text:
# References

Four-Zero Texture of Hermitian Quark Mass Matrices and Current Experimental Tests

Harald Fritzsch ***Electronic address: bm@theorie.physik.uni-muenchen.de

Sektion Physik, Universit$`\ddot{a}`$t M$`\ddot{u}`$nchen, D-80333 Munich, Germany

Zhi-zhong Xing Electronic address: xingzz@mail.ihep.ac.cn

CCAST (World Laboratory), P.O. Box 8730, Beijing 100080, China
and Institute of High Energy Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences,
P.O. Box 918 (4), Beijing 100039, China Mailing address

## Abstract

We show that the four-zero texture of Hermitian quark mass matrices can survive current experimental tests: it is able to yield sufficiently large predictions for the flavor mixing parameter $`|V_{ub}/V_{cb}|`$ and the CP-violating parameter $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$, without fine-tuning of the input values of quark masses, provided the (2,2), (2,3) and (3,3) elements of up and down mass matrices roughly satisfy a geometrical hierarchy. The successful relations $`|V_{us}|\sqrt{m_u/m_c+m_d/m_s}`$ and $`|V_{td}/V_{ts}|\sqrt{m_d/m_s}`$ obtained previously from the six-zero texture of Hermitian quark mass matrices remain unchanged in the new ansatz.

1 The structure of quark mass matrices, which governs the pattern of quark flavor mixing, is completely unknown in the standard electroweak model. A theory more fundamental than the standard model should be able to determine the quark mass matrices exclusively, such that the relevant physical parameters (six quark masses, three flavor mixing angles and one CP-violating phase) could be calculated. Attempts in this direction, e.g., those starting from supersymmetric grand unification theories and from superstring theories, are encouraging but have not proved to be very successful. Phenomenologically, a very common approach is to search for simple textures of quark mass matrices that can predict self-consistent and experimentally-favored relations between quark masses and flavor mixing parameters . The discrete flavor symmetries hidden in such textures might finally provide useful hints towards the underlying dynamics responsible for quark mass generation and CP violation.

An instructive ansatz of Hermitian quark mass matrices with six texture zeros was first proposed by one of us  about 25 years ago §§§A pair of off-diagonal texture zeros of the up or down quark mass matrix have been counted, due to Hermiticity, as one zero .:

$$M_\mathrm{u}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{𝟎}& C_\mathrm{u}& \mathrm{𝟎}\\ C_\mathrm{u}^{}& \mathrm{𝟎}& B_\mathrm{u}\\ \mathrm{𝟎}& B_\mathrm{u}^{}& A_\mathrm{u}\end{array}\right),$$
$`(1\mathrm{a})`$
$$M_\mathrm{d}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{𝟎}& C_\mathrm{d}& \mathrm{𝟎}\\ C_\mathrm{d}^{}& \mathrm{𝟎}& B_\mathrm{d}\\ \mathrm{𝟎}& B_\mathrm{d}^{}& A_\mathrm{d}\end{array}\right),$$
$`(1\mathrm{b})`$
with $`|A_\mathrm{q}||B_\mathrm{q}||C_\mathrm{q}|`$ for q = u (up) or d (down). It predicts three simple relations between elements of the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa (CKM) matrix and ratios of the quark masses:

$$|V_{us}|\left|\sqrt{\frac{m_u}{m_c}}e^{i\varphi _1}\sqrt{\frac{m_d}{m_s}}\right|,$$
$`(2)`$
and

$$\frac{|V_{ub}|}{|V_{cb}|}\sqrt{\frac{m_u}{m_c}},$$
$`(3\mathrm{a})`$
$$\frac{|V_{td}|}{|V_{ts}|}\sqrt{\frac{m_d}{m_s}},$$
$`(3\mathrm{b})`$
in which $`\varphi _1\mathrm{arg}(C_\mathrm{u})\mathrm{arg}(C_\mathrm{d})`$ denotes the phase difference between two (1,2) elements of $`M_\mathrm{u}`$ and $`M_\mathrm{d}`$. These relations keep to hold in a generalized version of $`M_\mathrm{u}`$ and $`M_\mathrm{d}`$ in Eq. (1), the so-called four-zero texture of Hermitian quark mass matrices :

$$M_\mathrm{u}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{𝟎}& C_\mathrm{u}& \mathrm{𝟎}\\ C_\mathrm{u}^{}& \stackrel{~}{B}_\mathrm{u}& B_\mathrm{u}\\ \mathrm{𝟎}& B_\mathrm{u}^{}& A_\mathrm{u}\end{array}\right),$$
$`(4\mathrm{a})`$
$$M_\mathrm{d}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{𝟎}& C_\mathrm{d}& \mathrm{𝟎}\\ C_\mathrm{d}^{}& \stackrel{~}{B}_\mathrm{d}& B_\mathrm{d}\\ \mathrm{𝟎}& B_\mathrm{d}^{}& A_\mathrm{d}\end{array}\right),$$
$`(4\mathrm{b})`$
where $`|\stackrel{~}{B}_\mathrm{u}||B_\mathrm{u}|m_c`$ and $`|\stackrel{~}{B}_\mathrm{d}||B_\mathrm{d}|m_s`$ have commonly been assumed. The key difference between two textures in Eqs. (1) and (4) is in their predictions for $`|V_{cb}|`$; i.e., $`|V_{cb}|\sqrt{m_s/m_b}`$ from the six-zero texture of $`M_\mathrm{u}`$ and $`M_\mathrm{d}`$  and $`|V_{cb}|m_s/m_b`$ from the four-zero texture of $`M_\mathrm{u}`$ and $`M_\mathrm{d}`$ . The former is apparently in conflict with the smallness of $`|V_{cb}|`$ extracted from current experimental data . That is why a lot of attention has been moved from six texture zeros to four texture zeros of quark mass matrices .

However, the validity of Eq. (3a) has recently been questioned by several authors (see, e.g., Refs. ). Their essential point is that the magnitude of $`|V_{ub}/V_{cb}|`$ predicted by $`\sqrt{m_u/m_c}`$ is too low ($`|V_{ub}/V_{cb}|0.06`$ or smaller for reasonable values of $`m_u`$ and $`m_c`$ ) to agree with the present experimental result ($`|V_{ub}/V_{cb}|_{\mathrm{ex}}0.09`$ ). To resolve this discrepancy, two different approaches have been considered : (a) revising the four-zero texture of $`M_\mathrm{u}`$ and $`M_\mathrm{d}`$ by introducing non-vanishing entries in their (1,3) and (3,1) positions, such that only the (1,1) elements vanish in the modified quark mass matrices ; and (b) abandoning Hermiticity of the four-zero texture of $`M_\mathrm{u}`$ and $`M_\mathrm{d}`$, such that the (2,3) and (3,2) elements of either mass matrix can be quite different in magnitude. Both approaches allow the naive result in Eq. (3a) to be sufficiently enhanced, leading to good agreement between quark mass matrices and current experimental data.

In this Letter we aim to point out that the four-zero texture of Hermitian quark mass matrices can actually survive current experimental tests, if we give up the previous assumptions $`|\stackrel{~}{B}_\mathrm{u}||B_\mathrm{u}|m_c`$ and $`|\stackrel{~}{B}_\mathrm{d}||B_\mathrm{d}|m_s`$, which are neither phenomenologically nor theoretically justified. We find that no fine-tuning of the input values of quark masses is needed to arrive at a favorable prediction for $`|V_{ub}/V_{cb}|`$, provided the (2,2), (2,3) and (3,3) elements of $`M_\mathrm{u}`$ and $`M_\mathrm{d}`$ in Eq. (4) roughly satisfy a geometrical hierarchy. The successful predictions obtained previously in Eq. (2) and Eq. (3b) remain unchanged, because they are insensitive to the hierarchy between $`A_\mathrm{q}`$ and its neighbors $`B_\mathrm{q}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{B}_\mathrm{q}`$ (for q = u or d). As a result, the CP-violating parameter $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$ also gets enhanced in our new ansatz.

2 Let us reconsider the four-zero texture of Hermitian quark mass matrices given in Eq. (4). The observed hierarchy of quark masses ($`m_um_cm_t`$ and $`m_dm_sm_b`$) implies that $`|A_\mathrm{q}||\stackrel{~}{B}_\mathrm{q}|,|B_\mathrm{q}|,|C_\mathrm{q}|`$ (for q = u or d) should in general hold . It is well known that $`M_\mathrm{q}`$ can be decomposed into $`M_\mathrm{q}=P_\mathrm{q}^{}\overline{M}_\mathrm{q}P_\mathrm{q}`$, where

$$\overline{M}_\mathrm{q}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{𝟎}& |C_\mathrm{q}|& \mathrm{𝟎}\\ |C_\mathrm{q}|& \stackrel{~}{B}_\mathrm{q}& |B_\mathrm{q}|\\ \mathrm{𝟎}& |B_\mathrm{q}|& A_\mathrm{q}\end{array}\right),$$
$`(5)`$
and $`P_\mathrm{q}=\mathrm{Diag}\{1,e^{i\varphi _{C_\mathrm{q}}^{}},e^{i(\varphi _{B_\mathrm{q}}^{}+\varphi _{C_\mathrm{q}}^{})}\}`$ with $`\varphi _{B_\mathrm{q}}^{}\mathrm{arg}(B_\mathrm{q})`$ and $`\varphi _{C_\mathrm{q}}^{}\mathrm{arg}(C_\mathrm{q})`$ is a pure phase matrix. For simplicity, we neglect the subscript “q” in the following, whenever it is unnecessary to distinguish between the up and down quark sectors. The real symmetric mass matrix $`\overline{M}`$ can be diagonalized by use of the orthogonal transformation

$$O^\mathrm{T}\overline{M}O=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\lambda _1& 0& 0\\ 0& \lambda _2& 0\\ 0& 0& \lambda _3\end{array}\right),$$
$`(6)`$
where $`\lambda _i`$ (for $`i=1,2,3`$) are quark mass eigenvalues and may be either positive or negative (i.e., $`|\lambda _1|=m_1|\lambda _2|=m_2|\lambda _3|=m_3`$). Without loss of generality, we take $`\lambda _3>0`$ and $`A>0`$. Then $`\mathrm{Det}(\overline{M})=A|C|^2<0`$ implies that $`\lambda _1\lambda _2<0`$ is required. Note that $`\stackrel{~}{B}`$, $`|B|`$ and $`|C|`$ can be expressed in terms of $`\lambda _i`$ and $`A`$ as follows:

$$\stackrel{~}{B}=\lambda _1+\lambda _2+\lambda _3A,$$
$`(7\mathrm{a})`$
$$|B|=\sqrt{\frac{(A\lambda _1)(A\lambda _2)(\lambda _3A)}{A}},$$
$`(7\mathrm{b})`$
$$|C|=\sqrt{\frac{\lambda _1\lambda _2\lambda _3}{A}}.$$
$`(7\mathrm{c})`$
The nine matrix elements of $`O`$ can also be calculated in terms of $`\lambda _i`$ and $`A`$. We obtain the exact analytical result as

$$O=\left(\begin{array}{c}\\ \sqrt{\frac{\lambda _2\lambda _3\left(A\lambda _1\right)}{A\left(\lambda _2\lambda _1\right)\left(\lambda _3\lambda _1\right)}}& \eta \sqrt{\frac{\lambda _1\lambda _3\left(\lambda _2A\right)}{A\left(\lambda _2\lambda _1\right)\left(\lambda _3\lambda _2\right)}}& \sqrt{\frac{\lambda _1\lambda _2\left(A\lambda _3\right)}{A\left(\lambda _3\lambda _1\right)\left(\lambda _3\lambda _2\right)}}\\ \\ \\ \eta \sqrt{\frac{\lambda _1\left(\lambda _1A\right)}{\left(\lambda _2\lambda _1\right)\left(\lambda _3\lambda _1\right)}}& \sqrt{\frac{\lambda _2\left(A\lambda _2\right)}{\left(\lambda _2\lambda _1\right)\left(\lambda _3\lambda _2\right)}}& \sqrt{\frac{\lambda _3\left(\lambda _3A\right)}{\left(\lambda _3\lambda _1\right)\left(\lambda _3\lambda _2\right)}}\\ \\ \\ \eta \sqrt{\frac{\lambda _1\left(A\lambda _2\right)\left(A\lambda _3\right)}{A\left(\lambda _2\lambda _1\right)\left(\lambda _3\lambda _1\right)}}& \sqrt{\frac{\lambda _2\left(A\lambda _1\right)\left(\lambda _3A\right)}{A\left(\lambda _2\lambda _1\right)\left(\lambda _3\lambda _2\right)}}& \sqrt{\frac{\lambda _3\left(A\lambda _1\right)\left(A\lambda _2\right)}{A\left(\lambda _3\lambda _1\right)\left(\lambda _3\lambda _2\right)}}\end{array}\right),$$
$`\left(8\right)`$
where $`\eta \lambda _2/m_2=+1`$ or $`1`$, corresponding to the possibility $`(\lambda _1,\lambda _2)=(m_1,+m_2)`$ or $`(+m_1,m_2)`$. The CKM matrix, which measures the mismatch between diagonalizations of $`M_\mathrm{u}`$ and $`M_\mathrm{d}`$, is given by $`VO_\mathrm{u}^\mathrm{T}(P_\mathrm{u}P_\mathrm{d}^{})O_\mathrm{d}`$. Explicitly, we have

$$V_{i\alpha }=O_{1i}^\mathrm{u}O_{1\alpha }^\mathrm{d}+O_{2i}^\mathrm{u}O_{2\alpha }^\mathrm{d}e^{i\varphi _1}+O_{3i}^\mathrm{u}O_{3\alpha }^\mathrm{d}e^{i(\varphi _1+\varphi _2)},$$
$`(9)`$
where the subscripts $`i`$ and $`\alpha `$ run respectively over $`(u,c,t)`$ and $`(d,s,b)`$, and two phases are defined as $`\varphi _1\varphi _{C_\mathrm{u}}^{}\varphi _{C_\mathrm{d}}^{}`$ and $`\varphi _2\varphi _{B_\mathrm{u}}^{}\varphi _{B_\mathrm{d}}^{}`$.

There are two special but interesting patterns of $`M_\mathrm{u}`$ and $`M_\mathrm{d}`$, in which the matrix elements of $`O^\mathrm{u}`$ and $`Q^\mathrm{d}`$ depend purely upon the ratios of quark masses:

1. If $`\stackrel{~}{B}_\mathrm{u}=\stackrel{~}{B}_\mathrm{d}=0`$ are taken, the four-zero texture of $`M_\mathrm{u}`$ and $`M_\mathrm{d}`$ is reduced to the six-zero texture . In this case, $`\eta =1`$ is uniquely fixed. Then $`A_\mathrm{u}=m_um_c+m_t`$ and $`A_\mathrm{d}=m_dm_s+m_b`$ hold. The matrix elements of $`O^\mathrm{u}`$ and $`Q^\mathrm{d}`$ can be expressed, respectively, in terms of $`(m_u/m_c,m_c/m_t)`$ and $`(m_d/m_s,m_s/m_b)`$ .
2. Taking $`\stackrel{~}{B}_\mathrm{u}=m_c`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{B}_\mathrm{d}=m_s`$ , we are led uniquely to $`\eta =+1`$. In this case, $`A_\mathrm{u}=m_tm_u`$ and $`A_\mathrm{d}=m_bm_d`$ hold. The matrix elements of $`O^\mathrm{u}`$ and $`Q^\mathrm{d}`$ can be expressed, respectively, in terms of $`(m_u/m_c,m_c/m_t)`$ and $`(m_d/m_s,m_s/m_b)`$ .

From both special patterns, however, one arrives finally at the questionable prediction given in Eq. (3a). We are therefore forced to start from Eq. (8), without any special assumption about the magnitudes of $`\stackrel{~}{B}_\mathrm{u}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{B}_\mathrm{d}`$, to calculate the CKM matrix.

In view of the strong hierarchy of quark masses in both up and down sectors, we expect that $`|\stackrel{~}{B}_\mathrm{u}|A_\mathrm{u}m_t`$ and $`|\stackrel{~}{B}_\mathrm{d}|A_\mathrm{d}m_b`$ reasonably hold . We emphasize that $`|\stackrel{~}{B}_\mathrm{u}|m_c`$ and $`|\stackrel{~}{B}_\mathrm{d}|m_s`$ are possible, a case which has not been considered before. Then we calculate the CKM matrix elements by use of Eqs. (8) and (9). To leading order, we obtain For simplicity, we have taken $`\eta _\mathrm{u}=\eta _\mathrm{d}\eta =\pm 1`$ in the analytical approximations. Our main results are essentially unchanged, even if $`\eta _\mathrm{u}\eta _\mathrm{d}`$ (i.e., $`\eta _\mathrm{u}=\eta _\mathrm{d}=\pm 1`$) is taken.

$$|V_{ud}||V_{cs}||V_{tb}|\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1},$$
$`(10\mathrm{a})`$
$$|V_{us}||V_{cd}|\left|\sqrt{\frac{m_u}{m_c}}e^{i\varphi _1}\sqrt{\frac{m_d}{m_s}}\right|,$$
$`(10\mathrm{b})`$
$$|V_{cb}||V_{ts}|\left|\sqrt{\frac{m_tA_\mathrm{u}}{m_t}}e^{i\varphi _2}\sqrt{\frac{m_bA_\mathrm{d}}{m_b}}\right|;$$
$`(10\mathrm{c})`$
as well as

$$\frac{|V_{ub}|}{|V_{cb}|}\left|\sqrt{\frac{m_u}{m_c}}e^{i\varphi }\frac{\eta \sqrt{m_dm_s}}{m_b|V_{cb}|}\sqrt{\frac{m_bA_\mathrm{d}}{m_b}}\right|,$$
$`(11\mathrm{a})`$
$$\frac{|V_{td}|}{|V_{ts}|}\sqrt{\frac{m_d}{m_s}},$$
$`(11\mathrm{b})`$
where

$$\varphi \mathrm{arcsin}\left(\frac{\mathrm{sin}\varphi _2}{|V_{cb}|}\sqrt{\frac{m_tA_\mathrm{u}}{m_t}}\right)\varphi _1.$$
$`(12)`$
It is obvious that Eq. (10a), Eq. (10b) and Eq. (11b) are consistent with the previous results. A goot fit of Eq. (10b) to the experimental data suggests $`\varphi _190^{}`$ . Furthermore, Eq. (10c) can trivially be arranged to agree with the present measurement, because it involves three free parameter $`A_\mathrm{u}`$, $`A_\mathrm{d}`$ and $`\varphi _2`$. However, it is nontrivial to simultaneously arrange Eq. (10c) and Eq. (11a) to coincide with current data. The point is that the factor $`\sqrt{(m_bA_\mathrm{d})/m_b}`$ in Eq. (11a) should be sufficiently large, such that $`|V_{ub}/V_{cb}|`$ can get enhanced and reach its experimentally favored value. On the other hand, the term $`\sqrt{(m_tA_\mathrm{u})/m_t}`$ in Eq. (10c) must be sufficiently large too, because the smallness of $`|V_{cb}|`$ requires significant cancellation between the $`\sqrt{(m_tA_\mathrm{u})/m_t}`$ term and the $`\sqrt{(m_bA_\mathrm{d})/m_b}`$ term. It turns out that $`\varphi _20^{}`$ is a good approximation, in order to guarantee the sufficient cancellation between two big contributions to $`|V_{cb}|`$. As a straightforward consequence, we have $`\varphi \varphi _190^{}`$ from Eq. (12). Solving Eq. (11a), we find

$$A_\mathrm{d}m_b\left[1|V_{cb}|^2\frac{m_s}{m_d}\left(\frac{m_b}{m_s}\right)^2\left(\left|\frac{V_{ub}}{V_{cb}}\right|^2\frac{m_u}{m_c}\right)\right].$$
$`(13)`$
Substituting Eq. (13) into Eq. (10c), we arrive at

$$A_\mathrm{u}m_t\left[1|V_{cb}|^2\left(\frac{m_b}{m_s}\sqrt{\frac{m_s}{m_d}\left(\left|\frac{V_{ub}}{V_{cb}}\right|^2\frac{m_u}{m_c}\right)}\pm 1\right)^2\right].$$
$`(14)`$
Clearly there is no problem for Eq. (10c) and Eq. (11a) to agree with current experimental data, if $`A_\mathrm{u}`$ and $`A_\mathrm{d}`$ are given by Eqs. (13) and (14). Our results require no fine-tuning of the values of quark masses.

3 To illustrate, let us take a more explicit and instructive example, in which the previous prediction for $`|V_{ub}/V_{cb}|\sqrt{m_u/m_c}`$ is enhanced by a factor of $`\sqrt{2}`$, i.e.,

$$\frac{|V_{ub}|}{|V_{cb}|}\sqrt{2\frac{m_u}{m_c}}.$$
$`(15)`$
If $`m_c/m_u265`$  is typically taken, one gets $`|V_{ub}/V_{cb}|0.087`$ from Eq. (15), a result in good agreement with the experimental value $`|V_{ub}/V_{cb}|_{\mathrm{ex}}=0.089\pm 0.008`$ . In this specific case, Eqs. (13) and (14) are simplified to

$$A_\mathrm{d}m_b\left[1|V_{cb}|^2\frac{m_um_s}{m_cm_d}\left(\frac{m_b}{m_s}\right)^2\right].$$
$`(16\mathrm{a})`$
$$A_\mathrm{u}m_t\left[1|V_{cb}|^2\left(\frac{m_b}{m_s}\sqrt{\frac{m_um_s}{m_cm_d}}\pm 1\right)^2\right].$$
$`(16\mathrm{b})`$
Typically taking $`m_c/m_u265`$, $`m_s/m_d20`$ , $`m_b/m_s30`$  and $`|V_{cb}|0.04`$ , we arrive at $`A_\mathrm{d}/m_b0.89`$ and $`A_\mathrm{u}/m_t0.86`$ (corresponding to the plus sign) or $`0.92`$ (corresponding to the minus sign). This numerical result is consistent very well with our original assumptions $`A_\mathrm{u}m_t`$ and $`A_\mathrm{d}m_b`$. Taking account of Eq. (7a) and Eq. (7b), we get $`\stackrel{~}{B}_\mathrm{u}/A_\mathrm{u}0.16`$ (plus sign) or $`0.09`$ (minus sign) and $`|B_\mathrm{u}|/A_\mathrm{u}0.4`$ (plus sign) or $`0.3`$ (minus sign) as well as $`\stackrel{~}{B}_\mathrm{d}/A_\mathrm{d}0.12`$ and $`|B_\mathrm{d}|/A_\mathrm{d}0.35`$, where minor uncertainties associated with $`\eta =\pm 1`$ in $`\stackrel{~}{B}_\mathrm{u}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{B}_\mathrm{d}`$ have been neglected. These results demonstrate

$$|B_\mathrm{u}|\sqrt{A_\mathrm{u}\stackrel{~}{B}_\mathrm{u}}m_c,$$
$`(17\mathrm{a})`$
$$|B_\mathrm{d}|\sqrt{A_\mathrm{d}\stackrel{~}{B}_\mathrm{d}}m_s,$$
$`(17\mathrm{b})`$
which are natural consequences of Eq. (7a) and Eq. (7b) in the leading-order approximation. Eq. (17) clearly indicates that $`A_\mathrm{q}`$ and its neighbors $`B_\mathrm{q}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{B}_\mathrm{q}`$ roughly satisfy a geometrical hierarchy: $`|B_\mathrm{q}|/A_\mathrm{q}\stackrel{~}{B}_\mathrm{q}/|B_\mathrm{q}|`$ (for q = u or d).

Let us remark that the new prediction for $`|V_{ub}/V_{cb}|`$ in Eq. (15) results from the four-zero texture of Hermitian quark mass matrices with a geometrical hierarchy among their (2,2), (2,3) and (3,3) elements, as illustrated in Eq. (17). This new hierarchy has little influence on the other two successful relations derived originally from the six-zero texture of Hermitian quark mass matrices, as shown in Eq. (2) or Eq. (10b) and Eq. (3b) or Eq. (11b). Therefore we expect that a value of $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$ larger than before can be predicted from our present ansatz, where $`\beta \mathrm{arg}[(V_{cd}V_{cb}^{})/(V_{td}V_{tb}^{})]`$ is an inner angle of the CKM unitarity triangle

$$V_{ud}V_{ub}^{}+V_{cd}V_{cb}^{}+V_{td}V_{tb}^{}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}$$
$`(18)`$
in the complex plane . We obtain

$$\mathrm{cos}\beta \frac{|V_{cd}|^2+{\displaystyle \frac{m_d}{m_s}}2{\displaystyle \frac{m_u}{m_c}}}{2|V_{cd}|\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{m_d}{m_s}}}}$$
$`(19)`$
as a good approximation. We then arrive at $`\beta 22.5^{}`$ or $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta 0.71`$ using the typical inputs $`|V_{cd}|0.221`$ , $`m_c/m_u265`$ and $`m_s/m_d20`$ . This result is certainly compatible with the present measurements of CP violation in $`B_d^0`$ vs $`\overline{B}_d^0J/\psi K_\mathrm{S}`$ decays, which yield $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta =0.741\pm 0.075`$ (BaBar ) or $`0.719\pm 0.082`$ (Belle ). The other two angles of the CKM unitarity triangle are found to be $`\alpha \mathrm{arg}[(V_{td}V_{tb}^{})/(V_{ud}V_{ub}^{})]77.1^{}`$ and $`\gamma \mathrm{arg}[(V_{ud}V_{ub}^{})/(V_{cd}V_{cb}^{})]80.4^{}`$. Of course, our numerical results are mainly for the purpose of illustration. A careful analysis to higher order has to be done, once the four-zero texture of Hermitian quark mass matrices is confronted with more precise experimental data.

It is worth pointing out that the hierarchical structures of $`\overline{M}_\mathrm{u}`$ and $`\overline{M}_\mathrm{d}`$ will become more transparent, if they are expanded in terms of two new parameters $`ϵ_\mathrm{u}|B_\mathrm{u}|/A_\mathrm{u}`$ and $`ϵ_\mathrm{d}|B_\mathrm{d}|/A_\mathrm{d}`$:

$$\overline{M}_\mathrm{u}A_\mathrm{u}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{𝟎}& \theta _\mathrm{u}^3& \mathrm{𝟎}\\ \theta _\mathrm{u}^3& ϵ_\mathrm{u}^2& ϵ_\mathrm{u}\\ \mathrm{𝟎}& ϵ_\mathrm{u}& \mathrm{𝟏}\end{array}\right),$$
$`(20\mathrm{a})`$
$$\overline{M}_\mathrm{d}A_\mathrm{d}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{𝟎}& \theta _\mathrm{d}^3& \mathrm{𝟎}\\ \theta _\mathrm{d}^3& ϵ_\mathrm{d}^2& ϵ_\mathrm{d}\\ \mathrm{𝟎}& ϵ_\mathrm{d}& \mathrm{𝟏}\end{array}\right),$$
$`(20\mathrm{b})`$
where the small parameters $`(\theta _\mathrm{u},\theta _\mathrm{d})`$  are related to $`(ϵ_\mathrm{u},ϵ_\mathrm{d})`$ in the following way:

$$\theta _\mathrm{u}^2ϵ_\mathrm{u}^6\frac{m_u}{m_c},$$
$`(21\mathrm{a})`$
$$\theta _\mathrm{d}^2ϵ_\mathrm{d}^3\frac{m_d}{m_s}.$$
$`(21\mathrm{b})`$
Clearly $`|V_{us}|\sqrt{\theta _\mathrm{u}^2+\theta _\mathrm{d}^2}`$ and $`|V_{cb}||ϵ_\mathrm{u}ϵ_\mathrm{d}|`$ hold to leading order. While $`|V_{td}/V_{ts}|\theta _\mathrm{d}`$ is simply expected, $`|V_{ub}/V_{cb}|\theta _\mathrm{u}`$ gets modified due to the non-negligible contribution of $`𝒪(\theta _\mathrm{d}^2)𝒪(\theta _\mathrm{u})`$ from the down quark sector. We stress that $`ϵ_\mathrm{u}`$ and $`ϵ_\mathrm{d}`$ are not very small (indeed $`ϵ_\mathrm{u}0.3`$ or $`0.4`$ and $`ϵ_\mathrm{d}0.35`$ in the example taken above). One may speculate that the texture of $`\overline{M}_\mathrm{u}`$ and $`\overline{M}_\mathrm{d}`$ in Eq. (20) could naturally be interpreted from a string-inspired model of quark mass generation  or from a new kind of flavor symmetry and its perturbative breaking .

4 In summary, we have shown that the four-zero texture of Hermitian quark mass matrices $`M_\mathrm{u}`$ and $`M_\mathrm{d}`$ can survive current experimental tests. It is actually easy to obtain sufficiently large predictions for the flavor mixing parameter $`|V_{ub}/V_{cb}|`$ and the CP-violating parameter $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$, provided the (2,2), (2,3) and (3,3) elements of $`M_\mathrm{u}`$ and $`M_\mathrm{d}`$ roughly satisfy a geometrical hierarchy. On the other hand, our new ansatz can reproduce the successful relations $`|V_{us}|\sqrt{m_u/m_c+m_d/m_s}`$ and $`|V_{td}/V_{ts}|\sqrt{m_d/m_s}`$ derived originally from the six-zero texture of Hermitian quark mass matrices.

It is worth remarking that the phenomenological consequences of a specific texture of quark mass matrices depend not only upon the number of their vanishing entries but also upon the hierarchy of their non-vanishing entries. The former might not be preserved to all orders or at any energy scales in the unspecified interactions which generate quark masses and flavor mixing. Nevertheless, those experimentally favored textures at low energy scales (such as the one under discussion) are possible to provide enlightening hints at the underlying physics of fermion mass generation and CP violation at high energy scales.

One of us (Z.Z.X.) is grateful to IPPP in University of Durham, where the paper was finalized, for its warm hospitality. This work was supported in part by National Natural Science Foundation of China.


format: text

text:
# Jets and Dijets in Au+Au and p+p Collisions at RHIC

## 1 Introduction

At high energy density, nuclear matter may undergo a phase transition to a deconfined state consisting of free quarks and gluons. This Quark-Gluon Plasma may be experimentally accessible using the collisions of heavy nuclei at high energies. In order to investigate this new state of matter, processes whose rates are calculable in the absence of nuclear effects are particularly useful. The production of large transverse momentum jets, in the limit of no nuclear effects, should scale with the number of binary nucleon-nucleon collisions with a rate calculable from perturbative QCD. A deviation from this binary scaling expectation for jet production or a modification of jet properties would indicate the presence of initial and/or final state nuclear effects. The final state nuclear effects are of particular interest since they may be used to verify the presence of a Quark-Gluon plasma and may probe the properties of the plasma.

A large momentum parton traversing a dense gluonic system may lose energy due to collisions or induced gluon radiation . The rate of energy loss ($`dE/dx`$) is expected to scale with the density of the gluonic system. Both PHENIX and STAR have measured the single inclusive hadron yields at high $`p_T`$ and found a suppression compared to the binary nucleon-nucleon scaling expectation . While these measurements are consistent with energy loss in a dense gluonic system, the particle production mechanism for high $`p_T`$ hadrons in central Au+Au collisions may be different than in elementary collisions. Indeed, the ratio of proton to pion at large $`p_T`$ ($`24`$ GeV/c) has been measured by the Phenix collaboration to be near unity in central Au+Au collisions, compared to a ratio of $`0.2`$ measured in p+p collisions . This has been interpreted by some as an indication of a large hydrodynamical type contribution to the charged hadron yield in Au+Au collisions, even at rather large $`p_T`$. The present work addresses the particle production mechanism at high $`p_T`$ using two-particle azimuthal correlations. We show that hard scattering and fragmentation is the dominant particle production mechanism for $`p_T>`$4 GeV/c. In addition, we show that back-to-back dihadrons, a signature of dijets, are suppressed in the most central Au+Au collisions.

## 2 Experiment and Method

Partons fragment into jets of hadrons around the direction of parton propagation. Due to the large multiplicities in central Au+Au collisions at RHIC, full jet reconstruction is difficult. To identify jets on a statistical basis, STAR utilizes two-hadron azimuthal correlations at large transverse momentum. The STAR experiment has been described in detail elsewhere , so only details particularly relevant to this analysis are given. The main tracking detector is a large acceptance Time Projection Chamber with full azimuthal coverage and large pseudo-rapidity acceptance ($`|\eta |<1.5`$). The TPC resides in a 0.5T solenoidal magnet. The trajectories of charged tracks are measured in the TPC, and the interaction vertex is reconstructed on an event-by-event basis. The tracks in the TPC are projected to the primary vertex, and those passing within 1 cm of the reconstructed primary vertex are used in the analysis. The detector has excellent momentum resolution (the Gaussian width of the track curvature $`k1/p_T`$ is $`\delta k/k=0.005(p_T/(GeV/c))+0.0076`$), and many sources of secondary tracks (conversions, weak-decays, etc.) are rejected due to the vertex constraint.

For this analysis, we utilize $`10`$ million minimum bias p+p and $`1.7`$ million minimum bias Au+Au events. To augment the central data sample, an additional 1.5 million events triggered on the $``$10% most central collisions are used. For the analysis, we identify events with at least one large transverse momentum track, which we call the trigger particle. The analysis is done for trigger particle thresholds $`3<p_T^{trig}<4`$, $`4<p_T^{trig}<6`$, and $`6<p_T^{trig}<8`$ GeV/c. An azimuthal distribution is constructed for all other charged tracks in these events with 2 GeV/c $`<p_T<p_T^{trig}`$,

$$C_2(\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi )=\frac{1}{N_{trigger}}\frac{1}{ϵ}𝑑\mathrm{\Delta }\eta N(\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi ,\mathrm{\Delta }\eta ),$$
(1)
where $`N_{trigger}`$ is the observed number of tracks satisfying the trigger requirement, and $`N(\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi ,\mathrm{\Delta }\eta )`$ is the number of trigger-associated particle pairs as a function of their relative azimuth ($`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi `$) and pseudo-rapidity ($`\mathrm{\Delta }\eta `$), and $`ϵ`$ is the efficiency for finding the associated track. The analysis is restricted to the range $`|\eta |<0.7`$ ($`|\mathrm{\Delta }\eta |<`$1.4).

## 3 Fragmentation Contribution to High $`p_T`$ Particle Production

In order to verify the presence of a hard scattering and fragmentation component at high $`p_T`$, small-angle azimuthal correlations are used . In addition to jets, however, there are other sources of azimuthal correlations. In both p+p and Au+Au collisions, there are azimuthal correlations due to momentum conservation, dijets, and resonance decays. Unique to Au+Au collisions are azimuthal correlations due to elliptic flow. The azimuthal correlations due to momentum conservation, dijets, and elliptic flow should have only a weak pseudo-rapidity dependence within the acceptance window used for this analysis ($`|\eta |<0.7`$). To disentangle the sources of azimuthal correlations, the azimuthal distributions can be measured as a function of relative pseudo-rapidity. In the top panel of Figure 1, the azimuthal distributions for central Au+Au collisions are shown for $`|\mathrm{\Delta }\eta |<0.5`$ and $`0.5<|\mathrm{\Delta }\eta |<1.4`$. The small relative pseudo-rapidity azimuthal distribution is absolutely normalized, while the large relative pseudo-rapidity distribution is scaled to match in the region where little correlated jet or dijet contribution is expected ($`0.75<|\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi |<2.24`$ radians). There is a clear excess near $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi =0`$ seen at small relative pseudo-rapidity. The bottom panel of Fig. 1 shows the difference in the two distributions. The difference shows the same excess near $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi =0`$, while showing a flat distribution at larger relative azimuth. From this we conclude that there are correlations localized in $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi ,\mathrm{\Delta }\eta `$. These correlations are expected from jets and/or resonances.

In order to elucidate the nature (i.e. jets versus resonances) of the small angle correlations in Fig.1, we exploit a known property of jet fragmentation. Dynamical charge correlations exist within jet fragmentation . Leading and next-to-leading charged tracks tend to have opposite charge signs. Figure 2 shows the azimuthal distributions for minimum bias p+p and central Au+Au data for opposite and same sign particle pairs. The p+p data is for $`0<|\mathrm{\Delta }\eta |<1.4`$. The central Au+Au data is for $`(|\mathrm{\Delta }\eta |<0.5)N(0.5<|\mathrm{\Delta }\eta |<1.4)`$, thereby removing azimuthal correlations due to dijets and elliptic flow. For both the p+p data and central Au+Au data, the correlation strength near $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi =0`$ is larger for opposite sign pairs than for same sign pairs. Integrating the correlation excess, the ratio of opposite sign to same sign peak areas is 2.7$`\pm `$0.6 for p+p data and 2.4$`\pm `$0.6 for central Au+Au data. Phenomenological calculations using Pythia  (based on the Lund string fragmentation scheme) predict a ratio of 2.6$`\pm `$0.7. Large transverse momentum particle production in p+p collisions (and as implemented in the Pythia model) is dominated by hard scattering and fragmentation, so the agreement between central Au+Au, p+p, and Pythia calculations suggests the same underlying particle production mechanism. In addition, the finite same sign azimuthal correlations disfavor the resonance decay hypothesis since only the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ resonance can decay into same sign particle pairs.

## 4 Dijets in Au+Au collisions

Figure 2 also shows clear evidence for back-to-back dihadrons within the STAR acceptance for p+p collisions at $`\sqrt{s}=200`$ GeV/c. The presence of back-to-back dihadrons is an indication of dijets. To compare the dihadron production rates in Au+Au and p+p collisions, we treat high $`p_T`$ triggered Au+Au events as a superposition of a high $`p_T`$ triggered p+p collision collision and a combinatorical elliptic flow background,

$$C_2^{\mathrm{AuAu}}=C_2^{\mathrm{pp}}+B(1+2v_2(p_T^t)v_2(p_T^a)\mathrm{cos}(2\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi )),$$
(2)
where $`p_T^t(p_T^a)`$ is the trigger (associated) particle transverse momentum. The elliptic flow parameters $`v_2`$ are measured independently using a reaction plane method . Since $`v_2`$ is approximately constant for $`p_T>`$2 GeV/c, a constant value is used. The parameter $`B`$ is determined by fitting in the region $`0.75<|\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi |<2.24`$. In Figure 3, we compare the azimuthal distributions in Au+Au at various centralities to the expectation from Eqn. 2. Qualitatively, the Au+Au azimuthal distributions at all centralities are described quite well near $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi =0`$ as the superposition of elliptic flow and p+p azimuthal distributions. In contrast, the back-to-back azimuthal correlations predicted from Eqn. 2 are always larger than the back-to-back correlations seen in the Au+Au data. In the most peripheral Au+Au collisions, the suppression of back-to-back dihadrons is rather small, while for the most central collisions there is little indication of any back-to-back dihadrons beyond those expected from elliptic flow.

As the trigger particle threshold is increased, it might be expected that back-to-back dihadrons reappear. In Figure 4, the azimuthal distribution expected from Eqn. 2 is compared to that measured in central Au+Au events for $`6<p_T^{trig}<8`$ GeV/c. Once again, the small angle azimuthal distribution measured in Au+Au is well described by Equation 2, while there is an absence of back-to-back correlated dihadrons in the central Au+Au data.

To quantify deviations from Eqn. 2, we form a ratio of the Au+Au correlation excess beyond that expected from elliptic flow and the p+p correlation excess,

$$I_{AA}(\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _1,\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _2)=\frac{_{\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _1}^{\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _2}d(\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi )[C_2^{\mathrm{AuAu}}B(1+2v_2^tv_2^a\mathrm{cos}(2\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi ))]}{_{\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _1}^{\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _2}d(\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi )C_2^{\mathrm{pp}}}.$$
(3)
This ratio is plotted as function of the number of participating nucleons for the small-angle and back-to-back azimuthal regions in Figure 5. The left panel shows the ratios for $`3<p_T^{trig}<4`$ GeV/c, the middle panel shows the ratios for $`4<p_T^{trig}<6`$ GeV/c, and the right panel shows the ratios for $`6<p_T^{trig}<8`$ GeV/c. The horizontal bars show the systematic error on the ratio due the +5/-20% systematic uncertainty on the $`v_2`$ measurement from the reaction plane method . For all three trigger particle thresholds, $`I_{AA}(0,0.75)`$ is smaller than unity for the most peripheral collisions, and increases with increasing number of participants. The dependence on centrality is strongest for the lowest trigger particle $`p_T`$ threshold. In contrast, $`I_{AA}(2.24,\pi )`$ decreases with increasing $`N_{part}`$, and approaches zero for the most central collisions for all three trigger particle thresholds. Note that with increasing trigger particle threshold, the jet and dijet correlation signals increase relative to the elliptic flow contribution, leading to smaller systematic errors on the $`I_{AA}`$ determination.

It has been shown in fixed target experiments at Fermilab that the shape of the back-to-back dihadron azimuthal distribution is sensitive to the intrinsic parton $`k_T`$ . In proton-nucleus and nucleus-nucleus collisions, additional initial state transverse momentum is generated due to multiple nucleon-nucleon interactions. To investigate whether this nuclear $`k_T`$ can cause the observed deficit of back-to-back azimuthal correlations in Au+Au collision, the $`k_T`$ parameter in Pythia was varied from the nominal value of $`\sigma =1`$ GeV/c to a value of $`\sigma =4`$ GeV/c. This was found to have only a small effect on $`I_{AA}(2.24,\pi )`$, resulting in less than a 20% reduction in the predicted value.

## 5 Discussion and Conclusions

These data on azimuthal correlations and other data on high $`p_T`$ particle production at RHIC can be explained with a simple model. The single particle inclusive yields for $`p_T>2`$ GeV/c are suppressed in central Au+Au collisions compared to the binary nucleon-nucleon scaling expectation. In addition, the elliptic flow has been shown to saturate above $`p_T23`$ GeV/c. The measured small angle azimuthal correlations suggest that the properties of the jets we do observe via their leading particles are substantially unmodified by the nuclear medium. These jets most likely come from partons produced near the surface of the collision region. The suppression of single particle inclusive yields and the disappearance of back-to-back dihadron pairs in the most central collisions suggest that partons produced in the center of the collision region, or their hadronic fragments, experience large energy loss or complete absorption. This surface emission scenario was predicted to be a consequence of energy loss .

In summary, STAR has measured azimuthal correlations among high $`p_T`$ charged hadrons. The small angle correlations provide direct evidence for the dominance of hard scattering and fragmentation processes in high $`p_T`$ particle production in Au+Au collisions at RHIC. The observed relative charge sign dependence is consistent with the expectation of parton fragmentation. A simple model treating the azimuthal correlations as a superposition of one hard scattering and elliptic flow is used to compare the rates of back-to-back dihadron production in p+p and all centralities of Au+Au collision. The suppression of back-to-back correlated dihadron pairs varies with centrality and is largest for the most central collisions. These data suggest that high $`p_T`$ hadrons come from hard-scattering processes that occur near the edge of the collision region, and that the medium produced in central Au+Au collisions at RHIC is opaque to the propagation of fast partons or their fragmentation products.