format: text

text:
# Why Photon Colliders are necessary in a future collider program to be published in Proc. GG2000, DESY, June 2000, Nucl. Instr. Meth.

## 1 Different scenarios

Photon Colliders in the widespread scenario. When discussing the program for future high energy colliders, the basic point is usually that Nature is so favorable to us to dispose the essential fraction of new particles and the thresholds of new interactions (e.g., effects of new higher dimensions, compositeness, etc.) within the LHC operation domain.

In this case main discoveries will be made at the Tevatron and the LHC. The $`e^+e^{}`$ Linear Colliders (LC) in their first stages will be machines for measuring precise values of coupling constants and exploring in detail supersymmetry. The high luminosity expected for $`e^+e^{}`$Linear Colliders provides opportunity to obtain parameters of models realized with very high accuracy, see, e.g., .

With the Photon Collider mode of LC  having roughly the same luminosity as that for $`e^+e^{}`$ mode  these results will be improved. Indeed,

$``$ The cross sections of production of pairs of charged particles in the $`\gamma \gamma `$ collision are $`5÷8`$ times higher than that in the $`e^+e^{}`$ collision in its maxima; this ratio increases with growth of energy.
$``$ The set of final states at a Photon Collider is much richer than that at in an $`e^+e^{}`$ mode.
$``$ One can vary polarizations of photon beams relatively easily (circular $``$ transverse).

Unfortunately, this Photon Collider opportunity was not explored by the community in necessary detail. It can be assured that the forthcoming studies of many physicists with detailed simulation will show an exceptional potential for the Photon Collider mode in both new problems and all problems considered till now.

Possible $`𝒮`$– like scenario. It can also happen that the opposite scenario will be realized:
No new particles and interactions will be discovered at the Tevatron, LHC and $`e^\mathbf{+}e^{\mathbf{}}`$ LC, except the Higgs boson. If additionally its coupling constant to quarks and gauge bosons will be close to their values in the $`𝒮`$, we find a $`𝒮`$– like picture of the World. It can be realized both if our World is really described by simple $`𝒮`$up to very small distances and if some other model is realized and New Physics is round the corner. In this case the main goal of studies at new colliders will be the hunting for indirect signals of New Physics – deviations of observed quantities from $`𝒮`$predictions.
Photon Colliders are the best machines for the hunting for signals of New Physics if the $`𝒮`$– like scenario is realized.

## 2 Higgs window to a New Physics

The study of Higgs-boson couplings with photons ($`h\gamma \gamma `$ and $`hZ\gamma `$) looks like a very promising tool for resolving of models of New Physics.

$``$ These couplings are absent in the $`𝒮`$at tree level, appearing only at the loop level. Therefore, the background for signals of New Physics will be relatively lower here than in other processes which are allowed at tree level of the SM.
$``$ All fundamental charged particles contribute to these effective couplings. The whole structure of the theory influences the corresponding Higgs-boson decays.
$``$ The expected accuracy in the two-photon width is about 2% at $`M_h150`$ GeV and even at the luminosity integral $`30`$ fb-1 in the high energy peak of the luminosity spectrum .

In the $`2𝒟`$and $`𝒮𝒮`$, the observed Higgs boson will be either the lightest Higgs boson $`h`$ or heavier one $`H`$. Assuming the coupling constants of observed Higgs boson to quarks and gauge bosons are close to their values in the $`𝒮`$, other Higgs bosons can easily avoid observation at LHC and $`e^+e^{}`$ LC due to small couplings to standard matter. These neutral Higgses can be seen in the process $`\gamma \gamma h`$  and charged Higgses in the process $`\gamma \gamma H^+H^{}`$.

Even if these additional Higgs bosons are so heavy that they cannot be produced at a first stage Photon Collider, the models can be distinguished well via precise measurement of two–photon width of observed $`𝒮`$–like Higgs boson . In this paper we assumed that the discussed $`𝒮`$–like scenario is realized with an accuracy estimated for $`𝒮`$Higgs boson at an $`e^+e^{}`$ Linear Collider . The two photon width is calculated via the Higgs couplings with the matter measured at an $`e^+e^{}`$ LC. In the $`2𝒟`$, deviation from $`𝒮`$is due mainly to contribution of charged Higgs. In the general case the two-photon width is about 10% less than that in the $`𝒮`$(see Figs. 1). It is several times larger than the expected experimental inaccuracy. Therefore, measurement of the two-photon width at a Photon collider can resolve these models reliably.

In the $`𝒮𝒮`$the lightest Higgs boson is decoupled with superpartners and other members of Higgs multiplet if they are very heavy. More detailed calculations will give us the upper bounds for masses of superparticles which can influence the photon widths so that the difference will be seen in the experiment. Preliminary estimates show that these values are higher than the discovery limits at LHC.

In many variants of $`2𝒟`$or $`𝒮𝒮`$the masses of heavy scalar Higgs $`H`$ and Higgs pseudoscalar $`A`$ are close each other. In some other variants they are mixed ($`𝒞𝒫`$violated scenarios). The observations at LHC and $`e^+e^{}`$ Linear Collider cannot often resolve these opportunities due to low resolution for these bosons. The polarization asymmetries in Higgs boson production at a Photon Collider can resolve these variants, i.e. establish whether $`𝒞𝒫`$parity at Higgs level is violated or not.

## 3 Anomalies in the interactions of gauge and Higgs bosons

Before discovery new heavy particles inherent New Physics, it reveals itself at lower energies as some anomalies in the interactions of known particles. Our goal is to find these anomalies and discriminate tham as best as possible. The correlation between coefficients of different anomalies will be the key for understanding what is the nature of New Physics.

Interactions of gauge bosons. The practically unique process under study in the $`e^+e^{}`$mode is $`e^+e^{}W^+W^{}`$. At suitable electron polarization the neutrino exchange contribution (having small interest) disappears, and the residual cross section (obliged by photon and $`Z`$ boson exchange) has a maximum about 2 pb within the LEP operation interval and decreases with energy after that. The cross sections of other processes with $`W`$ production ($`e^+e^{}e^+e^{}WW`$, $`e^+e^{}e\nu W`$, …) are small at $`\sqrt{s}<1`$ TeV.

At Photon collider the main processes are – $`\gamma \gamma W^+W^{}`$, $`e\gamma \nu W`$. Their cross sections are about 80 pb and are energy independent at $`\sqrt{s}>200`$ GeV. That is at least 40 times higher than for $`e^+e^{}`$ collisions, it gives about $`(1÷5)10^7`$ $`W`$’s per year, comparable with $`Z`$ production at LEP. Due to high value of these basic cross sections, many processes of 3-rd and 4-th order have large enough cross sections:
$`𝜸𝒆\mathbf{}𝒆𝑾𝑾`$, $`𝜸𝜸\mathbf{}𝒁𝑾𝑾`$, $`𝜸𝒆\mathbf{}𝝂𝑾𝒁`$, $`𝜸𝜸\mathbf{}𝑾𝑾𝑾𝑾`$, $`𝜸𝜸\mathbf{}𝑾𝑾𝒁𝒁`$, etc. Large variety of these processes permit us to discover and separate well anomalies in specific processes and (or) distributions. This subject needs studies of all processes enumerated with details of behavior in different regions of phase space and polarization dependence.

$``$ For example, the following line of procedures is almost evident:
(a) To extract $`\gamma WW`$ anomalies from $`\gamma e\nu W`$.
(b) To extract $`ZWW`$ anomalies from $`e^+e^{}W^+W^{}`$.
(c) To extract $`\gamma \gamma WW`$ anomaly from $`\gamma \gamma W^+W^{}`$.
$``$ $`𝒆𝜸\mathbf{}𝝂𝑾`$. The cross section of process is $`(12\lambda _e)`$, it is switched on or off with variation of electron helicity $`\lambda _e`$. It gives precise test of absence of right handed currents in the interaction of $`W`$ with the matter.
$``$ $`𝜸𝒆\mathbf{}𝒆𝑾𝑾`$. The cross section of process at $`\sqrt{s}=500`$ GeV is about 10 pb, corresponding counting rate is few millions events per year.
$``$ In events with transverse momentum of scattered electron $`p_{}30`$ GeV one can study here anomaly $`\gamma ZWW`$.
$``$ The charge asymmetry of produced $`W`$’s looks like most sensitive key for the study of strong interaction in Higgs sector.
$``$ $`\gamma \gamma \mathbf{}W^\mathbf{+}W^{\mathbf{}}`$and $`e\gamma \mathbf{}\nu W`$. The two–loop radiative corrections to these processes are measurable and sensitive to the problems:
$``$ construction of $`S`$–matrix of theory with unstable particles;
$``$ gluon corrections like Pomeron exchange between quark components of $`W`$’s.

Interactions of Higgs boson with light ( $`\gamma \gamma \mathbf{}h`$, $`\gamma e\mathbf{}eh`$). All observable anomalous $`𝒞𝒫`$– even and $`𝒞𝒫`$– odd interactions of Higgs boson with light are summarized in the form of an effective Lagrangian:

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Delta }=2Hv(\theta _\gamma \frac{F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }}{2\mathrm{\Lambda }_\gamma ^2}+\theta _Z\frac{Z_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_Z^2}+\\ i\theta _{P\gamma }\frac{F_{\mu \nu }\stackrel{~}{F}^{\mu \nu }}{2\mathrm{\Lambda }_{P\gamma }^2}+i\theta _{PZ}\frac{Z_{\mu \nu }\stackrel{~}{F}^{\mu \nu }}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{PZ}^2}),(\theta _i=e^{i\xi _i}).\end{array}$$
(1)
Here $`F^{\mu \nu }`$ and $`Z^{\mu \nu }`$ are the standard field strengths for the electromagnetic and $`Z`$ field, $`\stackrel{~}{F}^{\mu \nu }=\epsilon ^{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }F_{\alpha \beta }/2`$ and $`\xi _i`$ are the phases of couplings, generally different from 0 or $`\pi `$ even in the C–even case (due to possible anomalous contributions of some light particles) .

While $`𝒞𝒫`$even anomalies can be seen via the values of measured cross sections, the $`𝒞𝒫`$anomalies will be seen via the polarization asymmetries (”longitudinal” – variation of cross sections with change of sign of collided photon helicities, or ”transverse” – variation of cross section in dependence on the angle between directions of linear polarization of collided photons). The effects are large enough to see them at reasonable values of anomaly scales $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_i`$ and phases $`\xi _i`$ (see Fig. 2).

The specific example of anomaly presents $`𝒞𝒫`$violating mixing in Higgs sector of $`2𝒟`$(scalar – pseudoscalar) with mixing angle $`\alpha _2`$. We present results in Fig. 3 fixing other model parameters to be close to the $`𝒮`$case.

$``$ It can happen that the masses of heavy scalar Higgs $`H`$ and pseudoscalar $`A`$ are so close to each other that they cannot be resolved in the mass spectrum. The study of decay products cannot distinguish this overlapping from the case of their mixing with $`𝒞𝒫`$violation. In the case when these Higgses overlap in the true mass spectrum, the correlations in the decay products will be identical if $`𝒞𝒫`$violated mixing exists or not. The study of polarization asymmetries in the Higgs boson production at Photon Colliders distinguish these two opportunities well.

## 4 $`𝒕`$ – quarks, $`𝓜𝓢𝓢𝓜`$

Here I present only few examples in which Photon Colliders look absolutely necessary.

$``$ $`𝒕`$–quarks. In addition to the usually discussed problems related to $`t`$-quarks, the specific one is the study of axial anomaly in the process $`\gamma eet\overline{t}`$. It was found that at small transverse momenta of scattered electrons $`p_{}`$ the cross section of subprocess $`Z_L\gamma t\overline{t}`$ with longitudinally polarized $`Z`$ does not disappear as happens with photons but diverges as $`M_t^2/p_{}^2`$

$``$ Some problems with $`𝒮𝒮`$.
$``$ Due to high values of the basic cross sections for the production of pairs of charged particles, Photon Colliders promise to be an excellent place for observation of (even small) possible flavor nonconservation in the neutral currents with superparticles.
$``$ If the stop squark is not very heavy, the atom-like stoponium with mass 200-400 GeV should also exists. It will be very narrow and hard to observe at hadron collider and $`e^+e^{}`$ Linear Colliders. However, it can be clearly seen at $`\gamma \gamma `$collider with cross section averaged over photon spectrum $`\mathbf{<}𝝈\mathbf{>}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟓𝟎}`$ fb and clear enough signature .
$``$ Gaugino discovery. The expected discovery limit for gaugino at LHC is about 170 GeV in the variants of MSSM which looks most probable now. It can be enhanced till 450 GeV in the ”less probable” variants of MSSM.

## 5  QCD and Hadron Physics

All problems studied at HERA and LEP will be studied at Photon Colliers but in much more wide interval of parameters and with much better accuracy. Among them I underline those which look most interesting now.

$``$ Study of photon structure function(s) at small $`x`$.
$``$ Nature of growth of total cross sections. The widespread concepts assume standard Regge type factorization and universal energy behavior for different processes. With Photon Colliders –for the first time in particle physics– one can have the set of mass shell cross sections of very high energy processes, appropriate for the testing of factorization or the level of its violation. They are $`\sigma _{pp}`$, measured at Tevatron and LHC, $`\sigma _{\gamma p}`$, measured at HERA, $`\sigma _{\gamma \gamma }`$, measurable at Photon Collider. For this goal, the preliminary stage of operations with low luminosity can be used to observe large enough cross sections at small scattering angles.
$``$ In this very low luminosity stage the study of events with particle production in the center of rapidity scale and with rapidity gaps for two vector mesons or dijets originated from initial photons will be crucial for the understanding of double Pomeron effects having no reliable explanation till now.
$``$ The study of charge asymmetry of produced hadrons in $`\gamma \gamma `$ collisions will give quite new information about quark–gluon matter at small distances. The charge asymmetry of the produced hadrons in the $`\gamma e`$ collisions with transverse momentum of scattered electron $`p_{}30`$ GeV will show in explicit form the relation between hadron states produced by vector and axial current.

## 6 Using of conversion region as $`\gamma e`$collider

The conversion region in $`\gamma e`$ collider with c.m.s. energy about 1.2 MeV but with luminosity about 0.1 fb-1/sec! It will be unique source of light goldstone particles (axions, majorons, etc.) $`LGP`$, expected in numerous schemes .
The production processes are

$$e\gamma _0e(LGP),\gamma \gamma _0(LGP).$$
(2)
The energy of $`LGP`$ is limited from above as

$$E_{LGP}\frac{x+a^2+\sqrt{(xa^2)^24a^2}}{2(x+1)}E,a=\frac{m_a}{m_e}.$$
(3)
The angular spread of these $`LGP`$’s is even narrower than that of high energy photons. In comparison with neutrinos produced by photons in the final wall, the main part of these ”axions” is concentrated in a $`10^6÷10^8`$ times more narrow solid angle.

These $`LGP`$s interact with matter very weakly. So, the registration scheme can be of the type shown in Fig. 4 (where magnetic bending of residual electrons after conversion is also shown): the $`LGP`$ produced after concrete wall travel to the detector inside $`L=300500`$ m long lead wire of diameter 3-5 cm. Here it can interact with hadrons in the nucleus of lead and produce hadrons with typical mean transverse momentum about 300-500 MeV. They can be detected in scintillator-like devices of diameter 3-5 m in the end of wire.

## 7 Conclusion

This discussion shows that R&D for Photon collider mode should be performed simultaneously with that of $`e^+e^{}`$mode of TESLA, etc. Final decision about the turn of different stages of Linear collider should be made only AFTER first operations of LHC. It can imagine even the opportunity that the Photon collider mode will be switched on before $`e^+e^{}`$ mode. The advantages are:
$``$ The basic electron energy is lower.
$``$ Positron beam is unnecessary.

I am thankful V.Ilyin, I. Ivanov, M.Krawczyk, P.Olsen for collaboration related different parts of paper and A.Djouadi, V. Serbo, M. Spira, V. Telnov, P.Zerwas for useful discussions. I am grateful to RFBR (grants 99-02-17211 and 00-15-96691) for support and DESY direktorat for the sponsoring my participation in the Workshop.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The Super-Kamiokande experiment has confirmed neutrino oscillations in the atmospheric neutrinos, which favors the $`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$ process with a large mixing angle $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{\mathrm{atm}}0.88`$ and mass-squared difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{atm}}^2=(1.64)\times 10^3`$ eV2 . On the other hand, for the solar neutrino problem , the recent data of Super-Kamiokande seems to favor the large mixing angle (LMA) Mikheyev-Smirnov-Wolfenstein (MSW) solution , but four solutions are still experimentally allowed; small mixing angle (SMA) MSW , LMA-MSW, low $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ (LOW), and vacuum oscillation (VO) solutions . As a result, the neutrino mixing matrix (Maki-Nakagawa-Sakata (MNS) matrix ) has two possibilities: one is the matrix with single maximal mixing, which gives the SMA-MSW solution for the solar neutrino problem, and the other with bi-maximal mixing , which corresponds to the LMA-MSW, LOW, and VO solutions.

Assuming that the neutrino oscillations account for the solar and atmospheric neutrino data, one can consider the prototypes of the MNS mixing matrix $`U_{\mathrm{MNS}}`$ which are written as

$`U_{\mathrm{MNS}}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 0& 0\\ 0& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\\ 0& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\end{array}\right),{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{atm}}^2}}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}10}^2,`$ (1)
for single maximal mixing, and

$`U_{\mathrm{MNS}}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}& 0\\ \frac{1}{2}& \frac{1}{2}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\\ \frac{1}{2}& \frac{1}{2}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\end{array}\right),{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{atm}}^2}}\{\begin{array}{c}10^2(\text{LMA–MSW}),\\ 10^4(\mathrm{LOW}),\\ 10^6(\mathrm{VO}),\end{array}`$ (2)
for bi-maximal mixing. Here $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2`$ is the mass-squared difference relevant to the solar neutrino problem.

To clarify the origins of these nearly maximal mixings is one of the most important issues in flavor physics. In constructing the models for fermion masses and mixing, there are some preferred bases given by underlying theories, such as grand unified theories (GUT). For the MNS matrix in Eq. (1), the maximal mixing angle may follow from the charged-lepton mass matrix, the neutrino mass matrix, or both of them, depending on the models under consideration. In the case of bi-maximal mixing in Eq. (2), the situation is more non-trivial. It is therefore important in light of model construction to search for possible mixing patterns of charged leptons and neutrinos. In this paper, we systematically investigate the mixing patterns where at least one of the mixing matrices has sources of maximal mixing. As we will see, our analyses are independent of particular structures of lepton mass matrices and hence of the mass spectrum of neutrinos. The results are also not concerned with whether the neutrinos are Majorana or Dirac particles, in other words, whether the right-handed neutrinos exist or not. Based on our results, we discuss new possibilities of the forms of lepton mass matrices, which may account for the experimental data.

In section 2, we discuss the mixing patterns of charged leptons and neutrinos, and classify them in light of the phenomenological constraints from Super-Kamiokande and long baseline neutrino experiments. In section 3, we show several examples of mass matrices of charged leptons and neutrinos that can give the allowed mixing patterns obtained in section 2. Section 4 is devoted to summary and discussions.

## 2 Phenomenology of Mixing Matrices

In this section, we study possible flavor mixing structures of leptons, which can lead to large mixing angles. Given the charged-lepton and neutrino mass matrices, the MNS mixing matrix is defined as

$$U_{\mathrm{MNS}}=V_E^{}V_\nu ,$$
(3)
where the $`3\times 3`$ matrix $`V`$’s are the mixing matrices which rotate the left-handed fields so that the mass matrices are diagonalized. The matrices $`V_E`$ and $`V_\nu `$ are generally parametrized as follows:

$`V_E=PU(23)P^{}U(13)U(12)P^{\prime \prime },V_\nu =\overline{P}\overline{U}(23)\overline{P}^{}\overline{U}(13)\overline{U}(12)\overline{P}^{\prime \prime }.`$ (4)
Here $`U(ij)`$ are the rotation matrices,

$$U(23)=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 0& 0\\ 0& c_{23}& s_{23}\\ 0& s_{23}& c_{23}\end{array}\right),U(13)=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}c_{13}& 0& s_{13}\\ 0& 1& 0\\ s_{13}& 0& c_{13}\end{array}\right),U(12)=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}c_{12}& s_{12}& 0\\ s_{12}& c_{12}& 0\\ 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right),$$
(5)
where $`s_{ij}=\mathrm{sin}\theta _{ij}`$ and $`c_{ij}=\mathrm{cos}\theta _{ij}`$, and the $`P`$’s are the phase matrices; $`P=\mathrm{diag}(1,e^{ia},e^{ib})`$, $`P^{}=\mathrm{diag}(1,1,e^{i\delta })`$, and $`P^{\prime \prime }=\mathrm{diag}(e^{ip},e^{iq},e^{ir})`$. The matrices with bars, $`\overline{U}(ij)`$, $`\overline{P}`$, $`\overline{P}^{}`$, and $`\overline{P}^{\prime \prime }`$ in the neutrino side take the same parametrizations as above. In fact, the phase factors in $`P^{\prime \prime }`$ are physically irrelevant in that they can be absorbed with a redefinition of charged-lepton fields. For the phases in $`\overline{P}^{\prime \prime }`$, the same prescription can be done in the case of Dirac neutrinos, while for Majorana neutrinos these phases cannot be absorbed into the neutrino fields, and remain physical. Note however that they are irrelevant to the values of mixing angles and hence we can safely drop the phase matrices $`P^{\prime \prime }`$ and $`\overline{P}^{\prime \prime }`$ in the following analyses. Now, the MNS matrix is given by

$$U_{\mathrm{MNS}}=U_E^{}QU_\nu ,$$
(6)
where

$`U_E=U(23)P^{}U(13)U(12),`$ $`U_\nu =\overline{U}(23)\overline{P}^{}\overline{U}(13)\overline{U}(12),`$
$`Q=P^{}\overline{P}`$ $``$ $`\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 0& 0\\ 0& e^{i\alpha }& 0\\ 0& 0& e^{i\beta }\end{array}\right).`$ (7)
In $`U_{\mathrm{MNS}}`$, there are four phase parameters to be considered: $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$, $`\delta _E`$, and $`\delta _\nu `$. As will be seen below, in our analysis, the phase factors in the matrix $`Q`$ sometimes play important roles to have phenomenologically viable mixing angles. The mixing matrices $`U(ij)`$ and $`\overline{U}(ij)`$ are fixed when the mass matrices of charged leptons and neutrinos are given in a concrete model. On the other hand, from the view of mixing angles, there are six mixing parameters in $`U_E`$ and $`U_\nu `$, and it is meaningful to raise a query about which angles are responsible for the observed maximal mixings in $`U_{\mathrm{MNS}}`$. In order to study this, we phenomenologically analyze the mixing structures of lepton flavor without referring to specific models.

In the first approximation, we assume that mixing angles are zero or large, and examine possible combinations of $`U_E`$ and $`U_\nu `$ referring to the indications of Super-Kamiokande and long baseline neutrino experiments. Let us consider the following nine types of mixing matrices for $`U_E`$ and $`U_\nu `$. The first three types of matrices are given by taking one of the mixing angles as maximal and the others as zero:

$`A`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 0& 0\\ 0& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\\ 0& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\end{array}\right),\begin{array}{c}s_{12}=0\\ s_{13}=0\\ s_{23}=1/\sqrt{2}\end{array}`$ (8)
$`S`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}& 0\\ \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}& 0\\ 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right),\begin{array}{c}s_{12}=1/\sqrt{2}\\ s_{13}=0\\ s_{23}=0\end{array}`$ (9)
$`L`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}& 0& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\\ 0& 1& 0\\ \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}& 0& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\end{array}\right),\begin{array}{c}s_{12}=0\\ s_{13}=1\sqrt{2}\\ s_{23}=0\end{array}`$ (10)
where we have used the notations $`A`$, $`S`$, and $`L`$ for three types of mixing matrices, respectively. The second of three types are described by the matrices with one of mixing angles being zero and the others being maximal:

$`B`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}& 0\\ \frac{1}{2}& \frac{1}{2}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\\ \frac{1}{2}& \frac{1}{2}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\end{array}\right),\begin{array}{c}s_{12}=1/\sqrt{2}\\ s_{13}=0\\ s_{23}=1/\sqrt{2}\end{array}`$ (11)
$`H`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\frac{1}{2}& \frac{1}{2}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\\ \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}& 0\\ \frac{1}{2}& \frac{1}{2}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\end{array}\right),\begin{array}{c}s_{12}=1/\sqrt{2}\\ s_{13}=1/\sqrt{2}\\ s_{23}=0\end{array}`$ (12)
$`N`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}& 0& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\\ \frac{1}{2}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}& \frac{1}{2}\\ \frac{1}{2}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}& \frac{1}{2}\end{array}\right).\begin{array}{c}s_{12}=0\\ s_{13}=1/\sqrt{2}\\ s_{23}=1/\sqrt{2}\end{array}`$ (13)
The threefold maximal mixing  and the unit matrix are also added into our analysis:

$`T`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}e^{i\delta }\\ \frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{2\sqrt{3}}e^{i\delta }& \frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{2\sqrt{3}}e^{i\delta }& \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\\ \frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{2\sqrt{3}}e^{i\delta }& \frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{2\sqrt{3}}e^{i\delta }& \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\end{array}\right),\begin{array}{c}s_{12}=1/\sqrt{2}\\ s_{13}=1/\sqrt{3}\\ s_{23}=1/\sqrt{2}\end{array}`$ (14)
$`I`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right).\begin{array}{c}s_{12}=0\\ s_{13}=0\\ s_{23}=0\end{array}`$ (15)
In addition to these, the so-called democratic mixing  is examined since this mixing pattern is rather different from the above ones and might be derived from well-motivated underlying theories:

$`D`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\\ \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\\ 0& \frac{2}{\sqrt{6}}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\end{array}\right).\begin{array}{c}s_{12}=1/2\\ s_{13}=1/\sqrt{3}\\ s_{23}=1/\sqrt{2}\end{array}`$ (16)
Note that if one of the matrix elements of $`U_E`$ ($`U_\nu `$) is zero, one can take $`P^{}`$ ($`\overline{P}^{}`$) as a unit matrix without loss of generality. The phase $`\delta _E`$ ($`\delta _\nu `$) can be absorbed into a redefinition of $`Q`$ and $`P^{\prime \prime }`$ ($`\overline{P}^{\prime \prime }`$). This fact is easily understood in view of the Jarlskog parameter  which measures the sizes of $`CP`$ violation: in case that one (or more) matrix element is zero, the Jarlskog parameter is vanished. Accordingly, the phase factors $`\delta _E`$ and $`\delta _\nu `$ are included only in the type $`T`$ matrix.

With the above mixing matrices at hand, we have 81 combinations of matrices for $`U_{\mathrm{MNS}}`$, in which the phases $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$, $`\delta _E`$, and $`\delta _\nu `$ are taken to be free parameters. We examine the MNS matrices referring to the phenomenological constraints coming from the atmospheric neutrino experiments. The Chooz experiment  also provides a useful guide for the classification of mixing matrices, in particular, for the $`(U_{\mathrm{MNS}})_{e3}`$ element. On the other hand, as we mentioned in the introduction, the solar neutrino problem may be solved with both large and small mixing angle solutions, and we will deal with it as predictions of each case of 81 combinations for $`U_{\mathrm{MNS}}`$. In what follows, we take a convention where the mixing between the labels 2 and 3 is relevant to the atmospheric neutrinos and the mixing between the labels 1 and 2 to the solar neutrino problem. After all, we find that the 81 mixing patterns are classified into the following five categories:

* Class 1: small mixing for atmospheric neutrinos
* Class 2: large value of $`(U_{\mathrm{MNS}})_{e3}`$
* Class 3: small mixing for atmospheric neutrinos if $`(U_{\mathrm{MNS}})_{e3}1`$ by phase tuning
* Class 4: consistent with the experiments by phase tuning
* Class 5: consistent with the experiments independently of phase values

Only classes 4 and 5 are consistent with the experimental data. Our result of classification is summarized in Table 1. We have also numerically checked the “stability” of our classification by allowing the fluctuations of all mixing angles in the region of $`\theta _{ij}=\theta _{ij}\pm 5^{}`$, both in the charged-lepton and neutrino sectors. It is found that these fluctuations make no change in the classification table.

In Table 1, we first notice that there are several exchanging symmetries. In the neutrino side, the exchanges $`AB`$, $`SI`$, and $`LH`$ do not modify the table. The existence of these symmetries is easily understood. The above exchanges only reverse the predictions for solutions to the solar neutrino problem (from large to small mixing angle and vice versa), and so the classification table remains unchanged. We also have a similar $`TD`$ symmetry. In the charged-lepton side, the exchange $`BN`$ leaves the classification unchanged. This is a bit curious symmetry. Because of the constraint from the Chooz experiment, it is usually assumed that a bi-maximal mixing matrix takes the form of type $`B`$. It is, however, found here that the matrix $`N`$, which has a large 1-3 mixing, gives exactly the same results as the matrix $`B`$ does. Unlike the neutrino side, two types of matrices ($`B`$ and $`N`$) give the same predictions even for the solar neutrino solutions (the 1-2 mixing angles). The difference exists only in the values of phase factors which are tuned. This fact would give a new possibility of model building for the fermion masses and mixing.

Class 5 contains the following six mixing patterns:

$$(U_E,U_\nu )=(A,S),(A,I),(I,A),(I,B),(D,S),(D,I).$$
(17)
There are essentially only three types of combinations due to the exchanging symmetries stated above. As we will discuss in the next section, it is interesting that these six combinations are certainly predicted by the various models which have been proposed to account for fermion mass hierarchies. Notice, however, that at this stage we do not refer any particular structures of mass matrices but only discuss the combinations of two unitary matrices $`U_E`$ and $`U_\nu `$, combined with the phenomenological constraints on the rotation angles. The coincidence of these two approaches might show a profound connection between the mass eigenvalues and mixing angles. Another interesting point we find in Eq. (17) is that the “naturalness”, i.e., the absence of parameter tuning indicates that the large 1-2 mixing relevant to the solar neutrino problem must come from the neutrino side (except for the cases of democratic mixing). This is naturally understood in view of the charged-lepton masses, and indeed commonly seen in the literature. That is, in the charged-lepton sector, the mass hierarchy between the first and second generations is too large for the large-angle solar solutions.***Note that the democratic mass matrix cannot explain the mass hierarchy between these lighter families. Moreover, small perturbations do not necessarily result in large 1-2 mixing. It should be noticed here that the same result is obtained only from a viewpoint of mixing matrices. This may be again regarded as a sign of deep connections between masses and mixing angles.

In the category of class 4, there are 31 patterns of mixing matrices. These patterns require suitable choices of phase values to be consistent with the experimental data. The result is summarized in Table 2, where we present the values of mixing angles for atmospheric neutrinos ($`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{\mathrm{atm}}`$) and for solar neutrinos ($`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{}`$) in case where $`(U_{\mathrm{MNS}})_{e3}`$ is set to be minimum. For each combination, we also show the relevant phases which are tuned to obtain the minimum value of $`(U_{\mathrm{MNS}})_{e3}`$. In some cases, the mixing angles $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{\mathrm{atm}}`$ and $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{}`$ have uncertainties since there still exists phase degrees of freedom with the minimized values of $`(U_{\mathrm{MNS}})_{e3}`$. The mixing patterns in class 4 need various numbers of phase tuning in order to obtain experimentally suitable MNS matrices. For example, the types $`(U_E,U_\nu )=(A,A)`$ and $`(A,B)`$, which are often seen in the literature, requires only one phase tuning to fix all the mixing angles in $`U_{\mathrm{MNS}}`$ (see also the next section). Clearly, fewer numbers of parameter tuning are preferable for higher predictability. We find from Table 2 that the 8 combinations:

$$(U_E,U_\nu )=(S,N),(S,D),(L,N),(L,D),(B,L),(H,A),(H,D),(N,L),$$
(18)
have the same predictability as $`(A,A)`$ and $`(A,B)`$; all the mixing angles can be settled by only one phase tuning. Remarkably, these combinations have not been discussed so far in the literature and would provide new possibilities for constructing models where fermion masses and mixing angles are properly reproduced.

## 3 Texture of Lepton Mass Matrices

The results in the previous section have been obtained independently of any structures of lepton mass matrices and hence of the mass spectrum of neutrinos. In this section, we discuss some implications of the above results for the forms of lepton mass matrices. Note that the mass textures we will discuss below are only examples among various models which can lead to the same mixing patterns. There are indeed infinite possibilities for mass matrices due to the remaining freedom of mixing matrices, mass eigenvalues and their signs, the particle property of neutrinos, etc. In the following discussion we do not want to exhaust possible mass textures but, based on the previous results, to show several examples which may correctly reproduce the experimental data.

First we assume that neutrinos are Majorana particles, for simplicity. The neutrino Majorana mass matrix $`M_\nu `$ is constructed by $`U_\nu ^{}M_\nu ^{\mathrm{diag}}U_\nu ^{}`$, where $`M_\nu ^{\mathrm{diag}}`$ is the diagonal neutrino mass matrix but is not fully determined even if the experimental data is given. In most cases below, we adopt a hierarchy in the neutrino masses $`M_\nu ^{\mathrm{diag}}`$. Moreover if one assumes the seesaw mechanism for tiny mass scales, $`M_\nu `$ is a low-energy effective mass matrix and a full mass matrix form may be highly complicated. On the other hand, the charged-lepton mass matrix is constructed by $`U_EM_E^{\mathrm{diag}}R_E^{}`$ where $`M_E^{\mathrm{diag}}`$ is the diagonal charged-lepton mass matrix and $`R_E`$ is the mixing matrix which rotates the right-handed charged-lepton fields. Since $`R_E`$ is experimentally unknown, the charged-lepton mass matrix is not uniquely reconstructed. In the following examples, we assume $`R_E=I`$ or $`U_E`$, and take hierarchical mass eigenvalues which may be parametrized by the Cabibbo angle $`\lambda `$.

Let us begin by discussing the mixing patterns in class 5. As noted in the previous section, these mixing patterns have often appeared in the literature. In other words, there are various models of lepton mass matrices which lead to these mixing patterns. We overview the six patterns in class 5. The first is the case $`(U_E,U_\nu )=(A,S)`$, which predicts bi-maximal mixing for the MNS matrix. Assuming $`R_E=I`$, we obtain a charged-lepton mass matrix $`M_E`$ and a Majorana mass matrix $`M_\nu `$ as

$`M_E\left(\begin{array}{ccc}& & \\ & \lambda ^2& 1\\ & \lambda ^2& 1\end{array}\right),M_\nu \left(\begin{array}{ccc}ϵ& ϵ& \\ ϵ& ϵ& \\ & & 1\end{array}\right),`$ (19)
where $`ϵ`$ is a small parameter and the blanks in the matrices mean smaller entries. Such a type of texture has been derived, for example, in $`SO(10)`$ grand unified models . These models adopt the seesaw mechanism, and the source of large mixing in $`M_\nu `$ comes from the Dirac-type mass matrix of neutrinos, which is connected with that of down quarks under the GUT symmetry.

The next pattern is the case $`(U_E,U_\nu )=(A,I)`$ that predicts single maximal mixing for the MNS matrix, and it can be derived from, for example,

$`M_E\left(\begin{array}{ccc}& & \\ & \lambda ^2& 1\\ & \lambda ^2& 1\end{array}\right),M_\nu \left(\begin{array}{ccc}m_1& & \\ & m_2& \\ & & m_3\end{array}\right),`$ (20)
where we have taken $`R_E=I`$. These mass matrices are indeed obtained in $`E_7`$, $`E_6`$, and $`SO(10)`$ GUT models . In the GUT mass textures (19) and (20), the large mixing in $`M_E`$ is achieved by the mixing among the standard-model fields and extra particles. The third example is $`(U_E,U_\nu )=(I,A)`$, which gives single maximal mixing for the MNS matrix, and it leads to

$`M_E\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\lambda ^{45}& & \\ & \lambda ^2& \\ & & 1\end{array}\right),M_\nu \left(\begin{array}{ccc}ϵ& & \\ & 1& 1\\ & 1& 1\end{array}\right),`$ (21)
where $`R_E=I`$ is assumed. This texture has been discussed, for example, in the $`R`$-parity violating models . The fourth one is $`(U_E,U_\nu )=(I,B)`$, which gives bi-maximal mixing. Assuming $`R_E=I`$, it gives

$`M_E\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\lambda ^{45}& & \\ & \lambda ^2& \\ & & 1\end{array}\right),M_\nu \left(\begin{array}{ccc}& 1& 1\\ 1& & \\ 1& & \end{array}\right).`$ (22)
It has been shown that this texture follows from the radiative generation mechanisms for neutrino masses .

The fifth and sixth patterns are a bit special since they depend on the democratic lepton mass matrix , which usually predicts $`R_E=U_E`$. The combination $`(U_E,U_\nu )=(D,S)`$ predicts single maximal mixing for the MNS matrix, and gives

$`M_E\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 1& 1\\ 1& 1& 1\\ 1& 1& 1\end{array}\right),M_\nu \left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& ϵ^{}& \\ ϵ^{}& 1& \\ & & 1+ϵ\end{array}\right).`$ (23)
On the other hand, $`(U_E,U_\nu )=(D,I)`$ has nearly bi-maximal mixing, and gives

$`M_E\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 1& 1\\ 1& 1& 1\\ 1& 1& 1\end{array}\right),M_\nu \left(\begin{array}{ccc}m_1& & \\ & m_2& \\ & & m_3\end{array}\right).`$ (24)
We here again stress that all the above mixing patterns in class 5 are allowed by the experimental data without any tuning of (sometimes unphysical) phases $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$, and $`\delta _{E,\nu }`$.

Next let us discuss the mixing patterns in class 4, where the presence of phase factors is essential for the MNS matrix to have the right values of mixing angles. The 31 mixing patterns are classified into this category, but only a few mass matrix models with these patterns have been constructed. These patterns thus could provide potentially useful textures of lepton mass matrices.

At first, we discuss the well-known example $`(U_E,U_\nu )=(A,A)`$ which leads to the following mass matrices by taking $`R_E=I`$:

$`M_E\left(\begin{array}{ccc}& & \\ & \lambda ^2& 1\\ & \lambda ^2& 1\end{array}\right),M_\nu \left(\begin{array}{ccc}& & \\ & 1& 1\\ & 1& 1\end{array}\right).`$ (25)
This form often appears in the models with $`U(1)`$ flavor symmetries . With this texture, the mixing angles at leading order become

$`\theta _{\mathrm{atm}}={\displaystyle \frac{\beta \alpha }{2}},\theta _{}=(U_{\mathrm{MNS}})_{e3}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},`$ (26)
where $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ are the phase parameters in the matrix $`Q`$ (see Eq. (7)). This gives the SMA solution for the solar neutrino problem, and the constraint $`(U_{\mathrm{MNS}})_{e3}1`$ is also satisfied. For the atmospheric neutrinos, however, one must tune the phase values so that $`\beta \alpha \pi /2`$. That is, due to the presence of the phase matrix $`Q`$, the cancellation of two large mixing angles from $`U_E`$ and $`U_\nu `$ can be avoided. Even though the Super-Kamiokande result still allows about $`10^{}`$ deviations from the maximal mixing angle, the result can be explained only in about 20% region of the whole phase parameter space of ($`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$). This fact means that some amount of tuning of phase parameters is indeed required to have right predictions. It should be noted we numerically checked that this situation is unchanged even if one includes $`\pm 20^{}`$ fluctuations of the mixing angles in $`U_E`$ and $`U_\nu `$.

Another pattern, for which the concrete models have been constructed, is the case of $`(U_E,U_\nu )=(A,B)`$. Assuming $`R_E=I`$, it leads to the mass matrix form

$`M_E\left(\begin{array}{ccc}& & \\ & \lambda ^2& 1\\ & \lambda ^2& 1\end{array}\right),M_\nu \left(\begin{array}{ccc}& 1& 1\\ 1& & \\ 1& & \end{array}\right).`$ (27)
These textures have been discussed in Ref. . It is also pointed out in Ref.  that this mixing pattern can be predicted by the texture in Eq. (25). The mixing angle $`\theta _{\mathrm{atm}}`$ is the same as in Eq. (26), and a phase combination $`\beta \alpha `$ must be tuned so that one gets the maximal mixing of atmospheric neutrinos.

As we stated in section 2, there are several new mixing patterns in class 4 which have not yet been discussed. Like the cases $`(A,A)`$ and $`(A,B)`$, the eight new patterns in Eq. (18) only need a single phase tuning for fitting all the experimental data; the solar, atmospheric, and long baseline neutrino experiments. Let us show an example for the case $`(U_E,U_\nu )=(S,N)`$. This mixing pattern, with $`R_E=I`$, gives the following form of mass matrices:

$`M_E\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\lambda ^{45}& \lambda ^2& \\ \lambda ^{45}& \lambda ^2& \\ & & 1\end{array}\right),M_\nu \left(\begin{array}{ccc}2& \sqrt{2}& \sqrt{2}\\ \sqrt{2}& 1+ϵ& 1ϵ\\ \sqrt{2}& 1ϵ& 1+ϵ\end{array}\right).`$ (28)
In this case, we have

$`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{\mathrm{atm}}=\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{}=\left|{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}}}e^{i\alpha }\right|^2,`$
$`(U_{\mathrm{MNS}})_{e3}=\left|{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}}}e^{i\alpha }\right|.`$ (29)
Here we would like to emphasis that a single phase tuning of $`\alpha `$ ensures all the mixing angles to be consistent with the experiments. A smaller value of $`(U_{\mathrm{MNS}})_{e3}`$ tuned by a phase rotation automatically leads to larger mixing angles for solar and atmospheric neutrinos. In this example, the mixing angle $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{\mathrm{atm}}`$ might be a bit smaller than the experimental bound from the atmospheric neutrino anomaly. One can, however, easily get a proper MNS matrix if a few deviations from the rigid values of mixing angles in $`U_{E,\nu }`$ are taken into account. (Such deviations just correspond to those in the mass matrices (28).) As we mentioned earlier, even with these deviations, the classification is not changed and it is enough to tune only one phase parameter. Notice that since the $`(U_{\mathrm{MNS}})_{e3}`$ mixing in Eq. (29) is close to the Chooz bound, this pattern will be tested in the near future.

For the examples that need more than one phase tuning, we refer to the models in  which introduce the following types of mass matrices:

$`M_E\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\lambda ^{45}& \lambda ^2& 1\\ \lambda ^{45}& \lambda ^2& 1\\ \lambda ^{45}& \lambda ^2& 1\end{array}\right),M_\nu \left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 1& 1\\ 1& 1& 1\\ 1& 1& 1\end{array}\right).`$ (30)
This corresponds to the mixing pattern $`(U_E,U_\nu )=(T,T)`$ or to the special case $`(U_E,U_\nu )=(D,D)`$, where suitable MNS matrices can also be obtained by phase tuning.

Including the above examples, we find that class 4 contains several possible mixing patterns which no one has discussed so far (see Table 2 and Eq. (18)). Model construction utilizing such types of textures may be worth performing.

Before closing this section, we note the connections of the low-energy Majorana neutrino mass matrices discussed above with those at high-energy scale .The renormalization-group equation of see-saw induced Majorana masses was first studied in Ref. . To discuss the stability of lepton flavor mixing against quantum corrections, we need to determine the pattern of neutrino masses and Majorana phases . For example, the neutrinos which are degenerate in mass with the same phase sign may receive a considerable change of flavor mixing structure . The mass matrices in Eqs. (20), (23), and (24), therefore, have a possibility of changing the values of mixing angles during the renormalization-group evolution. In particular, the mixing angles of the democratic-type mass matrix (Eqs. (23) and (24)), which is expected in the models with $`S_{3}^{}{}_{L}{}^{}\times S_{3}^{}{}_{R}{}^{}`$ or $`O(3)_L\times O(3)_R`$ symmetries , might receive large quantum modifications .

## 4 Summary and Discussion

To study the origins of the nearly maximal mixing of lepton flavor is one of the most important issues in particle physics. We have examined what types of mixing matrices of charged leptons and neutrinos can be consistent with the neutrino experimental results. Our analyses in section 2 do not depend on any details of underlying models, in particular, of the mass matrix forms of charged leptons and neutrinos. The results are hence independent of the mass spectrum and property of neutrinos, for example, whether they are Dirac or Majorana particles. As typical forms of charged-lepton and neutrino mixing matrices, we have adopted nine types of unitary matrices, which contain sources of large mixing angles and could be induced from some underlying theories. We have then examined $`9\times 9`$ combinations of mixing matrices and checked whether the resultant MNS mixing matrices satisfy the phenomenological constraints from atmospheric and long baseline neutrino experiments. In our analyses, the phase factors, which cannot be absorbed into redefinitions of lepton fields, play important roles.

As a result, we have found that there are various mixing patterns of charged leptons and neutrinos for the MNS matrix with bi-maximal or single maximal mixing. Among them, only six patterns are experimentally allowed without any tuning of phase values. Interestingly, these patterns are indeed derived from the concrete models which have been proposed to account for the fermion mass hierarchy problem. The other patterns can give solutions to the observed neutrino anomalies depending on the choices of phase values. In this class of patterns, physically more significant mixing patterns may be the ones which need fewer numbers of phase tuning to have definite predictions. We have found that 10 combinations satisfy this criterion; only a single phase tuning is required. They have not been studied enough in lepton mass matrix models and will give new possibilities of model-construction. Note that the tuned phases are not completely unphysical unlike in the quark sector, but some of them are connected to Majorana phases and $`CP`$ violation phenomena in the lepton sector. Combined with these effects, the improved measurements of mixing angles $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{}`$ and $`(U_{\mathrm{MNS}})_{e3}`$ will be important to select possible flavor mixing structures of leptons.

### Acknowledgments

We would like to thank T. Yanagida for useful discussions and comments. We also thank the organizers and participants of Summer Institute 2000 held at Yamanashi, Japan, where a portion of this work was carried out. This work is supported by the Grant-in-Aid for Science Research, Ministry of Education, Science and Culture, Japan (No. 10640274, No. 12047220, No. 12740146, No. 12014208, No. 12047221, and No. 12740157).


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

BPS domain wall configurations in five-dimensional $`N=2`$ gauged supergravity provide a fertile ground to address (see,  and references therein) in fundamental theory the candidate solutions for trapping of gravity  and within AdS/CFT correspondence  for the study of viable, non-singular, gravity duals of four-dimensional strongly coupled $`N=1`$ supersymmetric field theories (see,  and references therein).

On the other hand, the gauging procedure of the five-dimensional supergravity has been rather poorly understood until recently. While the Abelian $`U(1)_R`$-gauging with the vector supermultiplets, only, was known for a while , the progress on non-Abelian gauging of vector and tensor multiplets was made only recently . In addition, the most recent efforts are focused on the gauging of hypermultiplets . Nevertheless the full fledged gauging with even single hypermultiplet has not been done, yet.

The purpose of this paper is twofold. First, we provide an explicit gauging of one-hypermultiplet superfield of N=2 supergravity which spans the $`SU(2,1)/U(2)`$ coset space; we choose to parameterize in terms of projective coordinate fields $`z_1`$ and $`z_2`$. We find the explicit prepotential that specifies the most general superpotential. The details are given in Section 2, and the explicit form of the eight prepotentials and the resulting superpotential is displayed in the Appendix.

Second, we employ this newly obtained theory to study novel domain wall solutions (which specify novel renormalization group (RG) flows of dual field theories). In particular, we focus on the potential, which involves the scalar fields of the hypermultiplets, only. In Section 3 we study examples of supersymmetric flows in the case of the Abelian gauging associated with the Killing directions in the subset of compact directions. In particular, we quantitatively analyze the flow from a null singularity to the flat space-time, reminiscent of the solution in , and another flow that violates the c-theorem and interpolates between “infra-red” anti-deSitter space time and null-singularity which is reminiscent of the solution in . This latter solution was found as a geodesic extension the D3-brane configuration (behind the horizon) that is further compactified on a five-sphere; it was proposed as a possible candidate for a gravity trapping domain wall. Possible further applications and concluding remarks are given in Section 4.

While this work was in progress we were informed of a related work in progress , where hypermultiplet gauging has been pursued in a basis where the axionic $`U(1)`$ symmetry is manifest.

## 2 Gauging the Isometries of a Hypermultiplet

The focus of this paper will be on the scalar fields of the hyper-supermultiplet, only. Thus, as a concrete application we shall concentrate on the Abelian gauging of the most general hypermultiplet isometries. Of course, since we provide the explicit prepotential for the complete hypermultiplet isometry, generalizations to the non-Abelian gauging, that also involves vector supermultiplets is straightforward, and will be studied, along with applications to the RG flows, elsewhere .

We parameterize333Another possible parameterization involves the complex fields $`S`$ and $`C`$, where, e.g., the action of the axionic $`U(1)`$ symmetry is manifest, see . There the Kähler potential is of the form $`K=\mathrm{log}(S+\overline{S}2C\overline{C})`$ and is related to that in Eq. (1) by the Kähler transformation combined with the reparameterization: $`z_1=(1S)/(1+S)`$ and $`z_2=2C/(1+S)`$. The gauging procedure in either parameterization is expected to give equivalent results. the coset space $`SU(2,1)/U(2)`$ of the universal hypermultiplet with two complex scalars $`z_1`$ and $`z_2`$ with the Kähler potential:

$$K=\mathrm{log}(1|z_1|^2|z_2|^2),$$
(1)
with $`|z_1|^2+|z_2|^2<1`$. The Kähler metric and the Kähler two-form take the form:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill _A_{\overline{B}}Kdz^Ad\overline{z}^B& =& e^K\delta _{AB}dz^Ad\overline{z}^B+e^{2K}(\overline{z}_Adz^A)(z_Bd\overline{z}^B),\hfill \\ \hfill _A_{\overline{B}}Kdz^Ad\overline{z}^B& =& e^K\delta _{AB}dz^Ad\overline{z}^B+e^{2K}(\overline{z}_Adz^A)(z_Bd\overline{z}^B).\hfill \end{array}$$
(2)
In the following Subsection we shall first focus on the quaternionic structure and the isometries. In the subsequent Subsections we provide the gauging of the isometries, determine the prepotentials associated with all the isometries (which are summarized in the Appendix) and provide the explicit form of the superpotential for the specific examples of Abelian gauging. These latter examples are then employed in Section 3 to illustrate novel RG flows.

### 2.1 The Quaternionic Structure and the Isometries

Let us start with a discussion of the quaternionic structure of this space. Following essentially the parameterization employed in , it turns out to be more convenient to introduce polar coordinates in the following way:

$$z_1=r(\mathrm{cos}\theta /2)e^{i(\psi +\phi )/2},z_2=r(\mathrm{sin}\theta /2)e^{i(\psi \phi )/2}.$$
(3)
with $`r[0,1),\theta [0,\pi ),\phi [0,2\pi )`$ and $`\psi [0,4\pi )`$. The Kähler metric then becomes:

$$_A_{\overline{B}}Kdz^Ad\overline{z}^B=\frac{dr^2}{(1r^2)^2}+\frac{r^2}{4(1r^2)}(\sigma _1^2+\sigma _2^2)+\frac{r^2}{4(1r^2)^2}\sigma _3^2,$$
(4)
where the $`SU(2)`$ one-forms ($`d\sigma _i+\frac{1}{2}ϵ_{ijk}\sigma _j\sigma _k=0`$) are given by:

$$\begin{array}{c}\sigma _1=\mathrm{cos}\psi d\theta +\mathrm{sin}\psi \mathrm{sin}\theta d\phi ,\hfill \\ \sigma _2=\mathrm{sin}\psi d\theta +\mathrm{cos}\psi \mathrm{sin}\theta d\phi ,\hfill \\ \sigma _3=d\psi +\mathrm{cos}\theta d\phi .\hfill \end{array}$$
(5)
In terms of these one-forms we find the following expressions for the Vielbeine:

$$e^r=\frac{dr}{1r^2},e^3=\frac{r}{2(1r^2)}\sigma _3,e^{1/2}=\frac{r}{2\sqrt{1r^2}}\sigma _{1/2},$$
(6)
which in the complex notation take the form:

$$v=\frac{1}{1r^2}(dr+i\frac{r}{2}\sigma _3),u=\frac{r}{2\sqrt{1r^2}}(\sigma _2+i\sigma _1).$$
(7)
The metric is then of the following form:

$$ds^2=e^re^r+e^1e^1+e^2e^2+e^3e^3=u\overline{u}+v\overline{v}.$$
(8)
Since this space is quaternionic, it allows for a triplet of the complex structure $`J_{mn}^i`$, giving rise to a triplet of Kähler two-forms: $`\mathrm{\Omega }^i=e^mJ_{mn}^ie^n`$, which can be written as:

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Omega }^1=\frac{r}{(1r^2)^{3/2}}\left[dr\sigma _1+\frac{r}{2}\sigma _2\sigma _3\right],\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Omega }^2=\frac{r}{(1r^2)^{3/2}}\left[dr\sigma _2+\frac{r}{2}\sigma _1\sigma _3\right],\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Omega }^3=\frac{r}{(1r^2)^2}dr\sigma _3+\frac{r^2}{2(1r^2)}\sigma _1\sigma _2.\hfill \end{array}$$
(9)
The holonomy group of a quaternionic space is contained in $`SU(2)\times SP(2m)`$ and the Kähler two-forms have to be covariantly constant with respect to the $`SU(2)`$ connection $`p^i`$: $`\mathrm{\Omega }^i=d\mathrm{\Omega }^i+ϵ^{ijk}p^j\mathrm{\Omega }^k=0`$, i.e. $`\mathrm{\Omega }^i`$ preserves the quaternionic algebra. For our specific case the $`SU(2)`$ connections are:

$$p^1=\frac{\sigma _1}{\sqrt{1r^2}},p^2=\frac{\sigma _2}{\sqrt{1r^2}},p^3=\frac{1}{2}(1+\frac{1}{1r^2})\sigma _3,$$
(10)
and fulfill the following relationship:

$$dp^i+\frac{1}{2}ϵ^{ijk}p^jp^k=\mathrm{\Omega }^i.$$
(11)
The isometry group of this space is $`SU(2,1)`$ whose the eight generators are specified by the following eight Killing vectors, see also :

$$\begin{array}{cc}k_1=\frac{1}{2i}[z_2_{z_1}+z_1_{z_2}c.c.],\hfill & k_2=\frac{1}{2}[z_2_{z_1}+z_1_{z_2}+c.c.],\hfill \\ k_3=\frac{1}{2i}[z_1_{z_1}+z_2_{z_2}c.c.],\hfill & k_4=\frac{1}{2i}[z_1_{z_1}+z_2_{z_2}c.c.],\hfill \\ k_5=\frac{1}{2}[(1+z_1^2)_{z_1}+z_1z_2_{z_2}+c.c.],\hfill & k_6=\frac{i}{2}[(1+z_1^2)_{z_1}+z_1z_2_{z_2}c.c.],\hfill \\ k_7=\frac{1}{2}[z_1z_2_{z_1}+(1z_2^2)_{z_2}+c.c.],\hfill & k_8=\frac{i}{2}[z_1z_2_{z_1}+(1+z_2^2)_{z_2}c.c.].\hfill \end{array}$$
(12)
The compact subgroup $`SU(2)\times U(1)`$ is associated with the Killing vectors $`(k_1,\mathrm{},k_4)`$ and the non-compact isometries are parameterized by $`(k_5,\mathrm{},k_8)`$. The two Abelian isometries are the phase transformations of $`z_1`$ and $`z_2`$ and correspond to the Killing vectors $`k_3`$ and $`k_4`$, respectively. In addition, the action of the $`SU(2)`$ subgroup corresponds to the “rotations” of the two complex coordinates $`z_{1,2}`$ and the three generators, which are represented by $`(k_1,k_2,k_3)`$, fulfill the $`SU(2)`$ algebra $`[k_m,k_n]=iϵ_{mnp}k_p`$.

### 2.2 Gauging of Abelian Isometries

We gauge only a single combination of the isometries $`k=a^nk_n`$ associated with the graviphoton $`A`$, i.e. the covariant derivative of the hyper scalar $`q^u`$ becomes: $`dq^udq^u+k^uA`$, where $`u`$ is an index of the quaternionic manifold. Supersymmetry with eight unbroken supercharges requires that the Killing vector has to be tri-holomorphic. (For details see  and references therein.) This property is ensured if the Killing vector $`k_n`$ can be expressed in term of a Killing prepotential $`P_n^i`$:

$$(\mathrm{\Omega }^ik_n)=dP_n^iϵ^{ijk}p^jP_n^k,$$
(13)
where “$`i`$” is the $`SU(2)`$ index and the Kähler forms are defined in (9). We indeed derive the Killing prepotentials associated with all eight Killing vectors in (12). Their explicit form is given in the Appendix.

In addition, there is a further constraint coming from the fact, that the fermionic projector has to commute with the covariant derivative. This constraint, which was discussed as geodesic constraint in N=1,D=4 supergravity  and which we will discuss in more detail in , becomes for the case at hand: $`dq^u[P_n,_uP_m]a^na^m=0`$ and reads in components

$$ϵ^{ijl}P_n^j\mathrm{\Omega }_{uv}^ldq^uk^va^n=0.$$
(14)
This constraint (14) puts severe restrictions on consistent superpotentials and especially seems to exclude a regular flow444In the previous version of this paper we derived a regular flow by considering Abelian gauging of compact isometries. However we did not take into account this constraint, which is not satisfied for the considered regular flow..

As a concrete example let us first start with a gauging of a linear combination of the two Abelian Killing vectors, only:

$$k=a^3k_3+a^4k_4.$$
(15)
where the special case $`a^3+a^4=0`$ was already discussed in . The (real-valued) superpotential $`W`$, given by the determinant of the $`SU(2)`$-valued Killing prepotential , takes for the above Killing vector (15) the form:

$$\begin{array}{c}W^2=det(𝒫)=(P^1)^2(P^2)^2(P^3)^2=\hfill \\ =\frac{1}{4(1r^2)^2}\left[4(a^3)^2(1r^2)\mathrm{sin}\theta ^2+\left(a^3(2r^2)\mathrm{cos}\theta +a^4r^2\right)^2\right].\hfill \end{array}$$
(16)
Here $`𝒫`$ is the matrix-valued Killing prepotential, i.e. $`𝒫P^i\tau _i`$, where $`\tau _i`$ are Pauli matrices $`(i=1,2,3)`$. This potential is consistent with (14) at the critical values: $`\theta =0,\pi `$ and has one non-trivial fixed point at $`r=0`$ (and for any value of $`\theta `$). At this fixed point only the $`r`$-direction is non-flat and we have

$$(_r^2\mathrm{log}|W|)_0=(1+\frac{a^4}{a^3}\mathrm{cos}\theta ).$$
(17)
If this expression is positive it is an UV attractive fixed point and an IR fixed point if it is negative. In both cases the flow goes towards a singularity, but in the latter case $`W`$ passes a zero at $`\{\theta =0,r^2=\frac{2}{1a^4/a^3}\}`$. One can restrict oneself to the critical orbit with $`\theta =0`$, where the superpotential becomes:

$$W=\frac{a^3(2r^2)+a^4r^2}{2(1r^2)}=a^3+\frac{(a^3+a^4)r^2}{2(1r^2)}.$$
(18)
Next, we are going to discuss modifications if we gauge also the other compact Killing isometries, i.e. we consider the Killing vector:

$$k=a^1k_1+a^2k_2+a^3k_3+a^4k_4.$$
(19)
The superpotential $`W`$ takes the form:

$$W^2=\left[(P_n^1a^n)^2+(P_n^2a^n)^2+(P_n^3a^n)^2\right],$$
(20)
where the explicit form of the prepotentials $`P_n^i`$ is given in the Appendix. In this case the constraint (14) implies non-trivial restrictions on the coefficients and consistent cases are: (i) either $`a^1=a^2=0`$ yielding the case discussed before or (ii) $`a^3=a^4=0`$ combined with $`\theta =d\phi =d\psi =0`$, which yields the superpotential:

$$W^2=\frac{(a^1)^2+(a^2)^2}{1r^2}.$$
(21)
## 3 Application: Novel Renormalization Group Flows

The results of the previous Section and Appendix in principle allow for the full analysis of the supersymmetric extrema of the general potential as well as the study supersymmetric flows between such isolated extrema. However, due to the complexity of the potential we confine ourselves to special cases.

In a general case the linear combination of these isometries is weighed with the constant coefficients:

$$𝐚=(a^1,a^2,a^3,a^4,a^5,a^6,a^7,a^8).$$
(22)
We analyze special cases that involve only isometries in the Cartan subalgebra, i.e. $`a^3,a^40`$. The corresponding superpotential was given in Section 2.2 (18). A novel feature is that now the superpotential can pass a zero and in a special case this point can even be extremal, i.e. $`W=dW=0`$. Namely, the zeros of the superpotential (18) take place at:

$$rr_0=\sqrt{\frac{2}{(1\delta )}},$$
(23)
where $`\delta =\frac{a^4}{a^3}`$ and thus the only value of $`\delta `$, for which $`r_01`$, is $`\delta 1`$. It is an extremum if $`\delta \mathrm{}`$, i.e. $`a^3=0`$, $`a^40`$ (which is obvious from the superpotential (18)). As pointed out at the end of Subsection 2.2, in this case we have only one extremum, which can be in the UV or IR regime (see eq. (17)). In the IR case, the superpotential necessarily passes zero along the flow.

In order to solve the flow equation, we introduce a coordinate system, where

$$ds^2=e^{2A}\left(dt^2+d\stackrel{}{x}^2\right)+dy^2,$$
(24)
and the flow equations become :

$$_yA=W,_yr=3g^{rr}_rW,$$
(25)
and the solution for the superpotential (18) is

$$r=e^{3(a^3+a^4)(yy_0)},e^{2A}=e^{2a^3(yy_0)}\sqrt{1e^{6(a^3+a^4)(yy_0)}}.$$
(26)
Thus $`W=dW=0`$ point is reached for the special case: $`a^3=0`$ and $`a^4y\mathrm{}`$ ($`\delta =\mathrm{}`$). This is a special example where the UV point is singular while the IR regime corresponds to the flat (supersymmetric) space-time. The solution resembles that of , where the UV region is formally singular (since it corresponds to a decompactification to a “dilatonic” D=7 space-time), while in the IR it becomes a flat D=5 space-time. That type of solutions may provide useful supergravity duals for testing the IR behavior of N=1 supersymmetric field theories.

On the other hand, $`a^3+a^4<0`$ and $`\delta <1`$ corresponds to the flow that in the IR regime passes $`W=0`$ and runs into the null-singularity with $`W\mathrm{}`$. This set of solutions is intriguing since it violates the c-theorem. It bears similarities with the solution in  describing the inside horizon region of D3-brane, that is subsequently compactified on a five-sphere. In the latter case the singularity is, however, naked; if one were able to to identify a (stringy) mechanism to regulate this singularity such a domain wall solution could trap gravity.

Finally, let us mention that it is not enough to focus only on the superpotential. For example, consider the Killing vector

$$k=a^3k_3+a^4k_4+a^5k_5$$
(27)
where $`k_5`$ is a non-compact Killing vector. One finds that $`_\theta W=0`$ and the constraint (14) is satisfied if $`\theta =0`$ yielding the superpotential:

$$W=\frac{a^3(r^22)+a^4r^2+2a^5r\mathrm{sin}\alpha }{2(1r^2)},$$
(28)
with $`\alpha =\frac{1}{2}(\phi +\psi )`$. This superpotential has two extrema:

$$r_+=0,\alpha =0,\mathrm{and}r_{}=\frac{\gamma }{2}\sqrt{\frac{\gamma ^2}{4}1},\alpha =\frac{\pi }{2},$$
(29)
with $`\gamma =\frac{a^3a^4}{a^5}>2`$. However, the first extremum is not a fixed point of the $`\alpha `$-flow, because the metric component $`g^{\alpha \alpha }`$ has a pole at this point and one does not obtain an AdS vacuum. How about the cases discussed before, is the extremum at $`r=0`$, $`\theta =0`$ perhaps also an artifact of the coordinate system? The explicit solution (26) already shows that there is good AdS vacuum, but one may also go back to the $`z_{1/2}`$ coordinates with the metric given in (2). Using the relations $`r^2=z_1\overline{z}_1+z_2\overline{z}_2`$ and $`r^2\mathrm{cos}\theta =z_1\overline{z}_1z_2\overline{z}_2`$ it is straightforward to transform the superpotential (16) in the $`z_{1/2}`$ coordinates and the extremum at $`r=\theta =0`$ translates into $`z_1=z_2=0`$, which is a regular point for the corresponding metric (2).

## 4 Concluding Remarks and Open Avenues

In this paper we have provided the gauging of the full $`SU(2,1)`$ isometry group of the universal hypermultiplet spanning the $`SU(2,1)/U(2)`$ coset space. We have chosen the parameterization in terms of the complex projective space fields $`z_1`$ and $`z_2`$ and determined the full Killing prepotential.

We analyzed two sets of flows associated with the gauging of the Cartan subalgebra. It corresponds to the gauging of the single $`U(1)`$ and involves the flow from the UV singular point to the IR supersymmetric flat spacetime ($`dW=W=0`$). Another flow, which corresponds to the gauging of both isometries in the Cartan subalgebra, provides a flow that violated the c-theorem.

Since we have derived the general prepotentials associated with the gauging of the full isometry group, one can now proceed with the general non-Abelian gauging which necessarily involves vector-multiplets as well. In this case the structure of the scalar potential is significantly more complicated and its analysis is deferred for further study .

The results here provide a stepping stone toward a general procedure to gauge an arbitrary number of hypermultiplets and the subsequent analysis of the vacuum structure for such general N=2 gauged supergravity theories that awaits further study.

Acknowledgments We would like to thank Gianguido Dall’Agata for many enlightening discussions and suggestions and Anna Ceresole for pointing out typographical errors in the appendix of the original version. We would also like to thank him for informing us about the related work in progress . M.C. would like to thank the Theoretical Particle Physics Group of the Humboldt University and the Center for Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics, Maribor, Slovenia for hospitality during the final stages of the project. The work is supported in part by a DFG Heisenberg Fellowship (K.B.), the U.S. Department of Energy Grant No. DOE-EY-76-02-3071 (M.C.), the NATO Linkage grant No. 97061 (M.C.) and the programme Supergravity, Superstrings and M-theory of the Centre Émile Borel of the Institut Henri Poincaré No. UMS-839-CNRS/UPMC (M.C.).

Appendix: Killing Prepotentials

The Killing prepotential associated with gauging of the isometries in the compact subgroup $`SU(2)\times U(1)`$, specified by the Killing vectors $`(k_1,\mathrm{},k_4)`$ defined in (12):

$$\begin{array}{c}P_1=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1r^2}}\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{cos}\psi \mathrm{sin}\phi +\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{sin}\psi \mathrm{cos}\phi \\ \mathrm{sin}\psi \mathrm{sin}\phi \mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{cos}\psi \mathrm{cos}\phi \\ \frac{2r^2}{2\sqrt{1r^2}}\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\phi \end{array}\right),\hfill \\ P_2=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1r^2}}\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{cos}\psi \mathrm{cos}\phi \mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{sin}\psi \mathrm{sin}\phi \\ \mathrm{sin}\psi \mathrm{cos}\phi +\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{cos}\psi \mathrm{sin}\phi \\ \frac{2r^2}{2\sqrt{1r^2}}\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{sin}\phi \end{array}\right),\hfill \\ P_3=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1r^2}}\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{sin}\psi \mathrm{sin}\theta \\ \mathrm{cos}\psi \mathrm{sin}\theta \\ \frac{2r^2}{2\sqrt{1r^2}}\mathrm{cos}\theta \end{array}\right),P_4=\frac{r^2}{2(1r^2)}\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ 0\\ 1\end{array}\right).\hfill \end{array}$$
(30)
The prepotentials associated with the non-compact isometries, specified by the Killing vectors $`(k_5,\mathrm{},k_8)`$ defined in (12), are of the form:

$$\begin{array}{c}P_5=\frac{r}{1r^2}\left(\begin{array}{c}\sqrt{1r^2}\mathrm{sin}\frac{\theta }{2}\mathrm{cos}\frac{\phi \psi }{2}\\ \sqrt{1r^2}\mathrm{sin}\frac{\theta }{2}\mathrm{sin}\frac{\phi \psi }{2}\\ \mathrm{cos}\frac{\theta }{2}\mathrm{sin}\frac{\phi +\psi }{2}\end{array}\right),P_6=\frac{r}{1r^2}\left(\begin{array}{c}\sqrt{1r^2}\mathrm{sin}\frac{\theta }{2}\mathrm{sin}\frac{\phi \psi }{2}\\ \sqrt{1r^2}\mathrm{sin}\frac{\theta }{2}\mathrm{cos}\frac{\phi \psi }{2}\\ \mathrm{cos}\frac{\theta }{2}\mathrm{cos}\frac{\phi +\psi }{2}\end{array}\right),\hfill \\ P_7=\frac{r}{1r^2}\left(\begin{array}{c}\sqrt{1r^2}\mathrm{cos}\frac{\theta }{2}\mathrm{cos}\frac{\phi +\psi }{2}\\ \sqrt{1r^2}\mathrm{cos}\frac{\theta }{2}\mathrm{sin}\frac{\phi +\psi }{2}\\ \mathrm{sin}\frac{\theta }{2}\mathrm{sin}\frac{\phi \psi }{2}\end{array}\right),P_8=\frac{r}{1r^2}\left(\begin{array}{c}\sqrt{1r^2}\mathrm{cos}\frac{\theta }{2}\mathrm{sin}\frac{\phi +\psi }{2}\\ \sqrt{1r^2}\mathrm{cos}\frac{\theta }{2}\mathrm{cos}\frac{\phi +\psi }{2}\\ \mathrm{sin}\frac{\theta }{2}\mathrm{cos}\frac{\phi \psi }{2}\end{array}\right).\hfill \end{array}$$
(31)