1: \documentstyle[prd,aps,preprint,tighten,epsfig]{revtex}
2:
3: \begin{document}
4:
5: \draft
6:
7: \title{Isomeric Lepton Mass Matrices and Bi-large Neutrino Mixing}
8: \author{\bf Zhi-zhong Xing}
9: \address{Institute of High Energy Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, \\
10: P.O. Box 918 (4), Beijing 100039, China
11: \footnote{Mailing address} \\
12: ({\it Electronic address: xingzz@mail.ihep.ac.cn}) }
13: \author{\bf Shun Zhou}
14: \address{Department of Physics, Nankai University, Tianjin 300071, China \\
15: ({\it Electronic address: zs00208@phys.nankai.edu.cn}) }
16: \maketitle
17:
18: \begin{abstract}
19: We show that there exist six parallel textures of the charged
20: lepton and neutrino mass matrices with six vanishing entries, whose
21: phenomenological consequences are exactly the same. These
22: {\it isomeric} lepton mass matrices are compatible with current
23: experimental data at the $3\sigma$ level. If the seesaw mechanism
24: and the Fukugita-Tanimoto-Yanagida hypothesis are taken into
25: account, it will be possible to fit the experimental data at or
26: below the $2\sigma$ level. In particular, the maximal atmospheric neutrino
27: mixing can be reconciled with a strong neutrino mass hierarchy in
28: the seesaw case.
29: \end{abstract}
30:
31: \pacs{PACS number(s): 12.15.Ff, 12.10.Kt}
32:
33:
34: The recent solar \cite{SNO}, atmospheric \cite{SK}, KamLAND \cite{KM}
35: and K2K \cite{K2K} neutrino oscillation experiments have provided us with
36: very convincing evidence that neutrinos are massive and lepton flavors
37: are mixed. In particular, the admixture of three lepton flavors involves
38: two large angles $\theta_{12} \sim 33^\circ$ and
39: $\theta_{23} \sim 45^\circ$ \cite{FIT}. To interpret the observed
40: {\it bi-large} lepton flavor mixing pattern, many phenomenological
41: ans$\rm\ddot{a}$tze of lepton mass matrices have been proposed in
42: the literature \cite{Review}.
43: A very interesting category of the ans$\rm\ddot{a}$tze focus on
44: {\it texture zeros} of charged lepton and neutrino mass matrices in a
45: specific flavor basis, from which some nontrivial and testable
46: relations between
47: flavor mixing angles and lepton mass ratios can be derived. A typical
48: example is the Fritzsch ansatz \cite{F78} of lepton mass matrices,
49: \begin{equation}
50: M^{~}_{l,\nu} \; = \; \left ( \matrix{
51: {\bf 0} & \times & {\bf 0} \cr
52: \times & {\bf 0} & \times \cr
53: {\bf 0} & \times & \times \cr} \right ) \; ,
54: % (1)
55: \end{equation}
56: in which six texture zeros are included
57: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
58: \footnote{Because $M_l$ and $M_\nu$ are taken to be symmetric,
59: a pair of off-diagonal texture zeros in $M_l$ or $M_\nu$ have
60: been counted as one zero.}
61: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
62: and all non-vanishing entries are simply symbolized by $\times$'s.
63: It has been shown in Ref. \cite{Xing02} that this ansatz can
64: naturally predict a normal but weak neutrino mass hierarchy and a
65: bi-large lepton flavor mixing pattern. If the seesaw mechanism is
66: incorporated in the Fritzsch texture of charged lepton and Dirac
67: neutrino mass matrices \cite{FTY}, one may obtain a similar flavor
68: mixing pattern together with a much stronger neutrino mass hierarchy.
69:
70: The simplicity and predictability of $M_l$ and $M_\nu$ in Eq. (1)
71: motivate us to examine other possible six-zero textures of lepton
72: mass matrices and their various phenomenological consequences.
73: We find that there totally exist six {\it parallel} patterns of
74: $M_l$ and $M_\nu$ with six texture zeros, as listed in Table 1,
75: where the Fritzsch ansatz is labelled as pattern (A). It is apparent
76: that these six patterns are structurally different from one another.
77: The question is whether their predictions for neutrino masses,
78: flavor mixing angles and CP violation are distinguishable or not.
79:
80: The purpose of this paper is to answer the above question and to
81: confront those six-zero textures of lepton mass matrices with the
82: latest experimental data. First, we shall present a concise
83: analysis of the lepton mass matrices in Table 1 and reveal their
84: {\it isomeric} features -- namely, they have the same phenomenological
85: consequences, although their structures are apparently different.
86: Second, we shall examine the predictions of these lepton mass
87: matrices by comparing them with the $2\sigma$ and $3\sigma$ intervals
88: of two neutrino mass-squared differences and three lepton flavor
89: mixing angles \cite{FIT2}, which are obtained from a global analysis of
90: the latest solar, atmospheric, reactor (KamLAND and CHOOZ \cite{CHOOZ})
91: and accelerator (K2K) neutrino data. We find no parameter space allowed
92: for six isomeric lepton mass matrices at the $2\sigma$ level. At the
93: $3\sigma$ level, however, their results for neutrino masses and
94: lepton flavor mixing angles can be compatible with current data.
95: Third, we incorporate the seesaw mechanism and the
96: Fukugita-Tanimoto-Yanagida hypothesis \cite{FTY} in the charged lepton
97: and Dirac neutrino mass matrices with six texture zeros. It turns out
98: that their predictions, including $\theta_{23} \approx 45^\circ$,
99: are in good agreement with the present experimental data even at the
100: $2\sigma$ level.
101:
102: Let us begin with the diagonalization of $M_l$ and $M_\nu$ listed in
103: Table 1. Without loss of generality, one may take their diagonal
104: non-vanishing elements to be real and positive. Then only the
105: off-diagonal non-vanishing elements of $M_l$ and $M_\nu$ are complex.
106: Each mass matrix $M$ consists of two phase parameters
107: ($\phi$ and $\varphi$) and three real and positive parameters
108: ($A$, $B$ and $C$), as shown in Table 1, where their subscript ``$l$''
109: or ``$\nu$'' has been omitted for simplicity. The diagonalization of
110: $M$ requires the following unitary transformation,
111: \begin{equation}
112: U^\dagger M U^* \; = \; \left ( \matrix{
113: \lambda_1 & 0 & 0 \cr
114: 0 & \lambda_2 & 0 \cr
115: 0 & 0 & \lambda_3 \cr} \right ) \; ,
116: % (2)
117: \end{equation}
118: where $\lambda_i$ (for $i=1,2,3$) denote the physical masses
119: of charged leptons (i.e., $\lambda_{1,2,3} = m_{e,\mu,\tau}$)
120: or neutrinos (i.e., $\lambda_i = m_i$). Due to the particular
121: texture of $M$, $U$ can be written as a product of a diagonal phase
122: matrix (dependent on $\phi$ and $\varphi$) and a unitary matrix
123: (independent of $\phi$ and $\varphi$), as illustrated by Table 1.
124: The real parameters $(A,B,C)$ in $M$ and
125: $(a^{~}_i,b^{~}_i,c^{~}_i)$ in $U$ are simple functions of $\lambda_i$:
126: \begin{eqnarray}
127: A & = & \lambda_3 \left ( 1 - y + xy \right ) \; ,
128: \nonumber \\
129: B & = & \lambda_3 \left [ \frac{y (1 - x) (1 - y) (1 + xy)}
130: {1 - y + xy} \right ]^{1/2} \; ,
131: \nonumber \\
132: C & = & \lambda_3 \left ( \frac{x y^2}{1 - y + xy} \right )^{1/2} \; ;
133: % (3)
134: \end{eqnarray}
135: and
136: \begin{eqnarray}
137: a^{~}_1 & = & + \left [ \frac{1-y}{(1+x)(1-xy)(1-y+xy)} \right ]^{1/2} \; ,
138: \nonumber \\
139: a^{~}_2 & = & -i \left [ \frac{x(1+xy)}{(1+x)(1+y)(1-y+xy)} \right ]^{1/2} \; ,
140: \nonumber \\
141: a^{~}_3 & = & + \left [ \frac{xy^3 (1-x)}{(1-xy)(1+y)(1-y+xy)}
142: \right ]^{1/2} \; ,
143: \nonumber \\
144: b^{~}_1 & = & + \left [ \frac{x(1-y)}{(1+x)(1-xy)} \right ]^{1/2} \; ,
145: \nonumber \\
146: b^{~}_2 & = & +i \left [ \frac{1+xy}{(1+x)(1+y)} \right ]^{1/2} \; ,
147: \nonumber \\
148: b^{~}_3 & = & + \left [ \frac{y(1-x)}{(1-xy)(1+y)} \right ]^{1/2} \; ,
149: \nonumber \\
150: c^{~}_1 & = & - \left [ \frac{xy(1-x)(1+xy)}{(1+x)(1-xy)(1-y+xy)}
151: \right ]^{1/2} \; ,
152: \nonumber \\
153: c^{~}_2 & = & -i \left [ \frac{y(1-x)(1-y)}{(1+x)(1+y)(1-y+xy)}
154: \right ]^{1/2} \; ,
155: \nonumber \\
156: c^{~}_3 & = & + \left [ \frac{(1-y)(1+xy)}{(1-xy)(1+y)(1-y+xy)}
157: \right ]^{1/2} \; ,
158: % (4)
159: \end{eqnarray}
160: where $x\equiv \lambda_1/\lambda_2$ and $y \equiv \lambda_2/\lambda_3$
161: have been defined. Note that $a^{~}_2$, $b^{~}_2$ and $c^{~}_2$ are
162: imaginary, and their nontrivial phases arise from a minus sign of the
163: determinant of $M$(i.e., ${\rm Det}(M) = - AC^2 e^{2i\varphi}$).
164: Since the charged lepton masses have precisely been
165: measured \cite{PDG}, we have $x^{~}_l \approx 0.00484$ and
166: $y^{~}_l \approx 0.0594$. On the other hand, $0 < x_\nu < 1$ is
167: required by the solar neutrino oscillation data \cite{SNO}. Hence
168: $0 < y_\nu < 1$ must hold, in agreement with Eq. (4). This observation
169: implies that the isomeric lepton mass matrices under discussion guarantee
170: a normal neutrino mass spectrum.
171:
172: The lepton flavor mixing matrix $V$, which links the neutrino mass
173: eigenstates $(\nu_1, \nu_2, \nu_3)$ to the neutrino flavor eigenstates
174: $(\nu_e, \nu_\mu, \nu_\tau)$, results from
175: the mismatch between the diagonalization of $M_l$ and that of
176: $M_\nu$. Taking account of Eq. (2), we obtain
177: $V = U^\dagger_l U_\nu$, whose nine matrix
178: elements read explicitly as
179: \begin{equation}
180: V_{pq} \; = \; (a^{l}_p)^* a^\nu_q e^{i\alpha} +
181: (b^{l}_p)^* b^\nu_q e^{i \beta} + (c^{l}_p)^* c^\nu_q \; ,
182: % (5)
183: \end{equation}
184: where the subscripts $p$ and $q$ run respectively over $(e, \mu, \tau)$
185: and $(1,2,3)$, and the phase parameters $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are defined
186: by $\alpha \equiv (\varphi^{~}_\nu - \varphi^{~}_l) - \beta$ and
187: $\beta \equiv (\phi^{~}_\nu - \phi^{~}_l)$. It is worth remarking that
188: Eq. (5) is universally valid for all six patterns of lepton mass matrices
189: in Table 1. Hence they must have the same phenomenological consequences
190: and can be referred to as the {\it isomeric} lepton mass matrices.
191:
192: Obviously, $V$ consists of four unknown parameters:
193: $x_\nu$, $y_\nu$, $\alpha$ and $\beta$. Their magnitudes can be
194: constrained by current experimental data on neutrino oscillations.
195: For the sake of convenience, we adopt the standard parametrization
196: of $V$ \cite{X04}:
197: \begin{equation}
198: V \; = \; \left ( \matrix{
199: c_{12} c_{13} & s_{12} c_{13} & s_{13} \cr
200: - c_{12} s_{23} s_{13} - s_{12} c_{23} e^{-i\delta} &
201: - s_{12} s_{23} s_{13} + c_{12} c_{23} e^{-i\delta} &
202: s_{23} c_{13} \cr
203: - c_{12} c_{23} s_{13} + s_{12} s_{23} e^{-i\delta} &
204: - s_{12} c_{23} s_{13} - c_{12} s_{23} e^{-i\delta} &
205: c_{23} c_{13} \cr } \right )
206: \left ( \matrix{
207: e^{i\rho} & 0 & 0 \cr
208: 0 & e^{i\sigma} & 0 \cr
209: 0 & 0 & 1 \cr} \right ) \; ,
210: % (6)
211: \end{equation}
212: where $c_{ij} \equiv \cos\theta_{ij}$ and $s_{ij} \equiv \sin\theta_{ij}$
213: (for $ij=12,23,13$). Table 2 is a summary of the allowed ranges of
214: two neutrino mass-squared differences ($\Delta m^2_{21} \equiv m^2_2 - m^2_1$
215: and $\Delta m^2_{31} \equiv m^2_3 - m^2_1$) and three flavor mixing angles
216: ($\sin^2 \theta_{12}$, $\sin^2 \theta_{23}$ and $\sin^2 \theta_{13}$),
217: obtained from a gobal analysis of the latest solar, atmospheric, reactor
218: and accelerator neutrino data \cite{FIT2}. Because
219: \begin{equation}
220: R_\nu \; \equiv \; \frac{\Delta m^2_{21}}{\Delta m^2_{31}}
221: \; = \; y^2_\nu ~ \frac{1 - x^2_\nu}{1 - x^2_\nu y^2_\nu} \;
222: % (7)
223: \end{equation}
224: and
225: \begin{eqnarray}
226: \sin^2\theta_{12} & = & \frac{|V_{e2}|^2}{1 - |V_{e3}|^2} \; ,
227: \nonumber \\
228: \sin^2\theta_{23} & = & \frac{|V_{\mu 3}|^2}{1 - |V_{e3}|^2} \; ,
229: \nonumber \\
230: \sin^2\theta_{13} & = & |V_{e3}|^2
231: % (8)
232: \end{eqnarray}
233: are all dependent on $x_\nu$, $y_\nu$, $\alpha$ and $\beta$,
234: the latter can then be constrained by using the experimental
235: data in Table 2. Once the parameter space of $(x_\nu, y_\nu)$ and
236: $(\alpha, \beta)$ is fixed, one may quantitatively determine the
237: CP-violating phases $(\delta, \rho, \sigma)$ and the Jarlskog
238: invariant $\cal J$ ($= {\rm Im} [V_{e2} V_{\mu 3} V^*_{e3} V^*_{\mu 2}]$,
239: for example \cite{J}), which measures the strength of CP and T
240: violation in neutrino oscillations. It is also possible to determine
241: the neutrino mass spectrum and the effective masses of the tritium
242: beta decay ($\langle m\rangle_e \equiv m_1 |V_{e1}|^2 +
243: m_2 |V_{e2}|^2 + m_3 |V_{e3}|^2$) and the neutrinoless double beta decay
244: ($\langle m\rangle_{ee} \equiv |m_1 V^2_{e1} + m_2 V^2_{e2} +
245: m_3 V^2_{e3}|$). The results of our numerical calculations are
246: summarized as follows.
247:
248: (1) We find that the parameter space of $(x_\nu, y_\nu)$ or
249: $(\alpha, \beta)$ will be empty, if the best-fit values or the $2\sigma$
250: intervals of $\Delta m^2_{21}$, $\Delta m^2_{31}$,
251: $\sin^2 \theta_{12}$, $\sin^2 \theta_{23}$ and $\sin^2 \theta_{13}$
252: are taken into account. This situation is caused by the conflict
253: between the largeness of $\sin^2\theta_{23}$ and the smallness of
254: $R_\nu$, which cannot simultaneously be achieved from $M_l$ and
255: $M_\nu$ at the $2\sigma$ level.
256:
257: (2) If the $3\sigma$ intervals of $\Delta m^2_{21}$, $\Delta m^2_{31}$,
258: $\sin^2 \theta_{12}$, $\sin^2 \theta_{23}$ and $\sin^2 \theta_{13}$
259: are taken into account, however, the consequences of $M_l$ and
260: $M_\nu$ on neutrino masses and flavor mixing angles can be compatible
261: with current experimental data. Fig. 1 shows the allowed parameter
262: space of $(x_\nu, y_\nu)$ and $(\alpha, \beta)$ at the $3\sigma$ level.
263: We see that $\beta \sim \pi$ holds. This result is consistent with the
264: previous observation \cite{Xing02}. Because of $y_\nu \sim 0.25$,
265: $m_3 \approx \sqrt{\Delta m^2_{31}}$ is a good approximation. The
266: neutrino mass spectrum can actually be determined to an acceptable
267: degree of accuracy:
268: $m_3 \approx (3.8 - 6.1) \times 10^{-2}$ eV,
269: $m_2 \approx (0.95 - 1.5) \times 10^{-2}$ eV and
270: $m_1 \approx (2.6 - 3.4) \times 10^{-3}$ eV, where $x_\nu \approx 1/3$
271: and $y_\nu \approx 1/4$ have typically be taken.
272: A straightforward calculation yields
273: $\langle m\rangle_e \sim 10^{-2} ~ {\rm eV}$ for the tritium beta
274: decay and $\langle m\rangle_{ee} \sim 10^{-3} ~ {\rm eV}$ for the
275: neutrinoless double beta decay. Both of them are too small to be
276: experimentally accessible in the foreseeable future.
277:
278: (3) Fig. 2 shows the outputs of $\sin^2 \theta_{12}$,
279: $\sin^2 \theta_{23}$ and $\sin^2 \theta_{13}$ versus $R_\nu$ at the
280: $3\sigma$ level. It is obvious that the maximal atmospheric neutrino
281: mixing (i.e., $\sin^2\theta_{23} \approx 0.5$ or
282: $\sin^2 2\theta_{23} \approx 1$) cannot be achieved from
283: the isomeric lepton mass matrices under consideration. We see that
284: $\sin^2\theta_{23} < 0.40$ (or $\sin^2 2\theta_{23} < 0.96$)
285: holds in our ansatz, and it is impossible
286: to get a larger value of $\sin^2\theta_{23}$ even if $R_\nu$
287: approaches its upper bound. In contrast, the output of $\sin^2\theta_{12}$
288: is favorable and has less dependence on $R_\nu$. One can also see that
289: only small values of $\sin^2\theta_{13}$ ($\leq 0.016$) are favored.
290: More precise data on $\sin^2\theta_{23}$, $\sin^2\theta_{13}$ and $R_\nu$
291: will allow us to check whether those isomeric lepton mass
292: matrices with six texture zeros can really survive the experimental
293: test or not.
294:
295: (4) We calculate the CP-violating phases $(\delta, \rho, \sigma)$ and
296: the Jarlskog invariant $\cal J$, and illustrate their results in Fig. 3.
297: The maximal magnitude of $\cal J$ is close to 0.015 around
298: $\delta \sim 3\pi/4$ or $5\pi/4$. As for the Majorana phases $\rho$
299: and $\sigma$, the relation $(\rho - \sigma) \approx \pi/2$ holds.
300: This result is attributed to the fact that the matrix elements
301: $(a^\nu_2, b^\nu_2, c^\nu_2)$ of $U_\nu$ are all imaginary and they
302: give rise to an irremovable phase shift between $V_{p1}$ and $V_{p2}$
303: (for $p=e, \mu, \tau$) elements through Eq. (5). Such a phase difference
304: may affect the effective mass of the neutrinoless double beta decay,
305: but it has nothing to do with CP violation in neutrino oscillations.
306:
307: We proceed to discuss a simple way to avoid the potential tension
308: between the smallness of $R_\nu$ and the largeness of $\sin^2\theta_{23}$
309: arising from the above isomeric lepton mass matrices. In this connection,
310: we take account of the Fukugita-Tanimoto-Yanagida hypothesis \cite{FTY}
311: together with the seesaw mechanism \cite{SS} -- namely,
312: the charged lepton mass matrix $M_l$ and the Dirac neutrino mass matrix
313: $M_{\rm D}$ may take one of the six patterns illustrated in Table 1,
314: while the right-handed Majorana neutrino mass matrix $M_{\rm R}$ takes
315: the form $M_{\rm R} = M_0 {\bf I}$ with $M_0$ being a very large mass
316: scale and $\bf I$ denoting the unity matrix.
317: Then the effective (left-handed) neutrino mass matrix $M_\nu$ reads as
318: \begin{equation}
319: M_\nu \; =\; M_{\rm D} M^{-1}_R M^T_{\rm D} \; =\;
320: \frac{M^2_{\rm D}}{M_0} \; .
321: % (9)
322: \end{equation}
323: For simplicity, we further assume $M_{\rm D}$ to be real (i.e.,
324: $\phi^{~}_{\rm D} = \varphi^{~}_{\rm D} =0$). It turns out that the real
325: orthogonal transformation $U_{\rm D}$, which is defined to diagonalize
326: $M_{\rm D}$, can simultaneously diagonalize $M_\nu$:
327: \begin{equation}
328: U^T_{\rm D} M_\nu U_{\rm D} \; =\;
329: \frac{(U^T_{\rm D} M_{\rm D} U_{\rm D})^2}{M_0} \; =\;
330: \left ( \matrix{
331: m_1 & 0 & 0 \cr
332: 0 & m_2 & 0 \cr
333: 0 & 0 & m_3 \cr} \right ) \; ,
334: % (10)
335: \end{equation}
336: where $m_i \equiv d^2_i/M_0$ with $d_i$ standing for the eigenvalues
337: of $M_{\rm D}$. In terms of the neutrino mass ratios
338: $x_\nu \equiv m_1/m_2 = (d_1/d_2)^2$ and
339: $y_\nu \equiv m_2/m_3 = (d_2/d_3)^2$, we obtain the
340: explicit expressions of nine matrix elements of $U_\nu = U_{\rm D}$:
341: \begin{eqnarray}
342: a^\nu_1 & = & + \left [ \frac{1-\sqrt{y_\nu}}
343: {(1+\sqrt{x_\nu})(1-\sqrt{x_\nu y_\nu})
344: (1-\sqrt{y_\nu}+\sqrt{x_\nu y_\nu})} \right ]^{1/2} \; ,
345: \nonumber \\
346: a^\nu_2 & = & - \left [ \frac{\sqrt{x_\nu}(1+\sqrt{x_\nu y_\nu})}
347: {(1+\sqrt{x_\nu})(1+\sqrt{y_\nu})
348: (1-\sqrt{y_\nu}+\sqrt{x_\nu y_\nu})} \right ]^{1/2} \; ,
349: \nonumber \\
350: a^\nu_3 & = & + \left [ \frac{y_\nu \sqrt{x_\nu y_\nu}
351: (1-\sqrt{x_\nu})}{(1-\sqrt{x_\nu y_\nu})(1+\sqrt{y_\nu})
352: (1-\sqrt{y_\nu}+\sqrt{x_\nu y_\nu})} \right ]^{1/2} \; ,
353: \nonumber \\
354: b^\nu_1 & = & + \left [ \frac{\sqrt{x_\nu}(1-\sqrt{y_\nu})}
355: {(1+\sqrt{x_\nu})(1-\sqrt{x_\nu y_\nu})} \right ]^{1/2} \; ,
356: \nonumber \\
357: b^\nu_2 & = & + \left [ \frac{1+\sqrt{x_\nu y_\nu}}
358: {(1+\sqrt{x_\nu})(1+\sqrt{y_\nu})} \right ]^{1/2} \; ,
359: \nonumber \\
360: b^\nu_3 & = & + \left [ \frac{\sqrt{y_\nu}(1-\sqrt{x_\nu})}
361: {(1-\sqrt{x_\nu y_\nu})(1+\sqrt{y_\nu})} \right ]^{1/2} \; ,
362: \nonumber \\
363: c^\nu_1 & = & - \left [ \frac{\sqrt{x_\nu y_\nu}(1-\sqrt{x_\nu})
364: (1+\sqrt{x_\nu y_\nu})}{(1+\sqrt{x_\nu})(1-\sqrt{x_\nu y_\nu})
365: (1-\sqrt{y_\nu}+\sqrt{x_\nu y_\nu})} \right ]^{1/2} \; ,
366: \nonumber \\
367: c^\nu_2 & = & - \left [ \frac{\sqrt{y_\nu}(1-\sqrt{x_\nu})
368: (1-\sqrt{y_\nu})}{(1+\sqrt{x_\nu})(1+\sqrt{y_\nu})
369: (1-\sqrt{y_\nu}+\sqrt{x_\nu y_\nu})} \right ]^{1/2} \; ,
370: \nonumber \\
371: c^\nu_3 & = & + \left [ \frac{(1-\sqrt{y_\nu})(1+\sqrt{x_\nu y_\nu})}
372: {(1-\sqrt{x_\nu y_\nu})(1+\sqrt{y_\nu})(1-\sqrt{y_\nu}+\sqrt{x_\nu y_\nu})}
373: \right ]^{1/2} \; .
374: % (11)
375: \end{eqnarray}
376: The lepton flavor mixing matrix $V = U^\dagger_l U_\nu$ remains to
377: take the same form as Eq. (5), but the relevant phase parameters
378: are now defined as $\alpha \equiv -\varphi^{~}_l -\beta$ and
379: $\beta \equiv - \phi^{~}_l$.
380: Comparing between Eqs. (4) and (11), we immediately see that
381: the magnitudes of $(\theta_{12}, \theta_{23}, \theta_{13})$ in the
382: non-seesaw case can be reproduced in the seesaw case with much smaller
383: values of $x_\nu$ and $y_\nu$. The latter will allow $R_\nu$ to be
384: more strongly suppressed. It is therefore possible to relax the
385: tension between the smallness of $R_\nu$ and the largeness
386: of $\sin^2\theta_{23}$ appearing in the non-seesaw case. A careful
387: numerical analysis of six seesaw-modified patterns of the isomeric lepton
388: mass matrices {\it does} support this observation. We summarize the
389: results of our calculations as follows.
390:
391: (a) We find that the new ansatz are compatible very well with current
392: neutrino oscillation data, even if the $2\sigma$ intervals of
393: $\Delta m^2_{21}$, $\Delta m^2_{31}$, $\sin^2 \theta_{12}$,
394: $\sin^2 \theta_{23}$ and $\sin^2 \theta_{13}$ are taken into account.
395: Hence it is unnecessary to do a similar analysis at the $3\sigma$
396: level. The parameter space of $(x_\nu, y_\nu)$ and $(\alpha, \beta)$
397: is illustrated in Fig. 4, where $x_\nu \sim y_\nu \sim 0.2$ and
398: $\beta \sim \pi$ hold approximately.
399: Again $m_3 \approx \sqrt{\Delta m^2_{31}}$ is a good approximation. The
400: values of three neutrino masses read explicitly as
401: $m_3 \approx (4.2 - 5.8) \times 10^{-2}$ eV,
402: $m_2 \approx (0.84 - 1.2) \times 10^{-2}$ eV and
403: $m_1 \approx (1.6 - 1.9) \times 10^{-3}$ eV, which are obtained by
404: taking $x_\nu \approx y_\nu \approx 0.2$. It is easy to arrive
405: at $\langle m\rangle_e \sim 10^{-2} ~ {\rm eV}$ for the tritium beta
406: decay and $\langle m\rangle_{ee} \sim 10^{-3} ~ {\rm eV}$ for the
407: neutrinoless double beta decay, thus both of them are too small to be
408: experimentally accessible in the near future.
409:
410: (b) The outputs of $\sin^2 \theta_{12}$,
411: $\sin^2 \theta_{23}$ and $\sin^2 \theta_{13}$ versus $R_\nu$ are shown
412: in Fig. 5 at the $2\sigma$ level. One can see that the magnitude of
413: $\sin^2 \theta_{12}$ is essentially unconstrained. Now the maximal
414: atmospheric neutrino mixing (i.e., $\sin^2\theta_{23} \approx 0.5$ or
415: $\sin^2 2\theta_{23} \approx 1$) is achievable in the region of
416: $R_\nu \sim 0.036-0.047$. It is also possible to obtain
417: $\sin^2\theta_{13} \leq 0.035$, just below the experimental upper
418: bound \cite{CHOOZ}. If $\sin^2 2\theta_{13} \geq 0.02$ really holds,
419: the measurement of $\theta_{13}$ should be realizable in a future
420: reactor neutrino oscillation experiment \cite{T13}.
421:
422: (c) Fig. 6 illustrates the numerical results of $\delta$, $\rho$,
423: $\sigma$ and $\cal J$. We see that $|{\cal J}| \sim 0.025$ can be
424: obtained. Such a size of CP violation is expected to be measured
425: in the future long-baseline neutrino oscillation experiments.
426: As for the Majorana phases $\rho$ and $\sigma$, the relation
427: $\sigma \approx \rho$ holds. This result is easily understandable,
428: because $U_\nu$ is real in the seesaw case. It is worth mentioning
429: that the effective neutrino mass matrix $M_\nu$ does not persist in
430: the simple texture as $M_l$ has, thus the allowed ranges of $\delta$,
431: $\rho$ and $\sigma$ become smaller in the seesaw case than in
432: the non-seesaw case.
433:
434: Note that the eigenvalues of $M_{\rm D}$ and the heavy Majorana
435: mass scale $M_0$ are not specified in the above analysis. But
436: one may obtain $|d_1/d_2| = \sqrt{x_\nu} \sim 0.4$ and
437: $|d_2/d_3| = \sqrt{y_\nu} \sim 0.4$. Such a weak hierarchy of
438: $(|d_1|, |d_2|, |d_3|)$ means that $M_{\rm D}$ cannot directly
439: be connected to the charged lepton mass matrix $M_l$, nor can it
440: be related to the up-type quark mass matrix ($M_{\rm u}$) or
441: its down-type counterpart ($M_{\rm d}$) in a simple way. If the
442: hypothesis $M_{\rm R} = M_0 {\bf I}$ is rejected but the result
443: $U^T_\nu M_\nu U_\nu = {\rm Diag}\{m_1, m_2, m_3\}$ with
444: $U_\nu$ given by Eq. (11) is maintained, it will be possible to
445: determine the pattern of $M_{\rm R}$ by means of the inverted
446: seesaw formula
447: $M_{\rm R} = M^T_{\rm D} M^{-1}_\nu M_{\rm D}$ \cite{XZ} and by
448: assuming a specific relation between $M_{\rm D}$ and $M_{\rm u}$.
449: For example, one may simply assume $M_{\rm D} = M_{\rm u}$ with
450: $M_{\rm u}$ taking the approximate Fritzsch form,
451: \begin{equation}
452: M_{\rm u} \; \sim \; \left ( \matrix{
453: {\bf 0} & \sqrt{m_u m_c} & {\bf 0} \cr
454: \sqrt{m_u m_c} & {\bf 0} & \sqrt{m_c m_t} \cr
455: {\bf 0} & \sqrt{m_c m_t} & m_t \cr} \right ) \; .
456: % (12)
457: \end{equation}
458: Just for the purpose of illustration, we typically input
459: $x_\nu \sim y_\nu \sim 0.18$ as well as
460: $m_u/m_c \sim m_c/m_t \sim 0.0031$ and $m_t \approx 175$ GeV at
461: the electroweak scale \cite{Xing03}. Then we arrive at
462: \begin{equation}
463: M_{\rm R} \; \sim \; 3.0 \times 10^{15} \times \left ( \matrix{
464: 6.1 \times 10^{-8} & 1.2 \times 10^{-5} & 2.0 \times 10^{-4} \cr
465: 1.2 \times 10^{-5} & 3.5 \times 10^{-3} & 5.9 \times 10^{-2} \cr
466: 2.0 \times 10^{-4} & 5.9 \times 10^{-2} & {\bf 1} \cr} \right ) \;
467: % (13)
468: \end{equation}
469: in unit of GeV. This order-of-magnitude estimate shows that the
470: scale of $M_{\rm R}$ is close to that of grand unified theories
471: $\Lambda_{\rm GUT} \sim 10^{16}$ GeV, but the texture of $M_{\rm R}$
472: and that of $M_{\rm D}$ (or $M_l$) have little similarity. It is
473: certainly a very nontrivial task to combine the seesaw mechanism
474: and those phenomenologically-favored patterns of lepton mass
475: matrices. In this sense, the simple scenarios discussed in
476: Ref. \cite{FTY} and in the present paper may serve as a helpful
477: example to give readers a ball-park feeling of the problem itself
478: and possible solutions to it.
479:
480: In summary, we have analyzed six parallel patterns of lepton mass
481: matrices with six texture zeros and demonstrated that their
482: phenomenological consequences are exactly the same. Confronting
483: the predictions of these isomeric lepton mass matrices with current
484: neutrino oscillation data, we find that there is no parameter
485: space at the $2\sigma$ level. They can be compatible with the
486: experimental data at the $3\sigma$ level, but it is impossible
487: to obtain the maximal atmospheric neutrino mixing. We have also
488: discussed a very simple way to incorporate the seesaw mechanism in
489: the charged lepton and Dirac neutrino mass matrices with six
490: texture zeros. It is found that there is no problem to fit current
491: data even at the $2\sigma$ level in the seesaw case. In particular,
492: the maximal atmospheric neutrino mixing can naturally be reconciled
493: with a relatively strong neutrino mass hierarchy. The results for the
494: effective masses of the tritium beta decay and the neutrinoless double
495: beta decay are too small to be experimentally accessible in both
496: the seesaw and non-seesaw cases, but the strength of CP violation
497: can reach the percent level and may be detectable in the future
498: long-baseline neutrino oscillation experiments.
499:
500: We conclude that the peculiar feature of isomeric lepton mass matrices
501: is very suggestive for model building. We therefore look forward to
502: seeing whether such simple phenomenological ans$\rm\ddot{a}$tze can
503: survive the more stringent experimental test or not.
504:
505: \vspace{0.5cm}
506:
507: One of us (S.Z.) is grateful to the theory division of IHEP for
508: financial support and hospitality in Beijing. This work was supported
509: in part by the National Natural Science Foundation of China.
510:
511: \newpage
512:
513: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
514: \bibitem{SNO} SNO Collaboration, Q.R. Ahmad {\it et al.},
515: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 87} (2001) 071301; {\bf 89} (2002) 011301;
516: {\bf 89} (2002) 011302.
517:
518: \bibitem{SK} Super-Kamiokande Collaboration,
519: Y. Fukuda {\it et al.}, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 467} (1999) 185;
520: S. Fukuda {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 85} (2000) 3999;
521: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 86} (2001) 5651;
522: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 86} (2001) 5656.
523:
524: \bibitem{KM} KamLAND Collaboration, K. Eguchi {\it et al.},
525: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 90} (2003) 021802.
526:
527: \bibitem{K2K} K2K Collaboration, M.H. Ahn {\it et al.},
528: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 90} (2003) 041801.
529:
530: \bibitem{FIT} See, e.g.,
531: J.N. Bahcall and C. Pe$\rm\tilde{n}$a-Garay,
532: JHEP {\bf 0311} (2003) 004;
533: M.C. Gonzalez-Garcia and C. Pe$\rm\tilde{n}$a-Garay,
534: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 68} (2003) 093003;
535: M. Maltoni, T. Schwetz, M.A. T$\rm\acute{o}$rtola,
536: and J.W.F. Valle, hep-ph/0309130;
537: P.V. de Holanda and A.Yu. Smirnov, hep-ph/0309299; and references therein.
538:
539: \bibitem{Review} For recent reviews with extensive references, see:
540: H. Fritzsch and Z.Z. Xing, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. {\bf 45} (2000) 1;
541: G. Altarelli and F. Feruglio, hep-ph/0206077, to appear in
542: {\it Neutrino Mass} - Springer Tracts in Modern Physics, edited by
543: G. Altarelli and K. Winter (2002);
544: S.F. King, hep-ph/0310204.
545:
546: \bibitem{F78} H. Fritzsch, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 73} (1978) 317;
547: Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 155} (1979) 189.
548:
549: \bibitem{Xing02} Z.Z. Xing, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 550} (2002) 178.
550:
551: \bibitem{FTY} M. Fukugita, M. Tanimoto, and T. Yanagida,
552: Phys. Lett. B {\bf 562} (2003) 273;
553: Prog. Theor. Phys. {\bf 89} (1993) 263.
554:
555: \bibitem{FIT2} To be specific, we make use of the $2\sigma$ and
556: $3\sigma$ intervals of two neutrino mass-squared differences and three
557: lepton flavor mixing angles given by M. Maltoni {\it et al} in
558: Ref. \cite{FIT}.
559:
560: \bibitem{CHOOZ} CHOOZ Collaboration, M. Apollonio {\it et al.},
561: Phys. Lett. B {\bf 420} (1998) 397;
562: Palo Verde Collaboration, F. Boehm {\it et al.},
563: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 84} (2000) 3764.
564:
565: \bibitem{PDG} Particle Data Group, K. Hagiwara {\it et al.},
566: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 66} (2002) 010001.
567:
568: \bibitem{X04} Z.Z. Xing, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A {\bf 19} (2004) 1.
569:
570: \bibitem{J} C. Jarlskog, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 55} (1985) 1039.
571:
572: \bibitem{SS} T. Yanagida, in {\it Proceedings of the Workshop on
573: Unified Theory and the Baryon Number of the Universe}, edited by
574: O. Sawada and A. Sugamoto (KEK, Tsukuba, 1979), p. 95;
575: M. Gell-Mann, P. Ramond, and R. Slansky, in {\it Supergravity},
576: edited by F. van Nieuwenhuizen and D. Freedman (North Holland,
577: Amsterdam, 1979), p. 315;
578: S.L. Glashow, in {\it Quarks and Leptons}, edited by
579: M. L$\rm\acute{e}vy$ {\it et al.} (Plenum, New York, 1980), p. 707;
580: R.N. Mohapatra and G. Senjanovic, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 44}, 912 (1980).
581:
582: \bibitem{T13} K. Anderson {\it et al.}, hep-ex/0402041.
583:
584: \bibitem{XZ} Z.Z. Xing and H. Zhang, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 569} (2003) 30.
585:
586: \bibitem{Xing03} Z.Z. Xing, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 68} (2003) 073008.
587: \end{thebibliography}
588:
589: \newpage
590:
591: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Table 1 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
592: \begin{table}
593: \caption{The isomeric lepton mass matrices ($M_l$ and $M_\nu$)
594: with six texture zeros and the unitary matrices ($U_l$ and
595: $U_\nu$) used to diagonalize them, where the subscripts
596: ``$l$'' and ``$\nu$'' have been omitted for simplicity.}
597: \vspace{0.3cm}
598: \begin{center}
599: \begin{tabular}{ccc}
600: %----------------------------------------------------------------------
601: (A) &
602: $M = \left ( \matrix{
603: {\bf 0} & Ce^{i\varphi} & {\bf 0} \cr
604: Ce^{i\varphi} & {\bf 0} & Be^{i\phi} \cr
605: {\bf 0} & Be^{i\phi} & A \cr} \right )$ &
606: $U = \left ( \matrix{
607: e^{i(\varphi -\phi)} & 0 & 0 \cr
608: 0 & e^{i\phi} & 0 \cr
609: 0 & 0 & 1 \cr} \right )
610: \left ( \matrix{
611: a^{~}_1 & a^{~}_2 & a^{~}_3 \cr
612: b^{~}_1 & b^{~}_2 & b^{~}_3 \cr
613: c^{~}_1 & c^{~}_2 & c^{~}_3 \cr} \right )$ \\
614: %--------------------------------------------------
615: (B) &
616: $M = \left ( \matrix{
617: {\bf 0} & {\bf 0} & Ce^{i\varphi} \cr
618: {\bf 0} & A & Be^{i\phi} \cr
619: Ce^{i\varphi} & Be^{i\phi} & {\bf 0} \cr} \right )$ &
620: $U = \left ( \matrix{
621: e^{i(\varphi -\phi)} & 0 & 0 \cr
622: 0 & 1 & 0 \cr
623: 0 & 0 & e^{i\phi} \cr} \right )
624: \left ( \matrix{
625: a^{~}_1 & a^{~}_2 & a^{~}_3 \cr
626: c^{~}_1 & c^{~}_2 & c^{~}_3 \cr
627: b^{~}_1 & b^{~}_2 & b^{~}_3 \cr} \right )$ \\
628: %--------------------------------------------------
629: (C) &
630: $M = \left ( \matrix{
631: {\bf 0} & Ce^{i\varphi} & Be^{i\phi} \cr
632: Ce^{i\varphi} & {\bf 0} & {\bf 0} \cr
633: Be^{i\phi} & {\bf 0} & A \cr} \right )$ &
634: $U = \left ( \matrix{
635: e^{i\phi} & 0 & 0 \cr
636: 0 & e^{i(\varphi-\phi)} & 0 \cr
637: 0 & 0 & 1 \cr} \right )
638: \left ( \matrix{
639: b^{~}_1 & b^{~}_2 & b^{~}_3 \cr
640: a^{~}_1 & a^{~}_2 & a^{~}_3 \cr
641: c^{~}_1 & c^{~}_2 & c^{~}_3 \cr} \right )$ \\
642: %--------------------------------------------------
643: (D) &
644: $M = \left ( \matrix{
645: {\bf 0} & Be^{i\phi} & Ce^{i\varphi} \cr
646: Be^{i\phi} & A & {\bf 0} \cr
647: Ce^{i\varphi} & {\bf 0} & {\bf 0} \cr} \right )$ &
648: $U = \left ( \matrix{
649: e^{i\phi} & 0 & 0 \cr
650: 0 & 1 & 0 \cr
651: 0 & 0 & e^{i(\varphi-\phi)} \cr} \right )
652: \left ( \matrix{
653: b^{~}_1 & b^{~}_2 & b^{~}_3 \cr
654: c^{~}_1 & c^{~}_2 & c^{~}_3 \cr
655: a^{~}_1 & a^{~}_2 & a^{~}_3 \cr} \right )$ \\
656: %--------------------------------------------------
657: (E) &
658: $M = \left ( \matrix{
659: A & {\bf 0} & Be^{i\phi} \cr
660: {\bf 0} & {\bf 0} & Ce^{i\varphi} \cr
661: Be^{i\phi} & Ce^{i\varphi} & {\bf 0} \cr} \right )$ &
662: $U = \left ( \matrix{
663: 1 & 0 & 0 \cr
664: 0 & e^{i(\varphi-\phi)} & 0 \cr
665: 0 & 0 & e^{i\phi} \cr} \right )
666: \left ( \matrix{
667: c^{~}_1 & c^{~}_2 & c^{~}_3 \cr
668: a^{~}_1 & a^{~}_2 & a^{~}_3 \cr
669: b^{~}_1 & b^{~}_2 & b^{~}_3 \cr} \right )$ \\
670: %--------------------------------------------------
671: (F) &
672: $M = \left ( \matrix{
673: A & Be^{i\phi} & {\bf 0} \cr
674: Be^{i\phi} & {\bf 0} & Ce^{i\varphi} \cr
675: {\bf 0} & Ce^{i\varphi} & {\bf 0} \cr} \right )$ &
676: $U = \left ( \matrix{
677: 1 & 0 & 0 \cr
678: 0 & e^{i\phi} & 0 \cr
679: 0 & 0 & e^{i(\varphi-\phi)} \cr} \right )
680: \left ( \matrix{
681: c^{~}_1 & c^{~}_2 & c^{~}_3 \cr
682: b^{~}_1 & b^{~}_2 & b^{~}_3 \cr
683: a^{~}_1 & a^{~}_2 & a^{~}_3 \cr} \right )$ \\
684: %-------------------------------------------------
685: \end{tabular}
686: \end{center}
687: \end{table}
688: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
689:
690: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Table 2 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
691: \begin{table}
692: \caption{The best-fit values, $2\sigma$ and $3\sigma$ intervals
693: of $\Delta m^2_{21}$, $\Delta m^2_{31}$, $\sin^2 \theta_{12}$,
694: $\sin^2 \theta_{23}$ and $\sin^2 \theta_{13}$ obtained from a
695: global analysis of the latest solar, atmospheric, reactor and
696: accelerator neutrino oscillation data [10].}
697: \vspace{0.3cm}
698: \begin{center}
699: \begin{tabular}{c|ccccc}
700: %----------------------------------------------------------------------
701: & $\Delta m^2_{21}$ ($10^{-5} ~ {\rm eV}^2$)
702: & $\Delta m^2_{31}$ ($10^{-3} ~ {\rm eV}^2$)
703: & $\sin^2 \theta_{12}$
704: & $\sin^2 \theta_{23}$
705: & $\sin^2 \theta_{13}$ \\ \hline
706: %-----------------------------------------------------
707: Best fit & 6.9 & 2.6 & 0.30 & 0.52 & 0.006 \cr
708: 2$\sigma$ & 6.0--8.4 & 1.8--3.3 & 0.25--0.36 & 0.36--0.67 & $\leq$ 0.035 \cr
709: 3$\sigma$ & 5.4--9.5 & 1.4--3.7 & 0.23--0.39 & 0.31--0.72 & $\leq$ 0.054
710: %-------------------------------------------------
711: \end{tabular}
712: \end{center}
713: \end{table}
714: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
715:
716: \newpage
717:
718: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Fig. 1 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
719: \begin{figure}[t]
720: \vspace{-2cm}
721: \epsfig{file=f1.eps,bbllx=-7cm,bblly=14cm,bburx=-2cm,bbury=30cm,%
722: width=3cm,height=10cm,angle=0,clip=0} \vspace{10cm} \caption{The
723: parameter space of $(x_\nu, y^{~}_\nu)$ and $(\alpha, \beta)$ at
724: the $3\sigma$ level.}
725: \end{figure}
726: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
727:
728: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Fig. 2 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
729: \begin{figure}[t]
730: \vspace{-2cm}
731: \epsfig{file=f2.eps,bbllx=-8cm,bblly=14cm,bburx=-3cm,bbury=30cm,%
732: width=3cm,height=10cm,angle=0,clip=0} \vspace{10cm} \caption{The
733: outputs of $\sin^2 \theta_{12}$, $\sin^2 \theta_{23}$ and $\sin^2
734: \theta_{13}$ versus $R_\nu$ at the $3\sigma$ level.}
735: \end{figure}
736: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
737:
738: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Fig. 3 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
739: \begin{figure}[t]
740: \vspace{-2cm}
741: \epsfig{file=f3.eps,bbllx=-7cm,bblly=14cm,bburx=-2cm,bbury=30cm,%
742: width=3cm,height=10cm,angle=0,clip=0} \vspace{10cm} \caption{The
743: outputs of $(\delta, {\cal J})$ and $(\rho, \sigma)$ at the
744: $3\sigma$ level.}
745: \end{figure}
746: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
747:
748: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Fig. 4 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
749: \begin{figure}[t]
750: \vspace{-2cm}
751: \epsfig{file=f4.eps,bbllx=-7cm,bblly=14cm,bburx=-2cm,bbury=30cm,%
752: width=3cm,height=10cm,angle=0,clip=0} \vspace{10cm} \caption{The
753: parameter space of $(x_\nu, y^{~}_\nu)$ and $(\alpha, \beta)$ at
754: the $2\sigma$ level in the seesaw case.}
755: \end{figure}
756: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
757:
758: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Fig. 2 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
759: \begin{figure}[t]
760: \vspace{-2cm}
761: \epsfig{file=f5.eps,bbllx=-8cm,bblly=14cm,bburx=-3cm,bbury=30cm,%
762: width=3cm,height=10cm,angle=0,clip=0} \vspace{10cm} \caption{The
763: outputs of $\sin^2 \theta_{12}$, $\sin^2 \theta_{23}$ and $\sin^2
764: \theta_{13}$ versus $R_\nu$ at the $2\sigma$ level in the seesaw
765: case.}
766: \end{figure}
767: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
768:
769: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Fig. 3 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
770: \begin{figure}[t]
771: \vspace{-2cm}
772: \epsfig{file=f6.eps,bbllx=-7cm,bblly=14cm,bburx=-2cm,bbury=30cm,%
773: width=3cm,height=10cm,angle=0,clip=0} \vspace{10cm} \caption{The
774: outputs of $(\delta, {\cal J})$ and $(\rho, \sigma)$ at the
775: $2\sigma$ level in the seesaw case.}
776: \end{figure}
777: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
778:
779: \end{document}
780: