Pith. sign in

REVIEW 6 minor 82 references

Quark and lepton masses

T0 review · 0 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The Standard Model encodes quark and lepton masses in fourteen free parameters, and no deeper principle has been found.

desk verdict A solid, current review chapter that offers no new results but earns its place as a reliable map of the fermion mass problem; judge it as a review, not a research paper. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.20755 v1 pith:7322UDZR submitted 2025-06-25 hep-ph hep-th

Ferruccio Feruglio , Saul Ramos-Sanchez This is my paper
classification hep-phhep-th
keywords fermionmassesmixinganglesStandardModelYukawasectorneutrinograndunifiedtheoriescompositefermionsflavorsymmetriesstringtheory
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

Quarks and leptons come in three generations that share all quantum numbers and differ only in mass, and this chapter reviews why that pattern is a problem. In the Standard Model each charged-fermion mass, mixing angle, and CP-violating phase is an independent input, so nothing in the theory predicts the observed hierarchies, and neutrino masses require leaving the Standard Model altogether. The authors walk through the main candidate explanations—grand unified theories, radiatively generated masses, composite fermions, family symmetries, and string compactifications—and find that, while each captures part of the picture, none has yet been established as the fundamental organizing principle. The chapter's conclusion is that the fermion mass problem remains open.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the flavor sector of the Standard Model: the complex $3\times 3$ Yukawa matrices $Y^u$, $Y^d$, $Y^e$ (and, for neutrinos, the Weinberg operator), which after field redefinitions reduce to nine fermion masses, three CKM angles, one CP phase, and the QCD $\theta$ angle. The review tracks each proposed mechanism through the specific structure it imposes on these matrices: a small expansion parameter such as the Cabibbo angle $\lambda\approx 0.22$ in abelian family-symmetry models, loop-suppression factors $1/(16\pi^2)$ in radiative schemes, overlap integrals of fermion profiles in warped extra dimensions, and modular forms of $\mathrm{SL}(2,\mathbb{Z})$ in modular and string constructions. These structures carry the argument, because the question 'why these masses?' is literally the question of what determines the entries of these matrices.

What would settle it

The review's conclusion would be overturned by a concrete derivation: a single model within one surveyed framework that predicts all fourteen parameters, or their neutrino-sector extensions, from fewer inputs and matches every measured value. A practical test with current experiments is the neutrino mass ordering and the leptonic CP phases, since frameworks such as SO(10) seesaw models and modular flavor symmetries make distinct predictions for these quantities, and a precise measurement that selects one class while excluding the others would move the question from open to decided.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is a status report: after five decades of model building, the observed fermion spectrum and mixings still have no accepted dynamical explanation. It establishes that the Standard Model's flavor sector is described by fourteen physical parameters derived from the Yukawa matrices, and that the data show a clear but unexplained structure—charged-fermion masses spanning over five orders of magnitude with a roughly geometric hierarchy, small quark mixing angles, large lepton mixing angles, and neutrino masses at least six orders of magnitude below the electron mass. The survey then argues that each major route to an organizing principle either fails to fit the full spectrum without extra free parameters (minimal GUTs), relies on new sectors whose own flavor structure is unexplained (radiative and composite models), or has not yet produced a unique, calculable prediction (flavor symmetries and string theory). The measured neutrino parameters and the absence of signals such as $\mu\to e\gamma$ make the open status concrete, rather than a matter of taste.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the measured masses and mixing angles quoted from the 2024 particle-data review and the global neutrino-oscillation fit are correct; if those data shifted substantially, the very patterns the chapter sets out to explain would have to be redefined.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the review's open-problem conclusion is right, experimental searches for charged-lepton flavor violation and rare kaon decays remain sharp discriminators, since every TeV-scale flavor framework must suppress these rates below current bounds.
  • Minimal grand unification predicts relations such as $m_\tau=m_b$ at the unification scale, so precise low-energy determinations of running masses constrain the Higgs sector and the scale at which unification holds.
  • Radiative and composite scenarios generically require new states near or above the TeV scale, meaning continued null results from colliders push the compositeness scale upward and narrow the viable parameter space.
  • Modular and string-derived flavor symmetries, if developed into complete models, would turn the open question into a testable one by predicting specific mixing angles and CP phases; the review leaves this as an unrealized possibility.
  • The persistence of fourteen unexplained parameters suggests that any future fundamental theory must simultaneously explain the three-generation replication, the charged-fermion hierarchy, and the stark difference between quark and lepton mixing.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the review, the chapter's solar-system analogy implies a serious alternative: fermion masses might be historical facts of our vacuum rather than outputs of a principle, and the observed pattern could be partly accidental rather than derivable.
  • A testable extension of the survey's logic is to treat the fourteen parameters statistically, comparing the measured point in parameter space with distributions predicted by anarchic, hierarchical, and modular models; the data are now precise enough for quantitative likelihood fits.
  • If future experiments determine the neutrino mass ordering and the Majorana phases, many surveyed models that currently fit the same data will be ruled out, effectively converting the review's open problem into a narrower shortlist.
  • The Koide example suggests that all proposed empirical mass relations should be tested with running masses at a common high scale before being interpreted as fundamental; the paper makes this point for one formula, and extending it to other relations is a natural next step.
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

0 major / 6 minor

Summary. This review chapter surveys the status of the fermion mass and mixing problem. It opens with the Standard Model parameter count (Section 2.1) and the neutrino sector via the Weinberg operator (Section 2.2), then presents the current PDG and global-fit data (Section 2.3). The bulk of the chapter is a structured overview of proposed organizing principles: grand unified theories and their mass relations (Section 4), radiative mass generation and infrared fixed points (Section 5), composite fermions and partial compositeness with the AdS/RS dual (Section 6), flavor symmetries including Froggatt-Nielsen and modular constructions (Section 7), and string-theoretic settings (Section 8). The conclusion (Section 9) is that no fundamental organizing principle has yet been established and that the SM parameter set remains the only quantitatively complete description.

Significance. The value of this manuscript lies in its breadth, balance, and careful hedging. The parameter counting in Sections 2.1-2.2 is correct, and the derivations I checked (the SU(5) mass relations, the infrared fixed-point discussion around Equations (37)-(38), the 't Hooft anomaly matching in Section 6.1, and the AdS/RS wavefunction overlap in Section 6.2) are consistent with standard literature. The chapter is honest about the limitations of every framework: minimal GUTs require additional parameters, radiative models introduce a new flavor puzzle, composite models face strong FCNC and compositeness-scale constraints, flavor-symmetry models suffer from vacuum-alignment problems, and string models lack a unique vacuum selection. The conclusion that the fermion mass problem remains open is supported by the surveyed material. This will be a useful reference for students and researchers, although it does not present new results or falsifiable predictions.

minor comments (6)
  1. [Introduction] The stated total of '22 variables' is inconsistent with the chapter's own counting: Section 2.1 gives 14 parameters for the charged-fermion sector including theta-bar, and Section 2.2 adds 9 physical quantities from the Weinberg operator, for a total of 23 in the Majorana case; the introduction should be updated to match.
  2. [Section 4.1, Eq. (20)] The down-type Yukawa term should involve the conjugate Higgs representation (bar 5_H) to be consistent with the subsequent discussion of two Higgs doublets and with the GUT mass relations; as written, the term is missing the bar.
  3. [Section 4.2 heading] The heading 'SU(10) GUTs' is a typo; the text consistently discusses SO(10) GUTs, and the heading should read 'SO(10) GUTs'.
  4. [Section 2.1, GIM paragraph] The phrase 'the amplitude is proportional to GF(GF M2)' appears garbled; it should likely be 'G_F M^2' or similar, and the sentence should be reworded for clarity.
  5. [Section 2.1, after Eq. (10)] The word 'enjo¿s' should be 'enjoys'.
  6. [Global] A summary table listing the broad model classes and their main drawbacks (number of parameters, FCNC status, vacuum alignment, calculability) would help readers compare the approaches; this is a suggestion rather than a defect.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the review's parameter counts, GUT mass relations, fixed-point calculations, compositeness arguments, and flavor-symmetry constructions are self-contained, and the authors' self-citations are descriptive rather than load-bearing.

full rationale

This is a review chapter, not a derivation of new predictions, and I found no step in which a claimed result reduces by construction to its inputs. The SM parameter counting in Section 2.1 is a standard exercise in reparameterization invariance: the 14 quoted parameters are obtained by removing U(3)^5 field-redefinition degrees of freedom from the Yukawa matrices, not by fitting a target result. The SU(5) mass relations in Section 4.1 are stated as group-theoretic consequences (e.g., m_e = m_d^T at the GUT scale) and are explicitly compared with data, with the discrepancy acknowledged; no fitted quantity is renamed as a prediction. The radiative-mass and infrared-fixed-point sections are honest negative or illustrative results: Section 5.2 shows the SM quasi-fixed point gives M_t ≈ 240 GeV, too large, and Section 5.1 admits that realistic radiative models require many parameters that 'must be carefully adjusted to reproduce the observed fermion masses and mixing angles.' The partial-compositeness and Froggatt-Nielsen parametrizations Y = X_D Y_D X_Q are structural analogies that the paper itself explicitly identifies (Eq. (67) is 'identical to the one in Eq. (52)'), so presenting them side-by-side is not circular. The string-theory sections cite the authors' own prior work (Refs. [49,55,59,63,64,75,82]), but these citations support descriptive statements about model constructions, such as the eclectic flavor group of a specific orbifold, and they are not invoked to forbid alternatives or to establish the central open-puzzle conclusion. The manuscript is even candid about missing support: Section 8.2 notes that coupling strengths 'are known only at the lowest orders.' The only internal inconsistency I noted, the Introduction's '22 variables' versus the later 14+9 parameter count, is a bookkeeping typo rather than a circularity. The chapter's conclusion that no organizing principle has yet been established is a hedged assessment of the surveyed literature, not a result derived from itself.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The review's central descriptive claim rests on the validity of the Standard Model framework and on the quoted experimental data. The paper introduces no new free parameters or entities; it reports the Standard Model's fourteen flavor parameters as empirical inputs and reviews proposals from the literature. Thus the ledger lists the background assumptions on which the survey depends.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The Standard Model with its gauge group, Higgs mechanism, and renormalizable Yukawa sector correctly describes low-energy fermion masses and mixings.
    Section 2.1 uses the SM Lagrangian, Eq. (5), and the fourteen-parameter counting as the baseline for all subsequent discussion.
  • domain assumption The experimental measurements reported in Tables 2 and 3 are accurate and representative.
    Section 2.3; the review's phenomenology, including the hierarchy statements and the Koide check, depends on these values from PDG 2024 and Ref. [10].
  • domain assumption Renormalization group evolution, Eq. (18), and the extrapolated masses in Table 4 from Ref. [11] are valid.
    Section 2.3 uses RG running to compare high-scale predictions, e.g., the Koide relation, with data.
  • standard math Standard mathematical tools: group theory, anomaly matching, modular forms, AdS/CFT duality, and string compactification consistency conditions.
    Used throughout Sections 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 to present the reviewed models; none are proved in the chapter.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quark and lepton masses." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7322UDZR

@misc{pith2026250620755,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quark and lepton masses},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7322UDZR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.20755}
}
read the original abstract

Quarks and leptons, the fundamental building blocks of the subatomic world, manifest in three families - replicas with identical quantum numbers that differ only in their masses. After summarizing the present data, an overview is presented of the main attempts to explain the origin of the observed patterns and trace it back to an as-yet-unknown fundamental principle.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

82 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    S. L. Glashow, J. Iliopoulos, L. Maiani, Weak Interactions with Lepton-Hadron Symmetry, Phys. Rev. D 2 (1970) 1285–1292, doi: 10.1103/ PhysRevD.2.1285

    1970

  2. [2]

    Peter Minkowski, µ→ eγ at a Rate of One Out of 109 Muon Decays?, Phys. Lett. B 67 (1977) 421–428, doi:10.1016/0370-2693(77)90435-X

    doi:10.1016/0370-2693(77)90435-x 1977

  3. [3]

    Tsutomu Y anagida, Horizontal gauge symmetry and masses of neutrinos, Conf. Proc. C 7902131 (1979) 95–99

    1979

  4. [4]

    Murray Gell-Mann, Pierre Ramond, Richard Slansky, Complex Spinors and Unified Theories, Conf. Proc. C 790927 (1979) 315–321, 1306.4669

    arXiv 1979

  5. [5]

    Mohapatra, Goran Senjanovi ´c, Neutrino Mass and Spontaneous Parity Nonconservation, Phys

    Rabindra N. Mohapatra, Goran Senjanovi ´c, Neutrino Mass and Spontaneous Parity Nonconservation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 44 (1980) 912, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.44.912

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.44.912 1980

  6. [6]

    S. L. Glashow, Towards a Unified Theory: Threads in a Tapestry, Rev. Mod. Phys. 52 (1980) 539–543, doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.52.539

    work page doi:10.1103/revmodphys.52.539 1980

  7. [7]

    Schechter, J

    J. Schechter, J. W. F . Valle, Neutrino Masses in SU(2) x U(1) Theories, Phys. Rev. D 22 (1980) 2227, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.22.2227

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.22.2227 1980

  8. [8]

    M. Magg, C. Wetterich, Neutrino Mass Problem and Gauge Hierarchy, Phys. Lett. B 94 (1980) 61–64, doi: 10.1016/0370-2693(80)90825-4

    doi:10.1016/0370-2693(80)90825-4 1980

Show all 82 references
  1. [9]

    Navas, et al

    S. Navas, et al. (Particle Data Group), Review of particle physics, Phys. Rev. D 110 (3) (2024) 030001, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.110.030001

    2024 doi

  2. [10]

    Francesco Capozzi, William Giar `e, Eligio Lisi, Antonio Marrone, Alessandro Melchiorri, Antonio Palazzo, Neutrino masses and mixing: Entering the era of subpercent precision, Phys. Rev. D 111 (9) (2025) 093006, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.111.093006, 2503.07752

    2025 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Guo-yuan Huang, Shun Zhou, Precise Values of Running Quark and Lepton Masses in the Standard Model, Phys. Rev. D 103 (1) (2021) 016010, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.103.016010, 2009.04851

    2021 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Y oshio Koide, A New View of Quark and Lepton Mass Hierarchy, Phys. Rev. D 28 (1983) 252, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.28.252

    1983 doi

  5. [13]

    New Y ork Acad

    Steven Weinberg, The Problem of Mass, Trans. New Y ork Acad. Sci. 38 (1977) 185–201, doi:10.1111/j.2164-0947.1977.tb02958.x

    1977

  6. [14]

    R. D. Peccei, The Mystery of flavor, AIP Conf. Proc. 424 (1) (1998) 354–364, doi: 10.1063/1.55128, hep-ph/9712422

    1998 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Georgi, S

    H. Georgi, S. L. Glashow, Unity of All Elementary Particle Forces, Phys. Rev. Lett. 32 (1974) 438–441, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.32.438

    1974 doi

  8. [16]

    Jarlskog, A New Lepton - Quark Mass Relation in a Unified Theory, Phys

    Howard Georgi, C. Jarlskog, A New Lepton - Quark Mass Relation in a Unified Theory, Phys. Lett. B 86 (1979) 297–300, doi: 10.1016/ 0370-2693(79)90842-6

    1979

  9. [17]

    Sartori, M

    Raoul Gatto, G. Sartori, M. Tonin, Weak Selfmasses, Cabibbo Angle, and Broken SU(2) x SU(2), Phys. Lett. B 28 (1968) 128–130, doi: 10.1016/0370-2693(68)90150-0

    1968 doi

  10. [18]

    Ellis, Mary K

    John R. Ellis, Mary K. Gaillard, Fermion Masses and Higgs Representations in SU(5), Phys. Lett. B 88 (1979) 315–319, doi: 10.1016/ 0370-2693(79)90476-3

    1979

  11. [19]

    Borut Bajc, Goran Senjanovi ´c, Francesco Vissani, b - tau unification and large atmospheric mixing: A Case for noncanonical seesaw, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90 (2003) 051802, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.90.051802, hep-ph/0210207

    2003 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Steven Weinberg, Models of Lepton and Quark Masses, Phys. Rev. D 101 (3) (2020) 035020, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.101.035020, 2001. 06582

    2020 doi

  13. [21]

    Steven Weinberg, Electromagnetic and weak masses, Phys. Rev. Lett. 29 (1972) 388–392, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.29.388

    1972 doi

  14. [22]

    Glashow, Attempts to calculate the electron mass, Phys

    Howard Georgi, Sheldon L. Glashow, Attempts to calculate the electron mass, Phys. Rev. D 7 (1973) 2457–2463, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.7. 2457

    1973 doi

  15. [23]

    B. S. Balakrishna, A. L. Kagan, R. N. Mohapatra, Quark Mixings and Mass Hierarchy From Radiative Corrections, Phys. Lett. B 205 (1988) 345–352, doi:10.1016/0370-2693(88)91676-0

    1988 doi

  16. [24]

    Patel, Radiatively generated fermion mass hierarchy from flavor nonuniversal gauge symmetries, Phys

    Gurucharan Mohanta, Ketan M. Patel, Radiatively generated fermion mass hierarchy from flavor nonuniversal gauge symmetries, Phys. Rev. D 106 (7) (2022) 075020, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.106.075020, 2207.10407

    2022 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Olechowski, S

    Hans Peter Nilles, M. Olechowski, S. Pokorski, Does a Radiative Generation of Quark Masses Provide Us With the Correct Mass Matrices?, Phys. Lett. B 248 (1990) 378–386, doi:10.1016/0370-2693(90)90309-T. 28 Quark and lepton masses

    1990 doi

  18. [26]

    Pendleton, Graham G

    B. Pendleton, Graham G. Ross, Mass and Mixing Angle Predictions from Infrared Fixed Points, Phys. Lett. B 98 (1981) 291–294, doi: 10.1016/0370-2693(81)90017-4

    1981 doi

  19. [27]

    Hill, Quark and Lepton Masses from Renormalization Group Fixed Points, Phys

    Christopher T. Hill, Quark and Lepton Masses from Renormalization Group Fixed Points, Phys. Rev. D 24 (1981) 691, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD. 24.691

    1981 doi

  20. [28]

    Chankowski, Stefan Pokorski, Quantum corrections to neutrino masses and mixing angles, Int

    Piotr H. Chankowski, Stefan Pokorski, Quantum corrections to neutrino masses and mixing angles, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 17 (2002) 575–614, doi:10.1142/S0217751X02006109, hep-ph/0110249

    2002 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Peskin, Compositeness of Quarks and Leptons, eConf C810824 (1981) 880

    Michael E. Peskin, Compositeness of Quarks and Leptons, eConf C810824 (1981) 880

    1981

  22. [30]

    R. D. Peccei, COMPOSITE MODELS OF QUARKS AND LEPTONS, Lect. Notes Phys. 181 (1983) 355–385

    1983

  23. [31]

    Harald Fritzsch, WHAT IS INSIDE QUARKS AND LEPTONS?, in: International School of Elementary Particle Physics 1984

    1984

  24. [32]

    Gerard ’t Hooft, Naturalness, chiral symmetry, and spontaneous chiral symmetry breaking, NATO Sci. Ser. B 59 (1980) 135–157, doi: 10.1007/978-1-4684-7571-5 9

    1980 doi

  25. [33]

    Dimopoulos, S

    S. Dimopoulos, S. Raby, Leonard Susskind, Light Composite Fermions, Nucl. Phys. B 173 (1980) 208–228, doi: 10.1016/0550-3213(80) 90215-1

    1980 doi

  26. [34]

    Nathan Seiberg, Exact results on the space of vacua of four-dimensional SUSY gauge theories, Phys. Rev. D 49 (1994) 6857–6863, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.49.6857, hep-th/9402044

    1994 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Seiberg, Electric - magnetic duality in supersymmetric nonAbelian gauge theories, Nucl

    N. Seiberg, Electric - magnetic duality in supersymmetric nonAbelian gauge theories, Nucl. Phys. B 435 (1995) 129–146, doi: 10.1016/ 0550-3213(94)00023-8, hep-th/9411149

    1995 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Kaplan, Francois Lepeintre, Martin Schmaltz, Flavor from strongly coupled supersymmetry, Phys

    David B. Kaplan, Francois Lepeintre, Martin Schmaltz, Flavor from strongly coupled supersymmetry, Phys. Rev. D 56 (1997) 7193–7206, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.56.7193, hep-ph/9705411

    1997 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Kaplan, Flavor at SSC energies: A New mechanism for dynamically generated fermion masses, Nucl

    David B. Kaplan, Flavor at SSC energies: A New mechanism for dynamically generated fermion masses, Nucl. Phys. B 365 (1991) 259– 278, doi:10.1016/S0550-3213(05)80021-5

    1991 doi

  30. [38]

    Roberto Contino, Thomas Kramer, Minho Son, Raman Sundrum, Warped/composite phenomenology simplified, JHEP 05 (2007) 074, doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2007/05/074, hep-ph/0612180

    2007 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Juan Martin Maldacena, The Large N limit of superconformal field theories and supergravity, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 2 (1998) 231–252, doi:10.4310/ATMP.1998.v2.n2.a1, hep-th/9711200

    1998 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Lisa Randall, Raman Sundrum, An Alternative to compactification, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83 (1999) 4690–4693, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.83.4690, hep-th/9906064

    1999 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Tony Gherghetta, Alex Pomarol, Bulk fields and supersymmetry in a slice of AdS, Nucl. Phys. B 586 (2000) 141–162, doi: 10.1016/ S0550-3213(00)00392-8, hep-ph/0003129

    2000 arXiv

  34. [42]

    165–232, doi:10.1142/9789814327183 0004, 1008.2570

    Tony Gherghetta, A Holographic View of Beyond the Standard Model Physics, in: Theoretical Advanced Study Institute in Elementary Particle Physics: Physics of the Large and the Small 2011, pp. 165–232, doi:10.1142/9789814327183 0004, 1008.2570

    2011 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Huber, Flavor violation and warped geometry, Nucl

    Stephan J. Huber, Flavor violation and warped geometry, Nucl. Phys. B 666 (2003) 269–288, doi: 10.1016/S0550-3213(03)00502-9, hep-ph/ 0303183

    2003 doi

  36. [44]

    Yuval Grossman, Matthias Neubert, Neutrino masses and mixings in nonfactorizable geometry, Phys. Lett. B 474 (2000) 361–371, doi: 10.1016/S0370-2693(00)00054-X, hep-ph/9912408

    2000 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Tony Gherghetta, Dirac neutrino masses with Planck scale lepton number violation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92 (2004) 161601, doi: 10.1103/ PhysRevLett.92.161601, hep-ph/0312392

    2004 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Afanaciev, et al

    K. Afanaciev, et al. (MEG II), A search for µ+→ e+γ with the first dataset of the MEG II experiment, Eur. Phys. J. C 84 (3) (2024) 216, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-024-12416-2 , [Erratum: Eur.Phys.J.C 84, 1042 (2024)], 2310.12614

    2024 arXiv

  39. [47]

    C. D. Froggatt, Holger Bech Nielsen, Hierarchy of Quark Masses, Cabibbo Angles and CP Violation, Nucl. Phys. B 147 (1979) 277–298, doi:10.1016/0550-3213(79)90316-X

    1979 doi

  40. [48]

    Hall, Hitoshi Murayama, Neal Weiner, Neutrino mass anarchy, Phys

    Lawrence J. Hall, Hitoshi Murayama, Neal Weiner, Neutrino mass anarchy, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84 (2000) 2572–2575, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett. 84.2572, hep-ph/9911341

    2000 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Guido Altarelli, Ferruccio Feruglio, Isabella Masina, Luca Merlo, Repressing Anarchy in Neutrino Mass Textures, JHEP 11 (2012) 139, doi:10.1007/JHEP11(2012)139, 1207.0587

    2012 arXiv

  42. [50]

    D’Ambrosio, G

    G. D’Ambrosio, G. F . Giudice, G. Isidori, A. Strumia, Minimal flavor violation: An Effective field theory approach, Nucl. Phys. B 645 (2002) 155–187, doi:10.1016/S0550-3213(02)00836-2, hep-ph/0207036

    2002 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Ferruccio Feruglio, Andrea Romanino, Lepton flavor symmetries, Rev. Mod. Phys. 93 (1) (2021) 015007, doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.93.015007, 1912.06028

    2021 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Gui-Jun Ding, Jose W. F . Valle, The symmetry approach to quark and lepton masses and mixing, Phys. Rept. 1109 (2025) 1–105, doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2024.12.005, 2402.16963

    2025 arXiv

  45. [53]

    P . P . Novichkov, J. T. Penedo, S. T. Petcov, A. V. Titov, Generalised CP Symmetry in Modular-Invariant Models of Flavour, JHEP 07 (2019) 165, doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2019)165, 1905.11970

    2019 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Alexander Baur, Hans Peter Nilles, Andreas Trautner, Patrick K. S. Vaudrevange, Unification of Flavor, CP , and Modular Symmetries, Phys. Lett. B 795 (2019) 7–14, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2019.03.066, 1901.03251

    2019 arXiv

  47. [55]

    227–266, doi: 10.1142/9789813238053 0012, 1706.08749

    Ferruccio Feruglio, Are neutrino masses modular forms? 2019 pp. 227–266, doi: 10.1142/9789813238053 0012, 1706.08749

    2019 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Tatsuo Kobayashi, Morimitsu Tanimoto, Modular flavor symmetric models, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 39 (09n10) (2024) 2441012, doi: 10.1142/ S0217751X24410124, 2307.03384

    2024 arXiv

  49. [57]

    King, Neutrino mass and mixing with modular symmetry, Rept

    Gui-Jun Ding, Stephen F . King, Neutrino mass and mixing with modular symmetry, Rept. Prog. Phys. 87 (8) (2024) 084201, doi: 10.1088/ 1361-6633/ad52a3, 2311.09282

    2024 arXiv

  50. [58]

    P . P . Novichkov, J. T. Penedo, S. T. Petcov, Fermion mass hierarchies, large lepton mixing and residual modular symmetries, JHEP 04 (2021) 206, doi:10.1007/JHEP04(2021)206, 2102.07488

    2021 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Mu-Chun Chen, Sa ´ul Ramos-S ´anchez, Michael Ratz, A note on the predictions of models with modular flavor symmetries, Phys. Lett. B 801 (2020) 135153, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2019.135153, 1909.06910

    2020

  52. [60]

    Dixon, Jeffrey A

    Lance J. Dixon, Jeffrey A. Harvey, C. Vafa, Edward Witten, Strings on Orbifolds, Nucl. Phys. B 261 (1985) 678–686, doi: 10.1016/ 0550-3213(85)90593-0

    1985

  53. [61]

    Dixon, Jeffrey A

    Lance J. Dixon, Jeffrey A. Harvey, C. Vafa, Edward Witten, Strings on Orbifolds. 2., Nucl. Phys. B 274 (1986) 285–314, doi: 10.1016/ 0550-3213(86)90287-7

    1986

  54. [62]

    Maximilian Fischer, Michael Ratz, Jes ´us Torrado, Patrick K. S. Vaudrevange, Classification of symmetric toroidal orbifolds, JHEP 01 (2013) 084, doi:10.1007/JHEP01(2013)084, 1209.3906

    2013 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Hans Peter Nilles, Sa ´ul Ramos-S´anchez, Patrick K. S. Vaudrevange, Eclectic flavor scheme from ten-dimensional string theory - II detailed technical analysis, Nucl. Phys. B 966 (2021) 115367, doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2021.115367, 2010.13798. Quark and lepton masses 29

    2021

  56. [64]

    Sa ´ul Ramos-S´anchez, Patrick K. S. Vaudrevange, Note on the space group selection rule for closed strings on orbifolds, JHEP 01 (2019) 055, doi:10.1007/JHEP01(2019)055, 1811.00580

    2019 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Tatsuo Kobayashi, Hans Peter Nilles, Felix Ploger, Stuart Raby, Michael Ratz, Stringy origin of non-Abelian discrete flavor symmetries, Nucl. Phys. B 768 (2007) 135–156, doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2007.01.018, hep-ph/0611020

    2007 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Hans Peter Nilles, Michael Ratz, Patrick K. S. Vaudrevange, Origin of Family Symmetries, Fortsch. Phys. 61 (2013) 493–506, doi: 10.1002/ prop.201200120, 1204.2206

    2013 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Y essenia Olgu´ın-Trejo, Ricardo P ´erez-Mart´ınez, Saul Ramos-S ´anchez, Charting the flavor landscape of MSSM-like Abelian heterotic orbifolds, Phys. Rev. D 98 (10) (2018) 106020, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.98.106020, 1808.06622

    2018 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Dixon, Daniel Friedan, Emil J

    Lance J. Dixon, Daniel Friedan, Emil J. Martinec, Stephen H. Shenker, The Conformal Field Theory of Orbifolds, Nucl. Phys. B 282 (1987) 13–73, doi:10.1016/0550-3213(87)90676-6

    1987 doi

  61. [69]

    Lauer, J

    J. Lauer, J. Mas, Hans Peter Nilles, Duality and the Role of Nonperturbative Effects on the World Sheet, Phys. Lett. B 226 (1989) 251–256, doi:10.1016/0370-2693(89)91190-8

    1989 doi

  62. [70]

    Lauer, J

    J. Lauer, J. Mas, Hans Peter Nilles, Twisted sector representations of discrete background symmetries for two-dimensional orbifolds, Nucl. Phys. B 351 (1991) 353–424, doi:10.1016/0550-3213(91)90095-F

    1991 doi

  63. [71]

    Shahram Hamidi, Cumrun Vafa, Interactions on Orbifolds, Nucl. Phys. B 279 (1987) 465–513, doi: 10.1016/0550-3213(87)90006-X

    1987 doi

  64. [72]

    K. S. Narain, New Heterotic String Theories in Uncompactified Dimensions< 10, Phys. Lett. B 169 (1986) 41–46, doi:10.1016/0370-2693(86) 90682-9

    1986 doi

  65. [73]

    Stefan Groot Nibbelink, Patrick K. S. Vaudrevange, T -duality orbifolds of heterotic Narain compactifications, JHEP 04 (2017) 030, doi: 10.1007/JHEP04(2017)030, 1703.05323

    2017 arXiv

  66. [74]

    Alexander Baur, Hans Peter Nilles, Andreas Trautner, Patrick K. S. Vaudrevange, A String Theory of Flavor and CP, Nucl. Phys. B 947 (2019) 114737, doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2019.114737, 1908.00805

    2019

  67. [75]

    Alexander Baur, Hans Peter Nilles, Sa ´ul Ramos-S ´anchez, Andreas Trautner, Patrick K. S. Vaudrevange, The first string-derived eclectic flavor model with realistic phenomenology, JHEP 09 (2022) 224, doi:10.1007/JHEP09(2022)224, 2207.10677

    2022 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Ib ´a˜nez, F

    Luis E. Ib ´a˜nez, F . Marchesano, R. Rabadan, Getting just the standard model at intersecting branes, JHEP 11 (2001) 002, doi: 10.1088/ 1126-6708/2001/11/002, hep-th/0105155

    2001 arXiv

  69. [77]

    Ralph Blumenhagen, Mirjam Cveti ˇc, Paul Langacker, Gary Shiu, Toward realistic intersecting D-brane models, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 55 (2005) 71–139, doi:10.1146/annurev.nucl.55.090704.151541, hep-th/0502005

    2005

  70. [78]

    Cremades, L

    D. Cremades, L. E. Ib ´a˜nez, F . Marchesano, Yukawa couplings in intersecting D-brane models, JHEP 07 (2003) 038, doi:10.1088/1126-6708/ 2003/07/038, hep-th/0302105

    2003 arXiv

  71. [79]

    Fernando Marchesano, Diego Regalado, Liliana V ´azquez-Mercado, Discrete flavor symmetries in D-brane models, JHEP 09 (2013) 028, doi:10.1007/JHEP09(2013)028, 1306.1284

    2013 arXiv

  72. [80]

    Tatsuo Kobayashi, Satoshi Nagamoto, Shohei Uemura, Modular symmetry in magnetized/intersecting D-brane models, PTEP 2017 (2) (2017) 023B02, doi:10.1093/ptep/ptw184, 1608.06129

    2017 arXiv

  73. [81]

    Cremades, L

    D. Cremades, L. E. Ib ´a˜nez, F . Marchesano, Computing Yukawa couplings from magnetized extra dimensions, JHEP 05 (2004) 079, doi: 10.1088/1126-6708/2004/05/079, hep-th/0404229

    2004 arXiv

  74. [82]

    Y ahya Almumin, Mu-Chun Chen, V´ıctor Knapp-P´erez, Sa´ul Ramos-S´anchez, Michael Ratz, Shreya Shukla, Metaplectic Flavor Symmetries from Magnetized Tori, JHEP 05 (2021) 078, doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2021)078, 2102.11286

    2021 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.