format: text

text:
# 𝜅-deformations of 𝐷=4 Weyl and conformal symmetriesSupported by KBN grant No 5PO3B05620 (JL and MM) and by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research under grant No 00-01-00500 (VL).

We provide first explicite examples of quantum deformations of $`D=4`$ conformal algebra with mass-like deformation parameters, in applications to quantum gravity effects related with Planck mass. It is shown that one of the classical $`r`$-matrices defined on the Borel subalgebra of $`sl(4)`$ with $`o(4,2)`$ reality conditions describes the light-cone $`\kappa `$-deformation of $`D=4`$ Poincaré algebra. We embed this deformation into the three-parameter family of generalized $`\kappa `$-deformations, with $`r`$-matrices depending additionally on the dilatation generator. Using the extended Jordanian twists framework we describe these deformations in the form of noncocommutative Hopf algebra. We describe also another four-parameter class of generalized $`\kappa `$-deformations, which is obtained by continuous deformation of distinguished $`\kappa `$-deformation of $`D=4`$ Weyl algebra, called here the standard $`\kappa `$-deformation of Weyl algebra.

PACS numbers:11.30.Cp, 95.85.Gn, 98.70.Vc.

I. Introduction.

There are two basic classes of deformations of $`D=4`$ relativistic symmetries:

i) $`q`$-deformations (see e.g.\[1-3\]), with Drinfeld-Jimbo deformations  of the Lorentz subalgebra. The basic relations describing noncommutative space-time coordinates are quadratic  and the deformation parameter is dimensionless. It can be shown  that in order to obtain the $`q`$-deformation of $`D=4`$ Poincaré algebra with Hopf algebra structure one should introduce additional generators, i.e. consider $`11`$-dimensional quantum Weyl algebra $`U_q(W)`$ ($`W`$Poincaré algebra $`P^{3;1}`$ dilatation generator $`D`$, where $`P^{3;1}=(P_\mu ,M_{\mu \nu })`$). There is a natural Hopf algebra embedding of the $`q`$-deformed Weyl algebra $`U_q(W)`$ into the Drinfeld-Jimbo deformation $`U_q(o(4,2))`$ of $`D=4`$ conformal algebra

$$U_q(o(4,2))U_q(P^{3;1}D)$$
(1)
The $`q`$-deformation of $`D=4`$ conformal algebra was studied by several authors (se e.g. \[10-13\]).

ii) $`\kappa `$-deformations \[14-21\] with deformation parameter $`\kappa ^1`$ introducing fundamental dimensionfull length parameter 111If we put $`h=c=1`$, the parameter $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\kappa ^1`$ is the fundamental length parameter, and $`\kappa `$ describes the fundamental mass. For undeformed case $`\kappa \mathrm{}`$.. The basic relations describing $`\kappa `$-deformed space-time are Lie-algebraic, and in the general case take the form

$$[\widehat{x}_\mu ,\widehat{x}_\nu ]=\frac{i}{\kappa }(a_\mu \widehat{x}_\nu \widehat{x}_\mu a_\nu )$$
(2)
where $`a_\mu `$ is a constant four-vector in Minkowski space, determining the quantum direction $`\widehat{y}=a^\mu \widehat{x}_\mu `$ 222The $`\kappa `$-deformation for arbitrary choice of the four vector $`a_\mu `$ is equivalent to the description of standard $`\kappa `$-deformation in space-time with arbitrary symmetric metric tensor, firstly given in . In fact due to the choice of the four-vector $`a_\mu `$ one obtains the following three particular cases of $`\kappa `$-deformation:

ii1)$`a_\mu a^\mu =1`$ defining time-like $`\kappa `$-deformations. The standard $`\kappa `$-defomation \[17-19\] obtained for $`a_\mu =(1,0,0,0),(i,j=1,2,3)`$ leads to relations

$$[\widehat{x}_0,\widehat{x}_i]=\frac{i}{\kappa }\widehat{x}_i[\widehat{x}_i,\widehat{x}_j]=0$$
(3)
ii2) $`a_\mu a^\mu =1`$ defining tachyonic $`\kappa `$-deformations. For $`a_\mu =(0,1,0,0),(r,s=1,2,)`$ one gets

$`[\widehat{x}_3,\widehat{x}_0]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\kappa }}\widehat{x}_0[\widehat{x}_3,\widehat{x}_r]={\displaystyle \frac{i}{\kappa }}\widehat{x}_r`$ (4)
$`[\widehat{x}_3,\widehat{x}_r]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\kappa }}\widehat{x}_r[\widehat{x}_r,\widehat{x}_s]=0`$ (5)
Such a deformation leads to the deformation of nonrelativistic symmetries, with classical time parameter.

ii3)$`a_\mu a^\mu =0`$ providing light-cone $`\kappa `$-deformations. For $`a_\mu =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(1,1,0,0)`$ one obtains \[20-22\]

$`[\widehat{x}_{},\widehat{x}_+]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\kappa }}\widehat{x}_+[\widehat{x}_{},\widehat{x}_r]={\displaystyle \frac{i}{\kappa }}\widehat{x}_r`$ (6)
$`[\widehat{x}_{},\widehat{x}_r]`$ $`=`$ $`0[\widehat{x}_r,\widehat{x}_s]=0`$ (7)
where $`\widehat{x}_\pm =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\widehat{x}_0\pm \widehat{x}_3)`$ ($`x_+=\stackrel{~}{a}^\mu \widehat{x}_\mu `$, where $`\stackrel{~}{a}^\mu \stackrel{~}{a}_\mu =0`$ and $`a_\mu \stackrel{~}{a}^\mu =1`$). The first quantum deformation with quantum-deformed direction on the light cone was proposed in  under the name of the null-plane quantum Poincaré algebra. It was shown  that after suitable choice of basis the quantum algebra presented in  can be identified with choice ii3) of $`a_\mu `$-dependent $`\kappa `$-deformation, given in .

It appears that one can introduce the quantum deformation of Poincaré group $`P_\kappa ^{3;1}(a_\mu )`$ with the translation sector described by the relations (2) and the corresponding dual quantum Poincaré algebra $`U_\kappa (P^{3;1};a_\mu )`$ . One can show333For an arbitrary $`a_\mu `$ the classical $`\widehat{r}`$-matrix is given in , where $`g_{\mu \nu }=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 1& 0& 0\\ 1& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right)`$ corresponds to the light-like choice of $`a_\mu `$. that only in the case ii3), for the light-cone $`\kappa `$-deformation, the corresponding classical $`r`$-matrix $`rP^{3;1}P^{3;1}`$ satisfies the classical Y-B equation444This result shown in  is also contained implicitely in .. For the choice of the four-vector $`a_\mu =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(1,1,0,0)`$ it takes the form

$$r=\frac{1}{2}(L_3P_+(M_1L_2)P_2+(M_2+L_1)P_1)$$
(8)
where $`M_i`$ describe three space rotations, $`L_i`$ represent three Lorentz boosts and $`P_\pm =P_0\pm P_3`$. The Poincarè algebra $`P^{3;1}`$ is the subalgebra of $`D=4`$ Weyl algebra $`W`$ and $`D=4`$ conformal algebra $`C^{3;1}o(4,2)`$, therefore the classical $`r`$-matrix (6) is an example of the solution of the classical Y-B equation for $`D=4`$ Weyl and conformal algebras. It follows therefore that the $`r`$-matrix (6) describes infinitesimally the quantum deformation $`U_\kappa (W)`$ of $`D=4`$ Weyl algebra (see ) as well as the quantum deformation $`U_\kappa (o(4,2))`$ of $`D=4`$ conformal algebra.

The aim of this paper is to describe the large family of generalized $`\kappa `$-deformations of $`D=4`$ Weyl and conformal algebras in the form of Hopf algebras. One can show that the classical $`r`$-matrix (6) is defined on the Borel subalgebra $`B_+(o(4,2))`$ of the Lie algebra $`o(4,2)`$, described as the real form of the complex Lie algebra $`sl(4)`$. In section 2 we consider the Cartan-Weyl basis for $`o(4,2)`$ algebra and a general family of classical $`\widehat{r}`$-matrices satisfying CYBE and belonging to the tensor square of $`B_+(o(4,2))`$. We obtain two classes of $`r`$-matrices, with three and four arbitrary parameters, all introducing deformation parameters with the dimension of inverse mass 555We shall call these deformations the generalized $`\kappa `$-deformations, in accordance with our dychotomic split of quantum deformations of space-time symmetries into $`q`$-deformations (dimensionless) and $`\kappa `$-deformations (dimesionfull).. We shall quantize all these solutions of CYBE by generalized extended Jordanian twists, which define classical universal enveloping $`D=4`$ Weyl and conformal algebras with twisted coproducts. The physical $`D=4`$ conformal basis and the expressions in terms of conformal basis of extended Jordanian twists \[25-27\] are given in section 3. A new basic $`\kappa `$-deformation of $`D=4`$ Weyl algebra will be considered in some detail. In section 4 we shall present comments on possible physical applications.

We would like to mention that our paper extends to the $`D=4`$ case the results known already for $`D=1,D=2`$ and $`D=3`$. For $`D=1`$ it was shown in  that the so-called Jordanian deformation of $`sl(2;C)`$  by imposing the real form selecting $`sl(2,R)o(2,1)`$ generators describes the $`\kappa `$-deformation of $`D=1`$ conformal algebra. Because for $`D=2`$ conformal algebra $`O(2,2)O_+(2,1)O_{}(2,1)`$, the results in  do extend in straight-forward way, with a pair of $`D=1`$ $`\kappa `$-deformations for two $`O_+(2,1)`$ and $`O_{}(2,1)`$ subalgebras described by two fundamental mass parameters $`\kappa _\pm `$. An example of $`\kappa `$-deformation of $`D=3`$ conformal algebra $`o(3,2)`$ has been given by Herranz , which can be treated as $`\kappa `$-deformation od $`D=4`$ anti-de-Sitter algebra, with two dimensionfull parameters: the first, $`\kappa `$, possibly equal to Planck mass, related with quantum gravity effects at ultra-short distances and the second, represented by anti-de-Sitter radius $`R`$, characterizing very large cosmological distances 666 One can show that the $`\kappa `$-deformation of $`D=4`$ anti-de-Sitter algebra considered in  provides in the contraction limit $`R\mathrm{}`$ the light-cone $`\kappa `$-deformation of Poincar$`\stackrel{´}{e}`$ algebra, with classical $`r`$-matrix (6).. All these deformations of $`D<4`$ conformal algebras are generated by classical $`r`$-matrices having support in corresponding Weyl algebras. In this paper for the case $`D=4`$ we describe also the multiparameter $`\kappa `$-deformations of conformal algebras as induced by the $`\kappa `$-deformations of Weyl algebra .

II. Classical $`D=4`$ conformal $`r`$-matrices and $`\kappa `$–deformations.
a) $`sl(4;c)so(6;c)`$ Lie algebra in the Cartan-Weyl basis.

The Cartan-Weyl basis for $`sl(4)`$ is defined by the simple root generators $`e_{\pm i}`$, ($`i=1,2,3`$) and the composite generators:

$`e_4=[e_1,e_2],e_4=[e_2,e_1],`$ (9)
$`e_5=[e_2,e_3],e_5=[e_3,e_2],`$ (10)
$`e_6=[e_1,e_5],e_6=[e_5,e_1].`$ (11)
Let $`h_i`$ ($`i=1,2,3`$) form the linear basis of the Cartan subalgebra and introduce the elements

$$h_4=h_1+h_2,h_5=h_2+h_3,h_6=h_1+h_2+h_3.$$
(12)
The Lie algebra $`sl(4)`$ can be completely described as follows:

$$[h_A,e_{\pm B}]=\pm \alpha _{AB}e_{\pm B},[e_A,e_B]=\delta _{AB}h_B,$$
(13)
($`A=1,2,\mathrm{},6`$; no summation over repeated indices!). Here $`\alpha _{AB}`$ is the extended symmetric Cartan matrix given by the formula (see e.g.)

$$\alpha _{AB}=\left(\begin{array}{cccccc}2& 1& 0& 1& 1& 1\\ 1& 2& 1& 1& 1& 0\\ 0& 1& 2& 1& 1& 1\\ 1& 1& 1& 2& 0& 1\\ 1& 1& 1& 0& 2& 1\\ 1& 0& 1& 1& 1& 2\end{array}\right)$$
(14)
The remaining part of $`sl(4)`$ Lie algebra is obtained from the Serre relations and for the positive root generators it takes the form:

$`[e_1,e_3]`$ $`=`$ $`[e_1,e_4]=[e_1,e_6]=0,`$ (15)
$`[e_2,e_4]`$ $`=`$ $`[e_2,e_5]=[e_2,e_6]=0,`$ (16)
$`[e_4,e_5]`$ $`=`$ $`[e_4,e_6]=[e_5,e_6]=0,`$ (17)
$`[e_3,e_5]`$ $`=`$ $`[e_3,e_6]=0,[e_3,e_4]=e_6.`$ (18)
The real forms of $`sl(4;c)`$ are well-known (see e.g.). We shall consider the one which selects the $`D=4`$ real conformal algebra ($`sl(4)su(2,2)o(4,2)`$) and map the Borel subalgebras $`B_\pm (o(4,2))B_\pm (o(4,2))`$. We obtain

$`h_1^+`$ $`=`$ $`h_3,h_2^+=h_2,`$ (19)
$`e_1^+`$ $`=`$ $`ϵe_3,e_2^+=e_2,`$ (20)
$`e_4^+`$ $`=`$ $`ϵe_5,e_6^+=e_6,`$ (21)
where $`ϵ=\pm 1`$.

b)Classical $`r`$-matrices for $`o(4,2)`$.

We shall consider the following class of classical eight-dimensional $`r`$-matrices777Following  one can introduce  the classical $`r`$-matrices for $`sl(4)`$ satisfying CYBE with the support in $`10`$-dimensional and $`12`$-dimensional parabolic subalgebras, but these $`r`$-matrices contain the generators from both Borel algebras and are not compatible with $`o(4,2)`$ reality conditions (14).for $`sl(4,c)`$ having their support in the Borel subalgebra $`B_+`$:

$$r_+=H_2e_2+H_6e_6+ce_2e_6++e_1e_5e_3e_4$$
(22)
where $`H_2`$ and $`H_6`$ are the linear combinations of Cartan generators with complex coefficients

$$H_2=b_1h_1+b_2h_2+b_3h_3,H_6=a_1h_1+a_2h_2+a_3h_3.$$
(23)
We found the following two families of solutions for CYBE:

i) Let $`H_20`$. In this case one gets the four-parameter family of classical $`r`$-matrices, obtained by imposing three conditions on seven parameters $`a_i,b_i,c`$ (i=1,2,3):

$$a_1+a_3=1,b_1+b_3=0,a_2=\frac{1}{2}.$$
(24)
ii) If $`H_2=0`$ one obtains only one condition

$$a_1+a_3=1,$$
(25)
i.e. the three-parameter set of $`r`$-matrices.

In order to obtain the classical $`r`$-matrices for $`o(4,2)`$ one should impose the reality conditions $`r_+=(r_+)^+`$ (notice that ($`AB)^+=A^+B^+`$) by the relations (14). One obtains the following conditions on seven complex parameters $`a_i,b_i,(i=1,2,3),c`$

$$a_1=a_3^{},a_2=a_2^{},b_1=b_3^{},b_2=b_2^{},c=c^{}.$$
(26)
Imposing the conditions (17) one obtains the first four-parameter family of classical $`o(4,2)`$ $`r`$-matrices ($`\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma ,\delta `$ real)

$$r_+^{(1)}(\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma ,\delta )=i(h_1h_3)(\alpha e_2+\beta e_6)+\delta h_2e_2+\gamma e_2e_6+\widehat{r}$$
(27)
where $`\widehat{r}r_+^{(1)}(0,0,0,0)`$ has the form

$$\widehat{r}=r+\frac{1}{2}h_2e_6=\frac{1}{2}(h_1+h_2+h_3)e_6+e_1e_5e_3e_4$$
(28)
We shall show that the generators occuring in (20) belong to $`D=4`$ Weyl algebra and will be called the standard $`\kappa `$-Weyl $`r`$-matrix. It should be pointed out that the $`D=1`$ $`\kappa `$-deformation considered in  and $`D=3`$ $`\kappa `$-deformation from  are of such a type.

The second class of $`o(4,2)`$ $`r`$-matrices is obtained by imposing the conditions (18,19). One gets ($`\beta ,\gamma ,\rho `$ real)

$$r_+^{(2)}(\beta ,\gamma ,\rho )=i\beta (h_1h_3)e_6+\rho h_2e_6+\gamma e_2e_6+r$$
(29)
where $`rr_+^{(2)}(0,0,0)`$ is the light-cone $`\kappa `$-Poincarè $`r`$-matrix (6) in the Cartan-Weyl basis 888This statement follows from formulae (37) in section 3.

$$r=\frac{1}{2}(h_1+h_3)e_6+e_1e_5e_3e_4$$
(30)
The set $`r_+^{(2)}(\beta ,\gamma ,\rho )`$ contains the $`r`$-matrix (21) as a limit: $`r_+^{(2)}(0,0,\frac{1}{2})=\widehat{r}`$. To avoid this reduction we shall assume that $`\rho \frac{1}{2}`$.

To see what parameters in classical $`r`$-matrices are essential one should consider the group of outer and inner automorphisms of the Borel subalgebra $`B_+`$, belonging to $`O(4,2)`$. Applying the automorphism generated by $`e_2`$ to the classical $`r`$-matrices $`r_+^{(2)}`$ (see (22)) one gets

$$exp[ad^{}(\alpha _2e_2)]r_+^{(2)}=r_+^{(2)}+\alpha _2(12\rho )e_2e_6$$
(31)
i.e. the parameter $`\gamma `$ is shifted ($`\gamma \gamma ^{}=\gamma +\alpha _2(12\rho )`$) and while $`\rho \frac{1}{2}`$ it can be removed. One can check that do not exist the $`O(4,2)`$ automorphisms which can be used to eliminate or scale independently the parameters $`\beta `$ and $`\rho `$. Similarly it can be shown that $`O(4,2)`$ automorphisms can not eliminate any of four parameters $`\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma ,\delta `$ in (20). We remind that for matrices $`r_+^{(1)}`$ we have $`\rho =\frac{1}{2}`$ and parameter $`\gamma `$ can not be eliminated through shift (24), however it can be scaled.
c)Quantum deformations by twisting classical Lie algebras.

Consider the universal enveloping algebra $`U(𝐠)`$ of a Lie algebra $`𝐠`$ as a Hopf algebra with the comultiplication $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{(0)}`$ generated by the primitive coproducts of generators in $`𝐠`$. The parametric solution $`(\xi )=f_i^{(1)}f_i^{(2)}U(𝐠)U(𝐠)`$ of the twist equations

$`_{12}(\mathrm{\Delta }^{(0)}1)=_{23}(1\mathrm{\Delta }^{(0)}),`$ (32)
$`(ϵ\mathrm{id})=(\mathrm{id}ϵ)=11.`$ (33)
defines the deformed (twisted) Hopf algebra $`U_{}(𝐠)`$ with the unchanged multiplication, unit and counit (as in $`U(𝐠)`$), the twisted comultiplication and antipode defined by the relations

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{}(u)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{(0)}(u)^1,uU(𝐠),`$ (34)
$`S_{}(u)`$ $`=`$ $`vuv^1,v={\displaystyle f_i^{(1)}(S^{(0)}f_i^{(2)})}.`$ (35)
The twisted algebra $`U_{}(𝐠)`$ is triangular, with the universal $``$-matrix

$$_{}=_{21}^1.$$
(36)
When $``$ is a smooth function of $`\xi `$ and $`lim_{\xi 0}=11`$ then in the neighborhood of the origin the $``$-matrix can be presented as

$$_{}=11+\xi r_{}+o(\xi ),$$
(37)
where $`r_{}`$ is the skewsymmetric classical $`r`$-matrix corresponding to the twist $``$.

By a nonlinear change of basis in $`𝐠`$ one can modify the twisted coproducts and locate part of the deformation in the algebraic sector.
d)Twisting elements and real forms of Hopf algebras

The generators of physical symmetries are described by self-adjoint (real) generators and it is desirable to have a real form of quantized Lie algebras. Real forms of complex simple Lie algebra $`g`$ are described by the involutive automorphism $`\mathrm{\Phi }:U(\widehat{g})U(\widehat{g})`$ with the following properties

$`\mathrm{\Phi }^2`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{id},\mathrm{\Phi }(\mathrm{𝟏})=\mathrm{𝟏},`$ (38)
$`\mathrm{\Phi }(XY)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Phi }(Y)\mathrm{\Phi }(X),`$ (39)
$`\mathrm{\Phi }(\mu X+\nu Y)`$ $`=`$ $`\mu ^{}\mathrm{\Phi }(X)+\nu ^{}\mathrm{\Phi }(Y).`$ (40)
The Hopf algebra $`(U(\widehat{g}),,\mathrm{\Delta },S,\eta ,\epsilon ,\mathrm{\Phi })`$ that in general has nonprimitive costructure is a standard real Hopf algebra if $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ satisfies (30) and additionally

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{\Phi }(X))=\mathrm{\Phi }(\mathrm{\Delta }(X))$$
(41)
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }(XY)=\mathrm{\Phi }(X)\mathrm{\Phi }(Y)`$. This implies

$$(\mathrm{\Phi }S)^2=1.$$
(42)
In particular for $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{}`$ given by (27) one gets

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(\mathrm{\Delta }_{}(X))=\mathrm{\Phi }(^1)\mathrm{\Delta }^{(0)}(\mathrm{\Phi }(X))\mathrm{\Phi }(),$$
(43)
where we used the relation (31) for $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\mathrm{\Delta }^0`$ (the comultiplication induced by primitive coproducts of generators). From (33) one gets (instead of (31))

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{}(\mathrm{\Phi }(X))=\mathrm{\Delta }^{(0)}(\mathrm{\Phi }(X))^1=J\mathrm{\Phi }(\mathrm{\Delta }_{}(X))J^1,$$
(44)
where

$$\mathrm{\Phi }()=J.$$
(45)
Therefore we see that the standard definition of real form for quantum group is valid only if the twisting element $``$ is ”$`\mathrm{\Phi }`$-unitary”, i.e. $`[\mathrm{\Delta }_{}(X),J]=0`$ for any $`XU(\widehat{g})`$. In such a case one can say that the twist $``$ is compatible with the involution $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ (with the relation (30) satisfied). Due to the formulae (35) the element $`J`$ is ”$`\mathrm{\Phi }`$-unitary”, i.e. $`[J\mathrm{\Phi }(J^1),\mathrm{\Delta }_{}(X)]=0`$.

It is known that for $`sl(n;c)`$ the extended Jordanian twists are naturally compatible with the involution providing the real form $`sl(n;R)`$ (see , sec. 5). In the general case the involutions defining other real forms are not compatible with extended Jordanian twists.
e)Twists for $`\kappa `$-deformed conformal algebra

The general approach to the solution of twist equations for the Lie algebra $`sl(n)`$ was presented in . Here we shall apply these results for the case $`n=4`$.

The two-parameter family of classical $`r`$-matrices (22) that contains the light-cone $`\kappa `$-Poincarè $`r`$-matrix (we recall that in (22) one can put $`\gamma =0`$) leads to the following three-parameter twisting element:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill _\xi (\beta ,\varrho )& =& exp[\xi e_1e_5(1+\xi e_6)^{(2i\beta \varrho )}]\hfill \\ & & exp[\xi e_4e_3(1+\xi e_6)^{(2i\beta +\varrho 1)}]\hfill \\ & & exp[i\beta (h_1h_3)+\varrho h_2+\frac{1}{2}(h_1+h_3)]\sigma _6(\xi )]\hfill \end{array}$$
(46)
where (we recall that $`\rho \frac{1}{2}`$)

$$\sigma _k=\mathrm{ln}(1+\xi e_k).$$
(47)
and the reality condition $`\xi ^{}=\pm \xi `$ copies the reality condition for $`e_k`$ (see (14)) i.e. $`(\xi e_k)^{}=\xi e_k`$ , therefore in (37) $`\xi ^{}=\xi `$. In this expression $`\xi `$ plays the role of an ”over-all” deformation parameter and provides the expansion

$$_\xi (\beta ,\varrho )=1+\xi r^{ns}(\beta ,\varrho )+O(\xi ^2).$$
(48)
Where the element $`r^{ns}𝐠𝐠`$ can be obtained from (22) by substituting the wedge product $`(AB=ABBA)`$ by the tensor product: $`(ABAB)`$ and setting $`\gamma =0`$. If we assume that in (36) $`\beta =\varrho =0`$ we obtain the formula for the twisting element $`_\xi `$ for the light-cone $`\kappa `$-Poincarè deformation

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill _\xi & & _\xi (0,0))=\hfill \\ & & exp(\xi e_1e_5)exp[\xi e_4e_3(1+\xi e_6)^1]exp[\frac{1}{2}(h_1+h_3)\sigma _6(\xi )].\hfill \end{array}$$
(49)
The four-parameter family of infinitesimal deformations described by classical $`r`$-matrices (20) leads to the the following six-parameter family of twists

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \widehat{}_{\xi ,\xi ^{}}(\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma ,\delta )& =& exp[\frac{\gamma }{\xi ^{}}\sigma _2(\xi ^{})\sigma _6(\xi )]exp[(\frac{i\alpha }{2\delta }(h_1h_2)+\frac{1}{2}h_2)\sigma _2(\xi ^{})]\hfill \\ & & exp[\xi e_1e_5(1+\xi e_6)^{(2i\beta \frac{1}{2})}]\hfill \\ & & exp[\xi e_4e_3(1+\xi e_6)^{(2i\beta \frac{1}{2})}]\hfill \\ & & exp[i\beta (h_1h_3)+\frac{1}{2}(h_1+h_2+h_3)]\sigma _6(\xi ).\hfill \end{array}$$
(50)
where $`\xi ^{}=\xi ,(\xi ^{})^{}=\xi ^{}`$. The first factor in (40) contributes to the classical $`r`$-matrix due to the relation

$$exp[\frac{\gamma }{\xi ^{}}\sigma _6(\xi )\sigma _2(\xi ^{})]=exp\gamma \xi (e_6\xi e_6^2/2+O(\xi ^2))(e_2\xi ^{}e_2^2/2+O(\xi ^2)).$$
(51)
Both parametric families of twists (36) and (40) start with the similar extended Jordanian twists. The difference between the families $`_\xi `$ and $`\widehat{}_{\xi ,\xi ^{}}`$ is that the second of them is the full chain of twists containing two links with the additional Reshetikin factor while the first is the single extended twist . The intersection of these families is the two-parametric set $`_\xi (\beta ,1/2)`$.

Due to the ”matreshka” effect  the deformation parameters $`\xi `$ and $`\xi ^{}`$ are independent. To pass to the quasi-classical limit one must choose in the space of parameters the one-dimensional smooth curve. We shall consider here the case where $`\xi ^{}`$ is proportional to $`\xi `$. In particular for $`\xi ^{}=2\delta \xi `$ and $`\xi `$ as the overall deformation parameter we obtain the classical $`r`$-matrix (20) as the leading term in the expansion of the universal $`R`$-matrix $`(\xi )=(\widehat{}_{\xi ,\xi })_{21}(\widehat{}_{\xi ,\xi })^1`$.
The twist $`\widehat{}_\xi _\xi (0,0,0,0)`$ for $`\kappa `$-Weyl deformation described by the classical $`r`$-matrix $`\widehat{r}`$ (see (20)) is obtained from (40) at $`\beta =0`$ at particular limits $`\gamma 0,\xi ^{}0`$ as well as $`\alpha 0,\delta 0`$ and is given by the formula

$$\widehat{}_\xi =exp[\xi e_1e_5(1+\xi e_6)^{\frac{1}{2}}]exp[\xi e_4e_3(1+\xi e_6)^{\frac{1}{2}}]exp[\frac{1}{2}(h_1+h_2+h_3)]\sigma _6(\xi )]$$
(52)
III. $`D=4`$ conformal $`\kappa `$-deformations described by twists.

i) Physical basis for $`D=4`$ conformal algebra and classical conformal $`r`$-matrices.
The $`D=4`$ conformal Lie algebra is described by 15 anti-hermitean generators $`J_{AB}`$ ($`J_{AB}^+=J_{AB}=J_{BA};A,B=0,1,2,3,4,5`$) satisfying the relation

$$[J_{AB},J_{CD}]=\eta _{AD}J_{BC}+\eta _{BC}J_{AD}\eta _{BD}J_{AC}\eta _{AC}J_{BD}$$
(53)
with $`\eta _{AB}=diag(1,1,1,1,1)`$. The physical basis is given by the relations

$`P_\mu `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(M_{5\mu }+M_{4\mu }),K_\mu ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(M_{5\mu }M_{4\mu }),`$ (54)
$`M_i`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}ϵ_{ijk}J_{jk},L_i=M_{0i},D=M_{45}`$ (55)
where $`\mu =0,1,2,3`$ and $`i,j=1,2,3`$. All the generators (44) are also anti-hermitean. For convenience we introduce also the the generators $`P_\pm =P_0\pm P_3`$ as well as $`M_\pm =M_1\pm iM_2((M_\pm )^+=M_{})`$ and $`L_\pm =L_1\pm iL_2((L_\pm )^+=L_{})`$. The Cartan-Weyl basis is described in terms of $`D=4`$ conformal generators ($`M_i,N_i,D,P_i,P_0,K_i,K_0`$) as follows

$`e_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(M_++iL_+),e_1={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(M_{}iL_{}),`$ (56)
$`e_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}P_{},e_2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}K_+,`$ (57)
$`e_3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(M_{}iL_{}),e_3={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(M_+iL_+),`$ (58)
$`e_4`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}(P_1+iP_2),e_4={\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}(K_1iK_2),`$ (59)
$`e_5`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}(P_1iP_2),e_5={\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}(K_1+iK_2),`$ (60)
$`e_6`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}P_+e_6={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}K_{},`$ (61)
$`h_1`$ $`=`$ $`L_3iM_3,h_2=L_3D,h_3=L_3+iM_3.`$ (62)
The classical $`r`$-matrix (23) describing light-like $`\kappa `$-deformation is given respectively by the formula (6), with the ”overall” deformation parameter $`\xi =\frac{2i}{\kappa }`$ carrying the inverse mass dimension, i.e. we obtain the following expansion for universal $`R`$-matrices

$$R_\kappa =1+\frac{1}{\kappa }(L_3P_+(M_1L_2)P_2+(M_2+L_1)P_1)+O(\frac{1}{\kappa ^2})$$
(63)
Similarly, the $`\kappa `$-Weyl $`r`$-matrix (21) provides the expansion

$$\widehat{R}_\kappa =1+\frac{1}{\kappa }[\frac{1}{2}(L_3D)P_+(M_1L_2)P_2+(M_2+L_1)P_1]+O(\frac{1}{\kappa ^2})$$
(64)
where the term linear in $`\frac{1}{\kappa }`$ describes the $`\kappa `$-Weyl $`r`$-matrix in physical basis (45).
Denoting

$$\stackrel{~}{E}_1=L_1+M_2,\stackrel{~}{E}_2=L_2M_1,\stackrel{~}{E}_3=L_3$$
(65)
one gets for the light-cone $`\kappa `$-Poincarè $`r`$-matrix the following six-dimensional carrier algebra

$$[\stackrel{~}{E}_1,\stackrel{~}{E_2}]=0,[\stackrel{~}{E}_3,\stackrel{~}{E_r}]=\stackrel{~}{E}_r,$$
(66)
$$[\stackrel{~}{E}_r,P_+]=0,[\stackrel{~}{E}_r,P_s]=\delta _{rs}P_+,[\stackrel{~}{E}_3,P_+]=P_+,[\stackrel{~}{E}_3,P_s]=0$$
(67)
where $`r,s=1,2`$. If we introduce the notation

$$\widehat{E}_1=L_1+M_2,\widehat{E}_2=L_2M_1,\widehat{E}_3=\frac{1}{2}(L_3D)$$
(68)
the carrier algebra for the $`\kappa `$-Weyl $`r`$-matrix is the following

$$[\widehat{E}_1,\widehat{E_2}]=0,[\widehat{E}_3,\widehat{E_r}]=\widehat{E}_r,$$
(69)
$$[\widehat{E}_r,P_+]=0,[\widehat{E}_r,P_s]=\delta _{rs}P_+,[\widehat{E}_3,P_+]=P_+,[\widehat{E}_3,P_s]=\frac{1}{2}P_s$$
(70)
where $`r,s=1,2`$.

It follows from relations (45) that in the formulae (21) and (23) the parameters $`\alpha ,\beta ,\delta ,\varrho `$ have the dimension of inverse mass and the parameter $`\gamma `$, occuring only in (20), describes the ”soft deformation” with the dimension of the inverse mass square. We see therefore that all deformations of conformal algebra considered in this paper are the ones with dimensionfull deformation parameters i.e. describe generalized $`\kappa `$-deformations (see footnote 5).

In order to characterize physically the deformations provided by the twists (39) and (42) we shall consider the twisted coproducts for the four-momentum generators. Using the twist (36) one obtains the following formulae:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }__\xi (e_6)`$ $`=`$ $`e_6e^{\sigma _6(\xi )}+1e_6,`$ (71)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }__\xi (e_2)`$ $`=`$ $`e_2e^{(2\varrho 1)\sigma _6(\xi )}+1e_2,`$ (72)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }__\xi (e_4)`$ $`=`$ $`e_4e^{(2i\beta +\varrho 1)\sigma _6(\xi )}+1e_4,`$ (73)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }__\xi (e_5)`$ $`=`$ $`e_5e^{(2i\beta +\varrho )\sigma _6(\xi )}+e^{\sigma _6(\xi )}e_5,`$ (74)
If we consider the light-cone $`\kappa `$-Poincarè deformation (see (46)) we observe from (54) that after the substitution (45) all the four-momentum components in Poincarè algebra basis are endoved with nonprimitive coproducts. In order to obtain primitive coproduct for the light-cone energy $`P_+^{}`$ we should introduce the following nonlinear transformation of $`P_+`$-variable999It is interesting to observe that the relation (55) coincides with the deformation map describing $`\kappa `$-deformed Weyl algebra in  (see formula (14)). We thank Piotr Kosi$`\stackrel{´}{n}`$ski for providing this observation.:

$$\frac{1}{2}\xi P_+^{}=\sigma _6(\xi )=\mathrm{ln}(1+\frac{1}{2}\xi P_+)$$
(75)
Substituting $`\xi =\frac{2i}{\kappa }`$ one gets for the light-cone $`\kappa `$-deformation the following four-momentum coproducts:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }__\xi (P_+^{})`$ $`=`$ $`P_+^{}1+1P_+^{},`$ (76)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }__\xi (P_{})`$ $`=`$ $`P_{}e^{\frac{iP_+}{\kappa }}+1P_{},`$ (77)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }__\xi (P_1+iP_2)`$ $`=`$ $`(P_1+iP_2)e^{\frac{iP_+}{\kappa }}+1(P_1+iP_2),`$ (78)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }__\xi (P_1iP_2)`$ $`=`$ $`(P_1iP_2)1+e^{\frac{iP_+}{\kappa }}(P_1iP_2),`$ (79)
The new basis with light-cone energy generator given by (55) leads to the deformation of the commutators between Abelian four-momentum generators ($`P_1,P_2,P_{},P_+^{}`$) and classical Lorentz generators $`M_{\mu \nu }=(M_i,N_i)`$:

$`[M_1,P_+^{}]`$ $`=`$ $`P_2e^{\frac{iP_+^{}}{\kappa }},[M_2,P_+^{}]=P_1e^{\frac{iP_+^{}}{\kappa }},`$ (80)
$`[M_3,P_+^{}]`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (81)
$`[L_1,P_+^{}]`$ $`=`$ $`P_1e^{\frac{iP_+^{}}{\kappa }},[L_2,P_+^{}]=P_2e^{\frac{iP_+^{}}{\kappa }},`$ (82)
$`[L_3,P_+^{}]`$ $`=`$ $`i\kappa (1e^{\frac{P_+^{}}{\kappa }}),`$ (83)
It should be noticed that the coproduct (56) for $`P_+^{}`$ remains primitive for any choice of the parameters $`\beta `$ and $`\varrho `$ in the twist formulae (35).
It is easy to see that in terms of the generators $`P_1,P_2,P_{},P_+^{}`$ the mass Casimir takes the form

$$C_2=P_1^2+P_2^2\frac{2}{\xi }(1e^{\frac{1}{2}\xi P_+^{}})P_{}$$
(84)
The coproduct formulae for the twist (40) which are analogous to the ones given by the relations (54) look as follows:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{_{\xi ,\xi ^{}}^w}(e_6)`$ $`=`$ $`e_6e^{\sigma _6(\xi )}+1e_6,`$ (85)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{_{\xi ,\xi ^{}}^w}(e_2)`$ $`=`$ $`e_2e^{\sigma _6(\xi ^{})}+1e_2,`$ (86)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{_{\xi ,\xi ^{}}^w}(e_4)`$ $`=`$ $`e_4e^{(2i\beta \frac{1}{2})\sigma _6(\xi )+(\frac{i\alpha }{\delta }+\frac{1}{2})\sigma _2(\xi ^{})}+1e_4,`$ (87)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{_{\xi ,\xi ^{}}^w}(e_5)`$ $`=`$ $`e_5e^{(\frac{1}{2}2i\beta )\sigma _6(\xi )+(\frac{i\alpha }{\delta }+\frac{1}{2})\sigma _2(\xi ^{})}+e^{\sigma _6(\xi )}e_5,`$ (88)
If we introduce the expression (55) and redefine the energy $`P_{}`$

$$\frac{1}{2}\xi P_{}^{}=\sigma _2(\xi )=\mathrm{ln}(1+\frac{1}{2}\xi P_{})$$
(89)
the two coproducts, for the generators $`P_0^{}`$ and $`P_3^{}`$, remain primitive. If $`\alpha =\beta =0`$ the formulae (59) describe the coproducts of four-momenta generated by the $`\kappa `$-Weyl twist (42).

In order to obtain the quantum $`D=4`$ conformal algebra with more suitable deformation of the algebra and coalgebra sectors one should at least supplement (55) and (60) with nonlinear transformation of three-momenta (see also ). The choice of ”optimal” nonlinear basis in $`U(o(4,2))`$ describing the $`\kappa `$-deformed $`D=4`$ conformal algebras $`U_\kappa (o(4,2))`$ is under consideration.

IV. Conclusions.

It is well-known that in conformal-invariant theories all mass-like parameters should be put equal to zero; on the other hand the Einstein gravity action is proportional to the dimesionfull Newton coupling constant defining the Planck mass $`M_{PL}`$ (or Planck lenght $`\lambda _{PL}`$). It is therefore natural to assume that due to the gravitational effects in $`D=4`$ conformal-invariant field theory (e.g. non-Abelian gauge theory) should appear conformal-breaking terms, proportional to inverse powers of the Planck mass. The $`\kappa `$-deformations of the conformal symmetry algebra leads to a corresponding algebraic scheme of broken conformal symmetries with the appearance of the fundamental mass parameters, which physically should be related with the Planck mass .

The advantage of our scheme is the description of broken Weyl and conformal symmetries by exact quantum symmetries that permits to use the algebraic techniques of quantum groups and quantum Lie algebras. In particular a genuine (Hopf-algebraic) quantum deformation of symmetry algebra permits to construct the consistent representation theory for irreducible as well as for tensor product representations, what should be useful in passing from quantum-mechanical to quantum field-theoretic description of models with broken conformal symmetry.

Acknowledgments.  The authors would like to thank Piotr Kosi$`\stackrel{´}{n}`$ski for valuable comments.


text:
# Zee model and Neutrinoless double beta decay

## I Introduction

More and more neutrino data are accumulated since a few years ago. They all contribute to the understanding of neutrino masses and mixings. They are very important clues to the underlying theory for neutrino masses, and perhaps to other fermions as well. It is therefore very important to pin down the necessary patterns for neutrino mass matrix that can explain all the observations.

Deficits in both atmospheric and solar neutrinos have been known for a long time. A possible and favorable explanation is neutrino oscillation, which is made possible because neutrinos have different masses and the flavor basis is not the same as the mass basis. The atmospheric neutrino data from SuperK superk  and the preliminary data from K2K k2k  showed a maximal mixing between the $`\nu _\mu `$ and $`\nu _\tau `$ atm-fits  with a mass-square difference and a mixing angle:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{atm}}^23.0\times 10^3\mathrm{eV}^2,\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{\mathrm{atm}}=0.99.$$
(1)
On the other hand, all the combined solar neutrino data favor the oscillation of the $`\nu _e`$ into a mixture of $`\nu _\mu `$ and $`\nu _\tau `$. Especially, the recent SNO sno  data provided a convincing evidence that there is a non-$`\nu _e`$ component in the neutrino flux coming from the sun. The most recent fit favors, at least statistically, the large mixing angle (LMA) solution, namely, solar-fits

$$\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{sol}}^24.5\times 10^5\mathrm{eV}^2;\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _{\mathrm{sol}}=0.41,$$
(2)
which gives $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{\mathrm{sol}}0.8`$. The above two mass-square differences can be accommodated by 3 active neutrinos. The much debated result from LSND lsnd , if confirmed, requires an additional neutrino, which is sterile.

Another recent result from a neutrinoless double beta decay ($`0\nu \beta \beta `$) experiment 0nbeta  added another clue or constraint to the neutrino mass matrix. The positive signal in the $`0\nu \beta \beta `$ decay implies a nonzero $`m_{ee}`$ entry in the neutrino mass matrix arranged in the flavor basis:

$$\left(\begin{array}{ccc}m_{ee}& m_{e\mu }& m_{e\tau }\\ m_{e\mu }& m_{\mu \mu }& m_{\mu \tau }\\ m_{e\tau }& m_{\mu \tau }& m_{\tau \tau }\end{array}\right).$$

The 95% allowed range of $`m_{ee}`$ is $`0.050.86`$ eV with a best value of $`0.4`$ eV. It also implied that the electron neutrino is majorana in nature. There is, however, an argument against this claim: see Ref. vissani ; aal .

Such a large value for $`m_{ee}\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{atm},\mathrm{sol}}^2}`$, if true, gives a nontrivial modification to the neutrino mass patterns and mixings. A lot of possible mass textures that were proposed to explain the atmospheric and solar neutrino deficits become incompatible with the new $`0\nu \beta \beta `$ data. A well-known example is the Zee model zee  that can generate a bi-maximal mixing between the $`\nu _\mu `$ and $`\nu _\tau `$ and between the $`\nu _e`$ and the mixture of $`\nu _\mu `$ and $`\nu _\tau `$ jarl ; paul1 ; otto  111For a number of analyses on the Zee model after the SNO data but before the $`0\nu \beta \beta `$ data, please see Refs. paul2 ; koide1 ; haba ; brah ; dan1 , however, the Zee model guarantees the diagonal mass matrix elements to be zero. Therefore, it cannot explain the nonzero $`m_{ee}`$ implied by the $`0\nu \beta \beta `$ signal. It would then be necessary to consider additional new physics to the Zee model in order to accommodate the $`m_{ee}`$ data. In this work, we look into the general mass patterns that can accommodate all the data, and from the patterns we introduce additional new physics to the Zee model.

The organization is as follows. In Sec. II, we describe the Zee model and how it could explain the atmospheric and solar neutrino data. Using the most recent fit to the data we obtain a set of values for the parameters of the Zee model. In Sec. III, we derive the general mass patterns that can explain all the data. In Sec. IV, we point out a few simple extensions to the Zee model that can generate the necessary patterns. We conclude in Sec. V.

## II Zee model

An economical way to generate small neutrino masses with a phenomenologically favorable texture is given by the Zee model jarl ; paul1 ; otto , which generates masses via one-loop diagrams. The model consists of a charged gauge singlet scalar $`h_{\mathrm{Zee}}^{}`$, the Zee scalar, which couples to lepton doublets $`\psi _L`$ via the interaction

$$f_{ab}\left(\psi _{aL}^i𝒞\psi _{bL}^j\right)ϵ_{ij}h_{\mathrm{Zee}}^{}+h.c.,$$
(3)
where $`i,j`$ are the SU(2) indexes, $`a,b`$ are the generation indexes, $`𝒞`$ is the charge-conjugation matrix, and $`f_{ab}`$ are Yukawa couplings antisymmetric in $`a`$ and $`b`$. Another ingredient of the Zee model is an extra Higgs doublet (in addition to the one that gives masses to charged leptons) that develops a vacuum expectation value (VEV) and thus provides mass mixing between the charged Higgs boson and the Zee scalar boson. Let us parametrize this mixing term as

$$m_3^2h_d^+h_{\mathrm{Zee}}^{}+h.c.,$$
(4)
where $`m_3`$ is of dimension $`[\mathrm{mass}]`$. This coupling, together with the $`f_{ab}`$’s, enforces lepton-number violation. Through one-loop diagrams the Zee model can generate off-diagonal majorana mass terms, $`m_{ab}(a,b=e,\mu ,\tau )`$, given by zee ; otto ; petcov

$$m_{ab}=\frac{1}{16\pi ^2}f_{ab}\frac{gm_3^2}{\sqrt{2}M_W\mathrm{cos}\beta }(m_b^2m_a^2)h(M_{h_d^{}}^2,M_{h_{\mathrm{Zee}}^{}}^2),$$
(5)
where the function $`h(x,y)=\mathrm{log}(y/x)/(xy)`$ and the charged Higgs $`h_d^{}`$ couples to the charged lepton $`l`$ with a coupling $`gm_l/(\sqrt{2}M_W\mathrm{cos}\beta )`$. It is a generic feature of the Zee model that the diagonal terms $`m_{aa}=0`$. Thus, we obtain a neutrino mass matrix of the following form

$$\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& m_{e\mu }& m_{e\tau }\\ m_{e\mu }& 0& m_{\mu \tau }\\ m_{e\tau }& m_{\mu \tau }& 0\end{array}\right).$$

Recent analyses jarl ; paul1 ; otto ; paul2 ; koide1 ; haba ; brah ; dan1 ; john ; koide2  showed that the Zee mass matrix of the following texture

$$\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& m_{e\mu }& m_{e\tau }\\ m_{e\mu }& 0& ϵ\\ m_{e\tau }& ϵ& 0\end{array}\right),$$

where $`ϵ`$ is small compared with $`m_{e\mu }`$ and $`m_{e\tau }`$, is able to provide a compatible mass pattern that explains the atmospheric and solar neutrino data. Moreover, $`m_{e\mu }m_{e\tau }`$ is required to give the maximal mixing solution for the atmospheric neutrinos.

Keeping the leading power in $`ϵ`$ we obtain the mass eigenvalues $`m_1,m_2,m_3`$ and the diagonalization matrix $`U`$ such that $`U^TM_\nu U=diag\{m_1,m_2,m_3\}`$ (we work in the basis where the charged-lepton mass matrix is diagonal):

$`m_1`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{m_{e\mu }^2+m_{e\tau }^2}+ϵ{\displaystyle \frac{m_{e\mu }m_{e\tau }}{m_{e\mu }^2+m_{e\tau }^2}},`$
$`m_2`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{m_{e\mu }^2+m_{e\tau }^2}+ϵ{\displaystyle \frac{m_{e\mu }m_{e\tau }}{m_{e\mu }^2+m_{e\tau }^2}},`$
$`m_3`$ $`=`$ $`2ϵ{\displaystyle \frac{m_{e\mu }m_{e\tau }}{m_{e\mu }^2+m_{e\tau }^2}},`$
$`U`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(1ϵ\frac{m_{e\mu }m_{e\tau }}{2m^3}\right)& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(1+ϵ\frac{m_{e\mu }m_{e\tau }}{2m^3}\right)& ϵ\frac{m_{e\tau }^2m_{e\mu }^2}{m^3}\\ \frac{m_{e\mu }}{\sqrt{2}m}+ϵ\frac{m_{e\tau }(2m_{e\tau }^2m_{e\mu }^2)}{2\sqrt{2}m^4}& \frac{m_{e\mu }}{\sqrt{2}m}+ϵ\frac{m_{e\tau }(2m_{e\tau }^2m_{e\mu }^2)}{2\sqrt{2}m^4}& \frac{m_{e\tau }}{m}\\ \frac{m_{e\tau }}{\sqrt{2}m}+ϵ\frac{m_{e\mu }(2m_{e\mu }^2m_{e\tau }^2)}{2\sqrt{2}m^4}& \frac{m_{e\tau }}{\sqrt{2}m}+ϵ\frac{m_{e\mu }(2m_{e\mu }^2m_{e\tau }^2)}{2\sqrt{2}m^4}& \frac{m_{e\mu }}{m}\end{array}\right)`$ (9)
where $`m=\sqrt{m_{e\mu }^2+m_{e\tau }^2}`$. The above results reduce to the results of Ref. otto  in the limit $`ϵ0`$.

The mass eigenvalues $`m_1,m_2,m_3`$ and $`U`$ are arranged in the inverted mass hierarchy such that $`m_1^2m_2^2>>m_3^2`$. The mass-square difference between $`m_1^2`$ and $`m_2^2`$ explains the solar neutrino while that between $`m_2^2`$ and $`m_3^2`$ explains the atmospheric neutrino. The mixing angles can also be obtained from the matrix $`U`$ such that $`\mathrm{tan}\theta _{\mathrm{sol}}\mathrm{tan}\theta _{12}=U_{e2}/U_{e1}`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\theta _{\mathrm{atm}}\mathrm{tan}\theta _{23}=U_{\mu 3}/U_{\tau 3}`$. According to the most recent fit to the atmospheric neutrino data atm-fits  in Eq. (1), the $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{\mathrm{atm}}`$ is practically 1 and we obtain

$$\frac{m_{e\tau }}{m_{e\mu }}=\pm 1\mathrm{and}|m_{e\mu }|=|m_{e\tau }|=\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{atm}}^2/2}=0.039\mathrm{eV}.$$
(10)
The condition $`|m_{e\mu }|=|m_{e\tau }|`$ also implies $`U_{e3}=0`$, which is consistent with the CHOOZ limit chooz . The parameter $`ϵ`$ is then given by

$$ϵ=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{sol}}^2}{2\sqrt{2}m_{e\mu }}=\{\begin{array}{cc}4.1\times 10^4\mathrm{eV}\hfill & \text{for LMA}\hfill \\ 4.2\times 10^9\mathrm{eV}\hfill & \text{for VAC}\hfill \end{array}.$$
(11)
We note that the mixing angle $`\mathrm{tan}\theta _{12}=1+ϵ/(2^{3/2}m_{e\mu })`$ essentially equals 1, which is obviously incompatible with the SMA solution, but fairly consistent with the LMA and VAC solutions solar-fits . Since the LMA solution is the more favorable one, at least statistically, and moreover the required $`ϵ`$ for the VAC solution is a much more fine-tuned one, we shall concentrate our discussion on the LMA solution in the next section.

We can use Eq. (5) to obtain the values on $`f_{ab}`$ from the fitted values of $`m_{e\mu },m_{e\tau },m_{\mu \tau }`$. The ratio $`m_{e\mu }:m_{e\tau }:m_{\mu \tau }=1:1:\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{sol}}^2/(\sqrt{2}\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{atm}}^2)`$, which implies

$`f_{e\mu }:f_{e\tau }:f_{\mu \tau }`$ $`=`$ $`1:{\displaystyle \frac{m_\mu ^2}{m_\tau ^2}}:{\displaystyle \frac{m_\mu ^2}{m_\tau ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{sol}}^2}{\sqrt{2}\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{atm}}^2}}`$ (12)
$`=`$ $`1:\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3.5}\times 10^3:\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3.7}\times 10^5(3.8\times 10^{10}),`$
where the numerical value in the parenthesis is for the VAC solution. Taking $`M_{h_d^{}},M_{h_{\mathrm{Zee}}^{}},m_3100`$ GeV, we obtain $`f_{e\mu }10^510^4`$, $`f_{e\tau }10^7`$, and $`f_{\mu \tau }10^9`$ for the LMA solution.

These $`f_{ab}`$’s are also subject to other constraints coming muon and tau decays mituda . The decay $`\mu e\overline{\nu }\nu `$ puts a bound on $`f_{e\mu }`$: $`|f_{e\mu }|^2/M^2<7\times 10^4G_F`$, where $`M`$ is a common mass scale for $`M_{h_d^{}},M_{h_{\mathrm{Zee}}^{}}`$ and $`G_F`$ is the Fermi constant. Taking $`M100`$ GeV, we obtain $`|f_{e\mu }|<9\times 10^3`$, which is consistent with the $`f_{e\mu }`$ obtained above to explain the neutrino mass. The branching ratio $`B(\mu e\gamma )`$ puts a bound on $`|f_{\mu \tau }f_{e\tau }|/M^2<2.8\times 10^4G_F`$, which implies $`|f_{\mu \tau }f_{e\tau }|<3\times 10^5`$ for $`M100`$ GeV. This is also consistent with the $`f_{\mu \tau },f_{e\tau }`$ obtained above.

## III Patterns predicted by $`0\nu \beta \beta `$ data

If the $`0\nu \beta \beta `$ signal is true, it demands a very large value for $`m_{ee}`$ relative to the mass-square differences required for the atmospheric and solar neutrino data. It has been shown klap2 ; xing ; mina ; hambye  that the most favorable mass pattern is a degenerate one with small mass differences among the mass eigenstates. 222To explain the $`0\nu \beta \beta `$ data alone it is not necessary to invoke neutrino oscillations. For example, $`R`$-parity violation uehara  and other new physics such as leptoquarks klap3  can explain the $`0\nu \beta \beta `$ data.

To obtain the mass pattern it is easy to work bottom-up. We work in the basis where the charged-lepton mass matrix is diagonal such that the mixing information is entirely contained in the neutrino mass matrix. From the data we can write down specific forms of the mixing matrix $`U`$ and the diagonal mass matrix $`M_D`$ in the mass basis, then we can obtain the mass matrix $`M_\nu `$ in the flavor basis as

$$M_\nu =UM_DU^T,$$
(13)
where the flavor basis and mass basis are related by

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}\nu _e\\ \nu _\mu \\ \nu _\tau \end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}U_{e1}& U_{e2}& U_{e3}\\ U_{\mu 1}& U_{\mu 2}& U_{\mu 3}\\ U_{\tau 1}& U_{\tau 2}& U_{\tau 3}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\nu _1\\ \nu _2\\ \nu _3\end{array}\right).$$
(14)
Assuming no CP violation a general form of $`U`$ is given by

$$U=U_{23}U_{13}U_{12},$$
(15)
where $`U_{ij}`$ is the rotation matrix about the $`i`$ and $`j`$’th mass eigenstates. By considering the various data sets the general form of $`U`$ can be reduced to a simple form. Since we know that the atmospheric neutrino requires a maximal mixing between the $`\nu _\mu `$ and $`\nu _\tau `$, $`U_{23}`$ is given by

$$U_{23}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 0& 0\\ 0& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\\ 0& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\end{array}\right).$$

Since the angle $`\theta _{13}`$ is constrained by CHOOZ chooz  to be small, we simply set $`U_{13}=I`$. For the rotation between the $`(1,2)`$ states there are a few possible solutions to the solar neutrino, and so we used a generic $`U_{12}`$ as

$$U_{12}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}c& s& 0\\ s& c& 0\\ 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right),$$

where $`c=\mathrm{cos}\theta _{12},s=\mathrm{sin}\theta _{12}`$. Therefore, $`U`$ is given by

$$U=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}c& s& 0\\ \frac{s}{\sqrt{2}}& \frac{c}{\sqrt{2}}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\\ \frac{s}{\sqrt{2}}& \frac{c}{\sqrt{2}}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\end{array}\right).$$
(16)
For the mass matrix in the mass basis there are two cases: (i) normal and (ii) inverted mass hierarchies, which we shall consider in turns. In the normal hierarchy, the solar oscillation is between the two lighter states, while the atmospheric oscillation is between the heaviest and the lighter states. Recall the convention that the solar oscillation is between the “1” and “2” states, we put the diagonal mass matrix as

$$M_D^{\mathrm{normal}}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}m_0& 0& 0\\ 0& (m_0+\delta )e^{i\varphi }& 0\\ 0& 0& (m_0+m)e^{i\varphi ^{}}\end{array}\right),$$
(17)
where $`\delta \mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{sol}}^2/(2m_0)`$ , $`m\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{atm}}^2/(2m_0)`$, and for $`\varphi `$ and $`\varphi ^{}`$ we take as 0 for the moment. We shall later show the results for other values of $`\varphi `$ and $`\varphi ^{}`$. Using Eqs. (13), (16), and (17), we obtain the neutrino mass matrix in the flavor basis:

$$M_\nu ^{\mathrm{normal}}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}m_0+\delta s^2\hfill & \frac{cs}{\sqrt{2}}\delta \hfill & \frac{cs}{\sqrt{2}}\delta \hfill \\ \frac{cs}{\sqrt{2}}\delta \hfill & m_0+\frac{m}{2}+\frac{c^2}{2}\delta \hfill & \frac{m}{2}+\frac{c^2}{2}\delta \hfill \\ \frac{cs}{\sqrt{2}}\delta \hfill & \frac{m}{2}+\frac{c^2}{2}\delta \hfill & m_0+\frac{m}{2}+\frac{c^2}{2}\delta \hfill \end{array}\right).$$
(18)
With input values of $`m_0=0.4`$ eV, $`\delta =5.6\times 10^5`$ eV, $`m=3.75\times 10^3`$ eV, $`c=1/\sqrt{1.41},s=\sqrt{0.41/1.41}`$, we obtain

$`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2=3\times 10^3\mathrm{eV}^2,`$ $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{23}=1`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^24.5\times 10^5\mathrm{eV}^2,`$ $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _{12}=0.41`$
which are exactly the best fits shown in Eqs. (1) and (2). This is obvious because the input values for the parameters that we chose are simply based on the data. In other words, with the data we can fit the parameters of the model.

For the case of inverted mass hierarchy the solar neutrino oscillation is between the two heavier states while the atmospheric neutrino oscillation is between the lightest and the heavier states. Recall the convention again that the solar oscillation is always between the “1” and “2” states, we used a $`M_D^{\mathrm{inverted}}`$:

$$M_D^{\mathrm{inverted}}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}m_0+m+\delta & 0& 0\\ 0& m_0+m& 0\\ 0& 0& m_0\end{array}\right),$$
(19)
in which we have chosen the phase angles to be zero. Using Eqs. (13), (16), and (19) we obtain

$$M_\nu ^{\mathrm{inverted}}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}m_0+m+\delta c^2\hfill & \frac{cs}{\sqrt{2}}\delta \hfill & \frac{cs}{\sqrt{2}}\delta \hfill \\ \frac{cs}{\sqrt{2}}\delta \hfill & m_0+\frac{m}{2}+\frac{s^2}{2}\delta \hfill & \frac{m}{2}+\frac{s^2}{2}\delta \hfill \\ \frac{cs}{\sqrt{2}}\delta \hfill & \frac{m}{2}+\frac{s^2}{2}\delta \hfill & m_0+\frac{m}{2}+\frac{s^2}{2}\delta \hfill \end{array}\right).$$
(20)
With the same input values for $`m_0,\delta ,m,c,s`$ we obtain

$`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2=3\times 10^3\mathrm{eV}^2,`$ $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{23}=1`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^24.5\times 10^5\mathrm{eV}^2,`$ $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _{12}=0.41`$
In general, we can use the data to fit the values of $`m_0,m,\delta ,\theta _{12}`$:

$`m_0=m_{ee};m\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{atm}}^2/(2m_0);`$
$`\delta \mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{sol}}^2/(2m_0),\theta _{12}=\theta _{\mathrm{sol}}.`$ (21)
We have already used a particular form of $`U`$ such that a maximal mixing is always between the “2” and “3” states.

Next we are going to show the results when we allow nonzero phases for $`\varphi `$ and $`\varphi ^{}`$. For illustrations we use (ii) $`\varphi =\pi ,\varphi ^{}=0`$, (iii) $`\varphi =0,\varphi ^{}=\pi `$, and (iv) $`\varphi =\pi ,\varphi ^{}=\pi `$. The case (i) $`\varphi =\varphi ^{}=0`$ has already been shown above. The neutrino mass matrices in the flavor basis for normal and inverted mass hierarchies are given, respectively, by

$`(\mathrm{ii})`$ $`\varphi =\pi ,\varphi ^{}=0:`$ (29)
$`\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{cos}2\theta _{12}m_0\delta s^2& \frac{\mathrm{sin}2\theta _{12}}{\sqrt{2}}m_0\frac{cs}{\sqrt{2}}\delta & \frac{\mathrm{sin}2\theta _{12}}{\sqrt{2}}m_0\frac{cs}{\sqrt{2}}\delta \\ \frac{\mathrm{sin}2\theta _{12}}{\sqrt{2}}m_0\frac{cs}{\sqrt{2}}\delta & \frac{1}{2}\mathrm{cos}2\theta _{12}m_0+\frac{m_0+m}{2}\frac{c^2}{2}\delta & \frac{1}{2}\mathrm{cos}2\theta _{12}m_0\frac{m_0+m}{2}\frac{c^2}{2}\delta \\ \frac{\mathrm{sin}2\theta _{12}}{\sqrt{2}}m_0\frac{cs}{\sqrt{2}}\delta & \frac{1}{2}\mathrm{cos}2\theta _{12}m_0\frac{m_0+m}{2}\frac{c^2}{2}\delta & \frac{1}{2}\mathrm{cos}2\theta _{12}m_0+\frac{m_0+m}{2}\frac{c^2}{2}\delta \end{array}\right)`$
$`\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{cos}2\theta _{12}(m_0+m)+\delta c^2& \frac{\mathrm{sin}2\theta _{12}}{\sqrt{2}}(m_0+m)\frac{cs}{\sqrt{2}}\delta & \frac{\mathrm{sin}2\theta _{12}}{\sqrt{2}}(m_0+m)\frac{cs}{\sqrt{2}}\delta \\ \frac{\mathrm{sin}2\theta _{12}}{\sqrt{2}}(m_0+m)\frac{cs}{\sqrt{2}}\delta & \frac{1}{2}\mathrm{cos}2\theta _{12}(m_0+m)+\frac{m_0}{2}+\frac{s^2}{2}\delta & \frac{1}{2}\mathrm{cos}2\theta _{12}(m_0+m)\frac{m_0}{2}+\frac{s^2}{2}\delta \\ \frac{\mathrm{sin}2\theta _{12}}{\sqrt{2}}(m_0+m)\frac{cs}{\sqrt{2}}\delta & \frac{1}{2}\mathrm{cos}2\theta _{12}(m_0+m)\frac{m_0}{2}+\frac{s^2}{2}\delta & \frac{1}{2}\mathrm{cos}2\theta _{12}(m_0+m)+\frac{m_0}{2}+\frac{s^2}{2}\delta \end{array}\right)`$
$`(\mathrm{iii})`$ $`\varphi =0,\varphi ^{}=\pi :`$ (37)
$`\left(\begin{array}{ccc}m_0+\delta s^2& \frac{cs}{\sqrt{2}}\delta & \frac{cs}{\sqrt{2}}\delta \\ \frac{cs}{\sqrt{2}}\delta & \frac{m}{2}+\frac{c^2}{2}\delta & m_0+\frac{m}{2}+\frac{c^2}{2}\delta \\ \frac{cs}{\sqrt{2}}\delta & m_0+\frac{m}{2}+\frac{c^2}{2}\delta & \frac{m}{2}+\frac{c^2}{2}\delta \end{array}\right)`$
$`\left(\begin{array}{ccc}m_0+m+\delta c^2& \frac{cs}{\sqrt{2}}\delta & \frac{cs}{\sqrt{2}}\delta \\ \frac{cs}{\sqrt{2}}\delta & \frac{m}{2}+\frac{s^2}{2}\delta & m_0+\frac{m}{2}+\frac{s^2}{2}\delta \\ \frac{cs}{\sqrt{2}}\delta & m_0+\frac{m}{2}+\frac{s^2}{2}\delta & \frac{m}{2}+\frac{s^2}{2}\delta \end{array}\right)`$
$`(\mathrm{iv})`$ $`\varphi =\pi ,\varphi ^{}=\pi :`$ (45)
$`\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{cos}2\theta _{12}m_0\delta s^2& \frac{\mathrm{sin}2\theta _{12}}{\sqrt{2}}m_0\frac{cs}{\sqrt{2}}\delta & \frac{\mathrm{sin}2\theta _{12}}{\sqrt{2}}m_0\frac{cs}{\sqrt{2}}\delta \\ \frac{\mathrm{sin}2\theta _{12}}{\sqrt{2}}m_0\frac{cs}{\sqrt{2}}\delta & \frac{1}{2}\mathrm{cos}2\theta _{12}m_0\frac{m_0+m}{2}\frac{c^2}{2}\delta & \frac{1}{2}\mathrm{cos}2\theta _{12}m_0+\frac{m_0+m}{2}\frac{c^2}{2}\delta \\ \frac{\mathrm{sin}2\theta _{12}}{\sqrt{2}}m_0\frac{cs}{\sqrt{2}}\delta & \frac{1}{2}\mathrm{cos}2\theta _{12}m_0+\frac{m_0+m}{2}\frac{c^2}{2}\delta & \frac{1}{2}\mathrm{cos}2\theta _{12}m_0\frac{m_0+m}{2}\frac{c^2}{2}\delta \end{array}\right)`$
$`\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{cos}2\theta _{12}(m_0+m)+\delta c^2& \frac{\mathrm{sin}2\theta _{12}}{\sqrt{2}}(m_0+m)\frac{cs}{\sqrt{2}}\delta & \frac{\mathrm{sin}2\theta _{12}}{\sqrt{2}}(m_0+m)\frac{cs}{\sqrt{2}}\delta \\ \frac{\mathrm{sin}2\theta _{12}}{\sqrt{2}}(m_0+m)\frac{cs}{\sqrt{2}}\delta & \frac{1}{2}\mathrm{cos}2\theta _{12}(m_0+m)\frac{m_0}{2}+\frac{s^2}{2}\delta & \frac{1}{2}\mathrm{cos}2\theta _{12}(m_0+m)+\frac{m_0}{2}+\frac{s^2}{2}\delta \\ \frac{\mathrm{sin}2\theta _{12}}{\sqrt{2}}(m_0+m)\frac{cs}{\sqrt{2}}\delta & \frac{1}{2}\mathrm{cos}2\theta _{12}(m_0+m)+\frac{m_0}{2}+\frac{s^2}{2}\delta & \frac{1}{2}\mathrm{cos}2\theta _{12}(m_0+m)\frac{m_0}{2}+\frac{s^2}{2}\delta \end{array}\right)`$
The present data cannot distinguish the above patterns because they all give correct $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{atm}}^2`$, $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{\mathrm{atm}}`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{sol}}^2`$, $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _{\mathrm{sol}}`$, and $`m_{ee}`$ by adjusting the parameters $`m_0,m,\delta ,\theta _{12}`$. The preference of one pattern over the others is a matter of taste. We suggest two fine-tuning criteria: (1) the smaller the ratios $`m/m_0`$ and $`\delta /m_0`$ the worse the fine-tuning is, and (2) the stability of the maximal mixing provided by the mass matrix. The first criterion prefers cases (i) and (iii) because cases (ii) and (iv) require a larger $`m_0`$ in order to explain the $`0\nu \beta \beta `$ data. Second, the mass matrices in (i) are not stable, which is explained as follows. Let us look at the $`(2,3)`$ block of the matrix, which is of the form $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& ϵ\\ ϵ& 1\end{array}\right)`$, where $`ϵ1`$. The maximal mixing between the “2” and “3” states is very unstable. Once $`m_{\mu \mu }`$ and $`m_{\tau \tau }`$ differ very slightly, the maximal mixing is destroyed. We have verified that if $`m_{\mu \mu }`$ or $`m_{\tau \tau }`$ increases by 1% the resulting $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{\mathrm{atm}}0.5`$, already out of the allowed range. It is barely consistent with the data range if $`m_{\mu \mu }`$ or $`m_{\tau \tau }`$ is changed by less than 0.5%. On the other hand, in case (iii) the $`(2,3)`$ block is of the form $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}ϵ& 1\\ 1& ϵ\end{array}\right)`$. This is a rather robust form such that even when $`m_{\mu \mu }`$ or $`m_{\tau \tau }`$ is changed appreciably, the maximal mixing remains. We have checked even if $`m_{\mu \mu }`$ or $`m_{\tau \tau }`$ increases by a factor of two the maximal mixing solution remains for the atmospheric neutrino. This is easy to understand. As long as $`m_{\mu \tau }m_{\mu \mu },m_{\tau \tau }`$ we have the maximal mixing in the $`(2,3)`$ block. So we conclude this section by saying that the mass matrices in case (iii) are the more favorable ones in view of stability and fine tuning.

Since in order to explain the $`0\nu \beta \beta `$ data a nonzero $`m_{ee}`$ is needed, which immediately rules out the original Zee model. In the next section, we look at a few extensions that can explain the $`0\nu \beta \beta `$ data while maintaining the solutions to atmospheric and solar neutrino problems.

We end this section by saying that we have checked the patterns given in Ref. klap2 . We found that we can reproduce their $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{atm}}^2`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{sol}}^2`$, and $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{\mathrm{atm}}`$, but not $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{\mathrm{sol}}`$. We believe they calculated the solar mixing angle using the wrong pair of states, instead of using the pair whose mass-square difference is $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{sol}}^2`$.

## IV Extensions to the Zee model

Since the contributions to neutrino mass matrix in the Zee model arise from 1-loop diagrams, it is natural to consider the 2-loop contributions as well. It was pointed out darwin  that some 2-loop generalizations of the Zee model may be able to generate nonzero diagonal matrix elements. However, it is very difficult to accommodate the LMA solution unless by fine tuning of the model parameters arcadi . In the following, we consider a couple of extensions that can hopefully accommodate the data in a less unnaturally way, though fine tuning may still be necessary.

A straight-forward extension is to add a heavy right-handed neutrino $`N_i`$ for each generation with an interaction: $`=y_iL_iH_uN_i\frac{M_i}{2}N_iN_i+h.c.`$, where $`M_i`$ is a mass scale much larger than the weak scale and $`y_i`$ is a Yukawa coupling. After the electroweak symmetry breaking, the interaction gives a Dirac mass term to the corresponding SM neutrino. Through the see-saw mechanism a small neutrino mass is then generated. Integrating out the heavy right-handed neutrinos, the effective interaction term that gives rise to neutrino mass is given by

$$=y_i^2\frac{(L_iH_u)(L_iH_u)}{2M_i}+h.c.,$$
(46)
where we shall simply take a common scale for all $`M_i=M`$. In this way diagonal majorana mass terms can be generated easily as

$$m_{ii}=y_i^2\frac{H_u^2}{M},$$
(47)
for $`i=e,\mu ,\tau `$. The appropriate values for the diagonal matrix elements displayed in the last section can be obtained by adjusting the $`y_i`$’s, though in some sense it may require a fine-tuning. The off-diagonal matrix elements can be adjusted by varying the parameters of the Zee model.

Another interesting extension to the Zee model is in fact a supersymmetrization of the Zee model within the minimal supersymmetric model (MSSM) without $`R`$-parity conservation otto . The right-handed slepton works as the charged gauge singlet (Zee singlet) while the MSSM already has two Higgs doublets, which provide the mixing between the $`H_d`$ and Zee singlet through the VEV of the $`H_u`$. Here the $`R`$-parity violating terms $`\mu _iL_iH_u`$ provide mixings among neutrinos and higgsinos. Through a see-saw type mechanism tree-level contributions to neutrino masses arise and the $`m_{ij}`$ are roughly proportional to $`\mu _i\mu _j/\mu `$, where $`\mu `$ is the Higgs parameter in the $`\mu H_uH_d`$ term. Thus, the diagonal matrix elements are nonzero. There are also one-loop type contributions to the matrix elements in both diagonal and off-diagonal elements. It is then possible to adjust the soft and $`R`$-parity violating parameters in order to obtain the mass matrix in (iii) of the last section. Again, to some extent fine-tuning of the parameters is needed to ensure the form of the mass matrix.

## V Conclusions

We have examined the Zee model in light of the most recent fits to the solar and atmospheric neutrino data. The Zee model is a natural candidate that can provide a bi-maximal mixing solution to the atmospheric and solar neutrino problems. The resulting atmospheric mixing angle $`\theta _{23}`$ is right at the best value of the experimental data while the solar mixing angle $`\theta _{12}`$ is fairly consistent with the allowed range of the LMA and VAC solutions. By fitting to the data we found that the lepton-number-violating coupling $`f_{e\mu }`$ is of order $`10^510^4`$ and the ratio $`f_{e\mu }:f_{e\tau }:f_{\mu \tau }=1:\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3.5}\times 10^3:\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3.7}\times 10^5`$ for the LMA solution. The size of these couplings is consistent with other constraints coming from muon and tau decays.

The recent neutrinoless double beta decay 0nbeta ; vissani ; aal , if confirmed, rules out the original Zee model, because the positive signal requires a nonzero $`m_{ee}`$ matrix element. Moreover, a large $`m_{ee}`$ value necessarily gives large $`m_{1,2,3}`$ for the mass eigenstates. Such neutrino masses form a significant fraction of the warm dark matter vernon . We have derived a few general patterns of neutrino mass matrix from the observed data of neutrino oscillations (here we assumed the LMA solution for the solar neutrino.) Due to fine-tuning and stability reasons the forms in (iii) of Sec. III are preferred. Nevertheless, the interpretation of the $`0\nu \beta \beta `$ signal requires a consensus among various experimental groups before generally accepted by the community.

Finally, we offered a couple of extensions to the Zee model that can give nonzero diagonal matrix elements. However, in order to obtain the appropriate mass patterns fine-tuning of the parameters involved is still necessary.

We are grateful to Otto Kong for useful discussions. This research was supported in part by the National Center for Theoretical Science under a grant from the National Science Council of Taiwan R.O.C.


text:
# Submergence of the Sidebands in the Photon-assisted Tunneling through a Quantum Dot Weakly Coupled to Luttinger Liquid Leads

## Figure Captions

* $`G/G_{\mathrm{max}}`$ vs. $`\epsilon /T`$ for $`g=1.0,0.8,0.5,0.2`$. $`G`$ is the zero bias conductance, $`G_{\mathrm{max}}`$ is the maximum of $`G`$, $`\epsilon `$ is the energy level in the QD, $`T`$ is the temperature, and $`g`$ is the interaction parameters of the leads. The parameters of the time-dependent fields are: $`\mathrm{\Omega }/T=5`$ and $`\alpha =\frac{eV}{\mathrm{\Omega }}=1`$.
* $`G/G_{\mathrm{max}}`$ vs. $`\epsilon /T`$ for (a) $`g=1,0.8;`$ (b) $`g=0.5,0.2,`$ with $`\mathrm{\Omega }/T=10`$ and $`\alpha `$ the first positive root of $`J_0`$.
* $`G/G_{\mathrm{max}}`$ vs. $`\epsilon /T`$ for $`g=0.2`$. The parameters are chosen in (a) $`\alpha =0,1,3,5`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }/T=5`$; (b) $`\alpha =1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }/T=0,5,10,15.`$
* The contributions of some $`(m,n)`$ processes for $`g=0.2,`$ $`\mathrm{\Omega }/T=10,`$ and $`\alpha `$ the first positive root of $`J_0`$. $`G_{\mathrm{max}}`$ is the maximum value of the total conductance.