1: \documentclass[12pt]{article}
2: %\documentclass[twocolumn,showpacs,preprintnumbers,amsmath,amssymb]{revtex4}
3: \usepackage[reqno]{amsmath}
4: %\documentclass[epj]{svjour}
5: \usepackage{bbm}
6: \usepackage{epsfig}
7: \usepackage{array}
8: \usepackage{float}
9: %\usepackage{graphicx}% Include figure files
10: %\usepackage{dcolumn}% Align table columns on decimal point
11: %\usepackage{bm}% bold math
12: %\usepackage{showkeys}
13:
14: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
15: % WR
16:
17: \usepackage{a4}
18: %\usepackage{epsfig}
19:
20: \usepackage{a4wide}
21: \usepackage{wasysym}
22:
23:
24: % Some other macros used in the sample text
25: \def\ra{\rightarrow}
26: \def\be{\begin{equation}}
27: \def\ee{\end{equation}}
28: \def\gs{\mathrel{
29: \rlap{\raise 0.511ex \hbox{$>$}}{\lower 0.511ex \hbox{$\sim$}}}}
30: \def\ls{\mathrel{
31: \rlap{\raise 0.511ex \hbox{$<$}}{\lower 0.511ex \hbox{$\sim$}}}}
32: \newcommand{\obb}{0\mbox{$\nu\beta\beta$}}
33: \newcommand{\onbb}{neutrinoless double beta decay }
34: \newcommand{\ba}{\begin{array}{c}}
35: \newcommand{\baz}{\begin{array}{cc}}
36: \newcommand{\bad}{\begin{array}{ccc}}
37: \newcommand{\bea}{\begin{equation} \begin{array}{c}}
38: \newcommand{\eea}{ \end{array} \end{equation}}
39: \newcommand{\ea}{\end{array}}
40: \newcommand{\D}{\displaystyle}
41: \newcommand{\dms}{\mbox{$\Delta m^2_{\odot}$}}
42: \newcommand{\dma}{\mbox{$\Delta m^2_{\rm A}$}}
43: \newcommand{\meff}{\mbox{$\langle m \rangle$}}
44: \newcommand{\eV}{\mbox{ eV}}
45: \newcommand{\ppp}{\mbox{$(+++)$ }}
46: \newcommand{\pmm}{\mbox{$(+--)$ }}
47: \newcommand{\mpm}{\mbox{$(-+-)$ }}
48: \newcommand{\mmp}{\mbox{$(--+)$ }}
49: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
50:
51:
52: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
53: %\renewcommand{\floatpagefraction}{1}
54: %\renewcommand{\textfraction}{0}
55: %\renewcommand{\topfraction}{1}
56: %\renewcommand{\bottomfraction}{0.5}
57:
58:
59: \hyphenation{par-ti-cu-lar}
60: \hyphenation{ex-pe-ri-men-tal}
61: \hyphenation{dif-fe-rent}
62: \hyphenation{bet-we-en}
63: \hyphenation{mo-du-lus}
64:
65: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
66:
67: \begin{document}
68:
69: \title{
70: \vspace{-2cm}
71: \hfill {\framebox{\small\bf hep-ph/0408195}}\\
72: \vspace{-0.3cm}
73: \hfill {\small\bf SISSA 57/2004/EP}\\
74: \vspace{-0.3cm}
75: \hfill {\small\bf BIHEP-TH-2004-17}\\
76: \vskip 0.8cm
77: \bf Flavor Democracy and Type-II Seesaw Realization of Bilarge Neutrino Mixing
78: }
79: % \end{center}
80: \vspace{0.5cm}
81: \author{
82: {\large\bf Werner Rodejohann}\thanks{email: \tt werner@sissa.it} $^a$
83: $\;$ and $\;$
84: {\large\bf Zhi-zhong Xing}\thanks{email: \tt xingzz@mail.ihep.ac.cn} $^b$
85: \\ \\
86: {\normalsize \it $^a$ Scuola Internazionale Superiore di Studi Avanzati}
87: {\normalsize \it Via Beirut 2--4,} \\
88: {\normalsize \it I-34014 Trieste, Italy}\\
89: {\normalsize \it and}
90: {\normalsize \it Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare}
91: {\normalsize \it Sezione di Trieste,} \\
92: {\normalsize \it I-34014 Trieste, Italy}\\ \\
93: {\normalsize \it $^b$ CCAST (World Laboratory), P.O. Box 8730,
94: Beijing 100080, China} \\
95: {\normalsize \it ~ and Institute of High Energy Physics,
96: Chinese Academy of Sciences,}\\
97: {\normalsize \it P.O. Box 918 (4), Beijing 100039, China}
98: }
99: \date{}
100: \maketitle
101: \thispagestyle{empty}
102: \vspace{0.4cm}
103: \begin{abstract}
104: \noindent
105: We generalize the democratic neutrino mixing Ansatz by incorporating
106: the type-II seesaw mechanism with S(3) flavor symmetry.
107: For only the triplet mass term or only the conventional seesaw term large
108: neutrino mixing can be achieved only by assuming an
109: unnatural suppression of the flavor democracy contribution.
110: We show that bilarge neutrino mixing can naturally
111: appear if the flavor democracy term is strongly
112: suppressed due to significant cancellation
113: between the conventional seesaw and triplet mass terms.
114: Explicit S(3) symmetry breaking yields successful neutrino phenomenology
115: and various testable correlations between the neutrino mass and mixing
116: parameters. Among the results are a normal neutrino mass ordering,
117: $0.005 \le |U_{e3}| \le 0.057$, $1 - \sin^2 2\theta_{23} \ge 0.005$,
118: positive $J_{\rm CP}$ and moderate cancellation in the effective
119: mass of the neutrinoless double beta decay.
120: \end{abstract}
121:
122: \newpage
123:
124: %\section{\label{sec:intro}Introduction}
125:
126: The elegant Super-Kamiokande \cite{SK}, SNO \cite{SNO}, K2K \cite{K2K}
127: and KamLAND \cite{KM} experiments have provided us with very
128: convincing evidence that the long-standing solar neutrino
129: deficit and the atmospheric neutrino anomaly are both due to
130: neutrino oscillations, which can naturally occur if neutrinos are
131: massive and lepton flavors are mixed. A big puzzle is that the mass
132: scale of three active neutrinos (i.e., $\nu_e$, $\nu_\mu$ and $\nu_\tau$)
133: is extremely low, at most of ${\cal O}(0.1)$ eV. In addition,
134: lepton flavor mixing involves two remarkably large
135: angles, $\theta_{12} \sim 33^\circ$ and
136: $\theta_{23} \sim 45^\circ$ in the standard parametrization.
137: To understand the smallness of neutrino masses, a number of theoretical
138: and phenomenological ideas have been proposed in the
139: literature \cite{Review1}. Among them, the most natural idea is the
140: seesaw mechanism \cite{SS}. While the seesaw mechanism itself can
141: qualitatively explain why neutrino masses are so small, it is unable
142: to make any concrete predictions unless a specific lepton flavor structure
143: is assumed. Hence an appropriate combination of the seesaw mechanism and
144: possible flavor symmetries \cite{FS} or texture zeros \cite{TZ} is
145: practically needed, in order to quantitatively account for the neutrino
146: mass spectrum and the bilarge lepton mixing pattern. Some interesting
147: attempts in this direction \cite{Review2} have been made recently.
148:
149: \vspace{0.2cm}
150:
151: In this letter we aim to interpret current experimental data on neutrino
152: masses and lepton flavor mixing angles by incorporating the type-II seesaw
153: mechanism \cite{typeII} with S(3) flavor
154: symmetry and its explicit breaking. Our physical
155: motivation is rather simple. The charged lepton
156: mass matrix with $\rm S(3)_L \times S(3)_R$ symmetry
157: (i.e., flavor democracy) and the effective Majorana neutrino mass matrix
158: with S(3) permutation symmetry may in general be written as
159: \begin{eqnarray}
160: M^{(0)}_l & = & \frac{c^{~}_l}{3} \left (\begin{matrix}
161: 1 & 1 & 1 \cr
162: 1 & 1 & 1 \cr
163: 1 & 1 & 1 \cr \end{matrix} \right ) \; ,
164: \nonumber \\
165: M^{(0)}_\nu & = & c_\nu \left [ \left (\begin{matrix}
166: 1 & 0 & 0 \cr
167: 0 & 1 & 0 \cr
168: 0 & 0 & 1 \cr \end{matrix} \right ) +
169: r_\nu \left (\begin{matrix}
170: 1 & 1 & 1 \cr
171: 1 & 1 & 1 \cr
172: 1 & 1 & 1 \cr \end{matrix} \right ) \right ] \; ,
173: % (1)
174: \end{eqnarray}
175: in which $c^{~}_l$ and $c_\nu$ measure the corresponding mass scales of
176: charged leptons and light neutrinos, and $r_\nu$ is in principle an
177: arbitrary parameter. A soft breakdown of the above permutation symmetry
178: can lead to realistic lepton mass matrices
179: $M_l = M^{(0)}_l + \Delta M_l$ and $M_\nu = M^{(0)}_\nu + \Delta M_\nu$
180: with proper mass eigenvalues. Then the lepton flavor mixing matrix $U$
181: arises from the mismatch between the diagonalization of $M_l$ and
182: that of $M_\nu$. It has been noticed in
183: Refs.\ \cite{FX96,Tanimoto1,Tanimoto2,Branco,FX04} that $r_\nu$
184: must be vanishing or strongly suppressed such that a bilarge
185: neutrino mixing pattern can be generated. In the spirit of 't Hooft's
186: naturalness principle \cite{Hooft}, however,
187: $|r_\nu| = {\cal O}(1)$ seems more likely than $r_\nu =0$ or
188: $|r_\nu| \ll 1$. The point will become clear when the smallness
189: of $c_\nu$ is attributed to the seesaw mechanism. We find that the
190: conventional (type-I) seesaw mechanism cannot help out
191: (see also \cite{Branco}), but the
192: type-II seesaw scenario may provide a natural interpretation of
193: small neutrino masses and bilarge lepton mixing angles even in the
194: case of $|r_\nu| = {\cal O}(0.1)$ to ${\cal O}(1)$.
195:
196: \vspace{0.2cm}
197:
198: In type-II seesaw models with three right-handed neutrinos,
199: the neutrino mass term reads
200: \begin{equation}
201: - {\cal L}_{\rm mass} \; = \; \frac{1}{2}
202: \overline{(\nu, ~\nu^{\rm c} )^{~}_{\rm L}}
203: \left ( \begin{matrix}
204: M_{\rm L} & M_{\rm D} \cr
205: M^T_{\rm D} & M_{\rm R} \cr \end{matrix} \right )
206: \left ( \begin{matrix}
207: \nu^{\rm c} \cr \nu \cr \end{matrix} \right )_{\rm R} \; ,
208: % (2)
209: \end{equation}
210: where $\nu$ denotes the column vector of three neutrino fields,
211: $M_{\rm D}$ stands for the $3\times 3$ Dirac neutrino mass matrix,
212: $M_{\rm L}$ and $M_{\rm R}$ represent the symmetric $3\times 3$
213: mass matrices of left-handed and right-handed Majorana
214: neutrinos respectively. As $M_{\rm L}$ results from a
215: $\rm SU(2)_L$ triplet term of the Yukawa interactions.
216: its scale might be considerably lower
217: than the gauge symmetry breaking scale $v \approx 174$ GeV. On
218: the other hand, the scale of $M_{\rm R}$ can naturally be much
219: higher than $v$, because right-handed neutrinos are $\rm SU(2)_L$
220: singlets and their corresponding mass term is not subject to
221: gauge symmetry breaking. The strong hierarchy between the
222: scales of $M_{\rm R}$ and $M_{\rm L}$ or $M_{\rm D}$ allow us to make
223: some safe approximations in diagonalizing the $6\times 6$ neutrino mass
224: matrix in Eq.\ (2) and arrive at an effective mass matrix for three
225: light (essentially left-handed) neutrinos \cite{typeII}:
226: \begin{equation}
227: M_\nu \approx M_{\rm L} - M_{\rm D} M^{-1}_{\rm R} M^T_{\rm D} \; .
228: % (3)
229: \end{equation}
230: For a phenomenological study
231: of neutrino masses and lepton flavor mixing, we
232: assume a discrete left-right symmetry between $M_{\rm L}$ and
233: $M_{\rm R}$, whose mass scales are characterized respectively by the
234: vacuum expectation values (vevs) of two triplet fields, $v^{~}_{\rm L}$ and
235: $v^{~}_{\rm R}$. Consequently, the usual left-right symmetric relation
236: $v^{~}_{\rm L} v^{~}_{\rm R} = \gamma v^2$ holds,
237: where $\gamma$ is a model-dependent factor of
238: ${\cal O}(1)$.
239: As investigated recently, the interplay of the two terms in the
240: type-II seesaw formula can result in several interesting effects.
241: One can, e.g., upgrade a hierarchical neutrino
242: mass spectrum to a quasi-degenerate one \cite{anki} or create
243: deviations from the bimaximal neutrino mixing pattern \cite{WR04}.
244: In this letter we shall take advantage of possible cancellations
245: hidden in the type-II seesaw mechanism, which is an intriguing feature
246: when the two mass terms on the right-hand
247: side of Eq.\ (3) contribute to $M_\nu$ with comparable magnitudes.
248:
249: \vspace{0.2cm}
250:
251: Imposing S(3) flavor symmetry on $M_{\rm L}$ and $M_{\rm R}$ and
252: allowing for soft symmetry breaking, we write down
253: \begin{eqnarray}
254: M_{\rm L} & = & v^{~}_{\rm L} \left [ \left (\begin{matrix}
255: 1 & 0 & 0 \cr
256: 0 & 1 & 0 \cr
257: 0 & 0 & 1 \cr \end{matrix} \right ) +
258: r_\nu \left (\begin{matrix}
259: 1 & 1 & 1 \cr
260: 1 & 1 & 1 \cr
261: 1 & 1 & 1 \cr \end{matrix} \right ) \right ] +
262: \Delta M_{\rm L} \; ,
263: \nonumber \\
264: M_{\rm R} & = & v^{~}_{\rm R} \left [ \left (\begin{matrix}
265: 1 & 0 & 0 \cr
266: 0 & 1 & 0 \cr
267: 0 & 0 & 1 \cr \end{matrix} \right ) +
268: r_\nu \left (\begin{matrix}
269: 1 & 1 & 1 \cr
270: 1 & 1 & 1 \cr
271: 1 & 1 & 1 \cr \end{matrix} \right ) \right ] +
272: \Delta M_{\rm R} \; .
273: % (4)
274: \end{eqnarray}
275: On the other hand, the flavor democracy or $\rm S(3)_L \times S(3)_R$
276: symmetry can be imposed on the Dirac neutrino mass matrix $M_{\rm D}$
277: and the charged lepton mass matrix $M_l$, whose eigenvalues appear
278: to be hierarchical as those of up- or down-type quarks \cite{Koide}.
279: Once soft symmetry breaking is
280: taken into account, $M_{\rm D}$ and $M_l$ read
281: \begin{eqnarray}
282: M_{\rm D} & = & \frac{c^{~}_{\rm D}}{3} \left (\begin{matrix}
283: 1 & 1 & 1 \cr
284: 1 & 1 & 1 \cr
285: 1 & 1 & 1 \cr \end{matrix} \right ) + \Delta M_{\rm D} \; ,
286: \nonumber \\
287: M_l & = & ~ \frac{c^{~}_l}{3} \left (\begin{matrix}
288: 1 & 1 & 1 \cr
289: 1 & 1 & 1 \cr
290: 1 & 1 & 1 \cr \end{matrix} \right ) + \Delta M_l \;\; . \;\;\;\;\;
291: % (5)
292: \end{eqnarray}
293: To make concrete predictions, one has to specify the patterns of
294: $\Delta M_{\rm L}$, $\Delta M_{\rm R}$, $\Delta M_{\rm D}$ and
295: $\Delta M_l$. For the sake of simplicity, we follow
296: Refs.\ \cite{FX96} and \cite{FX04} to take
297: \begin{eqnarray}
298: \Delta M_{\rm L} & = & v^{~}_{\rm L} \left ( \begin{matrix}
299: -\delta_{\rm M} & 0 & 0 \cr
300: 0 & +\delta_{\rm M} & 0 \cr
301: 0 & 0 & \varepsilon^{~}_{\rm M} \cr \end{matrix} \right ) \; ,
302: \nonumber \\
303: \Delta M_{\rm R} & = & v^{~}_{\rm R} \left ( \begin{matrix}
304: -\delta_{\rm M} & 0 & 0 \cr
305: 0 & +\delta_{\rm M} & 0 \cr
306: 0 & 0 & \varepsilon^{~}_{\rm M} \cr \end{matrix} \right ) \; ,
307: % (6)
308: \end{eqnarray}
309: where left-right symmetry has been implemented. For the Dirac fermion
310: sector, we choose
311: \begin{eqnarray}
312: \Delta M_{\rm D} & = & \frac{c^{~}_{\rm D}}{3} \left ( \begin{matrix}
313: -i\delta_{\rm D} & 0 & 0 \cr
314: 0 & +i\delta_{\rm D} & 0 \cr
315: 0 & 0 & \varepsilon^{~}_{\rm D} \cr \end{matrix} \right ) \; ,
316: \nonumber \\
317: \Delta M_l & = & ~ \frac{c^{~}_l}{3} \left ( \begin{matrix}
318: -i\delta_l & 0 & 0 \cr
319: 0 & +i\delta_l ~ & 0 \cr
320: 0 & 0 & ~ \varepsilon^{~}_l \cr \end{matrix} \right ) \; .
321: % (7)
322: \end{eqnarray}
323: Note that $\delta_{{\rm M, D},l}$ and $\varepsilon^{~}_{{\rm M, D},l}$
324: are small perturbative parameters and their magnitudes are at most
325: of ${\cal O}(0.1)$. Note also that we have introduced imaginary
326: perturbations in $\Delta M_{\rm D}$ and $\Delta M_l$, in order to
327: accommodate leptonic CP violation. Calculating the effective neutrino
328: mass matrix $M_\nu$ by using Eqs.\ (3)--(7), we obtain
329: \begin{eqnarray}
330: M_\nu & \approx & v^{~}_{\rm L} \left [ \left ( \begin{matrix}
331: 1 & 0 & 0 \cr
332: 0 & 1 & 0 \cr
333: 0 & 0 & 1 \cr \end{matrix} \right ) + r_\nu \left ( \begin{matrix}
334: 1 & 1 & 1 \cr
335: 1 & 1 & 1 \cr
336: 1 & 1 & 1 \cr \end{matrix} \right ) + \left ( \begin{matrix}
337: -\delta_{\rm M} & 0 & 0 \cr
338: 0 & +\delta_{\rm M} & 0 \cr
339: 0 & 0 & \varepsilon^{~}_{\rm M} \cr \end{matrix} \right ) \right ]
340: \nonumber \\
341: & & - \frac{\tilde{c}^2_{\rm D}}{v^{~}_{\rm R}}
342: \left [ \left ( 1 - \tilde{\varepsilon}^{~}_{\rm M} \right )
343: \left ( \begin{matrix}
344: 1 & 1 & 1 \cr
345: 1 & 1 & 1 \cr
346: 1 & 1 & 1 \cr \end{matrix} \right ) + \frac{1}{3} \left ( \begin{matrix}
347: -2i\delta_{\rm D} & 0 & \varepsilon^{~}_{\rm D} - i\delta_{\rm D} \cr
348: 0 & +2i\delta_{\rm D} & \varepsilon^{~}_{\rm D} + i\delta_{\rm D} \cr
349: \varepsilon^{~}_{\rm D} - i\delta_{\rm D} &
350: \varepsilon^{~}_{\rm D} + i\delta_{\rm D} & 2 \varepsilon^{~}_{\rm D} \cr
351: \end{matrix} \right ) \right ] \; ,
352: % (8)
353: \end{eqnarray}
354: where $\tilde{c}^{~}_{\rm D} \equiv c^{~}_{\rm D}/\sqrt{3 (1 + 3 r_\nu)}$,
355: $\tilde{\varepsilon}^{~}_{\rm M} \equiv \varepsilon^{~}_{\rm M}/
356: [3 (1 + 3r_\nu)]$, and terms of ${\cal O}(\delta^2_{\rm M,D})$ and
357: ${\cal O}(\varepsilon^2_{\rm M,D})$ have been neglected.
358: It is quite obvious that the matrices
359: proportional to $v^{~}_{\rm L}$ and $\tilde{c}^2_{\rm D}/v^{~}_{\rm R}$
360: in Eq.\ (8) arise respectively from $M_{\rm L}$ and
361: $M_{\rm D} M^{-1}_{\rm R} M^T_{\rm D}$. Their relative contributions to
362: $M_\nu$ can be classified into three typical cases:
363: \begin{itemize}
364: \item In the limit of $v^{~}_{\rm L} \rightarrow 0$, we are left
365: with the conventional (type-I) seesaw result of $M_\nu$, whose leading
366: term displays flavor democracy. Because both $M_l$ and $M_\nu$ come from
367: the explicit (soft) breaking of flavor democracy in this special case
368: (similar to the case of democratic quark mass matrices \cite{Review1}),
369: no large lepton flavor mixing can appear. To suppress or avoid such a
370: flavor democracy term in the type-I seesaw expression of $M_\nu$
371: (and thereby to open the possibility of generating large
372: neutrino mixing angles), other possible flavor symmetries (such as
373: $\rm Z_3$ symmetry \cite{Branco}) have to be taken into account.
374: \item In the limit of
375: $\tilde{c}^2_{\rm D}/v^{~}_{\rm R} \rightarrow 0$,
376: we obtain $M_\nu \approx M_{\rm L}$. This pure triplet case can
377: accommodate current experimental data of solar and atmospheric neutrino
378: oscillations, if $\varepsilon^{~}_{\rm M} \gg \delta_{\rm M} \sim
379: r_\nu$ is satisfied \cite{FX04}. To be more specific,
380: $r_\nu/\varepsilon^{~}_{\rm M} \sim 6.1 \times 10^{-3}$ has been
381: obtained in Ref.\ \cite{FX04} without any fine-tuning.
382: As $\varepsilon^{~}_{\rm M} = {\cal O}(0.1)$ is most plausible,
383: the magnitude of $r_\nu$ must be of ${\cal O}(10^{-3})$ or
384: ${\cal O}(10^{-4})$. Such a small result implies that the two S(3)
385: symmetry terms in $M_{\rm L}$ are not balanced --- one of them (i.e.,
386: the flavor democracy term) is strongly suppressed. This seems
387: unnatural in some sense, since $|r_\nu| = {\cal O}(1)$ is more or
388: less expected from the point of view of 't Hooft's naturalness principle.
389: \item The two mass terms of $M_\nu$ in Eq.\ (8) are comparable
390: in magnitude and lead to significant cancellation. A particularly
391: interesting possibility is that the two flavor democracy terms,
392: which are proportional to $r_\nu$ and
393: $(1- \tilde{\varepsilon}^{~}_{\rm M})$ respectively,
394: may essentially cancel each other. In this case,
395: \begin{equation}
396: r_\nu \approx \frac{\tilde{c}^2_{\rm D}}{v^{~}_{\rm L} v^{~}_{\rm R}}
397: \left (1 - \tilde{\varepsilon}^{~}_{\rm M} \right ) =
398: \frac{\tilde{c}^2_{\rm D}}{\gamma v^2}
399: \left (1 - \tilde{\varepsilon}^{~}_{\rm M} \right ) \;
400: % (9)
401: \end{equation}
402: is likely to be of ${\cal O}(0.1)$ to ${\cal O}(1)$ (e.g.,
403: $c^{~}_{\rm D} \sim m^{~}_t \approx v$ might hold in a specific
404: GUT framework with lepton-quark symmetry, such as some SO(10) models).
405: We carry out a careful
406: numerical analysis of this typical type-II seesaw scenario
407: and find that the bilarge neutrino mixing pattern can actually be
408: reproduced without fine-tuning. Before presenting our numerical
409: results, we would like to give some more comments on the
410: consequences of Eq.\ (9).
411: \end{itemize}
412:
413: Note that the possibility of $r_\nu \sim -1/3$, which may significantly
414: enhance the magnitude of $\tilde{\varepsilon}^{~}_{\rm M}$, is found
415: to be disfavored in fitting current neutrino oscillation data.
416: In the following we will constrain ourselves to positive
417: and small perturbative parameters.
418: With the definition $\zeta_\nu \equiv c^2_{\rm D}/(\gamma v^2)$, from which
419: $\tilde{c}^2_{\rm D}/(\gamma v^2) = \zeta_\nu/[3(1 + 3r_\nu)]$ can be
420: expressed, we then obtain
421: \begin{equation} \label{eq:zetar}
422: r_\nu \approx \frac{1}{6} \left ( -1 \pm \sqrt{1 + 4 \zeta_\nu}
423: \right ) \;
424: % (10)
425: \end{equation}
426: by solving Eq.\ (9) in the leading-order approximation (i.e., in the
427: neglect of $\tilde{\varepsilon}^{~}_{\rm M}$).
428: This rough result clearly shows that $|r_\nu|$ is most likely to be
429: of ${\cal O}(0.1)$ to ${\cal O}(1)$, provided
430: $\zeta_\nu = {\cal O}(1)$ holds.
431: Typically, taking for instance $\zeta_\nu = 2$, we arrive at
432: $r_\nu \approx 1/3$ or $r_\nu \approx -2/3$. Now the question is whether
433: in the outlined framework bilarge neutrino mixing can be achieved.
434: Inserting Eq.\ (10) into (8) gives
435: \begin{equation}
436: M_\nu \approx v^{~}_{\rm L} \left ( \begin{matrix}
437: 1-\delta_{\rm M} - 2i \hat{\delta}_{\rm D}
438: & 0 & -\hat{\varepsilon}^{~}_{\rm D} + i\hat{\delta}_{\rm D} \cr
439: 0 & 1+\delta_{\rm M} + 2i\hat{\delta}_{\rm D}
440: & -\hat{\varepsilon}^{~}_{\rm D} -i\hat{\delta}_{\rm D} \cr
441: -\hat{\varepsilon}^{~}_{\rm D} + i\hat{\delta}_{\rm D} &
442: -\hat{\varepsilon}^{~}_{\rm D} - i\hat{\delta}_{\rm D} &
443: 1 + \varepsilon^{~}_{\rm M} - 2\hat{\varepsilon}^{~}_{\rm D}
444: \cr \end{matrix} \right ) \; ,
445: % (11)
446: \end{equation}
447: where $\hat{\varepsilon}^{~}_{\rm D} \equiv
448: \varepsilon^{~}_{\rm D} \zeta_\nu /[9(1+3r_\nu)]$ and
449: $\hat{\delta}_{\rm D} \equiv \delta_{\rm D}
450: \zeta_\nu /[9(1+3r_\nu)]$. One may diagonalize this symmetric
451: mass matrix by the transformation
452: $U_\nu M_\nu U^T_\nu = {\rm Diag} \{ m_1, m_2, m_3 \}$, where
453: $U_\nu$ is a unitary matrix and $m_i$ (for $i=1,2,3$) denote
454: the physical masses of three light neutrinos. It is obvious
455: that $m_1 \approx m_2 \approx m_3$ must hold to leading order.
456: The observed solar and atmospheric neutrino mass-squared
457: differences $\Delta m^2_{\odot} \equiv \Delta m^2_{21}
458: \sim 10^{-5} ~{\rm eV}^2$ and
459: $\Delta m^2_{\rm A} \equiv \Delta m^2_{32} \sim 10^{-3} ~{\rm eV}^2$
460: are proportional to $v^2_{\rm L}$, and their different magnitudes
461: are governed by the relevant perturbative parameters
462: ($\delta_{\rm M}$, $\varepsilon^{~}_{\rm M}$, etc). The presence
463: of $\hat{\varepsilon}^{~}_{\rm D}$ and $\hat{\delta}_{\rm D}$
464: makes it possible to generate suitable rotation angles in $U_\nu$.
465: The mismatch between $U_\nu$ and the unitary matrix $U_l$, which is
466: defined to diagonalize $M_l$ (i.e.,
467: $U_l M_l U^T_l = {\rm Diag}\{ m_e, m_\mu, m_\tau \}$) and given
468: by \cite{FX04}
469: \begin{equation}
470: U_l \approx \left ( \begin{matrix}
471: \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} & \frac{-1}{\sqrt{2}} & 0 \cr\cr
472: \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}} & \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}} & \frac{-2}{\sqrt{6}} \cr\cr
473: \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}} & \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}} & \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}} \cr
474: \end{matrix} \right ) +
475: i \sqrt{\frac{m_e}{m_\mu}}
476: \left ( \begin{matrix}
477: \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}} & ~ \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}} ~ &
478: \frac{-2}{\sqrt{6}} \cr\cr
479: \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} & ~ \frac{-1}{\sqrt{2}} ~ & 0 \cr\cr
480: 0 & ~ 0 ~ & 0 \cr \end{matrix} \right )
481: + \frac{m_\mu}{m_\tau} \left ( \begin{matrix}
482: 0 & 0 & 0 \cr\cr
483: \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}} & \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}} & \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}} \cr\cr
484: \frac{-1}{\sqrt{12}} & \frac{-1}{\sqrt{12}} & \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}
485: \cr \end{matrix} \right ) \; ,
486: % (12)
487: \end{equation}
488: measures the strength of lepton flavor mixing --- namely,
489: $U = U_l U^\dagger_\nu$. Although a bilarge neutrino mixing pattern
490: is naturally expected from this democratic type-II seesaw scenario,
491: we find it very difficult to obtain a simple analytical
492: expression of $U_\nu$ to make the result of $U$ more transparent. In
493: this case, we shall do a numerical analysis of our phenomenological
494: Ansatz without sticking to the condition given in Eq.\ (9) or (10).
495:
496: \vspace{0.2cm}
497:
498: We first vary $\zeta_\nu$ between 0.2 and 10 since we expect from
499: the above discussion that in this range $|r_\nu|$ will be of
500: ${\cal O}(0.1)$ to ${\cal{O}}(1)$. Larger values of
501: $\zeta_\nu$ will result in unnaturally large values of
502: $c^{~}_{\rm D}$ as long as $\gamma$ is of order one.
503: For the sake of simplicity, here we only take account
504: of $r_\nu \ge 0$ but emphasize
505: that a similar analysis for the $r_\nu \leq 0$ case is straightforward.
506: Furthermore, all small perturbative parameters
507: appearing in $M_l$ and $M_\nu$ are allowed to vary between 0 and 0.2.
508: The relevant neutrino oscillation parameters are required to lie in the
509: following ranges, which are the typical $1\sigma$ outcome of recent
510: global analyzes \cite{bahcall,valle,STP}:
511: \begin{eqnarray}
512: \tan^2 \theta_{12} & = & 0.34 \ldots 0.44 \; ,
513: \nonumber \\
514: |U_{e3}|^2 & \le & 0.015 \; ,
515: \nonumber \\
516: \sin^2 2 \theta_{23} & \ge & 0.95 \; ,
517: \nonumber \\
518: R_\nu & \equiv & \frac{\Delta m^2_{\odot}}{\Delta m^2_{\rm A}}
519: = 0.033 \ldots 0.053 \; .
520: % (13)
521: \end{eqnarray}
522: We plot in Fig.\ \ref{fig:crbel} some of the resulting correlations
523: between the model parameters and observables.
524: It is seen that $r_\nu$ indeed is of ${\cal O}(1)$ for values
525: of $\zeta_\nu$ larger than one. The functional
526: behavior is excellently described by Eq.\ (\ref{eq:zetar}),
527: implying that the flavor democracy contribution to $M_\nu$ is
528: strongly suppressed due to significant cancellation between
529: the conventional seesaw and triplet mass terms.
530: Regardless of the values of $r_\nu$ and $\zeta_\nu$,
531: the neutrino mass ordering is of normal type.
532: Moreover, the rephasing invariant of CP or T violation
533: $J_{\rm CP} = {\rm Im}\{U_{e1} U_{\mu 2} U_{e 2}^\ast U_{\mu 1}^\ast\}$
534: is positive\footnote{We also find a very fine-tuned region in
535: the parameter space of $(\delta_{\rm D}, \delta_{\rm M},
536: \varepsilon^{~}_{\rm D}, \varepsilon^{~}_{\rm M})$, in which
537: $|U_{e3}| \approx 0.1$ and $J_{\rm CP} \le 0$ hold. This possibility
538: seems quite unlikely and can be disregarded.}
539: and smaller than $\approx 1.2 \%$. This quantity measures the strength of
540: leptonic CP and T violation in neutrino oscillations. In addition,
541: the effective mass of the neutrinoless double beta decay
542: $\meff = \sum (m_i U_{ei}^2)$ is found to be
543: of order of the common neutrino mass scale $v^{~}_{\rm L}$,
544: which may be at or below the level of ${\cal O}(0.1)$ eV.
545: The deviation of $\sin^2 2\theta_{23}$ from one and that of
546: $|U_{e3}|$ from zero are always non-vanishing.
547: We see that the atmospheric neutrino mixing parameter
548: $1 - \sin^2 2\theta_{23}$ is larger than $\approx 0.005$.
549: On the other hand, $|U_{e3}|$ is also larger than $\approx 0.005$ but
550: smaller than $\approx 0.06$. This upper limit is given by
551: $|U_{e3}| \approx 2m_e/(\sqrt{6} ~m_\mu) \approx 0.057$,
552: which is actually the prediction obtained from $\zeta_\nu = 0$ \cite{FX96}.
553: For this special case, we show the correlation between
554: $\tan^2 \theta_{12}$ and $1 - \sin^2 2\theta_{23}$
555: in Fig.\ \ref{fig:c=0}. It is clear that $1 - \sin^2 2\theta_{23}$
556: varies only slightly. Indeed,
557: $\sin^2 2\theta_{23} \approx 8(1 + m_\mu/m_\tau + R_\nu\cos 2\theta_{12})/9
558: \approx 0.95$ \cite{FX04}, which has nicely been reproduced by our
559: numerical analysis. For the case of $\zeta_\nu = 1$ we plot
560: the correlations between $1 - \sin^2 2\theta_{23}$
561: and $|U_{e3}|$ as well as between
562: $\langle m \rangle/v^{~}_{\rm L}$ and $J_{\rm CP}$
563: in Fig.\ \ref{fig:c=1}. The result for larger values of $\zeta_\nu$ is
564: found to be essentially the same. Typically, larger values of $|U_{e3}|$
565: imply larger values of $1 - \sin^2 2\theta_{23}$ and less cancellation
566: \cite{canc} in $\langle m\rangle$. On the other hand,
567: $J_{\rm CP}$ becomes larger
568: when $\langle m\rangle$ approaches $v^{~}_{\rm L}$.
569: Note that the numerical analysis only requires to reproduce the
570: ratio of the solar and atmospheric neutrino mass-squared differences.
571: Hence the common neutrino mass scale $v^{~}_{\rm L}$ is
572: basically unspecified and ranges in our Ansatz from $\approx 0.06$ eV
573: to $\approx 0.25$ eV, which is consistent with the limits from
574: laboratory experiments. Taking into account the most stringent
575: cosmological limit on neutrino masses
576: $m_i \leq 0.14$ eV \cite{WMAP} would cut the
577: afore-obtained upper bound of $v^{~}_{\rm L}$ by roughly a factor
578: of two.
579:
580: \vspace{0.2cm}
581:
582: The question arises whether one can implement the scenario under study
583: within a GUT framework. A typical problem will be that, e.g., the triplet
584: term giving rise to $M_{\rm L}$ is associated with couplings that also
585: contribute to the quark or charged lepton mass terms. Consider a
586: renormalizable SO(10) theory with Higgs fields in the 10-plet and
587: $\overline{126}$ representation. The relevant mass matrices in
588: this case are given by \cite{so10}
589: \begin{eqnarray}
590: && M_{\rm up} = v_{10}^{\rm up} Y_{10} + v_{126}^{\rm up} Y_{126} \; , ~~~~~~~~
591: M_{\rm down} = v_{10}^{\rm down} Y_{10} + v_{126}^{\rm down} Y_{126} \; ,
592: \nonumber \\
593: && M_{\rm D} = v_{10}^{\rm up} Y_{10} -3 v_{126}^{\rm up} Y_{126} \; , ~~~~~~~
594: M_l = v_{10}^{\rm down} Y_{10} - 3 v_{126}^{\rm down} Y_{126} \; ,
595: \nonumber \\
596: && M_{\rm L} = v^{~}_{\rm L} Y_{126} \; , ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ \;
597: M_{\rm R} = v^{~}_{\rm R} Y_{126} \; , ~~
598: % (14)
599: \end{eqnarray}
600: with the Yukawa coupling matrices $Y_{10,126}$ and the vevs
601: $v_{10,126}^{\rm up, down}$ for the up- and down-sector, respectively.
602: To link this scenario with ours, $Y_{10}$ will have to correspond to the
603: flavor democracy term. $Y_{126}$ will have to be this term plus a matrix
604: proportional to the unit matrix. To assure that the latter term does not
605: significantly contribute to the quark and charged lepton masses, the condition
606: $v_{126}^{\rm up, down} \ll v_{10}^{\rm up, down}$ should be fulfilled.
607: A detailed analysis of this situation is certainly interesting for the sake of
608: model building \cite{wz}, but it is beyond the scope of the present letter.
609:
610: \vspace{0.2cm}
611:
612: To summarize, we have combined the type-II seesaw mechanism with S(3)
613: flavor symmetry and applied this idea to the neutrino phenomenology.
614: Our starting point of view is that a Majorana neutrino mass
615: matrix generally includes two terms allowed by S(3) symmetry,
616: one being a purely democratic matrix and the other proportional to the
617: unit matrix. As a consequence, for a conventional seesaw
618: formula or a pure triplet term no large neutrino mixing
619: can be generated. For both cases the term proportional to the democratic
620: matrix has to be highly suppressed.
621: We have shown here that the suppression of this term
622: can naturally be realized via cancellations in the type-II seesaw
623: scenario, from which the bilarge neutrino mixing pattern is in
624: turn achievable. For the explicit symmetry breaking Ansatz discussed
625: in this letter, we obtain a normal mass ordering,
626: $0.005 \le |U_{e3}| \le 0.057$ and
627: $1 - \sin^2 2\theta_{23} \ge 0.005$. Furthermore, we find
628: $J_{\rm CP} \ge 0$ and $\langle m\rangle/v^{~}_{\rm L} \ge 40\%$.
629: These instructive results can be tested in a variety of forthcoming
630: neutrino experiments.
631:
632: \vspace{0.2cm}
633:
634: One of us (Z.Z.X.) is grateful to W.L.\ Guo and J.W.\ Mei for helpful
635: discussions.
636: This work was supported in part by the EC network HPRN-CT-2000-00152
637: (W.R.) and by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Z.Z.X.).
638:
639: \newpage
640: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
641: \bibitem{SK} Super-Kamiokande Collaboration,
642: Y. Fukuda {\it et al.}, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 467}, 185 (1999);
643: S. Fukuda {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 85}, 3999 (2000);
644: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 86}, 5651 (2001);
645: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 86}, 5656 (2001).
646: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 9908049;%%
647: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0009001;%%
648: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0103033;%%
649: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0103032;%%
650:
651: \bibitem{SNO} SNO Collaboration, Q.R. Ahmad {\it et al.},
652: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 87}, 071301 (2001); {\bf 89}, 011301 (2002);
653: {\bf 89}, 011302 (2002).
654: %%CITATION = NUCL-EX 0106015;%%
655: %%CITATION = NUCL-EX 0204008;%%
656: %%CITATION = NUCL-EX 0204009;%%
657:
658: \bibitem{K2K} K2K Collaboration, M.H. Ahn {\it et al.},
659: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 90}, 041801 (2003).
660: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0212007;%%
661:
662: \bibitem{KM} KamLAND Collaboration, K. Eguchi {\it et al.},
663: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 90}, 021802 (2003);
664: hep-ex/0406035.
665: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0212021;%%
666: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0406035;%%
667:
668: \bibitem{Review1} For recent reviews with extensive references, see:
669: H. Fritzsch and Z.Z. Xing, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. {\bf 45}, 1 (2000);
670: M.C. Gonzalez-Garcia and Y. Nir, Rev. Mod. Phys. {\bf 75}, 345 (2003);
671: Z.Z. Xing, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A {\bf 19}, 1 (2004).
672: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9912358;%%
673: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0202058;%%
674: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0307359;%%
675:
676: \bibitem{SS} P. Minkowski, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 67}, 421 (1977);
677: T. Yanagida, in {\it Proceedings of the Workshop on
678: Unified Theory and the Baryon Number of the Universe}, edited by
679: O. Sawada and A. Sugamoto (KEK, Tsukuba, 1979), p. 95;
680: M. Gell-Mann, P. Ramond, and R. Slansky, in {\it Supergravity},
681: edited by F. van Nieuwenhuizen and D. Freedman (North Holland,
682: Amsterdam, 1979), p. 315;
683: S.L. Glashow, in {\it Quarks and Leptons}, edited by
684: M. L$\rm\acute{e}vy$ {\it et al.} (Plenum, New York, 1980), p. 707;
685: R.N. Mohapatra and G. Senjanovic, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 44}, 912 (1980).
686: %%CITATION = PRLTA,44,912;%%
687:
688: \bibitem{FS} H. Harari, H. Haut, and J. Weyers,
689: Phys. Lett. B {\bf 78}, 459 (1978);
690: C.D. Froggatt and H.B. Nielsen, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 147}, 277 (1979).
691: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B78,459;%%
692: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B147,277;%%
693:
694: \bibitem{TZ} H. Fritzsch, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 70}, 436 (1977);
695: Phys. Lett. B {\bf 73}, 317 (1978).
696: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B70,436;%%
697: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B73,317;%%
698:
699: \bibitem{Review2} For recent reviews with extensive references, see:
700: S.M. Barr and I. Dorsner, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 585}, 79 (2000);
701: V. Barger, D. Marfatia, and K. Whisnant,
702: Int. J. Mod. Phys. E {\bf 12}, 569 (2003);
703: M.C. Chen and K.T. Mahanthappa,
704: Int. J. Mod. Phys. A {\bf 18}, 5819 (2003);
705: S.F. King, Rept. Prog. Phys. {\bf 67}, 107 (2004);
706: G. Altarelli and F. Feruglio, hep-ph/0405048.
707: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0003058;%%
708: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0308123;%%
709: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0310204;%%
710: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0405048;%%
711:
712: \bibitem{typeII} J. Schechter and J.W.F. Valle,
713: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 22}, 2227 (1980);
714: M.~Magg and C.~Wetterich,
715: %``Neutrino Mass Problem And Gauge Hierarchy,''
716: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 94}, 61 (1980);
717: R.~N.~Mohapatra and G.~Senjanovic,
718: %``Neutrino Masses And Mixings In Gauge Models With Spontaneous Parity
719: %Violation,''
720: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 23}, 165 (1981);
721: G.~Lazarides, Q.~Shafi and C.~Wetterich,
722: %``Proton Lifetime And Fermion Masses In An SO(10) Model,''
723: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 181}, 287 (1981).
724: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B94,61;%%
725: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D23,165;%%
726: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B181,287;%%
727:
728: \bibitem{FX96} H. Fritzsch and Z.Z. Xing,
729: Phys. Lett. B {\bf 372}, 265 (1996);
730: Phys. Lett. B {\bf 440}, 313 (1998);
731: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 61}, 073016 (2000).
732: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9509389;%%
733: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9808272;%%
734: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9909304;%%
735:
736: \bibitem{Tanimoto1} M. Fukugita, M. Tanimoto, and T. Yanagida,
737: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 57}, 4429 (1998).
738: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9709388;%%
739:
740: \bibitem{Tanimoto2} M. Tanimoto, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 483}, 417 (2000).
741: See also, K. Kang and S.K. Kang, hep-ph/9802328.
742: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0001306;%%
743: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9802328;%%
744:
745: \bibitem{Branco} G.C. Branco and J.I. Silva-Marcos,
746: Phys. Lett. B {\bf 526}, 104 (2002).
747: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0106125;%%
748:
749: \bibitem{FX04} H. Fritzsch and Z.Z. Xing,
750: Phys. Lett. B {\bf 598}, 237 (2004).
751: %CITATION = HEP-PH 0406206;%%
752:
753: \bibitem{Hooft} G. 't Hooft, lecture given in
754: {\it Cargese Summer Institute}, 1979, p. 135.
755:
756: \bibitem{anki}S.~Antusch and S.~F.~King,
757: %``From hierarchical to partially degenerate neutrinos via type II upgrade of
758: %type I see-saw models,''
759: hep-ph/0402121.
760: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0402121;%%
761:
762: \bibitem{WR04} W. Rodejohann,
763: hep-ph/0403236, to appear in Phys. Rev. D.
764: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0403236;%%
765:
766: \bibitem{Koide} See, e.g., Y. Koide, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 28}, 252 (1983);
767: Z. Phys. C {\bf 45}, 39 (1989).
768: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D28,252;%%
769: %%CITATION = ZEPYA,C45,39;%%
770:
771: \bibitem{bahcall}
772: J.~N.~Bahcall, M.~C.~Gonzalez-Garcia and C.~Pena-Garay,
773: %``Solar neutrinos before and after Neutrino 2004,''
774: JHEP {\bf 0408}, 016 (2004).
775: %hep-ph/0406294.
776: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0406294;%%
777:
778: \bibitem{valle}M.~Maltoni, T.~Schwetz, M.~A.~Tortola and J.~W.~F.~Valle,
779: %``Status of global fits to neutrino oscillations,''
780: hep-ph/0405172.
781: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0405172;%%
782:
783: \bibitem{STP}A.~Bandyopadhyay, {\it et al.},
784: %S.~Choubey, S.~Goswami, S.~T.~Petcov and D.~P.~Roy,
785: %``Update of the solar neutrino oscillation analysis with the 766-Ty KamLAND
786: %spectrum,''
787: hep-ph/0406328.
788: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0406328;%%
789:
790: \bibitem{canc}See, e.g.,
791: W.~Rodejohann,
792: %``On cancellations in neutrinoless double beta decay,''
793: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 597}, 110 (2001);
794: %[hep-ph/0008044];
795: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0008044;%%
796: Z.Z.~Xing,
797: %``Vanishing effective mass of the neutrinoless double beta decay?,''
798: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 68}, 053002 (2003).
799: %[hep-ph/0305195].
800: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0305195;%%
801:
802: \bibitem{WMAP} U. Seljak {\it et al.}, astro-ph/0407372.
803: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0407372;%%
804:
805: \bibitem{so10}See, e.g.,
806: B.~Bajc, G.~Senjanovic, and F.~Vissani,
807: %``Probing the nature of the seesaw in renormalizable SO(10),''
808: hep-ph/0402140; and references therein.
809: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0402140;%%
810:
811: \bibitem{wz} W. Rodejohann and Z.Z. Xing, work in preparation.
812:
813: \end{thebibliography}
814:
815: \newpage
816:
817: \begin{figure}
818: \begin{center}
819: \vspace{-5cm}
820: \epsfig{file=crbel.ps,width=16cm,height=24cm}
821: \vspace{-6.8cm}
822: \caption{\label{fig:crbel}Scatter plot of the parameters
823: $\zeta_\nu$ against $r_\nu$ as well as
824: $1 - \sin^2 2 \theta_{23}$ against $|U_{e3}|$,
825: $|U_{e3}|$ against $J_{\rm CP}$ and $1 - \sin^2 2 \theta_{23}$ against
826: $\langle m \rangle/v^{~}_{\rm L}$ for the case of arbitrary
827: $\zeta_\nu$ and $r_\nu$.}
828: \end{center}
829: \end{figure}
830:
831: \begin{figure}
832: \begin{center}
833: \epsfig{file=c0.ps,width=11cm,height=8cm}
834: %\vspace{-7cm}
835: \caption{\label{fig:c=0}Scatter plot of $\tan^2 \theta_{12}$
836: against $1 - \sin^2 2 \theta_{23}$ for the case of $\zeta_\nu=0$.}
837: \end{center}
838: \end{figure}
839:
840: \begin{figure}
841: \begin{center}
842: \epsfig{file=c1.ps,width=16cm,height=21cm}
843: \vspace{-13.5cm}
844: \caption{\label{fig:c=1}Scatter plot of $1 - \sin^2 2 \theta_{23}$
845: against $|U_{e3}|$ and $\langle m \rangle/v^{~}_{\rm L}$ against
846: $J_{\rm CP}$ for the case of $\zeta_\nu=1$.}
847: \end{center}
848: \end{figure}
849:
850: \end{document}
851:
852:
853:
854:
855:
856:
857: