ISSN 1063-7788, Physics of Atomic Nuclei, 2020, Vol. 83, No. 5, pp. 764–769.


c Pleiades Publishing, Ltd., 2020.

ELEMENTARY PARTICLES AND FIELDS

Theory

Modular A 4 Invariance Model for Lepton Masses and Mixing

Mohammed Abbas1), 2)*
Received April 9, 2020; revised May 4, 2020; accepted May 4, 2020

Abstract—A flavor model based on A4 modular group is proposed. We consider the inverse seesaw
mechanism to produce the light neutrino masses. Both neutrino and charged lepton masses are obtained
in terms of Yukawa coupling ratios and the module τ of the A4 modular form. The calculated lepton
parameters (masses and mixings) are in good agreement with the recent neutrino data. The present mixing
pattern can be realized as a consequence of deviation from the bimaximal symmetry.
DOI: 10.1134/S1063778820050038

1. INTRODUCTION the flavor symmetry to be proposed to account for

The type-I seesaw mechanism [1] is the most
common scenario to explain the non-vanishing neu-
trino mass. In this scenario, the tiny neutrino mass
is obtained via the extension of the Standard Model
(SM) with three heavy right-handed neutrinos νRi .
The mass of the light neutrino states can be obtained
through the relation mν = −mD M −1 mTD , where mD
is the Dirac mass and M is the Majorana mass of
right-handed neutrinos νRi . In order to obtain the
small neutrino mass of order O(10−2 −1) GeV and
Dirac mass of order few GeV, the mass scale of the
νR will be of order O(1011 GeV) or so, which is far
from experimental reach. In this scenario, the lepton
number is violated via the large scale of the right-
handed neutrino masses.
The inverse seesaw mechanism [2–4] provides an
alterative way to explain tiny neutrino mass via a dou-
ble suppression by the new physics scale MR and via
−1
small scale μs through mν = mD MR −1 μs MRT mTD .
In this mechanism, the singlets S acquire very tiny
mass μs which violates the lepton number. The lepton
number violation (LNV) occurring via this tiny mass
scale is very small compared to the one in the case
of type-I seesaw. Thus the lepton number can be
regarded as an approximate symmetry rather than
exact one. The Lepton number symmetry is enhanced
when μs and therefore mν tend to zero, and lepton
number violation vanishes.
Many aspects such as the differences in mixing
and mass hierarchy for lepton and quark sectors force
1)
Physics Department, Faculty of Science and Arts-Tabarjal,
Jouf University Al-Jouf, Sakakah, Saudi Arabia.
2)
Physics Department, Faculty of Sciences, Ain Shams Uni-
versity, Abbassiyah, Cairo, 11566 Egypt.
*
E-mail: maabbas@ju.edu.sa
these aspects. Several models based on discrete sym-
metries were proposed to account for flavor aspects
(see [5]). For most of these models, some additional
scalars (flavons) were considered besides a lot of as-
sumptions and extra symmetries were proposed to
account for experimental data.
Recently, finite modular groups ΓN have been pro-
posed to interpret the flavor aspects [6–10]. In modu-
lar groups the coupling constants can transform non-
trivially and extra symmetries under modular weights
are impeded into the group, so there is no need to
impose other symmetries to match the data. Some
of finite modular groups of level N are isomorphic to
finite permutation groups, for instance, Γ2 ∼= S3 [11–
14], Γ3 ∼ = A4 [15–21], Γ4 ∼ = S4 [22–24] and Γ5 ∼ =
A5 [25, 26].
In this paper, we introduce a model based on
modular A4 symmetry to obtain the recent data for
lepton mixing angles. First we give an introduction
to the modular groups and modular forms and how to
use them as flavor symmetry, then we explain our A4
model.
2. MODULAR GROUPS
In this section we give a brief summery of the
modular groups and modular forms. The modular
group Γ̄ is defined as linear fractional transformations
on the complex upper half plan H and has the form [8,
27–29]
az + b
Γ : z → Γ(z) = , (1)
cz + d
where a, b, c, d ∈ Z, ad − bc = 1. The modular group
Γ̄ is isomorphic to the projective special linear group
PSL(2, Z) = SL(2, Z)/{I, −I}, (2)

764
 MODULAR A4 INVARIANCE MODEL 765
⎛ ⎞
where a b
SL(2, Z) ∀⎝ ⎠ ∈ Γ(N ), (8)
⎧⎛ ⎞ ⎫ c d
⎨ a b ⎬
= ⎝ ⎠ , a, b, c, d ∈ Z, ad − bc = 1 . (3) where the integer k ≥ 0. By using Eqs. (1) and (6), it
⎩ c d ⎭ is easy to calculate
d(γ(τ )) 1
The group Γ̄ is generated by two matrices S and T = . (9)
where their action on the complex number z is given dτ (cτ + d)2
by, From Eq. (8), one can get
S:z→
−1
, T : z → z + 1. (4) f (γ(τ ))  d(γ(τ )) −k
z = ,
f (τ ) dτ
The two generators S, T can be represented by two f (γ(τ ))d(γ(τ ))k = f (τ )dτ k .
matrices as
⎛ ⎞ ⎛ ⎞
From the above equation, we conclude that f (τ )dτ k
0 1 1 1
S=⎝ ⎠, T = ⎝ ⎠. (5) is invariant under Γ(N ). If the modular function is
−1 0 0 1 holomorphic everywhere, it is called modular form of
weight 2k. The modular forms of level N and weight
Because I and −I are indistinguishable in PSL(2, Z), 2k form a linear space of finite dimension. In the basis
we can say that at which the transformation of a set of modular forms
fi (τ ) is described by a unitary representation ρ, one
S 2 = I, (ST )3 = I. can get
Define the infinite inhomogeneous modular groups fi (γ(τ )) = (cτ + d)2k ρij (γ)fj (τ ),
Γ(N ), N = 1, 2, 3, ... as
⎧⎛ ⎞ γ ∈ Γ(N ). (10)
⎨ a b
Γ(N ) = ⎝ ⎠ ∈ SL(2, Z), Consider the superpotential W (z, φ) be written in
⎩ c d terms of supermultiplets φI , where I refers to different
⎛ ⎞ ⎛ ⎞ ⎫ sectors in the theory,
⎬ 
a b 1 0 YI1 I2 ...In (τ )φI1 ...φIn .
⎝ ⎠=⎝ ⎠ mod N . (6) W (τ, φ) = (11)
c d 0 1 ⎭ I n

The invariance of the superpotential W (z, φ) under

For N = 1,
⎧⎛ ⎞ the modular transformation requires YI1 I2 ...In (z) to be
⎨ a b a modular form transforming in the representation
Γ(1) = ⎝ ⎠ ∈ SL(2, Z),
⎩ c d YI1 I2 ...In (γτ ) = (cz + d)kY (n) ρ(γ)YI1 I2 ...In (τ ). (12)
⎛ ⎞ ⎛ ⎞ ⎫ The modular invariance forces the condition
a b 1 0 ⎬
⎝ ⎠=⎝ ⎠ mod 1 . (7) kY = kI1 + kI2 + ... + kIn . (13)
c d 0 1 ⎭

Any integers can satisfy the conditions a, d = 1 mod1 3. MODULAR FORMS OF LEVEL 3
and b, c = 0 mod1, so Γ(1) ≡ SL(2, Z). For N = 1, 2, The group A4 has one triplet representation 3
we define Γ̄(N ) = Γ(N )/{I, −I}, whereas for N > 2, and 3 singlets 1, 1 and 1 and is generated by two
Γ̄(N ) = Γ(N ) because −I ∈ Γ(N ) for N > 2. It is elements S and T satisfying the conditions
straightforward to notice that Γ̄(1) = PSL(2, Z) =
S 2 = T 3 = (ST )3 = 1. (14)
Γ̄. The groups Γ(N ) and Γ̄(N ) are discrete but
infinite, so we can construct the finite modular groups The modular form of level 3 has the form
ΓN = Γ̄/Γ̄(N ). fi (γ(τ )) = (cτ + d)2k ρij (γ)fj (τ ), γ ∈ Γ(3).
The modular function f (τ ) of weight 2k is a mero-
morphic function of the complex variable τ which There are three linearly independent modular forms Yi
satisfies of weight 2 and level 3 which can be of the form [8]:

aτ + b i η  (τ /3) η  ((τ + 1)/3)
f (γ(τ )) = f ( ) = (cτ + d)2k f (τ ) Y1 (τ ) = +
cτ + d 2π η(τ /3) η((τ + 1)/3)

PHYSICS OF ATOMIC NUCLEI Vol. 83 No. 5 2020

766 ABBAS

Table 1. Assignment of flavors under A4 and the modular which transform non-trivially under A4 . Contrary to
weight kI the most of flavor symmetric models, neither flavons
nor extra discrete symmetries are considered in our
Fields L E1c E2c E3c Nc S Hd Hu χ model. According to the modular invariance condi-
 
tion in Eq. (13), we chose the modular weights such
A4 3 1 1 1 3 3 1 1 1 that the following relations are satisfied:
kI 1 0 0 0 –1 2 1 2 –1 KL + KHd + KE = 2,
 KL + KHu + KN = 2,
η  ((τ + 2)/3) 27η  (3τ )
+ − , 2KS + 2Kχ = 0,
η((τ + 2)/3) η(3τ )
 KS + KN + Kχ = 0. (17)
−i η  (τ /3) η  ((τ + 1)/3)
Y2 (τ ) = + ω2 If we choose KL = KHd = 1, we can get the modular
π η(τ /3) η((τ + 1)/3)

 weights of other fields as shown in Table 1.
η ((τ + 2)/3)
+ω , The invariant superpotential under modular A4
η((τ + 2)/3)
 can be written as
−i η  (τ /3) η  ((τ + 1)/3) (2)
Y3 (τ ) = +ω w = λ1 E1c Hd (L ⊗ Y3 )1
π η(τ /3) η((τ + 1)/3)

+ λ2 E2c Hd (L ⊗ Y3 )1 + λ3 E3c Hd (L ⊗ Y3 )1
(2) (2)

2 η ((τ + 2)/3)
+ω , (15) (2) (2)
η((τ + 2)/3) + g1 ((N c Hu L)3S Y3 )1 + g2 ((N c Hu L)3A Y3 )1
where the Dedekind eta-function η(z) is defined as f
+ h(N c ⊗ S)1 χ + 3 (S c ⊗ S)1 χ4 , (18)
∞
 Λ
η(τ ) = q 1/24
(1 − q n ), q = e2πiτ . (16) where Y is the modular form of weight 2 transforming
n=1 as triplet under A4 , Λ is non-renormalizable scale of
The modular forms in Eq. (15) form a triplet of order O(109 ) GeV and g1 is the coupling constant
weight 2. One can construct modular forms of higher of the term of the symmetric triplet arising from the
weights using the multiplication rules of A4 [8]. product of the two triplets Y and L, while g2 is the
coupling of the antisymmetric triplet term. Note
that the chosen weights in Table 1 prevent the con-
4. A4 MODULAR INVARIANCE MODEL struction of the two terms N c N χ and restrict the
The fermion sector is extended by adding three production of neutrino mass via the inverse seesaw
right-handed neutrinos N c and three SM singlets mechanism. After spontaneous symmetry breaking,
Si in order to get the neutrino masses via inverse the scalar fields Hu,d and χ acquire vevs, namely
seesaw mechanism. We add a singlet scalar χ to vu,d and v  respectively, where v 
vu,d , the mass
get the masses of the singlet fermions N c and S matrices for charged leptons and neutrinos are

⎛ ⎞ ⎛ ⎞ ⎛ ⎞ ⎛ ⎞
⎜λ1 0 0 ⎟ ⎜Y1 Y2 Y3 ⎟ f v ⎜
2
0 1 0⎟ ⎜0 1 0⎟
⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟
Me = vd ⎜ 0 λ2 0 ⎟ × ⎜Y3 Y1 Y2 ⎟ , μs = ⎜ ⎟ , MR = hv ⎜1 0 0⎟ ,
⎝ ⎠ ⎝ ⎠ Λ ⎝1 0 0⎠ ⎝ ⎠
0 0 λ3 Y2 Y3 Y1 0 0 1 0 0 1
⎛ ⎞
⎜ 2g1 Y1 (−g1 + g2 )Y3 (−g1 − g2 )Y2 ⎟
⎜ ⎟
mD = vu ⎜(−g1 − g2 )Y3 2g Y (−g + g )Y ⎟. (19)
⎝ 1 2 1 2 1 ⎠
(−g1 + g2 )Y2 (−g1 − g2 )Y1 2g1 Y3

In general, the charged lepton mass matrix, Me , is matrices as,

not Hermitian so it can be diagonalized by two unitary Mediag = UeL† Me UeR ,
PHYSICS OF ATOMIC NUCLEI Vol. 83 No. 5 2020
 MODULAR A4 INVARIANCE MODEL 767

Table 2. 3σ range for neutrino mixings and mass difference squares from [30] for inverted hierarchy

Δm212 |Δm223 | Δm212

r= θ12 , deg θ23 , deg θ13 , deg δCP /π
(10−5 ) eV2 (10−3 eV2 ) |Δm223 |

Best fit 7.39 2.51 0.0294 33.82 49.8 8.6 1.57

3σ range 6.79–8.01 2.41–2.611 0.026–0.033 31.61–36.27 40.6–52.5 8.27–9.03 1.088–2

diag
where Me is the diagonal mass matrix of charged where φ is the relative phase of g1 and g2 . The 3σ
leptons which depends on the modulus τ and the ranges for the recent data are summarized in Table 2.
parameters λλ13 and λλ23 up to overall parameter. The The neutrino mass squared differences are defined as
neutrino mass matrix in the basis (νL , N, S) is given Δm212 = m22 − m21 ,
by |Δm223 | = |m23 − (m22 + m21 )/2|.
⎛ ⎞
0 m 0 Now we consider two cases, firstly for simplicity we
⎜ D ⎟
⎜ T ⎟ consider φ = 0, then we consider the general case for
Mν = ⎜m 0 M ⎟. (20)
⎝ D R ⎠ non-zero φ.
0 MRT μs
Case I, φ = 0
By diagonalization of the matrix Mν , one can get
three eigenvalues, one for the light neutrino and the The parameters are scanned in the upper half of the
other two for the heavy neutrino states. The masses complex plane to match the present experimental data
of the light neutrino state mν can be obtained as ranges of mixing angles in Table 2 [30]. For that, the
allowed values of τ that yield to the experimental val-
−1
mν = mD MR −1 μs MRT mTD . (21) ues of the mixing angles are shown in Fig. 1 where the
coupling ratio g is varying within the range [0.5–4]. In
f v2 g 2 Fig. 1, the values of g are plotted versus Re(τ ). From
The overall parameter Λ3uh21 determines the scale of
light neutrino masses and can be easily chosen to these figures, we found that the allowed values of τ
achieve the desired scale. For instant, we can set h ∼ are within the ranges from τ = [0.06 + 0.62i−0.1 +
O(1), f ∼ O(0.01), Λ ∼ O(1TeV), vu = 174 GeV 0.54i] when g = [1.7−1.9], τ = [0.15 + 1.6i−0.38 +
and g1 ∼ O(0.01) to get the neutrino masses of 1.9i] when g = [1.7−1.9] and τ = [0.77 + 0.3i−0.8 +
order O(10−2 eV). The neutrino mass matrix mν is 0.34i] when g = [1.73−1.4]. Unfortunately, the ex-
diagonlized as perimental values of the neutrino mass square differ-
ences are not obtained for any of the above ranges of τ
mdiag
ν = Uν† Mν Uν∗ . (22) and g. Therefore, we must break the constraint of real
g2 /g1 to search for parameter values consistent with
The lepton mixing UPMNS matrix is given by all observed data.
UPMNS = Ue† Uν . (23)
Case II, φ = 0
The mixing angles can be calculated from the rela-
tions We scanned τ and g within the regions indicated
before and scanned φ from −π to π. In Table 3 we
sin2 (θ13 ) = |(UPMNS )13 |2 , summarize our results of the parameter regions which
|(UPMNS )12 |2 are in good agreements with the experimental data in
sin2 (θ12 ) = , Table 2.
1 − |(UPMNS )13 |2
The neutrino mass spectrum is inverted hierar-
|(UPMNS )23 |2 chical one, m2 ∼ m1
m3 . In this case Δm2sol =
sin2 (θ23 ) = . (24)
1 − |(UPMNS )13 |2

The mixing angles and mass ratios are determined Table 3. The parameters compatible with neutrino mixings
and mass difference squares in Table 2
by the ratio g2 /g1 and the modulus τ . These parame-
ters are complex in general, so we can write them as
Re(τ ) Im(τ ) g φ/π λ1 /λ3 λ2 /λ3
g2
τ = Re(τ ) + Im(τ ), = geiφ , (25) 0.99 1.1 1.65 –0.524 0.0003 0.06
g1

PHYSICS OF ATOMIC NUCLEI Vol. 83 No. 5 2020

768 ABBAS
Im(τ) 5. CONCLUSION
2.0
1.8 We built a model which is free from flavons and
1.6 extra symmetries like Zi symmetries which were con-
1.4 sidered in many models based on the flavor symmetry.
1.2 The experimental mass differences and lepton mixing
1.0 angles are determined in terms of the modulus τ and
0.8 the coupling ratio g2 /g1 . We found that the condition
0.6 of complex g2 /g1 is necessary to produce the experi-
0.4 mental data with good precision. The present mixings
0.2 can be considered as a consequence of the breaking of
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 bimaximal symmetry.
Re(τ)

Fig. 1. The allowed values of τ that yield to the exper- REFERENCES

imental values of mixing angles, g is varying within the
range [0.5, 4]; φ = 0.
Δm212 = m22 − m21 > 0, Δm2atm = Δm232 = m22 , m3 ∼
0. The predictions of the neutrino oscillation parame-
ters of the mass ratio and mixing are
Δm212 = 8.9 × 10−5 eV2 ,
|Δm223 | = 3.1 × 10−3 eV2 ,
Δm212
r= = 0.0285,
|Δm223 |
me mμ
= 0.00029, = 0.061,
mτ mτ
θ12 = 31.4◦ , θ23 = 43.4◦ , θ13 = 8.1◦ , (26)
which is compatible with the recent data in Table 2.
The predictions of the Dirac phase δ and the two
Majorana phases α21 , α31 are
δ = 74◦ , α21 = 46.3◦ , α31 = 44.9◦ (27)
In this scenario, we can calculate the prediction
of the effective mass mee which is the measure of the
neutrinoless double beta decay,
mee = |m1 c212 c213 + m2 s212 s213 eiα21
+ m3 s213 ei(α31 −2δ) |. (28)
In the inverted hierarchy scenario, the effective mass
can be written as
 [hep-ph].
mee = | Δm2atm − Δm2sol c212 c213
+ Δmatm s212 s213 eiα21 | ∼ 0.039 eV, (29)
which can be testable in the future experiments of the
neutrinoless double beta decay.
Note that the values of τ in Table 3 are close to
the point τ = 1 + i at which the bimaximal mixing-
with two maximal angles and the third one is zero-
takes place. The deviations from this value lead to the
mixing shown in Table 3 and the neutrino mass matrix
can be considered as a consequence of the breaking of
the bimaximal symmetry.
1. P. Minkowski, Phys. Lett. B 67, 421 (1977); M. Gell-
Mann, P. Ramond and R. Slansky, Conf. Proc.
C 790927, 315 (1979). arXiv:1306.4669 [hep-th];
R. N. Mohapatra and G. Senjanovic, Phys. Rev. Lett.
44, 912 (1980); T. Yanagida, Prog. Theor. Phys. 64,
1103 (1980).
2. D. Wyler and L. Wolfenstein, Nucl. Phys. B 218, 205
(1983).
3. R. N. Mohapatra and J. W. F. Valle, Phys. Rev. D 34,
1642 (1986).
4. E. Ma, Phys. Lett. B 191, 287 (1987).
5. A selective list includes: W. Grimus, A. S. Jo-
shipura, S. Kaneko, L. Lavoura and M. Tanimoto,
JHEP 0407, 078 (2004). arXiv:hep-ph/0407112;
J. Kubo, A. Mondragon, M. Mondragon and
E. Rodriguez-Jauregui, Prog. Theor. Phys. 109, 795
(2003) [Erratum-ibid. 114, 287 (2005)]. arXiv:hep-
ph/0302196; R. N. Mohapatra, M. K. Parida and
G. Rajasekaran, Phys. Rev. D 69, 053007 (2004).
arXiv:hep-ph/0301234; C. Hagedorn, M. Lindner
and R. N. Mohapatra, JHEP 0606, 042 (2006).
arXiv:hep-ph/0602244; I. de Medeiros Varzielas,
S. F. King and G. G. Ross, Phys. Lett. B 648,
201 (2007). arXiv:hep-ph/0607045; E. Ma, Phys.
Lett. B 660, 505 (2008). arXiv:0709.0507 [hep-ph];
C. Luhn, S. Nasri and P. Ramond, Phys. Lett. B 652,
27 (2007). arXiv:0706.2341 [hep-ph]; E. Ma and
G. Rajasekaran, Phys. Rev. D 64, 113012 (2001).
arXiv:hep-ph/0106291.
6. R. de Adelhart Toorop, F. Feruglio and C. Hage-
dorn, Nucl. Phys. B 858, 437 (2012). arXiv:1112.1340
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2012.01.017
7. G. J. Ding and F. Feruglio, arXiv:2003.13448 [hep-
ph].
8. F. Feruglio, arXiv:1706.08749 [hep-ph].
9. X. G. Liu and G. J. Ding, JHEP 08, 134 (2019).
arXiv:1907.01488 [hep-ph].
https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP08(2019)134
10. J. N. Lu, X. G. Liu and G. J. Ding, arXiv:1912.07573
[hep-ph].
11. T. Kobayashi, K. Tanaka and T. H. Tatsuishi, Phys.
Rev. D 98, 016004 (2018). arXiv:1803.10391 [hep-
ph].
https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.98.016004

PHYSICS OF ATOMIC NUCLEI Vol. 83 No. 5 2020

 MODULAR A4 INVARIANCE MODEL
12. T. Kobayashi, Y. Shimizu, K. Takagi, M. Tanimoto,
T. H. Tatsuishi and H. Uchida, Phys. Lett. B 794, 114
(2019). arXiv:1812.11072 [hep-ph].
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2019.05.034
13. T. Kobayashi, Y. Shimizu, K. Takagi, M. Tanimoto and
T. H. Tatsuishi, arXiv:1906.10341 [hep-ph].
14. H. Okada and Y. Orikasa, arXiv:1907.04716 [hep-ph].
15. T. Kobayashi, N. Omoto, Y. Shimizu, K. Takagi,
M. Tanimoto and T. H. Tatsuishi, JHEP 1811, 196
(2018). arXiv:1808.03012 [hep-ph].
https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP11(2018)196
16. H. Okada and M. Tanimoto, Phys. Lett. B 791 54
(2019). arXiv:1812.09677 [hep-ph].
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2019.02.028
17. G. J. Ding, S. F. King and X. G. Liu, JHEP 09, 074
(2019). arXiv:1907.11714 [hep-ph].
https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP09(2019)074
18. G. J. Ding, S. F. King, X. G. Liu and J. N. Lu, JHEP
12, 030 (2019). arXiv:1910.03460 [hep-ph].
https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP12(2019)030
19. P. P. Novichkov, S. T. Petcov and M. Tanimoto, Phys.
Lett. B 793, 247 (2019). arXiv:1812.11289 [hep-ph].
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2019.04.043
20. T. Nomura and H. Okada, arXiv:1906.03927 [hep-
ph].
21. T. Nomura, H. Okada and S. Patra, arXiv:1912.00379
[hep-ph].
22. J. T. Penedo and S. T. Petcov, Nucl. Phys. B 939, 292
(2019). arXiv:1806.11040 [hep-ph].
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2018.12.016
PHYSICS OF ATOMIC NUCLEI Vol. 83 No. 5 2020
769
23. P. P. Novichkov, J. T. Penedo, S. T. Petcov
and A. V. Titov, JHEP 1904 005 (2019).
arXiv:1811.04933 [hep-ph].
https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP04(2019)005
24. T. Kobayashi, Y. Shimizu, K. Takagi, M. Tanimoto and
T. H. Tatsuishi, arXiv:1907.09141 [hep-ph].
25. P. P. Novichkov, J. T. Penedo, S. T. Petcov
and A. V. Titov, JHEP 1904, 174 (2019).
arXiv:1812.02158 [hep-ph].
https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP04(2019)174
26. G. J. Ding, S. F. King and X. G. Liu,
arXiv:1903.12588 [hep-ph].
27. J. H. Bruinier, G. V. D. Geer, G. Harder, and D. Za-
gier, The 1-2-3 of Modular Forms. Ed. by K. Ranes-
tad (Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2008).
28. F. Diamond and J. M. Shurman, A first course in
modular forms, Graduate Texts in Mathematics
(Springer-Verlag, New York, 2005), vol. 228.
29. R. C. Gunning, Lectures on Modular Forms,
(Princeton, New Jersey USA, Princeton University
Press, 1962).
30. I. Esteban, M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, A. Hernandez-
Cabezudo, M. Maltoni and T. Schwetz, JHEP 1901,
106 (2019). arXiv:1811.05487 [hep-ph].
https://doi.org/:10.1007/JHEP01(2019)106