text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The solar neutrino experiments Homestake, Kamiokande, SAGE, GALLEX/GNO, Super-Kamiokande (SK) and SNO , the data on atmospheric neutrinos obtained by the Super-Kamiokande (SK) experiment  and the results from the KamLAND reactor antineutrino experiment , provide very strong evidences for oscillations of flavour neutrinos. The evidences for solar $`\nu _e`$ oscillations into active neutrinos $`\nu _{\mu ,\tau }`$, in particular, were spectacularly reinforced by the first data from the SNO experiment  when combined with the data from the SK experiment , by the more recent SNO data , and by the just published first results of the KamLAND  experiment. Under the rather plausible assumption of CPT-invariance, the KamLAND data practically establishes  the large mixing angle (LMA) MSW solution as unique solution of the solar neutrino problem. This remarkable result brings us, after more than 30 years of research, initiated by the pioneer works of B. Pontecorvo  and the experiment of R. Davis et al. , very close to a complete understanding of the true cause of the solar neutrino problem.

The interpretation of the solar and atmospheric neutrino, and of the KamLAND data in terms of neutrino oscillations requires the existence of 3-neutrino mixing in the weak charged lepton current (see, e.g., ):

$$\nu _{l\mathrm{L}}=\underset{j=1}{\overset{3}{}}U_{lj}\nu _{j\mathrm{L}}.$$
(1)
Here $`\nu _{lL}`$, $`l=e,\mu ,\tau `$, are the three left-handed flavor neutrino fields, $`\nu _{j\mathrm{L}}`$ is the left-handed field of the neutrino $`\nu _j`$ having a mass $`m_j`$ and $`U`$ is the Pontecorvo-Maki-Nakagawa-Sakata (PMNS) neutrino mixing matrix . If the neutrinos with definite mass $`\nu _j`$ are Majorana particles, the process of neutrinoless double-beta ($`(\beta \beta )_{0\nu }`$-) decay will be allowed (for reviews see, e.g., ). If the $`(\beta \beta )_{0\nu }`$-decay is generated only by the (V-A) charged current weak interaction via the exchange of the three Majorana neutrinos $`\nu _j`$ and the latter have masses not exceeding few MeV, the dependence of the $`(\beta \beta )_{0\nu }`$-decay amplitude on the neutrino mass and mixing parameters factorizes in the effective Majorana mass $`\left|<m>\right|`$ (see, e.g., ):

$$\left|<m>\right|=\left|m_1|U_{\mathrm{e1}}|^2+m_2|U_{\mathrm{e2}}|^2e^{i\alpha _{21}}+m_3|U_{\mathrm{e3}}|^2e^{i\alpha _{31}}\right|,$$
(2)
where $`\alpha _{21}`$ and $`\alpha _{31}`$ are two Majorana CP-violating phases 222We assume that $`m_j>0`$ and that the fields of the Majorana neutrinos $`\nu _j`$ satisfy the Majorana condition: $`C(\overline{\nu }_j)^T=\nu _j,j=1,2,3`$, where $`C`$ is the charge conjugation matrix. . If CP-invariance holds, one has  $`\alpha _{21}=k\pi `$, $`\alpha _{31}=k^{}\pi `$, where $`k,k^{}=0,1,2,\mathrm{}`$. In this case

$$\eta _{21}e^{i\alpha _{21}}=\pm 1,\eta _{31}e^{i\alpha _{31}}=\pm 1$$
(3)
represent the relative CP-parities of the neutrinos $`\nu _1`$ and $`\nu _2`$, and $`\nu _1`$ and $`\nu _3`$, respectively. The oscillations between flavour neutrino are insensitive to the Majorana CP-violating phases $`\alpha _{21}`$, $`\alpha _{31}`$  \- information about these phases can be obtained in the $`(\beta \beta )_{0\nu }`$-decay experiments  (see also ). Majorana CP-violating phases, and in particular, the phases $`\alpha _{21}`$ and/or $`\alpha _{31}`$, might be at the origin of the baryon asymmetry of the Universe .

One can express  (see also, e.g., ) the masses $`m_{2,3}`$ and the elements of the lepton mixing matrix entering into eq. (2) for $`\left|<m>\right|`$, in terms of the neutrino oscillation parameters measured in the solar and atmospheric neutrino and KamLAND experiments: $`m_{2,3}`$ — in terms of the neutrino mass squared differences $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_\mathrm{A}^2`$ , driving the solar and atmospheric neutrino oscillations, and the mass $`m_1`$, and $`|U_{\mathrm{e}j}|^2`$, $`j=1,2,3`$, — in terms of the mixing angle which controls the solar $`\nu _e`$ transitions $`\theta _{}`$, and of the lepton mixing parameter $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta `$ limited by the data from the CHOOZ and Palo Verde experiments .

The observation of $`(\beta \beta )_{0\nu }`$-decay will have fundamental implications for our understanding of the symmetries of the elementary particle interactions 333Evidences for $`(\beta \beta )_{0\nu }`$-decay taking place with a rate corresponding to $`0.11\mathrm{eV}\left|<m>\right|0.56`$ eV (95% C.L.) are claimed to have been obtained in . The results announced in  have been criticized in . (see, e.g., ). Under the general and plausible assumptions of 3-$`\nu `$ mixing, neutrino oscillation explanation of the solar and atmospheric neutrino data, massive Majorana neutrinos and $`(\beta \beta )_{0\nu }`$-decay generated only by the (V-A) charged current weak interaction via the exchange of the three Majorana neutrinos, which will be assumed to hold throughout this study, the observation of $`(\beta \beta )_{0\nu }`$-decay can provide unique information on  i) the type of neutrino mass spectrum which can be normal hierarchical (NH), inverted hierarchical (IH), or quasi-degenerate (QD), ii) on the absolute scale of neutrino masses, and  iii) on the Majorana CP-violating phases $`\alpha _{21}`$ and $`\alpha _{31}`$.

A measured value of $`\left|<m>\right|\mathrm{few}\times 10^2`$ eV can provide, in particular, unique constraints on, or even can allow one to determine, the type of the neutrino mass spectrum in the case $`\nu _{1,2,3}`$ are Majorana particles . The solar neutrino data and the first KamLAND results 444We assume throughout this study that CPT-invariance holds in the lepton sector., favor relatively large value of $`\mathrm{cos}2\theta _{}`$, $`\mathrm{cos}2\theta _{}0.40`$ . A value of $`\mathrm{cos}2\theta _{}>`$ 0.25 would imply  the existence of significant lower bounds on $`\left|<m>\right|`$ (exceeding 0.01 eV) in the cases of IH and QD neutrino mass spectrum, and of a stringent upper bound (smaller than 0.01 eV) if the spectrum is of the NH type. The indicated lower bounds are in the range of the sensitivity of currently operating and planned $`(\beta \beta )_{0\nu }`$-decay experiments.

Information on the absolute values of neutrino masses in the range of interest can also be derived in the $`^3\mathrm{H}`$ $`\beta `$-decay neutrino mass experiment KATRIN , and from cosmological and astrophysical data (see, e.g., ref. ).

Rather stringent upper bounds on $`\left|<m>\right|`$ have been obtained in the 76Ge experiments by the Heidelberg-Moscow collaboration , $`\left|<m>\right|<0.35\mathrm{eV}`$ ($`90\%`$ C.L.), and by the IGEX collaboration , $`\left|<m>\right|<(0.331.35)\mathrm{eV}`$ ($`90\%`$ C.L.). Taking into account a factor of 3 uncertainty in the calculated value of the corresponding nuclear matrix element , we get for the upper limit found in : $`\left|<m>\right|<1.05`$ eV. Higher sensitivity to $`\left|<m>\right|`$ is planned to be reached in several $`(\beta \beta )_{0\nu }`$-decay experiments of a new generation. The NEMO3 experiment , which began to take data in July of 2002, and the cryogenics detector CUORICINO  to be operative in 2003, are expected to reach a sensitivity to values of $`\left|<m>\right|0.2`$eV. Up to an order of magnitude better sensitivity, i.e., to $`\left|<m>\right|2.7\times 10^2`$ eV, $`1.5\times 10^2`$eV, $`5.0\times 10^2`$eV, $`2.5\times 10^2`$ eV and $`3.6\times 10^2`$ eV is planned to be achieved in the CUORE, GENIUS, EXO, MAJORANA and MOON experiments  555The quoted sensitivities correspond to values of the relevant nuclear matrix elements from ref. ., respectively.

In what regards the $`^3\mathrm{H}`$ $`\beta `$-decay experiments, the currently existing most stringent upper bounds on the electron (anti-)neutrino mass $`m_{\overline{\nu }_e}`$ were obtained in the Troitzk  and Mainz  experiments and read $`m_{\overline{\nu }_e}<2.2`$ eV. The KATRIN $`^3\mathrm{H}`$ $`\beta `$-decay experiment  is planned to reach a sensitivity to $`m_{\overline{\nu }_e}0.35`$ eV.

In the present article we study in detail the possibility of determining the type, or excluding one or more types, of neutrino mass spectrum by measuring of $`\left|<m>\right|`$ in the next generation of $`(\beta \beta )_{0\nu }`$-decay experiments. The three possible types of spectra are considered 666We work with the convention $`m_1<m_2<m_3`$ and use the term “spectrum with normal (inverted) hierarchy” for the spectra with $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2`$ ($`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2`$), while we call “normal hierarchical (NH)” (“inverted hierarchical (IH)”) the neutrino mass spectrum with normal (inverted) hierarchy and $`m_1m_2,m_3`$.: i) hierarchical (NH) $`m_1m_2m_3`$, ii) inverted hierarchical (IH), $`m_1m_2m_3`$, and iii) quasi-degenerate (QD), $`m_1m_2m_3m_0`$, $`m_{1,2,3}^2\mathrm{\Delta }m_\mathrm{A}^2\text{ }`$. In our analysis we take into account, in particular, the uncertainty in the determination of $`\left|<m>\right|`$ due to the imprecise knowledge of the relevant nuclear matrix elements. This permits us to determine the requirements which the possibility of distinguishing between i) the NH and IH, ii) the NH and QD, and iii) the IH and QD spectra, imposes on the uncertainty in the values of the $`(\beta \beta )_{0\nu }`$-decay nuclear matrix elements. We derive also the maximal values of $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _{}`$ for which the measurement of $`\left|<m>\right|`$ would allow one to discriminate between the NH and IH, NH and QD and IH and QD spectra, for different given values of the nuclear matrix element uncertainty factor. An upper limit $`\left|<m>\right|<\mathrm{few}\times 10^2`$ eV would imply a significant constraint on the type of neutrino mass spectrum in the case the massive neutrinos are Majorana particles, e.g., on the theories in which the neutrino masses are generated via the see-saw mechanism.

It should be noted that the determination of the type of neutrino mass spectrum, based on the measured value of $`\left|<m>\right|`$, would provide simultaneously unique information on the absolute neutrino mass scale . Similar information cannot be obtained in the neutrino oscillation experiments, in which the sign of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_\mathrm{A}^2`$ can be determined 777In the convention in which the sign of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_\mathrm{A}^2\text{ }=\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2`$ is not fixed, the latter determines the ordering of the neutrino masses: $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_\mathrm{A}^2\text{ }>0`$ corresponds to $`m_1<m_2<m_3`$, while $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_\mathrm{A}^2\text{ }<0`$ implies $`m_3<m_1<m_2`$. (see, e.g., ) since neutrino oscillations depend on neutrino mass squared differences and are insensitive to the absolute neutrino mass scale. The sign of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_\mathrm{A}^2`$ can be determined in very long base-line neutrino oscillation experiments at neutrino factories (see, e.g., ), and, e.g, using combined data from long base-line oscillation experiments at the JHF facility and with off-axis neutrino beams . Under certain rather special conditions it might be determined also in experiments with reactor $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ .

## 2 Neutrino Oscillation Data and the Effective Majorana Mass

The predicted value of $`\left|<m>\right|`$ depends in the case of $`3\nu `$ mixing on: i) $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_\mathrm{A}^2`$ , ii) $`\theta _{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2`$, iii) the lightest neutrino mass, and on iv) the mixing angle $`\theta `$. Using the convention $`m_1<m_2<m_3`$, one has $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_\mathrm{A}^2\text{ }\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{jk}^2m_j^2m_k^2`$, and $`m_3=\sqrt{m_1^2+\mathrm{\Delta }m_\mathrm{A}^2\text{ }}`$, while either $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2`$ or $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2`$. The two possibilities for $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2`$ correspond respectively to the two different types of neutrino mass spectrum — with normal and with inverted hierarchy. In the first case we have $`m_2=\sqrt{m_1^2+\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2}`$, $`|U_{\mathrm{e1}}|^2=\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _{}(1|U_{\mathrm{e3}}|^2)`$, $`|U_{\mathrm{e2}}|^2=\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{}(1|U_{\mathrm{e3}}|^2)`$, and $`|U_{\mathrm{e3}}|^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta `$, while in the second $`m_2=\sqrt{m_1^2+\mathrm{\Delta }m_\mathrm{A}^2\text{ }\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2}`$, $`|U_{\mathrm{e2}}|^2=\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _{}(1|U_{\mathrm{e1}}|^2)`$, $`|U_{\mathrm{e3}}|^2=\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{}(1|U_{\mathrm{e1}}|^2)`$, and $`|U_{\mathrm{e1}}|^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta `$.

Given $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2`$ , $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_\mathrm{A}^2`$ , $`\theta _{}`$ and $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta `$, the value of $`\left|<m>\right|`$ depends strongly on the type of the neutrino mass spectrum, as well as on the values of the two Majorana CP-violating phases, $`\alpha _{21}`$ and $`\alpha _{31}`$ (see eq. (2)), present in the lepton mixing matrix. Let us note that in the case of QD spectrum, $`m_1m_2m_3`$, $`m_{1,2,3}^2\mathrm{\Delta }m_\mathrm{A}^2\text{ },\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2`$, $`\left|<m>\right|`$ is essentially independent on $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_\mathrm{A}^2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2`$, and the two possibilities, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2`$, lead effectively to the same predictions for $`\left|<m>\right|`$ 888This statement is valid, within the convention $`m_1<m_2<m_3`$ we are using, as long as there are no independent constraints on the CP-violating phases $`\alpha _{21}`$ and $`\alpha _{31}`$ which enter into the expression for $`\left|<m>\right|`$. In the case of NH spectrum, $`\left|<m>\right|`$ depends primarily on $`\alpha _{21}`$ ($`|U_{\mathrm{e3}}|^21`$), while if the spectrum is with IH, $`\left|<m>\right|`$ will depend essentially on $`\alpha _{31}\alpha _{21}`$ ($`|U_{\mathrm{e1}}|^21`$)..

The possibility of determining the type of the neutrino mass spectrum if $`\left|<m>\right|`$ is found to be nonzero in the $`(\beta \beta )_{0\nu }`$-decay experiments of the next generation, depends crucially on the precision with which $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_\mathrm{A}^2`$ , $`\theta _{}`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2`$, $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta `$ and $`\left|<m>\right|`$ will be measured. It depends also crucially on the values of $`\theta _{}`$ and of $`\left|<m>\right|`$. The precision itself of the measurement of $`\left|<m>\right|`$ in the next generation of $`(\beta \beta )_{0\nu }`$\- decay experiments, given the latter sensitivity limits of $`(1.55.0)\times 10^2\mathrm{eV}`$, depends on the value of $`\left|<m>\right|`$.

The KATRIN experiment  can test the hypothesis of a QD spectrum 999Given the allowed regions of values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_\mathrm{A}^2`$  , one has a QD spectrum for $`m_{1,2,3}m_{\overline{\nu }_e}>0.20`$ eV., provided $`m_{1,2,3}m_{\overline{\nu }_e}>(0.350.40)`$ eV. The KATRIN detector is designed to have a 1 s.d. error of 0.08 eV2 on a measured value of $`m_{\overline{\nu }_e}^2`$. This experiment is expected to start in 2007.

Assuming CPT-invariance, combined $`\nu _e\nu _{\mu (\tau )}`$ and $`\overline{\nu _e}\overline{\nu }_{\mu (\tau )}`$ oscillation analyzes of the solar neutrino data and of the just published first KamLAND results , have already been performed in . All analyzes show that the data favor the LMA MSW solution with $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2>0`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _{}<1`$, all the other solutions (LOW, VO, etc.) being essentially ruled out. In Tables 1 and 2 we give the best-fit values and the 90% C.L. allowed ranges of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _{}`$ in the LMA solution region obtained in . The best fit values are confined to the narrow intervals $`(\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2)_{\mathrm{BF}}=(6.97.3)\times 10^5\mathrm{eV}^2`$, $`(\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _{})_{\mathrm{BF}}=(0.420.46)`$. The latter corresponds to $`(\mathrm{cos}2\theta _{})_{\mathrm{BF}}=(0.370.41)`$.

In the two-neutrino $`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$ ($`\overline{\nu }_\mu \overline{\nu }_\tau `$) oscillation analysis of the SK atmospheric neutrino data performed in  the following best-fit value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_\mathrm{A}^2`$ was obtained: $`(\mathrm{\Delta }m_\mathrm{A}^2\text{ })_{\mathrm{BF}}2.5\times 10^3\mathrm{eV}^2`$. At 99.73% C.L., $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_\mathrm{A}^2`$ was found to lie in the interval: $`(1.55.0)\times 10^3\mathrm{eV}^2`$. According to the more recent combined analysis of the data from the SK and K2K experiments , one has $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_\mathrm{A}^2\text{ }(2.7\pm 0.4)\times 10^3\mathrm{eV}^2`$. In certain cases of our analysis we will use as illustrative “best-fit” values $`(\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2)_{\mathrm{BF}}=7.0\times 10^5\mathrm{eV}^2`$ and $`(\mathrm{\Delta }m_\mathrm{A}^2\text{ })_{\mathrm{BF}}=3.0\times 10^3\mathrm{eV}^2`$.

For the indicated allowed ranges of values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_\mathrm{A}^2`$ , the NH (IH) spectrum corresponds to $`m_1<10^3(2\times 10^2)`$ eV.

A 3-$`\nu `$ oscillation analysis of the CHOOZ data showed  that for $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2<10^4\mathrm{eV}^2`$, the limits on $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta `$ practically coincide with those derived in the 2-$`\nu `$ oscillation analysis in . Combined 3-$`\nu `$ oscillation analysis of the solar neutrino, CHOOZ and the KamLAND data was performed in  under the assumption of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2\mathrm{\Delta }m_\mathrm{A}^2\text{ }`$ (see, e.g., ). For the best-fit value of $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta `$ the authors of  obtained: $`(\mathrm{sin}^2\theta )_{\mathrm{BF}}(0.000.01)`$. It was also found in  that $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta <0.05`$ at 99.73% C.L.

The existing solar neutrino and KamLAND data favor values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2(5.010.0)\times 10^5\mathrm{eV}^2`$ . If $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2`$ lies in this interval, a combined analysis of the future more precise KamLAND results and of the solar neutrino data would permit to determine the values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _{}`$ with high precision: the estimated (1 s.d.) errors on $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2`$ and on $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _{}`$ can be as small as $`(35)\%`$ and $`5\%`$ (see, e.g., ).

Similarly, if $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_\mathrm{A}^2`$ lies in the interval $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_\mathrm{A}^2\text{ }(2.05.0)\times 10^3\mathrm{eV}^2`$, as is suggested by the current atmospheric neutrino data , its value will be determined with a $`10\%`$ error (1 s.d.) by the MINOS experiment . Somewhat better limits on $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta `$ than the existing one can be obtained in the MINOS experiment  as well. Various options are being currently discussed (experiments with off-axis neutrino beams, more precise reactor antineutrino and long base-line experiments, etc., see, e.g., ) of how to improve by at least an order of magnitude, i.e., to values of $`0.005`$ or smaller, the sensitivity to $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta `$.

The high precision measurements of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_\mathrm{A}^2`$ , $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2`$ are expected to take place within the next $`(67)`$ years. We will assume in what follows that the problem of measuring or tightly constraining $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta `$ will also be resolved within the indicated period. Under these conditions, the largest uncertainty in the comparison of the theoretically predicted value of $`\left|<m>\right|`$ with that determined in the $`(\beta \beta )_{0\nu }`$-decay experiments would be associated with the corresponding $`(\beta \beta )_{0\nu }`$-decay nuclear matrix elements. We will also assume in what follows that by the time one or more $`(\beta \beta )_{0\nu }`$-decay experiments of the next generation will be operative ($`20092010`$) at least the physical range of variation of the values of the relevant $`(\beta \beta )_{0\nu }`$-decay nuclear matrix elements will be unambiguously determined.

## 3 Determining the Type of Neutrino Mass Spectrum

The possibility to distinguish between the three different types of neutrino mass spectrum in the 3-neutrino mixing case under discussion depends on the allowed ranges of values of $`\left|<m>\right|`$ for the three spectra. More specifically, it is determined by the maximal values of $`\left|<m>\right|`$ in the cases of NH and IH spectra and by the minimal values of $`\left|<m>\right|`$ for the IH and QD spectra. For the NH neutrino mass spectrum ($`m_1m_2m_3`$), the maximal value of $`\left|<m>\right|`$ is obtained in the case of CP-conservation and equal CP-parities of $`\nu _{1,2,3}`$:

$$\left|<m>\right|_{\mathrm{max}}^{\mathrm{NH}}\frac{1s^2}{1+\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _{}}\left(m_1+\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _{}\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2\text{ }}+(1+\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _{})\frac{s^2}{1s^2}\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }m_\mathrm{A}^2\text{ }}\right),$$
(4)
where $`s^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta `$ and we have neglected $`m_1^2`$ with respect to $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_\mathrm{A}^2`$ .

In the case of IH neutrino mass spectrum ($`m_1m_2m_3`$), the effective Majorana mass lies in the interval

$$\left|<m>\right|_{\mathrm{min}}^{\mathrm{IH}}\left|<m>\right|^{\mathrm{IH}}\left|<m>\right|_{\mathrm{max}}^{\mathrm{IH}},$$
(5)
with

$$\left|<m>\right|_{\mathrm{min}}^{\mathrm{IH}}(1s^2)\mathrm{cos}2\theta _{}\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }m_\mathrm{A}^2\text{ }},\left|<m>\right|_{\mathrm{max}}^{\mathrm{IH}}(1s^2)\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }m_\mathrm{A}^2\text{ }},$$
(6)
where we have neglected $`m_1`$. The minimal (maximal) value of $`\left|<m>\right|`$, $`\left|<m>\right|_{\mathrm{min}}^{\mathrm{IH}}`$ ($`\left|<m>\right|_{\mathrm{max}}^{\mathrm{IH}}`$), corresponds to CP-conservation and opposite (equal) CP-parities of the neutrinos $`\nu _2`$ and $`\nu _3`$.

The minimal value of $`\left|<m>\right|`$ for the quasi-degenerate (QD) neutrino mass spectrum ($`m_1m_2m_3m_0`$, $`m_0^2\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2\text{ },\mathrm{\Delta }m_\mathrm{A}^2\text{ }`$), for fixed value of $`m_0`$ is given by

$$\left|<m>\right|_{\mathrm{min}}^{\mathrm{QD}}\frac{1s^2}{1+\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _{}}\left(1\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _{}\frac{s^2}{1s^2}(1+\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _{})\right)m_0,$$
(7)
where $`m_0>0.20`$ eV and we have neglected $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_\mathrm{A}^2`$ with respect to $`m_0^2`$. As eq. (7) shows, $`\left|<m>\right|_{\mathrm{min}}^{\mathrm{QD}}`$ scales to a good approximation with $`m_0`$. Correspondingly, the minimal allowed value of $`\left|<m>\right|`$ for the QD mass spectrum is obtained for $`m_0=0.2`$ eV.

In Tables 1 and 2 we show the calculated i) maximal predicted value of $`\left|<m>\right|`$ in the case of NH neutrino mass spectrum, ii) the minimal value of $`\left|<m>\right|`$ for the IH spectrum, and iii) the minimal value of $`\left|<m>\right|`$ for the QD spectrum ($`m_0=0.2`$ eV), for the best-fit and the 90% C.L. allowed ranges of values of $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2`$ in the LMA solution region. In Table 3 we give the same quantities, $`\left|<m>\right|_{\mathrm{max}}^{\mathrm{NH}}`$, $`\left|<m>\right|_{\mathrm{min}}^{\mathrm{IH}}`$ and $`\left|<m>\right|_{\mathrm{min}}^{\mathrm{QD}}`$, calculated using the best-fit values of the neutrino oscillation parameters, including 1 s.d. (3 s.d.) uncertainties of 5% (15%) on $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2`$ and of 10% (30%) on $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_\mathrm{A}^2`$ .

The maximal predicted value of $`\left|<m>\right|`$ for the IH spectrum is given by $`\left|<m>\right|_{\mathrm{max}}^{\mathrm{IH}}\sqrt{(\mathrm{\Delta }m_\mathrm{A}^2\text{ })_{\mathrm{max}}}`$. For the best-fit value  and the 99.73% C.L. allowed range  of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_\mathrm{A}^2`$ we have, respectively, $`\left|<m>\right|_{\mathrm{max}}^{\mathrm{IH}}0.05\mathrm{and}0.07`$ eV.

On the basis of the results shown in Tables $`13`$, we can conclude, in particular, that the NH spectrum could be ruled out if the measured value of $`\left|<m>\right|`$ exceeds approximately $`0.9\times 10^2`$ eV, where we have been rather conservative in choosing the maximal value.

### 3.1 Theoretical and Experimental Uncertainties in $`\left|<m>\right|`$

Following the notation in ref. , we will parametrize the uncertainty in $`\left|<m>\right|`$ due to the imprecise knowledge of the relevant nuclear matrix elements — we will use the term “theoretical uncertainty” for the latter — through a parameter $`\zeta `$, $`\zeta 1`$, defined as:

$$\left|<m>\right|=\zeta \left((\left|<m>\right|_{\mathrm{exp}})_{_{\mathrm{MIN}}}\pm \mathrm{\Delta }\right),$$
(8)
where $`(\left|<m>\right|_{\mathrm{exp}})_{_{\mathrm{MIN}}}`$ is the value of $`\left|<m>\right|`$ obtained from the measured $`(\beta \beta )_{0\nu }`$-decay half life-time of a given nucleus using the largest nuclear matrix element and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the experimental error. An experiment measuring a $`(\beta \beta )_{0\nu }`$-decay half-life time will thus determine a range of $`\left|<m>\right|`$ corresponding to

$$(\left|<m>\right|_{\mathrm{exp}})_{_{\mathrm{MIN}}}\mathrm{\Delta }\left|<m>\right|\zeta \left((\left|<m>\right|_{\mathrm{exp}})_{_{\mathrm{MIN}}}+\mathrm{\Delta }\right).$$
(9)
The currently estimated range of $`\zeta `$ for experimentally interesting nuclei varies from 3.5 for 48Ca to 38.7 for 130Te, see, e.g., Table 2 in ref.  and ref. .

We estimate, following again , the 1 s.d. error on the experimentally measured value of $`\left|<m>\right|`$ by using the standard expression

$$\frac{\sigma (\left|<m>\right|)}{\left|<m>\right|}=\sqrt{(E_1)^2+(E_2)^2},$$
(10)
where $`E_1`$ and $`E_2`$ are the statistical and systematic errors. We choose $`E_2=const=0.05`$ and take $`E_1=f/\left|<m>\right|`$, where we assume $`f`$ = 0.028 eV. This gives a total relative error $`\sigma (\left|<m>\right|)/\left|<m>\right|15\%`$ at $`\left|<m>\right|=0.20`$ eV. The above choices were motivated by the fact that the sensitivities of the next generation of $`(\beta \beta )_{0\nu }`$-decay experiments in the measurement of $`\left|<m>\right|`$ are estimated to be in the range of $`(1.55.0)\times 10^2`$ eV and if, e.g, $`\left|<m>\right|>0.20`$ eV, a precision in the determination of $`\left|<m>\right|`$ corresponding to an error of $`15\%`$ could be reached in these experiments. Moreover, for values of $`\left|<m>\right|`$ which are sufficiently bigger than the quoted sensitivity limits of the future experiments, the statistical error scales as $`\left|<m>\right|`$ increases like $`E_1const/\left|<m>\right|`$.

### 3.2 Requirements on the Solar Neutrino Mixing Angle

We shall derive next the constraints $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _{}`$ must satisfy in order to be possible to distinguish between the three types of neutrino mass spectrum NH, IH and QD.

Case i). Normal Hierarchical and Inverted Hierarchical Spectra. In order to be possible to distinguish between the NH and IH spectra, the following inequality must hold:

$$\zeta \left|<m>\right|_{\mathrm{max}}^{\mathrm{NH}}<\left|<m>\right|_{\mathrm{min}}^{\mathrm{IH}},\zeta 1.$$
(11)
From this inequality, using eqs. (4) and (6), we get:

$$\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _{}<\frac{1\zeta (\beta +t^2)}{1+\zeta (\alpha +t^2)},$$
(12)
where $`t^2=s^2/(1s^2)`$, $`\alpha =\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2\text{ }/\mathrm{\Delta }m_\mathrm{A}^2\text{ }}`$ and $`\beta =\sqrt{m_1^2/\mathrm{\Delta }m_\mathrm{A}^2\text{ }}`$. For our illustrative “best-fit” values $`(\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2)_{\mathrm{BF}}=7.0\times 10^5\mathrm{eV}^2`$ and $`(\mathrm{\Delta }m_\mathrm{A}^2\text{ })_{\mathrm{BF}}3.0\times 10^3\mathrm{eV}^2`$, one has $`\alpha 0.153`$; with $`m_1<0.001`$ eV one also finds $`\beta <0.018`$. For $`\zeta =1`$, the indicated values of $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ and $`s^2=0.05(0)`$, eq. (12) is fulfilled for $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _{}<0.77(0.85)`$. Taking $`\zeta =2`$, one finds $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _{}<0.61(0.74)`$, while for $`\zeta =3`$ the result is $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _{}<0.49(0.65)`$.

The smaller $`m_1`$ and/or $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2`$ , the closer the upper bound on $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _{}`$ of interest becomes to 1. The above analysis shows also that the upper bound on $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _{}`$ under discussion exhibits relatively strong dependence on the value of $`s^2<0.05`$: it increases by a factor of $`(1.21.5)`$ when $`s^2`$ decreases from 0.05 to 0.

Case ii). Normal Hierarchical and Quasi-Degenerate Spectra.  Distinguishing between the NH and QD spectra requires that the following inequality is satisfied:

$$\zeta \left|<m>\right|_{\mathrm{max}}^{\mathrm{NH}}<\left|<m>\right|_{\mathrm{min}}^{\mathrm{QD}},\zeta 1.$$
(13)
From this inequality using eqs. (4) and (7) we get:

$$\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _{}<\frac{1\zeta \stackrel{~}{\beta }t^2(1+\zeta \stackrel{~}{\gamma })}{1+\zeta \stackrel{~}{\alpha }+t^2(1+\zeta \stackrel{~}{\gamma })},$$
(14)
where $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }=\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2\text{ }/m_0^2}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }=m_1/m_0`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }=\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }m_\mathrm{A}^2\text{ }/m_0^2}`$. For our illustrative “best-fit” values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_\mathrm{A}^2`$ and $`m_0>0.2`$ eV, we have: $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }<0.042`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }<0.000025`$, and $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }<0.274`$. Using these upper limits we find that for $`s^2=0.05(0)`$ and $`\zeta =1`$, eq. (14) is satisfied if $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _{}<0.9(1.0)`$. Taking $`\zeta =2,3`$ we get $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _{}<0.8(1.0)`$ for $`s^2=0.05(0)`$. If, e.g., $`m_0=2.0`$ eV, one finds $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }<0.035`$, i.e., the larger the value of $`m_0`$, the smaller $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }`$ and the closer is the upper bound on $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _{}`$ to 1, i.e., the less constraining it is. Since $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }`$ enters into eq. (14) multiplied by the relatively small quantity $`t^2`$, the deviation of the upper bound on $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _{}`$ under discussion from 1 is determined essentially by the value of $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }`$. Correspondingly, the maximal value of $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _{}`$ permitting to distinguish between the NH and QD neutrino mass spectra decreases with increasing of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2`$ .

Case iii). Inverted Hierarchical and Quasi-Degenerate Spectrum. One could distinguish between these two types of spectra if the following inequality is fulfilled:

$$\zeta \left|<m>\right|_{\mathrm{max}}^{\mathrm{IH}}<\left|<m>\right|_{\mathrm{min}}^{\mathrm{QD}},\zeta 1.$$
(15)
This condition together with eqs. (6) and (7) leads to the constraint

$$\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _{}<\frac{1\zeta \stackrel{~}{\gamma }t^2}{1+\zeta \stackrel{~}{\gamma }+t^2},$$
(16)
where $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }`$ was defined earlier. Using our illustrative $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_\mathrm{A}^2`$ “best-fit” values and $`m_0>0.2`$ eV, one finds $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }<0.274`$. For $`s^2=0.05(0)`$ and $`\zeta =1`$, the above limit on $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }`$ together with eq. (16) leads to $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _{}<0.5(0.6)`$. Larger values of $`\zeta `$ lead to stringent restrictions on $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _{}`$: for $`\zeta =2`$, for instance, we find $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _{}<0.2(0.3)`$ for $`s^2=0.05(0)`$. The requirement that the two spectra could be distinguished is less restrictive for larger values of $`m_0`$ in this case as well.

These simple quantitative analyses show that if $`\left|<m>\right|`$ is found to be non-zero in the future $`(\beta \beta )_{0\nu }`$-decay experiments, it would be easier, in general, to distinguish between the spectrum with NH and those with IH or of QD type using the data on $`\left|<m>\right|0`$, than to distinguish between the IH and the QD spectra. Discriminating between the latter would be less demanding if $`m_0`$ is sufficiently large. The requirement of distinguishing between the NH and the QD spectra leads to the least stringent conditions.

The above analyses also show that the possibility to distinguish between the IH and QD, and NH and QD, spectra depends rather weakly on the value $`s^2`$, satisfying the existing upper limits : the relevant upper bounds on $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _{}`$ decrease somewhat with decreasing of $`s^2`$. This is not so in the case of NH versus IH spectra: the upper bound of interest can increase noticeably (e.g., by a factor of $`(1.21.5)`$) when $`s^2`$ decreases from 0.05 to 0.

It is worth noting that in contrast to the conditions which would allow one to establish on the basis of a measurement of $`\left|<m>\right|0`$ the presence of CP violation due to the Majorana CP-violating phases , the conditions permitting to distinguish between the three types of neutrino mass spectrum imply an upper limit on $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _{}`$.

In Fig. 1 we show the upper bounds on $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _{}`$, for which one can distinguish the NH spectrum from the IH spectrum and from that of QD type, as a function of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2`$  for different values of $`\zeta `$. As is seen from the figure, the dependence of the maximal value of $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _{}`$ of interest on $`m_0`$ in both cases is modest. Obviously, with the increasing of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2`$ and/or $`s^2`$, $`\left|<m>\right|_{\mathrm{max}}^{\mathrm{NH}}`$ also increases. As a consequence, the maximal $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _{}`$ under discussion decreases, which means that the corresponding spectra become harder to distinguish.

As we have seen, in order to be possible to distinguish between the IH and the QD spectra eq. (16) should be fulfilled. Fig. 2 shows the upper bound on $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _{}`$ as implied by eq. (16), for $`s^2=0.05\mathrm{and}0.0`$ as a function of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_\mathrm{A}^2`$ . The upper bound on $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _{}`$ of interest depends strongly on the value of $`m_0`$. It decreases with the increasing of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_\mathrm{A}^2`$ , the dependence on $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_\mathrm{A}^2`$ being noticeable for $`m_00.20`$ eV and rather mild for $`m_0>0.40`$ eV. As it follows from Fig. 2, for the values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_\mathrm{A}^2`$ favored by the neutrino oscillation data and for $`\zeta >2`$, distinguishing between the IH and QD spectra in the case of $`m_00.20`$ eV requires too small, from the point of view of the existing data, values of $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _{}`$. For $`m_0>0.40`$ eV, the values of $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _{}`$ of interest fall in the ranges favored by the existing solar neutrino and KamLAND data even for $`\zeta =3`$.

### 3.3  Requirements on $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`\zeta `$

We will investigate now the requirements the experimental and theoretical uncertainties $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`\zeta `$ should satisfy in order to allow one to discriminate between the three different neutrino mass spectra if $`\left|<m>\right|`$ is measured, or a significantly improved bound on $`\left|<m>\right|`$ is obtained.

#### 3.3.1  Testing the Quasi-Degenerate Neutrino Mass Spectrum

In order to rule out the QD spectrum it is necessary that

$$\zeta \left((\left|<m>\right|_{_{\mathrm{exp}}})_{_{\mathrm{MIN}}}+\mathrm{\Delta }\right)<\left|<m>\right|_{\mathrm{min}}^{\mathrm{QD}},$$
(17)
which translates into a condition on the nuclear matrix element uncertainty $`\zeta `$

$$\zeta <\frac{\left|<m>\right|_{\mathrm{min}}^{\mathrm{QD}}}{(\left|<m>\right|_{_{\mathrm{exp}}})_{_{\mathrm{MIN}}}}\left(1+\frac{\sigma (\left|<m>\right|)}{\left|<m>\right|}\right)^1.$$
(18)
For the illustrative sensitivities of the future $`(\beta \beta )_{0\nu }`$-decay experiments, $`(\left|<m>\right|_{_{\mathrm{exp}}})_{_{\mathrm{MIN}}}=0.01;0.02`$; $`0.04\mathrm{eV}`$, negligible $`\sigma (\left|<m>\right|)/\left|<m>\right|`$, and the predicted values of $`\left|<m>\right|_{\mathrm{min}}^{\mathrm{QD}}=(0.0480.056)\mathrm{eV}`$ reported in Table 3 (the 3 s.d. case), we have $`\zeta <(4.85.6);(2.42.8);(1.21.4)`$. The better the sensitivity of the future experiments, the larger is the allowed nuclear matrix element uncertainty. Including a non-negligible $`\sigma (\left|<m>\right|)/\left|<m>\right|`$ makes even more restrictive the condition on $`\zeta `$.

Proving that the neutrino mass spectrum is of the QD type requires that $`(\left|<m>\right|_{\mathrm{exp}})_{_{\mathrm{MIN}}}\mathrm{\Delta }>\left|<m>\right|_{\mathrm{min}}^{\mathrm{QD}}`$, which implies an upper bound on $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }<(\left|<m>\right|_{\mathrm{exp}})_{_{\mathrm{MIN}}}\left|<m>\right|_{\mathrm{min}}^{\mathrm{QD}}.$$
(19)
Using the values of $`\left|<m>\right|_{\mathrm{min}}^{\mathrm{QD}}`$ reported in Table 3 (the 3 s.d. case), we find the corresponding upper bounds $`\mathrm{\Delta }<(52,52,44,46)\times 10^3\mathrm{eV}`$, for $`(\left|<m>\right|_{\mathrm{exp}})_{_{\mathrm{MIN}}}=0.1\mathrm{eV}`$, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }<(152,152,144,146)\times 10^3\mathrm{eV}`$, for $`(\left|<m>\right|_{\mathrm{exp}})_{_{\mathrm{MIN}}}=0.2\mathrm{eV}`$. If the above condition is fulfilled, condition (15) with $`\zeta =1`$, which guarantees that the QD spectrum is distinguishable from the NH and IH ones, should also be satisfied. For the illustrative “best-fit” values $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2=7.0\times 10^5\mathrm{eV}^2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_\mathrm{A}^2\text{ }=3.0\times 10^3\mathrm{eV}^2`$, and for $`s^2=0.05(0)`$, eq. (15) ($`\zeta =1`$) holds if $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _{}<0.5(0.6)`$.

#### 3.3.2  Testing the Normal Hierarchical Spectrum

The NH neutrino mass spectrum would be ruled out if

$$(\left|<m>\right|_{\mathrm{exp}})_{_{\mathrm{MIN}}}\mathrm{\Delta }>\left|<m>\right|_{\mathrm{max}}^{\mathrm{NH}}.$$
(20)
Parametrizing $`(\left|<m>\right|_{\mathrm{exp}})_{_{\mathrm{MIN}}}`$ as $`(\left|<m>\right|_{\mathrm{exp}})_{_{\mathrm{MIN}}}=y^{_{\mathrm{NH}}}\left|<m>\right|_{\mathrm{max}}^{\mathrm{NH}}`$, $`y^{_{\mathrm{NH}}}>1`$, we get

$$\mathrm{\Delta }<(y^{_{\mathrm{NH}}}1)\left|<m>\right|_{\mathrm{max}}^{\mathrm{NH}}.$$
(21)
How restrictive this condition is depends on the value of $`\left|<m>\right|_{\mathrm{max}}^{\mathrm{NH}}`$. Assuming that the more precise measurements of $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _{}`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_\mathrm{A}^2`$ and $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta `$ will not produce results very different from their current best-fit values, we can use the predictions for $`\left|<m>\right|_{\mathrm{max}}^{\mathrm{NH}}`$ given in Table 3 (3 s.d. case): $`\left|<m>\right|_{\mathrm{max}}^{\mathrm{NH}}`$ $`0.0066`$ eV. With this value one finds that for $`y^{_{\mathrm{NH}}}=40,30,20,10,7,5`$, condition (21) is satisfied if $`\mathrm{\Delta }<(25.7,19.1,12.5,5.9,4.0,2.6)\times 10^2`$ eV. Alternatively, if experimentally $`\mathrm{\Delta }=(0.30,0.20,0.10,0.05)`$ eV, condition (21) will hold provided $`y^{_{\mathrm{NH}}}>46.5,31.3,16.2,8.6`$.

#### 3.3.3  Probing the Inverted Hierarchical Spectrum

For the IH neutrino mass spectrum, $`\left|<m>\right|^{\mathrm{IH}}`$ is constrained to lie in the interval given by eqs. (5) and (6). The IH spectrum can be ruled out if the experimentally measured value of $`\left|<m>\right|`$, with both the experimental error $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and the nuclear matrix element uncertainty factor $`\zeta `$ taken into account, lies outside the range given in eq. (5). There are two possibilities.

Case i).

$$(\left|<m>\right|_{_{\mathrm{exp}}})_{_{\mathrm{MIN}}}\mathrm{\Delta }>\left|<m>\right|_{\mathrm{max}}^{\mathrm{IH}},$$
(22)
where $`\left|<m>\right|_{\mathrm{max}}^{\mathrm{IH}}`$ depends on the allowed values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_\mathrm{A}^2`$ and $`s^2`$ and is given in the captions of Tables $`13`$. Using the parametrization $`(\left|<m>\right|_{\mathrm{exp}})_{_{\mathrm{MIN}}}=y^{^{\mathrm{IH}}}\left|<m>\right|_{\mathrm{max}}^{\mathrm{IH}}`$, $`y^{^{\mathrm{IH}}}>1`$, we are lead to the condition

$$\mathrm{\Delta }<(y^{\mathrm{IH}}1)(1s^2)\sqrt{(\mathrm{\Delta }m_\mathrm{A}^2\text{ })_{\mathrm{max}}}.$$
(23)
For $`y^{\mathrm{IH}}=5,4,3,2,1.5`$ this condition is fulfilled if $`\mathrm{\Delta }<(0.28,0.21,0.14,0.07,0.03)`$ ($`1s^2`$) eV. The larger the measured value of $`\left|<m>\right|`$, the larger is the maximal experimental error which still permits to rule out the IH spectrum. Alternatively, for a value of the experimental error $`\mathrm{\Delta }=(0.2,0.1,0.05,0.03)`$ eV it would be possible to rule out the IH spectrum provided $`y^{\mathrm{IH}}>3.9,2.4,1.7,1.4`$, respectively.

Case ii). The spectra with inverted hierarchy can be ruled out also if:

$$\zeta \left((\left|<m>\right|_{_{\mathrm{exp}}})_{_{\mathrm{MIN}}}+\mathrm{\Delta }\right)<\left|<m>\right|_{\mathrm{min}}^{\mathrm{IH}}(1s^2)(\mathrm{cos}2\theta _{})_{\mathrm{min}}\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }m_\mathrm{A}^2\text{ }}.$$
(24)
Since $`\left|<m>\right|_{\mathrm{min}}^{\mathrm{IH}}`$ is of the order of 0.01 eV, the experimental uncertainty will be required to be even below this value, making it not within reach of the currently planed experiments, except possibly for the 10t version of GENIUS. For instance, for $`(\left|<m>\right|_{_{\mathrm{exp}}})_{_{\mathrm{MIN}}}=0.01\mathrm{eV}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0.01\mathrm{eV}`$ one finds, e.g., $`\zeta <1.1`$ if $`\left|<m>\right|_{\mathrm{min}}^{\mathrm{IH}}=0.022\mathrm{eV}`$.

Probing the IH neutrino mass spectrum requires that the following conditions be fulfilled:

$$(\left|<m>\right|_{_{\mathrm{exp}}})_{_{\mathrm{MIN}}}\mathrm{\Delta }\left|<m>\right|_{\mathrm{min}}^{\mathrm{IH}},\zeta \left((\left|<m>\right|_{_{\mathrm{exp}}})_{_{\mathrm{MIN}}}+\mathrm{\Delta }\right)\left|<m>\right|_{\mathrm{max}}^{\mathrm{IH}}.$$
(25)
Using the fact that $`\left|<m>\right|_{\mathrm{min}}^{\mathrm{IH}}=\mathrm{cos}2\theta _{}\left|<m>\right|_{\mathrm{max}}^{\mathrm{IH}}`$ and the parametrization $`(\left|<m>\right|_{_{\mathrm{exp}}})_{_{\mathrm{MIN}}}y^{^{\mathrm{IH}}}\left|<m>\right|_{\mathrm{max}}^{\mathrm{IH}}`$, the necessary conditions on $`\zeta `$ and $`y^{^{\mathrm{IH}}}`$ read

$$y^{^{\mathrm{IH}}}\mathrm{cos}2\theta _{}\left(1\frac{\sigma (\left|<m>\right|)}{\left|<m>\right|}\right)^1,\zeta y^{^{\mathrm{IH}}}\left(1+\frac{\sigma (\left|<m>\right|)}{\left|<m>\right|}\right)^1.$$
(26)
In the most favorable situation in which $`\sigma (\left|<m>\right|)/\left|<m>\right|1`$ and $`y^{^{\mathrm{IH}}}=\mathrm{cos}2\theta _{}`$, $`\zeta `$ is required to be $`\zeta <1/\mathrm{cos}2\theta _{}`$. For the present best-fit values of $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _{}`$ reported in Table 1, we obtain $`\zeta <2.7,2.7,2.4,2.5`$. Let us note, however, that from experimental point of view this possibility is rather demanding: as a first approximation, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ has to be of the order of, or smaller than, the difference between the maximal and minimal values of $`\left|<m>\right|`$ in the IH case. This difference is typically of the order of $`(0.020.04)`$ eV, and does not exceed $`0.06`$ eV.

If conditions (26) are satisfied, in order to establish the IH spectrum both eqs. (11) and (15) with $`\zeta =1`$ should also be valid. Taking as illustrative values $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2=7.0\times 10^5\mathrm{eV}^2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_\mathrm{A}^2\text{ }=3.0\times 10^3\mathrm{eV}^2`$, both conditions are satisfied for $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _{}<0.5(0.6)`$ if $`s^2=0.05(0)`$.

#### 3.3.4  The Inverted Hierarchical versus the Quasi-Degenerate Spectrum

Let us assume that a value of $`(\left|<m>\right|_{\mathrm{exp}})_{_{\mathrm{MIN}}}`$ of a few 10 meV has been found, thus ruling out the NH spectrum. The remaining question to ask in this situation would be whether the neutrino mass spectrum is of the IH or QD type. Distinguishing between the two types of spectra might be possible provided

$$\left|<m>\right|_{\mathrm{max}}^{\mathrm{IH}}<\left|<m>\right|_{\mathrm{min}}^{\mathrm{QD}}.$$
(27)
Obviously, one can reach a definite conclusion concerning the type of the spectrum only if the value of $`\left|<m>\right|_{\mathrm{exp}}`$ is larger than $`\left|<m>\right|_{\mathrm{min}}^{\mathrm{QD}}`$, or is smaller than $`\left|<m>\right|_{\mathrm{max}}^{\mathrm{IH}}`$.

* $`\left|<m>\right|_{\mathrm{exp}}>\left|<m>\right|_{\mathrm{min}}^{\mathrm{QD}}`$: this is equivalent to ruling out the IH spectrum and thus to the case i) analyzed in Subsection 3.3.3, see eq. (23) and the discussion thereafter.
* $`\left|<m>\right|_{\mathrm{exp}}<\left|<m>\right|_{\mathrm{max}}^{\mathrm{IH}}`$: using eqs. (6) and (8), we find that $`\left|<m>\right|_{\mathrm{exp}}<\left|<m>\right|_{\mathrm{max}}^{\mathrm{IH}}`$ if

$$1<\zeta <\frac{(1s^2)\sqrt{(\mathrm{\Delta }m_\mathrm{A}^2\text{ })_{\mathrm{max}}}}{(\left|<m>\right|_{\mathrm{exp}})_{_{\mathrm{MIN}}}+\mathrm{\Delta }}.$$
(28)
This inequality practically coincides with the second condition in (25). It is more restrictive for smaller values of $`(\mathrm{\Delta }m_\mathrm{A}^2\text{ })_{\mathrm{max}}`$ and larger values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Equation (28) can hold only for a rather limited range of parameters, since the sum of $`(\left|<m>\right|_{\mathrm{exp}})_{_{\mathrm{MIN}}}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ has to be smaller than $`\sqrt{(\mathrm{\Delta }m_\mathrm{A}^2\text{ })_{\mathrm{max}}}0.07`$ eV.

Let us note that the various conditions discussed in this Section do not require any additional input from 3H $`\beta `$-decay experiments or from cosmological and astrophysical measurements.

## 4 Distinguishing Between Different Neutrino CP-Parity Configurations

In this Section we will discuss whether a measurement of $`\left|<m>\right|0`$ might allow one to distinguish between some of the possible neutrino CP-parity configurations when the Majorana phases take CP-conserving values, $`\alpha _{21},\alpha _{31}=0,\pm \pi `$. We will denote these configurations by $`i^1\left(\eta _{CP}(\nu _1)\eta _{CP}(\nu _2)\eta _{CP}(\nu _3)\right)`$, where $`\eta _{CP}(\nu _j)`$ is the CP-parity of the neutrino $`\nu _j`$, $`\eta _{CP}(\nu _j)=\pm i`$. The possibility of determining the values of the Majorana CP-violating phases in the general case of CP-non conservation has been discussed in detail in ref. .

Inspecting Tables $`13`$ leads to the conclusion that it might be relatively easy to distinguish between the $`(+)`$ and $`(+)`$ configurations in the case of the IH spectrum (i.e., $`\left|<m>\right|_{\mathrm{min}}^{\mathrm{IH}}`$) and the $`(+)`$ and $`(+)`$ configurations for the QD spectrum (i.e., $`\left|<m>\right|_{\mathrm{min}}^{\mathrm{QD}}`$). The more interesting question is whether it might be possible to distinguish between the different CP-parity configurations for a given type of neutrino mass spectrum. We will study it briefly in what follows in the cases of IH and QD spectra 101010For an analysis of this possibility for the NH spectrum without taking into account the nuclear matrix element uncertainty, see ..

### 4.1 Inverted Hierarchical Spectrum

Due to the smallness of $`m_1|U_{e1}|^2`$, one cannot distinguish the $`(+++)`$ from the $`(+)`$, as well as the $`(+)`$ from the $`(+)`$, configurations . The first pair of CP-parity configurations corresponds to $`\left|<m>\right|_{\mathrm{max}}^{\mathrm{IH}}`$, while the second corresponds to $`\left|<m>\right|_{\mathrm{min}}^{\mathrm{IH}}`$. The CP-parity patterns $`(+++)`$, $`(+)`$ and $`(+)`$, $`(+)`$ would be distinguishable if the following condition holds:

$$\left|<m>\right|_{\mathrm{max}}^{\mathrm{IH}}>\zeta \left|<m>\right|_{\mathrm{min}}^{\mathrm{IH}}.$$
(29)
This can be translated into a condition on $`\zeta `$, which reads

$$\zeta <\frac{\sqrt{(\mathrm{\Delta }m_\mathrm{A}^2\text{ })_{\mathrm{min}}}}{\sqrt{(\mathrm{\Delta }m_\mathrm{A}^2\text{ })_{\mathrm{max}}}}\frac{1+(\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _{})_{\mathrm{min}}}{1(\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _{})_{\mathrm{min}}}.$$
(30)
The first ratio in the right-hand side of eq. (30) is, for an assumed error on $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_\mathrm{A}^2`$ of 10 $`\%`$, approximately 0.8, while for $`(\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _{})_{\mathrm{min}}=`$ 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5, 0.6, the second ratio reads 1.5, 1.9, 2.3, 3.0 4.0, respectively. If $`\zeta <1.5`$, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0, values of $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _{}>0.3`$, 0.4, 0.5, 0.7 are required in order

to be possible to distinguish between the two cases under study.

### 4.2 Quasi-Degenerate Spectrum

In the case of QD spectrum, the $`(+)`$ and $`(+)`$, and the $`(+++)`$ and $`(+)`$, configurations are difficult to distinguish due to the smallness of the mixing parameter $`s^2`$ limited by the reactor antineutrino experiments : the corresponding differences in the predicted values of $`\left|<m>\right|`$ do not exceed $`10\%`$. Therefore we shall analyze again the possibility to discriminate between these two pairs. Taking into account that $`\left|<m>\right|_{(+)}^{\mathrm{QD}}>\left|<m>\right|_{(+)}^{\mathrm{QD}}`$ and $`\left|<m>\right|_{(+++)}^{\mathrm{QD}}>\left|<m>\right|_{(+)}^{\mathrm{QD}}`$, the indicated two pairs of CP-parity configurations can be distinguished if the following inequality holds:

$$\left|<m>\right|_{(+)}^{\mathrm{QD}}>\zeta \left|<m>\right|_{(+)}^{\mathrm{QD}}.$$
(31)
The above inequality leads to the condition

$$\zeta <\frac{(m_0)_{\mathrm{min}}}{(m_0)_{\mathrm{max}}}\frac{1+(\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _{})_{\mathrm{max}}(1s^2)}{1(\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _{})_{\mathrm{min}}(1s^2)},$$
(32)
which is very similar to eq. (30). Assuming a KATRIN inspired error of 0.28 eV on $`m_0`$, the first fraction in the right-hand side of eq. (32) is 0.1, 0.3, 0.6, 0.7 for $`m_0=`$ (0.35, 0.5, 1.0, 1.5) eV, respectively. If $`\sigma (3m_0)=0.10`$ eV, as is expected from combined astrophysical and cosmological measurements, then for the same fraction one gets 0.83, 0.93, 0.94, 0.96 for $`m_0=`$ (0.35, 0.5, 1.0, 1.5) eV, respectively. In what regards the second fraction, for $`s^2=0`$ the values from Section 4.1 are valid, while for $`s^2=0.05`$ they read 1.7, 2.1, 2.6, 3.3 for $`(\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _{})_{\mathrm{min}}=`$ 0.3, 0.4, 0.5, 0.6.

Thus, if $`m_0`$ is measured in tritium $`\beta `$-decay experiments, relatively large $`m_0>1.5`$ eV and $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _{}>0.5`$ are required in order to distinguish between the $`(+)`$, $`(+)`$, and the $`(+++)`$, $`(+)`$ CP-parity configurations. If astrophysical and cosmological measurements provide $`m_0`$, then a value of $`\zeta <`$ 1.5, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0 would require $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _{}>`$ 0.2, 0.4, 0.5, 0.6.

## 5 Conclusions

Assuming 3-neutrino mixing and massive Majorana neutrinos, $`(\beta \beta )_{0\nu }`$-decay induced only by the (V-A) charged current weak interactions, LMA MSW solution of the solar neutrino problem and neutrino oscillation explanation of the atmospheric neutrino data, we have studied the requirements on the “solar” mixing angle $`\theta _{}`$, the nuclear matrix element uncertainty factor $`\zeta `$ and the experimental error on the effective Majorana mass $`\left|<m>\right|`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, which allow one to distinguish between, and/or test, the normal hierarchical (NH), inverted hierarchical (IH) and quasi-degenerate (QD) neutrino mass spectra if $`\left|<m>\right|0`$ is measured, or a stringent upper bound on $`\left|<m>\right|`$ is obtained. The possibility to discriminate between the three types of spectra depends on the allowed ranges of values of $`\left|<m>\right|`$ for the three spectra: it is determined by the maximal values of $`\left|<m>\right|`$ in the cases of NH and IH spectra, $`\left|<m>\right|_{\mathrm{max}}^{\mathrm{NH},\mathrm{IH}}`$, and by the minimal values of $`\left|<m>\right|`$ for the IH and QD spectra, $`\left|<m>\right|_{\mathrm{min}}^{\mathrm{IH},\mathrm{QD}}`$. These are reported in Tables $`13`$. In deriving them we have used the values of the solar and atmospheric neutrino oscillation parameters, $`\theta _{}`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_\mathrm{A}^2`$  and $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta `$, favored by the existing data  (Tables 1 and 2) and assumed prospected precisions of future measurements (Table 3).

For the currently favored values of the neutrino oscillation parameters and $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta =0`$, the upper bound on $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _{}`$ permitting to distinguish the NH from the IH spectrum is satisfied even for $`\zeta =3`$. If $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta `$ lies close to its present 99.73% C.L. upper limit of 0.05  (see also ), the upper bound of interest decreases by up to 50% and values of $`\zeta `$ slightly lower than 3 might be required (Fig. 1). The possibility to discriminate between the NH and the QD spectra depends weakly on $`sin^2\theta `$ and on the neutrino mass $`m_{1,2,3}m_0`$, and the respective conditions are satisfied even for values of $`\zeta `$ exceeding 3 (Fig. 1). Without any additional input from 3H beta-decay experiments and/or cosmological and astrophysical measurements, and given the values of $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_\mathrm{A}^2`$  favored by the data, the IH and QD spectra can be distinguished only if $`\zeta <1.5`$ (Fig. 2).

Let us emphasize that the conditions which would allow one to establish the presence of CP violation due to the Majorana CP-violating phases using a measurement of $`\left|<m>\right|0`$ lead to a lower bound on $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _{}`$ and, in general, require $`\zeta <2`$. In contrast, the conditions permitting to distinguish between the three types of neutrino mass spectrum imply an upper limit on $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _{}`$ and in most of the cases can be satisfied even for $`\zeta 3`$.

We have studied also the conditions on $`\zeta `$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ which would permit to rule out, or establish, the NH, IH and the QD mass spectra. Typically, the next generation of $`(\beta \beta )_{0\nu }`$-decay experiments will be able to rule out the QD mass spectrum if $`\zeta <3`$, and establish it if, e.g., the measured $`(\left|<m>\right|_{\mathrm{exp}})_{_{\mathrm{MIN}}}0.2(0.1)`$ eV (see eq. (8)) and the experimental error is $`\mathrm{\Delta }0.15(0.05)`$ eV. The NH spectrum can be excluded provided the measured value of $`\left|<m>\right|`$ is, e.g, $`10(7)`$ times larger than $`\left|<m>\right|_{\mathrm{max}}^{\mathrm{NH}}`$ and the experimental error is $`\mathrm{\Delta }<0.12(0.06)`$ eV. The IH spectrum can be ruled out for $`\mathrm{\Delta }<0.07(0.10)`$ eV provided $`(\left|<m>\right|_{\mathrm{exp}})_{_{\mathrm{MIN}}}`$ is at least by a factor of $`2.0(2.5)`$ larger than $`\left|<m>\right|_{\mathrm{max}}^{\mathrm{IH}}`$. Establishing the IH mass spectrum is quite demanding and requires a measurement of $`\left|<m>\right|`$ with an error $`\mathrm{\Delta }<0.020.04`$ eV.

Finally, we have studied the possibility to distinguish between certain neutrino CP-parity configurations in the case of CP-conservation. Due to the smallness of $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta `$, there are two pairs of CP-parities in the cases of QD and IH spectra, the two different CP-parity patterns within each pair being indistinguishable. Given the best-fit values of $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _{}`$, one can discriminate between these two pairs for the IH mass spectrum if $`\zeta <2`$. For the QD mass spectrum and if $`m_0`$ is measured in tritium $`\beta `$-decay experiments, relatively large $`m_0>1.5`$ eV and $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _{}>0.5`$ are necessary. If astrophysical and cosmological measurements provide $`m_0`$, values of $`\zeta <2`$ are required.

Acknowledgments. Part of the present work was done during the Workshop on $`(\beta \beta )_{0\nu }`$Decay at the Institute of Nuclear Theory (ITP) at the University of Washington, Seattle. S.P. and S.T.P. would like to thank the organizers of the Workshop and the members of ITP for kind hospitality and L. Wolfenstein, W. Haxton, P. Vogel, R. Mohapatra and F. Avignone for useful discussions. This work was supported in part by the EC network HPRN-CT-2000-00152 (S.T.P. and W.R.), the Italian MIUR under the program “Fenomenologia delle Interazioni Fondamentali” (S.T.P.) and by the U. S. Department of Energy (S.P.).


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction and Summary

## 1 Introduction and Summary

The cosmological constant has been an enigma in theoretical physics since it was first realized that in any simple field theoretic notion of quantum gravity, power divergences lead to large renormalization, sensitive to the largest scales available in the theory . In terms of naive power-counting, the vacuum energy corresponds to a relevant operator. One might go further to say that a lack of understanding of power divergences is at the root of each of the basic theoretical problems in particle physics including the various hierarchy problems and the aforementioned cosmological constant problem. It is important to realize that in the case of power divergences, it is not enough to come up with a mechanism for canceling the parameter at a given scale; rather, it must be canceled all the way into the infrared (IR).

The cosmological constant problem has become perhaps even more acute given the recent astronomical data suggesting the existence of a positive but small vacuum energy density, being roughly in proportion to the present mass density of the universe . Thus we are faced with a two-fold cosmological constant problem : first, why is the vacuum energy small and second, why is the vacuum energy in proportion to the current mass density? In this article we will address the first question.

Field theories that are non-renormalizable (and hence ill-defined in the ultraviolet (UV)) may be defined through a certain process of dimensional reduction referred to as deconstruction . This has been demonstrated in theories with internal gauge symmetries, for example, in the context of five-dimensional Yang-Mills theories. One dimension of the IR theory is put on a lattice and the resulting theory may be thought of as a Goldstone realization of a UV four-dimensional gauge theory. In this way, the continuum higher dimensional theory is thought of as the infrared limit of a lower dimensional theory. An important aspect of these constructions then is motivating why the theory has this infrared behavior.

It is enticing to think of gravity in this context: from a four-dimensional field theoretic point of view, Einstein’s general relativity is famously perturbatively non-renormalizable. In order to extend the deconstruction ideas to gravity, we must confront the spacetime general coordinate and Lorentz symmetries. Thus in this paper, we explore the idea that four-dimensional quantum gravity may be defined through deconstruction. It is particularly convenient to work in the vierbein formalism. It was shown  long ago that three-dimensional gravity is a Chern-Simons (CS) gauge theory and thus is a well-defined quantum theory. In particular its UV character is sensible because it is topological. The deconstruction to $`3+1`$ dimensions would follow the path of regarding a three-dimensional theory (a close cousin of CS gravity coupled to matter) as a lattice version of a four-dimensional theory.

Of course, there exists a rather large body of evidence that gravitational theories should be thought of, in some way, as local theories in one fewer dimension. First, a purely gravitational theory has no local degrees of freedom in the usual sense of a local quantum field theory. In the work of ’t Hooft  and Susskind , it was realized that an interpretation of this is that a gravitational theory is holographic — the observables are not extensive, but related to co-dimension one structures. This is of course supported by the thermodynamics of black holes, where entropy is proportional to the area of the event horizon . But most impressively, the idea has been given a concrete realization in the $`AdS`$/CFT construction and its relatives .

In the case of four-dimensional gravity, we might then try to follow this path directly and construct its physics in terms of a three-dimensional field theory. In realistic models with positive cosmological constant, this might mean some version of a de Sitter/Euclidean CFT correspondence . Although the existence of such a correspondence has not been established conclusively, a variety of consequences have been considered in Refs. .

Note that the existing holographic duals of gravity, provided by the $`AdS`$/CFT correspondence, are defined in terms of non-gravitational theories. On the other hand, there are proposals for a non-perturbative definition of gravity which involve gravitational degrees of freedom. Perhaps the most notable example of this type is Matrix theory , which in some sense can be viewed as an example of “bulk” holography.

Finally, more than twenty years ago Weinberg suggested the idea of “asymptotic safety” which essentially advocates the existence of a UV fixed point for $`(3+1)`$-dimensional gravity , in the sense of a Wilson-Fisher $`ϵ`$-expansion.111In particular, by considering $`(2+ϵ)`$-dimensional gravity. One of the main points of this article is precisely the suggestion that $`(3+1)`$-dimensional gravity may indeed have a short distance fixed point given in terms of $`(2+1)`$-dimensional gravity coupled to $`(2+1)`$-dimensional matter.

One might be initially puzzled by a suggestion that $`(3+1)`$-dimensional gravity can be defined in terms of $`(2+1)`$-dimensional gravity coupled to $`(2+1)`$-dimensional matter. After all, $`(3+1)`$-dimensional gravity has propagating degrees of freedom. However, $`(2+1)`$-dimensional gravity, viewed as a CS gauge theory, is purely topological. There are no propagating, local gravitational degrees of freedom. How can then a $`(2+1)`$-dimensional theory of matter coupled to gravity account for the local, propagating, $`(3+1)`$-dimensional degrees of freedom, such as gravitational waves? What our proposal suggests is that “most” of the degrees of freedom of $`(3+1)`$-dimensional gravitational theory arise from the non-gravitational part of its $`(2+1)`$-dimensional UV completion. The UV completion of $`(3+1)`$-dimensional gravity is “holographic” in this sense.

If four-dimensional gravity may be thought of as a three-dimensional theory in a useful way, what of the cosmological constant? Several years ago, Witten  observed that peculiar properties of $`(2+1)`$-dimensional gravity can lead to vanishing vacuum energy in $`2+1`$ dimensions. No precise mechanism for connecting this to four dimensions has been presented, although Witten’s context was firmly rooted in the duality between M-theory and the strong coupling limit of Type IIA or heterotic strings . Can this mechanism be used instead in our context to provide insight into the vacuum energy in four dimensions? In this note we argue that Witten’s reasoning can be deconstructed to $`3+1`$ dimensions under very specific conditions.222This would perhaps imply alternative interpretations of the recent astronomical data . Such interpretations are explored in Ref. .

The crucial observation we make in this paper is that provided one can define a UV completion of $`(3+1)`$-dimensional gravity in terms of purely $`(2+1)`$-dimensional gravitational and matter data, then the argument of Witten can be deconstructed to $`3+1`$ dimensions. We motivate our argument by recalling a remarkable fact from classical general relativity which states that in the presence of a space-like Killing field, $`3+1`$ vacuum general relativity is equivalent to $`(2+1)`$-dimensional general relativity coupled to an $`SO(2,1)`$ non-linear $`\sigma `$-model . We then proceed to provide a quantum analogue of this classical theorem and argue that a full quantum theory of $`(3+1)`$-dimensional general relativity can be defined at short distance in terms of $`(2+1)`$-dimensional gravity coupled to $`(2+1)`$-dimensional matter. This then provides support for the claim that Witten’s observation about the vanishing $`(2+1)`$-dimensional vacuum energy may be also valid in the world we observe.

## 2 The Cosmological Constant in $`2+1`$ Dimensions

It was observed by Witten  that supersymmetry in $`2+1`$ dimensions can lead to vanishing vacuum energy in the absence of a mass degenerate spectrum of bosonic and fermionic states. The vacuum state is supersymmetric, and therefore the cosmological constant is zero, but the excited states are not mass degenerate because unbroken global supercharges do not exist in $`2+1`$ dimensions . Having unbroken global supercharges in the theory, which is what leads to the mass degeneracy of the bose-fermi spectrum in the first place, necessitates the existence of spinor fields that are covariantly constant at infinity. In $`2+1`$ dimensions any excited state gives a conical geometry whose deficit angle prohibits spinor fields with covariantly constant asymptotics. Thus, there is no mass degeneracy of bose-fermi excitations. The non-degeneracy of the spectrum of low-energy excitations scales as the inverse power of the three-dimensional Newton constant under the assumption of weak gravitational coupling .

Although a precise realization of Witten’s argument about a supersymmetric vacuum with non-supersymmetric excitations apparently does not exist in the literature,333Witten’s argument that there can be a supersymmetric vaccum with non-supersymmetric excitations has not been lifted to four-dimensions. Most $`(3+1)`$-dimensional asymptopia, however, are not consistent with the existence of globally conserved supercharges. For example, time-dependent backgrounds usually do not allow covariantly constant spinors. Becker, Becker, and Strominger  provide an instructive construction with a solitonic ground state.444For a related discussion see Ref. . We briefly review their considerations.

Becker, Becker and Strominger considered an $`N=2`$ abelian Higgs model in $`2+1`$ dimensions  and studied a Nielsen-Olesen vortex  configuration in this theory. The solitonic configuration breaks half the supersymmetry. When this model is coupled to supergravity, the $`(2+1)`$-dimensional gravitational background of this soliton has a particular asymptotic behavior describing a conical geometry

$$ds^2=dt^2+\frac{dzd\overline{z}}{|z|^{2M/M_{Pl}}},$$
(1)
where $`M=v^2n`$, with $`v`$ the expectation value of the Higgs field and $`n>0`$, is proportional to the soliton mass and $`M_{Pl}`$ is the three-dimensional Planck mass. The geometry has deficit angle $`\delta =2\pi M/M_{Pl}`$, and the soliton saturates the BPS bound. The gravitino gives rise to an Aharanov-Bohm phase that exactly cancels the geometric phase associated to the deficit angle of the conical singularity. However, the fermionic zero mode is not normalizable and is absent from the physical spectrum. Thus, there is no $`N=1`$ supermultiplet of the unbroken supersymmetry. In this way, Witten’s observation holds and the bose-fermi degeneracy of the excited states is lifted even though the solitonic ground state has zero vacuum energy.

## 3 Deconstructing Gauge Theories: A Summary

Before we discuss the case of $`(3+1)`$-dimensional gravity, let us review the gauge theory case from a slightly different point of view than the original presentation .

Consider a gauge theory action

$$S=\frac{1}{2g_d^2}d^{d1}x𝑑y\text{tr}F_{AB}^2(x,y).$$
(2)
We use the notation $`x^A\{x^\mu ,y\}`$. We wish to arrive at a theory on the space ($`𝐑^{d1}\times \mathrm{\Gamma }`$). We then latticize $`y`$ with lattice spacing $`a`$:

$$S=\frac{a}{2g_d^2}d^{d1}x\underset{j}{}\text{tr}\left(F_{\mu \nu ,j}^2(x)+2F_{5\nu ,j}^2\right).$$
(3)
In the continuum,

$$F_{5\nu ,j}=_5A_\nu _\nu A_5+i[A_5,A_\nu ].$$
(4)
We define a link variable in the usual way:

$$U_{j,j+1}=\mathrm{exp}\left(i𝑑yA_5(x,y)\right)1+iaA_{5,j}+\mathrm{}.$$
(5)
Therefore

$$F_{5\nu ,j}\frac{1}{a}\left(A_{\nu ,j+1}A_{\nu ,j}\right)+\frac{i}{a}_\nu U_{j,j+1}+\frac{1}{a}(U_{j,j+1}1)A_{\nu ,j+1}\frac{1}{a}A_{\nu ,j}(U_{j,j+1}1)+\mathrm{}$$
(6)
(the ellipses contains less relevant terms for small $`a`$) and so

$`F_{5\nu ,j}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{a}}\left(i_\nu U_{j,j+1}+U_{j,j+1}A_{\nu ,j+1}A_{\nu ,j}U_{j,j+1}\right)`$ (7)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{a}}D_\nu U_{j,j+1}.`$ (8)
As a result:

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{a}{2g_d^2}}{\displaystyle d^{d1}x\underset{j}{}\text{tr}\left(F_{\mu \nu ,j}^2(x)\frac{2}{a^2}|D_\nu U_{j,j+1}|^2\right)}`$ (9)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2g_{d1}^2}}{\displaystyle d^{d1}x\underset{j}{}\text{tr}F_{\mu \nu ,j}^2(x)}+f_\pi ^2{\displaystyle d^{d1}x\underset{j}{}\text{tr}|D_\nu U_{j,j+1}|^2},`$ (10)
where

$$\frac{1}{g_{d1}^2}=\frac{a}{g_d^2},f_\pi ^2=\frac{1}{ag_d^2}=\frac{1}{a^2g_{d1}^2}.$$
(11)
Let us redo this computation, as there is actually some trickery involved in the above continuum calculation.

To achieve this, we put the entire theory on a lattice and take the continuum limit in all but the $`y`$ direction (which retains lattice spacing $`a`$):

$$S_{latt}=\underset{P}{}\sigma _P\left(1+\frac{1}{2N}\text{tr}(U_P+U_P^{})\right),$$
(12)
where $`\text{tr}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}=N`$ and $`\sigma `$ is an appropriate numerical scaling factor. $`P`$ denotes a plaquette, which we can think of as a sum over lattice points, and a sum over pairs of directions $`\widehat{A},\widehat{B}`$ and

$$U_{AB}(n)=U_A(n)U_B(n+\widehat{A})U_A^{}(n+\widehat{B})U_B^{}(n),$$
(13)
where $`U_A(n)`$ is a link field, which in the continuum limit goes to the Wilson line. In the present case, we split the index $`A`$ into $`\mu ,5`$ with lattice spacings $`ϵ,a`$. There are two types of terms in eq. (12):

$$S_{latt}=\underset{\mu \nu }{}\sigma _{\mu \nu }\left(1+\frac{1}{2N}\text{tr}(U_{\mu \nu }+U_{\mu \nu }^{})\right)+\underset{\mu }{}\sigma _{\mu 5}\left(1+\frac{1}{2N}\text{tr}(U_{\mu 5}+U_{\mu 5}^{})\right).$$
(14)
The first term will go in the continuum limit to $`\frac{\sigma _{\mu \nu }}{2}ϵ^4\text{tr}F_{\mu \nu }^2`$, while the second term yields $`\frac{\sigma _{\mu 5}}{2}ϵ^2\text{tr}D_\mu U_5(D_\mu U_5)^{}`$, where

$$D_\mu U_5=_\mu U_5+i(A_{\mu ,j}U_5U_5A_{\mu ,j+1}).$$
(15)
Thus, we arrive at

$$S_{latt}=\underset{\mu \nu }{}\frac{\sigma _{\mu \nu }}{2}ϵ^{5d}d^{d1}x\underset{j}{}\left\{\text{tr}F_{\mu \nu ,j}^2(x)+\frac{\sigma _{\mu 5}}{\sigma _{\mu \nu }ϵ^2}\text{tr}|D_\mu U_5|^2\right\}.$$
(16)
By appropriate scalings of the parameters, we may obtain:

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2g_{d1}^2}}{\displaystyle d^{d1}x\underset{j}{}\text{tr}F_{\mu \nu ,j}^2(x)}+f_\pi ^2{\displaystyle d^{d1}x\underset{j}{}\text{tr}|D_\nu U_5|^2}`$ (17)
with $`f_\pi =1/(g_{d1}a)`$.

We note that the link field $`U_5`$ is a bifundamental, transforming as $`U_5V_jU_5V_{j+1}^1`$. The essential non-perturbative information used at this point is that fermion condensation can induce the effective $`\sigma `$-model action in the IR. This then points to the degrees of freedom of an $`SU(N)`$ quiver theory . Thus the UV completion of a non-renormalizable five-dimensional gauge theory is a very specific quiver theory .

Unfortunately, if we wish to obtain the continuum limit in the quantum theory, we must take $`a0`$ holding $`g_d`$ fixed. This scales $`g_{d1}\mathrm{}`$, and thus the infrared dynamics is in fact significantly different than the classical theory would indicate.

## 4 Towards a UV Completion of $`(3+1)`$-dimensional Einstein-Hilbert Gravity

Now we are ready to address the question of deconstruction of $`(3+1)`$-dimensional gravity from the point of view of Ref. . As we have reviewed above, the scenario has been initially applied to certain non-renormalizable gauge theories. Given a certain set of similarities between pure gravity and non-abelian gauge theories it is natural to wonder whether the deconstruction techniques can be successfully applied to gravity . Along the lines of Ref. , in this section we shall construct a lattice of coupled $`(2+1)`$-dimensional theories, which in the IR exhibits the features of $`3+1`$ gravity.

There exist many similarities between gravity and gauge theory. These are evident, for example, in the MacDowell-Mansouri approach ; the approach to $`3+1`$ gravity based on Ashtekar variables ; the approach to $`(2+1)`$-dimensional general relativity based on CS theory ; the close relation between the topological BF theory and gravity in any dimension ; the appearance of an induced Chern Simons theory in the context of $`(3+1)`$-dimensional gravity on manifolds with a boundary , etc.

Given the fact that deconstruction provides a procedure for defining UV completions of certain, in principle, non-renormalizable field theories, it is only natural to ask whether similar reasoning can be applied to $`(3+1)`$-dimensional gravity, while remembering that the $`(2+1)`$-dimensional (pure gravity) theory is well-defined. In other words, is it possible to deconstruct $`(2+1)`$-dimensional CS coupled to certain matter fields into a pure $`(3+1)`$-dimensional gravity?

Many things point to the possibility that four-dimensional gravity can be defined in terms of purely three-dimensional data. For example, three-dimensional CS actions appear as natural boundary terms in the connection formulation of four-dimensional theory , as well as in the relation between the BF topological theory and $`(3+1)`$-dimensional general relativity.555Note also, that in the framework of the $`AdS`$/CFT correspondence four-dimensional Poincaré supergravity data can be reconstructed from three-dimensional conformal supergravity data .

There even exists a theorem concerning dimensional reduction in classical general relativity which states that for the case of space-like Killing fields $`3+1`$ gravity can be rewritten as $`2+1`$ gravity coupled to a non-linear $`SO(2,1)`$ $`\sigma `$-model . More precisely, in a classical background with a space-like isometry, the metric can be put in the form

$$ds^2=N^2(x)dr^2+\widehat{g}_{ab}(x)(dx^a+N^a(x)dr)(dx^b+N^b(x)dr).$$
(18)
For the case of $`3+1`$ dimensions, the vacuum classical equations of motion are particularly simple , and reduce to $`2+1`$-dimensional gravity coupled to scalar fields. Let us disregard the shift fields for the sake of simplicity. The equations of motion can be written in the following form

$$\widehat{R}_{ab}^{(3)}(x)=2\widehat{}_a\varphi (x)\widehat{}_b\varphi (x),\widehat{g}^{ab}\widehat{}_a\widehat{}_b\varphi =0.$$
(19)
Here $`\widehat{R}_{ab}^{(3)}`$ and $`\widehat{}_a`$ are the Ricci tensor and the covariant derivative associated with $`\widehat{g}_{ab}`$, and $`\varphi `$ is a scalar field arising after a field redefinition of $`N`$ and $`\widehat{g}`$ . By suitable rescalings, we can bring this to the form

$$\widehat{R}_{ab}^{(3)}\frac{1}{2}\widehat{g}_{ab}\widehat{R}^{(3)}=8\pi G_3T_{ab},$$
(20)
where the covariantly conserved energy momentum tensor reads

$$T_{ab}=\widehat{}_a\mathrm{\Phi }\widehat{}_b\mathrm{\Phi }\frac{1}{2}\widehat{g}_{ab}\widehat{}_c\mathrm{\Phi }\widehat{}^c\mathrm{\Phi }.$$
(21)
Therefore, the $`(3+1)`$-dimensional vacuum equations in the presence of a space-like Killing field are equivalent to the $`(2+1)`$-dimensional gravity coupled to a scalar field, illustrating the more general theorem stated in Ref. .

This is of course only an on-shell observation. We claim that in the quantum theory, a similar condition holds locally and applies at the level of the action and the path integral.

To argue this, we start from the classical formulation of gravity using the $`d`$-bien and spin connection as variables, with action

$$S_{EH}=\frac{1}{G_d}d^dxϵ_{a_1\mathrm{}a_d}ϵ^{A_1\mathrm{}A_d}e_{A_1}^{a_1}\mathrm{}e_{A_{d2}}^{a_{d2}}R_{A_{d1}A_d}^{}{}_{}{}^{a_{d1}a_d},$$
(22)
where (note $`G_d`$ has units of $`m^{2d}`$, as $`[\omega _{}^{a}{}_{b}{}^{}]=[R_{}^{a}{}_{b}{}^{}]=1,[e^a]=L`$ as forms)

$$R=d\omega +\omega \omega .$$
(23)
We are careful to distinguish various indices: we are on a manifold $`M`$, with tangent bundle $`TM`$. The indices $`A,B,\mathrm{}`$ label vectors in $`TM`$. We also have a vector bundle $`V`$ with structure group $`SO(d1,1)`$, which we will assume is (more or less) isomorphic to $`TM`$. Indices for vectors in $`V`$ will be given by $`a,b,\mathrm{}`$. These latter indices eventually will be thought of as “gauge” indices.

Let us focus on $`d=4`$. We then have

$$S_{EH}=\frac{1}{G_4}ϵ_{abcd}e^ae^bR^{cd}=\frac{2}{G_4}d^4xϵ^{\mu \nu \lambda }ϵ_{abcd}\left(e_3^ae_\mu ^bR_{\nu \lambda }^{}{}_{}{}^{cd}e_\mu ^ae_\nu ^bR_{\lambda 3}^{}{}_{}{}^{cd}\right).$$
(24)
To go to the lattice, we have many options. In the gauge theory case, gauge covariance was maintained throughout, and the lower dimensional theory had gauge group $`G^N`$. Analogously, the simplest lattice action to take in the case of gravity would be to keep $`SO(3,1)`$ invariance. We can regard $`\omega `$ as an $`SO(3,1)`$ connection and replace it by plaquettes in the lattice version. To begin,666It seems also that there could be a formalism where we treat $`e,\omega `$ as connections for $`ISO(3,1)`$, and thus introduce link fields corresponding to $`e_3`$ as well. We will not follow that approach here. we will suppose that the vierbein remains as a site field. The appropriate thing to do then is replace $`S_{EH}`$ by a lattice version in which the curvature $`R_{AB}`$ is replaced by $`ImU_{AB}`$. Along the lines of the calculations in the Yang-Mills theory, we find:

$`ImU_{\mu 3}`$ $`=`$ $`ϵJ_\mu +\mathrm{},`$ (25)
$`ImU_{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`2ϵ^2R_{\mu \nu }+\mathrm{}`$ (26)
where

$$J_\mu (x,j)=i\left(D_\mu U_3U_3^{}U_3(D_\mu U_3)^{}\right).$$
(27)
Taking $`ϵ0`$, we will obtain

$$S_{EH}=\frac{2a}{G_4}d^3x\underset{j}{}ϵ_{abcd}ϵ^{\mu \nu \lambda }\left(e_3^ae_\mu ^bR_{\nu \lambda }^{}{}_{}{}^{cd}+\sigma e_\mu ^ae_\nu ^bJ_{\lambda }^{}{}_{}{}^{cd}\right).$$
(28)
Note that in writing this action, we have essentially forced $`SO(3,1)_{(j)}`$ invariance at each site $`j`$. Although $`U_3`$ is a link field, and thus transforms as $`U_3\mathrm{\Lambda }_jU_3\mathrm{\Lambda }_{j+1}^1`$, the current is a tensor only under the local slice, $`SO(3,1)_{(j)}`$.

Thus, we have an action of the form

$$S=\frac{1}{G_3}\underset{j}{}__jϵ_{abcd}\left[\phi ^ae^bR^{cd}+fe^ae^bJ^{cd}\right]$$
(29)
where we have dropped the index $`j`$ on fields and written $`\phi e_3`$ and $`f1/a`$. This action manifestly possesses $`\mathrm{Diff}_3\times SO(3,1)`$ invariance. We can introduce a four-dimensional cosmological constant as well:

$$S=\frac{1}{G_3}\underset{j}{}__jϵ_{abcd}\left[\phi ^ae^bR^{cd}+\lambda \phi ^ae^be^ce^d+fe^ae^bJ^{cd}\right].$$
(30)
This looks like a $`(2+1)`$-dimensional “gauge theory” coupled to a current $`J`$. Note, however, the Latin indices are $`(3+1)`$-dimensional, and thus this is not in any sense “$`2+1`$ gravity”. Furthermore, there are $`N`$ copies of the symmetry group.

The UV theory could also possess $`\sigma `$-model terms such as

$$S_\sigma =\underset{j}{}__jϵ_{abcd}[J^{ac}J^{bd}]$$
(31)
as well as other higher order terms. Our point of view here is that in the UV, we can treat the theory as containing just a set of currents with kinetic terms if necessary. As we go to the IR (the continuum limit), the current kinetic terms become irrelevant (e.g., eq. (31) becomes a curvature-squared term), leaving only the Einstein-Hilbert action.

Of course, an important aspect of this is that the continuum limit must exist in some sense. In fact, the original four-dimensional action is an effective theory, which is certainly only valid for probes at length scales777We use the notation $`L_d`$ for the $`d`$-dimensional Planck length. $`L>>L_4`$. Thus, if $`a<L_4`$, the available probes cannot tell the difference between the lattice theory and the continuum. Consequently, the region of strong three-dimensional coupling can be avoided, while staying within the region of validity of the four-dimensional theory. Essentially, classically the three and four-dimensional theories are equivalent, as constructed. We propose that this remains true even in the quantum theory. Furthermore, we will have to suppose that the value of the four-dimensional cosmological constant is given by its limiting three-dimensional value. This seems obvious if we don’t have to strictly take the continuum limit.

We could now try to proceed further and reduce $`SO(3,1)`$ to $`SO(2,1)`$, to make the theory look gravitational in $`2+1`$ as well. We start by just segregating indices:

$`S={\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}{\displaystyle __j}ϵ_{\alpha \beta \gamma }[(\phi ^3e^\alpha \phi ^\alpha A)(R^{\beta \gamma }\omega ^\beta \omega ^\gamma )2\phi ^\alpha e^\beta (D\omega )^\gamma `$
$`+\lambda \phi ^3e^\alpha e^\beta e^\gamma 3\lambda \phi ^\alpha Ae^\beta e^\gamma 2f_\pi e^\alpha e^\beta J^\gamma +2f_\pi Ae^\alpha J^{\beta \gamma }],`$ (32)
where $`Ae^3`$, $`(D\omega )^\gamma d\omega ^\gamma +\omega _{}^{\gamma }{}_{\delta }{}^{}\omega ^\delta `$, $`\omega ^\alpha \omega ^{\alpha ,3}`$, and $`J^\gamma J^{\gamma ,3}`$. Note that with the assumed lattice, there are natural vevs:

$$\phi ^3=1,\phi ^\alpha =0,A_\mu =0,$$
(33)
which put the background metric in the form appropriate to the chosen lattice

$$ds^2=a^2(\mathrm{\Delta }j)^2+ds_{2,1}^2(j).$$
(34)
This metric is just a discretized form of the canonical “ADM” metric

$$ds^2=N^2(x,r)dr^2+g_{\mu \nu }(x,r)[dx^\mu +N^\mu (x,r)dr][dx^\nu +N^\nu (x,r)dr].$$
(35)
Here $`r`$ denotes the continuum limit of the discretized lattice direction. In this discretized form the shift vector has been expanded around zero. In writing down eq. (30), the lattice action for $`3+1`$ gravity, we have set the shift vector to zero. Locally, we can always do this, but, generically, we cannot turn this into a global choice.

Thus it is natural to expand in fluctuations around this vev, (fluctuations in $`\phi ^a,A_\mu `$ correspond to modifications in the shape of the lattice) and we obtain:

$$S=S_{EH}+S_{int}$$
(36)
where

$$S_{EH}=\frac{1}{G_3}\underset{j}{}__jϵ_{\alpha \beta \gamma }\left[e^\alpha R^{\beta \gamma }+\lambda e^\alpha e^\beta e^\gamma \right]$$
(37)
and

$`S_{int}={\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}{\displaystyle __j}ϵ_{\alpha \beta \gamma }[e^\alpha \omega ^\beta \omega ^\gamma +(\phi ^3e^\alpha \phi ^\alpha A)(R^{\beta \gamma }\omega ^\beta \omega ^\gamma )2\phi ^\alpha e^\beta (D\omega )^\gamma `$
$`+\lambda \phi ^3e^\alpha e^\beta e^\gamma 3\lambda \phi ^\alpha Ae^\beta e^\gamma 2fe^\alpha e^\beta J^\gamma +2fAe^\alpha J^{\beta \gamma }].`$ (38)
In addition, we would add matter fields to $`S_{int}`$.

Provided the $`(2+1)`$-dimensional currents $`J^{\mu \nu }`$ can be dynamically induced via some non-perturbative mechanism from some other well-defined degrees of freedom, in the deep UV one would be left only with ($`N`$ copies) of the $`(2+1)`$-dimensional CS term coupled to these $`(2+1)`$-dimensional degrees of freedom. In the intermediate range of scale we get $`N`$ copies of linked $`(2+1)`$-dimensional CS theories coupled to $`(2+1)`$-dimensional currents.888Our concluding picture resembles somewhat that of Ref. . In the IR we recover the full $`(3+1)`$-dimensional general relativity.999One could also entertain the possibility of simply starting with $`2+1`$ gravity coupled to appropriate fields. In this case, $`SO(3,1)`$ would have to be an accidental symmetry of the IR. It should be pointed out that the recovery of the full diffeomorphism group in $`3+1`$ dimensions from this construction is rather non-trivial given that we work on the lattice and because the IR physics lies in the strong coupling regime. In the very deep IR, i.e. when $`N`$ is finite and the wavelength exceeds the lattice size, the physics is, of course, again $`(2+1)`$-dimensional.

Notice that we have the right number of degrees of freedom needed to reproduce the $`(3+1)`$-dimensional theory. These degrees of freedom come from the matter fields coupled to the CS theory. Thus our formulation does provide a quantum mechanical version of the classical theorems discussed above .

Given that the theory is $`(2+1)`$-dimensional in the UV, one might wonder whether the picture is compatible with the Bekenstein-Hawking bounds on entropy . Let us suppose that the $`(2+1)`$-dimensional matter fields are local. The coupling of $`2+1`$ gravity to matter is of the general form

$$S_{EH}=\frac{1}{G_3}d^3x\sqrt{g^{(3)}}(R^{(3)}+_{\mathrm{matter}}).$$
(39)
The entropy of local matter degrees of freedom scales as the two-dimensional area. As there are $`N`$ copies, we have

$$𝒮\frac{NA}{G_3}.$$
(40)
This expression does not have the correct mass dimension. The usual prescription for dimensional reduction tells us that the pre-factor should be $`1/G_3L`$, where $`L=Na`$ is the size of the fourth (lattice) dimension. Thus, on heuristic grounds,

$$𝒮\frac{NA}{G_3L}=\frac{A}{G_3a}=\frac{A}{G_4},$$
(41)
which reproduces the Bekenstein-Hawking scaling in $`3+1`$ dimensions. Of course, dimensional analysis does not reproduce the numerical factor of $`1/4`$ in the entropy formula.

As we will argue in the next concluding section, the above observations are enough to argue that Witten’s mechanism for vanishing of the $`(2+1)`$-dimensional cosmological constant can be lifted to $`3+1`$ dimensions.

## 5 The Vanishing Cosmological Constant Deconstructed

Now we argue that Witten’s argument for the vanishing of $`(2+1)`$-dimensional vacuum energy can be deconstructed as follows:

1) Assume a local spatial foliation of $`(3+1)`$-dimensional spacetime.

2) Deconstruct the vacuum part of pure $`(3+1)`$-dimensional gravity from ($`N`$ copies of) $`(2+1)`$-dimensional general relativity coupled to certain $`(2+1)`$-dimensional matter fields represented in terms of currents as in the preceding section. Assume that $`3+1`$-dimensional sources can be defined in terms of a deconstructed $`2+1`$-dimensional theory. For sources represented by gauge fields this should be possible given the discussion101010One might ask why a $`(3+1)`$-dimensional theory with a well defined $`(3+1)`$-dimensional UV behavior, such as the Standard Model, should be defined in terms of $`(2+1)`$-dimensional data. The point here is that both the deconstructed $`(2+1)`$-dimensional and the intrinsic $`(3+1)`$-dimensional UV definitions lead to the same IR physics, and as such are indistinguishable at long distances. of section 3.

3) In the deep UV we have ($`N`$ copies of) $`2+1`$ gravity coupled to some $`(2+1)`$-dimensional sources. Whatever the matter content of this $`(2+1)`$-dimensional theory is, we know that the resulting geometry has to be conical. Thus Witten’s argument applies: the vacuum is supersymmetric, yet the excited states are not.

4) In the range of intermediate scales, we have $`N`$ linked copies of $`2+1`$ gravity coupled to $`(2+1)`$-dimensional currents. Once again, the resulting $`(2+1)`$-dimensional geometry is conical. Thus Witten’s argument holds in the region between UV and IR.

Finally notice that on dimensional grounds, the mass splitting should be inversely proportional to the three-dimensional Newton constant and should vanish at zero deficit angle. We take $`\mathrm{\Delta }m\delta /G_N`$. Thus as long as the three-dimensional Newton constant is of order one as the continuum limit is taken, and the deficit angle (on each local three-dimensional slice) is taken to scale as the inverse of the lattice spacing, the fermi-bose splitting will be finite in the infrared. These remarks may be tested by examination of the example of Ref. .111111For example , the deficit angle produced by a mass $`M`$ is $`\delta =2\pi ML_3`$. Thus, the mass difference (at one-loop) between fermions and bosons should be proportional to $`g^2\delta /G_N=2\pi g^2M`$, where $`g`$ is the interaction strength. In a realistic model the mass $`M`$ should be deconstructed to be of the order of a TeV.

According to the outlined argument the vacuum energy is zero in the UV, and also some place in between UV and IR. But does it remain zero in the IR? That is difficult to say, given the fact that the three-dimensional coupling has to be of order one, but the physical picture would be that as one takes the lattice spacing to zero, one still has in principle an infinite number of $`(2+1)`$-dimensional matter theories strongly coupled to $`2+1`$ gravity.

Essentially we have a deconstruction of $`(2+1)`$-dimensional conical singularities to one-dimensional, string-like singularities in every local patch of $`3+1`$ dimensions. Thus we again end up with a claim that the vacuum state can be made supersymmetric and yet the excited states do not fall into supermultiplets because of the non-existence of the global supercharge due to the presence of the string-like defects which create a deconstructed version of the asymptotically conical three-dimensional geometry.121212As reviewed in Ref. , the information about the mass resides in $`(2+1)`$-dimensions in the “zeroth order” behavior of the metric at infinity. This should be contrasted to the situation in $`(3+1)`$-dimensions where the analogous information about the mass resides in the leading $`1/r`$ deviations from the Minkowski metric near infinity .

Within this framework the four-dimensional cosmological constant is essentially determined by the value of the three-dimensional cosmological constant. In the supersymmetric scenario the latter is zero, and so is the four-dimensional one. Yet the excited states are non-supersymmetric due to the non-existence of a global supercharge.

Our actual calculations in this paper have all been non-supersymmetric. They may easily be generalized however — for example, the MacDowell-Mansouri approach  provides a unified geometric formulation of supersymmetry and gravity with the curvature constructed from the spin connection, the vierbein, and the gravitino. The analysis presented in section 4 applies also in this situation. It would be very interesting to study the deconstruction of this theory explicitly.

We conclude this article with an obvious question: assuming that the ultraviolet completion of $`(3+1)`$-dimensional gravity is indeed given in terms of $`(2+1)`$-dimensional gravity coupled to $`(2+1)`$-dimensional matter as we have argued above, what are the most immediate observational consequences and constraints, in the sense of $`(3+1)`$-dimensional gravity being modified at very short distances?

## Acknowledgments

We thank A. Ashtekar, C. Bachas, V. Balasubramanian, J. de Boer, R. Emparan, W. Fischler, L. Freidel, E. Gimon, N. Kaloper, P. Kraus, D. Marolf, R. Myers, A. Naqvi, R. Rattazzi, L. Smolin, and J. P. van der Schaar for conversations and comments. VJ thanks the High Energy Group at the University of Pennsylvania for their generous hospitality. DM thanks the Perimeter Institute and the Lorentz Center of Leiden University for their hospitality. The work of RGL is supported in part by the U.S. Department of Energy under contract DE-FG02-91ER40677. The work of VJ and DM is supported in part by the U.S. Department of Energy under contract DE-FG05-92ER40709.