text:
# Deviation of Atmospheric Mixing From Maximal and Structure in the Leptonic Flavor Sector

## I Introduction

One of the most exciting developments in particle physics of the past six years has been the confirmation, by several different experiments SK\_atm ; solar ; KamLAND , that neutrinos have mass and that, similar to quarks, neutrino mass-eigenstates and weak-eigenstates mix. The existence of neutrino masses is, presently, the only solid, unambiguous evidence of physics that cannot be accommodated by the standard model of electroweak and strong interactions. However, while there is evidence for physics beyond the standard model, the amount of information available is very scarce. The two most significant facts we did learn (and would like to understand better) are: i-neutrino masses are significantly smaller than all other fermion masses ($`m_\nu /m_e<10^6`$), ii-the leptonic mixing matrix is qualitatively different from the quark mixing matrix. In this paper, I’ll have nothing to add regarding (i), but would like to address (ii).

The quark mixing matrix is well approximated by the unit matrix (see, for example, PDG ), i.e., the mixing angles of the CKM matrix are either small ($`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _C0.05`$) or very small ($`|V_{ub}|^210^5`$). Combined with the fact that quark masses are hierarchical ($`m_tm_cm_u`$, etc), the peculiar form of the CKM matrix has led to the belief that there is some underlying symmetry or dynamical mechanism that fundamentally distinguishes the different quark families, and naturally explains the small mixing angles and the disparate mass eigenvalues. Indeed, it seems quite implausible that the CKM matrix is representative of a “random” unitary mixing matrix.***An attempt to quantify this statement can be found in anarchy\_stat .

In the leptonic sector, the situation is quite distinct. The leptonic mixing matrix is “far” from a unit matrix, and all its entries are large, with the exception of the $`U_{e3}`$ element,I define the mass eigenstates such that $`m_2^2>m_1^2`$, and $`|\mathrm{\Delta }m_{13,23}^2|>\mathrm{\Delta }m_{12}^2`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{ij}^2m_j^2m_i^2`$. Weak-eigenstates $`\nu _\alpha `$ are related to the mass-eigenstates $`\nu _i`$ via $`\nu _\alpha =U_{\alpha i}\nu _i`$, where $`\alpha =e,\mu ,\tau `$, $`i=1,2,3`$, and $`U_{\alpha i}`$ are the elements of the leptonic mixing matrix, also referred to as the MNS matrix, $`U_{MNS}`$. Mixing angles $`\theta _{ij}`$ are defined as per the PDG prescription PDG . which is somewhat small: $`|U_{e3}|^2<0.07`$ at three sigma confidence level CHOOZ ; CHOOZ\_bound . It is not clear that there is, currently, strong evidence to believe that a new underlying symmetry or dynamical mechanism that distinguishes the different leptonic families is required to explain the leptonic mixing angles.One potential criticism is that the charged lepton masses are hierarchical. While this issue will not be addressed here at all, it is easy to imagine scenarios where the charged lepton masses are hierarchical, while the leptonic mixing matrix is structureless SU(5)\_anarchy . Indeed, in some scenarios it is possible to obtain a structureless mixing matrix while charged lepton and neutrino masses are hierarchical minimal\_model . Indeed, it has been proposed that perhaps the neutrino-mass sector of the standard model is structureless, and that the leptonic mixing matrix is a reasonable representative of a random mixing matrix anarchy .

This statement has recently been verified in a more quantitative way anarchy\_stat . It was pointed out that the “anarchical hypothesis” for the leptonic mixing matrix is consistent as long as $`|U_{e3}|`$ does not differ significantly from its current upper bound. Furthermore, if correct, the anarchical hypothesis provides a lower bound for $`|U_{e3}|`$, namely $`|U_{e3}|^2>0.011`$ at the two sigma confidence level anarchy\_stat . This means that next generation searches for $`|U_{e3}|^2`$ using, say, neutrino “super-beams” superbeam  or reactor antineutrinos new\_reactor  can definitely test the hypothesis that the leptonic mixing matrix is consistent with a random unitary matrix.

In spite of the claims above, a significant amount of research effort has gone into determining what sort of underlying symmetries or mechanisms can explain the leptonic mixing angles and the neutrino masses models . There are several reasons for this, and I will spell out two of them. One is the belief that, at some very high energy scale, the distinction between quarks and leptons is erased. This happens, for example, in most grand unified models. Hence, because the quark sector seems to be structured, it is likely that the same is true of the leptonic sector GUT\_models  (for a counter-argument, see SU(5)\_anarchy ). Another reason for believing in structure in the leptonic section is the curious fact that, currently, the atmospheric mixing angle is consistent with maximal ($`\theta _{23}\pi /4`$). While maximal atmospheric mixing is in agreement with the anarchical hypothesis anarchy\_stat , it can also be interpreted as evidence for specific “textures” in the neutrino mixing matrix, and most of these textures can be related to underlying flavor symmetries.

In this paper, I will try to address how close to maximal the atmospheric mixing angle must be if its “maximality” is indeed related to some fundamental principle. In the next section I discuss what assumptions will be made, and define how this issue will be addressed. After that, I’ll analyze different mass-matrix textures that lead to maximal atmospheric mixing at leading order, and estimate the typical deviation of the atmospheric angle from maximal, among other observables. Discussions, a summary, and conclusions follow.

## II Neutrino Mass Matrices, Maximal Mixing, and Random Perturbations

Instead of concentrating on several distinct flavor models and dynamical mechanisms for explaining the pattern of neutrino masses and the values of the mixing angles, I’ll concentrate on a bottom-up approach which imposes, at the leading order, maximal mixing in the atmospheric sector. For this purpose, I select zeroth order neutrino mass-matrices $`M_0`$ that, in the basis where the charged current and the charged lepton mass matrix are diagonal, have one mass-eigenstate which is 0% $`\nu _e`$, 50% $`\nu _\mu `$ and 50% $`\nu _\tau `$. I will only consider Majorana mass matrices and do not particularly care about the “fundamental origin” of $`M_0`$. The next step is to perturb $`M_0`$ by adding a generic “first order perturbation” mass matrix $`M_1`$. See the Appendix for a definition of “generic.” As in the case of $`M_0`$, the origin of $`M_1`$ is not relevant to the considerations made here. It can be associated to the renormalization group running of the several couplings in specific models and/or heavier see-saw right-handed neutrinos and/or a different, sub-leading, source of lepton-number violation, etc.

In order to make more quantitative assertions, it is important to define the size of the perturbation. This will be done by requiring that, after the perturbation is added, other features of neutrino mixing (especially the solar mass-squared difference) are properly explained.

It proves instructive to start with two toy $`2\times 2`$ scenarios (for concreteness, the $`\nu _\mu \times \nu _\tau `$ “subspace”). The first one is

$`M_0=m_0\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right),`$ (II.3)
$`M_1=m_1\left(\begin{array}{cc}a& c\\ c& b\end{array}\right),`$ (II.6)
where $`m_0,m_1`$ ($`m_0m_1`$) have dimensions of mass and $`a,b,c`$ are $`O(1)`$ real numbers.§§§It suffices to consider only real mass matrices, which is assumed henceforth. One can always deal with complex mass-matrices by diagonalizing $`MM^{}=U\mathrm{diagonal}[|m_1|^2,|m_2|^2,\mathrm{}]U^{}`$ instead of $`M=U\mathrm{diagonal}[m_1,m_2\mathrm{}]U^{}`$, and obtain, qualitatively, the same results. It is easy to see that the eigenvalues of Eq. (II.3) are $`m_0,m_0`$, and its eigenvectors are $`(1/\sqrt{2},1/\sqrt{2})^{}`$ and $`(1/\sqrt{2},1/\sqrt{2})^{}`$, respectively. While it does not concern the discussions here, it is worthwhile to mention that Eq. (II.3) can be interpreted as due to an $`L_\mu L_\tau `$ global symmetry.

It is trivial to diagonalize Eq. (II.3)+Eq. (II.6) exactly and obtain eigenvalues and eigenvectors. It proves useful, however, to obtain approximate results via perturbation theory. Explicitly,

$`M_0+M_1`$ $`=`$ $`m_0\left(\begin{array}{cc}1/\sqrt{2}& 1/\sqrt{2}\\ 1/\sqrt{2}& 1/\sqrt{2}\end{array}\right)\left[\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{m_1}{2m_0}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 1\\ 1& 1\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}a& c\\ c& b\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 1\\ 1& 1\end{array}\right)\right]\left(\begin{array}{cc}1/\sqrt{2}& 1/\sqrt{2}\\ 1/\sqrt{2}& 1/\sqrt{2}\end{array}\right),`$ (II.19)
$`=`$ $`m_0\left(\begin{array}{cc}1/\sqrt{2}& 1/\sqrt{2}\\ 1/\sqrt{2}& 1/\sqrt{2}\end{array}\right)\left[\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{m_1}{2m_0}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}a+b2c& ab\\ ab& a+b+2c\end{array}\right)\right]\left(\begin{array}{cc}1/\sqrt{2}& 1/\sqrt{2}\\ 1/\sqrt{2}& 1/\sqrt{2}\end{array}\right),`$ (II.28)
$`=`$ $`m_0\left(\begin{array}{cc}1/\sqrt{2}& 1/\sqrt{2}\\ 1/\sqrt{2}& 1/\sqrt{2}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& ϵ\\ ϵ& 1\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}1+\alpha & 0\\ 0& 1+\beta \end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& ϵ\\ ϵ& 1\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}1/\sqrt{2}& 1/\sqrt{2}\\ 1/\sqrt{2}& 1/\sqrt{2}\end{array}\right)+O\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_1^2}{m_0^2}}\right).`$ (II.39)
Here, $`\alpha ,\beta =\frac{m_1}{2m_0}(a+b2c)`$ and $`ϵ=\frac{m_1}{4m_0}(ab)`$. From Eq. (II.39) it is easy to read off the mass-squared splitting induced by the perturbation $`M_1`$,

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m^2}{m_0^2}=\left|(1+\alpha )^2(1+\beta )^2\right|2\left|\alpha +\beta \right|=2\frac{m_1}{m_0}\left|a+b\right|,$$
(II.40)
(higher order terms have been dropped) and the leptonic mixing matrix,

$$U_{MNS}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}1ϵ& 1+ϵ\\ 1ϵ& 1ϵ\end{array}\right).$$
(II.41)
One way to quantify how far from maximal is the mixing angle is to compute $`|\mathrm{cos}2\theta |=|\mathrm{cos}^2\theta \mathrm{sin}^2\theta |`$. From the expression above, ignoring higher order terms,

$$|\mathrm{cos}2\theta |=\frac{1}{2}\left|(1ϵ)^2(1+ϵ)^2\right|=2\left|ϵ\right|=\frac{m_1}{2m_0}\left|ab\right|=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m^2}{4m_0^2}\frac{\left|ab\right|}{\left|a+b\right|}.$$
(II.42)
What do these results mean? If these are compared to the experimental data, it is natural to choose $`m_0^2`$ to be the atmospheric mass-squared, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{atm}}^22\times 10^3`$ eV2 (see osc\_anal  for a recent three-flavor analysis of the combined solar, atmospheric, and KamLAND data) and to associate the induced $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$, Eq. (II.40) to $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{sol}}^27\times 10^5`$ eV2, and $`\theta `$ to the atmospheric angle $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{23}0.5`$. Hence, assuming $`|a+b|,|ab|`$ both to be order one,

$`m_04\times 10^2,`$ (II.43)
$`m_19\times 10^4,`$ (II.44)
$`|\mathrm{cos}2\theta _{23}|0.01.`$ (II.45)
Next, consider the so-called “democratic” texture, namely

$$M_0=\frac{m_0}{2}\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 1\\ 1& 1\end{array}\right),$$
(II.46)
with eigenvalues $`m_0,0`$ and eigenvectors $`(1/\sqrt{2},1/\sqrt{2})^{}`$ and $`(1/\sqrt{2},1/\sqrt{2})^{}`$, respectively. In this case, Eq. (II.46)+ Eq. (II.6) is, ignoring higher order terms (this is very similar to the previous case, Eq. (II.39)),

$$M_0+M_1=m_0\left(\begin{array}{cc}1/\sqrt{2}& 1/\sqrt{2}\\ 1/\sqrt{2}& 1/\sqrt{2}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& ϵ\\ ϵ& 1\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}\alpha & 0\\ 0& 1+\beta \end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& ϵ\\ ϵ& 1\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}1/\sqrt{2}& 1/\sqrt{2}\\ 1/\sqrt{2}& 1/\sqrt{2}\end{array}\right)+O\left(\frac{m_1^2}{m_0^2}\right),$$
(II.47)
where $`\alpha ,\beta =\frac{m_1}{2m_0}(a+b2c)`$, $`ϵ=\frac{m_1}{2m_0}(ab)`$. The interpretation of the different terms in this case is somewhat different. As before, one can naturally associate $`m_0^2`$ to $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{atm}}^2`$ while it is natural to associate the shift of the zero eigenvalue of Eq. (II.46) to $`\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{sol}}^2}`$:

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{sol}}^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{atm}}^2}\alpha ^2=\frac{m_1^2}{4m_0^2}\left(a+b2c\right)^2.$$
(II.48)
The modified atmospheric angle is, hence,

$$|\mathrm{cos}2\theta _{23}|=\frac{m_1}{m_0}\left|ab\right|\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{sol}}^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{atm}}^2}}\frac{2\left|ab\right|}{\left|a+b2c\right|}0.2,$$
(II.49)
where, in the last step, $`|ab|,(a+b2c)^2`$ where replaced by 1 and $`3\pi /2`$, respectively, their average values.See the Appendix for the prescription for combining order one “random” factors.

Eqs. (II.45,II.49) will be considered as the upper bounds on $`|\mathrm{cos}2\theta _{23}|`$ for the two different “models.” Note that while the two $`M_0`$ yielded the same zeroth order physics, Eq. (II.45) and Eq. (II.49) differ by an order of magnitude! The reason for this is simple: in the case of Eq. (II.49), the perturbation parameter $`m_0/m_1`$ was chosen much larger than in the case of Eq. (II.45) in order to fulfill the same intuitive agreement with the “sub-leading” oscillation parameters. It will become clear in the next section that this discussion of $`2\times 2`$ toy models does indeed capture the relevant features of more realistic $`3\times 3`$ mass matrices.

## III Case Studies

In this section, several examples of $`3\times 3`$ mass-matrices $`M_0+M_1`$ that yield, at zeroth order, maximal atmospheric mixing are inspected. Some of these have already been identified in previous studies, and have been used to determine, for example, expected values of $`|U_{e3}|`$ for different neutrino mass textures models . Different $`M_0`$ differ by the values of other parameters, both known and unknown, such as the solar mixing angle and the hierarchy of the neutrino masses. The approach used in the previous section will be employed in order to estimate the maximal $`|\mathrm{cos}2\theta _{23}|`$ that each $`M_0`$ allows given a random perturbation $`M_1`$. The philosophy of studying the effect of random, sub-leading perturbations on flavor structures was already followed, for example, in aguilar\_saavedra .

Before proceeding, it is worthwhile to comment on $`|\mathrm{cos}2\theta _{23}|`$ as the relevant measure of deviation-from-maximal. Maximal atmospheric mixing means $`|U_{\mu 3}|=1/2`$, such that deviation from maximal is proportional to $`|U_{\mu 3}|^21/2=1/2\mathrm{cos}2\theta _{23}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{13}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{23}`$. Note that the second term in the previous expression is proportional to $`|U_{e3}|^2`$, much smaller than the first term (this can be easily verified a posteriori for all mass-matrices discussed here), such that $`|U_{\mu 3}|^21/21/2\mathrm{cos}2\theta _{23}`$. Hence, $`\mathrm{cos}2\theta _{23}`$ is a bona fide measure of deviation-from-maximal-atmospheric-mixing.

Analogous to the previous section (Eq. (II.6)),

$$M_1m_1\left(\begin{array}{ccc}a& d& e\\ d& b& f\\ e& f& c\end{array}\right),$$
(III.1)
will be assumed for all the discussions that follow. $`a,b,c,d,e,f`$ are random order one real numbers.

### III.1 Normal Hierarchy

A “normal” mass-hierarchy is characterized by $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{13}^2>0`$, where $`m_3^2m_1^2,m_2^2`$. There are several mass-matrix textures that lead to two massless and one massive eigenstate, the latter composed of a 50–50 $`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$ mixture. One possibility is to introduce one right-handed neutrino with a very heavy Majorana mass, coupled with identical strength to $`\mathrm{L}_\mu `$ and $`\mathrm{L}_\tau `$***$`\mathrm{L}_{\mathrm{}}`$ are the left-handed lepton weak doublets, $`(\nu _{\mathrm{}},\mathrm{})^{}`$. plus the Higgs doublet, in the basis where the charged lepton Yukawa couplings and the charged weak gauge couplings are diagonal srhnd ; minimal\_model . Upon integrating out the right-handed fermion, and below the electroweak symmetry breaking scale,

$$M_0=\frac{m_0}{2}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 1\\ 0& 1& 1\end{array}\right)=m_0\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 0& 0\\ 0& 1/\sqrt{2}& 1/\sqrt{2}\\ 0& 1/\sqrt{2}& 1/\sqrt{2}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 0& 0\\ 0& 1/\sqrt{2}& 1/\sqrt{2}\\ 0& 1/\sqrt{2}& 1/\sqrt{2}\end{array}\right)$$
(III.2)
is generated. Defining

$$U_0\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 0& 0\\ 0& 1/\sqrt{2}& 1/\sqrt{2}\\ 0& 1/\sqrt{2}& 1/\sqrt{2}\end{array}\right),$$
(III.3)
$`M_0+M_1`$ can be written as

$$M_0+M_1=m_0U_0\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\alpha & ϵ& \delta \\ ϵ& \beta & \eta \\ \delta & \eta & 1+\gamma \end{array}\right)U_0^{},$$
(III.4)
where

$`\alpha ={\displaystyle \frac{m_1}{m_0}}a,\beta ={\displaystyle \frac{m_1}{m_0}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{b+c}{2}}f\right),\gamma ={\displaystyle \frac{m_1}{m_0}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{b+c}{2}}+f\right),`$
$`ϵ={\displaystyle \frac{m_1}{m_0}}{\displaystyle \frac{de}{\sqrt{2}}},\delta ={\displaystyle \frac{m_1}{m_0}}{\displaystyle \frac{d+e}{\sqrt{2}}},\eta ={\displaystyle \frac{m_1}{m_0}}{\displaystyle \frac{bc}{2}}.`$ (III.5)
Therefore, at leading order in $`m_1/m_0`$,

$$M_0+M_1=m_0U_0\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{cos}\omega & \mathrm{sin}\omega & \delta \\ \mathrm{sin}\omega & \mathrm{cos}\omega & \eta \\ \delta ^{}& \eta ^{}& 1\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\alpha ^{}& 0& 0\\ 0& \beta ^{}& 0\\ 0& 0& 1+\gamma \end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{cos}\omega & \mathrm{sin}\omega & \delta ^{}\\ \mathrm{sin}\omega & \mathrm{cos}\omega & \eta ^{}\\ \delta & \eta & 1\end{array}\right)U_0^{}.$$
(III.6)
$`\alpha ^{}`$ and $`\beta ^{}`$ are the eigenvalues (ordered in ascending order of absolute value) and $`\omega `$ the mixing angle of the $`2\times 2`$ sub-matrix $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}\alpha & ϵ\\ ϵ& \beta \end{array}\right)`$, while $`\delta ^{}=\delta \mathrm{cos}\omega \eta \mathrm{sin}\omega `$ and $`\eta ^{}=\delta \mathrm{sin}\omega +\eta \mathrm{cos}\omega `$. The two independent mass-squared differences are:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }m_{13}^2=m_0^2(1+2\gamma ),\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{12}^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{13}^2}=\beta ^2\alpha ^2,$$
(III.7)
while the mixing matrix isThe PDG PDG  definition of the leptonic mixing matrix is $`\nu _\alpha =U_{\alpha \beta }\nu _i`$ for $`\alpha =e,\mu ,\tau `$ and $`i=1,2,3`$, and the mass matrix in the flavor basis is given by $`U^{}\mathrm{diagonal}[m_1,m_2,m_3]U^{}`$. Hence, Eq. (III.8) is equal to $`U^{}`$. However, since I am restricted to real mass matrices, $`U=U^{}`$ and this distinction can be safely ignored.

$$U_{MNS}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{cos}\omega & \mathrm{sin}\omega & \delta \\ & & 1/\sqrt{2}(1+\eta )\\ & & 1/\sqrt{2}(1\eta )\end{array}\right),$$
(III.8)
where only the relevant elements have been spelled out (others have been mercifully represented by $``$). One can then “read off”

$`\theta _{12}=\omega ,|U_{e3}|=|\delta |={\displaystyle \frac{m_1}{m_0}}{\displaystyle \frac{\left|d+e\right|}{2}},`$ (III.9)
$`|\mathrm{cos}2\theta _{23}|={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}|(1+\eta )^2(1\eta ^2)|=2|\eta |={\displaystyle \frac{m_1}{m_0}}\left|bc\right|.`$ (III.10)
As done in the previous section, estimates for the sizes of various parameters are obtained after $`m_1/m_0`$ is extracted from the fact that the ratio of mass-squared differences is known: $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{12}^2/\mathrm{\Delta }m_{13}^20.034`$. More quantitatively, it has been estimated that, at the three sigma confidence level, $`0.018<\mathrm{\Delta }m_{12}^2/\mathrm{\Delta }m_{13}^2<0.054`$ osc\_anal . A revised analyses of the Super-Kamiokande atmospheric data, however, seems to point to a slightly smaller value for the atmospheric mass-squared difference (see SuperK\_new . There is, currently, no publication of this reanalysis). In order to take this into account, I simply rescale the results of osc\_anal  by the ratio of the “old” and “new” central values $`(2.6\times 10^3/2.0\times 10^3)`$:

$$0.023<\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{12}^2}{|\mathrm{\Delta }m_{13}^2|}<0.070,$$
(III.11)
which should be very close to the real three sigma confidence level range. For all estimates bellow, in order to be conservative, I’ll use the upper bound of Eq. (III.11), which yields the loosest constraints on $`\mathrm{cos}2\theta _{23}`$. In the case at hand

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{12}^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{13}^2}=\left|\beta +\alpha \right|\sqrt{\left(\beta \alpha \right)^2+4ϵ^2}=\frac{m_1^2}{m_0^2}\left|a+\frac{b+c}{2}f\right|\sqrt{\left(a\frac{b+c}{2}+f\right)^2+2(de)^2}.$$
(III.12)
Replacing the quantity inside the absolute value by its average value (see Appendix),

$$\frac{m_1^2}{m_0^2}\frac{0.070}{1.5}(0.2)^2,$$
(III.13)
such that

$$|U_{e3}|\frac{0.2}{2}\sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}0.09,|\mathrm{cos}2\theta _{23}|0.2\sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}0.18.$$
(III.14)
In summary, it is expected that the solar angle is “anarchical,” i.e., dictated by the diagonalization of a $`2\times 2`$ sub-matrix with random order one entries. This hypothesis fits the data very well anarchy\_stat . On the other hand, both $`|U_{e3}|`$ and the deviation of $`\theta _{23}`$ from maximal are of order $`\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{12}^2/\mathrm{\Delta }m_{13}^2}`$, $`O(10^1)`$.

A couple of important comments are warranted. The average upper bound on $`|U_{e3}|^20.008`$ is smaller than the estimated lower bound on $`|U_{e3}|^2`$ obtained from the anarchical hypothesis anarchy\_stat  (albeit only slightly), meaning that next-generation experiments sensitive to $`|U_{e3}|^210^2`$ may be able to start distinguishing the two paradigms. The average deviation of $`\theta _{23}`$ from maximal is rather large, but well within current bounds osc\_anal :

$$|\mathrm{cos}2\theta _{23}|<0.34(0.44),\mathrm{at}2\sigma (3\sigma ).$$
(III.15)
Finally, it should be noted that given the approach adopted here, nothing can be said about the sign of $`\mathrm{cos}2\theta _{23}`$, i.e., whether the $`\nu _3`$ state is “predominantly $`\nu _\mu `$” ($`\mathrm{cos}2\theta _{23}<0`$) or “predominantly $`\nu _\tau `$” ($`\mathrm{cos}2\theta _{23}>0`$). Note that we already know, experimentally, that $`\nu _3`$ is not “predominantly $`\nu _e`$” ($`|U_{e3}|^2<0.5`$) and that, thanks to matter effects in the Sun’s core, $`\nu _1`$ is “predominantly $`\nu _e`$” ($`\mathrm{cos}2\theta _{12}>0`$, the “light-side” of the solar neutrino parameter space dark\_side ) at the five sigma confidence level osc\_anal .

### III.2 Inverted Hierarchy

An “inverted” mass-hierarchy is characterized by $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{13}^2<0`$, and two eigenstates that are almost degenerate in mass-squared. As in the normal hierarchy case, there are several textures that yield two massive mass-eigenstates, degenerate in mass-squared, and a massless one, composed of a 50–50 $`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$ mixture. I’ll look at three different cases, characterized by whether the massive mass-eigenstates are degenerate in mass (as opposed to mass-squared) or by how the massive mass-eigenstates “share” the $`\nu _e`$ content.

The case which is “most similar” to the one in the previous subsection is well represented by

$$M_0=m_0\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 0& 0\\ 0& 1/2& 1/2\\ 0& 1/2& 1/2\end{array}\right)=m_0U_0\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right)U_0^{}.$$
(III.16)
Note that the heavy mass-eigenstates are degenerate in mass. $`M_0+M_1`$ can be written as

$$M_0+M_1=m_0U_0\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1+\alpha & ϵ& \delta \\ ϵ& 1+\beta & \eta \\ \delta & \eta & \gamma \end{array}\right)U_0^{},$$
(III.17)
where $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$, $`\gamma `$, $`\delta `$, $`ϵ`$, $`\delta `$, and $`\eta `$ are as in Eq. (III.5).

As in the previous case, degenerate perturbation theory yields

$$M_0+M_1=m_0U_0\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{cos}\omega & \mathrm{sin}\omega & \delta \\ \mathrm{sin}\omega & \mathrm{cos}\omega & \eta \\ \delta ^{}& \eta ^{}& 1\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1+\alpha ^{}& 0& 0\\ 0& 1+\beta ^{}& 0\\ 0& 0& \gamma \end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{cos}\omega & \mathrm{sin}\omega & \delta ^{}\\ \mathrm{sin}\omega & \mathrm{cos}\omega & \eta ^{}\\ \delta & \eta & 1\end{array}\right)U_0^{},$$
(III.18)
where the primed quantities and $`\omega `$ are defined as in the previous subsection.

The extraction of oscillation parameters proceeds as before. Indeed, the MNS matrix is identical to Eq. (III.8), up to $`\delta ,\eta \delta ,\eta `$, while the mass-squared differences are

$$\mathrm{\Delta }m_{13}^2=m_0^2,\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{12}^2}{|\mathrm{\Delta }m_{13}^2|}=2\left(\beta ^{}\alpha ^{}\right).$$
(III.19)
Note that $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{13}^2`$ also receives a higher order ($`O(m_0m_1)`$) correction, which can be safely neglected. Furthermore, As before, we extract $`m_1/m_0`$ by requiring

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{12}^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{13}^2}=2\sqrt{\left(\beta \alpha \right)^2+4ϵ^2}=2\frac{m_1}{m_0}\sqrt{\left(a\frac{b+c}{2}+f\right)^2+2(de)^2}0.07,$$
(III.20)
where I conservatively use the upper bound of Eq. (III.11). One obtains, on average, $`m_1/m_00.02`$, which implies

$$|U_{e3}|\frac{0.02}{2}\sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}0.008,|\mathrm{cos}2\theta _{23}|0.02\sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}0.016.$$
(III.21)
Hence, in the case of an inverted mass-hierarchy with two mass-degenerate (at leading order) eigenstates, one expects a large, “random” solar angle, and very small values for $`|U_{e3}|`$ and $`\mathrm{cos}2\theta _{23}`$, both of order $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{12}^2/|\mathrm{\Delta }m_{13}^2|`$ ($`O(10^2)`$), well within current experimental bounds.

### III.3 Inverted Hierarchy, Traceless

There is the possibility that the two massive zeroth-order mass-eigenstates have opposite CP-parities (i.e., $`m_{0,1}=m_{0,2}`$). One example is

$$M_0=m_0\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 0& 0\\ 0& 1/2& 1/2\\ 0& 1/2& 1/2\end{array}\right)=m_0U_0\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right)U_0^{}.$$
(III.22)
Similar to the previous two cases, $`M_0+M_1`$ can be written as

$$M_0+M_1=m_0U_0\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1+\alpha & ϵ& \delta \\ ϵ& 1+\beta & \eta \\ \delta & \eta & \gamma \end{array}\right)U_0^{},$$
(III.23)
where $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$, $`\gamma `$, $`\delta `$, $`ϵ`$, $`\delta `$, and $`\eta `$ are as in Eq. (III.5).

In this case, the diagonalization procedure is somewhat different, as there are no degenerate eigenvalues (it is, indeed, simpler). To lowest order in $`m_1/m_0`$,

$$M_0+M_1=m_0U_0\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& ϵ/2& \delta \\ ϵ/2& 1& \eta \\ \delta & \eta & 1\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1+\alpha & 0& 0\\ 0& 1+\beta & 0\\ 0& 0& \gamma \end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& ϵ/2& \delta \\ ϵ/2& 1& \eta \\ \delta & \eta & 1\end{array}\right)U_0^{}.$$
(III.24)
The two independent mass-squared differences are, to lowest order:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }m_{13}^2=m_0^2,\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{12}^2}{|\mathrm{\Delta }m_{13}^2|}=2|\beta +\alpha |=\frac{m_1}{m_0}|2a+b+c2f|,$$
(III.25)
while the mixing matrix is

$$U_{MNS}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& ϵ/2& \delta \\ & & 1/\sqrt{2}(1+\eta )\\ & & 1/\sqrt{2}(1\eta )\end{array}\right).$$
(III.26)
Hence

$`|\mathrm{sin}\theta _{12}|={\displaystyle \frac{ϵ}{2}}={\displaystyle \frac{m_1}{2\sqrt{2}m_0}}|de|,|U_{e3}|=|\delta |={\displaystyle \frac{m_1}{m_0}}{\displaystyle \frac{\left|d+e\right|}{2}},`$ (III.27)
$`|\mathrm{cos}2\theta _{23}|={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}|(1+\eta )^2(1\eta ^2)|=2|\eta |={\displaystyle \frac{m_1}{m_0}}\left|bc\right|.`$ (III.28)
Following the by-now-familiar procedure, one estimates

$$|\mathrm{sin}\theta _{12}|\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{12}^2}{|\mathrm{\Delta }m_{13}^2|}\frac{\sqrt{2}}{2\sqrt{5}},|U_{e3}|\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{12}^2}{|\mathrm{\Delta }m_{13}^2|}\frac{1}{2\sqrt{5}},|\mathrm{cos}2\theta _{23}|\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{12}^2}{|\mathrm{\Delta }m_{13}^2|}\frac{1}{\sqrt{5}}.$$
(III.29)
Note that, here, not only are $`|U_{e3}|`$ and $`\mathrm{cos}2\theta _{23}`$ smaller than $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{12}^2/|\mathrm{\Delta }m_{13}^2|`$, but so is the solar angle (indeed, it is, on average, smaller than $`\theta _{13}`$!). Given the current lower bound on the solar mixing angle, $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{12}>0.22`$ at the three sigma confidence level osc\_anal , one can only conclude that such a scenario is experimentally ruled out, as the estimate above is $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{12}0.0005`$.

One should not, however, conclude that the mass-matrix texture Eq. (III.22) is currently ruled out, but that if it is to work, it has to be “perturbed” by a rather “structured” matrix in order to guarantee that the solar angle is very strongly modified from its leading order value, while, say, $`|U_{e3}|`$ is not. This could be accomplished, for example, if $`d`$ is close to $`(e)`$ and much larger than $`a,b,c,f`$.This should be done with care. $`M_1`$ stops being a perturbation as $`d`$ approaches $`m_0/m_1`$, indicating i-that the approximate results obtained here need not be reliable, ii-that the zeroth-order mass-matrix texture has to be revised in order to somehow include the information regarding the large-but-not-maximal solar angle. Such examples can be found, for example in tri-bimaximal , and references therein.

### III.4 Inverted Hierarchy, Traceless, Bi-Maximal Mixing

An interesting mass-matrix texture is motivated by an $`L_eL_\mu L_\tau `$ discrete symmetry. It is

$$M_0=\frac{m_0}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 1& 1\\ 1& 0& 0\\ 1& 0& 0\end{array}\right)=m_0\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1/\sqrt{2}& 1/\sqrt{2}& 0\\ 1/2& 1/2& 1/\sqrt{2}\\ 1/2& 1/2& 1/\sqrt{2}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1/\sqrt{2}& 1/2& 1/2\\ 1/\sqrt{2}& 1/2& 1/2\\ 0& 1/\sqrt{2}& 1/\sqrt{2}\end{array}\right).$$
(III.30)
It proves economical to define

$$U_0^{bm}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1/\sqrt{2}& 1/\sqrt{2}& 0\\ 1/2& 1/2& 1/\sqrt{2}\\ 1/2& 1/2& 1/\sqrt{2}\end{array}\right).$$
(III.31)
Note that not only do the massive mass-eigenstates have opposite CP-parity, but they also “share” the $`\nu _e`$ content equally ($`|U_{0,e1}^{bm}|^2=|U_{0,e2}^{bm}|^2=1/2`$). Eq. (III.31) is often referred to as a bi-maximal mixing matrix bi-maximal  ($`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{23}=\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{12}=1/2`$, $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{13}=0`$), and has received a significant amount of attention in the literature.

$$M_0+M_1=m_0U_0^{bm}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1+\alpha & ϵ& \delta \\ ϵ& 1+\beta & \eta \\ \delta & \eta & \gamma \end{array}\right)U_0^{bm},$$
(III.32)
where

$`\alpha ={\displaystyle \frac{m_1}{4m_0}}\left(2a+b+c+2\sqrt{2}(d+e)+2f\right),\beta ={\displaystyle \frac{m_1}{4m_0}}\left(2a+b+c2\sqrt{2}(d+e)+2f\right),\gamma ={\displaystyle \frac{m_1}{m_0}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{b+c}{2}}f\right),`$
$`ϵ={\displaystyle \frac{m_1}{4m_0}}\left(2abc2f\right),\delta ={\displaystyle \frac{m_1}{4m_0}}\left(\sqrt{2}(bc)2d+2e\right),\eta ={\displaystyle \frac{m_1}{4m_0}}\left(\sqrt{2}(bc)2d+2e\right).`$ (III.33)
Identical to the previous subsection, to lowest order in $`m_1/m_0`$,

$$M_0+M_1=m_0U_0^{bm}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& ϵ/2& \delta \\ ϵ/2& 1& \eta \\ \delta & \eta & 1\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1+\alpha & 0& 0\\ 0& 1+\beta & 0\\ 0& 0& \gamma \end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& ϵ/2& \delta \\ ϵ/2& 1& \eta \\ \delta & \eta & 1\end{array}\right)U_0^{bm},$$
(III.34)
and the two independent mass-squared differences are, at leading order:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }m_{13}^2=m_0^2,\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{12}^2}{|\mathrm{\Delta }m_{13}^2|}=2|\beta +\alpha |=\frac{m_1}{2m_0}|2a+b+c+2f|.$$
(III.35)
The leptonic mixing matrix is

$$U_{MNS}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1/\sqrt{2}(1+ϵ/2)& 1/\sqrt{2}(1ϵ/2)& 1/\sqrt{2}(\eta \delta )\\ & & 1/\sqrt{2}(1+1/\sqrt{2}(\eta +\delta ))\\ & & 1/\sqrt{2}(11/\sqrt{2}(\eta +\delta ))\end{array}\right),$$
(III.36)
such that

$$|\mathrm{cos}2\theta _{12}|=ϵ=\frac{m_1}{4m_0}|2abc2f|,|\mathrm{cos}2\theta _{23}|=\sqrt{2}|\delta +\eta |=\frac{\sqrt{2}m_1}{m_0}|ed|,|U_{e3}|=\frac{\eta \delta }{\sqrt{2}}=\frac{m_1}{2m_0}|bc|.$$
(III.37)
Solving for $`m_1/m_0`$ in terms of the ratio of the mass-squared differences and replacing the order one expressions by their average values

$$|\mathrm{cos}2\theta _{12}|\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{12}^2}{2|\mathrm{\Delta }m_{13}^2|},|\mathrm{cos}2\theta _{23}|\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{12}^2}{|\mathrm{\Delta }m_{13}^2|}\frac{2\sqrt{2}}{\sqrt{5}},|U_{e3}|\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{12}^2}{|\mathrm{\Delta }m_{13}^2|}\frac{1}{\sqrt{5}}.$$
(III.38)
Similar to the previous subsection, this scenario runs afoul of the experimental data, because it predicts an incorrect value for the solar angle. It requires, on average, that solar mixing is too close to maximal: $`\mathrm{cos}2\theta _{12}0.04`$, while current data indicate $`0.22<\mathrm{cos}2\theta _{12}<0.56`$ at the three sigma level osc\_anal . As in the case of the previous subsection, this result does not imply that the texture Eq. (III.30) is ruled out, but simply that the “perturbation” has to be such that the solar angle is significantly modified from its zeroth order value, while other parameters are less “perturbed.” This could be accomplished, for example, if $`a`$ is of order $`(f)`$, and much larger than $`b,c,d,e`$ (but see footnote in subsection IIIC).

There are other zeroth order bi-maximal textures that do not suffer from a too-large $`\theta _{12}`$. The mass-matrix

$$M_0=m_0\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 0& 0\\ 0& 1/2& 1/2\\ 0& 1/2& 1/2\end{array}\right)=m_0U_0^{bm}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right)U_0^{bm}.$$
(III.39)
has two degenerate eigenvalues, indicating that the zeroth order solar angle is very sensitive to a generic perturbation, no matter how weak (this was observed, for example, in subsection IIIB). In this case, one expects that both $`|U_{e3}|`$ and $`|\mathrm{cos}2\theta _{23}|`$ are small, of order $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{12}^2/|\mathrm{\Delta }m_{13}^2|`$, while the solar angle is “anarchical.”

Finally, I’ll conclude with a few words on textures that yield three mass-squared-degenerate eigenstates, some of which can be found in models . In this case, it turns out that it is possible to obtain, for example, an anarchical solar angle while maintaining a generically small $`\mathrm{cos}2\theta _{23}`$ and $`|U_{e3}|`$. The biggest challenge, one that cannot be overcome by a generic perturbation of the type Eq. (III.1), is generating simultaneously the two distinct mass-squared differences. This is very simple to understand. The three eigenvalues which are degenerate at zeroth order will be modified to $`m_i=m_0(\pm 1+\zeta _i)`$, where $`\zeta _i`$ are order $`m_1/m_0`$. Hence, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{12}^22(\zeta _2\zeta _1)`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{13}^22(\zeta _3\zeta _1)`$, which leads to $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{12}^2\mathrm{\Delta }m_{13}^2`$, in conflict with the experimental data. Note that in the case of degenerate zeroth order eigenvalues it is quite unlikely that both mass-squared differences are induced by a single random perturbation – significantly less likely than in the original anarchy proposal anarchy . In an “anarchical model” that claims to explain both the mixing matrix and the mass-eigenvalues as typical fluctuations of a random mass-matrix (see anarchy ) the requirement on the eigenvalues of the mixing matrix is that they are “separated” by a factor $`\sqrt{|\mathrm{\Delta }m_{13}^2|/\mathrm{\Delta }m_{12}^2}5`$. In zeroth-order-degenerate models, the requirement imposed on the eigenvalues of the random perturbation-matrix is that their ratio is of order $`|\mathrm{\Delta }m_{13}^2|/\mathrm{\Delta }m_{12}^230`$.

As before, degenerate mass-matrix textures are certainly not ruled out, but they require a somewhat “structured perturbation” (see a4  for an example) in order to properly accommodate the neutrino data. In some cases, the leptonic mixing matrix can still turn out to be completely anarchical.

## IV Discussion, Summary, and Conclusions

The fact that the atmospheric mixing angle is currently consistent with maximal is often interpreted as evidence that there is a fundamental symmetry or dynamical reason behind the observed values of lepton masses and mixing. Indeed, several flavor models have been explored in the past that yield, at leading order, maximal atmospheric mixing and zero $`U_{e3}`$. Sub-leading effects, however, will almost always lead to departure from these leading order predictions. These include spontaneous or explicit symmetry breaking effects and renormalization group running, and are often responsible for explaining the “solar” part of the neutrino oscillation parameters.

It is important to understand how close to maximal such models predict the atmospheric mixing angle to be in order to determine whether the current or next generation of neutrino oscillation experiments is capable of favoring or disfavoring this particular approach to “explaining” the leptonic sector. Currently, the atmospheric angle is only loosely constrained by atmospheric neutrino data: $`0.44<\mathrm{cos}2\theta _{23}<0.44`$ at the three sigma confidence level (Eq. (III.15)).§§§It is curious that the measurement of the atmospheric angle is significantly less precise than the measurement of the solar angle. Currently, $`0.22<\mathrm{cos}2\theta _{12}<0.56`$ at the three sigma level. One of the reasons for this is the fact that strong solar matter effects render the survival probability of electron-type solar neutrinos proportional to $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{12}`$ for a large range of solar neutrino energies, and hence the solar data is very sensitive to $`\theta _{12}`$.

The current generation of long-baseline accelerator experiments is not expected to improve significantly on the current bound MINOSetal , while studies of next-generation “off-axis” experiments have claimed that these are able to measure $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{23}`$ at the 1% level superbeam . More detailed studies, however, are still absent bernstein . Note that while a 1% measurement of $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{23}`$ sounds impressive, for a best-fit point $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{23}=1`$ it “only” translates into $`|\mathrm{cos}2\theta _{23}|<0.1`$. Other constraint may be provided by future atmospheric neutrino studies atmospheric\_new ; peres\_smirnov , or, ultimately, by neutrino factories, which may be able to measure $`\mathrm{cos}2\theta _{23}`$ at the few percent level nufact .

I have explored different neutrino Majorana mass-matrices that yield, at zeroth order, a $`\nu _3`$ state which is $`0\%`$ $`\nu _e`$, $`50\%`$ $`\nu _\mu `$, and $`50\%`$ $`\nu _\tau `$ and are “perturbed” by a random Majorana mass-matrix. The magnitude of the perturbation is chosen such that one can also account for the solar mass-squared difference. In order to extract numerical results from the random mixing matrices, I computed the absolute values of different observables, and replaced the order one numbers by their average values. This procedure allows one to easily define the magnitude of the perturbation and estimate how much $`|U_{\mu 3}|`$ ($`|U_{e3}|`$) is expected to deviate on average from $`1/2`$ (0). A summary of the results obtained is presented in Table 1.

For all mass-textures examined, the following features are observed. Both $`|U_{e3}|`$ and $`|\mathrm{cos}2\theta _{23}|`$ are, on average, of the same order of magnitude, as one should expect from a featureless perturbation (this is obviously not the case for all neutrino mass models. See, for example, Grimus\_Lavoura  for a counter-example). Furthermore, they are of order $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{12}^2/|\mathrm{\Delta }m_{13}^2|`$ for textures that yield an inverted mass-hierarchy or of order $`\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{12}^2/|\mathrm{\Delta }m_{13}^2|}`$ for textures that yield a normal mass-hierarchy. As far as the solar mixing angle is concerned, it is either “anarchical” (order one), in good agreement with the data (this is the case of mass-textures that yield $`\nu _1`$ and $`\nu _2`$ states that are mass-degenerate at zeroth order), or doomed to be, on average, way too small/too large, in which case, the current approach safely does not yield a good fit to the data.

What do these results mean? In the case of a normal mass-hierarchy, $`|\mathrm{cos}2\theta _{23}|`$ is, on average, significantly away from maximal, such that proposed off-axis experiments should observe a small but significant deviation of $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{23}`$ from 1. Clearly, if they do not see such a deviation, it does not mean that mass textures that yield a normal mass hierarchy are “ruled out” – it simply means that they either “got lucky” or that they are not “perturbed by a random mass-matrix.”

In the case of an inverted mass-hierarchy, $`\theta _{23}`$ is very close to maximal (and $`|U_{e3}|^2`$ is $`10^2`$, a rather unfortunate case for the off-axis experiments under consideration and reactor searches for $`|U_{e3}|`$) and no deviation from maximal should be observed in next-generation experiments. Note that the average upper bounds calculated above can be violated by a factor of a few due to random statistical fluctuations of the order one parameters, but are probably not violated by more than an order of magnitude even for more structured models. Keep in mind that the type of models under consideration here predict maximal mixing at zeroth order. Perturbations that are consistent with the solar data and that yield a much larger deviation of $`\mathrm{cos}2\theta _{23}`$ from zero will violate this assumption. Therefore, the experimental determination that $`|\mathrm{cos}2\theta _{23}|`$ is not consistent with zero at the $`10\%`$ level indicates that textures that yield maximal atmospheric mixing and an inverted mass-hierarchy are disfavored.

Before concluding, I should mention that the analysis performed here is not, and is not meant to be, exhaustive. There are, potentially, other models that lead to maximal mixing in the atmospheric sector at zeroth order but are not well characterized by the mass-textures explored. I would also like to emphasize again that I only address textures that predict maximal atmospheric mixing at zeroth order. There are several models in the literature that “predict,” say, large atmospheric mixing and zero $`U_{e3}`$ at zeroth order (one simple example is the so-called “semi-anarchical” texture of afm ). As far as these are concerned, the expected deviation of the atmospheric angle from $`\pi /4`$ is order 1. It should be noted that, according to the results on Sec. IIIA, it may not be easy to differentiate a texture like Eq. (III.2) from the semi-anarchical one if $`\mathrm{cos}2\theta _{23}`$ is determined to be significantly away from 0 – more detailed analyses would be required.

In conclusion, neutrino oscillations provide our first and, currently, only evidence for physics beyond the Standard Model. The amount of information available regarding the nature of this new physics is, however, very small. As far as the neutrino sector is concerned, and in the case of neutrino oscillation experiments in particular, it is possible that the best one can accomplish is to measure precisely the elements of the leptonic mixing matrix, the value of the mass-squared differences, and the neutrino mass-hierarchy. Hence, we need to take maximal advantage of all these measurements in order to come up with the most complete and useful description of Nature.

I tried to point out in this exercise that the deviation of the atmospheric mixing angle from maximal is, potentially, an important observable, which may be able to test whether this maximal mixing phenomenon is somehow encoded in Nature via some fundamental principle, or whether it is simply accidental. It seems that even if maximal mixing is indeed fundamental at some energy scale, it is still true that, in the case of a normal mass hierarchy, it is possible that next-generation oscillation experiments will see a deviation of $`\mathrm{cos}2\theta _{23}`$ from 0, but more quantitative analysis of these experimental proposals are required in order to better quantify this statement. On the other hand, in the case of and inverted mass-hierarchy, $`\mathrm{cos}2\theta _{23}=0`$ seems to be a robust prediction for any next-generation neutrino oscillation experiment, given that these probably cannot measure $`\mathrm{cos}2\theta _{23}`$ at better than 10%.

NOTE ADDED: After the completion of this manuscript, Petcov\_new  became publicly available at the preprint archive. It contains a discussion of the effects of a “perturbation” on a zeroth-order bi-maximal leptonic mixing matrix (the presentation and motivation are different from the one here. See Petcov\_new  for details), and discusses relations between the atmospheric mixing angle and $`|U_{e3}|`$. It also contains some of the results presented in Sec. IIID.

## Acknowledgments

I am happy to thank Hitoshi Murayama for words of encouragement and Werner Rodejohann for useful comments.

## Appendix A Combining Order One Random Entries

In order to obtain numerical estimates for the products and sums of the random order one parameters $`a,b,c,d,e,f`$ defined in Eqs. (II.6,III.1), I follow the prescription below:

i-Assume that $`a,b,c,d,e,f`$ are uncorrelated random variables, with a Gaussian probability density function centered at zero and with identical widths,

$$g(x)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi \sigma ^2}}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{x^2}{2\sigma ^2}\right),x=a,b,c,d,e,f.$$
(A.40)
The probability that $`x`$ is between $`x_l`$ and $`x_u`$ ($`x_l>x_u`$) is defined to be $`_{x_l}^{x_u}g(x)dx`$. The width $`\sigma `$ is defined such that the average absolute value of the trace of $`M_1=m_1`$. In the $`2\times 2`$ case, Eq. (II.6), $`\sigma =\sqrt{\pi }/2`$ (see below), while in the $`3\times 3`$ case, Eq. (III.1), $`\sigma =\sqrt{\pi /6}`$.

ii-Replace combinations of order one parameters by their average values according to their probability density functions. For example

$`\overline{|a+b|}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle |a+b|g(a)\mathrm{}g(f)da\mathrm{}df}={\displaystyle |a+b|g(a)g(b)dadb},`$ (A.41)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi \sigma ^2}}{\displaystyle |a+b|\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{1}{4\sigma ^2}\left((a+b)^2+(ab)^2\right)\right]\left[\frac{\mathrm{d}(a+b)\mathrm{d}(ab)}{2}\right]},`$ (A.42)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\pi \sigma ^2}}{2\pi \sigma ^2}}2{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{x^2}{4\sigma ^2}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}x^2}{2}},`$ (A.43)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\pi \sigma ^2}}{2\pi \sigma ^2}}4\sigma ^2={\displaystyle \frac{2\sigma }{\sqrt{\pi }}}.`$ (A.44)
In the $`2\times 2`$, $`\overline{|a+b|}=1`$ (by definition) while in the $`3\times 3`$ case, $`\overline{|a+b|}=\sqrt{2/3}`$.

For other simple averages of sums or products, one can follow a similar procedure and obtain analytic results quickly. One other example is

$`\overline{(a+b2c)^2}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi \sigma ^2)^{3/2}}}{\displaystyle (a+b2c)^2\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{1}{2\sigma ^2}\left(\frac{1}{6}(a+b2c)^2+\frac{1}{2}(ab)^2+\frac{1}{3}(a+b+c)^2\right)\right]dadbdc},`$ (A.45)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\sqrt{6}\pi \sigma ^2}{(2\pi \sigma ^2)^{3/2}}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}x^2\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{x^2}{12\sigma ^2}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}x}{6}}={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{6}\pi \sigma ^2}{3(2\pi \sigma ^2)^{3/2}}}(6\sigma ^2)^{3/2}\sqrt{2\pi },`$ (A.46)
$`=`$ $`6\sigma ^2.`$ (A.47)
Hence, in the $`2\times 2`$ case, $`\overline{(a+b2c)^2}=3\pi /2`$, as quoted in Sec. II.

Another, related, possibility would be not to compute average values, but instead identify “confidence level ranges” for the various outputs as a function of the original width of the individual probability distributions, $`\sigma `$. For example, Eq. (II.40) could be reinterpreted as: the probability distribution for $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2/m_0^2`$ is centered at zero and has width $`\sqrt{2}\sigma `$. After defining the value of $`\sigma `$ (by requiring, say, that $`\mathrm{Tr}(M_1)<m_1`$ at the one-sigma confidence level), by requiring that the experimentally observed value is within some pre-defined confidence level, one can extract the value of $`m_1/m_0`$, as was done for the average-value procedure outlined above. Note that the requirement that $`\overline{|a+b|}=1`$ translates into a width $`\sigma _{a+b}=\sqrt{2\pi }`$. Hence, the probability that $`a+b`$ is between $`3`$ and $`3`$ is around 77%.


format: text

text:
# Entanglement generation in persistent current qubits

## I Introduction

In this paper, we investigate the use of inductive coupling to generate entanglement between two persistent current qubits. We are particularly interested in the representation of the magnetic bias fields that are used to control the behaviour of the qubits, and the requirements placed on these fields by the need to generate significant levels of entanglement. Given the recent experimental results indicating coherent quantum behaviour in superconducting persistent current and other Josephson devices Orl99 ; Fri00 ; Chi03 , the extension of these systems to arrays of coupled qubits for quantum information processing is important and timely. Indeed, experiments have already been reported using coupled persistent current qubits Ber03 . We demonstrate that the requirements placed on the bias fields could present significant obstacles to the use of persistant current qubits in quantum information processing.

We consider two models for the bias field: one classical and one quantum mechanical. In each model, the field is represented by a lossy linear oscillator, whose resonant frequency and coupling to the qubits can be varied. When the natural frequency of the field mode is significantly lower than the qubit frequencies, the conventional approach is to treat the bias as a classical variable Orl99 ; Fri00 ; Chi03 ; Ber03  and to use the expectation value of the screening current in the classical equations of motion when the bias dynamics are important Ral92 ; Spi92 . However, where the bias field has fluctuations at frequencies that are comparable with the qubit fluctuations, the classical model is no longer valid and the quantum mechanical model predicts some interesting dynamical behaviour. In addition, we derive a set of constraints for the accuracy of the bias fields which must be obeyed for a significant amount of entanglement to be produced. These constraints may limit the entanglement that can be produced in a practical system. In particular, we derive restrictions on the coupling between the qubits and the bias fields and the operating frequencies of multiple persistent current qubits.

## II Coupled Persistent Current Qubits

The persistent current qubits studied in this paper have been proposed by Orlando et al. Orl99 . A schematic circuit diagram is given in Figure 1, with inductive coupling between the two qubits and the common control field.

The qubit inductance is negligible when compared with the effective inductance generated by the series Josephson junctions in the loop. This means that the behaviour of an isolated qubit will tend to be dominated by the series Josephson junctions rather than the geometrical inductance of the ring, $`L_{qu}10`$ pH. This allows the circuit to be simplified to a two-state model, corresponding to current states differing by approximately 600 nA Orl99 . The two-state Hamiltonian for a single qubit, with two control fields $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{x1}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{x2}`$, is given by Orl99 ,

$$\widehat{H}_{qu}(\mathrm{\Phi }_{x1},\mathrm{\Phi }_{x2})=\left(\begin{array}{cc}F(\mathrm{\Phi }_{x1},\mathrm{\Phi }_{x2})& B(\mathrm{\Phi }_{x1},\mathrm{\Phi }_{x2})\\ B(\mathrm{\Phi }_{x1},\mathrm{\Phi }_{x2})& F(\mathrm{\Phi }_{x1},\mathrm{\Phi }_{x2})\end{array}\right)$$
(1)
where the basis states, $`\{|0,|1\}`$, are the persistent current states with approximately $`\pm 300`$ nA, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{x1}`$ is the primary bias field for the main ring circuit and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{x2}`$ is a secondary bias field that is used to modulate the critical current of the effective Josephson junction formed by the two parallel junctions in the smaller secondary ring. The matrix elements are given by,

$$F(\mathrm{\Phi }_{x1},\mathrm{\Phi }_{x2})=r_1\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_{x1}}{\mathrm{\Phi }_0}\right)+r_2\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_{x2}}{\mathrm{\Phi }_0}\right)$$
(2)
$$B(\mathrm{\Phi }_{x1},\mathrm{\Phi }_{x2})=\frac{t_1+s_1\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_{x1}}{\mathrm{\Phi }_0}\right)}{1\eta \sqrt{\frac{E_J}{E_C}}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_{x2}}{\mathrm{\Phi }_0}\right)}$$
(3)
and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0=h/2e=2\times 10^{15}`$ Wb. The circuit constants are taken from Orl99 : $`r_1=2\pi E_J\sqrt{1\frac{1}{4\beta ^2}}=2r_2`$, $`s_1=0`$, $`t_1=0.001E_J`$, $`\eta =3.5`$, $`\beta =0.8`$, $`E_J200`$ GHz, $`E_C=E_J/80`$.

Although the energy level separation, and hence the dynamics of a single persistent current qubit, is dominated by the Josephson energy of the junctions in the circuit, the inductance is important when determining the coupling between the qubit and the external fields and between the qubits themselves. For the system shown in Figure 1, this gives

$`\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Phi }_{qu_1}\\ \mathrm{\Phi }_{osc}\\ \mathrm{\Phi }_{qu_2}\end{array}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{ccc}L_{qu}& M_1& M_2\\ M_1& L_{osc}& M_1\\ M_2& M_1& L_{qu}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}I_{qu_1}\\ I_{osc}\\ I_{qu_2}\end{array}\right)`$ (13)
$`=`$ $`𝐌\left(\begin{array}{c}I_{qu_1}\\ I_{osc}\\ I_{qu_2}\end{array}\right)`$ (17)
where $`M_1`$ is the mutual inductance between the qubits and the bias coil and $`M_2`$ is the mutual inductance between the two qubits, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{osc}`$ is the magnetic flux in the shared bias field (which is treated as a linear oscillator and characterized by a capacitance $`C_{osc}`$ and an inductance $`L_{osc}`$). In the absence of dissipation, the effective Hamiltonian for the combined system can be written in the form Ral92 ,

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{Q_{osc}^2}{2C_{osc}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_{osc}^2}{2L_{osc}}}\mathrm{\Phi }_{osc}I_{in}`$ (18)
$`+\widehat{H}_{qu_1,qu_2}(\mu _1\mathrm{\Phi }_{osc},\mathrm{\Phi }_{x21};\mu _1\mathrm{\Phi }_{osc},\mathrm{\Phi }_{x22})`$
where $`I_{in}`$ is an external current used to fix the static bias point (the oscillator fluctuates about this point), and the coupling coefficients are given by $`K_1^2=M_1^2/L_{qu}L_{osc}`$, $`\mu _1=M_1/L_{osc}`$ and $`K_2^2=M_2^2/L_{qu}^2=\mu _2^2`$. Each qubit has two bias/control fields, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{x11}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{x21}`$ for qubit 1 and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{x12}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{x22}`$ for qubit 2. The primary control fields for the qubits, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{x11}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{x12}`$, are common so we put $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{x11}=\mathrm{\Phi }_{x21}=\mu _1\mathrm{\Phi }_{osc}`$.

To derive the Hamiltonian for the two qubits, we examine the energy of the inductive circuit components. The Hamiltonian terms corresponding to the inductive energies will have the form,

$`H_{induc}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\mathrm{\Phi }_{qu_1}\mathrm{\Phi }_{osc}\mathrm{\Phi }_{qu_2})𝐌^1\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Phi }_{qu_1}\\ \mathrm{\Phi }_{osc}\\ \mathrm{\Phi }_{qu_2}\end{array}\right)`$ (22)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(I_{qu_1}I_{osc}I_{qu_2})𝐌^T\left(\begin{array}{c}I_{qu_1}\\ I_{osc}\\ I_{qu_2}\end{array}\right)`$ (26)
Expanding the second of these expressions, the cross-coupling terms between the two qubits has the form: $`\mathrm{\Delta }H_{qu_1,qu_2}=\mu _2L_{qu}\widehat{I}_{qu_1}\widehat{I}_{qu_2}`$. The other terms corresponding to a shift in the effective self inductance of the qubits and cross-coupling between the qubits and the oscillator are subsumed into the $`F`$ and $`B`$ terms. The two qubit Hamiltonian then has the form,

$$\begin{array}{c}\widehat{H}_{qu_1,qu_2}(\mathrm{\Phi }_{x11},\mathrm{\Phi }_{x21};\mathrm{\Phi }_{x12},\mathrm{\Phi }_{x22})=\hfill \\ \\ \left(\begin{array}{cccc}F_1+F_2+\mathrm{\Delta }_{12}& B_2& B_1& 0\\ B_2& F_1F_2\mathrm{\Delta }_{12}& 0& B_1\\ B_1& 0& F_1+F_2\mathrm{\Delta }_{12}& B_2\\ 0& B_1& B_2& F_1F_2+\mathrm{\Delta }_{12}\end{array}\right)\hfill \end{array}$$
(27)
in the current basis $`\{|0_10_2,|0_11_2,|1_10_2,|1_11_2\}`$ (which is used as the computational basis for the purposes of this paper), and where $`F_1=F(\mathrm{\Phi }_{x11},\mathrm{\Phi }_{x21})`$, $`B_1=B(\mathrm{\Phi }_{x11},\mathrm{\Phi }_{x21})`$, $`F_2=F(\mathrm{\Phi }_{x12},\mathrm{\Phi }_{x22})`$, $`B_2=B(\mathrm{\Phi }_{x12},\mathrm{\Phi }_{x22})`$. The $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ term comes from the qubit-qubit coupling term given in equation (6), with $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{12}=K_2L_{qu}\overline{I}_{qu}^2`$, where $`\overline{I}_{qu}300`$ nA is the magnitude of the screening current in the qubit logic (persistent current) states.

We assume that both qubits are identical and we consider the dynamics of a (common) primary control field $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{osc}`$, keeping the secondary fields $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{x21}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{x22}`$ fixed. Both the primary and secondary fields are nominally set to zero so that the energy eigenstates of the individual qubits are symmetric/anti-symmetric superpositions of the qubit current states. Initialising the qubits in a current state will produce coherent oscillations at frequencies around 400 MHz. Although the fields are nominally zero, they all include a fixed error and the primary field includes the dynamics of the bias circuit. (We use a common primary bias for computational simplicity and because the decoherence rate will be lower where any noise due to the flux bias is the same for each qubit).

For simplicity, we assume that the couplings are weak, typically $`K_1=0.002`$ and $`K_2=0.01`$. This means that first order coupling terms will be sufficient for most purposes. Allowing stronger couplings between the qubits and the bias fields could introduce a range of problems: difficulties initialising the qubits in a given state since the flux and current states are no longer identical (due cross-couplings in equation (1)), and the quantum fluctuations in the bias coil can affect the ability to generate entanglement (see below).

## III Bias Fields and Dynamics

We consider two models: one where the control field is a noisy classical field and one where it is represented by a quantum oscillator. The classical oscillator model Ral92 ; Spi92  is expected to be valid as long as (i) the typical frequency of the oscillator is significantly lower than that of qubits, (ii) the (possibly entangled) two-qubit state and the oscillator state are separable, and (iii) as long as the quantum fluctuations of an equivalent quantum oscillator (approximately given by the width of the energy eigenstates in a magnetic flux basis) are small compared to the other fluctuations that couple to the qubits. The quantum model uses a standard harmonic oscillator basis for the control field, and couples via an oscillator flux operator (formed from the raising and lowering operators, $`\widehat{a}^{}`$ and $`\widehat{a}`$) in the $`F`$ and $`B`$ functions.

The classical approximation is based on the Born-Oppenheimer approximation that is often used in nuclear and molecular physics. This removes the dynamics of a ‘fast’ degree of freedom by replacing the quantum mechanical operators with their expectation values; thereby averaging or integrating out the effect of their dynamics on the the other ‘slow’ degrees of freedom. The details of the approximation and the restrictions on its use are more fully described in reference Spi92 . In this case, the qubit behaviour is assumed to be fast compared to the evolution of the classical oscillator, and the expectation value of the energy is included in the (now classical) Hamiltonian given in equation (5). The classical equation of motion is then derived in the conventional way using the variational derivative with respect to the oscillator magnetic flux $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{osc}`$, and the energy expectation value becomes the expectation value of the combined qubit screening current. Using this approximation, and adding a parallel resistance $`R_{osc}`$, the equation of motion is given by Ral92 ; Spi92 ,

$$\begin{array}{c}C_{osc}\frac{d^2\mathrm{\Phi }_{osc}}{dt^2}+\frac{1}{R_{osc}}\frac{d\mathrm{\Phi }_{osc}}{dt}+\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_{osc}}{L_{osc}}\hfill \\ =I_{in}+\mu _1\widehat{I}_{qu_1}(\mu _1\mathrm{\Phi }_{osc},\mathrm{\Phi }_{x21})+\widehat{I}_{qu_2}(\mu _1\mathrm{\Phi }_{osc},\mathrm{\Phi }_{x22})\hfill \end{array}$$
(28)
where the qubit screening currents are calculated from the expectation value of the qubit screening current operators $`\widehat{I}_{qu_1}`$ and $`\widehat{I}_{qu_2}`$ over the instantaneous wavefunction (i.e. a pure state) of the two-qubit state (calculated using the time-dependent Schrödinger equation). The time-dependent Schrödinger equation is used for the qubit evolution in this case because, for simplicity, we assume that the dominant source of decohence is the oscillator and any intrinsic dissipation due to emission from the qubits in the cavity is comparatively small. However, the effect of this emssion process on the behaviour of a classical oscillator has been examined elsewhere Ral03 . The dissipative term acts as a source of classical fluctuations due to Johnson noise in the resistor at finite temperature, taken to be $`T=10`$mK which is in line with experimental systems. (The noise need not be thermal, but it is a useful generic model for experimental noise because electronic noise is often characterised in terms of an effective noise ‘temperature’).

## IV Quantum Evolution and Quantum Jumps

In the quantum model, the reduced density operator for the qubits is estimated using a quantum trajectory model: an unravelling of the Markovian Master equation that produces individual ‘trajectories’, which can then be averaged over an ensemble to produce an estimate of the density operator Car93 ; Gis93 ; Wis96 . (A recent comprehensive review of this subject is given in reference Ple98 ). Each unravelling is equivalent to the Master equation when averaged over an ensemble, but corresponds to a different measurement interaction at the individual system level Wis96 . For simplicity, we choose the ‘quantum jumps’ model Car93  and thermal environment (Lindblad) operators for the oscillator described in Sar74 ,

$$\widehat{L}_1=[(\overline{n}+1)\omega _{osc}Q_{osc}]^{\frac{1}{2}}\widehat{a}\widehat{L}_2=[\overline{n}\omega _{osc}Q_{osc}]^{\frac{1}{2}}\widehat{a}^{}$$
(29)
where $`\overline{n}=[\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{}\omega _{osc}/kT)1]^1`$ is the thermal oscillator occupancy, $`\omega _{osc}=1/\sqrt{C_{osc}L_{osc}}`$ is the resonant frequency of the bias feld and the quality factor is given by $`Q_{osc}=\omega _{osc}R_{osc}C_{osc}`$ (in this paper we use $`Q_{osc}=200`$ for both the classical and quantum models). These environmental operators represent emission and absorption of photons from the environment by the oscillator mode, which is assumed to be the dominant source of dissipation in this paper.

The quantum jump evolution is calculated by numerically integrating the full state (describing the qubits and the oscillator) over discrete time intervals (of size $`dt`$) and applying three different evolution operators. In each time interval, there is a small (but finite) probability that the bias oscillator will emit or absorb a quantum of energy from the environment. The probabilities for emission and absorption during the time step are found from,

$$P_1(dt)=\widehat{L}_1^{}\widehat{L}_1dt=[(\overline{n}+1)\omega _{osc}Q_{osc}]\widehat{a}^{}\widehat{a}dt$$
(30)
$$P_2(dt)=\widehat{L}_2^{}\widehat{L}_2dt=[\overline{n}\omega _{osc}Q_{osc}]\widehat{a}\widehat{a}^{}dt$$
(31)
The jumps are generated stochastically and when a jump occurs, a projection operator is applied to the instantaneous state of the system. If an emission occurs, an operator $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}_1(dt)=\sqrt{dt}\widehat{L}_1`$ is applied, lowering the state of the oscillator, and if absorption occurs an operator $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}_2(dt)=\sqrt{dt}\widehat{L}_2`$ is applied, raising the oscillator state. The state is then renormalised. In the absence of a quantum jump, the evolution of the system is found from the non-unitary evolution operator,

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}_0(dt)=1\frac{idt}{\mathrm{}}\widehat{H}\frac{dt}{2}(\widehat{L}_1^{}\widehat{L}_1+\widehat{L}_2^{}\widehat{L}_2)$$
(32)
The non-unitary term is added to ensure that the evolution of the density operator for the coupled system agrees with that predicted by the Markovian Master equation, when the (pure state) density operators generated from an ensemble of individual ‘trajectories’ are averaged to produce an estimate for the mixed state density matrix for the whole system $`\rho _{total}`$: two qubits and bias oscillator. The reduced density operator for the two qubits $`\rho _{1+2}`$ is then found by performing a partial trace over the oscillator states. (The validity of the quantum jumps approach can be checked by selecting a different unravelling for the Master equation, and in this paper the results have been verified by comparing the behaviour obtained from the quantum jumps unravelling to equivalent results obtained from the quantum state diffusion unravelling Gis93 . Quantum state diffusion produces a continuous stochastic evolution of the quantum state, and can be shown to correspond to a unit-efficiency heterodyne detection measurement process Wis96 ).

## V Results

In each model, quantum and classical, the initial conditions set for the oscillator are a thermalised state: a thermal quantum state for the quantum oscillator and an initial condition generated from the classical equation of motion, which has been allowed to come into equilibrium with the thermal noise by numerically integrating its behaviour prior to initialisation using a different realisation of the noise for each qubit trajectory calculation. The qubits are initialised in a product of pure current states. The initial states of the qubits are chosen to be either in-phase ($`|0_10_2`$) or anti-phase ($`|0_11_2`$). That is, the coherent oscillations induced by initialising each qubit in a current state are initially in phase with each other or in anti-phase. Each individual quantum trajectory is calculated using the same initial conditions for the qubit states with different static bias errors for the control fields. The static bias errors are fixed for each trajectory and represent the accuracy with which the fields might be set in an experiment. The size of these static bias errors is found to be crucial to the generation of useable entangement between the qubits. The entanglement is characterised in terms of the concurrence, which is widely used in quantum information processing for bipartite systems Woo97 . The concurrence for the two-qubit mixed state density matrix $`\rho _{1+2}`$ is defined as

$$C(\rho _{1+2})=max\{0,\sqrt{\lambda _1}\sqrt{\lambda _2}\sqrt{\lambda _3}\sqrt{\lambda _4}\}$$

where $`\sqrt{\lambda _1},\mathrm{},\sqrt{\lambda _4}`$ are the eigenvalues of the matrix $`\rho _{1+2}(\sigma _y\sigma _y)\rho _{1+2}^{}(\sigma _y\sigma _y)`$ in nondecreasing order and $`\sigma _y`$ is a Pauli spin matrix Wei03 . Although the concurrence is used here, other measures of entanglement can be calculated from this: e.g. the entanglement of formation $`E_F`$ can be calculated from

$$E_F(\rho _{1+2})=h\left(\frac{1}{2}[1+\sqrt{1C(\rho _{1+2})^2}]\right)$$

where

$$h(x)=x\mathrm{log}_2x(1x)\mathrm{log}_2(1x)$$

at least for this two-qubit system. The mixedness of the resultant two-qubit state is given by the von Neumann entropy of the reduced density operator Wei03 : $`S(\rho _{1+2})=Tr(\rho _{1+2}\mathrm{log}_4\rho _{1+2})`$. The logarithm is taken to base 4 because the qubit states exist in a four-dimensional Hilbert space, giving a mixedness parameter that varies between zero and one.

Figure 2 shows the concurrence of the two-qubit mixed states for bias errors of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi }_x=10^5\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ (1 $`\sigma `$, Gaussian) for both models for an oscillator frequency of 100 MHz. We see that the concurrence oscillates and decays gradually in time, mainly due to dephasing between the two qubits originating from the static error in the bias fields, and approaches a maximially entangled mixed state in each oscillation. By varying the size of the errors, we find that the concurrence is quite sensitive to errors in the static fields, bias errors larger than about $`5\times 10^5\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ do not lead to any useful entanglement in the qubits - the concurrence is less than 0.3 at all times and decays very rapidly. (Other calculations away from the minimum splitting point of the qubits, where the frequency differences between energy eigenstates are higher, indicate that the requirements on the bias fields are even more demanding. Where the qubit frequencies are around 1-2 GHz, useful entanglement is only generated if the bias errors are less than about $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi }_x10^6\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$).

By increasing the couplings between the two qubits, the rate at which the two qubits become entangled can be increased. However, this could lead to problems when initialising the qubit states since the qubit current and flux are mixed by the inductive coupling. Care is required to ensure that the initialisation process projects the states onto the correct basis. (Slight differences in the initial states will affect the entanglement in the mixed state, but this is not explicitly considered here). Increasing the coupling between the oscillator and the qubits is likely to lead to additional problems. Although the classical oscillator model contains noise due to thermal fluctuations and dissipation from the finite quality factor of the oscillator, a quantum oscillator also includes quantum fluctuations. The differences in Figure 2(a) for the quantum and classical oscillator models are due to the comparatively low Q value used and the quantum fluctuations coupling across to the qubits. Increasing the oscillator Q and/or reducing the oscillator frequency improves the agreement between classical and quantum models. The coupling between the bias and the qubits is sufficiently small for the entanglement between the oscillator and qubits to be negligible.

This raises an interesting point: what happens when the quantum fluctuations in the oscillator coupling across to the qubits are comparable with the static bias errors? The size of the quantum fluctuations in the oscillator can be estimated from the flux width of the harmonic oscillator states. Using the width of the oscillator states and the coupling coefficient, the approximate size of the fluctuations that couple to the qubits will be,

$$\mu _1\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi }_{osc}K_1\sqrt{2\mathrm{}\omega _{osc}L_{qu}}1.2\times 10^6\mathrm{\Phi }_0$$
(33)
for $`K_1=0.002`$ and an oscillator frequency of 100 MHz. The size of the quantum fluctuations that couple across varies linearly with $`K_1`$ and as the square root of the frequency. This means that the field frequencies must be very low if strong field-qubit couplings are to be used. Keeping the frequency constant and increasing the oscillator-qubit coupling we find that as soon as the quantum fluctuations become comparable with the constraints on the bias errors, entanglement is effectively lost ($`10^5\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ for the cases considered here and $`10^6\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ for qubits biased away from the minimum splitting point). Even in the absence of the static bias errors, the quantum noise will affect the generation of entangement between the two qubits. Figure 3 shows the effect of increasing the size of the quantum noise by increasing the coupling to the bias field. For a 100 MHz oscillator and a coupling of $`K_1=0.01`$, giving fluctuations $`\mu _1\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi }_{osc}6\times 10^6\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$, the entanglement between the two qubits is lost very quickly. That this is due to quantum fluctuations, rather than the change in coupling strength alone, can be verified by simultaneously changing the oscillator frequency and the coupling strength keeping the size of the quantum noise given by equation (13) fixed.

The quantum fluctuations effectively limit the operating frequency of persistent current qubits as quantum processing devices, because the operating frequency must be lower than the frequency at which the bias fields may be manipulated, which is determined by the frequency and the quality factor of the bias circuit. Increasing the operating frequency of the device, and keeping the fluctuations below the required level, would mean reducing the coupling between the qubits and the applied field, which might make it difficult to address individual elements of an array of qubits.

In spite of the possible difficulties in biasing and addressing individual qubits within an array, there are some aspects of the behaviour of this tripartite system that are worth investigating further. In particular, in situations where the frequencies of the oscillator and the qubits are not widely separated, it is possible to generate interesting evolution whereby the currents flowing in the qubits excite oscillations in the bias field, which modifies the behaviour of the qubits. Figure 4 shows examples for a quantum oscillator with a natural frequency of 380 MHz, for both the in-phase and anti-phase initial states (all other parameters are identical to Figure 2). For the $`|0_10_2`$ initial state, the screening currents flowing in the qubits add in-phase. The net current coupled to the oscillator acts as a sinusoidal drive which excites oscillations in the bias field. In the $`|0_11_2`$ initial state the net current coupling to the oscillator is close to zero initially and the concurrence oscillations are far more regular. There are significant differences in the concurrence and the von Neumann entanglement between the two cases. In particular, the entanglement persists for longer for the $`|0_11_2`$ initial state and the von Neumann entropy exhibits some large scale oscillations, as shown by the ‘loops’ in Figures 4(b) and 4(c). These oscillations in entropy correspond to points where the oscillations in the bias field are at their largest. The oscillations in the field shift the bias point of both of the qubits, which accentuates the natural dephasing between the qubits. As the relative phase of the qubit oscillations changes, the net current coupling to the oscillator changes, and - as they approach the anti-phase state - the net current coupling to the oscillator falls and the oscillations in the field reduce, thereby stabilising the relative phase of the coherent oscillations. Although these phase slips occur for the anti-phase initial state, they are more evident for the in-phase initial state and are responsible for the rapid decay of entanglement in this case and are the dominant source of decoherence.

## VI Conclusions

In this paper, we have discussed a coupled system consisting of two persistent current qubits and a linear oscillator, representing one of the qubit control fields. We have examined the generation of entanglement between the two qubits in the presence of a dynamical bias field, and have shown that classical models are approximately valid for low frequency fields with high quality factors. We have used the models to set constraints on the accuracy of the applied control fields. The static bias errors must be less than about $`5\times 10^5\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ for the parameters used in this paper. We have also considered cases where the underlying quantum fluctuations in the applied field are significant, and have used this to derive a constraint that relates the coupling between the bias field and the qubits and the frequencies present in the bias fields. If these constraints are not met, the useful entanglement between the two qubits is effectively lost. This could affect the use of these devices in a practical quantum processing system, placing severe demands on the accuracy of the static control fields and limiting the operating frequencies of these devices. However, we have found that, where the frequencies of the applied fields and the qubits are comparable, some interesting dynamical behaviour can be produced by the back reaction of the qubits on the applied field.