Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 2 cited by

Unitarity triangle angles explained: a predictive new quark mass matrix texture

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper argues that the observed unitarity triangle angles α ≈ π/2 and β ≈ π/8 follow from a five-parameter quark mass-matrix texture built on two complex expansion parameters with fixed ratio.

desk verdict Honest, competent texture paper, but the angles are inputs; 'explained' overstates the result. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.18508 v4 pith:FQSMFH47 submitted 2025-01-30 hep-ph

P. F. Harrison , W. G. Scott This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph
keywords quarkmassmatricesCKMmatrixunitaritytriangletexturezerosflavoursymmetriesCPviolationWolfensteinparameterisationrenormalisationgroupevolution
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 proposes a compact texture for the up- and down-quark mass matrices with five free parameters, aiming to reproduce the eight measured quantities: four quark mass ratios and four CKM mixing observables. The key idea is a geometric ansatz: a Wolfenstein-like complex expansion parameter for each sector, with the fixed ratio λu/λd = −i tan(π/8). After diagonalisation, this produces a unitarity triangle that is congruent at leading order to the observed one, explaining why α ≈ π/2 and β ≈ π/8. When the observables are renormalised to a scale around $10^{4}$ TeV, the fit gives χ²/dof ≈ 1.0/2. A sympathetic reader would care because the paper claims the striking right-angled shape of the unitarity triangle is not a numerical accident but a direct consequence of symmetry-enforced structure in the mass matrices.

What carries the argument

The central object is the two-parameter geometric ansatz: complex expansion parameters λu and λd inserted as powers into the 12 and 23 entries of the mass matrices, with λu/λd fixed to −i tan(π/8). Their complex sum has magnitude λ0 ≈ λ, the Wolfenstein parameter, and the ratio of their magnitudes equals tan β. A second ingredient is the texture zero in the 13 and 31 elements, which together with small-angle successive diagonalisations in the 12 and 23 subspaces produces the CKM matrix at leading order, with off-diagonal elements directly identified with the sloped sides of the unitarity triangle. The machinery also includes two compound symmetries of the mass matrices, each combining a sign-flip or rotation of the λq with a CP transformation; these symmetries are shown to hold exactly only when the relative phase is π/2 and the magnitude ratio is tan(π/8).

What would settle it

A decisive test is future high-precision measurement of the unitarity triangle angles at the weak scale: if α, β, γ, or βs move outside the paper's predicted values (α = 91.30° ± 0.02°, β = 22.3° ± 0.1°, γ = 66.4° ± 0.1°, βs = 1.07° ± 0.01°) by more than a few times the quoted uncertainties, the central claim collapses. A second falsifier would be an improved lattice determination of mc/mt and ms/mb at high scales that makes the leading-order prediction mc/mt · mb/ms = tan²(π/8) impossible to accommodate with reasonable parameter values.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the observed quark flavour structure is encoded in a pair of Hermitian mass matrices sharing one texture zero in the 13 and 31 entries, with five free parameters. The decisive innovation is splitting the usual Wolfenstein parameter into two complex components, λu and λd, with λu/λd = −i tan(π/8). The ratio's phase fixes the unitarity triangle angle α to π/2, while its magnitude fixes β to π/8, and also sets the ratio of the up- and down-sector mass hierarchies. The paper further claims that this fixed ratio is enforced by two compound symmetries: one combining sign-flip of a λq with CP, the other combining a specific rotation of the opening angle with CP. These symmetries are necessary and sufficient to constrain the unitarity triangle angles to their measured values, and they also tie the invariance to the texture-zero form itself. The numerical fit yields specific predictions for α, β, γ, and βs, and the leading-order constraint mc/mt · mb/ms = tan²(π/8) ≈ 0.172, compared with the experimental 0.177 ± 0.002 at the fit scale.

Load-bearing premise

The entire fit rests on the assumption that the mass-matrix texture holds at a renormalisation scale around $10^{4}$ TeV and that the Standard Model's two-loop running correctly connects that scale to the weak scale, with the scale itself selected by scanning rather than predicted by the model.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the texture is correct, the weak-scale unitarity triangle angles are predicted as α = 91.30° ± 0.02°, β = 22.3° ± 0.1°, γ = 66.4° ± 0.1°, and βs = 1.07° ± 0.01°, which future high-precision measurements can directly test.
  • The leading-order relation mc/mt · mb/ms = tan²(π/8) ≈ 0.172 holds at the renormalisation scale of about 10^4 TeV, making it a scale-dependent prediction that could be checked against improved lattice and collider determinations.
  • The scale-independent predictions ρ + η = 1/2 and η = 1/(2√2) at leading order tie the Wolfenstein parameters to fixed constants derived from the texture.
  • The number of parameters needed to describe the quark flavour sector is reduced from ten to seven (five texture parameters plus two matrix normalisations), with four of them transparently identified with known mixing observables at leading order.
  • The fit at the weak scale is excluded, so if the paper is right the texture is a high-scale feature, applying near 10^4 TeV rather than at mt.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension, left implicit by the paper, is that the same tan²(π/8) factor appearing here and in a known neutrino mass-ratio relation could hint at a common origin for quark and lepton flavour structure; the paper only notes the similarity.
  • The two compound symmetries could in principle be realised by a discrete flavour symmetry beyond the Standard Model, but the paper deliberately does not construct such a model; that construction would be a concrete next step.
  • If future measurements confirm the predicted angles at sub-degree precision, the renormalisation scale near 10^4 TeV would become a clue to new physics thresholds, since the texture cannot apply at the weak scale.
  • The paper's reliance on two-loop Standard Model renormalisation-group running means the prediction also implicitly tests the Standard Model itself over a large energy interval; deviations in the running could mimic or mask the texture's validity.
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 / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a Hermitian quark mass matrix texture-pair with nominally five free parameters, common to up and down sectors, and based on two small complex expansion parameters lambda_u and lambda_d whose ratio is fixed to -i tan(pi/8) in Eq. (2.3). The authors show that this ratio, combined with a 13/31 texture zero, yields a leading-order unitarity triangle with alpha ≈ pi/2 and beta ≈ pi/8, and they obtain a good chi^2 fit to quark mass ratios and CKM observables after renormalizing the inputs to a scanned scale mu ~ 10^4 TeV. They also identify two compound symmetries in Section 6 that they claim explain these angle relations. The paper provides NLO analytic solutions in the appendix and makes concrete numerical predictions for future measurements.

Significance. If the high-scale fit is taken at face value, the texture is a compact, modestly predictive parametrization of the quark flavour sector, with parameter-free leading-order constraints such as mc/mt * mb/ms ≈ tan^2(pi/8) and eta ≈ sqrt(2)/4. The NLO analytic expansions and the careful RG treatment are useful technical contributions. However, the central claim that the texture "explains" the unitarity triangle angles is not supported: Eq. (2.3) is chosen specifically to reproduce the measured angles, and the Section 6 symmetries are shown to be necessary and sufficient for that same ratio. The paper's value therefore lies in the phenomenological fit and the compact encoding of the observed angles, not in an independent explanation of alpha and beta.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 2, Eq. (2.3) and Sec. 3, Eq. (3.10)] The central claim that the texture 'explains' alpha ≈ pi/2 and beta ≈ pi/8 is not supported, because those values are inputs. Eq. (2.3) fixes lambda_u/lambda_d = -i tan(pi/8), and Eq. (3.10) then gives arg(-lambda_u/lambda_d) ≈ alpha and |lambda_u/lambda_d| ≈ tan beta. Since Eq. (2.3) is introduced 'in order to reproduce the triplet of experimental results' (Sec. 2), the leading-order angles are recovered by construction. The fit therefore tests only the NLO corrections and the choice of scale, not the leading-order values. This is acknowledged in Sec. 1, but the title and abstract phrase 'explained' overstates the result. I recommend reframing the claims as a texture that incorporates the observed angles rather than explains them.
  2. [Sec. 6] The two symmetries identified are not independent explanations of the angle relations. As the authors state, they 'realise the complex constant... defined in eq. (2.3)' and are shown to be necessary and sufficient for it. The first symmetry (sign flip plus CP) is a direct consequence of the pi/2 phase difference in Eq. (2.3); the second (2 beta -> 2 beta - pi/2 combined with CP) has a fixed point at beta = pi/8 only because the authors choose that point, and the data are used to select it. Without additional theoretical motivation, these symmetries are restatements of the imposed ratio rather than explanations, and the phrase 'phenomenologically-successful relations' should be qualified accordingly.
  3. [Sec. 4 and footnote 8] The statistical significance of the high-scale fit is overstated. The fit at mu = mt is excluded (chi^2/dof ~ 100/3), and the scale is scanned to ~ 10^4 TeV. Footnote 8 counts the scale as a fit parameter, so the effective number of free parameters is six, not five as stated in the abstract. The good chi^2/dof of 1.0/2 therefore reflects a tuned scale. The paper should present the scale choice as a parameter with a prior, and discuss whether the allowed range (0.3-3) x 10^4 TeV is predicted or fitted. This does not invalidate the texture, but it changes the claim of predictivity.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Table 1 caption] The pulls for alpha, beta, gamma, and beta_s are computed relative to the renormalised inputs, but these observables are not used in the fit; it would be clearer to label them as 'predicted' rather than 'fitted' as the caption currently does.
  2. [Eq. (5.1)] The experimental comparison '0.177 +/- 0.002 (exp)' for mc/mt * mb/ms should specify the renormalisation scale at which the quoted ratio is evaluated, since the text emphasizes the scale dependence of this combination.
  3. [Sec. 3, Eq. (3.3)] The unitary matrices U_q are written with a '+/-' sign for the q = u and q = d cases, but the preceding sentence says the upper sign is for u; it would help to spell out the sign rule explicitly to avoid confusion.

Circularity Check

3 steps flagged · score 7.0 of 10

The claimed explanation of α≈π/2 and β≈π/8 is an input: Eq. (2.3) is imposed to reproduce the measured angles, and the Sec. 6 symmetries are post hoc realisations of that same ratio.

  1. self definitional [Sec. 2, Eq. (2.3); Sec. 3, Eqs. (3.9)-(3.10)]
    "...in order to reproduce the triplet of experimental results for the UT angles, eq. (1.2), we take the ratio of the λq to be the exact complex constant: λu/λd = −i tan π/8 . (2.3) ... Thus arg (−λu/λd) corresponds to the UT angle α, the constrained value ensuring α ≃ π/2 ; the ratio |λu/λd| then corresponds similarly to tan β."

    The ratio in Eq. (2.3) is chosen deliberately to reproduce the measured angles α≈π/2 and β≈π/8. The paper's own Eqs. (3.9)-(3.10) then identify arg(−λu/λd) with α and |λu/λd| with tanβ. Therefore the leading-order values of α and β are inserted into the texture by construction and recovered identically after diagonalisation; they are not outputs of the fit. The fit can only test NLO corrections and the renormalisation-scale hypothesis, not the leading-order angle relations that are advertised as 'explained'.

  2. self definitional [Sec. 6, opening paragraph; Sec. 7]
    "Having established that a viable fit to the data is possible for this texture, we identify the two invariance properties of the MMs which realise the complex constant, λu/λd, defined in eq. (2.3). ... We have shown that these symmetries are necessary and sufficient to constrain the UT angles to the experimentally-determined values."

    The two symmetries are introduced as the invariances that realise Eq. (2.3), i.e. the same ratio that was already imposed to match experiment. The first symmetry encodes the π/2 relative phase (α≈π/2) and the second has its fixed point at β0=π/8, selected because the data sit there. Thus the symmetries are logically equivalent to the input ratio, not independent explanations of it; the title/abstract claim that the symmetries 'explain' the angles restates the ansatz rather than deriving it.

1 more flagged steps
  1. self definitional [Sec. 5, Eqs. (5.1)-(5.3)]
    "From eq. (3.2) and eqs. (3.11)-(3.14) we combine to give the LO constraints: mc/mt · mb/ms = λ²u/λ²d = tan² π/8 = 0.172, c.f. 0.177 ± 0.002 (exp) = 0.176 (f it); η = η0 ≡ 1/2√2 = 0.354 ... ρ + η = ρ0 + η0 ≡ 1/2."

    These 'LO constraints' are direct algebraic consequences of Eq. (2.3): Eq. (5.1) is (λu/λd)², Eq. (5.2) is Im z0 with z0 fixed by the same ratio, and Eq. (5.3) is Re z0 + Im z0 = sin²β0 + sinβ0 cosβ0 = 1/2. Since the ratio λu/λd was chosen to reproduce the experimental UT angles, these parameter-free relations restate the chosen input. The non-trivial residual content is only that the mass-ratio combination matches after RG evolution, not that the angles are independently predicted.

full rationale

The paper is candid that it 'set-out from the start to build' the preferred angles into the texture, and Sec. 2 fixes λu/λd = −i tan(π/8) explicitly 'in order to reproduce the triplet of experimental results'. Because Eqs. (3.9)-(3.10) then identify arg(−λu/λd) with α and |λu/λd| with tanβ, the leading-order values of α and β are inputs by definition. The Sec. 6 symmetries are likewise defined as the invariances that 'realise' this same constant, so they are necessary and sufficient only for the imposed ratio, not for an independent explanation of the angles. The Sec. 5 constraints follow algebraically from the same input. What remains genuinely independent is the successful five-parameter fit to the quark mass ratios and CKM parameters, including NLO corrections, the required renormalisation scale μ∼10^4 TeV (scanned and counted as a fit parameter in footnote 8), and the derived predictions for γ and βs. That real predictive content prevents a maximal score, but the paper's central advertised achievement — explaining α≈π/2 and β≈π/8 — reduces to the construction itself, so a score of 7 is warranted.

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

The free parameters are the five texture parameters plus the renormalization scale. The axioms include the texture form, the common (A0,b), the geometric ratio, the high-scale validity, and standard perturbation theory. The central claim depends most heavily on the geometric ratio and the high-scale hypothesis. No new particles or fields are introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • A0 = 0.854 ± 0.013
    Common coefficient of the 23/32 entries in both mass matrices; fitted to the CKM parameter A and the mass ratios.
  • b = 0.462 ± 0.001
    Coefficient appearing in the 12/22 and 23 entries; sets the m2/m3 mass ratios.
  • cu = 0.344 ± 0.003
    11 entry of the up-type mass matrix; controls mu/mc in the reported sign solution.
  • cd = -0.040 ± 0.006
    11 entry of the down-type mass matrix; controls md/ms.
  • lambda0 = 0.22646 ± 0.00034
    Magnitude of lambda_d + lambda_u; plays the role of Wolfenstein's lambda.
  • mu (renormalization scale) = ~10^4 TeV (best fit), range (0.3-3) x 10^4 TeV
    Scanned over SM RG evolution; the weak-scale fit fails, so the high-scale value is essential; counted as a fit parameter in footnote 8.
assumptions (6)
  • ad hoc to paper Hermitian mass matrices with texture zeros in the 13 and 31 entries.
    Eq. (2.1); a modeling choice traditional in texture literature that suppresses the smallest mixing elements and is needed for the Jarlskog determinant sign-flip argument in Section 6.
  • ad hoc to paper Common real coefficients (A0,b) for up and down mass matrices, i.e., a weak isospin reflection symmetry.
    Stated after Eq. (2.1) and in Section 7; this equality reduces the parameter count from seven to five and is not derived.
  • ad hoc to paper The complex ratio lambda_u/lambda_d = -i tan(pi/8).
    Eq. (2.3); the central geometric ansatz, chosen to reproduce the unitarity triangle angles; the symmetries in Section 6 are shown to be equivalent to this ratio.
  • ad hoc to paper The texture applies at mu ~ 10^4 TeV and SM two-loop RG evolution connects observables to the weak scale.
    Section 4; the weak-scale fit is excluded, so the fit relies on this scale hypothesis and on the RG equations from refs [22-26].
  • standard math Small-angle perturbation theory in lambda0 is valid for diagonalization.
    Used in Section 3 and Appendix A to derive leading-order and NLO solutions; justified by lambda0 ~ 0.23.
  • domain assumption Lattice QCD mass ratios from FLAG/PDG are taken as experimental inputs.
    Section 4; the quark-mass inputs are lattice-determined, calibrated to experimentally measured meson masses.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Unitarity triangle angles explained: a predictive new quark mass matrix texture." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FQSMFH47

@misc{pith2026250118508,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Unitarity triangle angles explained: a predictive new quark mass matrix texture},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FQSMFH47}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.18508}
}
abstract

We propose a novel quark mass matrix texture-pair with five free parameters, which fits the four quark mass ratios $m_s/m_b$, $m_d/m_b$, $m_c/m_t$, $m_u/m_t$, and the four CKM quark mixing observables. The matrices each have one texture zero, but the main innovation here is a ``geometric'' ansatz exploiting a pair of small complex expansion parameters, based on the geometry of the Unitarity Triangle. The fit to the observables is in good agreement with current experimental values renormalised to $\sim\!\!10^4$ TeV, and offers decisive tests against future high-precision measurements of the unitarity triangle angles at the weak scale. We identify two novel symmetries of these mass matrices which explain the phenomenologically-successful relations $\alpha\equiv\phi_2\simeq\tfrac{\pi}{2}$ and $\beta\equiv\phi_1\simeq\tfrac{\pi}{8}$.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. The CKM sector of the exceptional-Jordan programme: finite-Dirac mass moduli, two conditional angle estimates, and the weak-to-mass bridge

    hep-ph 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A conditional algebraic scheme derives two CKM entries and a mass-ratio operator from octonionic chains, but the setup leaves two angles fitted and the key suppression rule unproven.

  2. The Very Nearly Right Theory of Flavor

    hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A systematic scan of all nine-link Yukawa textures shows the quark CP phase clusters at pi/8, pi/4, pi/2, 3pi/8, and yields precise, falsifiable predictions for the CKM unitarity triangle angles.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Fritzsch, Calculating the Cabibbo angle , Phys

    H. Fritzsch, Calculating the Cabibbo angle , Phys. Lett. 70B, 436 (1977)

    work page 1977

  2. [2]

    Fritzsch, Weak-interaction mixing in the six-quark theory , Phys

    H. Fritzsch, Weak-interaction mixing in the six-quark theory , Phys. Lett. 73B (1978) 317

    work page 1978

  3. [3]

    Fritzsch, Quark masses and flavor mixing , Nucl

    H. Fritzsch, Quark masses and flavor mixing , Nucl. Phys. B155, 189 (1979)

    work page 1979

  4. [4]

    A complete survey of texture zeros in general and symmetric quark mass matrices

    P. Otto Ludl and W. Grimus, A complete survey of texture zeros in general and symmetric quark mass matrices , Phys. Lett. B 744 (2015) 38, e-Print: 1501.04942 [hep-ph]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2015

  5. [5]

    Grimus et al, Symmetry realization of texture zeros , Eur

    W. Grimus et al, Symmetry realization of texture zeros , Eur. Phys. J. C, 36 (2004) 227, e-Print: arXiv:hep-ph/0405016

    arXiv 2004

  6. [6]

    Froggatt and H.B

    C.D. Froggatt and H.B. Nielsen, Hierarchy of quark masses, Cabibbo angles and CP violation , Nucl. Phys. B 147 (1979) 277

    work page 1979

  7. [7]

    Feruglio, Are neutrino masses modular forms? in From My Vast Repertoire ...: Guido Altarelli’s Legacy, A

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

    arXiv 2019

  8. [8]

    Okada and M

    H. Okada and M. Tanimoto, Towards unification of quark and lepton flavors in A4 modular invariance, Eur. Phys. J. C 81 (2021) 1, 52, e-Print: 1905.13421 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2021

Show all 35 references
  1. [9]

    Kikuchi et al, Texture zeros of quark mass matrices at fixed point τ = ω in modular flavor symmetry, Eur

    S. Kikuchi et al, Texture zeros of quark mass matrices at fixed point τ = ω in modular flavor symmetry, Eur. Phys. J. C 83 (2023) 7, 591, e-Print: 2207.04609 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  2. [10]

    King and S.F

    S.J.D. King and S.F. King, Fermion Mass Hierarchies from Modular Symmetry , JHEP 09 (2020) 043, e-Print: 2002.00969 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Belfatto and Z

    B. Belfatto and Z. Berezhiani, Minimally modified Fritzsch texture for quark masses and CKM mixing , JHEP 08 (2023) 162, e-Print: arXiv:hep-ph2305.00069

    2023 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Jarlskog, R

    C. Jarlskog, R. Stora, Unitarity polygons and CP violation areas and phases in the standard electroweak model, Phys. Lett. B, 208 (1988), 268

    1988

  5. [13]

    Bjorken, On the determination of phases of generalized Kobayashi-Maskawa matrix elements from their magnitudes , Phys

    James D. Bjorken, On the determination of phases of generalized Kobayashi-Maskawa matrix elements from their magnitudes , Phys. Rev. D 39 (1989) 1396

    1989

  6. [14]

    Masina and C.A

    I. Masina and C.A. Savoy, Real and imaginary elements of fermion mass matrices , Nucl. Phys. B 755 (2006) 1, e-Print: arXiv: hep-ph/0603101

    2006 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Harrison, D.R.J

    P.F. Harrison, D.R.J. Roythorne and W.G. Scott, Is the Unitarity Triangle Right? , Contribution to PANIC 08, (2008) 756, e-Print: 0904.3014 [hep-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Antusch et al, Quark mixing sum rules and the right unitarity triangle , Phys

    S. Antusch et al, Quark mixing sum rules and the right unitarity triangle , Phys. Rev. D 81 (2010) 033008, e-Print: 0910.5127 [hep-ph]

    2010 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Navas et al

    S. Navas et al. (Particle Data Group), The Review of Particle Physics , Phys. Rev. D 110, 030001 (2024). – 12 –

    2024

  10. [18]

    We are grateful to Tim Gershon, who first pointed-out to us to the closeness of β to π 8 , private communication

  11. [19]

    Wolfenstein, Parametrization of the Kobayashi-Maskawa matrix , Phys

    L. Wolfenstein, Parametrization of the Kobayashi-Maskawa matrix , Phys. Rev. Lett. 51 (1983) 1945

    1983

  12. [20]

    Buras, M.E

    A.J. Buras, M.E. Lautenbacher and G. Ostermaier, Waiting for the Top quark mass, K + → π+ν ¯ν, B0 s − ¯B0 s mixing and CP asymmetries in B-decays , Phys. Rev. D50 (1994) 3433, [hep-ph/9403384]

    1994 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Aoki et al

    Y. Aoki et al. (Flavour Lattice Averaging Group (FLAG)), FLAG Review 2024 , CERN-TH-2024-192, e-Print: arXiv:2411.04268

    2024 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Machacek, M.T

    M.E. Machacek, M.T. Vaughn, Two Loop Renormalization Group Equations in a General Quantum Field Theory: 1. Wave Function Renormalization , Nucl. Phys. B 222 (1983) 83

    1983

  15. [23]

    Machacek, M.T

    M.E. Machacek, M.T. Vaughn, Two Loop Renormalization Group Equations in a General Quantum Field Theory: (II). Yukawa Couplings , Nucl. Phys. B 236 (1984) 221

    1984

  16. [24]

    Machacek, M.T

    M.E. Machacek, M.T. Vaughn, Two Loop Renormalization Group Equations in a General Quantum Field Theory: (III). Scalar Quartic Couplings , Nucl. Phys. B, 249 (1985) 70

    1985

  17. [25]

    Balzereit et al, The Renormalization Group Evolution of the CKM Matrix , Eur

    C. Balzereit et al, The Renormalization Group Evolution of the CKM Matrix , Eur. Phys. J. C 9 (1999) 197, e-Print: hep-ph/9810350 [hep-ph]

    1999 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Kielanowski, S

    P. Kielanowski, S. Rebeca Juarez Wysozka, Renormalization group evolution of the CKM matrix, AIP Conf.Proc. 670 (2003) 1, 81, e-Print: hep-ph/0301098

    2003 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Krishnan, The framework of the auxiliary group: two birds with one stone (2023), arXiv-2309.11542 (hep-ph)

    R. Krishnan, The framework of the auxiliary group: two birds with one stone (2023), arXiv-2309.11542 (hep-ph)

    2023 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Jarlskog, Matrix representation of symmetries in flavor space, invariant functions of mass matrices, and applications , Phys

    C. Jarlskog, Matrix representation of symmetries in flavor space, invariant functions of mass matrices, and applications , Phys. Rev. D 35 (1987) 1685

    1987

  21. [29]

    Jarlskog, Flavor projection operators and applications to CP violation with any number of families, Phys

    C. Jarlskog, Flavor projection operators and applications to CP violation with any number of families, Phys. Rev. D36 (1987) 2128

    1987

  22. [30]

    Jarlskog and A

    C. Jarlskog and A. Kleppe, Measurables of the quark mixing matrix as invariant functions of mass matrices, Nucl. Phys. B286 (1987) 245

    1987

  23. [31]

    Albright, C

    C.H. Albright, C. Jarlskog and B-A. Lindholm, Testing the Fritzsch quark mass matrices with the invariant function approach , Phys. Lett. B199 (1987) 553

    1987

  24. [32]

    Albright, C

    C.H. Albright, C. Jarlskog and B-A. Lindholm, Three-family Fritzsch and Stech models with minimal and two-doublet Higgs structures , Phys. Rev. D38 (1988) 872

    1988

  25. [33]

    Harrison, W.G

    P.F. Harrison, W.G. Scott, µ-τ reflection symmetry in lepton mixing and neutrino oscillations, Phys. Lett. B 547 (2002) 219, e-Print: hep-ph/0210197 [hep-ph]

    2002 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Jarlskog, Commutator of the Quark Mass Matrices in the Standard Electroweak Model and a Measure of Maximal CP Nonconservation , Phys

    C. Jarlskog, Commutator of the Quark Mass Matrices in the Standard Electroweak Model and a Measure of Maximal CP Nonconservation , Phys. Rev. Lett. 55 (1985) 1039

    1985

  27. [35]

    Jarlskog, A Basis Independent Formulation of the Connection Between Quark Mass Matrices, CP Violation and Experiment , Z

    C. Jarlskog, A Basis Independent Formulation of the Connection Between Quark Mass Matrices, CP Violation and Experiment , Z. Phys. C29 (1985) 491. – 13 –

    1985

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.