Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 163 references

Neutrino Mass Predictions with an AI-based Algorithm under $A_4$ Modular Symmetry

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that an A4 modular symmetry model, optimized by the ILA algorithm, reproduces the full neutrino sector with definite mass predictions.

desk verdict The paper's central claim is circular: the objective function has no data term, so the reported NuFIT agreement is a numerical diagonalization, not a prediction. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.09579 v1 pith:HFBCEVFQ submitted 2025-08-13 hep-ph

Muhammad Waheed Aslam , Abrar Ahmad Zafar , Muhammad Naeem Aslam This is my paper
classification hep-ph
keywords neutrinomassesA4modularsymmetrylinearseesawILAoptimizationPMNSmatrixCPviolationphasesneutrinolessdoublebetadecaycosmologicalmasssum
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 claims that a neutrino-mass model based on A4 modular symmetry in a linear seesaw framework, tuned by an AI-style optimizer called ILA, can reproduce all current neutrino oscillation data and give concrete predictions for quantities experiments have not yet pinned down. The model uses modular couplings as substitutes for the many flavon fields of older flavor-symmetry constructions, and the optimizer searches the resulting high-dimensional parameter space. For both normal and inverted mass ordering the authors report specific masses, mixing angles, CP phases, and effective masses for beta decay and neutrinoless double beta decay, all stated to be consistent with NuFIT 6.0 and with Planck's bound on the sum of neutrino masses. If this is right, the paper supplies a complete, testable neutrino sector from a comparatively economical symmetry setup.

What carries the argument

The construction stands on two pieces. First, A4 modular symmetry: the Yukawa couplings $Y = (y_1, y_2, y_3)$ are modular forms built from the Dedekind eta function and its derivative evaluated at a modulus $\tau$; they transform as A4 triplets and replace the flavon fields of conventional flavor models. Second, the ILA algorithm, a three-stage metaheuristic (exploration, integration, exploitation) whose 'experts' search the parameter space and whose fitness function compares $U_{\mathrm{PMNS}}\,\mathrm{diag}(m_1,m_2,m_3)\,U_{\mathrm{PMNS}}^\dagger$ with the model's $3\times3$ light-neutrino mass matrix $m_\nu$ from the linear seesaw. The near-zero values of that fitness function carry the p

What would settle it

Repeat the optimization with the PMNS angles, phases, and masses fixed to the paper's best-fit values and free only the model couplings $\alpha_i, \beta_i, \alpha_{NS}, \beta_{NS}, \tau, v_\rho, \Lambda$; if the residual is no longer near $10^{-28}$, the reported fit depends on fitting the observables themselves. Experimentally, a measured $\langle m_{ee}\rangle$ that clearly falls between the two predicted values, 0.84 meV and 27.9 meV, would exclude both solutions as presented.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that the A4 modular linear seesaw model, with its parameters optimized by the ILA algorithm, yields the light-neutrino spectrum and lepton mixing entirely in agreement with current data. For normal ordering the predicted masses are $m_1 = 3.8630$ meV, $m_2 = 9.4775$ meV, $m_3 = 50.2784$ meV; for inverted ordering $m_1 = 50.628$ meV, $m_2 = 51.3624$ meV, $m_3 = 7.2937$ meV. The corresponding $U_{\mathrm{PMNS}}$ matrices, Dirac and Majorana phases, and effective masses follow, with $\langle m_{ee}\rangle = 0.8416$ meV (NO) and $27.9219$ meV (IO), which the paper presents as testable signatures for neutrinoless double $\beta$ decay experiments. The optimi

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the PMNS angles, phases, and masses may be used as free optimization variables inside the same objective as the model couplings; if that is not the intended procedure, the paper supplies no derivation of the predictions from the model alone.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the predictions are correct, the absolute neutrino mass scale is fixed in a narrow range, so next-generation beta-decay experiments and cosmological surveys can check the sum bound $0.06 < \Sigma m < 0.12$ eV.
  • The normal and inverted ordering solutions give sharply different neutrinoless double beta decay effective masses, $0.84$ meV versus $27.9$ meV, so a measurement at either scale would discriminate between the two hierarchies.
  • The predicted Dirac CP phase, about $308^\circ$ for NO and $271^\circ$ for IO, is within reach of long-baseline experiments such as DUNE and Hyper-Kamiokande.
  • The economical field content, with modular forms replacing flavons, would make the model easier to embed in a more complete theory without adding many new scalars.
  • The documented convergence of ILA on this high-dimensional problem suggests the same optimizer can be reused to scan other modular flavor-symmetry parameter spaces.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: The objective function treats the PMNS angles, phases, and masses themselves as free optimization variables, so the near-zero residual shows that an exact solution exists in that enlarged space; a separate count of the model's independent parameters is needed to see how much of the neutrino sector is genuinely predicted rather than fitted.
  • Editorial inference: A sharper test of predictivity would be to fix the PMNS observables to their best-fit values and optimize only the model couplings $\alpha_i, \beta_i, \alpha_{NS}, \beta_{NS}, \tau, v_\rho, \Lambda$; if the residual degrades sharply, the reported agreement is an artifact of treating the observables as fit variables.
  • Editorial inference: If the IO solution is taken seriously, its $\langle m_{ee}\rangle \approx 27.9$ meV places it close to the projected sensitivity of next-generation neutrinoless double beta decay searches, giving a near-term experimental handle on the mass ordering.
  • Editorial inference: Applying the same ILA pipeline to other modular groups such as $S_3$, $S_4$, and $A_5$ could show whether the strong agreement found here is specific to A4 or generic to modular flavor models.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper constructs an A4 modular-symmetry linear seesaw model of neutrino masses and uses a metaheuristic called the Incomprehensible but Intelligible-in-time logics optimization algorithm (ILA) to optimize the model parameters. It reports best-fit values for the three light neutrino masses, the PMNS mixing angles, Dirac and Majorana phases, and the effective masses <m_beta> and <m_ee> for both normal and inverted mass ordering, claiming consistency with NuFIT 6.0 and with cosmological bounds on the sum of neutrino masses. The central numerical procedure is presented in Section 4, where an objective function Delta' is minimized; the optimized parameters and resulting observables are listed in Tables 3 and 4.

Significance. If the reported numbers were genuine predictions, the paper would demonstrate a novel application of an AI-based metaheuristic to a modular flavor model, with testable neutrinoless double-beta decay implications. The model construction is explicit, the superpotential and mass matrices are written out in closed form, and the ILA algorithm is described in unusual detail. However, the central claim is not supported by the analysis as presented: the objective function is constructed so that the very observables the paper claims to predict are themselves optimization variables, making the good agreement with data a tautology rather than a test of the model. The paper also reports no chi-square, pulls, or uncertainties, and provides no code or data, so the numerical results cannot be independently reproduced or statistically evaluated.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4, Eqs. (4.3)–(4.9)] The objective function Delta' contains no term involving the experimental values in Table 1. Each term is the squared modulus of an entry of [U* diag(m1,m2,m3) U^dagger - m_model], where U is parametrized by theta12, theta23, theta13, delta, alpha, beta, and m1,m2,m3 are also optimization variables, as shown in Tables 3 and 4. For any complex symmetric matrix m_model there exists a unitary U and real nonnegative m_i satisfying m_model = U* diag(m) U^dagger (Autonne–Takagi factorization). Therefore Delta' has a global minimum of zero for essentially arbitrary model parameters; the reported minima 1.09e-28 (NO) and 0.80e-30 (IO) only certify numerical diagonalization accuracy. No bound or penalty term ties the PMNS parameters or masses to the NuFIT 6.0 ranges quoted in Table 1, so the Section 5 claim of 'good agreement with current experimental data' is not a consequence of the optimizatio
  2. [Tables 3 and 4] The quantities presented as predictions — theta12, theta23, theta13, delta, alpha, beta, m1, m2, m3 — are themselves listed among the 'optimized parameters.' The fit therefore has more free variables than constraints: roughly 11 model parameters (alpha_i, beta_i, alpha_NS, beta_NS, v_rho, Lambda, Re tau, Im tau) plus 9 PMNS/mass parameters, against only 12 real constraints from the complex symmetric 3x3 mass matrix. The underdetermination makes the near-zero residual trivially attainable, and the reported 'predicted' masses and angles are simply values chosen by the optimizer. No chi-square, pulls, or uncertainties are given, so even interpreted as a fit the agreement with NuFIT cannot be quantitatively assessed.
  3. [Section 4, Eq. (4.2) and Eqs. (4.4)–(4.9)] The text defines m_diag in terms of m1 and the mass-squared differences Delta m^2_21 and Delta m^2_31, but the objective function Delta' uses m1, m2, m3 directly as independent variables. It is not explained how Eq. (4.2) is enforced, nor are Delta m^2_21 and Delta m^2_31 fixed to the NuFIT 6.0 ranges during the optimization. This ambiguity means that the mass-squared differences, which are among the best-measured neutrino observables, are not actually constrained by data in the fit.
  4. [Section 5 and Abstract] The statement that the analysis 'aligns with Planck cosmological constraints on the sum of neutrino masses 0.06 < Sigma m < 0.12' misstates the Planck constraint, which is an upper bound (Sigma m < 0.12 eV at 95% CL); the lower bound of 0.06 eV comes from oscillation data, not from Planck. More importantly, since m1,m2,m3 are optimization variables in the fit, the sum Sigma m is not a model prediction but a fitted output, so consistency with the cosmological bound carries no independent weight.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 2, after Eq. (2.1)] The diagonal charged-lepton mass matrix is written as M_ell = diag(y_ee^ell v_d/sqrt2, y_mu mu^ell v_d/sqrt2, y_mu mu^ell v_d/sqrt2). The second and third entries should presumably be y_mu^ell and y_tau^ell; as written the muon mass appears twice.
  2. [Section 3, Eqs. (3.1)–(3.3)] The summation upper limit is written as 'nN L' in all three equations, but the notation is not defined and the summation index is missing. This makes the definitions of C_i, D_i, and P_i ambiguous.
  3. [Tables 3 and 4] The Yukawa couplings y1, y2, y3 are listed as optimized parameters, but in Section 2 they are defined as functions of tau through the Dedekind eta-function in Eq. (2.2). The paper should clarify whether y_i are varied independently in the optimization or computed from tau; the table entries appear to list both tau and y_i as if they were independent.
  4. [Section 4] No search bounds, initialization ranges, or stopping criteria for the ILA variables are given. Even setting aside the circularity concern, this lack of detail prevents reproduction of the reported numerical results. The pseudocode in Figures 2–4 is not sufficient to reproduce the exact objective landscape used.
  5. [References] NuFIT 6.0 is cited as [25], but the paper does not state which NuFIT configuration (with or without Super-Kamiokande atmospheric data) is used for the ranges in Table 1. The ranges differ between configurations, so this should be specified.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 8.0 of 10

The reported neutrino masses and PMNS parameters are free optimization variables in an objective that vanishes identically by Takagi factorization, so the 'predictions' are fitted values, not model outputs.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 4, Eqs. (4.1), (4.3)-(4.9); Tables 3-4]
    "mν = U ∗mdiagU †, (4.1) ... Incorporating the most recent global neutrino oscillation data from NuFIT 6.0 [25], the objective (or fitness) function, denoted as ∆ ′, is formulated by embedding equation 4.1 within its structure. ... The optimized parameters include ... mixing angles ( θ12, θ13, θ23), phases ( α, β, δ), and neutrino masses ( m1, m2, m3) using ILA for NO"

    The fitness function Δ′ is the sum of squared moduli of entries of [U* diag(m1,m2,m3) U† − m_model] (Eqs. 4.4-4.9), with U (angles+phases) and masses themselves listed as 'optimized parameters' in Tables 3-4. For any complex symmetric model matrix m_model, Autonne-Takagi factorization guarantees the existence of a unitary U and nonnegative masses making this residual exactly zero. Hence the global minimum is zero by construction, and the quoted minima ~10^-28/10^-30 merely certify that the optimizer numerically diagonalized the model matrix. The NuFIT values are not present in the objective as penalties or likelihood terms, and the paper does not show that the U/m variables were restricted to Table 1 ranges. The reported masses and mixings are therefore fitted free variables, not predictio

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section 4, Eqs. (4.11)-(4.12); Section 5]
    "Using the best-fit parameter values obtained through the ILA technique, we have computed the values of ⟨mee⟩ and ⟨mβ⟩ for both the NO and IO mass ordering scenarios. ... The model complies with the latest cosmological limit on the total neutrino mass, Σmi ≤ 0.12 eV"

    The effective masses ⟨mβ⟩ and ⟨mee⟩ are computed from the same Uei and mi that were optimized as free variables in Δ′, while the conclusion's Σmi bound uses the sum of those same fitted masses. These ancillary 'predictions' therefore do not add independent constraints; they restate the already-fitted inputs, so the claimed agreement with beta-decay, neutrinoless-double-beta-decay, and Planck limits is not an independent test of the model.

full rationale

The central claim is that the A4 modular linear-seesaw model plus ILA predicts neutrino masses, mixing angles, CP phases, and effective masses consistent with NuFIT 6.0 and Planck. However, the objective function defined in Eqs. (4.3)-(4.9) contains no data term: every summand is the squared difference between an entry of U*diag(m)U† and the corresponding entry of the model mass matrix, and U, the phases, and the masses m1,m2,m3 are themselves optimization variables (Tables 3-4). By the Autonne-Takagi theorem, any complex symmetric model mass matrix can be written as U*diag(m)U† with unitary U and nonnegative real masses, so the residual is identically zero-able for essentially arbitrary model parameters. The reported tiny minima therefore certify successful numerical diagonalization, not agreement with experimental data. The NuFIT numbers enter only through undocumented bounds or initialization choices, not through the objective; the Planck-sum and effective-mass statements are then computed from the fitted U and m. This is a textbook case where the 'predictions' reduce by construction to fitted inputs (pattern 2). There is no load-bearing self-citation chain: the model construction cites Behera et al. [151], not the present authors, and the ILA citation [152] is external. The circularity is internal to the optimization setup, not a matter of author self-reference. Score 8 because the central phenomenological output of the paper is forced by the choice of objective and optimization variables, leaving little independent model-derived content in the stated results.

Assumptions & free parameters 27 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 2 invented entities

Almost every quantity that is later called a prediction, including the three neutrino masses, the three mixing angles, and the three CP phases, is an optimization variable in Delta'. The model couplings plus these observables total more free parameters than the twelve real constraints of a complex symmetric mass matrix, so the agreement with data is obtained by construction rather than by prediction.

free parameters (27)
  • alpha1 = 1.0e-6 (NO); 5.9e-6 (IO)
    Dirac Yukawa coupling parameter fitted by ILA to minimize Delta'.
  • alpha2 = 1.0e-5 (NO); 1.72015e-6 (IO)
    Dirac Yukawa coupling parameter fitted by ILA.
  • alpha3 = 8.4746e-6 (NO); 1.5885e-6 (IO)
    Dirac Yukawa coupling parameter fitted by ILA.
  • beta1 = 3.8601e-3 (NO); 5.4228e-3 (IO)
    Linear seesaw coupling parameter fitted by ILA.
  • beta2 = 9.4487e-3 (NO); 7.7386e-3 (IO)
    Linear seesaw coupling parameter fitted by ILA.
  • beta3 = 3.5853e-3 (NO); 2.2965e-3 (IO)
    Linear seesaw coupling parameter fitted by ILA.
  • alpha_NS = 0.4599 (NO); 0.44152 (IO)
    Heavy neutrino mixing coefficient fitted by ILA.
  • beta_NS = 6.7517e-5 (NO); 3.19021e-5 (IO)
    Heavy neutrino antisymmetric mixing coefficient fitted by ILA.
  • v_rho = 51.945 TeV (NO); 90.9062 TeV (IO)
    Scale of the singlet weighton VEV; fitted by ILA.
  • Lambda = 988.3455 TeV (NO); 796.8692 TeV (IO)
    Cutoff scale in the higher-dimensional operator; fitted by ILA.
  • tau real part = 0.3071 (NO); 0.5 (IO)
    Real part of the modular modulus; fitted by ILA.
  • tau imaginary part = 1.1993 (NO); 1.1679 (IO)
    Imaginary part of the modular modulus; fitted by ILA.
  • y1 real = 0.9977 (NO); 0.99221 (IO)
    Real part of the modular Yukawa triplet component y1; fitted by ILA.
  • y1 imag = 5.9914e-3 (NO); 1.0535e-16 (IO)
    Imaginary part of the modular Yukawa triplet component y1; fitted by ILA.
  • y2 real = -0.38793 (NO); -0.25879 (IO)
    Real part of the modular Yukawa triplet component y2; fitted by ILA.
  • y2 imag = -0.29294 (NO); -0.44815 (IO)
    Imaginary part of the modular Yukawa triplet component y2; fitted by ILA.
  • y3 real = -3.30908e-2 (NO); 6.74707e-2 (IO)
    Real part of the modular Yukawa triplet component y3; fitted by ILA.
  • y3 imag = -0.11370 (NO); -0.11686 (IO)
    Imaginary part of the modular Yukawa triplet component y3; fitted by ILA.
  • theta12 = 32.1233 deg (NO); 34.115 deg (IO)
    Solar mixing angle; appears in U_PMNS and is optimized as a variable in Delta'.
  • theta23 = 41.3953 deg (NO); 44.1076 deg (IO)
    Atmospheric mixing angle; optimized as a variable in Delta'.
  • theta13 = 8.8288 deg (NO); 8.2517 deg (IO)
    Reactor mixing angle; optimized as a variable in Delta'.
  • delta = 308.388 deg (NO); 271.239 deg (IO)
    Dirac CP phase; optimized as a variable in Delta'.
  • Majorana phase alpha = 49.9705 deg (NO); 28.2367 deg (IO)
    Majorana phase in U_PMNS; optimized as a variable in Delta'.
  • Majorana phase beta = -20.215 deg (NO); 57.2958 deg (IO)
    Majorana phase in U_PMNS; optimized as a variable in Delta'.
  • m1 = 3.8630 meV (NO); 50.628 meV (IO)
    Lightest neutrino mass in the fit; optimized as a variable in Delta'.
  • m2 = 9.4775 meV (NO); 51.3624 meV (IO)
    Second neutrino mass in the fit; optimized as a variable in Delta'.
  • m3 = 50.2784 meV (NO); 7.2937 meV (IO)
    Third neutrino mass in the fit; optimized as a variable in Delta'.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math A4 level-3 modular forms Y=(y1,y2,y3) of weight 2 are computed from the Dedekind eta function as in Eq. 2.2.
    The construction is quoted from the modular symmetry literature; the paper does not prove it or test the truncation beyond k=20.
  • ad hoc to paper The charged-lepton mass matrix is exactly diagonal because of the A4 singlet charge assignments.
    This removes charged-lepton mixing and is necessary for the PMNS matrix to be directly identified with the neutrino diagonalization; if it fails, all fitted angles change.
  • domain assumption The linear seesaw formula m_nu = -M_D M_RS^{-1} M_LS^T is valid for the adopted field content.
    The light neutrino mass matrix in Eq. 2.3 relies on the linear seesaw structure borrowed from ref. [151].
  • domain assumption The global U(1)_X symmetry forbids all unwanted superpotential terms.
    The superpotential in Eq. 2.1 has exactly the stated terms only if U(1)_X charges forbid the others; no UV completion is provided.
  • domain assumption tan beta is fixed to approximately 5.
    This sets v_u and v_d; cited to common MSSM conventions but not varied or justified for this model.
  • domain assumption Truncating the Dedekind eta product to k=20 is numerically sufficient.
    The paper states this in Section 4 without a convergence study or error estimate.
invented entities (2)
  • Heavy A4-triplet singlet superfields N_Ri and S_Li
    purpose: Implement the linear seesaw and generate the M_RS and M_LS mass matrices.
    Adopted from ref. [151]; no masses are given and no collider or direct-detection signature is analyzed.
  • Singlet weighton rho
    purpose: Its VEV generates masses for the new superfields and enters the M_LS operator at order (v_rho/Lambda)^3.
    No mass value or independent observable is predicted for rho; it is a model-building device.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Neutrino Mass Predictions with an AI-based Algorithm under $A_4$ Modular Symmetry." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HFBCEVFQ

@misc{pith2026250809579,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Neutrino Mass Predictions with an AI-based Algorithm under $A_4$ Modular Symmetry},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HFBCEVFQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.09579}
}
abstract

This research undertakes a comprehensive exploration of neutrino mass model grounded in $A_4$ discrete non-Abelian modular symmetry formulated within a linear seesaw framework that modifies the conventional type-I seesaw structure with a focus on optimizing the model parameters using incomprehensible but intelligible-in-time logics optimization algorithm (ILA), an AI-based algorithm. In contrast to traditional discrete flavor symmetry frameworks, modular symmetry significantly reduces the number and complexity of flavon fields needed to generate realistic fermion mass textures. The key predictions include neutrino masses, $U_{PMNS}$ matrices, effective neutrino masses for neutrinoless double beta decay, beta decay, Dirac and Majorana CP violation phases for normal (NO) and inverted mass ordering (IO), offering testable implications. The working efficiency of the ILA optimization technique is also estimated. The optimized neutrino oscillation parameters are well consistent with recent experimental data. Our analysis also aligns with Planck cosmological constraints on the sum of neutrino masses $0.06<\Sigma m<0.12$.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

163 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages

  1. [151]

    Behera, S

    M.K. Behera, S. Mishra, S. Singirala and R. Mohanta, Implications of A4 modular symmetry on neutrino mass, mixing and leptogenesis with linear seesaw , Phys. Dark Univ. 36 (2022) 101027 [ 2007.00545]

    arXiv 2022

  2. [152]

    Mirrashid and H

    M. Mirrashid and H. Naderpour, Incomprehensible but intelligible-in-time logics: Theory and optimization algorithm , Knowledge-Based Systems 264 (2023) 110305

    2023

  3. [1]

    Raffelt, Neutrinos and stars , 1201.1637

    G.G. Raffelt, Neutrinos and stars , 1201.1637

    arXiv

  4. [2]

    Burrows, Neutrinos From Supernova Explosions , Ann

    A. Burrows, Neutrinos From Supernova Explosions , Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 40 (1990) 181. – 18 –

    1990

  5. [3]

    Tamborra and K

    I. Tamborra and K. Murase, Neutrinos from Supernovae , Space Sci. Rev. 214 (2018) 31

    2018

  6. [4]

    Burrows and T

    A. Burrows and T. Young, Neutrinos and supernova theory , Phys. Rept. 333 (2000) 63

    2000

  7. [5]

    Cooperstein, Neutrinos in Supernovae , Phys

    J. Cooperstein, Neutrinos in Supernovae , Phys. Rept. 163 (1988) 95

    1988

  8. [6]

    Herant, S.A

    M. Herant, S.A. Colgate, W. Benz and C. Fryer, Neutrinos and supernovae , Los Alamos Science 25 (1997) 64

    1997

Show all 163 references
  1. [7]

    Sarkar, Neutrinos from the Big Bang , arXiv e-prints (2003) hep [ hep-ph/0302175]

    S. Sarkar, Neutrinos from the Big Bang , arXiv e-prints (2003) hep [ hep-ph/0302175]

    2003 arXiv

  2. [8]

    Steigman, Neutrinos and Big Bang Nucleosynthesis , Physica Scripta Volume T 121 (2005) 142 [ hep-ph/0501100]

    G. Steigman, Neutrinos and Big Bang Nucleosynthesis , Physica Scripta Volume T 121 (2005) 142 [ hep-ph/0501100]

    2005 arXiv

  3. [9]

    Weinheimer and K

    C. Weinheimer and K. Zuber, Neutrino Masses, Annalen Phys. 525 (2013) 565 [1307.3518]

    2013 arXiv

  4. [10]

    Blennow, M

    M. Blennow, M. Carrigan and E. Fernandez Martinez, Probing the Dark Matter mass and nature with neutrinos , Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2013 (2013) 038 [1303.4530]

    2013 arXiv

  5. [11]

    Agarwalla, M

    S.K. Agarwalla, M. Blennow, E. Fernandez Martinez and O. Mena, Neutrino Probes of the Nature of Light Dark Matter , JCAP 09 (2011) 004 [ 1105.4077]

    2011 arXiv

  6. [12]

    Dodelson and L.M

    S. Dodelson and L.M. Widrow, Sterile neutrinos as dark matter , Physical Review Letters 72 (1994) 17 [ hep-ph/9303287]

    1994 arXiv

  7. [13]

    Bertone and T

    G. Bertone and T. Tait, M. P., A new era in the search for dark matter , Nature 562 (2018) 51 [1810.01668]

    2018 arXiv

  8. [14]

    Hooper and E.A

    D. Hooper and E.A. Baltz, Strategies for Determining the Nature of Dark Matter , Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 58 (2008) 293 [ 0802.0702]

    2008 arXiv

  9. [15]

    Chakraborty and S

    S. Chakraborty and S. Roy, Higgs boson mass, neutrino masses and mixing and keV dark matter in an U(1) R - lepton number model , Journal of High Energy Physics 2014 (2014) 101 [1309.6538]

    2014 arXiv

  10. [16]

    T2K collaboration, Constraint on the matter–antimatter symmetry-violating phase in neutrino oscillations , Nature 580 (2020) 339 [ 1910.03887]

    2020 arXiv

  11. [17]

    SNO collaboration, The Sudbury neutrino observatory , Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 449 (2000) 172 [nucl-ex/9910016]

    2000 arXiv

  12. [18]

    Fukuda, T

    Y. Fukuda, T. Hayakawa, E. Ichihara, K. Inoue, K. Ishihara, H. Ishino et al., Evidence for Oscillation of Atmospheric Neutrinos , Physical Review Letters 81 (1998) 1562 [hep-ex/9807003]

    1998 arXiv

  13. [19]

    Eguchi, S

    K. Eguchi, S. Enomoto, K. Furuno, J. Goldman, H. Hanada, H. Ikeda et al., First Results from KamLAND: Evidence for Reactor Antineutrino Disappearance , Physical Review Letters 90 (2003) 021802 [ hep-ex/0212021]

    2003 arXiv

  14. [20]

    Acquafredda, T

    R. Acquafredda, T. Adam, N. Agafonova, P. Alvarez Sanchez, M. Ambrosio, A. Anokhina et al., The OPERA experiment in the CERN to Gran Sasso neutrino beam , Journal of Instrumentation 04 (2009) 04018

    2009

  15. [21]

    F.P. An, J.Z. Bai, A.B. Balantekin, H.R. Band, D. Beavis, W. Beriguete et al., Observation of Electron-Antineutrino Disappearance at Daya Bay , Physical Review Letters 108 (2012) 171803 [1203.1669]

    2012 arXiv

  16. [22]

    F.P. An, A.B. Balantekin, H.R. Band, M. Bishai, S. Blyth, I. Butorov et al., New – 19 – Measurement of Antineutrino Oscillation with the Full Detector Configuration at Daya Bay , Physical Review Letters 115 (2015) 111802

    2015

  17. [23]

    M.H. Ahn, E. Aliu, S. Andringa, S. Aoki, Y. Aoyama, J. Argyriades et al., Measurement of neutrino oscillation by the K2K experiment , Physical Review D 74 (2006) 072003 [hep-ex/0606032]

    2006 arXiv

  18. [24]

    Michael, P

    D.G. Michael, P. Adamson, T. Alexopoulos, W.W.M. Allison, G.J. Alner, K. Anderson et al., Observation of Muon Neutrino Disappearance with the MINOS Detectors in the NuMI Neutrino Beam , Physical Review Letters 97 (2006) 191801 [ hep-ex/0607088]

    2006 arXiv

  19. [25]

    Esteban, M

    I. Esteban, M. Gonzalez-Garcia, M. Maltoni, I. Martinez-Soler, J.P. Pinheiro and T. Schwetz, NuFit-6.0: Updated global analysis of three-flavor neutrino oscillations , Journal of High Energy Physics 2024 (2025) 1

    2024

  20. [26]

    Vien, A.E

    V.V. Vien, A.E. C´ arcamo Hern´ andez and H.N. Long,The ∆(27) flavor 3-3-1 model with neutral leptons, Nuclear Physics B 913 (2016) 792 [ 1601.03300]

    2016 arXiv

  21. [27]

    Brown, S

    T. Brown, S. Pakvasa, H. Sugawara and Y. Yamanaka, Neutrino Masses, Mixing and Oscillations in S(4) Model of Permutation Symmetry , Phys. Rev. D 30 (1984) 255

    1984

  22. [28]

    Chamoun and E.I

    N. Chamoun and E.I. Lashin, Textures of neutrino mass matrix from S 4-flavor symmetry , JHEP 01 (2025) 016 [ 2308.10985]

    2025 arXiv

  23. [29]

    Ding, J.-N

    G.-J. Ding, J.-N. Lu, S.T. Petcov and B.-Y. Qu, Non-holomorphic modular S 4 lepton flavour models, JHEP 01 (2025) 191 [ 2408.15988]

    2025 arXiv

  24. [30]

    Kobayashi, Y

    T. Kobayashi, Y. Shimizu, K. Takagi, M. Tanimoto and T.H. Tatsuishi, A4 lepton flavor model and modulus stabilization from S4 modular symmetry, Phys. Rev. D 100 (2019) 115045 [1909.05139]

    2019 arXiv

  25. [31]

    Liu, C.-Y

    X.-G. Liu, C.-Y. Yao and G.-J. Ding, Modular invariant quark and lepton models in double covering of S4 modular group, Phys. Rev. D 103 (2021) 056013 [ 2006.10722]

    2021 arXiv

  26. [32]

    de Medeiros Varzielas, M

    I. de Medeiros Varzielas, M. Levy, J.T. Penedo and S.T. Petcov, Quarks at the modular S 4 cusp, JHEP 09 (2023) 196 [ 2307.14410]

    2023 arXiv

  27. [33]

    Ma and G

    E. Ma and G. Rajasekaran, Softly broken A(4) symmetry for nearly degenerate neutrino masses, Phys. Rev. D 64 (2001) 113012 [ hep-ph/0106291]

    2001 arXiv

  28. [34]

    Hirsch, S

    M. Hirsch, S. Morisi and J.W.F. Valle, A4-based tri-bimaximal mixing within inverse and linear seesaw schemes , Physics Letters B 679 (2009) 454 [ 0905.3056]

    2009 arXiv

  29. [35]

    Sruthilaya, R

    M. Sruthilaya, R. Mohanta and S. Patra, A4 realization of linear seesaw and neutrino phenomenology, European Physical Journal C 78 (2018) 719 [ 1709.01737]

    2018 arXiv

  30. [36]

    Borah and B

    D. Borah and B. Karmakar, Linear seesaw for Dirac neutrinos with A 4 flavour symmetry , Physics Letters B 789 (2019) 59 [ 1806.10685]

    2019 arXiv

  31. [37]

    He, Y.-Y

    X.-G. He, Y.-Y. Keum and R.R. Volkas, A(4) flavor symmetry breaking scheme for understanding quark and neutrino mixing angles , JHEP 04 (2006) 039 [ hep-ph/0601001]

    2006 arXiv

  32. [38]

    Ma, Dark Scalar Doublets and Neutrino Tribimaximal Mixing from A(4) Symmetry , Phys

    E. Ma, Dark Scalar Doublets and Neutrino Tribimaximal Mixing from A(4) Symmetry , Phys. Lett. B 671 (2009) 366 [ 0808.1729]

    2009 arXiv

  33. [39]

    Altarelli and D

    G. Altarelli and D. Meloni, A Simplest A4 Model for Tri-Bimaximal Neutrino Mixing , J. Phys. G 36 (2009) 085005 [ 0905.0620]

    2009 arXiv

  34. [40]

    Lin, A Predictive A(4) model, Charged Lepton Hierarchy and Tri-bimaximal Sum Rule , Nucl

    Y. Lin, A Predictive A(4) model, Charged Lepton Hierarchy and Tri-bimaximal Sum Rule , Nucl. Phys. B 813 (2009) 91 [ 0804.2867]. – 20 –

    2009 arXiv

  35. [41]

    Ahn and C.-S

    Y.H. Ahn and C.-S. Chen, Non-zero Ue3 and TeV-Leptogenesis through A4 symmetry breaking, Phys. Rev. D 81 (2010) 105013 [ 1001.2869]

    2010 arXiv

  36. [42]

    Barry and W

    J. Barry and W. Rodejohann, Deviations from tribimaximal mixing due to the vacuum expectation value misalignment in A4 models, Phys. Rev. D 81 (2010) 093002 [ 1003.2385]

    2010 arXiv

  37. [43]

    Vien and H.N

    V.V. Vien and H.N. Long, Neutrino mixing with nonzero θ13 and CP violation in the 3-3-1 model based on A4 flavor symmetry , Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 30 (2015) 1550117 [ 1405.4665]

    2015 arXiv

  38. [44]

    Vien, Cobimaximal neutrino mixing in the U (1)B−L extension with A4 symmetry, Mod

    V.V. Vien, Cobimaximal neutrino mixing in the U (1)B−L extension with A4 symmetry, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 35 (2020) 2050311

    2020

  39. [45]

    Ding, J.-N

    G.-J. Ding, J.-N. Lu and J.W.F. Valle, Trimaximal neutrino mixing from scotogenic A4 family symmetry , Phys. Lett. B 815 (2021) 136122 [ 2009.04750]

    2021 arXiv

  40. [46]

    M. Dey, P. Chakraborty and S. Roy, The µ-τ mixed symmetry and neutrino mass matrix , Phys. Lett. B 839 (2023) 137767 [ 2211.01314]

    2023 arXiv

  41. [47]

    Branco, J.M

    G.C. Branco, J.M. Gerard and W. Grimus, GEOMETRICAL T VIOLATION , Phys. Lett. B 136 (1984) 383

    1984

  42. [48]

    Ma, Near tribimaximal neutrino mixing with Delta(27) symmetry , Phys

    E. Ma, Near tribimaximal neutrino mixing with Delta(27) symmetry , Phys. Lett. B 660 (2008) 505 [ 0709.0507]

    2008 arXiv

  43. [49]

    Abbas and S

    M. Abbas and S. Khalil, Fermion masses and mixing in ∆(27) flavour model, Phys. Rev. D 91 (2015) 053003 [ 1406.6716]

    2015 arXiv

  44. [50]

    Chen, G.-J

    P. Chen, G.-J. Ding, A.D. Rojas, C.A. Vaquera-Araujo and J.W.F. Valle, Warped flavor symmetry predictions for neutrino physics , JHEP 01 (2016) 007 [ 1509.06683]

    2016 arXiv

  45. [51]

    Centelles Chuli´ a, R

    S. Centelles Chuli´ a, R. Srivastava and J.W.F. Valle,CP violation from flavor symmetry in a lepton quarticity dark matter model , Phys. Lett. B 761 (2016) 431 [ 1606.06904]

    2016 arXiv

  46. [52]

    Vien and D.P

    V.V. Vien and D.P. Khoi, U(1) B-L extension based on ∆ (27) symmetry for lepton masses and mixings , Mod. Phys. Lett. A 35 (2020) 2050181

    2020

  47. [53]

    C´ arcamo Hern´ andez, I

    A.E. C´ arcamo Hern´ andez, I. de Medeiros Varzielas, M.L. L´ opez-Ib´ a˜ nez and A. Melis, Controlled fermion mixing and FCNCs in a ∆(27) 3+1 Higgs Doublet Model , Journal of High Energy Physics 2021 (2021) 215 [ 2102.05658]

    2021 arXiv

  48. [54]

    C. Luhn, S. Nasri and P. Ramond, Tri-bimaximal neutrino mixing and the family symmetry Z7⋊Z3, Physics Letters B 652 (2007) 27 [ 0706.2341]

    2007 arXiv

  49. [55]

    Hagedorn, M.A

    C. Hagedorn, M.A. Schmidt and A.Y. Smirnov, Lepton mixing and cancellation of the Dirac mass hierarchy in SO(10) GUTs with flavor symmetries T 7 and Σ(81), Physical Review D 79 (2009) 036002 [ 0811.2955]

    2009 arXiv

  50. [56]

    Q.-H. Cao, S. Khalil, E. Ma and H. Okada, Observable T 7 Lepton Flavor Symmetry at the Large Hadron Collider , Physical Review Letters 106 (2011) 131801 [ 1009.5415]

    2011 arXiv

  51. [57]

    Luhn, K.M

    C. Luhn, K.M. Parattu and A. Wingerter, A minimal model of neutrino flavor , Journal of High Energy Physics 2012 (2012) 96 [ 1210.1197]

    2012 arXiv

  52. [58]

    Kajiyama, H

    Y. Kajiyama, H. Okada and K. Yagyu, T7 flavor model in three loop seesaw and Higgs phenomenology, Journal of High Energy Physics 2013 (2013) 196 [ 1307.0480]

    2013 arXiv

  53. [59]

    Bonilla, S

    C. Bonilla, S. Morisi, E. Peinado and J.W.F. Valle, Relating quarks and leptons with the T 7 flavour group, Physics Letters B 742 (2015) 99 [ 1411.4883]. – 21 –

    2015 arXiv

  54. [60]

    Vien and H.N

    V.V. Vien and H.N. Long, The T 7 flavor symmetry in 3-3-1 model with neutral leptons , Journal of High Energy Physics 2014 (2014) 133 [ 1402.1256]

    2014 arXiv

  55. [61]

    Vien, T7 flavor symmetry scheme for understanding neutrino mass and mixing in 3-3-1 model with neutral leptons , Modern Physics Letters A 29 (2014) 1450139 [1508.02585]

    V.V. Vien, T7 flavor symmetry scheme for understanding neutrino mass and mixing in 3-3-1 model with neutral leptons , Modern Physics Letters A 29 (2014) 1450139 [1508.02585]

    2014 arXiv

  56. [62]

    C´ arcamo Hern´ andez and R

    A.E. C´ arcamo Hern´ andez and R. Martinez,Fermion mass and mixing pattern in a minimal T7 flavor 331 model , Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics 43 (2016) 45003 [1511.07997]

    2016 arXiv

  57. [63]

    Arbel´ aez, A.E

    C. Arbel´ aez, A.E. C´ arcamo Hern´ andez, S. Kovalenko and I. Schmidt,Adjoint SU(5) GUT model with T 7 flavor symmetry , Physical Review D 92 (2015) 115015 [ 1507.03852]

    2015 arXiv

  58. [64]

    Vien and H.N

    V.V. Vien and H.N. Long, Fermion Mass and Mixing in a Simple Extension of the Standard Model Based on T 7 Flavor Symmetry , Physics of Atomic Nuclei 82 (2019) 168

    2019

  59. [65]

    Leontaris and N.D

    G.K. Leontaris and N.D. Tracas, Modular weights, U(1)’s and mass matrices , Phys. Lett. B 419 (1998) 206 [ hep-ph/9709510]

    1998 arXiv

  60. [66]

    Kobayashi, K

    T. Kobayashi, K. Tanaka and T.H. Tatsuishi, Neutrino mixing from finite modular groups , Phys. Rev. D 98 (2018) 016004 [ 1803.10391]

    2018 arXiv

  61. [67]

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

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

    2019 arXiv

  62. [68]

    de Adelhart Toorop, F

    R. de Adelhart Toorop, F. Feruglio and C. Hagedorn, Finite Modular Groups and Lepton Mixing, Nucl. Phys. B 858 (2012) 437 [ 1112.1340]

    2012 arXiv

  63. [69]

    Mishra, Neutrino mixing and Leptogenesis with modular S3 symmetry in the framework of type III seesaw , 2008.02095

    S. Mishra, Neutrino mixing and Leptogenesis with modular S3 symmetry in the framework of type III seesaw , 2008.02095

    2008 arXiv

  64. [70]

    Okada and Y

    H. Okada and Y. Orikasa, Modular S3 symmetric radiative seesaw model , Phys. Rev. D 100 (2019) 115037 [ 1907.04716]

    2019 arXiv

  65. [71]

    Penedo and S.T

    J.T. Penedo and S.T. Petcov, Lepton Masses and Mixing from Modular S4 Symmetry, Nucl. Phys. B 939 (2019) 292 [ 1806.11040]

    2019 arXiv

  66. [72]

    Novichkov, J.T

    P.P. Novichkov, J.T. Penedo, S.T. Petcov and A.V. Titov, Modular S4 models of lepton masses and mixing , JHEP 04 (2019) 005 [ 1811.04933]

    2019 arXiv

  67. [73]

    Okada and Y

    H. Okada and Y. Orikasa, Neutrino mass model with a modular S4 symmetry, 1908.08409

    1908 arXiv

  68. [74]

    Nomura, H

    T. Nomura, H. Okada and Y. Shoji, SU(4)C × SU(2)L× U(1)R models with modular A4 symmetry, PTEP 2023 (2023) 023B04 [ 2206.04466]

    2023 arXiv

  69. [75]

    Abbas, Modular A4 Invariance Model for Lepton Masses and Mixing , Phys

    M. Abbas, Modular A4 Invariance Model for Lepton Masses and Mixing , Phys. Atom. Nucl. 83 (2020) 764

    2020

  70. [76]

    Nomura and H

    T. Nomura and H. Okada, Quark and lepton model with flavor specific dark matter and muon g −2 in modular A4 and hidden U(1) symmetries , Phys. Dark Univ. 49 (2025) 101986 [2304.13361]

    2025 arXiv

  71. [77]

    Kim and H

    J. Kim and H. Okada, Fermi-LAT GeV excess and muon g − 2 in a modular A4 symmetry, 2302.09747

    arXiv

  72. [78]

    Kashav and S

    M. Kashav and S. Verma, On minimal realization of topological Lorentz structures with one-loop seesaw extensions in A 4 modular symmetry, JCAP 03 (2023) 010 [ 2205.06545]. – 22 –

    2023 arXiv

  73. [79]

    Nagao and H

    K.I. Nagao and H. Okada, Lepton sector in modular A4 and gauged U(1)R symmetry , Nucl. Phys. B 980 (2022) 115841 [ 2010.03348]

    2022 arXiv

  74. [80]

    Asaka, Y

    T. Asaka, Y. Heo and T. Yoshida, Lepton flavor model with modular A4 symmetry in large volume limit , Phys. Lett. B 811 (2020) 135956 [ 2009.12120]

    2020 arXiv

  75. [81]

    Nomura and H

    T. Nomura and H. Okada, A linear seesaw model with A 4-modular flavor and local U(1)B−L symmetries, JCAP 09 (2022) 049 [ 2007.04801]

    2022 arXiv

  76. [82]

    Okada and Y

    H. Okada and Y. Shoji, A radiative seesaw model with three Higgs doublets in modular A4 symmetry, Nucl. Phys. B 961 (2020) 115216 [ 2003.13219]

    2020 arXiv

  77. [83]

    Behera, S

    M.K. Behera, S. Singirala, S. Mishra and R. Mohanta, A modular A 4 symmetric scotogenic model for neutrino mass and dark matter , J. Phys. G 49 (2022) 035002 [ 2009.01806]

    2022 arXiv

  78. [84]

    Ding, S.F

    G.-J. Ding, S.F. King and X.-G. Liu, Modular A4 symmetry models of neutrinos and charged leptons, JHEP 09 (2019) 074 [ 1907.11714]

    2019 arXiv

  79. [85]

    Altarelli and F

    G. Altarelli and F. Feruglio, Tri-bimaximal neutrino mixing, A(4) and the modular symmetry, Nucl. Phys. B 741 (2006) 215 [ hep-ph/0512103]

    2006 arXiv

  80. [86]

    Kashav and S

    M. Kashav and S. Verma, Broken scaling neutrino mass matrix and leptogenesis based on A4 modular invariance, JHEP 09 (2021) 100 [ 2103.07207]

    2021 arXiv

  81. [87]

    Devi, Retrieving texture zeros in 3+1 active-sterile neutrino framework under the action of A4 modular-invariants, 2303.04900

    M.R. Devi, Retrieving texture zeros in 3+1 active-sterile neutrino framework under the action of A4 modular-invariants, 2303.04900

    arXiv

  82. [88]

    Singh, S.R

    M.K. Singh, S.R. Singh and N.N. Singh, Modular A4 symmetry in 3+1 active–sterile neutrino masses and mixings , Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 39 (2024) 2450145 [ 2303.10922]

    2024 arXiv

  83. [89]

    Kikuchi, T

    S. Kikuchi, T. Kobayashi, K. Nasu, S. Takada and H. Uchida, Quark mass hierarchies and CP violation in A 4 × A4 × A4 modular symmetric flavor models , JHEP 07 (2023) 134 [2302.03326]

    2023 arXiv

  84. [90]

    Petcov and M

    S.T. Petcov and M. Tanimoto, A4 modular flavour model of quark mass hierarchies close to the fixed point τ = ω, Eur. Phys. J. C 83 (2023) 579 [ 2212.13336]

    2023 arXiv

  85. [91]

    Du and F

    X.K. Du and F. Wang, Flavor structures of quarks and leptons from flipped SU(5) GUT with A 4 modular flavor symmetry , JHEP 01 (2023) 036 [ 2209.08796]

    2023 arXiv

  86. [92]

    Ding, S.F

    G.-J. Ding, S.F. King, J.-N. Lu and B.-Y. Qu, Leptogenesis in SO(10) models with A 4 modular symmetry, JHEP 10 (2022) 071 [ 2206.14675]

    2022 arXiv

  87. [93]

    Nomura, H

    T. Nomura, H. Okada and Y.-h. Qi, Zee model in a modular A4 symmetry, Eur. Phys. J. C 85 (2025) 134 [ 2111.10944]

    2025 arXiv

  88. [94]

    Kuranaga, H

    H. Kuranaga, H. Ohki and S. Uemura, Modular origin of mass hierarchy: Froggatt-Nielsen like mechanism, JHEP 07 (2021) 068 [ 2105.06237]

    2021 arXiv

  89. [95]

    Novichkov, J.T

    P.P. Novichkov, J.T. Penedo, S.T. Petcov and A.V. Titov, Modular A5 symmetry for flavour model building , JHEP 04 (2019) 174 [ 1812.02158]

    2019 arXiv

  90. [96]

    Yao, X.-G

    C.-Y. Yao, X.-G. Liu and G.-J. Ding, Fermion masses and mixing from the double cover and metaplectic cover of the A5 modular group, Phys. Rev. D 103 (2021) 095013 [ 2011.03501]

    2021 arXiv

  91. [97]

    Liu and G.-J

    X.-G. Liu and G.-J. Ding, Neutrino Masses and Mixing from Double Covering of Finite Modular Groups, JHEP 08 (2019) 134 [ 1907.01488]

    2019 arXiv

  92. [98]

    Beneˇ s, H

    P. Beneˇ s, H. Okada and Y. Orikasa,Towards unification of lepton and quark mass matrices from double covering of modular A4 flavor symmetry , 2212.07245. – 23 –

    arXiv

  93. [99]

    Okada and Y

    H. Okada and Y. Orikasa, Lepton mass matrix from double covering of A 4 modular flavor symmetry*, Chin. Phys. C 46 (2022) 123108 [ 2206.12629]

    2022 arXiv

  94. [100]

    Y. Abe, T. Higaki, J. Kawamura and T. Kobayashi, Quark and lepton hierarchies from S4’ modular flavor symmetry , Phys. Lett. B 842 (2023) 137977 [ 2302.11183]

    2023 arXiv

  95. [101]

    Y. Abe, T. Higaki, J. Kawamura and T. Kobayashi, Quark masses and CKM hierarchies from S′ 4 modular flavor symmetry , Eur. Phys. J. C 83 (2023) 1140 [ 2301.07439]

    2023 arXiv

  96. [102]

    X. Wang, B. Yu and S. Zhou, Double covering of the modular A5 group and lepton flavor mixing in the minimal seesaw model , Phys. Rev. D 103 (2021) 076005 [ 2010.10159]

    2021 arXiv

  97. [103]

    Behera and R

    M.K. Behera and R. Mohanta, Linear Seesaw in A5’ Modular Symmetry With Leptogenesis , Front. in Phys. 10 (2022) 854595 [ 2201.10429]

    2022 arXiv

  98. [104]

    Behera and R

    M.K. Behera and R. Mohanta, Inverse seesaw in A′ 5 modular symmetry, J. Phys. G 49 (2022) 045001 [ 2108.01059]

    2022 arXiv

  99. [105]

    Abbott, Modular functions and dirichlet series in number theory, by tm apostol

    S. Abbott, Modular functions and dirichlet series in number theory, by tm apostol. pp 204. dm98. 1990. isbn 3-540-97127-0 (springer) , The Mathematical Gazette 75 (1991) 249

    1990

  100. [106]

    JUNO collaboration, Neutrino Physics with JUNO , J. Phys. G 43 (2016) 030401 [1507.05613]

    2016 arXiv

  101. [107]

    DUNE collaboration, Deep Underground Neutrino Experiment (DUNE), Far Detector Technical Design Report, Volume II: DUNE Physics , 2002.03005

    2002

  102. [108]

    Hyper-Kamiokande collaboration, Physics potentials with the second Hyper-Kamiokande detector in Korea, PTEP 2018 (2018) 063C01 [ 1611.06118]

    2018 arXiv

  103. [109]

    Guedria, Improved accelerated PSO algorithm for mechanical engineering optimization problems, Applied Soft Computing 40 (2016) 455

    N.B. Guedria, Improved accelerated PSO algorithm for mechanical engineering optimization problems, Applied Soft Computing 40 (2016) 455

    2016

  104. [110]

    Kaveh and E.A

    A. Kaveh and E.A. NASR, Engineering design optimization using a hybrid pso and hs algorithm,

  105. [111]

    Kumar, S.K

    N. Kumar, S.K. Mahato and A.K. Bhunia, Design of an efficient hybridized CS-PSO algorithm and its applications for solving constrained and bound constrained structural engineering design problems , Results in Control and Optimization 5 (2021) 100064

    2021

  106. [112]

    Djemame, M

    S. Djemame, M. Batouche, H. Oulhadj and P. Siarry, Solving reverse emergence with quantum PSO application to image processing , Soft Computing 23 (2019) 6921

    2019

  107. [113]

    Singh, M

    R.P. Singh, M. Dixit and S. Silakari, Image contrast enhancement using GA and PSO: a survey, in 2014 International Conference on Computational Intelligence and Communication Networks, pp. 186–189, IEEE, 2014

    2014

  108. [114]

    Pramanik, S

    J. Pramanik, S. Dalai and D. Rana, Image registration using PSO and APSO: a comparative analysis, International Journal of Computer Applications 116 (2015)

    2015

  109. [115]

    Azayite and S

    F.Z. Azayite and S. Achchab, Financial Early Warning System Model Based on Neural Networks, PSO and SA Algorithms , in EngOpt 2018 Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Engineering Optimization , pp. 970–982, Springer, 2019

    2018

  110. [116]

    Chiam, K.C

    S.C. Chiam, K.C. Tan and A.A. Mamun, A memetic model of evolutionary PSO for computational finance applications, Expert Systems with Applications 36 (2009) 3695

    2009

  111. [117]

    Y. Pan et al., Design of financial management model using the forward neural network based on particle swarm optimization algorithm , Computational Intelligence and Neuroscience 2022 (2022) . – 24 –

    2022

  112. [118]

    Marinakis, M

    Y. Marinakis, M. Marinaki, M. Doumpos and C. Zopounidis, Ant colony and particle swarm optimization for financial classification problems , Expert Systems with Applications 36 (2009) 10604

    2009

  113. [119]

    Meissner, M

    M. Meissner, M. Schmuker and G. Schneider, Optimized Particle Swarm Optimization (OPSO) and its application to artificial neural network training , BMC bioinformatics 7 (2006) 1

    2006

  114. [120]

    Rauf, W.H

    H.T. Rauf, W.H. Bangyal, J. Ahmad and S.A. Bangyal, Training of artificial neural network using pso with novel initialization technique , in 2018 international conference on innovation and intelligence for informatics, computing, and technologies (3ICT) , pp. 1–8, IEEE, 2018

    2018

  115. [121]

    Esmin, R.A

    A.A. Esmin, R.A. Coelho and S. Matwin, A review on particle swarm optimization algorithm and its variants to clustering high-dimensional data , Artificial Intelligence Review 44 (2015) 23

    2015

  116. [122]

    S. Rana, S. Jasola and R. Kumar, A review on particle swarm optimization algorithms and their applications to data clustering , Artificial Intelligence Review 35 (2011) 211

    2011

  117. [123]

    Stacey, M

    A. Stacey, M. Jancic and I. Grundy, Particle swarm optimization with mutation ,

  118. [124]

    Eberhart and J

    R. Eberhart and J. Kennedy, A new optimizer using particle swarm theory ,

  119. [125]

    Q. He, L. Wang and B. Liu, Parameter estimation for chaotic systems by particle swarm optimization, Chaos, Solitons & Fractals 34 (2007) 654

    2007

  120. [126]

    Alatas, E

    B. Alatas, E. Akin and A.B. Ozer, Chaos embedded particle swarm optimization algorithms , Chaos, Solitons & Fractals 40 (2009) 1715

    2009

  121. [127]

    Babazadeh, M

    D. Babazadeh, M. Boroushaki and C. Lucas, Optimization of fuel core loading pattern design in a VVER nuclear power reactors using Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) , Annals of nuclear energy 36 (2009) 923

    2009

  122. [128]

    Ibrahim and M.A

    A.M. Ibrahim and M.A. Tawhid, A hybridization of cuckoo search and particle swarm optimization for solving nonlinear systems , Evolutionary Intelligence 12 (2019) 541

    2019

  123. [129]

    Subbaraj and P

    P. Subbaraj and P. Rajnarayanan, Hybrid particle swarm optimization based optimal reactive power dispatch, International Journal of Computer Applications 1 (2010) 65

    2010

  124. [130]

    Jiang, Y

    A. Jiang, Y. Osamu and L. Chen, Multilayer optical thin film design with deep Q learning , Scientific reports 10 (2020) 12780

    2020

  125. [131]

    C. Yue, Z. Qin, Y. Lang and Q. Liu, Determination of thin metal film’s thickness and optical constants based on SPR phase detection by simulated annealing particle swarm optimization, Optics Communications 430 (2019) 238

    2019

  126. [132]

    Rabady and A

    R.I. Rabady and A. Ababneh, Global optimal design of optical multilayer thin-film filters using particle swarm optimization , Optik 125 (2014) 548

    2014

  127. [133]

    Z.-H. Ruan, Y. Yuan, X.-X. Zhang, Y. Shuai and H.-P. Tan, Determination of optical properties and thickness of optical thin film using stochastic particle swarm optimization , Solar Energy 127 (2016) 147

    2016

  128. [134]

    Mehmood, A

    A. Mehmood, A. Zameer, M.A.Z. Raja, R. Bibi, N.I. Chaudhary and M.S. Aslam, Nature-inspired heuristic paradigms for parameter estimation of control autoregressive moving average systems , Neural Computing and Applications 31 (2019) 5819

    2019

  129. [135]

    Yetis and M

    Y. Yetis and M. Jamshidi, Forecasting of Turkey’s electricity consumption using Artificial Neural Network, . – 25 –

  130. [136]

    Yassin, A

    I.M. Yassin, A. Zabidi, M.S. Amin Megat Ali, N. Md Tahir, H. Zainol Abidin and Z.I. Rizman, Binary particle swarm optimization structure selection of nonlinear autoregressive moving average with exogenous inputs (NARMAX) model of a flexible robot arm, International Journal on ...

    2016

  131. [137]

    Akbar, F

    S. Akbar, F. Zaman, M. Asif, A.U. Rehman and M.A.Z. Raja, Novel application of FO-DPSO for 2-D parameter estimation of electromagnetic plane waves , Neural Computing and Applications 31 (2019) 3681

    2019

  132. [138]

    Fawzi, A.A

    M.A. Fawzi, A.A. El-Fergany and H.M. Hasanien, Effective methodology based on neural network optimizer for extracting model parameters of PEM fuel cells , International Journal of Energy Research 43 (2019) 8136

    2019

  133. [139]

    AbouOmar, Y.X

    M.S. AbouOmar, Y.X. Su, H. Zhang, B. Shi and L. li Wan, Observer-based interval type-2 fuzzy PID controller for PEMFC air feeding system using novel hybrid neural network algorithm-differential evolution optimizer , Alexandria Engineering Journal (2022)

    2022

  134. [140]

    Aslam, M.W

    M.N. Aslam, M.W. Aslam, M.S. Arshad, Z. Afzal, M.K. Hassani, A.M. Zidan et al., Neuro-computing solution for Lorenz differential equations through artificial neural networks integrated with PSO-NNA hybrid meta-heuristic algorithms: a comparative study , Scientific Reports 14 (2024)

    2024

  135. [141]

    F.A.J. Shaban, NNA and Activation Equation-Based Prediction of New COVID-19 Infections, 2023 5th International Congress on Human-Computer Interaction, Optimization and Robotic Applications (HORA) (2023) 1

    2023

  136. [142]

    Zhang, Z

    Y. Zhang, Z. Jin and Y. Chen, Hybrid teaching-learning-based optimization and neural network algorithm for engineering design optimization problems , Knowl. Based Syst. 187 (2020)

    2020

  137. [143]

    Y. Zhang, Neural Network Algorithm With Reinforcement Learning for Parameters Extraction of Photovoltaic Models , IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems 34 (2021) 2806

    2021

  138. [144]

    Qadeer, A

    K. Qadeer, A. Ahmad, A. Naquash, M.A. Qyyum, K. Majeed, Z. Zhou et al., Neural network-inspired performance enhancement of synthetic natural gas liquefaction plant with different minimum approach temperatures, Fuel (2022)

    2022

  139. [145]

    Zhang, C

    Y. Zhang, C. Huang, H. Huang and J. Wu, Multiple Learning Neural Network Algorithm for Parameter Estimation of Proton Exchange Membrane Fuel Cell Models , Green Energy and Intelligent Transportation (2022)

    2022

  140. [146]

    Elsisi, K

    M. Elsisi, K. Mahmoud, M. Lehtonen and M.M.F. Darwish, An Improved Neural Network Algorithm to Efficiently Track Various Trajectories of Robot Manipulator Arms , IEEE Access 9 (2021) 11911

    2021

  141. [147]

    Osornio-R ´ ıos,Identification of Positioning System for Industrial Applications using Neural Network, Journal of Scientific & Industrial Research 76 (2017) 144

    R.A. Osornio-R ´ ıos,Identification of Positioning System for Industrial Applications using Neural Network, Journal of Scientific & Industrial Research 76 (2017) 144

    2017

  142. [148]

    Aslam, A.A

    M.W. Aslam, A.A. Zafar, M.N. Aslam, A.A. Bhatti, T. Hussain, M. Iqbal et al., Particle swarm optimization based analysis to unlocking the neutrino mass puzzle using SU (2)L × U (1)Y × A4 × S2 × Z10 × Z3 flavor symmetry , Sci. Rep. 15 (2025) 5129 [2404.14917]. – 26 –

    2025 arXiv

  143. [149]

    Aslam and A.A

    M.W. Aslam and A.A. Zafar, Optimizing Neutrino Mass Predictions with Neural Network Algorithm and SU (2)L × U (1)Y × T7 × Z10 Symmetry, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 64 (2025) 124

    2025

  144. [150]

    Aslam, A.A

    M.W. Aslam, A.A. Zafar, M.N. Aslam and S. Saleem, Optimizing neutrino mass predictions with competitive chaotic learning neural network algorithm and SU (2)L × A4 × Z3 × Z2 symmetry, Modern Physics Letters A 0 (0) 2550106

  145. [153]

    Antusch and V

    S. Antusch and V. Maurer, Running quark and lepton parameters at various scales , JHEP 11 (2013) 115 [ 1306.6879]

    2013 arXiv

  146. [154]

    Okada and M

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

    2021 arXiv

  147. [155]

    Bj¨ orkeroth, F.J

    F. Bj¨ orkeroth, F.J. de Anda, I. de Medeiros Varzielas and S.F. King, Towards a complete A4× SU(5) SUSY GUT , JHEP 06 (2015) 141 [ 1503.03306]

    2015 arXiv

  148. [156]

    Mishra, M.K

    P. Mishra, M.K. Behera, P. Panda and R. Mohanta, Type III seesaw under A4 modular symmetry with leptogenesis , Eur. Phys. J. C 82 (2022) 1115 [ 2204.08338]

    2022 arXiv

  149. [157]

    S. Dawson, Electroweak Symmetry Breaking and Effective Field Theory , in Theoretical Advanced Study Institute in Elementary Particle Physics: Anticipating the Next Discoveries in Particle Physics , pp. 1–63, 12, 2017, DOI [ 1712.07232]

    2017 arXiv

  150. [158]

    Workman, V.D

    R.L. Workman, V.D. Burkert, V. Crede, E. Klempt, U. Thoma, L. Tiator et al., Review of Particle Physics , Prog. Theor. Exp. Phys. 2022 (2022) 083C01

    2022

  151. [159]

    Rodejohann, Neutrino-Less Double Beta Decay and Particle Physics , International Journal of Modern Physics E 20 (2011) 1833 [ 1106.1334]

    W. Rodejohann, Neutrino-Less Double Beta Decay and Particle Physics , International Journal of Modern Physics E 20 (2011) 1833 [ 1106.1334]

    2011 arXiv

  152. [160]

    Mitra, G

    M. Mitra, G. Senjanovi´ c and F. Vissani, Neutrinoless double beta decay and heavy sterile neutrinos, Nuclear Physics B 856 (2012) 26 [ 1108.0004]

    2012 arXiv

  153. [161]

    Bilenky and C

    S.M. Bilenky and C. Giunti, Neutrinoless Double-Beta Decay:. a Brief Review , Modern Physics Letters A 27 (2012) 1230015 [ 1203.5250]

    2012 arXiv

  154. [162]

    Rodejohann, Neutrinoless double-beta decay and neutrino physics , Journal of Physics G Nuclear Physics 39 (2012) 124008 [ 1206.2560]

    W. Rodejohann, Neutrinoless double-beta decay and neutrino physics , Journal of Physics G Nuclear Physics 39 (2012) 124008 [ 1206.2560]

    2012 arXiv

  155. [163]

    Vergados, H

    J.D. Vergados, H. Ejiri and F. ˇSimkovic, Theory of neutrinoless double-beta decay , Reports on Progress in Physics 75 (2012) 106301 [ 1205.0649]. – 27 –

    2012 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.