1: \documentclass[twocolumn,showpacs,preprintnumbers,amsmath,amssymb,floatfix,prd]{revtex4}
2:
3: \usepackage{graphicx}
4: \usepackage{amsmath}
5: \usepackage{amssymb}
6: \usepackage{amsfonts}
7: \usepackage{amscd}
8: \usepackage{mathrsfs}
9: \usepackage{psfrag}
10: \usepackage{subfigure}
11: %\usepackage{a4wide}
12: \usepackage{float}
13: \usepackage{dcolumn}% Align table columns on decimal point
14: \usepackage{bm}% bold math
15:
16: \newcommand{\CenterFmg}[1]{\vcenter{\hbox{\input{#1}}}} % Input Feynman diagrams
17: \newcommand{\CenterEps}[1]{\vcenter{\hbox{\includegraphics{#1.eps}}}} % Input eps files
18: \newcommand{\CenterObject}[1]{\vcenter{\hbox{#1}}} % input pictures and such
19: \newcommand{\braket}[1]{\ensuremath{\left\langle #1 \right\rangle}}
20: \newcommand{\dd}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}}
21: \newcommand{\comment}[1]{\fbox{\begin{minipage}{\textwidth}#1\end{minipage}}}
22: \newcommand{\EFT}[2]{\ensuremath{\stackrel{\left(#1\right)}{#2}}}
23: \newcommand{\U}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{U}}}
24: \newcommand{\SU}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{SU}}}
25: \newcommand{\SL}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{SL}}}
26: \newcommand{\irrep}[1]{\ensuremath{\bf #1}}
27: \newcommand{\tr}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{tr}}}
28: \newcommand{\GeV}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{GeV}}}
29: \newcommand{\eV}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{eV}}}
30: \newcommand{\diag}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{diag}}}
31: \newcommand{\Ord}[1]{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}(#1)}}
32: \newcommand{\ord}[1]{\ensuremath{\mathrm{o}(#1)}}
33: \newcommand{\I}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{i}}}
34: \DeclareMathOperator{\re}{Re}
35: \DeclareMathOperator{\im}{Im}
36: \newcommand{\D}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}}
37:
38:
39: \def\beq{\begin{equation}}
40: \def\eeq{\end{equation}}
41: \def\be{\begin{equation}}
42: \def\ee{\end{equation}}
43: \def\bea{\begin{eqnarray}}
44: \def\eea{\end{eqnarray}}
45:
46:
47: %\begin{titlepage}
48:
49: %\ \vspace*{-15mm}
50: % \begin{flushright}
51: % TUM-HEP-639/06
52: % \end{flushright}
53: % \vspace*{5mm}
54:
55: % \begin{center}
56: % {\Huge\sffamily\bfseries
57: % Quark Lepton Complementarity and Renormalization Group Effects
58: % }
59: % \\[10mm]
60: % {\large
61: % Michael A. Schmidt\footnote{E-mail: \texttt{mschmidt@ph.tum.de}}$^{(a)}$,
62: % and Alexei Yu. Smirnov\footnote{E-mail:
63: % \texttt{smirnov@ictp.trieste.it}}$^{(a),(b),(c)}$}
64: % \\[5mm]
65: % {\small\textit{$^{(a)}$
66: % Physik-Department T30,
67: % Technische Universit\"{a}t M\"{u}nchen,\\
68: % James-Franck-Stra{\ss}e,
69: % 85748 Garching, Germany
70: % }}
71: % \\[3mm]
72: % {\small\textit{$^{(b)}$
73: % The Abdus Salam International Centre for Theoretical Physics, I-34100 Trieste,
74: % Italy
75: % }}
76: % \\[3mm]
77: % {\small\textit{$^{(c)}$
78: % Institute for Nuclear Research, Russian Academy of Science, Moscow, Russia
79: % }}
80: % \end{center}
81: %\vspace*{1.0cm}
82:
83:
84: %\end{titlepage}
85:
86:
87: \begin{document}
88: \received{09/18/2006}
89:
90: \title{Quark lepton complementarity and renormalization group effects}
91: \author{Michael A. Schmidt}
92: \email{michael.schmidt@ph.tum.de}
93: \affiliation{Physik-Department T30, Technische Universit\"{a}t M\"{u}nchen, James-Franck-Stra{\ss}e, 85748 Garching, Germany}
94: \author{Alexei Yu. Smirnov}
95: \email{smirnov@ictp.trieste.it}
96: \affiliation{Physik-Department T30, Technische Universit\"{a}t M\"{u}nchen, James-Franck-Stra{\ss}e, 85748 Garching, Germany}
97: \affiliation{The Abdus Salam International Centre for Theoretical Physics, I-34100 Trieste, Italy}
98: \affiliation{Institute for Nuclear Research, Russian Academy of Science, Moscow, Russia}
99:
100: \preprint{TUM-HEP-639/06}
101: \preprint{hep-ph/0607232}
102: \pacs{14.60.Pq,12.15.Ff,11.10.Hi}
103:
104: \begin{abstract}
105: We consider a scenario for the Quark-Lepton Complementarity relations
106: between mixing angles in which the bi-maximal mixing
107: follows from the neutrino mass matrix.
108: According to this scenario in the lowest order the angle
109: $\theta_{12}$ is $\sim 1\sigma$ ($1.5 - 2^{\circ}$) above the best fit point
110: coinciding practically with the tri-bimaximal mixing prediction.
111: Realization of this scenario in the context of the seesaw type-I mechanism with leptonic
112: Dirac mass matrices approximately equal to the quark mass matrices is studied.
113: We calculate the renormalization group corrections to $\theta_{12}$
114: as well as to $\theta_{13}$ in the standard model (SM) and minimal supersymmetric standard model (MSSM).
115: We find that in large part of the parameter space corrections $\Delta \theta_{12}$
116: are small or negligible.
117: In the MSSM version of the scenario
118: the correction $\Delta \theta_{12}$ is in general
119: positive. Small negative corrections appear in
120: the case of an inverted mass hierarchy
121: and opposite CP parities of $\nu_1$ and $\nu_2$
122: when leading contributions to $\theta_{12}$ running are strongly suppressed.
123: The corrections are negative in the SM version in a large part of the parameter
124: space for values of the relative CP
125: phase of $\nu_1$ and $\nu_2$: $\varphi > \pi/2$.
126:
127: \end{abstract}
128:
129:
130: \maketitle
131:
132: \section{Introduction}
133: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
134:
135:
136: Implications of the observed pattern of neutrino mass and mixing
137: (with two large angles) for fundamental physics
138: are still an open question. This pattern has
139: not yet led to a better understanding of the origins of the neutrino mass
140: as well as fermion masses and mixing in general.
141: In contrast, it made the situation more complicated
142: and more intriguing~\cite{mohsmi}. In this connection, any hint from data and
143: any empirical relation should be taken seriously and analyzed in details.
144:
145: In fact, one feature has been realized recently
146: that (if not accidental) may lead to a
147: substantially different approach to the underlying physics.
148: Namely, the sums of the mixing angles
149: of quarks and leptons for the 1-2 and 2-3 generations agree
150: with $45^{\circ}$ within $1\sigma$. In other words,
151: the quark and lepton mixings sum up to maximal mixing \cite{qlc,qlc1,qlc2}:
152: \be
153: \theta_{12} + \theta_C \approx \frac{\pi}{4}, ~~~~~
154: \theta_{23} + \theta_{cb} \approx \frac{\pi}{4}.
155: %45^{\circ},
156: \label{qlcrel}
157: \ee
158: Here $\theta_C$ is the Cabibbo angle, $\theta_{cb} \equiv$ arcsin $V_{cb}$,
159: and $V_{cb}$ is the element of the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa (CKM) matrix.
160: According to eqs. (\ref{qlcrel}) which are called
161: the quark-lepton complementarity (QLC) relations,
162: the quark and lepton mixings are complementary to the maximal mixing.
163: (A possibility that the lepton mixing
164: responsible for the solar neutrino conversion
165: equals maximal mixing minus $\theta_C$ was first
166: mentioned in \cite{petcov}, and
167: corrections to the bimaximal mixing \cite{bm} from the CKM type rotations
168: were discussed in \cite{parametr}.)
169:
170:
171: For various reasons it is difficult to expect exact
172: equalities (\ref{qlcrel}). However certain correlations clearly show up:
173:
174: \begin{itemize}
175:
176: \item
177: the 2-3 leptonic mixing is close to maximal because
178: the 2-3 quark mixing, $V_{cb}$, is very small;
179:
180: \item
181: the 1-2 leptonic mixing deviates from maximal
182: substantially because the 1-2 quark mixing ({\it i.e.}, the Cabibbo
183: angle) is relatively large.
184:
185: \end{itemize}
186:
187: If not accidental coincidence, the QLC relations imply~\cite{qlc1,qlc2,qlc-fm}
188:
189: (i) a kind of quark-lepton symmetry
190: or quark-lepton unification which propagates the information about mixing from the
191: quark sector to the lepton sector.
192:
193: (ii) existence of some additional structure which produces
194: maximal or bi-maximal mixing.
195:
196: Even within this context one expects some deviations
197: from exact quark-lepton complementarity due to
198:
199: - broken quark-lepton symmetry,
200:
201: - renormalization group (RG) effects.\\
202:
203:
204: There is a number of attempts to reproduce the QLC relations
205: on the basis of already existing
206: ideas about fermion mass matrices
207: \cite{qlc1,qlc-fm,shift,qlc-km}.
208: Usually they lead to too small deviations of $\theta_{12}$
209: from $\pi/4$, and therefore require further corrections
210: or deviations from the bi-maximal mixing or from the Cabibbo mixing
211: already in the lowest order.
212: So, in the majority of the models proposed so far, an approximate
213: QLC relation appears as a result of an interplay of different independent
214: factors or as a sum of several independent contributions.
215: In these cases the QLC relation seems to be accidental.
216: There are few attempts to construct a consistent
217: gauge model which explains the QLC relations.
218: The simplest possibility is the
219: $SU(2)_L \times SU(2)_R \times SU(4)_C$ model
220: that implements the quark-lepton symmetry in the most straightforward
221: way \cite{qlc-fm,qlc-km}.
222: Phenomenology of schemes with QLC relations has been extensively studied
223: \cite{qlc2,shift,qlc-cp,Hochmuth}.
224:
225: The relation (\ref{qlcrel}) is realized at some high energy scale,
226: $M_F$, of flavor physics and quark-lepton unification. Therefore
227: one should take into account the renormalization group effects
228: on the QLC relations when confronting them with the
229: low energy data. In fact, it was marked in \cite{qlc2} that
230: in the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM) the corrections are typically positive but
231: negative $\Delta \theta_{12}$ can be obtained from the RG effects
232: in presence of non-zero 1-3 mixing.
233: Also threshold corrections due to some
234: new scale of physics, such as the low scale supersymmetry, can
235: produce a negative shift of $\theta_{12}$, thus enhancing its deviation from
236: $\pi/4$ \cite{qlc-ren}.
237:
238:
239: The Cabibbo mixing can be transmitted to the lepton sector in a more
240: complicated way (than via the quark-lepton symmetry). In fact, $\sin
241: \theta_C$ may turn out to be a generic parameter of the theory of
242: fermion masses - the ``quantum'' of flavor physics. Therefore it may appear
243: in various places: mass ratios, mixing angles.
244: One can consider the Cabibbo angle as an expansion parameter
245: for mixing matrices \cite{qlc2,parametr,parametr2,par-gen}.
246:
247: In this paper we study in details the RG effects in the QLC scenario
248: where the bi-maximal mixing is generated by
249: the neutrino mass matrix. We calculate corrections
250: to the angles both in the Standard model (SM) and
251: MSSM. We analyze the dependence of the corrections
252: on various parameters and obtain bounds on the parameters
253: from consistency condition with QLC. In particular, we
254: find regions where the corrections are negative.
255: The paper is organized as follows. In sec. 2 we
256: formulate the scenario and comment on parameterization dependence
257: of the QLC relations as well as confront the relations with
258: experimental data. In sec. 3 we consider
259: realization of the scenario in the seesaw type I mechanism.
260: The RG effects in MSSM and SM are described in secs. 4
261: and 5 correspondingly. We consider the RG effects on 1-3 mixing
262: and dependence of the effects
263: on scale of new physics in sec. 6. Conclusions are formulated in sec. 7.
264:
265:
266: \section{Update on QLC}
267: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
268:
269:
270: \subsection{A scenario}
271: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
272:
273: A general scheme for the QLC relations is that
274: \be
275: ``{\rm lepton~ mixing} = {\rm bi\!-\!maximal~mixing} - {\rm CKM}'',
276: \ee
277: where the bi-maximal mixing matrix is~\cite{bm}
278: \be
279: U_{bm} = U_{23}^m U_{12}^m =
280: \frac{1}{2}
281: \left(\begin{array}{ccc}
282: \sqrt{2} & \sqrt{2} & 0\\
283: -1 & 1 & \sqrt{2}\\
284: 1 & - 1 & \sqrt{2}
285: \end{array}
286: \right).
287: \label{bimax}
288: \ee
289: Here $U_{ij}^m$ is the maximal mixing ($\pi/4$) rotation in the $ij$-plane.
290:
291:
292: We assume that the bi-maximal mixing is generated by the neutrino
293: mass matrix. That is, the same mechanism which is responsible for
294: the smallness of neutrino mass leads also to the large lepton mixing, and
295: it is the seesaw mechanism \cite{sees} that plays the role of additional structure
296: that generates the bi-maximal mixing. Therefore
297: \be
298: U_{PMNS} = U_l^{\dagger} U_{\nu} = V_\mathrm{CKM}^{\dagger} \Gamma_{\alpha} U_{bm},
299: \label{qlc1mat}
300: \ee
301: where $\Gamma_{\alpha} \equiv \diag(e^{i\alpha_1}, e^{i\alpha_2}, e^{i\alpha_3})$
302: is the phase matrix that can appear, in general,
303: at diagonalization of the charged lepton or neutrino Dirac mass matrices.
304:
305:
306: Similarity of the Dirac mass matrices
307: in the lepton and quark sectors, related to the quark-lepton symmetry,
308: is the origin of the CKM rotations in the lepton sector.
309: Here, there are two possibilities: \\
310:
311: (i) In a certain (``symmetry'') basis, where the theory of flavor is formulated,
312: the neutrino mass matrix is of the bi-maximal form. So $U_{\nu} = U_{bm}$,
313: and the charged lepton mass matrix is diagonalized by the CKM rotation:
314: \begin{equation}
315: U_l = V_\mathrm{CKM}.
316: \label{lckm}
317: \end{equation}
318: The problem here is that the masses
319: of charged leptons and down quarks are different: in particular,
320: $m_e/m_\mu = 0.0047$, whereas $m_d/m_s = 0.04 - 0.06$, and also
321: $m_\mu \neq m_s$ at the grand unified theory (GUT) scale.
322: Since $m_l \neq m_d$, the equality (\ref{lckm}) implies
323: particular structure of the mass matrices in which
324: mixing weakly depends on eigenvalues.
325:
326:
327: (ii) In the ``symmetry'' basis both the bimaximal and
328: CKM mixings come from the neutrino mass matrix, and
329: the charged lepton mass matrix is diagonal. That is, the
330: symmetry basis coincides with the flavor basis.
331: In this case the Dirac mass matrix of neutrinos is the origin
332: of the CKM rotation, whereas the Majorana mass matrix of
333: the right--handed (RH) neutrinos is responsible for the bi-maximal mixing.
334: Since the eigenvalues of the Dirac neutrino mass matrix are unknown
335: we can assume an exact equality of the mass matrices
336: \be
337: m_u = m^D_{\nu},
338: \label{uDmatr}
339: \ee
340: as a consequence of the quark-lepton symmetry.
341: %If the up-quark mass matrix, $m_u$,
342: %is the origin of the CKM mixing (and down quark matrix is diagonal),
343: The equality (\ref{uDmatr})
344: propagates the CKM mixing from the quark to the lepton sector
345: precisely. In this case, however, the Gatto-Sartori-Tonin relation between the
346: Cabibbo angle and the ratio of down quark masses \cite{GST} turns out to be
347: accidental.
348: Furthermore, one needs to explain why in the symmetry basis both the charged
349: lepton and down quark mass matrices
350: are diagonal simultaneously in spite of difference of eigenvalues.
351:
352: These two cases have different theoretical implications,
353: however the phenomenological consequences and the RG effects are
354: the same. \\
355:
356:
357: In the scenario under consideration, the relation (\ref{qlcrel}) is not realized precisely
358: even for zero phases $\alpha_i$ since the
359: $U_{12}^{CKM}$ rotation matrix should be permuted with $U_{23}^m$
360: in (\ref{qlc1mat}) to reduce the mixing matrix
361: to the standard parameterization form \cite{qlc2}.
362: From (\ref{qlc1mat}) we obtain the following expressions for the
363: leptonic mixing angles:
364: \begin{multline}
365: U_{e2} \equiv \cos\theta_{13} \sin \theta_{12} = \sin (\pi/4 -\theta_C)\\ +
366: 0.5 \sin \theta_C \left[\sqrt{2} - 1 - V_{cb}
367: \cos (\alpha_3 - \alpha_1) \right]
368: %\nonumber
369: \\
370: + 0.5 V_{ub}\cos (\alpha_3 - \alpha_1 -\delta_q),
371: \label{qlc12}
372: \end{multline}
373: where $\delta_q$ is the quark CP-violating phase.
374: This expression differs from the one derived in \cite{qlc2} by a factor
375: $\cos\theta_{13}$ as well as by the last term, that turn out to be relevant at the
376: level of accuracy we will consider here. The 1-3 mixing is large in this scenario
377: \cite{qlc2,qlc-cp,Hochmuth}:
378: \begin{multline}
379: \sin \theta_{13} = - \frac{\sin \theta_C}{\sqrt{2}} (1 - V_{cb} \cos \alpha_3) -
380: \frac{V_{ub}}{\sqrt{2}}\cos (\alpha_3 -\delta_q) \\\approx -
381: \frac{\sin \theta_C}{\sqrt{2}}
382: \label{qlc13}
383: \end{multline}
384: and, hence, the Dirac CP phase $\delta$ is close to $180^\circ$.
385: So, for the 1-2 mixing we find from (\ref{qlc12}) and (\ref{qlc13})
386: \be
387: \sin \theta_{12} \approx U_{e2} (1 + \frac{1}{4}\sin^2 \theta_C),
388: \label{qlc12a}
389: \ee
390: and $U_{e2}$ is given in (\ref{qlc12}). Expression for the 2-3 mixing reads
391: \begin{multline}
392: U_{\mu 3} = \cos\theta_{13} \sin \theta_{12} \\=
393: \cos \theta_C \left[\sin (\pi/4 - \theta_{cb}) + \frac{V_{cb}}{\sqrt{2}}
394: (1 - \cos \alpha_3)
395: \right].
396: \label{qlc23}
397: \end{multline}
398: The RG effect on $V_\mathrm{CKM}$ is negligible.
399:
400:
401:
402: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
403: \subsection{QLC and parameterization.}
404: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
405:
406:
407: The QLC relations are essentially parameterization
408: independent. They can be expressed in terms of physical quantities (compare with
409: \cite{jarlskog}).
410: Indeed, the moduli of elements of the mixing matrix,
411: $U_{\alpha i}$, are physical quantities immediately related to observables
412: and consequently, parameterization independent.
413: In the standard parameterization
414: \be
415: |U_{e2}| = |\cos \theta_{13} \sin \theta_{12}|, ~~~
416: |U_{e3}| = |\sin \theta_{13}|,
417: \ee
418: and therefore
419: \be
420: |\sin \theta_{12}| = \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 - |U_{e3}|^2}} |U_{e2}|.
421: \label{12expr}
422: \ee
423:
424: %%Neglecting 1-3 mixing in the quark sector we
425:
426: %There is some freedom of introduction of complex phase factor in the
427: %equality (\ref{}) (which in fact can account for some mismatch
428: %we will discuss later).
429:
430: Notice that the presence of 1-3 mixing produces
431: some ambiguity in formulation of the QLC relations.
432: One can write the relations in terms of angles
433: %%of 1-2 rotations
434: in the standard parameterization or in terms of matrix elements:
435: \be
436: \arcsin(V_{us}) + \arcsin(U_{e2}) = \pi/4.
437: \ee
438: Both forms coincide in the limit $U_{e3} \rightarrow 0$.
439:
440:
441: \subsection{Experimental status}
442: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
443:
444: In fig. \ref{fig1} we show results of determination of
445: $\theta_{12}$ by different
446: groups. SNO collaboration did analysis of the data in terms of
447: $2 \nu$ mixing \cite{sno}, whereas in \cite{sv} and \cite{bari} complete
448: $3\nu$ analyses have been performed.
449: Furthermore, in \cite{bari} a non-zero best fit value of 1-3 mixing
450: has been obtained.
451: Results of different analyses are in a very good agreement:
452: \begin{align}
453: \theta_{12} = (33.8 \pm 2.2) ^{\circ} & (\theta_{13} = 0),\nonumber\\
454: \theta_{12} = (34.2 \pm 1.5)^{\circ} & (\theta_{13} = 7^{\circ}).
455: \label{bfval}
456: \end{align}
457: Notice that the determination of $\theta_{12}$ follows mainly from
458: analysis of the solar neutrino data. In this analysis
459: $\theta_{12}$ and $\theta_{13}$ correlate.
460: In particular, the CC/NC ratio that gives the most
461: important restriction on mixing is determined by
462: $P \sim \cos^4 \theta_{13} \sin^2 \theta_{12}$. The best fit values
463: (\ref{bfval}) are along with the trajectory $P =$ constant.
464:
465:
466: %%%%%%%%%ffff0%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
467: \begin{figure}%[H]
468: \centerline{
469: {\includegraphics[width=8cm]{mix1}}\quad
470: }
471: \caption{The 1-2 mixing angle: experimental results and predictions.
472: Shown are the best fit values and allowed regions for $\theta_{12}$
473: from analyses of different groups SNO~\cite{sno}, Strumia--Vissani~\cite{sv}, Bari~\cite{bari}.
474: The vertical dashed lines correspond to value $(\pi/4 - \theta_C)$ and
475: tri-bimaximal mixing. The horizontal bar shows values of QLC predictions
476: without RG corrections.
477: }
478: \label{fig1}
479: \end{figure}
480: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
481:
482:
483: In fig. \ref{fig1} we show the range of QLC values of
484: $\theta_{12}$ obtained from eqs. (\ref{qlc12}, \ref{qlc12a}) by varying $(\alpha_3
485: -
486: \alpha_1)$. This variation gives
487: \be
488: \theta_{12}^{QLC} = 35.65 - 36.22^{\circ},
489: \label{qlcgrad}
490: \ee
491: or
492: \be
493: \sin^2 \theta_{12}^{QLC} = 0.340 - 0.349.
494: \label{qlcsin}
495: \ee
496: The smallest value of $\theta_{12}$ corresponds to
497: $\alpha_3 - \alpha_1 = -24^{\circ}$.
498:
499: For the 1-3 mixing we obtain
500: \be
501: \sin^2 \theta_{13} \approx \frac{1}{2} \sin^2 \theta_C = 0.024,
502: \label{pred13}
503: \ee
504: which is at the upper $1\sigma$ edge from the analysis \cite{bari}.
505:
506: The sums of angles equal
507: \be
508: \theta_{12} + \theta_C = 46.7^{\circ} \pm 2.4^{\circ} ~~~(1\sigma)
509: \ee
510: \be
511: \theta_{23} + \theta_{cb} = \left(43.9^{~+5.1}_{~-3.6} \right)^{\circ}
512: ~~~(1\sigma).
513: \ee
514: The QLC prediction is slightly larger than the experimental
515: best fit point:
516: \be
517: \theta_{12}^{QLC} - \theta_{12}^{bf} = 1.5^{\circ} - 2.0^{\circ}.
518: \ee
519: The difference is well within $1\sigma$ of experimental measurements.
520: The exact complementarity value, $45^{\circ} - \theta_C$,
521: is $(1.8 -2.0)^{\circ}$ below the best fit value.
522: To disentangle these possibilities one needs to measure the 1-2 angle
523: with accuracy better than 1 degree:
524: $\Delta \theta_{12} < 1^{\circ}$, that is translated into
525: \be
526: \frac{\Delta \sin^2 \theta_{12}}{\sin^2 \theta_{12}}
527: = \frac{2}{\tan\theta_{12}} \Delta \theta_{12} \sim
528: 5\% (\Delta \theta_{12}/1^{\circ}),
529: \ee
530: or
531: \be
532: \frac{\Delta \sin^2 2\theta_{12}}{\sin^2 2\theta_{12}}
533: = \frac{4}{\tan 2\theta_{12}} \Delta \theta_{12} \sim
534: 2.7\% (\Delta \theta_{12}/1^{\circ}).
535: \ee
536: Forthcoming results from SNO phase-III (He) will improve
537: determination of the CC/NC ratio, and consequently,
538: $\theta_{12}$.
539: Future low energy solar neutrino experiments aimed at measurements
540: of the pp-neutrino flux will have a (1 - 2) \% sensitivity
541: to $\sin^2 2\theta_{12}$ provided that
542: degeneracy with 1-3 mixing is resolved.
543: Similar sensitivity could be achieved in dedicated reactor
544: neutrino experiments with a large base-line \cite{12future}.
545:
546:
547:
548:
549:
550: \subsection{QLC and tri-bimaximal mixing}
551: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
552:
553: The QLC prediction (\ref{qlcsin}) is practically
554: indistinguishable from the tri-bimaximal
555: mixing \cite{tbm} prediction $\sin^2\theta_{12} = 1/3$.
556: So, it turns out that almost the same values of 1-2 mixing are obtained
557: from two different and independent combinations of matrices
558: \be
559: U_{23}^m U_{12}(\arcsin(1/\sqrt{3}))~~~~ {\rm and} ~~~~U_{12}(\theta_C)U_{23}^m
560: U_{12}^m.
561: \ee
562: There are two possible interpretations
563: of this fact:
564:
565: The coincidence is accidental,
566: which means that one of the two approaches
567: (QLC or tri-bimaximal mixing) does not correspond to reality.
568: To some extend that can be tested by measuring the 1-3 mixing.
569: In the QLC-scenario one obtains (\ref{pred13}),
570: whereas the tri-bimaximal mixing implies $\sin^2 \theta_{13} = 0$
571: unless some corrections are introduced.
572:
573: The coincidence is not accidental, and therefore it implies a non-trivial
574: expression for the Cabibbo angle. Indeed, from the equality $\sin \theta_{12}^{QLC} =
575: \sin \theta_{12}^{tbm}$ we obtain
576: \be
577: \sin \theta_C = \frac{2}{3\sqrt{3}} \left(\sqrt{\frac{5}{2}} -1 \right).
578: \label{cabibbo}
579: \ee
580:
581:
582:
583: \section{Seesaw and QLC}
584: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
585:
586: The seesaw mechanism \cite{sees} that provides a natural explanation of
587: smallness of neutrino mass
588: can also be the origin of the difference of the quark and lepton mixings,
589: and in particular, the origin of bimaximal
590: mixing. In the context of seesaw type-I this implies a
591: particular structure of the RH neutrino mass matrix.
592:
593: We assume that the type-I seesaw
594: gives the dominant contribution to neutrino masses
595: since it can provide the closest relation
596: between the quark and lepton mass matrices, as required by the QLC.
597: The relevant terms of the Lagrangian are
598: \be
599: {\cal -L} = l^{cT} Y_e L H_d + N^T Y_{\nu} L H_u + \frac{1}{2}N^T M_R N
600: + h.c.,
601: \label{lagran}
602: \ee
603: where $L \equiv (\nu, l)$ is the leptonic doublet, $N \equiv (\nu_R)^c$,
604: $H_d$ and $H_u$ are two different Higgs doublets in
605: the MSSM and $H_u = i\tau_2 H_d$ in SM; $Y_e$ and $Y_{\nu}$ are the charged lepton and
606: neutrino Yukawa coupling matrices.
607: We consider $M_R$ as a bare mass matrix of the RH
608: neutrinos formed already at the GUT or even higher scale. It can be generated by some
609: new interactions at higher scales.
610:
611: Decoupling of $N$ leads to the low energy effective $D=5$ operator
612: \be
613: \nu^T Y_{\nu}^T M_R^{-1} Y_{\nu} \nu H_u H_u.
614: \label{effop}
615: \ee
616: After the electroweak symmetry breaking this operator
617: generates the mass term for light neutrinos,
618: $\nu^T m_{\nu} \nu$ with
619: \be
620: m_{\nu} = - m_D^T M_R^{-1} m_D,
621: \ee
622: where $m_D = Y_{\nu}\langle H_u \rangle$. \\
623:
624:
625: Let us consider the basis where the neutrino Dirac mass matrix
626: is diagonal:
627: \be
628: Y_{\nu} = Y_{\nu}^{\diag} \equiv \diag(y_1, y_2, y_3).
629: \ee
630: Then the light neutrino mass matrix equals
631: \be
632: m_{\nu} = - m_D^{\diag} M_R^{-1} m_D^{\diag},
633: \label{lightm0}
634: \ee
635: and $m_D^{\diag} \equiv Y_{\nu}^{\diag} \langle H_u \rangle$.
636:
637: According to our assumption, the matrix (\ref{lightm0})
638: should generate the bimaximal rotation:
639: \be
640: m_{\nu} = m_{bm},
641: \ee
642: where in general,
643: \be
644: m_{bm} = \Gamma_{\delta} U_{bm} \Gamma_{\varphi/2}
645: m_{\nu}^{\diag} \Gamma_{\varphi/2}
646: U_{bm}^{T} \Gamma_{\delta}.
647: \label{bmmatr}
648: \ee
649: Here
650: \be
651: \Gamma_{\delta} \equiv \diag(e^{\I\delta_1}, e^{\I\delta_2}, e^{\I\delta_3}),
652: \ee
653: is the phase matrix,
654: \be
655: m_{\nu}^{\diag} \equiv \diag(m_1, m_2, m_3)
656: \ee
657: is the diagonal matrix of the light neutrinos, and
658: \be
659: \Gamma_{\varphi} \equiv \diag(e^{\I\varphi_1 /2}, e^{\I\varphi_2 /2}, 1),
660: \ee
661: with $\varphi_i$ being the Majorana phases of light neutrinos. \\
662:
663: According to our assumption, the CKM rotation follows from diagonalization of the
664: charged lepton matrix
665: \be
666: V_\mathrm{CKM}^\dagger Y_e^\dagger Y_e V_\mathrm{CKM} =
667: \diag\left(y_e^2,\,y_\mu^2,\,y_\tau^2 \right),
668: \ee
669: and we will parameterize it as
670: \be
671: V_l = \Gamma_\phi V_\mathrm{CKM} (\theta_q, \delta_q).
672: \label{CKMpar}
673: \ee
674: Here the diagonal matrix of the phase factors on the RH side
675: has been absorbed in the charged lepton field redefinition;
676: $V_\mathrm{CKM}$ is the CKM matrix in the standard parameterization,
677: $\theta_q$ and $\delta_q$ are the quark (CKM) mixing angles, and
678: \be
679: \Gamma_\phi \equiv \diag(e^{\I\phi_1}, e^{\I\phi_2}, e^{\I\phi_3}).
680: \label{phasematr}
681: \ee
682: Thus, in general, there are three matrices of phases,
683: $\Gamma_{\delta}$, $\Gamma_{\varphi}$ and $\Gamma_{\phi}$, relevant for
684: relations between the mixing angles.
685: Finally, from
686: (\ref{CKMpar}) and (\ref{bmmatr}) we obtain
687: \be
688: U_{PMNS} = V_\mathrm{CKM}^{\dagger} (\theta_q, \delta_q)
689: \Gamma (\delta_l - \phi_l) U_{bm},
690: \ee
691: and therefore in (\ref{qlc1mat})
692: $\alpha_j = (\delta_j - \phi_j)$. \\
693:
694: The neutrino mass matrix in the flavor basis equals
695: \be
696: m_{\nu}^f = V_\mathrm{CKM}^{T} m_{bm} V_\mathrm{CKM}.
697: \ee
698:
699:
700: From (\ref{lightm0}) and (\ref{bmmatr})
701: we find an expression for the RH neutrino mass matrix:
702: \be
703: M_{R} = \Gamma_\delta m_D^{\diag}
704: U_{bm}
705: \Gamma_{\varphi/2} (m_{\nu}^{\diag})^{-1} \Gamma_{\varphi/2}
706: U_{bm}^{T} m_D^{\diag}
707: \Gamma_{\delta}.
708: \label{RHmatrix}
709: \ee
710: Omitting the phase factor $\Gamma (\delta_i)$
711: (that can be absorbed in the definition of $M_{R}$) and including
712: the CP phases $\varphi_i$ into masses of light neutrinos
713: $\Gamma_{\varphi/2} (m_{\nu}^{\diag})^{-1} \Gamma_{\varphi/2} = (m_{\nu,
714: \varphi}^{\diag})^{-1}$, we obtain
715: \be
716: M_{R} = m_D^{\diag}U_{bm}
717: (m_{\nu, \varphi}^{\diag})^{-1} U_{bm}^{T} m_D^{\diag}.
718: \ee
719: Explicitly
720: \be
721: M_R = \frac{1}{4}m_D^{\diag}
722: \begin{pmatrix}
723: 2A & -\sqrt{2} B & -\sqrt{2} B\\
724: ... & C + A & C - A\\
725: ... & ... & C + A\\
726: \label{rhmatr}
727: \end{pmatrix}
728: m_D^{\diag},
729: \ee
730: where
731: \be
732: A \equiv \frac{1}{m_1} + \frac{1}{m_2}, ~~~B \equiv \frac{1}{m_2} - \frac{1}{m_1},
733: ~~~
734: C \equiv \frac{2}{m_3},
735: \label{abc}
736: \ee
737: (with phases $\varphi_i$ included).
738: We can parameterize $m_D^{\diag}$ as
739: \be
740: m_D^{\diag} = m_t \diag(\epsilon'^{2}, \epsilon, 1),
741: \ee
742: with $m_t$ being the mass of top quark and
743: $\epsilon' \approx \epsilon \sim 3 \cdot 10^{-3}$.
744: Using smallness of $\epsilon$'s it is easy to estimate the mass eigenvalues:
745: \begin{multline}
746: M_3 \approx \frac{m_t^2}{4} (A + C), ~~
747: M_2 \approx m_t^2 \epsilon^2 \frac{AC}{A + C},\\
748: M_1 \approx m_t^2 \epsilon'^4 \frac{A^2 - B^2}{2A}.
749: \label{123mb}
750: \end{multline}
751: Furthermore, the 1-2 and 2-3 mixing angles are of the order $\epsilon$,
752: whereas 1-3 mixing is of the order $\epsilon^2$.
753:
754: In the case of normal mass hierarchy, $m_1 \ll m_2 \ll m_3$,
755: eqs. (\ref{123mb}) lead to
756: \be
757: M_3 \approx \frac{m_t^2}{4m_1}, ~~~
758: M_2 \approx \frac{2 m_t^2 \epsilon^2}{m_3}, ~~~
759: M_1 \approx \frac{2 m_t^2 \epsilon'^{4}}{m_2},
760: \label{123ma}
761: \ee
762: in agreement with results of \cite{AFS}.
763: Notice a permutation character of these expressions:
764: the masses of RH neutrinos 1, 2, 3 are determined by light masses 2, 3, 1.
765: With $m_1 \rightarrow 0$, apparently,
766: $M_3 \rightarrow \infty$.
767: For $\epsilon' = \epsilon \sim 3 \cdot 10^{-3}$ and $m_1 = 10^{-3}$ eV
768: values of masses equal
769: \be
770: M_3 = 9 \cdot 10^{15} ~{\rm GeV},~~
771: M_2 = 1 \cdot 10^{10} ~{\rm GeV},~~
772: M_1 = 5 \cdot 10^{5} ~~{\rm GeV}.
773: \ee
774: So, masses have a ``quadratic'' hierarchy.\\
775:
776: In the case of inverted mass hierarchy, $m_3 \ll m_1 \approx m_2 \equiv m_A$, and the
777: same CP phases of $\nu_1$ and $\nu_2$ we obtain from (\ref{123mb})
778: \be
779: M_3 \approx \frac{m_t^2}{4m_3}, ~~~
780: M_2 \approx \frac{2 m_t^2 \epsilon^2}{m_A}, ~~~
781: M_1 \approx \frac{2 m_t^2 \epsilon'^{4}}{m_A},
782: \label{123maI}
783: \ee
784: where $m_A \equiv \sqrt{|\Delta m^2_{31}|}$.
785: This leads again to a strong mass hierarchy.
786: Notice that now the mass of the lightest RH neutrino
787: is determined by the atmospheric mass scale.
788: Thus, apart from special regions in the parameter
789: space that correspond to level crossings (see sect. 5) the QLC
790: implies generically a very strong (``quadratic'') mass hierarchy of the RH
791: neutrinos and very small mixing: $\Theta_{ij} \sim \epsilon$.
792: As we will see, this determines substantially the size of the RG effects.
793:
794: Let us introduce the unitary matrix, $U_R$, which diagonalizes the right--handed
795: neutrino mass matrix
796: \be
797: U_R^T M_R U_R = M_R^{\diag} \equiv \diag\left(M_1,\,M_2,\,M_3\right),
798: \label{rphases1}
799: \ee
800: and the mixing matrix can be parameterized as
801: \be
802: U_R = \Gamma_{\Delta} V_{CKM} (\Theta_{ij}, \Delta) \Gamma_{\xi/2},
803: \label{rphases2}
804: \ee
805: where $\Theta_{ij}$ and $\Delta$ are the angles and CP-phase of the RH neutrino
806: mixing matrix.\\
807:
808: In what follows we will not elaborate further on the origin of
809: particular structures of $M_R$ (\ref{rhmatr}), just noticing that it can be related
810: to the double (cascade)
811: seesaw mechanism \cite{dss} with the ``screening'' of Dirac structure \cite{scre,kim}.
812: %We will discuss the RG effects.
813:
814:
815: \section{RG effects: general consideration and the MSSM case}
816: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
817:
818:
819: \subsection{General consideration}
820: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
821:
822: The quark-lepton symmetry implied by the QLC relation
823: means that physics responsible for this
824: relations should be realized at some scale $M_F$ which is at the
825: quark-lepton unification scale, $M_{GUT}$,
826: or even higher scales. An alternative possibility would be
827: the quark-lepton relation due to the Pati-Salam symmetry \cite{pati}
828: broken below the GUT scale.
829: Consequently, there are three different regions of RG running:
830:
831: (i) below the seesaw scales, $\mu < M_1$, where $M_1$ is the lightest RH neutrino mass.
832: In this region all three neutrinos decouple and the D=5 operator
833: (\ref{effop}) is formed;
834:
835: (ii) between the seesaw scales, $M_1 < \mu < M_3$, where $M_3$
836: is the heaviest RH neutrino mass;
837:
838:
839: (iii) above the seesaw scales $ M_3 < \mu < M_F$.
840: If $M_F > M_{GUT}$ new features of running can appear above $M_{GUT}$.\\
841:
842:
843: The RG equation for the neutrino mass matrix is given by~\cite{rgeMat,rge-eq,massmatrrg}
844: \be
845: 16 \pi^2 \Dot m_{\nu} = P^T m_{\nu} + m_{\nu}P + \kappa m_{\nu},
846: \label{eqrun}
847: \ee
848: where $\Dot m_{\nu} \equiv \mu\, \mathrm{d} m_{\nu}/\mathrm{d} \mu$, $\mu$ is the renormalization scale,
849: and $\kappa m_{\nu}$ includes the gauge interaction terms that can influence
850: the flavor structure in the SM case (see below);
851: \be
852: P \equiv C_e Y_e^\dagger Y_e + C_\nu Y_\nu^\dagger Y_\nu,
853: \label{defP}
854: \ee
855: $C_e = -3/2$, $C_\nu = 1/2$ in the SM and $C_e = C_\nu = 1/2$ in the MSSM.
856: From the evolution equation (\ref{eqrun})
857: for the mass matrix we can obtain
858: the equations~\footnote{The renormalization group equations
859: of the mixing angles are taken from~\cite{exactRGE, aboveseesaw}} for
860: observables (masses and mixings) \cite{manfth,exactRGE,manf13,aboveseesaw}.
861: Above and below the seesaw scales the gauge interactions
862: produce a flavor universal effect and all contributions (from
863: all RH neutrinos)
864: to the neutrino mass matrix have the same renormalization group equation.
865:
866: In the limit of vanishing 1-3 mixing the evolution of $\theta_{12}$ is described
867: approximately by
868: \begin{widetext}
869: \begin{multline}
870: 32\pi^2
871: \Dot\theta_{12}=\mathcal{Q}_{12}\left[\sin 2\theta_{12}\left(P_{11}-
872: c_{23}^2P_{22}-s_{23}^2P_{33} + s_{23}\re
873: P_{23}\right) + \right.\\\left. + 2\cos 2\theta_{12}\left(c_{23}\re
874: P_{21}-s_{23} \re
875: P_{31}\right)\right] + 4\mathcal{S}_{12}\left(c_{23}\im P_{21}-s_{23}\im
876: P_{31}\right) ,
877: \label{eq:DotTheta12}
878: \end{multline}
879: \end{widetext}
880: where $s_{23} \equiv \sin \theta_{23}$, $c_{23} \equiv \cos \theta_{23}$, {\it etc.},
881: \be
882: \mathcal{Q}_{ij} \equiv \frac{|m_i e^{\I\varphi_i} +
883: m_j e^{\I\varphi_j}|^2}{\Delta m_\mathrm{ji}^2},
884: \ee
885: %%where $\tilde m_i=m_i e^{\I\varphi_i}$ are the masses including Majorana phases
886: and
887: \be
888: \mathcal{S}_{12} \equiv \frac{m_1 m_2
889: \sin\left(\varphi_1-\varphi_2\right)}{\Delta m^2_\mathrm{21}}.
890: \ee
891: Above the seesaw scale one needs to consider renormalization of
892: couplings of the full Lagrangian (\ref{lagran}).
893: The evolution of the effective operator which gives masses to neutrinos
894: after the electroweak symmetry breaking
895: is determined by evolution of the neutrino Yukawa couplings $Y_{\nu}$
896: and the mass terms of right--handed neutrinos.
897:
898: Below the seesaw scales, running is dominated by $P_{33}$ in the flavor basis
899: which results in an increase of $\theta_{12}$
900: in MSSM and a slight decrease in the SM
901: due to different signs of $C_e$:
902: \begin{equation}
903: 32\pi^2 \Dot\theta_{12} \approx -\mathcal{Q}_{12}\sin 2\theta_{12} s_{23}^2P_{33}\; .
904: \end{equation}
905:
906: Above the seesaw scales, the leading contribution is again given by $P_{33}$,
907: and the next--to--leading contribution comes from
908: $P_{32}$. This yields an increase of $\theta_{12}$
909: when running to low scales both in the MSSM and in
910: SM. Explicitly the corresponding evolution equation can be written as
911: %%%
912: \begin{multline}
913: 32\pi^2\Dot\theta_{12}=-\mathcal{Q}_{12} C_\nu \sin 2\theta_{12}
914: \sin \theta_{23}\\\left[\sin \theta_{23} - V_{cb}
915: \cos \theta_{23} \cos\left(\phi_2 - \phi_3\right)\right]\; ,
916: \label{evol12a}
917: \end{multline}
918: %%%%
919: %%where $A_q$, $\lambda = \sin \theta_C$, are the Wolfenstein parameters of the CKM
920: %%matrix $V_\mathrm{CKM}$ and $\phi_\mu$ and $\phi_\tau$
921: %%are the phases defined by
922: %%$V=\diag(e^{i \phi_e},\,e^{i \phi_\mu},\,e^{i \phi_\tau}) V_\mathrm{CKM}$. \\
923: and the phases $\phi_i$ are determined in Eq. (\ref{CKMpar}, \ref{phasematr}).
924:
925:
926: Effect of running between the seesaw scales (about 10-orders of magnitude in
927: $\mu$) is more complicated. In this range the Yukawa coupling matrix has two
928: terms (contributions):
929:
930: (1) D=5 effective operators for the light neutrinos formed after decoupling of one or
931: two RH neutrinos,
932:
933: (2) Dirac type couplings and mass terms for undecoupled RH neutrinos
934: given by the Lagrangian (\ref{lagran}).
935:
936:
937: These terms are renormalized differently. In particular, for the terms of second type
938: the neutrino Yukawa couplings are important.
939: The difference, however, cancels (between the seesaw scales) in the case of MSSM
940: in which only the wave function renormalization
941: takes place due to the non--renormalization theorem. In contrast, in the SM due to
942: vertex corrections to the D=5 operators
943: the difference does not cancel, and, as we will see,
944: produces a significant effect.
945: So, in the MSSM, the RG equations are the same for both contributions and
946: eq.~\eqref{eq:DotTheta12} is valid. In the SM they are not equal and
947: eq.~\eqref{eq:DotTheta12} can not be applied.\\
948:
949:
950: After the heaviest right--handed neutrino is
951: integrated out, the right--handed neutrino mixing at the threshold influences
952: running of $\theta_{12}$. In the second order of
953: $\sin \theta_C$, the expression for $\Dot\theta_{12}$ reads:
954: \begin{multline}
955: 32\pi^2\Dot\theta_{12}=-\frac{1}{4}\mathcal{Q}_{12} C_\nu \left(s_{23} -
956: V_{cb} c_{23} \cos\left(\phi_2 -\phi_3\right)\right)\\
957: \left(3 - 2\cos 2\Theta_{23}\cos^2\Theta_{13}-
958: \cos 2\Theta_{13}\right)\sin2\theta_{12}
959: s_{23} \; ,
960: \label{evol12b}
961: \end{multline}
962: where $\Theta_{ij}$ are the right-handed neutrino mixing angles
963: at the scale at which the heaviest neutrino is integrated out.
964: The unitary rotation of the right--handed neutrino fields
965: is done at the threshold of the heaviest
966: right--handed neutrino, and the exact definitions of
967: the angles are given in Eq. (\ref{rphases1}, \ref{rphases2}).
968:
969:
970:
971: \subsection{RG evolution and scales of flavor physics}
972: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
973:
974: We have performed running from the $M_F$ scale
975: down to the electroweak scale and calculated
976: $\Delta\theta_{12} \equiv \theta_{12}(M_Z)-\theta_{12}(M_\mathrm{F})$.
977: For that we solved numerically a complete set of the RG equations including sub-leading
978: effects due to the non-zero 1-3 mixing.
979: In most of our calculations we take for definiteness
980: $M_F = M_{GUT} = 2 \cdot 10^{16}$ GeV. We consider separately
981: dependence of the results on $M_F$.
982: Notice that the renormalization of $\theta_{12}$ in the bimaximal
983: scheme has been studied in
984: \cite{bmrad}.
985:
986: The following free parameters determine the RG effects substantially:
987: the absolute scale of light masses $m_1$, the CP (Majorana) phases
988: of light neutrinos, $\varphi_i$, and the phases $\alpha_i$.
989: We studied dependence of the RG effects on these parameter.
990: For each set of the parameters we have calculated the RH
991: mass matrix and running effects.
992: The angles are fixed by the QLC relation at $M_{F}$,
993: and the mass squared differences
994: are adjusted to lie in the experimentally allowed region
995: at the electroweak scale.
996: For the neutrino Yukawa couplings we take
997: $y_1:y_2:y_3= \epsilon^2: \epsilon:1$,
998: ($\epsilon = \epsilon'$) and $\epsilon=3 \cdot 10^{-3}$.
999:
1000: We consider RG evolution in the MSSM with a unique
1001: SUSY threshold 1 TeV.
1002: The RG effects depend on the absolute mass scale, $m_1$,
1003: $\tan \beta$, and the relative phase between the
1004: first and second mass eigenstates $\varphi \equiv \varphi_2 - \varphi_1$.
1005: Dependence on other
1006: parameters (e.g., other phases) is rather weak.
1007: Still we will use explicitly the phase $\varphi_2$ keeping everywhere $\varphi_1 = 0$.
1008:
1009: In what follows we will describe results of our
1010: numerical calculations. We give an interpretation
1011: of the results using approximate
1012: formulas presented in Secs. III and IV.1.
1013:
1014:
1015: \subsection{RG effect in MSSM with normal mass hierarchy}
1016: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1017:
1018: %We study first the case normal mass hierarchy
1019: %of light neutrinos.
1020:
1021: In fig. \ref{fig:MSSMTheta12} we show some examples of the scale dependence of
1022: $\theta_{12}$ for various values of parameters.
1023: With increase of $m_1$ two factors enhance
1024: the RG effects:
1025:
1026:
1027:
1028: %%%%%%%%ffff1ab%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1029: \begin{figure*}
1030: \centerline{
1031: \subfigure[~]
1032: {\label{fig:MSSMTheta12a}\includegraphics[width=7.5cm]{MSSMTheta12M1}}\quad
1033: \subfigure[~]
1034: {\label{fig:MSSMTheta12b}\includegraphics[width=7.5cm]{MSSMTheta12Beta}}}
1035: \caption{Examples of running of $\theta_{12}$ in the case of MSSM and normal mass
1036: hierarchy. The dependence of $\theta_{12}$ on $\mu$ (a) for different
1037: values of $m_1$, and $\tan \beta = 10$;
1038: (b) on $\tan \beta$ for $m_1 = 10^{-3}$ eV.
1039: All the CP-phases are taken to be zero.}
1040: \label{fig:MSSMTheta12}
1041: \end{figure*}
1042: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1043:
1044:
1045: (1) the largest mass $M_3$ decreases according to (\ref{123ma}).
1046: Correspondingly, the region above
1047: the seesaw scale, $M_3 - M_{GUT}$ increases;
1048:
1049:
1050: (2) corrections to the mass matrix elements are proportional to values of
1051: elements:
1052: $\Delta m_{\alpha\beta} \propto m_{\alpha\beta}$ and since with increase
1053: of $m_1$ the masses, $m_{\alpha\beta}$, generically increase, the corrections
1054: increase correspondingly.
1055:
1056: For relatively small $\tan \beta \sim (3 - 10)$, the
1057: dominant contribution follows from region above the seesaw
1058: scales due to large $(Y_{\nu})_{33}$. Evolution below $M_3$ is
1059: mainly due to the Yukawa couplings $Y_e$ which
1060: are relatively small. The effect increases fast with $m_1$:
1061: \be
1062: \Delta \theta_{12} \propto Q_{12} \log (M_{GUT}/M_3).
1063: \ee
1064: Notice that
1065: $M_3 \propto 1/m_1$. Therefore for
1066: $m_1 \sim 10^{-3}$ eV the running of $\theta_{12}$ is mainly related to
1067: increase of region above the seesaw scale.
1068: For $m_1 > 10^{-2}$ eV the spectrum of light neutrinos
1069: becomes degenerate and $\Delta \theta_{12} \propto Q_{12}
1070: \propto m_1^2$ (fig. \ref{fig:MSSMTheta12a}).
1071: For large $\tan \beta$ and small $m_1$ the dominant
1072: contribution to $\Delta \theta_{12}$ comes from the region below $M_3$
1073: where $\Delta \theta_{12} \propto \tan^2 \beta$
1074: (see fig. \ref{fig:MSSMTheta12b}).
1075:
1076:
1077: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1078: \begin{figure}
1079: \centerline{
1080: {\includegraphics[width=6.5cm]{MSSMTanBetaM1Contour}}\quad
1081: }
1082: \caption{Contours of constant RG corrections, $\Delta \theta_{12}$, in the
1083: $\tan \beta - m_1$ plane in the case of MSSM and normal mass hierarchy.
1084: All the CP-phases are taken to be zero.}
1085: \label{fig:MSSMtanBetaM1}
1086: \end{figure}
1087: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1088:
1089:
1090: A combined dependence of corrections, $\Delta \theta_{12}$, on
1091: $m_1$ and $\tan\beta$ is presented in fig. \ref{fig:MSSMtanBetaM1} where we
1092: show contours of constant $\Delta \theta_{12}$ in
1093: the $(m_1 - \tan\beta)$ plane. The change of behavior of
1094: contours at $m_1 = 8 \cdot 10^{-4}$ eV is a
1095: consequence of our boundary condition: At $m_1 < 8 \cdot 10^{-4}$ eV
1096: we have $M_3 > M_{GUT}$, and therefore the region above seesaw scale disappears.
1097:
1098:
1099: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%ffff4%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1100: \begin{figure}
1101: \centerline{
1102: {\includegraphics[width=8cm]{MSSMPhi2L}}\quad
1103: }
1104: \caption{The dependence of the RG correction, $\Delta \theta_{12}$ (in degrees),
1105: on $m_1$ for different values of $\varphi_2$ (figures at the curves) in the MSSM with the
1106: normal mass hierarchy. The lines correspond to
1107: $\tan\beta=10$ and $\varphi_1 = 0$.
1108: }
1109: \label{fig:MSSMPhi2L}
1110: \end{figure}
1111: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1112:
1113:
1114: In fig. \ref{fig:MSSMPhi2L} we show the correction
1115: $\Delta \theta_{12}$ as functions of $m_1$ for different values of
1116: $\varphi_2$. The dependence of $\Delta \theta_{12}$ on $\varphi_2$,
1117: given essentially by the factor $Q_{12}$,
1118: is weak for the hierarchical spectrum,
1119: $m_1 \ll 8\cdot 10^{-3}$ eV, and very strong for
1120: the degenerate spectrum: $\Delta \theta_{12} \propto
1121: (1 + \cos \varphi)$. The corrections are strongly suppressed
1122: for the opposite CP-parities, $\varphi_2 = 180^{\circ}$,
1123: (fig. \ref{fig:MSSMPhi2L}) that agrees with the results of
1124: previous studies of corrections in the
1125: degenerate case \cite{degen,rad1,renphases,small}.\\
1126:
1127:
1128: Corrections $\Delta \theta_{12}$ are positive.
1129: This fact is essentially
1130: a consequence of strong hierarchy of the Yukawa
1131: couplings $Y_{\nu}$ and $Y_e$. The evolution is
1132: given approximately by eq.~(\ref{eq:DotTheta12}), where
1133: $P_{33} \propto 1/2 (|(Y_e)_{33}|^2 + |(Y_{\nu})_{33}|^2) > 0$.
1134: The off-diagonal couplings $P_{ij}$ are much smaller.
1135: Since $Q_{12} > 0$ we obtain $\dot{\theta}_{12} < 0$, that is, the angle
1136: $\theta_{12}$ increases with decrease of $\mu$.
1137:
1138: Condition that the QLC prediction for $\theta_{12}$
1139: is within $1\sigma$ of the best fit experimental value requires
1140: $\Delta \theta_{12} < 0.5^{\circ} - 1^{\circ}$. This, in turn, leads to
1141: bounds on parameters of neutrino spectrum and $\tan\beta$.
1142: In particular, according to fig. \ref{fig:MSSMPhi2L} the degenerate neutrino
1143: spectrum is excluded for the same CP parities ($\varphi_2 = 0$).
1144: In the case of large $\tan\beta$ it requires strongly hierarchical
1145: spectrum: $m_1 < 10^{-3}$ eV that eliminates the running region above seesaw scale.
1146: However, a degenerate spectrum is allowed for $\varphi \sim 180^{\circ}$.
1147:
1148:
1149: Taking $2\sigma$ upper bound $\Delta \theta_{12} < 2^{\circ}$
1150: we find that the quasi-degenerate spectrum with $m_1 \sim 10^{-2}$ eV
1151: is allowed even for the same parities.
1152: For normal mass hierarchy with $m_1 < 10^{-3}~ \eV$ and
1153: $\tan\beta \sim (3 - 10)$ the running effect is negligible:
1154: $\Delta \theta_{12} < 0.1^{\circ}$.\\
1155:
1156:
1157:
1158: %%%%%%%%ffff5ab%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1159: \begin{figure*}
1160: \centerline{
1161: \subfigure[~]
1162: {\label{fig:MSSMTheta12Ia}\includegraphics[width=7.5cm]{MSSMTheta12M1I}}\quad
1163: \subfigure[~]
1164: {\label{fig:MSSMTheta12Ib}\includegraphics[width=7.5cm]{MSSMTheta12BetaI}}}
1165: \caption{Examples of running of $\theta_{12}$ in the case of MSSM and inverted mass
1166: hierarchy. The dependence of $\theta_{12}$ on $\mu$ (a) for different
1167: values of $m_1$, and $\tan \beta = 10$,
1168: (b) on $\tan \beta$ for $m_1 = 10^{-3}$ eV.
1169: The value $\varphi_2 = 0$ is taken.}
1170: \label{fig:MSSMTheta12I}
1171: \end{figure*}
1172: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1173:
1174:
1175: \subsection{MSSM and inverted mass hierarchy}
1176: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1177:
1178:
1179: In the case of inverted mass hierarchy, the states $\nu_1$ and $\nu_2$
1180: associated to 1-2 mixing are strongly degenerate.
1181: Therefore, the RG effects are similar to those
1182: in the normal hierarchy case for
1183: $m_1 = m_A \sim 5 \cdot 10^{-2}$ eV. So, the corrections,
1184: $\Delta \theta_{12}$, are enhanced by the factor
1185: \be
1186: \frac{(\Delta \theta_{12})^{IH}}{(\Delta \theta_{12})^{NH}}
1187: = \frac{(m_2^{IH})^2}{(m_2^{NH})^2},
1188: \ee
1189: where subscripts NH and IH stand for normal and inverted
1190: mass hierarchy. This factor equals
1191: \be
1192: \frac{\Delta m_{13}^2}{\Delta m_{21}^2} ~~~{\rm or} ~~~~
1193: \frac{(m_1^{IH})^2}{(m_1^{NH})^2}
1194: \label{enhancm}
1195: \ee
1196: for the strong normal hierarchy
1197: and normal ordering ($m_1 \approx m_2$) correspondingly.
1198:
1199: In fig. \ref{fig:MSSMTheta12I} we show examples of
1200: running of $\theta_{12}$ for different values of masses and phases. Dependences of $\theta_{12}$ are well
1201: described by $Q_{12}$, as in the case of normal mass hierarchy.
1202: Notice that now the heaviest RH neutrino mass is determined
1203: by $m_3$, and two others by $m_A$.
1204: With increase of $m_3$ (now the lightest neutrino mass)
1205: (fig. \ref{fig:MSSMTheta12Ia}) the range above
1206: the seesaw scales, where the evolution of
1207: $\theta_{12}$ is most strong, increases. The change of $\theta_{12}$ below $M_3$
1208: is slower being of the same size for different values
1209: of $m_3$ (until $m_3 \ll m_A$).
1210: In this range the evolution is essentially due to $Y_e$
1211: couplings, so that $\Delta\theta_{12} \propto \tan^2 \beta$
1212: (fig. \ref{fig:MSSMTheta12Ib}).
1213: The correction can be strongly suppressed for the opposite
1214: CP-parities of $\nu_1$ and $\nu_2$:
1215: $\Delta\theta_{12} \propto (1 + \cos \varphi)$.
1216:
1217:
1218: %%%%%%%%%%%%ffff6%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1219: %% \begin{figure}[H]
1220: %% \centerline{
1221: %% {\includegraphics[width=6.5cm]{MSSMTanBetaM1IContour}}\quad
1222: %% }
1223: %% \caption{Contours of constant RG corrections, $\Delta \theta_{12}$, in the
1224: %% $\tan \beta - m_1$ plane in the case of MSSM and inverted mass hierarchy
1225: %% and $\varphi_2 = 0$.
1226: %% }
1227: %% \label{fig:MSSMtanBetaM1I}
1228: %% \end{figure}
1229: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1230:
1231:
1232: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%ffff7%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1233: \begin{figure}%[H]
1234: \centerline{
1235: {\includegraphics[width=8cm]{MSSMPhi2IL}}\quad
1236: }
1237: \caption{The dependence of the RG correction $\Delta \theta_{12}$ on $m_1$
1238: for different values of $\varphi_2$ (figures at the curves)
1239: in the case of MSSM, the inverted mass hierarchy and $\tan\beta=10$.
1240: %%(Values of $\varphi_2$ increase from black to red.)
1241: }
1242: \label{fig:MSSMPhi2IL}
1243: \end{figure}
1244: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1245:
1246:
1247: As in the case of normal hierarchy (ordering),
1248: in a large part of the parameter space
1249: the correction is positive, $\Delta\theta_{12} > 0$, due
1250: to dominant effect of $P_{33}$.
1251: For $\varphi_2 = 0$,
1252: consistency of the QLC prediction with data taken as
1253: $\Delta\theta_{12} < 2^{\circ}$, implies
1254: $\tan \beta < 10$ and $m_3 < 8 \cdot 10^{-4}$ eV.
1255: For $\varphi_2 \sim \pi$ corrections can be strongly suppressed, so that a
1256: larger region of the parameter space becomes allowed.
1257: The corrections become negative for $\varphi_2 = \pi$
1258: (see figs. \ref{fig:MSSMPhi2IL}, \ref{Contour180}) when the
1259: leading RG effects are strongly suppressed and the running is mainly due to
1260: sub-leading effect related to non-zero 1-3 mixing.
1261: This possibility has been mentioned in \cite{qlc2}.
1262: The sign of contribution due to non-zero $\theta_{13}$
1263: to the RG running of $\theta_{12}$
1264: due to non-zero $\theta_{13}$
1265: depends on the parameter (masses, phases) region.
1266:
1267:
1268:
1269: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%ffff8%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1270: \begin{figure}%[H]
1271: \centerline{
1272: {\includegraphics[width=6.5cm]{MSSMTanBetaM1IContour180}}\quad
1273: }
1274: \caption{Contours of constant RG corrections, $\Delta \theta_{12}$, in the
1275: $\tan\beta - m_1$ plane in the case of MSSM, inverted mass hierarchy and
1276: $\varphi = \varphi_2 = \pi$.
1277: }
1278: \label{Contour180}
1279: \end{figure}
1280: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1281:
1282:
1283:
1284: In general, for non-zero $\theta_{13}$, the
1285: contribution to $\Dot \theta_{12}$ is given by \cite{exactRGE}
1286: \begin{widetext}
1287: \begin{multline}
1288: \frac{C_\nu \theta_{13}}{32\pi^2}\sin 2\theta_{23} \bigg[\left(\mathcal{Q}_{12}\cos
1289: 2\theta_{12}+
1290: \mathcal{Q}_{13}s^2_{12}+\mathcal{Q}_{23}c^2_{12}\right)\cos\delta\\
1291: +2\left(\frac{m_1 m_2}{\Delta m_{21}^2} \sin(\varphi_1-\varphi_2)+
1292: \frac{m_1m_3}{\Delta m_{31}^2}\sin\varphi_1 s^2_{12}+
1293: \frac{m_2m_3}{\Delta m^2_{32}}\sin\varphi_2 c^2_{12}\right)\sin\delta\bigg]\; .
1294: \end{multline}
1295: \end{widetext}
1296: According to this equation
1297: for $\varphi_2=180^\circ$, $\varphi_1=0^{\circ}$
1298: and $\delta=180^\circ$, the dominant contribution
1299: is determined by the combination
1300: $-\frac{m_3+m_1}{m_3-m_1}\sin^2\theta_{12}\sin 2\theta_{23}$,
1301: that is positive in the inverted hierarchy case, and
1302: therefore $\theta_{12}$ decreases from high to low energies.
1303:
1304:
1305: \section{RG effects in the Standard model}
1306: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1307:
1308: In the standard model the evolution of $\theta_{12}$ is more complicated.
1309: As we have already mentioned, apart from the Yukawa
1310: coupling contributions described by eq.~(\ref{eqrun})
1311: there are additional vertex diagrams that cancel
1312: in the SUSY case~\cite{Antusch:2002rr}. Furthermore, the vertex diagrams with
1313: the gauge bosons become important: their contribution to
1314: running between the seesaw scales influences
1315: the flavor structure of mass matrix and therefore
1316: changes $\theta_{12}$ \cite{exactRGE,manf13,aboveseesaw}.
1317: The point is that individual RH neutrinos, $N_i$, have
1318: the flavor dependent couplings with the left handed components of neutrinos.
1319: Therefore the gauge boson corrections to the corresponding
1320: couplings will influence the flavor structure.
1321: Above the seesaw scales (where all RH neutrinos are operative)
1322: and below the seesaw scales (where all RH neutrinos decouple),
1323: flavor universality of the gauge interaction corrections is restored.
1324: There is no simple analytic formula for the $\theta_{12}$ renormalization in the SM.
1325:
1326: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%ffff9ab%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1327: \begin{figure*}
1328: \centerline{
1329: \subfigure[~]{\label{fig:SMTheta12a}\includegraphics[width=7.5cm]{SMTheta12M1}}\quad
1330: \subfigure[~]{\label{fig:SMTheta12b}\includegraphics[width=7.5cm]{SMTheta12Phi2}}}
1331: \caption{Examples of running of $\theta_{12}$ in the case of SM and normal mass
1332: hierarchy. The dependence of $\theta_{12}$ on $\mu$ (a) for different
1333: values of $m_1$, and $\varphi_2 = 0$,
1334: (b) on $\varphi_2$ for $m_1 = 10^{-3}$ eV.
1335: }
1336: \label{fig:SMTheta12}
1337: \end{figure*}
1338: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1339:
1340:
1341: In fig. \ref{fig:SMTheta12} we show examples of the $\theta_{12}$
1342: scale evolution. Above the seesaw scales the running is due to
1343: the Yukawa interactions, $Y_{\nu}$, and the effect is well described by
1344: the analytic results (\ref{eq:DotTheta12}). Below the seesaw scales, $\mu < M_1$,
1345: the evolution is negligible: it is related
1346: to $Y_e$ couplings that are small in the SM.
1347: The main effect is collected between the seesaw scales.
1348: As we mentioned above, it is mainly
1349: due to the gauge vertex corrections:
1350: After decoupling of $N_3$ the D=5 operator
1351: \be
1352: \frac{1}{M_3} (Y_{\nu})_{ii} (U_{R})_{i3} (U_{R})_{3j} (Y_{\nu})_{jj}
1353: L_i^T L_j H H
1354: \ee
1355: is formed.
1356: The vertex diagram corrections to this operator due to the gauge (and also Yukawa)
1357: interactions produce running. Notice that for other RH neutrinos
1358: that do not decouple, the corresponding couplings
1359: produce box diagrams with propagators of the RH neutrinos. Those diagrams
1360: are finite and do not lead to logarithmic corrections.
1361: The gauge interaction effect dominates since $N_3$ with the
1362: largest Yukawa coupling is decoupled and $Y_e$ are small.
1363: The corrections increase with $m_1$.
1364:
1365: The most interesting dependence of $\Delta \theta_{12}$
1366: is the one on the CP-violation phase
1367: $\varphi_2$ (fig. \ref{fig:SMTheta12b}). The corrections are positive,
1368: $\Delta \theta_{12} > 0$, for $\varphi_2 = 0$.
1369: They are strongly suppressed for $\varphi_2 \sim \pi/2$,
1370: in contrast to the SUSY case where suppression is realized for
1371: $\varphi \sim \pi$. The corrections are negative
1372: for $\varphi_2 > \pi/2$.
1373: The angle of zero corrections, $\varphi_2 (0)$, depends on
1374: $m_1$ and in general deviates from $\pi/2$. The deviation
1375: is due to the Yukawa interaction effects that produce the positive
1376: shift for strong Yukawa coupling hierarchy
1377: as we discussed before. The shift occurs both above
1378: and between the seesaw scales (see fig. \ref{fig:SMTheta12b}).
1379:
1380: In fig. \ref{fig:SMPhi2M1} we show contours of
1381: constant corrections in the $m_1 - \varphi_2$ plane, and in fig. \ref{fig:SMPhi2L}
1382: -- an explicit dependence of $\Delta \theta_{12}$ on $m_1$ for different values of
1383: $\varphi_2$.
1384: The line $\Delta \theta_{12} = 0$, is close to
1385: $\varphi_2 = \pi/2,~ 3\pi/2$ for $m_1 \rightarrow 0$, and it approaches
1386: $\pi$ with increase of $m_1$ when spectrum becomes strongly
1387: degenerate. The pattern is nearly symmetric with respect to
1388: $\varphi = \pi$ for small $m_1$, the asymmetry
1389: appears for $m_1 > 3 \cdot 10^{-3}$ eV.
1390:
1391:
1392:
1393: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%ffff10%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1394: \begin{figure}%[H]
1395: \centerline{
1396: {\includegraphics[width=7.5cm]{SMPhi2M1Contour}}
1397: }
1398: \caption{Contours of constant RG corrections to $\theta_{12}$ (figures at the curves)
1399: in the $\varphi_2 - m_1$ plane in the case of SM and normal mass hierarchy.
1400: }
1401: \label{fig:SMPhi2M1}
1402: \end{figure}
1403: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1404:
1405:
1406:
1407: The line $\Delta \theta_{12} = 2^{\circ}$ restricts
1408: the region consistent with the QLC relation.
1409: Along the contours $\Delta \theta_{12} = -1.5^{\circ}$
1410: the best fit experimental value for $\theta_{12}$
1411: can be reproduced. This corresponds to
1412: $m_1 > 2 \cdot 10^{-3}$ eV and $\varphi_2 \sim 5\pi/6 - 7\pi/6$.
1413: Large negative corrections appear in the region
1414: $m_1 > 5 \cdot 10^{-3}$ eV and $\varphi_2 \sim \pi$.
1415:
1416:
1417: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%ffff9%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1418: \begin{figure}%[H]
1419: \centerline{
1420: {\includegraphics[width=8cm]{SMPhi2L}}\quad
1421: }
1422: \caption{The dependence of the RG correction $\Delta \theta_{12}$ on $m_1$
1423: for different values of $\varphi_2$ (figures at the curves) in the SM with the normal mass
1424: hierarchy.
1425: }
1426: \label{fig:SMPhi2L}
1427: \end{figure}
1428: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1429:
1430:
1431: \section{Renormalization of 13 mixing. Level crossing. Evolution above $M_{GUT}$}
1432: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1433:
1434: \subsection{Renormalization of 13 mixing}
1435: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1436:
1437:
1438: In the scenario discussed in this paper, the 1-3 mixing is non-zero and relatively large
1439: at the boundary (\ref{pred13}).
1440: %Furthermore, at tree level the mixing is not small being
1441: %close to the present $1\sigma$ bound.
1442: Notice that $\theta_{13}$ (i) interferes with
1443: 1-2 mixing in the QLC relation as we discussed before;
1444: (ii) produces sub-leading effects in renormalization of $\theta_{12}$,
1445: (iii) can provide further bounds on the
1446: considered scenario if RG corrections are positive and large.
1447:
1448: The dominant contribution to the renormalization of $\theta_{13}$
1449: is given by \cite{exactRGE,manf13,aboveseesaw}
1450: \be
1451: 64\pi^2\Dot\theta_{13}=C_\nu\sin2\theta_{12}\sin2\theta_{23} (\mathcal{A}_{13}-\mathcal{A}_{23}),
1452: \label{evol13}
1453: \ee
1454: where
1455: \be
1456: \mathcal{A}_{i3} \equiv \frac{1}{\Delta m^2_{3i}}
1457: [(m_i^2 + m_3^2)\cos\delta + 2m_i m_3 \cos(\delta-\varphi_i)]\;.
1458: \ee
1459: In our case $\sin2\theta_{12} > 0$,
1460: $\sin2\theta_{23} > 0$, $\delta\approx 180^\circ$
1461: and for vanishing Majorana CP phases, $\varphi_i = 0$,
1462: the dominant contribution can be approximated to
1463: \be
1464: 64\pi^2\Dot\theta_{13}=
1465: C_\nu\sin2\theta_{12}\sin2\theta_{23} (\mathcal{Q}_{23}-\mathcal{Q}_{13}),
1466: \label{evol13b}
1467: \ee
1468: and the last factor in
1469: (\ref{evol13b}): $(\mathcal{Q}_{23} - \mathcal{Q}_{13})=
1470: (\mathcal{A}_{13} - \mathcal{A}_{23})$ is negative, irrespective of
1471: the mass hierarchy. Consequently $\theta_{13}$ increases when running to low energies.
1472: For non-vanishing phases $\varphi_i$ this factor can be positive, thus leading to a decrease
1473: of
1474: $\theta_{13}$ when $\mu$ decreases.
1475: %Yes, but it also depends on the phases.
1476:
1477:
1478: In the case of strong mass hierarchy eq.~(\ref{evol13}) gives
1479: \be
1480: 64\pi^2\Dot\theta_{13} = -2 \sin2\theta_{12}\sin2\theta_{23}\cos(\delta-\varphi_2)
1481: \sqrt{\frac{\Delta m^2_{21}}{\Delta m^2_{31}}}.
1482: \label{evol13h}
1483: \ee
1484: The running is suppressed by small mass ratio.
1485: Therefore only a small RG effect on 1-3 mixing appears for the hierarchical
1486: (normal as well as inverted) case.
1487: For instance, we find that for the parameter sets used in figure 2 (MSSM),
1488: the correction $\Delta \theta_{13}$ is always smaller than $0.2^{\circ}$.
1489: In the SM, it is smaller than $0.3^{\circ}$.
1490:
1491:
1492: For the degenerate spectrum, there can be a larger effect
1493: which strongly depends on the CP-phases.
1494: From (\ref{evol13}) we find
1495: \be
1496: 64\pi^2\Dot\theta_{13} \approx 2\sin2\theta_{12}\sin2\theta_{23} \frac{m_1^2}{\Delta m_{31}^2}
1497: [\cos(\delta-\varphi_1) - \cos(\delta-\varphi_2)].
1498: \label{evol13d}
1499: \ee
1500: Notice that for zero CP phases the cancellation occurs again.
1501: In the MSSM for $m_1=0.03$ eV and $\tan\beta=50$,
1502: we find $\Delta \theta_{13} \sim 0.5^{\circ}$.
1503: In contrast, for $\delta = \varphi_1 = \pi$ and $\varphi_2 = 0$
1504: the two terms in (\ref{evol13d}) sum up and we obtain
1505: positive running:
1506: $64\pi^2\Dot\theta_{13} \approx 4\sin2\theta_{12}\sin2\theta_{23}$.
1507: Consequently $\theta_{13}$ becomes smaller at low energies.
1508:
1509:
1510: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1511: \subsection{Level crossing points}
1512: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1513:
1514:
1515: As we have established in sect.~3 the spectrum of the right--handed
1516: Majorana neutrinos is generically hierarchical. However, there are the level
1517: crossing points, where two of the RH neutrino masses become
1518: equal \cite{AFS}.
1519: The case of degeneracy of two lighter RH neutrino states,
1520: $M_1 \approx M_2$, is of special interest from the point of view of
1521: generation of the baryon asymmetry in the Universe.
1522: In this case the resonance leptogenesis becomes possible
1523: which produces large enough asymmetry in spite of smallness
1524: of the masses and consequently, large wash out effect.
1525:
1526:
1527: From (\ref{123mb}) we find
1528: \be
1529: M_1 = \frac{2 m_t^2 \epsilon'^4}{m_1 + m_2}, ~~~
1530: M_2 =
1531: \frac{2 m_t^2 \epsilon^2(m_1 + m_2)}{(m_1 + m_2)m_3 + 2 m_1 m_2}.
1532: \ee
1533: (Here the Majorana phases are included in $m_i$).
1534: It is easy to see that due to smallness
1535: of $\epsilon$ the condition $M_1 \approx M_2$ can be satisfied
1536: only in the case of strong mass degeneracy
1537: $|m_1| \approx |m_2| \approx m_0$
1538: when
1539: \be
1540: m_1 + m_2 = \frac{\Delta m_{21}^2}{2m_0} \approx 0.
1541: \label{condition}
1542: \ee
1543: Then from the condition $M_1 \approx M_2$ we find
1544: \be
1545: m_0 = \sqrt{\frac{\Delta m_{21}^2}{2\sqrt{2}\epsilon}} \sim 0.1~
1546: {\rm eV}.
1547: \ee
1548: In this special case the mass
1549: \be
1550: M_1 \approx M_2 \frac{4 m_t^2 \epsilon'^4 m_0}{\Delta m_{21}^2}
1551: = M_1^{NH} \frac{2m_0}{\sqrt{\Delta m_{21}^2}}
1552: \ee
1553: is enhanced by factor $2m_0/\sqrt{\Delta m_{21}^2} \sim 20$
1554: and the third mass is much smaller than in the hierarchical case:
1555: \be
1556: M_3 \approx \frac{m_t^2}{2 m_3},
1557: \ee
1558: that is, smaller by factor $m_1^{NH}/m_3 < 10^{-3}$.
1559:
1560:
1561: The level crossing condition (\ref{condition}) implies the opposite
1562: CP-violating phases; it coincides with the condition of
1563: strong suppression of the RG effects.
1564: It also implies smallness of the 11-element of
1565: $m_{bm}$ matrix. The condition for level crossing differs from that in
1566: \cite{AFS} since here we require the neutrino Dirac matrix to be
1567: diagonal in the basis where the mass matrix
1568: of light neutrinos has exactly bimaximal form.
1569: If instead we use a generic matrix with non-maximal 1-2 mixing
1570: the level crossing condition can be realized for the hierarchical
1571: spectrum \cite{AFS}.
1572:
1573:
1574: %%%%%%%%ffff12%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1575: \begin{figure}%[H]
1576: \centerline{
1577: {\includegraphics[width=7.5cm]{LevelCrossing_Angles}}}
1578: \caption{Examples of running of mixing angles in the case
1579: of $M_1 \approx M_2$ in MSSM
1580: and normal mass ordering.
1581: We show the dependence of $\theta_{12}$, $\theta_{13}$ $\theta_{23}$
1582: on $\mu$ for $\tan \beta= 10$, $\varphi_1=0$, $\varphi_2 = \pi$ and $m_1=0.13$ eV.
1583: }
1584: \label{LevelC}
1585: \end{figure}
1586: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1587:
1588: In fig. \ref{LevelC} we show scale evolution of the mixing angles
1589: for parameters that correspond to the level crossing point
1590: $M_1 = M_2$. In this point $M_1 = M_2 = 8\cdot 10^6$ GeV,
1591: $M_3 = 8\cdot 10^{13}$ GeV, $\varphi_1=0$, $\varphi_2 = \pi$, $m_1=0.13$ eV.
1592: The angle $\theta_{12}$ evolves very weakly due to
1593: cancellation $Q_{12} = S_{12} \approx 0$ related to (\ref{condition}).
1594: In contrast,
1595: the 1-3 mixing evolves substantially above thresholds:
1596: $\Delta \theta_{13} = 7^{\circ}$.
1597: %The resulting value $\theta_{13}$ is experimentally excluded.
1598: The 2-3 mixing shows relatively weak evolution, that, however,
1599: can influence the second QLC relation.
1600:
1601: We find that in this crossing point the solar mass squared
1602: difference becomes large even if it is very small at the boundary.
1603: So, the 1-2 split has the radiative origin.
1604: The 1-3 split decreases by factor $\sim 2$.
1605:
1606: \subsection{Evolution above the GUT scale}
1607: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1608:
1609:
1610: For $M_F > M_{GUT}$ one should perform running also above the GUT scale.
1611: Restoration of the GUT symmetry and unification of the
1612: gauge couplings does not prevent from different running of the
1613: Yukawa couplings, and therefore, from change of mixing angles.
1614: Renormalization of mixing angles would stop after
1615: possible unification of the Yukawa couplings which can be related, {\it e.g.}, to
1616: restoration at $M_F$ a non-Abelian flavor symmetry. An alternative is the
1617: boundary at the string or Planck scale, where the Yukawa couplings are formed
1618: and their properties are determined immediately by some symmetry
1619: or/and string selection rules.
1620:
1621:
1622: For illustration we performed the running in the MSSM up to the
1623: Planck scale (ignoring possible GUT effects).
1624: In fig. \ref{fig:MSSMPhi2LPl} we show the dependence of $\Delta \theta_{12}$
1625: on $m_1$ for the same (QLC) initial conditions at the
1626: Planck scale: $M_F = M_{Pl} = 1.2 \cdot 10^{19}$ GeV.
1627: The RG effect becomes much larger.
1628: In particular the contribution from the region above the seesaw scale due to
1629: large Yukawa coupling $Y_{\nu}$ increases substantially.
1630: It is enhanced in comparison with the case of running up to $M_{GUT }$
1631: by the factor
1632: \be
1633: \frac{\log(M_{Pl}/M_3)}{\log(M_{GUT}/M_3)}
1634: \ee
1635: that can be as large as 3 - 5 in some cases.
1636: Still for $\varphi_2 = \pi$ or for small $m_1$ the RG effects are
1637: suppressed and can be consistent with the QLC relations.
1638:
1639: Similar RG effects are expected in the SU(5) model with the
1640: RH singlet neutrinos. In fact, no new diagrams with large
1641: $Y_{\nu}$ appear. Effect of the charged lepton couplings $Y_e$ is enhanced
1642: by factor 4 above $M_{GUT}$
1643: due to the loop diagrams with down quarks (squarks) and $H^{1/3}$ charged
1644: Higgs bosons (Higgsinos).
1645:
1646:
1647: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%ffff11%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1648: \begin{figure}%[H]
1649: \centerline{
1650: {\includegraphics[width=8cm]{MSSMPhi2LPl}}\quad
1651: }
1652: \caption{The dependence of the RG correction $\Delta \theta_{12}$ on $m_1$
1653: for different values of $\varphi_2$ (figures at the curves)
1654: in the MSSM with the normal mass
1655: hierarchy and $\tan\beta=10$. The boundary condition is at $M_{Pl}$.
1656: }
1657: \label{fig:MSSMPhi2LPl}
1658: \end{figure}
1659: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1660:
1661: The flavor-diagonal parts of the RG equations do
1662: influence the angles only indirectly through the change
1663: of the mass eigenvalues. Thus, the main effect of these interactions
1664: is due to the evolution of $\Delta m_{12}^2$.
1665:
1666:
1667: \section{Conclusion}
1668: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1669:
1670: Experimental results on the 1-2 and 2-3 mixing in the quark and lepton sectors
1671: show certain correlations that can be interpreted as the quark-lepton complementarity.
1672: We considered the QLC scenario
1673: in which the bimaximal mixing
1674: follows from diagonalization of the neutrino mass matrix.
1675: In the lowest order of the perturbation theory,
1676: the value of angle $\theta_{12}$ predicted in this scenario
1677: is about $\sim 1\sigma$ larger than the best fit experimental value.
1678: It coincides practically with the value given by the tri-bimaximal mixing.
1679: We commented on implications of this equality as well as on
1680: perspectives of future tests of the QLC relations.
1681:
1682:
1683: In this paper, we assumed that the QLC relations are not accidental
1684: coincidences, but consequence of the quark-lepton symmetry and
1685: additional structure in the theory that produces the bimaximal mixing.
1686: Here the accidental coincidences would mean that values of
1687: mixing angles are the result of interplay of two or more independent
1688: contributions.
1689: In this connection, we proposed a realization of the QLC scenario
1690: that provides the closest relation between quarks and leptons. It is based on
1691:
1692:
1693:
1694:
1695: - the seesaw type-I mechanism that generates
1696: the bimaximal mixing due to specific
1697: structure of the RH neutrino mass matrix;
1698:
1699:
1700: - approximate equalities of the Dirac mass matrices:
1701: $m_u \approx m_D$, $m_l \approx m_d$ that follow from the
1702: approximate quark-lepton
1703: symmetry or unification. A certain small violation of equalities of these matrices
1704: produces difference of mass hierarchies but does not affect
1705: substantially the mixing.
1706:
1707: The only additional (and, in fact, unavoidable) factor that can
1708: affect the QLC relations is RG corrections.
1709:
1710: One of the consequences of the proposed scenario is a very strong hierarchy
1711: of the RH neutrino masses, apart from several particular level crossing points.
1712: The latter are realized for strongly degenerate spectrum of light neutrinos,
1713: and particular values of the CP-violating phases.
1714: This determines substantially the RG effects.
1715:
1716: We performed a systematic study of the RG effects in the SM
1717: and MSSM.
1718: %Let us summarize our main results.
1719: We find that in the MSSM, the RG corrections to $\theta_{12}$
1720: are generically positive due to a
1721: dominant effect of the Yukawa coupling $Y_{33}$.
1722: So, these corrections worsen agreement of the predicted $\theta_{12}$
1723: with data.
1724:
1725: In the MSSM small negative corrections, $|\Delta \theta_{12}| < 0.5^{\circ}$,
1726: can appear for the opposite CP parities of $\nu_1$ and $\nu_2$
1727: and inverted mass hierarchy, in which case the main terms in the RG equations
1728: are strongly suppressed and
1729: running is due to the sub-leading effects related to the non-zero 1-3 mixing.
1730: The correction increases with $m_1$ and strongly
1731: depends on the relative Majorana phase. For
1732: $\varphi_2 = 0$ the consistency of the QLC prediction
1733: for $\theta_{12}$ with data implies strong mass hierarchy of light
1734: neutrinos and small
1735: $\tan \beta$. For $\varphi_2 = \pi$ corrections
1736: are suppressed and even the degenerate spectrum
1737: becomes allowed.
1738: For the inverted mass hierarchy the corrections are generically
1739: enhanced by larger values of masses of $\nu_1$ and $\nu_2$.
1740:
1741: The situation is qualitatively different in the SM. Here
1742: important contributions follow from the vertex corrections to the D=5
1743: operator in the range between the seesaw scales.
1744: The Yukawa couplings (especially for small $m_1$) give
1745: sub-leading contribution.
1746: The RG corrections are negative in the interval $\varphi_2 = \pi/2 - 3\pi/2$
1747: for small $m_1$ and the range of negative corrections becomes narrower,
1748: $\varphi_2 = (0.9 - 1.2) \pi$,
1749: for the degenerate neutrinos $\nu_1$ and $\nu_2$.
1750:
1751:
1752: Corrections depend substantially on the boundary scale $M_F$.
1753: The value $\Delta \theta_{12}$ can be enhanced by factor 2-5 if $M_F$
1754: increases from $M_{GUT}$ to $M_{Pl}$.
1755:
1756: For the hierarchical mass spectrum renormalization of
1757: the 1-3 mixings is, in general, small: $\Delta \theta_{13} \sim 0.2^{\circ} - 0.3^{\circ}$.
1758: The correction can be large, $\Delta \theta_{13} \sim \theta_{13}$, for the degenerate spectrum.
1759: The sign of correction depends on values of CP-violating phases. \\
1760:
1761:
1762: In conclusion, in a large part of the parameter space
1763: especially for the strong mass hierarchy
1764: and opposite CP phases of $\nu_1$ and $\nu_2$,
1765: the RG corrections to the QLC relation are
1766: small. The corrections are positive in the MSSM
1767: apart from small region of parameter space that corresponds to the
1768: degenerate spectrum of light neutrinos and their opposite CP parities.
1769: The corrections are negative in the SM for $\varphi_2 > \pi/2$.
1770: In the considered QLC scenario the RG corrections allow one to reproduce
1771: the best fit experimental value of $\theta_{12}$ exactly.
1772:
1773:
1774: \begin{acknowledgments}
1775: %\section*{Acknowledgements}
1776: The work of A.~Yu.~S. has been supported in part by the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation. M.~A.~S. acknowledges support from the ``Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft'' in the
1777: ``Sonderforschungsbereich 375 f\"ur Astroteilchenphysik'' and under project number RO--2516/3--1.
1778: \end{acknowledgments}
1779:
1780:
1781:
1782:
1783:
1784: %\bibliographystyle{prd}
1785: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
1786:
1787: \bibitem{mohsmi}For recent review see R.~N.~Mohapatra and A.~Y.~Smirnov,
1788: %``Neutrino mass and new physics,''
1789: hep-ph/0603118.
1790:
1791: \bibitem{qlc}A. Yu. Smirnov, hep-ph/0402264.
1792:
1793: \bibitem{qlc1}
1794: M. Raidal, {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 93}, 161801 (2004).
1795:
1796: \bibitem{qlc2}
1797: H. Minakata, A. Yu. Smirnov, {\it Phys. Rev.} D {\bf 70},
1798: 073009 (2004).
1799:
1800: \bibitem{petcov}
1801: S.~T.~Petcov and A.~Y.~Smirnov,
1802: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 322}, 109 (1994).
1803:
1804:
1805: \bibitem{bm}F. Vissani, hep-ph/9708483;
1806: V.~Barger, S.~Pakvasa, T.~Weiler and K.~Whisnant, Phys.\ Lett.\ B
1807: {\bf 437}, 107 (1998); A.~Baltz, A.S.~Goldhaber and M.~Goldhaber,
1808: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett. {\bf 81} 5730 (1998); G.~Altarelli and
1809: F.~Feruglio, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 439}, 112 (1998); M.~Jezabek and
1810: Y.~Sumino, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 440}, 327 (1998); D. V. Ahluwalia,
1811: Mod. Phys. Lett. {\bf A13}, 2249 (1998).
1812:
1813:
1814:
1815: \bibitem{parametr}
1816: M.~Jezabek and Y.~Sumino,
1817: %``Neutrino masses and bimaximal mixing,''
1818: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 457}, 139 (1999);
1819: C.~Giunti and M.~Tanimoto, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 66}, 053013 (2002);
1820: W.~Rodejohann, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 69}, 033005 (2004);
1821: P.~H.~Frampton, S.~T.~Petcov and W.~Rodejohann,
1822: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 687}, 31 (2004);
1823:
1824: \bibitem{qlc-fm} P. Frampton and R. N. Mohapatra, JHEP {\bf 0501}, 025
1825: (2005).
1826:
1827:
1828:
1829: \bibitem{shift}
1830: J. Ferrandis and S. Pakvasa, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 71}, 033004 (2005);
1831: D.~Falcone, hep-ph/0509028; A.~Ghosal and D.~Majumdar, hep-ph/0505173;
1832: F.~Gonzalez Canales and A.~Mondragon,
1833: hep-ph/0606175.
1834:
1835:
1836: \bibitem{qlc-km}
1837: S. Antusch, S. F. King and R. N. Mohapatra,
1838: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 618}, 150 (2005).
1839:
1840:
1841:
1842: \bibitem{qlc-cp} T.~Ohlsson and G.~Seidl, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 643}, 247
1843: (2002);
1844: S.~Antusch and S.~F.~King, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 631}, 42 (2005);
1845: I.~Masina, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 633}, 134 (2006); J.~Harada,
1846: hep-ph/0512294;
1847: B.~C.~Chauhan, M.~Picariello, J.~Pulido and E.~Torrente-Lujan,
1848: hep-ph/0605032.
1849:
1850: \bibitem{Hochmuth}
1851: K.~A.~Hochmuth and W.~Rodejohann,
1852: %``Low And High Energy Phenomenology Of Quark-Lepton Complementary
1853: %Scenarios,''
1854: hep-ph/0607103.
1855:
1856: \bibitem{qlc-ren}
1857: Sin Kyu Kang, C. S. Kim, Jake Lee,
1858: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 619}, 129 (2005);
1859: K.~Cheung, S.~K.~Kang, C.~S.~Kim and J.~Lee,
1860: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 72}, 036003 (2005);
1861: A.~Dighe, S.~Goswami and P.~Roy, hep-ph/0602062.
1862:
1863:
1864:
1865: \bibitem{parametr2}
1866: N.~Li and B.~Q.~Ma, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 600}, 248 (2004);
1867: N.~Li and B.~Q.~Ma, Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 42}, 17 (2005).
1868: N.~Li and B.~Q.~Ma,
1869: %``Unified parameterization of quark and lepton mixing matrices,''
1870: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 71}, 097301 (2005);
1871: Z.~z.~Xing, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 618}, 141 (2005).
1872:
1873:
1874: \bibitem{par-gen}
1875: A.~Datta, L.~Everett and P.~Ramond, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 620}, 42 (2005);
1876: T.~Ohlsson, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 622}, 159 (2005);
1877: L.~L.~Everett, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 73}, 013011 (2006).
1878:
1879:
1880: \bibitem{sees} P. Minkowski, {\it Phys. Lett.} B {\bf 67} 421 (1977);
1881: T. Yanagida, in {\it Proc. of Workshop on Unified Theory and Baryon
1882: number in the Universe}, eds. O. Sawada and A. Sugamoto, KEK, Tsukuba, (1979);
1883: M. Gell-Mann, P. Ramond and R. Slansky, in {\it Supergravity}, eds P.
1884: van Niewenhuizen and
1885: D. Z. Freedman (North Holland, Amsterdam 1980);
1886: P. Ramond, {\it Sanibel talk}, retroprinted as hep-ph/9809459;
1887: S. L. Glashow, in {\it Quarks and Leptons}, Carg\`ese lectures, eds M. L\'evy,
1888: (Plenum, 1980, New York) p. 707;
1889: R. N. Mohapatra and G. Senjanovi\'c, {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 44}, 912 (1980).
1890:
1891:
1892: \bibitem{GST}R. Gatto, G. Sartori and M. Tonin, Phys. Lett. B{\bf 28},
1893: 128 (1968).
1894:
1895: \bibitem{jarlskog}
1896: C.~Jarlskog, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 625}, 63 (2005).
1897:
1898: \bibitem{sno}SNO Collaboration (B. Aharmim et al.). {\it Phys. Rev.} C
1899: {\bf 72}, 055502 (2005).
1900:
1901: \bibitem{sv}A. Strumia, F. Vissani, {\it Nucl. Phys.} B {\bf 726}, 294 (2005).
1902:
1903: \bibitem{bari}G. L. Fogli et al, hep-ph/0506083.
1904:
1905: \bibitem{12future}
1906: A.~Bandyopadhyay, S.~Choubey, S.~Goswami and S.~T.~Petcov,
1907: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 72} (2005) 033013;
1908: J.~F.~Kopp, M.~Lindner, A.~Merle and M.~Rolinec, hep-ph/0606151.
1909:
1910: \bibitem{tbm}
1911: L. Wolfenstein, {\it Phys. Rev.} D {\bf 18}, 958 (1978);
1912: P. F. Harrison, D. H. Perkins and W. G. Scott,
1913: {\it Phys. Lett.} B {\bf 458}, 79 (1999),
1914: {\it Phys. Lett.} B {\bf 530}, 167 (2002).
1915:
1916:
1917:
1918: \bibitem{AFS}
1919: E.~K.~Akhmedov, M.~Frigerio and A.~Y.~Smirnov,
1920: %``Probing The Seesaw Mechanism With Neutrino Data And Leptogenesis,''
1921: JHEP {\bf 0309} (2003) 021.
1922:
1923:
1924:
1925:
1926: %\bibitem{so10}H. Georgi, {\it In Coral Gables 1979 Proceeding, Theory and experiment
1927: %in high energy physics}, New York 1975, 329 and H. Fritzsch and P. Minkowski, Annals
1928: %Phys. {\bf 93} 193 (1975).
1929:
1930: \bibitem{dss}R. N. Mohapatra, {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 56}, 561 (1986);
1931: R. N. Mohapatra and J. W. F. Valle, {\it Phys. Rev.} D {\bf 34}, 1642 (1986).
1932:
1933:
1934: \bibitem{scre}M. Lindner, M. A. Schmidt, A. Yu. Smirnov, {\it JHEP} {\bf 0507},
1935: 048 (2005).
1936:
1937: \bibitem{kim}O. Vives, hep-ph/0504079; J. E. Kim and J. C. Park, hep-ph/0512130.
1938:
1939: \bibitem{pati}J. C. Pati and A. Salam, {\it Phys. Rev.} D {\bf 10}, 275 (1974).
1940:
1941: \bibitem{rgeMat} P.~H.~Chankowski and Z.~Pluciennik, {\it Phys.\ Lett.\ B} {\bf 316}, 312 (1993);
1942: K.~S.~Babu, C.~N.~Leung and J.~T.~Pantaleone, {\it Phys.\ Lett.\ B} {\bf 319}, 191 (1993).
1943:
1944: \bibitem{rge-eq}
1945: J. A. Casas {\it et al.,} {\it Nucl. Phys.} B {\bf 573}, 652 (2000);
1946: S. Antusch, M. Drees, J. Kersten, M. Lindner, M. Ratz, Phys.
1947: Lett. B {\bf 519}, 238 (2001); P.~H.~Chankowski and S.~Pokorski,
1948: Int.\ J.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 17}, 575 (2002);
1949: P.~H.~Chankowski, W.~Krolikowski and S.~Pokorski,
1950: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 473}, 109 (2000)
1951:
1952: \bibitem{massmatrrg}
1953: M.~K.~Parida, C.~R.~Das and G.~Rajasekaran,
1954: %``Radiative stability of neutrino-mass textures,''
1955: Pramana {\bf 62}, 647 (2004);
1956: C.~Hagedorn, J.~Kersten and M.~Lindner,
1957: %``Stability of texture zeros under radiative corrections in see-saw
1958: %models,''
1959: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 597}, 63 (2004);
1960: T.~Miura, E.~Takasugi and M.~Yoshimura,
1961: %``Quantum effects for the neutrino mixing matrix in the democratic-type
1962: %model,''
1963: Prog.\ Theor.\ Phys.\ {\bf 104}, 1173 (2000),
1964: M.~Frigerio and A.~Y.~Smirnov, JHEP {\bf 0302}, 004 (2003).
1965:
1966: \bibitem{manfth}
1967: M. Tanimoto, Phys. Lett. B{\bf 360}, 41 (1995);
1968: S.~F.~King and N.~N.~Singh, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 591}, 3 (2000).
1969:
1970: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%general corr analyt%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1971: \bibitem{exactRGE}
1972: S.~Antusch, J.~Kersten, M.~Lindner and M.~Ratz,
1973: %``Running neutrino masses, mixings and CP phases: Analytical results and
1974: %phenomenological consequences,''
1975: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 674}, 401 (2003).
1976: \bibitem{manf13}
1977: J.~w.~Mei and Z.~z.~Xing,
1978: %``Radiative generation of Theta(13) with the seesaw threshold effect,''
1979: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 70}, 053002 (2004);
1980: S.~Antusch, P.~Huber, J.~Kersten, T.~Schwetz and W.~Winter,
1981: %``Is there maximal mixing in the lepton sector?,''
1982: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 70}, 097302 (2004).
1983:
1984: \bibitem{aboveseesaw}
1985: S.~Antusch, J.~Kersten, M.~Lindner, M.~Ratz and M.~A.~Schmidt,
1986: JHEP {\bf 0503}, 024 (2005).
1987:
1988: %\cite{Antusch:2002rr}
1989:
1990: \bibitem{bmrad}
1991: S.~Antusch, J.~Kersten, M.~Lindner and M.~Ratz,
1992: %``The LMA solution from bimaximal lepton mixing at the GUT scale by
1993: %renormalization group running,''
1994: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 544}, 1 (2002);
1995: T.~Miura, T.~Shindou and E.~Takasugi,
1996: %``The renormalization group effect to the bi-maximal mixing,''
1997: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 68}, 093009 (2003);
1998: T.~Shindou and E.~Takasugi,
1999: %``The role of Majorana CP phases in the bi-maximal mixing scheme:
2000: %Hierarchical Dirac mass case,''
2001: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 70}, 013005 (2004).
2002:
2003:
2004: \bibitem{degen}
2005: J. A. Casas {\it et al.,} {\it Nucl. Phys.} B {\bf 556}, 3 (1999),
2006: {\it ibidem}, {\bf 569}, 82 (2000), {\it ibidem} {\bf 573}, 652
2007: (2000); J.~R.~Ellis and S.~Lola, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 458}, 310 (1999)
2008: P.~H.~Chankowski, A.~Ioannisian, S.~Pokorski and J.~W.~F.~Valle,
2009: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 86}, 3488 (2001);
2010: M.~C.~Chen and K.~T.~Mahanthappa,
2011: Int.\ J.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 16}, 3923 (2001).
2012: %%%%%mix enchancenc%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2013: \bibitem{rad1} K. R. S. Balaji, A. Dighe, R. N. Mohapatra and M. K.
2014: Parida, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 84}, 5034 (2000); Phys. Lett. {\bf B
2015: 481}, 33 (2000); S.~Antusch and M.~Ratz, JHEP {\bf 0211}, 010
2016: (2002); R. N. Mohapatra, G. Rajasekaran and M. K. Parida, Phys.
2017: Rev. {\bf D 69}, 053007 (2004);
2018: \bibitem{renphases}
2019: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2020: N.~Haba, Y.~Matsui and N.~Okamura,
2021: %``The effects of Majorana phases in three-generation neutrinos,''
2022: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 17}, 513 (2000).
2023: %%%%%%%%%%rad%% mass splitt%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2024: \bibitem{small} E.~J.~Chun, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 505}, 155 (2001);
2025: G. Bhattacharyya, A. Raichoudhuri and A. Sil,
2026: Phys.Rev. {\bf D67}, 073004 (2003);
2027: A.~S.~Joshipura, S.~D.~Rindani and N.~N.~Singh,
2028: %``Predictive framework with a pair of degenerate neutrinos at a high
2029: %scale,''
2030: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 660}, 362 (2003).
2031:
2032:
2033:
2034: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2035: \bibitem{Antusch:2002rr}
2036: S.~Antusch, J.~Kersten, M.~Lindner and M.~Ratz,
2037: %``Neutrino mass matrix running for non-degenerate see-saw scales,''
2038: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 538}, 87 (2002).
2039: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0203233;%%
2040:
2041:
2042:
2043:
2044: \end{thebibliography}
2045:
2046: \end{document}
2047:
2048:
2049:
2050:
2051: \appendix
2052: \section{Appendix}
2053: \label{app:Conventions}
2054: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2055:
2056:
2057: Here, we describe our conventions concerning mixing angles and phases. For a
2058: general unitary matrix we choose the so--called standard--parameterization
2059: \begin{multline}\label{eq:StandardParametrizationU}
2060: U = \diag(e^{\I\delta_{e}},e^{\I\delta_{\mu}},e^{\I\delta_{\tau}}) \cdot V \cdot
2061: \diag(e^{-\I\varphi_1/2},e^{-\I\varphi_2/2},1)
2062: \end{multline}
2063: where
2064: \begin{widetext}
2065: \begin{equation}
2066: V_\mathrm{CKM}=\left(
2067: \begin{array}{ccc}
2068: c_{12}c_{13} & s_{12}c_{13} & s_{13}e^{-\I\delta}\\
2069: -c_{23}s_{12}-s_{23}s_{13}c_{12}e^{\I\delta} &
2070: c_{23}c_{12}-s_{23}s_{13}s_{12}e^{\I\delta} & s_{23}c_{13}\\
2071: s_{23}s_{12}-c_{23}s_{13}c_{12}e^{\I\delta} &
2072: -s_{23}c_{12}-c_{23}s_{13}s_{12}e^{\I\delta} & c_{23}c_{13}
2073: \end{array}
2074: \right)
2075: \end{equation}
2076: \end{widetext}
2077: where $c_{ij} \equiv \cos\theta_{ij}$ and
2078: $s_{ij} \equiv \sin\theta_{ij}$.
2079:
2080: The PMNS mixing matrix, $U_\mathrm{PMNS}$, diagonalizes the effective
2081: neutrino mass matrix $m_\nu$ in the flavor basis where
2082: $Y_e^\dagger Y_e=\diag\left(y_e^2,\,y_\mu^2,\,y_\tau^2\right)$,
2083: \begin{equation}
2084: U_\mathrm{PMNS}^T\,m_\nu\,U_\mathrm{PMNS}
2085: \,=\,
2086: \diag\big(m_1,m_2,m_3\big)\;.
2087: \end{equation}
2088: The mass eigenvalues $m_i$ are positive, and $m_1<m_2<m_3$ for a normal
2089: hierarchy or $m_3<m_1<m_2$ for an inverted hierarchy, respectively.
2090:
2091: %%appp
2092:
2093:
2094: We define the unitary matrix $U_R$ that diagonalizes
2095: the right--handed neutrino mass matrix in
2096: the basis where $Y_\nu^\dagger Y_\nu =\diag\left(y_1^2,\,y_2^2,\,y_3^2\right)$ by
2097: \be
2098: U_R^T M_R U_R = \diag\left(M_1,\,M_2,\,M_3\right),
2099: \ee
2100: where
2101: \be
2102: U_R = \diag(e^{\I\Delta_{1}},e^{\I\Delta_{2}},e^{\I\Delta_{3}}) \cdot V(\Theta_{ij}, \Delta) \cdot \diag(e^{-\I\xi_1/2},e^{-\I\xi_2/2},1)
2103: \ee
2104:
2105: Finally, we use the Wolfenstein parameterization
2106: to describe CKM--type mixing coming from mass matrix of charged leptons.
2107: $V_\mathrm{CKM}$ diagonalizes
2108: the charged lepton mass matrix in the symmetry basis
2109: i.e. the basis where the neutrino mass matrix
2110: is diagonalized by a bimaximal mixing matrix:
2111: \be
2112: V_\mathrm{CKM}^\dagger Y_e^\dagger Y_e V_\mathrm{CKM} =
2113: \diag\left(y_e^2,\,y_\mu^2,\,y_\tau^2\right)
2114: \ee
2115: where
2116:
2117: \begin{widetext}
2118: \begin{equation}
2119: V_\mathrm{CKM}=\begin{pmatrix}
2120: e^{i \phi_e}&&\\
2121: &e^{i \phi_\mu}&\\
2122: &&e^{i \phi_\tau}\\
2123: \end{pmatrix}
2124: \begin{pmatrix}
2125: 1-\frac{\lambda^2}{2} & \lambda &
2126: A_q\lambda^3\left(\rho-i\eta\left(1-\frac{\lambda^2}{2}\right)\right)\\
2127: -\lambda & 1-\frac{\lambda^2}{2}-i A_q^2 \eta \lambda^4& A_q\lambda^2\left(1+i
2128: \eta\lambda^2\right)\\
2129: A_q\lambda^3\left(1+\rho-i\eta\right) & -A_q\lambda^2 & 1 \\
2130: \end{pmatrix}\; .
2131: \end{equation}
2132: \end{widetext}
2133: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2134: