Modified TM2 for Reproducing All Best-Fit Values of Neutrino Mixing Angles

Basic Information

• Paper ID: 2511.15111
• Title: Modified TM2 for Reproducing All Best-Fit Values of Neutrino Mixing Angles
• Authors: Michael Fodroci (Graduate School, Tokai University), Teruyuki Kitabayashi (Department of Physics, Tokai University)
• Classification: hep-ph (High Energy Physics - Phenomenology)
• Publication Date: November 19, 2025
• Paper Link: https://arxiv.org/abs/2511.15111v1

Abstract

With continuously improving measurement precision of neutrino mixing angles, realistic neutrino mixing models will need to precisely reproduce experimental best-fit values in the near future. This study proposes a modified TM₂ mixing model capable of reproducing the best-fit values of all three neutrino mixing angles. The model reproduces correct mixing angles within the 1σ range of current central values and exhibits robustness against future variations in best-fit values.

Research Background and Motivation

1. Research Problem

One of the long-standing unsolved problems in neutrino physics is constructing a mixing model that correctly reproduces the three neutrino mixing angles obtained from neutrino oscillation experiments.

2. Problem Significance

• Measurement precision of neutrino mixing angles is rapidly improving, requiring theoretical models capable of accurately predicting experimental observations
• Understanding neutrino mixing patterns is crucial for revealing fundamental particle physics laws
• The texture structure of neutrino mass matrices may reveal deeper symmetries

3. Limitations of Existing Methods

• TM₂ Mixing Model: While one of the simplest neutrino mixing models with the advantage of deriving magic texture mass matrices, some of its predicted mixing angles barely fall within the 3σ range of observations
• Tribimaximal Mixing (TBM), Texture Zeros, μ-τ Symmetric Textures and other models: Cannot simultaneously precisely reproduce all three mixing angle best-fit values
• Existing TM₂ Corrections: The correction method in reference 97 can simultaneously reproduce the best-fit values of solar and reactor neutrino mixing angles, but fails to reproduce all three simultaneously

4. Research Motivation

With improving measurement precision, models capable of reproducing best-fit values (rather than merely falling within allowed ranges) will become more realistic requirements. This work aims to construct an improved TM₂ model that simultaneously reproduces all three mixing angle best-fit values.

Core Contributions

1. Proposed Modified TM₂ Mixing Matrix: By introducing a correction parameter ϵ, constructed a new model capable of simultaneously reproducing the best-fit values of all three neutrino mixing angles
2. Achieved Precise Predictions: Under both normal ordering (NO) and inverted ordering (IO) mass hierarchies, model predictions fall within the 1σ range of experimental best-fit values
3. Verified Robustness: Demonstrated through parameter space scanning that the model can cover the entire 1σ allowed region, exhibiting robustness against future experimental value variations
4. Majorana CP Phase Predictions: Provided relationships between the effective Majorana mass (m_ββ) for neutrinoless double-beta decay and Majorana CP phases, with predictions consistent with current and future experiments
5. Magic Texture Symmetry Breaking Analysis: Quantitatively analyzed how corrections break the magic texture symmetry of the original TM₂ model

Methodology Details

Task Definition

Construct a neutrino mixing matrix U that precisely reproduces through three real parameters (θ, ϕ, ϵ):

• Input: Best-fit values from neutrino oscillation experiments
• Output: 3×3 unitary mixing matrix
• Constraints: Predicted mixing angles sin²θ₁₂, sin²θ₂₃, sin²θ₁₃ must fall within experimental 1σ ranges

Standard TM₂ Mixing Model

The original TM₂ mixing matrix parameterized as:

UTM2 = [√(2/3)cosθ      √(1/3)           √(2/3)sinθ        ]
       [-cosθ/√6+e^(-iϕ)sinθ/√2  √(1/3)  -sinθ/√6-e^(-iϕ)cosθ/√2]
       [-cosθ/√6-e^(-iϕ)sinθ/√2  √(1/3)  -sinθ/√6+e^(-iϕ)cosθ/√2]

Key Constraint: The TM₂ model leads to a strict relationship:

sin²θ₁₂ = 1/[3(1-sin²θ₁₃)]

This constraint causes the predicted value of sin²θ₁₂ (0.340-0.342) to approach the upper limit of the 3σ allowed range (0.345), leaving the model at risk of being excluded by future experiments.

Improved TM₂ Model Architecture

Correction Strategy

Introduce a real parameter ϵ to modify matrix elements:

• Modify (1,2) element √(1/3) → √(1/3) + ϵ
• Simultaneously adjust other elements to maintain unitarity

Complete Matrix Form

The improved TM₂ mixing matrix:

ŨTM2 = [√(2/3-ϵ)cosθ              √(1/3+ϵ)                    √(2/3-ϵ)sinθ              ]
       [-√(1/6+ϵ/2)cosθ+e^(-iϕ)sinθ/√2   √(1/3-ϵ/2)   -√(1/6+ϵ/2)sinθ-e^(-iϕ)cosθ/√2]
       [-√(1/6+ϵ/2)cosθ-e^(-iϕ)sinθ/√2   √(1/3-ϵ/2)   -√(1/6+ϵ/2)sinθ+e^(-iϕ)cosθ/√2]

Unitarity Verification: ŨTM2·Ũ†TM2 = 1 Degeneracy: When ϵ=0, recovers the original TM₂ matrix

Prediction Formulas

Explicit expressions for mixing angles:

sin²θ₁₂ = (1+3ϵ) / [3-(2-3ϵ)sin²θ]

sin²θ₂₃ = (1/2)[1 + √3(1+3ϵ)sin2θcosϕ / (3-(2-3ϵ)sin²θ)]

sin²θ₁₃ = (2/3-ϵ)sin²θ

tanδ = [4+3ϵ+(2-3ϵ)cos2θ] / [2-3ϵ+(4+3ϵ)cos2θ] · tanϕ

Technical Innovations

1. Removed Strict Constraints: By introducing parameter ϵ, removed the strict relationship between sin²θ₁₂ and sin²θ₁₃ in the original TM₂ model, increasing model degrees of freedom
2. Maintained Unitarity: The correction scheme is carefully designed to ensure the mixing matrix remains unitary, a fundamental physical requirement
3. Concise Parameterization: Introduces only one additional real parameter ϵ (approximately -0.032), keeping the model relatively simple
4. Clear Physical Meaning: Parameter ϵ can be understood as a small correction to first-generation neutrino mixing, physically natural
5. Enhanced Predictive Power: Three parameters (θ, ϕ, ϵ) can independently adjust three mixing angles, enabling precise fitting

Experimental Setup

Experimental Data Sources

Used global neutrino oscillation data analysis results from NuFIT 6.0 (2024) 111:

Normal Ordering (NO) Best-Fit Values:

• sin²θ₁₂ = 0.308⁺⁰·⁰¹²₋₀.₀₁₁ (1σ), 3σ range: 0.275→0.345
• sin²θ₂₃ = 0.470⁺⁰·⁰¹⁷₋₀.₀₁₃ (1σ), 3σ range: 0.435→0.585
• sin²θ₁₃ = 0.02215⁺⁰·⁰⁰⁰⁵⁶₋₀.₀₀₀₅₈ (1σ), 3σ range: 0.02030→0.02388
• δ = 212⁺²⁶₋₄₁° (1σ), 3σ range: 124°→364°

Inverted Ordering (IO) Best-Fit Values:

• sin²θ₁₂ = 0.308⁺⁰·⁰¹²₋₀.₀₁₁ (same)
• sin²θ₂₃ = 0.550⁺⁰·⁰¹²₋₀.₀₁₅ (1σ), 3σ range: 0.440→0.584
• sin²θ₁₃ = 0.02231⁺⁰·⁰⁰⁰⁵⁶₋₀.₀₀₀₅₆ (1σ), 3σ range: 0.02060→0.02409
• δ = 274⁺²²₋₂₅° (1σ), 3σ range: 201°→335°

Evaluation Criteria

1. Precision: Deviation of predicted values from best-fit values
2. Coverage Range: Whether predicted values fall within 1σ or 3σ allowed regions
3. Robustness: Whether parameter space covers the entire 1σ allowed region

Comparison Methods

• Original TM₂ mixing model
• Tribimaximal mixing (TBM) model
• Modified TM₂ model from reference 97 (mentioned but not explicitly compared)

Parameter Scanning Strategy

Through systematic parameter space scanning:

• NO case: θ∈2.96112, 2.96468 rad, ϕ∈4.88095, 5.15905 rad, ϵ∈-0.0345881, -0.0297319
• IO case: θ∈2.96003, 2.96389 rad, ϕ∈4.04457, 4.31543 rad, ϵ∈-0.0346311, -0.0297689

Experimental Results

Main Results

Benchmark Point Predictions

Normal Ordering (NO) Benchmark Point:

• Parameters: (θ, ϕ, ϵ) = (2.9629 rad, 5.02 rad, -0.03216)
• Predictions: (sin²θ₁₂, sin²θ₂₃, sin²θ₁₃, δ) = (0.308, 0.470, 0.02215, 287.6°)
• Result: Perfect match with all three mixing angle best-fit values, Dirac CP phase within 3σ range

Inverted Ordering (IO) Benchmark Point:

• Parameters: (θ, ϕ, ϵ) = (2.96196 rad, 4.18 rad, -0.0322)
• Predictions: (sin²θ₁₂, sin²θ₂₃, sin²θ₁₃, δ) = (0.308, 0.550, 0.02231, 239.5°)
• Result: Similarly perfect match with all three mixing angle best-fit values, δ within 3σ range

Robustness Verification

Figure 1 (NO case) Analysis:

• Within the given parameter ranges, all predicted points for sin²θ₁₂, sin²θ₂₃, sin²θ₁₃ fall within the ±1σ region
• Correlation plots of sin²θ₁₂ vs sin²θ₁₃ and sin²θ₁₂ vs sin²θ₂₃ show the model can flexibly cover the entire 1σ allowed region

Figure 2 (IO case) Analysis:

• Similarly achieves complete coverage within 1σ range
• Demonstrates model insensitivity to mass hierarchy choice

Key Conclusion: If future experimental best-fit values shift within the current 1σ range, the improved TM₂ model can reproduce new best-fit values by adjusting (θ, ϕ, ϵ), demonstrating model robustness.

Majorana CP Phase Predictions

Effective Majorana Mass

Expression for effective mass in neutrinoless double-beta decay:

m²ββ = (1/9){(2-3ϵ)²m²₁cos⁴θ + (1+3ϵ)²m²₂ + (2-3ϵ)²m²₃sin⁴θ
       + 2(2+3ϵ-9ϵ²)m₁m₂cos²θcos2α + 2(2+3ϵ-9ϵ²)m₂m₃sin²θcos2(α-β)
       + 2(2-3ϵ)²m₁m₃cos²θsin²θcos2β}

Important Property: m_ββ is independent of parameter ϕ

Simplified Case (Minimal Seesaw Model)

Assuming one neutrino mass equals zero:

• NO (m₁=0): cos2α = 9m²ββ-(1+3ϵ)²m²₂-(2-3ϵ)²m²₃sin⁴θ / 2(2+3ϵ-9ϵ²)m₂m₃sin²θ
• IO (m₃=0): cos2α = 9m²ββ-(1+3ϵ)²m²₂-(2-3ϵ)²m²₁cos⁴θ / 2(2+3ϵ-9ϵ²)m₁m₂cos²θ

Comparison with Experiments (Figure 3)

Current Experimental Limits:

• GERDA 112 (90% C.L.): m_ββ < 79-180 meV
• KamLAND-Zen 114 (90% C.L.): m_ββ < 28.4-122 meV

Future Experimental Expectations:

• XLZD 113 (90% C.L. projection): m_ββ < 4.8-28.5 meV

Model Predictions:

• NO case: Smaller m_ββ, difficult to detect in current and next-generation experiments
• IO case: Larger m_ββ (~20-50 meV), next-generation experiments (e.g., XLZD) should be able to exclude the entire IO region
• Predictions consistent with other theoretical calculations, supporting the view that next-generation experiments will be able to distinguish mass orderings

Magic Texture Symmetry Breaking

Magic Texture Definition

A magic texture mass matrix satisfies: the sum of elements in any row or column is equal. The original TM₂ model produces magic texture with sum value m̃₂.

Breaking Measure

Define symmetry breaking parameter:

ΔS ≡ 1 - (|S₁|+|S₂|+|S₃|)/(3|m̃₂|)

where S₁, S₂, S₃ are the sums of elements in the three rows respectively.

Explicit Expressions

• NO case: Complete expression for ΔS_NO given in equation (43), containing five auxiliary parameters A-E
• IO case: Complete expression for ΔS_IO given in equation (44)

Numerical Results (Figure 4)

Key Findings:

1. When ϵ≠0, magic texture symmetry is always broken (ΔS>0)
2. Typical values of ΔS are on the order of 10⁻³-10⁻² magnitude, with relatively small but measurable breaking
3. For given θ, ϵ, ϕ, the minimum value of ΔS typically occurs at some non-trivial value of cos(2α) (α≠0)
4. Breaking patterns are similar for NO and IO cases

Physical Significance: While breaking the mathematical elegance of magic texture, this breaking is a necessary cost for achieving precise fitting of experimental data.

Related Work

Classification of Neutrino Mixing Models

1. Symmetry-Based Models
   • Tribimaximal Mixing (TBM) 1-4: Historically important but already excluded by experiments
   • Discrete Symmetry Groups (A_n, S_n) 88: Provide group-theoretic foundation but predictions too rigid
2. Texture Zero Models 5-45
   • Assume certain mass matrix elements are zero
   • Can reduce parameters but typically difficult to fit all angles simultaneously
3. μ-τ Symmetric Textures 46-78
   • Utilize muon-tau symmetry
   • Predict θ₂₃=45°, showing significant tension with current data
4. TM₂ Mixing and Its Corrections 89-97
   • First proposed by Bjorken et al. 89
   • Early studies by He and Zee 90,93
   • Various corrections explored by Kumar et al. 94,95
   • Hyodo and Kitabayashi 97 proposed corrections reproducing two angles (prior work by one of the present authors)

Relationship of This Work to Existing Work

Relative to Original TM₂:

• Advantage: Removes strict constraints, enables precise fitting of all three angles
• Cost: Introduces one additional parameter, breaks magic texture symmetry

Relative to Reference 97:

• Uses same correction strategy
• New finding: This correction can not only reproduce two angles but actually reproduce all three
• First systematic demonstration of this capability and verification of robustness

Relative to Other Correction Schemes:

• More concise: Only one additional parameter
• More precise: Achieves best-fit values rather than merely falling within allowed ranges
• More flexible: Exhibits robustness to future experimental changes

Conclusions and Discussion

Main Conclusions

1. Successfully Constructed Improved Model: The proposed modified TM₂ mixing matrix can simultaneously precisely reproduce the best-fit values of all three neutrino mixing angles
2. 1σ Precision: Under both normal and inverted mass orderings, predicted values fall within the 1σ range of experimental best-fit values
3. Robustness Verified: Through parameter space scanning, demonstrated that the model can cover the entire 1σ allowed region, exhibiting robustness to future experimental value changes
4. Majorana Phase Predictions: Provided relationships between effective Majorana mass and CP phases, predicting that next-generation experiments can exclude inverted ordering but cannot yet detect normal ordering
5. Symmetry Breaking Analysis: Quantitatively analyzed how corrections break magic texture symmetry in a controllable manner

Limitations

1. Missing Theoretical Foundation: Authors explicitly acknowledge "further research is needed to derive this matrix in a more fundamental way," current model is phenomenological
2. Parameter Adjustment: Requires fine-tuning of three parameters (θ, ϕ, ϵ) to match experiments, lacking mechanism for natural derivation from deeper theory
3. Magic Texture Breaking: While the magic texture of original TM₂ is an attractive feature, corrections inevitably break this symmetry
4. Dirac CP Phase: Only within 3σ range, failing to achieve 1σ precision (though this may reflect larger experimental uncertainty)
5. Mass Eigenvalues: Model itself does not predict absolute neutrino mass values, requiring external input
6. Mass Ordering Undetermined: Model applies to both NO and IO, unable to distinguish mass ordering

Future Directions

1. Theoretical Foundation: Seek mechanisms to naturally derive the improved TM₂ matrix from symmetry principles or more fundamental theory
2. Dynamical Origin: Study possible dynamical generation mechanisms for parameters (θ, ϕ, ϵ)
3. Connections to Other Observations: Explore model predictions for lepton flavor violation processes, cosmological observations
4. Extension to Quark Sector: Investigate whether similar correction schemes apply to quark mixing
5. Higher-Order Corrections: Consider higher-order correction terms to further improve precision

In-Depth Evaluation

Strengths

1. Methodological Innovation

• Concise and Effective: Achieves precise fitting of all three angles by introducing only one additional parameter (ϵ≈-0.032), embodying the aesthetic principle of "less is more"
• Unitarity Preservation: Correction scheme cleverly designed to automatically satisfy unitarity constraints, avoiding non-physical solutions
• Degeneracy Property: When ϵ=0 degenerates to original TM₂, ensuring continuity with known models

2. Experimental Sufficiency

• Benchmark Point Verification: Provides explicit benchmark points for NO and IO cases with predictions perfectly matching experiments
• Parameter Space Scanning: Systematic scanning confirms coverage capability of entire 1σ region
• Robustness Testing: Figures 1 and 2 clearly demonstrate model's adaptability to future experimental changes
• Multiple Observable Correlations: Predicts not only mixing angles but also Majorana mass and CP phases

3. Result Convincingness

• Numerical Precision: Benchmark point predictions achieve precision to five decimal places
• Clear Figures: Figures 1-4 effectively display relationships between parameter space, experimental limits, and theoretical predictions
• Experimental Consistency: Majorana mass predictions consistent with GERDA, KamLAND-Zen, XLZD and other experiments

4. Writing Quality

• Clear Structure: Logical flow from background, methodology, results to discussion
• Complete Formulas: Provides explicit expressions for all key formulas (e.g., equations 13-16, 27-29, 43-44)
• Comprehensive References: 114 references cover major works in the field

Weaknesses

1. Insufficient Theoretical Depth

• Lacks First-Principles Derivation: Model is phenomenological, parameter values (e.g., ϵ=-0.032) lack deep theoretical explanation
• Unknown Symmetry Origin: Why this specific form of correction? Is there a more fundamental symmetry?
• Disconnection from Grand Unification: Lacks discussion of how model embeds into larger theoretical frameworks (e.g., SO(10), SU(5))

2. Limited Predictive Power

• Overfitting Risk: Three free parameters fit three mixing angles, degrees of freedom exactly saturated, lacking additional predictions
• Mass Ordering Undetermined: Model applies to both NO and IO, cannot predict which is correct
• Low Dirac Phase Precision: δ only within 3σ range, failing to achieve 1σ precision of mixing angles

3. Experimental Verification Difficulty

• Parameter Fine-Tuning: ϵ value requires precision to 10⁻⁵ level, how to experimentally verify such fine-tuning?
• Distinguishability: How to distinguish from other three-parameter models (e.g., general unitary matrix parameterization)?
• Missing Unique Predictions: Besides fitting known angles, does model have unique predictions falsifiable by future experiments?

4. Insufficient Analysis Depth

• Physical Meaning of Magic Texture Breaking: What does ΔS~10⁻² breaking mean physically? Is it observable?
• Parameter Space Structure: Why are allowed parameter ranges those specific intervals? Any physical reason?
• Systematic Comparison with Other Corrections: Lacks quantitative comparison with other TM₂ correction schemes in literature

5. Missing Technical Details

• Numerical Methods: How is parameter space scanning performed? What optimization algorithm is used?
• Uncertainty Propagation: How do experimental uncertainties affect parameter determination?
• Statistical Significance: What are the χ² values of the fits?

Impact Assessment

Contribution to the Field

• Short-term Impact: Provides a concise and effective tool for neutrino mixing phenomenology research
• Methodological Value: Correction strategy (unitarity-preserving parameterization) applicable to other mixing models
• Experimental Guidance: Majorana mass predictions provide theoretical reference for 0νββ experiments

Practical Value

• High: Model simple, easy to implement and apply
• Moderate: Limited direct guidance for experimental design (mainly fitting rather than prediction)
• Pending Verification: Requires future more precise experiments to test robustness

Reproducibility

• Excellent: All formulas explicit, benchmark point parameters completely given
• Missing Code: No numerical calculation code or data provided
• Figures Reproducible: Can reproduce Figures 1-4 from given formulas and parameter ranges

Applicable Scenarios

Suitable Applications

1. Neutrino Oscillation Data Analysis: As concise model for fitting experimental data
2. Theoretical Model Construction: As effective description for more complex theories (e.g., flavor symmetry models)
3. Teaching Example: Demonstrates how to correct theoretical models to match experiments
4. 0νββ Experiment Planning: Provides theoretical expectations for Majorana mass

Unsuitable Applications

1. Fundamental Theory Research: Lacks deep theoretical foundation, unsuitable as ultimate theory
2. New Physics Predictions: Degrees of freedom saturated, lacks predictions beyond Standard Model
3. Mass Ordering Determination: Cannot distinguish NO and IO

Overall Assessment

This is a solid phenomenological work that successfully achieves its stated goal—constructing a concise model precisely reproducing all three neutrino mixing angle best-fit values. The paper's main value lies in:

1. Strong Practicality: Provides concise parameterization of current experimental data
2. Clear Methodology: Correction strategy explicit, easy to understand and apply
3. Reliable Results: Numerical calculations accurate, good consistency with experiments

However, the paper's limitations are also evident:

1. Limited Theoretical Depth: Phenomenological fitting rather than fundamental theory
2. Insufficient Predictive Power: Parameter degrees of freedom saturated, lacking unique predictions
3. Lacking Physical Insight: Fails to reveal deeper principles of neutrino mixing

Recommendation Index: ⭐⭐⭐½ (3.5/5)

• For scholars working on neutrino phenomenology: Strongly Recommended
• For theorists seeking fundamental theory: Moderate Reference Value
• For experimental physicists: Some Reference Value (particularly for 0νββ experiments)

The paper is suitable for publication in specialized journals (e.g., PRD, JHEP), but unlikely to become a seminal work. It is more typical of the "precision measurement era" of neutrino physics—technically successful but awaiting deeper theoretical understanding.

Selected References

• 1-4 Original papers on Tribimaximal Mixing (TBM)
• 89 J. D. Bjorken et al., PRD 74, 073012 (2006) - First proposal of TM₂ mixing
• 97 Y. Hyodo and T. Kitabayashi, MPLA 39, 2450081 (2024) - Direct foundation of this work
• 111 NuFIT 6.0 (2024) - Global neutrino oscillation data analysis
• 112-114 GERDA, XLZD, KamLAND-Zen - 0νββ experimental results

Disclaimer: This analysis is based on objective examination of the paper, with evaluations striving for impartiality. The scientific value of the paper will ultimately be determined by peer review and time.