Modular Invariant Models of Lepton Masses at Levels 4 and 5

Ferruccio Feruglio; Juan Carlos Criado; Simon J.D. King

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 62 references

Modular Invariant Models of Lepton Masses at Levels 4 and 5

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Modular invariant models at levels 4 and 5, with flavons in the charged-lepton sector, fit all measured lepton masses and mixing angles with five free parameters and predict absolute neutrino masses, mass ordering, and CP phases.

desk verdict The level-5 Weinberg fits fail an internal consistency check, but the level-4 construction is a solid and citable piece of model building. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.11867 v1 pith:GQBTCWPM submitted 2019-08-30 hep-ph

Juan Carlos Criado , Ferruccio Feruglio , Simon J.D. King This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-ph PACS 11.30.Hv12.15.Ff14.60.Pq

keywords modularinvarianceleptonmassesandmixingflavonsfinitegroupsneutrinomasspredictionsCPviolationWeinbergoperatortypeIseesaw

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper sets out to show that the charged-lepton mass hierarchy can be explained inside the modular-invariance framework without fine-tuning, by adding ordinary flavon fields to the modulus. In the models built at levels 4 and 5, neutrino masses and mixing are controlled by the modulus alone, while electron, muon and tau masses come from flavon vacuum values, with modular weights playing the role of Froggatt-Nielsen charges at level 4. The authors fit the model parameters to measured charged-lepton Yukawa couplings and neutrino oscillation data and report seven scenarios with chi-squared values between about 0.3 and 12.6, together with predictions for the absolute neutrino masses, the mass ordering, the Majorana phases and the neutrinoless double beta decay parameter. If the central claim is right, modular invariance can describe the whole lepton sector with a modest number of free parameters rather than being confined to the neutrino sector.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is a division of labour between the modulus and two kinds of fields. The modulus $\tau$ alone controls the neutrino sector, through the weight-2 modular forms of levels 4 and 5, while the charged-lepton Yukawa matrices are built only from the vacuum values of ordinary flavons, chiral superfields that are gauge singlets but carry nontrivial representations and weights of the finite modular group ($S_4$ at level 4, $A_5$ at level 5). The weights fix which powers of the flavons appear, so at level 4 they act as Froggatt-Nielsen charges and generate the charged-lepton hierarchy with comparable coefficients; at level 5 the same setup lets right-handed charged leptons sit in the same type of triplet as their left-handed partners. Keeping the charged-lepton sector flavon-only is what allows the neutrino sector to stay minimal.

What would settle it

Compute the scalar potential of the modulus plus flavons and check whether the vacuum alignments used in the fits, for example $\phi\propto(0,0.01,0)$ at level 4 and real $\phi_2,\phi_3$ at level 5, are stationary points; if no such minima exist, the charged-lepton matrices no longer take the fitted form and the scenarios are invalid. On the experimental side, the models are settled by the absolute mass scale and by $m_{ee}$: a measurement that excludes a lightest neutrino mass near 40 meV, or that excludes $m_{ee}\simeq 60$ meV (level-4 Weinberg), $m_{ee}\simeq 40$ meV (level-4 seesaw), $m_{ee}\simeq 27$ meV (level-5 Weinberg) and $m_{ee}\simeq 1.3$ meV (level-5 seesaw), would rule out the corresponding scenarios.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that ordinary flavons can carry the charged-lepton sector in modular invariant models without spoiling the predictive power of the neutrino sector. At level 4 ($\Gamma_4\cong S_4$), giving the right-handed charged leptons different modular weights and letting the flavon enter through powers fixed by those weights produces the electron-muon-tau hierarchy with comparable-size coefficients; at level 5 ($\Gamma_5\cong A_5$), left- and right-handed charged leptons are both assigned to irreducible triplets and the charged-lepton Yukawa matrix depends on two flavon vacuum values. Neutrino masses are generated either by the Weinberg operator or by type I seesaw and depend only on the modulus, the overall scale and one parameter $\xi$, leaving five free parameters in the neutrino sector. The paper reports seven scenarios with $\chi^2_{\rm min}$ values between about 0.3 and 12.6 and derives predictions that were not inputs: nearly degenerate neutrino spectra with a lightest mass near 40 meV at level 4, inverted ordering for Weinberg cases and normal ordering for seesaw cases, $m_{ee}\simeq 60$ meV (Weinberg) or 40 meV (seesaw) at level 4, $m_{ee}\simeq 27$ meV in the best level-5 Weinberg case, and a massless lightest neutrino with $m_{ee}\simeq 1.3$ meV in the level-5 seesaw case.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the flavon fields can be put at the specific values the fits need, for instance $\phi\propto(0,0.01,0)$ at level 4, even though the model contains no mechanism that would select those values; should a more complete theory force different alignments, all the fitted mass matrices and predictions would no longer follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The charged-lepton mass hierarchy can be produced by modular weights plus flavon vacuum values with comparable-size Lagrangian couplings, so the hierarchy does not need to be put into the Yukawa couplings by hand.
The level-4 models predict a nearly degenerate neutrino spectrum with the lightest neutrino around 40 meV, so a measurement of the absolute mass scale in this range would support the construction.
The pattern that the Weinberg operator gives inverted ordering and type I seesaw gives normal ordering (with one poor-fit exception) means a definitive determination of the mass ordering will distinguish between the two neutrino-mass mechanisms within this framework.
The predictions for $m_{ee}$, roughly 40-60 meV at level 4, about 27 meV in the best level-5 Weinberg case, and about 1.3 meV in the level-5 seesaw case, put the scenarios within reach of next-generation neutrinoless double beta decay searches.
CP can be conserved by the Lagrangian and still produce large observable CP violation through the vacuum values of $\tau$ and the flavons, as in the level-5 Weinberg case with $\delta/\pi\simeq 1.7$.
Editorial inference: the paper's division of labour suggests a natural next step, assigning each fermion sector its own modulus so the charged-lepton hierarchy would come from a second modulus rather than from hand-set flavon alignments; the authors state their examples are a first step in this direction.
Editorial inference: if future data fix normal ordering and exclude $m_{ee}$ above about 10 meV, the Weinberg-based scenarios, all predicting inverted ordering, would be eliminated and only the seesaw variants of this construction would survive.
Editorial inference: the level-5 seesaw prediction of a strictly massless lightest neutrino is a sharp, testable signature; a normal-ordered spectrum with a measured nonzero smallest mass would exclude that specific scenario.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Colleague,

Here's the quick version: the paper's headline level-5 Weinberg scenarios (5WC3 and 5WC3p) have a serious internal inconsistency. Using the best-fit parameters in Table 8 and Eq. (24), the charged-lepton Yukawa matrix Ye for 5WC3 has Frobenius norm squared ~9.8e-5 and determinant ~8.8e-10, so its smallest singular value is at least 1.8e-5. That's about six times y_e(mZ)=2.795e-6. The 5WC3p point gives a bound of 6.8e-6, also too large. No unitary rotation can fix this: the electron mass is a singular value of the same matrix. The printed fit points simply do not reproduce the electron mass, despite the claim that charged leptons are reproduced with negligible pulls. This is a load-bearing numerical error, not a matter of vacuum alignment or naturalness.

What is genuinely good: the level-4 construction, where differences in modular weights play the role of Froggatt-Nielsen charges and a single flavon VEV phi2=0.01 produces the mass hierarchy with order-one coefficients, is clean and works. Those fits (4WV, 4SV, 4WC, 4SC) pass the determinant sanity check by construction since Ye is diagonal. The level-5 idea of treating left- and right-handed leptons as A5 triplets is interesting, and the seesaw case 5SC, predicting m1=0 and normal ordering, may still be consistent—the stress-test finds no determinant obstruction there. The paper is transparent about what it does not do (no dynamical vacuum selection), and the appendices give the group theory and q-expansions.

The soft spots beyond the flaw: no minimization algorithm, no parameter error bars, no code; only a curated set of seven scenarios is shown. The lack of reported charged-lepton pulls is what let the 5WC3 inconsistency hide. And the flavon alignments are assumed, not derived—a common but real limitation.

Bottom line: the paper deserves a serious referee, but the level-5 Weinberg claims need to be corrected or withdrawn. The level-4 part stands on its own. I would send it to review, with a request for the numerical fitting code or at least a verification of every reported minimum against the charged-lepton Yukawas.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes modular-invariant lepton models at levels N=4 (S4) and N=5 (A5) in which charged-lepton Yukawa couplings are built from flavon VEVs while neutrino masses depend on the modulus alone, through either the Weinberg operator or type-I seesaw. Seven scenarios are selected and fitted to the six neutrino observables plus the three charged-lepton Yukawas; the paper reports chi-squared minima, pulls, and predictions for absolute neutrino masses, Majorana phases, the Dirac phase delta, and neutrinoless double beta decay. The level-4 construction reproduces the e/mu/tau hierarchy through modular weights, and the level-5 construction places left- and right-handed charged leptons in A5 triplets. The authors explicitly treat flavon VEVs as free parameters and do not attempt to stabilize them dynamically.

Significance. The paper is clearly written and the group-theoretic setup is explicit: modular-form bases, generators, and Clebsch-Gordan coefficients are collected in appendices, and the numerical fits are reported with pulls and chi-squared values. If the fits are correct, the paper would provide a useful proof of principle that flavons plus modular invariance can generate charged-lepton hierarchies without strong hierarchies in the Lagrangian parameters, with falsifiable predictions for m1, m2, m3, phases, and m_ee. However, the central level-5 Weinberg best-fit point fails an elementary singular-value consistency check, so the numerical claims as printed cannot be accepted without correction.

major comments (2)

[Section 3.3, Table 8, Eq. (24)] The 5WC3 best-fit point cannot reproduce the charged-lepton spectrum. Using Eq. (24) with the Table 8 inputs alpha=3.018e-3, beta=3.927e-3, gamma=-0.4484e-3, phi2=0.4260, phi3=0.8030, one obtains ||Y_e||_F^2 ~ 9.8e-5 and |det Y_e| ~ 8.8e-10. Since det(Y_e)=s1 s2 s3 and s1 s2 <= ||Y_e||_F^2/2, the smallest singular value obeys s3 >= 2|det Y_e|/||Y_e||_F^2 ~ 1.8e-5, whereas the electron Yukawa used in the fit is y_e=2.794745e-6. No bi-unitary rotation can remove this discrepancy. Moreover, the Frobenius norm at this point is ||Y_e||_F ~ 9.9e-3, below y_tau=1.003e-2, so the largest singular value is also insufficient for the tau mass. A common rescaling by cos(beta) cannot cure both problems: it lowers the largest singular value further and cannot increase it toward y_tau. The analogous check for 5WC3p appears to give a smallest-singular-value bound above y_e as well, while the 5SC point may satisfy the bound. The statement in Section 3.1 that charged-lepton pulls are negligible is therefore contradicted by the printed parameters; please refit or correct these points and report the actual singular values of Y_e for every scenario.
[Section 3.1] The numerical results are not reproducible as reported. The minimization algorithm, starting points, and tolerances are not specified, and no uncertainties are given for the fitted parameters or for the predicted quantities (m_i, Majorana phases, m_ee). Because the abstract claims predictions for these quantities, the paper should provide at least a covariance matrix or parameter ranges, together with the charged-lepton Yukawa pulls (or singular values of Y_e) for each of the seven best-fit points. At present, the only quantitative support for fit quality is the quoted chi-squared minimum, and for the 5WC3 case that support is invalidated by the inconsistency documented in the previous major comment.

minor comments (4)

[Tables 7 and 8] The middle panels list units for m1, m2, m3, and m_ee as 'eV^-2' and 'eV^-1', which are typos for 'eV'; please correct these units.
[Eq. (24)] The second and third rows of the Yukawa matrix are typeset in a way that obscures which entries carry superscripts; please retypeset the matrix unambiguously, since the singular-value consistency check in the major comments depends on its precise form.
[Sections 2 and 4] The paper explicitly states that no dynamical mechanism selects the flavon VEVs; because all charged-lepton results depend on these alignments, the conclusions should state more prominently that the scenarios are effective examples conditional on assumed vacuum alignments rather than complete models.
[Table 5 and Section 3.3] The level-5 cases are labeled 'CP modified' in Table 5, while the text says they have a CP-conserving Lagrangian with real parameters; please clarify in the table caption the difference between a CP-conserving Lagrangian and spontaneous CP violation by the modulus and flavon VEVs.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the neutrino-sector predictions are over-constrained outputs, and the charged-lepton masses are explicitly fitted inputs rather than derived predictions.

full rationale

The paper's claimed predictions (absolute neutrino masses, Majorana phases, and mee) are genuine outputs of the fit: the neutrino sector is controlled by five free parameters (Λ, Re/Im τ, plus ξ or the equivalent seesaw parameter set) and is optimized against the six measured observables (Δm²21, Δm²3l, three mixing angles, and δ). The absolute mass scale, ordering, Majorana phases, and mee are not among the fitted inputs, so no prediction reduces to a fit by construction. The charged-lepton sector is explicitly fitted rather than predicted: at level 4, Eq. (26) fixes a, b, c to exactly reproduce the charged-lepton masses once ϕ₂ is chosen, and at level 5, α, β, γ and ϕ₂, ϕ₃ are varied to match those masses; the text never presents the charged-lepton masses as a postdiction-free prediction. The reliance on Ref. [44] is methodological ('As done in Ref. [44], we will not attempt to dynamically select the vacuum configurations'), not a load-bearing self-citation or uniqueness theorem, and the modular-form bases from Refs. [48,51,52] are external constructions. No equation equates a claimed predicted observable to a fitted parameter. I therefore find no circularity. (Non-circularity caveats, noted for completeness: the vacuum alignment is assumed rather than derived, and the 5WC3 best-fit parameters in Table 8 may be internally inconsistent with y_e via the determinant bound s₃ ≥ 2|det Y_e|/||Y_e||²_F; these are correctness concerns, not circularity.)

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 4 invented entities

The central predictions rest on the modular-invariance framework imported from earlier work, plus hand-assigned weights, representations, and flavon VEVs. The genuinely new content is the set of specific superpotentials and numerical fits. Free numbers include the modulus τ, the scale Λ, the coupling ξ, the flavon VEVs, and the charged-lepton couplings. No machine-checked proofs or public code are provided.

free parameters (8)

τ (modulus) = complex; e.g. 1.155+0.9797i (4WV), -0.01882+0.9929i (5WC3) in non-fundamental region
Real and imaginary parts of the modulus are free parameters in every scenario; they control the neutrino mass matrix through modular forms.
1/Λ = e.g. 0.007395 eV^-1 (4WV), 0.008180 eV^-1 (5WC3)
Overall scale of the neutrino mass operator (Weinberg or seesaw); fitted to the absolute neutrino mass scale.
ξ = e.g. -2.536-0.07654i (4WV), -2.600+0.1151i (4SV), real -0.1063 (4WC), -2.595 (4SC)
Relative coefficient of the two modular invariants in the level-4 neutrino superpotential; complex in CP-violating cases and real in CP-conserving cases.
ϕ2 (level 4) = 0.01
Flavon VEV direction chosen by hand to produce the charged lepton mass hierarchy; a, b, c are then fixed by Eq. (26).
Im(ϕ3) = -Im(ϕ2) (4WC/4SC) = -0.001063 (4WC), 0.001081 (4SC)
Small complex VEV perturbation in the CP-conserving level-4 cases that breaks the diagonal form of the charged lepton matrix.
a,b,c (level 4) = a cosβ≈2.80, b cosβ≈5.90, c cosβ≈1.00
Charged lepton Yukawa couplings adjusted to exactly reproduce electron, muon and tau masses; they are Lagrangian parameters rather than predicted quantities.
Re(ϕ2), Re(ϕ3) (level 5) = 5WC3: 0.4260, 0.8030; 5WC3p: 0.4244, 0.01694; 5SC: 0.04759, 0.3731
Real flavon VEV components in level-5 models, fitted together with τ and Λ to neutrino data.
α,β,γ (level 5) = 5WC3: 3.018, 3.927, -0.4484 (×10^-3)
Charged lepton superpotential coefficients (after absorbing χ VEV, ϕ1, and δ); adjusted so that charged lepton masses are reproduced, while their combinations affect lepton mixing.

assumptions (6)

standard math The modular group Γ and its finite quotients Γ4≅S4 and Γ5≅A5 have the stated representation theory, and the weight-2 modular form bases are as given.
Used for all invariant superpotential terms; relies on Refs. [10,48,51,61,62].
standard math A superpotential term is modular invariant only if the total weight is zero and the product of representations contains an invariant singlet.
Imposed in Eqs. (7)-(8) and used to build w_e and w_ν.
domain assumption The theory is supersymmetric with the minimal Kähler potential of Eq. (5); non-minimal Kähler corrections are neglected.
The entire Yukawa structure is read from the superpotential; a non-minimal Kähler potential would modify the physical mass matrices.
domain assumption Neutrino masses are generated either by the Weinberg operator or by type-I seesaw, and terms with more than two matter fields are negligible.
Equations (13)-(15) and Table 4 define the neutrino sector under these two mechanisms.
ad hoc to paper Flavon VEVs can take the required alignments and magnitudes (e.g., ϕ ∝ (0,0.01,0) at level 4) without a dynamical stabilization mechanism.
The paper states it does not attempt to dynamically select vacuum configurations (Sec. 1 and Sec. 2); if such alignments are not realized, the charged lepton mass matrix and the fits change.
standard math The selected weight and representation assignments in Tables 1 and 3 are consistent with modular invariance and CP.
The consistency conditions in Eqs. (4)-(8) and (11) are checked in the appendices; acceptance of these calculations is required.

invented entities (4)

Flavon ϕ (level 4, triplet of S4, weight 3/2)
purpose: Builds the charged lepton Yukawa matrix Y_e; its VEV, aligned along (0,ϕ2,0) in the diagonal cases, generates the e-μ-τ hierarchy via powers of ϕ2.
A new gauge-singlet chiral superfield with no independent experimental handle; its VEV is put in by hand.
Flavon ϕ′ (level 4, 1′ of S4, weight 4/3)
purpose: Enters the neutrino superpotential through (ϕ′ L L Y2) or (ϕ′ Nc Nc Y2); its VEV is absorbed into the scale Λ.
No independent evidence; it only rescales the neutrino mass operator.
Flavon χ (level 5, singlet of A5)
purpose: Contributes to charged lepton masses via the (Ec L)_1 χ^2 term; its VEV is absorbed into α.
Gauge-singlet scalar introduced for the charged lepton sector; no stabilisation dynamics or direct observable.
Flavon ϕ (level 5, triplet of A5)
purpose: Generates the off-diagonal structure of the charged lepton mass matrix; VEV components ϕ2 and ϕ3 are fitted.
No direct evidence; its VEVs are free parameters in the fit.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Modular Invariant Models of Lepton Masses at Levels 4 and 5." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GQBTCWPM

@misc{pith2026190811867,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Modular Invariant Models of Lepton Masses at Levels 4 and 5},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GQBTCWPM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.11867}
}

abstract

We explore alternative descriptions of the charged lepton sector in modular invariant models of lepton masses and mixing angles. In addition to the modulus, the symmetry breaking sector of our models includes ordinary flavons. Neutrino mass terms depend only on the modulus and are tailored to minimize the number of free parameters. The charged lepton Yukawa couplings rely upon the flavons alone. We build modular invariant models at levels 4 and 5, where neutrino masses are described both in terms of the Weinberg operator or through a type I seesaw mechanism. At level 4, our models reproduce the hierarchy among electron, muon and tau masses by letting the weights play the role of Froggatt-Nielsen charges. At level 5, our setup allows the treatment of left and right handed charged leptons on the same footing. We have optimized the free parameters of our models in order to match the experimental data, obtaining a good degree of compatibility and predictions for the absolute neutrino masses and the $CP$ violating phases. At a more fundamental level, the whole lepton sector could be correctly described by the simultaneous presence of several moduli. Our examples are meant to make a first step in this direction.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages

[1]

Can an unbroken flavour symmetry provide an approximate description of lepton masses and mixing?

Y. Reyimuaji and A. Romanino, JHEP 1803 (2018) 067 doi:10.1007/JHEP03(2018)067 [arXiv:1801.10530 [hep-ph]]

work page Pith review arXiv 2018
[2]

Altarelli and F

G. Altarelli and F. Feruglio, Rev. Mod. Phys. 82 (2010) 2701 doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.82.2701 [arXiv:1002.0211 [hep-ph]]

arXiv 2010
[3]

Ishimori, T

H. Ishimori, T. Kobayashi, H. Ohki, Y. Shimizu, H. Okada and M. Tanimoto, Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl. 183 (2010) 1 doi:10.1143/PTPS.183.1 [arXiv:1003.3552 [hep-th]]

arXiv 2010
[4]

Hernandez and A

D. Hernandez and A. Y. Smirnov, Phys. Rev. D 86 (2012) 053014 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.86.053014 [arXiv:1204.0445 [hep-ph]]

arXiv 2012
[5]

S. F. King and C. Luhn, Rept. Prog. Phys. 76 (2013) 056201 doi:10.1088/0034-4885/76/5/056201 [arXiv:1301.1340 [hep-ph]]

arXiv 2013
[6]

S. F. King, A. Merle, S. Morisi, Y. Shimizu and M. Tanimoto, New J. Phys. 16 (2014) 045018 doi:10.1088/1367-2630/16/4/045018 [arXiv:1402.4271 [hep-ph]]

arXiv 2014
[7]

Feruglio, Eur

F. Feruglio, Eur. Phys. J. C 75 (2015) no.8, 373 doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-015-3576-5 [arXiv:1503.04071 [hep-ph]]

arXiv 2015
[8]

S. F. King, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 94 (2017) 217 doi:10.1016/j.ppnp.2017.01.003 [arXiv:1701.04413 [hep-ph]]

arXiv 2017

Show all 62 references

[9]

Hagedorn, arXiv:1705.00684 [hep-ph]

C. Hagedorn, arXiv:1705.00684 [hep-ph]

arXiv
[10]

Feruglio, doi:10.1142/9789813238053 0012 arXiv:1706.08749 [hep-ph]

F. Feruglio, doi:10.1142/9789813238053 0012 arXiv:1706.08749 [hep-ph]

arXiv
[11]

P. P. Novichkov, J. T. Penedo, S. T. Petcov and A. V. Titov, JHEP 1907 (2019) 165 doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2019)165 [arXiv:1905.11970 [hep-ph]]

2019 arXiv
[12]

Dent, Phys

T. Dent, Phys. Rev. D 64 (2001) 056005 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.64.056005 [hep-ph/0105285]

2001 arXiv
[13]

Dent, JHEP 0112 (2001) 028 doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2001/12/028 [hep-th/0111024]

T. Dent, JHEP 0112 (2001) 028 doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2001/12/028 [hep-th/0111024]

2001 arXiv
[14]

A. Baur, H. P. Nilles, A. Trautner and P. K. S. Vaudrevange, Phys. Lett. B 795 (2019) 7 doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2019.03.066 [arXiv:1901.03251 [hep-th]]

2019 arXiv
[15]

A. Baur, H. P. Nilles, A. Trautner and P. K. S. Vaudrevange, arXiv:1908.00805 [hep-th]

1908 arXiv
[16]

Ferrara, .D

S. Ferrara, .D. Lust and S. Theisen, Phys. Lett. B 233 (1989) 147. doi:10.1016/0370-2693(89)90631-X

1989 doi
[17]

De Medeiros Varzielas, S

I. De Medeiros Varzielas, S. F. King and Y. L. Zhou, arXiv:1906.02208 [hep-ph]

1906 arXiv
[18]

Hamidi and C

S. Hamidi and C. Vafa, Nucl. Phys. B 279 (1987) 465. doi:10.1016/0550-3213(87)90006-X

1987 doi
[19]

L. J. Dixon, D. Friedan, E. J. Martinec and S. H. Shenker, Nucl. Phys. B 282 (1987) 13. doi:10.1016/0550-3213(87)90676-6

1987 doi
[20]

Lauer, J

J. Lauer, J. Mas and H. P. Nilles, Phys. Lett. B 226 (1989) 251. doi:10.1016/0370-2693(89)91190-8

1989 doi
[21]

Lauer, J

J. Lauer, J. Mas and H. P. Nilles, Nucl. Phys. B 351 (1991) 353. doi:10.1016/0550-3213(91)90095-F

1991 doi
[22]

Erler, D

J. Erler, D. Jungnickel and J. Lauer, Phys. Rev. D 45 (1992) 3651. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.45.3651 22

1992 doi
[23]

Cremades, L

D. Cremades, L. E. Ibanez and F. Marchesano, JHEP 0307 (2003) 038 doi:10.1088/1126- 6708/2003/07/038 [hep-th/0302105]

2003 arXiv
[24]

Blumenhagen, M

R. Blumenhagen, M. Cvetic, P. Langacker and G. Shiu, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 55 (2005) 71 doi:10.1146/annurev.nucl.55.090704.151541 [hep-th/0502005]

2005
[25]

S. A. Abel and M. D. Goodsell, JHEP 0710 (2007) 034 doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2007/10/034 [hep- th/0612110]

2007
[26]

Blumenhagen, B

R. Blumenhagen, B. Kors, D. Lust and S. Stieberger, Phys. Rept. 445 (2007) 1 doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2007.04.003 [hep-th/0610327]

2007 arXiv
[27]

Marchesano, Fortsch

F. Marchesano, Fortsch. Phys. 55 (2007) 491 doi:10.1002/prop.200610381 [hep-th/0702094 [HEP-TH]]

2007 arXiv
[28]

Antoniadis, A

I. Antoniadis, A. Kumar and B. Panda, Nucl. Phys. B 823 (2009) 116 doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2009.08.002 [arXiv:0904.0910 [hep-th]]

2009 arXiv
[29]

Kobayashi, S

T. Kobayashi, S. Nagamoto and S. Uemura, PTEP 2017 (2017) no.2, 023B02 doi:10.1093/ptep/ptw184 [arXiv:1608.06129 [hep-th]]

2017 arXiv
[30]

Cremades, L

D. Cremades, L. E. Ibanez and F. Marchesano, JHEP 0405 (2004) 079 doi:10.1088/1126- 6708/2004/05/079 [hep-th/0404229]

2004 arXiv
[31]

H. Abe, K. S. Choi, T. Kobayashi and H. Ohki, Nucl. Phys. B 820 (2009) 317 doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2009.05.024 [arXiv:0904.2631 [hep-ph]]

2009 arXiv
[32]

Kobayashi, S

T. Kobayashi, S. Nagamoto, S. Takada, S. Tamba and T. H. Tatsuishi, Phys. Rev. D 97 (2018) no.11, 116002 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.97.116002 [arXiv:1804.06644 [hep-th]]

2018 arXiv
[33]

L. E. Ibanez, Phys. Lett. B 181 (1986) 269. doi:10.1016/0370-2693(86)90044-4

1986 doi
[34]

J. A. Casas, F. Gomez and C. Munoz, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 8 (1993) 455 doi:10.1142/S0217751X93000187 [hep-th/9110060]

1993 arXiv
[35]

Lebedev, Phys

O. Lebedev, Phys. Lett. B 521 (2001) 71 doi:10.1016/S0370-2693(01)01180-7 [hep-th/0108218]

2001 arXiv
[36]

Kobayashi and O

T. Kobayashi and O. Lebedev, Phys. Lett. B 566 (2003) 164 doi:10.1016/S0370-2693(03)00560-4 [hep- th/0303009]

2003
[37]

Brax and M

P. Brax and M. Chemtob, Phys. Rev. D 51 (1995) 6550 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.51.6550 [hep- th/9411022]

1995
[38]

Binetruy and E

P. Binetruy and E. Dudas, Nucl. Phys. B 451 (1995) 31 doi:10.1016/0550-3213(95)00345-S [hep- ph/9505295]

1995
[39]

Dudas, S

E. Dudas, S. Pokorski and C. A. Savoy, Phys. Lett. B 369 (1996) 255 doi:10.1016/0370-2693(95)01536-1 [hep-ph/9509410]

1996 arXiv
[40]

Dudas, hep-ph/9602231

E. Dudas, hep-ph/9602231

arXiv
[41]

G. K. Leontaris and N. D. Tracas, Phys. Lett. B 419 (1998) 206 doi:10.1016/S0370-2693(97)01412-3 [hep-ph/9709510]

1998 arXiv
[42]

Kobayashi, K

T. Kobayashi, K. Tanaka and T. H. Tatsuishi, Phys. Rev. D 98 (2018) no.1, 016004 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.98.016004 [arXiv:1803.10391 [hep-ph]]

2018 arXiv
[43]

Kobayashi, Y

T. Kobayashi, Y. Shimizu, K. Takagi, M. Tanimoto, T. H. Tatsuishi and H. Uchida, Phys. Lett. B 794 (2019) 114 doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2019.05.034 [arXiv:1812.11072 [hep-ph]]. 23

2019 arXiv
[44]

J. C. Criado and F. Feruglio, SciPost Phys. 5 (2018) no.5, 042 doi:10.21468/SciPostPhys.5.5.042 [arXiv:1807.01125 [hep-ph]]

2018 arXiv
[45]

Kobayashi, N

T. Kobayashi, N. Omoto, Y. Shimizu, K. Takagi, M. Tanimoto and T. H. Tatsuishi, JHEP 1811 (2018) 196 doi:10.1007/JHEP11(2018)196 [arXiv:1808.03012 [hep-ph]]

2018 arXiv
[46]

P. P. Novichkov, S. T. Petcov and M. Tanimoto, Phys. Lett. B 793 (2019) 247 doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2019.04.043 [arXiv:1812.11289 [hep-ph]]

2019 arXiv
[47]

G. J. Ding, S. F. King and X. G. Liu, arXiv:1907.11714 [hep-ph]

1907 arXiv
[48]

J. T. Penedo and S. T. Petcov, Nucl. Phys. B 939 (2019) 292 doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2018.12.016 [arXiv:1806.11040 [hep-ph]]

2019 arXiv
[49]

P. P. Novichkov, J. T. Penedo, S. T. Petcov and A. V. Titov, JHEP 1904 (2019) 005 doi:10.1007/JHEP04(2019)005 [arXiv:1811.04933 [hep-ph]]

2019 arXiv
[50]

S. F. King and Y. L. Zhou, arXiv:1908.02770 [hep-ph]

1908 arXiv
[51]

P. P. Novichkov, J. T. Penedo, S. T. Petcov and A. V. Titov, JHEP 1904 (2019) 174 doi:10.1007/JHEP04(2019)174 [arXiv:1812.02158 [hep-ph]]

2019 arXiv
[52]

G. J. Ding, S. F. King and X. G. Liu, arXiv:1903.12588 [hep-ph]

1903 arXiv
[53]

Okada and M

H. Okada and M. Tanimoto, Phys. Lett. B 791 (2019) 54 doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2019.02.028 [arXiv:1812.09677 [hep-ph]]

2019 arXiv
[54]

Okada and M

H. Okada and M. Tanimoto, arXiv:1905.13421 [hep-ph]

1905 arXiv
[55]

F. J. de Anda, S. F. King and E. Perdomo, arXiv:1812.05620 [hep-ph]

arXiv
[56]

Kobayashi, Y

T. Kobayashi, Y. Shimizu, K. Takagi, M. Tanimoto and T. H. Tatsuishi, arXiv:1906.10341 [hep-ph]

1906 arXiv
[57]

Ferrara, D

S. Ferrara, D. Lust, A. D. Shapere and S. Theisen, Phys. Lett. B 225 (1989) 363. doi:10.1016/0370- 2693(89)90583-2

1989 doi
[58]

X. G. Liu and G. J. Ding, arXiv:1907.01488 [hep-ph]

1907 arXiv
[59]

Antusch and V

S. Antusch and V. Maurer, JHEP 1311 (2013) 115 doi:10.1007/JHEP11(2013)115 [arXiv:1306.6879 [hep-ph]]

2013 arXiv
[60]

Esteban, M

I. Esteban, M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, A. Hernandez-Cabezudo, M. Maltoni and T. Schwetz, JHEP 1901 (2019) 106 doi:10.1007/JHEP01(2019)106 [arXiv:1811.05487 [hep-ph]]

2019 arXiv
[61]

Bazzocchi, L

F. Bazzocchi, L. Merlo and S. Morisi, Nucl. Phys. B 816 (2009) 204 doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2009.03.005 [arXiv:0901.2086 [hep-ph]]

2009 arXiv
[62]

G. J. Ding, L. L. Everett and A. J. Stuart, Nucl. Phys. B 857 (2012) 219 doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2011.12.004 [arXiv:1110.1688 [hep-ph]]. 24

2012 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Can an unbroken flavour symmetry provide an approximate description of lepton masses and mixing?

Y. Reyimuaji and A. Romanino, JHEP 1803 (2018) 067 doi:10.1007/JHEP03(2018)067 [arXiv:1801.10530 [hep-ph]]

work page Pith review arXiv 2018

[2] [2]

Altarelli and F

G. Altarelli and F. Feruglio, Rev. Mod. Phys. 82 (2010) 2701 doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.82.2701 [arXiv:1002.0211 [hep-ph]]

arXiv 2010

[3] [3]

Ishimori, T

H. Ishimori, T. Kobayashi, H. Ohki, Y. Shimizu, H. Okada and M. Tanimoto, Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl. 183 (2010) 1 doi:10.1143/PTPS.183.1 [arXiv:1003.3552 [hep-th]]

arXiv 2010

[4] [4]

Hernandez and A

D. Hernandez and A. Y. Smirnov, Phys. Rev. D 86 (2012) 053014 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.86.053014 [arXiv:1204.0445 [hep-ph]]

arXiv 2012

[5] [5]

S. F. King and C. Luhn, Rept. Prog. Phys. 76 (2013) 056201 doi:10.1088/0034-4885/76/5/056201 [arXiv:1301.1340 [hep-ph]]

arXiv 2013

[6] [6]

S. F. King, A. Merle, S. Morisi, Y. Shimizu and M. Tanimoto, New J. Phys. 16 (2014) 045018 doi:10.1088/1367-2630/16/4/045018 [arXiv:1402.4271 [hep-ph]]

arXiv 2014

[7] [7]

Feruglio, Eur

F. Feruglio, Eur. Phys. J. C 75 (2015) no.8, 373 doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-015-3576-5 [arXiv:1503.04071 [hep-ph]]

arXiv 2015

[8] [8]

S. F. King, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 94 (2017) 217 doi:10.1016/j.ppnp.2017.01.003 [arXiv:1701.04413 [hep-ph]]

arXiv 2017