# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Signals of neutrino oscillations accumulated during past several years impose strong constraints on the mass and mixing pattern of the three known neutrinos $`\nu _{e,\mu ,\tau }`$. In particular, the atmospheric neutrino (AN) anomaly, a long-standing discrepancy by almost a factor of 2 between the predicted and observed $`\nu _\mu /\nu _e`$ ratio of the atmospheric neutrino fluxes, has recently received a strong confirmation from a high statistics experiment by the SuperKamiokande Collaboration . These data indicate that the zenith angle/energy dependence of the atmospheric $`\nu _\mu `$ flux is compatible with $`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$ oscillation within the following parameter range:

$`\delta m_{\mathrm{atm}}^2=(0.56)\times 10^3\mathrm{eV}^2,`$   
$`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{\mathrm{atm}}>0.82`$ (1)   
(the best-fit values are $`\delta m_{\mathrm{atm}}^2=2.2\times 10^3\text{eV}^2`$ and $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{\mathrm{atm}}=1.0`$), and disfavour the $`\nu _\mu \nu _e`$ oscillation as a dominant reason for the AN anomaly.

On the other hand, the solar neutrino (SN) problem, an energy dependent deficit of the solar $`\nu _e`$ fluxes indicated by the solar neutrino experiments cannot be explained by nuclear or astrophysical reasons . The most natural solution is provided by the resonant MSW oscillation  of $`\nu _e`$ into $`\nu _\mu `$, $`\nu _\tau `$ or their mixture, which requires the following parameter range :

$`\delta m_{\mathrm{sol}}^2=(310)\times 10^6\mathrm{eV}^2,`$   
$`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{\mathrm{sol}}=(0.11.5)10^2`$ (2)   
(the best-fit values are $`\delta m_{\mathrm{sol}}^2=5\times 10^6\text{eV}^2`$ and $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{\mathrm{sol}}=6\times 10^3`$).<sup>3</sup><sup>3</sup>3 The long wavelength Just-so oscillation from the Sun to the Earth  provides as good a fit as that of MSW, with the parameter range $`\delta m_{\mathrm{sol}}^210^{10}`$ eV<sup>2</sup> and $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{\mathrm{sol}}1`$. However, in this paper we mainly concentrate on the pattern dictated by the MSW solution. 

The explanation of the fermion mass and mixing pattern is beyond the capacities of the standard model (SM) and the neutrino case represents a part of the flavour problem. The masses of the charged fermions $`q_i=(u_i,d_i)`$, $`u_i^c`$, $`d_i^c`$; $`l_i=(\nu _i,e_i)`$, $`e_i^c`$ ($`i=1,2,3`$ is a family index) emerge from the Yukawa terms:

$$\varphi _2u_i^c𝐘_u^{ij}q_j+\varphi _1d_i^c𝐘_d^{ij}q_j+\varphi _1e_i^c𝐘_e^{ij}l_j$$
(3)   
where $`\varphi _{1,2}`$ are the Higgs doublets: $`\varphi _{1,2}=v_{1,2}`$, $`(v_1^2+v_2^2)^{1/2}=v_w=174`$ GeV and $`𝐘_{u,d,e}`$ are general complex $`3\times 3`$ matrices of the coupling constants.<sup>4</sup><sup>4</sup>4 Rather spontaneously we have chosen our notations as the ones adopted in the supersymmetric SM which in the following will be mentioned simply as SM, while the ordinary standard model, if any, we shall recall as a non-supersymmetric SM. Barring numerical details, all main arguments put forward in our paper will be valid also for non-supersymmetric case.  In order to identify the physical basis of the fermion mass eigenstates, the Yukawa matrices $`𝐘_{u,d,e}`$ and thus the fermion mass matrices should be brought to the diagonal form via the bi-unitary transformations:

$`U_u^T𝐘_uU_u=𝐘_u^D=\text{Diag}(Y_u,Y_c,Y_t)`$   
$`U_d^T𝐘_dU_d=𝐘_d^D=\text{Diag}(Y_d,Y_s,Y_b)`$   
$`U_e^T𝐘_eU_e=𝐘_e^D=\text{Diag}(Y_e,Y_\mu ,Y_\tau )`$ (4)   
Hence, the quark mass eigenstates mix in the charged current $`\overline{u}_i\gamma ^\mu (1+\gamma _5)V_q^{ij}d_j`$, and the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa (CKM) matrix $`V_q=U_u^{}U_d`$ can be parametrized as :

$$V_q=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}V_{ud}& V_{us}& V_{ub}\\ V_{cd}& V_{cs}& V_{cb}\\ V_{td}& V_{ts}& V_{tb}\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}c_{12}c_{13}& s_{12}c_{13}& s_{13}e^{i\delta }\\ s_{12}c_{23}c_{12}s_{23}s_{13}e^{i\delta }& c_{12}c_{23}s_{12}s_{23}s_{13}e^{i\delta }& s_{23}c_{13}\\ s_{12}s_{23}c_{12}c_{23}s_{13}e^{i\delta }& c_{12}s_{23}s_{12}c_{23}s_{13}e^{i\delta }& c_{23}c_{13}\end{array}\right)$$
(5)   
where $`s_{ij}`$ and $`c_{ij}`$ respectively stand for the sines and cosines of three mixing angles $`\theta _{12}`$, $`\theta _{23}`$ and $`\theta _{13}`$, and $`\delta `$ is the CP-violating phase.

As for neutrino masses, they emerge only from the higher order effective operator :

$$\frac{\varphi _2\varphi _2}{M}l_i𝐘_\nu ^{ij}l_j,𝐘_\nu ^{ij}=𝐘_\nu ^{ji}$$
(6)   
where $`Mv_w`$ is some cutoff scale and $`𝐘_\nu `$ is the (symmetric) matrix of the dimensionless coupling constants. Thus, while the charged fermion masses are linear with respect to the weak scale $`v_w`$, the neutrino masses are bilinear which makes magnitudes of the latter naturally small.<sup>5</sup><sup>5</sup>5Any known mechanism for the neutrino masses effectively reduces to the operator (6) after integrating out the relevant heavy states (e.g. in the ‘seesaw’ mechanism, after integrating out the right-handed Majorana neutrinos with masses $`M`$).  One can go to the neutrino physical basis $`\nu _{1,2,3}`$ by the unitary transformation

$$U_\nu ^T𝐘_\nu U_\nu =𝐘_\nu ^D=\text{Diag}(Y_1,Y_2,Y_3)$$
(7)   
and the mixing matrix $`\stackrel{~}{V}_l=U_e^{}U_\nu `$ in the leptonic current $`\overline{e}_i\gamma ^\mu (1+\gamma _5)V_l^{ij}\nu _j`$ can be presented as:

$$\stackrel{~}{V}_l=V_lP_\nu =\left(\begin{array}{ccc}V_{e1}& V_{e2}& V_{e3}\\ V_{\mu 1}& V_{\mu 2}& V_{\mu 3}\\ V_{\tau 1}& V_{\tau 2}& V_{\tau 3}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 0& 0\\ 0& e^{i\delta _2}& 0\\ 0& 0& e^{i\delta _3}\end{array}\right)$$
(8)   
where the first factor $`V_l`$ can be parametrized in a manner similar to (5). It relates the neutrino flavour eigenstates $`(\nu _e,\nu _\mu ,\nu _\tau )`$ to the mass eigenstates $`(\nu _1,\nu _2,\nu _3)`$, and describes the neutrino oscillation phenomena. (Due to the Majorana nature of neutrinos, the matrix $`\stackrel{~}{V}_l`$ contains two additional phases $`\delta _{2,3}`$, but these are not relevant for neutrino oscillations). In the following, we distinguish the quark and lepton mixing angles in $`V_q`$ and $`V_l`$ by the subscripts ‘$`q`$’ and ‘$`l`$’, respectively.

The mass spectrum of the quarks and charged leptons is spread over five orders of magnitude, from MeVs to hundreds of GeVs, with a strong inter-family hierarchy :<sup>6</sup><sup>6</sup>6 Following the tradition, for the heavy quarks $`t,b,c`$, we refer to their running masses respectively at $`\mu =m_{t,b,c}`$, and for the light quarks $`u,d,s`$ – at $`\mu =1`$ GeV. The quoted value of $`m_t`$ corresponds to the ‘pole’ mass $`M_t=173.8\pm 5.2`$ GeV . 

$`m_t=163\pm 5\mathrm{GeV},m_c=1.11.4\mathrm{GeV},m_u=27\mathrm{MeV}`$   
$`m_b=4.14.4\mathrm{GeV},m_s=80230\mathrm{MeV},m_d=412\mathrm{MeV}`$   
$`m_\tau =1.777\mathrm{GeV},m_\mu =105.7\mathrm{MeV},m_e=0.511\mathrm{MeV}`$ (9)   
and the quark mixing angles are known experimentally with a very good accuracy:<sup>7</sup><sup>7</sup>7 We find it instructive to present the values of mixing angles in degrees, which correspond to the CKM matrix elements $`|V_{us}|=0.221\pm 0.002`$, $`|V_{cb}|=0.040\pm 0.004`$ and $`|V_{ub}/V_{cb}|=0.08\pm 0.02`$ . 

$$\theta _{23}^q=(2.3\pm 0.2)^{},\theta _{12}^q=(12.7\pm 0.1)^{},\theta _{13}^q=(0.18\pm 0.04)^{}$$
(10)   
As for the neutrinos, information on their masses can be extracted directly from the ranges of $`\delta m_{\mathrm{atm}}^2`$ and $`\delta m_{\mathrm{sol}}^2`$ needed for the explanation of the AN and SN anomalies. Barring the less natural possibility that the neutrino mass eigenstates $`\nu _{1,2,3}`$ are strongly degenerate and assuming the mass hierarchy $`m_3>m_2>m_1`$, these data translate into the following values for neutrino masses:

$$m_3=(4.7_{2.5}^{+3.0})\times 10^2\mathrm{eV},m_2=(2.2_{0.5}^{+1.0})\times 10^3\mathrm{eV}.$$
(11)   
Hence, the neutrino mass hierarchy $`m_3/m_21050`$ is similar to that of the charged leptons or down quarks. However, the magnitudes of the neutrino mixing angles<sup>8</sup><sup>8</sup>8 As far as the $`V_{e3}`$ element is concerned, for $`\delta m_{\mathrm{atm}}^2>2\times 10^3`$ eV<sup>2</sup> the limit $`\theta _{13}^l<13^{}`$ follows from the CHOOZ experiment . But also for the $`\delta m_{\mathrm{atm}}^2`$ region not covered by CHOOZ, the recent fits disfavour $`\theta _{13}^l`$ larger than $`20^{}`$ or so . In a whole, $`\theta _{13}^l0`$ provides the best data fit both for AN and SN cases . 

$$\theta _{23}^l=(45\pm 12.5)^{},\theta _{12}^l=(2.2\pm 1.3)^{},\theta _{13}^l<(1320)^{},$$
(12)   
are in a dramatic contrast with the corresponding angles (10) in the quark mixing. In other words, the AN anomaly points to maximal 23 mixing in leptonic sector versus very small 23 mixing of quarks, and on the contrary, the MSW solution implies a very small 12 lepton mixing angle versus the reasonably large value of the Cabibbo angle.

As said above, the SM does not contain any theoretical input restricting the structure of the matrices $`𝐘_{u,d,e}`$ and $`𝐘_\nu `$ and thus fermion mass hierarchy and mixing pattern remain unexplained. Concerning the neutrinos, also the mass scale $`M`$ remains a free parameter. One can only conclude that if the maximal constant in $`𝐘_\nu `$ is order of the top Yukawa constant, $`Y_3Y_t1`$, then the mass value $`m_3`$ in (11) points to the scale $`M10^{15}`$ GeV, rather close to the grand unified scale. On the other hand, the drastic difference of the neutrino mixing pattern from that of the quarks at first glance suggests that the neutrino mass texture is very special and it indicates no similarity to that of the quarks and charged leptons. During the past years many models have been produced suggesting various exotic input textures for understanding the neutrino mixing pattern (e.g. refs. ; for a more generic discussions see refs. . There have been also attempts to obtain the desired pattern in the context of grand unification ).

In this paper we show that there is a simple and coherent way of understanding both the quark and neutrino mixing patterns within an unified framework. Our consideration is motivated by the following points. It is tempting to think that the intriguing empiric relations between the masses and mixing angles, such as the well-known formula for the Cabibbo angle $`s_{12}^q=\sqrt{m_d/m_s}`$, are not accidental and the fermion flavour structure is intrinsically connected to the peculiarities of some underlying theory which fully determines, or at least somehow constrains the form of the Yukawa matrices. The ideas of supersymmetry, grand unification and horizontal symmetry may constitute the essential ingredients of flavour physics and can be regarded as the present Modus Operandi for predictive model building (for a review on the fermion mass models see e.g.  and references therein).

In particular, relations between the fermion masses and mixing angles can be obtained by considering Yukawa matrix textures with reduced number of free parameters, putting certain elements to zero. For example, one can consider the popular texture suggested by Fritzsch , which implies that the fermion mass generation starts from the $`3^{rd}`$ family and proceeds to lighter families through the mixing terms:

$$𝐘_{u,d,e}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& A_{u,d,e}^{}& 0\\ A_{u,d,e}& 0& B_{u,d,e}^{}\\ 0& B_{u,d,e}& C_{u,d,e}\end{array}\right),$$
(13)   
where all elements are generically complex and obey the additional condition:

$$|A_f^{}|=|A_f|,|B_f^{}|=|B_f|;f=u,d,e$$
(14)   
This texture could emerge due to horizontal symmetry reasons, and the ”symmetricity” property (14) can be motivated in the context of the left-right symmetric models , or of the $`U(3)_H`$ horizontal symmetry  (see also the discussion in ref. ).

This pattern has many striking properties. For example, it nicely links the observed value of the Cabibbo angle, $`V_{us}\sqrt{m_d/m_s}`$, to the observed size of the CP-violation in the $`K\overline{K}`$ system, moreover that the predicted magnitude $`|V_{ub}/V_{cb}|\sqrt{m_u/m_c}`$ is also in good agreement with experiment. Unfortunately, the Fritzsch texture contains a strong conflict between the small value of $`V_{cb}`$ and the large top mass and there is no parameter space in which these observables could be reconciled .

However, one can consider textures like (13) without the symmetricity in the 23 block of $`𝐘_d`$, $`B_d^{}B_d`$. Then one could achieve the small magnitude of $`V_{cb}`$ at the price of taking the parameter $`b_d=B_d^{}/B_d`$ considerably larger than 1.<sup>9</sup><sup>9</sup>9 A particular texture with the maximal asymmetry, $`B_d^{}=C_d`$, was suggested in ref. , and its relevance for small quark mixing angles was pointed out. The fact that in grand unified theories a similar asymmetry could lead to the large neutrino mixing was demonstrated in the $`SO(10)`$ based models . In the present paper we present a simple observation: in the context of the $`SU(5)`$ grand unified theory such a choice naturally implies that the 23 mixing in the leptonic sector becomes large, and the parameter $`b_e=B_e/B_e^{}`$ increases in parallel with $`b_d`$ since in SU(5) the Yukawa matrices are related as $`𝐘_e=𝐘_d^T`$, modulo certain Clebsch factors. Our point can be simply expressed as follows. If the down-quark and charged-lepton matrices had the symmetric Fritzsch texture, then we would have $`\mathrm{tan}\theta _{23}^d=(m_s/m_b)^{1/2}`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\theta _{23}^e=(m_\mu /m_\tau )^{1/2}`$, which are both unsatisfactory: the former is too big as compared to $`|V_{cb}|`$, while the latter is too small for $`|V_{\mu 3}|`$. On the other hand, whenever the symmetricity condition is abandoned, non of these angles can be predicted in terms of mass ratios since their values now depend on the amount of asymmetry between the 23 and 32 entries, i.e. on the factors $`b_d`$ and $`b_e`$. However, in the context of the SU(5) theory there emerges the following product rule:

$$\mathrm{tan}\theta _{23}^d\mathrm{tan}\theta _{23}^e\left(\frac{m_\mu m_s}{m_\tau m_b}\right)^{1/2}.$$
(15)   
Therefore, if $`\mathrm{tan}\theta _{23}^d`$ becomes smaller than $`(m_s/m_b)^{1/2}`$, then $`\mathrm{tan}\theta _{23}^e`$ should correspondingly increase over $`(m_\mu /m_\tau )^{1/2}`$, and when the former reaches the value $`|V_{cb}|0.05`$, the latter becomes $`1`$ (this happens for $`b_{d,e}8`$). Though these estimates are not precise (the exact expressions will be given in section 2), they qualitatively rather well demonstrate the ”seesaw” like correspondence between the quark and lepton mixing angles whenewer their magnitudes are dominated by the rotation angles coming from the down fermions. A similar argument can be applied also to the 12 mixing: 

$$\mathrm{tan}\theta _{12}^d\mathrm{tan}\theta _{12}^e\left(\frac{m_em_d}{m_\mu m_s}\right)^{1/2},$$
(16)   
The relation $`V_{us}(m_d/m_s)^{1/2}`$ points that the 12 block of $`𝐘_d`$ should be nearly symmetric, and hence we expect that $`V_{e2}(m_e/m_\mu )^{1/2}`$. All of these will be discussed in details in the next section.

In principle, reasonable contributions to the mixing angles will emerge if also the upper quark and neutrino couplings, $`𝐘_u`$ and $`𝐘_\nu `$, have (symmetric) textures like (13). In this case the proper fit of the quark and lepton mixing patterns can be achieved for rather moderate asymmetry, $`b_{d,e}2`$. This possibility is discussed in section 3, where we also consider models with a horizontal symmetry which could provide the natural realization of the suggested texture. Finally, at the end we briefly outline our results and their implications.

## 2 Fritzsch-like $`𝐘_{d,e}`$ and diagonal $`𝐘_{u,\nu }`$ in SU(5)

In the $`SU(5)`$ model the quark and lepton states of each family fit into the following multiplets: $`\overline{5}_i=(d^c,l)_i`$, $`10_i=(u^c,e^c,q)_i`$ (here and in the following the $`SU(5)`$ indices are suppressed, and $`i=1,2,3`$ is a family index). As for the Higgs doublets $`\varphi _{1,2}`$, together with their colour triplet partners $`T,\overline{T}`$ they form the representations $`H=(T,\varphi _2)5`$ and $`\overline{H}=(\overline{T},\varphi _1)\overline{5}`$. The theory contains also the chiral superfield in the adjoint representation, $`\mathrm{\Phi }24`$, which at the scale $`M_G10^{16}`$ GeV breaks the $`SU(5)`$ symmetry down to $`SU(3)\times SU(2)\times U(1)`$.

The Yukawa terms responsible for the fermion masses are the following:

$$\overline{H}10_i𝐆^{ij}\overline{5}_j+H10_i𝐆_u^{ij}10_j+\frac{HH}{M}\overline{5}_i𝐆_\nu ^{ij}\overline{5}_j$$
(17)   
where the Yukawa constant matrices $`𝐆_u`$ and $`𝐆_\nu `$ are symmetric due to $`SU(5)`$ symmetry reasons while the form of $`𝐆`$ is not constrained. After the $`SU(5)`$ symmetry breaking these terms reduce to the SM Yukawa couplings (3) with

$$𝐘_e=𝐆,𝐘_d=𝐆^T,𝐘_u=𝐆_u,𝐘_\nu =𝐆_\nu $$
(18)   
Without loss of generality, the matrices $`𝐆_u`$ and $`𝐆_\nu `$ can be taken diagonal, so that the weak mixing matrices in both the quark and leptonic sectors is determined by the unitary matrices rotating the left states of the down fermions: $`V_q=U_d`$ and $`V_l=U_e^{}`$. On the other hand, since $`𝐘_d=𝐘_e^T`$, we get that $`U_d=U_e^{}`$ and $`U_e=U_d^{}`$, so that the rotation angles of the left down quarks (charged leptons) are related to the unphysical angles rotating the right states of the charged leptons (down quarks).<sup>10</sup><sup>10</sup>10 The latter have no physical significance for the low energy theory (the SM) and could be relevant only for the baryon number violating processes mediated by the $`SU(5)`$ gauge fields or Higgses/Higgsinos.  Therefore, the smallness of the quark mixing angle $`\theta _{23}^q`$ does not necessarily imply the smallness of the leptonic mixing $`\theta _{23}^l`$ but rather the opposite, it can point to the large value of the latter.

Indeed, imagine that in the basis where $`𝐆_u`$ and $`𝐆_\nu `$ are diagonal:

$$𝐆_u=𝐘_u^D=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}Y_u& 0& 0\\ 0& Y_c& 0\\ 0& 0& Y_t\end{array}\right),𝐆_\nu =𝐘_\nu ^D=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}Y_1& 0& 0\\ 0& Y_2& 0\\ 0& 0& Y_3\end{array}\right),$$
(19)   
the matrix $`𝐆`$ has a Fritzsch-like form:

$$𝐆=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& G_{12}& 0\\ G_{21}& 0& G_{23}\\ 0& G_{32}& G_{33}\end{array}\right)$$
(20)   
In this case, as we have already remarked, the large value of the leptonic rotation angle is related to the smallness of the corresponding quark angle. However, if the entries of the matrix $`𝐆`$ are just constants, we would face the well-known problem of the down-quark and charged-lepton degeneracy in the $`SU(5)`$ symmetry limit: since $`𝐘_d^D=𝐘_e^D`$, then we have $`Y_{d,s,b}=Y_{e,\mu ,\tau }`$. Nevertheless, the $`Y_b=Y_\tau `$ unification is a definite success of the SUSY $`SU(5)`$ GUT. After accounting for the renormalization running of the Yukawa constants from $`M_G`$ to lower-energy scales, it provides a nice explanation of the magnitude of the bottom mass and its intimate relation to the large top mass. However, the other predictions $`Y_s=Y_\mu `$ and $`Y_d=Y_e`$ are wrong: they imply $`m_s/m_d=m_\mu /m_e200`$, an order of magnitude in conflict with the current algebra estimate $`m_s/m_d20`$.

It is natural, however, to consider that the $`𝐆^{ij}`$ are in fact operators dependent on the adjoint superfield of $`SU(5)`$: $`G_{ij}=G_{ij}(\mathrm{\Phi })`$. The latter should be understood as expansion series $`G_{ij}(\mathrm{\Phi })=G_{ij}^{(0)}+G_{ij}^{(1)}\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }}{M_s}+\mathrm{}`$, where $`M_s`$ is some fundamental scale larger than $`M_G`$ (it can be e.g. the string scale or the scale where some GUT with larger symmetry reduces to $`SU(5)`$). In other words, one can assume that the couplings $`\overline{H}10_i𝐆^{ij}\overline{5}_j`$ contain the effective higher-order operators $`\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }}{M_s}\overline{H}10_iG_{ij}^{(1)}\overline{5}_j`$ etc., just on the same footing as the last term in (17). Since in general the operator $`\mathrm{\Phi }H`$ is represented by the tensor product $`24\times \overline{5}=\overline{5}+\overline{45}`$, it can distinguish the corresponding entries in the matrices $`𝐘_e`$ and $`𝐘_d`$. Needless to say that in the field theory context such operators can be effectively induced from the renormalizable Lagrangian, by integrating out the additional superheavy states with masses $`M_s`$ (so called Frogatt-Nielsen or universal seesaw mechanism ), much in the same way as the effective neutrino operator is obtained in the context of the seesaw mechanism by integrating out the heavy right-handed Majorana neutrinos. In addition, the ratio $`\epsilon =\mathrm{\Phi }/M_s`$ can be used as a small parameter for understanding the fermion mass hierarchy.

Therefore, for the charged-lepton and the down-quark Yukawa matrices we get:

$$𝐘_e=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& A_e^{}& 0\\ A_e& 0& B_e^{}\\ 0& B_e& C_e\end{array}\right),𝐘_d=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& A_d^{}& 0\\ A_d& 0& B_d^{}\\ 0& B_d& C_d\end{array}\right),$$
(21)   
With a proper redefinition of the fermion phases all elements in (21) can be made real and positive.

As we said above, generically the constants $`G_{ij}`$ can be functions of the adjoint superfield $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, so that the tensor product $`G_{ij}(\mathrm{\Phi })\overline{H}`$ can contain both $`\overline{5}+\overline{45}`$ channels and therefore the corresponding entries between $`𝐘_e`$ and $`𝐘_d^T`$ should be distinguished by some Clebsch coefficients of $`SU(5)`$. However, for simplifying our analysis, and for designing more predictive ansatz, we impose some rather natural constraints. In particular, inspired by the success of $`Y_bY_\tau `$ unification, we assume that $`G_{33}`$ is a $`SU(5)`$ singlet, so that $`C_d=C_e=G_{33}`$. Analogously, following another interesting relation $`Y_dY_sY_eY_\mu `$ we assume that also $`G_{12}`$ and $`G_{21}`$ are $`SU(5)`$ singlets. Furthermore, motivated by the celebrated formula for the Cabibbo angle $`s_{12}^q\sqrt{m_d/m_s}`$, we suppose that the matrix $`𝐆`$ is symmetric in the 12 block, $`G_{12}=G_{21}`$. All these imply that

$`C_d=C_e(=C),`$ (22)   
$`A_d=A_d^{}=A_e^{}=A_e(=A).`$   
Thus only the $`G_{23}(\mathrm{\Phi })`$ and $`G_{32}(\mathrm{\Phi })`$ entries are left unconstrained. They contain nontrivial $`SU(5)`$ Clebsches breaking the quark and lepton symmetry:

$$B_d^{}=k^{}B_e,B_d=kB_e^{}$$
(23)   
where the coefficients $`k`$ and $`k^{}`$ are not necessarily the same, since generically the tensor products $`G_{23}(\mathrm{\Phi })\overline{H}`$ and $`G_{32}(\mathrm{\Phi })\overline{H}`$ can emerge in different combinations of $`\overline{5}`$ and $`\overline{45}`$. In addition, these entries are not necessarily symmetric, and we introduce the asymmetry parameters $`b_e=B_e/B_e^{}`$ and $`b_d=B_d^{}/B_d=\frac{k^{}}{k}b_e`$. Then, identifying $`B_e=B`$ and $`b_e=b`$, the matrices $`𝐘_e`$ and $`𝐘_d`$ can be represented as:

$$𝐘_e=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& A& 0\\ A& 0& \frac{1}{b}B\\ 0& B& C\end{array}\right),𝐘_d=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& A& 0\\ A& 0& k^{}B\\ 0& \frac{k}{b}B& C\end{array}\right),$$
(24)   
Therefore, we have an ansatz depending on six parameters, three Yukawa entries $`A,B,C`$ and three Clebsch factors $`k,k^{}`$ and $`b`$. As far as $`𝐘_u`$ and $`𝐘_\nu `$ are taken diagonal, the patterns of the quark and lepton mixings are completely determined by the form of $`𝐘_{d,e}`$. The Yukawa eigenvalues $`Y_{e,\mu ,\tau }`$ and $`Y_{d,s,b}`$ as well as the mixing angles $`s_{12}^q,s_{23}^q,s_{13}^q`$ and $`s_{12}^l,s_{23}^l,s_{13}^l`$ can be expressed in terms of the parameters in (24) and hence at the GUT scale there should emerge six relations between these physical quantities.

The GUT scale Yukawa constants are linked to the physical fermion masses (1) through the renormalization group equations (RGE). For moderate values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =v_2/v_1`$, one obtains at one-loop (see e.g. ):

$`m_u=Y_uR_u\eta _uB_t^3v_2,m_d=Y_dR_d\eta _dv_1,m_e=Y_eR_ev_1`$   
$`m_c=Y_cR_u\eta _cB_t^3v_2,m_s=Y_sR_d\eta _sv_1,m_\mu =Y_\mu R_ev_1`$ (25)   
$`m_t=Y_tR_uB_t^6v_2,m_b=Y_bR_d\eta _bB_tv_1,m_\tau =Y_\tau R_ev_1`$   
where the factors $`R_{u,d,e}`$ account for the gauge-coupling induced running from the GUT scale $`M_G10^{16}`$ GeV to the SUSY breaking scale $`M_SM_t`$, and the factors $`\eta _f`$ encapsulate the QCD+QED running from $`M_S`$ down to $`m_f`$ for $`f=b,c`$ (or to $`\mu =1`$ GeV for the light quarks $`f=u,d,s`$). Namely, for $`\alpha _s(M_Z)=0.118\pm 0.005`$ we have

$`R_u=3.33\pm 0.07,R_d=3.25\pm 0.07,R_e=1.49`$   
$`\eta _b=1.52\pm 0.04,\eta _c=2.02_{0.13}^{+0.16},\eta _{u,d,s}=2.33_{0.21}^{+0.29}`$ (26)   
The factor $`B_t`$ includes the running induced by the large top quark Yukawa constant ($`Y_t1`$):

$$B_t=\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{1}{16\pi ^2}_{\mathrm{ln}M_S}^{\mathrm{ln}M_G}Y_t^2(\mu )\text{d}(\mathrm{ln}\mu )\right]$$
(27)   
$`B_t`$ as a function of the GUT scale value $`Y_t`$ is shown in Fig. 1. We see that for $`Y_t`$ varying from a lower limit $`Y_t=0.5`$ imposed by the top pole-mass value to a perturbativity limit $`Y_t3`$, the factor $`B_t`$ decreases from $`0.9`$ to $`0.7`$. As for the CKM mixing angles, their physical values are related to their values at the GUT scale (labelled by superscript G) as follows:<sup>11</sup><sup>11</sup>11 We shall not take into account the analogous RGEs  for the neutrino masses and mixing, since the experimental data (11) and (12) still contain big error bars and such an improvement is not justified. In addition, the RGE effects for the neutrino sector are model dependent: the renormalization of the constants $`𝐘_\nu `$ depends on the concrete features of the underlying model effectively inducing the $`d=5`$ operator (6). 

$$s_{12}^q=s_{12}^{qG},s_{23}^q=s_{23}^{qG}B_t^1,s_{13}^q=s_{13}^{qG}B_t^1.$$
(28)   
Let us now discuss these predictions. Using the formulas given in the Appendix, we readily obtain the modified version of the $`b\tau `$ Yukawa unification at the GUT scale:

$$C=Y_\tau \left[1(b_e+b_e^1)\frac{Y_\mu Y_e}{Y_\tau }\right]^{1/2}=Y_b\left[1(b_d+b_d^1)\frac{Y_sY_d}{Y_b}\right]^{1/2}$$
(29)   
and also the following relations:

$$A^2C=Y_eY_\mu Y_\tau =Y_dY_sY_b,$$
(30)   
$$B_eB_e^{}=\frac{1}{b}B^2=(Y_\mu Y_e)Y_\tau ,B_dB_d^{}=\frac{kk^{}}{b}B^2=(Y_sY_d)Y_b.$$
(31)   
In the following we directly substitute the Yukawa constant ratios with the corresponding mass ratios when the latter are RGE invariant (c.f. (2)), e.g. $`Y_\mu /Y_\tau =m_\mu /m_\tau `$, $`Y_d/Y_s=m_d/m_s`$, etc. Then, by dividing the squared eq. (29) on eq. (31), we obtain:

$$\frac{Y_b}{Y_sY_d}(b_d+b_d^1)=\frac{1}{kk^{}}\left[\frac{m_\tau }{m_\mu m_e}(b_e+b_e^1)\right]$$
(32)   
to be rewritten as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{Y_sY_d}{Y_b}}={\displaystyle \frac{kk^{}}{Z^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_\mu m_e}{m_\tau }}0.059{\displaystyle \frac{kk^{}}{Z^2}};`$   
$`Z=\sqrt{1\left[(b_e+b_e^1)kk^{}(b_d+b_d^1)\right]{\displaystyle \frac{m_\mu m_e}{m_\tau }}}.`$ (33)   
Substituting this expression back into eqs. (29) and (31) we get:

$$\frac{Y_b}{Y_\tau }=Z,\frac{Y_sY_d}{Y_\mu Y_e}=\frac{kk^{}}{Z},$$
(34)   
Then by the RGE (2) we have for the physical masses:

$`m_b={\displaystyle \frac{R_d\eta _b}{R_e}}B_tZm_\tau =B_tZ(5.90\pm 0.30)\mathrm{GeV},`$   
$`m_sm_d={\displaystyle \frac{R_d\eta _d}{R_e}}{\displaystyle \frac{kk^{}}{Z}}(m_\mu m_e)={\displaystyle \frac{kk^{}}{4Z}}(133\pm 18)\mathrm{MeV}.`$ (35)   
with uncertainties related to the value of $`\alpha _s(M_Z)`$.

Analogously, from eqs. (30) we find:

$$\frac{m_s}{m_d}+\frac{m_d}{m_s}2=\frac{(kk^{})^2}{Z}\left(\frac{m_\mu }{m_e}+\frac{m_e}{m_\mu }2\right)204.7\frac{(kk^{})^2}{Z}.$$
(36)   
Therefore, for $`b_e,b_d`$ varying within an order of magnitude, the value $`m_s/m_d`$ can vary in the ‘experimental’ range $`m_s/m_d=1725`$, if $`kk^{}`$ varies between $`\frac{1}{5}\frac{1}{3}`$.

Let us turn now to the quark and lepton mixing. We parametrize the matrices $`U_d`$ and $`U_e`$ as in the Appendix: $`V_e=O_{23}^eO_{13}^eO_{12}^e`$ and $`U_d=O_{23}^dO_{13}^dO_{12}^d`$. Hence, for the angles $`\theta _{23}^{e,d}`$ which rotate the left-handed states we obtain:

$`\mathrm{tan}2\theta _{23}^e=2\sqrt{b_e}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{m_\mu m_e}{m_\tau }}}{\displaystyle \frac{\left[1(b_e+b_e^1)\frac{m_\mu m_e}{m_\tau }\right]^{1/2}}{12b_e\frac{m_\mu m_e}{m_\tau }}},`$   
$`\mathrm{tan}2\theta _{23}^d={\displaystyle \frac{2}{\sqrt{b_d}}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{Y_sY_d}{Y_b}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\left[1(b_d+b_d^1)\frac{Y_sY_d}{Y_b}\right]^{1/2}}{12b_d^1\frac{Y_sY_d}{Y_b}}},`$ (37)   
while the right rotation angles $`\theta _{23}^{e,d}`$ are obtained from these expressions substituting respectively $`b_eb_e^1`$ and $`b_db_d^1`$. For the other angles we have:

$`\mathrm{tan}2\theta _{12}^e=2\sqrt{a_e}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{m_e}{m_\mu }}}{\displaystyle \frac{\left[1(a_e+a_e^1)\frac{m_e}{m_\mu }\right]^{1/2}}{12a_e\frac{m_e}{m_\mu }}}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\sqrt{c_{23}^e}}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{m_e}{m_\mu m_e}}}{\displaystyle \frac{0.140}{\sqrt{c_{23}^e}}},`$   
$`\mathrm{sin}\theta _{13}^e=\sqrt{a_e}{\displaystyle \frac{s_{23}^e}{c_{23}^e}}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{m_em_\mu }}{m_\tau }}=\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_em_\mu ^2}{b_ec_{23}^em_\tau ^3}}\right)^{1/2}10^3,`$ (38)   
where $`a_e=c_{23}^e/c_{23}^e`$, and

$`\mathrm{tan}2\theta _{12}^d={\displaystyle \frac{2}{\sqrt{a_d}}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{m_d}{m_s}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\left[1(a_d+a_d^1)\frac{m_d}{m_s}\right]^{1/2}}{12a_d^1\frac{m_d}{m_s}}}2\sqrt{c_{23}^d}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{m_d}{m_sm_d}}},`$   
$`{\displaystyle \frac{s_{13}^d}{s_{23}^d}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{a_d}}}{\displaystyle \frac{s_{23}^d}{c_{23}^ds_{23}^d}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{m_d}{m_s}}}{\displaystyle \frac{Y_s}{Y_b}},a_d={\displaystyle \frac{c_{23}^d}{c_{23}^d}}.`$ (39)   
As far as $`𝐘_u`$ is taken diagonal, the quark mixing is completely determined by the form of $`𝐘_d`$, and hence $`V_q=U_d`$. Thus $`U_d=O_{23}^dO_{13}^dO_{12}^d`$ gives the CKM matrix $`V_q`$ directly in the standard parametrization (5) with $`\delta =\pi `$. Therefore, we have $`\theta _{ij}^q=\theta _{ij}^d`$ and thus:

$`|V_{cb}|=c_{13}^ds_{23}^ds_{23}^d,`$   
$`|V_{us}|=c_{13}^ds_{12}^ds_{12}^d,`$   
$`|V_{ub}|=s_{13}^d.`$ (40)   
As for the lepton mixing, the matrix $`V_l=V_e^{}=O_{12}^{eT}O_{13}^{eT}O_{23}^{eT}`$ appears in the parametrization transposed to (5). Hence, in standard parametrization the mixing angles read as:

$`|V_{\mu 3}|=c_{13}^ls_{23}^l=|c_{12}^es_{23}^e+s_{12}^ec_{23}^es_{13}^e|s_{23}^e,`$ (41)   
$`|V_{e2}|=c_{13}^ls_{12}^l=|s_{12}^ec_{23}^e+c_{12}^es_{23}^es_{13}^e|s_{12}^ec_{23}^e,`$   
$`|V_{e3}|=s_{13}^l=|s_{12}^es_{23}^e+c_{12}^ec_{23}^es_{13}^e|s_{12}^es_{23}^e,`$   
Hence, the lepton mixing angles are expressed in terms of their mass ratios and asymmetry parameter $`b=b_e`$.<sup>12</sup><sup>12</sup>12 The ‘critical’ value of $`b`$ when $`B_e=C`$ is given by the equation $`2b+b^1=m_\tau (m_\mu m_e)^1`$, and so $`b=8.4`$.  In the Fig. 2 we show the $`b`$-dependence of $`|V_{\mu 3}|`$, $`|V_{e2}|`$ and $`|V_{e3}|`$. We also show the curves for the effective oscillation parameters $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{23}=4|V_{\mu 3}|^2(1|V_{\mu 3}|^2)`$ and $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{12}=4|V_{e2}|^2(1|V_{e2}|^2)`$. We see that for $`b=1`$ the 23 mixing angle ($`\theta _{23}^e=13.5^{}`$) is rather small for explaining the AN anomaly, while the 12 mixing ($`\theta _{12}^e=4.0^{}`$) is somewhat above the upper limit obtained by the MSW fit of the SN data (c.f. (12)). However, for larger $`b`$, $`|V_{\mu 3}|`$ increases roughly as $`\sqrt{b}`$ and becomes maximal around $`b=8.4`$, while $`|V_{e2}|`$ slowly decreases (roughly as $`\sqrt{c_{23}^e}`$). Thus, the AN bound, $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{23}>0.82`$, requires $`5<b<12`$, while the MSW fit for SN data is recovered at $`b>7`$, when $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{12}`$ drops below $`1.510^2`$.<sup>13</sup><sup>13</sup>13 In fact, the value $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{\mathrm{sol}}=1.5\times 10^2`$ can be considered as acceptable in the context of the solar models with the boron neutrino flux exceeding its ‘standard solar model’ value by a factor 2 or so .  Therefore, the relevant values of $`b`$ are somewhere between 7 and 12, in which range $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{12}`$ varies from $`1.510^2`$ to $`1.010^2`$, and $`\mathrm{sin}\theta _{13}^l`$ varies from $`0.05`$ to $`0.08`$, well below the upper bound of eq. (12). For example, for the case $`B_e=C`$ we have $`b=8.4`$, and nearly maximal 23 mixing: $`V_{\mu 3}0.7`$, while $`V_{e2},V_{e3}0.055`$.

Therefore, we conclude that in the basis when the neutrino masses are diagonal, the pattern of the lepton mixing required by the AN and SN anomalies can be perfectly described if the charged lepton mass matrix has a Fritzsch-like form (24) with an asymmetry parameter $`b=712`$. We also see that in this range $`\theta _{13}^l`$ remains rather small, between $`(35)^{}`$. This range, however, in the case of $`\delta m_{23}^2`$ close to the upper bound in (1), can be of interest for the experimental search of $`\nu _e\nu _\tau `$ oscillation in the future CERN Neutrino Factory .

As far as the quarks are concerned, from eqs. (2)-(36) and (2)-(2) we see that their masses and mixing angles are all expressed in terms of the lepton mass ratios and three Clebsch factors $`k,k^{}`$ and $`b`$. In addition, the physical mass of bottom depends, through the factor $`B_t`$, on the top Yukawa constant $`Y_t`$ at the GUT scale. Notice also that the expression (2) defines $`V_{cb}`$ at the GUT scale, and for obtaining its physical value at lower scales one has to take into account the factor $`B_t^1`$, while $`V_{us}`$ and $`V_{ub}/V_{cb}`$ are RGE invariant.

One can see that for $`kk^{}`$ and large values of $`b`$, ($`b=712`$ as required from the lepton mixing) our ansatz can give a satisfactory explanation also to the down quark mass and mixing pattern. In particular, in Fig. 3a we show the dependence of the quark mixing angles on the parameter $`b=b_e`$ in the case of $`b_d=b_e`$, i.e. $`k=k^{}`$.<sup>14</sup><sup>14</sup>14 In terms of the $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$-dependent higher order operators this means that the tensor product $`G_{23}(\mathrm{\Phi })\overline{H}`$ and $`G_{32}(\mathrm{\Phi })\overline{H}`$ project the same mixture of the 5 and 45 Clebsches on $`23`$ and $`32`$ entries. Furthermore, the value $`k=k^{}=1/2`$ for the Clebsch factors can emerge if the effective operators $`\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }}{M}\overline{5}\overline{H}10`$ is induced by the Frogatt-Nielsen mechanism  involving the heavy states in $`10+\overline{10}`$ representation, and $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ has the VEV of the form $`\mathrm{Diag}(0,0,0,1,1)`$ . This means that $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is taken as a reducible $`1+24`$ representation instead of the pure adjoint. Such a situation should not come up as a surprise if the $`SU(5)`$ theory is obtained from a theory with higher-symmetry group, say from $`SO(10)`$ or $`SU(5)\times SU(5)`$. Then the relevant combination contained in the representations 45 (for $`SO(10)`$) or $`(5,5)`$ (for $`SU(5)\times SU(5)`$) is indeed $`1+24`$. It is worth remarking also, that another similar field $`\mathrm{\Sigma }1+24`$ with a complementary missing VEV structure $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(1,1,1,0,0)`$ can be used for the solution of the doublet-triplet splitting problem.  The complementary Fig. 3b exhibites the $`b`$-dependence of the $`s`$-quark mass and $`m_s/m_d`$ ratio. The same Figure contains information on the value $`Y_t`$ needed for the experimental value of the bottom mass. Since for $`k=k^{}`$, we have $`Z=[10.059(b+b^1)(1k^2)]^{1/2}`$, this provides a substantial correction to the $`b\tau `$ Yukawa unification for large $`b`$. Therefore, in this situation rather small values $`Y_t0.51`$ are needed to obtain the correct physical mass of the bottom.

We observe that indeed $`k=1/2`$ provides the most acceptable description for all these data, in comparison to the cases $`k^2=1/3`$ or $`1/5`$ which are also shown. Thus, a global inspection of Figs. 2 and 3 indicates that this case with $`b=712`$ offers us a quite realistic picture for the quark and neutrino masses and mixing.

In Figs. 4 we show the same for different choice of the Clebsches: $`k^{}=1`$ ($`b_d=k^1b`$) and $`k=1/3,1/4`$ and $`1/5`$. We see that the proper picture of the quark masses and mixing now requires rather small values of $`b`$, $`b=34`$, which is incompatible with the $`b=712`$ as it is dictated by the neutrino mixing pattern. One can also show that the case with $`k=1`$ ($`b_d=k^{}b`$) leads to even less realistic picture.

The following remark is in order. Much on the same footing, one could consider also the ansatz when the matrices $`𝐆_u`$ and $`𝐆_\nu `$ are diagonal, $`𝐆_u=𝐘_u^D`$ and $`𝐆_\nu =𝐘_\nu ^D`$, and the matrix $`𝐆`$ has the form

$$𝐆=\rho 𝐘_u^D+𝐀(\mathrm{\Phi }),𝐀=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& A_{12}& 0\\ A_{21}& 0& A_{23}\\ 0& A_{32}& 0\end{array}\right)$$
(42)   
with $`𝐀`$ being a matrix with the $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$-field dependent off-diagonal (complex) entries.<sup>15</sup><sup>15</sup>15 Interestingly, within the same philosophy of taking the relevant terms diagonal between the similar multiplets ($`\overline{5}`$’s and 10’s), one could allow also the R-violating couplings $`\lambda _{ik}(\mathrm{\Phi })\overline{5}_i\overline{5}_i10_k`$ which are diagonal between 5-plets for any $`k`$. In this case, the R-violating term $`\lambda _{iik}l_id_i^cq_k`$ would emerge in the low energy theory which could also contribute the neutrino masses, while the other two terms $`lle^c`$ and $`d^cd^cu^c`$ would vanish by symmetry reasons .  This pattern is reminescent of the once popular texture proposed by Stech, and independently by Chkareuli and one of the authors . However, in these papers the matrix $`𝐀`$ has been taken antisymmetric, which choice was soon excluded by the experimental data. Committing a minimal modification of the original version of the ansatz , one could assume that the 12 block of $`𝐀`$ remains antisymmetric, $`A_{12}=A_{21}`$, and $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ independent, whereas $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$-dependent entries $`A_{23}A_{32}`$ are strongly asymmetric. The GUT models leading to this ansatz and its complete analysis will be presented elsewhere. It is easy to see that the patterns of the quark and lepton mixing essentially remain the same as in the Fritzsch-like ansatz for $`𝐆`$ considered above – the presence of the diagonal 22 and 11 entries in $`𝐆`$ with the hierarchy stepped as $`Y_u:Y_c:Y_t`$ will lead only to small corrections. However, the CP-violating phase in this case would not vanish.

## 3 Give Fritzsch texture a Chance also for $`𝐘_u`$ and $`𝐘_\nu `$

In the above we have assumed that the matrix $`𝐆`$ has a Fritzsch-like texture while $`𝐆^u`$ and $`𝐆^\nu `$ are diagonal. However, in the context of models in which the form of $`𝐆`$ is fixed by some underlying horizontal symmetry reasons, it would seem more natural that $`𝐆^u`$ and $`𝐆^\nu `$ also have a similar form:

$$𝐆_u=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& G_{12}^u& 0\\ G_{21}^u& 0& G_{23}^u\\ 0& G_{32}^u& G_{33}^u\end{array}\right),𝐆_\nu =\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& G_{12}^\nu & 0\\ G_{12}^\nu & 0& G_{23}^\nu \\ 0& G_{23}^\nu & G_{33}^\nu \end{array}\right),$$
(43)   
Clearly, if the entries in $`𝐆_u`$ are $`SU(5)`$ singlets, this matrix should be symmetric. More generally, for $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ dependent entries, this is not true anymore, since the symmetric contribution can be induced by terms containing the tensor product $`\mathrm{\Phi }H`$ in the 5-channel and the antisymmetric ones by terms containing $`\mathrm{\Phi }H`$ in the 45-channel. As for $`𝐆_\nu `$, clearly only the symmetric terms are relevant for the neutrino mass matrices. For simplicity, in the next we assume that also $`𝐆_u`$ is symmetric.

Such a scenario would provide some different features. In the model with diagonal $`𝐆^u`$ and $`𝐆^\nu `$ we have been forced to take too big an asymmetry between the 23 and 32 entries of $`𝐆`$, $`b_{e,d}<10`$. In the case in which also $`𝐆^u`$ and $`𝐆^\nu `$ have the form (43), smaller values of $`b_{e,d}`$ can suffice since now the mixing angles will be contributed also by the unitary matrices $`U_u`$ and $`U_\nu `$: $`V_q=U_u^{}U_d`$ and $`V_l=U_e^{}U_\nu `$. Therefore, for the CKM mixing angles we have: 

$$|V_{cb}|=s_{23}^q\left|s_{23}^de^{i\phi }s_{23}^u\right|,|V_{us}|=s_{12}^q\left|s_{12}^de^{i\delta }s_{12}^u\right|,\left|\frac{V_{ub}}{V_{cb}}\right|s_{12}^u$$
(44)   
where the phases $`\phi `$, $`\delta `$ etc are combinations of the independent phases in the Yukawa matrices. The expressions for $`\theta _{23}^d`$ and $`\theta _{12}^d`$ are the same as in (2) and (2), while $`\theta _{23}^u`$, $`\theta _{12}^u`$ are the analogous angles diagonalizing $`𝐘_u`$: $`\mathrm{tan}\theta _{23}^u=\sqrt{Y_c/Y_t}`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\theta _{12}^u=\sqrt{m_u/m_c}`$. The dependence of $`\theta _{23}^d`$ and $`\theta _{12}^d`$ on the parameter $`b`$ for the cases $`k=k^{}`$ and $`k^{}=1`$ can be read out respectively from Figs. 3a and 4a, and for small values $`b`$ the contribution of $`s_{13}^d`$ in $`V_{ub}/V_{cb}`$ can be neglected.

Therefore, by varying the phase $`\phi `$ from $`0`$ to $`\pi `$, the value of the 23 mixing angle in the CKM matrix can vary between its minimal and maximal possible values:

$$\theta _{23}^{q()}=\theta _{23}^d\theta _{23}^u$$
(45)   
Analogously, for the leptonic mixing we have

$$\theta _{23}^{l()}=\theta _{23}^e\theta _{23}^\nu $$
(46)   
where $`\mathrm{tan}\theta _{23}^\nu =\sqrt{m_2/m_3}`$. Thus, for the range of the neutrino masses indicated in (11) we obtain $`\theta _{23}^\nu =(12.2_{3.7}^{+8.6})^{}`$. In case of moderate asymmetry in $`𝐘_{d,e}`$, the entries in (45) are big as compared to the experimental value of $`\theta _{23}^q`$ while each of the entries in (46) is too small for the magnitude of $`\theta _{23}^l`$ required by the AN oscillation. However, by properly tuning the phases, $`\theta _{23}^q`$ can get close to $`\theta _{23}^{q()}=\theta _{23}^d\theta _{23}^u`$ while $`\theta _{23}^l`$ can approach $`\theta _{23}^{l(+)}=\theta _{23}^e+\theta _{23}^\nu `$, In other words, the angles in the quark and lepton sectors could have negative and positive interference, respectively. Therefore, even for smaller values of $`b_{e,d}`$, one could achieve a proper fit of the mixing angles.

Nevertheless, it is well known that the case $`b_{e,d}=1`$, corresponding to the original Fritzsch texture, is fully excluded. In this case we have $`s_{23}^d\sqrt{Y_s/Y_b}`$ which implies a sharp conflict between the values of $`|V_{cb}|`$ and the large top mass $`M_t`$. Namely, the Fig. 5 shows that for the most conservative bound $`M_t>160`$ GeV, even the least possible value $`\theta _{23}^{q()}=\theta _{23}^d\theta _{23}^u`$ exceeds its experimental range by a factor 2 or so (see the dotted curves).

Neither in the leptonic sector it is possible to fully reproduce the desired pattern (12). For $`b_e=1`$ we have $`\mathrm{tan}\theta _{23}^e=\sqrt{m_\mu /m_\tau }`$, i.e. $`\theta _{23}^e=13.6^{}`$. Therefore, only the maximal value $`\theta _{23}^{l(+)}=\theta _{23}^e+\theta _{23}^\nu `$ can marginally satisfy the lower bound of (12).<sup>16</sup><sup>16</sup>16This possibility was remarked in ref. .  On the other hand, now the 12 mixing is contributed also by the angle $`\mathrm{tan}\theta _{12}^\nu =\sqrt{m_1/m_2}`$ and therefore the unknown value of $`m_1`$ makes invalid the expression for $`s_{12}^l`$.

However, by taking the matrices $`𝐘_{e,d}`$ somewhat asymmetric in the 23 block, the situation can improve significantly. Already the choice $`b_{e,d}=2`$ can suffice (such a possibility was suggested e.g. in ref. , where this factor 2 was obtained as a horizontal $`U(3)_H`$ symmetry breaking Clebsch). In this case we have $`s_{23}^d\sqrt{(Y_s/2Y_b)}`$ and then the value of $`\theta _{23}^{q()}=\theta _{23}^d\theta _{23}^u`$ can perfectly agree with the large $`M_t`$, as it is demonstrated in the Fig. 5 (see the dashed curves). On the other hand, now we obtain also $`s_{23}^e\sqrt{(2m_\mu /m_\tau )}`$, i.e. $`\theta _{23}^e=23^{}`$, and thus the value of $`\theta _{23}^{l(+)}=\theta _{23}^e+\theta _{23}^\nu `$ can fit well into the range (12) required by AN oscillation.

In the above we have assumed that $`k=k^{}`$, where $`k`$ and $`k^{}`$ are the $`SU(5)`$ breaking Clebsches defined as in eq. (23). However, in general these Clebsch factors have no reason to be the same. Nevertheless, for the dominant contributions $`\theta _{23}^d`$ and $`\theta _{23}^e`$ to the 23 quark and leptonic mixing angles (45) and (46) it emerges the ”seesaw” like product rule:

$$\mathrm{tan}\theta _{23}^d\mathrm{tan}\theta _{23}^e\left(\frac{k}{k^{}}\right)^{1/2}\left(\frac{m_\mu m_s}{m_\tau m_b}\right)^{1/2}.$$
(47)   
Barring unusual conspiracies, one can expect both $`k`$ and $`k^{}`$ to be $`1`$ and then, bearing also in mind that $`kk^{}(Y_s/Y_\mu )1/31/4`$, the factor $`(k/k^{})^{1/2}`$ appears to be $`1`$. Even in rather extreme case $`k=1/3`$ and $`k^{}=1`$, this factor is of about 0.6.

At this point some natural questions emerge, concerning the reasons for fermion Yukawa constants to have such Fritzsch-like textures, and the motivations underlying our assumptions. However, it is already known in the literature that such textures can naturally occur due to a horizontal symmetry (e.g. ). Some very predictive schemes, based on the concept of the horizontal $`U(3)_H`$ symmetry , and fully demonstrating the features discussed here, will be presented elsewhere. Here we confine ourselves to the discussion of theories with a simpler field content based on the horizontal $`U(2)_H`$ symmetry .<sup>17</sup><sup>17</sup>17 Applications of the $`U(2)`$ horizontal symmetry for the neutrino mass and mixing pattern were discussed also in refs. , but in a different context. 

Indeed, consider a theory based on the $`SU(5)\times U(2)_H`$ symmetry where $`U(2)_H=SU(2)_H\times U(1)_H`$ stands for a horizontal symmetry unifying the first two families in a doublet: $`\overline{5}_\alpha =(\overline{5},2)`$, $`10_\alpha =(10,2)`$, $`\alpha =1,2`$, with an $`U(1)_H`$ hypercharge $`H=1`$, while the third family ($`\overline{5}_3,10_3`$) is a $`U(2)`$ singlet with $`H=0`$ . The Higgs 5-plets are singlet of $`U(2)_H`$, $`H(5,1)`$ and $`\overline{H}(\overline{5},1)`$, and theory contains also some amount of $`SU(5)`$ singlets $`S(1,1)`$ and adjoints $`\mathrm{\Phi }(24,1)`$, with VEVs of order of $`MM_G10^{16}`$ GeV. For the horizontal symmetry breaking one can introduce the simplest set of the Higgs superfields: a doublet $`\varphi ^\alpha =(1,2)`$ with $`H=1`$ and a singlet $`A=(1,1)`$ with $`H=2`$, having nonzero VEVs $`\varphi ^\alpha =V_\varphi \delta _2^\alpha `$ and $`A=V_A`$, smaller than $`M_G`$.

The third generation can get masses through the Yukawa couplings $`H10_310_3+\overline{H}10_3\overline{5}_3`$ while the masses of the first two generations emerge from the effective operators induced by the Frogatt-Nielsen mechanism after integrating out some heavy vector-like states in representations $`10+\overline{10}`$ and $`\overline{5}+5`$ . Following ref. , the latter can be chosen as the $`U(2)_H`$ doublets $`T^\alpha +\overline{T}_\alpha `$ (Ten-plets) and $`\overline{F}^\alpha +F_\alpha `$ (Five-plets). For the neutrino masses, we add also the $`SU(5)`$ singlet fermions (right-handed neutrinos) $`N^\alpha +\overline{N}_\alpha `$, $`a=1,2`$, and $`N+\overline{N}`$. All these get large ($`MM_G`$) masses from couplings to the fields $`S`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$:

$$(S+\mathrm{\Phi })T^\alpha \overline{T}_\alpha +(S+\mathrm{\Phi })\overline{F}^\alpha F_\alpha +S(N^\alpha \overline{N}_\alpha +N^2+N\overline{N}+\overline{N}^2)$$
(48)   
Therefore, the heavy masses in the Ten- and Five-plets exhibite the $`SU(5)`$ breaking between various $`SU(3)\times SU(2)\times U(1)`$ fragments with different $`U(1)`$ hypercherges $`Y`$ – they are respectively $`M_T(1+x_TY)`$ and $`M_F(1+x_FY)`$. Then the mass terms of the first two generations emerge by the seesaw mixing with the heavy ones:

$`H10_\alpha T^\alpha +\overline{H}\overline{5}_\alpha T^\alpha +\overline{H}10_\alpha \overline{F}^\alpha +H\overline{5}_\alpha N^\alpha +H\overline{5}_3N,`$   
$`A\epsilon ^{\alpha \beta }(\overline{T}_\alpha 10_\beta +F_\alpha \overline{5}_\beta )+\varphi ^\alpha (\overline{T}_\alpha 10_3+F_\alpha \overline{5}_3)+\varphi ^\alpha \overline{N}_\alpha (N+\overline{N})`$ (49)   
For example, the effective operator for the neutrino masses appears in a form:

$$\frac{HH}{S}\overline{5}_3\overline{5}_3+\frac{HH\varphi ^\alpha }{S^2}\overline{5}_\alpha \overline{5}_3.$$
(50)   
Therefore, the mass of the heaviest neutrino $`\nu _3`$ could naturally emerge in the needed range around $`m_3410^2`$ eV (c.f. (11)). In fact, literally in the context of the effective operator (50) this implies $`S10^{15}`$ GeV rather than the GUT scale $`M_G10^{16}`$ GeV, but in terms of the renormalizable couplings (48) this mismatch can be easily understood e.g. due to some difference of the relevant coupling constants.<sup>18</sup><sup>18</sup>18Notice, that all couplings contained in the theory are trilinear, and thus they invariant under the continuous $`R`$-symmetry with all superfields having $`R`$-charge 1 and the superpotential having the $`R`$-charge 3. From one side, this forbides the direct mass terms of superfields $`T`$, $`F`$ and $`N`$ to be of the order of the Planck scale. On the other hand, the superpotential terms of the GUT superfields $`S`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ should contain only the trilinear terms $`S^3+S\mathrm{\Phi }^2+\mathrm{\Phi }^3`$. Then the mass parameter giving rise to their VEVs could emerge from the coupling $`SQ\overline{Q}`$ to the fermions $`Q`$, $`\overline{Q}`$ of the strongly coupled gauge sector, through the linear term $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^2S`$ emerging due to the dynamical condensation $`\overline{Q}Q=\mathrm{\Lambda }^2`$. 

Hence, after integrating out the heavy states, we arrive to the following Fritzsch-like textures for the the Yukawa couplings:

$$𝐘_d=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& A_d& 0\\ A_d& 0& B_d^{}\\ 0& B_d& C\end{array}\right),𝐘_u=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& A_u& 0\\ A_u& 0& B_u^{}\\ 0& B_u& C_u\end{array}\right),$$
(51)   
and

$$𝐘_e=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& A_e& 0\\ A_e& 0& B_e^{}\\ 0& B_e& C\end{array}\right),𝐘_\nu =\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& B_\nu \\ 0& B_\nu & C_\nu \end{array}\right),$$
(52)   
with 33 elements $`C_u`$ and $`C_\nu `$ naturally being $`1`$, while $`C`$ should be somewhat smaller unless $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ is very large. Interestingly, when $`r=M_T/M_F1`$ and $`x_T1`$, the other Yukawa entries have the following hierarchy:

$`A_dA_e=A{\displaystyle \frac{V_A}{M_T}},A_ux_TA,`$   
$`B_u^{}B_u{\displaystyle \frac{V_\varphi }{M_T}},B_d^{}B_e{\displaystyle \frac{V_\varphi }{M_T}},`$   
$`B_\nu V_\varphi /M_N,B_d,B_e^{}{\displaystyle \frac{V_\varphi }{M_F}}rB_e.`$ (53)   
Thus, we have $`k^{}1`$ and $`b1/r`$, since the asymmetry in the 23 block of $`𝐘_{e,d}`$ is due to the mass difference between heavy Ten- and Five-plets. In addition, if $`x_F1`$, then $`k=B_d/B_e^{}1`$ and in particular it could be chosen around $`1/31/4`$. The implications of such ansatz for the quark masses and mixing was discussed in great details in ref. .

We would like to add the following remark. As was already said, now one can naturally achieve the large 23 mixing in the lepton sector even in the case of smaller asymmetry in $`𝐘_e`$, already starting from $`b1`$, since now besides the ($`b`$-dependent) charged lepton angle $`\theta _{23}^e`$ it is contributed also by the neutrino angle $`\theta _{23}^\nu `$ from the matrix $`𝐘_\nu `$ ($`\mathrm{tan}\theta _{23}^\nu =\sqrt{m_2/m_3}`$). In addition, in this model we have $`A_\nu =0`$, since there can be no antisymmetric entry for the neutrino Majorana masses. Hence, the eigenstate $`\nu _1`$ remains massless, $`m_1=0`$, and therefore the 12 mixing angle in leptonic sector can be predicted.

In particular, now we have $`|V_{e2}|=s_{12}^ls_{12}^ec_{23}^l`$, and assuming the positive interference in eq. (46), we find that $`\theta _{23}^l`$ falls in the range needed for AN oscillation, $`\theta _{23}^l=(3357)^{}`$, already for moderate values of $`b`$ for which $`c_{23}^e1`$ and so $`s_{12}^e\sqrt{m_e/m_\mu }`$. This implies that for the angle $`\theta _{23}^l`$ in the range needed for the AN oscillation (i.e. $`c_{23}^l=0.830.55`$), the angle $`\theta _{12}^l`$ is entirely contained in a range required by SN: $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{12}^l4(m_e/m_\mu )(c_{23}^l)^2=(1.40.6)\times 10^2`$, and moreover it can approach also the best MSW fit value of $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{\mathrm{sol}}`$ . The $`b`$-dependence of the lepton mixing pattern for the interval $`\theta _{23}^\nu =(12.2_{3.7}^{+8.6})^{}`$ which covers uncertainties in the neutrino masses (11) is shown in Fig. 6.

## 4 Discussion and outlook

We have argued that the neutrino mixing pattern required by the solutions of the AN and SN anomalies can be obtained in a rather natural way in the context of the $`SU(5)`$ grand unification, assuming that contributions to the leptonic mixing angles emerge completely or domininantly from the charged-lepton mass matrices which have Fritzsch-like textures with strongly asymmetric 23 block and nearly symmetric 12 block. In this case, as far as $`𝐘_d𝐘_e^T`$ modulo $`SU(5)`$ symmetry breaking Clebsch factors, the large value of the 23 leptonic mixing angle can be nicely linked to the small value of the 23 mixing angle in the quark sector. Namely, for the dominant contributions to the quark and lepton angles of 23 mixing it emerges the ”seesaw” balance rule (15). And vice versa, the small 12 leptonic mixing can have a natural link to the significant 12 mixing in quarks, expressed as in eq. (16).

One has to remark, however, that besides the AN and SN anomalies, there is another, though rather controversial, indication for the neutrino oscillations: the LSND anomaly . Namely, the data collected by the LSND collaboration indicate neutrino oscillations in both the $`\overline{\nu }_\mu \overline{\nu }_e`$ and $`\nu _\mu \nu _e`$ channels. Although these are almost in conflict with the data of the KARMEN experiment , which excludes the bulk of the relevant parameter region, the following range is still allowed: $`\delta m_{e\mu }^2=(0.20.6)\text{eV}^2`$ , $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{e\mu }=(0.44)10^2`$.

If the LSND anomaly will be indeed confirmed in future experiments, then three standard neutrinos $`\nu _e,\nu _\mu `$ and $`\nu _\tau `$ would not suffice for reconciling AN and SN solutions to the parameter range required by the LSND. Since the existence of the fourth active neutrino is excluded by the LEP measurements of the invisible decay width of $`Z`$-boson, one has to introduce an extra light sterile neutrino $`\nu _s`$ . Then several exotic textures  can be considered for accomodating all the data and one has also to think of the physical reasons for the existence of the light sterile neutrinos. For some older and recent works on these directions see e.g. refs. .

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Alexei Smirnov and Francesco Vissani for useful discussions, and Andrea Brignole for valid observations. Z.B. thanks the high energy theory groups of the ICTP and SISSA for the hospitality in Trieste during the period when this work has been done.

Note added at replacement: a week after our paper has been submitted to the hep-ph E-print Archive, there appeared also a work by K. Hagiwara and N. Okamura (hep-ph/9811495) with similar considerations.

Appendix

Consider the Yukawa couplings of any type of fermions $`f_i^c𝐘^{ij}f_j\varphi `$, $`f=u,d,e`$, with the matrix $`𝐘`$ having the Fritzsch-like form with generically complex elements:

$$𝐘=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& A^{}e^{i\alpha ^{}}& 0\\ Ae^{i\alpha }& 0& B^{}e^{i\beta ^{}}\\ 0& Be^{i\beta }& C\end{array}\right)$$
(54)   
obeying the hierarchy $`C>B,B^{}>A,A^{}`$ (without loss of generality, the 33 element can be taken real). It can be brought to the diagonal form by bi-unitary transformation:

$$U^T𝐘U=𝐘_D=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}Y_1& 0& 0\\ 0& Y_2& 0\\ 0& 0& Y_3\end{array}\right)$$
(55)   
where $`Y_3Y_2Y_1`$ are the Yukawa eigenvalues for the physical fermions of three families. The unitary matrices can be parametrized as $`U=PO`$ and $`U^{}=P^{}O^{}`$, where the phase transformations

$$P^{}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}e^{i(\pi \alpha ^{}+\beta )}& 0& 0\\ 0& e^{i\beta ^{}}& 0\\ 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right),P=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}e^{i(\pi \alpha +\beta ^{})}& 0& 0\\ 0& e^{i\beta }& 0\\ 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right),$$
(56)   
bring $`𝐘`$ to the real form

$$P^{}𝐘P=\stackrel{~}{𝐘}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& A^{}& 0\\ A& 0& B^{}\\ 0& B& C\end{array}\right),$$
(57)   
which further can be diagonalized by the bi-orthogonal transformation $`O^T\stackrel{~}{𝐘}O`$, with the matrix $`O`$ rotating the left states $`f`$ parametrized as

$$O=O_{23}O_{13}O_{12}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 0& 0\\ 0& c_{23}& s_{23}\\ 0& s_{23}& c_{23}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{ccc}c_{13}& 0& s_{13}\\ 0& 1& 0\\ s_{13}& 0& c_{13}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{ccc}c_{12}& s_{12}& 0\\ s_{12}& c_{12}& 0\\ 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right),$$
(58)   
and analogously $`O^{}=O_{23}^{}O_{13}^{}O_{12}^{}`$ for the right states $`f^c`$. Notice, that (58) gives the matrix $`O`$ immediately in the standard parametrization (5) with $`\delta =\pi `$.

Let us compute now these rotation angles, using the fact that $`O^T\stackrel{~}{𝐘}^T\stackrel{~}{𝐘}O=O^T\stackrel{~}{𝐘}\stackrel{~}{𝐘}^TO^{}=𝐘_D^2`$. For the sake of accuracy, below we maintain the corrections of the order $`\epsilon Y_1/Y_2`$, $`Y_2/Y_3`$, but neglect the $`𝒪(\epsilon ^2)`$ ones ($`Y_1/Y_3`$, $`(Y_2/Y_3)^2`$ etc.). As for the elements in (57), in first approximation we estimate that

$$CY_3,BB^{}Y_2Y_3,AA^{}Y_1Y_2$$
(59)   
so that $`C^2:BB^{}:AA^{}1:\epsilon :\epsilon ^3`$. We assume that $`B`$ and $`B^{}`$ can be substantially different, i.e. asymmetry parameter $`b=B/B^{}`$ can be large. In particular, $`B`$ can be $`C`$, in which case $`B^{}\epsilon C`$ and thus $`b1/\epsilon `$. As for $`A`$ and $`A^{}`$, we assume that they have no big asymmetry, and thus $`AA^{}\epsilon ^{3/2}C`$.

We start with the 23 rotation to diagonalize the lower 23 block of $`\stackrel{~}{𝐘}`$:

$$O_{23}^T𝐘^{(0)}O_{23}=𝐘^{(1)}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& c_{23}A^{}& s_{23}A^{}\\ c_{23}^{}A& y_2& 0\\ s_{23}^{}A& 0& y_3\end{array}\right).$$
(60)   
Then we have

$$BB^{}=\frac{1}{b}B^2=y_2y_3,C^2=y_3^2+y_2^2(B^2+B^2)=y_3^2\left[1(b+b^1)\frac{y_2}{y_3}+\frac{y_2^2}{y_3^2}\right]$$
(61)   
where $`b=B/B^{}`$, and for the left ($`f`$) and right ($`f^{}`$) rotation angles we get respectively:

$`\mathrm{tan}2\theta _{23}={\displaystyle \frac{2BC}{C^2B^2+B^2}}=2\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{by_2}{y_3}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\left[1(b+b^1)\frac{y_2}{y_3}\right]^{1/2}}{12b\frac{y_2}{y_3}}},`$   
$`\mathrm{tan}2\theta _{23}^{}={\displaystyle \frac{2B^{}C}{C^2+B^2B^2}}=2\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{y_2}{by_3}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\left[1(b+b^1)\frac{y_2}{y_3}\right]^{1/2}}{12b^1\frac{y_2}{y_3}}}`$ (62)   
Thus, the expressions for $`\theta _{23}`$ and $`\theta _{23}^{}`$ are obtained from each other by changing $`bb^1`$. The diagonal elements $`y_{2,3}`$, up to small corrections detected below, coincide with the Yukawa eigenvalues $`Y_{2,3}`$ in (55), $`y_{2,3}Y_{2,3}`$. Therefore, with increasing $`b`$ from 1 to $`\epsilon ^1`$, $`s_{23}`$ increases from $`\sqrt{\epsilon }`$ to 1, while at the same $`s_{23}^{}`$ decreases from $`\sqrt{\epsilon }`$ to $`\sqrt{\epsilon /b}\epsilon `$, so that we always have $`s_{23}s_{23}^{}\epsilon `$.

As a next step, we rotate out the 13 block of $`𝐘^{(1)}`$:

$$O_{13}^T𝐘^{(1)}O_{13}=𝐘^{(2)}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{\Delta }y_1& c_{13}^{}c_{23}A^{}& 0\\ c_{13}c_{23}^{}A& y_2& s_{13}c_{23}^{}A\\ 0& s_{13}^{}c_{23}A^{}& y_3+\mathrm{\Delta }y_3\end{array}\right).$$
(63)   
where the angles $`\theta _{13}`$ and $`\theta _{13}^{}`$ are small:

$$s_{13}=s_{23}^{}\frac{A}{y_3},s_{13}^{}=s_{23}\frac{A^{}}{y_3}$$
(64)   
so that $`s_{13}s_{13}^{}\epsilon ^4`$, and

$$\mathrm{\Delta }y_1=s_{23}s_{23}^{}\frac{AA^{}}{y_3}\epsilon ^2Y_1,\mathrm{\Delta }y_3=\frac{1}{2y_3}(s_{23}^2A^2+s_{23}^2A^2)<\epsilon ^3Y_3$$
(65)   
Therefore, with a great precission, $`c_{13}=c_{13}^{}=1`$, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }y_{1,3}`$ are negligible.

Finally, we bring the 12 block of $`𝐘^{(2)}`$ to the diagonal form, which step practically accomplishes the diagonalization procedure, since $`𝐘^{(3)}=\mathrm{Diag}(1,1,1)\times 𝐘_D`$ with a very good precission:

$$O_{12}^T𝐘^{(2)}O_{12}=𝐘^{(3)}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}y_1& 0& s_{12}s_{13}c_{23}^{}A\\ 0& y_2+\mathrm{\Delta }y_2& c_{12}s_{13}c_{23}^{}A\\ s_{12}^{}s_{13}^{}c_{23}A^{}& c_{12}^{}s_{13}^{}c_{23}A^{}& y_3\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{ccc}Y_1& 0& 0\\ 0& Y_2& 0\\ 0& 0& Y_3\end{array}\right).$$
(66)   
Therefore, up to corrections $`𝒪(\epsilon ^2)`$, we have $`y_3=Y_3`$, $`y_2\mathrm{\Delta }y_2=Y_2`$ and $`y_1=Y_1`$. The next series of subsequent rotations would bring at most $`𝒪(\epsilon ^2)`$ corrections to the mixing angles and Yukawa eigenvalues. Furthemore, we obtain the following relations:

$`c_{23}c_{23}^{}AA^{}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{a}}(c_{23}^{}A)^2=Y_1Y_2,`$   
$`y_2^2=Y_2^2+Y_1^2(c_{23}^2A^2+c_{23}^2A^2)=Y_2^2\left[1(a+a^1){\displaystyle \frac{Y_1}{Y_2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{Y_1^2}{Y_2^2}}\right]`$ (67)   
where $`a=(Ac_{23}^{}/A^{}c_{23})`$. Now $`Y_2`$ and $`Y_1`$ practically coincide with the light generation of the Yukawa constants: e.g. $`Y_{1,2}=Y_{e,\mu }`$ for the charged leptons. Thus we have

$$y_2=Y_2\frac{1}{2}(a+a^1)Y_1=Y_2Y_1[1+\frac{1}{2}(1a)^2+\mathrm{}]$$
(68)   
since for $`a1`$, we have $`a+a^1=2+(a1)^2+\mathrm{}`$, and hence $`y_2Y_2Y_1`$. In conclusion th expressions for the mixing angles are the following:

$`\mathrm{tan}2\theta _{23}=2\sqrt{b}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{Y_2Y_1}{Y_3}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\left[1(b+b^1)\frac{Y_2Y_1}{Y_3}\right]^{1/2}}{12b\frac{Y_2Y_1}{Y_3}}},`$   
$`\mathrm{tan}2\theta _{12}=2\sqrt{a}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{Y_1}{Y_2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\left[1(a+a^1)\frac{Y_1}{Y_2}\right]^{1/2}}{12a\frac{Y_1}{Y_2}}},`$   
$`\mathrm{sin}\theta _{13}=s_{23}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{A}{Y_3}}=\sqrt{a}{\displaystyle \frac{s_{23}^{}}{c_{23}^{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{Y_1Y_2}}{Y_3}}`$ (69)   
while the expressions for $`\theta _{23}^{}`$, $`\theta _{12}^{}`$ and $`\theta _{13}^{}`$ are obtained from the above ones by changing $`b1/b`$, $`a1/a`$ and $`s_{23}^{}s_{23}`$ ($`c_{23}^{}c_{23}`$).

Figure Captions.

Fig. 1. The decreasing solid line is the scaling factor $`B_t`$ as a function of $`Y_t`$ for $`\alpha _s=0.118`$ (the sensitivity of $`B_t`$ with respect to uncertainties in $`\alpha _s(M_Z)`$ is very low, around per cent or so). We also show the $`Y_t`$ dependence of the top pole mass $`M_t^{max}`$ (at $`\mathrm{sin}\beta =1`$) for $`\alpha _s=0.118\pm 0.005`$.

Fig. 2. The lepton mixing angles $`V_{e2},V_{e3}`$ and $`V_{\mu 3}`$ as functions of $`b`$ (solid). The oscillation parameters $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{23}^l`$ and $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{12}^l`$ are also shown (dash), and the experimental limits $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{23}^l>0.82`$ and $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{12}^l<1.510^2`$ are delimited by the dotted lines.

Fig. 3. The quark mixing angles (Fig 3a) and the down-quark masses (Fig. 3b) as functions of $`b=b_e`$ in the case $`b_d=b`$ (i.e. $`k^{}=k`$). Three different values are considered: $`k^2=1/4`$ (solid), $`k^2=1/3`$ (dott) and $`k^2=1/5`$ (dash). All mixing angles shown in Fig. 3a are evaluated at the GUT scale. In Fig. 3b. the strange mass $`m_s(1\mathrm{GeV})`$ is shown in units of 100 MeV and the ratio $`m_s/m_d`$ in units of 20. In Fig. 3b we also show iso-contours for $`m_b=4.25`$ GeV in the $`bY_t`$ plane (for $`\alpha _s=0.118`$). In fact, these curves signify the implicit dependence of $`Y_t`$ on $`b`$ in the context of the ansatz. The corresponding values of $`B_t^1`$ needed to rescale $`s_{23}^d`$ are to be taken from the Fig. 1. The effect of the uncertainties in $`\alpha _s`$ and $`m_b`$ for $`Y_t`$ is presented in Fig. 3c (for $`k=k^{}=1/2`$). The solid iso-contours correspond to $`m_b=4.25\pm 0.15`$ for $`\alpha _s=0.118`$, and marginal cases $`m_b=4.1`$, $`\alpha _s=0.123`$, and $`m_b=4.4`$, $`\alpha _s=0.113`$ are outlined by the dotted contours.

Fig. 4. The same as in the Fig. 3a and Fig. 3b, for $`k^{}=1`$ and $`k=1/4`$ (solid) $`k=1/3`$ (dott) and $`k=1/5`$ (dash). Also here $`b=b_e`$ (and $`b_d=\frac{1}{k}b`$). In this case the factor $`Z`$ is close to 1 and thus $`Y_b=Y_\tau `$, which requires larger values of $`Y_t`$, at the margin of the perturbative regime. This is in drastic contrast to what is exhibited in Fig. 3b (case $`k=k^{}`$).

Fig. 5. The solid isocontours for the top pole-mass correspond to $`M_t=174`$ GeV (upper curve) and $`M_t=160`$ GeV (lower curve). The dotted iso-contours correspond to $`s_{23}^{q()}=0.08`$ (upper) and $`s_{23}^{q()}=0.07`$ (lower) for the case $`b_d=1`$ (Fritzsch texture). This plot demonstrates that even for the marginal values of quark masses used as input ($`m_c=1.5`$ GeV, $`m_b=4.5`$ GeV, $`m_s=100`$ MeV), the Fritzsch ansatz is completely excluded: the magnitude of $`|V_{cb}|`$ exceeds its experimental value at least by factor of 2. On the contrary, the case of $`b_d=2`$ (asymmetric Fritzsch texture ) can be accomodated: the dashed curves are isocontours for $`s_{23}^{q()}=0.044`$ (upper) and $`s_{23}^{q()}=0.036`$ (lower) and they are perfectly compatible with the experimental range of $`M_t`$. Let us remark, however, that $`s_{23}^{q()}`$ represents the least possible value of $`|V_{cb}|`$ (from the destructive interference between $`s_{23}^d`$ and $`s_{23}^u`$), hence for arbitrary phases $`\phi `$ the typical values of $`|V_{cb}|`$ are larger. Clearly, for larger values of $`b_d`$ the allowed range for $`\phi `$ becomes also larger.

Fig. 6. The lepton mixing angles as functions of $`b`$ for positive interference between $`\theta _{23}^e`$ (depending on $`b`$ as in eq. (2)) and $`\theta _{23}^\nu =\mathrm{arctan}(\sqrt{m_2/m_3})`$. The solid line corresponds $`\theta _{23}^\nu =12.2^{}`$ (central values of $`m_{2,3}`$ in (11) ), while the marginal possible values $`20.8^{}`$ (dash) and $`8.5^{}`$ (dott) are also shown which account for the uncertainties in (11). This plot shows to how small could become the parameter $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{12}^l`$ for relevant values of $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{23}^l`$.