1: % Add 'showpacs' option to make PACS codes appear
2: % Add 'showkeys' option to make keywords appear
3: \documentclass[aps,prd,letterpaper,showpacs,preprintnumbers,twocolumn,amsmath,amssymb,nofootinbib]{revtex4}
4: \input{basic.tex}
5: % -- This next command pulls the text up on the page: Phys Rev publishes on
6: % -- paper slightly larger than 8 1/2 x 11 .........
7: \setlength{\topmargin}{-0.1in}
8: \begin{document}
9:
10: \preprint{UPR-1126T}
11:
12: %Title of paper
13: \title{String-Inspired Triplet See-Saw from Diagonal Embedding of
14: $SU(2)_L \subset SU(2)_A \times SU(2)_B$}
15:
16: \author{Paul~Langacker}
17: \author{Brent D.~Nelson} %etc.
18: %
19: \affiliation{Department of Physics \& Astronomy, University of
20: Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA}
21:
22: \date{\today}
23:
24: \begin{abstract}
25: Motivated by string constructions, we consider a variant on the
26: Type~II see-saw mechanism involving the exchange of triplet
27: representations of $SU(2)_L$ in which this group arises from a
28: diagonal embedding into $SU(2)_A \times SU(2)_B$. A natural
29: assignment of Standard Model lepton doublets to the two underlying
30: gauge groups results in a bimaximal pattern of neutrino mixings
31: and an inverted hierarchy in masses. Simple perturbations around
32: this leading-order structure can accommodate the observed pattern
33: of neutrino masses and mixings.
34: \end{abstract}
35:
36: % insert suggested PACS numbers in braces on next line
37: \pacs{14.60.Pq,12.60.Jv,11.25.Mj}
38: % insert suggested keywords - APS authors don't need to do this
39: %\keywords{}
40:
41: \maketitle
42:
43: \section*{Introduction}
44:
45: Observations by a variety of experimental collaborations have now
46: firmly established the hypothesis that neutrino oscillations occur
47: and that they are the result of non-vanishing neutrino masses and
48: mixing angles~\cite{Maltoni:2003da,Bahcall:2004ut,Fogli:2005cq}.
49: While our knowledge of neutrino mass-differences and mixings has
50: continued to improve over recent years, there continues to be as
51: yet no consensus on the correct mechanism for generating the quite
52: small neutrino masses implied by the experimental data. In some
53: respects this is similar to the case of quark masses and mixings:
54: despite having access to even more of the relevant experimental
55: data for an even longer period of time, no compelling model of the
56: hierarchies of masses and mixings in the quark sector has emerged
57: either. But most theoretical effort in the area of neutrinos goes
58: beyond the simple Dirac-mass Yukawa operator by introducing new
59: structures in the superpotential to account for neutrino masses,
60: such as the see-saw mechanism (in one of its various forms, to be
61: defined more precisely below).\footnote{For some recent reviews of
62: theoretical models of neutrino masses and mixings,
63: see~\cite{King:2003jb,DeGouvea:2005gd,Langacker:2004xy,Altarelli:2004za,Mohapatra:2004vr}
64: and references therein.} Thus neutrinos are likely to be very
65: special in the Standard Model -- and its supersymmetric extensions
66: -- and may thereby provide a unique window into high-scale
67: theories that the quark sector fails to illuminate.
68:
69: It has thus far been mostly in vain that we might look to string
70: theory for some guidance in how to approach the issue of flavor.
71: In part this is because of the vast number of possible vacua in
72: any particular construction, each with its own set of fields and
73: superpotential couplings between them. On the other hand the
74: problem of generating small neutrino masses may be one of the most
75: powerful discriminants in finding realistic constructions. This
76: was one of the conclusions of a recently completed
77: survey~\cite{Giedt:2005vx} of a large class of explicit orbifold
78: compactifications of the heterotic string for the standard (or
79: ``Type~I'') see-saw in its minimal form. The fact that no such
80: viable mechanism was found may suggest that often-neglected
81: alternatives to the standard see-saw may have more theoretical
82: motivation than considerations of simplicity, elegance, or GUT
83: structure would otherwise indicate.
84:
85: In this work we study the properties of a new construction of
86: see-saw mechanisms that is motivated by known string
87: constructions. The mechanism is an example of the Higgs triplet or
88: ``Type II''
89: seesaw~\cite{Lazarides:1980nt,Mohapatra:1980yp,Schechter:1981cv,Ma:1998dx,Hambye:2000ui,Rossi:2002zb},
90: but the stringy origin has important implications for the mixings
91: and mass hierarchy that distinguish it from conventional
92: ``bottom-up'' versions of the triplet model. After outlining the
93: model in a general way below we will motivate its plausibility in
94: string theory by considering a particular $\mathbb{Z}_3 \times
95: \mathbb{Z}_3$ orbifold of the heterotic string~\cite{Font:1989aj},
96: where several of the properties needed for a fully realistic model
97: are manifest.
98:
99:
100:
101: %------- This would be SECTION ONE --------------
102: \section{General Features of $SU(2)$ Triplet Models}
103: %
104: \label{sec:general}
105:
106:
107: Let us briefly review the form of the effective neutrino mass
108: matrix to establish our notation and to allow the contrast between
109: models involving triplets of $SU(2)_L$ and those involving
110: singlets to be more apparent. While models of neutrino masses can
111: certainly be considered without low-energy supersymmetry, our
112: interest in effective Lagrangians deriving from string theories
113: which preserve $N=1$ supersymmetry leads us to couch our
114: discussion in a supersymmetric framework. Then the effective mass
115: operator involving only the light (left-handed) neutrinos has mass
116: dimension five. Once the Higgs fields acquire vacuum expectation
117: values (vevs) the effective neutrino masses are given by
118: %
119: \begin{equation}
120: %
121: (\mathbf{m}_{\nu})_{ij} = (\lambda_{\nu})_{ij} \frac{v_2^2}{M} ,
122: %
123: \label{mnu} \end{equation}
124: %
125: where $v_2$ is the vev of the Higgs doublet $H_2$ with hypercharge
126: $Y=+1/2$. The $3 \times 3$ matrix of couplings $\lambda_{\nu}$ is
127: necessarily symmetric in its generation indices~$i$ and~$j$.
128:
129: Such an operator can be induced through the exchange of heavy
130: singlet (right-handed) neutrinos $N_R$ -- as in the standard or
131: ``Type~I'' see-saw approach~\cite{GRS,Yanagida,Valle1} -- or
132: through the exchange of heavy triplet states
133: $T$~\cite{Lazarides:1980nt,Mohapatra:1980yp,Schechter:1981cv,Ma:1998dx,Hambye:2000ui,Rossi:2002zb},
134: or both. In either case, the mass scale $M$ is given by the scale
135: at which lepton number is broken (presumably the mass scale of the
136: heavy state being exchanged). In the presence of both
137: contributions to the light neutrino masses we have the general
138: mass matrix
139: %
140: \begin{equation}
141: %
142: \Lag = \frac{1}{2} \( \oline{\nu}_L \; \; \oline{N}_L^c \) \(
143: \begin{array}{cc} \mathbf{m}_{T} & \mathbf{m}_{D} \\ \mathbf{m}_{D}^{T} &
144: \mathbf{m}_{S} \end{array} \) \( \begin{array}{c} \nu_R^c \\ N_R
145: \end{array} \) + \hc .
146: %
147: \label{general} \end{equation}
148: %
149: Each of the four quantities in~(\ref{general}) are understood to
150: be $3 \times 3$ matrices in flavor space. That is, we imagine a
151: model with one {\em species} of lepton doublet $L$ (with three
152: generations) and, if present, one {\em species} of right-handed
153: neutrino field (with three generations).
154:
155: We will use the name ``triplet models'' to refer to any model
156: which uses electroweak triplet states alone to generate neutrino
157: masses. That is, such a model dispenses with right-handed
158: neutrinos altogether, and the effective neutrino mass
159: in~(\ref{mnu}) is then simply identified with the entry
160: $\mathbf{m}_{T}$ in~(\ref{general}). A supersymmetric extension of
161: the MSSM capable of giving small effective masses to left-handed
162: neutrinos would involve two new sets of fields $T_i$ and
163: $\oline{T}_i$ which transform as triplets under $SU(2)_{L}$ and
164: have hypercharge assignments $Y_{T} = +1$ and $Y_{\oline{T}} =
165: -1$, respectively~\cite{Hambye:2000ui,Rossi:2002zb}. For the time
166: being we will consider just one pair of such fields, which couple
167: to the Standard Model through the superpotential
168: %
169: \begin{eqnarray}
170: %
171: W_{\nu} &=& (\lambda_{T})_{ij} L_i T L_j + \lambda_1 H_1 T H_1 +
172: \lambda_2 H_2 \oline{T} H_2 \nonumber \\
173: %
174: & & + M_T T \oline{T} + \mu H_1 H_2 ,
175: %
176: \label{Wnu} \end{eqnarray}
177: %
178: where the $SU(2)$ indices on the doublets and triplet have been
179: suppressed. Strictly speaking, the coupling $\lambda_1$ is not
180: necessary to generate the required neutrino masses, but given the
181: Standard Model charge assignments of the fields $T$ and
182: $\oline{T}$ there is no {\em a priori} reason to exclude this
183: coupling. The mass scale $M$ in~(\ref{mnu}) is to be identified
184: with $M_T$ in this case, and the matrix $\lambda_{T}$ is symmetric
185: in its generation indices. From the Lagrangian determined
186: by~(\ref{Wnu}), it is clear that should the auxiliary fields of
187: the chiral supermultiplets for the triplets vanish in the vacuum
188: $\lang F^T \rang = \lang F^{\oline{T}} \rang = 0$, and we assume
189: no vevs for the left-handed sneutrino fields, then there is a
190: simple solution for the vevs of the neutral components of the
191: triplet fields
192: %
193: \begin{equation}
194: %
195: \lang T \rang = -\frac{\lambda_2 \lang H_2 \rang ^2}{M_T} \; ;
196: \quad \lang \oline{T} \rang = -\frac{\lambda_1 \lang H_1 \rang
197: ^2}{M_T} ,
198: %
199: \label{Tvevs} \end{equation}
200: %
201: implying $m_{\nu} = \lambda_T \lang T \rang$.
202:
203: Recent models of the Type~II
204: variety~\cite{King:2003jb,DeGouvea:2005gd,Langacker:2004xy,Altarelli:2004za,Mohapatra:2004vr}
205: would typically retain the right-handed neutrinos and utilize all
206: the components in the mass matrix of~(\ref{general}) to explain
207: the neutrino masses and mixings. These examples are often inspired
208: by SO(10) GUT considerations or are couched in terms of left-right
209: symmetry more generally. The latter commonly employ additional
210: Higgs fields transforming as $(1,\mathbf{3})$ under $SU(2)_L
211: \times SU(2)_R$, which acquire vevs to break the gauge group to
212: the Standard Model.
213:
214: Instead we imagine a process by which the $SU(2)$ of the Standard
215: Model emerges as the result of a breaking to a {\em diagonal}
216: subgroup $SU(2)_A \times SU(2)_B \to SU(2)_L$ at a very high
217: energy scale. Furthermore, while we will employ two conjugate
218: triplet representations which form a vector-like pair under the
219: Standard Model gauge group with $Y = \pm 1$, we do not seek to
220: embed this structure into a left-right symmetric model.
221:
222:
223:
224:
225:
226:
227:
228: %-----------------------------------
229: % --- SECTION TWO ------------------
230: %-----------------------------------
231: \section{Diagonal Embedding of $SU(2)_L$}
232: %
233: \label{sec:diagonal}
234:
235:
236: In attempting to embed the framework of the previous section in a
237: model of the weakly coupled heterotic string we immediately
238: encounter an obstacle: the simplest string constructions contain
239: in their massless spectra only chiral superfields which transform
240: as fundamentals or (anti-fundamentals) of the non-Abelian gauge
241: groups of the low-energy theory. Scalars transforming as triplets
242: of $SU(2)$ simply do not exist for such affine level one
243: constructions~\cite{Gross:1985fr,Font:1990uw}. Indeed, scalars
244: transforming in the adjoint representation appear only at affine
245: level two, while representations such as the $\mathbf{120}$ and
246: $\mathbf{210}$ of $SO(10)$ appear only at affine level four - and
247: the $\mathbf{126}$ of $SO(10)$, which contains triplets of the
248: Standard Model $SU(2)_L$, has been shown to never appear in
249: free-field heterotic string constructions~\cite{Dienes:1996yh}.
250:
251: Directly constructing four-dimensional string compactifications
252: yielding higher affine-level gauge groups has proven to be a
253: difficult task. But a group factor $\mathcal{G}$ can be
254: effectively realized at affine level $k = n$ by simply requiring
255: it to be the result of a breaking of $\mathcal{G}_1 \times
256: \mathcal{G}_2 \times \cdots \times \mathcal{G}_n$ to the overall
257: diagonal subgroup. In fact, these two ways of understanding higher
258: affine levels -- picking a particular set of GSO projections in
259: the underlying string construction and the low energy field theory
260: picture of breaking to a diagonal subgroup -- are equivalent
261: pictures~\cite{Dienes:1996yh}. With this as motivation, let us
262: consider an appropriate variation on the superpotential
263: of~(\ref{Wnu}). The breaking of the gauge group $SU(2)_A \times
264: SU(2)_B$ to the diagonal subgroup, which we identify as $SU(2)_L$,
265: can occur through the vacuum expectation value of a field in the
266: bifundamental representation of the underlying product group via
267: an appropriately arranged scalar potential. For the purposes of
268: our discussion here we will need only assume that this breaking
269: takes place at a sufficiently high scale, say just below the
270: string compactification scale. As such ideas for product group
271: breaking have been considered in the past~\cite{Barbieri:1994jq},
272: we will not concern ourselves further with this step.
273:
274: Any additional bifundamental representations will decompose into
275: triplet and singlet representations under the surviving $SU(2)_L$.
276: Gauge invariance of the underlying $SU(2)_A \times SU(2)_B$ theory
277: then {\em requires} that the neutrino-mass generating
278: superpotential coupling involving lepton doublets and our $SU(2)$
279: triplet now be given by
280: %
281: \begin{equation}
282: %
283: W_{\nu} = (\lambda_{T})_{ij} L_i T L'_j ,
284: %
285: \label{WT} \end{equation}
286: %
287: where the field $T$ is the $SU(2)_L$ triplet representation and
288: $L$ and $L'$ are two {\em different species} of doublets under the
289: $SU(2)_L$ subgroup. That is, we denote by $L$ fields which have
290: representation $(\mathbf{2},1)$ and by $L'$ fields which have
291: representation $(1, \mathbf{2})$ under the original $SU(2)_A
292: \times SU(2)_B$ gauge theory. These two sets of lepton doublets,
293: each of which may carry a generation index as determined by the
294: string construction, arise from different sectors of the string
295: Hilbert space. Once the gauge group is broken to the diagonal
296: subgroup this distinction between the species is lost {\em except
297: for the pattern of couplings represented by the matrix
298: $\mathbf{\lambda}_{T}$.} The indices $i$ and $j$ carried by the
299: lepton doublets represent internal degeneracies arising from the
300: specific construction. It is natural to identify these indices
301: with the flavor of the charged lepton (up to mixing effects, which
302: we assume to be small).
303:
304: In a minimal model, with only three lepton doublets charged under
305: the Standard Model $SU(2)_L$, we are obliged to separate the
306: generations, with two arising from one sector of the theory and
307: one from the other. The precise form of the effective neutrino
308: mass matrix will depend on this model-dependent identification,
309: but one property is immediately clear: {\em the effective neutrino
310: mass matrix will necessarily be off-diagonal in the charged lepton
311: flavor-basis.}
312:
313: We will restrict our study to the case of one triplet state with
314: supersymmetric mass $M_T$ as in~(\ref{Wnu}). If we separate the
315: doublet containing the electron from the other two, by defining
316: $L_i = L_e = (\mathbf{2},1)$ and $L'_j = L_{\mu}, L_{\tau} = (1,
317: \mathbf{2})$ under $SU(2)_A \times SU(2)_B$, then the matrix of
318: couplings $\lambda_T$ is (to leading order)
319: %
320: \begin{equation}
321: %
322: \lambda_T = \lambda_0 \(\begin{array}{ccc} 0 & a & b \\ a & 0 & 0
323: \\ b & 0 & 0 \end{array} \) .
324: %
325: \label{lambdaT1} \end{equation}
326: %
327: It is natural to assume that the overall coefficient $\lambda_0$
328: in~(\ref{lambdaT1}) is of order unity. In fact if we now return to
329: a string theory context, particularly that of the heterotic string
330: with orbifold compactification, then the fact that the two
331: generations of $L'_j$ in~(\ref{WT}) arise from the same sector of
332: the string Hilbert space (i.e., the same fixed point location
333: under the orbifold action) suggests that we should identify the
334: coupling strengths: $a=b$.
335:
336: Neutrino mass matrices based on the texture in~(\ref{lambdaT1})
337: with $a=b$ are not new to this work, but were in fact considered
338: not long ago as a starting point for the bimaximal mixing
339: scenario~\cite{Barger:1998ta,Barbieri:1998mq,Altarelli:1998nx,Jezabek:1998du}.
340: In fact, the form of~(\ref{lambdaT1}) can be derived from a
341: bottom-up point of view by first postulating a new symmetry based
342: on the modified lepton number combination $L_e - L_{\mu} -
343: L_{\tau}$~\cite{Mohapatra:1999zr,Babu:2002ex}. Indeed, the
344: operator in~(\ref{WT}) with the identification of $L = L_e$ and
345: $L' = L_{\mu}, L_{\tau}$ does indeed conserve this quantum number.
346: However, in the string-theory motivated (top down) approach this
347: conserved quantity arises as an {\em accidental} symmetry
348: pertaining to the underlying geometry of the string
349: compactification. It reflects the different geometrical location
350: of the fields (in terms of orbifold fixed points) of the electron
351: doublet from the muon and tau doublets.
352:
353: To make contact with data it is necessary to consider the Yukawa
354: interactions of the charged leptons as well. To that end, our
355: string-inspired model should have a superpotential of the form
356: %
357: \begin{eqnarray}
358: %
359: W &=& \lambda_T L T L' + \lambda_1 H_1 T H'_1 + \lambda_2 H_2
360: \oline{T} H'_2 \nonumber \\
361: %
362: & & + \lambda_3 S_3 T \oline{T} + \lambda_4 S_4 H_1 H_2 +
363: \lambda_5 S_5 H'_1 H'_2 \nonumber \\
364: %
365: & & + \wh{\lambda}_4 \wh{S}_4 H_1 H'_2 +
366: \wh{\lambda}_5 \wh{S}_5 H'_1 H_2 \nonumber \\
367: %
368: & & + \lambda_6 S_6 L H_1 + \lambda_7 S_7 L' H'_1 \nonumber \\
369: %
370: & & + \wh{\lambda}_6 \wh{S}_6 L H'_1 + \wh{\lambda}_7 \wh{S}_7 L' H_1 ,
371: %
372: \label{Wfull} \end{eqnarray}
373: %
374: where generation indices have been suppressed. The terms
375: proportional to the couplings $\lambda_1$ and $\lambda_2$
376: in~(\ref{Wnu}) must now be modified to reflect the fact that the
377: Higgs doublets must also come from two different species. These
378: are denoted in the same manner as the lepton doublets: $H_{1,2}$
379: for $(\mathbf{2},1)$ representations and $H'_{1,2}$ for
380: $(1,\mathbf{2})$ representations. The second line in~(\ref{Wfull})
381: are the dynamically-generated supersymmetric mass terms, with
382: $\lambda_3 \lang S_3 \rang \equiv M_T$. The fields $S_3$, $S_4$
383: and $S_5$ are singlets under $SU(2)_A \times SU(2)_B$ with
384: hypercharge $Y=0$, while $\wh{S}_4$ and $\wh{S}_5$ are $SU(2)_L$
385: singlets with $Y=0$ transforming as $(\mathbf{2},\mathbf{2})$
386: under $SU(2)_A \times SU(2)_B$. We anticipate a large vev for
387: $S_3$. The fields $S_4, S_5, \wh{S}_4$, and $\wh{S}_5$ may acquire
388: TeV scale vevs from supersymmetry breaking, leading to generalized
389: $\mu$ terms\footnote{The $\mu$ parameters of the Higgs scalar
390: potential could also arise as effective parameters only after SUSY
391: breaking via the Giudice-Masiero
392: mechanism~\cite{Giudice:1988yz}.}, or some could have vevs near
393: the string scale (or at an intermediate scale), projecting some of
394: the Higgs states out of the low energy theory. From the point of
395: view of both $SU(2)_L$ as well as the underlying $SU(2)_A \times
396: SU(2)_B$ it is not necessary that $S_4$ and $S_5$ be distinct
397: fields; there may be string selection rules forbidding their
398: identification in an explicit construction, however. Similar
399: statements apply to $\wh{S}_4$ and $\wh{S}_5$. Of course, some of
400: these fields could be absent.
401:
402: The final line of~(\ref{Wfull}) represents the Dirac mass
403: couplings of the left-handed leptons with their right-handed
404: counterparts. Again, the fields $S_6$ and $S_7$, both singlets
405: under $SU(2)_A \times SU(2)_B$, carrying only hypercharge $Y=+1$,
406: may or may not be identified depending on the construction, while
407: $\wh{S}_6$ and $\wh{S}_7$, which may or may not be distinct,
408: transform as $(\mathbf{2},\mathbf{2})$. Some of these fields may
409: be absent. We assume that $S_6$, $S_7$, $\wh{S}_6$, and $\wh{S}_7$
410: do not acquire vevs. Charged lepton masses are then determined by
411: some combination of the coupling matrices $\lambda_6$,
412: $\lambda_7$, $\wh{\lambda}_6$ and $\wh{\lambda}_7$ (and possibly
413: higher-order terms that connect the two sectors) as well as
414: appropriate choices of Higgs vevs for the neutral components of
415: the four Higgs species.
416:
417:
418: %-----------------------------------
419: % --- SECTION THREE ----------------
420: %-----------------------------------
421: \section{Making Contact with Experimental Data}
422: %
423: \label{sec:data}
424:
425: Having laid out the framework for our string-based model, we now
426: wish to ask how well such a structure can accommodate the
427: measurements of neutrino mixing angles and mass differences that
428: have been made, and what sort of predictions (if any) might this
429: framework make in terms of future experimental observations. We
430: use a convention in which the solar mixing data defines the mass
431: difference between $m_2$ and $m_1$ with $m_2 > m_1$. Then the
432: eigenvalue $m_3$ relevant for the atmospheric data is the
433: ``isolated'' eigenvalue.
434:
435: The current experimental picture is summarized by the recent three
436: neutrino global analysis in~\cite{Fogli:2005cq}. For the solar
437: neutrino sector we take
438: %
439: \begin{eqnarray}
440: %
441: \Delta m_{12}^{2} & = & 7.92 (1\pm 0.09) \; \times 10^{-5} {\rm
442: eV}^2 \label{dm12} \\
443: %
444: \sin^{2}\theta_{12} & = & 0.314(1_{-0.15}^{+0.18}) ,
445: \label{theta12}
446: %
447: \end{eqnarray}
448: %
449: where all measurements are $\pm 2 \sigma$ (95\% C.L.). The last
450: measurement implies a value for the mixing angle $\theta_{12}$
451: itself of $\theta_{12} \simeq 0.595_{-0.052}^{+0.060}$, well below
452: the maximal mixing value $\theta_{12}^{max}=\pi/4$. We take the
453: upper bound on $\theta_{13}$ to be
454: %
455: \begin{equation}
456: %
457: \sin^{2} \theta_{13} =0.9_{-0.9}^{+2.3} \times 10^{-2} \; \quad
458: \Rightarrow |\theta_{13}| < 0.18
459: %
460: \label{theta13} \end{equation}
461: %
462: at the~2$\sigma$ level. For the atmospheric oscillations
463: %
464: \begin{eqnarray}
465: %
466: |\Delta m^2_{23}|& =& 2.4 (1_{-0.26}^{+0.21}) \times 10^{-3} {\rm
467: eV}^{2} \label{dm23} \\
468: %
469: \sin^{2}\theta_{23}& =& 0.44 (1_{-0.22}^{+0.41}),
470: %
471: \label{theta23} \end{eqnarray}
472: %
473: consistent with maximal mixing ($\sin^2 \theta_{23}^{\rm
474: max}=0.5$).
475:
476: With this in mind, let us consider the general off-diagonal
477: Majorana mass matrix
478: %
479: \begin{equation}
480: %
481: m_{\nu} = \( \begin{array}{ccc} 0 & a & b \\ a & 0 & \epsilon \\ b
482: & \epsilon & 0
483: \end{array} \) = m_{\nu}^{T}
484: %
485: \label{genoff} \end{equation}
486: %
487: with $\det m_{\nu} = -2ab\epsilon$, and where we imagine the entry
488: $\epsilon$ to be a small perturbation around the basic structure
489: of~(\ref{lambdaT1}), which can arise from higher-order terms in
490: $W$. Without loss of generality we can redefine the phases of the
491: lepton doublets $L_i$ and $L'_i$ such that the entries $a$, $b$
492: and $\epsilon$ are real and $m_{\nu} = m_{\nu}^{\dagger}$. This
493: implies
494: %
495: \begin{equation}
496: %
497: U_{\nu}^{\dagger}m_{\nu} U_{\nu} = {\rm diag}(m_1, m_2, m_3)
498: \equiv m_{\rm diag} .
499: %
500: \label{Unu} \end{equation}
501: %
502: We also have $\Tr \; m_{\rm diag} = m_1 + m_2 + m_3 = \Tr \;
503: m_{\nu} = 0$, where the various eigenvalues $m_i$ are real but can
504: be negative.
505:
506: If we begin by first ignoring the solar mass difference, and take
507: the atmospheric mass difference to be given by~(\ref{dm23}), then
508: there is no way to accommodate the ``normal'' hierarchy while
509: maintaining the requirement that $\epsilon \ll a,b$. For the
510: inverted hierarchy (in the same approximation of vanishing solar
511: mass difference) we would require $m_2 = -m_1 = 0.049 \; {\rm eV}$
512: with $m_3 =0$. This could derive from~(\ref{genoff}) if $\sqrt{a^2
513: + b^2} = m_2$ and $\epsilon=0$. In this case $\sum_i |m_i| = 0.098
514: \; {\rm eV}$. This is clearly in line with the form of~(\ref{WT})
515: and implies a triplet mass of order
516: %
517: \begin{equation}
518: %
519: M_T = 2.0 \times \lambda_2 \lambda_T \(\frac{v_2 v'_2}{(100
520: \GeV)^2}\) \times 10^{14} \GeV
521: %
522: \label{MT} \end{equation}
523: %
524: where we have defined $v_2 = \lang (h_2)^0 \rang$ and $v'_2 =
525: \lang (h'_2)^0 \rang$. The solar mass difference~(\ref{dm12}) can
526: be restored in this case by taking $\epsilon \simeq \frac{1}{43}$
527: in the mass matrix given by
528: %
529: \begin{equation}
530: %
531: m_{\nu} = \sqrt{\frac{|\Delta m^2_{23}|}{2}} \(
532: \begin{array}{ccc} 0 & -1 & -1 \\ -1 & 0 & \epsilon
533: \\ -1 & \epsilon & 0 \end{array} \) .
534: %
535: \label{perturb} \end{equation}
536: %
537:
538: This value is particularly encouraging for theories motivated by
539: the weakly coupled heterotic string compactified on orbifolds.
540: Such theories generally give rise to an Abelian gauge factor with
541: non-vanishing trace anomaly. This anomaly is cancelled by the
542: Green-Schwarz mechanism, which involves a Fayet-Iliopoulos (FI)
543: term $\xi_{\rm FI}$ in the 4D
544: Lagrangian~\cite{Dine:1987xk,Dine:1987gj,Atick:1987gy}. In
545: general, at least one field $X$ of the massless spectrum, charged
546: under this anomalous $U(1)$ factor, will receive a vev $X \simeq
547: \sqrt{\xi_{\rm FI}}$ so as to ensure $\lang D_X \rang = 0$ below
548: the scale $\xi_{\rm FI}$. Explicit orbifold constructions suggest
549: that $0.09 \leq r_{\rm FI} = \sqrt{|\xi_{\rm FI}|}/M_{\PL} \leq
550: 0.14$ for $g^2 \simeq 1/2$~\cite{Giedt:2001zw}. Thus the
551: perturbation $\epsilon$ could be the result of non-renormalizable
552: operators in the superpotential of relative low-degree -- perhaps
553: involving only one or two powers of such a field vev, depending on
554: the size of the dimensionless Yukawa couplings involved.
555:
556: Considering the underlying $SU(2)_A \times SU(2)_B$ theory, fields
557: bifundamental under both $SU(2)$ factors will decompose into a
558: triplet and a singlet under the breaking to the diagonal subgroup.
559: Let us denote this singlet representation as $\psi$. Then terms at
560: dimension four in the superpotential that can populate the
561: vanishing entries in~(\ref{lambdaT1}) include
562: %
563: \begin{eqnarray}
564: %
565: \Delta W &=& \frac{\lambda_{11}}{M_{\PL}} L_1 (\mathbf{2}, 1) T
566: (\mathbf{2}, \mathbf{2}) \psi (\mathbf{2}, \mathbf{2}) L_1
567: (\mathbf{2}, 1) \nonumber \\
568: %
569: & & +\frac{\lambda_{ij}}{M_{\PL}}L'_i (1, \mathbf{2})
570: T(\mathbf{2},\mathbf{2}) \psi (\mathbf{2},\mathbf{2}) L'_j
571: (1,\mathbf{2}) ,
572: %
573: \label{psi} \end{eqnarray}
574: %
575: where $i, j = 2, 3$ and we denote the representations under
576: $SU(2)_A \times SU(2)_B$ for convenience. The singlet field $\psi$
577: must have vanishing hypercharge, so it cannot be the singlet
578: component of the same bifundamental that led to $T$ and
579: $\oline{T}$, though it may be the singlet component of some
580: bifundamental representation that served to generate the breaking
581: to the diagonal subgroup in the first place, or could be
582: identified with $\wh{S}_4$ or $\wh{S}_5$ of~(\ref{Wfull}). To the
583: extent that string models seldom give self-couplings at such a low
584: order in the superpotential, we might expect $\lambda_{11} =
585: \lambda_{22} = \lambda_{33} =0$, thereby
586: generating~(\ref{perturb}) at roughly the correct order of
587: magnitude.
588:
589: %-------------------------------------------------------------
590: Now let us consider the leptonic (PMNS) mixing matrix defined by
591: $U_{\rm PMNS} = U_e^{\dagger}U_{\nu}$, where $U_{\nu}$ is the
592: matrix in~(\ref{Unu}) and $U_e$ is the analogous matrix for the
593: charged leptons. Most of the earlier
594: studies~\cite{DeGouvea:2005gd,Langacker:2004xy,Altarelli:2004za,Mohapatra:2004vr,Barger:1998ta,Barbieri:1998mq,Altarelli:1998nx,Jezabek:1998du,Mohapatra:1999zr,Babu:2002ex}
595: of the texture in (\ref{lambdaT1}) assumed that this form holds in
596: the basis for which $U_e=1$. In that case, one has an inverted
597: hierarchy and $U_{\rm PMNS} = U_{\nu}$ is bimaximal for $a=b$,
598: i.e., $\theta_{12}=\theta_{23}=\pi/4$, while $\theta_{13}=0$. For
599: $|a|\ne |b|$ the solar mixing remains maximal while the
600: atmospheric mixing angle is $|\tan \theta_{23}|=|b|/|a|$. It is
601: now well established, however, that the solar mixing is not
602: maximal, i.e.,
603: $\pi/4-\theta_{12}=0.19^{+0.05}_{-0.06}$~\cite{Fogli:2005cq},
604: where the quoted errors are~2$\sigma$. It is well-known that
605: reasonable perturbations on this texture (still with $U_e=1$) have
606: difficulty yielding a realistic solar mixing and mass splitting.
607: To see this, let us add a perturbation $\delta$ to the 13-entry of
608: (\ref{perturb}) and perturbations $\epsilon_{ii}$ to the diagonal
609: entries. To leading order, $\delta$ only shifts the atmospheric
610: mixing from maximal (to $\theta_{12}\sim \pi/4-\delta/2$).
611: $\epsilon_{22}$ and $\epsilon_{33}$ large enough to affect the
612: Solar mixing tend to give too large contributions to
613: $|\theta_{13}|$, so we will ignore them (their inclusion would
614: merely lead to additional fine-tuned parameter ranges). One then
615: finds
616: %
617: \begin{equation}
618: %
619: \frac{\pi}{4} - \theta_{12} \simeq 0.19 \simeq
620: \frac{1}{4}(\epsilon - \epsilon_{11}) ,
621: %
622: \label{solardev} \end{equation}
623: %
624: whereas the solar mass difference is
625: %
626: \begin{equation}
627: %
628: \frac{\Delta m^2_{12}}{\sqrt{2}|\Delta m_{\rm atm}^2|} \simeq
629: \frac{1}{43} \simeq (\epsilon + \epsilon_{11}) .
630: %
631: \label{ratio} \end{equation}
632: %
633: Satisfying these constraints would require a moderate tuning of
634: $\epsilon$ and $\epsilon_{11}$. Moreover, they would each have to
635: be of order~0.4 in magnitude, somewhat large to be considered
636: perturbations.
637:
638: On the other hand, a simple and realistic pattern emerges when we
639: instead allow for small departures from $U_e \propto
640: \mathbf{1}$~\cite{Frampton:2004ud,Rodejohann:2003sc,Petcov:2004rk,Altarelli:2004jb,Romanino:2004ww,Datta:2005ci},
641: and for the general superpotential in (\ref{Wfull}) there is no
642: reason for such mixings to be absent.\footnote{The relatively
643: large value required for $\sin\theta_{12}^e$ compared to
644: $\sqrt{m_e/m_\mu}\sim 0.07$ suggests an asymmetric charged lepton
645: mass matrix, but this would not be unexpected.} For example,
646: starting from~(\ref{perturb}) a Cabibbo-sized 12-entry in the
647: charged lepton mixing matrix
648: %
649: \begin{equation}
650: %
651: U_e^{\dagger} \sim \left( \begin{array}{ccc} 1 &
652: -\sin\theta_{12}^e & 0
653: \\ \sin\theta_{12}^e & 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 &1 \end{array}\right) ,
654: %
655: \end{equation}
656: %
657: leads to
658: \begin{equation}
659: %
660: \frac{\pi}{4} - \theta_{12} \simeq \frac{\sin\theta_{12}^e}{\sqrt{2}},%
661: \end{equation}
662: which is satisfied for $\sin\theta_{12}^e\simeq
663: 0.27^{+0.07}_{-0.08}$. This mixing also leads to the prediction of
664: a large
665: \begin{equation}
666: %
667: \sin^2 \theta_{13}\simeq \frac{\sin^2\theta_{12}^e}{{2}}
668: \simeq(0.017-0.059)
669: %
670: \end{equation}
671: (the range is $\pm 2\sigma$), close to the current experimental
672: upper limit of 0.032. Finally, this model implies
673: \begin{equation}
674: %
675: m_{\beta\beta} \simeq m_2 (\cos^2 \theta_{12}-\sin^2
676: \theta_{12})\simeq 0.018 {\rm \ eV}
677: %
678: \end{equation}
679: for the effective mass relevant to neutrinoless double beta decay.
680: This is the standard result for the inverted hierarchy, with the
681: minus sign due to the opposite signs of $m_1$ and $m_2$. Such a
682: value should be observable in planned
683: experiments~\cite{DeGouvea:2005gd,Langacker:2004xy,Altarelli:2004za,Mohapatra:2004vr}.
684:
685:
686:
687: %-----------------------------------
688: % --- SECTION FOUR -----------------
689: %-----------------------------------
690: \section{Realization in Heterotic String Models}
691: %
692: \label{sec:string}
693:
694: Having outlined in a broad manner the elementary requirements for
695: phenomenological viability of any triplet-based model with a
696: structure dictated by the superpotential in~(\ref{Wfull}), we
697: might now wish to ask whether such a set of fields and couplings
698: really does arise in explicit string constructions as we have been
699: assuming. Rather than build all possible constructions of a
700: certain type for a dedicated scan -- an undertaking that would
701: undoubtedly produce interesting results in many areas, but which
702: we reserve for a future study -- we will here choose one
703: particular example as a case study. The $\mathbb{Z}_3 \times
704: \mathbb{Z}_3$ orbifold construction of Font et
705: al.~\cite{Font:1989aj} begins with a non-standard embedding that
706: utilizes two shift vectors and one Wilson line in the first
707: complex plane. This Wilson line breaks the observable sector gauge
708: group from $SO(10)$ to $SU(3) \times SU(2)_A \times SU(2)_B$. The
709: massless spectrum of this model contains~75 species of fields.
710: Those from the untwisted sectors have a multiplicity of one, while
711: twisted sectors have a multiplicity of three or nine, depending on
712: the representation. It is natural to consider this multiplicity
713: factor as a generation index.
714:
715: There are three species of fields which are bifundamental under
716: the observable sector $SU(2)_A \times SU(2)_B$ (one in the
717: untwisted sector and two in various twisted sectors), five
718: doublets under $SU(2)_A$ and eight doublets under $SU(2)_B$. There
719: were also~17 species that were singlets under all non-Abelian
720: groups. So the minimal set of fields needed to generate the
721: superpotential of~(\ref{Wfull}) are present, as well as an
722: additional bifundamental representation that may be used to break
723: the product group to the diagonal subgroup and/or generate the
724: needed higher-order corrections in~(\ref{psi}). We note that there
725: are additional species that have non-trivial representations under
726: the non-Abelian groups of {\em both} the observable and hidden
727: sectors. In order to avoid potential complications should any of
728: these hidden sector groups undergo confinement we have not
729: considered these in what follows.
730:
731: From the selection rules given in~\cite{Font:1989aj} it is
732: possible to construct all possible dimension three
733: (renormalizable) and dimension four (non-renormalizable)
734: superpotential couplings consistent with gauge invariance.
735: Considering only the~33 relevant fields mentioned in the previous
736: paragraph, the selection rules and gauge invariance under the
737: observable and hidden sector non-Abelian groups allow~32 and~135
738: terms at dimension three and four, respectively. Requiring in
739: addition gauge invariance under the six $U(1)$ factors (one of
740: which being anomalous) reduces these numbers to a tractable~15
741: and~8, respectively.
742:
743: To ascertain which of the terms in~(\ref{Wfull}) can be identified
744: from the above it is necessary to choose a linear combination of
745: the five non-anomalous $U(1)$ factors to be identified as
746: hypercharge, and then determine the resulting hypercharges of the
747: bifundamentals, doublets and singlets under this assignment. Our
748: algorithm was to begin with the two bifundamentals of the twisted
749: sector, as the untwisted bifundamental had no couplings to $SU(2)$
750: doublets at dimension three or four. These two twisted sector
751: fields had a selection-rule allowed coupling to a non-Abelian
752: group singlet at the leading (dimension three) order, which could
753: therefore play the role of $S_3$ in~(\ref{Wfull}). Requiring these
754: two fields to carry hypercharge $Y= \pm 1$ (and thus automatically
755: ensuring that the candidate $S_3$ have vanishing hypercharge)
756: placed two constraints on the allowed hypercharge embedding.
757:
758: We then proceed to the coupling~(\ref{WT}), or $\lambda_T$
759: in~(\ref{Wfull}) for the $Y=+1$ species. Each bifundamental had
760: several couplings of this form to various pairs of $SU(2)$
761: doublets, at both dimension three and dimension four. By
762: considering all possible pairs and requiring that the doublets
763: involved be assigned $Y= -1/2$ places two more constraints on the
764: allowed hypercharge embedding. Finally, we proceed to the equally
765: critical $\lambda_2$ coupling in~(\ref{Wfull}) for the oppositely
766: charged $Y=-1$ species. Again by considering all possible pairs of
767: doublets with this coupling, and requiring that both have
768: hypercharge $Y=+1/2$ we typically constrained the hypercharge
769: embedding to a unique embedding. The hypercharges of all the
770: states in the theory are then determined. Not all will have
771: Standard Model hypercharges, and thus most will have fractional or
772: non-standard electric charges and must be discarded as
773: ``exotics.'' From the set with Standard Model hypercharge
774: assignments we can identify the surviving couplings
775: of~(\ref{Wfull}). In all, this process resulted in~35 distinct
776: field assignment possibilities, each having as a minimum the
777: couplings $\lambda_T$, $\lambda_2$ and $\lambda_3$ -- the minimum
778: set to generate the triplet see-saw and the mass pattern
779: of~(\ref{lambdaT1}). Though these couplings are not enough to
780: generate the perturbations on the bimaximal texture, nor do they
781: include the couplings needed to generate charged lepton masses or
782: $\mu$-terms to break electroweak symmetry, they still represent a
783: complete set of needed couplings to explain the smallness of
784: neutrino masses generally -- something that a more exhaustive
785: search of a whole class for the ``standard'' seesaw failed to
786: achieve~\cite{Giedt:2005vx}.
787:
788: None of the~35 possibilities allowed for all of the couplings
789: of~(\ref{Wfull}), and~12 had no other couplings than the minimal
790: set. This is yet another example of how selection rules of the
791: underlying conformal field theory often forbid operators that
792: would otherwise be allowed by gauge invariance in the 4D~theory.
793: Rather than present the various features of all of these
794: assignments, we instead point out a few particular cases. One
795: successful hypercharge assignment allows for a superpotential of
796: the form
797: %
798: \begin{eqnarray}
799: %
800: W &=& \lambda_T L T L' + \lambda_2 H_2 \oline{T} H'_2 + \lambda_3
801: S_3 T \oline{T} \nonumber \\
802: %
803: & & + \lambda_5 S_5 H'_1 H'_2 + \lambda_7 E_R L' H'_1 ,
804: %
805: \label{W2} \end{eqnarray}
806: %
807: where in this case $L$, $L'$, $H_2$ and $H'_2$ all have
808: multiplicity three, $H'_1$ has multiplicity one and there is no
809: species with the correct hypercharge to be identified as $H_1$. In
810: this case, identifying $L$ with the doublet containing the
811: electron leaves the electron massless after electroweak symmetry
812: breaking up to terms of dimension five in the superpotential.
813:
814: Alternatively, one can obtain candidates for all six species of
815: doublets, such as an example in which the allowed superpotential
816: is given by
817: %
818: \begin{eqnarray}
819: %
820: W &=& \lambda_T L T L' + \lambda_1 H_1 T H'_1 + \lambda_2 H_2
821: \oline{T} H'_2 \nonumber
822: \\
823: %
824: & & + \lambda_3 S_3 T \oline{T} + \lambda_7 E_R L' H'_1 .
825: %
826: \label{W3} \end{eqnarray}
827: %
828: All doublets except $H_2$ in this case arise from twisted sectors,
829: so have multiplicity three. It is interesting to note that in
830: several of the~35 cases the hypercharge embedding assigned $Y=0$
831: to the bifundamental representation of the untwisted sector,
832: suggesting it could play the role of breaking the product group to
833: the diagonal subgroup. Couplings of the form of~(\ref{psi}),
834: however, were forbidden by the string theoretic selection rules
835: through dimension four.
836:
837: Of course none of these cases are truly realistic in the sense of
838: what is needed to explain the observed neutrino data as outlined
839: in the previous section, and it would have been naive to have
840: expected any to be in the first place. The above examples are
841: instead meant to demonstrate the plausibility of this new
842: realization of a triplet-induced seesaw from a string-theory
843: viewpoint by means of a ready example from the literature. Having
844: introduced the concept, defined a basic structure as
845: in~(\ref{Wfull}) and demonstrated that the structure may in fact
846: be realized in the context of tractable string constructions, it
847: becomes reasonable to propose a dedicated search over a wide class
848: of constructions for precisely this model -- a search that would
849: necessarily be a separate research project in its own right but
850: which would complement well the analysis already performed
851: in~\cite{Giedt:2005vx}.
852:
853: The $\mathbb{Z}_3 \times \mathbb{Z}_3$ construction is often
854: considered because it, like its $\mathbb{Z}_3$ cousin, generates a
855: three-fold redundancy for most of the massless spectrum in a
856: relatively straightforward way. But a minimal model would
857: presumably prefer to break away from the three-fold degeneracy on
858: every species, but not the requirement of three generations
859: globally. For example, it is possible to imagine a model in which
860: there are only three ``lepton'' doublets of $SU(2)_L$ once we
861: break to the diagonal subgroup. Since species in orbifold models
862: (and orientifold models of open strings as well) are defined by
863: fixed point locations (i.e., geometrically) this is not
864: unreasonable to imagine -- in fact, precisely such a separation of
865: the three ``generations'' occurs in the recent $\mathbb{Z}_2\times
866: \mathbb{Z}_3$ construction of Kobayashi et
867: al.~\cite{Kobayashi:2004ud}. Nevertheless, there is no getting
868: around the need for at least an extra pair of one, if not both, of
869: the Higgs doublets of the MSSM. As discussed
870: following~(\ref{Wfull}), it is possible that the extra doublets
871: are projected out near the string scale (e.g., if some of the
872: $S_{4,5}$ and $\wh{S}_{4,5}$ are associated with the
873: Fayet-Iliopoulos terms) or at an intermediate scale. It is also
874: possible that one or more extra doublets survives to the TeV
875: scale, in which case there are potential implications for
876: FCNC~\cite{Sher:1991km,Atwood:1996vj} and CP
877: violation~\cite{Hall:1993ca}, as well as for the charged lepton
878: mixing generated from~(\ref{Wfull}). A more detailed study of such
879: issues is beyond the scope of this paper.
880:
881:
882: %-----------------------------------
883: % --- CONCLUSION -------------------
884: %-----------------------------------
885: \section*{Conclusions}
886:
887: We have presented a new construction of Type~II seesaw models
888: utilizing triplets of $SU(2)_L$ in which that group is realized as
889: the diagonal subgroup of an $SU(2)_A \times SU(2)_B$ product
890: group. The triplets in this construction begin as bifundamentals
891: under the two original $SU(2)$ factors, and this identification
892: immediately leads to a bimaximal mixing texture for the effective
893: neutrino mass matrix provided generations of lepton doublets are
894: assigned to the two underlying $SU(2)$ factors in the appropriate
895: way. The observed atmospheric mass difference can be accommodated
896: if the triplets obtain a mass of order $10^{14} \GeV$, and the
897: solar mass difference can easily be incorporated by a simple
898: perturbation arising at dimension four or five in the
899: superpotential. The observed deviation of the Solar mixing from
900: maximal can be accommodated by a small (Cabibbo-like) mixing in
901: the charged lepton sector, leading to predictions for
902: $\theta_{13}$ and neutrinoless double beta decay.
903:
904: We were led to consider this construction by imagining the
905: simplest possible requirements for generating a triplet of
906: $SU(2)_L$ from string constructions -- particularly the weakly
907: coupled heterotic string, though the model can be realized in
908: other constructions as well. Though inspired by string theory, the
909: model is not itself inherently stringy and is interesting in its
910: own right. Some of the properties of this model are known to
911: phenomenologists, who have arrived at a similar mass matrix from
912: other directions. Interestingly, however, to the best of our
913: knowledge the particular texture has not emerged from other
914: versions of heavy triplet models, e.g., motivated by grand
915: unification or left-right symmetry. The simplest version of the
916: construction requires at least one additional pair of Higgs
917: doublets, which may or may not survive to the TeV scale.
918:
919: Having laid out a concrete model as a plausible alternative to the
920: standard Type~I seesaw in string-based constructions, it is now
921: possible to examine large classes of explicit string models to
922: search for both types of neutrino mass patterns. Given the
923: difficulty in finding a working example of the minimal Type~I
924: seesaw in at least one otherwise promising class of string
925: construction, having alternatives with clear ``signatures'' (in
926: this case, at least two $SU(2)$ factors, with at least two fields
927: bifundamental under both, capable of forming a hypercharge-neutral
928: mass term) is welcome.
929:
930:
931:
932: \begin{acknowledgments}
933: We wish to thank Joel Giedt and Boris Kayser for helpful
934: discussions and advice. This work was supported by the
935: U.S.~Department of Energy under Grant No.~DOE-EY-76-02-3071.
936: \end{acknowledgments}
937:
938: %\bibliography{omega}
939: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
940: \input{tbib.tex}
941: \end{thebibliography}
942:
943: \end{document}
944: