1: \documentstyle[prd,aps,preprint,tighten,epsfig]{revtex}
2:
3: \begin{document}
4:
5: \draft
6:
7: \title{Nearly Tri-bimaximal Neutrino Mixing and CP Violation \\
8: from $\mu$-$\tau$ Symmetry Breaking}
9: \author{{\bf Zhi-zhong Xing} \thanks{E-mail: xingzz@mail.ihep.ac.cn},
10: ~ {\bf He Zhang} \thanks{E-mail: zhanghe@mail.ihep.ac.cn}, ~ {\bf
11: Shun Zhou} \thanks{E-mail: zhoush@mail.ihep.ac.cn}}
12: \address{
13: CCAST (World Laboratory), P.O. Box 8730, Beijing 100080,
14: China \\
15: and
16: Institute of High Energy Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, \\
17: P.O. Box 918, Beijing 100049, China}
18:
19: \maketitle
20:
21: \begin{abstract}
22: Assuming the Majorana nature of massive neutrinos, we generalize
23: the Friedberg-Lee neutrino mass model to include CP violation in
24: the neutrino mass matrix $M^{}_\nu$. We show that a favorable
25: neutrino mixing pattern (with $\theta^{}_{12} \approx 35.3^\circ$,
26: $\theta^{}_{23} = 45^\circ$, $\theta^{}_{13} \neq 0^\circ$ and
27: $\delta = 90^\circ$) can naturally be derived from $M^{}_\nu$, if
28: it has an approximate or softly-broken $\mu$-$\tau$ symmetry. We
29: point out a different way to obtain the nearly tri-bimaximal
30: neutrino mixing with $\delta = 0^\circ$ and non-vanishing Majorana
31: phases. The most general case, in which all the free parameters of
32: $M^{}_\nu$ are complex and the resultant neutrino mixing matrix
33: contains both Dirac and Majorana phases of CP violation, is also
34: discussed.
35: \end{abstract}
36:
37: \pacs{PACS number(s): 14.60.Lm, 14.60.Pq, 95.85.Ry}
38:
39: \newpage
40:
41: \section{Introduction}
42:
43: The solar \cite{SNO}, atmospheric \cite{SK}, reactor \cite{KM} and
44: accelerator \cite{K2K} neutrino experiments have provided us with
45: very convincing evidence that neutrinos are massive and lepton
46: flavors are mixed. Given the basis in which the flavor eigenstates
47: of charged leptons are identified with their mass eigenstates, the
48: phenomenon of neutrino mixing can simply be described by a
49: $3\times 3$ unitary matrix $V$ which transforms the neutrino mass
50: eigenstates $(\nu^{}_1, \nu^{}_2, \nu^{}_3)$ into the neutrino
51: flavor eigenstates $(\nu^{}_e, \nu^{}_\mu, \nu^{}_\tau)$. We
52: assume massive neutrinos to be Majorana particles and parametrize
53: $V$ as
54: \begin{equation}
55: V = \left( \matrix{ c^{}_{12}c^{}_{13} & s^{}_{12}c ^{}_{13} &
56: s^{}_{13} e^{-i\delta} \cr -s^{}_{12}c^{}_{23}
57: -c^{}_{12}s^{}_{23}s^{}_{13} e^{i\delta} & c^{}_{12}c^{}_{23}
58: -s^{}_{12}s^{}_{23}s^{}_{13} e^{i\delta} & s^{}_{23}c^{}_{13} \cr
59: s^{}_{12}s^{}_{23} -c^{}_{12}c^{}_{23}s^{}_{13} e^{i\delta} &
60: -c^{}_{12}s^{}_{23} -s^{}_{12}c^{}_{23}s^{}_{13} e^{i\delta} &
61: c^{}_{23}c^{}_{13} } \right) \left ( \matrix{e^{i\rho } & 0 & 0
62: \cr 0 & e^{i\sigma} & 0 \cr 0 & 0 & 1 \cr} \right ) \; ,
63: % (1)
64: \end{equation}
65: where $c^{}_{ij} \equiv \cos\theta_{ij}$ and $s^{}_{ij} \equiv
66: \sin\theta_{ij}$ (for $ij=12,23$ and $13$). A global analysis of
67: current experimental data \cite{Vissani} yields $30^\circ <
68: \theta^{}_{12} < 38^\circ$, $36^\circ < \theta^{}_{23} < 54^\circ$
69: and $\theta^{}_{13} < 10^\circ$ at the $99\%$ confidence level,
70: but three CP-violating phases of $V$ (i.e., the Dirac phase
71: $\delta$ and the Majorana phases $\rho$ and $\sigma$) are entirely
72: unrestricted. In order to interpret the largeness of two neutrino
73: mixing angles together with the smallness of three neutrino
74: masses, many theoretical and phenomenological models of lepton
75: mass matrices have been proposed in the literature \cite{Review}.
76: Among them, the scenarios based on possible flavor symmetries are
77: particularly simple, suggestive and predictive.
78:
79: In this paper, we focus our interest on the neutrino mass model
80: proposed recently by Friedberg and Lee (FL) \cite{Lee}. The
81: neutrino mass operator in the FL model is simply given by
82: \begin{eqnarray}
83: {\cal L}^{}_{\nu- \rm mass} & = & a \left (\overline{\nu}^{}_\tau
84: - \overline{\nu}^{}_\mu \right ) \left (\nu^{}_\tau - \nu^{}_\mu
85: \right ) + b \left (\overline{\nu}^{}_\mu - \overline{\nu}^{}_e
86: \right ) \left (\nu^{}_\mu - \nu^{}_e \right ) + c \left
87: (\overline{\nu}^{}_e - \overline{\nu}^{}_\tau \right ) \left
88: (\nu^{}_e - \nu^{}_\tau \right ) ~~~~~~~
89: \nonumber \\
90: & & + m^{}_0 \left (\overline{\nu}^{}_e \nu^{}_e +
91: \overline{\nu}^{}_\mu \nu^{}_\mu + \overline{\nu}^{}_\tau
92: \nu^{}_\tau \right ) \; ,
93: % (2)
94: \end{eqnarray}
95: where $a$, $b$, $c$ and $m^{}_0$ are all assumed to be {\it real}.
96: A salient feature of ${\cal L}^{}_{\nu- \rm mass}$ is its partial
97: gauge-like symmetry; i.e., its $a$, $b$ and $c$ terms are
98: invariant under the transformation $\nu^{}_\alpha \rightarrow
99: \nu^{}_\alpha + z$ (for $\alpha = e, \mu, \tau$) with $z$ being a
100: space-time independent constant element of the Grassmann algebra
101: \cite{Lee}. Eq. (2) means that the neutrino mass matrix $M^{}_\nu$
102: takes the form
103: \begin{equation}
104: M^{}_\nu \; = \; m^{}_0 \left ( \matrix{1 & 0 & 0 \cr 0 & 1 & 0
105: \cr 0 & 0 & 1 \cr} \right ) ~ + ~ \left ( \matrix{ b+c & -b & -c
106: \cr -b & a+b & -a \cr -c & -a & a+c \cr} \right ) \; .
107: % (3)
108: \end{equation}
109: Diagonalizing $M^{}_\nu$ by the transformation $V^{\dagger}_{\rm
110: FL} M^{}_\nu V^{*}_{\rm FL} = {\rm Diag} \{ m^{}_1, m^{}_2, m^{}_3
111: \}$, in which $m^{}_i$ (for $i=1,2,3$) stand for the neutrino
112: masses, one may obtain the neutrino mixing matrix
113: \begin{equation}
114: V^{}_{\rm FL} = \left ( \matrix{ \displaystyle \frac{2}{\sqrt{6}}
115: & \displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}} & 0 \cr\cr \displaystyle
116: -\frac{1}{\sqrt{6}} & \displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}} &
117: \displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \cr\cr \displaystyle
118: -\frac{1}{\sqrt{6}} & \displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}} &
119: \displaystyle -\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \cr} \right ) \left ( \matrix{
120: \displaystyle \cos\frac{\theta}{2} & 0 & \displaystyle
121: \sin\frac{\theta}{2} \cr\cr 0 & 1 & 0 \cr\cr \displaystyle
122: -\sin\frac{\theta}{2} & 0 & \displaystyle \cos\frac{\theta}{2}
123: \cr} \right ) \; ,
124: % (4)
125: \end{equation}
126: where $\theta$ is given by $\tan\theta = \sqrt{3} \left (b-c
127: \right )/\left [ \left (b + c\right ) - 2a \right ]$. This
128: interesting result leads us to the following observations:
129: \begin{itemize}
130: \item If $\theta =0^\circ$ holds, $V^{}_{\rm FL}$ will
131: reproduce the exact tri-bimaximal neutrino mixing pattern (with
132: $\tan\theta^{}_{12} = 1/\sqrt{2}$ or $\theta^{}_{12} \approx
133: 35.3^\circ$, $\theta^{}_{23} = 45^\circ$ and $\theta^{}_{13} =
134: 0^\circ$) \cite{TB}. The latter, which can be understood as a
135: geometric representation of the neutrino mixing matrix \cite{TD},
136: is in good agreement with current experimental data. Non-vanishing
137: but small $\theta$ predicts $\sin\theta^{}_{13} = ( 2/\sqrt{6})
138: \sin \left (\theta/2 \right )$, implying $\theta \lesssim
139: 24.6^\circ$ for $\theta^{}_{13} < 10^\circ$. On the other hand,
140: $\theta^{}_{23}$ will mildly deviate from its best-fit value
141: $\theta^{}_{23} = 45^\circ$ if $\theta$ (or $\theta^{}_{13}$)
142: takes non-zero values.
143:
144: \item The limit $\theta = 0^\circ$ results from $b = c$.
145: When $b=c$ holds, it is easy to check that the neutrino mass
146: operator ${\cal L}^{}_{\nu- \rm mass}$ has the exact $\mu$-$\tau$
147: symmetry (i.e., ${\cal L}^{}_{\nu- \rm mass}$ is invariant under
148: the exchange of $\mu$ and $\tau$ indices). In other words, the
149: tri-bimaximal neutrino mixing is a natural consequence of the
150: $\mu$-$\tau$ symmetry of $M^{}_\nu$ in the FL model. Then
151: $\theta^{}_{13} \neq 0^\circ$ and $\theta^{}_{23} \neq 45^\circ$
152: measure the strength of $\mu$-$\tau$ symmetry breaking, as many
153: authors have discussed in other neutrino mass models
154: \cite{Symmetry}.
155: \end{itemize}
156: In addition, one may consider to remove one degree of freedom from
157: ${\cal L}^{}_{\nu- \rm mass}$ or $M^{}_\nu$ (for instance, by
158: setting $c =0$ \cite{Lee}).
159:
160: We aim to generalize the FL model to accommodate CP and T
161: violation for massive Majorana neutrinos
162: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
163: \footnote{To include T violation into the model, Friedberg and Lee
164: \cite{Lee} have inserted the phase factors $e^{\pm i \eta}$ into
165: Eq. (2) by replacing the term $c \left (\overline{\nu}^{}_e -
166: \overline{\nu}^{}_\tau \right ) \left (\nu^{}_e - \nu^{}_\tau
167: \right )$ with the term $c \left (e^{-i\eta} \overline{\nu}^{}_e -
168: \overline{\nu}^{}_\tau \right ) \left (e^{+i\eta} \nu^{}_e -
169: \nu^{}_\tau \right )$. The resultant neutrino mass matrix is no
170: longer symmetric, hence it definitely describes Dirac neutrinos
171: instead of Majorana neutrinos.}.
172: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
173: The effective Majorana neutrino mass term can be written as
174: \begin{equation}
175: {\cal L}^{\prime}_{\nu- \rm mass} \; = \; \frac{1}{2} ~
176: \overline{\left (\nu^{}_e, ~ \nu^{}_\mu, ~ \nu^{}_\tau \right
177: )^{}_{\rm L}} ~ M^{}_{\nu} \left ( \matrix{\nu^{\rm c}_e \cr
178: \nu^{\rm c}_\mu \cr \nu^{\rm c}_\tau \cr} \right )^{}_{\rm R} +
179: {\rm h.c.} \; ,
180: % (5)
181: \end{equation}
182: where $\nu^{\rm c}_\alpha \equiv C \bar{\nu}^T_\alpha$ (for
183: $\alpha = e, \mu, \tau$), and $M^{}_\nu$ is of the same form as
184: that given in Eq. (3). Now the parameters of $M^{}_\nu$ (i.e.,
185: $a$, $b$, $c$ and $m^{}_0$) are all complex. Then we are able to
186: derive both the Dirac phase ($\delta$) and the Majorana phases
187: ($\rho$ and $\sigma$) for the neutrino mixing matrix $V$. Two
188: special cases are particularly interesting:
189: \begin{itemize}
190: \item Scenario (A): $a$ and $m^{}_0$ are real, and $b = c^*$
191: are complex. We find that the $\mu$-$\tau$ symmetry of $M^{}_\nu$
192: is softly broken in this case, leading to the elegant predictions
193: $\theta^{}_{13} \neq 0^\circ$, $\theta^{}_{23} =45^\circ$ and
194: $\delta = 90^\circ$. Two Majorana phases $\rho$ and $\sigma$ keep
195: vanishing.
196:
197: \item Scenario (B): $a$, $b$ and $c$ are real, but $m^{}_0$
198: is complex. We find that the results of $\theta^{}_{12}$,
199: $\theta^{}_{23}$ and $\theta^{}_{13}$ obtained from $V^{}_{\rm
200: FL}$ keep unchanged in this case, but some nontrivial values of
201: the Majorana phases $\rho$ and $\sigma$ can now be generated. The
202: Dirac phase $\delta$ remains vanishing.
203: \end{itemize}
204:
205: The remaining part of this paper is organized as follows. More
206: detailed discussions about scenarios (A) and (B) will be presented
207: in section II. Section III is devoted to a generic analysis of the
208: generalized FL model with no special assumptions. Finally, we make
209: some concluding remarks in section IV.
210:
211: \section{Two simple scenarios}
212:
213: First of all, let us consider two special but interesting
214: scenarios of the generalized FL model and explore their respective
215: consequences on three neutrino mixing angles and three
216: CP-violating phases. They are quite instructive in phenomenology
217: and may easily be tested by a variety of long-baseline neutrino
218: oscillation experiments in the near future.
219:
220: \subsection{Scenario (A)}
221:
222: In this scenario, $a$ and $m^{}_0$ are real, $b$ and $c$ are
223: complex, and $b = c^*$ holds. The corresponding neutrino mass
224: matrix $M^{}_\nu$ reads
225: \begin{equation}
226: M^{}_\nu \; = \; m^{}_0 \left ( \matrix{1 & 0 & 0 \cr 0 & ~ 1 ~ &
227: 0 \cr 0 & 0 & 1 \cr} \right ) ~ + ~ \left ( \matrix{ 2{\rm Re}
228: \left (b \right ) & -b & -b^* \cr -b & a + b & -a \cr -b^* & -a &
229: a + b^* \cr} \right ) \; .
230: % (6)
231: \end{equation}
232: We find that $M^{}_\nu$ can be diagonalized by the transformation
233: $V^{\dagger} M^{}_\nu V^{*} = {\rm Diag} \{ m^{}_1, m^{}_2, m^{}_3
234: \}$, where
235: \begin{equation}
236: V = \left ( \matrix{ \displaystyle \frac{2}{\sqrt{6}} &
237: \displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}} & 0 \cr\cr \displaystyle
238: -\frac{1}{\sqrt{6}} & \displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}} &
239: \displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \cr\cr \displaystyle
240: -\frac{1}{\sqrt{6}} & \displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}} &
241: \displaystyle -\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \cr} \right ) \left ( \matrix{
242: \displaystyle \cos\frac{\theta}{2} & 0 & \displaystyle
243: \sin\frac{\theta}{2} e^{-i\delta} \cr\cr 0 & 1 & 0 \cr\cr
244: \displaystyle -\sin\frac{\theta}{2} e^{i\delta} & 0 & \displaystyle
245: \cos\frac{\theta}{2} \cr} \right ) \; ,
246: % (7)
247: \end{equation}
248: and $\delta$ is just the Dirac phase of CP violation defined in
249: the standard parametrization of $V$. A straightforward calculation
250: yields $\delta = 90^\circ$,
251: \begin{equation}
252: \tan\theta \; =\; \frac{\sqrt{3} ~ {\rm Im} \left (b \right )}
253: {m^{}_0 + a + 2 {\rm Re} \left (b \right )} \; ,
254: % (8)
255: \end{equation}
256: together with three neutrino masses
257: \begin{eqnarray}
258: m^{}_1 & = & \sqrt{\left [m^{}_0 + a + 2{\rm Re} \left (b \right
259: ) \right ]^2 + 3 \left [ {\rm Im} \left (b \right ) \right ]^2} ~
260: - a + {\rm Re} \left (b \right ) \; ,
261: \nonumber \\
262: m^{}_2 & = & m^{}_0 \; ,
263: \nonumber \\
264: m^{}_3 & = & \sqrt{\left [m^{}_0 + a + 2{\rm Re} \left (b \right )
265: \right ]^2 + 3 \left [ {\rm Im} \left (b \right ) \right ]^2} ~ +
266: a - {\rm Re} \left (b \right ) \; .
267: % (9)
268: \end{eqnarray}
269: Note that the special result of $\delta$ is a natural consequence
270: of the purely imaginary term $b - c = 2i {\rm Im} \left (b \right
271: )$ in this scenario. The difference between $b$ and $c$ can be
272: referred to as the {\it soft} $\mu$-$\tau$ symmetry breaking,
273: because $|b| = |c|$ holds. The explicit expression of $V$ is
274: \begin{equation}
275: V = \left ( \matrix{ \displaystyle \frac{2}{\sqrt{6}}
276: \cos\frac{\theta}{2} & \displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}} &
277: \displaystyle -i \frac{2}{\sqrt{6}} \sin\frac{\theta}{2} \cr\cr
278: \displaystyle -\frac{1}{\sqrt{6}} \cos\frac{\theta}{2} - i
279: \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \sin\frac{\theta}{2} & \displaystyle
280: \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}} & \displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}
281: \cos\frac{\theta}{2} + i \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}} \sin\frac{\theta}{2}
282: \cr\cr \displaystyle -\frac{1}{\sqrt{6}} \cos\frac{\theta}{2} + i
283: \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \sin\frac{\theta}{2} & \displaystyle
284: \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}} & \displaystyle -\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}
285: \cos\frac{\theta}{2} + i \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}} \sin\frac{\theta}{2}
286: \cr} \right ) \; .
287: % (10)
288: \end{equation}
289: We observe that the only difference between $V$ in Eq. (10) and
290: $V^{}_{\rm FL}$ in Eq. (4) is the introduction of a special
291: CP-violating phase (see also Ref. \cite{Yasue} for a discussion
292: about the maximal leptonic CP violation with $\delta = 90^\circ$).
293: This CP-violating phase, which is attributed to the soft breaking
294: of $\mu$-$\tau$ symmetry, can change the prediction of $V^{}_{\rm
295: FL}$ for $\theta^{}_{23}$. Comparing Eq. (10) with Eq. (1), we
296: immediately obtain
297: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
298: \footnote{It is trivial to redefine the phases of charged-lepton
299: fields, such that the location of CP-violating phases in Eq. (10)
300: is the same as that in Eq. (1).}
301: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
302: \begin{eqnarray}
303: \sin\theta^{}_{12} & = & \frac{1}{\sqrt{2 + \cos\theta}} \; ,
304: \nonumber \\
305: \sin\theta^{}_{23} & = & \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \; , \nonumber \\
306: \sin\theta^{}_{13} & = & \frac{2}{\sqrt{6}} \sin\frac{\theta}{2}
307: \; ,
308: % (11)
309: \end{eqnarray}
310: together with $\delta = 90^\circ$ and $\rho = \sigma = 0^\circ$.
311: Without loss of generality, we have restricted $\theta$ to the
312: first quadrant. The leptonic Jarlskog parameter $\cal J$ \cite{J},
313: which is a rephasing-invariant measure of CP violation in neutrino
314: oscillations, reads ${\cal J} = \sin\theta /(6\sqrt{3})$. One can
315: see that the soft breaking of $\mu$-$\tau$ symmetry leads to both
316: $\theta^{}_{13} \neq 0^\circ$ and ${\cal J} \neq 0$, but it does
317: not affect the favorable result $\theta^{}_{23} = 45^\circ$ given
318: by the tri-bimaximal neutrino mixing pattern. On the other hand,
319: $\sin\theta^{}_{12} \approx 1/\sqrt{3}$ is an excellent
320: approximation, since $\theta$ must be small to maintain the
321: smallness of $\theta^{}_{13}$. In view of $\theta^{}_{13} <
322: 10^\circ$, we obtain $\theta \lesssim 24.6^\circ$ and ${\cal J}
323: \lesssim 0.04$. It is possible to measure ${\cal J} \sim {\cal
324: O}(10^{-2})$ in the future long-baseline neutrino oscillation
325: experiments.
326:
327: Note that the neutrino masses rely on four real model parameters
328: $m^{}_0$, $a$, ${\rm Re}(b)$ and ${\rm Im}(b)$. Thus it is easy to
329: fit the neutrino mass-squared differences $\Delta m^2_{21} = (7.2
330: \cdots 8.9) \times 10^{-5} ~ {\rm eV}^2$ and $\Delta m^2_{32} =
331: \pm (2.1 \cdots 3.1) \times 10^{-3} ~ {\rm eV}^2$ \cite{Vissani}.
332: Such a fit should not involve any fine-tuning, because (a) the
333: number of free parameters is larger than the number of constraint
334: conditions and (b) three neutrino masses have very weak
335: correlation with three mixing angles. A detailed numerical
336: analysis shows that only the normal mass hierarchy ($m^{}_1 <
337: m^{}_2 < m^{}_3$) is allowed in this scenario. FIG. 1 illustrates
338: the parameter space of $m^{}_0$, $a$, ${\rm Re}(b)$ and ${\rm
339: Im}(b)$, where $m^{}_0 \lesssim 0.2$ eV has typically been taken
340: as a generous upper bound on the absolute neutrino mass
341: \cite{WMAP}. Because of $m^{}_0 = m^{}_2$, it is straightforward
342: to get $m^{}_0 > \sqrt{\Delta m^2_{21}} \approx 0.009 ~ {\rm eV}$,
343: as shown in FIG. 1. The small $\mu$-$\tau$ symmetry breaking (or
344: small $\theta$) requires the small magnitude of ${\rm Im}(b)$.
345: Thus Eq. (10) allows us to get ${\rm Re}(b) \approx (m^{}_1 -
346: m^{}_2)/3$ in the ${\rm Im}(b) \rightarrow 0$ limit, implying that
347: ${\rm Re}(b)$ is negative and its magnitude is very small.
348: Furthermore, $a \approx (m^{}_3 - m^{}_2)/2$ approximately holds
349: in the ${\rm Im}(b) \rightarrow 0$ limit, implying that the
350: maximal value of $a$ is roughly half of $m^{}_3 \sim \sqrt{|\Delta
351: m^2_{32}|}$ (i.e., $a \lesssim 0.025 ~ {\rm eV}$) when three
352: neutrino masses develop a strong normal hierarchy.
353:
354: \subsection{Scenario (B)}
355:
356: In this simple scenario, only $m^{}_0$ is assumed to be complex.
357: While the neutrino mass matrix $M^{}_\nu$ takes the same form as
358: that given in Eq. (3), its diagonalization ($V^\dagger M^{}_\nu
359: V^* = {\rm Diag} \{ m^{}_1, m^{}_2, m^{}_3 \}$) requires the
360: following transformation matrix
361: \begin{equation}
362: V = \left ( \matrix{ \displaystyle \frac{2}{\sqrt{6}} &
363: \displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}} & 0 \cr\cr \displaystyle
364: -\frac{1}{\sqrt{6}} & \displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}} &
365: \displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \cr\cr \displaystyle
366: -\frac{1}{\sqrt{6}} & \displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}} &
367: \displaystyle -\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \cr} \right ) \left ( \matrix{
368: \displaystyle \cos\frac{\theta}{2} & 0 & \displaystyle
369: \sin\frac{\theta}{2} \cr\cr 0 & 1 & 0 \cr\cr \displaystyle
370: -\sin\frac{\theta}{2} & 0 & \displaystyle \cos\frac{\theta}{2} \cr}
371: \right ) \left ( \matrix{ e^{i\phi^{}_1} & 0 & 0 \cr\cr 0 &
372: e^{i\phi^{}_2} & 0 \cr\cr 0 & 0 & e^{i\phi^{}_3} \cr} \right ) \; ,
373: % (12)
374: \end{equation}
375: where $\phi^{}_i$ (for $i=1,2,3$) originate from the imaginary
376: part of $m^{}_0$. Comparing between Eqs. (1) and (12), one can see
377: that the Majorana phases of CP violation in the standard
378: parametrization of $V$ are given by $\rho = \phi^{}_1 - \phi^{}_3$
379: and $\sigma = \phi^{}_2 - \phi^{}_3$ (i.e., the phase factor
380: $e^{i\phi^{}_3}$ in Eq. (12) is finally rotated away by redefining
381: the phases of three charged-lepton fields). After a
382: straightforward calculation, we obtain
383: \begin{equation}
384: \tan\theta \; =\; \frac{\sqrt{3} \left (b - c \right )}{\left (b +
385: c \right ) - 2a} \; ,
386: % (13)
387: \end{equation}
388: and
389: \begin{eqnarray}
390: m^{}_1 & = & \sqrt{\left [m^{}_{-} + {\rm Re} \left (m^{}_0 \right ) \right ]^2
391: + \left [ {\rm Im} \left ( m^{}_0 \right ) \right ]^2} \;\; , \nonumber \\
392: m^{}_2 & = & \left |m^{}_0 \right | \; , \nonumber \\
393: m^{}_3 & = & \sqrt{\left [m^{}_{+} + {\rm Re} \left (m^{}_0 \right
394: ) \right ]^2 + \left [ {\rm Im} \left ( m^{}_0 \right ) \right
395: ]^2} \;\; ,
396: % (14)
397: \end{eqnarray}
398: where
399: \begin{equation}
400: m^{}_{\pm} \; = \; \left ( a + b + c \right ) \pm \sqrt{a^2 + b^2
401: + c^2 - ab - ac - bc} \;\; .
402: % (15)
403: \end{equation}
404: The final result for the neutrino mixing matrix $V$ is
405: \begin{equation}
406: V = \left ( \matrix{ \displaystyle \frac{2}{\sqrt{6}}
407: \cos\frac{\theta}{2} & \displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}} &
408: \displaystyle \frac{2}{\sqrt{6}} \sin\frac{\theta}{2} \cr\cr
409: \displaystyle -\frac{1}{\sqrt{6}} \cos\frac{\theta}{2} -
410: \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \sin\frac{\theta}{2} & \displaystyle
411: \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}} & \displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}
412: \cos\frac{\theta}{2} - \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}} \sin\frac{\theta}{2}
413: \cr\cr \displaystyle -\frac{1}{\sqrt{6}} \cos\frac{\theta}{2} +
414: \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \sin\frac{\theta}{2} & \displaystyle
415: \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}} & \displaystyle -\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}
416: \cos\frac{\theta}{2} - \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}} \sin\frac{\theta}{2}
417: \cr} \right ) \left ( \matrix{ e^{i\rho} & 0 & 0 \cr\cr 0 &
418: e^{i\sigma} & 0 \cr\cr 0 & 0 & 1 \cr} \right ) \; ,
419: % (16)
420: \end{equation}
421: where $\rho$ and $\sigma$ are given by
422: \begin{eqnarray}
423: \tan 2 \rho & = & \frac{\left ( m^{}_+ - m^{}_- \right ) {\rm Im}
424: \left ( m^{}_0 \right )}{|m^{}_0|^2 + m^{}_+ m^{}_- + \left (
425: m^{}_+ + m^{}_- \right ) {\rm Re} \left ( m^{}_0 \right )} \; ,
426: \nonumber \\
427: \tan 2 \sigma & = & \frac{ m^{}_+ {\rm Im} \left ( m^{}_0 \right
428: )}{|m^{}_0|^2 + m^{}_+ {\rm Re} \left ( m^{}_0 \right )} \; .
429: % (17)
430: \end{eqnarray}
431: One can see that the only difference between $V$ in Eq. (16) and
432: $V^{}_{\rm FL}$ in Eq. (4) is the introduction of two Majorana
433: phases of CP violation. Although $\rho$ and $\sigma$ have nothing
434: to do with the behaviors of neutrino oscillations, they may
435: significantly affect the neutrinoless double-beta decay
436: \cite{Xing02}. Comparing Eq. (16) with Eq. (1), we arrive at
437: \begin{eqnarray}
438: \sin\theta^{}_{12} & = & \frac{1}{\sqrt{2 + \cos\theta}} \; ,
439: \nonumber \\
440: \sin\theta^{}_{23} & = & \frac{\sqrt{2 + \cos\theta - \sqrt{3}
441: \sin\theta}}{\sqrt{2 \left (2 + \cos\theta \right )}} \; ,
442: \nonumber \\
443: \sin\theta^{}_{13} & = & \frac{2}{\sqrt{6}} \sin\frac{\theta}{2}
444: \; ,
445: % (18)
446: \end{eqnarray}
447: together with $\delta = 0^\circ$ for the Dirac phase of CP
448: violation. Again $\theta$ has been restricted to the first
449: quadrant. The results for $\theta^{}_{12}$ and $\theta^{}_{13}$ in
450: this scenario are the same as those obtained in scenario (A), but
451: the Jarlskog parameter $\cal J$ is now vanishing. Because of the
452: $\mu$-$\tau$ symmetry breaking, $\theta^{}_{23}$ may somehow
453: deviate from the favorable value $\theta^{}_{23} = 45^\circ$.
454: Given $\theta \lesssim 24.6^\circ$ corresponding to
455: $\theta^{}_{13} < 10^\circ$, $\theta^{}_{23}$ is allowed to vary
456: in the range $37.8^\circ \lesssim \theta^{}_{23} \leq 45^\circ$
457: \cite{US}.
458:
459: Note that the neutrino masses depend on five real model parameters
460: $a$, $b$, $c$, ${\rm Re}(m^{}_0)$ and ${\rm Im}(m^{}_0)$. Hence
461: there is sufficient freedom to fit two observed neutrino
462: mass-squared differences $\Delta m^2_{21}$ and $\Delta m^2_{32}$.
463: A detailed numerical analysis shows that both the normal mass
464: hierarchy ($m^{}_1 < m^{}_2 < m^{}_3$) and the inverted mass
465: hierarchy ($m^{}_3 < m^{}_1 < m^{}_2$) are allowed in scenario
466: (B). FIGs. 2 and 3 illustrate the parameter space of $a$, $b$,
467: $c$, ${\rm Re}(m^{}_0)$ and ${\rm Im}(m^{}_0)$, where $|m^{}_0|
468: \lesssim 0.2$ eV has been taken \cite{WMAP}. Taking account of the
469: analytical reciprocity between $b$ and $c$ (i.e., an exchange of
470: $b$ and $c$ in Eq. (15) does not affect the result of $m^{}_i$
471: obtained in Eq. (14)), we plot their allowed regions in the same
472: figure without any confusion. Note that $m^{}_0$ cannot be purely
473: imaginary in both normal and inverted mass hierarchies, otherwise
474: we would be left with $\Delta m^2_{21} < 0$, which is in
475: disagreement with current experimental data. Moreover, the lower
476: bound of $|{\rm Re}(m^{}_0)|$ is obviously restricted by the
477: magnitude of $m^{}_2$ (i.e., $m^{}_2 \sim \sqrt{\Delta m^2_{21}}
478: \approx 0.009 ~ {\rm eV}$ in the normal mass hierarchy or $m^{}_2
479: \sim \sqrt{|\Delta m^2_{32}|} \approx 0.05 ~ {\rm eV}$ in the
480: inverted mass hierarchy). In view of $(m^{}_+ - m^{}_-) \propto
481: (m^2_3 - m^2_1)$ from Eq. (14), we find $m^{}+ \neq m^{}_-$. This
482: inequality implies that $a=b=c$ is not allowed, as one can see
483: from Eq. (15) or FIGs. 2 and 3.
484: %In other words, three parameters
485: %$a$, $b$ and $c$ cannot be simultaneously equal to one another.
486: The disconnected regions in the plots of $a$ versus $b$ (or $c$)
487: are ascribed to the ambiguity induced by the sign of ${\rm
488: Re}(m^{}_0)$. FIG. 4 shows the allowed regions of $\rho$ and
489: $\sigma$. We see that both of them are less restricted, as a
490: consequence of the large freedom associated with the imaginary
491: part of $m^{}_0$.
492:
493: \section{Generic analysis}
494:
495: Now let us assume all the parameters of $M^{}_\nu$ in Eq. (3) to
496: be complex and calculate its mass eigenvalues and flavor mixing
497: parameters. Using the tri-bimaximal mixing matrix \cite{TB}
498: \begin{equation}
499: V^{}_0 = \left ( \matrix{ \displaystyle \frac{2}{\sqrt{6}} &
500: \displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}} & 0 \cr\cr \displaystyle
501: -\frac{1}{\sqrt{6}} & \displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}} &
502: \displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \cr\cr \displaystyle
503: -\frac{1}{\sqrt{6}} & \displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}} &
504: \displaystyle -\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \cr} \right ) \; ,
505: % (19)
506: \end{equation}
507: we transform $M^{}_\nu$ into the following form:
508: \begin{equation}
509: V^\dagger_0 M^{}_\nu V^{*}_0 \; = \; \left(\matrix{\displaystyle
510: \frac{3}{2} \left (b + c \right ) + m^{}_0 & 0 & \displaystyle
511: \frac{\sqrt{3}}{2} \left (c - b \right ) \cr 0 & m^{}_0 & 0 \cr
512: \displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{3}}{2} \left (c - b \right ) & 0 &
513: \displaystyle 2a + \frac{1}{2} \left (b + c \right ) + m^{}_0 \cr
514: }\right) \; .
515: % (20)
516: \end{equation}
517: This complex mass matrix can be diagonalized by the transformation
518: $V^\dagger_1 (V^\dagger_0 M^{}_\nu V^{*}_0 ) V^{*}_1 = {\rm
519: Diag}\{m^{}_1, m^{}_2, m^{}_3 \}$, where
520: \begin{equation}
521: V^{}_1 \; = \; \left ( \matrix{ \displaystyle \cos\frac{\theta}{2}
522: & 0 & \displaystyle \sin\frac{\theta}{2} e^{-i\delta} \cr\cr 0 & 1
523: & 0 \cr\cr \displaystyle -\sin\frac{\theta}{2} e^{i\delta} & 0 &
524: \displaystyle \cos\frac{\theta}{2} \cr} \right ) \left ( \matrix{
525: e^{i\phi^{}_1} & 0 & 0 \cr\cr 0 & e^{i\phi^{}_2} & 0 \cr\cr 0 & 0
526: & e^{i\phi^{}_3} \cr} \right ) \; .
527: % (21)
528: \end{equation}
529: The neutrino mixing matrix $V$ turns out to be $V = V^{}_0
530: V^{}_1$, in which $\delta$ is just the Dirac phase of CP
531: violation. Of course, $\rho = \phi^{}_1 - \phi^{}_3$ and $\sigma =
532: \phi^{}_2 - \phi^{}_3$ are the Majorana phases of CP violation in
533: the standard parametrization of $V$.
534:
535: To be explicit, we express $\theta$ and $\delta$ in terms of the
536: parameters of $M^{}_\nu$. The results are
537: \begin{eqnarray}
538: \tan \theta & = & \frac{\sqrt{X^2 + Y^2}}{Z} \; ,
539: \nonumber \\
540: \tan\delta & = & \frac{X}{Y} \; ,
541: % (22)
542: \end{eqnarray}
543: where
544: \begin{eqnarray}
545: X & = & \sqrt{3}{\rm Im}\left (ac^*-ab^* - bc^* \right ) \; ,
546: \nonumber \\
547: Y & = & \sqrt{3} \left [|c|^2 - |b|^2 + {\rm Re} \left (ac^* -
548: ab^* - m^{}_0b^* + m^{}_0c^* \right ) \right ] \; ,
549: \nonumber \\
550: Z & = & 2|a|^2 - |b|^2 - |c|^2 + {\rm Re} \left ( ab^* + ac^* -
551: 2bc^* + 2m^{}_0a^* - m^{}_0b^* - m^{}_0c^* \right ) \; .
552: % (23)
553: \end{eqnarray}
554: Furthermore, three mass eigenvalues of $M^{}_\nu$ and two Majorana
555: phases of $V$ are found to be
556: \begin{eqnarray}
557: m^{}_1 & = & \left | T^{}_1 \cos^2\frac{\theta}{2} - T_2\sin\theta
558: e^{-i\delta} + T^{}_3\sin^2\frac{\theta}{2} e^{-i 2\delta} \right
559: | \; ,
560: \nonumber \\
561: m^{}_2 & = & \left |m^{}_0 \right | \; ,
562: \nonumber \\
563: m^{}_3 & = & \left | T^{}_3 \cos^2\frac{\theta}{2} +
564: T^{}_2\sin\theta e^{+i\delta} + T^{}_1\sin^2\frac{\theta}{2} e^{+i
565: 2\delta} \right | \; ;
566: % (24)
567: \end{eqnarray}
568: and
569: \begin{eqnarray}
570: \rho & = & \frac{1}{2} \arg \left( \frac{\displaystyle T^{}_1
571: \cos^2\frac{\theta}{2} - T^{}_2\sin\theta e^{-i\delta} +
572: T^{}_3\sin^2\frac{\theta}{2} e^{-i 2\delta}}{\displaystyle T^{}_3
573: \cos^2\frac{\theta}{2} + T^{}_2\sin\theta e^{+i\delta} +
574: T^{}_1\sin^2\frac{\theta}{2} e^{+i 2\delta}} \right) \; ,
575: \nonumber \\
576: \sigma & = & \frac{1}{2}\arg \left( \frac{m^{}_0}{\displaystyle
577: T^{}_3 \cos^2\frac{\theta}{2} + T^{}_2\sin\theta e^{+i\delta} +
578: T^{}_1\sin^2\frac{\theta}{2} e^{+i 2\delta}} \right) \; ,
579: % (25)
580: \end{eqnarray}
581: where
582: \begin{eqnarray}
583: T^{}_{1} & = & \frac{3}{2} \left (b + c \right ) + m^{}_0 \; ,
584: \nonumber \\
585: T^{}_{2} & = & \frac{\sqrt{3}}{2} \left (c - b \right ) \; ,
586: \nonumber \\
587: T^{}_{3} & = & 2a + \frac{1}{2} \left (b+ c \right ) + m^{}_0 \; .
588: % (26)
589: \end{eqnarray}
590: The final result of $V$ is
591: \begin{equation}
592: V = \left ( \matrix{ \displaystyle \frac{2}{\sqrt{6}}
593: \cos\frac{\theta}{2} & \displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}} &
594: \displaystyle \frac{2}{\sqrt{6}} \sin\frac{\theta}{2} e^{-i\delta}
595: \cr\cr \displaystyle -\frac{1}{\sqrt{6}} \cos\frac{\theta}{2} -
596: \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \sin\frac{\theta}{2} e^{i\delta} &
597: \displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}} & \displaystyle
598: \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \cos\frac{\theta}{2} - \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}
599: \sin\frac{\theta}{2} e^{-i\delta} \cr\cr \displaystyle
600: -\frac{1}{\sqrt{6}} \cos\frac{\theta}{2} + \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}
601: \sin\frac{\theta}{2} e^{i\delta} & \displaystyle
602: \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}} & \displaystyle -\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}
603: \cos\frac{\theta}{2} - \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}} \sin\frac{\theta}{2}
604: e^{-i\delta} \cr} \right ) \left ( \matrix{ e^{i\rho} & 0 & 0
605: \cr\cr 0 & e^{i\sigma} & 0 \cr\cr 0 & 0 & 1 \cr} \right ) \; ,
606: % (27)
607: \end{equation}
608: from which we obtain the Jarlskog parameter ${\cal J} =
609: \sin\theta\sin\delta/(6\sqrt{3})$. Comparing Eq. (27) with Eq.
610: (1), we arrive at
611: \begin{eqnarray}
612: \sin\theta^{}_{12} & = & \frac{1}{\sqrt{2 + \cos\theta}} \; ,
613: \nonumber \\
614: \sin\theta^{}_{23} & = & \frac{\sqrt{2 + \cos\theta -
615: \sqrt{3}\sin\theta\cos\delta}}{\sqrt{2 \left (2 + \cos\theta
616: \right )}} \; ,
617: \nonumber \\
618: \sin\theta^{}_{13} & = & \frac{2}{\sqrt{6}} \sin\frac{\theta}{2}
619: \; .
620: % (28)
621: \end{eqnarray}
622: One can see that the predictions for $\theta^{}_{12}$ and
623: $\theta^{}_{13}$ are the same as those obtained in scenarios (A)
624: and (B). Thus they are two typical and general consequences of the
625: FL model. As for $\theta^{}_{23}$, the generic result in Eq. (28)
626: may easily reproduce the special result in Eq. (11) for scenario
627: (A) with $\delta = 90^\circ$ or that in Eq. (18) for scenario (B)
628: with $\delta = 0^\circ$. Given $\theta \lesssim 24.6^\circ$ (i.e.,
629: $\theta^{}_{13} < 10^\circ$), $\theta^{}_{23}$ is allowed to vary
630: in the range $37.8^\circ \leq \theta^{}_{23} \lesssim 52.2^\circ$
631: for arbitrary $\delta$.
632:
633: As $m^{}_0$, $a$, $b$ and $c$ are all complex, we now have much
634: more freedom to fit two observed neutrino mass-squared differences
635: $\Delta m^2_{21}$ and $\Delta m^2_{32}$. Of course, both the
636: normal neutrino mass hierarchy ($m^{}_1 < m^{}_2 < m^{}_3$) and
637: the inverted neutrino mass hierarchy ($m^{}_3 < m^{}_1 < m^{}_2$)
638: are expected in this generic case. We shall not carry out a
639: numerical analysis of the parameter space, however, just because
640: it involves a lot of uncertainties and is not as suggestive as
641: that in scenario (A) or scenario (B).
642:
643: \section{Concluding remarks}
644:
645: We have pointed out that the nearly tri-bimaximal neutrino mixing
646: can be regarded as a natural consequence of the slight
647: $\mu$-$\tau$ symmetry breaking in the FL neutrino mass model.
648: Another straightforward consequence of the $\mu$-$\tau$ symmetry
649: breaking is CP violation. Assuming the Majorana nature of massive
650: neutrinos, we have generalized the FL model to introduce the
651: CP-violating effects. In addition to a generic analysis of the
652: generalized FL model, two simple but intriguing scenarios have
653: been proposed: scenario (A) involves the softly-broken
654: $\mu$-$\tau$ symmetry, leading to the elegant predictions
655: $\theta^{}_{13} \neq 0^\circ$, $\theta^{}_{23} = 45^\circ$,
656: $\delta = 90^\circ$ and vanishing Majorana phases of CP
657: violation; scenario (B) predicts $\theta^{}_{13} \neq 0^\circ$,
658: $\theta^{}_{23} \neq 45^\circ$, $\delta = 0^\circ$ and two
659: nontrivial Majorana phases of CP violation, on the other hand.
660: Both scenarios are compatible with current experimental data.
661:
662: Although our discussions about the generalized FL model are
663: restricted to low-energy scales, it can certainly be extended to a
664: superhigh-energy scale (e.g., the GUT scale or the seesaw scale).
665: In this case, one should take into account the radiative
666: corrections to both neutrino masses and flavor mixing parameters
667: when they run from the high scale to the electroweak scale. A
668: particularly interesting point is that the Majorana phases $\rho$
669: and $\sigma$ can radiatively be generated from the Dirac phase
670: $\delta$ in scenario (A), while the Dirac phase $\delta$ can
671: radiatively be generated from the Majorana phases $\rho$ and
672: $\sigma$ in scenario (B) \cite{Luo1}. Thus the features of
673: leptonic CP violation can fully show up in both scenarios at
674: low-energy scales, if they are originally prescribed at a
675: superhigh-energy scale (see Ref. \cite{Luo2} for a detailed
676: analysis of the running behaviors of CP-violating phases in the
677: nearly tri-bimaximal neutrino mixing pattern, including the
678: minimal supergravity threshold effects).
679:
680: We conclude that the $\mu$-$\tau$ symmetry and its slight breaking
681: are useful and suggestive for model building. We expect that a
682: stringent test of the generalized FL model, in particular its two
683: simple and instructive scenarios, can be achieved in the near
684: future from the reactor neutrino oscillation experiments (towards
685: measuring $\theta^{}_{13}$), the accelerator long-baseline
686: neutrino oscillation experiments (towards detecting both
687: $\theta^{}_{13}$ and $\delta$) and the neutrinoless double-beta
688: decay experiments (towards probing the Majorana nature of massive
689: neutrinos and constraining their Majorana phases of CP violation).
690:
691: \acknowledgments{We are indebted to W.Q. Chao for bringing Refs.
692: \cite{Lee} and \cite{TD} to our particular attention. One of us
693: (Z.Z.X.) would also like to thank T.D. Lee for his encouragement
694: at the Workshop on Future China-US Cooperation in High Energy
695: Physics (June 2006, Beijing). This work is supported in part by
696: the National Natural Science Foundation of China.}
697:
698: \newpage
699:
700: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
701: \bibitem{SNO} SNO Collaboration, Q.R. Ahmad {\it et al.},
702: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 89}, 011301 (2002).
703:
704: \bibitem{SK} For a review, see: C.K. Jung {\it et al.},
705: Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. {\bf 51}, 451 (2001).
706:
707: \bibitem{KM} KamLAND Collaboration, K. Eguchi {\it et al.},
708: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 90}, 021802 (2003).
709:
710: \bibitem{K2K} K2K Collaboration, M.H. Ahn {\it et al.},
711: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 90}, 041801 (2003).
712:
713: \bibitem{Vissani} A. Strumia and F. Vissani, hep-ph/0606054.
714:
715: \bibitem{Review} For recent reviews with extensive references,
716: see: H. Fritzsch and Z.Z. Xing, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. {\bf 45},
717: 1 (2000); Z.Z. Xing, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A {\bf 19}, 1 (2004);
718: Altarelli and F. Feruglio, New J. Phys. {\bf 6}, 106 (2004); R.N.
719: Mohapatra {\it et al.}, hep-ph/0510213; R.N. Mohapatra and A.Yu.
720: Smirnov, hep-ph/0603118; A. Strumia and F. Vissani,
721: hep-ph/0606054.
722:
723: \bibitem{Lee} R. Friedberg and T.D. Lee, HEP$\&$NP {\bf 30}, 591
724: (2006), hep-ph/0606071; T.D. Lee, invited talk given at the
725: Workshop on Future China-US Cooperation in High Energy Physics,
726: Beijing, June 11--18, 2006.
727:
728: \bibitem{TB} P.F. Harrison, D.H. Perkins, and W.G. Scott, Phys.
729: Lett. B {\bf 530}, 167 (2002); Z.Z. Xing, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 533},
730: 85 (2002); P.F. Harrison and W.G. Scott, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 535},
731: 163 (2002); X.G. He and A. Zee, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 560}, 87 (2003);
732: C.I. Low and R.R. Volkas, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 68}, 033007 (2003); E.
733: Ma, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 583}, 157 (2004); hep-ph/0409075; G.
734: Altarelli and F. Feruglio, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 720}, 64 (2005); F.
735: Plentinger and W. Rodejohann, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 625}, 264 (2005);
736: K.S. Babu and X.G. He, hep-ph/0507217; A. Zee, Phys. Lett. B {\bf
737: 630}, 58 (2005); S.K. Kang, Z.Z. Xing and S. Zhou, Phys. Rev. D {\bf
738: 73}, 013001 (2006); X.G. He, Y.Y. Keum and R.R. Volkas, JHEP {\bf
739: 0604}, 039 (2006).
740:
741: \bibitem{TD} T.D. Lee, Chinese Phys. {\bf 15}, 1009 (2006),
742: hep-ph/0605017.
743:
744: \bibitem{Symmetry} See, e.g., T. Fukuyama and H. Nishiura, hep-ph/9702253;
745: R.N. Mohapatra and S. Nussinov, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 60}, 013002
746: (1999); Z.Z. Xing, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 61}, 057301 (2000); Phys.
747: Rev. D {\bf 64}, 093013 (2001); E. Ma and M. Raidal, Phys. Rev.
748: Lett. {\bf 87}, 011802 (2001); C.S. Lam, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 507},
749: 214 (2001); T. Kitabayashi and M. Yasu\`{e}, Phys. Rev. D {\bf
750: 67}, 015006 (2003); W. Grimus and L. Lavoura, Phys. Lett. B {\bf
751: 572}, 189 (2003); J. Phys. G {\bf 30}, 73 (2004); Y. Koide, Phys.
752: Rev. D {\bf 69}, 093001 (2004); R.N. Mohapatra, JHEP {\bf 0410},
753: 027 (2004); A. de Gouvea, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 69}, 093007 (2004); A.
754: Ghosal, Mod. Phys. Lett A {\bf 19}, 2579 (2004); W. Grimus, A.S.
755: Joshipura, S. Kaneko, L. Lavoura, H. Sawanaka, and M. Tanimoto,
756: Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 713}, 151 (2005); R.N. Mohapatra and W.
757: Rodejohann, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 72}, 053001 (2005); T. Kitabayashi
758: and M. Yasu\`{e}, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 621}, 133 (2005); R.N.
759: Mohapatra, S. Nasri, and H.B. Yu, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 615}, 231
760: (2005); A.S. Joshipura, hep-ph/0512252; K. Matsuda and H.
761: Nishiura, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 73}, 013008 (2006); R.N. Mohapatra, S.
762: Nasri, and H.B. Yu, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 636}, 114 (2006);
763: hep-ph/0605020; Z.Z. Xing, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 74}, 013010 (2006);
764: K. Fuki and M. Yasue, hep-ph/0608042.
765:
766: \bibitem{Yasue}I. Aizawa, T. Kitabayashi, and M. Yasu\`{e},
767: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 72}, 055014 (2005); Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 728}, 220
768: (2005).
769:
770: \bibitem{J} C. Jarlskog, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 55}, 1039 (1985);
771: D.D. Wu, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 33}, 860 (1986).
772:
773: \bibitem{WMAP} See, e.g., D.N. Spergel, astro-ph/0603449, in which
774: the combination of WMAP and other astronomical data yields a
775: constraint $\sum m^{}_i < 0.68$ eV ($95\%$ C.L.).
776:
777: \bibitem{Xing02} Z.Z. Xing, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 64}, 093013 (2001);
778: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 65}, 077302 (2002).
779:
780: \bibitem{US} Note that one may also get $45^\circ \leq
781: \theta^{}_{23} \lesssim 52.2^\circ$, if $\theta$ takes negative
782: values from the third or fourth quadrant. Therefore,
783: $\theta^{}_{23}$ is in general allowed to vary in the range
784: $37.8^\circ \lesssim \theta^{}_{23} \lesssim 52.2^\circ$ for
785: $|\theta| \lesssim 24.6^\circ$. See the discussions below Eq. (28)
786: in section III.
787:
788: \bibitem{Luo1} J.A. Casas, J.R. Espinosa, A. Ibarra, and I. Navarro,
789: Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 573}, 652 (2000); S. Antusch, J. Kersten, M.
790: Lindner, and M. Ratz, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 674}, 401 (2003); S. Luo,
791: J.W. Mei, and Z.Z. Xing, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 72}, 053014 (2005);
792:
793: \bibitem{Luo2} S. Luo and Z.Z. Xing, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 632}, 341 (2006);
794: Phys. Lett. B {\bf 637}, 279 (2006); M. Hirsch, E. Ma, J.C. Romao,
795: J.W.F. Valle, and A.V. del Moral, hep-ph/0606082.
796: \end{thebibliography}
797:
798: \newpage
799:
800: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% figure 1 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
801: \begin{figure}
802: \psfig{file=A_m0.ps, bbllx=2.2cm, bblly=6.0cm, bburx=12.2cm, bbury=16.0cm,%
803: width=12cm, height=12cm, angle=0, clip=0}
804: \end{figure}
805: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
806: \begin{figure}
807: \vspace{-3.5cm}
808: \psfig{file=A_b.ps, bbllx=2.2cm, bblly=6.0cm, bburx=12.2cm, bbury=16.0cm,%
809: width=12cm, height=12cm, angle=0, clip=0}\vspace{-2cm}\caption{
810: The parameter space of ($m^{}_0$, $a$) and (${\rm Re}(b)$, ${\rm
811: Im}(b)$) in \underline{\bf Scenario (A)}, where only the normal
812: neutrino mass hierarchy is allowed.}
813: \end{figure}
814: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
815:
816: \newpage
817:
818: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% figure 2 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
819: \begin{figure}
820: \psfig{file=B_m0.ps, bbllx=2.2cm, bblly=6.0cm, bburx=12.2cm, bbury=16.0cm,%
821: width=12cm, height=12cm, angle=0, clip=0}
822: \end{figure}
823: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
824: \begin{figure}
825: \vspace{-3.5cm}
826: \psfig{file=B_ab.ps, bbllx=2.2cm, bblly=6.0cm, bburx=12.2cm, bbury=16.0cm,%
827: width=12cm, height=12cm, angle=0, clip=0}\vspace{-2cm}\caption{The
828: parameter space of $\left({\rm Re}(m^{}_0), {\rm
829: Im}(m^{}_0)\right)$ and ($a$, $b$ or $c$) in \underline{\bf
830: Scenario (B)} with the {\it normal} neutrino mass hierarchy.}
831: \end{figure}
832: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
833:
834: \newpage
835:
836: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% figure 3 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
837: \begin{figure}
838: \psfig{file=B_m0_inv.ps, bbllx=2.2cm, bblly=6.0cm, bburx=12.2cm, bbury=16.0cm,%
839: width=12cm, height=12cm, angle=0, clip=0}
840: \end{figure}
841: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
842: \begin{figure}
843: \vspace{-3.5cm}
844: \psfig{file=B_ab_inv.ps, bbllx=2.2cm, bblly=6.0cm, bburx=12.2cm, bbury=16.0cm,%
845: width=12cm, height=12cm, angle=0, clip=0}\vspace{-2cm}\caption{The
846: parameter space of $\left({\rm Re}(m^{}_0), {\rm
847: Im}(m^{}_0)\right)$ and ($a$, $b$ or $c$) in \underline{\bf
848: Scenario (B)} with the {\it inverted} neutrino mass hierarchy.}
849: \end{figure}
850: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
851:
852: \newpage
853:
854: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% figure 4 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
855: \begin{figure}
856: \psfig{file=rho_B.ps, bbllx=2.2cm, bblly=6.0cm, bburx=12.2cm, bbury=16.0cm,%
857: width=12cm, height=12cm, angle=0, clip=0}
858: \end{figure}
859: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
860: \begin{figure}
861: \vspace{-3.5cm}
862: \psfig{file=rho_B_inv.ps, bbllx=2.2cm, bblly=6.0cm, bburx=12.2cm, bbury=16.0cm,%
863: width=12cm, height=12cm, angle=0, clip=0}\vspace{-2cm}\caption{The
864: parameter space of $\rho$ and $\sigma$ in \underline{\bf Scenario
865: (B)} with the {\it normal} or {\it inverted} neutrino mass
866: hierarchy. Note that the same parameter space can be obtained when
867: $\rho \rightarrow \rho \pm n\pi/2$ and $\sigma \rightarrow \sigma
868: \pm n\pi/2$ (for $n=1, 2, 3, \cdots$), as a straightforward
869: consequence of Eq. (17).}
870: \end{figure}
871: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
872:
873: \end{document}
874: