text:
# Realization of the Large Mixing Angle Solar Neutrino Solution in an SO(10) Supersymmetric Grand Unified Model

## I INTRODUCTION

Recent results from the Super-Kamiokande Collaboration  involving atmospheric neutrinos have rather convincingly demonstrated the partial disappearance of muon-neutrinos and favor the oscillation of muon-neutrinos into tau-neutrinos, rather than into sterile neutrinos at the 99% confidence level. With regard to solar neutrinos, the situation is somewhat more ambiguous. On the basis of the recently announced 1258 day sample results from Super-Kamiokande , together with the flux data from the Chlorine  and Gallium  experiments, the partial disappearance of electron-neutrinos through oscillations into the active flavors of muon- or tau-neutrinos is favored over oscillations into purely sterile neutrinos, with the large mixing angle (LMA) solution strongly preferred over the small mixing angle (SMA), the LOW, and the quasi-vacuum (QVO) solutions. Several recent analyses  based on the smaller 1117 day sample are basically in agreement with this conclusion by Super-Kamiokande but assign slightly higher probabilities to the other three solutions than does ref. .

Whereas the data at present prefer the LMA solution to the solar neutrino problem, from a model building point of view the LMA solution seems by far the most difficult solution to obtain . Many published models of neutrino masses and mixings either cannot obtain the LMA solution, or can only obtain it by fine tuning parameters. It is thus of importance to reexamine various approaches to see whether they have sufficient flexibility to accomodate the LMA solution in a natural way.

One approach that is particularly flexible is the so-called “lopsided mass matrix” approach. The idea here is that the large atmospheric neutrino mixing angle arises from the form of the charged lepton mass matrix. In other words, in this approach $`U_{\mu 3}`$ is more naturally thought of as a mixing of $`\mu `$ and $`\tau `$ rather than of $`\nu _\mu `$ and $`\nu _\tau `$. On the other hand, the solar neutrino mixing can come from the neutrino mass matrix. In this way the atmospheric neutrino problem and the solar neutrino problem can be decoupled from each other. This is one feature that allows the lopsided mass matrix models to be more flexible in dealing with the solar neutrino problem. In this paper we study an especially simple but very predictive example of a lopsided mass matrix model to see whether it can accommodate the LMA solution in a natural way, that is, without fine-tuning.

The model we shall discuss was developed in a series of papers , ,  by the present authors, together with K.S. Babu earlier in the collaboration. The model is based on supersymmetric $`SO(10)`$ grand unification. As is well known, $`SO(10)`$ symmetry typically relates the forms of the Dirac mass matrices of the up quarks, down quarks, charged leptons and neutrinos (which we denote by $`U`$, $`D`$, $`L`$, and $`N`$, respectively) very closely to each other. In this model, the lopsidedness of the charged lepton mass matrix, $`L`$, and of the down quark mass matrix, $`D`$, allow an elegant explanation of many of the features of the quark and lepton masses and mixings; in particular, the fact that $`U_{\mu 3}`$ is large whereas $`V_{cb}`$ is small. An interesting point is that in this model the largeness of the atmospheric mixing angle $`U_{\mu 3}`$ is forced upon one by the structure of $`L`$, which in turn is tied by $`SO(10)`$ symmetry to the forms of the other Dirac mass matrices. On the other hand, as is again typical of $`SO(10)`$ unification, the Majorana mass matrix of the right-handed neutrinos, $`M_R`$, is only indirectly related to the Dirac matrices, and is therefore much less constrained. This allows various possibilities for solar neutrino mixing.

In the first papers describing this model , it was found that the SMA solution is very easily obtained if one assumes certain simple forms for $`M_R`$, specifically ones which have zeros in the 12, 13, 21 and 31 elements. Later it was realized that the QVO solution is also easily obtained  by assuming certain other simple forms for $`M_R`$. However, it was found that the simplest looking forms for $`M_R`$, namely those with many texture zeros, cannot give the LMA solution . In light of the recent claim that the LMA solution is strongly favored, we re-examine this model to see whether the LMA can be obtained in a natural way. In fact, we look at all four solar solutions.

In Sect. II we specify the conditions for each of the four solar solutions. The Dirac mass matrices and parameters obtained earlier for the $`SO(10)`$ model in question are presented in Sect. III, where we also numerically determine the structures of the right-handed Majorana matrix needed to reproduce all four solutions. A survey of these numerical results in Sect. IV reveals that $`M_R`$ for the LMA solution, in particular, has a remarkably simple texture which can be easily related to the Dirac neutrino matrix. For this case, the seesaw mechanism then leads to a light neutrino mass matrix which has two or three texture zeros. The implications of this solution for leptogenesis are briefly discussed.

## II PREFERRED REGIONS IN THE NEUTRINO MIXING PLANE

Here we summarize the preferred points in the neutrino mixing plane for the atmospheric neutrino and the four viable solar neutrino oscillation solutions. We use this information to reconstruct the Maki-Nakagawa-Sakata (MNS)  neutrino mixing matrix for each of the four solutions.

For the atmospheric neutrino oscillations, the best fit values obtained are

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2& =& 3.2\times 10^3\mathrm{eV}^2,\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{23}& =& 1.000,\hfill \end{array}$$
(1)
in terms of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{ij}^2m_i^2m_j^2`$ with $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{atm}=4|U_{\mu 3}|^2|U_{\tau 3}|^2`$ expressed in terms of the MNS leptonic mixing matrix elements. Note that to a high degree, the atmospheric neutrino mixing is observed to be maximal. The best fit values for the four solar neutrino solutions according to an earlier analysis by Gonzalez-Garcia  are

$$\begin{array}{cc}SMA:\hfill & \mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2=5.0\times 10^6\mathrm{eV}^2,\hfill \\ & \mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{12}=0.0024,\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _{12}=0.0006,\hfill \\ LMA:\hfill & \mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2=3.2\times 10^5\mathrm{eV}^2,\hfill \\ & \mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{12}=0.75,\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _{12}=0.33,\hfill \\ LOW:\hfill & \mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2=1.0\times 10^7\mathrm{eV}^2,\hfill \\ & \mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{12}=0.96,\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _{12}=0.67,\hfill \\ QVO:\hfill & \mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2=8.6\times 10^{10}\mathrm{eV}^2,\hfill \\ & \mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{12}=0.96,\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _{12}=1.5.\hfill \end{array}$$
(2)
In general the MNS mixing matrix, analogous to the CKM quark mixing matrix, can be written as

$$U_{MNS}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}c_{12}c_{13}& s_{12}c_{13}& s_{13}e^{i\delta }\\ s_{12}c_{23}c_{12}s_{23}s_{13}e^{i\delta }& c_{12}c_{23}s_{12}s_{23}s_{13}e^{i\delta }& s_{23}c_{13}\\ s_{12}s_{23}c_{12}c_{23}s_{13}e^{i\delta }& c_{12}s_{23}s_{12}c_{23}s_{13}e^{i\delta }& c_{23}c_{13}\end{array}\right)$$
(3)
in terms of $`c_{12}=\mathrm{cos}\theta _{12},s_{12}=\mathrm{sin}\theta _{12}`$, etc. With the oscillation parameters relevant to the scenarios indicated above, to a very good approximation $`\theta _{13}=0^o`$ and $`\theta _{23}=45^o`$ whereby Eq. (3) becomes essentially real and of the form

$$U_{MNS}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}c_{12}& s_{12}& 0\\ s_{12}/\sqrt{2}& c_{12}/\sqrt{2}& 1/\sqrt{2}\\ s_{12}/\sqrt{2}& c_{12}/\sqrt{2}& 1/\sqrt{2}\end{array}\right),$$
(4)
where the light neutrino mass eigenstates are given in terms of the flavor states by

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \nu _3& =& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\nu _\mu +\nu _\tau ),\hfill \\ \hfill \nu _2& =& \nu _e\mathrm{sin}\theta _{12}+\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\nu _\mu \nu _\tau )\mathrm{cos}\theta _{12},\hfill \\ \hfill \nu _1& =& \nu _e\mathrm{cos}\theta _{12}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\nu _\mu \nu _\tau )\mathrm{sin}\theta _{12}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(5)
For the SMA solution, $`\theta _{12}=1.4^o`$, while the three large mixing solar solutions differ from maximal in that the angle is approximately $`30^o`$ for the LMA, $`39^o`$ for the LOW, and $`51^o`$ for the QVO solutions. Numerically we find for each case

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill U_{MNS}^{(SMA)}& =\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0.9997& 0.0241& 0\\ 0.0170& 0.7069& 0.7071\\ 0.0170& 0.7069& 0.7071\end{array}\right),\hfill \\ \hfill U_{MNS}^{(LMA)}& =\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0.866& 0.500& 0\\ 0.354& 0.612& 0.707\\ 0.354& 0.612& 0.707\end{array}\right),\hfill \\ \hfill U_{MNS}^{(LOW)}& =\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0.774& 0.633& 0\\ 0.448& 0.547& 0.707\\ 0.448& 0.547& 0.707\end{array}\right),\hfill \\ \hfill U_{MNS}^{(QVO)}& =\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0.633& 0.775& 0\\ 0.548& 0.447& 0.707\\ 0.548& 0.447& 0.707\end{array}\right).\hfill \end{array}$$
(6)
## III MODEL MASS MATRICES AND NUMERICAL DETERMINATIONS OF $`M_R`$

The model we are studying here is an $`SO(10)`$ grand unified model. For details of its field content, the flavor symmetry $`U(1)\times Z_2\times Z_2`$, couplings, and so forth, the reader is referred to the series of papers in which the model was developed , . Here we will only mention a few of the features of the model important for the present considerations.

This model arose from an attempt to construct a realistic $`SO(10)`$ model with the simplest possible, or “minimal,” Higgs content. This attempt led very naturally to the following structures at the GUT scale for the Dirac mass matrices of the up quarks, down quarks, neutrinos, and charged leptons, labeled $`U`$, $`D`$, $`N`$, and $`L`$, respectively:

$$\begin{array}{cc}U=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\eta & 0& 0\\ 0& 0& ϵ/3\\ 0& ϵ/3& 1\end{array}\right)M_U,\hfill & D=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& \delta & \delta ^{}e^{i\varphi }\\ \delta & 0& \sigma +ϵ/3\\ \delta ^{}e^{i\varphi }& ϵ/3& 1\end{array}\right)M_D,\hfill \\ & \\ N=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\eta & 0& 0\\ 0& 0& ϵ\\ 0& ϵ& 1\end{array}\right)M_U,\hfill & L=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& \delta & \delta ^{}e^{i\varphi }\\ \delta & 0& ϵ\\ \delta ^{}e^{i\varphi }& \sigma +ϵ& 1\end{array}\right)M_D.\hfill \end{array}$$
(7)
A crucial point is that the four Dirac matrices are closely related to each other by the group theory of $`SO(10)`$ and that their forms are definitely fixed in terms of a few parameters. As a result the model is very predictive, and in fact gives excellent agreement with all the known facts about the CKM mixings, the quark masses, and the charged lepton masses. By fitting these data, taking into account the renormalization effects from the GUT scale to low energies, the following values of the parameters were obtained:

$$\begin{array}{cccc}\hfill M_U& 113\mathrm{GeV},\hfill & \hfill M_D& 1\mathrm{GeV},\hfill \\ \hfill \sigma & =1.78,\hfill & \hfill ϵ& =0.145,\hfill \\ \hfill \delta & =0.0086,\hfill & \hfill \delta ^{}& =0.0079,\hfill \\ \hfill \varphi & =54^o,\hfill & \hfill \eta & =8\times 10^6.\hfill \end{array}$$
(8)
A critical feature of the model is that the parameter $`\sigma `$ is of order unity, and appears in an asymmetrical or “lopsided” way in $`L`$ and $`D`$. This fact plays many roles in the model and is indeed the key to its economy and success in fitting the data. It explains (a) why $`m_c/m_tm_s/m_b`$, since $`m_c/m_tϵ^2`$, while $`m_s/m_bϵ\sigma `$; (b) why the Georgi-Jarlskog relation $`m_s/m_b\frac{1}{3}m_\mu /m_\tau `$ holds, since without the $`\sigma `$ term a factor of $`\frac{1}{9}`$ rather than $`\frac{1}{3}`$ would result; and (c) why $`V_{cb}U_{\mu 3}`$. The reason for the last is that $`\sigma `$ appears in the 32 element of $`L`$, where it causes a large mixing of left-handed muon and tau leptons, i.e. large $`U_{\mu 3}`$, whereas it appears in the 23 element of $`D`$, where it causes a large mixing of right-handed quarks, which is not relevant to $`V_{cb}`$. The mixing $`V_{cb}`$ is instead controlled by the 32 element of $`D`$, which is the small parameter $`ϵ/3`$. The fact that $`\sigma `$ appears transposed between $`D`$ and $`L`$ has to do with the $`SU(5)`$ structure of the fields involved.

For present purposes the most important fact is that the largeness of the atmospheric neutrino mixing angle comes from the parameter $`\sigma `$ in the charged lepton mass matrix $`L`$. The contribution of the neutrino mass matrix to this mixing is formally of order $`ϵ`$, as can be seen from the form of $`N`$, and is therefore numerically small for generic choices of $`M_R`$. On the other hand, one sees that the solar neutrino mixing angle receives only a small contribution from the charged lepton sector, since the 12 and 21 elements of $`L`$ are small. Therefore, whether the solar angle is large or small is controlled by the neutrino mass matrix $`M_\nu =N^TM_R^1N`$, or in other words by $`M_R`$, since $`N`$ is fixed. The form of $`M_R`$ is rather independent of the forms of the Dirac matrices given in Eq. (7) because it comes from completely different operators. That is why in this model — and indeed in the general framework  of “lopsided mass matrix models” in which the atmospheric angle arises from large lopsided entries in $`L`$ — there is great flexibility in how the solar neutrino problem is solved. Different solar oscillation solutions can be obtained by changing the form of $`M_R`$ without affecting in any way the fits to the CKM parameters, the masses of the quarks and charged leptons, or the fact that the atmospheric neutrino angle is large.

In our first papers where this model was discussed, forms of $`M_R`$ were assumed in which the SMA solar solution was naturally obtained. Indeed, one sees immediately that if $`M_R`$ has vanishing 12, 21, 13, and 31 elements, $`M_\nu `$ does not contribute to the solar neutrino angle, which then comes entirely from $`L`$ and is therefore small.

The QVO solution can also be very easily obtained. In  the following simple form of $`M_R`$ was constructed:

$$M_R=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& Aϵ^3& 0\\ Aϵ^3& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right)\mathrm{\Lambda }_R.$$
(9)
With this form the seesaw formula  gives the light neutrino mass matrix to be

$$M_\nu =N^TM_R^1N=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& \eta /(Aϵ^2)\\ 0& ϵ^2& ϵ\\ \eta /(Aϵ^2)& ϵ& 1\end{array}\right)M_U^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }_R.$$
(10)
With $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_R=2.4\times 10^{14}`$ GeV and $`A=0.05`$, a fairly reasonable fit to the quasi-vacuum solution then emerged with

$$\begin{array}{cc}\multicolumn{2}{c}{m_3=54.3\mathrm{meV},m_2=59.6\mu \mathrm{eV},m_1=56.5\mu \mathrm{eV},}\\ \multicolumn{2}{c}{M_3=2.4\times 10^{14}\mathrm{GeV},M_2=M_1=3.66\times 10^{10}\mathrm{GeV},}\\ \multicolumn{2}{c}{U_{e2}=0.733,U_{e3}=0.047,U_{\mu 3}=0.818,\delta _{CP}^{}=0.2^o,}\\ \mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2=3.0\times 10^3\mathrm{eV}^2,\hfill & \mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{atm}=0.89,\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2=3.6\times 10^{10}\mathrm{eV}^2,\hfill & \mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{solar}=0.99,\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2=3.0\times 10^3\mathrm{eV}^2,\hfill & \mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{reac}=0.009.\hfill \end{array}$$
(11)
We now wish to search for right-handed Majorana mass matrix textures which fit more accurately each of the four solar neutrino solutions. We first note that the MNS mixing matrix corresponds to the product of two unitary transformations,

$$U_{MNS}=U_L^{}U_\nu ,$$
(12)
where $`U_L`$ diagonalizes the Hermitian lepton matrix $`L^{}L`$, and $`U_\nu `$ diagonalizes the light neutrino mass matrix which we assume to be real and symmetric for simplicity:

$$L^{\mathrm{diag}}L^{\mathrm{diag}}=U_L^{}L^{}LU_L,M_\nu ^{\mathrm{diag}}=U_\nu ^TM_\nu U_\nu .$$
(13)
It is easy to see that, given a specific pattern of neutrino masses and mixings, one can invert to find a form of $`M_R`$ that will give that pattern. To be given a pattern of neutrino masses and mixings means that one is given the MNS mixing matrix $`U_{MNS}`$ and the neutrino mass eigenvalues $`m_1`$, $`m_2`$, and $`m_3`$. On the other hand, the model itself specifies the charged lepton matrix, $`L`$, and the neutrino Dirac mass matrix, $`N`$; cf. Eq. (7). Thus $`M_R`$ can be inferred as follows. First, $`U_L`$ can be directly obtained from diagonalization of $`L^{}L`$. Then $`U_L`$ together with the given $`U_{MNS}`$ determine $`U_\nu `$ through Eq. (12). Although $`L`$ and hence $`U_L`$ are complex, we can obtain a real $`U_\nu `$ by making use of the freedom to perform a phase rotation on $`U_{MNS}`$, so that

$$U_\nu =U_Ldiag(1,1,e^{i\varphi })U_{MNS}.$$
(14)
Then, defining

$$M_\nu ^{\mathrm{diag}}=diag(m_1,m_2,m_3),$$
(15)
with hierarchical masses chosen which are related to the $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{ij}^2`$’s, one can use this and the matrix $`U_\nu `$ already found to determine $`M_\nu `$ by using the second of Eq. (13). Finally, one can use the $`N`$ known from the model and $`M_\nu `$ to find $`M_R`$ by inverting the see-saw formula

$$M_R=NM_\nu ^1N^T.$$
(16)
We present the numerical results for each of the four solar solutions as follows:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill M_R^{(SMA)}& =\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0.156\times 10^7& 0.190\times 10^4& 0.116\times 10^3\\ 0.190\times 10^4& 0.0105& 0.123\\ 0.116\times 10^3& 0.123& 1.000\end{array}\right)\times 5.2\times 10^{14}\mathrm{GeV},\hfill \\ & \mathrm{with}M_1=3.7\times 10^6,M_2=2.3\times 10^{12},M_3=5.3\times 10^{14}\mathrm{GeV};\hfill \\ \hfill M_R^{(LMA)}& =\left(\begin{array}{ccc}8.30\times 10^{10}& 0.511\times 10^5& 2.13\times 10^5\\ 0.511\times 10^5& 0.0244& 0.155\\ 2.13\times 10^5& 0.155& 1.000\end{array}\right)\times 3.0\times 10^{14}\mathrm{GeV},\hfill \\ & \mathrm{with}M_1=4.2\times 10^6,M_2=6.7\times 10^{10},M_3=3.1\times 10^{14}\mathrm{GeV};\hfill \\ \hfill M_R^{(LOW)}& =\left(\begin{array}{ccc}5.15\times 10^{10}& 1.43\times 10^5& 5.46\times 10^5\\ 1.43\times 10^5& 0.0292& 0.176\\ 5.46\times 10^5& 0.176& 1.000\end{array}\right)\times 5.8\times 10^{14}\mathrm{GeV},\hfill \\ & \mathrm{with}M_1=6.0\times 10^6,M_2=9.7\times 10^{11},M_3=6.0\times 10^{14}\mathrm{GeV};\hfill \\ \hfill M_R^{(QVO)}& =\left(\begin{array}{ccc}6.98\times 10^{10}& 1.33\times 10^5& 4.75\times 10^5\\ 1.33\times 10^5& 0.0481& 0.222\\ 4.75\times 10^5& 0.222& 1.000\end{array}\right)\times 3.2\times 10^{15}\mathrm{GeV},\hfill \\ & \mathrm{with}M_1=8.8\times 10^6,M_2=3.8\times 10^{12},M_3=3.3\times 10^{15}\mathrm{GeV}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(17)
Strictly speaking, the above results were obtained at the GUT scale, but with the moderate value of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta 5`$ preferred by the model  and for the hierarchical and sign choices given in Eq. (15) above, the evolutions in masses and mixings from the GUT scale to the low scales are extremely small and can be neglected .

That one can find forms for $`M_R`$ that reproduce the various solar neutrino solutions is in itself not very significant, for as we have just seen, this is guaranteed as long as the relevant matrices are invertible. The significant question is whether the matrix $`M_R`$ that gives a certain solar solution is obtainable in the model under discussion in a simple way without fine-tuning. The forms for $`M_R^{(SMA)}`$ and $`M_R^{(QVO)}`$ given in Eq. (17) are complicated-looking. However, these are the forms that reproduce the present best-fit SMA and QVO solutions according to . One already knows from our previous work, as has already been mentioned, that much simpler forms for $`M_R`$, having several texture zeros, give perfectly satisfactory SMA and QVO solutions; moreover, those simpler forms are obtainable straightforwardly without fine-tuning. But that same earlier work shows that forms for $`M_R`$ having several texture zeros do not yield a satisfactory LMA solution in this model. The question is then whether the form $`M_R^{(LMA)}`$ given in Eq. (17), or something sufficiently close to it, can be obtained simply and naturally in the model. To this question we now turn.

## IV SIMPLE ANALYTIC FORM FOR $`M_R`$ INVOLVING THE LMA SOLUTION

At first glance the form of $`M_R^{(LMA)}`$ in Eq. (17) looks very complicated. However, it has some significant features that suggest that it may be obtainable in a simple way. First of all, one sees that $`(M_R)_{23}=(M_R)_{32}ϵ`$ and $`(M_R)_{22}ϵ^2`$, where $`ϵ`$ is the parameter that appears in the Dirac matrix, $`N`$, of Eq. (7). To a good approximation we can therefore introduce the analytic form

$$M_R^{(LMA)}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}c^2\eta ^2& bϵ\eta & a\eta \\ bϵ\eta & ϵ^2& ϵ\\ a\eta & ϵ& 1\end{array}\right)\mathrm{\Lambda }_R,$$
(18)
written in terms of parameters appearing in the Dirac neutrino matrix, where $`ϵ=0.145`$ and $`\eta =0.8\times 10^5`$ as before, cf. Eq. (8), and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_R=2.5\times 10^{14}`$ GeV. It will turn out that the new parameters $`a,b`$ and $`c`$ are all of order unity in order to obtain the LMA solar solution. Making use of the seesaw formula, we then find

$$M_\nu ^{(LMA)}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& ϵ/(ab)& 0\\ ϵ/(ab)& ϵ^2(c^2b^2)/(ab)^2& bϵ/(ab)\\ 0& bϵ/(ab)& 1\end{array}\right)M_U^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }_R.$$
(19)
It is interesting, and we shall see, relevant to leptogenesis that this form has some texture zeros. These texture zeros follow directly from the form of the 23 block of Eq. (18). That this 23 block has rank 1 immediately suggests that it can arise from diagrams of the Froggatt-Nielson type . Moreover, the fact that the same parameter $`ϵ`$ appears in both $`M_R`$ and $`N`$ suggests the possibility that the hierarchies in the 23 blocks of both matrices may have the same origin. These suggestions can be realized as we now show.

In Fig. 1 we repeat for clarity the diagrams in our model which contributed to the Dirac matrices in the 2-3 sector. The dominant 33 elements arise from the $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_H`$ Higgs electroweak doublet contributions. For the 23 and/or 32 elements, higher-order contributions arise from electroweak doublets in both the $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_H`$ and $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}_H`$ $`SO(10)`$ representations, with additional singlet Higgs VEV’s and a $`\mathrm{𝟒𝟓}_H`$ Higgs GUT scale VEV pointing in the $`BL`$ direction. Due to the $`SU(5)`$ structure of the Higgs fields, the diagram appearing in Fig. 1(c) contributes only to the $`D_{23}`$ and $`L_{32}`$ elements of the down quark and charged lepton mass matrices. Note that the internal superheavy fermions appearing in $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟔},\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}},\mathbf{10}_1`$ and $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_2`$ are integrated out.

In Fig. 2 we show the lower-order diagrams which can contribute to the 2-3 sector of the right-handed Majorana mass matrix. Here a singlet Higgs GUT scale VEV, $`V_M`$, couples two superheavy conjugate singlet fermions thus inducing a breaking of lepton number. The VEV’s in the $`\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}_H`$’s also appear at the GUT scale. The $`\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}_𝐇\mathrm{𝟏}_𝐇^{\prime \prime }`$ pair appearing in insertion “A” of Fig. 2 serves to lower the heaviest right-handed Majorana neutrino mass down to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_R=2.5\times 10^{14}`$ GeV from the GUT scale value of $`2\times 10^{16}`$ GeV. By making use of the techniques spelled out in detail in , one can readily show that the 23 elements of $`N`$ and $`M_R`$ are scaled by the same factor $`ϵ`$ relative to their 33 elements. The factor enters antisymmetrically in $`N`$ for the 23 and 32 elements due to the $`BL`$ nature of the $`\mathrm{𝟒𝟓}_H`$ VEV and the presence of both left-handed neutrino and conjugate neutrino states, while it appears symmetrically in $`M_R`$ since both states involve conjugate neutrinos. In the Majorana case, both superheavy singlet and $`\mathrm{𝟒𝟓}`$ fermions must be integrated out. We have checked that the these diagrams can be achieved as indicated with proper assignment of the $`U(1)\times Z_2\times Z_2`$ flavor quantum numbers for the new heavy fermion fields introduced.

We now turn to the small entries of the first row and column of $`M_R^{(LMA)}`$ in Eq. (18) with $`a`$, $`b`$, and $`c`$ numbers of order unity. The fact that the whole matrix manifests a geometrical hierarchy involving the same small parameters $`ϵ`$ and $`\eta `$ that appear in $`N`$ reinforces the idea that $`M_R`$ may be simply obtained by Froggatt-Nielsen-type diagrams involving some of the same VEVs that generate $`N`$. If it were the case that $`a=b=c`$ exactly, then the whole matrix would have rank 1, and thus all its elements could be obtained from a single Yukawa vertex $`(\mathrm{𝟏}_3^c\mathrm{𝟏}_3^c)V_M`$, in the same way that we illustrated for the 23 block. However, that would, of course, be unrealistic in that two neutrinos would then be massless. However, it is not necessary that the matrix be of rank 1 in order that it arise from simple Froggatt-Nielson diagrams. Thus we have the possibility that $`a`$, $`b`$, and $`c`$ are not all equal.

For an especially interesting numerical example, suppose that

$$a=1,b=c=2,\mathrm{\Lambda }=2.5\times 10^{14}\mathrm{GeV}.$$
(20)
This has a simple interpretation in that all elements of the $`M_R`$ matrix receive contributions from the Yukawa vertex involving $`V_M`$, while only the 13 and 31 elements receive contributions from a second $`\mathrm{\Delta }L=2`$ violating Yukawa vertex involving $`V_M^{}`$. This can be realized with the proper choice of flavor indices for $`V_M^{}`$. By the see-saw formula, one then has

$$M_\nu ^{(LMA)}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& ϵ& 0\\ ϵ& 0& 2ϵ\\ 0& 2ϵ& 1\end{array}\right)M_U^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }_R$$
(21)
with three texture zeros from which we obtain

$$\begin{array}{cc}\multicolumn{2}{c}{m_3=57.4\mathrm{meV},m_2=9.83\mathrm{meV},m_1=5.61\mathrm{meV},}\\ \multicolumn{2}{c}{M_3=2.5\times 10^{14}\mathrm{GeV},M_2=M_1=2.8\times 10^8\mathrm{GeV},}\\ \multicolumn{2}{c}{U_{e2}=0.572,U_{e3}=0.014,U_{\mu 3}=0.733,\delta _{CP}=0^o,}\\ \mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2=3.2\times 10^3\mathrm{eV}^2,\hfill & \mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{atm}=0.994,\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2=6.5\times 10^5\mathrm{eV}^2,\hfill & \mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{solar}=0.88,\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2=3.2\times 10^3\mathrm{eV}^2,\hfill & \mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{reac}=0.0008.\hfill \end{array}$$
(22)
These results fit both the atmospheric and the LMA solar mixing solutions extremely well and can be considered a success for the model. In fact, the best fit point for the LMA solar mixing solution as given by the Super-Kamiokande Collaboration in their latest analysis of 1258 days of data taking  is $`(\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{sol}=0.87,\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2=7\times 10^5\mathrm{eV}^2)`$. We find the whole newly-allowed LMA region can be covered with $`a,b`$ and $`c`$ varying by factors of $`O(1)`$ from the values given in Eq. (20). It is noteworthy that the solar neutrino mixing is near maximal, but not actually maximal as that is presently excluded experimentally by the SuperKamiokande results at more than the 95% confidence level.

How fine-tuned is the form of $`M_R`$ that we have been discussing? One feature that at least appears fine-tuned is the fact that the 23 and 32 entries in Eq. (18) are not only of order $`ϵ`$ but actually equal to $`ϵ`$ exactly. This one has no right to expect from the mere fact that the same VEVs come into the diagrams for $`N`$ and $`M_R`$, since as can be seen from Figs. 1 and 2 different Yukawa couplings are involved in the 23 entries of the two matrices. One can test how fine-tuned the form in Eq. (18) is by replacing the 23 and 32 elements by $`dϵ`$ and the 22 element by $`d^2ϵ^2`$. (The fact that the same $`d`$ enters is due to the factorized structure of the diagrams in Fig. 2, and is therefore not a fine-tuning.) One naturally expects that $`d`$ is of order unity, but how close must it be to 1 to give a realistic LMA solution? It turns out that the most severe constraint on the value of $`d`$ comes from the limit on $`U_{e3}`$. To satisfy the condition that $`|U_{e3}|0.15`$ , one requires that $`0.85d1.15`$. Thus, the LMA solution does not require an unnatural fine-tuning of parameters.

Finally we note that the upper bound on the lightest heavy Majorana neutrino mass $`M_1`$ should be less than or of order $`10^9`$ GeV to prevent overproduction of gravitinos from overclosing the universe after inflation . This bound is satisfied for all four solar solutions as determined in Eq. (17) and, in particular, for the model illustrated above. A second condition for leptogenesis is that the 13 and 31 elements of $`M_R`$ be suppressed by a factor of at least $`10^3`$ relative to the 33 element to inhibit mixing of the heaviest right-handed neutrino with the lightest one in order to prevent its rapid decay washing out the lepton asymmetry generated. This is satisfied in our model.

## V SUMMARY

We have investigated how an $`SO(10)`$ SUSY GUT model proposed earlier can be modified in order to obtain solar neutrino solutions other than the vacuum solution. The study revealed that only the right-handed Majorana neutrino mass matrix needed to be modified, with the Dirac matrices for the neutrinos and charged leptons (as well as for the quarks) left unchanged. In short, in this model the maximal atmospheric neutrino mixing is controlled primarily by the structure of the charged lepton mass matrix, while the type of solar neutrino solution is largely determined by the form of the right-handed Majorana mass matrix.

Of particular interest was the finding that the large mixing angle solar solution is readily obtained with a nearly geometrical hierarchy in $`M_R`$, where the 2-3 subsector has a close relationship with that for the Dirac neutrino matrix, as seen by study of the Froggatt-Nielsen diagrams. It is precisely this structure which provides the “fine-tuning” necessary to achieve the LMA solar solution.

The research of SMB was supported in part by Department of Energy Grant Number DE FG02 91 ER 40626 A007. One of us (CHA) thanks the Fermilab Theoretical Physics Department for its kind hospitality where much of his work was carried out. Fermilab is operated by Universities Research Association Inc. under contract with the Department of Energy.


format: text

text:
# 𝐽/𝜓 Suppression and Enhancement in Au+Au Collisions at the BNL RHIC

## Nuclear geometry

The spherically symmetrical distribution of the nucleons in the $`Au197`$ nucleus can be parametrized by the two-parameter Fermi function  (this parametrization is also known as Woods-Saxon distribution):

$$\rho (r)=\rho _0\left[1+exp\left(\frac{rc}{a}\right)\right]^1$$
(27)
with $`c6.38`$ fm, $`a0.535`$ fm and $`\rho _0`$ is given by the normalization condition:

$$4\pi _0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑rr^2\rho (r)=1.$$
(28)
The nuclear thickness distribution $`T_A(b)`$ is defined by the formula

$$T_A(b)=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑z\rho \left(\sqrt{b^2+z^2}\right),$$
(29)
and the nuclear overlap function is defined as

$$T_{AB}(b)=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑x_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑yT_A\left(\sqrt{x^2+y^2}\right)T_B\left(\sqrt{x^2+(yb)^2}\right).$$
(30)
From Eq.(28), one can deduce that the above functions satisfy the following normalization conditions:

$$2\pi _0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑bbT_A(b)=1,2\pi _0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑bbT_{AB}(b)=1.$$
(31)


text:
# Untitled Document

LINEARISABLE MAPPINGS AND THE LOW-GROWTH CRITERION

A. Ramani

CPT, Ecole Polytechnique

CNRS, UMR 7644

91128 Palaiseau, France

B. Grammaticos

GMPIB, Université Paris VII

Tour 24-14, 5eétage, case 7021

75251 Paris, France

S. Lafortune

LPTMC et GMPIB, Université Paris VII

Tour 24-14, 5eétage, case 7021

75251 Paris, France

Y. Ohta

Department of Applied Mathematics

Faculty of Engineering, Hiroshima University

1-4-1 Kagamiyama, Higashi-Hiroshima, 739-8527 Japan

Abstract We examine a family of discrete second-order systems which are integrable through reduction to a linear system. These systems were previously identified using the singularity confinement criterion. Here we analyse them using the more stringent criterion of nonexponential growth of the degrees of the iterates. We show that the linearisable mappings are characterised by a very special degree growth. The ones linearisable by reduction to projective systems exhibit zero growth, i.e. they behave like linear systems, while the remaining ones (derivatives of Riccati, Gambier mapping) lead to linear growth. This feature may well serve as a detector of integrability through linearisation.

Integrability of discrete systems is a concept that can be understood on the basis of our experience on integrable continuous systems. The progress accomplished in the domain of discrete systems this last decade has made possible the identification of the possible types of integrability. The parallel with continuous systems is almost perfect. Three main types of integrable discrete systems seem to exist :

a) Systems which possess a sufficient number of constants of motion. The QRT family of mappings  is a nice example of such a system.

b) Systems which can be reduced to linear mappings. They will be examined in detail in this paper.

c) Systems which can be obtained as the compatibility condition for some linear system i.e. systems that possess a Lax pair. Nice examples of such systems are the discrete Painlevé equations . Given the Lax pair one can reduce the integration of the nonlinear mapping to the solution of an isomonodromy problem.

It is clear that the integration of a given integrable discrete system may proceed along any of the lines sketched above. One can, for example, perform one first integration using a constant of motion whereupon the system becomes linearisable and so on.

The very existence of integrable mappings (and their relative rarity) made their detection particularly interesting. Integrability detectors must, of course, be based on the properties which are characteristic of integrability. In this spirit we have proposed the singularity confinement property  based on the observation that a singularity spontaneously appearing in an integrable mapping disappears after some iterations: it is “confined” in the sense that it does not propagate ad infinitum. The singularity confinement criterion is a necessary one for integrability but, as we have already remarked in , it is not sufficient. This was explained in ample details by Hietarinta and Viallet  who have proposed the notion of algebraic entropy as a stronger criterion which could well be sufficient. This criterion is based on the ideas of Arnold  and Veselov  on the growth of the degrees of the iterates of some initial data under the action of the mapping. The main argument is that a generic, nonintegrable mapping has an exponential degree growth, while integrability is associated with low growth, typically polynomial. Although the degree itself is not invariant under coordinate changes, the type of growth, as pointed out by Bellon and Viallet , is invariant. The authors of  and  have introduced the notion of algebraic entropy defined as $`E=lim_n\mathrm{}(\mathrm{log}d_n)/n`$, where $`d_n`$ is the degree of the $`n`$th iterate. Generic, nonintegrable mappings have nonzero algebraic entropy. The conjecture is that integrability, associated to polynomial growth, leads to zero algebraic entropy. In  we have examined the results on discrete Painlevé equations based on the singularity confinement criterion in the light of the low-growth approach. Our main finding was that singularity confinement is sufficient in order to deautonomize a given integrable autonomous mapping. This result led to the proposal of a dual approach for the study of discrete integrability based on the successive applications on the singularity confinement and low-growth criteria, the latter being implemented only after the first is used to simplify the problem down to tractable proportions.

The aim of this paper is to examine this particular class of mappings which are linearisable and study their growth properties. Most of these systems were obtained using the singularity confinement criterion and thus a study of the growth of the degree of the iterates would be an interesting complementary information. Moreover, as we will show, the linearisable systems do possess particular growth properties which set them apart from the other integrable discrete systems.

The first mapping we are going to treat is a two-point mapping of the form $`x_{n+1}=f(x_n,n)`$ where $`f`$ is rational in $`x_n`$ and analytical in $`n`$. In  we have shown that for all $`f`$’s of the form $`_i\frac{\alpha _i}{(x+\beta _i)^{\nu _i}}`$ the singularity confinement requirement is satisfied. However all those mappings cannot be integrable: the discrete Riccati, $`x_{n+1}=\alpha +\frac{\lambda }{x_n+\beta }`$, is the only expected integrable one. Our argument in , for the rejection of these confining but nonintegrable cases, was based on the proliferation of the preimages of a given point. If we solve the mapping for $`x_n`$ in terms of $`x_{n+1}`$ we do not find a uniquely defined $`x_n`$ and, iterating, the number of $`x_{nk}`$ grows exponentially. In what follows we shall analyse this two-point mapping in the light of the algebraic entropy approach. We start from the simplest case which we expect to be nonintegrable,

$$x_{n+1}=\alpha +\frac{\lambda }{x_n+\beta }+\frac{\mu }{x_n+\gamma }.$$
$`(1)`$
The initial condition we are going to iterate is $`x_0=p/q`$ and the degree we calculate is the homogeneous degree in $`p`$ and $`q`$ of the numerator (or the denominator) of the iterate. We obtain readily the following degree sequence $`d_n=1,2,4,8,16,\mathrm{}`$ i.e. $`d_n=2^n`$. Thus the algebraic entropy of the mapping is $`\mathrm{log}(2)>0`$, an indication that the mapping cannot be integrable. In the present case it was quite easy to guess an analytical expression for the degree. What we do in general in order to obtain a closed-form expression for the degrees of the iterates, is to compute a sufficient number of them. Then we establish heuristically an expression of the degree, compute the next few ones and check that they agree with the analytical expression prediction. Now we ask how can one curb the growth and make it nonexponential. It turns out that the only possibilities are $`\lambda \mu =0`$ or $`\beta =\gamma `$. In either case mapping (1) becomes a homography. The degree in this case is simply $`d_n=1`$ for all $`n`$. This is an interesting result, clearly due to the fact that the homographic mapping is linearisable through a simple Cole-Hopf transformation.

The second mapping we shall examine is one due to Bellon and collaborators

$$\begin{array}{c}x_{n+1}=\frac{x_n+y_n2x_ny_n^2}{y_n(x_ny_n)},\\ y_{n+1}=\frac{x_n+y_n2x_n^2y_n}{x_n(y_nx_n)}.\end{array}$$
$`(2)`$
The degree growth in this case is studied starting from $`x_0=r`$, $`y_0=p/q`$ and again we calculate the homogeneous degree of the iterate in $`p`$ and $`q`$, i.e. we set the degree of $`r`$ to zero. (Other choices could have been possible but the conclusion would not depend on these details.) We obtain the degrees $`d_{x_n}=0,2,2,4,4,6,6,\mathrm{}`$ and $`d_{y_n}=1,1,3,3,5,5,\mathrm{}`$ i.e. a linear degree-growth. This is in perfect agreement with the integrable character of the mapping. As was shown in  it does satisfy the unique preimage requirement and possesses a constant of motion $`k=\frac{1x_ny_n}{y_nx_n}`$, the use of which reduces it to a homographic mapping for $`x_n`$ or $`y_n`$.

The third mapping we are going to study is the one proposed in

$$\begin{array}{c}x_{n+1}=\frac{x_n(x_ny_na)}{x_n^2y_n},\\ y_{n+1}=\frac{(x_ny_n)(x_ny_na)}{x_n^2y_n}\end{array}$$
$`(3)`$
where $`a`$ was taken constant. We start by assuming that $`a`$ is an arbitrary function of $`n`$ and compute the growth of the degree. We find $`d_{x_n}=0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,\mathrm{}`$ and $`d_{y_n}=1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,\mathrm{}`$ i.e. again a linear growth. This is an indication that (3) is integrable for arbitrary $`a_n`$ and indeed it is. Dividing the two equations we obtain $`y_{n+1}/x_{n+1}=1y_n/x_n`$ i.e. $`y_n/x_n=1/2+k(1)^n`$ whereupon (3) is reduced to a homographic mapping for $`x`$. Thus in this case the degree-growth has succesfully predicted integrability.

A picture starts emerging at this point. While in our study of discrete Painlevé equations and the QRT mapping we found quadratic growth of the degree of the iterate, linearisable second-order mappings seem to lead to slower growth. In order to investigate this property in detail we shall analyse the three-point mapping we have studied in  from the point of view of integrability in general and linearisability in particular. The generic mapping studied in  was one trilinear in $`x_n`$, $`x_{n+1}`$, $`x_{n1}`$. Several cases were considered. Our starting point is the mapping,

$$x_{n+1}x_nx_{n1}+\beta x_nx_{n+1}+\zeta \eta x_{n+1}x_{n1}+\gamma x_nx_{n1}+\beta \gamma x_n+\eta x_{n1}+\zeta x_{n+1}+1=0.$$
$`(4)`$
We start with the initial conditions $`x_0=r`$, $`x_1=p/q`$ and compute the homogeneous degree in $`p`$, $`q`$ at every $`n`$. We find $`d_n=0,1,1,2,3,5,8,13,\mathrm{}`$ i.e. a Fibonacci sequence $`d_{n+1}=d_n+d_{n1}`$ leading to exponential growth of $`d_n`$ with asymptotic ratio $`\frac{1+\sqrt{5}}{2}`$. Thus mapping (4) is not expected to be integrable in general. However, as shown in  integrable subcases do exist. We start by requiring that the degree growth be less rapid and as a drastic decrease in the degree we demand that $`d_3=1`$ instead of $`2`$. We find that this is possible when either $`\beta =\zeta =0`$ in which case the mapping reduces to:

$$x_{n+1}=\gamma \frac{\eta }{x_n}\frac{1}{x_nx_{n1}}$$
$`(5)`$
or $`\gamma =\eta =0`$, giving a mapping identical to (5) after $`x1/x`$. In this case the degree is $`d_n=1`$ for $`n>0`$. Equation (5) is the generic linearisable three-point mapping, written in canonical form. Its linearisation can be obtained in terms of a projective system  i.e. a system of three linear equations, a fact which explains the constancy of the degree.

The trilinear three-point mapping possesses also many nongeneric subcases, some of which are integrable. The first nongeneric case writes:

$$x_n(\gamma x_{n1}+ϵ)+(x_{n+1}+1)(\eta x_{n1}+1)=0.$$
$`(6)`$
The degrees of the iterates of mapping (6) form again a Fibonacci sequence even in the case $`ϵ=0`$ or $`\eta =0`$. The only case that presents a slightly different behaviour is the case $`\gamma =0`$:

$$(x_{n+1}+1)(\eta x_{n1}+1)+ϵx_n=0.$$
$`(7)`$
In the generic case the degree of the iterate behaves like $`d_n=`$0, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 12, 16, 21, 28, 37, 49,$`\mathrm{}`$ satisfying the recursion relation $`d_{n+1}=d_{n1}+d_{n2}`$ leading to an exponential growth with asymptotic ratio $`\left(\frac{1}{2}+\sqrt{\frac{23}{108}}\right)^{1/3}+\left(\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\frac{23}{108}}\right)^{1/3}`$. Although the mapping is generically nonintegrable it does possess integrable subcases. Requiring for example that $`d_4=1`$ we obtain the constraint $`ϵ=\eta =1`$ and the mapping becomes periodic with period $`5`$. If we require $`d_5=1`$, we obtain $`ϵ=\eta _{n+1}(\eta _n1)`$ and $`\eta _{n+1}\eta _n\eta _{n1}\eta _{n+1}\eta _n+\eta _{n+1}1=0`$, leading again to a periodic mapping with period $`8`$. In these cases, the degree of the iterates exhibits, of course, a periodic behaviour. A more interesting result is obtained if we require $`d_9<7`$. We find that the condition $`\eta =1`$ and $`ϵ`$ an arbitrary constant leads to a nonexponential degree growth $`d_n=0,1,1,1,2,2,3,4,5,6,7,9,10,12,14,15,18,20,22,25,27,30,33,36,39,42,46,49,\mathrm{}`$. Although the detailed behaviour of $`d_n`$ is pretty complicated one can see that the growth is quadratic: we have, for example, $`d_{4m+1}=m(m+1)`$ for $`m>0`$. Thus this mapping is expected to be integrable and indeed, it is a member of the QRT family. Its constant of motion is given by

$$K=y_{n+1}+y_nϵ\left(\frac{y_{n+1}}{y_n}+\frac{y_n}{y_{n+1}}\right)+ϵ(ϵ+1)\left(\frac{1}{y_n}+\frac{1}{y_{n+1}}\right)\frac{ϵ^2}{y_ny_{n+1}}$$

where $`y_k=x_k+1`$. The second nongeneric case is:

$$\gamma x_nx_{n1}+\delta x_{n+1}x_{n1}+ϵx_n+\zeta x_{n+1}=0.$$
$`(8)`$
A study of the degree-growth leads always to exponential growth with asymptotic ratio $`\frac{1+\sqrt{5}}{2}`$, except when $`\gamma =0`$ in which case the degrees obey the recurrence $`d_{n+1}=d_{n1}+d_{n2}`$. No integrable subcases are expected for mapping (8). The last nongeneric case we shall examine is

$$\gamma x_nx_{n1}+x_{n+1}x_{n1}+ϵx_n+\eta x_{n1}=0.$$
$`(9)`$
Again the degree sequence is a Fibonacci one except when $`\gamma =0`$ or $`\eta =0`$, in which case we have the recursion $`d_{n+1}=d_{n1}+d_{n2}`$, or when $`ϵ_n=\gamma _n\eta _{n2}`$. In the latter case the degree-growth follows the pattern $`d_n=0,1,1,2,2,3,3,\mathrm{}`$ i.e. a linear growth. Thus we expect this case to be integrable. This is precisely what we found in . Assuming $`\eta 0`$ we can scale it to $`\eta =1`$, and thus $`ϵ=\gamma `$. The mapping can then be integrated to the homography $`(x_{n1}+1)(x_n+1)=kax_{n1}`$ where $`k`$ is an integration constant and $`a`$ is related to $`\gamma `$ through $`\gamma _n=a_{n+1}/a_n`$. Thus in this case mapping (9) is a discrete derivative of a homographic mapping.

This leads us naturally to the consideration of the generic three-point mapping that can be considered as the discrete derivative of a (discrete) Riccati equation. Let us start from the general homographic mapping which we can write as

$$Ax_nx_{n+1}+Bx_n+Cx_{n+1}+D=0.$$
$`(10)`$
where $`A,B,C,D`$ are linear in some constant quantity $`\kappa `$. In order to take the discrete derivative we extract the constant $`\kappa `$ and rewrite (10) as:

$$\kappa =\frac{\alpha x_nx_{n+1}+\beta x_n+\gamma x_{n+1}+\delta }{ϵx_nx_{n+1}+\zeta x_n+\eta x_nup+\theta }.$$
$`(11)`$
Using the fact that $`\kappa `$ is a constant, it is now easy to obtain the discrete derivative by downshifting (11) and subtracting it form (11) above. Instead of examining this most general case we concentrate on the forms proposed in . They correspond to the reduction of (11) to the two cases:

$$\kappa =x_{n+1}+a+\frac{b}{x_n}$$
$`(12)`$
$$\kappa =\frac{x_{n+1}(x_n+a)}{x_n+b}$$
$`(13)`$
Next we compute the discrete derivatives of (12) and (13). We find:

$$x_{n+1}=x_n+a_{n1}a_n\frac{b_n}{x_n}+\frac{b_{n1}}{x_{n1}}$$
$`(14)`$
and

$$x_{n+1}=x_n\frac{x_{n1}+a_{n1}}{x_n+a_n}\frac{x_n+b_n}{x_{n1}+b_{n1}}$$
$`(15)`$
The study of the degree of growth of (14) and (15) can be performed in a straightforward way. For both mappings we find the sequence $`d_n=0,1,2,3,4,5,6,\mathrm{}`$ i.e. a linear growth just as in the cases of mappings (2), (3) and the integrable subcases of (9). If we substitute $`b_{n1}`$ by $`c_{n1}`$ in the last term of the rhs of (14) or the denominator of (15) we find $`d_n=0,1,2,4,8,16,\mathrm{}`$ i.e. $`d_n=2^n`$ for $`n>0`$ unless $`c=b`$. Investigating all the possible ways to curb the growth we find for both (14) and (15) that $`c=0`$ is also a possibility to bring $`d_3`$ down to 3. However a detailed analysis of this case shows that for $`c=0`$ we have $`d_n=0,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,\mathrm{}`$ i.e. a Fibonacci sequence with slower, but still exponential, growth (i.e. ratio $`\frac{1+\sqrt{5}}{2}`$ instead of $`2`$).

One more family of linearisable discrete systems has been studied in detail in  and . They are what we called the Gambier mappings which constitute the discretisation of the continuous Gambier equation . The latter is a system of two Riccati’s in cascade. In the discrete case the Gambier system is written as two homographic mappings which we write in canonical form as:

$$y_{n+1}=\frac{a_ny_n+b_n}{y_n+1}$$
$`(16a)`$
$$x_{n+1}=\frac{x_ny_n/d_n+c_n^2}{x_n+d_ny_n}$$
$`(16b)`$
Eliminating $`y`$ we can also write the discrete Gambier system as a single three-point mapping for $`x`$. The study of the degree growth of (16) is straightforward. We start from $`x_0=r`$, $`y_0=p/q`$ and compute the homogeneous in $`p,q`$ degree of (16a) and (16b). Since (16a) is a Riccati its degree does not grow i.e. we have $`d_{y_n}=1`$. Given the structure of (16b) we have $`d_{x_{n+1}}=d_{x_n}+d_{y_n}`$ and thus $`d_{x_n}=n`$. What is interesting here is that the Gambier mapping exhibits a linear degree-growth independently of the precise values of $`a,b,c,d`$. The fact that it can be reduced to Riccati’s in cascade is enough to guarantee its integrability. On the other hand, if we had asked, (as we have done in ) for the possibility to express the solution as an infinite product of matrices,even across singularities, this would have led to constraints on the parameters (which were given in detail in ).

In this work we have examined a class of integrable discrete systems (mainly three-point mappings) from the point of view of the degree-growth of the iterates of some initial data. Our study was motivated from the recent works connecting slow-growth and integrability. Our present analysis confirms our previous findings based on the singularity confinement necessary discrete integrability criterion. But what is more important is that a relation between the details of integrability and the degree-growth seems to emerge. In this work we have found two main types of degree-growth: zero and linear growth. Zero growth is associated to systems which are linearisable through a reduction to a projective system. Linear growth is characteristic of systems which can be reduced to linear ones although at the price of some more complicated transformations, usually through the existence of some constant of motion or, as in the case of the Gambier mapping, through the solutions of linear equations in cascade. On the other hand, in our study on discrete Painlevé equations and the QRT mapping we found that quadratic growth was the rule. These results are, of course, characteristic of three-point (second-order) mappings and we do not expect the details concerning the precise exponents to carry over to higher-order mappings. Still, we expect the pattern detected here, namely that linearisable mappings lead to slower growth than the nonlinearisable integrable ones, to persist. It could be used for the classification of integrable discrete systems and be a valuable indication as to the precise method of their integration. We intend to return to this point in some future work.

Acknowledgements. The authors are grateful to J. Fitch who provided them with a new (beta) version of REDUCE without which the calculations presented here would have been impossible. S. Lafortune acknowledges two scholarships: one from FCAR du Québec for his Ph.D. and one from “Programme de Soutien de Cotutelle de Thèse de doctorat du Gouvernement du Québec” for his stay in Paris.

References

 B. Grammaticos, A. Ramani, K. M. Tamizhmani, Jour. Phys. A 27 (1994) 559.

 G.R.W. Quispel, J.A.G. Roberts and C.J. Thompson, Physica D34 (1989) 183.

 B. Grammaticos, F. Nijhoff and A. Ramani, Discrete Painlevé equations, course at the Cargèse 96 summer school on Painlevé equations.

 B. Grammaticos, A. Ramani and V.G. Papageorgiou, Phys. Rev. Lett. 67 (1991) 1825.

 J. Hietarinta and C.-M. Viallet, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81 (1998) 325.

 V.I. Arnold, Bol. Soc. Bras. Mat. 21 (1990) 1.

 A.P. Veselov, Comm. Math. Phys. 145 (1992) 181.

 M.P. Bellon and C.-M. Viallet, Algebraic Entropy, Comm. Math. Phys. to appear.

 Y. Ohta, K.M. Tamizhmani, B. Grammaticos and A. Ramani, Singularity confinement and algebraic entropy: the case of the discrete Painlevé equations, preprint (1999).

 M.P. Bellon, J.-M. Maillard and C.-M. Viallet, Phys. Rev. Lett. 67 (1991) 1373.

 B. Grammaticos, A. Ramani, Int. J. of Mod. Phys. B 7 (1993) 3551.

 A. Ramani, B. Grammaticos, G. Karra, Physica A 180 (1992) 115.

 A. Ramani, B. Grammaticos, K.M. Tamizhmani, S. Lafortune, Physica A 252 (1998) 138.

 B. Grammaticos, A. Ramani, Meth. and Appl. of An. 4 (1997) 196.

 B. Grammaticos and A. Ramani, Physica A 223 (1995) 125.

 B. Grammaticos, A. Ramani, S. Lafortune Physica A 253 (1998) 260.

 E.L. Ince, Ordinary differential equations, Dover, New York, 1956.