format: text

text:
# Ultra Efficient Internal Shocks

## 1 Introduction

A widely accepted mechanism for producing a cosmological gamma-ray burst (GRB) is the deceleration of relativistically expanding shells. The kinetic energy of the shells is converted into internal energy by relativistic shocks. These shocks can be due to collision with the ambient medium (external shocks) or shocks inside the shell itself due to nonuniform velocity (internal shocks). Electrons are heated by the shocks, and the internal energy is radiated via synchrotron and IC emission, with broken power law spectra (e.g. Sari, Piran and Narayan 1998).

Most bursts have a highly variable temporal profile with variability time scale significantly shorter than the overall duration. In the external shocks scenario this variability is due to irregularity in the surrounding material, but the efficiency is extremely low (Fenimore, Madras & Nayakshin 1996; Sari & Piran 1997). Thus, GRBs are believed to be produced by the other alternative: internal shocks. The inner engine itself should be variable in this scenario, the observed temporal profile follows very closely the operation of the source (Kobayashi, Piran & Sari 1997, KPS97 hereafter). Using a simple model, we have estimated that the hydrodynamic efficiency of this process (transforming kinetic energy to internal energy) is about $`10\%`$ .

Kumar (1999) argued that the conversion efficiency from the bulk motion to gamma-ray is only $`1\%`$. His argument is based on three points: (I) The hydrodynamic efficiency is, as mentioned above, typically $`10\%`$. (II) It is only the electrons that are radiating. Even in equipartition among protons, magnetic field and electrons, the latter electrons only have a third of the internal energy. (III) The amount of the radiated energy within the gamma-ray band is about a third of the total radiated one. Combining these three factors give the low efficiency of $`\frac{1}{10}\times \frac{1}{3}\times \frac{1}{3}=1\%`$.

Such a low efficiency results in sever energy demands on the source. Moreover, it has problems explaining the energy ratio between the GRB and its afterglow. According to the internal-external shock model, the remaining kinetic energy, which was not converted to radiation by internal shocks, is radiated during the afterglow stage. External shock does not suffer from problem (I), and the energy released in the afterglow should be considerably higher than that in the GRBs. However, it seems to be that the energy during the afterglow is only a tenth of that during the GRB, rather than ten times larger (Frontera et. al. 2000, Kumar & Piran 2000, Freedman & Waxman 2000). Even though the observational constraints are not very good since most of the energy is released at very early radiative stages where the afterglow was not observed, a factor of ten more energy in the afterglow seems to be excluded.

A possible solution to these problems is to assume large angular fluctuation in the shells (Kumar and Piran 1999). This model has clear predictions in the form of afterglow variability whose amplitude decay in time. It also predicts that the afterglow may be sometimes more energetic than the GRBs.

In this paper, we suggest a simple alternative solution, which overcomes the problems suggested by Kumar. We show that if the distribution of the Lorentz factor is not uniform, but instead its logarithm is distributed uniformly, then the typical ratio of Lorentz factors between neighboring shells is considerably larger. Then, the hydrodynamic efficiency can be close to hundred percents, even for a reasonable spread of Lorentz factors (Similar calculation was recently done by Beloborodov 2000). The main point of this paper is the possibility of “ultra-efficient” internal shocks. We define ultra-efficient internal shocks as a scenario in which the emitted fraction of kinetic energy is larger than $`ϵ_e`$, the fraction of internal energy that is going into electrons (and then radiated) at each collision. We will show that such a scenario is possible and even reasonable.

## 2 “Ultra Efficient” Internal Shocks

Internal shocks could occur within a variable relativistic wind produced by a highly variable source. We represent the irregular wind by a succession of relativistic shells with a random distribution of Lorentz factors in a similar manner as in KPS97. Beloborodov (2000) has shown that the internal shocks can convert most of the kinetic energy to internal energy if the fluctuation of the initial Lorentz factors $`A^2=(\gamma ^2\gamma ^2)/\gamma ^2`$ is large. Though it is maximally 1/3 if the initial Lorentz factors take random values between $`\gamma _{min}`$ and $`\gamma _{max}`$, it is not limited if the distribution is uniform in logarithmic space between $`\mathrm{log}\gamma _{min}`$ and $`\mathrm{log}\gamma _{max}`$.

The efficiency can be estimated by an equation similar to equation 19 in KPS97. The most efficient case is that the masses of the shells are taken equal, and that the efficiency is given by a simple form:

$$ϵ1a^{1/2}\mathrm{log}a/(a1)$$
(1)
where $`a=\gamma _{max}/\gamma _{min}`$. The efficiency is plotted as a function of the fluctuation $`A^2=1+(a+1)\mathrm{log}a/2(a1)`$ in figure 1. This analytic estimate fits the result of our numerical simulation, and has the asymptotic form $`ϵ=A^2/2`$ which Beloborodov estimated for a small fluctuation. Our expression above generalizes Beloborodov estimate and gives reasonable estimate of the efficiency also for large fluctuations.

Though we have seen that a large hydrodynamic efficiency is possible if the fluctuation of the initial Lorentz factors is large, it is not reasonable that all the internal energy is emitted after each collision, since electrons do not have most of the internal energy. Defining $`ϵ_e`$ as the fraction of energy given to electrons we expect $`ϵ_e<1`$. Even at equipartition with protons $`ϵ_e=1/2`$. Under these circumstances the total emitted energy in Beloborodov model is still limited by $`ϵ_e`$.

However, if $`ϵ_e<1`$ the merger produced by a collision is expected to stay hot after the emission. As a result, the merger will spread to transform the remaining internal energy back to the kinetic energy (Kumar 1999). A simplified description of this process is to assume that the two shells reflect with a smaller relative velocity. The difference of the kinetic energy before and after the collision is the emitted internal energy. The reflecting shell will collide into the other neighbor shell. Since in this way a large amount of collisions are caused, the overall efficiency from the kinetic energy to the radiation could be larger than $`ϵ_e`$. This is the key ingredient of our model. Before going on with this model, we present some hydrodynamic simulations which shows that these simplified assumptions are reasonable.

## 3 Hydrodynamic Simulation

To estimate the conversion efficiency of the internal shocks process, it is important to understand how high velocity shells interact with slower ones and dissipate the the kinetic energy. We consider here a collision of two equal mass shells with very different Lorentz factors, $`\gamma _r/\gamma _s1`$. The rapid and the slower shells are denoted by the subscriptions $`r`$ and $`s`$ respectively. We assume that the widths of the shells are comparable in the ISM rest frame. This is a reasonable assumption since in this frame, the width is given directly by the “inner engine”. Even so, the width of the rapid shell $`\widehat{l}_r`$ is much larger when viewed from the rest frame of the rapid shell $`\widehat{l}_r/\widehat{l}_s(\gamma _r/\gamma _s)^2/2`$. Then, the dense “slower” shell with Lorentz factor $`\widehat{\gamma }_s\gamma _r/2\gamma _s`$ collides into the low density “rapid” shell in this frame, $`\rho _s/\rho _r\gamma _r/\gamma _s`$. This is a planar analog of the evolution of a relativistic fireball (Sari & Piran 1995, Kobayashi, Piran and Sari 1999). When it begins to interact with the surrounding material, two shocks are formed: a forward shock propagating into the rapid shell and a reverse shock propagating into the slower one. After the reverse shock crosses the slower shell, the profile of the shocked rapid shell material approaches to that of its fireball analog: the “blast wave” which sweeps and collects the surrounding material. Once the shock wave crosses the rapid shell, the hydrodynamical structure is as follows. There is a shocked rapid shell, the analog of the “blast wave” and the shocked slow shell, which cooled down and is the analog of the adiabatically cooling “fireball ejecta”. The structure of such a system in the fireball case was studied by Sari and Piran 1999 and Kobayashi and Sari 2000.

Since $`\widehat{\gamma }_s^2\rho _s/\rho _r`$, the slow shell is considerably decelerated by the relativistic reverse shock down to $`(\gamma _r/\gamma _s)^{3/4}`$ and heated to a relativistic temperature at the crossing time $`t_s(\gamma _r/\gamma _s)^{3/2}\widehat{l}_s/c`$. Then, it cools adiabatically and follows a planar version of the Blandford Mckee (1976) solution (Sari 2000), in which a given fluid element evolves with a bulk Lorentz factor of $`\gamma l^{3/2}`$. Therefore, the motion becomes Newtonian $`\gamma (\gamma _r/\gamma _s)^{3/4}(t_r/t_s)^{3/2}1`$ when the forward shock crosses the rapid shell at $`t_r=\widehat{l}_r/c`$. On the other hand, since the forward shock itself evolves as $`\gamma l^{1/2}`$, it slows down to $`\gamma (\gamma _r/\gamma _s)^{1/2}/2`$ at the crossing time $`t_r`$.

We have developed a relativistic code with an exact Riemann solver to solve relativistic hydrodynamics problems (Kobayashi, Piran & Sari 1999). Using this code, we numerically study the collision of two equal mass slabs with $`\gamma _s=10`$, $`\gamma _r=10^3`$ and the same width in the ISM frame. The initial condition in the rapid shell comoving frame is

| $`\widehat{\gamma }_r=1`$ | $`\widehat{\gamma }_s50`$ |
| --- | --- |
| $`\rho _r=1`$ | $`\rho _s=100`$ |
| $`\widehat{l}_r5000`$ | $`\widehat{l}_s=1`$ |

The mass density outside the slabs and the homogeneous pressure are $`\rho =10^8`$ and $`p=10^{10}`$. The mass density and the pressure are measured in the comoving frame of each fluid. Our adiabatic simulations represent a case in which $`ϵ_e`$ is very small. In this simulation, we used the unit of $`c=1`$.

To compare the analytical estimates with the numerical simulation we define the effective Lorentz factor of each shell as $`\gamma =m\gamma 𝑑l/m𝑑l`$ with the effective mass $`m=\gamma \{\rho +(3+\beta ^2)p\}`$. The numerical simulation then gives $`\widehat{\gamma }_r5.3`$ and $`\widehat{\gamma }_s1.6`$ at the crossing time, which are in agreement with the analytical estimates. The thin line in figure 6 shows the numerical density profile at this time. After the forward shock crosses the rapid shell, a rarefaction wave begins to propagate into the rapid shell to transform the internal energy to the kinetic, then the rapid is accelerated to $`\gamma \gamma _r/2\gamma _s`$. The center of mass moves with a Lorentz factor $`\left(\gamma _r/\gamma _s\right)/25`$ in the rapid shell comoving frame. At the end of the simulation $`t=10^5`$, about forty percent of the rapid shell material is slower than the center of mass, and goes with the slower shell (see fig 2b).

## 4 Two Shell Collision

A collision of two shells is the elementary process in our model. A rapid shell catches up a slower one and the two merge to temporarily form a single one (denoted by the subscript m). Using conservation of energy and momentum, the Lorentz factor of the merged shell $`\gamma _m`$ and the internal energy $`E_{int}`$ produced by the collision are given by

$$\gamma _m\sqrt{(m_r\gamma _r+m_s\gamma _s)/(m_r/\gamma _r+m_s/\gamma _s)},E_{int}=m_r(\gamma _r\gamma _m)+m_s(\gamma _s\gamma _m).$$
(2)
After a fraction $`ϵ_e`$ of the internal energy is emitted isotropically in the local frame of merged shell (center of mass frame), the shells will spread to transform the remaining internal energy back to kinetic energy. If the widths are the same in center of mass frame, each mass is conserved before and after the collision. However, as we have seen, some fraction of the rapid shell material goes together with the slower one after the collision in general. We parameterize the mass splitting as $`m_r^{}=(1\delta )m_r`$ and $`m_s^{}=m_s+\delta m_r`$. We later show that the total efficiency is not sensitive to $`\delta `$.

The Lorentz factor of the reflected shells in center of mass frame are given by

$$\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_r=(M^2+m_r^2m_s^2)/2m_r^{}M,\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_s=(M^2+m_s^2m_r^2)/2m_s^{}M.$$
(3)
where $`M=(m_r\gamma _r+m_s\gamma _sϵ_eE_{int}/c^2)/\gamma _m`$. The Lorentz factors in laboratory frame are

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_r=\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_r\gamma _m\sqrt{(\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_r^21)(\gamma _m^21)},\mathrm{\Gamma }_s=\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_s\gamma _m+\sqrt{(\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_s^21)(\gamma _m^21)}.$$
(4)
The shells are once compressed by shocks, but these spread when reflecting. For simplicity we assume that the width of the shells, $`l_i`$, is constant.

## 5 Multiple Shell Collision

We consider a wind consisting of $`N`$ shells. Each shell is characterized by the four variables: $`\gamma _i,m_i,l_i`$ and $`R_i`$. We assume that the initial Lorentz factor of each shell is distributed uniformly in logarithmic space between $`\mathrm{log}\gamma _{min}`$ and $`\mathrm{log}\gamma _{max}`$. The initial masses are assumed to be correlated with the Lorentz factors as $`m\gamma ^\eta `$. For $`\eta =1`$ and $`0`$ the shells initially have equal energy and equal mass respectively, and for $`\eta =1`$ the shells initially have equal density under an assumption of the equal shell width. We assume a constant value $`l`$ for the initial widths and the initial separations between the shells. Then, the initial position of the shells are $`R_i=2(i1)l`$.

The evolution of the system in time is basically same as in KPS97, but equation 4 is used to calculate the Lorentz factor of the reflecting shells for the next time step. We follow the evolution of shells until there are no more collisions, i.e. until the shells are ordered with increasing value of the Lorentz factors.

The conversion efficiency from the kinetic energy of the shells to radiation can be calculated by using the initial and final kinetic energy as $`ϵ=1\mathrm{\Sigma }m_i^{(f)}\gamma _i^{(f)}/\mathrm{\Sigma }m_i^{(i)}\gamma _i^{(i)}`$ where the superscripts $`(f)`$ and $`(i)`$ represent the initial and final values respectively. It depends on the model parameters $`\{\gamma _{max}/\gamma _{min}`$, $`N`$, $`\eta ,ϵ_e,\delta \}`$ and on the specific realization: the set of random Lorentz factors assigned to each shell. For each choice of the parameters of the model, we have evaluated the efficiency for 100 realizations. The mean efficiency and its standard deviation are listed in Table 1 for the conserved equal mass case ($`\eta =\delta =0`$).

Table.1
$`N`$ $`\gamma _{min}`$ $`\gamma _{max}`$ efficiency \[%\] $`(ϵ_e=0.1)`$ efficiency \[%\] $`(ϵ_e=0.5)`$    30 $`10^2`$ $`10^3`$ $`9.2\pm 2.3`$ $`16.2\pm 3.0`$  30 $`10`$ $`10^4`$ $`40.0\pm 9.2`$ $`67.5\pm 9.3`$  $`10^2`$ $`10^2`$ $`10^3`$ $`15.1\pm 1.5`$ $`17.7\pm 1.5`$  $`10^2`$ 10 $`10^4`$ $`62.9\pm 4.8`$ $`72.4\pm 4.3`$

The efficiency approaches an asymptotic value as the Lorentz factor ratio $`\gamma _{max}/\gamma _{min}`$ and the number of the shells $`N`$ increase. The asymptotic value depends on $`\eta `$, $`ϵ_e`$ and $`\delta `$. The efficiency is plotted in fig 3 as a function of $`\eta `$ for $`\delta =0,0.4`$ or 0.8. In the range $`1\eta 1`$, it is not very sensitive to $`\delta `$ and peaks around $`\eta 0`$, i.e. the most efficient case is the equal mass case.

The efficiency is plotted as a function of $`ϵ_e`$ for the conserved equal mass case ($`\eta =\delta =0`$) in Figure 4. It is interesting that the efficiency can be larger than $`ϵ_e`$ since the energy released in GRB can be much larger than that in the afterglow. For instance, consider the case of $`N=100`$, $`\gamma _{min}=10`$, $`\gamma _{max}=10^4`$, $`\eta =\delta =0`$ and $`ϵ_e=0.1`$, the internal shocks can convert about sixty percent of the kinetic energy to the radiation. The reminder is converted to the thermal energy by external shock. However, only the fraction $`ϵ_e=0.1`$ of that is emitted as the afterglow 111In fact, Sari 1997 have shown that also during the afterglow the fraction of energy that can be emitted may exceed $`ϵ_e`$. However, this will be spread over many decades of time., the efficiency by the external shock is only four percent. The GRB to the afterglow ratio for these parameters is about 15!.

Figure 5a shows the resulting temporal structure in the equal mass case. It is a superposition of pulses from the elementary two shell collisions. Though numerous collisions take place during the evolution, the number of peaks in the profile is of order of $`N`$. Since all peaks have widths of the same order of magnitude, the different amplitude of the peaks originates mainly from the difference in the internal energy produced by the collisions. In Figure 5b, we plot the initial Lorentz factor as a function of time when shells were emitted by the source. We evaluate $`E_{int}`$ for all pairs of the shells if inner shell is faster. We assign $`E_{int}`$ to the ejection time of the inner shell (see Figure 5c). It resembles well the temporal profile in 5a. Therefore, despite the complicated nature of the two shells collisions, the observed burst closely follows the inner engine temporal profile.

Neighboring shells collide on a time scale of $`2\gamma ^2l/c`$. The matter is moving toward the observer, the resulting observer time scale is $`l/c`$. On the other hand, the difference in observer time due to the location of the given shell within the wind is of order $`Nl/c`$. Then, we observe the pulses arising from the collisions according to their positions inside the wind. In Figure 5d we plot the shell’s index against the time when a radiation from the shell is observed. Although the light curve in figure 5a is the superposition of all pulses, in figure 5d we plot only the pulses which are higher than a tenth of the highest. We can see a clear correlation between the index and the time, the temporal profile reflects the activity of the source.

The deviation from the correlation, e.g. some groups of circles in a line from left top to right bottom is due to that a rapid inner shell collides into the outer neighbor, and the boosted shell further collides into the outer. Since the masses of the shells are equal, the Lorentz factors of the inner and the outer shells are just switched at each collision if the radiation is negligible. Then, if an initial Lorentz factor of a shell is peculiarly high, the index of the shell which has the high Lorentz factor propagates outwards. In this sequence with the radiation loss, the pulse from the collisions damps quickly, then, the overall correlation is not destroyed.

The temporal structures for equal energy cases ($`\eta =1`$) are plotted in figure 6. The merger at each collision is assumed to split to the original masses (figure 6a) or to the modified masses $`\delta =0.4`$ (figure 6c). The initial distributions of $`\gamma `$ are the same with that of figure 5. For $`\eta =1`$, $`E_{int}`$ takes almost the same value for most of the collisions (KPS97), so most of the peaks have comparable amplitudes. The profiles still reflect the activity of the source well.

## 6 Conclusions

We have shown that the conversion efficiency from kinetic energy of relativistic shells to radiation can be close to hundred percent if the source produces shells with comparable masses with different Lorentz factor, especially when the logarithms of the Lorentz factors are distributed uniformly (see also Beloborodov 2000). It had been assume in our previous work that the Lorentz factors themselves were distributed uniformly, and the efficiency was less than forty percent. With this distribution, the most efficient case is that the source produces shells with comparable energy, instead of comparable masses (KPS97).

However, this high efficiency is achieved assuming that all the internal energy is emitted at each collision, this is not reasonable since only electrons radiative effectively, and these do not have all the internal energy. After the electrons radiate, large amount of the internal energy remains in protons. Using a hydrodynamic simulation, it has been shown that the hot merger produced by a collision spreads to transform the remaining internal energy back to the kinetic one. A simplified description of this process is to assume that the shells reflect each other with a smaller relative velocity, after the collision. The difference of the kinetic energy gives the radiated internal energy.

Since the reflecting shell collide into the outer neighbor shell, the index of the shell which has a high Lorentz factor propagates outerwards until the high value decays by the radiation loss. The shell itself which has initially a high Lorentz factor might not go through many collisions, but its high “kinetic energy” does. Therefore, the internal shock process is very efficient even if the fraction of internal energy emitted at each collision is small. Previously, the efficiency in the case of $`ϵ_e<1`$ had been estimated as smaller by a factor of $`ϵ_e`$ than that in the corresponding fully radiative case. Our ultra efficient internal shocks scenario shows this to be a significant underestimate. Though the efficiency that we have estimated is bolometric efficiency, the efficiency from the kinetic energy of the shells to gamma-ray radiation is also high if the faction of the energy radiated in the BATSE band is not very small.

Numerous collisions happened in our ultra-efficient internal shocks model, it made the peak width wider than in the previous internal shocks model. However, the number of main peaks is still almost the same as the number of shells that the source emitted. There is a strong correlation between the time at which we observe a pulse and the emission time of the corresponding shell from the source. This correlation persists even for a small $`ϵ_e`$ case where larger number of collision happen. The temporal structure reproduces the activity of the source.

We have shown that the efficiency of the internal shock process is not limited by $`ϵ_e`$, while that of the external shock is so. If a fraction $`\zeta `$ of kinetic energy of an explosion is converted to the radiation by the internal shocks, all the remaining one is converted to the thermal by external shock in the afterglow stage, and a fraction $`ϵ_e`$ of the thermal is emitted. Then, we can roughly estimate the ratio between the energy released in afterglow and that in GRB as $`ϵ_e(1\zeta )/\zeta `$. Assuming $`ϵ_e=0.1`$, the ratio is $`1/10`$ for $`\zeta =0.5`$ and decrease as $`\zeta `$ increase. If the efficiency of internal shocks is indeed very large, the luminosities of GRB and the afterglow are expected to be anticorrelated.

As a general argument in internal shock model, the luminosity distribution of multi peak bursts would be narrower than that of bursts with only few peaks (Kumar & Piran 2000), since the number of the peaks is almost the number of the shells $`N`$ as we have shown. We verified that the dispersion of the efficiency is proportional to $`1/\sqrt{N}`$ in our numerical model.

S.K. acknowledges support from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science. R.S. acknowledges support from the Sherman Fairchild foundation.

References
Beloborodov.A. 2000, ApJL, 539, L25.
Fenimore,E.E., Madras,C.D. & Nayakshin,S. 1996,ApJ,437,998.
Freedman,D.L. & Waxman,E. 1999, Submitted to ApJ, astro-ph/9912214.
Frontera F., et. al., 2000, ApJS, 127, 59.
Kobayashi,S., & Sari,R. 2000, ApJ, 542, 819.
Kobayashi,S., Piran,T. & Sari,R. 1997, ApJ, 490, 92.
Kobayashi,S., Piran,T. & Sari,R. 1999, ApJ, 513, 669.
Kumar, P. 1999, ApJL, 523, 113.
Kumar, P. & Piran,T. 2000, ApJ, 535, 152.
Sari,R. 1997, ApJL, 489, L37.
Sari,R 2000 in preparation.
Sari,R. & Piran,T. 1997, ApJ, 485, 270.
Sari,R., Piran,T. & Narayan R. 1998, ApJL, 497, L17.


text:
# Lepton Flavor Violation and Radiative Neutrino Masses

## Abstract

Lepton flavor violation in various sectors of the theory can bring important effects on neutrino masses and mixing through wave function renormalization. We examine general conditions for flavor structure of radiative corrections producing the atmospheric and solar neutrino mass splittings from degenerate mass patterns. Also obtained are the mixing angle relations consistent with the experimental results.

preprint: SNUTP 01-004, hep-ph/0101170

Current data coming from the atmospheric skatm  and solar neutrino experiments solex  strongly indicate oscillations among three active neutrinos following one of the mass patterns: (i) hierarchical pattern with $`|m_1|,|m_2||m_3|`$, (ii) inversely hierarchical pattern with $`|m_1||m_2||m_3|`$, (iii) almost degenerate pattern with $`|m_1||m_2||m_3|`$. In each case, one needs the mass-squared differences $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{atm}^2=\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^23\times 10^3`$ eV2 and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{sol}^2=\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^210^410^{10}`$ eV2 for the atmospheric and solar neutrino oscillations, respectively solan . Here we define $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{ij}^2m_i^2m_j^2`$ for the neutrino mass eigenvalues $`m_i`$. For the mixing angles, we take the standard parameterization of the neutrino mixing matrix $`U`$,

$$U=R_{23}(\theta _1)R_{13}(\theta _2)R_{12}(\theta _3)=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}c_2c_3& s_3c_2& s_2\\ c_1s_3s_1s_2c_3& c_1c_3s_1s_2s_3& s_1c_2\\ s_1s_3c_1s_2c_3& s_1c_3c_1s_2s_3& c_1c_2\end{array}\right),$$
(1)
where $`R_{ij}(\theta _k)`$ is the rotation in the $`ij`$ plane by the angle $`0\theta _k\pi `$ and $`c_k=\mathrm{cos}\theta _k`$, $`s_k=\mathrm{sin}\theta _k`$. In our discussion, we neglect CP-violating phases. The atmospheric neutrino data require the $`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$ oscillation amplitude $`A_{atm}=c_2^2\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _11`$ implying nearly maximal mixing $`\theta _3\pi /4`$. For the solar neutrino oscillation, the $`\nu _e\nu _{\mu ,\tau }`$ oscillation amplitude $`A_{sol}=c_2^2\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _3`$ can take either large $`1`$ or small $`10^3`$ value (that is, $`\theta _1\pi /4`$ or $`\theta _11`$) depending on the solutions to the solar neutrino problem. The mixing element $`U_{e3}`$ is constrained by the reactor experiment on the $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ disappearance chooz ; $`|U_{e3}|=|s_2|0.2`$ for $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2`$ allowed by the atmospheric neutrino data. There is also a limit on the neutrino mass element itself coming from the neutrinoless double beta decay experiments, $`|M_{ee}|=|_im_iU_{ei}^2|<0.2`$ eV 0nbb . This bound is particularly important for the degenerate pattern (iii) where $`m_i^2\delta m_{atm}^2`$ is possible. Note that we restricted ourselves to oscillations among three active neutrinos disregarding the LSND results lsnd  waiting for a confirmation in the near future.

Understanding the origin of neutrino masses and mixing is one of fundamental problems in physics beyond the standard model. It concerns with the leptonic flavor structure of the theory. As we know, small Majorana neutrino mass textures (at tree level) would be attributed to the effective higher dimensional operator $`L_\alpha L_\beta H_2H_2`$ where $`L_\alpha `$ denotes the lepton doublet with the flavor index $`\alpha =e,\mu ,\tau `$ and $`H_2`$ is the Higgs field coupling to up-type quarks. This operator breaks the total lepton number by 2 units ($`\mathrm{\Delta }L=2`$). There can be other sectors breaking individual lepton number (with $`\mathrm{\Delta }L=0`$) which give important contributions to the neutrino mass matrix through radiative corrections. The best-known example is the renormalization group effect of the charged lepton Yukawa couplings rge1 , which has been studied extensively in recent years rge2 . Such an effect provides potentially important origin of tiny neutrino mass splittings, of course, depending on specific tree level neutrino mass textures.

In this regard, it is an interesting question whether the desired mass splittings for the degenerate mass patterns (ii) and (iii) can arise from radiative corrections bringing the effect of lepton flavor violation in various sectors of the theory. The purpose of this work is to investigate general conditions for radiative corrections to produce the observed neutrino mass splittings without resorting to any specific models for flavor structure beyond the Yukawa sector. Assuming that various radiative correction contributions are hierarchical, we will identify appropriate flavor structure of the dominant or subdominant contribution which are able to generate the atmospheric or solar neutrino mass splitting. For these loop corrections, we also derive mixing angle relations consistent with the experimental data. Our results would be useful for constructing models of degenerate neutrinos.

The general form of the loop-corrected neutrino mass matrix due to wave function renormalization is given by

$$M_{\alpha \beta }=m_{\alpha \beta }+\frac{1}{2}\left(m_{\alpha \gamma }I_{\gamma \beta }+I_{\alpha \gamma }m_{\gamma \beta }\right),$$
(2)
where $`m_{\alpha \beta }`$ is the tree level neutrino mass matrix and $`I_{\alpha \beta }`$ is the loop contribution. Note that the above formula is written in the flavor basis where charged lepton masses are diagonal. Often, it is convenient to re-express Eq. (2) in the tree level mass basis of neutrinos;

$$M_{ij}=m_i\delta _{ij}+\frac{1}{2}(m_i+m_j)I_{ij},$$
(3)
where $`m_i`$ is the tree level mass eigenvalue and the loop correction factor $`I_{ij}`$ is related to $`I_{\alpha \beta }`$ by the equation, $`I_{ij}=_{\alpha \beta }I_{\alpha \beta }U_{\alpha i}U_{\beta j}`$, where $`U`$ is the tree level diagonalization matrix parametrized as in Eq. (1). In this paper, we have nothing to mention about the origin of the flavor structure of $`m_{\alpha \beta }`$. Given $`m_{\alpha \beta }`$ yielding the degenerate mass pattern of the type (ii) or (iii), we will examine the flavor structure of the loop factor $`I_{\alpha \beta }`$ which can produce the atmospheric and/or solar neutrino masses and mixing. Before coming to our main point, it is instructive to see where the loop correction $`I_{\alpha \beta }`$ can come from.

To illustrate how the flavor structure of the loop correction $`I_{\alpha \beta }`$ can arise, we consider one of the most popular model beyond the standard model, namely, the supersymmetric standard model. Like the standard model, it has an inevitable flavor violation in the Yukawa sector with the superpotential,

$$Wh_\alpha H_1L_\alpha E_\alpha ^c,$$
(4)
where $`H_1`$, $`L_\alpha `$ and $`E_\alpha ^c`$ denote the Higgs, lepton doublet and singlet superfields. At the leading log approximation, the Yukawa terms in Eq. (4) give rise to rge1 ; rge2

$$I_{\alpha \alpha }\frac{h_\alpha ^2}{8\pi ^2}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{M_X}{M_Z}\right),$$
(5)
where $`M_X`$ denote a fundamental scale generating the above-mentioned effective operator and the Z boson mass $`M_Z`$ represents the weak scale.

The soft supersymmetry breaking terms included in this model are also potentially important sources of flavor violation. Those terms include sfermion masses and trilinear A-terms which are generically nonuniversal and flavor dependent;

$$V_{soft}m_{\alpha \beta ^{}}^2L_\alpha L_\beta ^{}+A_{\alpha \beta }H_1L_\alpha E_\beta ^c+h.c.,$$
(6)
where we use the same notation for the scalar components of superfields. The effect of slepton masses has been first discussed in Ref. hoza . The off-diagonality and non-degeneracy in diagonal masses of $`\stackrel{~}{m}_{\alpha \beta ^{}}^2`$ give rise to

$$I_{\alpha \beta }=\frac{g^2}{8\pi ^2}\delta _{\alpha \beta }^lf(\stackrel{~}{m}_{\alpha \alpha }^2;\stackrel{~}{m}_{\beta \beta }^2),$$
(7)
where $`\delta _{\alpha \beta }^l=\stackrel{~}{m}_{\alpha \beta }^2/(\stackrel{~}{m}_{\alpha \alpha }\stackrel{~}{m}_{\beta \beta })`$ for $`\alpha \beta `$ (assuming $`\delta _{\alpha \beta }^l1`$), $`\delta _{\alpha \alpha }^l=1`$ and $`f`$ is an appropriate loop function of order one. In the similar way, the effect of the A-terms comes from one-loop diagrams with wino/zino and slepton exchange generating

$$I_{\alpha \beta }\frac{g^2}{8\pi ^2}\frac{A_{\alpha \gamma }A_{\beta \gamma }^{}H_1^2}{\stackrel{~}{m}^4},$$
(8)
where $`\stackrel{~}{m}`$ is a typical mass of the sparticles running inside the loop. In general, the A-terms are not proportional to the (charged lepton) Yukawa couplings, $`A_{\alpha \beta }/h_{\alpha \beta }=\delta _{\alpha \beta }h_\alpha `$, This can lead to important new contributions to lepton flavor changing loop corrections as above. However, we expect in generic models that $`A_{\alpha \beta }\stackrel{~}{m}h_\tau `$ and thus the sizes of their loop effects are at most comparable to those of the tau Yukawa coupling.

Lepton flavor violation can also appear in the superpotential through R-parity and lepton number violating trilinear terms;

$$W\lambda _{\alpha \beta \gamma }L_\alpha L_\beta E_\gamma ^c+\lambda _{\alpha \beta \gamma }^{}L_\alpha Q_\beta D_\gamma ^c,$$
(9)
where $`Q,D^c`$ are doublet and down-type singlet quark superfields. The R-parity violating couplings can participate in the renormalization group equation like the charge lepton Yukawa couplings, and thus we get for the couplings $`\lambda `$,

$$I_{\alpha \beta }\frac{\lambda _{\alpha \gamma \delta }\lambda _{\beta \gamma \delta }^{}}{8\pi ^2}\mathrm{ln}(\frac{M_X}{M_Z}).$$
(10)
For certain combinations of R-parity violating couplings Rbounds , the current experimental bounds are weak enough to give a sizable loop correction $`I_{\alpha \beta }`$. In particular, if one takes only one dominant coupling $`\lambda _{\alpha \gamma \delta }`$ which can be as large as order one, one can have a very large loop correction $`I_{\alpha \alpha }`$. With the generic R-parity violation (9), of course, one may have a finite loop correction to neutrino masses like $`\delta m_{\alpha \beta }\lambda _{\alpha \gamma \delta }\lambda _{\beta \delta \gamma }h_\gamma ^eh_\delta ^e`$ Rmass  which is not a topic of the present investigation.

As we have seen above, there could be rich sources for sizable loop corrections $`I_{\alpha \beta }`$ in a general class of models. In the below, we discuss the effect of general flavor-dependent loop contributions $`I_{\alpha \beta }`$ for various degenerate mass patterns at tree level. Let us start with analyzing the conditions to produce the desired mass splittings for the atmospheric as well as solar neutrino oscillations in the case of the fully degenerate mass patterns; $`|m_1|=|m_2|=|m_3|`$. For this, we look first for the possible loop corrections giving rise to the atmospheric mass splitting $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2/2m_0^2`$ at the leading order correction. In our analysis, it is assumed that loop corrections $`I_{\alpha \beta }`$ take hierarchical values and thus the leading order splitting is dominated by one specific $`I_{\alpha \beta }`$. For the fully degenerate pattern, there are the following possibilities depending on the CP-conserving phases of the tree level mass eigenvalues;

$$\mathrm{I}.(m_1,m_2,m_3)=m_0(1,1,1)\mathrm{or}m_0(\pm 1,1,1)$$

which we call the 1-2 or 1-3 (2-3) degeneracy, respectively. The loop correction can induce nonvanishing off-diagonal components $`M_{ij}`$ as far as $`m_i+m_j0`$ (3). Then, as discussed in Ref. hoza , one has a freedom to define the tree level mixing angles in the matrix $`U`$ in such a way that $`I_{ij}=I_{\alpha \beta }U_{\alpha i}U_{\beta j}=0`$ due to the exact degeneracy $`m_i=m_j`$. It is a simple manner to show this explicitly. In the $`i`$-$`j`$ plane with tree-level degeneracy, the radiatively corrected mass matrix is diagonalized by the rotation $`R_{ij}(\varphi )`$ where $`\varphi `$ is given by

$$\mathrm{tan}2\varphi =\frac{2I_{ij}}{I_{jj}I_{ii}}.$$
(11)
On the other hand, we are free to choose our tree level mixing matrix: $`UU^{}=UR_{ij}(\varphi )`$ where $`R_{ij}(\varphi )`$ is given by $`R_{ij,kl}(\varphi )=c_\varphi (\delta _{ik}\delta _{il}+\delta _{jk}\delta _{jl})+s_\varphi (\delta _{ik}\delta _{jl}\delta _{jk}\delta _{il})`$. Then the loop factor $`I_{ij}^{}=I_{\alpha \beta }U_{\alpha i}^{}U_{\beta j}^{}`$ written in terms of the new mixing matrix $`U^{}`$ becomes $`I_{ij}^{}=[2I_{ij}\mathrm{cos}2\varphi +(I_{ii}I_{jj})\mathrm{sin}2\varphi ]/2`$ which vanishes due to the relation (11). Note that this conclusion holds for arbitrary sum of $`I_{\alpha \beta }`$.

With this properly defined mixing matrix $`U`$ satisfying the mixing angle relation $`I_{ij}=0`$, the nonvanishing mass-squared differences generated by loop correction can be written as

$`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2`$ $`=`$ $`2m_0^2(I_{22}I_{11})=2m_0^2I_{\alpha \beta }(U_{\alpha 2}U_{\beta 2}U_{\alpha 1}U_{\beta 1})`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2`$ $`=`$ $`2m_0^2(I_{33}I_{22})=2m_0^2I_{\alpha \beta }(U_{\alpha 3}U_{\beta 3}U_{\alpha 2}U_{\beta 2}).`$ (12)
When a specific component $`I_{\alpha \beta }`$ gives the dominant contribution in Eq. (Lepton Flavor Violation and Radiative Neutrino Masses), we need to have $`(U_{\alpha 2}U_{\beta 2}U_{\alpha 1}U_{\beta 1})/(U_{\alpha 3}U_{\beta 3}U_{\alpha 2}U_{\beta 2})\mathrm{\Delta }m_{sol}^2/\mathrm{\Delta }m_{atm}^2`$, that is, $`U_{\alpha 2}U_{\beta 2}U_{\alpha 1}U_{\beta 1}`$ is required to get $`|m_{32}^2||m_{21}^2|`$. Based on these properties, we are now ready to consider the effect of a loop correction $`I_{\alpha \beta }`$.

(a) $`I_{\alpha \alpha }`$ dominance: For the $`i`$-$`j`$ degeneracy, the relation $`I_{ij}U_{\alpha i}U_{\alpha j}=0`$ implies $`U_{\alpha i}=0`$ or $`U_{\alpha j}=0`$. As an immediate consequence, we find that the $`1`$-$`2`$ degeneracy cannot work for any $`\alpha `$ since it gives $`U_{\alpha 1}^2U_{\alpha 2}^20`$ and thus $`U_{\alpha 3}^21`$ contradicting with the empirical results, $`U_{e3}^21`$ and $`U_{\mu 3}^2U_{\tau 3}^21/2`$. In fact, the only possible mixing angle relation is $`U_{e3}=s_2=0`$, which can be realized only with the $`I_{ee}`$ dominance combined with the 1-3 or 2-3 degeneracy. In this case, we get from Eq. (Lepton Flavor Violation and Radiative Neutrino Masses)

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2}\frac{\mathrm{cos}2\theta _3}{s_3^2}$$
(13)
which requires the maximal mixing of the solar neutrinos, $`\mathrm{cos}2\theta _31`$.

(b) $`I_{\alpha \beta }`$ dominance ($`\alpha \beta `$): As discussed below Eq. (Lepton Flavor Violation and Radiative Neutrino Masses), it is useful to notice that we need $`0U_{\alpha 2}U_{\beta 2}U_{\alpha 1}U_{\beta 1}U_{\alpha 3}U_{\beta 3}/2`$ (the last relation comes from the orthogonality condition $`_iU_{\alpha i}U_{\beta i}=\delta _{\alpha \beta }`$) to yield $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2/\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^22(I_{22}I_{11})/3I_{22}`$. Then, we can easily rule out the case $`(\alpha \beta )=(e\mu )`$ or $`(e\tau )`$ from the simple observation that

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2}\frac{2}{3}\left[\mathrm{cos}2\theta _3+\frac{c_1}{s_1s_2}\mathrm{sin}2\theta _3\right]\mathrm{or}\frac{2}{3}\left[\mathrm{cos}2\theta _3\frac{s_1}{c_1s_2}\mathrm{sin}2\theta _3\right]$$

which cannot be made small enough for realistic values of the mixing angles satisfying $`\theta _1\pi /4`$, $`\theta _21`$ and $`\theta _3\pi /4`$ or $`\theta _31`$. On the other hand, for $`(\alpha \beta )=(\mu \tau )`$, we get

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2}\frac{2}{3c_2^2}\left[(1+s_2^2)\mathrm{cos}2\theta _3+2s_2\mathrm{sin}2\theta _3\mathrm{cot}2\theta _1\right]$$
(14)
which becomes vanishingly small for $`s_2\mathrm{cos}2\theta _11`$ and $`\mathrm{cos}2\theta _31`$. Now we have to check if the mixing angle relation fixed by the condition $`I_{ij}=0`$ for certain combination of $`(ij)`$ can be consistent with our consideration. As shown in Ref. hoza , the 1-3 or 2-3 degeneracy gives again the desired relation respectively,

$$s_2=\mathrm{cot}2\theta _1\mathrm{tan}\theta _3\mathrm{or}s_2=\mathrm{cot}2\theta _1\mathrm{cot}\theta _3.$$
(15)
which relates the smallness of the angle $`\theta _2`$ with the large atmospheric neutrino mixing.

In sum, the small mass splitting for the atmospheric neutrinos can be obtained only with the dominant loop correction of $`I_{ee}`$ or $`I_{\mu \tau }`$ in the case of the 1-3 or 2-3 degeneracy. Furthermore, this picture can be consistent only with bimaximal mixing $`\theta _1,\theta _3\pi /4`$ and $`s_21`$ fixed by the mixing angle relation $`I_{13}`$ or $`I_{23}=0`$. Note that all of these are fairly consistent with the neutrinoless double beta decay bound as we have $`|M_{ee}|=|m_0(c_2^2\mathrm{cos}2\theta _3\pm s_2^2)||m_0|`$.

Let us turn to the solar neutrino mass splitting. As can be seen from Eqs. (13) and (14), the right values for $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2`$ may arise if the mixing anlges satisfy $`\mathrm{cos}2\theta _3\mathrm{cos}^22\theta _1`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{sol}^2/\mathrm{\Delta }m_{atm}^2`$ where the second relation is applied only to the $`I_{\mu \tau }`$ dominance. However, it appears unnatural to arrange such small values for the tree level mixing angles. It would be more plausible to imagine the situation of exact bimaximal mixing ($`\mathrm{cos}2\theta _1=\mathrm{cos}2\theta _3=0`$) imposed by certain symmetry in tree level mass matrix. Then, the solar neutrino mass splitting could be generated by a smaller loop correction $`I_{\alpha \beta }`$ other than $`I_{ee}`$ or $`I_{\mu \tau }`$. Including now in Eq. (Lepton Flavor Violation and Radiative Neutrino Masses) this subdominant contribution, one can find the deviations from the leading results, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2=0`$ and $`s_2=0`$. The result of our calculation is summarized in Table I in the case of the 1-3 degeneracy. We have shown the explicit angle dependences to notify the sign of mass-squared difference which might be distinguishable by the solar neutrino MSW effect. Similar result can be obtained for the 2-3 degeneracy. A few remarks are in order. The desired size of the loop correction for the atmospheric neutrino mass-squared difference $`I_{ee,\mu \tau }\mathrm{\Delta }m_{atm}^2/m_0^2`$. Thus, the degenerate mass $`m_01`$ eV of cosmological interests needs $`I_{ee,\mu \tau }10^3`$ which is a reasonable value for radiative corrections. As can be seen in Table I, the ratio $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{sol}^2/\mathrm{\Delta }m_{atm}^2`$ is roughly given by $`r`$ or $`r^2`$ depending on the flavor structure of the radiative corrections whereas $`s_2r`$ for any cases. If the large angle MSW solution to the solar neutrino problem is realized, one needs $`r`$ or $`r^2`$ of the order $`10^2`$, that is, a loop correction $`I_{\alpha \beta }`$ should be smaller than $`I_{ee,\mu \tau }`$ by factor of $`10^2`$ or $`10^1`$. For the latter case, we get $`s_20.1`$ which is within the reach of future experiments. We note that a supersymmetric model realizing the case with the $`I_{ee}`$ dominance and $`r=I_{\tau \tau }/I_{ee}`$ has been worked out in Ref. valle .

Another possibility is to have the atmospheric neutrino mass splitting given at tree level and the smaller splitting for the solar neutrino mass is driven by loop corrections. This includes almost full degeneracy $`|m_1|=|m_2||m_3|`$ and inverse hierarchy $`|m_1|=|m_2||m_3|`$, both of which can be parametrized as

$$\mathrm{II}.(m_1,m_2,m_3)=m_0(1,\pm 1,z),$$

where $`z=\pm 1+\delta _a`$ with $`|\delta _a|=\mathrm{\Delta }m_{atm}^2/2m_0^2`$ for the almost full degeneracy, or $`|z|1`$ with $`m_0^2=\mathrm{\Delta }m_{atm}^2`$ for the inverse hierarchy. We consider the two cases, $`m_1=\pm m_2`$, separately.

(a) $`m_1=m_2=m_0`$: As discussed before, the mixing angles satisfy $`I_{12}=0`$ and the leading contribution to $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2`$ is given by $`2m_0^2(I_{22}I_{11})`$. These two quantities are presented in Table II. One can realize that the $`I_{ee}`$ dominance does not work at all. For $`(\alpha \beta )=(\mu \mu ),(\tau \tau ),(\mu \tau )`$, only the small solar mixing angle is consistent since the mixing angle relation $`s_2\mathrm{sin}2\theta _3`$ has to be put. On the contrary, for $`(\alpha \beta )=(e\mu ),(e\tau )`$, the large solar mixing can only be allowed since $`s_2\mathrm{cos}2\theta _3`$. Imposing these mixing angle relations, one can see that $`I_{22}I_{11}`$ in Table II does not vanish for any $`(\alpha ,\beta )`$, and thus $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{sol}^2m_0^2I_{\alpha \beta }`$. In the case of $`|z|1`$, we thus need $`I_{\alpha \beta }\mathrm{\Delta }m_{sol}^2/\mathrm{\Delta }m_{atm}^210^2`$ where the approximate equality is for the large angle MSW solution and may be a little large value for a radiative correction. Here it is worth noting that e.g., for the $`I_{\tau \tau }`$ dominance, we have $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _31`$ and

$$\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^22m_0^2I_{\tau \tau }s_1^2(c_3^2s_3^2).$$
(16)
For the small solar neutrino mixing to work, we need $`s_3^21`$ for $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2>0`$ (or $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2<0`$ for $`c_3^21`$), which requires from Eq. (16) that $`I_{\tau \tau }>0`$. Therefore, $`I_{\tau \tau }`$ given in Eq. (5) for the supersymmetric standard model does not fulfill this condition whereas the usual standard model with $`I_{\tau \tau }h_\tau ^2\mathrm{ln}(M_X/M_Z)/16\pi ^2`$ can work.

(b) $`m_1=m_2=m_0`$: In this case, no mixing angle relation is imposed. Including the effect of the off-diagonal elements $`M_{13}`$ and $`M_{23}`$ generated from loop correction, we find

$$\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2=2m_0^2\left[I_{22}I_{11}+\frac{1}{2}\frac{(z1)^2}{(z+1)}I_{23}^2+\frac{1}{2}\frac{(z+1)^2}{(z1)}I_{13}^2\right],$$
(17)
where $`I_{22}I_{11}`$ is given in Table II for each $`I_{\alpha \beta }`$. Depending on the mixing angles fixed at tree level, the leading contribution to $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{sol}^2`$ may come from $`I_{22}I_{11}`$ or the next terms in Eq. (17). That is, we need to have $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{sol}^2/\mathrm{\Delta }m_{atm}^2I_{\alpha \beta }/\delta _a`$ or $`I_{\alpha \beta }^2/\delta _a^2`$ for $`z=\pm 1+\delta _a`$, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{sol}^2/\mathrm{\Delta }m_{atm}^2I_{\alpha \beta }`$ or $`I_{\alpha \beta }^2`$ for $`|z|1`$. Therefore, the values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{sol}^2`$ for various solutions to solar neutrino problem can be obtained with appropriate values of $`I_{\alpha \beta }`$ and $`\delta _a`$. From Table II, one can see that the leading term $`I_{22}I_{11}I_{\alpha \beta }`$ vanishes for the exact bimaximal mixing with $`s_2=0`$ and $`\mathrm{cos}2\theta _3=0`$ in the case of $`(\alpha \beta )=(ee),(\mu \mu ),(\tau \tau )`$ and $`(\mu \tau )`$. Furthermore, for $`(\alpha \beta )=(ee)`$ and $`(\mu \tau )`$, $`I_{13}`$ and $`I_{23}`$ also vanish and thus no splitting can arise at one-loop level. We would like to stress that either the large or small mixing solution to the solar neutrino problem can be realized as we have no mixing angle relation imposed. For the small mixing solution, the solar neutrino mass-squared difference has further suppression by small mixing angles as $`I_{22}I_{11}I_{\alpha \beta }\mathrm{sin}2\theta _3`$ or $`I_{\alpha \beta }s_2`$ in the case of $`(\alpha \beta )=(e\mu )`$ or $`(e\tau )`$.

In conclusion, we have discussed the general conditions for generating small neutrino mass splittings from the effect of one-loop wave function renormalization of degenerate neutrino masses at tree level. Without assuming any specific model on the structure of lepton flavor violation other than the tree level neutrino mass sector, we identified the flavor dependences of the loop factors which can give rise to the neutrino mass-squared difference and mixings required by the atmospheric and solar neutrino data. For the fully degenerate pattern $`|m_1|=|m_2|=|m_3|`$, the atmospheric neutrino mass splitting can be obtained when the dominant loop correction comes from $`I_{ee}`$ or $`I_{\mu \tau }`$ in the cases of $`m_1=m_3`$ and $`m_2=m_3`$. In each case, the smaller loop corrections are examined to generate the solar neutrino mass splitting. For all the cases, it turns out that the so-called bimaximal mixing can only be realized. For the partially degenerate case $`|m_1|=|m_2||m_3|`$, we identified $`I_{\alpha \beta }`$ with which the desired mass splitting and the (large or small) mixing angle for the solar neutrino oscillations can be obtained. Our results may be useful for explicit model building along this line.

Acknowledgement: The author is supported by the BK21 program of Ministry of Education.