1: \documentclass[12pt,epsfig]{article}
2: \usepackage{graphicx}
3:
4: \textwidth=16cm \textheight=23.5cm%
5: \voffset=-2cm \hoffset=-1.3cm
6:
7: \begin{document}
8:
9: \begin{center}
10: {\Large\bf Radiative Corrections to Democratic Lepton Mixing}
11: \end{center}
12:
13: \vspace{0.3cm}
14: \begin{center}
15: {\bf Jianwei Mei} ~ and ~ {\bf Zhi-zhong Xing}
16: \footnote{Electronic address: xingzz@mail.ihep.ac.cn}
17: \end{center}
18: \begin{center}
19: {\it CCAST (World Laboratory), P.O. Box 8730, Beijing 100080, China \\
20: and Institute of High Energy Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, \\
21: P.O. Box 918 (4), Beijing 100049, China}
22: \end{center}
23:
24: \vspace{2cm}
25: \begin{abstract}
26: A new ansatz of democratic lepton mixing is proposed at the GUT
27: scale and the radiative corrections to its phenomenological
28: consequences are calculated at the electroweak scale. We
29: demonstrate that it is possible to obtain the experimentally
30: favored results for both neutrino masses and lepton flavor mixing
31: angles from this ansatz, provided the neutrino Yukawa coupling
32: matrix takes a specific nontrivial pattern. The seesaw threshold
33: effects play a significant role in the running of relevant
34: physical quantities.
35: \end{abstract}
36:
37: \newpage
38:
39: To interpret the small neutrino mass-squared differences and the
40: large lepton flavor mixing angles observed in solar and
41: atmospheric neutrino oscillation experiments
42: \cite{SNO}--\cite{K2K}, a lot of models or ans$\rm\ddot{a}$tze of
43: lepton mass matrices have been proposed at low-energy scales
44: \cite{Review}. Among them, the scenarios based on the leptonic
45: flavor democracy and its explicit breaking
46: \cite{FX96}--\cite{Koide} are particularly simple, suggestive and
47: predictive. Such a phenomenologically interesting picture might
48: only serve as the low-scale approximation of a more fundamental
49: model responsible for the origin of lepton masses and flavor
50: mixing at a superhigh energy scale (e.g., the grand unified theory
51: (GUT) scale $\Lambda_{\rm GUT} \sim 10^{16}$ GeV). In this case,
52: the renormalization effects between high and low scales have to be
53: taken into account, because they are likely to modify the neutrino
54: mass spectrum and lepton flavor mixing parameters in a significant
55: way \cite{ReviewRGE}.
56:
57: Possible radiative corrections to the ans$\rm\ddot{a}$tze of
58: democratic lepton mixing \cite{FX96}, which can naturally arise
59: from the slight breaking of $S(3)_L \times S(3)_R$ flavor symmetry
60: (i.e., flavor democracy) of the charged lepton mass matrix and
61: that of $S(3)$ flavor symmetry of the effective Majorana neutrino
62: mass matrix, have been discussed between the typical seesaw scale
63: ($\Lambda_{\rm SS} \sim 10^{13}$ GeV) and the electroweak scale
64: ($\Lambda_{\rm EW} \sim 10^2$ GeV) in Ref. \cite{Xing01}
65: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
66: \footnote{In the conventional seesaw mechanism \cite{SS} with
67: three heavy right-handed neutrinos $N_i$ (for $i=1,2,3$),
68: $\Lambda_{\rm SS}$ is sometimes referred to as $M_1$, the mass of
69: the lightest $SU(2)_L$ singlet $N_1$. Without loss of generality,
70: we take $M_3 > M_2 > M_1$ throughout this paper.}.
71: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
72: It is found that the mixing angle responsible for the atmospheric
73: neutrino oscillations, defined as $\theta_{23}$ in the standard
74: parametrization of the $3\times 3$ lepton flavor mixing matrix
75: \cite{PDG}, is rather insensitive to the renormalization effect.
76: Hence it is very difficult to achieve the experimentally favored
77: result $\theta_{23} \approx 45^\circ$ at $\Lambda_{\rm EW}$ from
78: the model prediction $\theta_{23} \approx 54^\circ$ \cite{FX96} at
79: $\Lambda_{\rm SS}$. One possible way out is to prescribe a similar
80: ansatz of lepton mass matrices above the seesaw scale; e.g., at or
81: close to the GUT scale. Then the radiative corrections from
82: $\Lambda_{\rm GUT}$ to $\Lambda_{\rm EW}$ will include the seesaw
83: threshold effects, which come from integrating out the heavy
84: right-handed neutrinos step by step at their mass thresholds $M_i$
85: (for $i=1,2,3$). Such threshold effects can drastically correct
86: the running behaviors of neutrino masses, flavor mixing angles and
87: CP-violating phases, as already shown in Ref. \cite{Threshold}.
88: Thus it makes sense to examine whether a constructive correction
89: to the democratic lepton mixing ansatz can be obtained via the
90: renormalization chain $\Lambda_{\rm GUT} \rightarrow M_3
91: \rightarrow M_2 \rightarrow M_1 \rightarrow \Lambda_{\rm EW}$.
92: This is just the starting point of view of this work.
93:
94: We propose a new phenomenological ansatz, in which the Yukawa
95: coupling matrix of charged leptons results from the breaking of
96: flavor democracy and the effective coupling matrix of light
97: Majorana neutrinos is diagonal, at or close to the GUT scale. By
98: using the one-loop renormalization-group equations (RGEs), we
99: first calculate the radiative corrections to this ansatz and then
100: confront it with current neutrino oscillation data at low-energy
101: scales. To illustrate the RGE running and seesaw threshold
102: effects, a simple but instructive numerical example will be
103: presented. We demonstrate that it is possible to achieve the
104: experimentally favored results for neutrino masses and lepton
105: flavor mixing angles from our ansatz, provided the neutrino Yukawa
106: coupling matrix takes a specific nontrivial pattern.
107:
108: \vspace{0.3cm}
109:
110: At the electroweak scale, the effective Lagrangian for lepton
111: Yukawa interactions can be written as
112: \begin{equation}
113: -{\cal L} = \overline{E_L^{}}H_1 Y_l^{} l_R^{} - \frac{1}{2}
114: \overline{E_L^{}} H_2 \cdot\kappa\cdot H_2^{c\dag} E_L^c ~ + ~
115: {\rm h.c.} \;
116: % (1)
117: \end{equation}
118: in the minimal supersymmetric standard model (MSSM)
119: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
120: \footnote{For the sake of simplicity, we assume the supersymmetry
121: breaking scale $\Lambda_{\rm SUSY}$ to be close to the electroweak
122: scale $\Lambda_{\rm EW}$. Even if $\Lambda_{\rm SUSY}/\Lambda_{\rm
123: EW} \sim 10$, the relevant RGE running effects between these two
124: scales are negligibly small for the physics under consideration
125: \cite{Threshold}.},
126: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
127: where $E_L^{}$ denotes the leptonic $SU(2)_L^{}$ doublets,
128: $H_1^{}$ and $H_2^{}$ are the Higgs fields, $l_R^{}$ denotes the
129: right-handed charged leptons, $H_2^c\equiv i \sigma_{}^2 H_2^\ast$
130: and $E_L^c\equiv i \sigma_{}^2 {\cal C} \overline{E_L^{}}_{}^T$
131: with ${\cal C}$ being the Dirac charge-conjugate matrix. After
132: spontaneous gauge symmetry breaking, we arrive at the charged
133: lepton mass matrix $M_l = vY_l\cos\beta$ and the effective
134: Majorana neutrino mass matrix $M_\nu = v^2\kappa \sin^2\beta$,
135: where $v \approx 174$ GeV and $\tan\beta$ is the ratio of the
136: vacuum expectation values of $H_2$ and $H_1$ in the MSSM. The
137: phenomenon of lepton flavor mixing, which arises from the mismatch
138: between the diagonalization of $Y_l$ and that of $\kappa$, is
139: described by the $3\times 3$ unitary matrix $V = V^\dagger_l
140: V_\kappa$, where
141: \begin{eqnarray}
142: && V^\dagger_l (Y_lY^\dagger_l)V_l = \left ( \matrix{ y^2_e & 0 &
143: 0 \cr 0 & y^2_\mu & 0 \cr 0 & 0& y^2_\tau \cr} \right ) \; ,
144: \nonumber \\
145: && V^\dagger_\kappa \kappa V^*_\kappa = \left ( \matrix{
146: \kappa^{~}_1 & 0 & 0 \cr 0 & \kappa^{~}_2 & 0 \cr 0 & 0 &
147: \kappa^{~}_3 \cr} \right ) \; .
148: % (2)
149: \end{eqnarray}
150: Of course, $m_\alpha = y^{~}_\alpha v\cos\beta$ (for $\alpha = e,
151: \mu, \tau$) and $m^{~}_i = \kappa^{~}_i v^2 \sin^2\beta$ (for
152: $i=1,2,3$) are the masses of charged leptons and neutrinos,
153: respectively. A very useful parametrization of $V$ reads
154: \cite{Xing04}
155: \begin{equation}
156: V = \left( \matrix{ c^{}_{12}c^{}_{13} & s^{}_{12}c^{}_{13} &
157: s^{}_{13} \cr -c^{}_{12}s^{}_{23}s^{}_{13} - s^{}_{12}c^{}_{23}
158: e^{-i\delta} & -s^{}_{12}s^{}_{23}s^{}_{13} + c^{}_{12}c^{}_{23}
159: e^{-i\delta} & s^{}_{23}c^{}_{13} \cr -c^{}_{12}c^{}_{23}s^{}_{13}
160: + s^{}_{12}s^{}_{23} e^{-i\delta} & -s^{}_{12}c^{}_{23}s^{}_{13} -
161: c^{}_{12}s^{}_{23} e^{-i\delta} & c^{}_{23}c^{}_{13} } \right)
162: \left ( \matrix{e^{i\rho } & 0 & 0 \cr 0 & e^{i\sigma} & 0 \cr 0 &
163: 0 & 1 \cr} \right ) \; ,
164: % (3)
165: \end{equation}
166: where $c^{}_{ij} \equiv \cos\theta_{ij}$ and $s^{}_{ij} \equiv
167: \sin\theta_{ij}$ for $ij=12,23$ and $13$. Current experimental
168: data indicate $\theta_{12} \approx 33^\circ$, $\theta_{23} \approx
169: 45^\circ$ and $\theta_{13} < 10^\circ$ \cite{Fit}, but there are
170: not any constraints on the CP-violating phases $\delta$, $\rho$
171: and $\sigma$. Since $\delta$ governs the strength of CP violation
172: in neutrino oscillations and has nothing to do with the
173: neutrinoless double-beta decay, it is commonly referred to as the
174: Dirac phase in contrast with the Majorana phases $\rho$ and
175: $\sigma$.
176:
177: Above the seesaw scale, one encounters the neutrino Yukawa
178: coupling matrix $Y_\nu$ together with the Majorana mass matrix
179: $M_R$ of three heavy right-handed neutrinos $N_i$:
180: \begin{equation}
181: -{\cal L}^\prime = \overline{E_L^{}} H_2^{} Y_\nu^{} N +
182: \frac{1}{2} \overline{N^c} M_R^{} N ~ + ~ {\rm h.c.} \; .
183: % (4)
184: \end{equation}
185: The seesaw mechanism \cite{SS} can naturally give rise to the
186: effective neutrino coupling matrix $\kappa = Y_\nu M^{-1}_R
187: Y^T_\nu$. Because three right-handed neutrinos are in general
188: expected to have a mass hierarchy ($M_1 < M_2 < M_3$), however, it
189: is necessary to take into account the seesaw threshold effects in
190: the RGE running chain $\Lambda_{\rm GUT} \rightarrow M_3
191: \rightarrow M_2 \rightarrow M_1 \rightarrow \Lambda_{\rm EW}$ step
192: by step (See Ref. \cite{Threshold} for a detailed description of
193: how to treat the RGE running through each seesaw threshold). For
194: simplicity, $\kappa$ and $V$ can empirically be extrapolated up to
195: the GUT scale, where $M_R$ can in turn be fixed by means of the
196: inverted seesaw formula $M_R = Y^T_\nu \kappa^{-1} Y_\nu$. In this
197: case, we may prescribe a phenomenological ansatz for the charged
198: lepton Yukawa coupling matrix $Y_l$ and the effective neutrino
199: coupling matrix $\kappa$ at $\Lambda_{\rm GUT}$, and calculate
200: radiative corrections to the lepton flavor mixing matrix $V$ at
201: $\Lambda_{\rm EW}$ by making use of the one-loop RGEs and by
202: taking account of the seesaw threshold effects.
203:
204: We propose that $Y_l$ and $\kappa$ take the following forms at
205: $\Lambda_{\rm GUT}$:
206: \begin{eqnarray}
207: && Y_l = \frac{c^{~}_l}{3} \left [ \left ( \matrix{
208: 1 & 1 & 1 \cr
209: 1 & 1 & 1 \cr
210: 1 & 1 & 1 \cr} \right ) - \left(\matrix{%
211: \varepsilon^{~}_1 e^{i\phi^{~}_1} & 0 & 0 \cr 0 &
212: \varepsilon^{~}_2 e^{i\phi^{~}_2} & 0 \cr 0 & 0 &
213: \varepsilon^{~}_3 e^{i\phi^{~}_3} \cr} \right) \right ] \; ,
214: \nonumber \\
215: && \kappa = \left ( \matrix{ \kappa^{~}_1 e^{2i\varphi^{~}_1} & 0
216: & 0 \cr 0 & \kappa^{~}_2 e^{2i\varphi^{~}_2} & 0 \cr 0 & 0 &
217: \kappa^{~}_3 e^{2i\varphi^{~}_3} \cr} \right) \; ,
218: % (5)
219: \end{eqnarray}
220: where $\varepsilon^{~}_i$ (for $i=1,2,3$) are small perturbative
221: parameters; i.e., $0\leq \varepsilon_i \ll 1$. The role of
222: $\varepsilon^{~}_i$ is to break the flavor democracy of $Y_l$,
223: such that the electron and muon masses can in turn be generated.
224: The phase parameters $\phi^{~}_i$ of $Y_l$ and $\varphi^{~}_i$ of
225: $\kappa$ (for $i=1,2,3$) will contribute, respectively, to the
226: Dirac CP-violating phase $\delta$ and the Majorana CP-violating
227: phases $\rho$ and $\sigma$ of $V$ in Eq. (3). It is obvious that
228: the unitary matrix $V_\kappa$ defined to diagonalize $\kappa$ in
229: Eq. (2) is a pure phase matrix in our ansatz: $V_\kappa = {\rm
230: Diag} \{e^{i\varphi^{~}_1}, e^{i\varphi^{~}_2},
231: e^{i\varphi^{~}_3}\}$. After $Y_l$ is diagonalized by means of
232: $V_l$, the lepton flavor mixing matrix $V = V^\dagger_l V_\kappa$
233: can then be calculated.
234:
235: To illustrate, let us take a simple example by assuming
236: $\varepsilon^{~}_1 = \varepsilon^{~}_2$, $\phi^{~}_1 = \phi^{~}_3
237: = 90^\circ$, $\phi^{~}_2 = 270^\circ$ and $\varphi^{~}_3 =
238: 0^\circ$. As a result,
239: \begin{equation}
240: c^{~}_l \approx y^{~}_\tau \; , ~~~~ \varepsilon^{~}_1 =
241: \varepsilon^{~}_2 \approx \frac{3\sqrt{3y^{~}_e
242: y^{~}_\mu}}{y^{~}_\tau} \; , ~~~~ \varepsilon^{~}_3 \approx
243: \frac{9y^{~}_\mu}{2y^{~}_\tau} \; .
244: % (6)
245: \end{equation}
246: In a good approximation, we obtain the lepton flavor mixing matrix
247: \begin{equation}
248: V \approx \left ( \matrix{ \displaystyle\frac{1 - a}{\sqrt{2}} &
249: \displaystyle\frac{1 + a}{\sqrt{2}} & \displaystyle\sqrt{2} ~ a
250: \cr\cr -\displaystyle\frac{1 + 3a}{\sqrt{6}} &
251: \displaystyle\frac{1 - 3a}{\sqrt{6}} & \displaystyle\frac{2
252: (1+ib)}{\sqrt{6}} \cr\cr \displaystyle\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}} &
253: -\displaystyle\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}} & \displaystyle\frac{1 +
254: ib}{\sqrt{3}} \cr} \right ) \left ( \matrix{ e^{i\varphi^{}_1 } &
255: 0 & 0 \cr 0 & e^{i(\varphi^{}_2 + 180^\circ)} & 0 \cr 0 & 0 & 1
256: \cr} \right ) \; ,
257: % (7)
258: \end{equation}
259: where $a = \sqrt{y^{~}_e/(3 y^{~}_\mu)}~$ and $b = 3
260: y^{~}_\mu/(2y^{~}_\tau)$. To compare between Eqs. (3) and (7), we
261: redefine the phases of muon and tau fields: $\mu \rightarrow \mu
262: e^{ib}$ and $\tau \rightarrow \tau e^{ib}$. Then the expression of
263: $V$ in Eq. (7) can approximately be transformed into
264: \begin{equation}
265: V \approx \left ( \matrix{ \displaystyle\frac{1 - a}{\sqrt{2}} &
266: \displaystyle\frac{1 + a}{\sqrt{2}} & \displaystyle\sqrt{2} ~ a
267: \cr\cr -\displaystyle\frac{1 + 3a}{\sqrt{6}} e^{-ib} &
268: \displaystyle\frac{1 - 3a}{\sqrt{6}} e^{-ib} &
269: \displaystyle\frac{2}{\sqrt{6}} \cr\cr
270: \displaystyle\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}} e^{-ib} &
271: -\displaystyle\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}} e^{-ib} &
272: \displaystyle\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}} \cr} \right ) \left ( \matrix{
273: e^{i\varphi^{}_1 } & 0 & 0 \cr 0 & e^{i(\varphi^{}_2 + 180^\circ)}
274: & 0 \cr 0 & 0 & 1 \cr} \right ) \; ,
275: % (8)
276: \end{equation}
277: up to the accuracy of ${\cal O}(a)$ and ${\cal O}(b)$. It becomes
278: obvious that Eq. (8) is a reasonable simplification of Eq. (3) by
279: neglecting the small ${\cal O}(s^{}_{13})$ terms from its $V_{\mu
280: 1}$, $V_{\mu 2}$, $V_{\tau 1}$ and $V_{\tau 2}$ elements. We are
281: therefore left with $\delta \approx b$, $\rho \approx
282: \varphi^{}_1$ and $\sigma \approx \varphi^{}_2 + 180^\circ$. Of
283: course, the values of all relevant parameters appearing in Eqs.
284: (6), (7) and (8) are set at $\Lambda_{\rm GUT}$.
285:
286: To run the results obtained at $\Lambda_{\rm GUT}$ to the
287: electroweak scale by using the one-loop RGEs \cite{Threshold}, it
288: is necessary to fix the neutrino Yukawa coupling matrix $Y_\nu$.
289: Corresponding to Eq. (5), a convenient parametrization of $Y_\nu$
290: can be taken as
291: \begin{equation}
292: Y_\nu = y_\nu^{} U_\nu \left ( \matrix{ r^{}_1 r^{}_2 & 0 & 0 \cr
293: 0 & r^{}_2 & 0 \cr 0 & 0 & 1 \cr} \right ) \; ,
294: % (9)
295: \end{equation}
296: where $y^{}_\nu$, $r^{}_1$ and $r^{}_2$ are three real and
297: positive dimensionless parameters characterizing the eigenvalues
298: of $Y_\nu$, and
299: \begin{equation}
300: U_\nu = \left ( \matrix{ e^{i\xi} & 0 & 0 \cr 0 & e^{i\zeta} & 0
301: \cr 0 & 0 & 1 \cr} \right ) \left( \matrix{ c^{}_{1}c^{}_{3} &
302: s^{}_{1}c^{}_{3} & s^{}_{3} \cr -c^{}_{1}s^{}_{2}s^{}_{3} -
303: s^{}_{1}c^{}_{2} e^{-i\omega} & -s^{}_{1}s^{}_{2}s^{}_{3} +
304: c^{}_{1}c^{}_{2} e^{-i\omega} & s^{}_{2}c^{}_{3} \cr
305: -c^{}_{1}c^{}_{2}s^{}_{3} + s^{}_{1}s^{}_{2} e^{-i\omega} &
306: -s^{}_{1}c^{}_{2}s^{}_{3} - c^{}_{1}s^{}_{2} e^{-i\omega} &
307: c^{}_{2}c^{}_{3} } \right ) \;
308: % (10)
309: \end{equation}
310: with $c^{}_i \equiv \cos\theta_i$ and $s^{}_i \equiv \sin\theta_i$
311: (for $i=1,2,3$). Because $Y_\nu$ totally involves nine free
312: parameters, there will be much freedom in adjusting the RGE
313: running behaviors of $y^{}_\alpha$ (for $\alpha = e,\mu,\tau$),
314: $\kappa^{}_i$ (for $i=1,2,3$) and $V$ to fit current experimental
315: data. This category of uncertainties is likely to be more or less
316: reduced in a unified model of leptons and quarks (e.g., the
317: $SO(10)$ model \cite{SO10}), in which the texture of $Y_\nu$ could
318: be related to that of quarks. Guided by the principle of
319: simplicity and naturalness, we shall try to pick on a reasonable
320: parameter space of $Y_\nu$ by avoiding possible fine-tuning of the
321: input parameters in our numerical calculations.
322:
323: \vspace{0.3cm}
324:
325: Now we present a numerical example to illustrate the RGE
326: corrections to the results obtained in Eqs. (6) and (8). The
327: eigenvalues of $Y_l$ at $\Lambda_{\rm GUT}^{}$ (i.e. $y_e^{}$,
328: $y_\mu^{}$ and $y_\tau^{}$) are chosen in such a way that they can
329: correctly run to their low-energy values \cite{PDG}. Then the
330: initial values of three mixing angles ($\theta^{}_{12}$,
331: $\theta^{}_{23}$ and $\theta^{}_{13}$) and the Dirac phase
332: ($\delta$) of $V$ can largely be determined via Eq. (8). The mass
333: spectrum of three light neutrinos is assumed to have a near
334: degeneracy with $m^{}_1 \approx 0.245$ eV, $\Delta m^2_{21} \equiv
335: m^2_2 - m^2_1 >0$ and $\Delta m^2_{31} \equiv m^2_3 - m^2_1
336: >0$ at $\Lambda_{\rm GUT}^{}$. Thus the initial values of
337: $\kappa^{}_1$, $\kappa^{}_2$ and $\kappa^{}_3$ can be chosen by
338: using
339: \begin{eqnarray}
340: \kappa^{}_1 & = & \frac{m^{}_1}{v^2\sin^2\beta} \; ,
341: \nonumber \\
342: \kappa^{}_2 & = & \frac{\sqrt{m^2_1 + \Delta
343: m^2_{21}}}{v^2\sin^2\beta} \; ,
344: \nonumber \\
345: \kappa^{}_3 & = & \frac{\sqrt{m^2_1 + \Delta
346: m^2_{31}}}{v^2\sin^2\beta} \; ,
347: % (11)
348: \end{eqnarray}
349: together with a typical input $\tan\beta = 10$, such that the
350: resultant neutrino mass-squared differences at $\Lambda_{\rm EW}$
351: are consistent with current solar and atmospheric neutrino
352: oscillation data \cite{SNO}--\cite{K2K}. Furthermore, we assume
353: that the eigenvalues of $Y_\nu^{}$ are strongly hierarchical
354: (i.e., $0 < r^{}_1 \ll 1$ and $0 < r^{}_2 \ll 1$, just like the
355: case of quarks) and $y_\nu^{}\sim{\cal O}(1)$ holds. It turns out
356: that only $\theta_1^{}$, $\theta_2^{}$, $\xi$ and $\zeta$ of
357: $U_\nu$ are important for the RGE running behaviors of $V$. We
358: find that $\theta_3^{}$ and $\omega$ of $U_\nu$ may contribute a
359: little to the renormalization effects on $V$, only when $r^{}_1$
360: and $r^{}_2$ are not so small. A summary of the input values of
361: relevant parameters for radiative corrections to our
362: phenomenological ansatz is given in Table 1, where the outputs of
363: $(m^{}_1, \Delta m^2_{21}, \Delta m^2_{31})$, $(\theta_{12},
364: \theta_{23}, \theta_{13})$ and $(\delta, \rho, \sigma)$ at
365: $\Lambda_{\rm EW}$ are also listed.
366:
367: One can see that it is essentially possible to reproduce the
368: best-fit values of $\Delta m^2_{21}$, $\Delta m^2_{31}$,
369: $\theta_{12}$ and $\theta_{23}$, which are already determined from
370: a global analysis of current experimental data on solar and
371: atmospheric neutrino oscillations \cite{Fit}, from our lepton mass
372: matrices proposed at $\Lambda_{\rm GUT}$. The output $\theta_{13}
373: \approx 7.7^\circ$ is acceptable, because it is in no conflict
374: with the upper limit $\theta_{13} < 10^\circ$ set by the global
375: fit together with the CHOOZ experiment \cite{CHOOZ} at the $99\%$
376: confidence level. The output $m^{}_1 \approx 0.2$ eV implies that
377: the masses of three light Majorana neutrinos are nearly degenerate
378: at $\Lambda_{\rm EW}$, and the effective mass of the neutrinoless
379: double-beta decay is of the same order (i.e., $\langle
380: m\rangle_{ee} \approx m_1$). The latter is certainly consistent
381: with the present experimental upper bound $\langle m\rangle_{ee} <
382: 0.38$ eV at the $99\%$ confidence level \cite{Fit}. We plot the
383: running behaviors of $m^{}_1$, $\Delta m^2_{21}$ and $\Delta
384: m^2_{31}$ in Fig. 1(a) and those of $\theta_{12}$, $\theta_{23}$
385: and $\theta_{13}$ in Fig. 1(b), from which the seesaw threshold
386: effects can clearly be seen. Indeed, the inverted seesaw relation
387: $M_R = Y^T_\nu \kappa^{-1} Y_\nu$ yields $M_1 \approx 4.1 \times
388: 10^8$ GeV, $M_2 \approx 1.6 \times 10^{11}$ GeV and $M_3 \approx
389: 7.2 \times 10^{13}$ GeV in our ansatz. Therefore, the most
390: significant radiative corrections to both neutrino masses and
391: lepton flavor mixing angles appear in the region between $M_3$ and
392: $\Lambda_{\rm GUT}$. In other words, it is the seesaw threshold
393: $M_3$ that can remarkably change the RGE evolution of relevant
394: physical parameters, such that the ansatz of democratic lepton
395: mixing becomes viable to fit today's low-energy neutrino data.
396:
397: Finally, let us make some further remarks.
398:
399: (1) It is worth mentioning that one may also discuss the
400: phenomenological scenario in Eq. (5) and the relevant RGE running
401: effects beyond the numerical example taken above. Similar results
402: can then be anticipated at $\Lambda_{\rm EW}$. The reason is
403: simply that the perturbative matrix in $Y_l$ does not affect the
404: dominant part of $V$, which may arise from any slight breaking of
405: the flavor democracy of $Y_l$.
406:
407: (2) We have made use of the complicated technique developed in
408: Refs. \cite{ReviewRGE,Threshold} to deal with the RGE running and
409: seesaw threshold effects, but our phenomenological ansatz and its
410: low-energy consequences are new and irrelevant to the numerical
411: examples taken in Ref. \cite{Threshold}. The simple but typical
412: analysis given by us should be more suggestive and useful for
413: model building, in particular in the spirit of flavor democracy
414: and its explicit breaking at a superhigh energy scale.
415:
416: (3) A number of assumptions have been taken in our treatment of
417: radiative corrections. Some comments on them are in order.
418: \begin{itemize}
419: \item {\it The strong mass hierarchy of three heavy
420: right-handed neutrinos}. This assumption, which seems to be more
421: natural than the assumption of three degenerate (or partially
422: degenerate) right-handed neutrinos, is mainly to illustrate the
423: seesaw threshold effects in a more general and convincing way. Our
424: numerical results have shown that it is the RGE running between
425: $\Lambda_{\rm GUT}$ and $M_3$ that plays the dominant role in the
426: renormalization chain $\Lambda_{\rm GUT} \rightarrow M_3
427: \rightarrow M_2 \rightarrow M_1$. Such an interesting feature,
428: which is essentially not subject to a specific model or ansatz at
429: the GUT scale, has already been observed in Ref. \cite{Threshold}.
430:
431: \item {\it The strong hierarchy of three eigenvalues of
432: $Y_\nu$}. This assumption may become quite reasonable, if our
433: ansatz is embedded in the $SO(10)$ models \cite{SO10}, in which
434: the texture of $Y_\nu$ can be related to that of quarks with a
435: strong mass hierarchy. It technically simplifies our numerical
436: analysis, because it forbids a few free parameters of $Y_\nu$ to
437: play an important role in controlling the RGE evolution of $V$.
438:
439: \item {\it The approximate mass degeneracy of three light
440: neutrinos}. This assumption will be rather meaningful, provided
441: the $S(3)$ symmetry is imposed on the effective neutrino coupling
442: matrix $\kappa$ as a starting point of view of model building
443: \cite{FX96,Tanimoto}. It is also a crucial prerequisite to give
444: rise to significant RGE running effects, such that the ansatz
445: proposed at $\Lambda_{\rm GUT}$ can be compatible with current
446: neutrino oscillation data obtained at low energies. If the masses
447: of three light neutrinos are taken to be hierarchical, however,
448: the democratic lepton mixing ansatz under consideration will not
449: be viable in phenomenology.
450: \end{itemize}
451: The above discussions indicate that the parameter space considered
452: in our analysis is actually typical and instructive. Furthermore,
453: the freedom in adjusting those model parameters can be restricted
454: to a certain extent both by some theoretical arguments and by the
455: experimental data.
456:
457: \vspace{0.3cm}
458:
459: In summary, we have proposed a new ansatz of democratic lepton
460: mixing at the GUT scale and examined possible radiative
461: corrections to its phenomenological consequences. We show that it
462: is possible to obtain the experimentally favored results for both
463: the neutrino mass spectrum and the lepton flavor mixing angles
464: from this ansatz, provided the neutrino Yukawa coupling matrix
465: takes a specific nontrivial pattern. The seesaw threshold effects
466: are found to play a significant role in the RGE running of
467: relevant physical quantities.
468:
469: Although the numerical example presented in this paper is mainly
470: for the purpose of illustration, it is quite suggestive for model
471: building. We believe that the breaking of lepton flavor democracy
472: at a superhigh energy scale is an interesting phenomenological
473: approach towards deeper understanding of the bi-large mixing
474: pattern of lepton flavors observed in the solar and atmospheric
475: neutrino oscillation experiments, and it might even hint at the
476: underlying flavor dynamics which governs the generation of fermion
477: masses and the origin of CP violation.
478:
479: \vspace{0.5cm}
480:
481: We would like to thank H. Fritzsch for useful discussions and
482: comments. This work was supported in part by the National Nature
483: Science Foundation of China.
484:
485: \vspace{0.8cm}
486:
487: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
488: \bibitem{SNO} SNO Collaboration, Q.R. Ahmad {\it et al.},
489: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 87}, 071301 (2001); Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf
490: 89}, 011302 (2002).
491:
492: \bibitem{SK} Super-Kamiokande Collaboration,
493: Y. Fukuda {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 81}, 1562 (1998);
494: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 86}, 5656 (2001).
495:
496: \bibitem{KM} KamLAND Collaboration, K. Eguchi {\it et al.},
497: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 90}, 021802 (2003).
498:
499: \bibitem{K2K} K2K Collaboration, M.H. Ahn {\it et al.},
500: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 90}, 041801 (2003).
501:
502: \bibitem{Review} For recent reviews with extensive references, see, e.g.,
503: H. Fritzsch and Z.Z. Xing, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. {\bf 45}, 1
504: (2000); S.F. King, Rept. Prog. Phys. {\bf 67}, 107 (2004); G.
505: Altarelli and F. Feruglio, New J. Phys. {\bf 6}, 106 (2004).
506:
507: \bibitem{FX96} H. Fritzsch and Z.Z. Xing, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 372},
508: 265 (1996); Phys. Lett. B {\bf 440}, 313 (1998); Phys. Rev. D {\bf
509: 61}, 073016 (2000); Phys. Lett. B {\bf 598}, 237 (2004); W.
510: Rodejohann and Z.Z. Xing, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 601}, 176 (2004).
511:
512: \bibitem{Tanimoto} See, e.g., M. Fukugita, M. Tanimoto, and T. Yanagida,
513: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 57}, 4429 (1998); M. Tanimoto, T. Watari, and T.
514: Yanagida, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 461}, 345 (1999); S.K. Kang and C.S.
515: Kim, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 59}, 091302 (1999); Y. Koide and A. Ghosal,
516: Phys. Lett. B {\bf 488}, 344 (2000); E.K. Akhmedov, G.C. Branco,
517: F.R. Joaquim, and J.I. Silva-Marcos, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 498}, 237
518: (2001); T. Kobayashi and J. Kubo, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 568}, 83
519: (2003); J. Kubo, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 578}, 156 (2004); and
520: references therein.
521:
522: \bibitem{Koide} Y. Koide, Z. Phys. C {\bf 45}, 39 (1989); hep-ph/9508369.
523:
524: \bibitem{ReviewRGE} For some recent and comprehensive works,
525: see: J.A. Casas, J.R. Espinosa, A. Ibarra, and I. Navarro, Nucl.
526: Phys. B {\bf 573}, 652 (2000); P.H. Chankowski and S. Pokorski,
527: Int. J. Mod. Phys. A {\bf 17}, 575 (2002); S. Antusch, J. Kersten,
528: and M. Lindner, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 674}, 401 (2003); S. Antusch,
529: J. Kersten, M. Lindner, M. Ratz, M.A. Schmidt, JHEP {\bf 0503},
530: 024 (2005); J.W. Mei, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 71}, 073012 (2005).
531:
532: \bibitem{Xing01} M. Tanimoto, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 483}, 417 (2000);
533: N. Haba, Y. Matsui, N. Okamura, and T. Suzuki, Phys. Lett. B {\bf
534: 489}, 184 (2000); Z.Z. Xing, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 63}, 057301 (2001).
535:
536: \bibitem{PDG} Particle Data Group, S. Eidelman {\it et al.}, Phys.
537: Lett. B {\bf 592}, 1 (2004).
538:
539: \bibitem{SS} P. Minkowski, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 67}, 421
540: (1977); T. Yanagida, in {\it Proceedings of the Workshop on
541: Unified Theory and the Baryon Number of the Universe}, edited by
542: O. Sawada and A. Sugamoto (KEK, Tsukuba, 1979), p. 95; M.
543: Gell-Mann, P. Ramond, and R. Slansky, in {\it Supergravity},
544: edited by F. van Nieuwenhuizen and D. Freedman (North Holland,
545: Amsterdam, 1979), p. 315; S.L. Glashow, in {\it Quarks and
546: Leptons}, edited by M. L$\rm\acute{e}vy$ {\it et al.} (Plenum, New
547: York, 1980), p. 707; R.N. Mohapatra and G. Senjanovic, Phys. Rev.
548: Lett. {\bf 44}, 912 (1980).
549:
550: \bibitem{Threshold} See, e.g., S. Antusch, J. Kersten, M. Lindner,
551: and M. Ratz, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 544}, 1 (2002); S. Antusch and M.
552: Ratz, JHEP {\bf 11}, 010 (2002); J.W. Mei and Z.Z. Xing, Phys.
553: Rev. D {\bf 70}, 053002 (2004); J.W. Mei, in Ref.
554: \cite{ReviewRGE}.
555:
556: \bibitem{Xing04} Z.Z. Xing, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A {\bf 19}, 1 (2004).
557:
558: \bibitem{Fit} M. Maltoni, T. Schwetz, M.A. Tortola, J.W.F. Valle,
559: New J. Phys. {\bf 6}, 122 (2004); A. Strumia and F. Vissani,
560: hep-ph/0503246.
561:
562: \bibitem{SO10} H. Fritzsch and P. Minkowski, Ann. Phys. {\bf 93},
563: 193 (1975); H. Georgi, in {\it Particles and Fields} (AIP, New
564: York, 1975).
565:
566: \bibitem{CHOOZ} CHOOZ Collaboration, M. Apollonio {\it et al.},
567: Phys. Lett. B {\bf 420}, 397 (1998); Palo Verde Collaboration, F.
568: Boehm {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 84}, 3764 (2000).
569: \end{thebibliography}
570:
571: \newpage
572:
573: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Table 1 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
574: \begin{table}
575: \caption{A numerical example for radiative corrections to the
576: proposed ansatz of lepton mass matrices (from $\Lambda_{\rm GUT}$
577: to $\Lambda_{\rm EW}$) in the MSSM, where $\tan\beta = 10$ has
578: typically been taken.} \vspace{0.6cm}
579: \begin{center}
580: \begin{tabular}{|c||c|c|}\hline\hline
581: Parameter & Input $\left(\Lambda_{\rm GUT}^{}\right)$
582: & Output $( \Lambda_{\rm EW} )$ \\
583: \hline $m^{}_1 ({\rm eV} )$ & 0.245 & 0.2 \\
584: %-----------------------------
585: $\Delta m^2_{21} ( 10^{-5} ~{\rm eV}^2 )$ & 25 & 7.8 \\
586: %-----------------------------
587: $\Delta m^2_{31} ( 10^{-3} ~{\rm eV}^2 )$ & 9 & 2.2 \\
588: \hline
589: %=============================
590: $\theta_{12}$ & $47.2^\circ$ & $33.6^\circ$ \\
591: %-----------------------------
592: $\theta_{23}$ & $54.4^\circ$ & $45.3^\circ$ \\
593: %-----------------------------
594: $\theta_{13}$ & $3.1^\circ$ & $7.7^\circ$ \\
595: %-----------------------------
596: $\delta$ & $5.0^\circ$ & $96.6^\circ$ \\
597: %-----------------------------
598: $\rho$ & $62.6^\circ$ & $29^\circ$ \\
599: %-----------------------------
600: $\sigma$ & $355.4^\circ$ & $302.8^\circ$ \\
601: \hline
602: %=============================
603: $y^{}_\nu$ & 0.87 & \\
604: %-----------------------------
605: $r^{}_1$ & 0.048 & \\
606: %-----------------------------
607: $r^{}_2$ & 0.042 & \\
608: %-----------------------------
609: $\theta_1$ & $36^\circ$ & \\
610: %-----------------------------
611: $\theta_2$ & $11^\circ$ & \\
612: %-----------------------------
613: $\theta_3$ & $10^\circ$ & \\
614: %-----------------------------
615: $\omega$ & $252^\circ$ & \\
616: %-----------------------------
617: $\xi$ & $331.5^\circ$ & \\
618: %-----------------------------
619: $\zeta$ & $143^\circ$ & \\
620: %-----------------------------
621: $\varphi^{}_1$ & $62^\circ$ & \\
622: %-----------------------------
623: $\varphi^{}_2$ & $176^\circ$ & \\
624: %-----------------------------
625: \hline\hline
626: \end{tabular}
627: \end{center}
628: \end{table}
629: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
630:
631: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Fig. 1 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
632: \begin{figure}[tbp]
633: \begin{center}
634: \includegraphics[width=11cm,height=11cm,angle=0]{mass.eps}
635: \includegraphics[width=11cm,height=11cm,angle=0]{angle.eps}
636: \end{center}
637: \vspace{-1cm} \caption{(a) the running behaviors of $m^{}_1$,
638: $\Delta m^2_{21}$ and $\Delta m^2_{31}$ between $\Lambda_{\rm EW}$
639: and $\Lambda_{\rm GUT}$; (b) the running behaviors of
640: $\theta_{12}$, $\theta_{23}$ and $\theta_{13}$ between
641: $\Lambda_{\rm EW}$ and $\Lambda_{\rm GUT}$. The input values of
642: relevant parameters are listed in Table 1.}
643: \end{figure}
644: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
645:
646: \end{document}
647: