Generating CP Violation from a Modified Fridberg-Lee Model

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This work is more accurate compared to original Friedberg-Lee neutrino mass model. They obtained a realistic neutrino mixing matrix with $\delta\neq 0$ and $\theta_{23} = 45^{\circ}$. They show an imaginary term in the solar mass splitting induced the existence of Majorana neutrinos and the existence of a large leptonic CP violation. The normal mass order is more degenerate in accordance (best fit) with the experimental data.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 

In the attached pdf file, we respond to your comments.

Sincerely,

S. M. M. Rasouli 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

In this paper the authors study neutrino phenomenology of a modified FL model. Study of neutrino phenomenology with FL model has been studied in the past. For example, Ref[1] studied the prediction of the neutrino oscillation parameters of a generalised FL model. The basic idea is to start with a given form of a mass matrix coming from the FL model which can be diagonalised by the TBM form of the PMNS matrix. Then to add a perturbation to the mass matrix which will give the desired form of the PMNS matrix. The novel feature of the current work is: (i) they consider a form of mass matrix of FL model which was not considered earlier and (ii) the perturbation matrix is not added by hand, rather it is computed. They applied two forms of perturbation: (i) one with real perturbed mass matrix, which generates correct value of $\theta_{13}$ without CP violation and (ii) one with complex perturbed matrix which predicts all the values of the oscillation parameters with DIrac and Majorana phases. 

I found this work important and relevant. The predictive nature of the model can be tested in the future neutrino experiments. The paper is also very clearly written. I definitely recommend it for publication. However, I have some minor corrections and suggestions which I list below:

1. As $\theta_{23}$ is the one of the most uncertain parameters right now, I suggest the authors to add a discussion/comment about the value(s) of $\theta_{23}$ prediction of the model.

2.  In the abstract, the sentence "Keeping the behaviour of U as tribimaximal. We would make a...." should be  "Keeping the behaviour of U as tribimaximal, we would make a...."

3. In line 144, the authors are referring to Subsection A and B. But there are no such subsections. I assume they are referring to Subsections 2.1 and 2.2.

4. In line 194, there is a "?" after reference 6.

Once this suggestions/corrections are implemented, the article can be accepted for publication. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

In the attached pdf file, we responded to your comments.

Sincerely,

S. M. M. Rasouli

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Please find the comments/clarification in the attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

In the attached pdf file, we responded your comments.

Sincerely,

S. M. M. Rasouli

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

I accept the present modified draft.