1: \documentclass[a4paper,11pt]{article}
2: %\usepackage[DIV13]{typearea}
3:
4: \usepackage{graphicx}
5: \usepackage{amsmath}
6: \usepackage{amssymb}
7: \usepackage{amsfonts}
8: \usepackage{amscd}
9: \usepackage{feynmp} % Feynman diagrams
10: \usepackage{mathrsfs}
11: \usepackage{psfrag}
12: \usepackage{subfigure}
13: \usepackage{a4wide}
14:
15: \newcommand{\CenterFmg}[1]{\vcenter{\hbox{\input{#1}}}} % Input Feynman diagrams
16: \newcommand{\CenterEps}[1]{\vcenter{\hbox{\includegraphics{#1.eps}}}} % Input eps files
17: \newcommand{\CenterObject}[1]{\vcenter{\hbox{#1}}} % input pictures and such
18: \newcommand{\braket}[1]{\ensuremath{\left\langle #1 \right\rangle}}
19: \newcommand{\dd}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}}
20: \newcommand{\comment}[1]{\fbox{\begin{minipage}{\textwidth}#1\end{minipage}}}
21: \newcommand{\EFT}[2]{\ensuremath{\stackrel{\left(#1\right)}{#2}}}
22: \newcommand{\U}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{U}}}
23: \newcommand{\SU}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{SU}}}
24: \newcommand{\SL}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{SL}}}
25: \newcommand{\irrep}[1]{\bf #1}
26: \newcommand{\tr}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{tr}}}
27: \newcommand{\GeV}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{GeV}}}
28: \newcommand{\eV}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{eV}}}
29: \newcommand{\diag}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{diag}}}
30: \newcommand{\Ord}[1]{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}(#1)}}
31:
32:
33: %%ALIAS=SeeSawmore=Yanagida:1980,Glashow:1979vf,Gell-Mann:1980vs,PRLTA.44.912%%
34: %\newcommand{\CiteSeeSaw}{\cite{Minkowski:1977sc,Yanagida:1980,Glashow:1979vf,Gell-Mann:1980vs,Mohapatra:1980ia}}
35: \newcommand{\CiteSeeSaw}{\cite{Minkowski:1977sc,SeeSawmore}}
36:
37: %%ALIAS=MuTauSymm=Fukuyama:1997ky,Ma:2001mr,Lam:2001fb,Balaji:2001ex,Harrison:2002et%%
38: %\newcommand{\CiteMuTauSymm}{\cite{Fukuyama:1997ky,Ma:2001mr,Lam:2001fb,Balaji:2001ex,Harrison:2002et}}
39: \newcommand{\CiteMuTauSymm}{\cite{MuTauSymm}}
40:
41: %%ALIAS=MuTauModels=Kitabayashi:2002jd,Grimus:2003kq,Koide:2002cj,Koide:2003rx,Mohapatra:2004mf,Grimus:2004cc,He:2003rm%%
42: %\newcommand{\CiteMuTauModels}{\cite{Kitabayashi:2002jd,Grimus:2003kq,Koide:2002cj,Koide:2003rx,Mohapatra:2004mf,Grimus:2004cc,He:2003rm}}
43: \newcommand{\CiteMuTauModels}{\cite{MuTauModels}}
44:
45: %%ALIAS=DSBarr=Barr:2003nn,Albright:2003xb%%
46: %\newcommand{\CiteDSBarr}{\cite{Barr:2003nn,Albright:2003xb}}
47: \newcommand{\CiteDSBarr}{\cite{DSBarr}}
48:
49: %%ALIAS=DSmore=Tanimoto:1995uw,Kuo:1999en,Altarelli:1999dg,Lavignac:2002gf,Datta:2003qg,Bando:2003wb%%
50: %\newcommand{\CiteDSSmirnovmore}{\cite{Smirnov:1993af,Tanimoto:1995uw,Kuo:1999en,Altarelli:1999dg,Lavignac:2002gf,Datta:2003qg,Bando:2003wb}}
51: \newcommand{\CiteDSSmirnovmore}{\cite{Smirnov:1993af,DSmore}}
52:
53: %%ALIAS=LRmore=Mohapatra:1974gc,Senjanovic:1975rk%%
54: %\newcommand{\CiteLR}{\cite{Pati:1974yy,Mohapatra:1974gc,Senjanovic:1975rk}}
55: \newcommand{\CiteLR}{\cite{Pati:1974yy,LRmore}}
56:
57: %%ALIAS=QLCmore=Frampton:2004vw,Ferrandis:2004vp,Kang:2005as,Datta:2005ci,Antusch:2005ca%%
58: %\newcommand{\CiteQLC}{\cite{Smirnov:2004ju,Raidal:2004iw,Minakata:2004xt,Frampton:2004vw,Ferrandis:2004vp,Kang:2005as,Datta:2005ci,Antusch:2005ca}}
59: \newcommand{\CiteQLC}{\cite{Smirnov:2004ju,Raidal:2004iw,Minakata:2004xt,QLCmore}}
60:
61: %%ALIAS=ESix=Gursey:1975ki,Achiman:1978vg,Shafi:1978gg,Barbieri:1981yy%%
62: %\newcommand{\CiteESix}{\cite{Gursey:1975ki,Achiman:1978vg,Shafi:1978gg,Barbieri:1981yy}}
63: \newcommand{\CiteESix}{\cite{ESix}}
64:
65: %%ALIAS=SOten=Georgi:1974my,Fritzsch:1974nn%%
66: %\newcommand{\CiteSOten}{\cite{Georgi:1974my,Fritzsch:1974nn}}
67: \newcommand{\CiteSOten}{\cite{SOten}}
68: %\newcommand{\CiteExtGauge}{\cite{Pati:1974yy,Georgi:1974sy,Georgi:1974my,Fritzsch:1974nn}}
69: \newcommand{\CiteExtGauge}{\cite{Pati:1974yy,Georgi:1974sy,SOten,ESix}}
70:
71: %%ALIAS=Lopside=Babu:1995hr,hep-ph/9607419,Albright:1997xw,Altarelli:1998nx,Altarelli:1998sr%%
72: %\newcommand{\CiteLopside}{\cite{Babu:1995hr,hep-ph/9607419,Albright:1997xw,Altarelli:1998nx,Altarelli:1998sr}}
73: \newcommand{\CiteLopside}{\cite{Lopside}}
74:
75: %%ALIAS=BoundOnM1=Davidson:2002qv,Buchmuller:2002rq,Giudice:2003jh%%
76: %\newcommand{\CiteBoundOnMN}{\cite{Davidson:2002qv,Buchmuller:2002rq,Giudice:2003jh}}
77: \newcommand{\CiteBoundOnMN}{\cite{BoundOnM1}}
78:
79: %%ALIAS=BiMax=Vissani:1997pa,Barger:1998ta,Baltz:1998ey,Georgi:1998bf,Stancu:1999ct%%
80: %\newcommand{\CiteBiMax}{\cite{Vissani:1997pa,Barger:1998ta,Baltz:1998ey,Georgi:1998bf,Stancu:1999ct}}
81: \newcommand{\CiteBiMax}{\cite{BiMax}}
82:
83: %%ALIAS=DSorig=Mohapatra:1986aw,Mohapatra:1986bd%%
84: %\newcommand{\CiteDSorig}{\cite{Mohapatra:1986aw,Mohapatra:1986bd}}
85: \newcommand{\CiteDSorig}{\cite{DSorig}}
86:
87: \begin{document}
88:
89: \begin{fmffile}{dsFMF}
90:
91: \begin{titlepage}
92:
93: \ \vspace*{-15mm}
94: \begin{flushright}
95: TUM-HEP-586/05
96: \end{flushright}
97: \vspace*{5mm}
98:
99: \begin{center}
100: {\Huge\sffamily\bfseries
101: Screening of Dirac flavor structure in the seesaw and neutrino mixing\\[2mm]
102: }
103:
104: \vspace{10mm}%\\[10mm]
105: {\large
106: Manfred Lindner\footnote{E-mail: \texttt{lindner@ph.tum.de}}$^{(a)}$,
107: Michael A. Schmidt\footnote{E-mail: \texttt{mschmidt@ph.tum.de}}$^{(a)}$,
108: and Alexei Yu. Smirnov\footnote{E-mail:
109: \texttt{smirnov@ictp.trieste.it}}$^{(a),(b),(c)}$}
110: \\[5mm]
111: {\small\textit{$^{(a)}$
112: Physik-Department T30,
113: Technische Universit\"{a}t M\"{u}nchen,\\
114: James-Franck-Stra{\ss}e,
115: 85748 Garching, Germany
116: }}
117: \\[3mm]
118: {\small\textit{$^{(b)}$
119: The Abdus Salam International Centre for Theoretical Physics, I-34100 Trieste,
120: Italy
121: }}
122: \\[3mm]
123: {\small\textit{$^{(c)}$
124: Institute for Nuclear Research, Russian Academy of Science, Moscow, Russia
125: }}
126: \end{center}
127: \vspace*{1.0cm}
128:
129: \begin{abstract}
130: \noindent
131: We consider the mechanism of {\it screening} of the Dirac flavor structure
132: in the context of the double seesaw mechanism. As a consequence of
133: screening, the structure of the light neutrino mass matrix, $m_\nu$, is
134: determined essentially by the structure of the (Majorana) mass matrix,
135: $M_S$, of new super-heavy (Planck scale) neutral fermions $S$.
136: We calculate effects of the renormalization group running in order to
137: investigate the stability of the screening mechanism with respect to
138: radiative corrections. We find that screening is stable in the
139: supersymmetric case, whereas in the standard model it is unstable for
140: certain structures of $M_S$. The screening mechanism allows us
141: to reconcile the (approximate) quark-lepton symmetry and the strong
142: difference of the mixing patterns in the quark and lepton sectors.
143: It opens new possibilities to explain a quasi-degenerate neutrino mass
144: spectrum, special ``neutrino'' symmetries and quark-lepton complementarity.
145: Screening can emerge from certain flavor symmetries or Grand Unification.
146:
147: \end{abstract}
148:
149: \end{titlepage}
150:
151: \setcounter{footnote}{0}
152:
153: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
154: \section{Introduction}
155: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
156:
157: Quarks and leptons show an apparent correspondence which suggests
158: their common origin~\cite{Pati:1974yy}. The observation is based on the pattern of
159: quantum numbers and the fact that both quarks and leptons come in
160: three fermionic families (generations). This allows quarks and
161: leptons to be embedded into unique multiplets associated
162: with extended gauge symmetries~\CiteExtGauge.
163: In spite of lack of further experimental confirmations, the quark-lepton
164: symmetry and unification~\CiteExtGauge\
165: are still the most appealing concepts in physics beyond the Standard Model (SM).
166:
167:
168: Tiny neutrino masses emerge naturally from the seesaw
169: mechanism~\CiteSeeSaw, which implies the existence of
170: right handed neutrino fields $\nu_R$
171: and new high energy scale. The seesaw scale turns out to be numerically
172: rather close to the scale of Grand Unification (GU), which
173: emerges from the unification of gauge couplings. It seems as
174: if both gauge and fermion unification point in the same direction
175: of certain Grand Unified Theory, like SO(10) GUTs~\CiteSOten.
176:
177: On the basis of quark-lepton unification (symmetry)
178: one would expect similarities between the mass
179: and mixing patterns of quarks and leptons. However,
180: observations~\cite{Eidelman:2004wy,Strumia:2005tc} do not support this expectation. Indeed,
181:
182: \begin{itemize}
183:
184: \item
185: Neutrino masses and mixings differ strongly from those in
186: the quark sector. The hierarchy of neutrino masses, if
187: exists, is weaker than the quark mass hierarchy.
188: The 2-3 leptonic mixing is maximal or close to maximal,
189: whereas the corresponding quark mixing is very small.
190: The 1-2 leptonic mixing is large but not maximal and it seems
191: smaller than the 2-3 leptonic mixing. In contrast, the 1-2 quark
192: mixing - the largest quark mixing - is small. The only common
193: feature is that the 1-3 mixings are small in both sectors.
194:
195: \item
196: Data seem to indicate a particular ``neutrino symmetry''~\CiteMuTauSymm\ which
197: does not show up in other sectors of the theory. This includes maximal or
198: nearly maximal 2-3 mixing and relatively small 1-3 mixing. If the
199: neutrino mass spectrum would turn out to be quasi-degenerate\footnote{This
200: would be necessary if the evidence for neutrino-less double beta
201: decay~\cite{Kleingrothaus:2004wj} would be confirmed.},
202: this could imply certain symmetry too. However, it is very difficult
203: to extend the suggested symmetries not only onto the quarks but also
204: to charged leptons and models ({\it e.g.}~\CiteMuTauModels) which realize such neutrino symmetries
205: are quite involved.
206:
207: \item
208: In the context of the seesaw mechanism, the observed values of neutrino masses
209: require the masses of the right-handed (RH) neutrinos to be $M_N \lesssim 10^{14}$~GeV,
210: {\it i.e.} two orders of magnitude below the Grand Unification scale, $M_{GU}$.
211: Furthermore, the data implies a certain flavor structure and a hierarchy of the
212: RH neutrino mass matrix which may indicate that the scale of RH neutrino
213: masses emerges as a combination of the GU-scale and some other scale close
214: to the Planck mass $M_{Pl}$:
215: %
216: \begin{equation}
217: M_{N} \sim \frac{M_{GU}^2}{M_{Pl}} \; .
218: \label{eq:scale}
219: \end{equation}
220:
221:
222: \item
223: The experimental values of the quark and lepton
224: mixing angles between the first and second generations appear to sum up to the maximal
225: mixing angle:
226: %
227: \begin{equation}
228: \theta_{12} + \theta_C~ \approx \frac{\pi}{4},
229: \label{eq:qlc}
230: \end{equation}
231: %
232: with the leptonic mixing angle $\theta_{12}$ and the Cabibbo angle $\theta_C$.
233: The interpretation of such a quark-lepton complementarity
234: relation~\CiteQLC\
235: is rather controversial. If it is not a numerical accident,
236: relation~(\ref{eq:qlc}) implies some quark-lepton connection which is
237: not present in ordinary GUTs. It may require some additional
238: structure in the leptonic sector which produces maximal mixing and therefore
239: has certain symmetry.
240:
241: \end{itemize}
242: %
243: All these observations can be considered as hints
244: against a simple unification of quarks and leptons.
245:
246: There exist various attempts to reconcile the possible quark-lepton
247: symmetry (unification) and the strong difference of patterns of masses and
248: mixing in two sectors. The main problem is that the strong hierarchy
249: of eigenvalues and small mixings of the quark mass matrices imply a
250: certain hierarchy in the Dirac type Yukawa couplings which propagates
251: due to the symmetry/unification to the lepton sector (see, however~\CiteLopside).
252: One possible solution is that dominant contribution to the neutrino
253: masses, {\it e.g.}, from the Yukawa coupling with a Higgs triplet, has no
254: analogy in the quark sector. However, even in this case, it seems
255: rather unnatural that some Yukawa interactions have a particular symmetry
256: which is not realized for other Yukawa interactions. In the context of
257: seesaw mechanism the observed features of neutrino masses and mixing can
258: be related to a particular structure of the Majorana mass matrix of the
259: RH neutrinos~\CiteDSSmirnovmore.
260:
261: In this paper in order to reconcile the observed pattern of the neutrino masses and
262: mixings and quark-lepton symmetry, we elaborate on the
263: double seesaw mechanism~\CiteDSorig.
264: Specifically, we will discuss a version where the flavor structures
265: of the Dirac type Yukawa couplings cancel
266: completely~\cite{Smirnov:1993af,Smirnov:2004hs},
267: in the light neutrino mass matrix.
268: The properties of the
269: neutrino mass matrix are entirely determined by physics
270: (in particular, symmetries) at energies above the Grand unification scale.
271: We will call this ``screening of the Dirac
272: flavor structure'' or simply ``screening''
273: and we will show it may lead to a natural solution of the above mentioned
274: problems.
275:
276: The paper is organized as follows. In sec.~\ref{sec:mechanism} we describe
277: the screening mechanism. We consider the renormalization group
278: effects
279: and the stability of the mechanism with respect to radiative corrections in
280: sec.~\ref{sec:RG}. Various applications of the mechanism are studied in
281: sec.~\ref{sec:applications}. In particular, we consider a possibility of
282: the degenerate neutrino mass spectrum, existence of particular neutrino
283: symmetries, and the quark-lepton complementarity.
284: In sec.~\ref{sec:GUT} we discuss how the screening mechanism can be
285: realized in GUT and models with family symmetries. Conclusions are presented
286: in sec.~\ref{sec:conclusions}.
287:
288:
289: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
290: \section{The flavor screening mechanism\label{sec:mechanism}}
291: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
292:
293: In addition to the SM particles we introduce the three right-handed
294: neutrinos, $\nu_{iR} \equiv N_i^c$, ($i = 1,3,3$), three left-handed singlets $S_i$ and
295: Higgs boson singlet $\sigma$. The leptonic interactions are assumed
296: to have the following features:
297: %
298: \begin{enumerate}
299:
300: \item
301: The SM leptonic doublets $L_i$ have Yukawa couplings $Y_{\nu}$ with $N \equiv (\nu_R)^c$;
302:
303: \item
304: The Majorana mass terms of the right-handed neutrinos, $N$ are forbidden or strongly suppressed;
305:
306: \item
307: The right-handed neutrinos $N_i$ have Yukawa couplings $Y_N$ with singlets
308: $S_i$ and a Higgs boson $\sigma$;
309:
310: \item
311: The singlets $S_i$ have Majorana mass terms, thus violating the lepton number.
312: \end{enumerate}
313: %
314: Under these assumptions the following Yukawa interactions and mass terms
315: appear in the Lagrangian
316: \begin{equation}
317: \label{eq:LeptonicLagrangian}
318: - \mathscr{L}= L^T Y_\nu N \phi
319: + S^T Y_N N \sigma
320: +\frac{1}{2} S^T M_S S + L^T Y_e l^c \phi_d + h.c. \; ,
321: \end{equation}
322: (the flavor indices are omitted here). The last term in
323: eq.~\ref{eq:LeptonicLagrangian} is the Yukawa coupling which generates
324: masses for the charge leptons; in the Standard model:
325: $\phi_d = \tilde{\phi} \equiv i\sigma_2 \phi^*$.
326: After the Higgs bosons develop the non-zero VEVs,
327: $\braket{\phi}$ and $\braket{\sigma}$, the neutrino mass matrix is
328: generated in the basis $(\nu, N, S)$
329: %
330: \begin{equation}
331: \label{eq:matrix}
332: \mathcal{M} = \left(
333: \begin{array}{ccc}
334: 0 & Y_\nu \braket{\phi} & 0\\
335: Y_\nu^T \braket{\phi} & 0 & Y_N^T \braket{\sigma}\\
336: 0 & Y_N \braket{\sigma} & M_S\\
337: \end{array}
338: \right)\; .
339: \end{equation}
340: %
341: For $\braket{\phi} \ll \braket{\sigma} \ll M_S$ it realizes the double
342: (or cascade) seesaw mechanism~\CiteDSorig.
343: (The case of singular matrices $M_S$ will be considered separately in sec.~\ref{sec:singular}).
344: Block diagonalization of the matrix~(\ref{eq:matrix}) leads to the
345: mass matrix of light neutrinos
346: \begin{equation}
347: \label{eq:DoubleSeeSaw}
348: m_\nu^0=\left[\frac{\braket{\phi}}{\braket{\sigma}}\right]^2Y_\nu
349: \left(Y_N\right)^{-1}M_S \left(Y_N^T\right)^{-1} Y_\nu^T\; .
350: \end{equation}
351: %
352:
353: This matrix has the remarkable feature that the
354: Dirac type Yukawa coupling matrices cancel
355: provided that $Y_\nu$ and $Y_N$ are proportional,
356: {\it i.e.}, if
357: \begin{equation}
358: Y_\nu = c \cdot Y_N\; ,
359: \label{eq:relation}
360: \end{equation}
361: with constant $c$ being typically of the order unity. (Its deviation from unity can be
362: {\it e.g.} due to the renormalization group effects.)
363: As a result of the cancellation the mass matrix of light neutrinos becomes
364: %
365: \begin{equation}
366: \label{eq:screening}
367: m_\nu = c^2 \left[\frac{\braket{\phi}}{\braket{\sigma}}\right]^2 M_S \; ,
368: \end{equation}
369: %
370: where the neutrino mixings emerge entirely from the flavor structure in
371: $M_S$~\cite{Smirnov:1993af}. The flavor structure
372: of the Dirac type Yukawa couplings is completely eliminated, while it still
373: determines all the features of the quark masses and
374: mixings. We will call such a cancellation the {\it screening} of the Dirac flavor structure
375: in the lepton mixing or briefly, screening.
376: Screening is a consequence of the double seesaw
377: (\ref{eq:matrix}) and the proportionality~(\ref{eq:relation}).
378: These features can emerge from certain flavor symmetries or Grand
379: Unification, as it will be discussed in sec.~\ref{sec:GUT}.
380: The scale of neutrino masses is determined by the scales of the double seesaw.
381: Taking
382: %
383: \begin{equation}
384: \label{eq:scales}
385: \braket{\phi} = v_{EW},~~ \braket{\sigma} \sim M_{GU} \sim 10^{16}~ {\rm GeV},~~
386: M_S \sim M_{Pl}
387: \end{equation}
388: %
389: one finds from (\ref{eq:screening})
390: %
391: \begin{equation}
392: \label{eq:scmass}
393: m_\nu \sim \left[\frac{v_{EW}}{M_{GU}}\right]^2 M_{Pl} \; ,
394: \end{equation}
395: %
396: which lies in the phenomenologically required range, while the flavor
397: structure of the neutrino mass matrix, and consequently the mass ratios and
398: mixings are determined by the Planck scale physics~\footnote{In the paper~\cite{Vives:2005ze}
399: the double seesaw matrix~(\ref{eq:matrix}) has been considered
400: with only one new singlet $S$ (so that the $Y_N$ is
401: the 3 component column). However, such a matrix can not
402: reproduce the required mass spectrum of light neutrinos for
403: any structure of $Y_N$. The complete mass
404: spectrum consists of three Majorana neutrinos with masses
405: (in our notations) $\sim M_S$, $\sim \braket{\sigma}^2/M_S$,
406: $\sim \braket{\phi}^2M_S/\braket{\sigma}^2$,
407: and two pseudo-Dirac neutrinos with masses
408: at the electroweak scale: $\sim\braket{\phi}$. There is only one light neutrino.
409: A possibility to get a correct spectrum in the model~\cite{Vives:2005ze}
410: is to introduce the direct non-negligible contribution to
411: the RH neutrino masses (2-2 block) of the form $Y^T_{\nu} M' Y_{\nu}$, where $M'$ is
412: some $3 \times 3$ matrix to be tuned to fit the data.}.
413:
414: The Majorana mass matrix of the right handed neutrinos, $M_N$, generated
415: after the first seesaw equals
416: %
417: \begin{equation}
418: \label{eq:RHmasses}
419: M_N = -\braket{\sigma}^2 Y_{N}^T M_{S}^{-1} Y_N.
420: \end{equation}
421: %
422: For the mass scales given in eq.~(\ref{eq:scales}) we obtain
423: $M_N \sim M_{GU}^2/M_{Pl} \leq 10^{14}$~GeV which
424: reproduce the relation (\ref{eq:scale}) required by phenomenology.
425:
426: An attractive scenario could be that some symmetry in the sector
427: of singlets $S$ exists. This symmetry leads to a particular and simple
428: structure of $M_S$ at high scales.
429: The symmetry is broken at lower scales and incomplete
430: screening, if exists, can be related to this breaking.
431: In fact, phenomenology may require deviations from complete screening.
432: Perturbations might {\it e.g.} explain
433: the observed mass splitting of the light neutrinos in the case of a degenerate
434: spectrum of the singlets $S_f$.
435: In this connection one can explore the
436: following origins of perturbations (breaking) of the structure (\ref{eq:matrix},\ref{eq:relation}):
437: %
438: \begin{itemize}
439: \item
440: Nonzero elements in the 1-1, 1-3 and 2-2 blocks of matrix in eq.~(\ref{eq:matrix}):
441: These blocks have different gauge properties and the origin of
442: these perturbations can be quite different.
443: \item
444: Mismatch between $Y_{\nu}$ and $Y_N$ destroying cancellation.
445: \item
446: Perturbations in $M_S$. They may follow from the Planck scale physics.
447: If the eigenvalues of $M_S$ have some hierarchy then
448: one needs to take into account the renormalization effects due to
449: the Yukawa interactions of $S$, $N$ and $\sigma$ which influence the structure of
450: matrix $M_S$.
451:
452: \end{itemize}
453: %
454: A structure of the mass matrix for
455: $(\nu, N, S)$ with non-zero 1-3 block
456: (the direct $\nu S$-terms) has been considered in
457: ref.~\CiteDSBarr.
458: Under certain conditions the matrix leads to the linear
459: dependence (instead of quadratic or no dependence in our case)
460: of the light neutrino mass matrix on the Dirac flavor structure.
461: In a sense this realizes the half-screening effect.
462:
463: Notice that one can introduce the Majorana mass matrix of the RH neutrinos
464: in the form~\eqref{eq:RHmasses} immediately without invoking the double seesaw mechanism.
465: This is done in \cite{Stech:2003sb} where form
466: $M_N = - \braket{\sigma}^2 Y_N^T Y_N +\delta M_N$
467: with $\delta M_N$ being the correction matrix has been
468: {\it postulated}.
469: In contrast, we propose a model for the structure~\eqref{eq:RHmasses}
470: based on the double seesaw mechanism
471: and additional flavor symmetry or/and Grand Unification.
472:
473:
474:
475: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
476: \section{Screening and renormalization group effect\label{sec:RG}}
477: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
478:
479: In this section we will consider effects of
480: the radiative corrections~\cite{Grzadkowski:1987tf,Grzadkowski:1987wr,Casas:1999tp,Casas:1999ac}
481: on the screening mechanism. The proportionality relation (\ref{eq:relation}) required
482: for screening, holds presumably at the large scale of $M_S$ or above
483: that. However, the couplings $Y_N$ and $Y_{\nu}$ have different
484: gauge properties and their renormalization group running to the
485: EW scale leads to different radiative
486: corrections
487: which may destroy the screening effect.
488: On the other hand, small mismatch of the renormalized
489: Yukawa matrices (partial screening) may explain some of the observed properties of the
490: neutrino mass spectrum and mixings.
491:
492: In what follows we will consider a minimal scenario - corrections due to the SM and MSSM interactions.
493: Presence of other physics beyond the standard model can lead to additional renormalization effects.
494: %
495:
496: \subsection{Renormalization group effects}
497: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
498:
499:
500: Here we will consider the renormalization group effects below a
501: certain scale $\Lambda$ which in turn is somehow below
502: the masses of singlets $M_{S}$:
503: \begin{equation}
504: M_{i} \ll \Lambda \leq M_{S},
505: \end{equation}
506: here $M_{i}$ are the masses of RH neutrinos (see Fig.~\ref{fig:Nthresholds}).
507: We consider $M_S$ as the mass matrix of singlets at $\Lambda$, so that possible
508: renormalization effects on $M_S$ due to the couplings $Y_{N}$ are included.
509:
510:
511: Let us stress that for the hierarchical Yukawa matrix $Y_\nu$, and consequently $Y_N$,
512: the mass spectrum of the RH neutrinos is (in general) strongly hierarchical:
513: $M_N \sim Y_\nu^2$. Therefore effects of the RG running between different
514: mass thresholds is crucial~\cite{King:2000hk,King:2000ce,Antusch:2002rr,Stech:2003sb,Antusch:2005gp}.
515:
516: Let us introduce the effective operator $\EFT{n}{O_M}$ which generates
517: neutrino masses in the basis $(\nu, N)$
518: %
519: \begin{equation}
520: \mathscr{L} = - (\nu^T, N^T)\EFT{n}{O_M}(\nu^T, N^T)^T \; .
521: \end{equation}
522: %
523: The superscript $\left(n\right)$ designates the number of right-handed
524: neutrinos which are not decoupled at a given energy scale, that is, neutrinos in
525: the effective theory. This superscript will denote also a range of
526: RG-running with a given number of RH neutrinos, and we use also the
527: notation $\EFT{n-m}{Z} \equiv \EFT{n}{Z}\EFT{n+1}{Z}\dots\EFT{m-1}{Z}\EFT{m}{Z}$.
528:
529:
530: Below the scale $\Lambda$ the singlets $S$ are integrated out,
531: and the effective operator $\EFT{3}{O_M}$ can be written as
532: \begin{equation}
533: \EFT{3}{O_M}(\Lambda) =
534: \left(\begin{array}{cc}
535: 0 & \EFT{3}{Y_\nu}\phi\\
536: \EFT{3}{Y_\nu^T} \phi & \EFT{3}{M_N} \\
537: \end{array}\right)\; .
538: \end{equation}
539: Here
540: \begin{equation}
541: \label{eq:RHmasses3}
542: \EFT{3}{M_N} = -\braket{\sigma}^2\EFT{3}{Y_{N}^T} M_{S}^{-1}\EFT{3}{Y_N}
543: \end{equation}
544: is the mass matrix of the three RH neutrinos at the scale $\Lambda$,
545: and $\EFT{3}{Y_\nu}$ is the matrix of Yukawa couplings at $\Lambda$.
546:
547: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%fig2%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
548: \begin{figure}
549: \psfrag{MN1}{$M_1$}
550: \psfrag{MN2}{$M_2$}
551: \psfrag{MN3}{$M_3$}
552: \psfrag{Lambda}{$\Lambda$}
553: \psfrag{PHI}{$\braket{\phi}$}
554: \psfrag{RG3}{$(3)$}
555: \psfrag{RG2}{$(2)$}
556: \psfrag{RG1}{$(1)$}
557: \psfrag{RG0}{$(0)$}
558: \psfrag{mu}{$\mu$}
559: \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{Nthresholds}
560: \caption{The thresholds due to masses of the right-handed neutrinos
561: and the intervals of the RG running.}
562: \label{fig:Nthresholds}
563: \end{figure}
564: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
565:
566: The effect of the RG evolution can be split in effects coming from the
567: renormalization of the wave functions and the vertex corrections.
568: It turns out, that the RG corrections can be factorized in the leading log (LL)
569: approximation. So, in general,
570: the renormalizations of $Y_\nu$, $M_N$ and $m_\nu \phi^2/\braket{\phi}^2$
571: (operator of the light neutrino masses) are given by
572: \begin{align}
573: Y_\nu&\xrightarrow{\mathrm{RG}}Z_\mathrm{ext}^T Y_\nu Z_N\\
574: M_N&\xrightarrow{\mathrm{RG}}Z_N^T M_N Z_N \\
575: m_\nu \phi^2/\braket{\phi}^2& \xrightarrow{\mathrm{RG}}Z_\mathrm{ext}^T m_\nu
576: \phi^2/\braket{\phi}^2 Z_\mathrm{ext} Z_\kappa\; .
577: \label{eq:last}
578: \end{align}
579: %
580: Here $Z_\mathrm{ext}$ combines the renormalization effect of the left-handed doublets
581: $L$, the Higgs doublet $\phi$, and the vertex correction to $Y_\nu$;
582: $Z_N$ denotes the wave function renormalization effect of the RH neutrinos $N$.
583: In order to simplify the presentation, we define the wave function
584: renormalization so that the usual powers of $1/2$
585: factors are absent. Eq.~(\ref{eq:last}) describes renormalization of the
586: effective dimension d=5 operator which appears after decoupling
587: (integration out) of the corresponding RH neutrino. Apart from renormalization
588: of the wave functions and vertices which exist in the SM model this
589: operator has additional vertex corrections given by the diagrams in
590: Fig.~\ref{fig:divdiagrams}. The RG effect due to these diagrams denoted
591: by $\EFT{n}{Z_\kappa}$ plays a crucial role in the discussion of the
592: stability of screening
593: %\footnote{As the additional corrections
594: %are flavor blind, these factors are ordinary numbers.}.
595: These d=5 operator corrections are absent in the supersymmetric
596: version of theory due to the non-renormalization
597: theorem~\cite{Grisaru:1979wc,Seiberg:1993vc}.
598: %
599:
600: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
601: \begin{figure}
602: \centering
603: \subfigure[Higgs
604: self-coupling]{$\CenterObject{
605: \fmfframe(0,0)(0,0){
606: \begin{fmfgraph*}(135,75)
607: \fmfleft{l1,l2}
608: \fmfright{r1,r2}
609: \fmf{fermion,label=$L$,label.side=right}{l1,v}
610: \fmf{fermion,label=$L$,label.side=left}{r1,v}
611: \fmf{scalar,label=$\phi$,label.side=right}{l2,w}
612: \fmf{scalar,label=$\phi$,label.side=left}{r2,w}
613: \fmf{scalar,left=1,tension=.3,label=$\phi$}{w,v}
614: \fmf{scalar,right=1,tension=.3,label=$\phi$}{w,v}
615: \fmfdot{w}
616: \fmfv{decor.shape=square,decor.filled=.5}{v}
617: \end{fmfgraph*}}}$}
618: \hspace{2cm}
619: \subfigure[Gauge interactions]{$\CenterObject{
620: \fmfframe(0,0)(0,0){
621: \begin{fmfgraph*}(135,75)
622: \fmfleft{l1,l2}
623: \fmfright{r1,r2}
624: \fmf{fermion,label=$L$,label.side=right}{l1,v}
625: \fmf{fermion,label=$L$,label.side=left}{r1,v}
626: \fmf{scalar,label=$\phi$,label.side=right}{l2,w1}
627: \fmf{scalar,label=$\phi$,label.side=left}{r2,w2}
628: \fmf{scalar,tension=.5,label=$\phi$,label.side=right}{w1,v}
629: \fmf{scalar,tension=.5,label=$\phi$,label.side=left}{w2,v}
630: \fmf{boson,tension=.5}{w1,w2}
631: \fmfdot{w1,w2}
632: \fmfv{decor.shape=square,decor.filled=.5}{v}
633: \end{fmfgraph*}}}$}
634: \caption{The d=5 operator vertex corrections. Shown are additional
635: divergent diagrams in the effective theory.}
636: \label{fig:divdiagrams}
637: \end{figure}
638: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
639:
640: We describe the RG effects in the effective theory, where the heavy
641: RH neutrinos are decoupled
642: successively\footnote{The running between mass thresholds of RH neutrinos has
643: been treated analytically in the approximation of strongly hierarchical and
644: diagonal Yukawa matrix in ref.~\cite{Stech:2003sb}. Here we present a general consideration
645: required for our approach.
646: }~\cite{King:2000hk,King:2000ce,Antusch:2002rr,Stech:2003sb,Antusch:2005gp}
647: as depicted in Fig.~\ref{fig:Nthresholds}. In each step (interval between
648: mass thresholds) we first calculate the RG correction to the matrices.
649: We diagonalize the resulting matrices at the lower end of the interval, {\it i.e.},
650: at $\mu=M_i$ and then decouple $N_i$, $(i=3,2,1)$.
651: %
652: We will denote the renormalization factors in the leading log approximation
653: by $\EFT{n}{Z}=1+\EFT{n}{\delta Z}$.
654: This notation is also used for parameters of the effective theory.
655: The renormalization factors in the extended (by RH neutrinos) SM and the MSSM are given in appendix~\ref{sec:renfactors}.
656:
657: Let us describe the main steps of the renormalization procedure, which is
658: especially simple in the basis where matrix $Y_\nu$ is diagonal.
659: (This basis, however, does not coincide with the flavor basis.)
660:
661: \noindent
662: 1). The RG evolution between $\Lambda$ and $M_{3}$ yields the operator
663: $\EFT{3}{O_M}$ at $M_3$
664: %
665: \begin{equation}
666: \label{eq:oper3}
667: \EFT{3}{O_M}(M_3) = \left(\begin{array}{cc}
668: 0 & ~~~\EFT{3}{Z_\mathrm{ext}^T} \EFT{3}{Y_\nu}\phi
669: \EFT{3}{Z_N} \\
670: ... & ~~~\EFT{3}{Z_N^T} \EFT{3}{M_N} \EFT{3}{Z_N} \\
671: \end{array}\right)\; .
672: \end{equation}
673: %
674: Performing a rotation of the RH neutrinos $N = \EFT{3}{U_N} N'$
675: we reduce the renormalized RH neutrino mass matrix to the form
676: \begin{equation}
677: \label{eq:matrix3}
678: \EFT{3}{U_N^T}\EFT{3}{Z_N^T} \EFT{3}{M_N} \EFT{3}{Z_N}\EFT{3}{U_N}=
679: \left(
680: \begin{array}{cc}
681: \EFT{2}{M_N} & 0 \\
682: 0 & M_3
683: \end{array}
684: \right)\; ,
685: \end{equation}
686: where $\EFT{2}{M_N}$ is $2\times2$ (in general off-diagonal) mass matrix.
687: %
688: Let us split the $3\times 3$ Dirac type Yukawa coupling matrix in (\ref{eq:oper3})
689: after this rotation into two parts as
690: %
691: \begin{equation}
692: \EFT{3}{Z_\mathrm{ext}^T} \EFT{3}{Y_\nu} \EFT{3}{Z_N}
693: \EFT{3}{U_N} \equiv \left(\begin{array}{cc}\EFT{2}{Y_\nu}, & y_3
694: \end{array}\right),
695: \end{equation}
696: where $y_3$ is the 3 component column of the Yukawa couplings of $\nu$ and $N_3$, and
697: $\EFT{2}{Y_\nu}$ is the rest $3\times2$ sub-matrix.
698: Then in the rotated basis the operator (\ref{eq:oper3}) can be
699: written as
700: \begin{equation}
701: \label{eq:oper3rot}
702: \EFT{3}{O_M}(M_3) = \left(\begin{array}{cc}
703: 0 & \begin{array}{cc}\EFT{2}{Y_\nu}\phi & y_3\phi
704: \end{array} \\
705: ... &
706: \begin{array}{cc}
707: \EFT{2}{M_N} & 0 \\
708: 0 & M_3
709: \end{array}\\
710: \end{array}\right).
711: \end{equation}
712: %
713: Below the scale $M_3$ the neutrino $N_3$ is integrated out and from
714: (\ref{eq:oper3rot}) we obtain
715: \begin{equation}
716: \EFT{2}{O_M}(M_3) = \left(\begin{array}{cc}
717: -y_3 M_3^{-1}y_3^T\phi^2& \EFT{2}{Y_\nu}\phi \\
718: ... & \EFT{2}{M_N}\\
719: \end{array}\right)\; .
720: \end{equation}
721: Notice that the $d = 5$ operator is formed in 1-1 block due to
722: decoupling of $N_3$. \\
723:
724: \noindent
725: 2). Let us consider the RG running in the interval
726: $M_2 - M_3$. Similarly to the first step we can write the operator $O_M$ at
727: the scale $M_2$ (threshold of $N_2$) as
728: %%
729: \begin{equation}
730: \EFT{2}{O_M}(M_2) = \left(\begin{array}{cc}
731: -\EFT{2}{Z_\mathrm{ext}^T} \EFT{2}{Z_\kappa} y_3
732: M_3^{-1}y_3^T \phi^2\EFT{2}{Z_\mathrm{ext}}
733: & ~~~\EFT{2}{Z_\mathrm{ext}^T} \EFT{2}{Y_\nu}\phi\EFT{2}{Z_N} \\
734: ... & ~~~\EFT{2}{Z_N^T}\EFT{2}{M}\EFT{2}{Z_N}\\
735: \end{array}\right)\; .
736: \end{equation}
737: Here we have included the corrections $\EFT{2}{Z_\kappa}$ to the d=5 operator.
738:
739: By applying the rotation $N' = \EFT{2}{U_N} N''$ the renormalized mass matrix
740: of the RH neutrinos is diagonalized:
741: \begin{equation}
742: \label{eq:matrix2}
743: \EFT{2}{U_N^T}\EFT{2}{Z_N^T}\EFT{2}{M}\EFT{2}{Z_N}\EFT{2}{U_N} \equiv
744: \left(\begin{array}{cc}
745: \EFT{1}{M_N} & 0 \\
746: 0 & M_2 \\
747: \end{array}\right).
748: \end{equation}
749: The renormalized Yukawa matrix is then split as
750: %
751: \begin{equation}
752: \EFT{2}{Z_\mathrm{ext}^T} \EFT{2}{Y_\nu}\EFT{2}{Z_N}
753: \EFT{2}{U_N} \equiv
754: \left(\begin{array}{cc} \EFT{1}{Y_\nu}, & y_2 \end{array}\right),\;
755: \end{equation}
756: where $\EFT{1}{Y_\nu}$ and $y_2$ are two component columns.
757: Decoupling the second neutrino $N_2$ we obtain
758: %%
759: \begin{equation}
760: \EFT{1}{O_M}(M_2) = \left(\begin{array}{cc}
761: -\EFT{2}{Z_\mathrm{ext}^T} \EFT{2}{Z_\kappa}
762: y_3 M_3^{-1}y_3^T \phi^2 \EFT{2}{Z_\mathrm{ext}} - y_2 M_2^{-1}y_2^T \phi^2 & ~~~\EFT{1}{Y_\nu}\phi\\
763: ... & ~~~\EFT{1}{M_N}\\
764: \end{array}\right).
765: \end{equation}\\
766:
767: \noindent
768: 3). Running the matrix down to the lowest see-saw scale
769: $M_1$ and integration out $N_1$ yields
770: %%
771: \begin{equation}
772: \begin{split}
773: \EFT{0}{O_M}(M_1) = &-\EFT{1-2}{Z_\mathrm{ext}^T}
774: \EFT{1-2}{Z_\kappa}
775: y_3 M_3^{-1}y_3^T\phi^2\EFT{1-2}{Z_\mathrm{ext}}\\
776: &-\EFT{1}{Z_\mathrm{ext}^T} \left[\EFT{1}{Z_\kappa}y_2
777: M_2^{-1}y_2^T +
778: \EFT{1}{Y_\nu} \EFT{1}{M_N^{-1}}\EFT{1}{Y_\nu^T}\right]
779: \phi^2\EFT{1}{Z_\mathrm{ext}}\; .
780: \end{split}
781: \end{equation}\\
782:
783: \noindent
784: 4). Finally, evolving $\EFT{0}{O_M}(M_1)$
785: down to the EW scale, we obtain (after $\phi$ develops a VEV) the mass
786: matrix of light neutrinos
787: %%
788: \begin{equation}
789: \label{eq:main1}
790: m_\nu=-\braket{\phi}^2\EFT{0-3}{Z_\mathrm{ext}^T} \EFT{3}{Y_\nu}
791: \EFT{3}{Z_N} \EFT{3}{U_N}
792: \left(\begin{array}{cc}
793: K_{12} & 0 \\
794: 0 & \frac{\EFT{0-2}{Z_{\kappa}}}{M_3} \\
795: \end{array}\right)
796: \EFT{3}{U_N^T} \EFT{3}{Z_N^T} \EFT{3}{Y_\nu^T}\EFT{0-3}{Z_\mathrm{ext}}\; ,
797: \end{equation}
798: with
799: \begin{equation}
800: K_{12} \equiv \EFT{2}{Z_N} \EFT{2}{U_N}
801: \left(\begin{array}{cc}
802: \frac{\EFT{0}{Z_\kappa}}{\EFT{1}{M_N}} & 0\\
803: 0 & \frac{\EFT{0-1}{Z_\kappa}}{M_2}\\
804: \end{array}\right) \EFT{2}{U_N}^T \EFT{2}{Z_N^T} .
805: \end{equation} \\
806: %
807: This expression can be presented in a simpler and transparent way.
808: Using definitions of matrices $\EFT{2}{U_N}$ and
809: $\EFT{3}{U_N}$ in eqs. (\ref{eq:matrix2}, \ref{eq:matrix3})
810: we can rewrite $m_\nu$ as
811: \begin{equation}
812: \label{eq:lightnu}
813: m_\nu=-\braket{\phi}^2 Z_\mathrm{ext}^T
814: \left[\EFT{3}{Y_\nu}
815: X_N \EFT{3}{M_N^{-1}} \EFT{3}{Y_\nu^T}\right]Z_\mathrm{ext} \; ,
816: \end{equation}
817: where
818: \begin{equation}
819: \label{eq:xN}
820: X_N\equiv \EFT{3}{Z_N}\EFT{3}{U_N} \EFT{2}{Z_N'} \EFT{2}{U_N'}
821: Z_\kappa \EFT{2}{U_N^{'\dagger}}\EFT{2}{Z_N^{'-1}}
822: \EFT{3}{U_N^\dagger} \EFT{3}{Z_N^{-1}}
823: \end{equation}
824: describes the RG effects due to the running between the thresholds.
825: Here
826: \begin{equation}
827: \label{eq:3dmatrix}
828: \EFT{2}{Z_N'} \equiv
829: \left(\begin{array}{cc}\EFT{2}{Z_N} & 0 \\ 0 & 1 \\\end{array}\right),~~~
830: \EFT{2}{U_N'} \equiv
831: \left(\begin{array}{cc} \EFT{2}{U_N} & 0 \\ 0 & 1 \\\end{array}\right),~~~
832: \end{equation}
833: and
834: \begin{equation}
835: Z_\kappa \equiv
836: \diag\left(\EFT{0}{Z_\kappa}, \EFT{0-1}{Z_\kappa}, \EFT{0-2}{Z_\kappa}\right)
837: \end{equation}
838: is the matrix of effective d=5 operator corrections (fig.~\ref{fig:divdiagrams}).
839: %%
840: The expressions for $Z_\mathrm{ext}$ are given in appendices~\ref{sec:appone}
841: and \ref{sec:apptwo}.
842: Formulas (\ref{eq:main1}) and (\ref{eq:lightnu}) for $m_\nu$ are our main
843: results which we will analyze in the following sections.
844:
845:
846: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
847: \subsection{Stability of screening}
848: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
849:
850: Inserting the expression for the matrix $M_N$, eq.~(\ref{eq:RHmasses3}),
851: into eq.~(\ref{eq:lightnu}) we obtain
852: \begin{equation}
853: \label{eq:lightnu2}
854: m_\nu= \frac{\braket{\phi}^2}{\braket{\sigma}^2 }
855: Z_\mathrm{ext}^T\left[\EFT{3}{Y_\nu} X_N \EFT{3}{Y_N^{-1}} M_S \EFT{3}{Y_N^{T -1}}
856: \EFT{3}{Y_\nu^T}\right]Z_\mathrm{ext} \; .
857: \end{equation}
858: %
859: If the equality (\ref{eq:relation}) is satisfied, the neutrino mass
860: matrix becomes
861: \begin{equation}
862: \label{eq:numass1}
863: m_\nu = \frac{\braket{\phi}^2}{\braket{\sigma}^2 }
864: {Z_\mathrm{ext}^T \left[\EFT{3}{Y_\nu} X_N \EFT{3}{Y_\nu^{-1}} M_S \right] Z_\mathrm{ext}}\; .
865: \end{equation}
866: %
867: Therefore screening is reproduced and the dependence of $m_\nu$ on
868: the Yukawa (Dirac) couplings disappears if $X_N = I$.
869: The expression (\ref{eq:numass1}) coincides with that in
870: (\ref{eq:screening}) up to external renormalization.
871: In turn, according to eq.~(\ref{eq:xN}) the equality $X_N = I$ holds provided that
872: $Z_{\kappa} = I$, that is, when the d=5 operator corrections
873: are absent. This is automatically satisfied in the supersymmetric
874: theory, but the corrections are present in the SM and its
875: non-supersymmetric extensions.
876:
877: Note that the d=5 operator corrections are due to the gauge interactions
878: and self interactions of the Higgs boson, which are by themselves flavor
879: blind. However, they influence the flavor structure of the light
880: neutrino mass matrix due to difference of masses of the RH
881: neutrinos and therefore different threshold effects.
882:
883:
884: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
885: \subsection{Beyond leading log approximation}
886: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
887:
888: Beyond the leading log (LL) approximation the RG contributions still factorize
889: except for the d=5 operator corrections. Thus, our analysis does hold
890: beyond LL in the MSSM, but it does not apply in the SM due
891: to diagrams like in Fig.~\ref{fig:MnuTwoL}.
892: %
893: \begin{figure}\centering
894: $\CenterObject{
895: \fmfframe(0,0)(0,0){
896: \begin{fmfgraph*}(200,100)
897: \fmfleft{l}
898: \fmfright{r}
899: \fmf{fermion,label=$L$,label.side=left}{l,v1}
900: \fmf{fermion,label=$e_R;N$,label.side=right}{v1,v2}
901: \fmf{fermion,label=$L$,label.side=left}{v2,u}
902: \fmf{fermion,label=$L$}{r,w1}
903: \fmf{fermion,label=$e_R;N$,label.side=left}{w1,w2}
904: \fmf{fermion,label=$L$}{w2,u}
905: \fmfdot{v1,v2,w1,w2}
906: \fmfv{decor.shape=square,decor.filled=.5}{u}
907: \fmffreeze
908: \fmfright{s1,s2}
909: \fmfleft{k1,k2}
910: \fmf{scalar,left=.8,tension=.3,label=$\phi$}{v1,w2}
911: \fmf{scalar,right=.8,tension=.3,label=$\phi$}{w1,v2}
912: \fmf{scalar,label=$\phi$,label.side=left}{s1,u}
913: \fmf{scalar,label=$\phi$,label.side=right}{k1,u}
914: \end{fmfgraph*}}}$
915: \caption{Examples of the two loop diagram which destroy
916: factorization of the vertex corrections to the effective neutrino mass matrix.}
917: \label{fig:MnuTwoL}
918: \end{figure}
919: %
920: However, the 2 loop contributions to the external renormalization are smaller
921: than the 1~loop corrections by a factor of $y^2/16\pi^2 \le 0.01$ and
922: the 1~loop threshold corrections are not enhanced by large logarithms.
923:
924: For certain structures of $M_S$ (see sec.~\ref{sec:applications})
925: the additional 2~loop diagrams lead to corrections to the renormalization
926: of the effective neutrino mass operator which could be comparable to
927: the 1~loop corrections. However, assuming the same hierarchy in the neutrino
928: Yukawa couplings as in the up-type quark Yukawa couplings, these
929: contribution are further suppressed since the heaviest right-handed
930: neutrino is already integrated out. Therefore all 2~loop contributions
931: in the effective theory are suppressed by $y^2_2/16\pi^2 \le 10^{-6}$
932: compared to the 1~loop contributions. Altogether higher loop contributions
933: are less than $10\%$ of the 1~loop corrections and will be neglected in
934: the following.
935:
936:
937: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
938: \subsection{Effects of vertex corrections}
939: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
940:
941: In order to study the d=5 operator corrections in the
942: (non-supersymmetric) standard model in more details we introduce the
943: matrix $V_N$ which diagonalizes the RH neutrino mass matrix at $\Lambda$:
944: \begin{equation}
945: \label{eq:invert}
946: V_N^T \EFT{3}{M_N} {V_N} =
947: \braket{\sigma}^2 {V_N^T} \EFT{3}{Y_N^T} {M_S^{-1}} \EFT{3}{Y_N} {V_N}
948: = {D_N} \equiv \diag(M_1, M_2, M_3).
949: \end{equation}
950: In the lowest order approximation: $\EFT{2}{Z_N} = \EFT{3}{Z_N} = 1$,
951: and according to (\ref{eq:matrix3}) and
952: (\ref{eq:matrix2}) we obtain
953: \begin{equation}
954: V_N = \EFT{3}{U_N} \EFT{2}{U_N'}.
955: \end{equation}
956: Therefore the matrix $X_N$ (\ref{eq:xN}) can be rewritten in the form
957: \begin{equation}
958: X_N = V_N Z_{\kappa} V_N^{\dagger} =
959: I + {V_N} \delta Z_{\kappa} V_N^{\dagger},
960: \end{equation}
961: where
962: $$
963: \delta Z_{\kappa} \equiv Z_{\kappa} - I.
964: $$
965: Plugging this expression for $X_N$ in (\ref{eq:lightnu2}) we find
966: \begin{equation}
967: \label{eq:tilde1}
968: {m}_\nu \equiv
969: \frac{\braket{\phi}^2}{\braket{\sigma}^2 }
970: Z_\mathrm{ext}^T \left[I + \EFT{3}{Y_\nu} V_N \delta Z_{\kappa} V_N^{\dagger}
971: \EFT{3}{Y_\nu}^{-1} \right]M_S Z_\mathrm{ext} .
972: \end{equation}
973: %
974: Finally, using \eqref{eq:invert} we can rewrite ${m}_\nu$ as
975: \begin{equation}
976: \label{eq:tilde2}
977: {m}_\nu \equiv
978: \braket{\phi^2} Z_\mathrm{ext}^T \left[\frac{1}{\braket{\sigma}^2} M_S +
979: \EFT{3}{Y_\nu} V_N (\delta Z_{\kappa} D_N^{-1}) V_N^T
980: \EFT{3}{Y_\nu^T}\right] Z_\mathrm{ext}.
981: \end{equation}
982: According to this expression the effects of d=5 operator corrections
983: are reduced to renormalization of masses of the RH neutrinos since
984: $\delta Z_{\kappa}$ is diagonal.
985:
986:
987: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
988: \section{Applications of the Dirac structure screening
989: \label{sec:applications}}
990: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
991:
992: Here we apply the results obtained in the previous section to several
993: phenomenologically interesting structures of $M_S$.
994: We study effects of the radiative corrections on the light neutrino mass matrix.
995: The matrix $M_S$ will be defined in the basis where the equality of the Yukawa
996: couplings~(\ref{eq:relation}) is fulfilled.
997:
998: In the previous sections we have found $m_\nu$ in the basis where the
999: neutrino Yukawa coupling matrix $Y_\nu$ is diagonal. Now we will
1000: discuss $m_\nu^f$ - the neutrino mass matrix in the flavor basis
1001: where the charge lepton mass matrix $Y_e$ is diagonal. It is related
1002: to $m_\nu$ as
1003: %
1004: \begin{equation}
1005: \label{eq:flavb}
1006: m_\nu^f = U_e^T m_\nu U_e,
1007: \end{equation}
1008: where $U_e$ is the transformation of left handed charged lepton
1009: components which diagonalizes the matrix $Y_e$ at the electroweak
1010: scale. The radiative corrections to $Y_e$ are in general small due
1011: to the strong mass hierarchy.
1012:
1013: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1014: \subsection{Quasi-degenerate neutrino spectrum\label{sec:quasidegen}}
1015: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1016:
1017: Let us first consider $M_S$ which is proportional to the unit
1018: matrix at $\Lambda$, {\it i.e.},
1019: %
1020: \begin{equation}
1021: \label{eq:unit}
1022: M_S = M_S^0 I\; .
1023: \end{equation}
1024: %
1025: This choice is apparently basis independent and we can take
1026: therefore $Y_{\nu} = Y_{N} = \diag(y_1, y_2, y_3)$. The
1027: right-handed neutrino mass matrix is diagonal and strongly hierarchical:
1028: \begin{equation}
1029: M_N=-Y_N^T M_S^{-1} Y_N\braket{\sigma}^2
1030: =\frac{\braket{\sigma}^2}{M_S}\diag\left(y_1^2,\,y_2^2,\,y_3^2\right)\; .
1031: \end{equation}
1032: Therefore $V_N = I$ and we find
1033: %
1034: \begin{equation}
1035: \label{eq:tilde1a}
1036: m_\nu^f \equiv
1037: \frac{\braket{\phi}^2}{\braket{\sigma}^2 } M_S^0
1038: U_e^T Z_\mathrm{ext}^T \left[I + \delta Z_{\kappa} \right] Z_\mathrm{ext} U_e.
1039: \end{equation}
1040: The corrections are also diagonal\footnote{We assume a strong hierarchy in
1041: $Y_\nu$ and use $Y_\nu\sim Y_u$ for the numerical estimates.}
1042: \begin{equation}
1043: \delta Z_{\kappa} = \left[\exp\left(\mathcal{A}~ \diag\left(0,\,\ln\frac{y_2^2}{y_3^2},\,
1044: \ln\frac{y_1^2}{y_3^2}\right)\right)-I\right]\sim \Ord{0.1}\; ,\label{eq:effvcor}
1045: \end{equation}
1046: where
1047: \begin{equation}
1048: \label{eq:loopf}
1049: \mathcal{A} \equiv \frac{1}{16\pi^2}\left(\lambda+\frac{9}{10}g_1^2+
1050: \frac{3}{2}g_2^2\right).
1051: \end{equation}
1052: %
1053: This leads to splittings of the light neutrino masses which would
1054: be degenerate otherwise.
1055:
1056: Note that the external corrections (due to the wave function renormalization
1057: of the left-handed leptons, eq.~\eqref{eq:ZL}, and the vertex corrections
1058: to the neutrino Yukawa couplings, eq.~\eqref{eq:ZYnu}), are described
1059: in general by off-diagonal matrices due to the mismatch of $Y_e$
1060: and $Y_\nu$ structures.
1061: %
1062: As the charged lepton Yukawa couplings are also strongly hierarchical,
1063: the largest flavor dependent correction is the one to the 3-3 element. Neglecting the
1064: off-diagonal entries, it can be estimated as
1065: %
1066: \begin{equation}
1067: -2\frac{y_\tau^2}{16\pi^2}\ln\frac{\braket{\phi}}{\Lambda} - 4\frac{y_3^2}{16\pi^2}\ln
1068: \frac{M_3}{\Lambda}\sim\Ord{0.1} ,
1069: \end{equation}
1070: %
1071: where the second term (due to the neutrino Yukawa coupling) dominates.
1072: It has the same order of magnitude as the correction due to the d=5 operator
1073: renormalization in eq.~(\ref{eq:effvcor}).
1074:
1075: Let us now comment on a possibility to explain the neutrino data.
1076: In the non-supersymmetric version the mass split, $\Delta m$,
1077: generated by the d=5 operator corrections, $\Delta m = m_0 \delta Z$, leads
1078: to $\Delta m^2 = 2 m_0 \Delta m = 2 m_0^2\delta Z = (2 - 8)\cdot
1079: 10^{-3}$~eV$^2$ for the overall scale $m_0 = (0.1 - 0.2)$~eV. This can reproduce
1080: the atmospheric mass split, but it is too large for the solar mass split.
1081: The ratio of solar and atmospheric mass squared differences,
1082: %
1083: \begin{equation}
1084: \frac{\Delta m_\mathrm{21}^2}{\Delta
1085: m_\mathrm{32}^2}~~\approx~~\frac{m_2-m_1}{m_3-m_2}\sim\Ord{1}\; ,
1086: \end{equation}
1087: %
1088: does not fit the observations. The external corrections do not improve the situation either.
1089: Therefore some other (non-radiative)
1090: contribution is required to compensate the 1-2 mass split. Mixings can
1091: also be generated by small (non-radiative) corrections.
1092:
1093: In the supersymmetric version we have $\delta Z_\kappa = 0$ and $Z_{Y_{\nu}} = I$, so that the mass splitting is produced by the external
1094: renormalization only:
1095: %
1096: \begin{equation}
1097: \label{eq:massde}
1098: m_\nu^f = \frac{\braket{\phi}^2}{\braket{\sigma}^2 } M_S^0 U_e^T Z_\mathrm{ext}^T U_e
1099: Z_\mathrm{ext} \; .
1100: \end{equation}
1101: %
1102: In the flavor basis we obtain the mass split due to Yukawa couplings coming from
1103: the external renormalization:
1104: %
1105: \begin{equation}
1106: \label{eq:corr2}
1107: \exp\left[- \frac{1}{8\pi^2} \diag(y_e^2,~y_\mu^2,~ y_\tau^2)
1108: \ln\frac{\braket{\phi}}{\Lambda}\right] \; ,
1109: \end{equation}
1110: where the neutrino Yukawa couplings are neglected.
1111: This can provide the atmospheric mass split and the mixings
1112: should be generated again by correction to the zero order structure.
1113:
1114:
1115: Next, we consider for $M_S$ the ``triangle'' structure
1116: \begin{equation}
1117: \label{eq:triang}
1118: M_S = M_S^0\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1
1119: &0&0\\0&0&1\\0&1&0\\\end{array}\right)
1120: \end{equation}
1121: in the basis where the neutrino Yukawa matrices are diagonal.
1122: In lowest order it produces a degenerate mass spectrum and maximal
1123: 2-3 mixing of the light neutrinos. This matrix leads to a spectrum
1124: of RH neutrinos with two heavy degenerate states and one
1125: relatively light state:
1126: \begin{equation}
1127: M_{1N} = \frac{\braket{\sigma}^2 y_1^2}{M_S^0}, \quad\quad
1128: M_{2N} = - M_{3N} = \frac{\braket{\sigma}^2 y_2 y_3}{M_S^0}.
1129: \end{equation}
1130: The renormalization interval $``(2)"$ (see fig.~\ref{fig:Nthresholds}) is
1131: therefore absent and the matrix of d=5 operator corrections
1132: can be written as
1133: \begin{equation}
1134: \label{effvcor1}
1135: \delta Z_{\kappa} = \left[\exp\left(\delta \EFT{1}{Z_\kappa}\right) -1\right]
1136: \diag(0, 1, 1)\; ,
1137: \quad\quad \delta \EFT{1}{Z_\kappa} = \mathcal{A} \ln\frac{y_1^2}{y_2 y_3} \; ,
1138: \end{equation}
1139: where $\mathcal{A}$ is defined in eq.~(\ref{eq:loopf}). The state $N_1$
1140: decouples and maximal mixing is realized in the 2-3 block of $V_N$.
1141: Using this feature and eq.~(\ref{effvcor1}) we find from
1142: eq.~(\ref{eq:tilde2})
1143: %
1144: \begin{equation}
1145: \label{eq:tilde3}
1146: m_\nu^f \equiv
1147: Z_\mathrm{ext}^T \frac{\braket{\phi}^2}{\braket{\sigma}^2 } M_S^0 U_e^T \EFT{0}{Z_\kappa}
1148: \left(\begin{array}{ccc}
1149: 1&0&0\\
1150: 0 & 0 & 1 - \delta \EFT{1}{Z_\kappa} \\
1151: 0 & 1 - \delta \EFT{1}{Z_\kappa} & 0\\
1152: \end{array}\right)Z_\mathrm{ext} U_e\; .
1153: \end{equation}
1154: %
1155: Therefore the d=5 operator corrections do not destroy the triangular
1156: structure, but they lead to mass splits between the degenerate
1157: pair and the isolated state:
1158: \begin{equation}
1159: \label{eq:massspl}
1160: \frac{\Delta m}{m} = \delta \EFT{1}{Z_\kappa} .
1161: \end{equation}
1162: %
1163: In the supersymmetric version $\delta \EFT{1}{Z_\kappa} = 0$, so that the
1164: original ``triangle'' structure is renormalized by the external
1165: corrections only. In this case, one also needs perturbations
1166: of the original screening structure in order to get the correct mixings
1167: and mass split.
1168:
1169: As a third possibility we consider for $M_S$ the ``triangle'' structure
1170: which leads to a degenerate spectrum and maximal 1-2 mixing:
1171: \begin{equation}
1172: \label{eq:mat-t2}
1173: M_S = M_S^0
1174: \left(\begin{array}{ccc}
1175: 0 & 1 & 0 \\
1176: 1 & 0 & 0 \\
1177: 0 & 0 & 1\\
1178: \end{array}\right)\; .
1179: \end{equation}
1180: %
1181: Similar considerations as above results in the mass spectrum of RH neutrinos
1182: with two light degenerate states and an isolated heavier state:
1183: \begin{equation}
1184: M_{1N} = - M_{2N} = \frac{\braket{\sigma}^2 y_1 y_2}{M_S^0}, ~~~~~~
1185: M_{3N} = \frac{\braket{\sigma}^2 y_3^2}{M_S^0} \;.
1186: \end{equation}
1187: %
1188: For the light neutrinos we find
1189: \begin{equation}
1190: \label{eq:tilde3a}
1191: m_\nu \equiv
1192: Z_\mathrm{ext}^T \frac{\braket{\phi}^2}{\braket{\sigma}^2 } M_S^0 U_e^T \EFT{0}{Z_\kappa}
1193: \left(\begin{array}{ccc}
1194: 0 & 1 & 0\\
1195: 1 & 0 & 0 \\
1196: 0 & 0 &1 - \delta \EFT{2}{Z_\kappa} \\
1197: \end{array}\right)Z_\mathrm{ext} U_e \; ,
1198: \end{equation}
1199: where
1200: %
1201: \begin{equation}
1202: \quad\quad\delta \EFT{2}{Z_\kappa} = \exp\left(\mathcal{A} \ln\frac{y_1y_2}{y_3^2}\right) - 1\; .
1203: \end{equation}
1204: The corrections due to running of the d=5 operator are of the same order as
1205: in the previous case. The mass split
1206: \begin{equation}
1207: \Delta m_{32}^2=2 m_0 \Delta m_{32}=-2m_0^2
1208: \delta\EFT{2}{Z_\kappa}= (2-8)\cdot 10^{-3}\eV^2\; ,
1209: \end{equation}
1210: for $m_0= (0.08 - 0.16)~ \eV$ can explain the atmospheric
1211: neutrino data. The external renormalization contributes in the same way as for
1212: $M_S\propto I$.
1213:
1214:
1215: In the supersymmetric version the ``triangle'' structure is preserved.
1216: Therefore the original matrix $M_S$ as given in eq.~(\ref{eq:mat-t2})
1217: should be perturbed in order to produce phenomenological acceptable mixings.
1218:
1219: Let us comment on the possibility to generate the lepton asymmetry of the Universe via
1220: the CP-violating decay of the lightest right handed neutrino(s)~\cite{Fukugita:1986hr}.
1221: In the case of diagonal $M_S$ the mass of the lightest neutrino $N_1$ is in the TeV range.
1222: So, according to~\CiteBoundOnMN\ the produced asymmetry is too small to explain
1223: the Baryon asymmetry via sphaleron effect. In contrast, in the case of a triangular
1224: matrix $M_S$ (\ref{eq:tilde3a}) there are two quasi-degenerate RH neutrinos
1225: with masses $M\simeq 10^{6}~\GeV$, and resonant leptogenesis can produce the
1226: required asymmetry.
1227:
1228: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1229: \subsection{Perturbations of $M_S$\label{sec:perturbMS}}
1230: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1231:
1232: Let us consider perturbations of the structure of $M_S$
1233: (which can be required by phenomenology)
1234: and effect radiative corrections on these perturbed structures.
1235:
1236: As an example we take the matrix
1237: %
1238: \begin{equation}
1239: \label{eq:text2}
1240: M_S = M_S^0\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
1241: 1 & 0 & 0\\
1242: 0 & x & 1\\
1243: 0 & 1 & 0\\
1244: \end{array}
1245: \right) \;
1246: \end{equation}
1247: with $x$ being a free parameter.
1248: Now the second and third neutrinos are no longer degenerate
1249: and the renormalization factor $\EFT{2}{Z_\kappa}$ in the interval $``(2)"$
1250: between their masses appears.
1251: Approximating $\EFT{n}{Z_\kappa}$ by $1+\mathcal{A}\ln(M_n/M_{n+1})$
1252: we obtain for the light neutrinos
1253: %
1254: \begin{equation}
1255: \label{eq:tilde5}
1256: m_\nu^f = \frac{\braket{\phi}^2}{\braket{\sigma}^2}M_S^0 U_e^T \EFT{0}{Z_\kappa}Z_\mathrm{ext}^T
1257: \begin{pmatrix}
1258: 1 & 0 & 0 \\
1259: ... & x\left(1+\mathcal{A}\right) m^\mathrm{th}_{22} &
1260: 1+\mathcal{A} m^\mathrm{th}_{23}\\
1261: ... & ... & \mathcal{A} m^\mathrm{th}_{33}
1262: \end{pmatrix}
1263: Z_\mathrm{ext} U_e \; ,
1264: \end{equation}
1265: where the threshold dependent corrections, $m_{ij}^\mathrm{th}$, equal
1266: \begin{align}
1267: m^\mathrm{th}_{22}=&-3\ln\lambda+\left(\frac{1}{2}-\frac{\lambda^2}{x^2y}\right)\ln\frac{y-1}{y+1}~,\nonumber\\
1268: m^\mathrm{th}_{23}=&-3\ln\lambda+\frac{1}{2y}\ln\frac{y-1}{y+1}~,\label{eq:PerturbMS}\\
1269: m^\mathrm{th}_{33}=&\frac{1}{xy}\ln\frac{y-1}{y+1}~.\nonumber
1270: \end{align}
1271: Here $y\equiv\sqrt{1+4\left(\frac{\lambda}{x}\right)^2}$ and
1272: $\lambda \equiv y_2/y_3$. (The logarithms depend on the ratios on the RH neutrino masses $M_2/M_3$.)
1273:
1274: The nonzero 3-3 element is generated in eq.~(\ref{eq:tilde5})
1275: by the radiative corrections.
1276: Furthermore, this element can be enhanced by small parameter $x$ in the denominator, provided that
1277: $\lambda$ is also small enough.
1278: Indeed, from eq.~\eqref{eq:PerturbMS} we find explicitly
1279: \begin{equation}
1280: (m_\nu)_{33} =
1281: \left\{\begin{aligned}
1282: \frac{2\mathcal{A}}{x} \ln\frac{\lambda}{x}, \quad\quad x \gg \lambda \\
1283: -\frac{1.26\mathcal{A}}{x}, \quad\quad x = 2 \lambda\\
1284: -\frac{\mathcal{A}x}{2\lambda^2}, \quad\quad x \ll \lambda\\
1285: \end{aligned}\right.
1286: \end{equation}
1287: Since $\mathcal{A} \sim 10^{-2}$, the 3-3 element can be of the order 1 or even more
1288: if, {\it e.g.}, $\lambda \ll x < 10^{-2}$.
1289: Thus, a quasi-degenerate $M_S$ with nearly
1290: maximal 2-3 mixing leads after (non-supersymmetric) renormalization
1291: group corrections to the hierarchical mass matrix $m_{\nu}$ with small mixing.
1292: The texture (\ref{eq:text2}) is not stable against quantum corrections,
1293: since the structure of $m_{\nu}$ strongly differs from the original
1294: structure of $M_S$.
1295:
1296: This example shows that radiative corrections
1297: can substantially modify the original texture of $M_S$ in the
1298: light neutrino mass matrix for particular $M_S$.
1299: In other words, radiative corrections
1300: may destroy screening.
1301:
1302:
1303: Apparently the corrections are small if $\lambda \ll x \sim 1$. This corresponds to
1304: phenomenologically important case of the dominant 2-3 block:
1305: \begin{equation}
1306: \label{eq:text4}
1307: M_S = M_S^0\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
1308: \epsilon & 0 & 0\\
1309: 0 & x & 1\\
1310: 0 & 1 & x\\
1311: \end{array}
1312: \right) \;
1313: \end{equation}
1314: with $x \sim 1$ and $\epsilon \ll 1$.
1315:
1316:
1317: In the supersymmetric version of model screening is stable, since there are no
1318: d=5 operator corrections due to non-renormalization theorem.
1319: Note also that exact off-diagonal structures of $M_S$ are stable,
1320: but small perturbations are unstable with respect to radiative corrections.
1321:
1322: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1323: \subsection{Neutrino symmetry}
1324: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1325:
1326: The mass matrix $M_S$ of the singlets $S$ has no analogy in the quark
1327: sector, and general, it is not related to the quark mass matrices.
1328: Furthermore, $M_S$ is generated at a higher scale, than the GUT scale.
1329: Therefore it is possible that $M_S$ has certain symmetry which does not
1330: show up (or is broken) at lower scales. If screening is realized as
1331: discussed in this paper, this symmetry propagates immediately
1332: to the light neutrino sector. $M_S$ can therefore be the origin
1333: of a specific ``neutrino symmetry'' which is not seen in the quark
1334: and in the charged lepton sectors. So, screening allows us to reconcile special
1335: ``neutrino'' symmetry~\CiteMuTauSymm\ and the quark-lepton symmetry.
1336:
1337: The examples considered in sec.~\ref{sec:quasidegen} illustrate this possibility, since the
1338: matrices (\ref{eq:unit},\ref{eq:triang},\ref{eq:mat-t2})
1339: have certain symmetries. These symmetries are protected from large
1340: corrections in the supersymmetric case, while they can be strongly broken
1341: in the non-supersymmetric versions, or when some other interactions and fields beyond
1342: the SM or MSSM exist.
1343:
1344: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1345: \subsection{Quark-lepton complementarity}
1346: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1347:
1348: According to the quark--lepton complementarity
1349: relation~\CiteQLC,
1350: the lepton mixing is given by maximal mixing minus the quark mixing.
1351: This may imply an existence of certain structure in the lepton sector
1352: which generates maximal (bi-maximal) mixing and the quark-lepton
1353: symmetry in some form. In models with screening mechanism,
1354: the mass matrix $M_S$
1355: which has no analogy in the quark sector,
1356: can be the origin of the bi-maximal mixing. Then the CKM type mixing follows from
1357: the charged lepton mass matrix which is related to the mass matrix of
1358: the down quarks, so that $U_e = U_{CKM}$. In the lowest order
1359: (without radiative corrections) we find from eq.~(\ref{eq:flavb})
1360: %
1361: \begin{equation}
1362: \label{eq:compl}
1363: m_\nu^f =
1364: \left[\frac{\braket{\phi}}{\braket{\sigma}}\right]^2 U_e^T M_S U_e =
1365: \left[\frac{\braket{\phi}}{\braket{\sigma}}\right]^2 U_{CKM}^T
1366: U_{bm}^* M_S^{diag}U_{bm}^\dagger U_{CKM},
1367: \end{equation}
1368: where $U_{bm} \equiv R_{23}^{m} \times R_{12}^{m}$
1369: is the bi-maximal mixing matrix and $R_{ij}^{m}$ are
1370: the $\pi/4$-rotations in the
1371: $({ij})$ planes. So, the leptonic
1372: mixing matrix
1373: equals $U_{PMNS} = U_{CKM}^\dagger U_{bm}$. This
1374: realizes the so called
1375: ``neutrino scenario'' which leads to deviations from the exact quark-lepton
1376: complementarity relation~\cite{Minakata:2004xt}.
1377:
1378: The bi-maximal mixing is produced by the mass
1379: matrix~\CiteBiMax
1380: \begin{equation*}
1381: M_S^\mathrm{bimax}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
1382: D-C & B & -B \\
1383: ... & D & C\\
1384: ... & ... & D\\
1385: \end{array}\right) \; ,
1386: \end{equation*}
1387: where $B, C, D$ are arbitrary parameters. As we have found in section~\ref{sec:perturbMS} in
1388: the non-supersymmetric case, such a matrix may be unstable with respect to
1389: radiative corrections: the d=5 operator corrections
1390: can, in particular, suppress the maximal 2-3 mixing.
1391: This can be easily seen for vanishing $B$ and small $D$, when
1392: $M_S$ reduces to a triangular structure which is not stable under radiative
1393: corrections, as we have shown in sec.~\ref{sec:perturbMS}.
1394:
1395: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1396: \subsection{Singular $M_S$\label{sec:singular}}
1397: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1398:
1399: Let us consider the special case of singular
1400: $M_S$, $\det M_S = 0$, which can be a consequence of
1401: certain symmetry in $S$ sector.
1402: Now one can not use immediately
1403: (\ref{eq:DoubleSeeSaw}) and the whole double seesaw mass matrix should
1404: be considered. In what follows we will show that the tree-level
1405: mass matrix of light neutrinos is still proportional to $M_S$, that is,
1406: eq.~(\ref{eq:DoubleSeeSaw}) will hold even if $M_S$ is singular.
1407: For this we will compare the light neutrino mass spectra in the lowest
1408: approximation found from the whole double seesaw matrix $\mathcal{M}$
1409: and from the matrix $m_\nu$ after decoupling of the heavy degrees of
1410: freedom in eq.~(\ref{eq:DoubleSeeSaw}).
1411:
1412: According to
1413: eq.~(\ref{eq:DoubleSeeSaw}) the condition $\det M_S = 0$ implies (at least one)
1414: zero eigenvalue in the spectrum of usual LH neutrinos. The same follows from the complete matrix.
1415: Indeed,
1416: $$
1417: \det\mathcal{M} = - \left(\det Y\right)^2\det M_S = 0,
1418: $$
1419: and hence, zero eigenvalue of $M_S$ leads to a massless eigenstate of
1420: $\mathcal{M}$. The non-zero eigenvalues of the matrix $m_\nu$ , $\xi_i$,
1421: coincide with the eigenvalues of the full matrix $\mathcal{M}$ up to
1422: corrections of the order $\braket{\phi}/\braket{\sigma}$. This can be
1423: seen by inserting $\xi_i$ in the characteristic polynomial of the
1424: complete matrix $\chi_{\mathcal{M}}\left[\lambda\right]$.
1425: The result is of order
1426: $\cal{O}$ $\left(\left(\braket{\phi}/\braket{\sigma}\right)^8 \right)\sim 0$.
1427: Hence, $\xi_i$ are to a very good approximation the eigenvalues of
1428: $\mathcal{M}$.
1429:
1430: There are no other light states, because the expansion of the polynomial
1431: $$
1432: \chi_{\mathcal{M}}\left[\lambda\right] \prod_i
1433: \left(\lambda - \xi_i\right)^{-1},
1434: $$
1435: in eigenvalues of the order $\braket{\phi}$ does not yield any new
1436: solutions. All other eigenvalues are at least of the order
1437: $\Ord{\braket{\sigma}^2/M_S}$.
1438:
1439: A peculiarity of the spectrum of $\mathcal{M}$ is the appearance of one
1440: heavy Dirac particle, if the eigenstate of $M_S$ with zero mass, $S$,
1441: couples to only one right-handed neutrino $N$. This Dirac particle is
1442: formed by $S$ and $N$.
1443:
1444: The mass spectrum can be easily obtained if
1445: $M_S=\diag\left(M_{S1},~ M_{S2},~ 0\right)$ in the basis where
1446: $Y_N=\diag\left(y_1,\,y_2,\,y_3\right)$. Apart from one zero mass
1447: which corresponds mainly to $\nu_3$,
1448: and two super heavy eigenvalues $M_{S1}$ and $M_{S2}$ for two singlets
1449: $S$, we find
1450: \begin{equation*}
1451: m_1 = M_{S1}\frac{\braket{\phi}^2}{\braket{\sigma}^2},~~
1452: m_2 = M_{S2} \frac{\braket{\phi}^2}{\braket{\sigma}^2}, ~~
1453: M_1 = -\frac{y_1^2 \braket{\sigma}^2}{M_{S1}}, ~~
1454: M_2 = -\frac{y_1^2 \braket{\sigma}^2}{M_{S2}}, ~~
1455: M_{DS} = y_3 \braket{\sigma},
1456: \end{equation*}
1457: that is, two light neutrinos predominantly
1458: given by $\nu_{1,2}$ with masses $m_1$ and $m_2$,
1459: two heavy neutrinos mostly consisting of $N_{1,2}$ with masses $M_1$ and $M_2$
1460: and one heavy Dirac particle of the GUT scale mass $M_{DS}$ which is formed
1461: by $N_3$ and $S_3$.
1462: The light eigenstates are mainly composed of the left-handed neutrinos
1463: and the mixing with other neutral leptons is the order
1464: $\Ord{\braket{\phi}/\braket{\sigma}}$.
1465:
1466: The coincidence of the spectrum of $m_\nu$ and the spectrum of light
1467: states of $\mathcal{M}$ is related essentially to the fact that the
1468: relation between $m_\nu$ and $M_S$ is linear, and the characteristic
1469: polynomial is linear in the eigenvalues for the non-degenerate case.
1470: The same conclusion holds for $M_S$ with two zero eigenvalues.
1471:
1472:
1473: Let us consider the effect of radiative corrections for this singular case.
1474: As long as all contributions to a Majorana mass matrix $m_\nu$ receive the same quantum corrections, the RG
1475: evolution does not generate non-zero masses from vanishing
1476: masses~\cite{Chankowski:2001mx}.
1477: However, between the mass thresholds of the RH neutrinos,
1478: there are two contributions from the decoupling of the RH neutrinos
1479: which are renormalized differently. One contribution is due to the d=5 operator
1480: decoupled and the other is due to the contribution of the RH neutrinos which are not
1481: decoupled yet ($Y_\nu M_N^{-1} Y_\nu^T$) in the intervals $M_2 - M_3$ and $M_1 - M_2$. Hence,
1482: the generated mass is proportional to the additional renormalization factor $\delta Z_\kappa$
1483: from the d=5 operator between the thresholds and the mismatch between
1484: the two mass contributions, {\it i.e.} the deviation of the unitary matrix
1485: transforming from the eigenbasis of the d=5 operator to the eigenbasis
1486: of $Y_\nu M^{-1} Y_\nu^T$ between the thresholds from
1487: the unit matrix (See sec.~4 in~\cite{Antusch:2005gp}.).
1488: In the supersymmetric version, all contributions to the Majorana mass matrix
1489: receive the same quantum corrections, and hence zero mass eigenvalues remain zero.
1490:
1491:
1492: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1493: \section{Screening, Grand Unification and flavor symmetry\label{sec:GUT}}
1494: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1495:
1496: Let us discuss the possible origin of the
1497: screening structure which results from the mass matrix (\ref{eq:matrix})
1498: together with the condition~(\ref{eq:relation}). The texture of the
1499: matrix ~(\ref{eq:matrix}) with zero 1-1, 1-3, and 2-2 blocks can
1500: be obtained, {\it e.g.}, assigning the lepton numbers
1501: \begin{equation*}
1502: L(\nu) = L(S) = 1, ~~~L(N) = -1, ~~~ L(\phi) = 0, ~~~ L(\sigma) = 0
1503: \end{equation*}
1504: so that the lepton numbers of the blocks in the mass matrix (\ref{eq:matrix})
1505: equal
1506: \begin{equation}
1507: \label{eq:matrixL}
1508: L(\mathcal{M}) = \left(
1509: \begin{array}{ccc}
1510: 2 & 0 & 2\\
1511: 0 & -2 & 0\\
1512: 2 & 0 & 2\\
1513: \end{array}
1514: \right)\; .
1515: \end{equation}
1516: %
1517: Then the texture (\ref{eq:matrix}) appears if the lepton number is
1518: only broken by the Majorana mass terms of $S$. The lepton number can
1519: be broken explicitly or spontaneously by the VEV of the new scalar
1520: field $\rho$ which has the lepton number $L(\rho) = - 2$ and couples
1521: with $S$ only: $S^T Y_S S \rho$. (The coupling of Majoron with the SM fields in negligible.)
1522: The interaction
1523: $\nu^T S \rho$ is forbidden by the gauge symmetry. The possible
1524: non-renormalized term
1525: \begin{equation*}
1526: \frac{1}{M_{Pl}} L S \phi \rho
1527: \end{equation*}
1528: gives negligible effects due to small VEV $\braket{\phi}$. The coupling
1529: of $\rho$ with $\nu$ is also forbidden by the gauge symmetry. The term
1530: $NN \rho$ is absent in the supersymmetric version due to holomorphy.
1531:
1532: In the non-supersymmetric version or if also the left
1533: superfield $\rho^c$ exists, an extended gauge symmetry can forbid the
1534: 2-2 entry. Indeed, in left-right symmetric models $N$ enters
1535: the doublet of $SU(2)_R$ and the 2-2 block has gauge charge
1536: (1,3). The corresponding mass term appears once the Higgs triplet
1537: $\Delta_R$ exists.
1538:
1539: The whole texture (\ref{eq:matrix}) can be a consequence of the gauge
1540: symmetry. Let us consider the $SU(2)_L\times SU(2)_R \times U(1)$ symmetry~\CiteLR.
1541: The $[SU(2)_L, SU(2)_R]$ gauge properties of the mass matrix elements are
1542: \begin{equation}
1543: \label{eq:matrixG}
1544: G(\mathcal{M}) = \left(
1545: \begin{array}{ccc}
1546: [3,1] & [2,2] & [2,1]\\
1547: ... & [1,3] & [1,2]\\
1548: ... & ... & [1,1]\\
1549: \end{array}
1550: \right)\; .
1551: \end{equation}
1552: The required matrix structure is generated if the Higgs bi-doublet
1553: with the electroweak VEV, the RH doublet with GU-scale VEV and the
1554: singlet with $M_{Pl}$ scale VEV exist. No particular lepton number
1555: prescription is needed.
1556:
1557: In the context of SO(10)~\CiteSOten, $\nu$ and $N$ belong to the 16-plet and
1558: $S$ is a singlet. The required texture can be generated by the
1559: following Yukawa interactions:
1560: %
1561: \begin{equation}
1562: \label{eq:so10}
1563: Y_{\nu}~ {\bf 16} \times {\bf 16} \times {\bf 10}_H +
1564: Y_N~ {\bf 16} \times {\bf 1} \times {\bf \overline{16}}_H
1565: + Y_S~ {\bf 1}\times {\bf 1} \times {\bf 1}_H ,
1566: \end{equation}
1567: %
1568: where ${\bf 10}_H$, ${\bf \overline{16}}_H$, and ${\bf 1}_H$ are the
1569: Higgs multiplets. To generate matrix (\ref{eq:matrix})
1570: ${\bf 10}_H$ should acquire the electroweak VEV,
1571: ${\bf \overline{16}}_H$ - the GU scale VEV in $N$ ($SU_5$ singlet)
1572: direction and ${\bf 1}_H$ - the Planck scale VEV.
1573:
1574: The interactions (\ref{eq:so10}) do not produce quark mixing, and the Dirac
1575: masses of quarks and leptons are equal at the GUT scale.
1576: So, realistic model should contain some additional sources of the
1577: fermion masses which may, in general, destroy screening.
1578: For instance, one can introduce $126$-plet of Higgses. Then
1579: VEVs of 126-plet in the ``triplet'' directions
1580: will generate the 1-1 and 2-2 blocks and therefore should be small
1581: enough. An alternative is the non-renormalizable interactions of the
1582: type ${\bf 16} \times {\bf 16} \times {\bf 16}_H \times {\bf 16}_H /M_{Pl}$. \\
1583:
1584: Apparently, the interactions (\ref{eq:so10}) do not lead to relation (\ref{eq:relation}).
1585: The equality or proportionality of the Yukawa couplings (\ref{eq:relation}) can
1586: appear due to
1587: \begin{itemize}
1588: \item
1589: further unification of $\nu$ and $S$;
1590: \item
1591: certain flavor symmetry.
1592: \end{itemize}
1593: %
1594: Let us comment on these two possibilities.
1595:
1596: 1). The neutral leptons $\nu$, $N$ and $S$, can be embedded
1597: into a single representation $\irrep{27}$ of the gauge symmetry group
1598: $E_6$~\CiteESix.
1599: Notice that in this case there are two additional neutral leptons in each
1600: generation: $S'$ and $S''$. The screening structure - the matrix
1601: (\ref{eq:matrix}) with the equality (\ref{eq:relation}) can be
1602: generated by the couplings
1603: \begin{equation}
1604: Y_{27}~ {\irrep{27}}\times {\irrep{27}}\times {\irrep{27}}_H +
1605: Y_{351_S}~ {\irrep{27}}\times {\irrep{27}}\times
1606: \left({\irrep{351_S}}\right)_H
1607: +
1608: Y_{351_A}~ {\irrep{27}}\times {\irrep{27}}\times \left({\irrep{351_A}}\right)_H\; ,
1609: \end{equation}
1610: where the 27-plet as well as the symmetric and antisymmetric 351-plets of Higgses are introduced.
1611:
1612: In terms of the maximal subgroup
1613: $\SU(3)_L\times\SU(3)_R\times\SU(3)_C\subset E_6$, the leptons transform as
1614: $L\sim\left(\irrep{\overline{3}},\, \irrep{3},\, \irrep{1}\right)$.
1615: The $\left(\SU(3)\right)^3$ assignment of the neutral leptons is
1616: $$
1617: \nu\sim L_3^{\dot{2}},\, ~N\sim L_2^{\dot{3}},\,~
1618: S \sim L_3^{\dot{3}},\, ~S'\sim L_1^{\dot{1}} ,\, ~S''\sim L_2^{\dot{2}}.
1619: $$
1620: The neutral components of Higgs multiplets $H$, $H_A$ and $H_S$ which can
1621: acquire VEVs belong to
1622: \begin{align*}
1623: H \subset \left(\irrep{\overline{3}},\, \irrep{3},\, \irrep{1}\right) \subset &\;
1624: {\irrep{27}}_H \\
1625: H_S \subset \left(\irrep{\overline{3}},\, \irrep{3},\, \irrep{1}\right)+\left(\irrep{6},\, \irrep{\overline{6}},\,
1626: \irrep{1}\right) \subset &\;\left({\irrep{351_S}}\right)_H\\
1627: H_A \subset \left(\irrep{\overline{3}},\, \irrep{3},\, \irrep{1}\right)+\left(\irrep{\overline{3}},\, \irrep{\overline{6}},\, \irrep{1}\right)+\left(\irrep{6},\, \irrep{3},\, \irrep{1}\right) \subset &\;\left({\irrep{351_A}}\right)_H\; .
1628: \end{align*}
1629: %
1630: The Higgs multiplets $H$ and $H_A$ generate the Dirac structure\footnote{The
1631: ${\irrep{27}}_H$ and $\left({\irrep{351_A}}\right)_H$ can not generate
1632: Majorana mass terms because the corresponding Yukawa interactions
1633: has to be antisymmetric in the $\SU(3)$ indices.} and the Majorana mass
1634: terms are generated by $H_S$~\cite{Stech:2003sb}.
1635:
1636: Notice that it is not possible to get a Dirac mass term of $S =
1637: L^{\dot{3}}_3$ with $N = L^{\dot{3}}_2$, using ${\irrep{27}}_H$ Higgs multiplet due to
1638: antisymmetric (in SU(3) indices) interactions.
1639: The symmetric Higgs representation $\left({\irrep{351_S}}\right)_H$ can generate all
1640: mass terms of neutral leptons required for screening.
1641: Indeed, the VEVs of $H_{\{\dot{2}\dot{3}\}}^{\{23\}}$
1642: and $H_{\{\dot{2}\dot{3}\}}^{\{33\}}$
1643: can be of order of the electroweak scale and of the $\SU(2)_R$ breaking scale correspondingly.
1644: Also its $H_{\{\dot{3}\dot{3}\}}^{\{33\}}$ component generates the Majorana
1645: mass of $S$. However, with a single $\left({\irrep{351_S}}\right)_H$, the structure of matrix
1646: $M_S$ will be the same as the structure of the Dirac mass matrices.
1647: One can introduce a second $\left({\irrep{351_S}}\right)_H$ which produces the mass matrix
1648: of $S$ of different structure.
1649:
1650: Another more promising possibility is
1651: to use the antisymmetric $\left({\irrep{351_A}}\right)_H$ Higgs multiplet which can
1652: generate all necessary Dirac matrices.
1653: It does not produce the Majorana masses of $S$ which can be done using
1654: $\left({\irrep{351_S}}\right)_H$ so that the structure of $M_S$ is different from that of Dirac
1655: structures.
1656:
1657: The following VEVs of the $\left({\irrep{351_A}}\right)_H$ and $\left({\irrep{351_S}}\right)_H$
1658: components~\footnote{The upper indices are $\SU(3)_L$ indices in the
1659: fundamental ($\irrep{3}$) representation and the lower
1660: ones belong to $\SU(3)_R$. The $\irrep{6}$ of $\SU(3)$ is represented by symmetric
1661: $3\times3$ matrices and described by 2 symmetrized indices. Dotted indices
1662: belong to the complex conjugate representation ($\irrep{\overline{3}}$). Flavor indices are
1663: suppressed.}
1664: \begin{align*}
1665: \braket{\left(H_A\right)_1^{\dot{1}}} \simeq&\; \Ord{\SU(2)_L\; \mathrm{breaking\;scale}}\\
1666: \braket{\left(H_A\right)_1^{\{33\}}}\simeq&\;\Ord{\SU(2)_R\; \mathrm{breaking\;scale}}\\
1667: \braket{\left(H_S\right)^{\{33\}}_{\{\dot{3}\dot{3}\}}}\simeq\braket{\left(H_A\right)_3^{\dot{3}}}\simeq&\;\Ord{\SU(3)_L\times\SU(3)_R\; \mathrm{breaking\;scale}}
1668: \end{align*}
1669: lead to the double seesaw.
1670: Indeed, in the basis
1671: $\left( \nu,\, N,\,S ,\, S',\, S''\right)$ they generate mass matrix
1672: %%
1673: \begin{equation}
1674: \label{eq:nLEsix}
1675: \left(\begin{array}{ccccc}
1676: 0 & -Y_{351_A} \braket{\left(H_A\right)_1^{\dot{1}}} & 0& 0& 0 \\
1677: \dots & 0 & -Y_{351_A}\braket{\left(H_A\right)_1^{\{33\}}} & 0 &0 \\
1678: \dots & \dots & Y_{351_S}
1679: \braket{\left(H_S\right)^{\{33\}}_{\{\dot{3}\dot{3}\}}} & Y_{351_A} \braket{\left(H_A\right)_1^{\dot{1}}}& 0\\
1680: \dots & \dots & \dots & 0 & Y_{351_A} \braket{\left(H_A\right)_3^{\dot{3}}}\\
1681: \dots & \dots & \dots & \dots & 0 \\
1682: \end{array}
1683: \right)\;
1684: \end{equation}
1685: with the required structure for $\nu$, $N$ and $S$.
1686: In addition to the mass spectrum of the double seesaw, there is one pseudo-Dirac
1687: particle formed by $S'$ and $S''$ with
1688: a mass of the order of the $\SU(3)_L\times\SU(3)_R$ breaking scale.
1689:
1690: Notice that interactions with ${\irrep{27}}_H$ Higgs multiplet can be used to
1691: generate sub-leading effects, correcting the masses of quarks and
1692: producing some deviation from complete screening if needed. Furthermore, as the
1693: VEVs of components contributing to the 1-3 and 2-2 element break $\SU(2)_L$ invariance,
1694: they can only lead to entries of the order of the electroweak scale.
1695:
1696:
1697: %% 1). The neutral leptons $\nu$, $N$ and $S$, can be embedded
1698: %% into a single representation $\irrep{27}$ of the gauge symmetry group
1699: %% $E_6$~\CiteESix.
1700: %% Notice that in this case there are two additional neutral leptons in each
1701: %% generation: $S'$ and $S''$. The screening structure - the matrix
1702: %% (\ref{eq:matrix}) with equality (\ref{eq:relation}) can be
1703: %% generated by the couplings
1704: %% \begin{equation}
1705: %% Y_{27}~ {\irrep{27}}\times {\irrep{27}}\times {\irrep{27}}_H +
1706: %% Y_{351_S}~ {\irrep{27}}\times {\irrep{27}}\times \left({\irrep{351_S}}\right)_H\; ,
1707: %% \end{equation}
1708: %% where 27- and symmetric 351-plets of Higgses are introduced.
1709:
1710: %% In terms of the maximal subgroup
1711: %% $\SU(3)_L\times\SU(3)_R\times\SU(3)_C\subset E_6$, the leptons transform as
1712: %% $L\sim\left(\irrep{\overline{3}},\, \irrep{3},\, \irrep{1}\right)$, and
1713: %% the neutral components of Higgs multiplets $H$ and $H_S$ which can
1714: %% acquire VEVs belong to
1715: %% \begin{align*}
1716: %% H \subset \left(\irrep{\overline{3}},\, \irrep{3},\, \irrep{1}\right) \subset
1717: %% {\irrep{27}}_H \\
1718: %% H_S \subset \left(\irrep{\overline{3}},\, \irrep{3},\, \irrep{1}\right)+\left(\irrep{6},\, \irrep{\overline{6}},\,
1719: %% \irrep{1}\right) \subset \left({\irrep{351_S}}\right)_H.
1720: %% \end{align*}
1721: %% %
1722: %% $H$ generates the Dirac structure\footnote{The
1723: %% ${\irrep{27}}_H$ can not generate Majorana mass terms because the mass term
1724: %% has to be antisymmetric in the $\SU(3)$ indices.} and the Majorana mass
1725: %% terms are generated by $H_S$~\cite{Stech:2003sb}.
1726:
1727: %% If all neutral components of $H$ and
1728: %% the components\footnote{The upper indices are $\SU(3)_L$ indices in the
1729: %% fundamental ($\irrep{3}$) representation and the lower
1730: %% ones belong to $\SU(3)_R$. The $\irrep{6}$ of $\SU(3)$ is represented by symmetric
1731: %% $3\times3$ matrices and described by 2 symmetrized indices. Dotted indices
1732: %% belong to the complex conjugate representation ($\irrep{\overline{3}}$). Flavor indices are
1733: %% suppressed.} $\left(H_S\right)^{\{ii\}}_{\{\dot{i}\dot{i}\}}$, $i=1,2,3$ of $H_S$ acquire
1734: %% VEVs, the following mass matrix of the neutral leptons is generated in the basis
1735: %% $(\nu, N, S, S', S'')$:
1736: %% \begin{equation}
1737: %% \label{eq:nLEsix}
1738: %% \left(\begin{array}{ccccc}
1739: %% 0 & -Y_{27} \braket{H_1^{\dot{1}}} & - Y_{27} \braket{H_2^{\dot{3}}} & 0 & 0 \\
1740: %% \dots & 0 &-Y_{27}\braket{H_2^{\dot{3}}} & 0 & 0 \\
1741: %% \dots & \dots & Y_{351_S} \braket{\left(H_S\right)^{\{11\}}_{\{\dot{1}\dot{1}\}}} & Y_{27} \braket{H_3^{\dot{3}}} & Y_{27} \braket{H_2^{\dot{2}}}\\
1742: %% \dots & \dots & \dots & Y_{351_S} \braket{\left(H_S\right)^{\{22\}}_{\{\dot{2}\dot{2}\}}} & Y_{27} \braket{H_1^{\dot{1}}}\\
1743: %% \dots & \dots & \dots & \dots & Y_{351_S}
1744: %% \braket{\left(H_S\right)^{\{33\}}_{\{\dot{3}\dot{3}\}}} \\
1745: %% \end{array}
1746: %% \right) \; .
1747: %% \end{equation}
1748: %% The $SU(3)^3$ assignment of the basis is
1749: %% $\left[ \nu=L_3^{\dot{2}},\, N=L_2^{\dot{3}},\, S \approx L_1^{\dot{1}} ,\, S'= L_2^{\dot{2}},\,
1750: %% S'' = L_3^{\dot{3}}\right]$.
1751:
1752: %% The matrix (\ref{eq:nLEsix}) can be reduced to the original form
1753: %% (\ref{eq:matrix}) after diagonalization of the sub-matrix in the
1754: %% space $(S, S', S'')$. The corresponding rotation is small
1755: %% since $\braket{H_S} \gg \braket{H}$. We assume that VEVs of the
1756: %% fields which belong to $\left(\irrep{351_S}\right)_H$ (the Planck scale)
1757: %% are much larger than those of ${\irrep{27}}_H$ (the GU scale).
1758: %% The corrections to the 1-3 and 2-3 blocks of matrix (\ref{eq:nLEsix})
1759: %% are flavor blind due to zeros in (\ref{eq:nLEsix}): the rotation leads just to small overall
1760: %% renormalization of the corresponding Yukawa couplings, which does not destroy
1761: %% screening.
1762: %% To obtain the structure of eq.~\eqref{eq:matrix}, the VEVs
1763: %% $\braket{H_1^{\dot{1}}}$ and $\braket{H_3^{\dot{2}}}$
1764: %% have to be of the electroweak scale and $\braket{H_2^{\dot{3}}}$ has to be
1765: %% of the order of the GUT scale, and
1766: %% $\braket{\left(\irrep{351_S}\right)_H} \sim M_{Pl}$.
1767:
1768:
1769:
1770: 2). The equality of the Yukawa matrices (\ref{eq:relation}) can be a
1771: consequence of certain flavor symmetry (See
1772: reviews~\cite{King:2003jb,Altarelli:2004za} and references therein.). It implies that
1773: the flavor charges of $\nu$ and $S$ are equal and the flavor symmetry uniquely
1774: determines the Yukawa couplings of these components with $N$.
1775: For this to happen, the flavor symmetry should be non-Abelian.
1776:
1777: In the Froggatt-Nielsen (F-N) approach~\cite{Froggatt:1978nt} with U(1) flavor symmetry
1778: (and in SO(10) context) we can write
1779: \begin{equation}
1780: \label{eq:fn}
1781: \left(Z_{ab} {\bf 16}_a \times {\bf 16}_b \times {\bf 10}_H +
1782: Z_{ab}'{\bf 16}_a {\bf 1}_b \times {\bf \overline{16}}_H \right)
1783: \left(\frac{H_{FN}}{M_{FN}} \right)^{q_a + q_b},
1784: \end{equation}
1785: where $H_{FN}$ is the F-N scalar with $U(1)$ charge -1,
1786: $M_f$ is the scale where the operators (\ref{eq:fn}) are formed and
1787: $q_a$ are the $U(1)$ charges of fermionic fields ${\bf 16}_a$.
1788: $Z_{ab}$ and $Z_{ab}'$ are supposed to be couplings of the order 1, but
1789: for screening to work one needs to impose an additional proportionality condition
1790: $Z_{ab} = c Z_{ab}'$ ($c = const$). \\
1791:
1792:
1793: Let us comment on a completely different possibility. If $S$ belongs to the
1794: 16-plet and $N$ is the singlet of SO(10), the required equality
1795: of the Yukawa couplings (\ref{eq:relation}) is automatically reproduced.
1796: The screening structure can be generated by interactions
1797: \begin{equation}
1798: \label{eq:so10b}
1799: Y {\bf 16} \times {\bf 1} \times {\bf \overline{16}}_H
1800: + Y_S~ {\bf 16}\times {\bf 16} \times {\bf \overline{126}}_H +
1801: Y_q {\bf 16} \times {\bf 16} \times {\bf 10}_H \; ,
1802: \end{equation}
1803: if ${\bf \overline{16}}_H$ has the electroweak VEV in the ``$\nu_L$'' direction and
1804: the GUT scale VEV in the ``$\nu_R$''
1805: direction,
1806: and ${\bf \overline{126}}_H$ has the Planck scale VEV in the direction of the
1807: SU(5) singlet. The last term in (\ref{eq:so10b}) gives the Dirac
1808: masses of quarks and leptons and also the Dirac mass term for $\nu$
1809: and $S$. The mass matrix generated by (\ref{eq:so10b}) equals
1810: \begin{equation}
1811: \label{eq:matrixD}
1812: \mathcal{M} = \left(
1813: \begin{array}{ccc}
1814: \sim 0 & Y \braket{{\bf \overline{16}}_H} & Y_q \braket{{\bf 10}_H} \\
1815: Y^T \braket{{\bf \overline{16}}_H}^T & \sim 0 & Y^T \braket{{\bf \overline{16}}_H}^T\\
1816: Y_q \braket{{\bf 10}_H} & Y \braket{{\bf \overline{126}}_H} & Y_S \braket{{\bf \overline{126}}_H}\\
1817: \end{array}
1818: \right)\; .
1819: \end{equation}
1820: The 126-plet can also contribute to the 1-1 and 1-3 blocks.
1821: However, now $Y_\nu$ and $Y_N$ are not related to
1822: the Dirac matrices of quarks, and the problem of screening does not
1823: exist from the beginning. The usual seesaw contribution due to
1824: Dirac matrices which are related to the quark mass matrices
1825: $Y_q$ is suppressed by large (Planck) scale.
1826: That is, here we deal with suppression and not screening of the Dirac structures.
1827: %
1828: Also in this case it would be more
1829: natural to identify the RH neutrino with $S$.
1830:
1831:
1832: \section{Conclusions\label{sec:conclusions}}
1833: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1834:
1835: 1). We studied screening of the Dirac flavor
1836: structure in the neutrino masses and mixings.
1837: Screening is realized in the context of double seesaw mechanism if the Dirac type
1838: Yukawa couplings of both seesaw steps are proportional to each other.
1839: %
1840: The flavor structure of the light neutrino mass matrix is
1841: determined (in lowest order) by the
1842: flavor structure of matrix $M_S$ - the Majorana mass matrix of new singlets at the Planck scale,
1843: while the Dirac flavor structure is completely screened.
1844: The scale of the neutrino masses is correctly determined by the
1845: scales involved in the double seesaw as $M_{Pl} v_{EW}^2/M_{GU}^2$.\\
1846:
1847:
1848: \noindent
1849: 2). The Planck-scale Majorana mass matrix $M_S$ violates lepton number, while at the
1850: same time it may have rich flavor symmetries. Screening translates
1851: these symmetries of $M_S$ directly into symmetries of $m_\nu$.
1852: The structure of $M_S$ can therefore be the origin of specific
1853: ``neutrino symmetries'' which do not show up in the quark sector.
1854: In particular, $M_S$ can be degenerate
1855: or quasi-degenerate leading (after the inclusion of radiative
1856: corrections) to a quasi-degenerate spectrum of light neutrinos.
1857: $M_S$, and consequently $m_\nu$, can also have certain
1858: symmetries which result in maximal 2-3 mixing and small 1-3 mixing.
1859: A very interesting possibility is that $M_S$ may have the
1860: bi-maximal structure which explains the quark-lepton complementarity.
1861: Screening allows therefore to reconcile the quark-lepton symmetry
1862: expressed as (approximate) equality of the Dirac mass matrices of
1863: quarks and leptons with the drastically different patterns of
1864: quark and lepton mixings.
1865: Thus the screening mechanism offers interesting possibilities in GUT
1866: model building. \\
1867:
1868: \noindent
1869: 3). The screening mechanism involves the cancellation of mass
1870: matrices which arise upon symmetry breaking at very different
1871: energy scales, namely the electroweak scale and the GUT scale.
1872: These matrices have different gauge properties leading to differences in the radiative corrections which
1873: can destroy screening. We studied stability of screening with
1874: respect to renormalization group effects.
1875:
1876: It has been found that screening
1877: is stable in the MSSM and the external renormalization of the
1878: effective d=5 operator can be small. This means that the structure
1879: of the light neutrino mass matrix is still mostly determined by
1880: $M_S$, with small radiative corrections after renormalization
1881: group running is included.
1882:
1883: In contrast, in the case of the SM,
1884: due to the d=5 operator corrections, the screening is unstable for
1885: certain structures of $M_S$. The form of the light neutrino mass
1886: matrix $m_\nu$ can differ strongly from that of $M_S$.
1887: This can, in fact, be used to explain some features of the
1888: light neutrinos via renormalization group effects. \\
1889:
1890:
1891: \noindent
1892: 4). Finally, the structure of the mass matrix (\ref{eq:matrix}) which leads to screening can
1893: be obtained using the lepton number or/and gauge symmetry.
1894: We outlined how screening could be realized in GUTs. The equality
1895: of the Dirac type Yukawa coupling matrices of $\nu$ and $N$ and
1896: of $S$ and $N$ can be a consequence of certain (horizontal)
1897: flavor symmetry or further unification of the fields.
1898: The latter can be realized, {\it e.g.}, within the framework of $E_6$ gauge models.
1899:
1900:
1901: \section*{Acknowledgment}
1902:
1903: The authors are grateful to B. Stech for valuable comments.
1904: The work of A.Yu.S. was supported by Alexander von Humboldt Foundation
1905: (the Humboldt Research Award). This work was also supported by the
1906: ``Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft'' in the
1907: ``Sonderforschungsbereich 375-95 f\"ur Astro-Teilchenphysik''
1908: and under project number RO-2516/3-1.
1909:
1910:
1911: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1912: \appendix
1913: \renewcommand{\theequation}{\thesection.\arabic{equation}}
1914: \setcounter{equation}{0}
1915: \section{Appendix\label{sec:renfactors}}
1916: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1917:
1918: We use GUT charge normalization for the hypercharge, {\it i.e.}
1919: $\frac{3}{5}\left(g_1^\mathrm{GUT}\right)^2=\left(g_1^\mathrm{SM}\right)^2$. The
1920: factors $Z$ describing the LL approximation are obtained from the counterterms
1921: in Ref.~\cite{Antusch:2002rr}.
1922:
1923:
1924: \subsection{SM\label{sec:appone}}
1925: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1926: In the SM extended by RH neutrinos, the wave function renormalization of the RH neutrinos is given by
1927: \begin{equation}
1928: \EFT{n}{Z_N}=\exp\left(\frac{1}{16\pi^2}\EFT{n}{Y_\nu^\dagger} \EFT{n}{Y_\nu}\ln\frac{M_n}{M_{n+1}}\right)\\
1929: \end{equation}
1930: and collecting the contributions from the renormalization of the
1931: left-handed doublets
1932: \begin{equation*}
1933: \beta^L_{Y_\nu}=\frac{1}{32\pi^2}\left(\EFT{n}{Y_\nu} \EFT{n}{Y_\nu^\dagger} +
1934: Y_eY_e^\dagger\right)\label{eq:ZL}\; ,
1935: \end{equation*}
1936: the Higgs doublet
1937: \begin{equation*}
1938: \beta_{Y_\nu}^\phi=\frac{1}{32\pi^2}\left(2 \tr\left(\EFT{n}{Y_\nu} \EFT{n}{Y_\nu^\dagger}
1939: +
1940: Y_eY_e^\dagger+3Y_uY_u^\dagger+3Y_dY_d^\dagger\right)-\frac{9}{10}g_1^2-\frac{9}{2}g_2^2\right)\; ,
1941: \end{equation*}
1942: and the vertex correction to $Y_\nu$
1943: \begin{equation*}
1944: \beta_{Y_\nu}^{Y_\nu}=-\frac{1}{8\pi^2}Y_eY_e^\dagger\label{eq:ZYnu}
1945: \end{equation*}
1946: the external renormalization in the effective theory with $n$ RH neutrinos yields
1947: \begin{multline}
1948: \EFT{n}{Z_\mathrm{ext}}=\exp\left(\frac{1}{32\pi^2}\left(\EFT{n}{Y_\nu}
1949: \EFT{n}{Y_\nu^\dagger} -3 Y_eY_e^\dagger+2 \tr\left(\EFT{n}{Y_\nu}
1950: \EFT{n}{Y_\nu^\dagger}+Y_eY_e^\dagger+3Y_uY_u^\dagger+3Y_dY_d^\dagger\right)\right.\right.\\
1951: \left.\left.-\frac{9}{10}g_1^2-\frac{9}{2}g_2^2\right)\ln\frac{M_n}{M_{n+1}}\right)\; .
1952: \end{multline}
1953: Neglecting the thresholds in the charged lepton sector and the quark sector, the
1954: expression for the external renormalization factor $Z_\mathrm{ext}^\mathrm{SM}$
1955: describing the total external renormalization can be further approximated to
1956: %
1957: \begin{multline}
1958: Z_\mathrm{ext}^\mathrm{SM} =
1959: \exp\left(\frac{1}{32\pi^2}\sum_{n=0}^3\left[\EFT{n}{Y_\nu}\EFT{n}{Y_\nu^\dagger} +
1960: 2\tr\left(\EFT{n}{Y_\nu} \EFT{n}{Y_\nu^\dagger}\right) \right]\ln\frac{M_n}{M_{n+1}}\right.\\
1961: \left.+\frac{1}{32\pi^2}\left[-3 Y_eY_e^\dagger+
1962: 2\tr\left(Y_eY_e^\dagger+3Y_uY_u^\dagger+3Y_dY_d^\dagger\right) -
1963: \frac{9}{10}g_1^2-\frac{9}{2}g_2^2\right]\ln\frac{\braket{\phi}}{\Lambda}\right).
1964: \end{multline}
1965: %
1966: Here for uniformity of presentation we have denoted
1967: \begin{equation*}
1968: M_0 \equiv \braket{\phi}, ~~~~ M_4 \equiv \Lambda\; .
1969: \end{equation*}
1970: %
1971: The renormalization effect due to the additional vertex corrections to the
1972: d=5 operator is given by
1973: \begin{equation}
1974: \EFT{n}{Z_{\kappa}}=\exp\left(\frac{1}{16\pi^2}\left(\lambda+\frac{9}{10}g_1^2+\frac{3}{2}g_2^2\right)\ln\frac{M_n}{M_{n+1}}\right) \; .
1975: \end{equation}
1976: %
1977: The mass of the right-handed neutrinos receives only corrections from the wave
1978: function renormalization to arbitrary loop order.
1979: %
1980:
1981: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1982: \subsection{MSSM\label{sec:apptwo}}
1983: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1984:
1985: In the MSSM extended by RH neutrinos, there are no vertex corrections due to the non-renormalization
1986: theorem and the wave function renormalization yields
1987: \begin{align}
1988: \EFT{n}{Z_L}=&\exp\left(\frac{1}{32\pi^2}\left(2Y_eY_e^\dagger+2\EFT{n}{Y_\nu}
1989: \EFT{n}{Y_\nu^\dagger}-\frac{3}{5}g_1^2-3 g_2^2 \right)\ln\frac{M_n}{M_{n+1}}\right)\\
1990: \EFT{n}{Z_N}=&\exp\left(\frac{1}{8\pi^2}\EFT{n}{Y_\nu^\dagger} \EFT{n}{Y_\nu}\ln\frac{M_n}{M_{n+1}}\right)\\
1991: %\EFT{n}{Z_S}=&1+\dots\ln\frac{M_n}{M_{n+1}\\
1992: \EFT{n}{Z_\phi}=&\exp\left(\frac{1}{32\pi^2}\left(\tr\left(6Y_uY_u^\dagger+2\EFT{n}{Y_\nu} \EFT{n}{Y_\nu^\dagger}\right)-
1993: \frac{3}{5}g_1^2-3g_2^2\right)\ln\frac{M_n}{M_{n+1}}\right)\; .%\\
1994: %\EFT{n}{Z_\sigma}=&1+\dots\ln\frac{M_n}{M_{n+1}\\\; ,
1995: \end{align}
1996: The external renormalization factor $Z_\mathrm{ext}^\mathrm{MSSM}$ is given
1997: by the product of the wave function renormalization of the left-handed doublet
1998: with the Higgs doublet
1999: \begin{equation}
2000: \EFT{n}{Z_\mathrm{ext}}=\EFT{n}{Z_L}\EFT{n}{Z_\phi}
2001: \end{equation}
2002: because the two wave function renormalization factors commute.
2003: %
2004: As the neutrino Yukawa couplings only change at the thresholds (up to 1 loop
2005: order), the external renormalization factor can be further approximated by
2006: \begin{multline}
2007: Z_\mathrm{ext}^\mathrm{MSSM}=\exp\left(\frac{1}{16\pi^2}\sum_{n=0}^3\left(\EFT{n}{Y_\nu}
2008: \EFT{n}{Y_\nu^\dagger} +
2009: \tr\left(\EFT{n}{Y_\nu}\EFT{n}{Y_\nu^\dagger}\right)\right)\ln\frac{M_n}{M_{n+1}}\right.\\
2010: \left. + \frac{1}{16\pi^2}\left(Y_eY_e^\dagger-\frac{3}{5}g_1^2-3 g_2^2
2011: +3\tr\left(Y_uY_u^\dagger\right)\right)\ln\frac{\braket{\phi}}{\Lambda}\right)\; .
2012: \end{multline}
2013:
2014:
2015: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2016: \end{fmffile}
2017:
2018: \clearpage
2019:
2020: %\bibliography{DoubleSeeSaw}
2021: %\bibliographystyle{TitleAndArxiv}
2022: %\bibliographystyle{plain}
2023:
2024:
2025: \providecommand{\bysame}{\leavevmode\hbox to3em{\hrulefill}\thinspace}
2026: \begin{thebibliography}{10}
2027:
2028: \bibitem{Pati:1974yy}
2029: J.~C. Pati and A.~Salam,
2030: \emph{Lepton number as the fourth color},
2031: Phys. Rev. \textbf{D10} (1974), 275.
2032:
2033: \bibitem{Georgi:1974sy}
2034: H.~Georgi and S.~L. Glashow,
2035: \emph{Unity of all elementary particle forces},
2036: Phys. Rev. Lett. \textbf{32} (1974), 438.
2037:
2038: \bibitem{SOten}
2039: %\bibitem{Georgi:1974my}
2040: H.~Georgi,
2041: \emph{The state of the art - gauge theories. (talk)},
2042: AIP Conf. Proc. \textbf{23} (1975), 575;
2043: %\bibitem{Fritzsch:1974nn}
2044: H.~Fritzsch and P.~Minkowski,
2045: \emph{Unified interactions of leptons and hadrons},
2046: Ann. Phys. \textbf{93} (1975), 193.
2047:
2048: \bibitem{ESix}
2049: %\bibitem{Gursey:1975ki}
2050: F.~Gursey, P.~Ramond, and P.~Sikivie,
2051: \emph{A universal gauge theory model based on E6},
2052: Phys. Lett. \textbf{B60} (1976), 177;
2053: %\bibitem{Achiman:1978vg}
2054: Y.~Achiman and B.~Stech,
2055: \emph{Quark lepton symmetry and mass scales in an E6 unified gauge model},
2056: Phys. Lett. \textbf{B77} (1978), 389;
2057: %\bibitem{Shafi:1978gg}
2058: Q.~Shafi,
2059: \emph{E(6) as a unifying gauge symmetry},
2060: Phys. Lett. \textbf{B79} (1978), 301;
2061: %\bibitem{Barbieri:1981yy}
2062: R.~Barbieri, D.~V. Nanopoulos, and A.~Masiero,
2063: \emph{Hierarchical fermion masses in E6},
2064: Phys. Lett. \textbf{B104} (1981), 194.
2065:
2066: \bibitem{Minkowski:1977sc}
2067: P.~Minkowski,
2068: \emph{mu $\to$ e gamma at a rate of one out of 1-billion muon decays?},
2069: Phys. Lett. \textbf{B67} (1977), 421.
2070:
2071: \bibitem{SeeSawmore}
2072: %\bibitem{Yanagida:1980}
2073: T.~Yanagida,
2074: \emph{Horizontal gauge symmetry and masses of neutrinos}, in
2075: \emph{Proceedings of the Workshop on The Unified Theory and the Baryon Number
2076: in the Universe} (O.~Sawada and A.~Sugamoto, eds.), KEK, Tsukuba, Japan,
2077: 1979, p.~95;
2078: %\bibitem{Glashow:1979vf}
2079: S.~L. Glashow,
2080: \emph{The future of elementary particle physics}, in
2081: \emph{Proceedings of the 1979 Carg{\`e}se Summer Institute on Quarks and
2082: Leptons} (M.~L{\'e}vy, J.-L. Basdevant, D.~Speiser, J.~Weyers, R.~Gastmans,
2083: and M.~Jacob, eds.), Plenum Press, New York, 1980, p.~687;
2084: %\bibitem{Gell-Mann:1980vs}
2085: M.~Gell-Mann, P.~Ramond, and R.~Slansky,
2086: \emph{Complex spinors and unified theories},
2087: in \emph{Supergravity} (P.~van Nieuwenhuizen and D.~Z. Freedman,
2088: eds.), North Holland, Amsterdam, 1979, p.~315;
2089: %\bibitem{PRLTA.44.912}
2090: R.~N. Mohapatra and G.~Senjanovi{\'c},
2091: \emph{Neutrino mass and spontaneous parity violation},
2092: Phys. Rev. Lett. \textbf{44} (1980), 912.
2093:
2094: \bibitem{Eidelman:2004wy}
2095: Particle Data Group, S.~Eidelman et~al.,
2096: \emph{Review of particle physics},
2097: Phys. Lett. \textbf{B592} (2004), 1.
2098:
2099: \bibitem{Strumia:2005tc}
2100: A.~Strumia and F.~Vissani,
2101: \emph{Implications of neutrino data circa 2005},
2102: (2005), hep-ph/0503246.
2103:
2104: \bibitem{MuTauSymm}
2105: %\bibitem{Fukuyama:1997ky}
2106: T.~Fukuyama and H.~Nishiura,
2107: \emph{Mass matrix of Majorana neutrinos},
2108: (1997), hep-ph/9702253;
2109: %\bibitem{Ma:2001mr}
2110: E.~Ma and M.~Raidal,
2111: \emph{Neutrino mass, muon anomalous magnetic moment, and lepton flavor nonconservation},
2112: Phys. Rev. Lett. \textbf{87} (2001), 011802, [hep-ph/0102255];
2113: %\bibitem{Lam:2001fb}
2114: C.~S. Lam,
2115: \emph{A 2-3 symmetry in neutrino oscillations},
2116: Phys. Lett. \textbf{B507} (2001), 214, [hep-ph/0104116];
2117: %\bibitem{Balaji:2001ex}
2118: K.~R.~S. Balaji, W.~Grimus, and T.~Schwetz,
2119: \emph{The solar LMA neutrino oscillation solution in the Zee model},
2120: Phys. Lett. \textbf{B508} (2001), 301, [hep-ph/0104035];
2121: %\bibitem{Harrison:2002et}
2122: P.~F. Harrison and W.~G. Scott,
2123: \emph{mu - tau reflection symmetry in lepton mixing and neutrino oscillations},
2124: Phys. Lett. \textbf{B547} (2002), 219, [hep-ph/0210197].
2125:
2126: \bibitem{Kleingrothaus:2004wj}
2127: H.~V. Klapdor-Kleingrothaus, I.~V. Krivosheina, A.~Dietz, and O.~Chkvorets,
2128: \emph{Search for neutrinoless double beta decay with
2129: enriched {Ge-76} in {Gran Sasso} 1990-2003},
2130: Phys. Lett. \textbf{B586} (2004), 198, [hep-ph/0404088].
2131:
2132: \bibitem{MuTauModels}
2133: %\bibitem{Kitabayashi:2002jd}
2134: T.~Kitabayashi and M.~Yasue,
2135: \emph{S(2L) permutation symmetry for left-handed mu and tau families
2136: and neutrino oscillations in an SU(3)L x U(1)N gauge model},
2137: Phys. Rev. \textbf{D67} (2003), 015006, [hep-ph/0209294];
2138: %\bibitem{Grimus:2003kq}
2139: W.~Grimus and L.~Lavoura,
2140: \emph{A discrete symmetry group for maximal atmospheric neutrino mixing},
2141: Phys. Lett. \textbf{B572} (2003), 189, [hep-ph/0305046];
2142: %\bibitem{Koide:2002cj}
2143: Y.~Koide, H.~Nishiura, K.~Matsuda, T.~Kikuchi, and T.~Fukuyama,
2144: \emph{Universal texture of quark and lepton mass matrices and a discrete symmetry Z(3)},
2145: Phys. Rev. \textbf{D66} (2002), 093006, [hep-ph/0209333];
2146: %\bibitem{Koide:2003rx}
2147: Y.~Koide,
2148: \emph{Universal texture of quark and lepton mass matrices with an
2149: extended flavor 2 <--> 3 symmetry},
2150: Phys. Rev. \textbf{D69} (2004), 093001, [hep-ph/0312207];
2151: %\bibitem{Mohapatra:2004mf}
2152: R.~N. Mohapatra,
2153: \emph{theta(13) as a probe of mu <--> tau symmetry for leptons},
2154: JHEP \textbf{10} (2004), 027, [hep-ph/0408187];
2155: %\bibitem{Grimus:2004cc}
2156: W.~Grimus et~al.,
2157: \emph{Non-vanishing U(e3) and cos(2 theta(23)) from a broken Z(2) symmetry},
2158: Nucl. Phys. \textbf{B713} (2005), 151, [hep-ph/0408123];
2159: %\bibitem{He:2003rm}
2160: X.~G. He and A.~Zee,
2161: \emph{Some simple mixing and mass matrices for neutrinos},
2162: Phys. Lett. \textbf{B560} (2003), 87, [hep-ph/0301092].
2163:
2164: \bibitem{Smirnov:2004ju}
2165: A.~Y. Smirnov, (2004),
2166: \emph{Neutrinos: 'Annus mirabilis'},
2167: hep-ph/0402264.
2168:
2169: \bibitem{Raidal:2004iw}
2170: M.~Raidal,
2171: \emph{Prediction Theta(c) + Theta(sol) = pi/4 from flavor
2172: physics: A new evidence for grand unification?},
2173: Phys. Rev. Lett. \textbf{93} (2004), 161801, [hep-ph/0404046].
2174:
2175: \bibitem{Minakata:2004xt}
2176: H.~Minakata and A.~Y. Smirnov,
2177: \emph{Neutrino mixing and quark lepton complementarity},
2178: Phys. Rev. \textbf{D70} (2004), 073009, [hep-ph/0405088].
2179:
2180: \bibitem{QLCmore}
2181: %\bibitem{Frampton:2004vw}
2182: P.~H. Frampton and R.~N. Mohapatra,
2183: \emph{Possible gauge theoretic origin for quark-lepton complementarity},
2184: JHEP \textbf{01} (2005), 025, [hep-ph/0407139];
2185: %\bibitem{Ferrandis:2004vp}
2186: J.~Ferrandis and S.~Pakvasa,
2187: \emph{QLC relation and neutrino mass hierarchy},
2188: (2004), hep-ph/0412038;
2189: %\bibitem{Kang:2005as}
2190: S.~K. Kang, C.~S. Kim, and J.~Lee,
2191: \emph{Quark-lepton complementarity with renormalization
2192: effects through threshold corrections},
2193: (2005), hep-ph/0501029;
2194: %\bibitem{Datta:2005ci}
2195: A.~Datta, L.~Everett, and P.~Ramond,
2196: \emph{Cabibbo haze in lepton mixing},
2197: (2005), hep-ph/0503222;
2198: %\bibitem{Antusch:2005ca}
2199: S.~Antusch, S.~F. King, and R.~N. Mohapatra,
2200: \emph{Quark lepton complementarity in unified theories},
2201: (2005), hep-ph/0504007.
2202:
2203: \bibitem{Lopside}
2204: %\bibitem{Babu:1995hr}
2205: K.~S. Babu and S.~M. Barr,
2206: \emph{Large neutrino mixing angles in unified theories},
2207: Phys. Lett. \textbf{B381} (1996), 202, [hep-ph/9511446];
2208: %\bibitem{hep-ph/9607419}
2209: S.~M. Barr,
2210: \emph{Predictive models of large neutrino mixing angles},
2211: Phys. Rev. \textbf{D55} (1997), 1659, [hep-ph/9607419];
2212: %\bibitem{Albright:1997xw}
2213: C.~H. Albright and S.~M. Barr,
2214: \emph{Fermion masses in SO(10) with a single adjoint Higgs field},
2215: Phys. Rev. \textbf{D58} (1998), 013002, [hep-ph/9712488];
2216: %\bibitem{Altarelli:1998nx}
2217: G.~Altarelli and F.~Feruglio,
2218: \emph{Neutrino mass textures from oscillations with maximal mixing},
2219: Phys. Lett. \textbf{B439} (1998), 112, [hep-ph/9807353];
2220: %\bibitem{Altarelli:1998sr}
2221: G.~Altarelli and F.~Feruglio,
2222: \emph{Models of neutrino masses from oscillations with maximal mixing},
2223: JHEP \textbf{11} (1998), 021, [hep-ph/9809596].
2224:
2225: \bibitem{Smirnov:1993af}
2226: A.~Y. Smirnov,
2227: \emph{Seesaw enhancement of lepton mixing},
2228: Phys. Rev. \textbf{D48} (1993), 3264, [hep-ph/9304205].
2229:
2230: \bibitem{DSmore}
2231: %\bibitem{Tanimoto:1995uw}
2232: M.~Tanimoto,
2233: \emph{Seesaw enhancement of neutrino mixing due to the right-handed phases},
2234: Phys. Lett. \textbf{B345} (1995), 477, [hep-ph/9503318];
2235: %\bibitem{Kuo:1999en}
2236: T.~K. Kuo, G.-H. Wu, and S.~W. Mansour,
2237: \emph{Mass hierarchies and the seesaw neutrino mixing},
2238: Phys. Rev. \textbf{D61} (2000), 111301, [hep-ph/9912366];
2239: %\bibitem{Altarelli:1999dg}
2240: G.~Altarelli, F.~Feruglio, and I.~Masina,
2241: \emph{Large neutrino mixing from small quark and lepton mixings},
2242: Phys. Lett. \textbf{B472} (2000), 382, [hep-ph/9907532];
2243: %\bibitem{Lavignac:2002gf}
2244: S.~Lavignac, I.~Masina, and C.~A. Savoy,
2245: \emph{Large solar angle and seesaw mechanism: A bottom-up perspective},
2246: Nucl. Phys. \textbf{B633} (2002), 139, [hep-ph/0202086];
2247: %\bibitem{Datta:2003qg}
2248: A.~Datta, F.-S. Ling, and P.~Ramond,
2249: \emph{Correlated hierarchy, Dirac masses and large mixing angles},
2250: Nucl. Phys. \textbf{B671} (2003), 383, [hep-ph/0306002];
2251: %\bibitem{Bando:2003wb}
2252: M.~Bando, S.~Kaneko, M.~Obara, and M.~Tanimoto,
2253: \emph{Can symmetric texture reproduce neutrino bi-large mixing?},
2254: Phys. Lett. \textbf{B580} (2004), 229, [hep-ph/0309310].
2255:
2256: \bibitem{DSorig}
2257: %\bibitem{Mohapatra:1986aw}
2258: R.~N. Mohapatra,
2259: \emph{Mechanism for understanding small neutrino mass in superstring theories},
2260: Phys. Rev. Lett. \textbf{56} (1986), 561;
2261: %\bibitem{Mohapatra:1986bd}
2262: R.~N. Mohapatra and J.~W.~F. Valle,
2263: \emph{Neutrino mass and baryon-number nonconservation in superstring models},
2264: Phys. Rev. \textbf{D34} (1986), 1642.
2265:
2266: \bibitem{Smirnov:2004hs}
2267: A.~Y. Smirnov,
2268: \emph{Alternatives to the seesaw mechanism},
2269: (2004), hep-ph/0411194.
2270:
2271: \bibitem{Vives:2005ze}
2272: O.~Vives,
2273: \emph{Understanding the differences in neutrino and charged fermion flavour structures},
2274: (2005), hep-ph/0504079.
2275:
2276: \bibitem{DSBarr}
2277: %\bibitem{Barr:2003nn}
2278: S.~M. Barr,
2279: \emph{A different see-saw formula for neutrino masses},
2280: Phys. Rev. Lett. \textbf{92} (2004), 101601, [hep-ph/0309152];
2281: %\bibitem{Albright:2003xb}
2282: C.~H. Albright and S.~M. Barr,
2283: \emph{Leptogenesis in the type III seesaw mechanism},
2284: Phys. Rev. \textbf{D69} (2004), 073010, [hep-ph/0312224].
2285:
2286: \bibitem{Stech:2003sb}
2287: B.~Stech and Z.~Tavartkiladze, \emph{Fermion masses and coupling unification in
2288: E(6): Life in the desert}, Phys. Rev. \textbf{D70} (2004), 035002,
2289: \texttt{hep-ph/0311161}.
2290:
2291: \bibitem{Grzadkowski:1987tf}
2292: B.~Grzadkowski and M.~Lindner,
2293: \emph{Non-linear evolution of Yukawa couplings},
2294: Phys. Lett. \textbf{B193} (1987), 71.
2295:
2296: \bibitem{Grzadkowski:1987wr}
2297: B.~Grzadkowski, M.~Lindner, and S.~Theisen,
2298: \emph{Non-linear evolution of Yukawa couplings in the double Higgs
2299: and supersymmetric extensions of the Standard Model},
2300: Phys. Lett. \textbf{B198} (1987), 64.
2301:
2302: \bibitem{Casas:1999tp}
2303: J.~A. Casas, J.~R. Espinosa, A.~Ibarra, and I.~Navarro,
2304: \emph{Naturalness of nearly degenerate neutrinos},
2305: Nucl. Phys. \textbf{B556} (1999), 3, [hep-ph/9904395].
2306:
2307: \bibitem{Casas:1999ac}
2308: J.~A. Casas, J.~R. Espinosa, A.~Ibarra, and I.~Navarro,
2309: \emph{Nearly degenerate neutrinos, supersymmetry and radiative corrections},
2310: Nucl. Phys. \textbf{B569} (2000), 82, [hep-ph/9905381].
2311:
2312: \bibitem{King:2000hk}
2313: S.~F. King and N.~N. Singh,
2314: \emph{Renormalisation group analysis of single right-handed neutrino dominance},
2315: Nucl. Phys. \textbf{B591} (2000), 3, [hep-ph/0006229].
2316:
2317: \bibitem{King:2000ce}
2318: S.~F. King and N.~N. Singh,
2319: \emph{Inverted hierarchy models of neutrino masses},
2320: Nucl. Phys. \textbf{B596} (2001), 81, [hep-ph/0007243].
2321:
2322: \bibitem{Antusch:2002rr}
2323: S.~Antusch, J.~Kersten, M.~Lindner, and M.~Ratz,
2324: \emph{Neutrino mass matrix running for non-degenerate see-saw scales},
2325: Phys. Lett. \textbf{B538} (2002), 87, [hep-ph/0203233].
2326:
2327: \bibitem{Antusch:2005gp}
2328: S.~Antusch, J.~Kersten, M.~Lindner, M.~Ratz, and M.~A. Schmidt,
2329: \emph{Running neutrino mass parameters in see-saw scenarios},
2330: JHEP \textbf{03} (2005), 024, [hep-ph/0501272].
2331:
2332: \bibitem{Grisaru:1979wc}
2333: M.~T. Grisaru, W.~Siegel, and M.~Ro{\v{c}}ek,
2334: \emph{Improved methods for supergraphs},
2335: Nucl. Phys. \textbf{B159} (1979), 429.
2336:
2337: \bibitem{Seiberg:1993vc}
2338: N.~Seiberg,
2339: \emph{Naturalness versus supersymmetric nonrenormalization theorems},
2340: Phys. Lett. \textbf{B318} (1993), 469, [hep-ph/9309335].
2341:
2342: \bibitem{Fukugita:1986hr}
2343: M.~Fukugita and T.~Yanagida,
2344: \emph{Baryogenesis without grand unification},
2345: Phys. Lett. \textbf{174B} (1986), 45.
2346:
2347: \bibitem{BoundOnM1}
2348: %\bibitem{Davidson:2002qv}
2349: S.~Davidson and A.~Ibarra,
2350: \emph{A lower bound on the right-handed neutrino mass from leptogenesis},
2351: Phys. Lett. \textbf{B535} (2002), 25, [hep-ph/0202239];
2352: %\bibitem{Buchmuller:2002rq}
2353: W.~Buchmuller, P.~Di~Bari, and M.~Plumacher,
2354: \emph{Cosmic microwave background, matter-antimatter asymmetry and neutrino masses},
2355: Nucl. Phys. \textbf{B643} (2002), 367, [hep-ph/0205349];
2356: %\bibitem{Giudice:2003jh}
2357: G.~F. Giudice, A.~Notari, M.~Raidal, A.~Riotto, and A.~Strumia,
2358: \emph{Towards a complete theory of thermal leptogenesis in the SM and MSSM},
2359: Nucl. Phys. \textbf{B685} (2004), 89, [hep-ph/0310123].
2360:
2361: \bibitem{BiMax}
2362: %\bibitem{Vissani:1997pa}
2363: F.~Vissani, (1997),
2364: \emph{A study of the scenario with nearly degenerate Majorana neutrinos},
2365: hep-ph/9708483;
2366: %\bibitem{Barger:1998ta}
2367: V.~D. Barger, S.~Pakvasa, T.~J. Weiler, and K.~Whisnant,
2368: \emph{Bi-maximal mixing of three neutrinos},
2369: Phys. Lett. \textbf{B437} (1998), 107, [hep-ph/9806387];
2370: %\bibitem{Baltz:1998ey}
2371: A.~J. Baltz, A.~S. Goldhaber, and M.~Goldhaber,
2372: \emph{The solar neutrino puzzle: An oscillation solution with maximal neutrino mixing},
2373: Phys. Rev. Lett. \textbf{81} (1998), 5730, [hep-ph/9806540];
2374: %\bibitem{Georgi:1998bf}
2375: H.~Georgi and S.~L. Glashow,
2376: \emph{Neutrinos on earth and in the heavens},
2377: Phys. Rev. \textbf{D61} (2000), 097301, [hep-ph/9808293];
2378: %\bibitem{Stancu:1999ct}
2379: I.~Stancu and D.~V. Ahluwalia,
2380: \emph{L/E-flatness of the electron-like event ratio in
2381: Super-Kamiokande and a degeneracy in neutrino masses},
2382: Phys. Lett. \textbf{B460} (1999), 431, [hep-ph/9903408].
2383:
2384: \bibitem{Chankowski:2001mx}
2385: P.~H. Chankowski and S.~Pokorski,
2386: \emph{Quantum corrections to neutrino masses and mixing angles},
2387: Int. J. Mod. Phys. \textbf{A17} (2002), 575, [hep-ph/0110249].
2388:
2389: \bibitem{LRmore}
2390: %\bibitem{Mohapatra:1974gc}
2391: R.~N. Mohapatra and J.~C. Pati,
2392: \emph{A 'natural' left-right symmetry},
2393: Phys. Rev. \textbf{D11} (1975), 2558;
2394: %\bibitem{Senjanovic:1975rk}
2395: G.~Senjanovi{\'c} and R.~N. Mohapatra,
2396: \emph{Exact left-right symmetry and spontaneous violation of parity},
2397: Phys. Rev. \textbf{D12} (1975), 1502.
2398:
2399: \bibitem{King:2003jb}
2400: S.~F. King,
2401: \emph{Neutrino mass models},
2402: Rept. Prog. Phys. \textbf{67} (2004), 107, [hep-ph/0310204].
2403:
2404: \bibitem{Altarelli:2004za}
2405: G.~Altarelli and F.~Feruglio,
2406: \emph{Models of neutrino masses and mixings},
2407: (2004), hep-ph/0405048.
2408:
2409: \bibitem{Froggatt:1978nt}
2410: C.~D. Froggatt and H.~B. Nielsen,
2411: \emph{Hierarchy of quark masses, Cabibbo angles and CP violation},
2412: Nucl. Phys. \textbf{B147} (1979), 277.
2413:
2414: \end{thebibliography}
2415:
2416: \end{document}
2417: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2418: