A highly predictive A4 flavour 3-3-1 model with radiative inverse seesaw mechanism

A. E. Carcamo Hernandeza and H. N. Longb,c

a
Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Mara and Centro Cientfico-Tecnologico de Valparaso,
Casilla 110-V, Valparaso, Chile,
b
Theoretical Particle Physics and Cosmology Research Group,
Faculty of Applied Sciences, Ton Duc Thang University,
Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam
c
Institute of Physics,
Vietnam Academy of Science and Technology,
10 Dao Tan, Ba Dinh, Hanoi, Vietnam
arXiv:1705.05246v1 [hep-ph] 12 May 2017

(Dated: May 16, 2017)

We build a highly predictive 3-3-1 model, where the field content is extended by including several
SU (3)L scalar singlets and six right handed Majorana neutrinos. In our model the SU (3)C
0
SU (3)L U (1)X gauge symmetry is supplemented by the A4 Z6 Z16 Z16 discrete group,
which allows to get a very good description of low energy fermion flavor data. In the model under
0
consideration, the A4 Z6 Z16 Z16 discrete group is broken at very high energy scale down to
the preserved Z2 discrete symmetry, thus generating the observed pattern of SM fermion masses
and mixing angles and allowing the implementation of the loop level inverse seesaw mechanism for
the generation of the light active neutrino masses, respectively. The model only has 9 effective free
parameters (4 and 5 effective free parameters in the lepton and quark sectors, respectively), which
we adjust to reproduce the experimental values of the 18 physical observables in the quark and
lepton sectors. The obtained values for the physical observables in the quark sector agree with the
experimental data, whereas those ones for the lepton sector also do, only for the case of inverted
neutrino mass spectrum. The normal neutrino mass hierarchy scenario of the model is ruled out
by the neutrino oscillation experimental data. The model predicts an effective Majorana neutrino
mass parameter of neutrinoless double beta decay of mee = 45.5 meV, a leptonic Dirac CP violating
phase of 79.11 and a Jarlskog invariant of about 102 for the inverted neutrino mass hierarchy.
The preserved Z2 symmetry allows for a stable scalar dark matter candidate.

Keywords: Extensions of electroweak gauge sector, Extensions of electroweak Higgs sector, Electroweak radiative
corrections, Neutrino mass and mixing

I. INTRODUCTION

Despite its great consistency with the experimental data, the Standard Model (SM) is unable to explain several issues
such as, for example, the number of fermion generations, the large hierarchy of fermion masses, the small quark mixing
angles and the sizeable leptonic mixing ones. Whereas in the quark sector, the mixing angles are small, in the lepton
sector two of the mixing angles are large, and one mixing angle is small. Neutrino experiments have brought clear
evidence of neutrino oscillations from the measured neutrino mass squared splittings. The three neutrino flavors mix
and at least two of the neutrinos have non vanishing masses, which according to neutrino oscillation experimental
data must be smaller than the SM charged fermion masses by many orders of magnitude.
Models with an extended gauge symmetry are frequently used to tackle the limitations of the SM. In particular, the
models based on the gauge symmetry SU (3)c SU (3)L U (1)X , also called 3-3-1 models, can explain the origin
of fermion generations thanks to the introduction of a family non-universal U (1)X symmetry [110], can provide an
explanation for the origin of the family structure of the fermions. These models have the following nice interesting
features: 1) The three family structure in the fermion sector naturally arises in the 3-3-1 models from the cancellation
of chiral anomalies and asymptotic freedom in QCD. 2) The fact that the third family is treated under a different
representation, can explain the large mass difference between the heaviest quark family and the two lighter ones.
3) The 3-3-1 models allow the quantization of electric charge [11, 12]. 4) These models have several sources of CP
violation [13, 14]. 5) These models explain why the Weinberg mixing angle satisfies sin2 W < 41 . 6) These models
contain a natural Peccei-Quinn symmetry, necessary to solve the strong-CP problem [1518]. 7) The 3-3-1 models

Electronic address: antonio.carcamo@usm.cl

Electronic address: hoangngoclong@tdt.edu.vn
 2

with heavy sterile neutrinos include cold dark matter candidates as weakly interacting massive particles (WIMPs)
[1922]. A concise review of WIMPs in 3-3-1 Electroweak Gauge Models is provided in Ref. [23].
In the 3-3-1 models, one heavy triplet field with a Vacuum Expectation Value (VEV) at high energy scale , breaks
the symmetry SU (3)L U (1)X into the SM electroweak group SU (2)L U (1)Y , thus generating the masses of non
SM fermions and non SM gauge bosons, while the another two lighter triplets with VEVs at the electroweak scale
and , trigger the Electroweak Symmetry Breaking [24] and provide the masses for the SM particles.
On the other hand, the implementation of discrete flavor symmetries in several extensions of the SM has provided
a nice description of the observed pattern of fermion masses and mixings (recent reviews on discrete flavor groups
can be found in Refs. [2528]). Several discrete groups have been employed in extensions of the SM, mostly discrete
groups having triplet irreducible representations, such as A4 [2948], S3 [4971], S4 [7181], D4 [8291], Q6 [9295], T7
[96105], T13 [106109], T 0 [110117], (27) [118132] and A5 [133143] have been considered to explain the observed
pattern of fermion masses and mixings.
Among several discrete symmetry groups, the A4 group has attracted a lot of attention since it is the smallest one which
admits one three-dimensional representation as well as three inequivalent one-dimensional representations. Then, the
choice of the A4 symmetry is natural since there are three families of fermions, i.e, the left handed leptons can be
unified in triplet representation of A4 while the right handed leptons can be assigned to A4 singlets. This setup has
been proposed for first time in Ref. [29] to study the lepton masses and mixings obtaining nearly degenerate neutrino
masses and allowing realistic charged leptons masses after the A4 symmetry is spontaneously broken. The scalar sector
of the minimal setup of Ref. [29] includes one A4 triplet whose components are SU (2)L doublets and one SU (2)L
doublet which transforms as an A4 trivial singlet. As it has been extensively discussed in the literature (for a recent
reviews see Refs. [2527]) the A4 group, which is the group of even permutations of four elements has been shown
to generate the Tribimaximal mixing pattern which predicts solar mixing and atmospheric mixing angles consistent
with the experimental data but yields a vanishing reactor mixing angle contradicting the recent experimental results
from the Daya Bay [144], T2K [145], MINOS [146], Double CHOOZ [147] and RENO [148] experiments. In view of
this the Tribimaximal mixing pattern has to be modified.
In this work we build a highly predictive A4 flavor 3-3-1 model, where the A4 discrete symmetry is supplemented by
0
the Z6 Z16 Z16 discrete group, providing a framework consistent with the current low energy fermion flavor data.
In the model under consideration the different discrete group factors are broken completely, excepting the Z6 discrete
group, which is broken down to the preserved Z2 symmetry, thus allowing the implementation of the one loop level
inverse seesaw mechanism for the generation of the light active neutrino masses. The SM charged fermion masses
0
and quark mixing angles arise from the breaking of the A4 Z6 Z16 Z16 discrete group. The SM Yukawa sector
of our model has only 9 effective free parameters (4 and 5 effective free parameters in the lepton and quark sectors,
respectively), which we adjust to reproduce the experimental values of the 18 physical observables in the quark and
lepton sectors, i.e., 9 charged fermion masses, 2 neutrino mass squared splittings, 3 lepton mixing parameters, 3 quark
mixing angles and 1 CP violating phase of the CKM quark mixing matrix.
The content of this paper goes as follows. In section II we describe our model. Section III is devoted to the implications
of our model in quark masses and mixings. Section IV deals with lepton masses and mixings. We conclude in section
VI. Appendix A provides a concise description of the A4 discrete group. Appendix B shows a discussion of the scalar
potential for a A4 scalar triplet and its minimization equations.

II. THE MODEL.

As is well known, the SU (3)C SU (3)L U (1)X model (3-3-1 model) with = 13 and right-handed Majorana
neutrinos in the SU (3)L lepton triplet is unsatisfactory in describing the observed SM fermion mass and mixing
pattern, due to the unexplained hierarchy among its large number of Yukawa couplings. To address that problem,
we propose an extension of the 3-3-1 model with = 13 , where the scalar sector is extended to include several
EW scalar singlets, the fermion sector is extended by introducing six right handed Majorana neutrinos, and the
0
SU (3)C SU (3)L U (1)X gauge symmetry is supplemented by the A4 Z6 Z16 Z16 discrete group, so that the
 3

full symmetry G exhibits the following three-step spontaneous breaking:

0
G = SU (3)C SU (3)L U (1)X A4 Z6 Z16 Z16 (1)
int

SU (3)C SU (3)L U (1)X Z2

SU (3)C SU (2)L U (1)Y Z2

v , v

SU (3)C U (1)Q Z2

where the different symmetry breaking scales satisfy the following hierarchy int  v  v , v . Let us note that all
discrete group are broken completely at the very high energy scale int  v , excepting the Z6 discrete group which
is broken down to the preserved Z2 symmetry. That preserved Z2 symmetry will allows us to implement a one loop
level inverse seesaw mechanism for the generation of the light active neutrino masses.
In our model 3-3-1 model, the electric charge is defined in terms of the SU (3) generators and the identity by:
1
Q = T3 + T8 + XI = T3 T8 + XI, (2)
3

with I = diag(1, 1, 1), T3 = 12 diag(1, 1, 0) and T8 = ( 2 1

3
)diag(1, 1, 2) for triplet. Let us note that we have
1
chosen = 3 , because in that choice the third component of the weak lepton triplet is a neutral field C

R which
allows to build the Dirac matrix with the usual field L of the weak doublet. The introduction of a sterile neutrino
NR in the model allows the implementation of a low scale seesaw mechanism (which could be inverse or linear) for
the generation of the light neutrino masses. The 3-3-1 models with = 13 have the advantage over other 3-3-1
models with different values , of providing an alternative framework to generate neutrino masses, where the neutrino
spectrum includes the light active sub-eV scale neutrinos as well as sterile neutrinos which could be dark matter
candidates if they are light enough or candidates for detection at the LHC, if they have TeV scale masses. Let us
note that if the TeV scale sterile neutrinos are found at the LHC, the 3-3-1 models with = 13 can be very strong
candidates for unraveling the mechanism responsible for electroweak symmetry breaking.
The cancellation of chiral anomalies implies that quarks are unified in the following SU (3)C SU (3)L U (1)X left-
and right-handed representations [2, 7, 149, 150]:

Dn U3 
1


QnL = Un
(3, 3 , 0) , Q3L = D3 3, 3, , n = 1, 2,
Jn L T L 3
       
1 2 1 2
DiR 3, 1, , UiR 3, 1, , JnR 3, 1, , TR 3, 1, , i = 1, 2, 3, (3)
3 3 3 3

where UiL and DiL (i = 1, 2, 3) are the left handed up and down type quarks fields in the flavor basis, respectively.
The right handed SM quarks, i.e., UiR and DiR (i = 1, 2, 3) and right handed exotic quarks, i.e., TR and JnR (n = 1, 2)
are assigned as SU (3)L singlets with U (1)X quantum numbers equal to their electric charges.
Furthermore, the requirement of chiral anomaly cancellation constrains the leptons to the following SU (3)C SU (3)L
U (1)X left- and right-handed representations [2, 7, 149]:

i 
1

LiL = ei
1, 3, , eiR (1, 1, 1) , i = 1, 2, 3, (4)
c 3
i L

In the present model the fermion sector is extended by introducing six right handed Majorana neutrinos, singlet under
the 3-3-1 group, so that they have the following SU (3)C SU (3)L U (1)X assignments:

NiR (1, 1, 0) , i (1, 1, 0) , i = 1, 2, 3, (5)

 4

Regarding the scalar sector of the 3-3-1 model with right handed Majorana neutrinos, we assign the scalar fields in
the following SU (3)C SU (3)L U (1)X representations:

01 +

1
   
1 1 2
= 2
1, 3, , = (v
2
+ i ) 1, 3, ,
1 (v + i ) 3 + 3
2 3
1
(v + i )

 
1, 3, 1 ,
2
= 2 3
03

The scalar sector of the 3-3-1 model with right handed Majorana neutrinos includes: three 3s irreps of SU (3)L ,
where one triplet gets a TeV scale vacuum expectation value (VEV) v , that breaks the SU (3)L U (1)X symmetry
down to SU (2)L U (1)Y , thus generating the masses of non SM fermions and non SM gauge bosons; and two light
triplets and acquiring electroweak scale VEVs v and v , respectively, thus triggering Electroweak Symmetry
Breaking and then providing masses for the fermions and gauge bosons of the SM [24].
We extend the scalar sector of the 3-3-1 model with right handed Majorana neutrinos by adding the following SU (3)L
scalar singlets, with the following SU (3)C SU (3)L U (1)X assignments:

(1, 0, 0) , n (1, 0, 0) , (1, 0, 0) , (1, 0, 0) , n = 1, 2,

j (1, 0, 0) , j (1, 0, 0) , j (1, 0, 0) , j (1, 0, 0) ,
j (1, 0, 0) , j (1, 0, 0) , j = 1, 2, 3. (6)

0
The scalar fields of our model have the following A4 Z6 Z16 Z16 assignments:

(1,0, 0, 0) , (1,2, 0, 0) , (1,4, 0, 0) , (1, 3, 0, 0) ,

(100 ,0, 1, 0) , 1 (10 ,0, 1, 1) , 2 (10 ,0, 2, 1) , (1,0, 1, 0) ,
(3,0, 6, 1) , (3,2, 0, 0) , (3,0, 0, 3) , (3,0, 0, 3) ,
(3,0, 0, 8) , (3,0, 0, 0) . (7)

Here the dimensions of the A4 irreducible representations are specified by the numbers in boldface and the different
0
Z6 Z16 Z16 charges are written in additive notation. Let us note that all scalar fields acquire nonvanishing vacuum
expectation values, excepting the SU (3)L scalar singlet , whose Z6 charge corresponds to a nontrivial charge under
the preserved Z2 symmetry.
0
The quark assignments under the group A4 Z6 Z16 Z16 are:

Q1L (100 ,0, 0, 0) , Q2L (10 , 0, 2, 0) , Q3L (1,0, 4, 0) ,

U1R (1,4, 8, 8) , U2R (1,4, 6, 4) , U3R (1,4, 4, 0) , TR (1,0, 4, 0) ,
DR = (D1R , D2R , D3R ) (3,2, 0, 1) , J1R (100 ,0, 0, 0) , J2R (10 , 0, 2, 0) . (8)

Lets us note that we assign the quarks fields into A4 singlet representations, excepting the SM right handed down
type quarks fields which are grouped in a A4 triplet.
0
The lepton fields of our model have the following A4 Z6 Z16 Z16 assignments:

LL = (L1L , L2L , L3L ) (3,3, 0, 0) , NR = (N1R , N2R , N3R ) (3,3, 0, 0) ,

= (1 , 2 , 3 ) (3,0, 0, 0) , e1R (1,1, 5, 3) , e2R (1,1, 0, 8) , e3R (1,1, 0, 3)

As regards the lepton sector, we recall that the left and right-handed leptons are grouped into A4 triplet and A4 singlet
irreducible representations, respectively, whereas the right-handed Majorana neutrinos, i.e., NiR and are unified i
(i = 1, 2, 3) into the A4 triplets, i.e., NR and .
With the above particle content, the relevant Yukawa terms for the quark and lepton sector invariant under the group
 5

G, respectively, are:

(q) (U ) (U ) 2 (U ) 4
LY = y (T ) Q3L TR + y33 Q3L U3R + y23 Q2L U3R + y13 Q1L
U 3R
2 4
4 4 8
(U ) (U ) 2 (U )
+y22 Q2L U2R 14 + y12 Q1L U2R 1 5 + y11 Q1L U1R 18

(J) (J) (D) 6 (D) 4
+y1 Q1L J1R + y2 Q2L J2R + y1 Q1L (DR )100 7 + y2 Q2L (DR )10 5

(D) 2
+y3 Q3L (DR )1 3 + H.c, (9)

(l) (L)
5 (L)
5 (L)
1

LY = y11 LL e
1 1R
+ y 31 L L e 1R + y22 LL 1 e2R
5 1 5
(L) 1 (L) 1  a
b  c
LL 1 e3R + y33 LL 1 e3R + y abc LL LC ( )



+y13 L
3a
+y(L) (N )



LL NR 1 + y N R 1 + m ()1 + y ()3s + H.c (10)

where the dimensionless couplings in Eq. (9) and (10) are O(1) parameters. Furthermore, as it will shown in Sect.
III, the quark assignments under the different group factors of our model will give rise to SM quark mass textures
where the CKM quark mixing angles only arise from the up type quark sector. As indicated by the current low energy
quark flavor data encoded in the Standard parametrization of the quark mixing matrix, the complex phase responsible
for CP violation in the quark sector is associated with the quark mixing angle in the 1-3 plane. Consequently, in
(U )
order to reproduce the experimental values of quark mixing angles and CP violating phase, y13 is required to be
complex. Besides that, as it will shown in Sect. IV, the light active neutrino sector will generate the tribimaximal
mixing matrix, whereas the charged lepton sector will give rise to the reactor mixing angle. In order to account for
(L)
CP violation in neutrino oscillation, we will also assume that the y13 parameter is purely imaginary.
Although the flavor discrete groups in Eq. (1) look rather sophisticated, each discrete group factor is crucial for
generating highly predictive SM fermion mass matrices consistent with low energy fermion flavor data. As it will
shown in Sect. IV, the predictive textures for the lepton sectors will give rise to the experimentally observed deviation
of the tribimaximal mixing pattern. Besides that, the resulting SM quark mass matrices will give rise to quark mixing
only emerging from the up type quark sector. This is a consequence of the A4 flavor symmetry, which needs to be
0
supplemented by the A4 Z6 Z16 Z16 discrete group. As we will see in the next sections, this predictive setup
can successfully account for SM fermion masses and mixings. The inclusion of the A4 discrete group reduces the
number of parameters in the Yukawa and scalar sector of the SU (3)C SU (3)L U (1)X model making it more
predictive. We choose A4 since it is the smallest discrete group with a three-dimensional irreducible representation
and 3 distinct one-dimensional irreducible representations, which allows to naturally accommodate the three fermion
families. In what follows we provide an explanation of the role of each discrete cyclic group factor introduced in our
model. The Z6 symmetry has the following roles: 1) To separate the A4 scalar triplet participating in the Dirac
neutrino Yukawa interactions from the remaining A4 scalar triplets. 2) To forbid mixings between SM quarks and
exotic quarks, thus resulting in a reduction of quark sector model parameters. 3) To allow the implementation of the
one loop level inverse seesaw mechanism for the generation of the light active neutrino masses, due to to the fact that
the Z6 discrete group is broken down to the preserved Z2 symmetry. Let us note that we use the Z6 discrete group
since it is the smallest cyclic group that contains both the Z3 and Z2 symmetries. The Z3 symmetry contained in
Z6 allows to decouple the exotic quarks from the SM quarks, whereas the preserved Z2 symmetry is crucial for the
implementation of the one loop level inverse seesaw mechanism for the generation of the light active neutrino masses.
In what concerns, the Z16 symmetry, it is worth mentioning that it is crucial to generate the observed charged fermion
mass and quark mixing pattern. Let us note, that the properties of the ZN groups imply that the Z16 symmetry
1 8
is the smallest cyclic symmetry from which the Yukawa term QL UR1 18 of dimension twelve can be built, from a
81 1
8 insertion on the QL UR1 operator, crucial to get the required 8 suppression (where = 0.225 is one of the
Wolfenstein parameters) needed to naturally explain the smallness of the up quark mass, which is 8 v2 ( = 0.225
is one of the Wolfenstein parameters) times a O(1) parameter. Furthermore, the Z16 discrete symmetry separates
the A4 scalar triplet participating in the SM down type quark Yukawa interactions from the remaining A4 scalar
0
triplets. The Z16 symmetry has the functions: 1) To select the allowed entries of the SM quark mass matrices, thus
0
yielding a very predictive quark sector. It is worth mentioning that the Z16 is the smallest cyclic symmetry that
allows us to get vanishing (2, 1), (3, 1) and (3, 2) entries in the SM up type quark mass matrix. 2) To separate the A4
 6

scalar triplet participating in the SM down type quark Yukawa interactions from the remaining A4 scalar triplets.
2) To distinguish the A4 scalar triplet participating in the quark Yukawa interactions, from the ones, i.e., and
that appear in the neutrino Yukawa terms and from the A4 scalar triplets, i.e., , and , contributing to the
charged lepton masses, thus allowing to treat, the SM down type quark, the charged lepton and neutrino sectors
independently. 3) To separate the A4 scalar triplets and contributing to the electron and tau lepton masses as
well as to the reactor mixing angle from the A4 scalar triplet that give rises to the muon lepton mass. This is
crucial to generate the experimentally observed deviation from the tribimaximal mixing pattern, which in our model
arises from the charged lepton sector.
0
Furthermore, since the breaking of the A4 Z6 Z16 Z16 discrete group gives rise to the charged fermion mass
and quark mixing pattern, we set the VEVs of the SU (3)L singlet scalar fields (excepting which has a vanishing
vacuum expectation value) with respect to the Wolfenstein parameter = 0.225 and the model cutoff , as follows:

v << v << v = 5 < v = 4 < v = 3 << v v v v 1 v 2 (11)

Let us note that we have assumed a hierarchy between the vacuum expectation values of the A4 scalar triplets, in
order to simplify our analysis of the scalar potential for the A4 scalar triplets. That hierarchy in their VEVs will allow
us to neglect the mixings between these fields as follows from the method of recursive expansion of Ref. [151] and
to treat their scalar potentials independently. Furthermore, let us note that we have assumed the relation v v
for the vacuum expectation values of the A4 scalar triplets and contributing to the electron and tau lepton
masses as well as to the reactor mixing angle 13 . That assumption is made in order to connect the reactor mixing
parameter sin2 13 with the Wolfenstein parameter = 0.225, through the relation sin 13 , which is suggested by
the neutrino oscillation experimental data.
In the following we comment on the possible VEV patterns for the A4 scalar triplets , , , , , . Since the VEVs
of the A4 scalar triplets satisfy the following hierarchy: v << v << v < v < v << v the mixing angles between
, , , , and are very small since they are suppressed by the ratios of their VEVs, which is a consequence of
the method of recursive expansion proposed in Ref. [151]. Thus, the scalar potentials for the A4 scalar triplets , ,
, , , can be treated independently. As shown in detail in Appendix B, the following VEV patterns for the A4
scalar triplets are consistent with the scalar potential minimization equations for a large region of parameter space:

v
hi = (1, 1, 1) , hi = v (1, 0, 0) , hi = v (0, 0, 1) ,
3
v v
hi = v (0, 1, 0) , hi = (0, 1, 1) , hi = (1, 2, 0) . (12)
2 5

III. QUARK MASSES AND MIXINGS.

From the quark Yukawa interactions given by Eq. (9) we find that the SM mass matrices for quarks take the form:

8 5 4
g1 7 0

c1 b1 a1 0
v v
MU = 0 b2 4 a2 2 , MD = 0 g2 5 0 RD , (13)
2 0 0 a3 2 0 0 g3 3

1 1 2 2i
RD = 1 2 , =e 3 .
3 1 1 1

where c1 , bn (n = 1, 2), ai , gi (i = 1, 2, 3) are O(1) dimensionless parameters. Here = 0.225 is one of the Wolfenstein
parameters and v = 246 GeV the scale of electroweak symmetry breaking. From the SM quark mass textures given
above, it follows that the quark mixing angles only arise from the up type quark sector. Besides that, the low energy
quark flavor data indicates that the CP violating phase in the quark sector is associated with the quark mixing angle
in the 1-3 plane, as follows from the Standard parametrization of the quark mixing matrix. Consequently, in order
to get quark mixing angles and a CP violating phase consistent with the experimental data, we assume that all
dimensionless parameters given in Eqs. (13) are real, except for a1 , taken to be complex.
Furthermore, as follows from the different Z6 charge assignments for the quark fields, the exotic quarks do not mix
 7

with the SM quarks. We find that the exotic quark masses are given by:
(J) (J)
v (J) v y (J) v y
mT = y (T ) , mJ 1 = y1 = 1(T ) mT , mJ 2 = y2 = 2(T ) mT . (14)
2 2 y 2 y

Since the observed charged fermion mass and quark mixing pattern is generated by the breaking of the A4 Z6
0
Z16 Z16 discrete group, and in order to simplify the analysis as well as motivated by naturalness arguments, we set

c1 = b1 = b2 = a3 = g2 = 1. (15)

Consequently, there are only 5 effective free parameters in the SM quark sector of our model, i.e., |a1 |, a2 , g1 , g3 and
the phase arg (a1 ). We fit these 5 parameters to reproduce the 10 physical observables of the quark sector, i.e., the
six quark masses, the three mixing angles and the CP violating phase. By varying the parameters |a1 |, a2 , g1 , g3 and
the phase arg (a1 ), we find the quark masses, the three quark mixing angles and the CP violating phase reported in
Table I, which correspond to the best fit values:
|a1 | ' 3.35, a2 ' 0.8, g1 ' 0.56, g3 ' 1.42, arg (a1 ) = 156.74 .

Observable Model value Experimental value

mu (M eV ) 1.13 1.45+0.56
0.45
mc (M eV ) 460 635 86
mt (GeV ) 174.1 172.1 0.6 0.9
md (M eV ) 2.9 2.9+0.5
0.4
ms (M eV ) 101 57.7+16.8
15.7
mb (GeV ) 2.82 2.82+0.09
0.04
sin 12 0.220 0.2254
sin 23 0.0414 0.0413
sin 13 0.00354 0.00351
72 68

Table I: Model and experimental values of the quark masses and CKM parameters.

In Table I we show the model and experimental values for the physical observables of the quark sector. We use the
MZ -scale experimental values of the quark masses given by Ref. [152] (which are similar to those in [153]). The
experimental values of the CKM parameters are taken from Ref. [154]. As indicated by Table I, the obtained quark
masses, quark mixing angles, and CP violating phase are consistent with the low energy quark flavor data.

IV. LEPTON MASSES AND MIXINGS.

From Eqs. (10), (11), (12) and using the product rules of the A4 group given in Appendix A, we find that the charged
lepton mass matrix is given by:

x1 9 0 z1 4
v
Ml = 0 y5 0 (16)

2
x2 8 0 z2 3

where xn , y, zn (n = 1, 2) are O(1) dimensionless parameters, assumed to be real, excepting z1 , taken to be complex,
in order to generate a nonvanishing Dirac CP violating phase.
0
Since the charged lepton mass hierarchy arises from the breaking of the A4 Z6 Z16 Z16 discrete group and in
order to simplify the analysis, we consider an scenario of approximate universality in the dimensionless SM charged
lepton Yukawa couplings, as follows:
x1 = x2 = x, z1 = iz, z2 = z. (17)
 8

The matrix Ml Ml is diagonalized by a rotation matrix Rl according to:

m2e 0 0 cos l 0 i sin l
Rl Ml Ml Rl = 0 m2 0 , Rl = 0 1 0 , tan l ' , (18)

2 i sin l 0 cos l
0 0 m

where the charged lepton masses are approximately given by:

v v
me ' x9 v, m = y5 , m ' z3 ,
2 2
with x, y, z are O(1) dimensionless parameters given by:

x ' 1.37, y ' 1.02, z ' 0.86.

It is worth mentioning that the charged lepton masses are connected with the electroweak symmetry breaking scale
v = 246 GeV by their scalings with powers of the Wolfenstein parameter = 0.225, with O(1) coefficients. This is
consistent with our previous assumption made in Eq. (11) regarding the size of the VEVs for the SU (3)L singlet
scalars appearing in the charged fermion Yukawa terms. Furthermore, it is noteworthy that the mixing angle l in the
charged lepton sector is large, which gives rise to an important contribution to the leptonic mixing matrix, coming
from the mixing of charged leptons.
Regarding the neutrino sector, from the Eq. (10), we find the following neutrino mass terms:

L
1  
L()
mass = C
L R NR
M C + H.c, (19)

2 R
C
NR

where the A4 family symmetry constrains the neutrino mass matrix to be of the form:

033 MD 033
T
M = MD 033 M (20)

033 MT MR
 a
b  c
where the submatrices MD and M are generated at tree level from the nonrenormalizable abc LL LC L ( )

3a
and renormalizable LL NR 1 Yukawa terms, respectively, whereas the submatrix MR arises from a one loop level
radiative seesaw mechanism mediated by the massive right handed Majorana neutrinos i (i = 1, 2, 3) and the real
Re and imaginary Im parts of the Z8 charged scalar field . As previously mentioned, the facts that the Z8
discrete group is broken down to the preserved
Z2 symmetry and the SU (3)L singlet scalar field (which appears
in the neutrino Yukawa interaction N R 1 ) has a Z8 charge corresponding to a nontrivial Z2 charge, implies that
this scalar does not acquire a vacuum expectation value, thus generating the submatrix MR only at one loop level.
The submatrices MD , M and MR are given by:

0 1 1 1 0 0
y v v v
MD = 1 0 0 , M = y(L) 0 1 0 , (21)

2 2
1 0 0 0 0 1
 
v v
F (m , mRe , mIm ) m 0 2y F 2y 5
, m Re , m Im
  5
v v
MR = 0 F (m , mRe , mIm ) m y F y , m , m Im 5 ,

5 Re
   
v v v v
2y F 2y 5
, m Re , mIm
5
y F y
5
, m Re , mIm
5
F (m , mRe , m Im ) m

where the following function has been introduced [155]:

 2
(N )
y 
m22

m22

m23

m23

F (m1 , m2 , m3 ) = ln ln , (22)
16 2 m2 m21
2 m21 m3 m21
2 m21
 9

In order to connect the neutrino mass squared splittings with the quark mixing parameters and motivated by the
relation m213 4 O(1)eV 2 , we set v 4 m . In addition, for the sake of simplicity we assume that the Z8 charged
SU (3)L singlet scalar field is heavier than the right handed Majorana neutrinos i (i = 1, 2, 3), in such a way that
we can restrict to the scenario:

m2Re , m2Im >> m2 >> y v 6 m

2 2
(23)

for which the submatrix MR takes the form:

2 v
m 0 2y 2 2 4

(N )

1 0
y m2Re m2Im 5
v

MR ' 0 m y = 0 1 2 4 mR , (24)
 
5
8 2 m2Re + m2Im

v
2y v
y m 2 2 4 2 4 1
5 5

where 1 and 2 are O(1) dimensionless parameters, assumed to be real for simplicity. Furthermore, mR is the mass
scale for the Majorana neutrinos Ni (i = 1, 2, 3), which sets the scale of breaking of lepton number.
As shown in detail in Ref. [156], the full rotation matrix that diagonalizes the neutrino mass matrix M is approxi-
mately given by:

V B3 U B2 U R
(B2 +B3 )
2 V (1S) U (1+S)

U=
2

2
UR , (25)

(B2 B3 ) (1S) (1S)

2
V
2
U
2
UR

where
1 1
S = (L) MR , B2 ' B3 ' (L)
MD , (26)
2 2y v y v

and the physical neutrino mass matrices are:

1
M(1) = MD MT MR M1 MD
T
, (27)
1 1 1
1
M(2) = M + MT + MR , M(3) M + MT + MR ,


= (28)
2 2 2 2
(1) (2) (3)
where M is the light active neutrino mass matrix whereas M and M are the exotic Dirac neutrino mass
matrices. It is worth mentioning that physical neutrino spectrum consists of three light active neutrinos and six exotic
neutrinos. The exotic neutrinos are pseudo-Dirac, with masses v and a small splitting mR . Furthermore, V ,
(1) (2) (3)
UR and U are the rotation matrices which diagonalize M , M and M , respectively.
From Eq. (27) it follows that the light active neutrino mass matrix is given by:

2 1 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4


2y2 v2 v2 mR
M(1) = 2 2 4 1 1 m , m =  ,

2
4 (L) 2 2
2 2 1 1 y v

where m is the light active neutrino mass scale, which we set as m = 50 meV. Let us note that the smallness of the
active neutrino masses arises from their scaling with inverse powers of the high energy cutoff as well as from their
linear dependence on the loop induced mass scale mR for the Majorana neutrinos Ni (i = 1, 2, 3).
(1)
The light active neutrino mass matrix M is diagonalized by a unitary rotation matrix R , according to:
 10

2 1


0 0 0 0
6 3
1 1 1

0 2 1 2 2 4 m


, 2
R =


0
, for NH
6 3


2 1 + 2 4 m


0 0 1 1 1

RT M(1) R = 2
2 1
6 3
4 0




2 1 2 2 m 0 0 6 3
1 1 12

2 1 + 2 4 m 0 ,


0 R = , for IH


6 3



0 0 0 1 1 1


6 3 2
(29)
Consequently, the light active neutrino spectrum is composed of one massless neutrino and two active neutrinos,
whose masses are determined from the experimental values of the neutrino mass squared splittings.
From Eqs. (18) and Eqs. (29), it is follows that the normal hierarchy scenario leads to a too value for the large
reactor mixing angle, which is disfavored by the neutrino oscillation experimental data. Thus, the normal neutrino
mass hierarchy scenario of our model is ruled out by the current data on neutrino oscillation experiments. In what
regards inverted neutrino mass hierarchy, we find from Eqs. (18) and Eqs. (29), that the corresponding PMNS
leptonic mixing matrix takes the form:

2i
1+i
i

2

6 +1 3 2 +1 2 2 +1
1 1 12

U =
6 3

(30)
12i 1+i 1
2 2
6 +1 3 +1 2 2 +1

From the standard parametrization of the leptonic mixing matrix, we predict that the lepton mixing parameters for
the case of inverted neutrino mass hierarchy are given by:

2 1 + 2 1 + 2 2


2
sin 12 =
' 0.342, sin2 23 = ' 0.512, sin2 13 =
' 0.0241. (31)
3 2 + 2 2 + 2 2 1 + 2

Parameter m221 (105 eV2 ) m213 (103 eV2 ) sin2 12 sin2 23 sin2 13




exp exp exp
Best fit 7.60 2.38 0.323 0.573 0.0240
1 range 7.42 7.79 2.32 2.43 0.307 0.339 0.530 0.598 0.0221 0.0259
2 range 7.26 7.99 2.26 2.48 0.292 0.357 0.432 0.621 0.0202 0.0278
3 range 7.11 8.11 2.20 2.54 0.278 0.375 0.403 0.640 0.0183 0.0297

Table II: Range for experimental values of neutrino mass squared splittings and leptonic mixing parameters, taken from Ref.
[157], for the case of inverted hierarchy.

From the comparison of Eq. (31) with Table II, it follows that the leptonic mixing parameters sin2 13 and sin2 23 are
in excellent agreement with the experimental data, whereas sin2 12 is deviated 2 away from its best fit values. It is
remarkable that without any free parameter, our model predict leptonic mixing parameters in very good agreement
with their experimental values, for the case of inverted neutrino mass spectrum. Furthermore, the predicted Jarlskog
invariant the resulting Dirac CP violating phase are given by:

3
2 2
2 +
J=
' 3.57 102 , = arcsin ' 79.11 . (32)
6 1 + 2

p
2 1 + 2 4 + 2

Furthermore, from the experimental values of the neutrino mass squared splittings for the case of inverted neutrino
mass hierarchy and setting 2 = 1 as suggested by naturalness arguments, we found that the O(1) dimensionless
parameter 1 is given by:

1 ' 0.493. (33)

 11

Parameter m221 (105 eV2 ) m213 (103 eV2 ) sin2 12 sin2 23 sin2 13




exp exp exp
Best fit 7.60 2.38 0.323 0.573 0.0240
1 range 7.42 7.79 2.32 2.43 0.307 0.339 0.530 0.598 0.0221 0.0259
2 range 7.26 7.99 2.26 2.48 0.292 0.357 0.432 0.621 0.0202 0.0278
3 range 7.11 8.11 2.20 2.54 0.278 0.375 0.403 0.640 0.0183 0.0297

Table III: Experimental ranges of neutrino squared mass differences and leptonic mixing angles, from Ref. [157], for the case
of inverted neutrino mass spectrum.

Thus, our model predicts the following values for the neutrino mass squared splittings for the case of inverted neutrino
mass hierarchy:

2
m221 = 124 2 1 4 m2 ' 7.56 105 eV2 , m213 = 4 1 24 m2 ' 2.38 103 eV2 .


(34)

where we set the light active neutrino mass scale as m = 50 meV.

It is remarkable that with only one effective free parameter, i.e., 1 , the predicted values for the neutrino mass
squared splittings are inside their 1 experimentally allowed range, thus exhibiting an excellent agreement with the
experimental data on neutrino oscillations experiments, as follows from the comparison of Eq. (34) with Table II.
In the following we proceed to determine the effective Majorana neutrino mass parameter, whose value is proportional
to the amplitude of neutrinoless double beta (0) decay. The effective Majorana neutrino mass parameter is given
by:
 
 
X 2 
mee =  Uek m k  , (35)
 j 
2
where Uej and m k are the squared of the PMNS leptonic mixing matrix elements and the masses of the Majorana
neutrinos, respectively.
Thus, we predict that the effective Majorana neutrino mass parameter for the inverted neutrino mass hierarchy is
given by:
q 2
1 2 2 2 2 4 + 16 22 10


mee = m ' 45.5meV (36)
1 + 2
Our obtained value mee ' 45.5 meV for the effective Majorana neutrino mass parameter in the case of inverted
neutrino mass hierarchy, is within the declared reach of the next-generation bolometric CUORE experiment [158]
or, more realistically, of the next-to-next-generation ton-scale 0-decay experiments. It is worth mentioning that
the effective Majorana neutrino mass parameter has the upper bound of mee 160 meV, which corresponds to
0 136
T1/2 ( Xe) 1.1 1026 yr at 90% C.L, which follows from the experimental data of the KamLAND-Zen experi-
ment [159]. That limit is expected to be updated in a not too distant future. The GERDA phase-IIexperiment
0 76
[160, 161] is expected to reach T1/2 ( Ge) 2 1026 yr, which corresponds to mee 100 meV. A bolometric
130
CUORE experiment, using T e [158], is currently under construction and its estimated sensitivity is about
0 130 26
T1/2 ( Te) 10 yr, corresponding to mee 50 meV. In addition, there are plans for ton-scale next-to-next
0
generation 0 experiments with 136 Xe [162, 163] and 76 Ge [160, 164], asserting sensitivities over T1/2 1027
yr, which corresponds to mee 12 30 meV. Some reviews on the theory and phenomenology of neutrinoless
0
double-beta decay are provided in Refs. [165, 166]. Our results indicate that our model predicts T1/2 at the level
of sensitivities of the next generation or next-to-next generation 0 experiments.

V. DARK MATTER RELIC DENSITY.

In this section we will discuss the implications of our model in Dark matter. We will assume that the Dark matter
candidate in our model is a scalar. As a result of this assumption and considering that the SU (3)L scalar singlet
 12

is the only scalar field having a Z6 charge corresponding to a nontrivial charge under the preserved Z2 symmetry, we
have that it is the only Dark matter candidate in our model.
Relic density of the dark matter in the present Universe is estimated as follows (c.f. Ref. [154])

0.1pb A
h2 = , hvi = , (37)
hvi n2eq

where hvi is the thermally averaged annihilation cross-section, A is the total annihilation rate per unit volume at
temperature T and neq is the equilibrium value of the particle density, which are given by [167]
q
Z s s 4m2  
T X
2 s
A = gp v rel ( pp) K1 ds,
32 4 2 T
4m2 p=W,Z,t,b,h

T X m 

neq = gp m2 K2 , (38)
2 2 T
p=W,Z,t,b,h

with K1 and K2 being the modified Bessel functions of the second kind order 1 and 2, respectively [167]. For the relic
density calculation, we take T = m /20 as in Ref. [167], which corresponds to a typical freeze-out temperature. We
assume that our DM candidate annihilates mainly into W W , ZZ, tt, bb and hh, with annihilation cross sections
given by: [168]:
12m4W 4m2W r
 
h2 2 s 1 + s2 s 4m2W
vrel ( W W ) = 2 1 ,
8 (s m2h ) + m2h 2h s
12m4Z 4m2Z r
 
h2 2 s 1 + s2 s 4m2Z
vrel ( ZZ) = 1 ,
16 (s m2 )2 + m2 2 s
h h h
r
4m2f 3

Nc h2 2 mq 2 1 s
vrel ( qq) = 2 ,
4 (s mh ) + m2h 2h
2
!2 r
h2 2 3m2h 42h2 2 v 2 4m2h
vrel ( hh) = 1+ 1 , (39)
16s s m2h s 2m2h s

where s is the centre-of-mass energy, Nc = 3 is the color factor, mh = 125.7 GeV and h = 4.1 MeV are the SM
Higgs boson h mass and its total decay width, respectively.
Fig. 1 displays the Relic density h2 as a function of the mass m of the scalar field , for several values of the
quartic scalar coupling 2h2 2 . The curves from top to bottom correspond to h2 2 =1, 1.2 and 1.5, respectively. The
horizontal line corresponds to the experimental value h2 = 0.1198 for the relic density. The Figure 1 shows that the
Relic density is an increasing function of the mass m and a decreasing function of the quartic scalar coupling h2 2 .
Consequently, an increase in the the mass m of the scalar field will require a larger quartic scalar coupling h2 2 , in
order to account for the measured value of the Dark matter relic density, as indicated by Fig. 2. It is worth mentioning
that the Dark matter relic density constraint yields a linear correlation between the quartic scalar coupling h2 2 and
the mass m of the scalar Dark matter candidate , as shown in Fig. 2. We have numerically checked that in order
to reproduce the experimental value h2 = 0.1198 0.0026 [169] of the relic density, the mass m of the scalar field
has to be in the range 0.55 TeV . m . 7 TeV, for a quartic scalar coupling h2 2 in the range 1 . h2 2 . 4.
Here we take 4 as the upper bound on the quartic coupling h2 2 , arising from perturbativity.

VI. CONCLUSIONS

We constructed a highly predictive 3-3-1 model with right-handed neutrinos, where the symmetry is extended by
0
A4 Z6 Z16 Z16 and the field content is enlarged by extra SU (3)L singlet scalar fields and six right handed Majorana
0
neutrinos. Our model is consistent with the low energy fermion flavor data. The A4 , Z6 , and Z16 symmetries are
crucial for reducing the number of fermion sector model parameters, whereas the Z16 symmetry causes the charged
 13

0.3
h2

0.2

0.1

0.0
200 400 600 800 1000
m [GeV]

Figure 1: Relic density h2 , as a function of the mass m of the scalar field, for several values of the quartic scalar coupling
h2 2 . The curves from top to bottom correspond to h2 2 = 1, 1.2, 1.5, respectively. The horizontal line shows the observed
value h2 = 0.1198 [169] for the relic density.

fermion mass and quark mixing pattern. In the model under consideration, the light active neutrino masses are
generated from a one loop level inverse seesaw mechanism and the observed pattern of charged fermion masses and
0
quark mixing angles is caused by the breaking of the A4 Z6 Z16 Z16 discrete group at very high energy. In our
model the different discrete group factors are broken completely, excepting the Z6 discrete group, which is broken
down to the preserved Z2 symmetry, thus allowing the implementation of the one loop level inverse seesaw mechanism
for the generation of the light active neutrino masses. The resulting the neutrino spectrum of our model is composed
of light active neutrinos and TeV scale exotic pseudo-Dirac neutrinos. The smallness of the active neutrino masses is
a natural consequence of their scaling with inverse powers of the large model cutoff and of their linear dependence
on the loop induced mass scale mR for the Majorana neutrinos Ni (i = 1, 2, 3). The SM Yukawa sector of our highly
predictive A4 flavor 3-3-1 model has in total only 9 effective free parameters (4 and 5 effective free parameters in
the lepton and quark sectors, respectively), which we adjust to reproduce the experimental values of the 18 physical
observables in the quark and lepton sectors, i.e., 9 charged fermion masses, 2 neutrino mass squared splittings, 3
lepton mixing parameters, 3 quark mixing angles and 1 CP violating phase of the CKM quark mixing matrix. The
obtained values of the physical observables for the quark sector are consistent with the experimental data, whereas
the ones for the lepton sector also do but only for the inverted neutrino mass spectrum. The normal neutrino mass
hierarchy scenario of our model is disfavored by the neutrino oscillation experimental data, since the resulting reactor
mixing parameter is much larger than its experimental upper limit. Our model predicts an effective Majorana neutrino
mass parameter of neutrinoless double beta decay of mee = 45.5 meV, a leptonic Dirac CP violating phase of 79.11
and a Jarlskog invariant of about 102 for the inverted neutrino mass spectrum. Our obtained value of meV for the
effective Majorana neutrino mass is within the declared reach of the next generation bolometric CUORE experiment
[158] or, more realistically, of the next-to-next generation ton-scale 0-decay experiments. Due to the fact that
the Z6 discrete group, which is broken down to the preserved Z2 symmetry our model possesses a scalar DM particle
candidate. The constraints arising from the DM relic density, set its mass in the range 0.55 TeV . m . 7 TeV, for
a quartic scalar coupling h2 2 in the window 1 . h2 2 . 4.
 14

12

10

8
h2 2

2
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000
m [GeV]
Figure 2: Correlation between the quartic scalar coupling and the mass m of the scalar Dark matter candidate , consistent
with the experimental value h2 = 0.1198 for the Relic density.

Acknowledgments

This research has received funding from Fondecyt (Chile), Grants No. 1170803, CONICYT PIA/Basal FB0821, the
Vietnam National Foundation for Science and Technology Development (NAFOSTED) under grant number 103.01-
2017.22. A.E.C.H is very grateful to the Institute of Physics, Vietnam Academy of Science and Technology for the
warm hospitality and for fully financing his visit.

Appendix A: The product rules for A4

The A4 group has one three-dimensional 3 and three distinct one-dimensional 1, 10 and 100 irreducible representations,
satisfying the following product rules:

3 3 = 3s 3a 1 10 100 , (A1)

1 1 = 1, 10 100 = 1, 10 10 = 100 , 100 100 = 10 ,

Considering (x1 , y1 , z1 ) and (x2 , y2 , z2 ) as the basis vectors for two A4 -triplets 3, the following relations are fullfilled:

(3 3)1 = x1 y1 + x2 y2 + x3 y3 , (A2)
2
(3 3)3s = (x2 y3 + x3 y2 , x3 y1 + x1 y3 , x1 y2 + x2 y1 ) , (3 3)10 = x1 y1 + x2 y2 + x3 y3 ,
(3 3)3a = (x2 y3 x3 y2 , x3 y1 x1 y3 , x1 y2 x2 y1 ) , (3 3)100 = x1 y1 + 2 x2 y2 + x3 y3 ,
2
where = ei 3 . The representation 1 is trivial, while the non-trivial 10 and 100 are complex conjugate to each other.
Some reviews of discrete symmetries in particle physics are found in Refs. [2528].
 15

Appendix B: Scalar potential for one A4 scalar triplet

The scalar potential for any A4 scalar triplet takes the form:

V () = 2 ( )1 + ,1 ( )1 ( )1 + ,2 ()1 ( )1 + ,3 ( )10 ( )100

+,4 [()10 ( )100 + h.c] + ,5 [()100 ( )10 + h.c]
+,6 ( )3s ( )3s + ,7 ()3s ( )3s . (B1)

where = , , , , , .
That scalar potential given above has 8 free parameters: 1 bilinear and 7 quartic couplings. The scalar potential
minimization conditions read:
hV ()i
= 2v1 2 + 4,1 v1 v 2 2 2 2 2 2



+ v + v + 2,3 v1 2v v v
v1 1 2 3 1 2 3

 2 2 2
 2 2


+4,2 v1 v 1
+ v 2
cos (21 22 ) + v 3
cos (21 23 ) + 8,7 v1 v 2
+ v 3
 2 2 2

+4 (,4 + ,5 ) v1 2v 1
v 2
cos (21 22 ) v 3
cos (21 23 )
 2 2

+4,6 v1 v 2
{1 + cos (21 22 )} + v 3
{1 + cos (21 23 )}
= 0,
hV ()i
= 2v2 2 + 4,1 v2 v 2 2 2 2 2 2



+ v + v + 2,3 v2 2v v v
v2 1 2 3 2 1 3

 2 2 2
 2 2


+4,2 v2 v 2
+ v 1
cos (22 21 ) + v 3
cos (22 23 ) + 8,7 v2 v 1
+ v 3
 2 2 2

+4 (,4 + ,5 ) v2 2v 2
v 1
cos (22 21 ) v 3
cos (22 23 )
 2 2

+4,6 v2 v 1
{1 + cos (22 21 )} + v 3
{1 + cos (22 23 )}
= 0,
hV ()i
= 2v3 2 + 4,1 v3 v 2 2 2 2 2 2



+ v + v + 2,3 v3 2v v v
v3 1 2 3 3 1 2

 2 2 2
 2 2


+4,2 v3 v 2
+ v 1
cos (21 22 ) + v 2
cos (23 22 ) + 8,7 v3 v 1
+ v 2
 2 2 2

+4 (,4 + ,5 ) v3 2v 3
v 1
cos (21 22 ) v 2
cos (23 22 )
 2 2

+4,6 v3 v 1
{1 + cos (21 22 )} + v 2
{1 + cos (23 22 )}
= 0. (B2)


where hi = v1 ei1 , v2 ei2 , v3 ei3 . Here for the sake of simplicity we consider vanishing phases in the VEV
patterns of the A4 triplet scalars, i.e., 1 = 2 = 3 = 0. Then, the scalar potential minimization equations given
by Eq. (B2) yields the following relations:
2 2


[3,3 4 (,6 + ,7 ) + 6 (,4 + ,5 )] v 1
v 2
= 0,
2 2


[3,3 4 (,6 + ,7 ) + 6 (,4 + ,5 )] v1 v3 = 0,
2 2


[3,3 4 (,6 + ,7 ) + 6 (,4 + ,5 )] v 2
v 3
= 0. (B3)
4
From the relations given by Eq. (B3) and setting S,3 = 3 (S,6 + S,7 ) 2 (S,4 + S,5 ), with S = , , , , , we
obtain that the following VEV pattern:
v
hi = (1, 1, 1) , hi = v (1, 0, 0) , hi = v (0, 0, 1) ,
3
v v
hi = v (0, 1, 0) , hi = (0, 1, 1) , hi = (1, 2, 0) . (B4)
2 5

is a solution of the scalar potential minimization equations for a large region of parameter space.
From the expressions given above, and using the vacuum configuration for the A4 scalar triplets given in Eq. (??),
we find the following relation:
2
2 = 2
[3 (,1 + ,2 ) + 4 (,6 + ,7 )] v , = , , , , . (B5)
3
 16

These results indicate that the VEV pattern of the A4 triplets, i.e., , , , , and in Eq. (12), are consistent
with a global minimum of the scalar potential (B1) of our model for a large region of parameter space.

[1] H. Georgi and A. Pais, Phys. Rev. D 19, 2746 (1979). doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.19.2746
[2] J. W. F. Valle and M. Singer, Phys. Rev. D 28, 540 (1983). doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.28.540
[3] F. Pisano and V. Pleitez, Phys. Rev. D 46, 410 (1992) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.46.410 [hep-ph/9206242].
[4] R. Foot, O. F. Hernandez, F. Pisano and V. Pleitez, Phys. Rev. D 47, 4158 (1993) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.47.4158
[hep-ph/9207264].
[5] P. H. Frampton, Phys. Rev. Lett. 69, 2889 (1992). doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.69.2889
[6] H. N. Long, Phys. Rev. D 54, 4691 (1996) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.54.4691 [hep-ph/9607439].
[7] H. N. Long, Phys. Rev. D 53, 437 (1996) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.53.437 [hep-ph/9504274].
[8] R. Foot, H. N. Long and T. A. Tran, Phys. Rev. D 50, no. 1, R34 (1994) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.50.R34 [hep-ph/9402243].
[9] S. M. Boucenna, S. Morisi and A. Vicente, Phys. Rev. D 93, no. 11, 115008 (2016) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.93.115008
[arXiv:1512.06878 [hep-ph]].
[10] A. E. C. Hernandez and I. Nisandzic, Eur. Phys. J. C 76, no. 7, 380 (2016) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-016-4230-6
[arXiv:1512.07165 [hep-ph]].
[11] C. A. de Sousa Pires and O. P. Ravinez, Phys. Rev. D 58, 035008 (1998) [Phys. Rev. D 58, 35008 (1998)]
doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.58.035008 [hep-ph/9803409].
[12] P. V. Dong and H. N. Long, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 21, 6677 (2006) doi:10.1142/S0217751X06035191 [hep-ph/0507155].
[13] J. C. Montero, V. Pleitez and O. Ravinez, Phys. Rev. D 60, 076003 (1999) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.60.076003 [hep-
ph/9811280].
[14] J. C. Montero, C. C. Nishi, V. Pleitez, O. Ravinez and M. C. Rodriguez, Phys. Rev. D 73, 016003 (2006)
doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.73.016003 [hep-ph/0511100].
[15] P. B. Pal, Phys. Rev. D 52, 1659 (1995) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.52.1659 [hep-ph/9411406].
[16] A. G. Dias, V. Pleitez and M. D. Tonasse, Phys. Rev. D 67, 095008 (2003) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.67.095008 [hep-
ph/0211107].
[17] A. G. Dias and V. Pleitez, Phys. Rev. D 69, 077702 (2004) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.69.077702 [hep-ph/0308037].
[18] A. G. Dias, C. A. de S. Pires and P. S. Rodrigues da Silva, Phys. Rev. D 68, 115009 (2003)
doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.68.115009 [hep-ph/0309058].
[19] J. K. Mizukoshi, C. A. de S.Pires, F. S. Queiroz and P. S. Rodrigues da Silva, Phys. Rev. D 83, 065024 (2011)
doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.83.065024 [arXiv:1010.4097 [hep-ph]].
[20] A. G. Dias, C. A. de S.Pires and P. S. Rodrigues da Silva, Phys. Rev. D 82, 035013 (2010)
doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.82.035013 [arXiv:1003.3260 [hep-ph]].
[21] J. D. Ruiz-Alvarez, C. A. de S.Pires, F. S. Queiroz, D. Restrepo and P. S. Rodrigues da Silva, Phys. Rev. D 86, 075011
(2012) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.86.075011 [arXiv:1206.5779 [hep-ph]].
[22] D. Cogollo, A. X. Gonzalez-Morales, F. S. Queiroz and P. R. Teles, JCAP 1411, no. 11, 002 (2014) doi:10.1088/1475-
7516/2014/11/002 [arXiv:1402.3271 [hep-ph]].
[23] P. S. Rodrigues da Silva, arXiv:1412.8633 [hep-ph].
[24] A. E. Carcamo Hernandez, R. Martinez and F. Ochoa, Phys. Rev. D 87, no. 7, 075009 (2013)
doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.87.075009 [arXiv:1302.1757 [hep-ph]].
[25] H. Ishimori, T. Kobayashi, H. Ohki, Y. Shimizu, H. Okada and M. Tanimoto, Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl. 183, 1 (2010)
doi:10.1143/PTPS.183.1 [arXiv:1003.3552 [hep-th]].
[26] G. Altarelli and F. Feruglio, Rev. Mod. Phys. 82, 2701 (2010) doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.82.2701 [arXiv:1002.0211 [hep-
ph]].
[27] S. F. King and C. Luhn, Rept. Prog. Phys. 76, 056201 (2013) doi:10.1088/0034-4885/76/5/056201 [arXiv:1301.1340
[hep-ph]].
[28] S. F. King, A. Merle, S. Morisi, Y. Shimizu and M. Tanimoto, New J. Phys. 16, 045018 (2014) doi:10.1088/1367-
2630/16/4/045018 [arXiv:1402.4271 [hep-ph]].
[29] E. Ma and G. Rajasekaran, Phys. Rev. D 64, 113012 (2001) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.64.113012 [hep-ph/0106291].
[30] X. G. He, Y. Y. Keum and R. R. Volkas, JHEP 0604, 039 (2006) doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2006/04/039 [hep-ph/0601001].
[31] M. C. Chen and S. F. King, JHEP 0906, 072 (2009) doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2009/06/072 [arXiv:0903.0125 [hep-ph]].
[32] Y. H. Ahn and S. K. Kang, Phys. Rev. D 86, 093003 (2012) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.86.093003 [arXiv:1203.4185 [hep-ph]].
[33] N. Memenga, W. Rodejohann and H. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D 87, no. 5, 053021 (2013) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.87.053021
[arXiv:1301.2963 [hep-ph]].
[34] R. Gonzalez Felipe, H. Serodio and J. P. Silva, Phys. Rev. D 88, no. 1, 015015 (2013) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.88.015015
[arXiv:1304.3468 [hep-ph]].
[35] I. de Medeiros Varzielas and D. Pidt, JHEP 1303, 065 (2013) doi:10.1007/JHEP03(2013)065 [arXiv:1211.5370 [hep-ph]].
[36] H. Ishimori and E. Ma, Phys. Rev. D 86, 045030 (2012) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.86.045030 [arXiv:1205.0075 [hep-ph]].
[37] S. F. King, S. Morisi, E. Peinado and J. W. F. Valle, Phys. Lett. B 724, 68 (2013) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2013.05.067
[arXiv:1301.7065 [hep-ph]].
 17

[38] A. E. Carcamo Hernandez, I. de Medeiros Varzielas, S. G. Kovalenko, H. Pas and I. Schmidt, Phys. Rev. D 88, no. 7,
076014 (2013) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.88.076014 [arXiv:1307.6499 [hep-ph]].
[39] K. S. Babu, E. Ma and J. W. F. Valle, Phys. Lett. B 552, 207 (2003) doi:10.1016/S0370-2693(02)03153-2 [hep-ph/0206292].
[40] G. Altarelli and F. Feruglio, Nucl. Phys. B 741, 215 (2006) doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2006.02.015 [hep-ph/0512103].
[41] S. Morisi, M. Nebot, K. M. Patel, E. Peinado and J. W. F. Valle, Phys. Rev. D 88, 036001 (2013)
doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.88.036001 [arXiv:1303.4394 [hep-ph]].
[42] G. Altarelli and F. Feruglio, Nucl. Phys. B 720, 64 (2005) doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2005.05.005 [hep-ph/0504165].
[43] A. Kadosh and E. Pallante, JHEP 1008, 115 (2010) doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2010)115 [arXiv:1004.0321 [hep-ph]].
[44] A. Kadosh, JHEP 1306, 114 (2013) doi:10.1007/JHEP06(2013)114 [arXiv:1303.2645 [hep-ph]].
[45] F. del Aguila, A. Carmona and J. Santiago, JHEP 1008, 127 (2010) doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2010)127 [arXiv:1001.5151
[hep-ph]].
[46] M. D. Campos, A. E. Carcamo Hernandez, S. Kovalenko, I. Schmidt and E. Schumacher, Phys. Rev. D 90, no. 1, 016006
(2014) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.90.016006 [arXiv:1403.2525 [hep-ph]].
[47] V. V. Vien and H. N. Long, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 30, no. 21, 1550117 (2015) doi:10.1142/S0217751X15501171
[arXiv:1405.4665 [hep-ph]].
[48] A. E. Carcamo Hernandez and R. Martinez, Nucl. Phys. B 905, 337 (2016) doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2016.02.025
[arXiv:1501.05937 [hep-ph]].
[49] J. Kubo, Phys. Lett. B 578, 156 (2004) Erratum: [Phys. Lett. B 619, 387 (2005)] doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2005.06.013,
10.1016/j.physletb.2003.10.048 [hep-ph/0309167].
[50] T. Kobayashi, J. Kubo and H. Terao, Phys. Lett. B 568, 83 (2003) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2003.03.002 [hep-ph/0303084].
[51] S. L. Chen, M. Frigerio and E. Ma, Phys. Rev. D 70, 073008 (2004) Erratum: [Phys. Rev. D 70, 079905 (2004)]
doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.70.079905, 10.1103/PhysRevD.70.073008 [hep-ph/0404084].
[52] A. Mondragon, M. Mondragon and E. Peinado, Phys. Rev. D 76, 076003 (2007) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.76.076003
[arXiv:0706.0354 [hep-ph]].
[53] A. Mondragon, M. Mondragon and E. Peinado, Rev. Mex. Fis. 54, no. 3, 81 (2008) [Rev. Mex. Fis. Suppl. 54, 0181
(2008)] [arXiv:0805.3507 [hep-ph]].
[54] G. Bhattacharyya, P. Leser and H. Pas, Phys. Rev. D 83, 011701 (2011) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.83.011701
[arXiv:1006.5597 [hep-ph]].
[55] P. V. Dong, H. N. Long, C. H. Nam and V. V. Vien, Phys. Rev. D 85, 053001 (2012) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.85.053001
[arXiv:1111.6360 [hep-ph]].
[56] A. G. Dias, A. C. B. Machado and C. C. Nishi, Phys. Rev. D 86, 093005 (2012) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.86.093005
[arXiv:1206.6362 [hep-ph]].
[57] D. Meloni, JHEP 1205, 124 (2012) doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2012)124 [arXiv:1203.3126 [hep-ph]].
[58] F. Gonzalez Canales, A. Mondragon and M. Mondragon, Fortsch. Phys. 61, 546 (2013) doi:10.1002/prop.201200121
[arXiv:1205.4755 [hep-ph]].
[59] F. Gonzalez Canales, A. Mondragon, M. Mondragon, U. J. Saldana Salazar and L. Velasco-Sevilla, Phys. Rev. D 88,
096004 (2013) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.88.096004 [arXiv:1304.6644 [hep-ph]].
[60] E. Ma and B. Melic, Phys. Lett. B 725, 402 (2013) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2013.07.015 [arXiv:1303.6928 [hep-ph]].
[61] Y. Kajiyama, H. Okada and K. Yagyu, Nucl. Phys. B 887, 358 (2014) doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2014.08.009
[arXiv:1309.6234 [hep-ph]].
[62] A. E. Carcamo Hernandez, R. Martinez and F. Ochoa, Eur. Phys. J. C 76, no. 11, 634 (2016) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-
016-4480-3 [arXiv:1309.6567 [hep-ph]].
[63] E. Ma and R. Srivastava, Phys. Lett. B 741, 217 (2015) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2014.12.049 [arXiv:1411.5042 [hep-ph]].
[64] A. E. Carcamo Hernandez, R. Martinez and J. Nisperuza, Eur. Phys. J. C 75, no. 2, 72 (2015) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-
015-3278-z [arXiv:1401.0937 [hep-ph]].
[65] A. E. Carcamo Hernandez, E. Catano Mur and R. Martinez, Phys. Rev. D 90, no. 7, 073001 (2014)
doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.90.073001 [arXiv:1407.5217 [hep-ph]].
[66] S. Gupta, C. S. Kim and P. Sharma, Phys. Lett. B 740, 353 (2015) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2014.12.005 [arXiv:1408.0172
[hep-ph]].
[67] A. E. Carcamo Hernandez, I. de Medeiros Varzielas and E. Schumacher, Phys. Rev. D 93, no. 1, 016003 (2016)
doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.93.016003 [arXiv:1509.02083 [hep-ph]].
[68] A. E. Carcamo Hernandez, I. de Medeiros Varzielas and N. A. Neill, Phys. Rev. D 94, no. 3, 033011 (2016)
doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.94.033011 [arXiv:1511.07420 [hep-ph]].
[69] A. E. Carcamo Hernandez, I. de Medeiros Varzielas and E. Schumacher, arXiv:1601.00661 [hep-ph].
[70] A. E. Carcamo Hernandez, S. Kovalenko and I. Schmidt, JHEP 1702, 125 (2017) doi:10.1007/JHEP02(2017)125
[arXiv:1611.09797 [hep-ph]].
[71] C. Arbelaez, A. E. Carcamo Hernandez, S. Kovalenko and I. Schmidt, arXiv:1602.03607 [hep-ph].
[72] R. N. Mohapatra and C. C. Nishi, Phys. Rev. D 86, 073007 (2012) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.86.073007 [arXiv:1208.2875
[hep-ph]].
[73] P. S. Bhupal Dev, B. Dutta, R. N. Mohapatra and M. Severson, Phys. Rev. D 86, 035002 (2012)
doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.86.035002 [arXiv:1202.4012 [hep-ph]].
[74] I. de Medeiros Varzielas and L. Lavoura, J. Phys. G 40, 085002 (2013) doi:10.1088/0954-3899/40/8/085002
[arXiv:1212.3247 [hep-ph]].
[75] G. J. Ding, S. F. King, C. Luhn and A. J. Stuart, JHEP 1305, 084 (2013) doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2013)084 [arXiv:1303.6180
 18

[hep-ph]].
[76] H. Ishimori, Y. Shimizu, M. Tanimoto and A. Watanabe, Phys. Rev. D 83, 033004 (2011)
doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.83.033004 [arXiv:1010.3805 [hep-ph]].
[77] G. J. Ding and Y. L. Zhou, Nucl. Phys. B 876, 418 (2013) doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2013.08.011 [arXiv:1304.2645 [hep-ph]].
[78] C. Hagedorn and M. Serone, JHEP 1110, 083 (2011) doi:10.1007/JHEP10(2011)083 [arXiv:1106.4021 [hep-ph]].
[79] M. D. Campos, A. E. Carcamo Hernandez, H. Pas and E. Schumacher, Phys. Rev. D 91, no. 11, 116011 (2015)
doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.91.116011 [arXiv:1408.1652 [hep-ph]].
[80] P. V. Dong, H. N. Long, D. V. Soa and V. V. Vien, Eur. Phys. J. C 71, 1544 (2011) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-011-1544-2
[arXiv:1009.2328 [hep-ph]].
[81] V. V. Vien, H. N. Long and D. P. Khoi, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 30, no. 17, 1550102 (2015) doi:10.1142/S0217751X1550102X
[arXiv:1506.06063 [hep-ph]].
[82] P. H. Frampton and T. W. Kephart, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 10, 4689 (1995) doi:10.1142/S0217751X95002187 [hep-
ph/9409330].
[83] W. Grimus and L. Lavoura, Phys. Lett. B 572, 189 (2003) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2003.08.032 [hep-ph/0305046].
[84] W. Grimus, A. S. Joshipura, S. Kaneko, L. Lavoura and M. Tanimoto, JHEP 0407, 078 (2004) doi:10.1088/1126-
6708/2004/07/078 [hep-ph/0407112].
[85] M. Frigerio, S. Kaneko, E. Ma and M. Tanimoto, Phys. Rev. D 71, 011901 (2005) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.71.011901
[hep-ph/0409187].
[86] K. S. Babu and J. Kubo, Phys. Rev. D 71, 056006 (2005) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.71.056006 [hep-ph/0411226].
[87] A. Adulpravitchai, A. Blum and C. Hagedorn, JHEP 0903, 046 (2009) doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2009/03/046
[arXiv:0812.3799 [hep-ph]].
[88] H. Ishimori, T. Kobayashi, H. Ohki, Y. Omura, R. Takahashi and M. Tanimoto, Phys. Lett. B 662, 178 (2008)
doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2008.03.007 [arXiv:0802.2310 [hep-ph]].
[89] C. Hagedorn and R. Ziegler, Phys. Rev. D 82, 053011 (2010) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.82.053011 [arXiv:1007.1888 [hep-ph]].
[90] D. Meloni, S. Morisi and E. Peinado, Phys. Lett. B 703, 281 (2011) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2011.07.084 [arXiv:1104.0178
[hep-ph]].
[91] V. V. Vien and H. N. Long, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 28, 1350159 (2013) doi:10.1142/S0217751X13501595 [arXiv:1312.5034
[hep-ph]].
[92] K. Kawashima, J. Kubo and A. Lenz, Phys. Lett. B 681, 60 (2009) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2009.09.064 [arXiv:0907.2302
[hep-ph]].
[93] Y. Kaburaki, K. Konya, J. Kubo and A. Lenz, Phys. Rev. D 84, 016007 (2011) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.84.016007
[arXiv:1012.2435 [hep-ph]].
[94] K. S. Babu, K. Kawashima and J. Kubo, Phys. Rev. D 83, 095008 (2011) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.83.095008
[arXiv:1103.1664 [hep-ph]].
[95] J. C. Gomez-Izquierdo, F. Gonzalez-Canales and M. Mondragon, Eur. Phys. J. C 75, no. 5, 221 (2015)
doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-015-3440-7 [arXiv:1312.7385 [hep-ph]].
[96] C. Luhn, S. Nasri and P. Ramond, Phys. Lett. B 652, 27 (2007) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2007.06.059 [arXiv:0706.2341
[hep-ph]].
[97] C. Hagedorn, M. A. Schmidt and A. Y. Smirnov, Phys. Rev. D 79, 036002 (2009) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.79.036002
[arXiv:0811.2955 [hep-ph]].
[98] Q. H. Cao, S. Khalil, E. Ma and H. Okada, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 131801 (2011) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.106.131801
[arXiv:1009.5415 [hep-ph]].
[99] C. Luhn, K. M. Parattu and A. Wingerter, JHEP 1212, 096 (2012) doi:10.1007/JHEP12(2012)096 [arXiv:1210.1197
[hep-ph]].
[100] Y. Kajiyama, H. Okada and K. Yagyu, JHEP 1310, 196 (2013) doi:10.1007/JHEP10(2013)196 [arXiv:1307.0480 [hep-ph]].
[101] C. Bonilla, S. Morisi, E. Peinado and J. W. F. Valle, Phys. Lett. B 742, 99 (2015) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2015.01.017
[arXiv:1411.4883 [hep-ph]].
[102] V. V. Vien and H. N. Long, JHEP 1404, 133 (2014) doi:10.1007/JHEP04(2014)133 [arXiv:1402.1256 [hep-ph]].
[103] V. V. Vien, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 29, 28 (2014) doi:10.1142/S0217732314501399 [arXiv:1508.02585 [hep-ph]].
[104] A. E. Carcamo Hernandez and R. Martinez, J. Phys. G 43, no. 4, 045003 (2016) doi:10.1088/0954-3899/43/4/045003
[arXiv:1501.07261 [hep-ph]].
[105] C. Arbelaez, A. E. Carcamo Hernandez, S. Kovalenko and I. Schmidt, Phys. Rev. D 92, no. 11, 115015 (2015)
doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.92.115015 [arXiv:1507.03852 [hep-ph]].
[106] G. J. Ding, Nucl. Phys. B 853, 635 (2011) doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2011.08.012 [arXiv:1105.5879 [hep-ph]].
[107] C. Hartmann, Phys. Rev. D 85, 013012 (2012) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.85.013012 [arXiv:1109.5143 [hep-ph]].
[108] C. Hartmann and A. Zee, Nucl. Phys. B 853, 105 (2011) doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2011.07.023 [arXiv:1106.0333 [hep-ph]].
[109] Y. Kajiyama and H. Okada, Nucl. Phys. B 848, 303 (2011) doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2011.02.020 [arXiv:1011.5753 [hep-
ph]].
[110] A. Aranda, C. D. Carone and R. F. Lebed, Phys. Rev. D 62, 016009 (2000) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.62.016009 [hep-
ph/0002044].
[111] S. Sen, Phys. Rev. D 76, 115020 (2007) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.76.115020 [arXiv:0710.2734 [hep-ph]].
[112] A. Aranda, Phys. Rev. D 76, 111301 (2007) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.76.111301 [arXiv:0707.3661 [hep-ph]].
[113] M. C. Chen and K. T. Mahanthappa, Phys. Lett. B 652, 34 (2007) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2007.06.064 [arXiv:0705.0714
[hep-ph]].
 19

[114] P. H. Frampton, T. W. Kephart and S. Matsuzaki, Phys. Rev. D 78, 073004 (2008) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.78.073004
[arXiv:0807.4713 [hep-ph]].
[115] D. A. Eby, P. H. Frampton, X. G. He and T. W. Kephart, Phys. Rev. D 84, 037302 (2011)
doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.84.037302 [arXiv:1103.5737 [hep-ph]].
[116] P. H. Frampton, C. M. Ho and T. W. Kephart, Phys. Rev. D 89, no. 2, 027701 (2014) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.89.027701
[arXiv:1305.4402 [hep-ph]].
[117] M. C. Chen, J. Huang, K. T. Mahanthappa and A. M. Wijangco, JHEP 1310, 112 (2013) doi:10.1007/JHEP10(2013)112
[arXiv:1307.7711 [hep-ph]].
[118] E. Ma, Phys. Lett. B 660, 505 (2008) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2007.12.060 [arXiv:0709.0507 [hep-ph]].
[119] I. de Medeiros Varzielas, D. Emmanuel-Costa and P. Leser, Phys. Lett. B 716, 193 (2012)
doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2012.08.008 [arXiv:1204.3633 [hep-ph]].
[120] G. Bhattacharyya, I. de Medeiros Varzielas and P. Leser, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 241603 (2012)
doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.109.241603 [arXiv:1210.0545 [hep-ph]].
[121] E. Ma, Phys. Lett. B 723, 161 (2013) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2013.05.011 [arXiv:1304.1603 [hep-ph]].
[122] C. C. Nishi, Phys. Rev. D 88, no. 3, 033010 (2013) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.88.033010 [arXiv:1306.0877 [hep-ph]].
[123] I. de Medeiros Varzielas and D. Pidt, J. Phys. G 41, 025004 (2014) doi:10.1088/0954-3899/41/2/025004 [arXiv:1307.0711
[hep-ph]].
[124] A. Aranda, C. Bonilla, S. Morisi, E. Peinado and J. W. F. Valle, Phys. Rev. D 89, no. 3, 033001 (2014)
doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.89.033001 [arXiv:1307.3553 [hep-ph]].
[125] E. Ma and A. Natale, Phys. Lett. B 734, 403 (2014) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2014.05.070 [arXiv:1403.6772 [hep-ph]].
[126] M. Abbas and S. Khalil, Phys. Rev. D 91, no. 5, 053003 (2015) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.91.053003 [arXiv:1406.6716 [hep-
ph]].
[127] M. Abbas, S. Khalil, A. Rashed and A. Sil, Phys. Rev. D 93, no. 1, 013018 (2016) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.93.013018
[arXiv:1508.03727 [hep-ph]].
[128] I. de Medeiros Varzielas, JHEP 1508, 157 (2015) doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2015)157 [arXiv:1507.00338 [hep-ph]].
[129] F. Bjorkeroth, F. J. de Anda, I. de Medeiros Varzielas and S. F. King, Phys. Rev. D 94, no. 1, 016006 (2016)
doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.94.016006 [arXiv:1512.00850 [hep-ph]].
[130] P. Chen, G. J. Ding, A. D. Rojas, C. A. Vaquera-Araujo and J. W. F. Valle, JHEP 1601, 007 (2016)
doi:10.1007/JHEP01(2016)007 [arXiv:1509.06683 [hep-ph]].
[131] V. V. Vien, A. E. Carcamo Hernandez and H. N. Long, Nucl. Phys. B 913, 792 (2016) doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2016.10.010
[arXiv:1601.03300 [hep-ph]].
[132] A. E. Carcamo Hernandez, H. N. Long and V. V. Vien, Eur. Phys. J. C 76, no. 5, 242 (2016) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-
016-4074-0 [arXiv:1601.05062 [hep-ph]].
[133] L. L. Everett and A. J. Stuart, Phys. Rev. D 79, 085005 (2009) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.79.085005 [arXiv:0812.1057 [hep-
ph]].
[134] F. Feruglio and A. Paris, JHEP 1103, 101 (2011) doi:10.1007/JHEP03(2011)101 [arXiv:1101.0393 [hep-ph]].
[135] I. K. Cooper, S. F. King and A. J. Stuart, Nucl. Phys. B 875, 650 (2013) doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2013.07.027
[arXiv:1212.1066 [hep-ph]].
[136] I. de Medeiros Varzielas and L. Lavoura, J. Phys. G 41, 055005 (2014) doi:10.1088/0954-3899/41/5/055005
[arXiv:1312.0215 [hep-ph]].
[137] J. Gehrlein, J. P. Oppermann, D. Schafer and M. Spinrath, Nucl. Phys. B 890, 539 (2014)
doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2014.11.023 [arXiv:1410.2057 [hep-ph]].
[138] J. Gehrlein, S. T. Petcov, M. Spinrath and X. Zhang, Nucl. Phys. B 896, 311 (2015) doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2015.04.019
[arXiv:1502.00110 [hep-ph]].
[139] A. Di Iura, C. Hagedorn and D. Meloni, JHEP 1508, 037 (2015) doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2015)037 [arXiv:1503.04140 [hep-
ph]].
[140] P. Ballett, S. Pascoli and J. Turner, Phys. Rev. D 92, no. 9, 093008 (2015) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.92.093008
[arXiv:1503.07543 [hep-ph]].
[141] J. Gehrlein, S. T. Petcov, M. Spinrath and X. Zhang, Nucl. Phys. B 899, 617 (2015) doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2015.08.019
[arXiv:1508.07930 [hep-ph]].
[142] J. Turner, Phys. Rev. D 92, no. 11, 116007 (2015) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.92.116007 [arXiv:1507.06224 [hep-ph]].
[143] C. C. Li and G. J. Ding, JHEP 1505, 100 (2015) doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2015)100 [arXiv:1503.03711 [hep-ph]].
[144] F. P. An et al. [Daya Bay Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 171803 (2012) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.171803
[arXiv:1203.1669 [hep-ex]].
[145] K. Abe et al. [T2K Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 041801 (2011) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.107.041801
[arXiv:1106.2822 [hep-ex]].
[146] P. Adamson et al. [MINOS Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 181802 (2011) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.107.181802
[arXiv:1108.0015 [hep-ex]].
[147] Y. Abe et al. [Double Chooz Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 131801 (2012) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.131801
[arXiv:1112.6353 [hep-ex]].
[148] J. K. Ahn et al. [RENO Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 191802 (2012) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.191802
[arXiv:1204.0626 [hep-ex]].
[149] R. A. Diaz, R. Martinez and F. Ochoa, Phys. Rev. D 72, 035018 (2005) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.72.035018 [hep-
ph/0411263].
 20

[150] A. E. Carcamo Hernandez, R. Martinez and F. Ochoa, Phys. Rev. D 73, 035007 (2006) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.73.035007
[hep-ph/0510421].
[151] W. Grimus and L. Lavoura, JHEP 0011, 042 (2000) doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2000/11/042 [hep-ph/0008179].
[152] K. Bora, Horizon 2 (2013) [arXiv:1206.5909 [hep-ph]].
[153] Z. z. Xing, H. Zhang and S. Zhou, Phys. Rev. D 77, 113016 (2008) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.77.113016 [arXiv:0712.1419
[hep-ph]].
[154] C. Patrignani et al. [Particle Data Group], Chin. Phys. C 40, no. 10, 100001 (2016). doi:10.1088/1674-1137/40/10/100001
[155] E. Ma, Phys. Rev. D 73, 077301 (2006) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.73.077301 [hep-ph/0601225].
[156] M. E. Catano, R. Martinez and F. Ochoa, Phys. Rev. D 86, 073015 (2012) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.86.073015
[arXiv:1206.1966 [hep-ph]].
[157] D. V. Forero, M. Tortola and J. W. F. Valle, Phys. Rev. D 90, no. 9, 093006 (2014) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.90.093006
[arXiv:1405.7540 [hep-ph]].
[158] F. Alessandria et al., arXiv:1109.0494 [nucl-ex].
[159] A. Gando et al. [KamLAND-Zen Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, no. 8, 082503 (2016) Addendum: [Phys. Rev. Lett.
117, no. 10, 109903 (2016)] doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.109903, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.082503 [arXiv:1605.02889
[hep-ex]].
[160] I. Abt et al., hep-ex/0404039.
[161] K. H. Ackermann et al. [GERDA Collaboration], Eur. Phys. J. C 73, no. 3, 2330 (2013) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-013-
2330-0 [arXiv:1212.4067 [physics.ins-det]].
[162] A. Gando et al. [KamLAND-Zen Collaboration], Phys. Rev. C 85, 045504 (2012) doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.85.045504
[arXiv:1201.4664 [hep-ex]].
[163] J. B. Albert et al. [EXO-200 Collaboration], Phys. Rev. D 90, no. 9, 092004 (2014) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.90.092004
[arXiv:1409.6829 [hep-ex]].
[164] C. E. Aalseth et al. [Majorana Collaboration], Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. 217, 44 (2011)
doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysbps.2011.04.063 [arXiv:1101.0119 [nucl-ex]].
[165] S. M. Bilenky and C. Giunti, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 30, no. 04n05, 1530001 (2015) doi:10.1142/S0217751X1530001X
[arXiv:1411.4791 [hep-ph]].
[166] S. DellOro, S. Marcocci, M. Viel and F. Vissani, Adv. High Energy Phys. 2016, 2162659 (2016) doi:10.1155/2016/2162659
[arXiv:1601.07512 [hep-ph]].
[167] J. Edsjo and P. Gondolo, Phys. Rev. D 56, 1879 (1997) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.56.1879 [hep-ph/9704361].
[168] S. Bhattacharya, P. Poulose and P. Ghosh, arXiv:1607.08461 [hep-ph].
[169] P. A. R. Ade et al. [Planck Collaboration], Astron. Astrophys. 594, A13 (2016) doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201525830
[arXiv:1502.01589 [astro-ph.CO]].