text:
# Electrorotation in graded colloidal suspensions

## I Introduction

AC electrokinetic phenomena, i.e., electrorotation, dielectrophoresis and traveling wave dielectrophoresis, have gained an increasing amount of attention during the past decade. This is due to their wide range of applications from cancer research to identifying and separating parasites, cell populations and viruses Dalton et al. (2001); Jun Yang et al. (2000), and even to design of nanomotors Hughes (2000, 2002). Despite the number of applications, there is a need for a theory that treats the different aspects of electrokinetic phenomena on an equal footing starting from the general underlying physical principles Chan et al. (1997).

In this article we concentrate on electrorotation. Electrorotation (ER) is a phenomenon in which an interaction between a rotating ac electric field Arnold and Zimmermann (1982); Pastushenko et al. (1985); Gimsa et al. (1996) and suspended dielectric particles leads to a rotational motion of the particles. This phenomenon was first observed experimentally over four decades ago Teixera-Pinto et al. (1960) and during the last two decades, ER has been increasingly employed as a sensitive tool for non-invasive studies of a broad variety of microparticles, ranging from living cells to spores, seeds as well as synthetic materials Arnold and Zimmermann (1982); Fuhr et al. (1996); Yang et al. (1999); Becker et al. (1995); Chan et al. (2000); Huang and Yu (2002).

In electrorotation, a rotating ac electric field induces a dipole moment inside a polarizable particle which rotates at the angular frequency of the external field. If the frequency of the field increases, the period of the rotating field becomes comparable to the time scale related to the formation of a dipole. To minimize its energy, the dipole tries to line up with the field but at high frequencies the particle is no longer able to follow the field. This leads to a lag in its response and a torque is induced by the interaction of the out-of-phase part of the induced dipole moment and the external field. The torque and, in turn, the rotating speed are proportional to the imaginary part of the dipole factor (also called Clausius-Mossotti factor). In addition, the rotating speed of a particle is inversely proportional to the dynamic viscosity, since the particle is suspended in a viscous medium and experiences a dissipative drag force.

Different models have been suggested and used for analyzing experimental results, see e.g. Refs. Chan et al. (1997); Gimsa (2001) and references therein. The most commonly used ones are the so-called shell models. This approach was first used by Fricke already in 1925 Fricke (1925). A model for a biological cell consisting of a single spherical dielectric shell was introduced by Arnold and Zimmermann in 1982 to investigate the rotation of a mesophyll protoplast Arnold and Zimmermann (1982). Four years later, a two-layer model consisting of two spherical shells is put forth to discuss the electrorotation of a single plant cell Fuhr and Kuzmin (1986). Due to the inhomogeneous compartmentalization of cells, three-shell models have been used to investigate ER of liposomes Chan et al. (1997).

These inhomogeneities can be studied in the framework of graded materials, i.e., materials with spatial gradients in their structure. Biomaterials such as cells and bones are typical examples as their composition varies through the object. Gradations can also be used to control and improve the strength and other properties, for a recent review see Ref. Suresh (2001). In biological and medical applications identification and separation of graded objects in micron scale (and below) is of great importance. In these situations gradation is generic due to inhomogeneous compartments of cells, the cytoplasm often contains organelles or vacuoles. These inhomogeneities are reflected in their dielectric properties. Since differences and changes in the dielectric properties are intimately related to physical and chemical properties of cells (as well as other objects), electrorotation and other electrokinetic phenomena allow identification of particles and detection of compositional changes.

As far as one decade ago, Freyria et al. observed a graded cell response when they experimentally study cell-implant interactions Freyria et al. (1991). Recently, motivated by positional information of protein molecules, Honda and Mochizuki performed computer simulations of cell pattern formation showing that graded cells can be generated by cell behavior involving differences in intercellular repulsion Honda and Mochizuki (2002). To discuss such graded cells, the above-mentioned multi-shell models fail to apply. It is thus necessary to develop a new theory to study the effective properties of graded composite materials under externally applied fields. In a recent work Yu et al. (2002), we succeeded in deriving the dipole factor after putting forth a differential effective dipole approximation (DEDA). In this work, we generalize DEDA to non-spherical particles and apply it to investigate the ER spectrum of graded particles in an attempt to investigate their dielectric behavior. Finally, to demonstrate the validity of our model, we fit our theory to experimental data Reichle et al. (2000) and find good agreement.

## II Formalism

We consider an inhomogeneous biological cell or a particle of radius $`a`$ with complex dielectric constant profile $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_1(r)`$, embedded in a host fluid of dielectric constant $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_2`$. Here $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}=ϵ+\sigma /(2\pi if)`$, where $`ϵ`$ denotes real part of the dielectric constant, $`\sigma `$ stands for conductivity, $`f`$ is the frequency of an external field, and $`i=\sqrt{1}`$. The dipole factor reflects the polarization of a particle in surrounding medium.

In a recent work Yu et al. (2002), we derived the dipole factor for spherical particles by introducing a differential effective dipole approximation (DEDA). The idea of DEDA can be summarized as follows: Consider a shell model for an inhomogeneous particle. In DEDA one adds new shells of infinitesimal thickness to the particle under consideration. Each of these cells have distance dependent dielectric constant. As the thickness of the layer approaches zero, i.e., $`\mathrm{d}r0`$, then the correction to the dipole factor due to it is infinitesimal and one can obtain a differential equation for it – hence the name differential effective dipole approximation. Next we extend DEDA to the general case of graded spheroidal particles. Then, we study the effect of different conductivity and dielectric profiles to the electrorotation spectrum, and finally compare the theory to experiments.

We first consider a homogeneous dielectric spheroid in a uniform electric field. The spheroidal inclusion has a dielectric constant $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_1`$ and it is embedded in a host medium of dielectric constant $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_2`$. A spheroidal particle can be parametrized by $`x^2+y^2+(z/h)^2=r^2`$ and the dielectric profile for the graded particle is given by $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}(r)`$, where $`0<ra^{}`$ and $`h`$ is the aspect ratio and $`a^{}`$ is the length of the semi principle axis along $`x(y)`$ axis. It is worth noting that $`h>1`$ denotes a prolate spheroid, whereas $`h<1`$ indicates an oblate one. We assume that the longest axis of the spheroid is along the $`z`$axis with the depolarization factor $`L_z`$, satisfying a sum rule $`L_z+2L_{xy}=1`$ where $`L_{x(y)}`$ is the depolarization factor along $`x(y)`$axis. For a homogeneous spheroid, the dipole factor along $`z`$axis $`b_z`$ is given by

$$b_z=\frac{1}{3}\frac{\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_1\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_2}{\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_2+L_z(\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_1\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_2)},$$
(1)
which measures the degree of polarization for a particle in an external field. Next, we add a confocal spheroidal shell of dielectric constant $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}`$ to the spheroidal particle to make a coated spheroid. Then, the dipole factor of the coated spheroid is Sheng (1980); Gao et al. (2000)

$$b_{1z}=\frac{1}{3}\frac{(\stackrel{~}{ϵ}\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_2)+3x_1\rho [\stackrel{~}{ϵ}+L_z(\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_2\stackrel{~}{ϵ})]}{[\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_2+L_z(\stackrel{~}{ϵ}\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_2)]+3x_1\rho L_z(1L_z)(\stackrel{~}{ϵ}\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_2)},$$
(2)
where $`\rho `$ is the volume ratio of the core with respect to the whole spheroid, and

$$x_1=\frac{1}{3}\frac{\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_1\stackrel{~}{ϵ}}{\stackrel{~}{ϵ}+L_z(\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_1\stackrel{~}{ϵ})}.$$

This approach can be extended to more shells of different dielectric constants, at the expense of obtaining more complicated expressions. It is easy to check that $`b_{1z}`$ (Eq. (2)) reduces to $`b_z`$ (Eq. (1)) when $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}=\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_1`$. Thus, the dipole factor remains unchanged if one adds a spheroidal shell of the same dielectric constant.

Next, we consider an inhomogeneous spheroid with the dielectric profile $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}(r)`$. To establish DEDA, we mimic the graded profile by a multi-shell construction by building up a dielectric profile by gradually adding shells. We start with an infinitesimal spheroidal core of dielectric constant $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}(0)`$ and continue to add confocal spheroidal shells of dielectric constant $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}(r)`$ until $`r=a^{}`$ is reached. At $`r`$, we have an inhomogeneous spheroid. To establish a functional form, we replace the inhomogeneous spheroid by a homogeneous spheroid of the same dipole factor, and the graded profile is replaced by an effective dielectric constant $`\overline{ϵ}(r)`$. Thus, Eq. (1) becomes

$$b_z(r)=\frac{1}{3}\frac{\overline{ϵ}(r)\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_2}{\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_2+L_z(\overline{ϵ}(r)\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_2)}.$$
(3)
Next, we add a confocal spheroidal shell of infinitesimal thickness $`\mathrm{d}r`$, and dielectric constant $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}(r)`$. The dipole factor will change according to Eq.(2). The effective dielectric constant $`\overline{ϵ}(r)`$, being related to $`b_z(r)`$, will also change. To see this, let us write $`b_{1z}=b_z+\mathrm{d}b_z`$ and take the limit $`\mathrm{d}r0`$. We obtain a differential equation:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}b_z}{\mathrm{d}r}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_2\stackrel{~}{ϵ}(r)}}\left[\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_2(1+3b_zL_{1z})(13L_zb_z)\stackrel{~}{ϵ}(r)\right]`$ (4)
$`\left[\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_2L_z(1+3b_zL_{1z})+L_{1z}(13b_zL_z)\stackrel{~}{ϵ}(r)\right],`$
where $`L_{1z}=1L_z`$. The dipole factor of a graded spheroidal particle can be calculated by solving the above differential equation with a given gradation profile $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}(r)`$. This nonlinear first-order differential equation can be integrated, at least numerically, if we are given a profile for $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}(r)`$ and an initial condition for $`b_z(r=0)`$. It is worth noting that the dipole factor is a tensorial quantity and the dipole factor along $`x(y)`$ axis $`b_{x(y)}`$ can be obtained by changing $`L_z`$ to $`L_{x(y)}`$ in the equation above. It is important to note that substituting $`L_z=1/3`$ into this equation yields the DEDA equation for spherical graded particles Yu et al. (2002),

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}b}{\mathrm{d}r}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3r\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_2\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_1(r)}}\left[(1+2b)\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_2(1b)\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_1(r)\right]`$ (5)
$`\left[(1+2b)\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_2+2(1b)\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_1(r)\right],`$
where $`0<ra`$, and $`a`$ is the radius of the spherical particle. This is the expression we will use in our studies of the effect of conductivity and dielectric profiles on the ER spectrum.

The dipole factor of a graded spherical particle can be calculated by solving the above nonlinear first-order differential equation (Eq. (5)) with a given profile $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_1(r)`$ and the initial condition

$$b(r=0)=\frac{\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_1(0)\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_2}{\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_1(0)+2\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_2}.$$
(6)
If we apply a rotating field to the system, a torque between induced dipole moment inside the cell and the electric field vector will set the cell in a rotational motion. It is well known that the frequency-dependent rotation speed $`\mathrm{\Omega }(f)`$ is proportional to the imaginary part of the dipole factor $`\mathrm{Im}[b(r=a)]`$. The rotation speed is given by

$$\mathrm{\Omega }(f)=\frac{ϵ_2E_0^2}{2\eta }\mathrm{Im}[b(r=a)],$$
(7)
where $`E_0`$ is the magnitude of the rotating field and $`\eta `$ the viscosity of the host fluid. Hence, when $`b(r=a)`$ is solved by integrating Eq. (5), we can investigate the electrorotation spectrum.

In order to perform numerical calculations, we take the conductivity and dielectric profiles to be

$`\sigma _1(r)`$ $`=`$ $`\sigma _1(0)(r/a)^n,ra`$
$`ϵ_1(r)`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ_1(0)+c(r/a),ra`$
where $`n`$ and $`c`$ are profile dependent constants. The profile is quite physical in the sense that the conductivity can change rapidly near the boundary of cell and a power-law profile prevails. The profile constant $`n`$ can take any positive values and it can be larger than unity. From the above equations it is clear that the conductivity is largest at the boundary. This is the case in real systems as well, since the outermost shell (e.g. cell wall) of a cell is always conductive and often has the largest conductivity. On the other hand, the dielectric constant may vary only slightly and thus a linear profile suffices. In particular, the dielectric constant at the center, i.e., $`ϵ_1(0)`$, may be larger than that at the boundary. Thus, we will choose $`c0`$. By integrating the dielectric profile, we obtain an average dielectric constant $`ϵ_{av}`$ for different values of $`c`$ by using a volume average:

$$ϵ_1{}_{}{}^{av}=\frac{_0^aϵ_1(r)r^2dr}{_0^ar^2dr}.$$
(8)
For the present dielectric profile, we obtain $`ϵ_1{}_{}{}^{av}=ϵ_1(0)+3c/4`$.

## III Numerical results

We are now in a position to perform numerical calculations. We set $`\sigma _1(0)=2.8\times 10^2`$ S/m, $`ϵ_1(0)=75ϵ_0`$, $`ϵ_2=80ϵ_0`$, $`\sigma _2=2.8\times 10^4`$ S/m for all of the computations. Parameter $`ϵ_0`$ denotes the dielectric constant of vacuum. Here, the numerical results and the comparison to experimental data is limited to spherical cells only since we were not able to find appropriate experimental data describing non-spherical cells. For the numerical computations, we used the fourth-order Runge-Kutta algorithm with step size $`h=0.01`$ to solve the above nonlinear first-order differential equation (Eq. (5)). It was verified that this step size guarantees accurate numerics.

In Fig. 1, the ER spectrum is investigated for various indices $`n`$ with profile parameters $`c=0`$ and $`c=30ϵ_0`$. This corresponds to $`ϵ_1{}_{}{}^{av}=75ϵ_0`$ and $`52.5ϵ_0`$ calculated using Eq. (8), respectively. Figure 1 shows that the rotation peak is always present. It is important to note that the characteristic frequency at which the rotation speed reaches its maximum may be red-shifted, especially at large $`n`$ (e.g. $`n=5`$) in comparison with small $`n`$. Thus, the conclusion is that large fluctuations in conductivity of graded particles may lead to a red-shift of the characteristic frequency.

In Fig. 2, ER spectrum is investigated for $`n=0`$ and $`n=1`$, using various slopes $`c`$. We use $`c=0`$, $`c=30ϵ_0`$ and $`c=60ϵ_0`$ corresponding to $`ϵ_1{}_{}{}^{av}=75ϵ_0`$, $`52.5ϵ_0`$ and $`30ϵ_0`$, respectively. From the figure, it is evident that large spatial fluctuations in the dielectric constant may enhance the rotation peak.

From Figs. 1 and 2, we find that spatial conductivity fluctuations are able to make the characteristic frequency red-shifted and have a clear effect on the rotation peak. In contrast, spatial dielectric constant fluctuations may enhance the peak value, but their effect on the characteristic frequency is very small. To summarize, we can theoretically obtain a typical ER spectrum with lower characteristic frequency and high rotation speed by adjusting conductivity and dielectric profiles. This corresponds to the physical/experimental situation in the case of graded particles.

In Figs. 1 and 2, the particles under consideration are spherical, i.e., $`L_z=1/3`$. We should remark here that for non-spherical particles, e.g. prolate $`0<L_z<1/3`$ and oblate spheroids $`1/3<L_z<1`$, the same conclusions hold (no figures shown here). In addition, it is also found that for prolate (oblate) graded particles, smaller (larger) depolarization factor ($`L_z`$) can make the characteristic frequency significantly red-shifted.

Finally, to demonstrate our theory, we fit our theory to experimental data in Fig. 3. The data for yeast cells is extracted from the experiments of Reichle et al. Reichle et al. (2000). In Fig. 3, from upper panel to lower panel, the symbols denote experimental data of the ER spectrum of a yeast cell in water measured at the beginning of the experiment, after 20 minutes, and after 40 minutes, respectively. The corresponding continuous lines are the fitted result using the present theory. As discussed earlier, the assumption of homogeneous compartments is not generally justified for biological cells, and the cytoplasm often contains organelles or vacuoles. For this reason, the experimental data is typically fitted using a (two-)shell model. To improve fitting using cell models, one would have to adjust six parameters, i.e., real dielectric constant and conductivity of two shells, as well as cell interior. In contrast, using on our theory, only two parameters need to be adjusted, namely the profile parameters $`c`$ and $`n`$.

For all of the three fittings, we set $`ϵ_2=80ϵ_0`$, $`\sigma _2=1.1\times 10^3`$ S/m (from the experiment), $`ϵ_1(0)=75ϵ_0`$, $`\sigma _1(0)=0.28`$ S/m, $`E_0=10`$ kV/m (from experiments), $`\eta =2.082\times 10^2`$ kg/(ms), and $`a=5\mu `$m (given by experiment). For the upper panel, $`c=30ϵ_0`$ (namely $`ϵ_1{}_{}{}^{av}=52.5ϵ_0`$) and $`n=0.5`$. For the middle panel, $`c=20ϵ_0`$ ($`ϵ_1{}_{}{}^{av}=60ϵ_0`$) and $`n=0.8`$. For the lower panel, $`c=25ϵ_0`$ ($`ϵ_1{}_{}{}^{av}=56.25ϵ_0`$) and $`n=0.05`$.

As seen in Fig. 3, our theory performs very well. Due to the inhomogeneous compartments of a yeast cell, we believe that the graded cell model is a very choice.

## IV Discussion and conclusions

In this article, we have generalized the differential effective dipole approximation (DEDA) to non-spherical particles. This allows studies of shape effects, and indeed colloidal suspensions and many kinds of cells have non-spherical shapes, e.g. red blood cells are oblate spheroids. In particular, for oblate spheroids larger depolarization factor leads to a red-shift of the characteristic frequency, for prolate spheroids the systems behaves the opposite way Huang and Yu (2002). To check the validity of DEDA, it was compared against exact solutions which can be obtained for a power-law profile Gu and Yu  and a linear profile Dong and Yu  by solving the Laplace equation for the local electric field. In both cases DEDA produced the same results thus showing that it is essentially exact.

In this article, we have applied DEDA to discuss the electrorotation spectrum of graded colloidal suspension in an attempt to discuss its dielectric behavior. As a result, we find that changes in the conductivity profile can affect both the characteristic frequency (red-shift) and rotation peak, whereas changes in the dielectric profile may enhance the rotation peak only. Consequently, we may conclude that the graded behavior does play an important role in the dielectric properties of graded suspensions. We used our theory (for spherical cells) to fit results obtained by Reichle et al. Reichle et al. (2000) for yeast cells and obtained excellent agreement. It would be interesting to compare this theory to experimental results for non-spherical cells as well, and hopefully new experiments will be performed in that direction.

Our work may be extended to discuss the ER spectrum of a pair of particles by taking into account the multiple image effect Huang et al. (2002a, b) and to investigate high concentration suspensions by discussing the local-field effects Huang et al. (2002c); Gao et al. (2002). A generalization which includes both of these effects is of particular interest. In addition to ER spectrum, our theory may be used to discuss other electrokinetic effects, e.g dielectrophoresis Pohl (1978); Huang et al. (2002b) and electro-orientation M. Saito (1966).

###### Acknowledgements.

This work has been supported by the Research Grants Council of the Hong Kong SAR Government under project number CUHK 4245/01P, and by the Academy of Finland Grant No. 54113 (M. K.) and the Finnish Academy of Science and Letters (M. K.).


format: text

text:
# Radiative corrections to neutrino mass matrix in the Standard Model and beyond

## 1 Introduction

Experiments on neutrino oscillations , neutrinoless $`2\beta `$ decay  and tritium $`\beta `$ decay  give information on neutrino masses and mixing angles. In principle, also CP violating phases can be measured. Using this information, it is possible to reconstruct (at least partially) the Majorana mass matrix of neutrinos at the electroweak scale $`m_Z`$.

The origin of the neutrino mass matrix is, most probably, in new physics above a very high scale $`m_0`$, where the lepton number is violated. To find the structure of the matrix at $`m_0`$, it is necessary to take into account the renormalization effects between $`m_Z`$ and $`m_0`$.

The Renormalization Group Equation (RGE) for the neutrino mass matrix has been extensively studied both in the Standard Model (SM) and Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM) . The RGE has been also considered, in the context of the see-saw mechanism, for non-degenerate heavy right-handed neutrinos . Low energy threshold corrections have been computed; their effect can be important in the MSSM case . A non-standard source of neutrino masses (operators in the Kähler potential) has been considered in  and the corresponding radiative corrections have been studied. The goal of these analyses was to understand how radiative corrections could affect the mass squared differences $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{ij}^2`$ and the mixing angles $`\theta _{ij}`$ observed in neutrino oscillation experiments. A general conclusion is that the effect of running is small for hierarchical mass spectra, while, in the case of quasi-degenerate mass spectrum, the observables can be strongly modified by radiative corrections. In particular, in the degenerate case $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{sol}}^2`$ can have purely radiative origin .

Mass squared differences and mixing angles are the outcome of the diagonalization of the mass matrix and it is this matrix the object more closely related to the underlying theory. In contrast with previous studies, we will analyze in detail renormalization effects on the mass matrix structure.

In section 2 we discuss the generation of neutrino mass matrix at the scale $`m_0`$. We study first the radiative corrections in SM and MSSM (section 3). Then, we consider other extensions of the SM at some intermediate scale $`m_X`$, with $`m_Z<m_X<m_0`$ (section 4). We identify the features of the mass matrix which can be explained by radiative corrections. Finally (section 5), we consider four specific matrix structures at $`m_0`$: (i) the matrix proportional to the unit; (ii) the matrix with only $`ee`$ and $`\mu \tau `$ elements different from zero; (iii) the matrix with non-zero $`M_{ee}`$ and $`\mu \tau `$-block elements; (iv) the matrix with non-zero $`\mu \tau `$-block. We will study the predictions for the low energy parameters in the case of standard and non-standard radiative corrections.

## 2 Generation of the neutrino mass matrix and scale $`m_0`$

With the SM fields, one can construct a unique Lorentz and gauge invariant effective five dimensional operator that gives Majorana masses to neutrinos :

$$\frac{C_{\alpha \beta }}{m_0}(\overline{L^c}_\alpha i\sigma _2\varphi )(\varphi i\sigma _2L_\beta )+\text{h.c.}$$
(1)
Here $`C_{\alpha \beta }`$ are dimensionless couplings, $`m_0`$ is the mass scale at which this effective interaction is generated, $`\alpha ,\beta `$ are flavor indexes, $`\varphi `$ and $`L`$ are the SM Higgs and lepton doublets. An analogue operator appears in the case of MSSM (without R-parity violation). After the electroweak symmetry breaking, the operator (1) generates the neutrino mass matrix:

$$M_{\alpha \beta }=\frac{2C_{\alpha \beta }\varphi ^0^2}{m_0}.$$

Different possible mechanisms can lead to the effective operator (1). One possibility is the exchange of heavy right-handed neutrinos (type-I see-saw ). In this case $`m_0`$ should be identified with the mass of the lightest right-handed neutrino $`m_R`$ and one gets

$$C_{\alpha \beta }=\frac{m_0}{2}(Y_\nu M_R^1Y_\nu ^T)_{\alpha \beta },$$
(2)
where $`Y_\nu `$ is the matrix of neutrino Dirac Yukawa couplings and $`M_R`$ is the Majorana mass matrix of right-handed neutrinos, both evaluated at the scale $`m_0=m_R`$.

Another possibility is to introduce a scalar isotriplet $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ with hypercharge $`1`$ and renormalizable coupling to the SM lepton doublets:

$$Y_{\alpha \beta }\overline{L^c}_\alpha \sigma ^iL_\beta \mathrm{\Delta }_i+\text{h.c.}.$$
(3)
A heavy triplet ($`m_\mathrm{\Delta }m_Z`$) can get a small induced VEV due to the coupling $`M_{\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi }\mathrm{\Delta }^{}\varphi \varphi +\text{h.c.}`$ (type-II see-saw ):

$$\mathrm{\Delta }^0=\frac{M_{\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi }\varphi ^0^2}{m_\mathrm{\Delta }^2}.$$

If the exchange of the triplet is the dominant contribution to the neutrino mass matrix, $`m_0`$ should be identified with $`m_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and

$$C_{\alpha \beta }=Y_{\alpha \beta }\frac{M_{\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi }}{m_0}.$$
(4)
The following remarks are in order:

1. The neutrino mass matrix can receive both contributions of the form (2) and (4). In this case $`m_0=\mathrm{min}\{m_R,m_\mathrm{\Delta }\}`$.
2. The running between $`m_0=\mathrm{min}\{m_R,m_\mathrm{\Delta }\}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{m}_0=\mathrm{max}\{m_R,m_\mathrm{\Delta }\}`$ can be important for the neutrino mass matrix structure, if $`N_R`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ contributions are comparable.
3. There can be a hierarchy among the masses of right-handed neutrinos, so that the operator (1) is formed in a large energy interval. Corrections in this interval can be important .

The relative size and the structure of the various ($`N_R`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, maybe some other) contributions to the neutrino mass matrix are model-dependent and deserve a separate analysis. In this paper we will study the running below $`m_0`$.

## 3 Renormalization of the mass matrix in the SM (MSSM)

Let us consider, first, the renormalization of the mass matrix when the only particles with mass below $`m_0`$ are the SM (MSSM) particles. The $`\beta `$-function of the operator (1), $`\beta _M\mu \frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}\mu }M`$, can be written as :

$`16\pi ^2\beta _M^{SM}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\left[M(Y_l^{}Y_l)+(Y_l^{}Y_l)^TM\right]+K_{SM}M,`$
$`16\pi ^2\beta _M^{MSSM}`$ $`=`$ $`\left[M(Y_l^{}Y_l)+(Y_l^{}Y_l)^TM\right]+K_{MSSM}M,`$ (5)
where $`Y_l`$ is the $`3\times 3`$ matrix of charged lepton Yukawa couplings and $`K_{SM(MSSM)}`$ is a real parameter describing flavor universal radiative corrections.

The flavor non-universal corrections (terms in square brackets in eq. (5)) come from two types of diagrams only (figure 1), generated by charged lepton Yukawa couplings: renormalization of the wavefunction of lepton doublets ($`a`$) and vertex correction ($`b`$). In the SM, the coefficient $`3/2`$ in eq. (5) is the sum of a contribution $`1/2`$ from (a) and $`2`$ from ($`b`$). In the MSSM, only ($`a`$) contributes, due to SUSY non-renormalization, and the coefficient is $`1/2\times 2=1`$, where the factor $`2`$ corresponds to the double number of particles with respect to SM.

In flavor basis, the matrix $`Y_l`$ is diagonal and it can be made real by reabsorbing the phases in the fields:

$$Y_l^{}Y_l=diag(y_e^2,y_\mu ^2,y_\tau ^2).$$

Furthermore, $`y_\alpha `$, taken real at a certain scale, will remain real during the running . In this basis, the RGE equation for $`M_{\alpha \beta }`$ can be easily integrated, giving :

$$M_{\alpha \beta }(m_Z)=I_K\mathrm{exp}\left[k_0^{t_Z}(y_\alpha ^2(t)+y_\beta ^2(t))𝑑t\right]M_{\alpha \beta }(m_0),$$
(6)
where

$$t_Z\frac{\mathrm{log}(m_0/m_Z)}{16\pi ^2},k=\frac{3}{2}(\mathrm{SM}),k=1(\mathrm{MSSM}).$$

The flavor universal corrections are contained in the prefactor

$$I_K=\mathrm{exp}\left(_0^{t_Z}K(t)𝑑t\right).$$

$`I_K`$ does not change the structure of the mass matrix and, moreover, the overall renormalization effect is small: $`I_K1`$. We will consider only 1-loop radiative corrections and therefore neglect the evolution of $`y_\alpha `$ in eq. (6), taking the values of charged lepton Yukawa couplings at the electroweak scale: $`y_\alpha (t)y_\alpha (0)`$.

Several important conclusions follow immediately from eq. (6):

* In flavor basis, each element of the mass matrix evolves independently from the values of other elements. The value of the element at $`m_Z`$ is proportional to its value at $`m_0`$:

$$M_{\alpha \beta }(m_Z)M_{\alpha \beta }(m_0).$$
(7)
In particular, elements which are zero at some scale, remain zero at any scale.
* The phases of $`M_{\alpha \beta }`$ do not evolve, because the r.h.s. in eq. (6) is real. In contrast, the three physical CP violating phases depend on the moduli of $`M_{\alpha \beta }`$ and therefore can be strongly renormalized. However, if there is no CP violation at some scale ($`M`$ is real), no CP violation can be induced by radiative corrections at any scale.
* The corrections to matrix elements have opposite sign in SM and MSSM, due to the different sign of $`k`$. The same matrix at $`m_Z`$ will develop different features at the scale $`m_0`$ depending on whether low energy supersymmetry is present or not.

Notice that, in principle, SM and MSSM could be discriminated by the ordering of mass eigenvalues: exactly degenerate neutrinos at the scale $`m_0`$ could be split into a normal mass spectrum in SM and into an inverted spectrum in MSSM or vice versa, depending on mixings and phases. However, using only SM (MSSM) radiative corrections, it is hard to reproduce data starting with exactly degenerate neutrinos . Also the scenario with only two degenerate neutrinos at high energy has been recently studied  and the difference of predictions between SM and MSSM has been analyzed.

The largest flavor dependent contribution to the running in eq. (6) is due to the $`\tau `$ Yukawa coupling:

$$y_\tau (m_Z)=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{\sqrt{2}m_\tau }{v}10^2\hfill & (\mathrm{SM})\hfill \\ \frac{\sqrt{2}m_\tau }{v\mathrm{cos}\beta }\mathrm{tan}\beta 10^2\hfill & (\mathrm{MSSM})\hfill \end{array},$$
(8)
where $`v246`$ GeV is the VEV of the SM Higgs and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ is the ratio of VEV’s of the two MSSM Higgs doublets. The other Yukawa couplings are much smaller, therefore the largest corrections are for elements which have the $`\tau `$-flavor. Neglecting $`y_e`$ and $`y_\mu `$ corrections, eq. (6) gives:

$`M_{\tau \tau }(m_Z)`$ $``$ $`I_KM_{\tau \tau }(m_0)(12kϵ_\tau ),`$
$`M_{e\tau }(m_Z)`$ $``$ $`I_KM_{e\tau }(m_0)(1kϵ_\tau ),`$
$`M_{\mu \tau }(m_Z)`$ $``$ $`I_KM_{\mu \tau }(m_0)(1kϵ_\tau ),`$
where, taking $`m_0=10^n\mathrm{GeV}`$,

$$ϵ_\tau \frac{y_\tau ^2(m_Z)}{16\pi ^2}\mathrm{log}\frac{m_0}{m_Z}\{\begin{array}{cc}1.5(n2)10^6\hfill & \text{(SM)}\hfill \\ 3.5(n2)10^3\left(\frac{\mathrm{tan}\beta }{50}\right)^2\hfill & \text{(MSSM)}\hfill \end{array}.$$
(9)
The effect of running is apparently very small even for $`M_{\tau \tau }`$.

We conclude that radiative corrections (in SM and MSSM) practically do not change the structure of neutrino mass matrix up to the scale $`m_0`$. Zero elements remain zero and non-zero elements acquire very small relative corrections, which are at most few percents. Symmetry properties of the matrix at $`m_0`$ are almost unchanged by running to low energy, where the matrix structure can be reconstructed using experimental input for mixing angles and mass eigenvalues, as well as CP violating phases . In other words, the structure of the mass matrix is stable with respect to radiative corrections in SM and MSSM, independently of type of mass ordering (normal or inverted), level of degeneracy, values of mixing angles and CP violating phases.

### 3.1 Radiative corrections and observables

Even though the matrix structure is stable, observables, i.e. the values of the mass differences and the form of the mixing matrix, can be strongly affected by the radiative corrections. There is a number of studies  in which the RGE’s for mixing angles and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{ij}^2`$ have been analyzed and conditions for strong renormalization effects have been identified.

In contrast with previous studies, here we discuss the effect of renormalization on observables in terms of mass matrix. The matrix of corrections can be written as:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }Mϵ_KM^0k\left(\begin{array}{ccc}2ϵ_eM_{ee}^0& (ϵ_e+ϵ_\mu )M_{e\mu }^0& (ϵ_e+ϵ_\tau )M_{e\tau }^0\\ \mathrm{}& 2ϵ_\mu M_{\mu \mu }^0& (ϵ_\mu +ϵ_\tau )M_{\mu \tau }^0\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& 2ϵ_\tau M_{\tau \tau }^0\end{array}\right),$$
(10)
where $`M^0`$ is the matrix at the scale $`m_0`$ and $`ϵ_{K,e,\mu }`$ can be obtained from the expression (9), by substituting $`y_\tau ^2`$ with $`K,y_e^2,y_\mu ^2`$ respectively.

The effect on a given observable depends on how strong is the influence (“imprint”) of this observable on the structure of the matrix. When two eigenstates are almost degenerate in mass, the matrix structure depends very weakly on their mass squared difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{ij}^2`$ and on the mixing angle $`\theta _{ij}`$ . In other words, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{ij}^2`$ and $`\theta _{ij}`$ are not “imprinted” in the matrix structure. In this case the small radiative corrections (10) can strongly modify these observables. Let us give a rough estimation: $`\theta _{ij}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{ij}^2`$ can receive large radiative corrections if the absolute neutrino mass scale $`m`$ is large enough to satisfy $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{ij}^2ϵ_\tau m^2`$. Because of the smallness of $`ϵ_\tau `$, this condition requires quasi-degenerate neutrino masses.

In section 5, we will use eq. (10) to discuss the effect of radiative corrections for some particular structures of $`M^0`$.

## 4 Renormalization of the mass matrix due to new particles

It may happen that new physics exists at some intermediate scale $`m_X`$ in the range $`m_Zm_0`$, which does not contribute to neutrino masses at tree-level but leads to renormalization effects.

### 4.1 Non-standard Yukawa interactions

Let us consider new fermions and scalar bosons, with mass $`m_X`$. We assume that new scalars have zero VEV’s, otherwise they would generate neutrino masses at the scale $`m_X<m_0`$. We analyze radiative corrections to the operator (1) induced by the couplings of these scalars and fermions to the lepton doublets $`L_\alpha `$:

* An extra scalar doublet, $`\varphi ^{}`$, with the coupling

$$Y_{\alpha \beta }^\varphi ^{}\overline{L}_\alpha \varphi ^{}l_{R\beta }+\text{h.c.},$$
(11)
contributes to the wavefunction renormalization (diagram analogue to figure 1$`a`$). There is no vertex diagram with $`\varphi ^{}`$ in the loop (analogue to figure 1$`b`$), because only $`\varphi `$ enters the operator (1).
* An extra scalar singlet $`\rho `$ or triplet $`\chi `$ can couple with two lepton doublets:

$`Y_{\alpha \beta }^\rho \overline{L}_\alpha i\sigma _2L_\beta ^c\rho +\text{h.c.},`$ (12)
$`Y_{\alpha \beta }^\chi \overline{L}_\alpha i\sigma _2\sigma ^iL_\beta ^c\chi _i+\text{h.c.}.`$ (13)
The renormalization of the operator (1) is induced by the two diagrams in figure 2. In the singlet case, the matrix $`Y`$ is antisymmetric, because $`\overline{L}_\alpha i\sigma _2L_\beta ^c=\overline{L}_\beta i\sigma _2L_\alpha ^c`$ (in the triplet case, $`Y`$ is symmetric).
* If a new right-handed doublet fermion $`D_R`$ exists at the scale $`m_X`$, $`\rho `$ and $`\chi `$ can have the following interactions:

$`Y_\alpha ^{D\rho }\overline{L}_\alpha D_R\rho +\text{h.c.},`$ (14)
$`Y_\alpha ^{D\chi }\overline{L}_\alpha \sigma ^iD_R\chi _i+\text{h.c.}.`$ (15)
In this case there are no vertex corrections, because $`D_R`$ and $`\rho `$ ($`\chi `$) do not enter in the operator (1). Only the diagram shown in figure 3 contributes.
* A right-handed fermion singlet $`S_R`$, with the Yukawa interaction

$$Y_\alpha ^S\overline{L}_\alpha \varphi S_R+\text{h.c.}.$$
(16)
contributes both to wavefunction and vertex renormalization, as shown in figure 4. The scalar doublet in the diagram 4(a) can be the SM one, $`\varphi `$, or some new doublet $`\varphi ^{}`$.

The new chiral fermions ($`D_R`$, $`S_R`$) can lead to anomalies, however one can consider them as part of new vector-like fermions. The vertex diagrams in figures 2$`b`$ and 4$`b`$ give no contributions in the supersymmetric case, because of non-renormalization theorem.

For any of the interactions in eqs. (11)–(16), the contribution to the $`\beta `$-function of neutrino mass matrix elements can be written as

$$16\pi ^2(\beta _M^Y)_{\alpha \beta }=k_Y^{(1)}\left[M(Y^{}Y)+(Y^{}Y)^TM\right]_{\alpha \beta }+k_Y^{(2)}\left[YM^{}Y^T\right]_{\alpha \beta }.$$
(17)
where $`Y`$ are the new particle Yukawa couplings and the prefactors $`k_Y^{(i)}`$ depend on the type of particles and interactions considered. The first term in square brackets of eq. (17) (analogue to those in eq. (5)) corresponds to all diagrams discussed above (analogue to those in figure 1), except the diagram in figure 2$`b`$. This diagram generates the second term in square brackets of eq. (17). Therefore, $`k_Y^{(2)}0`$ only for the interactions in eqs. (12), (13).

Let us emphasize the main differences in the running with respect to SM (MSSM):

* If the matrix $`Y^{}Y`$ (or, in the case of eqs. (12), (13), the matrix $`Y`$) is not diagonal in flavor basis, the RGE’s for different matrix elements are coupled. A given matrix element receives corrections proportional to other matrix elements; in this way small elements can be modified significantly.
* The size of corrections depends on the size of Yukawa couplings $`Y`$. It can be much larger than in SM. In the perturbative regime, $`Y1`$, the effect can be of the order of few percents, as in MSSM.
* The corrections can be further enhanced if several non-standard multiplets arepresent. E.g., one can introduce three generations of new particles. In this case corrections can be as large as $`10\%`$ of the large matrix elements.
* The size of corrections depends on $`m_X`$. Corrections are suppressed for $`m_Xm_0`$.
* In all diagrams but figure 2$`b`$, only one external lepton leg is involved in flavor changing interactions. As a consequence, a given element $`M_{\alpha \beta }`$ receives contributions proportional to matrix elements in the rows (columns) $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ only. In contrast, if the diagram in figure 2$`b`$ is present, all matrix elements can contribute to the renormalization of a given element $`M_{\alpha \beta }`$.

Since radiative effects are small, with a good approximation we can consider only lowest order corrections to matrix elements. Using eq. (17), we get:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }M_{\alpha \beta }^Y\frac{\mathrm{log}(m_0/m_X)}{16\pi ^2}\left(k_Y^{(1)}\left[M(Y^{}Y)+(Y^{}Y)^TM\right]_{\alpha \beta }+k_Y^{(2)}\left[YM^{}Y^T\right]_{\alpha \beta }\right).$$
(18)
### 4.2 Non-universal $`U(1)`$ gauge interaction

Let us consider the effect of extra heavy vector bosons $`X_\mu `$, which have flavor non-universal interactions. These bosons can be related to the existence of horizontal (flavor) gauge symmetries .

We restrict ourselves to the case of an extra $`U(1)_X`$ gauge group. In the flavor basis, the interaction of lepton doublets with the new gauge bosons $`X_\mu `$ has the form

$$g_XQ_{\alpha \beta }\overline{L}_\alpha \gamma ^\mu X_\mu L_\beta ,$$
(19)
where $`g_X`$ is the gauge coupling and $`Q`$ is the hermitian matrix of “charges”, which can be non-diagonal in flavor basis. The possible anomalies of the extra $`U(1)_X`$ gauge group can be canceled using the Green-Schwarz mechanism .

In figure 5 we show the two 1-loop gauge diagrams that give non-universal radiative corrections to the operator (1). Their contribution to the $`\beta `$-function of matrix elements takes the following form:

$$16\pi ^2(\beta _M^X)_{\alpha \beta }=g_X^2k_X^{(a)}[MQ^2+(Q^2)^TM]_{\alpha \beta }+g_X^2k_X^{(b)}[Q^TMQ]_{\alpha \beta }.$$
(20)
The first and the second square brackets of eq. (20) are the contribution of the diagrams in figure 5$`a`$ and 5$`b`$, respectively. The $`\beta `$-function (20) has analogous features to the one in eq. (17): the RGE’s of different elements are coupled because of the off-diagonal entries in the matrix $`Q`$; the corrections are proportional to the gauge coupling $`g_X^2`$ and cannot be larger than few percents of the largest element in $`M`$. Like in figure 2$`b`$, in figure 5$`b`$ both lepton external legs enter in the loop. As a consequence, a given element $`M_{\alpha \beta }`$ can receive contributions proportional to all matrix elements. In lowest order, corrections can be written as:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }M_{\alpha \beta }^X\frac{g_X^2\mathrm{log}(m_0/m_X)}{16\pi ^2}\left(k_X^{(a)}[MQ^2+(Q^2)^TM]_{\alpha \beta }+k_X^{(b)}[Q^TMQ]_{\alpha \beta }\right).$$
(21)
## 5 Radiative generation of the sub-dominant matrix elements

The values of mass squared differences and mixing angles, measured in neutrino oscillation experiments , are ($`90\%`$ C.L.):

$`\begin{array}{ccccccc}\hfill \mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{sol}}^2& & \mathrm{\Delta }m_{12}^2=\left(7_2^{+10}\right)10^5\mathrm{eV}^2,\hfill & \hfill \mathrm{tan}^2\theta _{12}& =& 0.42_{0.1}^{+0.2}\hfill & \text{(LMA MSW)};\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{atm}}^2& & \mathrm{\Delta }m_{23}^2=\left(2.5_{0.9}^{+1.4}\right)10^3\mathrm{eV}^2,\hfill & \hfill \mathrm{tan}\theta _{23}& =& 1_{0.25}^{+0.35};\hfill & \mathrm{sin}\theta _{13}0.2.\hfill \end{array}`$ (24)
Using these data, one finds that the neutrino mass matrix in flavor basis can have a hierarchical structure, with some elements much smaller than the others. Small elements are suppressed by factors $`s_{13}`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{sol}}^2/\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{atm}}^2`$ or, in the case of degenerate spectrum ($`m_1m_2m_3`$), by $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{atm}}^2/m_1^2`$. All possible hierarchical structures allowed by the data have been identified in .

Non-standard radiative effects can generate non-zero matrix elements even if they are zero at the scale $`m_0`$. These elements can receive a radiative contribution up to $`10\%`$ of the largest matrix element. In what follows we will consider mass matrices with various hierarchical structures and study the possibility to generate all small elements of these matrices radiatively. It has been found that matrices with three or more exactly zero elements at the scale $`m_Z`$ cannot reproduce the experimental data . We will show that these matrices, realized at $`m_0`$, agree with phenomenology if non-standard radiative corrections are taken into account.

Let us write the neutrino mass matrix with hierarchical structure as

$$M=M_D+M_S,$$

where $`M_D`$ is the matrix of dominant elements and $`M_S`$ is the matrix of sub-dominant elements. In general, large matrix elements are the sum of a dominant contribution from $`M_D`$ and a small correction from $`M_S`$. Small matrix elements are contained in $`M_S`$ only. We assume that, at the high scale $`m_0`$,

$$M(m_0)=M_D(m_0),M_S(m_0)=0$$
(25)
and, at the low scale $`m_Z`$,

$$M(m_Z)=M_D(m_0)+M_S(m_Z),M_S(m_Z)=M_{\mathrm{rad}},$$
(26)
where $`M_{\mathrm{rad}}`$ is the matrix of radiative corrections. In general, $`M_{\mathrm{rad}}`$ can be written as

$$M_{\mathrm{rad}}=M_{SM(MSSM)}+M_{NS},$$

where $`M_{NS}`$ is the contribution of non-standard corrections. In particular, we will analyze the corrections given by eq. (18), assuming $`k_Y^{(2)}=0`$. In this case, $`M_{\mathrm{rad}}`$ can be written as

$$M_{\mathrm{rad}}=\lambda (XM_D+M_DX^T),$$
(27)
where

$$X(Y^{}Y)^T,\lambda \frac{k_Y^{(1)}}{16\pi ^2}\mathrm{log}\frac{m_0}{m_X}.$$
(28)
The non-standard (flavor changing) couplings $`Y`$ affect also the evolution of the charged lepton Yukawa coupling matrix $`Y_l`$, inducing non-zero off-diagonal entries. As a consequence, flavor basis should be redefined at the scale $`m_Z`$ through a rotation $`U_l`$ of charged leptons. Due to the strong hierarchy of charged lepton masses, the mixing angles generated in the charged lepton sector are small, being of the order of radiative corrections themselves: $`U_l=\mathbb{𝟙}+U_{\mathrm{rad}}`$. Therefore, the neutrino mass matrix in flavor basis is given by:

$$M^{fl}=U_l(M_D+M_{\mathrm{rad}})U_l^TM_D+M_{\mathrm{rad}}+U_{\mathrm{rad}}M_D+M_DU_{\mathrm{rad}}^T,$$
(29)
where we have neglected terms quadratic in radiative corrections. While the neutrino masses at $`m_Z`$ can be extracted from $`M=M_D+M_{\mathrm{rad}}`$, the mixing angles are influenced by $`U_l`$ rotation and all the terms in eq. (29) should be considered.

The term $`(U_{\mathrm{rad}}M_D+M_DU_{\mathrm{rad}}^T)`$ in eq. (29), describing the effect of charged leptons, has the same structure as $`M_{\mathrm{rad}}`$ in eq. (27). Therefore, the effect of rotation to flavor basis amounts to a redefinition:

$$XX+\frac{U_{\mathrm{rad}}}{\lambda },$$
(30)
wheqre $`X`$ and $`\lambda `$ are defined in eq. (28). In the following, we will extract some results independent from the form of $`X`$.

Let us comment on our assumption of exact zeros at $`m_0`$ (see eq. (25)). Zero values of matrix elements can be a consequence of certain symmetry at $`m_0`$. The radiative contributions to these elements are generated by interactions which break this symmetry. In general, the symmetry breaking leads to finite contributions already at $`m_0`$. On the other hand, if some particles producing radiative corrections are light ($`m_Xm_0`$), the largest contribution to zero elements is given by the leading logarithms and can be computed by RGE methods in the context of the effective theory. We are discussing here these logarithmic contributions.

In what follows we will consider corrections to different dominant structures $`M_D`$.

### 5.1 Unit matrix

Let us consider the matrix with dominant structure proportional to the unit matrix:

$$M_D=mdiag(1,1,1)m\mathbb{𝟙}.$$
(31)
At $`m_Z`$, the approximate degeneracy of neutrino masses ($`m_1m_2m_3`$) is broken by $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{atm}}^2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{sol}}^2`$. Let us define

$$\eta 1\frac{m_3}{m_2}\pm \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{atm}}^2}{2m_1^2},ϵ1\frac{m_1}{m_2}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{sol}}^2}{2m_1^2},$$

where the sign of $`\eta `$ is $`+`$ for inverted ordering ($`m_3<m_2`$) and $``$ for normal ordering ($`m_3>m_2`$). Taking $`m_i0.3`$eV (a value allowed by all existing upper bounds ), one finds $`ϵ\eta 510^3`$. This means that deviations from $`M(m_Z)=m\mathbb{𝟙}`$ can be smaller than $`1\%`$.

For simplicity, at $`m_Z`$ we assume zero Majorana phases, $`\mathrm{sin}\theta _{13}=0`$ and maximal atmospheric mixing ($`\theta _{23}=\pi /4`$). Then, the phenomenological mass matrix can be written as :

$$M^{ph}(m_Z)=m_2\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1ϵc_{12}^2& ϵc_{12}s_{12}/\sqrt{2}& ϵc_{12}s_{12}/\sqrt{2}\\ \mathrm{}& 1(\eta +ϵs_{12}^2)/2& (\eta +ϵs_{12}^2)/2\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& 1(\eta +ϵs_{12}^2)/2\end{array}\right),$$
(32)
where $`c_{12}\mathrm{cos}\theta _{12}`$ and $`s_{12}\mathrm{sin}\theta _{12}`$.

Let us consider, first, radiative corrections in the case of SM (MSSM). Substituting the matrix (31) in eq. (10), it is evident that off-diagonal elements remain zero and, therefore, no mixing is produced. Standard corrections lead to a split among diagonal elements. Using eq. (10), one finds that mass squared differences in the range required by phenomenology can be obtained at $`m_Z`$ in the case of MSSM with large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, however one gets the following prediction:

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{sol}}^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{atm}}^2}\frac{ϵ_\mu ϵ_e}{ϵ_\tau ϵ_\mu }\frac{m_\mu ^2}{m_\tau ^2}3.510^3.$$

This ratio is about ten times smaller than the best fit value $`2.510^2`$.

Let us consider now radiative corrections which originate from new scalars and fermions (section 4.1). Substituting the matrix (31) in eq. (27), we get corrections to matrix elements of the following form:

$$M_{\mathrm{rad}}2m\lambda \left(\begin{array}{ccc}X_{ee}& \mathrm{Re}X_{e\mu }& \mathrm{Re}X_{e\tau }\\ \mathrm{}& X_{\mu \mu }& \mathrm{Re}X_{\mu \tau }\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& X_{\tau \tau }\end{array}\right),$$
(33)
where $`X`$ and $`\lambda `$ are defined in eq. (28). Since the matrix $`X`$ is hermitian, the corrections to all matrix elements are real, so that no CP violation is induced in this case.

The corrections to the different elements are related if a specific form of the matrix $`X`$ is given. We consider an interaction like those in eqs. (14)–(16). Then, $`X_{\alpha \beta }=Y_\alpha Y_\beta ^{}`$ and, defining

$$\lambda _\alpha 2\lambda |Y_\alpha |^2,c_{\alpha \beta }\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{arg}Y_\alpha \mathrm{arg}Y_\beta ),\alpha =e,\mu ,\tau ,$$
(34)
we get

$$M(m_Z)M_D+M_{\mathrm{rad}}=m\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1+\lambda _e& \sqrt{\lambda _e\lambda _\mu }c_{e\mu }& \sqrt{\lambda _e\lambda _\tau }c_{e\tau }\\ \mathrm{}& 1+\lambda _\mu & \sqrt{\lambda _\mu \lambda _\tau }c_{\mu \tau }\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& 1+\lambda _\tau \end{array}\right).$$
(35)
The small parameters $`\lambda _\alpha `$ are real and have all the same sign, which is opposite to the sign of $`k_Y^{(1)}`$ (see eq. (28)). The parameters $`c_{\alpha \beta }`$ can vary between $`1`$ and $`1`$, but only two of them are independent.

Before comparing the matrix (35) with the phenomenological mass matrix (32), one needs to perform an additional rotation $`U_l`$. If $`U_l`$ is real, substituting $`M_D\mathbb{𝟙}`$ in eq. (29) we get

$$M^{fl}=M_D+M_{\mathrm{rad}}+𝒪(U_{\mathrm{rad}}M_{\mathrm{rad}}).$$

In this case, we can neglect the rotation $`U_l`$.

Let us show that the matrix (35) can reproduce the matrix (32). For simplicity, we take $`m=m_2`$. Then, from the condition $`M_D+M_{\mathrm{rad}}=M^{ph}(M_Z)`$, we find:

$`\lambda _e`$ $`=`$ $`ϵc_{12}^2,`$
$`\lambda _\mu `$ $`=`$ $`\lambda _\tau ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\eta +ϵs_{12}^2){\displaystyle \frac{\eta }{2}},`$
$`c_{\mu \tau }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\eta ϵs_{12}^2}{\eta +ϵs_{12}^2}}1,`$
$`c_{e\mu }`$ $`=`$ $`c_{e\tau }={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{ϵ}s_{12}}{\sqrt{\eta +ϵs_{12}^2}}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ}{\eta }}}s_{12}.`$ (36)
Since $`\lambda _e`$ is negative, also $`\lambda _\mu `$ and $`\lambda _\tau `$ are negative. This corresponds to inverted mass spectrum ($`\eta >0`$). To satisfy eq. (36), one needs a positive $`k_Y^{(1)}`$.

If $`m`$ is not equal to $`m_2`$, other solutions are possible. It turns out that the matrices (32) and (35) can be equal only if $`m`$ is one of the three eigenvalues. Requiring $`m=m_1(1ϵ)m_2`$, one gets

$$\lambda _eϵs_{12}^2,\lambda _\mu =\lambda _\tau \frac{\eta }{2},c_{\mu \tau }1,c_{e\mu }=c_{e\tau }\sqrt{\frac{ϵ}{\eta }}c_{12}.$$
(37)
This corresponds to normal mass spectrum. Requiring $`m=m_3(1\eta )m_2`$, one gets

$$\lambda _e\eta ,\lambda _\mu =\lambda _\tau \frac{\eta }{2},c_{\mu \tau }=1,c_{e\mu }=c_{e\tau }\frac{ϵc_{12}s_{12}}{|\eta |}.$$
(38)
This can correspond to both normal and inverted mass spectrum.

### 5.2 Dominant $`M_{ee}`$ and $`M_{\mu \tau }`$

Let us consider the hierarchical matrix with dominant block given by

$$M_D=m\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 1\\ 0& 1& 0\end{array}\right).$$
(39)
For this matrix $`\theta _{23}=\pi /4`$, $`\theta _{13}=0`$ and the eigenvalues equal $`(m,m,m)`$. Substituting the matrix (39) in eq. (10), one sees that SM (MSSM) radiative corrections generate a solar mass squared difference: $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{sol}}^22m^2ϵ_\tau |k|`$. However, atmospheric mass squared difference and solar mixing angle remain zero.

We assume that the relative phases among eigenvalues at $`m_Z`$ are the same as at $`m_0`$, that is $`(1,1,1)`$ and also the values of $`\theta _{23}`$ and $`\theta _{13}`$ remain $`\pi /4`$ and $`0`$, respectively. Then, the phenomenological mass matrix is real and can be written as :

$$M^{ph}(m_Z)=m_2\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1ϵc_{12}^2& ϵc_{12}s_{12}/\sqrt{2}& ϵc_{12}s_{12}/\sqrt{2}\\ \mathrm{}& (\eta ϵs_{12}^2)/2& 1+(\eta +ϵs_{12}^2)/2\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& (\eta ϵs_{12}^2)/2\end{array}\right),$$
(40)
where $`ϵ`$, $`\eta `$, $`c_{12}`$ and $`s_{12}`$ are defined as in section 5.1.

Let us study non-standard radiative corrections. Substituting the matrix (39) in eq. (27), we get

$$M(m_Z)M_D+M_{\mathrm{rad}}=m\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1+\lambda _1& \lambda _2& \lambda _2^{}\\ \mathrm{}& \lambda _3& 1+\lambda _4\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \lambda _3^{}\end{array}\right),$$
(41)
where, using the definitions in eq. (28),

$$\lambda _1=2\lambda X_{ee},\lambda _2=\lambda (X_{\mu e}X_{e\tau }),\lambda _3=2\lambda X_{\mu \tau },\lambda _4=\lambda (X_{\mu \mu }+X_{\tau \tau }).$$

To reproduce the phenomenological matrix (40) with the matrix (41), one needs to take $`\lambda _2`$ and $`\lambda _3`$ real ($`\lambda _1`$ and $`\lambda _4`$ are real by definition, since $`X`$ is hermitian). Then, assuming for simplicity $`m=m_2`$, the equation $`M(m_Z)=M^{ph}(m_Z)`$ leads to the following relations:

$$\mathrm{tan}2\theta _{12}=\frac{2\sqrt{2}\lambda _2}{\lambda _3\lambda _1\lambda _4},\eta =\lambda _3+\lambda _4,ϵ=\lambda _4\lambda _1\lambda _3.$$
(42)
Let us consider the specific form $`X_{\alpha \beta }=Y_\alpha Y_\beta ^{}`$, where $`Y_\alpha `$ are non-standard Yukawa couplings. In general, before a comparison with eq. (40), this form of $`X`$ should be modified as in eq. (30). Assuming that the effect of this redefinition is very small or can be reabsorbed in a redefinition of $`Y_\alpha `$, one can express the equality $`M(m_Z)=M^{ph}(m_Z)`$ in terms of the parameters defined in eq. (34). In particular, the equality of matrices is realized for $`m=m_3`$ and the same values of parameters as in eq. (38).

Non-standard radiative corrections to the matrix (39) has been discussed also in , in connection with a non-abelian discrete symmetry that leads to the matrix (39) at high energy.

### 5.3 Dominant $`M_{ee}`$ and $`\mu \tau `$-block

Let us assume that the matrix with dominant block at the scale $`m_0`$ is given by

$$M_D=m\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 0& 0\\ 0& 1/2& 1/2\\ 0& 1/2& 1/2\end{array}\right).$$
(43)
This matrix leads to $`\theta _{23}=\pi /4`$, $`\theta _{13}=0`$ and the eigenvalues equal $`(m,m,0)`$. It corresponds to inverted mass spectrum. The SM (MSSM) radiative corrections do not generate $`12`$ mixing because the zero elements $`M_{e\mu }`$ and $`M_{e\tau }`$ are not modified by these corrections.

Let us consider the phenomenological mass matrix with the dominant block structure (43). We assume, for simplicity, $`m_3=\mathrm{arg}(m_1/m_2)=\theta _{13}=0`$ and $`\theta _{23}=\pi /4`$. Then, the matrix can be written as :

$$M^{ph}(m_Z)=m_2\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1ϵc_{12}^2& ϵc_{12}s_{12}/\sqrt{2}& ϵc_{12}s_{12}/\sqrt{2}\\ \mathrm{}& (1ϵs_{12}^2)/2& (1ϵs_{12}^2)/2\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& (1ϵs_{12}^2)/2\end{array}\right),$$
(44)
where $`m_2=\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{atm}}^2}0.05`$eV and $`ϵ\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{sol}}^2/(2\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{atm}}^2)0.01`$.

Let us study non-standard radiative corrections. Substituting the matrix (43) in eq. (27) and requiring $`M_{e\mu }=M_{e\tau }`$ and $`M_{\mu \mu }=M_{\tau \tau }`$ (necessary to reproduce the matrix (44)), we get

$$M(m_Z)M_D+M_{\mathrm{rad}}=m\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1+\lambda _1& \lambda _2& \lambda _2\\ \mathrm{}& 1/2+\lambda _3& 1/2\lambda _3\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& 1/2+\lambda _3\end{array}\right),$$
(45)
where, using the definitions in eq. (28),

$$\lambda _1=2\lambda X_{ee},\lambda _2=2\lambda \mathrm{Re}X_{e\mu },\lambda _3=\lambda (X_{\mu \mu }X_{\mu \tau }).$$

Then, assuming for simplicity $`m=m_2`$, the equation $`M(m_Z)=M^{ph}(m_Z)`$ leads to the following relations:

$$\lambda _2=\sqrt{\lambda _1\lambda _3},\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _{12}=\frac{2\lambda _3}{\lambda _1},ϵ=\lambda _12\lambda _3.$$
(46)
If the matrix $`X`$ has the specific form $`X_{\alpha \beta }=Y_\alpha Y_\beta ^{}`$, one can express the equality $`M(m_Z)=M^{ph}(m_Z)`$ in terms of the parameters defined in eq. (34). For $`m=m_2`$, we get:

$$\lambda _e=ϵc_{12}^2,\lambda _\mu =\lambda _\tau =\frac{ϵs_{12}^2}{2},c_{\mu \tau }=1,c_{e\mu }=c_{e\tau }=1.$$

### 5.4 Dominant $`\mu \tau `$-block

Let us take, at the scale $`m_0`$, the matrix with dominant $`\mu \tau `$-block :

$$M_D=m\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 1\\ 0& 1& 1\end{array}\right).$$
(47)
It corresponds to the case of normal hierarchical mass spectrum ($`m_3m_2m_1`$).

The mass matrix required by phenomenology can be written as an expansion over the small parameters $`\mathrm{cos}2\theta _{23}`$, $`\mathrm{sin}\theta _{13}`$ and $`r\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{sol}}^2/\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{atm}}^2}`$ :

$`M^{ph}(m_Z)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_3}{2}}[\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& 0\\ \mathrm{}& 1& 1\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& 1\end{array}\right)+\mathrm{cos}2\theta _{23}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& 0\\ \mathrm{}& 1& 0\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& 1\end{array}\right)+`$ (61)
$`+\mathrm{sin}\theta _{13}e^{i\delta }\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& \sqrt{2}& \sqrt{2}\\ \mathrm{}& 0& 0\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& 0\end{array}\right)+re^{2i\sigma }\left(\begin{array}{ccc}2s_{12}^2& \sqrt{2}s_{12}c_{12}& \sqrt{2}s_{12}c_{12}\\ \mathrm{}& c_{12}^2& c_{12}^2\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& c_{12}^2\end{array}\right)],`$
where $`\delta `$ is the CP violating Dirac phase and $`\sigma `$ is the CP violating relative Majorana phase between $`m_2`$ and $`m_3`$.

Let us discuss, first, the effect of SM (MSSM) radiative corrections to the matrix (47). Using eq. (10), one sees that $`e`$-row elements remain zero along the RGE running. It is a consequence of eq. (7). In contrast, SM (MSSM) corrections to $`\mu \tau `$-block elements are present. These corrections induce a small deviation from $`\theta _{23}=\pi /4`$, which can be easily computed using eq. (10):

$$\mathrm{cos}2\theta _{23}=(ϵ_\mu ϵ_\tau )k+𝒪(ϵ^2).$$

The first neutrino remains massless and unmixed. Also $`m_2`$ remains zero because the determinant of the $`\mu \tau `$-block is zero even after the inclusion of radiative corrections. Therefore, the solar mass difference and mixing angle are not generated radiatively.

Let us consider, now, the effect of non-standard radiative corrections. Using the dominant matrix (47), the matrix of corrections, given by eq. (27), is:

$$M_{\mathrm{rad}}=m\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& \lambda _1& \lambda _1\\ \mathrm{}& 2\lambda _2& \lambda _2+\lambda _3\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& 2\lambda _3\end{array}\right).$$
(62)
where, using the definitions in eq. (28),

$$\lambda _1=\lambda (X_{e\mu }+X_{e\tau }),\lambda _2=\lambda (X_{\mu \mu }+X_{\mu \tau }),\lambda _3=\lambda (X_{\tau \mu }+X_{\tau \tau }).$$

The eq. (27) implies that a given element $`M_{\alpha \beta }`$ receives corrections proportional only to elements in the $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ rows of $`M_D`$. Since the first row and column in eq. (47) are zero, the element $`M_{ee}`$ remains zero. Corrections to $`M_{e\mu }`$ and $`M_{e\tau }`$ are equal. The matrix $`M=M_D+M_{\mathrm{rad}}`$ has a zero eigenvalue, so that strong normal hierarchy is preserved by radiative corrections.

Comparing the matrix of radiative corrections (62) with the phenomenological matrix (61), we find that the atmospheric angle gets a deviation from $`\pi /4`$ and the angle $`\theta _{13}`$ becomes non-zero:

$$\mathrm{cos}2\theta _{23}\lambda _3\lambda _2,\mathrm{sin}\theta _{13}\lambda _1\frac{e^{i\delta }}{\sqrt{2}}.$$
(63)
A problem appears with the generation of solar parameters, because the structure of the term proportional to $`r`$ in eq. (61) (let us call it $`M^{\mathrm{sol}}`$) differs from the structure (62) of radiative corrections:

$$M_{ee}^{\mathrm{sol}}0,M_{e\mu }^{\mathrm{sol}}=M_{e\tau }^{\mathrm{sol}},M_{\mu \tau }^{\mathrm{sol}}=M_{\mu \mu }^{\mathrm{sol}}=M_{\tau \tau }^{\mathrm{sol}},$$

whereas

$$M_{ee}^{\mathrm{rad}}=0,M_{e\mu }^{\mathrm{rad}}=M_{e\tau }^{\mathrm{rad}},M_{\mu \tau }^{\mathrm{rad}}=\frac{1}{2}(M_{\mu \mu }^{\mathrm{rad}}+M_{\tau \tau }^{\mathrm{rad}}).$$

In fact, computing the eigenvalues of $`M=M_D+M_{\mathrm{rad}}`$, one finds that $`r`$ is of order $`\lambda _i^2`$:

$$r\frac{m_2}{m_3}\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{sol}}^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{atm}}^2}}\frac{\lambda _1^2+(\lambda _2\lambda _3)^2/2}{2}.$$
(64)
To satisfy the lower bound ($`99\%`$ C.L.) on $`r`$, which is $`0.1`$ (LMA), one needs $`\lambda _i0.2÷0.3`$. In other words, LMA solar mass difference can be generated only if radiative corrections are $`10`$ times larger than in the MSSM with large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$.

The equalities $`M_{ee}=0`$ and $`M_{e\mu }=M_{e\tau }(=m\lambda _1)`$ in eq. (62) lead to the following general relations between observables :

$$c_{12}^2=\frac{1+r}{2r}(1\mathrm{sin}2\theta _{23}),\mathrm{tan}\theta _{13}=s_{12}\sqrt{r},\mathrm{sin}\delta =0,\sigma =\frac{\pi }{2}.$$
(65)
The first equality in (65) shows that the LMA solar mixing angle can be obtained only if atmospheric mixing deviates significantly from maximal value and if $`r`$ is substantially smaller than the present best fit value. The equality can be satisfied taking $`99\%`$ C.L. allowed intervals for $`\theta _{12}`$, $`\theta _{23}`$ and $`r`$. The other equalities in (65) show that the radiative corrections (62) give $`s_{13}`$ close to the present upper bound $`0.2`$ and lead to CP conservation in oscillations and to opposite CP parity between $`m_2`$ and $`m_3`$.

We have shown that, using the form (62) of corrections, the predictions for $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{sol}}^2`$ and $`\theta _{12}`$ are too small with respect to phenomenological values. However, the corrections related to the second term in square brackets of eqs. (18), (21) have qualitatively different features and can give better predictions for the solar parameters. In particular, a non-zero $`M_{ee}`$ can be generated by these corrections.

For example, let us consider the interaction in eq. (12). The $`\beta `$-function coefficients are, in this case, $`k_Y^{(1)}=1/2`$ and $`k_Y^{(2)}=1`$. The matrix of couplings $`Y`$ is antisymmetric, therefore the matrix of corrections $`\mathrm{\Delta }M^Y`$ (see eq. (18)) depends on three independent couplings only: $`Y_{e\mu }`$, $`Y_{e\tau }`$ and $`Y_{\mu \tau }`$. We want to compare $`M(m_Z)M_D+\mathrm{\Delta }M^Y`$ with the phenomenological mass matrix (61) (we neglect, for simplicity, the charged lepton rotation $`U_l`$). The equality of the two matrices can be realized for $`\mathrm{sin}\theta _{13}=\mathrm{cos}2\theta _{23}=0`$ and

$$m=\frac{m_3}{2}+\frac{m_2}{2},\lambda Y_{e\mu }^2=\lambda Y_{e\tau }^2=\frac{rs_{12}^2e^{2i\sigma }}{4(1r)},\lambda Y_{\mu \tau }^2=\frac{rc_{12}^2e^{2i\sigma }}{2(1r)},$$
(66)
where $`\lambda `$ is defined in eq. (28).

Notice that, while the form (62) of corrections predicts $`r`$ of order $`\lambda _i^2`$, here $`r`$ is of order $`\lambda _i`$. Therefore, $`10\%`$ radiative corrections are enough to generate radiatively $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{sol}}^2`$. Such corrections can be produced if three generations of new particles (e.g., three scalar singlets) are introduced. As follows from eq. (66), also the solar mixing angle $`\theta _{12}`$ can be generated radiatively (in the LMA allowed range).

## 6 Discussion and conclusions

The structure of the Majorana neutrino mass matrix can be reconstructed, using experimental data, at the electroweak scale $`m_Z`$. This structure changes with RGE running to the high energy scale $`m_0`$. We have analyzed the features of the running between the two scales.

The SM (MSSM) radiative corrections do not modify the matrix structure. In flavor basis, the value of each matrix element at $`m_Z`$ is proportional to the one at $`m_0`$. Moreover, the corrections to this value cannot be larger than few percents. Therefore, both the dominant structure of the mass matrix and the small matrix elements are not modified significantly between $`m_0`$ and $`m_Z`$. Zero elements remain zero.

At the same time SM and MSSM corrections can change significantly observables: corrections can enhance or suppress mixing, modify strongly $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ or even generate mass split. Substantial change of observables occurs for the quasi-degenerate spectrum, with common scale of neutrino mass $`m0.1`$ eV.

We have studied the radiative effects induced by new particles and interactions at a scale $`m_X`$, with $`m_Z<m_X<m_0`$. These non-standard (flavor changing) corrections lead to coupled RGE’s of different matrix elements. As a consequence, small tree-level elements get corrections proportional to the large matrix elements. We have considered non-standard corrections induced by new scalar bosons, new fermions and new gauge bosons.

In all cases, the dominant structure of the mass matrix remains the same between $`m_Z`$ and $`m_0`$. Therefore, if the matrix structure at $`m_0`$ is determined by some symmetry, this symmetric structure can be identified from the experimental data at $`m_Z`$. However, the values of small elements can be strongly modified. We show that small elements of hierarchical matrices can be zero at the scale $`m_0`$ and receive non-zero contributions from radiative corrections. At the high mass scale, only the dominant block elements can be non-zero.

In the case of exactly degenerate neutrino masses, small ($`(0.1÷1)\%`$) corrections to zero elements can generate large mixing angles and mass squared differences in the range required by phenomenology, both for solar and atmospheric neutrinos. We have shown, in particular, that the unit matrix can be the exact form of the neutrino mass matrix at $`m_0`$.

In the case of inverted hierarchy, the structure with zero $`e\mu `$ and $`e\tau `$ elements at $`m_0`$ can lead to correct predictions for low energy solar parameters, if $`1\%`$ non-standard corrections are present.

In the case of normal hierarchical neutrino masses, we have studied the matrix with dominant $`\mu \tau `$-block. Solar mass squared difference and mixing angle can get large renormalization effects. To generate a mass difference in the LMA region, one needs $`10\%`$ radiative corrections.

###### Acknowledgments.

We would like to thank G. Senjanovic for useful discussions. M. F. thanks also S. Bertolini and D. Perini for many comments and clarifications. The work of M. F. is supported in part by the Italian MIUR under the program “Fenomenologia delle Interazioni Fondamentali”.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

A general and challenging problem in effective superstring theories described by supergravity lagrangians is to understand the nature of spontaneous supersymmetry breaking in a model independent fashion  \- .

Superstring vacua obtained by IIB orientifolds with three-brane fluxes turned on  \-  offer suitable examples where the spontaneous breaking of $`N=4N=0`$ supersymmetry can occur by stepwise breaking of supersymmetry $`NN1`$ with vanishing vacuum energy.

Although quantum corrections may spoil this mechanism  (especially if the true vacuum has no supersymmetry), the hope remains that this mechanism may create a hierarchy of scales, as was suggested in the old no-scale supergravity models . We will indeed show that such vacua, giving partial breaking of supersymmetry, are generalized no-scale models.

In extended supergravity the no-scale structure, which results in a positive potential with vacua exhibiting flat directions, crucially depends on the gauge group at work.

The model we will consider here has the property that the scalar manifold of hypermultiplets has some translational isometries corresponding to shifts in the “axion scalars” directions. This in turn implies that a “triangular parametrization” can be given of the manifold, where the axions are contained in the off-diagonal block of the vielbein one form .

We consider the $`N=2`$ theory based on the following non linear $`\sigma `$-model

$$=_V\times _Q=\frac{\mathrm{SU}(1,1)}{\mathrm{U}(1)}\times \frac{\mathrm{SU}(2,2)}{\mathrm{SU}(2)\times \mathrm{SU}(2)\times \mathrm{U}(1)}$$

where $`\frac{\mathrm{SU}(1,1)}{\mathrm{U}(1)}`$ is the special Kähler manifold which corresponds, in a certain (non-degenerate) choice of special coordinates, to a linear prepotential

$$F(X)=\mathrm{i}X^0X^1;f(z)=\mathrm{i}z\text{ with }z=X^1/X^0.$$
(1)
The two dimensional quaternionic manifold $`_Q`$ 111We call $`n_H`$ the (quaternionic) dimension of a quaternionic manifold, where $`4n_H`$ is its real dimension. $`n_H`$ is the number of hypermultiplets of the given $`N=2`$ theory. is also Kähler and it has four translational isometries, corresponding to the decomposition

$$\mathrm{SU}(2,2)\mathrm{SL}(2,)\times \mathrm{SO}(1,1)$$
(2)
under which

$$𝔰𝔲(2,2)𝔰𝔩(2,)+𝔰𝔬(1,1)+\mathrm{𝟒}^++\mathrm{𝟒}^{}.$$

In the gauged version of the model we use the two vectors (the graviphoton plus one matter vector) to gauge two of the four translational isometries $`\mathrm{𝟒}^+`$ of $`\mathrm{SU}(2,2)`$. More precisely, since $`\mathrm{𝟒}^+`$ is a Lorentzian four-vector, one has to gauge two out of the three spatial components of $`\mathrm{𝟒}^+`$.

This model is an $`N=2`$ truncation  of a type IIB $`T^6/_2`$ orientifold with fluxes. Here the two remainig fluxes are described by two gauge coupling constants.

A crucial point of this gauging is that it must be formulated in a duality basis  for special geometry which has a degenerate holomorphic section $`X^\mathrm{\Lambda }(z)`$ (and where no function $`F(X)`$ exists) , that is in a basis non locally related to the “standard” one (1). This is because otherwise it would be impossible to break $`N=2N=1`$ since $`N=2`$ would be either unbroken or completely broken . However, the no-go theorem  is based on the applicability of the $`N=2`$ tensor calculus , which precisely fails for those symplectic bases for which no prepotential function $`F(X)`$ exists.

The role of different choices of symplectic embeddings of duality symmetries has been investigated in recent time

The symplectic basis to be chosen, to realize the partial breaking of supersymmetry, is the one considered in reference  and further extended to the case of $`\frac{\mathrm{SU}(1,1+n)}{\mathrm{SU}(1+n)\times \mathrm{U}(1)}`$ in . In this basis we have $`X^\mathrm{\Lambda }=(X^0,\mathrm{i}X^0)`$ and $`F_\mathrm{\Lambda }=(\mathrm{i}X^1,X^1)`$, so that in the $`z`$ coordinate $`z=X^1/X^0`$ the symplectic section is:

$$X^\mathrm{\Lambda }=(1,\mathrm{i}),F_\mathrm{\Lambda }=(\mathrm{i}z,z).$$
(3)
Correspondingly, the Kähler potential of the $`\frac{\mathrm{SU}(1,1)}{\mathrm{U}(1)}`$ special manifold is:

$$𝒦=\mathrm{log}[\mathrm{i}(\overline{X}^\mathrm{\Lambda }F_\mathrm{\Lambda }X^\mathrm{\Lambda }\overline{F}_\mathrm{\Lambda })]=\mathrm{log}[2(z+\overline{z})];\mathrm{}z<0$$
(4)
The reason for this choice of duality basis comes from the embedding of the type IIB vectors in the duality group . This requires the choice of a basis in which the $`\theta `$ term (given by $`\mathrm{}𝒩_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ in special geometry ) is proportional to the axion contained in the vector multiplet. Indeed, in our basis the kinetic vector matrix is $`𝒩=\mathrm{i}z11`$, which has the required property.

## 2 Quaternionic manifolds and axion symmetries

The manifold $`G/H=\frac{\mathrm{SU}(2,2)}{\mathrm{SU}(2)\times \mathrm{SU}(2)\times \mathrm{U}(1)}`$ can be parametrized, according to the decomposition (2), through a coset element which is the following $`\mathrm{SU}(2,2)`$ $`4\times 4`$ matrix

$$L=\left(\begin{array}{cc}E& BE^1\\ 0& E^1\end{array}\right)$$
(5)
where $`E`$ is an element of $`\frac{\mathrm{SL}(2,)}{\mathrm{SU}(2)}\times \mathrm{SO}(1,1)`$

$$E=e^011+e^i\sigma ^i(e^0,e^i;i=1,2,3;\sigma ^i\text{are Pauli matrices})$$
(6)
with $`e^0>0`$ and $`\mathrm{det}(E)e^2=(e^0)^2e^ie^i>0`$, and $`B`$ is an antihermitian matrix

$$B=\mathrm{i}b^011+\mathrm{i}b^i\sigma ^i(b^0,b^i).$$
(7)
Its left invariant one-form $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=L^1dL`$, satisfying the Maurer–Cartan equation $`d\mathrm{\Gamma }+\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Gamma }=0`$ is an $`𝔰𝔲(2,2)`$ matrix

$$L^1dL=\left(\begin{array}{cc}E^1dE& E^1dBE^1\\ 0& EdE^1\end{array}\right).$$
(8)
In order to extract from it the expressions for the $`H`$-connection and vielbein of $`G/H`$, let us compare (8) with the general form of an arbitrary element of the $`𝔰𝔲(2,2)`$ Lie algebra, satisfying $`\mathrm{Tr}A=0`$; $`\eta A^{}\eta =A`$ with $`\eta =\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 11\\ 11& 0\end{array}\right)`$,

$$A=\left(\begin{array}{cc}p11+(q_1+\mathrm{i}q_2)^i\sigma ^i& \mathrm{i}(r11+s^i\sigma ^i)+\mathrm{i}(t11+u^i\sigma ^i)\\ \mathrm{i}(r11+s^i\sigma ^i)\mathrm{i}(t11+u^i\sigma ^i)& p11(q_1\mathrm{i}q_2)^i\sigma ^i\end{array}\right)$$
(9)
where the 15 elements $`p,q_1^i,q_2^i,r,s^i,t,u^i`$ are all real. The maximal compact subalgebra $`𝔰𝔲(2)\times 𝔰𝔲(2)\times 𝔲(1)`$ is given by the antihermitean part of $`A`$:

$$h=\frac{1}{2}(AA^{})=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{i}q_2^i\sigma ^i& \mathrm{i}(r11+s^i\sigma ^i)\\ \mathrm{i}(r11+s^i\sigma ^i)& \mathrm{i}q_2^i\sigma ^i\end{array}\right)$$
(10)
while the generators of the coset $`\mathrm{SU}(2,2)/[\mathrm{SU}(2)\times \mathrm{SU}(2)\times \mathrm{U}(1)]`$ are in the hermitean part of $`A`$

$$k=\frac{1}{2}(A+A^{})=\left(\begin{array}{cc}p11+q_1^i\sigma ^i& \mathrm{i}(t11+u^i\sigma ^i)\\ \mathrm{i}(t11+u^i\sigma ^i)& p11q_1^i\sigma ^i\end{array}\right)$$
(11)
By comparison, noting that for the left-invariant form $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ of (8) we have:

$`r=t;s^i=u^i`$
$`p11+q_1^i\sigma ^i={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(E^1dE+\text{ h. c.})`$
$`\mathrm{i}q_2^i\sigma ^i={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(E^1dE\text{ h. c.})`$
$`2\mathrm{i}(r11+s^i\sigma ^i)=E^1dBE^1`$ (12)
we finally obtain the decomposition of (8) in vertical (G/H) and horizontal (H) components:

$$(L^1dL)_H=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\omega _1& \omega _0+\omega _2\\ \omega _0+\omega _2& \omega _1\end{array}\right)=\mathrm{\Omega }_{𝔰𝔲(2)\times 𝔰𝔲(2)\times 𝔲(1)}$$
(13)
with

$`\omega _0=\omega _011`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{i}}{2(e^2)^2}}[((e^0)^2+e^ie^i)db^02e^0e^idb^i]11`$
$`\omega _1=\omega _1^i\sigma ^i`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{i}}{e^2}}ϵ^{ijk}e^jde^k\sigma ^i`$
$`\omega _2=\omega _2^i\sigma ^i`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{i}}{2(e^2)^2}}[2e^0e^idb^0+(e^2\delta ^{ij}+2e^ie^j)db^j]\sigma ^i`$ (14)
and

$$(L^1dL)_{G/H}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}V_0+V_1& \omega _0+\omega _2\\ \omega _0\omega _2& V_0V_1\end{array}\right)=𝒱$$
(15)
with

$`V_0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{e^2}}[e^0de^0e^ide^i]11`$
$`V_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{e^2}}[e^0de^ie^ide^0]\sigma ^i.`$ (16)
The vielbein one-form has the off-diagonal components which are given in terms of the off-diagonal components of the H-connection. As we will see in the next section, this peculiar fact is at the origin of the no-scale structure of the theory.

The kinetic energy term is given by

$$h_{uv}dq^udq^v=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{Tr}\left[\left(L^1dL\right)_{G/H}\left(L^1dL\right)_{G/H}\right].$$
(17)
In the gauged theory the differential $`dq`$ is replaced by $`Dq`$, which implies that $`dLDL`$ in (17). In the following we will denote by $`\widehat{\omega }`$, $`\widehat{𝒱}`$ the gauged connection and vielbein in $`L^1DL`$ related to the corresponding ungauged objects of (8).

Let us conclude this paragraph by noticing that another (one dimensional) quaternionic manifold, $`\frac{\mathrm{USp}(2,2)}{\mathrm{USp}(2)\times \mathrm{USp}(2)}`$, can be obtained from the former if we further impose on $`L`$ to be symplectic, i.e.

$$L^T\mathrm{\Omega }L=\mathrm{\Omega },\text{with }\mathrm{\Omega }=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& ϵ\\ ϵ& 0\end{array}\right).$$

It is straightforward to show that this sets $`e^i=b^0=0`$ so that

$`L`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}a11& \mathrm{i}a^1b^i\sigma ^i\\ 0& a^111\end{array}\right)`$
$`L^1dL`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}a^1da11& \mathrm{i}a^2db^i\sigma ^i\\ 0& a^1da11\end{array}\right)`$
$`(L^1dL)_H`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \frac{\mathrm{i}}{2a^2}db^i\sigma ^i\\ \frac{\mathrm{i}}{2a^2}db^i\sigma ^i& 0\end{array}\right)=\mathrm{\Omega }_{𝔰𝔲(2)_R}`$
$`(L^1dL)_{G/H}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}a^1da11& \frac{\mathrm{i}}{2a^2}db^i\sigma ^i\\ \frac{\mathrm{i}}{2a^2}db^i\sigma ^i& a^1da11\end{array}\right)=𝒱`$ (18)
We note that also in this case the off-diagonal component of $`𝒱`$ are related to the $`𝔰𝔲(2)`$ connection that here coincides with the R-symmetry connection $`\omega _R^i=\frac{db^i}{a^2}`$. This is the quaternionic manifold underlying the simplest example of $`N=2`$ gauged supergravity with partial breaking of supersymmetry considered in the literature  222 Note that, in order to compare (18) with reference , we have to set, for the coordinate $`b_0`$ of , $`b_0=a^2`$..

## 3 Gauging quaternionic isometries; scalar potential and masses

In absence of non abelian gauging, $`N=2`$ supergravity predicts a scalar potential of the form

$$V=4h_{uv}k_\mathrm{\Lambda }^uk_\mathrm{\Sigma }^v\overline{X}^\mathrm{\Lambda }X^\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{e}^𝒦+U^{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Sigma }}P_\mathrm{\Lambda }^iP_\mathrm{\Sigma }^i3P_\mathrm{\Lambda }^i\overline{X}^\mathrm{\Lambda }P_\mathrm{\Sigma }^iX^\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{e}^𝒦,(i=1,2,3).$$
(19)
The first term is the contribution of the hyperinos variation, the second term is the contribution of the gauginos and the third of the gravitinos.

The matrix $`U^{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ is given, by special geometry, to be

$$U^{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Sigma }}=\mathrm{e}^𝒦𝒟_iX^\mathrm{\Lambda }𝒟_{\overline{ȷ}}\overline{X}^\mathrm{\Sigma }g^{i\overline{ȷ}}=\frac{1}{2}(\mathrm{}𝒩_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Sigma }})^1\mathrm{e}^𝒦\overline{X}^\mathrm{\Lambda }X^\mathrm{\Sigma }$$
(20)
In the case at hand, the symplectic section (3) gives, for the kinetic matrix, $`𝒩_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Sigma }}=\mathrm{i}z11`$, so that $`\frac{1}{2}(\mathrm{}𝒩_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Sigma }})^1=2\mathrm{e}^𝒦\delta _{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ and we get

$$U^{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Sigma }}P_\mathrm{\Lambda }^iP_\mathrm{\Sigma }^i=\frac{1}{2(z+\overline{z})}\left(P_1^iP_1^i+P_2^iP_2^i\right)=P_\mathrm{\Lambda }^iP_\mathrm{\Sigma }^i\overline{X}^\mathrm{\Lambda }X^\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{e}^𝒦$$
(21)
From (21), the second and third terms in (19) together give a negative contribution to the potential:

$$2P_\mathrm{\Lambda }^i\overline{X}^\mathrm{\Lambda }P_\mathrm{\Sigma }^iX^\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{e}^𝒦=\frac{1}{(z+\overline{z})}\left(P_1^iP_1^i+P_2^iP_2^i\right).$$
(22)
The above term can be further simplified by noting that, when gauging axion symmetries (this actually implies, in the parametrization chosen, that all components of the $`\mathrm{SU}(2)`$ connections are $`b`$-independent), we have

$$P_\mathrm{\Lambda }^i=(\omega _R^i)_uk_\mathrm{\Lambda }^u$$
(23)
where $`(\omega _R^i)_u`$ is the component of the R-symmetry $`SU(2)`$ connection $`\omega _R^i2\mathrm{i}(\omega _1^i+\omega _2^i)`$.

The scalar potential then becomes

$$V=\frac{1}{4}\mathrm{e}^𝒦\left[\left(4h_{b_1b_1}2\omega _{b_1}^i\omega _{b_1}^i\right)g_1^2+\left(4h_{b_2b_2}2\omega _{b_2}^i\omega _{b_2}^i\right)g_2^2\right],$$
(24)
where we have taken $`k_0^{b_i}=\frac{g_1}{2}\delta _1^i`$, $`k_1^{b_i}=\frac{g_2}{2}\delta _2^i`$.

By virtue of the actual form of $`(L^1dL)_H`$ and $`(L^1dL)_{G/H}`$, we notice that the $`\omega _2`$ contributions exactly cancel in $`V`$, with the $`\omega _0`$ terms left, so that

$$V=\frac{2}{(e^2)^4}\mathrm{e}^𝒦e_0^2(e_1^2g_1^2+e_2^2g_2^2)$$
(25)
which gives

$$\frac{V}{e_1}=\frac{V}{e_2}=0e_1=e_2=0$$
(26)
while $`z`$, $`e_0`$ and $`e_3`$ are flat directions.

From the normalization of the kinetic term of the hypermultiplets, setting $`e_1=e_2=0`$, so that $`e^2=e_0^2e_3^2`$, we have, for the two scalars $`e_1,e_2`$

$$h_{e_ie_j}de^ide^j=\mathrm{Tr}(V_1V_1)=\frac{2}{(e^2)^2}e_0^2((de_1)^2+(de_2)^2)(i,j=1,2)$$
(27)
so that the scalar masses are $`m_i^2=\mathrm{e}^𝒦\frac{g_i^2}{(e^2)^2}`$.

The gravitino mass matrix is given by

$$S_{AB}=\frac{\mathrm{i}}{2}\mathrm{e}^{\frac{𝒦}{2}}P_\mathrm{\Lambda }^iX^\mathrm{\Lambda }(\sigma ^iϵ)_{AB}=\frac{\mathrm{i}}{4}\mathrm{e}^{\frac{𝒦}{2}}\left[g_1(\omega _R^i)_{b_1}\mathrm{i}g_2(\omega _R^i)_{b_2}\right](\sigma ^iϵ)_{AB}.$$
(28)
From the explicit form of $`(\omega _R^i)_b=2\mathrm{i}(\omega _2^i)_b`$ we read (at $`e_1=e_2=0`$)

$$(\omega _R)_{b_i}=\frac{1}{(e^2)^2}(e_0^2e_3^2)(\sigma _iϵ),(i=1,2)$$
(29)
so that, recalling that $`\sigma _1ϵ=\sigma _3`$, $`\sigma _2ϵ=\mathrm{i11}`$ ($`ϵ=\mathrm{i}\sigma _2`$) and that the physical gravitino masses are given by the eigenvalues of $`2S_{AB}`$

$$S_{AB}=\frac{\mathrm{i}}{2}\frac{\mathrm{e}^{\frac{𝒦}{2}}}{e^2}\left(\begin{array}{cc}\frac{g_2g_1}{2}& 0\\ 0& \frac{g_1+g_2}{2}\end{array}\right)$$
(30)
Unbroken $`N=1`$ supersymmetry requires $`|g_1|=|g_2|=g`$, in which case the hyperscalars and the gravitino masses are just equal to each other

$$m^2=\frac{\mathrm{e}^𝒦}{(e^2)^2}g^2$$
(31)
The vector bosons masses come from the gauge covariant derivative $`Db^i`$ ($`i=1,2`$) in the hypermultiplets (gauged) kinetic term

$`h_{b_ib_j}Db^iDb^j`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{Tr}(\widehat{\omega }_2\widehat{\omega }_2)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2(e^2)^2}}\left[(db^1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_1A^0)^2+(db^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_2A^1)\right]^2`$ (32)
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8(e^2)^2}}[g_1^2(A^0)^2+g_2^2(A^1)^2].`$
This term has to be confronted with the vectors kinetic term in the lagrangian:

$$\mathrm{}𝒩_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Sigma }}F_{\mu \nu }^\mathrm{\Lambda }F^{\mathrm{\Sigma }\mu \nu }=\mathrm{}z[(F_{\mu \nu }^0)^2+(F_{\mu \nu }^1)^2]$$
(33)
where we have chosen the field strenghts normalization $`F_{\mu \nu }^\mathrm{\Lambda }=\frac{1}{2}(_\mu A_\nu ^\mathrm{\Lambda }_\nu A_\mu ^\mathrm{\Lambda })`$. Using the fact that $`\mathrm{}z=\frac{1}{4}\mathrm{e}^𝒦`$, the standard contribution $`F^2+\frac{1}{2}A^2`$ is finally got with the vector (squared) masses

$$m_i^2=\frac{\mathrm{e}^𝒦}{(e^2)^2}g_i^2.$$
(34)
Note that this result is also true in the one dimensional case of , since the number of vector bosons and charged axions is the same in the two theories.

We just note that in the case of the one dimensional quaternionic manifold $`\frac{\mathrm{USp}(2,2)}{\mathrm{USp}(2)\times \mathrm{USp}(2)}`$  the $`\omega _0`$ term is absent so that

$$4h_{b_ib_i}2\omega _{b_i}^x\omega _{b_i}^x=0$$
(35)
giving $`V0`$, instead of being $`\frac{8}{(e^2)^4}e_0^2e_e^2`$ as in the actual case, which leads to $`V>0`$.

## 4 Relation to $`N=2`$ warped compactifications

The model considered here is the bulk massless sector of the effective theory of the type IIB orientifold  with $`N=4`$ supersymmetry partially broken to $`N=2`$ and then to $`N=0`$. Technically this result is obtained by integrating out two of the four gravitino multiplets, by assuming that $`m_3,m_4>>m_1,m_2`$. In particular, let us start with the $`\mathrm{SO}(6,6)/\mathrm{SO}(6)\times \mathrm{SO}(6)`$ manifold with coordinates $`g_{IJ}=g_{JI}`$, $`b_{IJ}=b_{JI}`$ ($`I,J=1,\mathrm{},6`$). If we use complex coordinates $`I=(i,\overline{ȷ})`$ ($`i,\overline{ȷ}=1,2,3`$), the $`N=4N=3`$ truncation corresponds to keep all $`(g_{i\overline{ȷ}},b_{i\overline{ȷ}})`$ components (and not $`g_{ij}`$, $`b_{ij}`$). A further reduction to $`N=2`$ corresponds to retain only e.g. ($`g_{1,\overline{1}},g_{i\overline{ȷ}}`$), ($`b_{1,\overline{1}},b_{i\overline{ȷ}}`$) with $`i,\overline{ȷ}=2,3`$. Following the notations of , the two massive gravitino multiplets which break $`N=4N=3N=2`$ correspond to fluxes $`f_{123},f_{\overline{1}23}`$. The residual supersymmetry is then broken $`N=2N=1N=0`$ by the fluxes $`f_{1\overline{2}3},f_{\overline{1}\overline{2}3}`$.

It is interesting that, at each stage of partial breaking, we get an effective no-scale supergravity model, with a rather simple geometric structure. The coset described by the $`E`$ coordinates corresponds to the metric moduli of the torus, together with $`\mathrm{}z`$. The five fields $`b_0,b_i,\mathrm{}z`$ correspond to the R-R axions which are retained in the $`N=2`$ truncation.

This model can also be obtained by starting with a $`N=3`$ effective theory with 3 vector multiplets  and integrating out a long $`N=2`$ spin $`3/2`$ multiplet $`((\frac{3}{2}),4(1),(5+1)(\frac{1}{2}),4(0))`$. One sees that the remaining massless degrees of freedom correspond exactly to one vector multiplet and two hypermultiplets as well as the $`N=2`$ graviton multiplet.

The $`N=3`$ manifold $`\frac{\mathrm{SU}(3,3)}{\mathrm{SU}(3)\times \mathrm{SU}(3)\times \mathrm{U}(1)}`$ gets reduced to $`\frac{\mathrm{SU}(1,1)}{\mathrm{U}(1)}\times \frac{\mathrm{SU}(2,2)}{\mathrm{SU}(2)\times \mathrm{SU}(2)\times \mathrm{U}(1)}`$ where $`4`$ of the $`9`$ axions of the $`N=3`$ manifold have been eaten by the 4 vectors of the massive spin-$`3/2`$ multiplet and other 4 metric moduli are the scalar superpartners of the massive gravitino.

It is obvious that the present example can be generalized to include, besides the abelian interactions gauging the axion isometries, an arbitrary interaction with $`n`$ Yang–Mills supermultiplets , with a coset structure

$$\frac{\mathrm{SU}(1,1+n)}{\mathrm{U}(1)\times \mathrm{SU}(1+n)}\times \frac{\mathrm{SU}(2,2+n)}{\mathrm{SU}(2)\times \mathrm{SU}(2+n)\times \mathrm{U}(1)}$$

where $`n=\mathrm{dim}G_{YM}`$.

Note that this structure differs from the one considered in . The vector multiplets part is the same as the one described in .

The vacuum state can at most break $`G_{YM}CSA`$ so that $`n`$ is reduced to the rank of $`G_{YM}`$.

In the supergravity framework the Yang–Mills part corresponds to the D3-brane contribution to the four-dimensional effective theory. .

## 5 Comparison with Calabi–Yau compactifications and other models

The present theory can be compared to other effective $`N=2`$ supergravity theories considered in the literature  \- ,  \- , .

For example, in the context of Calabi–Yau compactifications in type IIB superstring, turning on fluxes corresponds to gauge axion symmetries of the quaternionic manifold, which is obtained by c-map  of some special Kähler manifold .

In the case of a quaternionic geometry obtained by c-map of a special geometry with cubic prepotential, it was shown by Taylor and Vafa  that $`V>0`$. This result is true for an arbitrary special Kähler geometry as appropriate in type IIB Calabi–Yau compactifications. A positive potential was obtained at the $`N=2`$ level in  in the particular simple case of the two dimensional quaternionic manifold $`G_2/\mathrm{SO}(4)`$.

However the basic relation which exists in this case is

$$P_\mathrm{\Lambda }^xP_\mathrm{\Sigma }^x=h_{uv}k_\mathrm{\Lambda }^uk_\mathrm{\Sigma }^v$$
(36)
which then implies

$$V=\left(U^{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Sigma }}+\mathrm{e}^𝒦\overline{X}^\mathrm{\Lambda }X^\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)P_\mathrm{\Lambda }^xP_\mathrm{\Sigma }^x=\frac{1}{2}\left(\mathrm{}𝒩_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Sigma }}\right)^1P_\mathrm{\Lambda }^xP_\mathrm{\Sigma }^x$$
(37)
The problem with this expression is that it never vanishes unless $`P_\mathrm{\Lambda }^x=0`$ since $`\mathrm{}𝒩_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Sigma }}>0`$.

This is partly a consequence of the no-go theorem of  which implies that, in presence of non-degenerate sections $`X^\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ of special geometry, either $`N=2`$ is unbroken or it is broken to $`N=0`$. This point was stressed in reference .

Our examples evade this no-go theorem because we use degenerate sections for the vector multiplets geometry. In our case the $`\mathrm{SU}(1,1)`$ acting on the two vectors mixes electric with magnetic field strenghts. This is related to the fact that in the embedding $`\mathrm{SU}(1,1)\times \mathrm{SU}(2,2)\mathrm{SO}(6,6)`$ but the $`\mathrm{SU}(1,1)`$ factor is not a subset of the electric $`\mathrm{GL}(6)\mathrm{SO}(6,6)`$, which is the maximal subgroup acting linearly on the vector potentials of the parent $`N=4`$ theory .

## 6 Quantum corrections to the cosmological constant

In the present models, giving partial super-Higgs around Minkowski vacuum, we can make some discussion on the one-loop corrections to the cosmological constant.

Let us remind that the quartic, quadratic and logarithmic divergent parts, in any field theory, are respectively controlled by the following coefficients

$$a_k=\underset{J}{}(1)^{2J}(2J+1)m_J^{2k},(k=0,1,2).$$
(38)
While $`a_0=0`$ in any spontaneously broken supersymmetric theory (quartic divergence), the vanishing of $`a_1`$, $`a_2`$ is model-dependent

However, under some mild assumption, in any spontaneously broken $`N`$-extended theory where the partial super-Higgs $`NN1`$ is permitted, the following main formulae are true

$$a_k=\underset{J}{}(1)^{2J}(2J+1)m_J^{2k}=0,0k<N.$$
(39)
This relation follows from the fact that a non vanishing contribution to the vacuum energy must be proportional to $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{i=1}^N\frac{m_i^2}{M_P^2}M_P^4`$.

This is the leading behavior in the variable $`X=\mathrm{\Pi }_{i=1}^N\frac{m_i^2}{M_P^2}`$, at least if we assume analyticity in this variable.

From the above we conclude that there is only a finite correction in $`N=3,4`$ models, while there is a logarithmic correcton to the $`N=2`$ models and a quadratic correction to the $`N=1`$ models.

Note however that in the Scherk–Schwarz $`N=8`$ models  the same formulae were true but for $`0k<\frac{N}{2}`$. This is because in that case the gravitino masses were pairwise degenerate so that the hypotesis of partial breaking $`NN1`$ was invalid.

In our model all fermions helicities have masses $`|g_1\pm g_2|/2`$ while the two vectors and the two massive scalars have squared masses $`g_1^2`$, $`g_2^2`$.333The masses are given in units of the moduli dependent factors $`\frac{\mathrm{e}^{\frac{𝒦}{2}}}{e^2}`$.

Since we have 8 helicities with mass $`|g_1+g_2|/2`$ and 8 helicities with mass $`|g_1g_2|/2`$, we find $`2(g_1+g_2)^2+2(g_1g_2)^2=4g_1^2+4g_2^2`$ which is the same as the bosonic contribution $`3g_1^2+3g_2^2+g_1^2+g_2^2`$. Therefore we have $`_J(1)^{2J}(2J+1)m_J^2=0`$. (In the model of  the bosonic and fermionic contributions were separately equal $`3(g_1^2+g_2^2)`$, so that $`\mathrm{STr}^2=0`$ also in that case). Note that for $`|g_1|=|g_2|`$ $`N=1`$ is unbroken, three spin 1/2 fermions are massless and three have masses $`|g|`$. They join three massless chiral multiplets, one massive gravitino multiplet and an extra massive chiral multiplet.

The quartic mass formula

$$\underset{J}{}(1)^{2J}(2J+1)m_J^4=\mathrm{STr}^4$$
(40)
gives a non vanishing result. It is positive

$$\mathrm{STr}^4=3(g_1^2g_2^2)^2\frac{\mathrm{e}^{2𝒦}}{(e^2)^4}=48m_1^2m_2^2.$$

In the model of  it is instead $`\mathrm{STr}^4=36m_1^2m_2^2`$.

## 7 Conclusions

In this paper we have considered a simple $`N=2`$ lagrangian which correctly reproduces a no-scale extended supergravity model with vanishing vacuum energy and moduli stabilization.

The crucial ingredients, which appear to be quite general and not only inherent to the case under investigation, are two. It is necessary to gauge some translational isometries of the quaternionic manifold, in order to be left with a positive semidefinite scalar potential giving partial super-Higgs. In this respect, the use of a degenerate symplectic section for special geometry is further needed, in order to escape the no-go theorem and allow stepwise supersymmetry breaking $`N=2N=1`$.

A property of such models is that a non trivial moduli space exists in each broken phase. This model is supposed to describe the bulk sector of a type IIB orientifold in presence of fluxes. The three-form fluxes are proportional to $`g_1\pm g_2`$, where $`g_1,g_2`$ are the two gauge couplings of the theory.

This model can be generalized to include Yang–Mills interactions by adding $`N=2`$ vector multiplets and $`N=2`$ hypermultiplets in the adjoint representation of some compact Lie group.

The special geometry relevant for this generalized case, with degenerate symplectic sections, has been described in , and a natural parametrization of the quaternionic manifold also exists.

It is also natural to extend this analysis to manifolds which are not symmetric spaces as in the present case, but still have some abelian isometries to be gauged . We expect some of the properties shown here will also apply, under suitable assumptions, to these more general cases.

## Acknowledgements

We acknowledge interesting discussions with G. Dall’Agata and R. Rattazzi. Work supported in part by the European Community’s Human Potential Program under contract HPRN-CT-2000-00131 Quantum Space-Time, in which L. A., R. D. and M. A. Ll. are associated to Torino University. This work has also been supported by the D.O.E. grant DE-FG03-91ER40662, Task C.