text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

In the development of vacuum string field theory (VSFT) -, two basic approaches have been taken, namely, the operator formalism and the CFT formalism. In the operator formalism, computations can be done explicitly and algebraically. The formalism involves, however, infinite dimensional matrices and their determinants, making it necessary to rely on numerical tests using level truncation. On the other hand, the CFT formalism gives a geometrical picture to various aspects of VSFT and often analytical computations are possible, but the techniques are more abstract. With advantages and disadvantages for each method present, both approaches have been employed to deal with questions in VSFT.

Consider, for example, the equation of motion

$$𝒬\mathrm{\Psi }+\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }=0$$
(1.1)
of VSFT. Since the kinetic operator $`𝒬`$ consists of ghost operators only, for a state of the form $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{(m)}\mathrm{\Psi }^{(g)}`$, the equation of motion can be separated into the matter part and the ghost part:

$$\mathrm{\Psi }^{(m)}\mathrm{\Psi }^{(m)}=\mathrm{\Psi }^{(m)},𝒬\mathrm{\Psi }^{(g)}+\mathrm{\Psi }^{(g)}\mathrm{\Psi }^{(g)}=0.$$
(1.2)
For the matter part, Kostelecky and Potting constructed a solution $`\mathrm{\Psi }_m`$ in the operator language . Rastelli, Sen and Zwiebach suggested  that this solution can be identified with the matter sliver state $`\mathrm{\Xi }_m`$ which is defined as a surface state in the matter CFT, giving numerical evidence based on level truncation.

To have a solution for the ghost part of the equation of motion, the kinetic operator $`𝒬`$ must be fixed. Hata and Kawano showed that on some reasonable assumptions, the existence of a nontrivial solution in the Siegel gauge determines the kinetic operator $`𝒬`$. They then constructed a solution $`\mathrm{\Psi }_g`$ and its corresponding kinetic operator in the operator formalism . Gaiotto, Rastelli, Sen, and Zwiebach proposed   that the kinetic operator $`𝒬`$ is a mid-point $`c`$ ghost insertion, and gave a ghost solution for that $`𝒬`$ as the sliver state $`\mathrm{\Xi }_g^{}`$ in the twisted ghost CFT. They further proposed that their ghost operator and solution can be identified with those of Hata and Kawano and confirmed this identification by level truncation analysis.

Following the spectrum analysis of the star algebra by Rastelli, Sen, and Zwiebach , Okuyama developed methods  to analytically prove the equality of the kinetic operators proposed by Hata and Kawano and that defined by Gaiotto, Rastelli, Sen, and Zwiebach.

In this paper, we will use Okuyama’s methods to analytically prove the equality of the solution in the operator formalism and that in the CFT formalism. In other words, we will analytically show that the matter solution $`\mathrm{\Psi }_m`$ by Kostelecky and Potting is the matter sliver state $`\mathrm{\Xi }_m`$ and also that the ghost solution $`\mathrm{\Psi }_g`$ by Hata and Kawano is the sliver state $`\mathrm{\Xi }_g^{}`$ of the twisted ghost CFT. Also, it is proved that the candidate tachyon state proposed by Hata and Kawano is correctly reproduced by the CFT construction as claimed by Rastelli, Sen, and Zwiebach .

The outline of this paper is the following. In section 2, we review the methods of Okuyama  . In section 3, we give analytical proofs that the solutions and the candidate tachyon states in the operator and CFT formalisms are identical.

## 2 Review of Methods

In this section, we review Okuyama’s methods  and set conventions. The zero momentum sector of the 3-string vertex is given by

$$|V_3=\mathrm{exp}\left(\underset{r,s=1}{\overset{3}{}}\underset{n,m=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left[\frac{1}{2}a_{n\mu }^{(r)}V_{nm}^{rs}a_m^{(s)\mu }+c_n^{(r)}\stackrel{~}{V}_{nm}^{rs}b_m^{(s)}+c_n^{(r)}\stackrel{~}{v}_n^{rs}b_0^{(s)}\right]\right)\underset{r=1}{\overset{3}{}}c_0^{(r)}c_1^{(r)}|0_r.$$
(2.1)
We are using the convention $`\alpha ^{}=1`$. We write $`M=CV^{11}`$, where $`C_{nm}=(1)^n\delta _{nm}`$ is the twist matrix. In , the eigenvectors and the eigenvalues of $`M`$ were identified. The eigenvector $`v^{(k)}`$ with eigenvalue $`k𝐑`$ is defined by the generating function

$$f_k(z)=\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{v_n^{(k)}}{\sqrt{n}}z^n=\frac{1}{k}(1e^{k\mathrm{tan}^1(z)}),$$
(2.2)
with $`f_{k=0}(z)=lim_{k0,k0}f_k(z)`$.

We introduce the notation

$$|z=(z,z^2,z^3,\mathrm{})^T,|k=(v_1^{(k)},v_2^{(k)},v_3^{(k)},\mathrm{})^T.$$
(2.3)
$`z|=|z^T`$ is the transpose of $`z|`$, not the hermitian conjugate. In this notation, the generating function for the eigenvector $`|k`$ can be written as

$$f_k(z)=z|E^1|k=k|E^1|z,$$
(2.4)
where $`E_{nm}=\sqrt{n}\delta _{nm}`$. The crucial properties of $`|k`$ are

$`k|p=𝒩(k)\delta (kp),`$ (2.5)
$`\mathrm{𝟏}={\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑k𝒩(k)^1|kk|,`$ (2.6)
where

$$𝒩(k)=\frac{2}{k}\mathrm{sinh}\left(\frac{\pi }{2}k\right).$$
(2.7)
The twist acts as

$$C|z=|z.$$
(2.8)
There is a useful relation

$$z_zz|=z|E^2,$$
(2.9)
which leads to

$$z|E|k=k|E|z=\frac{z}{1+z^2}e^{k\mathrm{tan}^1(z)}.$$
(2.10)
The matter solution by Kostelecky and Potting is

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }_m=\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{1}{2}\underset{n,m=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}a_{n\mu }^{}S_{nm}a_m^\mu \right)|0.$$
(2.11)
The matrix $`TCS`$ is given by

$$T=\frac{1}{2M}\left(1+M\sqrt{(1M)(1+3M)}\right).$$
(2.12)
The eigenvalues of $`M`$ and $`T`$ for the eigenvector $`|k`$ are known:

$`M(k)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+2\mathrm{cosh}(\frac{\pi }{2}k)}},`$ (2.13)
$`T(k)=e^{\frac{\pi }{2}|k|}.`$ (2.14)
## 3 Analytical Proofs

### 3.1 Ghost Solution

It is convenient to begin with the ghost solution as we will see later. The ghost solution by Hata and Kawano is given as

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }_g=\mathrm{exp}\left(\underset{n,m=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}c_n\stackrel{~}{S}_{nm}b_m\right)c_1|0,$$
(3.1)
where $`\stackrel{~}{S}`$ can be written in terms of $`T`$ :

$`\stackrel{~}{S}=CETE^1.`$ (3.2)
On the other hand, the sliver in the twisted ghost CFT is defined by the correlation function

$$\mathrm{\Xi }_g^{}|\varphi f\varphi ^{}(0)^{},$$
(3.3)
where $`\varphi `$ is an arbitrary Fock state and $`f(\xi )=\mathrm{tan}^1(\xi )`$. Since the conformal transformation $`f`$ acts on the vacuum state as the exponential of a linear combination of the Virasoro generators, we have for the sliver in the twisted ghost CFT,

$$|\mathrm{\Xi }_g^{}=\mathrm{exp}\left(\underset{n,m=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}c_n\widehat{S}_{nm}b_m\right)|0^{},$$
(3.4)
The $`SL(2,𝐑)`$-invariant vacuum $`|0^{}`$ of the twisted CFT is $`c_1|0`$ of the untwisted CFT. We will prove the equality of the two states by showing that the generating functions for $`\widehat{S}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{S}`$ are the same.

To compute the generating function $`z|\stackrel{~}{S}|w`$, let us consider the function

$`h(z,w)`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{\Xi }_g^{}|R(c^{}(w)b^{}(z))c_0|0^{}`$ (3.5)
$`=`$ $`0^{}|\mathrm{exp}({\displaystyle \underset{n,m=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}(1)^{n+m}c_n\widehat{S}_{nm}b_m)R(c^{}(w)b^{}(z))c_0|0^{}`$
$`=`$ $`fc^{}(w)fb^{}(z)fc^{}(0)^{}.`$ (3.6)
Here $`R`$ denotes radial ordering and the extra signs in (3.5) come from BPZ conjugation. The expression (3.5) allows us to write this function as 111In , the second term of (3.7) was missing. This term arises from contraction of $`c^{}(w)`$, $`b^{}(z)`$, and $`c_0`$ and is identical with $`c^{}(w)b^{}(z)c^{}(0)^{}`$.

$$h(z,w)=\underset{n,m=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(w)^m(z)^{n1}\widehat{S}_{nm}+\frac{w}{z(wz)}.$$
(3.7)
Another expression for $`h(z,w)`$ can be obtained using (3.6):

$`h(z,w)`$ $`=`$ $`c^{}(f(w))b^{}(f(z)){\displaystyle \frac{df(z)}{dz}}c^{}(f(0))^{}`$ (3.8)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+z^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{tan}^1(w)\mathrm{tan}^1(z)}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{tan}^1(w)}{\mathrm{tan}^1(z)}}.`$
Note that the $`c`$ ghost has weight zero and the $`b`$ ghost has weight one in the twisted ghost CFT. Combining eqs.(3.7) and (3.8), we obtain the generating function of $`\widehat{S}`$.

$`z|\widehat{S}|w`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{z}{1+z^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{tan}^1(z)\mathrm{tan}^1(w)}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{tan}^1(w)}{\mathrm{tan}^1(z)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{w}{wz}}`$ (3.9)
$`=`$ $`z|\widehat{S}|w.`$
Now we compute $`z|\stackrel{~}{S}|w`$. Because of the twist matrix $`C`$ in the definition of $`S`$, it is simpler to use $`z`$ instead of $`z`$.

$`z|\stackrel{~}{S}|w`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑kz|ET|kN(k)^1k|E^1|w`$ (3.10)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑k{\displaystyle \frac{k}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{sinh}(\frac{\pi }{2}k)}}(e^{\frac{\pi }{2}|k|}){\displaystyle \frac{z}{1+z^2}}e^{k\mathrm{tan}^1(z)}`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{1}{k}}(1e^{k\mathrm{tan}^1(w)})`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{z}{1+z^2}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑k{\displaystyle \frac{e^{\frac{\pi }{2}|k|}}{\mathrm{sinh}(\frac{\pi }{2}k)}}\left(\mathrm{sinh}((\theta +\varphi )k)\mathrm{sinh}(\theta k)\right)`$
Here $`\theta \mathrm{tan}^1(z)`$, $`\varphi \mathrm{tan}^1(w)`$, and we used eqs. (2.6), (2.7), (2.10), and (2.14). We now use the formula

$$_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑ke^{\frac{\pi }{2}k}\frac{\mathrm{sinh}(\theta k)}{\mathrm{sinh}(\frac{\pi }{2}k)}=\frac{1}{\theta }\frac{1}{\mathrm{tan}\theta },(|\mathrm{Re}\theta |<\pi )$$
(3.11)
to obtain

$`z|\stackrel{~}{S}|w`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{z}{1+z^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{tan}^1(w)}{\mathrm{tan}^1(z)(\mathrm{tan}^1(z)+\mathrm{tan}^1(w))}}+{\displaystyle \frac{w}{z+w}}.`$ (3.12)
If we replace $`z`$ by $`z`$, this expression exactly coincides with eq.(3.9). This completes the proof of the equality $`\mathrm{\Psi }_g=\mathrm{\Xi }_g^{}`$.

### 3.2 Matter Solution

The solution by Kostelecky and Potting is given in the operator language :

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }_m=\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{1}{2}\underset{n,m=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}a_{n\mu }^{}S_{nm}a_m^\mu \right)|0.$$
(3.13)
We have for the matter sliver

$$|\mathrm{\Xi }_m=\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{1}{2}\underset{n,m=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}a_{n\mu }^{}S_{nm}^{}a_m^\mu \right)|0,$$
(3.14)
with the coefficient matrix $`S^{}`$ determined by the defining equation

$$\mathrm{\Xi }_m|\varphi f\varphi (0),$$
(3.15)
where $`\varphi `$ is any Fock state and $`f(\xi )=\mathrm{tan}^1(\xi )`$. Proceeding in the same way as for the ghost solution, we will prove the equality of these two states by computing the generating functions of $`S`$ and $`S^{}`$.

To obtain the generating function of $`S^{}`$, consider the tensor function

$`h^{\mu \nu }(z,w)`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{\Xi }_m|R\left(X^\mu (w)X^\nu (z)\right)|0`$ (3.16)
$`=`$ $`0|\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{n,m=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}(1)^{n+m}a_{n\mu }^{}S_{nm}^{}a_m^\mu \right)R\left(X^\mu (w)X^\nu (z)\right)|0`$
$`=`$ $`fX^\mu (w)fX^\nu (z).`$ (3.17)
The signs in (3.16) arise because of BPZ conjugation. From the expression (3.16), we get

$$h^{\mu \nu }(z,w)=\frac{1}{2}\underset{n,m=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(w)^{n1}(z)^{m1}\sqrt{nm}S^{nm}\eta ^{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{2}\eta ^{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{(zw)^2}.$$
(3.18)
The other expression (3.17) allows us to compute $`h^{\mu \nu }(z,w)`$ as

$`h^{\mu \nu }(z,w)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{df(w)}{dw}}{\displaystyle \frac{df(z)}{dz}}X^\mu (f(w))X^\nu (f(z))`$ (3.19)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+w^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+z^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\right)\eta ^{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(\mathrm{tan}^1(z)\mathrm{tan}^1(w))^2}}.`$
Comparing eqs.(3.18) and (3.19) gives the generating function

$`z|ES^{}E|w`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{zw}{(zw)^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{zw}{(1+z^2)(1+w^2)}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(\mathrm{tan}^1(z)\mathrm{tan}^1(w))^2}}`$ (3.20)
$`=`$ $`z|ES^{}E|w.`$
The generating function $`z|ESE|w`$ for $`S`$ can be computed from the generating function for the ghost solution.

$`z|ESE|w`$ $`=`$ $`z|ETE|w`$ (3.21)
$`=`$ $`w{\displaystyle \frac{}{w}}z|ETE^1|w`$
$`=`$ $`w{\displaystyle \frac{}{w}}z|\stackrel{~}{S}|w`$
$`=`$ $`w{\displaystyle \frac{}{w}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{z}{1+z^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{tan}^1(w)}{\mathrm{tan}^1(z)(\mathrm{tan}^1(z)+\mathrm{tan}^1(w))}}+{\displaystyle \frac{w}{z+w}}\right)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{zw}{(1+z^2)(1+w^2)}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(\mathrm{tan}^1(z)+\mathrm{tan}^1(w))^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{zw}{(z+w)^2}}.`$
Here we used eqs. (2.9), (3.2), and (3.12). Recovering the normal sign, we see that eq.(3.21) precisely agrees with eq.(3.20). This shows $`S=S^{}`$ and completes the proof for the matter solution.

### 3.3 Candidate State for the tachyon

The Hata-Kawano state, which is a candidate state for the tachyon, is given by

$$\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{1}{2}\underset{n,m=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}a_n^{}S_{nm}a_m^{}a_0\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}t_na_n^{}\right)|k$$
(3.22)
where

$$(t_n)=|t=\frac{(1T)^2}{(1M)(1+T)}|v_{+0}+v_0.$$
(3.23)
The vector $`v_{+0}+v_0`$ is related to $`v_e`$ which was introduced in  through

$$|v_{+0}+v_0=2|v_e.$$
(3.24)
In , it was found that

$$k|v_e=\frac{1}{k}\frac{\mathrm{cosh}\left(\frac{\pi k}{2}\right)1}{2\mathrm{cosh}\left(\frac{\pi k}{2}\right)+1}.$$
(3.25)
The matrix factor in (3.23) can also be simplified:

$$\frac{(1T)^2}{(1M)(1+T)}=\frac{T^2T+1}{1+T}.$$
(3.26)
Therefore,

$`|t`$ $`=`$ $`2{\displaystyle \frac{T^2T+1}{1+T}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑k|k{\displaystyle \frac{k}{2\mathrm{sinh}(\frac{\pi }{2})}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{k}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cosh}(\frac{\pi }{2}k)1}{2\mathrm{cosh}(\frac{\pi }{2}k)+1}}`$ (3.27)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑k|k{\displaystyle \frac{T^2(k)T(k)+1}{1+T(k)}}{\displaystyle \frac{(1+T(k))^2}{T^2(k)T(k)+1}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{sinh}(\frac{\pi }{2}k)}}`$ (3.28)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑k|k{\displaystyle \frac{(1e^{\frac{\pi }{2}|k|})}{\mathrm{sinh}(\frac{\pi }{2}k)}}.`$ (3.29)
Now let us consider the generating function $`z|E|t`$.

$`z|E|t`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑k{\displaystyle \frac{z}{1+z^2}}e^{k\mathrm{tan}^1(z)}{\displaystyle \frac{(1e^{\frac{\pi }{2}|k|})}{\mathrm{sinh}(\frac{\pi }{2}k)}}`$ (3.30)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{z}{1+z^2}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑k(1e^{\frac{\pi }{2}k}){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sinh}(\theta k)}{\mathrm{sinh}(\frac{\pi }{2}k)}}.`$ (3.31)
Here, $`\theta =\mathrm{tan}^1(z)`$. Using the formula (3.11) and

$$_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑k\frac{\mathrm{sinh}(\theta k)}{\mathrm{sinh}(\frac{\pi }{2}k)}=\mathrm{tan}\theta ,(|\mathrm{Re}\theta |<\frac{\pi }{2}),$$
(3.32)
we obtain

$$z|E|t=1\frac{z}{1+z^2}\frac{1}{\mathrm{tan}^1(z)}.$$
(3.33)
Rastelli, Sen, and Zwiebach proposed that the Hata-Kawano state is given by

$$\chi _T(k)|\psi 𝒩\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}n^{2k^2}e^{ikX(\frac{n\pi }{4})}f\psi (0)_{C_n},$$
(3.34)
where $`𝒩`$ is a normalization constant and $`C_n`$ is the upper half plane with the identification $`zz+\frac{n}{2}\pi `$ . Here we will prove their proposal. The insertion of the tachyon vertex operator produces a linear term in the exponential:

$$|\chi _T(k)=\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{1}{2}\underset{n,m=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}a_n^{}S_{nm}^{}a_m^{}a_0\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\widehat{t}_na_n^{}\right)|k$$
(3.35)
The coefficient matrix $`S^{}`$ is the one for the matter sliver, for the quadratic term in the exponential represents the action of the same conformal transformation $`f`$ on the vacuum. This can also be directly checked by computing a two-point correlation function. To compute the coefficient vector $`\widehat{t}`$, let us consider the function

$`\chi _T(k)|X^\mu (z)|k^{}`$ $`=`$ $`k|\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}aS^{}aa_0\widehat{t}Ca\right)X^\mu (z)|k^{}`$ (3.36)
$`=`$ $`ik^\mu k|k^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{z}}\left(1{\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}(1)^m\sqrt{m}z^m\widehat{t}^m\right).`$ (3.37)
Here we have used

$`X^\mu (z)={\displaystyle \frac{p^\mu }{iz}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}i}}{\displaystyle \underset{m0}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _m^\mu }{z^{m+1}}},`$ (3.38)
$`a_0=a_0^{}=\sqrt{2}p.`$ (3.39)
On the other hand, from definition (3.34), we have

$`\chi _T(k)|X^\mu (z)|k^{}`$ $`=`$ $`𝒩\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}n^{2k^2}e^{ikX(\frac{n\pi }{4})}fX^\mu (z)fe^{ik^{}X(0)}_{C_n}`$ (3.40)
$``$ $`\underset{w\mathrm{}}{lim}e^{ikX(w)}fX^\mu (z)fe^{ik^{}X(0)}_{UHP}`$ (3.41)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ik^\mu }{1+z^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{tan}^1(z)}}k|k^{}.`$ (3.42)
By comparing (3.37) and (3.42) and choosing $`𝒩`$ so that both have the same residue for the pole at $`z=0`$, we get

$$\widehat{t}|E|z=1\frac{z}{1+z^2}\frac{1}{\mathrm{tan}^1(z)}=\widehat{t}|E|z,$$
(3.43)
which is identical to eq. (3.33). This completes the proof for the candidate tachyon state.

## Acknowledgments

I would like to thank Yuji Okawa and Hirosi Ooguri for valuable discussions.


format: text

text:
# 1 The Hough image of the single measurement (𝑥_𝑖,𝑧_𝑖,𝑟_𝑖) in the space 𝑃_𝑥 of projection parameters (𝑥₀,𝑡_𝑥)

Implementation of the Hough Transform
for 3D Track Reconstruction in Drift Chambers
Ar.Belkov
Laboratory of Particle Physics, JINR

Talk at the VIth International School-Seminar
“Actual Problems of High Energy Physics”
August 7-16, 2001, Gomel, Belarus

This paper is devoted to the method developed in Ref.  for 3D reconstruction of the straight tracks in the tracking system consisting of the drift-chamber stereo layers. The method is based on the Hough-transform approach  – the discrete case of more general Radon transform  – and takes into account both coordinates of the hit wires and drift distances not only for the measurements in one projection, but also in the rotated stereo layers. The proposed method allows one to resolve the right-left ambiguity and provides the accordance between vertical and horizontal projections of the track.

Let the straight track of charged particle be detected by the system of drift chambers consisting of the cylindrical tubes placed in such a way that their anode wires stretched along the tube axes are parallel to the vertical coordinate axis $`Y`$. In this case the signals from the drift chambers give the information about the track projection onto the horizontal plane $`XZ`$. The track projection is described by $`x(z)=x_0+t_x(zz_0)`$, where $`x_0`$ and $`t_x=\text{tan}\theta _x`$ are the projection offset in $`z`$ and slope, respectively.

The single measurement from the hit wire includes its coordinates $`x_i`$, $`z_i`$ and measured distance $`r_i`$ from the wire to the track. Assume that error of $`r_i`$ measurement is uniformly distributed within the range $`[c,c]`$, where $`c(2÷3)\sigma `$ is a tuning parameter of the algorithm while $`\sigma `$ is a space resolution of the drift chamber. At each value of $`t_x`$, the Hough image of a single measurement $`(x_i,z_i,r_i)`$ in the space $`P_x`$ of projection parameters $`(x_0,t_x)`$ is given by two ranges of possible values of $`x_0`$ (see Fig. 1):

$$x_0^u[x_i(z_iz_0)t_x+(r_ic)\sqrt{1+t_x^2};x_i(z_iz_0)t_x+(r_i+c)\sqrt{1+t_x^2}]$$
(1)
is an upper branch $`M^u`$,

$$x_0^d[x_i(z_iz_0)t_x(r_i+c)\sqrt{1+t_x^2};x_i(z_iz_0)t_x(r_ic)\sqrt{1+t_x^2}]$$
(2)
is a lower branch $`M^d`$.

For chamber operation in the proportional regime (no measurement of $`r_i`$), the Hough image of a single hit $`(x_i,z_i)`$ is given in the parameter space $`P_x`$ by a range of possible values of $`x_0`$ at each value of $`t_x`$:

$$x_0[x_i(z_iz_0)t_xR\sqrt{1+t_x^2};x_i(z_iz_0)t_x+R\sqrt{1+t_x^2}],$$
(3)
where $`R`$ is the tube radius.

Assume $`M_1,M_2,\mathrm{},M_n`$ – are Hough images of single measurements from $`n`$ hits belonging to the same track. In this case the Hough image of the track, $`M^{(n)}`$, is defined in the parameter space $`P_x`$ as an intersection of set of Hough images $`M_k`$, $`k=1,\mathrm{},n`$: $`M^{(n)}=_{k=1}^nM_k`$. To characterize the track reliability level, let us introduce the criterion $`J(M)`$ which can be determined as number of hits having produced the Hough image $`M`$ of the track. In particular, $`J(M^{(n)})=n`$. For the reconstruction we use only those $`M`$ for which $`J(M)J_{min}`$, where a threshold value of $`J_{min}`$ is a tuning parameter of the algorithm. If the intersection $`M`$ is found, then the track parameters $`x_0`$, $`t_x`$ are estimated as coordinates of center of gravity of $`M`$ in the parameter space $`P_x`$.

For 3D reconstruction, it is also necessary to determine the track projection onto the vertical plane $`YZ`$. For this aim, the set of vertical tubes (“0” stereo-layers) with set of tubes rotated by the angle $`\alpha `$ around the axis $`Z`$ ($`\alpha `$” stereo-layers) can be used as it is shown in Fig. 2. The $`YZ`$ track projection is described by $`y(z)=y_0+t_y(zz_0)`$, where $`y_0`$ and $`t_y=\text{tan}\theta _y`$ are the projection offset in $`z`$ and slope, respectively.

Assume parameters $`x_0`$, $`t_x`$ for the $`XZ`$ track projection have already been determined using measurements in the “0” stereo-layers and Hough-transform approach described above. Then, the single measurements $`(x_i^{},z_i,r_i)`$ in “$`\alpha `$” stereo-layers with hit-wire coordinates determined in the rotated system $`X^{}Y^{}Z`$ (see Fig. 2) can be used for reconstruction of track projection onto the plane $`YZ`$. The corresponding Hough images of single measurements are defined in the space $`P_y`$ of the parameters $`y_0`$, $`t_y`$ by the following boundaries of possible values of $`y_0`$ at fixed $`t_y`$ (see Ref.  for more detail):

$`y_0(t_y;x_0,t_x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{x_0+t_x(z_iz_0)}{\text{tan}\alpha }}{\displaystyle \frac{x_i^{}}{\text{sin}\alpha }}t_y(z_iz_0)`$ (4)
$`\pm `$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{r_i\pm c}{\text{sin}\alpha }}\sqrt{1+(t_x\text{cos}\alpha t_y\text{sin}\alpha )^2}`$
– for the drift chambers, or

$`y_0(t_y;x_0,t_x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{x_0+t_x(z_iz_0)}{\text{tan}\alpha }}{\displaystyle \frac{x_i^{}}{\text{sin}\alpha }}t_y(z_iz_0)`$ (5)
$`\pm `$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{R}{\text{sin}\alpha }}\sqrt{1+(t_x\text{cos}\alpha t_y\text{sin}\alpha )^2}`$
\- for chamber operation in proportional regime.

For the program realization of the discussed algorithm, for example, for $`XZ`$-projection finding, the space $`P_x`$ of the track parameters $`x_0`$, $`t_x`$ can be treated as a discrete two-dimensional raster $`n\times m`$, which is described by array of its cells $`\rho (l,k)`$ with indices $`l=1,\mathrm{},n`$ and $`k=1,\mathrm{},m`$. The Hough image of each hit can be consequently constructed as a strip on the raster: the current value of the raster cell is increased by a unit if the cell is located within the limits given by Eqs. (1), (2) or (3). After completing this procedure the value of each cell of the raster becomes equal to the number of the Hough stripes having passed the cell. Each local maximum on the raster exceeding some threshold $`J_{min}`$, can be identified with the $`XZ`$ projection having the corresponding values of parameters $`x_0`$, $`t_x`$.

The selection algorithm of reliable tracks includes ordering the raster cells according to the criterion $`J(M)`$ by using a special structure – the array of bidirectional lists determining the hierarchy of the raster cells filled in. The given array of the lists is a vector-column where each element is a pointer to the list and corresponds to a certain meaning of the criterion $`J(M)>J_{min}`$. After filling the raster, the hierarchy of its cells is built: if $`\rho (l,k)J_{min}`$, then the point $`(l,k)`$ is added into the list for $`J=\rho (l,k)`$.

At the first step of 3D track reconstruction, the global $`XZ`$ raster and its hierarchy are built by using the hits only in the “0” stereo-layers. The further steps of the algorithm include:

* estimating of the initial values of $`x_0`$, $`t_x`$ corresponding to the first maximum in the global $`XZ`$-raster hierarchy;
* building the local $`XZ`$ raster and its hierarchy by using the hits in the “0” stereo-layers within a corridor around the track projection defined by the initial values of $`x_0`$, $`t_x`$;
* improvement of the estimates of $`x_0`$, $`t_x`$ as coordinates of center of gravity of the local-raster maximum;
* building the $`YZ`$ raster and its hierarchy assigned to the found $`XZ`$ projection $`(x_0,t_x)`$, by using hits only in the “$`\alpha `$” stereo-layers;
* finding of $`YZ`$ projection $`(y_0,t_y)`$ assigned to the found $`XZ`$ projection $`(x_0,t_x)`$, by using the $`YZ`$-raster hierarchy;
* subtraction of the hits in “0” and “$`\alpha `$” stereo-layers, which belong to the 3D-track $`(x_0,t_x;y_0,t_y)`$, and consecutive subtraction of the corresponding Hough strips from the global raster and its hierarchy.

The procedure described above should be repeated iteratively until there remain the cells of the global $`XZ`$ raster exceeding some threshold $`J_{min}`$.

The examples of global and local $`XZ`$ rasters for Monte-Carlo tracks are shown in Fig. 3. The small crosses on the global raster mark Monte-Carlo tracks on the ($`x_0,t_x`$)-plane of the track projection parameters while the large crosses correspond to the values $`x_0`$, $`t_x`$ of reconstructed projections. Fig. 3a shows a good precision of track reconstruction by the Hough-transform algorithm described above.

This algorithm has been realized in the program Htr developed for track finding in the PC chambers (Pattern Tracker) of the HERA-B Outer Tracker . The program Htr was integrated into the program environment of ARTE – the general software for event processing at HERA-B – and tested both with Monte-Carlo and real data. The tests showed the stable Htr performance with average track finding efficiency of about 90% and rate of ghosts at the level 23% under real conditions of PC-chamber operation. The proposed program realization of the described algorithm provides the time-consuming optimization of event processing and high efficiency of the track finding under large track-occupancy of the detector as well as under high level of noisy and dead channels.

This work was done in the HERA-B software group at DESY, Hamburg.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Distance measurement is a long-lived task in astronomical science. The distance of faraway objects can be determined if its real size or luminosity is known. This strongly relies on the discovery of some standard candles or rods. For example, the peak brightness of type Ia supernovae has been served as a distance indicator and was used to determine the Hubble constant (see, e.g., Brach 1992). So far, the most reliable measurement of the distance for extragalactic sources might come from the observation of NGC 4258. Being observed with VLBI, direct measurement of orbital motions in a disk of gas surrounding the nucleus of this galaxy was made by tracking individual maser features from 1994 to 1997, where proper motions of masers as well as Doppler shifted velocities were obtained (Herrnstein et al. 1999).

VLBI observations have revealed the typical core-jet structure for many AGNs. According to the unified schemes, an AGN possesses in its compact core a supermassive black hole surrounded by an accretion disk, and it is always assumed that there is a twin-jet beamed from the center of the core along the axis of the disk (see, e.g., Urry and Padovani 1995). For a relativistic beaming, there will be a Doppler boosting for the flux of components of the jet, with $`f(\nu )=\delta ^pf_0(\nu )`$, where $`f_0(\nu )`$ is the flux density which would be observed in a reference frame moving with the jet material, $`f(\nu )`$ is the flux density observed by us, $`\delta =\sqrt{1\beta ^2}/(1\beta \mathrm{cos}\theta )`$, and $`p`$ can take on the values $`2+\alpha `$ (for a continuous jet) and $`3+\alpha `$ (for a discrete component) for $`f(\nu )\nu ^\alpha `$ (see, e.g., Pearson and Zensus 1987). Due to the Doppler boosting effect, the flux of an approaching component will be obviously amplified, while that of a receding component will be significantly reduced. Therefore, one expects to observe many approaching components rather than receding ones, and this is true. In fact, we find the core-jet rather than twin-jet structure for the great majority of AGNs observed to date. However, several twin-jet sources were detected recently, both inside and outside our galaxy (those inside the Galaxy are always called microquasars). Some were measured with proper motions of ejected components (see, e.g., Mirabel and Rodriguez 1994, Taylor and Vermeulen 1997), while others were detected with Doppler shifted velocities (see, e.g., Crampton et al. 1987).

It is interesting that proper motions of twin-jets can be used to estimate the Hubble constant. This idea can be traced back to as early as 1980s (see, Marscher and Broderick 1982). It is not until the recent discovery of proper motions that the idea of using this method can be realized. The most successful one was achieved by Taylor and Vermeulen (1997). The data of proper motions can also be used to estimate the pattern speed and the angle to the line of sight of the jet if the distance of the source is known. However, the flow speed in the jet and the angle to the line of sight of the jet can be well determined by Doppler shifted velocities alone, without depending on any knowledge of the distance of the source. As a consequence, one can combine this result together with proper motions to determine the distance without referring to any “standard” quantities (see, Mirabel and Rodriguez 1994). In this paper, we make a preview study of combining the observations of proper motions and Doppler shifted velocities of twin-jets to determine the distance of sources, trying to find out if this method is realizable with current technique.

## 2 The method

According to the theory of relativity, the apparent transverse velocity of a component is related to the angle to the line of sight and its speed (Rees 1966, 1967). For a twin-jet, the apparent transverse velocities of the approaching and receding components follow

$$(v_{app})_A\mu _AD=\frac{\beta _p\mathrm{sin}\theta }{1\beta _p\mathrm{cos}\theta }c(\theta \frac{\pi }{2}),$$
(1)
$$(v_{app})_R\mu _RD=\frac{\beta _p\mathrm{sin}\theta }{1+\beta _p\mathrm{cos}\theta }c(\theta \frac{\pi }{2}),$$
(2)
respectively, where $`\beta _p`$ is the pattern speed (in the units of $`c`$) of the approaching and receding components, $`\theta `$ is the angle to the line of sight and $`D`$ is the distance of the source, while $`\mu _A`$ and $`\mu _R`$ are the proper motions of the approaching and receding components respectively. For extragalactic sources, $`D`$ should be replaced by $`(1+z)D_\theta `$, where $`D_\theta `$ and $`z`$ are the angular distance and the redshift of the source, respectively. Combining these two equations, one gets a relation for determining the distance as

$$D=\frac{c}{2\mu _A\mu _R}\sqrt{\beta _p^2(\mu _A+\mu _R)^2(\mu _A\mu _R)^2}.$$
(3)
The Doppler shifted velocity of a component is defined as

$$v_{Dop}\frac{\lambda \lambda _0}{\lambda _0}c,$$
(4)
where $`\lambda `$ is the wavelength measured by the observer and $`\lambda _0`$ is its proper value. Applying the Doppler effect we find

$$v_{Dop}=(\frac{1\beta _f\mathrm{cos}\theta }{\sqrt{1\beta _f^2}}1)c,$$
(5)
where $`\beta _f`$ is the flow speed in the jets. Thus, the Doppler shifted velocities of the approaching and receding components of a twin-jet should be

$$v_A=(\frac{1\beta _f\mathrm{cos}\theta }{\sqrt{1\beta _f^2}}1)c(\theta \frac{\pi }{2}),$$
(6)
$$v_R=(\frac{1+\beta _f\mathrm{cos}\theta }{\sqrt{1\beta _f^2}}1)c(\theta \frac{\pi }{2}),$$
(7)
respectively. It is clear that $`v_R`$ must be positive, while $`v_A`$ can be both positive and negative (if $`\mathrm{cos}\theta <(1\sqrt{1\beta ^2})/\beta `$, then $`\lambda >\lambda _0`$, $`v_A`$ is positive; if $`\mathrm{cos}\theta >(1\sqrt{1\beta ^2})/\beta `$, then $`\lambda <\lambda _0`$, $`v_A`$ is negative). The above two equations lead to

$$\beta _f=\frac{\sqrt{(4c+v_A+v_R)(v_A+v_R)}}{2c+v_A+v_R}.$$
(8)
From (1) and (2) one has (see also Mirabel and Rodriguez 1994)

$$\beta _p\mathrm{cos}\theta =\frac{\mu _A\mu _R}{\mu _A+\mu _R}(\theta \frac{\pi }{2})$$
(9)
and from (6) and (7) one gets

$$\beta _f\mathrm{cos}\theta =\frac{v_Rv_A}{2c+v_A+v_R}(\theta \frac{\pi }{2}).$$
(10)
Assuming

$$\beta _p=\beta _f,$$
(11)
then we have

$$\frac{\mu _A\mu _R}{\mu _A+\mu _R}=\frac{v_Rv_A}{2c+v_A+v_R}.$$
(12)
Combining (3) and (8) and applying (11) and (12), one finds that

$$D=\frac{c(\mu _A\mu _R)}{\mu _A\mu _R}\frac{\sqrt{v_Av_R+cv_A+cv_R}}{v_Rv_A}.$$
(13)
It shows, if the proper motions $`\mu _A`$ and $`\mu _R`$ and Doppler shifted velocities $`v_A`$ and $`v_R`$ of the approaching and receding components of a twin-jet are measured, then the distance of the source will be well determined. Due to its simpleness, one might desire to observe proper motions and Doppler shifted velocities of twin-jet sources and then adopt the above equation to determined the distance of the source.

As pointed out by Mirabel and Rodriguez (1994), when $`\beta _p=\beta _f=\beta `$, there will be only three unknown quantities $`D`$, $`\beta `$ and $`\theta `$, then it is only necessary to measure three out of the four possible observables $`\mu _A`$, $`\mu _R`$, $`v_A`$ and $`v_R`$, which are related by (12), suggesting that only three of them are independent. Applying (12) to (13), one can have different forms of $`D`$ as various functions of any three of the four observables.

For instance, if only $`\mu _A`$, $`v_A`$ and $`v_R`$ are measured, we simply cancel $`\mu _R`$ from (12) and (13) and then have

$$D=\frac{c}{\mu _A}\frac{\sqrt{v_Av_R+cv_A+cv_R}}{c+v_A},$$
(14)
here $`\mu _A`$, $`v_A`$ and $`v_R`$ are independent.

In order to investigate the feasibility of this method, we consider the effect from the uncertainties of the measured values of proper motions and Doppler shifted velocities. Let the uncertainties of $`\mu _A`$, $`v_A`$ and $`v_R`$ be $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mu _A`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }v_A`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }v_R`$, respectively. From equation (14) we find the relative uncertainties of $`D`$ caused by $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mu _A`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }v_A`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }v_R`$ are

$$\frac{(\mathrm{\Delta }D)_{\mathrm{\Delta }\mu _A}}{D}=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\mu _A}{\mu _A},$$
(15)
$$\frac{(\mathrm{\Delta }D)_{\mathrm{\Delta }v_A}}{D}=\frac{\left|[c^2(v_Av_R+cv_A+cv_R)]v_A\right|}{2(c+v_A)(v_Av_R+cv_A+cv_R)}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }v_A}{v_A},$$
(16)
and

$$\frac{(\mathrm{\Delta }D)_{\mathrm{\Delta }v_R}}{D}=\frac{v_Av_R+cv_R}{2(v_Av_R+cv_A+cv_R)}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }v_R}{v_R},$$
(17)
respectively. The total uncertainty of $`D`$ is simply expressed by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }D=\sqrt{(\mathrm{\Delta }D)_{\mathrm{\Delta }\mu _A}^2+(\mathrm{\Delta }D)_{\mathrm{\Delta }v_A}^2+(\mathrm{\Delta }D)_{\mathrm{\Delta }v_R}^2}.$$
(18)
Equation (15) shows that, in any cases, the uncertainty of $`D`$ caused by $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mu _A`$ is in the same order of the latter. Taking $`\beta _f=\beta `$ and applying (6) and (7) one finds that

$$\frac{(\mathrm{\Delta }D)_{\mathrm{\Delta }v_A}}{D}=\frac{\left|[\beta ^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta (1\beta ^2)](1\beta \mathrm{cos}\theta \sqrt{1\beta ^2})\right|}{2\beta ^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta (1\beta \mathrm{cos}\theta )}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }v_A}{v_A}$$
(19)
and

$$\frac{(\mathrm{\Delta }D)_{\mathrm{\Delta }v_R}}{D}=\frac{(1\beta \mathrm{cos}\theta )(1+\beta \mathrm{cos}\theta \sqrt{1\beta ^2})}{2\beta ^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }v_R}{v_R}.$$
(20)
When $`\beta 1`$, then $`(\mathrm{\Delta }D)_{\mathrm{\Delta }v_A}/D(1/2)\mathrm{\Delta }v_A/v_A`$ and $`(\mathrm{\Delta }D)_{\mathrm{\Delta }v_R}/D(1/2)\mathrm{\Delta }v_R/v_R`$, showing that the uncertainty of $`D`$ caused by $`\mathrm{\Delta }v_A`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }v_R`$ are in the same order of them. If all the uncertainties of $`\mu _A`$, $`v_A`$ and $`v_R`$ are within $`10\%`$, then the uncertainty of $`D`$ would be well within $`13\%`$.

## 3 Discussion

In last section, we assume that the flow speed equals the pattern speed and the angles to the line of sight used in the proper motion and Doppler shifted velocity equations are the same. However, some of these assumptions may not be true. For example, from VLBI proper motion studies of extragalactic sources we know that the flow speed and the pattern speed are not always the same.

Assuming the jet and counter-jet are in opposite directions, one can determine $`\beta _f`$ by applying equation (8) and determine $`\theta `$ by

$$\mathrm{cos}\theta =\frac{v_Rv_A}{\sqrt{(4c+v_A+v_R)(v_A+v_R)}}(\theta \frac{\pi }{2}).$$
(21)
Meanwhile, $`\beta _p`$ is determined by

$$\beta _p=\frac{\mu _A\mu _R}{\mu _A+\mu _R}\frac{\sqrt{(4c+v_A+v_R)(v_A+v_R)}}{v_Rv_A}$$
(22)
and $`D`$ can be determined by applying equation (13). \[Combining (3) and (22) will lead to (13), suggesting that, even $`\beta _p\beta _f`$, (13) is still valid.\] It shows clearly that with the four observables $`\mu _A`$, $`\mu _R`$, $`v_A`$ and $`v_R`$ one can uniquely determine the four unknown quantities $`D`$, $`\beta _p`$, $`\beta _f`$, and $`\theta `$. If only three out of the four possible observables are measured and one assumes $`\beta _p=\beta _f=\beta `$, then $`D`$ can also be determined, as suggested by Mirabel and Rodriguez (1994). But if so, one might miss to observe the possible difference between the two speeds. Thus, we suggest that, if possible, all the four observables should be measured.

Many sources (both galactic and extragalactic) exhibit helical jet structure which means that the angles to the line of sight for the jet and its counter-jet are not necessarily the same. Let the angle to the line of sight for the receding component be $`\pi \theta ^{}`$, with

$$\theta ^{}=\theta +\mathrm{\Delta }\theta ,$$
(23)
where, $`\theta `$ is the angle to the line of sight for the approaching component and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\theta `$ is the deviation of the angle for the receding one (which can be positive or negative). In this situation, $`\theta `$ in equation (2) should be replaced by $`\theta ^{}`$ and the replacement would yield

$$D=\frac{c}{\mu _R}\frac{\beta \mathrm{sin}(\theta +\mathrm{\Delta }\theta )}{1+\beta \mathrm{cos}(\theta +\mathrm{\Delta }\theta )}(\theta \frac{\pi }{2}).$$
(24)
Taking $`\mathrm{\Delta }\theta `$ as a small value, we extend this equation to the first order of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\theta `$ and then get

$$D=\frac{c}{\mu _R}\frac{\beta \mathrm{sin}\theta }{1+\beta \mathrm{cos}\theta }[1+\frac{\beta +\mathrm{cos}\theta }{(1+\beta \mathrm{cos}\theta )\mathrm{sin}\theta }\mathrm{\Delta }\theta ](\theta \frac{\pi }{2}).$$
(25)
For a twin-jet close to the plane of the sky, $`\theta \pi /2`$, then $`(\beta +\mathrm{cos}\theta )/[(1+\beta \mathrm{cos}\theta )\mathrm{sin}\theta ]\beta `$. It shows that if $`\left|\mathrm{\Delta }\theta \right|<0.1`$ ($`0.1`$ corresponds to $`5.7^{}`$), the deviation of the distance caused by $`\mathrm{\Delta }\theta `$ will be less than $`10\%`$ (note that $`\beta <1`$). So, for the requirement of $`10\%`$ uncertainty of the distance, the deviation of the angle to the line of sight of the receding component of a twin-jet close to the plane of the sky is allowed to be $`5.7^{}`$.

## 4 Potential observational targets

For the convenience of choosing sources to observe, we list some sources as potential targets.

(a) Sources with their proper motions available

As for recent observational targets, we preferentially suggest the following sources since their proper motions have been detected and their jets seem to be quite close to the plane of the sky.

(1) Sources in the Galaxy

GRS 1915+105 (Mirabel and Rodriguez 1994, Fender et al. 1999): $`\mu _A=23.6\pm 0.5`$ mas day-1, $`\mu _R=10.0\pm 0.5`$ mas day-1

GRO J1655-40 (Hjellming and Rupen 1995): $`\mu _A=54`$ mas day-1, $`\mu _R=45`$ mas day-1

XTE J1819-284 (Hjellming et al. 1999): $`\mu _A=500`$ mas day-1, $`\mu _R=200`$ mas day-1

(2) Extragalactic sources

1146+596 (NGC 3894) (Taylor et al. 1998): $`z=0.01085`$, $`\mu _A=0.26\pm 0.05`$ mas yr-1, $`\mu _R=0.19\pm 0.05`$ mas yr-1

1946+708 (Taylor and Vermeulen 1997): $`z=0.101`$, $`\mu _A=0.117\pm 0.020`$ mas yr-1, $`\mu _R=0.053\pm 0.020`$ mas yr-1

(b) Sources with their Doppler shifted velocities available

The following sources are all inside the Galaxy. They might be chosen to observe proper motions since their Doppler shifted velocities are available.

RX J0019.8+2156 (Cowley et al. 1998): $`v_R=712\pm 35`$ km s-1, $`v_A=690\pm 35`$ km s-1

RX J0513-69 (Southwell et al. 1996; Cowley et al. 1998): $`v_R=4000`$ km s-1, $`v_A=3700`$ km s-1

CAL 83 (Crampton et al. 1987; Cowley et al. 1998): $`v_R2450`$ km s-1, $`v_A690`$ km s-1

(c) Potential sources

Listed in the following are some potential sources probably to be interesting targets. Some of them are convinced to be twin-jet sources while others might probably possess the twin-jet structure.

(1) Potential sources in the Galaxy

XTE J0421+560 (CI Cam radio source) (Hjellming and Mioduszewski 1998; Hjellming et al. 2000): $`\mu _A=\mu _R=26`$ mas day-1

SAX J1819.3-2525 (In’t Zand et al. 2000): $`\mu _A\mu _R[224,806]`$ mas day-1

XTE J1748-288 (Rupen and Hjellming 1998; Hjellming et al. 2000): $`\mu _A+`$ $`\mu _R[20,40]`$ mas day-1

4U 1630-47 (Hjellming et al. 2000)

XTE J1550-564 (Hjellming et al. 2000)

XTE J1739-278 (Hjellming et al. 2000)

XTE J1806-246 (Hjellming et al. 2000)

XTE J1819-245 (V4641, Sgr) (Hjellming et al. 2000)

XTE J1859+226 (Hjellming et al. 2000)

XTE J2012+381 (Hjellming et al. 2000)

(2) Potential extragalactic sources

0316+413 (NGC 1275, 3C 84) (Marr et al. 1989, Vermeulen et al. 1994): $`z=0.0172`$, $`\mu _A=0.58`$ mas yr-1

NGC 1052 (Kellermann et al. 1999): $`z=0.0049`$, $`\mu _A+`$ $`\mu _R=1.3`$ mas yr-1

NGC 4258 (Burbidge 1995; Uzernoy 1996): $`z_1=0.398`$, $`z_2=0.653`$

3C 338 (Giovannini et al. 1998): $`z=0.03023`$, $`\mu _A`$ $`\mu _R0.300.33`$ mas yr-1

Centaurus A (Tingay et al. 1998; Dhawan et al. 1998): $`\mu _A=0.4`$ mas yr-1

## 5 Conclusions

In this paper, we discuss the possibility of using observational data of twin-jets to determine the distance of sources inside and outside our galaxy. It is known that Doppler shifted velocities of a twin-jet can solely determine the flow speed of components of the jet and the angle to the line of sight, while proper motions of the components can be used to determine the distance of the source when the pattern speed of the components or the angle to the line of sight is known. Therefore, one can observe proper motions as well as Doppler shifted velocities of a twin-jet and then determine the distance of the source without referring to any standard quantities such as standard candles or rods. We investigate the feasibility of this method by considering the uncertainty of the distance caused by the uncertainties of the measured values of proper motions and Doppler shifted velocities. It shows that, when the motion of the components of the jet is relativistic, then the uncertainty of the distance is within the same order of the uncertainties of the measured values of proper motions and Doppler shifted velocities. For example, when assuming the pattern speed equals the flow speed, for $`10\%`$ uncertainties of the measured quantities, the uncertainty of the distance caused by them would be well within $`13\%`$.

As shown in last section, the uncertainty of proper motions measured inside the Galaxy can be as small as $`2\%`$ (see the source of GRS 1915+105); that measured outside the Galaxy can be as small as $`17\%`$ (see the source of 1946+708); while the uncertainty of Doppler shifted velocities measured inside the Galaxy can be as small as $`5\%`$ now (see the source of RX J0019.8+2156). It is obvious that, with current technique, it is possible now to observe proper motions and Doppler shifted velocities of twin-jets and then to determine the distance of the sources within a quite satisfied order of uncertainty.

The advantage of this method is of course that it does not refer to any standard quantities such as standard candles or rods. The disadvantage is that there have been only a few twin-jet sources detected, and it is hard to measure both the proper motion and the Doppler shifted velocity of a source in the same time since the two quantities are currently observed in different wavelengths. To overcome the later disadvantage, the method used in observing NGC 4258 (Herrnstein et al. 1999) might be desired to be applied to the known twin-jet sources. If so, we will be able to determine the distance of a source with the well-defined method.

For the convenience of choosing sources to observe, some sources as potential targets are also listed in this paper. For these sources, some are known to be twin-jet ones while others might possess the twin-jet structure.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank Max-Planck-Institut fur Radioastronomie as parts of this work were done by Dr. Yi-Ping Qin when he was a scientific guest there. Thanks are also given to Professor G. Weigelt for his helpful advice. This work was supported by the United Laboratory of Optical Astronomy and Laboratory of Cosmic Ray and High Energy Astrophysics, CAS, and the Natural Science Foundation of Yunnan.

REFERENCES

> Brach, D. 1992, ApJ, 392, 35
>
> Burbidge, E. M. 1995, A&A, 298, L1
>
> Cowley, A. P. et al. 1998, ApJ, 504, 854
>
> Crampton, D. et al. 1987, ApJ, 321, 745
>
> Dhawan, V., Kellermann, K., and Romney, J. D. 1998, ApJ, 498, L111
>
> Fender, R. P., Garrington, S. T., McKay, D. J. et al. 1999, MNRAS, 304, 865
>
> Giovannini, G. et al. 1998, ApJ, 493, 632
>
> Herrnstein, J. R. et al. 1999, Nature, 400, 539
>
> Hjellming, R. M., and Mioduszewski, A. J. 1998, IAU Circular No. 6872
>
> Hjellming, R. M., and Rupen, M. P. 1995, Nature, 375, 464
>
> Hjellming, R. M., Rupen, M. P., Mioduszewski, A. J. 2000, Rossi2000: Astrophysics with the Rossi X-ray Timing Explorer. March 22-24, 2000 at NASA’s Golddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD USA, p. E88
>
> Hjellming, R. M., et al. 1999, AAS, 195, #134.03
>
> In’t Zand, J. J. M. et al. 2000, A&A, 357, 520
>
> Kellermann, K. I. et al. 1999, AAS, 194, #20.02
>
> Marr, J. M., Backer, D. C., and Wright, M. C. H. et al. 1989, ApJ, 337, 671
>
> Marscher, A. P., and Broderick, J. J. 1982, In Extragalactic Radio Sources, D. S. Heeschen and C. M. Wade, eds. (Dordrecht: Reidel), p. 359
>
> Mirabel, I. F., and Rodriguez, L. F. 1994, Nature., 371, 46
>
> Pearson, T. J., and Zensus, J. A. 1987, in Superluminal Radio Sources, eds. J. A. Zensus and T. J. Pearson (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), p. 1
>
> Rees, M. J. 1966, Nature, 211, 468
>
> Rees, M. J. 1967, MNRAS, 289, 945
>
> Rupen, M. P., and Hjellming, R. M. 1998, IAU Circular No. 6938
>
> Southwell, K. A. et al. 1996, ApJ, 470, 1065
>
> Taylor, G. B., and Vermeulen, R. C. 1997, ApJ, 485, L9
>
> Taylor, G. B., Worbel, J. M., and Vermeulen, R. C. 1998, ApJ, 498, 619
>
> Tingay, S. J. et al. 1998, ApJ, 115, 960
>
> Urry, C. M., and Padovani, P. 1995, PASP, 107, 803
>
> Uzernoy, L. M. 1996, AAS, 188, #16.04
>
> Vermeulen, R. C., Readhead, A. C. S., and Backer, D. C. 1994, ApJ, 430, L41


text:
# Additional TWA Members?

## 1 Introduction

During the past few years, a handful of young ($`<100`$ Myrs) and nearby ($`100`$ pc) groups of stars have been identified. Usually, they occupy a few hundred square degrees in the plane of the sky (thus are less conspicuous than compact clusters) and are not associated with any known interstellar clouds. Therefore they have been hard to find and have remained unnoticed until recently. Beginning with the TW Hydrae Association (”TWA”, Zuckerman et al., 2001b, and references therein), currently, there are about eight such associations reported in the literature. For the most up-to-date information on these groups of stars, readers are refered to Jayawardhana & Greene (2001).

Thermal emission from massive planets can be detectable when they are separated far enough from the primary stars. For a given linear separation between primary and planet, a closer system to Earth will provide a larger angular separation making detection of the planet easier. Planets around young stars are still hot and they emit a fair amount of infrared radiation. Therefore, young and nearby stars are excellent targets for observational searches for giant planets and dusty “proto-planetary” disks. The TWA (d$`60`$ pc), the $`\beta `$ Pictoris moving group (d$`35`$ pc), and the Tucana/HorA Association (d$`45`$ pc) are the three youngest and closest groups to Earth; hence they form the best targets for ground- and space-based searches for planets. The Capricornus group (van den Ancker et al., 2001) is also a very young nearby group, however it is almost certainly a subgroup of the bigger $`\beta `$ Pictoris group (Zuckerman et al., 2001a).

There are currently 19 known star systems in TWA and most of its members have been observed with the Hubble Space Telescope and/or with a ground-based telescope with adaptive optics (AO) capability. Some TWA members possess substellar companions (TWA 5; Lowrance et al. 1999) or prominent dusty disks (TW Hydrae, HR 4796A, Hen3-600, and HD 98800). Any newly identified members of TWA, therefore, are excellent targets for planet or planetary disk searches.

Using a modified convergent point method, Makarov & Fabricius (2001, MF hereafter) found 23 new kinematic candidate members of TWA beside eight known members. In fact, one of the 23 candidates is a known TWA member, TWA 19 (HIP 57524; Zuckerman et al., 2001b). Based on a kinematic model of TWA including the candidate members, MF predicted radial velocities of the 23 new candidates. They also suggest that TWA expands with a rate of $`0.12\mathrm{km}/\mathrm{sec}\mathrm{pc}^1`$ and that TWA is part of a larger structure, the “Gould disk”, rather than a separate group of stars. Considering the importance of TWA members as aforementioned observational targets and as corner-stones in investigations of the surrounding environment (local association, Sco–Cen complex, etc.), all of the MF candidates need to be verified spectroscopically. In this paper, we present spectroscopic data for all MF candidates and discern true members from interlopers based on spectroscopic youth indicators.

## 2 Observations

We are in the midst of an extensive survey to search for young and nearby stars to Earth at Siding Spring Observatory (Australia) and Lick Observatory (USA). We took spectra of all 23 MF candidates during January, April and June 2001 and January 2002 observations at SSO. We used an echelle spectrograph on the Nasmyth-B focus of the Australian National University’s 2.3 m telescope. Eight orders of the echelle spectrum cover portions of the wavelength range from 5800 Å to 7230 Å. We focused on orders which contained the H$`\alpha `$ and Li 6708 Å lines. In these orders, the measured resolution was 0.40 Å. Radial velocities were determined by cross-correlating target and radial velocity standard spectra over 5 or 6 orders of the echelle which were chosen to produce strong correlations and have few atmospheric features. Projected rotational velocities were measured from a total of about 10 lines in the Li 6708 Å echelle order with a procedure similar to that of Strassmeier et al. (1990). Equivalent widths of H$`\alpha `$ and Li 6708 Å were measured using the IRAF task splot.

Torres et al. (2001) measured radial velocities of 9 stars, four (TWA 5, TYC 6604-0118-1, HIP 48273 and HIP 50796) of which we also observed. Three of the common stars (TWA 5, TYC 6604-0118-1, and HIP 48273) are known binaries for which Torres et al. (2001) extracted binary orbits. The binarity can explain discrepancies (Table 1) between our measured radial velocities and those of Torres et al. (2001). Our measured radial velocity of HIP 50796 differs from that of Torres et al. (2001) by $`10`$ km/sec. On the night of our HIP 50796 observation, the extracted radial velocities of two radial velocity standard stars were consistent with those from published catalogs within the errors ($`2`$ km/sec). Thus, we believe that our measurement is correct and HIP 50796 is likely a spectroscopic binary also. Later HIP 50796 turned out to be a non-TWA star. A list of 31 stars from MF with our spectroscopic data are summarized in Table 1.

## 3 Results.

Because of the high fraction of binaries among young stars (see Patience et al., 1998, for example), oftentimes, stellar radial velocities are affected by binary orbital motions. Therefore, we cannot simply compare MF’s predicted radial velocities with measured ones to accept or reject the candidates. In addition, MF assumed an isotropic expansion of TWA. If the assumption is not correct, comparing predicted and measured radial velocities is meaningless.

The very young age of TWA ($`10`$ Myrs) enables us to select true TWA members based on their strong Li 6708 Å absorption line strength depending on the spectral type of the candidates. By comparing equivalent widths of Li 6708 Å line for all candidates with those of comparably young open clusters members (Figure 1), we can eliminate more than half of the candidates. The eliminated candidates have too weak a Li 6708 Å absorption line to be a $`10`$ Myr old star.

An H$`\alpha `$ feature (either in emission or partially filled-in) can be used to discern young stars from old stars. Generally, if a late–type star that is not an interacting binary shows H$`\alpha `$ in emission or partially filled-in, the star is young. However, even among the very young stars like the members of TWA, early type stars (earlier than mid-K) usually do not show H$`\alpha `$ in emission. Unfortunately, most of the MF candidates are earlier than mid-K, thus, we have not used H$`\alpha `$ as a tool to reject candidates.

The age of TWA ($`10`$ Myrs) falls between those of NGC 2264 ($`<10`$ Myrs) and IC 2602 ($`1030`$ Myrs). Equivalent widths of previously known TWA members (symbol ‘T’ in Figure 1) nicely fall between the regions encompassing NGC 2264 and IC 2602. Therefore, we can use the lower envelope of IC 2602 Li 6708 Å equivalent widths to reject false TWA members. Based on the Li 6708 Å equivalent widths, we eliminated TYC 0829-0845-1, TYC 6604-0118-1, HIP 49530, TYC 6625-1087-1, TYC 7178-1493-1, TYC 7183-1879-1, TYC 7188-0575-1, HIP 47039, HIP 48273, HIP 50796, TYC 7710-2231-1, HIP 52462, HIP 52787, HIP 53486, HIP 57129, HIP 57269, and HIP 59315. HIP 59315 and HIP 57269 have fairly large Li 6708 Å equivalent widths and they may be as young as $`30`$ Myrs, but their Li 6708 Å equivalent widths are too small to be included as TWA members. They are also rejected on additional grounds (see below).

Independent age estimations were obtained for all Hipparcos MF candidates based on their location in a color–magnitude diagram (Figure 2).

We plotted absolute visual magnitude ($`\mathrm{M}_V`$) versus $`(BV)`$ values for all Hipparcos MF candidates where $`(\mathrm{B}\mathrm{V})`$ values are either ground based measurements (taken from the Hipparcos catalog) or estimated from Tycho $`(B_TV_T)`$ values using a relation given in Bessell (2000). The $`\mathrm{M}_V`$ values were calculated from ground-based or Tycho visual magnitudes and Hipparcos parallaxes.

From Figure 2, we can eliminate most Hipparcos MF candidates except HIP 47039 and HIP 57524. HIP 57524 is an already known TWA member (TWA 19; Zuckerman et al., 2001b). Although the location of HIP 57524 on a color magnitude diagram is not well defined due to a large error, its K7 companion (TWA 19B) confirms its very young age (Figure 2). Based on a weak Li line and slow rotation, we believe HIP 47039 to be a post-ZAMS star; hence it cannot be a TWA member.  HIP 48273 and HIP 57269 are binaries with about equal masses and their absolute magnitudes were adjusted to account for this. The age of HIP 55899 (A0V) cannot be estimated from Figure 2 because an A0 star evolves very quickly so that in $`10`$ Myrs, A0 stars arrive at the zero-age main-squence (ZAMS). Following Lowrance et al. (2000), we plotted all A-type stars with small errors in parallax and $`(BV)`$ values from the Hipparcos catalog (Figure 3). Because of the fast evolution of A-type stars, statistically, young A-type stars have to be located at the bottom of the A-stars’ distribution (ZAMS), as seen in Figure 3 for the three young A-type stars (HR 4796A=TWA 11, HD 141569, and $`\beta `$ Pictoris). HIP 55899 is not located on the ZAMS, thus it is unlikely to be as young as the other three stars. From Figures 1–3, we eliminated all candidates except HIP 57524 (TWA 19) and three Tycho stars (7760-0835-1, 8238-1462-1, and 8234-2856-1).

From their Li 6708 Å strengths, positions in the sky (RA$``$12h, DEC$`45^{}`$), and proper motions ($`\mu _\alpha 34`$ mas/yr and $`\mu _\delta 12`$ mas/yr), the three Tycho stars must be members of the Lower Centaurus Crux (LCC) association. Assuming they are $`10`$ Myr old stars, we can photometrically estimate their distance ($`130`$ pc). All the known TWA members are likely $``$100 pc from Earth. Now having eliminated all the distant TWA MF candidates (other than the three Tycho stars), we cannot confirm or reject a possible connection between TWA and the Sco-Cen complex. Additional data, especially identification of less massive members of the Sco-Cen complex, are required to further investigate the possibility of such a connection. Currently known members of the complex are mostly earlier than F/G-type stars (de Zeeuw et al., 1999). If TWA is not a part of the LCC or Sco-Cen complex, based on the proximity of TWA 19 to LCC in space, it is also possible that TWA 19 belongs to LCC rather than to TWA itself.

In summary, among 23 Makarov & Fabricius (2001) TWA candidates, we verify only three possibly new TWA members (TYC 7760-0835-1, TYC 8238-1462-1, and TYC 8234-2856-1). If TWA is not a part of a larger structure (the LCC or Sco-Cen complex), then these three Tycho stars may not be related to TWA. Therefore, MF’s claims of an isotropic expansion of TWA and TWA being a part of the “Gould-disk” have to be re-evaluated based on our new results. It is clearly shown that in identifying new members of nearby diffuse stellar associations or groups, one cannot rely solely on kinematic properties of candidates. When photometric – putting the candidates in a color magnitude diagram – and spectroscopic – Li 6708 Å and H$`\alpha `$ – data are combined with kinematic information, much more convincing membership can be achieved as seen in Zuckerman et al. (2001a).

We thank Dr. van den Ancker for helpful remarks as the referee. This research was supported in part by the UCLA Astrobiology Institute and by a NASA Origins grant to UCLA.


text:
# Neutrino mass matrix solutions and neutrinoless double beta decay

## Abstract

We present a determination of the neutrino mass matrix which holds for values of the neutrinoless double beta decay effective mass $`m_{ee}`$ larger than the neutrino mass differences. We find eight possible solutions and discuss for each one the corresponding neutrino mass eigenvalues and zero texture. A minimal structure of the perturbations to add to these zero textures to recover the full mass matrix is also determined. Implications for neutrino hot dark matter are discussed for each solution.

1) Introduction: The neutrino mass matrix in the three neutrino framework has been severely constrained over the last few years by atmospheric  and solar  neutrino experiments, and by recent positive indications from laboratory experiments . In the basis in which the charged lepton mass matrix is diagonal, the neutrino mass matrix contains all the information about the mixing schemes in the leptonic sector. The mixing angle required for the atmospheric neutrinos appears to be maximal or very close to maximal. This is one of the main constraints on the neutrino mass matrix, when combined with the mass squared difference required for atmospheric neutrinos $`\delta m_{atm}^2`$, which is in the range $`(1.54.8)10^3`$. There are a few solutions to the solar neutrinos, which give mass squared differences $`\delta m_{sol}^2`$ and mixing angle $`\theta `$ with $`\nu _e`$ which can lie in various ranges (see e.g. Ref. ). The reactor experiment CHOOZ gives in addition a strong upper limit on the $`U_{e3}`$ element of the neutrino mixing matrix . Besides these five constraints on the neutrino mass matrix, a sixth one would be given by the measurement of the effective mass $`m_{ee}`$ in neutrinoless double beta decay. This parameter would provide a scale to the neutrino mass matrix. Very recently a positive indication of neutrinoless double has been reported with $`m_{ee}`$ in the following range :

$$m_{ee}=(0.050.86)\text{eV}(\text{at 95}\%\text{c.l.})$$
(1)
and with a best fit for $`m_{ee}=0.39`$ eV. In the following we study what could be the consequences for the neutrino mass matrix of a value of $`m_{ee}`$ within the range of Eq. (1). By considering this range we study more generally what would be the effect on the mass matrix of an effective mass $`m_{ee}`$ determined with a value greater than the neutrino mass differences and smaller than the dark matter constraints (see below). This range covers also the values of $`m_{ee}`$ which could be further tested experimentally in a relatively near future . Since the scale $`m_{ee}`$ is then higher than the mass squared differences required by the neutrino oscillation results, this implies a degenerate or partially degenerate solution . The hierarchical solution is not allowed by a value of $`m_{ee}`$ within the range of Eq. (1). An inverse hierarchy solution is still possible but only for $`m_{ee}`$ close to the lower edge of this range.

Considering the fact that the atmospheric mixing is close to maximal, several texture mass matrices have been constructed , including in particular the ones where the mass squared difference $`\delta m_{atm}^2`$ is considered to be the dominant entry in the mass matrix and where the solar neutrino solutions could be added as perturbations. These textures are very useful to construct models, where the zeroes could have their origin in some symmetry of the model, so that the perturbations come from the symmetry breaking. For a value of $`m_{ee}`$ within the range of Eq. (1), $`\delta m_{atm}^2`$ would likely becomes a perturbation in the neutrino mass matrix with respect to the scale $`m_{ee}`$. This would be an important information for the determination of the texture of the mass matrix. Moreover, given a value of $`m_{ee}`$ in the range of Eq. (1) the neutrino contribution to the hot dark matter would be significant. With these assumptions we now attempt to look into this problem. Instead of starting the analysis from the possible textures, we start with the experimental inputs and then try to determine the neutrino mass matrices and in the process get the possible textures.

In the following we shall work in the basis in which the charged lepton mass matrix is diagonal. The physical states $`|\nu _\alpha >`$, ($`\alpha =e,\mu ,\tau `$), which enter in the charged current, are related to the mass eigenstates $`|\nu _i>`$, (with masses $`m_i`$, $`i=1,2,3`$), by the mixing matrix

$$|\nu _\alpha >=U_{\alpha i}|\nu _i>$$
(2)
and the effective mass entering in the neutrinoless double beta decay is

$$m_{ee}=(M_\nu )_{ee}=(M_\nu )_{11}=\underset{i}{}U_{ei}^2m_i.$$
(3)
$`(M_\nu )_{11}`$ is the $`(11)`$ element of the neutrino mass matrix in the flavour basis.

In this article we do not consider the imaginary part of the mass matrix assuming that there is no CP violation, or very small CP violation. In this limit, we can parametrize the mass matrix in the flavor basis as a function of the three real mass eigenvalues and the three angles coming from the mixing matrix $`U_{\alpha i}`$. For simplicity and also as a first step of a more involved analysis we consider in addition only the case with exact maximal mixing between the $`\nu _\mu `$ and $`\nu _\tau `$ (motivated by the best fit value from SuperKamiokande) and we consider $`U_{e3}=0`$ (motivated by the result of the CHOOZ experiment). In this framework we determine what are the effects on these six mass matrix parameters of the five experimental constraints mentioned above taking a given value of $`m_{ee}`$. We find that there are eight different solutions for the mass matrix, each one being determined by these six constraints. For each solution we display the corresponding zero texture and show how the perturbations arise around these zero textures to give the full mass matrix. We also discuss the consequences for hot dark matter for the different solutions.

2) The neutrino mass matrix solutions: In a general way the diagonal neutrino mass matrix can be written as:

$$M_\nu ^{diag}=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}m_1& 0& 0& \\ 0& m_2e^{i\varphi _2}& 0& \\ 0& 0& m_3e^{i\varphi _3}& \end{array}\right),$$
(4)
here $`\varphi _{2,3}`$ are the Majorana phases, which introduces CP violation in lepton number violating processes. The mixing matrix $`U_{\alpha i}`$ may be parametrized as

$$U=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}c_1c_3& s_1c_3& s_3e^{i\varphi }\\ s_1c_2c_1s_2s_3e^{i\varphi }& c_1c_2+s_1s_2s_3e^{i\varphi }& c_3s_2\\ s_1s_2+c_1c_2s_3e^{i\varphi }& c_1s_2s_2c_2s_3e^{i\varphi }& c_2c_3\end{array}\right),$$
(5)
where, $`s_i=\mathrm{sin}\theta _i`$ and $`c_i=\mathrm{cos}\theta _i`$. This depends on 3 mixing angles $`\theta _i`$ and one CP-violating phase $`\varphi `$. Thus there are 9 parameters in the general mass matrix in the flavor basis .

The atmospheric neutrinos require an almost maximal mixing between the flavour states $`\nu _\mu `$ and $`\nu _\tau `$. A very little mixing with the $`\nu _e`$ is not ruled out, but it is constrained by the CHOOZ result. Considering this constraint and the fact that the central value of the mixing angle for atmospheric neutrinos is maximal, as required by the SuperKamiokande result and supported by the K2K preliminary data, we assume only maximal mixing $`s_2=1/\sqrt{2}`$ between the flavour states $`\nu _\mu `$ and $`\nu _\tau `$. Although the CHOOZ constraint allows a small $`U_{e3}`$, for construction of a simple form of a mass matrix we assume it to be vanishing, $`s_3=0`$. In this limit of $`U_{e3}=0`$ the CP-violating effect from the phase $`\varphi `$ in $`U`$ vanishes and we can neglect its effect. We can then write down the mixing matrix in terms of the mixing angle $`\theta =\theta _1`$ required for the solar neutrinos solutions as

$$U=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}c& s& 0& \\ s/\sqrt{2}& c/\sqrt{2}& 1/\sqrt{2}& \\ s/\sqrt{2}& c/\sqrt{2}& 1/\sqrt{2}& \end{array}\right),$$
(6)
with $`c=\mathrm{cos}\theta `$, $`s=\mathrm{sin}\theta `$.

This leads to the following mass matrix in the $`\nu _e`$, $`\nu _\mu `$, $`\nu _\tau `$ flavor basis:

$$M_\nu =\left(\begin{array}{cccc}c^2m_1+s^2m_2& \frac{cs}{\sqrt{2}}(m_1m_2)& \frac{cs}{\sqrt{2}}(m_1m_2)& \\ \frac{cs}{\sqrt{2}}(m_1m_2)& \frac{s^2m_1+c^2m_2+m_3}{2}& \frac{s^2m_1+c^2m_2m_3}{2}& \\ \frac{cs}{\sqrt{2}}(m_1m_2)& \frac{s^2m_1+c^2m_2m_3}{2}& \frac{s^2m_1+c^2m_2+m_3}{2}& \end{array}\right),$$
(7)
In the following we disregard the effect of the Majorana phases $`\varphi _{2,3}`$ of the diagonal mass matrix. These CP violation does not enter in any neutrino oscillation experiments. We will consider only real (positive or negative) mass eigenvalues. By considering both positive and negative mass eigenvalues we consider the extreme cases, and the case with non-zero phases are intermediate cases between these two extremes. The results with phases can be obtained as a simple generalization of what we present here. Under these assumptions, to cover all physical distinct possibilities without loss of generality, it is sufficient to take $`m_{ee}`$ positive and $`|m_2|>|m_1|`$ by definition and to consider the range $`0^{}<\theta <90^{}`$. Then from the value of $`\delta m_{atm}^2`$, $`\delta m_{sol}^2`$, $`\theta `$, and $`m_{ee}`$ we can determine the mass matrix. There are 8 solutions. To find them we have first to solve the equations:

$$m_2^2m_1^2=\delta m_{sol}^2$$
(8)
$$m_{ee}=m_1c^2+m_2s^2$$
(9)
This gives two sets of solutions:

$`m_1^A`$ $`=`$ $`m_{ee}{\displaystyle \frac{s^2}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta m_{sol}^2}{m_{ee}}}`$ (10)
$`m_2^A`$ $`=`$ $`m_{ee}+{\displaystyle \frac{c^2}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta m_{sol}^2}{m_{ee}}}`$ (11)
and

$`m_1^B`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_{ee}}{\mathrm{cos}2\theta }}+{\displaystyle \frac{s^2}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta m_{sol}^2}{m_{ee}}}`$ (12)
$`m_2^B`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_{ee}}{\mathrm{cos}2\theta }}{\displaystyle \frac{c^2}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta m_{sol}^2}{m_{ee}}}`$ (13)
where one can safely keep only the first order in $`\delta m_{sol}^2/m_{ee}^2`$ as we did here. Then we can determine the mass $`m_3`$ from the equation:

$$m_3^2=\frac{m_1^2+m_2^2}{2}\pm \delta m_{atm}^2$$
(14)
From this we find four solutions with the set $`m_{1,2}^A`$:

$`m_3^{A_1,A_2}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{m_{ee}^2\pm \delta m_{atm}^2}`$ (15)
$`m_3^{A_3,A_4}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{m_{ee}^2\pm \delta m_{atm}^2}`$ (16)
and four solutions with the set $`m_{1,2}^B`$:

$`m_3^{B_1,B_2}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{m_{ee}^2}{\mathrm{cos}^22\theta }}\pm \mathrm{\Delta }m_{atm}^2}`$ (17)
$`m_3^{B_3,B_4}`$ $`=`$ $`+\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{m_{ee}^2}{\mathrm{cos}^22\theta }}\pm \mathrm{\Delta }m_{atm}^2}`$ (18)
Here in $`m_3`$ we kept only the correction in $`\delta m_{atm}^2/m_{ee}^2`$ and neglected the tiny correction from $`\delta m_{sol}^2`$.

3) Neutrino mass numerical values: Putting Eqs. (10)-(18) in Eq. (7), we can directly build the eight possible matrices and substitute the values of $`m_{ee}`$, $`\delta m_{atm}^2`$, $`\delta m_{sol}^2`$ and $`\theta `$ to obtain the possible matrices. To illustrate the differences between the various solutions, we give in Table 1 the values of the masses $`m_{1,2,3}`$ obtained in the eight cases, taking, as a representative value of $`m_{ee}`$, the central value from , $`m_{ee}=0.39`$ eV, and taking for the other parameters the following central values in the case of the LMA solution: $`\delta m_{atm}^2=2.910^3`$ eV2 , $`\delta m_{sol}^2=3.710^5`$ eV2 , $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta =0.37`$ . The uncertainties on these masses due to the experimental uncertainties on these four parameters are also given in Table 1. To get them we took the following ranges: $`\delta m_{atm}^2=(1.54.8)10^3`$ eV2 , $`\delta m_{sol}^2=(0.23)10^4`$ eV2 , $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta =0.20.8`$ , $`m_{ee}=(0.050.86)`$ eV . The uncertainties on $`U_{e3}`$ and the atmospheric angle also induce an error, which, however, is moderate and which we didn’t consider. We will discuss these central values and ranges in sections 5 and 6.

For the SMA solution, although this solution is now almost ruled out , the same calculation can be done and for completeness we give in Table 2 the values of $`m_{1,2,3}`$ we obtain considering the following central values from Ref. : $`\delta m_{sol}^2=5.210^6`$ eV2 and $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta =1.810^3`$. We don’t give here any range because the central values for the SMA solution have been obtained in Ref.  beyond the 3-$`\sigma `$ level. The results for the LOW and VAC solar neutrino solutions can be obtained in the same way but we don’t present it because they are in general difficult to accommodate with a value of $`m_{ee}`$ larger than the neutrino mass differences . See however counter-examples in Ref. .

4) Zero textures and perturbations: To understand better the structure of these matrices and also for the purpose of model building it is interesting to write these matrices in the form of textures zero plus the perturbations. This will also allow us to compare our results with the textures predicted from different considerations . In the following we shall consider the degenerate solution assuming that $`m_{ee}`$ is larger than the neutrino mass differences. For the inverse hierarchy solution we will just give a few comments in sections 5 and 6.

In the case where the mass eigenvalues are almost degenerate with the mass squared differences to be small compared to the eigenvalues, i.e. $`|m_{1,2,3}|\delta m_{atm}^2\delta m_{sol}^2`$, the parameters $`\delta m_{atm}^2`$ and $`\delta m_{sol}^2`$ can be considered as perturbations with respect to $`m_{ee}|m_{1,2,3}|`$. In this case we get the following zero textures and perturbations for the different solutions:

$`M_{A_1,A_2}`$ $`=`$ $`m_{ee}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& 0& 0& \\ 0& 1& 0& \\ 0& 0& 1& \end{array}\right)\pm m_{ee}{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon _{atm}}{4}}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 0& 0& \\ 0& 1& 1& \\ 0& 1& 1& \end{array}\right)`$ (27)
$`+`$ $`m_{ee}{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon _{sol}}{8}}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& \sqrt{2}\mathrm{sin}2\theta & \sqrt{2}\mathrm{sin}2\theta & \\ \sqrt{2}\mathrm{sin}2\theta & 2\mathrm{cos}2\theta & 2\mathrm{cos}2\theta & \\ \sqrt{2}\mathrm{sin}2\theta & 2\mathrm{cos}2\theta & 2\mathrm{cos}2\theta & \end{array}\right),`$ (31)
$`M_{A_3,A_4}`$ $`=`$ $`m_{ee}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& 0& 0& \\ 0& 0& 1& \\ 0& 1& 0& \end{array}\right)\pm m_{ee}{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon _{atm}}{4}}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 0& 0& \\ 0& 1& +1& \\ 0& +1& 1& \end{array}\right)`$ (38)
$`+`$ $`m_{ee}{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon _{sol}}{8}}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& \sqrt{2}\mathrm{sin}2\theta & \sqrt{2}\mathrm{sin}2\theta & \\ \sqrt{2}\mathrm{sin}2\theta & 2\mathrm{cos}2\theta & 2\mathrm{cos}2\theta & \\ \sqrt{2}\mathrm{sin}2\theta & 2\mathrm{cos}2\theta & 2\mathrm{cos}2\theta & \end{array}\right),`$ (42)
$`M_{B_1,B_2}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_{ee}}{\mathrm{cos}2\theta }}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\mathrm{cos}2\theta & \frac{\mathrm{sin}2\theta }{\sqrt{2}}& \frac{\mathrm{sin}2\theta }{\sqrt{2}}& \\ \frac{\mathrm{sin}2\theta }{\sqrt{2}}& \frac{1}{2}\frac{\mathrm{cos}2\theta }{2}& \frac{1}{2}\frac{\mathrm{cos}2\theta }{2}& \\ \frac{\mathrm{sin}2\theta }{\sqrt{2}}& \frac{1}{2}\frac{\mathrm{cos}2\theta }{2}& \frac{1}{2}\frac{\mathrm{cos}2\theta }{2}& \end{array}\right)`$ (46)
$`\pm `$ $`m_{ee}\mathrm{cos}2\theta {\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon _{atm}}{4}}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 0& 0& \\ 0& 1& +1& \\ 0& +1& 1& \end{array}\right)`$ (50)
$`+`$ $`m_{ee}{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon _{sol}}{8}}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& \sqrt{2}\mathrm{sin}2\theta & \sqrt{2}\mathrm{sin}2\theta & \\ \sqrt{2}\mathrm{sin}2\theta & 2\mathrm{cos}2\theta & 2\mathrm{cos}2\theta & \\ \sqrt{2}\mathrm{sin}2\theta & 2\mathrm{cos}2\theta & 2\mathrm{cos}2\theta & \end{array}\right),`$ (54)
$`M_{B_3,B_4}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_{ee}}{\mathrm{cos}2\theta }}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\mathrm{cos}2\theta & \frac{\mathrm{sin}2\theta }{\sqrt{2}}& \frac{\mathrm{sin}2\theta }{\sqrt{2}}& \\ \frac{\mathrm{sin}2\theta }{\sqrt{2}}& \frac{1}{2}\frac{\mathrm{cos}2\theta }{2}& \frac{1}{2}\frac{\mathrm{cos}2\theta }{2}& \\ \frac{\mathrm{sin}2\theta }{\sqrt{2}}& \frac{1}{2}\frac{\mathrm{cos}2\theta }{2}& \frac{1}{2}\frac{\mathrm{cos}2\theta }{2}& \end{array}\right)`$ (58)
$`\pm `$ $`m_{ee}\mathrm{cos}2\theta {\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon _{atm}}{4}}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 0& 0& \\ 0& 1& 1& \\ 0& 1& 1& \end{array}\right)`$ (62)
$`+`$ $`m_{ee}{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon _{sol}}{8}}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& \sqrt{2}\mathrm{sin}2\theta & \sqrt{2}\mathrm{sin}2\theta & \\ \sqrt{2}\mathrm{sin}2\theta & 2\mathrm{cos}2\theta & 2\mathrm{cos}2\theta & \\ \sqrt{2}\mathrm{sin}2\theta & 2\mathrm{cos}2\theta & 2\mathrm{cos}2\theta & \end{array}\right),`$ (66)
Here $`\epsilon _{sol}\delta m_{sol}^2/m_{ee}^2`$ and $`\epsilon _{atm}\delta m_{atm}^2/m_{ee}^2`$. The corresponding mass eigenvalues are given in Table 3. Note that the various solutions differ from each other by their zero texture and by prefactors in the perturbations. Except for these different prefactors the various perturbations have the same matrix structure for all the mass matrix solutions.

5) The $`A_{1,2,3,4}`$ solutions: First let us discuss the solutions $`A_1`$ to $`A_4`$:

* Mass eigenvalues: For these solutions the absolute values of the masses of the 3 eigenstates coincide with $`m_{ee}`$ modulo small variations (proportional to $`\delta m_{atm}^2`$ and $`\delta m_{sol}^2`$). This explains why in Table 1 the upper limit of the neutrino mass ranges reproduce to a good approximation the upper limit on $`m_{ee}`$. For low values of $`m_{ee}`$ (around 0.05 eV in Eq. (1)), the neutrino masses $`m_{1,2}`$ are still given to a good approximation by $`m_{ee}`$ but the $`|m_3|`$ value can differ substantially from the one of $`m_{ee}`$. This is due to the fact that in this case $`\delta m_{atm}^2`$ is not small anymore with respect to $`m_{ee}`$ and $`|m_3|`$ could be as low as 0 eV for the solutions $`A_{2,4}`$ (where $`\delta m_{atm}^2`$ and $`m_{ee}`$ come with opposite signs in $`m_3`$). This later case corresponds to the inverse hierarchy scenario.
* Dark matter: For a value of $`m_{ee}`$ such as the central value $`m_{ee}=0.39`$ eV  or above, the solutions $`A_{1,2,3,4}`$ could be relevant for dark matter. $`|m_1|=|m_2|=|m_3|=m_{ee}=0.39`$ eV (or the upper value 0.86 eV in Eq. (1)) corresponds, in units of the critical density, to a value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\nu h^2|m_i|/(91.5\text{eV})`$ around $`1.5\%`$ ($`3\%`$) with $`h`$ the dimensionless Hubble constant. Note that the value $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\nu h^23\%`$ turns out to be about the upper bound allowed by fits from observed galaxy clustering and the Lyman $`\alpha `$ forest (see e.g. - and the discussion in ).
* Textures and perturbations in the degenerate case: For the cases $`A_{1,2}`$ and $`A_{3,4}`$ we recognize the textures C0 and C3 of Altarelli-Feruglio, respectively (naturally leading to both simple maximal mixing or double maximal mixing). From Eqs. (7)-(18) one can observe also how the perturbations arise with respect to these zero textures to give the full mass matrix. Note that the structure of the perturbations due to $`\delta m_{atm}^2`$ is quite simple, which is interesting for model building. Note also that in case $`A_{1,2}`$ it is this perturbation which is responsible for the maximal atmospheric mixing. In case $`A_{3,4}`$ the maximal mixing is already present for $`\delta m_{atm}^2=0`$. The structure of the perturbation from $`\delta m_{sol}^2`$ is more complicated but remains rather simple especially if $`\theta `$ takes a specific value (i.e. for example for $`\theta =0`$ or $`\theta =\pi /4`$). In all cases $`A_1`$ to $`A_4`$ the solar mixing is due to the perturbation proportional to $`\delta m_{sol}^2`$. The solar angle even if maximal is a perturbation because all the terms depending on it are multiplied by $`\delta m_{sol}^2`$. There is no solar mixing if $`\delta m_{sol}^2`$ vanishes.
* The inverse hierarchy case: If $`m_{ee}`$ turns out to be not much larger than the lower edge of the experimental range in Eq. (1), i.e. $`m_{ee}=0.05`$ eV, we could have an inverse hierarchy where $`|m_3|<<|m_{1,2}|`$ which means, since $`m_{ee}^2>>\delta m_{sol}^2`$, that $`|m_3|<<|m_{ee}|`$. Such a situation requires a cancellation in $`m_3`$, Eqs. (15) and (16), of the $`m_{ee}`$ term with the term proportional to $`\delta m_{atm}^2`$. This is possible only with solutions $`A_{2,4}`$ where $`\delta m_{atm}^2`$ comes with an opposite sign with respect to the term in $`m_{ee}^2`$ in $`m_3`$. For these solutions this requires $`m_{ee}^2\delta m_{atm}^2`$. For the central values $`\delta m_{atm}^2=2.910^3`$ eV2  and $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta =0.37`$  this requires $`m_{ee}0.054`$ eV. Varying $`\delta m_{atm}^2`$ within the range $`(1.54.8)10^3`$ eV2 this requires:

$$410^2\text{eV}<m_{ee}<\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}7}10^2\text{eV}\text{(for solutions }A_{2,4}\text{)}$$
(67)
This range is independent of the solar neutrino solution. Note also that we could develop in this case the mass matrix considering $`m_3`$ and $`\sqrt{\delta m_{sol}^2}`$ as perturbations with respect to $`m_{ee}`$ and $`\sqrt{\delta m_{atm}^2}`$. In this case the zero texture we obtain is

$$\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& 0& 0& \\ 0& 1/2& 1/2& \\ 0& 1/2& 1/2& \end{array}\right),$$
(68)
that is to say the texture B2 of Ref.  which can lead to both single and double maximal mixing.

6) The $`B_{1,2,3,4}`$ solutions: Solutions $`B_1`$ to $`B_4`$ are very different from $`A_1`$ to $`A_4`$ and more complicated because $`m_1`$ and $`m_2`$ here have opposite sign (c.f. Table 3):

* Neutrino mass eigenvalues: Here in the limit $`\delta m_{atm}^2=\delta m_{sol}^2=0`$ the absolute values of the neutrino masses are not $`m_{ee}`$ (as with solutions $`A_1`$ to $`A_4`$) but turn out to be in fact $`\stackrel{~}{m}m_{ee}/\mathrm{cos}2\theta `$. This explains the large value of the neutrino masses obtained in Table 1 with these solutions. Taking the central value $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta 0.39`$  for the LMA solution we then get for the neutrino masses $`\stackrel{~}{m}2.2m_{ee}`$. For a value of $`m_{ee}=0.39`$ eV this gives $`\stackrel{~}{m}0.85`$ eV. Taking the upper limit $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta 0.8`$  we get $`\stackrel{~}{m}9m_{ee}`$ which, for $`m_{ee}=0.86`$ eV in Eq. (1), could result in a neutrino mass as large as 8 eV. However, a neutrino mass greater than 2.8 eV is excluded by the tritium beta decay experiment .
* Dark matter: These values $`\stackrel{~}{m}=0.85`$ eV and $`\stackrel{~}{m}=8`$ eV correspond to $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\nu h^23\%`$. and to $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\nu h^225\%`$ respectively. From Table 1 we then get the following range for solutions $`B_{1,2,3,4}`$:

$$0.001<\mathrm{\Omega }_\nu h^2<25\%$$
(69)
Note that, as already mentioned above, a value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\nu h^2`$ larger than $`3\%`$ which corresponds to $`m_i3`$ eV is disfavoured by the results of galaxy clustering and Lyman $`\alpha `$ forest experiments -. In case of the solutions $`B_{1,2,3,4}`$, to have $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\nu h^2`$ smaller than $`3\%`$ we need that the following constraint is fulfilled:

$$\stackrel{~}{m}=\frac{m_{ee}}{\mathrm{cos}2\theta }<1\text{eV}$$
(70)
For example this condition for $`m_{ee}=0.86`$ eV in Eq. (1) requires $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta <0.08`$, which can be compared with the lower limit of the LMA solution which is $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta 0.2`$ . This means that a value of $`m_{ee}`$ as large as 0.86 eV with the solutions $`B_{1,2,3,4}`$ is disfavoured by dark matter fits. To obtain $`\stackrel{~}{m}<1`$ eV with for example $`\mathrm{tan}^22\theta =0.2,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.39},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.8}`$ we need $`m_{ee}<0.7`$ eV, 0.4 eV, 0.1 eV respectively. Would we allow $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\nu h^2`$ to be as large as $`10\%`$, these bounds would be multiplied obviously by a factor 3. Note that for a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CHDM model with both hot and cold dark matter as well as a cosmological constant a value of $`\stackrel{~}{m}<0.5`$ eV is favoured . This already favours a lower value for the neutrinoless double beta decay in this scheme. Furthermore, the CMB studies with MAP and PLANCK and the Sloan Digital Sky Survey experiment (see e.g. -) will be able to probe the mass range $`\stackrel{~}{m}0.250.5`$ eV. If the contribution to the hot dark matter from neutrinos is constrained to be less than $`\stackrel{~}{m}<0.25`$ eV, then this will mean that this class of solutions will be further restricted and a lower value of the neutrinoless double beta decay will be favoured. Note also that the fact that the LMA solution in the degenerate case could be relevant for dark matter is well known . Here we emphasize that, taking all the experimental constraints on $`U_{e3}`$, $`\delta m_{atm}^2`$, $`\delta m_{solar}^2`$ and taking $`m_{ee}`$ within the range of Eq. (1), all the solutions for the mass matrix, and especially the $`B_{1,2,3,4}`$ solutions lead naturally to such a rather important contribution to dark matter. Inversely the dark matter constraint prefers a lower value of the $`m_{ee}`$ or a higher $`\mathrm{cos}2\theta `$ for the solutions $`B_{1,2,3,4}`$. Note also that for the SMA solution with the central values $`\delta m_{sol}^2=5.210^5`$ eV2 and $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta =1.810^3`$ we obtain $`\stackrel{~}{m}=m_{ee}`$ to a good approximation which means for $`m_{ee}=0.39`$ eV that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\nu h^2=1.5\%`$.
* Textures and perturbations in the degenerate case: In contrast with solutions $`A_{1,2,3,4}`$ the dependence in $`\theta `$ is already non-vanishing even without any perturbation proportional to $`\delta m_{sol}^2`$ and $`\delta m_{atm}^2`$. So even in this limit there is in fact a ”continuum” of zero textures depending on the value of $`\theta `$, see Eqs. (54) and (66). This allows for a continuum of basis where the zero texture is diagonal, i.e. of basis which can be considered as natural in the symmetry limit. Eventually for some particular values of the angle $`\theta `$ the corresponding diagonal mass matrix will display interesting properties. These considerations are beyond the scope of this article.

The structure of the perturbations appear to be also more complicated than for $`A_{1,2,3,4}`$. In particular, now there is a dependence of the perturbation from $`\delta m_{atm}^2`$ in $`\theta `$, which would lead to the interpretation that this perturbation cannot be independent of the other perturbations, unlike in the solutions $`A_{1,2,3,4}`$ where they are independent. In the continuum of possible zero textures for the $`B_1`$ to $`B_4`$ solutions, a natural choice is to take the textures with $`\theta =0`$ or $`\theta =\pi /4`$, and make a perturbation around these cases (for the SMA and the LMA respectively). In this case the deviation of $`\theta `$ from these values can be considered as a perturbation. For $`\theta =0`$ we obtain:

$`M_{B_1,B_2}`$ $`=`$ $`m_{ee}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& 0& 0& \\ 0& 1& 0& \\ 0& 0& 1& \end{array}\right)`$ (74)
$`+`$ $`m_{ee}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& \frac{\mathrm{tan}2\theta }{\sqrt{2}}& \frac{\mathrm{tan}2\theta }{\sqrt{2}}& \\ \frac{\mathrm{tan}2\theta }{\sqrt{2}}& \frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{2\mathrm{cos}2\theta }& \frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{2\mathrm{cos}2\theta }& \\ \frac{\mathrm{tan}2\theta }{\sqrt{2}}& \frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{2\mathrm{cos}2\theta }& \frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{2\mathrm{cos}2\theta }& \end{array}\right)`$ (78)
$`\pm `$ $`m_{ee}\mathrm{cos}2\theta {\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon _{atm}}{4}}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 0& 0& \\ 0& 1& +1& \\ 0& +1& 1& \end{array}\right)`$ (82)
$`+`$ $`m_{ee}{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon _{sol}}{8}}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& \sqrt{2}\mathrm{sin}2\theta & \sqrt{2}\mathrm{sin}2\theta & \\ \sqrt{2}\mathrm{sin}2\theta & 2\mathrm{cos}2\theta & 2\mathrm{cos}2\theta & \\ \sqrt{2}\mathrm{sin}2\theta & 2\mathrm{cos}2\theta & 2\mathrm{cos}2\theta & \end{array}\right),`$ (86)
$`M_{B_3,B_4}`$ $`=`$ $`m_{ee}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& 0& 0& \\ 0& 0& 1& \\ 0& 1& 0& \end{array}\right)`$ (90)
$`+`$ $`m_{ee}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& \frac{\mathrm{tan}2\theta }{\sqrt{2}}& \frac{\mathrm{tan}2\theta }{\sqrt{2}}& \\ \frac{\mathrm{tan}2\theta }{\sqrt{2}}& \frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{2\mathrm{cos}2\theta }& \frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{2\mathrm{cos}2\theta }& \\ \frac{\mathrm{tan}2\theta }{\sqrt{2}}& \frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{2\mathrm{cos}2\theta }& \frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{2\mathrm{cos}2\theta }& \end{array}\right)`$ (94)
$`\pm `$ $`m_{ee}{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon _{atm}}{4}}\mathrm{cos}2\theta \left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 0& 0& \\ 0& 1& 1& \\ 0& 1& 1& \end{array}\right)`$ (98)
$`+`$ $`m_{ee}{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon _{sol}}{8}}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& \sqrt{2}\mathrm{sin}2\theta & \sqrt{2}\mathrm{sin}2\theta & \\ \sqrt{2}\mathrm{sin}2\theta & 2\mathrm{cos}2\theta & 2\mathrm{cos}2\theta & \\ \sqrt{2}\mathrm{sin}2\theta & 2\mathrm{cos}2\theta & 2\mathrm{cos}2\theta & \end{array}\right),`$ (102)
Here we recover the textures C1 and C2 of Altarelli-Feruglio (for the single maximal mixing case) and the absolute neutrino mass in the limit $`\delta m_{sol}^2=\delta m_{atm}^2=0`$ is $`m_{ee}/\mathrm{cos}2\theta m_{ee}`$. The SMA solution could be obtained from this texture 0 but in this case, as already said above, the structure of the perturbation appears to be quite complicated, more complicated than from the texture in solutions $`A_{1,2,3,4}`$.

We then consider the solution around $`\theta =\pi /4`$. In this case there are interesting zero textures. As explained above, the absolute neutrino mass, in the limit $`\delta m_{sol}^2=\delta m_{atm}^2=0`$, is now given by $`\stackrel{~}{m}m_{ee}/\mathrm{cos}2\theta `$. In this case $`m_{ee}`$ can be considered as a perturbation with respect to $`m`$:

$`_{B_1,B_2}`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{m}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}& \\ \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}& \frac{1}{2}& \frac{1}{2}& \\ \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}& \frac{1}{2}& \frac{1}{2}& \end{array}\right)`$ (106)
$`+`$ $`\stackrel{~}{m}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\mathrm{cos}2\theta & \frac{\mathrm{sin}2\theta 1}{\sqrt{2}}& \frac{\mathrm{sin}2\theta 1}{\sqrt{2}}& \\ \frac{\mathrm{sin}2\theta 1}{\sqrt{2}}& \frac{\mathrm{cos}2\theta }{2}& \frac{\mathrm{cos}2\theta }{2}& \\ \frac{\mathrm{sin}2\theta 1}{\sqrt{2}}& \frac{\mathrm{cos}2\theta }{2}& \frac{\mathrm{cos}2\theta }{2}& \end{array}\right)`$ (110)
$`\pm `$ $`\stackrel{~}{m}\mathrm{cos}^22\theta {\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon _{atm}}{4}}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 0& 0& \\ 0& 1& +1& \\ 0& +1& 1& \end{array}\right)`$ (114)
$`+`$ $`\stackrel{~}{m}\mathrm{cos}2\theta {\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon _{sol}}{8}}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& \sqrt{2}\mathrm{sin}2\theta & \sqrt{2}\mathrm{sin}2\theta & \\ \sqrt{2}\mathrm{sin}2\theta & 2\mathrm{cos}2\theta & 2\mathrm{cos}2\theta & \\ \sqrt{2}\mathrm{sin}2\theta & 2\mathrm{cos}2\theta & 2\mathrm{cos}2\theta & \end{array}\right),`$ (118)
$`_{B_3,B_4}`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{m}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}& \\ \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}& \frac{1}{2}& \frac{1}{2}& \\ \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}& \frac{1}{2}& \frac{1}{2}& \end{array}\right)`$ (122)
$`+`$ $`\stackrel{~}{m}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\mathrm{cos}2\theta & \frac{\mathrm{sin}2\theta 1}{\sqrt{2}}& \frac{\mathrm{sin}2\theta 1}{\sqrt{2}}& \\ \frac{\mathrm{sin}2\theta 1}{\sqrt{2}}& \frac{\mathrm{cos}2\theta }{2}& \frac{\mathrm{cos}2\theta }{2}& \\ \frac{\mathrm{sin}2\theta 1}{\sqrt{2}}& \frac{\mathrm{cos}2\theta }{2}& \frac{\mathrm{cos}2\theta }{2}& \end{array}\right)`$ (126)
$`\pm `$ $`\stackrel{~}{m}{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon _{atm}}{4}}\mathrm{cos}^22\theta \left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 0& 0& \\ 0& 1& 1& \\ 0& 1& 1& \end{array}\right)`$ (130)
$`+`$ $`\stackrel{~}{m}\mathrm{cos}2\theta {\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon _{sol}}{8}}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& \sqrt{2}\mathrm{sin}2\theta & \sqrt{2}\mathrm{sin}2\theta & \\ \sqrt{2}\mathrm{sin}2\theta & 2\mathrm{cos}2\theta & 2\mathrm{cos}2\theta & \\ \sqrt{2}\mathrm{sin}2\theta & 2\mathrm{cos}2\theta & 2\mathrm{cos}2\theta & \end{array}\right),`$ (134)
Here we recover the C1 and C2 textures of Altarelli-Feruglio (for the bimaximal mixing case) and see how the LMA solution can be obtained adding a perturbation from these textures which are the only ones where the neutrino masses in the limit $`\delta m_{atm}^2=\delta m_{sol}^2=0`$ doesn’t coincide with $`m_{ee}`$ but can be much larger than $`m_{ee}`$. Therefore these textures are the most relevant ones for dark matter. In the limit of exact bimaximal mixing and $`m_{ee}`$ fixed this neutrino mass is infinite. However as Eqs. (118) and (134) show, from these two textures we can get the LMA solution (with $`\theta <\pi /4`$) from the exact bimaximal case considering $`m_{ee}`$ as a perturbation with respect to $`\stackrel{~}{m}=m_{ee}/\mathrm{cos}2\theta `$. Because of this involved nature of the solution, we could get a LMA solution in this way even if the 11 element vanishes in the zero texture, which wouldn’t be so easy to see starting directly from the texture zero as in the analysis of Ref. .
* The inverse hierarchy case: We could have an inverse hierarchy solution, only if $`m_{ee}`$ turns out to be not much larger than the lower edge of the range of Eq. (1), i.e. $`m_{ee}=0.05`$ eV. This is possible only with solutions $`B_{2,4}`$, because as with solutions $`A_{2,4}`$, $`\delta m_{atm}^2`$ has to come with an opposite sign with respect to the term in $`m_{ee}^2`$ in $`m_3`$, Eqs. (17)-(18). For these solutions $`B_{2,4}`$ an inverse hierarchy requires $`m_{ee}^2\mathrm{cos}^22\theta \delta m_{atm}^2`$. For the central values $`\delta m_{atm}^2=2.910^3`$ eV2  and $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta =0.37`$ , this requires for the LMA solution $`m_{ee}0.025`$ eV. Varying $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta `$ within the range 0.2-0.8  and $`\delta m_{atm}^2`$ within the range $`(1.54.8)10^3`$ eV2 this requires:

$$510^3\text{eV}<m_{ee}<\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}5}10^2\text{eV}\text{(for solutions }B_{2,4}\text{ and LMA)}$$
(135)
For the SMA solution since $`\mathrm{cos}2\theta `$ is very close from unity the corresponding allowed range coincides with the one of Eq. (67). Note finally that if we develop the mass matrix around $`\theta =0`$ and $`\theta =\pi /4`$, considering $`m_3`$ and $`\sqrt{\delta m_{sol}^2}`$ as perturbations with respect to $`\stackrel{~}{m}`$ and $`\sqrt{\delta m_{atm}^2}`$ we obtain the following zero textures:

$$\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& 0& 0& \\ 0& 1/2& 1/2& \\ 0& 1/2& 1/2& \end{array}\right),\text{and}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 1/\sqrt{2}& 1/\sqrt{2}& \\ 1/\sqrt{2}& 0& 0& \\ 1/\sqrt{2}& 0& 0& \end{array}\right),$$
(136)
respectively (that is to say the textures B1 of Ref. ).

7) Ambiguities of the perturbations: In Eqs. (31)-(66) we have given the structure of the perturbations which has been determined directly by Eqs. (7)-(18). They are the minimal perturbations which have to be added to give the atmospheric mass difference together with the solar angle and solar mass difference. It must be noted, however, that these perturbations are not unique. For example in Eq. (31) we could perfectly add a perturbation which is simply proportional to $`\epsilon _{atm}`$ and the identity matrix. To add this perturbation corresponds to a redefinition of the mass scale of the zero texture by a small amount. More generally there exist perturbations proportional to $`\epsilon _{sol}`$ we could add which are not proportional to the zero texture and which could leave the condition $`m_2^2m_1^2=\delta m_{sol}^2`$ unchanged while changing the scale of the zero texture or the atmospheric mass difference by a negligible term proportional to $`\delta m_{sol}^2`$. To add such a perturbation leads to a mass matrix still fulfilling all the experimental constraints, but with another structure of perturbation. Note that the atmospheric mass difference is anyway far from being determined at the level of accuracy of the solar mass difference. This leads to some freedom in the perturbations which exists also for perturbations proportional to $`\delta m_{atm}^2`$. We leave this discussion to a subsequent publication. Here we gave just the ”minimal” perturbations and we do not consider these extra perturbations which are not necessary to satisfy the experimental constraints.

Although the atmospheric neutrino mixing is allowed to be in the range of $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{atm}=0.871`$, we considered only the maximal mixing and not the entire range. This and the possible small deviations from the constraint $`U_{e3}=0`$ may allow for few more perturbations, which we disregarded here.

8) Summary: In summary, instead of starting the analysis from the possible textures, we started with the experimental inputs assuming in addition that $`m_{ee}`$ is larger than the neutrino mass differences. We then determined the neutrino mass matrices and in the process got the possible textures. We found that, for maximal atmospheric mixing and $`U_{e3}=0`$ and for a given set of values of $`m_{ee}`$, $`\delta m_{sol}^2`$, $`\delta m_{atm}^2`$ and $`\theta `$, there are 8 solutions for the mass matrix. Among them the solutions $`A_1`$ to $`A_4`$ have the interesting property to allow a decomposition which is just a zero texture depending only on a single mass scale, plus a perturbation depending only on $`\delta m_{atm}^2`$, plus a perturbation depending only on $`\delta m_{sol}^2`$ and $`\theta `$. There is also a set of solution $`B_1`$ to $`B_4`$ whose structure of perturbations is more complicated but which allow neutrino masses larger than $`m_{ee}`$. All solutions and especially $`B_{1,2,3,4}`$ lead naturally to neutrino masses relevant for dark matter. For solutions $`B_{1,2,3,4}`$, a lower $`m_{ee}`$ and a higher $`\mathrm{cos}2\theta `$ is preferred by the dark matter fits. We observed also that for solutions $`B_{1,2,3,4}`$ there is a continuum of possible zero textures. For each solution we displayed the allowed ranges for the mass eigenvalues together with the corresponding zero texture and we showed how, in the degenerate neutrino mass scenario, the perturbations come up to give the full mass matrix.

Acknowledgements

We thank H.V. Klapdor-Kleingrothaus and U. Sarkar for several useful discussions and their encouragements. We also acknowledge useful comments from M. Raidal and J. Orloff. This work was supported by the TMR, EC-contract No. ERBFMRX-CT980169 (EuroDa$`\varphi `$ne).

Last minute note: in the process of submitting this manuscript, some of the results derived here turn out to have been presented independently in Refs. .