1: \documentstyle[prd,aps,preprint,tighten,epsfig]{revtex}
2:
3: \begin{document}
4:
5: \draft
6:
7: \title{Deviations from Tri-bimaximal Neutrino Mixing in Type-II
8: Seesaw and Leptogenesis}
9: \author{{\bf Aik Hui Chan} $^b$, ~ {\bf Harald Fritzsch} $^c$,
10: ~ {\bf Shu Luo} $^a$
11: \thanks{E-mail: luoshu@mail.ihep.ac.cn},
12: ~ {\bf Zhi-zhong Xing} $^a$
13: \thanks{E-mail: xingzz@mail.ihep.ac.cn}}
14: \address{$^a$ Institute of High Energy Physics, Chinese Academy of
15: Sciences, Beijing 100049, China \\
16: $^b$ Department of Physics, National University of Singapore,
17: Singapore 117542,
18: Singapore ~ \\
19: $^c$ Sektion Physik, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universit$\it\ddot{a}$t
20: M$\it\ddot{u}$nchen, 80333 Munich, Germany ~~~}
21:
22: \maketitle
23:
24: \begin{abstract}
25: Current experimental data allow the zero value for one neutrino
26: mass, either $m^{}_1 =0$ or $m^{}_3 =0$. This observation implies
27: that a realistic neutrino mass texture can be established by
28: starting from the limit (a) $m^{}_1 = m^{}_2 =0$ and $m^{}_3 \neq
29: 0$ or (b) $m^{}_1 = m^{}_2 \neq 0$ and $m^{}_3 =0$. In both cases,
30: we may introduce a particular perturbation which ensures the
31: resultant neutrino mixing matrix to be the tri-bimaximal mixing
32: pattern or its viable variations with all entries being formed
33: from small integers and their square roots. We find that it is
34: natural to incorporate this kind of neutrino mass matrix in the
35: minimal Type-II seesaw model with only one heavy right-handed
36: Majorana neutrino $N$ in addition to the $SU(2)^{}_L$ Higgs
37: triplet $\Delta^{}_L$. We show that it is possible to account for
38: the cosmological baryon number asymmetry in the $m^{}_3 =0$ case
39: via thermal leptogenesis, in which the one-loop vertex correction
40: to $N$ decays is mediated by $\Delta^{}_L$ and the CP-violating
41: asymmetry of $N$ decays is attributed to the electron flavor.
42: \end{abstract}
43:
44: \pacs{PACS number(s): 14.60.Pq, 13.10.+q, 25.30.Pt}
45:
46: \newpage
47:
48: \section{Introduction}
49:
50: Recent solar \cite{SNO}, atmospheric \cite{SK}, reactor \cite{KM}
51: and accelerator \cite{K2K} neutrino experiments have convincingly
52: verified the hypothesis of neutrino oscillation, a quantum
53: phenomenon which can naturally happen if neutrinos are slightly
54: massive and lepton flavors are not conserved. The mixing of lepton
55: flavors is described by a $3\times 3$ unitary matrix $V$, whose
56: nine elements are commonly parameterized in terms of three
57: rotation angles ($\theta^{}_{12}$, $\theta^{}_{23}$,
58: $\theta^{}_{13}$) and three CP-violating phases ($\delta$, $\rho$,
59: $\sigma$) \cite{FX01}. The phase parameters $\rho$ and $\sigma$,
60: which have nothing to do with CP violation in neutrino
61: oscillations, are usually referred as to the Majorana phases. A
62: global analysis of current neutrino oscillation data yields
63: $30^\circ < \theta_{12} < 38^\circ$, $36^\circ < \theta_{23} <
64: 54^\circ$ and $\theta_{13} < 10^\circ$ at the $99\%$ confidence
65: level \cite{Vissani}, but three phases of $V$ remain entirely
66: unconstrained. While the absolute mass scale of three neutrinos is
67: not yet fixed, their two mass-squared differences have already
68: been determined to a good degree of accuracy \cite{Vissani}:
69: $\Delta m^2_{21} \equiv m^2_2 - m^2_1 = (7.2 \cdots 8.9) \times
70: 10^{-5} ~{\rm eV}^2$ and $\Delta m^2_{32} \equiv m^2_3 - m^2_2 =
71: \pm (2.1 \cdots 3.1) \times 10^{-3} ~{\rm eV}^2$. The on-going and
72: forthcoming neutrino oscillation experiments will shed light on
73: the sign of $\Delta m^2_{32}$, the magnitude of $\theta^{}_{13}$
74: and even the CP-violating phase $\delta$.
75:
76: From a phenomenological point of view, at least two lessons can be
77: learnt from current experimental data:
78: \begin{itemize}
79: \item The lightest neutrino is allowed to be massless; i.e.,
80: either $m^{}_1 =0$ (normal neutrino mass hierarchy) or $m^{}_3 =0$
81: (inverted neutrino mass hierarchy) has no conflict with the
82: present neutrino oscillation measurements. In both cases, the
83: non-vanishing neutrino masses can be determined in terms of
84: $\Delta m^2_{21}$ and $|\Delta m^2_{32}|$:
85: \begin{eqnarray}
86: m^{}_1 \; = \; 0 & ~~ \Longrightarrow ~~ & \left \{ \matrix{m^{}_2
87: \; =\; \sqrt{\Delta m^2_{21}} \; \approx \; 8.94 \times 10^{-3} ~
88: {\rm eV} \; , \;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\; \cr m^{}_3 \; =\;
89: \sqrt{|\Delta m^2_{32}| + \Delta m^2_{21}} \; \approx \; 5.08
90: \times 10^{-2} ~ {\rm eV} \; ; \cr} \right . \\ \nonumber \\
91: % (1)
92: m^{}_3 \; = \; 0 & ~~ \Longrightarrow ~~ & \left \{ \matrix{m^{}_1
93: \; =\; \sqrt{|\Delta m^2_{32}| - \Delta m^2_{21}} \; \approx \;
94: 4.92 \times 10^{-2} ~ {\rm eV} \; , \cr m^{}_2 \; =\;
95: \sqrt{|\Delta m^2_{32}|} \; \approx \; 5.00 \times 10^{-2} ~ {\rm
96: eV} \; . \;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\; \cr} \right .
97: % (2)
98: \end{eqnarray}
99: Whether one of the above two neutrino mass spectra is true or
100: essentially true remains an open question. But we stress that some
101: interesting neutrino models, such as the minimal seesaw model
102: \cite{MSM}, are actually able to predict the neutrino mass
103: spectrum with either $m^{}_1 =0$ or $m^{}_3 =0$.
104:
105: \item A special neutrino mixing pattern, the so-called
106: tri-bimaximal mixing \cite{HPS},
107: \begin{equation}
108: V = \left ( \matrix{ 2/\sqrt{6} & 1/\sqrt{3} & 0 \cr -1/\sqrt{6} &
109: 1/\sqrt{3} & 1/\sqrt{2} \cr 1/\sqrt{6} & -1/\sqrt{3} & 1/\sqrt{2}
110: \cr} \right ) \; ,
111: % (3)
112: \end{equation}
113: is particularly favored. It yields $\tan\theta^{}_{12} =
114: 1/\sqrt{2}$ (or $\theta_{12} \approx 35.3^\circ$) for the
115: large-mixing-angle MSW solution \cite{MSW} to the solar neutrino
116: problem, $\tan\theta^{}_{23} = 1$ (or $\theta_{23} = 45^\circ$)
117: for the atmospheric neutrino oscillation, and $\theta_{13} = \rho
118: = \sigma =0^\circ$. As a direct consequence of $\theta_{13} =
119: 0^\circ$, the CP-violating phase $\delta$ is not well defined.
120: This interesting neutrino mixing pattern is in general expected to
121: result from an underlying flavor symmetry (e.g., the discrete
122: $A^{}_4$ \cite{A4}, $S^{}_3$ \cite{S3} or $\mu$-$\tau$ \cite{MT}
123: symmetry) in the lepton sector. Such a symmetry must be broken
124: spontaneously or explicitly, in order to account for both the
125: observed lepton mass spectra and the realistic neutrino mixing
126: pattern.
127: \end{itemize}
128: One purpose of this paper is just to combine both lessons and
129: reconstruct the simplest neutrino mass texture for either $m^{}_1
130: =0$ or $m^{}_3 =0$. Looking back to Eqs. (1) and (2), we find that
131: $m^{}_1 \ll m^{}_2 \ll m^{}_3$ and $m^{}_3 \ll m^{}_1 \approx
132: m^{}_2$ hold in the $m^{}_1 =0$ and $m^{}_3 =0$ cases,
133: respectively. This observation implies that a realistic neutrino
134: mass texture can be established by starting from the symmetry
135: limit (a) $m^{}_1 = m^{}_2 =0$ and $m^{}_3 \neq 0$ or (b) $m^{}_1
136: = m^{}_2 \neq 0$ and $m^{}_3 =0$. We shall show that it is
137: possible to introduce a particular perturbation, which ensures the
138: resultant neutrino mass matrix $M^{}_\nu$ to reproduce the
139: tri-bimaximal mixing pattern or its viable variations with all
140: entries being formed from small integers and their square roots.
141:
142: The second purpose of this paper is to incorporate the texture of
143: $M^{}_\nu$ in the minimal Type-II seesaw model \cite{Gu}, an
144: economical extension of the standard model with only one heavy
145: right-handed Majorana neutrino $N$ in addition to the $SU(2)^{}_L$
146: Higgs triplet $\Delta^{}_L$. We shall focus our interest on the
147: $m^{}_3 =0$ case, so as to obtain a non-vanishing CP-violating
148: asymmetry in the lepton-number-violating decays of $N$. Such an
149: asymmetry arises from the interference between the tree-level
150: amplitude of $N$ decays and the one-loop vertex correction
151: mediated by $\Delta^{}_L$. Following the idea of baryogenesis via
152: leptogenesis \cite{FY} and taking account of the flavor-dependent
153: effects \cite{Flavor}, we shall show that it is possible to
154: interpret the observed baryon number asymmetry of the Universe
155: (i.e., $\eta^{}_B = (6.1 \pm 0.2) \times 10^{-10}$ \cite{WMAP})
156: via thermal leptogenesis in our model, in which only the electron
157: flavor plays a role in the lepton-to-baryon conversion.
158:
159: The remaining part of this paper is organized as follows. In
160: section II we describe a purely phenomenological way to get viable
161: variations of the tri-bimaximal neutrino mixing pattern from two
162: simple textures of the neutrino mass matrix $M^{}_\nu$, one with
163: $m^{}_1 =0$ and the other with $m^{}_3 =0$. Section III is devoted
164: to incorporating the texture of $M^{}_\nu$ with $m^{}_3 =0$ and a
165: non-trivial CP-violating phase in the minimal Type-II seesaw
166: model, and to calculating the flavor-dependent leptogenesis in
167: order to account for the cosmological baryon number asymmetry
168: $\eta^{}_B$. A brief summary of our main results is presented in
169: section IV.
170:
171: \section{Deviations from Tri-bimaximal neutrino mixing}
172:
173: Let us work in the basis where the flavor eigenstates of three
174: charged leptons are identified with their mass eigenstates (i.e.,
175: the charged-lepton mass matrix $M^{}_l$ is diagonal, real and
176: positive). Then the mass eigenstates of three neutrinos
177: ($\nu^{}_1$, $\nu^{}_2$, $\nu^{}_3$) are directly linked to their
178: flavor eigenstates ($\nu^{}_e$, $\nu^{}_\mu$, $\nu^{}_\tau$)
179: through the neutrino mixing matrix $V$. If $V$ is of the
180: tri-bimaximal mixing pattern as given in Eq. (3), it can be
181: decomposed into a product of two Euler rotation matrices: $V =
182: O^{}_{23} O^{}_{12}$, where
183: \begin{eqnarray}
184: O^{}_{12} & = & \left ( \matrix{ \sqrt{2}/\sqrt{2+x^2} &
185: x/\sqrt{2+x^2} & 0 \cr -x/\sqrt{2+x^2} & \sqrt{2}/\sqrt{2+x^2} & 0
186: \cr 0 & 0 & 1 \cr} \right ) \; ,
187: \nonumber \\
188: O^{}_{23} & = & \left ( \matrix{ 1 & 0 & 0 \cr 0 & 1/\sqrt{2} &
189: 1/\sqrt{2} \cr 0 & -1/\sqrt{2} & 1/\sqrt{2} \cr} \right ) \;
190: % (4)
191: \end{eqnarray}
192: with $x=1$. Allowing for small deviations of $x$ from unity, we
193: are then left with some variations of the tri-bimaximal neutrino
194: mixing pattern which can fit current or future neutrino
195: oscillation data to a better degree of accuracy. Our strategy of
196: reconstructing the neutrino mass matrix $M^{}_\nu$ is three-fold:
197: (1) we take a proper symmetry limit of $M^{}_\nu$, denoted as
198: $M^{(0)}_\nu$, which can be diagonalized by the orthogonal
199: transformation $O^{}_{23}$; (2) we introduce a particular
200: perturbation to $M^{(0)}_\nu$, denoted as $\Delta M^{}_\nu$, which
201: can be diagonalized by the orthogonal transformation $O^{}_{23}
202: O^{}_{12}$; (3) we require that $M^{}_\nu = M^{(0)}_\nu + \Delta
203: M^{}_\nu$ should also be diagonalized by the transformation
204: $O^{}_{23} O^{}_{12}$. Of course, the texture of $M^{}_\nu$ ought
205: to guarantee either $m^{}_1 =0$ or $m^{}_3 =0$.
206:
207: \subsection{Texture of $M^{}_\nu$ with $m^{}_1 =0$}
208:
209: In the $m^{}_1 =0$ case, we observe from Eq. (1) that $m^{}_2 \ll
210: m^{}_3$ holds. Hence a reasonable symmetry limit of $M^{}_\nu$ is
211: expected to be
212: \begin{equation}
213: M^{(0)}_\nu \; =\; c \left ( \matrix{ 0 & 0 & 0 \cr 0 & 1 & 1 \cr
214: 0 & 1 & 1 \cr} \right ) \; ,
215: % (5)
216: \end{equation}
217: where $c$ is assumed to be real and positive. The $S^{}_2$
218: permutation symmetry in the $(2,3)$ sector of $M^{(0)}_\nu$
219: assures that this mass matrix can be diagonalized by the
220: $O^{}_{23}$ transformation:
221: \begin{equation}
222: O^T_{23} M^{(0)}_\nu O^{}_{23} \; =\; c \left ( \matrix{ 0 & 0 & 0
223: \cr 0 & 0 & 0 \cr 0 & 0 & 2 \cr} \right ) \; .
224: % (6)
225: \end{equation}
226: In other words, $m^{}_3 = 2c$ and $m^{}_2 = m^{}_1 =0$ hold in the
227: chosen symmetry limit. A non-vanishing value of $m^{}_2$ and a
228: generalized tri-bimaximal neutrino mixing pattern can result from
229: the perturbation
230: \begin{equation}
231: \Delta M^{}_\nu \; =\; c \varepsilon \left ( \matrix{ x^2 & x & -x
232: \cr x & 1 & -1 \cr -x & -1 & 1 \cr} \right ) \; ,
233: % (7)
234: \end{equation}
235: where $\varepsilon$ is a small dimensionless quantity, and $x$ is
236: a positive number of ${\cal O}(1)$. When $x =1$ holds, $\Delta
237: M^{}_\nu$ has the $S^{}_2$ permutation symmetry in its $(1,2)$
238: sector. Given the orthogonal transformations in Eq. (4), the
239: diagonalization
240: \begin{equation}
241: \left ( O^{}_{23} O^{}_{12} \right )^T \Delta M^{}_\nu \left (
242: O^{}_{23} O^{}_{12} \right ) \; = \; c \varepsilon O^T_{12} \left
243: ( \matrix{ x^2 & \sqrt{2} ~x & 0 \cr \sqrt{2} ~x & 2 & 0 \cr 0 & 0
244: & 0\cr} \right ) O^{}_{12} \; = \; c \varepsilon \left ( \matrix{
245: 0 & 0 & 0 \cr 0 & 2+x^2 & 0 \cr 0 & 0 & 0 \cr} \right ) \;
246: % (8)
247: \end{equation}
248: works. The neutrino mass matrix
249: \begin{equation}
250: M^{}_\nu \; = \; M^{(0)}_\nu + \Delta M^{}_\nu \; =\; c \left [
251: \left ( \matrix{ 0 & 0 & 0 \cr 0 & 1 & 1 \cr 0 & 1 & 1 \cr} \right
252: ) + \varepsilon \left ( \matrix{ x^2 & x & -x \cr x & 1 & -1 \cr
253: -x & -1 & 1 \cr} \right ) \right ] \;
254: % (9)
255: \end{equation}
256: can then be diagonalized by the unitary matrix $V = O^{}_{23}
257: O^{}_{12}$:
258: \begin{equation}
259: V^T M^{}_\nu V \; =\; O^T_{23} M^{(0)}_\nu O^{}_{23} + \left (
260: O^{}_{23} O^{}_{12} \right )^T \Delta M^{}_\nu \left ( O^{}_{23}
261: O^{}_{12} \right ) \; =\; c \left ( \matrix{ 0 & 0 & 0 \cr 0 &
262: \left (2+x^2 \right ) \varepsilon & 0 \cr 0 & 0 & 2 \cr} \right )
263: \; .
264: % (10)
265: \end{equation}
266: Three neutrino mass eigenvalues of $M^{}_\nu$ turn out to be
267: $m^{}_1 =0$, $m^{}_2 = \left (2+x^2 \right ) c \varepsilon$ and
268: $m^{}_3 = 2c$. Taking account of Eq. (1), we immediately obtain
269: the results $c = m^{}_3/2 \approx 2.54 \times 10^{-2}$ eV and
270: $\varepsilon = 2 m^{}_2/\left [ \left (2+x^2 \right ) m^{}_3
271: \right ] \approx 0.35/\left (2+x^2 \right )$.
272:
273: \subsection{Texture of $M^{}_\nu$ with $m^{}_3 =0$}
274:
275: In the $m^{}_3 =0$ case, we observe from Eq. (2) that $m^{}_1
276: \approx m^{}_2$ holds. Thus a reasonable symmetry limit of
277: $M^{}_\nu$ is expected to be
278: \begin{equation}
279: M^{(0)}_\nu \; =\; c \left ( \matrix{ 2 & 0 & 0 \cr 0 & 1 & -1 \cr
280: 0 & -1 & 1 \cr} \right ) \; ,
281: % (11)
282: \end{equation}
283: where $c$ is also assumed to be real and positive. This neutrino
284: mass matrix can similarly be diagonalized by the $O^{}_{23}$
285: transformation:
286: \begin{equation}
287: O^T_{23} M^{(0)}_\nu O^{}_{23} \; =\; c \left ( \matrix{ 2 & 0 & 0
288: \cr 0 & 2 & 0 \cr 0 & 0 & 0 \cr} \right ) \; .
289: % (12)
290: \end{equation}
291: Namely, $m^{}_1 = m^{}_2 = 2c$ and $m^{}_3 =0$ hold in the chosen
292: symmetry limit. To break the degeneracy of $m^{}_1$ and $m^{}_2$,
293: we may introduce the same perturbation to $M^{(0)}_\nu$ as that
294: given in Eq. (7), which can be diagonalized by the same
295: transformation as that shown in Eq. (8). It is then possible to
296: diagonalize the neutrino mass matrix
297: \begin{equation}
298: M^{}_\nu \; = \; M^{(0)}_\nu + \Delta M^{}_\nu \; =\; c \left [
299: \left ( \matrix{ 2 & 0 & 0 \cr 0 & 1 & -1 \cr 0 & -1 & 1 \cr}
300: \right ) + \varepsilon \left ( \matrix{ x^2 & x & -x \cr x & 1 &
301: -1 \cr -x & -1 & 1 \cr} \right ) \right ] \;
302: % (13)
303: \end{equation}
304: by using the orthogonal matrix $V = O^{}_{23} O^{}_{12}$:
305: \begin{equation}
306: V^T M^{}_\nu V \; =\; O^T_{23} M^{(0)}_\nu O^{}_{23} + \left (
307: O^{}_{23} O^{}_{12} \right )^T \Delta M^{}_\nu \left ( O^{}_{23}
308: O^{}_{12} \right ) \; =\; c \left ( \matrix{ 2 & 0 & 0 \cr 0 & 2 +
309: \left (2+x^2 \right ) \varepsilon & 0 \cr 0 & 0 & 0 \cr} \right )
310: \; .
311: % (14)
312: \end{equation}
313: In this case, three neutrino mass eigenvalues of $M^{}_\nu$ are
314: $m^{}_1 = 2c$, $m^{}_2 = \left [2 + \left ( 2+x^2 \right )
315: \varepsilon \right ] c$ and $m^{}_3 = 0$. With the help of Eq.
316: (2), one may easily arrive at $c = m^{}_1/2 \approx 2.46 \times
317: 10^{-2}$ eV and $\varepsilon = 2 \left (m^{}_2 - m^{}_1 \right )
318: /\left [ \left ( 2+x^2 \right ) m^{}_1 \right ] \approx 3.25
319: \times 10^{-2}/\left (2+x^2 \right )$.
320:
321: \subsection{Neutrino mixing patterns}
322:
323: Although the tri-bimaximal neutrino mixing pattern is of great
324: interest, it is by no means unique in describing current neutrino
325: oscillation data. Hence we have gone beyond this pattern by
326: allowing for $x \neq 1$ in the above discussions. In both case (A)
327: and case (B), the neutrino mixing matrix $V = O^{}_{23} O^{}_{12}$
328: reads
329: \begin{equation}
330: V^\prime \; =\; \left ( \matrix{ 2/\sqrt{2 \left (2+x^2\right )} &
331: x/\sqrt{2+x^2} & 0 \cr -x/\sqrt{2\left (2+x^2\right )} &
332: 1/\sqrt{2+x^2} & 1/\sqrt{2} \cr x/\sqrt{2\left (2+x^2\right )} &
333: -1/\sqrt{2+x^2} & 1/\sqrt{2} \cr} \right ) \; .
334: % (15)
335: \end{equation}
336: It is obvious that $V$ takes the exact tri-bimaximal mixing
337: pattern for $x=1$. The allowed range of $x$ can be determined from
338: that of $\theta^{}_{12}$ through the relationship $x = \sqrt{2}
339: \tan \theta^{}_{12}$. In view of $30^\circ < \theta^{}_{12} <
340: 38^\circ$, which is obtained from a global analysis of current
341: neutrino oscillation data \cite{Vissani}, we easily arrive at
342: $0.82 \lesssim x \lesssim 1.10$. We see that the possibility of $x
343: = \sqrt{2}$, which leads $V$ to the bimaximal neutrino mixing, has
344: clearly been excluded. On the other hand, $x=1$ seems to be the
345: simplest and most favored possibility.
346:
347: Within the allowed range of $x$, it is not difficult to find out
348: some viable variations of the tri-bimaximal neutrino mixing
349: pattern. In particular, we pay interest to such a category of
350: neutrino mixing matrices $V$: the entries of $V$ are all formed
351: from small integers and their square roots, which are often
352: suggestive of a certain flavor symmetry in the language of group
353: theories. Below are three examples:
354: \begin{itemize}
355: \item $x=\sqrt{6}/3$, corresponding to $\theta^{}_{12} =
356: 30^\circ$ and
357: \begin{equation}
358: V \; =\; \left ( \matrix{ \sqrt{3}/2 & 1/2 & 0 \cr -\sqrt{2}/4 &
359: \sqrt{6}/4 & 1/\sqrt{2} \cr \sqrt{2}/4 & ~~ -\sqrt{6}/4 ~~ &
360: 1/\sqrt{2} \cr} \right ) \; ;
361: % (16)
362: \end{equation}
363:
364: \item $x=\sqrt{3}/2$, corresponding to $\theta^{}_{12}
365: \approx 31.5^\circ$ and
366: \begin{equation}
367: V \; =\; \left ( \matrix{ 4/\sqrt{22} & \sqrt{3}/\sqrt{11} & 0 \cr
368: -\sqrt{3}/\sqrt{22} & 2/\sqrt{11} & 1/\sqrt{2} \cr
369: \sqrt{3}/\sqrt{22} & -2/\sqrt{11} & 1/\sqrt{2} \cr} \right ) \; ;
370: % (17)
371: \end{equation}
372:
373: \item $x=2\sqrt{2}/3$, corresponding to $\theta^{}_{12}
374: \approx 33.7^\circ$ and
375: \begin{equation}
376: V \; =\; \left ( \matrix{ 3/\sqrt{13} & 2/\sqrt{13} & 0 \cr
377: -\sqrt{2}/\sqrt{13} & 3/\sqrt{26} & 1/\sqrt{2} \cr
378: \sqrt{2}/\sqrt{13} & -3/\sqrt{26} & 1/\sqrt{2} \cr} \right ) \; .
379: % (18)
380: \end{equation}
381: \end{itemize}
382: The pattern of $V$ in Eq. (16) is especially interesting, because
383: all of its nine elements are formed from four smallest integers
384: $0$, $1$, $2$, $3$ and their square roots. This pattern has
385: actually been conjectured in Ref. \cite{Xing03}, but here we
386: illustrate how it can be obtained from $M^{}_\nu$.
387:
388: \section{Minimal Type-II seesaw and leptogenesis}
389:
390: Now let us consider how to derive the neutrino mass matrix
391: $M^{}_\nu$ in Eq. (9) or Eq. (13) from a specific seesaw model.
392: One may naively expect that the minimal seesaw model with two
393: heavy right-handed Majorana neutrinos \cite{MSM} is a good
394: candidate, because it naturally assures that $M^{}_\nu$ is of rank
395: 2 and has a vanishing mass eigenvalue (either $m^{}_1 =0$ or
396: $m^{}_3 =0$). Taking account of the fact that $M^{}_\nu$ is
397: composed of two mass matrices $M^{(0)}_\nu$ and $\Delta M^{}_\nu$,
398: however, we find that it is more natural to incorporate $M^{}_\nu$
399: in the minimal Type-II seesaw model with only one heavy
400: right-handed Majorana neutrino $N$ in addition to the $SU(2)^{}_L$
401: Higgs triplet \cite{Gu}. In this case, the neutrino mass term can
402: be written as
403: \begin{equation}
404: -{\cal L}^{}_\nu \; = \; \frac{1}{2} \overline{\left (\nu^{~}_L
405: ~N^{\rm c}_R \right )} \left ( \matrix{ M^{}_L & M^{~}_D \cr M^T_D
406: & M^{}_R \cr} \right ) \left ( \matrix{ \nu^{\rm c}_L \cr N^{}_R
407: \cr} \right ) ~ + ~ {\rm h.c.} \; ,
408: % (19)
409: \end{equation}
410: where $\nu^{~}_L$ denotes the column vector of $(\nu^{~}_e,
411: \nu^{~}_\mu, \nu^{~}_\tau)^{~}_L$ fields, $M^{}_L$ is a $3\times
412: 3$ matrix arising from the leptonic Yukawa interaction induced by
413: the Higgs triplet $\Delta^{}_L$, $M^{}_D$ is a $3\times 1$ matrix
414: arising from the leptonic Yukawa interaction induced by the Higgs
415: doublet $H$, and $M^{}_R = M$ is just the mass of the right-handed
416: Majorana neutrino $N$. Provided $M$ is considerably higher than
417: the mass scale of $M^{}_D$, one may obtain the effective
418: (left-handed) Majorana neutrino mass matrix $M^{}_\nu$ from Eq.
419: (19) via the well-known Type-II seesaw mechanism \cite{SS2}:
420: $M^{}_\nu \simeq M^{}_L - M^{}_D M^{-1}_R M^T_D$. Comparing this
421: formula with $M^{}_\nu = M^{(0)}_\nu + \Delta M^{}_\nu$, we arrive
422: at
423: \begin{equation}
424: M^{(0)}_\nu \; = \; M^{}_L \; , ~~~~ \Delta M^{}_\nu \; = \;
425: -M^{}_D M^{-1}_R M^T_D \; .
426: % (20)
427: \end{equation}
428: The texture of $M^{}_L = M^{(0)}_\nu$ given in Eq. (5) or Eq. (11)
429: may easily be obtained from certain flavor symmetries (such as the
430: discrete $\mu$-$\tau$ \cite{MT} or $S^{}_2$ \cite{FX} symmetry).
431: On the other hand, the texture of $\Delta M^{}_\nu$ in Eq. (7) can
432: be derived from Eq. (20) with a unique form of $M^{}_D$,
433: \begin{equation}
434: M^{}_D \; =\; i\sqrt{c\varepsilon M} \left (\matrix{ x \cr 1 \cr
435: -1 \cr} \right ) \; ,
436: % (21)
437: \end{equation}
438: together with $M^{}_R =M$. We remark that such a seesaw
439: realization of the texture of $M^{}_\nu$ does not involve any
440: parameter fine-tuning or cancellation, and thus it is quite
441: natural.
442:
443: More interestingly, the minimal Type-II seesaw model under
444: consideration can offer a possibility of understanding the
445: cosmological baryon number asymmetry via thermal leptogenesis
446: \cite{FY}. For simplicity, we assume the mass of $\Delta^{}_L$ is
447: much higher than that of $N$ such that the CP-violating asymmetry
448: in the out-of-equilibrium decays of $N$ is in practice the only
449: source of leptogenesis. We allow $x$ to be complex in $M^{}_D$ and
450: its imaginary part is just responsible for CP violation in the
451: model. In the $m^{}_1 =0$ case, a straightforward analysis shows
452: that $M^\dagger_D M^{}_L M^{}_D =0$ holds due to the special
453: textures of $M^{}_L$ in Eq. (5) and $M^{}_D$ in Eq. (21), implying
454: the absence of CP violation in the decays of $N$. Hence we shall
455: focus our interest on the $m^{}_3 =0$ case in the following.
456:
457: \subsection{Neutrino Mixing}
458:
459: As $x$ is now taken to be a complex parameter, the diagonalization
460: of $M^{}_\nu$ in Eq. (13) turns out to be quite non-trivial. We
461: need a unitary matrix $V$ to make the transformation $V^\dagger
462: M^{}_\nu V^* = {\rm Diag} \{m^{}_1, m^{}_2, 0\}$. We obtain two
463: non-vanishing mass eigenvalues as
464: \begin{equation}
465: m_{1}^{} \; = \; c \sqrt{X-Y} \; , ~~~~ m_{2}^{} \; = \; c
466: \sqrt{X+Y} \; ,
467: % (22)
468: \end{equation}
469: where
470: \begin{eqnarray}
471: X & = & \frac{1}{2} \left ( |x|^2 + 2 \right )^2
472: \varepsilon_{}^{2} + \left ( x^2 + {x_{}^{*}}^2 \right )
473: \varepsilon + 4 \left ( 1 + \varepsilon \right ) \; ,
474: \nonumber \\
475: Y & = & \sqrt{X^2 - 4 \left|2 + \left(x^2 + 2 \right) \varepsilon
476: \right|^2} \; .
477: % (23)
478: \end{eqnarray}
479: In addition,
480: \begin{equation}
481: V \; = \; \left ( \matrix{Z_{1}^{} / \sqrt{|Z_{1}^{}|^2 + 2} &
482: Z_{2}^{} / \sqrt{|Z_{2}^{}|^2 + 2} & 0 \cr -1 / \sqrt{|Z_{1}^{}|^2
483: + 2} & 1/\sqrt{|Z_{2}^{}|^2 + 2} & 1 / \sqrt{2} \cr
484: 1/\sqrt{|Z_{1}^{}|^2 + 2} & -1/\sqrt{|Z_{2}^{}|^2 + 2} &
485: 1/\sqrt{2} \cr} \right ) \left ( \matrix{ e^{i\rho} & 0 & 0 \cr 0
486: & e^{i\sigma} & 0 \cr 0 & 0 & 1 \cr} \right ) \;
487: % (24)
488: \end{equation}
489: is just the neutrino mixing matrix, where
490: \begin{equation}
491: Z_{1}^{} \; = \; \frac{2Y - T_{1}^{}}{T^{}_{2}} \; , ~~~~ Z_{2}^{}
492: \; =\; \frac{2Y + T_{1}^{}}{T_{2}^{}}
493: % (25)
494: \end{equation}
495: with
496: \begin{eqnarray}
497: T_{1}^{} & = & \left ( |x|^4 - 4 \right ) \varepsilon_{}^{2} + 2
498: \left ( x^2 + {x_{}^{*}}^2 \right ) \varepsilon - 8 \varepsilon \;
499: , \nonumber \\
500: T_{2}^{} & = & 2 x_{}^{*} \left ( |x|^2 + 2 \right )
501: \varepsilon_{}^{2} + 2 \left ( x + x_{}^{*} \right ) \varepsilon
502: \; ;
503: % (26)
504: \end{eqnarray}
505: and
506: \begin{eqnarray}
507: \rho & = & \frac{1}{2} \arg \left [ \left ( 2 + \varepsilon x^2
508: \right ) {Z_{1}^{*}}^2 - 4 \varepsilon x Z_{1}^{*} +4 \left ( 1 +
509: \varepsilon \right ) \right ] \; ,
510: \nonumber \\
511: \sigma & = & \frac{1}{2} \arg \left [ \left ( 2 + \varepsilon x^2
512: \right ) {Z_{2}^{*}}^2 + 4 \varepsilon x Z_{2}^{*} +4 \left ( 1 +
513: \varepsilon \right ) \right ] \; .
514: % (27)
515: \end{eqnarray}
516: Three neutrino mixing angles are $\theta_{12}^{} = \arctan
517: [(|Z_{2}^{}| \sqrt{|Z_{1}^{}|^2 + 2})/(|Z_{1}^{}|
518: \sqrt{|Z_{2}^{}|^2 + 2}) ]$, $\theta_{23}^{} = 45^{\circ}$ and
519: $\theta^{}_{13} =0^\circ$. Because of $m^{}_3 =0$, only the
520: difference between $\rho$ and $\sigma$ is a physical Majorana
521: CP-violating phase. If $x$ is real, then there will be no CP
522: violation and Eq. (24) will be simplified to Eq. (15).
523:
524: \subsection{Leptogenesis}
525:
526: The lepton-number-violating and CP-violating decay of $N$ into a
527: lepton $l^{}_\alpha$ (for $\alpha = e, \mu, \tau$) and a Higgs
528: boson $H^{\rm c}$ can occur through both tree-level and one-loop
529: Feynman diagrams. The latter is indeed the one-loop vertex
530: correction mediated by the $SU(2)^{}_L$ triplet $\Delta^{}_L$ in
531: the minimal Type-II seesaw model \cite{Gu}, because the one-loop
532: vertex correction mediated by $N$ itself is CP-conserving (so is
533: the self-energy diagram of $N$ decays). As a result, the
534: CP-violating asymmetry between $N\rightarrow l^{}_\alpha + H^{\rm
535: c}$ and its CP-conjugate process $N\rightarrow l^{\rm c}_\alpha +
536: H$ arises from the interference between the tree-level amplitude
537: and the $\Delta^{}_L$-induced vertex correction. For each lepton
538: flavor $\alpha$, the corresponding CP-violating asymmetry is given
539: by \cite{Antusch}
540: \begin{eqnarray}
541: \epsilon^{}_{\alpha} & \equiv & \frac{\Gamma (N \rightarrow
542: l^{}_\alpha + H^{\rm c}) - \Gamma (N \rightarrow l^{\rm c}_\alpha
543: + H)}{\displaystyle \sum_\alpha \left[\Gamma (N \rightarrow
544: l^{}_\alpha + H^{\rm c}) + \Gamma (N \rightarrow
545: l^{\rm c}_\alpha + H)\right]} \nonumber \\
546: & \simeq & \frac{3 M}{16 \pi v^2} \cdot \frac{\displaystyle
547: \sum^{}_{\alpha, \beta} {\rm Im} \left [ \left(M_{D}^{*}
548: \right)_{\alpha 1}^{} \left(M_{D}^{*} \right)_{\beta 1}^{} \left(
549: M_{L}^{} \right)_{\alpha\beta}^{} \right ]}{\left( M_{D}^{\dagger}
550: M_{D}^{} \right)_{11}} \; ,
551: % (28)
552: \end{eqnarray}
553: where $v \equiv \langle H\rangle \simeq 174$ GeV, and $M$ is the
554: mass of $N$. Taking account of $M^{}_L = M^{(0)}_\nu$ given in Eq.
555: (11) and $M^{}_D$ given in Eq. (21), we explicitly obtain
556: \begin{equation}
557: \epsilon_{e}^{} \; = \; - \frac{3 M c}{8 \pi v^2} \cdot \frac{{\rm
558: Im} \left [ \left(x_{}^{*} \right)^2 \right ]}{2 + |x|^2} \; ,
559: ~~~~ \epsilon_{\mu}^{} \; = \; \epsilon_{\tau}^{} \; = \; 0 \; .
560: % (29)
561: \end{equation}
562: The overall CP-violating asymmetry turns out to be $\epsilon =
563: \epsilon^{}_e + \epsilon^{}_\mu + \epsilon^{}_\tau =
564: \epsilon^{}_e$. This interesting result implies that only the
565: electron flavor contributes to leptogenesis in our model. To be
566: more specific, we assume that $M$ lies in the region $10^9 ~ {\rm
567: GeV} \leq M \leq 10^{12} ~ {\rm GeV}$, in which only the
568: $\tau$-lepton Yukawa coupling is in equilibrium \cite{Flavor}. The
569: flavor-dependents effects are therefore relevant to thermal
570: leptogenesis.
571:
572: The CP-violating asymmetry $\epsilon = \epsilon^{}_e$ can give
573: rise to a net lepton number asymmetry in the Universe, and this
574: lepton number asymmetry can partially be converted into a net
575: baryon number asymmetry due to non-perturbative sphaleron
576: interactions \cite{Flavor}
577: \begin{eqnarray}
578: \eta_B^{} \; \simeq \; -0.96 \times 10^{-2} \sum^{}_\alpha
579: \epsilon^{}_\alpha \kappa^{}_\alpha \; =\; -0.96 \times 10^{-2}
580: \epsilon^{}_e \kappa^{}_e \; ,
581: % (30)
582: \end{eqnarray}
583: where the efficiency factors $\kappa^{}_\alpha$ (for $\alpha = e,
584: \mu, \tau$) measure the flavor-dependent washout effects
585: associated with the out-of-equilibrium decays of $N$. To evaluate
586: the size of $\kappa^{}_e$ in Eq. (30), one may introduce a
587: parameter $K^{}_e = P^{}_e K$, where $P^{}_e \equiv
588: |(M^{}_D)^{}_{e1}|^2/(M^\dagger_D M^{}_D)^{}_{11}$ and $K =
589: \tilde{m}/m^{}_*$ with $\tilde{m} \equiv (M^\dagger_D
590: M^{}_D)^{}_{11}/M$ being the effective neutrino mass and $m^{}_*
591: \simeq 1.08 \times 10^{-3} ~ {\rm eV}$ being the equilibrium
592: neutrino mass \cite{BBP}. Explicitly, $P^{}_e = |x|^2/(2+|x|^2)$
593: and $\tilde{m} = c \varepsilon (2 + |x|^2)$ hold. Since the
594: relationship between $\kappa^{}_e$ and $K^{}_e$ is rather
595: complicated, we do not write it out here but refer the reader to
596: Ref. \cite{Flavor} for details. We just mention that a numerical
597: analysis yields $K^{}_e \simeq (0.17 \cdots 1.3)$ and $\kappa^{}_e
598: \simeq (0.467\cdots 0.64)$ in our model. Hence $\epsilon^{}_e$
599: should be of ${\cal O}(10^{-7})$ and have a minus sign, in order
600: to correctly reproduce $\eta^{}_B \sim 6 \times 10^{-10}$.
601:
602: Let us count the number of free parameters relevant to neutrino
603: masses, flavor mixing and leptogenesis. They are $c$,
604: $\varepsilon$, $|x|$, $\arg (x)$ and $M$. On the other hand, we
605: have four observable quantities $m^{}_1$, $m^{}_2$,
606: $\theta^{}_{12}$ and $\eta^{}_B$ which depend on the magnitudes of
607: those five parameters. Although five free parameters cannot be
608: fully determined from four measured quantities, it is possible to
609: constrain the former by using the latter. We shall carry out a
610: numerical calculation and illustrate the viable parameter space of
611: this minimal Type-II seesaw model in the next subsection.
612:
613: \subsection{Numerical results}
614:
615: Given $m^{}_3 =0$, $\theta^{}_{23} = 45^\circ$ and $\theta^{}_{13}
616: = 0^\circ$ in our model, the inputs of our numerical calculation
617: include $\Delta m^2_{21} = (7.2 \cdots 8.9) \times 10^{-5} ~{\rm
618: eV}^2$, $\Delta m^2_{32} = -(2.1 \cdots 3.1) \times 10^{-3} ~{\rm
619: eV}^2$, $\theta^{}_{12} = (30^\circ \cdots 38^\circ)$
620: \cite{Vissani} and $\eta^{}_B = (5.9 \cdots 6.3) \times 10^{-10}$
621: \cite{WMAP}. Since $|x|$ is expected to be of ${\cal O}(1)$, we
622: typically take $|x| \leq 3$ as a reasonable upper limit. Then it
623: is straightforward to obtain the allowed ranges of $c$,
624: $\varepsilon$, $|x|$, $\arg (x)$ and $M$ with the help of those
625: analytical expressions given in Eqs. (22)--(30). We demonstrate
626: that this minimal Type-II seesaw model can simultaneously account
627: for current neutrino oscillation data and the cosmological baryon
628: number asymmetry. Some results and discussions are in order.
629: \begin{itemize}
630: \item First of all, we find that $c$ gradually ranges
631: between $2.0 \times 10^{-2} ~ {\rm eV}$ and $2.85 \times 10^{-2} ~
632: {\rm eV}$. There exist a lower bound on $|x|$ and an upper bound
633: on $\varepsilon$; namely, $|x|^{}_{\rm min} \simeq 0.82$ and
634: $\varepsilon^{}_{\rm max} \simeq 1.9 \times 10^{-2}$. The
635: correlated parameter space of $|x|$ and $\varepsilon$ is shown in
636: FIG. 1, from which one can get a number of nearly tri-bimaximal
637: neutrino mixing patterns.
638:
639: \item FIG. 2 illustrates the correlated parameter space of
640: $M$ and $\arg (x)$, which can roughly be understood if one takes
641: into account $\epsilon^{}_e \propto M \sin [ 2\arg (x)]$ as
642: indicated in Eq. (29). Neglecting the influence of $|x|$ on
643: $\epsilon^{}_e$, we find that the lower bound on $M$ comes out
644: around $\arg (x) \sim 45^\circ$ (or equivalently, $\sin [ 2\arg
645: (x)] \sim 1$): $M^{}_{\rm min} \simeq 1.3 \times 10^9$ GeV. When
646: $\arg (x)$ approaches zero, $M$ has to approach infinity in order
647: to assure $\epsilon^{}_e \sim {\cal O}(10^{-7})$. In our model
648: with $|x| \sim {\cal O}(1)$, the favored range of $M$ is actually
649: between $10^9$ GeV and $10^{11}$ GeV.
650:
651: \item Note that $|x| =1$ is a particularly interesting
652: possibility, corresponding to $c \simeq (2.0 \cdots 2.8) \times
653: 10^{-2}$ eV, $\varepsilon \simeq (0.76 \cdots 1.75) \times
654: 10^{-2}$, $\arg (x) \simeq (0.152^\circ \cdots 28.7^\circ)$ and $M
655: \simeq (4.2 \cdots 1000) \times 10^9$ GeV. In this special case,
656: the model is simplified to a unique version which only contains
657: four free parameters and they can all be determined from the
658: experimental values of $m^{}_1$, $m^{}_2$, $\theta^{}_{12}$ and
659: $\eta^{}_B$. More accurate data will impose much narrower
660: constraints on the model parameters $c$, $\varepsilon$, $\arg (x)$
661: and $M$.
662: \end{itemize}
663: Finally, it is worthwhile to point out that our neutrino mixing
664: pattern is stable against radiative corrections. Running from the
665: seesaw scale $\mu = M$ down to the electroweak scale $\mu = v$,
666: $m_{3}^{} =0$ keeps unchanged while other two neutrino masses and
667: three mixing angles can only receive tiny corrections in the
668: standard model \cite{RGE}. Although the so-called Dirac
669: CP-violating phase $\delta$ can be generated together with
670: $\theta^{}_{13}$ from radiative corrections \cite{Luo}, the
671: resultant CP-violating effect in neutrino oscillations
672: (characterized by the Jarlskog invariant of ${\cal O}(10^{-7})$ or
673: smaller in this model) is too small to be observable.
674:
675: \section{Summary}
676:
677: In summary, we have proposed a new category of neutrino mass
678: ans${\rm\ddot{a}}$tze by starting from a combination of two
679: phenomenological observations: (1) the lightest neutrino mass
680: might be zero or vanishingly small, and (2) the neutrino mixing
681: matrix might be the tri-bimaximal mixing pattern or a pattern
682: close to it. We have shown that a realistic neutrino mass matrix
683: $M^{}_\nu$ can be established either in the limit of $m^{}_1 =
684: m^{}_2 =0$ and $m^{}_3 \neq 0$ or in the limit of $m^{}_1 = m^{}_2
685: \neq 0$ and $m^{}_3 =0$, corresponding to the possibility of
686: $m^{}_1 =0$ or $m^{}_3 =0$. In both cases, it is possible to
687: introduce a particular perturbation which ensures the resultant
688: neutrino mixing matrix to be the tri-bimaximal mixing pattern or
689: its viable variations with all entries being formed from small
690: integers and their square roots. We have incorporated the texture
691: of $M^{}_\nu$ in the minimal Type-II seesaw model with only one
692: heavy right-handed Majorana neutrino $N$ in addition to the
693: $SU(2)^{}_L$ Higgs triplet $\Delta^{}_L$. The $m^{}_3 =0$ case has
694: been discussed in detail to accommodate CP violation in the
695: lepton-number-violating decays of $N$. We have demonstrated that
696: our model can simultaneously interpret current neutrino
697: oscillation data and the cosmological baryon number asymmetry via
698: thermal leptogenesis, in which only the electron flavor plays a
699: role in the lepton-to-baryon conversion.
700:
701: Finally let us remark that both the neutrino mass spectrum and the
702: flavor mixing angles are well fixed in the proposed model. It is
703: therefore easy to test them in the near future, when more accurate
704: experimental data are available.
705:
706: \vspace{0.5cm}
707:
708: {\it Acknowledgments:} This work was supported by the NUS research
709: grant No WBS: R-144-000-178-112 (A.H.C.) and by the National
710: Natural Science Foundation of China (Z.Z.X.). Z.Z.X. is indebted
711: to A.H. Chan and C.H. Oh for warm hospitality at the NUS. S.L. and
712: Z.Z.X. are grateful to S. Zhou for useful discussions.
713:
714: \newpage
715:
716: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
717: \bibitem{SNO} SNO Collaboration, Q.R. Ahmad {\it et al.},
718: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 89}, 011301 (2002).
719:
720: \bibitem{SK} For a review, see: C.K. Jung {\it et al.},
721: Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. {\bf 51}, 451 (2001).
722:
723: \bibitem{KM} KamLAND Collaboration, K. Eguchi {\it et al.},
724: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 90}, 021802 (2003); CHOOZ Collaboration, M.
725: Apollonio {\it et al.}, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 420}, 397 (1998); Palo
726: Verde Collaboration, F. Boehm {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf
727: 84}, 3764 (2000).
728:
729: \bibitem{K2K} K2K Collaboration, M.H. Ahn {\it et al.},
730: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 90}, 041801 (2003).
731:
732: \bibitem{FX01} H. Fritzsch and Z.Z. Xing,
733: Phys. Lett. B {\bf 517}, 363 (2001); Z.Z. Xing, Int. J. Mod. Phys.
734: A {\bf 19}, 1 (2004).
735:
736: \bibitem{Vissani} A. Strumia and F. Vissani, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf
737: 726}, 294 (2005); hep-ph/0606054.
738:
739: \bibitem{MSM} P. Frampton, S.L. Glashow, and T. Yanagida, Phys.
740: Lett. B {\bf 548}, 119 (2002). For a recent review with extensive
741: references, see: W.L. Guo, Z.Z. Xing, and S. Zhou, Int. J. Mod.
742: Phys. E {\bf 16}, 1 (2007).
743:
744: \bibitem{HPS} P.F. Harrison, D.H. Perkins, and W.G. Scott, Phys.
745: Lett. B {\bf 530}, 167 (2002); Z.Z. Xing, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 533},
746: 85 (2002); P.F. Harrison and W.G. Scott, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 535},
747: 163 (2002); X.G. He and A. Zee, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 560}, 87
748: (2003).
749:
750: \bibitem{MSW} S.P. Mikheyev and A.Yu. Smirnov, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys.
751: {\bf 42}, 913 (1985); L. Wolfenstein, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 17}, 2369
752: (1978).
753:
754: \bibitem{A4} See, e.g., E. Ma, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 70}, 031901 (2004);
755: New J. Phys. {\bf 6}, 104 (2004); G. Altarelli and F. Feruglio,
756: Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 720}, 64 (2005); Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 741}, 215
757: (2006); hep-ph/0610165; K.S. Babu and X.G. He, hep-ph/0507217; A.
758: Zee, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 630}, 58 (2005); X.G. He, Y.Y. Keum, and
759: R.R. Volkas, JHEP {\bf 0604}, 039 (2006); E. Ma, H. Sawanaka, and
760: M. Tanimoto, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 641}, 301 (2006); Y. Koide,
761: hep-ph/0701018; F. Feruglio, C. Hagedorn, Y. Lin, and L. Merlo,
762: hep-ph/0702194.
763:
764: \bibitem{S3} See, e.g., P.F. Harrison and W.G. Scott, Phys. Lett.
765: B {\bf 557}, 76 (2003); W. Grimus and L. Lavoura, JHEP {\bf 0508},
766: 013 (2005); J.E. Kim and J.C. Park, JHEP {\bf 0605}, 017 (2006);
767: R.N. Mohapatra, S. Nasri, and H.B. Yu, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 639},
768: 318 (2006); N. Haba, A. Watanabe, and K. Yoshioka, Phys. Rev.
769: Lett. {\bf 97}, 041601 (2006); Y. Koide, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 73},
770: 057901 (2006); hep-ph/0605074; hep-ph/0612058; S. Kaneko, H.
771: Sawanaka, T. Shingai, M. Tanimoto, and K. Yoshioka, Prog. Theor.
772: Phys. {\bf 117}, 161 (2007).
773:
774: \bibitem{MT} See, e.g.,
775: T. Fukuyama and H. Nishiura, hep-ph/9702253; R.N. Mohapatra and S.
776: Nussinov, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 60}, 013002 (1999); Z.Z. Xing, Phys.
777: Rev. D {\bf 61}, 057301 (2000); Phys. Rev. D {\bf 64}, 093013
778: (2001); E. Ma and M. Raidal, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 87}, 011802
779: (2001); C.S. Lam, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 507}, 214 (2001); P.F.
780: Harrison and W.G. Scott, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 547}, 219 (2002); T.
781: Ohlsson and G. Seidl, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 643}, 247 (2002); T.
782: Kitabayashi and M. Yasu\`{e}, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 67}, 015006
783: (2003); W. Grimus and L. Lavoura, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 572}, 189
784: (2003); J. Phys. G {\bf 30}, 73 (2004); Y. Koide, Phys. Rev. D
785: {\bf 69}, 093001 (2004); R.N. Mohapatra, JHEP {\bf 0410}, 027
786: (2004); A. de Gouvea, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 69}, 093007 (2004); A.
787: Ghosal, Mod. Phys. Lett A {\bf 19}, 2579 (2004); W. Grimus, A.S.
788: Joshipura, S. Kaneko, L. Lavoura, H. Sawanaka, and M. Tanimoto,
789: Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 713}, 151 (2005); R.N. Mohapatra and W.
790: Rodejohann, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 72}, 053001 (2005); T. Kitabayashi
791: and M. Yasu\`{e}, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 621}, 133 (2005); R.N.
792: Mohapatra, S. Nasri, and H.B. Yu, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 615}, 231
793: (2005); F. Plentinger and W. Rodejohann, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 625},
794: 264 (2005); I. Aizawa, T. Kitabayashi, and M. Yasu\`{e}, Nucl.
795: Phys. B {\bf 728}, 220 (2005); K. Matsuda and H. Nishiura, Phys.
796: Rev. D {\bf 73}, 013008 (2006); Y.H. Ahn, S.K. Kang, C.S. Kim, and
797: J. Lee, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 73}, 093005 (2006); R.N. Mohapatra, S.
798: Nasri, and H.B. Yu, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 636}, 114 (2006); Z.Z.
799: Xing, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 74}, 013010 (2006); K. Fuki and M. Yasue,
800: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 73}, 055014 (2006). R. Friedberg and T.D. Lee,
801: HEP$\&$NP {\bf 30}, 591 (2006); Z.Z. Xing, H. Zhang, and S. Zhou,
802: Phys. Lett. B {\bf 641}, 189 (2006); S. Luo and Z.Z. Xing, Phys.
803: Lett. B {\bf 646}, 242 (2007); Z.Z. Xing, hep-ph/0703007; Y.H.
804: Ahn, S.K. Kang, C.S. Kim, and J. Lee, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 75},
805: 013012 (2007).
806:
807: \bibitem{Gu} P.H. Gu, H. Zhang, and S. Zhou, Phys. Rev. D {\bf
808: 74}, 076002 (2006).
809:
810: \bibitem{FY} M. Fukugita and T. Yanagida, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 174},
811: 45 (1986).
812:
813: \bibitem{Flavor} R. Barbieri, P. Creminelli, A. Strumia, and N.
814: Tetradis, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 575}, 61 (2000); T. Endoh, T.
815: Morozumi, and Z.H. Xiong, Prog. Theor. Phys. {\bf 111}, 123
816: (2004); T. Fujihara, S. Kaneko, S. Kang, D. Kimura, T. Morozumi,
817: and M. Tanimoto, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 72}, 016006 (2005); A.
818: Pilaftsis and T.E.J. Underwood, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 72}, 113001
819: (2005); O. Vives, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 73}, 073006 (2006); A. Abada,
820: S. Davidson, F.X. Josse-Michaux, M. Losada, and A. Riotto, JCAP
821: {\bf 0604}, 004 (2006); E. Nardi, Y. Nir, E. Roulet, and J.
822: Racker, JHEP {\bf 0601}, 164 (2006); A. Abada, S. Davidson, F.X.
823: Josse-Michaux, M. Losada, and A. Riotto, hep-ph/0605281; Z.Z. Xing
824: and S. Zhou, hep-ph/0607302; S. Blanchet and P. Di Bari, JCAP {\bf
825: 0606}, 023 (2006); S. Antusch, S.F. King, and A. Riotto, JCAP {\bf
826: 0611}, 011 (2006); S. Pascoli, S.T. Petcov, and A. Riotto,
827: hep-ph/0609125; G.C. Branco, R. Gonzalez Felipe, and F.R. Joaquim,
828: Phys. Lett. B {\bf 645}, 432 (2007); S. Antusch and A.M. Teixeira,
829: JCAP {\bf 0702}, 024 (2007).
830:
831: \bibitem{WMAP} WMAP Collaboration, D.N. Spergel {\it et al.},
832: arXiv:astro-ph/0603449.
833:
834: \bibitem{Xing03} Z.Z. Xing, J. Phys. G {\bf 29}, 2227 (2003);
835: C. Giunti, hep-ph/0209103.
836:
837: \bibitem{SS2} R.N. Mohapatra and G. Senjanovic, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 44}, 912
838: (1980); J. Schechterm and J.W.F. Valle, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 22},
839: 2227 (1980); M. Magg and C. Wetterich, Phys. Lett. B {94}, 61
840: (1980); G. Lazarides, Q. Shafi and C. Wetterich, Nucl. Phys. B
841: {\bf 181}, 287 (1981).
842:
843: \bibitem{FX} H. Fritzsch and Z.Z. Xing, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. {\bf 45}, 1
844: (2000).
845:
846: %\bibitem{Type2} T. Hambye and G. Senjanovic,
847: %Phys. Lett. B {\bf 582}, 73 (2004);
848: %S. Antusch and S.F. King, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 597}, 199 (2004);
849: %P.H. Gu and X.J. Bi, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 70}, 063511 (2004).
850:
851: \bibitem{Antusch} S. Antusch, arXiv:0704.1591 [hep-ph].
852:
853: \bibitem{BBP} W. Buchm${\rm \ddot{u}}$ller, P. Di Bari, and M. Pl${\rm
854: \ddot{u}}$macher, New J. Phys. {\bf 6}, 105 (2004); G.F. Giudice,
855: A. Notari, M. Raidal, A. Riotto, and A. Strumia, Nucl. Phys. B
856: {\bf 685}, 89 (2004).
857:
858: \bibitem{RGE} See, e.g., S. Antusch, J. Kersten, M. Lindner, and M. Ratz,
859: Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 674}, 401 (2003); J.W. Mei and Z.Z. Xing, Phys.
860: Rev. D {\bf 69}, 073003 (2004); S. Luo and Z.Z. Xing, Phys. Lett.
861: B {\bf 632}, 341 (2006).
862:
863: \bibitem{Luo} See, e.g., S. Luo, J.W. Mei, and Z.Z. Xing, Phys.
864: Rev. D {\bf 72}, 053014 (2005).
865: \end{thebibliography}
866:
867: \newpage
868:
869: %%%%%%%%%%%% Fig. 1 %%%%%%%%%%%
870: \begin{figure}
871: \begin{center}
872: \vspace{-0.5cm}
873: \includegraphics[bbllx=2.2cm, bblly=6.0cm, bburx=12.2cm, bbury=16.0cm,%
874: width=7.4cm, height=7.4cm, angle=0, clip=0]{Fig1.ps}
875: \vspace{1.8cm}\caption{Parameter space of $|x|$ and $\varepsilon$
876: constrained by current experimental data on $m^{}_1$, $m^{}_2$,
877: $\theta^{}_{12}$ and $\eta^{}_B$ in the minimal Type-II seesaw
878: model with $m^{}_3 =0$.}
879: \end{center}
880: \label{fig2}
881: \end{figure}
882: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
883:
884: %%%%%%%%%%%% Fig. 2 %%%%%%%%%%
885: \begin{figure}
886: \begin{center}
887: \vspace{-0.5cm}
888: \includegraphics[bbllx=2.2cm, bblly=6.0cm, bburx=12.2cm, bbury=16.0cm,%
889: width=7.4cm, height=7.4cm, angle=0, clip=0]{Fig2.ps}
890: \vspace{1.8cm}\caption{Parameter space of $M$ and $\arg (x)$
891: constrained by current experimental data on $m^{}_1$, $m^{}_2$,
892: $\theta^{}_{12}$ and $\eta^{}_B$ in the minimal Type-II seesaw
893: model with $m^{}_3 =0$.}
894: \end{center}
895: \label{fig3}
896: \end{figure}
897: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
898:
899: \end{document}
900: