1: %
2: \documentclass[12pt]{article}
3: %
4: \usepackage{bbm,latexsym,epsfig}
5: %
6: \textwidth160mm
7: \textheight230mm
8: \topmargin-15mm
9: \oddsidemargin0mm
10: \evensidemargin2.5mm
11: %
12: \newcommand{\lesssim}{ \ \mbox{\raisebox{-3pt}{$\stackrel%
13: {\displaystyle <}{\sim}$}} \ }
14: \newcommand{\gtrsim}{\:\mbox{\raisebox{-3pt}{$\stackrel%
15: {\displaystyle >}{\sim}$}}\:}
16: %
17: \newcommand{\mnu}{\mathcal{M}_\nu}
18: \newcommand{\deltasol}{\Delta m^2_\odot}
19: \newcommand{\deltaatm}{\Delta m^2_\mathrm{atm}}
20: \newcommand{\berr}{\!\begin{array}{l} \scriptstyle +}
21: \newcommand{\tr}{\\[-3mm] \scriptstyle -}
22: \newcommand{\eerr}{\end{array}}
23: % \yn, \yi,... corresponds to x_0, x_1,... in output
24: \newcommand{\yn}{h'_{22}}
25: \newcommand{\yi}{h'_{33}}
26: \newcommand{\yii}{h'_{11}}
27: \newcommand{\yiii}{g'_{23}}
28: \newcommand{\yiv}{g'_{12}} % \xiv has additional minus!!!
29: \newcommand{\yv}{f'_{22}}
30: \newcommand{\yvi}{f'_{33}}
31: \newcommand{\yvii}{f'_{11}}
32: \newcommand{\yviii}{f'_{13}}
33:
34: \begin{document}
35:
36: \title{\normalsize \hfill UWThPh-2006-15 \\[1cm]
37: \LARGE
38: Fermion masses and mixings \\
39: in a renormalizable $SO(10) \times \mathbbm{Z}_2$ GUT \\[8mm]}
40:
41: \author{
42: Walter Grimus\thanks{E-mail: walter.grimus@univie.ac.at} \,
43: \normalsize and \large
44: \setcounter{footnote}{3}
45: Helmut K\"uhb\"ock\thanks{E-mail: helmut.kuehboeck@gmx.at}
46: \\
47: \small Institut f\"ur Theoretische Physik, Universit\"at Wien \\
48: \small Boltzmanngasse 5, A--1090 Wien, Austria
49: \\*[4.6mm]}
50:
51: \date{20 September 2006}
52:
53: \maketitle
54:
55: \begin{abstract}
56: We investigate a scenario
57: in a supersymmetric $SO(10)$ Grand Unified Theory
58: in which the fermion mass matrices
59: are generated by renormalizable Yukawa couplings
60: of the $\mathbf{10} \oplus \mathbf{120} \oplus \overline{\mathbf{126}}$
61: representation of scalars.
62: We reduce the number of parameters by
63: assuming spontaneous CP violation and a
64: $\mathbbm{Z}_2$ family symmetry, leading to nine real Yukawa coupling
65: constants for three families.
66: Since in the ``minimal SUSY $SO(10)$ GUT'' an intermediate seesaw scale is
67: ruled out and our scenario lives in the natural extension of this theory
68: by the $\mathbf{120}$, we identify the vacuum
69: expectation value (VEV) $w_R$ of
70: $(\mathbf{10}, \mathbf{1}, \mathbf{3}) \in \overline{\mathbf{126}}$
71: with the GUT scale of $2 \times 10^{16}$ GeV.
72: In order to obtain sufficiently large neutrino masses, the coupling matrix of
73: the scalar $\overline{\mathbf{126}}$ is necessarily small and we neglect
74: type II seesaw contributions to the light-neutrino mass matrix.
75: We perform a numerical analysis of this 21-parameter scenario
76: and find an excellent fit to experimentally known fermion masses and mixings.
77: We discuss the properties of our numerical solution, including a
78: consistency check for the VEVs of the Higgs-doublet components in the
79: $SO(10)$ scalar multiplets.
80: \end{abstract}
81:
82: \newpage
83:
84: \paragraph{Introduction:}
85: The group $SO(10)$ is a favourite candidate for constructing grand
86: unified theories (GUTs)~\cite{fritzsch}. The special interest in such
87: theories also stems from the fact that they allow for
88: type~I~\cite{seesaw} and type~II~\cite{typeII} seesaw mechanisms
89: (see also~\cite{seesaw-general})
90: for the light neutrino masses.
91: Confining oneself to renormalizable $SO(10)$ GUTs,
92: the scalar representations coupling to the chiral fermion
93: fields, which are all assembled for each family
94: in the 16-dimensional irreducible representation (irrep),
95: are determined by the relation~\cite{sakita,slansky}
96: \begin{equation}
97: \mathbf{16} \otimes \mathbf{16}
98: = \left( \mathbf{10} \oplus \mathbf{126} \right)_\mathrm{S}
99: \oplus \mathbf{120}_\mathrm{AS},
100: \label{tensor}
101: \end{equation}
102: where the subscripts ``S'' and ``AS'' denote, respectively,
103: the symmetric and antisymmetric parts of the tensor product.
104: The so-called ``minimal SUSY $SO(10)$ GUT'' (MSGUT)~\cite{aulakh83}
105: makes use of one $\mathbf{10}$
106: and one $\overline{\mathbf{126}}$ scalar irrep
107: for the Yukawa couplings,
108: to account for all fermion masses and mixings~\cite{babu92}.
109: The MSGUT contains, in addition, one
110: $\mathbf{210}$ and one $\mathbf{126}$ scalar irrep~\cite{aulakh83}.
111: This model
112: has built-in the gauge-coupling unification
113: of the minimal SUSY extension of the Standard Model (MSSM).
114: Detailed studies of this minimal theory have been
115: performed~\cite{fukuyama99,fukuyama01,okada,bajc02,%
116: goh,bertolini,malinsky,macesanu};
117: in~\cite{fukuyama99,bertolini,malinsky}
118: small effects of the 120-plet were considered in addition.
119: It turned out that the MSGUT works surprisingly well in the fermion
120: sector, provided one neglects constraints on the overall scale of the light
121: neutrino masses. This, however, proved to be crucial, since the
122: natural order of the neutrino masses in GUTs is too low, namely
123: $v^2/M_\mathrm{GUT} \sim 1.5 \times 10^{-3}$ eV, with
124: $v\sim 174$ GeV and the GUT scale
125: $M_\mathrm{GUT} \sim 2 \times 10^{16}$ GeV.
126: Thorough studies of the
127: heavy scalar states~\cite{AG02,fukuyama04,melfo,AG04,fukuyama,aulakh05}
128: have been used to show that this MSGUT
129: is too constrained~\cite{au05,bajc05}
130: and does not allow to enhance the neutrino mass scale to a
131: realistic one~\cite{garg,schwetz}, compatible with the results of the
132: neutrino oscillation experiments
133: (for a review see, e.g.,~\cite{nu-review}).
134: One aspect of this problem is that a seesaw scale significantly lower than the
135: GUT scale spoils the gauge coupling unification of the MSSM.
136:
137: An obvious attempt to loosen the corset of the minimal theory is to add the
138: 120-plet of scalars.
139: A study in that direction has been done
140: in~\cite{aulakh06}. Earlier works considering a prominent 120-plet
141: contribution to the fermion mass matrices are found
142: in~\cite{oshimo,yang,dutta1,dutta2}.
143: We note that $\mathbf{10} \oplus \mathbf{120}$
144: alone does not give a good fit in the charged fermion
145: sector~\cite{LKG}. Thus the $\overline{\mathbf{126}}$ scalar irrep is
146: not only needed in the neutrino sector but also for the charged
147: fermion mass matrices.
148: In that case, the mass matrices of
149: the charged fermions
150: and the neutrino Dirac-mass matrix
151: are given, respectively, by
152: \begin{eqnarray}
153: M_d & = & k_d\, H + \kappa_d\, G + v_d\, F,
154: \label{md} \\
155: M_u & = & k_u\, H + \kappa_u\, G + v_u\, F,
156: \label{mu} \\
157: M_\ell & = & k_d\, H + \kappa_\ell\, G - 3 v_d\, F,
158: \label{ml} \\
159: M_D & = & k_u\, H + \kappa_D\, G - 3 v_u\, F.
160: \label{mD}
161: \end{eqnarray}
162: The Yukawa coupling matrices $H$, $G$, $F$ belong to the
163: scalar irreps
164: $\mathbf{10}$, $\mathbf{120}$, $\overline{\mathbf{126}}$,
165: respectively. The coefficients $k_d$, $\kappa_d$, $\kappa_\ell$, $v_d$
166: denote the vacuum expectation values (VEVs) of the Higgs doublet
167: components in the respective $SO(10)$ scalar
168: irreps which contribute to the MSSM Higgs doublet $H_d$, the
169: rest of the coefficients refers to $H_u$.
170: The light neutrino mass matrix is obtained as
171: \begin{equation}\label{mnu}
172: \mnu = M_L - M_D M_R^{-1} M_D^T
173: \quad \mbox{with} \quad
174: M_L = w_L\, F, \quad
175: M_R = w_R\, F,
176: \end{equation}
177: with scalar triplet VEVs $w_L$ and $w_R$.
178: The mass Lagrangian of the ``light'' fermions reads
179: \begin{equation}
180: \mathcal{L}_M =
181: - \bar d_L M_d\, d_R - \bar u_L M_u\, u_R - \bar \ell_L M_\ell\, \ell_R -
182: \frac{1}{2} \bar\nu_L \mnu \left( \nu_L \right)^c + \mbox{H.c.},
183: \end{equation}
184: with $\left( \nu_L \right)^c$ being the charge-conjugate of $\nu_L$.
185:
186: \paragraph{A renormalizable $SO(10)$ scenario:}
187: The goal of this letter is a numerical study of the
188: system of 3-generation mass matrices~(\ref{md}) to (\ref{mnu}),
189: taking into account the neutrino-mass suppression factor
190: $v^2/M_\mathrm{GUT}$.
191: This system does not easily lend itself to such an investigation
192: because it contains many parameters, thus we use some
193: arguments to reduce their number.
194: The scenario we want to investigate is defined by the following assumptions:
195: \begin{enumerate}
196: \renewcommand{\labelenumi}{\roman{enumi})}
197: \item
198: The Yukawa coupling matrices $H$, $G$, $F$ are real.
199: \item
200: We impose a $\mathbbm{Z}_2$ symmetry, which sets some of the Yukawa
201: couplings to zero and which is spontaneously broken by
202: the VEVs of the $\mathbf{120}$, in particular, by
203: $\kappa_d$, $\kappa_u$, $\kappa_\ell$, $\kappa_D$ being non-zero.
204: \item
205: We assume $w_R = M_\mathrm{GUT}$, with
206: $M_\mathrm{GUT} = 2 \times 10^{16}$ GeV.
207: \item
208: We set $w_L = 0$, i.e., we have pure type~I seesaw mechanism.
209: \end{enumerate}
210: Let us now comment on these items.
211: Item i) can be motivated by spontaneous CP violation. The
212: $\mathbbm{Z}_2$ of item ii) is given by
213: \begin{equation}\label{2}
214: \psi_2 \to -\psi_2, \quad
215: \phi_\mathbf{120} \to -\phi_\mathbf{120},
216: \end{equation}
217: where the $\psi_j$ ($j=1,2,3$) denote the fermionic 16-plets and
218: $\phi_\mathbf{120}$ is the scalar 120-plet. All other multiplets, not
219: mentioned in Eq.~(\ref{2}), transform trivially.
220: With the $\mathbbm{Z}_2$ symmetry of Eq.~(\ref{2}),
221: the coupling matrices have the form
222: \begin{equation}\label{Y}
223: H = \left(
224: \begin{array}{ccc}
225: h_{11} & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & h_{22} & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & h_{33}
226: \end{array} \right), \quad
227: G = \left(
228: \begin{array}{ccc}
229: 0 & g_{12} & 0 \\ -g_{12} & 0 & g_{23} \\ 0 & -g_{23} & 0
230: \end{array} \right), \quad
231: F = \left(
232: \begin{array}{ccc}
233: f_{11} & 0 & f_{13} \\ 0 & f_{22} & 0 \\ f_{13} & 0 & f_{33}
234: \end{array} \right).
235: \end{equation}
236: We have used the freedom of basis choice in the 1--3 sector
237: to set $h_{13} = 0$.
238: Of course, this $\mathbbm{Z}_2$ symmetry of Eq.~(\ref{2}) is an ad-hoc
239: symmetry, but it enhances the importance of the $\mathbf{120}$ because
240: its Yukawa coupling matrix $G$ is now responsible for mixing of the
241: second family with the other two.\footnote{In Eq.~(\ref{2}),
242: for the definition of the $\mathbbm{Z}_2$ symmetry,
243: all choices $\psi_j \to -\psi_j$ are equivalent. With choosing
244: $\psi_2$, we anticipate the result of the fit of our scenario to the
245: masses and mixings at the GUT scale. That fit gives a strong
246: hierarchy of the elements of $H$, which---with Eq.~(\ref{2})---can be
247: formulated in the usual way as
248: $\left| h_{11} \right| \ll \left| h_{22} \right| \ll
249: \left| h_{33} \right|$. Furthermore, with the convention of~(\ref{2})
250: it is possible to have all diagonalizing matrices of the charged fermion
251: masses in the vicinity of the unit matrix.}
252: Item iii) is motivated by the fact that
253: the MSGUT does not allow to fix the problem of too small neutrino
254: masses by taking $w_R$ significantly lower
255: than the GUT scale~\cite{au05,bajc05,garg,schwetz,aulakh06}. Thus our
256: scenario has built in that the natural neutrino mass scale in the
257: MSGUT is too low. Consequently, the neutrino mass scale has to be
258: enhanced by the smallness of the coupling matrix $F$~\cite{aulakh06}.
259: Item iv) is a trivial consequence of the previous one: for small $F$,
260: type II seesaw contribution to $\mnu$ is negligible.
261:
262: Now we tackle the problem of parameter counting. Without loss of generality,
263: we assume that $k_d$, $k_u$ and $w_R$ are real and positive. Then we define
264: \begin{equation}\label{M'}
265: H' = k_d H, \quad G' = \left| \kappa_d \right| G, \quad
266: F' = \left| v_d \right| F.
267: \end{equation}
268: The primed matrices have the dimension of mass. The phases of the VEVs of the
269: 120 and 126-plets cannot be removed. Thus we write the mass matrices as
270: \begin{eqnarray}
271: M_d & = & H' + e^{i\xi_d} G' + e^{i\zeta_d} F',
272: \label{Md} \\
273: M_u & = & r_H H' + r_u\, e^{i\xi_u} G' + r_F e^{i\zeta_u} F',
274: \label{Mu} \\
275: M_\ell & = & H' + r_\ell\, e^{i\xi_\ell} G' - 3\, e^{i\zeta_d} F',
276: \label{Ml} \\
277: M_D & = & r_H H' + r_D\, e^{i\xi_D} G' - 3\, r_F e^{i\zeta_u} F',
278: \label{MD} \\
279: \mnu & = & r_R\, M_D {F'}^{-1} M_D^T.
280: \label{Mnu}
281: \end{eqnarray}
282: The ratios $r_H$, etc., are real by definition since we have extracted
283: the phases from the VEVs.
284: Now the counting is easily done. Since we have nine real Yukawa
285: couplings, see Eq.~(\ref{Y}),
286: there are nine real parameters in $H'$, $G'$, $F'$. Furthermore, there
287: are six phases and six (real) ratios of VEVs,
288: altogether 21 real parameters.
289: On the other hand, we have 18 observables we want to fit: nine charged-fermion
290: masses, three mixing angles and one CP phase in the CKM matrix, two
291: neutrino mass-squared differences $\deltaatm$ and $\deltasol$, and three
292: lepton mixing angles.
293:
294: Suppose, we have obtained a good fit for the 18 observables.
295: Then we still have to
296: check if the fit allows for reasonable VEVs and Yukawa coupling constants.
297: A detailed discussion of this issue is found in Appendix A. Here it is
298: sufficient to note that $w_R = M_\mathrm{GUT}$ and the determination of $r_R$
299: and $r_F$ by the fit fix
300: $\left| v_d \right|$ and $\left| v_u \right|$ via
301: $\left| v_d \right| = r_R M_\mathrm{GUT}$ and
302: $\left| v_u \right| = r_F \left| v_d \right|$.
303: Therefore, as a first test we check
304: \begin{equation}\label{1sttest}
305: \left| v_d \right|^2 + \left| v_u \right|^2 =
306: \left| v_d \right|^2 \left( 1 + r_F^2 \right) < v^2
307: \quad \mbox{with} \quad v = 174\: \mathrm{GeV}
308: \end{equation}
309: for every fit. Clearly, this inequality holds at the electroweak
310: scale, and we assume that approximately it is valid at the GUT scale too.
311:
312: \begin{table}[t]
313: %
314: \begin{center}
315: \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.2}
316: \begin{tabular}{cc}
317: %
318: \begin{tabular}[t]{|c|c|} \hline
319: \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{Quarks} \\ \hline\hline
320: $m_d$ &
321: $1.5036 \berr 0.4235 \tr 0.2304 \eerr$ \\ \hline
322: $m_s$ & $29.9454 \berr 4.3001 \tr 4.5444 \eerr$ \\ \hline
323: $m_b$ & $1063.6 \berr 141.4 \tr 086.5 \eerr$ \\ \hline
324: $m_u$ & $0.7238 \berr 0.1365 \tr 0.1467 \eerr$ \\ \hline
325: $m_c$ & $210.3273 \berr 19.0036 \tr 21.2264 \eerr$ \\ \hline
326: $m_t$ & $82433.3 \berr 30267.6 \tr 14768.6 \eerr$ \\ \hline
327: $s_{12}$ & $0.2243 \pm 0.0016$ \\ \hline
328: $s_{23}$ & $0.0351 \pm 0.0013$ \\ \hline
329: $s_{13}$ & $0.0032 \pm 0.0005$ \\ \hline
330: $\delta_{CKM}$ & $60^\circ \pm 14^\circ$ \\ \hline
331: \end{tabular}
332: &
333: \begin{tabular}[t]{|c|c|} \hline
334: \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{Leptons} \\ \hline\hline
335: $m_e$ &
336: $0.3585 \berr 0.0003 \tr 0.0003 \eerr$ \\ \hline
337: $m_\mu$ &
338: $75.6715 \berr 0.0578 \tr 0.0501 \eerr$ \\ \hline
339: $m_\tau$ &
340: $1292.2 \berr 0.0013 \tr 0.0012 \eerr$ \\ \hline
341: $\deltasol$ & $(7.9 \pm 0.3) \times 10^{-5}$ \\ \hline
342: $\deltaatm$ & $\Big(2.2 \berr 0.37 \tr 0.27 \eerr
343: \Big) \times 10^{-3}$ \\ \hline
344: $s_{12}^2$ & $0.31 \pm 0.025$ \\ \hline
345: $s_{23}^2$ & $0.50 \pm 0.065$ \\ \hline
346: $s_{13}^2$ & $< 0.0155$ \\ \hline
347: \end{tabular}
348: %
349: \end{tabular}
350: \end{center}
351: \caption{Input data at the GUT scale for $M_\mathrm{GUT} = 2 \times
352: 10^{16}$ GeV and $\tan \beta = 10$. The charged-fermion masses are
353: taken from~\cite{das}, the remaining input from Table~I
354: in~\cite{schwetz}. Charged-fermion masses are in units of MeV,
355: neutrino mass-squared differences in eV$^2$. We have used the
356: abbreviations $s_{12} \equiv \sin \theta_{12}$, etc.
357: The angles in the left table refer to the CKM matrix, in the right
358: table to the PMNS matrix.\label{input}}
359: \end{table}
360: \paragraph{A numerical solution:}
361: To find a numerical solution, we employ the downhill simplex
362: method~\cite{downhill} for
363: minimizing a $\chi^2$-function of the parameters---for an
364: explanation of the method see~\cite{schwetz,LKG}.
365: Actually, the $\chi^2$-function can be minimized analytically with respect to
366: the parameter $r_R$ of Eq.~(\ref{Mnu}), which results in a
367: $\chi^2$-function depending the remaining 20 parameters, and we apply our
368: numerical method to that function. To build in the
369: inequality~(\ref{1sttest}) in our search for the minimum, we add
370: a suitable penalty function to our $\chi^2$.
371: Our scenario is fitted against the values of the 18 observables at the
372: GUT scale; for an MSSM parameter $\tan \beta = 10$, these values are
373: displayed in Table~\ref{input}.
374:
375: Choosing the normal ordering $m_1 < m_2 < m_3$ of the neutrino masses
376: ($\deltasol = m_2^2 - m_1^2$, $\deltaatm = m_3^2 - m_1^2$),
377: we have found a fit with a $\chi^2 = 0.0087$,
378: which is a perfect fit for all practical purposes.
379: This fit is so good that it does not make sense to show the
380: pulls.\footnote{The largest pull is $5 \times 10^{-2}$ for $m_s$.}
381: The matrices $H'$, $G'$ and $F'$ for our fit are given by
382: \begin{eqnarray}
383: H' & = & \left( \begin{array}{ccc}
384: 0.716986 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & -40.6278 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 1114.41
385: \end{array} \right), \nonumber \\
386: G' & = & \left( \begin{array}{ccc}
387: 0 & 7.56737 & 0 \\ -7.56737 & 0 & 36.8224 \\ 0 & -36.8224 & 0
388: \end{array} \right),
389: \label{solution} \\
390: F' & = & \left( \begin{array}{ccc}
391: -0.0966851 & 0 & 4.25282 \\ 0 & 12.3136 & 0 \\ 4.25282 & 0 & -61.6491
392: \end{array} \right), \nonumber
393: \end{eqnarray}
394: where all numerical values are in units of MeV; the values of the
395: ratios of VEVs and the phases are shown in Table~\ref{ratios+phases}.
396: \begin{table}
397: \begin{center}
398: \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.2}
399: \begin{tabular}{|c|c||c|c|} \hline
400: $r_H$ & 91.0759 & - & - \\ \hline
401: - & - & $\zeta_d$ & $19.66974^\circ$ \\ \hline
402: $r_F$ & 297.758 & $\zeta_u$ & $-2.96594^\circ$ \\ \hline
403: - & - & $\xi_d$ & $189.12385^\circ$ \\ \hline
404: $r_u$ & 7.14572 & $\xi_u$ & $226.65689^\circ$ \\ \hline
405: $r_\ell$ & 1.33897 & $\xi_\ell$ & $6.24258^\circ$ \\ \hline
406: $r_D$ & 3008.88 & $\xi_D$ &
407: $179.85271^\circ$ \\ \hline
408: $r_R$ & $2.90553 \times 10^{-17}$ & - & - \\ \hline
409: \end{tabular}
410: \end{center}
411: \caption{The values of the phases and ratios appearing in the mass
412: matrices~(\ref{Md})--(\ref{Mnu}) in the case of our
413: fit. Hyphens in the left two columns indicate that the
414: ratio corresponding to the phase has been absorbed in one of the primed
415: matrices, whereas hyphens in the right two columns signify that there is no
416: physical phase associated with that ratio. \label{ratios+phases}}
417: \end{table}
418: The neutrino mass spectrum turns out to be hierarchical with
419: $m_1 = 1.57 \times 10^{-3}\: \mbox{eV} \ll
420: m_2 = 9.03 \times 10^{-3}\: \mbox{eV} \ll m_3 = 46.96 \times
421: 10^{-3}\: \mbox{eV}$,
422: and the PMNS phase\footnote{We use the same phase convention as for
423: the CKM matrix in~\cite{RPP}.} is $12^\circ$.
424: We want to stress, however, that our fit solution
425: is perhaps not unique, because with the numerical method used here we
426: could miss other minima of $\chi^2$.
427:
428: \begin{figure}[t]
429: \begin{center}
430: \epsfig{file=vev.eps,width=0.85\textwidth}
431: \end{center}
432: \caption{The $\chi^2$ as a function of
433: $\left| v_d \right| \sqrt{1 + r_F^2}$. \label{vev}}
434: \end{figure}
435: For our fit, it turns out that
436: $y \equiv \left| v_d \right| \sqrt{1 + r_F^2} = 173.0$ GeV. This looks
437: dangerously close to the upper bound of Eq.~(\ref{1sttest}). To check
438: if this danger is serious,
439: we have plotted in Fig.~\ref{vev} the minimal $\chi^2$ as a function of
440: $y$. In order to pin $y$
441: down to a given value $\bar y$ we have extended the $\chi^2$ function to
442: $(\chi^2)_y = \chi^2 + \left\{ (y - \bar y)/(0.01 \bar y) \right\}^2$,
443: minimized $(\chi^2)_y$ and plotted $\chi^2$ at this minimum versus
444: $\bar y$---for previous uses of this method
445: see, for instance,~\cite{schwetz}.
446: We read off from Fig.~\ref{vev} that $\chi^2$ is minimal at $y = 173$
447: GeV, however, this minimum is rather flat; note that $\chi^2$ is
448: plotted on a logarithmic scale. Thus we still obtain excellent fits if
449: we go to lower values of $y$. In Appendix~A, a consistency condition
450: is worked out which the $SO(10)$ GUT has to fulfill in order to
451: reproduce the VEV ratios of Table~\ref{ratios+phases}.
452: There we also show that for our fit all Yukawa couplings stay in the
453: perturbative regime.
454:
455: In order to find out if our scenario makes a
456: prediction for the PMNS phase $\delta$, we treat it in the same
457: way as $y$ in the previous paragraph, i.e., we consider
458: $(\chi^2)_\delta = \chi^2 +
459: \left\{ (\delta - \bar \delta)/(0.01 \bar \delta) \right\}^2$.
460: Departing from $\bar \delta = 12^\circ$ for our numerical solution
461: given by Eq.~(\ref{solution}) and Table~\ref{ratios+phases}, and going
462: stepwise down close to $\bar\delta = 0^\circ$ and up to
463: $\bar\delta = 360^\circ$, the quality of the fits remains excellent,
464: with $(\chi^2)_\delta$ always below 0.3.
465: Thus, in our scenario all values of the PMNS phase are possible.
466:
467: One may ask the question
468: how large enough neutrino masses and an atmospheric
469: mixing angle which is close to maximal are accomplished with the numerical
470: values given by Eq.~(\ref{solution}) and Table~\ref{ratios+phases}.
471: We concentrate on achieving $\sqrt{\deltaatm} \sim 0.05$ eV. With the value of
472: $r_R$ we find that
473: $r_R \times 10^9\:\mbox{MeV} \simeq 0.029 \:\mbox{eV}$. Thus we take
474: into account all
475: contributions to $\mnu/r_R$ which are of order $10^9$ MeV. Rewriting
476: Eq.~(\ref{Mnu}) in the form
477: \begin{equation}
478: \mnu = r_R \left\{ \left( r_H H' + r_D\, e^{\xi_D} G' \right)
479: {F'}^{-1} \left( r_H H' + r_D\, e^{i\xi_D} G' \right)^T -
480: 6\, r_H r_F\, e^{i\zeta_u} H' + 9\, r_F^2\, e^{2i\zeta_u} F'
481: \right\},
482: \end{equation}
483: a numerical analysis shows that all elements of the second and third term on
484: the right-hand side are smaller than $1.8 \times 10^8$ MeV and
485: $0.5 \times 10^8$ MeV, respectively.
486: Thus the dominant matrix elements in $\mnu$
487: stem from the first term and are given by
488: \begin{equation}\label{dom}
489: \mnu^{(\mathrm{dom})} = r_R\, r_D \left(
490: \begin{array}{ccc}
491: 0 & 0 & 0 \\
492: 0 &
493: r_D \left( 2 \yiii \yiv \yviii + \yvi \left( \yiv \right)^2 \right)/d &
494: -r_H \yi \yiv \yviii/d \\
495: 0 &
496: -r_H \yi \yiv \yviii/d &
497: r_D \left( \yiii \right)^2/\yv
498: \end{array} \right).
499: \end{equation}
500: Here, $d = \yvii \yvi - \left( \yviii \right)^2$ is the determinant of the
501: corresponding $2 \times 2$ submatrix of $F'$ and we have used the
502: approximation
503: $\xi_D = 180^\circ$.
504: Apart from the common factor $r_R$,
505: in this matrix there are four products of three matrix
506: elements: one matrix element is always from ${F'}^{-1}$,
507: the other two are either
508: both from $r_D G'$ or one from $r_D G'$ and one from $r_H H'$.
509: Looking at Eq.~(\ref{solution}) and Table~\ref{ratios+phases}, we find that
510: products of the largest elements,
511: for instance $\left( \yiii \right)^2 \yvi$,
512: never occur, these would be too large.
513: Plugging in the numerical values of the parameters, we find that
514: all non-zero terms in $\mnu^{(\mathrm{dom})}$
515: are similar in magnitude:
516: \begin{equation}
517: r_R \times 10^9\, \mbox{MeV} \,
518: \left( \begin{array}{cc}
519: (-1.77 + 2.64) & -0.81 \\ -0.81 & 1.00
520: \end{array} \right).
521: \end{equation}
522: Due to the minus sign in the first term, we end up with
523: $-1.77 + 2.64 = 0.87$, close to $1.00$ and thus leading to nearly
524: maximal mixing. In this crude approximation, which is only relevant for
525: the largest mass and the atmospheric mixing angle, we obtain
526: $m_3 \simeq 0.05$ eV and $\theta_{23} \simeq 43^\circ$.\footnote{Note that
527: there is also a small contribution from $M_\ell$.} Apart from the
528: smallness of $F'$, it is the large factor $r_D$ in $M_D$ which gives the
529: correct magnitude of the neutrino masses. Maximal atmospheric neutrino mixing
530: rather looks like a numerical contrivance in our scenario.
531:
532: Finally, a word concerning the low-energy values of the quark masses
533: is at order. Ref.~\cite{das} takes the quark mass values at $m_Z$ from
534: Ref.~\cite{fusaoka} as input for the renormalization group evolution
535: up to $M_\mathrm{GUT}$, whereas Ref.~\cite{fusaoka} uses the input
536: \begin{equation}\label{1GeV}
537: m_u(1\,\mbox{GeV}) = 4.88 \pm 0.57, \quad
538: m_d(1\,\mbox{GeV}) = 9.81 \pm 0.65, \quad
539: m_s(1\,\mbox{GeV}) = 195.4 \pm 12.5
540: \end{equation}
541: and
542: \begin{equation}
543: m_c(m_c) = 1.302
544: \begin{array}{c}
545: \scriptstyle +0.037 \\[-1.5mm] \scriptstyle -0.038
546: \end{array}\!, \quad
547: m_b(m_b) = 4.34
548: \begin{array}{c}
549: \scriptstyle +0.07 \\[-1.5mm] \scriptstyle -0.08
550: \end{array}\!, \quad
551: m_t(m_t) = 171 \pm 12,
552: \end{equation}
553: see Tables~I and II in~\cite{fusaoka}.
554: The light quark masses are given in MeV, the heavy ones in GeV.
555: Comparing these values with those given in the Review of Particle
556: Properties of 2006 (RPP)~\cite{RPP},
557: we find that the heavy quark masses are in reasonable agreement.
558: However, in the last years the values of the light quark
559: masses have become significantly lower~\cite{RPP}:
560: \begin{equation}\label{2GeV}
561: m_u(2\,\mbox{GeV}) = 1.5 \div 3.0, \quad
562: m_d(2\,\mbox{GeV}) = 3 \div 7, \quad
563: m_s(2\,\mbox{GeV}) = 95 \pm 25,
564: \end{equation}
565: Note that one has to take into account the scaling factor
566: $m_i(1\,\mbox{GeV})/m_i(2\,\mbox{GeV}) = 1.35$ ($i = u,\,d,\,s$)
567: to compare Eq.~(\ref{1GeV}) with Eq.~(\ref{2GeV})~\cite{RPP}.
568: In order to assess the influence of lowering the light quark masses, we
569: have performed a second fit, using the values of Eq.~(\ref{2GeV}) as
570: input, scaled to $M_\mathrm{GUT}$ with the factor 0.200 for $m_u$ and
571: 0.207 for $m_d$ and $m_s$ (see~\cite{das,fusaoka}), but
572: leaving the previous values for the heavy quark masses. We found an
573: excellent fit with $\chi^2 = 0.052$, which means that our scenario is
574: able to reproduce the lower values of the light quark masses as well.
575: The second fit has some qualitative differences in comparison with the
576: first one, which reinforces the suspicion that, for given input values
577: of the 18 observables, the fit solution in our scenario is not unique.
578:
579: \paragraph{Summary:}
580: In this paper we have investigated fermion masses and mixings in the
581: $SO(10)$ MSGUT, augmented by a 120-plet of scalars.
582: The main purpose was to show that in this setting it
583: is possible to reconcile the type I seesaw mechanism (see Eq.~(\ref{mnu}))
584: with a triplet VEV $w_R$ equal to the GUT scale of $2 \times 10^{16}$ GeV,
585: provided the theory admits that the MSSM Higgs doublet $H_d$ is composed
586: mainly of the corresponding doublet components in the
587: $\mathbf{126}$ and $\mathbf{210}$ scalar irreps---see Eq.~(\ref{norm2});
588: those are the irreps which have no Yukawa couplings.
589: This reconciliation was feasible within the scenario defined in points
590: i)--iv), in which we have used
591: symmetries to significantly reduce the number of degrees of freedom in
592: the Yukawa couplings---see Eq.~(\ref{Y}).
593: Within this scenario we were able to find an
594: excellent fit for all fermion masses and mixings; in this fit we have
595: a hierarchical neutrino mass spectrum.\footnote{We have also tried
596: fits for the inverted ordering. In that case, the best fit we found
597: has $\chi^2 = 1.8$ and $m_3 \simeq 7 \times 10^{-6}$ eV.}
598:
599: Thus we have obtained the following results for the minimal
600: renormalizable $SO(10)$ GUT, with Yukawa couplings according to the
601: relation~(\ref{tensor}):
602: \begin{itemize}
603: \item
604: It is possible to reproduce the
605: correct neutrino mass scale.
606: \item
607: Nevertheless, gauge coupling unification is not spoiled.
608: \item
609: The concrete $SO(10)$ scenario with type I seesaw mechanism,
610: we treated in this paper, has
611: 21 parameters, just as the MSGUT with type I+II seesaw mechanism and
612: general complex Yukawa couplings.
613: \end{itemize}
614:
615: It remains to be studied if our scenario allows a sufficient
616: suppression of proton decay. In~\cite{dutta2} it was shown that the
617: scalar 120-plet plays a crucial role for that purpose; a certain
618: texture of the Yukawa coupling matrices---similar to our numerical
619: solution~(\ref{solution})---enables that suppression even
620: for large $\tan \beta$.
621:
622: \vspace{5mm}
623:
624: \noindent
625: \textit{Acknowledgments:}
626: W.G. thanks C.S.\ Aulakh for illuminating discussions and L.\ Lavoura
627: for reading the manuscript.
628:
629:
630: \appendix
631: \setcounter{equation}{0}
632: \renewcommand{\theequation}{A\arabic{equation}}
633:
634: \section{The MSSM Higgs doublets and the mass matrices}
635:
636: The MSSM contains two Higgs doublets, $H_d$ and $H_u$, with hypercharges $+1$
637: and $-1$, respectively. Their corresponding VEVs are denoted by
638: $v \cos \beta$ and $v \sin \beta$ ($v = 174$ GeV), respectively.
639: Neglecting effects of the electroweak scale, these
640: doublets are, by assumption, the only scalar zero modes extant at the GUT
641: scale; this requires a minimal finetuning condition~\cite{AG02,melfo}.
642: The scalar irreps
643: $\mathbf{10}$, $\overline{\mathbf{126}}$, $\mathbf{126}$, $\mathbf{210}$
644: contain each one doublet with the quantum numbers of $H_d$, whereas the
645: $\mathbf{120}$ contains two such doublets. The $H_d$ is composed of these
646: doublets~\cite{melfo} with the corresponding amplitudes~\cite{garg}
647: $\bar\alpha_j$ ($j = 1,\ldots,6$).
648: The analogous coefficients for $H_u$ are denoted by
649: $\alpha_j$. The normalization conditions are
650: \begin{equation}\label{normalization}
651: \sum_{j=1}^6 \left| \alpha_j \right|^2 =
652: \sum_{j=1}^6 \left| \bar\alpha_j \right|^2 = 1.
653: \end{equation}
654: The Dirac mass matrices, taking into account that the $\mathbf{126}$ and
655: $\mathbf{210}$ have no Yukawa couplings, are given by
656: \begin{eqnarray}
657: M_a & = &
658: v \cos \beta \left(
659: c^a_1 \bar\alpha_1 Y_{10} + c^a_2 \bar\alpha_2 Y_{\overline{126}} +
660: \left( c^a_5 \bar\alpha_5 + c^a_6 \bar\alpha_6 \right) Y_{120} \right)
661: \quad (a = d, \ell), \label{Ma} \\
662: M_b & = &
663: v \sin \beta \left(
664: c^b_1 \alpha_1 Y_{10} + c^b_2 \alpha_2 Y_{\overline{126}} +
665: \left( c^b_5 \alpha_5 + c^b_6 \alpha_6 \right) Y_{120} \right)
666: \quad (b = u, D), \label{Mb}
667: \end{eqnarray}
668: with Yukawa coupling matrices $Y_{10}$, $Y_{\overline{126}}$, $Y_{120}$ and
669: Clebsch-Gordan coefficients $c^{a,b}_j$ deriving from the $SO(10)$-invariant
670: Yukawa couplings~\cite{AG04,au05}. The absolute values
671: of the Clebsch-Gordan coefficients have no physical meaning and some
672: of their phases are convention-dependent.
673: With our conventions, the required information reads
674: \begin{equation}\label{c}
675: \begin{array}{l}
676: c^d_1 = c^u_1 = c^\ell_1 = c^D_1, \\
677: c^d_2 = -c^u_2 = -\frac{1}{3}\,c^\ell_2 = \frac{1}{3}\,c^D_2, \\
678: c^d_5 = -c^u_5 = c^\ell_5 = -c^D_5, \\
679: c^d_6 = c^u_6 = -\frac{1}{3}\,c^\ell_6 = -\frac{1}{3}\,c^D_6, \\
680: c^d_5/c^d_6 = \sqrt{3}.
681: \end{array}
682: \end{equation}
683: Equations~(\ref{Ma}) and (\ref{Mb}) together with this equation lead
684: to the mass matrices~(\ref{md})--(\ref{mD}). Furthermore,
685: comparing Eqs.~(\ref{Ma}) and (\ref{Mb}) with Eq.~(\ref{M'}), we find
686: \begin{equation}
687: H' = v \cos \beta\, c^d_1 \left| \bar\alpha_1 \right| Y_{10},
688: \quad
689: F' = v \cos \beta\, c^d_2 \left| \bar\alpha_2 \right| Y_{\overline{126}},
690: \quad
691: G' = v \cos \beta
692: \left| c^d_5 \bar\alpha_5 + c^d_6 \bar\alpha_6 \right| Y_{120}.
693: \end{equation}
694: Comparison with Eqs.~(\ref{Md})--(\ref{MD}) and using Eq.~(\ref{c})
695: delivers the coefficients
696: \begin{eqnarray}
697: r_H = \tan \beta \left| \frac{\alpha_1}{\bar\alpha_1} \right|, &
698: \displaystyle r_F = \tan \beta \left|
699: \frac{\alpha_2}{\bar\alpha_2} \right|, & \label{r1} \\
700: r_u = \tan \beta \left|
701: \frac{\alpha_6 - \sqrt{3}\, \alpha_5}{\bar\alpha_6 - \sqrt{3}\,
702: \bar\alpha_5} \right|, & \displaystyle
703: r_\ell = \left| 1 - \frac{2\,\bar\alpha_6}{\bar\alpha_6 - \sqrt{3}\,
704: \bar\alpha_5} \right|, &
705: r_D = \tan \beta \left|
706: \frac{3\,\alpha_6 + \sqrt{3}\, \alpha_5}{\bar\alpha_6 - \sqrt{3}\,
707: \bar\alpha_5} \right|.
708: \label{r2}
709: \end{eqnarray}
710:
711: Now we want to check the consistency of our numerical solution given by
712: Eq.~(\ref{solution}) and Table~\ref{ratios+phases}.
713: From $r_D \gg r_u$, it follows that
714: \begin{equation}
715: \sqrt{3}\,\alpha_5 \simeq \alpha_6 \simeq \frac{r_D}{4\,\tan \beta}
716: \left| \bar\alpha_6 - \sqrt{3}\, \bar\alpha_5 \right|.
717: \end{equation}
718: Furthermore, using $r_\ell \sim 1$, we find the order-of-magnitude relations
719: \begin{equation}
720: \bar\alpha_5 \sim \bar\alpha_6 \sim \tan \beta/r_D.
721: \end{equation}
722: Then the first of the normalization conditions~(\ref{normalization}) reads
723: approximately
724: \begin{equation}
725: \sum_j \left| \alpha_j \right|^2 \simeq
726: \frac{1}{\tan^2 \beta} \left( r_H^2 \left| \bar\alpha_1 \right|^2 +
727: r_F^2 \left| \bar\alpha_2 \right|^2 +
728: \frac{1}{12}\, r_D^2
729: \left| \bar\alpha_6 - \sqrt{3}\, \bar\alpha_5 \right|^2 \right) +
730: \left| \alpha_3 \right|^2 + \left| \alpha_4 \right|^2 \simeq 1.
731: \end{equation}
732: This means that $\left| \bar\alpha_j \right|^2 \ll 1$ for $j = 1,2,5,6$.
733: Therefore, the second normalization condition is given by
734: \begin{equation}\label{norm2}
735: \sum_j \left| \bar\alpha_j \right|^2 \simeq
736: \left| \bar\alpha_3 \right|^2 + \left| \bar\alpha_4 \right|^2 \simeq 1,
737: \end{equation}
738: and the brunt of the normalization has to be supplied by the components of
739: $H_d$ in the $\mathbf{126}$ and $\mathbf{210}$,
740: which do not couple to the fermions. This is a consistency condition for
741: the scenario presented in this paper.
742:
743: To translate the condition~(\ref{1sttest}) into the formalism
744: presented here, we note that
745: $\left| v_d \right|^2 \ll \left| v_u \right|^2$ and
746: $\sin \beta \simeq 1$ for $\tan\beta = 10$. Therefore, Eq.~(\ref{1sttest})
747: effectively checks if the necessary condition $\left| \alpha_2 \right| < 1$ is
748: fulfilled.
749:
750: Finally, it remains to see if our numerical solution respects the
751: perturbative regime of the Yukawa sector. It suffices to consider the largest
752: elements of the Yukawa couplings
753: \begin{equation}
754: Y_d = \frac{1}{v \cos\beta}\,M_d, \quad
755: Y_u = \frac{1}{v \sin\beta}\,M_u, \quad
756: Y_\ell = \frac{1}{v \cos\beta}\,M_\ell, \quad
757: Y_D = \frac{1}{v \sin\beta}\,M_D,
758: \end{equation}
759: which reside in $Y_u$ and $Y_D$. The largest entry in $Y_u$ is the 33-element
760: with the main contribution from $r_H \yi/(v \sin \beta) \simeq 0.59$.
761: The 23-element with $r_D \yiii/(v \sin \beta) \simeq 0.64$ dominates in $Y_D$.
762: These numbers demonstrate that for our numerical solution the Yukawa couplings
763: remain in the perturbative regime.
764:
765:
766: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
767:
768: \bibitem{fritzsch}
769: H. Fritzsch, P. Minkowski,
770: Ann. Phys. 93 (1975) 193.
771:
772: \bibitem{seesaw}
773: P. Minkowski,
774: Phys. Lett. B 67 (1977) 421; \\
775: T.Yanagida,
776: in \textit{Proceedings of the Workshop on Unified Theory
777: and Baryon Number in the Universe},
778: O. Sawata and A. Sugamoto eds.,
779: KEK report 79-18, Tsukuba, Japan, 1979; \\
780: S.L. Glashow,
781: in \textit{Quarks and Leptons,
782: Proceedings of the Advanced Study Institute
783: (Carg\`ese, Corsica, 1979)},
784: J.-L. Basdevant et al. eds.,
785: Plenum, New York, 1981; \\
786: M. Gell-Mann, P. Ramond, and R. Slansky,
787: in \textit{Supergravity},
788: D.Z. Freedman and F. van Nieuwenhuizen eds.,
789: North Holland, Amsterdam, 1979; \\
790: R.N. Mohapatra, G. Senjanovi\'c,
791: Phys. Rev. Lett. 44 (1980) 912.
792:
793: \bibitem{typeII}
794: G. Lazarides, Q. Shafi, C. Wetterich,
795: Nucl. Phys. B 181 (1981) 287; \\
796: R.N. Mohapatra, G. Senjanovi\'c,
797: Phys. Rev. D 23 (1981) 165; \\
798: R.N. Mohapatra, P. Pal,
799: \textit{Massive Neutrinos in Physics and Astrophysics},
800: World Scientific, Singapore, 1991, p. 127.
801:
802: \bibitem{seesaw-general}
803: J. Schechter, J.W.F. Valle,
804: Phys. Rev. D 22 (1980) 2227; \\
805: S.M. Bilenky, J. Ho\v{s}ek, S.T. Petcov,
806: Phys. Lett. 94B (1980) 495; \\
807: I.Yu. Kobzarev, B.V. Martemyanov, L.B.~Okun, M.G. Shchepkin,
808: Yad. Phys. 32 (1980) 1590
809: [Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 32 (1981) 823]; \\
810: J. Schechter, J.W.F. Valle,
811: Phys. Rev. D 25 (1982) 774.
812:
813: \bibitem{sakita}
814: R.N. Mohapatra, B. Sakita,
815: Phys. Rev. D 21 (1980) 1062.
816:
817: \bibitem{slansky}
818: R. Slansky, Phys. Rep. 79 (1981) 1.
819:
820: \bibitem{aulakh83}
821: C.S. Aulakh, R.N. Mohapatra,
822: Phys. Rev. D 28 (1983) 217; \\
823: T.E. Clark, T.K. Kuo, N. Nakagawa,
824: Phys. Lett 115B (1982) 26; \\
825: C.S. Aulakh, B. Bajc, A. Melfo, G. Senjanovi\'c, F. Vissani,
826: Phys. Lett. B 588 (2004) 196
827: [hep-ph/0306242].
828:
829: \bibitem{babu92}
830: K.S. Babu, R.N. Mohapatra,
831: Phys. Rev. Lett. 70 (1993) 2845
832: [hep-ph/9209215].
833:
834: \bibitem{fukuyama99}
835: K. Matsuda, T. Fukuyama, H. Nishiura,
836: Phys. Rev. D 61 (2000) 053001
837: [hep-ph/9906433].
838:
839: \bibitem{fukuyama01}
840: K. Matsuda, Y. Koide, T. Fukuyama,
841: Phys. Rev. D 64 (2001) 053015
842: [hep-ph/0010026]; \\
843: K. Matsuda, Y. Koide, T. Fukuyama, H. Nishiura,
844: Phys. Rev. D 65 (2002) 033008 (Erratum-ibid. D 65 (2002) 079904)
845: [hep-ph/0108202].
846:
847: \bibitem{okada}
848: T. Fukuyama, N. Okada,
849: JHEP 11 (2002) 011
850: [hep-ph/0205066].
851:
852: \bibitem{bajc02}
853: B. Bajc, G. Senjanovi\' c, F. Vissani,
854: Phys. Rev. Lett. 90 (2003) 051802
855: [hep-ph/0210207]; \\
856: B. Bajc, G. Senjanovi\'c, F. Vissani,
857: Phys. Rev. D 70 (2004) 093002
858: [hep-ph/0402140].
859:
860: \bibitem{goh}
861: H.S. Goh, R.N. Mohapatra, S.P. Ng,
862: Phys. Lett. B 570 (2003) 215
863: [hep-ph/0303055]; \\
864: H.S. Goh, R.N. Mohapatra, S.P. Ng,
865: Phys. Rev. D 68 (2003) 115008
866: [hep-ph/0308197].
867:
868: \bibitem{bertolini}
869: S. Bertolini, M. Frigerio, M. Malinsk\'y,
870: Phys. Rev. D 70 (2004) 095002
871: [hep-ph/0406117].
872:
873: \bibitem{malinsky}
874: S. Bertolini, M. Malinsk\'y,
875: Phys. Rev. D 72 (2005) 055021
876: [hep-ph/0504241].
877:
878: \bibitem{macesanu}
879: K.S. Babu, C. Macesanu,
880: Phys. Rev. D 72 (2005) 115003
881: [hep-ph/0505200].
882:
883: \bibitem{AG02}
884: C.S. Aulakh, A. Girdar,
885: Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 20 (2005) 865
886: [hep-ph/0204097].
887:
888: \bibitem{fukuyama04}
889: T. Fukuyama, A. Ilakovac, T. Kikuchi, S. Meljanac, N. Okada,
890: Eur. Phys. J. C 42 (2005) 191
891: [hep-ph/0401213].
892:
893: \bibitem{melfo}
894: B. Bajc, A. Melfo, G. Senjanovi\'c, F. Vissani,
895: Phys. Rev. D 70 (2004) 035007
896: [hep-ph/0402122].
897:
898: \bibitem{AG04}
899: C.S. Aulakh, A. Girdar,
900: Nucl. Phys. B 711 (2005) 275
901: [hep-ph/0405074].
902:
903: \bibitem{fukuyama}
904: T. Fukuyama, A. Ilakovac, T. Kikuchi, S. Meljanac, N. Okada,
905: J. Math. Phys. 46 (2005) 033505
906: [hep-ph/0405300]; \\
907: T. Fukuyama, A. Ilakovac, T. Kikuchi, S. Meljanac, N. Okada,
908: Phys. Rev. D 72 (2005) 051701
909: [hep-ph/0412348].
910:
911: \bibitem{aulakh05}
912: C.S. Aulakh,
913: Phys. Rev. D 72 (2005) 051702
914: [hep-ph/0501025].
915:
916: \bibitem{au05}
917: C.S. Aulakh,
918: expanded version of the plenary talks at the
919: \textit{Workshop Series on Theoretical High Energy Physics},
920: IIT Roorkee, Uttaranchal, India, March 16--20, 2005,
921: and at the \textit{8th European Meeting
922: ``From the Planck Scale to the Electroweak Scale'' (PLANCK05)},
923: ICTP, Trieste, Italy, May 23--28, 2005,
924: hep-ph/0506291.
925:
926: \bibitem{bajc05}
927: B. Bajc, A. Melfo, G. Senjanovi\' c, F. Vissani,
928: Phys. Lett. B 634 (2006) 272
929: [hep-ph/0511352].
930:
931: \bibitem{garg}
932: C.S. Aulakh, S.K. Garg,
933: hep-ph/0512224.
934:
935: \bibitem{schwetz}
936: S. Bertolini, T. Schwetz, M. Malinsk\'y,
937: Phys. Rev. D 73 (2006) 115012
938: [hep-ph/0605006].
939:
940: \bibitem{nu-review}
941: M. Maltoni, T. Schwetz, M.A. T\'ortola, J.W.F. Valle,
942: New. J. Phys. 6 (2004) 122
943: [hep-ph/0405172].
944:
945: \bibitem{aulakh06}
946: C.S. Aulakh,
947: hep-ph/0602132.
948:
949: \bibitem{oshimo}
950: N. Oshimo,
951: Phys. Rev. D 66 (2002) 0950
952: [hep-ph/0206239]; \\
953: N. Oshimo,
954: Nucl. Phys. B 668 (2003) 258
955: [hep-ph/0305166].
956:
957: \bibitem{yang}
958: Wei-Min Yang, Zhi-Gang Wang,
959: Nucl. Phys. 707 (2005) 87
960: [hep-ph/0406221].
961:
962: \bibitem{dutta1}
963: B. Dutta, Y. Mimura, R.N. Mohapatra,
964: Phys. Lett. B 603 (2004) 35
965: [hep-ph/0406262].
966:
967: \bibitem{dutta2}
968: B. Dutta, Y. Mimura, R.N. Mohapatra,
969: Phys. Rev. Lett. 94 (2005) 091804
970: [hep-ph/0412105]; \\
971: B. Dutta, Y. Mimura, R.N. Mohapatra,
972: Phys. Rev. D 72 (2005) 075009
973: [hep-ph/0507319].
974:
975: \bibitem{LKG}
976: L. Lavoura, H. K\"uhb\"ock, W. Grimus,
977: Nucl. Phys. B 754 (2006) 1
978: [hep-ph/0603259].
979:
980: \bibitem{downhill}
981: J.A. Nelder, R. Mead,
982: Comp. J. 7 (1965) 306; \\
983: W.H. Press, B.P. Flannery, S.A. Teukolsky, and W.T. Vetterling,
984: \textit{Numerical recipes in C: The art of scientific computing},
985: Cambridge University Press, 1992.
986:
987: \bibitem{das}
988: C.R. Das, M.K. Parida,
989: Eur. Phys. J. C 20 (2001) 121
990: [hep-ph/0010004].
991:
992: \bibitem{RPP}
993: W.-M. Yao et al., \textit{Review of Particle Physics},
994: J. Phys. G 33 (2006) 1.
995:
996: \bibitem{fusaoka}
997: H. Fusaoka, Y. Koide,
998: Phys. Rev. D 57 (1998) 3986
999: [hep-ph/9712201].
1000:
1001: \end{thebibliography}
1002:
1003: \end{document}
1004:
1005: