Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 77 references

The paper claims that anomaly cancellation—of SL(2,Z) modular and U(1)_X gauge anomalies—determines the Standard Model flavor structure, fixing quark and lepton mass hierarchies, mixing angles, neutrino masses, and the flavored QCD axion ma

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 23:17 UTC pith:NOP6EGFR

load-bearing objection Solid model-building with a load-bearing overclaim: the flavor structure is chosen, not derived, and the abstract has a five-order-of-magnitude inconsistency. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2511.06355 v4 pith:NOP6EGFR submitted 2025-11-09 hep-ph hep-exhep-th

Flavor from Consistency: Axion, Anomaly Cancellation, and Emergent Unification

Yang Hwan Ahn This is my paper
classification hep-ph hep-exhep-th
keywords modular symmetryanomaly cancellationflavored QCD axionFroggatt-Nielsen mechanismquark and lepton massesneutrino seesawstring-derived supergravitygauge coupling unification
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper is trying to establish that consistency conditions alone—specifically the cancellation of SL(2,Z) modular anomalies and U(1)_X gauge anomalies, together with Standard Model gauge coupling unification—determine the flavor structure of quarks and leptons, rather than flavor being put in by hand. If true, a single string-derived supergravity framework would explain mass hierarchies, mixing angles, neutrino masses, the QCD axion, and the supersymmetry-breaking scale from one set of anomaly-free charge assignments. The central payoff is a set of concrete, testable numbers: axion mass ma≈9.12×10^-3 eV, axion-photon coupling |gaγγ|≈1.69×10^-13 GeV^-1, U(1)_X breaking scale fA=4×10^10 GeV, seesaw scale ⟨χ⟩≈2×10^10 GeV, and gravitino mass around O(10) TeV. A sympathetic reader would care because this is a rare example where anomaly consistency, not a hand-built flavor symmetry, is claimed to be the origin of flavor. Note that the abstract quotes a different axion mass, 3.35×10^-8 eV, while the body derives 9.12×10^-3 eV; the numerical analysis uses the body value.

Core claim

In a four-dimensional effective theory with gauge group GSM×SL(2,Z)×U(1)_X arising from string-derived supergravity, the paper shows that vanishing mixed anomalies—SL(2,Z)×[SU(3)_C]^2, SL(2,Z)×[U(1)_EM]^2, SL(2,Z)×[SU(2)_L]^2, SL(2,Z)×[U(1)_Y]^2, SL(2,Z)×[U(1)_X]^2, and the U(1)_X mixed anomalies—force specific relations among modular weights and U(1)_X charges. With a viable charge assignment (Tables I and II), all Yukawa couplings become unit-magnitude complex numbers, and fermion mass hierarchies emerge from powers of Δχ=0.634, the ratio of the U(1)_X breaking scale to the flavor scale. The same structure yields seesaw neutrino masses with normal ordering, suppresses flavor-violating axio

What carries the argument

The central object is the anomaly-free charge assignment of modular weights k_I and U(1)_X charges X_I for all quark and lepton fields, constrained by the anomaly equations (23)–(26). These equations impose AC=AE=AL=AY=ASX=0 and relate modular weights to U(1)_X charges. The mass matrices are then generated by powers of Δχ≡vχ/(√2 Λ) multiplying unit-modulus Yukawa coefficients, with modular forms (Eisenstein-series polynomials) supplying the flavor structure. The same consistency conditions fix the U(1)_X breaking scale, identified with the Froggatt-Nielsen cutoff, and thereby determine the axion decay constant, the seesaw scale, and the axion mass.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the specific U(1)_X charges and modular weights in Tables I and II are uniquely determined (or representative of a very small class) by the anomaly-free conditions—but the paper only shows these assignments are viable, never proving uniqueness, and the mass hierarchies are read off from these assignments via powers of Δχ.

What would settle it

Compute the complete set of solutions to the anomaly equations (23)–(26) for rational or integer U(1)_X charges and modular weights; if any additional solution yields different powers of Δχ and therefore different fermion mass hierarchies, the central predictive claim collapses. Experimentally, a measurement excluding ma≈9.12 meV or |gaγγ|≈1.69×10^-13 GeV^-1 would falsify the axion prediction of the framework.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • The U(1)_X breaking scale is fixed at fA=4×10^10 GeV, which simultaneously sets the seesaw scale ⟨χ⟩≈2×10^10 GeV and the QCD axion decay constant, turning ma and gaγγ into quantitative predictions: ma=9.12×10^-3 eV and |gaγγ|=1.69×10^-13 GeV^-1.
  • Flavor-violating axion couplings to s,d quarks and μ,e leptons are suppressed to O(λ^4), so rare decays such as B±→K±+a, rather than K+→π++a, provide the leading constraints on fA, while red-giant cooling constrains the axion-electron coupling.
  • Quark masses and CKM parameters are reproduced with all Yukawa coefficients in the allowed unit-magnitude range (0.33≲|α_i|≲1.67) for Δχ=0.634 and tanβ=6.4, giving a quark CP phase δ_CP^q≈63.4°.
  • Seesaw-generated neutrino masses come out with normal mass ordering, a total mass sum in the range 0.063–0.076 eV, and a neutrinoless double-beta decay rate below current experimental limits.
  • For a specific value of the parameter α, the gravitino mass is constrained to the O(10) TeV scale, linking supersymmetry breaking to the same consistency structure that sets flavor and axion physics.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The paper demonstrates consistency, not uniqueness: it exhibits one viable charge assignment satisfying the anomaly conditions but does not prove that these conditions uniquely select it. Until the full space of anomaly-free assignments is mapped, the 'determination' of flavor should be read as a consistent derivation from a chosen assignment rather than a uniqueness theorem.
  • Editorial inference: if future axion experiments bracket ma near 9 meV and |gaγγ| near 1.7×10^-13 GeV^-1, the flavored-axion scenario becomes a concrete target, and the same consistency conditions would tie it to a seesaw scale near 10^10 GeV testable by neutrinoless double-beta decay experiments and cosmological neutrino-mass measurements.
  • Editorial note: the manuscript contains an internal inconsistency—the abstract quotes ma=3.35×10^-8 eV while the body derives ma=9.12×10^-3 eV; the body value is the one used in the phenomenological analysis, so the abstract should be corrected for the central claim to be evaluated cleanly.
  • The anomaly-cancellation machinery could be applied to other modular-weight assignments or extended gauge groups to test whether the predicted axion mass window is generic or an artifact of the specific Tables I and II.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a four-dimensional N=1 string-derived supergravity model with gauge group GSM × SL(2,Z) × U(1)_X and argues that modular and gauge anomaly cancellation, together with SM gauge-coupling unification, determines the quark/lepton flavor structure, the U(1)_X breaking scale, and flavored QCD axion properties. Concretely, the construction assigns modular weights and U(1)_X charges to all quark and lepton fields (Tables I and II), writes the corresponding Yukawa superpotentials, and derives hierarchical mass matrices controlled by powers of Δχ = ⟨χ⟩/(√2 Λ). Numerical fits with Δχ = 0.634, tanβ = 6.4, and O(1) Yukawa coefficients are then shown to reproduce quark and lepton masses, CKM and PMNS parameters, and neutrino mass-squared differences. The body's central predictions are m_a = 9.12×10^-3 eV and |g_aγγ| = 1.69×10^-13 GeV^-1, with a normal neutrino mass hierarchy and m_{3/2} ~ O(10) TeV. The arXiv header abstract, however, quotes m_a = 3.35×10^-8 eV, five orders of magnitude below the body value.

Significance. If the central claim were established, this would be a substantial step toward unifying flavor physics, axion physics, and SUSY-breaking scales from consistency conditions. The paper deserves credit for writing explicit anomaly equations, constructing a complete superpotential, examining modulus stabilization near τ ≈ i, and carrying out detailed numerical fits with O(1) coefficients. However, the claimed derivation is not supported as written. The charge assignment is described only as 'a viable charge assignment,' not as a consequence of the anomaly conditions; the axion scale is effectively an input chosen to satisfy the RGB bound and the seesaw condition; and the numerical agreement involves dozens of adjusted O(1) parameters. The predictive content of the paper is therefore much weaker than claimed in the abstract.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. III, Tables I-II; Eqs. (50)-(56), (61)-(70)] The paper never shows that anomaly cancellation determines the charges and modular weights. It states in Sec. III that Tables I-II give 'a viable charge assignment' and verifies that the anomaly conditions (23)-(26), (31) hold. These equations are linear in the U(1)_X charges and modular weights; with 15 SM fermions plus 3 right-handed neutrinos the solution space is generically large. Since the mass hierarchies in Eqs. (61)-(70) are read off from powers of Δχ fixed by the chosen charges, a different anomaly-free assignment would give a different flavor pattern. Without a proof of uniqueness, or at least a characterization of the solution space, the abstract's claim that consistency 'determines the flavor structure' is inverted: the charges are selected to reproduce the observed masses, not forced by the consistency conditions.
  2. [Sec. IV A, Eqs. (73), (77), (82)] The U(1)_X breaking scale is not derived from consistency. The value f_A = 4×10^10 GeV in Eq. (77) is obtained by combining the red-giant bound (73) with the seesaw estimate (82), where ⟨χ⟩ = 2×10^10 GeV is chosen to yield m_ν3 ∼ 0.05 eV. Thus the axion decay constant, and therefore the axion mass in Eq. (78), is an input selected to satisfy phenomenological constraints rather than a prediction of the anomaly-free conditions. The abstract's statement that consistency 'fixe[s] the U(1)_X breaking scale, thereby determining the QCD axion decay constant' is not supported by the derivation.
  3. [Abstract vs. Sec. IV A, Eq. (78)] The arXiv header abstract predicts m_a = 3.35×10^-8 eV, while the body and the full-text abstract consistently give m_a = 9.12×10^-3 eV (Eq. (78); see also Fig. 2 and the conclusion). These differ by five orders of magnitude. Since the axion mass is the paper's headline quantitative prediction, this internal inconsistency is load-bearing and must be resolved. No derivation of the 3.35×10^-8 eV value appears in the body.
  4. [Sec. IV A-B, Eqs. (79)-(89)] The numerical results are fits, not predictions. The inputs include Δχ = 0.634, tanβ = 6.4, and roughly twenty effective Yukawa coefficients (quark, charged-lepton, Dirac-neutrino, and Majorana-neutrino moduli and phases) adjusted within the range 0.33 ≲ |α_i| ≲ 1.67 allowed by Eq. (51). Because the mass matrices contain powers of Δχ up to 24, this number of O(1) parameters is more than enough to accommodate the observed hierarchies and mixings. A parameter-counting or χ² analysis would be needed to quantify the predictive power; absent that, the statement that the model 'predicts' the quoted axion and neutrino observables is overstated.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. IV A, Eq. (51)] The displayed inequality is ambiguous: '1 − Δχ^2/(1 − Δχ^2)' should be parenthesized or simplified. As written, the upper and lower bounds are not transparent.
  2. [After Eq. (79)] There is a typo: 'the follwoing set' should be 'the following set.'
  3. [Sec. II C, Eq. (42) and Fig. 1] The stabilization near τ ≈ i is shown for special parameter choices (s0 = 1, etc.). It would help to state the range of α and model parameters for which τ0(α) remains within the claimed vicinity of i.
  4. [Throughout] The paper uses both 'SL(2,Z)' and 'SL(2,\mathbb{Z})' and inconsistent notation for Δχ/∆χ. A unified notation would improve readability.

Circularity Check

3 steps flagged

The 'derived' flavor and axion numbers are inputs: Tables I-II are a hand-picked 'viable' charge assignment, mass exponents are read off from those charges, and fA/<χ> are chosen to satisfy bounds and mν3, so the claimed consistency 'predictions' reduce to fitted inputs.

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. III, Tables I-II; Eqs. (61)-(70)]
    "To build quark and lepton Yukawa superpotentials consistent with the anomaly cancellations ( including AC =AE = 0 (Eq.(23)),AL =−AY = 0 (Eq.(25)), and ASX = 0 (Eq.(26)), we assign the U(1)X quantum numbers and modular weightskI to quark and lepton fields under SL(2, Z)×U(1)X . A viable charge assignment is presented in Table-I and II."

    The anomaly conditions (23),(25),(26) are linear constraints on the charges and weights; the paper neither solves their solution space nor proves that Tables I-II are forced. The mass relations (68) and (70) then read off powers of Δχ (e.g. mu~Δχ^23, mc~Δχ^10, mt~1; me~Δχ^24, mμ~Δχ^11, mτ~Δχ^4) directly from the chosen charges. Those exponents were selected so that the resulting masses reproduce the observed hierarchies, so the later 'prediction' of the mass hierarchies is a restatement of the input charge assignment rather than a consequence of anomaly cancellation.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Sec. IV.A (numerical simulation), Eqs. (79)-(80)]
    "Taking Eq.(41) and ∆χ = 0.634, tanβ = 6.4, (79) with effective Yukawa coefficients in the range 0 .33 ≲ |αi| ≲ 1.67 from Eq.(51), we obtain, for the quantum numbers listed in Table-I, the follwoing set of reference inputs ... which satisfy both the empirical constraints of Eqs.(E3) and (E4)."

    Δχ, tanβ, and the O(1) coefficients are chosen numerically so that the mass matrices (61)-(62) reproduce the PDG/CKMfit quark masses, mixing angles, and CP phase. The resulting observables are then reported as model outputs. This is a parameter fit to the same data that the model claims to predict, not an independent first-principles prediction.

  3. fitted input called prediction [Eqs. (73), (77), (82), and (78)]
    "From Eq.(73) with the consideration of Eq.(82), we obtain aU(1)X breakdown scale or seesaw scale fA = 4× 1010 GeV, (77) for⟨χ⟩ = 2×1010 GeV in Eq.(82)."

    fA is set just above the RGB lower bound (73), and ⟨χ⟩ is estimated by requiring mν3∼0.05 eV through the seesaw relations (65)-(66) with the fitted Δχ=0.634. The 'predicted' axion mass ma=9.12×10^-3 eV and |gaγγ|=1.69×10^-13 GeV^-1 are then computed from these chosen inputs via (74)-(75). The axion scale is therefore selected by the target phenomenology (experimental bound plus desired neutrino mass), not fixed by the consistency conditions.

full rationale

The central claim that SL(2,Z) and U(1)X anomaly cancellation determine the flavor structure is not supported by a uniqueness or derivation argument. The anomaly equations (23)-(26) are linear conditions on the charges and modular weights; the paper supplies one 'viable charge assignment' (Tables I-II) and then reads the mass hierarchy powers off those charges in Eqs. (61)-(70). Since the charges and weights are chosen by hand and are not shown to be the unique (or even a small discrete) solution, the reproduced quark and lepton mass ratios are the input charge choices restated as outputs. Similarly, fA=4×10^10 GeV is fixed just above the RGB bound (73) together with ⟨χ⟩=2×10^10 GeV, which is estimated from the seesaw relation by requiring mν3≈0.05 eV (82); the axion mass and coupling in (78) are computed from these chosen scales, so they are not independent predictions. The quark and lepton phenomenology further relies on fitted Δχ, tanβ, and O(1) coefficients (Eqs. 79-80 and 87-89), so agreement with PDG/CKM/oscillation data is a fit rather than a parameter-free test. I did not find a load-bearing self-citation: the cited prior work supplies the general flavored-axion formalism and standard axion formulas, and the circularity is in the charge/scale fitting rather than in the citations. The internal inconsistency between the abstract's axion mass 3.35×10^-8 eV and the body's 9.12×10^-3 eV reinforces that the axion mass is not a robust, uniquely predicted output.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

9 free parameters · 5 axioms · 4 invented entities

The model's central predictions are all downstream of free inputs: the U(1)_X charge table (which sets mass hierarchies), Δχ and tanβ (which set the overall scale and pattern), dozens of Yukawa coefficients, and the choosen fA/⟨χ⟩. The anomaly conditions are used only as consistency checks on the chosen table, not as a derivation. Several structural axioms (string-derived nature, exact T-duality, zero modular weights for scalars) are assumed without independent evidence.

free parameters (9)
  • Δχ (flavon VEV ratio) = 0.634
    Sets all FN powers; fitted to reproduce quark and lepton masses (Eqs. 68,70,79).
  • tanβ = 6.4
    Ratio of Higgs VEVs, fitted (Eq. 79).
  • Im τ (modulus VEV) = ≈1
    Stabilization near τ≈i uses hand-picked superpotential parameters; Imτ=1 enters mass matrices through (2Imτ) factors.
  • Quark Yukawa coefficients = 12 magnitudes + 10 phases, e.g. αu=0.540... (Eq. 80)
    Fitted to reproduce CKM and quark masses; not fixed by anomaly conditions.
  • Charged-lepton Yukawa coefficients = ranges in Eq. (87)
    Fitted to charged-lepton masses and mixing.
  • Neutrino Yukawa coefficients = ~30 magnitudes/phases scanned in Eqs. (88)-(89)
    Scanned to match neutrino oscillation data at 3σ; no prediction for θ23/δCP.
  • fA / ⟨χ⟩ (U(1)_X breaking scale) = fA=4×10^10 GeV, ⟨χ⟩=2×10^10 GeV
    Chosen from RGB bound (73) and seesaw estimate (82); not derived from anomaly cancellation.
  • Moduli superpotential parameters = a=2π/100, b=2π/101, s0=1, A0=B0=1, α varied
    Hand-picked to realize racetrack and τ≈i; no first-principles string derivation.
  • α in moduli superpotential (SUSY breaking) = 6×10^-8 to 10^-2
    Controls gravitino mass (m_3/2 ~1 to 1.7×10^5 TeV); chosen to get preferred scales.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption The 4D N=1 supergravity action with K, W, fab given by Eq. (4) is a valid string-derived effective theory
    No concrete string compactification is provided; the D-brane origin is asserted rather than derived.
  • domain assumption SL(2,Z) modular symmetry is an exact discrete gauge symmetry whose anomalies must cancel even though it is global in the effective action
    This is the load-bearing premise for using anomaly-free conditions to constrain flavor; it follows from string T-duality if the setup is string-derived, but no proof is given.
  • standard math Modular forms Y_i(τ) of weights 4,8,12,... constructed from Eisenstein series are the only allowed Yukawa couplings
    Standard modular flavor model assumption, cited to Refs [5-7].
  • ad hoc to paper All symmetry-breaking scalars and Higgs doublets have modular weight zero (footnote 9)
    Required for strong CP invariance and VEV invariance; chosen without derivation.
  • ad hoc to paper The U(1)_X charge assignments in Tables I/II satisfy anomaly cancellation; these are viable but not unique
    The paper does not prove uniqueness; it presents one viable set.
invented entities (4)
  • Flavon fields χ, χ~, χ0 no independent evidence
    purpose: Break U(1)_X and generate fermion mass hierarchy via FN powers
    Their VEVs (vχ=2×10^10 GeV) are fitted; no direct experimental signature provided beyond the model's own predictions.
  • Gauged U(1)_X with flavor-dependent charges no independent evidence
    purpose: Flavored PQ symmetry and FN flavor symmetry
    Gauge boson decouples below scale; no Z' signal discussed; the charge table is a free input.
  • Flavored QCD axion A_X independent evidence
    purpose: Solves strong CP and provides DM; couples flavor-dependently
    Predicts ma=9.12×10^-3 eV and |gaγγ|=1.69×10^-13 GeV^-1, falsifiable by axion searches, though scale is fitted.
  • Right-handed neutrinos N_i^c no independent evidence
    purpose: Seesaw generation of neutrino masses
    Introduced with charges -1/2; mass scale ~2×10^10 GeV inferred, no direct evidence.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 34512 in / 18922 out tokens · 163372 ms · 2026-08-03T23:17:25.940374+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We present a framework for flavored grand unification theory (flavored-GUT) in string-derived supergravity based on $G_{\rm SM}\times SL(2,\mathbb{Z})\times U(1)_X\times U(1)_{B-L}$, where gravity is intrinsically incorporated. We show that anomaly cancellation and Standard Model gauge coupling unification act as fundamental consistency conditions that determine the flavor structure, rather than treating flavor as an independent input. Mixed $SL(2,\mathbb{Z})$, $U(1)_{X}$, $U(1)_{B-L}$, and gravitational anomalies are shown to vanish, with the anomalies induced by K{\"a}hler transformations matched by those from chiral rotations of gauginos and the gravitino. For nontrivial $SL(2,\mathbb{Z})$ transformations of SM fermions, the anomaly-free conditions impose strong constraints on the quark and lepton flavor structures while leaving the strong CP phase unchanged. Quark and lepton mass hierarchies, mixing patterns, and the flavored Peccei-Quinn sector emerge from the same underlying structure. The consistency conditions fix the $U(1)_X$ breaking scale, identified with the Froggatt-Nielsen cutoff scale, thereby determining the QCD axion decay constant and predicting the axion mass $m_a=3.35\times10^{-8}$ eV, while simultaneously constraining the seesaw scale and supersymmetry-breaking scale of ${\cal O}(10)$TeV. We further show that the flavored-GUT framework provides a possible resolution of the axion quality problem and that the modulus vacuum expectation value stabilizes near $\langle\tau\rangle\approx i$, where the exact $SL(2,\mathbb{Z})$ ($T$-duality) is spontaneously broken. Our results establish a predictive framework linking flavor physics, anomaly cancellation, gauge coupling unification, neutrino mass generation, and axion physics, without invoking a conventional simple unified gauge group.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2511.06355 by Yang Hwan Ahn.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: Contour plot of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: Plot of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: Plots for 0 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Plots for 0 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_4.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

77 extracted references · 41 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Our model has GSM×SL(2, Z)×U(1)X symmetry, where GSM×U(1)X may arise from D-branes

    Modular forms are holomorphic in the fundamental domain (includin g τ = i∞) and constructed from Eisenstein series E4 and E6 that transform as SL(2, Z) singlets [5, 7]. Our model has GSM×SL(2, Z)×U(1)X symmetry, where GSM×U(1)X may arise from D-branes. The supersymmetry (SUSY) action is given by S = ∫ d4xd2θd2 ¯θK (Φ, ¯Φe2V ) + { ∫ d4xd2θ ( W (Φ) + fab(Φ)...

  2. [2]

    The quark masses and mixing parameters must be matched to the empirical values provided in Eqs.(E3) and (E4). The charged-lepton mass matrix Mℓ of Eq.(64) generates the charged-lepton masses ˆMℓ =Vℓ RMℓVℓ† L = diag(me,mµ,mτ ), with the approximate forms me≃|αe| ∆24 χ vd, m µ≃|αµ| ∆11 χ vd, m τ≃|ατ| ∆4 χvd. (70) These must be matched to the empirical PDG v...

  3. [3]

    Y. H. Ahn, Phys. Rev. D 91, 056005 (2015) [arXiv:1410.1634 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  4. [4]

    (D4) Y (12) 1A = (Y 2 1 + 2Y2Y3)3 =E3 4, Y (12) 1B = (Y 2 3 + 2Y1Y2)3 =E2 6−E3 4, Y (16) 1A = (Y 2 1 + 2Y2Y3)4 =E4 4, Y (16) 1B = (Y 2 1 + 2Y2Y3)(Y 2 3 + 2Y1Y2)3 =E4(E2 6−E3 4), Y (20) 1A = (Y 2 1 + 2Y2Y3)5 =E5 4, Y (20) 1B = (Y 2 1 + 2Y2Y3)2(Y 2 3 + 2Y1Y2)3 =E2 4 (E2 6−E3 4), Y (24) 1A = (Y 2 1 + 2Y2Y3)6 =E6 4, Y (24) 1B = (Y 2 1 + 2Y2Y3)3(Y 2 3 + 2Y1Y2)...

  5. [5]

    λ3 d(Adei(2αd 3 −αd 2)−Bd) λde−i(2αd 3−αd

  6. [6]

    1− 1 2λ2 d −Adλ2 d Bdλ3 d Adλ2 d 1      ˜Kd +O(λ4), Vu L = ˜Cu      1− 1 2θu2 12 −θu 12ei(2αu 3 −αu 2 ) 0 θu 12e−i(2αu 3 −αu 2 ) 1− 1 2θu2 12 0 0 0 1      ˜Ku +O(λ4), (E1) 35 where ˜Cf = diag(ei(αf 2 −αf 1 −αf 3 ),ei(αf 3 −αf 1 ),ei(αf 2 −αf 1 )), ˜Kf = diag(ei(αf 1 −2αf 2 ), 1,ei2αf 1 ) (for f = d,u ), and the relevant parameters are given...

  7. [7]

    1 − 1 2θ2 2      ˜Kℓ +O(λ4), (E5) where ϕℓ = 2 αℓ 3 − αℓ 2, ˜Cℓ = diag( ei(αℓ 2−αℓ 1−αℓ 3),ei(αℓ 3−αℓ 1),ei(αℓ 2−αℓ 1)), and ˜Kℓ = diag(ei(αℓ 1−2αℓ 2), 1,ei2αℓ

  8. [8]

    (E6) Here θ1∼O (λ2), θ2∼O (λ), and θ3≪O (λ4) are roughly expected for ∆ χ = 0.634 and Imτ ≃ 1

    with αℓ 1 = 1 2 arg(α∗ τ 2Y (8)∗ 1 ), αℓ 2 ≃ 1 2 arg(α∗ τ 1Y (4)∗ 1 )− 1 2αℓ 1, αℓ 3 ≃ 1 2 arg(α∗ eαe2Y (4) 1 ) + 1 2αℓ 1− 1 2αℓ 2, and θ1≃ |ατ 2Y (8) 1 | |ατ | (2 Imτ )−4,θ 2≃ |ατ 1Y (4) 1 | |ατ | (2 Imτ )−2∼λ,θ 3≃ |αeαe2Y (4) 1 | |αµ|2 (2 Imτ )−2∆26 χ . (E6) Here θ1∼O (λ2), θ2∼O (λ), and θ3≪O (λ4) are roughly expected for ∆ χ = 0.634 and Imτ ≃ 1. The ri...

  9. [9]

    R. D. Peccei and H. R. Quinn, Phys. Rev. Lett. 38, 1440 (1977)

    1977

  10. [10]

    R. D. Peccei and H. R. Quinn, Phys. Rev. D 16, 1791 (1977). S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 40, 223 (1978); F. Wilczek, Phys. Rev. Lett. 40, 279 (1978)

    1977

  11. [11]

    Y. H. Ahn, Phys. Rev. D 93, no. 8, 085026 (2016) [arXiv:1604.01255 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  12. [12]

    Binetruy and E

    P. Binetruy and E. Dudas, Nucl. Phys. B 451, 31-52 (1995) [arXiv:hep-ph/9505295 [hep-ph]]; P. Binetruy and E. Dudas, Nucl. Phys. B 442, 21-46 (1995) [arXiv:hep-ph/9411413 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1995

  13. [13]

    Feruglio, doi:10.1142/9789813238053 0012 [arXiv:1706.08749 [hep-ph]]

    F. Feruglio, doi:10.1142/9789813238053 0012 [arXiv:1706.08749 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  14. [14]

    Feruglio, A

    F. Feruglio, A. Strumia and A. Titov, [arXiv:2305.08908 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  15. [15]

    Y. H. Ahn and S. K. Kang, Phys. Rev. D 108, no.9, 095034 (2023) [arXiv:2306.14467 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  16. [16]

    Kobayashi and H

    T. Kobayashi and H. Otsuka, Phys. Lett. B 807, 135554 (2020) [arXiv:2002.06931 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  17. [17]

    Minkowski, Phys

    P. Minkowski, Phys. Lett. B 67, 421 (1977); T. Yanagida, in Proc. of the Workshop on Unified Theories and Baryon Number in the Universe , ed.O. Sawada and A. Sugamoto, 95 (KEK, Japan, 1979); M. Gell-Mann, P. Ramond and R. Slansky, in Supergravity, ed. P. Nieuwenhuizen and D. Freeman (North Holland, Amsterdam, 1979); R. N. Mohap atra and G. Senjanovic, Phys...

    1977

  18. [18]

    P. P. Novichkov, J. T. Penedo, S. T. Petcov and A. V. Titov , JHEP 04, 005 (2019) [arXiv:1811.04933 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  19. [19]

    P. P. Novichkov, J. T. Penedo and S. T. Petcov, JHEP 03, 149 (2022) [arXiv:2201.02020 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  20. [20]

    Gonzalo, L

    E. Gonzalo, L. E. Ib´ a˜ nez and´A. M. Uranga, JHEP 05, 105 (2019) [arXiv:1812.06520 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  21. [21]

    L. M. Krauss and F. Wilczek, Phys. Rev. Lett. 62, 1221 (1989)

    1989

  22. [22]

    C. D. Froggatt and H. B. Nielsen, Nucl. Phys. B 147, 277-298 (1979)

    1979

  23. [23]

    Ibanez and A.M

    L.E. Ibanez and A.M. Uranga, String theory and particle physics: an introduction to stri ng phenomenology, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge U.K. (2012)

    2012

  24. [24]

    M. B. Green and J. H. Schwarz, Phys. Lett. 149B, 117 (1984); M. B. Green and J. H. Schwarz, Nucl. Phys. B 255, 93-114 (1985); M. B. Green, J. H. Schwarz and P. C. West, Nucl . Phys. B 254, 327-348 (1985)

    1984

  25. [25]

    Ferrara, D

    S. Ferrara, D. Lust, A. D. Shapere and S. Theisen, Phys. L ett. B 225 (1989), 363; S. Ferrara, 38 D. Lust and S. Theisen, Phys. Lett. B 233 (1989), 147-152

    1989

  26. [26]

    Witten and J

    E. Witten and J. Bagger, Phys. Lett. B 115, 202-206 (1982); E. Cremmer, S. Ferrara, L. Gi- rardello and A. Van Proeyen, Nucl. Phys. B 212, 413 (1983)

    1982

  27. [27]

    Supersymmetry and supergravity ,

    J. Wess and J. Bagger, “Supersymmetry and supergravity ,” Princeton University Press, 1992, ISBN 978-0-691-02530-8

    1992

  28. [28]

    J. S. Bell and R. Jackiw, Nuovo Cim. A 60, 47-61 (1969); S. L. Adler, Phys. Rev. 177, 2426-2438 (1969); W. A. Bardeen, Phys. Rev. 184, 1848-1857 (1969)

    1969

  29. [29]

    L. E. Ibanez and D. Lust, Nucl. Phys. B 382, 305-361 (1992) [arXiv:hep-th/9202046 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1992

  30. [30]

    J. P. Derendinger, S. Ferrara, C. Kounnas and F. Zwirner , Nucl. Phys. B 372, 145-188 (1992)

    1992

  31. [31]

    Y. H. Ahn, Phys. Rev. D 100, no. 1, 015002 (2019) [arXiv:1706.09707 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  32. [32]

    Kamionkowski and J

    M. Kamionkowski and J. March-Russell, Phys. Lett. B 282, 137-141 (1992) [arXiv:hep- th/9202003]; R. Kallosh, A. D. Linde, D. A. Linde and L. Sussk ind, Phys. Rev. D 52, 912-935 (1995) [arXiv:hep-th/9502069]; G. Dvali, [arXiv:hep-th/ 0507215]

    arXiv 1992

  33. [33]

    Cvetic, A

    M. Cvetic, A. Font, L. E. Ibanez, D. Lust and F. Quevedo, N ucl. Phys. B 361, 194-232 (1991)

    1991

  34. [35]

    Kachru, R

    S. Kachru, R. Kallosh, A. D. Linde and S. P. Trivedi, Phys . Rev. D 68, 046005 (2003) [arXiv:hep-th/0301240]; R. Kallosh and A. D. Linde, JHEP 12, 004 (2004) [arXiv:hep- th/0411011]; A. Linde, Y. Mambrini and K. A. Olive, Phys. Rev . D 85, 066005 (2012) [arXiv:1111.1465 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  35. [36]

    Achucarro, B

    A. Achucarro, B. de Carlos, J. A. Casas and L. Doplicher, JHEP 06, 014 (2006) [arXiv:hep- th/0601190]; E. Dudas and Y. Mambrini, JHEP 10, 044 (2006) [arXiv:hep-th/0607077]

    arXiv 2006

  36. [37]

    C. P. Burgess, R. Kallosh and F. Quevedo, JHEP 10, 056 (2003) [arXiv:hep-th/0309187]; A. Achucarro, B. de Carlos, J. A. Casas and L. Doplicher, JHEP 06, 014 (2006) [arXiv:hep- th/0601190]; E. Dudas and Y. Mambrini, JHEP 10, 044 (2006) [arXiv:hep-th/0607077]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  37. [38]

    Y. H. Ahn, Phys. Rev. D 96, no. 1, 015022 (2017) [arXiv:1611.08359 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  38. [39]

    Y. H. Ahn, Phys. Rev. D 98, no. 3, 035047 (2018) [arXiv:1804.06988 [hep-ph]]; Y. H. Ah n, Nucl. Phys. B 939, 534 (2019) [arXiv:1802.05044 [hep-ph]]. Y. H. Ahn and X. Bi , Nucl. Phys. B 960, 115210 (2020) [arXiv:1912.09038 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  39. [40]

    S. T. Petcov and M. Tanimoto, Eur. Phys. J. C 84, no.9, 914 (2024) [arXiv:2404.00858 [hep- ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  40. [41]

    Y. H. Ahn, H. Y. Cheng and S. Oh, Phys. Rev. D 83, 076012 (2011) [arXiv:1102.0879 [hep-ph]]. 39

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  41. [42]

    Wolfenstein, Phys

    L. Wolfenstein, Phys. Rev. Lett. 51, 1945 (1983)

    1945

  42. [43]

    Y. H. Ahn, H. Y. Cheng and S. Oh, Phys. Lett. B 703, 571 (2011) [arXiv:1106.0935 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  43. [44]

    R. L. Workman et al. [Particle Data Group], PTEP 2022, 083C01 (2022)

    2022

  44. [45]

    Ammar et al

    R. Ammar et al. [CLEO], Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 271801 (2001) [arXiv:hep-ex/0106038]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  45. [46]

    Albrecht et al

    H. Albrecht et al. [ARGUS], Z. Phys. C 68, 25-28 (1995)

    1995

  46. [47]

    Aubert et al

    B. Aubert et al. [BaBar], Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 021802 (2010) [arXiv:0908.2381 [hep-ex]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  47. [48]

    Bj¨ orkeroth, E

    F. Bj¨ orkeroth, E. J. Chun and S. F. King, JHEP 08, 117 (2018) [arXiv:1806.00660 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  48. [49]

    Calibbi, F

    L. Calibbi, F. Goertz, D. Redigolo, R. Ziegler and J. Zup an, Phys. Rev. D 95, no.9, 095009 (2017) [arXiv:1612.08040 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  49. [50]

    L. M. G. de la Vega, N. Nath, S. Nellen and E. Peinado, Eur. Phys. J. C 81, no.7, 608 (2021) [arXiv:2102.03631 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  50. [51]

    R. D. Bolton et al. , Phys. Rev. D 38, 2077 (1988)

    2077

  51. [52]

    A. V. Artamonov et al. [E949 Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 191802 (2008) [arXiv:0808.2459 [hep-ex]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  52. [53]

    Wilczek, Phys

    F. Wilczek, Phys. Rev. Lett. 49, 1549 (1982)

    1982

  53. [54]

    J. L. Feng, T. Moroi, H. Murayama and E. Schnapka, Phys. R ev. D 57, 5875 (1998) [hep- ph/9709411]

    arXiv 1998

  54. [55]

    Z. G. Berezhiani and M. Y. Khlopov, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 51 (1990), 739-746; Z. G. Berezhiani and M. Y. Khlopov, Z. Phys. C 49 (1991), 73-78; A. S. Sakharov and M. Y. Khlopov, Phys. Atom. Nucl. 57 (1994), 651-658

    1990

  55. [56]

    Viaux, M

    N. Viaux, M. Catelan, P. B. Stetson, G. Raffelt, J. Redondo , A. A. R. Valcarce and A. Weiss, Astron. Astrophys. 558 (2013), A12 [arXiv:1308.4627 [astro-ph.SR]]; N. Viaux, M. Catelan, P. B. Stetson, G. Raffelt, J. Redondo, A. A. R. Valcarce and A. We iss, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111 (2013), 231301 [arXiv:1311.1669 [astro-ph.SR]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  56. [57]

    M. M. Miller Bertolami, B. E. Melendez, L. G. Althaus and J. Isern, JCAP 1410, no. 10, 069 (2014) [arXiv:1406.7712 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  57. [58]

    J. E. Kim, Phys. Rev. Lett. 43, 103 (1979); M. A. Shifman, A. I. Vainshtein and V. I. Zakharo v, Nucl. Phys. B 166, 493 (1980)

    1979

  58. [59]

    M. Dine, W. Fischler and M. Srednicki, Phys. Lett. B 104, 199 (1981); A. R. Zhitnitsky, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 31, 260 (1980) [Yad. Fiz. 31, 497 (1980)]

    1981

  59. [60]

    Ayala, I

    A. Ayala, I. Dom ˜Anguez, M. Giannotti, A. Mirizzi and O. Straniero, Phys. Rev . Lett. 113, 40 no. 19, 191302 (2014) [arXiv:1406.6053 [astro-ph.SR]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  60. [61]

    Antusch, J

    S. Antusch, J. Kersten, M. Lindner, M. Ratz and M. A. Schm idt, JHEP 0503, 024 (2005) [hep-ph/0501272]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  61. [62]

    http://ckmfitter.in2p3.fr

  62. [63]

    Wolfenstein, Phys

    L. Wolfenstein, Phys. Rev. D 17, 2369 (1978); S. P. Mikheyev and A. Y. Smirnov, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 42, 913 (1985) [Yad. Fiz. 42, 1441 (1985)]

    1978

  63. [64]

    Esteban, M

    I. Esteban, M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, A. Hernandez-Cabez udo, M. Maltoni and T. Schwetz, JHEP 1901, 106 (2019) [arXiv:1811.05487 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1901

  64. [65]

    P. F. de Salas, D. V. Forero, C. A. Ternes, M. Tortola and J . W. F. Valle, Phys. Lett. B 782, 633 (2018) [arXiv:1708.01186 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  65. [66]

    Capozzi, E

    F. Capozzi, E. Lisi, A. Marrone and A. Palazzo, Prog. Par t. Nucl. Phys. 102, 48 (2018) [arXiv:1804.09678 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  66. [67]

    Esteban, M

    I. Esteban, M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, M. Maltoni, T. Schwe tz and A. Zhou, JHEP 09, 178 (2020) [arXiv:2007.14792 [hep-ph]]; NuFIT 5.2 (2022), www .nu-fit.org

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  67. [68]

    Abe et al

    S. Abe et al. [KamLAND-Zen], Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, no.5, 051801 (2023) [arXiv:2203.02139 [hep-ex]]

    arXiv 2023

  68. [69]

    Kachru, R

    S. Kachru, R. Kallosh, A. D. Linde, J. M. Maldacena, L. P. McAllister and S. P. Trivedi, JCAP 10, 013 (2003) [arXiv:hep-th/0308055]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  69. [70]

    Kallosh and A

    R. Kallosh and A. D. Linde, JHEP 12, 004 (2004) [arXiv:hep-th/0411011]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  70. [71]

    L. L. Chau and W. Y. Keung, Phys. Rev. Lett. 53, 1802 (1984)

    1984

  71. [72]

    Abi et al

    B. Abi et al. [DUNE], [arXiv:1807.10334 [physics.ins-det]]

    arXiv

  72. [73]

    Abe et al

    K. Abe et al. [Hyper-Kamiokande], [arXiv:1805.04163 [physics.ins-de t]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  73. [74]

    Adams et al

    C. Adams et al. [NEXT], JHEP 2021 (2021) no.08, 164 [arXiv:2005.06467 [physics.ins-det]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  74. [75]

    Allega et al

    A. Allega et al. [SNO+], Phys. Rev. D 105 (2022) no.11, 112012 [arXiv:2205.06400 [hep-ex]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  75. [76]

    Askins et al

    M. Askins et al. [Theia], Eur. Phys. J. C 80 (2020) no.5, 416 [arXiv:1911.03501 [physics.ins- det]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  76. [77]

    Arnold, C

    R. Arnold, C. Augier, A. M. Bakalyarov, J. Baker, A. Bara bash, P. Bernaudin, M. Bouchel, V. Brudanin, A. J. Caffrey and J. Cailleret, et al. Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 536 (2005), 79-122 [arXiv:physics/0402115]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  77. [78]

    Aghanim et al

    N. Aghanim et al. [Planck], Astron. Astrophys. 641 (2020), A6 [erratum: Astron. Astrophys. 652 (2021), C4] [arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]]. 41

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020