## Type-II seesaw of a non-holomorphic modular A 4 symmetry

Takaaki Nomura 1, ∗ and Hiroshi Okada 2, †

1 College of Physics, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610065, China 2 Department of Physics, Henan Normal University, Xinxiang 453007, China (Dated: March 13, 2025)

We search for predictability of lepton masses and mixing patterns of type-II seesaw scenario in a non-holomorphic modular A 4 symmetry recently proposed by Qu and Ding. We propose three types of minimum predictive models with different assignments of modular weight, satisfying the neutrino oscillation data in Nufit 5.2. The cosmological bound on the sum of neutrino mass is stringent to our models and CMB bound ∑ D ν ≤ 0 12 eV can be satisfied . by one of three models playing an important role in discriminating them.

PACS numbers:

∗ Electronic address: nomura@scu.edu.cn

† Electronic address: hiroshi3okada@htu.edu.cn

## I. INTRODUCTION

Clarifying the neutrino physics is one of the important tasks to understand our world which would be described beyond the standard model(SM). Especially, neutrino masses and mixing patterns in the lepton sector are totally different from the quark one; tiny neutrino masses and large mixing angles. Therefore, these differences would underlie some unique mechanisms. In fact, there exist some promising mechanisms; canonical seesaw [1-3], type-II seesaw [4, 5] inverse seesaw [6, 7], linear seesaw [7-9], radiative seesaw [10-17], and so on. In addition to these mechanisms, flavor symmetries are often applied in order to predict neutrino mass and their mixing patterns. In particular, a breakthrough idea has been proposed by Qu and Ding [18], in which they have shown that modular flavor symmetries can be applied in a non-supersymmetric framework. It suggests that we would describe predictive and(or) reconstructive mass matrices and their mixing patterns of flavor physics in a more realistic and reliable theory , even though original modular symmetries still be verifiable and strong predictions in models [19-55]. Moreover we can reduce field contents considering non-supersymmetric framework. For example, we need to introduce two isospin triplet superfields in type-II seesaw model in order to cancel gauge anomaly. It is worth analyzing neutrino models under non-holomorphic modular symmetry as we expect different prediction since some modular forms are different from holomorphic one.

In our paper, we apply a type-II seesaw mechanism in addition to a non-holomorphic modular A 4 symmetry. We show three types of minimum models which are distinguished from a neutrino mass model via Weinberg operator analyzed by Qu and Ding [18], satisfying the neutrino oscillation data in Nufit 5.2 [56]. Then, we demonstrate each the predictions through chi-square numerical analysis. Interestingly, when we impose cosmological bound on the sum of neutrino mass, an only one of three models with normal hierarchy can be survived from CMB bound.

This paper is organized as follows. In Sec. II, we show our setup of the modular A 4 assignments in the framework of type-II seesaw. In Sec. III, we provide chi-square numerical analyses for three types of minimum models and show each of prediction. Finally, we summarize and conclude in Sec. IV.

## II. MODEL SETUP

Here, we review our model setup. We assign the left-handed leptons L L to be triplet under A 4 with +1 modular weight. We assign the right-handed leptons ℓ R to be three different types of

TABLE I: Charge assignments of the SM leptons L L and ℓ R and ∆ under SU (2) L ⊗ U (1) Y ⊗ A 4 where -k I is the number of modular weight. Here { 1 } = { 1 1 , ′ , 1 ′′ } indicates assignment of A 4 singlets. We consider three cases of r = ( -1 +1 +3). , ,

|          | L L   | ℓ R   | H   | ∆ †   |
|----------|-------|-------|-----|-------|
| SU (2) L | 2     | 1     | 2   | 3     |
| U (1) Y  | 1 2   | - 1   | 1 2 | - 1   |
| A 4      | 3     | { 1 } | 1   | 1     |
| - k I    | +1    | r     | 0   | +2    |

singlets (1 , 1 ′ , 1 ) ′′ 1 under A 4 with + r modular weight where r is a positive integer. In addition, we introduce an isospin triplet scalar field ∆ to generate neutrino mass matrix that is assigned by A 4 singlet with +2 modular weight . This field is requested to realize type-II seesaw mechanism. H is denoted by the SM Higgs that is totally neutral under the modular symmetry. Their fields and assignments are summarized in Table I. Here, we search for some predictions in three models characterized by r = ( -1 +1 +3) that are minimum assignments to satisfy the neutrino oscillation , , data in Nufit 5.2 [56]. The renormalizable Lagrangian under the modular A 4 is found as

$$\mathcal { L } _ { \ell } = [ Y _ { 3 } ^ { ( - 1 - r ) } \overline { L _ { L } } H \ell _ { R } ] + [ Y _ { 1, 3 } ^ { ( - 4 ) } \overline { L _ { L } } \Delta ^ { \dagger } ( i \tau _ { 2 } ) L _ { L } ^ { c } ] + \text{h.c.},$$

where τ 2 is the second Pauli matrix, Y ( k Y ) A shows a non-holomorphic modular form with A 4 representation A and modular weight k Y , and [ · · · ] represents a trivial A 4 singlet 1 constructed by fields and a modular form inside. We denote three models as Model04, Model24 and Model44 corresponding to choice of r = -1, +1 and +3 (two numbers associated with models are that of weights for modular forms in Yukawa Lagrangian).

## A. Charged-lepton mass matrix

The mass matrix of charged-lepton originates from the first term in Eq.(1). After spontaneous electroweak symmetry breaking, the mass matrix is given by

$$m _ { \ell } = \frac { v _ { H } } { \sqrt { 2 } } \begin{pmatrix} y _ { 1 } ^ { ( - 1 - r ) } & y _ { 3 } ^ { ( - 1 - r ) } & y _ { 2 } ^ { ( - 1 - r ) } \\ y _ { 3 } ^ { ( - 1 - r ) } & y _ { 2 } ^ { ( - 1 - r ) } & y _ { 1 } ^ { ( - 1 - r ) } \\ y _ { 2 } ^ { ( - 1 - r ) } & y _ { 1 } ^ { ( - 1 - r ) } & y _ { 3 } ^ { ( - 1 - r ) } \end{pmatrix} \begin{pmatrix} a _ { e } & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & b _ { e } & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & c _ { e } \end{pmatrix},$$

1 If we assign triplet instead of three types of triplets, we would not find any solutions to satisfy the current neutrino oscillations in Nufit 5.2 [56].

where v H is vacuum expectation value (VEV) of H , and { a , b e e , c e } are real parameters without loss of generality and used to fix the charged-lepton mass observables as can be seen below. Y ( - -1 r ) 3 ≡ [ y ( - -1 r ) 1 , y ( - -1 r ) 2 , y ( - -1 r ) 3 ] T 2 . The mass eigenvalues for the charged-leptons are simply obtained via diag.( m ,m ,m e µ τ ) ≡ V † L m V ℓ R . Therefore, V † L m m V ℓ † ℓ L = diag ( . | m e | 2 , | m µ | 2 , | m τ | 2 ). { a , b e e , c e } are determined in order to fit the three observed charged-lepton masses by the following relations:

$$& \text{Tr} [ m _ { \ell } m _ { \ell } ^ { \dagger } ] = | m _ { e } | ^ { 2 } + | m _ { \mu } | ^ { 2 } + | m _ { \tau } | ^ { 2 }, \quad \text{Det} [ m _ { \ell } m _ { \ell } ^ { \dagger } ] = | m _ { e } | ^ { 2 } | m _ { \mu } | ^ { 2 } | m _ { \tau } | ^ { 2 }, \\ & ( \text{Tr} [ m _ { \ell } m _ { \ell } ^ { \dagger } ) ^ { 2 } - \text{Tr} [ ( m _ { e } m _ { e } ^ { \dagger } ) ^ { 2 } ] = 2 ( | m _ { e } | ^ { 2 } | m _ { \mu } | ^ { 2 } + | m _ { \mu } | ^ { 2 } | m _ { \tau } | ^ { 2 } + | m _ { e } | ^ { 2 } | m _ { \tau } | ^ { 2 } ).$$

## B. Neutrino mass matrix

The mass matrix of neutrino comes from the second term in Eq.(1). After spontaneous electroweak symmetry breaking, ∆ develops a VEV ( v ∆ ), and the mass matrix is given by

$$m _ { \nu } = \frac { a _ { \nu } v _ { \Delta } } { \sqrt { 2 } } \left ( \begin{array} { c c c } b _ { \nu } + 2 y _ { 1 } ^ { ( - 4 ) } & - y _ { 3 } ^ { ( - 4 ) } & - y _ { 2 } ^ { ( - 4 ) } \\ - y _ { 3 } ^ { ( - 4 ) } & 2 y _ { 2 } ^ { ( - 4 ) } & b _ { \nu } - y _ { 1 } ^ { ( - 4 ) } \\ - y _ { 2 } ^ { ( - 4 ) } & b _ { \nu } - y _ { 1 } ^ { ( - 4 ) } & 2 y _ { 3 } ^ { ( - 4 ) } \end{array} \right ),$$

where { a , b ν ν , are complex free parameters and Y ( -4) 1 is included by a ν . Note here that v ∆ is required to be v ∆ ≲ O (1) GeV to satisfy the constraint on the ρ parameter [57]. The mass eigenvalues for the active neutrinos D ν = { D ,D ν 1 ν 2 , D ν 3 } are obtained by D ν ≡ V † ν m V ν ∗ ν . Therefore, V † ν m m V ν † ν ν = diag ( . | D ν 1 | 2 , | D ν 2 | 2 , | D ν 3 | 2 ) where D ν 1 2 3 , , are the neutrino mass eigenvalues. Pontecorvo-Maki-Nakagawa-Sakata (PMNS) mixing matrix U ( ≡ U PMNS ) is defined by U = V † L V ν . Here, we define dimensionless neutrino mass matrix; m ν ≡ κm ˜ ν , κ ≡ a ν v ∆ √ 2 being a flavor independent mass dimensional parameter. Therefore, we can rewrite κ in terms of rescaled neutrino mass eigenvalues ˜ D ν ( ≡ D /κ ν ) and atmospheric neutrino mass-squared difference ∆ m 2 atm as follows:

$$( \text{NH} ) \, \colon \, \kappa ^ { 2 } = \frac { | \Delta m _ { \text{atm} } ^ { 2 } | } { \tilde { D } _ { \nu _ { 3 } } ^ { 2 } - \tilde { D } _ { \nu _ { 1 } } ^ { 2 } }, \quad ( \text{IH} ) \, \colon \, \kappa ^ { 2 } = \frac { | \Delta m _ { \text{atm} } ^ { 2 } | } { \tilde { D } _ { \nu _ { 2 } } ^ { 2 } - \tilde { D } _ { \nu _ { 3 } } ^ { 2 } },$$

where NH and IH stand for the normal and inverted hierarchies, respectively. Subsequently, the solar neutrino mass-squared difference is described by

$$\Delta m _ { \text{sol} } ^ { 2 } = \kappa ^ { 2 } ( \tilde { D } _ { \nu _ { 2 } } ^ { 2 } - \tilde { D } _ { \nu _ { 1 } } ^ { 2 } ).$$

2 In details, see ref. [18].

FIG. 1: Numerical ∆ χ 2 analyses in case of r = -1, where the blue color represents the range of 0 -1, the green 1 -2, the yellow 2 -3, and the red 3 -5 σ standard deviation estimated by √ ∆ χ 2 . The black solid line is the boundary of the fundamental domain at | τ | = 1. The left figure represents the case of NH and the right one IH. Circle points satisfy ∑ D ν ≤ 120 meV, otherwise triangle plots are depicted.

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.01143v2-figure-04079084-cc03-4e26-a69b-230ca7be28e4.jpg)

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.01143v2-figure-6f16471e-7182-4de3-acb7-9aefc833b0a6.jpg)

This should be within the range of the experimental value. Later, we will adopt NuFit 5.2 [56] to our numerical analysis. The effective mass for neutrinoless double beta decay is given by

$$\langle m _ { e e } \rangle = \kappa | \tilde { D } _ { \nu _ { 1 } } \cos ^ { 2 } \theta _ { 1 2 } \cos ^ { 2 } \theta _ { 1 3 } + \tilde { D } _ { \nu _ { 2 } } \sin ^ { 2 } \theta _ { 1 2 } \cos ^ { 2 } \theta _ { 1 3 } e ^ { i \alpha _ { 2 } } + \tilde { D } _ { \nu _ { 3 } } \sin ^ { 2 } \theta _ { 1 3 } e ^ { i ( \alpha _ { 3 } - 2 \delta _ { C P } ) } |. \quad ( 7 )$$

Its predicted value is constrained by the current KamLAND-Zen data and could be measured in future [58]. The upper bound is found as ⟨ m ee ⟩ &lt; (36 -156) meV at 90 % confidence level where the range of the bound comes from the use of different method estimating nuclear matrix elements. Sum of neutrino masses is constrained by the minimal cosmological model ΛCDM + ∑ D ν i that provides the upper bound on ∑ D ν ≤ 120 meV [59, 60], although it becomes weaker if the data are analyzed in the context of extended cosmological models [61]. Recently, DESI and CMB data combination provides more stringent upper bound on the sum of neutrino masses ∑ D ν ≤ 72 meV [62]. The two observable ⟨ m ee ⟩ and ∑ D ν i are also taken into account in the numerical analysis.

## III. NUMERICAL ANALYSIS AND PHENOMENOLOGY

In this section, we carry out numerical analysis to fit the neutrino data and find some predictions of the models. Then some implications for phenomenology are discussed. We randomly select our input parameters within the following ranges

$$\tau _ { \text{Re} } \in [ - 0. 5, 0. 5 ], \quad \tau _ { \text{Im} } \in \left [ \frac { \sqrt { 3 } } { 2 }, 5 \right ], \ \ | b _ { \nu } | \in [ 1 0 ^ { - 3 }, 1 0 ^ { 3 } ], \ \ \arg [ b _ { \nu } ] \in [ - \pi, \pi ].$$

FIG. 2: Numerical analyses in case of r = -1. The up and down figures represent the NH and the IH cases, respectively. The left one demonstrates neutrinoless double beta decay ⟨ m ee ⟩ in terms of the lightest neutrino mass where red dashed horizontal lines indicate the current upper bound from KamLAND-Zen with different estimation for nuclear matrix elements.. The center one shows Majorana phases α 21 and α 31 . The right one depicts the Dirac CP phase in terms of the sum of neutrino masses where the red(magenta) dashed vertical lines indicate the upper bound on ∑ D ν from Planck CMB (+ DESI BAO) data. The colors of plots and shapes are the same as the ones of Fig. 1.

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.01143v2-figure-f4e60545-b79a-4f34-86d1-f8a2f0322bde.jpg)

$$\mathbf A. \ r = - 1$$

In Fig. 1, we figure out the allowed range of τ in case of r = -1 where the left figure represents the case of NH and the right one IH. The blue color represents the range of 0 -1, the green 1 -2, the yellow 2 -3, and the red 3 -5 σ standard deviation estimated by √ ∆ χ 2 . The black solid line is the boundary of the fundamental domain at | τ | = 1. Circle points satisfy ∑ D ν ≤ 120 meV, otherwise triangle plots are depicted. NH solutions are localized at nearby two regions τ = 1 5 . i and τ = ± 0 35 + 0 96 , while IH solutions are localized at nearby . . i τ = ± 0 07 + . i .

In Fig. 2, we show predictions in the case of r = -1. The up and down figures represent the NH and the IH cases, respectively. The plot-legends of color and shape are the same as the ones of Fig. 1. The left one demonstrates neutrinoless double beta decay ⟨ m ee ⟩ in terms of the lightest neutrino mass. The dotted horizontal lines are bounds from the current KamLAND-Zen ⟨ m ee ⟩ &lt; (36 -156) meV as discussed in the neutrino sector. In case of NH, there exist two localized regions; D ν 1 ≈ (0 02 . , 0 09 . -0 13) eV and . ⟨ m ee ⟩ ≈ (0 02 . , 0 08 . -0 12) eV. In case of IH, we have .

FIG. 3: Numerical ∆ χ 2 analyses in case of r = +1, where all the legends are the same as Fig. 1. We would not find any solutions in case of IH

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.01143v2-figure-c86a6b39-a688-41e0-9586-7184a2d5c1f8.jpg)

allowed region at D ν 3 ≈ (0 15 . -0 21) eV and . ⟨ m ee ⟩ ≈ (0 15 . -0 21) eV. Note here that the only NH . satisfies the CMB bound on the sum of neutrino mass. The center one shows Majorana phases α 31 and α 21 . There exist four main localized regions in case of NH; α 31 ≈ (0 -60 , 160 -200 , 310 -360) deg and α 21 ≈ (10 -30 , 50 -80 , 270 -310 , 330 -350) deg. There exist two localized regions in case of IH; α 31 ≈ (35 -50 , 320 -330) deg and α 21 ≈ (0 -10 , 330 -340) deg. The right one depicts the Dirac CP phase in terms of the sum of neutrino masses . The vertical red dashed line shows the upper bound of cosmological limit ∑ D ν ≤ 0 12 eV while the vertical magenta dashed . line shows the upper bound of ∑ D ν ≤ 0 072 eV. In case of NH, there exist four localized regions; . sum D ν ≈ (0 1 . , 0 28 . -0 4) eV and . δ CP ≈ (80 -100 , 120 -140 , 220 -240 , 260 -280) deg. In case of IH, there exist two localized regions; sum D ν ≈ (0 5 . -0 65) eV and . δ CP ≈ (0 -20 , 340 -360) deg.

## B. r = +1

In Fig. 3, we figure out the allowed range of τ in case of r = +1 where we would not find any solutions in case of IH. All the legends are the same as Fig. 1. We have a specific region of τ ; | Re[ τ ] |≈ [0 -0 016] and Im[ . τ ] ≈ [1 18 . -1 35]. .

In Fig. 4, we show predictions in the case of r = +1, where All the legends are the same as Figs. 2. We would not find any solutions in case of IH The left figure suggests D ν 1 ≈ (0 04 . -0 08) . eV and ⟨ m ee ⟩ ≈ (0 04 . -0 08) eV. The center one shows there exist four regions; . α 31 ≈ (80 -280) deg and α 21 ≈ (0 -80 , 280 -360) deg. The right one shows that there exist two localized regions; sum D ν ≈ (0 14 . -0 28) eV and . δ CP ⟩ ≈ (40 -160 , 200 -300) deg.

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.01143v2-figure-2235d370-b2b6-42fe-bc83-2dd193c9ac0b.jpg)

FIG. 4: Numerical ∆ χ 2 analyses in case of r = +1, where All the legends are the same as Fig. 2. We would not find any solutions in case of IH

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.01143v2-figure-e9a125b9-9037-4d13-8929-75553d48aa51.jpg)

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.01143v2-figure-7557209b-0cd9-4cbb-99c4-5b923ef0baa3.jpg)

FIG. 5: Numerical ∆ χ 2 analyses in case of r = +3, where all the legends are the same as Fig. 1.

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.01143v2-figure-3a5999d0-c122-453e-93b7-9eaa8abe0bf0.jpg)

$$C. \ r = + 3$$

In Fig. 5, we figure out the allowed range of τ in case of r = +3. All the legends are the same as Fig. 1. In case of NH, we have a unique allowed shape of τ ; | Re[ τ ] |≈ [0 018 . -0 04] and . Im[ τ ] ≈ [1 3 . -1 7]. . In case of IH, we have a localized region of τ ; Re[ τ ] ≈ 0 002 and Im[ . τ ] ≈ 1 13. .

In Fig. 6, we show predictions in the case of r = +3, where all the legends are the same as Fig. 2. In case of NH, we have the allowed regions at D ν 1 ≈ (0 11 . -0 19) eV and . ⟨ m ee ⟩ ≈ (0 1 . -0 18) eV. . In case of IH, we have allowed region at D ν 3 ≈ (1 8 . -2 2) eV and . ⟨ m ee ⟩ ≈ (1 8 . -2 2) eV. There . exist two localized regions in case of NH; α 31 ≈ (150 -200) deg and α 21 ≈ (0 -10 , 350 -360) deg. There exist a localized region in case of IH; α 31 ≈ 100 deg and α 21 ≈ 0 deg. In case of NH, there exist two localized regions; sum D ν ≈ (0 35 . -0 58) eV and . δ CP ⟩ ≈ (80 -100 , 260 -280) deg. In case of IH, there exist a localized region; sum D ν ≈ (5 5 . -6 5) eV and . δ CP ⟩ ≈ 270 deg.

FIG. 6: Numerical ∆ χ 2 analyses in case of r = +1, where All the legends are the same as Fig. 2.

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.01143v2-figure-766716b2-f652-4466-a6c7-395f6c2e3dec.jpg)

## IV. SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION

We have searched for predictability of lepton masses and mixing of type-II scenario in a nonholomorphic modular A 4 symmetry. We have found three types of minimum models in addition to the Qu and Ding model, satisfying the neutrino oscillation data in Nufit 5.2. However, if we impose the cosmological bound ∑ D ν ≤ 0 12 eV, the only normal hierarchical model with . r = -1 is survived. Furthermore, we have sharp predictions in this case as follows: There are two localized regions; D ν 1 ≈ (0 02 . , 0 09 . -0 13) eV and . ⟨ m ee ⟩ ≈ (0 02 . , 0 08 . -0 12) eV. We also found four main . localized regions α 31 ≈ (0 -60 , 160 -200 , 310 -360) deg and α 21 ≈ (10 -30 , 50 -80 , 270 -310 , 330 -350) deg. There exist four localized regions; sum D ν ≈ (0 1 . , 0 28 . -0 4) . eV and δ CP ⟩ ≈ (80 -100 , 120 -140 , 220 -240 , 260 -280) deg. This model is well-tested by upcoming experiments in near future.

## Acknowledgments

The work was supported by the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (T. N.).

[1] T. Yanagida, Phys. Rev. D 20 , 2986 (1979).

- [2] P. Minkowski, Phys. Lett. B 67 , 421 (1977).
- [3] R. N. Mohapatra and G. Senjanovic, Phys. Rev. Lett. 44 , 912 (1980).
- [4] M. Magg and C. Wetterich, Phys. Lett. B 94 , 61 (1980).
- [5] T. P. Cheng and L.-F. Li, Phys. Rev. D 22 , 2860 (1980).
- [6] R. N. Mohapatra and J. W. F. Valle, Phys. Rev. D 34 , 1642 (1986).
- [7] D. Wyler and L. Wolfenstein, Nucl. Phys. B 218 , 205 (1983).
- [8] E. K. Akhmedov, M. Lindner, E. Schnapka, and J. W. F. Valle, Phys. Lett. B 368 , 270 (1996), hepph/9507275.
- [9] E. K. Akhmedov, M. Lindner, E. Schnapka, and J. W. F. Valle, Phys. Rev. D 53 , 2752 (1996), hepph/9509255.
- [10] A. Zee, Phys. Lett. B 93 , 389 (1980), [Erratum: Phys.Lett.B 95, 461 (1980)].
- [11] E. Ma, Phys. Rev. D 73 , 077301 (2006), hep-ph/0601225.
- [12] Y. Kajiyama, H. Okada, and K. Yagyu, Nucl. Phys. B 874 , 198 (2013), 1303.3463.
- [13] A. Zee, Nucl. Phys. B 264 , 99 (1986).
- [14] K. S. Babu, Phys. Lett. B 203 , 132 (1988).
- [15] L. M. Krauss, S. Nasri, and M. Trodden, Phys. Rev. D 67 , 085002 (2003), hep-ph/0210389.
- [16] M. Aoki, S. Kanemura, and O. Seto, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102 , 051805 (2009), 0807.0361.
- [17] M. Gustafsson, J. M. No, and M. A. Rivera, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110 , 211802 (2013), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 112, 259902 (2014)], 1212.4806.
- [18] B.-Y. Qu and G.-J. Ding (2024), 2406.02527.
- [19] F. Feruglio, Are neutrino masses modular forms? (2019), pp. 227-266, 1706.08749.
- [20] J. C. Criado and F. Feruglio, SciPost Phys. 5 , 042 (2018), 1807.01125.
- [21] T. Kobayashi, N. Omoto, Y. Shimizu, K. Takagi, M. Tanimoto, and T. H. Tatsuishi, JHEP 11 , 196 (2018), 1808.03012.
- [22] H. Okada and M. Tanimoto, Phys. Lett. B 791 , 54 (2019), 1812.09677.
- [23] T. Nomura and H. Okada, Phys. Lett. B 797 , 134799 (2019), 1904.03937.
- [24] H. Okada and M. Tanimoto, Eur. Phys. J. C 81 , 52 (2021), 1905.13421.
- [25] F. J. de Anda, S. F. King, and E. Perdomo, Phys. Rev. D 101 , 015028 (2020), 1812.05620.
- [26] P. Novichkov, S. Petcov, and M. Tanimoto, Phys. Lett. B 793 , 247 (2019), 1812.11289.
- [27] T. Nomura and H. Okada, Nucl. Phys. B 966 , 115372 (2021), 1906.03927.
- [28] H. Okada and Y. Orikasa (2019), 1907.13520.
- [29] G.-J. Ding, S. F. King, and X.-G. Liu, JHEP 09 , 074 (2019), 1907.11714.
- [30] T. Nomura, H. Okada, and O. Popov, Phys. Lett. B 803 , 135294 (2020), 1908.07457.
- [31] T. Kobayashi, Y. Shimizu, K. Takagi, M. Tanimoto, and T. H. Tatsuishi, Phys. Rev. D 100 , 115045 (2019), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 101, 039904 (2020)], 1909.05139.
- [32] T. Asaka, Y. Heo, T. H. Tatsuishi, and T. Yoshida, JHEP 01 , 144 (2020), 1909.06520.
- [33] D. Zhang, Nucl. Phys. B 952 , 114935 (2020), 1910.07869.

- [34] G.-J. Ding, S. F. King, X.-G. Liu, and J.-N. Lu, JHEP 12 , 030 (2019), 1910.03460.
- [35] T. Kobayashi, T. Nomura, and T. Shimomura, Phys. Rev. D 102 , 035019 (2020), 1912.00637.
- [36] T. Nomura, H. Okada, and S. Patra, Nucl. Phys. B 967 , 115395 (2021), 1912.00379.
- [37] X. Wang, Nucl. Phys. B 957 , 115105 (2020), 1912.13284.
- [38] H. Okada and Y. Shoji, Nucl. Phys. B 961 , 115216 (2020), 2003.13219.
- [39] H. Okada and M. Tanimoto, Phys. Dark Univ. 40 , 101204 (2023), 2005.00775.
- [40] M. K. Behera, S. Singirala, S. Mishra, and R. Mohanta, J. Phys. G 49 , 035002 (2022), 2009.01806.
- [41] M. K. Behera, S. Mishra, S. Singirala, and R. Mohanta, Phys. Dark Univ. 36 , 101027 (2022), 2007.00545.
- [42] T. Nomura and H. Okada, JCAP 09 , 049 (2022), 2007.04801.
- [43] T. Nomura and H. Okada (2020), 2007.15459.
- [44] T. Asaka, Y. Heo, and T. Yoshida, Phys. Lett. B 811 , 135956 (2020), 2009.12120.
- [45] H. Okada and M. Tanimoto, Phys. Rev. D 103 , 015005 (2021), 2009.14242.
- [46] K. I. Nagao and H. Okada, Nucl. Phys. B 980 , 115841 (2022), 2010.03348.
- [47] H. Okada and M. Tanimoto, JHEP 03 , 010 (2021), 2012.01688.
- [48] D. W. Kang, J. Kim, T. Nomura, and H. Okada, JHEP 07 , 050 (2022), 2205.08269.
- [49] G.-J. Ding, S.-Y. Jiang, S. F. King, J.-N. Lu, and B.-Y. Qu (2024), 2404.06520.
- [50] G.-J. Ding and S. F. King (2023), 2311.09282.
- [51] T. Nomura, H. Okada, and H. Otsuka, Nucl. Phys. B 1004 , 116579 (2024), 2309.13921.
- [52] T. Kobayashi, T. Nomura, H. Okada, and H. Otsuka, JHEP 01 , 121 (2024), 2310.10091.
- [53] S. T. Petcov and M. Tanimoto (2024), 2404.00858.
- [54] T. Kobayashi and M. Tanimoto (2023), 2307.03384.
- [55] T. Nomura and H. Okada (2024), 2407.13167.
- [56] I. Esteban, M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, M. Maltoni, T. Schwetz, and A. Zhou, JHEP 09 , 178 (2020), 2007.14792.
- [57] P. A. Zyla et al. (Particle Data Group), PTEP 2020 , 083C01 (2020).
- [58] S. Abe et al. (KamLAND-Zen) (2024), 2406.11438.
- [59] S. Vagnozzi, E. Giusarma, O. Mena, K. Freese, M. Gerbino, S. Ho, and M. Lattanzi, Phys. Rev. D 96 , 123503 (2017), 1701.08172.
- [60] N. Aghanim et al. (Planck), Astron. Astrophys. 641 , A6 (2020), [Erratum: Astron.Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)], 1807.06209.
- [61] K. A. Olive et al. (Particle Data Group), Chin. Phys. C 38 , 090001 (2014).
- [62] A. G. Adame et al. (DESI) (2024), 2404.03002.
- [63] H. Fritzsch, Z.-z. Xing, and S. Zhou, JHEP 09 , 083 (2011), 1108.4534.
Takaaki Nomura Hiroshi Okada
Type-II seesaw of a non-holomorphic modular $A_4$ symmetry
We search for predictability of lepton masses and mixing patterns of type-II
seesaw scenario in a non-holomorphic modular $A_4$ symmetry recently proposed
by Qu and Ding. We propose three types of minimum predictive models with
different assignments of modular weight, satisfying the neutrino oscillation
data in Nufit 5.2. The cosmological bound on the sum of neutrino mass is
stringent to our models and CMB bound $\sum D_\nu\le0.12$ eV can be satisfied
by one of three models playing an important role in discriminating them.