are calculated given its previous layer as $$\boldsymbol{y^k} = s \left(\boldsymbol{W^k}\boldsymbol{y^{k-1}}+\boldsymbol{b^k}\right)$$

where $\boldsymbol{W^k}$ and $\boldsymbol{b^k}$ are the parameters of the $\boldsymbol{k}$-th encoder layer, and $\boldsymbol{y}^0=\boldsymbol{x}$. In the decoding phase, the hidden layers are calculated as $$\boldsymbol{y^{k-1}} = s \left(\boldsymbol{{W^k}^\top }\boldsymbol{h^{k}}+\boldsymbol{{b^k}^{\prime }}\right)$$ and $$\boldsymbol{z} =\boldsymbol{{W^1}^\top }\boldsymbol{y^{1}}+\boldsymbol{{b^1}^{\prime }}$$ where $\boldsymbol{{W^k}^\top}$ and $\boldsymbol{{b^k}^{\prime }}$ are the parameters of the $\boldsymbol{k}$-th decoder layer, $\boldsymbol{{W^1}^\top}$ and $\boldsymbol{{b^1}^{\prime }}$ are the parameters of the last decoder layer. The training criterion of DAE is the same as AE.

In this work, we have used DAE with (empirically arrived) architecture $512$-$512$-$\textbf{M}/2$-$512$-$512$, where the enoder has $3$ layers with $\{512,512,\textbf{M}/2\}$ units per layer and the decoder has $2$ layers with $\{512,512\}$ units per layer. The bottleneck features correspond to the output of the last encoding layer (bottleneck layer), which typically contains a small number of neurons relative to the size of the other layers. The input features for the DAE are $\textbf{M}$-dimensional MGCCs. The dimension of bottleneck layer is $\textbf{M}/2$ corresponding to half the dimension of MGCCs, and the dimension of output layer is $\textbf{M}$ corresponding to the dimension of input layer. Note that the dynmaic features were not incorporated into the feature set. Sigmoid activation function is used for all the layers except for the last encoding layer, which has linear activation so that the produced bottleneck features could be real-valued. The DAE is trained under minimum MSE criterion using RMSprop optimizer. The learning rate is set to $0.001$. After training, only the encoder part of DAE is used to generate bottleneck features.

## DNN for Feature mapping

In this work, we used deep neural network (DNN) to capture the functional relationship between the $\textbf{M/2}$-dimensional bottleneck (input) features ($l_q$) and the $\textbf{M}$-dimensional MGCC (output) features ($s_q$) of the given target speaker data. The DNN model used in this paper is a four layer FFNN, and the (empirically arrived) final structure of the network is $\textbf{(M/2)}L\,\, 50N\,\, 50N\,\, \textbf{M}L$, where $L$ denotes a linear unit, and $N$ denotes a non-linear unit. The integer value indicates the number of units used in that layer. The non-linear units use sigmoid activation function. Prior to training, the input and output features are normalized to unit variance and zero mean. The weights of the network are adjusted using backpropagation learning algorithm to minimize the MSE for each pair of input-output features. The learning rate is $0.001$, and the number of epochs is $25$.

After training, a weight matrix is generated that represents the mapping function between input bottleneck features and output MGCCs. During conversion phase, the obtained weight matrix is used to transform bottleneck features ($l_r$) from any arbitary source speaker $r$ to MGCCs ($s_q^{'}$ ) of the desired target speaker (shown in Figure 1(b)).

# Experiments

## Speech Corpus and feature extraction

For experiments we have considered openslr multi-speaker databases from three Indian languages, namely, Telugu, Tamil and Malayalam. The openslr databases are available for free download at <https://www.openslr.org/resources.php>. For experiments, we chose 8 speakers (4 male and 4 female speakers) from Telugu language, 2 speakers (1 male and 1 female speakers) from Tamil language, and 2 speakers (1 male and 1 female speakers) from Malayalam language. Each speaker has 125 utterances for training and 30 utterances for testing. Data were recorded at 48 kHz, but we have downsampled to 16 kHz. The details of data considered for training and testing are given in Table I. As shown in table, six out of the eight speakers (3 female and 3 male speakers) from Telugu dataset were considered for training DAE and remaining speakers were used in VC experiments. The reason for choosing this database for DAE training is explained in the following section.

The WORLD vocoder  was used to exctract speech parameters: $f_0$, aperiodicity (AP), and Spectral Envelope (SE). The frame length was 25 ms and the frame shift was 5 ms. The FFT length was set to 1024, so the resulting SE and AP were both $513$-dimensional. 40-dimensional MGCCs were derived from each spectral envelope. The dynamic features were not appended to the feature set. The proposed and baseline VC models were trained using features corresponding to the target speaker alone. The trained models were then used to map the MGCCs of an arbitary source speaker to the MGCCs of the target speaker. The transformed MGCCs were converted back to $513$-dimensional SE. The $f_0$ of the source speaker was converted to that of the target speaker as in the baseline system (described in section II). The AP of source speaker was kept unmodified. Finally, all speech parameters were given as input to WORLD vocoder to synthesize the transformed utterance.

## Training baseline and proposed CLVC systems

In the baseline system, a GMM having 128 components is trained using 40-dimensional MGCCs from target speaker alone. The speaker-independent features are not required for a GMM-based system. The baseline system transforms voice of an arbitary source speaker by replacing the source feature vectors with the mean vector of the Gaussian mixture component scoring the highest in GMM likelihood. In this work, a GMM model is built for every speaker from each language.

The training procedure of proposed VC system is different from that of the baseline system. Prior to training VC model, first a DAE is trained using speech utterances from 6 Telugu speakers to learn speaker-independent representations. The regional Indian languages considered are acoustically similar, to certain extent . Hence, a common phoneset is derived by exploiting the acoustic similarities across the Indian languages . In total, there are 39 phonemes in Tamil, 48 in Telugu, and 48 in Malayalam. It is observed that, 37 phones are common to all the languages. This intutively shows that a DAE trained with data from one of these languages will be good enough to generate speaker-independent features in case of all the languages. Comparing Telugu and Malayalam, there are 47 phones in common. Comparing, Telugu and Tamil, there are 37 phones in common and 11 are unique to Telugu and 2 to Tamil. Similarly, comparing Malayalam and Tamil, there are 38 phones in common and 10 are unique to Malayalam and 1 is unique to Tamil. Considering the unique and common phones, either Malayalam or Telugu language is a better choice than Tamil language, for training DAE. Hence, we chose Telugu speaker data for training the DAE model. The encoder receives MGCCs computed from all the speakers and converts them to bottleneck features. The decoder reconstructs the input from the bottleneck features. The training procedure is terminated when there is no further improvement in terms of MSE for 15 epochs. The trained encoder is then utilized to extract bottleneck features for voice conversion. A DNN model which maps bottleneck features to MGCCs of a target speaker is built separately for all the considered speakers, except for those used during DAE training.

## Performance Evaluation

Performance of the CLVC systems is evaluated using two subjective measures, namely, ABX preference test and Comparative Mean Opinion Score (MOS). In preference tests, subjects were asked to listen to a pair of converted speech utterances and chose the one that is closer to natural speech in terms of similarity in voice.

In CMOS test, subjects have to listen to two converted speech utterances (one from the proposed approach and another from one of the baseline method, randomly shuffled) and then they have to rate the difference between the two samples on a 7-point scale ranging from much worse (-3) to much better (3). Subjects preference for proposed method over the baseline method and the opposite is indicated by a positive CMOS score and negative CMOS score, respectively. 15 listeners, including 5 Telugu, 5 Tamil and 5 Malayalam, participated in all the tests. The listening tests were conducted in the laboratory environment by playing the speech signals through headphones.

The results of ABX preference test and CMOS test for intra-lingual VC and cross-lingual VC are provided in Figures 4 & 5 and Figures 6 & 7, respectively. To reduce burden on listeners, we have considered only Malayalam Female as target and speakers from remaining languages as source, in cross-lingual VC. That is, the malayalam female speaker can now speak Tamil and Telugu. The trends in the results can be analyzed as follows: (1) The CMOS scores show that the proposed method provides a better voice quality compared to the baseline on intralingual VC, with a significance level of $p < 0.001$. The CMOS scores are further improved on cross-lingual VC. (2) Although a trend seems to favor proposed method compared to baseline in speaker similarity, the difference is not significantly different. The listeners reported that there is muffledness and more distortion in the speech converted with baseline GMM-based system. The improved perceptual quality with proposed method is mainly due to better acoustic feature mapping. The results also indicate that the proposed approach can render high-quality speaker conversion irrespective of languages. Hence, our system is capable of addressing the issues associated with unaligned data sets.

# Summary and conclusion

In this paper, we have presented a DAE-based cross-lingual voice conversion approach that can capture target speaker specific characteristics. The DAE is trained with data from multiple speakers to learn speaker-independent representations. Even though data from only one language is used to train DAE, the encoder performs robustly across acoustically closer languages. To build VC model for a given target speaker, first the MGCCs are passed through the encoder to derive bottleneck features. Then, a DNN is trained to predict MGCCs of target speaker from bottleneck features. The proposed approach does not require data from source speaker, and can map spectral features of any arbitary source speaker onto a target speaker's acoustic space. Hence, the proposed method can be considered as a "many-to-one mapping" method. The performance of the CLVC systems is evaluated using three acoustically similar Indian languages. The results of subjective evaluation confirm that both quality and target speaker similiarity of converted speech from proposed CLVC system are much better than the baseline GMM-based CLVC system. In future, we plan to utilize the proposed CLVC technique to develop a polyglot SPSS system for Indian languages.

[^1]: The authors are with the Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur, West Bengal, India (email: email@example.com; email@example.com).

[^2]: