text:
# Temperature chaos, rejuvenation and memory in Migdal-Kadanoff spin glasses

## The model —

We consider MK lattices following the standard real space renormalization group approximation SouthernYoung77  to the Edwards Anderson (EA) model EdwardsAnderson75 . The recursive construction of such hierarchical lattices is described in Fig. 1; edges are replaced by $`2b`$ edges so the “length” of the lattice is multiplied by $`2`$. We call generation “level” the order of the recursion and $`G`$ the total number of these. Then the lattice length $`L`$ is $`2^G`$ and the number of bonds is $`(2b)^G`$ (which is also roughly the number of sites); one can thus identify $`1+\mathrm{ln}b/\mathrm{ln}2`$ with the dimension of space on such a lattice.

When all the edges are constructed, each is assigned a random coupling $`J_{ij}`$. Similarly, on each site $`i`$ we put an Ising spin $`S_i=\pm 1`$. The Hamiltonian is

$$H_J(\{S_i\})=\underset{<ij>}{}J_{ij}S_iS_j$$
(1)
where the sum is over all the nearest neighbor spins of the lattice. The MK approach leads to accurate values for the spin glass stiffness exponent $`\theta `$ and for the lower critical dimension; furthermore it exhibits temperature chaos BanavarBray87 ; NifleHilhorst92 ; AspelmeierBray02 . We thus feel it is a good starting point for studying the mechanisms of rejuvenation and memory in spin glasses. All of the work presented here will be for three dimensions ($`b=4`$) with couplings $`J_{ij}`$ taken from a Gaussian of mean $`0`$ and width $`1`$. The model then undergoes a spin glass transition at $`T_c0.896`$ NifleHilhorst92 .

## Chaos in domain wall free energies —

Bray and Moore BrayMoore87  were the first to study the temperature dependence of domain wall free energies. Call $`F_J^{\mathrm{DW}}`$ the free energy of a domain wall for a given disorder obtained by forcing the outer-most spins of the MK lattice to be anti-parallel instead of parallel. ($`F_J^{\mathrm{DW}}/2`$ is the effective coupling between these spins.) When $`L`$ grows, $`F_J^{\mathrm{DW}}(T)`$ and $`F_J^{\mathrm{DW}}(T^{})`$ become decorrelated if $`TT^{}`$, so the linear correlation coefficient NifleHilhorst92

$$C^{\mathrm{DW}}(L,T,T^{})=\frac{\overline{F_J^{\mathrm{DW}}(T)F_J^{\mathrm{DW}}(T^{})}}{\sigma (T)\sigma (T^{})}$$
(2)
goes to zero at large $`L`$. (In this definition, $`\overline{\mathrm{}}`$ is the disorder average, $`\sigma `$ is the standard deviation of $`F_J^{\mathrm{DW}}`$, and we have used the fact that $`\overline{F_J^{\mathrm{DW}}}=0`$.)

We are not aware of any study describing how $`C^{\mathrm{DW}}`$ vanishes when $`L`$ grows. We thus computed $`F_J^{\mathrm{DW}}`$ for a large number of MK lattices and then estimated $`C^{\mathrm{DW}}`$. Defining $`\mathrm{}(T,T^{})`$ as the value of $`L`$ where $`C^{\mathrm{DW}}=1/e`$, our data fall on a single curve when using the scaling variable $`L/\mathrm{}(T,T^{})`$:

$$C^{\mathrm{DW}}(L,T,T^{})f[L/\mathrm{}(T,T^{})]$$
(3)
This is illustrated in Fig. 2. As expected, $`\mathrm{}(T,T^{})`$ goes as $`|TT^{}|^{1/\zeta }`$ where $`\zeta `$ is the chaos exponent BanavarBray87 ; for our system, $`\zeta =d_\mathrm{s}/2\theta 0.745`$. As shown in ref. NifleHilhorst92 , in the weak chaos limit $`L\mathrm{}(T,T^{})`$, $`1C^{\mathrm{DW}}\left[L/\mathrm{}(T,T^{})\right]^{2\zeta }`$. In the strong chaos limit, $`L\mathrm{}(T,T^{})`$, we find that the scaling function $`f(x)`$ behaves as $`\mathrm{exp}(x^\alpha )`$, with $`\alpha =1.18\pm 0.02`$.

## The two temperature $`P(q)`$

Beyond the length scale $`\mathrm{}(T,T^{})`$, domain wall free energies will often have different signs at $`T`$ and $`T^{}`$. As a consequence, the spin orderings will be different as can be made quantitative by considering two-temperature “overlaps”. Let $`q`$ be the overlap of two configurations $`𝒞`$ and $`𝒞^{}`$ taken in equilibrium (at $`T`$ for $`𝒞`$ and at $`T^{}`$ for $`𝒞^{}`$). Temperature chaos implies that $`P_{TT^{}}(q)`$, the disorder averaged distribution of such overlaps, tends towards a delta function in $`0`$. However, this behavior has not been seen in the Sherrington-Kirkpatrick (SK) model nor in EA spin glasses BilloireMarinari00 ; BilloireMarinari02 . It is therefore interesting to see how $`P_{TT^{}}(q)`$ behaves in MK spin glasses where temperature chaos arises for sure and $`\mathrm{}(T,T^{})`$ is known.

In Fig. 3 we show $`P_{TT^{}}(q)`$ determined numerically in the case $`T=0.7`$, $`T^{}=0.4`$ for which $`\mathrm{}(T,T^{})=2^{7.8}`$. When $`L=2^G2^6`$, $`P_{TT^{}}(q)`$ for $`TT^{}`$ and $`T=T^{}`$ are similar: there is a main peak at a “large” value of $`q`$ and a broad tail towards lower $`q`$; furthermore the peak position shifts to lower $`q`$ with increasing $`G`$. The differences from the case $`T=T^{}`$ are that the distributions have a shoulder and also a clear local maximum at $`q=0`$. This behavior is close to what has been observed in the SK model BilloireMarinari02 . Now for larger $`G`$’s, the shoulder takes over, and starting with $`G=9`$, $`P_{TT^{}}(q)`$ has a single peak, located at $`q=0`$. Note that $`G=6`$ corresponds to very large $`L`$ and so the asymptotic behavior is not likely to be seen soon in the EA model.

## Exploiting renormalization for dynamical quantities —

Temperature chaos has often been used to explain rejuvenation, but temperature chaos is not necessary for rejuvenation. In particular, rejuvenation arises in generalized random energy models SasakiNemoto00 . However, a study JonssonYoshino02  has suggested that the influence of temperature chaos may be visible even if the domain size (or equilibrated length scale) reached experimentally is much smaller than the overlap length $`\mathrm{}(T,T^{})`$. Thus we ask here what is the relation between the (equilibrium) overlap length and the length scale $`l_R`$ which is relevant for rejuvenation. In the framework of Migdal-Kadanoff lattices, we can address this question because one may go to long time scales as follows.

Suppose we focus on a time window $`t_{\mathrm{min}}tt_{\mathrm{max}}`$. Between $`t=0`$ and $`t=t_{\mathrm{min}}`$ the system has had time to equilibrate up to the length scale $`l(t_{\mathrm{min}})`$; essentially all out of equilibrium physics comes from larger length scales. On the MK lattice, this means that the spins whose generation “level” is larger than $`G_{\mathrm{min}}`$ (with $`2^{GG_{\mathrm{min}}}=l(t_{\mathrm{min}})`$) are in local equilibrium; the other spins have dynamics that is well described by the effective Hamiltonian at the generation $`G_{\mathrm{min}}`$. In practice, we implement this idea as follows. First we generate a large number of bare couplings from a Gaussian of mean $`0`$ and width $`1`$. Then, we use renormalization to produce an ensemble of effective couplings. This process is iterated $`\text{NRG}GG_{\mathrm{min}}`$ times. (NRG is for the number of renormalization group transformations.) The final effective couplings are then used to create a MK lattice of size $`2^{G_{\mathrm{min}}}`$. After that, we simply do standard Monte Carlo. Note that one Monte Carlo Sweep (MCS) on the renormalized lattice corresponds to a (huge) number of sweeps on the non-renormalized lattice, in fact to the number needed to equilibrate on the length scale $`2^{\text{NRG}}`$.

## Memory and Rejuvenation —

We use the standard temperature cycling protocol and measure a quantity similar to the ac-susceptibility defined as KomoriYoshino00

$$\chi (\omega ,t)=\frac{1Q(t+\frac{2\pi }{\omega },t)}{T}$$
(4)
where $`Q(t,t^{})_iS_i(t)S_i(t^{})/N`$. (Note that $`Q`$ is a dynamical generalization of the $`q`$ previously discussed.) The period $`2\pi /\omega `$ of our ac-field is 16 MCS. Every MCS updates all spins once. An alternative choice is to sweep the bonds, updating their end spins as in RicciRitort00 ; we have checked that the results are hardly affected by the method used. The simulations were done on Migdal-Kadanoff lattices with four generations using $`0\text{NRG}15`$. In Fig. 4 we show the isothermal $`\chi `$ at $`T`$, at $`T\mathrm{\Delta }T`$, and also $`\chi `$ for a $`TT\mathrm{\Delta }TT`$ temperature cycle. We used $`T=0.7`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }T=0.05`$. Since we calculate renormalized couplings at $`T`$ and $`T\mathrm{\Delta }T`$ from the same set of bare couplings, they are highly correlated when NRG is small. However, their correlation vanishes for large NRG due to temperature chaos. The direction of each spin at $`t=0`$ is chosen randomly with equal probability, corresponding to a quench from an infinitely high temperature at an infinite rate. We hereafter denote $`\chi `$ with a T-cycle as $`\chi _{\mathrm{cycle}}`$ and the isothermal $`\chi `$ at $`T`$ as $`\chi _{\mathrm{iso}}(T)`$.

For small NRG, $`\chi _{\mathrm{cycle}}`$ is below $`\chi _{\mathrm{iso}}(T\mathrm{\Delta }T)`$ in the second stage, as illustrated in Fig. 4(a). This means that the former is older than the latter and that equilibration is accelerated with increasing temperature; there is no rejuvenation here. On the other hand, $`\chi _{\mathrm{cycle}}`$ and $`\chi _{\mathrm{iso}}(T)`$ almost overlap in the third stage. This means that the effective aging time $`t_{\mathrm{eff}}`$, that is the equivalent time the system would have had to spend at $`T`$ rather than at $`T\mathrm{\Delta }T`$ to return to the same curve, is close to the actual window time $`t_{\mathrm{w2}}`$ spent at $`T\mathrm{\Delta }T`$. It is often observed in experiment that $`t_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ becomes 0 for large $`\mathrm{\Delta }T`$, corresponding to perfect memory. In our simulations, $`\mathrm{\Delta }T`$ is relatively small and so we get partial memory for all NRG. This general trend of no rejuvenation yet memory with $`t_{\mathrm{eff}}t_{\mathrm{w2}}`$ arises until $`\text{NRG}7`$.

Fig. 4(b) shows that a sign of rejuvenation appears around $`\text{NRG}8`$, i.e., $`\chi _{\mathrm{cycle}}`$ is above $`\chi _{\mathrm{iso}}(T\mathrm{\Delta }T)`$ at the beginning of the second stage. However, at later times of this second stage, the cycling curve goes below the $`\chi _{\mathrm{iso}}(T\mathrm{\Delta }T)`$ curve. The crossing of these curves has been observed experimentally Dupuis02 , and will be examined in the discussion section. Finally at the beginning of the third stage, the cycling data has significant deviations from the isothermal data. The conclusion for this figure is that signs of rejuvenation emerge on smaller length scales than expected because the linear correlation coefficient is still large when $`\text{NRG}=8`$, $`C^{\mathrm{DW}}=0.965`$. ($`\mathrm{}(0.7,0.65)2^{12}`$ in this case.) This result is consistent with that in PiccoRicci01b  where rejuvenation was observed in the $`3`$-dimensional EA spin glass model when reversing the sign of $`5\%`$ of the couplings. We have also compared $`\chi _{\mathrm{cycle}}`$ in the second stage to $`\chi _{\mathrm{iso}}(T\mathrm{\Delta }T)`$ shifted to the right by $`t_{\mathrm{w1}}`$, the time of the first stage, and found that perfect rejuvenation (i.e., complete overlap of the two curves) arises only when $`\text{NRG}13`$ where the effective couplings at the two temperatures are very decorrelated ($`C^{\mathrm{DW}}0.10`$).

On general grounds, one may expect $`t_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ to be smaller than $`t_{\mathrm{w2}}`$ because the temperature is lower in the second stage. However, when $`\text{NRG}=10`$, $`11`$ and $`12`$, quite surprizingly, we find that the cycling data in the third stage are slightly below the isothermal data, meaning that $`t_{\mathrm{eff}}>t_{\mathrm{w2}}`$; this is illustrated in Fig. 4(c).

Finally, Fig. 4(d) shows the case $`\text{NRG}=15`$. The effective couplings at the two temperatures are now completely decorrelated. As a consequence, strong relaxation is observed not only in the second stage but also in the third stage. Now an interesting question is whether memory remains or not. We have thus compared $`\chi (\omega ,t)`$ in the third stage to that in the first stage, and found that the former is clearly older than the later. This is consistent with the prediction of ref. YoshinoLemaitre00  that memory survives even if there is complete temperature chaos, i.e., $`\mathrm{}(T,T^{})=0`$.

Now for a few remarks. First, we have also performed positive T-cycling simulations, going from $`T=0.7`$ to $`T+\mathrm{\Delta }T=0.75`$ in the second stage. The qualitative behavior is similar, the main difference being that equilibration is accelerated by the cycling. In particular, when NRG is not too large, $`\chi (\omega ,t)`$ in the third stage and at large times is below the isothermal data. This kind of behavior has been observed in glassy systems like polymer glasses BellonCiliberto99 , but not yet in spin glasses. Second, we have used the same NRG at $`T`$ and $`T\mathrm{\Delta }T`$ but really NRG should decrease with temperature because the ordering is then slower. A temperature dependence of NRG will reduce $`t_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ which is unexpectedly large in our simulations. Moreover, it will cause separation of length scales, an important ingredient for memory and rejuvenation BouchaudDupuis01 .

## Discussion and conclusions —

One of our main findings in this work is that a signal of rejuvenation arises on scales $`\mathrm{}_R`$ much smaller than the equilibrium overlap length $`\mathrm{}(T,T^{})`$. (In Fig. 4, rejuvenation transpires even though $`\mathrm{}(T,T^{})/\mathrm{}_R2^4`$.) How can one interpret this result? Within the droplet picture, a small fraction of droplets of size $`l`$ are fragile BrayMoore87  against temperature variation even when $`l\mathrm{}(T,T^{})`$. In our case, we equilibrate out to scales $`l_{\mathrm{eq}}`$; beyond $`l_{\mathrm{eq}}`$, one has domain walls, the positions of which are time dependent and sensitive to temperature changes. The strong relaxation of $`\chi _{\mathrm{cycle}}`$ we see in the second stage can thus be interpreted as the re-ordering of the spins either inside fragile droplets or on the boundaries of the (out of equilibrium) domain walls. However, it is also possible to interpret the rejuvenation we see without appealing to temperature chaos. Indeed, in the picture of BouchaudDupuis01 , there is no chaos; nevertheless, temperature cycling modifies the Boltzmann weights, leading to rejuvenation on short length scales.

A second surprizing feature we found was the crossing of $`\chi _{\mathrm{cycle}}`$ and $`\chi _{\mathrm{iso}}(T\mathrm{\Delta }T)`$. (See Fig. 4(b).) Interestingly, such a crossing behavior has been seen in experiments Dupuis02 . Do the different theoretical frameworks predict such a crossing? In the droplet picture, rejuvenation in Fig. 4(b) is attributed to fragile droplets. However, the equilibrium state is still robust in most regions because the occurrence of such droplets is rare at this length scale, $`l=2^8`$. Moreover, if we compare the equilibrated length scale at $`t_{\mathrm{w1}}`$ in the T-cycling case with that in the isothermal case of $`T\mathrm{\Delta }T`$, the former is larger than the latter because equilibration is accelerated with increasing temperature. Therefore, $`\chi _{\mathrm{cycle}}`$ eventually goes below $`\chi _{\mathrm{iso}}(T\mathrm{\Delta }T)`$ after the re-ordering of fragile droplets progresses sufficiently. The picture of BouchaudDupuis01  also gives natural interpretation of the crossing. First, the positions of pinned domain walls are determined hierarchically: the structure at large scales is associated with large energies, that at small scales is associated with small energies. Second, one reaches the correct large scale structure faster by aging at $`T`$ rather than at $`T\mathrm{\Delta }T`$ since barriers are overcome more easily. (It is important that the large scale structure be the same at the two temperatures.) As a result, after transient reconstructions on smaller length scales (rejuvenation), $`\chi _{\mathrm{cycle}}`$ will cross $`\chi _{\mathrm{iso}}(T\mathrm{\Delta }T)`$.

Last, our system exhibits memory which persists even when the equilibrated scale is much larger than $`\mathrm{}(T,T^{})`$. This result is completely compatible with the prediction by Yoshino et al. YoshinoLemaitre00 . They showed that even if $`\mathrm{}(T,T^{})0`$, the equilibration in the second stage just injects uncorrelated short-range noise into the long-range ordering developed during the first stage; memory is then retrieved in the third stage after transients associated with removing this noise.

We thank J.-P. Bouchaud, A. Pagnani, and E. Vincent for discussions, as well as H. Yoshino and his collaborators who have been working with a similar approach Scheffler03 . This work was partially supported by the IT-program of Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology. Some of the computations were carried out on the Machikaneyama PC cluster system (URL: http://www.mhill.org/) in the Large-scale Computational Science Division, Cybermedia Center, Osaka University. M. S. was partially supported by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science for Japanese Junior Scientists. M. S. acknowledges support from the MENRT while he was in France. The LPTMS is an Unité de Recherche de l’Université Paris XI associée au CNRS.


format: text

text:
# Soft Fermi Surfaces and Breakdown of Fermi Liquid Behavior

## Abstract

Electron-electron interactions can induce Fermi surface deformations which break the point-group symmetry of the lattice structure of the system. In the vicinity of such a ”Pomeranchuk instability” the Fermi surface is easily deformed by anisotropic perturbations, and exhibits enhanced collective fluctuations. We show that critical Fermi surface fluctuations near a d-wave Pomeranchuk instability in two dimensions lead to large anisotropic decay rates for single-particle excitations, which destroy Fermi liquid behavior over the whole surface except at the Brillouin zone diagonal. PACS: 71.10.Fd, 74.20.Mn

Recently a number of authors pointed out that the Coulomb interaction between electrons in a metal can lead to Fermi surface deformations which break the orientational symmetry of the system. Referring to a stability criterion for normal Fermi liquids by Pomeranchuk, we use the term ”Pomeranchuk instability” (PI) for such symmetry-breaking Fermi surface shifts. Deformations of $`d_{x^2y^2}`$-type, for which the Fermi surface expands along the $`k_x`$-axis and shrinks along the $`k_y`$-axis (or vice versa), have been found for various model Hamiltonians on a two-dimensional square lattice: t-J, Hubbard, and extended Hubbard model. For a Fermi level close to the van Hove singularity the PI occurs already in the weak-coupling regime, where perturbative methods may be applied. Symmetry-broken Fermi surfaces in fully isotropic (not lattice) two- and three-dimensional Fermi liquids have also been considered. From a pure symmetry-group point of view a PI leads to a ”nematic” electron liquid as defined by Kivelson et al. in their discussion of a possible correspondence between electron states in doped Mott insulators and liquid crystal phases.

Symmetry-breaking Fermi surface deformations generally compete with other instabilities, but may also coexist with other types of symmetry-breaking order. For example, a superconducting state with a d-wave deformed Fermi surface  is stabilized in the two-dimensional Hubbard model with a sizable next-to-nearest neighbor hopping amplitude and an electron density near van Hove filling, at least at weak coupling. Superconducting nematic states have also been considered as one among several possibilities in a general symmetry classification by Vojta et al. In the following we will however focus on symmetry-breaking Fermi surface deformations in an otherwise normal state.

For electrons on a lattice, the PI breaks only a discrete symmetry, the point-group symmetry of the lattice. Hence, no Goldstone mode exists and symmetry-broken states can exist also at finite temperature in $`d2`$ dimensions. Order parameter fluctuations thus suppress the PI much less than competing instabilities toward states which would break a continuous symmetry. In the ground state a PI can be driven as a function of the electron density or other control parameters, leading to a quantum critical point at the transition between the symmetric and symmetry-broken states, provided that no first order transition occurs.

An interacting electron system in the vicinity of a PI is characterized by a ”soft” Fermi surface, which can be deformed very easily, that is at low energy cost. In this article we show that strong dynamical fluctuations of such a soft Fermi surface affect physical properties of the system very strongly, and lead in particular to a very fast decay of single-particle excitations. The anisotropy of the Fermi surface fluctuations in a lattice system leads to a pronounced anisotropy of the single-particle decay rate. For $`d_{x^2y^2}`$-wave fluctuations the decay is maximal near the $`k_x`$\- and $`k_y`$-axes and minimal near the diagonal of the Brillouin zone.

The ”softness” of a Fermi surface can be quantified by the Fermi surface susceptibility

$$\kappa _{𝐤_F𝐤_F^{}}=\frac{\delta s_{𝐤_F}}{\delta \mu _{𝐤_F^{}}},$$
(1)
which measures the Fermi surface shifts $`\delta s_{𝐤_F}`$ for small momentum dependent shifts of the chemical potential $`\delta \mu _{𝐤_F^{}}`$ at points $`𝐤_F^{}`$ on the Fermi surface. Close to a PI one of the eigenvalues of the matrix $`\kappa _{𝐤_F𝐤_F^{}}`$ diverges, and the corresponding eigenvector describes the shape of the incipient Fermi surface deformation.

It is intuitively plausible that critical Fermi surface fluctuations will strongly affect single-particle excitations and as a consequence the low energy properties of the system. To explore the resulting physics, we define and analyze a phenomenological lattice model with an effective interaction chosen such that a PI occurs, but no other instabilities. The model Hamiltonian reads

$$H=\underset{𝐤,\sigma }{}ϵ_𝐤n_{𝐤\sigma }+\frac{1}{2V}\underset{𝐤,𝐤^{},𝐪}{}f_{\mathrm{𝐤𝐤}^{}}(𝐪)n_𝐤(𝐪)n_𝐤^{}(𝐪),$$
(2)
where $`ϵ_𝐤`$ is a single-particle dispersion, $`n_𝐤(𝐪)=_\sigma c_{𝐤𝐪/2,\sigma }^{}c_{𝐤+𝐪/2,\sigma }`$, and $`V`$ the volume of the system. Since the PI is driven by interactions with small momentum transfers, that is forward scattering, we choose a coupling function $`f_{\mathrm{𝐤𝐤}^{}}(𝐪)`$ which contributes only for relatively small momenta $`𝐪`$. This suppresses other instabilities such as superconductivity or density waves. We emphasize that this model is adequate only if Fermi surface fluctuations are the dominant fluctuations in the system. Otherwise it would have to be supplemented by other interactions with large momentum transfers. The interplay of Fermi surface and other fluctuations opens a wide field for investigations in the future.

For an analytical treatment we assume that the momentum dependence of the coupling function in (2) is separable, that is

$$f_{\mathrm{𝐤𝐤}^{}}(𝐪)=g(𝐪)d_𝐤d_𝐤^{}.$$
(3)
Although the above model can be defined in any dimension, we now focus on the particularly interesting case of a two-dimensional system on a square lattice. To generate a PI with $`d_{x^2y^2}`$ symmetry, the form factors $`d_𝐤`$ must have that symmetry, such as $`d_𝐤=\mathrm{cos}k_x\mathrm{cos}k_y`$, and $`g(𝐪)`$ has to be negative, at least for $`𝐪\mathrm{𝟎}`$. The resulting Landau function $`f_{\mathrm{𝐤𝐤}^{}}=f_{\mathrm{𝐤𝐤}^{}}(\mathrm{𝟎})`$ captures qualitatively the most pronounced features of the Landau function obtained from renormalization group calculations and perturbation theory for the two-dimensional Hubbard model near van Hove filling. In particular, it is repulsive for momenta near two different van Hove points and attractive for momenta near a common one.

We compute the two-particle vertex function $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ from $`f`$ by summing the series of bubble chains sketched in Fig. 1. By virtue of the separable structure of the interaction, the series can be summed algebraically yielding

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{𝐤𝐤}^{}}(𝐪,\omega )=\frac{g(𝐪)}{1g(𝐪)\mathrm{\Pi }_d(𝐪,\omega )}d_𝐤d_𝐤^{},$$
(4)
where $`\mathrm{\Pi }_d`$ is the particle-hole bubble with a form factor $`d_𝐤`$ at the vertices, that is

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_d(𝐪,\omega )=\frac{d^2p}{(2\pi )^2}\frac{f(ϵ_{𝐩+𝐪/2})f(ϵ_{𝐩𝐪/2})}{\omega (ϵ_{𝐩+𝐪/2}ϵ_{𝐩𝐪/2})+i0^+}d_𝐩^2.$$
(5)
Here $`f`$ is the Fermi function. For small $`𝐪`$ and $`\omega `$ the d-wave bubble has the following asymptotic behavior: $`\mathrm{\Pi }_d(𝐪,0)=N_d^F+a(\widehat{𝐪})q^2+𝒪(q^4)`$ and $`\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Pi }_d(𝐪,\omega )c(\widehat{𝐪})\omega /q`$ for $`q,\omega 0`$ and $`\omega /q0`$, where $`N_d^F>0`$ is a weighted density of states, with each state at the Fermi level weighted by the squared form factor $`d_{𝐤_F}^2`$, while $`a(\widehat{𝐪})`$ and $`c(\widehat{𝐪})`$ are real coefficients depending only on the direction $`\widehat{𝐪}`$ of $`𝐪`$, but not on its length. The coefficient $`c(\widehat{𝐪})`$ is always positive, but the sign of $`a(\widehat{𝐪})`$ depends on $`\widehat{𝐪}`$ and on the choice of $`ϵ_𝐤`$, $`d_𝐤`$ and $`\mu `$.

The PI sets in when the denominator of Eq. (4) vanishes at zero frequency and vanishing momenta, that is $`lim_{𝐪0}g(𝐪)\mathrm{\Pi }_d(𝐪,0)=g(\mathrm{𝟎})N_d^F=1`$ at the critical point. We assume that the $`𝐪`$-dependence of $`g(𝐪)`$ is such that $`g(𝐪)\mathrm{\Pi }_d(𝐪,0)<1`$ for $`𝐪0`$ at that point. Otherwise an instability with a finite $`𝐪`$-vector would set in first. For a small $`𝐪`$-vector this would lead to a phase where the symmetry-breaking Fermi surface deformations are slowly modulated across the system. We leave this case for future studies.

At the critical point the two-particle vertex has the following asymptotic form for small $`𝐪`$, $`\omega `$ and small $`\omega /q`$:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{𝐤𝐤}^{}}(𝐪,\omega )\frac{d_𝐤d_𝐤^{}}{ic(\widehat{𝐪})\omega /q\alpha (\widehat{𝐪})q^2}$$
(6)
with $`\alpha (\widehat{𝐪})=a(\widehat{𝐪})N_d^Fg^{\prime \prime }(\widehat{𝐪})/g(\mathrm{𝟎})`$, where $`g^{\prime \prime }(\widehat{𝐪})`$ is the second derivative of $`g(𝐪)`$ with respect to $`q`$ for $`q0`$. The denominator of the vertex has the same form as for other familiar critical points in metals, namely at the boundary to ferromagnetic  or phase separated  states. Peculiar to the d-wave PI are the form factors in the numerator.

We stress that the PI obeys the symmetry conditions for a continuous phase transition, since odd powers of the order parameter are excluded by symmetry from the corresponding Landau theory, in contrast to the case of phase separation, where cubic terms usually drive a first order transition (except for special cases where the cubic term is tuned to zero). Note also that the Pomeranchuk instability is not inhibited by long-range Coulomb forces, since volume conserving Fermi surface deformations do not generate charge inhomogeneities.

To estimate the decay rate for single-particle excitations in the presence of critical Fermi surface fluctuations near the quantum critical point, we have computed the imaginary part of the self-energy to first order in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{𝐤𝐤}^{}}(𝐪,\omega )`$, evaluating the Feynman diagram in Fig. 2. For momenta on the Fermi surface, the result is

$$\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Sigma }(𝐤_F,ϵ)d_{𝐤_F}^2ϵ^{2/3}$$
(7)
for small energies $`ϵ`$ at $`T=0`$ and

$$\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Sigma }(𝐤_F,0)d_{𝐤_F}^2T^{2/3}$$
(8)
at low finite temperatures. Note that the integral leading to the above result is dominated by small momentum transfers $`𝐪`$ and $`\omega v_{𝐤_F}q`$, thus justifying the asymptotic expansion of the vertex function. Furthermore, the dominant contributions to $`\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ at the Fermi vector $`𝐤_F`$ come from (small) $`𝐪`$-vectors that are tangential to the Fermi surface at $`𝐤_F`$.

Not unexpectedly, the decay rate has the same energy dependence as for the quantum critical point near phase separation in two dimensions. Different is however the d-wave form factor making the decay rate strongly anisotropic. The decay rate is strongest near the van Hove points, while the leading terms vanish on the diagonal of the Brillouin zone. Subleading terms will produce at least conventional Fermi liquid decay rates ($`T^2\mathrm{log}T`$) on the diagonal, but faster decay (intermediate between $`T^{2/3}`$ and $`T^2\mathrm{log}T`$) may be obtained due to higher order processes and interactions with large momentum transfers, which couple different parts of the Fermi surface.

The singular self-energy in the critical region will drastically modify the one-particle propagator at low energies. However, this does not invalidate the calculation of the two-particle vertex from bubbles with bare propagators, since singular self-energy corrections generated by strong forward scattering are cancelled by corresponding vertex corrections in the polarization bubble. A more subtle point is whether higher order corrections to the self-energy contribution in Fig. 2 modify the power-laws (7) and (8) for the decay rate. The same question has been discussed at length for fermions coupled to a gauge field, where the lowest order calculation also yields a power-law with exponent $`2/3`$. A detailed analysis by Altshuler et al.  indicated that this result is not changed by other terms. A recent renormalization group analysis further supported the validity of the leading power-law for the gauge theory, and also for the critical point near phase separation in two dimensions. Even if the above power-law would be modified by higher order corrections, it is clear that Fermi liquid behavior cannot be restored, and the decay rate will remain large and anisotropic in any case.

A strongly anisotropic decay rate following a power-law with exponent $`2/3`$ has recently been derived for an isotropic continuum (not lattice) version of model (2). That result was obtained for the symmetry-broken ”nematic” phase, and the anisotropy of the decay rate arises from the anisotropy of the symmetry-broken state and its collective modes. In the symmetric phase of an isotropic liquid the decay rates are of course isotropic. At the quantum critical point the decay rate of the isotropic liquid also obeys a power law with exponent 2/3, but now isotropically over the whole Fermi surface.

Could soft Fermi surfaces and critical Fermi surface fluctuations play a role in cuprate superconductors? Due to the coupling of electron and lattice degrees of freedom a symmetry-breaking Fermi surface deformation is generally accompanied by a lattice distortion, and vice versa. Structural transitions which reduce the lattice symmetry of the cuprate-planes are quite frequent in cuprates. Close to a PI of the electronic system, electronic properties can be expected to react unusually strongly to slight lattice distortions. Such ”overreactions” of electronic properties have indeed been observed in several cuprate compounds. In particular, a slight orthorhombicity of the lattice structure would lead to a relatively strong orthorhombic distortion of the Fermi surface. Yamase and Kohno  invoked this idea to explain peculiarities of magnetic excitations in cuprates.

Large Fermi surface fluctuations could be at least partially responsible for the non-Fermi liquid behavior observed in cuprates at optimal doping. In our model calculation we have obtained a strongly anisotropic anomalously large decay rate for single-particle excitations. Large anisotropic decay rates have been frequently inferred from the linewidth observed in photoemission experiments on optimally doped cuprates. However, recent experiments with higher resolution revealed that bilayer splitting of the bands has to be taken into account in the data analysis, such that the intrinsic linewidth near the van Hove points may be considerably smaller and less anisotropic than previously expected. As to the temperature dependence of the decay rate, it is presently hard to reliably discriminate a $`T`$-linear from a $`T^{2/3}`$ behavior of the intrinsic linewidth extracted from the experimental data. Concerning transport, an anisotropic scattering rate with nodes on the diagonal can very naturally account for the pronounced anisotropy between intra- and inter-plane mobility of charge carriers, as pointed out by Ioffe and Millis  in their phenomenological ”cold spot” scenario. According to their idea, the intra-plane transport is dominated by quasi-particles with a long life-time near the diagonal of the Brillouin zone, while these carriers are not available for inter-plane transport, since transverse hopping amplitudes vanish on the diagonal. To analyze transport properties near a PI one has to face the notorious difficulties of transport theory in a quantum critical regime. Even for rough estimates of temperature dependences within a semiclassical Boltzmann approach one would have to compute subleading corrections to the decay rates, since those limit the life-time of excitations on the Brillouin zone diagonal, and thus the in-plane conductivities. Furthermore, regular interactions or interactions peaked at finite q-vectors (leading to ”hot spots” on the Fermi surface) should also play a role, and may lead to an interesting but complicated interplay with Fermi surface fluctuations.

Since the PI breaks the orientational symmetry of the lattice, it is natural to consider a possible connection with the tendency towards stripe formation, which has been extensively discussed in the context of cuprate superconductors. Stripes also break the translation invariance in addition to orientational symmetry, and their formation requires interactions with large momentum transfers, such as antiferromagnetic interactions. The possibility of direct transitions between states with broken orientational order and stripe states, which has been envisaged already by Kivelson et al., is an interesting subject for future studies.

In summary, an electron system close to a PI is characterized by a soft Fermi surface, which can react strongly to a slight change of the lattice structure, and exhibits strong collective Fermi surface fluctuations. In two-dimensional systems these fluctuations lead to large anisotropic decay rates for single-particle excitations and thus to a breakdown of Fermi liquid theory. It will be interesting to further explore the consequences of Pomeranchuk criticality, especially for charge and heat transport, for magnetism, and for superconductivity.

Acknowledgements:
We are very grateful to Claudio Castellani for contributing several valuable ideas and insights, especially at the initial stage of this work. We also thank B. Büchner, B. Keimer, C. Di Castro, G. Khaliullin, G. Kotliar, V. Oganesyan, M. Salmhofer, F. Wegner, H. Yamase, and R. Zeyher for useful discussions. This work was initiated at the workshop ”Realistic theories of correlated electron materials” in fall 2002 at ITP-UCSB, and supported by the DFG-grant Me 1255/6-1.


text:
# Comment on “Determination of the chiral coupling constants 𝑐₃ and 𝑐₄ in new 𝑝𝑝 and 𝑛𝑝 partial-wave analyses”

## Abstract

In a recent study \[M.C.M. Rentmeester et al., Phys. Rev. C 67, 044001 (2003)\], the Nijmegen group reports on the determination of the chiral low-energy constants (LEC), $`c_3`$ and $`c_4`$, involved in the 2$`\pi `$-exchange part of the $`NN`$ amplitude at next-to-next-to-leading order (NNLO) of chiral perturbation theory. This analysis does not apply the uniquely-determined and model-independent $`NN`$ amplitudes at NNLO and uses, instead, amplitudes that are up 90% smaller. We point out that this flaw produces a large systematic error, rendering the Nijmegen method unsuitable for a reliable determination of the LEC.

In a recent paper , the Nijmegen group reports on a study of the chiral two-pion exchange interaction which contains the low-energy constants (LEC) $`c_1`$, $`c_3`$, and $`c_4`$. The long-range part of this interaction is applied in an analysis of the world $`pp`$ and $`np`$ data below 500 MeV laboratory energy. The authors state that, based upon this analysis, they were able to determine the LEC $`c_3`$ and $`c_4`$ with an accuracy of 2-5%. This recent Nijmegen analysis  is an update of an earlier one , and the present note applies to both.

It is the purpose of this Comment to point out that the Nijmegen determination of the LEC appears to have basic flaws which can be estimated to cause a large systematic error.

The traditional approach for describing nuclear forces has been the meson-exchange model in which mesons of increasing mass are used to generate contributions of decreasing range. This expansion is then truncated at a certain range which is believed to be unimportant for traditional nuclear physics purposes.

The new approach to nuclear forces, that was initiated by Weinberg  and pioneered by Ordóñez , Ray, and van Kolck , has a foundation and philosophy which are quite different from meson phenomenology. Based upon the chiral symmetry of QCD, an expansion is made in powers of the nucleon momenta. This is known as chiral perturbation theory ($`\chi `$PT).

The crucial point to realize is that—in contrast to meson phenomenology—$`\chi `$PT is a theory rather than a model, i. e., it makes exact predictions at each order (if the constants of the theory are known).

Physical constants are to be determined in a model-independent way, if by all means possible. While model-independent determinations are per se impossible if one is dealing with a model or phenomenology, model-independence is inherent to the framework of $`\chi `$PT.

At next-to-next-to-leading order (NNLO), the theory consists of one-pion-exchange (OPE), two-pion-exchange (TPE) at $`𝒪(Q^3)`$ , where $`Q`$ denotes a momentum or pion mass, and contact terms of order $`Q^0`$ and $`Q^2`$. These contributions define uniquely the $`NN`$ amplitude at NNLO. A problem is that the parameters of the contact terms are not known. However, since these contacts contribute only to $`S`$ and $`P`$ wave amplitudes, the $`NN`$ amplitudes for partial waves with orbital angular momentum $`L2`$ do not receive any contact contributions . Consequently, at NNLO, the $`NN`$ amplitudes for $`D`$ and higher partial waves are determined by OPE and TPE at $`𝒪(Q^3)`$ in an unique and completely model-independent way . These two contributions depend (apart from the nucleon and pion mass) on five constants: the axial-vector coupling constant, $`g_A`$, the pion decay constant, $`f_\pi `$, and three LEC that appear in the dimension-two $`\pi N`$ Lagrangian and are, conventionally, denoted by $`c_1`$, $`c_3`$, and $`c_4`$. The constants $`g_A`$ and $`f_\pi `$ are known from other sources (we use $`g_A=1.29`$ and $`f_\pi =92.4`$ MeV and the same is used in Ref. ) and for $`c_1`$ the educated estimate $`c_1=0.76`$ GeV-1 can be made . Now only two constants are open, namely, $`c_3`$ and $`c_4`$. Since the LEC are also involved in the $`\pi N`$ amplitude, these constants have been determined by calculating the $`\pi N`$ amplitude up to a certain order of $`\chi `$PT and adjusting the constants such that the empirical $`\pi N`$ information is fit . Similarly, the $`NN`$ amplitudes of partial waves with $`L2`$ can be compared with the corresponding empirical amplitudes to extract $`c_3`$ and $`c_4`$.

Once all five constants are fixed, then there exists a unique prediction for all $`NN`$ amplitudes with $`L2`$. Using $`c_3=4.78`$ GeV-1 and $`c_4=3.96`$ GeV-1, these uniquely determined $`NN`$ amplitudes are shown in Fig. 1 by the solid lines for one $`D`$ and one $`F`$ wave case (see Refs.  for the details of how these amplitudes are calculated perturbatively; conventions as in Ref. ).

It must be stressed again that we are dealing here with a theory and that a theory makes exact predictions. Thus, the solid line in Fig. 1 is the unique result of $`\chi `$PT at NNLO for the NN system (using the above constants). Using the same constants, there is no other result at NNLO and every theoretical physicist will independently reproduce this result.

However, when we compare this result with the one the Nijmegen group obtains and uses in their analysis (dashed line in Fig. 1), we notice a discrepancy of up to 90%. When such amplitudes are applied in an analysis, a large systematic error is produced and the extracted constants will carry such large error.

The Nijmegen amplitudes are obtained as a result of representing the chiral OPE and TPE at NNLO in terms of an $`r`$-space potential that is cut off at $`r=1.6`$ fm. The motivation for doing this may be a confusion between the old range argument (that applies to meson-model based potentials) and the fundamentals of $`\chi `$PT which is an expansion in powers of nucleon momenta, and not in terms of ranges. As pointed out before, $`\chi `$PT has, by principle, no model-dependence, whereas model-dependence is clearly introduced in the analyses of Refs. .

Another point of concern is that the Nijmegen group uses $`\chi `$PT at NNLO up to 500 MeV. It is wellknown that $`\chi `$PT at NNLO is appropriate only up to 50 MeV in $`D`$ waves and about 150 MeV in $`F`$ waves .

In conclusion, the method of determination of the chiral LEC, $`c_3`$ and $`c_4`$, applied in the recent as well as the earlier Nijmegen analyses  may be unreliable.

This work was supported in part by the U.S. National Science Foundation under Grant No. PHY-0099444, the Spanish Ministerio de Ciencia y Tecnología under Contract No. BFM2001-3563, and the Spanish Junta de Castilla y León under Contract No. SA-109/01.


text:
# Minimal SUSY SO(10), b-𝜏 Unification and Large Neutrino Mixings

## I Introduction

The various neutrino oscillation experiments such as those involving solar and atmospheric neutrinos as well as the KEK and KAMLAND experiments that involve laboratory produced neutrinos have now produced quite convincing evidence that neutrinos have mass and they mix among themselves. Although the neutrinos have a great deal of similarity with quarks as far as the weak interactions go, the oscillation results have revealed a profound difference i.e. two of the three neutrino mixings are very large whereas all quark mixing angles are very small. Understanding this difference is a major challenge for theoretical particle physics today. The problem becomes particularly acute in models that unify quarks and leptons such as the SO(10) grand unified models, which are considered as prime candidates for describing neutrino masses.

Some of the reasons that make SO(10) models so attractive as grand unification theories of nature are the following: (i) in SO(10) model, all fermions can be part of a single spinor representation; (ii) it contains the left-right symmetric unification group $`SU(2)_L\times SU(2)_R\times U(1)_{BL}\times SU(3)_c`$ which provides a more satisfactory way to understand the origin of parity violation in Nature and (iii) finally, perhaps the single most important reason is the natural understanding of small neutrino masses via the seesaw mechanism since the single spinor representation discussed above that contains all the standard model fermions also contains the right handed neutrino, needed in implementing the seesaw mechanism.

A closer look at the details of neutrino oscillation data in fact provides one more compelling reason for the SO(10) model: in order to understand the atmospheric neutrino data, we need the heaviest neutrino mass to be larger than $`0.05`$ eV. The seesaw formula i.e. $`m_\nu \frac{m_D^2}{M_R}`$ (where $`m_D`$ is the neutrino Dirac mass and $`M_R`$ is the mass of the right handed neutrino contributing to the neutrino mass needed to understand the atmospheric data) then tells us that there must be one right handed $`M_R10^{15}`$ GeV. This value is considerably smaller than the Planck mass and therefore one is faced with a new hierarchy problem similar to the corresponding problem of the standard model. However, it was pointed out long ago that the Majorana mass of the RH neutrino owes its origin to the breaking of local B-L symmetry which implies that $`M_RM_{BL}`$. Local B-L symmetry therefore provides a natural way to understand the smallness of the RH neutrino mass compared to $`M_P\mathrm{}`$. What is very interesting is that SO(10) group also contains the local B-L as a subgroup.

SO(10) model, despite its attractiveness for understanding the overall scale of neutrino masses, runs into a potential trouble in providing an understanding of the observed mixings. The problem arises from the fact that SO(10) also contains the quark-lepton unification $`SU(4)_c`$ group of Pati and Salam, which in the simplest approximation leads to equal quark and lepton mixing angles and one needs to make further assumptions to get a handle on the mixings. An obvious conceptual problem is that if one of these models is ruled out by data, one would not be able to tell whether it is the SO(10) unification which is “at fault” or it is one of the assumptions used to derive neutrino mixings.

A different approach to this issue was taken in ref.. The idea was to avoid the use of any symmetries beyond the gauge symmetry, in this case SO(10) and use the minimal set of Higgs fields that can break the group down to the standard model and give mass to the fermions. It turns out that if we choose Higgs fields in 10 and $`\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟐𝟔}}`$, the Yukawa superpotential contains enough parameters to fit the observed fermion masses and mixings of the standard model. It was observed in ref., that in this model the neutrino masses and mixings are completely predicted upto an overall scale, when one uses the seesaw mechanism which is part of the SO(10) model***This is to be contrasted with the SU(5) case where the minimal Higgs set needed to break the gauge symmetry i.e. 5+24 Higgses lead to the mass relation $`m_e/m_\mu =m_d/m_s`$ that is in contradiction with observations.. To break the gauge symmetry fully, two additional Higgs multiplets belonging to 45+54 are included. They do not contribute to the fermion masses, leaving the conclusions on neutrino masses unchanged.

An additional appeal of breaking B-L symmetry of SUSY SO(10) by an 126, as opposed to by 16 Higgs, is that it automatically leaves R-parity as an exact aymmetry and thereby explains, why neutralino is a stable dark matter. This is because the submultiplet of 126 that breaks B-L carries B-L =2. Therefore R-parity (defined by $`Rp=(1)^{3(BL)+2S}`$) quantum number of this field is even and therefore, its vev leaves R-parity unbroken. In contrast in models where B-L is broken by a 16-plet of Higgs, the B-L symmetry is broken by one unit and without any additional symmetries (e.g. matter parity), neutralino is unstable and cannot therefore serve as a dark matter. Of course, if a fundamental theory e.g. a superstring theory that led to an SO(10) model with appropriate additional symmetries that guarantee the stability of neutralino was known, then the above objection to an 16 Higgs would not apply.

The initial analyses of neutrino mixings within the framework of Ref. used the simple seesaw formula (type I seesaw) and are now in disagreement with data. In subsequent papers, this idea has been analysed ( in some cases by including more than one 10 Higgses) to see how close one can come close to the observed neutrino parameters. The conclusion now appears to be that one needs CP violating phases to achieve this goal, as noted in .

A way out of this problem is to use the type II seesaw mechanism, as was initially done in , where an induced triplet vev is added to the usual type I seesaw formula arising from the RH neutrino intermediate state. In models which have asymptotic parity symmetry such as left-right or SO(10) models, type II seesaw arises if both parity and B-L symmetry are broken at the same scale.

A very interesting point about this approach has been noted in a recent paper, where it has been shown that if we restrict ourselves to the 2-3 sector of the model and use the type II seesaw mechanism, then the $`b\tau `$ unification of supersymmetric grand unified theories leads to a neutrino Majorana mass matrix which explains the large $`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$ mixing angle needed to understand atmospheric neutrino data. The important point is that no symmetries are needed to get this result.

To see how this result is very generic to SO(10) models with 126 vev, note that: (i) in SO(10) model, the neutrino mass matrix is given by the type II seesaw formula, with two contributions: one coming from the righthanded neutrino intermediate state and another coming from an induced triplet vev generic to these models, as already mentioned; and (ii) that for certain range of parameters, the induced triplet vev term can dominate the neutrino mass matrix. As was shown in , under these circumstances, one gets a sumrule

$`_\nu =a(_{\mathrm{}}_d)`$ (1)
In , it was observed that since this relation is valid at the seesaw scale, one must use the extrapolated quark and lepton masses in the formula. The fact that at or near the GUT scale $`m_b/m_\tau 11.2`$ depending on the value of $`tan\beta `$, implies that the 3-3 element of the $`_\nu `$ which is proportional to $`m_bm_\tau `$ is of the same order as the off diagonal elements of the $`_{nu}`$ in the 2-3 subsector leading top the largeness of the atmospheric mixing angle without any further assumptions.

It is however essential to do a complete three generation analysis of this model if this important observation is to lead to a realistic SO(10) model for understanding all neutrino mixings. In fact, since the model has no free parameters, it is a priori not obvious that within this framework one would simultaneously get a large solar mixing angle and a small $`\theta _{13}U_{e3}`$ as well as the correct value for the ratio $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2/\mathrm{\Delta }m_A^2`$. It is the goal of this paper to analyze this question.

We find that for a narrow range of the quark masses, the model does indeed lead to the correct mass difference-squares as well as large mixing angles $`\theta _{12}`$ and $`\theta _{23}`$ needed to understand the solar and atmospheric neutrino oscillations while at the same time keeping $`U_{e3}0.16`$ as required by the reactor data. We find that for this entire range, the reactor angle $`U_{e3}0.16`$ providing a clear way to test the model in the proposed long base line neutrino experiments.

This paper is organized as follows: in sec. II, we review the basic equations of the model for the supersymmetric case; in sec. III, we explain the conditions under which the induced triplet vev dominates neutrino masses; in sec. IV, we describe our method for solving the equations to predict the neutrino parameters. In sec. V, we give our results for the neutrino masses and the mixing angles. In sec. VI, we give our conclusions. In this paper, we ignore the CP violating phases.

## II The mass sumrules for minimal SO(10)

We consider supersymmetric SO(10) group with the Higgs fields belonging to the representations 45+54 for breaking SO(10) group down to the left-right symmetric group $`SU(2)_L\times SU(2)_R\times U(1)_{BL}\times SU(3)_c`$ and the minimal Higgs set 10+126+$`\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟐𝟔}}`$ that couple to matter and also break the $`SU(2)_L\times SU(2)_R\times U(1)_{BL}\times SU(3)_c`$ group down to $`SU(3)_c\times U(1)_{em}`$. It is the latter set i.e. $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟐𝟔}}`$ which is crucial to our discussion of fermion masses. The first stage of the symmetry breaking therefore could have been accomplished by alternative Higgs multiplets e.g. by 210 of Higgs without effecting our results. As has been noted earlier, the set 10+$`\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟐𝟔}}`$ which couple to matter contain two pairs of MSSM Higgs doublets belonging to (2,2,1) and (2,2,15) submultiplets (under $`SU(2)_L\times SU(2)_R\times SU(4)_c`$ subgroup of SO(10)). We denote the two pairs by $`\varphi _{u,d}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{u,d}`$. At the GUT scale, by some doublet-triplet splitting mechanism these two pairs reduce to the MSSM Higgs pair $`(H_u,H_d)`$, which can be expressed in terms of the $`\varphi `$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ as follows:

$`H_u=cos\alpha _u\varphi _u+sin\alpha _u\mathrm{\Delta }_u`$ (2)
$`H_d=cos\alpha _d\varphi _d+sin\alpha _d\mathrm{\Delta }_d`$ (3)
The details of the doublet-triplet splitting mechanism that leads to the above equation are not relevant for what follows and we do not discuss it here. As in the case of MSSM, we will assume that the Higgs doublets $`H_{u,d}`$ have the vevs $`<H_u^0>=vsin\beta `$ and $`<H_d^0>=vcos\beta `$.

In orders to discuss fermion masses in this model, we start with the SO(10) invariant superpotential giving the Yukawa couplings of the 16 dimensional matter spinor $`\psi _i`$ (where $`i,j`$ denote generations) with the Higgs fields $`H_{10}\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟐𝟔}}`$.

$`W_Y=h_{ij}\psi _i\psi _jH_{10}+f_{ij}\psi _i\psi _j\mathrm{\Delta }`$ (4)
SO(10) invariance implies that $`h`$ and $`f`$ are symmetric matrices. We ignore the small effects coming from the higher dimensional operators. Below the B-L breaking (seesaw) scale, we can write the superpotential terms for the charged fermion Yukawa couplings as:

$`W_0=h_uQH_uu^c+h_dQH_dd^c+h_eLH_de^c+\mu H_uH_d`$ (5)
where

$`h_u=hcos\alpha _u+fsin\alpha _u`$ (6)
$`h_d=hcos\alpha _d+fsin\alpha _d`$ (7)
$`h_e=hcos\alpha _d3fsin\alpha _d`$ (8)
In general $`\alpha _u\alpha _d`$ and this difference is responsible for nonzero CKM mixing angles. In terms of the GUT scale Yukawa couplings, one can write the fermion mass matrices at the seesaw scale as:

$`M_u=(\overline{h}+\overline{f})`$ (9)
$`M_d=(\overline{h}r_1+\overline{f}r_2)`$ (10)
$`M_e=(\overline{h}r_13r_2\overline{f})`$ (11)
$`M_{\nu ^D}=(\overline{h}3\overline{f})`$ (12)
where

$`\overline{h}=hcos\alpha _usin\beta `$ (13)
$`\overline{f}=fsin\alpha _usin\beta `$ (14)
$`r_1={\displaystyle \frac{cos\alpha _d}{cos\alpha _u}}cot\beta `$ (15)
$`r_2={\displaystyle \frac{sin\alpha _d}{sin\alpha _u}}cot\beta `$ (16)
To count the number of parameters describing the fermion sector, we first ignore CP phases and choose a basis where $`\overline{h}`$ is diagonal. Since $`\overline{f}`$ is symmetric, we have a total of nine parameters from the couplings and including $`\alpha _{u,d}`$ and $`\beta `$ gives us a total of twelve parameters. All these parameters can be determined by fitting the the six quark masses, three lepton masses and three CKM angles. This enables a complete determination of the neutrino masses upto an overall scale related to the B-L symmetry breaking and the three mixing angles. The model is therefore completely predictive in the neutrino sector.

In order to determine the neutrino masses and mixings, one uses the seesaw mechanism. As noted in the introduction, most previous works on this model except the works in Ref. used the type one seesaw mechanism where the neutrino mass matrix is given by the formula:

$`_\nu =M_{\nu ^D}M_{N_R}^1M_{\nu ^D}^T`$ (17)
where $`M_{N_R}=fv_{BL}`$. On the other hand it is well known that in asymptotically parity conserving theories including SO(10), the true seesaw formula (called type II here and in literature) has a second term which arises from an induced $`SU(2)_L`$ triplet vev or from higher dimensional terms involving left doublets:

$`_\nu =\overline{f}\sigma _LM_{\nu ^D}M_{N_R}^1M_{\nu ^D}^T`$ (18)
where $`\sigma _L=\lambda \frac{v^2}{v_{BL}}`$, where $`v`$ is the $`SU(2)_L`$ breaking scale and $`\lambda `$ is a combination of parameters in the Higgs potential. The type II seesaw formula has two new parameters $`\sigma _L`$ and $`v_{BL}`$ instead of one in the type I case; but for different ranges of initial parameters in Higgs potential, either the first or the second term can be made to dominate. We will work within the assumption that it is the first term that dominates the seesaw formula. This situation can arise when $`\sigma _Lv^2/v_{BL}`$ (or $`\lambda `$ which is a ratio of scalar coupling parameters is much larger than one). We elaborate the circumstances when this happens in sec. III.

It was noted in several papers that if one uses type I seesaw, this model cannot produce two large neutrino mixing angles if CP phases are ignored. It has been shown recently that once the CP phases are included, one can get bi-large neutrino mixing pattern. But here we search for two large mixing angle solutions without invoking the CP phase. As noted in , if one uses type II seesaw and assumes further that the first term dominates, large atmospheric mixing angle follows naturally as a consequence of b-$`\tau `$ unification. Whether this also simultaneously yields a large solar mixing angle and a small $`U_{e3}`$ remained an open question. In this present paper we present a detailed analysis of this idea in a full three generation model and show that for a very narrow range of quark masses, this model also predicts large solar mixing angle as well as the correct solar mass splitting together with a small $`U_{e3}`$. Since the model has hierarchical mass pattern, the atmospheric mass difference-squared is related to the overall scale of the triplet vev in the type II seesaw formula and cannot be predicted.

## III Dominance of induced triplet vev

In this section, we would like to discuss the parameter range where the induced triplet vev term dominates the neutrino mass matrix. To elucidate this let us discuss the origin of the triplet vev in our minimal SO(10) model. First we note the decomposition of the $`\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟐𝟔}}`$ under the group $`SU(2)_L\times SU(2)_R\times SU(4)_c`$:

$`\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟐𝟔}}=(1,1,6)(2,2,15)(3,1,\overline{10})(1,3,10)`$ (19)
The $`SU(2)_L`$ triplet that contributes to the type II seesaw formula is contained in the multiplet $`\mathrm{\Delta }_L(3,1,\overline{10})`$ and it couples to the left handed multiplet $`\psi (2,1,4)`$ of the 16 dimensional SO(10) spinor that contains the matter fermions i.e. $`\psi _L\psi _L\mathrm{\Delta }_L`$. On the other hand the mass of the RH neutrinos comes from the coupling of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_R(1,3,10)`$ submultiplet of $`\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟐𝟔}}`$ to the right handed fermion multiplet $`\psi _L^c(1,2,\overline{4})`$ i.e. $`\psi _L^c\psi _L^c\mathrm{\Delta }_R`$.

The vev of the neutral member of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_R`$ breaks the B-L symmetry and gives mass to the RH neutrinos and generates the second term in the type II seesaw formula. To see how the $`\mathrm{\Delta }_L^0`$ vev arises, note that the general superpotential of the model contains terms of type $`\lambda _1\mathrm{𝟏𝟐𝟔}^2\mathrm{𝟓𝟒}`$ and $`\lambda _2\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}\mathrm{𝟓𝟒}`$. In the Higgs potential, this generates a term (from $`|F_{\mathrm{𝟓𝟒}}|^2`$) of the form $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟐𝟔}}\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟐𝟔}}`$. In this term, there is a term of the form $`\varphi (2,2,1)^2\mathrm{\Delta }_L(3,1,10)\mathrm{\Delta }_R(1,3,\overline{10})`$ with a coefficient $`\lambda _1\lambda _2`$. Furthermore, in the Higgs potential, there is a mass term for $`\mathrm{\Delta }_L(3,1,10)`$ of the form $`\mu _\mathrm{\Delta }^2+\lambda _3v_U^2`$, where $`v_U`$ is the GUT scale. On minimizing the potential, these two terms lead to a vev for the $`SU(2)_L`$ triplet $`\sigma _L<\mathrm{\Delta }_L^0>\frac{\lambda _1\lambda _2v_{wk}^2v_{BL}}{\mu _\mathrm{\Delta }^2+\lambda _3v_U^2}`$. It is now clear that if we choose $`\lambda _3`$ such that $`\mu _\mathrm{\Delta }^2+\lambda _3v_U^2v_{BL}^2`$, then the entries in the second matrix in the type II seesaw formula can much smaller than $`\sigma _L`$ and Eq.1 holds. We will work in the domain of the parameter space where this happens.

If the triplet vev contribution to the neutrino mass matrix dominates in the type II seesaw formula, then Equation (6) can be used to derive the sumrule

$`_\nu =a(M_{\mathrm{}}M_d)`$ (20)
Using this equation in second and third generation sector, one can understand the results of  in a heuristic manner as follows. The known hierarchical structure of quark and lepton masses as well as the known small mixings for quarks suggest that $`M_{\mathrm{},d}`$ have the following pattern

$`M_{\mathrm{}}m_\tau \left(\begin{array}{cc}ϵ_{\mathrm{},1}& ϵ_{\mathrm{},2}\\ ϵ_{\mathrm{},2}& 1\end{array}\right)`$ (21)
and

$`M_dm_b\left(\begin{array}{cc}ϵ_{d,1}& ϵ_{d,2}\\ ϵ_{d,2}& 1\end{array}\right)`$ (22)
where $`ϵ_{\mathrm{},d;i}1`$. It is then clear that if there is approximate $`b\tau `$ unification as it appears to be the case if the theory below the B-L breaking scale is MSSM, then in $`M_{\mathrm{}}M_d`$ matrix, there is a high degree of cancellation in the $`33`$ entry making this entry comparable to all the other entries in this matrix. The atmospheric mixing angle which is given by $`tan2\theta _A(m_\tau ϵ_{\mathrm{},2}m_bϵ_{d,2})/(m_bm_\tau +m_bϵ_{d,1}m_lϵ_{\mathrm{},1})`$ becomes very large at the B-L breaking scale. Since renormalization played an important role in obtaining this result, one must ask what happens to the neutrino mixings once they are extrapolated to the weak scale. It is well known that for the case of normal hierarchy for neutrino masses as is the case here, the MSSM RGE’s do not change the mixing angles very much and the seesaw scale result persists at the weak scale with only minor changes.

## IV Details of Calculation

In this section, we outline our method for determining the neutrino mixing parameters. For this purpose, we first note that the matrices $`\overline{h}`$ and $`\overline{f}`$ in Eq. (6) can be eliminated in terms the mass matrices $`M_{u,d}`$ so that we have a sumrule involving the three mass matrices $`M_{u,d,\mathrm{}}`$. Before giving the sum rule, we note that we will work in a basis where $`M_d`$ is diagonal and is given by $`M_u=V^TM_u^DV`$ (where $`M_u^D`$ is the diagonal mass matrix of up type quark and $`V`$ is the CKM mixing matrix). This can be done without any loss of generality. We also introduce a new set of matrices $`\stackrel{~}{M}_{l,u,d}`$ where $`\stackrel{~}{M}\frac{M}{m_3}`$, $`m_3`$ being the third family mass for the corresponding flavor. The sumrule for charged lepton matrices is given by:

$$k\stackrel{~}{M}_l=r\stackrel{~}{M}_d+\stackrel{~}{M}_u$$
(23)
where $`k`$ and $`r`$ are functions of $`r_{1,2}`$ (given in sec. II) and fermion masses as follows:

$`k={\displaystyle \frac{r_2r_1}{4r_1r_2}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_\tau }{m_t}}`$ (24)
$`r={\displaystyle \frac{r_2+3r_1}{4r_1r_2}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_b}{m_t}}`$ (25)
$$_\nu =a(\frac{m_b}{m_\tau }\stackrel{~}{M}_d\stackrel{~}{M}_l)$$
(26)
These relations are valid at the B-L breaking scale $`v_{BL}`$. The advantage of working with $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ rather tha $`M`$ is that the $`33`$ elements of all $`\stackrel{~}{M}_{l,u,d}`$ matrices are either one or of order one; so we expect solutions for $`k`$ and $`r`$ also of order one. Furthermore since the formula for $`_\nu `$ involves only $`M_{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`M_d`$, $`b\tau `$ unification helps to see the cancellation in the $`33`$ element of $`_\nu `$ somewhat more easily. At the same time the $`23`$ element of $`_\nu `$ receives only one contribution from $`M_{\mathrm{}}`$ since in our basis $`M_d`$ is diagonal. These two results lead to atmospheric mixing angle being large.

To carry out the calculations, we have to solve for the two unknowns $`k`$ and $`r`$ using the low energy inputs from the quark and charged lepton sectors. To obtain a perturbative estimate of these parameters, we decompose $`r\stackrel{~}{M}_d+\stackrel{~}{M}_u`$ as:

$$\left(\begin{array}{ccc}x& 0& 0\\ 0& y& ϵ_2\\ 0& ϵ_2& z\end{array}\right)+\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& ϵ_1& a\\ ϵ_1& 0& 0\\ a& 0& 0\end{array}\right)r\left(\begin{array}{ccc}d& 0& 0\\ 0& s& 0\\ 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right)+\left(\begin{array}{ccc}u& ϵ_1& a\\ ϵ_1& c& ϵ_2\\ a& ϵ_2& 1\end{array}\right)$$
(27)
where $`ϵ_i,a1`$ as are $`x`$ and $`y`$. In this analytical approach, our procedure will be to find the eigenvalues of (27) by perturbation method and match them to the known leptonic masses at the B-L scale. The advantage of this decomposition is that it allows a nice perturbative determination of the eigenvalues analytically without having to resort to immediate numerical analysis. We will compare our results with the numerical evaluation using Mathematica.

The $`i^{th}`$ eigenvalue $`\lambda _i=\lambda _i^{(0)}+\lambda _i^{(2)}`$ is found to be

$`\lambda _1^{(0)}=x`$ (28)
$`\lambda _2^{(0)}={\displaystyle \frac{y+z\sqrt{(zy)^2+4ϵ_2^2}}{2}}`$ (29)
$`\lambda _3^{(0)}={\displaystyle \frac{y+z+\sqrt{(zy)^2+4ϵ_2^2}}{2}}z+{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ_2^2}{z}}+zO(10^2)`$ (30)
$`\lambda _2^{(2)}{\displaystyle \frac{(zϵ_1aϵ_2)^2}{\lambda _2^{(0)}z^2}}O(10^2)\lambda _2^{(0)}`$ (31)
$`\lambda _3^{(2)}{\displaystyle \frac{a^2}{\lambda _3^{(0)}}}O(10^2)\lambda _3^{(0)}`$ (32)
$`\lambda _1^{(2)}=(\lambda _1^{(2)}+\lambda _3^{(2)})`$ (33)
We consider only cases where $`y10^2`$ and $`z>0.1`$. Within this regime, the unperturbed 2nd and 3rd lepton masses are accurate up to a few %. However, the higher order electron mass correction is big and so the perturbation formula breaks down for this case. We therefore use the perturbation technique for the second and third generation masses but use the determinant to find that for the first generation. As mentioned, we will check the validity of perturbation result using numerical methods.

Taking determinant of the above equation 27, we find that the three charged lepton masses are related as follows:

$`k^3\stackrel{~}{m}_e\stackrel{~}{m}_\mu =xyzxϵ_2^2ya^2zϵ_1^2+2aϵ_1ϵ_2`$ (34)
$`k\stackrel{~}{m}_\mu =\lambda _2\lambda _2^{(0)}`$ (35)
$`k=\lambda _3\lambda _3^{(0)}z+{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ_2^2}{z}}`$ (36)
We now solve the above equation by substituting $`x`$,$`y`$,$`z`$,$`a`$,$`ϵ_1`$,$`ϵ_2`$ with the corresponding elements in the matrix $`rM_d+M_u`$. From eq.(34), and find

$`k(1+\stackrel{~}{m}_\mu )=y+z`$ (37)
$`k=z+{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ_2^2}{z}}`$ (38)
Since Eq.27 tells us that $`z=1+r`$ and $`y=rs+c`$, we can use the above two equations to determine the parameters $`k`$ and $`r`$, which we can then use to find neutrino masses and mixings. We find $`k`$ and $`r`$ to be

$`r={\displaystyle \frac{(s+c2\stackrel{~}{m}_\mu )\pm \sqrt{(sc)^24(\stackrel{~}{m}_\mu s)(1+\stackrel{~}{m}_\mu )ϵ_2^2}}{2(\stackrel{~}{m}_\mu s)}}`$ (39)
$`k={\displaystyle \frac{(1+s)r+1+c}{1+\stackrel{~}{m}_\mu }}`$ (40)
and a consistency relation for the d-quark mass

$`d={\displaystyle \frac{k^3\stackrel{~}{m}_e\stackrel{~}{m}_\mu +zϵ_1^2+ya^22aϵ_1ϵ_2u(yzϵ_2^2)}{r(yzϵ_2^2)}}`$ (42)
In order to get a rough feeling for the way the maximal neutrino mixings arise, let us diagonalize the charged lepton mass matrix given in Eq. 23 and write the neutrino mass matrix in this basis:

$$_\nu =a(\frac{m_b}{m_\tau }U_l^{}\stackrel{~}{M}_dU_{\mathrm{}}\stackrel{~}{M}_l^D)$$
(43)
Where $`\stackrel{~}{M}_l^D`$ is the diagonal charged lepton mass matrix with $`\tau `$ mass is $`1`$. $`U_l`$ is the rotation matrix diagonalize charged lepton mass. $`U_l`$ can be written approximately as

$$U_l\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& \delta _1& \delta _2\\ \mathrm{\Delta }_1& \mathrm{cos}\varphi & \mathrm{sin}\varphi \\ \mathrm{\Delta }_2& \mathrm{sin}\varphi & \mathrm{cos}\varphi \end{array}\right),$$
(44)
where

$$\mathrm{tan}\varphi =\frac{ϵ_2}{z\lambda _2^{(0)}}.$$
(45)
The parameters $`\delta _i`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i`$ are given to lowest order in perturbation theory by

$`\delta _1={\displaystyle \frac{ϵ_1\mathrm{cos}\varphi a\mathrm{sin}\varphi }{k\stackrel{~}{m}_\mu x}}`$ (46)
$`\delta _2={\displaystyle \frac{ϵ_1\mathrm{sin}\varphi +a\mathrm{cos}\varphi }{kx}}`$ (47)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_1=\delta _1\mathrm{cos}\varphi \delta _2\mathrm{sin}\varphi `$ (48)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_2=\delta _1\mathrm{sin}\varphi \delta _2\mathrm{cos}\varphi `$ (49)
Using these parameters and neglecting small terms due to $`\delta _1`$ and $`\delta _2`$ multiplying light quark masses, we find that

$$M_\nu \left(\begin{array}{ccc}m_dm_e+m_s\mathrm{\Delta }_1^2+m_b\mathrm{\Delta }_2^2& m_s\mathrm{\Delta }_1\mathrm{cos}\varphi m_b\mathrm{\Delta }_2\mathrm{sin}\varphi & m_s\mathrm{\Delta }_1\mathrm{sin}\varphi +m_b\mathrm{\Delta }_2\mathrm{cos}\varphi \\ m_s\mathrm{\Delta }_1\mathrm{cos}\varphi m_b\mathrm{\Delta }_2\mathrm{sin}\varphi & m_sm_\mu +m_b\mathrm{sin}^2\varphi & m_b\mathrm{sin}\varphi \\ m_s\mathrm{\Delta }_1\mathrm{sin}\varphi +m_b\mathrm{\Delta }_2\mathrm{cos}\varphi & m_b\mathrm{sin}\varphi & m_b\mathrm{sin}^2\varphi +m_bm_\tau \end{array}\right)$$
(50)
We now find the following analytic expression for the atmospheric mixing angle from Eq. 50 to leading order ignoring small terms to be:

$`\mathrm{tan}\theta _A{\displaystyle \frac{2}{q+\sqrt{q^2+4}}}`$ (51)
$`q={\displaystyle \frac{2m_b\mathrm{sin}^2\varphi +(m_\tau m_b)+(m_sm_\mu )}{m_b\mathrm{sin}\varphi }}`$ (52)
For $`|q|1`$, we get $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _A0.8`$. We see that $`b\tau `$ unification i.e. $`m_bm_\tau `$ and $`m_b\mathrm{sin}\varphi (m_bm_\tau )`$ are important to get a large $`\theta _A`$. Also we need to have $`m_s<0`$ and $`m_\mu >0`$.

## V Predictions for Neutrino masses and mixings

In order to obtain the predictions for neutrino masses and mixings in our model, we will need the values of quark masses and mixings at the seesaw scale. Experiments determine these input parameters near the GeV scale and they need to be extrapolated to the B-L scale which is near $`10^{15}`$-$`10^{16}`$ GeV where our Equation (6) is valid. Taking the values for the quark masses and mixings at the B-L scale we can determine $`k`$ and $`r`$ approximately. We will use this determination of $`k`$ and $`r`$ to solve for neutrino masses and mixings using the relation in Eq.26. We will also compare our results with a direct numerical scan of the Eq. 23 i.e. not using perturbation method to obtain $`k`$ and $`r`$. Results obtained by both methods are in agreement.

In our model, the theory below the B-L breaking scale is the MSSM whose effect on fermion mass extrapolation is a well studied problem. We will use the two loop analysis in the paper by Das and Parida in our analysis. Our strategy will be to take the values of the quark masses at the scale $`v_{BL}10^{16}`$ GeV given in . In Table I, we give the input values of masses and mixings for values of the MSSM parameter $`tan\beta =10`$ and $`55`$.

| input observable | $`tan\beta =10`$ | $`tan\beta =55`$ |
| --- | --- | --- |
| $`m_u`$ (MeV) | $`0.72_{0.14}^{+0.13}`$ | $`0.72_{0.14}^{+0.12}`$ |
| $`m_c`$(MeV) | $`210.32_{21.22}^{+19.00}`$ | $`210.50_{21.15}^{+15.10}`$ |
| $`m_t`$(GeV) | $`82.43_{14.76}^{+30.26}`$ | $`95.14_{20.65}^{+69.28}`$ |
| $`m_d`$ (MeV) | $`1.50_{0.23}^{+0.42}`$ | $`1.49_{0.22}^{+0.41}`$ |
| $`m_s`$ (MeV) | $`29.94_{4.54}^{+4.30}`$ | $`29.81_{4.49}^{+4.17}`$ |
| $`m_b`$ (GeV) | $`1.06_{0.08}^{+0.14}`$ | $`1.41_{0.19}^{+0.48}`$ |
| $`m_e`$ (MeV) | $`0.3585`$ | $`0.3565`$ |
| $`m_\mu `$(MeV) | $`75.6715_{0.0501}^{+0.0578}`$ | $`75.2938_{0.0515}^{+1912}`$ |
| $`m_\tau `$ (GeV) | $`1.2922_{0.0012}^{+0.0013}`$ | $`1.6292_{0.0294}^{+0.0443}`$ |

Table I: The extrapolated values of quark and lepton masses at the GUT scale from the last reference in . We have kept the errors to only two significant figures in the quark masses.

For the mixing angles at GUT scale, we take:

$`V_{CKM}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0.974836& 0.222899& 0.00319129\\ 0.222638& 0.974217& 0.0365224\\ 0.0112498& 0.0348928& 0.999328\end{array}\right)`$ (53)
In the first perturbative method, we use the above input values to obtain $`k`$ and $`r`$ using Eq. 39 and search for values around them that give a good fit to charged lepton masses and then use them in Eq.26 to derive the neutrino masses and the three mixing angles: $`sin^22\theta _{}`$, $`sin^22\theta _A`$ and $`U_{e3}`$. The best fit range for $`k,r`$ are $`.78r.74`$ and $`0.23k.26`$. We also do a direct numerical solution. Both the results are in agreement. (We ignore CP violation in this work.)

Note that the sign of a fermion is not physical, which leads to several choices for the sign of fermion masses that we have put into our search for solutions. The solutions we present here correspond to $`m_{e,\mu ,\tau ,b,t}>0`$ and $`m_{c,d,s}<0`$ upto an overall sign.

Our results are displayed in Fig. 1-3 for the case of the supersymmetry parameter $`tan\beta =10`$. In these figures, we have restricted ourselves to the range of quark masses for which the atmospheric mixing angle $`sin^22\theta _A0.8`$. (For presently preferred range of values of $`sin^22\theta _A`$ from experiments, see ). We then present the predictions for $`sin^22\theta _{}`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2`$ and $`U_{e3}`$ for the allowed range $`sin^22\theta _A`$ in Fig.1, 2 and 3 respectively. The spread in the predictions come from uncertainties in the $`s,c`$ and the $`b`$-quark masses. Note two important predictions: (i) $`sin^22\theta _{}0.91`$ and $`U_{e3}\pm 0.16`$. The present allowed range for the solar mixing angle is $`0.7sin^22\theta _{}0.99`$ at 3$`\sigma `$ level. The solutions for the neutrino mixing angles are sensitive to the $`b`$ quark mass.

It is important to note that this model predicts the $`U_{e3}`$ value very close to the present experimentally allowed upper limit and can therefore be tested in the planned long base line experiments which are expected to probe $`U_{e3}`$ down to the level of $`0.05`$. Our model would also prefer a value of the $`sin^22\theta _A`$ below 0.9, which can also be used to test the model. For instance, the JHF-Kamioka neutrino experiment is projecting a possible accuracy in the measurement of $`sin^22\theta _A`$ down to the level of $`0.01`$ and can provide a test of this model.

As $`tan\beta `$ increases, the allowed values for the neutrino mixings and masses fall into an even narrower range.

## VI Conclusion

In summary, we find that a minimal SO(10) model with single 10 and 126 Higgs coupling to matter is a completely predictive model for neutrino masses and can provide an excellent description of the presently favored patterns for neutrino masses and mixings required by data. The only assumption needed is that the $`SU(2)_L`$ triplet vev dominates the neutrino masses. No global symmetries are invoked to generate the neutrino mass pattern, unlike most models that employ the 16 Higgs to break the B-L symmetry. The model predicts a hierarchical mass pattern for neutrinos and a value of $`U_{e3}0.16`$, both of which can be tested in upcoming long baseline neutrino experiments. The atmospheric mixing angle is found to be between $`0.8`$ and $`0.9`$ which is also a testable prediction of the model. In our model, the Yukawa matrices have a hierarchical pattern, a rough understanding of which could come from introducing a local horizontal $`U(2)_H`$ symmetry under which the first two families transform as a doublet. This and other aspects of the model such as the inclusion of a CP phase are currently under investigation.

This work is supported by the National Science Foundation Grant No. PHY-0099544. We thank K. S. Babu, Z. Chacko and G. Senjanović for discussions.


text:
# THE X-RAY BACKGROUND AND THE DEEP X-RAY SURVEYS

## INTRODUCTION

The origin of the X-ray background in the 2-10 keV energy range has been finally understood. The extremely deep surveys by Chandra in the Deep Field South (Giacconi et al. 2002; Rosati et al. 2002) and Deep Field North (Brandt et al. 2001; Barger et al. 2002) have shown that most, if not all, the XRB emission in that energy range has been resolved into single sources. In particular, the optical and X-ray properties of the sources in the deep fields are showing that the main contribution is provided by a population of obscured AGN. This confirms the main prediction of population synthesis models (e.g. Setti & Woltjer 1989; Comastri et al. 1995; Fabian et al. 1999; Gilli, Salvati & Hasinger 2001), which explain the XRB spectrum in the $`1100`$ keV band as the emission integrated over cosmic time of unobscured and obscured AGN, the latter being more numerous by a factor of $`410`$. Once the origin of the 2-10 keV XRB is finally explained, the results from the deep surveys, combined with synthesis models, should put tighter constraints on the cosmological properties of the sources making the XRB, like their X-ray luminosity function and evolution (especially those of obscured AGN, which are still completely unknown), as well as their average obscuration as a function of redshift and luminosity.

## THE COSMIC X-RAY BACKGROUND MEASUREMENTS

At present, in the 10–100 keV range, where the bulk of the XRB energy resides, the only available measurements are those performed in the late 1970s by HEAO-1 (Marshall et al. 1980; Gruber 1992). The data showed that the XRB spectrum has a characteristic “bell” shape peaking at $`3040`$ keV, which, at lower energies, can be approximated by a power-law with photon index $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=1.4`$. A recent reanalysis of HEAO-1 data by Gruber et al. (1999) confirmed those earlier results, but also showed that the calibration uncertainties among HEAO-1 detectors are of the order of 10% in the overlapping energy bands (Fig. 1). The situation is more complicated at lower energies where a number of measurements have been obtained. While the spectral slope of the 2–10 keV XRB has always been found to have small variations around $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=1.4`$, there are significant discrepancies in the spectral normalization. From the highest (11.5 keV s-1 sr-1 cm-2 keV-1 ; SAX, Vecchi et al. 1999) to the lowest measured value (8 keV s-1 sr-1 cm-2 keV-1 ; HEAO-1, Marshall et al. 1980) the variation is of the order of $`40\%`$. The most recent measuments have been obtained by Kushino et al. (2002) from a combination of 91 ASCA GIS fields, with a total sky coverage of 50 deg2, and by Lumb et al. (2002) from a combination of 8 XMM pointings covering 6.5 deg2 in total. The XRB spectral slope is found to be $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=1.412\pm 0.032`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=1.42\pm 0.03`$ in the ASCA and XMM data, respectively (errors are at $`90\%`$ confidence level), again very close to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=1.4`$. The power-law normalizations ($`9.66\pm 0.07`$ and $`11.1\pm 0.32`$ keV s-1 sr-1 cm-2 keV-1 for the ASCA and XMM data, respectively, including the resolved bright sources) are within the range already spanned by previous missions, but do not suggest that the measurements of the XRB intensity are converging to a well constrained value. Interestingly, all the measurements of the 2-10 keV XRB intensity since HEAO-1 are higher than the HEAO-1 value.

## 1 AGN POPULATION SYNTHESIS MODELS

In 1989, when the resolved XRB fraction was just a few percent, Setti & Woltjer (1989) proposed that the flat slope of the 2–10 keV XRB was due to a population of obscured AGN in addition to the bright unobscured AGN with steep spectra observed at that time. Since then, a number of models have been worked out and refined constantly (Madau, Ghisellini & Fabian 1994; Comastri et al. 1995; Pompilio, La Franca & Matt 1999; Wilman & Fabian 1999). With the increasing sensitivity of recent X-ray surveys, the population of obscured AGN emerged (see e.g. Mushotzky et al. 2000), and the main prediction of the AGN synthesis models was then confirmed. However, given the large number of uncertain parameters involved, it is crucial to check synthesis models against the largest number of observational constraints. The main uncertainties are related to unobscured AGN. While the X-ray luminosity function (XLF) and evolution of unobscured AGN are rather well known (e.g. Miyaji, Hasinger & Schmidt 2000), nothing is known about obscured AGN. Comastri et al. (1995) showed that, assuming for the obscured AGN a distribution of absorbing columns and the same evolution and XLF (upscaled by a factor of a few) of unobscured ones, it was possible to fit the full XRB spectrum in the $`1100`$ keV band, as well as the integral counts (logN-logS relation) in the 0.5-2 keV and 2-10 keV energy bands. Also, the redshift distribution of AGN detected in ROSAT and HEAO-1 samples (at limiting fluxes of $`f_{0.52}10^{14}`$ erg cm-2 s-1 and $`f_{210}\mathrm{3\hspace{0.25em}10}^{11}`$ erg cm-2 s-1 , respectively) were in good agreement with the model expectations. Later, more constraints became available. The local ratio between obscured and unobscured AGN (in the Seyfert luminosity regime) was found to be $`4`$ (Maiolino & Rieke 1995), and the column density distribution of local Seyfert 2s was determined (Risaliti et al. 1999). Using these new constraints it was shown (Gilli, Risaliti & Salvati 1999) that, if the column density distribution in obscured AGN is the same at all redshifts and luminosities, then additional obscured sources at moderate/high redshifts are required to match the XRB constraints. Gilli, Salvati & Hasinger (2001, hereafter GSH01) proposed that obscured sources evolve slightly faster than unobscured ones. In particular they favored a model (model B) where the ratio between obscured and unobscured AGN increases from 4 at $`z=0`$ to 10 at $`z=1.3`$, where both populations stop evolving. This model was able to reproduce the broad set of observational constraints used by Comastri et al., furthermore extending the agreement to lower fluxes. In particular, the redshift distribution of soft X-ray selected AGN in the ROSAT Ultra Deep Survey (UDS, Lehmann et al. 2001) at a limiting flux of $`f_{0.52}10^{15}`$ erg cm-2 s-1 was nicely reproduced, as well as that of hard X-ray selected AGN in the ASCA Large Sky Survey (Akiyama et al. 2000) at a limiting flux of $`f_{210}10^{13}`$ erg cm-2 s-1 . Moreover, AGN synthesis models showed that, while the XRB spectrum can be simply fitted with a population of Seyfert 2 galaxies in addition to unobscured AGN, the ASCA and BeppoSAX source counts in the hard band are matched only by assuming a population of luminous obscured AGN, the so-called QSO2s (GSH01; Comastri et al. 2001). It is here noted that the main contribution to the source counts is expected to be produced by QSO2s with column densities in the range log$`N_H=2223`$, while the contribution of Compton thick QSO2s is expected to be negligible.

## 2 THE DEEP X-RAY SURVEYS

A number of deep ($``$ Ms) and moderately deep ($`200`$ ks) X-ray surveys are being conducted in different sky fields with Chandra and XMM.

The Chandra Deep Field North (CDFN, Brandt et al. 2001) and the Chandra Deep Field South (CDFS, Giacconi et al. 2002; Rosati et al. 2002) have been observed with the ACIS-I array for 2 Ms and 1 Ms respectively, and represent the two deepest X-ray surveys to date. In the 2 Ms CDFN the achieved sensitivity limit is $`\mathrm{1.5\hspace{0.25em}10}^{17}`$ erg cm-2 s-1 in the soft band and $`\mathrm{1.0\hspace{0.25em}10}^{16}`$ erg cm-2 s-1 in the hard band (Alexander et al. 2002). In the CDFS the sensitivity limits of $`f_{0.52}\mathrm{5.5\hspace{0.25em}10}^{17}`$ erg cm-2 s-1 and $`f_{210}\mathrm{4.5\hspace{0.25em}10}^{16}`$ erg cm-2 s-1 obtained by Rosati et al. (2002) have been pushed to $`f_{0.52}\mathrm{2.4\hspace{0.25em}10}^{17}`$ erg cm-2 s-1 and $`f_{210}\mathrm{2.1\hspace{0.25em}10}^{16}`$ erg cm-2 s-1 by refining the detection techniques (Moretti et al. 2002). The Chandra ACIS-I observations of these fields have been complemented with deep XMM exposures: 180 ks and 370 ks of clean XMM data have been obtained for the CDFN (Miyaji et al. 2002) and the CDFS (Hasinger et al. 2002), respectively. The full source catalogs of the 1 Ms ACIS-I observations of the CDFN and CDFS have been already released (Brandt et al. 2001; Giacconi et al. 2002), while the additional 1 Ms ACIS-I observation of the CDFN and the XMM observations of the CDFN and CDFS are actually under analysis and only preliminary results are available (Alexander et al. 2002; Miyaji et al. 2002; Hasinger et al. 2002). Deep Chandra HRC and XMM exposures are on going in the Lockman Hole (see Hasinger et al. 2001 for the analysis of the first XMM data), where the deepest ROSAT and ASCA surveys were already performed (the ROSAT UDS, Lehmann et al. 2001, and the ASCA Deep Survey, Ishisaki et al. 2001). Other examples of combined Chandra/XMM deep surveys are being carried out in the Lynx field (Stern et al. 2002), in the Groth-Westphal strip (Miyaji et al. 2002) and in the 13hr field (Page et al. 2002). A summary of the main deep and moderately deep Chandra/XMM surveys is shown in Table 1.

In the soft band, the deepest observations are detecting sources about two orders of magnitude fainter than those observed by the ROSAT UDS. The progress in the hard X-rays is even higher, since Chandra is now detecting sources $`300`$ times fainter than those detected in the ASCA Deep Survey.

As shown by Tozzi et al. (2001a), the integrated emission of all the CDFS sources has already resolved the 2-10 keV background flux measured by HEAO-1. Furthermore, the stacked spectrum of the whole CDFS sample is well described by a powerlaw with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=1.4`$ (Tozzi et al. 2001a), in excellent agreement with the measurements of the XRB spectral slope in that energy range (see Fig. 1).

The soft and hard logN-logS calculated in the CDFS and CDFN are confirming the predictions by AGN synthesis models. As shown in Fig 2, the logN-logS curve for model B of GSH01, which is the summed contribution of absorbed AGN, unabsorbed AGN and clusters of galaxies, can reproduce the CDFN and CDFS data at all fluxes. Some deviations are observed in the soft logN-logS when considering the data from the CDFN fluctuation analysis (Miyaji and Griffiths 2002), which are higher than the model expectations. However, as shown in Fig 2 (left), at those faint fluxes a population of normal/starburst galaxies is expected to provide a major contribution (Ptak et al. 2001; Ranalli, Comastri & Setti 2002).

### The sources populating the Deep Surveys

Due to the extremely faint X-ray fluxes sampled by the deep surveys, for standard X-ray to optical flux ratios, 8-10 meter class telescopes are needed for the optical followup (see Hornschemeier 2002 for a review). Optical spectra of the X-ray sources in the CDFN are being obtained at Keck (Barger et al. 2002), while the VLT is primarily exploited for optical spectroscopy of CDFS sources (Szokoly et al. in preparation; see also Hasinger et al. 2002). The spectroscopic completeness in the CDFS and CDFN is roughly $`4050\%`$, but it increases up to $`80\%`$ when considering the inner part of the fields and sources with X-ray fluxes well above the survey sensitivity limit. A direct redshift estimate is not possible for a significant fraction of X-ray sources even with 10m class telescopes: $`25\%`$ of the X-ray sources have counterparts fainter than R=25, while $`15\%`$ do not have any counterpart down to R magnitudes of 26.1-26.7 (Giacconi et al. 2002). Nevertheless, photometric redshifts are being determined for optically faint sources. The counterparts of the X-ray sources reveal a broad variety of optical properties. Broad line and narrow line AGN are commonly found, but there are also sources with no obvious high-excitation emission lines in their spectra. When the optical classification is uncertain, the X-ray properties such as the X-ray luminosity and hardness ratio, in addition to the X-ray to optical flux ratio ($`f_x/f_{opt}`$), can be used to discriminate between nuclear and stellar activity (see e.g. Hasinger et al. 2002). As shown by Hornschemeier et al. (2002) and Giacconi et al. (2002), about $`1520\%`$ of the sources populating the deep X-ray surveys have $`f_x/f_{opt}`$ values typical of normal/starbursts galaxies, with this fraction being higher in the soft band and towards faint fluxes. On the contrary, the contribution of non-active galaxies is negligible when selecting sources with 2-10 keV fluxes above a few $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}10}^{15}`$ erg cm-2 s-1 .

In Fig. 3 (left panel) the absorbing column of CDFS sources, measured from the X-ray spectral fit, is plotted against their rest frame, intrinsic (i.e. de-absorbed) X-ray luminosity in the 2-10 keV band ($`L_{210}`$), calculated assuming $`H_0=50`$ km s-1 Mpc-1 and $`q_0=0.5`$. When the photon statistics is low, the spectral index is fixed to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=1.8`$ and the absorbing column measured accordingly. Different symbols correspond to different optical types (only sources with $`f_{210}>\mathrm{5\hspace{0.25em}10}^{16}`$ erg cm-2 s-1 and good spectroscopic redshift are shown). A fraction of AGN with broad optical lines are found to have X-ray absorption in excess of $`10^{22}`$cm-2 , confirming the optical to X-ray classification mismatch already observed in shallower X-ray surveys (e.g. HELLAS, Fiore et al. 2001; Comastri et al. 2001). A number of sources are found to have $`L_{210}>10^{44}`$erg s-1 and $`N_H>10^{22}`$cm-2 , which can be well considered the faint tail of the QSO2 population (a similar result has been found in the Lockman Hole by Mainieri et al. 2002a). Given the relatively low space density of luminous sources, the high-luminosity tail of the QSO2 population is best sampled by shallow, wide area surveys.

### The source redshift distribution

Most of the sources identified in the CDFN, CDFS and Lockman Hole are found to be at $`z<1`$ (see Fig. 10 of Barger et al. 2002 for the CDFN; Fig. 9 of Tozzi et al. 2001b for the CDFS; Fig. 1 of Mainieri et al. 2002b for the Lockman Hole). Synthesis models of the X-ray background predict that at these faint fluxes the X-ray source redshift distribution is peaked at $`z1.31.5`$, in contrast with the observed data. A direct comparison between the published distributions and the model predictions is however complicated by the following effects:

1) optical identifications are still far from complete. In general, the still unidentified sources are expected to be at higher redshift than those already observed.

2) $`1520\%`$ of the sources populating the deep surveys are non-active galaxies at $`z<1`$.

3) given the narrow field of view of the deep surveys (0.1-0.2 deg2) the redshift distribution could be dominated by the presence of large scale structures. This is indeed the case in the CDFS (Gilli et al. 2003), where narrow spikes in the source redshift distribution have been found at $`z=0.67`$ and $`z=0.73`$, and also in the CDFN, where redshift structures have been found at $`z=0.84`$ and $`z=1.02`$ (Barger et al. 2002).

Nevertheless, the spectroscopic completeness can be significantly increased by selecting sources with an X-ray flux well above the survey limit in those subregions with higher optical coverage. Also, if only bright and hard X-ray selected sources are considered, the percentage of non-AGN objects drops dramatically.

In Fig. 4 (left) it is shown the redshift distribution of the 93 sources with $`f_{210}>\mathrm{5\hspace{0.25em}10}^{15}`$ erg cm-2 s-1 in the central regions of the CDFS, CDFN, Lockman Hole (Mainieri et al. 2002a), Lynx field (Stern et al. 2002) and SSA13 field (Mushotzky et al. 2000). The spectroscopic completeness of this combined sample is $`80\%`$. Sources belonging to the large scale structures observed in the CDFS and CDFN have been excluded. The redshift distribution predicted by model B of GSH01 at the same limiting flux and normalized to 116 objects (93/116 = 80%) is also shown in Fig. 4 (left). An excess of sources at $`z<1`$ with respect to the model predictions is still found in this clean sample.

## 3 DO OBSCURED AGN EVOLVE LIKE STARBURST GALAXIES?

A solution to this discrepancy has been recently proposed by Franceschini, Braito & Fadda (2002), who suggested that obscured AGN undergo a very fast evolution up to $`z=0.8`$. The physical scenario supporting this idea is that obscured AGN are related to the fast evolving starburst population necessary to reproduce the ISO mid-infrared counts (Franceschini et al. 2001). By shifting most of the obscured AGN at $`z<1`$, that model nicely reproduces the redshift distribution observed in the deep surveys; unobscured sources are however still needed to explain the high redshift tail of the distribution (see Fig. 5 in Franceschini et al. 2002). A more refined model has been recently worked out by Gandhi & Fabian (2002), who also make a connection between obscured AGN with the infrared starburst population. Even this model is able to reproduce the low-z peak in the redshift distribution, with the main contribution at $`z<1`$ provided by obscured AGN. Both these new models are bound to predict a decrease with redshift in the ratio between obscured and unobscured AGN, which can be checked on the CDFN and CDFS data. In Fig. 4 (right) it is shown the ratio between the number of sources with log$`N_H>22`$ and log$`N_H<22`$ in the CDFS and CDFN as a function of redshift. Only sources with $`f_{210}>\mathrm{5\hspace{0.25em}10}^{16}`$ erg cm-2 s-1 and in the inner regions of the two fields have been considered111About 1/4 of the CDFN sample is actually selected at fluxes above $`\mathrm{5\hspace{0.25em}10}^{15}`$ erg cm-2 s-1 (see Barger et al. 2002)., to get a spectroscopic completeness of $`60\%`$. The combined sample contains 194 sources with measured redshift, 85 from the CDFS and 109 from the CDFN. As in Fig. 2, the absorption column density for the CDFS sources has been calculated by fitting the X-ray spectra with a simple absorbed power-law, fixing the slope to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=1.8`$ when the photon statistics is low. About 64% of the considered CDFS sources have absorption in excess of $`10^{22}`$cm-2 . The absorption column density for the CDFN sources has been taken from Fig. 18 of Barger et al. (2002), who derived the $`N_H`$ values from the source hardness ratios (fixing the photon index to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=1.8`$). While the redshifts considered in the CDFS subsample are all spectroscopic, one third of the redshifts in the CDFN subsample are photometric. Similarly to what found in the CDFS, 72% of the considered CDFN sources have $`N_H>10^{22}`$cm-2 . The shaded area in Fig. 4 (right) shows the possible range covered by the ratio between the number of sources with column density above and below $`10^{22}`$cm-2 under the two extreme assumptions that the unidentified sources are either all obscured or all unobscured. Although the incompleteness is likely to increase with redshift, it is assumed to be $`40\%`$ in each redshift bin. The ratio predicted by the Franceschini et al. (2002) model, calculated at a comparable limiting flux is also shown as a solid line. At low redshifts the predicted ratio highly overestimates the data, while the opposite is true at high redshifts. It is noted that the Franceschini et al. model is a simple approximation, since only one class of obscured sources is considered (with $`N_H\mathrm{2\hspace{0.25em}10}^{23}`$cm-2 ). In the more refined model by Gandhi & Fabian (2002), where several classes of sources with different obscuration are assumed, the discrepancy is less significant, but still the ratio between AGN with log$`N_H>22`$ and log$`N_H<22`$ is overestimated at $`z<1`$.

Fig. 4 (right) indicates that at $`z<1`$ the ratio between AGN with log$`N_H>22`$ and log$`N_H<22`$ is lower than $`3`$, suggesting that the low-z peak in the redshift distribution is not due exclusively to obscured sources. Since the XLF of unobscured AGN is not properly sampled by ROSAT at low luminosities and moderate redshifts ($`10^{42}`$erg s-1 at $`z1`$), a regime now accessible to Chandra, the assumed extrapolations might not be correct (preliminary results suggest this is indeed the case; see Cowie et al. 2003 and Hasinger et al. 2003) and a new determination of the AGN XLF is therefore needed.

## CONCLUSIONS

The deep surveys have finally established that the cosmic X-ray background in the 2-10 keV band is produced by the integrated emission of obscured and unobscured AGN, confirming to the first order the main prediction of population synthesis models. Now it is possible to put tighter constraints to the model parameter space and study in detail the AGN evolution down to luminosities of $`10^{42}`$erg s-1 at $`z1`$, checking if previous assumptions were correct. The AGN redshift distribution observed in the deep surveys seems to peak at $`z<1`$, while standard synthesis models were expecting a peak at $`z=1.31.5`$. Assuming that obscured AGN evolve very quickly up to $`z<1`$ does solve the discrepancy in the redshift distribution but predicts too many obscured AGN among low-z sources. A new determination of the XLF of unobscured AGN in the regime not covered by previous shallower surveys is therefore needed, which has then to be implemented into the XRB synthesis models.

## ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I gratefully acknowledge all the members of the Chandra Deep Field South collaboration.