text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

One of the most fundamental properties of the well-established Standard Model (SM)  is its renormalizability . Renormalizability endows the SM with enhanced predictive power that emanates from the fact that ultraviolet (UV) divergences due to high order quantum effects can always be successfully eliminated by a redefinition of a finite number of independent kinematic parameters of the theory, such as masses and couplings. The predictions of the SM have been tested and vindicated with a satisfactory accuracy at high-energy colliders, such as the Large Electron Positron (LEP) collider at CERN and the Tevatron collider at Fermilab, as well as in low-energy experiments, e.g. in the recent E821 experiment at BNL where the muon anomalous magnetic moment is measured .

In addition to masses and couplings of the SM particles, however, the quark-mixing matrix, the so-called Cabbibo-Kobayashi-Maskawa (CKM) matrix  $`V`$, needs be renormalized as well . In this context, one of the renormalization schemes, most frequently adopted in the literature, is the on-shell (OS) scheme of renormalization , where the particle masses are renormalized so as to represent the physical masses at the poles of the propagators. It was shown in  that the complete UV structure of the counterterms (CTs) for the CKM matrix $`V`$ can be entirely expressed in terms of quark wave-function renormalizations. Within this framework, a simple approach to renormalizing $`V`$ in the OS scheme was also presented, consistent with the unitarity properties of the theory .

Even though radiative effects due to the renormalization of an off-diagonal CKM matrix were found to be undetectably small in the SM , this needs not be the case for its minimal renormalizable extensions. In particular, in  the above formalism of mixing-matrix renormalization was extended to theories that include isosinglet neutrinos and so admit the presence of lepton-number-violating Majorana masses . A minimal realization of such a theory is the SM with right-handed neutrinos . As we will further discuss in Section 2.3, in this minimal model the charged and neutral current interactions of the $`W`$ and $`Z`$ bosons to leptons and neutrinos are described by two non-unitary mixing matrices $`B`$ and $`C`$ , respectively. Most importantly, the radiative effects on the light-heavy neutrino mixing angles contained in the $`B`$ and $`C`$ matrices were computed to be as large as 15% , close to present experimental sensitivities. The SM with right-handed neutrinos is an appealing scenario which may explain the smallness of the observed neutrino masses and adequately address the solar energy deficit problem  through neutrino oscillations . Furthermore, this minimal extension of the SM may give rise to a number of observable phenomena, such as lepton-flavour and/or lepton-number violation in $`\mu `$, $`\tau `$  and $`Z`$-boson decays , or to possible lepton-number violating signals at high-energy colliders, e.g. at the CERN Large Hadron Collider (LHC) .

It has been noticed recently  that in the OS renormalization prescription presented in , the derived CTs for the CKM matrix naively depend on the choice of the gauge-fixing parameter $`\xi `$ in the class of $`R_\xi `$ gauges. This fact is not very desirable, as physical matrix elements will be gauge dependent after renormalization. To circumvent this problem of $`\xi `$-dependence of the OS renormalized CKM matrix, several alternative schemes of renormalization have been suggested in the very recent literature . As is expected, in all the proposed renormalization schemes, the UV-divergent parts of the CTs of the CKM matrix are identical to those derived in the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ scheme . Nevertheless, the UV-safe parts of the CTs differ from approach to approach by finite dispersive constants. Most interestingly, one may observe that even in the originally suggested OS scheme of , the gauge-dependent part of the CKM-matrix CTs is UV finite and also has a pure dispersive form, thus indicating the existence of a profound relation between gauge dependence and scheme dependence in mixing-matrix renormalization.

In this paper, we revisit the topic of mixing-matrix renormalization of the CKM matrix $`V`$ and of the $`B`$ and $`C`$ matrices. In particular, we develop a generalized and manifestly gauge-invariant $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ approach to mixing-matrix renormalization. The developed generalized $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ approach provides a very convenient framework to address the problem of gauge and scheme dependences in the existing plethora of differently renormalized mixing matrices. Moreover, we show how our generalized $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ scheme can be successfully employed to maintain global or local symmetries of the bare Lagrangian after renormalization. Finally, with the help of our generalized $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ approach, we can derive the gauge-independent renormalization-group (RG) equations for mixing matrices. We explicitly demonstrate the theoretical advantages of this method by calculating the one-loop RG runnings of the $`B`$ and $`C`$ matrices in the SM with isosinglet neutrinos.

The paper is organized as follows: after briefly reviewing the basic formalism of mixing matrix renormalization in the OS scheme in Section 2.1, we present in Section 2.2 our gauge-invariant generalized $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ approach to the renormalization of the CKM matrix $`V`$, and extend it in Section 2.3 to the renormalization of the corresponding $`B`$ and $`C`$ mixing matrices in the SM with isosinglet neutrinos. In Section 3, we show how our generalized $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ approach preserves additional global and local symmetries of the theory, which are manifested themselves as sum rules involving neutrino masses and the $`B`$ and $`C`$ matrices. As an immediate application of our considerations, we derive in Section 4 the gauge-independent RGEs of the $`B`$ and $`C`$ mixing matrices. Finally, our conclusions are summarized in Section 5.

## 2 Mixing matrix renormalization

In this section, we will first recall the basic analytic formulas for the wave-function and mass CTs in the OS renormalization scheme within the context of general fermionic theories, such as the SM and its natural extension with isosinglet neutrinos. Then, we will revisit the problem of gauge dependence of the OS-renormalized CKM matrix in the SM, and discuss its connection to scheme dependence within a generalized gauge-invariant $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ scheme of renormalization. Finally, our discussion will be extended to the renormalization of the mixing matrices $`B`$ and $`C`$ that parameterize the neutral- and charged-current interactions in the SM with singlet neutrinos.

### 2.1 OS renormalization scheme

In a theory with a number $`N_f`$ of Dirac fermions, the bare kinetic Lagrangian has the following generic form:

$`_{\mathrm{kin}}`$ $`=`$ $`i\overline{f}_L^0\overline{)}f_L^0+i\overline{f}_R^0\overline{)}f_R^0\overline{f}_L^0M^0f_R^0\overline{f}_R^0M^0f_L^0`$ (2.1)
$`=`$ $`i\overline{f}_LZ_L^{1/2}Z_L^{1/2}\overline{)}f_L+i\overline{f}_RZ_R^{1/2}Z_R^{1/2}\overline{)}f_R\overline{f}_LZ_L^{1/2}(M+\delta M)Z_R^{1/2}f_R`$
$`\overline{f}_RZ_R^{1/2}(M+\delta M)Z_L^{1/2}f_L.`$
In the above, we have employed a matrix notation in the space spanned by the $`N_f`$ fermionic fields, i.e. $`f^T=(f_1,f_2,\mathrm{},f_{N_f})`$. As usual, we adhere the superscript ‘0’ to unrenormalized quantities. In (2.1), the $`N_f\times N_f`$ dimensional matrices $`Z_L^{1/2}`$ and $`Z_R^{1/2}`$ are the wave-function renormalizations for the left- and right-handed fermions, respectively. In addition, $`M^0`$, $`M`$ and $`\delta M`$ are diagonal $`N_f\times N_f`$ dimensional matrices that contain the bare masses, the renormalized masses and their respective counter-terms (CTs).

The most general form of an unrenormalized $`f_jf_i`$ transition amplitude allowed by hermiticity  reads

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ij}(\overline{)}p)=\overline{)}pP_L\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ij}^L(p^2)+\overline{)}pP_R\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ij}^R(p^2)+P_L\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ij}^D(p^2)+P_R\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ji}^D(p^2),$$
(2.2)
supplemented by the constraints

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ij}^L(p^2)=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ji}^L(p^2),\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ij}^R(p^2)=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ji}^R(p^2).$$
(2.3)
In the OS scheme of renormalization, the wave-function and mass CTs are given by 111Here, we have used the symmetry property of the Lagrangian (2.1) under the rephasings, $`Z_{Lij}^{1/2}e^{i\theta _i}Z_{Lij}^{1/2}`$ and $`Z_{Rij}^{1/2}e^{i\theta _i}Z_{Rij}^{1/2}`$, in order to cast $`\delta Z_{ii}^L`$ and $`\delta Z_{ii}^R`$ into a symmetric but fully equivalent form than the one presented in .

$`\delta Z_{ij}^L`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{m_i^2m_j^2}}\left(m_j^2\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ij}^L(m_j^2)+m_im_j\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ij}^R(m_j^2)+m_i\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ij}^D(m_j^2)+m_j\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ji}^D(m_j^2)\right),`$ (2.4)
$`\delta Z_{ij}^R`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{m_i^2m_j^2}}\left(m_im_j\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ij}^L(m_j^2)+m_j^2\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ij}^R(m_j^2)+m_j\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ij}^D(m_j^2)+m_i\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ji}^D(m_j^2)\right),`$ (2.5)
$`\delta Z_{ii}^L`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ii}^L(m_i^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2m_i}}\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ii}^D(m_i^2)\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ii}^D(m_i^2)\right)`$ (2.6)
$`m_i^2\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ii}^L(m_i^2)+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ii}^R(m_i^2)\right)m_i\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ii}^D(m_i^2)+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ii}^D(m_i^2)\right),`$
$`\delta Z_{ii}^R`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ii}^R(m_i^2){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2m_i}}\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ii}^D(m_i^2)\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ii}^D(m_i^2)\right)`$ (2.7)
$`m_i^2\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ii}^L(m_i^2)+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ii}^R(m_i^2)\right)m_i\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ii}^D(m_i^2)+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ii}^D(m_i^2)\right),`$
$`\delta m_i`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m_i\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ii}^L(m_i^2)+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ii}^R(m_i^2)\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ii}^D(m_i^2)+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ii}^D(m_i^2)\right),`$ (2.8)
where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}(p^2)=d\mathrm{\Sigma }(p^2)/dp^2`$ and $`\delta Z^{L,R}`$ are the loop-induced wave-function renormalizations defined through the relation: $`Z_{L,R}^{1/2}=1+\frac{1}{2}\delta Z^{L,R}`$. We should bear in mind that only the dispersive parts of the unrenormalized self-energies enter the renormalization such that the hermiticity property of the local Lagrangian is maintained. In the SM, it is $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ij}^D(p^2)=m_i\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ij}^S(p^2)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ij}^S(p^2)=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ji}^S(p^2)`$, and the formulae (2.4)–(2.8) reduce to those given in . However, we should stress again that these relations are very specific to the SM and do no longer apply to extended theories.

One well-motivated extension of the SM is the one in which the SM field content is augmented by right-handed (isosinglet) neutrinos, thereby admitting the presence of Majorana masses in the Lagrangian . In this case, the fermionic fields satisfy the Majorana constraints: $`f_L^0=(f_R^0)^C`$ and $`f_L=(f_R)^C`$, where the superscript $`C`$ indicates charge conjugation. As a consequence of the Majorana constraints, we obtain the equalities:

$$Z_L^{1/2}=Z_R^{1/2},\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ij}^L(p^2)=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ij}^R(p^2),\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ij}^M(p^2)=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ji}^M(p^2),$$
(2.9)
where we made the identification $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ij}^D(p^2)\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ij}^M(p^2)`$. Substituting (2.9) into (2.4)–(2.8) yields the corresponding wave-function and mass CTs for Majorana fields .

The issue of mixing-matrix renormalization arises whenever one has to deal with the renormalization of a non-trivial rotation matrix that occurs in interactions relating flavour to mass eigenstates. To study this problem, we shall adopt a perturbative framework in which the classical tree-level Ward identities (WIs) are maintained after quantization. As such, one may consider the Background Field Method (BFM)  or the Pinch Technique (PT)  or even possible diagrammatic generalizations of the latter, i.e. the Generalized Pinch Technique (GPT) .

### 2.2 Renormalization of the CKM matrix in the SM

As a prototype example, let us consider the charged-current interaction in the quark sector of the SM. Specifically, we will revisit the renormalization of the CKM matrix elements $`V_{ud}`$ that enter the vertex transition $`W^+(p)d(p_d)u(p_u)`$. Later on, we will generalize our results to the aforementioned SU(2)$`{}_{L}{}^{}`$U(1)Y model with Majorana neutrinos. Within the perturbative approaches mentioned above, the following tree-like WI is satisfied :

$`p^\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ^{W^+\overline{u}d,0}(p,p_u,p_d)+M_W^0\mathrm{\Gamma }^{G^+\overline{u}d,0}(p,p_u,p_d)`$ (2.10)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{g_w^0}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(V_{u^{}d}^0S_{uu^{}}^{1,0}(p_u)P_LV_{ud^{}}^0P_RS_{d^{}d}^{1,0}(p_d)\right),`$
where the summation convention over repeated quark-family indices is implied. In addition, in (2.10) we have defined

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ^{W^+\overline{u}d,0}(p,p_u,p_d)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{0\mu }^{W^+\overline{u}d,0}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{1\mu }^{W^+\overline{u}d}(p,p_u,p_d),`$ (2.11)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{G^+\overline{u}d,0}(p,p_u,p_d)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0^{G^+\overline{u}d,0}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_1^{G^+\overline{u}d}(p,p_u,p_d),`$ (2.12)
$`S_{uu^{}}^{1,0}(p_u)`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{)}p_um_u^0+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{uu^{}}(\overline{)}p_u),`$
$`S_{d^{}d}^{1,0}(p_d)`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{)}p_dm_d^0+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{d^{}d}(\overline{)}p_d),`$ (2.13)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{0\mu }^{W^+\overline{u}d,0}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0^{G^+\overline{u}d,0}`$ are the bare $`W^+\overline{u}d`$\- and $`G^+\overline{u}d`$\- couplings at the tree level, and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{1\mu }^{W^+\overline{u}d}(q,p_u,p_d)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1^{G^+\overline{u}d}(q,p_u,p_d)`$ are the corresponding higher-order unrenormalized one-particle irreducible vertices evaluated within e.g. the PT or the BFM. Similar identifications also apply for the unrenormalized two-point correlation functions $`S_{uu^{}}^0(p_u)`$ and $`S_{d^{}d}^0(p_d)`$.

Following the procedure outlined in , we require that the same tree-level WI (2.10), which involves unrenormalized quantities only, holds exactly true after renormalization. This condition can be successfully enforced within the gauge-independent $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ scheme of renormalization. Nevertheless, in any other favourable scheme of renormalization, the renormalized parameters of the theory will differ from those in the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ scheme by UV-finite constants. The renormalized quantities may be determined in terms of the unrenormalized ones through the relations:

$`g_w^0`$ $`=`$ $`Z_{g_w}g_w,`$
$`M_W^{02}`$ $`=`$ $`M_W^2+\delta M_W^2,`$
$`V^0`$ $`=`$ $`V+\delta V,`$ (2.14)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ^{W^+\overline{u}d}(p,p_u,p_d)`$ $`=`$ $`Z_W^{1/2}Z_{Luu^{}}^{1/2}Z_{Ld^{}d}^{1/2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ^{W^+\overline{u}^{}d^{},0}(p,p_u,p_d),`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{G^+\overline{u}d}(p,p_u,p_d)`$ $`=`$ $`Z_{G^+}^{1/2}Z_{uu^{}}^{1/2}Z_{d^{}d}^{1/2}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{G^+\overline{u}^{}d^{},0}(p,p_u,p_d),`$ (2.15)
$`S_{q_iq_j}^1(p_q)`$ $`=`$ $`Z_{q_iq_k}^{1/2}S_{q_kq_l}^{1,0}(p_q)Z_{q_lq_j}^{1/2},(\mathrm{with}q=u,d),`$ (2.16)
where $`Z_{q_iq_j}^{1/2}=Z_{Lq_iq_j}^{1/2}P_L+Z_{Rq_iq_j}^{1/2}P_R`$ and $`\delta V`$ stands for the mixing-matrix renormalization of the CKM matrix $`V`$. In (2.2), we required that $`W^+\overline{u}d`$\- and $`G^+\overline{u}d`$\- couplings be UV finite after the external wave-function CTs for the $`W`$-boson, the would-be Goldstone boson $`G^+`$, and the $`u`$\- and $`d`$-type quarks have been properly taken into account.

Since our main interest is to compute the UV divergent part of the $`W^+\overline{u}d`$ vertex in the presence of flavour mixing and so determine the UV-divergent structure of the mixing-matrix CT $`\delta V`$, we shall therefore focus our attention only on the chirally-projected WI (2.10) related to the expression $`P_R\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ^{W^+\overline{u}d,0}P_L`$. In particular, we have

$`Z_W^{1/2}Z_L^{u,1/2}P_R\left(p^\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ^{W^+\overline{u}d,0}+M_W^{02}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{G^+\overline{u}d,0}\right)P_LZ_L^{d,1/2}`$ (2.17)
$`=Z_W^{1/2}Z_{g_w}{\displaystyle \frac{g_w}{\sqrt{2}}}Z_L^{u,1/2}P_R\left(S^{1,0}(p_u)V^0V^0S^{1,0}(p_d)\right)P_LZ_L^{d,1/2}.`$
To simplify notation in (2.17), we have employed the matrix representation for the quark wave-functions and their inverse propagators, i.e. $`Z_L^{q,1/2}=Z_{Lq_iq_j}^{1/2}`$ and $`S^{1,0}(p_q)=S_{q_iq_j}^{1,0}(p_q)`$, with $`q=u,d`$. Substituting (2.2) and (2.16) into (2.17) gives

$`P_R\left(p^\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ^{W^+\overline{u}d}+Z_W^{1/2}Z_{G^+}^{1/2}M_W^{02}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{G^+\overline{u}d}\right)P_L`$ $`=`$ $`Z_W^{1/2}Z_{g_w}{\displaystyle \frac{g_w}{\sqrt{2}}}`$ (2.18)
$`\times P_R\left(S^1(p_u)Z_L^{u,1/2}V^0Z_L^{d,1/2}Z_L^{u,1/2}V^0Z_L^{d,1/2}S^1(p_d)\right)P_L.`$
The requirement now that the WI (2.18) retains its original form (2.10) where all quantities are replaced by their renormalized ones gives rise to the following consistency conditions:

$`Z_W^{1/2}`$ $`=`$ $`Z_{g_w}^1,Z_{G^+}=Z_W\left(\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}+{\displaystyle \frac{\delta M_W^2}{M_W^2}}\right),`$ (2.19)
$`V`$ $`=`$ $`Z_L^{u,1/2}V^0Z_L^{d,1/2}=Z_L^{u,1/2}V^0Z_L^{d,1/2}.`$ (2.20)
The two equalities in (2.19) are exactly satisfied within the PT and BFM frameworks . The double equality in (2.20) assures the unitarity property of the renormalized mixing matrix $`V`$, i.e. $`V^1=V^+`$. Most importantly, (2.20) determines the analytic structure of the CT $`\delta V`$. Employing the usual decomposition for the wave-function renormalizations, i.e. $`Z_L^{u,1/2}=1+\frac{1}{2}\delta Z^{u,L}`$ and $`Z_L^{d,1/2}=1+\frac{1}{2}\delta Z^{d,L}`$, we arrive at the perturbative and more familiar form for $`\delta V`$ :222Here, we should remark that the analytic results for the wave-function CTs and $`\delta V`$ obtained within the (G)PT or BFM are identical to those derived within the conventional framework of $`R_\xi `$ gauges , with the additional restriction that the gauge-fixing parameters related to the photon and the $`Z`$ boson are equal, i.e. $`\xi _\gamma =\xi _Z`$.

$$\delta V=\frac{1}{4}\left(\delta Z^{u,L}\delta Z^{u,L}\right)V\frac{1}{4}V\left(\delta Z^{d,L}\delta Z^{d,L}\right),$$
(2.21)
where the $`u`$\- and $`d`$\- quark wave-functions have to satisfy the constraining relation

$$\frac{1}{2}\left(\delta Z^{u,L}+\delta Z^{u,L}\right)V=\frac{1}{2}V\left(\delta Z^{d,L}+\delta Z^{d,L}\right).$$
(2.22)
In the absence of flavour mixing, i.e. for $`V=1`$, this last relation simplifies to the known one $`Z^{u,L}=Z^{d,L}`$ .

Several important remarks and observations regarding mixing-matrix renormalization are now in order:

* The UV poles of $`\delta V`$ are entirely specified by the wave-function CTs of the left-handed $`u`$\- and $`d`$\- quarks to all orders in perturbation theory. Moreover, with the definition of $`\delta V`$ in (2.21), $`V`$ is automatically unitary through the order considered.
* The LHS of the WI (2.18) is gauge-independent, when the chirally-projected amplitudes $`P_R\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ^{W^+\overline{u}d}(p,p_u,p_d)P_L`$ and $`P_R\mathrm{\Gamma }^{G^+\overline{u}d}(p,p_u,p_d)P_L`$ are evaluated by setting the external particles on their mass shells. Consequently, the RHS of (2.18) must be gauge-independent as well. This can only happen, if $`V`$ and hence $`\delta V`$ are gauge-independent . For example, unlike in the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ scheme , $`\delta V`$ is $`\xi `$-dependent  in the OS scheme of renormalization. As we will see below in (iii), however, because the gauge-dependent part of $`\delta V`$ is UV finite and has a pure dispersive form, the $`\xi `$-dependent terms of an OS renormalized CKM matrix $`V`$ can always be related to finite gauge-independent constants in a generalized and manifestly gauge-invariant $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ scheme of renormalization.
* There exists an underlying symmetry in the renormalization of $`V^0`$, reflecting the presence of a general intrinsic freedom in redefining mixing matrices at higher orders.333The existence of such a scheme dependence in the renormalization of $`V^0`$ was first pointed out in . The presence of this higher-order scheme arbitrariness in the renormalization of $`V^0`$ may be described as follows. We know that the CKM matrix is the product of two unitary matrices $`U_L^{u,0}`$ and $`U_L^{d,0}`$ relating the weak to mass eigenstates of the left-handed $`u`$\- and $`d`$-type quark fields, respectively, i.e. $`V^0=U_L^{u,0}U_L^{d,0}`$. If we now perform the following perturbative shifts in the left-handed quark wave functions and their mixing-matrix CTs:

$`\delta Z^{u,L}`$ $``$ $`\delta Z^{u,L}+c^u,\delta Z^{d,L}\delta Z^{d,L}+c^d,`$ (2.23)
$`\delta U_L^u`$ $``$ $`\delta U_L^u{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}c^uU_L^u,\delta U_L^d\delta U_L^d+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}U_L^dc^d,`$ (2.24)
where $`c^u`$ and $`c^d`$ are anti-hermitian, gauge-independent UV-finite constant matrices, i.e. $`c^{u,d}=c^{u,d}`$ and $`c^{u,d}=𝒪(\delta Z^{u,L},\delta Z^{d,L})`$, then none of the important key equalities (2.20), (2.21) and (2.22) will change through the order considered. On the basis of the above unitarity symmetry, we may generally define the manifestly gauge-independent CKM matrix CT:

$$\delta V=\delta V^{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}\frac{1}{2}c^uV+\frac{1}{2}Vc^d,$$
(2.25)
where $`\delta V^{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}`$ is the corresponding CT in the gauge-invariant $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ scheme evaluated in (2.21). Evidently, $`\delta V`$ does not give rise to gauge dependences in the computation of physical transition amplitudes, e.g. in the top-decay amplitude $`tW+b`$. However, the UV-finite constants $`c^u`$ and $`c^d`$ introduce a scheme dependence into the renormalization of the CKM matrix $`V^0`$. Thus, all the various schemes of renormalization proposed in the literature , including the OS scheme , may be represented by the gauge-invariant expression (2.25) with appropriate choices for the UV-finite matrices $`c^u`$ and $`c^d`$.

Finally, it is interesting to notice that the number of independent parameters contained in the anti-hermitian matrices $`c^u`$ and $`c^d`$ is exactly equal to the number of group parameters, the so-called mixing angles, that generate the unitary rotations in the left-handed $`u`$\- and $`d`$\- quark flavour space. To elucidate the above point, let us consider the renormalized unitary matrix in the left-handed $`u`$-quark flavour space, $`U_L^u`$. In particular, $`U_L^u`$ can be written as

$$U_L^u(\theta _u^a)=\mathrm{exp}\left(i\theta _u^aT^a\right),$$
(2.26)
where $`\theta _u^a`$ are the group parameters and $`T^a`$ are the associate generators of the U$`(n)`$ flavour group, satisfying the usual Lie-algebra relations: $`[T^a,T^b]=if^{abc}T^c`$, with $`T^a=T^a`$, $`T^0=\mathrm{𝟏}_n`$ and $`f^{0ab}=0`$. If we now shift $`\theta _u^a`$ by a finite higher-order amount $`\delta \theta _u^a`$, then the unitary matrix (2.26) exhibits the following variation:

$`U_L^u(\theta _u^a+\delta \theta _u^a)`$ $`=`$ $`[\mathbf{\hspace{0.17em}1}_n+i(\delta ^{bc}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}f^{bcd}\theta _u^d`$ (2.27)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}f^{bdx}f^{cex}\theta _u^d\theta _u^e+\mathrm{})\delta \theta _u^bT^c]U^u_L(\theta _u^a)+𝒪(\delta \theta _u^{a\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}).`$
In writing the RHS of (2.27), we have employed the Baker-Hausdorff formula for infinitesimal non-Abelian rotations. Comparing (2.27) with (2.24), we immediately recognize that the anti-hermitian matrix $`c^u`$ is given by

$$c^u=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}i\left(\delta ^{ab}\frac{1}{2}f^{abc}\theta _u^c\frac{1}{6}f^{acx}f^{bdx}\theta _u^c\theta _u^d+\mathrm{}\right)\delta \theta _u^aT^b,$$
(2.28)
where the $`\delta \theta _u^a`$’s parameterize the scheme-dependent shifts in the mixing angles $`\theta _u^a`$. Notice that the anti-hermitian matrix $`c^u`$ in (2.28), determined by means of (2.27), preserves the unitarity properties of $`U_L^u`$ by construction. Analogous determinations may also be found for $`c^d`$ and hence for the scheme-dependent part of $`V`$ in (2.25).

### 2.3 Mixing renormalization in the SM with singlet neutrinos

We will now discuss the problem of mixing-matrix renormalization in an SU$`(2)`$U$`(1)_Y`$ theory with a number $`N_G`$ of fermionic doublets and a number $`N_R`$ of right-handed (isosinglet) neutrinos. The interaction Lagrangians of this model which describe the couplings of the $`W^\pm `$, $`Z`$ and Higgs ($`H`$) bosons to the $`N_G`$ charged leptons, $`l_i`$, and $`(N_G+N_R)`$ Majorana neutrinos, $`n_i`$, are given by

$`_W`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_w}{\sqrt{2}}}W_\mu ^{}\overline{l}_iB_{ij}\gamma ^\mu P_Ln_j+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.,`$ (2.29)
$`_Z`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_w}{4c_w}}Z_\mu \overline{n}_i\gamma ^\mu \left(C_{ij}P_LC_{ij}^{}P_R\right)n_j`$ (2.30)
$`_H`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_w}{4M_W}}H\overline{n}_i\left[\left(m_iC_{ij}+m_jC_{ij}^{}\right)P_L+\left(m_iC_{ij}^{}+m_jC_{ij}\right)P_R\right]n_j.`$ (2.31)
Here, we follow the conventions of . In (2.29)–(2.31), $`B`$ and $`C`$ are $`N_G\times (N_G+N_R)`$ and $`(N_G+N_R)\times (N_G+N_R)`$-dimensional mixing matrices, defined as

$`B_{lj}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{N_G}{}}}V_{lk}^lU_{kj}^n,`$ (2.32)
$`C_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{N_G}{}}}U_{ki}^nU_{kj}^n.`$ (2.33)
In (2.32), the $`N_G\times N_G`$ unitary matrix $`V^l`$ occurs in the diagonalization of the charged-lepton mass matrix and relates the weak to the mass eigenstates of the left-handed charged leptons. Correspondingly, the $`(N_G+N_R)\times (N_G+N_R)`$ unitary matrix $`U^n`$ in (2.33) diagonalizes the symmetric neutrino-mass matrix

$$M^n=(\begin{array}{cc}0& m_D\\ m_D^T& m_M\end{array}),$$
(2.34)
through the unitary transformation

$$U^{nT}M^nU^n=\widehat{M}^n=\mathrm{diag}(m_1,m_2,\mathrm{},m_{N_G+N_R}).$$
(2.35)
At this point, we should recall again  that the mixing matrices $`B`$ and $`C`$ obey a number of basic identities which ensure the renormalizability of the theory:

$`{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{N_G+N_R}{}}}B_{lk}B_{l^{}k}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _{ll^{}},`$ (2.36)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{N_G+N_R}{}}}C_{ik}C_{kj}`$ $`=`$ $`C_{ij},`$ (2.37)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{N_G+N_R}{}}}B_{lk}C_{ki}`$ $`=`$ $`B_{li},`$ (2.38)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{N_G}{}}}B_{li}^{}B_{lj}`$ $`=`$ $`C_{ij},`$ (2.39)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{N_G+N_R}{}}}m_kB_{lk}B_{l^{}k}`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (2.40)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{N_G+N_R}{}}}m_kB_{lk}C_{ik}`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (2.41)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{N_G+N_R}{}}}m_kC_{ik}C_{jk}`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (2.42)
The last three relations (2.40)–(2.42) are manifestations of the presence of lepton-number violation in the neutrino sector. Instead, if theory conserves lepton number, these three identities are not necessary. In this case, Majorana neutrinos are either degenerate in pairs forming massive Dirac neutrinos or unpaired giving rise to massless Majorana-Weyl two-component spinors. As a consequence of lepton-number conservation, the mixing matrix elements $`C_{ij}^{}`$ are absent from the $`Zn_in_j`$\- and $`Hn_in_j`$\- couplings in (2.30) and (2.31), so the $`Zn_in_j`$-coupling becomes purely chiral, proportional to the operator $`\overline{n}_i\gamma _\mu P_Ln_j`$.

The renormalization of the mixing matrices $`B`$ and $`C`$ can be carried out in a way very similar to the SM case. Following analogous steps for the one-particle irreducible vertex functions $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{W^{}\overline{l}n_j}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{Z\overline{n}_in_j}`$ in the BFM or PT, we find

$`B`$ $`=`$ $`Z_L^{l,1/2}B^0Z_L^{n,1/2}=Z_L^{l,1/2}B^0Z_L^{n,1/2},`$ (2.43)
$`C`$ $`=`$ $`Z_L^{n,1/2}C^0Z_L^{n,1/2}=Z_L^{n,1/2}C^0Z_L^{n,1/2},`$ (2.44)
where $`Z_L^{l,1/2}`$ and $`Z_L^{n,1/2}`$ are wave-function renormalization matrices for the left-handed charged leptons and Majorana neutrinos, respectively. Equations (2.43) and (2.44) lead perturbatively to the mixing-matrix CTs

$`\delta B`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left(\delta Z^{l,L}\delta Z^{l,L}\right)B{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}B\left(\delta Z^{n,L}\delta Z^{n,L}\right),`$ (2.45)
$`\delta C`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left(\delta Z^{n,L}\delta Z^{n,L}\right)C{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}C\left(\delta Z^{n,L}\delta Z^{n,L}\right).`$ (2.46)
In addition, the following constraining relations are satisfied:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\delta Z^{l,L}+\delta Z^{l,L}\right)B`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}B\left(\delta Z^{n,L}+\delta Z^{n,L}\right),`$ (2.47)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\delta Z^{n,L}+\delta Z^{n,L}\right)C`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}C\left(\delta Z^{n,L}+\delta Z^{n,L}\right).`$ (2.48)
It is important to observe that the renormalized mixing matrices $`B`$ and $`C`$ given in (2.43) and (2.44) as well as the perturbative definitions of the mixing-matrix CTs $`\delta B`$ and $`\delta C`$ by means of (2.45) and (2.46) fully satisfy the identities (2.36)–(2.39). However, the compatibility of $`\delta B`$ and $`\delta C`$ with the remaining identities (2.40)–(2.42) proves more subtle and will be discussed in Section 3.

In the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ scheme, the mixing-matrix CTs $`\delta B`$ and $`\delta C`$ become gauge independent, only after the corresponding gauge-dependent part of the tadpole graphs are included . To further illuminate our procedure, we calculate the Higgs-boson tadpole graph $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^H`$ induced by the $`W^+`$ boson, and the associate would-be Goldstone boson $`G^+`$ and ghost fields $`c^+,\overline{c}^+`$, i.e.

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{(W)}^H(0)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_w}{32\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{M_H^2}{M_W}}\left[\xi _WM_W^2\left(\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}+B_0(0,\xi _WM_W^2,\xi _WM_W^2)\right)\right]`$ (2.49)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{g_w}{16\pi ^2}}(D1)M_W\left[M_W^2\left(\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}+B_0(0,M_W^2,M_W^2)\right)\right],`$
where the one-loop function $`B_0(p^2,m_1^2,m_2^2)`$ is defined in Appendix A. From (2.49) it is easy to see that only the $`M_H^2`$-dependent part of the tadpole depends on $`\xi _W`$ and should be included in the scalar part of the self-energy transitions $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ij}^D`$ (cf. (2.2)). More precisely, the $`M_H^2`$-dependent part of the tadpole graph effectively induces a gauge-dependent shift to the $`H`$-boson VEV $`v`$:

$$\left(\frac{\delta v}{v}\right)^{\xi _W}=\frac{g_w}{2M_W}\frac{(\mathrm{\Gamma }^H)^{\xi _W}}{M_H^2}=\frac{\alpha _w}{16\pi }\xi _W\left(\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}+B_0(0,\xi _WM_W^2,\xi _WM_W^2)\right).$$
(2.50)
Similarly, the $`Z`$-boson loop causes an analogous gauge-dependent shift to $`v`$, i.e.

$$\left(\frac{\delta v}{v}\right)^{\xi _Z}=\frac{g_w}{2M_W}\frac{(\mathrm{\Gamma }^H)^{\xi _Z}}{M_H^2}=\frac{\alpha _w}{32\pi c_w^2}\xi _Z\left(\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}+B_0(0,\xi _ZM_Z^2,\xi _WM_Z^2)\right).$$
(2.51)
Then, the $`\xi `$-dependent VEV shifts (2.50) and (2.51) contribute the following term to the scalar part of the Majorana-neutrino self-energy transitions:

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ij}^{M,\mathrm{tad}}P_L=\left(\frac{\delta v}{v}\right)^{\xi _{W,Z}}\left(m_iC_{ij}+m_jC_{ij}^{}\right)P_L.$$
(2.52)
Note that if neutrinos are Dirac particles, one has just to drop the term proportional to $`C_{ij}^{}`$ on the RHS of (2.52). As we will see more explicitly in the next sections, the tadpole contribution (2.52) plays an instrumental rôle to render the mixing-matrix CTs $`\delta B`$ and $`\delta C`$ gauge independent.

## 3 Neutrino mass-mixing sum rules

As was already mentioned in Section 2, the neutrino mass-mixing sum rules (2.40)–(2.42) are very essential to ensure the renormalizability of the theory. These sum rules are obtained by projecting out the zero texture in the Majorana-neutrino mass matrix (2.34) as follows:

$$\underset{k=1}{\overset{N_G+N_R}{}}m_kU_{lk}^nU_{l^{}k}^n=\left(U^n\widehat{M}^nU^{nT}\right)_{ll^{}}=M_{ll^{}}^n=0,$$
(3.1)
for $`l,l^{}=1,2,\mathrm{},N_G`$. The zero texture is protected by the gauge symmetry of the theory, since the contributing 5-dimensional gauge-invariant operator $`\overline{L}^T\mathrm{\Phi }^T\mathrm{\Phi }L^C`$ is absent from the local renormalizable Lagrangian, where $`L`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ are the lepton and Higgs doublets, respectively. This operator is radiatively generated at the one-  and two-  loop levels and is UV finite. The neutrino mass-mixing sum rule (3.1) is no longer valid, if the theory is extended by one Higgs triplet $`\mathrm{\Delta }_L`$, since the afore-mentioned lepton-number-violating operator can now appear in the tree level Lagrangian through the term $`\overline{L}^T\mathrm{\Delta }_LL^C`$.

In the following, we will show that renormalization of $`U^n`$ does not spoil the basic identity (3.1) in the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ scheme. Within the scheme of renormalization outlined in Section 2, the CT matrix $`\delta U^n`$ of $`U^n`$ is given by

$$\delta U^n=\frac{1}{4}U^n\left(\delta Z^{n,LT}\delta Z^{n,L}\right).$$
(3.2)
Observe that (3.2) may also be derived by setting $`V^l=1`$ in (2.45). In order that the bare and renormalized mixing matrices $`U^{n,0}`$ and $`U^n`$ obey (3.1), one has to show that

$$\left(\delta U^n\widehat{M}^nU^{nT}+U^n\widehat{M}^n\delta U^{nT}+U^n\delta \widehat{M}^nU^{nT}\right)_{ll^{}}=0,$$
(3.3)
namely the corresponding mixing and mass CTs obey also (3.1) up to higher orders of perturbation proportional to $`(\delta U^n)^2`$.

Before offering a proof of (3.3) for the most general case, let us first gain some insight from considering an one-generation model with one right-handed neutrino only. The mass spectrum of this simple model, which essentially resembles the known seesaw scenario , consists of two Majorana neutrinos: a light neutrino $`\nu `$ observed in experiment and a yet-undetected superheavy one $`N`$. Most interestingly, in this model the elements of the bare mixing matrix $`U^{n,0}`$ are entirely determined by the two bare mass eigenvalues, $`m_\nu ^0`$ and $`m_N^0`$, of $`M^{n,0}`$ in (2.34):

$$U_{\nu \nu }^0=\sqrt{\frac{m_N^0}{m_\nu ^0+m_N^0}},U_{\nu N}^0=i\sqrt{\frac{m_\nu ^0}{m_N^0}}U_{\nu \nu }^0,U_{N\nu }^0=U_{\nu N}^0,U_{NN}^0=U_{\nu \nu }^0,$$
(3.4)
where we have dropped the superscript ‘$`n`$’ from $`U^n`$ and have chosen the phase convention in which the elements $`U_{\nu \nu }^0`$ and $`U_{NN}^0`$ are positive. In the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ scheme, the mass, wave-function and mixing CTs are found to be

$`\delta m_\nu `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _w}{16\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{m_\nu m_N}{m_\nu +m_N}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{3m_l^2}{M_W^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_\nu ^2}{M_W^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_\nu m_N}{M_W^2}}\right)C_{\mathrm{UV}},`$
$`\delta m_N`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _w}{16\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{m_\nu m_N}{m_\nu +m_N}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{3m_l^2}{M_W^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_N^2}{M_W^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_\nu m_N}{M_W^2}}\right)C_{\mathrm{UV}},`$ (3.5)
$`\delta Z_{\nu \nu }^L`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _w}{16\pi }}C_{\nu \nu }\left(\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\xi _W+{\displaystyle \frac{\xi _Z}{c_w^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{m_l^2}{M_W^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{m_\nu ^2}{M_W^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{m_\nu m_N}{M_W^2}}\right)C_{\mathrm{UV}},`$
$`\delta Z_{\nu N}^L`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _w}{8\pi }}C_{\nu N}\left(\xi _W+{\displaystyle \frac{\xi _Z}{2c_w^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_l^2}{M_W^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{3m_l^2}{M_W^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_\nu }{m_\nu +m_N}}\right)C_{\mathrm{UV}},`$
$`\delta Z_{N\nu }^L`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _w}{8\pi }}C_{N\nu }\left(\xi _W+{\displaystyle \frac{\xi _Z}{2c_w^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_l^2}{M_W^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{3m_l^2}{M_W^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_N}{m_\nu +m_N}}\right)C_{\mathrm{UV}},`$
$`\delta Z_{NN}^L`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _w}{16\pi }}C_{NN}\left(\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\xi _W+{\displaystyle \frac{\xi _Z}{c_w^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{m_l^2}{M_W^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{m_N^2}{M_W^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{m_\nu m_N}{M_W^2}}\right)C_{\mathrm{UV}},`$ (3.6)
$`\delta U_{\nu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`\delta U_{NN}=U_{\nu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{3\alpha _w}{32\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{m_\nu (m_Nm_\nu )}{(m_\nu +m_N)^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_l^2}{M_W^2}}C_{\mathrm{UV}},`$
$`\delta U_{\nu N}`$ $`=`$ $`\delta U_{N\nu }=U_{\nu N}{\displaystyle \frac{3\alpha _w}{32\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{m_N(m_Nm_\nu )}{(m_\nu +m_N)^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_l^2}{M_W^2}}C_{\mathrm{UV}}.`$ (3.7)
In the above, $`C_{ij}=U_{\nu i}U_{\nu j}^{}`$ according to (2.33) (with $`i,j=\nu ,N`$), $`m_l`$ is the charged-lepton mass, and $`C_{\mathrm{UV}}`$ is an UV constant defined in Appendix A. As was discussed in Section 2, we find that the mass CTs $`\delta m_\nu `$ and $`\delta m_N`$, and the CT matrix $`\delta U^n`$ computed by (3.2) are gauge-independent only after the tadpole contributions are included. Moreover, these CTs satisfy the basic identity (3.3), i.e.

$$\delta m_\nu U_{\nu \nu }^2+\delta m_NU_{\nu N}^2+\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}m_\nu U_{\nu \nu }\delta U_{\nu \nu }+\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}m_NU_{\nu N}\delta U_{\nu N}=0.$$
(3.8)
In the above simple Majorana-neutrino model, it is still possible to follow an alternative approach. Specifically, the same results would have been obtained if we had considered the elements of $`U^{n,0}`$ as functions of $`m_\nu ^0`$ and $`m_N^0`$, i.e. $`U^{n,0}=U^{n,0}(m_\nu ^0,m_N^0)`$. In this case, the mixing-matrix CT $`\delta U^n`$ is calculated as

$$\delta U^n=\delta m_\nu \frac{U^n(m_\nu ,m_N)}{m_\nu }+\delta m_N\frac{U^n(m_\nu ,m_N)}{m_N},$$
(3.9)
and the basic relation (3.8) of the CTs will be satisfied by construction, even within the OS scheme of renormalization. In addition, $`\delta U^n`$ defined in terms of $`\delta m_\nu `$ and $`\delta m_N`$ is gauge-independent . Instead, if we had employed (3.2) to compute $`\delta U^n`$ in the OS scheme, the resulting expression would have naively been gauge-dependent and have violated the CT relation (3.8) by UV finite terms.444This last result was earlier observed in . Nevertheless, even if the mass CTs are evaluated in the OS scheme, we can always restore the validity of the sum rule (3.1), along with the constraining relation (3.3), by redefining $`\delta U^n`$ in a gauge-invariant manner. To be specific, exactly as we did in Section 2, we add a gauge-independent and UV-finite anti-hermitian matrix $`c^n`$ to the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ CTs of $`U^n`$:

$$\delta U^n=\delta U^{n,\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}+\frac{1}{2}c^nU^n,$$
(3.10)
with $`c^n=c^n`$. In agreement with our phase conventions for the matrix elements of $`U^n`$ in (3.4), it is sufficient to assume that the matrix $`c^n`$ takes on the form

$$c^n=(\begin{array}{cc}0& c\\ c& 0\end{array}),$$
(3.11)
where $`c`$ is a real constant. Then, the parameter $`c`$ can be uniquely determined by requiring that the constraining relation (3.8), with the mass CTs $`\delta m_\nu `$ and $`\delta m_N`$ computed in the OS scheme, holds exactly true. In this way, we were able to verify that the so-derived mixing-matrix CTs $`\delta U_{\nu \nu }`$ and $`\delta U_{\nu N}`$ are identical with those obtained by virtue of (3.9).

For the more realistic case, for which the SM contains more than one right-handed neutrino, the unitary matrix $`U^n`$ cannot be entirely expressed in terms of neutrino masses, and the alternative approach based on (3.9) turns out to be not very practical. Instead, one may utilize the more general approach described above, in which anti-hermitian constants $`c^n`$ are added to the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ CT $`\delta U^n`$. Within this generalized framework of the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ scheme, the constraining relations (3.3) reduce the number of independent constants $`c^n`$. The remaining freedom should be fixed by comparing the theoretical predictions for observables involving the undetermined matrix elements of $`U^n`$ with experiment. Here, we should stress again that the anti-hermitian constants $`c^n`$ are only required if the neutrino-mass renormalizations $`\delta m_i`$ are computed by (2.8) in the OS scheme.

Unlike in the OS scheme, in the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ scheme one has to pay the price that the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$-renormalized neutrino masses are not the physical ones, namely the poles of the neutrino propagators. However, as we will now show, all the basic symmetries of the theory, including the one reflected in the sum rule (3.1), are preserved and the addition of anti-hermitian constants $`c^n`$ is no longer needed. In particular, we will provide a general proof of the validity of the constraining relation (3.3) governing the neutrino- mass and mixing CTs in the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ scheme. To this end, we first substitute (3.2) into (3.3)

$`\delta U^n\widehat{M}^nU^{nT}+U^n\widehat{M}^n\delta U^{nT}+U^n\delta \widehat{M}^nU^{nT}|_{ll^{}}`$ (3.12)
$`=`$ $`U^n\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left(\delta Z^{n,LT}\delta Z^{n,L}\right)\widehat{M}^n+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\widehat{M}^n\left(\delta Z^{n,L}\delta Z^{n,L}\right)+\delta \widehat{M}^n\right]U^{nT}|_{ll^{}}`$
$`=`$ $`U^n\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\delta Z^{n,LT}\widehat{M}^n+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\widehat{M}^n\delta Z^{n,L}+\delta \widehat{M}^n\right)U^{nT}|_{ll^{}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}U^n\left[\left(\delta Z^{n,LT}+\delta Z^{n,L}\right)\widehat{M}^n+\widehat{M}^n\left(\delta Z^{n,L}+\delta Z^{n,L}\right)\right]U^{nT}|_{ll^{}}`$
$`=`$ $`U^n\mathrm{\Sigma }^{M,\mathrm{UV}}U^{nT}|_{ll^{}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}U^n\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }^{LT,\mathrm{UV}}\widehat{M}^n+\widehat{M}^n\mathrm{\Sigma }^{L,\mathrm{UV}}\right)U^{nT}|_{ll^{}},`$
where the superscript UV on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^M`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^L`$ indicates their UV divergent parts, and $`l,l^{}=1,2,\mathrm{},N_G`$. In deriving the last step of (3.12), we have used the relations

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{M,\mathrm{UV}}`$ $`=`$ $`\delta \widehat{M}^n+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\widehat{M}^n\delta Z^{n,L}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\delta Z^{n,L}\widehat{M}^n,`$ (3.13)
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{L,\mathrm{UV}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\delta Z^{n,L}+\delta Z^{n,L}\right).`$ (3.14)
These relations may be straightforwardly obtained with the aid of (2.4) and (2.8) (see also (4.8) and (4.9) in ). The first term $`(U^n\mathrm{\Sigma }^{M,\mathrm{UV}}U^{nT})_{ll^{}}`$ on the RHS of the last equality in (3.12) vanishes by itself, as a consequence of the absence of the operators $`\overline{\nu }_{lL}\nu _{l^{}L}^C`$ from the local Lagrangian. The second term vanishes, only if

$$U^n\widehat{M}^n\mathrm{\Sigma }^{L,\mathrm{UV}}U^{nT}|_{ll^{}}=0,$$
(3.15)
or equivalently if

$$U^n\mathrm{\Sigma }^{L,\mathrm{UV}}U^{nT}|_{\alpha l^{}}=0,$$
(3.16)
with $`\alpha =N_G+1,N_G+2,\mathrm{},N_G+N_R`$. Equation (3.16) is derived by inserting the unity, $`U^{nT}U^n=\mathrm{𝟏}_{N_G+N_R}`$, between $`\widehat{M}^n`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{L,\mathrm{UV}}`$ in (3.15), and noticing that $`\left(U^n\widehat{M}^nU^{nT}\right)_{li}=M_{li}^n=m_{Dl\alpha }^{}`$. Employing the analytic expressions for the neutrino self-energies in Appendix A (see also (4.9) below), it is not difficult to show that (3.16) is indeed valid. In fact, the vanishing of $`\left(U^n\mathrm{\Sigma }^{L,\mathrm{UV}}U^{nT}\right)_{\alpha l^{}}`$ results from the absence of the lepton-number-violating kinetic terms $`\overline{\nu }_{lL}i\overline{)}\nu _{\alpha R}^C`$ of dimension 4 from the original Lagrangian in the flavour space. In the SM with right-handed neutrinos, the violation of lepton number occurs softly through the Majorana operators $`\overline{\nu }_{\alpha R}\nu _{\beta R}^C`$ of dimension 3, which is reflected in the neutrino mass-mixing sum rule (3.1). This completes our proof of (3.3).

We end our discussion by remarking that our general approach to the mixing-matrix renormalization may be applied to supersymmetric theories as well, e.g. to the unitary matrix  that diagonalizes the neutralino mass matrix in the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM). In this case, a convenient framework for renormalization that respects supersymmetry is the so-called modified dimensional reduction ($`\overline{\mathrm{DR}}`$) scheme . Alternatively, one may work in the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ scheme and translate the results into the $`\overline{\mathrm{DR}}`$ scheme. As in the Majorana-neutrino case, the particular zero texture in the neutralino mass matrix is protected in the $`\overline{\mathrm{DR}}`$ scheme, but needs be reinforced by adding appropriate anti-hermitian constants to the $`\overline{\mathrm{DR}}`$-renormalized neutralino mixing matrix, if the neutralino masses are renormalized in the OS scheme.

## 4 Renormalization-group equations

As an immediate application of our study in Sections 2 and 3, we derive the gauge-independent RGEs of the mixing matrices $`B`$ and $`C`$ in the SM with right-handed neutrinos. With this aim, we first compute their respective CTs $`\delta B`$ and $`\delta C`$ by means of (2.45) and (2.46) in the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ scheme :

$`\delta B_{li}^{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{l^{}l}{\overset{N_G}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{B_{l^{}i}}{2(m_l^2m_l^{}^2)}}\left[\left(m_l^2+m_l^{}^2\right)\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ll^{}}^{l,L}+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}m_lm_l^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ll^{}}^{l,R}+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\left(m_l\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ll^{}}^{l,D}+m_l^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{l^{}l}^{l,D}\right)\right]^{\mathrm{UV}}`$ (4.1)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{ki}{\overset{N_G+N_R}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{B_{lk}}{2(m_k^2m_i^2)}}\left[\left(m_k^2+m_i^2\right)\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ki}^{n,L}+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}m_km_i\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ki}^{n,R}+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\left(m_k\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ki}^{n,D}+m_i\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ik}^{n,D}\right)\right]^{\mathrm{UV}},`$
$`\delta C_{ij}^{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{ki}{\overset{N_G+N_R}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{C_{kj}}{2(m_i^2m_k^2)}}\left[\left(m_i^2+m_k^2\right)\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ik}^{n,L}+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}m_im_k\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ik}^{n,R}+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\left(m_i\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ik}^{n,D}+m_k\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ki}^{n,D}\right)\right]^{\mathrm{UV}}`$ (4.2)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{kj}{\overset{N_G+N_R}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{C_{ik}}{2(m_k^2m_j^2)}}\left[\left(m_k^2+m_j^2\right)\mathrm{\Sigma }_{kj}^{n,L}+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}m_km_j\mathrm{\Sigma }_{kj}^{n,R}+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\left(m_k\mathrm{\Sigma }_{kj}^{n,D}+m_j\mathrm{\Sigma }_{jk}^{n,D}\right)\right]^{\mathrm{UV}}.`$
Note that the expressions (4.1) and (4.2) pertain to Dirac neutrinos. In case of Majorana neutrinos, these expressions are supplemented by the constraints stated in (2.9), with $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ij}^D`$ replaced by $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ij}^M`$.

From the analytic results presented in Appendix A, it is straightforward to deduce the UV-divergent parts of the self-energy functions occurring in (4.1) and (4.2) in the $`R_\xi `$ gauge. We start listing the UV-divergent parts of the individual self-energy functions for the charged leptons

$`\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ll^{}}^{l,L}\right)^{\mathrm{UV}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _w}{16\pi }}[\delta _{ll^{}}(\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}s_w^2\xi _\gamma +\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}\xi _W+{\displaystyle \frac{(12s_w^2)^2}{c_w^2}}\xi _Z+{\displaystyle \frac{m_l^2}{M_W^2}})`$ (4.3)
$`+B_{li}B_{l^{}i}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{m_i^2}{M_W^2}}]C_{\mathrm{UV}},`$
$`\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ll^{}}^{l,R}\right)^{\mathrm{UV}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _w}{16\pi }}\delta _{ll^{}}\left(\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}s_w^2\xi _\gamma +{\displaystyle \frac{4s_w^4}{c_w^2}}\xi _Z+{\displaystyle \frac{2m_l^2}{M_W^2}}\right)C_{\mathrm{UV}},`$ (4.4)
$`\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ll^{}}^{l,D}\right)^{\mathrm{UV}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _w}{16\pi }}m_l[\delta _{ll^{}}(\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}s_w^2(3+\xi _\gamma ){\displaystyle \frac{2s_w^2(12s_w^2)}{c_w^2}}(3+\xi _Z)+\xi _W+{\displaystyle \frac{\xi _Z}{2c_w^2}})`$ (4.5)
$`+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}B_{li}B_{l^{}i}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{m_i^2}{M_W^2}}]C_{\mathrm{UV}}.`$
Here and in the following, we consider the summation convention over repeated indices in their whole allowed range, unless explicitly stated otherwise. Specifically, charged lepton indices, such as $`l`$ and $`l^{}`$, are summed from 1 to $`N_G`$, and neutrino indices, e.g. $`i,j,k,n`$, from 1 to $`N_G+N_R`$. The divergent pieces of the self-energy functions for Dirac neutrinos are given by

$`\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ij}^{n,L}\right)^{\mathrm{UV}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _w}{16\pi }}\left[C_{ij}\left(\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\xi _W+{\displaystyle \frac{\xi _Z}{c_w^2}}\right)+B_{li}^{}B_{lj}{\displaystyle \frac{m_l^2}{M_W^2}}+C_{ik}C_{kj}{\displaystyle \frac{m_k^2}{M_W^2}}\right]C_{\mathrm{UV}},`$ (4.6)
$`\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ij}^{n,R}\right)^{\mathrm{UV}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _w}{16\pi }}C_{ij}{\displaystyle \frac{m_im_j}{M_W^2}}C_{\mathrm{UV}},`$ (4.7)
$`\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ij}^{n,D}\right)^{\mathrm{UV}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _w}{16\pi }}m_i\left[C_{ij}\left(\xi _W+{\displaystyle \frac{\xi _Z}{2c_w^2}}\right)+\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}B_{li}^{}B_{lj}{\displaystyle \frac{m_l^2}{M_W^2}}\right]C_{\mathrm{UV}}.`$ (4.8)
If the neutrinos are Majorana particles, the UV parts of the self-energy functions then read

$`\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ij}^{n,L}\right)^{\mathrm{UV}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _w}{16\pi }}[C_{ij}(\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\xi _W+{\displaystyle \frac{\xi _Z}{c_w^2}})+B_{li}^{}B_{lj}{\displaystyle \frac{m_l^2}{M_W^2}}+C_{ij}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{m_im_j}{M_W^2}}`$ (4.9)
$`+C_{ik}C_{kj}{\displaystyle \frac{m_k^2}{M_W^2}}]C_{\mathrm{UV}},`$
$`\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ij}^{n,M}\right)^{\mathrm{UV}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _w}{16\pi }}[(m_iC_{ij}+m_jC_{ij}^{})(\xi _W+{\displaystyle \frac{\xi _Z}{2c_w^2}})`$ (4.10)
$`+\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}(m_iB_{li}^{}B_{lj}+m_jB_{li}B_{lj}^{}){\displaystyle \frac{m_l^2}{M_W^2}}]C_{\mathrm{UV}}.`$
The above analytic results of the UV pole structure of the neutrino self-energies reveal that the RG running of the mixing matrices $`B`$ and $`C`$ depends on the nature of neutrinos, namely on whether they are Dirac or Majorana particles. In the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ scheme, the $`\mu `$-dependence of $`B`$ and $`C`$ may be computed by the beta functions $`\beta _B`$ and $`\beta _C`$ as

$$\beta _B=\mu \frac{dB}{d\mu }=\underset{\epsilon 0}{lim}\epsilon g_w\frac{}{g_w}\delta B^{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}},\beta _C=\mu \frac{dC}{d\mu }=\underset{\epsilon 0}{lim}\epsilon g_w\frac{}{g_w}\delta C^{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}},$$
(4.11)
where we have employed the fact that $`\mu dg_w/d\mu =\epsilon g_w+𝒪(g_w^3)`$. With the help of (4.11) and of (4.1) and (4.2), we obtain the following one-loop beta functions for the Dirac neutrinos:

$`\beta _{B_{li}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _w}{16\pi }}\{{\displaystyle \underset{l^{}l}{\overset{N_G}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_l^2+m_l^{}^2}{m_l^{}^2m_l^2}}B_{lk}B_{l^{}k}^{}B_{l^{}i}{\displaystyle \frac{3m_k^2}{M_W^2}}`$ (4.12)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{ki}{\overset{N_G+N_R}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{B_{lk}}{m_k^2m_i^2}}[(m_k^2+m_i^2)(C_{kn}C_{ni}{\displaystyle \frac{m_n^2}{M_W^2}}B_{lk}^{}B_{li}{\displaystyle \frac{3m_l^2}{M_W^2}})`$
$`+\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}C_{ki}{\displaystyle \frac{m_k^2m_i^2}{M_W^2}}]\},`$
$`\beta _{C_{ij}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _w}{16\pi }}\{{\displaystyle \underset{ki}{\overset{N_G+N_R}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{C_{kj}}{m_i^2m_k^2}}[(m_i^2+m_k^2)(C_{in}C_{nk}{\displaystyle \frac{m_n^2}{M_W^2}}B_{li}^{}B_{lk}{\displaystyle \frac{3m_l^2}{M_W^2}})`$ (4.13)
$`+\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}C_{ik}{\displaystyle \frac{m_i^2m_k^2}{M_W^2}}]`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{kj}{\overset{N_G+N_R}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{C_{ik}}{m_k^2m_j^2}}[(m_k^2+m_j^2)(C_{kn}C_{nj}{\displaystyle \frac{m_n^2}{M_W^2}}B_{lk}^{}B_{lj}{\displaystyle \frac{3m_l^2}{M_W^2}})`$
$`+\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}C_{kj}{\displaystyle \frac{m_k^2m_j^2}{M_W^2}}]\}.`$
Correspondingly, the one-loop beta functions for the Majorana neutrinos are given by

$`\beta _{B_{li}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _w}{16\pi }}\{{\displaystyle \underset{l^{}l}{\overset{N_G}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_l^2+m_l^{}^2}{m_l^{}^2m_l^2}}B_{lk}B_{l^{}k}^{}B_{l^{}i}{\displaystyle \frac{3m_k^2}{M_W^2}}`$ (4.14)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{ki}{\overset{N_G+N_R}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{B_{lk}}{m_k^2m_i^2}}[(m_k^2+m_i^2)(C_{ki}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{m_km_i}{M_W^2}}+C_{kn}C_{ni}{\displaystyle \frac{m_n^2}{M_W^2}}B_{lk}^{}B_{li}{\displaystyle \frac{3m_l^2}{M_W^2}})`$
$`+\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}m_km_i(C_{ki}{\displaystyle \frac{m_km_i}{M_W^2}}+C_{kn}^{}C_{ni}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{m_n^2}{M_W^2}}B_{lk}B_{li}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{3m_l^2}{M_W^2}})]\},`$
$`\beta _{C_{ij}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _w}{16\pi }}\{{\displaystyle \underset{ki}{\overset{N_G+N_R}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{C_{kj}}{m_i^2m_k^2}}[(m_i^2+m_k^2)(C_{ik}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{m_im_k}{M_W^2}}+C_{in}C_{nk}{\displaystyle \frac{m_n^2}{M_W^2}}B_{li}^{}B_{lk}{\displaystyle \frac{3m_l^2}{M_W^2}})`$ (4.15)
$`+\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}m_im_k(C_{ik}{\displaystyle \frac{m_im_k}{M_W^2}}+C_{in}^{}C_{nk}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{m_n^2}{M_W^2}}B_{li}B_{lk}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{3m_l^2}{M_W^2}})]`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{kj}{\overset{N_G+N_R}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{C_{ik}}{m_k^2m_j^2}}[(m_k^2+m_j^2)(C_{kj}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{m_km_j}{M_W^2}}+C_{kn}C_{nj}{\displaystyle \frac{m_n^2}{M_W^2}}B_{lk}^{}B_{lj}{\displaystyle \frac{3m_l^2}{M_W^2}})`$
$`+\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}m_km_j(C_{kj}{\displaystyle \frac{m_km_j}{M_W^2}}+C_{kn}^{}C_{nj}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{m_n^2}{M_W^2}}B_{lk}B_{lj}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{3m_l^2}{M_W^2}})]\}.`$
It is worth commenting again on the fact that the beta functions $`\beta _B`$ and $`\beta _C`$ in (4.12)–(4.15) become gauge independent in the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ scheme, only after the gauge-dependent tadpole terms proportional to $`M_H^2`$ have been added to the self-energy functions $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^D`$ (or $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^M`$). To the best of our knowledge, the beta functions $`\beta _B`$ and $`\beta _C`$ represent the most general results pertaining to the one-loop RG-running of the mixing matrices $`B`$ and $`C`$ in the existing literature of the SM with isosinglet neutrinos. However, we should remark that the derived RGEs for $`\beta _B`$ and $`\beta _C`$ are only valid for energies larger than the heaviest neutrino mass. We have not considered the threshold effects due to the decoupling  of the heavy neutrinos, as these effects highly depend on the particular low-energy structure of the model  and will therefore be studied elsewhere.

## 5 Conclusions

We have revisited the problem of gauge dependence that occurs in the renormalization of mixing matrices, within the context of two generic frameworks: (i) the quark sector of the SM and (ii) the leptonic sector of the SM with isosinglet neutrinos. Although we confirmed the earlier observations  that an on-shell renormalized mixing matrix contains gauge-dependent terms, we have observed, however, that these terms are UV finite and have a pure dispersive form. Because of this last fact, we have found that these naive gauge-dependent terms can always be absorbed into the definition of a manifestly gauge-invariant, but physically equivalent, mixing matrix, where the latter is evaluated within a generalized $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ scheme of renormalization. This generalized scheme of renormalization is obtained by adding gauge-independent anti-hermitian constants to a gauge-invariant, $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$-renormalized mixing matrix (cf. (2.25) and (3.10)). In this way, the different renormalization schemes proposed in the literature , including the OS scheme , may be described for appropriate choices of the anti-hermitian constants.

Our generalized $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ approach to the renormalization of mixing matrices may also be conveniently applied to maintain fundamental global or local symmetries of the unrenormalized Lagrangian. For instance, our approach may be utilized to protect the texture-zero structure of the Majorana-neutrino mass matrix (2.34) or similar constrained structures of predictive neutrino-mass models. Even though such additional symmetries are automatically preserved in the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ scheme, they become distorted by UV-finite terms and so need be reinforced, if the renormalized masses are evaluated within other renormalization schemes, such as the frequently adopted OS scheme. Most importantly, our approach of mixing-matrix renormalization may be applied to supersymmetric theories as well. In this case, the corresponding generalized $`\overline{\mathrm{DR}}`$ approach may be used to renormalize the mixing matrices that occur in the chargino and neutralino sectors , as well as in the squark and Higgs scalar sectors  of the MSSM.

As a byproduct of our study, we have derived in Section 4 the gauge-independent RGEs for the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$-renormalized mixing matrices in the SM with isosinglet neutrinos. The so-derived RGEs are valid for energies that are higher than the mass of the heaviest of the heavy neutrinos. We have not taken into account the decoupling effects due to heavy neutrino thresholds, since they crucially depend on the low-energy structure of the model. However, they prove important to properly describe the RG-running of the observed neutrino masses and the neutrino-oscillation angles at lower energies. We plan to return to this phenomenologically interesting topic in the near future.

## Appendix A Neutral and charged lepton self-energies

Here, we present analytic expressions for the neutrino and charged-lepton self-energies in the renormalizable $`R_\xi `$ gauge. The Feynman diagrams that contribute to the neutrino self-energies are shown in Fig. 1(a)–(d), while the corresponding graphs giving rise to charged-lepton self-energies are displayed in Fig. 1(e)–(g). Our analytic results are expressed in terms of the usual Pasarino–Veltman one-loop functions :

$$\{B_0;B_\mu \}(p^2,m_1^2,m_2^2)=(2\pi \mu )^{4D}\frac{d^Dk}{i\pi ^2}\frac{\{1;k_\mu \}}{(k^2m_1^2)[(k+p)^2m_2^2]},$$
(A.1)
where the Minkowski space is extended to $`D=42\epsilon `$ dimensions and $`\mu `$ is the so-called ’t-Hooft mass scale. Also, we adopt the frequently-used 4-dimensional convention for the Minkowskian metric $`g^{\mu \nu }`$: $`g^{\mu \nu }=\mathrm{diag}(1,1,1,1)`$. The one-loop functions $`B_0`$ and $`B_\mu `$, defined in (A.1), are given by

$`B_0(p^2,m_1^2,m_2^2)`$ $`=`$ $`C_{\mathrm{UV}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_1m_2}{\mu ^2}}\right)+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{p^2}}[(m_2^2m_1^2)\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_1}{m_2}}\right)`$ (A.2)
$`+\lambda ^{1/2}(p^2,m_1^2,m_2^2)\mathrm{cosh}^1\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_1^2+m_2^2p^2}{2m_1m_2}}\right)],`$
$`B_\mu (p^2,m_1^2,m_2^2)`$ $`=`$ $`p_\mu B_1(p^2,m_1^2,m_2^2),`$ (A.3)
with $`C_{\mathrm{UV}}=\frac{1}{\epsilon }\gamma _E+\mathrm{ln}4\pi `$, $`\lambda (x,y,z)=(xyz)^24yz`$ and

$$B_1(p^2,m_1^2,m_2^2)=\frac{m_2^2m_1^2}{2p^2}\left(B_0(p^2,m_1^2,m_2^2)B_0(0,m_1^2,m_2^2)\right)\frac{1}{2}B_0(p^2,m_1^2,m_2^2).$$
(A.4)
The one-loop function $`B_0(p^2,m_1^2,m_2^2)`$ evaluated at $`p^2=0`$ simplifies to

$$B_0(0,m_1^2,m_2^2)=C_{\mathrm{UV}}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{m_1m_2}{\mu ^2}\right)+\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}1}+\frac{m_1^2+m_2^2}{m_1^2m_2^2}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{m_2}{m_1}\right).$$
(A.5)
From this last expression, a useful identity relating the arguments of the $`B_0`$-function at $`p^2=0`$ may easily be derived

$$B_0(0,m_1^2,m_2^2)=\frac{m_1^2}{m_1^2m_2^2}B_0(0,m_1^2,m_1^2)\frac{m_2^2}{m_1^2m_2^2}B_0(0,m_2^2,m_2^2)+1.$$
(A.6)
Equation (A.6) may be successfully employed to check the gauge independence of physical quantities.

We first derive analytic expressions for the case of Dirac singlet neutrinos. In the $`R_\xi `$ gauge, these are given by

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ij}^{n,L}(p^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _w}{8\pi }}\{B_{li}^{}B_{lj}[\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}B_1(p^2,m_l^2,M_W^2)+B_0(p^2,m_l^2,M_W^2)+\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}1}`$ (A.7)
$`\xi _WB_0(p^2,m_l^2,\xi _WM_W^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{p^2m_l^2}{M_W^2}}\left(B_1(p^2,M_W^2,m_l^2)B_1(p^2,\xi _WM_W^2,m_l^2)\right)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{m_l^2}{M_W^2}}B_1(p^2,m_l^2,\xi _WM_W^2)]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2c_w^2}}C_{ki}^{}C_{kj}[\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}B_1(p^2,m_k^2,M_Z^2)+B_0(p^2,m_k^2,M_Z^2)+\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}1}`$
$`\xi _ZB_0(p^2,m_k^2,\xi _ZM_Z^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{p^2m_k^2}{M_Z^2}}\left(B_1(p^2,M_Z^2,m_k^2)B_1(p^2,\xi _ZM_Z^2,m_k^2)\right)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{m_k^2}{M_Z^2}}(B_1(p^2,m_k^2,\xi _ZM_Z^2)+B_1(p^2,m_k^2,M_H^2))]\},`$
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ij}^{n,R}(p^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _w}{8\pi }}[B_{li}^{}B_{lj}{\displaystyle \frac{m_im_j}{M_W^2}}B_1(p^2,m_l^2,\xi _WM_W^2)`$ (A.8)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2c_w^2}}C_{ki}^{}C_{kj}{\displaystyle \frac{m_im_j}{M_Z^2}}(B_1(p^2,m_k^2,\xi _ZM_Z^2)+B_1(p^2,m_k^2,M_H^2))],`$
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ij}^{n,D}(p^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _w}{8\pi }}m_i\{B_{li}^{}B_{lj}{\displaystyle \frac{m_l^2}{M_W^2}}B_0(p^2,m_l^2,\xi _WM_W^2)`$ (A.9)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2c_w^2}}C_{ki}^{}C_{kj}{\displaystyle \frac{m_k^2}{M_Z^2}}\left(B_0(p^2,m_k^2,\xi _ZM_Z^2)B_0(p^2,m_k^2,M_H^2)\right)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}C_{ij}[\xi _W(1+B_0(0,\xi _WM_W^2,\xi _WM_W^2))`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2c_w^2}}\xi _Z(1+B_0(0,\xi _ZM_Z^2,\xi _ZM_Z^2))]\}.`$
Note that in (A.9) the $`p^2`$-independent terms represent the $`\xi `$-dependent part of the tadpole contributions. These contributions are crucial, as they restore the gauge independence in the RG-running of neutrino masses and mixing angles.

Next, we present analytic expressions for Majorana-neutrino self-energies in the $`R_\xi `$ gauge:

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ij}^{n,L}(p^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _w}{8\pi }}\{B_{li}^{}B_{lj}[\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}B_1(p^2,m_l^2,M_W^2)+B_0(p^2,m_l^2,M_W^2)+\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}1}`$ (A.10)
$`\xi _WB_0(p^2,m_l^2,\xi _WM_W^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{p^2m_l^2}{M_W^2}}\left(B_1(p^2,M_W^2,m_l^2)B_1(p^2,\xi _WM_W^2,m_l^2)\right)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{m_l^2}{M_W^2}}B_1(p^2,m_l^2,\xi _WM_W^2)]+B_{li}B^{}_{lj}{\displaystyle \frac{m_im_j}{M_W^2}}B_1(p^2,m_l^2,\xi _WM_W^2)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2c_w^2}}C_{ki}^{}C_{kj}[\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}B_1(p^2,m_k^2,M_Z^2)+B_0(p^2,m_k^2,M_Z^2)+\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}1}`$
$`\xi _ZB_0(p^2,m_k^2,\xi _ZM_Z^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{p^2m_k^2}{M_Z^2}}(B_1(p^2,M_Z^2,m_k^2)B_1(p^2,\xi _ZM_Z^2,m_k^2))]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2c_w^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{M_Z^2}}\left(m_iC_{ki}+m_kC_{ki}^{}\right)\left(m_kC_{kj}+m_jC_{kj}^{}\right)`$
$`\times (B_1(p^2,m_k^2,\xi _ZM_Z^2)+B_1(p^2,m_k^2,M_H^2))\},`$
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ij}^{n,M}(p^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _w}{8\pi }}\{{\displaystyle \frac{m_l^2}{M_W^2}}(m_iB_{li}^{}B_{lj}+m_jB_{li}B_{lj}^{})B_0(p^2,m_l^2,\xi _WM_W^2)`$ (A.11)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2c_w^2}}[m_kC_{ki}C_{kj}(3B_0(p^2,m_k^2,M_Z^2)\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}+\xi _ZB_0(p^2,m_k^2,\xi _ZM_Z^2))`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{m_k}{M_Z^2}}\left(m_iC_{ki}^{}+m_kC_{ki}\right)\left(m_kC_{kj}+m_jC_{kj}^{}\right)`$
$`\times (B_0(p^2,m_k^2,\xi _ZM_Z^2)B_0(p^2,m_k^2,M_H^2))]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(m_iC_{ij}+m_jC_{ij}^{})[\xi _W(1+B_0(0,\xi _WM_W^2,\xi _WM_W^2))`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2c_w^2}}\xi _Z(1+B_0(0,\xi _ZM_Z^2,\xi _ZM_Z^2))]\}.`$
Likewise, we included in (A.11) the $`\xi `$-dependent part of the tadpole contributions.

Finally, for completeness, we give the charged-lepton transition amplitudes for $`l^{}l`$:

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ll^{}}^{l,L}(p^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _w}{8\pi }}\{2s_w^2\delta _{ll^{}}[\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}B_1(p^2,m_l^2,\mu _\gamma ^2)+B_0(p^2,m_l^2,\mu _\gamma ^2)+\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}1}`$ (A.12)
$`\xi _\gamma B_0(p^2,m_l^2,\xi _\gamma \mu _\gamma ^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{p^2m_l^2}{\mu _\gamma ^2}}(B_1(p^2,\mu _\gamma ^2,m_l^2)B_1(p^2,\xi _\gamma \mu _\gamma ^2,m_l^2))]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{(12s_w^2)^2}{2c_w^2}}\delta _{ll^{}}[2B_1(p^2,m_l^2,M_Z^2)+B_0(p^2,m_l^2,M_Z^2)+\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}1}`$
$`\xi _ZB_0(p^2,m_l^2,\xi _ZM_Z^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{p^2m_l^2}{M_Z^2}}(B_1(p^2,M_Z^2,m_l^2)B_1(p^2,\xi _ZM_Z^2,m_l^2))]`$
$`+\delta _{ll^{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2c_w^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_l^2}{M_Z^2}}\left(B_1(p^2,m_l^2,\xi _ZM_Z^2)+B_1(p^2,m_l^2,M_H^2)\right)`$
$`+B_{li}B_{l^{}i}^{}[\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}B_1(p^2,m_i^2,M_W^2)+B_0(p^2,m_i^2,M_W^2)+\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}1}`$
$`\xi _WB_0(p^2,m_i^2,\xi _WM_W^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{p^2m_i^2}{M_W^2}}\left(B_1(p^2,M_W^2,m_i^2)B_1(p^2,\xi _WM_W^2,m_i^2)\right)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{m_i^2}{M_W^2}}B_1(p^2,m_i^2,\xi _WM_W^2)]\},`$
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ll^{}}^{l,R}(p^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _w}{8\pi }}\{2s_w^2\delta _{ll^{}}[\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}B_1(p^2,m_l^2,\mu _\gamma ^2)+B_0(p^2,m_l^2,\mu _\gamma ^2)+\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}1}`$ (A.13)
$`\xi _\gamma B_0(p^2,m_l^2,\xi _\gamma \mu _\gamma ^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{p^2m_l^2}{\mu _\gamma ^2}}(B_1(p^2,\mu _\gamma ^2,m_l^2)B_1(p^2,\xi _\gamma \mu _\gamma ^2,m_l^2))]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{2s_w^4}{c_w^2}}\delta _{ll^{}}[2B_1(p^2,m_l^2,M_Z^2)+B_0(p^2,m_l^2,M_Z^2)+\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}1}`$
$`\xi _ZB_0(p^2,m_l^2,\xi _ZM_Z^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{p^2m_l^2}{M_Z^2}}(B_1(p^2,M_Z^2,m_l^2)B_1(p^2,\xi _ZM_Z^2,m_l^2))]`$
$`+\delta _{ll^{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2c_w^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_l^2}{M_Z^2}}\left(B_1(p^2,m_l^2,\xi _ZM_Z^2)+B_1(p^2,m_l^2,M_H^2)\right)`$
$`+B_{li}B_{l^{}i}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{m_lm_l^{}}{M_W^2}}B_1(p^2,m_i^2,\xi _WM_W^2)\},`$
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ll^{}}^{l,D}(p^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _w}{8\pi }}m_l\{2s_w^2\delta _{ll^{}}(3B_0(p^2,m_l^2,\mu _\gamma ^2)\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}+\xi _\gamma B_0(p^2,m_l^2,\xi _\gamma \mu _\gamma ^2))`$ (A.14)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{s_w^2(12s_w^2)}{c_w^2}}\delta _{ll^{}}\left(3B_0(p^2,m_l^2,M_Z^2)\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}+\xi _ZB_0(p^2,m_l^2,\xi _ZM_Z^2)\right)`$
$`+\delta _{ll^{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2c_w^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_l^2}{M_Z^2}}\left(B_0(p^2,m_l^2,\xi _ZM_Z^2)B_0(p^2,m_l^2,M_H^2)\right)`$
$`+B_{li}B_{l^{}i}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{m_i^2}{M_W^2}}B_0(p^2,m_i^2,\xi _WM_W^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\delta _{ll^{}}[\xi _W(1+B_0(0,\xi _WM_W^2,\xi _WM_W^2))`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2c_w^2}}\xi _Z(1+B_0(0,\xi _ZM_Z^2,\xi _ZM_Z^2))]\}.`$
Apart from the $`\xi `$-dependent part of the Higgs tadpoles included in (A.14), (A.12)–(A.14) agree well with those presented in .


format: text

text:
# Comparative study between two quantum spin systems KCuCl3 and TlCuCl3

11institutetext:  S.N. Bose National Centre for Basic Sciences, JD Block, Sector 3, Salt Lake City, Kolkata 700098, India.
Fakultät 7, Theoretische Physik, University of the Saarland, 66041 Saarbrücken, Germany.

Quantized spin models Exchange and superexchange interactions Electron density of states and band structure of crystalline solids

## Abstract

We have performed an ab initio study of the electronic structure of two isostructural quantum spin systems, KCuCl3 and TlCuCl3, which have recently attracted much attention due to their unconventional magnetic properties. Our first-principles analysis shows unambiguously the role of Tl, as opposed to structural differences between the two compounds, in making TlCuCl3 a strongly coupled s=$`\frac{1}{2}`$ dimer system compared to KCuCl3 which shows a weakly coupled s=$`\frac{1}{2}`$ dimer behavior. Good agreement with the existing analysis of inelastic neutron scattering results has been observed.

Introduction.- The behavior of low-dimensional quantum spin systems is dominated by zero-point spin fluctuations. As a consequence, they show a variety of interesting magnetic properties which are not present in their classical counterparts. In the last years a great amount of effort, both theoretically and experimentally, has been dedicated to the study of these quantum spin systems. An important example of such systems are materials having a singlet ground state with a finite energy gap in the spin excitation spectra like even-leg ladder compounds, s= $`\frac{1}{2}`$ alternating chain compounds , spin-Peierls  or spin-dimer compounds . In particular, the family of coupled spin-dimer systems ACuCl3 (A = K, Tl) is being currently intensively studied in connection to its magnetic properties. KCuCl3 has a spin excitation gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ $``$ 2.6 meV and the analysis of inelastic neutron scattering (INS) data indicate that this system is a spin-dimer system with weak three-dimensional interdimer couplings. TlCuCl3, though being isostructural to KCuCl3, has a spin excitation gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ $``$ 0.65meV about four times smaller than that of KCuCl3 and a saturation field twice as large as that for KCuCl3. Accordingly, the behavior of this system has been proposed to be that of a three-dimensional strongly coupled spin-dimer system. The small size of the spin gap makes these compounds very suitable for studying the effects of the application of an external magnetic field on the quantum properties of the system. Recently , magnetic field-induced Néel ordering has been observed in TlCuCl3 for magnetic fields $`H`$ higher than the gap field $`H_g`$ = $`\mathrm{\Delta }/g\mu _B`$ $``$ 6 T and has been interpreted as a Bose-Einstein condensation of excited triplets (magnons) . New nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) investigations have also shown that this phase transition is accompanied by changes in the crystal lattice parameters, what is an indication of an important spin-phonon coupling in this material. The observation of field-induced phase transition has been also reported in KCuCl3 for a magnetic field $`H>H_g`$ $``$ 22 T . Magnetization measurements were also performed in the mixed spin system (Tl1-xKx)CuCl3 where the $`x`$ substitution creates bond randomness in the system and the field-induced phase transition was studied as a function of the K concentration. Motivated by the great amount of exotic phenomena observed in these materials, we have carried out first principles study of the electronic properties of these systems in order to give a microscopic foundation to their behavior and analyze the similarities and differences between the two systems.

Crystal Structure.- Both KCuCl3 and TlCuCl3 crystallize in the monoclinic $`P2_1/c`$ space group with four formula units per unit cell. The lattice parameters for KCuCl3 are given by $`a=4.029\AA `$, $`b=13.785\AA `$, $`c=8.736\AA `$ and $`\beta =97.20^o`$, while those for TlCuCl3 are $`a=3.982\AA `$, $`b=14.144\AA `$, $`c=8.890\AA `$ and $`\beta =96.32^o`$. Therefore, compared to KCuCl3, the TlCuCl3 lattice is somewhat compressed along the $`a`$-axis and enlarged in the $`bc`$ plane. The degree of monoclinicity also varies by some extent. Both structures are formed by edge-sharing CuCl6 octahedra which build zig-zag chains running along the $`a`$-axis (fig. 1). These chains are located at the corners and center of the unit cell in the $`bc`$ plane. K+/Tl+ ions are distributed in between these chains. The CuCl6 octahedra are highly distorted due to the Jahn-Teller active Cu2+ ion with large elongation along one direction resulting into nearly planar Cu2Cl6 dimer clusters which are the basic unities in the structure (marked with the box in fig. 1).

Band Structure.- In panels (a) and (b) of fig. 2 we show the band-structures of KCuCl3 and TlCuCl3 along various symmetry directions. First-principles Density Functional Theory (DFT) calculations have been carried out within the framework of the state-of-art full-potential linearized augmented plane wave (LAPW) method and the linearized muffin tin orbital (LMTO) method based on the local-density-approximation (LDA). The band-structures obtained by the two methods are in overall agreement with each other. The predominant features of the band structure are the complex of four narrow bands close to the Fermi level formed by Cu d$`_{x^2y^2}`$ orbitals (in the local frame of reference) contributed by each Cu atom in the unit cell, admixed with Cl p-states. These bands are half-filled and the insulating groundstate observed in these compounds should be explained by the effect of strong correlations which are not fully considered in the LDA approximation. This set of bands is separated from the low-lying valence bands by a gap of about 0.3 to 0.5 eV  and from the high-lying excited bands, which are dominated by states from the K/Tl atoms, by another gap of about 3 eV. Concentrating on the low-energy bands close to the Fermi-level, we see that the bands are dispersive along all the symmetry directions suggesting the compounds to be three-dimensionally coupled systems in agreement with the findings of INS measurements . Since the dispersion behavior is similar between KCuCl3 and TlCuCl3, the predominant interaction pathways should be alike for both compounds. The total bandwidth of the four-band complex close to the Fermi level is somewhat larger for TlCuCl3 ($``$ 0.5 eV) compared to that of KCuCl3 ($``$ 0.4 eV) suggesting the intradimer coupling to be stronger in TlCuCl3 than in KCuCl3. We also observe here that the bands in TlCuCl3 are in general more dispersive than in KCuCl3 what indicates larger interdimer interactions in TlCuCl3 compared to KCuCl3 .

This change in the strength of the intra- and interdimer couplings between the two compounds could be caused by (i) the changes in the structural parameters between the two compounds or by (ii) the role of the Tl+ ion compared to that of the K+ ion. In order to have an understanding of which of these effects determines predominantly the behavior of these systems, we have carried out model calculations of KCuCl3 by considering the structural parameters of the Tl-compound and viceversa, we computed TlCuCl3 by considering the structural parameters of the K-compound. The corresponding band structures are shown in panels (c) and (d) of fig. 2. As we see, changing the lattice parameters has a minor effect on the band structure (compare fig. 2(a) and fig. 2(c)) while substituting K+ by Tl+ in the same lattice has a significant effect making the band dispersions comparable to that of the Tl-compound. This exercise already points unambiguously to the role of the Tl+ ion in enhancing the strength of the coupling as compared to that of changes in the structural parameters. In the next section we will make this analysis more quantitative in terms of various hopping integrals.

Low-energy Hamiltonians: Hopping integrals.- We have used the LMTO-based downfolding method, which has been proposed, implemented and applied to a number of cases in recent years, in order to obtain the low-energy effective Hamiltonians that describe the behavior of a system. This method of deriving the low-energy Hamiltonians by integrating out (downfolding) the high energy degrees of freedom results in Hamiltonians defined in the basis of effective orbitals. The process takes into account the proper effective contribution from the orbitals that are being downfolded. For the present compounds, we have derived the low-energy Hamiltonians defined in the basis of effective Cu d$`_{x^2y^2}`$ orbitals, by keeping only the d$`_{x^2y^2}`$ orbital for each Cu atom in the unit cell and integrating out all the rest. The Fourier transform of this few-orbital downfolded Hamiltonian provides the various hopping integrals, $`t_{ij}`$, between these effective orbitals and the corresponding tight-binding (TB) Hamiltonian can be written as $`H=_{(i,j)}t_{ij}(c_i^{}c_j+h.c.)`$ where $`i`$ and $`j`$ denote a pair of Cu2+ ions. These hopping integrals thus, form the first-principles set of parameters obtained without any fitting procedure containing the fingerprint of the pathways involved in the hopping processes.

Table I shows the various hopping integrals for KCuCl3, TlCuCl3 and the two model compounds KCuCl3 considering the lattice parameters of TlCuCl3 and TlCuCl3 in the lattice of KCuCl3. The various hopping pathways are marked in fig. 1. The hoppings are named according to the various magnetic couplings shown in fig. 1 of ref.  i.e. $`t(lmn)`$ ($`t^{}(lmn)`$) denote the hopping parameters between two equivalent (nonequivalent) sites (in terms of the corresponding spins for magnetic interaction) in dimers separated by a lattice vector $`\stackrel{}{r}=la\widehat{x}+mb\widehat{y}+nc\widehat{z}`$. In Table I we also show the magnetic couplings obtained in various references by fitting the experimental INS data.

Although, due to the complexity of the exchange pathways, there are no simple relationships connecting the hopping and magnetic exchange integrals, the relative strength of the hopping parameters in the K- and Tl-compound can be easily noticed to be in good qualitative agreement with the relative strength shown by the magnetic exchange parameters.

Considering first the intradimer coupling, the distortion in the nearest neighbor Cu-Cl-Cu dimer bond (see the marked box in fig. 1) from 90o towards a linear bonding of 180o angle increases the importance of the antiferromagnetic (AF) coupling over the ferromagnetic (FM) coupling. The Cu-Cl-Cu bond angles in these compounds are $``$ 96o which is larger than 94o, the upper bound angle given in the edge-shared cuprates for a possible ferromagnetic coupling, thereby providing the intradimer exchange coupling J of AF nature. Considering the superexchange mechanism to be the effective mechanism of exchange in the dimer, and therefore relating the magnetic exchange integral J with the hopping integral $`t`$ through J=$`4t^2/U`$ where $`U`$ is the effective on-site Coulomb repulsion, we observe that the ratio t$`{}_{kcucl_3}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$/t$`{}_{tlcucl_3}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$ $``$ 0.75 obtained from the ab initio analysis compares very well with the ratio of J’s obtained by fitting the INS data, 0.76 in ref.  and 0.79 in ref. .

Focusing now on the interdimer interactions, note that the values of the hopping matrix elements in TlCuCl3 are larger than those for KCuCl3, thus concluding that TlCuCl3 will be a strongly coupled dimer system compared to KCuCl3 which can be characterized as a weakly coupled dimer system in agreement with the conclusions drawn from INS data and already conjectured from band dispersions. Quantitatively, the largest enhancement of the interdimer coupling between TlCuCl3 and KCuCl3 occurs for neighboring dimers in the (1,0,-2) plane, i.e. $`(lmn)=(\mathrm{2\; 0\; 1})`$. The other dominant interdimer hoppings are $`t(\mathrm{1\; 1}/\mathrm{2\; 1}/2)`$ and $`t(11/\mathrm{2\; 1}/2)`$, the last one being significantly enhanced in the TlCuCl3 system compared to that of KCuCl3. The LDA band dispersions of the four-band complex are reproduced reasonably well by considering the intradimer hopping matrix element and the following interdimer hoppings $`t^{^{}}(\mathrm{2\; 0\; 1})`$ and $`t(\mathrm{1\; 1}/\mathrm{2\; 1}/2)`$ for KCuCl3 and the additional hopping of $`t(11/\mathrm{2\; 1}/2)`$ for TlCuCl3.

The analysis of the two model calculations (panel (c) and (d) of fig. 2) shows the evident role of the Tl+ ion in enhancing the hopping matrix elements between the Cu2+ ions. Comparing the 2nd and 5th column of Table I, the hopping matrix elements turn out to be similar between KCuCl3 and the model system KCuCl3 in the lattice of TlCuCl3, while keeping the lattice parameters fixed and substituting K by Tl, the hoppings are affected significantly (4th column) with larger intra- and interdimer hoppings 111Considering the model calculation of TlCuCl3 in the lattice of KCuCl3, the lattice shrinks along the $`b`$axis and expands along the $`a`$axis (by a factor 8 smaller than the shrinkage along the $`b`$axis) which is a distorsion similar to the recently observed changes in the crystal lattice when the system undergoes a phase transition to a Néel state induced by the application of an external magnetic field. Although the relative change in the $`b`$parameter for this model calculation is much larger than that reported for the field-induced transition, this study may provide indications of the changes in the couplings caused by this strain effect. . In order to quantify the action of Tl+, we show in fig. 3 the Tl and K partial density of states (PDOS) in TlCuCl3 and KCuCl3 respectively. As one sees, the contribution of Tl in the four narrow low energy bands is much larger compared to that of K which implies larger hybridization of Tl with the Cu d$`_{x^2y^2}`$ orbitals in TlCuCl3 compared to that of K in KCuCl3. This relatively large hybridization effect from the Tl atoms situated in between the double chains can be understood in terms of the proximity of the Cu d$`_{x^2y^2}`$ and the Tl 6$`s`$, 6$`p`$ energy states as well as the extended nature of these orbitals in comparison to K 4$`s`$. This behavior leads to a strongly coupled network of Cu-dimers in TlCuCl3, while KCuCl3 behaves as a collection of Cu-dimers weakly interacting in three-dimensions. This description is also supported by electron density analysis of the LDA results. Interestingly, this conclusion is opposite to the case of CaV2O5 and MgV2O5 where the subtlety in structural differences turn out to be responsible for the differences in the behavior of the two systems.

Conclusions.- We have presented a comparative ab initio study of the electronic properties of KCuCl3 and TlCuCl3, two isostructural quantum spin systems which have been the subject of recent interest due to their unconventional magnetic properties. It has been the purpose of this study: (i) to obtain a microscopic description of the properties of these systems and its comparison with the behavior predicted from INS. (ii) to understand the microscopic origin of the different behavior between these two compounds.

By means of the downfolding-TB analysis which reduces the information provided by LDA to an effective low-energy Hamiltonian in tight-binding basis, we could succesfully corroborate the coupled dimer behavior predicted for these systems by INS. In agreement with the predictions from the INS data analysis, we found in KCuCl3 the interdimer couplings to be weak, while TlCuCl3 manifests itself as a strongly coupled dimer system. We also showed that the origin of the differences in the interdimer coupling between the two systems is related to the relative contribution of Tl compared to that of K to the chemical bonding between two Cu2+ ions. Our study is also indicative of possible changes thay may occur in the coupling constants due to lattice changes caused by strain effects.

###### Acknowledgements.

We acknowledge useful discussions with Peter Lemmens and H. Tanaka and R.V. thanks the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft for finantial support through a Heisenberg fellowship.

FIGURE CAPTIONS

1. Structure of KCuCl3 (TlCuCl3). Small black and white atoms represent Cu and Cl respectively while the large gray atoms represent K(Tl). The middle double chain is shifted with respect to other two double chains along $`b`$direction by half a lattice constant. Various hoppings are marked (see text for details).

2. Band structure of KCuCl3 (panel (a)), TlCuCl3 (panel (b)), KCuCl3 in the lattice of TlCuCl3 (panel(c)) and TlCuCl3 in the lattice of KCuCl3 (panel(d)) along the symmetry directions $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ = (0 0 0), B=(-$`\pi `$,0,0), D=(-$`\pi `$,0,$`\pi `$), Z=(0,0,$`\pi `$), $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, Y=(0,$`\pi `$,0), A = (-$`\pi `$,$`\pi `$,0), E=(-$`\pi `$,$`\pi `$,$`\pi `$).

3. Tl(solid) and K(dotted) contributions to the density of states of TlCuCl3 and KCuCl3 respectively.

TABLE CAPTIONS

I. Hopping integrals obtained from our ab initio analysis for TlCuCl3, KCuCl3 and the two model systems considered in the text and magnetic interactions from ref.  and ref.  for TlCuCl3 and KCuCl3. The negative sign denotes a ferromagnetic coupling.


text:
# Diffractive Higgs boson production at the Tevatron and LHC

## Abstract

Improved possibilities to find the Higgs boson in diffractive events, having less hadronic activity, depend on whether the cross section is large enough. Based on the soft color interaction models that successfully describe diffractive hard scattering at HERA and the Tevatron, we find that only a few diffractive Higgs events may be produced at the Tevatron, but we predict a substantial rate at the LHC.

preprint: TSL/ISV-2002-0263

The Higgs boson is predicted as the physical manifestation of the mechanism giving masses to the fundamental particles in the Standard Model. The discovery of this missing link is of top priority in particle physics. Based on the discovery IS ; UA8  of diffractive hard scattering processes StCroix  it has been considered whether the Higgs can be more easily observed in diffractive events at high energy hadron colliders. The lower hadronic activity in such events with large rapidity gaps should improve the possibilities to reconstruct the Higgs from its decay products.

In single diffraction a beam hadron emerges quasi-elastically scattered with a large fraction of the original momentum and separated by a gap in polar angle (pseudorapidity $`\eta =\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{tan}\theta /2`$) from a produced hadronic system $`X`$. Particularly clean events are produced in so-called double pomeron exchange (DPE), where both beam hadrons emerge intact separated by rapidity gaps from a centrally produced $`X`$-system. An extreme possibility is exclusive Higgs production, $`p\overline{p}p\overline{p}H`$, where the central system is just a Higgs boson that may be reconstructed using a missing mass method Albrow . The crucial question for the usefulness of these diffractive Higgs production processes is whether their cross sections are large enough.

Predicted cross sections vary by orders of magnitude between calculations based on different models diffr-Higgs-papers . Some predictions for the Fermilab Tevatron are large enough to be of experimental interest, whereas others are not. The more limited energy, compared to LHC, implies a stronger kinematical suppression to produce the heavy Higgs boson in such an $`X`$-system, having only a fraction of the overall invariant mass of the collision. In this Letter we improve on this theoretical uncertainty by presenting results on diffractive Higgs production based on the recently developed soft color interaction models. In contrast to other models used for estimating the diffractive Higgs cross section, our models have proven very successful in reproducing experimental data on diffractive hard scattering processes both from the DESY $`ep`$ collider HERA and from $`p\overline{p}`$ collisions at the Tevatron SCI-TEV . This puts us in a good position to give predictions on diffractive Higgs production.

The soft color interaction (SCI) model SCI  and the generalized area law (GAL) model GAL  were developed in an attempt to better understand non-perturbative QCD dynamics and provide a unified description of all final states. The basic assumption is that soft color exchanges give variations in the topology of the confining color string-fields which then hadronize into different final states, e.g. with and without rapidity gaps or leading protons. Also other kinds of experimental results are described in a very economical way with only one new parameter. Particularly noteworthy is the turning of a $`c\overline{c}`$ pair in a color octet state into a singlet state producing charmonium charmonium  in good agreement with observed rates.

The SCI model SCI  is implemented in the Lund Monte Carlo programs lepto Lepto  for deep inelastic scattering and pythia Pythia  for hadron-hadron collisions. The hard parton level interactions are given by standard perturbative matrix elements and parton showers, which are not altered by the softer non-perturbative effects. The SCI model then applies an explicit mechanism where color-anticolor (corresponding to non-perturbative gluons) can be exchanged between the emerging partons and hadron remnants. The probability for such an exchange cannot be calculated and is therefore taken to be a constant given by a phenomenological parameter $`P`$. These color exchanges modify the color connections between the partons and thereby the color string-field topology, resulting in different final states after the standard Lund model lund  has been applied for hadronization (Fig. 1).

The GAL model GAL  is similar in spirit, but is formulated in terms of interactions between the strings and not the partons. Soft color exchanges between strings also change the color topology resulting in another string configuration (Fig. 1). A generalization of the area law suppression $`e^{bA}`$ in the Lund model gives the probability for two strings to interact as $`P=P_0[1\mathrm{exp}(b\mathrm{\Delta }A)]`$ depending on the resulting change $`\mathrm{\Delta }A`$ of the areas swept out by the strings in momentum space. The exponential factor favors making “shorter” strings, e.g., events with gaps, whereas making ‘longer’ strings is suppressed. The fixed probability for soft color exchange in SCI is thus in GAL replaced by a dynamically varying one.

The Monte Carlo implementations of SCI and GAL generate complete events with final state particles. This allows an experimental approach to classify events depending on the final state: e.g., gaps or no-gaps, leading (anti)protons, charmonium etc. Thus, one obtains predictive models where a single parameter ($`P`$ and $`P_0`$), regulating the amount of soft color exchanges, has a universal value determined from HERA rapidity gap data.

The SCI and GAL models give various diffractive hard scattering processes by simply choosing different hard scattering subprocesses in pythia. Rapidity gap events containing a $`W`$, a dijet system or bottom quarks are found to be in agreement with Tevatron data SCI-TEV . The CDF data CDF-DPE  on dijets in DPE events are also reproduced SCI-TEV ; SCI-DIS2002 , both in cross section and more exclusive quantities such as the dijet mass fraction. Thus, our models successfully pass these tests given by processes with similar dynamics as diffractive Higgs production.

The properties of the Higgs boson in the Standard Model are fixed, except for its mass. The present lower limit is 114.1 GeV and $`\chi ^2`$ fits to electroweak data favors $`m_H<212`$ GeV Higgslimit . The latest LEP data give an indication ($`2.1\sigma `$) of a Higgs with a mass of 115.6 GeV Higgsevidence . We therefore use $`m_H=115`$ GeV as our main alternative, but also consider $`m_H`$ up to 200 GeV.

Higgs production at the Tevatron and the LHC can proceed through many subprocesses, which are included in pythia version 6 Pythia . The dominant one is $`ggH`$, which accounts for 50% and 70% of the cross section (for $`115<m_H<200`$ GeV) at the Tevatron and LHC, respectively. In this process, see Fig. 1, the gluons couple to a quark loop with dominant contribution from top due to its large coupling to the Higgs. Other production channels are $`q_i\overline{q}_iH`$, $`q_i\overline{q}_iZH`$, $`q_i\overline{q}_jWH`$, $`q_iq_jq_kq_lH`$ and $`ggq_k\overline{q}_kH`$. Their relative contributions depend both on the Higgs mass and the cms energy. The overall cross sections are obtained by folding the subprocess cross sections with the parton density distributions (we use CTEQ5L CTEQ ). This basic factorization is proven for inclusive hard scattering processes. It is assumed to also hold in our model since the soft hadronization processes should not influence the cross section for the hard subprocess, but only affect the distribution of hadrons in the final state.

After the standard parton showers in pythia, SCI or GAL is applied using the parameter values $`P`$=0.5 and $`P_0`$=0.1, respectively. This gives a total sample of Higgs events, with varying hadronic final states. Single diffractive (SD) Higgs events are selected using one of two criteria: (1) a leading (anti)proton with $`x_F>0.9`$ or (2) a rapidity gap in $`2.4<|\eta |<5.9`$ as used by the CDF collaboration. Applying the conditions in both hemispheres results in a sample of DPE Higgs events. The resulting cross sections and relative rates are shown in Fig. 2 as a function of the Higgs mass and for $`m_H=115`$ GeV in Table 1. The results have an uncertainty of about a factor two related to details of the hadron remnant treatment and choice of parton density parameterization.

The cross sections at the Tevatron are quite low in view of the luminosity to be achieved in Run II. Higgs in DPE events are far below an observable rate. For $`m_H=115`$ GeV, only tens of single diffractive Higgs events are predicted. Only the most abundant decay channel, $`Hb\overline{b}`$, can then be of use and a very efficient $`b`$-quark tagging and Higgs reconstruction is required. The conclusion for the Tevatron is that the advantage of a simplified reconstruction of the Higgs in the cleaner diffractive events is not really usable in practice due to a too small number of diffractive Higgs events being produced.

In contrast, the high energy and luminosity available at the LHC facilitate a study of single diffractive Higgs production, where also the striking $`H\gamma \gamma `$ decay should be observed. Also a few DPE Higgs events may be observed. The quality of a diffractive event changes, however, at LHC energies. Besides the production of a hard subsystem and one or two leading protons, the energy is still enough for populating forward detector rapidity regions with particles. As seen in Fig. 3, the multiplicity of particles is considerably higher at the LHC, compared to the Tevatron. The requirement of a “clean” diffractive Higgs event with a large rapidity gap in an observable region cannot be achieved without paying the price of a lower cross section. Requiring gaps instead of leading protons gives a substantial reduction in the cross section, as seen in Table 1. Note that the high luminosity mode of LHC cannot be used, since the resulting pile-up of events would destroy the rapidity gaps.

The Monte Carlo model does not include any specific mechanism for the exclusive reaction $`ppppH`$ and our simulations did not produce any such events.

For comparison we have also investigated single diffractive Higgs production in the pomeron model. This is based on the Regge framework with the exchange of a Pomeron with vacuum quantum numbers GoulianosReview , given by an effective pomeron flux IS . In case of a hard scattering process, which resolves an underlying parton level process, a parton structure of the Pomeron may be considered IS  and the data on diffractive deep inelastic scattering from HERA can be well described by fitting parton density functions in the Pomeron HERA-pomeron . Applying exactly the same model for $`p\overline{p}`$ gives, however, diffractive hard scattering cross sections that are up to two orders of magnitude larger than what is observed at the Tevatron. Although this can be cured by appropriately modified pomeron flux functions, it may indicate a deeper non-universality problem of the pomeron model SCI-TEV .

To get numerical estimates we use the pomeron model implemented in the pompyt Monte Carlo Pompyt . The parton densities in the Pomeron are from a fit (parameterization I in GSpomeron ) to the diffractive structure function measured at HERA. The pomeron flux DLpomeron  has been renormalized fluxrenorm  so as to reproduce the observed relative rates of diffractive hard scattering processes both at HERA and the Tevatron.

The pomeron model is constructed to give a leading proton with a spectrum essentially as $`1/(1x_F)`$. It is developed for situations where $`x_F1`$ dominates and usually taken to be trustworthy only for $`x_F>0.9`$. As shown in Fig. 4, however, this distribution is strongly distorted in this case due to the kinematical condition imposed by the Higgs mass. At the Tevatron energy, the cross section is dominated by smaller $`x_F`$. This makes the results of the model sensitive to a phase space region where the pomeron model cannot be safely applied. In particular, the diffractive Higgs cross section will depend on whether the usual requirement $`x_F>0.9`$ is applied or not. The resulting cross section also depends strongly on what conditions for diffraction are applied. The requirement at the Tevatron experiments of no particles in the rapidity region $`2.4<|\eta |<5.9`$ imposes a very strong reduction. If the gap can be in a more forward rapidity region, based on extended detector coverage, a much larger rate of diffractive Higgs is obtained as illustrated in Fig. 4. Similar, but not as strong effects are also present at LHC energies.

In view of this, predictions for the diffractive Higgs cross section will be somewhat uncertain in the pomeron model. To give some numbers, nevertheless, we use criterion (1) with a leading proton with $`x_F>0.9`$, but no specific gap requirement. This gives a cross section of $`2.8\text{fb}`$ for single diffractive Higgs production at the Tevatron and $`410\text{fb}`$ at the LHC. This includes reduction factors of 5.2 and 9.2, respectively, from the pomeron flux renormalization fluxrenorm  making HERA and Tevatron data compatible but leaving an extrapolation uncertainty for the LHC energy.

In contrast to the pomeron model, the SCI and GAL models are constructed to describe different final states through a general mechanism for soft color exchanges giving a smooth transition between diffractive and non-diffractive events. This implies a better stability with respect to variations of the conditions used to define diffractive events. Moreover, the energy dependence of SCI and GAL has proven successful. Data on various diffractive hard scattering processes at HERA and Tevatron are well reproduced. The soft color exchange models should, therefore, give more reliable predictions.

In conclusion, we have investigated the prospects for discovering the Higgs boson in diffractive events having a lower hadronic background activity that should simplify the reconstruction of the Higgs from its decay products. We find that the rate of diffractive Higgs events at the Tevatron will be too low to be useful. Therefore, the Higgs must here be searched for in normal events with their larger hadronic activity. At LHC diffractive events are not as clean as expected, since the large available energy produces an increased hadronic activity. Still, LHC should facilitate studies of Higgs in single diffraction and the observation of some DPE events with a Higgs boson.