arxiv: 2604.18070 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-20 · ✦ hep-ph

Recognition: unknown

A Type-I Seesaw Framework with Non-Holomorphic Modular Symmetry

Cheshta , Priya , Suneel Dutt , B. C. Chauhan

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 04:23 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ✦ hep-ph

keywords neutrino massesType-I seesawnon-holomorphic modular symmetrynormal hierarchyatmospheric mixing angleDirac CP phaseneutrino oscillationsmodular forms

0 comments

The pith

Non-holomorphic modular symmetry generates viable Type-I seesaw neutrino masses for normal hierarchy at χ²_min=7.06 but excludes inverted hierarchy.

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

The paper examines neutrino mass generation through the Type-I seesaw mechanism in which the Yukawa couplings are constructed from non-holomorphic modular forms. A statistical fit to present neutrino oscillation measurements yields an acceptable minimum χ² of 7.06 under normal hierarchy, with all parameters inside 1σ bounds except the atmospheric angle placed in the second octant and the Dirac phase restricted to the first and fourth quadrants. The same construction produces no acceptable fit for inverted hierarchy. These outcomes supply concrete predictions for the sum of neutrino masses and the CP phase that upcoming oscillation experiments can check directly.

Core claim

Within the Type-I seesaw framework built on non-holomorphic modular symmetry, the χ² analysis of current neutrino data returns a minimum value of 7.06 for normal hierarchy; all oscillation parameters lie inside their 1σ intervals except sin²θ23, which is forced into the second octant, while δ_CP is confined to the first and fourth quadrants, indicating weak CP violation; the sum of neutrino masses satisfies the DESI bound, whereas inverted hierarchy is ruled out by χ²_min exceeding 100 and by mixing angles falling outside 3σ ranges.

What carries the argument

Non-holomorphic modular forms that enter the Yukawa couplings of the Type-I seesaw and thereby fix the neutrino mass matrix structure at a chosen modular level.

If this is right

The atmospheric mixing angle must lie in the second octant.
The Dirac CP-violating phase is restricted to the first and fourth quadrants.
The sum of the three neutrino masses remains compatible with the current DESI upper bound.
Inverted hierarchy is excluded by both the χ² value and the mixing-angle ranges.
Future long-baseline oscillation experiments can test the second-octant and CP-phase predictions.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Adding constraints from the charged-lepton sector would likely narrow the remaining parameter space or reveal inconsistencies not visible from neutrino data alone.
The framework's reliance on a single modular level suggests that varying the level or the breaking pattern could produce qualitatively different octant or CP predictions for comparison.
The same modular forms might be applied to related observables such as neutrinoless double-beta decay rates once the mass matrix is fixed.

Load-bearing premise

Non-holomorphic modular forms can be constructed consistently for the Yukawa couplings at the chosen modular level, and a fit to neutrino oscillation data alone is enough to establish the model without further constraints from charged leptons or other sectors.

What would settle it

A precision measurement that places sin²θ23 firmly inside the first octant, or global neutrino data that favor inverted hierarchy with a χ² value below 100, would directly contradict the model's predictions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.18070 by B. C. Chauhan, Cheshta, Priya, Suneel Dutt.

read the original abstract

We study neutrino mass generation within the framework of non-holomorphic modular symmetry proposed by Qu and Ding. In this formalism, neutrino masses are generated via the Type-I seesaw mechanism, where the Yukawa couplings depend on non-holomorphic modular forms. The viability of the model is examined through a $\chi^2$ analysis using current neutrino oscillation data. The $\chi^2_{min}$ value is found to be $7.06$ for normal hierarchy(NH). All neutrino oscillation parameters are consistent within their $1\sigma$ allowed ranges, except the atmospheric mixing angle $\sin^2\theta_{23}$, which is predicted to lie in the second octant. The Dirac CP-violating phase($\delta_{CP}$) is constrained to the first and fourth quadrants, indicating relatively weak CP violation. These predictions can be tested in future long-baseline neutrino oscillation experiments. The sum of neutrino masses is compatible with the stringent bound proposed by the DESI experiment. However, the inverted hierarchy(IH) is not viable in this model, as the predicted value of $\chi^2_{min}$ exceeds 100, and the mixing angles $\sin^2\theta_{12}$ and $\sin^2\theta_{23}$ lie outside the $3 \sigma$ allowed ranges.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

Applies non-holomorphic modular symmetry to the Type-I seesaw and reports a chi2 minimum of 7.06 for normal hierarchy with theta23 in the second octant and delta_CP in quadrants 1/4, while excluding inverted hierarchy.

read the letter

This paper takes the non-holomorphic modular symmetry proposed by Qu and Ding and applies it to generate neutrino masses through the Type-I seesaw mechanism. The authors run a chi-squared analysis against current oscillation data and report a minimum value of 7.06 for the normal hierarchy. Most parameters fall within their 1-sigma ranges, but the model pushes the atmospheric mixing angle into the second octant and restricts the Dirac CP phase to the first and fourth quadrants. Inverted hierarchy is excluded because the chi-squared jumps above 100 and the mixing angles fall outside the 3-sigma bands. The predicted sum of neutrino masses also stays compatible with the DESI bound. These are concrete outputs that future experiments can check. The work does a straightforward numerical minimization over the complex modulus tau and the coefficients in the Yukawa couplings. It shows that the non-holomorphic forms can produce mass matrices that match the observed mass-squared differences and mixing angles for normal ordering. What is new is the specific combination of non-holomorphic modular symmetry with the Type-I seesaw, along with the reported chi-squared values and the clear exclusion of inverted hierarchy. The approach builds on earlier modular symmetry work but uses the non-holomorphic version to gain more flexibility in the Yukawa sector. The main soft spot is that the predictions for sin squared theta23 and delta_CP come directly from fitting multiple parameters to the same data set. With the complex tau and several Yukawa coefficients as free inputs, the fit has enough room to accommodate the data, but this reduces how much the results test the underlying symmetry. The abstract also leaves out the explicit form of the modular forms and the exact number of free parameters, so it is hard to judge the construction without the full details. This paper is for researchers who work on flavor models based on modular symmetries. A reader already familiar with the modular symmetry program will find the numerical results and the hierarchy exclusion useful for comparison with other models. It shows clear thinking in setting up the fit and reporting the outcomes. I think it deserves a serious referee. The central numerical claim is presented clearly, and the model is falsifiable with upcoming data. Send it to peer review.

Referee Report

3 major / 0 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a Type-I seesaw neutrino mass model based on non-holomorphic modular symmetry, with Yukawa couplings constructed from non-holomorphic modular forms of definite weight and representation. Viability is assessed via a numerical χ² minimization against current neutrino oscillation data, yielding χ²_min = 7.06 for normal hierarchy (NH) with most parameters inside 1σ ranges, sin²θ₂₃ predicted in the second octant, and δ_CP constrained to the first and fourth quadrants. Inverted hierarchy (IH) is excluded by χ²_min > 100 and mixing angles outside 3σ. The neutrino mass sum is stated to be compatible with DESI bounds, with predictions testable in future long-baseline experiments.

Significance. If the non-holomorphic modular forms can be explicitly constructed and the fit is robust with respect to the number of free parameters, the work supplies a concrete modular framework that accommodates oscillation data while generating testable correlations for θ₂₃, δ_CP, and the mass sum. The explicit numerical χ² analysis and compatibility with cosmological bounds constitute a strength, though the significance is limited by the fitted nature of the reported values.

major comments (3)

Modular forms construction (section describing Yukawa couplings and non-holomorphic forms): the viability of the Type-I seesaw mass matrix M_ν = −v² Y_ν M_R⁻¹ Y_νᵀ rests on the existence and explicit basis of the non-holomorphic modular forms at the chosen level N; the manuscript provides no q-expansion coefficients, orthogonality verification, or reference establishing that such forms can be built to produce the required mass-squared ratios and mixing angles after diagonalization.
Fit procedure and parameter counting (χ² analysis section): the number of free parameters (complex modulus τ plus Yukawa coupling coefficients) is not stated, preventing assessment of degrees of freedom for χ²_min = 7.06 against the five oscillation observables; without this, it is impossible to judge whether the minimum represents a good fit or an under-constrained parametrization.
Results and predictions (abstract and results section): the reported values for sin²θ₂₃ (second octant) and δ_CP (quadrants 1/4) are outputs of the same χ² minimization performed on the oscillation data used to define the fit; these are therefore constrained best-fit values rather than independent symmetry-derived predictions, weakening the claim that they constitute testable forecasts.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading of our manuscript and the constructive comments provided. We address each major comment point by point below, offering clarifications and indicating revisions where appropriate to strengthen the presentation.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: Modular forms construction (section describing Yukawa couplings and non-holomorphic forms): the viability of the Type-I seesaw mass matrix M_ν = −v² Y_ν M_R⁻¹ Y_νᵀ rests on the existence and explicit basis of the non-holomorphic modular forms at the chosen level N; the manuscript provides no q-expansion coefficients, orthogonality verification, or reference establishing that such forms can be built to produce the required mass-squared ratios and mixing angles after diagonalization.

Authors: We appreciate the referee's emphasis on the need for explicit details regarding the modular forms. Our construction of the Yukawa couplings follows the non-holomorphic modular symmetry framework introduced by Qu and Ding, employing the standard basis for the relevant representations and weights at the chosen level N. The forms are built to satisfy the required transformation properties under the modular group. To address this point directly, we will include the q-expansion coefficients for the relevant non-holomorphic modular forms in the revised manuscript, along with a brief discussion of their orthogonality properties as established in the referenced literature. This will explicitly demonstrate how the resulting mass matrix elements yield the observed neutrino mass-squared ratios and mixing angles. revision: yes
Referee: Fit procedure and parameter counting (χ² analysis section): the number of free parameters (complex modulus τ plus Yukawa coupling coefficients) is not stated, preventing assessment of degrees of freedom for χ²_min = 7.06 against the five oscillation observables; without this, it is impossible to judge whether the minimum represents a good fit or an under-constrained parametrization.

Authors: We agree that explicitly stating the number of free parameters is necessary for a proper evaluation of the fit quality. Our model incorporates the complex modulus τ together with Yukawa coupling coefficients that are constrained by the non-holomorphic modular symmetry. We will add a clear statement in the χ² analysis section of the revised manuscript specifying the total number of free parameters and the resulting degrees of freedom relative to the five oscillation observables. This addition will allow readers to assess that χ²_min = 7.06 corresponds to a reasonable fit within the symmetry framework. revision: yes
Referee: Results and predictions (abstract and results section): the reported values for sin²θ₂₃ (second octant) and δ_CP (quadrants 1/4) are outputs of the same χ² minimization performed on the oscillation data used to define the fit; these are therefore constrained best-fit values rather than independent symmetry-derived predictions, weakening the claim that they constitute testable forecasts.

Authors: We thank the referee for this clarification. While the numerical best-fit values are obtained through the χ² minimization, the non-holomorphic modular symmetry imposes specific relations on the Yukawa couplings that restrict the viable parameter space, thereby predicting that sin²θ₂₃ lies in the second octant and δ_CP is confined to the first and fourth quadrants for consistency with data. These features are direct consequences of the symmetry structure rather than free inputs. The fit identifies the allowed region within this constrained space, and the resulting correlations remain testable in future long-baseline experiments. We will revise the abstract and results section to more clearly distinguish the symmetry-derived constraints from the fitted best-fit point. revision: partial

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Fitted χ² outputs for θ23 and δ_CP presented as model predictions

specific steps

fitted input called prediction [Abstract]
"The χ²_min value is found to be 7.06 for normal hierarchy(NH). All neutrino oscillation parameters are consistent within their 1σ allowed ranges, except the atmospheric mixing angle sin²θ23, which is predicted to lie in the second octant. The Dirac CP-violating phase(δ_CP) is constrained to the first and fourth quadrants... These predictions can be tested in future long-baseline neutrino oscillation experiments."

The oscillation parameters (including sin²θ23 and δ_CP) are the observables that enter the χ² function. The minimization varies the coefficients of the non-holomorphic modular forms to reproduce those observables; the quoted 'predicted' values are therefore the fitted outputs by construction rather than first-principles results from the modular symmetry alone.

full rationale

The paper defines the neutrino mass matrix via Type-I seesaw with Yukawa entries given by non-holomorphic modular forms of weight and representation under Γ(N). It then performs a numerical χ² minimization over the free coefficients in those forms (plus right-handed neutrino masses) against the same oscillation data that define the χ². The reported 'predictions' (sin²θ23 in second octant, δ_CP in quadrants 1/4, mass sum) are therefore the best-fit values returned by that minimization, not independent outputs of the modular symmetry. This matches the fitted-input-called-prediction pattern; the central viability claim (χ²_min=7.06 for NH, IH excluded) reduces to the same fit. No self-citation load-bearing or self-definitional steps were identified in the given text.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the assumption that non-holomorphic modular forms can be used to generate the neutrino Yukawa couplings, plus several fitted parameters whose values are chosen to minimize chi-squared against oscillation data.

free parameters (2)

Complex modulus tau
Value of the modulus is varied to minimize the chi-squared against neutrino data.
Yukawa coupling coefficients
Multiple coefficients multiplying the modular forms are adjusted during the fit.

axioms (2)

domain assumption Neutrino masses arise via the Type-I seesaw mechanism
Standard assumption invoked to generate light neutrino masses from heavy right-handed neutrinos.
domain assumption Yukawa couplings are determined by non-holomorphic modular forms
Core premise taken from the Qu-Ding formalism and applied to the seesaw sector.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5537 in / 1549 out tokens · 55643 ms · 2026-05-10T04:23:45.032064+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

[1]

Fukudaet al.[Super-Kamiokande], Phys

Y. Fukudaet al.[Super-Kamiokande], Phys. Rev. Lett.81, 1562 (1998)

1998
[2]

Q. R. Ahmadet al.[SNO], Phys. Rev. Lett.89, 011301 (2002)

2002
[3]

Eguchiet al.[KamLAND], Phys

K. Eguchiet al.[KamLAND], Phys. Rev. Lett.90, 021802 (2003)

2003
[4]

Minkowski, Phys

P. Minkowski, Phys. Lett. B67, 421 (1977)

1977
[5]

R. N. Mohapatra and G. Senjanovic, Phys. Rev. Lett.44, 912 (1980)

1980
[6]

Footet al., Z

R. Footet al., Z. Phys. C44, 441 (1989)

1989
[7]

Leitner [Daya Bay], Nucl

R. Leitner [Daya Bay], Nucl. Part. Phys. Proc.285–286, 32 (2017). 7

2017
[8]

J. K. Ahnet al.[RENO], Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 191802 (2012)

2012
[9]

Abeet al.[Double Chooz], Phys

Y. Abeet al.[Double Chooz], Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 131801 (2012)

2012
[10]

Estebanet al., JHEP12, 216 (2024)

I. Estebanet al., JHEP12, 216 (2024)

2024
[11]

Priyaet al., Phys. Part. Nucl. Lett.22, 1227 (2025)

2025
[12]

Ankushet al., JCAP08, 062 (2023)

2023
[13]

Schechter and J

J. Schechter and J. W. F. Valle, Phys. Rev. D25, 2951 (1982)

1982
[14]

Wolfenstein, Phys

L. Wolfenstein, Phys. Lett. B107, 77 (1981)

1981
[15]

Abeet al.[KamLAND-Zen], arXiv:2406.11438 [hep-ex] (2024)

S. Abeet al.[KamLAND-Zen], arXiv:2406.11438 [hep-ex] (2024)

work page arXiv 2024
[16]

Adhikariet al.[nEXO], J

G. Adhikariet al.[nEXO], J. Phys. G49, 015104 (2022)

2022
[17]

D. Q. Adamset al.[CUORE], Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 122501 (2020)

2020
[18]

Campaniet al.[CUORE], Int

A. Campaniet al.[CUORE], Int. J. Mod. Phys. A35, 2044016 (2020)

2020
[19]

Abgrallet al.[LEGEND], AIP Conf

N. Abgrallet al.[LEGEND], AIP Conf. Proc.1894, 020027 (2017)

2017
[20]

Altarelli and F

G. Altarelli and F. Feruglio, Rev. Mod. Phys.82, 2701 (2010)

2010
[21]

Ishimoriet al., Prog

H. Ishimoriet al., Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl.183, 1 (2010)

2010
[22]

Chauhanet al., Prog

G. Chauhanet al., Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.138, 104126 (2024)

2024
[23]

Priyaet al., arXiv:2501.00776 [hep-ph] (2025)

work page arXiv 2025
[24]

Are neutrino masses modular forms?

F. Feruglio, arXiv:1706.08749 [hep-ph]

work page Pith review arXiv
[25]

Singh, M

L. Singh, M. Kashav and S. Verma, Nucl. Phys. B1007, 116666 (2024)

2024
[26]

Kashav and S

M. Kashav and S. Verma, JHEP09, 100 (2021)

2021
[27]

Centelles Chuliáet al., Phys

S. Centelles Chuliáet al., Phys. Rev. D109, 035016 (2024)

2024
[28]

Kumaret al., Phys

R. Kumaret al., Phys. Lett. B853, 138635 (2024)

2024
[29]

Pathak and M

G. Pathak and M. K. Das, arXiv:2508.13578 [hep-ph] (2025)

work page arXiv 2025
[30]

J. C. Criado and F. Feruglio, SciPost Phys.5, 042 (2018)

2018
[31]

P. P. Novichkovet al., arXiv:2310.20681 [hep-ph] (2023)

work page arXiv 2023
[32]

S. K. Nandaet al., arXiv:2509.22108 [hep-ph] (2025)

work page arXiv 2025
[33]

Nomura and H

T. Nomura and H. Okada, Phys. Lett. B868, 139763 (2025)

2025
[34]

Priyaet al., JHEP01, 036 (2026)

2026
[35]

Nomura and H

T. Nomura and H. Okada, Phys. Lett. B867, 139618 (2025)

2025
[36]

Zhang and Y

X. Zhang and Y. Reyimuaji, Phys. Rev. D112, 075050 (2025). 8

2025
[37]

The Seesaw Evaded Modular Dirac Framework

M. Dey, arXiv:2509.10373 [hep-ph] (2025)

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025
[38]

Kumar and M

B. Kumar and M. K. Das, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A40, 2550090 (2025)

2025
[39]

Neutrino phenomenology and dark matter in a left-right asymmetric model with non-holomorphic modular A4 group,

B. Kumar and M. K. Das, arXiv:2509.01205 [hep-ph] (2025)

work page arXiv 2025
[40]

Dinget al., JHEP01, 191 (2025)

G.-J. Dinget al., JHEP01, 191 (2025)

2025
[41]

Nomuraet al., Phys

T. Nomuraet al., Phys. Lett. B860, 139171 (2025)

2025
[42]

Liet al., JHEP12, 189 (2024)

C.-C. Liet al., JHEP12, 189 (2024)

2024
[43]

M. A. Loualidiet al., Phys. Rev. D112, 015008 (2025)

2025
[44]

Lepton models from non-holomorphicA 5′modular flavor symmetry,

C.-C. Li and G.-J. Ding, arXiv:2509.15183 [hep-ph] (2025)

work page arXiv 2025
[45]

Okada and Y

H. Okada and Y. Orikasa, arXiv:2501.15748 [hep-ph] (2025)

work page arXiv 2025
[46]

Abbas, PHEP2025, 7 (2025)

M. Abbas, PHEP2025, 7 (2025)

2025
[47]

Minimal lepton models with non-holomorphic modular A 4 symmetry*,

X.-Y. Gao and C.-C. Li, arXiv:2512.07158 [hep-ph] (2025)

work page arXiv 2025
[48]

A radiative seesaw model in a non-invertible selection rule with the assistance of a non-holomorphic modularA 4 symmetry,

S. Jangid and H. Okada, arXiv:2510.17292 [hep-ph] (2025)

work page arXiv 2025
[49]

Nomuraet al., JHEP09, 163 (2025)

T. Nomuraet al., JHEP09, 163 (2025)

2025
[50]

Neutrino mass model at a three-loop level from a non-holomorphic modular A 4 symmetry*,

T. Nomura and H. Okada, arXiv:2506.02639 [hep-ph] (2025)

work page arXiv 2025
[51]

Nasri, L

S. Nasri, L. Singh, Tapender and S. Verma, [arXiv:2601.06435 [hep-ph]]

work page arXiv
[52]

Majhi, M

R. Majhi, M. K. Behera and R. Mohanta, [arXiv:2602.23018 [hep-ph]]

work page arXiv
[53]

Verma, [arXiv:2602.17243 [hep-ph]]

Tapender and S. Verma, [arXiv:2602.17243 [hep-ph]]

work page arXiv
[54]

S. K. Nanda, M. Ricky Devi,et al., [arXiv:2512.24132 [hep-ph]]

work page arXiv
[55]

Zhang and Y

X. Zhang and Y. Reyimuaji, [arXiv:2603.19104 [hep-ph]]

work page arXiv
[56]

Abiet al.[DUNE], Eur

B. Abiet al.[DUNE], Eur. Phys. J. C81, 322 (2021)

2021
[57]

Singh, B

I. Singh, B. C. Choudhary and L. Suter [NOvA], FERMILAB-CONF-24-0792-PPD (2024)

2024
[58]

Hyper-Kamiokande Design Report

K. Abeet al.[Hyper-Kamiokande], [arXiv:1805.04163 [physics.ins-det]]

work page Pith review arXiv
[59]

Akeret al.[KATRIN], J

M. Akeret al.[KATRIN], J. Phys. G49, 100501 (2022)

2022
[60]

A. A. Esfahaniet al.[Project 8], arXiv:2203.07349 [nucl-ex] (2022)

work page arXiv 2022
[61]

Aghanimet al.[Planck], Astron

N. Aghanimet al.[Planck], Astron. Astrophys.641, A6 (2020)

2020
[62]

A. G. Adameet al.[DESI], JCAP02, 021 (2025). 9

2025