text:
# Large Lepton Mixings Induced by Sterile Neutrino

## I Introduction

With high confidence levels, one can conclude that the atmospheric neutrino data  imply large or even maximal mixing of the muon neutrino. Recent detailed studies indicate that $`\nu _\mu `$ strongly mixes with $`\nu _\tau `$ while mixing with the sterile neutrino $`\nu _s`$ is disfavoured at the $`3\sigma `$ level . The best global fit of the solar neutrino data is given by the LMA (large mixing angle) solution, although small mixing angle solution (SMA) is not ruled out . This striking difference of large lepton mixing and a small quark mixing raises important questions about the origins of neutrino masses, quark-lepton symmetry and Grand Unification.

There has been a lot of efforts to explain the appearance of large lepton mixing and small quark mixing in an unique framework. Within the context of see-saw mechanism of neutrino mass generation , which realizes quark-lepton symmetry most closely, large lepton mixing can appear due to large mixing in the charge lepton mass matrix  or in Dirac mass matrix of neutrinos . It can also appear from large mixing or very strong hierarchy in the Majorana mass matrix of the right handed neutrinos . Large lepton mixing can be obtained by radiative corrections due to renormalization group effects in schemes with quasi-degenerate neutrinos . A number of possibilities exist, where the neutrino masses and the masses of the charged fermions have different origins, e.g., small neutrino masses appear due to loop effects .

Notice that, the mechanisms suggested so far imply an explicit introduction of large mixing in one of the sectors of the theory, or a very strong mass hierarchy or a strong mass degeneracy or qualitatively new mechanism of neutrino mass generation .

Another possible difference between the quark and lepton sectors is that more than three light neutrinos may be involved in lepton mixing. Introduction of an additional sterile neutrino state is motivated by simultaneous explanation of the solar, atmospheric and LSND data  in terms of neutrino oscillations .

In this paper we address the question: can these two issues, large mixing of the active neutrinos (flavor mixing) and an existence of sterile neutrino be related? We suggest a mechanism of enhancement of the flavor mixing, which is related to the existence of a sterile neutrino.

One remark is in order. It seems there is no simple relations between masses and mixing both in quark and in lepton sectors. This may be an indication of complex origin of the masses when two or more different mechanisms give comparable contributions.

The paper is organized as follows. In the next section we formulate and discuss our context. In sect. III, we describe a mechanism of enhancement of the mixing via decoupling of sterile neutrino. In Sect. IV we consider the enhancement in the non-decoupling limit and show how the LSND result can be accommodated. In sect. V we argue that the suggested mechanism can be consistent with the see-saw mechanism and Grand Unification.

## II Flavor matrix and $`\nu _s`$-mixing

We assume that the sterile neutrino, $`\nu _s`$, exists and mixes with the active neutrinos $`\nu _\alpha `$, $`(\alpha =e,\mu ,\tau )`$. In the basis $`(\nu _e,\nu _\mu ,\nu _\tau ,\nu _s)`$ the mass matrix can be written as

$$\widehat{M}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\widehat{m}_f& \stackrel{}{ϵ}m_{ss}\\ \stackrel{}{ϵ}{}_{}{}^{}m_{ss}^{}& m_{ss}\end{array}\right),$$
(1)
where $`\widehat{m}_f`$ is the $`3\times 3`$ mass matrix of the active neutrinos which we will call the flavor matrix, $`m_{ss}`$ is the Majorana mass term for the sterile neutrino and the vector $`\stackrel{}{ϵ}=(ϵ_e,ϵ_\mu ,ϵ_\tau )`$ parametrizes the active-sterile mixing masses in units of $`m_{ss}`$. The parameters $`ϵ_\alpha `$ determine the mixing between the active and sterile neutrinos.

We assume that matrix $`\widehat{m}_f`$ has a hierarchical structure with small mixings, similar to the quark mass matrix. Such a matrix is usually generated by the see-saw mechanism in the context of Grand Unified theories or in general, in the theories with quark-lepton symmetry . Indeed, in the GUT the Dirac neutrino mass matrix can be similar to the up-quark mass matrix and if there are no strong mixings or hierarchy in the Majorana mass matrix of the right handed neutrinos, $`\widehat{M}_R`$, the see-saw mechanism, $`\widehat{m}_f\widehat{m}_D\widehat{M}_R^1\widehat{m}_D^{}`$, can produce $`\widehat{m}_f`$, which has a structure similar to $`\widehat{m}_D`$ . Obviously, $`\widehat{m}_f\widehat{m}_D`$, if $`\widehat{M}_R\widehat{m}_D`$. Certain realistic mass matrices $`\widehat{m}_D`$ satisfy the condition $`m_Dm_D^{}m_D`$, so that original structure of $`\widehat{m}_D`$ is reproduced by the product. In this case $`\widehat{m}_f\widehat{m}_D`$, if $`\widehat{M}_R\widehat{I}`$, where $`\widehat{I}`$ is the unit matrix (that is, the matrix is flavor blind). In a number of cases the see-saw mechanism leads to milder hierarchy of $`\widehat{m}_f`$ (factor 2 - 3 enhancement of small elements). However, only in extreme cases near maximal mixing appears .

In what follows, we will show that the mixing of the active neutrinos with the sterile state can produce large mixings of the active neutrinos. We will consider two possibilities (two limits) which have different phenomenological consequences: (i) the decoupling limit of the sterile neutrino: when $`m_{ss}m_{\tau \tau }`$ and $`\nu _\alpha \nu _s`$ mixing is very small ($`ϵ1`$); (ii) non-decoupling limit when mss

>

mττ

>

subscript𝑚𝑠𝑠subscript𝑚𝜏𝜏m_{ss}\mathrel{\lower 4.0pt\vbox{\hbox{$>$}\hbox{$\sim$}}}m_{\tau\tau} and $`ϵ_\alpha `$ are not too small, so that $`\nu _\alpha \nu _s`$ mixing can be observable.

## III Large mixing via decoupling

Let us assume that $`ϵ_\alpha 1`$ and $`m_{ss}m_{\alpha \beta }`$, where $`m_{\alpha \beta }`$ are the elements of the flavor matrix $`\widehat{m}_f`$. After decoupling of $`\nu _s`$ which is equivalent to the block diagonalization of the matrix (1) we get the flavor matrix $`m_f^{}`$ with elements

$$m_{\alpha \beta }^{}m_{\alpha \beta }ϵ_\alpha ϵ_\beta m_{ss},$$
(2)
where the second term, $`ϵ_\alpha ϵ_\beta m_{ss}\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\alpha \beta }`$, is the contribution from the $`\nu _s`$-mixing. We define the decoupling limit in such a way that corrections to (2) being of the order $`O(ϵ^3m_{ss})`$, are negligible.

We require that matrix $`\widehat{m}_f^{}`$ leads to oscillation parameters which can explain the atmospheric and the solar neutrino data. That is, the eigenvalues, $`m_i`$ $`(i=1,2,3)`$ and the mixing angles should satisfy the following condition: $`m_3^2m_2^2=\mathrm{\Delta }m_A^2(26)10^3`$ eV2, $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{\mu \tau }=\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _A0.88`$, $`m_2^2m_1^2\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2`$ and $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{ex}=\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{}`$. Here $`x`$ refers to some combination of $`\nu _\mu `$ and $`\nu _\tau `$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2`$, $`\theta _{}`$ are the solar oscillation parameters from one of the region of solutions for the solar neutrino problem.

In the case of mass hierarchy: $`m_3\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }m_A^2}m_2\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2}`$, the requirement of the near to maximal mixing of $`\nu _\mu `$ and $`\nu _\tau `$ reduces to the following relation between the matrix elements:

$$m_{\mu \mu }^{}m_{\mu \tau }^{}m_{\tau \tau }^{}\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }m_A^2}m_A,$$
(3)
where we will call $`m_A`$ the atmospheric mass scale.

Diagonalizing the $`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$ submatrix of the mass matrix $`m_f^{}`$ (the so called dominant block), we get the off-diagonal elements

$`\stackrel{~}{m}_{e\mu }`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _Am_{e\mu }^{}\mathrm{sin}\theta _Am_{e\tau }^{},`$ (4)
$`\stackrel{~}{m}_{e\tau }`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _Am_{e\tau }^{}+\mathrm{sin}\theta _Am_{e\mu }^{},`$ (5)
where $`\theta _A`$ is the angle responsible for oscillations of the atmospheric neutrinos, so that $`\mathrm{sin}\theta _A\mathrm{cos}\theta _A1/\sqrt{2}`$. The element $`\stackrel{~}{m}_{e\mu }`$ is immediately related to the solar neutrino oscillation parameters (under the assumption that $`m_{ee}`$ is very small):

$$\stackrel{~}{m}_{e\mu }\frac{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2}}{2}\left[\frac{\mathrm{tan}^22\theta _{}}{\sqrt{1+\mathrm{tan}^22\theta _{}}}\right]^{1/2}.$$
(6)
For LMA solution, we need to have typically $`\stackrel{~}{m}_{e\mu }=(210)10^3\mathrm{eV}`$, for SMA: $`\stackrel{~}{m}_{e\mu }`$ $`=(0.31.5)10^4\mathrm{eV}`$, and for LOW, $`\stackrel{~}{m}_{e\mu }`$ $`=(12)10^4\mathrm{eV}`$.

The mass $`\stackrel{~}{m}_{e\tau }`$ is related to the $`U_{e3}`$ element of mixing matrix by

$$\stackrel{~}{m}_{e\tau }\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }m_A^2}U_{e3},$$
(7)
which in turn is restricted by the CHOOZ result, $`U_{e3}0.1`$, so that $`\stackrel{~}{m}_{e\tau }(48)10^3\mathrm{eV}.`$

Phenomenological requirements (6,7) and, especially (3), can not be satisfied for arbitrary original matrix $`\widehat{m}_f`$. However, as we will show, they can be satisfied due to $`\nu _s`$-mixing effect for a wide class of rather plausible matrices $`\widehat{m}_f`$ with hierarchy and small mixing. Parameters of the $`\nu _s`$\- mixing described by $`ϵ_\alpha `$ depend on structure of the matrix $`\widehat{m}_f`$. Here, we consider three examples which differ by scale of masses in $`\widehat{m}_f`$.

### A Large masses in $`\widehat{m}_f`$

Suppose that

$$m_{\tau \tau }m_{\tau \mu }m_{\mu \mu }m_A,$$
(8)
(two largest elements in $`\widehat{m}_f`$ are much heavier than the atmospheric mass scale). For instance, the elements of $`\widehat{m}_f`$ may have the following hierarchical structure: $`m_{\tau \tau }=m_0O(10\mathrm{eV})`$, $`m_{\tau \mu }m_0\lambda ^2`$, $`m_{\mu \mu }m_{e\tau }m_0\lambda ^4`$, $`m_{e\mu }m_0\lambda ^6`$, $`m_{ee}m_0\lambda ^8`$, where $`\lambda 0.2`$, is the hierarchy parameter of the order of Cabibbo angle.

The contribution from the $`\nu _s`$-mixing should lead to strong cancellation in $`m_{\tau \tau }^{}`$ and $`m_{\tau \mu }^{}`$. From the condition $`m_{\tau \tau }^{}m_{\tau \mu }^{}m_A`$ we get

$$ϵ_\tau \sqrt{\frac{m_{\tau \tau }}{m_{ss}}},\frac{ϵ_\mu }{ϵ_\tau }\frac{m_{\tau \mu }}{m_{\tau \tau }}\lambda ^2.$$
(9)
Furthermore, using (9) we find for the element $`m_{\mu \mu }^{}`$

$$m_{\mu \mu }^{}=m_{\mu \mu }\frac{m_{\tau \mu }^2}{m_{\tau \tau }}m_A,$$
(10)
and in fact, $`m_{\mu \mu }`$ can be much smaller than $`m_A`$. Notice that the signs of $`m_{\mu \mu }^{}`$ and $`m_{\tau \tau }^{}`$ should be the same, which can be realized if $`|m_{\tau \tau }|<|ϵ_\tau ^2m_{ss}|`$

In our example of $`m_f(\lambda )`$, we get $`m_{e\mu }m_{e\tau }10^2`$ eV, so that $`|\stackrel{~}{m}_{e\mu }||\stackrel{~}{m}_{e\tau }|510^3`$ eV. These values satisfy the CHOOZ bound and lead to the LMA solution. (The expected value of $`U_{e3}`$ is close to the upper bound.) Therefore, no significant contribution of the $`\nu _s`$-mixing to these elements is required, and we can set an upper bound on $`ϵ_e`$. From the condition $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{e\tau }=`$ (ϵe/ϵτ)mττ

<

102

<

subscriptitalic-ϵ𝑒subscriptitalic-ϵ𝜏subscript𝑚𝜏𝜏superscript102(\epsilon_{e}/\epsilon_{\tau})m_{\tau\tau}\mathrel{\lower 4.0pt\vbox{\hbox{$<$}\hbox{$\sim$}}}10^{-2} eV we get

ϵeϵτ

<

103.

<

subscriptitalic-ϵ𝑒subscriptitalic-ϵ𝜏superscript103\frac{\epsilon_{e}}{\epsilon_{\tau}}\mathrel{\lower 4.0pt\vbox{\hbox{$<$}\hbox{$\sim$}}}10^{-3}. (11)
Actually, the $`\nu _s`$-mixing with $`ϵ_e/ϵ_\tau 10^3`$ can be used to suppress $`U_{e3}`$ and/or to reproduce the SMA solution.

Thus, the hierarchical structure of $`\nu _s`$-mixing is required ϵe:ϵμ:ϵτ=(

<

103):0.04:1\epsilon_{e}:\epsilon_{\mu}:\epsilon_{\tau}=(\mathrel{\lower 4.0pt\vbox{\hbox{$<$}\hbox{$\sim$}}}10^{-3}):0.04:1 (in our example) which should correlate with hierarchy of the original mass matrix. This can be a consequence of certain flavor symmetry.

### B Moderate masses in $`\widehat{m}_f`$

Suppose that

$$m_{\tau \tau }m_{\tau \mu }m_A,$$
(12)
(only $`m_{\tau \tau }`$ is much larger that the atmospheric neutrino scale). As we will see, the contribution of the $`\nu _s`$-mixing to $`m_{\mu \mu }`$ is small, so that the condition (3) can be satisfied only if

$$m_{\mu \mu }m_A.$$
(13)
The original flavor matrix $`\widehat{m}_f`$ could have the following structure: $`m_{\tau \tau }=m_0O(1\mathrm{eV})`$, $`m_{\tau \mu }m_{\mu \mu }m_0\lambda ^2`$, $`m_{e\mu }m_{e\tau }m_0\lambda ^4`$, $`m_{ee}m_0\lambda ^6`$.

From the condition of cancellation in $`m_{\tau \tau }^{}`$ we get for $`ϵ_\tau `$ the same relation as in (9). Contribution of the $`\nu _s`$-mixing to $`m_{\tau \mu }`$ should not be large. Requiring Δmτμ

<

mA

<

Δsubscript𝑚𝜏𝜇subscript𝑚𝐴\Delta m_{\tau\mu}\mathrel{\lower 4.0pt\vbox{\hbox{$<$}\hbox{$\sim$}}}m_{A}, we find

$$\frac{ϵ_\mu }{ϵ_\tau }\frac{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }m_A^2}}{2m_{\tau \tau }}=(24)10^2\left(\frac{1\mathrm{eV}}{m_{\tau \tau }}\right).$$
(14)
One can check now that the correction to $`m_{\mu \mu }`$ is indeed small: $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mu \mu }(ϵ_\mu /ϵ_\tau )^2m_{\tau \tau }=(0.41.6)10^3m_A`$.

For our example of $`m_f(\lambda =0.2)`$ we get $`m_{e\mu }m_{e\tau }(12)10^3`$ eV, so that $`|\stackrel{~}{m}_{e\mu }||\stackrel{~}{m}_{e\tau }|(03)10^3`$ eV. Therefore the CHOOZ bound is satisfied, and moreover, expected $`U_{e3}`$ is much below the upper bound. Any solution for the solar neutrino problem can be reproduced depending on precise values of parameters in $`\widehat{m}_f`$. Therefore, no significant contribution to these elements from the $`\nu _s`$-mixing is required. The upper bound on $`ϵ_e`$ can be obtained from the condition, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{e\tau }10^2`$ eV: $`(ϵ_e/ϵ_\tau )10^2`$. Thus, $`ϵ_\alpha `$ are hierarchical, $`ϵ_e:ϵ_\mu :ϵ_\tau =(<10^2):0.04:1`$,although the hierarchy can be weaker than in the previous case.

Let us consider another structure of the original flavor mass matrix: $`m_{e\mu }m_{e\tau }m_0\lambda ^3`$, $`m_{ee}m_0\lambda ^4`$. In this case, $`m_{e\mu }m_{e\tau }(48)10^3`$ eV, which can give $`|U_{e3}|`$ at the level of the CHOOZ bound and lead to the LMA solution without any contribution from the $`\nu _s`$-mixing. For $`ϵ_e10^2ϵ_\tau `$, cancellation between $`m_{e\mu }^{}`$ and $`m_{e\tau }^{}`$ in $`\stackrel{~}{m}_{e\mu }`$ allows one to reproduce also the SMA solution.

### C Small masses in $`\widehat{m}_f`$

Suppose that

$$m_{\mu \mu }m_{\tau \mu }m_{\tau \tau }m_A,$$
(15)
i.e., all the masses in the original flavor matrix are smaller than the atmospheric mass scale. As an example we can take $`m_{\tau \tau }=m_00.03\mathrm{eV}`$, $`m_{\tau \mu }m_0\lambda `$, $`m_{\mu \mu }m_{e\tau }m_0\lambda ^2`$, $`m_{e\mu }m_0\lambda ^3`$, $`m_{ee}m_0\lambda ^4`$. In this case, the entire dominant block is formed by contributions from the $`\nu _s`$-mixing and the original flavor matrix gives small corrections. In order to satisfy (3) we should take $`ϵ_\mu ϵ_\tau `$. Neglecting all mass terms but $`m_{\tau \tau }`$ in $`\widehat{m}_f`$, we have

$`m_{\mu \mu }^{}ϵ_\mu ^2m_{ss};m_{\mu \tau }^{}ϵ_\mu ϵ_\tau m_{ss};`$ (16)
$`m_{\tau \tau }^{}m_{\tau \tau }ϵ_\tau ^2m_{ss}.`$ (17)
Choosing $`ϵ_\tau ^2m_{ss}=2m_{\tau \tau }`$, from the condition $`|m_{\tau \tau }^{}||m_{\tau \mu }^{}|m_A`$ we get $`ϵ_\mu /ϵ_\tau =1/2`$.

The mass $`m_2`$ responsible for the solar neutrino conversion is determined by $`m_{\tau \tau }`$. The determinant of the $`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$ submatrix equals $`ϵ_\mu ^2ϵ_\tau ^2m_{ss}^2`$ $`m_{\mu \mu }^{}m_{\tau \tau }m_Am_{\tau \tau }/k`$, where $`k=O(1)`$ is a free parameter. Therefore, taking into account that $`m_32m_A`$, we get

$$m_2\frac{m_{\tau \tau }}{2k}\frac{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }m_A^2}}{4k}.$$
(18)
For $`k=2`$ we find the mass $`m_2=(0.51)10^2`$ eV, which is well in the range of the LMA solution, furthermore $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _A=0.94`$.

For other elements (without $`\nu _s`$-mixing contribution) we have, $`m_{e\mu }m_{e\tau }(12)10^3`$ eV, so that $`|\stackrel{~}{m}_{e\mu }||\stackrel{~}{m}_{e\tau }|(0.51)10^3`$ eV, which is much smaller than value required by the LMA solution. However, $`m_{e\mu }`$ can be enhanced by the $`\nu _s`$-mixing contribution. Requiring that $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{e\tau }610^3`$ eV, we get $`ϵ_e/ϵ_\tau 1/10`$. Thus the scheme implies a rather weak hierarchy of mixing parameters: $`ϵ_e:ϵ_\mu :ϵ_\tau =0.1:0.5:1`$.

### D On the scale of $`m_{ss}`$

Clearly, all the contributions from the $`\nu _s`$-mixing will be unchanged if $`ϵ_\alpha `$ decreases with increase of $`m_{ss}`$ as

$$ϵ_\alpha =ϵ_\alpha ^0\sqrt{\frac{m_{ss}^0}{m_{ss}}}.$$
(19)
In our examples the largest $`ϵ_\alpha `$ is $`ϵ_\tau =\sqrt{m_{\tau \tau }/m_{ss}}`$, and the decoupling limit holds if $`ϵ_\tau <(10^110^2)`$ depending on the type of the flavor mass matrix. Let us consider several possibilities.

For $`m_{\tau \tau }1`$ eV, the decoupling implies that $`m_{ss}`$ should be at least in the kev range. The kev sterile neutrinos with even very small mixing (as small as $`ϵ10^210^4`$) may have important consequences both in astrophysics and cosmology. They have been discussed as a possible component of the (warm) dark matter of the universe , in connection with pulsar kick problem , the proton loading problem for gamma bursters . Such neutrinos can be produced in the conversion of active neutrinos in the supernovae and in the early Universe. To satisfy the cosmological bound these neutrinos should decay during the time shorter than the lifetime of the universe or one should assume that these neutrinos as well as active neutrinos were never in thermal equilibrium .

If $`m_{ss}1`$ TeV, which one could expect for singlets in the supergravity models (modulinos)  then $`ϵ_\tau 10^6`$, so that the mixing terms $`ϵ_\tau m_{ss}`$ should be about 1 MeV. For $`m_{ss}10^{13}`$ GeV, we have $`ϵ_\tau 10^{11}`$ and $`ϵ_\tau m_{ss}100`$ GeV, which corresponds to the electroweak scale.

## IV Non-Decoupling Limit and LSND result

### A Without LSND result

Here we will assume that $`m_{ss}(110)`$ eV. In the case of strong hierarchy of the mixing parameters $`ϵ_\tau ϵ_\mu ϵ_e`$ as in examples 1) and 2) from the previous section the non-decoupling effect reduces to relatively large mixing of the $`\nu _\tau `$ and $`\nu _s`$ in the fourth mass eigenstate. So, in principle, one can observe $`\nu _\tau \nu _s`$ oscillations driven by $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2m_{ss}^2`$ in the short base-line experiments. All other masses and mixings will be as in the decoupling limit.

Let us now discuss a possibility to realize the (3 + 1) scheme  with relatively large $`ϵ_e`$ and $`ϵ_\mu `$ which can also accommodate the LSND result. Now block diagonalization is impossible and we need to consider whole $`4\times 4`$ matrix $`\widehat{M}`$.

First of all, it is easy to see that if the flavor matrix $`\widehat{m}_f`$, has a strong hierarchy, the LSND result can not be reproduced because of the CHOOZ bound. Let us consider the matrix $`\widehat{m}_f`$ with only one non-zero element, $`m_{\tau \tau }`$. As follows from (1), in this $`m_{\tau \tau }`$ dominance approximation one state

$$\nu _d\mathrm{cos}\varphi \nu _e\mathrm{sin}\varphi \nu _\mu ,$$
(20)
where $`\mathrm{cos}\varphi =ϵ_\mu /\sqrt{ϵ_e^2+ϵ_\mu ^2}`$ decouples and the orthogonal state

$$\nu _n\mathrm{sin}\varphi \nu _e+\mathrm{cos}\varphi \nu _\mu $$
(21)
will have the mixing element, $`\sqrt{ϵ_e^2+ϵ_\mu ^2}m_{ss}`$ in the rest $`3\times 3`$ matrix. To explain the atmospheric neutrino data, one needs to have large admixture of $`\nu _n`$ (which contains $`\nu _\mu `$) in the $`\nu _3`$ \- state. Denoting by $`U_{n3}`$ , this admixture we get

$$U_{\mu 3}=\mathrm{cos}\varphi U_{n3},U_{e3}=\mathrm{sin}\varphi U_{n3}.$$
(22)
From (22), we get

$$U_{e3}=U_{\mu 3}\mathrm{tan}\varphi =U_{\mu 3}\frac{ϵ_e}{ϵ_\mu },$$
(23)
where the atmospheric data imply Uμ3

>

0.5

>

subscript𝑈𝜇30.5U_{\mu 3}\mathrel{\lower 4.0pt\vbox{\hbox{$>$}\hbox{$\sim$}}}0.5. The LSND result, in turn, requires $`ϵ_e0.120.14`$ and $`ϵ_\mu 0.120.16`$, so that from (23) we get $`|U_{e3}|^2>0.12`$ which is certainly excluded by CHOOZ result . Thus, large mixing of $`\nu _\mu `$ in $`\nu _3`$ leads simultaneously to large mixing of $`\nu _e`$ in $`\nu _3`$.

Taking $`ϵ_e/ϵ_\mu 1/3`$ to statisfy the CHOOZ limit, we get for $`ϵ_\mu 0.15`$, $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{LSND}4ϵ_e^2ϵ_\mu ^22.510^4`$, which is smaller than the experimental result . This requires a departure from the $`m_{\tau \tau }`$ dominance scheme.

### B With LSND result

In what follows, we show that the LSND result can be reproduced if the flavor matrix has a moderate hierarchy:

$$M_{\alpha \beta }\frac{1}{3}M_{\beta \beta },$$
(24)
where $`\alpha `$ corresponds to lighter flavor than $`\beta `$.

The mass matrix in the flavor basis can be written as

$$\widehat{M}=\widehat{U}\widehat{M}^{diag}\widehat{U}^{},$$
(25)
where $`\widehat{U}`$ is the mixing matrix, and the diagonal matrix of the mass eigenvalues, $`\widehat{M}^{diag}`$, can be parametrized as

$$\widehat{M}^{diag}=m_1\widehat{I}+diag(0,\delta ,0,0)+diag(0,0,\mathrm{\Delta },m),$$
(26)
so that $`m_2=m_1+\delta `$, $`m_3=m_1+\mathrm{\Delta }`$, and $`m_4=m_1+m`$. Inserting (26) into (25) we get

$$\widehat{M}=m_1\widehat{I}+\widehat{M}^\delta +\widehat{U}diag(0,0,\mathrm{\Delta },m)\widehat{U}^{},$$
(27)
where $`\widehat{M}^\delta \widehat{U}diag(0,\delta ,0,0)\widehat{U}^{}`$.

Let us first assume that $`m_1\delta `$, so that two light states are degenerate, $`m_1m_2`$. Neglecting $`\widehat{M}^\delta `$, we get for the elements of matrix $`\widehat{M}`$:

$$M_{\alpha \beta }=m_1\delta _{\alpha \beta }+\mathrm{\Delta }U_{\alpha 3}U_{\beta 3}^{}+mU_{\alpha 4}U_{\beta 4}^{}.$$
(28)
That is, the structure of the mass matrix is determined by the mass of the degenerate pair, $`m_1`$, by mass parameters $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`m`$ and by flavour mixing in the third and in the fourth mass eigenstates $`U_{\alpha 3}`$, $`U_{\alpha 4}`$. These mixing elements are, in turn, determined by phenomenology and a condition of the mass hierarchy. Indeed, the LSND result requires admixtures of the $`\nu _e`$ and $`\nu _\mu `$ in $`\nu _4`$ to be at the level of upper experimental bounds: $`U_{e4}0.100.14`$ , $`U_{\mu 4}0.120.15`$ . The element $`U_{e3}`$ is restricted by the CHOOZ result: $`U_{e3}<0.1`$ ; $`U_{\mu 3}`$ is given by the atmospheric neutrino data: $`U_{\mu 3}=(0.550.85)`$. One mixing parameter (we take $`U_{\tau 3}`$) is free, and all other parameters are determined by the unitarity condition (orthogonality of $`\nu _3`$ and $`\nu _4`$ and normalization: $`|U_{\alpha 3}|^2=|U_{\alpha 4}|^2=1`$).

Three lightest elements of the flavor mass matrix can then be written as

$`M_{ee}m_1+m|U_{e4}|^20.014m+m_1,`$ (29)
$`M_{e\mu }mU_{e4}U_{\mu 4}^{}0.017m,`$ (30)
$`M_{\mu \mu }m_1+\mathrm{\Delta }|U_{\mu 3}|^2+m|U_{\mu 4}|^2,`$ (31)
where the contributions of terms proportional to $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ ($`\mathrm{\Delta }`$\- terms) to $`M_{ee}`$ and $`M_{e\mu }`$ can be safely neglected. Clearly, to achieve the hierarchy, $`M_{ee}M_{e\mu }M_{\mu \mu }`$, one needs significant cancellation in $`M_{ee}`$, and therefore

$$m_1=(0.010.02)m(0.01÷0.02)\mathrm{eV}.$$
(32)
Furthermore, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ \- term in (31) should give a significant contribution to $`M_{\mu \mu }`$: for $`\mathrm{\Delta }=710^2`$ eV and $`|U_{\mu 3}|^20.5`$ we get $`M_{\mu \mu }0.05m`$, which is about factor of three larger than $`M_{e\mu }`$.

For $`M_{\tau \tau }`$ \- element, we have

$$M_{\tau \tau }m_1+\mathrm{\Delta }|U_{\tau 3}|^2+m|U_{\tau 4}|^2.$$
(33)
Hierarchy between the diagonal elements, $`M_{\tau \tau }M_{\mu \mu }`$, implies that the third term in (33) should dominate over others. This means that the admixture of $`\nu _\tau `$ in the fourth state should not be small. From the condition $`M_{\tau \tau }(510)M_{\mu \mu }`$, we get

$$|U_{\tau 4}|0.40.7.$$
(34)
Dominance of the terms proportional to $`m`$ ($`m`$\- terms) in the elements $`M_{\alpha \tau }`$ leads to relations

$$M_{e\tau }:M_{\mu \tau }:M_{\tau \tau }=|U_{e4}|:|U_{\mu 4}|:|U_{\tau 4}|.$$
(35)
As an example we may have $`M_{e\tau }:M_{\mu \tau }:M_{\tau \tau }=0.20:0.25:1`$. For values of mixing (34) we get, $`M_{\tau \tau }=(0.170.45)`$ eV (if $`m=1`$ eV).

We evaluate the effect of matrix $`M^\delta `$ in (27). The parameter $`\delta `$, splits the light degenerate mass eigenvalues and, the size of $`\delta `$ is determined by the solar mass splitting $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2`$. For $`m_1=10^2`$ eV and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2=(46)10^5`$ eV2 (which is typical for LMA solution) we get

$$\delta \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2}{2m_1}(23)10^3\mathrm{eV}.$$
(36)
For all other solutions value of $`\delta `$ and consequently the corrections are smaller. Given, $`M_{\alpha \beta }^\delta =\delta U_{\alpha 2}U_{\beta 2}^{}`$, the largest mass term equals $`M^\delta 0.5\delta (12)10^3`$ eV. Thus, the corrections are small even for the smallest element: $`M_{ee}`$. For the remaining elements, the corrections are negligible and can not influence the structure of the mass matrix. These small corrections are, however, important for fixing the oscillation parameters relevant for solar neutrinos.

Let us comment on the case of strong hierarchy of the mass eigenvalues. This would correspond to the limit $`m_1\delta `$ and

$$\delta \sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2}(510)10^3\mathrm{eV}.$$
(37)
Now the $`M_{ee}`$-element of the mass matrix equals

$$M_{ee}\delta |U_{e2}|^2+m|U_{e4}|^2,$$
(38)
and according to (37) the first term in (38) is about $`(25)10^3`$ eV. It can not compensate the second term that is required by the hierarchy $`M_{ee}M_{e\mu }`$. The compensation can be achieved if $`\delta 210^2`$ eV which would correspond to $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2410^4`$ eV2. This value is disfavored by present data, although not excluded completely.

Collecting all the information discussed above we get as an example the following mass matrix

$$\widehat{M}m\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0.004& 0.0168& 0.081& 0.14\\ 0.0168& 0.05& 0.13& 0.142\\ 0.081& 0.13& 0.385& 0.6\\ 0.14& 0.142& 0.6& 1\end{array}\right).$$
(39)
For $`m=1`$eV this matrix leads to $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{}=0.92;\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2=4.610^5`$ eV2 ; $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _A=0.958;\mathrm{\Delta }m_A^2=3.110^3`$ eV2 ; $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{LSND}=110^3`$. We also get $`U_{e3}=0.099`$. To illustrate the role of the sterile neutrino couplings we find that in their absence the active part in Eq. (39) alone provides for atmospheric neutrinos: $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2=0.19`$ eV2 and $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta =0.35`$, which are far beyond the required values, and for solar neutrinos: $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2=10^4`$ eV2 and $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta =0.55`$.

Thus, the (3 + 1) scheme can be realized if the flavor mass matrix has a moderate hierarchy (24). There are two generic consequences of the scheme: (i) the pair of the light states should be degenerate with $`m_1m_2(0.010.02)`$ eV. This leads to the effective Majorana mass of the electron neutrino

$$m_{ee}=m_1\mathrm{cos}2\theta _{},$$
(40)
which can be as large as $`O(10^2)`$ eV if the solar mixing is not to close to maximal one. (ii) The scheme predicts rather large mixing of $`\nu _\tau `$ and $`\nu _s`$ in the heaviest eigenstate (34), so that oscillation $`\nu _\tau \nu _s`$ drived by $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2\mathrm{\Delta }m_{LSND}^2`$ should be observed.

## V $`\nu _s`$ -mixing and the see-saw mechanism

Let us show that $`\nu _s`$ -mixing considered in the previous sections is consistent with the see-saw mechanism for the mass generation of the active neutrinos.

There are several possibilities to couple the sterile neutrinos with the active neutrinos. The simplest one is the direct coupling through the Yukawa interaction $`h_s\overline{\nu }_L\nu _sH`$ , where $`H`$ is the Higgs doublet. In this case, however, one needs a very tiny coupling constant, $`h_sϵm_{ss}/H510^{13}`$, and an additional mechanism is required to explain such a small value.

Another possibility is the indirect mixing via coupling of $`\nu _s`$ with heavy right handed neutrinos $`N_R`$ . Let us consider the following mass terms

$`=\overline{\nu }_Lm_DN_R+N_R^TM_RN_R+\overline{\nu }_s\mu ^{}N_R+m_s\nu _s^T\nu _s+h.c.,`$where $`\mu `$ is the mass parameter of the $`\nu _s`$ and $`N_R`$ mixing. After decoupling of the right handed neutrinos the matrix $`\widehat{M}`$ is produced with the folowing elements

$`\widehat{m}_f=m_DM_R^1m_D^{};ϵ_\alpha m_{ss}=[m_D^{}M_R^1]_{\alpha \beta }\mu _\beta ;`$ (41)
$`m_{ss}=m_s\mu ^{}M_R^1\mu .`$ (42)
The values of $`ϵ_\alpha `$ are determined by $`\mu _\alpha `$, with a scaling factor $`H/M`$. In order for $`ϵ_\alpha `$ to be small enough we need $`\mu `$ to be at the level of the $`m_D`$ scale. Also the corrections to $`m_{ss}`$ should be sufficiently suppressed by the right handed mass scale.

The matrix $`\widehat{M}`$ formed at the scale $`M_R`$ will be renormalized by the radiative corrections. In particular, the gauge (weak) interactions will renormalize differently the flavor submatrix and the mixing mass vector:

$$\widehat{m}_fr_g\widehat{m}_f,ϵ_\alpha m_{ss}\sqrt{r_g}ϵ_\alpha m_{ss},$$
(43)
where $`r_g(12)`$ is the renormalization factor which is model dependent. Clearly, $`m_{ss}`$ is unchanged. Yukawa couplings can produce rather small renormalization effect (mainly of the mass terms $`M_{a\tau }`$, where $`a=e,\mu ,\tau ,s`$). The renormalization should be taken into account when fixing parameters at the high (probably GUT) mass scale.

In the non-decoupling limit, $`m_{ss}`$ should be small. Such a small mass can be explained by the see-saw mechanism in the “sterile sector”. The scale can be protected by some additional $`U(1)`$ symmetry, which is broken at $`(1100)`$ TeV scale . In the context of the supersymmetric theories a smallness of $`m_{ss}`$ can be related to physics of SUSY breaking .

## VI Discussion and Conclusion

We have shown that mixing between active neutrinos can be enhanced by the presence of sterile neutrino. In particular, large or even maximal mixing can be induced in the flavor mass matrix with original strong mass hierarchy and small mixing.

A simultaneous explanation of the atmospheric and solar neutrino data requires however certain structure of the original flavor mass matrix (or the introduction of more than one sterile neutrino). For hierarchical flavor mass matrix of general form this is impossible. Indeed, mixing with just one sterile neutrino produces three independent mass terms, whereas four oscillations parameters (two $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ and two mixing angles) should be explained.

We have considered several cases which differ by the scale of elements in the original flavor mass matrix (larger, of the order, or smaller than the atmospheric neutrino scale). For each case we have found the relevant structure of the flavor mass matrix. These structures look rather plausible from the point of view of theories with flavor symmetries. Clearly, more freedom appears if there are additional sterile neutrinos.

Near maximal mixing appears as an interplay of the original flavor matrix and the mass matrix induced by mixing with sterile neutrino. If the origin of the mixing terms ($`ϵ`$) is unrelated to the origin of the flavor mass matrix, then near maximal mixing appears accidental. In fact, in the case of mixing via right handed neutrinos (37) the mixing terms may not be completely independent of the elements of flavor matrix: both of them are proportional to the product $`m_DM_R^1`$. The required relations between the $`ϵ`$ \- terms and the flavor matrix at some high scale may be rather non-trivial in view of renormalization effects.

In our framework there is no simple symmetry which leads to maximal mixing. However it is not excluded that the required relation between $`ϵ`$ terms and the flavor matrix appears in the underlying theory of flavor. An exception is the case IIIC, where both masses and mixing relevant for the atmospheric neutrino oscillations are given by the dominant contribution from the sterile to active neutrino mixings. In this case near maximal flavor mixing can appear due to certain symmetry (equality) of the $`ϵ`$-elements themselves.

In this paper we have concentrated on the phenomenological aspects of the mechanism. Depending on the mass of sterile neutrino, two limits have been considered. In the decoupling limit, mixings of active and sterile neutrinos are very small. They are negligible for the laboratory experiments. The effect of sterile neutrinos is just reduced to correction of the mass matrix of the active neutrinos. However, the sterile neutrinos with masses in (1 - 100) kev range and even very small mixing can have important implications for astrophysics and cosmology.

In the non-decoupling limit, large lepton mixings is accompanied by an observable active-sterile neutrino mixing. Moreover, for $`\widehat{m}_f`$ with moderate hierarchy the (3+1) scheme of neutrino mass  can be realized which accommodate oscillation solutions of the atmospheric and solar neutrino problems and the LSND result. The generic prediction of such a scheme is a large $`\nu _e\nu _s`$ mixing which leads to observable $`\nu _e\nu _s`$ oscillations.

The suggested mechanism of enhancement of mixing can reconcile large observed mixings and the hierarchical structure of the active neutrino mass matrix (having small mixings), which naturally follows from the see-saw mechanism in the context of the Grand Unified Theories.

Balaji wishes to thank the High Energy Theory group at The Abdus Salam ICTP for local support and for the hospitality at the Theoretical Physics Division, University of Helsinki, where this work was completed.


format: text

text:
# Nucleon Compton Scattering in Chiral Effective Field Theories

## 1 Spin Polarizabilities in Real Compton Scattering

As introduced in the previous talk by Barry Holstein , the leading spin-structure dependent response of a nucleon in the presence of external electromagnetic fields can be parameterized via 4 dipole spin-polarizabilities $`\gamma _i`$, defined in complete analogy to the more familiar spin-independent electromagnetic (dipole) polarizabilities $`\overline{\alpha }_E,\overline{\beta }_M`$.

$`\gamma _{E1}:(E1E1)`$ $`\gamma _{M1}:(M1M1)`$
$`\gamma _{E2}:(M1E2)`$ $`\gamma _{M2}:(E1M2).`$ (1)
The physics behind these spin-polarizabilities thus involves excitation of the spin 1/2 nucleon target via an electric/magnetic dipole transition and a successive de-excitation back into a spin 1/2 nucleon final state via an electric/magnetic dipole or quadrupole transition . As discussed by Holstein , none of these (dipole) spin-polarizabilities has been measured directly111Some information is known about the particular linear combination $`\gamma _\pi =\gamma _{M2}\gamma _{E1}+(\gamma _{E2}+\gamma _{M1})`$ from a dispersion analysis of unpolarized Compton scattering experiments . For recent efforts to extract the so-called “forward spin polarizability” $`\gamma _0=\gamma _{M2}\gamma _{E1}(\gamma _{E2}+\gamma _{M1})`$ from measurements of double-polarized pion photoproduction in the resonance region at MAMI/ELSA and the resulting model dependence see ref.. up to know—results of future double-polarized Compton scattering experiments on the proton $`\stackrel{}{\gamma }\stackrel{}{p}\gamma ^{}p^{}`$ at MAMI, BNL-LEGS and TUNL, which would suppress the dominant spin-independent physics by measuring Compton asymmetries , are eagerly awaited. In chiral perturbation theory the dipole spin-polarizabilities have now been calculated to next-to-leading order (NLO), the results and a comparison with recent dispersion theoretical calculations are given in Table 1. The NLO heavy baryon chpt predictions for the essentially unknown dipole spin polarizabilities of the nucleon can be obtained in closed form expressions without any free fit parameters. In general the qualitative agreement between the NLO chiral predictions and the dispersive analyses is quite good, with the marked exception of the isoscalar spin polarizability $`\gamma _{M2}`$, which consistently shows a different sign between the 2 approaches. One also notes that the isovector spin polarizabilities (which only start at $`𝒪(p^4)`$ in the chiral expansion) tend to be much smaller than their corresponding isoscalar counterparts, leading to the non-trivial prediction that the low energy spin structure of proton and neutron is quite similar ! In column $`A`$ I have extracted the $`𝒪(p^4)`$ dipole spin polarizabilities from the full Compton matrix element by only subtracting the Born terms as advocated in refs., whereas in column $`B`$ I have subtracted all one-particle reducible graphs from the full Compton matrix element as advocated in ref.. The difference between these two approaches lies in one particular one-loop diagram, which can be seen to primarily affect the large magnetic spin-polarizability $`\gamma _{M1}`$, both in the isoscalar and in the isovector channel. Note that in a $`𝒪(p^4)`$ heavy baryon chpt calculation of the isoscalar $`\gamma _{M1}`$ spin polarizability the large contribution from an intermediate $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$(1232) state is still missing, as this effect can only be included at $`𝒪(p^5)`$ in a full 2-loop calculation . Adding this contribution “by hand” as indicated with the asterisk in Table 1 shows that procedure $`B`$ then also leads to a consistent picture for $`\gamma _{M1}`$, whereas procedure $`A`$ requires an unnaturally large higher order cancellation of yet unknown origin (if the values of the dispersion analyses are to be taken as a serious benchmark). We note that procedure $`B`$ has been criticised  in the past few months. In my opionion the only serious criticsm towards procedure $`B`$ lies in the fact that the one-to-one correspondence between a dispersion theoretical ansatz, which only relies on analyticity, crossing-symmetry etc., and the diagrammatic microscopic chpt calculation gets lost, because dispersion theory cannot distinguish between one-particle reducible vs. one-particle irreducible contributions, this clearly being a microscopic concept having nothing to do with the global properties of dispersion theory. Further theoretical investigations are clearly needed to identify the physics behind the cancellation mechanism needed for procedure $`A`$. Let me close this discussion by restating the trivial fact that both procedure $`A`$ and procedure $`B`$ lead to the absolutely identical Compton matrix element—the differences are only pertaining to a different separation into a polarizability dependent part and a remainder.

Finally I want to note that a brief summary on recent work regarding the extension of the nucleon’s spin-dependent response to multipolarities beyond the dipole truncation can be found in ref..

## 2 Generalized Spin Polarizabilities

As discussed in Hyde-Wright’s plenary talk , the pioneering Virtual Compton Scattering (VCS) experiment on the proton $`epe^{}p^{}\gamma `$ at MAMI is now analyzed . From the viewpoint of the low energy structure of the nucleon the only difference to a real Compton scattering experiment is the fact that the incoming photon is virtual, $`Q^20`$. (Of course one also has to add the Bethe-Heitler contribution coherently to obtain measurable quantities as discussed by Hyde-Wright, but here we want to focus on the “proper” VCS contribution alone.) The Mainz experiment was performed in a special kinematic regime where one restricts oneself to small energies $`\omega ^{}`$ of the outgoing real photon at fixed three-momentum transfer $`|\stackrel{}{q}|=600`$ MeV stemming from the virtual incoming photon. From a theorist point of view this means that in the experiment one wants to be sure, that the de-excitation of the target back to a spin 1/2 proton via the real photon in the final state can be described with an electromagnetic dipole transition. This is the kinematic condition that Guichon, Liu and Thomas used for their ground-breaking definition of generalized polarizabilities (GPs)  and up to now this is the only theoretical framework we have in order to analyze/discuss low energy VCS experiments.

It was shown that in this “Guichon limit” (i.e. the dipole truncation for the final state radiation) there is a total of 6 generalized (i.e. momentum-transfer dependent) polarizabilities $`P_{(Y1,Xi)}(\stackrel{}{q})`$, where $`Y1(Xi)`$ denotes the multipolarity of the final state (initial state) radiation. In the long-wavelength limit 2 of these GPs can be identified with the familiar (spin-independent) electric/magnetic polarizabilities:

$`\overline{\alpha }_E`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{4\pi }}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}}\underset{\stackrel{}{q}0}{lim}P_{(E1,E1)}(\stackrel{}{q}),`$
$`\overline{\beta }_M`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{4\pi }}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{3}{8}}}\underset{\stackrel{}{q}0}{lim}P_{(M1,M1)}(\stackrel{}{q}).`$ (2)
(Based on this identification one can also define the momentum-transfer dependent generalized dipole polarizabilities $`\overline{\alpha }_E(\stackrel{}{q}),\overline{\beta }_M(\stackrel{}{q})`$.) Here we want to focus on the remaining 4 GPs of the “Guichon set”

$`P_{(C1,M2)}(\stackrel{}{q}),P_{(M1,C2)}(\stackrel{}{q}),P_{(M1,C0)}(\stackrel{}{q}),\widehat{P}_{(C1,(C1,E1))}(\stackrel{}{q})`$
which can be shown to be spin-dependent polarizabilities.
In the long-wavelength limit one can establish a connection to two of the dipole spin-polarizabilities of polarized real Compton scattering222In the long-wavelength limit one utilizes the connection between Coulomb and Electric multipoles. introduced in the previous section:

$`\gamma _{M2}={\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{3}{\sqrt{2}}}\underset{\stackrel{}{q}0}{lim}P_{(C1,M2)}(\stackrel{}{q})`$
$`\gamma _{E2}={\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{3\sqrt{3}}{2\sqrt{2}}}\underset{\stackrel{}{q}0}{lim}P_{(M1,C2)}(\stackrel{}{q})`$ (3)
The remaining 2 generalized spin polarizabilities $`P_{(M1,C0)}(\stackrel{}{q}),\widehat{P}_{(C1,(C1,E1))}(\stackrel{}{q})`$ involve longitudinal multipole excitations $`C0,C1`$ due to the incoming virtual photon and therefore do not have an analogue in real Compton scattering—they correspond to new low energy nucleon structure terms which can only be accessed via VCS !

The “Guichon set” of 6 generalized polarizabilities thus has a very intuitive explanation in terms of multipole excitation/de-excitation, similar to the multipole basis of the real Compton polarizabilities $`\gamma _i`$ introduced in the previous section. Given a theoretical prediction for these 6 GPs, one can calculate the experimentally accessible response functions $`P_{LL}(\stackrel{}{q}),P_{LT}(\stackrel{}{q}),P_{TT}(\stackrel{}{q})`$ and judge, how well the theoretical understanding of the microscopic dynamics behind the (generalized) polarizabilities matches with the real world. For the Mainz experiment the results are given in Table 2.

One can see that the theoretical values of the response functions—which use the SU(2) $`𝒪(p^3)`$ heavy baryon chpt calculation  of the GPs from 1997 predating the experiment—are in a good agreement with the experimental numbers, even though the momentum-transfer in the Mainz experiment is rather large for such a leading order calculation ! Keeping in mind that the Mainz experiment only determines one point in the $`\stackrel{}{q}`$-evolution of the response functions and that certainly further tests (especially at smaller values of momentum-transfer) are needed before one can establish a definite picture of the momentum-dependence of the underlying GPs, I want to discuss the physics behind the $`\stackrel{}{q}`$-evolution of the generalized polarizabilities from the point of view of chiral effective field theory.

For a $`𝒪(p^3)`$ Heavy Baryon calculation of the “proper” VCS matrix-element—which provides the leading order result for the GPs—one has to evaluate the same 9 one-loop $`\pi N`$-diagrams shown in Figure 1 as for leading order real Compton scattering with the initial photon now being virtual. To this (leading) order no new diagrams/counterterms appear beyond the ones also present in real Compton scattering. It is precisely the simple physics contained in the diagrams of Figure 1 evaluated in ref. which completely determines the $`\stackrel{}{q}`$-dependence of the GPs and results in the theoretical numbers displayed in Table 2 when put into the formulae of the response functions. The remarkably simple picture behind the physics of the GPs that emerges suggests that it is the pion-cloud of the nucleon—which can be so easily excited because the chiral symmetry of the underlying QCD-lagrangian is spontaneously broken at low energies—that governs the $`\stackrel{}{q}`$-evolution at small momentum transfer, leading to a typical scaling behavior of

$`P_{(Y1,Xi)}(\stackrel{}{q}){\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{q}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}}}{m_\pi ^2}}`$ (4)
The relevant mass scale thus is the light mass of the (quasi-) Goldstone boson which in the low momentum regime makes the effects of the pion-cloud dominant over other $`\stackrel{}{q}`$-dependent effects like the excitation/de-excitation of nucleon-resonances via transition form factors with a typical mass scale of $`M_B1`$ GeV. It is obvious that such a regime should exist for the VCS process due to the (naive) scaling arguments given above, however, the positive surprise seems to be that this regime where the chiral physics dominates over the usual baryon (and vector-meson) resonance physics seems to extend over a larger range of $`|\stackrel{}{q}|`$ than expected. By the time of the next Chiral Dynamics workshop we should have a better understanding of how far in $`|\stackrel{}{q}|`$ the leading order chiral dynamics given in Figure 1 provides a sufficient description and where the baryon/vector-meson resonance physics starts taking over. On the experimental side this fall the second VCS experiment on the proton will start taking data at Bates  at much lower $`\stackrel{}{q}`$, which should provide a strong constraint on any theoretical description of the GPs.

The final development in VCS which I want to discuss brings me back to the spin-sector. Although the pioneering VCS experiment at MAMI was an unpolarized experiment, it was noted  that the chpt predictions for the spin-dependent generalized polarizabilities entering the response functions give quite large contributions, even changing the sign in the case of $`P_{LT}(|\stackrel{}{q}|=600\mathrm{M}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V})`$ for the Mainz kinematics ! This situation is quite in contrast to the situation in unpolarized real Compton scattering, where the spin-polarizabilities tend to be small effects completely masked by spin-independent physics at low energies. On the experimental side this observation has led to a new proposal  to perform a second VCS experiment at MAMI, which would use polarized electrons to determine a double-polarization asymmetry via measuring the average polarization of the recoiling final state proton. This experiment would give access to a different set of response functions possibly allowing for enough constraints to separate spin-dependent and spin-independent GPs. Note that such an experiment also holds the prospect of determining the essentially unknown real Compton spin polarizabilities $`\gamma _{M2},\gamma _{E2}`$ via Eq.(3) by measuring $`P_{(C1,M2)}(\stackrel{}{q}),P_{(M1,C2)}(\stackrel{}{q})`$ at small values of momentum-transfer and then extrapolating $`|\stackrel{}{q}|0`$.

On the theoretical side this prominence of the spin-effects certainly needs to be further investigated. In fact, one might worry that this large sensitivity to spin-effects gives an indication for the breakdown of the $`𝒪(p^3)`$ heavy baryon calculation—especially if one remembers the tremendous sensitivity of some of the real Compton dipole spin-polarizabilities $`\gamma _i`$ on effects connected with $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$(1232) intermediate states. There it was argued  that only a $`𝒪(p^5)`$ (i.e. 2-loop) heavy baryon calculation (which no group seems to have on the “things-to-do” list until the next Chiral Dynamics workshop) posses the right operator structure with which one can hope to arrive at a decent description of these important spin-structure quantities. However, nature seems to be very kind to us in the case of VCS—as long as we stay in the “Guichon limit”. First, I want to show you the result of a recent calculation  which gives the chiral $`𝒪(p^3)`$ (i.e. leading order) momentum dependence of the 4 generalized spin-polarizabilities in closed form expressions

$`P_{(C1,M2)}^{(3)}(\stackrel{}{q})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_A^2}{24\sqrt{2}\pi ^2F_\pi ^2|\stackrel{}{q}|^2}}\left[1g({\displaystyle \frac{|\stackrel{}{q}|}{2m_\pi }})\right]`$
$`P_{(M1,C2)}^{(3)}(\stackrel{}{q})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_A^2}{12\sqrt{6}\pi ^2F_\pi ^2|\stackrel{}{q}|^2}}\left[1g({\displaystyle \frac{|\stackrel{}{q}|}{2m_\pi }})\right]`$
$`P_{(M1,C0)}^{(3)}(\stackrel{}{q})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_A^2}{12\sqrt{3}\pi ^2F_\pi ^2}}\left[2\left(2+{\displaystyle \frac{3|\stackrel{}{q}|^2}{4m_\pi ^2}}\right)g({\displaystyle \frac{|\stackrel{}{q}|}{2m_\pi }})\right]`$
$`\widehat{P}_{(C1,(C1,E1))}^{(3)}(\stackrel{}{q})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_A^2}{24\sqrt{6}\pi ^2F_\pi ^2|\stackrel{}{q}|^2}}\left[3\left(3+{\displaystyle \frac{|\stackrel{}{q}|^2}{m_\pi ^2}}\right)g({\displaystyle \frac{|\stackrel{}{q}|}{2m_\pi }})\right],`$ (5)
with the functional dependence given by

$`g(x)={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sinh}^1(x)}{x\sqrt{1+x^2}}}.`$
One can clearly see that the scale of the $`\stackrel{}{q}`$-variation in the generalized spin polarizabilities is given by the pion mass $`m_\pi `$, as promised. The only other parameters entering the expressions in Eq.(5) are the axial vector coupling constant $`g_A`$ measured in neutron beta-decay and the pion-decay constant $`F_\pi `$. The leading order chiral prediction is therefore completely fixed. What about possible large corrections due to $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$(1232) ? Looking at the multipole content of the generalized spin-polarizabilities in the Guichon limit Eq.(5), one realizes that $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$(1232) pole-contributions can only enter via an interference between the large $`\gamma N\mathrm{\Delta }`$ $`M1`$ coupling and the very small $`\gamma N\mathrm{\Delta }`$ $`E2,C2`$ quadrupole couplings, triggering some optimism that a theoretical description of generalized spin polarizabilities in the Guichon limit can be reasonable without explicit Delta degrees of freedom. We note again that once (in future calculations) one goes beyond the Guichon kinematical limit and allows for additional independent generalized spin polarizabilities which for example involve two large $`M1`$ transitions to a $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$(1232) in the intermediate state, then one will encounter the same situation in spin-dependent VCS as in polarized real Compton scattering —in heavy baryon chpt there would then be no way around a full $`𝒪(p^5)`$ (i.e. 2-loop) calculation.

Having argued that for the Guichon set of generalized spin-polarizabilities we do not expect large pole contributions from $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$(1232), what about possible large corrections due to $`\mathrm{\Delta }\pi `$ intermediate continuum states ? A recent calculation  also shows that these contributions are quite small, completely analogous to the situation of the dipole spin polarizabilities $`\gamma _i`$  in real Compton scattering. Figure 2 shows the results of a leading order (i.e. $`𝒪(ϵ^3)`$) calculation in the small scale expansion (SSE)  which contains explicit nucleon, pion and delta degrees of freedom.

As one can clearly see, the heavy baryon calculation lies quite close to their SSE counterpart, with the largest discrepancy showing up in $`P_{(M1,C0)}(\stackrel{}{q})`$. The SSE calculation involves a lot more diagrams but only 2 additional parameters—$`\mathrm{\Delta }=M_\mathrm{\Delta }M_N=292`$MeV the location of the Delta resonance pole and the strong $`\pi N\mathrm{\Delta }`$ coupling constant $`g_{\pi N\mathrm{\Delta }}`$, determined consistently within SSE from the width of the Delta resonance. No other (normalization) adjustment was made, Figure 2 shows the absolute predictions of the 2 quite distinct theoretical frameworks, yielding surprisingly similar results. Unfortunately the SSE results cannot be written into a nice analytic form as in Eq.(5) but need a numerical evaluation of the integrals, details can be found in ref.. Certainly further investigations into the generalized spin polarizabilities are needed, but the new calculations  suggest, that chiral effective theories can also provide meaningful interpretation for the planned polarized VCS experiments focusing on the spin-dependent response of the nucleon in the presence of external electromagnetic source-terms. For recent progress utilizing a dispersion theoretical analysis to predict the $`\stackrel{}{q}`$-dependence of some of the generalized spin-polarizabilities starting from pion photo-/electroproduction data, I refer to the talk by M. Vanderhaeghen in the working group .

## 3 Summary

I have reported about new developments since the last Chiral Dynamics workshop in Mainz in the field of nucleon Compton scattering using chiral effective field theories. The spontaneous breaking of chiral symmetry in QCD at low energies leads to a prominence of $`\pi N`$ intermediate states which often dominate the leading structure dependent response (i.e. the polarizabilities) of the nucleon when probed via external electromagnetic fields. Real and Virtual Compton scattering on the nucleon thus provide an excellent laboratory to uncover these signatures of chiral symmetry breaking amidst the usually dominant/overwhelming baryon-resonance physics. A microscopic understanding of polarizabilities (and their momentum dependence) in terms of a few simple Feynman diagrams connected to chiral effective field theories can be given in many cases, leading to a physical intuition/understanding of the numbers extracted in experiment. Several new experiments will have taken data by the time of the next Chiral Dynamics meeting improving the data base considerably. The main challenge for the theoretical efforts is to go beyond the leading order results in a controlled and effective approximation.
I would like to thank the organizers for giving me the opportunity to present this overview talk. Many interesting topics had to be skipped (for example the active field of Compton scattering on the Deuteron ) due to lack of time. See you in Jülich in 2003 !


text:
# 1 The phase diagram for the Gross-Neveu model in the weakly coupled region (to 𝒪(𝑔̂²)) (dark lines) and a schematic representation of the expected Aoki phase diagram (light curves).

In lattice field theory, there has been considerable discussion on the phase diagrams of theories with Wilson fermions (see, e.g., ). These can be considered as statistical mechanical systems, and have rich phase structures whose existence is due to lattice artefacts. The Wilson fermion hopping parameter is $`\kappa =1/2(\widehat{M}_0+d)`$ where $`\widehat{M}_0`$ is the dimensionless bare fermion mass and $`d`$ the lattice dimensionality. It is well known that a system of free Wilson fermions exhibits a phase transition at $`\kappa =1/(2d)`$ and that massless fermions appear at this point in the continuum limit. Discussions concern the extent to which this phase transition persists in the presence of a bosonic field. In QCD, where Wilson fermions couple to gauge fields with a strength given by the dimensionless coupling $`\widehat{g}`$, there are two candidates for the phase diagram. In the first, pioneered by Kawamoto, the expectation is that there is a line of phase transitions (the “chiral line”) extending from the strong coupling limit to the weakly coupled one and along which the pion and quark masses vanish . Such vanishing is symptomatic of spontaneous chiral symmetry breaking. Approaching the continuum limit, at $`\widehat{g}=0`$, along the chiral line in particular is then expected to recover massless physics. This is still sometimes referred to as the ‘conventional’ picture.

The second candidate phase diagram for QCD was determined by Aoki on the basis of comparison with the Gross-Neveu model . The Gross-Neveu model serves as a prototype for QCD . Indeed, except for confinement, it has features similar to QCD. One of these features is asymptotic freedom, so that in the Gross-Neveu model, as in QCD, the continuum limit is taken in the weakly coupled zone. Two features distinguish Aoki’s phase diagram from the earlier ‘conventional’ picture. Firstly, instead of a single critical line, Aoki’s analysis advocates the existence of two lines extending from the strongly to weakly coupled limits, with a number of critical points at $`\widehat{g}=0`$ linked by cusps (see Fig. 1). The region above the cusps and between the two extended lines is often referred to as the Aoki phase. Secondly, the existence of the phase transition in Aoki’s scenario is due to spontaneous parity symmetry breaking within the Aoki phase, as opposed to chiral symmetry breaking. (Indeed, Wilson fermions explicitly violate chiral symmetry.) This is signaled by a non zero vacuum expectation value of the pseudoscalar operator $`\pi =\overline{\psi }i\gamma _S\psi `$ in the thermodynamic limit. The masslessness of the pion is then attributed to the divergence of a correlation length associated with this second order phase transition. In the multiflavour case, flavour symmetry is also broken in the Aoki phase since the pion, whose expectation value is nonvanishing, also carries flavour. The continuum limit has to be approached from outside the Aoki phase since parity and flavour are conserved in the strong interaction. The physical meaning of an approach to the continuum limit from within the Aoki phase is unclear . There exists substantial evidence supporting Aoki’s scenario in the strongly coupled regime . In the weakly coupled regime the evidence has, however, been controversial  (see  for recent discussions on this topic).

In asymptotically free theories the weakly coupled region is the appropriate one for the continuum limit. Recently, Creutz  questioned whether the Aoki phase, pinched between the arms of cusps, is “squeezed out” at non-zero coupling or whether it only vanishes in the weak coupling limit (see, also, ).

The purpose of this paper is twofold. We introduce a new type of expansion which is multiplicative rather than additive in nature and from which information on the partition function zeroes of the theory can be extracted in a rather natural way . Secondly, we address the question of the “squeezing out” of the Aoki phase at weak coupling. This multiplicative approach to the single flavour Gross-Neveu model, shows that the width of the central Aoki cusp is $`𝒪(\widehat{g}^2)`$ while the Aoki phase has not yet emerged at this order from the left and right extremes.

The Gross-Neveu model is actually a two dimensional model of fermions only, which interact through a short range quartic interaction . In Euclidean continuum space, the model with a single fermion flavour is given by the four–fermi action

$$S_{\mathrm{GN}}^{(\mathrm{cnm})}=d^2x\{\overline{\psi }(x)(/+M)\psi (x)\frac{g^2}{2}[\left(\overline{\psi }(x)\psi (x)\right)^2+\left(\overline{\psi }(x)i\gamma _S\psi (x)\right)^2]\},$$
(1)
where $`\gamma _S=i^1\gamma _1\gamma _2`$ and the fermion field has 2 spinor components. Bosonizing the action gives for the partition function, $`Z_{GN}^{(\mathrm{cnm})}=𝒟\varphi 𝒟\pi 𝒟\overline{\psi }𝒟\psi \mathrm{exp}(S)`$, where

$$S=d^2x\{\overline{\psi }(/+M)\psi +\frac{1}{2g^2}[\varphi ^2+\pi ^2]+\varphi \overline{\psi }\psi +\pi \overline{\psi }i\gamma _S\psi \},$$
(2)
and where $`\varphi (x)`$ and $`\pi (x)`$ are auxiliary boson fields. The corresponding Wilson action in terms of dimensionless lattice quantities is $`S_F^{(\mathrm{W})}=S_F^{(0)}+S_{(\mathrm{int})}+S_{(\mathrm{bosons})}`$, where

$$S_F^{(0)}=\frac{1}{2\kappa }\underset{n}{}\overline{\psi }(n)\psi (n)\frac{1}{2}\underset{n,\mu }{}\left\{\overline{\psi }(n)(1\gamma _\mu )\psi (n+\widehat{\mu })+\overline{\psi }(n+\widehat{\mu })(1+\gamma _\mu )\psi (n)\right\},$$
(3)
$$S_{(\mathrm{int})}=\widehat{g}\underset{n}{}\varphi (n)\overline{\psi }(n)\psi (n)+\widehat{g}\underset{n}{}\pi (n)\overline{\psi }(n)i\gamma _S\psi (n),$$
(4)
and

$$S_{(\mathrm{bosons})}=\frac{1}{2}\underset{n}{}\left[\varphi ^2(n)+\pi ^2(n)\right],$$
(5)
and where the auxiliary fields have been rescaled $`\varphi \widehat{g}\varphi `$, $`\pi \widehat{g}\pi `$ to explicitly display the order of the interactive part of the action. Here, lattice sites are labeled $`n_\mu =N/2,\mathrm{},N/21`$, where $`N`$ is the number of sites in each of the two directions. We assume $`N`$ is even.

Using the lattice Fourier transform, $`\psi (n)=(1/Na)^2_k\psi (k)\mathrm{exp}(ikna)`$, where $`a`$ is the lattice spacing, the fermionic action can be written

$$S_F^{(0)}+S_{(\mathrm{int})}=\frac{1}{N^2a^4}\underset{q,p}{}\overline{\psi }(q)M^{(\mathrm{W})}(q,p)\psi (p),$$
(6)
where the $`2N^2\times 2N^2`$ fermion matrix is $`M^{(\mathrm{W})}(p,q)=M^{(0)}(p,q)+M^{(\mathrm{int})}(p,q)`$, with free part

$$M^{(0)}(q,p)=\delta _{qp}\left[\frac{1}{2\kappa }\underset{\mu }{}(\mathrm{cos}p_\mu ai\gamma _\mu \mathrm{sin}p_\mu a)\right],$$
(7)
and interactive part

$$M^{(\mathrm{int})}(q,p)=\frac{\widehat{g}}{N^2}\underset{n}{}e^{i(pq)na}\left[\varphi (n)+\pi (n)i\gamma _S\right].$$
(8)
It is appropriate to impose antiperiodic boundary conditions in the temporal ($`1`$-) direction and periodic boundary conditions in the spatial ($`2`$-) direction in coordinate space. With these mixed boundary conditions the momenta for the Fourier transformed fermion fields are $`p_\mu =2\pi \widehat{p}_\mu /Na`$, where $`\widehat{p}_1\{N/2+1/2,\mathrm{},N/21/2\}`$ and $`\widehat{p}_2\{N/2,\mathrm{},N/21`$}. Integration over the Grassmann variables gives the full partition function

$$Z=𝒟\varphi 𝒟\pi 𝒟\overline{\psi }𝒟\psi \mathrm{exp}\left(S_F^{(\mathrm{W})}\right)detM^{(\mathrm{W})}\underset{\alpha ,p}{}\lambda _\alpha (p),$$
(9)
with $`\lambda _\alpha (p)`$ the eigenvalues of the fermion matrix and the expectation values being taken over the bosonic fields.

In the free field case the eigenvalues of $`M^{(0)}`$ are easily calculated and found to be

$$\lambda _\alpha ^{(0)}(p)=\frac{1}{2\kappa }\eta _\alpha ^{(0)}(p),$$
(10)
where

$$\eta _\alpha ^{(0)}(p)=\underset{\mu =1}{\overset{2}{}}\mathrm{cos}p_\mu ai()^\alpha \sqrt{\underset{\mu =1}{\overset{2}{}}\mathrm{sin}^2p_\mu a}$$
(11)
are the Lee–Yang zeroes of the free theory . Note that the eigenvalues (10) and the zeroes (11) are degenerate with respect to $`p_\mu p_\mu `$. Furthermore, the lowest zeroes in the free case, and those responsible for the onset of critical behaviour, are two-fold degenerate in two dimensions. These lowest zeroes are $`\eta _\alpha (\pm |p_1|,p_2)`$ where $`|\widehat{p}_1|=(N1)/2`$ or $`1/2`$ and $`\widehat{p}_2=N/2`$ or $`0`$ and impact on the real $`1/2\kappa `$ axis at $`2`$, $`0`$ and $`2`$. Finally note that the zeroes in the upper half plane are given by $`\alpha =1`$, while their complex conjugates correspond to $`\alpha =2`$.

The standard additive weak coupling expansion of the full fermion determinant is the Taylor expansion of

$`detM^{(\mathrm{W})}`$ $`=`$ $`detM^{(0)}\times det\left(M_{}^{(0)}{}_{}{}^{1}M^{(\mathrm{W})}\right)`$
$`=`$ $`detM^{(0)}\mathrm{exp}\mathrm{tr}\mathrm{ln}\left(1+M_{}^{(0)}{}_{}{}^{1}M^{(\mathrm{int})}\right).`$ (12)
This expansion is

$$\frac{detM^{(\mathrm{W})}}{detM^{(0)}}=1+\underset{i=1}{\overset{2N^2}{}}\frac{M_{ii}^{(\mathrm{int})}}{\lambda _i^{(0)}}\frac{1}{2}\underset{i,j=1}{\overset{2N^2}{}}\frac{M_{ij}^{(\mathrm{int})}M_{ji}^{(\mathrm{int})}}{\lambda _i^{(0)}\lambda _j^{(0)}}+\frac{1}{2}\underset{i,j=1}{\overset{2N^2}{}}\frac{M_{ii}^{(\mathrm{int})}M_{jj}^{(\mathrm{int})}}{\lambda _i^{(0)}\lambda _j^{(0)}}+\mathrm{},$$
(13)
where the indices $`i`$ and $`j`$ stand for the combination of Dirac index and momenta $`(\alpha ,p)`$ which label fermionic matrix elements, so that $`M_{ij}^{(\mathrm{int})}`$ represents $`\lambda _\alpha ^{(0)}(p)|M^{(\mathrm{int})}(p,q)|\lambda _\beta ^{(0)}(q)`$. Here $`|\lambda _\beta ^{(0)}(q)`$ represents a free fermion eigenvalue. The traces in (13) are just the diagrams which contribute to the vacuum polarization tensor.

Setting $`t_i=M_{ii}^{(\mathrm{int})}`$ and $`t_{ij}=t_{ji}=M_{ij}^{(\mathrm{int})}M_{ji}^{(\mathrm{int})}M_{ii}^{(\mathrm{int})}M_{jj}^{(\mathrm{int})}`$, the ratio of partition functions is, from (13),

$$\frac{detM^{(\mathrm{W})}}{detM^{(0)}}=1+\underset{i=1}{\overset{2N^2}{}}\frac{t_i}{\lambda _i^{(0)}}\frac{1}{2}\underset{i,j=1}{\overset{2N^2}{}}\frac{t_{ij}}{\lambda _i^{(0)}\lambda _j^{(0)}}+\mathrm{}.$$
(14)
We note at this point that this expansion is analytic in $`1/2\kappa `$ with poles at $`1/2\kappa =\eta _i^{(0)}`$.

For the Gross-Neveu model, calculation of the pure bosonic expectation values is particularly simple. Indeed, one has that $`\varphi (n)=\pi (n)=0`$ and

$$\varphi (n)\varphi (m)=\pi (n)\pi (m)=2\delta _{nm}.$$
(15)
The required bosonic expectation values of the matrix elements are found to be

$`t_i`$ $``$ $`t_{\alpha ,p}=0,`$ (16)
$`t_{ij}`$ $``$ $`t_{(\alpha ,p)(\beta ,q)}={\displaystyle \frac{2\widehat{g}^2}{N^2}}\left\{(1)^{\alpha +\beta }{\displaystyle \frac{_\rho \mathrm{sin}q_\rho \mathrm{sin}p_\rho }{\sqrt{_\mu \mathrm{sin}^2q_\mu _\nu \mathrm{sin}^2p_\nu }}}1\right\}.`$ (17)
An alternative formulation of the partition function may be obtained by writing the Wilson fermion matrix as $`M^{(\mathrm{W})}=1/2\kappa +H`$ where $`H`$ is the hopping matrix. The fermion determinant $`detM^{(\mathrm{W})}=det(1/2\kappa +H)`$, is a polynomial in $`1/2\kappa `$ since for finite lattice size these matrices are of finite dimension. Indeed, for an $`N\times N`$ lattice this polynomial is of degree $`2N^2`$. Therefore the bosonic expectation value of the fermion determinant is also a polynomial of the same degree in $`1/2\kappa `$ and as such may be written in terms of its $`2N^2`$ zeroes, now labeled $`\eta _i`$.

We may thus write a ‘multiplicative’ weak coupling expansion as

$$\frac{detM^{(\mathrm{W})}}{detM^{(0)}}=\underset{i=1}{\overset{2N^2}{}}\left(\frac{1/2\kappa \eta _i}{\lambda _i^{(0)}}\right)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{2N^2}{}}\left(1\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_i}{\lambda _i^{(0)}}\right),$$
(18)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i=\eta _i\eta _{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{(0)}`$ are the shifts that occur in the zeroes when the bosonic fields are turned on. These are the quantities to be determined. Note that the expression (18) is, like (14), analytic in $`1/2\kappa `$ with poles at $`\eta _i^{(0)}`$. Expanding (18) gives

$$\frac{detM^{(\mathrm{W})}}{detM^{(0)}}=1\underset{i=1}{\overset{2N^2}{}}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_i}{\lambda _i^{(0)}}+\frac{1}{2}\underset{i=1}{\overset{2N^2}{}}\underset{ji}{\overset{2N^2}{}}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_i\mathrm{\Delta }_j}{\lambda _i^{(0)}\lambda _j^{(0)}}+\mathrm{}.$$
(19)
In the free fermion theory, the eigenvalues and zeroes of (10) and (11) are two- or four- fold degenerate with respect to momentum inversion. Let $`\{n\}`$ denote the $`n^{\mathrm{th}}`$ degeneracy class, so that the $`D_n`$ eigenvalues $`\lambda _{n_1}^{(0)}=\mathrm{}=\lambda _{n_{D_n}}^{(0)}`$ are identical to $`\lambda _n^{(0)}`$, say. Let $`1/2\kappa =\eta _n^{(0)}+ϵ`$ and expand the additive and multiplicative expressions (14) and (19) order by order in $`ϵ^1`$. Indentification of the expansions yields relationships between the known quantities $`t_i`$, and $`t_{ij}`$ and the shifts in the positions of the zeroes, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i`$, to $`𝒪(ϵ^1)`$ and $`𝒪(ϵ^2)`$. The $`𝒪(ϵ^1)`$ relationship is

$$\underset{n_i\{n\}}{}\mathrm{\Delta }_{n_i}\left\{1\underset{j\{n\}}{}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_j}{\eta _n^{(0)}\eta _j^{(0)}}\right\}=\underset{n_i\{n\}}{}\underset{j\{n\}}{}\frac{t_{n_ij}}{\eta _n^{(0)}\eta _j^{(0)}},$$
(20)
having used (16), while that to $`𝒪(ϵ^2)`$ is

$$\underset{n_i,n_j\{n\},n_in_j}{}\mathrm{\Delta }_{n_i}\mathrm{\Delta }_{n_j}=\underset{n_i,n_j\{n\}}{}t_{n_in_j}.$$
(21)
These relationships can be considered order by order in the coupling as well. Let $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i=\eta _i^{(1)}+\eta _i^{(2)}+𝒪(\widehat{g}^3)`$, where $`\eta _i^{(1)}`$ and and $`\eta _i^{(2)}`$ are, respectively, the order $`\widehat{g}`$ and order $`\widehat{g}^2`$ shifts in the $`i^{\mathrm{th}}`$ zero. One finds that the $`𝒪(ϵ^1)`$ equation to order $`\widehat{g}`$ is

$$\underset{n_i\{n\}}{}\eta _{n_i}^{(1)}=0,$$
(22)
while to order $`\widehat{g}^2`$ it is

$$\underset{n_i\{n\}}{}\eta _{n_i}^{(2)}=\underset{n_i\{n\},j\{n\}}{}\frac{t_{n_ij}}{\eta _n^{(0)}\eta _j^{(0)}}.$$
(23)
Also, the $`𝒪(ϵ^2)`$ equation, which is entirely $`𝒪(\widehat{g}^2)`$, is

$$\underset{n_i\{n\}}{}\left(\eta _{n_i}^{}{}_{}{}^{(1)}\right)^2=\underset{n_i,n_j\{n\}}{}t_{n_in_j}.$$
(24)
With relations (22)-(24), the multiplicative expression (19) recovers (14) to $`𝒪(\widehat{g}^2)`$. Now the additive and multiplicative expressions (14) and (18) coincide to $`𝒪(\widehat{g}^2)`$ everywhere in the complex hopping parameter plane and arbitrarily close to any pole.

In the free case, the zeroes responsible for criticality are two fold degenerate. For weak enough coupling, one expects these zeroes to govern critical behaviour in the presence of weakly coupled bosonic fields too. From (22) and (24), the first order shifts to two-fold degenerate zeroes are

$$\eta _{n_i}^{(1)}=\pm \sqrt{t_{n_1n_2}},$$
(25)
where $`n_i\{n\}`$ for $`i=1`$ or $`2`$. The second order equation in the two-fold degenerate case is

$$\eta _{n_1}^{(2)}+\eta _{n_2}^{(2)}=\underset{j\{n\}}{}\frac{t_{jn_1}^{(2)}+t_{jn_2}^{(2)}}{\eta _n^{(0)}\eta _j^{(0)}}.$$
(26)
Removing the bosonic field expectation values converts the problem into the determination of the eigenvalues of a weakly perturbed matrix whose free eigenvalues are two-fold degenerate. More explicitly, with boson expectation values removed, the eigenvalues are $`\lambda _i=\lambda _i^{(0)}\eta _i^{(1)}\eta _i^{(2)}`$, which may be determined from conventional time independent perturbation theory. This condition yields enough to fully determine the zeroes to order $`\widehat{g}^2`$. Indeed, the second order shifts are

$$\eta _{n_i}^{(2)}=\underset{j\{n\}}{}\frac{t_{jn_i}}{\eta _n^{(0)}\eta _j^{(0)}}.$$
(27)
Now using (17), the $`𝒪(\widehat{g})`$ and $`𝒪(\widehat{g}^2)`$ shifts for the erstwhile two-fold degenerate zeroes, $`\eta _\alpha (\pm |p_1|,p_2)`$ (for $`\widehat{p}_2=0`$ or $`N/2`$), are, respectively,

$`\eta _\alpha ^{(1)}(\pm |p_1|,p_2)`$ $`=`$ $`\pm i{\displaystyle \frac{2g}{N}},`$ (28)
$`\eta _\alpha ^{(2)}(\pm |p_1|,p_2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2g^2}{N^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{(\beta ,q)\{(\alpha ,p)\}}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\eta _\alpha ^{(0)}(p)\eta _\beta ^{(0)}(q)}}.`$ (29)
The partition function zeroes are ‘protocritical points’  whose real parts are pseudocritical points. In the thermodynamic limit these become the true critical points of the theory and their determination amounts to determination of the weakly coupled phase diagram, the critical line being traced out by the impact of zeroes on to the real hopping parameter axis. Thus, the phase diagram is given to order $`\widehat{g}^2`$ by the limit

$$\frac{1}{2\kappa }=\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}\left\{\eta _\alpha ^{(0)}(p)+\eta _\alpha ^{(1)}(p)+\eta _\alpha ^{(2)}(p)\right\},$$
(30)
where $`p`$ is the momentum corresponding to the lowest zeroes.

At order $`\widehat{g}^0`$, the zeroes (11) impact on the real $`1/2\kappa `$ axis at $`2`$, $`0`$ and $`2`$, giving three different continuum limits, corresponding to the nadirs of the three Aoki cusps . The true continuum limit is $`1/2\kappa =2`$. From (28) and (29), the $`𝒪(\widehat{g}^2)`$-shift is the shift in the average position of the two zeroes while their relative separation is $`𝒪(\widehat{g})`$. In the thermodynamic limit, the $`𝒪(\widehat{g})`$ terms in (28) vanish. One finds, numerically, that the imaginary contribution to the $`𝒪(\widehat{g}^2)`$ term (29) also vanishes while the real part becomes an $`N`$-independent constant. Indeed, the factor

$$\frac{1}{N^2}\underset{(\beta ,q)\{(\alpha ,p)\}}{}\frac{1}{\eta _\alpha ^{(0)}(p)\eta _\beta ^{(0)}(q)}$$
(31)
approaches approximately $`0.77`$ and $`0.77`$ for $`(\widehat{p}_1,\widehat{p}_2)=(\pm 1/2,0)`$ and $`(\pm (N1)/2,N/2)`$ respectively, and corresponding to the rightmost and leftmost critical lines. Also, (31) is approximately $`0.2`$ and $`0.2`$ for $`(\widehat{p}_1,\widehat{p}_2)=(\pm (N1)/2,0)`$ and $`(\pm 1/2,N/2)`$ respectively, these two lines generating the inner cusp.

Therefore, the degeneracy of the free fermion critical point corresponding to the central cusp in Aoki’s phase diagram is indeed lifted and two critical lines emerge in the presence of weak bosonic coupling. These critical lines are $`1/2\kappa \pm 0.4\widehat{g}^2`$. The Aoki phase does not yet emerge to $`𝒪(\widehat{g}^2)`$ from the left- and rightmost critical points. This is the answer to the question posed by Creutz in  at least for the single flavour Gross-Neveu model. Instead the right- and leftmost critical lines are $`1/2\kappa \pm (21.54\widehat{g}^2)`$ respectively.

This weakly coupled phase diagram is pictured in Fig. 1 (dark lines). From left to right, the critical lines are traced out by the thermodynamic limits of the zeroes indexed by $`(\widehat{p}_1,\widehat{p}_2)`$ = $`(\pm (N1)/2,N/2)`$, $`(\pm (N1)/2,0)`$, $`(\pm 1/2,N/2)`$ and $`(\pm 1/2,0)`$ respectively. The lighter curves are a schematic representation of the expected full phase diagram.

In conclusion, we have developed a new type of weak coupling expansion which is multiplicative rather than additive in nature and focuses on the Lee-Yang zeroes, or protocritical points, of a lattice field theory with Wilson fermions. This expansion is applied to the Gross-Neveu model, where the existence of an Aoki phase was first suggested. The weakly coupled regime is the one of primary interest as it is there, as with all asymptotically free models, that the continuum limit is taken. The method, applied to the single flavour Gross-Neveu model, yields a phase diagram in this region which is consistent with that of Aoki and the widths of the Aoki cusps are determined to order $`\widehat{g}^2`$.

Acknowledgements: RK wishes to thank M. Creutz for a discussion.