text:
# In: Eisner, J., L. Karttunen and A. Thériault (eds.), Finite-State Phonology: Proc. of the 5th Workshop of the ACL Special Interest Group in Computational Phonology (SIGPHON), pp. 57-67, Luxembourg, Aug. 2000. Taking Primitive Optimality Theory Beyond the Finite State

## 1 Introduction

The goals of this paper are as follows:

* To show how finite-state models of Optimality Theoretic phonology (such as OTP) can be extended to deal with non-finite state phenomena (such as reduplication) in a principled way.
* To provide an OTP treatment of reduplication using the standard Correspondence Theory account.
* To extend the Earley chart parsing algorithm to multiple context free grammars (MCFGs).

The basic idea of this approach is to begin with a non-finite-state description of the space of acceptable candidates (*e.g.,* candidates with some sort of reduplication inherent in them, or candidates which are the outputs of a syntactic grammar), and to repeatedly intersect the high-level grammar representing those candidates with finite state machines representing constraints. The intersection operation is one of weighted intersection (where only the set of lowest-weighted candidates survive) in order to model Optimality Theory, and will make use of a modified version of the Earley parsing algorithm.

There are at least two alternative approaches to that which we will propose here: to abandon finite state models altogether and move to uniformly higher-level approaches (*e.g.,* ?)), or to modify finite state models minimally to allow for (perhaps limited) reduplication (*e.g.,* ?)). The first of these alternative approaches deals with context free grammars alone, so it would not be able to model reduplicative effects. Besides this, it seems preferable to stick with finite-state approaches as far as possible, because phonological effects beyond the finite state seem quite rare. The second of these approaches seems reasonable in itself, but it is not suited for the type of analyses for which the approach laid out here is designed. In particular, Walther’s approach is tied to One-Level Phonology, a theory which limits itself to surface-true generalizations, whereas the approach here is designed to model Optimality Theory—a system with violable constraints—and in particular Correspondence Theory. Tesar’s approach as well, while it is a model of Optimality Theory, does not seem suited to Correspondence Theory. A final argument for using this approach, in preference to one similar to Walther’s approach, is that it can be extended to cover other non-finite-state areas of phonology, such as phrasal stress patterns, with no modification to the basic model.

## 2 Quick Overview of OTP

### 2.1 Optimality Theory

Optimality Theory (OT), of which OTP is a formalized computational model, is structured as follows, with three components:

1. Gen: a procedure that produces infinite surface candidates from an underlying representation (UR)
2. Con: a set of constraints, defined as functions from representations to integers
3. Eval: an evaluation procedure that, in succession, winnows out the candidates produced by Gen.

So OT is a theory that deals with potentially infinite sets of phonological representations. The OT framework does not by itself specify the character of these representations, however.

### 2.2 Primitive Optimality Theory (OTP)

The components of OT, as modeled by OTP (see ?), ?), ?)):

1. Gen: a procedure that produces from an underlying representation a finite state machine that represents all possible surface candidates that contain that UR (always an infinite set)
2. Con: a set of constraints definable in a restricted formalism—internally represented as Weighted Deterministic Finite Automata (WDFAs) which accept any string in the representational alphabet. The weights correspond to constraint violations. The weights passed through when accepting a string are the violations incurred by that string.
3. Eval: the following procedure, where $`I`$ represents the input FSM produced by Gen, and $`M`$ is a machine representing the output set of candidates:

$`MI`$
for all $`C_i\mathrm{𝐂𝐨𝐧}`$, taken in rank order do
$`M`$ intersection of $`M`$ with $`C_i`$
Remove non-optimal paths from $`M`$
Zero out weights in $`M`$
end for

Representations in OTP are gestural scores using symbols from the set $`\{,+,[,],|\}`$. See Figure 1 for an example.

This figure shows a CVCC syllable in a conventional notation, and also in OTP notation. The OTP notation is slightly more complex, though, in that it also shows an underlying form for the syllable. The overlap relation of the conventional notation’s association lines is expressed in the OTP notation by the presence of constituent interiors (“+”) in the same vertical slice through the diagram. This same-time-slice-membership relation is also used to show correspondence. Thus we see from this diagram that the surface “CVCC” syllable corresponds to underlying “VCC,” and that the initial “C” does not correspond to any underlying segment. Note that tiers with no special marking are used to represent the surface level of representation, and underlined tiers are used to represent the underlying level of representation.

## 3 Handling Reduplication: Overview

### 3.1 Overview

Finite State Machines are useful in phonology because it is possible to take any two finite state machines, each of which represents a set of strings, and perform an *intersection* operation on them. The resulting machine represents the intersection of the two sets of strings. For example, this allows us to use constraints represented as FSMs to limit a candidate set.

Although we would sometimes like to characterize the candidate sets using CFGs or MCFGs, it must be kept in mind that these formalisms do not have the property of being intersectable with each other. Thus, in OTP terms, it would not be possible to represent the constraints as CFGs or MCFGs. However, there is a way out: it is possible to intersect an FSM with a CFG or an MCFG.

Based on the above, an approach to handing reduplication in phonology becomes clear—we start with an MCFG that enforces reduplicative identity, then intersect it with the input FSM (produced by Gen), then the constraint FSMs, as before. The hard part, then, is to come up with an efficient FSM-intersection algorithm for MCFGs which also deals correctly with weighted FSMs.

### 3.2 MCFGs

A grammar formalism that is midway between CFGs and CSGs in expressive power, an MCFG is like a CFG except that categories may rewrite to tuples of strings instead of rewriting to just one string as usual. It should be noted that MCFGs have been shown \[van Vugt (1996\] to be equivalent to string-valued attribute grammars with only s-attributes, relational grammars, and top-down tree-to-string transducers, so we could use any one of these grammars to provide a candidate space. As an example of an MCFG, here’s a simple MCFG for the language $`\{ww|w\{0,1\}^+\}`$ (the language of total reduplication):

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill S& & A_0A_1\hfill \\ \hfill A& & (1,1)\hfill \\ & |& (0,0)\hfill \\ & |& (0A_0,0A_1)\hfill \\ & |& (1A_0,1A_1)\hfill \end{array}$$

The nonterminals of this grammar are *S*, which has arity 1, and *A*, which has arity 2. The right-hand sides of the productions include notations such as $`A_0`$, which indicate the placement of each part of the tuple-yield of any category. Here, $`A_0`$ and $`A_1`$ are the two parts of the single category $`A`$, so a rule like $`A(0A_0,0A_1)`$ indicates that $`A`$ rewrites to $`\mathrm{0\hspace{0.25em}0}A`$, with the actual strings arranged in a tuple with a $`0`$ preceding the first part of $`A`$ in the first half of the pair, and $`0`$ preceding the second part of $`A`$ in the second half of the pair.

This grammar is in the normal form required by the algorithms presented here. This normal form can be characterized as follows:

> For any category $`C`$ of arity greater than 1, the category may appear in the right hand side of a production only if the right hand side refers to each element of $`C`$ exactly once.

A derivation of the string “010010” in this grammar would go as follows: $`S`$ rewrites as $`A_0A_1`$, that is, to the concatenation of the string-yield of the two parts of $`A`$. From here, $`A_0`$ and $`A_1`$ must both come from the parts of a single one of the four productions for $`A`$. $`A`$ then rewrites to $`(0A_0,0A_1)`$, making, for example, the value of $`A_0`$ in the $`S`$ production be $`(0A_0)`$. $`A`$ then rewrites to $`(1A_0,1A_1)`$, so $`S`$ reduces to $`01A_0\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}01}A_1`$. Finally, $`A`$ rewrites to $`(0,0)`$, leaving the value of $`S`$ as $`010010`$. This derivation is illustrated in Figure 2, the left side of which depicts the derivation tree, while its right side shows (from the bottom up) the string-yield of each non-terminal (shown just below and to the right of it).

### 3.3 Representation of Reduplicative Forms in OTP

OTP constraints are inherently local—they can only refer to overlap or non-overlap of interiors or edges in an instant of time. Therefore, to enforce correspondences between forms, they must be juxtaposed so as to occur in the same time-slices. In OTP, correspondence between the surface and underlying forms is established by using one set of tiers for the surface form (each tier represents either a feature or a type of prosodic constituent) and another corresponding set for the underlying form. For example, the tier *son* might specify the distribution of the surface feature “sonorant”, while the tier *son* would specify its underlying correspondent. Elements of those tiers placed in the same time-slice are considered to be in correspondence with one another. In order to create correspondence between two portions of the same surface form, then, we need to somehow have them simultaneously juxtaposed so as to appear in the same segments of time and separated in time as they will be on the surface. This is accomplished by a representational trick: in the example of reduplication, a copy of the reduplicant’s surface form is placed in a special set of tiers within the base:

> | SL: | BASE | RED2 |
> | --- | --- | --- |
> | UL: | UR1 | UR2 |
> | RL: | RED1 |  |
>
> — or —
>
> | SL: | RED2 | BASE |
> | --- | --- | --- |
> | UL: | UR2 | UR1 |
> | RL: |  | RED1 |

In these representations SL stands for the surface level of representation, UL for the underlying level, and RL for the special reduplicant level (the place where a copy of the reduplicant is kept). UR1 and UR2 are identical in the input, and RED1 and RED2 need to be kept identical by other means. The means chosen here is to use an MCFG enforcing the identity. BASE-RED correspondence constraints operate upon RED1 while templatic and general surface well-formedness constraints operate upon RED2. An example of this sort of representation might help here. Suppose that there are two surface tiers, *C* and *V*. Then a form such as \[CV+CVC\] (with CV prefixing reduplication, assuming that the base is CVC, and with the underlying form RED+/VC/) might be represented as follows:

| C: | \[ + \] - - - \[ + \] - \[ + \] |
| --- | --- |
| V: | \- - \[ + \] - - - \[ + \] - - |
| C: | \- - - - \[ + \] - - - \[ + \] |
| V: | \- - \[ + \] - - - \[ + \] - - |
| C: | \- - - - - - \[ + \] - - - - |
| V: | \- - - - - - - - \[ + \] - - |
| INS: | \[ + \] - - - \[ + \] - - - - |
| DEL: | \- - - - \[ + \] - - - - - - |
| RDEL: | \- - - - - - - - - - \[ + \] |
| RED: | \[ + + + + + \] - - - - - - |
| BASE: | \- - - - - - \[ + + + + + \] |

Note here that the special *BASE* and *RED* tiers indicate the portions of the surface forms that are the base and reduplicant, and that the reduplicant level of representation (that is, the level that holds the copy of the reduplicant used for correspondence) is present on the tiers labeled with double underlines. The *INS* tier represents a time-discrepancy between the levels of representation where time does not exist on the underlying level (so the period of time taken up by the initial C in the surface reduplicant and base doesn’t correspond to anything in the underlying level), and the *DEL* tier represents time that does not exist on the surface level, so the time taken up by the final C in the underlying form of the reduplicant does not correspond to anything on the surface. The *RDEL* tier is a mirror of the contents of the *DEL* tier in the surface reduplicant, and thus represents time that does not exist in the special reference copy of the reduplicant. This representation allows us to notice that the reduplicant fits a CV template — the left edge of it is aligned with a surface C, the right edge with a surface V, and there are no other segments within it. (The relevant OTP constraints to reinforce this would be “RED$`[`$ $``$ C$`[`$,” “$`]`$RED $``$ $`]`$V,” “$`]`$C $``$ C$`[`$ $``$ RED,” and “$`]`$C $``$ V$`[`$ $``$ RED,” if highly ranked and in that order.)

In terms of translating these representations to finite state machines (or to strings), we use the alphabet $`\{,+,[,],|\}`$, so that each FSM edge is labeled with a member of this alphabet. This representation differs from that of earlier accounts of OTP, in that the FSM edges in those accounts represented entire time slices, whereas an edge in this representation represents a single tier in a time slice. As an example, the representation of:

> | C: | \[ | + | \] |
> | --- | --- | --- | --- |
> | V: | - | - | - |

is as shown in Figure 3, where the “C” and “V” labels are not part of the representation, but just there to ease reading.

### 3.4 The Grammar Used

The grammar used here is a bit complicated, but the important thing to note about it is that it generates exactly the set of possible OTP output forms in which the special reduplicant reference level of representation contains an exact copy of the surface reduplicant, placed within the time-duration of the base. The grammar for a situation in which there are two surface tiers appears in Figure 4. Extending this grammar to other numbers of tiers is straightforward. The constituents of this grammar are as follows:

The start symbol.

Non-reduplicating material (such as non-reduplicating morphemes) before and/or after the reduplicating material.

The surface tiers in a time-slice.

The underlying tiers in a time-slice.

The reduplicant reference-level tiers in a time-slice where the tiers must contain the value $``$ (that is, outside of the base, which is the only place where the reduplicant level is used).

The reduplicating part of an utterance.

A right-facing boundary (allows anything to be in the surface tiers during its time-slice, and copies the right-facing half of that material into the reduplicant).

A left-facing boundary (see BDR).

The surface tiers in a time-slice plus identical material in the reduplicant tiers. Thus B represents an item in the reduplicant plus its copy in the special reduplicant reference level.

The remaining non-terminals define different values for the INS, DEL, RDEL, RED, and BASE tiers, where INS and DEL are as defined in ?), RDEL represents time that does not exist in the reduplicant, RED represents the reduplicant (as a morpheme boundary), and BASE represents the base as a morpheme boundary:

represents the state of not being in the base or the reduplicant.

represents the left edge of the reduplicant.

represents the right edge of the reduplicant.

represents the left edge of the base.

represents the right edge of the base.

represents a boundary between a reduplicant and a base, where the reduplicant comes first.

represents the reverse of RB.

represents the inside of the reduplicant.

represents the inside of the base.

In this grammar any given time-slice will be defined as SSR or the first component of one of the $`B`$ categories, followed by UR, followed by MRD or the second component of one of the $`B`$ categories, followed by one of the NBR, etc., categories.

## 4 The Earley Algorithm

The Earley algorithm is an efficient chart parsing method. Chart parsing can be seen as a method for taking the intersection of a string or FSM with a CFG (later, an MCFG). Here we take a CFG as a 4-tuple $`V,N,P,S`$ where $`V`$ represents the set of terminals in the grammar, $`N`$ represents the set of non-terminals, $`P`$ represents the set of productions, and $`SN`$ is the start symbol. In the definitions to follow, $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$, and $`\gamma `$ represent arbitrary members of $`(VN)^{}`$, $`A`$ and $`C`$ represent arbitrary members of $`N`$, $`a`$ and $`b`$ represent arbitrary members of $`V`$, $`p`$ represents an arbitrary member of $`P`$, and the indices $`i`$, $`j`$, and $`k`$ represent positions within the input string to be parsed, numbered as in Figure 5.

In the standard definition, a member of the chart is a 3-tuple $`(i,C\alpha \beta ,j)`$, where $`i`$ represents the position at the beginning of the input string covered by $`\alpha `$ and $`j`$ represents the position at the end of the covered portion of the string. The parsing operation in the standard definition, which parses a single input string, is defined as a closure via the following three inference rules of a chart initially consisting of $`(0,S\alpha ,0)`$:

$`\frac{(i,C\alpha A\beta ,j)}{(j,A\gamma ,j)}`$ if $`A\gamma P`$ (if $`\gamma `$ begins with a terminal, that terminal must be the symbol at position $`j`$ in the input string)

$`\frac{(i,C\alpha a\beta ,j)}{(i,C\alpha a\beta ,j+1)}`$ if $`a`$ is the symbol after $`j`$

$`\frac{(i,C\alpha A\beta ,j)(j,A\gamma ,k)}{(i,C\alpha A\beta ,k)}`$

The input string is recognized if the chart contains an element $`(0,S\alpha ,n)`$, where $`n`$ is the final position of the input string.

## 5 Extending Earley

The algorithm presented so far just checks to see whether a particular string exists in a grammar. In order for it to be useful for our purposes, the following extensions must be made:

1. Intersection with an FSM, not just a string
2. Recovery of intersection grammar
3. Weights (intersection should allow lowest-weight derivations only)
4. MCFGs

### 5.1 Intersection with an FSM

To modify the algorithm to intersect a grammar with an FSM, we replace the input string with an FSM, and change our definition of a chart entry. Now, a chart entry is a 3-tuple $`(i,C\alpha \beta ,j)`$, where $`i`$ represents the first FSM state covered by $`\alpha `$ and $`j`$ represents the last FSM state covered. We define an FSM here as a 5-tuple $`Q,\mathrm{\Sigma },s,F,M`$, where $`Q`$ is the set of states in the FSM, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is the label alphabet for the FSM (for our purposes $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is always the same as $`V`$ for all grammars in use), $`sQ`$ is the start state, $`FQ`$ is the set of final states of the FSM, and $`M`$ is a set of 3-tuples $`(i,a,j)`$, which represent transitions from state $`i`$ to state $`j`$ with label $`a`$. Given these redefinitions we can then just modify the scan rule:

$`\frac{(i,C\alpha a\beta ,j)}{(i,C\alpha a\beta ,j+1)}`$ if $`(j,a,k)M`$, where $`M`$ is the input FSM.

and the predict rule in the obvious way:

$`\frac{(i,C\alpha A\beta ,j)}{(j,A\gamma ,j)}`$ if $`A\gamma P`$ (if $`\gamma `$ is of the form $`a\gamma ^{}`$, $`(j,a,k)M`$ must hold as well)

Note that the initial entry in the chart is now $`(s,S\alpha ,s)`$.

### 5.2 Grammar Recovery

It is possible to recover the output of intersection by increasing slightly what is in the chart. In particular, for every item on the chart, we note how it got there (just the last step). Each item on the chart may be referred to by its column number $`C`$ and its position $`N`$ within that column. We annotate only items produced by scan and complete steps, as follows:

* $`sC/N`$
* $`cC_1/N_1;C_2/N_2`$

where $`C_1/N_1`$ refers to the $`(j,A\gamma ,k)`$ item from the complete step, and $`C_2/N_2`$ refers to the $`(i,C\alpha A\beta ,j)`$ item. A chart item is thus now a 4-tuple $`(i,C\alpha \beta ,j,H)`$, where $`H`$ is a set of history items of the type described here, one for each scan or complete step that put the item there.

Recovery of a grammar then starts from the “success items,” that is items in the chart that begin in state 1 and end with a final state and represent a production from the start symbol of the grammar, with the Earley position dot at the end of the production. We then move from right to left within those productions, filling in the state pairs for each constituent we pass, and tracing through their productions as well. Whenever we get to the left side of a production, we output it. The exact algorithm is as follows:

$`\text{queue}[]`$
for all $`\text{success items}(s,S\gamma ,fF,H_0)`$ at $`(C,N)`$ do
queue up $`(C,N)`$ onto *queue*
while *queue* not empty do
$`(C,N)`$ dequeue from *queue*
*item* $``$ item at $`(C,N)`$: $`(i,A\alpha ,j,H_1)`$
*pos* $``$ pos. of $``$ in *item*
*RHSs* $``$ GetRHSs(\[\[\]\], *item, pos, queue*)
for all *RHS* $``$ *RHSs* do
output “$`A(i,j)\text{RHS}`$
end for
end while
end for
if $`\text{pos}=0`$ then
return *rhss*
end if
*new\_rhss* $`[]`$
for all history path components *hitem* of *item* do
$`\text{rhss}^{}`$ copy *rhss*
extend($`\text{rhss}^{}`$, *hitem, pos, queue*)
add $`\text{rhss}^{}`$ to *new\_rhss*
end for
return *new\_rhss*
if *hitem* = s$`(C,N)`$ then
prepend scanned symbol to each *rhs* $``$ *rhss*
*prev* $``$ item at $`(C,N)`$
else if *hitem* = c$`(C_1/N_1;C_2/N_2)`$ then
$`(i,A\gamma ,j,H)`$ item at $`(C_1,N_1)`$
prepend $`A(i,j)`$ to each *rhs* $``$ *rhss*
enter $`(C_1,N_1)`$ into *queue*
*prev* $``$ item at $`(C_2,N_2)`$
end if
return GetRHSs(*rhss, item, pos$`1`$, queue*)
### 5.3 Weights

The basic idea for handling weights is an adaption from the Viterbi algorithm, as used for chart parsing of probabilistic grammars. Basically, we reduce the grammar to allow only the lowest-weight derivations from each new category.

##### Implementation:

Each chart item has an associated weight, computed as follows:

weight of the predicted rule $`A\gamma `$

sum of the weight of the item scanned from and the weight of the FSM edge scanned across.

sum of the weights of the two items involved

We build new chart items whenever permitted by the rules given in previous sections, assigning weights to them by the above considerations. If no equivalent item (equivalence ignores weight and path to the item) is in the chart, we add the item. If an equivalent item is in the chart, there are three possible actions, according to the weight of the new item:

1. Higher than the old item: do nothing (don’t add the new path).
2. Lower than the old item: remove all other paths to the item, add this path to the item. Adjust weights of all items built from this one downward.
3. Same as the old item: add the new path to the item.

A chart item is thus now a 5-tuple $`(w,i,C\alpha \beta ,j,H)`$, where $`w`$ represents a weight, and all the other items are as before.

### 5.4 MCFGs

To extend the Earley algorithm to MCFGs, we first reduce the chart-building part of the Earley algorithm for MCFGs to the already-worked out algorithm for CFGs by converting the MCFG into a (not-equivalent) CFG. We then modify the grammar-recovery step to convert the CFG produced into an MCFG, verifying that the MCFG produced is a proper one.

#### 5.4.1 Adjustments to the Chart-Building Algorithm:

First, we treat each part of the rule as a separate rule, and use the regular algorithm. Thus, B$``$$`\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ 1\end{array}\right)`$ becomes B0$`0`$ and B1$`1`$. Having separated a single rule such as $`C(\alpha ,\beta )`$ into two parts $`C_0\alpha `$ and $`C_1\beta `$, we need to keep track, when building the chart and after, of which rule in the associated MCFG each chart item refers to. These annotations will be useful in Grammar Recovery (something like $`C_0\alpha `$ can only be combined with $`C_1\beta `$ if they both come from the same MCFG rule). Thus, a chart item is a 6-tuple $`(r,w,i,C\alpha \beta ,j,H)`$, where $`r`$ is the rule number from the original MCFG to which the production $`C\alpha \beta `$ corresponds, and all the others are as before.

#### 5.4.2 Adjustments to Grammar Recovery

As before, followed by a final combinatory and checking step:

for all non-terminals $`A`$ with arity $`n`$ do
for all possible combinations $`A_0(i,j)\gamma _0,A_1(k,l)\gamma _1,\mathrm{},A_n(m,n)\gamma _n`$ do
if the MCFG condition applies to the combination then
output $`A(i,j)(k,l)\mathrm{}(m,n)(\gamma _0,\gamma _1,\mathrm{},\gamma _n)`$
end if
end for
end for
where the MCFG condition is as follows:

> All $`\gamma _i`$ on the right hand side of the combination must be derived from the same rule in the original set of rules and their yields must not overlap each other in the FSM.

Given the way the chart-parsing and recovery algorithms work, the MCFG condition will be satisfied if we simply check that all the elements of the combination come from the same rule in the original MCFG. This will result in some invalid rules in the output grammar, but this simple check guarantees that these rules will be such that they will be unable to participate in derivations, since their right-hand sides will refer to categories that do not head any productions.

### 5.5 Example

As an example, let’s take the simple reduplication grammar from before:

$$\begin{array}{cccc}(1)& \hfill S& & A_0A_1\hfill \\ (2)& \hfill A& & (1,1)\hfill \\ (3)& & |& (0,0)\hfill \\ (4)& & |& (0A_0,0A_1)\hfill \\ (5)& & |& (1A_0,1A_1)\hfill \end{array}$$

and intersect it with the machine

>

This machine generates the set of strings $`\{0|1\}^+`$, but weights all strings ending with $`0`$.

The corresponding CFG-grammar used for the chart-building step is as follows:

$$\begin{array}{cccc}(1)& \hfill S& & A_0A_1\hfill \\ (2)& \hfill A_0& & 1\hfill \\ & \hfill A_1& & 1\hfill \\ (3)& \hfill A_0& & 0\hfill \\ & \hfill A_1& & 0\hfill \\ (4)& \hfill A_0& & 0A_0\hfill \\ & \hfill A_1& & 0A_1\hfill \\ (5)& \hfill A_0& & 1A_0\hfill \\ & \hfill A_1& & 1A_1\hfill \end{array}$$

The chart produced by the chart-building part of the algorithm is as follows:

Column 1 ($`j=1`$, $`i=1`$)

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}\hfill \mathrm{\#}& r& w& P& H\\ & & & & \\ \hfill 0& 1& 0& SA_0A_1& \mathrm{}\\ \hfill 1& 2& 0& A_01& \mathrm{}\\ \hfill 2& 3& 0& A_00& \mathrm{}\\ \hfill 3& 4& 0& A_00A_0& \mathrm{}\\ \hfill 4& 5& 0& A_01A_0& \mathrm{}\\ \hfill 5& 5& 0& A_01A_0& \{s1/4\}\\ \hfill 6& 4& 0& A_00A_0& \{s1/3\}\\ \hfill 7& 3& 0& A_00& \{s1/2\}\\ \hfill 8& 1& 0& SA_0A_1& \\ & \multicolumn{4}{c}{\{c1/7;1/0,c1/10;1/0,c1/9;1/0,c1/22;1/0\}}\\ \hfill 9& 5& 0& A_01A_0& \\ & \multicolumn{4}{c}{\{c1/7;1/5,c1/10;1/5,c1/9;1/5,c1/22;1/5\}}\\ \hfill 10& 4& 0& A_00A_0& \\ & \multicolumn{4}{c}{\{c1/7;1/6,c1/10;1/6,c1/9;1/6,c1/22;1/6\}}\\ \hfill 11& 2& 0& A_11& \mathrm{}\\ \hfill 12& 3& 0& A_10& \mathrm{}\\ \hfill 13& 4& 0& A_10A_1& \mathrm{}\\ \hfill 14& 5& 0& A_11A_1& \mathrm{}\\ \hfill 15& 5& 0& A_11A_1& \{s1/14\}\\ \hfill 16& 4& 0& A_10A_1& \{s1/13\}\\ \hfill 17& 3& 0& A_10& \{s1/12\}\\ \hfill 18& 1& 0& SA_0A_1& \\ & \multicolumn{4}{c}{\{c1/17;1/8,c1/20;1/8,c1/19;1/8,c1/21;1/8\}}\\ \hfill 19& 5& 0& A_11A_1& \\ & \multicolumn{4}{c}{\{c1/17;1/14,c1/20;1/14,c1/19;1/14,c1/21;1/14\}}\\ \hfill 20& 4& 0& A_10A_1& \\ & \multicolumn{4}{c}{\{c1/17;1/13,c1/20;1/13,c1/19;1/13,c1/21;1/13\}}\\ \hfill 21& 2& 0& A_11& \{s1/11\}\\ \hfill 22& 2& 0& A_01& \{s1/1\}\end{array}$$

Column 2 ($`j=2`$, $`i=1`$)

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}\hfill \mathrm{\#}& r& w& P& H\\ & & & & \\ \hfill 0& 5& 0& A_01A_0& \{s1/4\}\\ \hfill 1& 4& 1& A_00A_0& \{s1/3\}\\ \hfill 2& 3& 1& A_00& \{s1/2\}\\ \hfill 3& 1& 0& SA_0A_1& \\ & \multicolumn{4}{c}{\{c2/13;1/0,c2/5;1/0,c2/4;1/0\}}\\ \hfill 4& 5& 0& A_01A_0& \\ & \multicolumn{4}{c}{\{c2/13;1/5,c2/5;1/5,c2/4;1/5\}}\\ \hfill 5& 4& 0& A_00A_0& \\ & \multicolumn{4}{c}{\{c2/13;1/6,c2/5;1/6,c2/4;1/6\}}\\ \hfill 6& 5& 0& A_11A_1& \{s1/14\}\\ \hfill 7& 4& 1& A_10A_1& \{s1/13\}\\ \hfill 8& 3& 1& A_10& \{s1/12\}\\ \hfill 9& 1& 0& SA_0A_1& \\ & \multicolumn{4}{c}{\{c2/12;1/8,c2/11;1/8,c2/10;1/8\}}\\ \hfill 10& 5& 0& A_11A_1& \\ & \multicolumn{4}{c}{\{c2/12;1/15,c2/11;1/15,c2/10;1/15\}}\\ \hfill 11& 4& 0& A_10A_1& \\ & \multicolumn{4}{c}{\{c2/12;1/16,c2/11;1/16,c2/10;1/16\}}\\ \hfill 12& 2& 0& A_11& \{s1/11\}\\ \hfill 13& 2& 0& A_01& \{s1/1\}\end{array}$$

In this chart the items with an empty history list were entered by prediction steps. The “success item” for this grammar is then item (2,9): $`(r=1,w=0,i=1,p=SA_0A_1,j=2,H=\{c2/12;1/8,c2/11;1/8,c2/10;1/8\})`$, so begin there:

$$S(1,2)A_0A_1$$

We then queue up (2,12), (2,11), and (2,10), noting that for all of these the states for $`A_1`$ are (1,2), and we move to item (1,8): $`(r=1,w=0,i=1,p=SA_0A_1,j=1,H=\{c1/7;1/0,c1/10;1/0,c1/9;1/0,c1/22;1/0\})`$. Here we queue up (1,7), (1,10), (1,9), and (1,22), noting that for all of these the states for $`A_0`$ are (1,1). Moving to (1,0), we note that we are done, and we thus output a complete rule:

$$(r1)S(1,2)A_0(1,1)A_1(1,2).$$

We then encounter (2,12) on the queue: $`(r=2,w=0,i=1,p=A_11,j=2,H=\{s1/11\})`$, which can be output with no further ado:

$$(r2)A_1(1,2)1$$

Moving to item (2,11) $`(r=4,w=0,i=1,p=A_10A_1,j=2,H=\{c2/12;1/16,c2/11;1/16,c2/10;1/16\})`$ we don’t need to queue anything, and we can see that the output will be:

$$(r4)A_1(1,2)0A_1(1,2)$$

Item (2,10) is $`(r=5,w=0,i=1,p=A_11A_1,j=2,H=\{c2/12;1/15,c2/11;1/15,c2/10;1/15\})`$, so we output

$$(r5)A_1(1,2)1A_1(1,2)$$

We now move on to item (1,7): $`(r=3,w=0,i=1,p=A_00,j=1,H=\{s1/2\})`$, which we output as

$$(r3)A_0(1,1)0.$$

Item (1,10) is $`(r=4,w=0,i=1,p=A_00A_0,j=1,H=\{c1/7;1/6,c1/10;1/6,c1/9;1/6,c1/22;1/6\})`$. In dealing with this we need to queue nothing, and we output:

$$(r4)A_0(1,1)0A_0(1,1)$$

Moving to (1,9), which is $`(r=5,w=0,i=1,p=A_01A_0,j=1,H=\{c1/7;1/5,c1/10;1/5,c1/9;1/5,c1/22;1/5\})`$, we queue nothing and output

$$(r5)A_0(1,1)1A_0(1,1)$$

Finally we get to (1,22): $`(r=2,w=0,i=1,p=A_01,j=1,H=\{s1/1\})`$, which gets output as

$$(r2)A_0(1,1)1$$

Collecting these together (for category $`A`$), we get the following pairings:

$$\left(\begin{array}{ccccccc}\left(r2\right)& \hfill A_0(1,1)& & 1\hfill & \hfill A_1(1,2)& & 1\hfill \\ \left(r3\right)& \hfill A_0(1,1)& & 0\hfill & & & \\ \left(r4\right)& \hfill A_0(1,1)& & 0A_0(1,1)\hfill & \hfill A_1(1,2)& & 0A_1(1,2)\hfill \\ \left(r5\right)& \hfill A_0(1,1)& & 1A_0(1,1)\hfill & \hfill A_1(1,2)& & 1A_1(1,2)\hfill \end{array}\right)$$

Note that the “pair” for (r3) has no second member, so nothing will be output for it. Combining the compatible rules, we get the following grammar:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill S(1,2)& & A(1,1)(1,2)_0A(1,1)(1,2)_1\hfill \\ \hfill A(1,1)(1,2)& & (1,1)\hfill \\ & |& (0A_0(1,1)(1,2),0A_1(1,1)(1,2))\hfill \\ & |& (1A_0(1,1)(1,2),1A_1(1,1)(1,2))\hfill \end{array}$$

which is equivalent to the grammar:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill S& & A_0A_1\hfill \\ \hfill A& & (1,1)\hfill \\ & |& (0A_0,0A_1)\hfill \\ & |& (1A_0,1A_1)\hfill \end{array}$$

This grammar indeed represents the best outputs from the intersection—all reduplicating forms which end in a 1.


format: text

text:
# The superconductor insulator transition in systems of ultrasmall grains

## Abstract

We present transport measurements on quench condensed granular Pb films in which the grains are $`4080`$Å in diameter. These films show a cross over from an insulator to a superconductor behavior as the nominal thickness of the layer is increased. This transition is different in nature than those seen in quench condensed systems reported in the past where the films were either uniform or granular with grain sizes on the order of $`200`$Å. We discuss possible physical mechanisms for these transitions.

PACS: 74.80.Bj, 74.76.Db, 74.50.+r

The superconductor insulator transition (SIT) in thin layers has attracted a lot of interest for close to three decades and has been lately revived due to the possibility that it is a quantum phase transition at T=0 . A number of theoretical scenarios have been suggested to try to explain why superconductivity is destroyed as the thickness of the layer is decreased. These can be classified into two major classes. The first invokes a ”Bosonic” picture in which isolated superconducting islands exist in a non superconducting matrix. Here, Cooper pairs are localized on the islands resulting in an insulating behavior of the film. The other scenario  proposes localization of single electrons as a result of disorder and Coulomb interaction effects.

The technique of quench condensation, i.e. sequential evaporation on a cryogenically cold substrate under UHV conditions, has proven to be a very useful tool for studying the SIT. Depending on the choice of substrate, this technique enables one to probe both mechanisms of the SIT: If the samples are quench condensed on a passivated substrate (such as SiO), they grow in a granular manner so that the film brakes up into separated islands. The average distance between the islands decreases upon adding material. In these samples there is a critical thickness $`d_c`$, below which no conductivity can be measured. For granular Pb, $`d_c100`$Å. Once the thickness, d, of the sample is larger than $`d_c,`$ the sheet resistance, $`R`$, drops exponentially with thickness until, for $`R6k\mathrm{\Omega },`$ it switches to a normal Ohmic behavior ($`R1/d`$). STM measurements on quench condensed Pb granular films close to $`d_c`$  show that the grains are about 200Å in diameter and 50-80Å in height. On the other hand when the substrate is pre-coated by a thin layer of amorphous Ge (which is insulating at 4K), the sample grows uniformly and is continuous at a thickness of 1-2 monolayers of material after which the sample obeys the usual $`R1/d`$ dependence. It is believed that the large number of dangling bonds in the Ge layer act as nucleation centers for the evaporated metals, thus the deposited adatoms are less mobile and the sample grows homogeneously.

These two geometries lead to two different types of SIT. Figure 1 compares the behavior of uniform and granular quench condensed films of Pb on a SiO substrate.

In the uniform film it is seen that for $`R>6k\mathrm{\Omega }`$ the sample is insulating. As the film thickness is increased and the resistance is decreased, a superconducting transition evolves with increasing critical temperature, $`T_c,`$ which approaches the bulk value (7.2K for Pb) for thick enough samples. The superconducting transitions themselves are relatively sharp and well defined. In the granular film a crossover from an insulating to superconducting behavior is also observed. However, here $`T_c`$ is not very well defined and the superconducting transitions have broad tails which become sharper as material is added to the film. If $`T_c`$ is defined as the temperature at which the resistance starts dropping exponentially, it has bulk value and barely changes throughout the entire SIT. Moreover, even on the insulating side of the SIT the curve changes its slope at $`T=T_c`$ reflecting the influence of superconductivity even in the thinnest measurable samples. A similar effect is seen in the properties of the energy gap, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Tunneling measurements show  that while in the uniform film $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ grows with increasing thickness so that the ratio $`\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{T_c}`$ is roughly constant, in the granular case the bulk energy gap is measured even on the insulating side of the transition and its does not change with additional material.

These differences are attributed to a different nature of the SIT. In the granular case the grains are large enough to sustain superconductivity with bulk properties. However, for the high resistance samples, there are phase fluctuations between the grains leading to an insulating R-T curve. As more material is added the Josephson coupling increases and eventually superconducting percolation is achieved. The situation is different for the uniform geometry where the film is believed to be homogeneous on an atomic level. In this case the SIT is due to suppression of the order parameter amplitude at ultra-low thickness due to an interplay between coulomb interactions and disorder.

So far, all studies on quench condensed based SIT have been performed on either extreme of very homogeneous layers or granular films with grains large enough to have bulk superconductor characteristics. In this paper we describe results obtained on films that bridge these two extremes. We grow granular Pb films in which the grains are too small to sustain bulk superconducting properties and investigate the nature of the SIT in these samples. This geometry is intriguing. Though much attention has been directed towards understanding the nature of superconductivity in grains in which the discrete electronic level spacing is larger than $`\mathrm{\Delta },\text{[16, 17]}`$, not much is known about an array of coupled ultrasmall grains.

Since the Ge under-layer appears to be the cause for the uniformity of the films, the natural way to try and reduce the size of the grains would be to grow a very thin layer of Ge prior to the Pb evaporation. This turns out to be very difficult because 1-2 monolayers of Ge are enough to cause atomically uniform films. Alternatively, one can achieve a suitable substrate for ultrasmall grains by applying different evaporation conditions than those used in previous works. Conventional quench condensed films, such as those described in figure 1, were deposited in a vacuum can set-up immersed in a liquid He4 bath, resulting in UHV conditions ($`P<10^{11}mbar`$) due to cryopumping of the can. The samples described in this work were grown in a normal high-vacuum evaporation chamber equipped with a cold finger capable of reaching temperatures as low as 4K. The base pressure in the chamber was $`10^8`$ mbar. This pressure is low enough to allow relatively pure evaporations but it is still a few orders of magnitude higher then that in the previous set-ups. In this system one can expect particles from the residual pressure in the chamber to cryopump on the substrate, which is the coldest element in the set-up. As time goes by nucleation centers form on the substrate, causing the granularity of the evaporated material to decrease. Indeed, depending on the waiting time before evaporation, we achieve samples with $`d_c`$ between 20 and $`50`$Å. This should be compared to $`d_c100`$Å for granular Pb and $`d_c5`$Å for uniform Pb.

The resistance versus temperature curves for several samples having $`d_c`$ between $`45`$ and $`22`$Å are shown in figure 2. These curves were measured using standard 4 probe AC techniques and making sure, for each point on the curve, that the I-V characteristics are in the linear regime. An SIT is observed for all these samples. However, the details of the transition are different than both those of uniform and those of granular systems. In fact the samples have characteristics of both types of geometries. On one hand $`T_c`$ changes considerably as more material is added and on the other hand the transitions exhibit broad tails.

The fact that these samples are granular in nature can be seen from a number of experimental findings. First, $`d_c`$ is much larger then a monolayer indicating that the films are not atomically uniform. Secondly, the resistance as a function of thickness (for $`d>d_c`$), as shown in figure 3, begins with a sharp exponential dependence before turning Ohmic, reflecting the tunneling nature of the transport. In addition the I-V curves shown in the inset of figure 3, exhibit a series of hysteretic jumps, typical to a granular system which contains an array of Josephson junctions with different critical currents. These cause avalanche bursts of the I-V curve at discrete voltages.

Hence, the film is composed of grains. Nevertheless, the critical temperatures we measure for all the layers are smaller than that of the bulk. This together with the relatively small $`d_c`$ of the films lead to the conclusion that the grains are considerably smaller then those in the previously studied granular structures. Using a simple model based on the geometries deferred from the STM measurement in the large grains we estimate the average grain size in our samples to be around 40-80Å in diameter and about $`50`$Å in height. The electronic level spacing, d in a single grain can be calculated using the free electron expression for the density of states, $`N(E_{F)}:`$

$$d^{}=\frac{1}{N(E_F)}=\frac{2\pi ^2\mathrm{}^2}{mk_F\mathrm{\Omega }}$$
(1)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the volume of the grain. For our Pb grains this yields a level spacing of $``$0.75 meV which is smaller than the superconducting energy gap, $`\mathrm{\Delta }=1.4meV`$. Thus, superconductivity can be expected to be suppressed and the critical temperature of the grains may indeed be smaller than that of the bulk.

Because the geometry of these systems lies between that of the uniform films and the large-grain films, one could expect that the physical properties would also show intermediate behavior. This is not the case. Since dc is geometry and material dependent, the relevant parameter for comparing different systems is the normal-state sheet resistance, R$`_N,`$ which reflects the degree of disorder, rather than the film thickness. In the large grain systems, the resistance versus temperature for $`R_N<80k\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`T<T_c`$ follows an exponential behavior (see figure 1) and can be expressed in the following way :

$$R=R_0e^{\frac{T}{T_0}}$$
(2)
Though the cause for this dependence is not yet understood, it turns out to be universal for all quench condensed granular superconductors. Moreover, the slope of the curves, $`\frac{1}{T_o},`$ depends only on $`R_N`$ and not on the material or the $`T_c`$ . Our samples do not follow this dependence. Instead, $`R`$ versus T is always slower than an exponential law and the slope of the curves everywhere is less steep then what it would be for a similar $`R_N`$ in the usual granular system. This can be seen in figure 2 where we have sketched curves as they would have been measured for large-grain systems having a similar $`T_c`$ and $`R_N`$. Clearly the small-grain samples exhibit a much slower dependence on temperature. This trend becomes weaker as $`d_c`$ decreases, as expected when the sample approaches uniformity.

The critical temperatures measured in these samples also do not fall between those of the two extreme geometries. Figure 4 depicts $`T_c`$ as a function of $`R_N`$ for a number of our samples compared to that of uniform films . It is seen that all samples with $`R_N<1k\mathrm{\Omega }`$ have critical temperatures smaller than that of the uniform film. The smaller the $`d_c`$ the smaller are the critical temperatures (though this trend seems to stop as the sample approaches uniformity).

Hence, regarding the tail broadness, the small grain films are more extreme than the large grain films, while, concerning the critical temperatures they fall shorter than those of uniform films.

The results presented above imply that the mechanism of the SIT in the ultrasmall grain system is different than both the transition in a uniform film, which is dominated by order parameter amplitude suppression, and that of the large-grain systems which is governed by phase fluctuations. Though the mechanism is not yet understood it is clear that fluctuations in either the phase or the amplitude of the order parameter alone is not enough to account for the findings. Rather, it seems reasonable that a combination of both parameters are involved in the behavior of these systems. In order to achieve superconductivity, two conditions have to be fulfilled. One is that all the grains in the conduction percolation network would be close enough to allow Josephson coupling and the second is that they all be superconducting. Unlike the other two geometries where all the film turns superconducting at once, the ultrasmall grain systems may involve a distribution in $`T_c`$ due to a distribution in grain size. Hence, at temperatures smaller than the bulk $`T_c`$ many of the grains are non-superconducting while others may have turned superconducting. This leads to a situation (which does not occur in the large-grain films) in which grains can be close enough to allow strong Josephson coupling, and yet the sample will not have long-range superconductivity because many of the grains are not superconducting. Adding small amounts of material to the layer causes the average grain size to grow (either by coalescence or by increasing the tunneling between grains) thus increasing the average critical temperature. Similarly, as the temperature of a layer is decreased the portion of grains in which $`T<T_c`$ grows, increasing the superconducting area in the film. This may be the reason for the relatively weak temperature dependence observed in these samples because overcoming the phase fluctuations is not enough for ensuring superconductivity in the system. In this geometry, the dominating factor which drives the transition may be the section of the film which is superconducting.

Finally, we note that the quench condensation technique enables one to use simple systems as prototypes to study the SIT in more complicated systems. The use of different substrates for various morphologies leads to different types of SIT which provide much insight into the physical mechanisms determining the transition. The samples described in this work demonstrate the nature of the transition in systems in which very small regions of superconductivity are embedded in a non-superconducting matrix. This is believed to be the case in many composite samples studied recently (see for example ). The R-T dependences of any dirty superconductor can be used as a fingerprint to determine the geometry of the superconducting material and the governing SIT mechanism.

We gratefully acknowledge illuminating discussions with R. Berkovits, R.C. Dynes, Z. Ovadyahu, M. Pollak and M. Schechter. We also thank VST company for the design and manufacturing of the experimental system. This research was supported by the Israeli academy of science.


text:
# Neutrino Mass from Laboratory: Contribution of Double Beta Decay to the Neutrino Mass Matrix

## 1 Introduction

Recently atmospheric and solar neutrino oscillation experiments have shown that neutrinos are massive. This is the first indication of beyond standard model physics. The absolute neutrino mass scale is, however, still unknown, and only neutrino oscillations and neutrinoless double beta decay together can solve this problem (see, e.g. ).

In this paper we will discuss the contribution, that can be given by present and future $`0\nu \beta \beta `$ experiments to this important question of particle physics. We shall, in section 2, discuss the expectations for the observable of neutrinoless double beta decay, the effective neutrino mass $`m_\nu `$, from the most recent $`\nu `$ oscillation experiments, which gives us the required sensitivity for future $`0\nu \beta \beta `$ experiments. In section 3 we shall discuss the present status and future potential of $`0\nu \beta \beta `$ experiments. It will be shown, that if by exploiting the potential of $`0\nu \beta \beta `$ decay to its ultimate experimental limit, it will be possible to test practically all neutrino mass scenarios allowed by the present neutrino oscillation experiments (except for one, the hierarchical LOW solution).

## 2 Allowed ranges of $`m`$ by $`\nu `$ oscillation experiments

After the recent results from Superkamiokande (e.g. see ), the prospects for a positive signal in $`0\nu \beta \beta `$ decay have become more promising. The observable of double beta decay $`m=|U_{ei}^2m_i|=|m_{ee}^{(1)}|+e^{i\varphi _2}|m_{ee}^{(2)}|+e^{i\varphi _3}|m_{ee}^{(3)}|`$ with $`U_{ei}`$ denoting elements of the neutrino mixing matrix, $`m_i`$ neutrino mass eigenstates, and $`\varphi _i`$ relative Majorana CP phases, can be written in terms of oscillation parameters

$$|m_{ee}^{(1)}|=|U_{e1}|^2m_1,$$
(1)
$$|m_{ee}^{(2)}|=|U_{e2}|^2\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2+m_1^2},$$
(2)
$$|m_{ee}^{(3)}|=|U_{e3}|^2\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2+\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2+m_1^2}.$$
(3)
The effective mass $`m`$ is related with the half-life for $`0\nu \beta \beta `$ decay via $`(T_{1/2}^{0\nu })^1m_\nu ^2`$, and for the limit on $`T_{1/2}^{0\nu }`$ deducable in an experiment we have $`T_{1/2}^{0\nu }a\sqrt{\frac{Mt}{\mathrm{\Delta }EB}}`$. Here are a - isotopical abundance of the $`\beta \beta `$ emitter; M - active detector mass; t - measuring time; $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ \- energy resolution; B - background count rate. Neutrino oscillation experiments fix or restrict some of the parameters in eqs. 1-3, e.g. in the case of normal hierarchy solar neutrino experiments yield $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2`$, $`|U_{e1}|^2=\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _{}`$ and $`|U_{e2}|^2=\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{}`$. Atmospheric neutrinos fix $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2`$ and experiments like CHOOZ, looking for $`\nu _e`$ disapperance restrict $`|U_{e3}|^2`$. The phases $`\varphi _i`$ and the mass of the lighest neutrino, $`m_1`$ are free parameters. The expectations for $`m`$ from oscillation experiments in different neutrino mass scenarios have been carefully analyzed in .

### 2.1 Hierarchical spectrum ($`m_1m_2m_3`$)

In hierarchical spectra (Fig. 1), motivated by analogies with the quark sector and the simplest see-saw models, the main contribution comes from $`m_2`$ or $`m_3`$. For the large mixing angle (LMA) MSW solution which is favored at present for the solar neutrino problem (see ), the contribution of $`m_2`$ becomes dominant in the expression for $`m`$, and

$$mm_{ee}^{(2)}=\frac{\mathrm{tan}^2\theta }{1+\mathrm{tan}^2\theta }\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2}.$$
(4)
In the region allowed at 90% c.l. by Superkamiokande according to  the prediction for $`m`$ becomes

$$m=(13)10^3\mathrm{eV}.$$
(5)
The prediction extends to $`m=10^2`$ eV in the 99% c.l. range (Fig. 2).

### 2.2 Inverse Hierarchy ($`m_3m_2m_1`$)

In inverse hierarchy scenarios (Fig. 3) the heaviest state with mass $`m_3`$ is mainly the electron neutrino, its mass being determined by atmospheric neutrinos, $`m_3\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{atm}^2}`$. For the LMA MSW solution one finds

$$m=(17)10^2\mathrm{eV}.$$
(6)
### 2.3 Degenerate spectrum ($`m_1m_2m_30.1eV`$)

Since the contribution of $`m_3`$ is strongly restricted by CHOOZ, the main contributions come from $`m_1`$ and $`m_2`$, depending on their admixture to the electron flavors, which is determined by the solar neutrino solution. We find

$$m_{min}<m<m_1with$$
(7)
$`m_{min}=(\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _{}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{})m_1.`$
This leads for the LMA solution to $`m=(0.251)m_1`$, the allowed range corresponding to possible values of the unknown Majorana CP-phases.

After these examples we give a summary of our analysis  of the $`m`$ allowed by $`\nu `$ oscillation experiments for the neutrino mass models in the presently favored scenarios, in Fig. 4. The size of the bars corresponds to the uncertainty in mixing angles and the unknown Majorana CP-phases.

## 3 Status and Future of $`\beta \beta `$ Experiments

The status of present double beta experiments is shown in Fig. 1 of  and extensively discussed in . The HEIDELBERG-MOSCOW experiment using the largest source strength of 11 kg of enriched $`{}_{}{}^{76}Ge`$ in form of five HP Ge-detectors in the Gran-Sasso underground laboratory , yields after a time of 37.2 kg y of measurement (Fig. 5) a half-life limit of

$`T_{1/2}^{0\nu }>2.1(3.5)10^{25}y,90\%(68\%)c.l.`$

and a limit for the effective neutrino mass of

$`m<0.34(0.26)eV,90\%(68\%)c.l..`$

This sensitivity just starts to probe some (degenerate) neutrino mass models. In degenerate models from the experimental limit on $`m`$ we can conclude on upper bound on the mass scale of the heaviest neutrino. For the LMA solar solution we obtain from eq. (7) $`m_{1,2,3}<1.1eV`$ implying $`m_i<3.2eV`$. This first number is sharper than what has recently been deduced from single beta decay of tritium ($`m<`$ 2.2 eV ), and the second is sharper than the limit of $`m_i<`$ 5.5. eV still compatible with most recent fits of Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation and Large Scale Structure data (see, e.g. ). The result has found a large resonance, and it has been shown that it excludes for example the small angle MSW solution of the solar neutrino problem in degenerate scenarios, if neutrinos are considered as hot dark matter in the universe . Fig. 6 shows that the present sensitivity probes cosmological models including hot dark matter already now on a level of future satellite experiments MAP and PLANCK. The HEIDELBERG-MOSCOW experiment yields the by far sharpest limits worldwide. If future searches will show that $`m>`$ 0.1 eV, than the three-$`\nu `$ mass schemes, which will survive, are those with $`\nu `$ mass degeneracy or 4-neutrino schemes with inverse mass hierarchy ( Fig. 4 and ). It has been discussed in detail earlier (see e.g.  ), that of present generation experiments no one (including NEMO-III, …) has a potential to probe $`m_\nu `$ below the present HEIDELBERG-MOSCOW level.

A possibility to probe $`m`$ down to $`0.1`$ eV (90% c.l.) exists with the GENIUS Test Facility  which should reduce the background by a factor of 30 compared to the HEIDELBERG-MOSCOW experiment, and thus could reach a half-life limit of $`1.510^{26}`$ y.

To extend the sensitivity of $`\beta \beta `$ experiments below this limit requires completely new experimental approaches, as discussed extensively in , and in another contribution to this conference .

Fig. 4 shows that an improvement of the sensitivity down to $`m10^3`$ eV is required to probe all neutrino mass scenarios allowed by present neutrino oscillation experiments. With this result of $`\nu `$ oscillation experiments nature seems to be generous to us since such a sensitivity seems to be achievable in future $`\beta \beta `$ experiment, if this method is exploited to its ultimate limit (see ).