1: \documentclass[prl,twocolumn,showpacs,byrevtex]{revtex4}
2: \input epsf
3: \usepackage{graphicx}
4: \usepackage{dcolumn}
5: \usepackage{bm}
6: \begin{document}
7: \preprint{}
8: \title{Radiative stability of neutrino-mass textures}
9: \author{M. K. Parida}
10: \email{mparida@nehu.ac.in}
11: \email{mparida@sancharnet.in}
12: \affiliation{Department of Physics, North Eastern Hill University, Shillong
13: 793022, India}
14: \author{C. R. Das}
15: \email{crdas@email.com}
16: \affiliation{Department of Physics, North Eastern Hill University, Shillong
17: 793022, India}
18: \author{G. Rajasekaran}
19: \email{graj@imsc.ernet.in}
20: \affiliation{Institute of Mathematical Sciences, Chennai 600113, India}
21: \date{\today}
22: \begin{abstract}
23: Neutrino-mass textures proposed at high-scales are known to be unstable against
24: radiative corrections especially for nearly degenerate eigen values. Within the
25: renormalization group constraints we find a mechanism in a class of gauge
26: theories which guarantees reproduction of any high-scale texture at low
27: energies with radiative stability. We also show how the mechanism explains
28: solar and atmospheric neutrino anomalies through the bimaximal texture at high
29: scale.
30: \end{abstract}
31: \pacs{14.60.Pq, 11.30.Hv, 12.15.Lk}
32: \maketitle
33: \textbf{I.~Introduction:}
34: A major challenge to particle physics at present is the theoretical
35: understanding of experimentally observed neutrino anomalies. This has led
36: to suggestions of many interesting models and mass textures with hierarchial
37: or degenerate eigen values \cite{1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8}. Whereas the observed
38: mixing between quarks are small, experimental indications appear to favor
39: maximal mixings in the neutrino sector. A possible mechanism to explain large
40: neutrino mixings at low-energies starting from small high-scale mixings similar
41: to quarks could be through radiative magnification for quasidegenerate
42: neutrinos \cite{9,10}.
43: \par
44: An outstanding problem with bimaximal neutrino-mass textures with degenerate
45: eigen values is the instability of the masses and mixing angles due to
46: radiative corrections which spoils their prospects for the
47: neutrinoless-double-beta decay and the neutrino anomalies \cite{10,11,12}.
48: While investigating radiative stability the usual procedure has been to assume
49: the bimaximal texture to be associated with a single 5-dim operator through
50: see-saw mechanism with SM or MSSM as gauge theories at lower scales
51: \cite{9,10,11,12}.
52: \par
53: Using renormalization group constraints in this letter we show that it is
54: possible to reproduce any high-scale mass texture at low scale $(\mu=M_Z)$
55: with high degree of accuracy leading to stable evolution of the physically
56: relevant Majorana-neutrino-mass matrix. The models where the mechanism
57: operates consists of two component matrices contributing to the resultant
58: Majorana-neutrino mass texture at the highest scale. It is quite interesting
59: to note that the mechanism operates successfully in 2HDM and also with SM and
60: MSSM in the presence of type II see-saw mechanism probing left-right model
61: (LRM) and $SO(10)$ GUT as prospective high-scale theories \cite{6,13,14}. We
62: also show how experimental data on solar and atmospheric neutrino anomalies are
63: explained through the bimaximal texture.
64: \par
65: \textbf{II.~The mechanism in 2HDM:}
66: In the SM, MSSM, and 2HDM, the Majorana-neutrino mass in the flavor basis
67: originates from 5-dim operators generated at the lepton-number-breaking scale
68: $(\mu_0\simeq M_N,\,t_0=\ln M_N)$ through see-saw mechanism. In the SM there
69: is only one Higgs doublet $\Phi$ with VEV $\langle\Phi\rangle_0=v/\sqrt{2}$
70: and one operator $(=K^{(SM)})$ contributing to the Majorana mass
71: $m^{(SM)}=-(1/4)K^{(SM)}v^2$. In the MSSM, although there are two Higgs
72: doublets, there is only one neutrino-mass operator contributing to the
73: neutrino-mass matrix due to the coupling of up type doublet with
74: $m^{(MSSM)}=-(1/4)K^{(MSSM)}v_u^2$. In a class of 2HDM there are two doublets,
75: $\Phi_u$ and $\Phi_d$, with VEVs $v_u/\sqrt{2}=v\sin\beta/\sqrt{2}$,
76: $v_d/\sqrt{2}=v\cos\beta/\sqrt{2}$. But, unlike SM or MSSM, there are two
77: neutrino-mass operators, $K^I$ and $K^{II}$, and two matrices $m^I$ and
78: $m^{II}$ which add up to generate the physically relevant
79: Majorana-neutrino-mass matrix \cite{10},
80: $m=-(1/ 4)\left(K^Iv^2_u+K^{II}v^2_d\right)\equiv m^I+m^{II}$.
81: We use the renormalization scheme where the runnings of $v_u$, $v_d$, and
82: $\tan\beta$ are ignored. Then the relevant RGEs and their one-loop solutions
83: for $\mu<M_N\,(t=\ln\mu<t_0)$ are,
84: \begin{widetext}
85: \begin{eqnarray}
86: 16\pi^2{dm^I\over dt}&=&\left\{-3g_2^2+2\lambda_2+2{\rm Tr}\left(3Y_U^\dagger
87: Y_U\right)\right\}m^I+{1\over 2}\left[\left(Y_E^\dagger Y_E\right)m^I+m^I
88: \left(Y_E^\dagger Y_E\right)^T\right]+2\lambda_3m^{II},\nonumber\\
89: 16\pi^2{dm^{II}\over dt}&=&\left\{-3g_2^2+2\lambda_1+2{\rm Tr}\left(3
90: Y_D^\dagger Y_D+Y_E^\dagger Y_E\right)\right\}m^{II}-{3\over 2}\left[\left(
91: Y_E^\dagger Y_E\right)m^{II}+m^{II}\left(Y_E^\dagger Y_E\right)^T\right]+2
92: \lambda_3^*m^I,\nonumber\\
93: m_{ij}^I(t)&=&a_{ij}^I(t)m_{ij}^I(0),\;
94: a_{ij}^I(t)=I_{g_2}^{-{3\over 2}}I_{\lambda_2}I_{top}^3\left(I_iI_j\right)
95: ^{1\over 4}R_{ij},\label{eq6}\\
96: m_{ij}^{II}(t)&=&a_{ij}^{II}(t)m_{ij}^{II}(0),\;
97: a_{ij}^{II}(t)=I_{g_2}^{-{3\over 2}}I_{\lambda_1}I_{b}^3I_\tau\left(I_iI_j
98: \right)^{-{3\over 4}}{\tilde R}_{ij}.\label{eq7}
99: \end{eqnarray}
100: \end{widetext}
101: Here $m_{ij}^{I,II}(0)=m_{ij}^{I,II}(t_0)$,
102: \begin{eqnarray}
103: I_l&=&\exp\left({1\over 8\pi^2}\int_{t_0}^th_l^2dt\right),
104: (l=e,\mu,\tau,top,b)\nonumber\\
105: I_{g_k}&=&\exp\left({1\over 8\pi^2}\int_{t_0}^tg_k^2dt
106: \right),(k=1,2)\nonumber\\
107: I_{\lambda_k}&=&\exp\left({1\over 8\pi^2}\int_{t_0}
108: ^t\lambda_kdt\right),(k=1,2)\nonumber\\
109: R_{ij}&=&\exp\left[{1\over 8\pi^2}\int^t_{t_0}\left(m^{II}{m^I}^{-1}\right)_
110: {ij}\lambda_3dt\right],\nonumber\\
111: \tilde{R}_{ij}&=&\exp\left[{1\over 8\pi^2}\int^t_{t_0}\left(m^I{m^{II}}^{-1}
112: \right)_{ij}\lambda^*_3dt\right].\label{eq8}
113: \end{eqnarray}
114: Any texture at the highest scale for the physically relevant
115: Majorana-neutrino-mass matrix
116: \begin{equation}
117: m(0)=m^I(0)+m^{II}(0),\label{eq9}
118: \end{equation}
119: never determines both the matrices $m^I(0)$ and $m^{II}(0)$. Given any element
120: $m_{ij}(0)$ at $t_0$, one of the component elements, $m^I_{ij}(0)$ or
121: $m^{II}_{ij}(0)$, remains completely undetermined at that scale. Then
122: (\ref{eq6})-(\ref{eq7}) show that the same matrix, $m^I(t)$ or $m^{II}(t)$, is
123: undetermined at all lower scales too. This is in clear contrast to the cases
124: in conventional analyses (CA) with SM or MSSM where there is only one $m(0)$
125: at $\mu=M_N$ and the texture gives all the elements of $m_{ij}(0)$ and
126: $m_{ij}(t)$ \cite{10,11}. Now we impose the stability criterion that the
127: texture is exactly reproduced at the lowest scale by demanding that
128: \begin{equation}
129: m_{ij}(t_Z)=m_{ij}^I(t_Z)+m_{ij}^{II}(t_Z)\equiv m_{ij}(0).
130: \label{eq10}
131: \end{equation}
132: Since $a^I(t_z)$ and $a^{II}(t_Z)$ are known in terms of the model parameters,
133: solutions of (\ref{eq9}) and (\ref{eq10}) now determine both $m^I(0)$ and
134: $m^{II}(0)$ in terms of the high-scale neutrino-mass texture, $m(0)$,
135: \begin{eqnarray}
136: m^I_{ij}(0)&=&m_{ij}(0)\left(a^{II}_{ij}(t_Z)-1\right)/d_{ij},\nonumber\\
137: m^{II}_{ij}(0)&=&m_{ij}(0)\left(1-a^I_{ij}(t_Z)\right)/d_{ij},\nonumber\\
138: d_{ij}&=&a^{II}_{ij}(t_Z)-a^I_{ij}(t_Z).\label{eq11}
139: \end{eqnarray}
140: These parameters of the component matrices, determined from the boundary
141: conditions (\ref{eq9}) and (\ref{eq10}) are expected to guarantee reproduction
142: of the high-scale texture at $M_Z$ when $m^I(t)$ and $m^{II}(t)$ are evolved
143: through (\ref{eq6})-(\ref{eq8}).
144: \par
145: As an example we study RG evolution of the bimaximal texture with triply
146: degenerate masses at $M_N\simeq 10^{13}$ GeV \cite{4}
147: \begin{equation}m(0)=\left[\begin{array}{ccc}
148: 0&{1\over\sqrt{2}}&{1\over\sqrt{2}}\\
149: {1\over\sqrt{2}}&{1\over 2}&{-{1\over 2}}\\
150: {1\over\sqrt{2}}&{-{1\over 2}}&{1\over 2}\end{array}\right]m_0.\label{eq12}
151: \end{equation}
152: Using, $\lambda_1=0.16,\,\lambda_2=1.13,\,\lambda_3\simeq -0.011$ \cite{10},
153: and $\tan\beta=40$ we obtain $I_{\lambda_1}\simeq 0.95$,
154: $I_{\lambda_2}\simeq 0.6976$, $I_{top}=0.833213$, $I_b=0.935023$,
155: $I_\tau=0.950882$, $I_\mu=0.999832$, $I_e=0.999999$, $I_{g_2}=0.478614$ at
156: $\mu=M_Z$. We compute $a^I(t_Z)$ and $a^{II}(t_Z)$, and, hence, $m^I(0)$ and
157: $m^{II}(0)$ shown in Table \ref{tab1} as input parameters. The solutions for
158: $m^I(t)$ and $m^{II}(t)$ are obtained through (\ref{eq6})-(\ref{eq8})and the
159: elements of the Majorana-neutrino-mass matrix $m_{ij}(t)$ are obtained as
160: their sum for all $t<t_0$. In Fig.~\ref{fig1} we have shown the radiative
161: corrections for $m_{\tau\tau}(t)$. For comparison we have shown the results of
162: the conventional analysis as SM (CA) and MSSM (CA) for which there is only one
163: matrix at the highest scale. The maximum radiative correction of the matrix
164: elements in 2HDM using the present mechanism is found to be only 3-4\% as
165: compared to 30-40\% in the SM (CA) or MSSM (CA). Whereas the maximal
166: corrections in SM (CA) or MSSM (CA) occur at $\mu=M_Z$, in our case they occur
167: with substantially reduced magnitude at intermediate scales. NonSUSY SM and
168: 2HDM have been successfully embedded in $SO(10)$ with single intermediate
169: symmetries \cite{15}.
170: \par
171: \textbf{III.~Implementation in SM or MSSM:}
172: We note that the present mechanism also operates in SM and MSSM if they
173: originate from high-scale theories which predict two component matrices at
174: $M_N$. The popular see-saw mechanism which has its natural origin in LRM and
175: $SO(10)$ contains the second contribution and leads to the two matrices in type
176: II see-saw formula with $m^I=m^{\rm SM}(m^{\rm MSSM})$ and
177: $m^{II}\simeq fv^2/M_N(fv^2_u/M_N)$ when SM (MSSM) is obtained after symmetry
178: breaking of LRM or $SO(10)$ \cite{1,6,7,8,14,15,16}. Here $f$ is the Majorana
179: type Yukawa coupling of the neutrino. The mechanism also operates in SM
180: or MSSM when there are other types of contributions \cite{16}. The problem of
181: obtaining a specific texture for $m(0)$, or $m^I(0)$ and $m^{II}(0)$, may call
182: for appending specific flavor symmetries to
183: $SU(2)_L\times SU(2)_R\times U(1)_{B-L}\times SU(3)_C$ or $SO(10)$. Assuming
184: such possibilities we derive the constraints on $m^I(0)$ amd $m^{II}(0)$
185: resulting from the bimaximal texture for $m(0)$ and its radiative stability.
186: The RG evolutions of the standard see-saw term is the same as in SM or MSSM as
187: shown through $a^I(t)$ in (\ref{eq14})-(\ref{eq16}) below. But those for
188: $m^{II}(t)$ occur due to loop-mediation of the standard-weak-Higgs doublet and
189: gauge bosons (plus superpartners) with the LH neutrinos alone. We derive them
190: as
191: \begin{eqnarray}
192: 16\pi^2{dm^{II}\over dt}&=&\left(c^{(1)}g_1^2+c^{(2)}g_2^2\right)m^{II}
193: \nonumber\\
194: &&+c^{(3)}\left[\left(Y_E^\dagger Y_E\right)m^{II}+
195: m^{II}\left(Y_E^\dagger Y_E\right)^T\right],\nonumber
196: \end{eqnarray}
197: where $c^{(i)}=(9/10,3/2,-3/2)$ for SM, but $c^{(i)}=(-9/5,-9/2,1)$ for MSSM.
198: In the notations of (\ref{eq6})-(\ref{eq7}) we obtain\\
199: \underline{SM}
200: \begin{eqnarray}
201: a_{ij}^I(t)&=&I_{g_2}^{-{3\over 2}}I_\lambda I_{top}^3I_b^3I_\tau
202: \left(I_iI_j\right)^{-{3\over 4}},\nonumber\\
203: a_{ij}^{II}(t)&=&I_{g_1}^{9\over 20}I_{g_2}^{3\over 4}
204: \left(I_iI_j\right)^{-{3\over 4}},\label{eq14}
205: \end{eqnarray}
206: \underline{MSSM}
207: \begin{eqnarray}
208: a_{ij}^I(t)&=&I_{g_1}^{-{3\over 5}}I_{g_2}^{-3}I_{top}^3
209: \left(I_iI_j\right)^{1\over 2},\nonumber\\
210: a_{ij}^{II}(t)&=&I_{g_1}^{-{9\over 10}}I_{g_2}^{-{9\over 4}}
211: \left(I_iI_j\right)^{1\over 2}.\label{eq16}
212: \end{eqnarray}
213: Then using (\ref{eq9})-(\ref{eq11}) we obtain the initial values of
214: $m^{I,II}(0)$ and, hence, solutions for $m_{ij}(t)$ for $\mu=M_Z$ --- $M_N$
215: exhibiting stability of all the matrix elements of $m(t)$ under radiative
216: corrections. The elements of the component matrices for the two cases are also
217: shown in Table \ref{tab1}. In Fig.~\ref{fig1} we have plotted
218: $m_{\tau\tau}(t)$ in comparison to conventional analyses. As against the
219: maximal 30-40\% radiative corrections in SM (CA) and MSSM (CA) occurring at
220: $\mu=M_Z$, they are only 3-4\% in SM and 1.5\% in MSSM which occur at
221: intermediate scales in the present analysis. Among all the three models, the
222: minimum radiative corrections upto 1.5\% is found to occur in MSSM.
223: \par
224: \textbf{IV.~Fitting the neutrino anomalies:}
225: When the bimaximal texture is exactly reproduced at $M_Z$, one way to explain
226: neutrino anomalies could be through threshold effects \cite{17}. But here
227: ignoring threshold effects we show how the present mechanism permits matching
228: of the observed solar (LAMSW) and atmospheric neutrino anomalies starting from
229: the bimaximal texture with degenerate mass eigen values at the highest scale.
230: Using quasidegenerate neutrinos with masses $m_1=-0.2$ eV, $m_2=0.200045$ eV,
231: $m_3=0.2075$ eV which are spread around $m_0=0.2$ eV, the mixing angles
232: suitable for LAMSW with $s_3=0.6946$ and atmospheric neutrino oscillations with
233: $s_1=0.6950$, it is straight forward to construct the mass matrix consistent
234: with the experimental data
235: \begin{equation}
236: m^{(e)}(t_Z)=\left[\begin{array}{rrr}
237: -0.044716&0.722025&-0.690426\\
238: 0.722025&0.501718& 0.477908\\
239: -0.690426&0.477908& 0.544506
240: \end{array}\right]m_0.\label{eq17}
241: \end{equation}
242: Although we have used $s_2=0$, the mechanism is found to work for other values
243: consistent with CHOOZ bound \cite{18}. Similarly the mechanism also works with
244: other values of $m_0\simeq 0.1-1.0$ eV. Within the RG-constraints, the high
245: scale texture can match the experimentally observed anomalies provided
246: $m_{ij}(0)$ in (\ref{eq10}) and (\ref{eq11}) is replaced by $m_{ij}^{(e)}(t_Z)$
247: leading to
248: \begin{eqnarray}
249: m^I_{ij}(0)&=&\left(a^{II}_{ij}(t_Z)m_{ij}(0)-m_{ij}^{(e)}(t_Z)\right)/d_{ij},
250: \nonumber\\
251: m^{II}_{ij}(0)&=&\left(m_{ij}^{(e)}(t_Z)-a^I_{ij}(t_Z)m_{ij}(0)\right)/d_{ij}.
252: \label{eq18}
253: \end{eqnarray}
254: In Fig.~\ref{fig1} the curves 2HDM(e), MSSM(e) and SM(e) represent the result
255: of fitting the data through the high scale bimaximal texture given in
256: (\ref{eq12}) and $m^{(e)}(t_Z)$ given in (\ref{eq17}) using 2HDM, MSSM and SM,
257: respectively. We note that similar RG-stability also holds approximately for
258: certain other elements depending upon the exact values of $s_1$ and $s_3$. But
259: the radiative corrections are found to be larger if the difference between
260: $s_1$ and $s_3$ is larger. Similar curves can be plotted for other elements
261: also.
262: \par
263: \textbf{V.~Conclusion:}
264: The present mechanism demonstrates how to evade RG-constraints on neutrino-mass
265: textures in conventional analyses. It operates in a class of gauge theories
266: leading to 2HDM, SM or MSSM where two component matrices contribute to the
267: physically relevant Majorana-neutrino mass at the highest scale. Once a
268: resultant texture is generated using suitable flavor symmetries at the highest
269: scale, this mechanism determines the two unknown matrices at the highest scale
270: which ensure its RG-stability at all lower scales or its matching with the
271: experimental data. The mechanism can be applied to reproduce any high-scale
272: texture at low energies with any desired degree of stability including higher
273: order corrections in (\ref{eq10}). It is quite interesting that the stability
274: criteria operate in the presence of type II see-saw mechanism and probe into
275: models including left-right gauge theories and $SO(10)$ as prospective
276: high-scale theories. The textures for component matrices derived from the
277: stability condition sets considerable constraint on future model building with
278: flavor symmetry.
279: \begin{figure}
280: \epsfxsize=8.5cm
281: \epsfbox{mix1.ps}
282: \caption{RG-stable evolutions of $m_{\tau\tau}(t)$ in 2HDM, MSSM with
283: $\tan\beta=40$, and SM. MSSM (CA) and SM (CA) denote conventional analyses in
284: MSSM and SM having only one matrix at the highest scale. 2HDM (e), MSSM (e) and
285: SM (e) represent RG evolutions matching the experimental data on neutrino
286: anomalies.}
287: \label{fig1}
288: \end{figure}
289: \begin{table*}
290: \caption{Component matrices determined from RG stability criteria and also by
291: matching the experimental data as denoted by (e). Here $m_0$ is a common
292: factor.}
293: \begin{ruledtabular}
294: \begin{tabular}{lcc}
295: Model&$m^I(0)/m_0$&$m^{II}(0)/m_0$\\\hline
296: 2HDM&$\left[\begin{array}{rrr}
297: 0.000000&-0.220454&-0.146400\\
298: -0.220454&-0.155695& 0.103358\\
299: -0.146400& 0.103358&-0.058182
300: \end{array}\right]$
301: &$\left[\begin{array}{rrr}
302: 0.000000& 0.927561& 0.853507\\
303: 0.927561& 0.655695&-0.603358\\
304: 0.853507&-0.603358& 0.558182
305: \end{array}\right]$\\
306: &&\\
307: 2HDM (e)&$\left[\begin{array}{rrr}
308: 0.112140&-0.257854& 3.041252\\
309: -0.257854&-0.160003&-2.126483\\
310: 3.041252&-2.126483&-0.151038
311: \end{array}\right]$
312: &$\left[\begin{array}{rrr}
313: -0.112140&0.964961&-2.334145\\
314: 0.964961&0.660003& 1.626483\\
315: -2.334145&1.626483& 0.651038
316: \end{array}\right]$\\
317: &&\\
318: MSSM&$\left[\begin{array}{rrr}
319: 0.000000& 0.414613& 0.389877\\
320: 0.414613& 0.293120&-0.275628\\
321: 0.389877&-0.275628& 0.257691
322: \end{array}\right]$
323: &$\left[\begin{array}{rrr}
324: 0.000000& 0.292493& 0.317228\\
325: 0.292493& 0.206879&-0.224371\\
326: 0.317228&-0.224371& 0.242308
327: \end{array}\right]$\\
328: &&\\
329: MSSM (e)&$\left[\begin{array}{rrr}
330: 0.061597& 0.394061& 2.364023\\
331: 0.394061& 0.290752&-1.657126\\
332: 2.364023&-1.657126& 0.193220
333: \end{array}\right]$
334: &$\left[\begin{array}{rrr}
335: -0.061597&0.313044&-1.656916\\
336: 0.313044&0.209247& 1.157126\\
337: -1.656916&1.157126& 0.306779
338: \end{array}\right]$\\
339: &&\\
340: SM&$\left[\begin{array}{rrr}
341: 0.000000&-0.292357&-0.292451\\
342: -0.292357&-0.206728& 0.206794\\
343: -0.292451& 0.206794&-0.206860
344: \end{array}\right]$
345: &$\left[\begin{array}{rrr}
346: 0.000000& 0.999463& 0.999557\\
347: 0.999463& 0.706728&-0.706794\\
348: 0.999557&-0.706794& 0.706860
349: \end{array}\right]$\\
350: &&\\
351: SM (e)&$\left[\begin{array}{rrr}
352: 0.162944&-0.346719& 4.800250\\
353: -0.346719&-0.212991&-3.356768\\
354: 4.800250&-3.356768&-0.369052
355: \end{array}\right]$
356: &$\left[\begin{array}{rrr}
357: -0.162944&1.053825&-4.093143\\
358: 1.053825&0.712991& 2.856768\\
359: -4.093143&2.856768& 0.869052
360: \end{array}\right]$
361: \end{tabular}
362: \end{ruledtabular}
363: \label{tab1}
364: \end{table*}
365: \begin{acknowledgments}
366: The work of M.K.P. is supported by Project No.~SP/S2/K-30/98 and the work of
367: C.R.D. is supported by Project No.~98/37/9/BRNS-Cell/731 of the Government of
368: India.
369: \end{acknowledgments}
370: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
371: \bibitem{1} R.N. Mohapatra, hep-ph/9910365, hep-ph/0008232; S. Barr and
372: I. Dorsner, hep-ph/0003058.
373: \bibitem{2} R. Barbieri et. al., hep-ph/9901228, hep-ph/9807235,
374: hep-ph/9906470; N. Irges, S. Lavignac, and P. Ramond, hep-ph/9802334.
375: \bibitem{3} K.S. Babu, J.C. Pati and F. Wilczek, hep-ph/9812538.
376: \bibitem{4} H. Georgi and S.L. Glashow, hep-ph/9808293; V. Barger et. al.,
377: hep-ph/9806387; G. Altarelli and F. Feruglio, hep-ph/9807353; R.N. Mohapatra
378: and S. Nussinov, hep-ph/9808301; F. Vissani, hep-ph/9708483.
379: \bibitem{5} C.H. Albright and S.M. Barr, hep-ph/9712488, hep-ph/0002155,
380: hep-ph/0003251; C.H. Albright, K.S. Babu, and S.M. Barr, hep-ph/9802314;
381: T. Blazek, S. Raby and K. Tobe, hep-ph/9903340; M. Chen and K.T. Mahanthappa,
382: hep-ph/0009059.
383: \bibitem{6} K.S. Babu and R.N. Mohapatra, Phys. Rev. Lett \textbf{70}, 2845
384: (1993); B. Brahmachari and R.N. Mohapatra, Phys. Rev. D \textbf{58}, 015001
385: (1998); C.S. Aulakh, B. Bajc, A. Melfo, A. Rasin and G. Senjanovic,
386: hep-ph/0004031.
387: \bibitem{7} D. Caldwell and R.N. Mohapatra, Phys. Rev. D \textbf{48}, 3259
388: (1993), Phys. Rev. D \textbf{50}, 3477 (1994).
389: \bibitem{8} A. Ioannissyan and J. Valle, Phys. Lett. B \textbf{332}, 93 (1994);
390: J. Peltoniemi and J.W.F. Valle, Nucl. Phys. B \textbf{406}, 409 (1993).
391: \bibitem{9} K.R.S. Balaji, A.S. Dighe, R.N. Mohapatra, and M.K. Parida,
392: Phys. Rev. Lett. \textbf{84}, 5034 (2000); Phys. Lett. B \textbf{481}, 33
393: (2000); K.R.S. Balaji, R.N. Mohapatra, M.K. Parida, and E.A. Paschos,
394: Phys. Rev. D \textbf{63}, 113002 (2001).
395: \bibitem{10} K.S. Babu, C.N. Leung, and J. Pantaleone, Phys. Lett. B
396: \textbf{319}, 191 (1993); S. Antusch, et. al, hep-ph/0108005; hep-ph/0110366.
397: \bibitem{11} J.Ellis and S. Lola, hep-ph/9904279; J.A. Casas
398: et. al. hep-ph/9904395, hep-ph/9905381, hep-ph/9906281, hep-ph/9910420;
399: P.H. Chankowski et. al., hep-ph/9910231; N. Haba et. al., hep-ph/9810471,
400: hep-ph/9905381; P.H. Chankowski and Z. Pluciennik, Phys. Lett. B \textbf{316},
401: 312 (1993); M.K. Parida and N.N. Singh, Phys. Rev. D \textbf{59}, 032002
402: (1999).
403: \bibitem{12} E. Ma, J. Phys. G \textbf{25}, L97 (1999); R. Adhikari, E. Ma,
404: and G. Rajasekaran, hep-ph/0004197.
405: \bibitem{13} M. Gell-Mann, P. Ramond and R. Slansky, in Supergravity,
406: eds. P. Van Niuwenhuizen and D.Z. Freedman (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1979)
407: p. 315; T. Yanagida, Proc. Workshop on Unified theory and baryon number of
408: the universe (Tsukuba, Ibaraki, Japan), unpublished (1979), R.N. Mohapatra and
409: G. Senjanovic, Phys. Rev. Lett. \textbf{44}, 912 (1980).
410: \bibitem{14} R.N. Mohapatra and G. Senjanovic, Phys. Rev. D \textbf{23}, 165
411: (1981).
412: \bibitem{15} D. Chang, R.N. Mohapatra, and M.K. Parida,
413: Phys. Rev. Lett. \textbf{52}, 1072 (1984); Dae-Gye Lee, R.N. Mohapatra,
414: M.K. Parida, and M. Rani, Phys. Rev. D \textbf{51}, 229 (1995); M.K. Parida
415: and A. Usmani, Phys. Rev. D \textbf{54}, 3663 (1996).
416: \bibitem{16} E. Ma and U. Sarkar, Phys. Rev. Lett. \textbf{80}, 5716 (1998).
417: \bibitem{17} P.H. Chankowski et. al., hep-ph/0011150; P.H. Chankowski and
418: P. Wasowicz, hep-ph/0110237.
419: \bibitem{18} M. Apollonio et. al., hep-ex/9907037.
420: \end{thebibliography}
421: \end{document}
422: