text:
# New Lower Bounds for the Maximal Determinant Problem

## 1. Introduction

Let $`\mathrm{md}(n)`$ denote the global maximum of the determinant function on the set of all $`n\times n`$ matrices populated entirely by $`\pm 1`$s. It is easy to show that $`\mathrm{md}(n)n^{n/2}`$, and the well-known Hadamard conjecture predicts that when $`n>2`$, equality occurs if $`n0(mod4)`$. This conjecture has been confirmed for all $`n424`$ and many larger $`n`$, including a number of infinite sequences \[SY\].

When $`n>2`$ is *not* divisible by 4, however, the inequality is necessarily strict, and relatively few exact values for $`\mathrm{md}(n)`$ are known.

Using a combination of techniques, we find a number of matrices whose determinants exceed previous records, thereby establishing new lower bounds for $`\mathrm{md}(n)`$. We sketch our methods Sec. 2 below, and will expand on them further in a forthcoming survey paper \[OOS\]. Here, our purpose is simply to record and establish priority for our new lower bounds.

Other authors have derived *upper* bounds for $`\mathrm{md}(n)`$. When $`n0(mod4)`$ these are more stringent than the simple Hadamard estimate $`\mathrm{md}(n)n^{n/2}`$. We compare our lower bounds to these upper bounds below, using formulae which come from Barba \[Ba\] when $`n1(mod4)`$, from Ehlich \[Eh1\] and Wojtas \[Wo\] (independently) when $`n2(mod4)`$, and from Ehlich \[Eh2\] when $`n3(mod4)`$.

These bounds cannot be sharp in the cases we treat here, except possibly when $`n=91`$. Indeed, we conjecture that $`\mathrm{md}(22)=2^{23}\times 5^{11}`$, i.e. that the value we present for $`n=22`$ below is in fact best possible, though it achieves only 95% of the theoretical bound.

The upper bound formulae we use, as well as the matrices associated with all determinants listed in Sec. 3 below, are available at http://www.indiana.edu/$``$maxdet, a website we have created as an archive for data pertaining to the determinant maximization problem. We intend to update it with increasingly better values, matrices, and references as they become available.

After a brief summary of our methods briefly in Sec. 2 below, we present some of our findings in Sec. 3. Our records in dimensions $`n=22`$, $`23`$, $`27`$, $`29`$, $`31`$, $`33`$, $`34`$, $`35`$, $`39`$, $`45`$, $`47`$, $`53`$, $`63`$, $`69`$, $`73`$, $`77`$, $`79`$, $`93`$, and $`95`$ either eclipse a previous record, or manifest visible structure, or both. Except for the $`n=93`$ case (which barely misses) each of these examples also exceeds 75% of the theoretical upper bound in its dimension. Many do much better. In these cases we therefore present our record-breaking matrix of $`\pm 1`$s, along with its determinant, a comparison to the theoretical bound, and a brief note, including a reference to the previous record.

Our work has also produced matrices of large determinant in dimensions not listed above. While they may not beat any previously published records, we believe several of them do provide best-known lower bounds for $`\mathrm{md}(n)`$. We list such values for $`n=67`$, $`75`$, $`83`$, $`87`$, $`91`$ and $`99`$ in a table at the end of Sec. 3.

One further note: In dimensions $`n=29`$, $`33`$, $`45`$, $`53`$, $`69`$, $`73`$, $`77`$ and $`93`$ (each congruent to 1 mod 4), our determinants improve on values published by Farmakis & Kounias, who constructed their matrices by adding a suitable row and column to a Hadamard matrix of largest known excess \[FK\]. The *excess* of a Hadamard matrix is simply the sum of its entries, and has been studied in connection with the classification problem for Hadamard matrices. By deleting the appropriate row and column from matrices we have found in dimensions $`73`$ and $`77`$, one gets Hadamard matrices with larger excess than any previously known in those dimensions. For instance, we get a $`72\times 72`$ Hadamard with excess 580, improving the 576 given in \[FK\], by deleting the first row and column from the $`n=73`$ example in Sec. 3 below. Proceeding similarly with an $`n=77`$ example posted on our website, one gets a $`76\times 76`$ Hadamard with excess 628, beating the value of 620 given in \[FK\]. We present a different $`n=77`$ example in Sec. 3 because its determinant is larger.

## 2. Methods.

Where not otherwise noted, the matrices in Sec. 3 were discovered numerically, using a hill-climbing computer program which combines a discrete version of gradient-ascent with simulated annealing. The first program of this type was used by Smith, and described in his thesis \[Sm\].

Stated roughly, the algorithm runs as follows. First one chooses a starting matrix; a random array of $`\pm 1`$s, or better, a well-chosen guess as to what the maximizer might look like. One then passes repeatedly through this candidate, modifying it row by row to raise its determinant. Since changes in a row don’t affect the cofactors of that row, one can exploit the cofactor expansion formula for determinants to do this very efficiently.

This simple strategy encounters a fundamental limitation, however: It almost always stalls in a *local* maximum of the determinant function, far below $`\mathrm{md}(n)`$. We over- come this problem to some extent by randomly perturbing the ascent when it gets stuck in this way, and attempting to continue from there.

By carefully examining our best result found using this method in the case $`n=31`$, we discovered an explicit construction which produces new records for $`n=47`$, $`63`$, $`79`$ and $`95`$. More generally, the construction applies when $`n15(mod16)`$, and uses conference matrices \[MS\]. We describe it briefly as follows.

Suppose $`n15(mod16)`$, and write $`n=4k+3`$. Then $`k+10(mod4)`$, and (at least in the dimensions of interest here) there exists an antisymmetric $`(k+1)\times (k+1)`$ conference matrix $`C=[c_{ij}]`$. Normalize $`C`$, by multiplying rows (and corresponding columns, to preserve antisymmetry) by $`1`$ so that $`c_{1j}=1`$ for all $`j>1`$, and $`c_{i1}=1`$ for all $`i>1`$. Now delete the first row and column of $`C`$ to produce a $`k\times k`$ matrix $`B`$, with the property that $`BB^T=(k1)I_{k1}J_{k1}`$, $`J`$ here denoting a matrix comprised entirely of $`+1`$s.

Given $`B`$, we now obtain a $`\pm 1`$ matrix in four steps: First, tensor $`B`$ with a $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}\times 4`$ Hadamard matrix $`H_4`$. Second, replace each $`0`$ in the tensor product by a $`1`$. Third, pad this $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}k\times 4k`$ matrix with 3 initial rows, obtained by normalizing $`H_4`$, deleting a row, and then tensoring with a row of $`k`$ 1s. Finally, we similarly pad with three initial columns. The examples in Sec. 3 should clarify this.

Note that if $`k`$ is a prime power, the Jacobsthal matrix of the finite field $`\mathrm{GF}(k)`$ provides a matrix $`B`$ with exactly the properties we need.

In any case, this construction produces a matrix of very high determinant when $`n`$ is not too big. As $`n\mathrm{}`$, however, the resulting determinant tends to $`0`$ relative to Ehlich’s theoretical upper bound.

## 3. Record-holding matrices.

$`𝐧=\mathrm{𝟐𝟐}`$:

```
++-----++++++++++-----
++-----+++++-----+++++
--+----+----++-----+-+
---+----+----++--+--+-
----+----+--+---+-+-+-
-----+----+---++--+--+
------+----+---+++-+--
+++----+------+-+++---
++-+----+---+--+--++--
++--+----+---+-+-+---+
++---+----+--+--+--++-
++----+----++-+-----++
+---+++++-+-+----+----
+-+--++-++-+-+----+---
+--+++-+-+-+--+----+--
+-++--++-++----+----+-
+-+++---+-++----+----+
-+++-+---++++----+----
-+-++-++--++-+----+---
-++-+-+-+++---+----+--
-++-++-++--+---+----+-
-+-+-+++++------+----+

```

Determinant:  $`2^{23}\times 5^{11}`$    Theoretical bound:  $`2^{21}\times 3\times 5^{10}\times 7`$    Fraction of bound:  $`0.95`$
We conjecture that the determinant above *is* $`\mathrm{md}(22)`$. Smith \[Sm\], and more recently, Cohn \[Co1, Co2\] published earlier records. Cohn’s value was $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}^{21}\times 3^2\times 23^2\times 197^2`$ (90.1% of bound).

$`𝐧=\mathrm{𝟐𝟑}`$:

```
+-+----++----++++++++++
-++--++----++--++++++++
++-++----++----++++++++
--++---++++++--++--++--
--+-+--++++++----++--++
-+-----+++------++--++-
-+-----++-+----+--++--+
+--++++++--+---+--+-++-
+--++++++---+---++-+--+
--++++----------+-++-+-
--+++-+--------+-+--+-+
-+-++--+---+++++-+-+-+-
-+-++---+--++++-+-+-+-+
+----------+++---++++--
+----------++-+++----++
++++--++--++--+-+++----
++++-+--++--+-++-++----
+++-++--+-++-+-+++-----
+++-+-++-+--++-++-+----
++++--+-++-+-+-----+-++
++++-+-+--+-++------+++
+++-++-+-+-+--+----++-+
+++-+-+-+-+-+-+----+++-

```

Determinant:  $`2^{22}\times 3\times 5^6\times 67\times 211`$    Theoretical bound:  $`2^{22}\times 3\times 5^6\times 675\sqrt{505}`$    Fraction of bound:  $`0.931983`$
Smith \[Sm\] published an earlier record of $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}^{22}\times 19\times 5741^2`$ (88% of bound).

. $`𝐧=\mathrm{𝟐𝟕}`$:

```
-++--+-++--+-++++++++-+-++-
++--+--+-+--++++++++++---++
+--+-+---+++-++++++++-++--+
--+++---+-+-++++++++++-++--
-+-+--++--+---++++++----+-+
+-+---+-++----++++++---+-+-
----++-++++---++++--+++----
-++-+-++++++++-++--+--++--+
+-+--+++++++++++--+--+--+-+
-+-+-++++++++++--+-+-+-+-+-
+--++-++++++++--+++---+-++-
--++---++++++--+-+--+----++
++-----++++++-+-+---+--++--
++++---++++--+----++-++----
+++++++-++--+-+--+-++-+-+-+
+++++++++--+----+++-++-+--+
++++++++--+-+-++--+-+-++-+-
+++++++--+++---++--+++--++-
++++++--+-+--++-+--------++
++++++-+-+---+-+-+-----++--
++++--+----++-++++---++----
++----+-+-+--+-+-+--+++++++
--++--++-+---++-+---+++++++
+-+--+-+--+-+---++-+-++++++
+--++--++--+--++---+-++++++
-+-+-+--++--+--++-+--++++++
-++-+----+++--+--++--++++++

```

Determinant:  $`2^{26}\times 6^{11}\times 518`$    Theoretical bound:  $`2^{26}\times 5\times 6^{10}\times 44\sqrt{237}`$    Fraction of bound:  $`0.917665`$
Smith \[Sm\] published an earlier record of $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}^{27}\times 11\times 90481^2`$ (88% of bound).

$`𝐧=\mathrm{𝟐𝟗}`$:

```
+---+++++++------++++++++++++
-+--+++++++++++++------++++++
--+-+++++++++++++++++++------
-----------++++++++++++++++++
+++-+--++++--++++--++++--++++
+++--+-++++++--++++--++++--++
+++---+++++++++--++++--++++--
+++-++++---+-+-+-++--+---+++-
+++-+++-+--+--+-++-+--++-+--+
+++-+++--+--+-++---+++-++--+-
+++-+++---+-++--+-+-+-+-+-+-+
-+++-++++--+++-----++++-++-++
-+++-++--+++--++--+-++++-++-+
-++++-+-++-+---++++++---+-+++
-++++-++--+-+--+++-+-++++++--
-+++++--+-+-+++--+++-+-+--+++
-+++++-+-+---++-+++-+-++++-+-
+-++-++++----+++++--++-++-+-+
+-++-++-++--++-++-++--++-+++-
+-+++-++--++-+++--++--+++--++
+-+++-+--+++++--++--++-+-+-++
+-++++--+-+++-++-+--+-+-++++-
+-++++-+-+-++-+-+-++-+--+++-+
++-+-+++--+-+-+++++++----+-++
++-+-++--+++-++-++-+-++-+-++-
++-++-+++--++-+-+-+-++++--++-
++-++-+-++--++++-++--++-++--+
++-+++--+-++-+-++-++++-+++---
++-+++-+-+-+++-+-+-++-++--+-+

```

Determinant:  $`2^{28}\times 7^{12}\times 320`$    Theoretical bound:  $`2^{28}\times 7^{12}\times 49\sqrt{57}`$    Fraction of bound:  $`0.865001`$
Smith \[Sm\], Farmakis & Kounias \[FK\], and most recently, Koukouvinos \[Ko\], have published earlier records. Koukouvinos’ value is $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}^{28}\times 7^{13}\times 43`$ (81.4% of bound).

. $`𝐧=\mathrm{𝟑𝟏}`$:

```
+++--++--++--++--++--++--++--++
+++-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
++++--++--++--++--++--++--++--+
--+----+++-+++----++++----+---+
-+-----++-+++-+--+-++-+--+---+-
+------+-+++-++-+--+-++-+---+--
+++-----+++-++++----++++---+---
--+---+----+++-+++----++++----+
-+---+-----++-+++-+--+-++-+--+-
+---+------+-+++-++-+--+-++-+--
++++--------+++-++++----++++---
--+---+---+----+++-+++----++++-
-+---+---+-----++-+++-+--+-++-+
+---+---+------+-+++-++-+--+-++
++++---+--------+++-++++----+++
--++++----+---+----+++-+++----+
-+-++-+--+---+-----++-+++-+--+-
+--+-++-+---+------+-+++-++-+--
+++-++++---+--------+++-++++---
--+---++++----+---+----+++-+++-
-+---+-++-+--+---+-----++-+++-+
+---+--+-++-+---+------+-+++-++
++++----++++---+--------+++-+++
--++++----++++----+---+----+++-
-+-++-+--+-++-+--+---+-----++-+
+--+-++-+--+-++-+---+------+-++
+++-++++----++++---+--------+++
--++++-+++----++++----+---+----
-+-++-+++-+--+-++-+--+---+-----
+--+-+++-++-+--+-++-+---+------
+++-+++-++++----++++---+-------

```

Determinant:  $`2^{30}\times 7^{12}\times 5324`$    Theoretical bound:  $`2^{30}\times 7^{12}\times 144\sqrt{1589}`$    Fraction of bound:  $`0.927499`$
Though discovered numerically, our confer ence-matrix method also produces this example (see Sec. 2). Smith \[Sm\] published an earlier record of $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}^{30}\times 5^4\times 7^2\times 11^2\times 29^2\times 149^2`$ (87% of bound).

$`𝐧=\mathrm{𝟑𝟑}`$:

```
-+-+++++++----+++++++++++++++++++
++--------+++++++++++++++++++++++
--+--+++++++++++--+++-++-+-++-+++
+-++++++---+-++--+++-+--+--++++++
+-+++++-+-+-+-++-+--+-+-++++-+-++
+-+++-++-++-+---++++++-+-++---+++
+-+++--+++-+-+-+++----++-+++++++-
+--++++-++-++++++--+++--+++-+-+--
+--+++-++++-++--+-+-+++++--+++--+
+-+--+++++++--++++++-++++-+--+---
-++--+++-+++++--++--++--++++++-+-
-+++++---+++++-++-++--+-+-+--++++
-++++-+-+-+++++++++--+-+--+++---+
-++++--++-+++++--+-+++++++---++--
++-+-++++-++-+-++++-+----+---++-+
+++-++-++-+-+-+-+-++-----++++++--
++++-++--+--+++-++-+--++-+--++--+
+++-+-+-++-+-+----+++--+++++-+--+
++++-++-+--++---+-+--+++++-+--++-
++--++-+++-++++--++--++--++----++
++--+++-+++-++-+-+-+-+-+---+-+++-
+++-+-+++---++-++++++-+-+---+--+-
++++--+-+++--++---+-+++---+-++++-
++++-+-+-+--++++-++-+--++-++--+--
++-+++++--++-++-+--++-++--++---+-
++++---++++--++++--+-+--++-+---++
++++-+-++--++--+---+++-+--+-++-++
++-+--+++++++----+-+--+-+-+++-+-+
++++++---+++---+-++++++--+-++----
++-++-++-++++-++--+----+++--++-+-
+++-++--++++--+-++--+--++---+-+++
+++-+-++-+-++-+++---+++----+-++-+
+++-++++--+--+-+-----++++++-+-+-+

```

Determinant:  $`2^{32}\times 8^{14}\times 441`$    Theoretical bound:  $`2^{32}\times 8^{14}\times 64\sqrt{65}`$    Fraction of bound:  $`0.854677`$
Farmakis & Kounias \[FK\] published an earlier record of $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}^{32}\times 8^{15}\times 51`$ (79% of bound).

. $`𝐧=\mathrm{𝟑𝟒}`$:

```
--++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
++----+++--+--+--++--+++++++++++++
++-------++-++-++--++-++++++++++++
++++++++--+-+---++-+-++-+--+-+++++
++++++-++-+--++++----+++-++++---++
++++++--++-++--+-++-+-++--++-++-++
+++++++--+-+-++---+++-+-++-++--+++
+++++++-+---++++-+-+---++++-++++--
++-++-+++--+++++++-++-+---------+-
+++--++-+++-++++-+++-+-----+-----+
+++-++++-+-+-+--++-+++-+--++++----
+++-++-++-++-+-++++-+---++-+--++--
+++++-++-++-+--+-++-++--+++-+---+-
++++-+-+++-++-+++---++--+---++-+-+
++-+++-++++--++---+++++-+-+--++---
++-+++--+++++---++++-+++-+--+--+--
++++-+++--+++-+-+-+++--+-++---+--+
+++++-+--+++-++++-+--+-+-----++++-
-++-+-++++++---+---+--+---+-+-++-+
-+-++--+-++++++--+-------+-++++--+
-+++--++++--++--+-+---+++--++-+---
-+--++++++--++--+-+------++--+-+++
-+-+-+++++++---+---+---+++-+-+--+-
+-+-+-+++++-+-+-----+-++-+-+-+-+--
+---++++-+-+++-+-----+++++----+--+
+--+-++++++--+---+--+--+----+-++++
-++--++-+-++++------+++--+--+++-+-
+-++---+++-+++-----+-+---+++--+++-
+--+-+++--++++-+--+---+---++++-+--
+-+-+--++-++++----++---++---++--++
-+-++-+-+-++++------++-++-++---+-+
+-++--+-++++-+--++----+-+++--+---+
+---+++-+++++-+-+-------+-+++-+-+-
-++--+-+-++++++--+----+++-+----++-

```

Determinant:  $`2^{33}\times 8^{16}\times 28`$    Theoretical bound:  $`2^{33}\times 8^{16}\times 33`$    Fraction of bound:  $`0.848485`$
We find no prior records in the literature, though one produces a $`\pm 1`$ matrix with determinant $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}^{33}\times 8^{16}\times 25`$ (75.76% of bound) by tensoring an $`n=17`$ maximizer with a $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\times 2`$ maximizer.

. $`𝐧=\mathrm{𝟑𝟓}`$:

```
---++----++++------++++----++++++++
-+++-+++++-+-+-+-+---++++--+---+++-
-++-++++++--+-+-+-++-+-++----++--++
+-+++++--+++-+--+-++-+---++----++++
++-++++--++-+-++-+---++--+++-++--+-
-++++-++--+++++--++----+----+-++-+-
-+++++--+-+++++++-------+--+-+--+-+
-++---++-+-++--++++-++---+-+--+-+-+
-++--+--++-++--+++++--+---+-++-+-+-
+++++--+++-++++----++++--++--------
+--++++---+++--++++++++++----------
+-++-+++++++-++-++-++------++++----
++--+++++++-++++--+-+-+-----+--++-+
--++-++--+-+++-+--+-+-+++++-+++---+
-+--+++--+-++-+-++-++--++++++--++--
-+-+-+-++-+-++--++-+-+++-++-+-+-+-+
--+-++-++-++--++--+++-++-+++--+-++-
-++++-+++-+-----+-+-+++-++++++-+---
------+++-++++++-+-+++--+++--+-+-++
++-+----+++-++-++-+++--+++-+--++-+-
+-+-+---++++--++++---+++++--+-++--+
++-+---+-+++--+-+++-+-+++-+--+--+++
+-+-+--+-++-++-+-+++-+-++-++++--+--
-++---+---+--++++--+++++-+--++--++-
-++--+----+--++--++++++-+-++--++--+
---++--+-+---+++++++--++-+-+-+-+--+
---++---++---++++++-++--+-+-+-+-++-
++-+-+-+---+--++--++-+--++--+++++--
+-+-++-+----++--++--+-+-++---+++++-
+-++-+-+----+-+++---++-+--+++--+-++
+-++--+-+---+-+--+++--+-++-++---+++
++--+-++---+-+-++--+--+-+-+++-+--++
++--++--+--+-+---++-++-+-+-+++---++
+++++-+-+------+-+-++--+--+--++++-+
+-----+-+--++++-+-+--+++--++-++++--

```

Determinant:  $`2^{34}\times 9^{12}\times 23\times 5167`$    Theoretical bound:  $`2^{34}\times 8^{15}\times 98\sqrt{134}`$    Fraction of bound:  $`0.840907`$
We find no prior records in the literature.

.

$$𝐧=\mathrm{𝟑𝟗}:$$

```
+-++--+---++++++++-+----+++-+----------
-+-++++-+--+---++-------+----+++--+--+-
-+++--++++--++-+--+---+-+-+---+--+--+++
-++++++++-+--+--++-+---++-++--++++-++--
--++++-+++++---+---+--+--+--+--+++--++-
--+++-+++------+-++--------++---+-++--+
-++-+++++---+++----++----+--+-+---++++-
-+++-++-++-+--+--+-+-+-+--+-----+-+-+++
-++++++--++---+--++-+---++-----+-+-+-++
++-+++++++++++--+-+++------+----+----++
++++++-++++--+++-+++-+-------++--++----
+++-++++++-++-+++++---++-------+---++--
--+--+-+--+-+--++++++--+--+--+-------+-
---++-+-+++-+++++++++-++++---+--+-+-+--
-+---+++---+-++++++++++-+---+---++-----
--++++--+--++++++++++++--+++--++------+
-+-+---++++++-++++++-+-+++-++-+----+-+-
----++--+-+++++--++---+++-+++----++--+-
-++-----+-++-+++--+++--++--+++-+----+-+
-+--+-+---++-+-+-+++-++--+++-+-----+++-
++++-++-+---+--+--++++++++++++-+++++-+-
++-+++-+------++-+--+-+++++++++-+---+++
+-++-+--++---+--++--+++-+--+++-----+++-
++-++---+-------+-+-++-+-++-+----+--+--
++-----+++-------+-++-+-++++---+--+----
+---+++-+++----+---++++++-+-+-+----+--+
+-++-+++--++------+-++++++-+--+---+-+--
+-+-+-+++-----+-+--+-+++++-+-+---+---++
+-+-+-++++-+-+---++-++-++++-+++++----+-
+--+---------++---++--++------+++--+-+-
+++-----+-++-+-+++--+-++-+----+-++++-++
+-+-+----+-+--+++-+++---+-++--+-++++++-
+--+--+++-++--+-+++++-+---+-++++-++++++
+-----+-+-+-+-++-+--++-----+--++++--++-
+--++--+---+++-+-+-+++-++------+-++++++
+----+--+--++----+++----++---++-++-++-+
+----++--+---+-+++++---+-+-++-++-++-+++
+----+-++-+--++++-+--+--+++----++-+++++
+++-+-----+-+---++++-++-+---+-+++-+-+++

```

Determinant: $`2^{38}\times 9^{17}\times 1241`$
Theoretical bound: $`2^{38}\times 9^{17}\times 80\sqrt{357}`$
Fraction of bound: $`0.821009`$
Welsh \[We\] earlier reported a record of $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}^{28}\times 9^{17}\times 1197`$ (79.2% of bound).

.

$$𝐧=\mathrm{𝟒𝟓}:$$

```
--+++--++++-++++++-+++++++-+-+++-+++--++-++++
-++-+++-++-++--+++++-+++--+++-+++++++++++++--
-+-+-++++++++++++-+-++-++++-++--+--++++-+++++
-+++++++--++-++--++++-+-+++++++++++-++-++--++
+-+-+-+-+-+-+++--+++++-++++-+----+++++-+++++-
++--++++-+--+---+-+-+-++++++-+-+++++-+-+-++++
+-+---+++--+-++++-+-+++++-++-+++--+-+++++-+-+
++-+---+++-----+-+++++-+++-+++++++-++++++--+-
+-++-++++++++---++--++---++---+++++-+-++++-++
+--++++++-+-++++-+----++-++++++++-+++++--+---
+--+++----++-+-++-+++++--+--+++-++++-++++++-+
+++--+---+++-+++++-+---+-+++++-+-+--++++-++++
++++----++-++++---++--+-+++++-+++-++--+-+++++
+---+-++-++++-++++-+-++-+-+++++-++-++---+-+++
+-+-++-+++-+-++++++---++++----+-++---+--++-+-
++++--++++--++-+++++-++--++-++---++--+------+
+++++-++-+++--+++----+--++-++--+--++-+-+++---
+++++-+-+-+---+++--++-++--+----+++-+-++-+--++
+-++++-+++++----+-++--+++-+-++----+++-++---+-
++---++++--++++-++-++-+-+---++-+-+-+--++++---
++-+-++--++--++-+++--++-+-----++-++++++---++-
+-++-+++-+++++-+--+++-++-+-+---+-+-++---+-+--
++-+++-+---+++++-++--+-+--++-----+++--+++--++
+++++-+----++-+-+-+-++++-+-++++--+--+-+--+-+-
++-++++-+--+---+-+-+-+++++---+-+--+-+---+++++
+--+++--++-++++-+--+++-++--++--++++-++------+
++--+++-++++++-+---++++-++++--+------+++---+-
+-++-++--++-+-+--+++-++++--+-+--+----+++++--+
+++--+----+++-++++++++-++++--++++-++---------
+++-+-+-++++-+-+-++-+---+--+-+--+++++-+--+--+
++++++--++---++-++--+++--+++-+--+--++--++-+--
++++-+-++-++-----+--+++++-+++-+--+-+-+---++-+
++-++----++-++-++++-+-+++-+-+-++----+--+++--+
++-+---++-+++-+++++++-+----+----+-+-++-+-+++-
++-++-++++++-++---++-+-+--+--+++++-----+-++--
+++-++-++-+-+-++--+--++-++--+--+++--+-++--+-+
++++++-+-+--+-++---++---+-+--++--++-+++-+++--
+++++-++---+++--++-+---+++----+-+--+++++--+-+
++--+++++++---+-+++++--+-+-++-+---+---+-+-+-+
+++--+++-+---+++---+++++----+-+-+-+++--+-+-++
+-++++++-----+-+++++++--+-+++--++-----+--+++-
+++-++-++-+-++--+-++-+-----+-+++---+++--++-++
+-+++++-++-++-++-++-+-------++++---+-+-+--+++
+++-+--+-+++++---+--++++----++-++-+--++-+-++-
++++-++-+-+-++-++------++--++++-+++----++-++-

```

Determinant: $`2^{44}\times 11^{21}\times 83`$
Theoretical bound: $`2^{44}\times 11^{22}\times \sqrt{89}`$
Fraction of bound: $`0.799817`$
Farmakis & Kounias \[FK\] published an earlier record of $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}^{44}\times 11^{21}\times 81`$ (78% of bound).

.

$$𝐧=\mathrm{𝟒𝟕}:$$

```
+++--++--++--++--++--++--++--++--++--++--++--++
+++-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
++++--++--++--++--++--++--++--++--++--++--++--+
--+----+++----++++-+++-+++----+---+---++++----+
-+-----++-+--+-++-+++-+++-+--+---+---+-++-+--+-
+------+-++-+--+-+++-+++-++-+---+---+--+-++-+--
+++-----++++----+++-+++-++++---+---+----++++---
--+---+----+++----++++-+++-+++----+---+---++++-
-+---+-----++-+--+-++-+++-+++-+--+---+---+-++-+
+---+------+-++-+--+-+++-+++-++-+---+---+--+-++
++++--------++++----+++-+++-++++---+---+----+++
--++++----+----+++----++++-+++-+++----+---+---+
-+-++-+--+-----++-+--+-++-+++-+++-+--+---+---+-
+--+-++-+------+-++-+--+-+++-+++-++-+---+---+--
+++-++++--------++++----+++-+++-++++---+---+---
--+---++++----+----+++----++++-+++-+++----+---+
-+---+-++-+--+-----++-+--+-++-+++-+++-+--+---+-
+---+--+-++-+------+-++-+--+-+++-+++-++-+---+--
++++----++++--------++++----+++-+++-++++---+---
--+---+---++++----+----+++----++++-+++-+++----+
-+---+---+-++-+--+-----++-+--+-++-+++-+++-+--+-
+---+---+--+-++-+------+-++-+--+-+++-+++-++-+--
++++---+----++++--------++++----+++-+++-++++---
--+---+---+---++++----+----+++----++++-+++-+++-
-+---+---+---+-++-+--+-----++-+--+-++-+++-+++-+
+---+---+---+--+-++-+------+-++-+--+-+++-+++-++
++++---+---+----++++--------++++----+++-+++-+++
--++++----+---+---++++----+----+++----++++-+++-
-+-++-+--+---+---+-++-+--+-----++-+--+-++-+++-+
+--+-++-+---+---+--+-++-+------+-++-+--+-+++-++
+++-++++---+---+----++++--------++++----+++-+++
--++++-+++----+---+---++++----+----+++----++++-
-+-++-+++-+--+---+---+-++-+--+-----++-+--+-++-+
+--+-+++-++-+---+---+--+-++-+------+-++-+--+-++
+++-+++-++++---+---+----++++--------++++----+++
--++++-+++-+++----+---+---++++----+----+++----+
-+-++-+++-+++-+--+---+---+-++-+--+-----++-+--+-
+--+-+++-+++-++-+---+---+--+-++-+------+-++-+--
+++-+++-+++-++++---+---+----++++--------++++---
--+---++++-+++-+++----+---+---++++----+----+++-
-+---+-++-+++-+++-+--+---+---+-++-+--+-----++-+
+---+--+-+++-+++-++-+---+---+--+-++-+------+-++
++++----+++-+++-++++---+---+----++++--------+++
--++++----++++-+++-+++----+---+---++++----+----
-+-++-+--+-++-+++-+++-+--+---+---+-++-+--+-----
+--+-++-+--+-+++-+++-++-+---+---+--+-++-+------
+++-++++----+++-+++-++++---+---+----++++-------

```

Determinant: $`2^{46}\times 11^{18}\times 15^4\times 60`$
Theoretical bound: $`2^{46}\times 11^{20}\times 19^2\sqrt{5665}`$
Fraction of bound: $`0.923897`$
Our conference-matrix construction produces this example (see Sec. 2). Welsh \[We\] earlier reported a record of $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}^{46}\times 11^{21}\times 1896`$ (76.8% of bound).

.

$$𝐧=\mathrm{𝟓𝟑}:$$

```
++------+-+----++--++---------+---+--+---------+-+-+-
+-+-+------+-----+---+-+-------+----+--++--+----+-+--
+-----++----++----------+--+++--+--+------+-+-+------
+--+-+---+----+---+---+--++------+----+--+---+------+
-+---++-+-++------+-++-+-+--+-+-+-----++----+-+---+-+
-+++---+-++--+--+++--++--+-+----+-+-+------++--+-----
--+--++-+++----+-+++---++----------+++--+++-++-------
---+--+++-+-++-+--+-------++---+-------+++-----++-+++
--++++-+----+-----+-+-+++---+--+--+--++---+----+-++--
---+------+++--++--+-+++--++++------+-+-+----++--+---
-+---+++--+--++--+-+--++--+--++--+--------++----+++--
---++-+----+-+++++-++-+-++--+---+----+-+-+------+----
--+++---+-+-+-+--+--+---+-+--++-+--++-+----+-------++
-+---+-+-+--+---++--++-----+-+++---+-+++-+---+--+----
-+--+--+-+-+-+++--+----+-+---+-+---+++--------+--+-++
--+-++--++----+-+--+-+---++++------+------+---+++-++-
-++--++-+--++---+-----+-++---+-+-++-----++-+--+----+-
--+-+-++-+-+---+---++-----+++-++-++--------+++------+
-+-++---++-++++------+--+-----+--+-----++-+-++-+-+---
---+--+--+--++-+++---+-+-+--+-+--+++-++-+-++------+++
--++--+-+----+---+++-----+--++++-++++-++-----+++++---
-+-++--++------+-+-+-+++--+----+++++--++-++-+-+----+-
-+----+-----+-++--++++-+++-+---+++--+-+---++-+-++--+-
---+-+-+--++---++-------+++---++++-+++-+--++-+++--+--
-+-++-+--+------+-+-+--++-++--+-+++++---++----+-+++--
-+--+-+--+++------+---+---+-++--+-++-++++-++-+-++--+-
-+--++----+-+--+-+----+-++-++----++++--+----++--+++++
-++------+--+--+-+++-+--+-+-++--++---+-+-+-+--++-++-+
--+-+-+---+---++-----++--+-+-+++++-+-++-++--+--+-++--
-+++-+----+--+++----++------+--++-++----++++-++-++--+
-+-+----+-----+-+-+++-+----+++-+-+-+++-++-+++-----+-+
-+--+++-----+++-++-+------+----++-+-+++-+---++++--+-+
-----+---+--++-----++-++-++-+-+++--++--+++-++--+-+-+-
----+---+---++-+--+-+++--++--++---+-++---++++++-+-+--
------+++-----+--+--++++++++------++-+-++--+-+++-+--+
---++++++-------+----+-+----++--++--++---+-+++-+++-++
---+-++--+-+--++-+--+------+-+----+-+-++-++++-++-+++-
-++----++--+-+---+--+----++++---++--+++-+++--+---+++-
----+---+++--+--+--+---+++-+-+-++-+---++-+++-+---++-+
--------+++++-+--+----++---++-+++++-++---++---+++---+
--++---+-++-+-+----++--+-+---+--+++--+-++---+++-+-++-
-+++-------+-+-----+--+++--+--+----+-++--+-++++++-+++
----++-+--+--++---++-+--+--++-+--++-++++++-+--+----+-
--+--+--+--++++++-+----+--++----++++-+++---++---++---
----+--+--+++---+++++----+-------+-+--+-+++++-++++--+
-------+++----+++++---+-+---+-+++-----+-+--++++-++++-
-----+-+++-+-+-+---++++-+----+--+++++-+-+------++-+-+
--+---++---++-+-+-++-++-------+-+-+++--+-++--+---++++
----------++-++-+++-++-++-+-++-+-+++-----+--++-+--++-
--+---+--++--+--+---+++-+-+----+-+--++++--+-+-+-++-++
---+-+-----+-----+++-+--++++-++++-+--+--+-+-+---++-++
-++----+------+++------++++-+++---+-+-+++++-+--++---+
--+-++-------+-++++-+-++---+-++-++-----++-+--+++---++

```

Determinant: $`2^{52}\times 13^{25}\times 105`$
Theoretical bound: $`2^{52}\times 13^{26}\times \sqrt{105}`$
Fraction of bound: $`0.788227`$
Farmakis & Kounias \[FK\] published an earlier record of $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}^{52}\times 13^{25}\times 104`$ (78.1% of bound).

.

$$𝐧=\mathrm{𝟔𝟑}:$$

```
+++--++--++--++--++--++--++--++--++--++--++--++--++--++--++--++
+++-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
++++--++--++--++--++--++--++--++--++--++--++--++--++--++--++--+
--+-------+---++++-+++----++++-+++----++++-+++----++++----+---+
-+-------+---+-++-+++-+--+-++-+++-+--+-++-+++-+--+-++-+--+---+-
+-------+---+--+-+++-++-+--+-+++-++-+--+-+++-++-+--+-++-+---+--
+++----+---+----+++-++++----+++-++++----+++-++++----++++---+---
--++++--------+---++++----+---++++-+++----+---+---++++-+++-+++-
-+-++-+------+---+-++-+--+---+-++-+++-+--+---+---+-++-+++-+++-+
+--+-++-----+---+--+-++-+---+--+-+++-++-+---+---+--+-+++-+++-++
+++-+++----+---+----++++---+----+++-++++---+---+----+++-+++-+++
--++++-+++-----+++----++++-+++----+---+---+---+---++++-+++----+
-+-++-+++-+----++-+--+-++-+++-+--+---+---+---+---+-++-+++-+--+-
+--+-+++-++----+-++-+--+-+++-++-+---+---+---+---+--+-+++-++-+--
+++-+++-+++-----++++----+++-++++---+---+---+---+----+++-++++---
--+---++++----+----+++----++++----++++-+++----++++----++++----+
-+---+-++-+--+-----++-+--+-++-+--+-++-+++-+--+-++-+--+-++-+--+-
+---+--+-++-+------+-++-+--+-++-+--+-+++-++-+--+-++-+--+-++-+--
++++----++++--------++++----++++----+++-++++----++++----++++---
--+---+---++++----+----+++----+---++++-+++-+++----++++-+++----+
-+---+---+-++-+--+-----++-+--+---+-++-+++-+++-+--+-++-+++-+--+-
+---+---+--+-++-+------+-++-+---+--+-+++-+++-++-+--+-+++-++-+--
++++---+----++++--------++++---+----+++-+++-++++----+++-++++---
--++++-+++----++++----+-------+---++++-+++-+++----+---+---++++-
-+-++-+++-+--+-++-+--+-------+---+-++-+++-+++-+--+---+---+-++-+
+--+-+++-++-+--+-++-+-------+---+--+-+++-+++-++-+---+---+--+-++
+++-+++-++++----++++-------+---+----+++-+++-++++---+---+----+++
--+---++++----+---++++-+++--------+---+---++++-+++-+++----++++-
-+---+-++-+--+---+-++-+++-+------+---+---+-++-+++-+++-+--+-++-+
+---+--+-++-+---+--+-+++-++-----+---+---+--+-+++-+++-++-+--+-++
++++----++++---+----+++-+++----+---+---+----+++-+++-++++----+++
--+---+---++++-+++-+++-+++-+++-----+++----+---+---+---+---++++-
-+---+---+-++-+++-+++-+++-+++-+----++-+--+---+---+---+---+-++-+
+---+---+--+-+++-+++-+++-+++-++----+-++-+---+---+---+---+--+-++
++++---+----+++-+++-+++-+++-+++-----++++---+---+---+---+----+++
--++++----++++----+---+---++++----+----+++----++++-+++----++++-
-+-++-+--+-++-+--+---+---+-++-+--+-----++-+--+-++-+++-+--+-++-+
+--+-++-+--+-++-+---+---+--+-++-+------+-++-+--+-+++-++-+--+-++
+++-++++----++++---+---+----++++--------++++----+++-++++----+++
--+---++++-+++----+---+---++++-+++----+----+++----+---++++-+++-
-+---+-++-+++-+--+---+---+-++-+++-+--+-----++-+--+---+-++-+++-+
+---+--+-+++-++-+---+---+--+-+++-++-+------+-++-+---+--+-+++-++
++++----+++-++++---+---+----+++-++++--------++++---+----+++-+++
--+---++++-+++-+++----+---+---++++-+++----+----+++-+++----+---+
-+---+-++-+++-+++-+--+---+---+-++-+++-+--+-----++-+++-+--+---+-
+---+--+-+++-+++-++-+---+---+--+-+++-++-+------+-+++-++-+---+--
++++----+++-+++-++++---+---+----+++-++++--------+++-++++---+---
--++++-+++-+++----++++-+++----++++----++++----+-------+---+---+
-+-++-+++-+++-+--+-++-+++-+--+-++-+--+-++-+--+-------+---+---+-
+--+-+++-+++-++-+--+-+++-++-+--+-++-+--+-++-+-------+---+---+--
+++-+++-+++-++++----+++-++++----++++----++++-------+---+---+---
--+---+---+---++++----++++----++++----++++----++++-----+++-+++-
-+---+---+---+-++-+--+-++-+--+-++-+--+-++-+--+-++-+----++-+++-+
+---+---+---+--+-++-+--+-++-+--+-++-+--+-++-+--+-++----+-+++-++
++++---+---+----++++----++++----++++----++++----+++-----+++-+++
--++++----+---+---+---++++-+++-+++-+++----++++-+++----+-------+
-+-++-+--+---+---+---+-++-+++-+++-+++-+--+-++-+++-+--+-------+-
+--+-++-+---+---+---+--+-+++-+++-+++-++-+--+-+++-++-+-------+--
+++-++++---+---+---+----+++-+++-+++-++++----+++-++++-------+---
--++++----++++-+++-+++----+---+---+---+---++++-+++----++++-----
-+-++-+--+-++-+++-+++-+--+---+---+---+---+-++-+++-+--+-++-+----
+--+-++-+--+-+++-+++-++-+---+---+---+---+--+-+++-++-+--+-++----
+++-++++----+++-+++-++++---+---+---+---+----+++-++++----+++----

```

Determinant: $`2^{64}\times 15^{24}\times 19^7`$
Theoretical bound: $`2^{64}\times 15^{28}\times 12^3\times 2\sqrt{33}`$
Fraction of bound: $`0.889364`$
Our conference-matrix construction produces this example (see Sec. 2). We find no prior records in the literature.

$$𝐧=\mathrm{𝟔𝟗}:$$

```
[encoded data, 4761 characters]

```

Determinant: $`2^{68}\times 17^{33}\times 155`$
Theoretical bound: $`2^{68}\times 17^{34}\times \sqrt{137}`$
Fraction of bound: $`0.778973`$
Farmakis & Kounias \[FK\] published an earlier record of $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}^{68}\times 17^{33}\times 153`$ (76.9% of bound).

$$𝐧=\mathrm{𝟕𝟑}:$$

```
[encoded data, 5329 characters]

```

Determinant: $`2^{72}\times 18^{35}\times 163`$
Theoretical bound: $`2^{72}\times 18^{36}\times \sqrt{145}`$
Fraction of bound: $`0.752023`$
Farmakis & Kounias \[FK\], published an earlier record of $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}^{72}\times 18^{35}\times 162`$ (74.7% of bound). The lower right $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}72}\times 72`$ block above gives a Hadamard matrix with excess 580. The largest excess previously known for Hadamards of this size was 576 \[FK\].

$$𝐧=\mathrm{𝟕𝟕}:$$

```
[encoded data, 5929 characters]

```

Determinant: $`2^{76}\times 19^{37}\times 177`$
Theoretical bound: $`2^{76}\times 19^{38}\times \sqrt{153}`$
Fraction of bound: $`0.753137`$
Farmakis & Kounias \[FK\] published an earlier record of $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}^{76}\times 19^{37}\times 174`$ (74.04% of bound).

$$𝐧=\mathrm{𝟕𝟗}:$$

```
[encoded data, 6241 characters]

```

Determinant: $`2^{78}\times 4\times 19^{30}\times 23^9`$
Theoretical bound: $`2^{78}\times 4\times 19^{36}\times 225\sqrt{40145}`$
Fraction of bound: $`0.84924`$
Our conference-matrix construction produces this example (see Sec. 2). We find no prior records in the literature.

$$𝐧=\mathrm{𝟗𝟑}:$$

```
[encoded data, 8649 characters]

```

Determinant: $`2^{92}\times 23^{45}\times 231`$
Theoretical bound: $`2^{92}\times 23^{46}\times \sqrt{185}`$
Fraction of bound: $`0.738411`$
Farmakis & Kounias \[FK\] published an earlier record of $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}^{92}\times 23^{45}\times 230`$ (73.52% of bound).

$$𝐧=\mathrm{𝟗𝟓}:$$

```
[encoded data, 9025 characters]

```

Determinant: $`2^{96}\times 23^{36}\times 27^{11}`$
Theoretical bound: $`2^{96}\times 23^{44}\times 333\sqrt{69153}`$
Fraction of bound: $`0.810642`$
Our conference-matrix construction produces this example (see Sec. 2). We find no prior records in the literature.

Other cases of interest: The table below gives the largest determinants we have found among $`\pm 1`$ matrices in several additional dimensions, with $`\mathrm{ub}(n)`$ denoting the theoretical upper bound for $`\mathrm{md}(n)`$ mentioned in Sec. 1. They do not quite achieve 75% of the theoretical bound, and to the best of our knowledge, no previous bounds have been published. Further details, including the matrices themselves, can be found at our website, www.indiana.edu/$``$maxdet .

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{𝐒𝐢𝐳𝐞}& \text{Lower bound for}\mathrm{𝐦𝐝}(𝐧)\hfill & \text{Fraction of}\mathrm{𝐮𝐛}(𝐧)\hfill \\ & & \\ n=67:& 2^{66}\times 16^{31}\times 4765\hfill & 0.7677\hfill \\ n=75:& 2^{74}\times 18^{35}\times 6064\hfill & 0.7303\hfill \\ n=83:& 2^{82}\times 20^{38}\times 157788\hfill & 0.7322\hfill \\ n=87:& 2^{86}\times 21^{41}\times 8777\hfill & 0.7220\hfill \\ n=91:& 2^{90}\times 22^{43}\times 9826\hfill & 0.7203\hfill \\ n=99:& 2^{98}\times 24^{47}\times 12118\hfill & 0.7160\hfill \end{array}$$

## Acknowledgements

The websites of N.J.A. Sloane, J. Seberry, C. Koukouvinos, and E. Spence provided us with Hadamard and other large-determinant matrices that we used to construct starting points for our own searches. We gratefully acknowledge them for this contribution. We made extensive use of *Mathematica* during this project, and we also thank Indiana University for the use of their Sun E10000 computing platform. Finally, we thank Michael Neubauer for helpful remarks and interest in our work.


format: text

text:
# References

Acausality of Massive Charged Spin 2 Fields

S, Deser and A. Waldron

$`^{\mathrm{}}`$Physics Department, Brandeis University, Waltham, MA 02454, USA
deser@brandeis.edu
$`^{\mathrm{}}`$Mathematics Department, University of California, Davis, CA 95616, USA
wally@math.ucdavis.edu

Abstract

> The recent claim in hep-th/0302225 that, contrary to all previous work, massive charged $`s=2`$ fields propagate causally is false.

Charged massive spin 2 fields are known to propagate acausally  because the constraints fail to prevent superluminal excitations for all values of the background E/M field. Alternatively, this phenomenon may be viewed as a breakdown of the constraints at these points in field space . A recent paper  claims that there is no acausality, based on computations involving “Fierz tensors” $`F_{\mu \nu \rho }=F_{\nu \mu \rho }`$ built from a certain combination of first derivatives of the usual spin 2 field $`\phi _{\mu \nu }`$. We shall point out an error in these computations. The usual method of characteristics is followed in which the spin 2 field has a leading discontinuity at a shock $`[_\mu _\nu \phi _{\rho \sigma }]=k_\mu k_\nu ϵ_{\rho \sigma }`$. The authors introduce the quantity $`F_\mu D_\mu \phi D.\phi _\mu `$ whose derivative has discontinuity $`[_\mu F_\nu ]=k_\mu k_\nu ϵ_\rho ^\rho k_\mu k^\rho ϵ_{\nu \rho }k_\mu f_\nu `$. They give a correct derivation, based on discontinuities of the constraint equations, of the relations $`f_\mu f^\mu =k_\mu f^\mu =0`$. However, they then try to conclude that the normal vector satisfies the lightlike condition $`k_\mu k^\mu =0`$ which would imply causal propagation. Unfortunately, this neglects the fact that $`\phi _{\mu \nu }`$ is a charged and therefore complex field. Since $`f_\mu `$ is a complex vector, the conclusion that $`k_\mu `$ is lightlike is clearly erroneous. Indeed, as demonstrated in , there are acausal solutions to this system that satisfy $`f_\mu f^\mu =k_\mu f^\mu =0`$. \[The authors additionally claim that the massless gauge invariance that appears in the eikonal limit can be used to gauge away acausalities. This is patently false since the underlying massive system is not gauge invariant.\] We (re)conclude that charged massive $`s=2`$ shares its $`s=3/2`$ counterpart’s classic propagation problems  in external fields, irrespective of the formalism employed. This work was supported by the National Science Foundation under grants PHY99-73935 and PHY01-40365.


text:
# A thermodynamical approach to dissipation range turbulence

## Abstract

A model to explain the statistics of the velocity gradients in the dissipation range of a turbulent flow is presented. The experimentally observed non-gaussian statistics is theoretically predicted by means of a thermodynamical analogy using the maximum entropy principle of ordinary statistical mechanics.

Dipartimento di Ingegneria Aerospaziale
Università di Pisa
Via G. Caruso 56100 PISA -Italy

PACS numbers: 47.27.Gs
The dynamics of fluids at high Reynolds number is one of the most interesting subject of statistical physics. In the limit of infinite Reynolds number, the celebrated theory of Kolmogorov (K41)  suggests that the small scales statistics is characterized only by the mean rate of energy dissipation per unit mass $`ϵ`$ and the scale $`l`$. The K41 theory is based upon the concept of self-similarity of the inertial range $`[l_d,L]`$ and implies that the velocity gradients $`\delta v_l(x)=|v(x+l)v(x)|`$ scale as

$$<\delta v_l^q>(ϵl)^{q/3}.$$
(1)
The experimental evidence of the breakdown of eq.(1), see , due to the presence of intermittency, induced Kolmogorov and Obukhov  to modify the K41 theory introducing the fluctuation of the mean flux of energy $`ϵ`$. Indeed, as pointed out by Siggia , the turbulent flow can be described as the superposition of two fluid states, the coherent structures and the random fluctuations. Hence, in the inertial range, the flow preserves organized structures as, for instance, vortex sheets and filaments. The coherent structures are “rare” events that contribute to the non-gaussian high-amplitude fluctuations. Many models for such superposition have been proposed, either based on a mapping-closure theory or on the fractal approach .
However, also at very small scales $`ll_d`$, when the coherent structures are annihilated by dissipation, the tails of the velocity gradients statistics are deeply non gaussian. Indeed, experimental results show that the tails of the probability density function (PDF) of the velocity gradients are close to exponential  for small $`l`$. In this paper, we conjecture that the PDF of the velocity gradients in the dissipation range, $`ll_d`$, can be described by means of ordinary statistical mechanics. We propose to consider the velocity gradients $`\delta v_l`$ of the random incoherent flow like the momentum $`𝐩`$ of a particle in a ideal gas with a “temperature” $`T`$ that changes slowly. Specifically, we consider this temperature not to be fixed but $`\chi ^2`$-distributed with degree $`n=3`$; the resulting PDF agrees both with the experimental results and with the theoretical structure function.
In the ordinary description of an ideal gas, the momentum $`𝐩`$ of a particle with mass $`m`$ may be considered as a random variable. From the maximum entropy principle one obtains the density distribution

$$\psi (𝐩)=\frac{1}{Z}e^{\beta \frac{𝐩^2}{2m}},$$
(2)
where $`Z`$ is the partition function and $`\beta =\frac{1}{kT}`$. Here $`T`$ is the temperature of the thermal bath and $`k`$ is Boltzmann’s constant.
Now, we consider the temperature of the termal bath not to be constant in time, but fluctuating with a given distribution $`f(T)`$. In practice, we suppose that the time scale on which $`T`$ fluctuates is much larger then the typical time to reach equilibrium. Let $`\psi (𝐩|T)`$ be the conditional probability, and let $`\psi (𝐩)`$ be the probability to observe a certain value of $`𝐩`$ no matter what $`T`$ is. Then, the following relation holds

$$\psi (𝐩)=_0^+\mathrm{}\psi (𝐩|T)f(T)𝑑T.$$
(3)
Due to the maximum entropy principle of ordinary statistical mechanics, the conditional probability $`\psi (𝐩|T)`$ is gaussian but the probability to observe a certain value of $`𝐩`$ is not.
The main idea of the paper is to consider the velocity gradients $`\delta v_l(x)`$ in the dissipation range and in the limit of infinite Reynolds number, as the momentum $`𝐩`$ of a particle fulfilling eq.(2) with $`m=k=1`$. In our approach, the “temperature” corresponds to the averaged kinetic energy fluctuation $`<\delta v_l^2>`$ and will be referred with the symbol $`T_t`$.
As shown by Kraichnan , if we observe the statistics of the velocity gradients in the inertial range, considering both the coherent structures and the random fluctuations, the equipartition of energy does not apply. However, in the dissipation range, if we suppose that the fluctuations of the velocity gradients are given only by the incoherent fluctuations, we argue (and assume) that the equipartition of energy holds. The physical implication of this model is that the velocity fluctuations, in the dissipation range, may be described as a cascade of thermal baths. At every scale the ordinary statistical mechanics holds, i.e. the conditional probability for a fixed temperature $`T_t`$ is gaussian, but, due to the changes of such temperature, the final distribution will be different from the gaussian one.
Due to the three dimensional nature of the turbulent flow, we suggest that the temperature $`T_t`$ fluctuates with a $`\chi ^2`$\- distribution with degree $`n=3`$. Actually, such physical model for the distribution of the averaged kinetic energy fluctuations $`f(T_t)`$ has been proposed recently by Beck  in the formalism of nonextensive statistical mechanics.
The temperature $`T_t`$ has to be considered as a random variable given by the expression

$$T_t=\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}X_i^2,$$
(4)
where $`X_i`$ are independent gaussian variables with zero average. The mean value of the averaged kinetic energy fluctuations $`T_t`$ depends on the scale $`l`$. In particular, at scale $`l`$, the mean value $`<T_t>`$ is $`3g(l)`$, where $`g(l)=<X^2>`$. This means that the probability density $`f(T_t)`$ is given by

$$f(T_t)=\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(3/2)}(\frac{1}{2g(l)})^{3/2}T_t^{1/2}e^{\frac{T_t}{2g(l)}}.$$
(5)
If we introduce eq.(5) into eq.(3) we obtain the following integral

$$\psi (\delta v_l)=\frac{C}{g(l)^{3/2}}_0^+\mathrm{}e^{\frac{\delta v_l^2}{2T_t}}e^{\frac{T_t}{2g(l)}}𝑑T_t,$$
(6)
where $`C=(4\sqrt{\pi }\mathrm{\Gamma }(3/2))^1`$ is the normalization constant. The latter integral can be evaluated exactly. Indeed, eq.(6) can be rewritten as

$$\psi (\delta v_l)=\frac{2C}{g(l)}\delta v_lK_1\left(\frac{\delta v_l}{g(l)^{1/2}}\right),$$
(7)
where $`K_1()`$ is the modified Bessel function of the second kind.
Eq.(7) provides a theoretical prediction of the statistics of the velocity gradients of the incoherent turbulence in the limit of infinite Reynolds number. Obviously, the statistics of eq.(7) depends on the scaling law $`g(l)`$ of the mean temperature $`<T_t>`$.
Given the relation between the mean temperature $`<T_t>`$ and the scale $`l`$, the moments of the velocity gradients can be evaluated easily by means of eq.(7). Indeed, we obtain

$$<\delta v_l^q>=f(q)g(l)^{q/2},$$
(8)
where $`f(q)`$ is a function of $`q`$ depending on the moments of the Bessel function $`K_1()`$

$$f(q)=2Cy^{q+1}K_1(y)𝑑y.$$
(9)
Equation (8) shows that the moments of the velocity gradients depend only on the scaling law of the mean temperature $`<T_t>`$.
At the very small scales, $`ll_d`$, the velocity field is smooth due to the lack of singularities. Therefore, the structure function scales as $`<\delta v_l^q>l^q`$. Then, due to eq.(8), we propose the following scaling law

$$g(l)=l^2.$$
(10)
With this assumption, the theoretical prediction of the velocity gradients statistics is given by the following equation

$$\psi (\delta v_l)=\frac{2C}{l^2}\delta v_lK_1\left(\frac{\delta v_l}{l}\right).$$
(11)
We will show that such theoretical prediction is in complete agreement with the experimental results.
Actually, experimental data in the dissipation range are difficult to acquire. We show the comparison between the theoretical prediction and the experimental data of Van de Water . These experimental data correspond to the transverse PDF of a turbulent flow behind a grid in a closed wind tunnel at a nearly-dissipative scale ($`\frac{l}{l_d}10`$). Figure 1 shows the agreement between the experimental results and the theoretical prediction.

Although the moments of the velocity gradients distribution of the incoherent turbulence depend on the scaling law of the mean temperature $`<T_t>`$, the probabilty $`\psi (\delta v_l)`$ has an asymptotic decay close to the exponential function whatever is the relation between the scale $`l`$ and the mean temperature $`<T_t>`$. Indeed, the asymptotic shape of the velocity gradients is given by

$$\psi (\delta v_l)e^{\frac{\delta v_l}{c(l)}},$$
(12)
where $`c(l)`$ is a function of the scale $`l`$ that depends only on $`g(l)`$.
As shown by Benzi et al. , the PDF of the velocity gradients observed experimentally in the inertial range can be obtained by a non-trivial superposition of stretched exponentials, corresponding to the various exponents of the multifractal approach. Moreover, such distribution is explicitly dependent on the Reynolds number. On the contrary, at very small scales $`ll_d`$, the tails of the PDF are exponential-like and independent of the Reynolds number. In practice, at very small scales, the exponential like decay of the PDF is a universal feature that, using the present approach, may be described by means of ordinary statistical mechanics.
In conclusion, we have presented a description of turbulence at very small scales $`ll_d`$, where the coherent structures may be assumed to have been annihilated by dissipation. A thermodynamical model for incoherent turbulence, providing an exact expression for the PDF (in terms of the modified Bessel function of the second kind), has been presented. We have shown that the velocity gradients fluctuations at very small scales may be described as the momentum p of a particle in a gas with a temperature $`T`$ that fluctuates slowly. Hence, the present model explains how even the random incoherent fluctuations in the dissipative range may give rise to non-gaussian statistics. We hope that this effort will results in a deeper understanding of the physics underlying the phenomenon of fully developed turbulence and, more in general, of complex processes characterized by the coexistence of equilibrium and non-equilibrium conditions.
The author is very greatful to G. Buresti for fruitful discussions and the continuous help in the preparation of the paper.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The recent KamLAND  and SNO  experiments have provided us with very compelling evidence that the solar neutrino deficit is due to the matter-enhanced $`\nu _e\nu _\mu `$ oscillation with a large mixing angle $`\theta _{\mathrm{sun}}32^{}`$. Meanwhile, the K2K  and Super-Kamiokande  experiments have convinced us that the atmospheric neutrino anomaly is attributed to the $`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$ oscillation with another large mixing angle $`\theta _{\mathrm{atm}}45^{}`$. In contrast, the non-observation of the $`\overline{\nu }_e\overline{\nu }_e`$ oscillation in the CHOOZ experiment  indicates a rather small (even vanishing) mixing angle $`\theta _{\mathrm{chz}}<13^{}`$. These three mixing angles may straightforwardly be related to the elements of the $`3\times 3`$ lepton flavor mixing matrix $`V`$, which links the neutrino mass eigenstates $`(\nu _1,\nu _2,\nu _3)`$ to the neutrino flavor eigenstates $`(\nu _e,\nu _\mu ,\nu _\tau )`$. To a good degree of accuracy, $`\theta _{\mathrm{sun}}`$ and $`\theta _{\mathrm{atm}}`$ describe the flavor mixing effect between the 1st and 2nd lepton families and that between the 2nd and 3rd lepton families, respectively; while the small mixing angle $`\theta _{\mathrm{chz}}`$ is responsible for the flavor mixing effect between the 1st and 3rd lepton families. Thus the lepton flavor mixing matrix $`V`$ performs a bi-large mixing pattern, which is quite different from the tri-small mixing pattern of the quark flavor mixing matrix .

To interpret the bi-large lepton flavor mixing pattern, many phenomenological ans$`\ddot{\mathrm{a}}`$tze of lepton mass matrices have recently been proposed . A particularly interesting category of the ans$`\ddot{\mathrm{a}}`$tze focus on texture zeros of charged lepton and neutrino mass matrices in a given flavor basis For instance, a lot of interest has recently been paid to possible two-zero textures of the neutrino mass matrix in the flavor basis where the charged lepton mass matrix is diagonal ., from which some nontrivial relations between flavor mixing angles and lepton mass ratios can be derived. The typical example is the Fritzsch ansatz  for symmetric lepton mass matrices,

$$M_{l,\nu }=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{𝟎}& C_{l,\nu }& \mathrm{𝟎}\\ C_{l,\nu }& \mathrm{𝟎}& B_{l,\nu }\\ \mathrm{𝟎}& B_{l,\nu }& A_{l,\nu }\end{array}\right),$$
(1)
in which six texture zeros are included §§§A pair of off-diagonal texture zeros of the charged lepton ($`M_l`$) or neutrino ($`M_\nu `$) mass matrix have been counted, due to symmetry, as one zero .. It has been shown by one of the authors  that this type of lepton mass matrices can naturally predict a normal hierarchy of neutrino masses and a bi-large pattern of lepton flavor mixing angles. Furthermore, Fukugita, Tanimoto and Yanagida  have demonstrated that very similar phenomenological predictions can also be achieved from a simple but interesting ansatz of lepton mass matrices based on both the Fritzsch texture and the seesaw mechanism .

The present paper aims to analyze the generalized Fritzsch ansatz of lepton mass matrices with four texture zeros,

$$M_{l,\nu }=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{𝟎}& C_{l,\nu }& \mathrm{𝟎}\\ C_{l,\nu }& \stackrel{~}{B}_{l,\nu }& B_{l,\nu }\\ \mathrm{𝟎}& B_{l,\nu }& A_{l,\nu }\end{array}\right),$$
(2)
and its consequences on the neutrino mass spectrum, flavor mixing and CP violation. It is well known that the four-zero texture of quark mass matrices is more successful than the six-zero texture of quark mass matrices to interpret the strong hierarchy of quark masses and the smallness of flavor mixing angles. The spirit of lepton-quark similarity motivates us to conjecture that the lepton mass matrices might have the same texture zeros as the quark mass matrices. Such a conjecture is indeed reasonable in some specific models of grand unified theories , in which the mass matrices of leptons and quarks are related to each other by a new kind of flavor symmetry. That is why the four-zero texture of lepton mass matrices has been considered as a typical example in some model-building works . However, a careful and complete analysis of its phenomenological implications has not been done in the literature.

Naively, there is no doubt that the four-zero texture of $`M_{l,\nu }`$ in Eq. (2), which has more free parameters than the Fritzsch texture of $`M_{l,\nu }`$ in Eq. (1), must be able to interpret the observed bi-large pattern of lepton flavor mixing. To improve the analytical calculability and numerical predictability, one may follow a realistic strategy to concentrate on part of the whole parameter space of the four-zero texture of lepton mass matrices. The same strategy has actually been adopted in the study of the four-zero texture of quark mass matrices . In this paper, we shall consider two simplified versions of $`M_l`$ and $`M_\nu `$ given in Eq. (2):

1. $`|\stackrel{~}{B}_l|=m_\mu `$ and $`|\stackrel{~}{B}_\nu |=m_2`$, where $`m_\mu `$ and $`m_2`$ stand respectively for the physical masses of $`\mu `$ and $`\nu _2`$. This interesting case, to be referred to as Ansatz (A), has been briefly discussed in Ref. .
2. $`|\stackrel{~}{B}_l|=|B_l|`$ and $`|\stackrel{~}{B}_\nu |=|A_\nu |`$. This specific case, to be referred to as Ansatz (B), has not been discussed in the literature.

Our main purpose is to explore the allowed parameter space of each ansatz and its implications on the neutrino mass spectrum and lepton flavor mixing measurables. We find that both ans$`\ddot{\mathrm{a}}`$tze are favored by current experimental data on neutrino oscillations. Their predictions for the effective mass of the tritium beta decay and that of the neutrinoless double beta decay are too small to be detectable, but leptonic CP violation at the percent level is definitely allowed. Finally, we present some brief discussions about the seesaw invariance of the four-zero texture of Dirac and Majorana neutrino mass matrices.

## 2 Framework

Note that all non-zero elements of $`M_l`$ and $`M_\nu `$ in Eq. (2) are in general complex. If the condition

$$\mathrm{arg}(A_{l,\nu })+\mathrm{arg}(\stackrel{~}{B}_{l,\nu })=2\mathrm{arg}(B_{l,\nu })$$
(3)
is satisfied, then $`M_{l,\nu }`$ can be decomposed as

$$M_l=P_l^T\overline{M}_lP_l,M_\nu =P_\nu ^T\overline{M}_\nu P_\nu ,$$
(4)
where

$`\overline{M}_{l,\nu }`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{𝟎}& |C_{l,\nu }|& \mathrm{𝟎}\\ |C_{l,\nu }|& |\stackrel{~}{B}_{l,\nu }|& |B_{l,\nu }|\\ \mathrm{𝟎}& |B_{l,\nu }|& |A_{l,\nu }|\end{array}\right),`$
$`P_{l,\nu }`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{ccc}e^{i\alpha _{l,\nu }^{}}& 0& 0\\ 0& e^{i\beta _{l,\nu }^{}}& 0\\ 0& 0& e^{i\gamma _{l,\nu }^{}}\end{array}\right),`$ (5)
with $`\mathrm{arg}(A_{l,\nu })=2\gamma _{l,\nu }^{}`$, $`\mathrm{arg}(B_{l,\nu })=\beta _{l,\nu }^{}+\gamma _{l,\nu }^{}`$, $`\mathrm{arg}(\stackrel{~}{B}_{l,\nu })=2\beta _{l,\nu }^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{arg}(C_{l,\nu })=\alpha _{l,\nu }^{}+\beta _{l,\nu }^{}`$. The real symmetric matrices $`\overline{M}_l`$ and $`\overline{M}_\nu `$ can be diagonalized by use of the following unitary transformations:

$`U_l^T\overline{M}_lU_l`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{ccc}m_e& 0& 0\\ 0& m_\mu & 0\\ 0& 0& m_\tau \end{array}\right),`$
$`U_\nu ^T\overline{M}_\nu U_\nu `$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{ccc}m_1& 0& 0\\ 0& m_2& 0\\ 0& 0& m_3\end{array}\right),`$ (6)
in which $`(m_e,m_\mu ,m_\tau )`$ and $`(m_1,m_2,m_3)`$ denote the physical masses of charged leptons and neutrinos, respectively. The lepton flavor mixing matrix $`V`$ arises from the mismatch between the diagonalization of the charged lepton mass matrix $`M_l`$ and that of the neutrino mass matrix $`M_\nu `$. Therefore, we obtain $`V=U_l^T\left(P_l^{}P_\nu \right)U_\nu ^{}`$, whose nine matrix elements read explicitly as

$$V_{pq}=U_{1p}^lU_{1q}^\nu e^{i\alpha }+U_{2p}^lU_{2q}^\nu e^{i\beta }+U_{3p}^lU_{3q}^\nu e^{i\gamma },$$
(7)
where the subscripts $`p`$ and $`q`$ run respectively over $`(e,\mu ,\tau )`$ and $`(1,2,3)`$, and the parameters $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$ and $`\gamma `$ are defined as

$$\alpha \alpha _\nu ^{}\alpha _l^{},\beta \beta _\nu ^{}\beta _l^{},\gamma \gamma _\nu ^{}\gamma _l^{}.$$
(8)
Note that the overall phase of $`V`$ has nothing to do with the experimental observables. Hence only two combinations of three phases $`(\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma )`$ are physically relevant. For simplicity, we take $`\gamma =0`$ in the following.

The matrix elements of $`V`$ depend both on the ratios of lepton masses,

$$x_l^{}\frac{m_e}{m_\mu },y_l^{}\frac{m_\mu }{m_\tau },x_\nu \frac{m_1}{m_2},y_\nu \frac{m_2}{m_3},$$
(9)
and on the phase parameters $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$. As the values of $`m_e`$, $`m_\mu `$ and $`m_\tau `$ have precisely been measured , we have $`x_l^{}0.00484`$ and $`y_l^{}0.0594`$ to a good degree of accuracy. The other four free parameters can be determined or constrained from the present experimental data on neutrino oscillations. As the neutrino mass-squared differences of solar and atmospheric neutrino oscillations are given by

$`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{sun}}^2`$ $``$ $`\left|m_2^2m_1^2\right|=m_2^2\left|1x_\nu ^2\right|,`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{atm}}^2`$ $``$ $`\left|m_3^2m_2^2\right|=m_3^2\left|1y_\nu ^2\right|,`$ (10)
the observed hierarchy $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{sun}}^2\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{atm}}^2`$ may impose a very strong constraint on the values of $`(x_\nu ,y_\nu )`$:

$$R_\nu \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{sun}}^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{atm}}^2}=y_\nu ^2\left|\frac{1x_\nu ^2}{1y_\nu ^2}\right|1.$$
(11)
On the other hand, the mixing factors of solar, atmospheric and CHOOZ reactor neutrino oscillations are related to the matrix elements of $`V`$ in the following way:

$`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{\mathrm{sun}}`$ $`=`$ $`4|V_{e1}|^2|V_{e2}|^2,`$
$`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{\mathrm{atm}}`$ $`=`$ $`4|V_{\mu 3}|^2\left(1|V_{\mu 3}|^2\right),`$
$`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{\mathrm{chz}}`$ $`=`$ $`4|V_{e3}|^2\left(1|V_{e3}|^2\right).`$ (12)
In view of the KamLAND , SNO , K2K , Super-Kamiokande  and CHOOZ  data on neutrino oscillations, we have $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{sun}}^2[5.9,8.8]\times 10^5\mathrm{eV}^2`$, $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{\mathrm{sun}}[0.25,0.40]`$ ; $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{atm}}^2[1.65,3.25]\times 10^3\mathrm{eV}^2`$, $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{\mathrm{atm}}[0.88,1.00]`$ ; and $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{\mathrm{chz}}<0.2`$ at the $`90\%`$ confidence level. With the help of these experimental results, the allowed ranges of $`x_\nu `$, $`y_\nu `$, $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ can be obtained from Eqs. (11) and (12).

Once the values of $`x_\nu `$ and $`y_\nu `$ are determined or constrained from current experimental data, we are able to calculate the absolute values of three neutrino masses by use of Eq. (10):

$`m_3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{|1y_\nu ^2|}}}\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{atm}}^2},`$
$`m_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{y_\nu }{\sqrt{|1y_\nu ^2|}}}\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{atm}}^2}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{|1x_\nu ^2|}}}\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{sun}}^2},`$
$`m_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{x_\nu }{\sqrt{|1x_\nu ^2|}}}\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{sun}}^2}.`$ (13)
In addition, interesting predictions can be achieved for the effective mass of the tritium beta decay $`m_e`$ and that of the neutrinoless double beta decay $`m_{ee}`$:

$`m_e^2`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}}\left(m_i^2|V_{ei}|^2\right)`$
$`=`$ $`m_3^2\left(x_\nu ^2y_\nu ^2|V_{e1}|^2+y_\nu ^2|V_{e2}|^2+|V_{e3}|^2\right),`$
$`m_{ee}`$ $``$ $`\left|{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}}\left(m_iV_{ei}^2\right)\right|`$ (14)
$`=`$ $`m_3\left|x_\nu y_\nu V_{e1}^2+y_\nu V_{e2}^2+V_{e3}^2\right|.`$
The present experimental upper bound on $`m_e`$ is $`m_e<3`$ eV , while the sensitivity of the proposed KATRIN experiment is expected to reach $`m_e0.3`$ eV . In comparison, the upper limit $`m_{ee}<0.35`$ eV has been set by the Heidelberg-Moscow Collaboration  at the $`90\%`$ confidence level If the reported evidence for the existence of the neutrinoless double beta decay  is taken into account, one has $`0.05\mathrm{eV}m_{ee}0.84\mathrm{eV}`$ at the $`95\%`$ confidence level.. The sensitivity of the next-generation experiments for the neutrinoless double beta decay is possible to reach $`m_{ee}10`$ meV to 50 meV .

The strength of CP violation in neutrino oscillations, which is measured by the Jarlskog invariant $`𝒥`$ , can also be predicted from the four-zero texture of lepton mass matrices under consideration. Indeed, $`𝒥`$ is defined through the following equation:

$$\mathrm{Im}\left(V_{ai}V_{bj}V_{aj}^{}V_{bi}^{}\right)=𝒥\underset{c,k}{}\left(ϵ_{abc}ϵ_{ijk}\right),$$
(15)
where the subscripts $`(a,b,c)`$ and $`(i,j,k)`$ run respectively over $`(e,\mu ,\tau )`$ and $`(1,2,3)`$. The magnitude of $`𝒥`$ depends both on $`(x_\nu ,y_\nu )`$ and on $`(\alpha ,\beta )`$. If $`|𝒥|1\%`$ is achievable, then leptonic CP- and T-violating effects could be measured in a variety of long-baseline neutrino oscillation experiments  in the future.

## 3 Ansatz (A)

Now let us consider Ansatz (A), in which the requirements $`|\stackrel{~}{B}_l|=m_\mu `$ and $`|\stackrel{~}{B}_\nu |=m_2`$ are imposed on $`M_l`$ and $`M_\nu `$ in Eq. (2). Similar conditions ($`|\stackrel{~}{B}_\mathrm{u}|=m_c`$ and $`|\stackrel{~}{B}_\mathrm{d}|=m_s`$) have actually been taken in some literature  for the four-zero texture of quark mass matrices. Following Eqs. (3) and (4), we factor out the complex phases of $`M_{l,\nu }`$. Then three elements of the real symmetric mass matrix $`\overline{M}_{l,\nu }`$ can be expressed in terms of its three mass eigenvalues:

$`|A_l|`$ $`=`$ $`m_\tau m_e,`$
$`|B_l|`$ $`=`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{m_em_\tau (m_\tau m_em_\mu )}{m_\tau m_e}}\right]^{1/2},`$
$`|C_l|`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_em_\mu m_\tau }{m_\tau m_e}}\right)^{1/2};`$ (16)
and

$`|A_\nu |`$ $`=`$ $`m_3m_1,`$
$`|B_\nu |`$ $`=`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{m_1m_3(m_3m_1m_2)}{m_3m_1}}\right]^{1/2},`$
$`|C_\nu |`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_1m_2m_3}{m_3m_1}}\right)^{1/2}.`$ (17)
The elements of the unitary transformation matrix $`U_{l,\nu }`$, which is used to diagonalize $`\overline{M}_{l,\nu }`$ in Eq. (6), can in turn be expressed in terms of the ratios $`x_{l,\nu }^{}`$ and $`y_{l,\nu }^{}`$ as follows (the indices “$`l`$” and “$`\nu `$” are neglected for simplicity):

$`U_{11}`$ $`=`$ $`+i\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(1+x)(1x^2y^2)}}\right]^{1/2},`$
$`U_{12}`$ $`=`$ $`+\left[{\displaystyle \frac{x(1yxy)}{(1+x)(1y)(1xy)}}\right]^{1/2},`$
$`U_{13}`$ $`=`$ $`+\left[{\displaystyle \frac{x^2y^3}{(1y)(1x^2y^2)}}\right]^{1/2},`$
$`U_{21}`$ $`=`$ $`i\left[{\displaystyle \frac{x}{(1+x)(1+xy)}}\right]^{1/2},`$
$`U_{22}`$ $`=`$ $`+\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1yxy}{(1+x)(1y)}}\right]^{1/2},`$
$`U_{23}`$ $`=`$ $`+\left[{\displaystyle \frac{xy}{(1y)(1+xy)}}\right]^{1/2},`$
$`U_{31}`$ $`=`$ $`+i\left[{\displaystyle \frac{x^2y(1yxy)}{(1+x)(1x^2y^2)}}\right]^{1/2},`$
$`U_{32}`$ $`=`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{xy}{(1+x)(1y)(1xy)}}\right]^{1/2},`$
$`U_{33}`$ $`=`$ $`+\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1yxy}{(1y)(1x^2y^2)}}\right]^{1/2}.`$ (18)
Note that $`U_{i1}`$ (for $`i=1,2,3`$) are imaginary, and their nontrivial phases are due to the negative determinant of $`\overline{M}_{l,\nu }`$.

The four free parameters $`x_\nu `$, $`y_\nu `$, $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ can be constrained by use of Eqs. (11) and (12) as well as current data on neutrino oscillations. Their allowed ranges are shown in Fig. 1. We see that $`x_\nu 0.86`$ and $`y_\nu 0.35`$ typically hold. Thus the neutrino mass spectrum satisfies $`m_1<m_2<m_3`$. For $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ varying from 0 to $`2\pi `$, we find that about half of the whole $`(\alpha ,\beta )`$ parameter space can be excluded. Note that the correlation between $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ in Ansatz (A) is not as strong as the phase correlation in the Fritzsch ansatz of lepton mass matrices . The reason is simply that the contribution of $`M_l`$ to $`V`$ is much smaller in Ansatz (A) than in the Fritzsch ansatz. Hence the relative phases between $`M_l`$ and $`M_\nu `$ in the former cannot significantly affect the magnitudes of nine matrix elements of $`V`$.

Fig. 1 also shows the ouputs of $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{\mathrm{atm}}`$ versus $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{\mathrm{sun}}`$ and $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{\mathrm{chz}}`$ versus $`R_\nu `$ restricted by Ansatz (A). It can be seen that larger values of $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{\mathrm{sun}}`$ roughly correspond to smaller values of $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{\mathrm{atm}}`$. In addition, the ansatz predicts $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{\mathrm{chz}}0.08`$, a lower bound which is easily accessible in the upcoming long-baseline neutrino oscillation experiments . If the upper limit $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{\mathrm{chz}}<0.1`$ instead of $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{\mathrm{chz}}<0.2`$ is input in the numerical calculations, one will arrive at $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{\mathrm{atm}}0.91`$. Such a low value of $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{\mathrm{atm}}`$ is tolerable, but not favored by current data. It becomes clear that the mixing angles $`\theta _{\mathrm{sun}}`$, $`\theta _{\mathrm{atm}}`$ and $`\theta _{\mathrm{chz}}`$ are strongly correlated with one another in Ansatz (A). Thus more precise data on three mixing angles may provide a sensitive test of this phenomenological scenario.

The result $`y_\nu ^20.1`$ implies that $`m_3\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{atm}}^2}`$ is an acceptable approximation. More exactly, we obtain $`m_3(4.36.1)\times 10^2`$ eV, $`m_2(1.42.3)\times 10^2`$ eV and $`m_1(1.12.1)\times 10^2`$ eV from Eq. (13). In calculating the allowed ranges of $`m_1`$ and $`m_2`$, we have ignored their correlation induced by the model itself. This generous treatment has no conflict with the plot of $`(x_\nu ,y_\nu )`$ in Fig. 1, in which $`x_\nu <1`$ results from the correlation between $`m_1/m_2`$ and $`m_2/m_3`$. The sum of three neutrino masses is consistent with $`m_1+m_2+m_3<0.71`$ eV, an upper bound set by the recent WMAP data . We compute the effective mass of the tritium beta decay and that of the neutrinoless double beta decay by use of Eq. (14), and present the numerical results in Fig. 1. One can see that $`m_e10^2`$ eV and $`m_{ee}10^3`$ eV typically hold. Both quantities are too small to be measured in practice. Similarly, there is no hope to detect the effective (kinematic) masses of muon and tau neutrinos . The numerical results for the Jarlskog parameter $`𝒥`$ and the smallest matrix element $`|V_{e3}|`$ are also shown in Fig. 1. We find that the magnitude of $`𝒥`$ may nearly be $`1\%`$, if $`|V_{e3}|`$ is close to its upper bound. It is possible to measure leptonic CP violation of this order in the future neutrino factories, if the terrestrial matter effects can be under control.

Finally we illustrate the typical texture of $`\overline{M}_{l,\nu }`$ by taking $`x_\nu 0.86`$, $`y_\nu 0.35`$ and $`m_30.05`$ eV. The result is

$`\overline{M}_l`$ $``$ $`1.78\mathrm{GeV}\times \left(\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{𝟎}& 0.0041& \mathrm{𝟎}\\ 0.0041& 0.059& 0.016\\ \mathrm{𝟎}& 0.016& \mathrm{𝟏}\end{array}\right),`$
$`\overline{M}_\nu `$ $``$ $`3.50\times 10^2\mathrm{eV}\times \left(\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{𝟎}& 0.56& \mathrm{𝟎}\\ 0.56& 0.50& 0.55\\ \mathrm{𝟎}& 0.55& \mathrm{𝟏}\end{array}\right).`$ (19)
It becomes obvious that lepton flavor mixing is dominated by the neutrino sector, as the matrix elements of $`\overline{M}_l`$ have a very strong hierarchy.

## 4 Ansatz (B)

We proceed to consider Ansatz (B), in which the requirements $`|\stackrel{~}{B}_l|=|B_l|`$ and $`|\stackrel{~}{B}_\nu |=|A_\nu |`$ are imposed on $`M_l`$ and $`M_\nu `$ in Eq. (2). Note that the condition $`|\stackrel{~}{B}_l|=|B_l|`$ is similar to $`|\stackrel{~}{B}_\mathrm{u}||B_\mathrm{u}|`$ and $`|\stackrel{~}{B}_\mathrm{d}||B_\mathrm{d}|`$ for the four-zero texture of quark mass matrices , in view of the fact that charged leptons have a strong mass hierarchy as quarks. Because the condition $`|\stackrel{~}{B}_l|=|B_l|`$ leads to $`|B_l|m_\mu `$ in the leading-order approximation, it is essentially equivalent to the condition $`|\stackrel{~}{B}_l|=m_\mu `$ taken in Ansatz (A). In contrast, the requirement $`|\stackrel{~}{B}_\nu |=|A_\nu |`$ is motivated by the experimental fact that the mixing angle of atmospheric neutrino oscillations is about $`45^{}`$  (namely, the diagonalization of the (2,3) subsector of $`M_\nu `$ may give rise to a rotation angle of $`45^{}`$, if the condition $`|\stackrel{~}{B}_\nu |=|A_\nu |`$ is satisfied). Such a phenomenological hypothesis for the texture of $`M_\nu `$ results in an apparent “structural asymmetry” between $`M_l`$ and $`M_\nu `$, but its consequences on lepton flavor mixing are simple and interesting. Following Eqs. (3) and (4), we can factor out the complex phases of $`M_{l,\nu }`$. Although we are able to exactly express both $`(|A_l|,|B_l|,|C_l|)`$ and $`(|A_\nu |,|B_\nu |,|C_\nu |)`$ in terms of the corresponding mass eigenvalues, the formulas for the former are too complicated to be instructive. It is therefore better to make some analytical approximations in deriving $`|A_l|`$, $`|B_l|`$ and $`|C_l|`$. In view of the strong mass hierarchy in the charged lepton sector, we expect that $`|A_l||B_l||C_l|`$ naturally holds. Then we obtain

$`|A_l|`$ $``$ $`m_\tau \left(1{\displaystyle \frac{m_\mu ^2}{m_\tau ^2}}\right),`$
$`|B_l|`$ $``$ $`m_\mu \left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{m_\mu }{m_\tau }}\right),`$
$`|C_l|`$ $``$ $`\sqrt{m_em_\mu }\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{m_\mu ^2}{2m_\tau ^2}}\right),`$ (20)
to a good degree of accuracy. In contrast, the expressions of $`|A_\nu |`$, $`|B_\nu |`$ and $`|C_\nu |`$ are exact:

$`|A_\nu |`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_3+m_2m_1}{2}},`$
$`|B_\nu |`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\left(m_3+m_2+m_1\right)\left(m_3m_2m_1\right)\left(m_3m_2+m_1\right)}{m_3+m_2m_1}}\right]^{1/2},`$
$`|C_\nu |`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{2m_1m_2m_3}{m_3+m_2m_1}}\right)^{1/2}.`$ (21)
The unitary transformation matrix $`U_l`$, which has been defined to diagonalize $`\overline{M}_l`$ in Eq. (6), can approximately be given as

$$U_l\left(\begin{array}{ccc}i\left(1\frac{x_l^{}}{2}\right)& \sqrt{x_l^{}}& y_l^{}\sqrt{x_l^{}y_l^{}}\\ i\sqrt{x_l^{}}& 1\frac{x_l^{}}{2}\frac{y_l^2}{2}& y_l^{}\\ iy_l^{}\sqrt{x_l^{}}& y_l^{}& 1\frac{y_l^2}{2}\end{array}\right),$$
(22)
where the fact of $`x_l^{}y_l^2`$ has been taken into account. In addition, the matrix elements of $`U_\nu `$ can be expressed in terms of $`x_\nu `$ and $`y_\nu `$ as follows:

$`U_{11}^\nu `$ $`=`$ $`+i\left[{\displaystyle \frac{(1+y_\nu +x_\nu y_\nu )}{(1+x_\nu )(1+x_\nu y_\nu )(1+y_\nu x_\nu y_\nu )}}\right]^{1/2},`$
$`U_{12}^\nu `$ $`=`$ $`+\left[{\displaystyle \frac{x_\nu (1y_\nu x_\nu y_\nu )}{(1+x_\nu )(1y_\nu )(1+y_\nu x_\nu y_\nu )}}\right]^{1/2},`$
$`U_{13}^\nu `$ $`=`$ $`+\left[{\displaystyle \frac{x_\nu y_\nu ^2(1y_\nu +x_\nu y_\nu )}{(1y_\nu )(1+x_\nu y_\nu )(1+y_\nu x_\nu y_\nu )}}\right]^{1/2},`$
$`U_{21}^\nu `$ $`=`$ $`i\left[{\displaystyle \frac{x_\nu (1+y_\nu +x_\nu y_\nu )}{2(1+x_\nu )(1+x_\nu y_\nu )}}\right]^{1/2},`$
$`U_{22}^\nu `$ $`=`$ $`+\left[{\displaystyle \frac{(1y_\nu x_\nu y_\nu )}{2(1+x_\nu )(1y_\nu )}}\right]^{1/2},`$
$`U_{23}^\nu `$ $`=`$ $`+\left[{\displaystyle \frac{(1y_\nu +x_\nu y_\nu )}{2(1y_\nu )(1+x_\nu y_\nu )}}\right]^{1/2},`$
$`U_{31}^\nu `$ $`=`$ $`+i\left[{\displaystyle \frac{x_\nu (1y_\nu x_\nu y_\nu )(1y_\nu +x_\nu y_\nu )}{2(1+x_\nu )(1+x_\nu y_\nu )(1+y_\nu x_\nu y_\nu )}}\right]^{1/2},`$
$`U_{32}^\nu `$ $`=`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{(1+y_\nu +x_\nu y_\nu )(1y_\nu +x_\nu y_\nu )}{2(1+x_\nu )(1y_\nu )(1+y_\nu x_\nu y_\nu )}}\right]^{1/2},`$
$`U_{33}^\nu `$ $`=`$ $`+\left[{\displaystyle \frac{(1+y_\nu +x_\nu y_\nu )(1y_\nu x_\nu y_\nu )}{2(1y_\nu )(1+x_\nu y_\nu )(1+y_\nu x_\nu y_\nu )}}\right]^{1/2}.`$ (23)
Note again that $`U_{i1}^l`$ and $`U_{i1}^\nu `$ (for $`i=1,2,3`$) are imaginary, and their nontrivial phases are due to $`\mathrm{Det}(\overline{M}_l)<0`$ and $`\mathrm{Det}(\overline{M}_\nu )<0`$.

With the help of Eqs. (11) and (12), one may compute the ranges of $`x_\nu `$, $`y_\nu `$, $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ allowed by current data on neutrino oscillations. The numerical results are shown in Fig. 2. We see that the allowed range of $`x_\nu `$ in Ansatz (B) is much larger than that in Ansatz (A). As both $`x_\nu <1`$ and $`y_\nu <1`$ hold, the neutrino mass spectrum satisfies $`m_1<m_2<m_3`$. Note that there is little restriction on the phase parameters $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$. This feature can easily be understood: the contribution of $`M_\nu `$ to $`V`$ is dominant over that of $`M_l`$ to $`V`$, thus the magnitudes of nine matrix elements of $`V`$ are essentially insensitive to the relative phases between $`M_l`$ and $`M_\nu `$.

The outputs of $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{\mathrm{atm}}`$ versus $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{\mathrm{sun}}`$ and $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{\mathrm{chz}}`$ versus $`R_\nu `$ are also shown in Fig. 2. We see that $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{\mathrm{atm}}0.94`$ holds and $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{\mathrm{atm}}1`$ is particularly favored. The latter is a natural consequence of the specific texture of $`M_\nu `$, whose (2,3) subsector can be diagonalized by a rotation of $`45^{}`$. Thus $`|V_{\mu 3}|1/\sqrt{2}`$ leads to $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{\mathrm{atm}}1`$ in Ansatz (B). Another feature of Ansatz (B) is that changing the upper bound of $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{\mathrm{chz}}`$ from 0.2 to 0.1 does not significantly affect the allowed range of $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{\mathrm{atm}}`$. However, the correlation between $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{\mathrm{chz}}`$ and $`R_\nu `$ is stronger in Ansatz (B) than in Ansatz (A).

The approximation $`m_3\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{atm}}^2}`$ is reasonably good in Ansatz (B). Numerically, we obtain $`m_3(4.25.8)\times 10^2\mathrm{eV}`$, $`m_2(0.81.4)\times 10^2\mathrm{eV}`$ and $`m_1(0.31.1)\times 10^2\mathrm{eV}`$ from Eq. (13). This neutrino mass spectrum is quite similar to that in Ansatz (A). The results for the effective mass of the tritium beta decay and that of the neutrinoless double beta decay are also illustrated in Fig. 2. One can see that $`m_e10^2\mathrm{eV}`$ and $`m_{ee}10^3\mathrm{eV}`$ hold in Ansatz (B). Both of them are too small to be detected in reality. In addition, Fig. 2 shows that the magnitude of the Jarlskog parameter $`𝒥`$ may nearly be $`1.5\%`$, if $`|V_{e3}|`$ is larger than 0.15. This result implies that it is possible to observe leptonic CP violation in the future long-baseline neutrino oscillation experiments.

To illustrate the texture of $`\overline{M}_{l,\nu }`$, we typically take $`x_\nu 0.6`$, $`y_\nu 0.21`$ and $`m_30.05\mathrm{eV}`$. The numerical result is

$`\overline{M}_l`$ $``$ $`1.77\mathrm{GeV}\times \left(\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{𝟎}& 0.0042& \mathrm{𝟎}\\ 0.0042& 0.064& 0.064\\ \mathrm{𝟎}& 0.064& \mathrm{𝟏}\end{array}\right),`$
$`\overline{M}_\nu `$ $``$ $`2.71\times 10^2\mathrm{eV}\times \left(\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{𝟎}& 0.41& \mathrm{𝟎}\\ 0.41& \mathrm{𝟏}& 0.80\\ \mathrm{𝟎}& 0.80& \mathrm{𝟏}\end{array}\right).`$ (24)
The similarity and difference between two ans$`\ddot{\mathrm{a}}`$tze are therefore obvious.

## 5 Seesaw

Two ans$`\ddot{\mathrm{a}}`$tze of lepton mass matrices discussed above can self-consistently describe the observed features of lepton flavor mixing, but they give no interpretation about why the masses of three neutrinos are so tiny. A simple way to improve our phenomenological ans$`\ddot{\mathrm{a}}`$tze is to incorporate them with the elegant idea of seesaw . In the seesaw mechanism, the smallness of left-handed Majorana neutrinos is attributed to the existence of heavy right-handed Majorana neutrinos,

$$M_\nu M_\mathrm{D}M_\mathrm{R}^1M_\mathrm{D}^T,$$
(25)
where $`M_\mathrm{D}`$ and $`M_\mathrm{R}`$ denote the Dirac neutrino mass matrix and the heavy Majorana neutrino mass matrix, respectively. In some grand unified theories (such as the SO(10) model ), one takes $`[M_\mathrm{D},M_\mathrm{u}]=0`$, where $`M_\mathrm{u}`$ represents the up-type quark mass matrix. The mass matrix $`M_\mathrm{R}`$ is practically unknown in almost all reasonable extensions of the standard model. Hence specific textures of $`M_\mathrm{R}`$ and $`M_\mathrm{D}`$ have to be assumed, in order to determine the texture of $`M_\nu `$. Given $`M_\nu `$ and $`M_\mathrm{D}`$, on the other hand, one can calculate $`M_\mathrm{R}`$ by use of Eq. (25):

$$M_\mathrm{R}M_\mathrm{D}^TM_\nu ^1M_\mathrm{D}.$$
(26)
The scale of $`M_\mathrm{R}`$ stands for the scale of new physics in this simple seesaw picture.

To be specific, we assume that $`M_\mathrm{D}=M_\mathrm{u}`$ holds and it has the same texture zeros as $`M_l`$ and $`M_\nu `$ have:

$$M_\mathrm{D}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{𝟎}& C_\mathrm{u}& \mathrm{𝟎}\\ C_\mathrm{u}& \stackrel{~}{B}_\mathrm{u}& B_\mathrm{u}\\ \mathrm{𝟎}& B_\mathrm{u}& A_\mathrm{u}\end{array}\right).$$
(27)
Only if the condition $`\mathrm{Det}M_\nu 0`$ is guaranteed for $`M_\nu `$ in Eq. (2), one may obtain the inverse matrix of $`M_\nu `$ as follows:

$$M_\nu ^1=\frac{1}{A_\nu C_\nu ^2}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}B_\nu ^2A_\nu \stackrel{~}{B}_\nu & A_\nu C_\nu & B_\nu C_\nu \\ A_\nu C_\nu & \mathrm{𝟎}& \mathrm{𝟎}\\ B_\nu C_\nu & \mathrm{𝟎}& C_\nu ^2\end{array}\right).$$
(28)
Then the texture of $`M_\mathrm{R}`$ can be determined from Eq. (26) with the help of Eqs. (27) and (28):

$$M_\mathrm{R}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{𝟎}& C_\mathrm{R}& \mathrm{𝟎}\\ C_\mathrm{R}& \stackrel{~}{B}_\mathrm{R}& B_\mathrm{R}\\ \mathrm{𝟎}& B_\mathrm{R}& A_\mathrm{R}\end{array}\right),$$
(29)
where

$`A_\mathrm{R}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{A_\mathrm{u}^2}{A_\nu }},`$
$`B_\mathrm{R}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{A_\mathrm{u}B_\mathrm{u}}{A_\nu }}+{\displaystyle \frac{B_\mathrm{u}C_\mathrm{u}}{C_\nu }}{\displaystyle \frac{A_\mathrm{u}C_\mathrm{u}B_\nu }{A_\nu C_\nu }},`$
$`\stackrel{~}{B}_\mathrm{R}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{B_\mathrm{u}^2}{A_\nu }}+{\displaystyle \frac{2\stackrel{~}{B}_\mathrm{u}C_\mathrm{u}}{C_\nu }}{\displaystyle \frac{C_\mathrm{u}^2\stackrel{~}{B}_\nu }{C_\nu ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{2B_\mathrm{u}C_\mathrm{u}B_\nu }{A_\nu C_\nu }}+{\displaystyle \frac{C_\mathrm{u}^2B_\nu ^2}{A_\nu C_\nu ^2}},`$
$`C_\mathrm{R}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{C_\mathrm{u}^2}{C_\nu }}.`$ (30)
We see that the texture zeros of $`M_\mathrm{D}`$ and $`M_\nu `$ manifest themselves again in $`M_\mathrm{R}`$, as a consequence of the inverted seesaw relation given in Eq. (26). Therefore, all four lepton mass matrices ($`M_l`$, $`M_\mathrm{D}`$, $`M_\mathrm{R}`$ and $`M_\nu `$) are structurally parallel to one another. Such a structural similarity of lepton mass matrices, which is seesaw-invariant, might follow from a universal flavor symmetry hidden in a more fundamental theory of fermion mass generation. In particular, the underlying flavor symmetry must be related to the texture zeros of lepton mass matrices. It is worth mentioning that the Fritzsch texture of lepton mass matrices in Eq. (1) does not have the interesting property of seesaw invariance. Thus we argue that the four-zero texture of lepton mass matrix might be more attractive for model building at the energy scale where the seesaw mechanism works.

Now let us give an order-of-magnitude estimate of the matrix elements of $`M_\mathrm{R}`$ by taking the following phenomenologically-favored pattern of $`M_\mathrm{u}`$ :

$$M_\mathrm{u}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{𝟎}& \sqrt{m_um_c}& \mathrm{𝟎}\\ \sqrt{m_um_c}& m_c& \sqrt{m_um_t}\\ \mathrm{𝟎}& \sqrt{m_um_t}& m_t\end{array}\right),$$
(31)
in which the relevant complex phases have been neglected for simplicity. Typically taking $`m_u/m_cm_c/m_t0.0031`$ and $`m_t175`$ GeV at the electroweak scale , we obtain

$$M_\mathrm{R}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}8.8}\times 10^{14}\mathrm{GeV}\times \left(\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{𝟎}& 5.4\times 10^8& \mathrm{𝟎}\\ 5.4\times 10^8& 9.6\times 10^6& 3.1\times 10^3\\ \mathrm{𝟎}& 3.1\times 10^3& \mathrm{𝟏}\end{array}\right)$$
(32)
from Eq. (19) for Ansatz (A); and

$$M_\mathrm{R}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1.1}\times 10^{15}\mathrm{GeV}\times \left(\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{𝟎}& 7.3\times 10^8& \mathrm{𝟎}\\ 7.3\times 10^8& 9.6\times 10^6& 3.1\times 10^3\\ \mathrm{𝟎}& 3.1\times 10^3& \mathrm{𝟏}\end{array}\right)$$
(33)
from Eq. (24) for Ansatz (B). We see that the structure of $`M_\mathrm{R}`$ is strongly hierarchical in either case. The scale of $`M_\mathrm{R}`$ is about $`10^{15}`$ GeV, close to the typical scale of grand unified theories $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{GUT}}10^{16}`$ GeV.

It is worth remarking that the phase parameters of $`M_\mathrm{D}`$ and $`M_\nu `$ have been ignored in estimating the matrix elements of $`M_\mathrm{R}`$. If those complex phases are included, it is possible to get CP violation in the lepton-number-violating decays of heavy Majorana neutrinos . However, a successful interpretation of the observed matter-antimatter asymmetry of the universe via the leptogenesis mechanism  is rather nontrivial, because the details of $`M_\mathrm{D}`$ and $`M_\mathrm{R}`$ have to be taken into account. Further discussions on this topic are interesting but beyond the scope of this paper.

## 6 Summary

We have proposed and discussed two phenomenological ans$`\ddot{\mathrm{a}}`$tze of lepton mass matrices with four texture zeros. The parameter space of each ansatz has been carefully analyzed by use of current experimental data on neutrino oscillations. We demonstrate that the normal hierarchy of neutrino masses and the bi-large pattern of lepton flavor mixing can be accommodated in both ans$`\ddot{\mathrm{a}}`$tze. Their predictions for the effective mass of the tritium beta decay and that of the neutrinoless double beta decay are too small to be detected in practice. However, we find that leptonic CP violation at the percent level is possible for either ansatz. The correlation of relevant observable quantities in each ansatz allows us to test its validity, once more accurate experimental data become available. This property may also allow us to distinguish between these two different ans$`\ddot{\mathrm{a}}`$tze.

For the purpose of illustration, we have presented some brief discussions about the seesaw realization of our phenomenological scenarios. It is clear that the existence of heavy right-handed Majorana neutrinos at the scale of $`10^{15}`$ GeV or so may naturally interpret the smallness of left-handed Majorana neutrino masses. This observation would be useful for model building, from which some deeper understanding of the neutrino mass generation and lepton flavor mixing could be gained.

One of us (H.Z.) is grateful to the theory division of IHEP for financial support and hospitality in Beijing. This work was supported in part by the National Natural Science Foundation of China.


text:
# Scaling law of Wolff cluster surface energy

## Table

## Figure captions

1. $`|\mathrm{\Delta }E|`$ versus lattice size $`L`$ on the seven fractals investigated in logarithmic coordinates.
2. Collapses of $`𝒫(|\mathrm{\Delta }E|)`$ on the fractals $`SP(3^2,8,k)`$, $`SP(2^2,4,k)`$ and $`SP(3^3,18,k)`$ under the mapping described in the text.
3. $`\sqrt{(\mathrm{\Delta }E)^2}`$ versus lattice size $`L`$ on the seven fractals investigated in logarithmic coordinates.