1: \documentstyle[prd,aps,preprint,tighten,epsfig]{revtex}
2:
3: \begin{document}
4:
5: \draft
6:
7: \title{On the Koide-like Relations for the Running Masses \\
8: of Charged Leptons, Neutrinos and Quarks}
9: \author{{\bf Zhi-zhong Xing}\thanks{E-mail: xingzz@mail.ihep.ac.cn}
10: ~ and ~ {\bf He Zhang}\thanks{E-mail: zhanghe@mail.ihep.ac.cn}}
11: \address{CCAST (World Laboratory), P.O. Box 8730,
12: Beijing 100080, China \\
13: and Institute of High Energy Physics,
14: Chinese Academy of Sciences, \\
15: P.O. Box 918, Beijing 100049, China}
16:
17: \maketitle
18:
19: \begin{abstract}
20: Current experimental data indicate that the Koide relation for the
21: {\it pole} masses of charged leptons, which can be parametrized as
22: $Q^{\rm pole}_l = 2/3$, is valid up to the accuracy of ${\cal
23: O}(10^{-5})$. We show that the {\it running} masses of charged
24: leptons fail in satisfying the Koide relation (i.e., $Q^{}_l(\mu)
25: \neq 2/3$), but the discrepancy between $Q^{}_l (\mu)$ and $Q^{\rm
26: pole}_l$ is only about $0.2\%$ at $\mu = M^{}_Z$. The Koide-like
27: relations for the running masses of neutrinos ($1/3 <
28: Q^{}_\nu(M^{}_Z) < 0.6$), up-type quarks ($Q^{}_{\rm U}(M^{}_Z)
29: \sim 0.89$) and down-type quarks ($Q^{}_{\rm D}(M^{}_Z) \sim
30: 0.74$) are also examined from $M^{}_Z$ up to the typical seesaw
31: scale $M^{}_R \sim 10^{14}$ GeV, and they are found to be nearly
32: stable against radiative corrections. The approximate stability of
33: $Q^{}_{\rm U}(\mu)$ and $Q^{}_{\rm D}(\mu)$ is mainly attributed
34: to the strong mass hierarchy of quarks, while that of
35: $Q^{}_l(\mu)$ and $Q^{}_\nu(\mu)$ is essentially for the reason
36: that the lepton mass ratios are rather insensitive to radiative
37: corrections.
38: \end{abstract}
39:
40: \newpage
41:
42: \framebox{\Large\bf 1} ~
43: Thanks to the precise measurements of
44: three charged lepton masses \cite{PDG},
45: \begin{eqnarray}
46: m^{}_e & = & \left (0.510998918 \pm 0.000000044 \right ) ~ {\rm
47: MeV} \; , ~~
48: \nonumber \\
49: m^{}_\mu & = & \left (105.6583692 \pm 0.0000094 \right ) ~ {\rm
50: MeV} \; ,
51: \nonumber \\
52: m^{}_\tau & = & \left (1776.99^{+0.29}_{-0.26} \right ) ~ {\rm
53: MeV} \; ,
54: % (1)
55: \end{eqnarray}
56: the empirical Koide mass relation \cite{Koide1}
57: \begin{eqnarray}
58: Q^{\rm pole}_l \; \equiv \; \frac{m^{}_e + m^{}_\mu + m^{}_\tau}{
59: \left (\sqrt{m^{}_e} + \sqrt{m^{}_\mu} + \sqrt{m^{}_\tau} \right
60: )^2} \; = \; \frac{2}{3}
61: % (2)
62: \end{eqnarray}
63: has been testified up to the accuracy of ${\cal O}(10^{-5})$.
64: Namely, the above experimental data yield $-0.00001 \leq Q^{\rm
65: pole}_l - 2/3 \leq +0.00002$. This precision is so amazing that
66: there might exist some underlying physics behind the Koide
67: relation. A number of authors have tried to understand Eq. (2) and
68: extend it to neutrino masses or quark masses based on possible
69: flavor symmetries and phenomenological conjectures
70: \cite{Koide2,Foot,Li,Gerard}. It is certainly impossible to get a
71: universal Koide relation for both charged fermions and neutrinos
72: by using the experimental data at low energy scales, nor is it
73: likely to achieve such a mass relation at any high energy scales.
74: In this category of exercises, one has to take care of the
75: concepts of fermion masses and clarify the running mass behaviors
76: from one energy scale to another.
77:
78: Note that Eq. (2) holds for the {\it pole} masses of three charged
79: leptons, which have been denoted as $m^{}_e$, $m^{}_\mu$ and
80: $m^{}_\tau$. Is it also applicable to the {\it running} masses
81: $m^{}_e(\mu)$, $m^{}_\mu(\mu)$ and $m^{}_\tau(\mu)$ at a given
82: energy scale (e.g., $\mu = M^{}_Z$)? We are going to answer this
83: question both analytically and numerically.
84:
85: If the Koide relation is not a universal relation for fermion
86: masses at low energy scales, one may wonder whether a universal
87: Koide-like relation is achievable at a superhigh energy scale. We
88: shall show that the answer to this question is negative for both
89: charged fermions and neutrinos, but the dynamical reasons are
90: somehow different in these two cases.
91:
92: Let us define the following Koide-like parameters for the running
93: masses of charged leptons ($f = l$), up-type quarks ($f = {\rm
94: U}$), down-type quarks ($f= {\rm D}$) and neutrinos ($f = \nu$):
95: \begin{eqnarray}
96: Q^{}_f (\mu) = \frac{m^{}_x (\mu) + m^{}_y (\mu) + m^{}_z
97: (\mu)}{\left [ \sqrt{m^{}_x (\mu)} + \sqrt{m^{}_y (\mu)} +
98: \sqrt{m^{}_z (\mu)} \right ]^2} \ ,
99: % (3)
100: \end{eqnarray}
101: where
102: \begin{equation}
103: \left ( x, ~y, ~z \right ) \; =\; \left \{
104: \begin{array}{l}
105: \left ( e, ~\mu, ~\tau \right ) \; , ~~~~~~ {\rm for} ~ f=l \; ; \\
106: \left ( 1, ~2, ~3 \right ) \; , ~~~~~~ {\rm for} ~ f=\nu \; ; \\
107: \left ( u, ~c, ~t \right ) \; , ~~~~~~ {\rm for} ~ f={\rm U} \; ; \\
108: \left ( d, ~s, ~b \right ) \; , ~~~~~~ {\rm for} ~ f={\rm D} \; .
109: \end{array}
110: \right . ~~
111: % (4)
112: \end{equation}
113: As pointed out by G$\rm\acute{e}$rard {\it et al} \cite{Gerard},
114: $Q^{}_f = 1$ (maximum) would hold when three fermion masses had
115: the extremely hierarchical spectrum (e.g., $m^{}_x \ll m^{}_y \ll
116: m^{}_z$), while $Q^{}_f = 1/3$ (minimum) would occur if three
117: fermion masses were exactly degenerate (i.e., $m^{}_x = m^{}_y =
118: m^{}_z$). It might be a puzzle that $Q^{\rm pole}_l$ happens to
119: take the mean value of $Q^{\rm min}_f$ and $Q^{\rm max}_f$. The
120: main purpose of this paper is just to examine the deviations of
121: realistic $Q^{}_l$, $Q^{}_\nu$, $Q^{}_{\rm U}$ and $Q^{}_{\rm D}$
122: from $Q^{\rm pole}_l$ at and above the electroweak scale.
123:
124: \vspace{0.4cm}
125:
126: \framebox{\Large\bf 2} ~
127: First of all, let us calculate the
128: discrepancy between $Q^{}_l(M^{}_Z)$ and $Q^{\rm pole}_l$. The
129: running masses of three charged leptons $m^{}_l (\mu)$ are related
130: with their corresponding pole masses $m^{}_l$ in a very simple way
131: \cite{running},
132: \begin{eqnarray}
133: m^{}_l(\mu) \; = \; m^{}_l \left (1 - \Delta^{}_l \right ) \ ,
134: % (5)
135: \end{eqnarray}
136: where
137: \begin{eqnarray}
138: \Delta^{}_l = \frac{\alpha(\mu)}{\pi} \left [ \frac{3}{2} \ln
139: \frac{\mu}{m^{}_l(\mu)} + 1 \right ]
140: % (6)
141: \end{eqnarray}
142: with $\alpha(\mu)$ being the fine-structure constant at the energy
143: scale $\mu$. It is then straightforward to establish the
144: relationship between $Q^{}_l (\mu)$ and $Q^{\rm pole}_l$ by
145: combining Eqs. (3) and (5). Taking account of the strong mass
146: hierarchy $m^{}_e \ll m^{}_{\mu} \ll m^{}_{\tau}$ (more
147: explicitly, $m^{}_e/m^{}_\mu \approx 0.00484$ and
148: $m^{}_\mu/m^{}_\tau \approx 0.0595$ \cite{PDG}), we find that it
149: is more instructive to make the following analytical
150: approximation:
151: \begin{eqnarray}
152: Q^{}_l (\mu) \simeq Q^{\rm pole}_l \left [ 1 +
153: \sqrt{\frac{m^{}_{\mu}}{m^{}_{\tau}}} \left ( \Delta^{}_{\mu} -
154: \Delta^{}_{\tau} \right ) \right] \ .
155: % (7)
156: \end{eqnarray}
157: One can clearly see that the deviation of $Q^{}_l (\mu)$ from
158: $Q^{\rm pole}_l$ is strongly suppressed, due to the smallness of
159: $\sqrt{m^{}_{\mu}/m^{}_{\tau}}$ and that of $\Delta^{}_l$.
160:
161: At $\mu = M^{}_Z$ with $\alpha(M^{}_Z)=(128.89)^{-1}$
162: \cite{alpha}, the running masses of three charged leptons can be
163: evaluated by solving Eq. (5) with the inputs of the pole masses
164: given in Eq. (1). For our purpose, we only need to make use of the
165: central values of $m^{}_e$, $m^{}_\mu$ and $m^{}_\tau$ in the
166: calculation. The results are
167: \begin{eqnarray}
168: m^{}_e(M^{}_Z) & = & 0.486755106 ~{\rm MeV} \ , \nonumber \\
169: m^{}_\mu(M^{}_Z) & = & 102.740394 ~{\rm MeV} \ , \nonumber \\
170: m^{}_\tau(M^{}_Z) & = & 1746.56 ~{\rm MeV} \ .
171: % (8)
172: \end{eqnarray}
173: With the help of Eq. (6), we obtain $\Delta^{}_\mu = 0.0276$ and
174: $\Delta^{}_\tau = 0.0171$ at $M^{}_Z$. Therefore,
175: \begin{equation}
176: Q^{}_l(M^{}_Z) = 1.00188 \times Q^{\rm pole}_l = 0.66792 \; ,
177: % (9)
178: \end{equation}
179: achieved from Eqs. (3) and (5). If the analytical approximation
180: made in Eq. (7) is used to estimate $Q^{}_l (M^{}_Z)$, one can get
181: $Q^{}_l(M^{}_Z) \approx 1.00256 \times Q^{\rm pole}_l = 0.66837$.
182: This result is compatible with Eq. (9) and implies that Eq. (7) is
183: actually a reasonable approximation.
184:
185: Obviously, the discrepancy between $Q^{}_l(M^{}_Z)$ and $Q^{\rm
186: pole}_l$ is only about $0.2\%$. This tiny difference makes sense
187: in physics, because it is much larger than the accuracy of Eq.
188: (2). In other words, the possibility of $Q^{}_l(M^{}_Z) = 2/3$,
189: which inversely leads to $Q^{\rm pole}_l - 2/3 = -0.00188$, has
190: been ruled out by the experimental data. We are therefore left
191: with the conclusion that the running and pole masses of three
192: charged leptons cannot simultaneously satisfy the Koide relation.
193:
194: \vspace{0.4cm}
195:
196: \framebox{\Large\bf 3} ~
197: Now let us turn to the Koide-like
198: relations of quark masses. We concentrate on the running masses of
199: six quarks at $\mu = M^{}_Z$ \cite{qmass}
200: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
201: \footnote{We do not consider the pole masses of six quarks,
202: because they are neither directly measurable nor relevant for
203: model building. In particular, the pole masses of three light
204: quarks ($u,d,s$) involve large uncertainties, since they can only
205: be evaluated in the region with a large $\alpha^{}_s (\mu)$
206: \cite{update1}.},
207: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
208: \begin{eqnarray}
209: m^{}_u(M^{}_Z) & = & \left (1.7 \pm 0.4 \right )
210: ~{\rm MeV} \ ,
211: \nonumber \\
212: m^{}_c(M^{}_Z) & = & \left (0.62 \pm 0.03 \right ) ~{\rm GeV} \ ,
213: ~~~~~~
214: \nonumber \\
215: m^{}_t(M^{}_Z) & = & \left (171 \pm 3 \right ) ~{\rm GeV} \ ;
216: % (10)
217: \end{eqnarray}
218: and
219: \begin{eqnarray}
220: m^{}_d(M^{}_Z) & = & \left (3.0 \pm 0.6 \right ) ~{\rm MeV} \ ,
221: \nonumber \\
222: m^{}_s(M^{}_Z) & = & \left (54 \pm 11 \right ) ~{\rm MeV} \ ,
223: \nonumber \\
224: m^{}_b(M^{}_Z) & = & \left (2.87 \pm 0.03 \right ) ~{\rm GeV} \ .
225: % (11)
226: \end{eqnarray}
227: The Koide-like parameters $Q^{}_{\rm U}$ and $Q^{}_{\rm D}$
228: defined in Eq. (3) can then be calculated at $M^{}_Z$ with the
229: help of Eqs. (10) and (11). For simplicity, only the central
230: values of those quark masses are taken into account. The results
231: are
232: \begin{eqnarray}
233: Q^{}_{\rm U}(M^{}_Z) \; \approx \; 0.89 \ , ~~~~~~ Q^{}_{\rm
234: D}(M^{}_Z) \; \approx \; 0.74 \ .
235: % (12)
236: \end{eqnarray}
237: We see that both numbers significantly deviate from $2/3$ at the
238: electroweak scale.
239:
240: To examine whether the Koide-like relation $Q^{}_{\rm U}(M^{}_X)
241: \approx Q^{}_{\rm D} (M^{}_X) \approx 2/3$ could hold at a
242: superhigh energy scale $M^{}_X$ (e.g., $M^{}_X \sim 10^{14 - 16}$
243: GeV), one may make use of the one-loop renormalization-group
244: equations (RGEs) of quark Yukawa couplings \cite{RGE} in the
245: standard model (SM) or in the minimal supersymmetric standard
246: model (MSSM). Note that the strong hierarchy of charged fermion
247: masses and that of the quark mixing angles allow us to simplify
248: those RGEs to a great extent \cite{ratios}. In particular, the RGE
249: evolution of $m^{}_u/m{}_c$, $m^{}_d/m{}_s$ and $m^{}_e/m{}_\mu$
250: from $M^{}_Z$ to $M^{}_X$ are negligibly small in both the SM and
251: the MSSM. Radiative corrections to the mass ratios
252: $m^{}_c/m^{}_t$, $m^{}_s/m^{}_b$ and $m^{}_\mu/m^{}_\tau$ can be
253: written as
254: \begin{eqnarray}
255: \frac{m^{}_c (M^{}_X)}{m^{}_t (M^{}_X)} & \approx & \frac{m^{}_c
256: (M^{}_Z)}{m^{}_t (M^{}_Z)} \chi^{}_{\rm U} \ ,
257: \nonumber \\
258: \frac{m^{}_s (M^{}_X)}{m^{}_b (M^{}_X)} & \approx & \frac{m^{}_s
259: (M^{}_Z)}{m^{}_b (M^{}_Z)} \chi^{}_{\rm D} \ ,
260: \nonumber \\
261: \frac{m^{}_\mu (M^{}_X)}{m^{}_\tau (M^{}_X)} & \approx &
262: \frac{m^{}_\mu (M^{}_Z)}{m^{}_\tau (M^{}_Z)} \chi^{}_l \ ,
263: % (13)
264: \end{eqnarray}
265: where the evolution functions $\chi^{}_{\rm U}$, $\chi^{}_{\rm D}$
266: and $\chi^{}_l$ are defined by
267: \begin{eqnarray}
268: \chi^{}_f \equiv \exp\left[ \frac{1}{16\pi^2} \int^{\ln
269: M^{}_X}_{\ln M^{}_Z} \left( a^{}_f y^2_t + b^{}_f y^2_b + c^{}_f
270: y^2_\tau \right){\rm d} t \right]
271: % (14)
272: \end{eqnarray}
273: with $t =\ln(\mu)$, $f=({\rm U}, {\rm D},l)$ and $y^{}_i$
274: ($i=t,b,\tau$) being the Yukawa couplings. In the SM, $a^{}_{\rm
275: U} = - b^{}_{\rm U} = - a^{}_{\rm D} = b^{}_{\rm D} = c^{}_l =
276: -3/2$ and $c^{}_{\rm U} = c^{}_{\rm D} = a^{}_l = b^{}_l =0$ hold;
277: while in the MSSM, we have $a^{}_{\rm U} = b^{}_{\rm D} = c^{}_l =
278: -3$, $b^{}_{\rm U} = a^{}_{\rm D} =-1$ and $c^{}_{\rm U} =
279: c^{}_{\rm D} = a^{}_l = b^{}_l =0$. The running behaviors of
280: $\chi^{}_f$ are typically illustrated in Fig. 1. One can see that
281: $\chi^{}_l$ is insensitive to radiative corrections in both the SM
282: and the MSSM. In contrast, $\chi^{}_{\rm U}$ may significantly
283: depart from 1 when $M^{}_X \gg M^{}_Z$ holds, especially for
284: sizable $\tan\beta$ in the MSSM. Note that $\chi^{}_{\rm D} > 1$
285: holds in the SM, as a consequence of $a^{}_{\rm D} >0$ in Eq.
286: (14).
287:
288: With the help of $\chi^{}_f$ (for $f= {\rm U}, {\rm D}, l$) given
289: above, it is easy to derive the Koide-like parameter $Q^{}_f
290: (M^{}_X)$ in terms of $Q^{}_f (M^{}_Z)$. We approximately obtain
291: \begin{eqnarray}
292: Q^{}_{\rm U} (M^{}_{X}) & \approx & Q^{}_{\rm U} (M^{}_Z) \left[ 1
293: + 2\left(1- \sqrt{\chi^{}_{\rm U}} \right) \sqrt{\frac{m^{}_c
294: (M^{}_Z)}{m^{}_t (M^{}_Z)}} \right] \ ,
295: \nonumber \\
296: Q^{}_{\rm D} (M^{}_{X}) & \approx & Q^{}_{\rm D} (M^{}_Z) \left[ 1
297: + 2\left(1- \sqrt{\chi^{}_{\rm D}} \right) \sqrt{\frac{m^{}_s
298: (M^{}_Z)}{m^{}_b (M^{}_Z)}} \right] \ ,
299: \nonumber \\
300: Q^{}_l (M^{}_{X}) & \approx & Q^{}_l (M^{}_Z) \left[ 1 + 2\left(1-
301: \sqrt{\chi^{}_l} \right) \sqrt{\frac{m^{}_\mu (M^{}_Z)}{m^{}_\tau
302: (M^{}_Z)}} \right] \ .
303: % (15)
304: \end{eqnarray}
305: One can see that the deviation of $Q^{}_f (M^{}_X)$ from $Q^{}_f
306: (M^{}_Z)$ is significantly suppressed, because of (i) the strong
307: mass hierarchies of charged fermions and (ii) the small departure
308: of $\chi^{}_f$ from 1. Indeed, $\sqrt{m^{}_c/m^{}_t} \approx
309: 0.06$, $\sqrt{m^{}_s/m^{}_b} \approx 0.14$ and $\sqrt{m^{}_\mu/
310: m^{}_\tau} \approx 0.24$ at $M^{}_Z$. Taking $M^{}_X = M^{}_R \sim
311: 10^{14}$ GeV (the typical scale of heavy right-handed Majorana
312: neutrinos in the seesaw models \cite{SS}), for example, we get
313: $\sqrt{\chi^{}_{\rm U}} \approx 0.97$, $\sqrt{\chi^{}_{\rm D}}
314: \approx 1.03$ and $\sqrt{\chi^{}_{l}} \approx 1.00$ in the SM; or
315: $\sqrt{\chi^{}_{\rm U}} \approx 0.86$, $\sqrt{\chi^{}_{\rm D}}
316: \approx 0.91$ and $\sqrt{\chi^{}_{l}} \approx 0.98$ in the MSSM
317: with $\tan\beta = 50$. Therefore,
318: \begin{equation}
319: Q^{}_f (M^{}_R) - Q^{}_f (M^{}_Z) \; \approx \; \left \{
320: \begin{array}{l}
321: 3.3\times10^{-3} \; , ~~~~~ {\rm for} ~ f = {\rm U} \; , \\
322: -6.5\times10^{-3} \; , \;\;\; {\rm for} ~ f = {\rm D} \; , \\
323: 0 \; , ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ {\rm for} ~ f = l \;
324: \end{array}
325: \right .
326: % (16)
327: \end{equation}
328: in the SM; or
329: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
330: \footnote{The deviation of $Q^{}_f (M^{}_R)$ from $Q^{}_f
331: (M^{}_Z)$ in the MSSM will become much milder, if $\tan\beta$
332: takes smaller values ($\tan\beta = 10$ shown in Fig. 1(b), for
333: example).}
334: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
335: \begin{equation}
336: Q^{}_f (M^{}_R) - Q^{}_f (M^{}_Z) \; \approx \; \left \{
337: \begin{array}{l}
338: 1.4\times10^{-2} \; , ~~~~ {\rm for} ~ f = {\rm U} \; , \\
339: 1.8\times10^{-2} \; , ~~~~ {\rm for} ~ f = {\rm D} \; , \\
340: 4.8\times10^{-3} \; , ~~~~ {\rm for} ~ f = l \;
341: \end{array}
342: \right .
343: % (17)
344: \end{equation}
345: in the MSSM with $\tan\beta = 50$. It is obvious that radiative
346: corrections to the Koide-like parameters are very small.
347:
348: \vspace{0.4cm}
349:
350: \framebox{\Large\bf 4} ~ Finally, we consider the Koide-like
351: relation in the neutrino sector. Although the pole masses of three
352: neutrinos are different from their running masses at $\mu =
353: M^{}_Z$, this difference is negligibly tiny because it is strongly
354: suppressed by the Fermi coupling constant. For simplicity, we
355: mainly calculate the Koide-like parameter $Q^{}_\nu (M^{}_Z)$ and
356: examine its sensitivity to radiative corrections from $M^{}_Z$ up
357: to the seesaw scale $M^{}_R$.
358:
359: Note that the absolute values of three neutrino masses remain
360: unknown, but their upper bound is expected to be $m^{}_i < 0.23
361: ~{\rm eV}$ (for $i=1,2,3$) \cite{Mohapatra}. A global analysis of
362: current experimental data on neutrino oscillations yields
363: \cite{Vissani}: $\Delta m^{2}_{21} \equiv m^2_2 - m^2_1 =(8.0 \pm
364: 0.3) \times 10^{-5}~ {\rm eV^2}$ and $\Delta m^{2}_{32} \equiv
365: m^2_3 - m^2_2 = \pm (2.5 \pm 0.3) \times 10^{-3} ~{\rm eV^2}$ at
366: the $99\%$ confidence level. Since the sign of $\Delta m^2_{32}$
367: has not been fixed, the neutrino mass spectrum can be classified
368: into two general categories:
369: \begin{itemize}
370: \item Normal hierarchy: $m^{}_1 < m^{}_2 < m^{}_3$, including the
371: possibility that three neutrino masses are nearly degenerate
372: ($\Delta m^2_{32} > 0$).
373: \item Inverted hierarchy: $m^{}_3 <
374: m^{}_1 < m^{}_2$, including the possibility that three neutrino
375: masses are nearly degenerate ($\Delta m^2_{32} < 0$).
376: \end{itemize}
377: Allowing $m^{}_1$ or $m^{}_3$ to vary up to its upper bound and
378: inputting the experimental values of $\Delta m^2_{21}$ and $\Delta
379: m^2_{32}$, we may use Eq. (3) to calculate $Q^{}_\nu (M^{}_Z)$.
380: Our numerical results are illustrated in Fig. 2. One can see that
381: the upper limit of $Q^{}_\nu (M^{}_Z)$ is achieved at $m^{}_1 =0$
382: for the normal neutrino mass hierarchy or at $m^{}_3 =0$ for the
383: inverted neutrino mass hierarchy. Indeed,
384: \begin{equation}
385: \frac{1}{Q^{}_\nu (M^{}_Z)} \; =\; \left \{
386: \begin{array}{l}
387: 1 + 2 \displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\sqrt{\Delta m^2_{21}}
388: \sqrt{\Delta m^2_{21} + | \Delta m^2_{32} |}}}{\sqrt{\Delta
389: m^2_{21}} + \sqrt{\Delta m^2_{21} + | \Delta m^2_{32} |}} \; ,
390: ~~~~~ (m^{}_1 \rightarrow 0) \; , \\ \\
391: 1 + 2 \displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\sqrt{|\Delta m^2_{32}|}
392: \sqrt{|\Delta m^2_{32}| - \Delta m^2_{21}}}}{\sqrt{|\Delta
393: m^2_{32}|} + \sqrt{|\Delta m^2_{32} - \Delta m^2_{21}}} \; , ~~~~
394: (m^{}_3 \rightarrow 0) \; .
395: \end{array}
396: \right .
397: % (18)
398: \end{equation}
399: It is then straightforward to understand $Q^{}_\nu (M^{}_Z) \sim
400: 0.6$ for $m^{}_1 \rightarrow 0$ and $Q^{}_\nu (M^{}_Z) \approx
401: 0.5$ for $m^{}_3 \rightarrow 0$ (as shown in Fig. 2) in the
402: approximation of $|\Delta m^2_{32}| \gg \Delta m^2_{21}$. When
403: three neutrino masses are nearly degenerate, $Q^{}_\nu (M^{}_Z)$
404: approaches its minimal value $1/3$ no matter whether the sign of
405: $\Delta m^2_{32}$ is positive or negative.
406:
407: The running masses of three neutrinos at $M^{}_R$ can be evaluated
408: by using the one-loop RGEs given in Ref. \cite{RGE}. In order to
409: understand the sensitivity of $Q^{}_\nu (M^{}_R)$ to radiative
410: corrections, it is more convenient to consider the RGE running
411: behaviors of $m^{}_i/m^{}_j$ (for $i\neq j$). We obtain
412: \begin{equation}
413: \frac{m^{}_i (M^{}_X)}{m^{}_j (M^{}_X)} \; \approx \; \frac{m^{}_i
414: (M^{}_Z)}{m^{}_j (M^{}_Z)} \chi^{(ij)}_\nu
415: % (19)
416: \end{equation}
417: in the approximation of $\tau$-lepton dominance \cite{Xing06},
418: where
419: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
420: \footnote{This formula is valid for Majorana neutrinos. If
421: neutrinos were Dirac particles, the coefficient $C/(8\pi^2)$ on
422: the right-hand side of Eq. (20) should be replaced by
423: $C/(16\pi^2)$ \cite{Xing06}.}
424: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
425: \begin{eqnarray}
426: \chi^{(ij)}_\nu \equiv \exp\left[ \frac{C}{8\pi^2} \int^{\ln
427: M^{}_X}_{\ln M^{}_Z} y^2_\tau \left( |U^{}_{3i}|^2 - |U^{}_{3j}|^2
428: \right ){\rm d} t \right]
429: % (20)
430: \end{eqnarray}
431: with $C = -1.5$ in the SM or $C = 1$ in the MSSM and $U_{3i}$ (for
432: $i=1,2,3$) being the elements of the $3\times 3$ lepton flavor
433: mixing matrix. Because of $y^2_\tau/(8\pi^2) \approx 1.3 \times
434: 10^{-6}$ (SM) or $y^2_\tau/(8\pi^2) \approx 1.3 \times 10^{-6}
435: \left ( 1 + \tan^2\beta \right )$ (MSSM) at $M^{}_Z$, together
436: with $|U^{}_{3i}|^2 < 1$, the departure of $\chi^{(ij)}_\nu$ from
437: 1 is expected to be tiny. This observation is illustrated in Fig.
438: 3, where $\theta^{}_\nu \approx 33.8^\circ$ and $\theta \approx
439: 45^\circ$ \cite{Xing06} have typically been input for the matrix
440: elements $|U^{}_{31}| = \sin\theta^{}_\nu \sin\theta$,
441: $|U^{}_{32}| = \cos\theta^{}_\nu \sin\theta$ and $|U^{}_{33}| =
442: \cos\theta$.
443:
444: Note that $\chi^{(ij)}_\nu \approx 1$ is essentially independent
445: of the possible mass hierarchies of three neutrinos \cite{Zhang}.
446: It turns out that $Q^{}_\nu (M^{}_X) \approx Q^{}_\nu (M^{}_Z)$ is
447: a very good approximation. In view of Fig. 2, we conclude that
448: there is no hope to achieve the Koide-like relation $Q^{}_\nu
449: (\mu) \approx 2/3$ for neutrino masses.
450:
451: \vspace{0.4cm}
452:
453: \framebox{\Large\bf 5} ~ In summary, the updated Koide relation
454: for the pole masses of charged leptons satisfies $Q^{\rm pole}_l =
455: 2/3$ at the precision level of ${\cal O}(10^{-5})$. This amazing
456: accuracy motivates us to examine whether the running masses of
457: charged fermions and neutrinos have the similar Koide relation at
458: a given energy scale. We have shown that the {\it running} masses
459: of charged leptons cannot satisfy the Koide relation (i.e.,
460: $Q^{}_l (\mu) \neq 2/3$), but its discrepancy from $Q^{\rm
461: pole}_l$ is only about $0.2\%$ at $\mu = M^{}_Z$. The Koide-like
462: relations for the running masses of neutrinos ($1/3 <
463: Q^{}_\nu(M^{}_Z) < 0.6$), up-type quarks ($Q^{}_{\rm U}(M^{}_Z)
464: \sim 0.89$) and down-type quarks ($Q^{}_{\rm D}(M^{}_Z) \sim
465: 0.74$) are analyzed from $M^{}_Z$ up to the typical seesaw scale
466: $M^{}_R \sim 10^{14}$ GeV. We find that they are nearly stable
467: against radiative corrections, just like $Q^{}_l (\mu)$. The
468: approximate stability of $Q^{}_{\rm U}(\mu)$ and $Q^{}_{\rm
469: D}(\mu)$ are mainly attributed to the strong mass hierarchy of
470: quarks. In contrast, the approximate stability of $Q^{}_l (\mu)$
471: and $Q^{}_{\nu}(\mu)$ is essentially for the reason that the
472: lepton mass ratios are very insensitive to radiative corrections.
473:
474: Although it is impossible to get a universal Koide relation for
475: both charged fermions and neutrinos at a given energy scale, our
476: work remains useful for model building in order to explore the
477: underlying similarities and differences between lepton and quark
478: masses. For example,
479: \begin{equation}
480: Q^{}_{\rm U} (M^{}_Z) > Q^{}_{\rm D} (M^{}_Z) > Q^{}_l (M^{}_Z)
481: > Q^{}_\nu (M^{}_Z)
482: % (21)
483: \end{equation}
484: is an interesting result of our numerical analysis. Once the
485: absolute scale of neutrino masses is measured and the value of
486: $Q^{}_\nu (M^{}_Z)$ is fixed, one may then speculate whether these
487: four parameters could be related with one another in a
488: phenomenological way. On the other hand, we remark that more
489: theoretical efforts are needed to look for possible flavor
490: symmetries and their breaking effects behind the Koide-like
491: relations.
492:
493: \acknowledgments{We would like to thank X.D. Ji, S. Zhou, S.H. Zhu
494: and S.L. Zhu for useful discussions. This work is supported in
495: part by the National Natural Science Foundation of China.}
496:
497: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
498:
499: \bibitem{PDG} Particle Data Group, S. Eidelman {\it et al.},
500: Phys. Lett. B {\bf 592}, 1 (2004) and partial update for edition
501: 2006 (URL: {\sf http://pdg.lbl.gov}).
502:
503: \bibitem{Koide1} Y. Koide, Lett. Nuovo Cim {\bf 34}, 201 (1982);
504: Y. Koide, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 28}, 252 (1983)
505:
506: \bibitem{Koide2} Y. Koide, Mod. Phys. Lett. A {\bf 5}, 2319 (1990);
507: Y. Koide and H. Fusaoka, Z. Phys. C {\bf 71}, 459 (1996); Y. Koide
508: and M. Tanimoto, Z. Phys. C {\bf 72}, 333 (1996).
509:
510: \bibitem{Foot} R. Foot, hep-ph/9402242; W. Krolikowski, hep-ph/0508039.
511:
512: \bibitem{Li} N. Li, B.Q. Ma, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 609}, 609 (2005);
513: hep-ph/0601031; A. Rivero and A. Gsponer, hep-ph/0505220.
514:
515: \bibitem{Gerard} J.M. G$\rm\acute{e}$rard, F. Goffinet, and
516: M. Herquet, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 633}, 563 (2006).
517:
518: \bibitem{pole} R. Tarrach, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 183}, 384 (1981);
519: N. Gray, {\it et al.}, Z. Phys. C {\bf 48}, 673 (1990); A.S.
520: Kronfeld, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 58}, 051501 (1998).
521:
522: \bibitem{running} H. Arason {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 46},
523: 3945 (1992).
524:
525: \bibitem{alpha} Z. Hioki, Acta Phys. Pol. B {\bf 27}, 1569 (1996).
526:
527: \bibitem{qmass} M. Jamin,
528: URL: {\sf http://ifae-s0.ifae.es/jamin/my/talks/mq$\_$bern05.pdf}.
529:
530: \bibitem{update1} H. Fusaoka and Y. Koide, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 57}, 3986
531: (1998).
532:
533: \bibitem{RGE} P.H. Chankowski and Z. Pluciennik, Phys. Lett. B
534: {\bf 316}, 312 (1993); K.S. Babu, C.N. Leung, and J. Pantaleone,
535: Phys. Lett. B {\bf 319}, 191 (1993); S. Antusch, M. Drees, J.
536: Kersten, M. Lindner, and M. Ratz, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 519}, 238
537: (2001); Phys. Lett. B {\bf 525}, 130 (2002); M. Lindner, M. Ratz,
538: and M.A. Schmidt, hep-ph/0506280.
539:
540: \bibitem{ratios} K.S. Babu, Z. Phys. C {\bf 35}, 69 (1987);
541: K.S. Babu and Q. Shafi, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 47}, 5004 (1993); Z.Z.
542: Xing, J. Phys. G. {\bf 23}, 1563 (1997); H. Fritzsch and Z.Z.
543: Xing, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. {\bf 45}, 1 (2000); Z.Z. Xing, Int.
544: J. Mod. Phys. A {\bf 19}, 1 (2004).
545:
546: \bibitem{SS} P. Minkowski, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 67}, 421
547: (1977); T. Yanagida, in {\it Proceedings of the Workshop on
548: Unified Theory and the Baryon Number of the Universe}, edited by
549: O. Sawada and A. Sugamoto (KEK, Tsukuba, 1979), p. 95; M.
550: Gell-Mann, P. Ramond, and R. Slansky, in {\it Supergravity},
551: edited by F. van Nieuwenhuizen and D. Freedman (North Holland,
552: Amsterdam, 1979), p. 315; S.L. Glashow, in {\it Quarks and
553: Leptons}, edited by M. L$\rm\acute{e}vy$ {\it et al.} (Plenum, New
554: York, 1980), p. 707; R.N. Mohapatra and G. Senjanovic, Phys. Rev.
555: Lett. {\bf 44}, 912 (1980).
556:
557: \bibitem{Mohapatra} R.N. Mohapatra {\it et al.}, hep-ph/0510213.
558:
559: \bibitem{Vissani} M. Maltoni, T. Schwetz, M.A. T$\rm\acute{o}$rtola,
560: and J.W.F. Valle, New J. Phys. {\bf 6}, 122 (2004); A. Strumia and
561: F. Vissani, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 726}, 294 (2005).
562:
563: \bibitem{Xing06} Z.Z. Xing, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 633}, 550 (2006).
564:
565: \bibitem{Zhang} Z.Z. Xing and H. Zhang, hep-ph/0601106.
566: \end{thebibliography}
567:
568: \newpage
569:
570: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Fig. 1a %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
571: \begin{figure}
572: \vspace{3.5cm}
573: \epsfig{file=chi_SM.eps,bbllx=-7cm,bblly=9cm,bburx=-3cm,bbury=13cm,%
574: width=1.8cm,height=1.8cm,angle=0,clip=0}\vspace{4.1cm}
575: \end{figure}
576: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Fig. 1b %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
577: \begin{figure}
578: \epsfig{file=chi_MSSM10.eps,bbllx=-7cm,bblly=8.8cm,bburx=-3cm,bbury=12.8cm,%
579: width=1.8cm,height=1.8cm,angle=0,clip=0}\vspace{4cm}
580: \end{figure}
581: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Fig. 1c %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
582: \begin{figure}
583: \epsfig{file=chi_MSSM50.eps,bbllx=-7cm,bblly=8.8cm,bburx=-3cm,bbury=12.8cm,%
584: width=1.8cm,height=1.8cm,angle=0,clip=0}
585: \vspace{1.5cm}
586: \caption{Illustration of $\chi^{}_{\rm U}$, $\chi^{}_{\rm D}$ and
587: $\chi^{}_l$ changing with the energy scale from $M^{}_Z$ to
588: $M^{}_R$.}\vspace{6cm}
589: \end{figure}
590: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
591:
592: \newpage
593:
594: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Fig. 2 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
595: \begin{figure}
596: %\begin{center}
597: \vspace{2cm}
598: \epsfig{file=fig2.ps,bbllx=3cm,bblly=21cm,bburx=7cm,bbury=25cm,%
599: width=4cm,height=4cm,angle=0,clip=0} \vspace{11.5cm} \caption{The
600: Koide-like parameter $Q^{}_\nu (M^{}_Z)$ evaluated by using
601: current neutrino oscillation data.}
602: %\end{center}
603: \end{figure}
604: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
605:
606: \newpage
607:
608: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Fig. 3 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
609: \begin{figure}
610: \vspace{3.5cm}
611: \epsfig{file=chi_nu.eps,bbllx=-7cm,bblly=18cm,bburx=-3cm,bbury=22cm,%
612: width=1.8cm,height=1.8cm,angle=0,clip=0} \vspace{5.8cm}
613: \caption{Illustration of $\chi^{(ij)}_\nu$ changing with the
614: energy scale from $M^{}_Z$ to $M^{}_R$. The solid and dashed lines
615: denote the Majorana and Dirac cases, respectively. We have
616: typically input $\tan\beta = 50$ and $m^{}_1 = 0.2$ eV with
617: $m^2_{32}
618: >0$ in our calculation. The almost identical result can be
619: obtained when $m^2_{32} < 0$ is taken. Note that the deviation of
620: $\chi^{(ij)}_\nu$ from 1 will be much milder, if $\tan\beta$ takes
621: smaller values.}
622: \end{figure}
623: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
624:
625:
626: \end{document}
627: