Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

SCIENCE ^DIRECT8

Physics Letters B 567 (2003) 305-314

www. elsevier. com/locate/npe

Double beta decay constraints on neutrino masses and mixing; reanalysis with KamLAND data

Hisakazu Minakata, Hiroaki Sugiyama

Department of Physics, Tokyo Metropolitan University, Hachioji, Tokyo 192-0397, Japan Received 19 December 2002; received in revised form 4 March 2003; accepted 6 March 2003

Editor: T. Yanagida

Abstract

In the light of KamLAND data just released, we reanalyse and update the constraints on neutrino masses and mixing parameters, the most general ones that can be derived in three-flavor mixing scheme of neutrinos with use of the bounds imposed by neutrinoless double beta decay search and reactor experiments. We point out that with KamLAND data and assuming Majorana neutrinos one can derive, for the first time, an upper bound on neutrino contribution to the cosmological Q parameter, Qv < 0.070h-2, by using the current upper bound on mass parameters obtained by Heidelberg-Moscow group, (m)pp < 0.35 eV (90% C.L.). If the bound is tighten to (m)pp < 0.1 eV by future experiments, it would lead to a far severer bound Qv < 0.01h-2. © 2003 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

PACS: 14.60.Pq; 26.65.+t; 23.40.-s

1. Introduction

The solar neutrino problem is finally solved by the KamLAND experiment [1], which observed a clear deficit of about 40% in ve flux from reactors located in all over Japan. It pin-points the large-mixing-angle (LMA) region as the unique solution of the solar neutrino problem based on the MSW matter enhanced neutrino flavor transformation [2], excluding the remaining LOW and the vacuum (VAC) solutions. While the LMA solution was preferred over others on statistical ground in combined analyses of solar neutrino data [3] it is by no means true that it was selected out as the unique solution. It is because the values of x2 of the LOW and the VAC solutions, ~ unity per degrees of freedom [4], were acceptable and hence it was not possible with only solar neutrino data to uniquely identify the LMA solution.

It implies, first of all, that the three-flavor mixing scheme of neutrinos had further support by the experiments, and the structure of lepton flavor mixing is established together with the existing evidences which come from the atmospheric [5] and the long-baseline accelerator experiments [6]. Given our above understanding of the

E-mail addresses: minakata@phys.metro-u.ac.jp (H. Minakata), hiroaki@phys.metro-u.ac.jp (H. Sugiyama).

0370-2693/$ - see front matter © 2003 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2003.03.001

KamLAND result it also means that the experiment gave the first direct proof of (almost) pure vacuum neutrino oscillation, the fascinating phenomenon first predicted by Maki, Nakagawa, and Sakata [7], and first applied to the solar neutrino problem by Pontecorvo [8].

The resolution of the solar neutrino problem implies that we now know within certain uncertainties the values of Am22 and sin2 2012. It is an urgent task to uncover the all possible implications of the far more constrained values of these mixing parameters. We address in this Letter the impact of the KamLAND result on masses and possible mass patterns of neutrinos.

We reanalyse the constraints on neutrino masses and mixing parameters imposed by neutrinoless double beta decay experiments in the light of the first results of KamLAND experiment under the assumption of Majorana neutrinos. See Ref. [9] for the present status of the double beta decay experiments. The constraints we will derive [10] are the maximal ones that can be derived in a model-independent way (and assuming ignorance of the CP violating phases) in a general framework of three-flavor mixing scheme of neutrinos. It utilizes the bounds imposed by neutrinoless double beta decay search and the CHOOZ reactor experiment [11].

A natural question would be "what is the impact of the KamLAND data on the double beta decay bound on neutrino mass and mixing parameters?" The answer is that it allows us to derive, for the first time, an upper bound on the neutrino contribution to the cosmological Q parameter, the energy density normalized by the critical density in the present universe. It is not because the parameter region for the LMA solution becomes narrower (in fact, the region for 012 is virtually identical with that before KamLAND), but because the LOW and the VAC solutions which allow maximal or almost maximal mixing are eliminated by the KamLAND data at 99.95% C.L. [1].

2. Deriving the joint constraints by double beta decay and reactor experiments

In this section we review our formalism presented in [10]. We use the following standard parametrization of the MNS matrix [7]:

Umns =

C12C13

-S12C23 - C12S23S13e S12S23 - C12C23S13e'S

s12c13 c12c23 - s12s23s13ei

-C12S23 - S12C23S13e

The mixing matrix for three Majorana neutrinos is

U = Umns x diag(1,eip,eiY),

S13e-s S23C13 c23c13

where p and y are extra CP-violating phases which are characteristic to Majorana particles [12]. In this parametrization, the observable of double beta decay experiments is described as

(m)pp =

Y.miUl i=1

= \m1c212c213 + M2sl2c213e2ij + M3S23e2i(Y -s)\

where Uei denote the elements in the first row of U and mi (i = 1, 2, 3) are the neutrino mass eigenvalues. In the convention of this Letter the normal hierarchy means m1 <m2 < m3 and the inverted hierarchy m3 < m1 < m2. In order to utilize (m)mx which is an experimental upper bound on (m)pp, we derive a theoretical lower bound

)pp. With appropriate choice of the phase-factor e2'(Y s) in Eq. (3) it leads to the inequality

> (m)pp > c23\m1c22 + m2s^2e2'p \ - m3s^3.

Strictly speaking, the right-hand side (RHS) of (4) should be understood as the absolute value, but one can show that the alternative case does not lead to useful bound [10]. The RHS of (4) is minimized by replacing e2ip with

-1 and s?3 with sCH, respectively, where s.

CH is the largest value of s23 which is allowed by the CHOOZ reactor

experiment [11]. Roughly speaking, sCH — 0-03. Thus, we obtain

/ \ max ^ 2 I 2 2 I 2 2

(m)ßß > CGH|miCl2 - m2s\2 I - m3sCH = cCH

-(»Î2 + »îi) COS2012 - -(»Î2 - /Ml)

m3sCH-

It is convenient to utilize cos 2012 as a parameter because it arises naturally in the degenerate mass case.

Next, we derive a theoretical upper bound on (m)pp to utilize an experimental lower bound (m)mpn. Since the RHS of (3) is maximized by setting the phase-factors to the unity, we obtain

< (mi c22 + m2s^2)c\3 + m3s13.

Furthermore, the RHS of (6) is maximized by replacing s2 hierarchies, respectively. Then, we obtain

13 with sCH, and zero for the normal and the inverted

< (micj2 + m2s22)c^H + m3s^H = I ]-(m2 + mi) - ]-(m2 - mi) cos20i2 [c^h + m3s^H

for the normal hierarchy, and

■ 2 2 1 1

(m)Ißßl ^ micu + m2su = ~(m2 + mi) - -(m2 -mi)cos20i2

for the inverted hierarchy.

The obtained bounds (5), (7), and (8) can be represented as allowed regions on ml-cos2012 plane, where ml denotes the lightest neutrino mass for each hierarchy. Notice that other mass eigenvalues are expressed by ml together with the solar and the atmospheric Am2s;

m2 = mi + Am22 + Am23,

m2 = mi + Am^2,

where Am2. = m2 — m2.

Alternatively, one can use mh, the highest neutrino mass (m3 for the normal and m2 for the inverted mass hierarchies) to make the similar plot, as done in [10]. Whichever variable is used, they are observables in single beta decay experiments; modulo definitions of effective mass parameters [13,14] it can be related, using (9), the observable in direct mass measurement in tritium beta decay experiments. For a review, see, e.g., [15]. We emphasize that importance of combining informations obtained by the single and the double beta decay experiments.

We do not present a careful treatment of the uncertainty of nuclear matrix elements in this Letter, but a brief comment will be made on how it affects the mass bound to be obtained in the next section.

3. Analyzing the joint constraints by double beta decay and reactor experiments with presently available data

Let us first discuss the constraint based on the presently available experimental upper bound (m)pp < 0.35 eV (90% C.L.) [16]. In Fig. 1 we display the constraint imposed on mixing parameters on ml-cos2012 plane, where ml indicates the lowest mass, m 1 and m3 for the normal and the inverted mass hierarchies, respectively. The region left to the curves is allowed by the inequality (5). The solid and the dashed lines are for the normal and the inverted mass hierarchies, respectively. One notices that the two curves completely overlap with each other at the present sensitivity of the experiment. The mass squared difference parameters are taken as Am^tm = 2.5 x 10-3 eV2, the best fit value in the atmospheric neutrino analysis [17], and Am\2 = 7.3 x 10-5 eV2, the best fit value of the combined analysis of the KamLAND and all the solar neutrino data [18].

Also shown in Fig. 1 as the shaded strip is the region allowed by joint analysis of the KamLAND and all the solar neutrino data [18]. From Fig. 1 one can draw the upper bound on ml as ml < 2.13(4.26) eV, where the number

Fig. 1. The double beta decay constraint with the CHOOZ bound (5) is displayed as an allowed region in mi-cos2$i2 space. The region left to the curve is allowed. The solid and the dashed lines are for the normal and the inverted mass hierarchies, but they completely overlap. The allowed LMA parameter region by the combined solar-KamLAND analysis is superimposed with shadow, and cos2$i2 = 0.37 is the best fit value.

in parenthesis here and in Eq. (10) indicates the one for the case where a factor of 2 uncertainty of nuclear matrix elements is taken into account. We notice that if either the LOW or the VAC solution were the solution to the solar neutrino problem the allowed region of cos 2012 would extend to zero (maximal mixing) and hence there would be no upper bound on ml.

This bound can be translated into the neutrino contribution to the cosmological Q parameter [19]

91.5 eV

h-2 < 0.070(0.14)h-2

which is already very restrictive. Here, h denotes the Hubble parameter in units of 100 km/sMpc. For possible

future use, we provide in Fig. 2 the upper limit of Qv as a function of

for three values of tan2 012,

tan2 012 = 0.46, 0.33, and 0.67. These values are chosen as the best fit, the upper and the lower limit of 90% C.L. allowed region of the LMA solution by combined analysis of KamLAND and all the solar neutrino data [18].

It is notable that even the double beta bound t

< 0.1 eV which may be reachable in several years is powerful

enough to constrain Qv parameter to be less than Qv ~ 1h-2%.

We notice that a short (almost) straight line, which is the lower bound on Qvh2, appears at around the lower end in Fig. 2(a). It is due to the fact that a vertical band appears in allowed region in ml~(m}pp plane at low (m}pp, the feature first observed in [20]. The behavior of the curve at around the lower end in Fig. 2(b) for the case of inverted mass hierarchy is slightly different from that obtained in [21].

We mention here that a similar constraint on neutrino masses may be obtained by cosmological observation [22].

The constraints imposed on neutrino mixing parameters by neutrinoless double beta decay have been discussed by many authors. In a previous paper [10] we tried to classify them into the ones in the "early epoch" [23], the "modern era" [24], and the "post-modern era" [25] which now include some additional references.

4. Analyzing the joint constraints by double beta decay and reactor experiments with possible future data

In this section, we analyse the constrains based on the double beta decay bound which would be obtained in the future. We consider two sample cases:

Fig. 2. Plotted is the upper bound on Qv, the neutrino contribution to cosmological Q parameter. Three lines correspond to, from above to below, tan2 6\2 = 0.67, 0.46, and 0.33, respectively. (a) and (b) are for the normal and the inverted mass hierarchies, respectively; These correspond to the edges of the LMA region and the best fit value. The bold horizontal line at Qvh2 = 0.072 is the upper bound determined by the recent result of single beta decay experiments. The thin horizontal line is the lower bound obtained by mi = 0.

Case 1: 0.1 eV < (m)^ < 0.3 eV.

Case 2: 0.01 eV < (m)^ < 0.03 eV.

Case 1 is a typical mass region proved and to be proved by the ongoing experiments [16,26,27], while Case 2 is a typical one for the next-generation experiments. The latter include, in alphabetical order, CUORE, EXO, GENIUS, Majorana, MOON, and XMASS [28-33]. The mass square difference parameters are fixed as in the previous section.

4.1. Case 1: 0.1 eV < (m)^ < 0.3 eV

The bounds for this case are presented in Fig. 3. One notices that the lower bound on (m)pp, (7) and (8), gives an almost vertical line at ml ~ (m)™^ because of the small values of Am^2. Therefore, (m)™^ is approximately regarded as the lower bound on ml. In Case 2 with an order of magnitude smaller value of (m)pp the situation is quite different, as you see in the next subsection.

On the other hand, the upper bound on (m)pp gives a nontrivial constraint, as shown in Fig. 3. The curve for (5) approaches to the asymptote cos2012 = ±Ch at large ml, where tCH = sCH/cCH. Hence, if either the LOW or the VAC solution were the case, there would be no upper bound on ml. In the LMA solution the upper bound does exist for the current allowed region of cos2012.

Notice that the bounds (5) for the normal and the inverted hierarchies are very similar to each other. It means that the degenerate mass approximation holds to a good accuracy. In this approximation, the constraint (5) becomes

(m)mf > m(c2CHI cos2^! - sCh), (11)

where mi ~ m.

We now understand that in the degenerate mass regime m^m)^ is a good parameter. In Fig. 4, the bounds (5) are presented on the ml/(m )m/ax-cos2012 plane for (m)^ = 0.1 eV. Two curves for the normal and the inverted mass hierarchies overlap well, indicating goodness of the degenerate mass approximation. Once we know that the scaling works, the result presented in Fig. 4 applies to any values of ml and (m)^ as far as the degenerate mass approximation holds.

Fig. 3. The double beta decay constraints with the CHOOZ bound (5), (7) and (8) displayed for 0.1 eV < (m)^ < 0.3 eV. The solid and the dashed lines are for the normal and the inverted mass hierarchies, respectively. The allowed LMA parameter region by the combined solar-KamLAND analysis is superimposed with shadow, and cos 20j2 = 0.37 is the best fit value.

Fig. 4. The double beta decay constraint with the CHOOZ bound (5) is displayed for (m)™^ = 0.1 eV to indicate the scaling behavior of the bound with variable mi/(m)™^ as used for abscissa. The region left to the curve is allowed. The solid and the dashed lines are for the normal and the inverted mass hierarchies, respectively. The allowed LMA parameter region by the combined solar-KamLAND analysis is superimposed with shadow, and cos 2012 = 0.37 is the best fit value.

Fig. 5. The double beta decay constraints with the CHOOZ bound (5), (7) and (8) displayed for 0.01 eV ^ (m)pp ^ 0.03 eV. The solid and the dashed lines are for the normal and the inverted mass hierarchies, respectively. The allowed LMA parameter region by the combined solar-KamLAND analysis is superimposed with shadow, and cos 2012 = 0.37 is the best fit value.

4.2. Case 2: 0.01 eV < (m)№ < 0.03 eV

The bounds for this case are presented in Fig. 5. It is clear that the degenerate mass approximation is no longer good because the relevant energy scale is smaller than the atmospheric mass scale . 0.05 cV The

bounds for the normal and the inverted hierarchy significantly differ with each other.

1 Although we put aside the uncertainties of Am2s for simplicity, those affect particularly the values related to the lower bound on mi in such asmall mass scale. Therefore, the values in (12), (13), and the left-hand side of (15) are just for reference.

An important point in Fig. 5 is that with such improved sensitivities experiments may start distinguishing the two different mass hierarchies. Most notably, the difference between the normal and the inverted mass hierarchies is quite visible at ml < 0.05 eV, and the lower limit of ml disappears for the inverted hierarchy. It occurs because the constraint (8) is satisfied even for ml = 0. A similar things occurs also in the normal hierarchy if (m)^ is sufficiently small. One can easily estimate, by taking ml = 0 and cos2012 = 0 in (7) and (8), the critical value of (m)m/3n under which the lower bound on ml disappears. Approximately, they read

Awi?2 + WA™atm - 0.0056 eV ■~ yAffl22 (12)

for the normal hierarchy, and

\c2cn(J Am2atm - Afflj2 + y A m2atm ) ~ 0.048 eV ~ J A m2atm (13)

for the inverted hierarchy. In Case 2, (m)^ = 0.01 eV is smaller than 0.048 eV, and that is why there is no lower bound on ml for the inverted hierarchy in Fig. 5.

Finally, let us extract the bound on ml from the result of [34] by assuming that it will be confirmed by NEMO3. Since (m)max = 0.84 eV is large enough, we can use Fig. 4. Therefore, the upper bound on ml is extracted as

mi < 3[6] x (m)- = 2.5[5.0] eV (14)

for the LMA best fit parameters and for the most conservative case in square parenthesis, respectively. On the other hand, (m)^ = 0.05 eV determines the lower bound on ml. By combining those results, we obtain

0.05 eV (0.005 eV) < ml < 2.5[5.0] eV (15)

for the normal (inverted) hierarchy with, in right-hand side, the LMA best fit parameters and for the most conservative case in square parenthesis. Therefore, we see that all the active neutrinos is massive if the result of [34] is confirmed. This conclusion, however, may not survive if the uncertainties of Am2s and nuclear matrix elements are taken into account.

5. Summary

In the light of the KamLAND data we reanalysed the constraint on neutrino masses and mixing imposed by neutrinoless double beta decay search and the CHOOZ reactor experiment. We have shown that by now the absolute mass scale for neutrinos is bounded from above by the "conspiracy" of KamLAND and double beta decay experiments. This conclusion and our whole analysis in this Letter are valid under the assumption that neutrinos are Majorana particles.

In closer detail, allowed regions on a plane spanned by the lowest neutrino mass versus the solar mixing angle 012 were obtained by using (m)^ ((m)^), the experimental upper (lower) bound obtained and to be obtained in the ongoing and the future double beta decay experiments. For given 012, these become constraints on neutrino mass, the lightest mass ml (or the heaviest one though we did not give them explicitly). Roughly speaking, (m)^ ^ ml < 3[6]x (m)^ for the LMA best fit parameters and for the most conservative case in square parenthesis, respectively.

It was made clear that the condition | cos2012| > iCH — 0.03 was necessary for the upper bound on ml to exist. On the other hand, the condition (ma" > 0.0056 eV (0.048 eV) needs to be satisfied for the normal (inverted) mass hierarchy, for the lower bound on ml to exist. For example, 0.05 eV < (m)aa ^ 0.84 eV gives 0.05 eV (0.005 eV) < ml < 2.5[5.0] eV forthe normal (inverted) hierarchy.

Note added

While this Letter was in the revision process, we became aware of the report by the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) [35] in which a severe constraint on omega parameter £2vh2 < 0.0076 (95% CL) is placed. It means that double beta decay searches must have the sensitivity in the region (m)pp < 0.1 eV to be competitive, as one can see from Fig. 2.

Acknowledgements

H.M. thank Theoretical Physics Department of Fermilab for hospitality where this work was completed. This work was supported by the Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research in Priority Areas No. 12047222, Japan Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology.

References

[1] KamLAND Collaboration, K. Eguchi, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 90 (2003) 021802, hep-ex/0212021.

[2] S.P. Mikheev, A.Y. Smirnov, Nuovo Cimento C 9 (1986) 17; L. Wolfenstein, Phys. Rev. D 17 (1978) 2369.

[3] Homestake Collaboration, K. Lande, et al., Astrophys. J. 496 (1998) 505; SAGE Collaboration, J.N. Abdurashitov, et al., Phys. Rev. C 60 (1999) 055801; GALLEX Collaboration, W. Hampel, et al., Phys. Lett. B 447 (1999) 127; Super-Kamiokande Collaboration, S. Fukuda, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 86 (2001) 5651; Super-Kamiokande Collaboration, S. Fukuda, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 86 (2001) 5656; SNO Collaboration, Q.R. Ahmad, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 87 (2001) 071301;

SNO Collaboration, Q.R. Ahmad, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 89 (2002) 011301; SNO Collaboration, Q.R. Ahmad, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 89 (2002) 011302.

[4] J.N. Bahcall, M.C. Gonzalez-Garcia, C. Pena-Garay, JHEP 0207 (2002) 054; V. Barger, D. Marfatia, K. Whisnant, B.P. Wood, Phys. Lett. B 537 (2002) 179;

A. Bandyopadhyay, S. Choubey, S. Goswami, D.P. Roy, Phys. Lett. B 540 (2002) 14; P.C. de Holanda, A.Y. Smirnov, hep-ph/0205241;

G.L. Fogli, E. Lisi, A. Marrone, D. Montanino, A. Palazzo, Phys. Rev. D 66 (2002) 093008; M. Maltoni, T. Schwetz, M.A. Tortola, J.W. Valle, hep-ph/0207227.

[5] Kamiokande Collaboration, Y. Fukuda, et al., Phys. Lett. B 335 (1994) 237; Super-Kamiokande Collaboration, Y. Fukuda, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 81 (1998) 1562; Super-Kamiokande Collaboration, Y. Fukuda, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 85 (2000) 3999.

[6] K2K Collaboration, S.H. Ahn, et al., Phys. Lett. B 511 (2001) 178; K2K Collaboration, S.H. Ahn, et al., hep-ex/0212007.

[7] Z. Maki, M. Nakagawa, S. Sakata, Prog. Theor. Phys. 28 (1962) 870.

[8] B. Pontecorvo, Sov. Phys. JETP 26 (1968) 984.

[9] S.R. Elliot, P. Vogel, hep-ph/0202264.

[10] H. Minakata, H. Sugiyama, Phys. Lett. B 532 (2002) 275, hep-ph/0202003.

[11] CHOOZ Collaboration, M. Apollonio, et al., Phys. Lett. B 420 (1998) 397; CHOOZ Collaboration, M. Apollonio, et al., Phys. Lett. B 466 (1999) 415;

See also, Palo Verde Collaboration, F. Boehm, et al., Phys. Rev. D 64 (2001) 112001.

[12] J. Schechter, J.W.F. Valle, Phys. Rev. D 22 (1980) 2227;

S.M. Bilenky, J. Hosek, S.T. Petcov, Phys. Lett. B 94 (1980) 495; M. Doi, et al., Phys. Lett. B 102 (1981) 323.

[13] Y. Farzan, O.L.G. Peres, A.Yu. Smirnov, Nucl. Phys. B 612 (2001) 59; Y. Farzan, A.Yu. Smirnov, hep-ph/0211341.

[14] C. Weinheimer, et al., Phys. Lett. B 460 (1999) 219;

F. Vissani, Nucl. Phys. B (Proc. Suppl.) 100 (2001) 273.

[15] R.G.H. Robertson, D.A. Knapp, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 38 (1988) 185.

[16] Heidelberg-Moscow Collaboration, H.V. Klapdor-Kleingrothaus, et al., Eur. Phys. J. A 12 (2001) 147.

[17] M. Shiozawa, Talk presented at XXth International Conference on Neutrino Physics and Astrophysics 'Neutrino 2002', May 25-30, 2002, Munich, Germany.

[18] We use the value obtained by G.L. Fogli, E. Lisi, A. Marrone, D. Montanino, A. Palazzo, A.M. Rotunno, hep-ph/0212127; For the similar complehensive analyses, see:

J.N. Bahcall, M.C. Gonzalez-Garcia, C. Pena-Garay, hep-ph/0212147; M. Maltoni, T. Schwetz, J.W. Valle, hep-ph/0212129;

A. Bandyopadhyay, S. Choubey, R. Gandhi, S. Goswami, D.P. Roy, hep-ph/0212146; H. Nunokawa, W.I.C. Teves, R. Zukanovich Funchal, hep-ph/0212202; P.C. de Holanda, A.Y. Smirnov, hep-ph/0212270; V. Barger, D. Marfatia, hep-ph/0212126;

P. Creminelli, G. Signorelli, A. Strumia, hep-ph/0102234, updated version.

[19] E.W. Kolb, M.S. Turner, The Early Universe, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1990.

[20] H.V. Klapdor-Kleingrothaus, H. Päs, A.Yu. Smirnov, Phys. Rev. D 63 (2001) 073005.

[21] V. Barger, et al., Phys. Lett. B 532 (2002) 15.

[22] J. Primack, astro-ph/0112255;

M. Fukugita, G.-C. Liu, N. Sugiyama, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84 (2000) 1082; O. Elgaroy, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 89 (2002) 061301.

[23] See, e.g., S.T. Petcov, A.Yu. Smirnov, Phys. Lett. B 322 (1994) 109; H. Minakata, Phys. Rev. D 52 (1995) 6630;

H. Minakata, Phys. Lett. B 356 (1995) 61; S.M. Bilenky, et al., Phys. Rev. D 54 (1996) 4432.

[24] H. Minakata, O. Yasuda, Phys. Rev. D 56 (1997) 1692; H. Minakata, O. Yasuda, Nucl. Phys. B 523 (1998) 597;

O. Yasuda, in: H.V. Klapdor-Kleingrothaus, I. Krivosheina (Eds.), Proceedings of 2nd International Conference on Physics Beyond the Standard Model, IOP, Bristol, 2000, pp. 223-235;

T. Fukuyama, K. Matsuda, H. Nishiura, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 13 (1998) 2279; T. Fukuyama, K. Matsuda, H. Nishiura, Phys. Rev. D 57 (1998) 5844; T. Fukuyama, K. Matsuda, H. Nishiura, Phys. Rev. D 62 (2000) 093001; T. Fukuyama, K. Matsuda, H. Nishiura, Phys. Rev. D 63 (2000) 077301; T. Fukuyama, K. Matsuda, H. Nishiura, Phys. Rev. D 64 (2001) 013001;

F. Vissani, JHEP 9906 (1999) 022;

V. Barger, K. Whisnant, Phys. Lett. B 456 (1999) 194; J. Ellis, S. Lola, Phys. Lett. B 458 (1999) 310;

G.C. Branco, M.N. Rebelo, J.I. Silva-Marcos, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82 (1999) 683;

S.M. Bilenky, C. Giunti, W. Grimus, B. Kayser, S.T. Petcov, Phys. Lett. B 465 (1999) 193; M. Czakon, J. Gluza, M. Zralek, Phys. Lett. B 465 (1999) 211;

H. Georgi, S.L. Glashow, Phys. Rev. D 61 (2000) 097301;

R. Adhikari, G. Rajasekaran, Phys. Rev. D 61 (2000) 031301; D. Falcone, F. Tramontano, Phys. Rev. D 64 (2001) 077302; W. Rodejohann, Nucl. Phys. B 597 (2001) 110.

[25] H.V. Klapdor-Kleingrothaus, H. Päs, A.Yu. Smirnov, cited in [20]; S.M. Bilenky, S. Pascoli, S.T. Petcov, Phys. Rev. D 64 (2001) 053010; S. Pascoli, S.T. Petcov, L. Wolfenstein, Phys. Lett. B 524 (2002) 319; H. Minakata, H. Sugiyama, Phys. Lett. B 526 (2002) 335;

H. Minakata, H. Sugiyama, Phys. Lett. B 532 (2002) 275, hep-ph/0111269; H. Minakata, H. Sugiyama, hep-ph/0202003;

F. Feruglio, A. Strumia, F. Vissani, Nucl. Phys. B 637 (2002) 345, hep-ph/0201291; W. Rodejohann, hep-ph/0203214;

V. Barger, S.L. Glashow, P. Langacker, D. Marfatia, Phys. Lett. B 540 (2002) 247; H. Nunokawa, W.I.C. Teves, R. Zukanovich Funchal, hep-ph/0206137; S. Pascoli, S.T. Petcov, Phys. Lett. B 544 (2002) 239; S. Pascoli, S.T. Petcov, W. Rodejohann, Phys. Lett. B 549 (2002) 177; S. Pascoli, S.T. Petcov, W. Rodejohann, hep-ph/0212113.

[26] IGEX Collaboration, C.E. Aalseth, et al., Phys. Rev. D 65 (2002) 092007.

[27] NEMO Collaboration, F. Piquemal, hep-ex/0205006.

[28] E. Fiorini, et al., Phys. Rep. 307 (1998) 309;

A. Bettini, Nucl. Phys. B (Proc. Suppl.) 100 (2001) 332.

[29] S. Waldman, Talk at International Workshop on Technology and Application of Xenon Detectors (Xenon01), ICRR, Kashiwa, Japan, December 3-4, 2001.

[30] GENIUS Collaboration, H.V. Klapdor-Kleingrothaus, et al., hep-ph/9910205.

[31] Majorana Collaboration, C.E. Aalseth, et al., hep-ex/0201021.

[32] H. Ejiri, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 85 (2000) 2919.

[33] S. Moriyama, Talk at International Workshop on Technology and Application of Xenon Detectors (Xenon01), ICRR, Kashiwa, Japan, December 3-4, 2001.

[34] H.V. Klapdor-Kleingrothaus, A. Dietz, H.L. Harnay, I. Krivosheina, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 16 (2001) 2409, hep-ph/0201231.

[35] D.N. Spergel, et al., astro-ph/0302209.