1: %\documentstyle[aps,floats,epsfig,graphicx,axodraw]{revtex}

2: \documentclass[nohyper,notoc]{article} 

3: \usepackage{epsfig}

4: %\usepackage{axodraw}

5: \input epsf

6: \textwidth 450pt

7: \textheight 565pt

8: \oddsidemargin 5pt

9: \evensidemargin 5pt

10: %\topmargin -10pt

11: \baselineskip 40pt

12: \parindent 20pt

13: %\pagestyle{empty}

14: 

15: 

16: 

17: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

18: %% Local Macros %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

19: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

20: 

21: \def\beq{\begin{equation}}

22: \def\eeq{\end{equation}}

23: \def\be{\begin{equation}}

24: \def\ee{\end{equation}}

25: \def\bea{\begin{eqnarray}}

26: \def\eea{\end{eqnarray}}

27: \def \lsim{\mathrel{\vcenter

28:      {\hbox{$<$}\nointerlineskip\hbox{$\sim$}}}}

29: \def \gsim{\mathrel{\vcenter

30:      {\hbox{$>$}\nointerlineskip\hbox{$\sim$}}}}

31: \def\gappeq{\mathrel{\rlap {\raise.5ex\hbox{$>$}}

32: {\lower.5ex\hbox{$\sim$}}}}

33: \def\lappeq{\mathrel{\rlap{\raise.5ex\hbox{$<$}}

34: {\lower.5ex\hbox{$\sim$}}}}

35: \def\simlt{\stackrel{<}{{}_\sim}}

36: \def\simgt{\stackrel{>}{{}_\sim}}

37: \def\msnu{m_{\tilde{\nu}}}

38: \def\msnui{m_{\tilde{\nu}_i}}

39: \def\msnuj{m_{\tilde{\nu}_j}}

40: \def\msnuI{m_{\tilde{\nu}_I}}

41: \def\msnuJ{m_{\tilde{\nu}_J}}

42: \def\snu{\tilde{\nu}}

43: \def\snuvi{\langle\tilde{\nu}_i\rangle}

44: \def\Huv{\langle H_u \rangle}

45: \def\mchi{m_{\chi}}

46: \def\mnu{[m_{\nu}]_{ij}}

47: \def\LI{$\{ L_I \} ~$}

48: \def\vd{\vec{\delta}}

49: \def\hd{\hat{\delta}}

50: 

51: \def\ltap{\raisebox{-.4ex}{\rlap{$\sim$}} \raisebox{.4ex}{$<$}}

52: \def\gtap{\raisebox{-.4ex}{\rlap{$\sim$}} \raisebox{.4ex}{$>$}}

53: \newcommand{\Rsl}{{\not \! \!{R}}}

54: \newcommand{\sqm}{m_{\tilde{q}}}

55: \newcommand{\slm}{m_{\tilde{l}}}

56: \newcommand{\ms}{\widetilde{m}}

57: \newcommand{\sun}{\Delta m^2_{\rm solar}}

58: \newcommand{\atm}{\Delta m^2_{\rm atm}}

59: \newcommand{\lsnd}{\Delta m^2_{\rm LSND}}

60: \def\la{\mathrel{\mathchoice {\vcenter{\offinterlineskip\halign{\hfil

61: $\displaystyle##$\hfil\cr<\cr\sim\cr}}}

62: {\vcenter{\offinterlineskip\halign{\hfil$\textstyle##

63: $\hfil\cr<\cr\sim\cr}}}

64: {\vcenter{\offinterlineskip\halign{\hfil$\scriptstyle##

65: $\hfil\cr<\cr\sim\cr}}}

66: {\vcenter{\offinterlineskip\halign{\hfil$\scriptscriptstyle##$

67: \hfil\cr<\cr\sim\cr}}}}}

68: % greater than or order of \ga

69: \def\ga{\mathrel{\mathchoice {\vcenter{\offinterlineskip\halign{\hfil

70: $\displaystyle##$\hfil\cr>\cr\sim\cr}}}

71: {\vcenter{\offinterlineskip\halign{\hfil$\textstyle##

72: $\hfil\cr>\cr\sim\cr}}}

73: {\vcenter{\offinterlineskip\halign{\hfil$\scriptstyle##

74: $\hfil\cr>\cr\sim\cr}}}

75: {\vcenter{\offinterlineskip\halign{\hfil$\scriptscriptstyle##$

76: \hfil\cr>\cr\sim\cr}}}}}

77: 

78: 

79: \begin{document}

80: \vspace*{-1in}

81: \renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\fnsymbol{footnote}}

82: \begin{flushright}

83: IPPP/02/83\\ DCPT/02/166 

84: \end{flushright}

85: \vskip 5pt

86: \begin{center}

87: {\Large {\bf From weak-scale

88: observables to leptogenesis}}

89: \vskip 25pt

90: {\bf Sacha Davidson } 

91:  

92: \vskip 10pt 

93:  {\it  IPPP, University of Durham, Durham, DH1 3LE, UK}

94: \vskip 20pt

95: {\bf Abstract}

96: \end{center}

97: \begin{quotation}

98: Thermal leptogenesis is an attractive mechanism for

99: generating the baryon asymmetry of the Universe. However, 

100: in supersymmetric models, the parameter space is severely restricted

101: by the gravitino bound on the reheat temperature $T_{RH}$.

102: For hierarchical

103: light neutrino masses,  it is shown that  thermal leptogenesis

104: {\it can} work when $T_{RH} \sim 10^{9} $ GeV.  

105: The low-energy observable consequences of this

106: scenario are  $ BR( \tau \rightarrow \ell \gamma)

107: \sim 10^{-8} - 10^{-9}  $. For higher $T_{RH}$, thermal

108: leptogenesis works in a larger area of parameter space,

109: whose observable consequences are more ambiguous.

110: A parametrisation of the seesaw in terms of

111: weak-scale inputs is used, so the results are independent of

112: the texture chosen for the GUT-scale Yukawa matrices.

113: {\noindent\small 

114: \vskip 10pt

115: \noindent

116: }

117: 

118: \end{quotation}

119: 

120: \vskip 20pt  

121: 

122: \setcounter{footnote}{0}

123: \renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\arabic{footnote}}

124: 

125: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

126: %% Introduction %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

127: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

128: %\newpage

129: 

130: 

131: 

132: 

133: \section{Introduction}

134: 

135: Leptogenesis \cite{Fukugita:1986hr} is an appealing mechanism for producing

136: the baryon asymmetry of the Universe\cite{Buchmuller:2000wq}. In the 

137: seesaw model\cite{seesaw},

138: heavy singlet (``right-handed'') neutrinos $\nu_R$ 

139: decay out-of-equilibrium,

140: producing a net lepton asymmetry, which is

141: reprocessed by Standard Model (SM) $B+L$ violating

142: processes \cite{Kuzmin:1985mm} into a baryon asymmetry. A natural

143: and cosmology-independent way to

144: produce the $\nu_R$ is by scattering in the

145: thermal plasma. This scenario is refered to as

146: ``thermal leptogenesis''.

147: However, the lightest $\nu_R$ can 

148: be produced only if their mass $M_1$ is less than the

149: reheat temperature $T_{RH}$ of the plasma

150: after inflation. In addition, the asymmetry is

151: proportional to $M_1$\cite{di2}, so there is a lower

152: bound on $M_1 $  to get a  large enough asymmetry.

153: This implies  $10^8$ GeV $ < M_1 < T_{RH}$.

154: 

155: 

156: The seesaw is an attractive minimal extension of

157: the SM that generates the observed small

158: $\nu$ masses. Three right-handed neutrinos, with large 

159: majorana masses $M_i$, are added to the Standard Model, along with a Yukawa

160: matrix for the neutrinos.  It is desirable to supersymmetrise

161: the seesaw, to address the hierarchy between the weak scale

162: and the $M_i$. In the SUSY seesaw,

163: $T_{RH}$ must be low enough to avoid over-producing gravitinos

164: \cite{gravitino1,gravitino2}---the canonical bound for gravity

165: mediated SUSY breaking 

166: %with $m_{3/2} \simeq 100$ GeV 

167: is $T_{RH} \lappeq 10^9$ GeV. 

168: The aim of this paper is to identify the parameter

169: space where thermal leptogenesis can work, taking

170:  $M_1 \sim T_{RH} \sim 10^9$ GeV.

171: 

172:  The SUSY seesaw has more low-energy consequences than the non-SUSY

173: version. It

174: induces lepton flavour violating (LFV) entries in the

175: slepton mass matrix, which can lead

176: to radiative lepton decays\cite{Borzumati:1986qx}, 

177: such as $\mu \rightarrow e \gamma$,

178: at experimentally accessible rates. 

179: Eighteen  parameters  are required to define 

180: the neutrino and sneutrino mass matrices (in

181: the charged lepton mass eigenstate basis), which

182: is the same number as there

183:  are high scale inputs for  the seesaw model

184: \cite{Branco:gr}. It can be shown that

185: the SUSY seesaw can be parametrised with

186: the sneutrino and light neutrino  mass matrices\cite{Davidson:2001zk},

187: in a texture model independent way. That is, 

188:  the high-scale physical inputs of the

189: SUSY seesaw---the $\nu_R$ masses $M_i$ and Yukawa coupling

190: ${\bf Y_{\nu}}$---can be ``reconstructed'' from

191: the neutrino and sneutrino mass matrices\footnote{This ``reconstruction''

192: would require universal soft masses at the GUT scale, and

193: improbable experimental accuracy at the weak scale, so is

194: in practice impossible.}. 

195:  The baryon asymmetry can

196: therefore be expressed as a function of weak scale

197: observables. In this paper we  identify the ranges

198: of experimentally measurable quantities which are

199: consistent with thermal leptogenesis.

200: This phenomenological analysis differs from previous

201: work  

202: \cite{review,real,other,phases,Falcone,Branco:2002kt,Endoh:2002wm,Plumacher:1997kc,Covi:1996wh,Barbieri:2000ma,Hirsch:2001dg,Branco:2002xf}

203: by making minimal assumptions

204: about the high scale theory: we assume the SUSY

205: seesaw and universal soft masses at the GUT scale. 

206: The usual approach is to assume

207: a GUT-scale texture that

208: generates the desired neutrino mass matrix, and discuss

209: leptogenesis---the aim here is to input the slepton mass matrix instead

210: of a texture. This

211: analysis should be consistent with all GUTS and texture choices

212: covered by these assumptions. 

213: 

214: 

215: 

216: Section 2 includes notation,

217: and a review  of leptogenesis and our 

218: parametrisation of the seesaw model. Section 3 presents approximate

219: analytic expressions for the quantities on which

220: leptogenesis depends. The low energy signatures of the parameter space where

221: thermal leptogenesis works are discussed in section 4.

222: CP violation is briefly discussed in section 5.

223:  The results are discussed and summarised  in section \ref{sowhat}.

224: 

225: 

226: \section{Review}

227: 

228: The observed deficits in muon neutrinos from the atmosphere \cite{SK}

229: and in electron neutrinos from the sun\cite{Cleveland:1998nv,SNO,experiments} 

230: can be fit with small neutrino mass differences. The

231: recent KamLAND observation of a  $\bar{\nu}_e$ deficit from 

232: reactors confirms the neutrino mass explanation

233: of the solar neutrino puzzle\cite{Bahcall:2002ij}. The small

234: $\Delta m^2$ are consistent with three patterns of neutrino

235: mass: hierarchical ($\Delta m^2_{atm} = m_3^2$, 

236: $\Delta m^2_{sol} = m_2^2$), degenerate ($m_3 \simeq m_2 \simeq m_1 \gg

237: \Delta m^2_{atm}$) and quasi-Dirac ($m_3^2 \simeq m_2^2 \simeq

238: \Delta m^2_{atm}$, $\Delta m^2_{sol} = m_3^2 - m_2^2$). 

239: The leptogenesis scenario  considered in this paper, where the

240: $\nu_R$ are produced by scattering in the plasma, does

241: not work for degenerate $m_i$ \cite{di2} (see also

242: \cite{BdP} for a detailed discussion).  The quasi-Dirac

243: spectrum could be interesting, although it is possibly

244: disfavoured by supernova data \cite{SN}.

245: We assume the

246: $m_i$ are hierarchical, so the neutrino masses

247: are much smaller than the charged lepton and quark masses.

248: These small masses can be naturally understood in the seesaw model.

249: 

250: 

251: In subsection \ref{notn}, the seesaw is reviewed from the

252: top-down; introducing new physics at a high scale 

253: $M_X$, and seeing its low energy implications. This approach has been followed

254: by many model builders who construct  a natural

255: or symmetry-motivated structure of the high-scale 

256: mass and Yukawa matrices, and then

257: study its low energy consequences. See $e.g.$

258: \cite{Dreiner:1994ra} for early works that produce

259: neutrino mass matrices with small mixing angles, and 

260: \cite{Altarelli:gu} for more complete up-to-date references.

261: Lepton flavour violation due to the SUSY seesaw,

262: which could be observed in $\ell_j \rightarrow \ell_i \gamma$

263: \cite{Borzumati:1986qx,Hisano:1995cp}

264: or in slepton production and decay at colliders \cite{Arkani-Hamed:1996au}

265: has also been extensively studied from a top down

266: approach

267: (see $e.g$ citations of \cite{Borzumati:1986qx,Hisano:1995cp}).

268: Recent studies (for instance 

269: \cite{Lavignac:2002gf}) 

270: have considered the branching ratios

271: for $\ell_j \rightarrow \ell_i \gamma$ in models 

272: that induce the two observed large mixing angles among

273: the light leptons.\footnote{see also \cite{Casas:2001sr}

274: for a more phenomenological discussion of

275: $\mu \rightarrow e \gamma$}. 

276: 

277: Subsection \ref{lepto+ub}, is a ``top-down'' review  of leptogenesis, 

278: which is the   obvious approach 

279: \cite{review,real,other,phases,Falcone,Branco:2002kt,Plumacher:1997kc,Covi:1996wh,Barbieri:2000ma,Hirsch:2001dg,Branco:2002xf}

280: since the asymmetry is generated at high scales. See

281: \cite{review} for examples and models.

282: The translation between this approach and our bottom-up phenomenological

283: analysis is not obvious, so it is difficult to relate our work to

284: these papers. A phenomenological analysis of

285: leptogenesis in

286: non-SUSY (so no LFV) SO(10)

287: models was discussed in \cite{Branco:2002kt,Branco:2002xf}, with particular

288: attention to the low-energy CP violation.

289: A Yukawa-matrix independent analysis has

290: also been done in the case where there are only two

291: right-handed neutrinos\cite{Endoh:2002wm}.

292: 

293: 

294: 

295: 

296: \subsection{Notation and Numbers}

297: \label{notn}

298: 

299: 

300: We consider the supersymmetric see-saw for two reasons:

301: first, supersymmetry stabilizes the Higgs mass against the  quadratic

302: divergences that appear due to  heavy particles ($e.g.$ 

303:  the right-handed neutrinos). Secondly, 

304: the slepton masses enter  our bottom-up

305: parametrisation of the see-saw.

306: 

307: 

308: The leptonic part of the superpotential reads

309: %

310: \bea

311: \label{superp}

312: W_{lep}= {e_R^c}^T {\bf Y_e} L\cdot H_d 

313: + {\nu_R^c}^T {\bf Y_\nu} L\cdot H_u 

314: - \frac{1}{2}{\nu_R^c}^T{\cal M}\nu_R^c , \eea

315: %

316: where $L_i$ and $e_{Ri}$ ($i=e, \mu, \tau$) are the left-handed 

317: lepton doublet and the right-handed charged-lepton singlet, 

318: respectively, and $H_d$ ($H_u$) is the hypercharge $-1/2$ ($+1/2$)

319:  Higgs doublet.

320:  ${\bf Y_e}$ and ${\bf Y_{\nu}}$ are the Yukawa couplings that 

321: give masses to the charged leptons and generate the neutrino Dirac mass, 

322: and $\cal M$ is a $3 \times 3$ Majorana mass matrix.

323: This is the minimal seesaw; additional terms are possible,

324: for instance in SO(10) models a small

325: triplet {\it vev} $ \langle T \rangle$ is probable\cite{Bajc:2002iw}, leading to a 

326: $\nu_L \langle T \rangle \nu_L$  mass term.

327: 

328: 

329:  We  work in the left-handed basis where 

330: the charged lepton mass matrix is diagonal, and

331: in a basis of

332: right-handed neutrinos where ${\cal M}$ is diagonal

333: %

334: \be

335: D_{\cal M} \equiv

336: {\mathrm diag}({ M}_1,{ M}_2,{ M}_3), 

337: \ee

338: %

339: with ${M}_i\geq 0$, and $M_1 < M_2 < M_3$.

340:  In this basis, the neutrino Yukawa matrix must

341: be  non-diagonal, but can always be diagonalized

342: by two unitary transformations:

343: \beq

344: \label{biunitary}

345: {\bf Y_\nu} = V_R^{\dagger} D_Y V_L,

346: \eeq

347: where $D_{\bf Y_\nu} \equiv

348: {\mathrm diag}({y}_1,{y}_2,{y}_3)$ and

349: $y_1 \ll y_2 \ll y_3$. Later in the paper, we

350: will assume that  $D_{\bf Y_\nu}$ is hierarchical,

351: with a steeper hierarchy than is in the light neutrino

352: mass matrix: $(y_1 /y_2)^2 \ll m_1 /m_2$.

353: 

354: 

355: It is natural to assume that the  overall scale of $\cal M$ 

356:  is much larger than the electroweak scale or any soft mass. 

357: Therefore, at low energies the right-handed neutrinos are decoupled and 

358: the corresponding effective Lagrangian contains a Majorana mass term

359: for the left-handed neutrinos:

360: $ \delta {\cal L}_{lep}= 

361: -\frac{1}{2}\nu^T{ m}_\nu \nu + {\rm h.c.},

362: $

363: %

364: %

365: %\bea  \delta {\cal L}_{lep}={e_R^c}^T {\bf Y_e} L\cdot H_d 

366: %-\frac{1}{2}\nu^T{ m}_\nu \nu + {\rm h.c.},

367: %\eea

368: %

369: with

370: %

371: \bea

372: \label{seesaw}

373: {m}_\nu= {\bf m_D}^T {\cal M}^{-1} {\bf m_D} =  {\bf Y_\nu}^T

374: {\cal M}^{-1} {\bf Y_\nu} \langle H_u^0\rangle^2.   \eea

375: %

376: We define the Higgs {\it vev} 

377: $\langle H_u^0\rangle^2=v_u^2=v^2 \sin^2\beta$, where   $v=174$

378: GeV. 

379: In the  basis where the charged-lepton Yukawa

380: matrix, $\bf{Y_e}$ and the gauge interactions are diagonal, the

381: $[m_\nu]$ matrix can be diagonalized by the MNS \cite{Maki:1962mu} matrix $U$ 

382: according to

383: %

384: \be

385: \label{Udiag}

386: U^T{[m_\nu] } U={\mathrm diag}(m_1,m_2,m_3)\equiv

387: D_{m_\nu}, \ee

388: %

389: where $U$ is a unitary matrix that relates  flavour to mass eigenstates

390: %

391: \bea  \pmatrix{\nu_e \cr \nu_\mu\cr \nu_\tau\cr}= U \pmatrix{\nu_1\cr

392: \nu_2\cr \nu_3\cr}\,,

393: \label{CKM}

394: \eea

395: %

396: and the $m_i$ can be chosen real and positive, and

397: ordered such that $m_1< m_2 < m_3$.

398:  Assuming hierarchical left-handed $\nu$ masses,

399: we take $m_3^2 = \atm = 2.7 \times 10^{-3} eV^2$

400: \cite{Hagiwara:fs}

401:  and  $m_2^2 = \sun= 7.0 \times 10^{-5} eV^2$ 

402:  \cite{B8}.

403: This corresponds to $m_3 = 5.2 \times 10^{-2}$ eV

404: ($ 3.9- 6.3  \times 10^{-2}$  eV at  90\% C.L.),

405: and  $m_2 = 8.2 \times 10^{-3}$ eV

406: ($7 - 15  \times 10^{-3}$ eV

407: at 3 $\sigma$).

408: $m_1$ is unknown, usually unimportant, and we take it to be

409: $m_2/10$. As we shall see, the  baryon 

410: asymmetry is weakly dependent on $\tan \beta$ in the parametrisation

411: we use, so we set $\sin \beta = 1$. 

412:  

413: 

414:   $U$ can be written as

415: %

416: \bea U=V\cdot {\rm diag}(e^{-i\phi/2},e^{-i\phi'/2},1)\ \ ,

417: \label{UV}

418: \eea

419: %

420: where $\phi$ and $\phi'$ are CP violating phases,

421:  and $V$ has the form of the CKM matrix

422: %

423: \be \label{Vdef} V=\pmatrix{c_{13}c_{12} & c_{13}s_{12} & s_{13}e^{-i\delta}\cr

424: -c_{23}s_{12}-s_{23}s_{13}c_{12}e^{i\delta} & c_{23}c_{12}-s_{23}s_{13}s_{12}e^{i\delta} & s_{23}c_{13}\cr

425: s_{23}s_{12}-c_{23}s_{13}c_{12}e^{i\delta} & -s_{23}c_{12}-c_{23}s_{13}s_{12}e^{i\delta} &

426: c_{23}c_{13}\cr}.  \ee

427: %

428: 

429: The numerical values of the angles are

430: $.28 \leq \tan^2 \theta_{sol} \leq .91$ (3$\sigma $),

431:  with best fit point $ \tan^2 \theta_{sol} = .44$

432: \cite{B8}, so $\theta_{sol} = .41$.

433: We take  $\theta_{atm} = \pi/4$.

434: The CHOOZ angle  $\theta_{13}$ is experimentally constrained

435: $\sin  \theta_{13} \leq .2$ \cite{Apollonio:1999ae}.

436: Considerable effort and thought has gone into designing

437: experiments sensitive to smaller values of $\theta_{13}$.

438: J-PARC hopes to reach  $O(0.05)$ \cite{nufact},

439: and a neutrino factory could detect $\theta_{13}$

440: as small as $0.02 \rightarrow 0.001$\cite{nufact,Cervera:2000kp}.

441: 

442: We assume a simple gravity-mediated SUSY breaking scenario,

443: with universal soft masses at the  scale $M_X$. 

444: The sneutrino mass matrix (in the 

445:  charged lepton mass eigenstate

446: basis)  can be written in the leading log approximation as

447: %

448: \bea

449: \label{softafterRG} 

450: \left(m^2_{ \snu}\right)_{ij} & \simeq & 

451:  \left({\rm diagonal\,\, part}\right)

452: -\frac{3m_0^2 + A_0^2 }{8 \pi^2}

453: [ {\bf Y^{\dagger}_\nu} ]_{ik} [ {\bf Y_\nu }]_{kj} \ln \frac{M_X}{M_k}\ ,

454: \eea

455: %

456: where ``diagonal-part'' includes the tree level soft mass matrix, 

457: the radiative corrections from gauge and charged lepton 

458: Yukawa interactions, and the mass contributions from F- and D-terms.

459: 

460: 

461: 

462: The branching ratio for $\ell_j \rightarrow \ell_i \gamma$ can be estimated

463: \beq

464: \frac{BR(\ell_j \rightarrow \ell_i \gamma)}{BR(\ell_j \rightarrow \ell_i 

465: \bar{\nu}_i \nu_j)} \sim C \frac{\alpha^3}{G_F^2 m_{SUSY}^4}

466:  |y_k^2 \tilde{V}_{Lkj}^*\tilde{V}_{Lki}|^2  \tan^2\beta 

467: \simeq  10^{-7}  |y_3^2 \tilde{V}_{L3j}^*\tilde{V}_{L3i}|^2  \left( 

468: \frac{100GeV}{m_{SUSY}} \right)^4 \left( 

469: \frac{\tan \beta}{2} \right)^2

470: \label{BR}

471: \eeq

472: where $C \sim O(0.001 \div 0.01)$,  and $\tilde{V}_{L}$ diagonalises 

473: the second term of eqn (\ref{softafterRG}).

474:   More accurate formulae for the branching ratios can be

475: found in \cite{Hisano:1995cp}.

476: To further simplify these estimates, it would be

477: convenient  to assume that

478: $V_L = \tilde{V}_{L}$. That is,

479:  the lepton asymmetry will be  a function of

480: the angles of $V_L$, and it would be simplest to estimate

481: $\ell_j \rightarrow \ell_i \gamma$ using the angles

482: of $V_L$ for those of $\tilde{V}_{L}$.  

483: This a reasonable approximation

484: when   $\theta_{Lij} \gg \frac{y_i}{y_j} \theta_{Rij}$  $(i <j)$,

485: where $\theta_{Rij}$ ( $\theta_{Lij}$) is an angle of $V_R$($V_L$). 

486: For hierarchical Yukawa eigenvalues, this is likely to be true, even

487: if an angle $\theta_R$ in $V_R$ is large, because the usual

488: texture estimate for $\theta_{Lij}$ would be $\sqrt{y_i/y_j}$.

489: %\end{itemize}

490: %So in summary, 

491: We assume  this  condition

492: is verified, so the principle

493: contribution to 

494: $[m^2_{ \snu}]_{ij}$ is

495: $\propto  y_k^2 {V}_{Lki}^* {V}_{Lkj}$.

496: 

497: 

498: 

499: Table \ref{tabmueg}  lists the current

500: upper limits on the $\mu \rightarrow e \gamma$,

501:  $\tau \rightarrow e \gamma$ and  $\tau \rightarrow \mu \gamma$

502: branching ratios, and the corresponding bounds on

503: $V_{L3j}$ that can be estimated from

504: eqn (\ref{BR}) \cite{Gabbiani:1989rb}.  

505: It also contains the hoped for sensitivity

506: of some anticipated rare decay searches. Colliders

507: could also be sensitive to flavour violating

508: slepton masses \cite{Arkani-Hamed:1996au}.

509: 

510: Leptogenesis will depend on angles of $V_L$. In the remainder

511: of the paper,  we will claim that ``leptogenesis predicts

512: an observable  $BR(\ell_j \rightarrow \ell_i \gamma)$'', if

513: the $V_L$ elements required exceeed the last column of

514: table \ref{tabmueg} (last three rows), with $y_3 = 1$.

515: It is clear that the branching ratios can be decreased, for

516: fixed $V_L$, by decreasing

517: $y_3$ and adjusting weak scale SUSY parameters. However,

518: if SUSY is discovered, these masses and mixing angles 

519: could in principle be measured at colliders, and

520: some information about the magnitude of $y_3$

521: could be available through the renormalisation group equations

522: \cite{Baer:2000hx}. This assumption of universal soft

523: masses at the scale $M_X$ will not be crucial  for our

524: conclusions.  Additional contributions to the off-diagonal

525: soft masses are unlikely to cancel the ones we discuss, so

526: the lower bounds we set on LFV branching ratios, from

527: requiring leptogenesis to work, should remain. 

528: 

529: 

530: 

531: \begin{table}[hbt]

532: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|}

533: \hline

534: \hline

535: $BR(\mu \rightarrow e \gamma) < 1.2 \times 10^{-11}$ 

536: %&

537: %$\delta_{\mu e} <  2 \times 10^{-3} 

538: %$%\left(\frac{m_{SUSY}}{300 ~{\rm GeV}} \right)^2 

539: %\left(\frac{ 10}{\tan \beta} \right)$

540: &$ y_3^2 V_{L32}^* V_{L31} < .006 $ \\

541: (PSI)  & \\

542: \hline

543: $BR(\tau \rightarrow e \gamma) < 2.7 \times 10^{-6}$ %&

544: %$\delta_{\tau e} < 4

545: %$%\left(\frac{m_{SUSY}}{300 ~{\rm GeV}} \right)^2 

546: %\left(\frac{ 10}{\tan \beta} \right)

547: & $ y_3^2V_{L33}^* V_{L31} \lappeq 12$ 

548: \\

549: (CLEO)  & \\

550: \hline

551: $BR(\tau \rightarrow \mu \gamma) < 1.1 \times 10^{-6}$ 

552: %&$

553: %\delta_{\tau \mu } <  3

554: %$%\left(\frac{m_{SUSY}}{300 ~{\rm GeV}} \right)^2 

555: %\left(\frac{ 10}{\tan \beta} \right)

556: & $ y_3^2 V_{L33}^* V_{L32} < 9 $

557: \\

558: (CLEO) &  \\

559: \hline

560: % & & \\

561: \hline

562: $BR(\mu \rightarrow e \gamma) \sim 10^{-14 \div 15}$ %&$

563: %\delta_{\mu e} \sim  10^{-4} 

564: %\left(\frac{m_{SUSY}}{300 ~{\rm GeV}} \right)^2 

565: %\left(\frac{ 10}{\tan \beta} \right)

566: %$

567: & $ y_3^2 V_{L32}^* V_{L31} \sim 3 \times 10^{-4} $\\

568: (PSI/nufact) &  \\

569: \hline

570: $BR(\tau \rightarrow e \gamma) \sim 10^{-9}$ %&$

571: %\delta_{\tau e} \sim  .07

572: %\left(\frac{m_{SUSY}}{300 ~{\rm GeV}} \right)^2 

573: %\left(\frac{ 10}{\tan \beta} \right)

574: %$

575: & $y_3^2 V_{L33}^* V_{L31} \sim 0.2$ \\

576: (BABAR/BELLE)  & \\

577: \hline

578: $BR(\tau \rightarrow \mu \gamma) \sim 10^{-9 } $%&$

579: %\delta_{\tau \mu } \sim .07

580: %\left(\frac{m_{SUSY}}{300 ~{\rm GeV}} \right)^2 

581: %\left(\frac{ 10}{\tan \beta} \right)

582: %$

583: &$y_3^2  V_{L33}^* V_{L32} \sim 0.2$ \\

584: (BABAR/BELLE/LHC)  & \\

585: \hline

586: \hline

587: \end{tabular}

588: \label{tabmueg}

589: \vskip 0.5cm

590: \caption{

591: Current limits \cite{Brooks:1999pu} 

592:  and hoped for sensitivities \cite{dreams} of some experiments.

593: The numerical bounds in the  right  column are multiplied by

594: $\left(\frac{m_{SUSY}}{100 ~{\rm GeV}} \right)^2 

595: \left(\frac{ 2}{\tan \beta} \right)$. If $\tan \beta$ is large,

596: these rare decays are sensitive to smaller angles in $V_L$ \cite{tomas}. }

597: \end{table}

598: 

599: 

600: 

601: Various CP violating phases

602: in  the neutrino and slepton mass matrices

603: could be measured in upcoming experiments.

604: However,  the experimental sensitivity to the phases

605: depends on the magnitude of unmeasured real parameters.

606: Anticipated $0 \nu \beta \beta$ experiments

607: may be sensitive to a maximal phase $\phi'$, for

608: the neutrino mass spectrum we consider.

609: The minimum value of the angle $\delta$ that could

610: be measured at a $\nu$ factory depends 

611: on $\Delta m^2_{32},\Delta m^2_{21}$ and $\theta_{13}$ 

612: (see $ e.g.$ \cite{Cervera:2000kp}),

613: so there is no  forseeable  clear upper bound.

614: The imaginary part of the product of off-diagonal slepton

615: masses $ \Im \{[m_{\snu}^2]_{12}[m_{\snu}^2]_{23}[m_{\snu}^2]_{31} \}

616: = \tilde{J} (\tilde{m}_2^2 - \tilde{m}_1^2) 

617: (\tilde{m}_3^2 - \tilde{m}_2^2) (\tilde{m}_1^2 - \tilde{m}_3^2) $

618: could be measured in slepton flavour oscillations

619:  down to $\tilde{J} = 10^{-3}$ \cite{Arkani-Hamed:1997km}.

620:  $\tilde{J}$ depends on the magnitude of the $[m_{\snu}^2]_{ij}$

621: as well as their phases, so all the phases

622: in the (s)lepton sector can be of order 1.

623: 

624: 

625: 

626: \subsection{Review of the parametrisation}

627: \label{revdi1}

628: 

629:  It was shown in \cite{Davidson:2001zk} that the seesaw can

630: be parametrised from the bottom-up, using

631:  the neutrino and sneutrino mass matrices. 

632:  See \cite{Ellis:2002fe} for  applications.

633: A similar phenomenological parametrisation of

634: the non-SUSY seesaw \cite{Broncano:2002rw} could be used,

635: if the scale $M$ of right-handed masses was low enough to

636: measure dimension six operators $\propto 1/M^2$.

637: We briefly review  \cite{Davidson:2001zk}  here. 

638: 

639: It is in principle possible to extract

640: the matrix 

641: \beq

642: P \equiv {\bf Y^{\dagger}_{\nu}}  {\bf Y_\nu} = V_L^{\dagger} D_Y^2 V_L

643: \label{step1}

644: \eeq 

645: from its contribution to the renormalisation group

646: running of the slepton mass matrix. 

647: %eqn (\ref{softafterRG}), although t

648: This relies

649: critically on having universal soft masses at the

650: GUT scale, and on very  precise measurements of  sneutrino masses

651: and decays. It is therefore unrealistic\cite{Davidson:2001zk}.

652: % are difficult to measure precisely 

653: %\cite{Baer:2000hx}.

654: However, since SUSY has not yet been discovered, 

655: $D_Y$ and $V_L$ can be used as  inputs

656: in a ``bottom-up'' parametrisation of the seesaw.

657: 

658: 

659: The aim is to determine  ${\bf Y_{\nu}}$ and ${\cal M}$ from 

660: $[m_\nu]$ and $P$.

661: $V_L$ and $D_Y$ can be determined from $P$, 

662: and used to strip the Yukawas off $[m_\nu]$:

663: \beq

664: \label{step2}

665: D_Y^{-1} V_L^* \frac{[m_\nu]}{v_u^2} V^{\dagger}_L D_Y^{-1} = 

666: V_R^*  D_{\cal M}^{-1} V^{\dagger}_R = {\cal M}^{-1} ,

667: \eeq

668: where the left hand side of this equation is known ($[m_\nu]$ is one of 

669: the inputs, and $V_L$ and $D_Y$ were obtained 

670: from eq. (\ref{step1})). Therefore, $V_R$ and

671:  $D_{\cal M}$ can also be determined.

672: This shows  that, working in the basis where the charged 

673: lepton Yukawa coupling, ${\bf Y_e}$,

674: the right-handed Majorana mass matrix, ${\cal M}$, and the gauge

675: interactions are all diagonal, it is possible 

676: to determine {\it uniquely}

677:  the  heavy Majorana mass matrix, ${\cal M}$, and the neutrino Yukawa 

678: coupling, ${\bf Y}_\nu = V_R^{\dagger}  D_Y V_L$,

679: starting  from $[m_\nu]$ and ${\bf Y}^{\dagger}_{\nu} {\bf Y_{\nu}}$. 

680: 

681: 

682: 

683: 

684: \subsection{Leptogenesis, and the upper bound}

685: \label{lepto+ub}

686: 

687: The see-saw mechanism  provides a natural framework to generate the baryon

688: asymmetry of the Universe, defined as 

689: $\eta_B = (n_B - n_{\bar B})/s$, where $s$ is the entropy

690: density.

691: As was shown by Sakharov\cite{Sakharov:1967dj}, 

692: generating a baryon asymmetry requires baryon number violation, 

693: C and CP violation, and a deviation from thermal equilibrium.

694: These three conditions are fulfilled in the out-of-equilibrium

695: decay of the right-handed neutrinos and sneutrinos in the early 

696: Universe.

697: In the remainder of this paper,

698: ``right-handed neutrinos'', and the shorthand notation

699: $\nu_R$, refer to  both  right-handed neutrinos and right-handed

700: sneutrinos.

701: 

702: 

703: In gravity mediated SUSY breaking scenarios,

704: these is an upper bound from gravitino production

705: on the reheat temperature  $T_{RH}$ of

706: the Universe after inflation.

707: The gravitino has a mass  $m_{3/2} \sim m_{SUSY}$  and only

708: gravitational interactions with SM particles, so it is very

709: weakly coupled, and long-lived. If a significant number of them decay

710: at or after Big Bang Nucleosynthesis, 

711: they could disrupt the predicted abundances

712: of light elements\cite{gravitino1,gravitino2}.

713: Gravitinos

714: can be created by various mechanisms

715: in the early Universe, 

716: such as scattering in the thermal plasma\cite{gravitino1,gravitino2}, 

717: or direct coupling to the inflaton (preheating) \cite{gravitino3,gravitino4}.

718: The latter is effective, but avoidable \cite{gravitino4}.

719: The number density of gravitinos produced in 

720: scattering increases with the plasma

721: temperature, so the bound on $n_{3/2}$ sets an

722: upper bound on the reheat temperature of the Universe after

723: inflation of

724: \beq

725: T_{RH} \lappeq  10^{9}  \rightarrow 10^{12} GeV 

726: \label{GRAV}

727: \eeq

728: (corresponding to $m_{3/2} \sim 100 $ GeV $ \rightarrow 10$ TeV

729: \cite{gravitino2}).  This bound assumes that the gravitino decays;

730: there are models where the gravitino is the LSP,

731: which allow $T_{RH} \lappeq   10^{11}$ GeV \cite{Berezinsky:kf}.

732: 

733: Let us briefly review the mechanism of generation of the BAU through

734: leptogenesis \cite{Fukugita:1986hr,review}.

735: At the end of inflation, a certain number density of right-handed

736: neutrinos, $n_{\nu_R}$, is somehow produced.

737: If these right-handed neutrinos  $\nu_{R_i}$  decay

738:  out of equilibrium,   a lepton asymmetry can be  created.

739: The subsequent ratio of the lepton excess to the entropy

740: density $s$ is given by

741: \beq

742: \eta_{L} = \frac{n_\ell - n_{\bar \ell}}{s} = 

743:  \sum_i \frac{n_{ \nu_{R_i} } }{s} ~ \epsilon_i ~ 

744: \tilde{d}_i.

745: \label{etaL}

746: \eeq

747: The CP-violating parameter

748: $\epsilon_i$

749: is determined by the particle physics model that gives

750: the masses and couplings of the $\nu_R$.

751: The value of $n_{\nu_R}/s$ depends on the

752:  mechanism to generate the right-handed neutrinos. We assume

753: the $\nu_{R_1}$ are generated by Yukawa scattering

754: in the thermal plasma, in which case

755: $n_{\nu_R}/s \lappeq  n^{eq}/s \simeq .2/g_*$,  where $n^{eq}$ is 

756: the  equilibrium number density of massless particles, and  $g_*

757: \simeq 230$  is the number of propagating states in the supersymmetric

758: plasma \footnote{in our conventions,

759: $n_{\nu_R} = (n_{\nu_R}+ n_{\bar{\nu}_R})/2$.

760:  The $.2$ is an approximation

761: to $g_*n^{eq}/s = \zeta(3) 135/(8 \pi^4)$ .}. 

762:  This also implies an upper bound on the $\nu_R$

763: mass: $M_1 \lappeq T_{RH}$. 

764:   Finally, $\tilde{d}_1$ is the

765: fraction of the produced asymmetry that survives

766:  after $\nu_R$ decay.  To ensure $\tilde{d}_1

767: \sim 1$, lepton number violating interactions (decays, inverse decays

768: and scatterings) must be out of equilibrium when the right-handed

769: neutrinos decay. In the case of

770: the lightest right-handed neutrino  $\nu_{R_1}$,

771: this corresponds approximately to

772: \beq

773:  K = \frac{\Gamma_{D_1}}{ 2H|_{T\simeq M_1}} < 1

774: \label{K}

775: \eeq

776: where $H$ is the Hubble parameter at the temperature

777: $T$, and $\Gamma_{D_1}$ the $\nu_{R_1}$ decay rate. 

778: There are two competing

779: requirements on the $\nu_R$ parameters---the

780: couplings must be large enough to produce a thermal

781: distribution, but small enough that the $\nu_R$

782: decay out of equilibrium.  Thermal leptogenesis

783: has been carefully studied in 

784: \cite{Plumacher:1997kc}\footnote{See \cite{Barbieri:2000ma}

785: for a detailed analysis of thermal leptogenesis

786: at higher temperatures, including the effects of

787: $\nu_{R2}$ and $\nu_{R3}$}. 

788: The numerical results of \cite{Plumacher:1997kc,review} 

789: suggest that $n_{\nu_R} \tilde{d}_1 /s < n_{\nu_R}^{eq}/s$: 

790: either $n_{\nu_R}$ does

791: not attain its equilibrium 

792: number density, or lepton number

793: violating interactions wash out a significant

794: fraction of the asymmetry as it is produced.

795: Defining an effective light neutrino ``mass''

796: \beq

797: \frac{\tilde{m}_1}{v_u^2} =  8 \pi

798: \frac{\Gamma_{D_1}}{ M_1^2}  = 

799: \frac{({\bf Y_{\nu} Y_{\nu}}^{\dagger})_{11}}{M_1}

800: \label{mtilde}

801: \eeq

802: %The parameters where  

803: $n_{\nu_R} \tilde{d}_1 /s \gappeq 10^{-4}$ is realised

804: for

805: \cite{BdP}

806: %3 \times 10^{-19}  {\rm GeV}^{-1} 

807: $5  \times 10^{-5} ~ {\rm eV}

808: \lappeq \tilde{m}_1 \lappeq 

809:  10^{-2}% {\rm GeV}^{-1}

810: $ eV.

811: The precise numerical bound on $\widetilde m_1$ 

812:  depends on $M_1$, and can be found

813: in \cite{Plumacher:1997kc}.

814: 

815: For %$\tilde{\kappa}_1 \gappeq 10^{-17}$ GeV$^{-1}$ 

816: $\tilde{m}_1 > 10^{-4}$ eV and $M_1 \sim 10^9$ GeV,

817: the dilution factor $d_1$  can be approximated

818: \cite{Asaka:2002zu,K+T}

819: \beq

820: \frac{n_{\nu_R} \tilde{d}_1}{ s}

821: %= \frac{45 \tilde{d}_1}{ \pi^4 g_*}  

822: \equiv d_1 \simeq

823: \frac{1}{6 g_*} \frac{1}{\sqrt{

824: %910\tilde{m}_1/eV)^2 

825: K^2+ 1}}

826: %=\frac{1}{10 g_*} \frac{1}

827: %{\sqrt{(1.93 \times10^{16} \tilde{\kappa}_1 GeV)^2 + 9}}

828: \label{d1}

829: \eeq

830: with

831: $K 

832: \simeq 910\tilde{m}_1/eV  %= 1.93 \times10^{16} \tilde{\kappa}_1 GeV 

833: $ from eqn (\ref{K}).

834: This is a

835: slight modification of the approximation, 

836: to ensure that it falls between the $M_1 = 10^8$ GeV and

837: $10^{10}$ GeV lines of \cite{review},  in the relevant range

838: $.001$ eV $ \lappeq \tilde{m}_1  \lappeq .1 $ eV. 

839: The exact numerical factor is important,

840: because it is difficult to get

841: a large enough asymmetry. Multiplying $d_1$ by a factor

842: of a few significantly increases the parameter space

843: where thermal leptogenesis can work. 

844: The approximation (\ref{d1})  neglects the decrease in $d_1$

845: at  $\tilde{m}_1 \lappeq 10^{-4}$ eV, which is due to underproduction

846: of $\nu_{R_i}$ in scattering. This is reasonable,

847:  because $\tilde{m}_1 \geq m_1$ \cite{di2}, 

848: and we take $m_1 = m_2/10$.

849: 

850: 

851: The last step is the transformation of the lepton asymmetry into a

852: baryon asymmetry by non-perturbative B+L violating (sphaleron)

853: processes

854: \cite{Kuzmin:1985mm}, giving 

855: \beq

856: \eta_{B} ={C} \eta_{B-L} =(3-9) \times 10^{-11},

857: \label{BAU}

858: \eeq

859: where $C = 8/23$  in the Minimal

860: Supersymmetric Standard Model.

861: Big Bang  Nucleosynthesis 

862: constrains $\eta_B$ to lie in the range of eqn (\ref{BAU}).

863: In a flat Universe,  the CMB determines

864:  $\eta_B \simeq (0.75  - 1.0) \times 10^{-10}$ \cite{boom}.

865: The wider BBN range is used in this paper, because

866: it is difficult to generate a large enough  $\eta_B$.

867: 

868: The CP asymmetry  can be approximated as

869: \bea

870: \epsilon_1 &\simeq&  -\frac{3}{8 \pi} \frac{1}{[{\bf Y_{\nu} Y_{\nu}}

871: ^{\dagger}]_{11}} \sum_j {\rm {Im}} \left\{ [{\bf Y_{\nu}

872: Y_{\nu}^{\dagger}}]^2_{1j} \right\} \left( \frac{M_1}{M_j} \right) \\

873: &=& - \frac{3}{8 \pi}\frac{M_1}

874: {[{\bf Y_{\nu} Y_{\nu}}^{\dagger}]_{11}} {\rm {Im}} \left\{ [{\bf

875: Y_{\nu}} \frac{[m_\nu]^{\dagger}}{v_u^2} {\bf Y_{\nu}}^T]_{11} \right\}.

876: \label{eps1}

877: \eea

878: if the lepton asymmetry is  generated in the decay of the

879: lightest right-handed neutrino, and if the masses 

880: of the right-handed neutrinos are  hierarchical

881: \footnote{If the hierarchy in $Y_{\nu}$ is

882: similar to that of the quarks and charged leptons, then

883: a hierarchy in the $M_i$ is natural.}.

884: Were the asymmetry produced in the decay of

885: $\nu_{R_2}$ or $\nu_{R_3}$, it would depend on

886: a different combination of  couplings. 

887: 

888: 

889: 

890: It is straightforward to show \cite{di2} that

891: if $\epsilon_1$ is written

892: \bea

893: |\epsilon_1|  = \frac{3}{8 \pi v_u^2}  M_1 {m_3} \delta_{HMY}

894: \label{bound}

895: \eea

896: then eqn (\ref{eps1}) implies the upper bound 

897: $\delta_{HMY} \leq 1$. The numerical results of

898: \cite{Hirsch:2001dg,Ellis:2002xg} agree with this

899: constraint.  

900: Using eqns (\ref{etaL}) and (\ref{BAU}),

901: this can be transformed into a lower bound

902: on $M_1$:

903: \bea

904: \label{boundM1}

905: M_1 \gsim  \frac{\eta_B}{C} 

906: \left[ \frac{n_{\nu_R}+ n_{\tilde{\nu}_R}}{s} ~ 

907: \frac{3}{8 \pi} \frac{m_3}{v_u^2} ~ \tilde{d}_1 \right]^{-1}

908:  = 

909:  10^{9} \left(\frac{\eta_B}{3 \times 10^{-11}} \right)

910: \left(\frac{.05 eV}{m_3} \right)

911: \left(\frac{4 \times 10^{-4}}{{d}_1 }\right)

912: {\rm ~GeV} . 

913: \eea

914:  % If the $\nu_R$ are thermally produced,

915:  Setting $m_3$ to its $90\% $ C.L. upper bound

916: 0.063 eV, and

917: ${d}_1$ to its maximum value $n^{eq}/s \simeq 45/(2 \pi^4 g_*)$,

918: implies $M_1 > 3 \times 10^8$ GeV.

919: 

920: This lower bound on $M_1$ comes very close to the gravitino bound

921: eqn (\ref{GRAV}) on the reheat temperature. Thermal

922: production of the $\nu_R$ requires $M_1 \lappeq T_{RH}$

923: so either $\epsilon$ is close to its upper bound, or

924: $M_1 ,T_{RH} > 10^9$ GeV, or thermal leptogenesis does not

925: generate the observed baryon asymmetry. We explore

926: the first option, and somewhat the second. The third

927: possibility, non-thermal $\nu_R$ production, has been

928: discussed by many authors (see {\it e.g.} references of

929: \cite{bdps}).

930: 

931: 

932: 

933: 

934: 

935: 

936: \section{Analytic approximations for $\delta_{HMY}$, $M_1$, $\tilde{m}_1$}

937: \label{secapprox}

938: 

939: At least three inputs are required to parametrise thermal 

940: leptogenesis \cite{Plumacher:1997kc,review,BdP}.

941: A possible choice would be the mass $M_1$  and

942: decay rate $\propto \tilde{m}_1$ of the $\nu_R$, and

943: the CP asymmetry $\epsilon_1$. 

944: However, $\epsilon \propto M_1$,  so we

945: use $M_1$,  $\tilde{m}_1$ and  $\delta_{HMY}$

946: (introduced by Hamaguchi, Murayama and Yanagida),

947: where  $\delta_{HMY}$ measures

948: how close $\epsilon$ comes to saturating its

949: upper bound. Note however, that $\delta_{HMY}$ is not a

950: CP phase.

951: 

952: 

953: This section contains simple analytic approximations

954: indicating the dependence of  leptogenesis parameters 

955:  on measurable  quantities, such as

956: neutrino masses and rare  LFV decays. We used this approximation,

957: with attention to the phases, in \cite{Davidson:2002em}.

958: A similar, somewhat simplified version was introduced

959: in \cite{Branco:2002kt}.

960: 

961: 

962: The inputs for the analytic approximation are:

963: \beq

964:  V_L, ~D_Y,~ U, ~[m_\nu]

965: \eeq

966: Two of the angles of $U$ are known, and the CHOOZ

967: angle is bounded above. The eigenvalues $y_i$  of

968: the neutrino Yukawa matrix are  unknown,

969: and realistically cannot  be determined from

970: the sneutrino mass matrix.

971: It seems reasonable to assume a hierarchy for the

972: $\{ y_i \}$, since we measure hierarchical Yukawas

973: for the quarks and charged leptons.

974: The  $y_i$ remain

975: as variables in the equations; we will discover

976: that only the smallest eigenvalue $y_1$ is

977: relevant, and can be ``traded'' for the mass

978: $M_1$ of

979: the lightest $\nu_R$, which is tightly

980: constrained.

981: $V_L$ contains three unknown angles, related

982: to the lepton flavour violating decays

983: $\ell_j \rightarrow \ell_i \gamma$.

984:  There are  three phases in both  U and $V_L$,

985: all are unknown, and 

986: assumed to be  chosen   to maximise the baryon asymmetry.

987: 

988: 

989: The lightest eigenvalue and 

990: corresponding eigenvector of

991: $\cal M$ are estimated in the first Appendix,

992: which also contains some simple (but illuminating)

993: 3-d plots of leptogenesis parameters. 

994: The mass of the lightest $\nu_R$ is

995: \beq

996: |M_1| \simeq \frac{y_1^2v_u^2 }{|W^2_{1j} m_j| }.

997: \label{M1ap}

998: \eeq

999: where the matrix $W=V_L U$ is 

1000: the rotation from the basis where the $\nu_L$ masses

1001: are diagonal to the basis where the neutrino Yukawa  matrix

1002: ${\bf Y^{\dagger}_{\nu}} {\bf Y_\nu}$ is diagonal.

1003:  There are three limiting values for $M_1$, 

1004: corresponding to $M_1 \simeq y_1^2v_u^2/m_i$:

1005: $M_1 \rightarrow  y_1^2v_u^2/m_3$ when $W_{13} \rightarrow 1$,

1006: $M_1 \rightarrow  y_1^2v_u^2/m_1$ when $W_{13}, W_{12} \rightarrow 0$,

1007: and   

1008: $M_1 \rightarrow  y_1^2v_u^2/m_2$ when $W_{13}<m_2/m_3 $, 

1009: $W_{12} \rightarrow 1$. This is easy to

1010: see in  figure \ref{figM1}.

1011: 

1012: 

1013: $M_1$ is the only quantity relevant for leptogenesis

1014: which depends on $y_1$.

1015: The latter is  effectively unmeasurable; it is constrained

1016: by theoretical expectations, and by the requirement

1017: that the analytic approximation be self-consistent.

1018: Theoretically,  the eigenvalues of

1019: $Y_\nu$ are expected to be hierarchical, and of order the quark

1020: or lepton Yukawas, so 

1021: figure \ref{figM1} is plotted 

1022: with  $y_1 \sim 10^{-4}$. The approximations of

1023: this section  are

1024: consistent,  provided that the dropped $O(y_1^2, y_1^2/y_2^2)$ terms 

1025:   are smaller than the  $O(m_1/m_3)$ terms

1026: which are kept. This is the case for $y_1 \sim 10^{-4}$.

1027: Since $y_1$ is unmeasurable and only weakly

1028: constrained, it can be adjusted, as function of $m_i$ and $W_{1j}$,

1029: to obtain a value for $M_1$ where leptogenesis

1030: could work. In fact,

1031: since $M_1 \propto y_1^2$ is tightly constrained,

1032: the requirement $M_1 \sim 10^{9} $ GeV

1033:  ``determines'' $y_1$.

1034: 

1035: 

1036: 

1037: 

1038: 

1039: The eigenvector  (\ref{eigenvec1}) can be used  

1040: to evaluate  the $\nu_{R1}$ decay rate: eqn. (\ref{mtilde}) becomes

1041: \beq

1042: \tilde{m}_1 \simeq \frac{ \sum_k |W_{1k}^{2}| m_{_k}^2 }

1043: { |\sum_n W_{1n}^{2} m_{_n}| } 

1044: \label{tildekappaap}

1045: \eeq

1046:  $\tilde{m}_1$ has various limits:  $\tilde{m}_1

1047: \rightarrow m_3$ for $W_{13}$ large, 

1048: $\tilde{m}_1

1049: \rightarrow m_2$ for $W_{12}$ large and $W_{13} < m_2/m_3$ ,

1050: and $\tilde{m}_1

1051: \rightarrow m_1$ when 

1052: $W \rightarrow  1$.

1053: This is easy to see from the RHS of figure \ref{figM1}.

1054:  In the $W \rightarrow  1$

1055: limit, washout is minimised,  because  the dilution

1056: factor $d_1 \propto 1/\tilde{m}_1$.

1057: 

1058: 

1059: 

1060: To saturate the upper bound (\ref{bound}),

1061: $\delta_{HMY}$ needs to approach 1. 

1062: Evaluating eq. (\ref{eps1}) with  the eigenvector(\ref{eigenvec1}),

1063: gives 

1064: \bea

1065: \delta_{HMY} &=&

1066: \frac{ {\rm Im} \left\{  \sum_{\ell,m} W_{1\ell}^{2} m_{\ell}^3

1067:    W_{1m}^{*2} m_{m} \right\} }

1068:  { m_3  |\sum_n W_{1n}^{2} m_{n}| (\sum_j |W_{1j}|^2  m_j^2)} 

1069: \nonumber \\

1070: &\simeq& \frac{  |W_{11}W_{12}|^{2} m_{1} m_{2}^3

1071: + |W_{11}W_{13}|^{2} m_{1}  m_{3}^3 

1072: +  |W_{12}W_{13}|^{2} m_{2}  m_{3}^3 }

1073:  { m_3 (\sum_n |W_{1n}|^2  m_n)  (\sum_j |W_{1j}|^2  m_j^2)}

1074: \label{deltaapprox}

1075: \eea

1076: This paper is about  the relation

1077: between real low energy observables (such

1078: as $BR(\mu \rightarrow e \gamma)$) and the baryon asymmetry,

1079: so scant attention will be paid to the phases in  $U$ and $ V_L$.

1080:  For most of parameter space \footnote{

1081: everywhere but when the three terms upstairs have equal

1082: magnitude}, the phases can be chosen such that $\delta_{HMY}$

1083: is larger than the second expression in eqn (\ref{deltaapprox}).

1084: 

1085: This second expression 

1086: is plotted on the LHS in figure \ref{figeps3d}. 

1087:  $\delta_{HMY}$ can approach 1 if the numerator

1088: (upstairs) is dominated by  $m_3^3 m_2 $ or by

1089: $m_3^3 m_1 $. This is

1090: because of the $m_3$ in the denominator. 

1091: If the $m_3^3 m_1 $ dominates

1092: upstairs, then $\delta_{HMY}$ will approach 1 when $W_{1j}^2 m_j

1093: \simeq W_{11}^2 m_1$ and  $|W_{1n}|^2 m_n^2

1094: \simeq |W_{13}|^2 m_3^2$, or equivalently, when

1095: \beq

1096: \frac{m_1^2}{m_3^2}< W_{13}^2 < \frac{m_1}{m_3}

1097: \, \,\, \, and  \, \,\, \,

1098: W_{12}^2 < \frac{m_1}{m_2}, \frac{m_2^2}{m_3^2}

1099: \label{aaa}

1100: \eeq

1101: This corresponds to the highest ridge in $\delta_{HMY}$ in

1102: figure \ref{figeps3d}. Notice

1103: that the position of the peak depends sensitively on  the lightest

1104: neutrino mass $m_1$.

1105: 

1106: If  $m_3^3 m_2 $ dominates

1107: upstairs, then $\delta_{HMY} \rightarrow 1$ 

1108:  when 

1109: %$W_{1j}^2 m_j

1110: %\simeq W_{11}^2 m_1$ and  $|W_{1n}|^2 m_n^2

1111: %\simeq |W_{13}|^2 m_3^2$, or equivalently, when

1112: \beq

1113: W_{12}^2 \frac{m_2^2}{m_3^2 } < W_{13}^2 < W_{12}^2 

1114: \frac{m_2}{m_3}

1115: \, \,\, \, and  \, \,\, \,

1116: W_{11}^2 < W_{12}^2\frac{m_2}{m_1} , W_{13}^2

1117: \frac{m_3^2}{m_1^2}

1118: \label{aab}

1119: \eeq

1120: This corresponds to the shoulder at slightly large $W_{13}$,

1121: which is cut by $W_{12} \sim 1$ in the LH plot of figure 

1122: \ref{figeps3d}. 

1123: 

1124: Finally, for $W_{13}$ very small, $\delta \rightarrow m_2/m_3 \sim0.1$ along

1125: the ridge at $W_{12} \sim 0.1$. This corresponds

1126: to the $m_2^3 m_1$ term dominating upstairs,

1127: and arises when

1128: \beq

1129: W_{11}^2 \frac{m_1^2}{m_2^2 } < W_{12}^2 < \frac{m_1}{m_2 }W_{11}^2 

1130: \, \,\, \, and  \, \,\, \,

1131: W_{13}^2 < W_{11}^2\frac{m_1}{m_3} , W_{12}^2

1132: \frac{m_2^2}{m_3^2}

1133: \label{aac}

1134: \eeq

1135: Although $\delta_{HMY}$ does not reach its maximum value for

1136: these parameters, the washout is small,

1137: so the baryon asymmetry generated is only slightly

1138: too small. As we will

1139: see in figure \ref{figcont}, 

1140: it is large enough if $M_1,T_{RH} \sim 10^{10}$ GeV

1141: are allowed. 

1142: 

1143: 

1144: 

1145: 

1146: \section{When does thermal leptogenesis work?}

1147: \label{when}

1148: 

1149: The baryon asymmetry can be approximated as

1150: \beq

1151: \eta_B \simeq \frac{8 d_1}{23} 

1152: \frac{3}{8 \pi v_u^2} M_1 m_3 \delta_{HMY}

1153: \label{etaBap}

1154: \eeq

1155: by combining eqns (\ref{etaL}), (\ref{BAU}), and    (\ref{bound}).

1156:  This is plotted in figure

1157: \ref{figetaB}, which  suggests that $\eta_B$ $can$ be large

1158: enough. 

1159: 

1160: The issue is whether a large enough

1161: asymmetry can be generated, so

1162:  the observational upper limit on

1163: $\eta_B$ is unimportant. Also, the asymmetry calculated

1164: here is the upper bound corresponding to

1165: maximal CP violation, so it can be

1166: reduced by taking smaller phases.

1167: We use the one-$\sigma$ observational lower bound

1168: on $\eta_B$ from nucleosynthesis:

1169:  $ \eta_B \gappeq  3 \times 10^{-11}$.

1170: To obtain a large enough baryon asymmetry by

1171: thermal leptogenesis,

1172: the parameters $M_1$, $\delta_{HMY}$, and  $d_1$

1173:  must occupy narrow ranges. 

1174: The washout effects

1175: are minimised when the $\nu_R$ decay rate is small, which corresponds to

1176: $W \rightarrow 1$. In this case, 

1177: $n_{\nu_R} \tilde{d}_1/s = d_1 < 10^{-3}$

1178: which implies the lower bound 

1179:  $\epsilon \gappeq 10^{-7}$. 

1180: (If   $\epsilon  \gappeq 10^{-6}$ can be obtained, then

1181: $  d_1 \sim  10^{-4} $ is large enough.)

1182: Eqn (\ref{bound}) implies a lower bound

1183: on $M_1$  to get $\epsilon_1$ large enough. In addition,

1184: $M_1 \lappeq T_{RH}$ is required for

1185: thermal production; the canonical SUSY gravitino bound

1186: is  $T_{RH} \lsim 10^9$ GeV, so 

1187: $

1188: 5 \epsilon  \times 10^{15} {\rm GeV} \lappeq M_1 \lappeq T_{RH}

1189: $. Since  $\epsilon \simeq 10^{-7}$ is required,

1190: for   $M_1 \lsim 10^9$ GeV

1191: one must have  $\delta_{HMY} \rightarrow 1$.

1192: The parameter space of choice can be

1193: summarised as

1194: \bea

1195: few \times 10^{8} GeV & \lappeq M_1 \lappeq &  few \times 10^{9} GeV  

1196: \nonumber \\

1197: % & \lappeq \tilde{\kappa}_1 \lappeq & \\

1198:   d_1 & \rightarrow &  \frac{45}{2 \pi^4 g_* } ~~  , g_* = 230 

1199: \label{desire} \\

1200:  \delta_{HMY} & \rightarrow & 1

1201: \nonumber

1202: \eea 

1203: As can be seen from figures \ref{figM1} --- \ref{figeps3d},

1204: it is difficult to simultaneously satisfy these

1205: conditions. $M_1$ and $d_1$ increase as $W_{13}, W_{12} \rightarrow 0$,

1206: but $\delta$ decreases. 

1207: 

1208: 

1209: 

1210:  \begin{figure}[ht]

1211: %\vspace{4cm}

1212: %\epsfxsize=6cm\epsfbox{etaBww.eps}

1213: %\epsfxsize=6cm\epsfbox{etaBwc.eps}

1214: \includegraphics[width=7cm]{etaBww.eps}

1215: \includegraphics[width=7cm]{etaBwc.eps}

1216: \caption{3-d plot of $\eta_B= 8 d_1 \epsilon /23$, for

1217:  central neutrino mass values, $m_1 = m_2/10$

1218:  and $ M_1 = 10^9$ GeV.

1219: On the left, $\eta_B$ is plotted  as a function of 

1220: $\omega_{12} \simeq log [ W_{12} ]$ and $\omega_{13} \simeq log [ W_{13} ]$.

1221: On the right, $\eta_B$ is plotted as a function of 

1222: $\omega_{13}$ and 

1223: $\chi_{12}$, defined such that $W_{12} = \cos \theta_{W13} \sin

1224: ( \theta_{sol} - 10^{\chi_{12}} \pi/2 )$. The RHS measure

1225: on parameter space is more sensible, see the

1226: discussion after eqn(\ref{W12}). }

1227: \protect\label{figetaB}

1228: %\vspace{4cm}

1229: \end{figure}

1230: 

1231: 

1232: 

1233: The analytic approximations of the previous section

1234: show that the baryon asymmetry depends on $U$ and the first row

1235: of $V_L$ (via $W_{1j}$), on the light neutrino masses

1236: $m_i$,  on the lightest neutrino Yukawa $y_1$,

1237: and on phases.

1238: These real parameters are known, or

1239: could  be experimentally  constrained

1240: in the next 20 years---with the exception of

1241: $m_1$, $ y_1$, and $V_{L12}$.

1242:  For

1243: the purposes of this paper, 

1244:  $V_{L12}$ is included with the measurable angles,

1245: and  $ ~y_1$ is $determined$ as a function of  $m_1$,

1246: by requiring that $M_1$  be in the range (\ref{desire}) 

1247: where leptogenesis could work.

1248: The baryon asymmetry then becomes independent

1249: of $y_1$. Some subtle dependence on

1250: $m_1$ remains:

1251: the area and location of the high ridge in

1252: figure \ref{figetaB} depend on $m_1$, but

1253: the baryon asymmetry and low energy

1254: footprints do not.

1255: This is  discussed in the Appendix about $m_1$.

1256: 

1257: Notice also that it could be expected to have a similar

1258: hierarchy in the neutrino Yukawas as in the other fermions,

1259: in which case $y_1  \sim h_u, h_e$ or $h_d$.  This gives

1260: \beq

1261: M_1 \sim \left( \frac{y_1}{h_u} \right)^2 \left( \frac{m_2}{W_{1j}^2 m_j} \right)  3 

1262: \times 10^6 ~ {\rm GeV}

1263: \eeq

1264: where $W_{1j}^2 m_j$ is usually of order  $m_2$.

1265: % So $M_1 \gappeq 10^9$ GeV is unlikely.

1266: % There are two possibilities 

1267: If $y_1 \simeq h_u$, then $\eta_B$ is too small

1268: over most of  parameter space. This was found

1269: in some models by \cite{Falcone}. The

1270: baryon asymmetry  can be large enough,

1271: for  $y_1 \simeq h_u$, in the small

1272: area of parameter space where 

1273: $W_{1j}^2 m_j \simeq m_1 \lappeq m_2/100$.

1274: This is  in the $m_1$ Appendix too.

1275: 

1276: 

1277: The baryon asymmetry depends weakly on $\tan \beta$,

1278:  when  $M_1$  is taken as an input, and  

1279: $d_1$ is approximated as 

1280: $\propto 1/\tilde{m}_1 \propto \sin^2 \beta$. The $m_i$

1281: are experimentally measured, and therefore independent

1282: of  $ \sin^2 \beta$, so it is clear from

1283: eqn (\ref{etaBap}) that the $\sin \beta$ dependence

1284: arises entirely from  $\tilde{m}_1$.

1285: %, because $\delta_{HMY}$ is independent  of

1286: %$\sin^2 \beta$.

1287:  If   instead

1288: %instead  is used as an input, 

1289: $M_1 = (y_1^2v_u^2)/|W_{1j}^2 m_j|$,

1290: % instead, 

1291: then $\eta_B \propto \sin^4 \beta$.

1292: In both cases,  larger  $\sin \beta$ is marginally favoured. 

1293: 

1294: 

1295: 

1296: The parameters $W_{12}$ and  $W_{13}$ are convenient,

1297: because they summarise the unknown mixing angles and phases.

1298: The  physically relevant quantities for leptogenesis

1299: ($M_1, \epsilon,$...) can be plotted as a function of the two

1300: real unknowns $|W_{12}|$ and  $|W_{13}|$.  However, 

1301: the $W_{1j}$  are not observable---the matrix $W$ is related

1302: to the more physical matrices $V_L$ and $U$ by $W = V_L U$.

1303: Recall that $V_L$ rotates from the basis

1304: where  the neutrino Yukawa matrix

1305: $Y_\nu$ is diagonal to the basis  where $Y_e$ is diagonal,

1306: and $U$ rotates from the basis where $[m_\nu]$ is

1307: diagonal to the basis where $Y_e$ is diagonal.

1308: $W$ can be written

1309: \bea

1310: W_{13}&  = &  V_{L11} \sin \theta_{13}e^{-i\delta}  +

1311:  V_{L12}/\sqrt{2} + V_{L12}/\sqrt{2}

1312: %(  c_{L23}s_{L12}e^{-i\varphi_{12}} 

1313: %+ s_{L23}s_{L13}c_{L12}e^{-i(\varphi_{13} - \varphi_{23})} )

1314: %/\sqrt{2} \nonumber \\

1315: %& &  

1316: %+ (s_{L23}s_{L12}e^{-i(\varphi_{12}+ \varphi_{23})}

1317: %-c_{L23}s_{L13}c_{L12}e^{-i\varphi_{13}})/\sqrt{2}

1318: \label{W13} \\

1319: W_{12}&  =&   V_{L11} %c_{L13}c_{L12} 

1320: \sin \theta_{sol}

1321:  + 

1322: %(  c_{L23}s_{L12}e^{-i\varphi_{12}} 

1323: %+s_{L23}s_{L13}c_{L12}e^{-i(\varphi_{13} - \varphi_{23})})

1324: V_{L12} ( \cos \theta_{sol} -   \sin \theta_{sol} 

1325: \sin \theta_{13} e^{i \delta} )/\sqrt{2}  \nonumber \\

1326: & & 

1327:  % (s_{L23}s_{L12}e^{-i(\varphi_{12}+ \varphi_{23})}

1328: %-c_{L23}s_{L13}c_{L12}e^{-i\varphi_{13}})  

1329: - V_{L13}( \cos \theta_{sol} +   \sin \theta_{sol} 

1330: \sin \theta_{13} e^{i \delta} )/\sqrt{2}  

1331: \label{W12}

1332: \eea

1333: where $\theta_{12} = \theta_{sol}$ and 

1334:  $\theta_{23} = \pi/4$ in the MNS matrix.

1335: 

1336: 

1337: From a model building perspective\cite{Altarelli:gu}, there are two natural

1338: limits for $W$. The most popular is for  the large leptonic  mixing

1339: angles to come from the seesaw

1340: structure of the light neutrino mass matrix. In this case,

1341: $V_L \sim 1 $ can easily arise, so $W \sim U$. This is similar to

1342: the quark sector, where the CKM matrix (the analogue of $V_L$)

1343: has small angles.  An example

1344: of this is  texture models where the large

1345: atmospheric mixing angle is due to a  $\nu_R$ mass eigenstate having

1346: approximately equal Yukawa couplings to $\nu_\mu$ and $\nu_\tau$

1347: \cite{Barbieri:1998jc}.

1348: Alternatively, the  electron Yukawa matrix $Y_e$ could

1349: be ``the odd man out'' ; it could have large

1350: off-diagonal elements in a basis where the neutrino  mass matrix $[m_\nu]$

1351: and $Y_\nu$ are simultaneously almost diagonal\cite{Babu:1995hr}.

1352: In this case $V_L \sim U^\dagger$ and $W \sim 1$.

1353: These two cases are discussed in the following two

1354: subsections. Figure \ref{figetaB} suggests that thermal

1355: leptogenesis can work for  $W \sim 1$. 

1356: As we shall see, a

1357:  large enough asymmetry is also possible %for a small range

1358: %of parameters 

1359: in the $V_L \rightarrow 1 $ limit,

1360: if a slightly larger $T_{RH}$ is allowed.

1361: % implying

1362: %that thermal leptogenesis makes specific predictions

1363: %for low-energy parameters in this case.

1364: 

1365: The plots are functions of $\log W_{13}$ and $\log W_{12}$,

1366: rather than, $e.g. W_{12}$ and $W_{13}$.

1367: It is sensible to use

1368: logarithmic measure on unknown physical parameters\footnote{ this

1369: choice of measure is neither unique nor universally agreed on}

1370: because it is equally probable for mixing

1371: angles to have any order of magnitude between

1372: $e.g. 10^{-3}$ and 1. However, $W_{1j}$ are not physical

1373: parameters, so this reasoning does not apply to them. 

1374: Specifically, values of $W_{12} \lappeq \sin \theta_{sol}$

1375: arise in the presumably small area of parameter space

1376: where $V_L \simeq U^\dagger$. 

1377: This reasoning does apply to

1378: %Using logarithmic measure on the 

1379: the CHOOZ angle 

1380: and the unknown angles of $V_L$, %would be more correct,

1381: but  we prefer to plot $\eta_B$ as a function of two

1382: unknowns, rather than four.

1383: So a more appropriate measure on $W_{12}$ might be

1384: logarithmic in the difference

1385: away from $U_{12} \simeq \sin \theta_{sol}$.  Therefore,

1386:  on the RHS of figure \ref{figetaB} is plotted  the same function as

1387: on the LHS, but as a function of $\omega_{13} \simeq$

1388:  log($W_{13}$),  and $\chi_{12}$, the latter

1389: defined such that 

1390: \beq

1391: W_{12} = \sin ( \theta_{sol} - 

1392: 10^{\chi_{12}} \pi/2 )

1393: .

1394: \label{defchi}

1395: \eeq

1396: $\chi_{12} \simeq \log [W_{12} -  U_{12}]$

1397:  is an approximation to the log of the unknown

1398: angles of $V_L$ (see eqn (\ref{W12})). So the RHS plot tells

1399: us the same information as its twin on

1400: the left: the asymmetry is largest

1401: if a large angle in $V_L$

1402: cancels the large solar angle in the MNS matrix $U$.

1403: 

1404: 

1405: 

1406: A final technical comment: $W\sim 1$ and $V_L \sim 1$ mean

1407: the 12 and 13 matrix elements 

1408: are small $ \lsim .1$. $W \sim 1 $  means

1409: that $W$ maximises $\eta_B$, so $W_{12} \lsim .1$ and

1410:  $.01 \lsim W_{13} \lsim .1$.  $V_L \sim 1 $ 

1411: includes both the possibilities that the angles

1412: of $V_L$ are smaller, or larger, than the CHOOZ angle.

1413: 

1414: 

1415: Section \ref{Wsim1}  studies the phenomenological

1416: consequences of sitting in the region

1417: where thermal leptogenesis works easily,  which corresponds

1418: approximately to 

1419: $W_{12} \lsim .1$, $.01 \lsim W_{13} \lsim .1$. 

1420: Then in section \ref{VL=1},  some of the parameters

1421: which are fixed in figure \ref{figetaB} are varied, 

1422: so  a large enough baryon asymmetry

1423: can be generated for $V_L = 1$. 

1424: The parameter space between these two limits 

1425: is discussed in section \ref{VLneq1}.

1426: 

1427: 

1428: \subsection{$W \sim 1$}

1429: \label{Wsim1}

1430: 

1431: 

1432: The parameter space  where $\eta_B$ is largest

1433: in figure \ref{figetaB}

1434: corresponds roughly to 

1435: \beq

1436: .01 \lappeq W_{13}  \lappeq .1

1437: ~~~~W_{12}  \lappeq .1 ~~~.

1438: \label{W1jap}

1439: \eeq

1440: This can be understood from the analytic

1441: approximation (\ref{etaBap}). We fix $M_1 \simeq 10^{9}$ GeV,

1442: so $\eta_B \propto d_1 \delta_{HMY}$. The  factor

1443: $d_1$ is largest when the $\nu_R$ decay rate 

1444: $\Gamma \propto \tilde{m}_1$

1445:  is smallest,

1446: so more of the asymmetry survives when $W \rightarrow 1$

1447: (see the expression \ref{tildekappaap}).

1448: $\delta_{HMY}$ parametrises how close $\epsilon$

1449: can come to its upper bound (\ref{bound}).

1450: For $m_1 \sim m_2/10$, the values of $W_{12}$, $W_{13}$ 

1451:  where $\delta_{HMY}$ is maximised 

1452: (eqn \ref{aaa}) correspond to eqn (\ref{W1jap}).

1453: $\eta_B$  is maximal at smaller $W_{13}$ than $\delta_{HMY}$,

1454: as can be seen by comparing figures \ref{figetaB} and \ref{figM1}.

1455: This is due to the lepton number washout encoded in $d_1$,

1456: which is faster at larger  $W_{13}$.

1457: 

1458: To obtain $W_{12}$ and $W_{13}$ in this region, $V_L$

1459: must have the form

1460: \beq

1461: V_L = R_{23} [ U_\approx]^\dagger

1462: \label{W1VL}

1463: \eeq

1464: where $R_{23}$ is an unspecified complex rotation in the 23

1465: plane (written in  the form of eqn (\ref{Vdef}) with $\theta_{12} = 

1466: \theta_{13} = 0$,  $S \equiv \sin \theta_{23},$

1467: $C \equiv \cos \theta_{23}$, and taking a

1468: 23 phase  $\alpha$), and $[U_\approx]$ is a matrix

1469: whose angles are roughly those of the MNS matrix $ \pm .1$.

1470: The unknown $R_{23}$ appears because leptogenesis only depends

1471: on the first row of $W$. 

1472: 

1473: 

1474: 

1475: It is interesting to study the implications for

1476: $\ell_j \rightarrow \ell_i \gamma$ of eqn (\ref{W1VL}).

1477: Taking  $[U_\approx] = U$

1478: \bea

1479: V_{L31}& =& S e^{i(\alpha + \phi'/2) }

1480:  c_{13}s_{12} + C  s_{13}e^{i\delta} \nonumber \\

1481: & \simeq & S e^{i(\alpha + \phi'/2)}s_{sol} + C s_{13}e^{i\delta} \nonumber\\

1482: V_{L32}& =&  S e^{i(\alpha + \phi'/2)}( c_{23}c_{12}-s_{23}s_{13}s_{12}e^{i\delta})

1483: + C  s_{23}c_{13} \nonumber \\

1484: & \simeq & S e^{i(\alpha + \phi'/2)} c_{sol}/\sqrt{2} + C/\sqrt{2} \nonumber

1485: \eea

1486: For generic values of $S$,  this implies $V_{L32} \sim 1$,

1487: so an  experimentally accessible  $\tau \rightarrow \mu \gamma$

1488: branching ratio. %  (according to table \ref{tabmueg}). 

1489: If,

1490: on the other hand, 

1491: $S$ is tuned  to make $V_{L32} \rightarrow 0$,

1492: then $BR(\tau \rightarrow \mu \gamma)$

1493: would be  unobservable.  However, in this case

1494:  $V_{L31} \sim - \sin \theta_{sol}/\sqrt{1 + \cos^2 \theta_{sol}}

1495: \simeq 1/\sqrt{3}$, so $\tau \rightarrow e \gamma$ should be observable. %}

1496: One can conclude that if leptogenesis takes place in

1497: the $W \sim 1$ peak of figure \ref{figetaB}, then

1498: one or both of  $\tau \rightarrow \mu \gamma$

1499: and $\tau \rightarrow e \gamma$ should 

1500: have  a branching ratio $\gappeq 10^{-9}$ (according 

1501: to the leading log approximation of the introduction).

1502: Similarly,  $BR(\mu \rightarrow e \gamma)$ should be

1503: $\gappeq 10^{-14}$ if $S $ or $s_{13} \gappeq 10^{-3}$. 

1504: 

1505: 

1506: 

1507: 

1508: 

1509: 

1510: 

1511: 

1512: \subsection{$V_L = 1$}

1513: \label{VL=1}

1514: 

1515: 

1516: It is barely possible to get a large enough baryon

1517:  asymmetry when the angles in $V_L$ are small,

1518: although this is not evident from figure \ref{figetaB}.

1519: %The case $V_L = 1$ implies $W = U$ and

1520: %$\log (W_{12}) \simeq \log \sin \theta_{sol} \gappeq -0.5$.

1521: In the limit $V_L \rightarrow 1$, the matrix $W \rightarrow U$,

1522: so $W_{12} \simeq \sin \theta_{sol}$ and 

1523:  $W_{13} \simeq \sin \theta_{13}$.

1524: In figure \ref{figetaB}, $\eta_B$ is at least a factor of

1525: 6 to small at $\log W_{12} \sim -0.5$ (equivalently,

1526: $\chi_{12}$ small),

1527:  but there is a bump 

1528: at $W_{13} \sim .1$.  In this section, 

1529:  $\eta_B$ at $V_L = 1$ is increased  by varying

1530: $m_3, m_2$ and $M_1$;

1531:  $V_L $ close to the identity is discussed

1532: in the following subsection.

1533: 

1534: 

1535:   If $V_L =1$,  eqns  (\ref{M1ap}) and (\ref{tildekappaap}) give

1536: \bea

1537: M_1 &  =& \frac{y_1^2 v_u^2 }{m_2 s_{12}^2} \nonumber \\

1538: \tilde{m}_1 & =& m_2 \nonumber %\\

1539: %\epsilon_1&  = &-\frac{3}{8 \pi s_{12}^2} 

1540: %{M_1 \tilde{\kappa}_1} \left[ \left(\frac{m_3}{m_2} \right)^3

1541: % s_{13}^2 \sin(2 \delta-\phi')

1542: %        - \left( \frac{m_1}{m_2} \right) c_{12}^2 \sin(\phi-\phi') \right]

1543: \label{MmtV1}

1544: \eea

1545: To maximise the asymmetry,  $M_1$ is taken  to be $ f \times 10^9 $ GeV,

1546: where $f$ is a few 

1547: (this determines $y_1^2  =  M_1 m_2 s_{12}^2/v_u^2 \simeq 7.2 f \times

1548: 10^{-8}$ ). In  figure 10  of \cite{review},  the lepton

1549: asymmetry is plotted as a function of $\tilde{m}_1$ for

1550: various values of $M_1$ and $\epsilon_1 = 10^{-6}$.

1551: This plot shows  that for $\epsilon \simeq 10^{-6}$, 

1552: a large enough asymmetry can be generated

1553: when  $\tilde{m}_1 \simeq m_2$. 

1554: %the values of eqn (\ref{MmtV1}).

1555: Note that the washout

1556: effects are correctly included in this plot

1557: of \cite{review}, so this result does not depend on the analytic

1558: approximation of eqn (\ref{d1}). Also, the asymmetry

1559: {\it increases} as $\tilde{m}_1$ decreases, so

1560: small values of the solar mass 

1561: are prefered.

1562: 

1563: 

1564: 

1565: The upper bound of eqn (\ref{bound}) implies that

1566: for $\epsilon = 10^{-6}$, $f m_3 \delta_{HMY} =

1567: 0.25 $eV. From the experimentally allowed

1568: range of $m_3$ given after eqn  (\ref{CKM}), we see that

1569: $M_1 \sim 3 \times 10^{9}$ GeV is required, assuming

1570: $\delta \sim 1$ is also possible.  For $V_L = 1$,

1571: \beq

1572: \delta_{HMY} \simeq \frac{ s_{13}^2 m_3^3 s_{12}^2 m_2 \sin (\phi'

1573: - 2 \delta)}

1574: {m_3(s_{12}^2 m_2^2 + s_{13}^2 m_3^2) s_{12}^2 m_2}

1575: \label{dV1}

1576: \eeq

1577: which approaches 1 when $ s_{13} \simeq s_{12} m_2/m_3$.

1578: In the RH plot of figure (\ref{figetaB}), $V_L = 1$

1579: corresponds to $W_{13} = \sin \theta_{13}$ and $\chi_{12}

1580: \rightarrow - \infty$.

1581: %(because for $V_L =1$, one has $ U_{12}

1582: %= W_{12} \equiv \sin( \theta_{sol}-  10^{ - \chi_{12}} \pi/2)$).

1583:  In figure \ref{figsol},  $\delta_{HMY}$ 

1584: is plotted as a function of $\theta_{13}$ on

1585: the LHS; %recall that  we  need  $\epsilon  = \delta_{HMY} ...$

1586: %must be $\simeq 10^{-6}$ 

1587: %for leptogenesis to work, according to \cite{Plumacher:1997kc}. 

1588:   the analytic approximation to $\eta_B$ 

1589: (eqn (\ref{etaBap})) is plotted on

1590: the RHS.

1591: So thermal leptogenesis

1592: ``works'' at $V_L = 1$, for $M_1 \sim 6 \times 10^{9}$ GeV.

1593: 

1594: 

1595: Phrased another way:

1596: for arbitrarily small  $\ell_j \rightarrow \ell_i \gamma$

1597: branching ratios, requiring thermal leptogenesis to  work

1598: {\it predicts}  the CHOOZ angle $\theta_{13}$.  If  $m_3$ %($m_2$) 

1599: is  taken at its $90 \% C.L.$ upper bound, 

1600: and  $M_1 \sim 6 \times  10^{9}$ GeV, then

1601: $\eta_B \sim 3 \times 10^{-11} $ can be obtained.

1602: This requires a CHOOZ angle of

1603: $\theta_{13} \sim 4 \times 10^{-2}$,

1604: and phases which  satisfy

1605:  $2\delta - \phi' = \pi/2$.

1606: 

1607: 

1608: 

1609:  \begin{figure}[ht]

1610: %\vspace{4cm}

1611: %\epsfxsize=6cm\epsfbox{delsol.eps}

1612: %\epsfxsize=6cm\epsfbox{etaBsol.eps}

1613: \includegraphics[width=7cm]{delsol.eps}

1614: \includegraphics[width=7cm]{etaBsol.eps}

1615: \caption{

1616: On the LHS $\delta_{HMY}$, and 

1617: on the RHS the analytic approximation

1618: to $\eta_B$, as a function of 

1619: $ S{13} = log [ \sin \theta_{13} ]$.

1620: $\delta_{HMY} \sim 1$

1621: is required to get a large enough asymmetry,

1622: see the discussion in section \ref{VL=1}.

1623: The remaining parameters are  $ \tan^2 \theta_{sol} = 0.44 $,

1624:  $m_2  = 7 \times10^{-3}$ eV, 

1625: %$(2.3 \times 10^{-16} GeV^{-1})$

1626: $m_3  =  6.3 \times 10^{-2}$ eV,

1627: and for the $\eta_B$ plot,

1628: $V_L = 1$ and $M_1 =

1629: 4 \times 10^{9}$ GeV.  }

1630: %\vspace{4cm}

1631: \protect\label{figsol}

1632: \end{figure}

1633: 

1634: 

1635: \subsection{$V_L$ from $1$ to $U^\dagger$}

1636: \label{VLneq1}

1637: 

1638: It is clear from the RHS of figure \ref{figetaB}, that if a large enough

1639: asymmetry can be generated at $V_L = 1$ ($\chi_{12} \sim -3$),

1640:  then enough baryons

1641: can be generated along the  

1642: ridge leading to the  peak, and  also along the ``other'' ridge

1643: at $W_{12} \sim m_1/m_2$. To sit on this  second ridge

1644: requires $W \sim 1$, so has the same experimental signatures

1645: as discussed in  section \ref{Wsim1}.

1646: This section  is about  the 

1647: $W_{13} \sim m_2/m_3$ ridge stretching from $V_L \sim 1$ to

1648: the $W \sim 1$ peak.

1649: 

1650: Starting  from the small $\chi_{12}$, flat section of the ridge

1651: and moving  towards the peak

1652: corresponds to allowing small matrix elements $V_{L12}, V_{L13}

1653: \lsim .1$. 

1654: In this limit,

1655: \bea

1656: W_{13}

1657:  & \simeq &  \sin \theta_{13} + V_{L12}/\sqrt{2} + V_{L13}/\sqrt{2} 

1658: \nonumber% \\

1659: %W_{12}

1660: % & \simeq &  \sin \theta_{sol} - V_{L12} \cos \theta_{sol}/\sqrt{2} 

1661: %+V_{L13} \cos \theta_{sol}/\sqrt{2} %\nonumber

1662: \label{W1jap2}

1663: \eea

1664: and $W_{13} \sim 0.04$ is required to get a

1665: large enough asymmetry. Unfortunately, 

1666: $W_{13} \sim 0.04$ determines a sum of three

1667: unknowns: $\theta_{13}

1668: \gsim .04$ could be observed, $V_{L13} \sim 0.04$ induces a potentially

1669: observable $\tau \rightarrow e \gamma$ signal, but

1670: $V_{L12} $ has no observable consequences.  For $V_L \sim 1$,

1671: the $V_{L12}$ contribution to $m_{\snu}^2$ (eqn (\ref{softafterRG}))

1672: is suppressed by $y_2^2 \sim 10^{-4}$. 

1673: 

1674: 

1675: 

1676:  \begin{figure}[ht]

1677: %\vspace{4cm}

1678: %\epsfxsize=10cm\epsfbox{contour.eps}

1679: \includegraphics[width=10cm]{contour.eps}

1680: \caption{Contour plot  of $\eta_B$, 

1681: as a function of $\omega_{13} \simeq \log [W_{13}]$  and 

1682: $\chi_{12} \simeq \log [ V_{L12} + V_{L13}]$.  

1683:  The contours enclose the area when 

1684: $\eta_B > 2 \times 10^{-11}$, for $M_1 =f \times  10^9 $ GeV,

1685: central values of $m_3$ and $m_2$,  and $m_1 = m_2/10$. In

1686: the direction of increasing area, the lines correpond

1687: to $f = 1, 3, 6$ and 9.}

1688: %\vspace{4cm}

1689: \protect\label{figcont}

1690: \end{figure}

1691: 

1692: Figure \ref{figcont} is a contour plot in $\omega_{13}$

1693: and $\chi_{12}$ space of the approximation (\ref{etaBap})

1694: to $\eta_B$. The contours enclose the area when 

1695: $\eta_B > 2 \times 10^{-11}$, for $M_1 =f \times  10^9 $ GeV,

1696: central values of $m_3$ and $m_2$,  $m_1 = m_2/10$,

1697: and are labelled by $f$. Allowing $f > 1$ significantly increases

1698: the available parameter space. This corresponds to

1699: increasing $M_1$ (which should be $\lappeq T_{RH}$),

1700: or increasing $m_3$, which is constrained by

1701: atmospheric neurtino oscillations, or

1702: for  $\chi_{12} \lappeq 0.5$,  to decreasing

1703: $m_2$, which is constrained by solar neutrino experiments

1704: and KamLAND. Perhaps the most palatable way to increase

1705: $f$ is to allow $T_{RH} \sim 10^{10}$ GeV.

1706: The value of $\eta_B$ chosen, $\eta_B = 2 \times 10^{-11}$,

1707: is minimal.  To obtain the CMB favoured  

1708: $\eta_B \simeq 9 \times 10^{-11}$,

1709: would require values of $f$ that were four times larger. 

1710: 

1711: 

1712: 

1713: \section{CP violation} 

1714: \label{secCP}

1715: 

1716: In a previous paper\cite{Davidson:2002em}, we discussed the relation between

1717: the leptonic phases that could be measured at low energy,

1718: and the CP violation required for leptogenesis. 

1719:  We assumed that

1720: $\epsilon$ was large enough, and studied the relative

1721: importance of the neutrino factory

1722: phase $\delta$ and the double beta decay phase

1723: $\phi'$  for leptogenesis. If the 

1724: right-handed neutrinos $\nu_{R1}$ are produced 

1725: {\it non}-thermally, getting $\epsilon$

1726: large enough may not be a significant constraint

1727: (see $e.g.$ \cite{bdps} for a discussion and references).

1728: However, we have seen that it is a challenge when

1729: the $\nu_{R1}$ are produced thermally. So in this section,

1730: we briefly discuss the relative importance of

1731: low-energy phases for thermal leptogenesis---imposing

1732: the constraint that $\epsilon$ is large enough. 

1733: 

1734: It is well known that there is no linear relation between

1735: the ``leptogenesis phase'' and $\delta$ or $\phi'$

1736: \cite{Branco:2001pq}. That is, the lepton asymmetry

1737:  can be non-zero when $\delta = \phi' = 0$,

1738: and it can be zero when $\delta, \phi' \neq 0$.

1739: To overcome this, we introduced a statistical notion

1740: of ``overlap'' between the leptogenesis phase and

1741: the low energy phases of our parametrisation. The

1742: overlap $O_\delta$ aimed to quantify the relative

1743: importance of the phase $\delta$ for leptogenesis,

1744: assuming that all the low-energy phases were $O(1)$.

1745: In \cite{Davidson:2002em}, we considered the cases

1746: where $W_{13}^2 W_{12}^2 m_3^3 m_2$, or

1747:   $W_{12}^2 W_{11}^2 m_2^3 m_1$, is

1748: the most important term upstairs in $\delta_{HMY}$.

1749: That is, we consider $V_L = 1$, $V_L \sim 1$

1750: and the case of large $V_L$ angles that do not

1751: exactly cancel those in $U$. This occurs

1752:  over most of the parameter space where $\epsilon$ 

1753: could be large enough. However, $\epsilon$ is largest

1754: in the small area of parameter space where $W \sim 1$

1755: and $W_{13}^2 W_{11}^{2*} m_3^3 m_1$

1756: dominates  upstairs in $\delta_{HMY}$. So let

1757: us now consider which low-energy phases are

1758: important for leptogenesis in this case.

1759: 

1760: Writing the phases explicitely gives

1761: \bea

1762: \epsilon \propto \Im \{ W_{11}^2 W_{13}^{*2} \}

1763: & = & \Im \{ e^{i \phi} [ V_{L11} c_{13}c_{12}

1764: +|V_{L12}| e^{i 2 \varphi_{12}} 

1765: (- c_{23}s_{12}- s_{23}c_{12}s_{13} e^{i \delta} ) \nonumber \\ & &

1766: +|V_{L13}| e^{i 2 \varphi_{13}} 

1767: ( s_{23}s_{12}- c_{23}c_{12}s_{13} e^{i \delta} ) ]^2

1768: \times 

1769: [V_{L11} s_{13}e^{-i \delta}

1770: +|V_{L12}| e^{i 2 \varphi_{12}} 

1771:  s_{23}c_{13} \nonumber \\ & &

1772: +|V_{L13}| e^{i 2 \varphi_{13}} 

1773:  c_{23}c_{13}]^2  \}

1774: \eea

1775: where $\varphi_{1j}$ is the phase of $V_{1j}$. 

1776:  $V_{1j} \sim U_{j1}^* e^{i \omega_1}$, because $W \sim 

1777: diag \{ e^{i \omega_1}, e^{i \omega_2},1\}$

1778: \footnote{This constraint on $W$ is what we usually refer

1779: to as $W \sim 1$. Since $V_{11}$ is real, 

1780:  $\omega_1 \simeq - \phi/2$.}.

1781: The ``neutrinoless double beta decay phase'' $\phi'$

1782: is irrelevant for leptogenesis, because it only enters into

1783: $W_{12}$. The phase $\phi$ of $m_1$ will

1784: always be important, because $W_{11} \propto  e^{-i \phi/2}$,

1785: so $\epsilon $ will be  a sum of terms  $\propto

1786: \sin (m \phiÂŽÂÂŽÂÂŽ´ + ...)$. Both the phases

1787:  $\varphi_{12}$ and  $\varphi_{13}$

1788: of $V_{L12}$ and  $V_{L13}$ are likely to have

1789: significant overlap with the leptogenesis phase, because 

1790: $V_L \simeq U^\dagger$ so   the $|V_{L1j}|$

1791: are large.  The ``neutrino factory phase''

1792: $\delta$ always multiplies the CHOOZ angle,

1793: which suppresses its contribution to $\epsilon$.

1794: 

1795: The three weak-scale phases which 

1796: %are important for leptogenesis,

1797: have significant ``overlap'' with the leptogenesis

1798: phase, in the area of parameter space near $W \sim 1$,

1799: are therefore   $\varphi_{12}$,  $\varphi_{13}$

1800: and $\phi$. This is unfortunate, because although there is some

1801: hope of measuring $\phi'$ and $\delta$, there is 

1802: no foreseeable experiment to determine any of these

1803: three.

1804: 

1805: %%%%

1806: 

1807: \section{Discussion and  summary}

1808: \label{sowhat}

1809: 

1810: 

1811: 

1812: 

1813: 

1814: This paper has discussed leptogenesis 

1815: in a minimal model of the SUSY seesaw, with

1816: gravity mediated SUSY breaking and universal soft masses

1817: at  a high scale. It

1818: uses a parametrisation of the model in terms of 

1819: \beq

1820: D_{m_{\nu}},  U,   D_Y,   V_L

1821: \label{list}

1822: \eeq

1823: where $D_{m_{\nu}}$ is the diagonal light majorana

1824: neutrino mass matrix (assumed hierarchical), $U$ is the MNS matrix, 

1825: $ D_Y $ is the diagonal neutrino Yukawa matrix, and

1826: $V_L$ diagonalises $Y_\nu^\dagger Y_\nu$. 

1827: The notation is  briefly defined  in  table,

1828: \ref{tablenotn}.

1829: giving the equation numbers of more detailed definitions.

1830: The angles of

1831: the unitary matrix $V_L$ can be related,

1832: in SUSY models, to the

1833: rates for $\ell_j \rightarrow \ell_i \gamma$

1834: because $Y_\nu^\dagger Y_\nu$ contributes

1835: to the renormalisation group equations for the

1836: slepton masses. This allows the right handed 

1837: neutrino masses and Yukawa couplings

1838: to be expressed as a function

1839: of quantities which could be measured, in principle

1840: or in practise, at the weak scale. This parametrisation

1841: is briefly reviewed in section \ref{revdi1}.

1842: 

1843: 

1844: \begin{table}[hbt]

1845: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|}

1846: %\hline

1847: \hline

1848: %& & \\

1849: $ {\bf Y_\nu} = V_R^\dagger D_Y V_L~, y_i $ &

1850:  neutrino Yukawa, eigenvalues & 

1851: \ref{superp}\\

1852: % & & \\ 

1853: \hline

1854: %& & \\

1855: ${\cal M}, M_1 $ &

1856: $\nu_R $ mass matrix, lightest eigenvalue & 

1857: \ref{superp},\ref{M1ap} \\

1858: % & & \\ 

1859: \hline

1860: %& & \\

1861: $ V_L$ &

1862: $ V_L {\bf Y_\nu}^\dagger {\bf Y_\nu} V_L^\dagger = D_Y^2 $ & 

1863:  \ref{biunitary}\\

1864: % & & \\ 

1865: \hline

1866: %& & \\

1867: %$ \theta_{Lij}; 

1868: $\varphi_{ij} $ &

1869: %angles ;

1870:  phases of $ V_L $ & 

1871: section \ref{secCP} \\

1872: % & & \\ 

1873: \hline

1874: %& & \\

1875: $[m_\nu ]~, m_i  $ &

1876: light neutrino mass matrix $ $ & 

1877:  \ref{seesaw} \\

1878: % & & \\ 

1879: \hline

1880: $U  $ &

1881: MNS matrix $ $ & 

1882: \ref{CKM}  \\

1883: % & & \\ 

1884: \hline

1885: %& & \\

1886: $\theta_{ij}; \phi,\phi',\delta $ &

1887:  angles; phases of $U $ & 

1888:  \ref{UV}, \ref{Vdef} \\

1889: % & & \\ 

1890: \hline

1891: %& & \\

1892: $ W $ &

1893:  $V_L U $ & 

1894: \ref{Delta}  \\

1895: % & & \\

1896: \hline

1897: %& & \\

1898: $ \omega_{1j} $ &

1899:   $\simeq $log $[W_{1j}] $ & 

1900: \ref{defom}  \\

1901: % & & \\

1902: \hline

1903: %& & \\

1904: $ \chi_{12} $ &

1905:  $\simeq $log $[U_{12} - W_{12}] $ & 

1906: \ref{defchi}  \\

1907: % & & \\

1908: \hline

1909: %& & \\

1910: $ \eta_{L} $ &

1911: lepton asymmetry $ $ & 

1912: \ref{etaL}  \\

1913: % & & \\ 

1914: \hline 

1915: %& & \\

1916: $\epsilon  $ &

1917: CP asymmetry $ $ & 

1918: \ref{eps1}, \ref{epsapprox}  \\

1919: % & & \\ 

1920: \hline

1921: %& & \\

1922: $ \delta_{HMY} $ &

1923:  $\epsilon/ \epsilon_{max}  $ & 

1924:  \ref{bound},\ref{deltaapprox} \\

1925: % & & \\ 

1926: \hline

1927: %& & \\

1928: $\widetilde{m}_1  $ &

1929:  $\propto \nu_{R1} $ decay rate & 

1930:  \ref{mtilde},\ref{tildekappaap} \\

1931: % & & \\ 

1932: \hline

1933: %& & \\

1934: $d_1, \tilde{d}_1  $ &

1935:  dilution factor of lepton asymmetry$ $ & 

1936:  \ref{d1},\ref{etaL} \\

1937: % & & \\ 

1938: \hline

1939: %& & \\

1940: $ \eta_{B} $ &

1941: baryon asymmetry $ $ & 

1942:  \ref{BAU}, \ref{etaBap} \\

1943: % & & \\ 

1944: \hline

1945: \end{tabular}

1946: \label{tablenotn}

1947: \caption{ Table of notation, with a brief description and

1948: the equation number of a more complete defintion.}

1949: \end{table}

1950: 

1951: 

1952: The baryon asymmetry produced in leptogenesis depends on

1953: the number density of right-handed neutrinos

1954: which decay, on $\epsilon \equiv$ the average lepton asymmetry produced

1955: per decay, and on the

1956: survival probability of the asymmetry in the thermal plasma

1957: after it is produced. We consider the ``thermal leptogensis''

1958: scenario, in which the right-handed neutrinos 

1959: are produced by scattering interactions

1960: in the plasma. Non-thermal production mechanisms

1961: are also possible, perhaps even probable, but

1962: depend on additional parameters from the sector

1963: which produces the right-handed neutrinos. Both the

1964: thermally produced $\nu_R$ number density,

1965: and the survival probability of the lepton asymmetry

1966: in the plasma after it is produced,  can be computed

1967: from the reheat temperature of the plasma after

1968: inflation $T_{RH}$, and from the seesaw parameters.

1969: These processes have been carefully studied in

1970: \cite{Plumacher:1997kc,review}.

1971: 

1972: 

1973: A convenient

1974: analytic approximation to the numerical

1975: results of \cite{Plumacher:1997kc} is used in

1976: this paper. A single

1977: function $d_1$ (see equation (\ref{d1}))  is defined as the

1978: number density of $\nu_R \times $ the survival

1979: probabilty of the lepton asymmetry once it

1980: is produced. So the baryon to entropy ratio today

1981: is $\eta_B \simeq 8 d_1 \epsilon/23$.  \footnote{where

1982: the 8/23 arises in the transformation of the lepton asymmetry

1983: into a baryon asymmetry by the electroweak $B+L$ violating

1984: processes.}

1985: 

1986: 

1987: The $CP$ asymmetry produced in

1988: the decay of the lightest $\nu_R$ is

1989: bounded above (for hierarchical $M_i$ and $m_j$):

1990: \beq

1991: \epsilon < \frac{3 M_1 m_3}{8 \pi v_u^2}

1992: \label{bdinsum}

1993: \eeq

1994: where $M_1$ is the mass of the $\nu_{R1}$ and 

1995: $m_3 = \sqrt{\Delta m^2_{atm}}$. Since $d_1$ cannot

1996: exceed $45/(2 \pi^4 g_*)$ for thermally

1997: produced $\nu_{R1}$, obtaining $\eta_B > 3 \times 10^{-11}$

1998: requires $M_1 > 3 \times 10^8$ GeV. 

1999: 

2000: In section \ref{secapprox}, approximate

2001: analytic  formulae

2002: for the lightest $\nu_R$ mass $M_1$, for the CP

2003: asymmetry $\epsilon$ and for the baryon asymmetry $\eta_B$,

2004: are given in terms of our weak-scale parameters.

2005: These approximations are valid for  hierarchical $M_i$ and

2006: neutrino Yukawa eigenvalues $y_j$. 

2007: The baryon asymmetry can be written as a function

2008: \beq

2009: \eta_B (m_2,m_3,\theta_{23},\theta_{12};\theta_{13},

2010: V_{L12},V_{L13}, y_1,m_1, phases)

2011: \eeq

2012: where ``known'' low-energy parameters precede

2013: the semi-colon.  We concentrate on the dependence

2014: of $\eta_B$ on real parameters, assuming that

2015: the phases can be chosen to maximise the asymmetry. 

2016: 

2017: It is interesting that the baryon asymmetry only depends on

2018: 5 of the 8 unknown real parameters in eqn (\ref{list}). 

2019: Two of these, 

2020: $\theta_{13}$ and $V_{L13}$, are possibly measurable;

2021: the constraints that thermal leptogenesis

2022: imposes on them  will be discussed later for

2023: different areas of parameter space.

2024: On the other hand, there are

2025: no foreseen experiments that could  determine

2026: $y_1$, $m_1$, and $V_{L12}$.

2027: $V_{L12}$ is included in

2028: the discussion with $\theta_{13}$ and $V_{L13}$, because

2029:  these three unknowns can be exchanged for the 

2030: 12 and 23 elements of $W = V_L U$. This

2031: simplifies expressions and is

2032: convenient for plotting.

2033: %  when we individually consider different

2034: %areas of parameter space. 

2035: The dependence of $\eta_B$ on

2036: $m_1$ is  subtle, comparatively unimportant, and

2037: discussed in an Appendix. 

2038: The lightest right-handed

2039: neutrino mass $M_1$, and therefore

2040: the baryon asymmetry, is proportional to  $y_1^2$.

2041: So   $y_1^2$ is exchanged for $M_1$. This is a peculiar exchange---

2042: %we claimed we could parametrise 

2043: %leptogenesis with weak scale inputs, 

2044: why 

2045: do we want to use a GUT-scale

2046: mass as input in our weak-scale parametrisation?

2047: The off-diagonal elements of $V_L$, and the $y_i$, are

2048: related to

2049: lepton flavour violating off-diagonal slepton mass

2050: matrix entries (to which processes like $\ell_j

2051: \rightarrow \ell_i \gamma$ are sensitive), and to

2052: slepton mass differences.  The smallest neutrino Yukawa

2053: $y_1$ makes negligeable contributions to both

2054: these effects. However,

2055: $M_1 > 3 \times 10^8$ GeV  is required for

2056: thermal leptogenesis to have any hope of working, 

2057: and if SUSY is discovered,

2058: the sparticle spectrum could give some indication of

2059: the gravitino mass, and therefore the allowed reheat temperature

2060: $T_{RH}> M_1$. So we ``determine''

2061: $y_1$ by requiring that thermal leptogenesis

2062: $could$ produce a large enough asymmetry: 

2063: $ 3 \times 10^8$ GeV $ < M_1  < T_{RH}$. 

2064: Then we study

2065: the  requirements on the remaining parameters such that 

2066: the asymmetry  $is$ large enough.

2067: These additional requirements may have observable consequences.

2068: 

2069: 

2070: 

2071: 

2072: The analytic 

2073: formulae of section \ref{secapprox}

2074: are simple and compact, but 

2075: nonetheless difficult to visualise. 

2076: The asymmetry depends on the first row of the matrix

2077: $W$, so for

2078: qualitative understanding,

2079: we show 3-dimensional figures of leptogenesis parameters as a function of

2080: $\omega_{13} \simeq $ log$W_{13}$, and 

2081: $\omega_{12} \simeq $ log$W_{12}$. 

2082: %(or $\chi_{12} \simeq $ log$(W_{12} - U_{12})$).

2083: Logarithmic measure is reasonable for

2084: unmeasured but observable matrix

2085: elements---which the $W_{1j}$ are {\it not}.

2086: For small angles in $V_L$ (see section \ref{when}

2087: for a general discussion), the $W_{1j}$ can be

2088: related to the more physical matrix elements 

2089: $V_{L1k}$ and $U_{ij}$:

2090: $W_{13} \sim \theta_{13} + V_{L12} + V_{L13}$,

2091: $W_{12} \sim \sin \theta_{sol} + V_{L12} + V_{L13}$.

2092: %and $\chi_{12} \sim  \theta_{L12} + \theta_{L13}$.

2093: To present the area of parameter space

2094: where leptogenesis works with a more

2095: physical measure, we therefore  plot the

2096: baryon asymmetry as a function of 

2097: $\omega_{13}$ and $\chi_{12}\sim $ log$ [  V_{L12} + V_{L13}]$

2098: in figures \ref{figetaB} and \ref{figcont}.

2099:  

2100: 

2101:  We define thermal leptogenesis

2102: to ``work'' if it can produce  $\eta_B \gappeq

2103: 3 \times 10^{-11}$, as required by Big Bang Nucleosynthesis.

2104: For $M_1 \simeq 10^9$ GeV

2105: (consistent with the canonical gravitino bound $T_{RH} \sim 10^9$ GeV), 

2106: leptogenesis {\it can} work:

2107: there is a limited parameter

2108: space where the upper bound on $\epsilon$

2109: is almost saturated, $and$ $d_1$ is close to maximal.

2110: This can be seen in figure \ref{figcont},

2111: where the baryon asymmetry is large

2112: enough inside the contours, which are 

2113:  labelled by $f$, where $M_1 = f \times 10^{9}$ GeV.

2114: Increasing

2115: $T_{RH}$ (and thereby the allowed $M_1$)  enlarges

2116: the parameter space where thermal leptogenesis

2117: works.

2118: 

2119: We now come to the aim of the paper---

2120: what are the weak scale foot prints of thermal leptogenesis?

2121: What parameter values  must be observed,

2122: if thermal leptogenesis works in an MSUGRA model? 

2123: 

2124: 

2125: Suppose first that $f \simeq 1$, which corresponds

2126: to   $M_1 \sim 10^9$ GeV for central values of the light

2127: neutrino masses. Thermal leptogenesis works in the

2128:  area of figure \ref{figcont} at $\omega_{13} \sim  -2$

2129:  and  $\chi_{12} \sim -0.5$. This small area of parameter

2130: space is discussed in section \ref{Wsim1}, and occurs

2131: if  $W = V_L U \sim 1$. The phenomenological consequences

2132: of this area of parameter space are unambiguous: the branching ratio

2133: of $\tau \rightarrow \mu \gamma$, or $\tau \rightarrow e \gamma$,

2134: should be large. More concretely,

2135: at least one of  $V_{L32}$ or $V_{L31}$ is $O(1/\sqrt{2})$,

2136: so according to the estimates of table \ref{tabmueg},

2137: $BR(\tau \rightarrow \ell \gamma) \gappeq 10^{-8}$. 

2138:  

2139: 

2140: 

2141: From a theoretical model building perspective, this

2142: area of parameter space corresponds to

2143: the neutrino Yukawa and light  mass matrices

2144: $Y_\nu$ and $[m_\nu]$ being almost simultaneously

2145: diagonalisable. The large leptonic

2146: mixing angles arise in the rotation from this

2147: basis to the one where the charged lepton Yukawa

2148: matrix $Y_e$ is diagonal. 

2149: 

2150: 

2151: The baryon asymmetry is largest at this point for two reasons.

2152: The $\nu_R$ decay rate (eqn (\ref{mtilde})) is small,

2153: so lepton number violation is slow after the asymmetry is produced,

2154: and more of the asymmetry survives. Secondly, the asymmetry

2155: produced is almost maximal; it comes within a factor

2156: of $O(1)$ of the upper bound eqn (\ref{bdinsum}). This is discussed

2157: after eqn (\ref{deltaapprox}). 

2158: 

2159: The {\it area} of this parameter space, where $\eta_B$ is

2160: largest, depends on

2161: the smallest neutrino mass $m_1$. The plots are made

2162: with $m_1 = m_2/10$; the area shrinks as $m_1$ decreases.

2163: This peak in $\eta_B$ only exists for $m_1 \neq 0$. It is

2164: interesting that the CP asymmetry and the low-energy

2165: footprints of this area of parameter space are {\it independent}

2166: of $m_1$. However,

2167: the number density of $\nu_R$ (and therefore the baryon asymmetry)

2168: decreases for $m_1 \lappeq 10^{-5}$ eV, and our approximation

2169: fails.  See the Appendix  for a discussion.

2170: 

2171: 

2172: In brief, if  a sparticle spectrum 

2173: consistent with gravity mediated SUSY breaking is measured, with

2174: a gravitino mass of $m_{3/2} \sim 100$ GeV ($T_{RH} \sim 10^9$

2175: GeV), then  $\tau \rightarrow \mu \gamma$  or  $\tau \rightarrow e \gamma$

2176: must be observable for thermal leptogenesis

2177: to work.

2178: 

2179: 

2180: 

2181: Now consider the enlarged parameter space allowed

2182: by $ M_1/(10^9$ GeV) $\equiv f> 1$

2183: in figure \ref{figcont}:

2184: %We see %from figure WHAT 

2185: %that 

2186: thermal leptogenesis works for $W_{13}

2187: \sim m_2/m_3$ and pretty much all values of

2188: $W_{12}$. 

2189: This sets one constraint on the three

2190: ''physical'' matrix elements  $\sin \theta_{13}$,

2191:  $V_{L13}$ and $V_{L12}$. As discussed in

2192: sections \ref{VL=1} and \ref{VLneq1}, it can be

2193: satisfied if any one of the angles is $O(m_2/m_3)$.

2194: These possibilities have different weak-scale implications.

2195: 

2196: If $V_L$ has small angles like the CKM matrix, 

2197:  $V_{L13}, V_{L12} \ll 0.1$, then leptogenesis

2198: requires that the CHOOZ angle  $\theta_{13} \simeq 0.04$,

2199: which is close to its current experimental bound. 

2200: This  implies that

2201: the baryon asymmetry is determined by parameters

2202: which can be measured in the neutrino

2203: sector

2204: \footnote{Caveat: $\eta_B \propto  M_1 m_3/m_2$

2205: in this case, and we ``determine''

2206:  $M_1 \simeq 6 \times 10^{9}$ GeV by requiring $\eta_B$ large

2207: enough. If $m_3$ ($m_2$) is larger (smaller)

2208: than the current best-fit values, $\eta_B$ increases.}: 

2209: $m_3$, $m_2$,  $\theta_{13}$ and the phases

2210: $\delta$ and $\phi'$.

2211: 

2212: 

2213: 

2214: 

2215: If the CHOOZ angle $\theta_{13} \ll 0.1$, then it is

2216: still possible to sit on the $W_{13} \sim 0.04$ ridge,

2217: by having $V_{L13}$, or $V_{L12} \sim 0.04$.

2218: The former angle is related to  $\tau \rightarrow e \gamma$,

2219: and could perhaps be measured in this process.

2220:  Unfortunately, $V_{L12}$ appears

2221: in the RGEs multiplying $y_2^2$, the middle Yukawa eigenvalue,

2222: so has no observable consequences in the slepton

2223: mass matrix. So thermal leptogenesis can ``work''

2224: when

2225: $\theta_{13}$ and $BR(\ell_j \rightarrow \ell_i \gamma)$

2226: are  unobservably small. 

2227: 

2228: The matrix elements  $V_{L13}$, and $V_{L12}$   are

2229: small along most of the $W_{13}$ ridge

2230: currently under  discussion. Many texture models

2231: occupy this area of parameters space, where

2232: the CKM-like matrix $V_L$ (between the bases where

2233: $Y_\nu$ and $Y_e$ are diagonal) has small angles. The

2234: large angles of the MNS matrix then

2235: arise from the majorana structure of $Y^T {\cal M}^{-1} Y$.

2236: 

2237: 

2238: The baryon asymmetry is larger along the ridge

2239: than in the rest of parameter space, because the washout

2240: is moderate---$\tilde{m} \sim m_2$---and because

2241: the CP asymmetry $\epsilon$ approaches its upper

2242: bound (\ref{bdinsum}).

2243: Notice that the baryon asymmetry on this ridge is

2244: independent of $m_1$---the solution remains as $m_1 \rightarrow 0$.

2245:  As discussed

2246: after eqn (\ref{deltaapprox}), there are two limits

2247: in which

2248: $\epsilon$ is maximal: the ridge

2249:  where $W_{13} \sim m_2/m_3$,

2250: and the previously discussed peak.

2251: There is an orthogonal ridge in figure \ref{figcont}, at $\chi_{12} \sim -0.5$

2252: ($W_{12} \sim 0.1$), where $\delta_{HMY} \lappeq m_2/m_3$,

2253: but washout is minimised. It has the same observable

2254: footprints as the peak.

2255: 

2256: 

2257: Until now we have considered {\it if} thermal leptogenesis

2258: works, then {\it what should we see at low energy?} 

2259: Allowing $T_{RH } \sim 10^{10}$ GeV, it seems just about

2260: all phenomenology is consistent with thermal leptogenesis:

2261: large $\tau \rightarrow \mu \gamma$, $\theta_{13} \sim 0.04$,

2262: observable  $\tau \rightarrow e \gamma$, nothing observable

2263: at all...So now consider the inverse question:

2264: are there weak-scale observations that can 

2265: rule out thermal leptogenesis?

2266: The previous discussion

2267: is vague because SUSY has not been discovered.

2268: Clearly thermal leptogenesis does not work if $W_{13}$ is too big

2269: or too small. Since  all the terms

2270: which contribute to $W_{13}$ cannot be

2271: measured, no experimental lower bound can be set.

2272:  However, one could tell that  $W_{13}$

2273: is too $large$, for instance if 

2274: large $V_{L13}$ 

2275: ($\tau \rightarrow e \gamma$)

2276: is measured\footnote{ If there are additional sources

2277: of flavour violation in the slepton masses, ({\it e.g}

2278: non-universal soft masses) this does not work.}.

2279: 

2280: 

2281: 

2282: The analysis of this paper relies crucially on the assumption that the

2283: $\nu_R$ are produced thermally. A larger

2284: number density of the lightest $\nu_R$, $n_{\nu_R}/s$,

2285: could be produced non-thermally, so a 

2286: large enough baryon asymmetry could be produced with

2287: a smaller $\epsilon$. This  would enlarge the available parameter

2288: space. Furthermore, if the $\nu_R$ are produced

2289: non-thermally, they could be $\nu_{R2}$ or  $\nu_{R3}$,

2290: making the formulae for  $\epsilon$ inapplicable. 

2291: 

2292: 

2293: In summary,  we study the baryon asymmetry resulting

2294: from the decay of the lightest right-handed neutrino

2295: $\nu_{R_1}$, assuming the $\nu_{R_1}$s are produced

2296: thermally. We present compact analytic approximations

2297: for the quantities relevant to thermal leptogenesis,

2298: in terms of the light neutrino masses, the MNS matrix,

2299: the smallest eigenvalue of the neutrino Yukawa matrix

2300: $Y_\nu$, and the matrix $V_L$ which diagonalises

2301: $Y_\nu$ on its SU(2) doublet indices. In the MSUGRA scenario,

2302: we can trade these parameters for the neutrino and

2303: sneutrino mass matrices ($m_\nu$ and $m_{\snu}^2$), or more usefully, 

2304: for  $m_\nu$, for the branching ratios of lepton

2305: flavour violating decays $\ell_j \rightarrow \ell_i \gamma$,

2306: and for the lightest right-handed neutrino mass $M_1 \lappeq T_{RH}$.

2307: We find a small area of parameter space where a large enough

2308: baryon asymmetry is generated for $T_{RH} \sim 10^9$ GeV.

2309: It corresponds to large off-diagonal elements in  $m_{\snu}^2$,

2310: and therefore observable $\tau \rightarrow e \gamma$. 

2311: For $T_{RH} \sim 10^{10}$ GeV, leptogenesis can also work

2312: for smaller off-diagonal elements in

2313: $m_{\snu}^2$.

2314: 

2315: 

2316: \subsection*{Acknowledgements}

2317: Thanks to Oxford where we started this, and 

2318: to Valencia, for a warm and sunny 

2319: welcome when it was being completed.

2320: I am grateful to  Marco Peloso

2321: for encouragement and asking the right questions, and  

2322: to Michael Pl\"umacher for many discussions, comments and

2323: for careful reading of the manuscript. I 

2324: particularily thank   Alejandro

2325: Ibarra for 

2326: %critical contributions

2327: %and  

2328: innumerable  productive discussions and important

2329: contributions.

2330: 

2331: \subsection*{Note added}

2332: After this work was completed, related analyses

2333: \cite{new} appeared. 

2334: 

2335: \section{Appendix:the approximation and plots}

2336: 

2337: In this Appendix, 

2338:  the lightest eigenvalue and 

2339: corresponding eigenvector of

2340: $\cal M$ are estimated, using  an approximation

2341: borrowed from diagonalising  neutrino mass matrices

2342: in R-parity violating theories.

2343: 

2344:  It is first convenient to

2345:   scale  some powers of the smallest

2346: Yukawa out of 

2347: the hermitian matrix $ {\cal M}^{-1 \dagger} {\cal M}^{-1}$:

2348: \beq

2349: v_u^4{\cal M}^{-1 \dagger}{\cal M}^{-1} 

2350: =  D_Y^{-1} V_L [m_\nu]^{\dagger} V_L^TD_Y^{-2} V_L^* 

2351: [m_\nu] V_L^{\dagger} D_Y^{-1}

2352: \equiv \frac{ \Lambda}{y_1^4} ~~.

2353: \eeq

2354: This can be written more compactly as

2355: \bea

2356:  \frac{\Lambda}{y_1^4} & =& 

2357:  {\bf  D_Y^{-1}} \Delta^{\dagger} {\bf  D_Y}^{-2}  \Delta {\bf  D_Y^{-1}} ~~,

2358: \label{omega}

2359: \eea

2360: by defining 

2361: \beq

2362: \Delta = V_L^* [m_\nu] V^{\dagger}_L 

2363: = V_L^* U^* D_{m_\nu} U^{\dagger} V_L^{\dagger}

2364: \equiv W^* D_{m_\nu} W^{\dagger} ~~,

2365: \label{Delta}

2366: \eeq

2367: where the matrix $W=V_L U$ is 

2368: the rotation from the basis where the $\nu_L$ masses

2369: are diagonal to the basis where the neutrino Yukawa  matrix

2370: ${\bf Y^{\dagger}_{\nu}} {\bf Y_\nu}$ is diagonal.

2371: 

2372: The matrix $\Lambda$ can be written 

2373: \bea

2374: [\Lambda]_{ij} & =& 

2375:  ( \vec{\lambda}_i) \cdot  (  \vec{\lambda}_j^\dagger) = 

2376:  \sum_k ( {\lambda}_i)_k  ( {\lambda}_j^*)_k ~~,

2377: \label{omega2}

2378: \eea

2379: where 

2380: \beq

2381: \label{lamvec}

2382: \vec{\lambda}_i \equiv  \frac{y_1}{y_i} \left(\begin{array}{c}

2383: \Delta_{1i}^* \\

2384: y_1\Delta_{2i}^* /{y_2} \\

2385: y_1\Delta_{3i}^* /{y_3}

2386: \end{array} \right)  ~~.

2387: \eeq

2388: If the  hierarchy in the $y_i$  is steeper than in

2389: the $m_j$, and/or that the angles in $W$ are large,

2390: then

2391: \beq

2392: |\vec{\lambda}_1|^2 \gg |\vec{\lambda}_2|^2,|\vec{\lambda}_3|^2

2393: \eeq

2394: so  the largest eigenvalue of $\Lambda$ 

2395: ($ = v_u^4 y_1^4/|M_1|^2$) 

2396: is

2397: \beq

2398: |M_1| \simeq \frac{y_1^2v_u^2 }{\sqrt{|\lambda_1|^2}}

2399: \simeq  \frac{y_1^2v_u^2 }{|\Delta_{11}| }

2400: = \frac{y_1^2v_u^2 }{|W^2_{1j} m_j| }

2401: \label{M1apap}

2402: \eeq

2403: with associated eingevector (normalised $\vec{\lambda}_1$):

2404: \beq

2405: \label{eigenvec1}

2406: \hat{\lambda}_1 \simeq   \left(\begin{array}{c}

2407: \Delta_{11}^* \\

2408: y_1\Delta_{21}^* /{y_2} \\

2409: y_1\Delta_{31}^* /{y_3}

2410: \end{array} \right) \times\frac{1}{ \Delta_{11}^*}

2411: \eeq

2412: In figure \ref{figM1}, $M_1$ is plotted as a function of

2413: $\omega_{12} \simeq \log W_{12} $ and 

2414: $\omega_{13} \simeq \log W_{13}$, for  $y_1 = 10^{-4}$, and

2415: using  the central values of $m_i$

2416: listed after eqn (\ref{CKM}).

2417: The precise definition is 

2418: \bea

2419:   W_{12}  = 

2420: \cos \theta_{W13} \sin \theta_{W12},  &&

2421: W_{13} =  \sin \theta_{W13} \nonumber \\

2422:  with ~~

2423: \theta_{W1j}& =& 10^{ \omega_{1j}} \pi/2 ~~.

2424: \label{defom}

2425: \eea

2426:  This Appendix contains  many three

2427: dimensional plots of functions

2428: that will enter into the equation for

2429: the baryon asymmetry. The aim of these

2430: figures is to give a qualitative

2431: impression;  quantitatively clearer contour

2432: plots of the baryon asymmetry are in the body of the

2433: paper. In figure \ref{figM1},

2434: there are three limiting values for $M_1$, 

2435: corresponding to $M_1 \simeq y_1^2v_u^2/m_i$:

2436: $M_1 \rightarrow  y_1^2v_u^2/m_3$ when $W_{13} \rightarrow 1$,

2437: $M_1 \rightarrow  y_1^2v_u^2/m_1$ when $W_{13}, W_{12} \rightarrow 0$,

2438: and   

2439: $M_1 \rightarrow  y_1^2v_u^2/m_2$ when $W_{13}<m_2/m_3 $, 

2440: $W_{12} \rightarrow 1$.

2441: 

2442:  \begin{figure}[ht]

2443: %\vspace{4cm}

2444: %\epsfxsize=6cm\epsfbox{M1.eps}

2445: %\epsfxsize=6cm\epsfbox{tk1.eps}

2446: %\epsfxsize=7cm\epsfbox{delta.eps}

2447: \includegraphics[width=7cm]{M1.eps}

2448: \includegraphics[width=7cm]{tk1.eps}

2449: \caption{On the LHS, $\log  [ M_1/{\rm GeV}]$ as a function of 

2450: $\omega_{12} \simeq log [ W_{12} ]$ and $\omega_{13} \simeq log [ W_{13} ]$.

2451: On the RHS,   $\kappa = log_{10}(\tilde{m}_1/m_3)$. 

2452: % as a function of 

2453: %$\omega_{12} \simeq log [ W_{12} ]$ and $\omega_{13} \simeq log [ W_{13} ]$.

2454: Recall we need $\kappa \lappeq -1.4$ to maximise the asymmetry.

2455: These plots are for central

2456: values of the neutrino masses:

2457: $y_1 = 10^{-4}, m_2 = 8.2 \times 10^{-3}$ eV, and $ 

2458: m_3 = 5.2 \times 10^{-2}$ eV.}

2459: %\vspace{4cm}

2460: \protect\label{figM1}

2461: \end{figure}

2462: 

2463: 

2464: 

2465: 

2466: The $\nu_R$ decay rate can be evaluated with  the eigenvector

2467: (\ref{eigenvec1}), which gives eqn 

2468: (\ref{tildekappaap}). 

2469: $\tilde{m}_1$ has three limits---$m_1, m_2, m_3$---depending ono

2470: the values of $W_{1j}$. 

2471: The logarithm of $\tilde{m}_1/m_3$ is plotted on the RHS

2472: of figure \ref{figM1}. $\tilde{m}_1$ must be in the range given

2473: after eq. (\ref{mtilde}), 

2474: which implies log $(\tilde{m}_1/m_3) \lappeq -1.4$.

2475: 

2476: 

2477: Finally, the CP asymmetry $\epsilon$,  eqn. (\ref{eps1}),

2478: can be evaluated  with  the eigenvector (\ref{eigenvec1}) to obtain

2479: \beq

2480: \epsilon \simeq 

2481: - \frac{3  \Lambda_{11}^2}{8 \pi [\Lambda D_Y^2 \Lambda]_{11} }

2482: {\rm Im} \left\{ 

2483: \frac{[\Lambda D_Y \Delta^\dagger D_Y \Lambda^T]_{11}}

2484: {[\Lambda  D_Y^{-1}  \Delta^\dagger  D_Y^{-1}  \Lambda^T]_{11}}\right\}

2485: =

2486: \frac{3 y_1^2}{8 \pi \sum_j |W_{1j}|^2  m_{\nu_j}^2} 

2487:  {\rm Im} \left\{ \frac{ \sum_k W_{1k}^{2} m_{\nu_k}^3 }

2488: { \sum_n W_{1n}^{2} m_{\nu_n} } \right\} ~~,

2489: \label{epsapprox}

2490: \eeq

2491: where terms of order  $y_1/y_2$ and $y_1/y_3$ have been dropped.

2492: $ \delta_{HMY} \propto \epsilon_1/ M_1$ is given in eqn

2493: (\ref{deltaapprox}), and plotted on the LHS of figure

2494: \ref{figeps3d}. $\epsilon_1$ 

2495: is plotted on the RHS; it peaks  on the ridge

2496: of eqn (\ref{aaa})  because this is where the larger

2497: values of $M_1$ and $\delta_{HMY}$ overlap.

2498: 

2499: 

2500:  \begin{figure}[ht]

2501: %\vspace{4cm}

2502: %\epsfxsize=6cm\epsfbox{delta.eps}

2503: %\epsfxsize=6cm\epsfbox{epsM1.eps}

2504: \includegraphics[width=7cm]{delta.eps}

2505: \includegraphics[width=7cm]{epsM1.eps}

2506: \caption{

2507: On the LHS (RHS), $\delta_{HMY}$

2508: ($\epsilon$) as a function of 

2509: $\omega_{12} \simeq log [ W_{12}]$ 

2510: and $\omega_{13} \equiv log [ W_{13} ]$. 

2511: On the RHS, $M_1$ is taken as a function

2512: of $y_1 = 10^{-4}$ and other inputs.

2513: Both plots are for central values of the neutrino

2514: masses. }

2515: \protect\label{figeps3d}

2516: %\vspace{4cm}

2517: \end{figure}

2518: 

2519: 

2520: 

2521: 

2522: 

2523: 

2524: The results in the remainder of the paper are based

2525: on the analytic approximations of this section. How

2526: reliable are these equations?

2527: The eqn (\ref{omega}) for $ \Lambda = y_1^4 [{\cal M}{\cal M}^\dagger]^{-1}$

2528:  is exact, but

2529: the formula we use for $\epsilon_1$ assumes hierarchical

2530: $M_i$, so it is consistent to assume this in solving

2531: for the eigenvalues and eigenvectors of $\Lambda$.

2532: The approximation is that the first column (or row)

2533: of $y_1^2  D_Y^{-1} \cdot \Delta \cdot D_Y^{-1}$ 

2534: is the lightest  eigenvalue, multiplying

2535: its eigenvector. 

2536: It breaks down if the elements of the second or third row/column

2537: become of order $\Delta_{11}$, as one can see

2538: by writing the eigenvector in a basis rotated by a small

2539: angle from the eigenbasis.   $y_1 \Delta_{12}/y_2,  

2540: y_1\Delta_{13}/y_3 \simeq \Delta_{11}$ 

2541: could occur if

2542: \begin{enumerate}

2543: \item  the $M_i$ were of similar magnitude, rather than

2544: hierarchical.  This is  ``unlikely'',  because the hierarchy in

2545: $D_Y$ is much steeper than in $[m_\nu]$.

2546: \item $m_1$ too small---if $m_1/m_2,m_1/m_3 < y_2^2$, then

2547: the terms being kept are smaller than the  neglected ones.

2548: This is discussed in an appendix. 

2549: \end{enumerate}

2550: 

2551: 

2552: 

2553: 

2554: 

2555: \section{Appendix: $m_1 \ll m_2/10$ }

2556: \label{appB}

2557: 

2558:  In this paper,

2559: we assumed a hierarchical spectrum for the light neutrino masses:

2560: $\Delta m^2_{atm} = m_3^2$, $\Delta m^2_{sol} = m_2^2$,

2561: so the smallest neutrino mass $m_1$ is unlikely to

2562: be measured with anticipated data.

2563: However, it enters our formulae for the baryon asymmetry,

2564: as does the smallest Yukawa $y_1$.

2565: In the body of the paper, we fixed 

2566: $m_1 = m_2/10$, and determined $y_1$ as a

2567: function of $M_1$ and our weak scale parameters,

2568: by requiring $M_1$ to be in the range allowed by

2569: leptogenesis.  In this Appendix, 

2570: we discuss the dependence of our results on

2571: $m_1$. For most values of

2572: $W_{12}$ and $W_{13}$, $m_1$ is irrelevant

2573: because $|W_{11}|^2 m_1 \ll |W_{12}|^2 m_2,|W_{13}|^2 m_3$.

2574: However, $m_1$ cannot be dropped from our analytic expressions,

2575:  for $W$ close to the identity.

2576: %the effect of decreasing $m_1$

2577: This is the area of parameter space where $\eta_B$ is maximal;

2578: the remainder of the Appendix is restricted to

2579: this area of parameter space.

2580:  We are interested in how $\eta_B$ scales with

2581: $m_1$, and  in whether

2582:  our analytic approximation is  still valid.

2583: 

2584: 

2585: The maximum value  of  $\epsilon$,

2586: eqn (\ref{bdinsum}), 

2587: %on the peak

2588: %in figure \ref{figeps3d} 

2589: is independent of $m_1$, if $M_1$ is independent

2590: of $m_1$. We have fixed $M_1 \simeq T_{RH}$,

2591: which determines $y_1^2$ as a function of

2592: $W_{1n}^2 m_n \sim m_1$. So varying

2593: $m_1$ allows $y_1$ to vary:

2594: $m_1 \sim m_2/100$ would allow

2595: leptogenesis to work for $y_1 \sim h_u$,

2596: which could be theoretically attractive. 

2597: 

2598: 

2599: 

2600: As discussed after eqn (\ref{deltaapprox}),

2601: $\epsilon$ approaches its upper bound 

2602: (equivalently $\delta_{HMY} \sim 1$)

2603: on the peak

2604: in figure \ref{figeps3d},   where 

2605: $m_1^2/m_3^2  \sim W_{13}^2 $ and  

2606: $ W_{12}^2 <m_1^2/m_2^2$.  As $m_1$ decreases,

2607: the {\it area} in $W_{12},  W_{13}$ space

2608: where  $\delta_{HMY} \sim 1$ decreases, but the

2609: maximum value is unchanged. The numerical values of 

2610: $W_{12}$ and $  W_{13}$ where the maximum is reached

2611: will also decrease, making this parameter space

2612: increasingly ``fine-tuned'' ($W$ very close to

2613: the identity is unlikely to be stable under renormalisation

2614: group running). 

2615: 

2616: 

2617: 

2618: The $\nu_R$ decay rate must have values in the range given after eqn

2619: (\ref{mtilde}), to ensure $\eta_B$ as 

2620: large as possible. We first concern ourselves

2621: with the upper bound: $\tilde{m}_1 < 3 \times 10^{-3}$ eV. 

2622:  If $ W_{1n}^2 m_n^2  \sim  W_{13}^2  m_3^2$

2623:  and $ W_{1j}^2 m_j  \sim  W_{11}^2  m_1$, as required

2624: to maximise  $\delta_{HMY}$,

2625:  then from eqn

2626: (\ref{tildekappaap}),  $\tilde{m}_1 \sim  W_{13}^2  m_3^2/ m_1$.

2627:  To maximise $\eta_B \sim \delta_{HMY}/\tilde{m}_1 $,

2628: requires  $W_{13}^2  \simeq m_1^2/m_3^2$, so that the

2629: decay rate is slow enough, but $ \delta_{HMY}$ is still

2630: $O(1)$. 

2631: So as $m_1$ decreases from $m_2/10$ to $10^{-3}m_2$, the

2632: area of  the peak on the RHS of figure \ref{figetaB} will

2633: shrink, but the height is unchanged.

2634: 

2635: For smaller values of $m_1$, the asymmetry

2636: will decrease. This is because 

2637: $\tilde{m}_1$ is small, so $\nu_R$ production in the plasma is

2638: inefficient (see \cite{review}).

2639: 

2640: 

2641: It is straightforward to check that 

2642:  our analytic approximation holds, in

2643: the shrinking area of parameter space where

2644: $W_{13}  \simeq m_1/m_3$ and $W_{12}  < m_1/m_2$,

2645: provided that $y_1^2/m_1 \ll y_2^2/m_2$.

2646: This is the condition that  $y_1^2v_u^2/m_1$ is the lightest

2647:  $\nu_R$ mass. So the analytic approximation fails

2648: as $m_1$ approaches $ \frac{y_1^2}{y_2^2} m_2$.

2649: 

2650: 

2651: Finally, the low energy prediction of the peak are

2652: independent of $m_1$, because they follow from requiring

2653: that $W \sim 1$. As $m_1$ decreases, $W$ must approach

2654: the identity more and more closely, so $V_L$ becomes more precisely

2655: $U^\dagger$. But whether $V_L \sim U^\dagger$, or 

2656: $V_L = U^\dagger$, the expectation  remains that $\tau

2657: \rightarrow \mu \gamma$ or $\tau

2658: \rightarrow e \gamma$ should be observable.

2659: 

2660: So in summary, the magnitude of the baryon

2661: asymmetry on the peak of figure \ref{figetaB}

2662: is independent of $m_1$ for 

2663: $10^{-3}m_2 < m_1 <m_2/10$.

2664: As $m_1$ decreases, the location of the peak

2665: shifts to smaller  $W_{13}$,

2666: and its area will shrink.

2667: We cannot say anything for  $m_1 <10^{-3}m_2$: our analytic formulae

2668: indicate that $\eta_B$ will decrease, but the approximation

2669: they are based on is unreliable. 

2670: 

2671: 

2672: \begin{thebibliography}{222222}

2673: 

2674: 

2675: \bibitem{Fukugita:1986hr}

2676: M.~Fukugita and T.~Yanagida,

2677: %``Baryogenesis Without Grand Unification,''

2678: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 174} (1986) 45.

2679: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B174,45;%%

2680: 

2681: 

2682: \bibitem{Buchmuller:2000wq}

2683: {\it see e.g.} W.~B\"uchmuller and S.~Fredenhagen,

2684: %``Elements of baryogenesis,''

2685: hep-ph/0001098;

2686: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0001098;%%

2687: %\cite{Riotto:1999yt}

2688: %\bibitem{Riotto:1999yt}

2689: A.~Riotto and M.~Trodden,

2690: %``Recent progress in baryogenesis,''

2691: Ann.\ Rev.\ Nucl.\ Part.\ Sci.\  {\bf 49} (1999) 35;

2692: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9901362;%%

2693: %\cite{Rubakov:1996vz}

2694: %\bibitem{Rubakov:1996vz}

2695: V.~A.~Rubakov and M.~E.~Shaposhnikov,

2696: %``Electroweak baryon number non-conservation in the early universe and in  high-energy collisions,''

2697: Usp.\ Fiz.\ Nauk {\bf 166} (1996) 493

2698: [Phys.\ Usp.\  {\bf 39} (1996) 461].

2699: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9603208;%%

2700: 

2701: \bibitem{seesaw} 

2702: M. Gell-Mann, P. Ramond and

2703: R. Slansky,  {\em Proceedings of the Supergravity Stony Brook Workshop}, New

2704: York 1979,  eds. P. Van Nieuwenhuizen and D. Freedman; T. Yanagida,  {\em

2705: Proceedinds of the Workshop on Unified Theories and Baryon Number in the

2706: Universe},  Tsukuba, Japan 1979, ed.s A. Sawada and A. Sugamoto;

2707: R. N. Mohapatra, G. Senjanovic,

2708: {\it Phys.Rev.Lett.} {\bf 44} (1980)912.

2709: %

2710: 

2711: 

2712: 

2713: 

2714: \bibitem{Kuzmin:1985mm}

2715: V.~A.~Kuzmin, V.~A.~Rubakov and M.~E.~Shaposhnikov,

2716: %``On The Anomalous Electroweak Baryon Number Nonconservation In The Early Universe,''

2717: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 155} (1985) 36.

2718: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B155,36;%%

2719: 

2720: %\cite{di2}

2721: \bibitem{di2}

2722: K.~Hamaguchi, H.~Murayama and T.~Yanagida,

2723: %``Leptogenesis from sneutrino-dominated early universe,''

2724: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 65} (2002) 043512

2725: [hep-ph/0109030].

2726: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0109030;%%

2727: M.~Fujii, K.~Hamaguchi and T.~Yanagida,

2728: %``Leptogenesis with almost degenerate Majorana neutrinos,''

2729: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 65} (2002) 115012

2730: [hep-ph/0202210].

2731: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0202210;%%

2732: S.~Davidson and A.~Ibarra,

2733: %``A lower bound on the right-handed neutrino mass from leptogenesis,''

2734: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 535} (2002) 25

2735: [hep-ph/0202239].

2736: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0202239;%%

2737: 

2738: 

2739: 

2740: \bibitem{gravitino1}

2741: S.~Weinberg,

2742: %``Cosmological Constraints On The Scale Of Supersymmetry Breaking,''

2743: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 48} (1982) 1303.

2744: %%CITATION = PRLTA,48,1303;%%

2745: %

2746: %\bibitem{grreh}

2747: D.~V.~Nanopoulos, K.~A.~Olive and M.~Srednicki,

2748: %``After Primordial Inflation,''

2749: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 127} (1983) 30;

2750: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B127,30;%%

2751: %J.~R.~Ellis, J.~S.~Hagelin, D.~V.~Nanopoulos, K.~A.~Olive and M.~Srednicki,

2752: %``Supersymmetric Relics From The Big Bang,''

2753: %Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 238} (1984) 453;

2754: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B238,453;%%

2755: M.~Y.~Khlopov and A.~D.~Linde,

2756: %``Is It Easy To Save The Gravitino?,''

2757: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 138} (1984) 265.

2758: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B138,265;%%

2759: %

2760: %\bibitem{grnuc}

2761: J.~R.~Ellis, J.~E.~Kim and D.~V.~Nanopoulos,

2762: %``Cosmological Gravitino Regeneration And Decay,''

2763: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 145} (1984) 181;

2764: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B145,181;%%

2765: J.~R.~Ellis, D.~V.~Nanopoulos and S.~Sarkar,

2766: %``The Cosmology Of Decaying Gravitinos,''

2767: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 259} (1985) 175;

2768: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B259,175;%%

2769: %R.~Juszkiewicz, J.~Silk and A.~Stebbins,

2770: %``Constraints On Cosmologically Regenerated Gravitinos,''

2771: %Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 158} (1985) 463;

2772: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B158,463;%%

2773: %D.~Lindley,

2774: %``Hadronic Decays Of Cosmological Gravitinos,''

2775: %Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 171} (1986) 235;

2776: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B171,235;%%

2777: %M.~Kawasaki and K.~Sato,

2778: %``Decay Of Gravitinos And Photodestruction Of Light Elements,''

2779: %Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 189} (1987) 23.

2780: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B189,23;%%

2781: %

2782: \bibitem{gravitino2}

2783: M.~Kawasaki and T.~Moroi,

2784: %``Gravitino production in the inflationary universe and the effects on big bang nucleosynthesis,''

2785: Prog.\ Theor.\ Phys.\ {\bf 93} (1995) 879

2786: [arXiv:hep-ph/9403364];

2787: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9403364;%%

2788: %J.~R.~Ellis, D.~V.~Nanopoulos, K.~A.~Olive and S.~J.~Rey,

2789: %``On the thermal regeneration rate for 

2790: %light gravitinos in the early universe,''

2791: %Astropart.\ Phys.\  {\bf 4} (1996) 371

2792: %[arXiv:hep-ph/9505438];

2793: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9505438;%%

2794: S.~Sarkar,

2795: %``Big bang nucleosynthesis and physics beyond the standard model,''

2796: Rept.\ Prog.\ Phys.\  {\bf 59} (1996) 1493

2797: [arXiv:hep-ph/9602260];

2798: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9602260;%%

2799: %M.~Bolz, A.~Brandenburg and W.~Buchmuller,

2800: %``Thermal production of gravitinos,''

2801: %Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 606} (2001) 518

2802: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0012052].

2803: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0012052;%%

2804: %

2805: 

2806: 

2807: 

2808: %\cite{Borzumati:1986qx}

2809: \bibitem{Borzumati:1986qx}

2810: F.~Borzumati and A.~Masiero,

2811: %``Large Muon And Electron Number Violations In Supergravity Theories,''

2812: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 57} (1986) 961.

2813: %%CITATION = PRLTA,57,961;%%

2814: 

2815: 

2816: %\cite{Branco:gr}

2817: \bibitem{Branco:gr}

2818: G.~C.~Branco, L.~Lavoura and M.~N.~Rebelo,

2819: %``Majorana Neutrinos And CP Violation In The Leptonic Sector,''

2820: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 180} (1986) 264.

2821: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B180,264;%%

2822: A.~Santamaria,

2823: %``Masses, mixings, Yukawa couplings and their symmetries,''

2824: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 305} (1993) 90

2825: [arXiv:hep-ph/9302301].

2826: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9302301;%%

2827: 

2828: 

2829: %\cite{Davidson:2001zk}

2830: \bibitem{Davidson:2001zk}

2831: S.~Davidson and A.~Ibarra,

2832: %``Determining seesaw parameters from weak scale measurements?,''

2833: JHEP {\bf 0109} (2001) 013

2834: [arXiv:hep-ph/0104076].

2835: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0104076;%%

2836: 

2837: 

2838: 

2839: \bibitem{review}

2840: {\it see e.g.}

2841: %

2842: W.~Buchm\"uller and M.~Pl\"umacher, 

2843: %``Neutrino masses and the baryon asymmetry,''

2844: Int.\ J.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 15} (2000) 5047

2845: [arXiv:hep-ph/0007176], {\it or}

2846: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0007176;%%

2847: %\bibitem{Buchmuller:1999cu}

2848: %

2849: W.~B\"uchmuller and M.~Pl\"umacher,

2850: %``Matter antimatter asymmetry and neutrino properties,''

2851: Phys.\ Rept.\  {\bf 320} (1999) 329, {\it and references therein}.

2852: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9904310;%%

2853: 

2854: 

2855: %REAL

2856: \bibitem{real}

2857: M.~A.~Luty,

2858: %``Baryogenesis Via Leptogenesis,''

2859: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 45} (1992) 455;

2860: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D45,455;%%

2861: %

2862: B.~A.~Campbell, S.~Davidson and K.~A.~Olive,

2863: %``Inflation, neutrino baryogenesis, and (S)neutrino induced baryogenesis,''

2864: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 399} (1993) 111

2865: [arXiv:hep-ph/9302223];

2866: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9302223;%%

2867: 

2868: \bibitem{other}

2869: A.~S.~Joshipura, E.~A.~Paschos and W.~Rodejohann,

2870: %``A simple connection between neutrino oscillation and leptogenesis,''

2871: JHEP {\bf 0108} (2001) 029

2872: [arXiv:hep-ph/0105175].

2873: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0105175;%%

2874: %

2875: %\cite{Rodejohann:2002mh}

2876: %\bibitem{Rodejohann:2002mh}

2877: W.~Rodejohann and K.~R.~Balaji,

2878: %``Leptogenesis and low energy observables in left-right symmetric models,''

2879: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 65} (2002) 093009

2880: [arXiv:hep-ph/0201052].

2881: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0201052;%%

2882: %\bibitem{GUT}

2883: %\cite{Berger:2001np}

2884: %\bibitem{Berger:2001np}

2885: M.~S.~Berger and K.~Siyeon,

2886: %``Leptogenesis and low-energy observables,''

2887: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 65} (2002) 053019

2888: [arXiv:hep-ph/0110001].

2889: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0110001;%%

2890: %

2891: M.~S.~Berger and B.~Brahmachari,

2892: %``Leptogenesis and Yukawa textures,''

2893: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 60} (1999) 073009

2894: [arXiv:hep-ph/9903406].

2895: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9903406;%%

2896: 

2897: 

2898: %PHASES

2899: \bibitem{phases}

2900: %\cite{Kaneko:2002yp}

2901: %\bibitem{Kaneko:2002yp}

2902: S.~Kaneko and M.~Tanimoto,

2903: %``Neutrino mass matrix with two zeros and leptogenesis,''

2904: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 551} (2003) 127

2905: [arXiv:hep-ph/0210155].

2906: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0210155;%%

2907: J.~R.~Ellis, J.~Hisano, S.~Lola and M.~Raidal,

2908: %``CP violation in the minimal supersymmetric seesaw model,''

2909: arXiv:hep-ph/0109125.

2910: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0109125;%%

2911: 

2912: 

2913: 

2914: 

2915: %\cite{Buccella:2001tq}

2916: \bibitem{Falcone}

2917: %F.~Buccella, D.~Falcone and F.~Tramontano,

2918: %``Baryogenesis via leptogenesis in SO(10) models,''

2919: %Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 524} (2002) 241

2920: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0108172].

2921: %%%CITATION = HEP-PH 0108172;%%

2922: %

2923: %\cite{Falcone:2001im}

2924: %\bibitem{Falcone:2001im}

2925: %D.~Falcone and F.~Tramontano,

2926: %``Leptogenesis with SU(5)-inspired mass matrices,''

2927: %Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 506} (2001) 1

2928: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0101151].

2929: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0101151;%%

2930: %

2931: %\cite{Falcone:2000ib}

2932: %\bibitem{Falcone:2000ib}

2933: D.~Falcone and F.~Tramontano,

2934: %``Leptogenesis and neutrino parameters,''

2935: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 63} (2001) 073007

2936: [arXiv:hep-ph/0011053].

2937: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0011053;%%

2938: 

2939: 

2940: 

2941: %\cite{Branco:2002kt}

2942: \bibitem{Branco:2002kt}

2943: G.~C.~Branco, R.~Gonzalez Felipe, F.~R.~Joaquim and M.~N.~Rebelo,

2944: %``Leptogenesis, CP violation and neutrino data: What can we learn?,''

2945: arXiv:hep-ph/0202030.

2946: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0202030;%%

2947: 

2948: %\cite{Endoh:2002wm}

2949: \bibitem{Endoh:2002wm}

2950: T.~Endoh, S.~Kaneko, S.~K.~Kang, T.~Morozumi and M.~Tanimoto,

2951: %``CP violation in neutrino oscillation and leptogenesis,''

2952: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 89} (2002) 231601

2953: [arXiv:hep-ph/0209020].

2954: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0209020;%%

2955: 

2956: 

2957: \bibitem{Plumacher:1997kc}

2958: M.~Plumacher,

2959: %``Baryogenesis and lepton number violation,''

2960: Z.\ Phys.\ C {\bf 74} (1997) 549.

2961: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9604229;%%

2962: M.~Plumacher,

2963: %``Baryon asymmetry, neutrino mixing and supersymmetric SO(10)  unification,''

2964: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 530} (1998) 207.

2965: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9704231;%%

2966: 

2967: 

2968: %\cite{Covi:1996wh}

2969: \bibitem{Covi:1996wh}

2970: L.~Covi, E.~Roulet and F.~Vissani,

2971: %``CP violating decays in leptogenesis scenarios,''

2972: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 384} (1996) 169.

2973: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9605319;%%

2974: 

2975: 

2976: 

2977: 

2978: \bibitem{Barbieri:2000ma}

2979: R.~Barbieri, P.~Creminelli, A.~Strumia and N.~Tetradis,

2980: %``Baryogenesis through leptogenesis,''

2981: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 575} (2000) 61.

2982: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9911315;%%

2983: 

2984: 

2985: 

2986: %\cite{Hirsch:2001dg}

2987: \bibitem{Hirsch:2001dg}

2988: M.~Hirsch and S.~F.~King,

2989: %``Leptogenesis with single right-handed neutrino dominance,''

2990: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 64} (2001) 113005

2991: [arXiv:hep-ph/0107014].

2992: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0107014;%%

2993: 

2994: 

2995: 

2996: %\cite{Branco:2002xf}

2997: \bibitem{Branco:2002xf}

2998: G.~C.~Branco, R.~Gonzalez Felipe, F.~R.~Joaquim, I.~Masina, M.~N.~Rebelo and C.~A.~Savoy,

2999: %``Minimal scenarios for leptogenesis and CP violation,''

3000: arXiv:hep-ph/0211001.

3001: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0211001;%%

3002: 

3003: 

3004: \bibitem{SK}

3005: Y.~Fukuda {\it et al.}  [Super-Kamiokande Collaboration],

3006: %``Evidence for oscillation of atmospheric neutrinos,''

3007: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 81} (1998) 1562,

3008: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 9807003;%%

3009: %Y.~Fukuda {\it et al.}  [Super-Kamiokande Collaboration],

3010: %``Constraints on neutrino oscillation parameters from the measurement of  day-night solar neutrino fluxes at Super-Kamiokande,''

3011: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 82} (1999) 1810,

3012: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 9812009;%%

3013: %.~Fukuda {\it et al.}  [Super-Kamiokande Collaboration],

3014: %``Measurement of the solar neutrino energy spectrum using neutrino  electron scattering,''

3015: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 82} (1999) 2430.

3016: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 9812011;%%

3017: 

3018:  

3019: %\cite{Cleveland:1998nv}

3020: \bibitem{Cleveland:1998nv}

3021: R.~J.~Davis, D.~S.~Harmer and K.~C.~Hoffman,

3022: %``Search For Neutrinos From The Sun,''

3023: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 20} (1968) 1205.

3024: %%CITATION = PRLTA,20,1205;%%

3025: 

3026: \bibitem{SNO}

3027: Q.~R.~Ahmad {\it et al.}  [SNO Collaboration],

3028: %``Measurement of the charged of current interactions produced by B-8  solar neutrinos at the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory,''

3029: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 87} (2001) 071301;

3030: %%CITATION = NUCL-EX 0106015;%%

3031: %

3032: %\cite{Ahmad:2002jz}

3033: %\bibitem{Ahmad:2002jz}

3034: Q.~R.~Ahmad {\it et al.}  [SNO Collaboration],

3035: %``Direct evidence for neutrino flavor transformation from neutral-current  interactions in the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory,''

3036: arXiv:nucl-ex/0204008.

3037: %%CITATION = NUCL-EX 0204008;%%

3038: %

3039: Q.~R.~Ahmad {\it et al.}  [SNO Collaboration],

3040: %``Measurement of day and night neutrino energy spectra at SNO and  constraints on neutrino mixing parameters,''

3041: arXiv:nucl-ex/0204009.

3042: %%CITATION = NUCL-EX 0204009;%%

3043: 

3044: 

3045: \bibitem{experiments}

3046: B.~T.~Cleveland {\it et al.},

3047: %``Measurement of the solar electron neutrino flux with the Homestake  chlorine detector,''

3048: Astrophys.\ J.\  {\bf 496} (1998) 505;

3049: %%CITATION = ASJOA,496,505;%%

3050: %

3051: Y.~Fukuda {\it et al.}  [Kamiokande Collaboration],

3052: %``Solar neutrino data covering solar cycle 22,''

3053: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 77} (1996) 1683;

3054: %%CITATION = PRLTA,77,1683;%%

3055: %

3056: S.~Hatakeyama {\it et al.}  [Kamiokande Collaboration],

3057: %``Measurement of the flux and zenith angle distribution of

3058: % upward  through-going muons in Kamiokande II + III,''

3059: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 81} (1998) 2016;

3060: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 9806038;%%

3061: %

3062: W.~W.~Allison {\it et al.},

3063: %``Measurement of the atmospheric neutrino flavour composition in  Soudan-2,''

3064: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 391} (1997) 491;

3065: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 9611007;%%

3066: %

3067: W.~W.~Allison {\it et al.}  [Soudan-2 Collaboration],

3068: %``The atmospheric neutrino flavor ratio from a 3.9 fiducial kiloton-year  exposure of Soudan 2,''

3069: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 449} (1999) 137;

3070: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 9901024;%%

3071: %

3072: W.~Hampel {\it et al.}  [GALLEX Collaboration],

3073: %``GALLEX solar neutrino observations: Results for GALLEX III.,''

3074: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 388} (1996) 384;

3075: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B388,384;%%

3076: %

3077: D.~N.~Abdurashitov {\it et al.},

3078: %``The Russian-American gallium experiment (SAGE) Cr neutrino source measurement,''

3079: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 77} (1996) 4708.

3080: %%CITATION = PRLTA,77,4708;%%

3081: 

3082: 

3083: 

3084: %\cite{Bahcall:2002ij}

3085: \bibitem{Bahcall:2002ij}

3086: $ see$ $ e.g.$ J.~N.~Bahcall, M.~C.~Gonzalez-Garcia and C.~Pena-Garay,

3087: %``Solar neutrinos before and after KamLAND,''

3088: arXiv:hep-ph/0212147.

3089: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0212147;%%

3090: 

3091: 

3092: 

3093: \bibitem{BdP}

3094: W.~B\"uchmuller, P.~Di Bari and M.~Pl\"umacher,

3095: %``A bound on neutrino masses from baryogenesis,''

3096: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 547} (2002) 128

3097: [arXiv:hep-ph/0209301].

3098: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0209301;%%

3099: W.~B\"uchmuller, P.~Di Bari and M.~Pl\"umacher,

3100: %``Cosmic microwave background, matter-antimatter asymmetry and neutrino  masses,''

3101: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 643} (2002) 367

3102: [arXiv:hep-ph/0205349].

3103: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0205349;%%

3104: 

3105: 

3106: 

3107: %\cite{Barger:2002px}

3108: \bibitem{SN}

3109: A.~S.~Dighe and A.~Y.~Smirnov,

3110: %``Identifying the neutrino mass spectrum from the neutrino burst from a  supernova,''

3111: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 62} (2000) 033007

3112: [arXiv:hep-ph/9907423].

3113: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9907423;%%

3114: H.~Minakata and H.~Nunokawa,

3115: %``Inverted hierarchy of neutrino masses disfavored by supernova 1987A,''

3116: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 504} (2001) 301

3117: [arXiv:hep-ph/0010240].

3118: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0010240;%%

3119: V.~Barger, D.~Marfatia and B.~P.~Wood,

3120: %``Supernova 1987A did not test the neutrino mass hierarchy,''

3121: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 532} (2002) 19

3122: [arXiv:hep-ph/0202158].

3123: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0202158;%%

3124: 

3125: 

3126: 

3127: %\cite{Dreiner:1994ra}

3128: \bibitem{Dreiner:1994ra}

3129: J.~A.~Harvey, D.~B.~Reiss and P.~Ramond,

3130: %``Mass Relations And Neutrino Oscillations In An SO(10) Model,''

3131: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 199} (1982) 223.

3132: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B199,223;%%

3133: H.~K.~Dreiner, G.~K.~Leontaris, S.~Lola, G.~G.~Ross and C.~Scheich,

3134: %``Neutrino masses from gauge symmetries,''

3135: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 436} (1995) 461

3136: [arXiv:hep-ph/9409369].

3137: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9409369;%%

3138: 

3139: 

3140: %\cite{Altarelli:gu}

3141: \bibitem{Altarelli:gu}

3142: G.~Altarelli and F.~Feruglio,

3143: %``Neutrino Masses And Mixings: A Theoretical Perspective,''

3144: Phys.\ Rept.\  {\bf 320} (1999) 295.

3145: %%CITATION = PRPLC,320,295;%%

3146: %\bibitem{Barr:2000ka}

3147: S.~M.~Barr and I.~Dorsner,

3148: %``A general classification of three neutrino models and U(e3),''

3149: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 585} (2000) 79

3150: [arXiv:hep-ph/0003058].

3151: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0003058;%%

3152: 

3153: 

3154: %\cite{Hisano:1995cp}

3155: \bibitem{Hisano:1995cp}

3156: J.~Hisano, T.~Moroi, K.~Tobe and M.~Yamaguchi,

3157: %``Lepton-Flavor Violation via Right-Handed Neutrino Yukawa 

3158: %Couplings in Supersymmetric Standard Model,''

3159: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 53} (1996) 2442

3160: [arXiv:hep-ph/9510309].

3161: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9510309;%%

3162: 

3163: 

3164: %\cite{Arkani-Hamed:1996au}

3165: \bibitem{Arkani-Hamed:1996au}

3166: N.~Arkani-Hamed, H.~C.~Cheng, J.~L.~Feng and L.~J.~Hall,

3167: %``Probing Lepton Flavor Violation at Future Colliders,''

3168: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 77} (1996) 1937

3169: [arXiv:hep-ph/9603431].

3170: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9603431;%%

3171: D.~Nomura,

3172: %``Probing left-handed slepton flavor mixing at future lepton colliders,''

3173: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 64} (2001) 075001

3174: [arXiv:hep-ph/0004256].

3175: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0004256;%%

3176: 

3177: 

3178: 

3179: 

3180: %\cite{Lavignac:2002gf}

3181: \bibitem{Lavignac:2002gf}

3182: J.~Hisano and D.~Nomura,

3183: %``Solar and atmospheric neutrino oscillations and lepton flavor violation  in supersymmetric models with the right-handed neutrinos,''

3184: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 59} (1999) 116005

3185: [arXiv:hep-ph/9810479].

3186: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9810479;%%

3187: %

3188: S.~Lavignac, I.~Masina and C.~A.~Savoy,

3189: %``Large solar angle and seesaw mechanism: A bottom-up perspective,''

3190: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 633} (2002) 139

3191: [arXiv:hep-ph/0202086].

3192: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0202086;%%

3193: 

3194: 

3195: 

3196: %\cite{Casas:2001sr}

3197: \bibitem{Casas:2001sr}

3198: J.~A.~Casas and A.~Ibarra,

3199: %``Oscillating neutrinos and mu $\to$ e, gamma,''

3200: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 618} (2001) 171

3201: [arXiv:hep-ph/0103065].

3202: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0103065;%%

3203: 

3204: 

3205: 

3206: %\cite{Bajc:2002iw}

3207: \bibitem{Bajc:2002iw}

3208: B.~Bajc, G.~Senjanovic and F.~Vissani,

3209: %``b - tau unification and large atmospheric mixing: A case for  non-canonical see-saw,''

3210: arXiv:hep-ph/0210207.

3211: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0210207;%%

3212: 

3213: 

3214: %\cite{Davidson:2002em}

3215: \bibitem{Davidson:2002em}

3216: S.~Davidson and A.~Ibarra,

3217: %``Leptogenesis and low-energy phases,''

3218: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 648} (2003) 345

3219: [arXiv:hep-ph/0206304].

3220: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0206304;%%

3221: 

3222: 

3223: %\cite{Maki:1962mu}

3224: \bibitem{Maki:1962mu}

3225: Z.~Maki, M.~Nakagawa and S.~Sakata,

3226: %``Remarks On The Unified Model Of Elementary Particles,''

3227: Prog.\ Theor.\ Phys.\  {\bf 28} (1962) 870.

3228: %%CITATION = PTPKA,28,870;%%

3229: 

3230: 

3231: 

3232: %\cite{Hagiwara:fs}

3233: \bibitem{Hagiwara:fs}

3234: K.~Hagiwara {\it et al.}  [Particle Data Group Collaboration],

3235: %``Review Of Particle Physics,''

3236: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 66} (2002) 010001.

3237: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D66,010001;%%

3238: 

3239: 

3240: %\cite{Bahcall:2002ij}

3241: \bibitem{B8}

3242: J.~N.~Bahcall, M.~C.~Gonzalez-Garcia and C.~Pena-Garay,

3243: %``Solar neutrinos before and after KamLAND,''

3244: arXiv:hep-ph/0212147.

3245: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0212147;%%

3246:  

3247: 

3248: 

3249: %\cite{Apollonio:1999ae}

3250: \bibitem{Apollonio:1999ae}

3251: M.~Apollonio {\it et al.}  [CHOOZ Collaboration],

3252: %``Limits on neutrino oscillations from the CHOOZ experiment,''

3253: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 466} (1999) 415.

3254: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 9907037;%%

3255: 

3256: \bibitem{nufact} Proceedings of NuFact '02 Workshop,

3257: ``Neutrino Factories based on Muon  Storage Rings'',

3258: London, 2002. http://www.hep.ph.ic.ac.uk/NuFact02/

3259: 

3260: 

3261: %\cite{Cervera:2000kp}

3262: \bibitem{Cervera:2000kp}

3263: A.~Cervera, A.~Donini, M.~B.~Gavela, J.~J.~Gomez Cadenas, P.~Hernandez, O.~Mena and S.~Rigolin,

3264: %``Golden measurements at a neutrino factory,''

3265: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 579} (2000) 17

3266: [Erratum-ibid.\ B {\bf 593} (2001) 731]

3267: [arXiv:hep-ph/0002108].

3268: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0002108;%%

3269: %

3270: %\cite{Freund:2001ui}

3271: %\bibitem{Freund:2001ui}

3272: M.~Freund, P.~Huber and M.~Lindner,

3273: %``Systematic exploration of the neutrino factory parameter space  including errors and correlations,''

3274: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 615} (2001) 331

3275: [arXiv:hep-ph/0105071].

3276: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0105071;%%

3277: %\cite{Romanino:1999zq}

3278: %\bibitem{Romanino:1999zq}

3279: A.~Romanino,

3280: %``Measuring CP-violation with a neutrino factory,''

3281: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 574} (2000) 675

3282: [arXiv:hep-ph/9909425].

3283: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9909425;%%

3284: 

3285: 

3286: 

3287: %\cite{Gabbiani:1996rb}

3288: \bibitem{Gabbiani:1989rb}

3289: F.~Gabbiani, E.~Gabrielli, A.~Masiero and L.~Silvestrini,

3290: %``A complete analysis of FCNC and CP constraints in general SUSY extensions of the standard model,''

3291: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 477} (1996) 321

3292: [arXiv:hep-ph/9604387].

3293: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9604387;%%

3294: 

3295: 

3296: 

3297: %\cite{Baer:2000hx}

3298: \bibitem{Baer:2000hx}

3299: H.~Baer, C.~Balazs, J.~K.~Mizukoshi and X.~Tata,

3300: %``Can precision measurements of slepton masses probe righthanded  neutrinos?,''

3301: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 63} (2001) 055011

3302: [arXiv:hep-ph/0010068].

3303: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0010068;%%

3304: J.~K.~Mizukoshi, H.~Baer, A.~S.~Belyaev and X.~Tata,

3305: %``Sneutrino mass measurements at e+ e- linear colliders,''

3306: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 64} (2001) 115017

3307: [arXiv:hep-ph/0107216].

3308: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0107216;%%

3309: 

3310: 

3311: %\cite{Brooks:1999pu}

3312: \bibitem{Brooks:1999pu}

3313: M.~L.~Brooks {\it et al.}  [MEGA Collaboration],

3314: %``New limit for the family-number non-conserving decay mu+ $\to$ e+ gamma,''

3315: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 83} (1999) 1521

3316: [arXiv:hep-ex/9905013].

3317: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 9905013;%%

3318: S.~Ahmed {\it et al.}  [CLEO Collaboration],

3319: %``Update of the search for the neutrinoless decay tau $\to$ mu gamma,''

3320: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 61} (2000) 071101

3321: [arXiv:hep-ex/9910060].

3322: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 9910060;%%

3323: K.~W.~Edwards {\it et al.}  [CLEO Collaboration],

3324: %``Search for neutrinoless tau decays: tau $\to$ e gamma and tau $\to$ mu  gamma,''

3325: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 55} (1997) 3919.

3326: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D55,3919;%%

3327: 

3328: 

3329: \bibitem{dreams}

3330: L.M. Barkov $et$ $al.,$ proposal for an experiment at PSI R-99-05.1,

3331: L.Serin, R. Stroynowski, ATLAS internal note.

3332: %BABAR/BELLE????

3333: 

3334: \bibitem{tomas}

3335: T.~Blazek and S.~F.~King,

3336: %``Muon anomalous magnetic moment and tau $\to$ mu gamma in a realistic  string-inspired model of neutrino masses,''

3337: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 518} (2001) 109

3338: [arXiv:hep-ph/0105005].

3339: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0105005;%%

3340: 

3341: 

3342: %\cite{Arkani-Hamed:1997km}

3343: \bibitem{Arkani-Hamed:1997km}

3344: $see$, $e.g.$ N.~Arkani-Hamed, J.~L.~Feng, L.~J.~Hall and H.~C.~Cheng,

3345: %``CP violation from slepton oscillations at the LHC and NLC,''

3346: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 505} (1997) 3

3347: [arXiv:hep-ph/9704205], $and$ $citations$ $thereof$.

3348: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9704205;%%

3349: 

3350: 

3351: 

3352: %\cite{Ellis:2002fe}

3353: \bibitem{Ellis:2002fe}

3354: J.~R.~Ellis, J.~Hisano, M.~Raidal and Y.~Shimizu,

3355: %``A new parametrization of the seesaw mechanism and applications in  supersymmetric models,''

3356: arXiv:hep-ph/0206110.

3357: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0206110;%%

3358: 

3359: %\cite{Broncano:2002rw}

3360: \bibitem{Broncano:2002rw}

3361: A.~Broncano, M.~B.~Gavela and E.~Jenkins,

3362: %``The effective Lagrangian for the seesaw model of neutrino mass and  leptogenesis,''

3363: arXiv:hep-ph/0210271.

3364: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0210271;%%

3365: 

3366: 

3367: 

3368: 

3369: \bibitem{Olive:2000ij}

3370: K.~A.~Olive, G.~Steigman and T.~P.~Walker,

3371: %``Primordial nucleosynthesis: Theory and observations,''

3372: Phys.\ Rept.\  {\bf 333} (2000) 389.

3373: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 9905320;%%

3374: 

3375: \bibitem{boom}

3376: P. deBernardis et. al, {\it Ap. J.,}  564, (2002) 559.

3377: 

3378: 

3379: %\cite{Sakharov:1967dj}

3380: \bibitem{Sakharov:1967dj}

3381: A.~D.~Sakharov,

3382: %``Violation Of CP Invariance, C Asymmetry, And Baryon Asymmetry Of The Universe,''

3383: Pisma Zh.\ Eksp.\ Teor.\ Fiz.\  {\bf 5} (1967) 32

3384: [JETP Lett.\  {\bf 5} (1967) 24].

3385: %%CITATION = ZFPRA,5,32;%%

3386: 

3387: 

3388: \bibitem{gravitino3}

3389: R.~Kallosh, L.~Kofman, A.~D.~Linde and A.~Van Proeyen,

3390: %``Gravitino production after inflation,''

3391: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 61} (2000) 103503

3392: [arXiv:hep-th/9907124];

3393: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9907124;%%

3394: %G.~F.~Giudice, I.~Tkachev and A.~Riotto,

3395: %``Non-thermal production of dangerous relics in the early universe,''

3396: %JHEP {\bf 9908} (1999) 009

3397: %[arXiv:hep-ph/9907510];

3398: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9907510;%%

3399: G.~F.~Giudice, A.~Riotto and I.~Tkachev,

3400: %``Thermal and non-thermal production of gravitinos in the early universe,''

3401: JHEP {\bf 9911} (1999) 036

3402: [arXiv:hep-ph/9911302];

3403: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9911302;%%

3404: %R.~Kallosh, L.~Kofman, A.~D.~Linde and A.~Van Proeyen,

3405: %``Superconformal symmetry, supergravity and cosmology,''

3406: %Class.\ Quant.\ Grav.\  {\bf 17} (2000) 4269

3407: %[arXiv:hep-th/0006179].

3408: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0006179;%%

3409: %

3410: \bibitem{gravitino4}

3411: H.~P.~Nilles, M.~Peloso and L.~Sorbo,

3412: %``Nonthermal production of gravitinos and inflatinos,''

3413: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 87} (2001) 051302

3414: [arXiv:hep-ph/0102264],

3415: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0102264;%%

3416: %

3417: %H.~P.~Nilles, M.~Peloso and L.~Sorbo,

3418: %``Coupled fields in external background with application to nonthermal  production of gravitinos,''

3419: JHEP {\bf 0104} (2001) 004

3420: [arXiv:hep-th/0103202].

3421: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0103202;%%

3422: %

3423: 

3424: %\cite{Berezinsky:kf}

3425: \bibitem{Berezinsky:kf}

3426: V.~S.~Berezinsky,

3427: %``Cosmology Of Gravitino As The Lightest Supersymmetric Particle,''

3428: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 261} (1991) 71.

3429: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B261,71;%%

3430: M.~Bolz, W.~B\"uchmuller and M.~Pl\"umacher,

3431: %``Baryon asymmetry and dark matter,''

3432: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 443} (1998) 209

3433: [arXiv:hep-ph/9809381].

3434: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9809381;%%

3435: 

3436: 

3437: %\cite{Asaka:2002zu}

3438: \bibitem{Asaka:2002zu}

3439: H.~B.~Nielsen and Y.~Takanishi,

3440: %``Baryogenesis via lepton number violation and family replicated gauge

3441: %group,''

3442: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 636} (2002) 305

3443: [arXiv:hep-ph/0204027].

3444: 

3445: 

3446: 

3447:  \bibitem{K+T}

3448: E. W. Kolb, M. S. Turner,

3449: ``The Early Universe'', Addison-Wesley Longman, 2000.

3450: 

3451: 

3452: %\cite{Ellis:2002xg}

3453: \bibitem{Ellis:2002xg}

3454: J.~Ellis and M.~Raidal,

3455: %``Leptogenesis and the violation of lepton number and CP at low energies,''

3456: arXiv:hep-ph/0206174.

3457: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0206174;%%

3458: 

3459: 

3460: %\cite{bdps}

3461: \bibitem{bdps}

3462: L.~Boubekeur, S.~Davidson, M.~Peloso and L.~Sorbo,

3463: %``Leptogenesis and rescattering in supersymmetric models,''

3464: arXiv:hep-ph/0209256.

3465: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0209256;%%

3466: 

3467: 

3468: 

3469: %\cite{Barbieri:1998jc}

3470: \bibitem{Barbieri:1998jc}

3471: A.~Y.~Smirnov,

3472: %``Seesaw Enhancement Of Lepton Mixing,''

3473: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 48} (1993) 3264, hep-ph/9304205;

3474: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9304205;%%

3475: S.~F.~King,

3476: %``Atmospheric and solar neutrinos with a heavy singlet,''

3477: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 439} (1998) 350,

3478: hep-ph/9806440. 

3479: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9806440;%%

3480: % R.~Barbieri, L.~J.~Hall and A.~Strumia,

3481: %``Textures for atmospheric and solar neutrino oscillations,''

3482: %Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 445} (1999) 407

3483: %[arXiv:hep-ph/9808333] 

3484: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9808333;%%

3485: 

3486: %\cite{Babu:1995hr}

3487: \bibitem{Babu:1995hr}

3488: K.~S.~Babu and S.~M.~Barr,

3489: %``Large neutrino mixing angles in unified theories,''

3490: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 381} (1996) 202

3491: [arXiv:hep-ph/9511446].

3492: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9511446;%%

3493: 

3494: 

3495: %\cite{Branco:2001pq}

3496: \bibitem{Branco:2001pq}

3497: G.~C.~Branco, T.~Morozumi, B.~M.~Nobre and M.~N.~Rebelo,

3498: %``A bridge between CP violation at low energies and leptogenesis,''

3499: arXiv:hep-ph/0107164.

3500: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0107164;%%

3501: 

3502: \bibitem{new}

3503: S.~Pascoli, S.~T.~Petcov and C.~E.~Yaguna,

3504: %``Quasi-degenerate neutrino mass spectrum, mu $\to$ e+ gamma decay and  leptogenesis,''

3505: arXiv:hep-ph/0301095.

3506: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0301095;%%

3507: S. Pascoli, S.T. Petcov, W. Rodejohann, 

3508: hep-ph/0302054.

3509: 

3510: \end{thebibliography}

3511: 

3512: 

3513: 

3514: \end{document}

3515: \bye

3516: 

3517: 

3518: 

3519: 

3520: 

3521: 

3522: 

3523: 

3524: 

3525: 

3526: 

3527: 

3528: 

3529: 

3530: 

3531: 

3532: The branching ratio for $\ell_j \rightarrow \ell_i \gamma$ can be estimated

3533: \beq

3534: \frac{BR(\ell_j \rightarrow \ell_i \gamma)}{BR(\ell_j \rightarrow \ell_i 

3535: \bar{\nu}_i \nu_j)} \sim C \frac{\alpha^3}{G_F^2 m_{SUSY}^4}

3536: \delta_{ij}^2 \tan^2\beta 

3537: \simeq \delta_{ij}^2 10^{-6}  \left( 

3538: \frac{100GeV}{m_{SUSY}} \right)^4 \left( 

3539: \frac{\tan \beta}{2} \right)^2

3540: \label{BR}

3541: \eeq

3542: where $C \sim O(0.01 \div 0.1)$.

3543:   More accurate formulae for the branching ratios can be

3544: found in \cite{Hisano:1995cp}.

3545: The parameter $\delta_{ij}$  \cite{Gabbiani:1989rb}

3546: is defined:

3547: \beq

3548: \delta_{ij} \equiv \frac{\left(m^2_{ \snu}\right)_{ij}}{m^2_{ \snu}}

3549: \simeq \frac{|y_k^2 \tilde{V}_{Lkj}^*\tilde{V}_{Lki}|}{3}  

3550: \label{deltaM}

3551: \eeq

3552: where $\tilde{V}_{L}$ diagonalises 

3553: the second term of eqn (\ref{softafterRG}).

3554: