text:
# Nonequilibrium phase transition in a model for social influence.

## Abstract

We present extensive numerical simulations of the Axelrod’s model for social influence, aimed at understanding the formation of cultural domains. This is a nonequilibrium model with short range interactions and a remarkably rich dynamical behavior. We study the phase diagram of the model and uncover a nonequilibrium phase transition separating an ordered (culturally polarized) phase from a disordered (culturally fragmented) one. The nature of the phase transition can be continuous or discontinuous depending on the model parameters. At the transition, the size of cultural regions is power-law distributed.

Recently, the study of complex systems entered social science in order to understand how self-organization, cooperative effects and adaptation arise in social systems. In this context the use of simple automata or dynamical models often elucidates the mechanisms at the basis of the observed complex behaviors.

In this spirit, R. Axelrod has recently proposed an interesting model to mimic how dissemination of culture works. Culture is used here to indicate the set of individual attributes, such as language, art or technical standards subject to social influence, i.e. that can be changed as effect of mutual interactions. The automaton does not consider the effect of central institutions or mass media and focuses on the self-organization resulting from a simple local dynamics representing the social influence. This dynamics is assumed to satisfy two simple properties: i) individuals are more likely to interact with others who already share many of their cultural attributes; ii) interaction increases the number of features that individuals share. Starting from an initial state with features distributed randomly this leads to the formation and coarsening of regions of shared culture.

In this Letter we carry out an accurate numerical analysis of Axelrod’s model that unravels a remarkably rich behavior, not detected in previous investigations. Depending on the initial degree of disorder, the model undergoes a phase transition separating an ordered from a disordered phase. The ordered phase is characterized by the growth of a dominant cultural region spanning a large fraction of the whole system. On the contrary, in the disordered phase the system freezes in a highly fragmented state with a nontrivial distribution of the sizes of cultural regions. Such a fragmented configuration is reached in a finite time, which diverges at the phase transition. In the whole ordered phase instead, the coarsening process lasts for a time proportional to the system size, before freezing into the culturally polarized state. Interestingly, the nature of the transition turns from continuous to discontinuous when the number of cultural features is increased. Close to the transition, the distribution of region sizes follows a power law in agreement with the results of Ref.  on the statistical analysis of the diversity of languages. Some of these features are captured by a mean field approximation that we discuss below.

Axelrod’s model is defined on a square lattice of linear size $`L`$. On each site $`i`$ there is a set of $`F`$ integer variables $`\sigma _{i,f}`$ which define the cultural “features” of the individuals living on that site. In the original model, each feature $`f=1,\mathrm{},F`$ on each site $`i`$ is initially drawn randomly from a uniform distribution on the integers between $`1`$ and $`q`$. The parameter $`q`$ is a measure of the initial cultural variability (i.e. disorder) in the system. Here, we relax the constraint of integer $`q`$ by using a Poisson distribution $`\mathrm{Prob}(\sigma _{i,f}=k)=q^ke^q/k!`$, that allows $`q`$ to be a positive real number. Though the results are qualitatively the same, our choice is more convenient to study the behavior of the model as $`q`$ varies.

At each time step, a pair of nearest neighbor sites $`i`$ and $`j`$ is randomly chosen. A feature $`f`$ is chosen randomly and if $`\sigma _{i,f}\sigma _{j,f}`$ nothing happens. If instead $`\sigma _{i,f}=\sigma _{j,f}`$ then an additional feature $`f^{}`$ is randomly chosen among those taking different values across the bond, $`\sigma _{i,f^{}}\sigma _{j,f^{}}`$. Such a feature is then set equal: $`\sigma _{i,f^{}}\sigma _{i,f^{}}^{}=\sigma _{j,f^{}}`$. A “sweep” of the lattice, i.e. $`L^2`$ such time steps, defines the time unit as usual. Axelrod’s model (at least in the original formulation) can be seen as $`F`$ coupled voter models .

During the dynamical evolution the total diversity, measured as the number of different values of a feature $`f`$ which are present in the system, always decreases. Clearly if all features are equal across a bond ($`\sigma _{i,f}=\sigma _{j,f}`$, $`f`$) or if they are all different ($`\sigma _{i,f}\sigma _{j,f}`$ $`f`$) no change can occur on the bond $`ij`$. A configuration such that, on each bond, either all features are equal or they are all different is an absorbing state: Dynamics will stop if such a state is reached. There are clearly many absorbing states: The dynamics on any finite lattice converges to one of them. The final state can be characterized by the distribution of cultural region sizes, where a region is defined as the connected set of sites sharing exactly the same features.

The dynamical evolution is characterized by the competition between the disorder of the initial configuration and the ordering drive due to the local social interactions. It is intuitively clear that when $`q`$ is small the initial state is almost completely uniform, whereas for large values of $`q`$ almost all sites have features $`\sigma _{i,f}`$ totally different from those of their nearest neighbors. In the two cases we expect the system to converge to a uniform or a highly fragmented state, in which interaction or disorder dominate, respectively. In order to understand how these two limit situations are connected as $`q`$ varies, we have simulated the Axelrod’s model for a number of features ranging from $`F=2`$ to $`10`$ and sizes up to $`L=150`$. We first discuss the dependence of the final state on the parameters $`q`$ and $`F`$ and then the dynamical behavior of the model.

The frozen state. In any finite lattice the dynamics converges to a frozen absorbing state. The existence of a transition in the properties of the final absorbing states is very clear from the plot (Fig. 1) of the average size of the largest region $`s_{\mathrm{max}}`$ as a function of $`q`$ for $`F=10`$: For $`q=q_c300`$ we observe a sharp transition characterized by a sudden drop of $`s_{\mathrm{max}}/L^2`$ which becomes steeper and steeper for increasing sizes $`L`$. This points to the existence of a transition between a “culturally polarized phase” for $`q<q_c`$, where one of the regions has a size of the order of the whole system, and a “culturally fragmented” phase, where all domains are finite. The transition is of the first order, with the size of the largest region having a finite discontinuity at $`q=q_c`$. Note also that, for $`q<q_c`$ the largest domain approaches a unitary density, i.e. it invades the whole system. This scenario holds for all values $`F>2`$ investigated.

The situation is different for $`F=2`$ (inset of Fig. 1): The fraction occupied by the largest cluster $`s_{\mathrm{max}}/L^2`$ vanishes continuously as $`qq_c^{}`$. The difference between $`F=2`$ and $`F>2`$ is confirmed and clarified by the study of the size distribution of cultural regions at the transition. Let $`P_L(s,q)`$ be the probability distribution of regions of $`s`$ sites in a system of size $`L`$. The cumulated distribution is plotted in Fig. 2 for several $`F`$ and values of $`q`$ around the transition. Fig. 2 shows that $`P_L(s,q)`$ decays as a power law $`s^\tau `$ and that the exponent $`\tau `$ is universal ($`\tau 2.6`$) for $`F>2`$ but takes a different value for $`F=2`$ ($`\tau 1.6`$). In particular we find $`\tau _{F>2}>2`$ and $`\tau _{F=2}<2`$.

The different nature of the transition for $`F`$ equal or greater than 2 can be related to the exponent $`\tau `$. Let $`N(q,L)`$ be the total number of regions in the system. Requiring the total area to be $`L^2`$ leads to

$$L^2=N(q,L)s=N(q,L)\underset{s=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}sP_L(s,q).$$
(1)
For $`q>q_c`$ there are $`N(q,L)L^2`$ domains of finite size and the sum on $`s`$ is finite as $`L\mathrm{}`$. On the other hand, for $`q<q_c`$, there are few small domains and a large one of size $`s_{\mathrm{max}}L^2`$. Hence the probability distribution can be written in the generic scaling form $`P_L(s,q)=s^\tau (s/s_{co})+A(q)\delta _{s,s_{\mathrm{max}}}`$ where $`s_{co}`$ is a cut-off scale, the function $`(x)`$ is constant for $`x1`$ and decays very rapidly for $`x1`$ and $`A(q)=0`$ for $`q>q_c`$.

The divergence $`L^2`$ in the l.h.s. of Eq. (1) is matched, for $`q<q_c`$, by the component $`A\delta _{s,s_{\mathrm{max}}}`$ in $`P_L(s,q)`$, with $`s_{\mathrm{max}}L^2`$. The nature of the transition is identified by the behavior of $`A(q)`$ for $`qq_c^{}`$. For $`\tau <2`$, similarly to what happens in percolation theory , the transition occurs through the divergence of $`s_{co}`$ and hence of a correlation length, as $`qq_c^+`$. This causes the divergence of $`s`$ in Eq. (1) (because $`sP_L(s,q)s^{1\tau }`$ with $`\tau <2`$), which matches the divergence of the l.h.s. of Eq. (1) as $`L\mathrm{}`$, through usual finite size scaling arguments . Indeed, at $`q=q_c`$ the cut-off diverges with the system size as $`s_{co}L^D`$. On the other side of the transition a similar divergence of the cutoff $`s_{co}`$ occurs and the amplitude $`A`$ must vanish as $`qq_c^{}`$. This scenario is typical of second order phase transitions and agrees with the value $`\tau <2`$ found for $`F=2`$ and Fig. 1.

When $`\tau >2`$ the previous scenario cannot hold: For $`q>q_c`$, even if $`s_{co}`$ diverges, the sum on $`s`$ in Eq. (1) remains finite. Hence as $`qq_c^+`$ the number of domains $`N(q,L)`$ must remain of order $`L^2`$. On the other side of the transition, the $`L^2`$ term in the l.h.s. of Eq. (1) can only be matched by the term $`s_{\mathrm{max}}L^2`$. Since no divergence arises from the sum on small components as $`qq_c^{}`$, the amplitude $`A`$ of the large component must remain of order one in this limit. We then conclude that, as $`q`$ crosses $`q_c`$, the nature of the distribution changes abruptly for $`\tau >2`$. In particular the amplitude $`A(q)`$ exhibits a discontinuous jump across the transition .

Dynamics: In order to investigate the model dynamics we study the density $`n_a`$ of active bonds. An active bond is a bond across which at least one feature is different and at least one is equal, so that there can be some dynamics. This quantity is indicative of the dynamical state of the system, being zero in frozen configurations. In Fig. 3 we show the behavior of $`n_a`$ as a function of time for different values of $`q`$ and $`F=10`$. For large values of $`q`$, after a short initial transient, the density of active bonds decays rapidly and the system locks into a frozen configuration in a finite time. For small $`q`$ instead, $`n_a(t)`$ displays a slow decay with a large majority of bonds in the active state until it falls abruptly for long times. As the system size is increased, the slow decay extends to longer and longer times: The cut-off time, at which activity suddenly dies scales as $`t_{co}L^2`$ as shown in the inset of Fig. 3. For a large range of intermediate $`q`$ values, $`n_a`$ first decreases almost to zero but then rises again towards a peak of activity, from which the slow decay begins.

The dynamics is essentially a coarsening process of homogeneous regions. When the process lasts only for a finite time, as for $`q>q_c`$, it gives rise to regions of finite size. On the contrary, for $`q<q_c`$ the coarsening process goes on for a time $`t_{co}L^2`$ and produces a region of size comparable with the whole system. The exponent $`z=2`$ relating $`t_{co}`$ to $`L`$ is the same found in nonconserved phase-ordering  and in particular in the two-dimensional voter model , which also exhibits a slow decay of the density of active bonds .

For an infinite system ($`L\mathrm{}`$) and $`q<q_c`$ the system is indefinitely in a coarsening state. Therefore we can also define the transition as separating two different dynamical regimes, with a fast decay of $`n_a`$ lasting for a finite characteristic time for $`q>q_c`$ and a slow, infinitely long decay for $`q<q_c`$. For $`F=2`$ the behavior is qualitatively the same: Noticeably, no evident signature of the different nature of the transition (continuous vs. discontinuous) can be inferred from the dynamical evolution.

The dynamical behavior of the model can be studied within a single bond mean field treatment. Let $`P_m(t)`$ be the probability that a randomly picked bond is of type $`m`$ at time $`t`$, i. e. $`m`$ features across the bond are equal and $`Fm`$ are different. At $`t=0`$, since features are assigned uncorrelated random values, we have $`P_m(0)=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{F}{m}\right)\rho _0^m(1\rho _0)^{Fm}`$ where $`\rho _0=\mathrm{Prob}[\sigma _{i,f}=\sigma _{j,f}]`$ is the probability that two sites have feature $`f`$ with the same value at $`t=0`$ In the mean field approximation, $`P_m`$ satisfies the master equation

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dP_m}{dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{F1}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{k}{F}}P_k[\delta _{m,k+1}\delta _{m,k}+`$ (2)
$`(g1){\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{F}{}}}(P_nW_{n,m}^{(k)}P_mW_{m,n}^{(k)})],`$ (3)
where $`g`$ is the lattice coordination number and $`W_{n,m}^{(k)}`$ is the transition probability from a $`n`$-type bond to a $`m`$-type bond due to the updating of a $`k`$-type neighbor bond. This equation describes how the number of bonds of type $`m`$ is affected by the dynamics: $`P_kk/F`$ is the probability to select a bond of type $`k`$ and one of the $`k`$ features which are equal across it. If $`k=m1`$ a new bond of type $`m`$ is created whereas if $`k=m`$ one bond of type $`m`$ is deleted. This explains the first two terms on the r. h. s. of Eq. (3). But the change of a feature of the site may also affect the state of the other $`g1`$ bonds connecting such site to its neighbors. The remaining terms in Eq. (3) take into account this possibility. We can compute the probabilities $`W_{n,m}^{(k)}`$ by analyzing in detail each possible process. Let us consider e.g. a type $`k=1`$ bond adjacent to a type $`n=0`$ one. Without loss of generality we can let the features on the extreme sites of the $`1`$ bond be $`(0,0,\mathrm{},0)`$ and $`(0,\sigma _2,\mathrm{},\sigma _F)`$, with $`\sigma _j0`$. The latter site is shared also by the $`0`$ bond whose other site has features $`(\sigma _1^{},\sigma _2^{},\mathrm{},\sigma _F^{})`$ with $`\sigma _1^{}0`$ and $`\sigma _j^{}\sigma _j`$ for $`j>1`$. When the $`1`$ bond becomes a type $`2`$ bond, $`\sigma _20`$ the neighbor $`0`$ bond can either remain a $`0`$ bond, if $`\sigma _2^{}0`$ or it can become a $`1`$ bond if $`\sigma _2^{}=0`$. In the spirit of the mean field approximation we introduce the probability $`\rho =\mathrm{Prob}(\sigma _2^{}=0)`$ which now becomes time dependent, as we shall see. Then $`W_{0,0}^{(1)}=1\rho `$ and $`W_{0,1}^{(1)}=\rho `$. In much the same way we can compute the other transition rates. For example, if $`F=2`$, the only non zero elements are

$$\begin{array}{ccc}W_{0,0}^{(1)}=1\rho ,\hfill & W_{0,1}^{(1)}=\rho \hfill & \\ W_{1,0}^{(1)}=1/2,\hfill & W_{1,1}^{(1)}=(1\rho )/2,\hfill & W_{1,2}^{(1)}=\rho /2\hfill \\ W_{2,1}^{(1)}=1.\hfill & & \end{array}$$
(4)
The system of equations (3) is closed once the dynamics of $`\rho (t)`$ is specified. The simplest such equation, in the mean-field spirit, is $`\rho =_kkP_k/F`$. This amounts to say that between any two sites there is a bond, and hence that the probability that a feature across that bond takes the same value can be expressed in terms of the $`P_m`$. The numerical integration of the mean field equations yields the phase diagram of the model as shown in Fig. 4, which exhibits a phase transition. The order parameter $`n_a=_{k=1}^{F1}P_k`$ undergoes a discontinuity at $`q=q_c`$, as it jumps from a finite value for $`q<q_c`$ to zero for $`q>q_c`$. The mean field fairly reproduces also the dynamical evolution of the model as can be seen from the inset of Fig. 4.

Despite the extreme simplicity of Axelrod’s model, it is tempting to compare the picture derived in this Letter with some recent analysis on the diversity of languages, which to some extent can be considered as an indicator of cultural homogeneity. Gomes and coauthors, by analyzing the statistics of more than 6700 languages, have found that the number $``$ of linguistically homogeneous regions inhabited by $`N`$ individuals scales as $`N^\tau `$, with $`\tau 1.5`$ for populations smaller than $`6\times 10^6`$ individuals. For larger populations the exponent changes suggesting a different dynamical evolution. These findings can be compatible with our continuous phase transition scenario ($`\tau 1.6`$) assuming the equivalence between language and cultural features. However it remains unclear why language spreading is self-organized close to the transition point or why the value $`F=2`$ should be relevant for the process.

In summary, we have presented numerical simulations of the Axelrod’s model for social influence. Social interaction that tends to make culture homogeneous competes with the disorder introduced by the number of different traits each cultural feature initially has. We find a critical value separating two phases in which one of the above elements (interaction or disorder) respectively dominates. The nature of the phase transition and the emergent collective behavior is analyzed by common tools of statistical physics. We find that the transition is continuous or discontinuous depending on the model parameters. Our study shows that the use of concepts and methods developed in physics may be of help in the context of social sciences. For instance, the prevalence, for small values of $`q`$, of one of the initially equivalent cultures can be regarded as a spontaneous symmetry breaking due to stochastic fluctuations. It would be interesting, in the future, to analyze extensions of the simple Axelrod’s model to take into account additional ingredients like the presence of migrations or the effect of geographical barriers.

C. C. acknowledges support from the Alexander Von Humboldt foundation. A. V. acknowledges partial support from the European Network contract ERBFMRXCT980183.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The observation of the atmospheric neutrino by Super-Kamiokande has shown the existence of the neutrino masses and the neutrino mixings. In particular, the data show that the mixing between $`\nu _\mu `$ and $`\nu _\tau `$ is favored and

$`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{atm}1,\mathrm{\Delta }_{atm}^2|m_3^2m_2^2|3.5\times 10^3\mathrm{eV}^2.`$ (1)
The solar neutrino problem is now considered to be due to the $`\nu _e`$ and $`\nu _\mu `$ oscillation, but the information on masses and mixing angles is ambiguous. Now four solutions are possible. The another crucial information is given by CHOOZ group that gives

$`|(V_{MNS})_{13}|<0.16,`$ (2)
provided that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{atm}^2=3.5\times 10^3\mathrm{eV}^2`$. Here, $`V_{MNS}`$ is the Maki-Nakagawa-Sakata (MNS) neutrino mixing matrix.

If we interpret these information in the three generation mixing, we find

$`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{atm}\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{23}c_{13}^4`$ (3)
and

$`|s_{13}|<0.16,`$ (4)
where $`\theta _{ij}`$ is the mixing angle between the i-th and the j-th mass eigenstate neutrinos, $`s_{ij}=\mathrm{sin}\theta _{ij}`$, $`c_{ij}=\mathrm{cos}\theta _{ij}`$, and we used the standard parameterization of mixing matrix given in Appendix A.

If we obtain the large $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{atm}`$ with $`|s_{13}|<0.16`$, we need $`|s_{23}||c_{23}|1/\sqrt{2}`$. Now we face the following questions:
(1) Why $`|s_{23}||c_{23}|1/\sqrt{2}`$?
(2) Why $`s_{13}`$ is so small?
(3) How large is the CP violation phase $`\delta `$?

In order to answer these questions, various mixing schemes have been proposed. Among them, the bi-maximal mixing matrix, $`(V_{MNS})_{bi}`$, and the democratic one, $`(V_{MNS})_{demo}`$, predict the large mixing for both the solar and the atmospheric neutrino mixings,

$`(V_{MNS})_{bi}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}& 0\\ \frac{1}{2}& \frac{1}{2}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\\ \frac{1}{2}& \frac{1}{2}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\end{array}\right),(V_{MNS})_{demo}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}& 0\\ \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}& \frac{2}{\sqrt{6}}\\ \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\end{array}\right).`$ (5)
The bi-maximal mixing matrix predicts $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{sol}=1`$ and $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{atm}=1`$, and the democratic mixing matrix predicts $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{sol}=1`$ and $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{atm}=8/9`$.

In our previous paper, we proposed a new type of the neutrino mixing matrix based on the democratic-type mass matrix which is derived from the $`Z_3`$ invariant Lagrangian. This model predicts the most needed relation $`|s_{23}|=|c_{23}|=1/\sqrt{2}`$ and in addition $`\delta =\pi /2`$, the largest CP violation phase in the standard parameterization. In this paper, we examine the democratic-type mass matrix further and explore the possibility of constructing more predictive models.

This paper is organized as follows: In Sec.2, we briefly review the democratic-type mass matrix and its predictions. We explain the origin of the mass matrix based on $`Z_3`$ symmetry, by using the see-saw mechanism. In Sec.3, we consider the one Higgs doublet case and introduce the $`Z_3`$ symmetry breaking terms. The predictions are discussed in detail. The summary is given in Sec.4.

## 2 The democratic-type mass matrix and the $`Z_3`$ symmetry

In this section, we present another view of the democratic-type mass matrix and its origin. Throughout of this paper, we consider the neutrino mass matrix in the charged lepton mass eigenstate basis.

(a) The mixing matrix derived from the deformation from the tri-maximal mixing matrix

The tri-maximal mixing matrix was discussed extensively by many authors and is defined by

$`(V_{MNS})_{tri}V_T={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 1& 1\\ \omega & \omega ^2& 1\\ \omega ^2& \omega & 1\end{array}\right),`$ (6)
where $`\omega =e^{i2\pi /3}`$ or $`\omega =e^{i4\pi /3}`$, i.e., $`\omega ^3=1`$. This model predicts $`|(V_{MNS})_{13}|=1/\sqrt{3}`$ which conflicts with the CHOOZ data, but it has an interesting property that it predicts the maximal value of the CP violation phase in the standard form, $`\delta =\pi /2`$, and the maximal CP violation, that is, the maximal value of the rephasing invariant Jarlskog parameter, $`|J_{CP}|_{tri}=1/6\sqrt{3}`$.

In order to remedy the deficit of the model, it may be interesting to consider the deformation from the tri-maximal mixing matrix by an orthogonal matrix $`O`$,

$`V=V_TO.`$ (7)
The orthogonal matrix contains three angles so that naively we expect that the CP violation phase is expressed by three angles in a complicated expression. Contrarily to this expectation, we found

$`|\mathrm{sin}\theta _{23}|=|\mathrm{cos}\theta _{23}|={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}},\delta ={\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}`$ (8)
and two Majorana phases are fixed uniquely independent of angle parameters in $`O`$. Explicitly, we found that the neutrino mixing matrix is

$`V_{MNS}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}c_{12}c_{13}& s_{12}c_{13}& is_{13}\\ \frac{s_{12}ic_{12}s_{13}}{\sqrt{2}}& \frac{c_{12}+is_{12}s_{13}}{\sqrt{2}}& \frac{c_{13}}{\sqrt{2}}\\ \frac{s_{12}+ic_{12}s_{13}}{\sqrt{2}}& \frac{c_{12}is_{12}s_{13}}{\sqrt{2}}& \frac{c_{13}}{\sqrt{2}}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& i\end{array}\right).`$ (9)
The diagonal matrix diag$`(1,1,i)`$ represents the Majorana phase matrix which is relevant to the purely lepton number violating processes such as the neutrinoless double beta decay. One parameter out of three parameters in $`O`$ is converted to the phase which is absorbed by the redefinition of charged leptons. The brief derivation is given in Appendix A.

If we use the CHOOZ constraint, $`|(V_{MNS})_{13}|=|s_{13}|<0.16`$, the model predicts

$`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{atm}`$ $`=`$ $`4|(V_{MNS})_{23}|^2(1|(V_{MNS})_{23}|^2)`$
$`=`$ $`1s_{13}^4>0.999,`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{|J_{CP}|_{ourmodel}}{|J_{CP}|_{max}}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3\sqrt{3}}{2}}|\mathrm{sin}2\theta _{12}s_{13}c_{13}^2|,`$ (10)
where $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{12}\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{sol}`$ is determined by the solar neutrino data. Therefore, in our model, the size of the CP violation is determined by the solar neutrino mixing angle and $`|s_{13}|`$ which has been bounded by the CHOOZ data. If we take the large mixing solution for the solar neutrino problem, $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{sol}=0.9`$ and the largest allowed value for $`s_{13}`$, $`|s_{13}|=0.16`$, our model predicts $`|J_{CP}|_{ourmodel}=0.38|J_{CP}|_{max}`$.

(b) The possible origin of the mixing matrix in the form of $`V=V_TO`$

Let us consider what kind of mass matrix leads to $`V=V_TO`$. In order to clarify the structure, we change the flavor eigenstate basis to the one which is obtained by transforming by $`V_T`$ (hereafter we call it as the $`\psi `$ basis),

$`\left(\begin{array}{c}\psi _1\\ \psi _2\\ \psi _3\end{array}\right)=V_T^{}\left(\begin{array}{c}\nu _{eL}\\ \nu _{\mu L}\\ \nu _{\tau L}\end{array}\right)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& \omega ^2& \omega \\ 1& \omega & \omega ^2\\ 1& 1& 1\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\nu _{eL}\\ \nu _{\mu L}\\ \nu _{\tau L}\end{array}\right).`$ (11)
The relation $`V=V_TO`$ implies that when we look at the mass matrix in the $`\psi `$ basis, the neutrino mass matrix should be a real symmetric matrix. Thus, we may parameterize

$`\stackrel{~}{m}_\nu =V_T^Tm_\nu V_T=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}m_1^0+\stackrel{~}{m}_1& \stackrel{~}{m}_3& \stackrel{~}{m}_2\\ \stackrel{~}{m}_3& m_2^0+\stackrel{~}{m}_2& \stackrel{~}{m}_1\\ \stackrel{~}{m}_2& \stackrel{~}{m}_1& m_3^0+\stackrel{~}{m}_3\end{array}\right),`$ (12)
with the real parameters, $`m_i^0`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{m}_i`$. Here, $`\stackrel{~}{m}_\nu `$ is the mass matrix in the $`\psi `$ basis and $`m_\nu `$ is the one in the flavor eigenstate basis. If $`\stackrel{~}{m}_\nu `$ is a real symmetric matrix, then it is diagonalized by the orthogonal matrix $`O`$ and thus the mixing matrix becomes $`V_TO`$.

By inverting, we obtain the neutrino mass matrix $`m_\nu `$ as

$`m_\nu `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_1^0}{3}}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& \omega ^2& \omega \\ \omega ^2& \omega & 1\\ \omega & 1& \omega ^2\end{array}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{m_2^0}{3}}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& \omega & \omega ^2\\ \omega & \omega ^2& 1\\ \omega ^2& 1& \omega \end{array}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{m_3^0}{3}}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 1& 1\\ 1& 1& 1\\ 1& 1& 1\end{array}\right)`$ (13)
$`+\stackrel{~}{m}_1\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 0& 0\\ 0& \omega & 0\\ 0& 0& \omega ^2\end{array}\right)+\stackrel{~}{m}_2\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 0& 0\\ 0& \omega ^2& 0\\ 0& 0& \omega \end{array}\right)+\stackrel{~}{m}_3\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right),`$
which we called the democratic-type mass matrix.

(c) The $`Z_3`$ symmetric dimension five Lagrangian

We analyze the Lagrangian which gives the democratic-type neutrino mass matrix. From the transformation in Eq.(11), we define

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}}(\mathrm{}_e+\omega ^2\mathrm{}_\mu +\omega \mathrm{}_\tau ),`$
$`\mathrm{\Psi }_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}}(\mathrm{}_e+\omega \mathrm{}_\mu +\omega ^2\mathrm{}_\tau ),`$
$`\mathrm{\Psi }_3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}}(\mathrm{}_e+\mathrm{}_\mu +\mathrm{}_\tau ),`$ (14)
where $`\mathrm{}_i`$ is the left-handed lepton doublet defined by, say, $`\mathrm{}_e=(\nu _{eL},e_L)^T`$. With the definition, $`\mathrm{\Psi }_i=(\psi _i,e_i)^T`$, the above relation is interpreted as the transformation from the flavor eigenstate basis to the $`\psi `$ basis.

The fields $`\mathrm{\Psi }_i`$ behave as irreducible representations of $`Z_3`$ symmetry under the permutation of $`\mathrm{}_e`$, $`\mathrm{}_\mu `$ and $`\mathrm{}_\tau `$,

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_1\omega \mathrm{\Psi }_1,\mathrm{\Psi }_2\omega ^2\mathrm{\Psi }_2,\mathrm{\Psi }_3\mathrm{\Psi }_3.`$ (15)
If we introduce two Higgs doublets that behave as

$`H_1\omega ^2H_1,H_2\omega H_2,`$ (16)
then we can construct the $`Z_3`$ invariant dimension five effective Lagrangian as

$`_\mathrm{y}`$ $`=`$ $`((m_1^0+\stackrel{~}{m}_1)\overline{(\mathrm{\Psi }_1)^C}\mathrm{\Psi }_1{\displaystyle \frac{H_1H_1}{u_1^2}}+(m_2^0+\stackrel{~}{m}_2)\overline{(\mathrm{\Psi }_2)^C}\mathrm{\Psi }_2{\displaystyle \frac{H_2H_2}{u_2^2}}`$ (17)
$`+(m_3^0+\stackrel{~}{m}_3)\overline{(\mathrm{\Psi }_3)^C}\mathrm{\Psi }_3{\displaystyle \frac{H_1H_2}{u_1u_2}})`$
$`2\left(\stackrel{~}{m}_1\overline{(\mathrm{\Psi }_2)^C}\mathrm{\Psi }_3{\displaystyle \frac{H_1H_1}{u_1^2}}+\stackrel{~}{m}_2\overline{(\mathrm{\Psi }_1)^C}\mathrm{\Psi }_3{\displaystyle \frac{H_2H_2}{u_2^2}}+\stackrel{~}{m}_3\overline{(\mathrm{\Psi }_1)^C}\mathrm{\Psi }_2{\displaystyle \frac{H_1H_2}{u_1u_2}}\right),`$
where $`u_i`$ is the vacuum expectation value of the neutral component of $`H_i`$. After the Higgs fields acquire the vacuum expectation values, the neutrino mass matrix in the $`\psi `$ basis defined by Eq.(12) is obtained.

(d) The $`Z_3`$ symmetric Lagrangian and the see-saw mechanism

In addition to the $`\mathrm{\Psi }_i`$ and two Higgs doublets, $`H_1`$ and $`H_2`$, we introduce the right-handed neutrinos, $`\nu _{eR}`$, $`\nu _{\mu R}`$ and $`\nu _{\tau R}`$ and one more Higgs $`H_3`$ which behave under the $`Z_3`$ as

$`\nu _{eR}\nu _{eR},\nu _{\mu R}\omega \nu _{\mu R},\nu _{\tau R}\omega ^2\nu _{\tau R},`$ (18)
$`H_3H_3.`$ (19)
Now the $`Z_3`$ invariant Yukawa interaction and the Majorana mass term for the right-handed neutrinos are given by

$`_D`$ $`=`$ $`(a\overline{\nu _e}_R{\displaystyle \frac{H_1}{u_1}}+b\overline{\nu _\tau }_R{\displaystyle \frac{H_2}{u_2}}+d^{}\overline{\nu _\mu }_R{\displaystyle \frac{H_3}{u_3}})\mathrm{\Psi }_1`$ (20)
$`(c\overline{\nu _\mu }_R{\displaystyle \frac{H_1}{u_1}}+d\overline{\nu _e}_R{\displaystyle \frac{H_2}{u_2}}+f^{}\overline{\nu _\tau }_R{\displaystyle \frac{H_3}{u_3}})\mathrm{\Psi }_2`$
$`(e\overline{\nu _\tau }_R{\displaystyle \frac{H_1}{u_1}}+f\overline{\nu _\mu }_R{\displaystyle \frac{H_2}{u_2}}+b^{}\overline{\nu _e}_R{\displaystyle \frac{H_3}{u_3}})\mathrm{\Psi }_3+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.,`$
where $`u_i`$ is the vacuum expectation value of $`H_i`$ and

$`_R=M\overline{(\nu _{eR})^C}\nu _{eR}M^{}\left(\overline{(\nu _{\mu R})^C}\nu _{\tau R}+\overline{(\nu _{\tau R})^C}\nu _{\mu R}\right).`$ (21)
After the Higgs fields acquire the vacuum expectation values, the Dirac mass term, $`m_D`$ in the $`\psi `$ basis and Majorana mass term $`M_R`$ for $`\nu _R`$ are given by

$`m_D=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}a& d& b^{}\\ d^{}& c& f\\ b& f^{}& e\end{array}\right),M_R=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}M& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& M^{}\\ 0& M^{}& 0\end{array}\right).`$ (22)
By the see-saw mechanism, the neutrino mass matrix for the left-handed neutrinos in the $`\psi `$ basis is given by

$`\stackrel{~}{m}_\nu =m_D^TM_R^1m_D=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\frac{a^2}{M}+\frac{2bd^{}}{M^{}}& \frac{ad}{M}+\frac{bc}{M^{}}+\frac{d^{}f^{}}{M^{}}& \frac{ab^{}}{M}+\frac{bf}{M^{}}+\frac{d^{}e}{M^{}}\\ \frac{ad}{M}+\frac{bc}{M^{}}+\frac{d^{}f^{}}{M^{}}& \frac{d^2}{M}+\frac{2cf^{}}{M^{}}& \frac{b^{}d}{M}+\frac{ce}{M^{}}+\frac{ff^{}}{M^{}}\\ \frac{ab^{}}{M}+\frac{bf}{M^{}}+\frac{d^{}e}{M^{}}& \frac{b^{}d}{M}+\frac{ce}{M^{}}+\frac{ff^{}}{M^{}}& \frac{b^2}{M}+\frac{2fe}{M^{}}\end{array}\right)`$ (23)
If we parameterize

$`m_1^0+\stackrel{~}{m}_1=\left({\displaystyle \frac{a^2}{M}}+2{\displaystyle \frac{bd^{}}{M^{}}}\right)\stackrel{~}{m}_1=\left({\displaystyle \frac{b^{}d}{M}}+{\displaystyle \frac{ce}{M^{}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{ff^{}}{M}}\right)`$
$`m_2^0+\stackrel{~}{m}_2=\left({\displaystyle \frac{d^2}{M}}+2{\displaystyle \frac{cf^{}}{M^{}}}\right)\stackrel{~}{m}_2=\left({\displaystyle \frac{ab^{}}{M}}+{\displaystyle \frac{bf}{M^{}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{d^{}e}{M^{}}}\right)`$
$`m_3^0+\stackrel{~}{m}_3=\left({\displaystyle \frac{b^2}{M}}+2{\displaystyle \frac{fe}{M^{}}}\right)\stackrel{~}{m}_3=\left({\displaystyle \frac{ad}{M}}+{\displaystyle \frac{bc}{M^{}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{d^{}f^{}}{M^{}}}\right),`$ (24)
we obtain the neutrino mass matrix $`\stackrel{~}{m}_\nu `$ in the $`\psi `$ basis given in Eq.(12). The ansatz is that all parameters $`a`$, $`b`$, $`c`$, $`d`$, $`e`$, $`f`$, $`b^{}`$, $`d^{}`$, $`f^{}`$, $`M`$ and $`M^{}`$ are real. The Lagrangian in Eqs.(20) and (21) are the most general one to derive the democratic mass matrix, although it contains redundant parameters.

The minimal model is those which contain only two Higgs doublets, say, $`H_1`$ and $`H_2`$, where $`\stackrel{~}{m}_\nu `$ contains six independent parameters to specify $`m_i^0`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{m}_i`$.

## 3 A restricted model -One Higgs case-

In order to construct the more predictive mass matrix, we try to reduce the number of parameters in the democratic-type mass matrix, $`m_i^0`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{m}_i`$. Here, we consider the possibility of one Higgs model.

If we keep only $`H_1=H`$ with $`H=u`$ in the Lagrangian (20), then

$`_D={\displaystyle \frac{1}{u}}\left(a\overline{\nu _e}_RH\mathrm{\Psi }_1+c\overline{\nu _\mu }_RH\mathrm{\Psi }_2+e\overline{\nu _\tau }_RH\mathrm{\Psi }_3\right)+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}..`$ (25)
Then, the Dirac mass term in the $`\psi `$ basis is $`m_D=\mathrm{diag}(a,c,e)`$. After the see-saw mechanism, the left-handed neutrino mass matrix in the $`\psi `$ basis is

$`\stackrel{~}{m}_\nu =m_D^TM_R^1m_D=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}m_1^0+\stackrel{~}{m}_1& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& \stackrel{~}{m}_1\\ 0& \stackrel{~}{m}_1& 0\end{array}\right).`$ (26)
In the flavor eigenstate basis

$`m_\nu =V_T^{}\stackrel{~}{m}_\nu V_T^{}={\displaystyle \frac{m_1^0}{3}}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& \omega ^2& \omega \\ \omega ^2& \omega & 1\\ \omega & 1& \omega ^2\end{array}\right)+\stackrel{~}{m}_1\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 0& 0\\ 0& \omega & 0\\ 0& 0& \omega ^2\end{array}\right).`$ (27)
From Eq.(26), we see that the neutrino mass matrix $`m_\nu `$ is diagonalized by

$`V_1=V_T\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 0& 0\\ 0& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\\ 0& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\end{array}\right).`$ (28)
This mixing scheme is interesting, although this model is unrealistic because it predicts the degenerate mass, $`m_2=m_3`$.

(a) The model with the $`Z_3`$ symmetry breaking terms

We introduce the $`Z_3`$ symmetry breaking terms by assuming that they respect the $`Z_2`$ symmetry which is defined by

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_1\mathrm{\Psi }_1,\nu _{eR}\nu _{eR},`$ (29)
and all other fields are unchanged. Then, the $`Z_2`$ invariant Lagrangian is given by

$`_{SB}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{u}}(a\overline{\nu _e}_\mathrm{R}H\mathrm{\Psi }_1+c\overline{\nu _\mu }_\mathrm{R}H\mathrm{\Psi }_2+e\overline{\nu _\tau }_\mathrm{R}H\mathrm{\Psi }_3)`$ (30)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{u}}(f\overline{\nu _\mu }_\mathrm{R}H\mathrm{\Psi }_3+f^{}\overline{\nu _\tau }_\mathrm{R}H\mathrm{\Psi }_2)`$
together with the Majorana mass term for the right-handed neutrinos given in Eq.(21). This model gives the mass matrix in the $`\psi `$ basis in Eq.(12) with non-zero $`m_1^0`$, $`\stackrel{~}{m}_1`$, $`m_2^0`$ and $`m_3^0`$. In other words, in the flavor eigenstate basis, it is

$`m_\nu `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_1^0}{3}}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& \omega ^2& \omega \\ \omega ^2& \omega & 1\\ \omega & 1& \omega ^2\end{array}\right)+\stackrel{~}{m}_1\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 0& 0\\ 0& \omega & 0\\ 0& 0& \omega ^2\end{array}\right)`$ (31)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{m_2^0}{3}}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& \omega & \omega ^2\\ \omega & \omega ^2& 1\\ \omega ^2& 1& \omega \end{array}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{m_3^0}{3}}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 1& 1\\ 1& 1& 1\\ 1& 1& 1\end{array}\right).`$
In the new basis which is obtained from the transformation by $`V_1`$ in Eq.(28), the mass matrix is

$`V_1^Tm_\nu V_1=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}m_1^0+\stackrel{~}{m}_1& 0& 0\\ 0& \stackrel{~}{m}_1+\frac{1}{2}(m_3^0+m_2^0)& \frac{1}{2}(m_3^0m_2^0)\\ 0& \frac{1}{2}(m_3^0m_2^0)& \stackrel{~}{m}_1+\frac{1}{2}(m_3^0+m_2^0)\end{array}\right).`$ (32)
Thus, the mixing matrix which diagonalize $`m_\nu `$ is given by

$`V=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 0& 0\\ 0& \omega & 0\\ 0& 0& \omega ^2\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\sqrt{\frac{1}{3}}& \sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}& 0\\ \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\\ \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& i\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 0& 0\\ 0& c^{}& s^{}\\ 0& s^{}& c^{}\end{array}\right),`$ (33)
where $`c^{}=\mathrm{cos}\theta ^{}`$ and $`s^{}=\mathrm{sin}\theta ^{}`$ and

$`\mathrm{tan}\theta ^{}={\displaystyle \frac{\frac{m_3^0m_2^0}{2}}{\stackrel{~}{m}_1+\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{m}_1^2+\left(\frac{m_3^0m_2^0}{2}\right)^2}}},`$ (34)
and neutrino masses are given by

$`m_1`$ $`=`$ $`m_1^0+\stackrel{~}{m}_1,`$
$`m_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_3^0+m_2^0}{2}}+\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{m}_1^2+\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_3^0m_2^0}{2}}\right)^2},`$
$`m_3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_3^0+m_2^0}{2}}\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{m}_1^2+\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_3^0m_2^0}{2}}\right)^2}.`$ (35)
Here we take the convention, $`\stackrel{~}{m}_1>0`$, and also consider that $`\stackrel{~}{m}_1>|(m_3^0+m_2^0)/2|`$, $`|(m_3^0m_2^0)/2|`$, because $`m_3^0`$ and $`m_2^0`$ are the $`Z_3`$ symmetry breaking parameters. Then, we find $`m_2>0`$ and $`m_3<0`$. The parameter $`\stackrel{~}{m}_1`$ controls the average size of neutrino masses, and $`m_3^0+m_2^0`$ does the mass splitting between $`m_2`$ and $`m_3`$, and the parameter $`m_3^0m_2^0`$ does the size of $`(V_{MNS})_{13}`$.

The MNS mixing matrix is explicitly given by

$`V_{MNS}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}& \sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}c^{}& i\sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}s^{}\\ \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}(c^{}+i\sqrt{3}s^{})& \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}(\sqrt{3}c^{}+is^{})\\ \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}(c^{}i\sqrt{3}s^{})& \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}(\sqrt{3}c^{}is^{})\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& i\end{array}\right).`$ (36)
It should be noted that the model predicts $`\delta =\frac{\pi }{2}`$ and the angle $`\theta _{12}`$ which is relevant to the solar neutrino mixing. We have

$`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{sol}={\displaystyle \frac{8}{9}}c^2,\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{atm}=1{\displaystyle \frac{4}{9}}s^4.`$ (37)
If we impose the CHOOZ bound, $`|\sqrt{2/3}s^{}|<0.16`$, we have

$`{\displaystyle \frac{8}{9}}>\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{sol}>0.87,\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{atm}>0.999.`$ (38)
Below, we consider the special cases.

(b) Some limiting cases

(b-1) The model with $`m_3^0=m_2^0`$

This model is realized by imposing the invariance under the permutation in addition to $`Z_2`$ symmetry as

$`\nu _{\mu R}\nu _{\tau R},\mathrm{\Psi }_2\mathrm{\Psi }_3.`$ (39)
Then, the parameters in Eq.(30) are restricted as $`f=f^{}`$ and $`c=e`$, and the condition $`m_3^0=m_2^0`$ is realized. From Eq.(34), we have $`\theta ^{}=0`$ and neutrino masses are

$`m_1=m_1^0+\stackrel{~}{m}_1,m_2=m_3^0+\stackrel{~}{m}_1,m_3=m_3^0\stackrel{~}{m}_1.`$ (40)
Thus, the model predicts the mixing matrix defined in Eq.(28). By parameterizing as $`V=\mathrm{diag}(1,\omega ,\omega ^2)V_{MNS}`$, we find the MNS matrix is

$`V_{MNS}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}& \sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}& 0\\ \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\\ \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& i\end{array}\right),`$ (41)
where the matrix diag$`(1,1,i)`$ is the Majorana phase matrix.

This model predicts

$`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{atm}=1,\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{sol}={\displaystyle \frac{8}{9}}.`$ (42)
This mixing matrix is in contrast to the so called democratic mixing matrix which predicts $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{atm}=8/9`$ and $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{sol}=1`$.

(b-2) The model with $`m_2^0=0`$ or $`m_3^0=0`$

One way to realize this model is to consider two Higgs model by keeping $`H_1`$ and $`H_2`$ in Eq.(20). Then, we impose $`Z_3\times Z_2`$ symmetry. By the $`Z_3`$ symmetry, we have $`b^{}=d^{}=f^{}=0`$. Then, we impose the $`Z_2`$ symmetry given in Eq.(29) and we find that $`b=d=0`$. These conditions give $`m_2^0=0`$. Similarly, $`m_3^0=0`$ case is realized. Since both cases give the same mixing matrix so that we consider $`m_2^0=0`$ case. Then, the mixing angle $`\theta ^{}`$ is completely fixed by the ratio of neutrino masses, $`m_2>0`$ and $`m_3<0`$. Explicitly, we find with $`V_{MNS}=V_{SF}\mathrm{diag}(1,1,i)`$

$`V_{SF}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}& \sqrt{\frac{1}{3}\frac{\beta +2}{\beta }}& \pm i\sqrt{\frac{1}{3}\frac{\beta 2}{\beta }}\\ \frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\frac{\beta +2}{\beta +1}}\left[1i\sqrt{\frac{1}{3}\frac{\beta 2}{\beta +2}}\right]& \frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\frac{\beta }{\beta +1}}\left[1\pm i\sqrt{\frac{1}{3}\frac{(\beta +2)(\beta 2)}{\beta ^2}}\right]& \sqrt{\frac{1}{3}\frac{\beta +1}{\beta }}\\ \frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\frac{\beta +2}{\beta +1}}\left[1\pm i\sqrt{\frac{1}{3}\frac{\beta 2}{\beta +2}}\right]& \frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\frac{\beta }{\beta +1}}\left[1i\sqrt{\frac{1}{3}\frac{(\beta +2)(\beta 2)}{\beta ^2}}\right]& \sqrt{\frac{1}{3}\frac{\beta +1}{\beta }}\end{array}\right)`$ (43)
where

$`\beta =\sqrt{\left|{\displaystyle \frac{m_2}{m_3}}\right|}+\sqrt{\left|{\displaystyle \frac{m_3}{m_2}}\right|}2.`$ (44)
In the limit $`m_2=m_3`$, i.e., $`\beta =2`$, the mixing matrix reduces to the mixing scheme in Eq.(41). Due to the CHOOZ bound, $`\beta `$ must be close to 2.

This model predicts

$`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{sol}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{9}}{\displaystyle \frac{\beta +2}{\beta }},`$
$`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{atm}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{9}}{\displaystyle \frac{(\beta +1)(2\beta 1)}{\beta ^2}}.`$ (45)
If we impose the CHOOZ bound

$`|(V_{MNS})_{13}|=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{\beta 2}{\beta }}}<0.16,`$ (46)
$`\beta `$ is restricted by $`2<\beta <2.17`$ which means

$`0.85<\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{sol}<{\displaystyle \frac{8}{9}},\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}0.999}<\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{atm}<1,`$ (47)
$`0.44<\left|{\displaystyle \frac{m_2}{m_3}}\right|<2.27.`$ (48)
The effective mass for the neutrinoless double beta decay is given by

$`|<m_\nu >|={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\left|m_1+{\displaystyle \frac{\beta +2}{\beta }}m_2+{\displaystyle \frac{\beta 2}{\beta }}m_3\right|{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}|m_1+2m_2|.`$ (49)
If we take the constraint $`|<m_\nu >|<0.3`$ eV, then we find $`|<m_\nu >||m_2|<0.3`$ eV for $`m_1m_2>0`$ and $`3|<m_\nu >||m_2|<0.9`$ eV for $`m_1m_2<0`$.

In order to realize the large CP violation, it is required that the value of $`|(V_{MNS})_{13}|=\sqrt{(\beta 2)/3\beta }`$ should be as large as its bound by the CHOOZ data. This leads to the constraint on the ratio $`|m_2/m_3|`$. Explicitly, we have

$`|m_2|=h\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_{atm}^2}{|h^21|}}},|m_3|=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_{atm}^2}{|h^21|}}},`$ (50)
where

$`h=\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\beta \pm \sqrt{\beta ^24}\right)\right\}^2.`$ (51)
If we take $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{atm}^2=3.5\times 10^3\mathrm{eV}^2`$ and the maximal value $`|(V_{MNS})_{13}|=0.16`$, we find $`(|m_2|,|m_3|)=(6.6,2.9)\times 10^2\mathrm{eV}`$ or $`\mathrm{or}(2.9,6.6)\times 10^2\mathrm{eV}`$. When these masses are larger than the above values, the CP violation becomes smaller.

The parameter $`\stackrel{~}{m}_1`$ is used to fix the overall normalization of neutrino masses and $`m_3^0`$ works to adjust the ratio $`|m_2/m_3|`$. The remaining parameter $`m_1^0`$ determines the mass $`m_1`$, which is related to the neutrino squared mass difference for the solar neutrino mixing, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{sol}^2|m_2^2m_1^2|`$. Since $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{sol}^2`$ is much smaller than $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{atm}^2`$, the fine tuning is required to obtain the approximate degeneracy between $`m_1`$ and $`m_2`$. The parameter $`m_1^0`$ adjusts the splitting between $`m_1`$ and $`m_2`$.

## 4 Summary

In our previous paper, we proposed the democratic-type neutrino mass matrix and showed that this model predicts the quite interesting relations which are crucial to give the large atmospheric neutrino mixing and the large CP violation which are given in Eq.(9).

In this paper, we explored the mass matrices which inherit the attractive features we found, but give more predictions. In order to examine the origin of the democratic-type mass matrix further, we considered the Yukawa interaction and the Majorana mass matrix for the right-handed neutrinos and derive the neutrino mass matrix for the left-handed neutrinos.

We gave the most general $`Z_3`$ invariant Lagrangian with three Higgs doublets and showed that this Lagrangian gives the democratic-type mass matrix. Then, we restricted the number of the Higgs doublet to be one. By introducing the $`Z_3`$ symmetry breaking terms but keeping the $`Z_2`$ symmetry, we found the interesting model that predicts the large solar neutrino mixing also. The most prominent feature of the present model is the prediction that $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{atm}`$ is very close to unity and also the large CP violation (the CP violation phase in the standard form $`\delta =\pi /2`$). These two features will be tested as unambiguous signals of the model.

We expect that our mass matrix is obtained at the right-handed mass $`M_R`$ scale. We did not discuss the effect of the renormalization in this paper. If $`m_1m_2<0`$, our predictions are stable, while the substantial dependence is expected for $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{sol}`$ for $`m_1m_2>0`$ because of the degeneracy. The possibility that the large $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{sol}`$ at $`M_R`$ reduces to the small value which explains the small mixing angle MSW solution is under estimation and will be published elsewhere.

Acknowledgment This work is supported in part by the Japanese Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research of Ministry of Education, Science, Sports and Culture, No.11127209.

Appendix A: Derivation of Eq.(8)

Let us consider

$`V`$ $``$ $`V_TO`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}O_{11}+O_{21}+O_{31}& O_{12}+O_{22}+O_{32}& O_{13}+O_{23}+O_{33}\\ \omega O_{11}+\omega ^2O_{21}+O_{31}& \omega O_{12}+\omega ^2O_{22}+O_{32}& \omega O_{13}+\omega ^2O_{23}+O_{33}\\ \omega ^2O_{11}+\omega O_{21}+O_{31}& \omega ^2O_{12}+\omega O_{22}+O_{32}& \omega ^2O_{13}+\omega O_{23}+O_{33}\end{array}\right),`$
where $`V_T`$ is the tri-maximal mixing matrix in Eq.(6) and $`O`$ is the orthogonal matrix. Then, we find the constraints

$`V_{2j}=V_{3j}^{},(j=1,2,3)`$ (A.2)
because $`O_{ij}`$ are real parameters. Now we define the standard form of the mixing matrix as

$`V_{SF}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}c_{12}c_{13}& s_{12}c_{13}& s_{13}e^{i\delta }\\ s_{12}c_{23}c_{12}s_{23}s_{13}e^{i\delta }& c_{12}c_{23}s_{12}s_{23}s_{13}e^{i\delta }& s_{23}c_{13}\\ s_{12}s_{23}c_{12}c_{23}s_{13}e^{i\delta }& c_{12}s_{23}s_{12}c_{23}s_{13}e^{i\delta }& c_{23}c_{13}\end{array}\right),`$ (A.3)
where $`s_{ij}=\mathrm{sin}\theta _{ij}`$ and $`c_{ij}=\mathrm{cos}\theta _{ij}`$. Since $`V`$ is related to $`V_{SF}`$ by the phase transformation as $`V=PV_{SF}P^{}`$, the constraints are given by $`|(V_{SF})_{2j}|=|(V_{SF})_{3j}|`$. From the constraint with $`j=3`$, we obtain $`|s_{23}|=|c_{23}|`$. From $`j=1`$ and $`j=2`$, together with $`|s_{23}|=|c_{23}|`$, we find $`\mathrm{cos}\delta =0`$.


text:
# 1. Introduction

## 1. Introduction

The discovery of charged Higgs bosons  will provide a concrete evidence of the multi-doublet structure of the Higgs sector. Recent efforts have focused on their relevance to Supersymmetry (SUSY), in particular in the MSSM, which incorporates exactly two Higgs doublets, yielding – after spontaneous EW symmetry breaking – five physical Higgs states: the neutral pseudoscalar ($`A`$), the lightest ($`h`$) and heaviest ($`H`$) neutral scalars and two charged ones ($`H^\pm `$).

In much of the parameter space preferred by SUSY, namely $`M_{H^\pm }M_{W^\pm }`$ and $`1<\mathrm{tan}\beta <m_t/m_b`$ , the LHC will provide the greatest opportunity for the discovery of $`H^\pm `$ particles. In fact, over the above $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ region, the Tevatron (Run 2) discovery potential is limited to charged Higgs masses smaller than $`m_t`$ .

However, at the LHC, whereas the detection of light charged Higgs bosons (with $`M_{H^\pm }<m_t`$) is rather straightforward in the decay channel $`tbH^+`$ for most $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ values, thanks to the huge top-antitop production rate, the search is notoriously difficult for heavy masses (when $`M_{H^\pm }>m_t`$), because of the large reducible and irreducible backgrounds associated with the main decay mode $`H^{}b\overline{t}`$, following the dominant production channel $`bgtH^{}`$ . (Notice that the rate of the latter exceeds by far other possible production modes , this rendering it the only viable channel at the CERN machine in the heavy mass region.)

The analysis of the $`H^{}b\overline{t}`$ signature has been the subject of many debates , whose conclusion is that the LHC discovery potential is satisfactory, but only provided that $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ is small ($`\stackrel{<}{}1.5`$) or large ($`\stackrel{>}{}30`$) enough and the charged Higgs boson mass is below 600 GeV or so.

A recent analysis  has shown that the $`\tau \nu `$ decay mode, indeed dominant for light charged Higgs states and exploitable below the top threshold for any accessible $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ , can be used at the LHC even in the large $`M_{H^\pm }`$ case, in order to discover $`H^\pm `$ scalars in the parameter range $`\mathrm{tan}\beta \stackrel{>}{}3`$ and 200 GeV $`<M_{H^\pm }<1`$ TeV. Besides, if the distinctive $`\tau `$ polarisation  is used in this channel, the latter can provide at least as good a heavy $`H^\pm `$ signature as the $`H^{}b\overline{t}`$ decay mode (for the large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ regime ).

At present then, it is the $`\mathrm{tan}\beta \stackrel{<}{}3`$ region of the MSSM which ought to be explored through other decay modes, especially those where direct mass reconstruction is possible. The most obvious of these is the $`H^\pm W^{\pm ()}h`$ channel  (see also ), proceeding via the production of a charged gauge boson and the lightest Higgs scalar of the MSSM, with the former on- or off-shell depending on the relative values of $`M_{H^\pm }`$ and $`M_h`$. In fact, its branching ratio (BR) can be rather large, competing with the bottom-top decay mode and overwhelming the tau-neutrino one for $`M_{H^\pm }\stackrel{>}{}m_t`$ at low $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$: see Figs. 12. Besides, under the assumption that the $`h`$ scalar has previously been discovered (which we embrace here), its kinematics is rather constrained, around two resonant decay modes, $`W^\pm `$ 2 jets (or lepton-neutrino) and $`hb\overline{b}`$, an aspect which allows for a significant reduction of the QCD background. As demonstrated in Ref. , signals of charged Higgs bosons in the $`2\stackrel{<}{}\mathrm{tan}\beta \stackrel{<}{}3`$ range can be seen in this channel, provided that 200 GeV $`\stackrel{<}{}M_{H^\pm }\stackrel{<}{}220`$ GeV (see also  for an experimental simulation). The above lower limit on $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ corresponds to the border of the exclusion region drawn from LEP2 direct searches for the MSSM $`h`$ scalar, whose mass bound is now set at $`M_h\stackrel{>}{}100`$ GeV or so .

It is the purpose of this letter that of resuming the studies of Ref. , by analysing the contribution to the background due to several irreducible processes, not considered there, whose presence could spoil the feasibility of charged Higgs searches in the $`W^{\pm ()}h`$ mode of the MSSM.

The plan of this paper is as follows. In the next Section we discuss possible signals and backgrounds, their implementation and list the values adopted for the various parameters needed for their computation. Section 3 is devoted to the presentation and discussion of the results. Conclusions are in Section 4.

## 2. Signals and backgrounds

We generate the signal cross sections by using the formulae of Ref. . That is, we implement the $`23`$ matrix element (ME) for the process

$$ggt\overline{b}H^{}+\mathrm{charge}\mathrm{conjugate}(\mathrm{c}.\mathrm{c}.).$$
(1)
This nicely embeds both the $`ggt\overline{t}t\overline{b}H^{}+\mathrm{c}.\mathrm{c}.`$ subprocess of top-antitop production and decay, which is dominant for $`m_t\stackrel{>}{}M_{H^\pm }`$, as well as the $`bgtH^{}`$ \+ c.c. one of $`b\overline{t}`$-fusion and $`H^\pm `$-bremsstrahlung, which is responsible for charged Higgs production in the case $`m_t\stackrel{<}{}M_{H^\pm }`$ . The ME of process (1) has been computed by means of the spinor techniques of Refs. .

In the $`H^{}W^{()}hW^{()}b\overline{b}`$ channel, assuming high efficiency and purity in selecting/rejecting $`b`$-/non-$`b`$-jets, possible irreducible background processes are the following (we consider only the $`gg`$-initiated channels):

1. the $`t\overline{b}W^{}h`$ continuum;
2. $`t\overline{b}W^{}Z`$ production, especially when $`M_ZM_h`$;
3. the QCD induced case $`t\overline{b}W^{}g`$;
4. and, finally, $`t\overline{b}W^{}H`$ and $`t\overline{b}W^{}A`$ intermediate states;

in which $`H,h,A,Z,gb\overline{b}`$, plus their c.c. channels. Once the top quark appearing in the above reactions decays, two $`W^\pm `$ bosons are present in each event. We will eventually assume the $`W^+W^{}`$ pair to decay semi-leptonically to light-quark jets, electrons/muons and corresponding neutrinos. Furthermore, we will require to tag exactly three $`b`$-jets in the final state (e.g., by using $`\mu `$-vertex or high $`p_T`$ lepton techniques). The same ‘signature’ was considered in Ref. , where only the ‘intrinsic’ $`t\overline{b}H^{}t\overline{t}b\overline{b}`$ background and the QCD noise due to ‘$`t\overline{t}`$ \+ jet’ events were studied (with jet signifying here either a $`b`$-, light-quark or gluon jet, the latter two mistagged for the former).

Both signal and background MEs have been integrated numerically by means of VEGAS  and, for test purposes, of RAMBO  and Metropolis  as well. While proceeding to the phase space integration, one also has to fold in the $`(x,Q^2)`$-dependent Parton Distribution Functions (PDFs) for the two incoming gluons. These have been evaluated at leading-order, by means of the package MRS-LO(05A) .

The numerical values of the SM parameters are ($`\mathrm{}=e,\mu `$):

$$m_{\mathrm{}}=m_\nu _{\mathrm{}}=m_u=m_d=m_s=m_c=0,$$

$$m_b=4.25\mathrm{GeV},m_t=175\mathrm{GeV},$$

$$M_Z=91.2\mathrm{GeV},\mathrm{\Gamma }_Z=2.5\mathrm{GeV},$$

$$M_{W^\pm }=80.2\mathrm{GeV},\mathrm{\Gamma }_W=2.2\mathrm{GeV}.$$
(2)
As for the top width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_t`$, we have used the LO value calculated within the MSSM (i.e., $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_t=1.55`$ GeV if $`M_{H^\pm }m_t`$).

Concerning the MSSM parameters, we proceed as follows. For a start, we assume that the mass of the lightest neutral Higgs particle (but not $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$) is already known, thanks to its discovery at either LEP2, Tevatron (Run 2) or from early analyses at the LHC itself. Thus, for us, $`M_h`$ is a fixed parameter, assuming for reference the following discrete values: e.g., 90, 100, 110, 120 and 130 GeV. Then we express all other Higgs masses as a function of $`M_{H^\pm }`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. For the pseudoscalar Higgs boson mass, the tree-level relation $`M_{H^\pm }^2=M_{W^\pm }^2+M_A^2`$ is assumed. Radiative corrections then, of arbitrary perturbative order, are in practice embedded in the $`H`$ mass and the mixing angle $`\alpha `$. In general, notice that, at the ‘Renormalisation Group improved’ one-loop level , it is only for very large values of the lightest stop mass and of the squark mixing parameters that $`M_h`$ can escape the LEP2 bound in the low $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ region, on which we will focus most of our attention.

Finally, notice that we develop our discussion at the parton level, without considering fragmentation and hadronisation effects. Thus, jets are identified with the partons from which they originate and all cuts are applied directly to the latter. In particular, when selecting $`b`$-jets, a vertex tagging is implied, with a finite efficiency, $`ϵ_b`$, per each tag. Moreover, we assume no correlations among multiple tags, nor do we include misidentification of light-quark (including $`c`$-quark-)jets produced in $`W^\pm `$ decays as $`b`$-jets.

## 3. Results and discussion

As a preliminary exercise, we study the total production and decay cross sections before any cuts, as all our reactions are finite over their entire phase spaces (recall that $`m_b0`$). This is done in Figs. 34 for the signal and the five background processes discussed in the previous Section, for five values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, over the range 140 GeV $`\stackrel{<}{}M_{H^\pm }\stackrel{<}{}`$ 500 GeV, for $`M_h=90`$ and 100 GeV, in the channel $`Xb\overline{b}`$, where $`X=h,Z,g,H`$ or $`A`$. (Of course, the $`W^\pm Z`$ and $`W^\pm g`$ backgrounds have no dependence on any of the three parameters above222Note that the rates in Figs. 34 account for the c.c. production modes as well..) As for the decay rates of the top (anti)quark and the $`W^\pm `$ boson, for sake of simplicity, we take them equal to $`1`$ for the time being. The signal is always dominated by the QCD background and – at large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ – also by the EW ones. Notice the local maxima of the signal rates at $`M_{H^\pm }M_{W^\pm }+M_h`$, as induced by the opening of the $`H^{}W^{}h`$ decay (compare to Figs. 12), and the minima as well, due to the onset of the $`H^{}b\overline{t}`$ channel instead.

In the reminder of our analysis, we assume semi-leptonic decays of $`W^+W^{}`$ pairs, as in Ref. : i.e., $`W^+W^{}2\mathrm{jets}\mathrm{}^\pm \nu _{\mathrm{}}`$ (hereafter, jet refers to a non-$`b`$-jet and $`\mathrm{}=e,\mu `$). However, as compared to that analysis, we make one simplification. Namely, we assume that one top (anti)quark and the $`W^\pm `$ boson generated in its decay have already been reconstructed, e.g., by using the mass selection procedure advocated in Ref. , either leptonically or hadronically. This allows us to greatly reduce the complexity of our numerical calculation while – we believe – substantially un-affecting the relative rates of signal and backgrounds (in fact, all processes described produce the same final state and all involve at least one top quark). Then we apply the following cuts on the remaining particles (here, the label $`\mathrm{j}`$ refers to the decay products of the second $`W^\pm `$ boson present in the event, which can be either light-quarks or leptons):

$$p_T(b,\mathrm{j},\mathrm{missing})>20\mathrm{GeV}$$
(3)
on the transverse momentum (including the missing one),

$$|\eta (b,\mathrm{j})|<2.5$$
(4)
on the pseudorapidity, and

$$\mathrm{\Delta }R(bb,b\mathrm{j},\mathrm{jj})>0.4$$
(5)
on the relative separation of $`b`$\- and light-quark jets/leptons j, where

$$\mathrm{\Delta }R(ij)=\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }\eta (ij)^2+\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi (ij)^2},$$
(6)
is defined in terms of relative differences in pseudorapidity $`\eta (ij)`$ and azimuth $`\varphi (ij)`$, with $`ij=b`$, j$`/\mathrm{}`$. Furthermore, we impose (see also Ref. )

$$|M_{bb}M_h|<10\mathrm{GeV}$$
(7)
on exactly one pair of $`b`$-jets,

$$M_{\mathrm{jj}}>50\mathrm{GeV}$$
(8)
on the light-jet (or lepton-neutrino) pair (recall that the $`W^\pm `$ can be off-shell), and, finally,

$$|M_{bbb\mathrm{jj}}M_t|<20\mathrm{GeV}$$
(9)
around the top mass if three $`b`$’s are present in the event (in addition to the one already used to reconstruct the top (anti)quark). In such a case, one may assume that the charged Higgs boson has predominantly been produced in the decay of a top (anti)quark (when $`M_{H^\pm }\stackrel{<}{}m_t`$). If instead only two appear, then one should conclude that the Higgs has mainly been generated in a bremsstrahlung/fusion process (because $`M_{H^\pm }\stackrel{>}{}m_t`$) with a $`b`$-(anti)quark lost along the beam pipe. Our $`23`$ production mechanism naturally allows one to emulate both dynamics in a gauge invariant fashion, including all interference effects. As already mentioned, however, we will assume a triple $`b`$-tagging, this implying an overall efficiency factor of $`ϵ_b^3`$ multiplying our signal and background rates. (Thus, the third $`b`$-jet in eq. (9) is actually non-$`b`$-tagged: it can be interpreted as the jet system satisfying neither eq. (7) nor eq.(8).) We take $`ϵ_b=0.5`$, like in  (and assume 100% lepton identification efficiency).

Given the signal production rates before acceptance and selection cuts, it is clear that – for such an $`ϵ_b`$ – even at high collider luminosity (i.e., $`𝑑t=100`$ fb-1 per annum), hopes of disentangling the charged Higgs boson of the MSSM in the $`W^{\pm ()}h`$ decay channel are only confined to the very low $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ region. We will thus restrict ourselves to study in the reminder of the paper $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ values which are, e.g., below seven. The total signal rates after the cuts (3)–(9) have been applied can be found in Fig. 5, for the choices $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =1,2,3`$ and $`7`$, as a function of $`M_{H^\pm }`$. For reference, we illustrate the ‘borderline’ case $`M_h=100`$ GeV. (Indeed, a lower $`M_h`$ value at $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =2`$ is in contradiction with LEP2 data, whereas higher masses induce a far too large suppression on BR($`H^\pm W^\pm h`$): see Fig. 2.) The trends in the figure are the consequence of two effects. On the one hand, the production cross section of $`ggt\overline{b}H^{}`$ \+ c.c. is roughly proportional to $`(m_t^2\mathrm{cot}\beta ^2+m_b^2\mathrm{tan}\beta ^2)`$, so that its maxima occur at very low or very high $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. On the other hand, we have seen how the largest $`H^{}W^{()}h`$ decay fraction is attained for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta 2`$. In the end, the largest values for $`\sigma (ggt\overline{b}H^{})\times \mathrm{BR}(H^{}W^{()}h)`$ \+ c.c. are obtained for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =1`$: see Fig. 5. Unfortunately, such a $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ value is already excluded in the MSSM from LEP2 data . For the optimal remaining choice, i.e., $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =2`$, the annual rate never exceeds 140 events (before any $`b`$-tagging efficiency but after acceptance and selection cuts). The maximum occurs at $`M_{H^\pm }200`$ GeV, significantly above the real threshold at $`M_h+M_{W^\pm }180`$ GeV.

We now compare such a signal with the irreducible backgrounds 1.–4., for the same choice of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ and $`M_h`$ (where relevant). This is done in the upper half of Fig. 6, at the level of total production rates. After the cuts (3)–(9) are enforced, all background components in 2.–4. are overwhelmed by the signal in the vicinity of $`M_{H^\pm }=200`$ GeV, whereas the $`W^\pm h`$ continuum production is always larger than the $`H^\pm W^\pm h`$ resonant channel. Thus, it is relevant to compare the last two processes in the ‘reconstructed’ invariant mass $`M_{W^\pm h}`$, i.e., that obtained from pairing the two $`b`$-jets fulfilling condition (7) and the two light-quark jets (or, alternatively, the lepton-neutrino pair) satisfying eq. (8) and not already reconstructing $`M_{W^\pm }`$ on their own and $`m_t`$ in association with any of the $`b`$’s (see Ref. ). The spectrum in this variable is presented in the lower half of Fig. 6, for our ideal case $`M_{H^\pm }=200`$ GeV (and, again, $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =2`$ and $`M_h=100`$ GeV). For such MSSM parameter combination, the charged Higgs signal is well above the continuum for values of $`M_{W^\pm h}`$ which are $`\pm 20`$ GeV from $`M_{H^\pm }`$. (To vary $`M_{H^\pm }`$ and/or $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ basically corresponds to rescale the solid line in the last plot by a constant factor, according to the rates in Fig. 5.)

For reference, Tab. 1 presents the number of events of resonant and continuum $`W^\pm h`$ production at the LHC, after 300 inverse femtobarns of collected luminosity, for $`ϵ_b^3=0.125`$, in the window $`|M_{H^\pm }M_{W^\pm h}|<`$ 40 GeV, for the three values $`M_{H^\pm }=180,200`$ and 220 GeV. Although very small, a $`H^{}W^{}h`$ signal is generally observable above the $`W^{}h`$ continuum for $`M_{H^\pm }`$ around $`200`$ GeV. Our numbers are roughly consistent with those in Ref. , if one considers that we neglect the finite efficiency of reconstructing one $`W^\pm `$ boson and the associated top (anti)quark and since we have chosen somewhat different cuts. Therefore, in the end, the dominant backgrounds remain (in the $`3b`$-tagged channel) the $`H^{}b\overline{t}`$ \+ c.c. decay and the QCD noise involving misidentified gluons, i.e., those already identified in Ref. .

## 4. Conclusions

In summary, in this paper, we have complemented a previous analysis  of the production and decay of charged Higgs bosons of the MSSM at the LHC, in the channels $`ggt\overline{b}H^{}`$ and $`H^{}W^{()}h`$ (and charged conjugated modes), respectively, by considering several irreducible backgrounds in the $`3b`$-tagged channel, i.e., $`t\overline{b}H^{}`$ \+ c.c. $`3b2\mathrm{jets}\mathrm{}`$ \+ ‘missing energy’ (where the initial $`b`$-(anti)quark is usually lost along the beam pipe), which had not yet been considered.

We have found that, after standard acceptance cuts and a kinematic selection along the lines of the one outlined in Ref. , the dominant background among those considered here is the continuum production $`ggt\overline{b}W^{()}h`$ \+ c.c. However, the latter has been found to lie significantly below the signal in the only region where this is detectable: when $`\mathrm{tan}\beta 23`$ and $`M_{H^\pm }200`$ GeV (with $`M_h`$ around 100 GeV, close to the latest LEP2 constraints). Thus, the chances of detecting the $`H^{}W^{}hW^{}b\overline{b}`$ decay in such a (narrow) region of the MSSM parameter space depend mainly on the interplay between this mode, the competing one $`H^{}b\overline{t}W^{}b\overline{b}`$ and the QCD background with mistagged gluons, as are the latter two that clearly overwhelm the former (recall the last figure in ).

We have carried out our analysis at parton level, without showering and hadronisation effects but emulating typical detector smearing. We are confident that its salient features should survive a more sophisticated simulation, such as the one presented in Ref. . Besides, our results concerning the backgrounds can be transposed to the case of non-minimal SUSY models (where the $`H^\pm `$ discovery potential can extend to a much larger portion of parameter space), such as those considered in Ref. , so that also in these scenarios the irreducible backgrounds analysed here can be brought under control.

### Acknowledgements

The author is grateful to the UK-PPARC for financial support. Furthermore, he thanks D.P. Roy for his remarks, which induced him to eventually considering the subject of this research. He also thanks K.A. Assamagan for several useful discussions. Finally, many conversations with K. Odagiri are acknowledged, as well as many numerical comparisons against and the use of some of his programs.


text:
# Are Messages of R-parity Violating Supersymmetry Hidden within Top Quark Signals ?

## Abstract

In an R-parity nonconserving supersymmetric theory, the lighter stop can dominantly decay into $`b\mu `$ and $`b\tau `$ if R-parity breaking has to explain the neutrino mass and mixing pattern suggested by the data on atmospheric muon neutrinos. This should give rise to $`dilepton+dijet`$ and $`singlelepton+jets`$, signals identical with those of the top quark at the Fermilab Tevatron. One can thus constrain the stop parameter space using the current top search data, and similarly look for the first signals of supersymmetry at the upgraded runs of the Tevatron.

preprint: MRI-PHY/P20000307

It has been repeatedly suggested that in a supersymmetric (SUSY) scenario , one of the two spin-zero superpartners of the top quark, popularly known as stop, could be considerably lighter than any other strongly interacting superparticle . This happens due to the mixing between the left-and right chiral stops, which can be quite large in principle, reducing the mass of the lighter eigenstate. Also, negative contribution from Yukawa coupling in the evolution equations for scalar mass parameters can cause the stop to be lighter than the other squarks in a framework where all squark flavours have the same mass at a high energy scale. It has been shown that in the minimal supersymmetric standard model (MSSM), a light stop ($`\stackrel{~}{t}_1`$) will decay dominantly through the channels $`\stackrel{~}{t}_1c\chi _1^0`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{t}_1b\chi _1^+`$, where $`\chi _1^0`$ and $`\chi _1^+`$ are the lightest neutralino and the lighter chargino respectively. Out of these, the former reigns supreme  if the light stop is even lighter than $`\chi _1^+`$ . Based on the ensuing signals, experiments at the Fermilab Tevatron have set a lower limit of about $`120135`$ GeV on the lighter stop  depending on the mass of the lightest neutralino.

The observed signals can be quite different when R-parity, defined as $`(1)^{3B+L+2S}`$, is not a conserved quantity, something that is both theoretically and phenomenologically consistent in supersymmetric theories so long as only one of baryon number ($`B`$) and lepton number ($`L`$) is violated. In such cases, the lightest supersymmetric particle (LSP) can be unstable, thereby altering the signals of SUSY . If, in addition, the LSP (which is the lightest neutralino in most theories) is massive enough to evade searches at the large electron-positron collider (LEP), then the observation of SUSY at the Fermilab Tevatron may depend squarely on the production and decays of the light stop for whom R-parity violation opens up new and often dominant decay modes. The limits based on $`\stackrel{~}{t}_1c\chi _1^0`$ require re-examination in such a case.

In this letter, we want to point out that the easiest identifiable signatures of a light stop (and therefore perhaps of SUSY itself) in an R-parity nonconserving framework could be in final states that have been, and still are, widely studied to look for the top quark at the Tevatron, namely, the $`dimuon+dijet`$ as well as $`singlemuon+jets`$ signals. We further argue that stop decays leading to such final states are imperative in R-parity violating scenarios that lead to neutrino masses and mixing as required by the recent SuperKamiokande (SK) data on atmospheric muon neutrinos. Thus a careful reanalysis of the already existing Tevatron Run I results on top search may allow us to explore a large region of the light stop parameter space of such theories, where the search channel employed for MSSM is not going to be effective. In Run II one can have an even wider prospect, not only for constraining the SUSY parameter space but also for the possibility of top signals being actually faked by the stop. In addition, some new signals for such models, very similar to those of the top quark, are suggested here.

Expressed in terms of the quark, lepton and Higgs superfields, the MSSM superpotential is

$`W_{MSSM}`$ $`=`$ $`\mu \widehat{H}_1\widehat{H}_2+h_{ij}^l\widehat{L}_i\widehat{H}_1\widehat{E}_j^c+h_{ij}^d\widehat{Q}_i\widehat{H}_1\widehat{D}_j^c+h_{ij}^u\widehat{Q}_i\widehat{H}_2\widehat{U}_j^c`$ (1)
where $`\mu `$ is the Higgsino mass parameter and the last three terms give all the Yukawa interactions.

The possible additions to this superpotential due to R-parity violation (through lepton number violation only) are given by

$$W_{\mathit{}}=ϵ_i\widehat{L}_i\widehat{H}_2+\lambda _{ijk}\widehat{L}_i\widehat{L}_j\widehat{E}_k^c+\lambda _{ijk}^{}\widehat{L}_i\widehat{Q}_j\widehat{D}_k^c$$
(2)
We consider only the effects of the trilinear additional terms in the superpotential; we shall point out at the end of the paper that the effects we are suggesting can arise also from the bilinear terms $`ϵ_i\widehat{L}_i\widehat{H}_2`$.

If the SK data  on atmospheric muon neutrinos (and also similar data from the Soudan-II  and MACRO  experiments) have to be explained in terms of $`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$ oscillations, then the mass-squared splitting between the second and third lightest physical neutrino states will have to be $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{23}^25\times 10^3`$, in addition to near-maximal mixing between the corresponding flavour eigenstates. R-parity violation in the form of the $`\lambda `$-and $`\lambda ^{^{}}`$-type interactions in equation 2 can give rise to neutrino mass terms at one-loop level, the generic expression for them (in the flavour basis) being

$`(m_\nu ^{\mathrm{loop}})_{ij}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{8\pi ^2}}m_k^dm_p^dM_{SUSY}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_{\stackrel{~}{q}}^2}}\lambda _{ikp}^{}\lambda _{jpk}^{}`$ (4)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi ^2}}m_k^lm_p^lM_{SUSY}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_{\stackrel{~}{l}}^2}}\lambda _{ikp}\lambda _{jpk}`$
where $`m^{d(l)}`$ denote the down-type quark (charged lepton) masses. $`m_{\stackrel{~}{l}}^2`$, $`m_{\stackrel{~}{q}}^2`$ are the average slepton and squark mass squared. $`M_{SUSY}(\mu )`$ is the effective scale of supersymmetry breaking. The mass and mixing patterns suggested by the observed $`\nu _\mu `$ data can be accommodated in the above scheme of mass generation if, with $`M_{SUSY}m\stackrel{~}{q}300500`$ GeV, $`\lambda _{233}^{^{}}\lambda _{333}^{^{}}afewtimes10^4`$ . An immediate consequence of such couplings is the decay of the lighter stop in the channels $`\stackrel{~}{t}_1b\tau ^+`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{t}_1b\mu ^+`$ with comparable widths.

There is a considerably large region of the parameter space, not yet constrained by any experimental data, where the stop is the second lightest supersymmetric particle next to the lightest neutralino. In this region, the three lowest-order decay channels available to the stop are $`\stackrel{~}{t}_1c\chi _1^0`$, $`\stackrel{~}{t}_1b\tau ^+`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{t}_1b\mu ^+`$ . The first one, a well-studied process, is a consequence of neutral flavour violation in SUSY and is suppressed by the small mismatch between quark and squark mass matrices. The latter ones are driven by $`\lambda _{233}^{}`$ and $`\lambda _{333}^{}`$, and we find that they dominate for a light stop with mass $`150`$ GeV so long as $`\lambda _{233}^{^{}},\lambda _{333}^{^{}}`$ lie in the range specified above, in conformity with the SK data.

We focus our attention on single-muon and dimuon final states, together with jets and missing energy, arising from (light) stops pair-produced in $`p\overline{p}`$ collisions at the Fermilab Tevatron, with either both decaying into $`b\tau `$ or one of them into $`b\tau `$ while the other goes to $`b\mu `$. The same final states have been extensively analysed for the determination of the mass and production cross-section of the top quark. It should be noted that the $`\tau `$ produced together with a $`b`$ quark in the two-body decay of a stop (with mass $`100150`$ GeV) can have sufficient $`p_T`$ for the resulting jets/muons/neutrinos to often pass the $`p_T`$ or $`\mathit{}_T`$ cuts associated with the top quark signals. Thus, depending upon whether the tau decays hadronically or semileptonically, the stop decays can contribute to top-like signals of the form $`(i)singlemuon+3jets+\mathit{}_T`$ and $`(ii)dimuon+2jets+\mathit{}_T`$, provided that the jets/leptons satisfy the requisite cuts.

We present some numerical estimates where the five degenerate squark flavours are assumed to have masses $`400`$ GeV. The mass of the lighter stop is made to vary beween $`80`$ and $`150`$ GeV, while the $`SU(2)`$ gaugino mass $`M_2`$ is held fixed at $`150`$ GeV. Unification of the gaugino masses has been assumed. In addition, $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, the ratio of the two Higgs expectation values, has been fixed at 3. Although we have *not* assumed any definite high scale SUSY breaking mechanism, it can be verified that such combinations of parameters can indeed be realised in a supergravity (SUSY) framework. This is possible by using one’s freedom  with the trilinear soft SUSY breaking term $`A`$ (while still preserving charge and colour invariance ) and using the Higgsino parameter $`\mu `$ as a phenomenological input , something that is justfied if the Higgs mass parameters retain the freedom of differing from the ‘universal’ sfermion mass parameter ($`m_0`$) at the grand unification scale.

The above specified set of parameters allows one to calculate the R-conserving stop decay width. For the R-parity violating two-body decays, we have used three sets of values for $`\lambda _{233}^{^{}}=\lambda _{333}^{^{}}`$, consistent with the expectation from the SK results. Using these, it is straightforward to calculate the branching ratios of the various stop decay modes. It is found that for the region of parameter space under investigation here, the branching ratio for R-parity violating decays ranges from 75 to 99 per cent, with a near-equal share between the $`b\tau `$ and $`b\mu `$ channels.

A parton level Monte Carlo calculation has been performed for both $`singlemuon+threejets+\mathit{}_T`$ and $`dimuon+twojets+\mathit{}_T`$ final states arising from stop pair-production at the Tevatron. In the former case, we have demanded that at least one jet be identified as a $`b`$-induced one. Both the top- and stop-production cross-sections have been QCD corrected using a a so-called $`K`$-factor of 1.4 in case of top  and 1.3  for the stop. For hadronic decays of the tau, we have considered only modes with one charged track, arising from $`\tau ^\pm \pi ^\pm \nu _\tau ,\rho ^\pm \nu _\tau ,a_1^\pm \nu _\tau `$. In order to calibrate our parton-level results, we have computed the numbers of the same types of expected signal events from top quark pair production. The numbers of both single-muon and dimuon events thus calculated in the latter case agree, within small errors, with the actual observations , so that our results may be treated as reasonable estimates of how many stop-induced events can be contained in the top signal.

Since our main purpose is to see how stop signal can percolate into top signals for which detectors are already designed, both have been subjected to the same set of cuts, as specified by the CDF top search strategy. In both types of final states of our interest, jets are defined using the cone algorithm as discussed in Ref.. Jets are counted in the analysis only if $`|\eta |_{jet}<2`$ where $`\eta `$ is the pseudorapidity . For single muon final state we require jets with $`E_T>15`$ GeV, at least one of which is identified as a $`b`$-jet (with identification efficiency $`40`$ % ) while for dimuon final state two jets with $`E_T>10`$ GeV are required . Two jets are merged if $`\mathrm{\Delta }R0.4`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }R=\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }\eta ^2+\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi ^2}`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\eta `$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi `$ being the separations in pseudorapidity and azimuthal angle. In both the cases *isolated* muon(s) with $`p_T>20`$ GeV are necessary in the central region with $`|\eta |<1`$ . The criterion for muon isolation imposed here is that the total $`E_T`$ within a cone of $`\mathrm{\Delta }R=0.4`$ around it should be less than 10 % of its own $`p_T`$. In dimuon final states, backgrounds from real $`Z`$ are rejected by requiring the dimuon invariant mass to be outside the interval $`75105`$ GeV . For single muon events, missing transverse energy, $`\mathit{}_T>20`$ GeV is demanded  while for dimuons $`\mathit{}_T>25`$ GeV is generally required . It is observed in the last of Ref.  that this combination of cuts effectively eliminates backgrounds from Drell-Yan production and other relevant processes for the dimuon final state.

The net contribution of the stop to the top-like signals depends on two effects: the production cross section of a stop pair vs that of a top pair, and the relatively large branching fraction for the stops cascading into the final states of our interest. In addition, of course, the susceptibility to cuts plays a role. For $`m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}100`$ GeV the production rates approximately match, and the stop production rate falls for higher stop masses.

Figures 1 and 2 contain our main results, based on an integrated luminosity of $`109`$ pb<sup>-1</sup>. We have checked by varying the parameter $`\mu `$ between $`700`$ and $`+700`$ GeV that the results are not altered by more than about 25 per cent. The dimuon events enable us to rule out a slightly larger range of the stop mass. This is because of more suppression of the top signal in this channel through leptonic branching fractions of $`W`$ as opposed to what happens for stop-pairs. It is clear from figure 2 that the dimuon data should definitely rule out the entire stop mass interval that is otherwise constrained assuming $`B(\stackrel{~}{t}_1c\chi _1^0)1`$. In fact, the limit can perhaps be pushed somewhat higher up in the R-parity violating case. For $`\lambda _{233}^{^{}}\lambda _{333}^{^{}}=10^4`$, this limit should be around 125 GeV with the currently available data, while for $`\lambda ^{^{}}`$-values of $`5\times 10^4`$ it touches about 140 GeV.

From the single muon signal too, stop masses upto about $`120125`$ GeV seem to be ruled out. We also want to emphasize that both this channel and the dimuon one can be used effectively in the context of Run II of the Tevatron to look for SUSY signals burried within the top data. A careful analysis of the dimuon versus dielectron data there, invigorated by the additional available luminosity, may lead to successful identification of an excess in the former, thereby indicating R-parity violation of a kind that simultaneously explains the atmospheric neutrino puzzle.

For simplicity, we have confined ourselves in the above discussion to cases where the stop is kinematically forbidden to decay into a $`b`$ quark and a chargino. Such a decay can be possible when $`M_2`$ and consequently the mass of lightest neutralino is smaller. However, in view of the fact that the chargino can subsequently decay into a lepton, the above mode can in effect strengthen the stop contribution.

The values of R-parity violating couplings which are as small as the ones under study here are unlikely to contribute to precision electroweak data  or to R-parity violating decays of the top quark  such as $`tb\stackrel{~}{l}`$ or $`t\stackrel{~}{b}l`$ even if they are kinematically allowed. However, with couplings several times larger in magnitude (with larger average squark mass, for example), some of these decays could lead to additional signals (final states of higher multiplicity) from the decays of the top, particularly at Run II of the Fermilab Tevatron.

Another signal, similar in nature to the ones discussed above, is one where both the stops decay into the $`b\mu `$ channel. In this case one shall see dimuons with two jets. Proper $`b`$-identifaction in the jets, together with effective measures to eliminate the Drell-Yan backgrounds, can establish such final states as rather effective ones for discovering a light stop in an R-parity violating theory.

As has been mentioned at the beginning, the above discussion has assumed only trilinear R-parity violating interactions. The presence of the bilinear terms of the form $`L_iH_2`$ in the superpotential (and the consequent vacuum expectation values for sneutrinos) can give rise to mixing between charged leptons and charginos , which can again lead to top-like signals of the same kinds from stop decays. A detailed analysis of the signals in such a case will soon be presented by us .

In conclusion, the first signals of R-parity violating SUSY observable in current and upcoming experiments can very well mimic those of the top quark. This is particularly true if the theory has to account for the neutrino masses and mixing suggested by experimental results on atmospheric muon neutrinos. We can use the already available $`singlelepton+jets`$ as well as *dilepton* data from the Fermilab Tevatron to constrain a large range of the lighter stop mass in such a scenario. In the upgraded version of the Tevatron, too, top quark signals will continue to be useful probes for such types of SUSY.

We thank S. Raychaudhuri and M. Guchait for technical help.