1: \documentclass[12pt]{article}

2: \voffset= -1.5cm 

3: \hoffset= -1.75cm

4: \textwidth= 17cm

5: \textheight= 23cm

6: 

7: \usepackage{amsmath}

8: \usepackage{graphicx}

9: \numberwithin{equation}{section}

10: 

11: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

12: \begin{document}

13: \baselineskip=24pt

14: \thispagestyle{empty}

15: \topskip=0.5cm

16: \begin{flushright}

17: \begin{tabular}{c}

18: %{\normalsize hep-ph/0609220}\\

19: September 2006

20: \end{tabular}

21: \end{flushright}

22: 

23: \vspace{1cm}

24: 

25: \begin{center}

26: %{\LARGE\bf Flavor Symmetry and\\[1mm]

27: %Vacuum Aligned Mass Textures}

28: 

29: {\Large\bf Flavor Symmetry and Vacuum Aligned Mass Textures}

30: 

31: %{\large\bf Flavor Symmetry and Vacuum Aligned Mass Textures}

32: 

33: \vspace{0.7cm}

34: 

35: Satoru Kaneko$^1$, Hideyuki Sawanaka$^2$, Takaya Shingai$^2$,

36: 

37: Morimitsu Tanimoto$^3$ and Koichi Yoshioka$^4$\\

38: \vspace{0.2in}

39: 

40: {\sl $^1$ Physics Department, Ochanomizu University, 

41: Tokyo 112-8610, Japan}\\

42: {\sl $^2$ Graduate School of Science and Technology,

43: Niigata University, Niigata 950-2181, Japan}\\

44: {\sl $^3$ Physics Department, Niigata University, 

45: Niigata 950-2181, Japan}\\

46: {\sl $^4$  Physics Department, Kyushu University, 

47: Fukuoka 812-8581, Japan}\\

48: \end{center}

49: 

50: \vspace{0.7cm}

51: 

52: \begin{abstract}\noindent

53: The mass matrix forms of quarks and leptons are discussed in theory

54: with permutation flavor symmetry. The structure of scalar potential is

55: analyzed in case that electroweak doublet Higgs fields have 

56: non-trivial flavor symmetry charges. We find that realistic forms of

57: mass matrices are obtained dynamically in the vacuum of the theory,

58: where some of Higgs bosons have vanishing expectation values which

59: lead to vanishing elements in quark and lepton mass matrices. Mass

60: textures are realized in the true vacuum and their positions are

61: controlled by flavor symmetry. An interesting point is that, due to

62: the flavor group structure, the up and down quark mass matrices are

63: automatically made different in the vacuum, which lead to

64: non-vanishing generation mixing. It is also discussed that flavor

65: symmetry is needed to be broken in order not to have too light

66: scalars. The lower bounds of Higgs masses are derived from the

67: experimental data of flavor-changing rare processes such as the

68: neutral K meson mixing.

69: \end{abstract}

70: 

71: \newpage

72: \baselineskip= 24pt

73: 

74: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

75: \section{Introduction}

76: 

77: Flavor symmetry is expected to be a clue to understand the masses and

78: mixing angles of quarks and leptons. It reduces the number of free

79: parameters in Yukawa couplings, and some testable predictions of

80: masses and mixing angles generally follow. The discrete non-Abelian

81: symmetries contain the symmetry groups $S_n$, the dihedral 

82: groups $D_n$, the binary dihedral (quaternion) groups $Q_n$ and the

83: tetrahedral groups $A_n$. Some predictive models with discrete flavor

84: symmetries have been explored by many authors~\cite{S3}-\cite{others}.

85: 

86: The simplest discrete non-Abelian group is $S_3$. The Higgs sector has

87: a rich structure in theory with the $S_3$ flavor symmetry, e.g.\ there

88: are two possibilities that $SU(2)$ doublet Higgs fields have trivial

89: and non-trivial flavor symmetry charges. The former case has been

90: discussed intensively in the literature (see for example

91: Ref.~\cite{HY}). The latter case is also expected to have

92: characteristic phenomenology where Yukawa couplings of quarks and

93: leptons are described by renormalizable operators.

94: 

95: In this paper, we discuss the mass matrix forms of quarks and leptons

96: in the case that $SU(2)$ doublet Higgs fields have 

97: non-trivial $S_3$ flavor charges. We perform the analysis of Higgs

98: potential at the electroweak scale and examine whether some of Higgs

99: bosons have vanishing expectation values. In this case, vanishing

100: elements (texture zeros) of fermion mass matrices are obtained

101: dynamically in the vacuum of the theory, and their positions are

102: controlled by flavor symmetry. Such zeros in the mass matrices have

103: often been assumed by hand~\cite{F3R}-\cite{Rodejohann}, unlike our

104: scheme. An interesting point of the scheme is that, due to 

105: the $S_3$ group structure, the up and down quark mass matrices

106: automatically have different forms at the vacuum, which lead to

107: non-vanishing generation mixing. The suppression of flavor-changing

108: neutral currents (FCNC) mediated by multiple Higgs fields will also be

109: discussed.

110: 

111: This paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we present some

112: fundamentals of the $S_3$ group and the $S_3$ symmetry invariant form

113: of Yukawa couplings (mass matrices) in the supersymmetric case. In

114: Sections 3 and 4, the symmetry-invariant Higgs potential is

115: constructed and its structure is analyzed, especially focusing on the

116: conditions for vanishing vacuum expectation values (VEVs). In 

117: Section 5, we show that fermion mass matrices favored by the recent

118: experimental data are highly limited in our $S_3$ framework. In

119: Sections 6 and 7, several other phenomenological issues, i.e.\ the

120: Higgs spectrum with flavor symmetry breaking effects and tree-level

121: FCNC processes, are investigated. Section 8 is devoted to summarizing

122: our results.

123: 

124: \bigskip

125: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

126: \section{$S_3$ invariant mass matrix}

127: 

128: In this section, the $S_3$-invariant forms of mass matrices are

129: presented. For more details of the $S_3$ group structure and

130: symmetry-invariant forms, see, for example, 

131: Ref.~\cite{HY}. The $S_3$ group has three irreducible representations;

132: two singlets and one doublet, which we denote throughout this paper 

133: as ${\bf 1_S}$ (singlet), ${\bf 1_A}$ (pseudo singlet) 

134: and {\bf 2} (doublet), respectively.

135: \begin{table}[t]

136: \begin{center}

137: \begin{tabular}{c|ccc}

138:   & ~~${\bf 1_S}$~~ & ~~${\bf 1_A}$~~ & ~~{\bf 2}~~ \\ \hline

139: ${\bf 1_S}$ & ${\bf 1_S}$ & ${\bf 1_A}$ & {\bf 2} \\

140: ${\bf 1_A}$ & ${\bf 1_A}$ & ${\bf 1_S}$ & {\bf 2} \\

141: {\bf 2} & {\bf 2} & {\bf 2} & ${\bf 2}+{\bf 1_A}+{\bf 1_S}$ 

142: \end{tabular}

143: \caption{$S_3$ tensor products.}

144: \label{tp}

145: \end{center}

146: \end{table}

147: The decomposition of tensor products is shown in Table~\ref{tp}. A

148: non-trivial product 

149: is ${\bf 2}\times{\bf 2}={\bf 2}+{\bf 1_A}+{\bf 1_S}$. For two

150: doublets $\psi=(\psi_1,\psi_2)^T$ and $\phi=(\phi_1,\phi_2)^T$, that

151: is explicitly given by

152: \begin{eqnarray}

153:  \psi\times\phi &=&

154:  \begin{pmatrix}

155:    \psi^\dag_1 \phi_2 \\ \psi^\dag_2 \phi_1

156:  \end{pmatrix}_{\bf 2}

157:  +(\psi^\dag_1 \phi_1-\psi^\dag_2 \phi_2)_{\bf 1_A}

158:  +(\psi^\dag_1 \phi_1+\psi^\dag_2 \phi_2)_{\bf 1_S}\ ,

159: \end{eqnarray}

160: where the suffixes in the right hand side of the equation 

161: denote $S_3$ representations. Another form of product is written by

162: using $\psi_{C}\equiv (\psi^\ast_2,\psi^\ast_1)^T$ which behaves as

163: a doublet. The tensor product of $\psi_{C}$ with another 

164: doublet $\phi$ becomes

165: \begin{eqnarray}

166:  \psi_{C} \times \phi &=&

167:  \begin{pmatrix}

168:    \psi_2\phi_2 \\ \psi_1\phi_1

169:  \end{pmatrix}_{\bf 2}

170:  +(\psi_1\phi_2-\psi_2\phi_1)_{\bf 1_A}

171:  +(\psi_1\phi_2+\psi_2\phi_1)_{\bf 1_S}\ .

172: \label{tensor}

173: \end{eqnarray}

174: Since this latter form of product does not contain any complex

175: conjugates, it is useful for describing, e.g.\ Majorana masses for

176: neutrinos and holomorphic terms in supersymmetric theory. It is

177: mentioned that the two types of $S_3$ invariants given above

178: correspond to two invariant tensors of $SU(2)$, which 

179: contains $S_3$ as a subgroup.

180: 

181: Let us discuss quark/lepton mass matrices, where both left-handed and

182: right-handed fermions transform under a single $S_3$ symmetry. We

183: suppose that two of three generations belong to $S_3$ doublets and the

184: others are singlets. In this paper, we consider supersymmetric theory 

185: and then matter superfields of first two 

186: generations $\Psi_{L_{1,2}}$ and $\Psi_{R_{1,2}}$ are treated 

187: as $S_3$ doublets, into which left and right-handed fermions are

188: embedded as $\psi_{L_{1,2}}$ and $\psi^{\,c}_{R_{1,2}}$, respectively.

189: As for $SU(2)$ weak doublet Higgses, all three types 

190: of $S_3$ irreducible representations are introduced; a 

191: doublet $(H_1,H_2)^T$, a pseudo singlet $H_A$ and a 

192: singlet $H_S$ for each of up and down type Higgs sector. It is found

193: from the tensor product (\ref{tensor}) that the most general

194: supersymmetric Yukawa (mass) terms are written as

195: \begin{equation}

196:   W_y \,=\, \Psi_L{}_i\,(M_D){}_{ij}\,\Psi_R{}_j\ ,

197: \end{equation}

198: \begin{equation}

199:   M_D \,=\, \left(

200:   \begin{tabular}{cc|c}

201:     $aH_{1}$ & $bH_{S}+cH_{A}$ & $dH_{2}$ \\

202:     $bH_{S}-cH_{A}$ & $aH_{2}$ & $dH_{1}$ \\ \hline 

203:     $eH_{2}$ & $eH_{1}$ & $fH_{S}$        

204:   \end{tabular} \right),

205:   \label{MD}

206: \end{equation}

207: where $a$, $b$, $\cdots$, $f$ are independent Yukawa coupling constants.

208: 

209: It is noticed that, if some of Higgs bosons have vanishing expectation

210: values in the vacuum of the theory, corresponding mass matrix elements

211: vanish and then mass (not Yukawa) texture is realized. That is the

212: scheme we adopt in this paper for quark/lepton mass matrices.

213: A non-trivial issue is whether such VEVs are obtained in the

214: electroweak symmetry breaking vacuum. Therefore the Higgs potential should

215: be carefully examined.

216: 

217: Finally, the $S_3$-invariant bare Majorana mass for matter 

218: superfield $\Psi_i$ ($i=1,2,3$) is given by

219: \begin{equation}

220:   W_m \,=\, \Psi_i\,(M_R)_{ij}\,\Psi{}_j\ ,

221: \end{equation}

222: \begin{equation}

223:   M_R \,=\, \left(

224:   \begin{tabular}{cc|c}

225:     & $M_1$ & \\

226:     $M_1$ & & \\ \hline

227:     & & $M_2$

228:   \end{tabular} \right).

229: \end{equation}

230: 

231: \bigskip

232: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

233: \section{$S_3$ Higgs scalar potential}

234: 

235: Let us consider supersymmetric theory with $S_3$ flavor symmetry and 

236: introduce the following Higgs superfields:

237: \begin{eqnarray*}

238: \left\{ \begin{array}{ccl}

239:   \hat{H}_{uS},\ \hat{H}_{dS} &:& S_3 \ {\rm singlets} \\

240:   \hat{H}_{uA},\ \hat{H}_{dA} &:& S_3 \ {\rm pseudo\ singlets} \\

241:   (\hat{H}_{u1},\hat{H}_{u2}),\ (\hat{H}_{d1},\hat{H}_{d2}) 

242:   &:& S_3 \ {\rm doublets}

243: \end{array}\right.\ .

244: \end{eqnarray*}

245: The symmetry-invariant supersymmetric Lagrangian is

246: \begin{equation}

247:   {\cal L} \,=\, \int d^2\theta d^2\bar\theta\ K 

248:   +\left(\int d^2\theta\ W + {\rm h.c.}\right),

249: \end{equation}

250: \begin{eqnarray}

251:   K &=& \!\!\sum_{\alpha = S, A, 1, 2}

252:   \left( \hat{H}^\dagger_{u\alpha} e^{G_u} \hat{H}_{u\alpha} 

253:     +\hat{H}^\dagger_{d\alpha} e^{G_d} \hat{H}_{d\alpha} \right), \\ 

254:   W &=& \mu_S \hat{H}_{uS} \epsilon \hat{H}_{dS} 

255:   +\mu_A \hat{H}_{uA} \epsilon \hat{H}_{dA} 

256:   +\mu_D \left( \hat{H}_{u1} \epsilon \hat{H}_{d2} 

257:     +\hat{H}_{u2} \epsilon \hat{H}_{d1} \right) ,

258: \end{eqnarray}

259: where $G_{u,d}\equiv\pm\frac{1}{2}g_{Y}\hat{V}_{Y}+g_2\hat{V}_2$ with

260: the electroweak vector superfields $\hat{V}_Y$ and $\hat{V}_2$, 

261: and $g_Y$ and $g_2$ are the corresponding gauge coupling

262: constants. The mass parameters $\mu_{S,A,D}$ are generally complex 

263: and $\epsilon$ is the antisymmetric tensor for $SU(2)$ weak 

264: indices ($\epsilon^{12}=1$). The Higgs scalar potential is then given by

265: \begin{equation}

266:   V \,=\, V_{\rm susy} + V_{\rm soft}\ ,

267: \end{equation}

268: \begin{eqnarray}

269:   V_{\rm susy} &=& \frac{1}{2} D^2_Y +\frac{1}{2}\sum_{a=1,2,3}(D^a)^2 

270:   \nonumber \\

271:   && +\left|\mu_S\right|^2 \left( H^\dagger_{uS}H_{uS} 

272:     +H^\dagger_{dS}H_{dS} \right) 

273:   +\left|\mu_A\right|^2 \left( H^\dagger_{uA}H_{uA} 

274:     +H^\dagger_{dA}H_{dA} \right) \nonumber \\

275:   && +\left|\mu_D\right|^2 \left( H^\dagger_{u1}H_{u1} 

276:     +H^\dagger_{d1}H_{d1} +H^\dagger_{u2}H_{u2} 

277:     +H^\dagger_{d2}H_{d2}\right), 

278: \end{eqnarray}

279: \begin{eqnarray}

280:   V_{\rm soft} &=& m^2_{uS}H^\dagger_{uS}H_{uS}

281:   +m^2_{dS} H^\dagger_{dS}H_{dS} +\left(b_S H_{uS}\epsilon H_{dS} 

282:     +{\rm h.c.} \right)  \nonumber \\

283:   && +m^2_{uA} H^\dagger_{uA}H_{uA} +m^2_{dA} H^\dagger_{dA}H_{dA} 

284:   +\left( b_A H_{uA}\epsilon H_{dA} +{\rm h.c.} \right) \nonumber \\

285:   && +m^2_{uD} (H^\dagger_{u1}H_{u1} +H^\dagger_{u2}H_{u2})

286:   +m^2_{dD} (H^\dagger_{d1}H_{d1} +H^\dagger_{d2}H_{d2})  \nonumber \\

287:   && +\left[ b_D \left( H_{u1}\epsilon H_{d2} +H_{u2}\epsilon H_{d1}

288:     \right) +{\rm h.c.} \right]\ ,

289: \end{eqnarray}

290: where $b_{x}$, $m_{ux}$ and $m_{dx}$ ($x=S,A,D$) are 

291: the holomorphic and non-holomorphic mass parameters of supersymmetry breaking, respectively.

292: The $D$ terms are explicitly given by

293: \begin{eqnarray}

294:   D_Y &=& -\frac{1}{2} g_Y\left( H^\dagger_{uS}H_{uS} 

295:     -H^\dagger_{dS}H_{dS} +H^\dagger_{uA}H_{uA} -H^\dagger_{dA}H_{dA}

296:   \right. \nonumber \\

297:   && +\left. H^\dagger_{u1}H_{u1} -H^\dagger_{d1}H_{d1}

298:     +H^\dagger_{u2}H_{u2} -H^\dagger_{d2}H_{d2} \right), \\

299:   D^a &=& -g_2 \left( H^\dagger_{uS} T^a H_{uS} 

300:     +H^\dagger_{dS} T^a H_{dS} +H^\dagger_{uA} T^a H_{uA} 

301:     +H^\dagger_{dA} T^a H_{dA} \right. \nonumber \\

302:   && +\left. H^\dagger_{u1} T^a H_{u1} 

303:     +H^\dagger_{d1} T^a H_{d1} +H^\dagger_{u2} T^a H_{u2}

304:     +H^\dagger_{d2} T^a H_{d2} \right) ,

305: \end{eqnarray}

306: with $T^a$ ($a=1,2,3$) is the $SU(2)$ weak generators. It should be

307: noted that $V_{\rm soft}$ is introduced as the most general

308: supersymmetry-breaking Higgs soft terms compatible with 

309: the $S_3$ symmetry.

310: 

311: We here mention a possibility of spontaneous breakdown of CP

312: symmetry. The following terms in $V_{\rm soft}$ which contain complex

313: couplings could be sources of CP violation:

314: \begin{equation}

315:   b_S H_{uS}\epsilon H_{dS} +b_A H_{uA}\epsilon H_{dA}

316:   +b_D \left( H_{u1}\epsilon H_{d2} +H_{u2}\epsilon H_{d1} \right) 

317:   +{\rm h.c.} \ .

318: \end{equation}

319: Analyzing the stationary conditions for the Higgs potential, it is

320: understood that the phases of Higgs VEVs should 

321: satisfy $\theta_{u\alpha}+\theta_{d\alpha}=0$ ($\alpha=S,A,1,2$) 

322: where $\theta_{u\alpha(d\alpha)}$ are the up(down)-type Higgs phases.

323: While these phases do not directly appear in the Higgs scalar

324: potential at the vacuum, they cannot be removed in general by field

325: redefinitions unlike in the minimal supersymmetric standard 

326: model (MSSM)\@. Therefore there is a possibility of causing

327: spontaneous CP breakdown by taking account of complex phases of Higgs

328: VEVs in Higgs-mediated processes.

329: 

330: \bigskip

331: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

332: \section{Analysis of Higgs scalar potential}

333: 

334: Hereafter we assume that the charged Higgs fields do not develop

335: nonzero VEVs so as to make the $U(1)_{EM}$ symmetry remains intact

336: after the electroweak symmetry breaking. The $S_3$ Higgs scalar

337: potential we analyze thus becomes

338: \begin{eqnarray}

339:   V &=& \left( \left|\mu_S\right|^2 +m^2_{uS} \right)v_{uS}^2 

340:   +\left( \left|\mu_S\right|^2 +m^2_{dS} \right) v_{dS}^2 

341:   -2b_Sv_{uS}v_{dS} \nonumber \\ 

342:   && +\left( \left|\mu_A\right|^2 +m^2_{uA} \right) v_{uA}^2 

343:   +\left( \left|\mu_A\right|^2 +m^2_{dA} \right) v_{dA}^2 

344:   -2b_Av_{uA}v_{dA} \nonumber \\

345:   && +\left( \left|\mu_D\right|^2 +m^2_{uD} \right)

346:   \left( v_{u1}^2 + v_{u2}^2 \right) 

347:   +\left( \left|\mu_D\right|^2 +m^2_{dD} \right)

348:   \left( v_{d1}^2 + v_{d2}^2 \right)  \nonumber \\[1mm]

349:   && -2b_D \left( v_{u1}v_{d2} + v_{u2}v_{d1} \right) 

350:   \,+\frac{g^2_Y+g^2_2}{8} X^2,

351:   \label{potential}

352: \end{eqnarray}

353: \begin{equation}

354:   X \,\equiv\, v^2_{uS}-v^2_{dS}+v^2_{uA}-v^2_{dA}+v^2_{u1}-v^2_{d1}

355:   +v^2_{u2}-v^2_{d2},

356: \end{equation}

357: where $v_x$ are the absolute values of Higgs scalars:

358: \begin{eqnarray}&&

359:   v_{uS} \,=\, \left|\left\langle H^0_{uS}\right\rangle\right|, \quad

360:   v_{uA} \,=\, \left|\left\langle H^0_{uA}\right\rangle\right|, \quad

361:   v_{u1} \,=\, \left|\left\langle H^0_{u1}\right\rangle\right|, \quad

362:   v_{u2} \,=\, \left|\left\langle H^0_{u2}\right\rangle\right|, 

363:   \nonumber \\ &&

364:   v_{dS} \,=\, \left|\left\langle H^0_{dS}\right\rangle\right|, \quad

365:   v_{dA} \,=\, \left|\left\langle H^0_{dA}\right\rangle\right|, \quad

366:   v_{d1} \,=\, \left|\left\langle H^0_{d1}\right\rangle\right|, \quad

367:   v_{d2} \,=\, \left|\left\langle H^0_{d2}\right\rangle\right|,

368: \end{eqnarray}

369: and the parameters $b_{S,A,D}$ have been chosen to be real positive 

370: by field redefinitions. Notice that the scalar 

371: potential (\ref{potential}) is invariant under the label-exchanging

372: transformations, $1\leftrightarrow 2$, $S\leftrightarrow A$ 

373: and/or $u\leftrightarrow d$.

374: 

375: First we discuss the instability of scalar potential at the origin of

376: field space. The potential parameters have to satisfy at least one of

377: the following conditions in order to break the electroweak gauge

378: symmetry:

379: \begin{eqnarray}

380:   b_S^2 &>& (\left|\mu_S\right|^2 +m^2_{uS})(\left|\mu_S\right|^2

381:   +m^2_{dS})\ , \\

382:   b_A^2 &>& (\left|\mu_A\right|^2 +m^2_{uA})(\left|\mu_A\right|^2 

383:   +m^2_{dA})\ , \\

384:   b^2_D &>& (\left|\mu_D\right|^2 +m^2_{uD})(\left|\mu_D\right|^2 

385:   +m^2_{dD})\ .

386: \end{eqnarray}

387: Then the equations of motion become

388: \begin{eqnarray} &&

389:   (\left|\mu_S\right|^2 +m^2_{uS})v_{uS} \,=\, 

390:   b_S v_{dS} -X^\prime v_{uS}\ , \quad

391:   (\left|\mu_S\right|^2 +m^2_{dS})v_{dS} \,=\,

392:   b_S v_{uS} +X^\prime v_{dS}\ , 

393:   \label{equation1} \\ &&

394:   (\left|\mu_A\right|^2 +m^2_{uA})v_{uA} \,=\, 

395:   b_A v_{dA} -X^\prime v_{uA}\ , \quad

396:   (\left|\mu_A\right|^2 +m^2_{dA})v_{dA} \,=\,

397:   b_A v_{uA} +X^\prime v_{dA}\ , 

398:   \label{equation2} \\ &&

399:   (\left|\mu_D\right|^2 +m^2_{uD})v_{u1} \,=\,

400:   b_D v_{d2} -X^\prime v_{u1}\ , \quad

401:   (\left|\mu_D\right|^2 +m^2_{dD})v_{d2} \,=\,

402:   b_D v_{u1} +X^\prime v_{d2}\ ,

403:   \label{equation3} \\ &&

404:   (\left|\mu_D\right|^2 +m^2_{uD})v_{u2} \,=\,

405:   b_D v_{d1} -X^\prime v_{u2}\ , \quad

406:   (\left|\mu_D\right|^2 +m^2_{dD})v_{d1} \,=\,

407:   b_D v_{u2} + A^\prime v_{d1}\ ,

408:   \label{equation4}

409: \end{eqnarray}

410: where $X^\prime=\frac{g^2_Y+g^2_2}{4}X$. These equations

411: (\ref{equation1})-(\ref{equation4}) depend respectively 

412: on $v_{uS(dS)}$, $v_{uA(dA)}$, $v_{u1(d2)}$ and $v_{u2(d1)}$, except

413: in the $X'$ parts. The $Z$ boson mass is given by

414: \begin{equation}

415:   m^2_Z \,=\, \frac{1}{2} (g^2_Y+g^2_2) 

416:   \left( v^2_{uS}+v^2_{dS}+v^2_{uA}+v^2_{dA}

417:     +v^2_{u1}+v^2_{d1}+v^2_{u2}+v^2_{d2} \right).

418: \end{equation}

419: In addition, substituting (\ref{equation1})-(\ref{equation4}) for the

420: scalar potential, we find the depth of the potential at the minimum:

421: \begin{equation}

422:   V_{\rm min} \,=\, -\frac{g^2_Y+g^2_2}{8}X^2 \,\leq\, 0\ .

423:   \label{depth}

424: \end{equation}

425: This expression also holds in the case of $S_3$ symmetry breaking

426: model discussed in later section.

427: 

428: Next we study the possibility of having vanishing VEVs in the minimum

429: of the potential. In general, (\ref{equation1})-(\ref{equation4}) are

430: the coupled equations through the $X$ parts. We separate these

431: equations into three parts  for the singlet (\ref{equation1}), the

432: pseudo singlet (\ref{equation2}), and the doublet (\ref{equation3})

433: and (\ref{equation4}). As for the singlet and pseudo singlet parts, 

434: each coefficients of $X'$ in (\ref{equation1}) and (\ref{equation2})

435: are $v_{u(d)S}$ and $v_{u(d)A}$, respectively. Therefore vanishing

436: VEVs makes the equations trivial within each sector. There is however

437: a bit difference in the $S_3$ doublet part [Eqs.~(\ref{equation3}) and

438: (\ref{equation4})], that is, they cannot be separated from each

439: other. These equations have not only a relation through the $X$ part

440: but also a common parameter $b_D$ which originates from the symmetry

441: invariance.

442: 

443: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

444: \subsection{$S_3$ singlet Higgses}

445: 

446: First let us examine the vanishing VEVs of $S_3$ singlet Higgs

447: fields. In this case, we take the other Higgs VEVs arbitrary. The

448: analysis is the same for pseudo singlet Higgs fields. There are two

449: possible patterns of zero VEVs; one is that both of the up and

450: down-type Higgs VEVs are zero and another is that only one of them is

451: zero.

452: 

453: \begin{itemize}

454: \item $v_{uS}=v_{dS}=0$

455: 

456: This solution always exists. Though such a solution does not make

457: sense in models with one pair of Higgs doublets like the MSSM, it is

458: possible in the present case as long as some of instability conditions

459: for other Higgs parts are satisfied.

460: 

461: \item $v_{uS}=0$, $v_{dS}\neq0$ ~~or~~ $v_{dS}=0$, $v_{uS}\neq0$

462: 

463: It is found that the parameter condition $b_S=0$ is necessary for this

464: solution. For example, if one supposes $v_{uS}=0$ and $v_{dS}\neq 0$,

465: the stationary conditions mean

466: \begin{equation}

467:   b_S \,=\, 0 \quad {\rm ~and~} \quad

468:   \left|\mu_S\right|^2 +m^2_{dS} -\frac{g^2_Y+g^2_2}{4}

469:   \left(-v^2_{dS}+X_0\right) \,=\, 0,

470: \end{equation}

471: where we have defined $X_0=X|_{v_{uS}=v_{dS}=0}$. Therefore as long as

472: the parameter $b_S$ is nonzero, the solution with one of VEVs being

473: zero does not exist. It is noted that the condition $b_S=0$ is

474: difficult to be satisfied exactly at any scale, and hence such a type

475: of solution may not be realistic.

476: \end{itemize}

477: 

478: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

479: \subsection{$S_3$ doublet Higgses}

480: \label{DHiggs}

481: 

482: Including $S_3$ doublet Higgs fields makes the theory complex but is

483: promising. Unlike the case of $S_3$ singlet Higgses, all the four

484: VEVs, $v_{u1}$, $v_{u2}$, $v_{d1}$ and $v_{d2}$ should be

485: simultaneously taken into account because $b_D$ is a common parameter

486: as we mentioned above. In the analysis, we take the singlet Higgs

487: VEVs, $v_{uS}$, $v_{dS}$, $v_{uA}$ and $v_{dA}$, to be arbitrary. It is

488: important to notice that the stationary conditions for $S_3$ doublet

489: Higgses are described (except in the $X$ parts) by two pairs of VEVs:

490: Eq.~(\ref{equation3}) for $(v_{u1},v_{d2})$ and

491: Eq.~(\ref{equation4}) for $(v_{u2},v_{d1})$. It can be seen from the

492: result in the previous section that the existence of VEV pairs

493: means that the VEV forms such as $v_{u1}=0$ and $v_{d2}\neq0$ are not

494: allowed, i.e.\ only one VEV in each pair does not develop a nonzero

495: VEV unless an unlikely condition $b_D=0$ is satisfied.

496: 

497: There are 16 ($=2^4$) patterns for the 4 VEVs of $S_3$ doublets. Among

498: them, only 7 patterns are theoretically independent due to the

499: label-exchanging invariances of the potential: $1\leftrightarrow 2$

500: and $u\leftrightarrow d$, mentioned before. For example, in the case

501: that $v_{u1}=v_{d2}=0$ and $v_{u2},\,v_{d1}\neq0$, the equations of

502: motion give

503: \begin{equation}

504:   2|\mu_D|^2 +m^2_{uD} +m^2_{dD} \,=\,

505:   b_D\left( \frac{v_{u2}}{v_{d1}}+\frac{v_{d1}}{v_{u2}} \right).

506: \end{equation}

507: A similar form of vacuum equation is obtained for a theoretically

508: equivalent case that $v_{u2}=v_{d1}=0$ and $v_{u1},\,v_{d2}\neq0$ by

509: use of label exchanges. Therefore it is enough to consider either of

510: these patterns. All 7 possible patterns obtained from the potential

511: analysis are shown in Table~\ref{doublet}.

512: \begin{table}[t]

513: \begin{center}

514: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c||c|} \hline

515: $ v_{u1}$ & $v_{u2}$ & $v_{d1}$ & $v_{d2}$ & conditions \\ \hline\hline

516: $0$ & $0$ & $0$ & $0$ & \\ \hline

517: $0$ & $0$ & $\not\!0$ & $0$ & $b_D=0$ \\ \hline

518: $0$ & $\not\!0$ & $\not\!0$ & $0$ & \\ \hline

519: $0$ & $0$ & $\not\!0$ & $\not\!0$ & $b_D=0$ \\ \hline

520: $0$ & $\not\!0$ & $0$ & $\not\!0$ & 

521: $b_D=0$, ~ $2\left|\mu_D\right|^2 +m^2_{uD} +m^2_{dD}=0$ \\ \hline

522: $\not\!0$ & $\not\!0$ & $0$ & $\not\!0$ & 

523: $b_D=0$, ~ $2\left|\mu_D\right|^2 +m^2_{uD} +m^2_{dD}=0$ \\ \hline

524: $\not\!0$ & $\not\!0$ & $\not\!0$ & $\not\!0$ & \\ \hline

525: \end{tabular}

526: \end{center}

527: \caption{All representative VEV patterns of the $S_3$ doublet Higgs

528: fields. The blank entries denote no needs of parameter

529: conditions.\bigskip}

530: \label{doublet} 

531: \end{table}

532: It is noted that the parameter conditions given in Table~\ref{doublet}, 

533: i.e.\ $b_D=0$ and $2|\mu_D|^2+m^2_{uD}+m^2_{dD}=0$, are unlikely to be

534: satisfied exactly, because these relations are not protected by

535: symmetry arguments and generally unstable against quantum corrections

536: (though there are some models for a vanishing $b$ parameter at a given

537: scale~\cite{bzero}). Therefore in this paper we do not consider the

538: solutions with non-trivial parameter conditions. In the end, we have

539: found the relevant vacuum solutions without parameter conditions,

540: which are presented in Table~\ref{doublet2}.

541: \begin{table}[t]

542: \begin{center}

543: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|} \hline

544: $v_{u1}$ & $v_{u2}$ & $v_{d1}$ & $v_{d2}$ \\ \hline\hline

545: $0$ & $0$ & $0$ & $0$ \\ \hline

546: $0$ & $\not\!0$ & $\not\!0$ & $0$ \\ \hline

547: $\not\!0$ & $0$ & $0$ & $\not\!0$ \\ \hline

548: $\not\!0$ & $\not\!0$ & $\not\!0$ & $\not\!0$ \\ \hline

549: \end{tabular}

550: \end{center}

551: \caption{All VEV patterns of the $S_3$ doublet Higgs fields without

552: parameter conditions.\bigskip}

553: \label{doublet2}

554: \end{table}

555: 

556: To summarize the results in Section 4, we have found all possible

557: minima of the scalar potential for $S_3$ singlet and doublet Higgs

558: fields (Table~\ref{summary}). These solutions do not require any exact

559: tuning of Lagrangian parameters for electroweak symmetry breaking and

560: are physically available. The potential depth at each minimum is

561: controlled by Higgs mass parameters in the Lagrangian, and any of the

562: VEV patterns in Table~\ref{summary} can be made the global vacuum of

563: the theory, as seen in Eq.~(\ref{depth}).

564: \begin{table}[t]

565: \begin{center}

566: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|} \hline

567: $v_{uS}$ & $v_{dS}$ & $v_{uA}$ & $v_{dA}$ & $v_{u1}$ & $v_{u2}$ 

568: & $v_{d1}$ & $v_{d2}$ \\ \hline \hline

569:  $0$ & $0$ & $0$ & $0$ & $0$ &     &     & $0$ \\ \hline

570:  $0$ & $0$ & $0$ & $0$ &     & $0$ & $0$ &     \\ \hline

571:  $0$ & $0$ & $0$ & $0$ &     &     &     &     \\ \hline

572:  $0$ & $0$ &     &     & $0$ & $0$ & $0$ & $0$ \\ \hline

573:  $0$ & $0$ &     &     & $0$ &     &     & $0$ \\ \hline

574:  $0$ & $0$ &     &     &     & $0$ & $0$ &     \\ \hline

575:  $0$ & $0$ &     &     &     &     &     &     \\ \hline

576:      &     & $0$ & $0$ & $0$ & $0$ & $0$ & $0$ \\ \hline

577:      &     & $0$ & $0$ & $0$ &     &     & $0$ \\ \hline

578:      &     & $0$ & $0$ &     & $0$ & $0$ &     \\ \hline

579:      &     & $0$ & $0$ &     &     &     &     \\ \hline

580:      &     &     &     & $0$ & $0$ & $0$ & $0$ \\ \hline

581:      &     &     &     & $0$ &     &     & $0$ \\ \hline

582:      &     &     &     &     & $0$ & $0$ &     \\ \hline

583:      &     &     &     &     &     &     &     \\ \hline

584: \end{tabular}

585: \end{center}

586: \caption{All possible minima of the scalar potential for $S_3$ singlet

587: and doublet Higgs fields without tuning of Lagrangian parameters for

588: electroweak symmetry breaking. The blank entries denote

589: non-vanishing VEVs.\bigskip}

590: \label{summary}

591: \end{table}

592: 

593: \bigskip

594: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

595: \section{Quark and lepton mass textures} 

596: 

597: As a phenomenological application of the vacuum analysis performed in

598: the previous section, we study in this section the mass matrix forms

599: of quarks and leptons derived from $S_3$ flavor symmetry. Let us

600: consider a supersymmetric theory with three-generation quark and

601: lepton superfields in addition to the Higgs content previously

602: analyzed. The three generations belong to a 

603: reducible {\bf 3} representation of $S_3$, that is, two of three

604: generations behave as a doublet and the other is a singlet or a pseudo

605: singlet. When the first two generation superfields consist 

606: of $S_3$ doublets, the most general form of mass matrix is given 

607: by (\ref{MD}) with non-vanishing Higgs VEVs.

608: 

609: A usual approach often seen in the literature to obtain realistic

610: forms of mass matrices is to control coupling constants of effective

611: Yukawa operators with additional symmetries or to adjust coupling

612: constants by hand so that the experimental data is reproduced. Unlike

613: these approaches, our strategy in this paper is to dynamically realize

614: mass matrix forms (mass textures) in the vacuum of the theory. That

615: is, as discussed in the previous section, some of Higgs VEVs vanish at

616: the minimum of scalar potential, which in turn lead to 

617: texture (zero) forms of quark/lepton mass matrices. The available

618: candidates of vacua are listed in Table~\ref{summary}. One can see

619: from the table that the VEV structures of up and down-type Higgs

620: fields are not parallel and rather different due to the group

621: properties of $S_3$ flavor symmetry. This fact is favorable in light

622: of the experimental data of fermion masses and mixing angles, which

623: data is well known to show that the up and down quark sectors would

624: have highly different generation structures.

625: 

626: In the following, we assume as an example that 

627: the $S_3$ representations of three-generation matter fields 

628: are ${\bf 2}+{\bf 1_S}$. If one adopts ${\bf 1_A}$ instead 

629: of ${\bf 1_S}$, phenomenological results are changed according to

630: Eq.~(\ref{tensor}). Examining the vacuum patterns in

631: Table~\ref{summary}, we find that the following case with four zero

632: VEVs leads to the simplest texture (i.e.\ the maximal number of zero

633: matrix elements) with non-trivial flavor mixing:

634: \begin{equation}

635:   v_{u1} = v_{d2} = v_{uS} = v_{dS} = 0 , \qquad

636:   v_{u2},\; v_{d1},\; v_{uA},\; v_{dA} \,\neq\, 0.

637:   \label{vev0}

638: \end{equation}

639: The VEV pattern obtained by interchanging the 

640: labels $1\leftrightarrow2$ is also the case. That can be covered by

641: exhausting the generation label exchanges of matter fields, and

642: therefore we safely focus on the vacuum (\ref{vev0}) and examine all

643: types of $S_3$ charge assignments of matter fields. In what follows,

644: we use the notation 

645: that $Q_i$, $u_i$, $d_i$, $L_i$, $e_i$, and $\nu_i$ ($i=1,2,3$) are

646: the superfields of left-handed quarks, right-handed up quarks,

647: right-handed down quarks, left-handed leptons, right-handed charged

648: leptons and right-handed neutrinos, respectively.

649: 

650: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

651: \subsection{Quark mass textures}

652: 

653: When the first and second generation quarks behave as $S_3$ doublets, 

654: the up and down quark mass textures in the vacuum (\ref{vev0}) are

655: read from the generic form of mass matrix (\ref{MD}):

656: \begin{equation}

657:   M_u \,=\, \left(

658:     \begin{array}{ccc}

659:       & \beta v_{uA} & \gamma v_{u2} \\

660:       -\beta v_{uA} & \alpha v_{u2} & \\

661:       \delta v_{u2} & & 

662:     \end{array}\right) \ , \qquad

663:   M_d \,=\, \left(

664:     \begin{array}{ccc}

665:       \bar\alpha v_{d1} & \bar\beta v_{dA} & \\

666:       -\bar\beta v_{dA} & & \bar\gamma v_{d1} \\

667:       & \bar\delta v_{d1} & 

668:     \end{array}\right) \ ,

669: \end{equation}

670: where the blank entries mean zeros, 

671: and $\alpha$, $\beta$, $\cdots$, $\bar \gamma$ and $\bar \delta$ are

672: the Yukawa coupling constants. In this flavor basis, the above

673: matrices appear not to lead to appropriate mass hierarchies and

674: generation mixing. We have exhausted the $S_3$ charge assignments of

675: matter fields and found that only the following 4 cases are almost

676: consistent with the current experimental data of fermion masses and

677: mixing angles.

678: 

679: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

680: \subsubsection{$\bf (Q_2,Q_1)+Q_3$, $\;\;\bf (u_3,u_2)+u_1$, 

681: $\;\;\bf (d_2,d_3)+d_1$}

682: 

683: The title of this subsection means the $S_3$ charge assignment that

684: the second and first generations of left-handed quark superfields

685: consist of a doublet and the third one $Q_3$ is a singlet, and

686: similarly for $u_i$ and $d_i$. In this case, the quark mass matrices

687: are given by

688: \begin{equation}

689:   M_u \,=\, \left(

690:   \begin{array}{ccc}

691:     & b_u & -c_u \\ d_u & c_u & \\ & & i_u

692:   \end{array}\right) \ , \qquad\quad

693:   M_d \,=\, \left(

694:   \begin{array}{ccc}

695:     a_d & -b_d & \\ & e_d & b_d \\ & & i_d

696:   \end{array}\right) \ .

697: \end{equation}

698: In the first order approximation, they predict the quark mass

699: eigenvalues and mixing angles

700: \begin{eqnarray}

701:  & m_u \,=\, -\frac{b_ud_u}{c_u} \ ,\qquad\quad 

702:   m_c \,=\, c_u \ ,  \qquad\quad 

703:   m_t \,=\, i_u \ , \\

704:  & m_d \,=\, a_d \ , \qquad\quad 

705:   m_s \,=\, e_d \ , \qquad\quad 

706:   m_b \,=\, i_d \ ,    \\ 

707:  & V_{us} \,=\, -\frac{b_u}{c_u}-\frac{b_d}{e_d} \ , \qquad\quad 

708:   V_{cb} \,=\, \frac{b_d}{i_d} \ , \qquad\quad

709:   V_{ub} \,=\, \frac{c_u}{i_u}-\frac{b_ub_d}{c_ui_d} \ ,

710: \end{eqnarray}

711: which lead to a relation among the observables:

712: \begin{equation}

713:   V_{ub} -\frac{m_c}{m_t} \,=\, 

714:   V_{cb}\left(V_{us}+\frac{m_b}{m_s}V_{cb}\right) \ .

715:   \label{rel1}

716: \end{equation}

717: Such parameter-independent relation may be useful to examine whether

718: the model can well describe the observations. If one evaluates the

719: relation (\ref{rel1}) with respect to the mixing matrix 

720: element $V_{cb}$, one third of the observed value is reproduced, which

721: implies a necessity of some modification of the mass matrix forms.

722: 

723: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

724: \subsubsection{$\bf (Q_3,Q_2)+Q_1$, $\;\;\bf (u_1,u_2)+u_3$, 

725: $\;\;\bf (d_3,d_2)+d_1$}

726:  

727: In the second case, $(Q_3,Q_2)$, $(u_1,u_2)$ and $(d_3,d_2)$ are

728: the $S_3$ doublets. The mass matrices then take the forms:

729: \begin{equation}

730:   M_u \,=\, \left(

731:   \begin{array}{ccc}

732:     a_u & & \\ -d_u & e_u & \\ & d_u & i_u

733:   \end{array}\right) \ , \qquad\quad

734:   M_d \,=\, \left(

735:   \begin{array}{ccc}

736:     & b_d & \\ d_d & & -f_d \\ & f_d & i_d

737:   \end{array}\right) \ .

738: \end{equation}

739: The flavor charge assignments of $Q_i$ and $d_i$ are the same, which

740: leads to a generation-symmetric texture form like the Fritzsch

741: ansatz~\cite{F3R} for the down quark mass matrix. Also such charge

742: assignment might be relevant to the flipped $SU(5)$ unified

743: models~\cite{flipped}. The prediction for the quark mass eigenvalues

744: and mixing angles is given by

745: \begin{eqnarray}

746:   & m_u \,=\, \frac{a_ue_u}{\sqrt{d_u^2+e_u^2}} \ , \qquad\quad 

747:     m_c,=\, \sqrt{d_u^2+e_u^2} \ , \qquad\quad 

748:     m_t \,=\, i_u \ , \\

749:   & m_d \,=\, -\frac{b_dd_di_d}{f_d^2} \ ,\qquad\quad 

750:     m_s \,=\, \frac{f_d^2}{i_d} \ ,\qquad\quad 

751:     m_b \,=\, i_d \ , \\

752:   & V_{us} \,=\, \frac{b_di_d}{f_d^2} \ , \qquad\quad 

753:     V_{cb} \,=\, -\frac{f_d}{i_d} \ ,\qquad\quad

754:     V_{ub} \,=\, \frac{b_df_d}{i_d^2} \ ,

755: \end{eqnarray}

756: in the first order approximation. It is noted that the leading

757: contributions to the mixing angles mainly come from the down quark

758: sector, and then satisfy the following two relations among the

759: observables:

760: \begin{equation}

761:   |V_{ub}| \,=\, |V_{us}|\left(\frac{m_s}{m_b}\right)^{3/2}, \qquad\quad

762:   |V_{cb}| \,=\, \sqrt{\frac{m_s}{m_b}} \ .

763: \end{equation}

764: These do not so largely deviate from the experimental data, but

765: predict a bit large (small) value for the mixing matrix element

766: $V_{cb}$ (for the mass eigenvalue $m_s$).

767: 

768: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

769: \subsubsection{$\bf (Q_2,Q_3)+Q_1$, $\;\;\bf (u_2,u_3)+u_1$,

770: $\;\;\bf (d_2,d_1)+d_3$} 

771: 

772: The third pattern is the case that $(Q_2,Q_3)$, $(u_2,u_3)$ 

773: and $(d_2,d_1)$ are the $S_3$ doublets, which lead to the mass

774: textures:

775: \begin{equation}

776:   M_u \,=\, \left(

777:   \begin{array}{ccc}

778:     & b_u & \\ d_u & & f_u \\ & -f_u & i_u

779:   \end{array}\right)  \ , \qquad\quad

780:   M_d \,=\, \left(

781:   \begin{array}{ccc}

782:     a_d & & \\ d_d & e_d & \\ & -d_d & i_d 

783:   \end{array}\right) \ .

784: \end{equation}

785: This type of charge assignment is compatible with $SU(5)$ grand

786: unification~\cite{su5}. The masses and mixing angles are determined in

787: the first order as

788: \begin{eqnarray}

789:  & m_u \,=\, -\frac{b_ud_ui_u}{f_u^2} \ , \qquad

790:   m_c \,=\, \frac{f_u^2}{i_u} \ , \qquad\quad 

791:   m_t \,=\, i_u \ , \\

792:  &  m_d \,=\, \frac{a_de_d}{\sqrt{d_d^2+e_d^2}} \ , \qquad\quad 

793:   m_s \,=\, \sqrt{d_d^2+e_d^2} \ , \qquad\quad 

794:   m_b \,=\, i_d \ , \\

795:  &  V_{us} \,=\, -\frac{b_ui_u}{f_u^2} \ , \qquad\quad 

796:   V_{cb} \,=\, -\frac{f_u}{i_u}\ ,  \qquad\quad

797:   V_{ub} \,=\, \frac{b_u}{f_u} \ .

798: \end{eqnarray}

799: It is noted that the leading contributions to the mixing angles mainly

800: come from the up quark sector, and then satisfy the following two

801: relations among the observables:

802: \begin{eqnarray}

803:   |V_{cb}| \,=\, \sqrt{\frac{m_c}{m_t}} \ , \qquad\quad

804:  | V_{us}V_{cb}| \,=\, |V_{ub}| \ ,

805: \end{eqnarray}

806: with which we would have some discrepancy between the prediction

807: and the experimental data.

808: 

809: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

810: \subsubsection{$\bf (Q_2,Q_3)+Q_1$, $\;\;\bf (u_2,u_3)+u_1$, 

811: $\;\;\bf (d_1,d_2)+d_3$} 

812: \label{case4}

813: 

814: The last case is the $S_3$ charges; $(Q_2,Q_3)$, $(u_2,u_3)$ 

815: and $(d_1,d_2)$ are the doublets, which assignment is also consistent

816: with $SU(5)$ unification. Note that this type of assignment differs from

817: the third case above, only for the doublet constitution of

818: right-handed down quarks in the first and second

819: generations. Therefore the third and this fourth cases are physically

820: equivalent if all parameter spaces were taken into account. That is,

821: these two cases correspond to two separate parameter regions in a

822: single theory, both of which regions are phenomenologically

823: viable. The mass texture forms now become

824: \begin{equation}

825:   M_u \,=\, \left(

826:   \begin{array}{ccc}

827:     & b_u & \\ d_u & & f_u \\ & -f_u & i_u

828:   \end{array}\right)  \ , \qquad\quad

829:   M_d \,=\, \left(

830:   \begin{array}{ccc}

831:     & b_d & \\ d_d & e_d & \\ -e_d & & i_d

832:   \end{array}\right) \ ,

833:   \label{matrix4}

834: \end{equation}

835: which give the masses and mixing angles in the first order

836: approximation:

837: \begin{eqnarray}

838:   & m_u \,=\, -\frac{b_ud_ui_u}{f_u^2} \ ,\qquad\quad 

839:   m_c \,=\, \frac{f_u^2}{i_u}\ ,  \qquad\quad 

840:   m_t \,=\, i_u \ , \\

841:   & m_d \,=\, -\frac{b_dd_d}{e_d} \ , \qquad\quad 

842:   m_s \,=\, e_d \ , \qquad\quad 

843:   m_b \,=\, i_d \ , \\

844:   & V_{us} \,=\, -\frac{b_ui_u}{f_u^2}+\frac{b_d}{e_d} \ , \qquad\quad 

845:   V_{cb} \,=\, -\frac{f_u}{i_u} \ , \qquad\quad

846:   V_{ub} \,=\, \frac{b_u}{f_u} \ .

847:   \label{vus4}

848: \end{eqnarray}

849: There are 8 free parameters for 9 observables, and we have one

850: predictive relation

851: \begin{equation}

852:   |V_{cb}| \,=\, \sqrt{\frac{m_c}{m_t}} \ .

853:   \label{rel4}

854: \end{equation}

855: This relation is known to well fit the experimentally observed values

856: and has already been discussed in other theoretical

857: frameworks~\cite{WY,Vcb}. However the precise numerical estimation

858: indicates that the equation (\ref{rel4}) is not exactly satisfied with

859: the observational data: $|V_{cb}|=0.039-0.044$ 

860: and $\sqrt{m_c/m_t}=0.057-0.064$~\cite{PDG}. Some remedies can

861: easily be found. The discrepancy is removed with radiative

862: corrections, for instance, the renormalization-group effects on masses

863: and mixing angles. A naive and probable source of such effects is the

864: large top-quark Yukawa coupling. 

865: (The strong gauge coupling does not

866: affect mass ratios and generation mixing due to its flavor

867: universality.) \ 

868: For example, in the MSSM we obtain the

869: renormalization-group equation

870: \begin{equation}

871:   \frac{d\ln\Big(|V_{cb}|\big/\sqrt{m_c/m_t}\Big)}{d\ln\mu} \,=\, 

872:   \frac{1}{32\pi^2}\left(y_t^2-y_b^2\right).

873: \end{equation}

874: where $\mu$ is the renormalization scale and $y_{t},y_{b}$ are the top 

875: and bottom Yukawa couplings, respectively.

876: The positive coefficient of the top-Yukawa contribution implies that

877: the discrepancy is indeed reduced in lower energy regime. It is

878: however noted that in the present model the flavor symmetry is

879: supposed to be broken at low energy such as the electroweak scale and

880: hence the scale dependence might not be enough to make the relation

881: (\ref{rel4}) fulfilled.

882: 

883: Another possible source of radiative corrections comes from

884: supersymmetry-breaking parameters. The scalar fermions propagate in

885: the loops and the chirality is flipped via holomorphic or

886: non-holomorphic couplings of scalar quarks. In both of these cases,

887: the corrections do not change zero structure of mass textures but

888: could modify nonzero matrix elements, depending on

889: supersymmetry-breaking mass parameters of scalar quarks. For example,

890: if the $(M_u)_{23,32}$ elements receive such corrections, the 

891: relation (\ref{rel4}) is modified and the theory would become viable

892: in light of the current experimental data. We leave a detailed study

893: of model dependence on supersymmetry-breaking parameters of matter

894: fields to future investigations.

895: 

896: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

897: In the present analysis, we have neglected CP-violating phases.

898: All the mass matrix elements in this subsection can be taken to 

899: be real by quark phase redefinitions.

900: This fact implies that the mass matrices are diagonalized by real

901: orthogonal matrices up to overall phase rotations. In this case

902: the observable CP phase is induced by the presence of different

903: phase rotations between the up and down left-handed quarks.

904: This is the case for the quark mass matrices in this subsection.

905: The prediction of quark sector CP violation is consistent with 

906: the experimental data as long as the mixing angles are properly

907: reproduced.

908: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

909: 

910: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

911: \subsection{Lepton mass textures}

912: 

913: Under the standard model gauge symmetry, the flavor charge assignment 

914: and Yukawa couplings of the lepton sector are free from those of the

915: quark sector. One could explore the patterns of $S_3$ charges for

916: lepton fields, just as in the previous analysis for the quark sector,

917: so that various phenomenological constraints are satisfied. However an

918: attractive way to determine lepton flavor charges is to promote the

919: theory to be embedded into grand unification, where lepton and quark

920: multiplets are unified and have the same flavor charges. Along this

921: line of thought, the cases 2, 3, and 4 in the previous section are the

922: candidates to be considered. It is however easily found that the cases

923: 2 and 3 are not reconciled with the experimental data of lepton

924: sector, even if one includes additional Higgs fields in

925: higher-dimensional representations of unified gauge symmetry. Thus we

926: find the unique solution, the case 4 (in Section~\ref{case4}), 

927: for $S_3$ flavor charges of lepton fields which would be compatible

928: both with unification hypothesis and the observed data. It may be

929: interesting to remind that, only from the analysis of quark sector

930: performed in the previous sections, the case 4 has been

931: phenomenologically singled out.

932: 

933: Let us first consider the charged lepton sector. We assume 

934: here $SU(5)$ grand unification because the quark flavor charges in the

935: case 4 are consistent with it. The left-handed charged 

936: leptons $L_i$ are combined with the right-handed down quarks into

937: unified gauge multiplets (anti quintuplets), and 

938: therefore $(L_1,L_2)$ consists of an $S_3$ doublet and $L_3$ a

939: singlet. Similarly, $(e_2,e_3)$ transforms as an $S_3$ doublet 

940: and $e_1$ as a singlet. The charged lepton mass matrix $M_e$ is given

941: by the transpose of that of down quarks $M_d$ in (\ref{matrix4}) and

942: becomes at low energy

943: \begin{eqnarray}

944:   M_e \,\simeq\, r\left(

945:   \begin{array}{ccc}

946:     & d_d & 3 e_d \\[1mm]

947:     b_d & -3 e_d & \\[1mm]

948:     & & i_d

949:   \end{array} \right) \ , 

950:   \label{Me}

951: \end{eqnarray}

952: where we have included a group-theoretical factor `$-3$'~\cite{GJ} in

953: front of the element $e_d$. Such a factor originates from a Yukawa

954: coupling to higher-dimensional Higgs field [e.g.\ 45-plet of $SU(5)$] 

955: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

956: \footnote{The representation of Higgs fields under unified gauge

957: symmetry is independent of the potential analysis at the electroweak

958: scale given in the previous section.}

959: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

960: and is known to make the mass eigenvalues of charged

961: leptons well fitted to the observed values if one takes account of

962: renormalization-group effects on the down quark Yukawa couplings from

963: the strong $SU(3)$ gauge sector [that has been effectively included as

964: the factor $r$ in (\ref{Me})]. The mass 

965: matrices $M_d$ (\ref{matrix4}) and $M_e$ (\ref{Me}) are found to

966: satisfy the relations

967: \begin{equation}

968:   \frac{3m_e}{m_d} \,=\, \frac{m_\mu}{3m_s} \,=\, \frac{m_\tau}{m_b},

969: \end{equation}

970: which lead to a better explanation for the mass eigenvalues than that

971: without the group-theoretical factor. We have found that all the other

972: patterns to include factors $-3$ are not consistent with the

973: observation. Therefore the charged lepton mass texture (\ref{Me}) is

974: the unique simplest solution with our vacuum aligned scheme 

975: in $SU(5)$ grand unification with $S_3$ flavor symmetry.

976: 

977: The mixing matrix which rotates the left-handed charged leptons to

978: diagonalize $M_e$ is 

979: \begin{eqnarray}

980:   U_e \,=\, \left(

981:   \begin{array}{ccc}

982:     1 & \frac{d_d}{3e_d} & \frac{3e_d}{i_d}\\[1mm]

983:     -\frac{d_d}{3e_d} & 1 & - \frac{d_d}{i_d}\\[1mm]

984:     -\frac{3e_d}{i_d} & 0 & 1

985:   \end{array} \right) \ , 

986:   \label{Ue}

987: \end{eqnarray}

988: in the first order approximation. It is found from this expression

989: that $|(U_e)_{13}|=m_\mu/m_\tau\simeq1/17$ and $|(U_e)_{23}|=

990: |(U_e)_{12}(U_e)_{13}|\ll m_\mu/m_\tau$. In particular, the latter

991: means that the observed large lepton mixing between the second and

992: third generations must come from the neutrino sector. As 

993: for $(U_e)_{12}$, a naive upper bound is obtained from the

994: experimental upper bound on the 1-3 lepton 

995: mixing $V_{e3}$; $\;|(U_e)_{12}|<\sqrt{2}(V_{e3})_{\rm max}$, 

996: where $V_{\alpha i}$ ($\alpha=e,\mu,\tau$ and $i=1,2,3$) is the

997: observable lepton mixing matrix~\cite{MNS}. Interestingly, a lower

998: bound on the charged lepton contribution to the 1-2 lepton 

999: mixing $|(U_e)_{12}|$ can be expressed in terms of the observables by

1000: imagining that there should not be any fine tuning of parameters in

1001: reproducing $V_{us}$ in (\ref{vus4}). That 

1002: gives $|(U_e)_{12}|>3(m_e/m_\mu)/V_{us}\sim1/16$.

1003: 

1004: We introduce the three generation right-handed neutrinos and utilize

1005: the seesaw mechanism~\cite{seesaw} to obtain tiny neutrino masses. The

1006: neutrino Dirac mass texture $M_\nu$ in the vacuum of theory and the

1007: right-handed neutrino bare Majorana mass matrix $M_R$ are respectively

1008: read from the flavor symmetry invariance and given by

1009: \begin{eqnarray}

1010:   M_\nu \,=\, \left(

1011:   \begin{matrix}

1012:     & b_\nu & c_\nu \\

1013:     -b_\nu & e_\nu & \\

1014:     g_\nu & &

1015:   \end{matrix} \right ), \qquad

1016:   M_R \,=\, \left(

1017:   \begin{matrix}

1018:     & M_1 & \\

1019:     M_1 & & \\

1020:     & & M_2

1021:   \end{matrix} \right).

1022: \end{eqnarray}

1023: Here we have taken the $S_3$ charge of right-handed neutrinos 

1024: as $(\nu_1,\nu_2)+\nu_3$, that is, the first two generations make a

1025: doublet. It is however noticed that the charge assignment 

1026: of $\nu_i$ (equivalently the label changing effect of $\nu_i$) is

1027: completely irrelevant to low-energy physics and the generation

1028: structure of light neutrino mass matrix is determined only by the

1029: flavor charge of left-handed leptons $L_i$. After integrating out

1030: heavy modes, the light neutrino mass 

1031: matrix $M_L=-M_\nu M_R^{-1}M_\nu^T$ becomes

1032: \begin{equation}

1033:   M_L \,=\, \frac{b_\nu^2}{M_1}\left(

1034:   \begin{array}{ccc}

1035:     -z & 1 & -x \\[1mm]

1036:     1 & 2y & -xy \\[1mm]

1037:     -x & -xy & 0 

1038:   \end{array} \right) \ ,

1039: \end{equation}

1040: \begin{equation}

1041:   x \,=\, \frac{g_\nu}{b_\nu} \ , \qquad

1042:   y \,=\, \frac{e_\nu}{b_\nu} \ , \qquad

1043:   z \,=\, \frac{c_\nu^2}{b_\nu^2}\frac{M_1}{M_2} \ .

1044: \end{equation}

1045: Taking into account that the charged lepton sector has small

1046: generation mixing, it is found that this form of neutrino mass matrix

1047: is suitable for large generation mixing with the inverted mass

1048: hierarchy of light neutrinos: $m_2\simeq m_1\gg m_3$. The 2-3 large

1049: lepton mixing is controlled by $x\sim{\cal O}(1)$. The observed mass

1050: squared differences imply the traceless 

1051: condition $2y\simeq z$ ($|y|,|z|\ll1$).

1052: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1053:  In the limit $y,z\to0$, the

1054: 1-2 and 2-3 neutrino generation mixings are 

1055: maximal ($\theta_{12}^\nu=\theta_{23}^\nu=\pi/4$) and the 1-3 angle

1056: becomes zero ($\theta_{13}^\nu=0$). Including finite effects 

1057: of $y$ and $z$, we obtain the first order expressions:

1058: \begin{equation}

1059:   \tan^2\theta_{12}^\nu \,=\, 1-\frac{2y+z}{\sqrt{1+x^2}} \ , \qquad

1060:   \tan\theta_{23}^\nu \,=\, x \ , \qquad

1061:   \tan\theta_{13}^\nu \,=\, \frac{-xy}{\sqrt{1+x^2}} \ ,

1062: \end{equation}

1063: \begin{equation}

1064:   m_1 = \frac{b^2_\nu}{M_2}\left(\sqrt{1+x^2}-y+\frac{z}{2}\right) \ , 

1065:   \qquad

1066:   m_2 = \frac{b^2_\nu}{M_2}\left(\sqrt{1+x^2}+y-\frac{z}{2}\right) \ ,

1067:   \qquad

1068:   m_3 = 0 \ .

1069: \end{equation}

1070: If the small mixing contributions from $M_e$ are neglected, there is a

1071: prediction which relates the observables in neutrino oscillation

1072: experiments:

1073: \begin{equation}

1074:   \frac{2\tan\theta_{13}^\nu}{\tan\theta_{23}^\nu}

1075:   +\tan\theta_{12}^\nu-1 \,=\, \frac{m_2^2-m_1^2}{4(m_2^2-m_3^2)} \ .

1076:   \label{nurel}

1077: \end{equation}

1078: This is certainly consistent with the current experimental

1079: data. Finally, including the charged lepton contribution (\ref{Ue}),

1080: we obtain

1081: \begin{eqnarray}

1082:   V_{e2} &=& \sin\theta_{12}^\nu

1083:   -(U_e)_{12}\cos\theta_{12}^\nu\cos\theta_{23}^\nu

1084:   +(U_e)_{13}\cos\theta_{12}^\nu \sin\theta_{23}^\nu  \ , \\

1085:   V_{\mu 3} &=& \sin\theta_{23}^\nu \ , \\

1086:   V_{e3} &=& \sin\theta_{13}^\nu -(U_e)_{12}\sin\theta_{23}^\nu 

1087:   -(U_e)_{13}\cos\theta_{23}^\nu \ ,

1088: \end{eqnarray}

1089: where $\theta_{13}^\nu\ll 1$ has been used. 

1090: %It is found 

1091: %that $V_{e3}$ has a lower bound; $|V_{e3}|\geq 0.04$ from the

1092: %experimental values, the relation (\ref{nurel}), and the constraints

1093: %on $(U_e)_{12,13}$ discussed above. 

1094: It is found 

1095: that $V_{e3}$ has a lower bound; $|V_{e3}|\geq 0.04$, which is derived

1096:  by taking account of the experimental data, $V_{e2}$, $V_{\mu 3}$,

1097: $\Delta m^2_{12}$ and $\Delta m^2_{23}$ \cite{PDG} with 

1098: the relation (\ref{nurel}) and the constraints 

1099: on $(U_e)_{12,13}$ discussed above. 

1100: That will be tested in future

1101: experiments such as the double Chooz~\cite{doublechooz}.

1102: 

1103: \medskip

1104: 

1105: In Section 5, we have shown that our scheme for generating zero

1106: texture forms with vacuum alignment is applied to mass matrices of

1107: quarks and leptons. Exhausting the patterns of matter flavor charges,

1108: we have found the highly limited numbers of charge assignments are

1109: phenomenologically viable. In particular, our scheme is also

1110: consistent with $SU(5)$ grand unification, and the uniquely determined 

1111: matter flavor charges predict typical low-energy phenomenology such as

1112: the relations among the observables, independently of model parameters.

1113: 

1114: \bigskip

1115: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1116: \section{Higgs mass spectrum and $S_3$ breaking terms}

1117: 

1118: The analysis in the previous section has shown that the 

1119: vacuum (\ref{vev0}) is phenomenologically interesting if applied to

1120: the quark and lepton mass textures. However the model has a problem

1121: that some massless bosons generally appear at any vacuum where more

1122: than one sets of Higgs bosons have non-vanishing VEVs. This general

1123: feature comes from the fact that the Higgs scalar potential given in

1124: Section 3 has an enhanced global symmetry $SU(2)\times U(1)^2$ and

1125: leads to massless Nambu-Goldstone bosons in the electroweak broken

1126: phases. It is therefore reasonable to (softly) break the flavor

1127: symmetry within the scalar potential so as not to enhance the global

1128: symmetry. In this paper we introduce supersymmetry-breaking soft terms

1129: which violate $S_3$ flavor symmetry. We find that the following simple

1130: set of breaking terms is appropriate for the present purpose:

1131: \begin{equation}

1132:   V_{\not S_3} \,=\, b_{SD}H_{uS}H_{d2} +b'_{SD}H_{u1}H_{dS} 

1133:   +b_{AD}H_{uA}H_{d1} +b'_{AD}H_{u2}H_{dA} +{\rm h.c.}\ ,

1134: \label{S3break}

1135: \end{equation}

1136: %where $b_{SD(AD)},b'_{SD(AD)}$ are the b parameter of soft supersymmetry 

1137: %breaking.

1138: There are several reasons why these terms are chosen: (i) The global

1139: symmetry of total Higgs potential is broken down to $U(1)_X$ under

1140: which $H_{uS}$ and $H_{u1}$ ($H_{dS}$ and $H_{d2}$) are positively

1141: (negatively) charged. Note that, combined with 

1142: the $U(1)_Y$ hypercharge symmetry, $U(1)_X$ is converted to another

1143: global $U(1)$ where $H_{uA}$ and $H_{d1}$ ($H_{dA}$ and $H_{u2}$) are

1144: positively (negatively) charged (see Table~\ref{U(1)}).

1145: \begin{table}[t]

1146: \begin{center}

1147: \begin{tabular}{|c|cccccccc|} \hline

1148: & $H_{uS}$ & $H_{dS}$ & $H_{uA}$ & $H_{dA}$ & $H_{u1}$ & $H_{u2}$ &

1149: $H_{d1}$ & $H_{d2}$ \\ \hline

1150: $U(1)_X$ & +1 & $-1$ & 0 & 0 & +1 & 0 & 0 & $-1$ \\ \hline

1151: $U(1)_Y$ & +1 & $-1$ & +1 & $-1$ & +1 & $+1$ & $-1$ & $-1$ \\ \hline

1152: \end{tabular}

1153: \end{center}

1154: \caption{The $U(1)$ symmetries of the Higgs scalar potential with 

1155: the $S_3$ breaking terms (\ref{S3break}).\bigskip}

1156: \label{U(1)}

1157: \end{table}

1158: As discussed in Section~\ref{DHiggs}, there are four sets of up and

1159: down type Higgs fields in the original potential without

1160: flavor-breaking terms, which potential therefore has 

1161: four $U(1)$ invariances. Each set of ($H_u,H_d$) are vector-like

1162: fields under these $U(1)$s. Including the soft terms (\ref{S3break})

1163: economically breaks two of them, and hence $U(1)_{X,Y}$ in

1164: Table~\ref{U(1)} remain intact. It is important to notice that, in the

1165: electroweak broken vacuum (\ref{vev0}), $U(1)_X$ is unbroken and the

1166: Nambu-Goldstone boson of $U(1)_Y$ is partly absorbed by the massive

1167: gauge boson $Z$ and becomes unphysical. Therefore no physical

1168: Nambu-Goldstone fields are associated with symmetry breaking. We

1169: numerically checked by examining the neutral Higgs mass matrix that 

1170: there appear no massless scalar bosons. (ii) The second reason is

1171: that, when including the breaking terms (\ref{S3break}), the

1172: stationary conditions can still be solved without imposing any tuning

1173: of model parameters. (iii) Flavor breaking effects in

1174: supersymmetry-breaking holomorphic mass terms do not propagate to

1175: other sectors. Such a favorable property for the model simplicity does

1176: not hold in cases that flavor symmetry violation resides in other

1177: supersymmetry-breaking sectors.

1178: 

1179: The model also predicts a light Higgs boson exactly parallel to the

1180: MSSM case. In order to find an approximate form of the Higgs mass

1181: spectrum, we take a simplifying assumption:

1182: \begin{eqnarray}

1183:   & \left|\mu_x\right|^2 +m^2_{ux} \,=\, 

1184:   \left|\mu_x\right|^2 +m^2_{dx} \,\equiv\, \bar m^2, \qquad

1185:   b_x \,\equiv\, \bar b, \qquad  (x=S,A,D) \\

1186:   & b_{SD}=b'_{SD}=b_{AD}=b'_{AD} \,\equiv\, \bar b'\ ,

1187: \end{eqnarray}

1188: with a hierarchy ${\bar m}^2,\,|\bar b|,\,|\bar b'|\,\gg\,v^2

1189: \equiv v^2_{u2}+v^2_{d1}+v^2_{uA}+v^2_{dA}$. In this case, we can

1190: analytically write down the mass matrices of Higgs fields. In

1191: particular, for the real parts of neutral Higgs bosons, the mass

1192: matrix is given by

1193: \begin{equation}

1194: M_H^2 =

1195: \begin{array}{c}

1196:   h^0_{u1} \\ h^0_{u2} \\ h^0_{uA} \\ h^0_{uS} \\ h^0_{d2} \\

1197:   h^0_{d1} \\ h^0_{dA} \\ h^0_{dS}

1198: \end{array}

1199: \left(\begin{array}{cccccccc}

1200:  \bar m^2 & & & & -\bar b & & & -\bar b' \\

1201:  & \bar b\frac{v_{d1}}{v_{u2}} +\bar b'\frac{v_{dA}}{v_{u2}} 

1202:  & & & & -\bar b & -\bar b' & \\

1203:  & & \bar b\frac{v_{dA}}{v_{uA}} +\bar b'\frac{v_{d1}}{v_{uA}} 

1204:  & & & -\bar b' & -\bar b & \\

1205:  & & & \bar m^2 & -\bar b' & & & -\bar b \\

1206:  -\bar b & & & -\bar b' & \bar m^2 & & & \\

1207:  & -\bar b & -\bar b' & & & \bar b\frac{v_{u2}}{v_{d1}} 

1208:  +\bar b'\frac{v_{uA}}{v_{d1}} & & \\ 

1209:  & -\bar b' & -\bar b & & & & \bar b\frac{v_{uA}}{v_{dA}} 

1210:  +\bar b'\frac{v_{u2}}{v_{dA}} & \\

1211:  -\bar b' & & & -\bar b & & & & \bar m^2 

1212: \end{array}\right) ,

1213: \end{equation}

1214: where $h^0_x$ ($x=u1,u2,\cdots$) are the neutral components of Higgs

1215: bosons. Diagonalizing this matrix, we obtain the neutral Higgs masses

1216: squared:

1217: \begin{equation}

1218:   \{M^2_{h^0},\ M^2_{H^0_1},\ M^2_{H^0_2},\ M^2_{H^0_3},\ M^2_{H^0_4}\}

1219:   \,=\, \{ {\cal O}(v^2),\ \bar m^2-\bar b -\bar b',\ 

1220:   \bar m^2 +\bar b -\bar b',\ \bar m^2 -\bar b +\bar b',\ 

1221:   \bar m^2 +\bar b +\bar b'\},

1222: \end{equation}

1223: and the other three mass eigenvalues squared are written in rather 

1224: complicated expressions, but of the order 

1225: of ${\cal O}(\bar m^2,\bar b,\bar b')$. We therefore have a light mode

1226: with a weak scale mass ${\cal O}(v)$ and its eigenfunction is

1227: explicitly given by

1228: \begin{equation}

1229:   h^0 \,=\, \frac{1}{v}\left( v_{uA} h^0_{uA} +v_{dA} h^0_{dA} 

1230:     +v_{u2}h^0_{u2} +v_{d1}h^0_{d1} \right).

1231: \end{equation}

1232: This light Higgs mode receives a sizable radiative correction from

1233: large top Yukawa coupling similar to the MSSM, and would be made heavy

1234: enough to satisfy the lower bound from the LEP experiment~\cite{PDG}.

1235: 

1236: \bigskip

1237: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1238: \section{Tree-level FCNC}

1239: 

1240: Since there are multiple electroweak doublet Higgses which couple to

1241: matter fields, flavor-changing processes are mediated at classical

1242: level by these Higgs fields. In the previous section, we show that all

1243: but one Higgs bosons have masses of the order of

1244: supersymmetry-breaking parameters. Therefore the experimental

1245: (un)observations of FCNC rare events would lead to a bound on the

1246: supersymmetry breaking scale. Among various experimental constraints,

1247: we find the most important constraint comes from the neutral K meson

1248: mixing, which gives a lower bound on heavy Higgs masses being larger

1249: than a few TeV\@.

1250: 

1251: The down quark mass matrix in Eq.~(\ref{matrix4}) is diagonalized as

1252: \begin{equation}

1253:   U_L^\dagger M_dU_R^{} \,=\, 

1254:   \left(\begin{array}{ccc}

1255:     m_d  & & \\

1256:     & m_s & \\

1257:     & & m_b

1258:   \end{array}\right)\ ,

1259: \end{equation}

1260: \begin{equation}

1261:   U_L \,\simeq\, \left(

1262:   \begin{array}{ccc}

1263:     1 & \frac{b_d}{e_d} & 0 \\

1264:     -\frac{b_d}{e_d} & 1 & -\frac{e_dd_d}{i^2_d} \\

1265:     -\frac{b_dd_d}{i^2_d} & \frac{e_dd_d}{i^2_d} & 1 

1266:   \end{array} \right), \qquad\quad

1267:   U_R \simeq \left(

1268:   \begin{array}{ccc}

1269:     1 & \frac{d_d}{e_d} & -\frac{e_d}{i_d} \\

1270:     -\frac{d_d}{e_d} & 1 & 0 \\

1271:     \frac{e_d}{i_d} & \frac{d_d}{i_d} & 1 

1272:   \end{array} \right)\ .

1273: \end{equation}

1274: Here and hereafter in this section, we simply 

1275: take $b_d\simeq d_d$. The other parameters are fixed by the mass

1276: eigenvalues. Tree-level FCNC is mediated by Higgs fields like the

1277: diagram shown in Fig.~\ref{FCNC-K}.

1278: \begin{figure}[t]

1279: \centerline{\includegraphics[scale=0.8]{tree-level-diagram.eps}}

1280: \caption{A Higgs-mediated tree-level FCNC process for the K meson

1281: system.\bigskip}

1282: \label{FCNC-K}

1283: \end{figure}

1284: For the heavy mass eigenstates $H^0_i$ ($i=1,2,3,4$), the 

1285: tree-level $K_L$-$K_S$ mass difference $\Delta m_K^{\rm tree}$ is

1286: given by the matrix element of the effective Hamiltonian between K

1287: mesons~\cite{FCNC}, which is analytically evaluated from the above

1288: mixing matrices in the present case as

1289: \begin{eqnarray}

1290:   \Delta m_K^{\rm tree} &=& 2\,{\rm Re}\,

1291:   \big\langle K^0\big|H_{\rm eff}\big|\bar K^0\big\rangle \nonumber \\

1292:   &\sim& \frac{m_b^2m_Kf_K^2}{6v_{d1}^2 M_H^2}\left[\,

1293:     \left(\frac{m_K}{m_s+m_d}\right)^2 \left(\frac{m_s}{m_b}\right)^2

1294:     -\eta^2\left\{\left(\frac{m_K}{m_s+m_d}\right)^2

1295:       +\frac{1}{2}\right\} \,\right]\ ,

1296: \end{eqnarray}

1297: where $m_K$ and $f_K$ are the mass and decay constant of K meson 

1298: and $M_H$ is 

1299: %defined as

1300: an average of the Higgs 

1301: masses, 

1302:  $ 1 / M_H^{2} = \frac{1}{4}\big( 1 / M_{H^0_1}^{2} + 1 / M_{H^0_2}^{2} + 

1303: 1 / M_{H^0_3}^{2} + 1 / M_{H^0_4}^{2} \big)$. 

1304: The parameter $\eta$ contains the

1305: down-type quark Yukawa couplings which do not contribute to mass terms

1306: and explicitly given by

1307: \begin{equation}

1308:   \eta \,=\, \frac{(y_d^S)_{22}b_dv_{d1}}{m_b^2}

1309:   -\frac{(y_d^S)_{13}d_dv_{d1}}{m_sm_b}\ ,

1310: \end{equation}

1311: where $y_d^S$ denotes the matrix of Yukawa coupling of down-type

1312: quarks to the $S_3$ singlet Higgs boson. The $S_3$ singlet 

1313: Higgs $H_S$ has a vanishing VEV in the present vacuum, and 

1314: therefore $\eta$ is regarded as a free parameter. For 

1315: example, $\eta=0$ if one does not include $H_S$ in the theory. The

1316: other Higgs fields also contribute to the K meson mixing in a similar

1317: order.

1318: 

1319: In order to estimate the bound on supersymmetry breaking scale, we

1320: calculate the ratio of the exact numerical 

1321: value $\Delta m_K^{\rm tree}$ to the standard 

1322: contribution $\Delta m_K^{\rm SM}$. In Fig.~\ref{ratio}, we show the

1323: ratio versus the averaged Higgs mass $M_H$ for the cases 

1324: of $\eta=0$ and $\eta=0.03$ as typical values.

1325: \begin{figure}[t]

1326: \centerline{\includegraphics[scale=0.8]{ratio.eps}}

1327: \caption{$\Delta m_K^{\rm tree}/\Delta m_K^{\rm SM}$ as the function

1328: of Higgs mass parameter $M_H$. The solid and dashed lines correspond

1329: to $\eta=0$ and $0.03$, respectively.\bigskip}

1330: \label{ratio}

1331: \end{figure}

1332: It is found from the figure that heavy Higgs masses, in turn the

1333: supersymmetry breaking masses, are bounded from below so as to

1334: suppress the extra Higgs contribution compared with the standard model

1335: one, which bound is roughly given by

1336: \begin{equation}

1337:   M_H \,\geq\, \left\{

1338:   \begin{array}{rcl} 

1339:     3.8 {\rm ~TeV} && (\eta=0) \\[2mm]

1340:     1.4 {\rm ~TeV} && (\eta=0.03) \\

1341:   \end{array} \right.,

1342: \label{bound}

1343: \end{equation}

1344: where we have used the experimental data $m_K=490$~MeV, $f_K=160$~MeV

1345: and taken $v_{d1}=100$~GeV as a typical electroweak scale. Other

1346: flavor-changing rare processes are also suppressed for such heavy

1347: Higgs fields of few TeVs.

1348: For example, the $\mu\rightarrow e+\gamma$ process is

1349: given in terms  of extra Higgs masses and lepton Yukawa couplings

1350:  \cite{mue}.  The branching ratio is found to be suppressed  enough 

1351: under the constraint of eq.({\ref{bound}).

1352: 

1353: 

1354: \bigskip

1355: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1356: \section{Summary}

1357: 

1358: In this paper we have discussed the structure of Higgs potential and

1359: fermion mass matrices in supersymmetric models with $S_3$ flavor

1360: symmetry. The electroweak doublet Higgs fields belong to non-trivial

1361: representations of the flavor symmetry and lead to restricted forms of

1362: vacuum structure. We have examined possible zero elements (textures)

1363: of quark and lepton mass matrices. Our approach to have mass textures

1364: is rather different from previous ones in a sense that flavor symmetry

1365: does not forbid coupling constants of (effective) Yukawa operators,

1366: but leads to mass texture zeros by ensuring some of Higgs fields have

1367: vanishing expectation values in the vacuum of the theory. The

1368: vanishing mass matrix elements are obtained dynamically in the vacuum

1369: without any exact tuning of model parameters, and their positions are

1370: controlled by flavor symmetry. An interesting point is that, due to

1371: the flavor group structure, the up and down quark mass matrices are

1372: automatically made different, which lead to non-vanishing generation

1373: mixing. We have exhausted the patterns of flavor symmetry charges of

1374: matter fields and found that the simplest, viable forms of mass

1375: matrices including the neutrino sector are uniquely determined. In

1376: particular the lepton mixing $V_{e3}$ is predicted within the range

1377: that will be tested in near future experiments.

1378: 

1379: We have also discussed the physical mass spectrum of Higgs bosons and

1380: its phenomenological implication. The flavor symmetry is softly broken

1381: by a certain class of holomorphic supersymmetry-breaking mass terms of

1382: Higgs bosons. That neither destabilizes the desired vacuum nor

1383: introduces any fine tuning of coupling constants. Given these flavor

1384: breaking terms, it is found that all Higgs bosons, except for the

1385: lightest one, can be made heavier than a few TeV enough to satisfy the

1386: experimental bounds such as that from the neutral K meson mixing. 

1387: Detail phenomenological  analyses including CP violation and FCNC

1388: will be presented elsewhere.

1389: 

1390: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1391: \vspace{1cm}

1392: We would like to thank J. Kubo, T. Kobayashi and H. Nakano for helpful 

1393: discussions. This work was supported in part by scientific grants from the 

1394: Ministry 

1395: of Education, Science, Sports, and Culture of Japan (No.~17540243 and

1396: 17740150), and grant-in-aid for the scientific research on priority

1397: area (\#441) "Progress in elementary particle physics of the 21st

1398: century through discoveries of Higgs boson and 

1399: supersymmetry" (No.~16081209).

1400: 

1401: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1402: \newpage

1403: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

1404: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1405: \bibitem{S3}

1406: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1407: S.~Pakvasa and H.~Sugawara,

1408: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 73} (1978) 61;

1409: \\

1410: D.~Wyler,

1411: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 19} (1979) 330;

1412: \\

1413: L.J.~Hall and H.~Murayama,

1414: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 75} (1995) 3985;

1415: \\

1416: R.~Dermisek and S.~Raby,

1417: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 62} (2000) 015007;

1418: \\

1419: R.N.~Mohapatra, A.~Perez-Lorenzana and C.A.~de Sousa Pires,

1420: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 474} (2000) 355;

1421: \\

1422: J.~Kubo, A.~Mondragon, M.~Mondragon and E.~Rodriguez-Jauregui,

1423: Prog.\ Theor.\ Phys.\ {\bf 109} (2003) 795

1424: [Erratum-ibid.\ {\bf 114} (2005) 287];

1425: \\

1426: T.~Kobayashi, J.~Kubo and H.~Terao,

1427: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 568} (2003) 83;

1428: \\

1429: P.F.~Harrison and W.G.~Scott,

1430: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 557} (2003) 76;

1431: \\

1432: J.~Kubo, H.~Okada and F.~Sakamaki,

1433: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 70} (2004) 036007;

1434: \\

1435: S.-L.~Chen, M.~Frigerio and E.~Ma,

1436: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 70} (2004) 073008

1437: [Erratum-ibid.\ D {\bf 70} (2004) 079905];

1438: \\

1439: W.~Grimus and L.~Lavoura, 

1440: JHEP {\bf 0508} (2005) 013;

1441: \\

1442: Y.~Koide, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 73} (2006) 057901.

1443: 

1444: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1445: \bibitem{HY}

1446: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1447: N.~Haba and K.~Yoshioka,

1448: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 739} (2006) 254.

1449: 

1450: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1451: \bibitem{Sn}

1452: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1453: Y.~Yamanaka, H.~Sugawara and S.~Pakvasa,

1454: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 25} (1982) 1895 [Erratum-ibid. D {\bf 29} (1984)

1455: 2135];

1456: \\

1457: C.~Hagedorn, M.~Lindner and R.~N.~Mohapatra, 

1458: JHEP {\bf 0606} (2006) 042.

1459: 

1460: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1461: \bibitem{D4}

1462: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1463: W.~Grimus and L.~Lavoura,

1464: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 572} (2003) 189;

1465: \\

1466: W.~Grimus, A.~S.~Joshipura, S.~Kaneko, L.~Lavoura and M.~Tanimoto,

1467: JHEP {\bf 0407} (2004) 078;

1468: \\

1469: W.~Grimus, A.~S.~Joshipura, S.~Kaneko, L.~Lavoura, H.~Sawanaka 

1470: and M.~Tanimoto,

1471: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 713} (2005) 151.

1472:  

1473: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1474: \bibitem{Q6}

1475: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1476: K.S.~Babu and J.~Kubo, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 71} (2005) 056006;

1477: \\

1478: Y.~Kajiyama, E.~Itou and J.~Kubo,

1479: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 743} (2006) 74.

1480: 

1481: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1482: \bibitem{Q8}

1483: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1484: M.~Frigerio, S.~Kaneko, E.~Ma and M.~Tanimoto,

1485: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 71} (2005) 011901.

1486: 

1487: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1488: \bibitem{A4}

1489: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1490: E.~Ma and G.~Rajasekaran,

1491: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 64} (2001) 113012;

1492: \\

1493: E.~Ma,

1494: Mod.\ Phys.\ Lett.\ A {\bf 17} (2002) 2361;

1495: \\

1496: K.S.~Babu, E.~Ma and J.W.F.~Valle,

1497: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 552} (2003) 207;

1498: \\

1499: M.~Hirsch, J.C.~Romao, S.~Skadhauge, J.W.F.~Valle and A.~Villanova del

1500: Moral,

1501: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 69} (2004) 093006;

1502: \\

1503: A.~Zee,

1504: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 630} (2005) 58;

1505: \\

1506: G.~Altarelli and F.~Feruglio,

1507: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 720} (2005) 64;

1508: \\

1509: X.-G.~He, Y.-Y.~Keum and R.R.~Volkas,

1510: JHEP {\bf 0604} (2006) 039;

1511: \\

1512: E.~Ma, H.~Sawanaka and M.~Tanimoto, hep-ph/0606103.

1513: 

1514: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1515: \bibitem{others}

1516: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1517: E.~Derman and H.S.~Tsao,

1518: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 20} (1979) 1207;

1519: \\

1520: D.~Chang, W.Y.~Keung and G.~Senjanovic,

1521: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 42} (1990) 1599;

1522: \\

1523: D.B.~Kaplan and M.~Schmaltz,

1524: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 49} (1994) 3741;

1525: \\

1526: P.H.~Frampton and T.W.~Kephart,

1527: Int.\ J.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 10} (1995) 4689;

1528: \\

1529: A.~Aranda, C.D.~Carone and R.F.~Lebed,

1530: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 474} (2000) 170;

1531: \\

1532: N.~Haba, A.~Watanabe and K.~Yoshioka,

1533: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 97} (2006) 041601;

1534: \\

1535: C.~Hagedorn, M.~Lindner and F.~Plentinger,

1536: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 74} (2006) 025007.

1537: 

1538: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1539: \bibitem{F3R}  

1540: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1541: H.~Fritzsch,

1542: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 73} (1978) 317;

1543: \\

1544: P.~Ramond, R.G.~Roberts and G.G.~Ross, 

1545: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 406} (1993) 19.

1546: 

1547: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1548: \bibitem{pre}  

1549: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1550: H.~Nishiura, K.~Matsuda and T.~Fukuyama,

1551: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 60} (1999) 013006;

1552: \\

1553: E.K.~Akhmedov, G.C.~Branco and M.N.~Rebelo,

1554: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 84} (2000) 3535;

1555: \\

1556: S.K.~Kang and C.S.~Kim,

1557: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 63} (2001) 113010.

1558: 

1559: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1560: \bibitem{neutrino}

1561: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1562: P.H.~Frampton, S.L.~Glashow and D.~Marfatia,

1563: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 536} (2002) 79;

1564: \\

1565: Z.-z.~Xing,

1566: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 530} (2002) 159;

1567: \\

1568: R.~Barbieri, T.~Hambye and A.~Romanino,

1569: JHEP {\bf 0303} (2003) 017;

1570: \\

1571: A.~Ibarra and G.G.~Ross,

1572: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 575} (2003) 279.

1573: 

1574: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1575: \bibitem{tanimoto}

1576: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1577: A.~Kageyama, S.~Kaneko, N.~Shimoyama and M.~Tanimoto,

1578: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 538} (2002) 96;

1579: \\

1580: S.~Kaneko and M.~Tanimoto,

1581: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 551} (2003) 127;

1582: \\

1583: M.~Honda, S.~Kaneko and M.~Tanimoto,

1584: JHEP {\bf 0309} (2003) 028;

1585: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 593} (2004) 165;

1586: \\

1587: S.~Kaneko, H.~Sawanaka and M.~Tanimoto,

1588: JHEP {\bf 0508} (2005) 073.

1589: 

1590: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1591: \bibitem{BO}

1592: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1593: M.-C.~Chen and K.T.~Mahanthappa,

1594: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 68} (2003) 017301;

1595: \\

1596: M.~Bando and M.~Obara,

1597: Prog.\ Theor.\ Phys.\ {\bf 109} (2003) 995;

1598: \\

1599: M.~Bando, S.~Kaneko, M.~Obara and M.~Tanimoto,

1600: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 580} (2004) 229.

1601: 

1602: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1603: \bibitem{inverted}

1604: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1605: L.~Lavoura,

1606: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 609} (2005) 317;

1607: \\

1608: W.~Grimus, S.~Kaneko, L.~Lavoura, H.~Sawanaka and M.~Tanimoto, 

1609: JHEP {\bf 0601} (2006) 110.

1610: 

1611: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1612: \bibitem{FS}

1613: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1614: M.~Frigerio and A.~Y.~Smirnov,

1615: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 67} (2003) 013007.

1616: 

1617: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1618: \bibitem{WY}

1619: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1620: N.~Uekusa, A.~Watanabe and K.~Yoshioka, 

1621: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 71} (2005) 094024;

1622: \\

1623: A.~Watanabe and K.~Yoshioka,

1624: JHEP {\bf 0605} (2006) 044.

1625: 

1626: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1627: \bibitem{Rodejohann}

1628: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1629: C.~Hagedorn and W.~Rodejohann,

1630: JHEP {\bf 0507} (2005) 034;

1631: \\

1632: A.~Merle and W.~Rodejohann,

1633: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 73} (2006) 073012.

1634: 

1635: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1636: \bibitem{bzero}

1637: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1638: M.~Dine, Y.~Nir and Y.~Shirman,

1639: Phys.\ Rev. \ D {\bf 55} (1997) 1501;

1640: \\

1641: R.~Rattazzi an U.~Sarid,

1642: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 501} (1997) 297;

1643: \\

1644: M.~Yamaguchi and K.~Yoshioka,

1645: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 543} (2002) 189.

1646: 

1647: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1648: \bibitem{flipped}

1649: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1650: J.P.~Derendinger, J.E.~Kim and D.V.~Nanopoulos,

1651: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 139} (1984) 170;

1652: \\

1653: I.~Antoniadis, J.R.~Ellis, J.S.~Hagelin and D.V.~Nanopoulos,

1654: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 194} (1987) 231.

1655: 

1656: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1657: \bibitem{su5}

1658: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1659: H.~Georgi and S.L.~Glashow, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 32} (1974) 438.

1660: 

1661: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1662: \bibitem{Vcb}

1663: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1664: K.S.~Babu and Q.~Shafi,

1665: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 47} (1993) 11;

1666: \\

1667: K.S.~Babu and R.N.~Mohapatra,

1668: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 74} (1995) 2418.

1669: 

1670: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1671: \bibitem{PDG}

1672: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1673: S.~Eidelman {\it et al.} [Particle Data Group Collaboration],

1674: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 592} (2004) 1.

1675: 

1676: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1677: \bibitem{GJ} 

1678: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1679: H.~Georgi and C.~Jarlskog,

1680: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 86} (1979) 297;

1681: \\

1682: S.~Dimopoulos, L.J.~Hall and S.~Raby,

1683: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 68} (1992) 1984.

1684: 

1685: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1686: \bibitem{MNS}

1687: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1688: Z.~Maki, M.~Nakagawa and S.~Sakata, 

1689: Prog.\ Theor.\ Phys.\ {\bf 28} (1962) 870.

1690: 

1691: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1692: \bibitem{seesaw}

1693: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1694: T.~Yanagida,

1695: in Proceedings of the 

1696: {\it ``Workshop on the Unified Theory and the Baryon Number in 

1697: the Universe''}, Tsukuba, Japan, 1979, 

1698: edited by O.~Sawada and A.~Sugamoto, KEK Report No.~KEK-79-18, p.~95;

1699: Prog.\ Theor.\ Phys.\ {\bf 64} (1980) 1103;

1700: \\

1701: P.~Ramond,

1702: in {\it Talk given at the Sanibel Symposium},

1703: Palm Coast, Fla., 1979, preprint CALT-68-709;

1704: \\

1705: S.L.~Glashow,

1706: in {\it Quarks and leptons, proceedings of the advanced study 

1707: institute (Carg\`ese, Corsica, 1979)},

1708: J.-L.~Basdevant et al.~eds., Plenum, New York 1981;

1709: \\

1710: for an early work, see

1711: P.~Minkowski, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 67} (1977) 421;

1712: \\

1713: See also R.N.~Mohapatra and G.~Senjanovic,

1714: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 44} (1980) 912.

1715: 

1716: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1717: \bibitem{doublechooz}

1718: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1719: K.~Anderson {\it et al.},

1720: ``White paper report on using nuclear reactors to search 

1721: for a value of $\theta_{13}$'', hep-ex/0402041.

1722: 

1723: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1724: \bibitem{FCNC}

1725: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1726: F.~Gabbiani, E.~Gabrielli, A.~Masiero and L.~Silvestrini, 

1727: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 477} (1996) 321.

1728: 

1729: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1730: \bibitem{mue}

1731: For example, E. O. Iltaqn, JHEP {\bf 0402} (2004) 065.

1732: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1733: 

1734: \end{thebibliography}

1735: 

1736: \end{document}