1: \documentclass[12pt]{article}
2: %\usepackage{epsf}
3: \usepackage{graphicx}
4: %\pagestyle{}
5: \begin{document}
6: \newcommand{\sheptitle}
7: {Lowering solar mixing angle in inverted hierarchy
8: without charged lepton corrections}
9: \newcommand{\shepauthor}
10: {N.Nimai Singh$^{a,}$\footnote{Regular Associate,
11: The Abdus Salam ICTP, Trieste, Italy\\ E-mail: {\it nimai03@yahoo.com}},
12: Monisa Rajkhowa$^{a,b}$ and Abhijit Borah$^c$}
13: \newcommand{\shepaddress}
14: {$^a$Department of Physics, Gauhati University, Guwahati-781 014, India \\
15: $^b$Department of Physics, Science College, Jorhat-785 010, Assam, India \\
16: $^c$Department of Physics, Fazl Ali College, Mokokchung - 798 601, Nagaland, India}
17: \newcommand{\shepabstract}
18: {In the present work, the inverted hierarchical neutrino mass model which is characterised by opposite CP
19: parity in the first two mass eigenvalues $(m_1, -m_2, m_3)$, is studied in order to
20: lower the predicted value of solar mixing angle $\tan^2\theta_{12}$, from the tri-bimaximal mixing (TBM), without sacrificing
21: the conditions of maximal atmospheric mixing angle ($\theta_{23}=\pi/4$)
22: and zero reactor angle ($\theta_{13}=0$).
23: The present attempt is different from the earlier
24: approach where the correction from the charged lepton mass matrix is included in the leptonic mixing matrix to
25: lower the prediction on solar mixing angle.
26: The lowering of the solar mixing angle without charged lepton correction,
27: can be obtained through the variation of the input value of a flavour twister term
28: present in the texture of neutrino mass matrix having a 2-3 symmetry.
29: The present analysis agrees with the latest experimental bounds on $\bigtriangleup m^2_{21}$ and
30: $|\bigtriangleup m^2_{23}|$. It also represents an important result on the survival of the inverted hierarchical
31: neutrino mass models having opposite CP parity in the first two eigenvalues.}
32:
33: %888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888
34: \begin{titlepage}
35: \begin{flushright}
36: hep-ph/0603154
37: \end{flushright}
38: \begin{center}
39: {\large{\bf\sheptitle}}
40: \bigskip\\
41: \shepauthor
42: \\
43: \mbox{}\\
44: {\it\shepaddress}\\
45: \vspace{.5in}
46: {\bf Abstract}
47: \bigskip
48: \end{center}
49: \setcounter{page}{0}
50: \shepabstract
51: \end{titlepage}
52: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
53: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%5
54: \section{Introduction}
55: Recent observational data [1] on neutrino oscillations, indicates a clear departure from the tri-bimaximal mixing(TBM)
56: or Harrison-Perkins-Scott(HPS) mixing pattern[2]. The most recent SNO experimental determination[3] of solar mixing angle leads to
57: $\tan^2\theta_{12}=0.45^{+0.09}_{-0.08}$ compared with $\tan^2\theta_{12}=0.5$ in HPS scheme. So far there is no strong claim
58: for a clear departure from the maximal atmospheric mixing angle ($\tan^2\theta_{23}=1.0$) and zero value of
59: CHOOZ angle ($\sin\theta_{13}=0$),
60: though only upper bound for $\sin\theta_{13}$ has been known at the moment. Future measurements
61: may find a very small value of $\sin\theta_{13}$ which can be approximated by zero[4]. Such possibility does not yet contradict with
62: the non-observation of Dirac CP phase angle. Relevance of exact zero value of CHOOZ mixing angle is gaining momentum in the literature,
63: and there are several discussions[5] on the experimental setup for mass hierarchy measurements under $\sin\theta_{13}=0$ condition.
64:
65:
66: Since the present data on solar and atmospheric neutrino oscillation experiments give only the mass-square differences,
67: we usually have three models of neutrino mass levels[6], (a) degenerate model:
68: $m_1\sim m_2\sim m_3 >>\sqrt{\bigtriangleup m^2_{23}}$,
69: (b) inverted hierarchical model: $m_1\sim m_2>>m_3$ with $\bigtriangleup m^2_{23} = m^2_3-m^2_2<0$
70: and $m_{1,2}\sim \sqrt{\bigtriangleup m^2_{23}}$, and (c) normal hierarchical model: $m_1<<m_2<<m_3$
71: with $\bigtriangleup m^2_{23}>0$ and
72: $m_3\sim \sqrt{\bigtriangleup m^2_{23}}$. Relative phase of CP parity between these mass eigenvalues will
73: again lead to further subdivisions
74: in these three categories of neutrino mass models[6].
75:
76: Inspite of inferences drawn from the presently available neutrino experiments[1],
77: the current scenario concerning the pattern of the three neutrino masses, is not a clear one[7,8],
78: though some reactor-based experiments are trying to measure the correct pattern of neutrino masses[9].
79: In this context, the inverted hierarchical model having
80: opposite CP parity in first two mass eigenvalues ($m_1,-m_2,m_3$), has been given some special attention due to
81: its high stability under radiative corrections in the minimal supersymmetric standard model(MSSM)[10-12], and
82: considerable theoretical effort has been made in this direction during the last one decade[13].
83:
84:
85: The origin of the inverted hierarchical mass model can be routed through the exact global charge ($L_e$-$L_\mu$-$L_\tau$) symmetry,
86: and its subsequent breaking due to possible quantum gravity corrections or some flavour $U(1)_F$
87: symmetry violation[14]. A general form of inverted hierarchical mass matrix having a 2-3 symmetry in
88: $\nu_\mu$$\leftrightarrow$$\nu_\tau$ sector, can be written as
89: \begin{equation}
90: m_{LL}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
91: \delta_{1}& 1& 1 \\
92: 1& \delta_{2}& \delta_{3} \\
93: 1& \delta_{3}& \delta_{2}
94: \end{array}\right)m_{0}
95: \end{equation}
96: where the perturbation parameters $\delta_{1}$, $\delta_{2}$, $\delta_{3}$ are assumed to be smaller than unity,
97: and $m_{0}$ is the input quantity representing neutrino mass scale[11].
98: Such form of neutrino mass matrix can be successfully generated[15] by using the celebrated see-saw formula.
99:
100:
101: The conditions of maximal atmospheric mixing ($\tan^{2}\theta_{23}$ = 1)
102: and $\sin\theta_{13}$=0, are the general consequences of the 2-3 symmetry.
103: However, the prediction on solar mixing angle $\tan^{2}\theta_{12}$, is nearly maximal ($\tan^{2}\theta_{12}\sim 1$).
104: Several attempts[14-16] have been made to tone down the maximal solar mixing angle, while keeping $\sin\theta_{13}$
105: within the observational bound.
106: In particular, the correction, $U_{eL}$ from the diagonalization of the charged lepton mass matrix
107: with non-zero texture in 1-2 block, in the leptonic mixing matrix, $U_{MNS}$=$U_{\nu L}^\dag U_{eL}$,
108: can reduce the solar mixing angle from its maximal value[11].
109: However, this correction on solar angle is strongly constrained by the observed smallness of $\sin\theta_{13}$,
110: as the amount of deviation
111: from a maximal solar angle is of the order of $\theta_{13}$.
112: The mechanism can only work[5] if the value of $\theta_{13}$ is very close
113: to its present upper bound, $\sin\theta_{13} < 0.16$.
114: Since the upper bound of $\sin\theta_{13}$ is known, $\sin\theta_{13}$ may be very ``small'' or
115: zero exactly[4,5].
116:
117:
118: In the present work, we propose a particular texture of the inverted hierarchical neutrino mass model,
119: which
120: has the potential to lower the solar mixing angle
121: from its tri-bimaximal value without affecting the maximal atmospheric mixing ($\tan^{2}\theta_{23}$=1) and
122: $\sin\theta_{13}$=0 conditions. In section 2, we present a parametrisation of neutrino mass matrix in terms of a flavour
123: twister which is important for giving deviation from tribimaximal mixings. Section 3 is devoted to numerical analysis using MATHEMATICA
124: and main results of the investigation. In section 4 we conclude with a summary and discussion.
125:
126:
127: \section{Parametrisation in term of flavour twister and deviation from tribimaximal mixings}
128: We diagonalise the neutrino mass matrix $m_{LL}$ in equation (1). We get the following mass eigenvalues,
129: \begin{eqnarray}
130: m_{1,2}=\frac {m_{0}}{2}[ (\delta_{1}+\delta_{2}+\delta_{3})\pm x ],\ \
131: %m_{2}=\frac {m_{0}}{2}[ (\delta_{1}+\delta_{2}+\delta_{3})- x ],\\
132: m_{3}=m_{0}[ (\delta_{2}-\delta_{3})];
133: \end{eqnarray}
134: \begin{equation}
135: x^{2}=8+(\delta_{1}^{2}+ \delta_{2}^{2}+ \delta_{3}^{2}) -
136: {2}\delta_{1}\delta_{2} -{2}\delta_{1}\delta_{3}+{2}\delta_{2}\delta_{3}.
137: \end{equation}
138: The three mixing angles are given by
139: \begin{eqnarray}
140: \tan^{2}\theta_{23}={1}, \ \ \sin\theta_{13}=0, \ \
141: \tan{2}\theta_{12}=\frac{2\sqrt{2}}{(\delta_{1}-\delta_{2}-\delta_{3})}.
142: \end{eqnarray}
143: In general, any mass matrix of the type in eqation (1) having 2-3 symmetry, can be diagonalized by
144: the following unitary matrix ( $\theta_{23}$ =$\pi/4$, $\theta_{13}$=0) [4,17],
145: \begin{equation}
146: U=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
147: \cos\theta_{12}& -\sin\theta_{12}& 0 \\
148: \frac{\sin\theta_{12}}{\sqrt{2}}&\frac{\cos\theta_{12}}{\sqrt{2}} & -\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \\
149: \frac{\sin\theta_{12}}{\sqrt{2}}&\frac{\cos\theta_{12}}{\sqrt{2}} & \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}
150: \end{array}\right)
151: \end{equation}
152: where the solar angle $\theta_{12}$ in eq.(4) is arbitrary, but it can be fixed by input values $\delta_{{1}, {2}, {3}}$
153: appearing in the texture of neutrino mass matrix (1).
154: The tri-bimaximal mixing(TBM) or Harrison-Perkinson-Scott (HPS)
155: mixing pattern[2] is thus obtained when we choose $\cos\theta_{12}$=$\sqrt\frac{2}{3}$,
156: and $\sin\theta_{12}$=$\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}$,
157: leading to $\tan^{2}\theta_{12}$=$\frac{1}{2}$ (or $\tan 2\theta_{12}=2\sqrt 2$), and it assumes the following form,
158: \begin{equation}
159: U_{TBM}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
160: \sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}& -\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}& 0 \\
161: \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}&\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}} & -\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \\
162: \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}&\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}} & \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}
163: \end{array}\right)
164: \end{equation}
165:
166: For diagonal neutrino mass matrix $D=diag(m_1, m_2, m_3)$, the mass matrix $m_{LL}=U_{TMB}DU^{\dagger}_{TBM}$
167: generally takes a simple form,
168: \begin{equation}
169: m_{LL}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
170: A& B& B \\
171: B& A-C& B+C \\
172: B& B+C& A-C
173: \end{array}\right)m_{0}
174: \end{equation}
175: where the elements are expressible in terms of linear combinations of three masses.
176: This particular form of mass matrix (7) is a consequence of tribimaximal mixings and can also be derived from the general
177: $S_3$ symmetry[18]. It puts certain contraints for tribimaximal mixings on the mass matrix of eq.(1). From eq.(4) we have
178: $(\delta_1-\delta_2-\delta_3)=\pm1$ for tri-bimaximal mixings, and this condition requires only
179: two parameters in term of a flavour twister[19]. Thus the condition
180: of tribimaximal mixings and deviations from it can be expressed in term of flavour twister $\eta /\epsilon$,
181:
182: $(\delta_1-\delta_2-\delta_3)=(2-\eta /\epsilon)$.
183:
184: This condition can be easily satisfied by the choice of a simple parametrisation of
185: $\delta_{1}$, $\delta_{2}$, $\delta_{3}$, $m_{0}$ in terms of only
186: two new parameters $\eta$ and $\epsilon$,
187: \begin{equation}
188: \delta_{1}=2(1-\frac{1}{2\epsilon}), \ \
189: \delta_{2}=-\frac{1}{2\epsilon}, \ \
190: \delta_{3}=(\frac{\eta}{\epsilon}-\frac{1}{2\epsilon}), \ \
191: m_{0}=(0.05\times\epsilon)eV
192: \end{equation}
193: Substituting $(8)$ in eq.$(1)$ ,
194: \begin{equation}
195: m_{LL}=
196: \left( \begin{array}{ccc}
197: 1-2\epsilon & -\epsilon & -\epsilon\\
198: -\epsilon & \frac{1}{2} & \frac{1}{2}-\eta \\
199: -\epsilon & \frac{1}{2}-\eta & \frac{1}{2}\\
200: \end{array}\right)m_{0}^{'}
201: \end{equation}
202: where, $m_{0}^{'}=0.05eV$.
203: The mass eigenvalues and mixing angles of (9) are,
204: \begin{equation}
205: m_{1,2}=\frac{m_{0}^{'}}{2}[2-2\epsilon-\eta \pm x],\ \ \
206: m_{3}=\eta m_{0}^{'};
207: \end{equation}
208: \begin{equation}
209: x^2=12\epsilon^{2}-4\eta\epsilon+\eta^{2};
210: \end{equation}
211: \begin{equation}
212: \tan2\theta_{12}= \frac{2\sqrt2}{2-\frac{\eta}{\epsilon}};
213: \end{equation}
214: \begin{equation}
215: \tan^2\theta_{23}=1;\ \ \
216: \sin\theta_{13}=0.
217: \end{equation}
218: The solar and atmospheric mass-square differences can be expressed as,
219: \begin{equation}
220: \bigtriangleup m_{21}^2=[m_2^2-m_1^2], \ \ \ \\
221: \bigtriangleup m_{23}^2=[m_2^2-m_3^2].
222: \end{equation}
223: with the latest observational bounds,
224: \begin{equation}
225: \bigtriangleup m_{21}^2=(7.2-9.5)\times10^{-5}eV^2, \ \ \ \bigtriangleup m_{23}^2=(1.28-4.2)\times10^{-3}eV^2
226: \end{equation}
227: By convention $\bigtriangleup m_{21}^2$ is always defined as positive, $m_2^2\geq m_1^2$, for $\tan^2\theta_{12}<1$.
228: From eq.$(12)$, it is clear that $\tan^2\theta_{12}$ can be fixed by proper choice of the flavour twister
229: term $\frac{\eta}{\epsilon}$.
230:
231:
232:
233: \section{Numerical analysis and results}
234: Both graphical and numerical methods are employed to find the value of $\eta$ (or $\epsilon$) for a fixed $\tan^2\theta_{12}$.
235: We first graphically solve eqs. $(12),(14),(15)$ using Mathematica Programmes(MATHEMATICA 5).
236: Numerical solution of eq.$(14)$ leads to exact values of $\eta$ (or $\epsilon$) consistent with
237: $\bigtriangleup m_{21}^2$ and $\bigtriangleup m_{23}^2$ in the data (15).
238: The process requires overall consistent approach to pindown the exact values of $\eta$ (or $\epsilon$)
239: for the given $\tan^2\theta_{12}$ value.
240:
241: For demonstration we consider the case for $\tan^2\theta_{12}=0.5$. Two different values of $\frac{\eta}{\epsilon}$
242: satisfying $\tan^2\theta_{12}=0.5$ are $\frac{\eta}{\epsilon}=1$ and $\frac{\eta}{\epsilon}=3$. From the graphical
243: solution of eqs. $(12),(14),(15)$, it is found that there are two positive ranges of values
244: of $\eta$ for $\frac{\eta}{\epsilon}=1$ and one negative range $\frac{\eta}{\epsilon}=3$ respectively,
245: for the given $\tan^2\theta_{12}$. The three allowed ranges of $\eta$ are tabulated as,\\
246: \begin{center}
247: \begin{tabular}{|r|c|l|}
248: \hline
249: $\frac{\eta}{\epsilon}$ & $\tan^2\theta_{12}$ & range of $\eta$ \\
250: \hline
251: 1 & 0.5 & 0.6603-0.6618\\
252: 1 & 0.5 & 0.0048-0.0064 \\
253: 3 & 0.5 & -0.0187--0.0142\\
254: \hline
255: \end{tabular}
256: \end{center}
257: We are interested only in the first range in the present analysis, as this range leads to neutrino mass model having opposite CP parity in
258: the first two mass eigenvalues. The other two ranges of $\eta$ predict even CP parity in mass eigenvalues.
259: For deviation from tribimaximal mixings, we also find out the ranges of
260: $\eta$ for $\tan^2\theta_{12}=0.45, 0.35$ using the same procedure and results are presented in Table-1.
261:
262: \begin{center}
263: {\bf Table-1:} Lowering of $\tan^{2}\theta_{12}$$\leq 0.5$ for fixed $\tan^{2}\theta_{23}=1$,
264: $\sin\theta_{13}=0$. \\
265: \begin{tabular}{|r|c|c|c|l|}
266: \hline
267: $\frac{\eta}{\epsilon}$ & $\tan^2\theta_{12}$ & range of $\eta$ & $\bigtriangleup m_{21}^2(10^{-5}eV^2)$ & $\bigtriangleup m_{23}^2(10^{-3}eV^2)$\\
268: \hline
269: 1 & 0.5 & 0.6603-0.6618 & 9.499-7.199 & 1.410-1.405 \\
270: 0.8405 & 0.45 & 0.5865-0.5878 & 9.500-7.200 & 2.032-2.029\\
271: 0.4462 & 0.35 & 0.3622-0.3628 & 9.430-7.200 & 4.010-4.008\\
272: \hline
273: \end{tabular}
274: \end{center}
275:
276: It is seen that the quantity $\bigtriangleup m_{21}^2$ is quite sensitive to the corresponding change in the input values
277: of $\eta$, whereas such variation is almost absent in the prediction of $\bigtriangleup m_{23}^2$.
278: \begin{figure}
279: \begin{center}\includegraphics[%
280: width=0.50\textwidth]{Fig1.b.eps}\hfill{}\includegraphics[%
281: width=0.50\textwidth]{graph1.b.eps}
282: \end{center}
283: \caption{Predictions on $\Delta m^{2}_{21}$ in the unit $(10^{-5}eV^2)$ and
284: $\Delta m^{2}_{23}$ in the unit $(10^{-3}eV^2)$ for the value $\tan^2\theta_{12}=0.45$ in the
285: range $0.5865 \leq \eta \leq 0.5878$ and the corresponding correlation graph.}
286: \end{figure}
287:
288: We also present the graphical solution for the case $\tan^2\theta_{12}=0.45$ along with a correlation plot between
289: $\Delta m^{2}_{21}$ and $\Delta m^{2}_{23}$
290: in Fig.1. Similar diagrams and correlation plots for other two remaining cases in Table-1, can in principle
291: be drawn in the same fashion.
292:
293: For completeness, we also give other two possible solutions of flavour twister $\eta/\epsilon$ for $\tan^2\theta_{12}=0.5, 0.45$,
294: which predict even CP parity in the first two mass eigenvalues in Table-2. Such models are not stable under
295: radiative corrections in MSSM. However it is interesting to note that these two types of inverted hierarchical models have
296: the same origin with the same form of mass matrix.
297:
298:
299: {\bf Table-2:} Lowering of $\tan^{2}\theta_{12}$$\leq 0.50$ for fixed $\tan^{2}\theta_{23}=1$,
300: $\sin\theta_{13}=0$ for different ranges of $\eta$(or $\epsilon$) which lead to even CP parity in mass eigenvalues.
301: \begin{center}
302: \begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|l|r|}
303: \hline
304: $\frac{\eta}{\epsilon}$ & $\tan^{2}\theta_{12}$ &
305: range of $\eta$ & $\Delta m^{2}_{21} ({10}^{-5} eV^{2})$
306: & $\Delta m^{2}_{23} ({10}^{-3} eV^{2})$\\ \hline
307: 1.00 & 0.50 & 0.0048 - 0.0064 & 7.200 - 9.499 & 2.499 - 2.499 \\
308: 0.84 & 0.45 & 0.0040 - 0.0053 & 7.173 - 9.499 & 2.502 - 2.503\\
309: 3.00 & 0.50 & -0.0187 - -0.0142 & 9.499 - 7.199 & 2.630 - 2.595\\
310: 3.16 & 0.45 & -0.0193 - -0.0147 & 9.500 - 7.199 & 2.626 - 2.596 \\
311: \hline
312: \end{tabular}
313: \end{center}
314:
315:
316: \section{Summary and conclusion}
317: The inverted hierarchical neutrino mass model characterised by opposite
318: CP parity in the first two mass eigenvalues $(m_1, -m_2, m_3)$,
319: is generally stable under renormalization group evolution in MSSM, but its predicted value of
320: solar mixing angle, is generally larger than the observed data. The usual approach to lower the prediction of solar mixing
321: angle is carried out through the correction from charged lepton mass matrix. The texture of neutrino mass matrix
322: studied in the present work, has the potential to predict lower values of solar mixing angle
323: beyond its tribimaximal value without taking usual correction from charged lepton sector.
324: This is carried out by changing the input value of a flavour twister
325: present in the mass matrix[19].
326: The presence of a 2-3 symmetry in the mass matrix, protects the conditions for
327: $\tan^{2}\theta_{23}=1$ and $\sin\theta_{13}=0$.
328:
329: The analysis presented here though phenomenological, supports the survival of the inverted hierarchical
330: neutrino mass model with opposite CP parity in the first two mass eigenvalues.
331: This model is not yet ruled out and this competes with the normal hierarchical model at equal footing.
332: Future neutrino experiments[5,20] are expected
333: to confirm the correct pattern of neutrino mass hierarchy and will be capable of probing very low $\theta_{13}$.
334: The present work may be useful to model building on tri-bimaximal mixings(TBM)
335: and possible deviations based on discrete as well as non-abelian gauge groups[21].
336:
337: \section*{Acknowledgement}One of us (NNS) is thankful to Prof. Guido Altarelli and Prof. Ernest Ma for
338: useful interactions during WHEPP-9, held at Institute of Physics, Bhubaneswar, India during Jan,3-14, 2006.
339: Monisa Rajkhowa acknowledges the UGC for awarding fellowship under fellowship improvement programme (FIP).
340:
341:
342: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
343: \bibitem{1}G.Altarelli, Nucl. Phys. B. Proc. Suppl.{\bf 143}, 470 (2005).
344: \bibitem{2}P. F. Harrison, D. H. Perkins, W. G. Scott, Phys.Lett.{\bf B530}, 167 (2002), {\bf hep-ph/0202074}.
345: \bibitem{3}B.Aharmim et al, (SNO Collaboration),Phys.Rev.{\bf C72},055502(2005),{\bf nucl-ex/0502021};
346: A. Strumia and F.Vissani,Nucl. Phys.{\bf B726}, 294 (2005), {\bf hep-ph/0503246}.
347: \bibitem{4}C.S.Lam, Phys.Rev.{\bf D71},093001(2005); {\bf hep-ph/0508008}.
348: \bibitem{5}A. de Gouvea and Walter Winter, Phys. Rev. {\bf D73}, 033003 (2006), {\bf hep-ph/0509359}.
349: \bibitem{6}G. Altarelli, F. Feruglio, Phys. Rep.{\bf 320}, 295 (1999).
350: \bibitem{7}N. Nimai Singh, M. Patgiri, M. K. Das, Pramana J.Phy.{\bf 66},361 (2006).
351: \bibitem{8} Carl H. Albright, Phys.lett. {\bf B599}, 285 (2004), {\bf hep-ph/0407155}.
352:
353: \bibitem{9}D.Indumati and M. V. N. Murthy, Phys. Rev. {\bf D71}, 013001 (2005), {\bf hep-ph/0407336};
354: S.Palomares-Ruiz, S.T. Petcov, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B712}, 392 (2005), {\bf hep-ph/0406096};
355: R. Gandhi, P. Ghoshal, S. Goswami, P. Mehta, S. Uma Sankar, {\bf hep-ph/0506145};
356: S. Choubey, W. Rodejohann, {\bf hep-ph/0506102};
357: A. Gouvea, W. Winter, Phys. Rev. {\bf D73}, 033003 (2006), {\bf hep-ph/0509359}.
358:
359: \bibitem{10}S. F. King and N. Nimai Singh, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B596},81 (2001).
360:
361: \bibitem{11}M. Patgiri and N. Nimai Singh, Phys. lett.{\bf B567}(2003)69.
362:
363: \bibitem{12} An incomplete list, J. Ellis, S. Lola, Phys. Lett.
364: {\bf B458},310(1999),{\bf hep-ph/9904279};
365: N. Haba, Y. Matsui, N. Okamura, Prog. Theor. Phys. {\bf 103}, 807 (2000),{\bf hep-ph/9911481};
366: J. A. Casas, J. R. Espinosa, A. Ibarra,
367: I. Navarro, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B556},3 (1999), {\bf hep-ph/9910420};
368: N. Haba and N. Okamura, Euro. Phys. J.{\bf C14}, 347 (2000);
369: Anjan S. Joshipura, Phys. Lett. B543,276 (2002), hep-ph/0205038;
370: A. S. Joshipura, S. D. Rindani, N. Nimai Singh, Nucl.Phys.B660,362 (2003);
371: M. K. Das, M. Patgiri, N. Nimai Singh, Pramana J. Phys.65,995 (2005).
372: \bibitem{13} R. Barbieri, L. J. Hall, D. Smith, A. Strumia and N. Weiner, JHEP,
373: {\bf 9812}:017(1998),{\bf hep-ph/9807235}.
374: \bibitem{14}K. S. Babu and R. N. Mohapatra, Phys. Lett.{\bf B532},77(2002),{\bf hep-ph/0201176}.
375: \bibitem{15}M. Patgiri and N. Nimai Singh, IJMP,{\bf A18},443(2003); Indian J.Phys.{\bf A76},423(2002);
376: N. Nimai Singh and M. Patgiri, IJMP,{\bf A17},3629(2002).
377: \bibitem{16} G. Guinti, M. Tanimoto, Phys. rev. {\bf D70}, 157 (2002), {\bf hep-ph/0207096};
378: Andrea Romanino, Phys. Rev. {\bf D70}, 013003 (2004), {\bf hep-ph/0402258};
379: G. Altarelli, F. Feruglio, I. Masina, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B689}, 157 (2004), {\bf hep-ph/0402155};
380: P. H. Framptom, S. T. Petcov, W. Rodejohann, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B687}, (2004) 31, {\bf hep-ph/0401206};
381: C. A. de S. Pires, J. Phys. {\bf G30}, 1329 (2004), {\bf hep-ph/0404146};
382: J. Ferrandis, S.Pakvasa, Phys. Rev. {\bf D71}, 033004 (2005); Phys.Lett. {\bf B603},184(2004);
383: Zhi-Zhong Xing, Phys. Lett.{\bf B618}, 141 (2005), {\bf hep-ph/0503200};
384: S. Antusch, S. F. King, Phys. Lett. {\bf B631},42 (2005), {\bf hep-ph/0508044};
385: H. Fritzsch, Zhi-Zhong Xing, Phys. Lett. {\bf B634}, 514 (2006), {\bf hep-ph/0601104}.
386: \bibitem{17}Ernest Ma, Phys. Rev. {\bf D70}, 031901 (2004), {\bf hep-ph/0404199}.
387: \bibitem{18}R.N.Mohapatra, S.Nasri, Hai-Bo Yu, {\bf hep-ph/0605020}.
388: \bibitem{19} Naoyuki Haba, Atsushi Watanabe, Koichi Yoshioka, Phys. Rev. Lett.{\bf 97}(2006)041601, {\bf hep-ph/0603116}.
389: \bibitem{20} S. K. Agarwalla, A. Raychaudhuri, A. Samanta, Phys. Lett.{\bf B629},33 (2005).
390: \bibitem{21} E. Ma, mod. Phys. Lett. {\bf A20}, 2601 (2005), {\bf hep-ph/0508099};
391: A. Zee, Phys. Lett. {\bf B630}, {\bf hep-ph/0508278};
392: G. Altarelli, F. Feruglio, nucl. Phys. {\bf B20}, 64 (2005),{\bf hep-ph/0504165}, {\bf hep-ph/0512103};
393: W. Grimus, L. Lavoura, {\bf JHEP} 0601, 018(2006), {\bf hep-ph/0509239};
394: I. de M. Varzielas, S. F. King, G. G. Ross, {\bf hep-ph/0512313};
395: N. Haba, A. Watanabe, K. Yoshioka, {\bf hep-ph/0603116}.
396: \end{thebibliography}
397: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
398: \end{document}
399: