1: \documentstyle[prd,aps,preprint,tighten,epsfig]{revtex}
2:
3: \begin{document}
4: \draft
5:
6: \title{Neutrino Mixing and Leptogenesis in Type-II Seesaw
7: Scenarios with Left-Right Symmetry}
8: \author{{\bf Wei Chao} \thanks{E-mail: chaowei@mail.ihep.ac.cn}, ~
9: {\bf Shu Luo} \thanks{E-mail: luoshu@mail.ihep.ac.cn}, ~ {\bf
10: Zhi-zhong Xing} \thanks{E-mail: xingzz@mail.ihep.ac.cn} \\
11: {\sl Institute of High Energy Physics, Chinese Academy of
12: Sciences, Beijing 100049, China}} \maketitle
13: %\date{\today}
14:
15: \begin{abstract}
16: We propose two Type-II seesaw scenarios for the neutrino mass
17: matrix in the left-right symmetric model, in which the Higgs
18: triplet Yukawa coupling matrix takes the appealing Friedberg-Lee
19: texture. We show that the nearly tri-bimaximal neutrino mixing
20: pattern, which is especially favored by current neutrino
21: oscillation data, can be obtained from both scenarios. We also
22: show that the cosmological baryon number asymmetry can naturally
23: be interpreted in these two scenarios via the flavor-independent
24: leptogenesis mechanism.
25: \end{abstract}
26:
27: \pacs{14.60.Lm, 14.60.Pq, 95.85.Ry}
28:
29: \section{Introduction}
30:
31: Current solar \cite{SNO}, atmospheric \cite{SK}, reactor \cite{KM}
32: and accelerator \cite{K2K} neutrino oscillation experiments have
33: provided us with very convincing evidence that neutrinos have
34: non-vanishing rest masses and their mixing involves two large
35: angles ($\theta^{}_{12} \sim 34^\circ$ and $\theta^{}_{23}\sim
36: 45^\circ$) and one small angle ($\theta^{}_{13} < 10^\circ$).
37: These important results indicate that the standard electroweak
38: model, in which the gauge group is $SU(2)^{}_L \times U(1)^{}_Y$
39: and three neutrinos are massless Weyl particles, is actually
40: incomplete. There are many possibilities of extending the standard
41: model to accommodate massive neutrinos and to resolve or soften
42: other potential problems of the model itself \cite{PDG06}. One of
43: them, motivated by the conjecture that parity is a perfect
44: symmetry at high-energy scales and is spontaneously broken at
45: low-energy scales, is the left-right symmetric model \cite{LR}.
46: The elegance of this model and its testability at the LHC and ILC
47: experiments have recently been iterated \cite{Lee}.
48:
49: The left-right symmetric model is based on the gauge group
50: $SU(2)^{}_L \times SU(2)^{}_R \times U(1)^{}_{B-L}$, and thus it
51: naturally contains both left-handed and right-handed neutrinos
52: together with one Higgs bi-doublet $\Phi$ and two Higgs triplets
53: $\Delta^{}_{L,R}$ \cite{LR}. In addition to the left-right gauge
54: symmetry, a discrete left-right symmetry may be introduced into
55: the model by requiring its invariance under
56: $l_L^{}\leftrightarrow (l_R^{})^c$, $q_L^{}\leftrightarrow
57: (q_R^{})^c$, $\Delta^{}_L \leftrightarrow \Delta^{}_R$ and $\Phi
58: \leftrightarrow \Phi^T$ \cite{discreteLR}. The gauge-invariant
59: Yukawa interactions between the fermion and Higgs sectors can be
60: written as
61: \begin{eqnarray}
62: - {\cal L}_Y^{} & = & \overline{q_L^{}} \Phi Y_q^{}q_R^{} +
63: \overline{q_L^{}} \tilde{\Phi}\tilde{Y}_q^{} q_R^{} +
64: \overline{l_L^{}} \Phi Y_l^{}l_R^{} + \overline{l_L^{}}
65: \tilde{\Phi} \tilde{Y}_l^{} l_R^{} \nonumber \\
66: & & + ~ \frac{1}{2} \left [\overline {l_L^{}} i\tau_2^{}
67: \Delta_L^{}{\cal F} (l_L^{})^{c} + \overline{(l_R^{})^c}
68: i\tau_2^{} \Delta_R^{}{\cal F} l_R^{} \right ] + {\rm h.c.} \; ,
69: %----------------(1)
70: \end{eqnarray}
71: where $\tilde{\Phi} \equiv \tau_2^{}\Phi^*\tau_2^{}$ and
72: $(l^{}_{L,R})^c \equiv C \overline{l^{}_{L,R}}^T$ with $C$ being
73: the charge-conjugation matrix. As a consequence of the discrete
74: left-right symmetry, $Y^{}_{l,q}$ and $\tilde{Y}_{l,q}$ are both
75: symmetric matrices. Note that $SU(2)^{}_L \times SU(2)^{}_R \times
76: U(1)^{}_{B-L}$ is spontaneously broken into the standard-model
77: gauge group $SU(2)^{}_L \times U(1)^{}_Y$ via the vacuum
78: expectation value (vev) of $\Delta^{}_R$, and then the spontaneous
79: electroweak symmetry breaking is accomplished through the vev of
80: $\Phi$. Given the vevs of $\Delta^{}_L$, $\Delta^{}_R$ and $\Phi$
81: \cite{LR},
82: \begin{eqnarray}
83: \langle \Delta_L^{} \rangle = \left( \matrix{0 & 0 \cr v_L^{} & 0
84: \cr} \right) \; , \hspace{0.5cm} \langle \Delta_R^{} \rangle =
85: \left( \matrix{0 & 0 \cr v_R^{} & 0 \cr} \right) \; ,
86: \hspace{0.5cm} \langle \Phi \rangle = \left( \matrix{\kappa & 0
87: \cr 0 & \kappa' e^{i\alpha} \cr} \right) \; ,
88: %----------------(2)
89: \end{eqnarray}
90: the up-type quark, down-type quark, charged lepton and Dirac
91: neutrino mass matrices are
92: \begin{eqnarray}
93: M_u^{} & = & \kappa Y_q^{} + \kappa'e^{-i\alpha} \tilde{Y}_q^{} \; , \nonumber\\
94: M_d^{} & = & \kappa \tilde{Y}_q^{} + \kappa'e^{+i\alpha} Y_q^{} \; , \nonumber\\
95: M_e^{} & = & \kappa \tilde{Y}_l^{} + \kappa'e^{+i\alpha} Y_l^{} \; , \nonumber\\
96: M_D^{} & = & \kappa Y_l^{} + \kappa'e^{-i\alpha} \tilde{Y}_l^{} \;
97: .
98: %----------------(3)
99: \end{eqnarray}
100: Meanwhile, the left- and right-handed Majorana neutrino mass
101: matrices can be obtained from the corresponding mass terms in Eq.
102: (1) once the Higgs triplets $\Delta^{}_L$ and $\Delta^{}_R$
103: acquire their vevs: $M^{}_L = v^{}_L {\cal F}$ and $M^{}_R =
104: v^{}_R {\cal F}$. Integrating out the heavy particles (i.e., the
105: right-handed Majorana neutrinos and the Higgs triplets), one
106: obtains the effective mass matrix for three light (left-handed)
107: Majorana neutrinos via the Type-II seesaw relation \cite{origin}:
108: \begin{eqnarray}
109: M_\nu^{} \; \simeq \; M_L^{} - M_D^{} M_R^{-1} M_D^T \; = \;
110: v_L^{} {\cal F} - {1\over v_R^{}} M_D {\cal F}^{-1} M_D^T \; .
111: %----------------(4)
112: \end{eqnarray}
113: The phenomenon of lepton flavor mixing, which has clearly shown up
114: in both solar and atmospheric neutrino oscillations, arises from
115: the mismatch between the diagonalizations of $M^{}_e$ and
116: $M^{}_\nu$. On the other hand, it is possible to interpret the
117: cosmological baryon number asymmetry $\eta^{}_B \equiv
118: n^{}_B/n^{}_\gamma = (6.1 \pm 0.2) \times 10^{-10}$ \cite{WMAP}
119: with the help of the thermal leptogenesis mechanism \cite{FY}:
120: either through the out-of-equilibrium decay of the lightest
121: right-handed Majorana neutrino, or via the out-of-equilibrium
122: decay of one or more Higgs triplets \cite{TRI}, or due to both
123: effects. The left-right symmetric model is therefore an intriguing
124: playground to explore new physics beyond the standard model, at
125: least in the neutrino sector.
126:
127: However, it is a highly non-trivial task to simultaneously account
128: for the cosmological baryon number asymmetry and current neutrino
129: oscillation data in the left-right symmetric model. The reason is
130: simply that the specific textures of $M^{}_e$, $M^{}_D$ and ${\cal
131: F}$ are not fixed by the model itself. To get around this
132: difficulty, one may impose certain flavor symmetries or empirical
133: assumptions on those mass matrices such that their textures can be
134: (partly) determined or constrained. Such a phenomenological
135: strategy has been adopted in some recent attempts
136: \cite{formula,leplr} to study neutrino mixing and leptogenesis
137: based on the left-right symmetry, although not all of them are
138: successful in fitting the updated observational \cite{WMAP} and
139: experimental \cite{Vissani} data.
140:
141: The purpose of this paper is to propose two novel and viable
142: scenarios for $M^{}_D$ and ${\cal F}$ in the flavor basis where
143: $M^{}_e$ is diagonal, so as to simultaneously interpret the
144: observed neutrino mixing pattern and the observed baryon number
145: asymmetry of the Universe in the left-right symmetric model. A
146: salient feature of both scenarios is that the Higgs triplet Yukawa
147: coupling matrix takes the Friedberg-Lee (FL) texture
148: \cite{FL,FL2,FL3},
149: \begin{eqnarray}
150: {\cal F} \; =\; \left( \matrix{ b + c & -b & -c \cr -b & a + b &
151: -a \cr -c & -a & a + c \cr} \right) + d I \; ,
152: %---------------(5)
153: \end{eqnarray}
154: where $I$ denotes the $3\times 3$ identity matrix. Such a texture
155: is phenomenologically appealing for two simple reasons: (1) ${\cal
156: F}$ can be diagonalized by a unitarity transformation whose form
157: is very close to the interesting tri-bimaximal mixing pattern
158: \cite{TB}; and (2) the inverse matrix of ${\cal F}$, which appears
159: in the seesaw formula, has a structure exactly parallel to ${\cal
160: F}$. It is therefore possible to obtain the nearly tri-bimaximal
161: neutrino mixing matrix, which is particularly favored by current
162: neutrino oscillation data, from the Type-II seesaw relation under
163: a suitable condition. The complex phases of ${\cal F}$ turn out to
164: be the common source of CP violation for neutrino oscillations and
165: baryogenesis via leptogenesis, if the Dirac neutrino mass matrix
166: $M^{}_D$ is real. To be specific, we shall assume that $M^{}_D =
167: M^{}_e$ is diagonal and real in scenario (A), and $M^{}_D$ is real
168: and has a similar FL texture in scenario (B). We are going to
169: demonstrate that both scenarios are viable in the left-right
170: symmetric model to account for the cosmological baryon number
171: asymmetry and the neutrino mixing data.
172:
173: The remaining part of this paper is organized as follows. In
174: section II, we diagonalize the FL texture and describe the picture
175: of leptogenesis as the preliminaries. Sections III and IV are
176: devoted to the details of scenarios (A) and (B), respectively. The
177: consequences of both scenarios on neutrino mixing and leptogenesis
178: are also illustrated in these two sections. A summary of our main
179: results is given in section V.
180:
181: \section{Preliminaries}
182:
183: In this section, we first describe a generic diagonalization of
184: the FL texture and then outline a couple of basic formulas to be
185: used for the calculation of leptogenesis.
186:
187: \subsection{Diagonalization of ${\cal F}$}
188:
189: The symmetric matrix ${\cal F}$ in Eq. (5) can be diagonalized by
190: the transformation $U^\dagger {\cal F} U^* = {\rm Diag} \{f^{}_1,
191: f^{}_2, f^{}_3 \}$, where $U$ is unitary and $f^{}_i$ (for
192: $i=1,2,3$) are real and positive. The special texture of ${\cal
193: F}$ guarantees $U$ to take the form
194: \begin{eqnarray}
195: U = \left ( \matrix{ \displaystyle \frac{2}{\sqrt{6}} &
196: \displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}} & 0 \cr\cr \displaystyle
197: -\frac{1}{\sqrt{6}} & \displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}} &
198: \displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \cr\cr \displaystyle
199: -\frac{1}{\sqrt{6}} & \displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}} &
200: \displaystyle -\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \cr } \right ) \left ( \matrix{
201: \displaystyle \cos{\theta} & 0 & \displaystyle \sin{\theta}
202: e^{-i\delta} \cr\cr 0 & 1 & 0 \cr\cr \displaystyle -\sin{\theta}
203: e^{i\delta} & 0 & \displaystyle \cos{\theta} \cr } \right ) \left
204: ( \matrix{ e^{i\phi^{}_{1}} & 0 & 0 \cr\cr 0 & e^{i\phi^{}_2} & 0
205: \cr\cr 0 & 0 & e^{i\phi^{}_3} \cr } \right ) \; ,
206: %--------------------(6)
207: \end{eqnarray}
208: where the leading term is just the tri-bimaximal mixing pattern
209: \cite{TB}, and the parameters $\theta$ and $\delta$ are given by
210: \begin{eqnarray}
211: \tan 2\theta & = & \frac{2 \sqrt{\left (|A|^2 + |B|^2 \right )
212: |C|^2 + 2 {\rm Re}\left ( A^* B^* C^2 \right )}}{|B|^2-|A|^2} \; ,
213: \nonumber \\
214: \tan\delta & = & - \frac{{\rm Im}\left [ a^* \left( b - c \right)
215: + b^*c \right ] }{{\rm Re}\left [ \left( a^* + d^* \right) \left(
216: b - c \right) \right ] +|b|^2-|c|^2} \; ,
217: % (7)
218: \end{eqnarray}
219: together with $A = 3(b+c)/2 +d$, $B = 2a + (b+c)/2 + d$ and $C = -
220: \sqrt{3}(b-c)/2$ \cite{FL2}. Furthermore, we obtain
221: \begin{eqnarray}
222: f^{}_{1} & = & \left |A - C \tan\theta e^{-i\delta} \right | \; ,
223: \nonumber \\
224: f^{}_{2} & = & \left |d \right | \; ,
225: \nonumber \\
226: f^{}_{3} & = & \left |B + C \tan\theta e^{+i\delta} \right | \; ;
227: % (8)
228: \end{eqnarray}
229: and
230: \begin{eqnarray}
231: \phi^{}_1 & = & \frac{1}{2} \arg \left( A - C \tan\theta ~
232: e^{-i\delta} \right) \; ,
233: \nonumber \\
234: \phi^{}_2 & = & \frac{1}{2}\arg \left( d \right) \; ,
235: \nonumber \\
236: \phi^{}_3 & = & \frac{1}{2}\arg \left( B + C \tan\theta ~
237: e^{+i\delta} \right ) \; .
238: % (9)
239: \end{eqnarray}
240: Without loss of generality, one may rotate away $\phi^{}_3$
241: through the redefinitions $\rho \equiv \phi_1^{} - \phi_3^{}$ and
242: $\sigma \equiv \phi_2^{} - \phi_3^{}$. Then $U$ contains three
243: non-trivial phase parameters: $\delta$, $\rho$ and $\sigma$.
244:
245: Since $M^{}_L = v^{}_L {\cal F}$ and $M^{}_R = v^{}_R {\cal F}$
246: hold in the left-right symmetric model, their mass eigenvalues can
247: be given in terms of $f^{}_1$, $f^{}_2$ and $f^{}_3$ obtained in
248: Eq. (8). For example, three heavy right-handed Majorana neutrino
249: masses are simply $M^{}_i = v^{}_R f^{}_i$ (for $i=1,2,3$).
250:
251: \subsection{Leptogenesis}
252:
253: For simplicity, let us assume that three heavy right-handed
254: Majorana neutrinos have a normal mass hierarchy (i.e., $M^{}_1 <
255: M^{}_2 < M^{}_3$) and their masses are much smaller than the
256: masses of Higgs triplets. In this case only the CP-violating
257: asymmetry generated from the out-of-equilibrium decay of the
258: lightest right-handed Majorana neutrino can survive and contribute
259: to the thermal leptogenesis \cite{FY}. Such a CP-violating
260: asymmetry, denoted as $\varepsilon^{}_1$, arises from the
261: interference between the tree-level and one-loop decay amplitudes.
262: In the basis where $M_R^{}$ is diagonal and real,
263: $\varepsilon^{}_1$ is given by $\varepsilon^{}_1 =
264: \varepsilon^{(1)}_1 + \varepsilon^{(2)}_1$ with
265: \begin{eqnarray}
266: \varepsilon^{(1)}_1 & = & \frac{1}{8 \pi v^2} \sum_{j\not= 1}
267: \frac{{\rm Im} \left[\left(\hat M_D^\dagger \hat
268: M_D\right)^2_{1j}\right]}{\left(\hat M_D^\dagger \hat
269: M^{}_D\right)^{}_{11}} \sqrt{x^{}_j} \left[ \frac{2 - x^{}_j}{1 -
270: x^{}_j} - \left(1 + x^{}_j\right) \ln{\frac{x^{}_j + 1}{x^{}_j}}
271: \right] \; , \nonumber \\
272: \varepsilon^{(2)}_1 & = & \frac{3}{16 \pi v^2} M^{}_{1}
273: \frac{{\rm Im}\left[\left(\hat M_D^\dagger \, M^{}_L \hat
274: M_D^*\right)_{11}\right]}{\left(\hat M_D^\dagger \hat
275: M^{}_D\right)_{11}} \; ,
276: % (10)
277: \end{eqnarray}
278: where $v \simeq 174$ GeV, $x^{}_{j} = M^2_{j} / M^2_{1}$, and
279: $\hat{M}_D^{}$ is the Dirac neutrino mass matrix defined in the
280: basis where $M^{}_{R}$ is diagonal. Note that
281: $\varepsilon^{(1)}_1$ is the conventional CP-violating term, while
282: $\varepsilon^{(2)}_1$ is due to the one-loop contribution induced
283: by the Higgs triplets \cite{varep}.
284:
285: The CP-violating asymmetry $\varepsilon^{}_1$ can give rise to a net
286: lepton number asymmetry in the Universe, and the nonperturbative
287: sphaleron interaction may partially convert this lepton number
288: asymmetry into a net baryon number asymmetry \cite{efficiency},
289: \begin{eqnarray}
290: \eta_B^{} \; \equiv \; \frac{n_B^{}}{n_\gamma^{}} \; \simeq \; - \;
291: 0.96 \times 10^{-2} \varepsilon_1^{} \kappa_1^{} \; ,
292: %-----------(11)
293: \end{eqnarray}
294: where $\kappa^{}_1$ is an efficiency factor measuring the washout
295: effects associated with the out-of-equilibrium decay of the
296: lightest right-handed Majorana neutrino. The value of
297: $\kappa^{}_1$ can be evaluated from the following analytical
298: approximation \cite{efficiency}: $\kappa_1^{} = \kappa^-(K_1^{}) +
299: \kappa^+(K_1^{})$, where
300: \begin{eqnarray}
301: \kappa^-(K_1^{}) & = & -2 e^{-2 N(K_1^{})/3}
302: \left[ e^{2\overline{N}(K_1^{})/3} - 1 \right] \; , \nonumber \\
303: \kappa^+(K_1^{}) & = & {2\over z_B^{}(K_1^{}) K_1^{}} \left[ 1 -
304: e^{-2 z_B^{}(K_1^{}) K_1^{} \overline{N}(K_1^{})/3} \right] \; ,
305: %-----------(12)
306: \end{eqnarray}
307: with
308: \begin{eqnarray}
309: \overline{N}(K_1^{}) & = & {N(K_1^{})\over \left ( 1 +
310: \sqrt{\frac{N(K_1^{})}{N_{\rm eq}^{}}}\right )^2} \; ,
311: \nonumber \\
312: z_B^{}(K_1^{}) & \simeq & 1 + {1\over 2} \ln \left\{ 1 + {\pi
313: K_1^2 \over 1024} \left[\ln \left({3125\pi K_1^2 \over 1024}
314: \right) \right]^5 \right\} \; .
315: %-----------(13)
316: \end{eqnarray}
317: Here $K^{}_1$ is the ratio of the total decay width of the
318: lightest right-handed Majorana neutrino to the expansion rate of
319: the Universe at temperature $T = M^{}_{1}$ \cite{efficiency}. One
320: usually expresses $K^{}_1$ as $K^{}_1 = \tilde{m}^{}_1 /m^{}_*$,
321: where $\tilde{m}_1^{} = (\hat{M}_D^\dagger
322: \hat{M}^{}_D)_{11}^{}/M_{1}^{}$ denotes the effective (seesaw)
323: neutrino mass, and $m^{}_* \simeq 1.08 \times 10^{-3}$ eV stands
324: for the equilibrium neutrino mass. In addition,
325: $\overline{N}(K_1^{})$ represents the number density of the
326: lightest right-handed Majorana neutrino, which interpolates
327: between the maximal number densities $N_{\rm eq}^{} = 3/4$ and
328: $N(K_1^{}) = 9\pi K_1^{}/16$ for strong and weak washout regions,
329: respectively.
330:
331: Note that the formulas listed above are only valid for the
332: flavor-independent leptogenesis mechanism. The flavor-dependent
333: effects will become relevant if thermal leptogenesis takes place
334: at temperatures below $M^{}_1 \sim 10^{12}$ GeV
335: \cite{Flavor,Antusch}. We shall assume $M^{}_1 > 10^{12}$ GeV for
336: two phenomenological scenarios to be discussed in the subsequent
337: sections, such that flavor effects on leptogenesis can be safely
338: neglected.
339:
340: \section{Scenario (A)}
341:
342: Scenario (A) is based on three assumptions: (1) $\kappa' \sim 0$
343: in Eq. (3), such that $M^{}_e \simeq \kappa \tilde{Y}^{}_l$ and
344: $M^{}_D \simeq \kappa Y^{}_l$ (with $\kappa \simeq v \simeq 174$
345: GeV) are both symmetric; (2) $Y^{}_l = \tilde{Y}^{}_l$ is
346: diagonal, or equivalently $M_D^{} = v {\rm Diag} \{y_e^{},
347: y_\mu^{}, y_\tau^{} \} = {\rm Diag} \{m_e^{}, m_\mu^{},
348: m_{\tau}^{} \}$; and (3) ${\cal F}$ takes the FL texture as shown
349: in Eq. (5). The first assumption is consistent with the general
350: expectation $\kappa' \ll \kappa$ in the left-right symmetric model
351: \cite{Ji}, while the second and third ones are purely
352: phenomenological. In these assumptions, the effective neutrino
353: mass matrix $M^{}_\nu$ in Eq. (4) can be explicitly expressed as
354: \begin{eqnarray}
355: M^{}_\nu & = & v^{}_{L} \left [ \left ( \matrix {b+c & -b & -c \cr
356: -b & a+b & -a \cr -c & -a & a+c \cr } \right ) + d I \right ] -
357: \frac{v^2}{v^{}_{R} S} \left [ \left ( \matrix { y_{e}^{2} \left(
358: \hat{b} + \hat{c} \right) & - y_{e}^{} y_{\mu}^{} \hat{b} & -
359: y_{e}^{} y_{\tau}^{} \hat{c} \cr - y_{e}^{} y_{\mu}^{} \hat{b} &
360: y_{\mu}^{2} \left( \hat{a} + \hat{b} \right) & - y_{\mu}^{}
361: y_{\tau}^{} \hat{a} \cr - y_{e}^{} y_{\tau}^{} \hat{c} & -
362: y_{\mu}^{} y_{\tau}^{} \hat{a} & y_{\tau}^{2} \left( \hat{a} +
363: \hat{c} \right) \cr } \right ) \right . \nonumber \\
364: & & \left . + ~ \frac{1}{d} \left ( \matrix{ y_e^2 & 0 & 0 \cr 0 &
365: y_\mu^2 & 0 \cr 0 & 0 & y_\tau^2 } \right ) \right ] \; ,
366: %---------------(14)
367: \end{eqnarray}
368: where $\hat{a}$, $\hat{b}$, $\hat{c}$ and $S$ are simple functions
369: of the parameters of $\cal F$:
370: \begin{eqnarray}
371: S & = & d \left[d^2 + 2 \left( a+b+c \right) d + 3 \left( ab+bc+ac \right)
372: \right] \; , \nonumber \\
373: \hat{a} & = & \frac{1}{S} \left[ -a d - \left( ab+bc+ac \right) \right] \; ,
374: \nonumber \\
375: \hat{b} & = & \frac{1}{S} \left[ -b d - \left( ab+bc+ac \right)
376: \right] \; ,
377: \nonumber \\
378: \hat{c} & = & \frac{1}{S} \left[ -c d - \left( ab+bc+ac \right)
379: \right] \; .
380: % (15)
381: \end{eqnarray}
382: Note that the vevs of the Higgs bi-doublet and triplets are
383: related with one another through $v_L^{} v_R^{} = \gamma v^2$ in
384: the left-right symmetric model \cite{LR}, where $\gamma$ depends
385: on the Higgs potential of the model and is usually expected to be
386: ${\cal O}(1)$. Typically choosing $v^{}_L \sim 0.1 {\rm eV}$
387: \cite{formula}, we may simplify Eq. (14) and get an approximate
388: expression of $M^{}_\nu$ as follows:
389: \begin{eqnarray}
390: M^{}_\nu \; \simeq \; v^{}_{L} \left [ \left ( \matrix{ b+c & -b &
391: -c \cr -b & a+b & -a \cr -c & -a & a+c \cr} \right ) + d I -
392: \Delta \left ( \matrix{ 0 & 0 & 0 \cr 0 & r^2 & -r \cr 0 & -r & 1
393: \cr } \right ) \right ] \; ,
394: % (16)
395: \end{eqnarray}
396: where $r \simeq {y_\mu^{}/ y_\tau^{}}$ and $\Delta \sim
397: y_\tau^2(\hat{a} + d^{-1})/\gamma$. Because of $y^2_\tau \sim
398: 10^{-4}$, the $\Delta$-term in Eq. (16) is strongly suppressed. It
399: is therefore a good approximation to take $M^{}_\nu \simeq M^{}_L$
400: (i.e., only the first two terms on the right-hand side of Eq. (16)
401: are kept). In this case, $M^{}_\nu$ has the FL texture and can be
402: diagonalized by using the unitary matrix $U$ given in Eq. (6). Three
403: light (left-handed) Majorana neutrino masses turn out to be $m^{}_i
404: = v^{}_L f^{}_i$ (for $i=1,2,3$), where $f^{}_i$ can be found from
405: Eq. (8). Comparing $m^{}_i$ with the masses of three right-handed
406: Majorana neutrinos $M^{}_i = v^{}_R f^{}_i$, we immediately arrive
407: at $M^{}_i/m_i^{} = v^{}_R/v^{}_L$ in scenario (A). Since $M^{}_1 <
408: M^{}_2 < M^{}_3$ has been required in discussing leptogenesis,
409: $m^{}_1 < m^{}_2 < m^{}_3$ must hold (i.e., the light Majorana
410: neutrinos have a normal mass hierarchy). Furthermore, three neutrino
411: mixing angles are given as
412: \begin{eqnarray}
413: \sin\theta^{}_{12} & = & \frac{1}{\sqrt{2 + \cos2\theta}} \; ,
414: \nonumber \\
415: \sin\theta^{}_{23} & = & \frac{\sqrt{2 + \cos2\theta -
416: \sqrt{3}\sin2\theta\cos\delta}}{\sqrt{2 \left (2 + \cos2\theta
417: \right )}} \; ,
418: \nonumber \\
419: \sin\theta^{}_{13} & = & \frac{2}{\sqrt{6}} \sin\theta \;
420: % (17)
421: \end{eqnarray}
422: in the standard parametrization \cite{PDG06}. The CP-violating
423: phases of $U$ have been presented in Eqs. (7) and (9), from which
424: one may define $\rho = \phi_1^{} - \phi_3^{}$ and $\sigma =
425: \phi_2^{} - \phi_3^{}$ as two independent Majorana phases
426: \cite{FX01}. In view of $\theta^{}_{13} < 10^\circ$ as constrained
427: by a global analysis of current experimental data \cite{Vissani},
428: we obtain $\theta <12.2^\circ$ from Eq. (17). The smallness of
429: $\theta$ implies that $\sin\theta^{}_{12} \simeq 1/\sqrt{3}$ (or
430: $\theta^{}_{12} \simeq 35.3^\circ$) and $\sin\theta^{}_{23} \simeq
431: 1/\sqrt{2}$ (or $\theta^{}_{23} \simeq 45^\circ$) are excellent
432: approximations; i.e., $U$ is a nearly tri-bimaximal neutrino
433: mixing pattern and is strongly favored by the solar and
434: atmospheric neutrino oscillation measurements.
435:
436: Now let us consider leptogenesis in scenario (A). As one can see
437: from Eq. (10), the CP-violating asymmetry $\varepsilon_1^{}$
438: depends on the $(1, 1)$, $(1, 2)$ and $(1, 3)$ entries of
439: $\hat{M}_D^\dagger \hat{M}_D^{}$ as well as the $(1, 1)$ entry of
440: $\hat{M}_D^\dagger M_L^{}\hat{M}_D^*$, where $\hat{M}^{}_D =
441: M^{}_D U^*$ with $U$ being determined in Eq. (6). A
442: straightforward calculation yields
443: \begin{eqnarray}
444: \left(\hat{M}_D^\dagger \hat{M}_D^{}\right)_{11}^{} & \simeq &
445: m_\tau^2 \left (\frac{1}{3} - \frac{1}{6} \cos 2\theta -
446: \frac{1}{2\sqrt{3}} \sin2\theta \cos\delta \right ) \; , \nonumber \\
447: \left(\hat{M}_D^\dagger \hat{M}_D^{}\right)_{12}^{} & \simeq &
448: m_\tau^2 \left ( -\frac{1}{3\sqrt{2}} \cos\theta +
449: \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}} \sin\theta e^{i \delta} \right )
450: e^{i(\rho-\sigma)} \; ,\nonumber \\
451: \left(\hat{M}_D^\dagger \hat{M}_D^{}\right)_{13}^{} & \simeq &
452: m_\tau^2 \left ( \frac{1}{2\sqrt{3}} \cos^2\theta - \frac{1}{6}
453: \sin 2\theta e^{i \delta} - \frac{1}{2\sqrt{3}} \sin^2\theta e^{2i
454: \delta} \right ) e^{i\rho} \; ;
455: %----------(18)
456: \end{eqnarray}
457: and
458: \begin{eqnarray}
459: \left( \hat{M}_D^\dagger M^{}_L \hat{M}_D^{*} \right)_{11}^{} &
460: \simeq & m_\tau^2 e^{2i \left (\phi^{}_1 + \phi^{}_3 \right)}
461: \left[ m^{}_1 \left ( \frac{1}{6} \cos^2 \theta - \frac{1}{2
462: \sqrt{3}} \sin 2\theta e^{i\delta} + \frac{1}{2} \sin^2 \theta\
463: e^{2i\delta}
464: \right )^2 e^{2i\rho} \right . \nonumber \\
465: & & \left. + m^{}_2 \left ( \frac{1}{3 \sqrt{2}} \cos\theta -
466: \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}} \sin\theta e^{i\delta} \right )^2 e^{2i \sigma}
467: \right. \nonumber \\
468: & & \left. + m^{}_3 \left (\frac{1}{2 \sqrt{3}} \cos 2\theta +
469: \frac{1}{12} \sin 2\theta e^{-i\delta} - \frac{1}{4} \sin 2\theta
470: e^{i\delta} \right )^2 \right] \; ,
471: % (19)
472: \end{eqnarray}
473: where the terms proportional to $m^2_e$ and those proportional to
474: $m^2_\mu$ have been omitted by taking account of $m^2_e \ll
475: m^2_\mu \ll m^2_\tau$. Eqs. (18) and (19) allow us to calculate
476: the CP-violating asymmetry $\varepsilon^{}_1$ via Eq. (10) and the
477: baryon number asymmetry $\eta^{}_B$ via Eqs. (11), (12) and (13)
478: in scenario (A).
479:
480: For simplicity, we only consider a special but interesting
481: parameter space in our numerical analysis. We assume that $a$, $b$
482: and $c$ are real, $d$ is complex and $b=c$ holds. The physical
483: roles of different parameters in this simple example are rather
484: clear: (1) real $a$, $b$ and $c$ together with $b = c$ result in
485: the exact tri-bimaximal mixing \cite{TB}; (2) $m^{}_2 \simeq
486: v^{}_L |d|$ fixes the mass scale and spectrum of three left-handed
487: Majorana neutrinos; (3) the phase of $d$ is the only source of CP
488: violation which leads to non-vanishing $\varepsilon^{}_1$ and
489: $\eta^{}_{B}$; and (4) the $\Delta$-induced term in Eq. (16) is
490: essentially negligible. We generate the input points of those free
491: parameters by scanning their possible ranges according to a flat
492: random number distribution. Hence the output points will be a
493: clear reflection of the strong constraints, imposed by scenario
494: (A) itself and by current neutrino oscillation data, on relevant
495: parameters. The following experimental data have been taken into
496: account in our calculations: $30^\circ \leq \theta_{12} \leq
497: 38^\circ$, $36^\circ \leq \theta_{23} \leq 54^\circ$ and
498: $\theta_{13} < 10^\circ$ as well as $\Delta m^2_{21} \equiv m^2_2
499: - m^2_1 = (7.2 \cdot\cdot\cdot 8.9) \times 10^{-5} ~{\rm eV}^2$
500: and $\Delta m^2_{32} \equiv m^2_3 - m^2_2 = \pm (2.1
501: \cdot\cdot\cdot 3.1) \times 10^{-3} ~{\rm eV}^2$ \cite{Vissani}.
502: We numerically demonstrate that this scenario can successfully
503: account for the cosmological baryon number asymmetry and have no
504: conflict with the neutrino oscillation measurements. Some results
505: are summarized below.
506: \begin{itemize}
507: \item In FIG. 1 we show the predicted values of $\eta^{}_{B}$
508: changing with $M^{}_1$, the mass of the lightest right-handed
509: Majorana neutrino. We find that the observationally-allowed range
510: of $\eta^{}_B$ (i.e., $\eta^{}_B = (6.1 \pm 0.2) \times 10^{-10}$
511: \cite{WMAP}) can be reproduced from the flavor-independent
512: leptogenesis in the chosen parameter space with $4.9 \times
513: 10^{12} ~ {\rm GeV} \leq M^{}_1 \leq 7.7 \times 10^{14} ~{\rm
514: GeV}$. In particular, $M^{}_1 \sim 10^{14}$ GeV is most favored.
515:
516: \item Taking $M^{}_1 = 10^{14}$ GeV for example,
517: we are able to fix $a = \pm (0.17 \cdots 0.33)$, $b = c = \pm
518: (0.023 \cdots 0.037)$, $|d| = (0.085 \cdots 0.099)$ and $\arg(d) =
519: \pm (1.0^{\circ} \cdots 18.3^{\circ})$. The values of these
520: parameters are not sensitive to the change of $M^{}_1$ in its
521: allowed range. It is worth remarking that the constraint on $|d|$
522: comes mainly from the choice $v^{}_L \sim 0.1$ eV and the
523: requirement $M^{}_1 < M^{}_2 < M^{}_3$, which is equivalent to
524: $m^{}_1 < m^{}_2 < m^{}_3$. On the other hand, $\arg(d)$ is
525: restricted by both $\eta^{}_{B}$ and the neutrino oscillation
526: data.
527:
528: \item Given $v^{}_R = 10^{16}$ GeV for instance, the
529: mass spectrum of three light Majorana neutrinos is $m^{}_1 = (0.55
530: \cdots 1.0) \times 10^{-3}$ eV, $m^{}_2 = (8.5 \cdots 9.8) \times
531: 10^{-3}$ eV and $m^{}_3 = (4.2 \cdots 5.8) \times 10^{-2}$ eV; and
532: that of three heavy Majorana neutrinos is $M^{}_1 = (0.55 \cdots
533: 1.0) \times 10^{14}$ GeV, $M^{}_2 = (8.5 \cdots 9.8) \times
534: 10^{14}$ GeV and $M^{}_3 = (4.2 \cdots 5.8) \times 10^{15}$ GeV.
535: The normal hierarchy of $m^{}_i$ implies that the effective mass
536: of the neutrinoless double-beta decay $\langle m\rangle^{}_{ee}$
537: must be at the ${\cal O}(10^{-3})$ eV level \cite{Vissani}, which
538: is far below the present experimental upper bound $\langle
539: m\rangle^{}_{ee} < 0.35$ eV \cite{PDG06}.
540: \end{itemize}
541: Because of $b=c$ and the smallness of $\Delta$ taken in our
542: numerical calculations, the neutrino mixing matrix is essentially
543: the tri-bimaximal mixing pattern with a vanishingly small value of
544: $\theta^{}_{13}$. Hence there is no observable effect of CP
545: violation in neutrino oscillations. A detailed analysis of the FL
546: texture with $b \neq c$ can be found in Ref. \cite{FL2}. Here we
547: make a numerical check about the possible influence of $b\neq c$
548: on $\eta^{}_B$ in scenario (A). We find that the result shown in
549: FIG. 1 is actually not sensitive to the small difference between
550: $b$ and $c$.
551:
552: \section{Scenario (B)}
553:
554: Scenario (B) is based on three assumptions: (1) $\kappa' \sim 0$
555: in Eq. (3), such that $M^{}_e \simeq \kappa \tilde{Y}^{}_l$ and
556: $M^{}_D \simeq \kappa Y^{}_l$ (with $\kappa \simeq v \simeq 174$
557: GeV) are both symmetric; (2) $\tilde{Y}^{}_l$ is diagonal, but
558: $Y^{}_l$ takes the FL texture and its parameters are all real; and
559: (3) ${\cal F}$ takes the FL texture as given in Eq. (5). The first
560: and second assumptions allow us to write out $M^{}_D$ as follows:
561: \begin{eqnarray}
562: M^{}_{D} \; = \; v \left [ \left ( \matrix{ b'+c' & -b' & -c' \cr
563: -b' & a'+b' & -a' \cr -c' & -a' & a'+c' \cr } \right ) + d'I
564: \right ] \; .
565: % (20)
566: \end{eqnarray}
567: As $a'$, $b'$, $c'$ and $d'$ are all assumed to be real, it is
568: easy to diagonalize $M_D^{}$ by using the transformation
569: $V'^\dagger M_D^{}V'^* = {\rm Diag} \{{D}^{}_{1}, {D}^{}_{2},
570: D^{}_3 \}$, where
571: \begin{eqnarray}
572: V^{'} \; = \; \left ( \matrix{ \displaystyle \frac{2}{\sqrt{6}} &
573: \displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}} & 0 \cr\cr \displaystyle
574: -\frac{1}{\sqrt{6}} & \displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}} &
575: \displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \cr\cr \displaystyle
576: -\frac{1}{\sqrt{6}} & \displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}} &
577: \displaystyle -\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \cr } \right ) \left ( \matrix{
578: \displaystyle \cos{\theta'} & 0 & \displaystyle \sin{\theta'}
579: \cr\cr 0 & 1 & 0 \cr\cr \displaystyle -\sin{\theta'} & 0 &
580: \displaystyle \cos{\theta'} \cr } \right ) \; .
581: %----------(21)
582: \end{eqnarray}
583: Similar to $\theta$ in Eq. (7), the rotation angle $\theta'$ can
584: also be determined in terms of $a'$, $b'$, $c'$ and $d'$. Taking
585: account of Eqs. (5) and (20), we calculate the effective Majorana
586: neutrino mass matrix $M^{}_\nu$ by means of the Type-II seesaw
587: formula in Eq. (4). We find that $M^{}_\nu$ has the FL texture as
588: ${\cal F}$ and $M^{}_D$ do:
589: \begin{eqnarray}
590: M_\nu^{} \; = \; v_L^{} \left[\left(\matrix{ \tilde{b} + \tilde{c} &
591: -\tilde{b} & -\tilde{c} \cr - \tilde{b} & \tilde{a} + \tilde{b} &
592: -\tilde{a} \cr -\tilde{c} & -\tilde{a} & \tilde{a} + \tilde{c}}
593: \right) + \tilde{d} I \right] \; ,
594: %---------(22)
595: \end{eqnarray}
596: where
597: \begin{eqnarray}
598: \tilde{a} & = & -\left\{ \gamma d \left [ d^2 + 2 \left( a + b + c
599: \right) d + 3 \left( bc + ab + ac \right) \right ] \right \}^{-1}
600: \left \{ a' d \left( a' + d' \right ) \left [ 3 \left ( b + c \right )
601: + 2d \right ] \right. \nonumber\\
602: & & \left. + d \left [ a' b' \left ( 3c + d \right ) + a' c' \left
603: ( 3b + d \right ) - b' c' \left ( 3a + d \right ) \right ] - d' d
604: \left [ b' \left ( a-c \right ) + c' \left ( a-b \right )
605: \right] \right \} + a \; , \nonumber\\
606: \tilde{b} & = & -\left\{ \gamma d \left [ d^2 + 2 \left( a + b + c
607: \right) d + 3 \left( bc + ab + ac \right) \right ] \right \}^{-1}
608: \left \{ b' d \left (b' + d' \right ) \left [ 3 \left ( a + c \right )
609: + 2d \right ] \right. \nonumber\\
610: & & \left. + d \left [ a' b' \left ( 3c + d \right ) + b' c' \left (
611: 3a + d \right ) - a' c' \left ( 3b + d \right ) \right ] - d' d
612: \left [ a' \left ( b-c \right ) + c' \left ( b-a \right )
613: \right] \right \} + b \; , \nonumber\\
614: \tilde{c} & = & -\left\{ \gamma d \left [ d^2 + 2 \left( a + b + c
615: \right) d + 3 \left( bc + ab + ac \right) \right ] \right \}^{-1}
616: \left \{ c' d \left (c' + d' \right ) \left [ 3 \left ( a + b \right )
617: + 2d \right ] \right. \nonumber\\
618: & & \left. + d \left [ a' c' \left ( 3b + d \right ) + b' c' \left (
619: 3a + d \right ) - a' b' \left ( 3c + d \right ) \right ] - d' d
620: \left [ a' \left ( c-b \right ) + b'
621: \left ( c-a \right ) \right] \right \} + c \; , \nonumber\\
622: \tilde{d} & = & -\frac{{d '}^2}{\gamma d} + d \; .
623: % (23)
624: \end{eqnarray}
625: It is obvious that $M^{}_\nu$ can be diagonalized by a unitary
626: transformation $V(\hat{\theta}, \hat{\delta}, \hat{\phi_1},
627: \hat{\phi_2}, \hat{\phi_3})$ which has the same form as $U$ given
628: in Eq. (6). One may simply use Eqs. (7), (8) and (9) to determine
629: the angle and phase parameters of $V$ as well as three neutrino
630: mass eigenvalues $m^{}_i$, after the replacements
631: $a\rightarrow\tilde{a}$, $b\rightarrow\tilde{b}$,
632: $c\rightarrow\tilde{c}$, $d\rightarrow\tilde{d}$ are made.
633:
634: We proceed to consider leptogenesis in scenario (B). A noteworthy
635: feature of this scenario is that the $(1,2)$ entry of
636: $\hat{M}_D^\dagger \hat{M}_D^{}$ vanishes. The non-vanishing $(1,
637: 1)$ and $(1, 3)$ elements of $\hat{M}_D^\dagger \hat{M}_D^{}$
638: together with the $(1, 1)$ element of $\hat{M}_D^\dagger
639: M_L^{}\hat{M}_D^{*}$ are given by
640: \begin{eqnarray}
641: \left( \hat{M}_D^\dagger \hat{M}_D^{} \right)_{11}^{} & = & D_1^2
642: \cos^2 \left ( \theta - \theta' \right ) + D_3^2 \sin^2 \left (
643: \theta - \theta' \right ) +\left ( D_3^2 - D_1^2 \right ) \sin
644: 2\theta \sin 2\theta' \sin^2 \frac{\delta}{2} \; , \nonumber\\
645: \left( \hat{M}_D^\dagger \hat{M}_D^{} \right)_{13}^{} & = &
646: \frac{1}{2} \left ( D_3^2 - D_1^2 \right ) \left [ \sin 2\theta
647: \cos 2\theta' - \sin 2\theta' \left ( \cos^2 \theta - \sin^2
648: \theta e^{2i\delta} \right ) \right ] e^{i \rho} \; ;
649: % (24)
650: \end{eqnarray}
651: and
652: \begin{eqnarray}
653: \left( \hat{M}_D^\dagger M_L \hat{M}_D^{*} \right)_{11}^{} \; = \;
654: m^{}_1 T_1^2 + m^{}_3 T_3^2 \; ,
655: % (25)
656: \end{eqnarray}
657: where
658: \begin{eqnarray}
659: T^{}_1 & = & \left [ D_1^{} \left ( \cos\theta \cos \theta' +
660: \sin\theta \sin\theta' e^{-i \delta} \right )^2 + D_3^{} \left (
661: \cos\theta \sin\theta' - \sin\theta \cos\theta' e^{i \delta}
662: \right )^2 \right ] e^{2i \phi^{}_1} \; , \nonumber\\
663: T^{}_3 & = & \frac{1}{2} \left [ D_1^{} \left ( -\cos 2\theta \sin
664: 2\theta' + \sin 2\theta \cos^2 \theta' e^{-i \delta} + \sin
665: 2\theta \sin^2 \theta' e^{i \delta} \right ) \right. \nonumber\\
666: & & \left. + D_3^{} \left ( \cos 2\theta \sin 2\theta' - \sin
667: 2\theta \cos^2 \theta' e^{i \delta} - \sin 2\theta \sin^2 \theta'
668: e^{-i \delta} \right ) \right ] e^{i \left ( \phi^{}_1 + \phi^{}_3
669: \right )} \; .
670: % (26)
671: \end{eqnarray}
672: We remark that the CP-violating phases come from ${\cal F}$. In
673: addition, Eq. (24) shows that the $CP$-violating asymmetry
674: $\varepsilon^{(1)}_1$ directly depends on $\theta$ (from ${\cal
675: F}$), $\theta'$ and $D^2_3 - D^2_1$ (from $M^{}_D$). If these
676: three quantities are very small, $\varepsilon^{(1)}_1$ will be
677: strongly suppressed.
678:
679: Now we carry out a numerical analysis of neutrino mixing and
680: leptogenesis in scenario (B), just for the purpose of
681: illustration. We assume that $a$, $b$ and $c$ are real but $d$ is
682: complex. Furthermore, we assume $a' = a$ and $b'=b=c'=c$ in order
683: to simplify the calculations. The only source of CP violation is
684: the phase of $d$, similar to the situation in scenario (A). It is
685: easy to see that $b'=b=c'=c$ leads to $\theta = \theta' = 0$, and
686: thus $\varepsilon^{(1)}_1$ vanishes. Non-zero $\eta^{}_B$ is
687: attributed to non-zero $\varepsilon^{(2)}_1$ in this scenario. Our
688: numerical results are consistent with both the observational data
689: on $\eta^{}_B$ \cite{WMAP} and the experimental data on two
690: neutrino mass-squared differences and three mixing angles
691: \cite{Vissani}. Some comments are in order.
692: \begin{itemize}
693: \item In FIG. 2 we show the predicted values of $\eta^{}_{B}$
694: changing with $M^{}_1$. We see that the observationally-allowed
695: range of $\eta^{}_B$ can be reproduced from the flavor-independent
696: leptogenesis in the chosen parameter space with $6 \times 10^{12}
697: ~ {\rm GeV} \leq M^{}_1 \leq 1 \times 10^{16} ~{\rm GeV}$, where
698: higher values of $M^{}_1$ have been cut off.
699:
700: \item Taking $M^{}_1 = 10^{14}$ GeV for example, we arrive at
701: the allowed regions for the parameters of ${\cal F}$ and $M^{}_D$:
702: $a = \pm (0.20 \cdots 0.28)$, $b = c = \pm (0.026 \cdots 0.049)$,
703: $|d| = (0.085 \cdots 0.097)$ and $\arg(d) = \pm (0.23^{\circ}
704: \cdots 5.7^{\circ})$ together with $d' = (0 \cdots 0.3)$.
705:
706: \item As a consequence of $b'=b=c'=c$, the neutrino mixing matrix
707: is exactly the tri-bimaximal mixing pattern with $\theta^{}_{12} =
708: 35.3^\circ$, $\theta^{}_{23} = 45^\circ$ and $\theta^{}_{13} =
709: 0^\circ$. Hence there is no CP violation in neutrino oscillations.
710: Given $v^{}_R = 10^{16}$ GeV for instance, the mass spectra of
711: light and heavy Majorana neutrinos are $m^{}_1 = (5.8 \cdots 9.7)
712: \times 10^{-4}$ eV, $m^{}_2 = (8.5 \cdots 9.5) \times 10^{-3}$ eV,
713: $m^{}_3 = (4.2 \cdots 5.8) \times 10^{-2}$ eV and $M^{}_1 = (5.8
714: \cdots 9.7) \times 10^{13}$ GeV, $M^{}_2 = (8.8 \cdots 9.7) \times
715: 10^{14}$ GeV, $M^{}_3 = (4.3 \cdots 6.0) \times 10^{15}$ GeV,
716: respectively.
717: \end{itemize}
718: Again, the normal hierarchy of $m^{}_i$ implies that the effective
719: mass of the neutrinoless double-beta decay $\langle
720: m\rangle^{}_{ee}$ can only reach the ${\cal O}(10^{-3})$ eV level.
721:
722: \section{Summary}
723:
724: We have proposed two viable Type-II seesaw scenarios for the
725: neutrino mass matrix in the left-right symmetric model. The most
726: salient feature of our scenarios is that the Higgs triplet Yukawa
727: coupling matrix ${\cal F}$ takes the intriguing Friedberg-Lee
728: texture. In the basis where the charged-lepton mass matrix
729: $M^{}_e$ is diagonal, the Dirac neutrino mass matrix $M^{}_D$ has
730: been assumed to be identical to $M^{}_e$ in scenario (A) and to
731: take the FL texture in scenario (B). We have shown that the nearly
732: tri-bimaximal neutrino mixing pattern, which is particularly
733: favored by current neutrino oscillation data, can be naturally
734: derived from both scenarios. Requiring the lightest right-handed
735: Majorana neutrino mass $M^{}_1$ to be above $10^{12}$ GeV, we have
736: demonstrated the parameter space of each scenario in which the
737: cosmological baryon number asymmetry can be interpreted via the
738: flavor-independent leptogenesis mechanism.
739:
740: It is worth emphasizing that some of the assumptions made for the
741: above Type-II seesaw scenarios are just for the sake of
742: simplicity. Hence they are not demanded in more general cases. For
743: example, one may discuss the flavor-dependent thermal leptogenesis
744: to account for the observed baryon number asymmetry of the
745: Universe by allowing $M^{}_1$ to be below $10^{12}$ GeV
746: \cite{Antusch}. One may also allow all the parameters of ${\cal
747: F}$ to be complex and independent, in order to generate an
748: experimentally appreciable value for the smallest neutrino mixing
749: angle $\theta^{}_{13}$ and to give rise to the observable effect
750: of CP violation in neutrino oscillations. In this sense we
751: conclude that our scenarios, which are associated with the
752: left-right gauge symmetry and its spontaneous breaking as well as
753: the FL flavor symmetry and its explicit breaking, have very rich
754: implications and consequences in neutrino phenomenology.
755:
756: \begin{acknowledgments}
757: One of us (Z.Z.X.) would like to thank A.H. Chan and C.H. Oh for
758: warm hospitality at the National University of Singapore, where
759: this paper was written. We are also grateful to H. Zhang and S.
760: Zhou for useful discussions. Our research was supported in part by
761: the National Nature Science Foundation of China.
762: \end{acknowledgments}
763:
764:
765: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
766:
767: \bibitem{SNO} SNO Collaboration, Q.R. Ahmad {\it et al.},
768: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 89}, 011301 (2002).
769:
770: \bibitem{SK} For a review, see: C.K. Jung {\it et al.},
771: Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. {\bf 51}, 451 (2001).
772:
773: \bibitem{KM} KamLAND Collaboration, K. Eguchi {\it et al.},
774: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 90}, 021802 (2003).
775:
776: \bibitem{K2K} K2K Collaboration, M.H. Ahn {\it et al.},
777: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 90}, 041801 (2003).
778:
779: \bibitem{PDG06} Particle Data Group, W.M. Yao {\it et al.},
780: J. Phys. G {\bf 33}, 1 (2006); and references therein.
781:
782: \bibitem{LR} J.C. Pati and A. Salam, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 10}, 275
783: (1974); R.N. Mohapatra and J.C. Pati, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 11}, 566
784: (1975); Phys. Rev. D {\bf 11}, 2558 (1975); G. Senjanovic and R.N.
785: Mohapatra, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 12}, 1502 (1975).
786:
787: \bibitem{Lee} T.D. Lee, hep-ph/0605017; Chinese Phys. {\bf 15},
788: 1009 (2006).
789:
790: \bibitem{discreteLR}
791: E.Kh. Akhmedov and M. Frigerio, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 96}, 061802
792: (2006); JHEP {\bf 0701}, 043 (2007).
793:
794: \bibitem{origin} R.N. Mohapatra and G. Senjanovic, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 44}, 912
795: (1980); J. Schechterm and J.W.F. Valle, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 22},
796: 2227 (1980); M. Magg and C. Wetterich, Phys. Lett. B {94}, 61
797: (1980); G. Lazarides, Q. Shafi and C. Wetterich, Nucl. Phys. B
798: {\bf 181}, 287 (1981).
799:
800: \bibitem{WMAP}
801: D.N. Spergel, et. al., astro-ph/0603449.
802:
803: \bibitem{FY}
804: M. Fukugita and T. Yanagida, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 174}, 45 (1986).
805:
806: \bibitem{TRI} See, e.g., E. Ma and U. Sarkar, Phys. Rev. Lett.
807: {\bf 80}, 5716 (1998); T. Hambye, E. Ma, and U. Sarkar, Nucl.
808: Phys. B {\bf 602}, 23 (2001); T. Hambye, M. Raidal, and A.
809: Strumia, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 632}, 667 (2006).
810:
811: \bibitem{formula}
812: A. Joshipura, E.A. Paschos and W. Rodejohann, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf
813: 611}, 227 (2001); JHEP {\bf 0108}, 029 (2001).
814:
815: \bibitem{leplr}
816: W. Rodejohann and K.R.S. Balaji, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 65}, 093005
817: (2002); W. Rodejohann and Z.Z. Xing, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 601},176
818: (2004); M. Frank, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 70}, 036004 (2004); N. Sahu and
819: S. Uma Sankar, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 71}, 013006 (2005); Nucl. Phys. B
820: {\bf 724}, 329 (2005); M.C. Chen and K.T. Mahanthappa, Phys. Rev. D
821: {\bf 71}, 035001 (2005); N. Sahu and U. Sarkar, Phys. Rev. D {\bf
822: 74}, 093002 (2006); P. Hosteins, S. Lavignac and C.A. Savoy, Nucl.
823: Phys. B {\bf 755} 137 (2006); K.S. Babu, A. Bachri and H. Aissaoui,
824: Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 738}, 76 (2006); M.C. Chen and K.T. Mahanthappa,
825: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 75}, 015001 (2007); E. Akhmedov, M. Blennow, T.
826: Hallgren, T. Konstandin and T. Ohlsson, hep-ph/0612194; Y.
827: Wakabayashi, hep-ph/0702261; M. Lindner and W. Rodejohann,
828: hep-ph/0703171.
829:
830: \bibitem{Vissani}
831: A. Strumia and F. Vissani, hep-ph/0606054.
832:
833: \bibitem{FL} R. Friedberg and T.D. Lee,
834: High Energy Phys. Nucl. Phys. {\bf 30}, 591 (2006),
835: hep-ph/0606071.
836:
837: \bibitem{FL2} Z.Z. Xing, H. Zhang, and S. Zhou, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 641}, 189
838: (2006); S. Luo and Z.Z. Xing, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 646}, 242 (2007).
839:
840: \bibitem{FL3} B. Hu, F. Wu, and Y.L. Wu, hep-ph/0612344.
841:
842: \bibitem{TB} P.F. Harrison, D.H. Perkins, and W.G. Scott, Phys.
843: Lett. B {\bf 530}, 167 (2002); Z.Z. Xing, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 533},
844: 85 (2002); P.F. Harrison and W.G. Scott, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 535},
845: 163 (2002); X.G. He and A. Zee, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 560}, 87
846: (2003).
847:
848: \bibitem{varep}
849: T. Hambye and G. Senjanovic, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 582}, 73 (2004); S.
850: Antusch and S.F. King, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 597}, 199 (2004); P.H. Gu
851: and X.J. Bi, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 70}, 063511 (2004).
852:
853: \bibitem{efficiency}
854: W. Buchmuller, P.Di. Bari, and M. Plumacher, Annals Phys. {\bf
855: 315}, 305 (2004); New. J. Phys. {\bf 6}, 105 (2004); S. Blanchet
856: and P.Di. Bari, JCAP {\bf 0606}, 023 (2006).
857:
858: \bibitem{Flavor} See, e.g., R. Barbieri, P. Creminelli, A. Strumia, and N.
859: Tetradis, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 575}, 61 (2000); T. Endoh, T.
860: Morozumi, and Z.H. Xiong, Prog. Theor. Phys. {\bf 111}, 123
861: (2004); T. Fujihara, S. Kaneko, S. Kang, D. Kimura, T. Morozumi,
862: and M. Tanimoto, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 72}, 016006 (2005); A.
863: Pilaftsis and T.E.J. Underwood, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 72}, 113001
864: (2005); O. Vives, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 73}, 073006 (2006); A. Abada,
865: S. Davidson, F.X. Josse-Michaux, M. Losada, and A. Riotto, JCAP
866: {\bf 0604}, 004 (2006); E. Nardi, Y. Nir, E. Roulet, and J.
867: Racker, JHEP {\bf 0601}, 164 (2006); A. Abada, S. Davidson, F.X.
868: Josse-Michaux, M. Losada, and A. Riotto, hep-ph/0605281; S.
869: Blanchet and P. Di Bari, hep-ph/0607330; S. Antusch, S.F. King,
870: and A. Riotto, JCAP {\bf 0611}, 011 (2006); S. Pascoli, S.T.
871: Petcov, and A. Riotto, hep-ph/0609125; G.C. Branco, R. Gonzalez
872: Felipe, and F.R. Joaquim, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 645}, 432 (2007); S.
873: Antusch and A.M. Teixeira, JCAP {\bf 0702}, 024 (2007).
874:
875: \bibitem{Antusch} S. Antusch, arXiv:0704.1591.
876:
877: \bibitem{Ji} See, e.g., R.N. Mohapatra and P.B. Pal, {\it Massive
878: Neutrinos in Physics and Astrophysics}, second edition (World
879: Scientific, 1998); Y. Zhang, H. An, X. Ji, and R.N. Mohapatra,
880: arXiv:0704.1662.
881:
882: \bibitem{FX01} H. Fritzsch and Z.Z. Xing, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 517},
883: 363 (2001); Z.Z. Xing, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A {\bf 19}, 1 (2004).
884:
885: \end{thebibliography}
886:
887: \newpage
888:
889: %%%%%%%%%%%% Fig. 1 SA %%%%%%%%%%%
890: \begin{figure}
891: \begin{center}
892: \vspace{-0.5cm}
893: \includegraphics[bbllx=2.2cm, bblly=6.0cm, bburx=12.2cm, bbury=16.0cm,%
894: width=7.9cm, height=7.9cm, angle=0, clip=0]{SA.ps}
895: \vspace{1.8cm}\caption{Illustrative plot for $\eta^{}_{B}$
896: changing with $M^{}_{1}$ in scenario (A). Here the dashed band
897: stands for the observationally-allowed range of $\eta^{}_{B}$.}
898: \end{center}
899: \end{figure}
900: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
901:
902: %%%%%%%%%%%% Fig. 3 SB %%%%%%%
903: \begin{figure}
904: \begin{center}
905: \vspace{0cm}
906: \includegraphics[bbllx=2.2cm, bblly=6.0cm, bburx=12.2cm, bbury=16.0cm,%
907: width=7.9cm, height=7.9cm, angle=0, clip=0]{SB.ps}
908: \vspace{1.8cm}\caption{Illustrative plot for $\eta^{}_{B}$
909: changing with $M^{}_{1}$ in scenario (B). Here the dashed band
910: stands for the observationally-allowed range of $\eta^{}_{B}$.}
911: \end{center}
912: \end{figure}
913: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
914:
915: \end{document}
916: