Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 59 references

Modular Flavor Symmetries and Fermion Mass Hierarchies

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The determinant of a fermion mass matrix in a modular flavor model must be a one-dimensional vector-valued modular form, so for small weights its zeros—and hence all mass hierarchies—lie at the critical points $\mathrm{i}$, $\omega$, or…

desk verdict The determinant-zero classification is rigorous and useful, but the step from vanishing determinant to individual mass-ratio power laws assumes non-vanishing leading coefficients, which the paper's own examples show can fail. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.23343 v1 pith:DTGQ5VPG submitted 2025-06-29 hep-ph

Mu-Chun Chen , Xueqi Li , Xiang-Gan Liu , Michael Ratz This is my paper
classification hep-ph PACS 11.30.Hv12.15.Ff
keywords modularflavorsymmetryfermionmasshierarchyvector-valuedformsdeterminantzeroscriticalpointsnear-criticalbehaviorFroggatt-NielsenmechanismmodulusVEV
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

This paper tries to show that the flavor puzzle in modular flavor symmetry models is governed by a constrained mathematical object: the determinant of any fermion mass matrix transforms as a one-dimensional vector-valued modular form, meaning it can only vanish at a small set of points. For determinants of weight below 12, those points are exactly the three critical points of the modular group, $\tau = \mathrm{i}$, $\tau = \omega$, and $\tau = \mathrm{i}\infty$. The paper concludes that hierarchical fermion masses therefore require the modulus VEV $\langle\tau\rangle$ to sit parametrically close to one of these points, and that the attainable hierarchy is bounded differently at each one. It also classifies the near-critical mass matrix patterns for $2\oplus 1$ lepton assignments, which extends earlier triplet-only analyses. If this is right, model builders can rule out large classes of models from weight and representation data alone, before any numerical scan.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the determinant $\det M(\tau)$ of the fermion mass matrix, viewed as a one-dimensional vector-valued modular form of $SL(2,\mathbb{Z})$. Such forms are finitely generated by $\eta^2$, $E_4$ and $E_6$, so their zeros are governed by the valence formula; that reduces the question of where hierarchies can come from to a small table of possible determinants. The second piece of machinery is the weighted representation $\Omega_{\varphi}(\gamma_0)$ of the stabilizer subgroup at a critical point, obtained by redefining the modulus through the Cayley map $\varepsilon=(\tau-\tau_0)/(\tau-\bar{\tau}_0)$ and rescaling the matter fields. This linearizes the residual symmetry and determines, order by order in $\varepsilon$, which entries of a mass matrix can be nonzero, producing a finite classification of near-critical mass matrix patterns.

What would settle it

One concrete test is to scan a catalog of modular flavor models with $k_{\det M}<12$ and look for a determinant zero at a point other than $\mathrm{i}$, $\omega$, $\mathrm{i}\infty$; the valence-form argument predicts none. A second test is to take the explicit Feruglio model of Section 3.2 and vary $\tau$ far from $\mathrm{i}$ while keeping all other parameters fixed: the claim predicts the $1:1:u$ hierarchy should disappear once $u$ stops being small, whereas a tuned-coefficient model could retain it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is Eq. (20): for any modular invariant bilinear mass term, $\det M(\tau)$ transforms as a one-dimensional vector-valued modular form of weight $k_{\det M}$. Since all such forms are polynomials in $\eta^2$, $E_4$ and $E_6$, and since the valence formula controls their zeros, the paper derives Table 1: for $k_{\det M}<12$, zeros only occur at the critical points $\mathrm{i}$, $\omega$, $\mathrm{i}\infty$, with the total hierarchy power bounded by $k_{\det M}$. The paper then argues that near such a zero the singular values obey $m_1:m_2:m_3 \approx c_1 u^{n_1}: c_2 u^{n_2}: c_3 u^{n_3}$, so a small deviation $u$ from a critical point produces a power-law hierarchy. In the $2\oplus 1$ lepton classification, the neighborhood of $\omega$ can produce patterns compatible with normal neutrino ordering and with charged lepton hierarchies, while the neighborhood of $\mathrm{i}$ cannot generate charged lepton hierarchies.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes the leading coefficients $c_1,c_2,c_3$ in the mass-ratio expansion are all nonzero and comparable in size, so the hierarchy is set by the powers of $u$ rather than by tuned coefficients; if a leading coefficient vanishes or is itself tiny, hierarchies can arise away from critical points or with a different pattern.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For $k_{\det M}<12$, hierarchical masses force $\langle\tau\rangle$ near one of $\mathrm{i}$, $\omega$, $\mathrm{i}\infty$; determinant weight and representation assignments alone decide which point and which hierarchy are possible.
  • Near $\mathrm{i}$ the hierarchy is at most $\varepsilon^2$ (one eigenvalue split), near $\omega$ at most $\varepsilon^3$ (up to $1:\varepsilon:\varepsilon^2$), and only near $\mathrm{i}\infty$ can hierarchies grow as $u^{k_{\det M}}$, which is where quark mass hierarchies must live.
  • Hierarchies near $\mathrm{i}\infty$ require a nontrivial one-dimensional representation of the finite modular group, ruling out perfect groups such as $A_5$.
  • In $2\oplus 1$ lepton models, the neighborhood of $\omega$ can accommodate both neutrino masses with normal ordering and charged lepton hierarchies, while the neighborhood of $\mathrm{i}$ cannot produce charged lepton hierarchies.
  • Because all Taylor and Fourier coefficients of the relevant modular forms are fixed or bounded, the modular version of Froggatt-Nielsen has more predictive power than the original, where coefficients are free.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the determinant-zero constraint is generic, then the observed clustering of best-fit moduli near critical points in bottom-up scans is a theorem-like consequence rather than an accident; conversely, any model with a large hierarchy and $\langle\tau\rangle$ far from all critical points must be relying on coefficient tuning.
  • The same determinant argument could be applied to quark-sector models, where the classification near $\mathrm{i}\infty$ is left unfinished in the paper; completing it would enumerate which finite modular groups can produce realistic up-type and down-type hierarchies.
  • In string constructions where winding modes become massless at critical points, the paper's hierarchy condition suggests a quantitative link between fermion mass ratios and the masses of those light gauge bosons, giving a potential observational window.
  • The predictive-power distinction from Froggatt-Nielsen suggests a testable criterion: measure enough flavor parameters to see whether the coefficients follow the modular-form $q$-expansion predictions, which generic Froggatt-Nielsen models would not satisfy.
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.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper studies how modular flavor symmetries can produce fermion mass hierarchies. The central observation is that the determinant of any modular-invariant mass matrix is a 1-dimensional vector-valued modular form (VVMF) of SL(2,Z), transforming as in Eq. (20). By combining this with the known monomial basis of 1-dimensional VVMFs, the authors show that for total modular weight k_det < 12 the determinant can vanish only at the fixed points i, omega, and i*infinity, with multiplicities bounded by 2, 3, and k_det, respectively. Near those points the determinant scales as u^{n1+n2+n3}, and the paper argues, via Eq. (21), that the individual mass eigenvalues scale with powers of u, giving universal near-critical hierarchies. The analysis is extended from previous irreducible-triplet treatments to reducible 2+1 matter assignments, with a classification of near-critical mass matrix patterns and Dirac hierarchies near i and omega in Appendix B. The paper also compares the modular mechanism with the Froggatt-Nielsen scheme and discusses limitations, including coefficient-induced hierarchies and subtleties of integrating out massive states.

Significance. If the main claims hold, the paper provides a genuinely model-independent constraint: for k_det < 12, a non-vanishing determinant of a modular-invariant mass matrix must have its zeros at one of the three critical points, and near i and omega the attainable hierarchy is bounded by epsilon^2 and epsilon^3, respectively. The determinant transformation law (Eq. 20), the explicit examples in Sections 3.2-3.4, and the zero-location table following from Eq. (10) are concrete, checkable results that will be useful to model builders. The paper also gives credit to earlier work and extends the near-critical classification to the 2+1 scheme. However, the step from determinant zeros to individual mass eigenvalues is heuristic: Eq. (21) assumes nonzero order-one leading coefficients, and the paper's own examples in Section 4.2 and Section 5.4 show that exact or tuned zeros can alter the hierarchy. The universal predictive content for actual fermion mass ratios is therefore weaker than the abstract suggests.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.1, Eq. (21)] The passage from the determinant scaling det M approximately c u^{n1+n2+n3} to individual mass ratios m1:m2:m3 approximately c1 u^{n1} : c2 u^{n2} : c3 u^{n3} is an assumption, not a theorem. The determinant controls only the product of the singular values; the individual exponents follow only if every leading coefficient c_i is nonzero and of order one. The paper itself documents failures of this condition in Section 4.2, where Eq. (44) has exact zeros m_{12}^{(1)} = m_{21}^{(1)} = m_{33}^{(1)} = 0, and in Section 5.4, where the model of [57] has det M_e approximately 0 from tuned parameters rather than from proximity to a zero. Because the abstract and Section 3.1 use this step to conclude that hierarchical masses 'require' <tau> near a critical point, this gap is load-bearing. Please either prove a nonvanishing-leading-coefficient statement under the stated assumptions or reformulate the conclusions as applying to determinants and to models with generic order-one coefficients.
  2. [Appendix B.2, Tables 8 and 9] The listed hierarchies (epsilon,1,1), (epsilon^2,epsilon,1), and so on are inferred from near-critical matrix patterns in which all displayed leading entries are assumed nonzero and of order one. The near-critical symmetry constraint alone does not guarantee this; Eq. (44) provides an explicit counterexample where pattern-allowed entries vanish exactly. Therefore the phrase 'all possible mass hierarchies' in the discussion of Tables 8 and 9 overstates what has been classified. The text should explicitly state that the tables classify hierarchies for generic coefficients, and it should flag that accidental zeros can change the singular-value exponents in specific models.
  3. [Section 2.2, Eq. (13)] The generalization of the Valence Formula to nontrivial 1-dimensional VVMFs is asserted without proof: the text states 'We find that the form remains unchanged', and no reference for this specific statement is given. This statement is used to justify the zero-location classification for k_det < 12 and the claim that zeros away from the critical points require k_det >= 12. Since Table 1 is the paper's central tool, please supply a proof or a precise citation for the valence formula in this setting, or alternatively derive the zero locations directly from the monomial basis in Eq. (10).
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 1] The first paragraph contains a duplicated article: 'We analyze the the structure of mass matrices' should read 'We analyze the structure of mass matrices'.
  2. [Section 4.1, Eq. (42), and Appendix C] The Fourier-coefficient bound is quoted as O(n^{k+2*alpha}), while the Taylor-coefficient bounds derived in Appendix C are O(n^{k/2}) for cusp forms and O(n^k) for non-cusp forms. Please clarify how the representation-dependent exponent alpha enters the vector-valued case and state which bound is actually used in the near-critical argument.
  3. [Table 3] The column header 'S T S 2' is ambiguous; write the stabilizer generators explicitly as S, ST, and S^2, respectively, to make clear which generator corresponds to each row.
  4. [Section 5.4] The sentence stating that the coefficients c_1, c_2, c_3 are 'fully, or at least largely, predicted' should be softened or moved, since the same paragraph concedes that many models have free parameters such as alpha, beta, and gamma in the model of [57].

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the determinant-zero classification follows from the exact transformation law and standard modular-form mathematics, while the hierarchy claims are heuristic and self-acknowledged rather than fitted or definitionally forced.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation chain is self-contained. Equation (20) is obtained by taking the determinant of the modular transformation law (17); the transformation of det M as a 1-dimensional vector-valued modular form is an exact consequence of the definitions, not an input fitted to data. The zero classification in Table 1 follows from the valence formula (13) applied to the basis {η^2, E4, E6}, which is a parameter-free mathematical result cited from [34]; although that citation shares a co-author with the present paper, it is an independently checkable classification theorem and therefore does not constitute circular reasoning. The step from det M ~ u^{n1+n2+n3} to individual mass ratios (Eq. 21) is explicitly presented as an expectation ('we naturally expect a similar expansion for each singular value'), and Section 5.4 candidly acknowledges the main limitation: the coefficients c_i can vanish or be tuned, as in the charged-lepton model of [57] where det M_e ≈ 0 arises from β ≈ √3 α. This is a real weakening of the universality of the hierarchy claim, but it is a correctness/assumption limitation, not a circular reduction: the determinant-zero statement does not presuppose the coefficient behavior. Similarly, Section 5.2 flags EFT subtleties, and the cited results [42] and [43] are complementary mathematical facts (holomorphic invariants, perfect-group classification) that do not already contain the predicted mass hierarchies. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness claim is imported solely from the authors' prior work to forbid alternatives. The score is therefore 0: no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters are fitted to data in this paper; the analysis is analytic. The central claim rests on the mathematical classification of 1D VVMFs, the (unproved) generalized Valence formula, the finite-image representation assumption, the minimal Kähler potential, and the generic-coefficient assumption for singular value expansions. No new particles or fields are introduced.

assumptions (6)
  • standard math The space of 1-dimensional VVMFs of SL(2,Z) of weight k is spanned by monomials η^{2c} E4^a E6^b (Eq 10).
    Cited to [34] (Liu and Ding, co-author overlap); it is a published classification and is load-bearing for Table 1.
  • standard math The Valence formula (Eq 13) extends to 1-dimensional VVMFs with n_{i∞} any nonnegative integer.
    Asserted in Section 2.2 without proof or citation; it determines which zeros exist for k<12 and the bound at i∞.
  • domain assumption Matter fields transform in finite-image (finite modular group) representations of SL(2,Z).
    Section 2.1; restricts to the model-building framework and the 54+12 irreps listed in Appendix A.
  • domain assumption The Kähler potential takes the minimal form; non-minimal corrections do not lift determinant zeros and are parametrically small near critical points.
    Section 2.1 and Section 5.2; the near-critical analysis is performed in this setting.
  • domain assumption Each singular value of the mass matrix has a power-law expansion with nonvanishing order-one leading coefficient (Eq 21).
    Section 3.1; the hierarchy classification (e.g., 1:1:u) follows only if the c_i do not dominate or vanish; acknowledged as a limitation in Section 5.4.
  • domain assumption Modular weights considered are not excessively large (k_detM < 12 for the zero-location theorem; larger weights require k_detM ≥ 36 for order-3 hierarchies).
    Section 3.1 recap; the conclusions are conditional on this.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Modular Flavor Symmetries and Fermion Mass Hierarchies." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DTGQ5VPG

@misc{pith2026250623343,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Modular Flavor Symmetries and Fermion Mass Hierarchies},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DTGQ5VPG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.23343}
}
abstract

We investigate fermion mass hierarchies in models with modular flavor symmetries. Several key conclusions arise from the observation that the determinants of mass matrices transform as 1-dimensional vector-valued modular forms. We demonstrate that, under some fairly general assumptions, achieving hierarchical fermion masses requires the vacuum expectation value of the modulus $\tau$ to be located near one of the critical points, $i$, $i\infty$, or $\omega$. We also revisit the universal near-critical behavior around these points and classify the resulting mass hierarchies for the critical points $i$ and $\omega$. We compare the traditional Froggatt--Nielsen mechanism with its modular variant. The knowledge and boundedness of Fourier and Taylor coefficients are crucial to the predictive power of modular flavor symmetries.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.23343 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Fundamental domain of SL(2, Z) and critical points. All three functions have unique zeros in the fundamental do￾main (cf [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. A simple test reveals the location of the zeros of a given modular mass matrix. This has some important and immediate consequences. There are two options (cf [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The Poincare disks, along with the corresponding SL ´ (2, Z) fundamental domain. The blue dots, red dots, and green dots represent the images of the fixed points i, 𝜔 and i ∞, respectively. The fundamental domain is represented by the shaded hyperbolic triangle within the disk. In the field basis of Equation (35), modular transformations by an element of the stabilizer group 𝛾0 ∈ 𝐺0 take the form 𝜀 𝛾0 ↦−−−→ e i 𝜃0 𝜀… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages

  1. [57]

    A minimal modular invariant neutrino model,

    G.-J. Ding, X.-G. Liu, and C.-Y. Yao, “A minimal modular invariant neutrino model,”JHEP 01 (2023) 125, arXiv:2211.04546 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2023

  2. [1]

    Natural Vacuum Alignment from Group Theory: The Minimal Case,

    M. Holthausen and M. A. Schmidt, “Natural Vacuum Alignment from Group Theory: The Minimal Case,” JHEP 01 (2012) 126, arXiv:1111.1730 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2012

  3. [2]

    Are neutrino masses modular forms?,

    F. Feruglio, “Are neutrino masses modular forms?,” in From My Vast Repertoire ...: Guido Altarelli’s Legacy, A. Levy, S. Forte, and G. Ridolfi, eds., pp. 227–266. 2019. arXiv:1706.08749 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2019

  4. [3]

    Neutrino Masses and Mixing from Double Covering of Finite Modular Groups,

    X.-G. Liu and G.-J. Ding, “Neutrino Masses and Mixing from Double Covering of Finite Modular Groups,” JHEP 08 (2019) 134, arXiv:1907.01488 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2019

  5. [4]

    Modular A 4 symmetry models of neutrinos and charged leptons,

    G.-J. Ding, S. F. King, and X.-G. Liu, “Modular A 4 symmetry models of neutrinos and charged leptons,” JHEP 09 (2019) 074, arXiv:1907.11714 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2019

  6. [5]

    Modular A5 symmetry for flavour model building,

    P. P. Novichkov, J. T. Penedo, S. T. Petcov, and A. V. Titov, “Modular A5 symmetry for flavour model building,” JHEP 04 (2019) 174, arXiv:1812.02158 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2019

  7. [6]

    Neutrino Mass and Mixing with $A_5$ Modular Symmetry

    G.-J. Ding, S. F. King, and X.-G. Liu, “Neutrino mass and mixing with 𝐴5 modular symmetry,” Phys. Rev. D 100 no. 11, (2019) 115005, arXiv:1903.12588 [hep-ph]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2019

  8. [7]

    Flavor mixing and CP violation from the interplay of $S_4$ modular group and gCP

    B.-Y. Qu, X.-G. Liu, P.-T. Chen, and G.-J. Ding, “Flavor mixing and CP violation from the interplay of an S4 modular group and a generalized CP symmetry,” Phys. Rev. D 104 no. 7, (2021) 076001, arXiv:2106.11659 [hep-ph]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2021

Show all 59 references
  1. [8]

    Modular invariant quark and lepton models in double covering of𝑆4 modular group,

    X.-G. Liu, C.-Y. Yao, and G.-J. Ding, “Modular invariant quark and lepton models in double covering of𝑆4 modular group,” Phys. Rev. D 103 no. 5, (2021) 056013, arXiv:2006.10722 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  2. [9]

    Half-integral weight modular forms and application to neutrino mass models,

    X.-G. Liu, C.-Y. Yao, B.-Y. Qu, and G.-J. Ding, “Half-integral weight modular forms and application to neutrino mass models,” Phys. Rev. D 102 no. 11, (2020) 115035, arXiv:2007.13706 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Double cover of modular𝑆4 for flavour model building,

    P. P. Novichkov, J. T. Penedo, and S. T. Petcov, “Double cover of modular𝑆4 for flavour model building,” Nucl. Phys. B 963 (2021) 115301, arXiv:2006.03058 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Fermion masses and mixing from the double cover and metaplectic cover of the𝐴5 modular group,

    C.-Y. Yao, X.-G. Liu, and G.-J. Ding, “Fermion masses and mixing from the double cover and metaplectic cover of the𝐴5 modular group,” Phys. Rev. D 103 no. 9, (2021) 095013, arXiv:2011.03501 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Double covering of the modular 𝐴5 group and lepton flavor mixing in the minimal seesaw model,

    X. Wang, B. Yu, and S. Zhou, “Double covering of the modular 𝐴5 group and lepton flavor mixing in the minimal seesaw model,”Phys. Rev. D 103 no. 7, (2021) 076005, arXiv:2010.10159 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Modular Invariant Models of Leptons at Level 7,

    G.-J. Ding, S. F. King, C.-C. Li, and Y.-L. Zhou, “Modular Invariant Models of Leptons at Level 7,” JHEP 08 (2020) 164, arXiv:2004.12662 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Modular symmetry at level 6 and a new route towards finite modular groups,

    C.-C. Li, X.-G. Liu, and G.-J. Ding, “Modular symmetry at level 6 and a new route towards finite modular groups,” JHEP 10 (2021) 238, arXiv:2108.02181 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  8. [15]

    A simplest modular S 3 model for leptons,

    D. Meloni and M. Parriciatu, “A simplest modular S 3 model for leptons,” JHEP 09 (2023) 043, arXiv:2306.09028 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Modular binary octahedral symmetry for flavor structure of Standard Model,

    G.-J. Ding, X.-G. Liu, J.-N. Lu, and M.-H. Weng, “Modular binary octahedral symmetry for flavor structure of Standard Model,” JHEP 11 (2023) 083, arXiv:2307.14926 [hep-ph] . 30

    2023 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Lepton flavor symmetries,

    F. Feruglio and A. Romanino, “Lepton flavor symmetries,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 93 no. 1, (2021) 015007, arXiv:1912.06028 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  11. [18]

    Neutrino Flavor Model Building and the Origins of Flavor and Violation,

    Y. Almumin, M.-C. Chen, M. Cheng, V. Knapp-Perez, Y. Li, A. Mondol, S. Ramos-Sanchez, M. Ratz, and S. Shukla, “Neutrino Flavor Model Building and the Origins of Flavor and Violation,”Universe 9 no. 12, (2023) 512, arXiv:2204.08668 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  12. [19]

    Modular flavor symmetric models,

    T. Kobayashi and M. Tanimoto, “Modular flavor symmetric models,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 39 no. 09n10, (2024) 2441012, arXiv:2307.03384 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  13. [20]

    Neutrino mass and mixing with modular symmetry,

    G.-J. Ding and S. F. King, “Neutrino mass and mixing with modular symmetry,” Rept. Prog. Phys. 87 no. 8, (2024) 084201, arXiv:2311.09282 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  14. [21]

    The symmetry approach to quark and lepton masses and mixing,

    G.-J. Ding and J. W. F. Valle, “The symmetry approach to quark and lepton masses and mixing,” Phys. Rept. 1109 (2025) 1–105, arXiv:2402.16963 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  15. [22]

    Universal Predictions of Modular Invariant Flavor Models near the Self-Dual Point,

    F. Feruglio, “Universal Predictions of Modular Invariant Flavor Models near the Self-Dual Point,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 130 no. 10, (2023) 101801

    2023

  16. [23]

    Fermion masses, critical behavior and universality,

    F. Feruglio, “Fermion masses, critical behavior and universality,” JHEP 03 (2023) 236, arXiv:2302.11580 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  17. [24]

    Universal predictions of Siegel modular invariant theories near the fixed points,

    G.-J. Ding, F. Feruglio, and X.-G. Liu, “Universal predictions of Siegel modular invariant theories near the fixed points,” JHEP 05 (2024) 052, arXiv:2402.14915 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  18. [25]

    Breaking CP and supersymmetry with orbifold moduli dynamics,

    T. Dent, “Breaking CP and supersymmetry with orbifold moduli dynamics,” Nucl. Phys. B 623 (2002) 73–96, arXiv:hep-th/0110110. [Erratum: Nucl.Phys.B 629, 493–493 (2002)]

    2002 arXiv

  19. [26]

    𝐴4 lepton flavor model and modulus stabilization from𝑆4 modular symmetry,

    T. Kobayashi, Y. Shimizu, K. Takagi, M. Tanimoto, and T. H. Tatsuishi, “𝐴4 lepton flavor model and modulus stabilization from𝑆4 modular symmetry,” Phys. Rev. D 100 no. 11, (2019) 115045, arXiv:1909.05139 [hep-ph] . [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 101, 039904 (2020)]

    2019 arXiv

  20. [27]

    Modular flavour symmetries and modulus stabilisation,

    P. P. Novichkov, J. T. Penedo, and S. T. Petcov, “Modular flavour symmetries and modulus stabilisation,” JHEP 03 (2022) 149, arXiv:2201.02020 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  21. [28]

    Matter matters in moduli fixing and modular flavor symmetries,

    V. Knapp-Perez, X.-G. Liu, H. P. Nilles, S. Ramos-Sanchez, and M. Ratz, “Matter matters in moduli fixing and modular flavor symmetries,” Phys. Lett. B 844 (2023) 138106, arXiv:2304.14437 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  22. [29]

    Flavor Symmetries and Winding Modes,

    X. Li, X.-G. Liu, H. P. Nilles, M. Ratz, and A. Stewart, “Flavor Symmetries and Winding Modes,” arXiv:2506.12887 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  23. [30]

    A Mini-landscape of exact MSSM spectra in heterotic orbifolds,

    O. Lebedev, H. P. Nilles, S. Raby, S. Ramos-Sanchez, M. Ratz, P. K. S. Vaudrevange, and A. Wingerter, “A Mini-landscape of exact MSSM spectra in heterotic orbifolds,”Phys. Lett. B 645 (2007) 88–94, arXiv:hep-th/0611095

    2007 arXiv

  24. [31]

    A String Theory of Flavor andC P,

    A. Baur, H. P. Nilles, A. Trautner, and P. K. S. Vaudrevange, “A String Theory of Flavor andC P,” Nucl. Phys. B 947 (2019) 114737, arXiv:1908.00805 [hep-th]

    2019 arXiv

  25. [32]

    The eclectic flavor symmetry of the Z2 orbifold,

    A. Baur, M. Kade, H. P. Nilles, S. Ramos-S ´anchez, and P. K. S. Vaudrevange, “The eclectic flavor symmetry of the Z2 orbifold,” JHEP 02 (2021) 018, arXiv:2008.07534 [hep-th] . 31

    2021 arXiv

  26. [33]

    Hierarchy of Quark Masses, Cabibbo Angles and CP Violation,

    C. D. Froggatt and H. B. Nielsen, “Hierarchy of Quark Masses, Cabibbo Angles and CP Violation,” Nucl. Phys. B 147 (1979) 277–298

    1979

  27. [34]

    Modular flavor symmetry and vector-valued modular forms,

    X.-G. Liu and G.-J. Ding, “Modular flavor symmetry and vector-valued modular forms,” JHEP 03 (2022) 123, arXiv:2112.14761 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  28. [35]

    A note on the predictions of models with modular flavor symmetries,

    M.-C. Chen, S. Ramos-S ´anchez, and M. Ratz, “A note on the predictions of models with modular flavor symmetries,” Phys. Lett. B 801 (2020) 135153, arXiv:1909.06910 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  29. [36]

    Bruinier, G

    J. Bruinier, G. van der Geer, G. Harder, and D. Zagier, 1-2-3 of modular forms. Springer, Berlin, 2008

    2008

  30. [37]

    Cohen and F

    H. Cohen and F. Str ¨omberg, Modular Forms: A Classical Approach. Graduate studies in mathematics. American Mathematical Society, 2017. https://books.google.com/books?id=1MmctQEACAAJ

    2017

  31. [38]

    Modular invariance and the QCD angle,

    F. Feruglio, A. Strumia, and A. Titov, “Modular invariance and the QCD angle,”JHEP 07 (2023) 027, arXiv:2305.08908 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  32. [39]

    Solving the strong CP problem without axions,

    F. Feruglio, M. Parriciatu, A. Strumia, and A. Titov, “Solving the strong CP problem without axions,” JHEP 08 (2024) 214, arXiv:2406.01689 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  33. [40]

    𝐴4 modular invariance and the strong CP problem,

    S. T. Petcov and M. Tanimoto, “𝐴4 modular invariance and the strong CP problem,”Eur. Phys. J. C84 no. 9, (2024) 914, arXiv:2404.00858 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  34. [41]

    Finite modular symmetries and the strong CP problem,

    J. T. Penedo and S. T. Petcov, “Finite modular symmetries and the strong CP problem,”JHEP 10 (2024) 172, arXiv:2404.08032 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  35. [42]

    Modular invariant holomorphic observables,

    M.-C. Chen, X. Li, X.-G. Liu, O. Medina, and M. Ratz, “Modular invariant holomorphic observables,” Phys. Lett. B 852 (2024) 138600, arXiv:2401.04738 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  36. [43]

    Anomaly-safe discrete groups,

    M.-C. Chen, M. Fallbacher, M. Ratz, A. Trautner, and P. K. S. Vaudrevange, “Anomaly-safe discrete groups,” Phys. Lett. B 747 (2015) 22–26, arXiv:1504.03470 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  37. [44]

    Fermion mass hierarchies from modular symmetry,

    S. J. D. King and S. F. King, “Fermion mass hierarchies from modular symmetry,” JHEP 09 (2020) 043, arXiv:2002.00969 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  38. [45]

    Modular Symmetry with Weighton,

    G.-J. Ding, S. F. King, J.-N. Lu, and M.-H. Weng, “Modular Symmetry with Weighton,” arXiv:2505.12916 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  39. [46]

    Modular invariant dynamics and fermion mass hierarchies around𝜏 =𝑖,

    F. Feruglio, V. Gherardi, A. Romanino, and A. Titov, “Modular invariant dynamics and fermion mass hierarchies around𝜏 =𝑖,” JHEP 05 (2021) 242, arXiv:2101.08718 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  40. [47]

    Fermion mass hierarchies, large lepton mixing and residual modular symmetries,

    P. P. Novichkov, J. T. Penedo, and S. T. Petcov, “Fermion mass hierarchies, large lepton mixing and residual modular symmetries,” JHEP 04 (2021) 206, arXiv:2102.07488 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  41. [48]

    On vector-valued modular forms and their Fourier coefficients,

    M. Knopp and G. Mason, “On vector-valued modular forms and their Fourier coefficients,” Acta Arithmetica 110 no. 2, (2003) 117–124

    2003

  42. [49]

    Growth of Fourier coefficients of vector-valued automorphic forms,

    J. Bajpai, S. Bhakta, and R. Finder, “Growth of Fourier coefficients of vector-valued automorphic forms,” Journal of Number Theory 249 (2023) 237–273. 32

    2023

  43. [50]

    Multiple realizations of modular flavor symmetries and their phenomenology,

    C. Arriaga-Osante, M.-C. Chen, R. Diaz-Castro, X. Li, X.-G. Liu, S. Ramos-Sanchez, and M. Ratz, “Multiple realizations of modular flavor symmetries and their phenomenology,” JHEP 06 (2025) 096, arXiv:2502.12270 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  44. [51]

    The Operator Algebra of Orbifold Models,

    R. Dijkgraaf, C. Vafa, E. P. Verlinde, and H. L. Verlinde, “The Operator Algebra of Orbifold Models,” Commun. Math. Phys. 123 (1989) 485

    1989

  45. [52]

    Some Considerations About the Stringy Higgs Effect,

    L. E. Ib ´a˜nez, W. Lerche, D. L¨ ust, and S. Theisen, “Some Considerations About the Stringy Higgs Effect,” Nucl. Phys. B 352 (1991) 435–450

    1991

  46. [53]

    Gauge Origin of Discrete Flavor Symmetries in Heterotic Orbifolds,

    F. Beye, T. Kobayashi, and S. Kuwakino, “Gauge Origin of Discrete Flavor Symmetries in Heterotic Orbifolds,” Phys. Lett. B 736 (2014) 433–437, arXiv:1406.4660 [hep-th]

    2014 arXiv

  47. [54]

    Minimal Froggatt-Nielsen textures,

    M. Fedele, A. Mastroddi, and M. Valli, “Minimal Froggatt-Nielsen textures,” JHEP 03 (2021) 135, arXiv:2009.05587 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  48. [55]

    Comprehensive Bayesian exploration of Froggatt-Nielsen mechanism,

    M. Ibe, S. Shirai, and K. Watanabe, “Comprehensive Bayesian exploration of Froggatt-Nielsen mechanism,” JHEP 03 (2025) 150, arXiv:2412.19484 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  49. [56]

    Units and numerical values of the effective couplings in perturbative heterotic string vacua,

    M. Cveti ˇc, L. L. Everett, and J. Wang, “Units and numerical values of the effective couplings in perturbative heterotic string vacua,” Phys. Rev. D 59 (1999) 107901, arXiv:hep-ph/9808321

    1999 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Representations of the braid group 𝐵3 and of𝑆𝐿(2,𝑍),

    I. Tuba and H. Wenzl, “Representations of the braid group 𝐵3 and of𝑆𝐿(2,𝑍),” Pacific Journal of Mathematics 197 no. 2, (2001) 491–510

    2001

  51. [59]

    2-dimensional vector-valued modular forms,

    G. Mason, “2-dimensional vector-valued modular forms,” The Ramanujan Journal 17 no. 3, (2008) 405–427. 33

    2008

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.