1:  

2: \documentstyle[12pt,epsf]{article}

3: \textheight 8.6in

4: \textwidth 6.9in

5: \oddsidemargin -.8cm

6: \topmargin -.4cm

7: 

8: \def\singlespace 

9: {\smallskipamount=3.75pt plus1pt minus1pt

10: \medskipamount=7.5pt plus2pt minus2pt

11: \bigskipamount=15pa plus4pa minus4pt \normalbaselineskip=12pt plus0pt

12: minus0pt \normallineskip=1pt \normallineskiplimit=0pt \jot=3.75pt

13: {\def\smallskip {\vskip\smallskipamount}} {\def\medskip

14: {\vskip\medskipamount}} {\def\bigskip {\vskip\bigskipamount}}

15: {\setbox\strutbox=\hbox{\vrule height10.5pt depth4.5pt width 0pt}}

16: \parskip 7.5pt \normalbaselines} 

17: 

18: \def\middlespace

19: {\smallskipamount=5.625pt plus1.5pt minus1.5pt \medskipamount=11.25pt

20: plus3pt minus3pt \bigskipamount=22.5pt plus6pt minus6pt

21: \normalbaselineskip=22.5pt plus0pt minus0pt \normallineskip=1pt

22: \normallineskiplimit=0pt \jot=5.625pt {\def\smallskip

23: {\vskip\smallskipamount}} {\def\medskip {\vskip\medskipamount}}

24: {\def\bigskip {\vskip\bigskipamount}} {\setbox\strutbox=\hbox{\vrule

25: height15.75pt depth6.75pt width 0pt}} \parskip 11.25pt

26: \normalbaselines} 

27: 

28: \def\doublespace 

29: {\smallskipamount=7.5pt plus2pt minus2pt \medskipamount=15pt plus4pt

30: minus4pt \bigskipamount=30pt plus8pt minus8pt \normalbaselineskip=30pt

31: plus0pt minus0pt

32: \normallineskip=2pt \normallineskiplimit=0pt \jot=7.5pt

33: {\def\smallskip {\vskip\smallskipamount}} {\def\medskip

34: {\vskip\medskipamount}} {\def\bigskip {\vskip\bigskipamount}}

35: {\setbox\strutbox=\hbox{\vrule height21.0pt depth9.0pt width 0pt}}

36: \parskip 15.0pt \normalbaselines}

37: 

38: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{eqnarray}}

39: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{eqnarray}}

40: \newcommand{\etal}{{\it et al.}}

41: 

42: \def\nue{{\nu_e}}

43: \def\anue{{\bar\nu_e}}

44: \def\numu{{\nu_{\mu}}}

45: \def\anumu{{\bar\nu_{\mu}}}

46: \def\nutau{{\nu_{\tau}}}

47: \def\anutau{{\bar\nu_{\tau}}}

48: \def\epsi{\epsilon ~\sin 2 \theta }

49: 

50: 

51: \def\sst{{s_\theta}}

52: \def\ss2t{{s_{2 \theta}}}

53: \def\cct{{c_\theta}}

54: \def\cc2t{{c_{2 \theta}}}

55: 

56: 

57: 

58: \newcommand{\dm}{\mbox{$\Delta{m}^{2}$~}}

59: \newcommand{\st}{\mbox{$\sin^{2}\theta$~}}

60: \newcommand{\br}{\mbox{$^{8}{B}~$}}

61: \newcommand{\ber}{\mbox{$^{7}{Be}$~}}

62: \newcommand{\cl}{\mbox{$^{37}{Cl}$~}}

63: \newcommand{\ga}{\mbox{$^{71}{Ga}$~}}

64: 

65: \newcommand{\memu}{\mbox{$m_{e\mu}$~}}

66: \newcommand{\metau}{\mbox{$m_{e\tau}$~}}

67: \newcommand{\mmutau}{\mbox{$m_{\mu\tau}$~}}

68: 

69: 

70: 

71: \begin{document}

72: \middlespace

73: 

74: \vskip 2cm

75: \begin{flushright} SINP/TNP/01-25\\

76: \underbar{Accepted in Physics Letters B}

77: \end{flushright}

78: \begin{center}

79: \Large {\bf Viability of bimaximal solution of the Zee mass matrix} \\ 

80: \vskip 1cm Biswajoy Brahmachari 

81: \footnote{{\tt electronic address:biswajoy@theory.saha.ernet.in}}

82: and Sandhya Choubey 

83: \footnote{{\tt electronic address:sandhya@theory.saha.ernet.in}}\\

84: \end{center}

85: \begin{center}

86: Theoretical Physics Group\\

87: Saha Institute of Nuclear Physics\\

88: 1/AF Bidhannagar, Kolkata-700064, India

89: \\

90: 

91: \end{center}

92: \vskip 2cm 

93: {

94: %\singlespace

95: \begin{center}

96: \underbar{Abstract} \\

97: \end{center}

98: 

99: We know $L_e-L_\mu-L_\tau$ symmetry gives $m^2_1= m^2_2 >> m^2_3$ 

100: pattern in Zee model.  $\Delta m^2_\odot$ emerges from a small breaking

101: of this symmetry. Because this symmetry is broken very weakly  $\theta_\odot$ 

102: does not deviate much from $\tan^2 \theta_\odot=1$ which is its 

103: value in the symmetric limit. This gives a mismatch with LMA solution 

104: where mixing is large but not exactly maximal. We confront this property of 

105: Zee mass matrix by phenomenologically analyzing recent results from solar 

106: and atmospheric neutrino oscillation experiments at various confidence levels. 

107: We conclude that LOW type solution is compatible with the Zee mass matrix

108: at 99\% confidence level when atmospheric neutrino deficit is explained by 

109: maximal $\nu_\mu \leftrightarrow \nu_\tau$ oscillation. 

110: Thus the minimal version of the Zee model even though disfavored by the 

111: LMA type or VO type solutions, is compatible with LOW type solution of 

112: solar neutrino problem. 

113: 

114: \newpage

115: 

116: The neutrino mass matrix under the Zee ansatz \cite{zee} can be written in the 

117: flavor basis as 

118: \be

119: {\cal M} &=& {\pmatrix {0 & \memu & \metau \cr

120:                      \memu & 0   & \mmutau \cr

121:                      \metau & \mmutau & 0 \cr}}

122: \label{zee}

123: \ee

124: where

125: \be

126: m_{\alpha\beta} &=& (1/M)~f_{\alpha\beta}(m_{\beta}^2 - m_{\alpha}^2)\frac{

127: v_2}{v_1}

128: \ee

129: where $m_\alpha$ $(\alpha=e,\mu,\tau)$ are the masses of the charged leptons 

130: and $v_{1(2)}$ is the VEV of the neutral component of the two Higgs 

131: doublets $\Phi_{1(2)}$ required to complete the 

132: coupling $\Phi_1 \Phi_2 \chi$ where $\chi$ is the Zee

133: singlet which also couples to lepton doublets

134: via $f_{\alpha \beta} L_\alpha L_\beta \chi$ and $M$ is a 

135: mass parameter. The mass matrix (\ref{zee}) 

136: is symmetric because of its Majorana nature, off-dioganal because of the 

137: antisymmetry in $f_{\alpha \beta}$ and is real in three generations. 

138: There are two variations obtained from Eqn. (\ref{zee}). The first

139: one is due to Smirnov et. al. \cite{smirnov}. In this case one of the mass

140: squared difference is compatible with LSND data and the 

141: atmospheric neutrino problem is explained by maximal

142: $\nu_\mu \leftrightarrow \nu_\tau$

143: oscillations. As the mass of $\nu_\mu$ and $\nu_\tau$ lies in the

144: 1 eV range they can form hot component of dark matter.

145: The second variation is of our interest \cite{jarlskog}. In this case

146: maximal $\nu_e \leftrightarrow \nu_\mu$ oscillation

147: leads to the solar neutrino deficit whereas maximal

148: $\nu_\mu \leftrightarrow \nu_\tau$ oscillations

149: lead to atmospheric neutrino deficit. It can be easily

150: seen that an approximate $L_e - L_\mu -L_\tau$ symmetry 

151: \cite{petcov} imposed

152: on the matrix in Eqn. (\ref{zee}) achieves the

153: goal \cite{jarlskog, frampton}. A large number of studies of the

154: Zee model exists in literature \cite{newpapers}.  

155:  

156: Even though the solar neutrino problem is best explained by invoking large 

157: mixing angles for the neutrinos, maximal mixing is 

158: disfavored in the LMA region. Hence Zee model runs into trouble 

159: since it predicts almost maximal mixing for the solar neutrinos

160: even if we allow for modest breaking of the $L_e-L_\mu-L_\tau$

161: symmetry to generate correctly 

162: the mass splittings 

163: $\Delta m^2_\odot$

164: needed for the depletion of

165: the solar neutrino flux. 

166: Now let us give some recent studies of Zee model

167: which will highlight the significance of this paper.

168: In Ref \cite{koide} it has been argued that Zee model

169: is in poor agreement with experimental data and thus

170: modifications of Zee model is necessary and some promising

171: modifications are also suggested. In Ref \cite{frampton1} it has

172: been argued that Zee model predicts maximal mixing solution

173: of the solar neutrino problem which is incompatible with

174: experimental data and two extensions of Zee model are proposed

175: which can accommodate the data. In this paper we take a closer look at

176: various regions where  large or maximal mixing solution of the solar

177: neutrino problem are allowed and confirm whether we need to go beyond the

178: minimal Zee model to accommodate present experimental data. The philosophy

179: behind our approach is that because Zee model is

180: very rich in physics and also quite predictive,

181: modification of the minimal version may become less

182: attractive. To do that we separately analyze the predictions 

183: of the Zee model in  three zones where large mixing angles 

184: are allowed from the solar neutrino problem.  They

185: are the large mixing angle (LMA) region with $\Delta m_{\odot}^2$ around

186: $5 \times 10^{-5}$ $eV^2$, the low $\Delta m^2$ (LOW) 

187: region with $\Delta m_{\odot}^2$

188: around $1 \times 10^{-7}$ $eV^2$ and the vacuum oscillation 

189: (VO) region with $\Delta m_{\odot}^2$ around $5 \times 10^{-10}$ $eV^2$. 

190: We will compare the prediction of the Zee model with the data in 

191: these three zones at various confidence levels and check the 

192: viability of the model. We will observe that the minimal Zee model is 

193: consistent with the experimental data at 99\% C.L.  

194: in the LOW region. 

195: 

196: We can re-express (\ref{zee}) in terms of parameters $m_0$, $\theta$ and 

197: $\epsilon$ 

198: %where, 

199: in such a way that $m_0\sin\theta = {\cal M}_{e\mu}$, 

200: $m_0\cos\theta= {\cal M}_{e\tau}$ 

201: and $m_0\epsilon = {\cal M}_{\mu\tau}$. Then we get 

202: \begin{equation}

203: \tan\theta = \frac{f_{e\mu}}{f_{e\tau}}

204: \left(\frac{m_\mu^2}{m_\tau^2}\right)~~;~~

205: \epsilon = \frac{f_{\mu\tau}}{f_{e\tau}}\cos\theta

206: %~~;~~

207: %m_0 = M~({v_1 \over v_2})

208: \end{equation}

209: The mass matrix then assumes the form,

210: \be

211: {\cal M} &=& m_0 {\pmatrix {0 & \sin\theta & \cos\theta \cr

212:                      \sin\theta & 0   & \epsilon \cr

213:                      \cos\theta & \epsilon & 0 \cr}}

214: \label{mass}

215: \ee

216: We will assume that the strengths of the coupling constants are 

217: such that $\epsilon \rightarrow 0$. Then we have a 

218: $L_e-L_\mu-L_\tau$ symmetry which is broken via

219: $M^\prime$ in the following notation, 

220: \be

221: {\cal M} &=&  m_0~{\pmatrix {0 & \sin\theta & \cos\theta \cr

222:                      \sin\theta & 0   & 0 \cr

223:                      \cos\theta & 0 & 0 \cr}} + 

224:                m_0~{\pmatrix {0 & 0 & 0 \cr

225:                     0  & 0   & \epsilon \cr

226:                      0 & \epsilon & 0 \cr}}  \\

227: &=& M_0 + M^\prime

228: \label{splitmass}

229: \ee

230: Now we can handle the diagonalization of the mass matrix (\ref{splitmass}) 

231: perturbatively, treating the $\epsilon$ as a small perturbation over 

232: $\theta$. With $\epsilon$ exactly zero the mass eigenvalues are 

233: \be

234: m^2_{1,2} = m_0^2~~;~~m^2_3=0,

235: \ee

236: while the mixing matrix which diagonalises $M_0$ is given by

237: \be

238: U = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}{\pmatrix {-1 & 1 & 0 \cr

239:                \sin\theta  & \sin\theta & \sqrt{2}\cos\theta \cr

240:                \cos\theta  & \cos\theta & -\sqrt{2}\sin\theta\cr}}

241: \label{unpermix}

242: \ee

243: We next impose the $\epsilon$ correction perturbatively and consider 

244: the first order corrections to the mass eigenvalues and the 

245: mixing matrix. The degeneracy between the $\nu_1$ and $\nu_2$ 

246: states are broken by the introduction of $\epsilon$ and the 

247: neutrino masses become,

248: \be

249: m_3 = -m_0\epsilon\sin 2\theta,~~m_{1,2} = m_0(\pm1+\frac{1}{2} \epsilon\sin 2\theta)

250: \label{m123}

251: \ee

252: So that the mass square differences become

253: \be

254: \Delta m_{13}^2 &\approx& \Delta m_{23}^2 = \Delta m_{atm}^2=m_0^2,\\ 

255: \Delta m_{12}^2 &=& \Delta m_{\odot}^2 = 2m_0^2\epsilon \sin 2\theta

256: \label{delmsq}

257: \ee

258: We define $s_x=\sin(x)$ and $c_x=\cos(x)$. The mixing matrix with 

259: the first order 

260: corrections assumes the form

261: \be

262: U = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}

263: {\pmatrix {

264: -1-\epsilon~ \ss2t/4

265: & 1- \epsilon~ \ss2t/4

266: & -\sqrt{2} \epsilon~ \cc2t \cr

267: \sst - \epsilon ~\sst \ss2t/4 - \epsilon ~\cct \cc2t

268: &

269: \sst + \epsilon ~\sst \ss2t/4 + \epsilon ~\cct \cc2t

270: & \sqrt{2} \cct \cr

271: \cct - \epsilon~ \cct \ss2t/4 + \epsilon ~\sst \cc2t

272: &

273: \cct + \epsilon ~\cct \ss2t/4 - \epsilon ~\sst \cc2t

274: & -\sqrt{2} \sst

275: }}

276: \label{permix}

277: \ee

278: At this stage the predictability of Zee model is clear.  For a given 

279: $\Delta m_{atm}^2$ and $\sin2\theta_{atm}$ (from the form 

280: of the mixing matrix (\ref{permix}) we see 

281: that $\theta\equiv \theta_{atm}$) and

282: for a given value of $\Delta m_{\odot}^2$ allowed by experimental data

283: at a certain confidence level, we can calculate the value of $\epsilon$

284: (See Fig \ref{fig1}).

285: Then using $\epsilon$ we can calculate three quantities from the 

286: Zee mass matrix, $\tan^2 \theta_\odot$, $\tan^2 \theta_{13}$ and 

287: $\Delta m^2_{13}$ and test the compatibility of Zee mass matrix with 

288: experimental data at that confidence level. This is what we propose to 

289: do in this paper. 

290: 

291: We begin by observing that the $\Delta m^2_{13}$ in this 

292: mass model is in the sensitivity range of the CHOOZ reactor 

293: experiment \cite{chooz}. If we use the standard Maki-Nakagawa-Sakata(MNS) 

294: form\cite{mns} for the 

295: mixing matrix then we can identify the element $U_{e3}$ with the 

296: mixing angle $\sin \theta_{13}$ which is the relevant angle for 

297: the CHOOZ experiment. 

298: %Since $U_{e3}$ is zero (cf. Eq. (\ref{permix})) 

299: %the bimaximal solution of Zee model is seen to be consistent with 

300: %the CHOOZ experiment. 

301: Since $\sin \theta_{13}=\epsilon\cos 2\theta$ we get $\sin \theta_{13} < 0.07$ 

302: or in other words $\tan^2\theta_{13}<0.005$ 

303: from the allowed values of $\theta$ and $\epsilon$ which is well within 

304: the CHOOZ bound \cite{chooz}. 

305: Thus the bimaximal solution of Zee model is seen to be consistent with 

306: the CHOOZ experiment.

307:  

308: 

309: 

310: We next examine the range of values for $\Delta m_{atm}^2$ 

311: and $\sin^22\theta_{atm}$ allowed at both at 90\% and 99\% C.L. 

312: from the analysis of

313: the latest SK atmospheric neutrino data \cite{flatm} and find the

314: corresponding range of $\epsilon$ for $\Delta m_{\odot}^2$ in the solar

315: range at 90\% and 99\% levels. This can be done using

316: Eqn. (\ref{delmsq}). We show this range of $\epsilon$ as a

317: function of $\Delta m_{\odot}^2$ in fig. \ref{fig1} only at 99\% C.L.. In the 

318: left hand panel we show the range of $\epsilon$ required to generate the 

319: $\Delta

320: m_{\odot}^2$ splitting in the LMA region while the right hand panel gives

321: the corresponding splitting in the LOW region. The range of $\Delta

322: m_{\odot}^2$ shown are allowed at 99\% C.L. from the global

323: analysis of the most recent analysis of the solar data including SNO

324: \cite{bcgk}. We note that while our approximation of treating $\epsilon$

325: perturbatively is correct in the LOW region of the solar neutrino solution

326: it may not be fully justified for the higher $\Delta m_{\odot}^2$ allowed

327: in the LMA zone as the value of $\epsilon$ is quite large. 

328: Let us next look at the values of the solar mixing angle predicted 

329: by the allowed range of $\epsilon$ shown in fig. \ref{fig1}.

330: This can be done using Eqn. (\ref{permix}) where $U_{e2}$ element

331: depends on $\epsilon$ when we turn on our $L_e - L_\mu -L_\tau$

332: breaking perturbation. 

333: %Since the matrix element $U_{e3}$ of the mixing matrix 

334: %does not get any corrections due to $\epsilon$ and is still zero, 

335: We can identify 

336: $\cos\theta_{\odot}\cos\theta_{13} = U_{e1}$ and 

337: $\sin\theta_{\odot}\cos\theta_{13} = U_{e2}$. 

338: In fig. \ref{fig2} the red horizontal bars show the 

339: range of values for the predicted solar mixing angle 

340: inputing

341: mass and

342: mixing required to explain the SK atmospheric neutrino data at 99\%

343: C.L. plus necessary $\epsilon$ required for the solar neutrino

344: problem at 99\% C.L.. 

345: Dotted lines are the allowed areas in the 

346: $\Delta m_{\odot}^2- \tan^2\theta_{\odot}$ plane at 99\% C.L. 

347: from global analysis of solar neutrino data including 

348: SNO \cite{bcgk}. The figure clearly shows that in the LMA zone 

349: there is no overlap between the values

350: of $\Delta m_{\odot}^2$ and $\tan^2\theta_{\odot}$ predicted by the Zee

351: model and those that are allowed by the current data at 99\% C.L.. In the

352: LOW region however the Zee model is found to be consistent with the

353: experiments at 99\% C.L. in the analysis of \cite{bcgk}. 

354: We see that the allowed areas in the 

355: VO region of \cite{bcgk} is also in conflict 

356: with bimaximal solution of the Zee model. 

357: Thus we infer it to be an interesting

358: hint of new physics of Zee type which can produce the

359: LOW solution but cannot produce LMA or VO solutions

360: for the solar neutrino problem and simultaneously

361: can produce maximal $\nu_\mu \leftrightarrow \nu_\tau$

362: mixing to produce the atmospheric neutrino oscillations.

363: In fig. \ref{fig2} dashed lines are the 99\% C.L. allowed areas 

364: obtained by Bahcall {\it et al.} in \cite{bcc} (the contours shown 

365: have been read\footnote{For exact 

366: values the reader should refer to \cite{bcc}.} 

367: from the fig. 1 of \cite{bcc}). 

368: However in \cite{bcc} Bahcall {\it et al.} use 

369: a different data analysis technique than that used in \cite{bcgk,others}.

370: It is clear that Zee model is consistent with the analysis 

371: of \cite{bcc} at 99\% C.L. not only in the LOW solution but also 

372: in the LMA region. In fact if one looks at the fig. 1 

373: of \cite{bcc}, LOW is compatible 

374: with Zee model at the 90\% C.L.. So we see that

375: the compatibility of Zee model in the LOW

376: region at 99\% C.L. is actually a conservative estimate. 

377: We notice the same trend in all the different analysis and 

378: conclude that the LOW solution is more consistent with maximal mixing

379: in the light of present data. We emphasize that

380: even though the LMA is the `best-fit' solution from experimental data,

381: the LOW solution can give a comparable description of the 

382: experimental data \cite{bcgk,others,bcc} and this signifies that the 

383: minimal Zee model can give an explanation of the solar 

384: neutrino data when the amount of $L_e - L_\mu - L_\tau$ breaking is

385: such that $\Delta m^2_\odot$ falls in the LOW zone. 

386: 

387: Credibility of bimaximal solution in Zee model depends obviously on the 

388: compatibility of the maximal mixing solution with the solar neutrino 

389: data. The maximal mixing solution is at variance with the global data 

390: mainly due to the fact that the Cl data is about 

391: $2\sigma$ lower compared to the rate predicted for the Cl experiment 

392: by the maximal mixing solution (see fig. 7 of \cite{ggmax} and 

393: fig. 2 of \cite{eind2}). The Ga data 

394: in the LMA region is higher compared to the predicted maximal mixing rate, 

395: though in the LOW region the agreement improves due to earth 

396: matter effects. 

397: The rate expected

398: in the Borexino experiment is $\approx 0.62$ if one has maximal

399: mixing with $\Delta m_{\odot}^2$ in the LMA region, while 

400: for the LOW solution the rate expected is a little higher.

401: Borexino expects to see significant earth

402: regeneration effect in the LOW region, resulting in more events during

403: night than during day. However for the LMA solution there will not 

404: be much day-night asymmetry. 

405: Thus Borexino has good sensitivity in $\Delta m^2_{\odot}$ and 

406: holds the potential to distinguish between the LMA and LOW solutions. 

407: SNO on the other hand is not very sensitive to

408: $\Delta m^2_\odot$

409: since it expects to see almost the same neutrino

410: rate for both the LMA and the LOW regions. However it is very sensitive to

411: the value of the mixing angle $\theta_\odot$. The ratio of charged 

412: to neutral current (CC/NC) events in SNO is the best variable to 

413: look at. In future the entire LMA region will also be scanned 

414: by the KamLand reactor experiment which is expected to

415: observe the actual oscillations.

416: 

417: 

418: In conclusion, Zee model is so predictive because it has only three 

419: real parameters from which one can calculate three masses and three 

420: mixing angles, thus it has three predictions. 

421: Bimaximal mixing solution demands an approximate $L_e - L_\mu -L_\tau$

422: symmetry. Question is how badly this flavor symmetry is broken ?

423: The value of $\Delta m_{\odot}^2$ parameterizes the extent to which 

424: this flavor symmetry is broken. In the light of present data the minimal 

425: version of Zee model is in better agreement with the 

426: LOW solution to the solar neutrino problem than the LMA solution or VO 

427: solution. This is independent of the fact that LMA is the current 

428: best-fit. But since the LOW solution gives an acceptable fit to the 

429: solar data and since the Zee model is consistent with the LOW solution of 

430: solar neutrino problem as well as atmospheric neutrino anomaly, it is at 

431: present a viable model. Furthermore the 13 element of the mixing matrix is

432: fully consistent with CHOOZ experiment. With a wealth of data awaited 

433: from the future solar neutrino experiments and more data awaited from 

434: SNO one may hope to further test the compatibility of bimaximal 

435: solution of Zee model.   

436: 

437: We thank Ambar Ghosal, Yoshio Koide, Ernest Ma and Tadashi Yoshikawa for

438: communications on Zee model. 

439: 

440: \begin{thebibliography}{99}                                                

441: 

442: \bibitem{zee}

443: A. Zee, Phys. Lett. {\bf B93}, 389 (1980); Phys. Lett. {\bf B 161}, 141 (1985);

444: L. Wolfenstein, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B175}, 93 (1980); S. T. Petcov, Phys. Lett. 

445: {\bf B115}, 401 (1982). 

446: 

447: \bibitem{smirnov} 

448: A. Yu. Smirnov and M. Tanimoto, Phys. Rev. {\bf D55}, 1665 (1997)

449: 

450: \bibitem{jarlskog} 

451: C. Jarlskog, M. Matsuda, S. Skadhauge, M. Tanimoto, Phys. Lett. {\bf B449}, 240 (1999)

452: 

453: \bibitem{petcov} S.T. Petcov, Phys. Lett. {\bf B110}, 245 (1982). 

454: 

455: \bibitem{frampton} P. H. Frampton, S. L. Glashow, 

456: Phys. Lett. {\bf B461}, 95 (1999)

457: 

458: 

459: \bibitem{newpapers}

460: E. Mitsuda, K. Sasaki, Phys. Lett. {\bf B516} 47 (2001);

461: A. Ghosal, Y. Koide, H. Fusaoka, Phys. Rev. {\bf D64}, 053012 (2001);

462: K.R.S. Balaji, W. Grimus, T. Schwetz, Phys. Lett. {\bf B508} 301 (2001);

463: Y. Koide, A. Ghosal, Phys. Rev. {\bf D63}, 037301 (2001); 

464: N. Gaur, A. Ghosal, E.  Ma, P. Roy, Phys. Rev. {\bf D58} 071301 (1998); 

465: S. Kanemura, T. Kasai, G. L. Lin, Y. Okada, J.-J. Tseng, C.P. Yuan

466: Phys. Rev. {\bf D64}, 053007 (2001);

467: K. Cheung, O. C.W. Kong, Phys. Rev. {\bf D61}, 113012 (2000);

468: A. Yu. Smirnov, Z-j Tao, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B426}, 415 (1994). 

469: 

470: \bibitem{koide}Y. Koide, Phys. Rev. {\bf D64}, 077301 (2001). 

471: 

472: \bibitem{frampton1} P. H. Frampton, M. C. Oh, T. Yoshikawa, 

473: e-Print Archive: hep-ph/0110300

474: 

475: 

476: \bibitem{mns}

477: B. Pontecorvo, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. {\bf 33}, 549 (1957);

478: {\bf 34}, 247 (1958);

479: Z. Maki, N. Nakagawa, S. Sakata, Prog. Theor. Phys.

480: {\bf 28}, 870 (1962).

481: 

482: \bibitem{chooz}  M. Appolonio \etal, Phys. Lett. {\bf B466},

483: 415 (1999); Phys. Lett. {\bf B420}, 397 (1998).

484: 

485: \bibitem{flatm}  G.L.Fogli, E.Lisi, A. Marrone, 

486: e-Print Archive: hep-ph/0110089. 

487: 

488: \bibitem{bcgk} A. Bandyopadhyay, S. Choubey, S. Goswami , K. Kar,

489:  Phys. Lett. {\bf B519}, 83 (2001). 

490: 

491: \bibitem{others}  G.L. Fogli, E. Lisi, D. Montanino, A. Palazzo,

492: Phys. Rev. {\bf D64}, 093007 (2001); 

493: P.I. Krastev and A.Yu. Smirnov, e-Print Archive: hep-ph/0108177; 

494: M.V. Garzelli and C. Giunti, e-Print Archive: hep-ph/0108191.

495: 

496: \bibitem{bcc}J.N. Bahcall, M.C. Gonzalez-Garcia, C. Pana-Garay,

497: JHEP {\bf 0108}, 014 (2001). 

498: 

499: \bibitem{ggmax} M.C. Gonzalez-Garcia,  C. Pana-Garay, Y. Nir 

500: , A.Yu. Smirnov,  Phys. Rev. {\bf D63}, 013007 (2001). 

501: 

502: \bibitem{eind2} S. Choubey, S. Goswami, D.P. Roy,

503: e-Print Archive: hep-ph/0109017, to appear in Phys. Rev. D.

504: 

505: 

506: \end{thebibliography}

507: 

508: \newpage

509: 

510: \begin{figure}

511: \begin{center}

512: \begin{tabular}{c}

513: \epsfysize=12cm \epsfxsize=12cm \hfil \epsfbox{bimax1.eps} \hfil

514: \end{tabular}

515: \caption{ 

516:  The range of $\epsilon$ as a function of $\Delta m_{\odot}^2$

517: corresponding to the 99\% C.L. range of allowed values of

518: $\Delta m_{atm}^2$ and $\sin^2 2\theta_{atm}$ from \cite{flatm}. The

519: $\Delta m_{\odot}^2$ shown corresponds to the 99\% C.L.

520: allowed range for LMA (left hand panel) and LOW (right hand panel)

521: solutions from \cite{bcgk}.}

522: \label{fig1}

523: \end{center}

524: \end{figure}

525: 

526: \begin{figure}

527: \begin{center}

528: \begin{tabular}{c}

529: \epsfysize=12cm \epsfxsize=12cm \hfil \epsfbox{bimax2.eps} \hfil

530: \end{tabular}

531: \caption{

532: Comparison of the Zee model predictions with the

533: allowed parameter values from the current experimental data.

534: Values of $\tan^2\theta_{\odot}$ and $\Delta m_{\odot}^2$

535: predicted by the Zee model are shown by the red horizontal

536: errorbars. The dotted lines give the 99\% C.L. allowed areas in the

537: LMA (left hand panel) and LOW (right hand panel) regions from the

538: analysis of \cite{bcgk}. The dashed lines give corresponding

539: allowed zones at 99\% C.L. from the analysis of Bahcall {\it et al}

540: \cite{bcc}.}

541: \label{fig2}

542: \end{center}

543: \end{figure}

544: 

545: 

546: 

547: \end{document}

548: 

549: 

550: 

551: 

552: 

553: 

554: 

555: 

556: 

557: