Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 4 minor 20 references

Breaking the Democratic Limit in the Generalized Friedberg-Lee Model: Implications for Neutrino Masses and Mixing

T0 review · 5 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A minimal breaking of the democratic neutrino mass limit generates an inverted hierarchy, a non-zero θ13, and a predicted CP phase.

desk verdict A mostly coherent symmetry-motivated fit dressed up as a parameter-free prediction; the reactor angle and CP phase are inputs, not outputs. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.17258 v1 pith:C73J2ME2 submitted 2026-07-19 hep-ph hep-th

N. Razzaghi This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phhep-th
keywords neutrinomassesmixingCPviolationFriedberg-Leemodeltwistedsymmetrydemocraticmassmatrixtribimaximalinvertedhierarchy
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 explores a generalized Friedberg–Lee mass model for neutrinos and identifies a special point, Point D, where the mass matrix becomes fully democratic and S3-symmetric. At that point the spectrum is phenomenologically dead: m1 and m2 are degenerate, m3 = 0, and the reactor angle vanishes. The authors' claim is that a minimal symmetry-breaking perturbation that preserves the twisted Friedberg–Lee (TFL) symmetry lifts the degeneracy and generates all the observed features at once: an inverted ordering with m3 = 0, non-zero θ13, intrinsic CP violation, and maximal atmospheric mixing. The perturbation is not arbitrary; its entries are fixed by demanding that the third mass eigenstate reproduce the measured third column of the neutrino mixing matrix. The result is a set of concrete predictions — mass values, a Jarlskog invariant J ≈ 0.027–0.036, a Dirac phase δ ≈ 229°–312°, and a sum of neutrino masses below the cosmological bound — all consistent with current global fits.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Point-D perturbation matrix (Eq. 2.31), a complex symmetric 3×3 matrix in the mass basis whose entries scale with m0 s13 and contain the phases δ and ϕ. Its nonzero (13), (23), and (22) elements are fixed by an inversion procedure: the first two are chosen so that the perturbed third eigenstate coincides with the measured third column of U_PMNS (Eqs. 2.27–2.29), and the (22) element is parameterized by ε to reproduce the solar mass splitting while keeping (12) = 0 as a minimality condition. Degenerate perturbation theory then produces the corrected mixing matrix (Eq. 2.38), from which the Jarlskog invariant J = −(1/(3√2)) s13 sin δ is obtained. The TFL symmetry supp

What would settle it

A measurement of θ23 that deviates from 45° beyond the tiny second-order correction, or a precise determination of δ outside 229°–312°, would rule out the model; so would any observation of a non-zero lightest neutrino mass, since the model predicts m3 = 0 and a total neutrino mass sum around 0.1 eV.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the singular Point D (α = β = −1/3) of the generalized FL parameter space, where the matrix reduces to the democratic S3-symmetric form, is not a dead end. Adding the TFL-symmetric symmetry-breaking term (Eq. 2.11) and then a complex perturbation matrix (Eq. 2.31) whose (13) and (23) entries are reconstructed from the third column of U_PMNS under the assumption θ23 = 45° produces, at first order in s13, the mixing matrix U|Point D = U_TBM + s13 e^{iδ} (correction). Substituting this into the definition of the Jarlskog invariant yields J = −(1/(3√2)) s13 sin δ, showing that CP violation follows once s13 and δ are non-zero. Feeding in osc

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the specific complex perturbation matrix is the minimal one and that θ23 sits exactly at 45°; these are imposed to make the inversion from the measured third column of U_PMNS work, not derived from the democratic or TFL symmetry.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the model is correct, the neutrino mass ordering is inverted with the third eigenstate exactly massless at this order; a measurement of a non-zero lightest neutrino mass would be a direct contradiction.
  • The model predicts maximal atmospheric mixing (θ23 = 45°) and a Dirac phase in the range δ ≈ 229°–312°, both directly testable in long-baseline oscillation experiments.
  • Because the Jarlskog invariant J is predicted to lie between 0.027 and 0.036, the model implies observable CP violation in neutrino oscillations.
  • The predicted sum of neutrino masses, about 0.098–0.1015 eV, is below the current cosmological bound but within reach of near-term cosmological surveys.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The inversion used to build M_P^ν means the low-energy mixing data are inputs used to fix the perturbation, so the model's core predictions are the mass relations and the J–δ correlation; θ13 and δ themselves are fitted, not derived.
  • Setting (M_P)_12 = 0 to keep the perturbation minimal is a choice; it is worth checking whether other TFL-preserving perturbations yield the same first-order mixing matrix, since a different minimal choice could fit the same data.
  • The near-90° value of the phase ϕ in the allowed regions suggests large Majorana phases; embedding the model in a neutrinoless double beta decay framework would translate its two branches into distinguishable effective Majorana masses, offering an experimental way to select the branch.
  • Extending the perturbative expansion to second order in s13 would give a concrete prediction for the deviation of θ23 from maximal, which the paper treats as an input.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

5 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies the generalized Friedberg–Lee neutrino mass model at the singular point D (α=β=-1/3), where the mass matrix becomes democratic and is diagonalized by TBM mixing with m1=m2 and m3=0. To make contact with data, the authors add a complex symmetric perturbation M_P. They claim that a minimal TFL-symmetric perturbation lifts the degeneracy, generates a non-zero θ13 and a Dirac phase δ, predicts maximal θ23, and yields an inverted hierarchy with m3=0. Numerical ranges for m0, g, |m2^(1)|, and φ are obtained from experimental mass splittings, and the Conclusions quote ranges for δ and J as predictions.

Significance. If the advertised result held, the model would offer a symmetry-motivated origin of the inverted mass hierarchy and of leptonic CP violation, which would be a significant contribution to neutrino model building. The manuscript is transparent about its inversion procedure and provides an explicit parameter scan for the mass matrix. However, the derivation does not predict the quantities it claims to predict: the perturbation matrix is fixed by the measured values of s13 and δ, and maximal θ23 is assumed. The quoted CP-phase range is not derived. The central claim of a parameter-free prediction is therefore not supported.

major comments (5)
  1. [§II, Eqs. (2.27)–(2.31)] The perturbation matrix is reconstructed from data, not derived from the TFL symmetry. Eq. (2.27) equates the third perturbed eigenstate with the experimental third column of U_PMNS; Eq. (2.28) fixes C31 and C32 under the explicit assumption θ23=45°; Eq. (2.29) then yields (M_P)_13 and (M_P)_23 proportional to m0 s13 e^{-iδ}. The text states that 'we adopt an inversion procedure.' Thus s13 and δ are inputs, and the abstract's claim that the derivation 'avoids ad hoc parameters' is not supported.
  2. [§V Conclusions vs. §III] The quoted δ ≈ (229.30°–312.42°) and J ≈ (0.027–0.036) are not derived in the paper. Section III constrains m0, g, |m2^(1)|, and φ using mass-squared differences and sinθ13; no equation there constrains δ. Eq. (2.39) merely evaluates J in terms of the input s13 and δ. The CP-phase range is therefore an input (or an unsourced assertion), not a model prediction.
  3. [§II, Eq. (2.28)] Maximal atmospheric mixing is imposed. The coefficients C31 and C32 are solved from Eq. (2.27) by 'the limit of maximal μ–τ symmetry where θ23=45°.' The Conclusions claim the model 'predicts maximal atmospheric mixing,' but nothing in the TFL symmetry or the perturbation enforces θ23=45°; it is an assumption of the reconstruction.
  4. [§II, Eqs. (1.7) vs. (2.23)] There are sign inconsistencies in the TBM vectors. Eq. (1.7) gives the third TBM column as (0, -1/√2, 1/√2) and the second column as (1,1,1)/√3, whereas Eq. (2.23) defines |ν3^(0)>=(0,1/√2,1/√2) and |ν2^(0)>=(1/√3,1/√3,-1/√3). These phase-convention changes alter the comparison in Eq. (2.27) and the extracted coefficients in Eq. (2.28).
  5. [§II, Eqs. (2.24)–(2.26)] For a complex symmetric (non-Hermitian) Majorana mass matrix the relevant Hermitian product for the left-handed mixing matrix is M M† (or a Takagi factorization), not M†M. The perturbative eigenstates obtained from M†M are the conjugate of the Takagi vectors. The manuscript should justify why the third column of U_PMNS is compared with eigenstates of M†M; this affects the sign and phase of the resulting J in Eq. (2.39).
minor comments (4)
  1. [§III, Eq. (3.6)] The displayed numerical ranges are garbled by missing line breaks and redundant brackets; as printed, the entries for |m2|, φ, and δm2 are ambiguous.
  2. [§III, text after Eq. (3.2)] The reference to 'Eq. (??)' should be fixed to the experimental δm2 constraint from Eq. (1.1).
  3. [§II, Eq. (2.38)] The claimed unitarity 'up to O(s13)' should be checked explicitly; with the sign conventions used, the correction term must satisfy a first-order unitarity condition that is not demonstrated.
  4. [§I and Conclusions] The phrase 'intrinsic CP violation' overstates the result, since the Dirac phase δ is introduced into M_P by hand rather than generated spontaneously or radiatively; 'explicit CP violation' would be more accurate.

Circularity Check

3 steps flagged · score 7.0 of 10

The advertised 'parameter-free' predictions of non-zero θ13, Dirac δ, and maximal θ23 are inserted by construction: M_P is inverted from the measured PMNS third column (Eqs. 2.27–2.29), and the quoted δ/J ranges in the Conclusions are never derived.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. II, Eqs. (2.27)–(2.29)]
    "Our primary objective is to ensure that the third perturbed mass eigenstate, in the presence of CP violation, reproduces the third column of the experimental mixing matrix as defined in Eq. (1.2) when projected onto the flavor basis. To achieve this, rather than postulating an arbitrary form for the perturbation, we adopt an inversion procedure. In this method, we reconstruct the elements of the perturbation matrix M P ν by requiring that it yields the desired physical eigenstates and the observed mass spectrum. ... Finally, by applying Eqs. (2.19) and (2.26) within the mass basis, we extract"

    Equation (2.27) fixes the third perturbed eigenstate to be exactly the measured third column of U_PMNS, i.e. (s13e−iδ, s23c13, c23c13). Solving for C31 and C32 and converting them via Eq. (2.26) produces Eq. (2.29), where M_P is explicitly proportional to s13e−iδ. The later mixing matrix (2.38) and Jarlskog invariant (2.39) therefore return the same s13 and δ that were inserted. The non-zero θ13 and intrinsic CP violation are inputs manufactured by inversion, not outputs of the TFL/democratic symmetry.

  2. self definitional [Sec. II, Eq. (2.28) and Conclusions]
    "In the limit of maximal µ, τ symmetry where θ23 = 45◦, and to linear order in s13, the coefficients are determined to be: C31 = −√(2/3)s13e−iδ, and C32 = √(1/3)s13e−iδ. ... This theoretically motivated approach successfully generates a non-zero Dirac CP phase while preserving maximal atmospheric mixing, θ23 = 45◦, and produces a realistic inverted hierarchy with a massless third-generation neutrino (m3 = 0)."

    Maximal atmospheric mixing is not derived from the model; it is imposed before solving for the perturbation coefficients. Equation (2.28) uses θ23 = 45° as an input assumption to fix C31 and C32, and the Conclusions then advertise 'preserving maximal atmospheric mixing, θ23 = 45°' as a success. An assumed condition restated as a prediction is circular by construction.

1 more flagged steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. V, Conclusions; cf. Sec. III]
    "Furthermore, our predictions for the leptonic CP-violating parameters, δ ≈ (229.30◦–312.42◦) and J ≈ (0.027–0.036), are in excellent agreement with global neutrino oscillation data and remain fully consistent with the stringent cosmological bounds reported by the Planck mission."

    Section III constrains only m0, g, m(1)2, and ϕ through δm² and |Δm²|; no equation determines δ. The Dirac phase δ appears only as a free parameter inserted into M_P in Eqs. (2.29) and (2.31), and Eq. (2.39) merely evaluates J = −(1/(3√2))s13 sinδ from that input. The δ and J ranges quoted in the Conclusions are therefore a re-quoting of the same parameters already put into the perturbation, not a prediction emerging from the model.

full rationale

The mass-scale part of the paper has real content: at Point D the democratic matrix plus the TFL breaking term give m3 = 0 and an inverted ordering (Eq. 2.13), and m0, g are then constrained by δm² and |Δm²| in Section III. That segment is a fit to data but not a circularity. The circularity is concentrated in the advertised CP/mixing results: the third perturbed eigenstate is set equal to the measured third column of U_PMNS (Eq. 2.27), the perturbation matrix is reconstructed from that target (Eqs. 2.28–2.29), θ23 = 45° is imposed in Eq. (2.28), and s13 and δ enter as free parameters in M_P. Equations (2.38)–(2.39) simply return this input s13 and δ. Section III constrains only masses; no equation determines δ. The Conclusions' δ ≈ 229.30°–312.42° and J ≈ 0.027–0.036 are therefore inputs or global-fit ranges restated as predictions. The presence of self-citations to the author's earlier work (Refs. [14], [16]) is noted, but the decisive reduction is internal to Eqs. (2.27)–(2.39), so the score reflects that internal construction rather than the self-citations alone.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central model relies on five fitted parameters (m0, g, m2^(1), φ, δ) plus an ad hoc choice of perturbation support and an imposed maximal θ23. No new particle or force is introduced. The TFL symmetry is imported from prior work and restricts the unperturbed sector but does not fix the perturbation that generates the main observables.

free parameters (5)
  • m0 (overall neutrino mass scale) = ±(4.87–5.03) × 10^-2 eV
    Set by matching the atmospheric and solar mass-squared differences in Sec. III.
  • g (TFL symmetry-breaking coefficient) = ±(0.812–0.838) × 10^-2 eV
    Chosen so that m1=6g is close to m2=m0, producing the inverted hierarchy; extracted from Δm^2 constraints.
  • m2^(1) (solar mass correction) = |m2^(1)| = (0.487–0.9) × 10^-2 eV
    Introduced as the (22) entry of the perturbation and fitted to δm^2 and sin θ13 in Sec. III.
  • φ (phase of m2^(1)) = e.g. 83.12°–91.72°, 269.43°–275.16° for m0>0; see Eq. (3.5)
    A free phase fitted to reproduce the measured solar mass splitting ranges.
  • δ (Dirac CP phase) = 229.30°–312.42° (stated in Conclusions)
    Appears as an input phase in M_P, Eq. (2.31); no derivation of how this range is obtained is shown in the text.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The unperturbed neutrino mass matrix is diagonalized by U_TBM because it preserves magic and μ–τ symmetry.
    Invoked repeatedly, e.g. in Sec. II around Eqs. (2.14)–(2.18), as the starting point of the perturbation theory.
  • domain assumption The TFL symmetry transformations (Eqs. 2.9, 7.2–7.3) provide the symmetry-breaking mass matrix gQ in Eq. (2.11).
    The form of the breaking term is derived in Appendix A under a uniform-translation hypothesis; the overall coefficient g is free.
  • ad hoc to paper The physically relevant perturbation has non-zero entries only in (13), (22), (23) and zero in (12).
    This 'minimal' support is assumed in Eq. (2.31) to generate θ13 and the solar splitting while keeping maximal θ23 and no 1–2 mixing at first order. It is not derived from TFL symmetry.
  • ad hoc to paper θ23 = 45° at first order in s13.
    Eq. (2.27) is solved under the explicit assumption 'In the limit of maximal μ, τ symmetry where θ23=45°', so maximal atmospheric mixing is imposed, not derived.
  • domain assumption Neutrino masses obey the inverted hierarchy with m3=0.
    The model at Point D structure forces m3=0; the paper then treats this as a prediction but uses it to select g≈m0/6 and to compare with IH global-fit data.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Breaking the Democratic Limit in the Generalized Friedberg-Lee Model: Implications for Neutrino Masses and Mixing." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/C73J2ME2

@misc{pith2026260717258,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Breaking the Democratic Limit in the Generalized Friedberg-Lee Model: Implications for Neutrino Masses and Mixing},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/C73J2ME2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.17258}
}
abstract

We investigate a generalized Friedberg--Lee (FL) framework for neutrino masses, focusing on the singular parameter space at Point D ($\alpha = \beta = -1/3$). At this limit, the neutrino mass matrix exhibits a democratic texture governed by the $S_3$ permutation symmetry. Although theoretically profound, the exact democratic limit is phenomenologically excluded as it predicts a degenerate mass spectrum and a vanishing reactor angle ($\theta_{13}=0$). To reconcile this high-symmetry limit with experimental observations, we introduce a minimal and systematic perturbation that preserves the Twisted Friedberg--Lee (TFL) symmetry. This mechanism effectively lifts the mass degeneracy and breaks the magic and $\mu$--$\tau$ symmetries in a controlled manner. Our derivation avoids \textit{ad hoc} parameters, establishing a robust framework that yields a realistic inverted mass hierarchy ($m_3=0$), a non-zero $\theta_{13}$, and intrinsic CP violation. We demonstrate that the model predicts maximal atmospheric mixing and a significant Dirac CP phase. The obtained numerical ranges for the neutrino masses and the Jarlskog invariant show excellent agreement with global fit data, providing a theoretically motivated foundation for neutrino flavor physics within the TFL scheme.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.17258 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The allowed parameter space in the α, β plane, where α ≡ a/m0 and β ≡ br/m0. The shaded triangular region denotes the domain where CP violation occurs, which is bounded by the line 2β + α + 1 = 0. The red dot represents Point D at (− 1 3 , − 1 3 ), which corresponds to the CP conserving limit where B = 0. A comprehensive analysis of this parameter space, encompassing the resulting CP violating effects, their phenome… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (color online). The allowed m (1) 2 –ϕ parameter space for the m0 > 0 branch. The colored curves represent constant values of the mass scale within the range m0 ∈ (4.87–5.03) × 10−2 eV. The intersections of the model predictions with the experimental ∆m2 21 constraints result in two distinct, approximately symmetric compact regions. This symmetry suggests a dual solution regime for the solar mass scale in the positi… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (color online). The allowed m (1) 2 –ϕ parameter space for the m0 < 0 branch. The curves correspond to the range m0 ∈ −(4.87–5.03) × 10−2 eV. Unlike the m0 > 0 case, the overlap with the experimental ∆m2 21 values is restricted to a single, highly localized, tiny region, indicating a substantially more constrained parameter space [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

20 extracted references · 6 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Ahmad, et al., Phys

    SNO Collaboration, Q.R. Ahmad, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 8 9 (2002) 011301; For a review, see: C.K. Jung, et al., Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 51 (2001) 451; KamLAND Collaboration, K. Eguchi, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 90 (2003) 021802; K2K Collaboration, M.H. Ahn, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 90 (2003) 0 41801

    2002

  2. [2]

    D. A. Dwyer [Daya Bay Collaboration], Nucl. Phys. Proc. S uppl. 235-236, 30 (2013) [arXiv:1303.3863 [hep-ex]]. F. P. An et al. [DAYA-BAY Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 1718 03 (2012) [arXiv:1203.1669 [hep-ex]]; J. K. Ahn et al. [RENO Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 191802 (2012) [arXiv :1204.0626[hep-ex]]

    arXiv 2013

  3. [3]

    Esteban et al., JHEP 12, 216 (2024)

    I. Esteban et al., JHEP 12, 216 (2024)

    2024

  4. [4]

    Schechter and J

    J. Schechter and J. W. F. Valle Phys.Rev. D22 (1980) 2227; H. Fritzsch and Z.Z. Xing, Phys. Lett. B 517, 363 (2001). Particle Data Group, W.M. Yao et al., J. Phys. G 33, 1 (2006)

    1980

  5. [5]

    Friedberg, T.D

    R. Friedberg, T.D. Lee, High Energy Phys. Nucl. Phys. 30 ( 2006) 591; arXiv:hep-ph/0606071

    arXiv 2006

  6. [6]

    P. F. Harrison at al., Phys. Lett. B458, 79 (1999); P. F. Ha rrison et al., Phys. Lett. B530, 167 (2002); Z-z. Xing, Phys. Lett. B533, 85 (2002); P. F. Harrison and W. G. Scott, Phys. Le tt. B535, 163 (2002); P. F. Harrison and W. G. Scott, Phys. Lett. B557, 76 (2003); X.-G. He and A. Zee, Phys. Lett. B 560, 87 (2003)

    1999

  7. [7]

    C. S. Huang, T. Li, W. Liao and S. H. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D 78, 013 005 (2008)

    2008

  8. [8]

    Harari, H

    H. Harari, H. Haut and J. Weyers, Phys. Lett. B78 (1978) 45 9; Y. Koide, Phys. Rev. D28 (1983) 252; ibid. D39 (1989) 1391; P. Kaus and S. Meshkov, Mod. Phys. Lett. A3 (1988) 1251 [ Erratum-ibid. A4 (1989) 603]; L. Lavoura, Phys. Lett. B228 (1989) 245; M. Tanimoto, Phys. Rev. D41 (1990) 1586; G.C . Branco, J.I. Silva- Marcos and M.N. Rebelo, Phys. Lett. B2...

    arXiv 1978

Show all 20 references
  1. [9]

    Ciafaloni, M

    See, for example, P. Ciafaloni, M. Picariello, A. Urbano and E. Torrente-Lujan, Phys. Rev. D 81 , 016004 (2010) [arXiv:0909.2553 [hep-ph]]; P. H. Frampton , T. W. Kephart a nd S. Mat- suzaki, Phys. Rev. D 78 , 073004 (2008) [arXiv:0807.4713 [hep-ph]]; F. Plentinger , G. Seidl ...

    2010 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Altarelli and F

    G. Altarelli and F. Feruglio, Nucl. Phys. B 741 , 215 (200 6) [hep-ph/0512103]; B. Adhikary, B. Brahmachari, A. Ghosa l, E. Ma and M. K. Pa rida, Phys. Lett. B 638 , 345 (2006) [hep-ph/0 603059]; F. Bazzocchi, S. Morisi and M. Picariello, Phys. Lett. B 659 , 628 (2008) [arXiv:...

    2006 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Jarlskog, Phys

    C. Jarlskog, Phys. Rev. Lett. 55 (1985) 1039

    1985

  4. [12]

    Z. Z. Xing, H. Zhang, S. Zhou, Phys Lett B 641 (2006) 189; T . Baba, M. Yasue, Phys. Rev. D75, 055001 (2007); Z. Z. Xing, H. Zhang, S. Zhou, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 23, 3384(2008)

    2006

  5. [13]

    Schechter and J.W

    J. Schechter and J.W. F. Valle, Phys. Rev. D 22, 2227 (198 0); Physics of neutrinos and applications to as- trophysics , Masataka Fukugita and Tsutomu Yanagida, Springer, (2003); S. Nasri, J. Schechter and S. Moussa , Phys. Rev. D 70, 053005(2004)

    2003

  6. [14]

    Razzaghi, S

    N. Razzaghi, S. S. Gousheh, Phys. Rev. D 86, (2012) 05300 6

    2012

  7. [15]

    Takeshi Araki, Ryo Takahashi, Eur. Phys. J. C63:521-52 6,(2009)

    2009

  8. [16]

    Ge nerating CP Violation from a Modified Fridberg-Lee Model

    Razzaghi, N.; Rasouli, S.M.M.; Parada, P.; Moniz, P. Ge nerating CP Violation from a Modified Fridberg-Lee Model. Universe 2022, 8, 448

    2022

  9. [17]

    L. I. Schiff, Quantum Mechanics (Third ed.), McGraw-Hill (1968)

    1968

  10. [18]

    A Shift from Democratic to Tri-bimaximal Ne utrino Mixing with Relatively Large θ13

    Xing, Z.-Z. A Shift from Democratic to Tri-bimaximal Ne utrino Mixing with Relatively Large θ13. Phys. Lett. B 2011, 696, 232-236

    2011

  11. [19]

    Physics of Neutrinos and App lications to Astrophysics; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 200 3

    Fukugita, M.; Yanagida, T. Physics of Neutrinos and App lications to Astrophysics; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 200 3

  12. [20]

    Aghanim et al

    N. Aghanim et al. [Planck], Astron. Astrophys. 641, A6 ( 2020), [arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2020 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.