1: %\input{tcilatex}
2: %\input{figfit}
3: %\input{tcilatex}
4:
5:
6: \documentclass[12pt]{article}
7: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
8: \usepackage{amssymb}
9: \usepackage{amsmath}
10: \usepackage{epsfig}
11:
12: \setcounter{MaxMatrixCols}{10}
13: %TCIDATA{OutputFilter=LATEX.DLL}
14: %TCIDATA{Version=4.00.0.2312}
15: %TCIDATA{LastRevised=Thursday, July 03, 2003 18:59:51}
16: %TCIDATA{<META NAME="GraphicsSave" CONTENT="32">}
17: %TCIDATA{Language=American English}
18:
19: \setlength{\textwidth}{17.17 cm}
20: \setlength{\textheight}{23cm}
21: \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-0.5cm}
22: \setlength{\evensidemargin}{-0.5cm}
23: \setlength{\topmargin}{-1.3 cm}
24: \pagestyle{plain}
25:
26:
27: \begin{document}
28:
29: \title{\hspace{4.1in}{\small CERN-TH/2003-146}\bigskip \\
30: Neutrino properties from Yukawa structure.}
31: \author{A. Ibarra$^{a}$ and G. G. Ross$^{a,b}$ \\
32: %EndAName
33: $^{a}$ Theory Group, CERN, 1211 Geneva 23, Switzerland\\
34: $^{b}$Department of Physics, Theoretical Physics, University of Oxford,\\
35: 1 Keble Road, Oxford OX1 3NP, U.K.}
36: \date{}
37: \maketitle
38:
39: \begin{abstract}
40: We discuss the implications for lepton mixing and CP\ violation of structure
41: in the lepton mass matrices, for the case that neutrino masses are generated
42: by the see-saw mechanism with an hierarchical structure for the Majorana
43: masses. For a particularly interesting case with enhanced symmetry in which
44: the lepton Dirac mass matrices are related to those in the quark sector, the
45: CHOOZ angle is near the present limit and the CP\ violating phase relevant
46: to thermal leptogenesis and to $\nu 0 \beta \beta $ decay is near maximal.
47: \end{abstract}
48:
49: \section{Introduction}
50:
51: The origin of the structure observed in quark and lepton masses and mixing
52: angles remains one of the most pressing and interesting questions left
53: unanswered by the Standard Model. The continuing improvement in the
54: measurement of the CKM and MNS matrix elements and the neutrino masses has
55: stimulated a renewed theoretical effort to answer these questions.
56:
57: In the case of quarks one proposed structure going beyond the Standard Model
58: has proved to be robust, giving a quantitatively accurate prediction for the
59: Cabbibo angle (strictly $V_{12}^{CKM}$). It follows from the postulate that
60: the up and down quark mass matrices have a simultaneous \textquotedblleft
61: texture\textquotedblright\ zero in the $(1,1)$ position\footnote{%
62: A texture zero does not imply a matrix element is absolutely zero, but only
63: that it is small enough so that it does not significantly affect the masses
64: and mixing angles.} and that the magnitude of the matrix elements are
65: symmetric for the first two generations\cite{gsto}. The measured masses and
66: mixing angles are consistent with additional texture zeros\cite%
67: {Ramond:1993kv}, although this may require a departure from the symmetric
68: form of the mass matrices\cite{Roberts:2001zy}. One reason for the interest
69: in texture zeros is that they may indicate the presence of a new family
70: symmetry which require certain matrix elements be anomalously small. Thus
71: identification of texture zeros may be an important step in unravelling the
72: origin of the fermion masses and mixings.
73:
74: In this paper we extend the analysis of possible texture zeros to the lepton
75: sector for the case that neutrino masses are given by the see-saw mechanism%
76: \cite{seesaw}. In analogy with the quark case we consider the predictions
77: resulting from a symmetric form for the magnitudes of the Dirac mass matrix
78: elements together with texture zeros. Of particular interest is the case of
79: simultaneous zeros in the $(1,1)$ position. If this proves to be the case it
80: would be a strong indication of a symmetry between the up and the down
81: quarks and the charged lepton and neutrino sectors respectively. For the
82: case that the Majorana mass matrix does not contribute significantly to
83: lepton mixing we obtain predictions for the CHOOZ mixing angle and for the
84: CP\ violating phases. If the neutrino Majorana mass does contribute
85: significantly to mixing these predictions may be viewed as indicative to the
86: magnitude of these parameters barring what would seem to be an unnatural
87: cancellation between the contribution of the Dirac and Majorana sectors. We
88: also consider the implications further restrictions on the form of the
89: lepton mass matrices. The analysis is done in the context that the mass of
90: one of the Majorana neutrinos is anomalously large \cite{rw}. This case
91: includes the possibilities that there is sequential right hand neutrino
92: dominance\cite{King:1998jw} that offers an attractive way of explaining near
93: bi-maximal neutrino mixing in the case that the quark and neutrino Dirac
94: mass matrices are related\cite{King:2001uz},\cite{Ross:2002fb}.
95:
96: The paper is organised as follows. In Section \ref{param} we review a
97: general parameterisation for the effective light neutrino masses for the
98: case of the see-saw mechanism that is useful in studying the implications of
99: texture zeros. We discuss the constraints on this parameterisation coming
100: from texture zeros, from a symmetric form of the magnitudes of the mass
101: matrix elements and from the case that one of the Majorana neutrinos is
102: anomalously large. In Section \ref{results} we apply this parameterisation
103: to derive general constraints on neutrino mixing and CP\ violation and
104: consider the implications for leptogenesis. Section \ref{summary} summarizes
105: the results.
106:
107: \section{Parameterisation of the see-saw mechanism\label{param}}
108:
109: We consider the case of three generations of left-handed $SU(2)$ doublet
110: neutrinos, $\nu _{L,i,}$ and three generations of right-handed Standard
111: Model singlet neutrinos, $\nu _{R,i}$. The Lagrangian responsible for lepton
112: masses has the form%
113: \begin{equation}
114: L_{Mass}^{l}=\nu _{R}^{cT}.Y_{\nu }^{D}.\nu _{L}\langle H^{0}\rangle
115: +l_{R}^{cT}Y_{l}^{D}.l_{L}\langle \overline{H}^{0}\rangle -\frac{1}{2}\nu
116: _{R}^{cT}.M_{\nu }^{M}.\nu _{R}^{c} \label{mass}
117: \end{equation}%
118: where $Y_{\nu }^{D},$ $Y_{l}^{D}$ are the matrices of Yukawa couplings which
119: give rise to the neutrino and charged lepton Dirac mass matrices
120: respectively and $M_{\nu }^{M}$ is the neutrino Majorana mass matrix. We are
121: interested in studying the implications of simultaneous zeros in $Y_{\nu
122: }^{D}$ and $Y_{l}^{D}$ for observable quantities, masses and mixing angles
123: and CP\ violating phases. For the case of quarks and charged leptons it is
124: easy to do this because the Yukawa couplings are directly related to the
125: mass matrices. For neutrinos, however, the existence of the Majorana masses
126: complicates the connection between the Dirac Yukawa couplings and the
127: neutrino observables. The light neutrino mass matrix, $\mathcal{M}\mathit{,}$
128: is given by the see-saw form%
129: \begin{equation}
130: \mathcal{M}\text{=}Y_{\nu }^{DT}.M_{\nu }^{M-1}.Y_{\nu }^{D} \label{seesaw}
131: \end{equation}%
132: Sometimes it is convenient to use an alternative form for the see-saw
133: formula, expressing $Y_{\nu }^{D}$ in terms of the neutrino mass
134: eigenvalues, mixing angles and CP\ violation\cite{Casas:2001sr}. In the
135: basis in which the Majorana mass matrix, $M_{\nu }^{M},$ is diagonal the
136: parameterisation has the form%
137: \begin{equation}
138: Y_{\nu }^{D}=D_{\sqrt{M}}.R.D_{\sqrt{m}}.W^{\dag }/\langle H^{0}\rangle
139: \label{ci}
140: \end{equation}%
141: where $D_{\sqrt{M}}$ is the diagonal matrix of the square roots of the
142: eigenvalues of $M_{\nu }^{M}$, $D_{\sqrt{m}}$ is the diagonal matrix of the
143: roots of the physical masses, $m_{i},$ of the light neutrinos, $W$ is the
144: neutrino mixing matrix, and $R$ is an orthogonal matrix which parameterises
145: the residual freedom in $Y_{\nu }^{D}$ once the other parameters are fixed.
146: It is parameterised by 3 complex \textquotedblleft mixing\textquotedblright\
147: angles\footnote{%
148: Up to reflections which can be absorbed in the unknown phases discussed
149: below.}.
150:
151: \begin{equation}
152: R=\left(
153: \begin{array}{ccc}
154: \sin \theta _{2}\sin \theta _{3} & \cos \theta _{1}\cos \theta _{3}+\sin
155: \theta _{1}\cos \theta _{2}\sin \theta _{3} & \sin \theta _{1}\cos \theta
156: _{3}-\cos \theta _{1}\sin \theta _{3} \\
157: \sin \theta _{2}\cos \theta _{3} & -\cos \theta _{1}\sin \theta _{3}+\sin
158: \theta _{1}\cos \cos \theta _{3} & -\sin \theta _{1}\sin \theta _{3}-\cos
159: \cos \theta _{3} \\
160: \cos \theta _{2} & \sin \theta _{1}\sin \theta _{2} & -\cos \theta _{1}\sin
161: \theta _{2}%
162: \end{array}%
163: \right) \label{r}
164: \end{equation}%
165: where $\theta _{1},$ $\theta _{2},$ $\theta _{3}$ are arbitrary complex
166: angles. These, together with the three Majorana masses, the three light
167: neutrino masses, the three mixing angles and three phases of $W$ make up the
168: eighteen real parameters needed to specify $Y_{\nu }^{D}.$ With this form it
169: is straightforward to study the implications of a zero in $Y_{\nu }^{D}$ for
170: the physical measureables.
171:
172: In our study of texture zeros we will be interested in simultaneous texture
173: zeros in $Y_{\nu }^{D}$ and $Y_{l}^{D}$. Of course this is basis dependent
174: as a zero in one basis will not in general remain zero after a rotation. In
175: this sense the appearance of simultaneous texture zeros specifies the
176: \textquotedblleft texture zero\textquotedblright\ basis. The idea is that
177: there is some dynamical reason, such as a family symmetry, which generates
178: the texture zero structure. For the case of a family symmetry the
179: \textquotedblleft texture zero\textquotedblright\ basis is just the current
180: quark basis, defined as the one in which the fermion states are eigenstates
181: of the family symmetry group. In the phenomenological analysis of texture
182: zeros this basis choice is taken into account by modifying the
183: parameterisation so that the charged lepton mass matrix is not diagonal. In
184: this case it is the combination $U_{l}^{\dagger }W$ that should be
185: identified with the $MNS$ matrix, where $U_{l}$ is the unitary matrix needed
186: to diagonalise the charged lepton mass matrix, starting from the texture
187: basis.
188:
189: It is instructive to determine how many free parameters are left in $R$ when
190: $Y_{\nu }^{D}$ is constrained in various ways. If any element of $Y_{\nu
191: }^{D}$ is zero, there is a reduction of two complex parameters needed to
192: specify $Y_{\nu }^{D}$ and a corresponding reduction of the parameters in $%
193: R. $ For more than $3$ texture zeros there will be relations between
194: measureable quantities\footnote{%
195: We include the Majorana mass eigenvalues amongst our \textquotedblleft
196: measureables\textquotedblright\ and also the mixing angles in $W$; of course
197: it is necessary to discuss the lepton sector to relate $W$ to $U_{MNS}$.}.
198: However, depending on the position of the texture zero, there may be
199: predictions for fewer texture zeros.
200:
201: For the case that $Y_{\nu }^{D}$ is symmetric (or hermitian or has off
202: diagonal elements antisymmetric) the number of real parameters needed to
203: specify it are reduced to $12$, so in this case $R$ is completely
204: determined. This does not lead to any relations between measurable
205: quantities but if, in addition, there is a texture zero there will be such
206: relations (this is the analogue to the GST\ relation in the quark sector).
207:
208: For the case one of the Majorana masses, $M_{\nu ,3}^{M},$ is anomalously
209: heavy the Standard Model singlet component, $\nu _{R,3},$does not play a
210: role in determining the two heaviest of the light neutrino eigenstates.
211: Following from eq(\ref{seesaw}) we see that in this case the couplings $%
212: \left( Y_{\nu }^{D}\right) _{3j},j=1..3$ do not contribute to the light
213: masses and mixing angles. There is also a reduction in the number of
214: parameters needed to specify $R.$Following from the condition that $Y_{\nu
215: }^{D}W$ is finite as $M_{\nu ,3}^{M}\rightarrow \infty ,$ we see that in
216: this limit $R_{3j}\propto \sqrt{1/M_{\nu ,3}^{M}},$ $j=2,3$ and $R_{ij}\leq
217: O(1),$ $i,j=1..3$ $.$ Inserting these constraints in eq(\ref{r}) we find the
218: form of $R$ is given by%
219: \begin{equation}
220: R=\left(
221: \begin{array}{ccc}
222: \propto \sqrt{1/M_{\nu ,3}^{M}} & \cos z & \pm \sin z \\
223: \propto \sqrt{1/M_{\nu ,3}^{M}} & -\sin z & \pm \cos z \\
224: \sim 1 & \propto \sqrt{1/M_{\nu ,3}^{M}} & \propto \sqrt{1/M_{\nu ,3}^{M}}%
225: \end{array}%
226: \right) \label{srhd}
227: \end{equation}%
228: where $z=\theta _{3}-\theta _{1}.$ This $\pm $ refer to a reflection
229: ambiguity. In practice we can work with the positive sign only and absorb
230: this ambiguity in the unknown phases specified below. The Yukawa couplings $%
231: \left( Y_{\nu }^{D}\right) _{ij},$ $i=1,2,$ $j=1..3$ are thus given in terms
232: of $z$ alone in the limit $M_{\nu ,3}^{M}\rightarrow \infty .$ If we require
233: the $(1,2)$ block be symmetric, antisymmetric or hermitian, $z$ will be
234: determined and for $1$ texture zero there will be relations between
235: measureables. Alternatively more than $1$ texture zero will give relations
236: even if the $(1,2)$ and $(2,1)$ matrix elements are not related.
237:
238: \section{The charged lepton mass matrix}
239:
240: The $MNS$ matrix is given by $U_{l}^{\dagger }W$ and has a contribution
241: coming from the matrix $U_{l}$ which diagonalises the charged lepton mass
242: matrix. The latter has to\ reproduce the hierarchical structure of lepton
243: masses and this may place constraints on the magnitude of the charged lepton
244: mixing angles. Let us consider the case the lepton mass matrix is symmetric
245: and that, like the quarks, the hierarchy of lepton masses is due to an
246: hierarchical structure in the matrix elements and not due to a cancellation
247: between different contributions. This is what is expected if there is an
248: underlying Grand Unified symmetry relating leptons to quarks. Moreover a
249: cancellation between different contributions to lepton masses seems very
250: difficult to reconcile with an underlying family symmetry as it requires
251: non-trivial relations between different matrix elements which are difficult
252: to arrange even in the context of non-Abelian family symmetry. With this
253: constraint it is easy to limit $\left( U_{l}\right) _{23},$ because $\left(
254: M_{l}\right) _{23}^{2}\leq m_{\mu }m_{\tau }$, giving
255: \begin{equation}
256: \left\vert \left( U_{l}\right) _{23}\right\vert \leq \sqrt{\frac{m_{\mu }}{%
257: m_{\tau }}}. \label{l1}
258: \end{equation}%
259: Similarly one obtains a bound on $\left( U_{l}\right) _{12}$ from the
260: constraint that $\left( M_{l}\right) _{12}^{2}<m_{e}m_{\mu }$ which follows
261: from taking the deteminant of the mass matrix. This in turn implies
262: \begin{equation}
263: \left\vert \left( U_{l}\right) _{12}\right\vert \leq \sqrt{\frac{m_{e}}{%
264: m_{\mu }}} \label{l2}
265: \end{equation}%
266: with equality occurring if there is a texture zero in the $(1,1)$ position.
267:
268: The constraint on $\left( M_{l}\right) _{12}^{2}$ also leads to the
269: constraint $\left\vert \left( U_{l}\right) _{13}\left( U_{l}\right)
270: _{23}\right\vert \leq \frac{\sqrt{m_{e}m_{\mu }}}{m\tau }$. If $\left\vert
271: \left( U_{l}\right) _{23}\right\vert =\sqrt{\frac{m_{\mu }}{m_{\tau }}},$
272: which occurs when there is a texture zero in the $(2,2)$ position, we have
273: the bound $\left\vert \left( U_{l}\right) _{13}\right\vert \leq \sqrt{\frac{%
274: m_{e}}{m_{\tau }}}.$ If, however, $\left\vert \left( U_{l}\right)
275: _{23}\right\vert \ll \sqrt{\frac{m_{\mu }}{m_{\tau }}}$ we have $\left(
276: M_{l}\right) _{22}=m_{\mu }$ and then from the determinant we have $\left(
277: M_{l}\right) _{13}^{2}\leq m_{e}m_{\tau }$ which again gives
278: \begin{equation}
279: \left\vert \left( U_{l}\right) _{13}\right\vert \leq \sqrt{\frac{m_{e}}{%
280: m_{\tau }}}. \label{l3}
281: \end{equation}%
282: In practice the magnitudes of $\left( U_{l}\right) _{23}$ and $\left(
283: U_{l}\right) _{13}$ are so small that they do not affect the mixing coming
284: from the neutrino sector. However $\left( U_{l}\right) _{12}$ close to the
285: upper bound given in eq(\ref{l1}) does give a significant contribution to
286: the CHOOZ angle. Its effect is considered below.
287:
288: The discussion above relies on a symmetric structure relating the magnitudes
289: of the charged lepton mass matrix elements. If we relax this condition there
290: is no constraint on the magnitude of the matrix elements of $U_{l}.$ In this
291: case the contributions to the MNS matrix coming from the neutrino sector
292: should be considered as an indication of the lower bound on the $MNS$ matrix
293: elements, assuming there is no delicate cancellation between the
294: contributions of $U_{l}$ and $W.$
295:
296: We turn now to a determination of the relations that follow for various form
297: of the Yukawa couplings.
298:
299: \section{Structure of the MNS matrix\label{results}}
300:
301: \subsection{ Symmetric Yukawa couplings and a single texture zero in $Y_{%
302: \protect\nu }^{D}$.}
303:
304: \subsubsection{(1,1) texture zero}
305:
306: We first consider in detail how the analysis proceeds for the case the
307: texture zero is in the $(1,1)$ position and both $Y_{\nu }^{D}$ and $Y_{l}^{D%
308: \text{ }}$ are symmetric. In the analogous case in the quark sector a $(1,1)$
309: texture zero leads to the remarkably successful GST relation \cite{gsto}, so
310: this case is particularly interesting for, if it leads to a
311: phenomenologically realistic prediction, it may indicate a connection
312: betweeen quarks and leptons.
313:
314: As discussed above we are interested in the case $M_{1,2}/M_{3}
315: \ll m_{2}/m_{3}%
316: \ $and the Majorana mass matrix, $M_{\nu }^{M}$ is diagonal and real. We
317: include the CP violating phases in $U_{MNS},$ i.e.we write it in the form%
318: \begin{equation}
319: U=V.diag(e^{-i\phi /2},e^{-i\phi ^{\prime }/2},1) \label{majphase}
320: \end{equation}%
321: where $\phi $ and $\phi ^{\prime }$ are the CP violating phases and $V$ has
322: the form of the CKM matrix. In this case a symmetric structure in the Dirac
323: neutrino mass matrices and a texture zero will lead to a relation between
324: measurable parameters.
325:
326: Following from eq(\ref{ci}) the condition $\left( Y_{\nu }^{D}\right)
327: _{11}=0 $ gives\footnote{%
328: Here and in what follows we do not include the ambiguity due to the square
329: roots as they can be absorbed in the unknown phases.}%
330: \begin{equation}
331: \tan z=-\sqrt{\frac{m_{2}}{m_{3}}}\frac{W_{12}^{\ast }}{W_{13}^{\ast }}
332: \label{tanz}
333: \end{equation}%
334: where $W$ is the matrix acting on the left-handed neutrino states needed to
335: diagonalise the Dirac neutrino mass matrix. To express this in terms of $%
336: U_{MNS}$ we use the constraints of eqs(\ref{l1},\ref{l2},\ref{l3}) to
337: determine $W.$ There is a residual phase ambiguity because the basis in
338: which the MNS matrix has the standard form can be different from the
339: "symmetry" basis in which the texture zero appears. This corresponds to the
340: simultaneous redefininition of the phase of the left- and right- handed
341: states such that the Dirac structure is invariant (the change in the
342: Majorana matrix is absorbed in a redefinition of $\phi $ and $\phi ^{\prime
343: } $ in eq(\ref{majphase})). With this we have $W$ $=U_{l}PU_{MNS}$ where $%
344: P=diag(e^{i\alpha _{1}},e^{i\alpha _{2}},e^{i\alpha _{3}}).$
345:
346: From the symmetric constraint $\left( Y_{\nu }^{D}\right) _{12}=\left(
347: Y_{\nu }^{D}\right) _{21}$ one obtains%
348: \begin{equation*}
349: \sqrt{\frac{M_{1}}{M_{2}}}=\frac{-\tan z\sqrt{m_{2}}W_{12}^{\ast }+\sqrt{%
350: m_{3}}W_{13}^{\ast }}{\sqrt{m_{2}}W_{22}^{\ast }+\tan z\sqrt{m_{3}}%
351: W_{23}^{\ast }}.
352: \end{equation*}%
353: Substituting for $\tan z$ leads to the relation%
354: \begin{equation}
355: W_{13}^{\ast 2}+\frac{m_{2}}{m_{3}}W_{12}^{\ast 2}=-\sqrt{\frac{M_{1}}{M_{2}}}%
356: \sqrt{\frac{m_{2}}{m_{3}}}W_{31}\det W^{\ast } \label{11}
357: \end{equation}%
358: where $\det W$=$e^{i\beta }$. We choose the phases of the right handed
359: charged leptons such that $U_{l}$ is real in the $(1,2)$ block. Then in
360: leading order we have $W_{ij}\simeq e^{i\alpha _{i}}U_{ij}$ except for%
361: \begin{equation}
362: W_{13}\simeq e^{i\alpha _{1}}U_{13}+e^{i\alpha _{2}}\left( U_{l}\right)
363: _{12}U_{23} \label{w}
364: \end{equation}%
365: where we have written $U_{MNS}=U$. In eq(\ref{w}) we have dropped terms
366: involving the roots of ratios of lepton masses relative to unity. Using eq(%
367: \ref{w}) in eq(\ref{11}) gives
368: \begin{equation}
369: U_{13}\equiv |U_{13}|e^{i\delta }=-e^{i(\alpha _{2}-\alpha _{1})}\left(
370: U_{l}\right) _{12}U_{23}\pm \sqrt{-\frac{m_{2}}{m_{3}}U_{12}^{2}-\sqrt{\frac{%
371: M_{1}m_{2}}{M_{2}m_{3}}}U_{31}e^{-i(\beta +2\alpha _{1})}}. \label{1tz}
372: \end{equation}%
373: For the case of a $(1,1)$ texture zero in $\left( Y_{l}^{D}\right) _{11}$ we
374: have $\left( U_{l}\right) _{12}=\sqrt{\frac{m_{e}}{m_{\mu }}}$. For the case
375: of a texture zero in $\left( Y_{l}^{D}\right) _{12}$, $\left( U_{l}\right)
376: _{12}=0$. Other possibilities for a lepton texture zero or no texture zero
377: at all give $\left( U_{l}\right) _{12}\leq \sqrt{\frac{m_{e}}{m_{\mu }}}.$
378:
379: \begin{figure}[tbp]
380: %%\psdraft
381: \centerline{
382: \psfig{figure=chooz11x.eps,height=2.1681in,width=5.892in}}
383: \caption{The CHOOZ angle from a (1,1) texture zero for the limiting cases of
384: a simultaneous texture zero in the charged lepton mass matrix in the (a)
385: (1,2) and (b) (1,1) positions.}
386: \label{f1}
387: \end{figure}
388:
389: The implications of eq(\ref{1tz}) for the CHOOZ angle are shown in Fig(\ref%
390: {f1}) for the case $\left( U_{l}\right) _{12}=0$ and $\sqrt{\frac{m_{e}}{%
391: m_{\mu }}}$ respectively\footnote{%
392: This and subsequent plots are made using the best fit points for the masses
393: and mixing angles of \cite{Gonzalez-Garcia:2003qf}.}. In these plots we have
394: chosen a random distribution of the unknown phases $\beta ,\alpha _{i}.$ One
395: may see there is a clustering of values within a small range with the CHOOZ
396: angle near the current bound, $\sin \theta _{13}<0.24$ at $3\sigma .$ This
397: implies that, barring an unnatural cancellation between terms, we expect a
398: large CHOOZ angle, in the range that would make the long baseline neutrino
399: factory searches for CP\ violation feasible. To quantify this we have
400: determined the range of the CHOOZ angle which includes 95\% of the points,
401: giving $\sin \theta _{13}>0.1$ over the whole range of $M_{1}/M_{2}.$
402:
403: \begin{figure}[tbp]
404: %%\psdraft
405: \centerline{
406: \psfig{figure=phase11x.eps,height=2.1681in,width=5.892in}}
407: \caption{The $\protect\nu 0 \protect\beta \protect\beta $ CP violating phase
408: from a (1,1) texture zero for the limiting cases of a simultaneous texture
409: zero in the charged lepton mass matrix in the (a) (1,2) and (b) (1,1)
410: positions.}
411: \label{f2}
412: \end{figure}
413:
414: In Fig(\ref{f2}) we plot the distribution for the CP violating phase
415: combination $\sin (\delta -\phi ^{\prime }/2)$. This is the CP\ violating
416: phase relevant to neutrinoless double beta decay. We see that $\sin (\delta
417: -\phi ^{\prime }/2)$ clusters near its maximal value. In this case the 95\%
418: cutoff implies $\sin (\delta -\phi ^{\prime }/2)>0.4.$
419:
420: Finally we determine the implications of our results for thermal
421: leptogenesis, assuming that the lightest Majorana state dominates\cite%
422: {Buchmuller:2003gz}. In this case the asymmetry is given by
423: \begin{eqnarray*}
424: \epsilon &\simeq&-\frac{3}{8\pi }\frac{M_{1}}{v^{2}}\frac{{\rm Im}(\cos ^{2}z%
425: \text{ }m_{2}^{2}+\sin ^{2}z\text{ }m_{3}^{2})}{m_{2}\left\vert \cos
426: ^{2}z\right\vert +m_{3}\left\vert \sin ^{2}z\right\vert } \\
427: &=&-\frac{3}{8\pi }\frac{M_{1}}{v^{2}}\frac{(m_{3}^{2}-m_{2}^{2}){\rm Im}%
428: (\sin ^{2}z)}{m_{2}\left\vert \cos ^{2}z\right\vert +m_{3}\left\vert \sin
429: ^{2}z\right\vert }
430: \end{eqnarray*}%
431: Since $|\epsilon _{\max }|=\frac{3}{8\pi} \frac{M_{1}m_{3}}
432: {\langle H^{0}\rangle^2}$
433: $\cite{Davidson:2002qv},$ we
434: have%
435: \begin{equation*}
436: \frac{\epsilon }{|\epsilon _{\max }|}\simeq -\frac{{\rm Im}(\sin ^{2}z)}{%
437: \left\vert \sin ^{2}z\right\vert +\frac{m_{2}}{m_{3}}\left\vert \cos
438: ^{2}z\right\vert }
439: \end{equation*}
440:
441: Note that $\epsilon $ depends only on $\tan z$. The dependence of $\tan z$
442: on low energy phases may be read from eq(\ref{tanz}) showing which
443: combination is relevant for leptogenesis. The magnitude of $\epsilon
444: /\epsilon _{\max }$ is plotted in Fig(\ref{f3}). Note that, if we ignore the charged
445: lepton contribution coming from a nontrivial $U_l$, a $(1,1)$ texture zero with an hierarchical Majorana
446: mass spectrum gives the same value for the CP violating phase in double beta
447: decay as the CP\ violating phase determining the lepton asymmetry in
448: leptogenesis \cite{King:2002qh}. This explains the correlation seen between
449: the plots of Figs(\ref{f3}), although note that in Figs(\ref{f3}b) a
450: significant charged lepton contribution has been added.
451:
452: \begin{figure}[t]
453: %%\psdraft
454: \centerline{
455: \psfig{figure=ep11x.eps,width=5.892in}}
456: \caption{The CP\ asymmetry compared to the maximal value in thermal
457: leptogenesis from a (1,1) texture zero for the limiting cases of a
458: simultaneous texture zero in the charged lepton mass matrix in the (a) (1,2)
459: and (b) (1,1) positions.}
460: \label{f3}
461: \end{figure}
462:
463: Whether this asymmetry can lead to the observed baryon asymmetry depends on
464: the subsequent washout. This is characterised by the parameter $\widetilde{m}%
465: _{1}$ \cite{Plumacher:1996kc}$.$ It is given by
466: \begin{equation*}
467: \widetilde{m}_{1}=m_{2}\left\vert \cos ^{2}z\right\vert +m_{3}\left\vert
468: \sin ^{2}z\right\vert
469: \end{equation*}%
470: For the case of a (1,1) texture zero the value of $\widetilde{m}_{1}$ is
471: given in Fig(\ref{f4}). In the whole region of parameter space
472: $\widetilde{m}_{1}\gg m_{2}$ and so the washout will reduce the baryon asymmetry
473: below the observed value unless $M_{1}$ is very large \cite%
474: {Chankowski:2003rr}. In the case of SUGRA this implies a reheat temperature
475: above the gravitino abundance bound implying that in this case thermal
476: leptogenesis cannot work. However in other supersymmetry breaking mediation
477: scenarios, such as gauge mediation, the gravitino is much lighter and a
478: heavier $M_{1}$ is consistent with the gravitino bound.
479:
480: \begin{figure}[tbp]
481: %%\psdraft
482: \centerline{
483: \psfig{figure=m11x.eps,height=2.1681in,width=5.892in}}
484: \caption{A plot of the lower bound of $\widetilde{m}_{1}/m_{3}$ versus $\log
485: M_{1}/M_{2\text{ }}$ for the case of a (1,1) texture zero.}
486: \label{f4}
487: \end{figure}
488:
489: \subsubsection{A single texture zero in the (1,2), (1,3), (2,2) or (2,3)
490: positions}
491:
492: It is straightforward to apply the analysis just discussed to the other
493: possible positions for a single texture zero in the Dirac neutrino matrix.
494: The results are presented in Table \ref{table1}. Note that, unlike the case
495: for a $(1,1)$ texture zero, the prediction for $\tan z$ is in terms of the
496: measured large $MNS$ matrix elements. As a result one obtains a definite
497: prediction for leptogenesis which is also given in the Table. For the case
498: of $(1,2)$ and $(1,3)$ texture zeros we see that $\tan z$ is suppressed by $%
499: \sqrt{\frac{m_{2}}{m_{3}}}$ which leads to a near maximal form for $%
500: \frac{\epsilon }{\epsilon _{\max }}.$ The bound on $
501: \widetilde{m}_{1}$ is only mildly stronger than the absolute bound
502: $\widetilde{m}_{1}\ge m_{2}$, so the washout effects are expected
503: to be less efficient than in the $(1,1)$ texture zero case.
504: For the case of the $(2,2)$ and $(2,3)$ texture zeros $\tan z$ is enhanced
505: by $\sqrt{\frac{m_{3}}{m_{2}}}$ which leads to a
506: $\frac{m_{2}}{m_{3}}$
507: suppression in $\frac{\epsilon }{\epsilon _{\max }}.$ The bound on $%
508: \widetilde{m}_{1}$ in this case is comparable to the one for
509: a $(1,1)$ texture zero but is independent of $M_{1}/M_{2}.$
510: As a result baryogenesis through thermal leptogenesis
511: will not proceed in these cases either.
512:
513: For the case of the $(1,2)$ texture zero the prediction for the CHOOZ angle
514: depends only on unknown phases with the distribution is shown in Fig(\ref{f5}%
515: ). For a (1,3) texture zero the CHOOZ angle also depends on the ratio $%
516: M_{1}/M_{2}$ as in the previous cases. This is plotted in Fig(\ref{f6}). In
517: both cases $\theta _{13}$ is predicted to be large, although the $95\%$
518: lower range is smaller than that found for the $(1,1)$ texture zero case.
519:
520: \begin{figure}[tbp]
521: %%\psdraft
522: \centerline{
523: \psfig{figure=chooz12.eps,height=1.7634in,width=3.2863in}}
524: \caption{The CHOOZ angle for the (1,2) texture zero plotted against the
525: unknown phase. }
526: \label{f5}
527: \end{figure}
528:
529: \begin{figure}[tbp]
530: %%\psdraft
531: \centerline{
532: \psfig{figure=chooz13x.eps,,height=2.1681in,width=5.892in}}
533: \caption{The CHOOZ angle from a (1,3) texture zero for the limiting cases of
534: a simultaneous texture zero in the charged lepton mass matrix in the (a)
535: (1,2) and (b) (1,1) positions. }
536: \label{f6}
537: \end{figure}
538:
539: For the case of the $(2,2)$ and $(2,3)$ texture zeros one obtains a relation
540: between the large elements of the MNS matrix. From this one may extract a
541: relation between the phases and a prediction for $M_{1}/M_{2}.$
542: Unfortunately these do not lead to a relation between measureable
543: parameters, although the constraint that $M_{1}/M_{2}\simeq m_{2}/m_{3}$ may
544: be of interest in model building.
545:
546: %TCIMACRO{\TeXButton{B}{\begin{table}[tbp] \centering}}%
547: %BeginExpansion
548: \begin{table}[tbp] \centering%
549: %EndExpansion
550: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}
551: \hline
552: \textbf{Texture } & $tan$ $z$ & $\frac{\epsilon }{\epsilon _{\max }}$ & $%
553: \widetilde{m}_{1}$ & MNS relation \\
554: \textbf{zero} & & & & \\ \hline
555: $\mathbf{(1,1)}$ & $\sqrt{\frac{m_{2}}{m_{3}}}\frac{W_{12}^{\ast }}{%
556: W_{13}^{\ast }}$ & $see$ $text$ & $\gg m_{2}$ & $\mathbf{U}_{13}=-\chi
557: e^{i(\alpha _{2}-\alpha _{1})}\sqrt{\frac{m_{e}}{m_{\mu }}}U_{23}$ \\
558: & & & & $\pm \sqrt{-\frac{m_{2}}{m_{3}}U_{12}^{2}+\sqrt{\frac{M_{1}m_{2}}{%
559: M_{2}m_{3}}}U_{31}e^{-i(\beta +2\alpha _{1})}}$ \\ \hline
560: $\mathbf{(1,2)}$ & $\sqrt{\frac{m_{2}}{m_{3}}}\frac{U_{22}^{\ast }}{%
561: U_{23}^{\ast }}$ & -$\frac{\sin \phi ^{\prime }c_{12}^{2}}{1+c_{12}^{2}}$ &
562: $\simeq \frac{m_{2}(1+c_{_{12}}^{2})}{1+\frac{m_{2}}{m_{3}}%
563: c_{_{12}}^{2}}$ & $\mathbf{U%
564: }_{13}=-\chi e^{i(\alpha _{2}-\alpha _{1})}\sqrt{\frac{m_{e}}{m_{\mu }}}%
565: U_{23}$ \\
566: & & & & $-\frac{m_{2}}{m_{3}}\frac{U_{12}U_{22}}{U_{23}}$ \\ \hline
567: $\mathbf{(1,3)}$ & $\sqrt{\frac{m_{2}}{m_{3}}}\frac{U_{32}^{\ast }}{%
568: U_{33}^{\ast }}$ & -$\frac{\sin \phi ^{\prime }c_{12}^{2}}{1+c_{12}^{2}}$ &
569: $\simeq \frac{m_{2}(1+c_{_{12}}^{2})}{1+\frac{m_{2}}{m_{3}}%
570: c_{_{12}}^{2}}$ & $\mathbf{U%
571: }_{13}=-\chi e^{i(\alpha _{2}-\alpha _{1})}\sqrt{\frac{m_{e}}{m_{\mu }}}%
572: U_{23}-\frac{m_{2}}{m_{3}}\frac{U_{12}U_{32}}{U_{33}}$ \\
573: & & & & $+e^{i(\beta -2\alpha _{1}-\alpha _{3})}\sqrt{\frac{M_{1}}{M_{2}}}%
574: \sqrt{\frac{m_{2}}{m_{3}}}\frac{U_{11}^{\ast }}{U_{33}}$ \\ \hline
575: $\mathbf{(2,2)}$ & $\sqrt{\frac{m_{3}}{m_{2}}}\frac{U_{23}^{\ast }}{%
576: U_{22}^{\ast }}$ & $\frac{\sin \phi ^{\prime }m_{2}}{m_{3}}c_{12}^{2}$ &
577: $\simeq \frac{m_{3}}{1+\frac{m_{2}}{m_{3}}c_{_{12}}^{2}}$ &
578: $U_{31}=e^{i(\beta -2\alpha _{2}-\alpha _{3})}\sqrt{\frac{%
579: M_{1}}{M_{2}}}\sqrt{\frac{m_{3}}{m_{2}}}(U_{23}^{\ast 2}+\frac{m_{2}}{m_{3}}%
580: U_{22}^{\ast 2})$ \\ \hline
581: $\mathbf{(2,3)}$ & $\sqrt{\frac{m_{3}}{m_{2}}}\frac{U_{33}^{\ast }}{%
582: U_{32}^{\ast }}$ & $\frac{\sin \phi ^{\prime }m_{2}}{m_{3}}c_{12}^{2}$ &
583: $\simeq \frac{m_{3}}{1+\frac{m_{2}}{m_{3}}c_{_{12}}^{2}}$ &
584: $U_{21}=e^{i(\beta -2\alpha _{2}-\alpha _{3})}\sqrt{\frac{%
585: M_{1}}{M_{2}}}\sqrt{\frac{m_{3}}{m_{2}}}(U_{23}^{\ast }U_{33}^{\ast }+\frac{%
586: m_{2}}{m_{3}}U_{22}^{\ast }U_{32}^{\ast })$ \\ \hline
587: \end{tabular}%
588: \caption{The constraints following from a symmetric mass matrix and a single texture zero .
589: $\chi$ is 1 for a (1,1) texture zero in the charged lepton sector and 0 for a (1,2) texture zero.
590: If there is no lepton texture zero $\chi$ lies between these limiting cases. $c_{12}$ is
591: $cos(\theta_{12})$.\label{table1}}%
592: %TCIMACRO{\TeXButton{E}{\end{table}}}%
593: %BeginExpansion
594: \end{table}%
595: %EndExpansion
596:
597: \subsection{The case of two texture zeros}
598:
599: For two texture zeros one obtains a prediction even without imposing the
600: symmetric constraint. There are fifteen ways of assigning two texture zeros
601: to the first two rows of the Dirac neutrino mass matrix (the third row plays
602: no role in the case the third Majorana neutrino is anomalously heavy). All
603: but five lead to inconsistent results; below we discuss only the viable
604: choices.
605:
606: From Table \ref{table1} we may readily solve the constraint following from
607: equating the two forms for $\tan z$ that follow from $(1,1)$ and $(2,2)$
608: texture zeros. This gives the prediction for $U_{13}$ given in Table \ref%
609: {table2}. One may see it is identical to the prediction (\textit{c.f.}
610: Figure \ref{f5}) obtained for a single texture zero in the $(1,2)$ position
611: with the symmetric condition imposed although in this case we have not
612: imposed this condition. If one further imposes the condition that the matrix
613: is symmetrical one also obtains the prediction for $U_{13}$ given in eq(\ref%
614: {1tz}). Equating these results fixes one combination of the phases (which
615: does not lead to new relations between measurable phases) and fixes the
616: ratio $M_{1}/M_{2}\simeq m_{2}/m_{3}.$ The prediction for $\frac{\epsilon }{%
617: \epsilon _{\max }}$ is as given in Table \ref{table1} for the $(2,2)$
618: texture zero case.
619:
620: The remaining possibilities are given in Table \ref{table2}. The prediction
621: for the CHOOZ angle is approximately the same for the $(1,1)$ and $(2,3)$ or
622: the $(1,3)$ and $(2,1)$ cases and is shown in Figure \ref{f7}(a). The
623: remaining case with a $(1,1)$ and a $(2,1)$ texture zero is shown in Figure %
624: \ref{f7}(b).
625:
626: \begin{figure}[tbp]
627: %%\psdraft
628: \centerline{
629: \psfig{figure=chooz2tz.eps,height=2.1681in,width=5.892in}}
630: \caption{The prediction for the CHOOZ\ \ angle for the two texture zero
631: cases\ : (a) $(1,1)$ and $(2,3)$ or $(1,3)$ and $(2,1)$ (b) $(1,1)$ and $%
632: (2,1).$ The plot is for the $\protect\chi =1$ case and is plotted againt the
633: relative phase between the two terms appearing in Table \protect\ref{table2}%
634: . }
635: \label{f7}
636: \end{figure}
637:
638: For the case of $(1,1)$ and $(2,3)$ texture zeros one again needs $%
639: M_{1}/M_{2}\simeq m_{2}/m_{3}$ if one requires the Dirac mass matrix be
640: symmetric$.$ For the last two cases there is no solution if one additionally
641: imposes the condition the Dirac mass matrix be symmetric. In all cases the
642: prediction for $\frac{\epsilon }{\epsilon _{\max }}$ is as given in Table %
643: \ref{table1} for the appropriate texture zero. This follows because the
644: prediction comes from the constraint on $\tan z$ only and does not require
645: the symmetric condition.
646:
647: %TCIMACRO{\TeXButton{B}{\begin{table}[tbp] \centering}}%
648: %BeginExpansion
649: \begin{table}[tbp] \centering%
650: %EndExpansion
651: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|}
652: \hline
653: \textbf{Texture zero} & $\mathbf{U}_{13}$ \\ \hline
654: $(1,1)$ and $(2,2)$ & $\pm \frac{m_{2}}{m_{3}}\frac{U_{12}U_{22}}{U_{23}}%
655: -\chi e^{i(\alpha _{2}-\alpha _{1})}\sqrt{\frac{m_{e}}{m_{\mu }}}U_{23}$ \\
656: \hline
657: $(1,1)$ and $(2,3)$ & $\pm \frac{m_{2}}{m_{3}}\frac{U_{12}U_{32}}{U_{33}}%
658: -\chi e^{i(\alpha _{2}-\alpha _{1})}\sqrt{\frac{m_{e}}{m_{\mu }}}U_{23}$ \\
659: \hline
660: $(1,1)$ and $(2,1)$ & $\pm \sqrt{\frac{m_{2}}{m_{3}}}U_{12}-\chi e^{i(\alpha
661: _{2}-\alpha _{1})}\sqrt{\frac{m_{e}}{m_{\mu }}}U_{23}$ \\ \hline
662: $(1,3)$ and $(2,1)$ & $\pm \frac{m_{2}}{m_{3}}\frac{U_{12}U_{32}}{U_{33}}%
663: -\chi e^{i(\alpha _{2}-\alpha _{1})}\sqrt{\frac{m_{e}}{m_{\mu }}}U_{23}$ \\
664: \hline
665: \end{tabular}%
666: \caption{The constraints following from two texture zeros. Only those cases shown are consistent apart from the (1,2), (2,1) case which has already been discussed when considering symmetric textures. Also shown are the additional
667: constraints following from imposing a symmetric structure for the two cases this is consistent. $\chi$ is 0 for a (1,1) texture zero in the charged lepton sector and 0 for a (1,2) texture zero.
668: For no lepton texture zero $\chi$ is between these limiting cases. \label{table2}}%
669: %TCIMACRO{\TeXButton{E}{\end{table}}}%
670: %BeginExpansion
671: \end{table}%
672: %EndExpansion
673:
674: \section{Summary and Conclusions\label{summary}}
675:
676: The combination of the see-saw mechanism, an hierarchical structure for the
677: Majorana mass matrix and a combination of texture zeros and/or a symmetrical
678: form for the moduli of the mass matrix elements leads to relations amongst
679: observable properties of neutrinos. In this paper we have determined these
680: predictions in a model independent way.
681:
682: The case of a $(1,1)$ texture zero is of particular interest because, in the
683: quark sector, it leads to a relation in excellent agreement with experiment.
684: In the neutrino case the equivalent $(1,1)$ texture zero leads to a
685: prediction for the CHOOZ angle that is close to the present limit and a near
686: maximal CP\ violating phase relevant to thermal leptogenesis and to $\nu
687: 0\beta \beta .$ For the $(1,1)$ texture zero, thermal
688: leptogenesis cannot give rise to acceptable
689: baryogenesis while satisfying the gravitino bounds on the reheat
690: temperature. Therefore, an acceptable range of baryogenesis is
691: only possible if the gravitino constraints are relaxed, for example
692: in theories in which the supersymmetry breaking occurs at a lower scale.
693: %For a strongly restricted range of the ratio of the lightest
694: %to the next lightest Majorana masses thermal leptogenesis can give rise to
695: %acceptable baryogenesis while satisfying the gravitino bounds on the reheat
696: %temperature in supergravity models. Outside this range an acceptable rate of
697: %baryogenesis is only possible if the gravitino constraints are relaxed, for
698: %example in theories in which the supersymmetry breaking occurs at a lower
699: %scale.
700:
701: In the case that the texture zero appears in the $(1,2)$ or $(1,3)$
702: positions the CHOOZ angle is still predicted to be large, encouraging for
703: long baseline CP\ violation studies. Furthermore, in these cases
704: washout effects after thermal leptogenesis are not too efficient
705: and could allow for adequate baryogenesis.
706: %However in these cases washout effects
707: %after thermal leptogenesis are too efficient to allow for adequate
708: %baryogenesis.
709: The case of $(2,2)$ and $(2,3)$ texture zeros does not lead to
710: phenomenologically interesting relations. However there are five
711: viable cases in which two texture zeros can be present. In these cases a
712: large CHOOZ angle is again predicted.
713:
714: The determination of the parameters involved in the see-saw \ mechanism is
715: an illdefined problem due to the large number of parameters relative to
716: measureables. The best hope is that the system has a high degree of
717: symmetry, reducing the number of parameters. Our analysis has explored a
718: particularly promising possibility suggested by the structure observed in
719: the quark sector in which the Dirac masses have one (or more) texture
720: zero(s) and the magnitude of the mass matrix elements may be symmetric. In
721: addition we have assumed an hierarchical structure for the Majorana matrix,
722: motivated by the fact this can readily explain the large neutrino mixing
723: angles while having a relation between quark and lepton Dirac masses. Such a
724: structure for the Dirac and Majorana masses can be derived from an
725: underlying family symmetry\cite{skggr} and, if the resultant predictions for
726: neutrino properties should be confirmed, it would provide strong support for
727: such an underlying symmetry organising the fermion mass matrices.
728:
729: \begin{center}
730: \textbf{Acknowledgement}
731: \end{center}
732:
733: This work was partly supported by the EU network, \textquotedblleft
734: Physics Across the
735: Present Energy Frontier\textquotedblright\ HPRV-CT-2000-00148 and the PPARC rolling grant PPA/G/O/2002/00479.
736:
737: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
738: \bibitem{gsto} R. Gatto, G. Sartori and M. Tonin, Phys. Lett. \textbf{B28}
739: (1968) 128; R.J.Oakes, Phys. Lett. \textbf{B29} (1969) 683 [ Erratum B31
740: (1970) 630]; Phys. Lett. \textbf{B30} (1970) 26.
741:
742: %\cite{Ramond:1993kv}
743:
744: \bibitem{Ramond:1993kv} P.~Ramond, R.~G.~Roberts and G.~G.~Ross,
745: %``Stitching the Yukawa quilt,''
746: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B \textbf{406} (1993) 19 %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9303320;%%
747:
748: %\cite{Roberts:2001zy}
749:
750: \bibitem{Roberts:2001zy} R.~G.~Roberts, A.~Romanino, G.~G.~Ross and
751: L.~Velasco-Sevilla, %``Precision test of a fermion mass texture,''
752: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B \textbf{615} (2001) 358 [arXiv:hep-ph/0104088].
753: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0104088;%%
754:
755: \bibitem{seesaw} M. Gell-Mann, P. Ramond and R. Slansky, \emph{Proceedings
756: of the Supergravity Stony Brook Workshop}, New York 1979, eds. P. Van
757: Nieuwenhuizen and D. Freedman; T. Yanagida, \emph{Proceedinds of the
758: Workshop on Unified Theories and Baryon Number in the Universe}, Tsukuba,
759: Japan 1979, ed.s A. Sawada and A. Sugamoto; R. N. Mohapatra, G. Senjanovic,
760: \textit{Phys.Rev.Lett.} \textbf{44} (1980)912, \textit{ibid.} \textit{%
761: Phys.Rev.} \textbf{D23} (1981) 165; S.~L.~Glashow,
762: %``The Future Of Elementary Particle Physics,''
763: \textit{In *Cargese 1979, Proceedings, Quarks and Leptons*, 687-713 and
764: Harvard Univ.Cambridge - HUTP-79-A059 (79,REC.DEC.) 40p}.
765:
766: \bibitem{rw} For related work see P.~H.~Frampton, S.~L.~Glashow and
767: T.~Yanagida, %``Cosmological sign of neutrino CP violation,''
768: Phys.\ Lett.\ B \textbf{548} (2002) 119 [arXiv:hep-ph/0208157].
769: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0208157;%%\end{thebibliography}
770: ; R.~Barbieri, T.~Hambye and A.~Romanino,
771: %``Natural relations among physical observables in the neutrino mass matrix,''
772: JHEP \textbf{0303} (2003) 017 [arXiv:hep-ph/0302118].
773: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0302118;%%
774:
775: \bibitem{King:1998jw}
776: S.~F.~King,
777: %``Atmospheric and solar neutrinos with a heavy singlet,''
778: Phys.\ Lett.\ B \textbf{439} (1998) 350 [arXiv:hep-ph/9806440].
779: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9806440;%%
780: %\cite{King:1999cm}
781: %\bibitem{King:1999cm}
782: S.~F.~King,
783: %``Atmospheric and solar neutrinos from single right-handed neutrino
784: % dominance and U(1) family symmetry,''
785: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B \textbf{562} (1999) 57 [arXiv:hep-ph/9904210];
786: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9904210;%%
787: S.~F.~King,
788: %``Large mixing angle MSW and atmospheric neutrinos from single
789: %right-handed neutrino dominance and U(1) family symmetry,''
790: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 576} (2000) 85
791: [arXiv:hep-ph/9912492].
792: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9912492;%%
793: %\cite{King:2001uz}
794: %\cite{Altarelli:1999dg}
795: %\bibitem{Altarelli:1999dg}
796: G.~Altarelli, F.~Feruglio and I.~Masina,
797: %``Large neutrino mixing from small quark and lepton mixings,''
798: Phys.\ Lett.\ B \textbf{472} (2000) 382 [arXiv:hep-ph/9907532];
799: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9907532;%%
800: A.~Y.~Smirnov, %``Seesaw Enhancement Of Lepton Mixing,''
801: Phys.\ Rev.\ D \textbf{48} (1993) 3264 [arXiv:hep-ph/9304205].
802:
803: \bibitem{King:2001uz} S.~F.~King and G.~G.~Ross,
804: %``Fermion masses and mixing angles from SU(3) family symmetry,''
805: Phys.\ Lett.\ B \textbf{520} (2001) 243 [arXiv:hep-ph/0108112].
806: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0108112;%%
807:
808: %\cite{Ross:2002fb}
809:
810: \bibitem{Ross:2002fb} G.~G.~Ross and L.~Velasco-Sevilla,
811: %``Symmetries and fermion masses,''
812: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B \textbf{653} (2003) 3 [arXiv:hep-ph/0208218].
813: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0208218;%%
814:
815: %\cite{Casas:2001sr}
816:
817: \bibitem{Casas:2001sr} J.~A.~Casas and A.~Ibarra,
818: %``Oscillating neutrinos and mu $\to$ e, gamma,''
819: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B \textbf{618} (2001) 171 [arXiv:hep-ph/0103065].
820: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0103065;%%
821:
822: %\cite{Fukugita:1986hr}
823:
824: \bibitem{Fukugita:1986hr} M.~Fukugita and T.~Yanagida,
825: %``Baryogenesis Without Grand Unification,''
826: Phys.\ Lett.\ B \textbf{174} (1986) 45. %%CITATION = PHLTA,B174,45;%%
827:
828: \bibitem{Gonzalez-Garcia:2003qf} M.~C.~Gonzalez-Garcia and C.~Pena-Garay,
829: %``Three-neutrino mixing after the first results from K2K and KamLAND,''
830: arXiv:hep-ph/0306001. %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0306001;%%
831:
832: %\cite{Buchmuller:2003gz}
833:
834: \bibitem{Buchmuller:2003gz} W.~Buchmuller, P.~Di Bari and M.~Plumacher,
835: %``The neutrino mass window for baryogenesis,''
836: arXiv:hep-ph/0302092. %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0302092;%%
837:
838: %\cite{Davidson:2002qv}
839:
840: \bibitem{Davidson:2002qv} S.~Davidson and A.~Ibarra,
841: %``A lower bound on the right-handed neutrino mass from leptogenesis,''
842: Phys.\ Lett.\ B \textbf{535} (2002) 25 [arXiv:hep-ph/0202239].
843: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0202239;%%
844: %\cite{Hamaguchi:2001gw}
845: %\bibitem{Hamaguchi:2001gw}
846: K.~Hamaguchi, H.~Murayama and T.~Yanagida,
847: %``Leptogenesis from sneutrino-dominated early universe,''
848: Phys.\ Rev.\ D \textbf{65} (2002) 043512 [arXiv:hep-ph/0109030].
849: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0109030;%%
850: %\cite{King:2002qh}
851:
852: \bibitem{King:2002qh} S.~F.~King,
853: %``Leptogenesis - MNS link in unified models with natural neutrino mass hierarchy,''
854: arXiv:hep-ph/0211228. %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0211228;%%
855: ; L. Velasco-Sevilla, Hierarchical Neutrino Mass Matrices, CP violation and
856: Leptogenesis, Oxford Preprint OUTP-03/14P.
857:
858: %\cite{Plumacher:1996kc}
859:
860: \bibitem{Plumacher:1996kc} M.~Plumacher,
861: %``Baryogenesis and lepton number violation,''
862: Z.\ Phys.\ C \textbf{74} (1997) 549 [arXiv:hep-ph/9604229].
863: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9604229;%%
864:
865: %\cite{Chankowski:2003rr}
866:
867: \bibitem{Chankowski:2003rr} Similar results have been found recently by
868: P.~H.~Chankowski and K.~Turzynski,
869: %``Limits on T(reh) for thermal leptogenesis with hierarchical
870: % neutrino masses,''
871: arXiv:hep-ph/0306059. %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0306059;%%
872:
873: %\cite{Barbieri:2003qd}
874:
875: \bibitem{skggr} S.F.King, G.G.Ross, Fermion Masses and Mixing Angles from $%
876: SU(3)$ Family Symmetry and Unification, Southampton and CERN preprint, SHEP
877: 03-14, CERN-TH/2003-147
878: \end{thebibliography}
879:
880: \end{document}
881:
882: