text:
# The Interplay between Neutrinos and Charged Leptons in the Minimal 𝑆𝑈(3)_𝐿×𝑈(1)_𝑁 Gauge Model

## I Introduction

In the recent report on the detailed analysis of solar neutrino oscillations  done by the Super-Kamiokande collaboration , it has been suggested that solutions with large mixing angles are favored while solutions with small mixing angles are disfavored at the 95$`\mathrm{\%}`$ confidence level. Neutrino oscillations controlled by such large mixing angle have also been observed and confirmed for atmospheric neutrinos . Both observed oscillations are characterized by the same property of neutrino mixings, namely, large neutrino mixings, which are theoretically consistent with bimaximal mixing scheme . The difference arises in their oscillation scales denoted by $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{atm}^2`$ for atmospheric neutrinos and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2`$ for solar neutrinos, which are specified by $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{atm}^23\times 10^3`$ eV2 and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2\stackrel{<}{}10^4`$ eV2, thereby, indicating a hierarchy of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{atm}^2\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2`$.

Neutrino oscillations arise for massive neutrinos . Since neutrino masses of $`5.5\times 10^2`$ eV are implied by $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{atm}^2`$, models for neutrino oscillations must be equipped with mechanisms generating such tiny masses of neutrinos , which include breaking of the lepton number conservation for Majorana neutrino masses. It has been long known  that such lepton number breaking interactions are inevitably contained in the minimal $`SU(3)_L\times U(1)_N`$ model for electroweak interactions (called the 331 model)  because a charged lepton ($`\mathrm{}`$) and its antiparticle ($`\mathrm{}^c`$) together with a neutrino ($`\nu `$) are placed in a triplet of $`SU(3)_L`$ as $`\psi `$=($`\nu _L`$, $`\mathrm{}_L`$, $`\mathrm{}_L^c`$)T. As a result, the model provides a charged-lepton mass term included in $`\psi \psi `$, which simultaneously contains $`\nu _L\nu _L`$ as a neutrino mass term. Namely, the need for Majorana mass term is linked to the existence of the massive charged leptons. Therefore, the 331 model is suitable for incorporating Majorana neutrino masses .

With this nice feature of the 331 model in mind, we introduce the bimaximal mixing scheme into the model to accommodate observed neutrino oscillations. One of the possible scenario for bimaximal mixing scheme is to employ a new $`U(1)_L^{}`$ symmetry based on $`L_eL_\mu L_\tau `$ ($``$ $`L^{}`$) . Neutrino mixings are predicted to be maximal for solar neutrinos with $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2`$=0 but arbitrary for atmospheric neutrinos with $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{atm}^20`$. The hierarchy of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{atm}^2\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2`$ is trivially satisfied since $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2`$=0. One has to next explain how a nonvanishing $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2`$ is induced while preserving $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{atm}^2\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2`$. An elaborated mechanism is to generate $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2`$ as radiative effects , whose generic smallness explains the relative smallness of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2`$ over $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{atm}^2`$ .

In this article, we construct our interactions that induce phenomenologically consistent neutrino and charged-lepton mass matrix, $`M_\nu `$ and $`M_{\mathrm{}}`$, with appropriate radiative effects for $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2`$. Since the model describes both matrices in a unified form, masses for charged leptons and neutrinos are correlated to each other. The mass term of $`\psi \psi `$ transforms as $`3^{}`$ and $`6`$, which requires $`3`$ and/or $`6^{}`$ as Higgs scalars. The coupling of the triplet Higgs scalar to $`\psi \psi `$ is antisymmetrized with respect to the $`SU(3)_L`$-index. The spin and statistics, then, requires antisymmetrized flavor indices carried by $`\psi `$, in turn, generating antisymmetrized $`M_{\mathrm{}}`$ with eigenvalues corresponding to $`m_\mu =m_\tau `$, which contradicts with the observed hierarchy of $`m_\mu m_\tau `$. The triplet Higgs scalar alone is not consistent with the observed lepton mass spectrum. Therefore, the sextet scalar, which provides symmetrized mass terms, is the key ingredient of the 331 model .  The use of an $`SU(3)_L`$-singlet vector-like heavy $`\mathrm{}`$electron” without introducing a sextet scalar  has been advocated to describe consistent mass spectra of neutrinos and charged leptons .

Because the sextet Higgs scalar contains both an $`SU(2)_L`$-doublet scalar for charged leptons and an $`SU(2)_L`$-triplet scalar for neutrinos, we naturally expect $`\mathrm{}`$degeneracy” in the structure of their mass matrices. The charged leptons should contain a diagonal mass term such as the $`\tau `$-mass, which forces $`M_\nu `$ to have a diagonal term. However, $`M_\nu `$ should not contain diagonal terms to be consistent with bimaximal mixing scheme based on $`L^{}`$. To avoid this $`\mathrm{}`$degeneracy”, we use the conservation of the $`L^{}`$ quantum number supplemented by an appropriate $`Z_4`$ parity as well as a specific breaking pattern of $`L^{}`$ yielding a residual discrete symmetry. The collaboration of these symmetries allows neutrinos to develop no diagonal mass terms. As a result, atmospheric neutrino oscillations are controlled by those tree-level off-diagonal masses while solar neutrino oscillations are to be induced by one-loop effects. §§§ Similar discussions based on $`L^{}`$ and a discrete symmetry have been done in Ref..

In the following section, we first introduce particles and their interactions and discuss how the required vacuum alignment is realized. Section III deals with the diagonalization of $`M_\nu `$, which reflects rotation effects due to the diagonalization of $`M_{\mathrm{}}`$. The bimaximal condition on the neutrino masses determines a pattern of the matrix elements for the electron mass. One-loop radiative mass of $`\nu _e`$ is also calculated. The discussions in Sec.IV include to examine $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2`$ by utilizing the correlation between $`M_\nu `$ and $`M_{\mathrm{}}`$ and to confirm that the partial $`\mathrm{}`$degeneracy” between $`M_\nu `$ and $`M_{\mathrm{}}`$ suppresses the rotation effects to yield the LMA solution based on the radiative effects. The final section is devoted to summary and discussions.

## II Model

The model contains neutrinos and charged leptons in triplets of $`\psi _\alpha ^i=(\nu _L^i,\mathrm{}_L^i,\mathrm{}_L^{ci})^T`$ ($`i,\alpha `$=1,2,3)  Throughout this paper, the roman letters of $`i,j,\mathrm{}`$ and the Greek letters of $`\alpha ,\beta ,\mathrm{}`$, respectively, stand for the three families and three $`SU(3)_L`$-indices.  with $`L^{}=1`$ for $`\psi ^1`$ and $`L^{}=1`$ for $`\psi ^{2,3}`$, where the superscript $`c`$ of $`\mathrm{}_{\alpha L}^{ci}`$ stands for the charge conjugation, and two (anti-)sextet Higgs scalars $`S^{(0,+)\alpha \beta }`$ with $`L^{}`$=(0, 2) for ($`S^{(0)}`$, $`S^{(+)}`$). Since $`S^{(0)}`$ can couple to $`\psi ^1\psi ^i`$ ($`i`$=2,3), $`\nu _{eL}\nu _L^i`$ mixing terms are generated by $`0|S^{(0)11}|00`$ and are to be responsible for the bimaximal structure. On the other hand, $`m_\tau `$ (and also $`m_\mu `$) are generated by $`0|S^{(+)23}|00`$ via its coupling to $`\psi ^i\psi ^j`$ ($`i,j`$=2,3). Since $`\psi ^i\psi ^j`$ also supply couplings to $`\nu _{\mu L}`$ and $`\nu _{\tau L}`$, if $`0|S^{(+)11}|00`$ is also induced, then it disturbs the nice feature of the bimaximal mixing scheme based on $`L^{}`$. Therefore, in order for the present approach to be acceptable, the simultaneous alignment of $`0|S^{(+)11}|0=0`$ and $`0|S^{(+)23}|00`$ should be dynamically allowed. It is demonstrated that this vacuum alignment of $`S^{(+)11}`$ and $`S^{(+)23}`$ is indeed possible to occur as a result of the emergence of a residual discrete symmetry specific to $`U(1)_L^{}`$.

### A Particles

The 331 model is specified by the $`U(1)_N`$-charge. Let $`N/2`$ be the $`U(1)_N`$ quantum number, then the hypercharge, $`Y`$, is given by $`Y=\sqrt{3}\lambda ^8+N`$ and the electric charge $`Q_{em}`$ is given by $`Q_{em}=(\lambda ^3+Y)/2`$, where $`\lambda ^a`$ is the $`SU(3)`$ generator with Tr$`(\lambda ^a\lambda ^b)=2\delta ^{ab}`$ $`(a,b=1\mathrm{}8)`$. Let us first summarize the whole particle content in our model, where the quantum numbers are specified by ($`SU(3)_L`$, $`U(1)_N`$; $`U(1)_L^{}`$):

$$\psi ^1=(\nu _L^1,\mathrm{}_L^1,\mathrm{}_L^{c1})^T:(\mathrm{𝟑},0;1),\psi ^{i=2,3}=(\nu _L^i,\mathrm{}_L^i,\mathrm{}_L^{ci})^T:(\mathrm{𝟑},0;1),$$
(1)
for leptons,

$`Q_L^{i=1,2}=(d_L^i,u_L^i,J_L^i)^T:(\mathrm{𝟑}^{},1/3;0),Q_L^3=(u_L^3,d_L^3,J_L^3)^T:(\mathrm{𝟑},2/3;0),`$ (2)
$`u_R^{1,2,3}:(\mathrm{𝟏},2/3;0),d_R^{1,2,3}:(\mathrm{𝟏},1/3;0),J_R^{1,2}:(\mathrm{𝟏},4/3;0),J_R^3:(\mathrm{𝟏},5/3;0),`$ (3)
for quarks

$`\eta =(\eta ^0,\eta ^{},\eta ^+)^T:(\mathrm{𝟑},0;0),\rho =(\rho ^+,\rho ^0,\rho ^{++})^T:(\mathrm{𝟑},1;0),\chi =(\chi ^{},\chi ^{},\chi ^0)^T:(\mathrm{𝟑},1;0),`$ (4)
for triplet Higgs scalars, and

$`S^{(0)}=\left(\begin{array}{cccccccccccccccccccc}s_\nu ^{(0)}& s^{(0)+}& s^{(0)}& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ s^{(0)+}& s^{(0)++}& s_{\mathrm{}}^{(0)}& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ s^{(0)}& s_{\mathrm{}}^{(0)}& s^{(0)}& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \end{array}\right):(\mathrm{𝟔}^{},0;0),S^{(+)}=\left(\begin{array}{cccccccccccccccccccc}s_\nu ^{(+)}& s^{(+)+}& s^{(+)}& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ s^{(+)+}& s^{(+)++}& s_{\mathrm{}}^{(+)}& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ s^{(+)}& s_{\mathrm{}}^{(+)}& s^{(+)}& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \end{array}\right):(\mathrm{𝟔}^{},0;2),`$ (11)
for (anti-)sextet Higgs scalars. These Higgs scalars have the following vacuum expectation values (VEV’s):

$`0|\eta |0=(v_\eta ,0,0)^T,0|\rho |0=(0,v_\rho ,0)^T,0|\chi |0=(0,0,v_\chi )^T,`$ (12)
$`0|S^{(0)}|0=\left(\begin{array}{cccccccccccccccccccc}v_\nu ^{(0)}& 0& 0& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ 0& 0& v_{\mathrm{}}^{(0)}& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ 0& v_{\mathrm{}}^{(0)}& 0& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \end{array}\right),0|S^{(+)}|0=\left(\begin{array}{cccccccccccccccccccc}0& 0& 0& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ 0& 0& v_{\mathrm{}}^{(+)}& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ 0& v_{\mathrm{}}^{(+)}& 0& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \end{array}\right),`$ (19)
and quarks and leptons will acquire masses via these VEV’s, where the orthogonal choice of the VEV’s in Eq.(12) and the vanishing VEV of $`0|S^{(+)11}|0`$ in Eq.(19) are to be ensured by appropriate Higgs interactions.

The pure $`SU(3)_L`$-anomaly is cancelled in a vectorial manner. The anomalies from triplets of the three families of leptons and of the three colors of the third family of quarks are cancelled by those from antitriplets of three colors of the first and second families of quarks . Other anomalies including $`U(1)_N`$ are also cancelled. The scale of the 331 model is set by $`v_\chi `$, yielding $`SU(3)_L\times U(1)_NSU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y`$ and we expect the magnitude of $`v_\chi `$ is of order TeV.

### B Interactions

To realize phenomenologically viable interactions, we further impose a $`Z_4`$ parity on the model, where $`Z_4`$=+ for $`\psi ^1`$, $`\eta `$ and $`S^{(+)}`$;=$``$ for $`\psi ^{2,3}`$ and $`S^{(0)}`$;=$`i`$ for $`\rho `$ and $`\chi `$ and similarly for quarks. Hereafter, we restrict ourselves to the lepton sector. The Yukawa interactions for leptons are, then, controlled by the following lagrangian:

$`_Y={\displaystyle \underset{i=2,3}{}}f_{1i}\overline{\left(\psi ^1\right)^c}\psi ^iS^{(0)}+{\displaystyle \underset{i,j=2,3}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}f_{ij}\overline{\left(\psi ^i\right)^c}\psi ^jS^{(+)}+(\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.),`$ (20)
where $`f`$’s denote the Yukawa couplings with $`f_{ij}=f_{ji}`$. The possible term of the $`\psi \psi \eta `$-type is forbidden by $`Z_4`$. The Higgs interactions are described by self-Hermitian terms composed of $`\varphi _\alpha \varphi ^{c\beta }`$ ($`\varphi `$=$`\eta `$, $`\rho `$, $`\chi `$) and $`S^{(0,+)\alpha \beta }S_{\alpha ^{}\beta ^{}}^{(0,+)c}`$, which include the potential term of $`V_{\eta \rho \chi }`$:

$`V_{\eta \rho \chi }=\lambda _{\eta \rho }|\eta \times \rho |^2+\lambda _{\rho \chi }|\rho \times \chi |^2+\lambda _{\chi \eta }|\chi \times \eta |^2,`$ (21)
where $`\lambda `$’s represent coupling constants and $`(a\times b)^\alpha ϵ^{\alpha \beta \gamma }a_\beta b_\gamma `$ and by the non-self-Hermitian terms in

$`V_0=\mu _0\rho S^{(0)}\chi +\lambda _1\eta \eta S^{(0)c}S^{(0)c}+\lambda _2\eta S^{(0)}\rho ^c\chi ^c+(\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.),`$ (22)
where $`\mu _0`$ denotes a mass scale and $`\lambda _{1,2}`$ stand for coupling constants. There is a leptonic number associated with $`\psi `$, which can be taken to be $`2`$ for $`S^{(0,+)}`$ and 0 for all others. Since the $`L_{\mathrm{}}`$ conservation is broken both spontaneously by $`S^{(0,+)}`$ and explicitly by $`V_0`$, there is no harmful Nambu-Goldstone boson.

Although the lepton number cannot be globally assigned to $`SU(3)_L`$-multipulets, to argue Majorana masses for neutrinos, it is useful to define the lepton number $`L`$ to classify interactions  in the similar way used for the electric charge defined in the standard $`SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y`$ model. Following the classification lately done in Ref., the $`L`$-number can be introduced in the form of

$`L=4\lambda ^8/2\sqrt{3}+,`$ (23)
where $``$ = 2 for $`J_R^{1,2}`$; = 4/3 for $`\chi `$; = 2/3 for $`Q_L^{1,2}`$; =1/3 for $`\psi ^{1,2,3}`$; = 0 for $`u_R^{1,2,3}`$ and $`d_R^{1,2,3}`$; = $``$2/3 for $`Q_L^3`$, $`\eta `$, $`\rho `$ and $`S^{(0,+)}`$; = $``$2 for $`J_R^3`$, which yields $`L`$ = (1, 1, $`1`$) for $`\psi ^{1,2,3}`$ as usual. The assignment for leptons and Higgs scalars is shown in TABLE I. Among our interactions constrained by $`L^{}`$, only $`\eta S^{(0)}\rho ^c\chi ^c`$ breaks the $`L`$ conservation; therefore, it is this interaction that gives the nonvanishing $`v_\nu ^{(0)}`$. A few comments are in order to support our choice of VEV’s of $`v_{\eta ,\rho ,\chi }`$ and $`v_{\nu ,\mathrm{}}^{(0)}`$:

1. The nonvanishing VEV of $`0|S^{(0)11}|0`$ is triggered by the $`L`$-violating $`\eta S^{(0)}\rho ^c\chi ^c`$ for $`\lambda _2<0`$ since $`0|\eta _1|00`$, $`0|\rho _2|00`$ and $`0|\chi _3|00`$;
2. The nonvanishing VEV of $`0|S^{(0)23}|0`$ is triggered by the $`L`$-conserving $`\rho S^{(0)}\chi `$ for $`\mu _0<0`$ since $`0|\rho _2|00`$ and $`0|\chi _3|00`$ and by the $`L`$-conserving $`\eta \eta S^{(0)c}S^{(0)c}`$ for $`\lambda _1<0`$ since $`0|\eta _1|00`$;
3. The orthogonal choice of VEV’s of $`\eta `$, $`\rho `$ and $`\chi `$ as in Eq.(12) is supported by $`V_{\eta \rho \chi }`$ if all $`\lambda `$’s are negative. It is because $`V_{\eta \rho \chi }`$ gets lowered if $`\eta `$, $`\rho `$ and $`\chi `$ develop VEV’s. So, one can choose VEV’s such that $`0|\eta _1|0`$ $``$ 0, $`0|\rho _2|0`$ $``$ 0 and $`0|\chi _3|0`$ $``$ 0.

Thus, these VEV’s are dynamically aligned by our Higgs potential. On the other hand, we cannot argue whether $`0|S^{(+)11,23}|0`$ acquire VEV’s or not since there are no triggers such as an $`L`$-violating $`\eta S^{(+)}\eta `$ and an $`L`$-conserving $`\rho S^{(+)}\chi `$, which can, respectively, align $`0|S^{(+)11}|0`$ and $`0|S^{(+)23}|0`$ to be nonvanishing. However, so far these interactions are forbidden by the $`L^{}`$ conservation. To invoke such dynamical alignment, thus, requires $`L^{}`$-breaking interactions.

To introduce $`L^{}`$-breaking effects calls for careful consideration because of the specific alignment of VEV’s of $`S^{(+)}`$, i.e. $`0|S^{(+)11}|0=0`$ and $`0|S^{(+)23}|00`$. Its breaking readily induces dangerous interactions that creates $`0|S^{(+)11}|0`$ such as tadpole interactions for $`S^{(+)11}`$. Owing to the vacuum alignment of $`0|S^{(+)11}|0=0`$, $`L^{}`$-breaking interactions should conserve $`L`$. There is one candidate that can keep this specific alignment, which is an $`L`$-conserving $`\eta \eta S^{(+)c}S^{(+)c}`$:

$`V_b=\lambda _b\eta \eta S^{(+)c}S^{(+)c}+(\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}),`$ (24)
where $`\lambda _b`$ represents a breaking of the $`L^{}`$ conservation. Since $`U(1)_L^{}`$ is broken by the unit of $`|Q_L^{}|`$=4, there is still a residual conservation due to a $`Z_4`$ symmetry of $`\mathrm{exp}(i\pi Q_L^{}/2)`$ to be denoted by $`Z_L^{}`$, which is shown in TABLE I together with $`L^{}`$ and $`Z_4`$. This $`Z_L^{}`$ symmetry can be used to constrain possible forms of $`L^{}`$-breaking interactions. The mass terms for $`\mu `$ and $`\tau `$ are created by $`0|S^{(+)23}|00`$, which is now supported by $`V_b`$ for $`\lambda _b<0`$. Therefore, $`V_b`$ serves as a trigger for $`0|S^{(+)23}|00`$.

The VEV of $`0|S^{(+)11}|0`$ would be created by the following $`L`$-violating interactions of

* Tr($`S^{(0)}S^{(+)}`$) since $`0|S^{(0)11}|00`$,
* $`\eta S^{(+)}\eta `$ since $`0|\eta _1|00`$,
* $`\eta S^{(+)}\rho ^c\chi ^c`$ since $`0|\eta _1|00`$, $`0|\rho _2|00`$ and $`0|\chi _3|00`$,
* $`\rho \chi S^{(0)c}S^{(+)c}`$ and $`\rho \chi S^{(+)c}S^{(+)c}`$ since $`0|\rho _2|00`$, $`0|\chi _3|00`$ and $`0|S^{(0,+)23}|00`$ and
* Tr($`S^{(0)}S^{(0)}S^{(+)}`$), Tr($`S^{(0)}S^{(+)}S^{(+)}`$) and Tr($`S^{(+)}S^{(+)}S^{(+)}`$) since $`0|S^{(0,+)23}|00`$.

Fortunately, all of these interactions are forbidden by the interplay between $`Z_4`$ and $`Z_L^{}`$. Tabulated in TABLE II are $`Z_4`$ and $`Z_L^{}`$ for non-self-Hermitian Higgs interactions allowed by $`SU(3)_L\times U(1)_N`$, where the reader can recognize how these dangerous interactions are excluded. At this moment, we reach the plausible situation, where the alignment of

$`0|S^{(+)11}|0=0,0|S^{(+)23}|00`$ (25)
is dynamically supported.

## III Mass Matrix

The resulting mass matrices for charged leptons and neutrinos take the form of

$`M_{\mathrm{}}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0,& \delta m_{12}^{\mathrm{}}& \delta m_{13}^{\mathrm{}}\\ \delta m_{12}^{\mathrm{}}& m_{22}^{\mathrm{}}& m_{23}^{\mathrm{}}\\ \delta m_{13}^{\mathrm{}}& m_{23}^{\mathrm{}}& m_{33}^{\mathrm{}}\end{array}\right),M_\nu =\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\delta m_{11}^{rad}& \delta m_{12}^\nu & \delta m_{13}^\nu \\ \delta m_{12}^\nu & \delta m_{22}^{rad}& \delta m_{23}^{rad}\\ \delta m_{13}^\nu & \delta m_{23}^{rad}& \delta m_{33}^{rad}\end{array}\right),`$ (32)
where $`m_{ij}^{\mathrm{},\nu }`$ are expressed in terms of VEV’s:

$`\delta m_{1i}^{\mathrm{}}=f_{1i}v_{\mathrm{}}^{(0)},\delta m_{1i}^\nu =f_{1i}v_\nu ^{(0)},m_{ij}^{\mathrm{}}=f_{ij}v_{\mathrm{}}^{(+)},`$ (33)
leading to the proportionality of

$`\delta m_{1i}^\nu \delta m_{1i}^{\mathrm{}},`$ (34)
and $`\delta m_{ij}^{rad}`$ stand for one-loop radiative masses to be estimated in the next subsection. We simply assume $`\delta m_{1i}^{\mathrm{}}m_{ij}^{\mathrm{}}`$ ($`i,j`$=2,3) so as to reproduce the hierarchy of $`m_em_{\mu ,\tau }`$ by the mechanism discussed in Ref..

Since the magnitude of neutrino masses $`\delta m_{1i}^\nu `$ is controlled by $`v_\nu ^{(0)}`$, let us explain how naturally small $`v_\nu ^{(0)}`$ is obtained. An estimate of

$`v_\nu ^{(0)}\lambda _2v_\eta v_\rho /v_\chi `$ (35)
can be found in the analyses of Ref. applied to our Higgs potential. It calls for $`\lambda _2<0`$ as has been expected in the vacuum alignment. The smallness of $`v_\nu ^{(0)}`$ is, then, ascribed to either $`|\lambda _2|1`$  or $`v_\chi v_{\eta ,\rho }`$ , the latter of which is known as the type II seesaw mechanism , where we use the mechanism due to $`|\lambda _2|1`$ by simply expecting that $`v_\chi `$ is of order TeV. One will find that $`(\lambda _2)`$a few$`\times 10^7`$ provides neutrino masses about $`5.5\times 10^2`$ eV. This is in fact a fine-tuning of $`\lambda _2`$ to reproduce neutrino masses so as to meet the value of $`5.5\times 10^2`$. However, we have already known this tiny magnitude, which is give by $`m_e/m_t`$. The relative smallness of $`m_e`$ is linked to the underlying chiral symmetry recovered at the limit of $`m_e`$ $``$ 0. This feature dictates the so-called $`\mathrm{}`$naturalness” . Similarly, since the $`L`$ conservation is respected in the limit of $`\lambda _20`$, the process of taking $`|\lambda _2|1`$ is also regarded to be natural although both cases require other new physics to explain why such tiny values are realized.

Our program to discuss patterns of neutrino oscillations is based on the use of the proportionality of $`\delta m_{1i}^\nu `$ to $`\delta m_{1i}^{\mathrm{}}`$ indicated by Eq.(34). Since to generate the electron mass and to reproduce $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{atm}^2`$ will, respectively, determine $`\delta m_{1i}^{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`\delta m_{1i}^\nu `$, which yield the estimation of $`v_\nu ^{(0)}/v_{\mathrm{}}^{(0)}`$. The magnitude of $`v_\nu ^{(0)}`$ derived in Eq.(35) now determines that of $`\lambda _2`$ once appropriate values of VEV’s are given and, then, $`\delta m_{11,ij}^{rad}`$ ($`i,j`$=2,3) to be defined in Eqs.(50) and (51) are calculable for this estimated $`\lambda _2`$. In the end, solar neutrino oscillations controlled by $`\delta m_{11,ij}^{rad}`$ are found to be consistent with the LMA solution.

### A Charged Lepton Masses

We first discuss the diagonalization of $`M_{\mathrm{}}`$. The following unitary matrix $`U_{\mathrm{}}`$ is obtained under the approximation of $`\delta m_{1i}^{\mathrm{}}m_{ij}^{\mathrm{}}`$ ($`i,j`$=2,3) and transforms $`M_{\mathrm{}}`$ into $`M_{\mathrm{}}^{diag}`$=$`U_{\mathrm{}}^{}M_{\mathrm{}}U_{\mathrm{}}`$=diag.($`m_e`$, $`m_\mu `$, $`m_\tau `$):

$`U_{\mathrm{}}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1\left(\delta U_\mu ^2+\delta U_\tau ^2\right)/2,& \delta U_\mu & \delta U_\tau \\ \left(c_\alpha \delta U_\mu +s_\alpha \delta U_\tau \right)& c_\alpha \left(1\delta U_\mu ^2/2\right)s_\alpha \delta ^2V_{\tau \mu }& s_\alpha \left(1\delta U_\tau ^2/2\right)+c_\alpha \delta ^2V_{\mu \tau }\\ s_\alpha \delta U_\mu c_\alpha \delta U_\tau & s_\alpha \left(1\delta U_\mu ^2/2\right)c_\alpha \delta ^2V_{\tau \mu }& c_\alpha \left(1\delta U_\tau ^2/2\right)s_\alpha \delta ^2V_{\mu \tau }\end{array}\right),`$ (39)
up to the second order of $`\delta U_{\mu .\tau }`$ with

$`\delta U_\mu =\left(\left(c_\alpha ^2s_\alpha ^2\right)\delta m_{12}^{\mathrm{}}2c_\alpha s_\alpha \delta m_{13}^{\mathrm{}}\right)/\lambda _{},\delta U_\tau =\left(2c_\alpha s_\alpha \delta m_{12}^{\mathrm{}}+\left(c_\alpha ^2s_\alpha ^2\right)\delta m_{13}^{\mathrm{}}\right)/\lambda _+,`$ (40)
$`\delta ^2V_{ij}=\lambda _i\delta U_i\delta U_j/(\lambda _+\lambda _{}),\lambda _\pm =\left(m_{22}^{\mathrm{}}+m_{33}^{\mathrm{}}\pm \sqrt{(m_{22}^{\mathrm{}}m_{33}^{\mathrm{}})^2+4m_{23}^\mathrm{}2}\right)/2,`$ (41)
$`c_\alpha \mathrm{cos}\alpha =\sqrt{\left(m_{33}^{\mathrm{}}\lambda _{}\right)/(\lambda _+\lambda _{})},s_\alpha \mathrm{sin}\alpha =\sqrt{\left(\lambda _+m_{33}^{\mathrm{}}\right)/(\lambda _+\lambda _{})},`$ (42)
where $`i,j`$=$`\mu ,\tau `$ for $`\delta ^2V_{ij}`$, $`\lambda _\mu =\lambda _{}`$ and $`\lambda _\tau =\lambda _+`$. The masses of $`e`$, $`\mu `$ and $`\tau `$ are given by

$`m_e`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{12}+\mathrm{\Delta }m_{13},m_\mu =\lambda _{}+\mathrm{\Delta }m_{12},m_\tau =\lambda _++\mathrm{\Delta }m_{13},`$ (43)
where

$`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{12}=\left(\left(c_\alpha ^2s_\alpha ^2\right)\delta m_{12}^{\mathrm{}}2c_\alpha s_\alpha \delta m_{13}^{\mathrm{}}\right)^2/\lambda _{},\mathrm{\Delta }m_{13}=\left(2c_\alpha s_\alpha \delta m_{12}^{\mathrm{}}+\left(c_\alpha ^2s_\alpha ^2\right)\delta m_{13}^{\mathrm{}}\right)^2/\lambda _+.`$ (44)
To be consistent with the observed mass pattern of the charged lepton mass matrix, we should present a mechanism generating plausible mass textures such as the hierarchical pattern  and the democratic pattern . However, in the present context of the model, we are not aimming at clarifying all the physical aspect of the lepton sector but, instead, at clarifying the correlation of neutrino mass matrix with charged lepton mass matrix. Here, we simply parameterize $`m_{ij}^{\mathrm{}}`$ by adopting two distinct ways to realize $`m_\mu m_\tau `$: hierarchical and democratic mass textures and discuss their influences in neutrino mixings. The resulting parameterization is given by

1. the hierarchical pattern of $`m_{22,23}^{\mathrm{}}m_{33}^{\mathrm{}}`$ and

$`m_e\delta m_{12}^\mathrm{}2/m_\mu +\delta m_{13}^\mathrm{}2/m_\tau ,m_\mu m_{22}^{\mathrm{}}+\left(m_{23}^\mathrm{}2/m_\tau \right),m_\tau m_{33}^{\mathrm{}}\left(m_{23}^\mathrm{}2/m_\tau \right),`$ (45)
$`\delta U_\mu \delta m_{12}^{\mathrm{}}/m_\mu ,\delta U_\tau \delta m_{13}^{\mathrm{}}/m_\tau ,`$ (46)
leading to $`\mathrm{cos}\alpha 1`$ with $`\mathrm{sin}\alpha m_{23}^{\mathrm{}}/m_{33}^{\mathrm{}}`$ ($`1`$) and
2. the democratic pattern of $`m_{22}^{\mathrm{}}m_{23}^{\mathrm{}}m_{33}^{\mathrm{}}`$ and

$`m_e\delta m_{13}^\mathrm{}2/m_\mu +\delta m_{12}^\mathrm{}2/m_\tau ,m_\mu \mathrm{\Delta }m,m_\tau 2m_0\mathrm{\Delta }m,`$ (47)
$`\delta U_\mu \delta m_{13}^{\mathrm{}}/m_\mu ,\delta U_\tau \delta m_{12}^{\mathrm{}}/m_\tau ,`$ (48)
where $`m_0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m`$ specify $`m_{22}^{\mathrm{}}=m_{33}^{\mathrm{}}=m_0`$ and $`m_{23}^{\mathrm{}}=m_0\mathrm{\Delta }m`$ ($`m_0\mathrm{\Delta }m`$), leading to $`\mathrm{cos}\alpha =\mathrm{sin}\alpha =1/\sqrt{2}`$.

Therefore, we have found the estimate of $`\delta m_{12.13}^{\mathrm{}}`$ that reproduces $`m_e`$.

### B Radiative Masses

Neutrinos acquire radiative masses of $`\delta m_{11,ij}^{rad}`$ ($`i,j`$=2,3) generated by one-loop interactions corresponding to diagrams depicted in FIG.1 and FIG.2. It is convenient to shift the basis for charged-leptons from the original one for $`M_{\mathrm{}}`$ to the intermediate one, where $`\mu `$ and $`\tau `$ have diagonal masses of $`\lambda _{}`$ and $`\lambda _+`$, respectively. The corrections due to $`\delta m_{12,13}^{\mathrm{}}`$ are neglected because of $`\delta m_{12,13}^{\mathrm{}}m_{\mu ,\tau }`$. In this basis, the couplings of $`S^{(0)}`$ to the lepton triplets are described by $`F_{1i}\psi ^1\mathrm{\Psi }^i`$ ($`i`$=2,3) with ($`\mathrm{\Psi }^2`$, $`\mathrm{\Psi }^3`$)=($`c_\alpha \psi ^2s_\alpha \psi ^3`$, $`s_\alpha \psi ^2+c_\alpha \psi ^3`$) and $`F_{1i}`$ are the rotated $`f_{1i}`$-couplings similarly defined as ($`F_{12}`$, $`F_{13}`$)=$`(c_\alpha f_{12}s_\alpha f_{13}`$, $`s_\alpha f_{12}+c_\alpha f_{13}`$), which appear in the figures.

The result of the calculation of $`\delta m_{11,ij}^{rad}`$ ($`i,j`$=2,3) is given by

$`\delta m_{11}^{rad}`$ $`=`$ $`2\lambda _2\mu _0{\displaystyle \underset{i=2,3}{}}F_{1i}^2m_\mathrm{}^i\left[I(m_\mathrm{}^i^2,m_{s^{(0)+}}^2,m_{s^{(0)}}^2,m_{\rho ^+}^2)v_\chi ^2+I(m_\mathrm{}^i^2,m_{s^{(0)+}}^2,m_{s^{(0)}}^2,m_\chi ^{}^2)v_\rho ^2\right]v_\eta `$ (50)
$`+2\lambda _2\lambda _1v_{\mathrm{}}^{(0)}F_{1i}^2m_\mathrm{}^i\left[I(m_\mathrm{}^i^2,m_{s^{(0)+}}^2,m_{s^{(0)}}^2,m_{\eta ^+}^2)+I(m_\mathrm{}^i^2,m_{s^{(0)}}^2,m_{s^{(0)+}}^2,m_\eta ^{}^2)\right]v_\eta v_\rho v_\chi ,`$
$`\delta m_{ij}^{rad}`$ $`=`$ $`2\lambda _2\lambda _bv_{\mathrm{}}^{(0)}F_{1i}F_{1j}m_\mathrm{}^i\left[I(m_\mathrm{}^i^2,m_{s^{(+)+}}^2,m_{s^{(0)}}^2,m_{\eta ^+}^2)+I(m_\mathrm{}^i^2,m_{s^{(+)}}^2,m_{s^{(0)+}}^2,m_\eta ^{}^2)\right]v_\eta v_\rho v_\chi ,`$ (51)
for $`i,j`$=2,3 and $`m_e`$=0 in this basis, with $`m_\mathrm{}^2=\lambda _{}m_\mu `$ and $`m_\mathrm{}^3=\lambda _+m_\tau `$ as in Eq.(40), where

$`I(a,b,c,d)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{J(a,b,d)J(a,c,d)}{bc}},`$ (52)
$`J(a,b,c)={\displaystyle \frac{a\mathrm{ln}a}{\left(ab\right)\left(ac\right)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{b\mathrm{ln}b}{\left(ba\right)\left(bc\right)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{c\mathrm{ln}c}{\left(cb\right)\left(ca\right)}}.`$ (53)
The Majorana mass $`\delta m_{11}^{rad}`$ for $`\nu _e`$ is induced by effective couplings corresponding to FIG.1:

$`(\eta ^{}\psi ^1)ϵ^{\alpha \beta \gamma }\psi _\alpha ^1\varphi _\beta (\varphi S^{(+)})_\gamma ^c,`$ (54)
for $`\varphi `$=$`\rho `$ or $`\chi `$, and

$`ϵ^{\alpha \beta \gamma }ϵ^{\alpha ^{}\beta ^{}\gamma ^{}}\psi _\alpha ^1\psi _\alpha ^{}^1(S^{(+)})_{\beta \beta ^{}}^c(S^{(0)})_{\gamma \gamma ^{}}^c\left(ϵ^{\alpha \beta \gamma }\eta _\alpha \rho _\beta \chi _\gamma \right)`$ (55)
with similar terms scrambled by possible permutations of the fields. Both couplings conserve $`L^{}`$. On the other hand, the same effective coupling as Eq.(55) but with the replacement of $`\lambda _2\lambda _b`$, thus of the $`L^{}`$-breaking type, yields $`\delta m_{ij}^{rad}`$ ($`i,j`$=2,3) for $`\nu _{\mu ,\tau }\nu _{\mu ,\tau }`$, which correspond to FIG.2.

### C Neutrino Masses

Now, let us turn to examining the neutrino sector. The neutrino mass matrix is also transformed into $`M_\nu ^{weak}`$ by $`U_{\mathrm{}}`$ of Eq.(39) to maintain diagonal weak currents and is calculated, up to the second order of $`\delta U_{\mu ,\tau }`$, to be:

$`M_\nu ^{weak}=U_{\mathrm{}}^{}M_\nu U_{\mathrm{}}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\delta M_{11},& M_{12}& M_{13}\\ M_{12}& \delta M_{22}& \delta M_{23}\\ M_{13}& \delta M_{23}& \delta M_{33}\end{array}\right),`$ (59)
where

$`M_{12}`$ $`=`$ $`N_{12}\left(12\delta U_\mu ^2\delta U_\tau ^2/2\right)N_{13}\left(\delta ^2V_{\tau \mu }+\delta U_\mu \delta U_\tau \right),`$ (60)
$`M_{13}`$ $`=`$ $`N_{13}\left(12\delta U_\tau ^2\delta U_\mu ^2/2\right)+N_{12}\left(\delta ^2V_{\mu \tau }\delta U_\mu \delta U_\tau \right),`$ (61)
$`\delta M_{11}`$ $`=`$ $`\delta m_{11}^{rad}2\left(N_{12}\delta U_\mu +N_{13}\delta U_\tau \right),`$ (62)
$`\delta M_{22}`$ $`=`$ $`2N_{12}\delta U_\mu +c_\alpha ^2\delta m_{22}^{rad}2c_\alpha s_\alpha \delta m_{23}^{rad}+s_\alpha ^2\delta m_{33}^{rad},`$ (63)
$`\delta M_{23}`$ $`=`$ $`N_{13}\delta U_\mu +N_{12}\delta U_\tau +c_\alpha s_\alpha \left(\delta m_{22}^{rad}\delta m_{33}^{rad}\right)+\left(c_\alpha ^2s_\alpha ^2\right)\delta m_{23}^{rad},`$ (64)
$`\delta M_{33}`$ $`=`$ $`2N_{13}\delta U_\tau +s_\alpha ^2\delta m_{22}^{rad}+2c_\alpha s_\alpha \delta m_{23}^{rad}+c_\alpha ^2\delta m_{33}^{rad}`$ (65)
with

$`N_{12}=c_\alpha \delta m_{12}^\nu s_\alpha \delta m_{13}^\nu ,N_{13}=c_\alpha \delta m_{13}^\nu +s_\alpha \delta m_{12}^\nu .`$ (66)
It is obvious to see that $`M_\nu ^{weak}`$ satisfies Tr($`M_\nu ^{weak}`$)=Tr($`M_\nu `$)=$`\delta m_{11}^{rad}+\delta m_{22}^{rad}+\delta m_{33}^{rad}`$ and Tr($`M_\nu ^{weakT}M_\nu ^{weak}`$)= Tr($`M_\nu ^TM_\nu `$)=2($`\delta m_{12}^{\nu 2}+\delta m_{13}^{\nu 2})`$. Since $`|M_{12,13}||\delta M_{ij}|`$, the diagonal neutrino masses given by ($`m_{\nu 1}`$, $`m_{\nu 2}`$, $`m_{\nu 3}`$) are calculated to be:

$`m_{\nu 1}=m_\nu +m_{\nu 1}^{(1)}+m_\nu ^{(2)},m_{\nu 2}=m_\nu m_{\nu 1}^{(1)}+m_\nu ^{(2)},m_{\nu 3}=m_{\nu 3}^{(1)},`$ (67)
up to the second order of $`\delta M_{ij}`$ equivalent to the second order of $`\delta U_{\mu ,\tau }`$, where

$`m_\nu =\sqrt{M_{12}^2+M_{13}^2},m_{\nu 1}^{(1)}=\left(\delta M_{11}+\mathrm{cos}^2\vartheta _\nu \delta M_{22}+2\mathrm{cos}\vartheta _\nu \mathrm{sin}\vartheta _\nu \delta M_{23}+\mathrm{sin}^2\vartheta _\nu \delta M_{33}\right)/2,`$ (68)
$`m_{\nu 3}^{(1)}=\mathrm{sin}^2\vartheta _\nu \delta M_{22}2\mathrm{cos}\vartheta _\nu \mathrm{sin}\vartheta _\nu \delta M_{23}+\mathrm{cos}^2\vartheta _\nu \delta M_{33},m_\nu ^{(2)}={\displaystyle \frac{M_{12}^2}{2m_\nu }}+{\displaystyle \frac{M_{13}^2}{m_\nu }}`$ (69)
with $`\mathrm{cos}\vartheta _\nu =M_{12}/m_\nu `$ and $`\mathrm{sin}\vartheta _\nu =M_{13}/m_\nu `$ as the mixing angle for atmospheric neutrinos and

$`M_{12}^{}=\left(\delta M_{11}+\mathrm{cos}^2\vartheta _\nu \delta M_{22}+2\mathrm{cos}\vartheta _\nu \mathrm{sin}\vartheta _\nu \delta M_{23}+\mathrm{sin}^2\vartheta _\nu \delta M_{33}\right)/2,`$ (70)
$`M_{13}^{}=\left(\left(\mathrm{cos}^2\vartheta _\nu \mathrm{sin}^2\vartheta _\nu \right)\delta M_{23}+\mathrm{cos}\vartheta _\nu \mathrm{sin}\vartheta _\nu \left(\delta M_{33}\delta M_{22}\right)\right)/\sqrt{2}.`$ (71)
The masses of $`m_{\nu 1}^{(1)}`$ and $`M_{12,13}^{}`$ can be further converted into:

$`m_{\nu 1}^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta m_{11}^{rad}+\delta m_{22}^{rad}}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\left(M_{13}\delta U_\mu M_{12}\delta U_\tau \right)\left(M_{12}N_{13}M_{13}N_{12}\right)}{m_\nu ^2}},`$ (72)
$`M_{12}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`N_{12}\delta U_\mu +N_{13}\delta U_\tau +{\displaystyle \frac{\left(M_{12}\delta U_\mu +M_{13}\delta U_\tau \right)\left(M_{12}N_{12}+M_{13}N_{13}\right)}{m_\nu ^2}},`$ (73)
$`M_{13}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left[N_{13}\delta U_\mu N_{12}\delta U_\tau 2{\displaystyle \frac{\left(M_{13}\delta U_\mu M_{12}\delta U_\tau \right)\left(M_{12}N_{12}+M_{13}N_{13}\right)}{m_\nu ^2}}\right],`$ (74)
where other irrelevant terms involving $`\delta m_{ij}^{rad}`$ are omitted. The mass of $`m_{\nu 3}^{(1)}`$ is obtained by noticing the relation of Tr($`M_\nu ^{weak}`$)=$`\delta m_{11}^{rad}+\delta m_{22}^{rad}+\delta m_{33}^{rad}`$ that yields

$`2m_{\nu 1}^{(1)}+m_{\nu 3}^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`\delta m_{11}^{rad}+\delta m_{22}^{rad}+\delta m_{33}^{rad},`$ (75)
from which we find that

$`m_{\nu 3}^{(1)}=\delta m_{33}^{rad}2{\displaystyle \frac{\left(M_{13}\delta U_\mu M_{12}\delta U_\tau \right)\left(M_{12}N_{13}M_{13}N_{12}\right)}{m_\nu ^2}}.`$ (76)
To enhance the bimaximal structure in $`M_\nu ^{weak}`$ is achieved by setting $`|M_{12}||M_{13}|`$, where $`M_{12,13}`$ can be approximated to be:

$`M_{12}N_{12}=c_\alpha \delta m_{12}^\nu s_\alpha \delta m_{13}^\nu ,M_{13}N_{13}=c_\alpha \delta m_{13}^\nu +s_\alpha \delta m_{12}^\nu ,`$ (77)
because $`|\delta U_{\mu ,\tau }|1`$. The condition of $`|M_{12}||M_{13}|`$ thus, requires, for the hierarchical case with $`c_\alpha 1`$ and $`s_\alpha 0`$,

$`\delta m_{12}^\nu \delta m_{13}^\nu ,`$ (78)
and, for the democratic case with $`c_\alpha =s_\alpha =1/\sqrt{2}`$,

$`\delta m_{12}^\nu \delta m_{13}^\nu \mathrm{or}\delta m_{12}^\nu \delta m_{13}^\nu .`$ (79)
The essence of the present research lies in the fact that the bimaximal mixing scheme for neutrinos, in turn, determines how the electron mass is derived. The bimaximal condition of Eq.(78) combined with Eq.(45) yields

$`\delta m_{12}^{\mathrm{}}\delta m_{13}^{\mathrm{}}\sqrt{m_em_\mu },\delta U_\mu \sqrt{m_e/m_\mu },\delta U_\tau \sqrt{m_e/m_\tau },`$ (80)
while Eq.(79) combined with Eq.(47) yields

$`\delta m_{12}^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{cos}\varphi \sqrt{m_em_\tau },\delta m_{13}^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{sin}\varphi \sqrt{m_em_\mu },\delta U_\mu \mathrm{sin}\varphi \sqrt{m_e/m_\mu },\delta U_\tau \mathrm{cos}\varphi \sqrt{m_e/m_\tau },`$ (81)
and

$`\delta m_{12}^{\mathrm{}}\epsilon _{\mathrm{}}\sqrt{m_em_\mu },\delta m_{13}^{\mathrm{}}\sqrt{m_em_\mu },\delta U_\mu \sqrt{m_e/m_\mu },\delta U_\tau \epsilon _{\mathrm{}}\sqrt{m_em_\mu }/m_\tau ,`$ (82)
where $`\mathrm{tan}^2\varphi m_\tau /m_\mu `$.

## IV Neutrino Oscillations

The neutrino oscillation parameters of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{atm}^2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2`$ are expressed in terms of our neutrino masses as

$`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{atm}^2m_{\nu 2}^2m_{\nu 3}^2m_\nu ^2M_{12}^2+M_{13}^2\delta m_{12}^{\nu 2}+\delta m_{13}^{\nu 2},`$ (83)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2m_{\nu 1}^2m_{\nu 2}^24m_\nu m_{\nu 1}^{(1)}=2m_\nu \left(\delta m_{11}^{rad}+\delta m_{22}^{rad}+\delta m_{33}^{rad}m_{\nu 3}^{(1)}\right),`$ (84)
leading to

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{atm}^2}}=\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{atm}^2}}\right)_{rad}+\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{atm}^2}}\right)_{rot}`$ (85)
with

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{atm}^2}}\right)_{rad}={\displaystyle \frac{2\left(\delta m_{11}^{rad}+\delta m_{22}^{rad}\right)}{m_\nu }},\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{atm}^2}}\right)_{rot}=4{\displaystyle \frac{\left(M_{13}\delta U_\mu M_{12}\delta U_\tau \right)\left(M_{12}N_{13}M_{13}N_{12}\right)}{m_\nu ^3}}.`$ (86)
The ratio $`(\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2/\mathrm{\Delta }m_{atm}^2)_{rad}`$ arises from the radiative effects and $`(\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2/\mathrm{\Delta }m_{atm}^2)_{rot}`$ receives the first order contributions from the rotation due to the diagonalization of $`M_{\nu ,\mathrm{}}`$.

We are now in a position to estimating $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2/\mathrm{\Delta }m_{atm}^2`$ to meet the LMA solution. Before going to its explicit evaluation, we list our assumptions on numerical values of the relevant mass parameters:

* $`v_\chi v_{weak}`$ (= $`(2\sqrt{2}G_F)^{1/2}`$=174 GeV) for $`SU(3)_L\times U(1)_NSU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y`$,
* $`v_\eta =v_\rho =v_{\mathrm{}}^{(0)}=v_{\mathrm{}}^{(+)}=v_{weak}/2`$ as the simplest case to keep $`v_\eta ^2+v_\rho ^2+v_{\mathrm{}}^{(0)2}+v_{\mathrm{}}^{(+)2}=v_{weak}^2`$ for weak boson masses,
* $`m_{\eta ^\pm }=m_{\rho ^+}=m_{s^{(0)\pm }}=m_{s^{(+)\pm }}=v_{weak}`$ and $`m_{\chi ^+}=|\mu _0|=v_\chi `$,

where $`v_\chi `$, presumably of order TeV, is left unspecified and is to be measured in the unit of 10$`v_{weak}`$.

### A Atmospheric Neutrinos

Let us first reproduce $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{atm}^23\times 10^3`$ eV2, which requires that $`\delta m_{12}^{\nu 2}+\delta m_{13}^{\nu 2}3\times 10^3`$ eV2 from Eq.(83). The relation of $`\delta m_{1i}^\nu =f_{1i}v_\nu ^{(0)}=\delta m_{1i}^{\mathrm{}}v_\nu ^{(0)}/v_{\mathrm{}}^{(0)}`$ ($`i`$=2,3) together with Eqs.(80-82) for $`\delta m_{1i}^{\mathrm{}}`$, then, leads to

$`v_\nu ^{(0)}(5.5,1.8/\mathrm{cos}\varphi ,7.5)\times 10^9v_{\mathrm{}}^{(0)},`$ (87)
where three terms to be placed in the parenthesis, respectively, denote the cases with (hierarchical masses with $`\delta m_{12}^\nu \delta m_{13}^\nu `$, democratic masses with $`\delta m_{12}^\nu \delta m_{13}^\nu `$, democratic masses with $`\delta m_{12}^\nu \delta m_{13}^\nu `$). In the following, the same notation is used. Since $`v_\nu ^{(0)}`$ is expressed in terms of $`\lambda _2`$ and VEV’s as estimated in Eq.(35), we find the constraint on $`\lambda _2`$ given by

$`\lambda _2(1.1,0.36/\mathrm{cos}\varphi ,1.5)v_\chi /10v_{weak}\times 10^7.`$ (88)
Therefore, the magnitude of $`\lambda _2`$ is not arbitrary but fixed to be $`|\lambda _2|=𝒪(10^7)`$ by VEV’s in order to obtain $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{atm}^23\times 10^3`$ eV2.

### B Solar Neutrinos

Next, we calculate $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2`$, which depends on the sum of $`\delta m_{11}^{rad}`$ and $`\delta m_{22}^{rad}`$ given by Eqs.(50) and (51) with $`i=j=2`$. To find numerical values of $`\delta m_{11,ij}^{rad}`$, we use the following property of the integral $`I`$ of Eq.(52):

$`I(0,a,a,b)1/ab(=I_1),I(0,a,a,a)1/a^2(=I_2).`$ (89)
By using the assumptions on mass parameters stated above, we know that the second term in Eq.(50) is proportional to $`I_1`$ and all other terms including $`\delta m_{ij}^{rad}`$ of Eq.(51) are proportional to $`I_2`$. In Eq.(50), the first term thus dominates the second term because of $`I_2I_1`$ for $`m_\chi ^{}^2m_{s^{(0)+}}^2`$ and $`v_\chi v_\rho `$. The other terms proportional to $`I_2`$, the third and fourth terms together with $`\delta m_{22}^{rad}`$, are more suppressed by the factor of $`\lambda _{1,b}v_{weak}^2/v_\chi ^2`$ compared with the first term since $`|\lambda _{1,b}|`$ are at most of order unity. Therefore, the first term in $`\delta m_{11}^{rad}`$ gives the most dominant contributions to $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2`$ and those from all other terms can be safely neglected. The radiative mass of $`\delta m_{11}^{rad}`$ saturated by the mediating $`\tau `$ lepton contribution turns out to be:

$`\delta m_{11}^{rad}73\lambda _2(1,\mathrm{cos}^2\varphi m_\tau /2m_\mu ,1/2)\left(v_\chi /10v_{weak}\right)^3\mathrm{eV},`$ (90)
where, in the democratic cases, the factor of $`m_\tau \mathrm{cos}^2\varphi /m_\mu `$ is due to $`\delta m_{12}^\mathrm{}2(f_{12}^2)=m_em_\tau \mathrm{cos}^2\varphi `$ in Eq.(81) and the factor 1/2 arises from $`c_\alpha ^2=s_\alpha ^2=1/2`$. The rotated couplings of $`F_{1i}`$ used in these calculations are approximated to be ($`f_{1i}`$, $`f_{12}/\sqrt{2}`$, $`\mathrm{\Theta }f_{13}/\sqrt{2}`$) ($`i=2,3`$) for $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$=$`1`$ for $`i`$=2 and $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$=1 for $`i`$=3.

By inserting the above result of Eq.(90) into $`(\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2/\mathrm{\Delta }m_{atm}^2)_{rad}`$ shown in Eq.(86) with $`m_\nu 5.5\times 10^2`$ eV, we reach the following estimate:

$`\left(\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2/\mathrm{\Delta }m_{atm}^2\right)_{rad}2.7\lambda _2(1,8.5\mathrm{cos}^2\varphi ,0.5)\left(v_\chi /10v_{weak}\right)^3\times 10^3,`$ (91)
where $`m_\tau /m_\mu 17`$ is used in Eq.(90). This estimate together with Eq.(88) for $`\lambda _2`$ yields

$`\left(\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2/\mathrm{\Delta }m_{atm}^2\right)_{rad}(2.9,8.1\mathrm{cos}\varphi ,1.6)\left(v_\chi /10v_{weak}\right)^4\times 10^4,`$ (92)
where $`\mathrm{cos}\varphi `$ is bounded from below by $`\mathrm{tan}^2\varphi m_\tau /m_\mu `$. By taking

$`v_\chi /10v_{weak}(1.83.3,(1.42.5)\sqrt[4]{\mathrm{cos}\varphi },2.03.6),`$ (93)
we obtain $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2`$=($`10^510^4`$) eV2 relevant to the LMA solution to the solar neutrino problem and

$`\delta m_{11}^{rad}=\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2/2m_\nu 10^410^3\mathrm{eV}.`$ (94)
Since $`v_{weak}`$=174 GeV, $`v_\chi `$ roughly lies in the range of $`36`$ TeV, which is the right order of $`v_\chi `$ (= $`𝒪`$(1 TeV)) as anticipated for the scale of $`SU(3)_L\times U(1)_N`$ $``$ $`SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y`$. For $`v_\chi =4`$ TeV as a typical value, namely, $`v_\chi /10v_{weak}`$=2.3, we find that

$`\left(\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2/\mathrm{\Delta }m_{atm}^2\right)_{rad}(0.8,2.3\mathrm{cos}\varphi ,0.6)\times 10^2,`$ (95)
leading to $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2(2.4,6.9\mathrm{cos}\varphi ,1.8)\times 10^5`$ eV2 for $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{atm}^23\times 10^3`$ eV2.

### C Diagonalization Effect

Finally, we consider effects from $`(\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2/\mathrm{\Delta }m_{atm}^2)_{rot}`$, which may disturb the behavior specific to the LMA solution indicated by $`(\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2/\mathrm{\Delta }m_{atm}^2)_{rad}`$. Since $`(\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2/\mathrm{\Delta }m_{atm}^2)_{rot}`$ is controlled by $`m_{\nu 3}^{(1)}`$ as in Eq.(86), it can be found that the leading terms of $`𝒪(\delta U_{\mu ,\tau })`$ contained in $`m_{\nu 3}^{(1)}`$ turns out to vanish. The cancellation can be seen from the insertion of the leading terms of $`M_{12,13}N_{12,13}`$ into the equation of $`M_{12}N_{13}M_{13}N_{12}`$ appearing in the numerator of $`m_{\nu 3}^{(1)}`$ in Eq.(76) that turns out to vanish. The next nonvanishing contributions to $`m_{\nu 3}^{(1)}`$ are given by the second order terms in $`M_{12}N_{13}M_{13}N_{12}`$ that result in the third order contributions to $`m_{\nu 3}^{(1)}`$, which is beyond our approximation because possible third order terms for $`\delta M_{ij}`$ ($`i,j`$=2,3), which have not been included, directly give the third order contributions as can be seen from the definition of $`m_{\nu 3}^{(1)}`$ in Eq.(68). Therefore, we expect that $`(\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2/\mathrm{\Delta }m_{atm}^2)_{rot}`$ becomes at most $`𝒪(\delta U_\mu ^3)`$, which is about $`(m_e/m_\mu )^{3/2}(=3.4\times 10^4`$) as shown in Eqs.(80)-(82), leading to $`(\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2/\mathrm{\Delta }m_{atm}^2)_{rot}\stackrel{<}{}10^4`$. This estimate of $`(\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2/\mathrm{\Delta }m_{atm}^2)_{rot}`$ should be compared with Eq.(95) for the radiative case and in fact gives more suppressed contributions. It is, then, concluded that we can safely neglect $`(\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2/\mathrm{\Delta }m_{atm}^2)_{rot}`$ and that the model can provide the LMA solution to the solar neutrino problem as indicated by $`(\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2/\mathrm{\Delta }m_{atm}^2)_{rad}`$.

Similarly, the third neutrino $`\nu _3`$ will also acquire masses at most of order $`m_\nu \delta U_\mu ^3`$, which is about $`10^5`$ eV. The radiative correction to $`m_{\nu 3}`$ arising from $`\delta m_{33}^{rad}`$ is estimated to be about

$`\delta m_{33}^{rad}0.2\lambda _2\lambda _b(1,m_\tau \mathrm{cos}^2\varphi /2m_\mu ,0.5)\left(v_\chi /10v_{weak}\right)\mathrm{eV}.`$ (96)
Since $`\lambda _210^7`$ and $`\lambda _b\stackrel{<}{}1`$, we find that $`\delta m_{33}^{rad}\stackrel{<}{}0.5\times 10^7`$ eV for $`v_\chi 4`$ TeV. Thus, altogether we observe that the bound on $`m_{\nu 3}`$ is given by $`m_{\nu 3}\stackrel{<}{}10^5`$ eV.

The cancellation of the diagonalization effects on the neutrino masses of $`m_{\nu 1,\nu 3}^{(1)}`$ is a reasonable consequence because the (1,2) and (1,3) entries of $`M_\nu `$ are exactly proportional to those of $`M_{\mathrm{}}`$ (see Eqs.(107)-(121)) so that the rotation effects due to $`\delta U_{\mu ,\tau }`$, which induce $`\delta M_{22}=2m_\nu \mathrm{cos}\vartheta _\nu \delta U_\mu `$, $`\delta M_{23}=m_\nu (\mathrm{cos}\vartheta _\nu \delta U_\mu +\mathrm{sin}\vartheta _\nu \delta U_\tau )`$, $`\delta M_{33}=2m_\nu \mathrm{sin}\vartheta _\nu \delta U_\tau `$, are partially cancelled. However, the diagonalization effects manifest themselves in the matrix element $`U_{e3}`$ that connects $`\nu _e`$ to $`\nu _3`$. The CHOOZ and PALOVERDE experiments imply that $`|U_{e3}|^2\stackrel{<}{}0.0150.05`$ . For the mass matrix $`M_\nu ^{weak}`$ of Eq.(59), this element is calculated to be

$`U_{e3}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_\nu }}\left[\left(\mathrm{cos}^2\vartheta _\nu \mathrm{sin}^2\vartheta _\nu \right)\delta M_{23}+\mathrm{cos}\vartheta _\nu \mathrm{sin}\vartheta _\nu \left(\delta M_{33}\delta M_{22}\right)\right]`$ (97)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_\nu }}\left[\left(c_\alpha \delta m_{13}^\nu +s_\alpha \delta m_{12}^\nu \right)\delta U_\mu \left(c_\alpha \delta m_{12}^\nu s_\alpha \delta m_{13}^\nu \right)\delta U_\tau \right],`$ (98)
leading to $`\delta U_\mu /\sqrt{2}(1,\mathrm{sin}\varphi ,1)\sqrt{m_e/2m_\mu }`$ with $`m_\mu /m_\tau \mathrm{tan}^2\varphi m_\tau /m_\mu `$ for Eq.(81) allowing $`|\delta U_\mu ||\delta U_\tau |`$, which includes the typical value of $`\mathrm{tan}\varphi 1`$. Our model predicts that $`|U_{e3}|^2(1,\mathrm{sin}^2\varphi ,1)\times 0.0025`$, which are consistent with the current experimental bound.

## V Summary and Discussions

We have successfully demonstrated that the minimal 331 model with the global $`L_eL_\mu L_\tau `$ and $`Z_4`$ symmetry, which involves two (anti-)sextet Higgs scalars, $`S^{(0,+)}`$, indeed explains solar neutrino oscillations based on the LMA solution. The LMA solution is explicitly obtained by the use of the plausible parameter values for masses and couplings. The model has the following properties, which do not depend on the parameterization, that

1. the global $`L_eL_\mu L_\tau `$ symmetry is explicitly broken by $`\eta \eta S^{(+)c}S^{(+)c}`$ down to a discrete $`Z_L^{}`$ symmetry defined by $`\mathrm{exp}(i\pi Q_L^{}/2)`$ that forbids the $`L`$-breaking interactions for $`S^{(+)}`$, the absence of which is the essence of our discussions to be consistent with the bimaximal neutrino mixing scheme based on $`L_eL_\mu L_\tau `$;
2. the $`L`$ conservation is explicitly broken by $`\lambda _2\eta S^{(0)}\rho ^c\chi ^c`$, which generates the VEV of $`v_\nu ^{(0)}`$ for neutrinos calculated to be $`\lambda _2v_\eta v_\rho /v_\chi `$, where $`\lambda _2<0`$ is the trigger for $`v_\nu ^{(0)}0`$;
3. the mechanism generating the diagonal electron mass via $`\delta m_{1i}^{\mathrm{}}`$ ($`i`$=2,3) is linked to the requirement realizing the bimaximal neutrino mixing via $`\delta m_{1i}^\nu `$ owing to the proportionality of $`\delta m_{1i}^\nu \delta m_{1i}^{\mathrm{}}`$;

and yields numerical results, which of course depend on the parameterization, that

1. the smallness of $`m_{\nu 1}m_{\nu 2}5.5\times 10^2`$ eV for $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{atm}^2`$ is realized by $`|\lambda _2|`$ estimated to be $`𝒪(10^7)`$;
2. solar neutrino oscillations are induced by

* the one-loop radiative effects, which yield

    $$\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2/\mathrm{\Delta }m_{atm}^210^2,$$
    (99)
    corresponding to the LMA solution provided $`SU(3)_L\times U(1)_N`$ $``$ $`SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y`$ occurs at $`36`$ TeV,
    * the effects of the simultaneous diagonalization of the neutrino and charged-lepton mass matrices, which are expected to yield

    $$\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2/\mathrm{\Delta }m_{atm}^2\stackrel{<}{}(m_e/m_\mu )^{3/2}10^4,$$
    (100)
    and which certainly yield the $`U_{e3}`$ matrix element estimated to be $`|U_{e3}|\sqrt{m_e/2m_\mu }=0.05`$,

where, in the present model, the dominance of one-loop radiative effects yields the LMA solution. It should be stressed that the choice of $`v_\chi `$=$`𝒪`$(1 TeV) automatically leads to the LMA solution.

The present radiative mechanism generates the Majorana mass of $`\nu _e`$, $`\delta m_{11}^{rad}`$, given by the effective coupling of $`(\eta ^{}\psi ^1)\psi ^1\chi (\chi S^{(+)})^c`$. This coupling is induced by $`\eta S^{(0)}\rho ^c\chi ^c`$ and $`\rho S^{(0)}\chi `$ as in FIG.1 and is of the $`L^{}`$-conserving type. The less-dominant radiative masses are induced by $`\psi ^i\psi ^j(S^{(+)})^c(S^{(0)})^c\eta \rho \chi `$ for $`\nu _e\nu _e`$ with $`i,j`$=1 contributing to $`\delta m_{11}^{rad}`$ and for $`\nu _{\mu ,\tau }\nu _{\mu ,\tau }`$ with $`i,j`$=2,3 contributing to $`\delta m_{ij}^{rad}`$. The $`\nu _{\mu ,\tau }\nu _{\mu ,\tau }`$-terms involve the $`L^{}`$-breaking coupling of $`\eta \eta S^{(+)c}S^{(+)c}`$ as in FIG.2. The splitting of $`\nu _1`$ and $`\nu _2`$ is provided by $`\delta m_{11}^{rad}`$, which is about $`10^410^3`$ eV, leading to the LMA solution. The mass of $`\nu _3`$ is provided by $`\delta m_{33}^{rad}`$ at most of order $`10^7`$ eV but the diagonalization due to $`M_{\nu ,\mathrm{}}`$ may give $`m_{\nu 3}`$ $`\stackrel{<}{}`$ $`10^5`$ eV.

We have also presented plausible order-of-magnitude estimation of neutrino oscillations based on $`M_\nu `$, which is correlated to $`M_{\mathrm{}}`$:

1. for the hierarchical texture with $`\delta m_{12}^\nu \delta m_{13}^\nu `$,

$`M_\nu =ϵ_\nu \left(\begin{array}{cccccccccccccccccccc}& \sqrt{m_em_\mu }& \sqrt{m_em_\mu }& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ \sqrt{m_em_\mu }& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ \sqrt{m_em_\mu }& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \end{array}\right),M_{\mathrm{}}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cccccccccccccccccccc}0& \sqrt{m_em_\mu }& \sqrt{m_em_\mu }& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ \sqrt{m_em_\mu }& \delta M& \mathrm{\Delta }M& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ \sqrt{m_em_\mu }& \mathrm{\Delta }M& M& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \end{array}\right),`$ (107)
2. for the democratic texture with $`\delta m_{12}^\nu \delta m_{13}^\nu `$,

$`M_\nu =ϵ_\nu \left(\begin{array}{cccccccccccccccccccc}& c_\varphi \sqrt{m_em_\tau }& s_\varphi \sqrt{m_em_\mu }& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ c_\varphi \sqrt{m_em_\tau }& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ s_\varphi \sqrt{m_em_\mu }& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \end{array}\right),M_{\mathrm{}}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cccccccccccccccccccc}0& c_\varphi \sqrt{m_em_\tau }& s_\varphi \sqrt{m_em_\mu }& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ c_\varphi \sqrt{m_em_\tau }& M& M\mathrm{\Delta }M& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ s_\varphi \sqrt{m_em_\mu }& M\mathrm{\Delta }M& M& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \end{array}\right)`$ (114)
with $`c_\varphi =\mathrm{cos}\varphi `$ and $`s_\varphi =\mathrm{sin}\varphi `$ constrained by $`\mathrm{tan}^2\varphi m_\tau /m_\mu `$,
3. for the democratic texture with $`\delta m_{12}^\nu \delta m_{13}^\nu `$,

$`M_\nu =ϵ_\nu \left(\begin{array}{cccccccccccccccccccc}& \epsilon _{\mathrm{}}\sqrt{m_em_\mu }& \sqrt{m_em_\mu }& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ \epsilon _{\mathrm{}}\sqrt{m_em_\mu }& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ \sqrt{m_em_\mu }& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \end{array}\right),M_{\mathrm{}}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cccccccccccccccccccc}0& \epsilon _{\mathrm{}}\sqrt{m_em_\mu }& \sqrt{m_em_\mu }& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ \epsilon _{\mathrm{}}\sqrt{m_em_\mu }& M& M\mathrm{\Delta }M& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ \sqrt{m_em_\mu }& M\mathrm{\Delta }M& M& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \end{array}\right)`$ (121)
with $`\epsilon _{\mathrm{}}1`$,

where $`ϵ_\nu `$=$`v_\nu ^{(0)}/v_{\mathrm{}}^{(0)}`$, $`M\mathrm{\Delta }M,\delta M`$ and the asterisks stand for the suppressed entries to generate $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2`$. The partial $`\mathrm{}`$degeneracy” between $`M_\nu `$ to $`M_{\mathrm{}}`$ suppresses the rotation effects on $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2`$ due to the diagonalization of $`M_\nu `$ and $`M_{\mathrm{}}`$. As a result, the solar neutrino oscillations are, respectively, characterized by $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2(2.4,6.9\mathrm{cos}\varphi ,1.8)\times 10^5`$ eV2 for $`v_\chi 4`$ TeV. Of course, if our mechanism explaining neutrino oscillations works further, one should next consider some reasons for the emergence of the approximate equality of $`\delta m_{12}^\nu \delta m_{13}^\nu `$ in the hierarchical case and of the hierarchy of either $`\delta m_{12}^\nu \delta m_{13}^\nu `$ or $`\delta m_{12}^\nu \delta m_{13}^\nu `$ in the democratic case.

The masses of Higgs scalars are simply assumed to be about $`v_{weak}`$ for those related to the weak boson masses for the order-of-magnitude estimate for radiative neutrino masses, namely, $`m_{\eta ^\pm }`$ $``$ $`m_{\rho ^+}`$ $``$ $`m_{s^{(0)\pm }}`$ $``$ $`m_{s^{(+)\pm }}`$ $``$ $`v_{weak}`$. On the other hand, the $`\chi `$ scalar that generates masses for the exotic quarks and gauge bosons is assumed to have $`m_{\chi ^+}`$ $``$ $`v_\chi `$($``$ $`v_{weak}`$) because $`0|\chi |0`$ is related to the spontaneous breakdown of $`SU(3)_L\times U(1)_N`$ to $`SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y`$. We have estimated $`v_\chi `$ to lie in $`36`$ TeV in order to reproduce the observed neutrino mass pattern. It is further known that the 331 model contains peculiar particles, i.e. doubly-charged bilepton gauge bosons  with masses of the order $`ev_\chi /\sqrt{2}`$, that couple to $`\overline{\mathrm{}_L^c}\gamma _\mu \mathrm{}_L`$. Since $`v_\chi `$ can be $`36`$ TeV, the bilepton gauge bosons can be as light as and even lighter than 1 TeV. It is, therefore, quite conceivable that we will observe the bilepton gauge bosons with masses around 1 TeV, which provide striking phenomena with clean $`\mathrm{}^{}`$-$`\mathrm{}^{}`$ jets .

Now equipped with the plausible mechanism that generates phenomenologically consistent masses for neutrinos and charged leptons, the 331 model may be a physically interested model of leptons. It not only explains three families of quarks and leptons because of the specific anomaly-cancellation mechanism used together with the asymptotic free condition on $`SU(3)_c`$ but also involves Majorana mass terms demanded by charged-lepton mass terms. There remain dynamical questions about the smallness of the $`L`$-violating coupling of $`\lambda _2`$ and the fine tuning of the lepton mass parameters to reproduce $`m_em_\mu m_t`$, which require some new physics beyond $`SU(3)_L\times U(1)_L`$. It is also required to have extensive analyses on physics of the quark and gauge boson sectors as well to fully clarify potential power of the 331 model.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The work of M.Y. is supported by the Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research No 12047223 from the Ministry of Education, Science, Sports and Culture, Japan.

Table Captions

TABLE I. $`L^{}`$, $`Z_4`$ and $`Z_L^{}`$ for leptons and Higgs scalars.

TABLE II. $`Z_4`$ and $`Z_L^{}`$ for non-self-Hermitian Higgs interactions.

Figure Captions


format: text

text:
# Nuclear Scattering at Very High Energies

## 1 Introduction

We will report on efforts to construct realistic and reliable models for nuclear collisions at very high energies, say above 100 GeV cms energy per nucleon. There are several reasons why such models are needed, related to large scale experimental programs presently and in the future.

In astrophysics, one of the open problems is the origin of cosmic rays at very high energies. Whereas at low energies direct measurements are possible using balloons or satellites, at high energies – due to the small flux – only indirect measurements are possible, counting the secondary particles created in a so-called extended air-shower. Here, theoretical models for hadron-nucleus and nucleus-nucleus collisions play a decisive role in order to provide some information on the origin of the primary particle.

In nuclear physics, there are ongoing efforts to produce and to investigate the so-called quark-gluon plasma, a new state of matter of quarks and gluons. The SPS program at CERN has revealed many interesting results, but a final conclusion will never be made without a profound theoretical understanding, based on realistic microscopic models.

The outline of this paper is as follows: we will first discuss the present status concerning models for the initial stage of a nucleus-nucleus collision. We find that even the most advanced approaches show severe theoretical inconsistencies, which make any interpretation of experimental data questionable. It is in fact a well known problem which has been brought up a decade ago, but no solution has been proposed so far. We will discuss how to solve the above-mentioned problem, introducing a self-consistent formalism for nuclear scattering at very high energies.

## 2 Present Status

Many popular models  are based on the so-called Gribov-Regge theory (GRT) . This is an effective field theory, which allows multiple interactions to happen “in parallel”, with the phenomenological object called “Pomeron” representing an elementary interaction. Using the general rules of field theory, one may express cross sections in terms of a couple of parameters characterizing the Pomeron. Interference terms are crucial, they assure the unitarity of the theory. Here one observes an inconsistency: the fact that energy needs to be shared between many Pomerons in case of multiple scattering is well taken into account when calculating particle production (in particular in Monte Carlo applications), but energy conservation is not taken care of in cross section calculations. This is a serious problem and makes the whole approach inconsistent.

Provided factorization works for nuclear collisions, one may employ the parton model , which allows to calculate inclusive cross sections as a convolution of an elementary cross section with parton distribution functions, with these distribution functions taken from deep inelastic scattering. In order to get exclusive parton level cross sections, some additional assumptions are needed, which follow quite closely the Gribov-Regge approach, encountering the same difficulties.

Before presenting new theoretical ideas, we want to discuss the open problems in the parton model approach and in Gribov-Regge theory somewhat more in detail.

### Gribov-Regge Theory

Gribov-Regge theory is by construction a multiple scattering theory. The elementary interactions are realized by complex objects called “Pomerons”, who’s precise nature is not known, and which are therefore simply parameterized: the elastic amplitude $`T`$ corresponding to a single Pomeron exchange is given as

$$T(s,t)is^{\alpha _0+\alpha ^{}t}$$

with a couple of parameters to be determined by experiment. Even in hadron-hadron scattering, several of these Pomerons are exchanged in parallel. Using general rules of field theory (cutting rules), one obtains an expression for the inelastic cross section,

$$\sigma _{\mathrm{inel}}^{h_1h_2}(s)=d^2b\left\{1\mathrm{exp}\left(G(s,b)\right)\right\}=\sigma _m^{h_1h_2}(s),$$
(1)
with

$$\sigma _m^{h_1h_2}(s)=d^2b\frac{\left(G(s,b)\right)^m}{m!}\mathrm{exp}\left(G(s,b)\right),$$
(2)
where the so-called eikonal $`G(s,b)`$ (proportional to the Fourier transform of $`T(s,t)`$) represents one elementary interaction. The cross sections $`\sigma _m^{h_1h_2}(s)`$ for $`m`$ inelastic collisions are referred to as topological cross sections. One can generalize to nucleus-nucleus collisions, where corresponding formulas for cross sections may be derived.

In order to calculate exclusive particle production, one needs to know how to share the energy between the individual elementary interactions in case of multiple scattering. We do not want to discuss the different recipes used to do the energy sharing (in particular in Monte Carlo applications). The point is, whatever procedure is used, this is not taken into account in the calculation of cross sections discussed above. So, actually, one is using two different models for cross section calculations and for treating particle production. Taking energy conservation into account in exactly the same way will modify the cross section results considerably.

This problem has first been discussed in ,. The authors claim that following from the non-planar structure of the corresponding diagrams, conserving energy and momentum in a consistent way is crucial, and therefore the incident energy has to be shared between the different elementary interactions, both real and virtual ones.

Another very unpleasant and unsatisfactory feature of most “recipes” for particle production is the fact, that the second Pomeron and the subsequent ones are treated differently than the first one, although in the above-mentioned formula for the cross sections all Pomerons are considered to be identical.

### The Parton Model

The standard parton model approach to hadron-hadron or also nucleus-nucleus scattering amounts to presenting the partons of projectile and target by momentum distribution functions, $`f_{h_1}`$ and $`f_{h_2}`$, and calculating inclusive cross sections for the production of parton jets with the squared transverse momentum $`p_{}^2`$ larger than some cutoff $`Q_0^2`$ as

$$\sigma _{\mathrm{incl}}^{h_1h_2}=\underset{ij}{}𝑑p_{}^2𝑑x^+𝑑x^{}f_{h_1}^i(x^+,p_{}^2)f_{h_2}^j(x^{},p_{}^2)\frac{d\widehat{\sigma }_{ij}}{dp_{}^2}(x^+x^{}s)\theta \left(p_{}^2Q_0^2\right),$$

where $`d\widehat{\sigma }_{ij}/dp_{}^2`$ is the elementary parton-parton cross section and $`i,j`$ represent parton flavors.

This simple factorization formula is the result of cancelations of complicated diagrams (AGK cancelations) and hides therefore the complicated multiple scattering structure of the reaction. The most obvious manifestation of such a structure is the fact that at high energies ($`\sqrt{s}10`$ GeV) the inclusive cross section in proton-(anti-)proton scattering exceeds the total one, so the average number $`\overline{N}_{\mathrm{int}}^{pp}`$ of elementary interactions must be greater than one:

$$\overline{N}_{\mathrm{int}}^{h_1h_2}=\sigma _{\mathrm{incl}}^{h_1h_2}/\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}}^{h_1h_2}>1.$$

The usual solution is the so-called eikonalization, which amounts to re-introducing multiple scattering, based on the above formula for the inclusive cross section:

$$\sigma _{\mathrm{inel}}^{h_1h_2}(s)=d^2b\left\{1\mathrm{exp}\left(A(b)\sigma _{\mathrm{incl}}^{h_1h_2}(s)\right)\right\}=\sigma _m^{h_1h_2}(s),$$
(3)
with

$$\sigma _m^{h_1h_2}(s)=d^2b\frac{\left(A(b)\sigma _{\mathrm{incl}}^{h_1h_2}(s)\right)^m}{m!}\mathrm{exp}\left(A(b)\sigma _{\mathrm{incl}}^{h_1h_2}(s)\right)$$
(4)
representing the cross section for $`n`$ scatterings; $`A(b)`$ being the proton-proton overlap function (the convolution of two proton profiles). In this way the multiple scattering is “recovered”. This makes the approach formally equivalent to Gribov-Regge theory, encountering therefore the same problems: energy conservation is not at all taken care of in the above formulas for cross section calculations.

## 3 A Solution: Parton-based Gribov-Regge Theory

In this paper, we present a new approach for hadronic interactions and for the initial stage of nuclear collisions, which is able to solve the above-mentioned problems. We provide a rigorous treatment of the multiple scattering aspect, such that questions as energy conservation are clearly determined by the rules of field theory, both for cross section and particle production calculations. In both (!) cases, energy is properly shared between the different interactions happening in parallel, see fig. 1

for proton-proton and fig. 2 for proton-nucleus collisions (generalization to nucleus-nucleus is obvious).

This is the most important and new aspect of our approach, which we consider to be a first necessary step to construct a consistent model for high energy nuclear scattering.

The elementary interactions, shown as the thick lines in the above figures, are in fact a sum of a soft, a hard, and a semi-hard contribution, providing a consistent treatment of soft and hard scattering. To some extend, our approach provides a link between the Gribov-Regge approach and the parton model, we call it “Parton-based Gribov-Regge Theory”.

## 4 Parton-Parton Scattering

Let us first investigate parton-parton scattering, before constructing a multiple scattering theory for hadronic and nuclear scattering.

We distinguish three types of elementary parton-parton scatterings, referred to as “soft”, “hard” and “semi-hard”, which we are going to discuss briefly in the following. The detailed derivations can be found in .

### The Soft Contribution

Let us first consider the pure non-perturbative contribution, where all virtual partons appearing in the internal structure of the diagram have restricted virtualities $`Q^2<Q_0^2`$, where $`Q_0^21`$ GeV2 is a reasonable cutoff for perturbative QCD being applicable. Such soft non-perturbative dynamics is known to dominate hadron-hadron interactions at not too high energies. Lacking methods to calculate this contribution from first principles, it is simply parameterized and graphically represented as a ‘blob’, see fig. 3. It is traditionally assumed to correspond to multi-peripheral production of partons (and final hadrons)  and is described by the phenomenological soft Pomeron exchange amplitude $`T_{\mathrm{soft}}(\widehat{s},t)`$ . The corresponding profile function is twice the imaginary part of the Fourier transform $`\stackrel{~}{T}_{\mathrm{soft}}`$ of $`T_{\mathrm{soft}}`$, divided by the initial parton flux $`2\widehat{s}`$,

$`D_{\mathrm{soft}}(\widehat{s},b)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\widehat{s}}}2\mathrm{I}\mathrm{m}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle d^2q_{}\mathrm{exp}\left(i\stackrel{}{q}_{}\stackrel{}{b}\right)T_{\mathrm{soft}}(\widehat{s},q_{}^2)}`$ (5)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\gamma _{\mathrm{part}}^2}{\lambda _{\mathrm{soft}}^{(2)}(\widehat{s}/s_0)}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{s}}{s_0}}\right)^{\alpha _{\mathrm{soft}}(0)1}\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{b^2}{4\lambda _{\mathrm{soft}}^{(2)}(\widehat{s}/s_0)}}\right),`$
with

$$\lambda _{\mathrm{soft}}^{(n)}(z)=nR_{\mathrm{part}}^2+\alpha _{\mathrm{soft}}^{}\mathrm{ln}z,$$

where $`\widehat{s}`$ is the usual Mandelstam variable for parton-parton scattering. The parameters $`\alpha _{\mathrm{soft}}(0)`$, $`\alpha _{\mathrm{soft}}^{}`$ are the intercept and the slope of the Pomeron trajectory, $`\gamma _{\mathrm{part}}`$ and $`R_{\mathrm{part}}^2`$ are the vertex value and the slope for the Pomeron-parton coupling, and $`s_01`$ GeV2 is the characteristic hadronic mass scale. The external legs of the diagram of fig. 3 are “partonic constituents”, which are assumed to be quark-anti-quark pairs.

### The Hard Contribution

Let us now consider the other extreme, when all the processes are perturbative, i.e. all internal intermediate partons are characterized by large virtualities $`Q^2>Q_0^2`$. In that case, the corresponding hard parton-parton scattering amplitude can be calculated using the perturbative QCD techniques , and the intermediate states contributing to the absorptive part of the amplitude can be defined in the parton basis. In the leading logarithmic approximation of QCD, summing up terms where each (small) running QCD coupling constant $`\alpha _s(Q^2)`$ appears together with a large logarithm $`\mathrm{ln}(Q^2/\lambda _{\mathrm{QCD}}^2)`$ (with $`\lambda _{QCD}`$ being the infrared QCD scale), and making use of the factorization hypothesis, one obtains the contribution of the corresponding cut diagram for $`t=q^2=0`$ as the cut parton ladder cross section $`\sigma _{\mathrm{hard}}^{jk}(\widehat{s},Q_0^2)`$ 111 Strictly speaking, one obtains the ladder representation for the process only using axial gauge. , as shown in fig. 4,

where all horizontal rungs are the final (on-shell) partons and the virtualities of the virtual $`t`$-channel partons increase from the ends of the ladder towards the largest momentum transfer parton-parton process (indicated symbolically by the ‘blob’ in the middle of the ladder):

$`\sigma _{\mathrm{hard}}^{jk}(\widehat{s},Q_0^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\widehat{s}}}2\mathrm{I}\mathrm{m}T_{\mathrm{hard}}^{jk}(\widehat{s},t=0,Q_0^2)`$
$`=`$ $`K{\displaystyle \underset{ml}{}}{\displaystyle 𝑑x_B^+𝑑x_B^{}𝑑p_{}^2\frac{d\sigma _{\mathrm{Born}}^{ml}}{dp_{}^2}(x_B^+x_B^{}\widehat{s},p_{}^2)}`$
$`\times `$ $`E_{\mathrm{QCD}}^{jm}(Q_0^2,M_F^2,x_B^+)E_{\mathrm{QCD}}^{kl}(Q_0^2,M_F^2,x_B^{})\theta \left(M_F^2Q_0^2\right),`$
Here $`d\sigma _{\mathrm{Born}}^{ml}/dp_{}^2`$ is the differential $`22`$ parton scattering cross section, $`p_{}^2`$ is the parton transverse momentum in the hard process, $`m,l`$ and $`x_B^\pm `$ are correspondingly the types and the shares of the light cone momenta of the partons participating in the hard process, and $`M_F^2`$ is the factorization scale for the process (we use $`M_F^2=p_{}^2/4`$). The ‘evolution function’ $`E_{\mathrm{QCD}}^{jm}(Q_0^2,M_F^2,z)`$ represents the evolution of a parton cascade from the scale $`Q_0^2`$ to $`M_F^2`$, i.e. it gives the number density of partons of type $`m`$ with the momentum share $`z`$ at the virtuality scale $`M_F^2`$, resulted from the evolution of the initial parton $`j`$, taken at the virtuality scale $`Q_0^2`$. The evolution function satisfies the usual DGLAP equation  with the initial condition $`E_{\mathrm{QCD}}^{jm}(Q_0^2,Q_0^2,z)=\delta _m^j\delta (1z)`$. The factor $`K1.5`$ takes effectively into account higher order QCD corrections.

In the following, we shall need to know the contribution of the uncut parton ladder $`T_{\mathrm{hard}}^{jk}(\widehat{s},t,Q_0^2)`$ with some momentum transfer $`q`$ along the ladder (with $`t=q^2`$). The behavior of the corresponding amplitudes was studied in  in the leading logarithmic($`1/x`$ ) approximation of QCD. The precise form of the corresponding amplitude is not important for our application; we just use some of the results of , namely that one can neglect the real part of this amplitude and that it is nearly independent on $`t`$, i.e. that the slope of the hard interaction $`R_{\mathrm{hard}}^2`$ is negligible small, i.e. compared to the soft Pomeron slope one has $`R_{\mathrm{hard}}^20`$. So we parameterize $`T_{\mathrm{hard}}^{jk}(\widehat{s},t,Q_0^2)`$ in the region of small $`t`$ as

$$T_{\mathrm{hard}}^{jk}(\widehat{s},t,Q_0^2)=i\widehat{s}\sigma _{\mathrm{hard}}^{jk}(\widehat{s},Q_0^2)\mathrm{exp}\left(R_{\mathrm{hard}}^2t\right)$$
(6)
The corresponding profile function is twice the imaginary part of the Fourier transform $`\stackrel{~}{T}_{\mathrm{hard}}`$ of $`T_{\mathrm{hard}}`$, divided by the initial parton flux $`2\widehat{s}`$,

$$D_{\mathrm{hard}}^{jk}(\widehat{s},b)=\frac{1}{2\widehat{s}}2\mathrm{I}\mathrm{m}\stackrel{~}{T}_{\mathrm{hard}}^{jk}(\widehat{s},b),$$

which gives

$`D_{\mathrm{hard}}^{jk}(\widehat{s},b)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi ^2\widehat{s}}}{\displaystyle d^2q_{}\mathrm{exp}\left(i\stackrel{}{q}_{}\stackrel{}{b}\right)\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\mathrm{Im}T_{\mathrm{hard}}^{jk}(\widehat{s},q_{}^2,Q_0^2)}`$
$`=\sigma _{\mathrm{hard}}^{jk}(\widehat{s},Q_0^2){\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi R_{\mathrm{hard}}^2}}\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{b^2}{4R_{\mathrm{hard}}^2}}\right),`$ (7)
In fact, the above considerations are only correct for valence quarks, as discussed in detail in the next section. Therefore, we also talk about “valence-valence” contribution and we use $`D_{\mathrm{val}\mathrm{val}}`$ instead of $`D_{\mathrm{hard}}`$:

$$D_{\mathrm{val}\mathrm{val}}^{jk}(\widehat{s},b)D_{\mathrm{hard}}^{jk}(\widehat{s},b),$$

so these are two names for one and the same object.

### The Semi-hard Contribution

The discussion of the preceding section is not valid in case of sea quarks and gluons, since here the momentum share $`x_1`$ of the “first” parton is typically very small, leading to an object with a large mass of the order $`Q_0^2/x_1`$ between the parton and the proton . Microscopically, such ’slow’ partons with $`x_11`$ appear as a result of a long non-perturbative parton cascade, where each individual parton branching is characterized by a small momentum transfer squared $`Q^2<Q_0^2`$ . When calculating proton structure functions or high-$`p_t`$ jet production cross sections this non-perturbative contribution is usually included in parameterized initial parton momentum distributions at $`Q^2=Q_0^2`$. However, the description of inelastic hadronic interactions requires to treat it explicitly in order to account for secondary particles produced during such non-perturbative parton pre-evolution, and to describe correctly energy-momentum sharing between multiple elementary scatterings. As the underlying dynamics appears to be identical to the one of soft parton-parton scattering considered above, we treat this soft pre-evolution as the usual soft Pomeron emission, as discussed in detail in .

So for sea quarks and gluons, we consider so-called semi-hard interactions between parton constituents of initial hadrons, represented by a parton ladder with “soft ends”, see fig. 5. As in the case of soft scattering, the external legs are quark-anti-quark pairs, connected to soft Pomerons. The outer partons of the ladder are on both sides sea quarks or gluons (therefore the index “sea-sea”). The central part is exactly the hard scattering considered in the preceding section. As discussed in length in , the mathematical expression for the corresponding amplitude is given as

$`iT_{\mathrm{sea}\mathrm{sea}}(\widehat{s},t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{jk}{}}{\displaystyle _0^1}{\displaystyle \frac{dz^+}{z^+}}{\displaystyle \frac{dz^{}}{z^{}}}\mathrm{Im}T_{\mathrm{soft}}^j({\displaystyle \frac{s_0}{z^+}},t)\mathrm{Im}T_{\mathrm{soft}}^k({\displaystyle \frac{s_0}{z^{}}},t)iT_{\mathrm{hard}}^{jk}(z^+z^{}\widehat{s},t,Q_0^2),`$
with $`z^\pm `$ being the momentum fraction of the external leg-partons of the parton ladder relative to the momenta of the initial (constituent) partons. The indices $`j`$ and $`k`$ refer to the flavor of these external ladder partons. The amplitudes $`T_{\mathrm{soft}}^j`$ are the soft Pomeron amplitudes discussed earlier, but with modified couplings, since the Pomerons are now connected to a parton ladder on one side. The arguments $`s_0/z^\pm `$ are the squared masses of the two soft Pomerons, $`z^+z^{}\widehat{s}`$ is the squared mass of the hard piece.

Performing as usual the Fourier transform to the impact parameter representation and dividing by $`2\widehat{s}`$, we obtain the profile function

$$D_{\mathrm{sea}\mathrm{sea}}(\widehat{s},b)=\frac{1}{2\widehat{s}}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\mathrm{Im}\stackrel{~}{T}_{\mathrm{sea}\mathrm{sea}}(\widehat{s},b),$$

which may be written as

$`D_{\mathrm{sea}\mathrm{sea}}(\widehat{s},b)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{jk}{}}{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑z^+𝑑z^{}E_{\mathrm{soft}}^j\left(z^+\right)E_{\mathrm{soft}}^k\left(z^{}\right)\sigma _{\mathrm{hard}}^{jk}(z^+z^{}\widehat{s},Q_0^2)`$ (8)
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi \lambda _{\mathrm{soft}}^{(2)}(1/(z^+z^{}))}}\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{b^2}{4\lambda _{\mathrm{soft}}^{(2)}\left(1/(z^+z^{})\right)}}\right)`$
with the soft Pomeron slope $`\lambda _{\mathrm{soft}}^{(2)}`$ and the cross section $`\sigma _{\mathrm{hard}}^{jk}`$ being defined earlier. The functions $`E_{\mathrm{soft}}^j\left(z^\pm \right)`$ representing the “soft ends” are defined as

$$\mathrm{E}_{\mathrm{soft}}^j(z^\pm )=\mathrm{Im}T_{\mathrm{soft}}^j\left(\frac{s_0}{z^\pm },t=0\right).$$

We neglected the small hard scattering slope $`R_{\mathrm{hard}}^2`$ compared to the Pomeron slope $`\lambda _{\mathrm{soft}}^{(2)}`$. We call $`E_{\mathrm{soft}}`$ also the “ soft evolution”, to indicate that we consider this as simply a continuation of the QCD evolution, however, in a region where perturbative techniques do not apply any more. As discussed in , $`E_{\mathrm{soft}}^j\left(z\right)`$ has the meaning of the momentum distribution of parton $`j`$ in the soft Pomeron.

Consistency requires to also consider the mixed semi-hard contributions with a valence quark on one side and a non-valence participant (quark-anti-quark pair) on the other one, see fig. 6.

We have

$$iT_{\mathrm{val}\mathrm{sea}}^j(\widehat{s})=_0^1\frac{dz^{}}{z^{}}\underset{k}{}\mathrm{Im}T_{\mathrm{soft}}^k(\frac{s_0}{z^{}},q^2)iT_{\mathrm{hard}}^{jk}(z^{}\widehat{s},q^2,Q_0^2)$$

and

$`D_{\mathrm{val}\mathrm{sea}}^j(\widehat{s},b)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑z^{}E_{\mathrm{soft}}^k\left(z^{}\right)\sigma _{\mathrm{hard}}^{jk}(z^{}\widehat{s},Q_0^2)`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi \lambda _{\mathrm{soft}}^{(1)}(1/z^{})}}\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{b^2}{4\lambda _{\mathrm{soft}}^{(1)}\left(1/z^{}\right)}}\right)`$
where $`j`$ is the flavor of the valence quark at the upper end of the ladder and $`k`$ is the type of the parton on the lower ladder end. Again, we neglected the hard scattering slope $`R_{\mathrm{hard}}^2`$ compared to the soft Pomeron slope. A contribution $`D_{\mathrm{sea}\mathrm{val}}^j(\widehat{s},b)`$, corresponding to a valence quark participant from the target hadron, is given by the same expression,

$$D_{\mathrm{sea}\mathrm{val}}^j(\widehat{s},b)=D_{\mathrm{val}\mathrm{sea}}^j(\widehat{s},b),$$

since eq. (4) stays unchanged under replacement $`z^{}z^+`$ and only depends on the total c.m. energy squared $`\widehat{s}`$ for the parton-parton system.

## 5 Hadron-Hadron Scattering

To treat hadron-hadron scattering we use parton momentum Fock state expansion of hadron eigenstates

$$|h=\underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{k!}_0^1\underset{l=1}{\overset{k}{}}dx_lf_k^h(x_1,\mathrm{}x_k)\delta \left(1\underset{j=1}{\overset{k}{}}x_j\right)a^+(x_1)\mathrm{}a^+(x_k)|0,$$

where $`f_k(x_1,\mathrm{}x_k)`$ is the probability amplitude for the hadron $`h`$ to consist of $`k`$ constituent partons with the light cone momentum fractions $`x_1,\mathrm{},x_k`$ and $`a^+\left(x\right)`$ is the creation operator for a parton with the fraction $`x`$. A general scattering process is described as a superposition of a number of pair-like scatterings between parton constituents of the projectile and target hadrons. Then hadron-hadron scattering amplitude is obtained as a convolution of individual parton-parton scattering amplitudes considered in the previous section and “inclusive” momentum distributions $`\frac{1}{n!}\stackrel{~}{F}_h^{(n)}(x_1,\mathrm{}x_n)`$ of $`n`$ “participating” parton constituents involved in the scattering process($`n1`$), with

$$\frac{1}{n!}\stackrel{~}{F}_h^{(n)}(x_1,\mathrm{}x_n)=\underset{k=n}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{k!}\frac{k!}{n!(kn)!}_0^1\underset{l=n+1}{\overset{k}{}}dx_l\left|f_k(x_1,\mathrm{}x_k)\right|^2\delta \left(1\underset{j=1}{\overset{k}{}}x_j\right)$$

We assume that $`\stackrel{~}{F}_{h_1(h_2)}^{(n)}(x_1,\mathrm{}x_n)`$ can be represented in a factorized form as a product of the contributions $`F_{\mathrm{part}}^h(x_l)`$, depending on the momentum shares $`x_l`$ of the “participating” or “active” parton constituents, and on the function $`F_{\mathrm{remn}}^h\left(1_{j=1}^nx_j\right)`$,

representing the contribution of all “spectator” partons, sharing the remaining share $`1_jx_j`$ of the initial light cone momentum (see fig. 7):

$$\stackrel{~}{F}_h^{(n)}(x_1,\mathrm{}x_n)=\underset{l=1}{\overset{n}{}}F_{\mathrm{part}}^h(x_l)F_{\mathrm{remn}}^h\left(1\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}x_j\right)$$
(10)
The participating parton constituents are assumed to be quark-anti-quark pairs (not necessarily of identical flavors), such that the baryon numbers of the projectile and of the target are conserved. Then, as discussed in detail in , the hadron-hadron amplitude may be written as

$`iT_{h_1h_2}(s,t)=8\pi ^2s{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n!}}{\displaystyle _0^1}{\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{n}{}}}dx_l^+dx_l^{}{\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{n}{}}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi ^2\widehat{s}_l}}{\displaystyle d^2q_l_{}iT_{1\mathrm{I}\mathrm{P}}^{h_1h_2}(x_l^+,x_l^{},s,q_l_{}^2)}\right]`$
$`F_{\mathrm{remn}}^{h_1}\left(1{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}}x_j^+\right)F_{\mathrm{remn}}^{h_2}\left(1{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}}x_j^{}\right)\delta ^{(2)}\left({\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}}\stackrel{}{q}_k_{}\stackrel{}{q}_{}\right),`$ (11)
where the partonic amplitudes are defined as

$$T_{1\mathrm{I}\mathrm{P}}^{h_1h_2}=T_{\mathrm{soft}}^{h_1h_2}+T_{\mathrm{sea}\mathrm{sea}}^{h_1h_2}+T_{\mathrm{val}\mathrm{val}}^{h_1h_2}+T_{\mathrm{val}\mathrm{sea}}^{h_1h_2}+T_{\mathrm{sea}\mathrm{val}}^{h_1h_2},$$

with the individual contributions representing the “elementary partonic interactions plus external legs”. The soft or semi-hard sea-sea contributions are given as

$`T_{\mathrm{soft}/\mathrm{sea}\mathrm{sea}}^{h_1h_2}(x^+,x^{},s,q_{}^2)=T_{\mathrm{soft}/\mathrm{sea}\mathrm{sea}}(s,q_{}^2)F_{\mathrm{part}}^{h_1}(x^+)F_{\mathrm{part}}^{h_2}(x^{})`$
$`\times \mathrm{exp}\left(\left[R_{h_1}^2+R_{h_2}^2\right]q_{}^2\right),`$ (12)
the hard contribution is

$`T_{\mathrm{val}\mathrm{val}}^{h_1h_2}(x^+,x^{},s,q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{x^+}}𝑑x_v^+{\displaystyle \frac{x^+}{x_{v_l}^+}}{\displaystyle _0^x^{}}𝑑x_v^{}{\displaystyle \frac{x^{}}{x_v^{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j,k}{}}T_{\mathrm{hard}}^{jk}(x_v^+x_v^{}s,q^2,Q_0^2)`$
$`\times \overline{F}_{\mathrm{part}}^{h_1,j}(x_v^+,x^+x_v^+)\overline{F}_{\mathrm{part}}^{h_2,k}(x_v^{},x^{}x_v^{})\mathrm{exp}\left(\left[R_{h_1}^2+R_{h_2}^2\right]q_l_{}^2\right),`$
the mixed semi-hard “val-sea” contribution is given as

$`T_{\mathrm{val}\mathrm{sea}}^{h_1h_2}(x^+,x^{},s,q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{x^+}}𝑑x_v^+{\displaystyle \frac{x^+}{x_v^+}}{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}T_{\mathrm{val}\mathrm{sea}}^j(x_v^+x^{}s,q^2,Q_0^2)`$
$`\times \overline{F}_{\mathrm{part}}^{h_1,j}(x_v^+,x^+x_v^+)F_{\mathrm{part}}^{h_2}(x^{})\mathrm{exp}\left(\left[R_{h_1}^2+R_{h_2}^2\right]q_l_{}^2\right),`$
and the contribution “sea-val” is finally obtained from “val-sea” by exchanging variables,

$$T_{\mathrm{sea}\mathrm{val}}^{h_1h_2}(x^+,x^{},s,q^2)=T_{\mathrm{val}\mathrm{sea}}^{h_2h_1}(x^{},x^+,s,q^2).$$

Here, we allow formally any number of valence type interactions (based on the fact that multiple valence type processes give negligible contribution). In the valence contributions, we have convolutions of hard parton scattering amplitudes $`T_{\mathrm{hard}}^{jk}`$ and valence quark distributions $`\overline{F}_{\mathrm{part}}^j`$ over the valence quark momentum share $`x_v^\pm `$ rather than a simple product, since only the valence quarks are involved in the interactions, with the anti-quarks staying idle (the external legs carrying momenta $`x^+`$ and $`x^{}`$ are always quark-anti-quark pairs).

The profile function $`\gamma `$ is as usual defined as

$$\gamma _{h_1h_2}(s,b)=\frac{1}{2s}2\mathrm{I}\mathrm{m}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{T}}_{h_1h_2}(s,b),$$

which may be evaluated using the AGK cutting rules with the result (assuming imaginary amplitudes)

$`\gamma _{h_1h_2}(s,b)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m!}}{\displaystyle _0^1}{\displaystyle \underset{\mu =1}{\overset{m}{}}}dx_\mu ^+dx_\mu ^{}{\displaystyle \underset{\mu =1}{\overset{m}{}}}G_{1\mathrm{I}\mathrm{P}}^{h_1h_2}(x_\mu ^+,x_\mu ^{},s,b)`$ (13)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{l=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{l!}}{\displaystyle _0^1}{\displaystyle \underset{\lambda =1}{\overset{l}{}}}d\stackrel{~}{x}_\lambda ^+d\stackrel{~}{x}_\lambda ^{}{\displaystyle \underset{\lambda =1}{\overset{l}{}}}G_{1\mathrm{I}\mathrm{P}}^{h_1h_2}(\stackrel{~}{x}_\lambda ^+,\stackrel{~}{x}_\lambda ^{},s,b)`$
$`F_{\mathrm{remn}}\left(x^{\mathrm{proj}}{\displaystyle \underset{\lambda }{}}\stackrel{~}{x}_\lambda ^+\right)F_{\mathrm{remn}}\left(x^{\mathrm{targ}}{\displaystyle \underset{\lambda }{}}\stackrel{~}{x}_\lambda ^{}\right),`$
with $`x^{\mathrm{proj}/\mathrm{targ}}=1x_\mu ^\pm `$ being the momentum fraction of the projectile/target remnant, and with a partonic profile function $`G`$ given as

$`G_{1\mathrm{I}\mathrm{P}}^{h_1h_2}(x_\lambda ^+,x_\lambda ^{},s,b)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2s}}2\mathrm{I}\mathrm{m}\stackrel{~}{T}_{1\mathrm{I}\mathrm{P}}^{h_1h_2}(x_\lambda ^+,x_\lambda ^{},s,b),`$ (14)
see fig. 8.

This is a very important result, allowing to express the total profile function $`\gamma _{h_1h_2}`$ via the elementary profile functions $`G_{1\mathrm{I}\mathrm{P}}^{hg_1h_2}`$.

## 6 Nucleus-Nucleus Scattering

We generalize the discussion of the last section in order to treat nucleus-nucleus scattering. In the Glauber-Gribov approach , the nucleus-nucleus scattering amplitude is defined by the sum of contributions of diagrams, corresponding to multiple scattering processes between parton constituents of projectile and target nucleons. Nuclear form factors are supposed to be defined by the nuclear ground state wave functions. Assuming the nucleons to be uncorrelated, one can make the Fourier transform to obtain the amplitude in the impact parameter representation. Then, for given impact parameter $`\stackrel{}{b}_0`$ between the nuclei, the only formal difference from the hadron-hadron case will be the averaging over nuclear ground states, which amounts to an integration over transverse nucleon coordinates $`\stackrel{}{b}_i^A`$ and $`\stackrel{}{b}_j^B`$ in the projectile and in the target respectively. We write this integration symbolically as

$$𝑑T_{AB}:=\underset{i=1}{\overset{A}{}}d^2b_i^AT_A(b_i^A)\underset{j=1}{\overset{B}{}}d^2b_j^BT_B(b_j^B),$$
(15)
with $`A,B`$ being the nuclear mass numbers and with the so-called nuclear thickness function $`T_A(b)`$ being defined as the integral over the nuclear density $`\rho _{A(B)}`$:

$$T_A(b):=𝑑z\rho _A(b_x,b_y,z).$$
(16)
It is convenient to use the transverse distance $`b_k`$ between the two nucleons from the $`k`$-th nucleon-nucleon pair, i.e.

$$b_k=\left|\stackrel{}{b}_0+\stackrel{}{b}_{\pi (k)}^A\stackrel{}{b}_{\tau (k)}^B\right|,$$

where the functions $`\pi (k)`$ and $`\tau (k)`$ refer to the projectile and the target nucleons participating in the $`k^{\mathrm{th}}`$ interaction (pair $`k`$). In order to simplify the notation, we define a vector $`b`$ whose components are the overall impact parameter $`b_0`$ as well as the transverse distances $`b_1,\mathrm{},b_{AB}`$ of the nucleon pairs,

$$b=\{b_0,b_1,\mathrm{},b_{AB}\}.$$

Then the nucleus-nucleus interaction cross section can be obtained applying the cutting procedure to elastic scattering diagram and written in the form

$$\sigma _{\mathrm{inel}}^{AB}(s)=d^2b_0𝑑T_{AB}\gamma _{AB}(s,b),$$
(17)
where the so-called nuclear profile function $`\gamma _{AB}`$ represents an interaction for given transverse coordinates of the nucleons.

The calculation of the profile function $`\gamma _{AB}`$ as the sum over all cut diagrams of the type shown in fig. 9 does not differ from the hadron-hadron case and follows the rules formulated

in the preceding section:

* For a remnant carrying the light cone momentum fraction $`x`$ ($`x^+`$ in case of projectile, or $`x^{}`$ in case of target), one has a factor $`F_{\mathrm{remn}}(x)`$.
* For each cut elementary diagram (real elementary interaction = dashed vertical line) attached to two participants with light cone momentum fractions $`x^+`$ and $`x^{}`$, one has a factor $`G(x^+,x^{},s,b)`$. Apart from $`x^+`$ and $`x^{}`$, $`G`$ is also a function of the total squared energy $`s`$ and of the relative transverse distance $`b`$ between the two corresponding nucleons (we use $`G`$ as an abbreviation for $`G_{1\mathrm{I}\mathrm{P}}^{NN}`$ for nucleon-nucleon scattering).
* For each uncut elementary diagram (virtual emissions = full vertical line) attached to two participants with light cone momentum fractions $`x^+`$ and $`x^{}`$, one has a factor $`G(x^+,x^{},s,b),`$ with the same $`G`$ as used for the cut diagrams.
* Finally one sums over all possible numbers of cut and uncut Pomerons and integrates over the light cone momentum fractions.

So we find

$`\gamma _{AB}(s,b)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{m_1l_1}{}}\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \underset{m_{AB}l_{AB}}{}}(1\delta _{0\mathrm{\Sigma }m_k}){\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{AB}{}}\left\{\underset{\mu =1}{\overset{m_k}{}}dx_{k,\mu }^+dx_{k,\mu }^{}\underset{\lambda =1}{\overset{l_k}{}}d\stackrel{~}{x}_{k,\lambda }^+d\stackrel{~}{x}_{k,\lambda }^{}\right\}}`$ (18)
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{AB}{}}}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_k!}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{l_k!}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mu =1}{\overset{m_k}{}}}G(x_{k,\mu }^+,x_{k,\mu }^{},s,b_k){\displaystyle \underset{\lambda =1}{\overset{l_k}{}}}G(\stackrel{~}{x}_{k,\lambda }^+,\stackrel{~}{x}_{k,\lambda }^{},s,b_k)\right\}`$
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{A}{}}}F_{\mathrm{remn}}\left(x_i^+{\displaystyle \underset{\pi (k)=i}{}}\stackrel{~}{x}_{k,\lambda }^+\right){\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{B}{}}}F_{\mathrm{remn}}\left(x_j^{}{\displaystyle \underset{\tau (k)=j}{}}\stackrel{~}{x}_{k,\lambda }^{}\right)`$
with

$`x_i^{\mathrm{proj}}`$ $`=`$ $`1{\displaystyle \underset{\pi (k)=i}{}}x_{k,\mu ,}^+`$
$`x_j^{\mathrm{targ}}`$ $`=`$ $`1{\displaystyle \underset{\tau (k)=j}{}}x_{k,\mu }^{}.`$
The summation indices $`m_k`$ refer to the number of cut elementary diagrams and $`l_k`$ to number of uncut elementary diagrams, related to nucleon pair $`k`$. For each possible pair $`k`$ (we have altogether $`AB`$ pairs), we allow any number of cut and uncut diagrams. The integration variables $`x_{k,\mu }^\pm `$ refer to the $`\mu ^{\mathrm{th}}`$ elementary interaction of the $`k^{\mathrm{th}}`$ pair for the cut elementary diagrams, the variables $`\stackrel{~}{x}_{k,\lambda }^\pm `$ refer to the corresponding uncut elementary diagrams. The arguments of the remnant functions $`F_{\mathrm{remn}}`$ are the remnant light cone momentum fractions, i.e. unity minus the momentum fractions of all the corresponding elementary contributions (cut and uncut ones). We also introduce the variables $`x_i^{\mathrm{proj}}`$and $`x_j^{\mathrm{targ}}`$, defined as unity minus the momentum fractions of all the corresponding cut contributions, in order to integrate over the uncut ones (see below).

The expression for $`\gamma _{AB}`$ sums up all possible numbers of cut Pomerons $`m_k`$ with one exception due to the factor $`(1\delta _{0\mathrm{\Sigma }m_k})`$: one does not consider the case of all $`m_k`$’s being zero, which corresponds to “no interaction” and therefore does not contribute to the inelastic cross section. We may therefore define a quantity $`\overline{\gamma }_{AB}`$, representing “no interaction”, by taking the expression for $`\gamma _{AB}`$ with $`(1\delta _{0\mathrm{\Sigma }m_k})`$ replaced by $`(\delta _{0\mathrm{\Sigma }m_k})`$:

$`\overline{\gamma }_{AB}(s,b)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{l_1}{}}\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \underset{l_{AB}}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{AB}{}}\left\{\underset{\lambda =1}{\overset{l_k}{}}d\stackrel{~}{x}_{k,\lambda }^+d\stackrel{~}{x}_{k,\lambda }^{}\right\}\underset{k=1}{\overset{AB}{}}\left\{\frac{1}{l_k!}\underset{\lambda =1}{\overset{l_k}{}}G(\stackrel{~}{x}_{k,\lambda }^+,\stackrel{~}{x}_{k,\lambda }^{},s,b_k)\right\}}`$ (19)
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{A}{}}}F^+\left(1{\displaystyle \underset{\pi (k)=i}{}}\stackrel{~}{x}_{k,\lambda }^+\right){\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{B}{}}}F^{}\left(1{\displaystyle \underset{\tau (k)=j}{}}\stackrel{~}{x}_{k,\lambda }^{}\right).`$
One now may consider the sum of “interaction” and “no interaction”, and one obtains easily

$$\gamma _{AB}(s,b)+\overline{\gamma }_{AB}(s,b)=1.$$
(20)
Based on this important result, we consider $`\gamma _{AB}`$ to be the probability to have an interaction and correspondingly $`\overline{\gamma }_{AB}`$ to be the probability of no interaction, for fixed energy, impact parameter and nuclear configuration, specified by the transverse distances $`b_k`$ between nucleons, and we refer to eq. (20) as “unitarity relation”. But we want to go even further and use an expansion of $`\gamma _{AB}`$ in order to obtain probability distributions for individual processes, which then serves as a basis for the calculations of exclusive quantities.

The expansion of $`\gamma _{AB}`$ in terms of cut and uncut Pomerons as given above represents a sum of a large number of positive and negative terms, including all kinds of interferences, which excludes any probabilistic interpretation. We have therefore to perform summations of interference contributions – sum over any number of virtual elementary scatterings (uncut Pomerons) – for given non-interfering classes of diagrams with given numbers of real scatterings (cut Pomerons). Let us write the formulas explicitly. We have

$`\gamma _{AB}(s,b)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{m_1}{}}\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \underset{m_{AB}}{}}(1\delta _{0{\scriptscriptstyle m_k}}){\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{AB}{}}\left\{\underset{\mu =1}{\overset{m_k}{}}dx_{k,\mu }^+dx_{k,\mu }^{}\right\}}`$ (21)
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{AB}{}}}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_k!}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mu =1}{\overset{m_k}{}}}G(x_{k,\mu }^+,x_{k,\mu }^{},s,b_k)\right\}\mathrm{\Phi }_{AB}(x^{\mathrm{proj}},x^{\mathrm{targ}},s,b),`$
where the function $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ representing the sum over virtual emissions (uncut Pomerons) is given by the following expression

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_{AB}(x^{\mathrm{proj}},x^{\mathrm{targ}},s,b)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{l_1}{}}\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \underset{l_{AB}}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{AB}{}}\left\{\underset{\lambda =1}{\overset{l_k}{}}d\stackrel{~}{x}_{k,\lambda }^+d\stackrel{~}{x}_{k,\lambda }^{}\right\}\underset{k=1}{\overset{AB}{}}\left\{\frac{1}{l_k!}\underset{\lambda =1}{\overset{l_k}{}}G(\stackrel{~}{x}_{k,\lambda }^+,\stackrel{~}{x}_{k,\lambda }^{},s,b_k)\right\}}`$ (22)
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{A}{}}}F_{\mathrm{remn}}\left(x_i^{\mathrm{proj}}{\displaystyle \underset{\pi (k)=i}{}}\stackrel{~}{x}_{k,\lambda }^+\right){\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{B}{}}}F_{\mathrm{remn}}\left(x_j^{\mathrm{targ}}{\displaystyle \underset{\tau (k)=j}{}}\stackrel{~}{x}_{k,\lambda }^{}\right).`$
This summation has to be carried out, before we may use the expansion of $`\gamma _{AB}`$ to obtain probability distributions. This is far from trivial, the necessary methods are described in . To make the notation more compact, we define matrices $`X^+`$ and $`X^{}`$, as well as a vector $`m`$, via

$`X^+`$ $`=`$ $`\left\{x_{k,\mu }^+\right\},`$
$`X^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\left\{x_{k,\mu }^{}\right\},`$
$`m`$ $`=`$ $`\{m_k\},`$
which leads to

$`\gamma _{AB}(s,b)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}(1\delta _{0m}){\displaystyle 𝑑X^+𝑑X^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_{AB}^{(s,b)}(m,X^+,X^{})},`$
$`\overline{\gamma }_{AB}(s,b)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{AB}^{(s,b)}(0,0,0),`$
with

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_{AB}^{(s,b)}(m,X^+,X^{})=\underset{k=1}{\overset{AB}{}}\left\{\frac{1}{m_k!}\underset{\mu =1}{\overset{m_k}{}}G(x_{k,\mu }^+,x_{k,\mu }^{},s,b_k)\right\}\mathrm{\Phi }_{AB}(x^{\mathrm{proj}},x^{\mathrm{targ}},s,b).$$

This allows to rewrite the unitarity relation eq. (20) in the following form,

$$\underset{m}{}𝑑X^+𝑑X^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_{AB}^{(s,b)}(m,X^+,X^{})=1.$$

This equation is of fundamental importance, because it allows us to interpret $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{(s,b)}(m,X^+,X^{})`$ as probability density of having an interaction configuration characterized by $`m`$, with the light cone momentum fractions of the Pomerons being given by $`X^+`$ and $`X^{}`$.

## 7 Virtual Emissions and Markov Chain Techniques

What did we achieve so far? We have formulated a well defined model, introduced by using the language of field theory, solving in this way the severe consistency problems of the most popular current approaches. To proceed further, one needs to solve two fundamental problems:

* the sum $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{AB}`$ over virtual emissions has to be performed,
* tools have to be developed to deal with the multidimensional probability distribution $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{AB}^{(s,b)}`$,

both being very difficult tasks. Introducing new numerical techniques, we were able to solve both problems, as discussed in very detail in .

Calculating the sum over virtual emissions ($`\mathrm{\Phi }_{AB}`$) is done by parameterizing the functions $`G`$ as analytical functions and performing analytical calculations. By studying the properties of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{AB}`$, we find that at very high energies the theory is no longer unitary without taking into account screening corrections due to triple Pomeron interactions. In this sense, we consider our work as a first step to construct a consistent model for high energy nuclear scattering, but there is still work to be done.

Concerning the multidimensional probability distribution $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{AB}^{(s,b)}(m,X^+,X^{})`$, we employ methods well known in statistical physics (Markov chain techniques). So finally, we are able to calculate the probability distribution $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{AB}^{(s,b)}(m,X^+,X^{})`$, and are able to generate (in a Monte Carlo fashion) configurations $`(m,X^+,X^{})`$ according to this probability distribution.

## 8 Summary

What are finally the principal features of our basic results, summarized in eqs. (17, 21, 22)? Contrary to the traditional treatment (Gribov-Regge approach or parton model), all individual elementary contributions $`G`$ depend explicitly on the light-cone momenta of the elementary interactions, with the total energy-momentum being precisely conserved. Another very important feature is the explicit dependence of the screening contribution $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{AB}`$ (the contribution of virtual emissions) on the remnant momenta. The direct consequence of properly taking into account energy-momentum conservation in the multiple scattering process is the validity of the so-called AGK-cancelations in hadron-hadron and nucleus-nucleus collisions in the entire kinematical region.

The formulas (17, 21, 22) allow to develop a consistent scheme to simulate high energy nucleus-nucleus interactions. The corresponding Monte Carlo procedure is exactly based on the cross section formulas so that the entire model is fully self-consistent.