1: %=============================================================================
2: \documentstyle[12pt,epsf,epsfig,axodraw]{article}
3: \textwidth6.5in
4: \textheight8.7in
5: \oddsidemargin0.0in
6: \topmargin-0.5in
7:
8:
9: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Martti's macros
10: \newcommand{\ea}{{\it et al.}}
11: \newcommand{\ie}{{\it i.e.}}
12: \newcommand{\eg}{{\it e.g. }}
13: \newcommand{\mrm}[1]{\mbox{\rm #1}}
14: \newcommand{\beq}{\begin{equation}}
15: \newcommand{\eeq}{\end{equation}}
16: \newcommand{\bea}{\begin{eqnarray}}
17: \newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}}
18: \newcommand{\rfn}[1]{(\ref{#1})}
19: \newcommand{\eq}[1]{eq.(\ref{#1})}
20: \newcommand{\Eq}[1]{eq.(\ref{#1})}
21: \newcommand{\nn}{\nonumber}
22:
23: \newcommand{\np}[1]{{ Nucl.\ Phys. }{\bf #1}}
24: \newcommand{\pl}[1]{{ Phys. Lett. }{\bf #1}}
25: \newcommand{\pr}[1]{{ Phys. Rev. }{\bf #1}}
26: \newcommand{\prl}[1]{{ Phys. Rev. Lett. }{\bf #1}}
27: \newcommand{\zp}[1]{{ Z. Phys. }{\bf #1}}
28: \newcommand{\prep}[1]{{ Phys. Rep. }{\bf #1}}
29: \newcommand{\rmphys}[1]{{ Rev. Mod. Phys. }{\bf #1}}
30: \newcommand{\epj}[1]{Eur. Phys. J. {\bf #1}}
31:
32: \def\lsim{\mathrel{\vcenter{\hbox{$<$}\nointerlineskip\hbox{$\sim$}}}}
33: \def\gsim{\mathrel{\vcenter{\hbox{$>$}\nointerlineskip\hbox{$\sim$}}}}
34:
35: \def\mb{m_{\widetilde B}}
36: \def\msf{m_{\tilde f}}
37: \def\mst{m_{\tilde t}}
38: \def\m12{m_{1\!/2}}
39: \def\tb{\tan\beta}
40:
41:
42:
43: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Paper starts here
44:
45: \begin{document}
46: \begin{titlepage}
47: \pagestyle{empty}
48: \baselineskip=21pt
49: \rightline{CERN--TH/2002-133}
50: \vskip 0.5in
51: \begin{center}
52: {\large{\bf
53: Leptogenesis and the Violation of Lepton Number and CP \\ at Low Energies
54: }}
55: \end{center}
56: \begin{center}
57: \vskip 0.25in
58: {
59: {\bf John Ellis}$^{1}$ and
60: {\bf Martti Raidal}$^{1,2}$
61: \vskip 0.15in
62: {\it
63: $^1${Theory Division, CERN, CH-1211 Geneva 23, Switzerland}\\
64: $^2${National Institute of Chemical Physics and Biophysics,
65: Tallinn 10143, Estonia}\\
66: }}
67: \vskip 0.45in
68: {\bf Abstract}
69: \end{center}
70: \baselineskip=18pt \noindent
71: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
72:
73: In the context of the minimal supersymmetric seesaw model, we study the
74: implications of the current neutrino data for thermal leptogenesis,
75: $\beta\beta_{0\nu}$ decay, and leptonic flavour- and CP-violating
76: low-energy observables. We express the heavy singlet-neutrino Dirac Yukawa
77: couplings $(Y_\nu)_{ij}$ and Majorana masses $M_{N_i}$ in terms of the
78: light-neutrino observables and an auxiliary hermitian matrix $H$, which
79: enables us to scan systematically over the allowed parameter space. If the
80: lightest heavy neutrino $N_1$ decays induce the baryon asymmetry, there
81: are correlations between the $M_{N_1}$, the lightest active neutrino mass
82: and the primordial lepton asymmetry $\epsilon_1$ on the one hand, and the
83: $\beta\beta_{0\nu}$ decay parameter $m_{ee}$ on the other hand. {\it
84: However, leptogenesis is insensitive to the neutrino oscillation phase}.
85: We find lower bounds $M_{N_1}\gsim 10^{10}$ GeV for the normal
86: light-neutrino mass hierarchy, and $M_{N_1}\gsim 10^{11}$ GeV for the
87: inverted mass hierarchy, respectively, indicating a potentially serious
88: conflict with the gravitino problem. Depending on $M_{N_1}$, we find upper
89: (upper and lower bounds) on the lightest active neutrino mass for the
90: normal (inverted) mass hierarchy, and a lower bound on $m_{ee}$ even for
91: the normal mass ordering. The low-energy lepton-flavour- and CP-violating
92: observables induced by renormalization are almost independent of
93: leptogenesis. The electron electric dipole moment may be close to the
94: present bound, reaching $d_e\sim 10^{-(27-28)}$ e cm in our numerical
95: examples, while $d_\mu$ may reach $d_\mu\sim 10^{-25}$ e cm.
96:
97: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
98: \vfill
99: \vskip 0.15in
100: \leftline{CERN--TH/2002-133}
101: \leftline{June 2002}
102: \end{titlepage}
103: \baselineskip=18pt
104: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
105:
106:
107: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
108:
109:
110: \section{Introduction}
111:
112: The only convincing experimental evidence for physics beyond the Standard
113: Model, so far, is provided by neutrino oscillations~\cite{skatm,sno1},
114: which are generally interpreted as evidence for non-zero neutrino masses.
115: The smallness of neutrino masses is explained naturally via the seesaw
116: mechanism~\cite{seesaw} with heavy singlet Majorana neutrinos.
117: Leptogenesis scenarios envisage that CP violation in their
118: out-of-equilibrium decays may induce a non-zero lepton asymmetry, which
119: may be converted into the observed baryon asymmetry of the Universe via
120: electroweak sphaleron processes~\cite{fy}. If, in addition, there is
121: low-energy supersymmetry as motivated by the hierarchy problem, which is
122: exemplified by the vastly different mass scales involved in the seesaw
123: mechanism, low-energy processes violating charged-lepton flavour and CP
124: may be observable, induced by the neutrino Dirac Yukawa interactions via
125: renormalization below the heavy-singlet mass scale~\cite{bm,h1}. In this
126: scheme, the only source of many observables - neutrino oscillations,
127: $\beta\beta_{0\nu}$ decay, the baryon asymmetry of the Universe, and
128: flavour-violating decays of charged leptons and their electric dipole
129: moments (EDMs) - are the Dirac Yukawa couplings $(Y_\nu)_{ij}$ and the
130: Majorana masses $M_{N_i}$ of the three heavy singlet neutrinos.
131:
132:
133: Today, most of our knowledge of $Y_\nu$ and $M_{N_i}$ comes from the
134: light-neutrino mass and mixing parameters measured in oscillation
135: experiments, with an additional constraint from searches for $\beta
136: \beta_{0\nu}$ decays~\cite{bb}. The oscillation data are converging
137: towards unique solutions for each of the atmospheric and solar neutrino
138: anomalies~\cite{sno2}, which represents a major breakthrough in neutrino
139: physics. On the other hand, the determination of the baryon asymmetry of
140: the Universe has significantly improved in recent years~\cite{olive}, and
141: will improve still further with further astrophysical and cosmological
142: observations, such as those of the MAP and Planck satellites. In
143: addition, one expects significant improvements in the future experiments
144: searching for $\beta\beta_{0\nu}$ decay~\cite{bbfuture},
145: lepton-flavour-violating (LFV) processes~\cite{Barkov,MECO,nufact} and
146: electric dipole moments (EDMs)~\cite{BNL,nufact,Lam}. These prospects
147: motivate us to perform a comprehensive study of these observables in the
148: minimal seesaw model.
149:
150: Any study of leptogenesis, neutrino masses, LFV processes and the EDMs of
151: charged leptons faces the generic difficulty of relating the experimental
152: information on light neutrino masses and mixings with other observables.
153: If one takes a top-down approach and fixes $Y_\nu$ and $M_{N_i}$ by some
154: theoretical or phenomenological argument~\cite{gn}, such as GUT relations,
155: $U(1)$ or non-Abelian flavour models, phenomenological textures,
156: democratic principles, arguments of minimal fine-tuning, etc., one can
157: study the pattern of typical predictions of the model considered, but
158: cannot perform a comprehensive phenomenological study of the interesting
159: observables. Even correct numerical consistency with light-neutrino data
160: is a difficult task in this approach, since it may involve fine-tunings
161: and must be checked {\it a posteriori}.
162:
163: These problems can be solved in a bottom-up approach~\cite{di} to neutrino
164: observables. Parametrizing $(Y_\nu)_{ij}$ and $M_{N_i}$ in terms of the
165: light neutrino mass matrix ${\cal M}_\nu$ and an auxiliary Hermitian
166: matrix $H$, as in~\cite{ehrs}, compatibility with the light-neutrino data
167: is automatic, because ${\cal M}_\nu$ is an input. In addition, since the
168: Hermitian matrix $H$ has a physical interpretation as $H=Y_\nu^\dagger D
169: Y_\nu$, where $D$ is a real diagonal matrix, one has also control over the
170: renormalization-induced LFV decays. For every $(Y_\nu)_{ij}$ and $M_{N_i}$
171: generated in this way, one can therefore calculate exactly the weighted
172: light neutrino mass $m_{ee}$ measured in $\beta\beta_{0\nu}$
173: decay~\cite{bbth}, rates for LFV decays~\cite{h1,nlfv,ci}, and EDMs of charged
174: leptons~\cite{susyedm,ehrs2}. Moreover, one can also calculate
175: consistently the leptogenesis CP asymmetries
176: $\epsilon_i$~\cite{vissani,p}, and, assuming the standard thermal leptogenesis
177: scenario, also the washout parameters $\kappa_i$~\cite{k-sm,k-mssm,bbp}.
178: Hence one can study the correlations between all these parameters and
179: their dependences on the light and heavy neutrino masses. To our
180: knowledge, there has so far been no study of leptogenesis in which {\bf
181: all} the $\epsilon_i,$ $\kappa_i,$ $m_{\nu_i}$ and $M_{N_i}$ are treated
182: simultaneously as dynamical variables determined in consistency with the
183: oscillation data.
184:
185: In this paper we perform such a comprehensive phenomenological study of
186: three classes of leptonic observables in the minimal supersymmetric seesaw
187: model: the effective light-neutrino parameters in ${\cal M}_\nu$, the
188: baryon asymmetry of the Universe generated via thermal leptogenesis, and
189: the renormalization induced LFV processes and EDMs of charged leptons.
190: Assuming the large-mixing-angle (LMA) solution to the solar neutrino
191: anomaly, we parametrize $Y_\nu$ and $M_{N_i}$ in terms of ${\cal M}_\nu$
192: and $H.$ In our previous paper \cite{ehrs} we considered only the case
193: $H=Y_\nu^\dagger D Y_\nu$ where $D_{ii}=\ln (M_{GUT}/M_{N_i}).$ Here we
194: also consider a different form for $D$ \cite{di}, which yields
195: maximal EDMs for the
196: charged leptons. We assume the standard thermal leptogenesis scenario in
197: which the observed baryon asymmetry of the Universe is generated only by
198: the decays of the lightest singlet neutrino $N_1$\footnote{This assumption
199: is not valid in the case of highly-degenerate heavy neutrinos, but still
200: holds well in the case of moderate degeneracy~\cite{p}. As the $M_{N_i}$
201: are output parameters in our approach, it is not suitable for systematic
202: studies of very degenerate heavy neutrino phenomena.}. The wash-out
203: parameter $\kappa_1$ is calculated by solving numerically the analytical
204: Boltzmann equations of~\cite{bcst}, and correcting by a constant factor in
205: order to be consistent with the exact results in~\cite{bbp}.
206:
207: We scan randomly over the input parameters: the lightest neutrino mass
208: $m_{\nu_1}$ (or $m_{\nu_3}$ for the inverted hierarchy of light-neutrino
209: masses), the two Majorana phases in ${\cal M}_\nu,$ and the entries of the
210: parameter matrix $H.$ We require the Yukawa couplings $Y_\nu$ to remain
211: perturbative until the GUT scale, we require the generated baryon
212: asymmetry to be consistent with observation, and we also require
213: consistency with all the bounds on LFV processes.
214:
215:
216: We find interesting correlations between the neutrino observables and
217: leptogenesis parameters, whilst the LFV processes and EDMs are almost
218: independent of the leptogenesis constraints. {\it The influence of the
219: neutrino oscillation CP phase $\delta$ on leptogenesis is negligible}: the
220: existence of a baryon asymmetry does not require it to be non-vanishing.
221: The experimental bound $Y_B\gsim 3\times 10^{-11}$ on the
222: baryon-to-entropy density ratio $Y_B$ implies the lower bounds
223: $M_{N_1}\gsim 10^{10}$ GeV and $M_{N_1}\gsim 10^{11}$ GeV for the normally
224: and inversely ordered light neutrino masses, respectively~\footnote{These
225: conclusions on neutrino parameters and leptogenesis are valid also in
226: non-supersymmetric models.}. These bounds put the findings
227: of~\cite{di2} on rigorous numerical ground, and indicate a serious
228: potential conflict with the gravitino problem in supergravity
229: models~\cite{gravitino}.
230: Leptogenesis also implies non-trivial bounds on the mass of lightest light
231: neutrino. For the normal mass ordering, there is an $M_{N_1}$-dependent
232: upper bound on $m_{\nu_1}$, whilst for the inverted hierarchy there are
233: both upper and lower bounds on $m_{\nu_3}.$ Successful leptogenesis with
234: $m_{\nu_1}\gsim 0.1$ eV could be allowed for $M_{N_1}\gsim 10^{12}$ GeV.
235: There is also an $M_{N_1}$-dependent lower bound on $m_{ee}$ for
236: normally-ordered light neutrinos, implying its possible measurability in
237: future experiments. On the other hand, $m_{ee}$ has a preferred value
238: determined by $\Delta m^2_{atm}$ even in the case of the inverted mass
239: hierarchy. It tends to be below ${\cal O}(10^{-1})$ eV, making improbable
240: the discovery of $\beta\beta_{0\nu}$ decay in current experiments.
241:
242:
243: The rates of LFV processes and EDMs depend also on the soft
244: supersymmetry-breaking parameters, which we fix by choosing one of the
245: post-LEP benchmark points~\cite{bench}. We find that $Br(\tau\to\mu
246: (e)\gamma)$ and $Br(\mu\to e\gamma)$ may easily saturate their present
247: lower bounds, and that the EDMs of electron and muon may reach $d_e\sim
248: 10^{-(27-28)}$ e cm and $d_\mu\sim 10^{-25}$ e cm, respectively, in our
249: random samples. We stress in particular that the electron EDM $d_e$ may be
250: less than an order of magnitude from the present experimental
251: bound $d_e\lsim 1.6\times 10^{-27}$ e~cm~\cite{eEDM}
252: and offers a sensitive probe of the supersymmetric
253: seesaw model. We find also some correlation between LFV $\tau$ decay rates
254: and the lower bound on $M_{N_1}$.
255:
256:
257: The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 we classify the
258: observables and discuss our parametrization. Section 3 contains
259: phenomenological studies, and finally our conclusions are presented in
260: Section 4.
261:
262:
263:
264: \section{Parametrization of Neutrino Observables}
265:
266: \subsection{Observables and Physical Parameters}
267:
268:
269: The leptonic superpotential of the minimal supersymmetric model
270: which implements the seesaw mechanism is
271: %
272: \begin{eqnarray}
273: \label{w}
274: W = N^{c}_i (Y_\nu)_{ij} L_j H_2
275: - E^{c}_i (Y_e)_{ij} L_j H_1
276: + \frac{1}{2}{N^c}_i (M_N)_{ij} N^c_j + \mu H_2 H_1 \,,
277: \label{suppot}
278: \end{eqnarray}
279: %
280: where the indices $i,j$ run over three generations and $M_N$
281: is the heavy singlet-neutrino mass matrix. One can always work in a basis
282: where the charged leptons and
283: the heavy neutrinos both have real and diagonal mass matrices:
284: \begin{equation}
285: (Y_e)_{ij} = {Y}^D_{e_i} \delta_{ij}\,, \;
286: (M_N)_{ij} = { M_{N_i}} \delta_{ij}\,.
287: \end{equation}
288: The matrix $Y_\nu$ contains six physical phases and can be
289: parametrised as
290: \bea
291: (Y_\nu)_{ij} = Z^\star_{ik} {Y}^D_{\nu_k} X^\dagger_{kj},
292: \label{Y}
293: \eea
294: where $X$ is the analogue of the quark CKM matrix in the lepton sector
295: and has only one physical phase, and $Z \equiv P_1 \overline{Z} P_2,$
296: where $\overline{Z}$ is a CKM-type matrix with three real mixing
297: angles and one physical phase, and
298: $P_{1,2} \equiv \mrm{diag}(e^{i\theta_{1,3}}, e^{i\theta_{2,4}}, 1 ).$
299: This implies that we have 15 physical parameters in the Yukawa coupling
300: $Y_\nu$, which together with the 3 unknown heavy masses $M_{N_i}$ make
301: a total of 18 parameters in the minimal seesaw model~\footnote{The
302: parameter counting is identical in models with and without
303: supersymmetry.}.
304:
305: %
306: \begin{figure}[t]
307: \begin{center}
308: \begin{picture}(400,300)(-200,-150)
309: \Oval(0,0)(30,60)(0)
310: \Text(-25,13)[lb]{ ${\bf Y_\nu}$ , ${\bf M_{N_i}}$}
311: \Text(-40,-2)[lb]{{\bf 15$+$3 physical}}
312: \Text(-30,-15)[lb]{{\bf parameters}}
313: \EBox(-70,90)(70,150)
314: \Text(-55,135)[lb]{{\bf Seesaw mechanism}}
315: \Text(-8,117)[lb]{${\bf {\cal M}_\nu}$}
316: \Text(-65,100)[lb]{{\bf 9 effective parameters}}
317: \EBox(-200,-140)(-60,-80)
318: \Text(-167,-95)[lb]{{\bf Leptogenesis}}
319: \Text(-165,-113)[lb]{ ${\bf Y_\nu Y_\nu^\dagger}$ , ${\bf M_{N_i}}$}
320: \Text(-175,-130)[lb]{{\bf 9$+$3 parameters}}
321: \EBox(60,-140)(200,-80)
322: \Text(80,-95)[lb]{{\bf Renormalization}}
323: \Text(95,-113)[lb]{${\bf Y_\nu^\dagger L Y_\nu}$ , ${\bf M_{N_i}}$}
324: \Text(80,-130)[lb]{{\bf 13$+$3 parameters}}
325: \LongArrow(0,30)(0,87)
326: \LongArrow(-45,-20)(-130,-77)
327: \LongArrow(45,-20)(130,-77)
328: \end{picture}
329: \end{center}
330: \caption{\it
331: Roadmap for the physical observables derived from $Y_\nu$ and $N_i$.
332: }
333: \label{fig0}
334: \end{figure}
335: %
336:
337: These 18 unknown neutrino parameters give rise to three classes of
338: physical observables, as presented diagrammatically in Fig.\ref{fig0}:
339: \begin{enumerate}
340:
341: \item[(i)]
342: Low-energy effective neutrino masses arising from the seesaw mechanism:
343: \bea
344: {\cal M}_\nu={Y}_\nu^T \left({ M_N}\right)^{-1}
345: {Y}_\nu v^2 \sin^2\beta .
346: \label{seesaw1}
347: \eea
348: The effective light-neutrino mass matrix ${\cal M}_\nu$ is symmetric and
349: can be diagonalized by a unitary matrix $U$ as follows:
350: %
351: \bea
352: U^T {\cal M}_\nu U = {\cal M}^D_\nu\,.
353: \label{Mnud}
354: \eea
355: By a field redefinition, one can rewrite $U \equiv V P_0,$ where
356: $P_0 \equiv \mrm{diag}(e^{i\phi_1}, e^{i\phi_2}, 1 )$ and $V$ is the MNS
357: matrix.
358: Therefore, all the low-energy neutrino observables such as neutrino
359: oscillations, $\beta\beta_{0\nu}$ decay, etc., depend on the 9 effective
360: parameters in ${\cal M}_\nu$, which are functions of all the 18
361: parameters in (\ref{suppot}). Whilst neutrino oscillations measure
362: the mass-squared differences of neutrinos and their mixing angles,
363: $\beta\beta_{0\nu}$ decay measures one particular combination of
364: their masses and mixing matrix elements,
365: \bea
366: |m_{ee}| \equiv \left|\sum_i U_{ei}^* m_{\nu_i} U_{ie}^\dagger \right| ,
367: \label{mee}
368: \eea
369: which involves also the Majorana phases.
370: The NMS mixing phase $\delta$ can in principle be measured
371: in neutrino oscillations with neutrino factory experiments,
372: but measurements of the Majorana phases are less
373: straightforward \cite{bbth,smirnov,x}.
374:
375:
376: \item[(ii)]
377: The idea of baryogenesis via leptogenesis is first to produce a
378: lepton asymmetry, whose ratio to the entropy density we denote by $Y_L$,
379: via the out-of-equilibrium
380: decays of the heavy neutrinos $N_i$. This asymmetry
381: is converted into the baryon asymmetry of the universe
382: via $(B+L)$-violating electroweak sphaleron processes:
383: \bea
384: Y_B=\frac{C}{C-1} Y_L \,.
385: \eea
386: where $C=8/23$ in the minimal supersymmetric extension of the
387: Standard Model (MSSM). The generated lepton asymmetry depends on the initial
388: neutrino-plus-sneutrino density, the CP asymmetries in neutrino decays,
389: and on the washout effects. The CP asymmetry produced in
390: out-of-equilibrium decays of $N_i$ is given by \cite{vissani}
391: %
392: \begin{eqnarray}
393: \epsilon_i &=& -\frac{1}{8 \pi} \sum_{l}
394: \frac{ \mbox{Im}\Big[
395: \left( { Y_\nu}{ Y_\nu}^\dagger \right)^{il}
396: \left( { Y_\nu}{ Y_\nu}^\dagger \right)^{il}
397: \Big]}
398: { \sum_{j} |{ Y_\nu}^{ij}|^2 }
399: \nn \\
400: & &
401: \sqrt{x_l} \Big[ \mbox{Log} (1+1/x_l) + \frac{2}{(x_l-1)}\Big] ,
402: \label{eps}
403: \end{eqnarray}
404: %
405: where $x_l \equiv (M_{N_l} / M_{N_i})^2.$ It is clear from (\ref{eps})
406: that the generated asymmetry depends only on the 9 parameters
407: (including 3 phases) in
408: %
409: \begin {equation}
410: \label{yy+1}
411: Y_\nu Y_\nu^\dagger
412: = P_1^\star \overline{Z}^\star (Y_\nu^D)^2 \overline{Z}^T P_1\,
413: \end{equation}
414: %
415: and on the heavy neutrino masses.
416:
417:
418: In the case of non-degenerate heavy neutrinos,
419: the lepton asymmetry is, to a good approximation, generated only via
420: the decays of the lightest heavy neutrino $N_1$ (and the corresponding
421: sneutrinos), because the very rapid
422: washout processes mediated by $N_1$ erase whatever asymmetry had been
423: produced previously in $N_{2,3}$ decays \cite{k-sm,p}.
424: In this case one has a simple relation
425: \bea
426: Y_L= Y_{N_1}^{eq}(0) \,\epsilon_1 \,\kappa_1 \,,
427: \label{YL}
428: \eea
429: where $Y_{N_1}^{eq}(0)$ is the initial thermal equilibrium density
430: of the lightest neutrinos and $\kappa_1$ is the washout parameter.
431: The factors multiplying $\epsilon_1,$ in (\ref{YL}) depend on the
432: cosmological
433: scenario. In the case of the standard leptogenesis scenario with thermally
434: produced heavy neutrinos one has in thermal equilibrium the initial
435: condition $Y_{N_1}^{eq}(0)\approx 1/(2 g_*),$ where $g_*\sim 230$ is
436: the number of effective degrees of freedom in the MSSM. The washout parameter
437: $\kappa_1$ can be precisely calculated by solving the set of
438: Boltzmann equation for $Y_L$ and for the neutrino density $Y_{N_1},$
439: \bea
440: && \frac{\mrm{d}Y_{N_1}}{\mrm{d} z} + \gamma_{N_1}(z) =0\,, \nn \\
441: && \frac{\mrm{d}Y_L}{\mrm{d} z} + \gamma_L(z) Y_L + S_L(z) =0\,,
442: \label{boltz}
443: \eea
444: where $Y_L$, $Y_{N_1}$ and the factors $\gamma_{N_1}(z),$ $\gamma_L(z)$
445: and $S_L(z)$ depend on the temperature, which is parametrized by
446: $z=M_{1}/T.$
447: In this scenario, $\gamma_{N_1}(z),$ $S_L(z)$ and $\gamma_L(z)$ are worked out
448: in great detail \cite{k-sm,bbp} in the Standard Model, for which
449: analytical approximations
450: exist \cite{bcst}, and also in the supersymmetric framework \cite{k-mssm}.
451: In general, the generated asymmetry depends on four parameters:
452: the CP asymmetry $\epsilon_1,$ the heavy neutrino mass $M_{N_1},$ and
453: the lightest light neutrino mass, which determines the overall light-neutrino
454: mass scale. The effective mass parameter
455: \bea
456: \tilde m_1 \equiv \left(Y_\nu Y_\nu^\dagger \right)_{11}
457: \frac{v^2 \sin^2\beta}{M_{N_1}}
458: \label{tildem1}
459: \eea
460: is also used in discussions of leptogenesis: it depends on the
461: 10 parameters introduced above. Fixing the baryon asymmetry to agree with
462: observation implies a relation
463: between $\epsilon_1$ and $\kappa_1$ via (\ref{YL}). Therefore,
464: only the relations between $\epsilon_1$ and the masses
465: $M_{N_1}$ and $m_{\nu_1}$ (or $m_{\nu_3}$ for the inverted mass hierarchy)
466: are physically relevant.
467:
468:
469:
470: \item[(iii)]
471: Renormalization of soft supersymmetry-breaking parameters due to the
472: presence of $Y_\nu$ above the heavy-neutrino decoupling scales
473: induces low-energy processes such as the charged-lepton decays
474: $\mu\to e\gamma,$ $\mu\to eee,$ $\tau\to l\gamma,$ $\tau\to 3l$, and (in
475: the presence of CP violation) EDMs for the electron and muon. In a
476: leading-logarithmic approximation,
477: renormalization modifies the left-slepton mass matrix $m_{\tilde L}$
478: and trilinear soft supersymmetry-breaking $A_e$ terms according to
479: \cite{h1}
480: %
481: \begin{eqnarray}
482: (\delta m_{\tilde{L}}^2)_{ij}&\simeq&
483: -\frac{1}{8\pi^2}(3m_0^2+A_0^2) (Y^\dagger L Y)_{ij} \,,
484: \nonumber\\
485: (\delta A_e)_{ij} &\simeq&
486: -\frac{1}{8\pi^2} A_0 Y_{e_i} (Y^\dagger L Y)_{ij} \,,
487: %
488: \label{leading}
489: \end{eqnarray}
490: %
491: which are proportional to
492: %
493: \begin{equation}
494: Y^\dagger L Y = X Y^D P_2 {\overline Z}^T L {\overline Z}^*
495: P_2^* Y^D X^\dagger,
496: \label{YYren}
497: \end{equation}
498: %
499: where $L$ is a diagonal matrix
500: \bea
501: L_{ij}=\ln (M_{GUT}/M_{N_i}) \delta_{ij}.
502: \label{L}
503: \eea
504: We note that
505: the CP-violating observables at low energies depend on the leptogenesis
506: phase in $\overline{Z}.$
507: The expression (\ref{YYren}) contains 16 neutrino parameters altogether,
508: but in completely different combinations from the seesaw mass matrix
509: (\ref{seesaw1}). Only the two Majorana phases in $P_1$ cancel out in
510: (\ref{YYren}). If the heavy neutrinos are exactly degenerate in mass,
511: all the renormalization-induced observables are proportional to
512: $Y_\nu^{\dagger} Y_{\nu} = X (Y_\nu{^D})^2 X^{\dagger}$,
513: but this is not a good approximation, in general.
514:
515: The CP-violating observables in LFV processes all depend on a single
516: CP invariant, which is related to $H =Y_\nu^{\dagger}L Y_{\nu}$ by
517: $J={\rm Im} H_{12} H_{23} H_{31}$~\cite{lfvcp}. This influences
518: slepton physics at colliders and also
519: determines the T-odd asymmetry in $\mu\rightarrow 3e$~\cite{3l}.
520: The dominant contribution to the lepton EDMs arises
521: from threshold corrections to the trilinear coupling $A_e$ due to
522: the non-degeneracy of heavy neutrino masses.
523: Diagonal phases in $A_e$ are proportional to \cite{ehrs2,ehrs}
524: \begin{eqnarray}
525: {\rm Im}[X_j,X_k]_{ii} \log{{M}_{N_k}}/{{M}_{N_j}}&\ne&0,
526: \label{edm}
527: \end{eqnarray}
528: where
529: $(X_k)_{ij}=
530: {(Y_\nu^*({M}_{N_k}))_{ki}}
531: {(Y_\nu({M}_{N_k}))_{kj}}. $
532: This depends non-trivially
533: on the CP-violating phases, including the two Majorana phases in
534: ${\cal M}_\nu$ and two phases in $H$ that are irrelevant for LFV.
535:
536: \end{enumerate}
537:
538:
539:
540: \subsection{Phenomenological Parametrization of $Y_\nu$ and $M_{N_i}$}
541:
542:
543: None of the three classes of observables discussed in the previous
544: subsection, by itself, allows one to measure all the parameters in the
545: neutrino superpotential (\ref{suppot}). Moreover, at the moment the only
546: parameters known experimentally are the 2 effective light neutrino mass
547: differences and 2 mixing angles, and the baryon asymmetry of the Universe,
548: whose interpretation requires some cosmological inputs. A central issue
549: for comprehensive studies of the neutrino sector is how to parametrize
550: $Y_\nu$ and $M_{N_i}$ in such a way that the effective neutrino parameters
551: measured in the oscillation experiments are incorporated automatically,
552: and all other phenomenological constraints are also satisfied.
553:
554:
555: One may attempt to fix $Y_\nu$ and $M_{N_i}$ in (\ref{suppot}) using model
556: predictions or some other principle. In that case, however, satisfying the
557: measured effective neutrino masses and mixings in (\ref{seesaw1}) is a
558: non-trivial task. One can study the patterns of typical predictions for
559: LFV processes, EDMs and the baryon asymmetry in any specific model, but
560: not make comprehensive numerical studies which cover all the allowed
561: parameter space.
562:
563: However, as discussed in \cite{di}, in the supersymmetric seesaw model the
564: low-energy degrees of freedom may in principle be used to reconstruct the
565: high-energy neutrino parameters. In~\cite{ehrs} we presented a
566: parametrization of
567: $Y_\nu$ and $M_{N_i}$ in terms of the light-neutrino mass matrix
568: ${\cal M}_\nu$ and an auxiliary Hermitian matrix $H$,
569: \bea
570: H=Y_\nu^\dagger D Y_\nu,
571: \label{H}
572: \eea
573: where the diagonal matrix $D$ was chosen in~\cite{ehrs} to be
574: $D_{ij}=\ln (M_{GUT}/M_{N_i}) \delta_{ij}$, motivated by (\ref{YYren}).
575: In this case, the parameter matrix $H$ is directly related to the
576: solutions of the renormalization-group equations (RGEs) for the soft
577: supersymmetry-breaking slepton masses,
578: according to (\ref{leading}), and allows us to control the rates for LFV
579: processes. Conversely, if any LFV process is observed, one can use
580: its value to
581: parametrize the heavy neutrino masses and couplings.
582:
583: In principle the diagonal matrix $D$ can be an arbitrary real matrix. In
584: order to study the maximal range for the charged lepton EDMs in the
585: supersymmetric seesaw model, we also study in this paper the
586: parametrization with $D=1,$ which is the case discussed in~\cite{di}.
587: According to (\ref{edm}), the EDMs are not proportional to $H$ in either
588: case. However, the choice $D=1$ departs from (\ref{edm}) more than the
589: choice $D=L$. As some of the entries of $H$ must be suppressed in order to
590: satisfy the stringent experimental upper bound on $\mu\to e\gamma$, one
591: expects the EDMs to get somewhat larger values if $D=1,$ and this
592: is indeed the case.
593:
594:
595: We now present the details of the parametrization.
596: Starting with (\ref{H}) and using the parametrization~\cite{ci}:
597: %
598: \bea { Y_\nu}=
599: \frac{\sqrt{{M_N}} R \sqrt{{\cal M}^D_\nu}\, U^\dagger}{v\sin\beta},
600: \label{Ynu}
601: \eea
602: %
603: one can recast (\ref{H}) into a form
604: \bea
605: H'=R^{'\dagger} \overline{M_N} R' ,
606: \label{meq}
607: \eea
608: where $\overline{M_N}$ is a diagonal matrix
609: \bea
610: (\overline{M_N})_{ii} = D_{ii} M_{N_i} ,
611: \label{lneq}
612: \eea
613: and
614: \bea
615: H'=\sqrt{{\cal M}_\nu^D}^{-1} U^\dagger H U \sqrt{{\cal M}_\nu^D}^{-1}
616: v^2 \sin^2\beta.
617: \eea
618: If (\ref{meq}) can be solved, \ie, if the matrix $H'$ can be
619: diagonalized with an orthogonal matrix $R'$, then one can
620: solve the heavy neutrino masses from (\ref{lneq}) and calculate the
621: neutrino Dirac Yukawa couplings from (\ref{Ynu}).
622: Schematically,
623: \bea
624: ({\cal M}_\nu \,,\, H) \longrightarrow
625: ({\cal M}_\nu \,,\overline{M_N},\, R') \longrightarrow
626: (Y_\nu\,,\, M_{N_i}) \,,
627: \label{par}
628: \eea
629: where the quantities $\overline{M_N}$ and $R'$ are calculated in
630: the intermediate step and do not have any independent physical meaning.
631: Thus, one has converted the 9 low-energy effective neutrino parameters
632: and the 9 free parameters in the Hermitian parameter matrix $H$ into the
633: 18 physical neutrino parameters in $Y_\nu$ and $M_{N_i}.$
634:
635:
636: The advantages of this parametrization have already been mentioned: it
637: allows one to control the rates for LFV processes and to scan efficiently
638: over the allowed parameter space at the same time. The disadvantage of the
639: parametrization (\ref{par}) is that it is not continuous, because for some
640: choice of the parameter $H$ there may not exist a matrix $R'$ that
641: diagonalizes $H'.$ However, in the case of multi-dimensional parameter
642: spaces such as the one we study, scanning randomly over the allowed
643: parameters is the most powerful tool, and in practice this disadvantage
644: does not hinder such a phenomenological study
645:
646:
647:
648: \section{Phenomenological Analysis}
649:
650: Using the parametrization developed in the previous section,
651: we now perform a comprehensive phenomenological
652: study of all three types of leptonic observables in the
653: minimal supersymmetric seesaw model.
654:
655:
656: We fix the known light neutrino parameters by $\Delta m^2_{32}=3\times
657: 10^{-3}$ eV$^2,$ $\Delta m^2_{21}=4.5\times 10^{-5}$ eV$^2,$
658: $\tan^2\theta_{23}=1$ and $\tan^2\theta_{12}=0.4$, corresponding to the
659: LMA solution for the solar neutrino anomaly. Since the experimental
660: constraint on the angle $\theta_{13}$ is quite stringent, $\sin^2
661: 2\theta_{13}\lsim 0.1$ \cite{CHOOZ,Boehm}, our results depend only weakly
662: on its actual value. We fix $\sin\theta_{13}=0.1$ and study two cases with
663: the limiting values of the neutrino mixing phase $\delta=\pi/2$ and
664: $\delta=0.$ We consider both normally and inversely ordered light neutrino
665: masses, since neutrino oscillations do not discriminate between them at
666: present\footnote{Future neutrinoless double beta decay experiments could
667: resolve this ambiguity~\cite{bbth}.}.
668:
669:
670: We assume the standard thermal leptogenesis scenario in which the baryon
671: asymmetry originates only from the lightest heavy neutrino decays, as
672: described by (\ref{YL}). In our calculations, we solve (\ref{boltz})
673: numerically using the approximate analytical expressions for the
674: thermally-averaged interactions given in~\cite{bcst}.
675: We start at $T\gg M_{N_1}$ with the initial conditions
676: $Y_{N_1}=Y_{N_1}^{eq},$ and $Y_{L}=0.$ As is appropriate for
677: supersymmetric models, we concentrate on the low-$M_{N_1}$ regime,
678: $M_{N_1}\lsim 10^{13}$ GeV, where the approximate solutions for $\kappa_1$
679: differ from the exact ones~\cite{bbp} by just a constant factor. We
680: correct our output by this factor to be consistent with~\cite{bbp}. These
681: results for the washout parameter $\kappa_1$ were derived in the context
682: of non-supersymmetric seesaw models, but are expected to be a good
683: approximation also in supersymmetric models, especially for the low $M_{N_1}$
684: and the moderate
685: values of $\tan\beta$ that we consider in this work. Because
686: the heavy neutrinos thermalize very fast, our results are actually
687: independent of the initial conditions in this low-$M_{N_1}$
688: regime. Here the wash-out parameter $\kappa_1$ depends practically only on
689: the effective parameter $\tilde m_1$ (with a small dependence on
690: $M_{N_1}$). Therefore, with high accuracy, the observed baryon asymmetry
691: implies via (\ref{YL}) that $\epsilon_1$ and $\tilde m_1$ have a
692: one-to-one correspondence.
693:
694: In our subsequent analysis, we require the induced baryon asymmetry
695: be in the range~\cite{olive}
696: \bea
697: 3\times 10^{-11} \lsim Y_B \lsim 9\times 10^{-11},
698: \label{YB}
699: \eea
700: and study its implications on the light and heavy neutrino masses,
701: the CP asymmetry $\epsilon_1$, the $\beta\beta_{\nu0}$ decay parameter
702: $m_{ee},$ the LFV decays and the EDMs of the charged leptons $e$ and
703: $\mu$.
704:
705:
706:
707: As was shown in~\cite{ehrs}, the stringent experimental limit
708: on $Br(\mu\to e\gamma)$ implies the phenomenological constraints
709: $H_{12}\ll {\cal O}(1)$ and $H_{13}H_{32}\ll {\cal O}(1)$
710: on elements of our parameter matrix $H.$ Therefore we
711: study two different textures of the matrix $H$:
712: \bea
713: H_1=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
714: a & 0 & 0 \\
715: 0 & b & d \\
716: 0 & d^\dagger & c
717: \end{array} \right) \,
718: \label{H1}
719: \eea
720: and
721: \bea
722: H_2=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
723: a & 0 & d \\
724: 0 & b & 0 \\
725: d^\dagger & 0 & c
726: \end{array} \right) \, ,
727: \label{H2}
728: \eea
729: where $a,b,c$ are real and $d$ is a complex number.
730: The texture $H_1$ suppresses $\tau\to e \gamma$ and $d_e$ while
731: $\tau\to \mu \gamma$ and $d_\mu$ can be large, and {\it vice versa} for
732: $H_2,$
733: since these processes are sensitive to $H_{13}$ and $H_{23},$
734: respectively.
735: We consider two forms of the
736: matrix $H$ \rfn{H}, namely those with $D=L$ and $D=1.$ For the
737: textures
738: $H_1,\,H_2,$ the former suppresses $\mu\to e\gamma$ very efficiently
739: and all the parameters $a,b,c,|d|$ can be simultaneously of order unity.
740: However, for the $D=1$ case one of $a,b,c$ must necessarily be
741: very small in order to keep $\mu\to e\gamma$ below the present
742: experimental bound.
743:
744:
745:
746: In our model, the rates for the LFV processes and EDMs depend on the soft
747: supersymmetry-breaking parameters. In the following numerical calculations
748: we fix them at the GUT scale to coincide with one of the post-LEP
749: benchmark points~\cite{bench} $m_{1/2}=300$ GeV, $m_{0}=100$ GeV,
750: $A_{0}=-300$ GeV, $\tan\beta=10$ and $sign(\mu)=+1.$ This choice ensures
751: that all other phenomenological constraints, such as those on the lightest
752: Higgs boson mass, supersymmetric contributions to $b\to s\gamma$ and
753: $g_\mu-2,$ cosmological arguments, etc., are satisfied within the necessary
754: accuracy.
755:
756: As the input parameters we thus have the lightest neutrino mass
757: $m_{\nu_1}$ (or $m_{\nu_3}$ for inversely-ordered neutrinos), the two
758: low-scale Majorana phases $\phi_{1,2},$ and the entries $a,b,c,d$ of the
759: parameter matrices $H_1$ and $H_2.$ We generate these input parameters
760: randomly in the ranges $(10^{-4}-1)$ eV for $m_{\nu_1}$ (or $m_{\nu_3}$),
761: $(0-2\pi)$ for $\phi_{1,2},$ and $(10^{-7}-10)$ for $a,b,c,|d|.$ The
762: distribution for each of them is flat on a logarithmic scale. We require
763: that $Y_\nu$ remains perturbative up to $M_{GUT}$ and impose the present
764: constraints on all the LFV processes.
765:
766: \subsection{Normally-Ordered Light Neutrinos}
767:
768:
769: First we study the implications on leptogenesis parameters,
770: $\beta\beta_{\nu0}$ decay, and LFV decays and charged lepton EDMs in the
771: case of normally-ordered light neutrino masses and mixings. Apart from the
772: EDMs, the two parametrizations with $D=L$ and $D=1$ give practically
773: indistinguishable results. Therefore, we present the $D=1$ results only
774: for the EDMs and the LFV decays, while all the other plots present results
775: for the parametrization with $D=L$, as in~\cite{ehrs}.
776:
777:
778: %
779: \begin{figure}[htbp]
780: \centerline{\epsfxsize = 0.5\textwidth \epsffile{epmrn1h.ps}
781: \hfill \epsfxsize = 0.5\textwidth \epsffile{epmrn1hd0.ps}
782: }
783: \caption{\it
784: Scatter plot of the CP-violating asymmetry $\epsilon_1$ and the lightest
785: heavy neutrino mass $M_{N_1}$ for the two extreme choices of the MNS
786: phase $\delta=\pi/2$ and $\delta=0$, assuming
787: normally-ordered light neutrinos and the texture $H_1.$
788: The baryon asymmetry is required to be in the range (\ref{YB}).
789: \vspace*{0.5cm}}
790: \label{fig11h}
791: \end{figure}
792: %
793:
794:
795: We present in Fig.~\ref{fig11h} scatter plots for the CP-violating
796: asymmetry $\epsilon_1$ and the lightest heavy neutrino mass $M_{N_1}$, for
797: two extreme values of the MNS phase: $\delta=\pi/2$ and $\delta=0,$
798: assuming the texture $H_1.$ Here we also introduce a colour code to study
799: the distribution of points with different $M_{N_1}$ in the following
800: plots. The points within a factor of five from the lower bound on
801: $M_{N_1}$ are black, while the points with larger $M_{N_1}$ are grey
802: (green).
803:
804: Fig.~\ref{fig11h} shows immediately that there is no distinction between
805: the plots for $\delta=\pi/2$ and for $\delta=0.$ In special cases, there
806: have been studies whether the observed non-zero baryon asymmetry can be
807: related to the NMS phase $\delta$~\cite{Branco}. Our results imply that
808: this is not possible in general, and that successful leptogenesis does not
809: require a non-zero value for $\delta.$
810:
811: We also see immediately in Fig.~\ref{fig11h} that there is an
812: $M_{N_1}$-dependent upper bound~\cite{di2}
813: on the cosmological CP-violating asymmetry
814: $\epsilon_1$, and there is a strong lower bound $M_{N_1}\gsim 10^{10}$ GeV
815: on the $N_1$ mass. This indicates a potential serious conflict with
816: conventional supersymmetric cosmology which requires an upper bound on the
817: reheating temperature of the Universe after inflation, derived from
818: avoiding gravitino overproduction~\cite{gravitino}.
819:
820: In~\cite{di2}, the analytical bound
821: \bea
822: |\epsilon_1| \lsim
823: \frac{3}{8\pi} \frac{M_{N_1}}{v^2 \sin^2\beta}
824: (m_{\nu_3}-m_{\nu_1}) ,
825: \label{epsbound}
826: \eea
827: was found in the limit of very hierarchical heavy neutrinos,
828: $M_{N_1}\ll M_{N_2}\ll M_{N_3}$.
829: Our results improve this bound, by including the best available
830: numerical results for the washout parameter $\kappa_1$ and
831: allowing for moderately degenerate heavy neutrinos. We have compared
832: the bound (\ref{epsbound}) with our numerical calculations. It
833: is well satisfied for the low-$M_{N_1}$ points in Fig.~\ref{fig11h},
834: but can be violated by a large factor for points with high $M_{N_1}$ and
835: high $\epsilon_1$. In these cases, the heavy neutrinos are
836: not hierarchical in mass and $\epsilon_1$ is therefore enhanced.
837: As we see in the next figures, for these points
838: the light neutrino masses can also be moderately degenerate.
839:
840:
841: %
842: \begin{figure}[htbp]
843: \centerline{\epsfxsize = 0.5\textwidth \epsffile{epmn1h.ps}
844: \hfill \epsfxsize = 0.5\textwidth \epsffile{tvmn1h.ps}
845: }
846: \caption{\it
847: Scatter plot of the CP-violating asymmetry $\epsilon_1$ and the effective
848: mass parameter $\tilde m_1$ versus the lightest neutrino mass
849: $m_{\nu_1}$ for the normal mass hierarchy and the texture $H_1.$
850: \vspace*{0.5cm}}
851: \label{fig21h}
852: \end{figure}
853: %
854:
855:
856: To study correlations between the leptogenesis parameters, we give in
857: Fig.~\ref{fig21h} scatter plots of the CP-violating asymmetry $\epsilon_1$
858: and the effective mass parameter $\tilde m_1$ versus the lightest neutrino
859: mass $m_{\nu_1}$ for the texture $H_1.$ The shape of the both plots is the
860: same, verifying that, for fixed $Y_B$, the parameters $\epsilon_1$ and
861: $\tilde m_1$ are not independent parameters in our scenario, as discussed
862: above. There is no lower bound on $m_{\nu_1}$ in this scenario, and the
863: upper bound on $m_{\nu_1}$ depends on $M_{N_1},$ as indicated by the
864: distribution of colours. The allowed band for $\epsilon_1$ depends only
865: weakly on $m_{\nu_1}$ for $m_{\nu_1}\lsim 10^{(-1-2)}$ eV, but the
866: dependence becomes strong for larger $m_{\nu_1}.$ While degenerate light
867: neutrino masses are disfavoured by our results, confirming the claims
868: in~\cite{bbp,fhy}, light neutrino masses $m_{\nu_1}\sim {\cal O}(0.1)$ eV
869: are still perfectly consistent with leptogenesis. Also, notice that for
870: small $m_{\nu_1}$ the lower bound on $\tilde m_1$ is much stronger than
871: the limit $\tilde m_1> m_{\nu_1}$ derived in~\cite{bbp,fhy}.
872:
873: %
874: \begin{figure}[htbp]
875: \centerline{\epsfxsize = 0.5\textwidth \epsffile{mrnmee1h.ps}
876: \hfill \epsfxsize = 0.5\textwidth \epsffile{dmbr1h.ps} }
877: \caption{\it
878: Scatter plots of
879: $M_{N_1}$ and the $\beta\beta_{0\nu}$ parameter $m_{ee},$ and of the
880: muon electric dipole moment $d_\mu$ and the branching ratio for
881: $\tau\to\mu\gamma$ decay, for the normal neutrino mass ordering and the
882: texture $H_1.$
883: \vspace*{0.5cm}}
884: \label{fig31h}
885: \end{figure}
886: %
887:
888: To study the possible implications of the light neutrino masses and
889: leptogenesis for $\beta\beta_{0\nu }$ decay, the LFV processes and EDMs in
890: the texture $H_1,$ we give in Fig.~\ref{fig31h} a scatter plot of the
891: $M_{N_1}$ against the $\beta\beta_{0\nu}$ parameter $m_{ee},$ and the muon
892: electric dipole moment $d_\mu$ versus the branching ratio for
893: $\tau\to\mu\gamma.$ Surprisingly, there are both lower and upper limits on
894: $m_{ee}$, which depend on $M_{N_1}.$ For $M_{N_1}\lsim 10^{11}$ GeV we get
895: $10^{-3} \lsim m_{ee}\lsim 10^{-2}$ eV.
896:
897: {\it There is no correlation between leptogenesis and the
898: renormalization-induced LFV decays and EDMs,} as seen in Fig.~\ref{fig31h}.
899: With the chosen soft supersymmetry-breaking parameters,
900: $Br(\tau\to\mu\gamma)$ can attain the present experimental bound in our
901: random sample, and the muon EDM may reach $d_\mu\sim 10^{-25}$ e cm. The
902: former may be observable at the LHC and in B-factory experiments, which
903: may reach sensitivities $Br(\tau\to\mu\gamma)\sim 10^{(-8-9)}$
904: \cite{ohshima}, and the latter in experiments at the front end of a
905: neutrino factory, which may be able to reach $d_\mu\sim 5\times 10^{-26}$
906: e cm \cite{nufact}. The texture $H_1$ suppresses $Br(\tau\to e\gamma)$ and
907: $d_e$ below observable limits.
908:
909:
910:
911:
912: %
913: \begin{figure}[htbp]
914: \centerline{\epsfxsize = 0.5\textwidth \epsffile{mrnmee2h.ps}
915: \hfill \epsfxsize = 0.5\textwidth \epsffile{debr2h.ps} }
916: \caption{\it
917: Scatter plots of
918: $M_{N_1}$ versus the $\beta\beta_{0\nu}$ parameter $m_{ee},$ and of the
919: electron electric dipole moment $d_e$ versus the branching ratio for
920: $\tau\to e\gamma$, for the normal neutrino mass ordering and the texture
921: $H_2.$
922: \vspace*{0.5cm}}
923: \label{fig12h}
924: \end{figure}
925: %
926:
927: We have performed a similar analysis for the texture $H_2.$ The behaviour
928: of the leptogenesis parameters is almost the same as for the texture
929: $H_1$, already shown in Figs.~\ref{fig11h} and \ref{fig21h}, so we do not
930: present further plots here. The most important differences from $H_1$ can
931: be seen, however, in Fig.~\ref{fig12h}, where we present scatter plots of
932: $M_{N_1}$ versus the $\beta\beta_{0\nu}$ parameter $m_{ee},$ and of the
933: electron electric dipole moment $d_e$ versus the branching ratio for
934: $\tau\to e\gamma.$ Whilst the lower bound on $M_{N_1}$ is the same as in
935: the previous case, the distribution of points clearly favours large values
936: of $M_{N_1}.$ This is a result of a mismatch between the structure of $H_2$
937: and the light neutrino mass hierarchy $m_{\nu_1}<m_{\nu_2}<m_{\nu_3}.$
938: Because $H_{11},H_{13}\neq 0$ in $H_2$, the Yukawa couplings for the first
939: generation tend to be larger than in the case of the texture $H_1.$ As the
940: lightest ${N_1}$ tends to be related to the lightest light neutrino mass
941: $m_{\nu_1}$, the seesaw mechanism implies that larger $M_{N_1}$ are
942: usually needed. Fig.~\ref{fig12h} indicates that this mismatch can be
943: compensated with a tuning of the input parameters, resulting in a
944: relatively small number of points at low $M_{N_1}$.
945:
946: For the texture $H_2$, $Br(\tau\to e\gamma)$ and the electron EDM can be
947: large, as seen in Fig.~\ref{fig12h}, whilst $Br(\tau\to \mu\gamma)$ and
948: $d_\mu$ are suppressed below the observable ranges. We find that
949: $Br(\tau\to e\gamma)$ can be of the same order of magnitude as $Br(\tau\to
950: \mu\gamma)$, shown in Fig.~\ref{fig31h}. Importantly, the electron EDM
951: may exceed $d_e\sim 10^{-28}$ e cm in our numerical examples. This is just
952: one order of magnitude below the present bound
953: $d_e\lsim 1.6\times 10^{-27}$ e cm~\cite{eEDM}.
954: As we have not made special attempts to maximize it, it
955: might even reach larger values with special values of the soft
956: supersymmetry-breaking parameters.
957:
958: We see that there are no black points in the right-hand panel of
959: Fig.~\ref{fig12h}, corresponding to the facts that $Br(\tau\to e\gamma)$
960: and $d_e$ are very much suppressed. This implies a correlation between the
961: lower bound on $M_{N_1}$ and the rates of the FLV processes and EDMs. If
962: $Br(\tau\to e\gamma)$ were to be found at the LHC while $Br(\tau\to
963: \mu\gamma)$ were not, the lower bound on $M_{N_1}$ from leptogenesis would
964: be above $10^{11}$ GeV.
965:
966:
967: \subsection{Inversely-Ordered Light Neutrinos}
968:
969: %
970: \begin{figure}[htbp]
971: \centerline{\epsfxsize = 0.5\textwidth \epsffile{mrnmn2i.ps}
972: \hfill \epsfxsize = 0.5\textwidth \epsffile{epmn2i.ps}
973: }
974: \caption{\it
975: Scatter plots of the lightest heavy neutrino mass $M_{N_1}$ and of the
976: CP-violating asymmetry
977: $\epsilon_1$ versus $m_{\nu_3}$, for inversely-ordered light
978: neutrino masses and the texture $H_2.$
979: \vspace*{0.5cm}}
980: \label{fig12i}
981: \end{figure}
982: %
983: %
984: \begin{figure}[htbp]
985: \centerline{\epsfxsize = 0.5\textwidth \epsffile{mrnmee2i.ps}
986: \hfill \epsfxsize = 0.5\textwidth \epsffile{debr2i.ps}
987: }
988: \caption{\it
989: Scatter plots of
990: $M_{N_1}$ versus $m_{ee}$ and of $d_e$ versus $Br(\tau\to e\gamma)$,
991: for the inversely-ordered light neutrino masses and the texture $H_2.$
992: \vspace*{0.5cm}}
993: \label{fig22i}
994: \end{figure}
995: %
996:
997:
998: The inverse ordering of light neutrino masses,
999: $m_{\nu_2}>m_{\nu_1}>m_{\nu_3},$ is still a viable option, since present
1000: neutrino oscillation experiments are not sensitive to the sign of $\Delta
1001: m^2_{32}$. Therefore, it is interesting to study whether this case can be
1002: discriminated from the normal hierarchy of light neutrino masses, using
1003: leptogenesis, LFV and CP-violating processes.
1004:
1005:
1006: In the inverted light-neutrino mass hierarchy, the correlations between
1007: $\epsilon_1$ and the heavy and light neutrino masses are practically the
1008: same for both textures $H_{1,2}$, and it is sufficient to present results
1009: for just one of them. Since $d_\mu$ is suppressed in $H_{1}$ by two orders
1010: of magnitude compared with the normal hierarchy, due to smaller
1011: third-generation Yukawa couplings, we choose $H_{2}$ for presentation.
1012:
1013:
1014: We present in Fig.~\ref{fig12i} scatter plots for the lightest heavy
1015: neutrino mass $M_{N_1}$ and the CP-violating asymmetry $\epsilon_1$ versus
1016: the lightest light neutrino mass $m_{\nu_3}.$ As expected, the lower bound
1017: on $M_{N_1}$ is higher than in the normally-ordered case, and is
1018: $M_{N_1}\gsim 10^{11}$ GeV. This result follows from the seesaw mechanism,
1019: since the Yukawa couplings for the first two generations must be larger.
1020: Somewhat surprisingly, leptogenesis implies also a lower bound on the
1021: lightest neutrino mass $m_{\nu_3}$. Therefore the light neutrinos tend to
1022: be degenerate if their masses are inversely ordered. The CP-violating
1023: asymmetry $\epsilon_1$ can be larger than in the previous case, implying
1024: stronger washout effects and somewhat larger light neutrino masses, as
1025: seen in Fig.~\ref{fig12i}.
1026:
1027:
1028: In Fig.~\ref{fig22i} we give scatter plots of $M_{N_1}$ versus $m_{ee}$
1029: and of $d_e$ versus $Br(\tau\to e\gamma)$ for the same texture as
1030: previously. The sharp lower bound on $m_{ee}$ is the consequence of the
1031: inverted mass ordering. There is a preferred region for $m_{ee}$
1032: determined by $\Delta m^2_{atm}$, and relatively few points extend above
1033: $m_{ee}\gsim {\cal O}(0.1)$ eV. Therefore, even for the inverted mass
1034: hierarchy, observation of $\beta\beta_{0\nu}$ decay in current experiments
1035: is improbable. Again, $d_e$ and $Br(\tau\to e\gamma)$ reach the same
1036: values as in the case of normally-ordered neutrinos, and no strong
1037: correlation between leptogenesis, $d_e$ and $Br(\tau\to e\gamma)$ is
1038: present.
1039:
1040:
1041:
1042: \section{Discussion and Conclusions}
1043:
1044: In the context of the minimal supersymmetric seesaw model, we have studied
1045: relations between the light and heavy neutrino masses, thermal
1046: leptogenesis, and LFV decays and EDMs of charged leptons, scanning over
1047: the phenomenologically-allowed parameter space as suggested
1048: in~\cite{ehrs}. There are lower bounds $M_{N_1}\gsim 10^{10}$ GeV and
1049: $M_{N_1}\gsim 10^{11}$ GeV for the normal and inverse hierarchies of light
1050: neutrino masses, respectively. These bounds are in potential conflict with
1051: the gravitino problem in supersymmetric cosmology if the gravitino mass is
1052: below TeV.
1053:
1054: In the thermal leptogenesis scenario, one can avoid these bounds by
1055: fine-tuning model parameters, namely the Yukawa couplings $Y_\nu$ and the
1056: heavy neutrino masses $M_N.$ It is well known that the CP-violating
1057: asymmetry may be enhanced if the heavy neutrinos are degenerate in
1058: mass~\cite{p}. This may allow one to lower~\cite{p,1tev} the lightest
1059: heavy neutrino mass $M_{N_1}$, and so avoid the bounds on the reheating
1060: temperature~\cite{gravitino}.
1061: Degenerate heavy neutrinos are also consistent with the LMA
1062: solution to the solar neutrino problem~\cite{ricardo}. Because our
1063: parametrization gives $Y_\nu$ and $M_N$ as an output, such fine tunings
1064: cannot be studied by our random scan over the parameter space, and would
1065: require a different approach.
1066:
1067: Another way out of the problem would be leptogenesis with non-thermally
1068: produced heavy neutrinos~\cite{nonth,fhy}. In such a case, the reheating
1069: temperature of the Universe does not limit leptogenesis. However, they do
1070: not have the same predictivity, and the implications of the observed $Y_B$
1071: on neutrino parameters are lost. It is also possible that gravitino is the
1072: lightest supersymmetric particle, in which case~\cite{bolz} the upper
1073: bound on the reheating temperature is $10^{11}$ GeV and thermal
1074: leptogenesis is possible.
1075:
1076: We have found interesting correlations between the heavy and light
1077: neutrino mass parameters. For normally-ordered masses, there is an
1078: $M_{N_1}$-dependent upper bound on $m_{\nu_1}$, whilst for the inverted
1079: hierarchy there are both upper and lower bounds on $m_{\nu_3}.$ Successful
1080: leptogenesis with $m_{\nu_1}\gsim 0.1$ eV is allowed for $M_{N_1}\gsim
1081: 10^{12}$ GeV. There is also an $M_{N_1}$-dependent lower bound on
1082: $m_{ee}$ for normally-ordered light neutrinos, implying its possible
1083: testability in future experiments. On the other hand, $m_{ee}$ has a
1084: preferred value determined by $\Delta m^2_{atm}$ even in the case of the
1085: inverted mass hierarchy. It tends to be below ${\cal O}(10^{-1})$ eV,
1086: making the discovery of $\beta\beta_{0\nu}$ decay in current experiments
1087: improbable.
1088:
1089: There is no correlation between leptogenesis, and the LFV decays and
1090: EDMs of charged leptons. The branching ratios for $\tau\to\mu (e)\gamma$ and
1091: $\mu\to e\gamma$ may saturate their present lower bounds, and the EDMs of
1092: electron and muon reach $d_e\sim 10^{-(27-28)}$ e cm and $d_\mu\sim
1093: 10^{-25}$ e cm in our random samples. There is some correlation between
1094: $M_{N_1}$ and the LFV $\tau$ decays for normally-ordered light neutrino
1095: masses: observation of $Br(\tau\to e\gamma)$ would require $M_{N_1}$ to be
1096: an order of magnitude above the lower bound.
1097:
1098: The type of parametrization discussed in~\cite{di} and applied
1099: in~\cite{ehrs} and in this work
1100: is a useful tool for studying the large parameter
1101: space of the minimal supersymmetric seesaw model. In the future, it may
1102: help attempts to devise an experimental strategy for determining
1103: systematically all the
1104: 18 parameters in this sector. It would also be interesting to combine this
1105: approach with models aiming at predictions for some (all) of the seesaw
1106: parameters. As we have shown in this paper, this type of parameterization
1107: can teach us some salutary lessons about leptogenesis and its relations
1108: to other observables.
1109:
1110: \vskip 0.5in
1111: \vbox{
1112: \noindent{ {\bf Acknowledgements} } \\
1113: \noindent
1114: We thank A. Strumia for discussions, M. Pl\"umacher for a communication,
1115: and J. Hisano and Y. Shimizu for collaboration at early stages.
1116: This work is partially supported by EU TMR
1117: contract No. HPMF-CT-2000-00460 and ESF grant No. 5135.
1118: }
1119:
1120: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
1121:
1122: \bibitem{skatm}
1123: Y.~Fukuda {\it et al.} [Super-Kamiokande Collaboration],
1124: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 81} (1998) 1562.
1125:
1126: \bibitem{sno1}
1127: Q.~R.~Ahmad {\it et al.} [SNO Collaboration], arXiv:nucl-ex/0204008.
1128:
1129: \bibitem{seesaw} M. Gell-Mann, P. Ramond and R. Slansky, Proceedings of
1130: the Supergravity Stony Brook Workshop, New York, 1979, eds. P. Van
1131: Nieuwenhuizen and D. Freedman (North-Holland, Amsterdam);
1132: T. Yanagida, Proceedings of
1133: the Workshop on Unified Theories and Baryon Number in the
1134: Universe, Tsukuba, Japan 1979 (edited by A. Sawada and A.
1135: Sugamoto, KEK Report No. 79-18, Tsukuba);
1136: R.~Mohapatra and G.~Senjanovic,
1137: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 44} (1980) 912.
1138:
1139: \bibitem{fy}
1140: M.~Fukugita and T.~Yanagida,
1141: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 174} (1986) 45.
1142:
1143: \bibitem{bm}
1144: F.~Borzumati and A.~Masiero,
1145: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 57} (1986) 961.
1146:
1147: \bibitem{h1}
1148: J.~Hisano, T.~Moroi, K.~Tobe, M.~Yamaguchi and T.~Yanagida,
1149: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 357} (1995) 579;
1150: J.~Hisano, T.~Moroi, K.~Tobe and M.~Yamaguchi,
1151: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 53} (1996) 2442;
1152: J.~Hisano and D.~Nomura,
1153: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 59} (1999) 116005.
1154:
1155: \bibitem{bb}
1156: H.~V.~Klapdor-Kleingrothaus {\it et al.}, [Heidelberg-Moscow Collaboration],
1157: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ A {\bf 12} (2001) 147.
1158:
1159: \bibitem{sno2}
1160: Q.~R.~Ahmad {\it et al.} [SNO Collaboration],
1161: arXiv:nucl-ex/0204009;
1162: J.~N.~Bahcall, M.~C.~Gonzalez-Garcia and C.~Pena-Garay,
1163: arXiv:hep-ph/0204314;
1164: V.~Barger, D.~Marfatia, K.~Whisnant and B.~P.~Wood,
1165: arXiv:hep-ph/0204253;
1166: P.~Creminelli, G.~Signorelli and A.~Strumia,
1167: arXiv:hep-ph/0102234;
1168: A.~Bandyopadhyay, S.~Choubey, S.~Goswami and D.~P.~Roy,
1169: arXiv:hep-ph/0204286;
1170: P.~C.~de Holanda and A.~Y.~Smirnov,
1171: arXiv:hep-ph/0205241.
1172:
1173:
1174: \bibitem{olive}
1175: K.~A.~Olive, G.~Steigman and T.~P.~Walker,
1176: Phys.\ Rept.\ {\bf 333} (2000) 389.
1177:
1178:
1179: \bibitem{bbfuture}
1180: H.~V.~Klapdor-Kleingrothaus {\it et al.} [GENIUS Collaboration],
1181: arXiv:hep-ph/9910205.
1182: E.~Fiorini, Phys.\ Rept.\ {\bf 307} (1998) 309;
1183: H.~Ejiri, J.~Engel, R.~Hazama, P.~Krastev, N.~Kudomi and R.~G.~Robertson,
1184: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 85} (2000) 2917;
1185: M.~Danilov {\it et al.},
1186: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 480} (2000) 12.
1187:
1188:
1189: \bibitem{Barkov}
1190: L. Barkov {\it et al.}, {\it Search for $\mu^+ \to e^+ \gamma$ down to
1191: $10^{-14}$ branching ratio}, available at {\tt
1192: http://www.icepp.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp/meg}.
1193:
1194: \bibitem{MECO}
1195: MECO Collaboration, BNL Proposal AGS P940 (1997);
1196: M. Furusaka {\it et al.}, JAERI/KEK Joint Project Proposal
1197: {\it The Joint Project for High-Intensity Proton Accelerators},
1198: KEK-REPORT-99-4, JAERI-TECH-99-056.
1199:
1200: \bibitem{nufact}
1201: See, for example,
1202: J.~\"Ayst\"o {\it et al.},{\it Physics with Low-Energy Muons at a Neutrino
1203: Factory Complex},
1204: arXiv:hep-ph/0109217.
1205: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0109217;%%
1206:
1207:
1208: \bibitem{BNL}
1209: R. Carey {\it et al.}, Letter of Intent to BNL (2000);
1210: Y.~K.~Semertzidis {\it et al.},
1211: hep-ph/0012087.
1212:
1213:
1214: \bibitem{Lam}
1215: S.~K.~Lamoreaux, arXiv:nucl-ex/0109014.
1216:
1217:
1218: \bibitem{gn}
1219: For a review and references see,
1220: M.~C.~Gonzalez-Garcia and Y.~Nir, arXiv:hep-ph/0202058;
1221: G.~Altarelli and F.~Feruglio, arXiv:hep-ph/0206077.
1222:
1223: \bibitem{di}
1224: S.~Davidson and A.~Ibarra,
1225: JHEP {\bf 0109} (2001) 013.
1226:
1227: \bibitem{ehrs}
1228: J.~R.~Ellis, J.~Hisano, M.~Raidal and Y.~Shimizu,
1229: arXiv:hep-ph/0206110.
1230:
1231: \bibitem{bbth}
1232: For the latest results and complete list of references see, \eg,
1233: F.~Feruglio, A.~Strumia and F.~Vissani,
1234: arXiv:hep-ph/0201291;
1235: S.~Pascoli and S.~T.~Petcov,
1236: arXiv:hep-ph/0205022;
1237: H.~Nunokawa, W.~J.~Teves and R.~Z.~Funchal,
1238: arXiv:hep-ph/0206137.
1239:
1240: \bibitem{nlfv}
1241: W.~Buchm\"uller, D.~Delepine and F.~Vissani,
1242: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 459} (1999) 171;
1243: M.~E.~Gomez, G.~K.~Leontaris, S.~Lola and J.~D.~Vergados,
1244: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 59} (1999) 116009;
1245: J.~R.~Ellis, M.~E.~Gomez, G.~K.~Leontaris, S.~Lola and D.~V.~Nanopoulos,
1246: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 14} (2000) 319;
1247: W.~Buchm\"uller, D.~Delepine and L.~T.~Handoko,
1248: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 576} (2000) 445;
1249: J.~L.~Feng, Y.~Nir and Y.~Shadmi,
1250: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 61} (2000) 113005;
1251: T.~Blazek and S.~F.~King,
1252: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 518} (2001) 109;
1253: D. Carvalho, J. Ellis, M. Gomez and S. Lola,
1254: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 515} (2001) 323;
1255: J.~Sato and K.~Tobe,
1256: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 63} (2001) 116010;
1257: J.~Hisano and K.~Tobe,
1258: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 510} (2001) 197;
1259: S.~Lavignac, I.~Masina and C.~A.~Savoy,
1260: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 520} (2001) 269
1261: and Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 633} (2002) 139;
1262: F.~Deppisch, H.~Pas, A.~Redelbach, R.~Ruckl and Y.~Shimizu,
1263: arXiv:hep-ph/0206122.
1264:
1265:
1266: \bibitem{ci}
1267: J.~A.~Casas and A.~Ibarra,
1268: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 618} (2001) 171.
1269: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0103065;%%
1270:
1271: \bibitem{susyedm}
1272: T.~Ibrahim and P.~Nath,
1273: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 57} (1998) 478
1274: [Erratum - {\it ibid.} {\bf 58} (1998) 019901];
1275: S.~Abel, S.~Khalil and O.~Lebedev,
1276: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 606} (2001) 151;
1277: A.~Romanino and A.~Strumia,
1278: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 622} (2002) 73.
1279:
1280: \bibitem{ehrs2}
1281: J.~R.~Ellis, J.~Hisano, M.~Raidal and Y.~Shimizu,
1282: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 528} (2002) 86,
1283: arXiv:hep-ph/0111324.
1284:
1285:
1286: \bibitem{vissani}
1287: L.~Covi, E.~Roulet and F.~Vissani,
1288: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 384} (1996) 169;
1289: W.~Buchm\"uller and M.~Pl\"umacher,
1290: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 389} (1996) 73;
1291: M.~Flanz, E.~A.~Paschos, U.~Sarkar and J.~Weiss,
1292: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 389} (1996) 693.
1293:
1294: \bibitem{p}
1295: A.~Pilaftsis,
1296: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 56} (1997) 5431,
1297: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9707235;%%
1298: Int.\ J.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 14} (1999) 1811.
1299: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9812256;%%
1300:
1301:
1302: \bibitem{k-sm}
1303: M.~A.~Luty,
1304: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 45} (1992) 455;
1305: M.~Pl\"umacher,
1306: Z.\ Phys.\ C {\bf 74} (1997) 549.
1307:
1308: \bibitem{k-mssm}
1309: M.~Pl\"umacher,
1310: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 530} (1998) 207.
1311:
1312: \bibitem{bbp}
1313: W.~Buchmuller, P.~Di Bari and M.~Pl\"umacher,
1314: arXiv:hep-ph/0205349.
1315:
1316: \bibitem{bcst}
1317: R.~Barbieri, P.~Creminelli, A.~Strumia and N.~Tetradis,
1318: %``Baryogenesis through leptogenesis,''
1319: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 575} (2000) 61
1320: [arXiv:hep-ph/9911315].
1321: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9911315;%%
1322:
1323: \bibitem{di2}
1324: S.~Davidson and A.~Ibarra,
1325: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 535} (2002) 25.
1326:
1327: \bibitem{gravitino}
1328: J.~R.~Ellis, J.~E.~Kim and D.~V.~Nanopoulos,
1329: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 145} (1984) 181;
1330: J.~R.~Ellis, D.~V.~Nanopoulos and S.~Sarkar,
1331: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 259} (1985) 175;
1332: J.~R.~Ellis, D.~V.~Nanopoulos, K.~A.~Olive and S.~J.~Rey,
1333: Astropart.\ Phys.\ {\bf 4} (1996) 371;
1334: M.~Kawasaki and T.~Moroi,
1335: Prog.\ Theor.\ Phys.\ {\bf 93} (1995) 879;
1336: T.~Moroi, Ph.D. thesis, arXiv:hep-ph/9503210;
1337: M.~Bolz, A.~Brandenburg and W.~Buchmuller,
1338: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 606} (2001) 518.
1339:
1340: \bibitem{bench}
1341: M.~Battaglia {\it et al.},
1342: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 22} (2001) 535.
1343:
1344: \bibitem{eEDM}
1345: B.~C.~Regan, E.~D.~Commins, C.~J.~Schmidt and D.~DeMille,
1346: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 88} (2002) 071805.
1347: %%CITATION = PRLTA,88,071805;%%
1348:
1349: \bibitem{smirnov}
1350: M.~Frigerio and A.~Y.~Smirnov,
1351: arXiv:hep-ph/0202247.
1352:
1353: \bibitem{x}
1354: V.~Barger, S.~L.~Glashow, P.~Langacker and D.~Marfatia,
1355: arXiv:hep-ph/0205290.
1356:
1357:
1358: \bibitem{lfvcp}
1359: N.~Arkani-Hamed, J.~L.~Feng, L.~J.~Hall and H.~Cheng,
1360: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 505} (1997) 3.
1361:
1362:
1363: \bibitem{3l}
1364: J.~R.~Ellis, J.~Hisano, S.~Lola and M.~Raidal,
1365: %``CP violation in the minimal supersymmetric seesaw model,''
1366: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 621} (2002) 208,
1367: arXiv:hep-ph/0109125.
1368:
1369:
1370: \bibitem{CHOOZ}
1371: CHOOZ Collaboration,
1372: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 420} (1998) 397.
1373:
1374: \bibitem{Boehm}
1375: F.~Boehm {\it et al.},
1376: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 64} (2001) 112001,
1377: arXiv:hep-ex/0107009.
1378:
1379: \bibitem{Branco}
1380: G.~C.~Branco, T.~Morozumi, B.~M.~Nobre and M.~N.~Rebelo,
1381: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 617} (2001) 475;
1382: G.~C.~Branco, R.~Gonzalez Felipe, F.~R.~Joaquim and M.~N.~Rebelo,
1383: arXiv:hep-ph/0202030.
1384:
1385:
1386: \bibitem{fhy}
1387: M.~Fujii, K.~Hamaguchi and T.~Yanagida,
1388: %``Leptogenesis with almost degenerate Majorana neutrinos,''
1389: arXiv:hep-ph/0202210.
1390: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0202210;%%
1391:
1392: \bibitem{ohshima}
1393: T. Ohshima, talk at
1394: the workshop {\it Neutrino oscillations and their origin}
1395: (NOON2001)
1396: (ICRR, Univ. of Tokyo, Kashiwa, Japan, Dec.,2001).
1397:
1398: \bibitem{1tev}
1399: T.~Hambye, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 633} (2002) 171.
1400:
1401: \bibitem{ricardo}
1402: R.~Gonzalez Felipe and F.~R.~Joaquim,
1403: JHEP {\bf 0109} (2001) 015.
1404:
1405:
1406: \bibitem{nonth}
1407: G.~F.~Giudice, M.~Peloso, A.~Riotto and I.~Tkachev,
1408: JHEP {\bf 9908} (1999) 014;
1409: T.~Asaka, K.~Hamaguchi, M.~Kawasaki and T.~Yanagida,
1410: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 464} (1999) 12, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 61} (2000) 083512;
1411: J.~Garcia-Bellido and E.~Ruiz Morales,
1412: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 536} (2002) 193.
1413:
1414: \bibitem{bolz}
1415: M.~Bolz, W.~Buchmuller and M.~Pl\"umacher,
1416: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 443} (1998) 209.
1417:
1418:
1419: \end{thebibliography}
1420:
1421: \end{document}
1422:
1423:
1424:
1425:
1426:
1427:
1428: