1: \documentstyle[a4,12pt,epsfig]{article}
2: \textwidth = 16.8cm
3: \textheight = 24.2cm
4: \voffset = -16.5mm
5: \hoffset = -12mm
6:
7: %\renewcommand{\theequation}{\thesection.\arabic{equation}}
8: %\renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.2}
9: \def\thefootnote{\fnsymbol{footnote}}
10:
11: \begin{document}
12: \parskip=5pt plus 1pt minus 1pt
13:
14: \begin{flushright}
15: \framebox{\bf hep-ph/0304234}
16: \end{flushright}
17:
18: \vspace{0.2cm}
19:
20: \begin{center}
21: {\Large\bf Lepton Mass Matrices with Four Texture Zeros}
22: \end{center}
23:
24: \vspace{0.3cm}
25:
26: \begin{center}
27: {\bf Zhi-zhong Xing}
28: \footnote{Electronic address: xingzz@mail.ihep.ac.cn} \\
29: {\it CCAST (World Laboratory), P.O. Box 8730, Beijing 100080, China \\
30: and Institute of High Energy Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, \\
31: P.O. Box 918 (4), Beijing 100039, China}
32: \footnote{Mailing address}
33: \end{center}
34: \begin{center}
35: {\bf He Zhang} \\
36: {\it Physics Department, Jilin University, Changchun 130023, China}
37: \end{center}
38:
39: \vspace{1.5cm}
40:
41: \begin{abstract}
42: We propose two ans$\rm\ddot{a}$tze of lepton mass matrices with four
43: texture zeros, and confront them with current experimental data on
44: neutrino oscillations. The parameter space of each ansatz is
45: carefully explored. We find that both ans$\rm\ddot{a}$tze can
46: accommodate the normal hierarchy of neutrino masses and the bi-large
47: pattern of lepton flavor mixing. Their predictions for the effective
48: mass of the tritium beta decay and that of the neutrinoless double
49: beta decay are too small to be detectable, but leptonic CP violation
50: at the percent level is allowed. Some discussions are also given
51: about the seesaw invariance of the four-zero texture of Dirac and
52: Majorana neutrino mass matrices.
53: \end{abstract}
54:
55: \newpage
56:
57: \section{Introduction}
58:
59: The recent KamLAND \cite{KM} and SNO \cite{SNO} experiments have
60: provided us with very compelling evidence that the solar neutrino
61: deficit is due to the matter-enhanced $\nu_e \rightarrow \nu_\mu$
62: oscillation with a large mixing angle $\theta_{\rm sun} \sim 32^\circ$.
63: Meanwhile, the K2K \cite{K2K} and Super-Kamiokande \cite{SK}
64: experiments have convinced us that the atmospheric neutrino anomaly
65: is attributed to the $\nu_\mu \rightarrow \nu_\tau$ oscillation with
66: another large mixing angle $\theta_{\rm atm} \sim 45^\circ$.
67: In contrast, the non-observation of the
68: $\overline{\nu}_e \rightarrow \overline{\nu}_e$ oscillation
69: in the CHOOZ experiment \cite{CHOOZ} indicates a rather small
70: (even vanishing) mixing angle $\theta_{\rm chz} < 13^\circ$.
71: These three mixing angles may straightforwardly be related to
72: the elements of the $3\times 3$ lepton flavor mixing matrix $V$,
73: which links the neutrino mass eigenstates $(\nu_1, \nu_2, \nu_3)$
74: to the neutrino flavor eigenstates $(\nu_e, \nu_\mu, \nu_\tau)$.
75: To a good degree of accuracy,
76: $\theta_{\rm sun}$ and $\theta_{\rm atm}$ describe the flavor
77: mixing effect between the 1st and 2nd lepton families and that
78: between the 2nd and 3rd lepton families, respectively; while the
79: small mixing angle $\theta_{\rm chz}$ is responsible for the
80: flavor mixing effect between the 1st and 3rd lepton families.
81: Thus the lepton flavor mixing matrix $V$ performs a {\it bi-large}
82: mixing pattern, which is quite different from the {\it tri-small}
83: mixing pattern of the quark flavor mixing matrix \cite{CKM}.
84:
85: To interpret the bi-large lepton flavor mixing pattern, many
86: phenomenological ans$\rm\ddot{a}$tze of lepton mass matrices have
87: recently been proposed \cite{Review}. A particularly interesting
88: category of the ans$\rm\ddot{a}$tze focus on {\it texture zeros}
89: of charged lepton and neutrino mass matrices in a given flavor
90: basis
91: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
92: \footnote{For instance, a lot of interest has recently been
93: paid to possible two-zero textures of the neutrino mass
94: matrix in the flavor basis where the charged lepton mass matrix is
95: diagonal \cite{20}.},
96: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
97: from which some nontrivial relations between flavor mixing angles
98: and lepton mass ratios can be derived. The typical example is the
99: Fritzsch ansatz \cite{Fritzsch} for symmetric lepton mass matrices,
100: \begin{equation}
101: M_{l,\nu} \; = \; \left ( \matrix{
102: {\bf 0} & ~ C_{l,\nu} & ~ {\bf 0} \cr
103: C_{l,\nu} & ~ {\bf 0} & ~ B_{l,\nu} \cr
104: {\bf 0} & ~ B_{l,\nu} & ~ A_{l,\nu} \cr} \right ) \; ,
105: % (1)
106: \end{equation}
107: in which six texture zeros are included
108: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
109: \footnote{A pair of off-diagonal texture zeros of the charged
110: lepton ($M_l$) or neutrino ($M_\nu$) mass matrix have been
111: counted, due to symmetry, as one zero \cite{FX03}.}.
112: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
113: It has been shown by one of the authors \cite{X} that this type of
114: lepton mass matrices can naturally predict a normal hierarchy of
115: neutrino masses and a bi-large pattern of lepton flavor mixing
116: angles. Furthermore, Fukugita, Tanimoto and Yanagida \cite{FTY}
117: have demonstrated that very similar phenomenological predictions
118: can also be achieved from a simple but interesting ansatz of
119: lepton mass matrices based on both the Fritzsch texture
120: and the seesaw mechanism \cite{SS}.
121:
122: The present paper aims to analyze the generalized Fritzsch ansatz
123: of lepton mass matrices with four texture zeros,
124: \begin{equation}
125: M_{l,\nu} \; = \; \left ( \matrix{
126: {\bf 0} & ~ C_{l,\nu} & ~ {\bf 0} \cr
127: C_{l,\nu} & ~ \tilde{B}_{l,\nu} & ~ B_{l,\nu} \cr
128: {\bf 0} & ~ B_{l,\nu} & ~ A_{l,\nu} \cr} \right ) \; ,
129: % (2)
130: \end{equation}
131: and its consequences on the neutrino mass spectrum, flavor mixing
132: and CP violation. It is well known that the four-zero texture of
133: quark mass matrices is more successful than the six-zero texture of
134: quark mass matrices to interpret the strong hierarchy of quark
135: masses and the smallness of flavor mixing angles.
136: The spirit of lepton-quark similarity motivates us to conjecture
137: that the lepton mass matrices might have the same texture zeros
138: as the quark mass matrices. Such a conjecture is indeed reasonable
139: in some specific models of grand unified theories \cite{Review},
140: in which the
141: mass matrices of leptons and quarks are related to each other by
142: a new kind of flavor symmetry. That is why the four-zero texture
143: of lepton mass matrices has been considered as a typical
144: example in some model-building works \cite{40}. However, a careful
145: and complete analysis of its phenomenological implications has not
146: been done in the literature.
147:
148: Naively, there is no doubt that the four-zero texture of $M_{l,\nu}$
149: in Eq. (2), which has more free parameters than the Fritzsch
150: texture of $M_{l,\nu}$ in Eq. (1), must be able to interpret
151: the observed bi-large pattern of lepton flavor mixing. To improve
152: the analytical calculability and numerical
153: predictability, one may follow a realistic strategy to concentrate
154: on part of the whole parameter space of the four-zero texture of
155: lepton mass matrices. The same strategy has actually been adopted
156: in the study of the four-zero texture of quark mass
157: matrices \cite{FX99}. In this paper, we shall consider two
158: simplified versions of $M_l$ and $M_\nu$ given in Eq. (2):
159: \begin{enumerate}
160: \item $|\tilde{B}_l| = m_\mu$ and $|\tilde{B}_\nu| = m_2$, where
161: $m_\mu$ and $m_2$ stand respectively for the physical masses of
162: $\mu$ and $\nu_2$. This interesting case, to be referred to as
163: Ansatz (A), has been briefly discussed in Ref. \cite{40}.
164: \item $|\tilde{B}_l| = |B_l|$ and $|\tilde{B}_\nu| = |A_\nu|$.
165: This specific case, to be referred to as Ansatz (B),
166: has not been discussed in the literature.
167: \end{enumerate}
168: Our main purpose is to explore the allowed parameter space of each
169: ansatz and its implications on the neutrino mass spectrum and lepton
170: flavor mixing measurables. We find that both ans$\rm\ddot{a}$tze
171: are favored by current experimental data on neutrino oscillations.
172: Their predictions for the effective mass of the tritium beta decay
173: and that of the neutrinoless double beta decay are too small to be
174: detectable, but leptonic CP violation at the percent level is
175: definitely allowed. Finally, we present some brief discussions about
176: the seesaw invariance of the four-zero texture of Dirac and
177: Majorana neutrino mass matrices.
178:
179: \section{Framework}
180:
181: Note that all non-zero elements of $M_l$ and $M_\nu$ in Eq. (2)
182: are in general complex. If the condition
183: \begin{equation}
184: \arg (A_{l,\nu}) + \arg (\tilde{B}_{l,\nu}) =
185: 2 \arg (B_{l,\nu}) \;
186: % (3)
187: \end{equation}
188: is satisfied, then $M_{l,\nu}$ can be decomposed as
189: \begin{equation}
190: M_l = P^T_l \overline{M}_l P_l \; , ~~
191: M_\nu = P^T_\nu \overline{M}_\nu P_\nu \; ,
192: % (4)
193: \end{equation}
194: where
195: \begin{eqnarray}
196: \overline{M}_{l,\nu} & = & \left ( \matrix{
197: {\bf 0} & |C_{l,\nu}| & {\bf 0} \cr
198: |C_{l,\nu}| & |\tilde{B}_{l,\nu}| & |B_{l,\nu}| \cr
199: {\bf 0} & |B_{l,\nu}| & |A_{l,\nu}| \cr} \right ) \; ,
200: \nonumber \\
201: P_{l,\nu} & = & \left ( \matrix{
202: e^{i\alpha^{~}_{l,\nu}} & 0 & 0 \cr
203: 0 & ~ e^{i\beta^{~}_{l,\nu}} ~ & 0 \cr
204: 0 & 0 & e^{i\gamma^{~}_{l,\nu}} \cr} \right ) \; ,
205: % (5)
206: \end{eqnarray}
207: with $\arg (A_{l,\nu}) = 2\gamma^{~}_{l,\nu}$,
208: $\arg (B_{l,\nu}) = \beta^{~}_{l,\nu} + \gamma^{~}_{l,\nu}$,
209: $\arg(\tilde{B}_{l,\nu}) = 2\beta^{~}_{l,\nu}$ and
210: $\arg (C_{l,\nu}) = \alpha^{~}_{l,\nu} + \beta^{~}_{l,\nu}$.
211: The real symmetric matrices
212: $\overline{M}_l$ and $\overline{M}_\nu$
213: can be diagonalized by use of the following unitary transformations:
214: \begin{eqnarray}
215: U^T_l \overline{M}_l U_l & = & \left ( \matrix{
216: m_e & 0 & 0 \cr
217: 0 & ~ m_\mu ~ & 0 \cr
218: 0 & 0 & m_\tau \cr} \right ) \; ,
219: \nonumber \\
220: U^T_\nu \overline{M}_\nu U_\nu & = & \left ( \matrix{
221: m_1 & 0 & 0 \cr
222: 0 & ~ m_2 ~ & 0 \cr
223: 0 & 0 & m_3 \cr} \right ) \; ,
224: % (6)
225: \end{eqnarray}
226: in which $(m_e, m_\mu, m_\tau)$ and $(m_1, m_2, m_3)$ denote the
227: physical masses of charged leptons and neutrinos, respectively.
228: The lepton flavor mixing matrix $V$ arises from the mismatch between
229: the diagonalization of the charged lepton mass matrix $M_l$ and that
230: of the neutrino mass matrix $M_\nu$. Therefore, we obtain
231: $V = U^T_l \left (P^*_l P_\nu \right ) U^*_\nu$, whose nine matrix
232: elements read explicitly as
233: \begin{equation}
234: V_{pq} \; = \; U^l_{1 p} U^{\nu *}_{1 q} e^{i\alpha} ~ + ~
235: U^l_{2 p} U^{\nu *}_{2 q} e^{i \beta} ~ + ~
236: U^l_{3 p} U^{\nu *}_{3 q} e^{i \gamma} \; ,
237: % (7)
238: \end{equation}
239: where the subscripts $p$ and $q$ run respectively over $(e, \mu, \tau)$
240: and $(1,2,3)$, and the parameters $\alpha$, $\beta$ and $\gamma$ are
241: defined as
242: \begin{equation}
243: \alpha \equiv \alpha^{~}_\nu - \alpha^{~}_l \; , ~~~
244: \beta \equiv \beta^{~}_\nu - \beta^{~}_l \; , ~~~
245: \gamma \equiv \gamma^{~}_\nu - \gamma^{~}_l \; .
246: % (8)
247: \end{equation}
248: Note that the overall phase of $V$ has nothing to do with the
249: experimental observables. Hence only two combinations of three
250: phases $(\alpha, \beta, \gamma)$ are physically relevant. For
251: simplicity, we take $\gamma =0$ in the following.
252:
253: The matrix elements of $V$ depend both on the ratios of lepton
254: masses,
255: \begin{equation}
256: x^{~}_l \equiv \frac{m_e}{m_\mu} \; , ~~
257: y^{~}_l \equiv \frac{m_\mu}{m_\tau} \; , ~~
258: x_\nu \equiv \frac{m_1}{m_2} \; , ~~
259: y_\nu \equiv \frac{m_2}{m_3} \; ,
260: % (9)
261: \end{equation}
262: and on the phase parameters $\alpha$ and $\beta$. As the values of
263: $m_e$, $m_\mu$ and $m_\tau$ have precisely been measured \cite{PDG},
264: we have $x^{~}_l \approx 0.00484$ and $y^{~}_l \approx 0.0594$ to
265: a good degree of accuracy. The other four free parameters can be
266: determined or constrained from the present experimental data on
267: neutrino oscillations. As the neutrino mass-squared differences of
268: solar and atmospheric neutrino oscillations are given by
269: \begin{eqnarray}
270: \Delta m^2_{\rm sun} & \equiv & \left | m^2_2 - m^2_1 \right |
271: = m^2_2 \left | 1 - x^2_\nu \right | \; ,
272: \nonumber \\
273: \Delta m^2_{\rm atm} & \equiv & \left | m^2_3 - m^2_2 \right |
274: = m^2_3 \left | 1 - y^2_\nu \right | \; ,
275: % (10)
276: \end{eqnarray}
277: the observed hierarchy $\Delta m^2_{\rm sun} \ll \Delta m^2_{\rm atm}$
278: may impose a very strong constraint on the values of $(x_\nu, y_\nu)$:
279: \begin{equation}
280: R_\nu \; \equiv \; \frac{\Delta m^2_{\rm sun}}{\Delta m^2_{\rm atm}}
281: \; =\; y^2_\nu \left | \frac{1 - x^2_\nu}{1 - y^2_\nu}
282: \right | \ll 1 \; .
283: % (11)
284: \end{equation}
285: On the other hand, the mixing factors of solar, atmospheric and
286: CHOOZ reactor neutrino oscillations are related to the matrix elements
287: of $V$ in the following way:
288: \begin{eqnarray}
289: \sin^2 2 \theta_{\rm sun} & = & 4 |V_{e1}|^2 |V_{e2}|^2 \; ,
290: \nonumber \\
291: \sin^2 2 \theta_{\rm atm} & = & 4 |V_{\mu 3}|^2
292: \left (1 - |V_{\mu 3}|^2 \right ) \; ,
293: \nonumber \\
294: \sin^2 2\theta_{\rm chz} & = & 4 |V_{e3}|^2
295: \left ( 1 - |V_{e3}|^2 \right ) \; .
296: % (12)
297: \end{eqnarray}
298: In view of the KamLAND \cite{KM}, SNO \cite{SNO},
299: K2K \cite{K2K}, Super-Kamiokande \cite{SK} and CHOOZ \cite{CHOOZ}
300: data on neutrino oscillations, we have
301: $\Delta m^2_{\rm sun} \in [5.9, ~ 8.8] \times 10^{-5} ~ {\rm eV}^2$,
302: $\sin^2 \theta_{\rm sun} \in [0.25, ~ 0.40]$ \cite{Fit};
303: $\Delta m^2_{\rm atm} \in [1.65, ~ 3.25] \times 10^{-3} ~ {\rm eV}^2$,
304: $\sin^2 2\theta_{\rm atm} \in [0.88, ~ 1.00]$ \cite{Fogli}; and
305: $\sin^2 2\theta_{\rm chz} < 0.2$ at the $90\%$ confidence level.
306: With the help of these experimental results, the allowed ranges
307: of $x_\nu$, $y_\nu$, $\alpha$ and $\beta$ can be obtained from
308: Eqs. (11) and (12).
309:
310: Once the values of $x_\nu$ and $y_\nu$ are determined or
311: constrained from current experimental data, we are able to calculate
312: the absolute values of three neutrino masses by use of Eq. (10):
313: \begin{eqnarray}
314: m_3 & = & \frac{1}{\sqrt{|1 - y^2_\nu|}}
315: \sqrt{\Delta m^2_{\rm atm}} \;\; ,
316: \nonumber \\
317: m_2 & = & \frac{y_\nu}{\sqrt{|1 - y^2_\nu|}}
318: \sqrt{\Delta m^2_{\rm atm}}
319: \nonumber \\
320: & = & \frac{1}{\sqrt{|1 - x^2_\nu|}}
321: \sqrt{\Delta m^2_{\rm sun}} \;\; ,
322: \nonumber \\
323: m_1 & = & \frac{x_\nu}{\sqrt{|1 - x^2_\nu|}}
324: \sqrt{\Delta m^2_{\rm sun}} \;\; .
325: % (13)
326: \end{eqnarray}
327: In addition, interesting predictions can be achieved for the
328: effective mass of the tritium beta decay $\langle m\rangle_e$
329: and that of the neutrinoless double beta decay $\langle m\rangle_{ee}$:
330: \begin{eqnarray}
331: \langle m\rangle^2_e & \equiv & \sum^3_{i=1}
332: \left ( m^2_i |V_{ei}|^2 \right )
333: \nonumber \\
334: & = & m^2_3 \left (x^2_\nu y^2_\nu |V_{e1}|^2 + y^2_\nu |V_{e2}|^2 +
335: |V_{e3}|^2 \right ) \; ,
336: \nonumber \\
337: \langle m\rangle_{ee} & \equiv & \left | \sum^3_{i=1}
338: \left ( m_i V^2_{ei} \right ) \right |
339: \nonumber \\
340: & = & m_3 \left | x_\nu y_\nu V^2_{e1} + y_\nu V^2_{e2} +
341: V^2_{e3} \right | \; .
342: % (14)
343: \end{eqnarray}
344: The present experimental upper bound on $\langle m\rangle_e$ is
345: $\langle m\rangle_e < 3$ eV \cite{PDG}, while the sensitivity of the
346: proposed KATRIN experiment is expected to reach
347: $\langle m\rangle_e \sim 0.3$ eV \cite{K}. In comparison,
348: the upper limit $\langle m\rangle_{ee} < 0.35$ eV has been set by the
349: Heidelberg-Moscow Collaboration \cite{HM} at the $90\%$ confidence level
350: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
351: \footnote{If the reported evidence for the existence of the neutrinoless
352: double beta decay \cite{KK} is taken into account, one has
353: $0.05 ~ {\rm eV} \leq \langle m\rangle_{ee} \leq 0.84 ~ {\rm eV}$ at
354: the $95\%$ confidence level.}.
355: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
356: The sensitivity of the next-generation experiments
357: for the neutrinoless double beta decay is possible to reach
358: $\langle m\rangle_{ee} \sim 10$ meV to 50 meV \cite{B}.
359:
360: The strength of CP violation in neutrino oscillations, which is
361: measured by the Jarlskog invariant $\cal J$ \cite{Jarlskog},
362: can also be predicted from the four-zero texture of lepton mass
363: matrices under consideration. Indeed, $\cal J$ is defined through the
364: following equation:
365: \begin{equation}
366: {\rm Im} \left ( V_{a i} V_{b j} V^*_{a j} V^*_{b i} \right ) \; =\;
367: {\cal J} \sum_{c, k}
368: \left ( \epsilon_{a b c} \epsilon_{ijk} \right ) \; ,
369: % (15)
370: \end{equation}
371: where the subscripts $(a, b, c)$ and $(i, j, k)$ run respectively over
372: $(e, \mu, \tau)$ and $(1,2,3)$. The magnitude of $\cal J$ depends
373: both on $(x_\nu, y_\nu)$ and on $(\alpha, \beta)$. If
374: $|{\cal J}| \sim 1\%$ is achievable, then leptonic CP- and T-violating
375: effects could be measured in a variety of long-baseline neutrino
376: oscillation experiments \cite{LBL} in the future.
377:
378: \section{Ansatz (A)}
379:
380: Now let us consider Ansatz (A), in which the requirements
381: $|\tilde{B}_l| = m_\mu$ and $|\tilde{B}_\nu| = m_2$ are imposed
382: on $M_l$ and $M_\nu$ in Eq. (2). Similar conditions
383: ($|\tilde{B}_{\rm u}| = m_c$ and $|\tilde{B}_{\rm d}| = m_s$)
384: have actually been taken in some literature \cite{40} for the
385: four-zero texture of quark mass matrices. Following Eqs. (3) and (4),
386: we factor out the complex phases of $M_{l,\nu}$. Then three
387: elements of the real symmetric mass matrix $\overline{M}_{l,\nu}$
388: can be expressed in terms of its three mass eigenvalues:
389: \begin{eqnarray}
390: |A_l| & = & m_\tau - m_e \; ,
391: \nonumber \\
392: |B_l| & = & \left [ \frac{m_e m_\tau (m_\tau - m_e - m_\mu)}
393: {m_\tau - m_e} \right ]^{1/2} \; ,
394: \nonumber \\
395: |C_l| & = & \left ( \frac{m_e m_\mu m_\tau}{m_\tau - m_e}
396: \right )^{1/2} \; ;
397: % (16)
398: \end{eqnarray}
399: and
400: \begin{eqnarray}
401: |A_\nu| & = & m_3 - m_1 \; ,
402: \nonumber \\
403: |B_\nu| & = & \left [ \frac{m_1 m_3 (m_3 - m_1 - m_2)}
404: {m_3 - m_1} \right ]^{1/2} \; ,
405: \nonumber \\
406: |C_\nu| & = & \left ( \frac{m_1 m_2 m_3}{m_3 - m_1} \right )^{1/2} \; .
407: % (17)
408: \end{eqnarray}
409: The elements of the unitary transformation matrix $U_{l,\nu}$,
410: which is used to diagonalize $\overline{M}_{l,\nu}$ in Eq. (6), can in
411: turn be expressed in terms of the ratios $x^{~}_{l,\nu}$ and
412: $y^{~}_{l,\nu}$ as follows (the indices ``$l$'' and ``$\nu$'' are
413: neglected for simplicity):
414: \begin{eqnarray}
415: U_{11} & = & + i \left [ \frac{1}{(1+x)(1-x^2y^2)} \right ]^{1/2} \; ,
416: \nonumber \\
417: U_{12} & = & + \left [ \frac{x(1-y-xy)}{(1+x)(1-y)(1-xy)}
418: \right ]^{1/2} \; ,
419: \nonumber \\
420: U_{13} & = & + \left [ \frac{x^2y^3}{(1-y)(1-x^2y^2)}
421: \right ]^{1/2} \; ,
422: \nonumber \\
423: U_{21} & = & - i \left [ \frac{x}{(1+x)(1+xy)} \right ]^{1/2} \; ,
424: \nonumber \\
425: U_{22} & = & + \left [ \frac{1-y-xy}{(1+x)(1-y)} \right ]^{1/2} \; ,
426: \nonumber \\
427: U_{23} & = & + \left [ \frac{xy}{(1-y)(1+xy)} \right ]^{1/2} \; ,
428: \nonumber \\
429: U_{31} & = & + i \left [ \frac{x^2y(1-y-xy)}{(1+x)(1-x^2y^2)}
430: \right ]^{1/2} \; ,
431: \nonumber \\
432: U_{32} & = & - \left [ \frac{xy}{(1+x)(1-y)(1-xy)} \right ]^{1/2} \; ,
433: \nonumber \\
434: U_{33} & = & + \left [ \frac{1-y-xy}{(1-y)(1-x^2y^2)} \right ]^{1/2} \; .
435: % (18)
436: \end{eqnarray}
437: Note that $U_{i1}$ (for $i=1,2,3$) are imaginary, and their nontrivial
438: phases are due to the negative determinant of $\overline{M}_{l,\nu}$.
439:
440: The four free parameters $x_\nu$, $y_\nu$, $\alpha$ and $\beta$ can
441: be constrained by use of Eqs. (11) and (12) as well as current data
442: on neutrino oscillations. Their allowed ranges are shown in Fig. 1.
443: We see that $x_\nu \sim 0.86$ and $y_\nu \sim 0.35$ typically hold.
444: Thus the neutrino mass spectrum satisfies $m_1 < m_2 < m_3$. For
445: $\alpha$ and $\beta$ varying from 0 to $2\pi$, we find that about
446: half of the whole $(\alpha, \beta)$ parameter space can be excluded.
447: Note that the correlation between $\alpha$ and $\beta$ in Ansatz (A)
448: is not as strong as the phase correlation in the Fritzsch
449: ansatz of lepton mass matrices \cite{X,FTY}. The reason is simply
450: that the contribution of $M_l$ to $V$ is much smaller in Ansatz (A)
451: than in the Fritzsch ansatz. Hence the relative phases between
452: $M_l$ and $M_\nu$ in the former cannot significantly affect the
453: magnitudes of nine matrix elements of $V$.
454:
455: Fig. 1 also shows the ouputs of $\sin^2 2\theta_{\rm atm}$ versus
456: $\sin^2\theta_{\rm sun}$ and $\sin^2 2\theta_{\rm chz}$ versus
457: $R_\nu$ restricted by Ansatz (A). It can be seen that larger
458: values of $\sin^2\theta_{\rm sun}$ roughly correspond to smaller
459: values of $\sin^2 2\theta_{\rm atm}$. In addition, the ansatz
460: predicts $\sin^2 2\theta_{\rm chz} \geq 0.08$, a lower bound
461: which is easily accessible in the upcoming long-baseline neutrino
462: oscillation experiments \cite{LBL}. If the upper limit
463: $\sin^2 2\theta_{\rm chz} < 0.1$ instead of
464: $\sin^2 2\theta_{\rm chz} < 0.2$ is input in the numerical
465: calculations, one will arrive at
466: $\sin^2 2\theta_{\rm atm} \leq 0.91$. Such a low value of
467: $\sin^2 2\theta_{\rm atm}$ is tolerable, but not favored by
468: current data. It becomes clear that
469: the mixing angles $\theta_{\rm sun}$, $\theta_{\rm atm}$ and
470: $\theta_{\rm chz}$ are strongly correlated with one another in
471: Ansatz (A). Thus more precise data on three mixing angles may
472: provide a sensitive test of this phenomenological scenario.
473:
474: The result $y^2_\nu \sim 0.1$ implies that
475: $m_3 \approx \sqrt{\Delta m^2_{\rm atm}}$ is an acceptable
476: approximation. More exactly, we obtain
477: $m_3 \approx (4.3 - 6.1) \times 10^{-2}$ eV,
478: $m_2 \approx (1.4 - 2.3) \times 10^{-2}$ eV and
479: $m_1 \approx (1.1 - 2.1) \times 10^{-2}$ eV from Eq. (13).
480: In calculating the allowed ranges of $m_1$ and $m_2$, we have
481: ignored their correlation induced by the model itself. This
482: generous treatment has no conflict with the plot of
483: $(x_\nu, y_\nu)$ in Fig. 1, in which $x_\nu < 1$ results from the
484: correlation between $m_1/m_2$ and $m_2/m_3$.
485: The sum of three neutrino masses is consistent with
486: $m_1 + m_2 + m_3 < 0.71$ eV, an upper bound set by the recent
487: WMAP data \cite{WMAP}. We compute the effective mass of the
488: tritium beta decay and that of the neutrinoless double beta decay
489: by use of Eq. (14), and present the numerical results in Fig. 1.
490: One can see that $\langle m\rangle_e \sim 10^{-2}$ eV and
491: $\langle m\rangle_{ee} \sim 10^{-3}$ eV typically hold.
492: Both quantities are too small to be measured in practice.
493: Similarly, there is no hope to detect the effective (kinematic)
494: masses of muon and tau neutrinos \cite{NO}. The numerical results
495: for the Jarlskog parameter $\cal J$ and the
496: smallest matrix element $|V_{e3}|$ are also shown in
497: Fig. 1. We find that the magnitude of ${\cal J}$ may nearly be
498: $1\%$, if $|V_{e3}|$ is close to its upper bound. It is possible
499: to measure leptonic CP violation of this order in the future
500: neutrino factories, if the terrestrial matter effects can be
501: under control.
502:
503: Finally we illustrate the typical texture of $\overline{M}_{l,\nu}$
504: by taking $x_\nu \approx 0.86$, $y_\nu \approx 0.35$ and
505: $m_3 \approx 0.05$ eV. The result is
506: \begin{eqnarray}
507: \overline{M}_l & \approx & 1.78 ~ {\rm GeV} \times
508: \left ( \matrix{
509: {\bf 0} & 0.0041 & {\bf 0} \cr
510: 0.0041 & 0.059 & 0.016 \cr
511: {\bf 0} & 0.016 & {\bf 1} \cr} \right ) \; ,
512: \nonumber \\
513: \overline{M}_\nu & \approx & 3.50 \times 10^{-2} ~ {\rm eV} \times
514: \left ( \matrix{
515: {\bf 0} & 0.56 & {\bf 0} \cr
516: 0.56 & 0.50 & 0.55 \cr
517: {\bf 0} & 0.55 & {\bf 1} \cr} \right ) \; .
518: % (19)
519: \end{eqnarray}
520: It becomes obvious that lepton flavor mixing is dominated by the
521: neutrino sector, as the matrix elements of $\overline{M}_l$ have
522: a very strong hierarchy.
523:
524: \section{Ansatz (B)}
525:
526: We proceed to consider Ansatz (B), in which the requirements
527: $|\tilde{B}_l| = |B_l|$ and $|\tilde{B}_\nu| = |A_\nu|$ are imposed
528: on $M_l$ and $M_\nu$ in Eq. (2). Note that the condition
529: $|\tilde{B}_l| = |B_l|$ is similar to
530: $|\tilde{B}_{\rm u}| \approx |B_{\rm u}|$ and
531: $|\tilde{B}_{\rm d}| \approx |B_{\rm d}|$ for the four-zero texture
532: of quark mass matrices \cite{FX99}, in view of the fact that
533: charged leptons have a strong mass hierarchy as quarks. Because
534: the condition $|\tilde{B}_l| = |B_l|$ leads to $|B_l| \approx m_\mu$
535: in the leading-order approximation, it is essentially equivalent to
536: the condition $|\tilde{B}_l| = m_\mu$ taken in Ansatz (A). In contrast,
537: the requirement $|\tilde{B}_\nu| = |A_\nu|$ is motivated by the
538: experimental fact that the mixing angle of atmospheric neutrino
539: oscillations is about $45^\circ$ \cite{SK} (namely, the diagonalization
540: of the (2,3) subsector of $M_\nu$ may give rise to a rotation angle of
541: $45^\circ$, if the condition $|\tilde{B}_\nu| = |A_\nu|$ is satisfied).
542: Such a phenomenological
543: hypothesis for the texture of $M_\nu$ results in an apparent
544: ``structural asymmetry'' between $M_l$ and $M_\nu$, but its
545: consequences on lepton flavor mixing are simple and interesting.
546: Following Eqs. (3) and (4),
547: we can factor out the complex phases of $M_{l,\nu}$. Although
548: we are able to exactly express both $(|A_l|, |B_l|, |C_l|)$ and
549: $(|A_\nu|, |B_\nu|, |C_\nu|)$ in terms of the corresponding mass
550: eigenvalues, the formulas for the former are too complicated to be
551: instructive. It is therefore better to make some analytical
552: approximations in deriving $|A_l|$, $|B_l|$ and $|C_l|$. In view of
553: the strong mass hierarchy in the charged lepton sector, we expect
554: that $|A_l| \gg |B_l| \gg |C_l|$ naturally holds. Then we obtain
555: \begin{eqnarray}
556: |A_l| & \approx & m_\tau
557: \left (1 - \frac{m^2_\mu}{m^2_\tau} \right ) \; ,
558: \nonumber \\
559: |B_l| & \approx & m_\mu
560: \left ( 1 + \frac{m_\mu}{m_\tau} \right ) \; ,
561: \nonumber \\
562: |C_l| & \approx & \sqrt{m_e m_\mu}
563: \left (1 + \frac{m^2_\mu}{2m^2_\tau} \right ) \; ,
564: % (20)
565: \end{eqnarray}
566: to a good degree of accuracy. In contrast, the expressions of
567: $|A_\nu|$, $|B_\nu|$ and $|C_\nu|$ are exact:
568: \begin{eqnarray}
569: |A_\nu| & = & \frac{m_3+m_2-m_1}{2} \; ,
570: \nonumber \\
571: |B_\nu| & = & \frac{1}{2} \left[ \frac{\left (m_3+m_2+m_1 \right )
572: \left (m_3-m_2-m_1 \right ) \left (m_3-m_2+m_1 \right )}
573: {m_3+m_2-m_1}\right]^{1/2} \; ,
574: \nonumber \\
575: |C_\nu| & = & \left (\frac{2 m_1 m_2 m_3}{m_3+m_2-m_1} \right)^{1/2} \; .
576: % (21)
577: \end{eqnarray}
578: The unitary transformation matrix $U_l$, which has been defined to
579: diagonalize $\overline{M}_l$ in Eq. (6), can approximately be given as
580: \begin{equation}
581: U_l \; \approx \; \left ( \matrix{
582: \displaystyle i \left (1 - \frac{x^{~}_l}{2} \right ) &
583: \displaystyle \sqrt{x^{~}_l} &
584: \displaystyle y^{~}_l \sqrt{x^{~}_l y^{~}_l} \cr
585: \displaystyle -i \sqrt{x^{~}_l} &
586: \displaystyle ~~ 1 - \frac{x^{~}_l}{2} - \frac{y^2_l}{2} ~~ &
587: \displaystyle y^{~}_l \cr
588: \displaystyle i y^{~}_l \sqrt{x^{~}_l} &
589: \displaystyle - y^{~}_l &
590: \displaystyle 1 - \frac{y^2_l}{2} \cr} \right ) \; ,
591: % (22)
592: \end{equation}
593: where the fact of $x^{~}_l \sim y^2_l$ has been taken into account.
594: In addition, the matrix elements of $U_\nu$ can be expressed in terms
595: of $x_\nu$ and $y_\nu$ as follows:
596: \begin{eqnarray}
597: U_{11}^\nu & = & +i \left [\frac{(1+y_{\nu}+x_{\nu}y_{\nu})}
598: {(1+x_{\nu})(1+x_{\nu}y_{\nu})(1+y_{\nu}-x_{\nu}y_{\nu})} \right ]^{1/2} \; ,
599: \nonumber \\
600: U_{12}^\nu & = & +\left [\frac{x_{\nu}(1-y_{\nu}-x_{\nu}y_{\nu})}{(1+x_{\nu})
601: (1-y_{\nu})(1+y_{\nu}-x_{\nu}y_{\nu})}\right]^{1/2} \; ,
602: \nonumber \\
603: U_{13}^\nu & = & +\left [\frac{x_{\nu}y_{\nu}^2(1-y_{\nu}+x_{\nu}y_{\nu})}
604: {(1-y_{\nu})(1+x_{\nu}y_{\nu})(1+y_{\nu}-x_{\nu}y_{\nu})} \right ]^{1/2} \; ,
605: \nonumber \\
606: U_{21}^\nu & = & -i\left[\frac{x_{\nu}(1+y_{\nu}+x_{\nu}y_{\nu})}
607: {2(1+x_{\nu})(1+x_{\nu}y_{\nu})} \right ]^{1/2} \; ,
608: \nonumber \\
609: U_{22}^\nu & = & +\left [\frac{(1-y_{\nu}-x_{\nu}y_{\nu})}
610: {2(1+x_{\nu})(1-y_{\nu})} \right ]^{1/2} \; ,
611: \nonumber \\
612: U_{23}^\nu & = & +\left [\frac{(1-y_{\nu}+x_{\nu}y_{\nu})}
613: {2(1-y_{\nu})(1+x_{\nu}y_{\nu})} \right ]^{1/2} \; ,
614: \nonumber \\
615: U_{31}^\nu & = & +i\left [\frac{x_{\nu}(1-y_{\nu}-x_{\nu}y_{\nu})
616: (1-y_{\nu}+x_{\nu}y_{\nu})}{2(1+x_{\nu})(1+x_{\nu}y_{\nu})
617: (1+y_{\nu}-x_{\nu}y_{\nu})} \right ]^{1/2} \; ,
618: \nonumber \\
619: U_{32}^\nu & = & -\left [\frac{(1+y_{\nu}+x_{\nu}y_{\nu})
620: (1-y_{\nu}+x_{\nu}y_{\nu})}{2(1+x_{\nu})(1-y_{\nu})
621: (1+y_{\nu}-x_{\nu}y_{\nu})} \right ]^{1/2} \; ,
622: \nonumber \\
623: U_{33}^\nu & = & +\left [\frac{(1+y_{\nu}+x_{\nu}y_{\nu})
624: (1-y_{\nu}-x_{\nu}y_{\nu})}{2(1-y_{\nu})(1+x_{\nu}y_{\nu})
625: (1+y_{\nu}-x_{\nu}y_{\nu})} \right ]^{1/2} \; .
626: % (23)
627: \end{eqnarray}
628: Note again that $U_{i1}^l$ and $U_{i1}^{\nu}$ (for $i=1,2,3$) are
629: imaginary, and their nontrivial phases are due to
630: ${\rm Det}(\overline{M}_l) <0$ and ${\rm Det}(\overline{M}_\nu) <0$.
631:
632: With the help of Eqs. (11) and (12), one may compute the ranges of
633: $x_{\nu}$, $y_{\nu}$, $\alpha$ and $\beta$ allowed by current
634: data on neutrino oscillations. The numerical results are shown in
635: Fig. 2. We see that the allowed range of $x_\nu$ in Ansatz (B) is much
636: larger than that in Ansatz (A). As both $x_\nu <1$ and $y_\nu <1$ hold,
637: the neutrino mass spectrum satisfies $m_1 < m_2 < m_3$.
638: Note that there is little restriction on the phase parameters $\alpha$
639: and $\beta$. This feature can easily be understood: the contribution of
640: $M_\nu$ to $V$ is dominant over that of $M_l$ to $V$, thus the
641: magnitudes of nine matrix elements of $V$ are essentially insensitive
642: to the relative phases between $M_l$ and $M_{\nu}$.
643:
644: The outputs of $\sin^2 2\theta_{\rm atm}$ versus
645: $\sin^2 \theta_{\rm sun}$ and $\sin^2 2\theta_{\rm chz}$ versus $R_\nu$
646: are also shown in Fig. 2. We see that
647: $\sin^2 2\theta_{\rm atm} \geq 0.94$ holds
648: and $\sin^2 2\theta_{\rm atm} \approx 1$ is particularly favored.
649: The latter is a natural consequence of the specific texture of
650: $M_\nu$, whose (2,3) subsector can be diagonalized by a rotation of
651: $45^\circ$. Thus $|V_{\mu 3}| \approx 1/\sqrt{2}$ leads to
652: $\sin^2 2\theta_{\rm atm} \approx 1$ in Ansatz (B). Another feature
653: of Ansatz (B) is that changing the upper bound of
654: $\sin^2 2\theta_{\rm chz}$ from 0.2 to 0.1 does not significantly
655: affect the allowed range of $\sin^2 2\theta_{\rm atm}$.
656: However, the correlation between $\sin^2 2\theta_{\rm chz}$ and
657: $R_\nu$ is stronger in Ansatz (B) than in Ansatz (A).
658:
659: The approximation $m_3 \approx \sqrt{\Delta m^2_{\rm atm}}$ is
660: reasonably good in Ansatz (B). Numerically, we obtain
661: $m_3 \approx (4.2 - 5.8) \times 10^{-2} ~ {\rm eV}$,
662: $m_2 \approx (0.8 - 1.4) \times 10^{-2} ~ {\rm eV}$ and
663: $m_1 \approx (0.3 - 1.1) \times 10^{-2} ~ {\rm eV}$ from Eq. (13).
664: This neutrino mass spectrum is quite similar to that in Ansatz (A).
665: The results for the effective mass of the tritium beta
666: decay and that of the neutrinoless double beta decay are also
667: illustrated in Fig. 2. One can see that
668: $\langle m \rangle_e \sim 10^{-2} ~ {\rm eV}$ and
669: $\langle m \rangle_{ee} \sim 10^{-3} ~ {\rm eV}$ hold in Ansatz (B).
670: Both of them are too small to be detected in reality. In addition,
671: Fig. 2 shows that the magnitude of the Jarlskog parameter
672: $\cal J$ may nearly be $1.5\%$, if $|V_{e3}|$ is larger than 0.15.
673: This result implies that it is possible to observe leptonic CP
674: violation in the future long-baseline neutrino oscillation experiments.
675:
676: To illustrate the texture of $\overline{M}_{l,\nu}$, we typically take
677: $x_{\nu} \approx 0.6$, $y_{\nu} \approx 0.21$ and
678: $m_3 \approx 0.05 ~{\rm eV}$. The numerical result is
679: \begin{eqnarray}
680: \overline{M}_l & \approx & 1.77 ~ {\rm GeV} \times
681: \left ( \matrix{
682: {\bf 0} & 0.0042 & {\bf 0} \cr
683: 0.0042 & 0.064 & 0.064 \cr
684: {\bf 0} & 0.064 & {\bf 1} \cr} \right ) \; ,
685: \nonumber \\
686: \overline{M}_\nu & \approx & 2.71 \times 10^{-2} ~ {\rm eV} \times
687: \left ( \matrix{
688: {\bf 0} & 0.41 & {\bf 0} \cr
689: 0.41 & {\bf 1} & 0.80 \cr
690: {\bf 0} & 0.80 & {\bf 1} \cr} \right ) \; .
691: % (24)
692: \end{eqnarray}
693: The similarity and difference between two ans$\rm\ddot{a}$tze are
694: therefore obvious.
695:
696: \section{Seesaw}
697:
698: Two ans$\rm\ddot{a}$tze of lepton mass matrices discussed above
699: can self-consistently describe the observed features of lepton flavor
700: mixing, but they give no interpretation about why the masses of three
701: neutrinos are so tiny. A simple way to improve our phenomenological
702: ans$\rm\ddot{a}$tze is to incorporate them with the elegant idea
703: of seesaw \cite{SS}. In the seesaw mechanism,
704: the smallness of left-handed Majorana neutrinos is attributed to
705: the existence of heavy right-handed Majorana neutrinos,
706: \begin{equation}
707: M_\nu \; \approx \; M_{\rm D} M^{-1}_{\rm R} M^T_{\rm D} \; ,
708: % (25)
709: \end{equation}
710: where $M_{\rm D}$ and $M_{\rm R}$ denote the Dirac neutrino mass
711: matrix and the heavy Majorana neutrino mass matrix, respectively.
712: In some grand unified theories (such as the SO(10) model \cite{SO10}),
713: one takes $[M_{\rm D}, M_{\rm u}] = 0$, where $M_{\rm u}$ represents the
714: up-type quark mass matrix. The mass matrix $M_{\rm R}$ is
715: practically unknown in almost all reasonable extensions of the
716: standard model. Hence specific textures of $M_{\rm R}$ and
717: $M_{\rm D}$ have to be assumed, in order to determine the texture
718: of $M_\nu$. Given $M_\nu$ and $M_{\rm D}$, on the other hand, one
719: can calculate $M_{\rm R}$ by use of Eq. (25):
720: \begin{equation}
721: M_{\rm R} \; \approx \; M^T_{\rm D} M^{-1}_\nu M_{\rm D} \; .
722: % (26)
723: \end{equation}
724: The scale of $M_{\rm R}$ stands for the scale of new physics in this
725: simple seesaw picture.
726:
727: To be specific, we assume that $M_{\rm D} = M_{\rm u}$ holds and
728: it has the same texture zeros as $M_l$ and $M_\nu$ have:
729: \begin{equation}
730: M_{\rm D} \; = \; \left ( \matrix{
731: {\bf 0} & C_{\rm u} & {\bf 0} \cr
732: C_{\rm u} & \tilde{B}_{\rm u} & B_{\rm u} \cr
733: {\bf 0} & B_{\rm u} & A_{\rm u} \cr} \right ) \; .
734: % (27)
735: \end{equation}
736: Only if the condition ${\rm Det}M_\nu \neq 0$ is guaranteed
737: for $M_\nu$ in Eq. (2), one may obtain the inverse matrix of $M_\nu$
738: as follows:
739: \begin{equation}
740: M^{-1}_\nu \; =\; \frac{1}{A_\nu C^2_\nu} \left ( \matrix{
741: B^2_\nu - A_\nu \tilde{B}_\nu & A_\nu C_\nu & -B_\nu C_\nu \cr
742: A_\nu C_\nu & {\bf 0} & {\bf 0} \cr
743: -B_\nu C_\nu & {\bf 0} & C^2_\nu \cr} \right ) \; .
744: % (28)
745: \end{equation}
746: Then the texture of $M_{\rm R}$ can be determined from Eq. (26) with
747: the help of Eqs. (27) and (28):
748: \begin{equation}
749: M_{\rm R} \; = \; \left ( \matrix{
750: {\bf 0} & C_{\rm R} & {\bf 0} \cr
751: C_{\rm R} & \tilde{B}_{\rm R} & B_{\rm R} \cr
752: {\bf 0} & B_{\rm R} & A_{\rm R} \cr} \right ) \; ,
753: % (29)
754: \end{equation}
755: where
756: \begin{eqnarray}
757: A_{\rm R} & = & \frac{A_{\rm u}^2}{A_\nu} \; ,
758: \nonumber \\
759: B_{\rm R} & = & \frac{A_{\rm u} B_{\rm u}}{A_\nu}
760: ~ + ~ \frac{B_{\rm u} C_{\rm u}}{C_\nu}
761: ~ - ~ \frac{A_{\rm u} C_{\rm u} B_\nu}{A_\nu C_\nu} \; ,
762: \nonumber \\
763: \tilde{B}_{\rm R} & = & \frac{B_{\rm u}^2}{A_\nu}
764: ~ + ~ \frac{2 \tilde{B}_{\rm u} C_{\rm u}}{C_\nu}
765: ~ - ~ \frac{C_{\rm u}^2 \tilde{B}_\nu}{C^2_\nu}
766: ~ - ~ \frac{2 B_{\rm u} C_{\rm u} B_\nu}{A_\nu C_\nu}
767: ~ + ~ \frac{C_{\rm u}^2 B^2_\nu}{A_\nu C^2_\nu} \; ,
768: \nonumber \\
769: C_{\rm R} & = & \frac{C_{\rm u}^2}{C_\nu} \; .
770: % (30)
771: \end{eqnarray}
772: We see that the texture zeros of $M_{\rm D}$ and $M_\nu$ manifest
773: themselves again in $M_{\rm R}$, as a consequence of the
774: inverted seesaw relation given in Eq. (26). Therefore, all four
775: lepton mass matrices ($M_l$, $M_{\rm D}$, $M_{\rm R}$ and $M_\nu$)
776: are structurally parallel to one another. Such a structural
777: similarity of lepton mass matrices, which is seesaw-invariant,
778: might follow from a universal flavor symmetry hidden in a more
779: fundamental theory of fermion mass generation. In particular,
780: the underlying flavor symmetry must be related to the texture
781: zeros of lepton mass matrices. It is worth mentioning that the
782: Fritzsch texture of lepton mass matrices in Eq. (1) does not have
783: the interesting property of seesaw invariance. Thus we argue that
784: the four-zero texture of lepton mass matrix might be more attractive
785: for model building at the energy scale where the seesaw mechanism
786: works.
787:
788: Now let us give an order-of-magnitude estimate of the matrix
789: elements of $M_{\rm R}$ by taking the following
790: phenomenologically-favored pattern of $M_{\rm u}$ \cite{FX99}:
791: \begin{equation}
792: M_{\rm u} \; \sim \; \left ( \matrix{
793: {\bf 0} & \sqrt{m_u m_c} & {\bf 0} \cr
794: \sqrt{m_u m_c} & m_c & \sqrt{m_u m_t} \cr
795: {\bf 0} & \sqrt{m_u m_t} & m_t \cr} \right ) \; ,
796: % (31)
797: \end{equation}
798: in which the relevant complex phases have been neglected for
799: simplicity. Typically taking $m_u/m_c \sim m_c/m_t \sim 0.0031$ and
800: $m_t \approx 175$ GeV at the electroweak scale \cite{PDG}, we obtain
801: \begin{equation}
802: M_{\rm R} \; \sim \; 8.8 \times 10^{14} ~ {\rm GeV} \times
803: \left ( \matrix{
804: {\bf 0} & 5.4 \times 10^{-8} & {\bf 0} \cr
805: 5.4 \times 10^{-8} & 9.6 \times 10^{-6} & 3.1 \times 10^{-3} \cr
806: {\bf 0} & 3.1 \times 10^{-3} & {\bf 1} \cr} \right ) \;
807: % (32)
808: \end{equation}
809: from Eq. (19) for Ansatz (A); and
810: \begin{equation}
811: M_{\rm R} \; \sim \; 1.1 \times 10^{15} ~ {\rm GeV} \times
812: \left ( \matrix{
813: {\bf 0} & 7.3 \times 10^{-8} & {\bf 0} \cr
814: 7.3 \times 10^{-8} & 9.6 \times 10^{-6} & 3.1 \times 10^{-3} \cr
815: {\bf 0} & 3.1 \times 10^{-3} & {\bf 1} \cr} \right ) \;
816: % (32)
817: \end{equation}
818: from Eq. (24) for Ansatz (B). We see that the structure of
819: $M_{\rm R}$ is strongly hierarchical in either case. The scale of
820: $M_{\rm R}$ is about $10^{15}$ GeV, close to the typical scale of
821: grand unified theories $\Lambda_{\rm GUT} \sim 10^{16}$ GeV.
822:
823: It is worth remarking that the phase parameters of $M_{\rm D}$
824: and $M_\nu$ have been ignored in estimating the matrix elements
825: of $M_{\rm R}$. If those complex phases are included,
826: it is possible to get CP violation in the lepton-number-violating
827: decays of heavy Majorana neutrinos \cite{FY}. However, a
828: successful interpretation of the observed matter-antimatter
829: asymmetry of the universe via the leptogenesis mechanism \cite{FY}
830: is rather nontrivial, because the details of $M_{\rm D}$ and
831: $M_{\rm R}$ have to be taken into account. Further discussions on
832: this topic are interesting but beyond the scope of this paper.
833:
834: \section{Summary}
835:
836: We have proposed and discussed two phenomenological ans$\rm\ddot{a}$tze
837: of lepton mass matrices with four texture zeros. The parameter space
838: of each ansatz has been carefully analyzed by use of current experimental
839: data on neutrino oscillations. We demonstrate that the normal hierarchy
840: of neutrino masses and the bi-large pattern of lepton flavor mixing
841: can be accommodated in both ans$\rm\ddot{a}$tze. Their predictions for
842: the effective mass of the tritium beta decay and that of the
843: neutrinoless double beta decay are too small to be detected in
844: practice. However, we find that leptonic CP violation at the percent
845: level is possible for either ansatz.
846: The correlation of relevant observable quantities in each ansatz
847: allows us to test its validity, once more accurate experimental data
848: become available. This property may also allow us to distinguish between
849: these two different ans$\rm\ddot{a}$tze.
850:
851: For the purpose of illustration, we have presented some brief
852: discussions about the seesaw realization of our phenomenological
853: scenarios. It is clear that the existence of heavy right-handed
854: Majorana neutrinos at the scale of $10^{15}$ GeV or so
855: may naturally interpret
856: the smallness of left-handed Majorana neutrino masses. This observation
857: would be useful for model building, from which some deeper understanding
858: of the neutrino mass generation and lepton flavor mixing could be gained.
859:
860: One of us (H.Z.) is grateful to the theory division of IHEP for
861: financial support and hospitality in Beijing.
862: This work was supported in part by the National Natural Science
863: Foundation of China.
864:
865: %\vspace{1.5cm}
866:
867: %\newpage
868:
869: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
870:
871: \bibitem{KM} KamLAND Collaboration, K. Eguchi {\it et al.},
872: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 90} (2003) 021802.
873:
874: \bibitem{SNO} SNO Collaboration, Q.R. Ahmad {\it et al.},
875: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 89} (2002) 011301; Phys. Rev. Lett.
876: {\bf 89} (2002) 011302.
877:
878: \bibitem{K2K} K2K Collaboration, M.H. Ahn {\it et al.},
879: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 90} (2003) 041801.
880:
881: \bibitem{SK} For a review, see: C.K. Jung, C. McGrew, T. Kajita,
882: and T. Mann, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. {\bf 51} (2001) 451.
883:
884: \bibitem{CHOOZ} CHOOZ Collaboration, M. Apollonio {\it et al.},
885: Phys. Lett. B {\bf 420} (1998) 397;
886: Palo Verde Collaboration, F. Boehm {\it et al.},
887: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 84} (2000) 3764.
888:
889: \bibitem{CKM} N. Cabibbo, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 10} (1963) 531;
890: M. Kobayashi and T. Maskawa, Prog. Theor. Phys. {\bf 49} (1973) 652.
891:
892: \bibitem{Review} For recent reviews with extensive references, see:
893: H. Fritzsch and Z.Z. Xing, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. {\bf 45} (2000) 1;
894: G. Altarelli and F. Feruglio, hep-ph/0206077, to appear in
895: {\it Neutrino Mass} - Springer Tracts in Modern Physics, edited by
896: G. Altarelli and K. Winter (2002).
897:
898: \bibitem{20} See, e.g., P.H. Frampton, S.L. Glashow, and D. Marfatia,
899: Phys. Lett. B {\bf 536} (2002) 79;
900: Z.Z. Xing, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 530} (2002) 159;
901: Phys. Lett. B {\bf 539} (2002) 85;
902: A. Kageyama, S. Kaneko, N. Simoyama, and M. Tanimoto,
903: Phys. Lett. B {\bf 538} (2002) 96;
904: B.R. Desai, D.P. Roy, and A.R. Vaucher, hep-ph/0209035;
905: G. Bhattacharyya, A. Raychaudhuri, and A. Sil, hep-ph/0211074;
906: W.L. Guo and Z.Z. Xing, hep-ph/0211315;
907: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 67} (2003) 053002;
908: S. Kaneko and M. Tanimoto, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 551} (2003) 127;
909: K. Hasegawa, C.S. Lim, and K. Ogure, hep-ph/0303252;
910: M. Honda, S. Kaneko, and M. Tanimoto, hep-ph/0303227.
911:
912: \bibitem{Fritzsch} H. Fritzsch, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 73} (1978) 317;
913: Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 155} (1979) 189.
914:
915: \bibitem{FX03} H. Fritzsch and Z.Z. Xing,
916: Phys. Lett. B {\bf 555} (2003) 63; and references therein.
917:
918: \bibitem{X} Z.Z. Xing, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 550} (2002) 178.
919:
920: \bibitem{FTY} M. Fukugita, M. Tanimoto, and Y. Yanagida,
921: hep-ph/0303177.
922:
923: \bibitem{SS} T. Yanagida, in {\it Proceedings of the Workshop on
924: Unified Theory and Baryon Number in the Universe}, edited by
925: O. Sawada and A. Sugamoto (KEK report 79-18, 1979) p. 95;
926: M. Gell-Mann, P. Ramond, and R. Slansky, in {\it Supergravity},
927: edited by P. van Nieuwenhuizen and D. Freedman (North-Holland,
928: Amsterdam, 1979) p. 315.
929:
930: \bibitem{40} See, e.g.,
931: H. Nishiura, K. Matsuda, and T. Fukuyama,
932: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 60} (1999) 013006;
933: J.L. Chkareuli and C.D. Froggatt,
934: Phys. Lett. B {\bf 450} (1999) 158;
935: H. Fritzsch and Z.Z. Xing, in Ref. \cite{Review};
936: K. Matsuda, T. Fukuyama, and H. Nishiura,
937: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 61} (2000) 053001;
938: W. Buchm$\rm\ddot{u}$ller and D. Wyler,
939: Phys. Lett. B {\bf 521} (2001) 291;
940: Z.Z. Xing, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 545} (2002) 352; hep-ph/0209066;
941: M. Bando and M. Obara, hep-ph/0212242; hep-ph/0302034;
942: D. Falcone, hep-ph/0303074.
943:
944: \bibitem{FX99} See, e.g.,
945: D. Du and Z.Z. Xing, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 48} (1993) 2349;
946: H. Fritzsch and Z.Z. Xing,
947: Phys. Lett. B {\bf 353} (1995) 114;
948: Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 556} (1999) 49;
949: Phys. Lett. B {\bf 506} (2001) 109;
950: P.S. Gill and M. Gupta, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 56} (1997) 3143;
951: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 57} (1998) 3971;
952: G.C. Branco, D. Emmanuel-Costa, and R.G. Felipe,
953: Phys. Lett. B {\bf 477} (2000) 147;
954: R. Rosenfeld and J.L. Rosner, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 516} (2001) 408;
955: J.L. Chkareuli and C.D. Froggatt, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 626} (2002) 307;
956: J.W. Mei and Z.Z. Xing, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 67} (2003) 077301;
957: and references therein.
958:
959: \bibitem{PDG} Particle Data Group, K. Hagiwara {\it et al.},
960: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 66} (2002) 010001.
961:
962: \bibitem{Fit} V. Barger and D. Marfatia, hep-ph/0212126;
963: G.L. Fogli {\it et al.}, hep-ph/0212127;
964: M. Maltoni, T. Schwetz, and J.W.F. Valle, hep-ph/0212129;
965: J.N. Bahcall, M.C. Gonzalez-Garcia, and C. Pena-Garay,
966: hep-ph/0212147;
967: P. Aliani, V. Antonelli, M. Picariello, and E. Torrente-Lujan,
968: hep-ph/0212212;
969: P.C. de Holanda and A.Yu. Smirnov, hep-ph/0212270.
970:
971: \bibitem{Fogli} G.L. Fogli, E. Lisi, A. Marrone, and D. Montanino,
972: hep-ph/0303064.
973:
974: \bibitem{K} V. Aseev {\it et al.}, talks given at the International
975: Workshop on Neutrino Masses in the Sub-eV Ranges, Bad Liebenzell, Germany,
976: January 2001; Homepage: http://www-ikl.fzk.de/tritium.
977:
978: \bibitem{HM} Heidelberg-Moscow Collaboration, H.V. Klapdor-Kleingrothaus,
979: hep-ph/0103074;
980: C.E. Aalseth {\it et al.}, hep-ex/0202026.
981:
982: \bibitem{KK} H.V. Klapdor-Kleingrothaus, A. Dietz, H.L. Harney,
983: and I.V. Krivosheina, Mod. Phys. Lett. A {\bf 16} (2002) 2409;
984: H.V. Klapdor-Kleingrothaus and U. Sarkar, hep-ph/0304032.
985:
986: \bibitem{B} O. Cremonesi, hep-ph/0210007; and references therein.
987:
988: \bibitem{Jarlskog} C. Jarlskog, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 55} (1985) 1039;
989: H. Fritzsch and Z.Z. Xing, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 61} (2000) 073016.
990:
991: \bibitem{LBL} See, e.g., A. Blondel {\it et al.},
992: Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A {\bf 451} (2000) 102;
993: C. Albright {\it et al.}, hep-ex/0008064;
994: G. Barenboim {\it et al.}, hep-ex/0304017.
995:
996: \bibitem{WMAP} C.L. Bennett {\it et al.}, astro-ph/0302207;
997: D.N. Spergel {\it et al.}, astro-ph/0302209.
998:
999: \bibitem{NO} Z.Z. Xing, hep-ph/0303178.
1000:
1001: \bibitem{SO10} H. Fritzsch and P. Minkowski,
1002: Ann. Phys. {\bf 93} (1975) 193;
1003: H. Georgi, {\it Particles and Fields}, edited by C.E. Carlson
1004: (AIP, New York, 1975), p. 575.
1005:
1006: \bibitem{FY} M. Fukugita and T. Yanagida,
1007: Phys. Lett. B {\bf 174} (1986) 45.
1008:
1009: \end{thebibliography}
1010:
1011: \newpage
1012:
1013: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Fig. 1 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1014: \begin{figure}[t]
1015: \vspace{-2cm}
1016: \epsfig{file=fig1.ps,bbllx=1.7cm,bblly=5cm,bburx=19cm,bbury=29cm,%
1017: width=16cm,height=24cm,angle=0,clip=0}
1018: \vspace{-2cm}
1019: \caption{The parameter space and phenomenological predictions of
1020: Ansatz (A).}
1021: \end{figure}
1022: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1023:
1024: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Fig. 2 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1025: \begin{figure}[t]
1026: \vspace{-2cm}
1027: \epsfig{file=fig2.ps,bbllx=1.7cm,bblly=5cm,bburx=19cm,bbury=29cm,%
1028: width=16cm,height=24cm,angle=0,clip=0}
1029: \vspace{-2cm}
1030: \caption{The parameter space and phenomenological predictions of
1031: Ansatz (B).}
1032: \end{figure}
1033: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1034:
1035: \end{document}
1036:
1037:
1038: