text:
# Wetting transitions of 4He on alkali metal surfaces from density functional calculations

## I Introduction

The existence and nature of the wetting transition  at a temperature above the triple point $`T_t`$ (and below the critical temperature) is known to be the result of a delicate balance between the interatomic potential acting among the atoms in the liquid and the atom-substrate interaction potential . When the latter dominates, the fluid tends to wet the surface. Because of the extremely weak interaction between He atoms, liquid 4He in contact with almost any substrate spreads to form a continuous film over the surface, so that vapor and substrate are never in contact, thus making 4He the ideal wetting agent.

A remarkable exception to this behavior is found when 4He is adsorbed on heavy alkali metal surfaces: due to the large electron spill-out at their surface, alkali metals provide the weakest adsorption potentials in nature for He atoms. Based on this observation, it was suggested  that wetting and prewetting transitions of 4He ought to occurr on Cs (which exerts the weakest attraction to He atoms) and, perhaps, Rb substrates. Actually, experimental evidence that He4 on a Cs substrate exhibits a wetting transition  at $`T_w2`$ K has been collected. The results for 4He on Rb are more controversial, since both a prewetting transition accompanied by complete wetting down to $`T=0`$ K , (this is analogous to triple point wetting) and a wetting transition  at a nonzero $`T_w0.3`$ K have been reported. On the more attractive substrate of potassium, wetting behavior has been observed for all $`T>0`$ .

Numerical simulations have proven to be a very useful tool to study the wetting properties of fluids. In particular, Density Functional (DF) methods  have become increasingly popular in recent years because of their ability to describe inhomogeneous fluids and phase equilibria. A comparison with ”exact” Monte Carlo simulation results shows that, once the long-range (van der Waals) attractive forces exerted by a surface on the gas atoms are included in the free energy functional, Density Functional methods provide a qualitatively (and most often quantitatively) good description of the thermodynamics of gas adsorption on a solid surface and correctly predict a large variety of phase transitions (wetting, prewetting, layering,etc.).

In particular, a quite accurate description of the $`T=0`$ properties of liquid 4He has been obtained within a DF approach by using the energy functional proposed in Ref. and later improved in Ref.. This phenomenological functional has been widely tested in a variety of problems involving inhomogeneous phases of liquid 4He (surfaces, droplets, films, etc.) , and is known to give a good description of the $`T=0`$ properties of the liquid-vapor interface and also of some properties of liquid 4He on various substrates  (for a thorough comparison between these and other functionals used to describe liquid 4He at $`T=0`$, see Ref. ). A very remarkable example of success of such theoretical framework is the prediction of the non-wetting behavior of liquid 4He on heavy-alkali metals at zero absolute temperature .

In the present work we extend the theory of Refs. to finite temperatures and apply the functional to the study of wetting properties of 4He adsorbed on alkali metal surfaces. A preliminary account of this work has been presented elsewhere.

A previous attempt to construct a semi-empirical finite-temperature Density Functional for 4He has been reported in Ref.. There, a local functional of the density was used (i.e. where the He-He interaction terms correspond to an attractive two-body contact force), with a number of parameters adjusted to guarantee the correct liquid-vapor coexistence. The agreement with the experimental surface tension of liquid 4He at saturated vapor pressure was also imposed by construction. This functional has been applied to the study of the behavior of the liquid-vapor interface thickness as a function of temperature .

It is well known , however, that a local theory gives incorrect fluid structures in situations where the liquid is perturbed on a microscopic scale, as it happens close to a solid substrate. This failure is due to the zero-range nature of the Skyrme interaction used in Ref., which completely neglects the short-range correlations associated with the interatomic potential hard-core.

For this reason, in our work we rather use as a starting point for our finite-temperature calculations the non-local form of the Density Functional proposed in Ref., where a more realistic finite-range interactions between He atoms is included. Contrary to what happens with the local functional , this non-local functional with parameters fitted to bulk properties provides the correct asymptotic behavior of the surface potential profile without any ad-hoc prescription, which is a desirable feature in order to properly describe the liquid-vapor interface.

## II Method

In the Density-Functional approach the grand-canonical free-energy is considered a functional of the density $`\rho (𝐫)`$:

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_{He}[\rho ]=F[\rho ]\mu 𝑑𝐫\rho (𝐫)$$
(1)
where $`\mu `$ is the chemical potential and $`F[\rho ]`$ is the free-energy density functional.

We propose to write $`F[\rho ]`$ as:

$$F=f𝑑𝐫$$
(2)
where

$$ff_{quant}[\rho ]+f_{int}[\rho ]$$
(3)
The first term in the r.h.s. takes into account the quantum kinetic energy and the free energy density of an ideal Bose gas $`f_{id}`$ :

$$f_{quant}=\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2M}(\sqrt{\rho })^2+c_4f_{id}$$
(4)
with $`c_4`$ an adjustable parameters to be determined by the fitting procedure detailed below.

As in the original T=0 functional , $`f_{int}`$ accounts for He-He interactions (in a Hartree-like fashion) and for correlations effects:

$`f_{int}[\rho (𝐫)]=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle 𝑑𝐫^{}\rho (𝐫)\rho (𝐫^{})V_{\mathrm{}}(|𝐫𝐫^{}|)}`$ (5)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{c_2}{2}}\rho (𝐫)(\overline{\rho }_𝐫)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{c_3}{3}}\rho (𝐫)(\overline{\rho }_𝐫)^3`$ (6)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{4M}}\alpha _s{\displaystyle 𝑑𝐫^{}G(|𝐫𝐫^{}|)(1\frac{\rho (𝐫)}{\rho _{0s}})\rho (𝐫)\rho (𝐫^{})(1\frac{\rho (𝐫^{})}{\rho _{0s}})}.`$ (7)
The first term contains a two-body He-He pair potential $`V_l(r)`$ screened at distances shorter than a characteristic length $`h_l`$ ($`V_l=0`$ for $`r<h_l`$), while the second and third terms contain $`\overline{\rho }_r`$, i.e. the average of the density over a sphere of radius $`h_l`$, and account for the increasing contribution of the hard-core He-He repulsion when the density is increased. The last term contains the gradient of the density at different points and corresponds to a non-local correction to the kinetic energy.

We remark at this point that the quantum kinetic energy term appearing in (4) (as well as in other phenomenological density functional theories used to describe inhomogeneous 4He) is derived from the total density $`\rho (𝐫)`$. However, as discussed in Ref., a complete Density Functional theory of Bose-condensed liquids would rather involve functionals of both the local density $`\rho (𝐫)`$ and the local order parameter $`\mathrm{\Phi }(𝐫)=\sqrt{\rho _𝐜(𝐫)}`$, $`\rho _c(𝐫)`$ being the local condensate density. In particular, the counterpart of the first term in (4) would be proportional to $`\left(\sqrt{\rho _c}\right)^2`$. A rationalization of why the simplified form of the density functional used here (and in all other applications of DF theory to liquid 4He as well) leads to a satisfactory description of the surface can be traced to the fact that the two quantum kinetic energy terms coincide in the low density surface region, which is important for the interface problems, where $`\rho _c(𝐫)\rho (𝐫)`$ .

In the T=0 functional , the free parameters $`h_l`$, $`c_2`$ and $`c_3`$ were adjusted in order to reproduce the experimental values of the density, of the energy per atom, and of the compressibility for bulk liquid 4He at zero pressure, while the width $`l_G`$ of the gaussian function $`G`$ and the parameters $`\alpha _s`$ and $`\rho _{0s}`$ in Eq. (7) were adjusted to reproduce the overall shape of the experimental static response function of bulk liquid 4He. For a detailed description of the various terms in (7) we refer the reader to Ref. .

We follow the same philosophy at finite temperatures, i.e. we consider the free energy density of a uniform system ($`\rho `$=costant) as given in Eqs. (4,7) :

$$fF/V=\frac{1}{2}b\rho ^2+\frac{1}{2}c_2\rho ^3+\frac{1}{3}c_3\rho ^4+c_4f_{id}(\rho ,T)$$
(8)
where $`b=𝑑𝐫V_l(𝐫)=4\pi _{h_l}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑rr^2V_l(𝐫),`$ and minimize the grand potential with respect to $`\rho `$ to get the chemical potential:

$$\mu (\rho ,T)\frac{f}{\rho }=b\rho +\frac{3}{2}c_2\rho ^2+\frac{4}{3}c_3\rho ^3+c_4\mu _{id}$$
(9)
and the pressure

$$P(\rho ,T)\rho \mu f=\frac{1}{2}b\rho ^2+c_2\rho ^3+c_3\rho ^4+c_4P_{id}$$
(10)
If $`\rho _v`$ and $`\rho _l`$ are the densities of vapor and liquid 4He at saturated vapor pressure at a given temperature T, than at coexistence the equilibrium conditions:

$$\mu (\rho _l,T)=\mu (\rho _v,T)$$
(11)
and

$$P(\rho _l,T)=P(\rho _v,T)$$
(12)
must be satisfied.

By requiring that equalities (11),(12) are satisfied when the experimental values of $`\rho _v`$ and $`\rho _l`$ are inserted into Eqs. (9),(10) and, moreover, that the common value of the chemical potentials in Eq. (11) is equal to the experimental value at the same temperature:

$$\mu (\rho _l,T)=\mu ^{expt}(T),$$
(13)
we get three equations relating the four adjustable coefficients $`c_2`$, $`c_3`$, $`c_4`$, and $`b.`$

As a fourth equation necessary to determine them completely at any temperature of interest we impose that the calculated isothermal compressibility, $`1/K\rho (P/\rho )`$, reproduces its corresponding experimental value:

$$K(\rho _l,T)=K^{expt}(T)$$
(14)
The fit has been carried out in the region $`0<T<3K`$, which is the most interesting for the wetting properties of 4He we want to investigate. Once $`b(T)`$ has been obtained by solving the system of four equations described above, a straightforward calculations provides $`h_l(T)`$ so that all coefficients entering the functional (7) are determined. The calculated coefficients are shown, for some selected temperatures, in Table (I).

We wish to stress at this point that all unknown coefficients entering the free energy Density Functional of pure 4He are fitted to bulk properties, i.e. to properties of uniform systems.

To include the interaction with the substrate, we use a binding potential $`V_s(z)`$ which describes the interaction between the alkali metal, occupying the half space $`z0`$, and one 4He atom located at a distance $`z`$ above the ideally flat surface.

The physisorption potential $`V_s(z)`$ is taken in the form originally proposed in Ref., i.e. as a sum of a Hartree-Fock repulsion and a van der Waals attraction. Both terms are parametrized with a set of coefficients. Very reliable values for the parameters entering $`V_s(z)`$ and describing the interaction of 4He with alkali substrates have been calculated from first principles . These potential have been used to calculate the wetting properties of rare gases (other than He) on alkali metal surfaces  and also the T=0 profile of a droplet on the Cs surface , and found to give predictions in reasonable agreement with experiments for all these systems.

The total free energy functional for 4He interacting with the substrate is thus:

$$\mathrm{\Omega }[\rho (𝐫)]=\mathrm{\Omega }_{He}[\rho (𝐫)]+𝑑𝐫\rho (𝐫)V_s(z).$$
(15)
According to Density Functional theory, the equilibrium density profile $`\rho (𝐫)`$ of the fluid in the presence of the substrate can be determined by applying the variational principle :

$$\delta \mathrm{\Omega }/\delta \rho (𝐫)=0$$
(16)
to get the Euler-Lagrangian equation:

$$\{\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2M}^2+U[\rho (𝐫)]+V_s(z)\}\sqrt{\rho (𝐫)}=\mu \sqrt{\rho (𝐫)},$$
(17)
where the effective potential $`U`$ is defined as $`U[\rho (𝐫)]\delta F[\rho (𝐫)]/\delta \sqrt{\rho }`$and the value of the chemical potential $`\mu `$ is fixed by the normalization condition

$$𝑑𝐫\rho (𝐫)=N,$$
(18)
$`N`$ being the total number of 4He atoms.

## III Results and Discussion

Wetting or non wetting is determined by surface tension balancing. The intersection of a macroscopic liquid droplet with a solid planar substrate can be characterized by the contact angle $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$: it goes to zero as $`T`$ approaches $`T_w`$ and remains zero at all higher temperatures, where the liquid wets the substrate. Below the wetting temperature, the contact angle is determined by balancing the forces acting along the contact line and depends on the interfacial tensions $`\sigma _{ij}`$ between each pair of coexisting phases through Young-Dupre’s equation

$$cos\mathrm{\Theta }=\frac{\sigma _{sv}\sigma _{sl}}{\sigma _{lv}}.$$
(19)
The subscripts $`l`$, $`v`$ and $`s`$ identify the liquid, vapor and solid, respectively.

We have calculated the interfacial tensions $`\sigma _{ij}`$ entering Eq. (19) at selected values of $`T`$ by using the density functional method described in the previous section.

We first studied the liquid-vapor interface of 4He by solving Eq. (17) (with $`V_s0`$) with the appropriate boundary conditions, corresponding to a planar liquid film in equilibrium with its own vapor. In this case the solution depends only on the coordinate $`z`$ normal to the surface, and provides the equilibrium density profile $`\rho (z)`$. Our calculations are performed within a region of length $`z_m`$. Rather large values of $`z_m`$ and of the film thickness $`t_f`$ are necessary for well converged calculations (typically $`z_m200\AA `$ and $`t_f150\AA `$), in order to let the system spontaneously reach (i) the liquid bulk density in the interior of the film and (ii) the vapor bulk density in the region outside the film. In Fig.1 we show some selected density profiles close to the liquid-vapor interface. A detailed analysis of the resulting density profiles shows that the width of the interface increases monotonically with temperature. A comparison of our results with those obtained in Ref.  indicates also that the thickness of the liquid-vapor interface, at a given temperature, is sligthly smaller than that obtained from the zero-range functional of Ref..

From the calculated equilibrium density profiles one can directly compute the liquid-vapor surface tension $`\sigma _{lv}`$, from the definition $`\sigma =(\mathrm{\Omega }+PV)/A`$. Here $`P`$ is the saturated vapor pressure at temperature T, $`V`$ is the volume of the system and $`A`$ is the surface area. For the one-dimensional problem considered here, one can write:

$$\sigma =(1/2)[_0^{z_m}f(\rho (z))𝑑z\mu _0^{z_m}\rho (z)𝑑z+Pz_m]$$
(20)
The pressure $`P`$ can be conveniently calculated from the definition $`P=(\mu \rho _vf(\rho _v))=(\mu \rho _lf(\rho _l))`$, $`\rho _v`$ and $`\rho _l`$ being the experimental densities for bulk liquid and vapor, respectively. The chemical potential $`\mu `$ is an output of our calculation, being fixed by the areal density $`n_cN/A=_0^{z_m}\rho (z)𝑑z`$. Finally, a factor 1/2 appears in the previous equation to account for the two free surfaces delimiting the liquid film in our ”slab” calculations.

The dependence of the liquid-vapor surface tension of $`^4`$He on temperature has been extensively investigated in the past. Surprisingly, the absolute value of $`\sigma _{lv}`$ at $`T=0`$ remains poorly known: predictions from different groups give values for $`\sigma _{lv}(0)`$ differing by up to $`6\%`$ . Our calculated values are shown in Fig.2, where they are compared with the available experimental data. The overall agreement is quite satisfactory, given the fact that our functional has been fitted to reproduce 4He bulk properties only. Note also that the kink (barely) visible in the experimental data at the temperature corresponding to the $`\lambda `$-point $`T_\lambda =2.17K`$ appears also in our calculated $`\sigma _{lv}`$ and reflects similar kinks appearing close to $`T_\lambda `$ in the bulk quantities (density, chemical potential and compressibility) used to fit the coefficients entering the free energy (3).

We next turn to the problem of liquid 4He in the presence of a solid surface. The two additional surface tensions $`\sigma _{sv}`$ and $`\sigma _{sl}`$ required to obtain the contact angle $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ from Eq. (19) are calculated within our density functional approximation by using different boundary conditions from those used to calculate $`\sigma _{lv}`$. We confine the fluid between two parallel surfaces, separated by a distance large enough to avoid any compression effect. The two surfaces act on the fluid with the external potential $`V_s(z)`$ appropriate to the alkali metal substrate. For selected values of the temperature $`T`$, we get the structure of the solid-vapor and solid-liquid interfaces by minimizing the grand-potential (15) subject to the additional constraint that the density in a large region between the two surfaces (where bulk behavior is expected) is equal respectively to $`\rho _v`$ and $`\rho _l`$. The corresponding surface excess energies per unit area $`\sigma =(\mathrm{\Omega }+PV)/(2A)`$ are the solid-vapor $`\sigma _{sv}`$ and the solid-liquid $`\sigma _{sl}`$ surface tensions. Of course the distance between the two confining surfaces must be such that the calculated values of $`\sigma _{sv}`$ and $`\sigma _{sl}`$ do not change by further increasing their separation. We show in Fig. 3 the equilibrium density profiles of 4He confined between two Rb surfaces, at $`T=1.4K`$. The solid line shows the density for the liquid phase confined between the surfaces, the dotted line (which is rescaled for clarity by a factor $`30`$) shows instead the vapor density profile. Note the oscillations of the liquid density close to the surface, due to close-packing effects. We have checked, by means of similar calculations with different cell sizes, that at least $`150\AA `$ must separate the two attractive surfaces so that the two fluid-solid interfaces are effectively decoupled and the calculation gives a converged value for the surface tensions $`\sigma _{sl}`$ and $`\sigma _{sv}`$.

According to Eq. (19), wetting of a surface occurs at a temperature $`T_w`$ such that

$$\sigma _{sv}\sigma _{sl}=\sigma _{lv}$$
(21)
In Fig. 4 we show the behavior of the two sides of Eq.(21) as a function of temperature, for three different alkali surfaces. A common feature of the curves for $`\sigma _{sv}\sigma _{sl}`$ shown in Fig. 4 is their rather weak temperature dependence, as indeed observed in experiments . The predicted wetting temperature for Cs, $`T_w2.1K`$, is in good agreement with the experimental value $`T_w2K`$. Also in the case of 4He on K our calculated results shown in Fig.4 agree with experiments , indicating wetting at any $`T>0`$. On the contrary, for Rb our calculations predict a wetting temperature $`T_w1.4`$ K, in marked disagreement with the experimental findings which show instead either complete wetting down to $`T=0`$ , or a wetting transition at $`T_w0.3`$ K .

We show in Fig. 5 the temperature dependence of the contact angle for the 4He/Cs system as obtained from our calculations, together with the available experimental data. Although the equilibrium contact angle is a well defined thermodynamic quantity, measurements of this quantity invariably show a strong hysteretic behavior, i.e. the measured value of the contact angle depends on whether the contact line is advancing or receding. For relatively homogenous surfaces, however, it has been shown that the advancing contact angle is a good measure of the equilibrium contact angle, so we compare our results with the experimental values for that quantity. The contact angle for 4He on Cs surfaces has been measured by different groups in recent years by using different techniques . In Ref. the contact angle is measured by direct visual inspection of macroscopic droplets of superfluid 4He on a Cs surface. In Ref. the contact angle is obtained by means of direct optical measurement using interferometric techniques , whereas in Ref.  it is measured, much more indirectly, from the reduction in pressure due to capillarity, when an array of parallel tungsten plates coated with Cesium are immersed into liquid 4He. Our results are compared in Fig.5 with the aforementioned experimental data. The overall agreement with the results from Ref. is satisfying, although a strong discrepancy exist with the data of Ref..

At variance with the overall satisfactory quantitative agreement we get for the 4He/Cs system, our predictions seems to be wrong for the 4He/Rb system. We believe that this disagreement is probably due to the fact that our assumptions of a rigid and planar substrate are far from being satisfied in this case. Impurities or roughness, in fact, are always present on the surface, as indicated by the strong hysterectic behaviour of the contact angle observed in all experiments when studying advancing or receding contact lines. This condition may be particularly severe in the case of the Rb surface, where defects and roughness are known to be present to a larger extent than on the surface of Cs.

The heterogeneity of the substrate is known to promote wetting, i.e. leads to values of $`\sigma _{sv}\sigma _{sl}`$ higher than for an ideal substrate. In the case of 4He on Rb, as apparent from Fig.4, an increase of $`\sigma _{sv}\sigma _{sl}`$ would shift the wetting temperature towards lower values, as indeed found in the experiments.

The characterization of the wetting behavior of superfluid Helium on rough surfaces is a very difficult task. The quality of the substrates used in the experiments cannot be determined at lengthscales smaller than optical wavelengths. The theoretical description of the effects of heterogeneities is also challenging. Only few theoretical results are available on the effect of microscopic disorder  on the wetting properties of fluids adsorbed on weakly attractive surfaces.

The effect of model disorder (on an atomic scale) on the wetting properties of Ne on the Mg surface has been studied by Curtarolo et al. . One interesting conclusion contained in this paper is that roughness destroy the discontinuous nature of the wetting transition, even if a trace of discontinuities remain in the calculated isotherms.

In Ref. a Lennard-Jones fluid and its wetting properties on molecularly rough surfaces have been studied by using Molecular Dynamics. Contrary to the conventional belief that surface roughness reduces the contact angle thus making it easier to wet a rough surface than a smooth one, the surprising conclusion of this work is that the contact angle is larger for the rough surface than for the smooth one.

In order to have further insight into this important issue, we are currently investigating the effect of a realistic distribution of microscopic disorder on the wetting transition of 4He on the Rb surface within the Density Functional approach described here .

An alternative explanation for the disagreement with the experiments for the 4He/Rb system is that the He-Rb surface potential used in our calculations is inaccurate. Our overestimate of the wetting temperature would be a sign, in this case, that the calculated potential is slightly less attractive than required to provide a result closer to the experimental one.

We have thus tried a modified He/Rb surface interaction by changing sligtly the two parameters entering the repulsive part of the ab-initio potential $`V_s(z)`$ describing the He-surface interaction. The modified potential, has a minimum of depth $`D=0.661`$ meV located at $`z_min=8.46a_0`$, to be compared with the values $`D=0.629`$ meV and $`z_min=8.60a_0`$ obtained with the original parameters. Such a tiny variation in the adsorption potential ($`5\%`$ increase in the potential well depth) has quite a large effect on the He/Rb wetting temperature, as can be judged from the curve labeled $`Rb^{}`$ in Fig. 4. With this modified potential the wetting transition moves very close to $`T=0`$, as in the experiments. Interestingly, in this case the curve $`\sigma _{sl}(T)`$ almost coincides with the curve $`\sigma _{lv}(T)`$ for a range of $`T`$ values, between $`0`$ and $`0.30.4`$ K (at such temperatures the contribution $`\sigma _{sv}`$ is negligible in our approximations). This could provide a reason for the different experimental estimates of the wetting temperature (either $`T=0`$ or $`T0.30.4`$K) by different groups: in the region where the two curves almost overlap their slope is very small, and thus small variations in the quality of the substrate may result in rather different wetting temperatures. Moreover, this could also suggest a different character of the wetting transition for He/Rb, since similar slopes in $`\sigma _{sl}(T)`$ and $`\sigma _{lv}(T)`$ imply a small discontinuity in $`dcos(\mathrm{\Theta })/dT`$, i.e. a quasi-continuous transition.

## IV Summary

We have extended to finite temperatures the non-local Density Functional proposed in recent years to describe the 4He properties at T=0 , and studied the wetting behavior of 4He adsorbed on alkali metal surfaces. The Density Functional depends on a number of temperature-dependent phenomenological parameters which are adjusted to reproduce bulk experimental properties of liquid 4He at saturated vapor pressure. We find that the resulting functional describes accurately the properties of the liquid-vapor interface of the free 4He surface. In the presence of an external potential simulating a planar, solid surface whose binding properties reproduce those of alkali metal surfaces, it also accurately reproduces the properties of the 4He/Cs system, giving the temperature dependence of the contact angle in good agreement with experiments. The contact angle vanishes at $`T2.1K`$, in agreement with the experimental measure for the wetting temperature, $`T2K`$. For 4He on a K surface, we find wetting at all nonzero temperatures, as found also in experiments. For 4He on the Rb surface, however, our calculations fail to reproduce quantitatively the experiments, indicating a wetting transition at $`T1.4K`$. The discrepancy with experiments could be either due to our neglect of surface inhomogeneities, which are known to be present on this surface to a larger extent than on a Cs surface, or to some inaccuracy in the theoretical determination of the surface-adatom potential used in our calculations. If this is the case, our results indicate that the correct potential should be slightly more attractive than currently believed.

Acknowledgments:

We thank M. Barranco, M.W. Cole, G. Mistura and L. Bruschi for useful comments and discussions.

Figure captions:

Figure 1: Calculated 4He density profile near the liquid-vapor interface. Solid line: $`T=0K`$; dotted line: $`T=1.5K`$; Dashed line: $`T=2K`$; Dash-dotted line: $`T=2.5K`$.

Figure 2: Surface tension of liquid 4He. Dots: calculated $`\sigma _{lv}`$; Squares, diamonds, triangles and crosses show the experimental results from Ref., , and , respectively. Lines are only a guide to the eye.

Figure 3: Equilibrium density profiles used to calculate $`\sigma _{sl}`$ (upper curve, with solid line), and $`\sigma _{sv}`$ (lower curve, with dotted line), respectively.

Figure 4: Calculated surface tensions for the 4He/alkali systems. Squares: $`\sigma _{lv}`$; Dots, diamonds and crosses show ($`\sigma _{sv}\sigma _{sl}`$) for 4He/Cs, 4He/Rb and 4He/K, respectively. The set of points labeled Rb are obtained by using a modified 4He/Rb surface interaction, as explained in the text. Lines are only a guide to the eye.

Figure 5: Temperature dependence of the 4He/Cs contact angle: squares: this work; triangles, dots and crosses show the experimental results from Ref.,  and , respectively.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Recent neutrino experiments have been strengthening the evidence of the neutrino mixing . The study of the neutrino mixing opens a new phase for our deeper understanding of neutrino physics.

Let us summarize the present experimental data on the neutrino mixing. From the recent analysis of the atmospheric neutrino anomaly, we have the following allowed regions of the mixing angle and the mass squared difference as

$`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{\mathrm{atm}}=0.851,\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{atm}}^2=2\times 10^36\times 10^3(\text{eV}^2).`$ (1)
The oscillation interpretation for the solar neutrino problem has still several parameter choices as  111 In summary, we shall add a short remark for our results with the latest report on Neutrino 2000 .

* The large mixing angle (LMA) MSW solution

$`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{\mathrm{LMA}}=0.51,\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{LMA}}^2=1\times 10^51\times 10^4(\text{eV}^2),`$ (2)
* The small mixing angle (SMA) MSW solution

$`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{\mathrm{SMA}}=10^32\times 10^2,\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{SMA}}^2=4\times 10^610^5(\text{eV}^2),`$ (3)
* The vacuum oscillation (VO) solution

$`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{\mathrm{VO}}=0.751,\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{VO}}^2=10^{11}10^{10}(\text{eV}^2).`$ (4)

In our earlier paper , we proposed a democratic-type mass matrix for left-handed Majorana neutrinos. This model has quite special predictions, $`\theta _{23}=\pi /4`$ and $`\delta =\pi /2`$, where $`\theta _{23}`$ is the mixing angle between mass eigenstates $`\nu _2`$ and $`\nu _3`$, and $`\delta `$ is the CP violation phase in the standard parameterization of the mixing matrix . The other mixing angles $`\theta _{12}`$ and $`\theta _{13}`$ are left free (independent on neutrino masses). The maximum value $`\theta _{23}=\pi /4`$ is essential to explain the large atmospheric neutrino mixing. Also the prediction, $`\delta =\pi /2`$ is interesting under the situation where the search for the model to predict the CP violation phase is an urgent problem. We examined the underlying symmetry for the democratic-type mass matrix and found that this mass matrix is derived by imposing the $`Z_3`$ symmetry for the model with two up-type doublet Higgs bosons .

Here we want to consider the situation where the democratic-type mass matrix is derived from the dimension five effective interaction with one up-type doublet Higgs boson based on $`Z_3`$ symmetry. Let us define

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}}(\mathrm{}_e+\omega ^2\mathrm{}_\mu +\omega \mathrm{}_\tau ),`$
$`\mathrm{\Psi }_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}}(\mathrm{}_e+\omega \mathrm{}_\mu +\omega ^2\mathrm{}_\tau ),`$
$`\mathrm{\Psi }_3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}}(\mathrm{}_e+\mathrm{}_\mu +\mathrm{}_\tau ),`$ (5)
where $`\mathrm{}_i`$ is the left-handed lepton doublet defined by, say, $`\mathrm{}_e=(\nu _{eL},e_L)^T`$, and $`\omega =\mathrm{exp}(i2\pi /3)`$ which satisfies $`\omega ^3=1`$ and $`1+\omega +\omega ^2=0`$. The fields $`\mathrm{\Psi }_i`$ behave as irreducible representations of $`Z_3`$ symmetry under the permutation of $`\mathrm{}_e`$, $`\mathrm{}_\mu `$ and $`\mathrm{}_\tau `$,

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_1\omega \mathrm{\Psi }_1,\mathrm{\Psi }_2\omega ^2\mathrm{\Psi }_2,\mathrm{\Psi }_3\mathrm{\Psi }_3.`$ (6)
If we introduce a Higgs doublet that behaves $`H_u\omega ^2H_u`$, then we can construct the $`Z_3`$ invariant dimension five effective Lagrangian as

$`_0=(m_1^0+\stackrel{~}{m}_1)\overline{(\mathrm{\Psi }_1)^C}\mathrm{\Psi }_1{\displaystyle \frac{H_uH_u}{u^2}}2\stackrel{~}{m}_1\overline{(\mathrm{\Psi }_2)^C}\mathrm{\Psi }_3{\displaystyle \frac{H_uH_u}{u^2}},`$ (7)
where $`u=<H_u>`$. Here we introduce two kinds of symmetry breaking terms, $`_1`$ and $`_2`$ as

$`_1`$ $`=`$ $`(m_3^0+\stackrel{~}{m}_3)\overline{(\mathrm{\Psi }_3)^C}\mathrm{\Psi }_3{\displaystyle \frac{H_uH_u}{u^2}}2\stackrel{~}{m}_3\overline{(\mathrm{\Psi }_1)^C}\mathrm{\Psi }_2{\displaystyle \frac{H_uH_u}{u^2}},`$
$`_2`$ $`=`$ $`(m_2^0+\stackrel{~}{m}_2)\overline{(\mathrm{\Psi }_2)^C}\mathrm{\Psi }_2{\displaystyle \frac{H_uH_u}{u^2}}2\stackrel{~}{m}_2\overline{(\mathrm{\Psi }_1)^C}\mathrm{\Psi }_3{\displaystyle \frac{H_uH_u}{u^2}}.`$ (8)
We remind that all types of $`Z_3`$ symmetry breaking terms are in $`_1`$ and $`_2`$. Now we consider $`_{\mathrm{eff}}=_0+_1+_2`$. Then, after the symmetry breaking $`<H_u>=u`$, we obtain the democratic-type mass matrix under the assumption that all coefficients $`m_i^0`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{m}_i`$ are real (see Sec.2).

In this paper, we consider that the democratic-type mass matrix (or the dimension five effective interaction) is given at the right-handed neutrino mass scale, $`m_R`$ and see the predictions at $`m_Z`$ by using the renormalization group. The renormalization group effect for the dimension five effective interaction have been examined intensively\[7 - 15\]. Casas et al. have investigated some general features of the quantum effects for the neutrino mixing matrix independent of the specific mass matrix . Haba et al. have studied how the mixing angles behave by choosing the simple real mass matrix which explains the experimental data at $`m_Z`$ .

We are interested in
(i) whether our predicted value $`\theta _{23}=\pi /4`$ is stable,
(ii) how two angles $`\theta _{12}`$ and $`\theta _{13}`$ behave against quantum corrections, and
(iii) whether the Dirac CP phase $`\delta `$ keeps maximal size at $`m_Z`$ as that predicted at $`m_R`$.

First point (i) is indispensable for the democratic-type model to explain the atmospheric neutrino anomaly, and second point (ii) is interesting in view of searching the possibility that the small angle $`\theta _{12}`$ can be produced at $`m_Z`$ from the large angle $`\theta _{12}`$ at $`m_R`$, or vice versa, in addition to their stable solutions. Third point (iii) is also important for future neutrino experiments in order to get the signals of CP and T violation in the lepton sector. These problems depend largely on the neutrino mass spectrum. In more restricted model with hierarchical mass spectrum, we investigated the points (i) and (ii), and showed that neutrino mixing angles are stable for the fully hierarchical mass spectrum, while the solar neutrino mixing angle is unstable for the hierarchical case with $`m_1m_2`$, where $`m_1`$ and $`m_2`$ are the first and second mass eigenvalues . For the general democratic-type model, in addition to the above results, we find the possibility that LMA and/or VO solutions can be realized at $`m_Z`$ even if the solar neutrino mixing angle is small at $`m_R`$ for the hierarchical case with $`m_2/m_11<<1`$. Also in this case, Dirac CP phase is almost left maximal, and we can expect that CP and T violation effect can be detected in the future long baseline neutrino experiment such as neutrino factories .

This paper is organized as follows. In section 2, we briefly review the democratic-type neutrino mass matrix and its predictions. In section 3, we show the quantum corrections for the neutrino mass matrix. In section 4, we calculate the $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ dependence of neutrino masses, mixing angles and Dirac CP phase. In section 5, we give the results of numerical calculation and compare with the analytical estimation. Section 6 is devoted to the summary.

## 2 Democratic-type mass matrix

Throughout of this paper, we assume that the mass matrix of charged leptons is diagonal. After symmetry breaking, we obtain the democratic-type neutrino mass matrix from Eqs.(7),(8) in the flavor eigenstate basis as

$`M_\nu (m_R)={\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{3}{}}}(m_j^0S_j+\stackrel{~}{m}_jT_j),`$ (9)
where

$`S_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& \omega ^2& \omega \\ \omega ^2& \omega & 1\\ \omega & 1& \omega ^2\end{array}\right),S_2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& \omega & \omega ^2\\ \omega & \omega ^2& 1\\ \omega ^2& 1& \omega \end{array}\right),S_3={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 1& 1\\ 1& 1& 1\\ 1& 1& 1\end{array}\right),`$
$`T_1`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 0& 0\\ 0& \omega & 0\\ 0& 0& \omega ^2\end{array}\right),T_2=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 0& 0\\ 0& \omega ^2& 0\\ 0& 0& \omega \end{array}\right),T_3=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right).`$ (10)
Six quantities $`m_j^0`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{m}_j`$ ($`j=1,2,3`$) called mass parameters are taken to be real, and the form in Eq.(9) is assumed to be generated from the effective dimension-five operators at $`m_R`$.

$`M_\nu (m_R)`$ can be transformed into real symmetric matrix $`\overline{M}_\nu (m_R)=V_{\mathrm{Tri}}^TM_\nu (m_R)V_{\mathrm{Tri}}`$, where $`V_{\mathrm{Tri}}`$ is the following tri-maximal mixing matrix as

$`V_{\mathrm{Tri}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 1& 1\\ \omega & \omega ^2& 1\\ \omega ^2& \omega & 1\end{array}\right).`$ (11)
Then, the neutrino mixing matrix $`U`$ (MNS matrix ) which diagonalizes $`M_\nu (m_R)`$ as $`U^TM_\nu (m_R)U=D_\nu \mathrm{diag}(m_1,m_2,m_3)`$ is expressed as $`U=V_{\mathrm{Tri}}O`$, where $`O`$ is the orthogonal matrix which diagonalizes $`\overline{M}_\nu (m_R)`$, and $`m_i`$ ($`i=1,2,3`$) are neutrino mass eigenvalues. This expression leads to the condition that the mixing matrix $`U`$ should satisfy $`U_{\mu i}=U_{\tau i}^{}`$ ($`i=1,2,3`$), which do not depend on real mass parameters. From these conditions on the mixing matrix, we find that $`c_{23}^2=s_{23}^2=1/2`$ and $`\mathrm{cos}\delta =0`$ by using the standard parameterization advocated in . Here $`c_{ij}=\mathrm{cos}\theta _{ij}`$, $`s_{ij}=\mathrm{sin}\theta _{ij}`$ with the mixing angle $`\theta _{ij}`$ between mass eigenstates $`\nu _i`$ and $`\nu _j`$, and $`\delta `$ is the Dirac CP phase. Thus, we can obtain the following expression of $`U`$ as

$`U=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 0& 0\\ 0& e^{i\rho }& 0\\ 0& 0& e^{i\rho }\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{ccc}c_{12}c_{13}& s_{12}c_{13}& is_{13}\\ \frac{s_{12}ic_{12}s_{13}}{\sqrt{2}}& \frac{c_{12}+is_{12}s_{13}}{\sqrt{2}}& \frac{c_{13}}{\sqrt{2}}\\ \frac{s_{12}+ic_{12}s_{13}}{\sqrt{2}}& \frac{c_{12}is_{12}s_{13}}{\sqrt{2}}& \frac{c_{13}}{\sqrt{2}}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& i\end{array}\right),`$ (12)
where we have taken $`s_{23}=c_{23}=1/\sqrt{2}`$ and $`\delta =\pi /2`$. The quantity $`\rho `$ is a redundant phase which can be absorbed into charged leptons by the phase redefinition. $`\mathrm{Diag}(1,1,i)`$ is the Majorana phase matrix, which shows no CP violation intrinsic to Majorana neutrinos. Indeed, the phase $`i`$ relates to CP signs of neutrino masses in addition to their relative sign assignments. In this model, therefore, six real mass parameters ($`m_i^0`$, $`\stackrel{~}{m}_i`$ ($`i=1,2,3`$)) are changed into three neutrino masses ($`m_1`$, $`m_2`$, $`m_3`$), two mixing angles ($`\theta _{12}`$, $`\theta _{13}`$), and one unphysical phase ($`\rho `$).

Since three neutrino mass eigenvalues are free parameters, we adopt the following mass squared differences as

$`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{atm}}^2|\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2||\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2|,|\mathrm{\Delta }m_{12}^2|<<\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{atm}}^2,`$ (13)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{ij}^2m_i^2m_j^2`$. Under the assignment of Eq.(13), we consider the following mass spectrum as

$`\begin{array}{ccc}\text{Hierarchical case}\hfill & :\hfill & m_1m_2<<m_3,\hfill \\ \text{Inversely hierarchical case}\hfill & :\hfill & m_1m_2>>m_3,\hfill \end{array}`$ (16)
and we assume all mass eigenvalues are positive 222 In this spectrum, the behavior of the mixing matrix hardly depends on the sign of $`m_3`$. So we can generally take $`m_2>0`$. Then, the behavior of the mixing matrix depends on the relative sign of $`m_1`$ and $`m_2`$ as well as their absolute sizes. For $`m_1<0`$, mixing angles are stable while CP violation phase is unstable. See Ref. . . Of course, there are another mass spectrums which satisfies Eq.(13); fully hierarchical case ($`m_1<<m_2<<m_3`$) and nearly degenerate case ($`m_1m_2m_3`$) . However, for the former case, quantum corrections hardly change the structure of the neutrino mass matrix, and hence all physical quantities are stable. For the latter case, neutrino mixing is highly sensitive to the input values at $`m_R`$, and it is laborious to obtain their analytical expressions. It is also noted that we do not adopt that $`|\mathrm{\Delta }m_{12}^2|`$ is the mass squared difference for the solar neutrino mixing. This is because mass eigenvalues $`m_i`$ ($`i=1,2,3`$) are those given at $`m_R`$, and as we shall see later, $`|\mathrm{\Delta }m_{12}^2|`$ varies while $`|\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2|`$ is almost stable against quantum corrections, when the mass spectrum is given as Eq.(14).

## 3 Quantum corrections

The neutrino mass matrix, and hence the neutrino mixing matrix, may vary by quantum corrections . In the minimal supersymmetric standard model (MSSM) with dimension-five operators which give Majorana masses to left-handed neutrinos, quantum corrections appear in the relation of the Majorana mass matrices between at $`m_R`$ and at $`m_Z`$ as

$`M_\nu (m_Z)=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\frac{1}{\sqrt{I_e}}& 0& 0\\ 0& \frac{1}{\sqrt{I_\mu }}& 0\\ 0& 0& \frac{1}{\sqrt{I_\tau }}\end{array}\right)M_\nu (m_R)\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\frac{1}{\sqrt{I_e}}& 0& 0\\ 0& \frac{1}{\sqrt{I_\mu }}& 0\\ 0& 0& \frac{1}{\sqrt{I_\tau }}\end{array}\right),`$ (17)
where $`I_i`$ ($`i=e,\mu ,\tau `$) are defined as

$`I_i=\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{ln}(m_R)}^{\mathrm{ln}(m_Z)}}y_i^2𝑑t\right).`$ (18)
Here $`y_i`$ are Yukawa couplings of charged leptons in the mass eigenstate, $`t=\mathrm{ln}\mu `$ with the renormalization point $`\mu `$, and overall renormalization effect has been absorbed into $`M_\nu (m_R)`$.

According to the discussion in , the approximation of $`\sqrt{I_j/I_\tau }1/\sqrt{I_\tau }`$ ($`j=e,\mu `$) is held with good accuracy in the region of $`2<\mathrm{tan}\beta <60`$. Here $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =\varphi _u/\varphi _d`$, in which $`\varphi _u`$ and $`\varphi _d`$ are two Higgs doublets in the MSSM. By using this approximation, $`M_\nu (m_Z)`$ reduces to the following simpler form as

$`M_\nu (m_Z)=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& \frac{1}{\sqrt{I_\tau }}\end{array}\right)M_\nu (m_R)\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& \frac{1}{\sqrt{I_\tau }}\end{array}\right)=M_\nu (m_R)ϵM_1+O(ϵ^2),`$ (19)
where

$`M_1=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& (M_\nu (m_R))_{13}\\ 0& 0& (M_\nu (m_R))_{23}\\ (M_\nu (m_R))_{13}& (M_\nu (m_R))_{23}& 2(M_\nu (m_R))_{33}\end{array}\right),`$ (20)
and $`ϵ`$ is defined as

$`ϵ=1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{I_\tau }}}=1\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_Z}{m_R}}\right)^{\frac{1}{8\pi ^2}(1+\mathrm{tan}^2\beta )(m_\tau /v)^2}>0,`$ (21)
with the mass of $`\tau `$ lepton, $`m_\tau `$, and $`v^2=\varphi _u^2+\varphi _d^2`$. In the second equality in Eq.(19), we have neglected the running effect of $`y_\tau `$. In order to estimate the value of $`ϵ`$, we consider the right-handed neutrino mass scale $`m_R`$ as $`10^{13}`$ GeV. Then, with $`m_Z=91.187`$ GeV, $`m_\tau =1.777`$ GeV and $`v=245.4`$ GeV, we find

$`8\times 10^5<ϵ<6\times 10^2(\text{for}2<\mathrm{tan}\beta <60).`$ (22)
Therefore, we neglect the $`O(ϵ^2)`$ terms in Eq.(17) when obtaining the analytical expression of the mixing angles and neutrino masses at $`m_Z`$.

By using Eq.(17), we can obtain the Majorana neutrino mass matrix at $`m_Z`$. This mass matrix depends on $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ via $`ϵ`$ as well as neutrino masses, mixing angles and CP phases given at $`m_R`$. We take $`\theta _{23}`$ and CP phases at $`m_R`$ as those predicted by the democratic-type model. We also assume that neutrino masses at $`m_R`$ is given as Eqs.(13) and (14). Then we can investigate the $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ dependence of the neutrino mixing matrix at $`m_Z`$, which includes two mixing angles, $`\theta _{12}`$, $`\theta _{13}`$, and neutrino masses at $`m_R`$. As we will show in the next section, $`\theta _{13}`$ hardly depends on quantum corrections, so we can take the most stringent constraint on $`\theta _{13}`$, $`s_{13}=0.16`$, from the CHOOZ data .

We also check the analytical estimation by numerical calculation, which will be shown in section 5. For any $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, we calculate the mass matrix $`M_\nu (m_Z)`$ numerically by using Mathematica, and find the unitary matrix $`\widehat{U}`$ which diagonalizes $`M_\nu (m_Z)`$ as $`\widehat{U}^TM_\nu (m_Z)\widehat{U}`$. Hereafter, we denote physical quantities at $`m_Z`$ as $`\widehat{\theta }`$, $`\widehat{m}_1`$ and so on. $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ dependence of the mixing angle $`\widehat{\theta }`$ are shown by using the following expression as

$`\mathrm{sin}^22\widehat{\theta }_{13}`$ $`=`$ $`4|\widehat{U}_{e3}|^2(1|\widehat{U}_{e3}|^2),`$
$`\mathrm{sin}^22\widehat{\theta }_{23}`$ $`=`$ $`4{\displaystyle \frac{|\widehat{U}_{\mu 3}|^2}{1|\widehat{U}_{e3}|^2}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{|\widehat{U}_{\mu 3}|^2}{1|\widehat{U}_{e3}|^2}}\right),`$
$`\mathrm{sin}^22\widehat{\theta }_{12}`$ $`=`$ $`4{\displaystyle \frac{|\widehat{U}_{e2}|^2}{1|\widehat{U}_{e3}|^2}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{|\widehat{U}_{e2}|^2}{1|\widehat{U}_{e3}|^2}}\right).`$ (23)
## 4 Quantum effects for physical quantities

In this section, we show the $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ dependence of neutrino masses, mixing angles and Dirac CP phase at $`m_Z`$.

### 4.1 neutrino masses and mixing angles

By transforming $`M_\nu (m_Z)`$ by $`U`$ in Eq.(12), we obtain the mass matrix $`\stackrel{~}{M}_\nu (m_Z)`$ by keeping $`ϵ`$ up to the first order as

$`\stackrel{~}{M}_\nu (m_Z)`$ $`=`$ $`U^TM_\nu (m_Z)U`$ (24)
$`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{ccc}(1ϵ|p|^2)m_1& \frac{1}{2}ϵ(m_1pq^{}+m_2p^{}q)& iϵP\\ \frac{1}{2}ϵ(m_1pq^{}+m_2p^{}q)& (1ϵ|q|^2)m_2& iϵQ\\ iϵP& iϵQ& (1ϵc_{13}^2)m_3\end{array}\right),`$
where

$`p`$ $``$ $`s_{12}ic_{12}s_{13},qc_{12}+is_{12}s_{13},`$
$`P`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}c_{13}(m_1pm_3p^{}),Q{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}c_{13}(m_2qm_3q^{}).`$ (25)
Let us define the submatrices as

$`𝝁`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}(1ϵ|p|^2)m_1& \frac{1}{2}ϵ(m_1pq^{}+m_2p^{}q)\\ \frac{1}{2}ϵ(m_1pq^{}+m_2p^{}q)& (1ϵ|q|^2)m_2\end{array}\right),𝒎=\left(\begin{array}{c}iϵP\\ iϵQ\end{array}\right),`$
$`M`$ $`=`$ $`(1ϵc_{13}^2)m_3.`$ (26)
Then, $`𝒎`$ is much smaller than either $`M`$ in the hierarchical case or $`𝝁`$ in the inversely hierarchical case. So we can block diagonalize $`\stackrel{~}{M}_\nu `$ by using seesaw expansion in  as

$`U_{\mathrm{seesaw}}^T\stackrel{~}{M}_\nu U_{\mathrm{seesaw}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}𝝁& \mathrm{𝟎}\\ \mathrm{𝟎}& M\end{array}\right),`$ (27)
where

$`U_{\mathrm{seesaw}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{𝟏}_2& iS\\ iS^{}& 1\end{array}\right),`$ (28)
with a 2 by 2 unit matrix $`\mathrm{𝟏}_2`$, and

$`iS\{\begin{array}{cc}(M^1𝒎^T)^{}M^1\left(\begin{array}{c}iϵP^{}\\ iϵQ^{}\end{array}\right)\hfill & \text{(hierarchical case)},\\ 𝝁^1𝒎\mu ^1\left(\begin{array}{c}iϵPm_2\\ iϵQm_1\end{array}\right)\hfill & \text{(inversely hierarchical case)},\end{array}`$ (31)
where $`\mu \mathrm{det}𝝁`$. Here we have neglected the normalization factor of $`U_{\mathrm{seesaw}}`$ since it is nearly unity. By keeping $`ϵ`$ up to the first order, $`U_{\mathrm{seesaw}}`$ is simply rewritten as

$`U_{\mathrm{seesaw}}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 0& \pm \frac{i}{2}ϵc_{13}p\\ 0& 1& \frac{i}{2}ϵc_{13}q\\ \pm \frac{i}{2}ϵc_{13}p^{}& \frac{i}{2}ϵc_{13}q^{}& 1\end{array}\right).`$ (32)
Here, the upper (lower) sign is for the hierarchical (inversely hierarchical) case, where we have neglected $`O(m_{1,2}/m_3)`$ ($`O(m_3/m_{1,2})`$) terms .

Now, in order to obtain the neutrino mixing matrix $`\widehat{U}`$, we only have to diagonalize the submatrix $`𝝁`$ in Eq.(25). Let us define the small parameter

$`\xi =1{\displaystyle \frac{m_2}{m_1}}.`$ (33)
By keeping $`ϵ`$ and $`\xi `$ up to the first order, $`𝝁`$ is rewritten as

$`𝝁\left(\begin{array}{cc}1ϵ|p|^2& \frac{1}{2}ϵ\mathrm{sin}2\theta _{12}c_{13}^2\\ \frac{1}{2}ϵ\mathrm{sin}2\theta _{12}c_{13}^2& 1ϵ|q|^2\xi \end{array}\right)m_1.`$ (34)
It is easy to diagonalize $`𝝁`$ since it is a 2 by 2 real symmetric matrix. By diagonalizing $`𝝁`$ as $`\stackrel{~}{U}_{12}^T𝝁\stackrel{~}{U}_{12}`$ in which

$`\stackrel{~}{U}_{12}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cos}\stackrel{~}{\theta }& \mathrm{sin}\stackrel{~}{\theta }\\ \mathrm{sin}\stackrel{~}{\theta }& \mathrm{cos}\stackrel{~}{\theta }\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\stackrel{~}{c}& \stackrel{~}{s}\\ \stackrel{~}{s}& \stackrel{~}{c}\end{array}\right),`$ (35)
we get

$`\mathrm{tan}2\stackrel{~}{\theta }{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ\mathrm{sin}2\theta _{12}c_{13}^2}{ϵ\mathrm{cos}2\theta _{12}c_{13}^2+\xi }}.`$ (36)
Then, the neutrino mixing matrix $`\widehat{U}`$ is given as

$`\widehat{U}UU_{\mathrm{seesaw}}\stackrel{~}{U},`$ (37)
and each element is written as follows

$`\widehat{U}_{e1}`$ $``$ $`c_{13}\left[c_{12}^{}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}ϵs_{13}^2\right)\pm {\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}ϵs_{12}^{}s_{13}\right],`$
$`\widehat{U}_{e2}`$ $``$ $`c_{13}\left[s_{12}^{}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}ϵs_{13}^2\right){\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}ϵc_{12}^{}s_{13}\right],`$
$`\widehat{U}_{e3}`$ $``$ $`s_{13}\left(1\pm {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}ϵc_{13}^2\right),`$
$`\widehat{U}_{\mu 1}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left[s_{12}^{}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}ϵc_{13}^2\right)ic_{12}^{}s_{13}\left(1\pm {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}ϵc_{13}^2\right)\right],`$
$`\widehat{U}_{\mu 2}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left[c_{12}^{}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}ϵc_{13}^2\right)+is_{12}^{}s_{13}\left(1\pm {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}ϵc_{13}^2\right)\right],`$
$`\widehat{U}_{\mu 3}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\sqrt{2}}}c_{13}\left(1\pm {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}ϵc_{13}^2\right),`$
$`\widehat{U}_{\tau 1}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(s_{12}^{}+ic_{12}^{}s_{13})\left(1\pm {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}ϵc_{13}^2\right),`$
$`\widehat{U}_{\tau 2}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(c_{12}^{}is_{12}^{}s_{13})\left(1\pm {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}ϵc_{13}^2\right),`$
$`\widehat{U}_{\tau 3}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\sqrt{2}}}\left[1\pm {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}ϵ(1+s_{13}^2)\right],`$ (38)
where

$`c_{12}^{}\mathrm{cos}\theta _{12}^{}=\mathrm{cos}(\theta _{12}+\stackrel{~}{\theta }),s_{12}^{}\mathrm{sin}\theta _{12}^{}=\mathrm{sin}(\theta _{12}+\stackrel{~}{\theta }),`$ (39)
and we have neglected an unphysical phase.

Thus, we obtain the mixing angle at $`m_Z`$ as

$`\mathrm{sin}^22\widehat{\theta }_{13}`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}\left(1\pm ϵ\mathrm{cos}2\theta _{13}\right),`$
$`\mathrm{sin}^22\widehat{\theta }_{23}`$ $``$ $`1+O(ϵ^2),`$
$`\mathrm{sin}^22\widehat{\theta }_{12}`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{12}^{}\left(1+O(ϵ^2)\right)`$ (40)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(\xi \mathrm{sin}2\theta _{12})^2}{(ϵc_{13}^2+\xi \mathrm{cos}2\theta _{12})^2+(\xi \mathrm{sin}2\theta _{12})^2}}\left(1+O(ϵ^2)\right).`$
Therefore, we may say that there are no extra mixings between $`\nu _{1,2}`$ and $`\nu _3`$ by the renormalization group equation, where $`\nu _i`$ is the mass eigenstate at $`m_R`$. That is, mixing angles $`\theta _{13}`$ and $`\theta _{23}=\pi /4`$ are essentially stable against quantum corrections. Also the mixing angle $`\widehat{\theta }_{12}`$ is almost equal to $`\theta _{12}^{}=\theta _{12}+\stackrel{~}{\theta }`$, and hence, we may roughly obtain $`\widehat{U}`$ by changing from $`\theta _{12}`$ to $`\theta _{12}^{}`$ in $`U`$. In other words, the behavior of the mixing angles hardly depends on the contribution from seesaw expansion.

Next, we estimate the neutrino mass eigenvalues $`\widehat{m}_i`$ ($`i=1,2,3`$) at $`m_Z`$. They are given as

$`\widehat{m}_1`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_1}{2}}\left[2ϵ(1+s_{13}^2)\xi +\mathrm{sign}(\xi )\sqrt{(\xi +ϵ\mathrm{cos}2\theta _{12}c_{13}^2)^2+(ϵ\mathrm{sin}2\theta _{12}c_{13}^2)^2}\right],`$
$`\widehat{m}_2`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_1}{2}}\left[2ϵ(1+s_{13}^2)\xi \mathrm{sign}(\xi )\sqrt{(\xi +ϵ\mathrm{cos}2\theta _{12}c_{13}^2)^2+(ϵ\mathrm{sin}2\theta _{12}c_{13}^2)^2}\right],`$
$`\widehat{m}_3`$ $``$ $`(1ϵc_{13}^2)m_3,`$ (41)
where sign$`(\xi )`$ is $`+1(1)`$ for $`\xi >0(\xi <0)`$. Then, the mass squared difference $`|\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{m}_{12}^2|`$ is given as

$`|\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{m}_{12}^2|2m_1^2\sqrt{(\xi +ϵ\mathrm{cos}2\theta _{12}c_{13}^2)^2+(ϵ\mathrm{sin}2\theta _{12}c_{13}^2)^2}.`$ (42)
As one can understand by looking at $`\mathrm{sin}^22\widehat{\theta }_{12}`$ in Eq.(36) and at Eq.(38), $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ dependences of $`\mathrm{sin}^22\widehat{\theta }_{12}`$ and $`|\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{m}_{12}^2|`$ depend on the sign of $`\xi `$. Therefore, we consider the following two cases :

Case (a) : $`\xi >0`$ $`(m_1>m_2)`$

In this case, the first term of the denominator of $`\mathrm{sin}^22\widehat{\theta }_{12}`$ increases monotonously as $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ grows 333 Here we set $`0\theta _{12}\pi /4`$ since we consider that electron neutrinos mainly consist of $`\nu _1`$ if the solar neutrino mixing is small at $`m_R`$. When $`\theta _{12}=\pi /4`$, i.e., solar mixing angle is exactly maximal at the $`m_R`$ scale, the dependences of $`\mathrm{sin}^22\widehat{\theta }_{12}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{m}_{12}^2`$ do not depend on the sign of $`\xi `$. . Thus, $`\mathrm{sin}^22\widehat{\theta }_{12}`$ becomes smaller as the quantum corrections become larger. Hence, one may expect that SMA solution at $`m_Z`$ is realized from the large mixing angle at $`m_R`$. However, such undertaking is in vain. Let us explain the reason briefly. If one would try to find the parameter regions of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{12}^2`$ and $`ϵ`$ to produce SMA solution, one should at least set $`|\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{m}_{12}^2|\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{SMA}}^2`$ and $`\mathrm{sin}^22\widehat{\theta }_{12}\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{\mathrm{SMA}}`$. By simplifying $`c_{13}^2=1`$ from the CHOOZ bound, one could obtain

$`|\mathrm{\Delta }m_{12}^2|`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{SMA}}^2\left|{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}2\theta _{\mathrm{SMA}}}{\mathrm{sin}2\theta _{12}}}\right|,`$
$`ϵ`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{SMA}}^2}{2m_1^2}}|\mathrm{cos}2\theta _{\mathrm{SMA}}|\left(1\mathrm{cot}2\theta _{12}\mathrm{tan}2\theta _{\mathrm{SMA}}\right).`$ (43)
The first relation in Eq.(39) shows that $`|\mathrm{\Delta }m_{12}^2|`$ is needed to be about 1/10 times as small as $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{SMA}}^2`$ when $`\theta _{12}`$ is large at $`m_R`$. For example, we can obtain $`|\mathrm{\Delta }m_{12}^2|10^710^6\mathrm{eV}^2`$ when $`\mathrm{sin}2\theta _{12}=\sqrt{8/9}`$ 444This angle has been predicted in a restricted democratic-type model .. In this case, however, the quantity $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{12}^2`$ is negative at $`m_Z`$, and as a result the matter effect cannot take place.

Case (b) : $`\xi <0`$ $`(m_1<m_2)`$

In this case, the first term of the denominator of $`\mathrm{sin}^22\widehat{\theta }_{12}`$ in Eq.(36) can become 0 when

$`ϵ|\xi |\mathrm{cos}2\theta _{12}={\displaystyle \frac{|\mathrm{\Delta }m_{12}^2|}{2m_1^2}}\mathrm{cos}2\theta _{12},`$ (44)
and at the same time $`\mathrm{sin}^22\widehat{\theta }_{12}`$ becomes maximal. Here we have used $`c_{13}^2=1`$ for simplicity. Hence we can expect that the large mixing angle such as LMA and VO solutions at $`m_Z`$ can be realized even from the small mixing angle at $`m_R`$. By substituting Eq.(40) into Eq.(38), we obtain the initial mass splitting as

$`|\mathrm{\Delta }m_{12}^2|{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{m}_{12}^2}{\mathrm{sin}2\theta _{12}}}.`$ (45)
Thus, the mass splitting at $`m_R`$ is about 10 times as large as that at $`m_Z`$ when $`\theta _{12}`$ is the small mixing angle. By setting $`\mathrm{sin}2\theta _{12}=0.1`$ such as preferred by SMA solution, for example, we obtain $`|\mathrm{\Delta }m_{12}^2|1\times 10^41\times 10^3\mathrm{eV}^2`$ for LMA and $`|\mathrm{\Delta }m_{12}^2|10^{10}10^9\mathrm{eV}^2`$ for VO solutions.

In the inversely hierarchical case with $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{atm}}^2=3.5\times 10^3\mathrm{eV}^2`$ and $`s_{13}=0.16`$, we obtain $`ϵ0.010.1`$ for LMA, and $`ϵ10^810^7`$ for VO solutions, from Eq.(40). Thus, LMA solution can be generated for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta \stackrel{>}{_{}}30`$, while $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ is too tiny to produce VO solution for the realistic $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ region.

On the contrary, in the hierarchical case, $`m_1^2`$ is restricted to about $`2\times 10^3\mathrm{eV}^2`$ for LMA solution since $`|\mathrm{\Delta }m_{12}^2|`$ can become as large as $`1\times 10^3\mathrm{eV}^2`$, which leads to the results that LMA solution can be realized for the large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ region, i.e., $`\mathrm{tan}\beta \stackrel{>}{_{}}40`$. However, we may say $`m_1^210^810^3\mathrm{eV}^2`$ for VO solution, and VO solution can be realized for wide $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ region.

### 4.2 CP violation phase

Now, let us take our attention to the CP phase. From Eq.(34), we get the Jarlskog parameter $`\widehat{J}`$ as

$`|\widehat{J}|=|\text{Im}(\widehat{U}_{e1}\widehat{U}_{\mu 2}\widehat{U}_{e2}^{}\widehat{U}_{\mu 1}^{})|{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}s_{13}c_{13}^2\mathrm{sin}2\theta _{12}^{}\left[1\pm {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}ϵ(13s_{13}^2)\right].`$ (46)
The deviation from unity in the bracket means the contribution from seesaw expansion. This shows that the $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ dependence of the Jarlskog parameter is almost same as that of $`\mathrm{sin}2\theta _{12}^{}`$. That is, $`\widehat{J}`$ is damping as $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ grows for $`\xi >0`$, while it has a peak for $`\xi <0`$.

Dirac CP phase $`\widehat{\delta }`$ is also given as

$`|\mathrm{sin}\widehat{\delta }|`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{|\text{Im}(\widehat{U}_{e1}\widehat{U}_{\mu 2}\widehat{U}_{e2}^{}\widehat{U}_{\mu 1}^{})|}{|\widehat{U}_{e1}||\widehat{U}_{e2}||\widehat{U}_{e3}||\widehat{U}_{\mu 3}||\widehat{U}_{\tau 3}|}}(1|\widehat{U}_{e3}|^2)`$ (47)
$``$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{12}^{}}{\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{12}^{}+(ϵs_{13})^2}}}`$
$``$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{(\xi \mathrm{sin}2\theta _{12})^2}{(\xi \mathrm{sin}2\theta _{12})^2\left[1+(ϵs_{13})^2\right]+(ϵs_{13})^2(ϵc_{13}^2+\xi \mathrm{cos}2\theta _{12})^2}}}.`$
Without the contribution from seesaw expansion, we could not look at the corrections of the denominator of the middle in Eq.(43), $`(ϵs_{13})^2`$, and $`|\mathrm{sin}\widehat{\delta }|`$ would not depend on the quantum correction. In other words, we may say that Dirac CP phase is stable for the small $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ region whatever $`\xi `$ and $`\theta _{12}`$ are given at $`m_R`$. However, $`(ϵs_{13})^2`$ have a possibility of becoming comparable to the $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{12}^{}`$ in the large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ region, and we should take this contribution into account to compare with the numerical evaluation.

## 5 Numerical check

We calculated the numerical evaluation of neutrino masses and the mixing matrix at $`m_Z`$ to compare with the analytical estimation shown in the previous section. To simplify the analysis, we evaluated in the inversely hierarchical case, where the mass spectrum at $`m_R`$ is easy to be determined except for $`|\mathrm{\Delta }m_{12}^2|`$. Figs. 1 and 2 are the results of the $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ dependence of mixing angles, Dirac CP phase and mass squared differences at $`m_Z`$.

(1) An example of the case (a)

In this case, $`\mathrm{sin}^22\widehat{\theta }_{12}`$ at $`m_Z`$ becomes small for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta >4`$ as we can see from Eq.(36). The numerical analysis is performed to see the $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ dependence for $`\mathrm{sin}^22\widehat{\theta }_{12}`$ and other quantities in detail and the result is shown in Fig. 1. As we can see, $`\mathrm{sin}^22\widehat{\theta }_{12}`$ can become as small as 0.01 at around $`\mathrm{tan}\beta 8`$, though $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{12}=8/9`$ at $`m_R`$. The mass squared difference $`|\mathrm{\Delta }m_{12}^2|`$ at $`m_Z`$ become large. For larger values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, $`|\mathrm{sin}\widehat{\delta }|`$ becomes small, though $`|\mathrm{sin}\delta |=1`$ at $`m_R`$. Other quantities, $`\widehat{\theta }_{13}`$, $`\widehat{\theta }_{23}`$ and $`|\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{m}_{23}^2|`$ do not change much.

From Fig.1, one might think that this instability can be used to realize SMA solution. Unfortunately, this is not true, because $`(m_2^2m_1^2)\mathrm{cos}2\widehat{\theta }_{12}<0`$ at $`m_Z`$ so that the MSW mechanism does not work.

(2) An example of the case (b)

In Fig. 2, we take as input values $`m_1=\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{atm}}^2}`$, $`m_2=\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{atm}}^2+|\mathrm{\Delta }m_{12}^2|}`$, $`m_3=0`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{atm}}^2=3.4\times 10^3`$ (eV2), $`|\mathrm{\Delta }m_{12}^2|=1\times 10^4`$ (eV2), $`\mathrm{sin}2\theta _{12}=0.1`$, $`s_{13}=0.16`$ with the predicted values of $`\theta _{23}=\pi /4`$ and $`\delta =\pi /2`$ at $`m_R`$. $`\widehat{\theta }_{13}`$, $`\widehat{\theta }_{23}`$ and $`|\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{m}_{23}^2|`$ are hardly dependent on the quantum corrections similarly as in the case (a). $`\mathrm{sin}^22\widehat{\theta }_{12}`$ has a peak around $`\mathrm{tan}\beta 30`$. From Eq.(40), we obtain the value of $`ϵ`$ at the peak as $`1.5\times 10^2`$, which corresponds to $`\mathrm{tan}\beta 30`$, which is consistent with the figure. $`|\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{m}_{12}^2|`$ is decreasing till $`\mathrm{tan}\beta 30`$ and then increasing, which is caused by the negative $`\xi `$ in Eq.(38). $`|\mathrm{sin}\widehat{\delta }|`$ is almost maximal in the wide $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ region, which is due to larger $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{12}^2`$ than that in the previous example, and the effect of quantum corrections disappears. Thus, the selection of those parameter values above gives an example of generating LMA solution with maximal CP phase at $`m_Z`$.

## 6 Summary

We investigated the quantum effects for the democratic-type neutrino mass matrix with the (inversely) hierarchical mass spectrum. We assumed that this mass matrix is generated by dimension-five operators added in the MSSM at $`m_R`$, and considered the mass matrix at $`m_Z`$ by using the renormalization group. We summarize our results as follows :

* $`\theta _{23}=\pi /4`$, $`\theta _{13}`$ and $`|\mathrm{\Delta }m_{23}^2|`$ are almost stable against quantum corrections.
* Dirac CP phase $`\delta =\pi /2`$ is almost stable unless the input mass splitting $`\xi =(m_1m_2)/m_1`$ at $`m_R`$ is too small.
* The behavior of the mixing angle $`\theta _{12}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{12}^2`$ is divided into two cases :

+ Case (a) : $`m_1>m_2`$ case
    In this case $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{12}`$ is damping dependent on the size of the mass difference $`\xi `$. From this nature, we expected the possibility of obtaining SMA solution at $`m_Z`$ even if the solar neutrino mixing angle is large at $`m_R`$. Though the mixing angle can become as small as the region preferred by SMA solution, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{12}^2\mathrm{cos}2\widehat{\theta }_{12}`$ at $`m_Z`$ is negative and the matter effect cannot occur in this case.
    + Case (b) : $`m_1<m_2`$ case
    In this case $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{12}`$ has a peak which is dependent on the size of $`\xi `$. From this nature, we showed the possibility of obtaining LMA and/or VO solutions at $`m_Z`$ even if the solar neutrino mixing angle is small at $`m_R`$. For the inversely hierarchical case, we can obtain LMA solution in the region of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta \stackrel{>}{_{}}30`$. For the hierarchical case, we can obtain either LMA solution in the region of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta \stackrel{>}{_{}}40`$ or VO solution in the wide $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ range. In order for this phenomena to occur, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{12}^2`$ at $`m_R`$ should be taken about 10 times as large as the experimental data.

From the above results, our democratic-type model can give the nearly maximal mixing angle for the atmospheric neutrino anomaly at $`m_Z`$, provided the free parameter $`\theta _{13}`$ is taken to be as small as that preferred by the CHOOZ data.

As to the solar neutrino problem, the latest report from Super-Kamiokande shows that SMA and VO solutions are disfavored by comparing the day/night spectrum with the results of the flux global analysis . If we consider this new data seriously, putting too strong degeneracy on $`m_1`$ and $`m_2`$, i.e., $`\xi <<1`$, at $`m_R`$ is limited in the small $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ region, otherwise the solar neutrino mixing angle would become small at $`m_Z`$ no matter how large it could be taken at $`m_R`$.

The result that $`\delta =\pi /2`$ predicted by the democratic-type model is almost kept maximal is the best situation to search the CP and T violation phenomenon in the near future projects like neutrino factories. Thus, if the solar neutrino problem will be solved by LMA solution, our model will be checked by looking at the signals of CP and T violation by the neutrino oscillation experiments in the next century.

Acknowledgment
This work is supported in part by the Japanese Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research of Ministry of Education, Science, Sports and Culture, No.12047218.