Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 27 references

The $\pi/12$ model: trimaximal first-column lepton mixing with charged-lepton $\mu$--$\tau$ breaking

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that the first column of the lepton mixing matrix separates into a trimaximal electron-row norm that holds and a mu–tau balance that fails, and that a single charged-lepton rotation explains the failure while fixing the…

desk verdict A neat single-parameter flavor model whose sharpest predictions are conditional on an alignment proof the paper leaves unfinished; worth refereeing, but not at face value. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.08394 v1 pith:MJ4NQQWO submitted 2026-08-09 hep-ph

Vernon Barger This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph
keywords leptonmixingtrimaximalmu-taureflectionsymmetryDiracCPphasecharged-leptonrotationflavorneutrinomasssumreactor
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

Two independent magnitude conditions live in the first column of the lepton mixing matrix: the electron-row norm $|U_{e1}|^2=2/3$ and the $\mu$--$\tau$ balance $|U_{\mu1}|=|U_{\tau1}|$. The first reactor measurement of the solar angle leaves the norm condition intact, $\varepsilon_1=+0.014\pm0.010$, while the balance condition shows a large central offset, $\varepsilon_2=+0.29$, though with weak significance because the CP phase $\delta$ is still poorly measured. The paper argues that this separation is the fingerprint of a charged-lepton 2--3 rotation acting on a trimaximal (TM$_1$) neutrino sector: the rotation leaves every electron-row prediction exactly unchanged and generates exactly the imbalance, $\varepsilon_2=\sin 2\theta_e\cos\alpha$. In a concrete discrete-symmetry realization the rotation phase is forced to zero, so a natural angle $\theta_e\simeq-1.9^\circ$ fits the atmospheric angle and fixes $\delta=272^\circ\pm2^\circ$, with neutrino masses $\Sigma m_\nu=65.6$ meV and $m_{\beta\beta}=5.4$ meV. If the construction is right, upcoming phase and mass measurements can confirm or refute it within a decade.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing identity is the electron-row bilinear $Q=4|U_{e2}||U_{e3}|+|U_{e1}|^2$; the condition $Q=1$ is equivalent to the dimensionless ratio $|U_{e2}|/|U_{e3}|=2+\sqrt3=\cot(\pi/12)$, which together with TM$_1$ fixes the reactor and solar angles in radicals. The mechanism that generates the $\mu$--$\tau$ imbalance is the charged-lepton 2--3 rotation $R_{23}(\theta_e,\alpha)$, which acts trivially on the first row and therefore preserves every electron-row prediction for all $(\theta_e,\alpha)$ while producing $\varepsilon_2=\sin2\theta_e\cos\alpha$. The phase $\alpha$ is not free: a flavon with the conjugate-trimaximal alignment $(1,\bar\omega,\omega)$ (with $\omega=e^{2\pi i/3}$) is the unique candidate direction giving a real rotation, so $\alpha=0$ at the minimum. Finally, the reason $\delta$ stays near $270^\circ$ while $\theta_{23}$ moves freely is the asymmetric response: $\sin^2\theta_{23}$ shifts linearly in $\theta_e$, whereas the Jarlskog invariant $J=-\cos2\theta_e/(12\sqrt6)$ is protected quadratically.

What would settle it

Measure the CP phase $\delta$ at about $20^\circ$ precision: if its central value lands more than about $40^\circ$ from the predicted $272^\circ$, the real-rotation limit is excluded. A cosmological limit on the neutrino mass sum below about $60$ meV in $\Lambda$CDM, or a confirmed second-octant atmospheric angle with $\delta$ near $180^\circ$, would also refute the construction.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the first-column trimaximal condition $|U_{e1}|^2=2/3$ and the $\mu$--$\tau$ balance $|U_{\mu1}|=|U_{\tau1}|$ are two independent observables that current data separate, and that the minimal structure producing that separation is a charged-lepton 2--3 rotation on a TM$_1$ neutrino sector. Quantitatively, $\varepsilon_1=(3/2)|U_{e1}|^2-1$ is $+0.014\pm0.010$, within $1.4\sigma$ of zero, while $\varepsilon_2=3(|U_{\tau1}|^2-|U_{\mu1}|^2)$ is $+0.29^{+0.07}_{-0.13}$; the balance condition is disfavored at only $1.5\sigma$ because the $\delta$ profile is shallow between the best fit and $270^\circ$. Because the rotation acts trivially on the first row, all four electron-row predictions are preserved exactly -- $\sin^2\theta_{12}=0.31811$, $\sin^2\theta_{13}=(2-\sqrt3)/12=0.02233$, $|U_{e2}|/|U_{e3}|=2+\sqrt3$, and $m_{\beta\beta}$ -- while $\varepsilon_2=\sin2\theta_e\cos\alpha$. With the flavon alignment forcing $\alpha=0$, $\theta_e\simeq-1.9^\circ$ reproduces the measured $\theta_{23}$ and pins $\delta=272^\circ\pm2^\circ$, near-maximal CP violation with $\varepsilon_2=-0.066$. The mass spectrum is inherited unchanged, $\Sigma m_\nu=65.6$ meV and $m_{\beta\beta}=5.4$ meV, at the current cosmological bound.

Load-bearing premise

Everything sharp hinges on the new symmetry-breaking field $\xi$ settling into the specific vacuum direction $(1,\bar\omega,\omega)$, which is the unique choice that makes the rotation phase $\alpha$ exactly zero; the paper demonstrates this by minimizing $\xi$ alone and at the operator level, but the full multi-flavon potential is not jointly minimized across sectors.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The Dirac phase is predicted at $\delta=272^\circ\pm2^\circ$; with the projected $20^\circ$ precision of a ten-year long-baseline program, the prediction separates from the present central value at $3\sigma$, so the phase question is settled within a decade.
  • The first-column imbalance is predicted to be $\varepsilon_2=-0.066$, the opposite sign of the current central value $+0.29$; the present $1.5\sigma$ tension is driven by the shallow phase likelihood, not by a precise measurement.
  • The electron-row sector is parameter-free: $\sin^2\theta_{12}=0.31811$, $\sin^2\theta_{13}=(2-\sqrt3)/12$, and $|U_{e2}|/|U_{e3}|=2+\sqrt3$ all sit within about $1.5\sigma$ of current data, and the final reactor precision on $\sin^2\theta_{12}$ tests the first condition at $3\sigma$.
  • The neutrino mass sum $\Sigma m_\nu=65.6$ meV is rigid and sits at the current cosmological bound; a $\Lambda$CDM bound securely below $60$ meV excludes the neutrino sector outright.
  • The octant and the phase are correlated: the first octant requires $\delta$ slightly above $270^\circ$ and the second octant slightly below, so a resolved atmospheric octant tests the construction before a precise phase measurement.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The $(\varepsilon_1,\varepsilon_2)$ plane is a natural diagnostic for any future lepton-mixing model: plotting any scheme on it immediately shows whether it preserves the electron row and which sign of $\mu$--$\tau$ imbalance it predicts, independent of parameterization.
  • If near-maximal CP is confirmed in both the lepton and quark sectors, that would strengthen the case for discrete-symmetry or residual-CP origins over random phases, a unification the paper raises but leaves to future work.
  • The Majorana sign pattern $(+,+,-)$ produces $m_{\beta\beta}=5.4$ meV, whereas trivial Majorana phases with the same spectrum would give about $7.7$ meV; a future neutrinoless double-beta measurement could distinguish these two symmetry routes even before the Dirac phase is pinned down.
  • A correlated trend test is available now: if the model is right, future data should move $\varepsilon_2$ from about $+0.29$ toward $-0.07$ as $\delta$ moves from about $212^\circ$ toward $272^\circ$, a shift visible before either observable alone reaches high significance.
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

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper introduces two parameters, ε1 and ε2, that quantify deviations of the first column of the PMNS matrix from the TM1 conditions, and shows using NuFIT 6.1 that ε1 is consistent with zero while ε2 has a large positive central value (+0.29) that is nevertheless only 1.5σ from zero because the phase δ is poorly constrained. The paper then proposes the "π/12 model": a TM1 neutrino sector at the Krishnan point, dressed by a charged-lepton 2–3 rotation R23(θe, α). Because the rotation acts trivially on the electron row, all electron-row predictions are exactly invariant; the first-column balance becomes ε2 = sin 2θe cos α. In an S4×C4×C3×C2 realization, a new flavon ξ with conjugate-trimaximal alignment is claimed to force α = 0, leaving one free parameter θe. Fitting θe to the measured sin²θ23 gives δ ≈ 272° and ε2 ≈ −0.066, with a mass sum Σmν = 65.6 meV inherited from the neutrino sector. The paper is explicit about the resulting tensions: δ is 1.7σ from the current central value, ε2 has the opposite sign to the measured central value, and the mass sum sits at the DESI bound.

Significance. If the construction holds, the paper's main value is conceptual and phenomenological: it separates the norm and balance conditions of the first column, shows that current data treat them differently in central value, and identifies a minimal charged-lepton rotation as the structure that breaks exactly one of them. The electron-row predictions are parameter-free and currently satisfied within 1.5σ, and the framework is genuinely falsifiable by the coming phase measurements, JUNO's endgame precision, and cosmological mass-sum bounds. The paper also has concrete strengths: closed-form derivations of ε2 and of the quadratic protection of the Jarlskog invariant, numerical verification of the electron-row invariance to machine precision, and a transparent statement of the model's tensions. The main risk is that the sharpest predictions depend on the α = 0 alignment, whose stabilization is not demonstrated by a full coupled minimization.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. V and Appendix B; Eqs. (15)–(18)] The headline predictions δ ≈ 272° and ε2 = −0.066 are obtained in the real-rotation limit α = 0, and the proof that α = 0 is exact is the least secure load-bearing step. Appendix B establishes this by an operator-level Lagrange-identity argument and by numerical minimization over ξ ∈ C³ with ⟨χ⟩ held at its own alignment, but it explicitly states that the joint minimization of the full multi-flavon potential across sectors is beyond scope. The potential includes cross-couplings (ξ†ξ)_r(φ†φ)_r, a cubic ρ(ξ†χ)_1, and a U(1)_ξ-breaking invariant [(ξξ)_r(χ†χ†)_r]; a coupled minimum could shift ⟨ξ⟩ away from (1, ω̄, ω) or admix a phase into [Uω⟨ξ⟩]₂, changing ε2 = sin 2θe cos α and hence δ. The argument that the deformation is inert because [Uω(1,1,1)]₂ = 0 covers only one particular admixture direction, and no coupled minimization or stability analysis is presented. Since Eqs. (16)–(18) are the paper's central quantitative claims, the α = 0 proof needs to be completed, or the predictions must be presented as conditional on an alignment assumption that is not fully verified.
  2. [Sec. VI and Appendix B] The mass spectrum and the Majorana sign pattern η = (+,+,−) that determine Σmν = 65.6 meV and mββ = 5.4 meV are inherited from the unpublished model of Ref. [10]. The paper states that it verified the construction independently from the Lagrangian, but the verification is not shown in enough detail for a reader to reproduce it; the two claimed corrections (the value of m2 and the sign of the smallest eigenvalue) are asserted rather than derived. For a standalone journal submission, the relevant part of the base model's Lagrangian, vacuum alignments, and mass diagonalization should be included, or the mass predictions should be explicitly marked as contingent on an unpublished companion analysis.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Table I and Sec. IVB] Table I quotes θe = −2.23° with θ23 = 42.97°, while Sec. IVB quotes θe = −1.89° when matching the measured sin²θ23 = 0.470; these correspond to different fit procedures (global joint fit versus θ23-only match). Please state this distinction explicitly to avoid an apparent inconsistency.
  2. [Sec. IVC] The numerological identification sin θe = −|V_us|^(9/4) = (14/75)² is presented and then dismissed as carrying no significance; it adds little to the paper and should be removed or moved to a footnote.
  3. [Appendix B] The statement that the conjugate-trimaximal vacuum is found in "roughly three quarters of randomly sampled symmetry-breaking points" lacks detail; please specify the scan ranges, the parameter distributions, and the criteria used to identify symmetry-breaking minima so that the numerical claim is reproducible.
  4. [Sec. VIII] The quark-sector discussion is explicitly a parallel rather than a derivation; it should be clearly labeled as speculative in the introduction and conclusion so that readers do not mistake it for part of the model's predictions.
  5. [Fig. 1] Figure 1 displays only one of the four NuFIT solutions, but the caption discusses the second-octant and IO solutions that are used in the text; adding the second-octant point and the IO points to the figure would make the robustness discussion easier to follow.
  6. [Eq. (A4)] The argument matrix in Eq. (A4) is given in degrees; please state this convention explicitly in the text or caption to avoid confusion.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: θ23 fit determines δ and ε2 as model outputs; α=0 is derived, not imposed.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. The electron-row relations (Eqs. (10)-(12)) are algebraic identities implied by the assumed θ=-π/12 alignment and are tested against data, not fitted. The charged-lepton sector introduces one free parameter θe; fitting it to sin²θ23 and computing δ and ε2 from Eqs. (16)-(17) is a legitimate one-parameter constrained-model test. The measured ε2 used for the 'opposite sign' claim depends on δ as well as θ23 and was not used in the fit, so the comparison is a real cross-check rather than a renamed input. The α=0 limit is likewise derived in Appendix B from a Lagrange identity and numerical minimization over ξ∈C³, with the paper explicitly flagging the residual gap: 'Only the joint minimization of the full multi-flavon potential across sectors lies beyond our scope.' That is an acknowledged completeness limitation, not a circular step, since the derivation does not presuppose δ≈272° or ε2≈-0.066. Mass predictions are re-derived from the Lagrangian and corrected rather than merely cited from Ref. [10]. No equation reduces to its own input by construction, and no self-citation chain carries the central claim.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim relies on the prior TM1/S4 construction and on the new flavon's alignment. The only parameter fitted to data is theta_e; the mass parameters are refitted to mass splittings. No invented particles beyond xi.

free parameters (2)
  • theta_e (charged-lepton 2-3 rotation angle) = -2.23 degrees (full fit, Eq. 19); -1.89 degrees (match to sin2 theta23, Eq. 18)
    The single free parameter of the dressed model; fitted to the observed sin2 theta23 and, in Eq. 19, to the full NuFIT data including delta. It sets the predictions for delta and epsilon2.
  • neutrino mass parameters (two parameters of the base model) = m1 = 5.2, m2 = 10.1, m3 = 50.4 meV
    Refitted to the measured solar and atmospheric mass-squared differences; not derived from symmetry in this paper (Sec. VI).
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The neutrino sector produces exact TM1 mixing at the Krishnan point theta = -pi/12, zeta = pi/2, from the S4 x C4 x C3 x C2 model of Ref. [10].
    This is the undressed base point of the model, taken from an unpublished preprint and verified numerically by the authors rather than proven in this paper (Sec. IV A, Sec. VI).
  • domain assumption Charged-lepton corrections are only a 2-3 rotation R23(theta_e, alpha); no 1-3 or 1-2 rotations enter.
    Eq. (15) defines the dressed matrix; the exact protection of the electron row relies on this restriction.
  • ad hoc to paper The new flavon xi acquires the conjugate-trimaximal vacuum alignment (1, omega_bar, omega), forcing alpha = 0.
    The alignment is supported by operator-level arguments and by minimization over xi alone; the joint multi-flavon minimization is left outside scope (Sec. V, Appendix B).
  • domain assumption The flavor group S4 x C4 x C3 x C2 and the auxiliary Y24 construction of Ref. [10] are valid realizations.
    The model is embedded in this group-theoretic framework; the geometry of the pi/12 angle depends on the alignment clock of Y24 (Sec. V).
invented entities (1)
  • Flavon xi
    purpose: Generates the small charged-lepton 2-3 rotation theta_e and, through its (1, omega_bar, omega) alignment, forces the rotation phase alpha = 0, yielding epsilon2 = sin 2 theta_e.
    No independent mass, coupling, or direct production handle is predicted; the observable consequences are the model's theta23-delta correlation and epsilon2, which are not separable from the model itself.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The $\pi/12$ model: trimaximal first-column lepton mixing with charged-lepton $\mu$--$\tau$ breaking." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MJ4NQQWO

@misc{pith2026260808394,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The $\pi/12$ model: trimaximal first-column lepton mixing with charged-lepton $\mu$--$\tau$ breaking},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MJ4NQQWO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.08394}
}
abstract

The first column of the lepton mixing matrix carries two independent magnitude conditions: the trimaximal norm $|U_{e1}|^2=2/3$ and the $\mu$--$\tau$ balance $|U_{\mu1}|=|U_{\tau1}|$. We parameterize their violation by $\varepsilon_1\equiv(3/2)|U_{e1}|^2-1$ and $\varepsilon_2\equiv3(|U_{\tau1}|^2-|U_{\mu1}|^2)$ and show that current data treat the two differently in central value: including the first JUNO measurement, $\varepsilon_1=+0.014\pm0.010$ is consistent with zero, while $\varepsilon_2=+0.29^{+0.07}_{-0.13}$ is large but disfavors zero at only $1.5\sigma$ on the global-fit profile likelihood, the driving phase being still poorly measured. This asymmetry selects the $\pi/12$ model. Its neutrino sector is TM$_1$ with the electron-row condition $|U_{e2}|/|U_{e3}|=2+\sqrt3$ that fixes $\sin^2\theta_{13}=(2-\sqrt3)/12=0.02233$ and $\sin^2\theta_{12}=0.31811$. A charged-lepton 2--3 rotation $R_{23}(\theta_e,\alpha)$ leaves the electron row exactly invariant and generates $\varepsilon_2=\sin2\theta_e\cos\alpha$. In an $S_4\times C_4\times C_3\times C_2$ realization, the rotation arises from a single additional flavon whose alignment forces $\alpha=0$; a natural angle $\theta_e\simeq2^\circ$ then reproduces the departure of $\theta_{23}$ from maximal while pinning the CP phase to $\delta=272^\circ\pm2^\circ$, near-maximal CP violation with $\varepsilon_2=-0.066$. The current $\theta_{23}$--$\delta$ measurements thereby become a sharp test: the predicted $\delta$ sits $1.7\sigma$ from the present central value on the same profile likelihood, the predicted $\varepsilon_2$ has the opposite sign to the measured one, and the Hyper-Kamiokande design precision of $20^\circ$ on $\delta$ resolves the question at $3\sigma$. The mass predictions are inherited unchanged, $\Sigma m_\nu=65.6$ meV and $m_{\beta\beta}=5.4$ meV, at the current DESI bound in $\Lambda$CDM.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.08394 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. The first-column deviation plane. The model of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Pulls of the four electron-row observables against [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. The (sin [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. The two right angles. Phases are drawn as vectors on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. One [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

27 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages

  1. [10]

    Comparing tri- maximal mixing and its variants with deviations from tri-bimaximal mixing,

    C. H. Albright and W. Rodejohann, “Comparing tri- maximal mixing and its variants with deviations from tri-bimaximal mixing,” Eur. Phys. J. C62, 599 (2009), arXiv:0812.0436

    arXiv 2009

  2. [1]

    First mea- surement of reactor neutrino oscillations at JUNO,

    A. Abuslemeet al.(JUNO Collaboration), “First mea- surement of reactor neutrino oscillations at JUNO,” arXiv:2511.14593 [hep-ex]

    arXiv

  3. [2]

    NuFit- 6.0: updated global analysis of three-flavor neutrino os- cillations,

    I. Esteban, M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, M. Maltoni, I. Martinez-Soler, J. P. Pinheiro and T. Schwetz, “NuFit- 6.0: updated global analysis of three-flavor neutrino os- cillations,” JHEP12, 216 (2024), arXiv:2410.05380 [hep- ph]; NuFIT 6.1 (2025),http://www.nu-fit.org

    arXiv 2024

  4. [3]

    sin 2θe, J=− cos 2θe 12 √ 6 . (17) The atmospheric angle responds linearly to the rotation while the Jarlskog invariant is protected quadratically, J=− 1 12 √ 6 (1−2θ 2 e +· · ·); this is the analytic content of the flat model curve in Fig. 3, and it is why the phase stays within about±11 ◦ of 270◦ over the entire displayed range whileθ 23 moves freely. M...

    work page

  5. [4]

    (17) follow directly, andθ e = 0 recoversJ=−1/(12 √

    sin 2θe, J= Im Uµ3U ∗ e3Ue2U ∗ µ2 =− pq 12 √ 6 =− cos 2θe 12 √ 6 .(A3) The linear response of sin 2 θ23 and the quadratic protec- tion ofJquoted in Eq. (17) follow directly, andθ e = 0 recoversJ=−1/(12 √

    work page

  6. [5]

    of Ref. [10]. The structure of these coefficients traces to the electron row: the Jarlskog invariant factorizes asJ= (|U e2||Ue3|)c 12c13 s23c23 sinδ, and with the exact product|U e2||Ue3|= 1/12 of Sec. III and|U e1|=c 12c13 = p 2/3 this becomes J= sin 2θ 23 sinδ/(12 √ 6); the electron row fixes the magnitude of leptonic CP violation, and only the fac- to...

    work page

  7. [6]

    The entire (θ 23, δ) sector becomes a function of (θ e, α) on top of the fixed base point

    one finds the exact relation ε2 = sin 2θe cosα.(16) 4 The single rotation therefore breaks the one condition the data reject and nothing else. The entire (θ 23, δ) sector becomes a function of (θ e, α) on top of the fixed base point. B. The real-rotation limit If the rotation is real,α= 0, one parameter remains and the model traces a curve in the (sin 2 θ...

    work page

  8. [7]

    Tri- bimaximal mixing and the neutrino oscillation data,

    P. F. Harrison, D. H. Perkins and W. G. Scott, “Tri- bimaximal mixing and the neutrino oscillation data,” Phys. Lett. B530, 167 (2002), arXiv:hep-ph/0202074

    arXiv 2002

Show all 27 references
  1. [8]

    Trimaximal mixing patterns meet the first JUNO result,

    D. Zhang, “Trimaximal mixing patterns meet the first JUNO result,” Phys. Rev. D113, 055035 (2026), arXiv:2511.15654 [hep-ph]

    2026

  2. [9]

    Tri-bimaximal neutrino mixing and flavor-dependent resonant leptogenesis,

    Z.-Z. Xing and S. Zhou, “Tri-bimaximal neutrino mixing and flavor-dependent resonant leptogenesis,” Phys. Lett. B653, 278 (2007), arXiv:hep-ph/0607302

    2007 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Littlest seesaw,

    S. F. King, “Littlest seesaw,” JHEP02, 085 (2016), arXiv:1512.07531

    2016 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Neutrino mixing:A 4 variations,

    E. Ma, “Neutrino mixing:A 4 variations,” Phys. Lett. B 752, 198 (2016), arXiv:1510.02501 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Cobimaximal neutrino mix- ing fromA 4 and its possible deviation,

    E. Ma and G. Rajasekaran, “Cobimaximal neutrino mix- ing fromA 4 and its possible deviation,” EPL119, 31001 (2017), arXiv:1708.02208 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  6. [14]

    TM 1 neutrino mixing with sinθ 13 = 1√ 3 sin π 12 ,

    R. Krishnan, “TM 1 neutrino mixing with sinθ 13 = 1√ 3 sin π 12 ,” arXiv:1912.02451 [hep-ph]

    1912 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Lepton flavor mixing pattern and neu- trino mass matrix after the Daya Bay experiment,

    S. Zhou, “Lepton flavor mixing pattern and neu- trino mass matrix after the Daya Bay experiment,” arXiv:1205.0761 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  8. [16]

    The Conformal Origin of the Lepton Flavor Mixing Matrix,

    C. Aigle and A. Jourjine, “The Conformal Origin of the Lepton Flavor Mixing Matrix,” arXiv:2607.19454 [hep- ph]

    arXiv

  9. [17]

    The symmetry approach to quark and lepton masses and mixing,

    G.-J. Ding and J. W. F. Valle, “The symmetry approach to quark and lepton masses and mixing,” Phys. Rept. 1109, 1 (2025), arXiv:2402.16963

    2025 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Probing unitarity violation of lepton flavor mixing matrix with reactor antineutrinos at JUNO and TAO,

    J. Huang and S. Zhou, “Probing unitarity violation of lepton flavor mixing matrix with reactor antineutrinos at JUNO and TAO,” Phys. Lett. B873, 140160 (2026), arXiv:2511.15525 [hep-ph]

    2026

  11. [19]

    µ-τreflection symmetry in lepton mixing and neutrino oscillations,

    P. F. Harrison and W. G. Scott, “µ-τreflection symmetry in lepton mixing and neutrino oscillations,” Phys. Lett. B547, 219 (2002), arXiv:hep-ph/0210197

    2002 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Hierarchy of quark masses, Cabibbo angles and CP violation,

    C. D. Froggatt and H. B. Nielsen, “Hierarchy of quark masses, Cabibbo angles and CP violation,” Nucl. Phys. B147, 277 (1979)

    1979

  13. [21]

    Generalised CP and trimaximal TM1 lepton mixing inS 4 family symmetry,

    C.-C. Li and G.-J. Ding, “Generalised CP and trimaximal TM1 lepton mixing inS 4 family symmetry,” Nucl. Phys. B881, 206 (2014), arXiv:1312.4401

    2014 arXiv

  14. [22]

    CP symmetry and lepton mixing from a scan of finite discrete groups,

    C.-Y. Yao and G.-J. Ding, “CP symmetry and lepton mixing from a scan of finite discrete groups,” Phys. Rev. D94, 073006 (2016), arXiv:1606.05610

    2016 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Constraints on neutrino physics from DESI DR2 BAO and DR1 full shape,

    W. Elberset al.(DESI Collaboration), “Constraints on neutrino physics from DESI DR2 BAO and DR1 full shape,” Phys. Rev. D112, 083513 (2025), arXiv:2503.14744 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Constraints on the sum of neutrino masses from ACT DR6 and DESI DR2 considering isocurvature initial conditions,

    H. Houet al., “Constraints on the sum of neutrino masses from ACT DR6 and DESI DR2 considering isocurvature initial conditions,” arXiv:2606.17994 [astro-ph.CO]. 12

    arXiv

  17. [25]

    Sen- sitivity of the Hyper-Kamiokande experiment to neutrino oscillation parameters using accelerator neutrinos,

    K. Abeet al.(Hyper-Kamiokande Collaboration), “Sen- sitivity of the Hyper-Kamiokande experiment to neutrino oscillation parameters using accelerator neutrinos,” Eur. Phys. J. C86, 170 (2026), arXiv:2505.15019 [hep-ex]

    2026 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Flavor symmetries and the description of flavor mixing,

    H. Fritzsch and Z.-Z. Xing, “Flavor symmetries and the description of flavor mixing,” Phys. Lett. B413, 396 (1997), arXiv:hep-ph/9707215

    1997 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Review of particle physics,

    S. Navaset al.(Particle Data Group), “Review of particle physics,” Phys. Rev. D110, 030001 (2024)

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.