Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 41 references

Neutrino Mass and its Impact on Gravitational Waves from Domain Wall Collision

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Flavon mixing terms plus a loop-level neutrino mass bias make $A_4$ domain walls annihilate early, emitting gravitational waves peaked near $10^{-4}$ Hz with $\Omega_{GW}h^2\sim 10^{-11}$ at a flavon scale of $10^4$ TeV.

desk verdict A plausible A4 x Z4 neutrino model, but the GW signal is not derived: the bias is a fitted parameter and Table II's 'Delta V' is inconsistent with the paper's own bound. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.08084 v1 pith:CR4S7WIH submitted 2026-08-08 hep-ph

Victoria Puyam , Mrinal Kumar Das This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph
keywords A4flavorsymmetrydomainwallsgravitationalwavesneutrinomassandmixingflavonpotentialwalltensionpeakfrequencyamplitude
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper builds two $A_4 \times Z_4$ flavor-symmetry models to connect neutrino oscillation data with the gravitational-wave background emitted when domain walls annihilate. The models use flavon scalars whose self-interactions and cross-couplings produce the vacuum alignments that set neutrino mixing; one model includes the mixing-term corrections to the vacua, the other does not. In the corrected model, the same neutrino mass matrix that fits the oscillation data generates a one-loop bias that lifts the degeneracy of the flavon vacua, so the domain walls annihilate early rather than dominating the universe's energy density. The paper claims the resulting stochastic background has peak frequencies around $10^{-4}$ Hz and amplitudes up to $\Omega_{GW}h^2\sim 10^{-11}$ when the flavon vacuum expectation values are near $10^4$ TeV, within reach of current and planned detectors. The interest is that a purely flavor-sector mechanism, invisible apart from neutrino mixing, would become observable through gravitational waves.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the biased annihilation of domain walls formed when the $A_4$ flavons $\phi_1$, $\phi_2$, and $\chi$ acquire vacuum expectation values. The wall tension is $\sigma = f_\sigma v^3$ and the bias is $V_{\rm bias} = \epsilon_b v^4$; walls disappear when the volume pressure equals the tension pressure, at $t_{\rm ann}=\sigma/V_{\rm bias}$. The paper obtains $\epsilon_b$ from the one-loop correction $V_{\rm loop}(\phi_2,\chi)$ computed from the neutrino Majorana mass matrix $M_N(\phi_2,\chi)$, together with the small flavon mixing couplings; this loop term is what lifts the $Z_2$ degeneracy of $\phi_2$ that the tree-level self-interactions leave intact. The resulting $f_\sigma$ and $\epsilon_b$ feed the standard peak formulas for $\Omega_{GW}h^2|_{\rm peak}$ and $f_{\rm peak}$, Eqs. (34)--(35).

What would settle it

A null detection of a stochastic gravitational-wave background in the $10^{-5}$--$10^{-3}$ Hz band at sensitivity $\Omega_{GW}h^2\sim 10^{-12}$ would rule out the paper's central claim for flavon vacuum expectation values near $10^4$ TeV.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the vacuum structure of an $A_4 \times Z_4$ flavon model can simultaneously explain neutrino masses and mixings and provide a cosmologically safe, observable gravitational-wave signal from domain-wall annihilation. In the corrected model, the flavon mixing terms shift the vacua, and the modified Majorana mass matrix feeds into the one-loop effective potential $V_{\rm loop}(\phi_2,\chi)$, which splits the $Z_2$ degeneracy of the $\phi_2$ vacua. This splitting fixes the bias $\epsilon_b$, the walls annihilate in the scaling regime, and the resulting spectrum peaks at frequencies $10^{-5}$--$10^{-3}$ Hz with $\Omega_{GW}h^2$ up to $\sim 10^{-11}$ for flavon vacuum expectation values around $10^4$ TeV. The paper argues that these peaks fall within the reach of current and near-future gravitational-wave experiments.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the one-loop potential $V_{\rm loop}$ from the neutrino mass matrix is the dominant source of the energy bias, with no comparable uncalculated flavon potential terms or radiative corrections; if such terms appear, $\epsilon_b$, the annihilation time, and the predicted peak frequency and amplitude change by orders of magnitude.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim is correct, a space-based interferometer operating near $10^{-4}$ Hz should see a stochastic background with a broken power-law shape, rising as $f^3$ below the peak and falling as $f^{-1}$ above it.
  • A measured peak frequency and amplitude would pin down $\epsilon_b/f_\sigma$ and hence the flavon vacuum scale, turning a gravitational-wave observation into a probe of the flavor-breaking scale.
  • The corrected model's preference for $\theta_{12}$ near $32.4^\circ$--$33.2^\circ$ and higher-octant $\theta_{23}$ gives a neutrino-oscillation signature that future precision experiments can distinguish from the uncorrected model's $\theta_{12}\simeq 35.7^\circ$.
  • Because the bias comes from the neutrino mass matrix, the model couples the domain-wall peak to the Majorana coupling ratio $A:B=5:1$ used to fit the oscillations, so a measured spectrum would constrain that ratio.

Reading between the lines

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

  • In my reading, the mechanism is not specific to $A_4$: any discrete flavor symmetry whose flavon potential leaves degenerate vacua and whose neutrino mass matrix splits those vacua radiatively would produce a similar biased-wall spectrum, so the approach could be applied to $S_4$ and $A_5$ models.
  • A natural next calculation is the next-order radiative correction to $V_{\rm loop}$; the paper's spectra would be robust only if those corrections shift $\epsilon_b$ and $f_\sigma$ by less than an order of magnitude.
  • If the $10^4$ TeV scale is right, the gravitational-wave signal may be the only foreseeable experimental window into the flavor-breaking sector, since direct flavon production at colliders would be far out of reach.
  • The model makes a joint prediction of specific mixing angles and a specific gravitational-wave peak, so a future measurement of either quantity would predict the other, providing a cross-check that does not require reconstructing the full scalar potential.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript constructs two A4 × Z4 flavor-symmetric neutrino mass models with flavon fields phi1, phi2, and chi. Model I uses tree-level flavon alignments, while Model II adds flavon mixing corrections that shift the vacuum expectation values and modify the Dirac and Majorana mass matrices. Both models are compared with NuFIT-6.0 oscillation data. The paper then assumes that the Z2 degeneracy of phi2 is lifted by a one-loop correction from the neutrino Majorana mass matrix, producing a bias that annihilates domain walls and generates a stochastic gravitational-wave background. The central claim is that for flavon vevs around 10^4 TeV, the predicted peak amplitudes and frequencies are detectable by LISA, DECIGO, and BBO. Model I is stated to overclose the universe, so the gravitational-wave analysis rests on Model II.

Significance. The potential payoff is a concrete link between a discrete flavor symmetry and LISA-band gravitational-wave searches, with Model II making a distinctive prediction for theta_12 in the lower octant. The paper correctly identifies the standard domain-wall formulas in Eqs. (3)-(8) and (34)-(35) and provides explicit mass matrices in Eqs. (24) and (27). However, the central detection claim is not yet supported: the loop bias is never evaluated from the neutrino parameters, Table II's Delta V is not connected to epsilon_b, and the neutrino fits are presented without chi-square or error diagnostics. No reproducible code or machine-checked derivations are provided. If the missing bias computation were supplied and the table entries made consistent with Eq. (8), the paper would be a valuable model-building contribution; as it stands, the GW spectrum is a scan statement rather than a derived prediction.

major comments (4)
  1. [§IV.B, Eq. (32)] The one-loop bias V_loop is the entire source of the Z2 splitting used in the GW calculation, but it is never evaluated. The text says only that epsilon_n and epsilon_n1 are 'fixed using neutrino oscillation data'; no expression for Delta V = V_loop(vacuum +) - V_loop(vacuum -) is given, and no numerical values of the neutrino parameters (A, B, y_n1, y_n2, v_chi, epsilon_n, epsilon_n1) are listed. Consequently the epsilon_b that enters Eqs. (34)-(35) is not shown to be a model output. Please either compute Delta V from the fitted parameters or state explicitly that epsilon_b is an independent input; in the latter case the abstract's detectability claim should be rephrased as a scan statement.
  2. [Table II and Eq. (8)] The Delta V column in Table II is inconsistent with the bias bound in Eq. (8) if it is meant to be epsilon_b. For v = 10^4 TeV, Eq. (8) requires epsilon_b/f_sigma < 10^-11, whereas the table lists Delta V values of order 10^-3 to 10^-2 with f_sigma of order unity. If these entries were epsilon_b, they would violate the bound by about eight orders of magnitude and would produce peak frequencies in the kHz range rather than the listed 10^-4 Hz values. The manuscript must define Delta V, state its units and its relation to epsilon_b, and list the actual epsilon_b/f_sigma values used for each row, so that the peak frequencies and amplitudes can be reproduced.
  3. [§III.A, Eq. (19)] The assertion that the flavon mixing terms 'cannot differentiate' the Z2 degeneracy of phi2 is not demonstrated. Eq. (19) contains terms with an odd number of phi2 fields (the epsilon4, epsilon7, epsilon8, and epsilon9 terms), which prima facie split the +/- vacua at tree level. Because the paper's mechanism requires the splitting to come only from V_loop, a group-theoretic or numerical argument is needed. If the tree-level terms do split the Z2 pair, the bias and hence the predicted f_peak and Omega h^2 are different, and the V_loop calculation is not the operative mechanism.
  4. [§V, Figs. 1-2 and §IV.B] The neutrino fits are not quantitatively characterized. The figures show scatter plots against NuFIT-6.0 contours but no chi-square, pull, or best-fit values, and the input parameter sets for each scan point are not listed. The statement in §IV.B that epsilon_n and epsilon_n1 are fixed by neutrino oscillation data is therefore not checkable, and the connection between the fitted mass matrix and the GW bias cannot be assessed. Please provide a table of representative values of A, B, y_n1, y_n2, v_chi, epsilon_n, epsilon_n1, and a goodness-of-fit measure for the Model II scan.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section II, after Eq. (1)] The sentence 'The potential in Eqn (I) is valid...' should refer to Eq. (1), not Eqn (I).
  2. [Section III, after Eq. (19)] The vev of chi is written as v = (-m_t/r_1)^{1/2}; the symbol m_t is not defined and should presumably be mu_chi.
  3. [Section III.A, last paragraph] The phrase 'V(phi1, phi2, phi3' appears to be a typo for V(phi1, phi2, chi); please correct the field name and complete the sentence.
  4. [Section IV, first paragraph] The sentence 'the vev of <phi2> and <phi2>, <chi>, and h_u,d are assumed...' should read '<phi1> and <phi2>'; as written, the first model's phi1 vev is omitted.
  5. [Eq. (21) and surrounding text] The definitions of epsilon_N, u_o, and the stray equality '=u-u_o' are unclear; please define every symbol appearing in the corrected vevs.
  6. [Table II caption] The quoted vev scale (phi2 ≈ -2x10^4, phi1 ≈ -1.5x10^4, chi ≈ 1.4x10^4 TeV) is not connected to the single scale v appearing in Eqs. (8), (34), and (35); please state which scale v denotes.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

GW detectability claim reduces to a hand-chosen bias rather than a computed model output; neutrino-sector fits are presented as predictions.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section V.A, text before Eq. (33), Eqs. (34)-(35), Table II]
    "Since the potential has many coupling constants and varying them randomly would give many minima, the values of the coupling constants are fixed in such a way that they can give enough bias to lift the vacua degeneracy and to reproduce fσ in order O(1)."

    The gravitational-wave formulas used in the paper, Eq. (34) Ωh2|peak ≈ 1e−67 (f_σ^4/ϵ_b^2)(v/TeV)^4 and Eq. (35) f_peak ≈ 3×10^3 Hz (ϵ_b v/(f_σ TeV))^{1/2}, depend on the bias only through ϵ_b and f_σ. The text states that coupling constants are deliberately fixed 'to give enough bias,' so ϵ_b is an adjustable input rather than a value computed from the A4 potential or from V_loop (Eq. 32). No evaluation of V_loop at the two Z2-related vacua is shown, and no mapping from fitted couplings to the ΔV and f_σ entries of Table II is exhibited. Each spectrum in Fig. 3 is therefore a scan over the chosen bias, and the abstract's claim that 'the spectrum predicted by the model could be detected' reduces, by construction, to having picked ϵ_b so that f_peak and Ω fall in the sensitivity band.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section V, first paragraph; Section IV.B after Eq. (32)]
    "In both models, the parameters A and B are considered to be in the ratio 5 : 1 to obtain the correct mixing pattern. ... From the neutrino mass matrix MN, one can see that the corrected vev contribution ϵn1 and ϵn are the source that splits the degenerate vacua. This value is fixed using neutrino oscillation data."

    The neutrino-sector 'predictions' are obtained by imposing A:B = 5:1 to reproduce the NuFIT mixing pattern, and the corrected vevs ϵn and ϵn1 that control the loop bias are 'fixed using neutrino oscillation data.' The same fitted quantities are then inserted into MN(ϕ2, χ) in Eq. (32) to generate the vacuum splitting and hence the GW bias. Thus the model's agreement with oscillation data is a parameter fit rather than an independent derivation, and the GW bias inherits parameters tuned to observed neutrino oscillations. This is secondary to the bias-tuning circularity, but it shows that the claimed neutrino-mass input to the GW calculation is itself a fitted input.

full rationale

The paper does not rest on a load-bearing self-citation chain: references [23], [25], [29], and [30] supply the toy-model bias formalism and flavon-potential technology, but none of these is by the present authors, and no uniqueness theorem is imported to force the A4 construction. However, the central detection claim is partially circular for an independent reason. The final gravitational-wave peak frequency and amplitude (Eqs. (34)-(35)) are controlled entirely by ϵ_b and f_σ, and Section V.A states that coupling constants are 'fixed' precisely 'to give enough bias to lift the vacua degeneracy.' The paper never evaluates V_loop(ϕ2, χ) of Eq. (32) at the two vacua, never lists the underlying parameter choices behind Table II, and gives no formula connecting the NuFIT-fitted values to ΔV. With ϵ_b effectively free, Eq. (35) can place f_peak anywhere; the rows of Table II are scanned inputs presented as computed model outputs. A second, milder fitted-input issue is that the neutrino oscillation 'predictions' follow from imposing A:B = 5:1 and fixing ϵn/ϵn1 to the observed mixing, after which the same ϵn/ϵn1 feed the loop bias. The neutrino fit uses genuinely external NuFIT data and the GW formulas [28] are external, so this is not a fully self-referential derivation; the circularity is partial and concentrated in the bias/detectability step, giving a score of 6 rather than higher.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 3 invented entities

The central claims rest on a large set of hand-chosen scalar couplings, fitted neutrino parameters, and cosmological assumptions from the domain wall literature. The most honest reading is that the paper contributes a model instance inside an existing framework, with the GW signature strongly shaped by parameters fixed after the neutrino fit.

free parameters (5)
  • Scalar potential couplings f1, f2, f3, g1...g4, k1, k2, mu_phi1^2, mu_phi2^2 = not stated
    Chosen by hand with mu^2<0 and positive quartics to trigger spontaneous A4 breaking (Section III); exact values behind the plots are not given.
  • Flavon mixing couplings epsilon_1..epsilon_9 and chi-sector couplings r1, mu_chi = not stated
    Assumed small to preserve residual symmetries and to give the wanted bias (Eq. (19), Section III.A).
  • Neutrino Yukawa combinations a, b, c, A, B, and scale parameters = A:B = 5:1; other values not stated
    Scanned to match NuFIT-6.0 oscillation data (Section V).
  • Vev correction parameters epsilon_n, epsilon_n1, epsilon_l, epsilon_l* = small, not stated numerically
    "This value is fixed using neutrino oscillation data" (Section IV.B); they control the loop bias.
  • Flavon vev scale v = 10^4 TeV
    Assumed for the GW spectrum; the abstract and Section V.A state detectability for v = 10^4 TeV.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math A4 group theory and the Altarelli-Feruglio basis multiplication rules (Appendix A)
    Used to construct invariants and mass matrices; standard group theory.
  • standard math Type-I seesaw formula m_nu = M_D M_R^{-1} M_D^T
    Used in Section IV to obtain light neutrino masses; standard model-building assumption.
  • domain assumption Domain wall network is in the scaling regime with average curvature radius R ~ H^{-1} ~ t and radiation domination before and after the phase transition
    Entered in Section II in Eqs. (5)-(7) and used for the GW spectrum.
  • domain assumption The one-loop Majorana contribution V_loop in Eq. (32) dominates the bias; Dirac mass terms and other radiative corrections are negligible
    Load-bearing for the GW calculation; asserted in Section IV.B without a computed bound on neglected terms.
  • ad hoc to paper Flavon mixing terms are small enough to preserve the leading-order vev alignment and residual Z3 and Z2 symmetries
    Assumed in Section III.A to justify treating epsilons as perturbations; not derived.
  • ad hoc to paper The coupling constants of the full potential are fixed so that the bias has the size needed for early wall annihilation and f_sigma O(1)
    Section V.A: "the values of the coupling constants are fixed in such a way that they can give enough bias"; this is tuning, not a prediction.
invented entities (3)
  • Auxiliary Z4 symmetry
    purpose: Restricts the Yukawa and scalar couplings in the A4 model
    Postulated to control the operator content; no external evidence or falsifiable handle beyond the model's predictions.
  • Flavon singlet chi
    purpose: Generates the (1,1,1) contribution to Dirac and Majorana masses and participates in the mixing potential
    New scalar field with no mass prediction or collider signature given; viability rests on the model's neutrino and GW fits.
  • Corrected flavon vevs (epsilon_n, epsilon_n1, epsilon_l, epsilon_l*)
    purpose: Produce the deviation from TBM mixing and the loop-induced bias
    The shifts are treated as small parameters fixed by oscillation data; no independent prediction.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Neutrino Mass and its Impact on Gravitational Waves from Domain Wall Collision." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CR4S7WIH

@misc{pith2026260808084,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Neutrino Mass and its Impact on Gravitational Waves from Domain Wall Collision},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CR4S7WIH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.08084}
}
abstract

The $A_{4} \times Z_{4}$ symmetry models are constructed to study neutrino masses and mixings, as well as the gravitational-wave spectrum from domain-wall annihilation. The first neutrino mass model is constructed with the flavon's vacuum expectation value and alignment obtained from the self-interacting potential terms, while the second model uses a new vacuum expectation value arising from a potential containing both self-interaction and mixed terms. The resulting neutrino mixing patterns for both models are in good agreement with current neutrino oscillation data with different mixing values. Further, the flavon mixing terms lift the vacua degeneracy that often shows in the spontaneous symmetry breaking of the discrete symmetry. These mixing terms and the modified neutrino mass matrix of the second model are considered to produce the necessary bias for analysing the gravitational waves spectrum. The spectrum predicted by the model could be detected by current and near-future experiments when the flavons have the vacuum expectation value of $10^4$ TeV.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.08084 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Plots for the neutrino oscillations parameters for model with no correction to vevs. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Plots for the neutrino oscillations parameters for model with vevs correction. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: (a). Gravitational Waves Spectrum for the calculated [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Eguchi et al

    K. Eguchi et al. First results from KamLAND: Evidence for reactor anti-neutrino disappear- ance.Phys. Rev. Lett., 90:021802, 2003. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.90.021802

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.90.021802 2003

  2. [2]

    Q. R. Ahmad et al. Direct evidence for neutrino flavor transformation from neutral current interactions in the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory.Phys. Rev. Lett., 89:011301, 2002. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.89.011301

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.89.011301 2002

  3. [3]

    The gravitational spectrum is plotted by assuming Ωh2 ∝f 3 forf < fpeak and Ωh2 ∝f −1 forf > fpeak motivated by [28]

    Here, the vevs of the flavons are found to be aroundϕ 2 ≈ −2×104,ϕ 1 ≈ −1.5×104, and χ≈1.4×10 4. The gravitational spectrum is plotted by assuming Ωh2 ∝f 3 forf < fpeak and Ωh2 ∝f −1 forf > fpeak motivated by [28]. Fig.3(a) shows the plots for the wave spectrum with different calculatedf σ. All the values off σ are on the order ofO(1) or lower to have a r...

    work page

  4. [4]

    Fukuda et al

    Y. Fukuda et al. Evidence for oscillation of atmospheric neutrinos.Phys. Rev. Lett., 81: 1562–1567, 1998. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.81.1562

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.81.1562 1998

  5. [5]

    Abe et al

    Y. Abe et al. Indication of Reactor ¯νe Disappearance in the Double Chooz Experiment.Phys. Rev. Lett., 108:131801, 2012. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.131801

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.108.131801 2012

  6. [6]

    Com- ment on Phys

    Thierry Lasserre, Guillaume Mention, Michel Cribier, Antoine Collin, Vincent Durand, Vin- cent Fischer, Jonathan Gaffiot, David Lhuillier, Alain Letourneau, and Matthieu Vivier. Com- ment on Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 191802 (2012): ’Observation of Reactor Electron Antineutrino Disappearance in the RENO Experiment’. 5 2012

    work page 2012

  7. [7]

    Observation of electron-antineutrino disappearance at Daya Bay.AIP Conf

    Jiajie Ling. Observation of electron-antineutrino disappearance at Daya Bay.AIP Conf. Proc., 1560(1):206–210, 2013. doi: 10.1063/1.4826754

    work page doi:10.1063/1.4826754 2013

  8. [8]

    McDonald

    Arthur B. McDonald. Nobel Lecture: The Sudbury Neutrino Observatory: Observa- tion of flavor change for solar neutrinos.Rev. Mod. Phys., 88(3):030502, 2016. doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.88.030502

    doi:10.1103/revmodphys.88.030502 2016

Show all 41 references
  1. [9]

    Recent Progress in Flavor Model Building

    Wolfgang Altmannshofer and Admir Greljo. Recent Progress in Flavor Model Building. 12

  2. [10]

    Revisiting a novel A4 scenario for optimizing neutrino masses with AI-Based algorithm.Phys

    Muhammad Waheed Aslam, Abrar Ahmad Zafar, Muhammad Naeem Aslam, Arifa Mirza, Salman Saleem, and Abdelhalim Hasnaoui. Revisiting a novel A4 scenario for optimizing neutrino masses with AI-Based algorithm.Phys. Lett. B, 874:140247, 2026. doi: 10.1016/j. physletb.2026.140247

    2026

  3. [11]

    King and Christoph Luhn

    Stephen F. King and Christoph Luhn. Neutrino Mass and Mixing with Discrete Symmetry. Rept. Prog. Phys., 76:056201, 2013. doi: 10.1088/0034-4885/76/5/056201

    2013 doi

  4. [12]

    A. E. C´ arcamo Hern´ andez and Ivo de Medeiros Varzielas. An A5 inverse seesaw model with 20 perturbed golden ratio mixing.Nucl. Phys. B, 985:116031, 2022. doi: 10.1016/j.nuclphysb. 2022.116031

    2022

  5. [13]

    MinimalA 4 type-II seesaw realization of testable neutrino mass sum rules.Phys

    Salvador Centelles Chuli´ a and Ranjeet Kumar. MinimalA 4 type-II seesaw realization of testable neutrino mass sum rules.Phys. Rev. D, 113(5):055023, 2026. doi: 10.1103/ndvc-1vpl

    2026 doi

  6. [14]

    Froggatt-Nielsen like mechanism in inverse seesaw using modular symmetry.J

    Gourab Pathak and Mrinal Kumar Das. Froggatt-Nielsen like mechanism in inverse seesaw using modular symmetry.J. Subatomic Part. Cosmol., 6:100432, 2026. doi: 10.1016/j.jspc. 2026.100432

    2026

  7. [15]

    Bikash Thapa, Sunita Barman, Sompriti Bora, and N. K. Francis. A minimal inverse see- saw model with s4 flavour symmetry.Journal of High Energy Physics, 2023(11), November

    2023

  8. [16]

    Two A5 modular symmetries for Golden Ratio 2 mixing.Nucl

    Ivo de Medeiros Varzielas and Jo˜ ao Louren¸ co. Two A5 modular symmetries for Golden Ratio 2 mixing.Nucl. Phys. B, 984:115974, 2022. doi: 10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2022.115974

    2022

  9. [17]

    Modular S4 invariant left-right symmetric linear seesaw neutrino models.Phys

    Raktima Kalita and Mahadev Patgiri. Modular S4 invariant left-right symmetric linear seesaw neutrino models.Phys. Dark Univ., 52:102330, 2026. doi: 10.1016/j.dark.2026.102330

    2026

  10. [18]

    Quark and lepton model with flavor specific dark matter and muong−2 in modularA 4 and hiddenU(1) symmetries.Phys

    Takaaki Nomura and Hiroshi Okada. Quark and lepton model with flavor specific dark matter and muong−2 in modularA 4 and hiddenU(1) symmetries.Phys. Dark Univ., 49:101986,

  11. [19]

    King, Rishav Roshan, Xin Wang, Graham White, and Masahito Yamazaki

    Yann Gouttenoire, Stephen F. King, Rishav Roshan, Xin Wang, Graham White, and Masahito Yamazaki. Cosmological consequences of domain walls biased by quantum gravity.Physical Review D, 112(7), October 2025. ISSN 2470-0029. doi: 10.1103/7zmx-v16z. URLhttp: //dx.doi.org/10.1103/7zmx-v16z

    2025 doi

  12. [20]

    King, George K

    Stephen F. King, George K. Leontaris, and Ye-Ling Zhou. Flipped su(5): unification, proton decay, fermion masses and gravitational waves.Journal of High Energy Physics, 2024(3), March 2024. ISSN 1029-8479. doi: 10.1007/jhep03(2024)006. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10. 1007/JHEP03(2024)006

    2024 doi

  13. [21]

    Cosmological domain walls from the breaking ofS 4 flavor symmetry, 2023

    Adil Jueid, Mohamed Amin Loualidi, Salah Nasri, and Mohamed Amine Ouahid. Cosmological domain walls from the breaking ofS 4 flavor symmetry, 2023. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/ 2312.04388. 21

    2023 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Constraining a4 leptonic flavour model parameters at colliders and beyond.Journal of High Energy Physics, 2019(4), April 2019

    Lukas Heinrich, Holger Schulz, Jessica Turner, and Ye-Ling Zhou. Constraining a4 leptonic flavour model parameters at colliders and beyond.Journal of High Energy Physics, 2019(4), April 2019. ISSN 1029-8479. doi: 10.1007/jhep04(2019)144. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10. 1007/JHEP04(2019)144

    2019 doi

  15. [23]

    Gelmini, Silvia Pascoli, Edoardo Vitagliano, and Ye-Ling Zhou

    Graciela B. Gelmini, Silvia Pascoli, Edoardo Vitagliano, and Ye-Ling Zhou. Gravitational wave signatures from discrete flavor symmetries.JCAP, 02:032, 2021. doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/ 2021/02/032

    2021 doi

  16. [24]

    Anomalous discrete flavor symmetry and domain wall problem.Physics Letters B, 788:249–255, 2019

    So Chigusa and Kazunori Nakayama. Anomalous discrete flavor symmetry and domain wall problem.Physics Letters B, 788:249–255, 2019. ISSN 0370-2693. doi: https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.physletb.2018.11.027. URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/ pii/S0370269318308670

    2019 doi

  17. [25]

    Matias, and Cameron Moffett-Smith

    Mu-Chun Chen, Harold J. Matias, and Cameron Moffett-Smith. Gravitational waves in an a4 neutrino mass model, 2026. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2601.14394

    2026

  18. [26]

    Ya. B. Zeldovich, I. Yu. Kobzarev, and L. B. Okun. Cosmological Consequences of the Spon- taneous Breakdown of Discrete Symmetry.Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz., 67:3–11, 1974

    1974

  19. [27]

    Gelmini, Marcelo Gleiser, and Edward W

    Graciela B. Gelmini, Marcelo Gleiser, and Edward W. Kolb. Cosmology of biased discrete symmetry breaking.Phys. Rev. D, 39:1558–1566, Mar 1989. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.39.1558. URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.39.1558

    1989 doi

  20. [28]

    On the estimation of gravi- tational wave spectrum from cosmic domain walls.Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2014(02):031–031, February 2014

    Takashi Hiramatsu, Masahiro Kawasaki, and Ken’ichi Saikawa. On the estimation of gravi- tational wave spectrum from cosmic domain walls.Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2014(02):031–031, February 2014. ISSN 1475-7516. doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2014/ 02/031. URLhttp...

    2014 doi

  21. [29]

    The role of flavon cross couplings in leptonic flavour mixing

    Silvia Pascoli and Ye-Ling Zhou. The role of flavon cross couplings in leptonic flavour mixing. Journal of High Energy Physics, 2016(6), 2016. ISSN 1029-8479. doi: 10.1007/jhep06(2016)

    2016 doi

  22. [30]

    Trivedi, Frank Wilczek, and Mark B

    John Preskill, Sandip P. Trivedi, Frank Wilczek, and Mark B. Wise. Cosmology and broken discrete symmetry.Nuclear Physics B, 363(1):207–220, 1991. ISSN 0550-3213. doi: https:// doi.org/10.1016/0550-3213(91)90241-O. URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/055032139190241O

    1991

  23. [31]

    Ivan Esteban, M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, Michele Maltoni, Ivan Martinez-Soler, Jo˜ ao Paulo Pin- heiro, and Thomas Schwetz. Nufit-6.0: updated global analysis of three-flavor neutrino os- 22 cillations.Journal of High Energy Physics, 2024(12), December 2024. ISSN 1029-8479. doi: 1...

    2024 doi

  24. [32]

    Laser interferometer space antenna, 2017

    Pau Amaro-Seoane et al. Laser interferometer space antenna, 2017. URLhttps://arxiv. org/abs/1702.00786

    2017 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Abbott et al

    B. Abbott et al. Search for the isotropic stochastic background using data from advanced ligo’s second observing run.Physical Review D, 100(6), 2019. ISSN 2470-0029. doi: 10.1103/ physrevd.100.061101. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.100.061101

    2019 doi

  26. [34]

    Lentati et al

    L. Lentati et al. European pulsar timing array limits on an isotropic stochastic gravitational- wave background.Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 453(3):2577–2599, August 2015. ISSN 1365-2966. doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1538. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10. 1093/mnras/stv1538

    2015 doi

  27. [35]

    Flavon-induced connections between lepton flavour mixing and charged lepton flavour violation processes.Journal of High Energy Physics, 2016(10), October 2016

    Silvia Pascoli and Ye-Ling Zhou. Flavon-induced connections between lepton flavour mixing and charged lepton flavour violation processes.Journal of High Energy Physics, 2016(10), October 2016. ISSN 1029-8479. doi: 10.1007/jhep10(2016)145. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/ 10.1007/JHEP10(2016)145

    2016 doi

  28. [36]

    Detecting the cosmic gravitational wave background with the big bang observer.Classical and Quantum Gravity, 23(7):2435–2446, March 2006

    Vincent Corbin and Neil J Cornish. Detecting the cosmic gravitational wave background with the big bang observer.Classical and Quantum Gravity, 23(7):2435–2446, March 2006. ISSN 1361-6382. doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/23/7/014. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1088/ 0264-9381/23/7/014. 23

    2006 doi

  29. [40]

    Naoki Seto, Seiji Kawamura, and Takashi Nakamura. Possibility of direct measurement of the acceleration of the universe using 0.1 hz band laser interferometer gravitational wave antenna in space.Physical Review Letters, 87(22), November 2001. ISSN 1079-7114. doi: 10.1103/ phys...

    2001 doi

  30. [73]

    URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1007/JHEP06(2016)073

    2016 doi

  31. [2023]

    doi: 10.1007/jhep11(2023)154

    ISSN 1029-8479. doi: 10.1007/jhep11(2023)154. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1007/ JHEP11(2023)154

    2023 doi

  32. [2024]

    doi: 10.1146/annurev-nucl-121423-100950

    doi

  33. [2025]

    doi: 10.1016/j.dark.2025.101986

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.