Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Residual Symmetries and Scalar Multiplet Vacuum Alignment in Non-Abelian Flavour Models

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper establishes a one-to-one correspondence between residual flavour-symmetry breaking and scalar vacuum realignment in non-Abelian flavour models.

desk verdict Useful diagnostic for vacuum alignment stability, but the central one-to-one correspondence is overclaimed—the omitted S4 θ23 d=6 case is exactly where it fails. read the letter →

arxiv 2512.19789 v2 pith:DPM67PG4 submitted 2025-12-22 hep-ph

Ivo de Medeiros Varzielas , Ming-Shau Liu , Amartya Sengupta , Jim Talbert This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph PACS 11.30.Hv12.15.Ff
keywords residualflavoursymmetryvacuumalignmentflavonpotentialsnon-AbeliandiscretesymmetriesS4A4Delta(27)Yukawatextures
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

Non-Abelian flavour models explain fermion masses by giving special vacuum directions to scalar fields called flavons. This paper asks when those directions are stable, and answers: a special alignment survives—up to an overall rescaling—exactly when every additional operator added to the single-flavon potential respects the residual flavour symmetry left unbroken by the alignment. Operators that break the residual symmetry force the vacuum to reorient, and the paper shows how to compute that reorientation perturbatively. Testing the rule on S4 toy models, the A4 Altarelli-Feruglio model, and the Delta(27) Universal Texture Zero model reveals that many published models carry a hidden form of fine-tuning, especially in operators that mix different flavons. The practical payoff is a way to tell which flavour predictions are robust and which are silently dependent on an assumption that certain scalar couplings vanish.

What carries the argument

The key object is the residual flavour symmetry (RFS): the subgroup of the original non-Abelian symmetry that leaves a given VEV alignment unchanged. The argument rests on two pieces of machinery: a classification of every scalar operator by whether it preserves the RFS of the combined VEVs, and a perturbative expansion in the RFS-violating couplings (or in 1/Λ for higher-dimension operators) that yields analytic formulas for the induced VEV corrections. The correspondence between RFS preservation and VEV stability is what lets the authors identify hidden fine-tuning whenever the RFS is violated.

What would settle it

A numerical scan of the full two-triplet S4 potential (Sec. 2.2.3) over randomly drawn couplings: if any region outside the fine-tuned subspace of Eq. (39) yields simultaneous ⟨θ⟩=(0,0,1) and ⟨ϕ⟩=(1,1,1) as true minima, the one-to-one correspondence is false. Equivalently, a single-flavon model with a special alignment that is a true minimum, to which one adds any RFS-violating operator, must show a nonzero VEV shift; a counterexample with an exactly zero shift (without tuned cancellations) would refute the principle.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is a correspondence principle: the special vacuum alignments of a single-flavon potential are exactly those that preserve a discrete residual subgroup of the flavour symmetry. Once extra scalar operators (multi-flavon, or higher-dimensional EFT terms) are included, each operator either preserves that residual symmetry—in which case the alignment survives up to a uniform rescaling—or violates it, in which case the vacuum is forced to realign. The paper computes the realignment perturbatively in the violating couplings. It verifies the principle in S4 toy models, then shows the A4 Altarelli-Feruglio model preserves its residual symmetry at the renormalizable level but

Load-bearing premise

The correspondence principle is assumed to hold generally for non-Abelian flavour models, but it is only demonstrated for a few examples; the perturbative calculation also assumes the leading-order vacuum remains a nearby local minimum and that the RFS-violating couplings are small enough that no other global minimum takes over.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In multi-flavon models, operators mixing distinct triplets generically violate the RFS and therefore reorient the vacuum; omitting those operators is a fine-tuning, not an innocent simplification.
  • The A4 Altarelli-Feruglio model is protected against this at the renormalizable level by its supersymmetric F-term alignment, but its higher-dimensional EFT corrections do break the RFS and shift the VEVs, matching the model's original correction calculation.
  • In the Delta(27) Universal Texture Zero model, certain mixed operators break only the residual symmetry of the ⟨θ123⟩ vacuum while preserving that of ⟨θ3⟩, producing direction-specific VEV corrections.
  • Vacuum alignment corrections affect Yukawa predictions at the same or larger order as higher-order Yukawa operators, so consistent model building cannot ignore them.
  • The paper's diagnostic—compute the RFS, classify the operators—gives a systematic way to spot where a flavour model is secretly fine-tuned.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The correspondence principle should hold for any discrete (and likely continuous) flavour group that has a subgroup leaving a VEV invariant; it would be straightforward to test on the full Delta(3n^2) and Delta(6n^2) series.
  • One could automate this as a consistency check: given a proposed model, enumerate all allowed scalar operators, compute the VEV's residual symmetry, and flag any operator that breaks it before any numerical fit is done.
  • If RFS-violating corrections are generic, then fits to leading-order Yukawa textures may be systematically biased: the physical vacuum is the corrected one, so the corrected VEVs should be used when extracting model parameters from data.
  • The same logic can be extended to radiative (quantum) corrections to the scalar potential, which the paper mentions as a potential additional source of realignment; a perturbative one-loop analysis would test whether quantum effects respect the same correspondence.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a one-to-one correspondence principle for non-Abelian flavour models: scalar operators that preserve the residual flavour symmetry (RFS) of a vacuum alignment leave the VEV direction unchanged (up to universal rescalings), while operators that break the RFS induce reorientations. The principle is developed in S4 toy models with single- and multi-flavon potentials, then applied to the Δ(27) Universal Texture Zero model and the A4 Altarelli–Feruglio model. In each case the authors identify the RFS of particular alignments, test whether additional operators preserve or break it, and compute perturbative VEV corrections when it is broken.

Significance. If the correspondence principle were established as stated, it would provide a useful diagnostic for a common and often ignored fine-tuning in flavour model building: the tacit assumption that mixed-flavon or higher-dimensional operators do not disturb special vacuum alignments. The paper has real strengths: explicit scans over group elements, analytic perturbative corrections for the toy models, a Hilbert-series check of operator bases with DECO, and reproduction of the known AF higher-order results. However, the central claim is broader than what is demonstrated. The most important gap is the omitted θ23 d=6 calculation, which is exactly the case where the fixed locus has dimension two and an RFS-preserving operator can still move the VEV within the fixed subspace. The paper therefore currently establishes the principle only for alignments with one-dimensional RFS fixed loci, not in general.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 2.2.1, Eq. (30)] The paper omits the d=6 calculation for ⟨θ23⟩ 'for brevity'. This is the load-bearing omission. The RFS generator T23 in Eq. (16) has a two-dimensional fixed subspace Fix(T23) = {(a,b,−b)}. Any T23-invariant addition to the potential can therefore move the minimum within this subspace, e.g. from (0,−1,1) to (a,b,−b), changing the VEV direction while preserving the RFS. The statement that 'in all instances' RFS-preserving operators preserve the leading-order alignment is thus unsupported, and the one-to-one correspondence as stated fails for this case unless an additional condition (dim Fix = 1) is imposed and verified.
  2. [Sec. 2.2.3, Eq. (36)] The explicit form of the two-triplet S4 potential is not given ('We will not write the explicit form ... for brevity'). This potential is the basis for the central demonstration that mixed triplet operators break the RFS of ⟨θ3⟩×⟨ϕ123⟩ and for the perturbative corrections in Eq. (42). Without the explicit mixed quartic contractions, the reader cannot verify either the claimed RFS breaking or the δ expressions. At minimum, the full γk terms should be displayed.
  3. [Sec. 3.1.2, Eq. (53)] The exact expressions for δθ123_i are omitted. The paper only states δθ1231 ≠ δθ1232 ≠ δθ1233 ≠ 0. This is the quantitative evidence for the claimed reorientation of the ⟨θ123⟩ VEV in the UTZ model, and the comparison with the unperturbed ⟨θ3⟩ direction. Without these expressions, or a numerical illustration, the UTZ application of the correspondence principle cannot be assessed.
  4. [Secs. 2 and 4] The 'one-to-one correspondence principle' as formulated conflates two distinct statements: (i) the VEV is invariant under the RFS (which is definitional), and (ii) the minimum of the full potential, including RFS-preserving perturbations, stays on the same ray. Statement (ii) requires that the fixed-point subspace of the RFS in the flavon representation be one-dimensional. The paper never states or proves this fixed-locus dimensionality condition. Without it the principle is not a theorem, and the θ23 example shows it is false in general. The principle should be qualified accordingly, and the omitted θ23 calculation used as a test.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 2.1.2, Eq. (20)-(21)] The definitions of χ± and ζ are introduced only after use in Eq. (19). Define them before the expansion, or move the definitions to the first occurrence.
  2. [Sec. 3.1.1] The text repeatedly refers to the 'real limit' for Δ(27) triplets. Since Δ(27) has complex triplet representations, please clarify whether the minimization and RFS scans are performed in a real slice of field space and whether the conclusions extend to the full complex potential.
  3. [Sec. 3.2.2] The agreement with Eq. (76) of [7] is stated but not shown. A short appendix listing the nonzero δ corrections or the explicit form of the RFS-breaking operators would make the reproduction checkable.
  4. [Eq. (42)] The denominators contain factors such as √96 and √216 that are not simplified; this makes the expressions harder to interpret. Also, the definitions of λθ2−3λθ3 in the denominators appear without comment on their signs or possible zeros.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

RFS identification is definitional via Eq. (4), but the reorientation calculations are independent; no fitted-input or load-bearing self-citation circularity.

  1. self definitional [Section 1, Eq. (4) and following correspondence-principle paragraph]
    "These RFS are typically discrete and can be Abelian or non-Abelian, such that the action of their generator(s) G_i on the VEV respect G_i · ⟨θ⟩ = ⟨θ⟩ ∀i. ... Our analysis will show that operators that respect the identified RFS ... preserve the VEV orientations derived from the single-flavon potentials, while those that break the RFS lead to non-trivial reorientations in flavour space."

    The residual symmetry is defined as the subgroup that leaves the leading-order VEV invariant (Eq. 4). Therefore the statement that a special alignment 'corresponds' to preservation of that RFS is true by construction rather than a derived prediction. The nontrivial part of the paper—the perturbative δ corrections from RFS-breaking operators, e.g. Eqs. (31), (42), (53)—is computed by explicit expansion and does not reduce to the definition. Thus this definitional feature is minor and not fully load-bearing for the paper's quantitative claims.

full rationale

The paper contains no data fits, no tuned parameter later relabeled as a prediction, and no uniqueness theorem imported from the authors' prior work. The correspondence principle has a definitional component: the RFS is introduced via Eq. (4) as the invariance subgroup of the VEV, so the existence of a residual symmetry for a given alignment is not an independent result. However, the central quantitative work—calculating whether additional operators preserve or reorient the leading-order VEV—is carried out explicitly for the S4 toy models, the Δ(27) UTZ model, and the A4 Altarelli-Feruglio model. These calculations do not rely on self-citations for their conclusions; the UTZ model is used as a worked example (Refs. [9,10]), and the AF comparison is to the external Ref. [7]. The main limitation is a correctness gap rather than circularity: the 'one-to-one' claim would require dim Fix(H)=1 for the RFS fixed locus, a condition the paper never states, and the omitted ⟨θ23⟩ d=6 case has a 2D fixed locus that could test it. That is an unproven generality, not a reduction of the result to its inputs, so it does not raise the circularity score beyond 2.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The argument is carried by tree-level scalar potentials and group-theoretic counting. It introduces no new particles or forces. The central claim depends on the choice of shaping symmetries, real-field limits, perturbative expansions, and the unproven generalization of the correspondence from a finite set of examples.

free parameters (8)
  • S4 single-flavon mass m_theta^2 and quartic couplings lambda_theta1,2,3 = none (not fitted); constrained by inequalities (9), (15), (22)
    Toy-model Lagrangian parameters used to realize the special alignments; the correspondence claim is checked at representative parameter points satisfying positivity conditions.
  • S4 d=6 couplings rho_theta1...rho_theta6 and scale Lambda = none (not fitted)
    Enter the d=6 single-flavon corrections in Eq. (31); no numerical values assigned, only algebraic dependence given.
  • S4 triplet-singlet parameters m_phi^2, lambda_phi1, gamma_s = none (not fitted)
    Potential in Eq. (32); gamma_s shifts the effective theta mass in Eq. (34), illustrating RFS preservation.
  • S4 two-triplet parameters m_phi^2, lambda_phi1,2,3, gamma_1,2,3,4 = none (not fitted)
    Mixed-flavon potential in Eq. (36); fine-tuning conditions in Eq. (39) and corrections in Eq. (42) depend on these.
  • UTZ single-flavon masses and quartics: m_3^2, lambda^{theta3}_1,2,4; m_123^2, lambda^{theta123}_1,4 = none (not fitted)
    Determine the leading-order UTZ VEVs in Eqs. (44) and (47).
  • UTZ example mixed couplings gamma_1, gamma_2 = none (not fitted)
    Used to demonstrate RFS violation and partial VEV corrections in Eq. (53).
  • AF driving-superpotential couplings M, g, g_1...g_6 and singlet VEV u = none (not fitted); v_T and v_S determined via Eq. (57)
    Leading-order AF vacuum alignments depend on these couplings.
  • AF higher-order EFT coefficients t_k, s_k, x_k = none (not fitted)
    Coefficients of the 26-operator basis in Eq. (63) that source RFS violation and VEV corrections.
assumptions (7)
  • standard math S4/A4/Delta(27) representation theory and Clebsch-Gordan contractions as given in [14,15]
    Used throughout to write down potentials and identify RFS; the paper does not reproduce these group-theoretic derivations.
  • standard math DECO Hilbert-series enumerations of invariants are correct, including the authors' Delta(27) extension
    Used to count operators in Eqs. (2), (29), (36), (51); no independent verification is shipped.
  • domain assumption The physical vacuum is a minimum of the tree-level scalar potential; quantum corrections are ignored
    Section 4 acknowledges quantum corrections may also lead to realignments but they are not included in the central analysis.
  • domain assumption An additional Abelian shaping symmetry with chosen charges restricts the allowed operators
    Section 2.1: 'We have also assumed the presence of an additional Abelian shaping symmetry'; Table 1 and Table 2 assign specific Z_N charges.
  • ad hoc to paper Real triplet components in the S4 toy models (theta_i = theta_i^dagger)
    Section 2.1: 'Assuming real triplet components'; this restricts the potential and possible complex phases, affecting the generality of the S4 demonstrations.
  • ad hoc to paper Perturbative expansion in small gamma_i (or 1/Lambda) around leading-order VEVs is valid
    Section 2.2.3: 'We treat the gamma_i couplings as small relative to the lambda terms...'; the VEV corrections in Eqs. (42) and (53) rely on this expansion.
  • ad hoc to paper The one-to-one correspondence principle holds in general
    Stated in the abstract and Section 1 as a principle, but demonstrated only in S4, A4, and Delta(27) examples; it is not proven as a general theorem.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Residual Symmetries and Scalar Multiplet Vacuum Alignment in Non-Abelian Flavour Models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DPM67PG4

@misc{pith2026251219789,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Residual Symmetries and Scalar Multiplet Vacuum Alignment in Non-Abelian Flavour Models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DPM67PG4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2512.19789}
}
abstract

We demonstrate that, upon minimizing a renormalizable, single-scalar potential invariant under a non-Abelian symmetry, special orientations in the associated vacuum alignment of the scalar multiplet correspond to the preservation of a discrete residual flavour symmetry in the broken phase of the theory. Conversely, we show that these special scalar alignments are perturbed when additional Lagrangian operators (e.g. renormalizable, multi-flavon operators and/or effective, higher-dimensional operators) are present that break said residual symmetry, leading to a vacuum reorientation and phenomenological consequences. We therefore construct a one-to-one correspondence principle between broken residual symmetries and vacuum alignment corrections, providing a mechanism to identify (and correct) a subtle but persistent form of phenomenologically relevant fine-tuning embedded in -- but often ignored by -- most successful non-Abelian flavour models. We first establish this correspondence in a set of toy models based on the S4 permutation symmetry, and then apply the lessons learned to the more realistic A4 Altarelli-Feruglio and $\Delta(27)$ Universal Texture Zero models.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Domain Walls from $\Sigma(36 \times 3)$, $\Delta(54)$ and $\Delta(27)$ potentials

    hep-ph 2026-03 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Degenerate vacua of Δ(27)/Δ(54)/Σ(36×3) scalar potentials give rise to one or two distinct domain-wall types depending on which orbits merge under CP or enlarged symmetries.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [7]

    Tri-bimaximal neutrino mixing, A(4) and the modular symmetry.Nucl

    Guido Altarelli and Ferruccio Feruglio. Tri-bimaximal neutrino mixing, A(4) and the modular symmetry.Nucl. Phys. B, 741:215–235, 2006

    2006

  2. [1]

    C. D. Froggatt and Holger Bech Nielsen. Hierarchy of Quark Masses, Cabibbo Angles and CP Violation.Nucl. Phys. B, 147:277–298, 1979

    1979

  3. [2]

    S. F. King and Graham G. Ross. Fermion masses and mixing angles from SU(3) family symmetry.Phys. Lett. B, 520:243–253, 2001

    2001

  4. [3]

    S. F. King and Graham G. Ross. Fermion masses and mixing angles from SU (3) family symmetry and unification.Phys. Lett. B, 574:239–252, 2003

    2003

  5. [4]

    Ivo de Medeiros Varzielas and Graham G. Ross. SU(3) family symmetry and neutrino bi-tri-maximal mixing.Nucl. Phys. B, 733:31–47, 2006

    2006

  6. [5]

    Mario Reig, Jos´ e W. F. Valle, and Frank Wilczek. SO(3) family symmetry and axions. Phys. Rev. D, 98(9):095008, 2018

    2018

  7. [6]

    Tri-bimaximal neutrino mixing from discrete symmetry in extra dimensions.Nucl

    Guido Altarelli and Ferruccio Feruglio. Tri-bimaximal neutrino mixing from discrete symmetry in extra dimensions.Nucl. Phys. B, 720:64–88, 2005

    2005

  8. [8]

    K. S. Babu, Ernest Ma, and J. W. F. Valle. Underlying A(4) symmetry for the neutrino mass matrix and the quark mixing matrix.Phys. Lett. B, 552:207–213, 2003

    2003

Show all 50 references
  1. [9]

    Ross, and Jim Talbert

    Ivo de Medeiros Varzielas, Graham G. Ross, and Jim Talbert. A Unified Model of Quarks and Leptons with a Universal Texture Zero.JHEP, 03:007, 2018

    2018

  2. [10]

    Revisiting the universal texture zero of flavour: a Markov chain Monte Carlo analysis.Eur

    Jordan Bernigaud, Ivo de Medeiros Varzielas, Miguel Levy, and Jim Talbert. Revisiting the universal texture zero of flavour: a Markov chain Monte Carlo analysis.Eur. Phys. J. C, 83(6):479, 2023

    2023

  3. [11]

    de Medeiros Varzielas, S

    I. de Medeiros Varzielas, S. F. King, and G. G. Ross. Neutrino tri-bi-maximal mixing from a non-Abelian discrete family symmetry.Phys. Lett. B, 648:201–206, 2007

    2007

  4. [12]

    Neutrino Mass Matrix from Delta(27) Symmetry.Mod

    Ernest Ma. Neutrino Mass Matrix from Delta(27) Symmetry.Mod. Phys. Lett. A, 21:1917–1921, 2006

    1917

  5. [13]

    The Flavor group Delta(3n**2).J

    Christoph Luhn, Salah Nasri, and Pierre Ramond. The Flavor group Delta(3n**2).J. Math. Phys., 48:073501, 2007

    2007

  6. [14]

    ∆(27) family symmetry and neutrino mixing.JHEP, 08:157, 2015

    Ivo de Medeiros Varzielas. ∆(27) family symmetry and neutrino mixing.JHEP, 08:157, 2015. 21

    2015

  7. [15]

    Non-Abelian Discrete Symmetries in Particle Physics.Prog

    Hajime Ishimori, Tatsuo Kobayashi, Hiroshi Ohki, Yusuke Shimizu, Hiroshi Okada, and Morimitsu Tanimoto. Non-Abelian Discrete Symmetries in Particle Physics.Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl., 183:1–163, 2010

    2010

  8. [16]

    Marinissen, Rudi Rahn, and Wouter J

    Coenraad B. Marinissen, Rudi Rahn, and Wouter J. Waalewijn. ..., 83106786, 114382724, 1509048322, 2343463290, 27410087742, ... efficient hilbert series for effective theories. Physics Letters B, 808:135632, September 2020

    2020

  9. [17]

    Discrete symmetries and efficient counting of operators.Journal of High Energy Physics, 2023(5), May 2023

    Simon Cal` o, Coenraad Marinissen, and Rudi Rahn. Discrete symmetries and efficient counting of operators.Journal of High Energy Physics, 2023(5), May 2023

    2023

  10. [18]

    Discrete Flavor Symmetries and Models of Neu- trino Mixing.Rev

    Guido Altarelli and Ferruccio Feruglio. Discrete Flavor Symmetries and Models of Neu- trino Mixing.Rev. Mod. Phys., 82:2701–2729, 2010

    2010

  11. [19]

    King and Christoph Luhn

    Stephen F. King and Christoph Luhn. Neutrino Mass and Mixing with Discrete Symme- try.Rept. Prog. Phys., 76:056201, 2013

    2013

  12. [20]

    Jenkins, Aneesh V

    Rodrigo Alonso, Elizabeth E. Jenkins, Aneesh V. Manohar, and Michael Trott. Renor- malization Group Evolution of the Standard Model Dimension Six Operators III: Gauge Coupling Dependence and Phenomenology.JHEP, 04:159, 2014

    2014

  13. [21]

    Buchmuller and D

    W. Buchmuller and D. Wyler. Effective Lagrangian Analysis of New Interactions and Flavor Conservation.Nucl. Phys. B, 268:621–653, 1986

    1986

  14. [22]

    Grzadkowski, M

    B. Grzadkowski, M. Iskrzynski, M. Misiak, and J. Rosiek. Dimension-Six Terms in the Standard Model Lagrangian.JHEP, 10:085, 2010

    2010

  15. [23]

    Froggatt-Nielsen meets the SMEFT.JHEP, 10:017, 2024

    Eetu Loisa and Jim Talbert. Froggatt-Nielsen meets the SMEFT.JHEP, 10:017, 2024

    2024

  16. [24]

    C. S. Lam. Symmetry of Lepton Mixing.Phys. Lett. B, 656:193–198, 2007

    2007

  17. [25]

    Hernandez and A

    D. Hernandez and A. Yu. Smirnov. Lepton mixing and discrete symmetries.Phys. Rev. D, 86:053014, 2012

    2012

  18. [26]

    C. S. Lam. Finite Symmetry of Leptonic Mass Matrices.Phys. Rev. D, 87(1):013001, 2013

    2013

  19. [27]

    Lepton Mixing Patterns from a Scan of Finite Discrete Groups.Phys

    Martin Holthausen, Kher Sham Lim, and Manfred Lindner. Lepton Mixing Patterns from a Scan of Finite Discrete Groups.Phys. Lett. B, 721:61–67, 2013

    2013

  20. [28]

    King, Thomas Neder, and Alexander J

    Stephen F. King, Thomas Neder, and Alexander J. Stuart. Lepton mixing predictions from ∆(6n2) family Symmetry.Phys. Lett. B, 726:312–315, 2013

    2013

  21. [29]

    Quark and Leptonic Mixing Patterns from the Breakdown of a Common Discrete Flavor Symmetry.Phys

    Martin Holthausen and Kher Sham Lim. Quark and Leptonic Mixing Patterns from the Breakdown of a Common Discrete Flavor Symmetry.Phys. Rev. D, 88:033018, 2013

    2013

  22. [30]

    ResidualZ 2 ×Z 2 symmetries and lepton mixing

    Luis Lavoura and Patrick Otto Ludl. ResidualZ 2 ×Z 2 symmetries and lepton mixing. Phys. Lett. B, 731:331–336, 2014. 22

    2014

  23. [31]

    Fonseca and Walter Grimus

    Renato M. Fonseca and Walter Grimus. Classification of lepton mixing matrices from finite residual symmetries.JHEP, 09:033, 2014

    2014

  24. [32]

    Joshipura and Ketan M

    Anjan S. Joshipura and Ketan M. Patel. Discrete flavor symmetries for degenerate solar neutrino pair and their predictions.Phys. Rev. D, 90(3):036005, 2014

    2014

  25. [33]

    [Re]constructing Finite Flavour Groups: Horizontal Symmetry Scans from the Bottom-Up.JHEP, 12:058, 2014

    Jim Talbert. [Re]constructing Finite Flavour Groups: Horizontal Symmetry Scans from the Bottom-Up.JHEP, 12:058, 2014

    2014

  26. [34]

    Lepton and Quark Mixing Patterns from Finite Flavor Symmetries.Phys

    Chang-Yuan Yao and Gui-Jun Ding. Lepton and Quark Mixing Patterns from Finite Flavor Symmetries.Phys. Rev. D, 92(9):096010, 2015

    2015

  27. [35]

    Alternative Schemes of Predicting Lepton Mixing Pa- rameters from Discrete Flavor and CP Symmetry.Phys

    Jun-Nan Lu and Gui-Jun Ding. Alternative Schemes of Predicting Lepton Mixing Pa- rameters from Discrete Flavor and CP Symmetry.Phys. Rev. D, 95(1):015012, 2017

    2017

  28. [36]

    Rasmussen, and Jim Talbert

    Ivo de Medeiros Varzielas, Rasmus W. Rasmussen, and Jim Talbert. Bottom-Up Discrete Symmetries for Cabibbo Mixing.Int. J. Mod. Phys. A, 32(06n07):1750047, 2017

    2017

  29. [37]

    Simplified Models of Flavourful Leptoquarks

    Ivo de Medeiros Varzielas and Jim Talbert. Simplified Models of Flavourful Leptoquarks. Eur. Phys. J. C, 79(6):536, 2019

    2019

  30. [38]

    Constraining flavoured leptoquarks with LHC and LFV.Nucl

    Ivo de Medeiros Varzielas and Amartya Sengupta. Constraining flavoured leptoquarks with LHC and LFV.Nucl. Phys. B, 1001:116495, 2024

    2024

  31. [39]

    Status of leptoquark models after LHC Run-2 and discovery prospects at future colliders

    Nishita Desai and Amartya Sengupta. Status of leptoquark models after LHC Run-2 and discovery prospects at future colliders. 1 2023

    2023

  32. [40]

    Finite Family Groups for Fermionic and Leptoquark Mixing Patterns.JHEP, 01:194, 2020

    Jordan Bernigaud, Ivo de Medeiros Varzielas, and Jim Talbert. Finite Family Groups for Fermionic and Leptoquark Mixing Patterns.JHEP, 01:194, 2020

    2020

  33. [41]

    Reconstructing Effective Lagrangians Embedding Residual Family Symmetries.Eur

    Jordan Bernigaud, Ivo de Medeiros Varzielas, and Jim Talbert. Reconstructing Effective Lagrangians Embedding Residual Family Symmetries.Eur. Phys. J. C, 81(1):65, 2021

    2021

  34. [42]

    FCNC-free multi-Higgs-doublet models from broken family symmetries.Phys

    Ivo de Medeiros Varzielas and Jim Talbert. FCNC-free multi-Higgs-doublet models from broken family symmetries.Phys. Lett. B, 800:135091, 2020

    2020

  35. [43]

    Geometrical CP Violation from Non-Renormalisable Scalar Potentials.Phys

    Ivo de Medeiros Varzielas, David Emmanuel-Costa, and Philipp Leser. Geometrical CP Violation from Non-Renormalisable Scalar Potentials.Phys. Lett. B, 716:193–196, 2012

    2012

  36. [44]

    Alonso, M

    R. Alonso, M. B. Gavela, L. Merlo, and S. Rigolin. On the scalar potential of minimal flavour violation.JHEP, 07:012, 2011

    2011

  37. [45]

    D’Ambrosio, G

    G. D’Ambrosio, G. F. Giudice, G. Isidori, and A. Strumia. Minimal flavor violation: An Effective field theory approach.Nucl. Phys. B, 645:155–187, 2002

    2002

  38. [46]

    Claudia Hagedorn, M. L. Lopez-Ibanez, M. Jay Perez, Moinul Hossain Rahat, and Oscar Vives. Flavon vacuum alignment beyond SUSY.Phys. Rev. D, 110(1):015009, 2024

    2024

  39. [47]

    Ivanov, and Miguel Levy

    Ivo de Medeiros Varzielas, Igor P. Ivanov, and Miguel Levy. Exploring multi-Higgs models with softly broken large discrete symmetry groups.Eur. Phys. J. C, 81(10):918, 2021. 23

    2021

  40. [48]

    King and Christoph Luhn

    Stephen F. King and Christoph Luhn. On the origin of neutrino flavour symmetry.JHEP, 10:093, 2009

    2009

  41. [49]

    de Medeiros Varzielas, S

    I. de Medeiros Varzielas, S. F. King, and G. G. Ross. Tri-bimaximal neutrino mixing from discrete subgroups of SU(3) and SO(3) family symmetry.Phys. Lett. B, 644:153– 157, 2007

    2007

  42. [50]

    P. F. Harrison, D. H. Perkins, and W. G. Scott. Tri-bimaximal mixing and the neutrino oscillation data.Phys. Lett. B, 530:167, 2002. 24

    2002

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.