1: \documentstyle[prd,aps,preprint,tighten,epsfig]{revtex}
2:
3: \begin{document}
4:
5: \draft
6:
7: \title{Wolfenstein-like Parametrization of the Neutrino Mixing Matrix}
8: \author{\bf Zhi-zhong Xing}
9: \address{CCAST (World Laboratory), P.O. Box 8730, Beijing 100080, China \\
10: and Institute of High Energy Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, \\
11: P.O. Box 918 (4), Beijing 100039, China
12: \footnote{Mailing address} \\
13: ({\it Electronic address: xingzz@mail.ihep.ac.cn}) }
14: \maketitle
15:
16: \begin{abstract}
17: We show that the $3\times 3$ lepton flavor mixing matrix $V$ can
18: be expanded in powers of a Wolfenstein-like parameter
19: $\Lambda \equiv |V_{\mu 3}| \sim 1/\sqrt{2}~$, which measures the strength
20: of flavor conversion in atmospheric neutrino oscillations. The term of
21: ${\cal O}(\Lambda^2)$ is associated with the large mixing angle
22: in solar neutrino oscillations. The Dirac phase of CP violation enters
23: at or below ${\cal O}(\Lambda^8)$, and the Majorana phases of CP violation
24: are not subject to the $\Lambda$-expansion. Terrestrial matter effects on
25: this new parametrization in realistic long-baseline neutrino oscillation
26: experiments are briefly discussed. Some comments are also
27: given on the possible relation between $\Lambda$ and a relatively weak
28: hierarchy of neutrino masses.
29: \end{abstract}
30:
31: \pacs{PACS number(s): 14.60.Pq, 13.10.+q, 25.30.Pt}
32:
33: \newpage
34:
35: The KamLAND neutrino experiment \cite{Kam} has recently confirmed the
36: large-mixing-angle (LMA) Mikheyev-Smirnov-Wolfenstein (MSW)
37: solution \cite{MSW} to the solar neutrino problem. Meanwhile, the
38: K2K long-baseline neutrino experiment \cite{K2K} has unambiguously
39: observed a reduction of $\nu_\mu$ flux and a distortion of the energy
40: spectrum. These new measurements, together with the robust SNO
41: evidence \cite{SNO} for the flavor conversion of solar $\nu_e$ neutrinos
42: and the compelling Super-Kamiokande evidecne \cite{SK} for the deficit
43: of atmospheric $\nu_\mu$ neutrinos, convinces us that the hypothesis
44: of neutrino oscillations is indeed correct! We are then led to the
45: exciting conclusion that neutrinos do have masses and lepton flavor
46: mixing does exist.
47:
48: A global analysis of today's solar neutrino data \cite{Fogli} indicates
49: that the maximal mixing is strongly disfavored for the LMA solution.
50: The mixing factor of atmospheric neutrino oscillations is found to be
51: almost maximal \cite{ATM}, on the other hand. Taking account of the
52: KamLAND, K2K, SNO, Super-Kamiokande and CHOOZ results \cite{CHOOZ},
53: we expect that the $3\times 3$ lepton flavor mixing
54: matrix $V$ is typically of a constant pattern \cite{Giunti} in the
55: leading-order approximation:
56: \begin{equation}
57: V \; =\; \left ( \matrix{
58: \displaystyle\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2} & \displaystyle\frac{1}{2} & 0 \cr\cr
59: -\displaystyle\frac{\sqrt{2}}{4}
60: & ~~~ \displaystyle\frac{\sqrt{6}}{4} ~~~
61: & \displaystyle\frac{\sqrt{2}}{2} \cr\cr
62: \displaystyle\frac{\sqrt{2}}{4} & -\displaystyle\frac{\sqrt{6}}{4}
63: & \displaystyle\frac{\sqrt{2}}{2} \cr}
64: \right ) \; .
65: % (1)
66: \end{equation}
67: Namely,
68: \begin{equation}
69: \left \{ \theta_{\rm sun}, \theta_{\rm atm}, \theta_{\rm chz} \right \} =
70: \left \{ 30^\circ, 45^\circ, 0^\circ \right \} \; ,
71: % (2)
72: \end{equation}
73: or $\sin^2 2\theta_{\rm sun} = 3/4$,
74: $\sin^2 2\theta_{\rm atm} = 1$ and $\sin^2 2\theta_{\rm chz} = 0$. Note
75: that $|V_{e2}| = |V_{\mu 3}|^2$ holds in this simplified neutrino mixing
76: pattern. It implies that an expansion of $V$ in terms of $V_{\mu 3}$ is
77: actually possible. Note also that one may introduce a small perturbation
78: into $V$, such that
79: \begin{enumerate}
80: \item $\theta_{\rm sun}$ gets closer to its best fit value
81: ($\theta_{\rm sun} \sim 32^\circ$ \cite{Fogli});
82: \item $\sin^2 2\theta_{\rm atm}$ deviates slightly from unity
83: ($\sin^2 2\theta_{\rm atm} > 0.92$ \cite{ATM});
84: \item $|V_{e3}| = \sin\theta_{\rm chz} \neq 0$ appears
85: ($\sin^2 2\theta_{\rm chz} < 0.1$ \cite{CHOOZ});
86: \item a Dirac phase of CP violation can naturally be included into
87: $V$ \cite{FX01}.
88: \end{enumerate}
89: Motivated by these observations, we proceed to propose a new parametrization
90: of the lepton flavor mixing matrix $V$, in which all matrix elements are
91: expanded in powers of a parameter $\Lambda \equiv |V_{\mu 3}| \sim 1/\sqrt{2} ~$.
92: Clearly $\Lambda$ can be regarded as the leptonic analog of the well-known
93: Wolfenstein parameter $\lambda \equiv |V_{us}| \approx 0.22$ for quark flavor
94: mixing \cite{Wol}.
95:
96: The first step is to parametrize $V$ in the limit of $V_{e3} =0$. We obtain
97: \begin{equation}
98: V \; =\; \left ( \matrix{
99: \sqrt{1-A^2 \Lambda^4} & A \Lambda^2 & 0 \cr\cr
100: -A \Lambda^2 \sqrt{1-\Lambda^2} & ~ \sqrt{\left (1-\Lambda^2 \right )
101: \left (1-A^2\Lambda^4 \right )} ~ & \Lambda \cr\cr
102: A\Lambda^3 & -\Lambda \sqrt{1-A^2\Lambda^4} & \sqrt{1-\Lambda^2} \cr}
103: \right ) \; ,
104: % (3)
105: \end{equation}
106: where $A$ is a positive coefficient of ${\cal O}(1)$. If $A =1$ and
107: $\Lambda =1/\sqrt{2}$ are taken, the constant pattern of $V$ in Eq. (1)
108: can straightforwardly be reproduced from Eq. (3). It is obvious that
109: $\Lambda$ measures the strength of flavor mixing in atmospheric neutrino
110: oscillations, while $A\Lambda^2$ characterizes the magnitude of flavor
111: mixing in solar neutrino oscillations.
112:
113: The second step is to introduce small corrections to $V$ in Eq. (3), such
114: that $|V_{e3}| \neq 0$ appears. Because $|V_{e3}| < 0.16$ is
115: required \cite{CHOOZ}, we may take
116: $|V_{e3}| \sim {\cal O}(\Lambda^8) \sim 0.06$ as a typical possibility for
117: $\Lambda \sim 1/\sqrt{2} ~$. Smaller values of $|V_{e3}|$ are certainly
118: allowed. In a number of phenomenological models for lepton flavor
119: mixing \cite{FX99}, however, $|V_{e3}| \sim \sqrt{m_e/m_\mu} \sim 0.07$
120: is naturally predicted. Hence ${\cal O}(\Lambda^8)$ could be the plausible
121: order of $|V_{e3}|$. Let us fix the matrix elements $V_{e2}$, $V_{e3}$ and
122: $V_{\mu 3}$ by use of four independent parameters:
123: \begin{equation}
124: V_{\mu 3} = \Lambda \; , ~~
125: V_{e2} = A\Lambda^2 \; , ~~
126: V_{e3} = B \Lambda^8 e^{-i\delta} \; ,
127: % (4)
128: \end{equation}
129: where $B$ is of ${\cal O}(1)$ or smaller, and $\delta$ denotes the Dirac phase
130: of leptonic CP violation. Given Eq. (4), one may make use of the unitarity
131: of $V$ to work out exact analytical expressions for the other six matrix
132: elements. The relevant results are quite complicated and will be presented
133: elsewhere. We find that it is more instructive to approximate $V$ as
134: \begin{equation}
135: V \; =\; \left ( \matrix{
136: \sqrt{1-A^2 \Lambda^4} & A \Lambda^2 & B\Lambda^8 e^{-i\delta} \cr\cr
137: -A \Lambda^2 \sqrt{1-\Lambda^2} & \sqrt{\left (1-\Lambda^2 \right )
138: \left (1-A^2\Lambda^4 \right )} & \Lambda \cr\cr
139: \Lambda^3 \left [A - B\Lambda^5 \sqrt{\left (1-\Lambda^2 \right )
140: \left (1-A^2\Lambda^4 \right )} ~ e^{i\delta} \right ]
141: & -\Lambda \sqrt{1-A^2\Lambda^4} & \sqrt{1-\Lambda^2} \cr}
142: \right ) \; .
143: % (5)
144: \end{equation}
145: In this approximation, the unitary normalization relations of $V$ keep
146: valid to ${\cal O}(\Lambda^{11}) \sim 2\%$. Hence Eq. (5) is sufficiently
147: accurate to describe lepton flavor mixing, not only in solar and atmospheric
148: neutrino oscillations, but also in some of the proposed long-baseline
149: neutrino oscillation experiments where leptonic CP violation is not
150: concerned \cite{LBL}. As the unitary orthogonality relations of $V$
151: in the above approximation are valid to ${\cal O}(\Lambda^8) \sim 6\%$,
152: the leptonic unitarity triangles can also be described by
153: Eq. (5) to a reasonably good degree of accuracy. A rephasing-invariant
154: measure of leptonic CP violation is the well-known Jarlskog parameter
155: $J$ \cite{J}, whose magnitude must be proportional to $\sin\delta$ in
156: our parametrization. The explicit expression of $J$ reads
157: \begin{equation}
158: {\cal J} \; =\; AB\Lambda^{11} \sqrt{\left (1-\Lambda^2 \right )
159: \left (1-A^2\Lambda^4 \right )} ~ \sin\delta \; .
160: % (6)
161: \end{equation}
162: Note again that $\Lambda^{11} \sim 0.02$ for $\Lambda \sim 1/\sqrt{2} ~$. Thus
163: $|\cal J|$ may be at the percent level, if $\delta \sim \pm 90^\circ$ holds.
164: No matter whether neutrinos are Dirac or Majorana particles, the strength
165: of CP and T violation in normal neutrino-neutrino and antineutrino-antineutrino
166: oscillations is always governed by $\cal J$ or by the Dirac phase
167: $\delta$ \cite{Barger}. Furthermore, the off-diagonal asymmetries of the
168: lepton flavor mixing matrix $V$ \cite{Xing96} read as
169: \begin{eqnarray}
170: {\cal A}_{\rm L} & \equiv & |V_{e2}|^2 - |V_{\mu 1}|^2 =
171: |V_{\mu 3}|^2 - |V_{\tau 2}|^2 = |V_{\tau 1}|^2 - |V_{e3}|^2
172: \nonumber \\
173: & = & A^2 \Lambda^6 \; ,
174: \nonumber \\
175: {\cal A}_{\rm R} & \equiv & |V_{e2}|^2 - |V_{\mu 3}|^2 =
176: |V_{\mu 1}|^2 - |V_{\tau 2}|^2 = |V_{\tau 3}|^2 - |V_{e1}|^2
177: \nonumber \\
178: & = & \Lambda^2 \left (A^2 \Lambda^2 -1 \right ) \; .
179: % (7)
180: \end{eqnarray}
181: We see that ${\cal A}_{\rm L} >0$ holds definitely. In comparison, the sign
182: of ${\cal A}_{\rm R}$ cannot be fixed from the present
183: experimental data. It is actually possible to obtain ${\cal A}_{\rm R} =0$,
184: when $A^2\Lambda^2 =1$ is satisfied. In this interesting case, the lepton
185: flavor mixing matrix $V$ is exactly symmetric about its
186: $V_{e3}$-$V_{\mu 2}$-$V_{\tau 1}$ axis \cite{Xing02a}.
187:
188: The final step is to incorporate $V$ with two Majorana phases of CP violation,
189: provided neutrinos are Majorana particles. To do so, we simply multiply $V$
190: on its right-hand side with a pure phase matrix; i.e.,
191: \begin{equation}
192: V \; \Longrightarrow \; V P \; , ~~~
193: P \; =\; \left ( \matrix{
194: e^{i\rho} & 0 & 0 \cr\cr
195: 0 & e^{i\sigma} & 0 \cr\cr
196: 0 & 0 & e^{i\delta} \cr} \right ) \; ,
197: % (8)
198: \end{equation}
199: in which $\rho$ and $\sigma$ are the Majorana-type CP-violating
200: phases \cite{FX01}. The phase convention of $P$ chosen in Eq. (8)
201: is to make the CP-violating phase $\delta$ not to manifest
202: itself in the effective mass term of the neutrinoless double beta decay:
203: \begin{equation}
204: \langle m\rangle_{ee} \; = \; \left | m_1 \left (1 - A^2\Lambda^4
205: \right ) e^{2i\rho} + m_2 A^2 \Lambda^4 e^{2i\sigma} +
206: m_3 B \Lambda^{16} \right | \; ,
207: % (9)
208: \end{equation}
209: where $m_i$ (for $i=1,2,3$) are physical neutrino masses. This result
210: can somehow get simplified, if a specific pattern of the neutrino mass
211: spectrum is assumed. The present experimental upper bound is
212: $\langle m\rangle_{ee} < 0.35 ~ {\rm eV}$
213: (at the $90\%$ confidence level \cite{HM}), from which no constraint
214: on $\rho$ and $\sigma$ can be got.
215:
216: Now let us establish the direct relations between
217: ($\Lambda$, $A$, $B$) and ($\theta_{\rm atm}$, $\theta_{\rm sun}$,
218: $\theta_{\rm chz}$). With the help of Eq. (4) and
219: \begin{eqnarray}
220: |V_{e2}|^2 & = & \frac{\cos^2\theta_{\rm chz}}{2}
221: - \frac{\sqrt{\cos^4\theta_{\rm chz} - \sin^2 2\theta_{\rm sun}}}{2} \; ,
222: \nonumber \\
223: |V_{e3}|^2 & = & \sin^2 \theta_{\rm chz} \; ,
224: \nonumber \\
225: |V_{\mu 3}|^2 & = & \sin^2 \theta_{\rm atm} \; ,
226: % (10)
227: \end{eqnarray}
228: which have been obtained in Ref. \cite{Xing02b}, we arrive at
229: \begin{eqnarray}
230: \Lambda & = & \sin\theta_{\rm atm} \; ,
231: \nonumber \\
232: A & = & \frac{\sqrt{\cos^2\theta_{\rm chz} - \sqrt{\cos^4\theta_{\rm chz}
233: - \sin^2 2\theta_{\rm sun}}}}{\sqrt{2} \sin^2\theta_{\rm atm}} \; ,
234: \nonumber \\
235: B & = & \frac{\sin\theta_{\rm chz}}{\sin^8\theta_{\rm atm}} \; .
236: % (11)
237: \end{eqnarray}
238: Once the mixing angles $\theta_{\rm atm}$, $\theta_{\rm sun}$ and
239: $\theta_{\rm chz}$ are precisely measured, we may use Eq. (11) to
240: determine the magnitudes of $\Lambda$, $A$ and $B$. For the purpose of
241: illustration, we typically take
242: $0.25 \leq \sin^2\theta_{\rm sun} \leq 0.40$ \cite{Fogli},
243: $\sin^2 2\theta_{\rm atm} > 0.92$ \cite{ATM} and
244: $\sin^2 2\theta_{\rm chz} < 0.1$ \cite{CHOOZ} to calculate the
245: allowed regions of $\Lambda$, $A$ and $B$. Then we obtain
246: $0.6 \leq \Lambda \leq 0.8$ straightfowardly. The numerical results for
247: $A$ and $B$ are presented in Fig. 1, from which $0.8 \leq A \leq 1.94$ and
248: $0 \leq B \leq 9.5$ can directly be read off.
249:
250: It is also worthwhile to connect ($\Lambda$, $A$, $B$) to
251: ($\theta_{12}$, $\theta_{23}$, $\theta_{13}$), which are three mixing
252: angles of the ``standard parametrization'' of $V$ \cite{PDG}. We find
253: \begin{eqnarray}
254: \sin\theta_{12} & = & \frac{A\Lambda^2}{\sqrt{1-B^2\Lambda^{16}}}
255: \; \approx \; A\Lambda^2 \; ,
256: \nonumber \\
257: \sin\theta_{23} & = & \frac{\Lambda}{\sqrt{1-B^2\Lambda^{16}}}
258: \; \approx \; \Lambda \; ,
259: \nonumber \\
260: \sin\theta_{13} & = & B\Lambda^8 \; .
261: % (12)
262: \end{eqnarray}
263: In addition, the Dirac phase of CP violation in the standard
264: parametrization is exactly equal to $\delta$ defined in the present
265: Wolfenstein-like parametrization.
266:
267: An interesting point is that the {\it effective} lepton flavor mixing
268: matrix in matter, which is denoted as $\tilde{V}$ \cite{Xing00}, can similarly be
269: parametrized in terms of four matter-corrected parameters $\tilde{\Lambda}$,
270: $\tilde{A}$, $\tilde{B}$ and $\tilde{\delta}$:
271: \begin{equation}
272: \tilde{V} \; =\; \left ( \matrix{
273: \sqrt{1-\tilde{A}^2 \tilde{\Lambda}^4} &
274: \tilde{A} \tilde{\Lambda}^2 &
275: \tilde{B}\tilde{\Lambda}^8 e^{-i\tilde{\delta}} \cr\cr
276: -\tilde{A} \tilde{\Lambda}^2 \sqrt{1-\tilde{\Lambda}^2} &
277: \sqrt{(1-\tilde{\Lambda}^2 ) (1-\tilde{A}^2\tilde{\Lambda}^4 )} &
278: \tilde{\Lambda} \cr\cr
279: \tilde{\Lambda}^3 \left [\tilde{A} - \tilde{B}\tilde{\Lambda}^5
280: \sqrt{(1-\tilde{\Lambda}^2 )
281: (1-\tilde{A}^2\tilde{\Lambda}^4 )} ~ e^{i\tilde{\delta}} \right ] &
282: -\tilde{\Lambda} \sqrt{1-\tilde{A}^2\tilde{\Lambda}^4} &
283: \sqrt{1-\tilde{\Lambda}^2} \cr}
284: \right ) \; .
285: % (13)
286: \end{equation}
287: Clearly there exist the same relations as those given in
288: Eq. (12) between the {\it effective} mixing angles of $\tilde{V}$
289: (i.e., $\tilde{\theta}_{12}$, $\tilde{\theta}_{23}$ and
290: $\tilde{\theta}_{13}$) and the corresponding new parameters
291: ($\tilde{\Lambda}$, $\tilde{A}$ and $\tilde{B}$). It has been shown that
292: $\sin\tilde{\theta}_{23} \approx \sin\theta_{23}$ and
293: $\sin\tilde{\delta} \approx \sin\delta$ hold to leading order for a variety
294: of terrestrial long-baseline neutrino oscillation experiments \cite{Xing01}.
295: Therefore, we have
296: \begin{equation}
297: \tilde{\Lambda} \; \approx \; \Lambda \; , ~~~~~~~
298: \tilde{\delta} \; \approx \; \delta \; .
299: % (14)
300: \end{equation}
301: This result implies that $\Lambda$ and $\delta$ are essentially
302: stable against terrestrial matter effects. Hence the expansion of
303: $\tilde{V}$ in powers of $\tilde{\Lambda} \approx \Lambda$ makes sense.
304: Only $A$ and $B$ in $V$ are sensitive to the matter-induced corrections.
305: Because of $\tilde{A} \propto \sin\tilde{\theta}_{12}$ and
306: $\tilde{B} \propto \sin\tilde{\theta}_{13}$, two remarkable conclusions can
307: be drawn from Ref. \cite{Xing01} for our new parameters:
308: (a) $\tilde{A}/A $ is suppressed up to the
309: order $\Delta m^2_{\rm sun}/\Delta m^2_{\rm atm}$; and
310: (b) $\tilde{B}/B$ may have the resonant behavior similar to the
311: two-neutrino MSW resonance \cite{MSW}.
312:
313: Finally we give some speculation on the physical meaning of $\Lambda$.
314: It is well known that the Wolfenstein parameter $\lambda \approx 0.22$ can
315: be related to the ratios of quark masses in the Fritzsch ansatz of
316: quark mass matrices \cite{F78} or its modified versions \cite{FX95}:
317: \begin{equation}
318: \lambda \; \approx \; \left |\sqrt{\frac{m_u}{m_c}} - e^{i\phi_\lambda}
319: \sqrt{\frac{m_d}{m_s}} \right | \; ,
320: % (15)
321: \end{equation}
322: where $\phi_\lambda$ denotes the phase difference between the (1,2)
323: elements of up- and down-type quark mass matrices. Confronting
324: Eq. (15) with current experimental data on the Cabibbo angle and
325: quark masses leads to $\phi_\lambda \sim \pm 90^\circ$ \cite{FX95}.
326: Such a result for $\phi_\lambda$ is also consistent with the large
327: CP-violating effect observed in
328: $B^0_d$ vs $\bar{B}^0_d \rightarrow J/\psi K_{\rm S}$ decays at KEK and
329: SLAC $B$-meson factories \cite{B}. Eq. (15) indicates that the smallness
330: of $\lambda$ is a natural consequence of the strong quark mass
331: hierarchy. Could the largeness of $\Lambda$ be attributed to a relatively
332: weak hierarchy of three neutrino masses? The answer is indeed affirmative in
333: the Fritzsch texture of lepton mass matrices, which coincides with current
334: experimental data on neutrino oscillations if the masses of three neutrinos
335: perform a normal but weak hierarchy (typically, $m_1$ : $m_2$ : $m_3$
336: $\approx$ 1 : 3 : 10) \cite{Xing02c}. In this phenomenological model,
337: we approximately obtain
338: \begin{equation}
339: \Lambda \; \approx \; \left |\sqrt{\frac{m_2}{m_3}} - e^{i\phi_\Lambda}
340: \sqrt{\frac{m_\mu}{m_\tau}} \right | \; ,
341: % (16)
342: \end{equation}
343: where $\phi_\Lambda$ denotes the phase difference between the (2,3)
344: elements of charged lepton and neutrino mass matrices. We find that
345: $\phi_\Lambda \sim \pm 180^\circ$ is practically favored \cite{Xing02c},
346: in order to obtain a sufficiently large $\Lambda$. To illustrate, we
347: typically take $m_2/m_3 \sim 0.3$ as well as $m_\mu/m_\tau \approx 0.06$ \cite{PDG}.
348: Then we arrive at $\Lambda \sim 0.8$, a result compatible with our
349: empirical expectation for the order of $\Lambda$
350: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
351: \footnote{Assuming a somehow stronger mass hierarchy for three neutrinos,
352: Kaus and Meshkov \cite{KM} have proposed a different expansion of
353: the neutrino mixing matrix in terms of $\Lambda = \sqrt{m_2/m_3} =
354: (\Delta m^2_{\rm sun}/\Delta m^2_{\rm atm})^{1/4} \sim 0.37$. This
355: parameter is associated with $V_{e2}$ instead of $V_{\mu 3}$, therefore
356: it is sensitive to the matter effect. In contrast, our parametrization
357: does not rely on the assumption of neutrino mass hierarchy, and its
358: expansion parameter is insensitive to the matter-induced corrections.}.
359: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
360:
361: In summary, we have shown that the $3\times 3$ lepton flavor mixing matrix
362: can actually be expanded in terms of a Wolfenstein-like parameter
363: $\Lambda \sim 1/\sqrt{2} ~$. This parameter measures the strength of
364: flavor mixing in atmospheric neutrino oscillations, thus it is insensitive
365: to the matter effect. In our new parametrization, the term of
366: ${\cal O}(\Lambda^2)$ is associated with the flavor mixing angle of
367: solar neutrino oscillations. The Dirac-type CP-violating phase enters
368: at or below the level of ${\cal O}(\Lambda^8)$, while the
369: Majorana-type CP-violating phases are not subject to the
370: $\Lambda$-expansion. Direct relations between the parameters in this
371: Wolfenstein-like representation and those in the standard representation
372: have been established. We expect that such a new description of lepton
373: flavor mixing can be very useful in phenomenology of neutrino physics.
374:
375: Relating our new parametrization to the models of lepton mass matrices
376: is not the subject of this short note. Nevertheless, we have taken the
377: Fritzsch ansatz for example to give a simple interpretation of the
378: Wolfenstein parameter $\lambda$ in the quark sector and its analog $\Lambda$
379: in the lepton sector. We find that their different magnitudes reflect
380: different mass hierarchies of quarks and leptons. This observation is very
381: suggestive, although it is quite preliminary. Further attempts are
382: therefore desirable, towards deeper understanding of both similarities
383: and differences between lepton and quark mass spectra and flavor mixing
384: schemes.
385:
386: \vspace{0.3cm}
387:
388: The author likes to thank IPPP in University of Durham, where the
389: paper was written, for its warm hospitality and stimulating atmosphere.
390: This work was supported in part by National Natural Science Foundation
391: of China.
392:
393:
394: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
395:
396: \bibitem{Kam} KamLAND Collaboration, K. Eguchi {\it et al.},
397: hep-ex/0212021.
398:
399: \bibitem{MSW} L. Wolfenstein, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 17}, 2369 (1978);
400: S.P. Mikheyev and A.Yu. Smirnov,
401: Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. {\bf 42}, 913 (1985).
402:
403: \bibitem{K2K} K2K Collaboration, M.H. Ahn {\it et al.},
404: hep-ex/0212007.
405:
406: \bibitem{SNO} SNO Collaboration, Q.R. Ahmad {\it et al.},
407: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 89}, 011301 (2002); Phys. Rev. Lett.
408: {\bf 89}, 011302 (2002).
409:
410: \bibitem{SK} For a review, see: C.K. Jung, C. McGrew, T. Kajita,
411: and T. Mann, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. {\bf 51}, 451 (2001).
412:
413: \bibitem{Fogli} See, e.g.,
414: V. Barger and D. Marfatia, hep-ph/0212126;
415: G.L. Fogli {\it et al.}, hep-ph/0212127;
416: P. Creminelli, G. Signorelli, and A. Strumia, hep-ph/0102234, version 4,
417: 9 December (2002);
418: M. Maltoni, T. Schwetz, and J.W.F. Valle, hep-ph/0212129;
419: W.L. Guo and Z.Z. Xing, hep-ph/0212142;
420: J.N. Bahcall, M.C. Gonzalez-Garcia, and C. Pena-Garay, hep-ph/0212147;
421: P. Aliani, V. Antonelli, M. Picariello, and E. Torrente-Lujan,
422: hep-ph/0212212.
423:
424: \bibitem{ATM} M. Shiozawa (Super-Kamiokande Collaboration),
425: talk given at {\it Neutrino 2002}, Munich, May 2002.
426:
427: \bibitem{CHOOZ} CHOOZ Collaboration, M. Apollonio {\it et al.},
428: Phys. Lett. B {\bf 420}, 397 (1998);
429: Palo Verde Collaboration, F. Boehm {\it et al.},
430: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 84}, 3764 (2000).
431:
432: \bibitem{Giunti} C. Giunti, hep-ph/0209103.
433:
434: \bibitem{FX01} H. Fritzsch and Z.Z. Xing,
435: Phys. Lett. B {\bf 517}, 363 (2001).
436:
437: \bibitem{Wol} L. Wolfenstein, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 51}, 1945 (1983).
438:
439: \bibitem{FX99} For recent reviews with extensive references, see:
440: H. Fritzsch and Z.Z. Xing, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. {\bf 45}, 1 (2000);
441: G. Altarelli and F. Feruglio, hep-ph/0206077, to appear in
442: {\it Neutrino Mass} - Springer Tracts in Modern Physics, edited by
443: G. Altarelli and K. Winter (2002).
444:
445: \bibitem{LBL} See, e.g., B. Autin {\it et al.}, CERN 99-02 (1999);
446: D. Ayres {\it et al.}, physics/9911009;
447: C. Albright {\it et al.}, hep-ex/0008064; and references therein.
448:
449: \bibitem{J} C. Jarlskog, Phys. Rev. Lett. B {\bf 55}, 1039 (1985).
450:
451: \bibitem{Barger} V. Barger, K. Whisnant, and R.J.N. Phillips,
452: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 45}, 2084 (1980).
453:
454: \bibitem{Xing96} Z.Z. Xing, Nuovo Cim. A {\bf 109}, 115 (1996).
455:
456: \bibitem{Xing02a} Z.Z. Xing, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 65}, 113010 (2002).
457:
458: \bibitem{HM} H.V. Klapdor-Kleingrothaus (Heidelberg-Moscow Collaboration),
459: hep-ph/0103074; and references therein.
460:
461: \bibitem{Xing02b} Z.Z. Xing, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 65}, 077302 (2002).
462:
463: \bibitem{PDG} Particle Data Group, K. Hagiwara {\it et al.},
464: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 66}, 010001 (2002). A systematic classification of
465: different {\it angle}--{\it phase} parametrizations for the $3\times 3$
466: flavor mixing matrix can be found in: H. Fritzsch and Z.Z. Xing,
467: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 57}, 594 (1998).
468:
469: \bibitem{Xing00} Z.Z. Xing, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 487}, 327 (2000);
470: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 63}, 073012 (2001);
471: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 64}, 033005 (2001).
472:
473: \bibitem{Xing01} W. Zaglauer and K.H. Schwarzer,
474: Z. Phys. C {\bf 40}, 273 (1988);
475: M. Freund, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 64}, 053003 (2002);
476: Z.Z. Xing, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 64}, 073014 (2001).
477:
478: \bibitem{F78} H. Fritzsch, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 73}, 317 (1978);
479: Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 155}, 189 (1979).
480:
481: \bibitem{FX95} See, e.g., H. Fritzsch and Z.Z. Xing,
482: Phys. Lett. B {\bf 353}, 114 (1995);
483: Phys. Lett. B {\bf 413}, 396 (1997);
484: Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 556}, 49 (1999);
485: hep-ph/0212195;
486: J.L. Chkareuli and C.D. Froggatt,
487: Phys. Lett. B {\bf 450}, 158 (1999);
488: Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 626}, 307 (2002);
489: and references therein.
490:
491: \bibitem{B} BaBar Collaboration, B. Aubert {\it et al.},
492: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 89}, 201802 (2002);
493: Belle Collaboration, K. Abe {\it et al.},
494: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 66}, 071102 (2002).
495:
496: \bibitem{Xing02c} Z.Z. Xing, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 550}, 178 (2002).
497:
498: \bibitem{KM} P. Kaus and S. Meshkov, hep-ph/0211338.
499: \end{thebibliography}
500:
501: \newpage
502:
503: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Fig. 1 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
504: \begin{figure}[t]
505: \vspace{-2.7cm}
506: \epsfig{file=pfig.ps,bbllx=3cm,bblly=2cm,bburx=17.5cm,bbury=28cm,%
507: width=15cm,height=24cm,angle=0,clip=0}
508: \vspace{-3cm}
509: \caption{Allowed regions of $A$ and $B$ changing with
510: $\sin^2 2\theta_{\rm chz}$,
511: where $0.25 \leq \sin^2\theta_{\rm sun} \leq 0.40$ and
512: $\sin^2 2\theta_{\rm atm} > 0.92$ have typically been input.}
513: \end{figure}
514: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
515:
516:
517:
518: \end{document}
519:
520: