1: \documentclass[a4paper,12pt]{article}

2: %\usepackage{epsfig}

3: \usepackage{amssymb}

4: \usepackage{amsmath}

5: \usepackage{graphicx,multicol}

6: %\usepackage{feynmf}

7: %\usepackage{axodraw}

8: \usepackage{color}

9: \definecolor{rosso}{cmyk}{0,1,1,0.4}

10: \definecolor{rossos}{cmyk}{0,1,1,0.55}

11: \definecolor{rossoc}{cmyk}{0,1,1,0.2}

12: \definecolor{blu}{cmyk}{1,1,0,0.3}

13: \definecolor{blus}{cmyk}{1,1,0,0.6}

14: \definecolor{bluc}{cmyk}{1,1,0,0.1}

15: \definecolor{verde}{cmyk}{0.92,0,0.59,0.25}

16: \definecolor{verdec}{cmyk}{0.92,0,0.59,0.15}

17: \definecolor{verdes}{cmyk}{0.92,0,0.59,0.7}

18: 

19: \newcommand{\fig}[1]{~{\rm\ref{fig:#1}}}

20: \newcommand{\tab}[1]{~{\ref{tab:#1}}}

21: \def\circa#1{\,\raise.3ex\hbox{$#1$\kern-.75em\lower1ex\hbox{$\sim$}}\,}

22: 

23: \font\tenrsfs=rsfs10 at 12pt

24: \font\sevenrsfs=rsfs7

25: \font\fiversfs=rsfs5

26: \newfam\rsfsfam

27: \textfont\rsfsfam=\tenrsfs

28: \scriptfont\rsfsfam=\sevenrsfs

29: \scriptscriptfont\rsfsfam=\fiversfs

30: \def\mathscr#1{{\fam\rsfsfam\relax#1}}

31: \def\Lag{\mathscr{L}}

32: 

33: \def\baselinestretch{0.963}

34: 

35: 

36: \setcounter{tocdepth}{2}

37: \setcounter{secnumdepth}{2}

38: 

39: \newcommand{\Usl}{U\hspace{-1.6ex}/\,}

40: \newcommand{\Psl}{P\hspace{-1.5ex}/}

41: \newcommand{\Ksl}{K\hspace{-1.5ex}/}

42: 

43: \newcommand{\eV}{\,{\rm eV}}

44: \newcommand{\meV}{\,{\rm meV}}

45: \newcommand{\keV}{\,{\rm keV}}

46: \newcommand{\MeV}{\,{\rm MeV}}

47: \newcommand{\GeV}{\,{\rm GeV}}

48: \newcommand{\TeV}{\,{\rm TeV}}

49: \newcommand{\eqq}[1]{~(\ref{eq:#1})}

50: \newcommand{\riga}[1]{\noalign{\hbox{\parbox{\textwidth}{#1}}}\nonumber}

51: \newcommand{\sys}[1]{~{\rm (\ref{sys:#1})}}

52: \newcommand{\md}[1]{\langle #1 \rangle}

53: \makeatletter

54: %

55: % formato bibliografico standard

56: %

57: %\art[hep-ph/0310123]{autori}{rivista}{numero}{pagina}{anno}

58: \def\art{\@ifnextchar[{\eart}{\oart}}

59: \def\eart[#1]#2#3#4#5#6{{\rm #2}, {#3 #4} {\rm (#6) #5 [#1]}}

60: \def\hepart[#1]#2{{\rm #2, #1}}

61: \newcommand{\oart}[5]{{\rm #1}, {#2 \rm #3} {\rm (#5) #4}}

62: \newcommand{\aart}[5]{{\em #2 \rm #3} {\rm (#5) #4}}

63: \newcommand{\y}{{\rm and} }

64: \newcommand{\NP}{Nucl. Phys.}

65: \newcommand{\Jhep}{{\rm JHEP}}

66: \newcommand{\PRL}{Phys. Rev. Lett.}

67: \newcommand{\PL}{Phys. Lett.}

68: \newcommand{\PR}{Phys. Rev.}

69: \newcommand{\book}[5]{{\rm #1}, {\em #2} (#5) {\rm #4, #3}}

70: %

71: 

72: 

73: \newcommand{\Nt}{{\tilde{N}}}

74: \newcommand{\Lt}{{\tilde{L}}}

75: \newcommand{\Ht}{{\tilde{H}}}

76: 

77: \setlength{\voffset}{-1cm}

78: \setlength{\evensidemargin}{0cm}

79: \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{0cm}

80: \setlength{\textwidth}{16.25cm}

81: \setlength{\textheight}{22.5cm}

82: \setlength{\floatsep}{0pt}

83: \setlength{\parskip}{1mm}

84: 

85: \setcounter{topnumber}{6}

86: \setcounter{bottomnumber}{6}

87: \setcounter{totalnumber}{10}

88: \renewcommand{\topfraction}{1.0}

89: \renewcommand{\bottomfraction}{1.0}

90: \renewcommand{\textfraction}{0.0}

91: 

92: \newcommand{\ie}{{\it i.e.}}

93: \newcommand{\eg}{{\it e.g. }}

94: \newcommand{\mrm}[1]{\mbox{\rm #1}}

95: \newcommand{\beq}{\begin{equation}}

96: \newcommand{\eeq}{\end{equation}}

97: \newcommand{\bea}{\begin{eqnarray}}

98: \newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}}

99: \newcommand{\ba}{\begin{array}}

100: \newcommand{\ea}{\end{array}}

101: \newcommand{\bi}{\begin{itemize}}

102: \newcommand{\ei}{\end{itemize}}

103: \newcommand{\bn}{\begin{enumerate}}

104: \newcommand{\en}{\end{enumerate}}

105: \newcommand{\bc}{\begin{center}}

106: \newcommand{\ec}{\end{center}}

107: \newcommand{\ul}{\underline}

108: \newcommand{\ol}{\overline}

109: \newcommand{\eps}{\epsilon}

110: \newcommand{\bs}{$\bar{B}_s\rightarrow\mu^+\mu^-$~}

111: \newcommand{\cbs}{{\cal B}(\bar{B}_s\rightarrow\mu^+\mu^-)}

112: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Uli's macros

113: \newcommand{\lt}{\left}

114: \newcommand{\rt}{\right}

115: \newcommand{\no}{\nonumber}

116: \newcommand{\nn}{\nonumber\\}

117: \newcommand{\ds}{\displaystyle}

118: \newcommand{\e}{\epsilon}

119: \newcommand{\eq}[1]{eq.~(\ref{#1})}

120: \newcommand{\Eq}[1]{Eq.~(\ref{#1})}

121: \newcommand{\rfn}[1]{(\ref{#1})}

122: \newcommand{\imag}{{\rm Im}\,}

123: \newcommand{\real}{{\rm Re}\,}

124: \newcommand{\mev}{\mbox{MeV}}

125: \newcommand{\gev}{\mbox{GeV}}

126: \newcommand{\ov}[1]{\overline{#1}}

127: \def\Ord{\buildrel{\scriptscriptstyle

128: <}\over{\scriptscriptstyle\sim}}

129: \def\OOrd{\buildrel{\scriptscriptstyle

130: }\over{\scriptscriptstyle\sim}}

131: 

132: \newcommand{\gsim}{\lower.7ex\hbox{$\;\stackrel{\textstyle>}{\sim}\;$}}

133: \newcommand{\lsim}{\lower.7ex\hbox{$\;\stackrel{\textstyle<}{\sim}\;$}}

134: 

135: \def\preprint{{\it preprint}}

136: 

137: %

138: % definizione della macro EQNSYSTEM

139: %

140: \newcounter{alphaequation}[equation]

141: %\def\thealphaequation{\theequation\alph{alphaequation}}

142: \def\thealphaequation{\theequation\hbox to

143: 0.6em{\hfil\alph{alphaequation}\hfil}}

144: % MODIFICATA PER DARE UNA DIMENSIONE UGUALE AD UN 1em AD OGNI LETTERA

145: \def\eqnsystem#1{

146: \def\@eqnnum{{\rm (\thealphaequation)}}

147: %

148: \def\@@eqncr{\let\@tempa\relax \ifcase\@eqcnt \def\@tempa{& & &} \or

149:   \def\@tempa{& &}\or \def\@tempa{&}\fi\@tempa

150:   \if@eqnsw\@eqnnum\refstepcounter{alphaequation}\fi

151: \global\@eqnswtrue\global\@eqcnt=0\cr}

152: %

153: \refstepcounter{equation} \let\@currentlabel\theequation \def\@tempb{#1}

154: \ifx\@tempb\empty\else\label{#1}\fi

155: %

156: \refstepcounter{alphaequation}

157: \let\@currentlabel\thealphaequation

158: %

159: \global\@eqnswtrue\global\@eqcnt=0 \tabskip\@centering\let\\=\@eqncr

160: $$\halign to \displaywidth\bgroup \@eqnsel\hskip\@centering

161: $\displaystyle\tabskip\z@{##}$&\global\@eqcnt\@ne

162: \hskip2\arraycolsep\hfil${##}$\hfil& \global\@eqcnt\tw@\hskip2\arraycolsep

163: $\displaystyle\tabskip\z@{##}$\hfil

164: \tabskip\@centering&\llap{##}\tabskip\z@\cr}

165: 

166: \def\endeqnsystem{\@@eqncr\egroup$$\global\@ignoretrue} \makeatother

167: 

168: 

169: 

170: 

171: \begin{document}

172: \tolerance=100000

173: \thispagestyle{empty}

174: \setcounter{page}{0}

175: 

176: {hep-ph/0310123\hfill IFUP--TH/2003--37\hfill

177: CERN-TH/2003-240}

178: \vspace{1cm}

179: 

180: \begin{center}

181: {\LARGE \bf \color{rossos}

182: Towards a complete theory of thermal 

183:  \\[0.3cm]

184: leptogenesis  in the  SM and MSSM

185: }\\[2.cm]

186: 

187: {

188: {\large\bf G.F. Giudice}$^1$,

189: {\large\bf A. Notari}$^2$,

190:  {\large\bf M. Raidal}$^{3}$,

191:  {\large\bf A. Riotto}$^{4}$,  {\large\bf A. Strumia}$^{5}$

192: }  

193: \\[7mm]

194: {\it $^1$ Theoretical Physics Division, CERN, CH-1211

195: Geneva 23, 

196: Switzerland} \\[3mm]

197: {\it $^2$ Scuola Normale Superiore, Piazza dei Cavalieri 7,

198: Pisa, I-56126, 

199: Italy } \\[3mm]

200: {\it $^3$ National Institute of Chemical Physics and

201: Biophysics, 

202: Tallinn 10143, Estonia}  \\[3mm]

203: {\it $^4$ INFN, Sezione di Padova, via Marzolo 8, Padova

204: I-35131, 

205: Italy} \\[3mm]

206: {\it $^5$ Dipartimento di Fisica dell'Universit\`a di Pisa

207: and INFN, 

208: Italia}\\[1cm]

209: \vspace{1cm}

210: {\large\bf\color{blus} Abstract}

211: \end{center}

212: \begin{quote}

213: {\noindent\color{blus}

214: We perform a thorough study of thermal leptogenesis

215: adding finite temperature effects, 

216: RGE corrections,

217: scatterings involving gauge bosons and by 

218: properly avoiding overcounting on-shell processes.

219: Assuming hierarchical right-handed neutrinos with arbitrary abundancy,

220: successful leptogenesis can be achieved if 

221: left-handed neutrinos are lighter than $ 0.15\eV$

222: and right-handed neutrinos heavier than 

223: $2\times 10^7\GeV$  (SM case, $3\sigma$ C.L.).

224: MSSM results are similar.

225: Furthermore, we study how reheating after inflation affects thermal leptogenesis.

226: Assuming that the inflaton reheats SM particles but not directly  right-handed neutrinos,

227: we derive the lower bound on the reheating

228: temperature to be 

229: $T_{\rm RH} \circa{>}  2\times 10^9\GeV$.

230: This bound conflicts with

231: the cosmological gravitino bound present in supersymmetric theories.

232: We study some scenarios that avoid this conflict: `soft leptogenesis',

233:  leptogenesis in presence of a large right-handed (s)neutrino abundancy or of

234: a  sneutrino condensate.}

235: 

236: \end{quote}

237: 

238: \newpage

239: 

240: \setcounter{page}{1}

241: 

242: %\tableofcontents

243: 

244: %        {\bf Adopted notations: $y_t$, $N_1$, $\epsilon_{N_1}$,

245: %        $m_{N_1}$. 

246: %        I changed (all?) $n\to f$ for BE and FD, as $n$ is used to denote number densities.}

247: 

248:  

249:  

250: \section{Introduction}

251: \label{intro}

252: If some new physics violates lepton number ${\cal L}$

253: at an energy scale $\Lambda_{\cal L}$, neutrinos

254: get small Majorana masses via

255: the dimension-5 effective operator

256: $(LH)^2/\Lambda_{\cal L}$.

257: Experiments suggest $\Lambda_{\cal L}\sim 10^{14}\GeV$.

258: Indeed the solar and atmospheric data 

259: can be explained by neutrino oscillations

260: induced by the following neutrino masses and mixings~\cite{oscdata}

261: \begin{equation}\begin{array}{cc}

262: |\Delta m^2_{\rm atm}| = (2.0^{+ 0.4}_{-0.3}) \times 10^{-3}\eV^2,

263: &

264: \sin^22\theta_{\rm atm} = 1.00 \pm 0.04,      \\[2mm]

265: \Delta m^2_{\rm sun} = (7.2 \pm 0.7)\times 10^{-5}\eV^2,&

266: \tan^2\theta_{\rm sun} = 0.44 \pm  0.05.

267: \end{array}\label{eq:oscdata}

268: \end{equation}

269: Experiments will make further progress towards measuring

270: effects accessible at low energy,

271: completely described by 9 Majorana parameters:

272: 3 neutrino masses, 3 mixing angles, 3 CP-violating phases.

273: 

274: One possible mechanism to generate the dimension-5 operator

275: $(LH)^2/\Lambda_{\cal L}$

276: is known as `see-saw' mechanism~\cite{seesaw}.

277: Adding three right-handed neutrinos $N_{1,2,3}$

278: with heavy Majorana masses $m_{N_3}> m_{N_3}> m_{N_1}\gg M_Z$

279: and Yukawa couplings $Y^\nu_{ij}$

280: \begin{equation}

281: \label{eq:L}

282: \Lag = \Lag_{\rm SM} + \left(

283: \frac{m_{N_i}}{2} N_i^2 + Y^\nu_{ij}   L_i N_j H + \hbox{h.c.}\right) ,

284: \end{equation}

285: one obtains light neutrino states with

286: Majorana masses $m_\nu = - (v Y^\nu)^T  ~m_N^{-1} ~ (v Y^\nu)$.

287: %       This relation can nicely accomodate $\theta_{\rm atm}\sim1 $ together with

288: %       $|\Delta m^2_{\rm atm}|\gg \Delta m^2_{\rm sun}$: without it

289: %       a Majorana mass matrix would not naturally give large 

290: % mixing between hierarchical

291: %       neutrinos --- a quite peculiar configuration. 

292:  The see-saw is a simple and elegant mechanism, 

293:  but hard to test experimentally.

294: It predicts no relation between

295: the 9 low-energy parameters, just reproducing them

296: in terms of 18 high-energy ones.

297: %       (By contrast the SM was able of predicting

298: %       all Fermi operators in terms of 2 parameters).

299: The right-handed neutrinos which constitute the essence of the see-saw

300: are too heavy or too weakly coupled to be experimentally observed.

301: There are few possible indirect probes. For instance, 

302: in some supersymmetric models the Yukawa couplings $Y^\nu_{ij}$ might induce

303: sizable rates for lepton flavour violating processes such as $\mu\to e\gamma$.

304: On the cosmological side, 

305: {\it thermal leptogenesis} \cite{fuk} 

306: provides an attractive scenario

307: for the generation of the baryon asymmetry of the universe 

308: \cite{reviewbau}. The

309: three necessary conditions for the 

310: generation of the baryon asymmetry \cite{sak} are satisfied in the 

311: Standard Model (SM) with additional, heavy singlet right-handed neutrinos:

312: the  

313: baryon number is violated by sphaleron processes which convert the 

314: lepton asymmetry induced by the Majorana nature of the right-handed neutrino 

315: masses into baryon asymmetry; CP-violation is due to

316: the 

317: Yukawa interactions of the right-handed neutrinos

318: with the SM  lepton doublets and out-of-equilibrium is induced by the

319: right-handed neutrino decays.

320: For some recent analyses see~\cite{k-sm,BRS,vari, mBound}.

321: %This mechanism works more naturally if $m_{N_1}\sim 10^{10}\GeV$.

322: 

323: The goal of this paper is to perform a thorough analysis of 

324: thermal leptogenesis within the SM and the Minimal Supersymmetric

325: Standard Model (MSSM). 

326: We improve the computation of baryon asymmetry

327: generated through the mechanism of thermal leptogenesis by

328: \begin{itemize}

329: \item[{\em i)}] including finite temperature corrections to

330: propagators, masses, decay and scattering processes, and to the

331: CP-asymmetry; 

332: %(in the SM $m_H\sim 2 m_L\sim 0.4 T$ 

333: %rather than $m_L\ll m_H\sim M_Z$),

334: %\item[{\em ii)}]  including thermal corrections to the CP-asymmetry,

335: \item[{\em ii)}] renormalizing couplings at the relevant scale 

336: ($\sim 2\pi T$, where $T$ is the

337: relevant temperature,  rather than $\sim M_Z$);

338: \item[{\em iii)}] adding $\Delta L=1$ scatterings

339:  involving gauge bosons 

340: which turn out to be  

341: comparable or larger than the ones involving the top quark 

342: included in previous computations;

343: \item[{\em iv)}] performing a proper subtraction 

344: of  washout  scatterings mediated by intermediate on-shell particles

345: (once this is correctly done, they are no longer resonantly enhanced);

346: 

347: \item[{\em v)}] extending the analysis

348: to situations where right-handed

349: (s)neutrinos give a sizable contribution to the total energy density;

350: 

351: \item[{\em vi)}] discussing how the predictions

352: of thermal leptogenesis depend upon the 

353: cosmological assumptions. In particular, 

354: we study the 

355: effects of reheating after inflation

356: and compute the lowest value  of the reheating temperature

357: $T_{\rm RH}$ for successful leptogenesis.

358: %\item[{\em v)}] including $N_1$ reheating effects.

359: \end{itemize}

360: The paper is organized as follows. 

361: In section~\ref{qft} we briefly summarize some general results of

362: field theory at finite temperature.

363: In section~\ref{thermal} we discuss

364: how we include thermal corrections and how they affect

365: the different ingredients of leptogenesis.

366: Details can be found in a series of appendices:

367: Boltzmann equations in appendix~\ref{Boltz},

368: scattering rates in appendix~\ref{gamma},

369: CP-asymmetries in appendices~\ref{AppEpsilon} (SM) and~\ref{CPMSSM} (MSSM).

370: In section~\ref{SM} we combine all ingredients to get the final baryon

371: asymmetry predicted within 

372: SM leptogenesis, and study which thermal corrections turn out to

373: be numerically important.

374: On the basis of the lesson learned for the SM,

375: in section~\ref{MSSM} we address the more involved case of 

376: supersymmetric leptogenesis.

377: We apply our improved computation also to the `soft leptogenesis' scenario~\cite{softl2, softl}.

378: In section~\ref{reh} we discuss how the baryon asymmetry changes

379: when the maximal temperature

380:  reached by the universe after inflation is

381:  not much higher than $m_{N_1}$.

382:  The variation depends on one extra parameter,

383:  the reheating temperature $T_{\rm RH}$. Finally our results are

384: summarized in section~\ref{secconc}.

385: 

386: 

387: 

388: 

389: \section{Finite-temperature propagators}\label{qft}

390: In order to consider finite temperature effects in the

391: plasma, we work in the

392: so-called real time formalism (RTF) \cite{bellac}

393: of thermal field theory. The Green's functions computed in

394: this formalism

395: are directly time-ordered ones. The RTF requires the

396: introduction

397: of a ghost field dual to each physical field leading to the

398: doubling

399: of degrees of freedom. The thermal propagator has therefore

400: a $2\times 2$ 

401: structure: the $(11)$ component refers to the physical

402: field, the

403: $(22)$ component to the corresponding ghost field, with the

404: off-diagonal

405: components 

406: $(12)$ and $(21)$ mixing them.

407: 

408: \subsubsection{Scalars}

409: The complete propagator of a scalar particle 

410: ({\it e.g.} the Higgs) in momentum space is

411: \begin{equation}

412: G(K)=\left(

413: \begin{array}{cc}

414: G^{11}(K)& G^{12}(K)\\

415: G^{21}(K) & G^{22}(K)

416: \end{array}\right)

417: =U\left(T,K\right)

418: \left(

419: \begin{array}{cc}

420: \Delta_B(K)& 0\\

421: 0 & \Delta_B^*(K)

422: \end{array}\right)U\left(T,K\right)\, ,

423: \label{pb}

424: \end{equation}

425: \begin{equation}

426: U\left(T,K\right)=\left(

427: \begin{array}{cc}

428: {\rm cosh}\theta_K & {\rm sinh}\theta_K \\

429: {\rm sinh}\theta_K     & {\rm cosh}\theta_K

430: \end{array}\right) ,

431: \end{equation}

432: \begin{equation}

433: {\rm cosh}\theta_K=\sqrt{1+f_B(\omega )} \, ,

434: \,\,\,\, {\rm sinh}\theta_K=

435: \sqrt{f_B(\omega )},\, \qquad f_B\equiv

436: \frac{1}{e^{|\omega|/T}-1},

437: \end{equation}

438: where $K$ is the particle four-momentum. In a general 

439: frame where the thermal bath has four-velocity $U^\mu$

440: ($U^\mu U_\mu =1$),

441: we define the Lorentz-invariant quantities

442: \begin{equation}

443: \omega \equiv K^\mu U_\mu ,~~~k \equiv \sqrt{ \left( K^\mu

444: U_\mu

445: \right)^2-K^\mu K_\mu }.

446: \end{equation}

447: These coincide with the particle energy and momentum in

448: the rest frame

449: of the thermal bath, $U^\mu =(1,0,0,0)$. 

450: 

451: In Eq. (\ref{pb}), $\Delta_B(K)$ is the resummed propagator

452: \begin{equation}

453: \Delta_B(K)=\frac{i}{K^2-m_B^2-\Sigma_B(K)+i\epsilon}\, ,

454: \end{equation}

455: where $m_B$ is the bare mass and 

456: $\Sigma_B(K)$ is the finite-temperature self-energy of the

457: scalar 

458: boson field. $\Sigma_B(K)$ describes the continuous

459: interactions

460: with the heat bath altering the propagation of the boson,

461: and it 

462: modifies the 

463: dispersion relation, substituting particles with

464: quasiparticles.

465: At one-loop the self-energy takes the form $\Sigma_B(K)= 

466: {\rm Re}\,\Sigma_B(K)+

467: i\, {\rm Im}\,\Sigma_B(K)$, where ${\rm

468: Re}\,\Sigma_B(K)=m_B^2(T)$ is the 

469: effective 

470: plasma mass squared

471:  and ${\rm Im}\,\Sigma_B(K)=-2\,\omega\,\Gamma_B$ is

472: proportional

473: to the damping rate $\Gamma_B$ of the boson in the plasma.

474: Since 

475: $\left|{\rm Im}\,\Sigma_B(K)\right|$ is suppressed compared

476: to

477: $\left|{\rm Re}\,\Sigma_B(K)\right|$ \cite{enqvist}, in the

478: following we

479: will work with resummed propagators for scalar 

480: bosons neglecting the absorptive

481: part. Notice also that since we are considering one-loop

482: thermal corrections

483: to processes where

484: all external fields are physical, we only need 

485: the $(11)$ component of the bosonic propagator

486: \begin{equation}

487:  G^{11}(K)={\rm cosh}^2\theta_K

488: \left(\frac{i}{K^2-m_B(T)^2+i 

489: \epsilon}\right)+

490:  {\rm sinh}^2\theta_K

491: \left(\frac{-i}{K^2-m_B(T)^2-i\epsilon}\right) \ ,

492: \end{equation}

493: where we have included the bare mass in $m_B(T)$.

494: Using the property 

495: \begin{equation}

496: \frac{1}{x+i\epsilon}=P\left( \frac{1}{x}\right) - 

497: i \pi \delta (x)\label{iepsilon}  \ ,

498: \end{equation} 

499: where $P$ denotes the principal value,

500: the propagator can be rewritten as:

501: \begin{equation}

502: G^{11}(K)=\frac{i}{K^2-m_B(T)^2+i \epsilon} + 2 

503: \pi f_B(\omega) \delta \left[ K^2-m_B(T)^2\right] \ .   

504: \label{bosonpropagator}

505: \end{equation}

506: 

507: 

508: \subsubsection{Fermions}

509: The (one-loop) resummed propagators for fermion fields can

510: be

511: written in RTF as

512: \begin{equation}

513: S(K)=\left(

514: \begin{array}{cc}

515: S^{11}(K)& S^{12}(K)\\

516: S^{21}(K) & S^{22}(K)

517: \end{array}\right)

518: =M\left(T,K\right)

519: \left(

520: \begin{array}{cc}

521: \Delta_F(K)& 0\\

522: 0 & \Delta_F^*(K)

523: \end{array}\right)M\left(T,K\right)\, ,

524: \label{pf}

525: \end{equation}

526: where

527: 

528: \begin{equation}

529: M\left(T,K\right)=\left(

530: \begin{array}{cc}

531: {\rm cos}\phi_K & -{\rm sin}\phi_K \\

532: {\rm sin}\phi_K     & {\rm cos}\phi_K

533: \end{array}\right)

534: \end{equation}

535: and

536: \begin{equation}

537: {\rm cos}\phi_K=\left[\theta(\omega)-\theta(-\omega)\right]

538: \sqrt{1-f_F(\omega)}\, ,

539: \,\,\,\, {\rm sin}\phi_K=

540: \sqrt{f_F(\omega)}, \, \qquad

541: f_F(\omega)\equiv \frac{1}{e^{|\omega|/T}+1}.

542: \end{equation}

543: In Eq. (\ref{pf}) $\Delta_F(K)$ is the resummed propagator

544: 

545: \begin{equation}

546: \Delta_F(K)=\frac{i}{\gamma^\mu K_\mu -m_0

547: -\Sigma_F(K)+i\epsilon}\, 

548: ,\label{deltaFermion}

549: \end{equation}

550: where $m_0$ is the fermion bare mass and

551: $\Sigma_F(K)$ is the self-energy of the boson field at

552: finite temperature.

553: At one-loop the fermionic self-energy is given by

554: \cite{weldon}

555: \begin{equation}

556: \Sigma_F(K)=-a(K)\,\gamma^\mu K_\mu -b(K)\,\gamma^\mu

557:  U_\mu \, ,

558: \end{equation}

559: where $U^\mu$ is the four-velocity of the thermal bath as

560: seen from a general

561: frame. Neglecting the zero-temperature mass $m_0$, the

562: coefficients $a(K)$ and $b(K)$

563: are given by

564: \begin{eqnarray}

565: a(K)&=&\frac{m_F^2(T)}{k^2}\left[ 1+\frac{\omega}{2k}\ln

566: \frac{\omega

567: -k}{\omega +k}

568: +\frac{\omega k}{T^2}I+\frac{k^2}{T^2}J

569: \right], \label{aaa}\\

570: b(K)&=&-\frac{m_F^2(T)}{k}\left[

571: \frac{\omega}{k}+\frac{1}{2}\left(

572: \frac{\omega^2}{k^2}-1\right)\ln \frac{\omega

573: -k}{\omega +k}+ \frac{(\omega^2-k^2)}{T^2}I\right]

574: ,\label{bbb}

575: \end{eqnarray}

576: \begin{eqnarray}

577: I&=& \int_0^\infty

578: \frac{dp}{\pi^2k^2}\left[f_B(p)+f_F(p)\right]

579: \left[ \frac{\omega}{2}\ln\frac{4p(p+k)+k^2-

580: \omega^2}{4p(p-k)+k^2-\omega^2}+p \ln 

581: \frac{4p^2-(k+\omega)^2}{4p^2-(k-\omega)^2}\right] \\

582: J&=& \int_0^\infty

583: \frac{dp}{2\pi^2k}\left[f_B(p)-f_F(p)\right]

584: \ln\frac{4p(p+k)+k^2-

585: \omega^2}{4p(p-k)+k^2-\omega^2}.

586: \end{eqnarray}

587: Here

588: $f_{B,F}$ are the Bose-Einstein and Fermi-Dirac

589: distributions, respectively,

590: and $m_F(T)$ is the effective mass of the fermion in the

591: plasma. Notice

592: that this mass is not a ``true'' fermionic mass since it

593: does not

594: affect the chiral symmetry. The thermal mass is generated

595: radiatively

596: and comes from terms which are chiral-symmetric in the

597: Lagrangian.

598: The integrals $I$ and $J$ are gauge-dependent and have been

599: computed here

600: in the Feynman gauge.

601: In the high-temperature limit ($T\gg k$), the terms in

602: eqs.~(\ref{aaa})

603: and (\ref{bbb}) proportional to the integrals $I$ and $J$

604: can be neglected,

605: as they only give subleading contributions, leaving a

606: result for the

607: coefficients $a$ and $b$ which is gauge

608: independent\footnote{Our subsequent

609: computations involve weakly coupled particles, so that

610: $m_F^2/T^2$ turns out to be small and

611: neglecting $I$ and $J$ is an excellent approximation.}.

612: 

613: 

614: 

615: 

616: 

617: 

618: For a fermion charged under an ${\rm SU}(N)$ gauge group

619: with coupling $g$ and

620: having Yukawa coupling $Y$, the thermal fermionic mass

621: squared is

622: $m_F^2(T)=g^2 T^2 C(R)/8+ N_f\left|Y\right|^2T^2/16$, where

623: $C(R)$ is the quadratic Casimir of the fermionic

624: representation

625: ({\it e.g.} $C(R)=(N^2-1)/(2N)$, when $R$ is a fundamental

626: of $SU(N)$)

627: and $N_f$ is the particle multiplicity flowing in the loop.

628: 

629: 

630: Interactions of the fermions with the thermal bath

631: modify the fermionic dispersion relation~\cite{weldon}

632: leading to two different types

633: of excitations with positive energy:

634: `particles'  and  `holes' with the wrong correlation

635: between chirality and helicity in the bare massless limit.

636: The names `particles' and `holes' are suggested by an

637: analogy with superconductors~\cite{weldon}. 

638: This is because the propagator in

639: eq.~(\ref{deltaFermion})

640: has poles at $ \omega =\pm k -b/(1+a)$,

641: an equation with two different positive-energy

642: solutions $E_p$ and $E_h$ ($E=|\omega|$, see fig.~\ref{fig:mT}a).

643: At low-momentum, $k\ll m_F$,

644: \begin{equation}

645: E_p=m_F+\frac{k}{3}+\frac{k^2}{3m_F}+\cdots,\qquad

646: E_h= m_F-\frac{k}{3}+\frac{k^2}{3m_F}+\cdots \, ,

647: \end{equation}

648: while at larger momenta $T\gg k\gg m_F$

649: \begin{equation}

650: E_p =

651: k+\frac{m_F^2}{k}-\frac{m_F^4}{2k^3}\ln\frac{2k^2}{m_F^2}+\cdots

652: ,\qquad

653: E_h = k+2k \exp(-1-2k^2/m_F^2)+\cdots  .

654: \end{equation}

655: The most remarkable property of hole dispersion relation is that

656: its minimum occurs at the nonzero momentum $k_*\simeq 0.4\,m_F$.

657: The residues of the particle and hole propagators

658:  are given by~\cite{weldon}

659: \beq

660: Z = \bigg[\frac{d}{d\omega} b-(1+a)(k-\omega) \bigg]^{-1}= \frac{E^2-k^2}{2m_F^2}

661: \eeq

662: which differs from the standard

663: value $Z = 1$.

664: This reduces to $Z_p=Z_h =1/2$ at $k\ll m_F$

665: and

666: $Z_p=1$ and $Z_h=0$ at $k\gg m_F$  (see fig.~\ref{fig:mT}b):

667: holes interact only at low momentum. 

668: Notice that the dispersion relation

669: and the residues of the holes can be directly obtained

670: from those of the particles, $E_h(k)=E_p(-k)$ and $Z_h(k)=Z_p(-k)$.

671: The functions $a(K)=a(k,\omega)$ and $b(K)=b(k,\omega)$ defined

672:  in eq.~(\ref{aaa})--(\ref{bbb}),

673: when evaluated

674: for on-shell particles or holes are functions, for instance, only of $k$.

675: Correspondingly, a useful

676: property is $a(k,E_p(k))=a(-k,E_h(-k))$ and 

677: $|b(k,E_p(k))|=|b(-k,E_h(-k))|$. 

678: 

679: 

680: 

681: \begin{figure}

682: $$\includegraphics[width=17cm]{Ek}$$

683: \caption{\label{fig:mT}\em 

684: The dispersion relation $|\omega(k)|$ (fig.\fig{mT}a)

685: and the residue (fig.\fig{mT}b) of

686: particle (dotted line) and `hole' (dashed line)

687: excitations of a fermion with thermal mass $m$ at temperature $T$

688: for $m\ll T$.

689: The solid line shows the approximation $\omega^2 = m^2 + k^2$.}

690: \end{figure}

691: 

692: 

693: Despite these subtleties, since $Z_p + Z_h \approx 1$

694: the fermionic dispersion relation

695: can be well approximated by

696: $\omega=[|\vec{k}|^2+m_F^2(T)]^{1/2}$ 

697: (see fig.~\ref{fig:mT})

698: and this is the form we have used in our calculation,

699: verifying that it is accurate enough when its validity

700: seems doubtful.

701: Notice that temperature-dependent masses enter into the

702: kinematics and into the

703: dispersion relations, but spinor functions must be taken

704: identical

705: to vacuum spinors, although with a modified dispersion

706: relation \cite{weldon}.

707: 

708: As for the bosonic case, we are interested only in the

709: $(11)$ component

710: of the resummed fermionic propagator

711: \begin{equation}

712: S^{11}(K)=

713: {\rm cos}^2\phi_K\,\Delta_F(K)-{\rm

714: sin}^2\phi_K\,\Delta^*_F(K),

715: \label{pinin}

716: \end{equation}

717: \begin{equation}

718: \Delta_F(K)=i\frac{(1+a) \gamma^\mu K_\mu + b \gamma^\mu

719: U_\mu 

720: }{(1+a)^2 K^2 + 2 (1+a)b K \cdot U +b^2 + i\epsilon}   .

721: \end{equation}

722: Assuming that the self-energy $\Sigma$ is real (which is 

723: always true in the high-$T$ limit), so that $a$ and $b$ are

724: real, with

725: the help of eq.~(\ref{iepsilon}), we can rewrite

726: eq.~(\ref{pinin}) as

727: \begin{eqnarray}

728: S^{11}(K)=\bigg[(1+a) \gamma^\mu K_\mu + b \gamma^\mu U_\mu

729: \bigg]

730: \bigg[\frac{i }{[(1+a)\omega +b]^2-(1+a)^2k^2  + 

731: i\epsilon} \nonumber \\

732: - 2\pi f_F(\omega)\delta \left([(1+a)\omega

733: +b]^2-(1+a)^2k^2 

734: \right) \bigg] .

735: \label{fermionpropagator}

736: \end{eqnarray}

737: Before applying these results to the computation of the

738: baryon asymmetry, 

739: let

740: us briefly discuss the issue of infrared singularities

741: at finite temperature \cite{yaffe}.

742: It is well-known that perturbation theory at finite

743: temperature is

744: afflicted by infrared problems which are worse than the

745: ones

746: appearing at zero-temperature field theory where the

747: Kinoshita-Lee-Nauenberg (KLN) theorem \cite{Kin,LN}

748: demonstrates that singularities appearing at intermediate

749: stages of the

750: calculation cancel out in the final physical result.

751: In an interacting scalar

752: theory the plasma mass may receive large two-loop infrared

753: contributions

754: and an all-loop  resummation is needed to get a final

755: result. 

756: In this

757: case the plasma mass obtained at one-loop is used as 

758: an infrared regulator. In order to deal with 

759: infrared

760: divergences one can perform the so-called {\it hard thermal

761: loop} (HTL)

762: resummation \cite{BPR}. 

763: %Thermal masses for scalars and fermions  are  generated by

764: %a

765: %loop integral, where the momentum $p$ running inside the

766: %loop is hard,

767: %$p\sim T$, while soft momenta $p\sim gT$

768: %give higher-order contributions. The hard momentum

769: %contribution to the loop integral is called a  hard

770: %thermal loop.

771: In the 

772: HTL resummation one makes a distinction between

773: hard momenta of order $T$ and  soft momenta of order $gT$

774: and performs a resummation  only for the soft lines.

775: Indeed,

776: the corrections to the bare propagator $K^2$, being of

777: order $g^2T^2$,

778: start to be relevant only when $K\sim gT$, which is the

779: soft scale.

780: %Hard lines do not need to be resummed and one can still

781: %use the bare

782: %perturbation series. In other words, 

783: Therefore, if the internal momentum is

784: hard, then ordinary bare propagators and vertices are

785: sufficient, but if

786: the momentum is soft then effective propagators and

787: vertices must be used.

788: %With these simple rules,

789: In this way, one obtains an improved perturbation theory, 

790: in which the

791: HTLs become generic analytic

792: functions of the external momenta, $g^n T^2

793: f(\omega_i,k_i)$. Using the HTL technique, we have

794: for instance explicitly checked that 

795: the top Yukawa coupling constant $\lambda_t$ entering the 

796: vertex $HQ_3U_3$  (which is involved in the

797: $\Delta L=1$ scattering $LH\rightarrow Q_3U_3$) gets renormalized at 

798: finite temperature by the exchange of gauge bosons between the 

799: Higgs and the top lines and that the correction is tiny, $\delta\lambda_t/

800: \lambda_t\simeq 10^{-1}\,g_2$.

801: Furthermore

802: one can  extend the KLN theorem at finite temperature,

803: %the 

804: %obvious extension being 

805: % that observable quantities  must include

806: %the possible absorption and emission of low-energy

807: %real particles in the plasma \cite{weldonir} and the 

808: %the calculation 

809: %requires determining the exclusive amplitudes for

810: % absorption 

811: %and emission of real particles. 

812: and the infrared divergences in the corrections from

813: virtual gauge-boson

814: exchange cancel once we include absorption and emission of

815: real particles

816: that are too soft to escape the thermal

817: bath~\cite{weldonir}.

818: 

819: 

820: \begin{figure}[t]

821: $$\includegraphics[width=17cm,height=6cm]{mT}$$

822: \caption{\label{fig:thermalmasses}\em

823: Thermal masses in the SM (left) and in the MSSM (right), in units

824: of the temperature $T$.}

825: \end{figure}

826: 

827: 

828: 

829: 

830: \section{Including thermal corrections}\label{thermal}

831: Performing a complete study of leptogenesis

832: including all finite-temperature corrections is a very

833: difficult task. 

834: In our computation we include the leading

835: finite-temperature 

836: corrections which

837: are quantitatively relevant for the computation of the 

838: final baryon asymmetry.

839: % within a $(10\div 20)\%$ uncertainty

840: These are given by: {\it i)} thermal corrections to gauge

841: and Yukawa

842: couplings; {\it ii)} thermal corrections to lepton, quark, 

843: and Higgs propagators;

844: {\it iii)} thermal corrections to the CP-violating

845: asymmetry.

846: 

847: In this section we discuss how we implement these three

848: kinds 

849: of corrections and how large they are.

850: Explicit formul\ae{} can be found in the appendices.

851: In the next section we 

852: indicate how the finite-temperature computation of the

853: baryon asymmetry

854: can be significantly simplified

855: by including only those effects which a posteriori turn out

856: to be 

857: numerically most relevant.

858: 

859: 

860: 

861: 

862: \subsection{Corrections to couplings}\label{couplings}

863: Renormalization of gauge and Yukawa couplings in the

864: thermal plasma

865: has been extensively

866: studied (see {\it e.g.} ref.~\cite{mikko}). 

867: A very good approximation is to renormalize the couplings

868: at the first Matsubara mode,

869: \begin{equation}

870: E_{r}=2 \pi T,

871: \label{scale}

872: \end{equation}

873: using the zero-temperature renormalization group equations

874: (RGE).

875: This result can be understood by recalling that

876: the average particle energy in the thermal plasma 

877: is larger than the temperature,

878: and so must be the renormalization scale.

879: For our purposes, the important couplings are the

880: gauge and top Yukawa, which we evaluate using the

881: appropriate RGE

882: at the scale in \eq{scale}.

883: Therefore those couplings are always functions of

884: temperature, even 

885: if not explicitly indicated.

886: 

887: Leptogenesis also depends on neutrino couplings and masses.

888: The neutrino mass matrix can be renormalized from 

889: low energy (where it is measured)

890: up to the high-energy scale relevant for leptogenesis using

891: the well known RGE

892: reported in appendix~\ref{gamma}.

893: They are often solved with a `diagonalize and run' approach~\cite{diagrun}

894: which focuses on 

895: the

896: neutrino masses and mixings probed by oscillation

897: experiments. 

898: We instead purse a `run and diagonalize'  strategy, as {\it

899: e.g.}\ in 

900: ref.~\cite{BRS},

901: which makes it easier to see how the combinations of

902: neutrino masses 

903: relevant for leptogenesis renormalize.

904: The solution can be trivially written as

905: $m(\bar \mu') = r~I\cdot m(\bar \mu) \cdot I $ where

906: $r$ is an overall rescaling factor and

907: \begin{equation}

908: I\simeq  1\hspace{-0.4ex}\hbox{I} +

909: \hbox{diag}(y_e^2,y_\mu^2,y_\tau^2)\frac{\ln(\bar\mu'/\bar\mu)}{(4\pi

910: )^2}\times\left\{\begin{array}{ll}

911:   -3/2    & \hbox{in the SM}   \\

912:   1/\cos^2\beta    & \hbox{in the MSSM} 

913: \end{array}\right. 

914: \end{equation}(higher powers of  $\ln(\bar\mu'/\bar\mu)$

915: can be easily resummed).

916: Here $y_\ell = m_\ell/v$ with $v=174\GeV$.

917: Unless one considers large values of $\tan\beta$ 

918: the flavour dependent term $I$ is very close to the unity

919: matrix.

920: In such a case, $I$ can be relevant only if one considers

921: special

922: neutrino mass matrices, fine-tuned such that 2 or 3

923: eigenvalues are

924: almost degenerate.

925: We can neglect $I$, as long as we do not consider such

926: cases.

927: 

928: 

929: 

930: \begin{figure}

931: $$\includegraphics[width=12cm]{RGE}$$

932: \caption{\label{fig:RGE}\em Universal running of 

933: $m_\nu$ in the SM and in the MSSM.

934: The bands give an indication of the uncertainties,

935: as explained in the text.}

936: \end{figure}

937: 

938: 

939: 

940: The relevant correction to neutrino masses is therefore

941: given by the  overall rescaling factor  $r$.

942: Its numerical value is plotted in fig.\fig{RGE}.

943: The SM value has been computed assuming 

944: $\alpha_3 (M_Z)= 0.118\pm 0.003$,

945: a pole top mass of $m_t =175\pm 5\GeV$ and

946: a Higgs mass $m_h = 115\GeV$.

947: The band indicates the present uncertainty induced by

948: the errors on $m_t$ and $\alpha_3$.

949: Varying the Higgs mass has a negligible impact,

950: unless $m_h$ is close to the triviality bound, $m_h\sim 180\GeV$,

951: where the quartic Higgs coupling becomes non-perturbative at high scales

952: inducing arbitrarily large values of $r$.

953: This issue was also discussed in~\cite{SMRGE2}.

954: 

955: The MSSM central value has been computed assuming also

956: moderately large $\tan\beta\sim 10$,

957: unification of gauge couplings at $M_{\rm GUT} = 2\times 10^{16}\GeV$,

958: and $\lambda_t(M_{\rm GUT}) = 0.6$.

959: Ref.~\cite{heavym0}  explains why $\lambda_t(M_{\rm GUT})$ is

960: still significantly uncertain, about between $0.5\div0.7$,

961: giving rise to a correspondingly large uncertainty in RGE effects,

962: illustrated by the shaded area in fig.\fig{RGE}.

963: 

964: 

965: 

966: 

967: \subsection{Thermal corrections to decay and scattering

968: processes}\label{rates}

969: To calculate the generated baryon  asymmetry of the

970: universe in the 

971: thermal leptogenesis scenario we have to solve a set of

972: Boltzmann 

973: equations, discussed in appendix~\ref{Boltz},

974: which take into account processes that create or wash-out

975: the asymmetry.

976: We have recalculated the relevant reaction densities taking

977: into account 

978: the propagation of particles inside the thermal plasma.

979: 

980: 

981: As discussed in section~\ref{qft}, the wave-functions that 

982: describe external fermion states

983: in decay and scattering amplitudes are the same as in the

984: zero-temperature case~\cite{weldon}.

985: Temperature corrections appear only in internal fermion

986: lines and in the kinematics. 

987: In the SM, for all processes except those involving gauge bosons (which

988: will be discussed later), the only fermion which mediates an interaction

989: relevant for leptogenesis is $N_1$. 

990: Since $N_1$ has no gauge interactions and 

991: its Yukawa coupling is small in all the relevant region of

992: parameters,

993: thermal corrections to ${N_1}$ propagation can be

994: neglected\footnote{We do

995: not consider the case of quasi-degenerate right-handed

996: neutrinos.

997: In such a case small corrections which break degeneracy

998: could not be neglected.}.

999: 

1000: 

1001: Therefore we only have to include thermal corrections to

1002: the dispersion 

1003: relations of lepton doublets, third-generation quarks and

1004: Higgs bosons (and

1005: their supersymmetric partners).

1006: Fig.\fig{mT}a shows the dispersion relation $\omega(k)$ 

1007: satisfied by a fermion with thermal mass $m$ at temperature

1008: $T$.

1009: For simplicity, we approximate it with a Lorentz-invariant

1010: relation

1011: $\omega^2 = m^2 + k^2$, shown by the solid line in

1012: fig.\fig{mT}a.

1013: As discussed later, this approximation has a negligible

1014: impact on  our results.

1015: 

1016: 

1017: \begin{figure}[t]

1018: $$\hspace{-5mm}\includegraphics[width=15.5cm]{leptogDiags}$$

1019: \caption{\label{fig:leptogDiags}\em Feynman diagrams

1020: contributing to SM thermal leptogenesis.}

1021: \end{figure}

1022: 

1023: 

1024: Temperature corrections to the SM and MSSM particle masses

1025: are well 

1026: known~\cite{thermalmasses}. 

1027: The relevant formul\ae{} are collected in

1028: appendix~\ref{gamma} and the

1029: numerical values of

1030: $m/T$ are plotted in fig.\fig{thermalmasses} as function of the

1031: temperature (assuming a Higgs mass $m_h = 115\GeV$).

1032: The computation of thermally corrected SM decay rates and

1033: reduced cross sections is 

1034: performed in appendix~\ref{gamma}.

1035: Here we wish to discuss the most important features of the

1036: results.

1037: 

1038: 

1039: 

1040: 

1041: 

1042: 

1043: The processes that affect SM thermal leptogenesis are 

1044: (Feynman diagrams are plotted in fig.\fig{leptogDiags})

1045: \begin{itemize}

1046: \item the

1047: decays

1048: $N\to H L$ and (at very high temperature when the Higgs

1049: becomes

1050: heavier than $N_1$)  $H\to N L$

1051: (the relative reaction density is 

1052: denoted as $\gamma_D$,

1053: see appendix~\ref{gamma});

1054: \item the $\Delta L = 2$ scatterings $LH \to \bar L\bar H$ and $LL\to \bar H \bar H$ 

1055: ($\gamma_{N}$);

1056: 

1057: 

1058: \item  the $\Delta L = 1$ scatterings involving the top quark

1059: $N_1\bar L\to Q_3 U_3$ ($\gamma_{Ss}$)

1060: and $LQ_3\to N_1 U_3$, $LU_3\to N_1 Q_3$ ($\gamma_{St}$)

1061: as well as their inverse reactions

1062: (which have the same reaction densities, up to small

1063: CP-violating corrections).

1064: We introduce $\Delta L = 1$ scatterings involving ${\rm SU}(2)\otimes{\rm U}(1)$

1065: gauge bosons $A$:

1066: $N_1\bar L\to HA$  ($\gamma_{As}$),

1067: $LH\to N_1A$, $\bar{L}A\to N_1 H$ ($\gamma_{At}$)

1068: and define the total scattering rates 

1069:  $\gamma_{Ss,t}=\gamma_{Hs,t}+\gamma_{As,t}$.

1070:  \end{itemize}

1071: Fig.\fig{fig0}a shows the reaction densities 

1072: $\gamma_D$, $\gamma_{Ss}$, $\gamma_{St}$, $4\gamma_{N}$,

1073: all normalized in units of $H n_{N_1}$,

1074: as function of the temperature and for

1075: $\tilde m_1= r\cdot |\Delta m_{\rm atm}^2|^{1/2}=0.06$~eV 

1076: and $m_{N_1}=10^{10}\GeV$.

1077: 

1078: Fig.\fig{fig0}b (c) show the full set of reaction densities

1079: computed including (not including) the effects added in this paper.

1080: In these figures we use conventions adopted in previous papers, and plot

1081: $\gamma_D$, 

1082: $\gamma_{Hs}$, $\gamma_{Ht}$, $\gamma_{As}$, $\gamma_{At}$

1083: normalized in units of $H n_{N_1}$

1084: and the `subtracted $\Delta L=2$ scattering rate' (see appendix~\ref{Boltz})

1085: $\gamma_{N}^{\rm sub}$ normalized in units of $H n_\gamma$.

1086: 

1087: 

1088: \subsubsection{Decays}

1089: The modification in $\gamma_D$ is probably the most

1090: apparent feature

1091: of a comparison between fig.\fig{fig0}b and \fig{fig0}c,

1092: and it occurs because at sufficiently high temperature, the

1093: Higgs becomes

1094: heavier than $N_1$ and the decay

1095: $N_1\to H L$ becomes kinematically forbidden.

1096: For temperatures in the range where $m_H - m_L<m_{N_1} <

1097: m_H + m_L$,

1098: there are no two-body decays involving $N_1$ at all.

1099: At higher temperatures the Higgs becomes  

1100: heavy enough for the  $H\to N_1L$ decays to be allowed,

1101: and the heavy neutrinos are produced in the process

1102: $H\leftrightarrow N_1 L$

1103: rather than in $N_1\leftrightarrow HL$.

1104: Including thermal masses  we get

1105: $\gamma_D\propto T^4$ at $T\gg m_{N_1}$.

1106: Neglecting thermal masses gave a much smaller decay rate,

1107: $\gamma_D\propto T^2$, so that

1108: higher order $\Delta L=1$ scatterings $\gamma_{Hs,t}$ were dominant.

1109: 

1110: 

1111: 

1112: 

1113: 

1114: 

1115: 

1116: 

1117: \begin{figure}[t]

1118: $$\hspace{-7mm}\includegraphics[width=17.5cm]{Gammas}$$

1119: \caption{\em {\bf The SM reaction densities} for $\tilde m_1

1120: \equiv (Y_\nu Y_\nu^\dagger)_{11} v^2/m_{N_1}

1121: = 0.06\eV$ 

1122: and $m_{N_1}=10^{10}\GeV$.

1123: {\color{blus} Blue line: decays ($\gamma_D$)}. 

1124: {\color{rossos} Red long-dashed lines:

1125: $\Delta L = 1$ scatterings  ($\gamma_{Ss,t}=\gamma_{Hs,t}+\gamma_{As,t}$)}.

1126: {\color{verdes} Green dashed lines: $\Delta L = 2$ scatterings ($\gamma_N$)}.

1127: \label{fig:fig0}}

1128: \end{figure}

1129: 

1130: 

1131: 

1132: 

1133: 

1134: %

1135: \subsubsection{$\Delta L=1$ scatterings}

1136: A comparison of fig.\fig{fig0}b,c reveals

1137: other important numerical differences.

1138: There is a significant reduction of $\Delta L = 1$

1139: scattering rates (red dashed curves), mainly $\gamma_{H_t}$, over the full

1140: temperature range. 

1141: This comes from two different effects: 1) the top Yukawa

1142: coupling at high temperatures

1143: is smaller than at the electroweak scale, {\it e.g.}\ 

1144: $y_t(10^{10}\GeV)/y_t(m_t)\approx 0.6$;

1145: 2) Higgs boson exchange  in the $t$ channel mediates

1146: a long-range force, giving rise to cross section enhanced

1147: by $\ln m_{N_1}/m_H$.

1148: This enhancement disappears when the thermal Higgs mass,

1149: $m_H\sim 0.4~ T$,

1150: is used in place of the zero-temperature Higgs mass,

1151: $m_H\sim 100\GeV$.

1152: Such reduction of the $\Delta L = 1$ scattering rates turns

1153: out to be the most important modification

1154: and affects leptogenesis in two different ways:

1155: less washout of the leptonic asymmetry at $T\ll m_{N_1}$

1156: and slower thermalization of  $N_1$ at $T\gg m_{N_1}$.

1157: It is partially compensated by the inclusion of $\Delta L = 1$ scatterings involving gauge bosons.

1158: 

1159: \subsubsection{$\Delta L=2$ scatterings}

1160: There is a new resonant enhancement of 

1161: $\Delta L =2$ scatterings

1162: $L H\leftrightarrow \bar L \bar H$ mediated by $N_1$.\footnote{Scatterings mediated by

1163: the heavier $N_{2,3}$ are included as described in section~\ref{SM}.}

1164: At low temperatures the virtual $N_1$ can be on-shell

1165: when exchanged in the $s$-channel, so that

1166: $\gamma_{N}$ is enhanced by the

1167: $s$-channel resonance at

1168: $s=m^2_{N_1}$.

1169:  At high temperatures the virtual $N_1$ can be on-shell

1170: when exchanged in the $u$-channel, so that

1171: $\gamma_{N}$ is enhanced by the

1172: $u$-channel resonance at $u = m^2_{N_1}$.

1173: For intermediate temperatures there is no resonance.

1174: 

1175: The $s$-channel resonance is regulated, as usual, by the $N_1$ width.

1176: On the contrary the new $u$-channel resonance occurs when $N_1$ is stable,

1177: because its decays are forbidden by thermal masses.

1178: The divergence in the cross section is eliminated by the

1179: presence of an imaginary part in the $N_1$ propagator, corresponding to

1180: the thermal damping rate caused by the interactions with the plasma. 

1181: Although this effect depends in a complicated way 

1182: on $N_1$ thermal motion with respect to the plasma,

1183: in narrow width approximation (i.e.\ for small $N_1$ Yukawa couplings)

1184: resonant enhancements give $\gamma_N\simeq \gamma_D/4$

1185: (see appendix~\ref{gamma}).

1186: 

1187: Therefore we performed a precise computation of the decay rate

1188: (including also Pauli-blocking and 

1189: stimulated emission factors, as discussed in appendix~\ref{gamma})

1190: and computed $\gamma_{N}^{\rm sub} = \gamma_N-\gamma_D/4$,

1191: the contribution to the $\Delta L = 2$ scattering rate

1192: due only to off-shell scatterings.

1193: Indeed, this quantity enters the Boltzmann equations, 

1194: because the contribution 

1195: of on-shell $N_1$ exchange is already taken into account by

1196: successive decays and inverse decay processes,

1197: $LH\leftrightarrow N_1 \leftrightarrow \bar{L}\bar{H}$, 

1198: and has to be subtracted in order to avoid double

1199: counting. In appendix~\ref{Boltz} we show how to properly 

1200: perform the subtractions to the $N_1$ propagator. 

1201: Our result differs from the one of ref.~\cite{k-sm,mBound}. 

1202: Indeed, the subtraction method used in ref.~\cite{k-sm,mBound} 

1203: leaves a spurious contribution which effectively

1204: double counts the decay process.

1205: This is why our  $\gamma_N^{\rm sub}$ in fig.\fig{fig0}b

1206: no longer has the ``off-shell resonance'' found by 

1207: previous computations, shown in fig.\fig{fig0}c.

1208: At leading order in the neutrino Yukawa coupling $Y_\nu$ 

1209: $\gamma_D,\gamma_{Ss},\gamma_{St} \propto (Y_\nu Y_\nu^\dagger)_{11}$ and

1210: $\gamma_{N}^{\rm sub}\propto  (Y_\nu Y_\nu^\dagger)_{11}^2$.

1211: Therefore, we find that the off-shell contribution is relevant only  when $Y_\nu\sim 1$,

1212: which is not the case in our example of fig.\fig{fig0}.

1213: When $Y_\nu\sim 1$ a fully precise computation should include also $\Delta L=0$

1214: $L\bar L\to N_1N_1$ scatterings,

1215: which would play a minor role, affecting the $N_1$ abundancy.

1216: More importantly, in such a case off-shell $\Delta L=2$ scatterings suppress $n_B$ exponentially,

1217: because (unlike $\Delta L=2$ mediated by on-shell $N_1$)

1218: at $T\circa{<} m_{N_1}$ they are not suppressed

1219: by the $N_1$ abundancy.

1220: 

1221: \medskip

1222: 

1223: Furthermore, fig.\fig{fig0}b allows to get the rates for other values of $\tilde{m}_1$

1224: by applying the appropriate rescaling.

1225: For other values of $m_{N_1}$ the 

1226: rescaling of the Yukawa couplings

1227: $(Y_\nu Y_\nu^\dagger)_{11} = \tilde{m}_1 m_{N_1}/v^2$

1228: is the dominant effect, but is not the only one.

1229: One needs to recompute the rates taking into account 

1230: the running of the couplings.

1231: 

1232: 

1233: 

1234: 

1235: 

1236: 

1237: 

1238: \subsection{CP violation at finite temperature\label{cp}}

1239: In this section we investigate the finite-temperature

1240: effects on

1241: the CP asymmetries

1242: \begin{equation}

1243: \epsilon_i=\frac{\gamma^{\rm eq}(i\rightarrow

1244: f)-\gamma^{\rm eq}(\bar{\hbox{\em \i}}

1245: \rightarrow\bar{f})}{\gamma^{\rm eq}(i \rightarrow

1246: f)+\gamma^{\rm eq}(\bar{\hbox{\em \i}}\rightarrow

1247: \bar{f})}  \ .

1248:   \label{DefEpsilon}\end{equation}

1249:   where $\gamma^{\rm eq}$ are the thermally averaged decay rates.

1250: The decay processes relevant to our analysis are

1251: $N_1\rightarrow L H$,

1252: which is allowed for

1253: $m_{N_1}>m_L(T)+m_H(T)$ and $H\rightarrow L N_1$, which is

1254: allowed at higher

1255: $T$, when $m_H(T)>m_L(T)+m_{N_1}$ and is CP-violating only

1256: because

1257: of purely finite-$T$ effects.

1258: 

1259: The issue of CP-violating decays at finite $T$ was already

1260: investigated

1261: in ref.~\cite{CoviTh}, although neglecting thermal masses.

1262: As we will see, the effect of the masses is crucial, giving

1263: a non-trivial $T$ dependence of the CP violation.

1264: The effect of thermal masses is taken into account by using

1265: the one-loop

1266: finite temperature resummed propagators, and by using

1267: modified dispersion

1268: relations, as discussed in section~\ref{qft}.

1269: 

1270: We choose to work

1271: in the rest frame of the plasma, where

1272: $U_\mu=(1,0,0,0)$.

1273: In this way the finite-$T$ Feynman rules are simplified,

1274: while the kinematics

1275: is more complicated, since we have to consider decaying

1276: particles

1277: in motion.

1278: Although we have performed our calculation in the general

1279: case,

1280: neglecting the thermal motion of the decaying particles

1281: allows to write

1282: reasonably accurate analytical approximations.

1283: As already said,  we approximate the complicated dispersion

1284: relation for fermions with

1285: $\omega^2=k^2+m_F^2$.

1286: 

1287: 

1288: %       %

1289: %       \begin{figure}[t]

1290: %       \centerline{\includegraphics{leptogDecay} }

1291: %       \caption{\em One loop `vertex' and `wave function'

1292: %       CP-violating corrections to $N\to LH$ decay.}

1293: %       \label{loops}

1294: %       \end{figure}

1295: %

1296: 

1297: The CP asymmetries in the relevant decays

1298: come from interference between the tree-level decay

1299: amplitude with

1300: the one-loop contributions. There are two relevant

1301: one-loop diagrams: the so-called vertex and wave-function

1302: contributions

1303: (shown in fig.~\ref{Ndecay}).

1304: We compute the imaginary part of the one-loop graphs

1305: using the Cutkosky cutting rules at finite

1306:  temperature~\cite{Kobes},

1307: which are more complicated than at $T=0$ (even in the

1308: absence of type-$2$ vertices).

1309: %       Indeed, it is necessary to consider all possible cuttings

1310: %       of the internal legs (or the ``circlings'' of the vertices \cite{Kobes}),

1311: %       since all of them are non-zero.

1312: While at $T=0$ most cuttings (in our case two of the three

1313: possible cuttings)

1314: give no contribution due to energy-conservation,

1315: this is no longer true at $T\neq 0$,

1316: since particles may absorb energy from the plasma.

1317: Formally, this means that we must also consider cut

1318: lines with negative-energy on-shell particles.

1319: 

1320: Nevertheless, we ignore cuts which involve heavy

1321: right-handed

1322: neutrinos $N_{2,3}$, because they are

1323: suppressed by a  Boltzmann factor $\exp(-m_{N_{2,3}}/T)$,

1324: which is negligibly small since we assume a hierarchical

1325: spectrum $m_{N_{2,3}}\gg m_{N_1}$, and we work at $T$ much smaller than $m_{N_{2,3}}$.

1326: %Exchange of virtual $N_1$ does not lead to a CP-violating

1327: %amplitude.

1328: Therefore, as illustrated in fig.~\ref{Ndecay}

1329: we can restrict ourselves to the standard cutting of the

1330: Higgs and

1331: lepton lines, but with energy flows in both directions.

1332: 

1333: \subsubsection{CP-asymmetry in $N_1$ decay}\label{cpN1}

1334: We first consider the CP asymmetry in $N_1$ decay,

1335: \begin{equation}

1336: \epsilon_{N_1} \equiv \frac{\gamma^{\rm eq}(N_1\rightarrow H L)-\gamma^{\rm eq}(

1337: N_1\rightarrow \bar{H} \bar{L})}{\gamma^{\rm eq}(N_1\rightarrow H

1338: L)+\gamma^{\rm eq}

1339: (N_1\rightarrow \bar{H} \bar{L})}.

1340: \end{equation}

1341: The full result employed in our leptogenesis code

1342:  is presented in appendix \ref{AppEpsilon}.

1343: Here we present a simple analytic approximation obtained neglecting

1344: the thermal motion of $N_1$ with respect to the plasma,

1345: which is justified at $T \ll m_{N_1}$ and still reasonably accurate

1346: at higher temperatures (see fig.~\ref{figepsilon}a).

1347: The result is

1348: \begin{equation}

1349: \epsilon_{N_1}(T) = \epsilon_{N_1}(0)R_\epsilon(T)\, ,\qquad

1350:  \epsilon_{N_1}(0)=\frac{1}{8\pi}\sum_{j\neq 1}

1351: \frac{\textrm{Im}

1352: \left[ (Y^{\dagger} Y)_{j 1}^2\right] }{\left[Y^{\dagger}

1353: Y\right]_{11}}

1354: f\left(\frac{m_{N_j}^2}{m_{N_1}^2}\right)  . \label{eps0}

1355: \end{equation}

1356: The function  $f$ describes the usual result at $T=0$

1357: which, in the SM,

1358: is given by

1359: \begin{equation}

1360: f(x)=\sqrt{x}\left[ \frac{x-2}{x-1}-(1+x)\ln

1361: \left(\frac{1+x}{x} \right)

1362:  \right] \stackrel{x\gg 1}{\longrightarrow} - \frac{3}{2

1363: \sqrt{x}} \ . \label{f(x)}

1364: \end{equation}

1365: The thermal correction is described by the function $R_\epsilon$, given by\footnote{If $N_{2,3}$ are not much heavier

1366: than $N_1$ one can easily include effects suppressed by higher powers of

1367: $m_{N_1}/m_{N_{2,3}}$, obtaining a more lengthy analytical expression.}

1368: \begin{equation}

1369: R_\epsilon= {16 \frac{k^2}{m_{N_1}} [\omega(1+a_L)+b_L]}J

1370: [1+f_H-f_L-2 f_H f_L]\qquad

1371: J = \left|\left|

1372: \begin{matrix}

1373: \partial \delta_H/\partial\omega &\partial

1374: \delta_L/\partial\omega \\

1375: \partial \delta_H/\partial k &\partial \delta_L/\partial k

1376: \end{matrix}\right|\right|^{-1} \label{eq:g1}

1377: \end{equation}

1378: where $||M||\equiv |\det M|$,

1379: $K_L=(\omega,k)$ is the energy-momentum quadri-vector of $L$,

1380: and the functions $a_L\equiv a(K_L)$ and $b_L\equiv b(K_L)$ are defined in eq.s~(\ref{aaa},\ref{bbb}).

1381: The Fermi-Dirac and Bose-Einstein distributions

1382: $$ f_L = (e^{E_L/T}+ 1)^{-1}\qquad

1383: f_H = (e^{E_H/T}- 1)^{-1}$$

1384: in the third factor

1385: are evaluated at the fermion energy $E_L = \omega$ and at the

1386: boson energy $E_H=m_{N_1}-\omega$.

1387: The first term is obtained by computing the relevant

1388: Feynman graph in the limit $m_{N_{2,3}}\gg m_{N_1}$ and dividing by the tree level

1389: rate.

1390: The Jacobian $J$ is obtained when imposing the on-shell

1391: conditions for the cut particles $H$ and $L$

1392: \begin{equation}

1393: \delta_H \equiv (m_{N_1}-\omega)^2 - k^2 - m_H^2 = 0

1394: \qquad

1395: \delta_L \equiv [(1+a_L)\omega +b]^2-(1+a_L)^2k^2  = 0

1396: \end{equation}

1397: which fixes the values of $\omega$ and $k$ in terms of

1398: $m_{N_1},\, m_L,\, m_H$.

1399: As discussed in section~\ref{qft} the equation for $L$ has

1400: two different solutions:  `particles' and `holes'.

1401: A numerical computation shows

1402: that the `hole' contribution to the CP-asymmetry is

1403: negligible because,

1404: as explained in section~\ref{qft}, relativistic holes have

1405: negligible interactions.

1406: The `particle' contribution is well approximated

1407: by inserting in eq.~(\ref{eq:g1})

1408: the values of $\omega$ and $k$

1409: \begin{equation}\label{eq:omegak}

1410: \omega = \frac{m_{N_1}^2 + m_L^2 -

1411: m_H^2}{2m_{N_1}},\qquad

1412: k = \sqrt{\omega^2 - m_L^2}\end{equation}

1413: obtained approximating

1414: $\delta_L\approx \omega^2 -k^2 - m_L^2=0$.

1415: 

1416: 

1417: 

1418: %       \footnote{Making this approximation also in the computation

1419: %       of $J$ would give $J =1/4km_{N_1}$, which

1420: %       turns out to be a not  very accurate approximation.}

1421: 

1422: The main feature shown in fig.~\ref{figepsilon}

1423: is  that  $\epsilon(T)$ goes to zero as

1424: the

1425: temperature increases and the

1426: process becomes kinematically forbidden.

1427: This happens because the particles in the final state

1428: coincide with the

1429: cut particles in the loop: $L$ and $H$.

1430: Therefore the threshold at which the cut particles can no

1431: longer be on the mass-shell

1432: is the same at which the decay becomes kinematically

1433: forbidden, i.e.\ when

1434: $m_{N_1}\approx m_H+m_L$.

1435: 

1436: 

1437: There is another important effect which gives an additional

1438: suppression.

1439: The $1+f_B-f_F-2 f_B f_F$ factor in \eq{eq:g1} was first

1440: derived by the authors of ref.~\cite{CoviTh}

1441: who, neglecting the $L$ and $H$ thermal masses and thus

1442: setting

1443: $\omega = m_{N_1}/2$, found it to be equal to 1.

1444: However, only if the arguments of the Bose-Einstein and

1445: Fermi-Dirac

1446: distributions are the same, there is a peculiar

1447: cancellation: $f_B-f_F-2 f_B f_F=0$.

1448: Physically this cancellation can be understood as a

1449: compensation between

1450: stimulated emission and Pauli blocking. Only if bosons and

1451: fermions

1452: enter with the same energy,  an exact cancellation holds.

1453: %Since $m_H(T) > m_L(T)$ this factor equals 1 for $T\ll

1454: %m_{N_1}$ and decreases as $T$ grows, reaching

1455: %a minimum equal to about $(1+m_L/m_H)/2$ when

1456: %$m_{N_1}=m_L+m_H$.

1457: 

1458: 

1459: \subsubsection{CP-asymmetry in $H$ decay}

1460: The computation of the CP asymmetry in Higgs decay,

1461: \begin{equation}

1462: \epsilon_H \equiv \frac{\gamma^{\rm eq}(H\rightarrow N_1 L)-\gamma^{\rm eq}(

1463: \bar{H}\rightarrow N_1 \bar{L})}{\gamma^{\rm eq}(H\rightarrow N_1

1464: L)+\gamma^{\rm eq}

1465: (\bar{H}\rightarrow N_1 \bar{L})},

1466: \end{equation}

1467: is similar to the previous one, although

1468: with some important differences.

1469: Also in this case there are two relevant cuts (in wave and

1470: vertex one loop diagrams,

1471: see fig.~\ref{Hdecay}) which involve the Higgs and lepton

1472: lines.

1473: The difference is that such graphs would have no imaginary

1474: parts

1475: with the usual Feynman rules at $T=0$, as cuttings of $H$

1476: and $L$ would be

1477: kinematically forbidden.

1478: On the contrary, at finite $T$ absorption of particles by the

1479: plasma allows also negative energies in the cuts.

1480: The asymmetry

1481: $\epsilon_H$ turns out to be proportional to

1482: the purely thermal factor

1483: $

1484: f_H-f_L-2 f_Hf_L

1485:  \label{nBnF2}$.

1486: The non-standard cut (see fig.~\ref{Hdecay}) implies a more complicated kinematics which

1487: does not allow us to obtain an

1488: analytic result for $\epsilon_H$. 

1489: The computation is presented in appendix \ref{AppEpsilon}, where we

1490: neglect effects due to particle motion and due to non-trivial fermion

1491: dispersion relation, since eventually 

1492: $\epsilon_H$ turns out to have a negligible effect

1493: on the final results for leptogenesis.

1494: $\epsilon_H$ approaches a constant value at high $T\gg m_{N_1}$

1495: (see fig.~\ref{figepsilon}).

1496: 

1497: 

1498: 

1499: 

1500: \begin{figure}[t]

1501: \centerline{

1502: \raisebox{-4mm}{\includegraphics[height=6.3cm]{epsSM0}}

1503: \includegraphics[height =5.4cm]{epsSM}~~

1504: \raisebox{-3mm}{\includegraphics[height =6cm,width=8cm]{epsilonMSSM}}}

1505: \caption{\em  {\bf Thermal corrections to the CP asymmetry}.

1506: $\epsilon(T)/\epsilon(T=0)$ as a function of

1507: temperature

1508: for $m_{N_{2,3}}\gg m_{N_1} = 10^{10}\GeV$

1509: in the SM (left plots) and in the MSSM (right plot, the dots indicate

1510: the various thresholds for $N_1$ and $\tilde{N}_1$ decays).

1511: In the SM plot

1512: the solid line shows our more accurate result derived in 

1513: appendix~\ref{AppEpsilon},

1514: while the dashed line shows the approximate result described in the main text,

1515: obtained neglecting the $N_1$ thermal motion.

1516: \label{figepsilon}}

1517: \end{figure}

1518: 

1519: 

1520: \subsubsection{CP-asymmetries in the MSSM}

1521: The situation in the MSSM becomes more complicated than in the SM because

1522: we must now study both $N_1$ and $\tilde{N_1}$ decays,

1523: each having two possible decay channels, with

1524: each channel having more diagrams.

1525: The CP-asymmetries at zero temperature were first computed correctly 

1526: in ref.~\cite{Covi}.

1527: We do not study $H$ and $\tilde{H}$ decays, which appear only 

1528: at high temperature.

1529: 

1530: The computations at finite temperature are analogous to the SM case and described in appendix~\ref{CPMSSM}.

1531: The result is different because the cut particles in the loop are different from the  final-state particles:

1532: the threshold at which the cut particles can no more go on-shell is different

1533: from the one at which the decay becomes forbidden.

1534: Therefore, in the single decay modes, CP-violation disappears either

1535: before or after the decay mode becomes kinematically forbidden.

1536: 

1537: 

1538: The source of CP-asymmetry which appears in the MSSM Boltzmann equations

1539: are the CP-asymmetries $\epsilon_{N_1}$ and $\epsilon_{\Nt_1}$

1540: in $N_1$ and $\tilde{N}_1$ decays,

1541: averaged over the different decay channels

1542: $N_1\to HL,\Ht\Lt$ and $\Nt_1\to H\Lt,\Ht L$.

1543: As illustrated in fig.~\ref{figepsilon}b $\epsilon_{N_1}$ and $\epsilon_{\Nt_1}$

1544: behave in rather different ways.

1545: 

1546: Like in the SM, $\epsilon_{N_1}$ goes to zero at the same temperature threshold

1547: at which $N_1$ decays become kinematically forbidden,

1548: as a consequence of the fact that both decay channels

1549: contribute to the imaginary part of both decay modes.

1550: 

1551: On the contrary, for $\epsilon_{\Nt_1}$, only one-loop diagrams 

1552: with internal bosons $H,\tilde{L}$ contribute to the CP-asymmetry

1553: of decays into fermions $\tilde{H},L$ and viceversa:

1554: since thermal corrections make bosons heavier than the corresponding fermions (see appendix~\ref{gamma})

1555: $\epsilon_{\Nt_1}$ vanishes when $\tilde{N}_1$ decays into fermions are still kinematically allowed.

1556: The dashed line in fig.~\ref{figepsilon}b shows the final result.

1557: Thermal corrections are significant at $T\sim m_{N_1}$, but

1558: give almost no effect at lower temperatures.

1559: This happens in a non-trivial way.

1560: Decays into scalars have a rate significantly enhanced by stimulated emission

1561: and a CP-asymmetry significantly suppressed by Pauli blocking,

1562: while the opposite happens for decays into fermions.

1563: If thermal masses can be neglected, the two effects compensate each other,

1564: as noticed in ref.~\cite{CoviTh}.

1565: This cancellation no longer takes place when thermal masses become sizable,

1566: giving rise to the behavior of $\epsilon_{\Nt_1}(T)$ shown in fig.~\ref{figepsilon}b.

1567: 

1568: %       Thermal corrections break supersymmetry, and give

1569: %       to scalars thermal masses $\sqrt{2}$ times larger than to their fermionic partners

1570: %       (appendix~\ref{gamma}).

1571: %

1572: 

1573: \section{Leptogenesis in the Standard Model}\label{SM}

1574: We assume that right-handed neutrinos are hierarchical,

1575: $m_{N_{2,3}}\gg m_{N_1}$ so that we have to study the

1576: evolution of

1577: the number density of  $N_1$ only.

1578: In such a case the final amount of ${\cal B}-{\cal L}$ asymmetry

1579: $Y_{{\cal B}-{\cal L}}=n_{{\cal B}-{\cal L}}/s$

1580: generated by $N_1$

1581: assuming no pre-existing asymmetry

1582: can be conveniently parameterized as

1583: \begin{equation}

1584: Y_{{{\cal B}-{\cal L}}}=-\epsilon_{N_1} ~ \eta ~ Y^{\rm eq}_{N_1}

1585: (T\gg m_{N_1}) .

1586: \end{equation}

1587: Here $\epsilon_{N_1}$ is the CP-asymmetry parameter in $N_1$

1588: decays

1589: {\em at zero temperature}, and $Y^{\rm eq}_{N_1}(T\gg

1590: m_{N_1}) =

1591: 135 \zeta(3)/(4\pi^4g_*)$, where $g_*$ counts the effective

1592: number of

1593: spin-degrees of freedom in thermal equilibrium ($g_*= 106.75$ in the SM

1594: with no right-handed neutrinos)\footnote{The formula 

1595: used in our numerical code includes leading order thermal effects from

1596: quarks, leptons and gauge bosons (neglecting Yukawa couplings):

1597: $$\rho =\rho_R 

1598: + \rho_{N_1},\qquad

1599: \rho_R=\bigg[\frac{427}{4}\frac{\pi^2}{30}

1600: - \frac{7}{4}g^2_3-\frac{19}{32}g^2_2-\frac{25}{96}g^2_Y \bigg]T^4

1601: \qquad s=\frac{4\rho_R}{3T}.$$}.

1602: %        the numerical code we  compute $\rho, n$ and $s$ including

1603: %       also thermal masses: we obtain e.g.\

1604: %       $g_* = 106.5$ at $m_{N_1}\ll T=10^{10}\GeV$.

1605: %       Approximating

1606: %       the distributions of both bosons and fermions with

1607: %       Maxwell-Boltzmann

1608: %       distributions would give 

1609: %       $Y^{\rm eq}_{N_1}(T\gg m_{N_1}) =T^3/2g_*$ with

1610: %       $g_*=120$.}).

1611: %       Also,

1612:  $\eta $ is an efficiency factor that measures the number

1613: density of

1614: $N_1$ with respect to the equilibrium value, the

1615: out-of-equilibrium

1616: condition at decay, and the thermal corrections to $\epsilon_{N_1}$. 

1617: Recalling that, after reprocessing by

1618: sphaleron 

1619: transitions, the baryon asymmetry is related to the ${\cal B}-{\cal L}$

1620: asymmetry by 

1621: \begin{equation}\label{eq:YB}

1622: %\frac{n_{\cal B}}{s}=-\left( \frac{24+4n_H}{42+9n_H}\right)\frac{n_L}{s},

1623: \frac{n_{\cal B}}{s}=\frac{24+4n_H}{66+13n_H}\frac{n_{{\cal B} - {\cal L}}}{s},

1624: \end{equation}

1625: where $n_H$ is the number of Higgs doublets, for the SM we

1626: find

1627: \begin{equation}

1628: \label{uusm}

1629: \frac{n_{\cal B}}{s} =-1.38\times 10^{-3} \epsilon_{N_1} \eta.

1630: \end{equation}

1631: Assuming the  `standard' $\Lambda$CDM cosmological model,

1632: BBN and WMAP measurements imply

1633: \begin{equation}

1634: \label{eq:exp}

1635: \frac{n_{\cal B}}{n_\gamma} = (6.15\pm 0.25)\times 10^{-10}\qquad

1636: \hbox{with}\qquad s= 7.04~ n_\gamma.

1637: \end{equation}

1638: 

1639: 

1640: 

1641: Computing $\eta$ is the most difficult part of the

1642: calculation, since

1643: it is obtained from numerical solution of Boltzmann

1644: equations.

1645: In general the result depends on how the lepton asymmetry

1646: is distributed in the three lepton flavours.

1647: For simplicity one usually ignores flavour issues and

1648: solves the approximated Boltzmann equation

1649: for the total lepton asymmetry described in

1650: appendix~\ref{Boltz}.

1651: If all mixing angles of left and right-handed neutrinos are large, 

1652: as data might suggest,

1653:  this `one-flavour approximation'  is accurate up to ${\cal O}(1)$ corrections.

1654: In order to include flavour factors one must 

1655: solve the Boltzmann equations for the $3\times 3$ density matrix of

1656:  lepton doublets,  as discussed in ref.~\cite{bcst}.

1657: %       Ref.~\cite{RS} contains a practical example of how the

1658: %       correct ${\cal O}(1)$ flavour factor

1659: %       can be recovered from the  `one-flavour approximation'

1660: %       in a specific predictive model.

1661: 

1662: 

1663: The $\Delta L=2$ scatterings mediated by heavier right-handed neutrinos

1664: $m_{N_{2,3}}\gg m_{N_1}$ are relevant at

1665: $m_{N_1}\circa{>} 10^{14}\GeV$.

1666: Below, they can have ${\cal O}(1)$ effects if  neutrinos are quasi-degenerate.

1667: Although these scatterings are produced by the same effective dimension 5 operator

1668: that generates neutrino masses, their contribution to $\hat\sigma_{Ns,t}$ depends

1669: on unknown high-energy parameters: 

1670: the flavour composition of the neutrino coupled to $N_1$.

1671: Therefore, following ref.~\cite{bcst}, we introduce

1672: a parameter $\xi $ that, in eqs.~\ref{sigNs}--\ref{sigNt}, parameterizes the

1673: unknown contribution of $N_{2,3}$,

1674: which is important only if $m_{N_1}\circa{>} 10^{14}\GeV$.

1675: If there were only one neutrino flavour with mass $m_\nu$,

1676: the value of $\xi $ would be  $\xi  = m_\nu/\tilde{m}_1 - 1$.

1677: With three neutrinos we cannot even write the precise definition of $\xi $,

1678: as flavour factors cannot be correctly included

1679: in Boltzmann equations valid in `one-flavour approximation'.

1680: In our numerical results we assumed

1681: $\xi =\max(1,m_{\rm atm}/\tilde{m}_1)$:

1682: if all mixing angles are large this choice is reasonably correct in all the parameter space.

1683: 

1684: %       In `one flavour approximation' the  $\Delta L=2$

1685: %       scatterings mediated by $N_{2,3}$, relevant only at

1686: %       $m_{N_1}\circa{>} 10^{14}\GeV$,

1687: %       are taken into account assuming that they have the same

1688: %       flavour structure of the ones mediated by $N_1$.

1689: 

1690: \medskip

1691: 

1692: Having fixed $\xi$, in  `one-flavour approximation' $\eta$ depends only on two

1693: parameters:

1694: $$\tilde{m}_1\equiv (Y_\nu Y_\nu^\dagger)_{11}

1695: v^2/m_{N_1}\qquad\hbox{and}\qquad m_{N_1}$$

1696: (and almost only on $\tilde{m}_1$ if $m_{N_1}\ll

1697: 10^{14}\GeV$ i.e.\ when 

1698: $\Delta L = 2$ scatterings mediated by $N_i$ off-resonance

1699: are negligible).

1700: This well-known fact remains true also when thermal

1701: corrections are included, as

1702: can be seen from appendix~\ref{gamma}.

1703: The parameter $\tilde{m}_1$ is

1704: `the contribution to the neutrino mass mediated by $N_1$'.

1705: To see what this means in practice, let us temporarily

1706: assume that the left-handed neutrinos have a hierarchical

1707: spectrum $m_1 \ll m_2 = m_{\rm sun} \ll m_3 = m_{\rm atm}\equiv |\Delta m_{\rm atm}^2|^{1/2}$.

1708: In such a case $\tilde{m}_1 = m_{\rm atm}$ if

1709: $N_1$ exchange gives rise to the atmospheric mass

1710: splitting,

1711: or $\tilde{m}_1\circa{>} m_{\rm sun}$  if $N_1$ gives

1712: rise to the solar mass splitting.

1713: A smaller  $\tilde{m}_1\ge m_1$ can be obtained if $N_1$ gives rise to $m_1$,

1714: which can be arbitrarily small.

1715: A $\tilde{m}_1$ larger than $m_{\rm atm}$ can be obtained if $N_{2,3}$

1716: exchange cancels out the $N_1$ contribution to neutrino masses.

1717: %       If instead neutrinos are quasi-degenerate, $\tilde{m}_1$ is close to their common mass.

1718: %        {\bf SI PUO'DIRE QUALCOSA DI PRECISO?}.

1719: Stronger (weaker) restrictions are obtained if there are less (more) than 3 right-handed neutrinos.

1720: 

1721: In conclusion, measuring neutrino masses does not fix

1722: $\tilde{m}_1$ and $m_{N_1}$,

1723: which remain as free parameters.

1724: Therefore we compute $\eta$ as function of $m_{N_1}$ and of

1725: $\tilde{m}_1$ renormalized at the high scale $m_{N_1}$

1726: %       Thermal leptogenesis makes testable predictions only if

1727: %       supplemented by extra assumptions:

1728: %       when studying such cases one should remind that

1729: (at high scales $\tilde{m}_1$ is about $(20\div 30)\%$ larger than at low energy).

1730: 

1731: 

1732: \medskip

1733: 

1734: 

1735: %

1736: \begin{figure}[t]

1737: \centerline{

1738: %       \includegraphics{Yno} 

1739: %       \includegraphics{Y} 

1740: \includegraphics{YT}

1741: }

1742: \caption{\em \label{fig3}

1743: Evolution of $Y_{N_1}$ (blue curves) and

1744: $|Y_{B-L}/\epsilon_{N_1}|$ (red curves) with temperature

1745: in the SM. We fix  $m_{N_1}=10^{10}$ GeV and $\tilde

1746: m_1(m_{N_1})=0.06\eV$. The dashed line shows

1747: the thermal abundance of $Y_{N_1}$.

1748: Left plot: full computation, the efficiency is $\eta=0.0036$.

1749: Right plot: no new effect included (and on-shell scatterings

1750: incorrectly subtracted), $\eta=0.0017$. 

1751: \vspace*{0.5cm}}

1752: \end{figure}

1753: %

1754: 

1755: 

1756: \begin{figure}[t]

1757: $$\hspace{-6mm}\includegraphics[width=17.5cm]{abc}$$

1758: $$\hspace{-8mm}\includegraphics[width=17.5cm]{abcSM}$$

1759: \caption{\em

1760: {\bf Efficiency $\eta$ of leptogenesis} in the SM,

1761:  assuming zero (dashed red line), thermal (continuous blue line) or dominant (long dashed green line)

1762:  initial $N_1$ abundancy. 

1763: Upper plots: $\eta$ as function of

1764: $\tilde{m}_1$ (renormalized at $m_{N_1}$) for $m_{N_1} = 10^{10}\GeV$.

1765: Lower plots: contours of $\eta(\tilde{m}_1,m_{N_1}) = 10^{-6,-5,\ldots,0,1}$.

1766: In the shaded regions the neutrino Yukawa couplings are non-perturbative.

1767: \label{figSM}}

1768: \end{figure}

1769: 

1770: 

1771: \subsubsection{Results}

1772: Figure~\ref{fig3} shows the evolution of the $N_1$ and ${\cal B}-{\cal L}$ abundances

1773: at our sample `atmospheric' point:

1774: $\tilde{m}_1(m_{N_1}) = r(\Delta m^2_{\rm atm})^{1/2} = 0.06\eV$

1775: and $m_{N_1}=10^{10}\GeV$.

1776: For these values the $N_1$ abundancy remains close to thermal equilibrium, so that 

1777: leptogenesis is mainly determined only by the

1778: later stages of the evolution at relatively small temperatures.

1779: This explains why, despite the significant variations at higher temperature,

1780: there is only a mild correction to the final baryon asymmetry.

1781: Proper subtraction of on-shell scatterings

1782: reduces wash-out by a $3/2$ factor.

1783: This gives a $3/2$ increase of the efficiency,

1784: as can be  seen from the analytical approximation of ref.~\cite{bcst}.

1785: %       \footnote{For $N_1$ close to thermal equilibrium

1786: %       $$\eta \approx  \int_0^\infty dz' \exp[-F(z')]\sim 

1787: %\sqrt{\frac{2\pi}{F''(\bar{z}) }} e^{-F(\bar{z})}$$ 

1788: %       where $z=m_{N_1}/T$, $F(z)$ has a minimum at  $z=\bar z$,

1789: %       $\gamma_S\equiv 2\gamma_{Ss}+4\gamma_{St}$  and

1790: %       \begin{equation}\label{eq:PuntoSella}

1791: %F(z)\equiv -\ln

1792: %       \frac{\epsilon(z)/\epsilon_{T=0}}{1+\gamma_S/\gamma_D}

1793: %       \frac{dY_{N_1}^{\rm eq}/dz}{Y_{N_1}^{\rm eq}(0)}-\int_z^\infty

1794: %       \frac{z'\gamma_D(z')/2}{z' s(z')'H(z')Y_{\ell}^{\rm eq}(z')}

1795: %       \left(1+\frac{\gamma_S+4\gamma_{N}^{\rm sub}}{\gamma_D}\right)

1796: %        dz'.\nonumber\\

1797: %       \end{equation}}

1798: 

1799: 

1800: \medskip

1801: 

1802: 

1803: 

1804: We now present our results for the thermal

1805: leptogenesis efficiency parameter $\eta$.

1806: We assume no pre-existing ${\cal B}-{\cal L}$ asymmetry,

1807: and we study the three cases of 

1808: \begin{itemize}

1809: \item[(0)] zero initial $N_1$ population, $Y_{N_1} = 0$ at $T\gg m_{N_1}$.

1810: This case can be realized {\it e.g.}\ if an inflaton field

1811: reheated the universe decaying mostly into SM particles.

1812: 

1813: 

1814: \item[(1)]  thermal initial $N_1$ population, $Y_{N_1} = Y_{N_1}^{\rm eq}$  

1815: at $T\gg m_{N_1}$.

1816: This case can be realized in presence of extra interactions at $T\gg m_{N_1}$,

1817: mediated {\it e.g.}\ by a heavy  $Z'$ boson related to SO(10) unification.

1818: 

1819: \item[($\infty$)] dominant initial $N_1$ abundancy, $\rho_{N_1} \gg \rho_R$  

1820: at early times.

1821: This case can be realized {\it e.g.}\ if an inflaton field

1822: reheated the universe decaying mostly into $N_1$.

1823: \end{itemize}

1824: In order to study the latter case

1825: we modified the Boltzmann equations employed

1826: in previous analyses including the effects of $N_1$ reheating

1827: (in the case (1) $N_1$ reheating is relevant only if

1828:  $\tilde{m}_1\circa{<} 10^{-6}\eV$). 

1829:  

1830: If $m_{N_1}\ll 10^{14}\GeV$  

1831: the efficiency parameter $\eta$ depends almost only on $\tilde{m}_1$.

1832: In fig.~\ref{figSM} we show $|\eta|$ as 

1833: function of $\tilde{m}_1$ for $m_{N_1}= 10^{10}\GeV$.

1834: If $\tilde{m}_1> 10^{-2}\eV$ neutrino Yukawa couplings keep $N_1$ so 

1835: close to  thermal equilibrium

1836: that $\eta$ does not depend

1837: on the unknown initial $N_1$ abundancy

1838: (similarly, an eventual pre-existing lepton asymmetry would be washed out

1839: if $N_1$ Yukawa couplings act on all flavours).

1840: 

1841: At smaller $\tilde{m}_1$ the efficiency $\eta$ depends on the initial $N_1$ abundancy,

1842: ranging between the limiting cases (0) and ($\infty$), as illustrated by the gray band in fig.~\ref{figSM}.

1843: As expected, the maximal value of $\eta\sim g_*$ 

1844: is reached at $\tilde{m}_1\sim \tilde{m}_1^* \equiv

1845:  {256\sqrt{g_*} v^2}/{3M_{\rm Pl}}=2.2\times 10^{-3}\eV$ in case ($\infty$).

1846: In such a case, $\eta$ decreases at $\tilde{m}_1\ll \tilde{m}_1^*$, because

1847: $N_1$ decays out-of-equilibrium at temperature

1848: $T_{\rm RH}^{N_1}\sim m_{N_1} \sqrt{\tilde{m}_1/\tilde{m}_1^*} \ll m_{N_1}$ 

1849: so that

1850: $N_1$ reheating washes out some lepton asymmetry.

1851: In more physical terms, the particles $H,L$ emitted in $N_1$ decays have energy larger than the temperature $T$,

1852: and split up in $\sim m_{N_1}/T_{\rm RH}^{N_1}$ particles without correspondingly increasing the

1853: lepton asymmetry, so that $\eta \sim g_* \sqrt{\tilde{m}_1^*/\tilde{m}_1}$.

1854: 

1855: When $\tilde{m}_1\circa{<}10^{-6}\eV$,

1856: $N_1$ reheating starts to be significant even in case (1) giving $\eta <1$.

1857: In fact, even if $N_1$ initially has a thermal abundancy  

1858: $\rho_{N_1}/\rho_R\sim  g_{N_1}/g_* \ll 1$,

1859: its contribution to the total density of the universe becomes no longer negligible,

1860: $\rho_{N_1}/\rho_R\sim  (g_{N_1} m_{N_1})/(g_\star T)$,

1861: if it decays strongly out of equilibrium at $T\ll m_{N_1}$.

1862: For the reasons explained above, this effect gives a suppression of $\eta$ (rather than an enhancement), and for very small $\tilde{m}_1$ the case (1) and 

1863: $(\infty)$ give the same result.

1864: 

1865: 

1866:  \medskip

1867: 

1868: 

1869: 

1870: The lower panel of fig.~\ref{figSM} contains our result for

1871: the efficiency $|\eta|$ of thermal leptogenesis computed in cases (0), (1) and $(\infty)$ as function

1872: of both $\tilde{m}_1$ and $m_{N_1}$.

1873: At $m_{N_1}\circa{>}10^{14}\GeV$ non-resonant $\Delta L = 2$ scatterings

1874: enter in thermal equilibrium strongly suppressing $\eta$.

1875: Details depend on unknown flavour factors.

1876: 

1877: %       This conclusion is unavoidable, as

1878: %       these wash-out interactions are directly related to neutrino masses:

1879: %       both effects are described by the effective  dimension-5 operator $(LH)^2$~\cite{bcst}.

1880: %       {\bf HOWEVER $X=$....}

1881: %       Therefore \eq{eq:di} also implies an upper bound 

1882: %       on $m_{N_1}\circa{<}10^{15}\GeV$. {\bf For Martti: Quantify this in a figure.}

1883: 

1884: 

1885: 

1886: Our results in fig.~\ref{figSM} can be summarized with

1887: simple analytical fits

1888: \begin{equation}

1889: \frac{1}{\eta}\approx  \frac{3.3\times 10^{-3}\eV}{\tilde{m}_1} +   \bigg(\frac{\tilde{m}_1}{0.55\times 10^{-3}\eV}\bigg)^{1.16}\qquad

1890: \hbox{in case (0)}

1891: \end{equation}

1892: valid for $m_{N_1}\ll 10^{14}\GeV$. 

1893: This enables the 

1894: reader to study leptogenesis 

1895: in neutrino mass models without setting up and solving the

1896: complicated 

1897: Boltzmann equations. 

1898: 

1899: 

1900: 

1901: 

1902: \medskip

1903: 

1904: 

1905: \begin{figure}[t]

1906: $$\includegraphics[width=0.98\textwidth]{mM.eps}$$

1907: \caption{\em\label{fig:Mm}

1908: {\bf Allowed range of $\tilde m_1$ and $m_{N_1}$} for

1909: leptogenesis in the SM and MSSM assuming $m_3 = \max(\tilde{m}_1, m_{\rm atm})$

1910: and $\xi = m_3/\tilde{m}_1$.

1911: Successful leptogenesis is possible in the area inside the

1912: curves (more likely around the border).}

1913: \end{figure}

1914: 

1915: \begin{figure}[t]

1916: $$\includegraphics[width=0.98\textwidth]{m3} $$

1917: \caption{\em\label{fig:m3}

1918: {\bf Leptogenesis bound on neutrino masses}.

1919: The plot shows the measured baryon asymmetry (horizontal line)

1920: compared with the maximal leptogenesis value as function of

1921: the heaviest neutrino mass $m_3$, renormalized at low energy.

1922: Error bars are at $3\sigma$.}

1923: \end{figure}

1924: 

1925: 

1926: \subsubsection{Implications}

1927: Experiments have not yet determined the mass $m_3$ of the heaviest mainly

1928: left-handed neutrino.

1929: We assume $m_3 = \max(\tilde{m}_1, m_{\rm atm})$.

1930: Slightly different plausible assumptions are possible when $\tilde{m}_1\approx m_{\rm atm}$,

1931: and very different fine-tuned assumptions are always possible.

1932:  As discussed above, we assume $\xi = m_3/\tilde{m}_1$

1933: (the parameter $\xi$ controls $\Delta L=2$ scatterings mediated by $N_{2,3}$).

1934: These assumptions do not affect the absolute bounds 

1935: on the masses of left-handed and right-handed neutrinos that we now discuss,

1936: but allow to present them in one simple plot, fig.~\ref{fig:Mm}.

1937: 

1938: The crucial assumption behind fig.~\ref{fig:Mm}

1939: is that right-handed neutrinos are very hierarchical.

1940: Under this hypothesis the CP asymmetry is bounded by the expression given in~\cite{epsilon}

1941: (see also~\cite{di2,mBound}), that in the 

1942: hierarchical and  quasi-degenerate light neutrino limits simplifies to

1943: \begin{equation}

1944: \label{eq:di}

1945: |\epsilon_{N_1}|\le \frac{3}{16\pi}

1946: \frac{m_{N_1} (m_3-m_1)}{v^2}  \times

1947: \left\{\begin{array}{ll}

1948: 1-m_1/\tilde{m}_1 & \hbox{if $m_1\ll m_3$}\\

1949: \sqrt{1- m_1^2/\tilde{m}_1^2}&

1950: \hbox{if $m_1\simeq m_3$}

1951: \end{array}\right. .

1952: %\bigg(1-\frac{m_1}{m_3}\sqrt{1+\frac{m_3^2-m_1^2}{\tilde{m}_1^2}}\bigg)

1953: %\frac{m_{\rm atm}}{m_3}

1954: \end{equation}

1955: where all parameters are renormalized at the high-energy scale $\sim m_{N_1}$

1956: and $m_3^2 = m_1^2 + \Delta m^2_{\rm atm} + \Delta m^2_{\rm sun}$.

1957: The $3\sigma$ ranges of $m_{\rm atm}$ and of $n_{\cal B}/n_\gamma$ imply

1958: %The 3-$\sigma$ bound on the baryon asymmetry $n_{\cal B}/s>8\times 10^{-11}$

1959: the lower bound

1960: \begin{equation}

1961: m_{N_1} > \frac{4.5\times 10^{8}\GeV}{\eta} > \left\{\begin{array}{rl}

1962: 2.4\times 10^{9} \GeV    &   \hbox{in case (0)} \\

1963:  4.9\times 10^{8}\GeV     & \hbox{in case (1)} \\  

1964: 1.7\times 10^{7}\GeV     & \hbox{in case ($\infty$)} 

1965: \end{array}\right.

1966: \label{pipp} 

1967: \end{equation}

1968: with the absolute bound realized in case ($\infty$).

1969: 

1970: The allowed regions are shown in fig.~\ref{fig:Mm} as function of $\tilde{m}_1$.

1971: The bound on $m_{N_1}$ becomes stronger if left-handed neutrinos

1972: are heavier than what suggested by oscillations, $m_3 > m_{\rm atm}$,

1973: until thermal leptogenesis can no longer generate the observed $n_{\cal B}$ (see fig.~\ref{fig:Mm})

1974: giving an upper bound on the mass of degenerate neutrinos

1975: (renormalized at some unspecified scale~\cite{SMRGE2})

1976: of about $0.1\eV$~\cite{mBound}.

1977: This  happens because $\eta$ decreases with $\tilde{m}_1$ in the region

1978: of interest and because the bound in \eq{eq:di} on $\epsilon_{N_1}$ 

1979: becomes stronger when neutrinos become heavier.\footnote{The bound on neutrino masses is saturated around

1980: $m_{N_1}\sim 10^{13}\GeV$ and $\tilde{m}_1\sim 0.1\eV$.

1981: For these values computing leptogenesis in `one flavour approximation' is reliable~\cite{epsilon}.

1982: %The Yukawa coupling of $N_1$ is $\sim 0.3$, and the couplings of $N_{2,3}$ are larger.

1983: %Therefore one should worry that the bound on $\epsilon_{N_1}$ is obtained using its one-loop approximation, 

1984: %while two-loop effects can be important.

1985: We recall that we are assuming that the Higgs quartic coupling remains relatively small up to high energies.}

1986: 

1987: 

1988: In order to study precisely the bound on neutrino masses we

1989: relax our simplifying assumptions on $\xi$ and $m_3$ and compute

1990: the maximal baryon asymmetry generated by thermal leptogenesis as function of $m_3$.

1991: The results is shown in  fig.~\ref{fig:m3}:

1992: including the new effects discussed in this paper

1993: and combining errors  on $\Delta m^2_{\rm atm}$ and on the baryon asymmetry in quadrature

1994: we get  $m_\nu <0.15\eV$ at $99.73\%$ CL (i.e.\ $3\sigma$).

1995: The small difference with respect to previous results~\cite{mBound} is due to various factors:

1996: correct subtraction of on-shell scatterings

1997: (makes leptogenesis $50\%$ more efficient and the bound on neutrino masses $7\%$ weaker);

1998: renormalization of neutrino masses (makes the bound $7\%$ stronger);

1999: renormalization of $\lambda_t$, inclusion of gauge scatterings, of thermal corrections,

2000: updated experimental determination of $\Delta m^2_{\rm atm}$ and of $n_{\cal B}/n_\gamma$,

2001: revised (weaker) upper bound on the CP-asymmetry~\cite{epsilon}.

2002: 

2003: 

2004: \medskip

2005: 

2006: 

2007: We stress that the bound in 

2008: \eq{eq:di} on the CP-asymmetry holds because we assumed

2009: $m_{N_1}\ll m_{N_{2,3}}$: if

2010: right-handed neutrinos were instead  quasi-degenerate 

2011: CP violation in mixing can give an arbitrarily large CP-asymmetry, $\epsilon_{N_1}\sim 1$

2012: and all bounds that we discussed evaporate.

2013: In particular the leptogenesis bound on the neutrino masses holds under the 

2014: dubious assumption 

2015: that hierarchical right-handed neutrinos

2016: give quasi-degenerate left-handed neutrinos.

2017: 

2018: 

2019: 

2020: 

2021: \subsection{Simple approximation} \label{sappr}

2022: While in our calculations we use our full code,

2023:  we now also discuss how the computation can be

2024: significantly simplified

2025: by including only the following new ingredients 

2026: which,  a posteriori, turn out to be numerically most relevant.

2027: %We do not discuss how each one of them corrects the final result.

2028: Neglecting all these effects we reproduce the results in ref.~\cite{bbp}.

2029: Effects 2, 3, 4 were included in ref.~\cite{bcst}:

2030: neglecting the other ones we reproduce their results.

2031: Effect 2 was mentioned in ref.~\cite{SMRGE2}.

2032: \begin{itemize}

2033: \item[1] Proper subtraction of the on-shell $N_1$ propagators

2034: in $\Delta L=2$ scattering processes, as discussed in Appendix A.

2035: \item[2] Neutrino masses have to be renormalized at the

2036: proper energy scale $\sim m_{N_1}$, 

2037: both when computing $\eta$ and $\epsilon_{N_1}$.

2038: \end{itemize}

2039: %       In order to discuss in greater detail how much and which

2040: %       thermal effects are relevant,

2041: %       in fig.\fig{cp} we show $\eta$ computed in different

2042: %       approximations

2043: %       as function of $\tilde{m}_1$ for $m_{N_1} =

2044: %       10^{10}\GeV$

2045: %       and for zero $N_1$ initial abundancy.

2046: %       The black continuous line shows our full result, 

2047: %       and the blue dotted line shows $\eta$ computed without

2048: %       including thermal corrections.

2049: Typically these effects give ${\cal O}(1)$ corrections.

2050: For $\tilde m_1\gsim 10^{-3}$ eV the efficiency 

2051: increases by up to almost a factor 2,

2052: due to the suppression of $\Delta L = 1$ wash-out processes

2053: caused by the following thermal effects:

2054: \begin{itemize}

2055: \item[3] Temperature corrections to the Higgs boson mass,

2056: $m_H \sim 0.4~ T$, 

2057: must be included

2058: at least when computing the IR-enhanced $LN\to Q_3 U_3$

2059: interaction rate.

2060: \item[4]  The top Yukawa coupling must be renormalized at

2061: the proper energy scale $\sim m_{N_1}$.

2062: \end{itemize}

2063: These variations are partially compensated by

2064: \begin{itemize}

2065: \item[5] Inclusion of previously neglected scatterings involving weak gauge bosons $A$,

2066: $N_1 L\leftrightarrow HA$, $N_1 H\leftrightarrow LA$ and $N_1 A\leftrightarrow HL$. 

2067: These extra scatterings are sizable because $g_2>\lambda_t$  at energies above $10^9\GeV$:

2068: $\lambda_t$ is no longer the dominant coupling. These processes have been

2069: recently considered for the time in ref.~\cite{pilaf}

2070: \end{itemize}

2071: Including these contributions one gets an

2072: excellent approximation for $\tilde m_1\gsim

2073: 10^{-3}\eV$.

2074: In order to get an approximation which is accurate also

2075: at $\tilde m_1 \ll 10^{-3}\eV$,

2076: in case (0) one needs to include one more effect:

2077: \begin{itemize}

2078: \item[6] Thermal corrections to the CP-violating parameter

2079: $\epsilon_{N_1}$.

2080: \end{itemize}

2081: which turns out to have a sizable impact due to a more

2082: subtle reason.

2083: %       

2084: %       [[[At our reference point $M_{N_1} = 10^{10}\GeV$

2085: %       and $\tilde{m}_1 (M_{N_1}) = 0.06\eV$

2086: %       effect 1 increases the efficiency $\eta$ by

2087: %       $50\%$, effects 2 and 3 increase $\eta$ by a similar amount,

2088: %       and effect 4 decreases $\eta$ by about $50\%$.]]]

2089: 

2090: %       The significant efficiency reduction at

2091: %        $\tilde{m}_1\ll 10^{-3}\eV$ in case (0) is 

2092: %       related to the fact that

2093: %       thermal effects reduce washout scatterings.

2094: 

2095: Neglecting washout scatterings (which are small at $\tilde{m}_1\ll 10^{-3}\eV$)

2096: and the temperature dependence of the CP asymmetry,  in case (0)

2097: the Boltzmann equations are solved by $Y_{{\cal B}-{\cal L}} = + \epsilon_{N_1} Y_{N_1}$.

2098: In this approximation the lepton asymmetry generated in inverse-decay

2099: processes at $T\gg m_{N_1}$

2100: when $Y_{N_1} < Y_{N_1}^{\rm eq}$ is exactly  cancelled by

2101: the asymmetry generated later in $N_1$ decays when 

2102: $Y_{N_1} >Y_{N_1}^{\rm eq}$.

2103: Consequently  the effect which dominantly breaks this

2104: cancellation has a numerically important impact even if it is `small'.

2105: $1)$

2106: Washout interactions, dominated by $\gamma_D$,  erase the lepton asymmetry generated at earlier stages more than the one generated at later stages,

2107: giving a small positive $\eta$.

2108: $2)$ 

2109: Thermal corrections to $\epsilon$ slightly reduce it at small temperatures $T\sim m_{N_1}/4$,

2110: giving a small positive $\eta$.\footnote{The solid line 

2111: in fig.~\ref{figepsilon}a

2112: shows our most accurate result for 

2113:  thermal corrections to $\epsilon$,

2114:  that we employ in numerical computations.

2115:  The enhancement at $T\sim 0.4 m_{N_1}$ comes from the quantum statistics factor,

2116: $1+f_H-f_L-2f_Hf_L$, that can be larger than one

2117: when both  thermal masses 

2118: and $N_1$ motion with respect to the plasma

2119: are taken into account.

2120: In case (0) for $\tilde{m}_1 \ll 10^{-3}\eV$ the $N_1$ energy spectrum 

2121: deviates from the thermal Fermi-Dirac distribution

2122: that we assumed.

2123: Using the slightly less accurate thermal correction to $\epsilon$,

2124: obtained neglecting thermal motion of $N_1$

2125: (dashed line in fig.~\ref{figepsilon}a)

2126: typically affects the final result by a ${\cal O}(1)$ factor.

2127: Other minor effects might be important:

2128: the exact dispersion relation at finite temperature,

2129: thermal corrections to couplings, higher order corrections,

2130: and 

2131: CP-violation in $\Delta L = 1$ scatterings.}

2132: 

2133: 

2134: 

2135: %       For example, at $m_{N_1}=10^{10}\GeV$ and $\tilde{m}_1 = 10^{-5}\eV$

2136: %       we get $\eta = 0.0027$. Neglecting  thermal corrections to $\epsilon$ 

2137: %       gives $\eta=0.0020$. Including them neglecting thermal motion of $N_1$

2138: %       gives $\eta = 0.0014$.

2139: 

2140: Finally, if one wants to study cases where $N_1$ can give a substantial

2141: contribution to the total energy density,

2142: one must include this correction in the Boltzmann equations,

2143: as described in appendix~\ref{Boltz}.

2144: 

2145: 

2146: 

2147: \begin{figure}[t]

2148: $$\hspace{-6mm}\includegraphics[width=17.5cm]{abcMSSM}$$

2149: \caption{\em

2150: {\bf Efficiency ${\eta}$ of leptogenesis} in the MSSM,

2151:  assuming zero, thermal or dominant initial $N_1,\tilde{N}_1$ abundancy. 

2152:  In the shaded regions the neutrino Yukawa couplings are non-perturbative.

2153: \label{figMSSM}}

2154: \end{figure}

2155: 

2156: 

2157: 

2158: 

2159: \section{Leptogenesis in the MSSM}\label{MSSM}

2160: In the case of the supersymmetric extension of the SM,

2161: the computation becomes more involved because of the presence of many

2162: new particle

2163: degrees of freedom.

2164: In particular, a lepton asymmetry is generated in decays of both

2165: the right handed neutrino $N_1$ and the right-handed

2166: sneutrino $\tilde{N}_1$.

2167: Since supersymmetry breaking can be ignored (except in special 

2168: cases~\cite{softl2,softl}), the

2169: computation

2170: is somewhat simplified by the identities demanded by

2171: supersymmetry,

2172: such as

2173: $m_{N_1} = m_{\tilde{N}_1}$ and

2174: $\Gamma_{N_1} = \Gamma_{\tilde{N}_1}$.

2175: Thermal corrections break supersymmetry, so that it is rather ponderous

2176: to include them. At the moment, we do not attempt to make a full calculation

2177: in the supersymmetric case.

2178: 

2179: 

2180: On the other side, a full computation might be not

2181: necessary.

2182: Including only the thermal effects which in the SM

2183: turn out to be dominant as discussed in section~\ref{sappr}, 

2184: could be a good approximation

2185: also for the MSSM.

2186: Therefore we do not compute all relevant

2187: cross sections including finite temperature effects,

2188: but we adopt the MSSM cross sections of ref.~\cite{k-mssm}, 

2189: inserting the

2190: temperature-dependent

2191: top Yukawa coupling and Higgs boson mass in IR-enhanced processes,

2192: and performing a correct subtraction of on-shell resonances

2193: (which again reduces $N_1$-mediated washout scatterings by a 3/2 factor).

2194: Thermal corrections to $N_1$ and $\tilde{N}_1$ decays and

2195: their CP-asymmetries 

2196: are computed in appendix~\ref{CPMSSM} neglecting the thermal motion

2197: of $N_1$, $\tilde{N}_1$

2198: (in the SM case this would not be a very good approximation

2199: at small $\tilde{m}_1$). 

2200: Finally, 

2201: we do not include $\Delta L =1$ scatterings involving

2202: gauge bosons and gauginos.

2203: 

2204: Our MSSM results have been obtained under these approximations,

2205: assuming moderately large values of $\tan\beta\sim 10$.

2206: %\beq

2207: %\tan\beta\sim 10\qquad\hbox{and}\qquad

2208: %\lambda_t (M_{\rm GUT}) =0.6.

2209: %\eeq

2210: Low-energy thresholds make the top Yukawa coupling at

2211: high energy uncertain

2212: by about a factor of 2, as discussed in ref.~\cite{heavym0}.

2213: 

2214: Proceeding as in the case of the SM, we find that the asymmetry generated

2215: in the MSSM is

2216: \begin{equation}

2217: Y_{{\cal B}-{\cal L}}=- \eta\, \epsilon_{N_1}

2218: (Y^{\rm eq}_{N_1}+Y^{\rm eq}_{\tilde N_1})(T\gg m_{N_1}),

2219: \label{eq:susyeff}

2220: \end{equation}

2221: where $\epsilon_{N_1}$ is the neutrino (or sneutrino) CP-asymmetry 

2222: at low temperature

2223: (equal for lepton and slepton final 

2224: states)~\cite{Covi},

2225: \begin{eqnarray}

2226: \epsilon_{N_1}&=&\frac{1}{8\pi}\sum_{j\neq 1}

2227: \frac{\textrm{Im}

2228: \left[ (Y^{\dagger} Y)_{j 1}^2\right] }{\left[Y^{\dagger}

2229: Y\right]_{11}}

2230: g\left(\frac{m_{N_j}^2}{m_{N_1}^2}\right)  ,

2231: \label{epsss}\\

2232: g(x)&=&-\sqrt{x}\left[ \frac{2}{x-1}+\ln

2233: \left(\frac{1+x}{x} \right)

2234:  \right] \stackrel{x\gg 1}{\longrightarrow} - \frac{3}{

2235: \sqrt{x}}  .

2236: \end{eqnarray}

2237: The number of effective degrees of freedom in the MSSM without right-handed

2238: neutrinos is $g_*=228.75$.

2239: Using eq. (\ref{eq:YB}) with $n_H=2$, we obtain

2240: \begin{equation}

2241: \label{uums}

2242: \frac{n_{\cal B}}{s} =-1.48\times 10^{-3} \epsilon_{N_1} \eta.

2243: \end{equation}

2244: The MSSM results, analogous to those obtained from the SM and previously

2245: discussed, shown in figs.~\ref{fig:Mm}--\ref{figMSSM},

2246:  are similar to their corresponding SM results.

2247:  It is difficult to compare with previous results,

2248:  which have not been presented in a systematic way.

2249:  

2250: Extra signals may come from

2251: lepton flavour violating decays like $\mu\to e \gamma$,

2252: induced in supersymmetric see-saw models by the (unknown) neutrino Yukawa couplings~\cite{mueg}.

2253: Some predictive minimal models allow to predict these rates

2254: in terms of the measured neutrino masses and baryon asymmetry.

2255: For example, using our revised leptogenesis computation,

2256:  the prediction of ref.~\cite{minimalseesaw} for BR($\mu\to e\gamma$)

2257: gets lowered by one order of magnitude.

2258: 

2259: %	If those are suppressed due to the neutrino 

2260: %	Yukawa couplings~\cite{dir}, the lower bound on $m_{N_1}$ in fig.~\ref{fig:Mm}b

2261: %	is one to two orders of magnitude higher~\cite{er}.

2262: 

2263: 

2264: 

2265: 

2266: \subsubsection{Soft leptogenesis}\label{soft}

2267: ``Soft leptogenesis''~\cite{softl2,softl} is a supersymmetric scenario of

2268: leptogenesis which requires only one 

2269: heavy right-handed neutrino. 

2270: The interference between the CP-odd and

2271: CP-even states of the heavy scalar neutrino resembles

2272: very much the neutral kaon system. The mass splitting as well as the 

2273: required CP violation in the heavy sneutrino system comes from the

2274: soft supersymmetry breaking $A$ and $B$ terms,

2275: respectively associated with the Yukawa coupling and mass term of $N_1$.

2276: The non-vanishing value of the generated lepton asymmetry

2277: is a pure thermal effect, since at $T=0$ the generated lepton asymmetry

2278: in leptons exactly cancels the one in sleptons. 

2279: 

2280: 

2281: 

2282: \begin{figure}[t]

2283: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{softmm1}

2284: \hfill

2285: \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{softmm2}}

2286: \caption{\em 

2287: Regions of $(\tilde m_1,m_{N_1})$ plane where {\bf soft leptogenesis}

2288: can produce the observed baryon asymmetry for ${\rm Im}A<{\rm TeV}$

2289: and $\sqrt{B m_{N_1}}=100\GeV$ (solid line), $1\TeV$ (dashed),

2290: $10\TeV$ (long-dashed)

2291: We have assumed a vanishing 

2292: (left) or thermal (right) initial

2293: sneutrino density.}

2294: \label{fig:soft}

2295: \end{figure}

2296: 

2297: 

2298: Here we improve the results of

2299: ref.~\cite{softl}, taking into account

2300: thermal, Pauli blocking and stimulated emission corrections to

2301: $N_1,\tilde{N}_1$ branching ratios 

2302: (which significantly enhance decays into bosons)

2303: to their CP asymmetries 

2304: (computed in appendix~\ref{CPMSSM} including thermal corrections, but

2305: neglecting the thermal motion of $N_1,\tilde{N}_1$).

2306: We recall that in this scenario $\epsilon_{\tilde N\to L \tilde H}$

2307: has an opposite sign to  $\epsilon_{\tilde N\to \tilde L H}$, and~\cite{softl}

2308: \beq

2309: \epsilon_{\tilde N\to \tilde L H}(T=0) =

2310: -\epsilon_{\tilde N\to L \tilde H}(T=0) = 

2311: \frac{4\Gamma_{{\tilde N}_1} B }{4 B ^2 +\Gamma_{{\tilde N}_1}^2}\frac{{\rm Im} A}{m_{N_1}}

2312: \label{epsilonsoft}

2313: \eeq

2314: We refer to~\cite{softl} for further details, and   present our improved results in fig.~\ref{fig:soft},

2315: where we plot the regions in $(\tilde m_1,m_{N_1})$ plane

2316: where successful leptogenesis is possible.

2317: We have assumed vanishing (left) or thermal (right) initial sneutrino density,

2318: ${\rm Im}A<{\rm TeV}$

2319: and $\sqrt{B m_{N_1}}=100\GeV$ (solid line) and $1\TeV$ (dashed line),

2320: $10\TeV$ (long dashed line).

2321: `Soft leptogenesis' needs a $B$-term much smaller than what suggested

2322: by models of supersymmetry breaking, but not unnaturally small~\cite{softl}.

2323: Soft leptogenesis allows to lower the bounds on $m_{N_1}$.

2324:    

2325: 

2326: 

2327: \section{Leptogenesis with reheating of the universe}\label{reh}

2328: By now there is a wide consensus that the early

2329: universe underwent a primordial

2330: stage of inflation \cite{reviewinf} responsible for the

2331: observed

2332: homogeneity and isotropy of the present universe, as well as

2333: for the

2334: generation of the cosmological perturbations.

2335: 

2336: The radiation--dominated era of the universe is usually

2337: assumed to be

2338: originated by the decay of the coherent oscillations of a

2339: scalar

2340: field, the inflaton field, whose vacuum energy has driven

2341: inflation

2342: For such a reason the reheating

2343:  process is often associated with the final stage of

2344: inflation.  However, we point out that 

2345: reheating could have been episodic, with several

2346: reheat events after inflation. We will be interested in the

2347: final

2348: reheating  which may just as well

2349: have been the result of the decay of a weakly coupled

2350: scalar field

2351: unrelated to inflation, for instance a modulus. For this

2352: reason the

2353: scalar field $\phi$, whose decay leads to reheating, will

2354: not be

2355: referred to as the inflaton.

2356: 

2357: 

2358: 

2359: The decay of the scalar field $\phi$ into light degrees of

2360: freedom  and 

2361: their subsequent

2362: thermalization, called reheating, leaves the

2363: universe at a temperature $T_{\rm RH}$, which represents

2364: the largest

2365: temperature of the plasma during the subsequent

2366: radiation--dominated

2367: epoch, when temperature is a decreasing function of time.

2368: The onset of

2369: the radiation dominated era is in fact placed at the

2370: temperature

2371: $T_{\rm RH}$, {\em i.e.} at the end of the reheating phase.

2372: 

2373: Usually $T_{\rm RH}$ is assumed to be very large and this

2374: is the

2375: assumption we have made in the previous sections.  However

2376: the only

2377: information we have on the smallest value of $T_{\rm RH}$

2378: is from

2379: requiring a successful period of primordial

2380: nucleosynthesis,

2381: $T_{\rm RH}\gsim 1$ MeV. Therefore, from a phenomenological

2382: point of view,

2383: $T_{\rm RH}$ is actually a free parameter\footnote{Low

2384: reheating 

2385: scenarios lead as well to a new

2386: perspective on baryogenesis \cite{Davidson:2000dw}, to the

2387: possibility that massive neutrinos may play the role of

2388: warm dark

2389: matter \cite{Giudice:2000dp} or to a change in the

2390: predictions of the relic abundance and resulting model

2391: constraints 

2392: of supersymmetric dark

2393:      matter, axions, massive neutrinos, and other dark

2394: matter candidates

2395: \cite{giudiceetal, fornengo}.}. Any scenario of

2396: baryogenesis

2397: based on the out-of-equilibrium decay of some heavy

2398: particle depends

2399: crucially on the assumption that these particles were

2400: generated during

2401: the reheating process  with abundances sufficiently large

2402: to generate

2403: the observed baryon asymmetry. 

2404: During reheating, particles are generated

2405: through thermal scatterings and quickly thermalize.  Among

2406: them, 

2407: right-handed neutrinos

2408:  may be also produced but their  number depends

2409: strongly on the reheating temperature. If the latter is too

2410: small, the

2411: thermal bath does not give rise to a number of right-handed

2412: neutrinos large

2413: enough to produce the observed baryon asymmetry. This leads

2414: to a

2415: lower limit on $T_{\rm RH}$. Computing this lower bound is

2416: the goal

2417: of this section.

2418: 

2419: During the reheating epoch, the energy

2420: density of the universe is dominated by the coherent

2421: oscillations of a

2422: scalar field $\phi$. Considering for the moment the case of small

2423: abundance of right-handed

2424: neutrinos\footnote{The case of non-negligible $N_1$ density is

2425: discussed in appendix A.},

2426: as a first step we assume that

2427: the dynamics of reheating is described by the Boltzmann

2428: equations for the energy densities $\rho_{\phi,R}$ of the

2429: two

2430: coupled components: the unstable massive field $\phi$ and

2431: the  radiation

2432: $R$ \cite{book,ckr,giudiceetal}

2433: %

2434: \begin{eqnarray}

2435: \frac{d \rho_{\phi}}{dt}&=&-3 H

2436: \rho_{\phi}-\Gamma_{\phi}\rho_{\phi} \, ,

2437: \label{eq:rho_phi}\\

2438: \frac{d \rho_{R}}{dt}&=& -4 H \rho_R + \Gamma_{\phi}

2439: \rho_{\phi} 

2440:  \, , \label{eq:rho_R}

2441: \end{eqnarray}

2442: where $H = \dot a/a = \sqrt{8\pi (\rho_\phi  +

2443: \rho_R)/3M_{\rm Pl}^2 }$, and

2444: $M_{\rm Pl}$ is the Planck mass.

2445: %

2446: Here we have assumed  that the relativistic decay products

2447: of the scalar

2448: field rapidly thermalize and form a relativistic bath of

2449: temperature

2450: $T$ (for a discussion about this point see Ref.

2451: \cite{ckr}).

2452: The key point of our considerations is that reheating is

2453: not an

2454: instantaneous process. On the contrary, the

2455: radiation-dominated phase

2456: follows a prolonged stage of matter domination during which

2457: the energy

2458: density of the universe is dominated by the coherent

2459: oscillations of

2460: the field $\phi$.  The oscillations start at time

2461: $H_I^{-1}$ and end

2462: when the age of the universe becomes of order of the

2463: lifetime

2464: $\Gamma_\phi^{-1}$ of the scalar field. At times $H_I^{-1}

2465: \lsim t

2466: \lsim \Gamma_\phi^{-1}$ the dynamics of the system is quite

2467: involved. During this stage the energy density per comoving

2468: volume of

2469: the $\phi$ field decreases as $\exp(-\Gamma_\phi t)$ and

2470: the light decay products of the scalar field thermalize.

2471:  The temperature $T$ of

2472: this hot plasma, however, does not scale as $T \propto

2473: a^{-1}$ as in

2474: the ordinary radiation-dominated phase (where $a$ is the

2475: Friedmann--Robertson--Walker scale factor) \cite{book,

2476: ckr}, but

2477: reaches a maximum $T_{\rm MAX} \sim (H_I

2478: M_{\rm Pl})^{1/4}T_{\rm RH}^{1/2}$

2479: and then decreases as $T \propto a^{-3/8}$, signalling the

2480: continuous

2481: release of entropy from the decays of the scalar field. 

2482: 

2483: In fact, until $t\ll  \Gamma_\phi^{-1}$ assuming $\rho_\phi

2484: \gg \rho_R$ the system approximately evolves as

2485: \begin{eqnarray}

2486: \rho_\phi(t)& =& \rho_{\phi}(0) (a_0/a(t))^3

2487: e^{-\Gamma_\phi t}\\

2488: \label{eq:rhoR}

2489:  \rho_R(t)\equiv  \frac{\pi^2g_{*}}{30} T^4

2490: & \approx &  \frac{\sqrt{6/\pi}}{10} \Gamma_\phi M_{\rm Pl}

2491:   \sqrt{\rho_\phi} 

2492:   \left[1 - (a_0/a)^{5/2}\right] .

2493: \end{eqnarray}

2494: This scaling

2495: continues until the time $t \sim \Gamma_\phi^{-1}$, when the

2496: radiation-dominated phase starts with temperature $T\sim

2497: T_{\rm RH}$, defined as

2498: %       \footnote{Approximating the

2499: %       statistical distributions with Boltzmann-Maxwell functions gives

2500: %        $\rho_R=3g_*T^4/\pi^2$ and $T_{\rm RH}=[\pi \Gamma_\phi^2 M_{\rm Pl}^2/

2501: %       (8g_*)]^{1/4}$.}

2502: \begin{equation}

2503: T_{\rm RH}= \left[ \frac{45}{4\pi^3 g_*\left(T_{\rm

2504: RH}\right)}\,\Gamma_\phi^2

2505: M_{\rm Pl}^2\right]^{1/4}  .

2506: \end{equation}

2507: The process is described by two extra parameters,

2508: $\rho_{\phi}(0)$ and $\Gamma_\phi$.

2509: It is convenient to replace them with the maximal and

2510: reheating temperatures,  $T_{\rm MAX}$ and $T_{\rm RH}$.

2511: Before reheating is completed, at a given

2512: temperature, the universe expands faster than in the

2513: radiation-dominated phase.  Notice that $T_{\rm RH}$ is not

2514: the maximum

2515: temperature during the reheat process. On the contrary,

2516: $T_{\rm MAX}$

2517: can be much larger than $T_{\rm RH}$. 

2518: 

2519: 

2520: 

2521: \medskip

2522: 

2523: 

2524: During reheating right-handed neutrinos

2525: may be produced in several

2526: ways. They can be generated directly

2527: through the scalar field  perturbative decay process

2528: \cite{infla} (this

2529: requires that the mass of the $\phi$-field is larger

2530: than $m_{N_1}$) or

2531:  through nonperturbative processes taking place at the

2532: preheating stage \cite{np,np2}. These mechanisms, however,

2533: introduce

2534: new unknown parameters such as the coupling of right-handed

2535: neutrinos

2536: to $\phi$. In this section we take a more conservative

2537: point of view and we limit ourselves to the

2538: case in which right-handed neutrinos are produced 

2539: by thermal scatterings during the reheat stage,

2540: so that in the limit $T_{\rm RH}\gg m_{N_1}$ we obtain the case (0) studied in section~\ref{SM}

2541: (in the opposite case of dominant inflaton decay into $N_1$,

2542:  the $T_{\rm RH}\gg m_{N_1}$ limit  is given by case ($\infty$) of section~\ref{SM}).

2543: For the sake

2544: of concreteness we will focus on the leptogenesis scenario,

2545: but our

2546: findings can be easily generalized to any

2547: out-of-equilibrium scenario. Furthermore, we assume that the mass of the

2548: inflaton field is larger than the reheating temperature

2549: $T_{\rm RH}$; for a discussion of the opposite case, see

2550: ref.~\cite{knr}.

2551: 

2552: 

2553: %Reheating can be approximatively described by modifiying

2554: %the standard evolution of radiation $\rho_R$ into

2555: % $$

2556: % \dot\rho_\phi + 3H\rho_\phi = -\Gamma_\phi \rho_\phi

2557: %\qquad

2558: % \dot\rho_R + 4 H \rho_R = \Gamma_\phi \rho_\phi \qquad

2559: % H = \dot R/R = \sqrt{8\pi G(\rho_\phi  + \rho_R)/3}$$

2560: % It is useful to present the standard approximate

2561: %solutions.

2562: % Neglecting $\rho_R$ in $H $ the first equation gives

2563: % $$\rho_\phi = \rho_{\phi 0} (R_0/R)^3

2564: %e^{-\Gamma_\phi(t-t_0)}$$

2565: % where $\rho_{\phi 0} = M^4$ is the vacuum energy of the

2566: %inflaton field

2567: % and $R_0$ the initial radius.

2568: % Inserting this approximation (neglecting the decay term)

2569: %in the equation for $\rho_R $ gives

2570: % \begin{equation}\label{eq:rhoR}

2571: %  \rho_R(R)\equiv  \frac{3g_{\rm SM}}{\pi^2} T^4 

2572: %  \simeq   \frac{\sqrt{6/\pi}}{10} \Gamma_\phi M_{\rm Pl}

2573: %  \sqrt{\rho_\phi}   \bigg[1 -

2574: %(R_0/R)^{5/2}\bigg]\end{equation}

2575: % This means that we can distinguish three successive

2576: %phases:

2577: % \begin{enumerate}

2578: % \item {\bf Preheating}.\footnote{I am not sure these are

2579: %the standard names}

2580: % As soon $R\circa{>}R_0$ the matter density raises

2581: % up to $\rho_R \sim M^2 M_{\rm Pl}\Gamma_\phi $.

2582: 

2583: % 

2584: 

2585: % \item {\bf Reheating}.

2586: % Later $R_0/R\ll1 $, so that  $\rho_R \propto

2587: %\sqrt{\rho_\phi}$ i.e.\

2588: % $T\propto R^{-3/8}$.

2589: % The entropy per comoving volume increases as $S = sV

2590: %\propto T^3 R^3 \propto T^{-5}$.

2591: 

2592: % \item {\bf Standard}.

2593: % Reheating ends when later, below some temperature

2594: %$T\circa{<} T_{\rm reh}$, 

2595: % $\phi$ decayed, so that setting $\rho_\phi \simeq 0$ one

2596: %recovers standard cosmology.

2597: % This happens when $\Gamma_\phi\sim H$

2598: % i.e.\ when $\rho_\phi\sim M_{\rm Pl}^2 \Gamma_\phi^2\sim

2599: %\rho_R$.

2600: % \end{enumerate}

2601: 

2602: \medskip

2603: 

2604: We now generalize the Boltzmann equations for thermal

2605: leptogenesis including reheating.

2606: In the standard case it is convenient to write the

2607:  Boltzmann equations that dictate

2608: the time evolution of the number densities $n_X(t)$ of any

2609: species $X$

2610: in terms of $Y_X(z)\equiv n_X/s$ where $z\equiv m_N/T$.

2611: In fact, while particle densities $n_X$ strongly depend on

2612: $t$ because of the expansion of the universe,

2613: their ratios with respect to the entropy density $s$ remain

2614: constant in the absence of interactions.

2615: Since the temperature $T$ is a monotonic decreasing function, one 

2616: usually replaces the time $t$ with $T$.

2617: 

2618: These two statements no longer hold during reheating.

2619: Nevertheless, we still find convenient to write the

2620: Boltzmann equations for leptogenesis in terms of  $Y_X(z)$.

2621: The first pre-heating phase (when $T$ grows from zero to $T_{\rm MAX}$)

2622: is so fast that it gives

2623: no contribution to leptogenesis: the interesting dynamics

2624: happen during the second reheating  phase,

2625: when the temperature decreases in a non standard

2626: characteristic way, $T\propto a^{-3/8}$.

2627: Therefore {\em corrections to leptogenesis are fully

2628: described by a single parameter, 

2629: the reheating temperature $T_{\rm RH}$}, as long as $T_{\rm MAX}$ is sufficiently

2630: larger than $m_{N_1}$.

2631: 

2632: 

2633: Since the temperature is defined in

2634: terms of the 

2635: radiation density 

2636: by eq.~(\ref{eq:rho_R}), we can write

2637: \begin{equation}

2638: \label{eq:d/dt}

2639: \frac{d}{dt} =  - 4 H Z \rho_R  \frac{d}{d\rho_R} = 

2640: HZz  \frac{d}{dz}\qquad

2641: Z \equiv 1 - \frac{\Gamma_\phi \rho_\phi}{4 H \rho_R} =-\frac{a}{T}

2642: \frac{dT}{da}.

2643: \end{equation}

2644: $Z$ vanishes when the maximal temperature $T_{\rm MAX}$ is reached, then

2645: $Z\simeq 3/8$ during reheating, and finally $Z\simeq 1$ in the

2646: standard radiation-dominated phase.

2647: Apart from this ${\cal O}(1)$ correction, reheating affects

2648: leptogenesis in 

2649: two main ways

2650: 1) $H$ has a non-standard expression:  $\rho_\phi$ induces

2651: a faster expansion

2652: 2) $\phi$ decays create additional matter.

2653: The Boltzmann equations for leptogenesis are explicitly written

2654: in appendix~\ref{Boltz}, eq.~(\ref{sys:Boltz}).

2655: 

2656: 

2657: \begin{figure}[t]

2658: $$\includegraphics[width=0.95\textwidth]{reh}$$

2659: \caption{\em

2660: Isocurves of the efficiency parameter

2661: $\eta=10^{-6,-5,\ldots,-1}$ for leptogenesis with

2662: reheating as function of $(\tilde{m}_1, m_{N_1}/T_{\rm RH}$) in

2663: the SM (left) and MSSM (right)

2664: for $m_{N_1} = 10^{10}\GeV$ (the plot would be only slightly different for any $m_{N_1}\ll 10^{14}\GeV$).

2665: \vspace*{0.5cm}}

2666: \label{fig4}

2667: \end{figure}

2668: 

2669: 

2670: \subsubsection{Results}

2671: Figure~\ref{fig4} shows $\eta$ as function of

2672: $\tilde{m}_1$ and of $m_{N_1}/T_{\rm RH}$.

2673: Although it has been obtained for $m_{N_1}=10^{10}\GeV$,

2674: other values of $m_{N_1} < 10^{14}\GeV$ would

2675: essentially give the same result.

2676: 

2677: We see that the final baryon asymmetry is

2678: strongly suppressed if $T_{\rm RH}\ll m_{N_1}$.

2679: This is due to entropy release from inflaton decays,

2680: which gives a $\sim(m_{N_1}/T_{\rm RH})^5$ suppression of $\eta$.

2681: Furthermore during reheating the universe expands

2682: faster than during the standard thermal phase:

2683: $H/H_{\rm standard} \approx (T/T_{\rm RH})^2$.

2684: This makes both $N_1$ production and washout less efficient,

2685: increasing the value of  $\tilde{m}_1$ at which

2686: leptogenesis is maximally efficient,

2687: as can be seen in fig.~\ref{fig4}.

2688: 

2689: Making use of the bound in \eq{eq:di}~\cite{di2,mBound,Treh}

2690: and marginalizing over $\tilde{m}_1$

2691: we can therefore derive the bound on the reheating temperature

2692: shown in fig.~\ref{fig5}.

2693: This bound holds assuming that thermal leptogenesis

2694: generates the observed baryon asymmetry,

2695: that the 

2696: inflaton decays into SM particles rather than into right-handed neutrinos,

2697: and that right-handed neutrinos are

2698: hierarchical, $m_{N_1}\ll m_{N_{2,3}}$.

2699: In the case of the SM, the lowest reheating temperature allowed

2700: for successful leptogenesis turns out to be 

2701: $2.8\times 10^9$ GeV, while in the case of the MSSM the lowest 

2702: value is $1.6\times 10^9$ GeV. However, 

2703: there are various reasons to suspect that the reheating temperature is

2704: small in

2705: locally supersymmetric theories. 

2706: Indeed, gravitinos

2707: (and other dangerous relics like moduli fields) are produced during reheating.

2708: Unless reheating is delayed, gravitinos will be overproduced, leading to a

2709: large undesired entropy production when they decay after big-bang

2710: nucleosynthesis \cite{ellis}. The limit from gravitino overproduction is

2711: $T_{\rm RH} \lsim 10^{9}$ to $10^{10}$GeV, or even stronger \cite{nucleo}.

2712: This upper bound is at odds with the lower bound we have computed

2713: to achieve successful leptogenesis. 

2714: %	The situation may become even worse if the lepton flavour violating 

2715: %	bounds on are taken into account in supersymmetric theories~\cite{er}.

2716: Fig.~\ref{fig:Mm}b shows that

2717: this conflict can be avoided if $N_1$ and/or $\tilde{N}_1$

2718: decayed while giving a substantial contribution to the total energy density of the universe 

2719: and $\tilde{m}_1\sim\tilde{m}_1^*$.

2720: In such a situation leptogenesis depends on the precise value of the initial

2721: $N_1,\tilde{N}_1$ abundancy, unless it is dominant.

2722: It can be realized if the inflaton decays dominantly into right-handed (s)neutrinos,

2723: or if $\tilde{N}_1$ acquires a large vacuum expectation value, 

2724: as discussed in the next subsection.

2725: An alternative solution to solve the gravitino problem, maintaining a thermal

2726: abundance of $\tilde{N}_1$, is to rely on ``soft leptogenesis'' \cite{softl}. 

2727: 

2728: \medskip

2729: 

2730: 

2731: We can further elaborate on the results presented in figures~\ref{fig4}, \ref{fig5}

2732: by making simple analytical approximations. Since we are interested in the

2733: effects of reheating, we consider the case $m_{N_1}>T_{\rm RH}$, and since we

2734: are studying lower bounds on $T_{\rm RH}$, we restrict ourselves to the most

2735: favorable case in which $T_{\rm MAX}>m_{N_1}$.

2736: 

2737: The efficiency factor $\eta$

2738: receives three kinds of contributions,

2739: \begin{equation}

2740: \eta=\eta_{\rm ab}\eta_{\rm eq}\eta_{\rm RH}.

2741: \label{etaeq}

2742: \end{equation}

2743: Here $\eta_{\rm ab}$ measures the $N_1$ abundance before decay, relative to

2744: the equilibrium density. In order to estimate it, we first define

2745: \begin{equation}

2746: K(T)=\frac{\Gamma}{H},

2747: \end{equation}

2748: where $\Gamma$ is the $N_1$ decay rate ($\Gamma =(G_F \tilde m_1 m_{N_1}^2)/(2

2749: \sqrt{2} \pi )$ at $T\ll m_{N_1}$ and $\Gamma =(G_F \tilde m_1 m_{N_1}^3)/(2

2750: \sqrt{2} \pi T )$ at $T\gsim m_{N_1}$) and $H$ is the Hubble constant, with

2751: $H=[5\pi^3g_*^2(T)]/[9g_*(T_{\rm RH})]^{1/2} T^4/(T_{\rm RH}^2M_{\rm Pl})$.

2752: Under the assumption\footnote{The expression we are using for $\Gamma$ is

2753: not correct at high temperatures, where the Higgs decay is the relevant 

2754: process. However, for this qualitative discussion, the approximation is

2755: adequate, since 

2756: the right-handed production 

2757: is dominated at temperatures $T\sim  m_{N_1}$, where we can take 

2758: $\Gamma =(G_F \tilde m_1 m_{N_1}^3)/(2

2759: \sqrt{2} \pi T )$.}

2760: that the right-handed neutrino density $n_{N_1}$ is

2761: much smaller than the equilibrium density $n_{N_1}^{\rm eq}$, 

2762: and taking the inverse decay

2763: as the dominant production process, in the relativistic limit

2764: we obtain~\cite{giudiceetal}

2765: \begin{equation}

2766: \frac{d(n_{N_1}/T^8)}{dT}=-\frac{8}{3}K\frac{n_{N_1}^{\rm eq}}{T^9}.

2767: \end{equation}

2768: Using $K\propto T^{-5}$ and $n_{N_1}^{\rm eq}\propto T^3$, we find

2769: \begin{equation}

2770: \frac{n_{N_1}}{n_{N_1}^{\rm eq}}=\frac{4}{15}K .

2771: \label{neqneq}

2772: \end{equation}

2773: Next, we define

2774: \begin{equation}

2775: K_*\equiv K(m_{N_1})=\frac{\tilde m_1}{3\times 10^{-3}~\eV}\left(

2776: \frac{T_{\rm RH}}{m_{N_1}}\right)^2.

2777: \end{equation}

2778: If $K_*\gg 1$, the right-handed neutrinos reach the equilibrium density 

2779: before they become non-relativistic and $\eta_{\rm ab}=1$. If $K_*\ll 1$,

2780: from eq.~(\ref{neqneq}) we obtain $\eta_{\rm ab}=(4/15)K_*$.

2781: 

2782: The next coefficient in eq.~(\ref{etaeq}) is $\eta_{\rm eq}$, which measures 

2783: the out-of-equilibrium condition at decay. If $K_*\ll 1$, the right-handed

2784: neutrino is decoupled when it becomes non-relativistic, and $\eta_{\rm eq}=1$.

2785: If $K_*\gg 1$, $\eta_{\rm eq}$ can be estimated by computing the $N_1$ density

2786: at the temperature $T_f$ at which the processes that damp the baryon asymmetry

2787: go out of equilibrium,

2788: \begin{equation}

2789: \eta_{\rm eq}= \frac{\sqrt{2\pi}}{3\zeta (3)} 

2790: \left( \frac{m_{N_1}}{T_f}\right)^{3/2}e^{-m_{N_1}/T_f}.

2791: \end{equation}

2792: We assume that the dominant process erasing the asymmetry is the inverse decay,

2793: with $\Gamma_{\rm ID}=(m_{N_1}/T)^{3/2}\exp (-m_{N_1}/T)G_F\tilde m_1 m_{N_1}^2/(8\sqrt{

2794: \pi})$. Then $T_f$ is given by the condition

2795: \begin{equation}

2796: \left. \Gamma_{\rm ID}= H\right|_{T=T_f}.

2797: \label{condit}

2798: \end{equation}

2799: If $T_f>T_{\rm RH}$, eq.~(\ref{condit}) corresponds to $K_*(m_{N_1}/T_f)^\beta

2800: \exp(-m_{N_1}/T_f)\simeq 1$, with $\beta=11/2$ which, in the range $1\ll K_*

2801: <10^4$ is approximately solved by $m_{N_1}/T_f \simeq a (\ln K_*)^b$,

2802: with $a=10$ and $b=0.5$. If $T_f<T_{\rm RH}$, the usual radiation-dominated epoch

2803: determines the dynamics and we find an analogous solution

2804: with $\beta =7/2$, $a\approx 5$, $b\approx 0.5$, and $K_*$ must be computed using the

2805: usual Hubble parameter $H\propto T^2$.

2806: 

2807: 

2808: 

2809: 

2810: \begin{figure}[t]

2811: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{TM}}

2812: \caption{\em 

2813: Lower bounds on $m_{N_1}$ and $T_{\rm RH}$ from

2814: leptogenesis in the SM and MSSM.}

2815: \label{fig5}

2816: \end{figure}

2817: %

2818: %       %

2819: %       \begin{figure}[t]

2820: %       \centerline{\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{MTSM} \hspace{8mm}

2821: %       \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{Ybm1s} }

2822: %       \caption{\em

2823: %       Allowed range of $T_{\rm RH}$ and $\tilde m_1$ from

2824: %       leptogenesis in the SM and

2825: %       MSSM for $m_{N_1}=10^{10}$ GeV.

2826: %       Successful leptogenesis is possible in the area inside the

2827: %       curves

2828: %       given by the requirement $Y_B>8\times 10^{-11}$.

2829: %       \vspace*{0.5cm}}

2830: %       \label{fig6}

2831: %       \end{figure}

2832: %

2833: 

2834: 

2835: 

2836: 

2837: Finally, $\eta_{\rm RH}$ measures the dilution caused by the expansion during

2838: the reheating phase. Therefore $\eta_{\rm RH}=(T_{\rm RH}/m_{N_1})^5$ for $K_*\ll 1$,

2839: $\eta_{\rm RH}=(T_{\rm RH}/T_f)^5$ for $K_*\gg 1$ and $T_f>T_{\rm RH}$, and

2840: $\eta_{\rm RH}=1$ for $K_*\gg 1$ and $T_f<T_{\rm RH}$.

2841: 

2842: Putting together the different contributions to $\eta$, we obtain,

2843: for $T_f>T_{\rm RH}$

2844: \begin{eqnsystem}{sys:gian}

2845: \eta\approx 0.1 \left( \frac{\tilde m_1}{10^{-3}~\eV}\right)

2846: \left( \frac{T_{\rm RH}}{m_{N_1}}\right)^7& ~~~&{\rm for}~~

2847: \tilde m_1 \ll 3\times 10^{-3}~\eV \left( \frac{m_{N_1}}{T_{\rm RH}}\right)^2\\

2848: \eta\approx 20 \left( \frac{10^{-3}~\eV}{\tilde m_1}\right)

2849: \left( \frac{T_{\rm RH}}{m_{N_1}}\right)^3\left( \ln K_* \right)^{0.5}

2850:  &~~~&{\rm for}~~

2851: \tilde m_1 \gg 3\times 10^{-3}~\eV \left( \frac{m_{N_1}}{T_{\rm RH}}\right)^2.

2852: \end{eqnsystem}

2853: %	\begin{equation}

2854: %	\eta\approx 0.2 \left( \frac{2~10^{-3}~\eV}{\tilde m_1}\right)

2855: %	\left[ \ln \left( \frac{\tilde m_1}{2~10^{-3}~\eV}\right) \right]^{-0.5}

2856: %	 ~~~{\rm for}~~

2857: %	\tilde m_1 \gg 3\times 10^{-3}~\eV \left( \frac{m_{N_1}}{T_{\rm RH}}\right)^2,

2858: %	~~~T_f<T_{\rm RH}.

2859: %	\end{equation}

2860: 

2861: 

2862: \subsubsection{Leptogenesis from inflaton sneutrino decays}\label{snuCondensate}

2863: 

2864: In supersymmetric seesaw models there is a distinctive 

2865: possibility that inflaton itself is a scalar superpartner of the lightest 

2866: heavy neutrino~\cite{sn1,sn2}. This is an interesting scenario

2867: because both the reheating of the Universe and the thermal leptogenesis 

2868: efficiency depend on a single neutrino parameter $\tilde m_1.$  Therefore

2869: this is a predictive example of a realistic scenario of the early universe.

2870: In this case there is an additional source of the 

2871: lepton asymmetry from the direct decays of the inflaton sneutrino.

2872: %	This is irrelevant for large reheating temperatures of the Universe but

2873: %	may give the observed baryon asymmetry if $T_{RH}\ll m_{N_1}$~\cite{sn2}. 

2874: 

2875: We do not study in detail how the sneutrino condensate decays,

2876: and assume a decay width $\Gamma_\phi=\Gamma_{{\tilde N}_1}(T=0)$ with

2877:  CP asymmetry $\epsilon_1=\epsilon_{\tilde N_1}(T=0)$.

2878:  This is not correct if $T_{\rm RH}\circa{>} m_{N_1}$~\cite{knr},

2879:  that, in our case, happens for $\tilde{m}_1\circa{>} 10^{-3}\eV$.

2880:  However if $\tilde{m}_1\circa{>} 10^{-2}\eV$

2881:  thermalization is so efficient that details of the past thermal history

2882:  negligibly affect our final result.

2883:  

2884:  

2885: %This scenario is described by the following set of Boltzmann equations

2886: %	\begin{eqnsystem}{sys:Raidal}

2887: %	Z \frac{\mrm{d}\rho_\phi}{\mrm{d}z} & = &

2888: %	-\frac{3 \rho_\phi}{z} - \frac{\Gamma_\phi \rho_\phi}{zH} , 

2889: %	\label{b1} \\ 

2890: %	HZz \frac{\mrm{d} Y_{N_1}}{\mrm{d}z} & = &

2891: %	-\frac{3\Gamma_\phi \rho_\phi}{4 \rho_R} Y_{N_1}  - \frac{1}{s} \hbox{(remaining)}  

2892: %	\label{b2} \\

2893: %	HZz \frac{\mrm{d} Y_{\tilde N_+}}{\mrm{d}z} & = &

2894: %	-\frac{3\Gamma_\phi \rho_\phi}{4 \rho_R} Y_{\tilde N_+}  - \frac{1}{s} \hbox{(remaining)}

2895: %	\label{b3}  \\

2896: %	HZz \frac{\mrm{d} Y_{\tilde N_-}}{\mrm{d}z} & = &

2897: %	-\frac{3\Gamma_\phi \rho_\phi}{4 \rho_R} Y_{\tilde N_-}  - \frac{1}{s} \hbox{(remaining)}

2898: %	\label{b4} \\

2899: %	HZz \frac{\mrm{d} Y_{L_f}}{\mrm{d}z} & = &

2900: %	-\frac{3\Gamma_\phi \rho_\phi}{4 \rho_R} Y_{L_f} 

2901: %	+\frac{\Gamma_\phi \rho_\phi}{2 s M_{N_1}} \epsilon_1 - \frac{1}{s} \hbox{(remaining)}

2902: %	\label{b5} \\

2903: %	HZz \frac{\mrm{d} Y_{L_s}}{\mrm{d}z} & = &

2904: %	-\frac{3\Gamma_\phi \rho_\phi}{4 \rho_R} Y_{L_s} 

2905: %	+\frac{\Gamma_\phi \rho_\phi}{2 s M_{N_1}} \epsilon_1 - \frac{1}{s} \hbox{(remaining)}

2906: %	\label{b6} 

2907: %	\end{eqnsystem}

2908: In order to study this scenario we solved the Boltzmann equations for

2909: the $\tilde N_\pm \equiv \tilde N_1 \pm \tilde N_1^\dagger$ and $N_1$

2910: abundancies, and for the $\tilde{N}_1$ condensate.

2911: 	%$Y_{\tilde N_\pm},$

2912: 	%$Y_{L_f},$ $Y_{L_s},$ denote the number-density-to-entropy ratios, 

2913: 	%$Y=n/s$, for the heavy neutrinos, sneutrinos and lepton asymmetries in 

2914: 	%fermions and scalars, respectively.

2915: 	%The terms denoted by $remaining$ are the usual ones for thermal 

2916: 	%leptogenesis~\cite{k-mssm}. 

2917: In our calculation we take into account 

2918: the temperature dependent interaction rates and

2919: CP asymmetries, and the on-shell resonances are correctly subtracted. 

2920: The Hubble constant $H$ and the parameter $Z$ are the obvious

2921: supersymmetric extensions of eq.s~(\ref{sys:Boltz}--\ref{eq:Z}) including the reheating effects of

2922: thermal (s)neutrinos. 

2923: 

2924: 

2925: \begin{figure}[t]

2926: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{snreh1}

2927: \hfill

2928: \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{snreh2}}

2929: \caption{\em 

2930: Lower bounds on $m_{N_1}$ from sneutrino inflaton 

2931: leptogenesis (left) and the efficiency of thermal leptogenesis 

2932: in this scenario (right).}

2933: \label{figsnreh}

2934: \end{figure}

2935: 

2936: Assuming as before hierarchical light neutrinos and using the maximal CP asymmetry of \eq{eq:di} 

2937: for supersymmetric case, the solutions to the Boltzmann 

2938: equations are presented in fig.~\ref{figsnreh} where we plot

2939: the lower bound on $m_{N_1}$ as a function of $\tilde m_1$ from the observed

2940: baryon asymmetry of the Universe. This parameter space has two distinct 

2941: regions. The one denoted by {\bf A} is the region of purely thermal leptogenesis.

2942: The corresponding curve in \cite{ery} was obtained with wrong subtraction

2943: of on-shell resonances and with a constant CP asymmetry.

2944: For the region {\bf A} we plot also the isocurves of the leptogenesis 

2945: efficiency $\eta$ (right plot) which decreases very fast for small $\tilde m_1$.

2946: This is because of  the suppression of $T_{RH}$ in that region of the

2947: parameter space.

2948: 

2949: The region denoted by  {\bf B} is the one of direct leptogenesis from

2950: the inflaton decay~\cite{sn2}.

2951: %	 and is characterized by the constant and small

2952: %	reheating temperature $T_{RH}$. 

2953: 

2954: Between those two regions leptogenesis is

2955: a mixture of the two scenarios. Thus the inflaton sneutrino 

2956:  scenario allows to lower the lower

2957:  bound on $m_{N_1}$ and on $T_{RH}$ from successful leptogenesis over a large

2958: region of $\tilde m_1.$ This is very desirable from the point of view of the

2959: gravitino problem, as discussed in the previous subsection. 

2960: 

2961: 

2962: 

2963: 

2964: 

2965: 

2966: 

2967: \section{Conclusions}\label{secconc}

2968: We have performed a

2969: thorough study of thermal leptogenesis which, at present, is one

2970: of the most attractive

2971: mechanism to account for the baryon asymmetry of the universe.

2972: The final prediction of leptogenesis for the baryon asymmetry can be written

2973: in terms of the CP-asymmetry at zero temperature, $\epsilon_{N_1}$, and of

2974: the efficiency $\eta$ of leptogenesis as

2975: $n_{\cal B}/s = -1.37~10^{-3}\epsilon_{N_1}\eta$ in the SM,

2976: and as in \eq{uums} for the MSSM.

2977: Figures~\ref{figSM} (SM) and \ref{figMSSM} (MSSM) show $\eta$

2978: as function of the relevant unknown high energy parameters, {\it i.e.}

2979: the mass $m_{N_1}$ of the lightest right-handed neutrino $N_1$

2980: and $\tilde{m}_1$, its contribution to light neutrino masses.

2981: All the new effects discussed  in this paper

2982: have been added: cumulatively the final baryon asymmetry 

2983: gets typically corrected by a order unity factor

2984:  with respect to previous studies. 

2985: For example, $n_{\cal B}$ gets roughly doubled if $\tilde{m}_1\sim(\Delta m^2_{\rm atm,sun})^{1/2}$.

2986: Since individual terms give larger corrections to the final 

2987: result, in general, it is necessary to include these corrections 

2988: to obtain a trustworthy result. The most important sources of corrections

2989: are summarized in section~\ref{sappr}.

2990: 

2991: Although thermal leptogenesis allows to compute the baryon asymmetry in terms of particle physics,

2992: a few relevant parameters are presently unknown.

2993: Improving on this issue is as crucial as hard.

2994: In the meantime, by making some assumptions on the high-energy parameters

2995: (the most relevant  one being that right-handed neutrinos are hierarchical)

2996: one can get interesting constraints~\cite{di2,mBound}.

2997: Including all the new effects discussed in this paper

2998: and combining uncertainties at $3\sigma$,

2999: we have found

3000: that successful leptogenesis needs 

3001: $$

3002: m_{N_1} >  \left\{\begin{array}{rl}

3003: 2.4\times 10^{9} \GeV    &   \hbox{if $N_1$ has zero} \\

3004:  4.9\times 10^{8}\GeV     &\hbox{if $N_1$ has thermal} \\  

3005: 1.7\times 10^{7}\GeV     &\hbox{if $N_1$ has dominant}

3006: \end{array}\right.

3007: \hbox{initial abundancy at $T\gg m_{N_1}$}

3008: $$

3009: and  $m_3 < 0.15\eV$,

3010: where $m_3$ is the heaviest left-handed neutrino mass.

3011: In the MSSM we get similar values.

3012: 

3013: Furthermore, in inflationary cosmologies, 

3014: we obtained a 

3015: lower  bound on the reheating temperature,

3016: $T_{\rm RH} > 2.8\times 10^9\GeV$ 

3017: assuming that inflaton reheats  SM particles but not directly

3018: right-handed neutrinos. 

3019: Within the MSSM the bound is  $T_{\rm RH} > 1.6\times 10^9\GeV$, which is at odds with the

3020: lower bound from gravitino overproduction.

3021: This seems to suggest that one has to rely on 

3022: alternative  (non-thermal)  mechanisms

3023: to generate right-handed (s)neutrinos after inflation

3024: (like the sneutrino condensate studied at page~\pageref{snuCondensate}), or to invoke

3025: leptogenesis with degenerate right-handed neutrinos~\cite{pilaf1,pilaf} or

3026: ``soft leptogenesis''~\cite{softl} (that we study at page~\pageref{soft}).

3027: 

3028: \medskip

3029: 

3030: We stress that all these constraints are based on untested assumptions

3031: and therefore cannot be considered as absolute bounds.

3032: 

3033: 

3034: $$ *\qquad*\qquad *\qquad$$

3035: 

3036: 

3037: \medskip

3038: 

3039: Finally, 

3040: we would like to emphasize some weak points and possible 

3041: refinements of our analysis.

3042: At $\tilde{m}_1\gg 10^{-3}\eV$ the relevant abundances are

3043: close to thermal equilibrium, suppressing the dependence

3044: on initial conditions.

3045: In this region we are not aware of any missing effect larger than $\sim 10\%$.

3046: %it seems possible to perform a  very precise computation.

3047: Our inclusion of thermal effects 

3048: focussed on thermal corrections to kinematics:

3049: by resumming corrections to propagators

3050: we could study effects which become large at $T\gsim m_{N_1}$.

3051: We approximately included corrections to couplings  

3052: by renormalizing them at $\sim 2\pi T$.

3053: Although this is a significant improvement

3054: with respect to previous computations which

3055: used couplings renormalized at the weak scale,

3056: a somewhat  different approach could give a more precise 

3057: result valid for $\tilde{m}_1\gg 10^{-3}\eV$.

3058: As explained in the text, one should concentrate on computing

3059: corrections to the $N_1\to HL$ decay rate at 

3060: relatively small temperature, $T\lsim m_{N_1}$,

3061: without making our simplifying approximations,

3062: with the goal of including all few $\%$ 

3063: corrections of relative order $\sim g^2/\pi^2$ and $\lambda_t^2/\pi^2$:

3064: $\Delta L=1$ scatterings and their CP-asymmetry,

3065:  three-body decays $N_1\to LQ_3U_3,LHA$ and radiative corrections 

3066: to $N_1\to LH $ decay and its CP-asymmetry.

3067: 

3068: 

3069: At $\tilde{m}_1 \lsim 10^{-3}\eV$ the final result depends on initial conditions.

3070: Starting with zero initial abundancy, 

3071: the final baryon asymemtry also depends strongly on

3072:  thermal corrections to the CP-asymmetry $\epsilon_{N_1}$.

3073: Unfortunately we found that, as the temperature rises,

3074: thermal corrections first reduce, then enhance, 

3075: reduce and finally enhance $\epsilon_{N_1}$.

3076: Since the correction does not  go in a clear direction,

3077: a more accurate computation might be welcome.

3078: 

3079:   \paragraph{Acknowdlegements}

3080:       We thank R. Barbieri, S. Catani, M. Ciafaloni, S. Davidson,

3081:       T. Hambye,

3082:       M. Laine,

3083:       M. Mangano, M. Moretti, M. Papucci, M. Passera,

3084:      M. Pl\"umacher, R. Rattazzi, F. Vissani.

3085:  

3086: 

3087: \appendix

3088: 

3089: \section{Boltzmann equations}\label{Boltz}

3090: Elastic scatterings keep the SM particles in {\em kinetic}

3091: equilibrium,

3092: so that their

3093: energy distribution approximatively follows the

3094:   Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution $f=e^{-E/T}$

3095: (unless otherwise specified we neglect the slightly different energy distributions of

3096: bosons and fermions. This is a good approximation because

3097: $f\circa{<}0.05$ at the average energy $\langle E\rangle\sim 3T$).

3098: Each particle species is simply characterized by its total

3099: abundancy,

3100: that can be varied only by  inelastic processes.

3101: When they are sufficiently fast to maintain also {\em

3102: chemical} 

3103: equilibrium,

3104: the total number $n^{\rm eq}$ and energy density $\rho^{\rm

3105: eq}$ of

3106: ultra-relativistic particles at temperature $T$ are

3107: $$n^{\rm eq} = g\int {d^3p\over(2\pi)^3}~f =

3108: \frac{gT^3}{\pi^2},\qquad \rho^{\rm eq} =

3109: g\int {d^3p\over(2\pi)^3}~E f^{\rm eq}  =

3110: \frac{3gT^4}{\pi^2}

3111: $$

3112: where $g$ is the number of spin degrees of freedom.

3113: All SM particles have $g_{\rm SM} = 118$, and

3114: a right handed neutrino has $g_N = 2$.

3115: %       Since $g_N \ll g_{\rm SM}$, we can 

3116: %       ignore the small change in degrees of freedom before and

3117: %       after $N_1$

3118: %       decays in the

3119: %       Hubble `constant'

3120: %       $H$ and in the total entropy density $s$

3121: %       $$H = \frac{\dot a}{a} = \sqrt{\frac{8\pi \rho_{\rm SM}}{3

3122: %       M_{\rm

3123: %       Pl}^2}} =

3124: %       \sqrt{\frac{8g_{\rm SM}}{\pi}}

3125: %       \frac{T^2}{M_{\rm Pl}},

3126: %       \qquad

3127: %       s = \frac{4g_{\rm SM}}{\pi^2} T^3.$$

3128: 

3129: In kinetic equilibrium, the phase space density is

3130: $f{n/ n^{\rm eq}}$.

3131: The Boltzmann equation describing the evolution of

3132: the total abundancy $n_N$ of a particle $N$ is

3133: \begin{equation}%\nonumber

3134: \dot n_N + 3H n_N = -

3135:      \sum_{a,i,j,\ldots}[Na\cdots\leftrightarrow ij\cdots] ,

3136:      \label{eq:Boltzmann}

3137: \end{equation}

3138: where $H = {\dot a}/{a} = \sqrt{{8\pi \rho}/{3

3139: M_{\rm

3140: Pl}^2}}$,

3141: $$[Na\cdots\leftrightarrow ij\cdots]=

3142: {n_N n_a\ldots\over

3143:       n_N^{\rm eq}n_a^{\rm eq}\ldots}\,\gamma^{\rm

3144: eq}(Na\cdots\to

3145:       ij\cdots)-

3146: {n_in_j\cdots\over      n_i^{\rm eq}n_j^{\rm eq}\cdots}

3147:       \gamma^{\rm eq}\left(ij\cdots\to

3148: Na\cdots\right).$$

3149: A symmetry factor should be added when there are identical particles

3150: in the final state or in the initial state.

3151: $\gamma^{\rm eq}$

3152:     is the space-time density of scatterings in thermal

3153: equilibrium

3154: of the various interactions in which a $N$ particle takes part:

3155: \beq

3156: \label{gammageneral}

3157: \gamma^{\rm eq}(N a\to ij) = 

3158: \int d\vec{p}_N  \,d\vec{p}_a ~f_N f_a    \int  d\vec{p}_id\vec{p}_j  

3159: \, (2\pi)^4\delta^4(P_N+P_a-P_i-P_j) |A|^2 , 

3160: \eeq

3161: where $d\vec{p}_X = d^3p_X/2E_X(2\pi)^3$ and $|A|^2$ is the squared 

3162: transition amplitude

3163: summed over initial and final spins.

3164: Neglecting CP-violating effects, the inverse processes 

3165: have the same

3166: reaction densities.

3167: 

3168: Having neglected Pauli-blocking and stimulated emission factors,

3169: and assuming that $|A|^2$ does not depend on the relative motion of particles with respect

3170:  to the plasma, the expression for the scattering rates $\gamma^{\rm eq}$ can

3171:  be conveniently simplified.

3172: 

3173: For a decay, \eq{gammageneral} reduces to

3174:  \beq\label{eq:gammaDgeneral}

3175: \gamma^{\rm eq}(N\to ij\cdots)=\gamma^{\rm eq}(ij\cdots\to

3176: N)=

3177:       n^{\rm eq}_N

3178: {\mbox{K}_1(z)\over\mbox{K}_2(z)}\,\Gamma_N ,

3179: \eeq

3180:   where $z=m_N/T$ and

3181: $\Gamma_N$ is the decay width in the rest system of

3182:      the decaying particle.

3183: The Bessel $K$ functions arise from the

3184: thermal average of the time dilatation factor $m_N/E$.

3185: 

3186: The thermal rate $\gamma^{\rm eq}$ of a two-body scattering

3187: can be conveniently rewritten by multiplying \eq{gammageneral} times

3188: $1=\int d^4P~ \int \delta^4 (P-P_N-P_a) $

3189: \beq\label{eq:gammascattgeneral}

3190: \gamma^{\rm eq}(Na\leftrightarrow ij\cdots)= \frac{1}{8\pi} \int \frac{d^4P}{(2\pi)^4}\

3191: \hat\sigma(Na\to ij\ldots)\ e^{-P_0/T}. \eeq

3192: Here 

3193: $\hat\sigma\equiv 2s\ \lambda[1,{m_N^2/ s},{m_a^2/ s}]  \,\sigma$

3194: is the `reduced cross section', $\sigma$ is the total cross section  summed

3195: over final {\em and initial} quantum numbers (spin, gauge multiplicity, 

3196: \ldots), 

3197: $\lambda[a,b,c]\equiv (a-b-c)^2 - 4 b c$.

3198: If the total cross section $\sigma$ depends only on $s$ (and not on the thermal motion with respect to the plasma)

3199: we can use $d^4P = 2\pi \sqrt{P_0^2-s} ~ds~dP_0$ to get

3200: \beq\label{gammascatt}

3201: \gamma^{\rm eq}(Na\leftrightarrow ij\cdots)=

3202: %       {T\over 32\pi^4}\int_{s_{\rm min}}^{\infty}

3203: %       ds~s^{3/2}\, {\sigma}(s)\  \lambda\bigg[1,{m_N^2\over s},{m_a^2\over s}\bigg]  

3204: {T\over 64\pi^4}\int_{s_{\rm min}}^{\infty}

3205: ds~s^{1/2}\, {\hat\sigma}(s)\  

3206: \mbox{K}_1\!\left(\frac{\sqrt{s}}{T}\right) ,

3207: \eeq

3208: where $s$ is the squared center of mass energy,

3209: $s_{\rm min} = \max[(m_N+m_a)^2,(m_i+m_j+\cdots)^2]$.

3210: %       and $\hat\sigma(s)\equiv (8/s)[(P_N\cdot P_a)^2-m_N^2 m_a^2]\,\sigma(s)$

3211: 

3212: \bigskip

3213: 

3214: 

3215: The $3H$ term in the Boltzmann equations, \eq{eq:Boltzmann}, accounts for the dilution due to the overall

3216: expansion of the universe.

3217: It is convenient to reabsorb it  by normalizing the number density $n$ to

3218: the entropy density $s$.

3219: Therefore we study the evolution of  $Y = n/s$

3220: as function of $z=m_N/T$

3221: in place of time $t$

3222: ($H\, dt = d\ln R = d\ln z$ since during adiabatic

3223: expansion $sR^3$ is 

3224: constant, i.e.\ $R\propto 1/T$).

3225: The Boltzmann equations become

3226: \begin{equation}%\nonumber

3227: zHs \frac{dY_{N}}{dz}  = -\sum_{a,i,j,\ldots} [Na\leftrightarrow ij] .

3228: \label{eq:BoltzmannY}

3229: \end{equation}

3230: 

3231: 

3232: 

3233: 

3234: \subsubsection{Leptogenesis}

3235: We now specialize to leptogenesis.

3236: Neglecting sphalerons,

3237: the scattering processes relevant  for leptogenesis are:\footnote{We

3238: add $\Delta L=1$ scatterings involving gauge bosons.

3239: We neglect three-body decays $N_1\to LQ_3U_3,LHA$ and radiative corrections 

3240: to $N_1\to LH $ decay and its CP-asymmetry,

3241: although in most of the parameter space they

3242: enter at the same order as $\Delta L=1$ scatterings, giving

3243:  $\sim g^2/\pi^2\sim \hbox{few}~\%$ corrections.

3244:  Ref.~\cite{pilaf} suggests that $\Delta L=1$ scatterings

3245:  have, at $T=0$, the same CP-asymmetry as decays.

3246:  If true this gives $\%$ corrections, that we prefer not to include.}

3247: %$$ \begin{array}{llll}

3248: %\Delta L = 1:& D = [N_1\leftrightarrow LH]&

3249: %H_s = [LN_1 \leftrightarrow Q_3U_3] &

3250: %H_t= [N_1\bar U_3 \leftrightarrow Q_3\bar L]+[N_1\bar Q_3\leftrightarrow U_3\bar L]\cr

3251: %\Delta L = 2: && N_s=[LH \leftrightarrow\bar{L}\bar{H}]&

3252: %N_t=[LL \leftrightarrow\bar{H}\bar{H}]\end{array}$$

3253: \beq\begin{array}{lll}

3254: \Delta L = 1:\qquad& D = [N_1\leftrightarrow LH] &

3255: S_s = H_s + A_s \qquad

3256: S_t= H_t + A_t \\[3mm]

3257: \Delta L = 2: & N_s=[LH \leftrightarrow\bar{L}\bar{H}]&

3258: N_t=[LL \leftrightarrow\bar{H}\bar{H}]\end{array}\eeq

3259: where

3260: \beq\begin{array}{ ll}

3261: H_s = [LN_1 \leftrightarrow Q_3U_3],      &  

3262: 2H_t =[N_1\bar U_3 \leftrightarrow Q_3\bar L]+  [N_1\bar Q_3\leftrightarrow U_3\bar L],  \\

3263: A_s=[LN_1\leftrightarrow \bar H A],      &   

3264: 2A_t=  [N_1 H \leftrightarrow A {\bar L}]+  [N_1 A\leftrightarrow {\bar H}

3265: {\bar L}].

3266: \end{array}\eeq

3267: We separated $\Delta L = 1$ scatterings $S_{s,t}$ into top ($H_{s,t}$) and

3268: gauge contributions ($A_{s,t}$).

3269: The relative Feynman diagrams are plotted in fig.\fig{leptogDiags}

3270: and computed, including finite temperature effects, in appendices~\ref{gamma} and~\ref{AppEpsilon}.

3271: 

3272: 

3273: We assume that $N_1$, $L$ and $\bar L$ can be out

3274: of thermal equilibrium, while $Y_X = Y_X^{\rm eq}$ for $X=\{H,Q_3,U_3\}$.

3275: The Boltzmann equations are

3276: \begin{eqnarray*}

3277: zHs Y'_{N_1} &=& -D-\bar{D}-S_s-\overline{S_s}-S_t-\overline{S_t}\\\

3278: zHs Y'_L &=&D- N_s-N_t- S_s+\overline{S_t} \\

3279: zHs Y'_{\bar{L}} &=& \bar D+ N_s  -\overline{N_t} -\overline{S_s}+S_{t} .

3280: \end{eqnarray*}

3281: We write the decay rates in terms of the CP-conserving total 

3282: decay rate $\gamma_D$ and of the CP-asymmetry $\epsilon_{N_1}\ll1$: 

3283: \begin{equation}\label{eq:gammaD}

3284: \begin{array}{l}

3285: \gamma^{\rm eq}(N_1\to LH)=\gamma^{\rm eq}(\bar{L}\bar{H}\to N_1)=

3286: (1+\epsilon_{N_1}){\gamma_D}/{2},\\

3287: \gamma^{\rm eq}(N_1\to \bar{L}\bar{H})=\gamma^{\rm eq}(LH\to N_1)=

3288: (1-\epsilon_{N_1}){\gamma_D}/{2} 

3289: \end{array}\end{equation}

3290: so that

3291: $$D = \frac{\gamma_D}{2}\bigg[\frac{Y_{N_1}}{Y_{N_1}^{\rm eq}} 

3292: (1+\epsilon_{N_1})-\frac{Y_L}{Y_L^{\rm eq}} (1-\epsilon_{N_1})\bigg]\ ,\qquad

3293: \bar D = \frac{\gamma_D}{2}\bigg[\frac{Y_{N_1}}{Y_{N_1}^{\rm eq}} 

3294: (1-\epsilon_{N_1})-\frac{Y_{\bar L}}{Y_{\bar L}^{\rm eq}} (1+\epsilon_{N_1})

3295: \bigg].$$

3296: Here $Y_{N_1}^{\rm eq}$, $Y_L^{\rm eq}$ and $Y_{\bar L}^{\rm eq}$ are

3297: fermionic equilibrium densities each with 2 degrees of freedom, and therefore

3298: are all equal to high temperature.

3299: Keeping only decays and inverse decays, a baryon asymmetry 

3300: would be generated even in thermal

3301: equilibrium, since CPT invariance implies

3302: that if $N_1$ decays preferentially produce $L$, 

3303: than inverse decays preferentially destroy $\bar L$ (or, in

3304: formul\ae{}, $D-\bar D\ne 0$)~\cite{DolgovZeldovich}.

3305: In order to obtain Boltzmann equations with the correct behavior

3306: one needs to correctly address some subtlety, as discussed in

3307: ref.~\cite{Wolfram}

3308: in the context of baryogenesis. 

3309: %       Since this has never explicitly discussed

3310: %       in the case of leptogenesis, we now describe the procedure.

3311: 

3312: \subsubsection{Subtractions of on-shell propagators}

3313: At leading order in the couplings,

3314: $2\leftrightarrow 2$ scatterings must be computed at tree level and

3315: are consequently CP-conserving.

3316: However $N_s$, the $LH\leftrightarrow \bar L\bar H$ 

3317: scattering rate mediated by $s$-channel exchange of $N_1$

3318: shown in fig.\fig{leptogDiags}d,

3319: must be computed by subtracting the CP-violating contribution 

3320: due to on-shell $N_1$ exchange,

3321: because in the Boltzmann equations this effect is already taken 

3322: into account by successive decays,

3323: $LH\leftrightarrow N\leftrightarrow\bar L\bar H$.

3324: Since the on-shell contribution is $\gamma_{Ns}^{\rm on-shell}(

3325: LH\to\bar{L}\bar{H}) =\gamma^{\rm eq}(LH\to N_1) \hbox{BR}(N_1\to \bar{L}\bar{H})$,

3326: where $BR(N_1\to \bar{L}\bar{H})=(1-\epsilon_{N_1})/2$, we obtain 

3327: \begin{eqnarray}

3328: \gamma^{\rm eq}(LH\to\bar{L}\bar{H})&=&\gamma_{Ns}-(1-\epsilon_{N_1})^2

3329: {\gamma_D}/{4},\\

3330: \gamma^{\rm eq}(\bar{L}\bar{H}\to LH)&=&\gamma_{Ns}-(1+\epsilon_{N_1})^2

3331: {\gamma_D}/{4},

3332: \end{eqnarray}

3333: so that

3334: \begin{eqnarray}

3335: N_s &=& \frac{Y_L}{Y_L^{\rm eq}}\gamma^{\rm eq}(LH\to\bar{L}\bar{H}) - 

3336: \frac{Y_{\bar L}}{Y_{\bar L}^{\rm eq}}\gamma^{\rm eq}(\bar{L}\bar{H}\to LH)

3337: \\ &=&

3338: \frac{Y_{\cal L}}{Y_{L}^{\rm eq}}\left( \gamma_{Ns}-\frac{\gamma_D}{4}\right)

3339: +\epsilon_{N_1} \gamma_D+

3340: {\cal O}(\epsilon_{N_1}^2) ,

3341: \end{eqnarray}

3342: having defined the lepton number asymmetry 

3343: $Y_{\cal L} = Y_L-{Y}_{\bar L}$ and used

3344: $Y_L+ Y_{\bar L}= 2 Y_{L}^{\rm eq}+{\cal O}(\epsilon_{N_1})$.

3345: Expanding at leading order in $\epsilon_{N_1}$ gives the  Boltzmann equations

3346: \begin{eqnarray}

3347: zHs Y'_{N_1} &=& -\bigg(\frac{Y_{N_1}}{Y_{N_1}^{\rm eq}}-1\bigg)

3348: (\gamma_D + 2 \gamma_{Ss} + 4\gamma_{St})\\

3349: zHs Y'_{\cal L} &=&\gamma_D \bigg[\epsilon_{N_1} 

3350: \bigg(\frac{Y_{N_1}}{Y_{N_1}^{\rm eq}}-1\bigg) - 

3351: \frac{Y_{\cal L}}{2Y_{L}^{\rm eq}}\bigg]\label{eq:B2}

3352:  -\frac{Y_{\cal L}}{Y_{L}^{\rm eq}}\bigg(2\gamma_{N}^{\rm sub}+2\gamma_{St} 

3353:  + \gamma_{Ss}\frac{Y_{N_1}}{Y_{N_1}^{\rm eq}}\bigg) ,

3354: \end{eqnarray}

3355: where $\gamma_{N}^{\rm sub} = \gamma_{Nt}+\gamma_{Ns} - \gamma_D/4$.

3356:  

3357: Alternatively, one can simply not

3358: include the decay contribution to washout of $Y_{\cal L}$

3359:  because it is already accounted by resonant decays.

3360:  Then one gets

3361: \beq 

3362: zHs Y'_{\cal L} =\gamma_D\epsilon_{N_1} \left(\frac{Y_{N_1}}

3363: {Y_{N_1}^{\rm eq}}-1\right) -\frac{Y_{\cal L}}{Y_{L}^{\rm eq}}\left(

3364: 2\gamma_{N}+2\gamma_{St} + \gamma_{Ss}\frac{Y_{N_1}}{Y_{N_1}^{\rm

3365: eq}}\right) , 

3366: \eeq

3367:  which is equivalent to \eq{eq:B2}.

3368:  Therefore it is not necessary to compute subtracted rates.

3369:  For our purposes it is convenient to compute $\gamma_N$ as 

3370: $\gamma_N^{\rm sub}+\gamma_D/4 $.

3371:  Since $\gamma_D$ is a simple and important quantity, we will compute

3372:  it accurately going beyond the Boltzmann approximation.

3373:  We now discuss how to directly compute $\gamma_N^{\rm sub}$, 

3374:  and show that it is subdominant,

3375:  unless the $N_1$ Yukawa couplings are large.

3376:   

3377: 

3378: We can directly compute $\gamma_{Ns}^{\rm sub}=\gamma_{Ns}-\gamma_D/4$ by 

3379: subtracting to the intermediate $N_1$ propagator the resonant part

3380: in the narrow-width approximation\footnote{In numerical computations one employs

3381: any representation of $\delta(x)$ that, like 

3382: $\delta(x) = (2\epsilon^3/\pi)/(x^2+\epsilon^2)^2$ and unlike 

3383: $\delta(x)=(\epsilon/\pi) /(x^2+\epsilon^2)$,

3384: goes to zero faster than the propagator away from the peak.

3385: The value of $\epsilon$ can be conveniently chosen

3386: to be somewhat smaller than the width of $N_1$, although

3387: this is not necessary if it is narrow.

3388: In this limit, which covers almost all the parameter space where thermal

3389: leptogenesis can generate the observed baryon asymmetry,

3390: one can simply set $\Gamma_{N_1}/m_{N_1}=\epsilon$,

3391: getting the subtracted propagator of \eq{DN},

3392: and assign to the width any sufficiently small value.}

3393: \beq

3394: |D_{N_1}|^2\to |D_{N_1}^{\rm sub}|^2 =

3395: |D_{N_1}|^2 - \frac{\pi}{m_{N_1} \Gamma_{N_1}}\delta 

3396: (s-m_{N_1}^2) ~~~~~

3397:  D_{N_1} \equiv \frac{1}{s-m_{N_1}^2 + i m_{N_1} 

3398: \Gamma_{N_1} }

3399: \eeq

3400: as discussed, in a different context in ref.~\cite{Olive49}.

3401: Using eqs.~(\ref{eq:gammaD}) and (\ref{gammascatt}), and recalling that,

3402: for $s$-channel exchange $\sigma(LH \to \bar L \bar H)=8\pi \Gamma_{N_1}^2

3403: |D_{N_1}|^2$, we obtain

3404: \beq

3405: \gamma_{Ns}^{\rm sub}=

3406: {T\over 64\pi^4}\int_{s_{\rm min}}^{\infty}

3407: ds~s^{1/2}\, {\hat\sigma}(s)\  

3408: \mbox{K}_1\!\big(\frac{\sqrt{s}}{T}\big)

3409: \left[ 1-\frac{\pi}{\Gamma_{N_1} m_{N_1}|D_{N_1}|^2}\delta(s-m_{N_1}^2)

3410: \right] = \gamma_{Ns}-\frac{\gamma_D}{4}.

3411: \eeq

3412: This corresponds to the result previously obtained.

3413: 

3414: The subtraction employed in ref.s~\cite{k-sm,mBound,pilaf} is

3415: $$|D_{N_1}|^2\to |\hbox{Re} D_{N_1}|^2 = |D_{N_1}|^2 - ( {\rm Im}\,{D_{N_1}})^2

3416: \stackrel{\Gamma_{N_1}\ll m_{N_1}}{\simeq}

3417:  |D_{N_1}|^2- \frac{1}{2}\frac{\pi  }{m_{N_1} \Gamma_{N_1}}\delta 

3418: (s-m_{N_1}^2)

3419: $$

3420: which leads to

3421: %       \footnote{We recall that $\lim_{\epsilon

3422: %       \to 0} \epsilon^3 /(x^2+\epsilon^2)^2=\pi \delta(x)/2$.} 

3423: $\gamma_{Ns}^{\rm sub}\simeq \gamma_{Ns}-\gamma_D /8$.

3424: This corresponds to subtracting only

3425: 1/2 of the on-shell contribution, thereby over-estimating

3426: washout by 3/2 when $\gamma_D$ is the dominant process

3427: (i.e.\ when the neutrino Yukawa coupling is small). 

3428: As shown in fig.\fig{fig0},

3429: the properly subtracted rate has no spurious peaks around the resonance

3430: region, in contrast with the result of refs.~\cite{k-sm,mBound}. 

3431: %{\bf Description of figure.} discusso nel testo

3432: 

3433: 

3434: 

3435: 

3436: \subsubsection{Sphalerons}

3437: Finally, we have to include sphaleronic scatterings, 

3438: that convert the lepton asymmetry into a baryon asymmetry.

3439: This is conveniently done by converting the Boltzmann equation for $Y_{\cal L}$ into 

3440: a Boltzmann equation for $Y_{{\cal B} - {\cal L}}$:

3441: since $Y_{{\cal B} - {\cal L}}$ is not affected by sphalerons

3442: we only need to find the relation between $Y_{{\cal B} - {\cal L}}$ and $Y_{\cal L}$.

3443: At temperatures larger than $10^{10}\GeV$

3444: sphaleronic scatterings are expected to be negligibly slow with respect to

3445: the expansion rate of the universe, 

3446: so that $Y_{{\cal L}} = - Y_{{\cal B}-{\cal L}}$.

3447: At lower temperatures sphaleronic processes keep thermal equilibrium

3448: and the relation would become

3449:  $Y_{\cal L} = -(63/79) Y_{{\cal B}-{\cal L}}$ ($Y_{{\cal L}} = -(9/8) Y_{{\cal B}-{\cal L}}$)

3450:  if all SM Yukawa couplings were large (negligible).

3451: In reality some couplings mediate equilibrium reactions ($y_t, \ldots$)

3452: and some others are negligible ($y_e,\ldots$) 

3453: so that without making approximations

3454: one cannot ignore flavour and must proceed as in ref.~\cite{BRS}.

3455: In particular we stress that in order to study

3456: how the three generations share the lepton asymmetry 

3457: one must consider the evolution of the full flavour $3\times3$ density matrix.

3458: Within $10\%$ accuracy we may approximate $Y_{{\cal L}} \approx - Y_{{\cal B}-{\cal L}}$

3459: and solve the Boltzmann equation of \eq{eq:BoltzB-L}.

3460: After computing $Y_{{\cal B}-{\cal L}}$ the baryon asymmetry $Y_{\cal B}$ is 

3461: obtained by means of \eq{eq:YB}.

3462:  

3463:   

3464:  \subsubsection{Inflaton and $N_1$ reheating}

3465:   We now add one refinement.

3466:  We described in section~\ref{reh} how the Boltzmann equations are modified 

3467:  by the presence of a field $\phi$, whose decays into SM particles reheat the universe.

3468:  Proceeding along the same lines 

3469:  we also take into account that reheating due to $N_1$

3470:  decays might be non-negligible.

3471:  Terms of relative order $\rho_{N_1}/\rho_R$ are neglected in the `standard' Boltzmann equations: 

3472:  in thermal equilibrium this factor is small, $\rho_{N_1}/\rho_R\circa{<} g_{N_1}/g_\star\sim 0.02$ since

3473:  $N_1$ is one out of many more SM particles.

3474:  Away from thermal equilibrium it can be sizable.

3475:  Including these effects, the Boltzmann equations become

3476:   \begin{eqnsystem}{sys:Boltz}

3477:   HZz\frac{d\rho_\phi}{dz}&=& -

3478: {3H\rho_\phi}-{\Gamma_\phi\rho_\phi}\,

3479: ,\\

3480: sHZz \frac{dY_{N_1}}{dz} &=& 3sH(Z-1)Y_{N_1}

3481:  -\bigg(\frac{Y_{N_1}}{Y_{N_1}^{\rm eq}}-1\bigg)(\gamma_D + 2 \gamma_{Ss} + 4\gamma_{St})\\

3482: sHZz \frac{dY_{{\cal B} - {\cal L}}}{dz} &=& 

3483: %-\frac{3s}{4\rho_R}(\Gamma_\phi\rho_\phi +\Gamma_{N_1} \rho_{N_1})Y_{{\cal B} - {\cal L}}

3484: 3sH(Z-1)Y_{{\cal B} - {\cal L}}

3485: -\gamma_D \epsilon_{N_1} \bigg(\frac{Y_{N_1}}{Y_{N_1}^{\rm eq}}-1\bigg) +\nonumber

3486: \\&&

3487: -\frac{Y_{{\cal B} - {\cal L}}}{Y_{L}^{\rm eq}}\bigg(\frac{\gamma_D}{2}+

3488: 2\gamma_{N}^{\rm sub}+2\gamma_{St}  + \gamma_{Ss}\frac{Y_{N_1}}{Y_{N_1}^{\rm eq}}\bigg)

3489:  \label{eq:BoltzB-L}

3490: \end{eqnsystem}

3491:  where $s$ and $\rho_R$ are the entropy and energy density of SM particles,

3492: \beq H= \sqrt{\frac{8\pi}{3M_{\rm Pl}^2} (\rho_R + \rho_{N_1} + \rho_\phi)}\eeq

3493: is the Hubble constant at temperature $T$ and

3494: \beq \label{eq:Z}

3495: Z=1-\frac{\Gamma_\phi\rho_\phi}{4H\rho_R}-\frac{\gamma_D+2\gamma_{Ss}+4\gamma_{St}}{4H\rho_R}

3496:  \frac{ \rho_{N_1}^{\rm eq}}{n_{N_1}^{\rm eq}}\bigg(\frac{Y_{N_1}}{Y_{N_1}^{\rm eq}}-1\bigg)

3497:  \eeq

3498:  takes into account reheating.

3499:   Since interactions with SM field can keep $N_1$ close to thermal equilibrium,

3500:  its contribution to $Z$ is not just given by

3501:  $\Gamma_{N_1}\rho_{N_1}/4H\rho_R=( \gamma_D/4H\rho_{\rm SM})

3502:  ( \rho_{N_1}^{\rm eq} /n_{N_1}^{\rm eq})(Y_{N_1}/Y_{N_1}^{\rm eq})$.

3503:   

3504:  

3505: 

3506: 

3507: \medskip

3508: 

3509: 

3510:  In the next appendices we will see how  

3511:  thermal effects can be included by modifying the scattering rates and the CP-asymmetries,

3512:  but not the form of the equation themselves.

3513: 

3514: 

3515: 

3516: 

3517: \section{Thermal corrections to decays and scatterings}\label{gamma}

3518: We present the temperature-dependent decay rates and

3519: cross sections that generate and washout the lepton

3520: asymmetry.

3521: Since we consider temperatures $T\sim m_{N_1}$

3522: much above the electroweak scale,  the thermal  masses of the

3523: Higgs doublet, lepton doublet, top quarks and

3524: electroweak gauge bosons

3525: are given by~\cite{thermalmasses}

3526: \begin{eqnsystem}{sys:SMm}

3527: \frac{m_H^2}{T^2}&=& \frac{3}{16} g^2_2 + \frac{1}{16}

3528: g^2_Y + \frac{1}{4} y^2_t + \frac12 \lambda, \\

3529: \frac{m_L^2}{T^2}&=& \frac{3}{32} g^2_2 + \frac{1}{32}

3530: g^2_Y, \\

3531: \frac{m_{Q_3}^2}{T^2}&=& \frac{1}{6} g^2_3 +\frac{3}{32}

3532: g^2_2 + 

3533: \frac{1}{288} g^2_Y + \frac{1}{16}  y^2_t, \\

3534: \frac{m_{U_3}^2}{T^2}&=& \frac{1}{6} g^2_3 + \frac{1}{18}

3535: g^2_Y +

3536: \frac{1}{8} y^2_t, \\

3537: \frac{m_W^2}{T^2} &=& \frac{11}{12}g_2^2,\qquad

3538: \frac{m_B^2}{T^2} =\frac{11}{12}g_Y^2 ,

3539: \label{Mqz}

3540: \end{eqnsystem}

3541: where all couplings are renormalized at the RGE scale $\mu=2\pi T$.

3542: The Higgs boson, lepton and quark masses are

3543: functions of $T$, even if not explicitly denoted.

3544: We neglected their zero-temperature values.

3545: At leading order the quartic Higgs coupling $\lambda$ is given in terms

3546: of the zero-temperature Higgs mass $m_h$ as $\lambda(\mu=v) = (m_h/2v)^2$

3547: where $v=174\GeV$.

3548: The top Yukawa couplings is similarly given by $y_t(\mu=v) = m_t/v$.

3549: Their RGE running is known up to next-to-leading order~\cite{RGESM}.

3550: %       {\bf Da Enqvist 

3551: %trovo le masse dei bosoni di gauge `trasverse' (cosa significa):

3552: %       $m^2_{W,Z} = g_2^2/6$, $m^2_{B} = 7g_Y^2/54$.}

3553: 

3554: 

3555: 

3556: In the MSSM the relevant thermal masses are~\cite{thermalmasses}

3557: \beq\begin{array}{rcccl}

3558: \displaystyle\frac{m_{H_{\rm

3559: u}}^2}{T^2}&=&2\displaystyle\frac{m_{\tilde{H}_{\rm

3560: u}}^2}{T^2} &=&\displaystyle 

3561: \frac{3}{8} g^2_2 + \frac{1}{8} g^2_Y+ \frac34 \lambda_t^2,

3562: 

3563: \\

3564: \displaystyle\frac{m_{\tilde{L}}^2}{T^2} &=&

3565: 2\displaystyle\frac{m_{L}^2}{T^2}  &=&\displaystyle 

3566: \frac{3}{8} g^2_2 + \frac{1}{8} g^2_Y ,

3567: %=\displaystyle\frac{m_{H_{\rm d}}^2}{T^2} =

3568: %2\displaystyle\frac{m_{\tilde{H}_{\rm d}}^2}{T^2}

3569: \\

3570: \displaystyle\frac{m_{\tilde{Q}_3}^2}{T^2}&=&2\displaystyle\frac{m_{Q_3}^2}{T^2}&=&

3571: \displaystyle 

3572: \frac23 g_3^2 +  \frac{3}{8} g^2_2 + \frac{1}{72} g^2_Y + 

3573: \frac14 \lambda_t^2,

3574: \\

3575: \displaystyle\frac{m_{\tilde{U}_3}^2}{T^2}&=&

3576: 2\displaystyle\frac{m_{U_3}^2}{T^2}&=&

3577: \displaystyle\frac23 g_3^2 +  \frac{2}{9} g^2_Y + \frac12

3578: \lambda_t^2 .

3579: \end{array}\eeq

3580: Here and in the following

3581:  appendix the neutrino couplings $Y_\nu$ are renormalized

3582: at

3583: the high-scale.

3584: The one-loop RGE equations for the Majorana neutrino mass

3585: matrix $m_{ij}$

3586: valid from the Fermi scale (below which it is not affected

3587: by

3588: quantum corrections)

3589: up to $m_{N_1}$ are~\cite{SMRGE}

3590: \begin{equation}

3591: \label{eq:RGESM}

3592: (4\pi)^2 \frac{dm}{d\ln\mu}= m (\lambda  - 3

3593: g_2^2+6\lambda_t^2) 

3594: -\frac{3}{2}\bigg[m \cdot (Y_E^\dagger \cdot Y_E)^T+

3595:  (Y_E^\dagger  \cdot Y_E)\cdot m\bigg]

3596: \end{equation}

3597:  in the SM and

3598: \begin{equation}

3599: \label{eq:RGEMSSM}{

3600: (4\pi)^2 \frac{dm}{d\ln\mu}= m (-2g_Y^2 - 6

3601: g_2^2+6\lambda_t^2) 

3602: +m \cdot (Y_E^\dagger \cdot Y_E)^T+

3603:  (Y_E^\dagger  \cdot Y_E)\cdot m } 

3604: \end{equation}

3605: in the MSSM.

3606: Higher order effects (two-loop RGE, thresholds) are partially included in our codes.

3607: Here $Y_E$ and $\lambda$ are the charged lepton and Higgs

3608: couplings.

3609: The solution of these RGEs is described in

3610: section~\ref{couplings}.

3611: The Yukawa couplings of right-handed neutrinos $N_1$ give

3612: extra RGE effects at scales above $m_{N_1}$.

3613: We neglect these effects, as large Yukawa couplings anyhow

3614: lead to

3615: an exponentially small efficiency for leptogenesis. 

3616: 

3617: 

3618: 

3619: The $N_1$ mass does not receive thermal corrections, as

3620: long as we 

3621: neglect the relevant neutrino Yukawa couplings, which are

3622: indeed small

3623: in most of the interesting parameter region, since

3624: $|Y_{\nu 1i}|^2<3\times 10^{-7}(m_{N_1}/10^{10}~{\rm GeV})

3625: (\tilde{m}_1/10^{-3}~{\rm eV})$.   

3626: % \begin{eqnarray}

3627: % \frac{m_H^2}{T^2}&=&

3628: %\frac{3}{16} g^2_2 + \frac{1}{16} g^2_Y + \frac{1}{4}

3629: %y^2_t(T)\) T^2, \\

3630: % \frac{m_L^2}{T^2}&=& 

3631: % \frac{3}{32} g^2_2(T) + \frac{1}{32} g^2_Y\right) T^2, \\

3632: % m_Q^2(T)&=&\left( \frac{1}{6} g^2_3(T) +

3633: % \frac{3}{32} g^2_2 + \frac{1}{144} g^2_Y + \frac{1}{6}

3634: %y^2_t\right) T^2, 

3635: % \label{Mqz}

3636: % \end{eqnarray}

3637: We define 

3638: \begin{equation}

3639: z=\frac{m_{N_1}}{T}  , \qquad

3640: x=\frac{s}{m_{N_1}^2},\qquad

3641: a_{H,L,Q,U,W,B}= \frac{m_{H,L,Q_3,U_3,W,B}^2(z)}{m_{N_1}^2}, \qquad

3642: a_\Gamma= \frac{\Gamma_{N_1}^2}{m_{N_1}^2},

3643: \end{equation}

3644: \begin{equation}\label{DN}

3645: D_{N_1}= \frac{1}{x -1  + i a^{1/2}_\Gamma},

3646: \qquad

3647: |D_{N_1}^2|^{\rm sub} = \frac{(x-1)^2 - a_\Gamma}{[(x-1)^2+a_\Gamma]^2}

3648: \end{equation}

3649: and $\lambda[a,b,c]=(a-b-c)^2 - 4 b c$.

3650: 

3651: \subsubsection{Decays}

3652: At low temperature $m_{N_1}>m_H+m_L$ so that one has the

3653: usual $N_1$ decay  with total width

3654: \beq\label{GammaN1}

3655: \Gamma_{N_1}  =

3656: \frac{1}{8\pi} (Y_\nu Y_\nu^\dagger)_{11} 

3657: \lambda^\frac{1}{2}[1,a_H,a_L]

3658: (1-a_H+a_L)\; m_{N_1}.

3659: \eeq

3660: Analytical approximate solutions of the Boltzmann equations~\cite{bcst} show that

3661: in the most interesting region ($\tilde{m}_1\gg 10^{-3}\eV$ and small $N_1$ Yukawa couplings),

3662: the efficiency of thermal leptogenesis is mainly controlled by

3663: $\gamma_{N} = \gamma_{N}^{\rm sub} +\gamma_D/4 \simeq \gamma_D/4$.

3664: Therefore we compute  the thermally averaged $N_1\to LH$ decay rate

3665: $\gamma_D$ accurately.

3666: Instead of using the Boltzmann approximation of \eq{eq:gammaDgeneral},

3667:  we compute $\gamma_D$

3668: using the full Bose-Einstein $f_H$ and Fermi-Dirac $f_L,f_N$ distributions,

3669: including stimulated emission and Pauli blocking factors.

3670: The relation $\gamma_N\simeq\gamma_D/4$ remains unaltered where now

3671: \begin{eqnarray}\label{gammaDBEFD}

3672:  \gamma_D &=&2  \int d\vec{p}_N d\vec{p}_L d\vec{p}_H  \, f_L f_H  f_N e^{E_N/T}

3673: (2\pi)^4 \delta^4(P_N- P_L-P_H)|A|^2\\

3674: &=&\frac{ \Gamma_{N_1}}{{\pi^2}} \int_{m_{N_1}}^\infty dE_N\,{m_{N_1} \sqrt{E_N^2 - m_{N_1}^2}} f_N e^{E_N/T}

3675: \frac{1}{2}\int_{-1}^1 d\cos\theta_0    f_L(E_L) f_H (E_H)\nonumber

3676: \end{eqnarray}

3677: where $d\vec{p}_X = d^3p_X/2E_X(2\pi)^3$ is the relativistic phase space,

3678: $\theta_0, E_L^0,p_L^0$ are the decay angle, the $L$ energy,

3679: the $L$ momentum in the $N_1$ rest frame

3680: and $E_L = \gamma  E_L^0+\sqrt{\gamma^2-1} p_L^0\cos\theta_0$

3681: ($\gamma = E_N/m_{N_1}$).

3682: The integral in $d\cos\theta_0$ can be done analytically.

3683: 

3684: As expected, the Boltzmann approximation is accurate at 

3685: low $T\circa{<}0.1\,m_{N_1}$ and differs from the full result by 

3686: a few $10\%$ at $T\sim m_{N_1}$.

3687: Actually, for the specific SM values of the thermal masses,

3688:  the Boltzmann approximation is accurate within $10\%$.

3689: 

3690: 

3691: 

3692: 

3693: \medskip

3694: 

3695: We stress that our inclusion of thermal effects is only approximate.

3696: %       It seems worth to perform a systematic computation of the decay rate $\gamma_D$ at $T\circa{<} m_{N_1}$,

3697: %       including all corrections of relative order $g^2/\pi^2, \lambda_t^2/\pi^2\sim \hbox{few}\,\%$:

3698: %       three-body decays $N_1\to LHA, LQ_3 U_3$, 

3699: %       one-loop radiative corrections to the decay rate and its CP-asymmetry, 

3700: %       thermal effects and final state rescatterings.

3701: %       % [MAYBE . I DO NOT REMEMBER WHAT FERMI FACTORS REALLY DESCRIBE?].

3702: In the present work we focussed on those corrections which become large

3703: at $T\circa{>} m_{N_1}$.

3704: 

3705: 

3706: 

3707: In particular, at sufficiently high temperature

3708: the $N_1$ decay becomes kinematically forbidden at higher

3709: temperature by the $H$ thermal mass.

3710: When $m_H>m_{N_1}+m_L$, the $H\to LN_1$ decay is allowed. Its

3711: width is

3712: \begin{eqnarray}

3713: \Gamma_H  =

3714: \frac{1}{16\pi} (Y_\nu Y_\nu^\dagger)_{11} 

3715: \lambda^\frac{1}{2}[a_H,1,a_L]

3716: \frac{a_H-1-a_L}{a_H^2}\; m_{H}.

3717: \end{eqnarray}

3718: % To calculate the reaction density $\gamma^{\rm eq}_H$ 

3719: %one needs to sum over the Higgs 

3720: % isospin as well as to take into account 

3721: %both $H$ and $H^\dagger$ in the plasma.

3722: Despite the change in the decay process the Boltzmann equations keep the same form,

3723: with the $N_1$ decay rate replaced by the $H$ decay rate.

3724: 

3725: Even including thermal effects,

3726: at intermediate temperatures all $1\leftrightarrow 2$ and $3\leftrightarrow 0$

3727: processes are kinematically forbidden, so that $\gamma_D=0$.

3728: 

3729: 

3730: 

3731: % PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE COMMENTED PARTS

3732: % AND DO NOT SIMPLIFY Log[x^2] = 2 Log[x]

3733: \subsubsection{$\Delta L=2$ scatterings}

3734: %{\bf $1\pm f$ factors could be added in some `ad rest' approx?}

3735: We now consider lepton-number violating scatterings:

3736: the $\Delta L = 2$ processes

3737: $LH^\dagger \leftrightarrow \bar LH$  and

3738: $LL\leftrightarrow H^\dagger H$ (middle row of fig.\fig{leptogDiags}).

3739: 

3740: As explained in appendix~\ref{Boltz} we compute

3741: the $LH \leftrightarrow \bar LH^\dagger$

3742: subtracting the contribution

3743: from on-shell intermediate $N_1$,

3744: to avoid double counting with two-body decays.

3745: At low temperatures the computation is similar to the $T=0$ case:

3746: $N_1$ can be on-shell in the $s$-channel diagram of  

3747: fig.\fig{leptogDiags}d

3748: so that one must replace the $s$-channel propagator $D_{N_1} =  

3749: 1/(s-m_{N_1}^2 + i m_{N_1} \Gamma_{N_1})$

3750: with a subtracted propagator $D^{\rm sub}$.

3751: 

3752: At high temperatures, when $H\to N_1L$ replace $N_1\to HL$ decays,

3753: the situation becomes more tricky.

3754: $N_1$ can be on-shell in the $u$-channel diagram of  

3755: fig.\fig{leptogDiags}e.

3756: As this corresponds to on-shell $N_1$ in the decay $H\to N_1L$,

3757: it has to be subtracted similarly to the $s$-channel resonance.

3758: The imaginary part of the $N_1$ propagator

3759: which renders finite

3760: the $LH \leftrightarrow \bar LH^\dagger$ rate

3761: is no longer given by $N_1$ decay, but by

3762: thermal absorption of $N_1$, given by~\cite{Gamma(T)}

3763: \begin{eqnarray}

3764: -\hbox{Im}\,\Pi_{N_1}(E_N) &=& E_N \Gamma_{N_1}(E_N) = \nonumber

3765: \frac{1}{2} \int d\vec{p}_L\,d\vec{p}_H\,(2\pi)^4 \delta^4(P_N+P_L-P_H)  

3766: |A|^2 [f_L+f_H]

3767: %       \\

3768: %       &=&\frac{1}{8\pi}\frac{p_L^0}{m_{N_1}}|A|^2

3769: %       \frac{1}{2}\int_{-1}^{+1}d\cos\theta_0 [f_L(E_L)+f_H(E_H)]\\

3770: %       &=&(Y Y^\dagger)_{11}m_{N_1}^2 \frac{1+a_L-a_H}{16\pi  z\sqrt{\gamma_N^2-1}}\ln

3771: %       \frac{\sinh\big[\frac z2 \gamma_N(a_H-a_L)\big]+

3772: %       \sinh\big[\frac{z}{2}(\gamma_N-\surd)\big]}

3773: %       {\sinh\big[\frac z2\gamma_N(a_H-a_L)\big]+

3774: %       \sinh\big[\frac{z}{2}(\gamma_N+\surd)\big]}\nonumber

3775: \end{eqnarray}

3776: %       where $\gamma_N \equiv E_{N_1}/m_{N_1}$,  $\surd\equiv\sqrt{\gamma_N^2-1}\sqrt{a_H^2+(a_L-1)^2-2a_H(1+a_L)}$,

3777: %       $|A|^2\equiv(Y Y^\dagger)_{11}\  (m_H^2 - m_{N_1}^2 - m_L^2)$,

3778: %       $n_{X} = 1/(e^{E_X/T}\pm1)$ is the thermal distributions of $X$,

3779: %       $p_L^0$ is the $L$ momentum in the rest frame of $N_1$,

3780: %       $\theta_0$ is the $L$ direction in the $N_1$ rest frame.

3781: %       When $N_1$ is at rest with respect to the plasma, its thermal width  simplifies to

3782: %       $$\Gamma_{N_1} =

3783: %       \beq  

3784: %       \frac{1}{4\pi}\frac{|A|^2}{2m_{N_1}}\frac{p_L^0}{m_{N_1}}

3785: %       \eeq

3786: %       [f_L(E_L^0)+f_H(E_H^0)]=

3787: %       \Gamma_H \frac{m_H^3}{m_{N_1}^3}  [f_L(E_L^0)+f_H(E_H^0)].$$

3788: Unlike a decay at $T=0$, for which $\Gamma_{N_1}(E_N) =  

3789: \Gamma_{N_1}(m_{N_1}) m_{N_1}/E_N$,

3790: the $N_1$ width at finite temperature depends on thermal motion of  

3791: $N_1$ with respect to the plasma,

3792: giving rise to lengthy expressions.

3793: For simplicity we give the expression corresponding to

3794: the narrow-resonance limit $\Gamma_{N_1}\to 0$,

3795: which is always valid.

3796: In fact, if the $N_1$ Yukawa coupling is large, $N_1$ gets a thermal  

3797: mass

3798: avoiding $H\to N_1 L$ decays.

3799: 

3800: The reduced $LH \leftrightarrow \bar LH^\dagger$ cross section is given  

3801: by

3802: %       {\bf BUT since $E_N\Gamma_{N}$ depends on $N_1$ motion with respect  to the plasma

3803: %       \eq{gammascatt} does not apply, and must be generalized.

3804: %       If $P=(\sqrt{s},0,0,0)$

3805: %       $$ E_N^{\rm res}|_0= E_H-E_L = \frac{E_H^2-E_L^2}{E_H+E_L} =   \frac{m_H^2-m_L^2}{\sqrt{s}}$$

3806: %       otherwise do a boost

3807: %       $$ E_N^{\rm res} = \gamma E_N^{\rm res}|_0 + \sqrt{\gamma^2-1}    p_N^{\rm res}|_0  \cos\theta_0\qquad

3808: %       \gamma=\frac{P_0}{\sqrt{s}} \neq \gamma_N$$

3809: %       so $d^4P$ is a triple numerical integral (too slow).

3810: %       %  Using instead $\gamma = \int dE_L~dE_H~d\cos\theta$

3811: %       %the resonance is at $(P_L- P'_L)^2 = t=2(m_L^2+m_H^2)-m_{N_1}^2 - s$

3812: %       % kinematics seems even more tedious

3813: %       }

3814: \begin{eqnarray}

3815: \hat\sigma_{Ns}^{\rm sub}&=&\nonumber

3816: \frac{(Y_\nu Y_\nu^\dagger)_{11}^2}{4\pi x} \bigg[

3817: (1+(1-2a_H+x)(\hbox{Re}D_{N_1}-3\xi ))\ln\bigg(\frac{R_2^2/x^2+\epsilon}

3818: {R_1^2+\epsilon}\bigg)+\\

3819: &&+\label{sigNs}

3820: \frac{1}{x^2}(a_H^2+(a_L-x)^2-2a_H(a_L+x))

3821: \bigg(|D_{N_1}^2|^{\rm sub} R_2^2+2x\hbox{Re}D_{N_1}+

3822: \\&& \nonumber

3823: \frac{2(1+x-2a_H) R_2 R_1}

3824: {[R_2^2/x^2+\epsilon ][R_1^2+\epsilon]}

3825: -3\xi (2x+(x-a_H+a_L)^2(\hbox{Re}D_{N_1}-\xi )

3826:  \bigg)\bigg]

3827: \end{eqnarray}

3828: where $R_1=1-2a_H-2a_L+x$ and $R_2= x-(a_H-a_L)^2$

3829: and $\epsilon$ is any small number, $\epsilon\ll a_L^2$.

3830: 

3831: For the $\Delta L = 2$ scattering $LL\leftrightarrow HH$ we

3832: obtain

3833: \begin{equation}

3834: \hat\sigma_{Nt}  =

3835: \frac{(Y_\nu Y_\nu^\dagger)_{11}^2}{2\pi}  \frac{x-2a_L

3836: }{x}

3837: \bigg[\frac{r}{R_1+(a_H-a_L)^2}+\frac{3}{2}r\xi ^2

3838: +(\frac{1}{R_1+1}+3\xi )\ln\frac{R_1+1+r}{R_1+1-r}\bigg]\label{sigNt}

3839: \end{equation}

3840: where $r\equiv  \sqrt{(x-4a_H)(x-4 a_L)}$.

3841: The parameter $\xi $ takes into account scatterings mediated by heavier right-handed neutrinos

3842: $m_{N_{2,3}}\gg m_{N_1}$, as explained in section~\ref{SM}.

3843: 

3844: 

3845: 

3846: 

3847: \subsubsection{$\Delta L=1$ scatterings}

3848: Let us now consider the $\Delta L = 1$

3849: processes $L N\leftrightarrow Q_3 U_3$ and

3850: $\bar U_3 N\leftrightarrow Q_3 \bar L$ (bottom row of  

3851: fig.\fig{leptogDiags}).

3852: We can neglect the small difference between the thermal masses of

3853: $Q_3$ and $U_3$ (see fig.\fig{mT}a), setting $a_U\approx a_Q$.

3854: The $L N\leftrightarrow Q_3 U_3$ reduced cross section  is

3855: \begin{equation}

3856: \hat\sigma_{Hs} =

3857: \frac{3}{4\pi} (Y_\nu Y_\nu^\dagger)_{11} y_t^2

3858: \frac{(x-1-a_L)(x-2a_Q)}{x(x-a_H)^2}\sqrt{[(1+a_L-x)^2-4a_L][1-4a_Q/x]}.

3859: % \frac{(x-2a_Q)(x-1-a_L)}{(x-a_H)^2}

3860: % \frac{\lambda^\frac{1}{2}[x,a_L,1]}{x}

3861: % \left(1-\frac{4 a_Q }{x} \right)^\frac{1}{2},

3862: \end{equation}

3863: The  $\bar U_3 N\leftrightarrow Q_3 \bar L$ and the

3864: $\bar Q_3 N\leftrightarrow U_3 \bar L$ cross sections are equal and given by

3865: \begin{eqnarray}

3866: \hat\sigma_{Ht}  &=&

3867: \frac{3}{4\pi} (Y_\nu Y_\nu^\dagger)_{11} y_t^2 

3868: \frac{1}{x} \bigg[t_+ - t_- -

3869:  (1-a_H+a_L)(a_H-2a_Q)\bigg(\frac{1}{a_H-t_+}-\frac{1}{a_H-t_-}\bigg)+\nn

3870: &&-

3871: (1-2a_H+a_L+2a_Q)\ln\frac{t_+-a_H}{t_--a_H}\bigg]

3872: \end{eqnarray}

3873: where

3874: \begin{eqnarray} 

3875: t_\pm&\equiv& \frac{1}{2x}\bigg[a_Q + x -

3876: (a_Q-x)^2+a_L(x+a_Q-1)+\nn

3877: &&\pm \sqrt{[a_Q^2+(x-1)^2-2a_Q(1+x)][a_L^2 +

3878: (x-a_Q)^2-2a_L(x+a_Q)]}\bigg]

3879: \end{eqnarray}

3880: 

3881: % \begin{eqnarray}

3882: % w_{max}(x,z)&=&2a_Q -\frac{1}{2x} \times \\

3883: % &&

3884: % \left[ 

3885: % (x+a_Q-1)(x+a_Q-a_L) -

3886: %

3887: %\lambda^\frac{1}{2}[x,a_Q,1]\lambda^\frac{1}{2}[x,a_Q,a_L]

3888: % \right], \nn

3889: % w_{min}(x,z)&=&2a_Q -\frac{1}{2x} \times \\

3890: % &&

3891: % \left[ 

3892: % (x+a_Q-1)(x+a_Q-a_L) +

3893: %

3894: %\lambda^\frac{1}{2}[x,a_Q,1]\lambda^\frac{1}{2}[x,a_Q,a_L]

3895: % \right]. \nonumber

3896: % \end{eqnarray}

3897: 

3898: Neglecting thermal masses, all these interaction rates agree with those used

3899: in the literature (up to typos present in older papers).

3900: As explained in the text, we must include 

3901: $\Delta L = 1$ scatterings involving gauge bosons.

3902: We do not compute the full thermally corrected rates, since

3903: we should take into account thermal motion of $A$ and $L$ with respect to

3904: the plasma, which gives a complicated result.

3905: We cannot fully neglect thermal effects, since exchange of

3906: massless  $H$ and $L$ would give an IR divergent result.

3907: Therefore we keep thermal masses of $A,L,H$ only when they

3908: act as regulators of IR enhanced contributions.

3909: This approximation is accurate at $T\ll m_{N_1}$.

3910: At larger $T$ it neglects terms suppressed by higher powers of

3911: $g^2 \sim 1/3$.

3912: The result is

3913: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:As}

3914: \hat\sigma(N_1 \bar{L}\to HA)&=&

3915:  \frac{3 g_2^2 (Y_\nu Y_\nu^\dagger)_{11}}{16\pi x^2}\bigg[

3916: 2t(x-2)+(2-2x+x^2)\ln[(a_L-t)^2+\epsilon]+

3917: \\&&\hspace{15ex} + 2\frac{x(a_L-t)(a_L +a_L x - a_W)+\epsilon(2-2x+x^2)}{(a_L-t)^2+\epsilon}\nonumber

3918: \bigg]_{t_-}^{t_+}\\

3919: \hat\sigma(LH\to N_1A)&=& 

3920: \frac{3 g_2^2 (Y_\nu Y_\nu^\dagger)_{11}}{8\pi x(1-x)}\bigg[2x\ln(t-a_H)-(1+x^2)\ln(t+x-1-a_W-a_H)

3921: \bigg]_{t_-}^{t_+}\nonumber\\

3922: \hat\sigma(\bar LA\to N_1H)&=&

3923: \frac{3 g_2^2 (Y_\nu Y_\nu^\dagger)_{11}}{16\pi x^2}\bigg[

3924: t^2+2t(x-2)-4(x-1)\ln(t-a_H)+x\frac{a_W-4a_H}{a_H-t}

3925: \bigg]_{t_-}^{t_+}\nonumber

3926: \end{eqnarray}

3927: We wrote only the ${\rm SU}(2)_L$ contribution.

3928: One must add the ${\rm U}(1)_Y$ contribution,

3929: obtained by substituting $a_W\to a_Y$ and

3930: $\frac{3}{2}g_2^2 \to \frac{1}{4} g_Y^2$.\footnote{Gauge scatterings have

3931: been estimated in a recent paper~\cite{pilaf},

3932: by introducing some infra-red cutoff,

3933: which should give a qualitatively correct result at low temperature.

3934: We can only compare the ratio between ${\rm SU}(2)_L$ and ${\rm U}(1)_Y$

3935: contributions, which is different from our value.

3936: We do not use simplified expressions for $t_\pm$,

3937: valid when $m_{L,W,H}^2\ll s,m_{N_1}^2$, because

3938: they not even accurate at low temperature, where small

3939: $s- m_{N_1}^2\simeq m_{L,W,H}^2$ is a relevant kinematical range.

3940: Due to the $1-x$ factor, at $T\ll m_{N_1}$ the $LH\to N_1A$ 

3941: interaction rate is $\gamma_{At}\sim (g/\pi)^2\gamma_D$,

3942: of the same order as one loop corrections to the decay rate

3943: (that we do not include).}

3944: The expression $[f(t)]^{t_+}_{t_-}$ denotes $f(t_+/m_{N_1}^2) - f(t_-/m_{N_1}^2)$ where

3945:  $t_\pm$

3946: are the usual kinematical ranges for $t = (P_1 - P_3)^2$ in the various 

3947: $12\to 34$ scatterings:

3948: $$t_\pm = \frac{(m_1^2-m_2^2-m_3^2+m_4^2)^2}{4s}-

3949: \bigg(\sqrt{\frac{(s+m_1^2-m_2^2)^2}{4s}-m_1^2}\pm 

3950: \sqrt{\frac{(s+m_3^2-m_4^2)^2}{4s}-m_3^2}\bigg)^2$$

3951: In some parameter range the process $N_1 \bar{L}\to HA$ can have on-shell $L$ in the $t$-channel,

3952: that we have subtracted:

3953: in such a case one should  use any finite value $\epsilon\ll a_L^2$.

3954: Otherwise one can set $\epsilon=0$.

3955: 

3956: 

3957: The rates that enter in Boltzmann equations are given by

3958: $$\hat{\sigma}_{As} = \hat\sigma(L N_1 \to {\bar H}A),\qquad

3959: \hat{\sigma}_{At} = \frac12 \left[

3960: \hat\sigma(A{\bar L}\to N_1H)+\hat\sigma(\bar H \bar L\to N_1A)\right] $$

3961: 

3962: \subsubsection{Resonances in $s$ and $u$ channels}

3963: 

3964: 

3965: We here explicitly verify that the relation between decay and resonant scatterings,

3966: $\gamma_{N}^{\rm on-shell}  = \gamma_D/4$

3967: (up to CP-violating corrections),

3968: remains valid without approximating thermal distributions with Boltzmann statistics,

3969: and that it applies to both $s$-channel as well as $u$-channel resonances.

3970: This last issue is non-trivial, as computing a

3971: cross section mediated by an unstable particle which can be on-shell

3972: is a difficult problem even 

3973:   at zero temperature and at tree level. In that case, the beam size and

3974:   the width of the external unstable particle act

3975: as a regulator of the divergence~\cite{russi}.

3976: 

3977: \medskip

3978: 

3979: We first  consider the $s$-channel case.

3980: The $N_1\leftrightarrow L H$ rates are

3981: {\small \begin{eqnarray*}

3982: \label{gammad+i}

3983: \gamma^{\rm eq}(N_1\to L H) &=&

3984: \int d\vec{p}_{N_1} d\vec{p}_L d\vec{p}_H  ~f_{N_1} (1-f_L) (1+f_H)

3985: \, (2\pi)^4\delta^4(P_{N_1}-P_L-P_H) |A( N_1 \to LH )|^2  \\

3986: \gamma^{\rm eq}(LH\to N_1) &=& \int  d\vec{p}_{N_1}  d\vec{p}_L d\vec{p}_H ~f_L f_H (1-f_{N_1})

3987: \, (2\pi)^4\delta^4(P_{N_1}-P_L-P_H) |A( LH \to N_1 )|^2.

3988: \end{eqnarray*}}

3989: Using $E_{N_1}=E_H+E_L$, we obtain 

3990: $f_{N_1} (1-f_L) (1+f_H)=  f_L f_H (1-f_{N_1})=f_L f_{N_1} f_H e^{E_{N_1}/T}$.

3991: %we get \eq{gammaD} with $\gamma_D$ now given by \eq{gammaDBEFD}.

3992: %       \beq

3993: %       \label{gammaD}

3994: %       \gamma_D = 2

3995: %       \int d\vec{p}_N  ~f_N f_L f_H e^{E_N/T}     \int  d\vec{p}_L d\vec{p}_H

3996: %       \, (2\pi)^4\delta^4(P_N-P_L-P_H) |A_{\rm tree}|^2

3997: %       \eeq

3998: The on-shell contribution to the $LH \rightarrow \bar{L} \bar{H} $ equilibrium interaction rate is

3999: \begin{eqnarray*}

4000: \label{gammaonshellExact}

4001: \gamma_{\rm on-shell}^{\rm eq}(L H \to \bar{L} \bar{H}) &=&

4002:  \int d\vec{p}_H d\vec{p}_L d\vec{p}_{\bar{L}} d\vec{p}_{\bar{H}} ~f_L f_H (1- f_{\bar{L}}) (1+f_{\bar{H}})

4003: |A( LH \to N_1 )|^2  \\&& \left( \frac{\pi \delta(s-m_{N_1}^2)}{m_{N_1} \Gamma^{\rm th}_{N_1}} \right)

4004: |A( N_1 \to \bar{L}{\bar{H}} )|^2

4005:  (2\pi)^4\delta^4(P_L+P_H-P_{\bar{L}}- P_{\bar{H}})

4006: \end{eqnarray*}

4007: where the width that cutoffs the resonance is $\Gamma_{N_1}^{\rm th}$ \cite{Gamma(T)}, the damping rate at finite temperature.

4008: We can rewrite the product of thermal distributions as:

4009: \beq

4010: (1- f_{\bar{L}}) (1+f_{\bar{H}})=f_{N_1} e^{E_{N_1}/T} \left[

4011: (1-f_{\bar{L}})(1+f_{\bar{H}})+f_{\bar{L}} f_{\bar{H}}\right]

4012: \eeq

4013: and insert $1=\int d^4 P_{N_1} \delta^4(P_{N_1}-P_L-P_H)$, obtaining:

4014: \beq

4015:    \label{gammaonshellExact2}

4016:   \begin{split}

4017: &\gamma_{\rm on-shell}^{\rm eq} (L H \rightarrow \bar{L} \bar{H}) =

4018:  \int d\vec{p}_H d\vec{p}_L \left( \frac{d^4 P_{N_1}}{(2 \pi)^4}

4019:  2\pi \delta(P_{N_1}^2-m_{N_1}^2)\right)\\

4020:  & \qquad f_L f_H f_{N_1} e^{E_{N_1}/T} |A( LH \to {N_1} )|^2

4021:  (2\pi)^4\delta^4(P_L+P_H-P_{N_1})

4022: \left(\frac{1}{ 2 m_{N_1} \Gamma^{\rm th}_{N_1} } \right) \\

4023: & \qquad \int  d\vec{p}_{\bar{L}} d\vec{p}_{\bar{H}}

4024: \left[ (1-f_{\bar{L}})(1+f_{\bar{H}})+f_{\bar{L}} f_{\bar{H}}\right]

4025: |A( {N_1} \to \bar{L} \bar{H} )|^2

4026:  (2\pi)^4\delta^4(P_{N_1}-P_{\bar{L}}-P_{\bar{H}})

4027:  \end{split}

4028: \eeq

4029: The integrals over final-state particles reconstruct the thermal width 

4030: of $N_1$~\cite{Gamma(T)}

4031: \beq

4032: \Gamma_{N_1}^{\rm th}

4033: =\frac{1}{m_{N_1}}  \int  d\vec{p}_{\bar{L}} d\vec{p}_{\bar{H}}

4034: \left[ (1-f_L)(1+f_H)+f_L f_H\right]

4035: |A_{\rm tree}|^2

4036: (2\pi)^4\delta^4(P_{N_1}-P_{\bar{L}}-P_{\bar{H}})

4037: \eeq

4038: In Boltzmann approximation the term in square brackets can be approximated with 1,

4039: and $\Gamma^{\rm th}_{N_1}$ reduces to the standard expression, \eq{GammaN1}.

4040: The integrals over initial-state particles reconstruct $\gamma_D$,

4041: giving the desired relation $\gamma_{Ns}^{\rm on-shell} = \gamma_D/4$.

4042: 

4043: \medskip

4044: 

4045: In an analogous way we can deal with $u$-channel

4046: resonance, present in $L H\to \bar{L} \bar{H}$ scatterings

4047: at high  temperatures when $H$ decays to $N_1 \bar{L}$ while $N_1$ is stable.

4048:  At finite $T$ the propagator of a particle involved in a $1\leftrightarrow 2$ process gets an

4049:  imaginary part, even if it is not the decaying particle.

4050: This thermal $\Gamma_{N_1}$ cutoffs the $u$-channel

4051:  resonance and gives consistent Boltzmann equations

4052:  (no ${\cal L}$ asymmetry generated in thermal equilibrium).

4053: To show this fact we follow the same procedure.

4054: The interaction rates for $\bar{H}\leftrightarrow N_1 L$ are

4055: {\small\begin{eqnarray*}

4056: \label{gammaH}

4057: \gamma^{\rm eq}(\bar{H}\to {N_1} L ) &=&

4058: \int d\vec{p}_{\bar{H}} d\vec{p}_L d\vec{p}_{N_1} ~f_{\bar{H}} (1-f_{N_1}) (1-f_L)

4059: \, (2\pi)^4\delta^4(P_{\bar{H}}-P_L-P_{N_1}) |A( \bar{H} \to L {N_1} )|^2  \\

4060: \gamma^{\rm eq}({N_1} L\to \bar{H}) &=&\int d\vec{p}_{N_1}  d\vec{p}_L d\vec{p}_{\bar{H}} ~f_L f_{N_1} (1+f_{\bar{H}})

4061: \, (2\pi)^4\delta^4(P_{\bar{H}}-P_L-P_{N_1}) |A( {N_1} L \to \bar{H} )|^2.

4062: \end{eqnarray*}}

4063: Since $E_{\bar{H}}=E_{N_1} + E_L$ one can show that

4064: $f_{\bar{H}} (1-f_{N_1}) (1-f_L)=  f_L f_{N_1} (1+f_{\bar{H}})$, so that, again

4065: \begin{eqnarray}

4066: \gamma^{\rm eq} (\bar{H} \rightarrow {N_1} L)=\gamma^{\rm eq} (N_1 \bar{L} \rightarrow H)=\frac{\gamma_D}{2}(1+\epsilon_{H})  \\

4067: \gamma^{\rm eq}(N_1 L \rightarrow \bar{H})  =\gamma^{\rm eq} (H \rightarrow N_1 L )=\frac{\gamma_D}{2}(1-\epsilon_{H})

4068: \end{eqnarray}

4069: where now

4070: \beq

4071: \label{gammaD}

4072: \gamma_D = 2

4073: \int d\vec{p}_{\bar{H}} d\vec{p}_L d\vec{p}_{N_1} ~f_{\bar{H}} (1-f_{N_1})(1-f_L)

4074: \, (2\pi)^4\delta^4(P_{\bar{H}}-P_L-P_{N_1}) |A_{\rm tree}(\bar{H} \to N_1 L)|^2.

4075: \eeq

4076: The $u$-channel on-shell contribution to

4077: $L H \to \bar{L} \bar{H}$ is

4078: \beq

4079: \begin{split}

4080: \label{gammaonshellExactH}

4081: &\gamma_{\rm on-shell}^{\rm eq} (L H \rightarrow \bar{L} \bar{H})=

4082:  \int d\vec{p}_H d\vec{p}_L  d\vec{p}_{\bar{L}} d\vec{p}_{\bar{H}} ~f_L f_H (1- f_{\bar{L}}) (1+f_{\bar{H}})  \\

4083: &

4084: |A( H \to {N_1} \bar{L})|^2 \left( \frac{\pi \delta(u-m_{N_1}^2)}{E_{N_1} \Gamma^{\rm th}_{N_1}(E_{N_1})} \right)|A( {N_1} L \to \bar{H})|^2

4085:  (2\pi)^4\delta^4(P_L+P_H-P_{\bar{L}}- P_{\bar{H}}) .

4086: \end{split}

4087: \eeq

4088: The product of the distributions can be rewritten, making use of  $E_{\bar{H}}=E_{N_1} + E_L$ as

4089: \beq

4090: f_L (1+f_{\bar{H}})=(1-f_{N_1})\left[ (f_L)(1+f_{\bar{H}})+f_{\bar{H}} (1-f_L)

4091: \right]

4092: \eeq

4093: Inserting $1=\int d^4 P_{N_1} \delta^4(P_H-P_{\bar{L}}-P_{N_1})$ we get

4094: \beq

4095:    \label{gammaonshellExact2H}

4096:   \begin{split}

4097: &\gamma^{\rm eq}_{\rm on-shell} (L H\rightarrow \bar{L} \bar{H}) =

4098:  \int d\vec{p}_H d\vec{p}_{\bar{L}} \left( \frac{d^4 P_{N_1}}{(2 \pi)^4}

4099:  2\pi \delta(P_{N_1}^2-m_{N_1}^2)\right)\\

4100:  & ~f_H (1-f_{N_1})(1-f_{\bar{L}}) |A( H \to {N_1} \bar{L})|^2

4101:  (2\pi)^4\delta^4(P_H-P_{\bar{L}}-P_{N_1})

4102: \left(\frac{1}{ 2 E_{N_1} \Gamma^{\rm th}_{N_1}(E_{N_1})} \right)\\

4103: & \int  d\vec{p}_{L} d\vec{p}_{\bar{H}}[(f_L)(1+f_{\bar{H}})+f_{\bar{H}} (1-f_{L})]

4104: |A( N_1 L \to \bar{H} )|^2

4105:  (2\pi)^4\delta^4(P_{N_1}+P_{L}-P_{\bar{H}})

4106:  \end{split}

4107: \eeq

4108: The last terms reconstructs the

4109: thermal damping rate of $N_1$~\cite{Gamma(T)} 

4110: (when the decaying particle is not $N_1$, but $H$),

4111: due to interactions of $N_1$ with the $L$ present in the plasma 

4112: producing a $\bar{H}$ (and the inverse process),

4113: \beq

4114: \begin{split}

4115: \Gamma^{\rm th}_{N_1}(E_{N_1})=\frac{1}{2 E_{N_1}} \cdot 2 \int  d\vec{p}_{L} d\vec{p}_{\bar{H}}[(f_L)(1+f_{\bar{H}})+f_{\bar{H}} (1-f_L)] \\

4116: |A_{\rm tree}(\bar{H} \to L {N_1})|^2

4117: (2\pi)^4\delta^4(P_{N_1}+P_{L}-P_{\bar{H}}) .

4118: \end{split}

4119: \eeq

4120: 

4121: 

4122: 

4123: 

4124: \section{Thermal correction to SM CP-asymmetries\label{AppEpsilon}}

4125: In this appendix we show explicitly the calculation of

4126: the CP asymmetry parameter $\epsilon$ for both

4127:  the $N_1$ decay  and  the $H$ decay, in the SM.

4128:  Since the final result for leptogenesis turns out to be

4129: very weakly dependent on $\epsilon_H$,

4130: we compute $\epsilon_H$ neglecting the motion of $H$ with

4131: respect to the plasma.

4132: On the contrary we make the analogous approximation for

4133: $\epsilon_{N_1}$

4134: only in the analytic expression presented in the main text,

4135: eq.~(\ref{eps0}),

4136: and present here the full result, averaged over

4137: thermal $N_1$ motion.

4138: 

4139: 

4140: %

4141: \begin{figure}[t]

4142: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=15cm]{Ndecay} }

4143: \caption{\em Im$[I_0^* (I_1^V+I_1^W)]$ in $N_1\to LH$

4144: decay.

4145: The momenta flow in the direction in which the labels are

4146: written. }

4147: \label{Ndecay}

4148: \end{figure}

4149: 

4150: 

4151: We choose to work in the rest system of the plasma.

4152: The CP-asymmetry in $i\to f$ decays

4153: which enters into the Boltzmann equations is (see

4154: \eq{eq:gammaD})

4155: \begin{equation}

4156: \epsilon_i=\frac{\gamma^{\rm eq}(i\rightarrow

4157: f)-\gamma^{\rm eq}(\bar{\hbox{\em \i}}

4158: \rightarrow\bar{f})}{\gamma^{\rm eq}(i \rightarrow

4159: f)+\gamma^{\rm eq}(\bar{\hbox{\em \i}}\rightarrow

4160: \bar{f})} = \frac{\int d^3\!p_i \,

4161: f(E_i)\,\int d\phi\,\epsilon_A |A|^2 }

4162: {\int d^3\!p_i  \, f(E_i)\,\int d\phi\, |A|^2} + {\cal

4163: O}(\epsilon_i^2)

4164: \end{equation}

4165: where $d^3p_i~f(E_i)$ is the thermal distribution of the

4166: initial state,

4167: $d\phi$ is the standard relativistic phase-space for $i\to

4168: f$ decay,

4169: % time dilatation factor included in $d\phi$: 

4170: \begin{equation}

4171: %\Gamma(p_i) = \Gamma(i\to f)\frac{m_i}{E_i}\qquad

4172: \epsilon_A=

4173: \frac{|A(i\rightarrow f)|^2-

4174: |A(\bar{\hbox{\em \i}} \rightarrow\bar{f})|^2}{|A(i

4175: \rightarrow

4176: f)|^2+|A(\bar{\hbox{\em \i}}

4177: \rightarrow \bar{f})|^2}\, ,

4178: \end{equation}

4179: %       2 body phase space not in the CM

4180: %       $$ d\phi = \frac{1}{4\pi}\frac{p_L^2}{E_L p_H + E_H p_L}\frac{d\Omega_L}{4\pi}$$

4181: and $A$ is the amplitude for the process computed

4182: at given quadri-momenta $P_{i,f}$. We define

4183: $ A_{0}(i\rightarrow f)$ as the amplitude of  the

4184: tree level

4185: process  and parametrize it as $A_{0}=\lambda_0

4186: I_0$, where

4187: $\lambda_0$ contains the coupling constants. In the

4188: same way we define the amplitude up to the one-loop

4189: level as

4190:  $A=\lambda_0 I_0+\lambda_1 I_1$.

4191: With this notations  $\epsilon_A$ at one-loop is expressed

4192: as

4193: \begin{equation}

4194: \epsilon_A=\frac{|\lambda_0 I_0+\lambda_1

4195: I_1|^2-|\lambda_0^*

4196: I_0+\lambda_1^* I_1|^2}{|\lambda_0 I_0+\lambda_1

4197: I_1|^2+|\lambda_0^* I_0+\lambda_1^* I_1|^2} \simeq -2

4198: \frac{\textrm{Im}[\lambda_0^* \lambda_1]  }{|\lambda_0 |^2}

4199: \frac{\textrm{Im}[I_0^*I_1]}{|  I_0|^2}\, .

4200: \end{equation}

4201: In our case $I_1$ is the sum of two diagrams: a ``vertex''

4202: correction and a ``wave'' correction (fig.s \ref{Ndecay},

4203: \ref{Hdecay}).

4204: For both diagrams the couplings and the

4205: $|A_{0}(i\rightarrow f)|^2$

4206: factor are the same:

4207: \begin{equation}

4208: \epsilon_A=-2 \frac{\textrm{Im}[(Y^{\dagger}

4209: Y)_{1j}^2]}{(Y^{\dagger} Y)_{11}}

4210: \frac{\textrm{Im}[I_0^* I_1]}{2 P_N \cdot P_L}

4211: \label{genericepsilon}

4212: \end{equation}

4213: where the quadri-momenta $P_N$ and $P_L$ are defined in

4214: fig.~\ref{Ndecay} for

4215: $N_1$ decay

4216: and in fig.~\ref{Hdecay} for $H$ decay.

4217: We have to compute  $\textrm{Im}[I_0^* I_1]$.

4218: Using the cutting rules, we obtain

4219: \begin{equation}

4220: \textrm{Im}[I_0^* I_1]=\frac{1}{2 i}I_0 \sum_{\rm cuttings}

4221: I_1

4222: \, .

4223: \label{cuttings}

4224: \end{equation}

4225: $I_1$ is the sum of two diagrams: the ``vertex'' and the

4226: ``wave'' one:

4227:  $I_1=I_1^V+I_1^W$.

4228: 

4229: 

4230:  \subsubsection{Computation of $\epsilon_{N_1}$}

4231: We consider here the case

4232: of $N_1\rightarrow L H$.

4233: In principle there are

4234: three possible cuttings (or six circlings in the notation

4235: of ref.~\cite{diagrammar,Kobes}) for $I_1^V$, and one

4236: (or two circlings) for $I_1^W$, and none of them

4237:  is forbidden at finite $T$. In fact, at finite $T$, energy

4238: is

4239:  no more forced to flow from uncircled to circled vertices

4240: (see ref.~\cite{Kobes}). The reason is that, while the cut

4241: propagators at

4242: zero $T$ are proportional to $\theta(E)$, at finite $T$

4243: they have a

4244: new contribution, see eqs. (\ref{bosonpropagator})--(\ref{fermionpropagator}),

4245: proportional to $f_F$ (or $f_B$)  if the cut particle is  a

4246: fermion (or a

4247: boson). This accounts for  particles in the thermal bath

4248: which do not have  the $\theta (E)$ function, since 

4249: they can be emitted by the bath (positive energy)

4250: or absorbed from the bath (negative energy).

4251: However, recalling that we are working under

4252: the assumption that the $N_j$ (with $j\neq 1$) are very

4253: heavy,

4254: the cuttings which involve the $N_j$ can

4255:  be neglected since they are exponentially suppressed

4256:  by $m_{N_j}/T$.

4257: Moreover the graph with the $N_1$ circulating in the loop

4258: does not

4259: contribute to the CP asymmetry since its

4260: Yukawa

4261: couplings are real (see eq.~(\ref{genericepsilon}) with

4262: $j=1$).

4263: So, the only relevant cutting in $I_1^V$ is the one with

4264: lepton

4265: line and Higgs line cut (fig.~\ref{Ndecay}), as in the 

4266: zero-temperature case.

4267: 

4268: We compute here the cutting in

4269: the vertex part

4270: \begin{equation}

4271: \textrm{Im}[I_0^* I_1^V] =\frac{1}{2i} \int

4272: \frac{d^4\!K}{(2 \pi)^4} D_N(P_L-P_N+K)\left[ D_H^+

4273: (P_N-K) D_L^+(K)+D_H^-(P_N-K) D^-_L(K)\right] T(K) ,

4274:  \label{integrale}

4275:  \end{equation}

4276: which is the first contribution shown in fig.~\ref{Ndecay}

4277: (the single cutting in the figure stands for two possible

4278: circlings

4279: of the vertices).

4280: Here  $T(K)$ is the result of the traces over the spinor

4281: indices,

4282: $D$ are the propagators (without numerators): $D_N$ is the

4283: propagator of the $N_j$

4284: (which we choose as the zero-temperature  one,

4285: since we neglect $N_j$ interactions with the plasma),

4286: $D_H^{\pm}$ and $D_L^{\pm}$  are the finite-$T$

4287: cut propagators of the Higgs and of the lepton respectively,

4288: see eq.~(\ref{bosonpropagator}) and

4289: (\ref{fermionpropagator}),

4290: \begin{eqnarray}

4291:  D_N(P_L-P_N+K)&=&\frac{1}{(P_L-P_N+K)^2-m_{N_j}^2} 

4292: \nonumber \\

4293:  D_H^{\pm}(P_N-K)&=&2 \pi

4294: \delta\big((P_N-K)^2-m_H^2\big)\left[

4295:  \theta(\pm(E_N-\omega)) +f_B(|E_N-\omega|) \right]\, ,

4296:  \\

4297: D_L^{\pm}(K)&=& 2 \pi

4298: \delta\big(\delta_L(\omega,k)\big) \left[ \theta(\pm

4299: \omega) -f_F(|\omega|)

4300: \right] \, ,

4301: \nonumber

4302: \end{eqnarray}

4303: where

4304: \begin{equation}

4305: \delta_L= [(1+a)\omega + b]^2 -(1+a)^2k^2

4306:    \label{deltaL}

4307: \end{equation}

4308: and $a,b$ are defined in \eq{aaa}.

4309: Keeping only relative angles relevant for our computation,

4310: we can conveniently parameterize the quadri-vectors as

4311: $$

4312: U = (1,0,0,0),\qquad

4313: P_N = (E_N, p_N,0,0), \qquad

4314: P_H = P_N - P_L = (E_H,\vec{p}_H)$$

4315: $$

4316: P_L =((E_L^0 E_N+ p_0 p_N\cos\theta_0)/m_{N_1},(p_0

4317: E_N\cos\theta_0 + E_L^0 p_N)/m_{N_1},

4318: p_0\sin\theta_0,0)=(E_L,\vec{p}_L)$$

4319: $$K = (\omega,

4320: k\cos\theta,k\sin\theta\cos\varphi,k\sin\theta\sin\varphi)=(\omega,\vec{k})$$

4321: where $E_L^0 = (m_{N_1}^2+m_L^2-m_H^2)/2m_{N_1}$ and

4322: $p_0 = \sqrt{(E_L^0)^2-m_L^2}$ are the $L$ energy and

4323: momentum

4324: with respect to the $N$ rest frame and $\theta_0$ is a

4325: decay angle

4326: in the same frame.

4327: 

4328: 

4329: Now we compute the trace part.

4330: Using four-component Majorana spinors\footnote{The direction of 

4331: the arrows for Majorana spinors in fig.~\ref{Ndecay} is arbitrary,

4332: and one is free

4333: to choose it as a matter of convenience;

4334: the particular choice made dictates which Feynman rules are

4335: used.},

4336: we get

4337: $$T=\sum_{\rm polarizations}\left[\bar{u}_L \left(i

4338: \frac{1-\gamma_5}{2}\right) C \bar{v}_{N_1}  \right]^*

4339:  \bigg[\bar{u}_L \left(i \frac{1-\gamma_5}{2}\right)

4340: \bigg(-i [\Ksl-\Psl_H+m_{N_j}]  C\bigg)

4341: \times

4342: $$

4343: \begin{equation}\label{eq:trace}

4344: \times

4345: \bigg(i \frac{1-\gamma_5}{2}\bigg) \bigg(-i \left[(1+a)

4346: \Ksl + b \Usl \right]

4347: \bigg) \left(i

4348: \frac{1+\gamma_5}{2}\right) \bar{v}_{N_1} \bigg]\, ,

4349: \end{equation}

4350: where $C$ is the charge conjugation matrix with the

4351: properties

4352: \begin{equation}

4353: C \bar{v}=u \ ,\ \   \{ C,\gamma^{\mu}  \}=0  \ , \ \

4354: [C,\gamma^5]=0\, .

4355: \end{equation}

4356: Then eq.~(\ref{eq:trace}) becomes

4357: \begin{eqnarray}\nonumber

4358: T(K) &=& -i\  \hbox{Tr}\, \left[m_{N_1}  \frac{1+\gamma_5}{2}\Psl_L

4359: m_{N_j}

4360: [(1+a) \Ksl + b \Usl]    \right]\,\\

4361: &=&-2i m_{N_1} m_{N_j}[ (1+a)\, P_L \cdot K +b\,  E_L]\, .

4362:  \label{T(q)}

4363: \end{eqnarray}

4364: Note that the term $b \Usl$ is not put to zero

4365:  by chirality projectors  unlike a usual mass term.

4366: 

4367: %       We must consider the decaying particle in motion with

4368: %       respect to the plasma, with arbitrary energy $E_N$.

4369: 

4370: 

4371: 

4372: We have to perform the integral in $d^4\!K$  in

4373: eq.~(\ref{integrale}).

4374: The most convenient technique is to use polar coordinates

4375: $\theta$ and $\varphi$

4376: and

4377: integrate first in $d\cos\theta$ using the

4378: $\delta[(P_N-K)^2-m_H^2]$

4379: and then integrate in $d k$ using the

4380: $\delta[\delta_L(\omega,k)]$.

4381: As we discussed in section~\ref{cpN1},

4382: we can approximate the $L$ dispersion relation

4383: with $\omega^2-k^2=m_L^2$, finding the

4384: following solution

4385: \begin{equation}

4386:  \cos\theta=\frac{m_H^2

4387: - m_L^2 - m_{N_1}^2+ 2 E_N \omega}{2 k{p}_N }\,

4388: ,  \qquad

4389:          k=\sqrt{\omega^2 - m_L^2}  \,

4390: .\label{costheta}

4391: \end{equation}

4392: Imposing that $|\cos\theta|\leq 1$ we find that

4393:  $\omega$ must be comprised between two positive values

4394: $\omega_{\rm min}$ and $\omega_{\rm max}$.

4395:  This implies that in the arguments of the

4396: $\theta$-functions

4397:  in eq.~(\ref{integrale}) we have $\omega >0$ and

4398:  $E_N-\omega>0$, so

4399:  that expanding

4400:  $D_H^+ (P_N-K) D_L^+(K)+D_H^-(P_N-K) D^-_L(K)$ gives

4401: \begin{eqnarray}

4402: N&\equiv&

4403: [1+f_B(E_N-\omega)][1-f_F(\omega)]-

4404: f_B(E_N-\omega) f_F(\omega)

4405: \nonumber

4406: \\

4407:  &=&1+f_B(E_N-\omega)-f_F(\omega)-2 f_B(E_N-\omega)

4408: f_F(\omega)    \, .

4409: \label{distrib}

4410: \end{eqnarray}

4411: At this point we are left  with integrals in $d\omega$ and

4412: $d\varphi$.

4413: Adding also the contribution of the ``wave'' diagram

4414: the result is

4415: %

4416: %       \begin{equation}

4417: %       I_0^*I_1^V= \frac{k^2}{(2

4418: %       \pi)^2}\int^{2 \pi}_{0}d\varphi\int_{\omega_m}^{\omega_M}d\omega

4419: %       \frac{T(K)}{2kp_N\cdot|\partial \delta_L/ \partial k|}\frac{1+f_B-f_F-2 f_B

4420: %       f_F}{m_H^2+m_L^2-m_{N_j}^2-2 P_H\cdot K} \, ,

4421: %       \end{equation}

4422: %       Here $\alpha$ is the angle of emission of the decay

4423: %       products in the

4424: %       center of mass frame (the scalar products $p_L\cdot q$and

4425: %       $p_H \cdot q$

4426: %       depend on the angle $\varphi$ and on the angle $\alpha$).

4427: %       The $\epsilon$ parameter depends on the initial energy

4428: %       $E_N$ of

4429: %       the incoming particle and on the angle of emission

4430: %       $\alpha$.

4431: %       In the Boltzmann equation the average over all thepossible

4432: %       values of $\alpha$

4433: %       appears

4434: %       \begin{equation}

4435: %       I_0^* I_1^V(E_N)=\int_0^{2 \pi}\frac{d\alpha}{2 \pi}

4436: %       I_0^* I_1^V(E_N,\alpha)\, .

4437: %       \end{equation}

4438: % The ``wave'' diagram can be computed in a similar manner.

4439: %       Finally we insert them into eq. (\ref{cuttings}),

4440: %       (\ref{genericepsilon})

4441: %       and we get the CP asymmetry as a function of the energy

4442: %       $E_N$ of the

4443: %       incoming particle ($N_1$).

4444: given by

4445: \begin{equation}

4446: \epsilon_A=\frac{\textrm{Im}[(Y^{\dagger}

4447: Y)_{1j}^2]}

4448: {2\pi(Y^{\dagger} Y)_{11}\ |I_0|^2

4449: }

4450:  \int_0^{2 \pi} \frac{d\varphi}{2\pi}

4451: \int_{\omega_{\rm min}}^{\omega_{\rm max}}

4452: d\omega \frac{ k m_{N_1} m_{N_j}

4453: }{|\partial\delta_L/\partial k|\,p_N}

4454: [(1 + a)P_L\cdot K + b E_L]\,N\, [ P_V +

4455: 2 P_W ]\, , \label{ResultEpsN}

4456: \end{equation}

4457: where

4458: \begin{equation}

4459: |I_0|^2=2 P_N \cdot P_L=

4460: m_{N_1}^2-m_H^2+m_L^2.

4461: \end{equation}

4462: $P_V$ and $P_W$ arise from $N_j$ propagators

4463: in vertex and wave diagrams respectively

4464: \begin{equation}

4465: P_V=\frac{1}{m_H^2+m_L^2-m_{N_j}^2-2 P_H\cdot K}\, ,

4466: \qquad

4467: P_W=\frac{1}{m_{N_1}^2-m_{N_j}^2}.

4468: \end{equation}

4469: $P_W$ appears in \eq{ResultEpsN} multiplied by a factor $2$

4470:  since in the wave diagram also the charged states of Higgs and

4471: lepton fields can propagate~\cite{Covi}.

4472: Finally, the relevant quantity for the Boltzmann equations

4473: is

4474: the average of $\epsilon_A$ over the phase space and the

4475: thermal distribution of $N_1$:

4476: \begin{equation}

4477: \epsilon_{N_1}(T) =

4478: %\int \frac{p_N^2 \ dp_N}{E_{N}} \  f_B(E_N) \epsilon_A  =

4479:  \frac{\int_{m_{N_1}}^\infty dE_{N}\, p_N \  f_B(E_N)\int_{-1}^1

4480: d\cos\theta_0\  \epsilon_A (E_N,\theta_0)}

4481:  {2\int_{m_{N_1}}^\infty dE_{N}\,p_N\  f_B(E_N) } \, .

4482: \end{equation}

4483: The result is presented in fig.~\ref{figepsilon}.

4484: In the limit $m_{N_j}\gg m_{N_1}$ one has $P_V\approx

4485: P_W\approx - 1/m_{N_j}^2$

4486: and the integrals in $\varphi$ and $\theta_0$ can be done

4487: analytically.

4488: Approximating $f_B(E_N)\approx e^{-E_N/T}$

4489: the explicit result is

4490: $$ {\epsilon_{N_1}(T)\over\epsilon_{N_1}(0)} =\int_{m_{N_1}}^\infty dE_{N} 

4491: \int_{\omega_{\rm min}}^{\omega_{\rm max}}d\omega~

4492: [(1+a) (m_{N_1}^2-m_H^2+m_L^2)+2b

4493: E_N] \frac{2km_{N_1} N\,e^{-E_N/T}}

4494: {T\,{\rm K}_1({m_{N_1}}/{T})|\partial\delta_L/\partial k|}.$$

4495: 

4496: 

4497: \begin{figure}[t]

4498: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=15cm]{Hdecay} }

4499: \caption{\label{Hdecay}\em Im$[I_0^* I_1]$ in $H\to LN$ decay.}

4500: \end{figure}

4501: 

4502: 

4503: 

4504: \subsubsection{Computation of $\epsilon_{N_1}$ for $N_1$ at

4505: rest}

4506: We have then performed the computation for the $N_1$ decay

4507: in

4508: the simplified situation with $N_1$ at rest in the plasma.

4509: In this case, the $\delta((P_N-K)^2-m_H^2)$

4510: factor does

4511: not contain the angle $\theta$ in the scalar product

4512: $P_N\cdot K$.

4513: So we can proceed by integrating in $dk$ and

4514: in $d\omega$

4515:  using the two $\delta$-functions.

4516: Moreover there is no dependence on the angles $\varphi$ and

4517: $\theta_0$. The

4518:  integrals in $d\varphi$ and $d\cos\theta_0$ are trivial

4519: and the integral in

4520: $d\cos\theta$

4521: can be done analytically.

4522: In this way one obtains the result of

4523: section \ref{cpN1}.

4524: The difference with respect to our full computation

4525: is not fully negligible, as shown in fig.~\ref{figepsilon}a.

4526: 

4527: 

4528: \subsubsection{Computation of $\epsilon_H$}

4529: Finally, the same technique of computation can be applied

4530: to the case of

4531:  $H \rightarrow L N_1$.

4532: There are, though, remarkable differences between the two

4533: decays.

4534: In  $H$ decay (see fig.~\ref{Hdecay}) the particles in

4535: the loop

4536: could never go on-shell with the usual $T=0$ Feynman rules.

4537: This is due

4538: to the presence of the $\theta$-functions in the cut

4539: propagators.

4540: However, using the finite-$T$ rules we know that particles

4541: with

4542: negative energy can be absorbed from the bath so

4543: the process can have a CP asymmetry.

4544: We can make the cuts in fig.~\ref{Hdecay},

4545:  where again cuts of very heavy particles have been

4546: neglected.

4547: The $\delta$-functions have solutions identical to

4548: eq.~(\ref{costheta}), in terms of the external

4549: momenta

4550: (see the notation of fig.~\ref{Hdecay}). However

4551:  the masses are such that $\omega_{\rm min}<\omega_{\rm max}<0$.

4552: So imposing $|\cos\theta|\leq 1$, 

4553: $\omega$

4554: has to lie

4555: between two \textit{negative} values

4556: (it is exactly for this reason that with $T=0$ Feynman

4557: rules $\epsilon_H$ would

4558: be zero), while $E_N-\omega$ is positive.

4559: Then the products of $\theta$-functions are different from the previous case

4560: \begin{equation}

4561: \begin{split}

4562: D_H^+ (P_N-K) D_L^+(K)+D_H^-(P_N-K)D^-_L(K) \propto

4563: %\nonumber

4564: \\

4565: & \makebox[-8cm]{} \propto

4566: [f_B(|E_N-\omega|)][1-f_F(|\omega|)]-

4567: [1+f_B(|E_N-\omega|)] f_F(|\omega|)

4568: %\nonumber

4569: \\

4570: & \makebox[-8cm]{} =f_B(|E_N-\omega|)-f_F(|\omega|)-2

4571: f_B(|E_N-\omega|) f_F(|\omega|) .

4572: \end{split}

4573: \label{distribH}

4574: \end{equation}

4575: Indeed \eq{distribH}

4576: is equal to 0 (and not to $1$) at $T=0$.

4577: 

4578: The result in this case has the same form of eq.~(\ref{ResultEpsN}).

4579: As already explained, since the final effect of $\epsilon_H$ in our

4580: scenario is

4581: very small,

4582:  we computed it only taking the incoming $H$ at rest,

4583:  in order to simplify the computations. However,

4584: in this case

4585: it is not possible to give an analytic result as opposed to the

4586: case of $N_1$ decay

4587: at rest. The reason is that this time the

4588: $\delta((P_N-K)^2-m_H^2)$

4589: factor contains always the dependence on the

4590: angle $\theta$, since $N_1$ is the outgoing particle

4591: and $P_N$ is not of the form $P_N=(m_{N_1},0,0,0)$. 

4592: 

4593: The most convenient order of integration is the same we

4594: followed

4595: in the $N_1$ decay. We obtain again a result in an implicit

4596: form

4597: (even if there is no dependence on $\alpha$ and $\varphi$)

4598: \begin{eqnarray}

4599: \epsilon_H(T)=\frac{\textrm{Im}[(Y^{\dagger}

4600: Y)_{1j}^2]}

4601: {(Y^{\dagger} Y)_{11}|I_0|^2

4602: }\cdot 2\pi

4603: \int_{q_m}^{q_M} d\omega \frac{m_{N_1} m_{N_j}}{

4604: |\partial\delta_L/\partial k| (2 \pi)^2}\

4605: \left[(1 + a)\left(E_L \omega - p_L k \cos{\theta}\right) +

4606: b E_L \right]\nonumber \\

4607:  \times [f_B(|E_N-\omega|)-f_F(|\omega|)-2

4608: f_B(|E_N-\omega|) f_F(|\omega|)]

4609: [P_V(\omega) +2 P_W(\omega)]

4610: \label{resultEpsH}\, ,

4611: \end{eqnarray}

4612: where $\delta_L$ is given by eq.(\ref{deltaL}) and $I_0$ is

4613: the tree level rate

4614: for this decay

4615: \begin{equation}

4616: |I_0|^2=m_H^2-m_{N_1}^2-m_L^2.  \label{treeH}

4617: \end{equation}

4618: %The function $N(\omega)$ is (as in eq. ({\ref{N(omega)}))

4619: %the trace part times the distribution functions

4620: %\begin{eqnarray}

4621: %N(\omega)=& -2 m_{N_1} m_{N_j}\left[(1 + a)\left(E_L\omega -

4622: %

4623: %\frac{{{m_{N_1}}}^2\,\left( {m_H} - {\omega} \right)  -\left(

4624: %{{m_H}}^2 - {{m_L}}^2 \right) \,\left( {m_H} + {\omega}

4625: %\right) }

4626: %{2\,{m_H}}

4627: %

4628: %p_L k \cos{\theta}

4629: %\right) + b E_L \right]\nonumber \\

4630: %&\times [f_B(|E_N-\omega|)-f_F(|\omega|)-2f_B(|E_N-\omega|)

4631: %f_F(|\omega|)]  \, ,

4632: %\end{eqnarray}

4633: The on-shell conditions fix

4634: \begin{equation}

4635:   k=\sqrt{\omega^2-m_L^2} \, ,

4636:  \qquad    \cos{\theta}=\frac{m_{N_1}^2 + m_L^2-m_H^2 - 2

4637: E_N \omega }{2 p_N k}.

4638: \nonumber

4639: \end{equation}

4640: %$E_L,p_L$, $E_N,p_N$ are fixed by the kinematics.

4641: %$p_L=(E_L,\vec{p_L})$ is fixed by the kinematics

4642: %$E_L=\frac{m_H^2+m_L^2-m_{N_1}^2}{2m_H}$

4643: %and $k$ is fixed by the on-shell condition,

4644: %$k=\sqrt{\omega^2-m_L^2}$.\\

4645: Finally $P_V(\omega)$ and $P_W(\omega)$ in this case are

4646: given by

4647: \begin{equation}

4648: P_V(\omega)=\frac{k}{\, p_N \,

4649:     \left( {{m_H}}^2 + {{m_L}}^2 - {{m_{N_j}}}^2 -

4650:       2\,{m_H}\,{\omega} \right) }\, ,

4651: \end{equation}

4652: \begin{equation}

4653: \qquad P_W(\omega)=\frac{k}{p_N \,\left(

4654: {{m_{N_1}}}^2 - {{m_{N_j}}}^2 \right) \,} \, .

4655: \end{equation}

4656: Note that the tree level rate for this process in

4657: eq.(\ref{treeH})

4658: is small at high $T$ as long as the value of $m_H$ is

4659: near to $m_L$. For this reason $\epsilon_H$ is bigger than

4660: $\epsilon_{N_1}$. In fact if $|I_0|^2$ were

4661:  ${\cal O}(1)T^2$ at high $T$, then $\epsilon_H$ would be

4662: as big

4663: as

4664: $\epsilon_{N_1}$. Instead,  it goes like $c T^2$, where $c$

4665: is a small number: $c=(m_H^2-m_L^2)/T^2$, and so

4666: $\epsilon_H$

4667: becomes $c^{-1}$ times bigger than $\epsilon_{N_1}$. In

4668: particular

4669: for the SM thermal masses $c^{-1}$ is  about

4670: $15$.

4671: 

4672: 

4673: 

4674: 

4675: 

4676: 

4677: \section{Thermal correction to  MSSM CP-asymmetries}\label{CPMSSM}

4678: In the MSSM the situation becomes more complicated than in the SM

4679: because

4680: we must study both $N_1$ and $\tilde{N_1}$ decays,

4681: each having two possible decay channels,

4682: with each channel having more diagrams.

4683: Including thermal effects, the relevant masses satisfy

4684: $$m_{N_{1,2,3}} = m_{\Nt_{1,2,3}},\qquad

4685: a_\Ht\equiv \frac{m_\Ht^2}{m_{N_1}^2} =

4686: \frac{a_H}{2},\qquad

4687: a_\Lt\equiv \frac{m_\Lt^2}{m_{N_1}^2} = 2 a_L.$$

4688: As previously discussed we use approximate dispersion relations for the fermions,

4689: and assume $m_{N_j}\gg m_{N_1}$.

4690: For simplicity,

4691: in the MSSM case

4692: we compute the decay rates

4693: and the CP-asymmetries

4694: neglecting the velocity of the decaying particle with

4695: respect to the plasma.

4696: 

4697: 

4698: The CP-asymmetries in $N_1$ and $\tilde{N}_1$ decays are

4699: \begin{eqnarray*}

4700: \epsilon_{\Nt_1}(T) &\equiv&

4701: \frac{\Gamma(\Nt_1\rightarrow H\Lt)-\Gamma(\Nt_1\rightarrow

4702: \bar{H} \bar{\Lt}) +

4703: \Gamma(\Nt_1\rightarrow\tilde{H} L)-\Gamma(\Nt_1\rightarrow

4704: \bar{\tilde{H}} \bar{{L}})}

4705: {\Gamma(\Nt_1\rightarrow H\Lt)+\Gamma(\Nt_1\rightarrow

4706: \bar{H} \bar{\Lt})+

4707: \Gamma(\Nt_1\rightarrow\tilde{H} L)+\Gamma(\Nt_1\rightarrow

4708: \bar{\tilde{H}} \bar{{L}})}\\

4709: &=&\epsilon_{\Nt_1}(T=0)

4710: \frac{R_\Gamma(\Nt_1\to \Ht L) R_\epsilon(\Nt_1\to \Ht L)

4711:  + R_\Gamma(\Nt_1\to H \Lt) R_\epsilon(\Nt_1\to H \Lt)}

4712: {R_\Gamma(\Nt_1\to \Ht L)  + R_\Gamma(\Nt_1\to H\Lt)}\\

4713: %       %

4714: %       \epsilon_{N_1}(T)&\equiv& \frac{\Gamma(N_1\rightarrow HL)-\Gamma(N_1\rightarrow \bar{H} \bar{L}) +

4715: %       \Gamma(N_1\rightarrow\tilde{H} \tilde{L})-\Gamma(N_1\rightarrow \bar{\tilde{H}} \bar{\tilde{L}})}

4716: %       {\Gamma(N_1\rightarrow HL)+\Gamma(N_1\rightarrow \bar{H}\bar{L})+

4717: %       \Gamma(N_1\rightarrow\tilde{H} \tilde{L})+\Gamma(N_1\rightarrow \bar{\tilde{H}} \bar{\tilde{L}})}\\

4718: %       &=&\epsilon_{N_1}(T=0)

4719: %       \frac{R_\Gamma(N_1\to HL) R_\epsilon(N_1\to HL)  + R_\Gamma(N_1\to \tilde{H}\tilde{L}) R_\epsilon(N_1\to \tilde{H}\tilde{L})}

4720: %       {R_\Gamma(N_1\to HL)  + R_\Gamma(N_1\to \tilde{H}\tilde{L})}\\

4721: %       &=& \epsilon_{N_1}(T=0)  R_\epsilon(N_1\to HL,\Ht\Lt)

4722: \epsilon_{N_1}(T) &=&  \epsilon_{N_1}(T=0)

4723:  R_\epsilon(N_1\to HL)= \epsilon_{N_1}(T=0)

4724:  R_\epsilon(N_1\to \Ht\Lt)

4725: \end{eqnarray*}

4726: where

4727: $$R_\Gamma(i\to f) \equiv \frac{\Gamma(i\to f\hbox{ at }

4728: T)}{\Gamma(i\to f\hbox{ at } T=0)}\qquad

4729: R_\epsilon(i\to f) \equiv \frac{\epsilon(i\to f\hbox{ at }

4730: T)}{\epsilon(i\to f\hbox{ at } T=0)}.$$

4731: We have used the fact that

4732: at $T=0$ the two decay channels have equal zero-temperature

4733: width and CP-asymmetries

4734: $\epsilon_{N_1}(T=0) = \epsilon_{\Nt_1}(T=0)$ given in eq.~(\ref{epsss}).

4735: 

4736: We now give the explicit expressions for the $R_\epsilon$.

4737: Consider first the $N_1$ decays.

4738: Two more one loop diagrams  (not plotted) contribute to the CP-asymmetry:

4739: a ``vertex'' and a ``wave'' diagram with sparticles in the loop.

4740: The SM function $R_\epsilon(N_1\to HL)$ has been given in

4741: section~\ref{cpN1}.

4742: Using analogous self-explanatory notations we find, in the

4743: MSSM

4744: \begin{eqnarray*}\label{gpgs}

4745: R_\epsilon(N_1\to HL) &=& 8 \frac{k_L^2}{m_{N_1}}

4746: [\omega_L(1+a_L)+b_L]

4747: [1+f_H-f_L-2 f_H f_L]

4748: \left|\left|

4749: \begin{matrix}

4750:  \partial \delta_H/\partial\omega_L &\partial

4751: \delta_L/\partial\omega_L \\

4752: \partial \delta_H/\partial k_L &\partial \delta_L/\partial

4753: k_L

4754: \end{matrix}\right|\right|^{-1}+\\

4755: && 8 \frac{k^2_\Ht}{m_{N_1}}

4756: [\omega_\Ht(1+a_\Ht)+b_\Ht]

4757: [1+n_\Lt-n_\Ht-2 n_\Lt n_\Ht]

4758: \left|\left|

4759: \begin{matrix}

4760:  \partial \delta_\Lt/\partial\omega_\Ht &\partial

4761: \delta_\Ht/\partial\omega_\Ht \\

4762: \partial \delta_\Lt/\partial k_\Ht &\partial

4763: \delta_\Ht/\partial k_\Ht

4764: \end{matrix}\right|\right|^{-1}

4765: \end{eqnarray*}

4766: where

4767: $$\begin{array}{ll}

4768: \delta_H \equiv (m_{N_1}-\omega_L)^2 - k_L^2 - m_H^2

4769: \qquad&

4770: \delta_L \equiv [(1+a_L)\omega_L +b_L]^2-(1+a_L)^2 k_L^2

4771:  \cr

4772: \delta_\Lt \equiv (m_{N_1}-\omega_\Ht)^2 - k^2_\Ht -m_\Lt^2

4773: &

4774:  \delta_\Ht \equiv

4775: [(1+a_\Ht)\omega_\Ht+b_\Ht]^2-(1+a_\Ht)^2k_\Ht^2 .

4776:  \end{array}$$

4777: $R_\epsilon(N_1\to \Ht \Lt)$ has to be evaluated at the

4778: values of $k_L$ and $\omega_L$ which solve

4779: $\delta_H=\delta_L=0$, approximatively given by

4780: eq.~(\ref{eq:omegak}),

4781: and at the values of $k_\Ht$ and $\omega_\Ht$ which solve

4782: $\delta_\Ht =\delta_\Lt = 0$,

4783: approximatively given by

4784: $\omega_\Ht = (m_{N_1}^2 + m_\Ht^2-m_\Lt^2)/2m_{N_1}$ and

4785: $k_\Ht=(\omega^2_\Ht-m_\Ht^2)^{1/2}$.

4786: 

4787: Finally $R_\epsilon(N_1\to \Ht\Lt) =R_\epsilon(N_1\to HL)$

4788: since the CP-asymmetry in the two $N_1$ decay modes

4789: is due to loops with the same virtual particles.

4790: 

4791: 

4792: \medskip

4793: 

4794: 

4795: For $\Nt_1$ decays, the situation is different.

4796: When $\Nt_1$ decays into two fermions

4797: ($\tilde{N}_1\to \tilde{H}L$) the imaginary part is

4798: obtained

4799: cutting two internal bosons, $H$ and $\tilde{L}$.

4800: The decay rate is suppressed by two Pauli-blocking factors,

4801: but its CP-asymmetry is enhanced by two stimulated-emission

4802: factors.

4803: \begin{equation}

4804: R_\epsilon(\Nt_1 \to \Ht L) = 2 \frac{k_H}{m_{\Nt_1}}

4805:  [1+f_B(\omega_\Lt)+f_B(\omega_H)+2 f_B(\omega_\Lt)

4806: f_B(\omega_H)]

4807: \end{equation}

4808: where

4809: $\omega_H = (m_{\Nt_1}^2 + m_H^2-m_\Lt^2)/2m_{\Nt_1} =

4810:  m_{\Nt_1}-\omega_\Lt$

4811: and $k_H=(\omega_H^2-m_H^2)^{1/2}$.

4812: 

4813: 

4814: 

4815: When $\Nt_1$ decays into two bosons

4816: ($\tilde{N}_1\to H\Lt$) the imaginary part is obtained

4817: cutting two internal fermions, $\Ht$ and $L$,

4818: and it is therefore given by a lengthy expression.

4819: The CP-asymmetry is suppressed by two Pauli-blocking

4820: factors,

4821: but the decay rate is enhanced by two stimulated-emission

4822: factors.

4823: $$

4824: R_\epsilon(\Nt_1 \to H\Lt)  = 16\frac{k^2}{m^2_{\Nt_1}}

4825: \Big\{

4826: [(1+a_L)\omega+b_L ] 

4827:  [(1+a_\Ht)\omega_\Ht +b_{\tilde{H}} ]

4828:  + k^2  (1+a_L) (1+a_\Ht)

4829:  \Big\} \times

4830:  $$

4831: \begin{equation}\qquad\times

4832: [1-f_F(m_{\Nt_1}-\omega)-f_F(\omega)+2

4833: f_F(m_{\Nt_1}-\omega)f_F(\omega)] \left|\left|

4834: \begin{matrix}

4835:  \partial \delta_L/\partial\omega &\partial

4836: \delta_{\tilde{H}}/\partial\omega \\

4837: \partial \delta_L/\partial k &\partial

4838: \delta_{\tilde{H}}/\partial k

4839: \end{matrix}\right|\right|^{-1}

4840: \end{equation}

4841: where $(\omega,k)$ is the quadri-momentum of $L$,

4842: $\omega_\Ht = m_{\Nt_1}-\omega$ is the energy of $\Ht$ and

4843: $$

4844: \delta_{\tilde{H}}\equiv [(1+a_{\tilde{H}})(m_{\Nt_1}-\omega)

4845: +b_{\tilde{H}}]^2-(1+a_{\tilde{H}})^2 k^2

4846: \qquad

4847: \delta_L \equiv [(1+a_L)\omega +b_L]^2-(1+a_L)^2k^2.$$

4848: The expression should be evaluated at the values of

4849: $\omega$ and $k$ which

4850: solve $\delta_L = \delta_\Ht = 0$.

4851: Using the approximate on-shell condition, they are given by

4852: $$\omega = (m_{\Nt_1}^2 +m_L^2 - m_\Ht^2)/2m_{\Nt_1},\qquad

4853: k = (\omega^2-m_L^2)^{1/2}.$$

4854: 

4855: 

4856: Finally, the thermal corrections to the decay rates are

4857: given by

4858: \begin{eqnarray*}

4859: R_\Gamma (N_1\to HL) &=& (1+ f_B(E_H))(1-f_F(E_L))

4860: \lambda^{1/2}(1,a_H,a_L)(1-a_H+a_L)\\

4861: R_\Gamma (N_1\to \tilde{H}\tilde{L}) &=&

4862: (1-f_F(E_\Ht))(1+f_B(E_\Lt))\lambda^{1/2}(1,a_\Ht,a_\Lt)(1+a_\Ht+a_\Lt)\\

4863: R_\Gamma (\Nt_1\to \Ht L) &=& (1- f_F(E_\Ht))(1-f_F(E_L))

4864: \lambda^{1/2}(1,a_\Ht,a_L)(1-a_\Ht-a_L)\\

4865: R_\Gamma (\Nt_1\to H\Lt) &=& (1+ f_B(E_H))(1+f_B(E_\Lt))

4866: \lambda^{1/2}(1,a_H,a_\Lt) .

4867: \end{eqnarray*}

4868: The $1\pm f_{B,F}$ factors take into account Pauli blocking

4869: or stimulated emission

4870: (the thermal distributions must be evaluated at the

4871: energies of final state particles)

4872: while the other factors arise from thermal corrections to

4873: kinematics.

4874: 

4875: 

4876: \paragraph{Note added}

4877: Some of our preliminary results appeared in~\cite{ery}.  However, 

4878: in that paper sneutrino reheating was not correctly included

4879: (we also take into account thermal corrections and proper subtraction of on-shell scatterings).

4880: 

4881: 

4882: 

4883: 

4884: \frenchspacing

4885: 

4886: \begin{multicols}{2}

4887: 

4888:  

4889: 

4890: \footnotesize

4891: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

4892: 

4893: \bibitem{oscdata}

4894: The atmospheric mixing parameters are extracted from 

4895: the revised SK analysis presented by K. Nishikawa at the 2003

4896: Lepton-Photon Conference (see the web site conferences.fnal.gov/lp2003)

4897: and from

4898: \art[hep-ex/0212007]{K2K collaboration}{\PRL}{90}{2003}{041801}.

4899: For a recent global fit see

4900: L. Fogli, E. Lisi, A. Marrone, D. Montanino, A. Palazzo, A.M. Rotunno, hep-ph/0310012.

4901: The solar mixing parameters are taken from the global fit in

4902: \art[hep-ph/0102234]{P. Creminelli et al.}{\Jhep}{05}{2001}{052}.

4903: Its e-print version, has been updated

4904: including the recent data from SNO

4905: (SNO collaboration, nucl-ex/0309004), KamLAND

4906: (KamLAND collaboration, hep-ex/0212021), etc.

4907: 

4908: 

4909: \bibitem{seesaw}

4910: %\art{C.D. Froggatt, H.B. Nielsen}{\NP}{B147}{1979}{277}.

4911: %This mechanism was applied to neutrino masses in

4912: M. Gell-Mann, P. Ramond and R. Slansky, proceedings of the supergravity Stony Brook

4913: workshop, New York, 1979, ed.s P. Van Nieuwenhuizen and D. Freedman (North-Holland,

4914: Amsterdam); T. Yanagida, proceedings of the workshop on unified theories and baryon

4915: number in the universe, Tsukuba, Japan 1979 (ed.s. O. Sawada and A. Sugamoto, KEK

4916: Report No. 79-18, Tsukuba).

4917:  \art{R.N. Mohapatra, G. Senjanovi\'c}{\PRL}{44}{912}{1980}.

4918: 

4919: 

4920: 

4921: \bibitem{fuk}

4922: M.~Fukugita and T.~Yanagida,

4923: %``Baryogenesis Without Grand Unification,''

4924: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {174}, 45 (1986).

4925: 

4926: \bibitem{reviewbau} For reviews, see 

4927: A.~Riotto, hep-ph/9807454.

4928: A.~Riotto, M.~Trodden,

4929: %``Recent progress in baryogenesis,''

4930: Ann.\ Rev.\ Nucl.\ Part.\ Sci.\  {49}, 35 (1999).

4931: 

4932: \bibitem{sak}

4933: A.~D.~Sakharov,

4934: Pisma Zh.\ Eksp.\ Teor.\ Fiz.\  {5}, 32 (1967)

4935: [JETP Lett.\  {5}, 24 (1967)].

4936: 

4937: 

4938: \bibitem{k-sm}

4939: M.~A.~Luty, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {45} (1992) 455;

4940: M.~Pl\"umacher, Z.\ Phys.\ C {74} (1997) 549;

4941: W.~Buchmuller, M.~Pl\"umacher,

4942: Int.\ J.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ A {15}, 5047 (2000)

4943: [hep-ph/0007176].

4944: 

4945: 

4946: \bibitem{diagrun}

4947: See e.g.\

4948: J.~A.~Casas, J.~R.~Espinosa, A.~Ibarra, I.~Navarro,

4949: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 573} (2000) 652

4950: [hep-ph/9910420]

4951: and~\cite{SMRGE2}.

4952: 

4953: \bibitem{BRS} \art[hep-ph/9906470]{R. Barbieri et al.}{JHEP}{10}{20}{1999}.

4954: 

4955: 

4956: 

4957: 

4958: \bibitem{vari}

4959: T.~Hambye, E.~Ma, U.~Sarkar, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {590} (2000) 429 [hep-ph/0006173];

4960: S.~Davidson, A.~Ibarra, JHEP {0109} (2001) 013;

4961: G.C.~Branco, T.~Morozumi, B.M.~Nobre, M.N.~Rebelo, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {617} (2001) 475;
A.S.~Joshipura, E.~A.~Paschos, W.~Rodejohann, JHEP {0108} (2001) 029;
D. Falcone, Phys. Rev. D {66} (2002) 053001 [hep-ph/0204335];
G.~C.~Branco, R.~Gonzalez Felipe, F.R.~Joaquim, M.N.~Rebelo, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {640} (2002) 202;
W.~Rodejohann, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {542} (2002) 100;

4962: J.R.~Ellis, M.~Raidal, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {643} (2002) 229 [hep-ph/0206174];

4963: % M.N.~Rebelo, hep-ph/0207236;
% D. Falcone, hep-ph/0207308;

4964: G.C.~Branco, R.~Gonzalez Felipe, F.R.~Joaquim, I.~Masina, M.N.~Rebelo, 

4965: C.A.~Savoy, hep-ph/0211001;

4966: S.F.~King, hep-ph/0211228;

4967: S.~Pascoli, S.T.~Petcov, C.E.~Yaguna, hep-ph/0301095;

4968: S.~Davidson, JHEP {0303} (2003) 037 [hep-ph/0302075];

4969: E. Kh. Akhmedov, M. Frigerio, A. Yu. Smirnov, hep-ph/0305322.

4970: 

4971: 

4972: \bibitem{mBound}

4973: W.~Buchmuller, P.~Di Bari, M.~Pl\"umacher,

4974: %``A bound on neutrino masses from baryogenesis,''

4975: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {547} (2002) 128 [hep-ph/0209301];

4976: W.~Buchmuller, P.~Di Bari, M.~Pl\"umacher,

4977: %``The neutrino mass window for baryogenesis,''

4978: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {665} (2003) 445 [hep-ph/0302092].

4979: 

4980: 

4981: \bibitem{softl2}

4982: Y.~Grossman, T.~Kashti, Y.~Nir, E.~Roulet,

4983: hep-ph/0307081.

4984: 

4985: \bibitem{softl}

4986: G.~D'Ambrosio, G.~F.~Giudice, M.~Raidal,

4987: hep-ph/0308031.

4988: 

4989: 

4990: \bibitem{bellac} For a review see

4991: M. Le Bellac, {\it Thermal Field Theory},

4992: Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 1996.

4993: 

4994: 

4995: \bibitem{enqvist}

4996: P.~Elmfors, K.~Enqvist, I.~Vilja, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf

4997: 412}, 459 (1994).

4998: 

4999: 

5000: \bibitem{weldon}

5001: V.V. Klimov, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 33, 934 (1981);

5002: H.~A.~Weldon, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {26}, 2789 (1982)

5003: and Phys.\ Rev.\ D {40}, 2410 (1989).

5004: 

5005: \bibitem{yaffe} D.~J.~Gross, R.~D.~Pisarski,

5006: L.~G.~Yaffe,

5007: %``QCD And Instantons At Finite Temperature,''

5008: Rev.\ Mod.\ Phys.\  {53}, 43 (1981).

5009: 

5010: 

5011: 

5012: 

5013: 

5014: \bibitem{Kin} T.~Kinoshita, J. Math. Phys. {3}, 650 (1962).

5015: 

5016: \bibitem{LN} T.~D.~Lee, M.~Nauenberg, Phys. Rev. {133}, 1549 (1964).

5017: 

5018: 

5019: \bibitem{BPR} 

5020: R.~D.~Pisarski, Phys. Rev. Lett. {63}, 1129 (1989); 

5021: E.~Braaten, R.~D.~Pisarski, Nucl. Phys. {B337}, 569 (1990); 

5022: {\it ibidem} {B339}, 310 (1990).

5023: 

5024: \bibitem{weldonir} H.~A.~Weldon,

5025: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {44}, 3955 (1991).

5026: 

5027: 

5028: \bibitem{mikko}

5029: K.~Kajantie, M.~Laine, K.~Rummukainen,

5030: M.~E.~Shaposhnikov,

5031: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {458} (1996) 90

5032: [hep-ph/9508379]. 

5033: 

5034: 

5035: \bibitem{epsilon}

5036: \hepart[hep-ph/0312203]{T. Hambye, Yin Lin,

5037: A. Notari, M. Papucci, A. Strumia}.

5038: 

5039: 

5040: \bibitem{SMRGE2} 

5041: \hepart[hep-ph/0305273]{S.~Antusch, J.~Kersten, M.~Lindner, M.~Ratz}.

5042: 

5043: 

5044: 

5045: \bibitem{heavym0} \art[hep-ph/9912301]{A. Romanino,

5046:  A. Strumia}{\PL}{B487}{165}{2000}.

5047: 

5048: \bibitem{thermalmasses}

5049: Thermal masses can be found in the several works,

5050: after fixing various discrepancies.

5051: See refs.~\cite{enqvist,weldon,Olive49} and

5052: D.~Comelli, J.~R.~Espinosa,

5053: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {55} (1997) 6253

5054: [hep-ph/9606438].

5055: 

5056: 

5057: \bibitem{CoviTh}

5058: L.~Covi, N.~Rius, E.~Roulet, F.~Vissani,

5059: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {57} (1998) 93

5060: [hep-ph/9704366].

5061: 

5062: 

5063: \bibitem{Kobes}

5064: R.~L.~Kobes, G.~W.~Semenoff,

5065: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {260} (1985) 714;

5066: R.~L.~Kobes, G.~W.~Semenoff,

5067: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {272} (1986) 329.

5068: 

5069: 

5070: 

5071: \bibitem{Covi}

5072: L.~Covi, E.~Roulet, F.~Vissani,

5073: %``CP violating decays in leptogenesis scenarios,''

5074: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {384}, 169 (1996)

5075: [hep-ph/9605319].

5076: 

5077: 

5078: \bibitem{bcst} 

5079: R.~Barbieri, P.~Creminelli, A.~Strumia, N.~Tetradis,

5080: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {575} (2000) 61 [hep-ph/9911315].

5081: The hep-ph version will present revised

5082: analytical approximations, in the light of the modified 

5083: Boltzmann equations discussed here.

5084: 

5085: \bibitem{di2}

5086: S.~Davidson, A.~Ibarra,

5087: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {535} (2002) 25.

5088: 

5089: \bibitem{bbp}

5090: W.~Buchmuller, P.~Di Bari, M.~Plumacher,

5091: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {643} (2002) 367

5092: [hep-ph/0205349].

5093: 

5094: \bibitem{pilaf}

5095: A.~Pilaftsis, T.~E.~Underwood,

5096: hep-ph/0309342.

5097: 

5098: 

5099: \bibitem{k-mssm}

5100: M.~Pl\"umacher,

5101: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {530} (1998) 207

5102: [hep-ph/9704231].

5103: 

5104: \bibitem{mueg}

5105: F. Borzumati, A. Masiero, Phys. Rev. Lett. 57 (1986) 961;

5106: \art{L.J.~Hall, V.A.~Kostelecky, S.~Raby}{\NP}{B267}{415}{1986};
\art[hep-ph/9501407]{J. Hisano, T. Moroi, K. Tobe, M. Yamaguchi, T. Yanagida}{\PL}{B357}{579}{1995};

5107: J.~Hisano, T.~Moroi, K.~Tobe, M.~Yamaguchi, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {53} (1996) 2442.

5108: For some recent analyses see e.g.\

5109: J.A.~Casas, A.~Ibarra, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {618} (2001) 171;

5110: \hepart[hep-ph/0104076]{S.~Davidson, A.~Ibarra};

5111: \art[hep-ph/0106245]{S.~Lavignac, I.~Masina, C.~A.~Savoy}{\PL}{B520}{269}{2001};

5112: J.R.~Ellis, J.~Hisano, S.~Lola, M.~Raidal, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {621} (2002) 208 [hep-ph/0109125];

5113: \art[hep-ph/0108275]{A. Romanino, A. Strumia}{\NP}{B622}{73}{2002};

5114: J.R.~Ellis, J.~Hisano, M.~Raidal, Y.~Shimizu, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {66} (2002) 115013 [hep-ph/0206110];

5115: A.~Dedes, J.R.~Ellis, M.~Raidal, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {549}, 159 (2002) [hep-ph/0209207].

5116: 

5117: 

5118: \bibitem{minimalseesaw}

5119: M. Raidal, A. Strumia, Phys. Lett. B553 (2003) 72 [hep-ph/0210021].

5120: 

5121: 

5122: 

5123: 

5124: \bibitem{reviewinf} For a review on inflation, see 

5125: D.~H.~Lyth, A.~Riotto,

5126: Phys.\ Rept.\  {314}, 1 (1999) 

5127: [hep-ph/9807278].

5128: \bibitem{Davidson:2000dw}

5129: S.~Davidson, M.~Losada, A.~Riotto,

5130: %``Baryogenesis at low reheating temperatures,''

5131: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {84}, 4284 (2000)

5132: [hep-ph/0001301].

5133: 

5134: %\cite{Giudice:2000dp}

5135: \bibitem{Giudice:2000dp}

5136: G.~F.~Giudice, E.~W.~Kolb, A.~Riotto, D.~V.~Semikoz,

5137: I.~I.~Tkachev,

5138: %``Standard model neutrinos as warm dark matter,''

5139: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {64}, 043512 (2001)

5140: [hep-ph/0012317].

5141: \bibitem{giudiceetal}

5142: G.~F.~Giudice, E.~W.~Kolb, A.~Riotto,

5143: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {64}, 023508 (2001)

5144: [hep-ph/0005123].

5145: 

5146: \bibitem{fornengo}

5147: N.~Fornengo, A.~Riotto, S.~Scopel,

5148: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {67}, 023514 (2003)

5149: [hep-ph/0208072].

5150: 

5151: 

5152: \bibitem{book} E. W. Kolb, M. S. Turner, {\it The Early

5153: Universe},

5154: (Addison-Wesley, Menlo Park, Ca., 1990).

5155: 

5156: 

5157: \bibitem{ckr} D.~J.~Chung, E.~W.~Kolb, A.~Riotto,

5158: %``Production of massive particles during reheating,''

5159: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {60}, 063504 (1999)

5160: [hep-ph/9809453].

5161: 

5162: \bibitem{infla} K. Kumekawa, T. Moroi, T. Yanagida,

5163: Prog. Theor. Phys. 92, 437 (1994).

5164: 

5165: 

5166: \bibitem{np} E. W. Kolb, A. D. Linde, A. Riotto, Phys.

5167: Rev. Lett.

5168: 77, 4290 (1996); E. W. Kolb, A.  Riotto,  I. I. Tkachev,

5169: Phys. Lett. B423, 348 (1998).

5170: 

5171: \bibitem{np2} G. F. Giudice, M. Peloso, A. Riotto

5172: and I. I. Tkachev, JHEP 9908, 014 (1999) [hep-ph/9905242].

5173: 

5174: \bibitem{knr} E.~W.~Kolb, A.~Notari, A.~Riotto,

5175: %``On the reheating stage after inflation,''

5176: hep-ph/0307241, to be published in Phys. Rev. {D}.

5177: 

5178: \bibitem{Treh}

5179: P.~H.~Chankowski, K.~Turzynski,

5180: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {570}, 198 (2003)

5181: [hep-ph/0306059].

5182: 

5183: 

5184: \bibitem{ellis} 

5185: J. R. Ellis, J. Kim,  D. V. Nanopoulos, 

5186: Phys. Lett. B145, 181 (1984);

5187: L. M. Krauss, 

5188: Nucl. Phys. B227, 556 (1983);

5189: M. Yu. Khlopov, A. D. Linde,

5190: Phys. Lett. 138B, 265 (1984);

5191: J. R. Ellis, D. V. Nanopoulos, K. A. Olive, S.-J. Rey,

5192: Astropart. Phys. 4, 371 (1996);

5193: M. Bolz, A. Brandenburg, W. Buchmuller,

5194: Nucl. Phys. B 606, 518 (2001).

5195: 

5196: \bibitem{nucleo}

5197: R. H. Cyburt, J. Ellis, B. D. Fields, K. A. Olive,

5198: Phys. Rev. D 67, 103521 (2003).

5199: For a review see

5200: M.Yu. Khlopov, `Cosmoparticle physics', World Scientific, 1999.

5201: 

5202: \bibitem{sn1} 

5203: H.~Murayama, H.~Suzuki, T.~Yanagida, J.~Yokoyama,

5204: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {70} (1993) 1912;

5205: %%CITATION = PRLTA,70,1912;%%

5206: H.~Murayama, H.~Suzuki, T.~Yanagida, J.~Yokoyama,

5207: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {50} (1994) 2356

5208: [hep-ph/9311326].

5209: 

5210: 

5211: \bibitem{sn2} 

5212: H.~Murayama, T.~Yanagida,

5213: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {322} (1994) 349

5214: [hep-ph/9310297];

5215: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9310297;%%

5216: K.~Hamaguchi, H.~Murayama, T.~Yanagida,

5217: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {65} (2002) 043512

5218: [hep-ph/0109030];

5219: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0109030;%%

5220: T.~Moroi, H.~Murayama,

5221: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {553} (2003) 126

5222: [hep-ph/0211019].

5223: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0211019;%%

5224: 

5225: \bibitem{ery}

5226: J.~R.~Ellis, M.~Raidal, T.~Yanagida, hep-ph/0303242. 

5227: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0303242;%%

5228: 

5229: \bibitem{pilaf1}

5230: A.~Pilaftsis, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {56} (1997) 5431 [hep-ph/9707235];

5231: T.~Hambye, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {633} (2002) 171 [hep-ph/0111089];

5232: J.~R.~Ellis, M.~Raidal, T.~Yanagida, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {546}, 228 (2002) [hep-ph/0206300].

5233: 

5234: 

5235: \bibitem{DolgovZeldovich}

5236: I.~Vysotsky, A.~D.~Dolgov, Y.~B.~Zeldovich,

5237: %``Cosmological Limits On The Masses Of Neutral Leptons,''

5238: Pisma Zh.\ Eksp.\ Teor.\ Fiz.\  {26}, 200 (1977).

5239: 

5240: 

5241: \bibitem{Wolfram}

5242: E.~W.~Kolb, S.~Wolfram,

5243: %``Baryon Number Generation In The Early Universe,''

5244: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {172}, 224 (1980)

5245: [Erratum-ibid.\ B {195}, 542 (1982)].

5246: 

5247: \bibitem{Olive49}

5248: J.~M.~Cline, K.~Kainulainen, K.~A.~Olive,

5249: %``Protecting the primordial baryon asymmetry from erasure by sphalerons,''

5250: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {49}, 6394 (1994).

5251: 

5252: \bibitem{RGESM}

5253: \art{C.~Ford, D.R.~Jones, P.W.~Stephenson, M.B.~Einhorn}

5254: {\NP}{B395}{17}{1993};

5255: \art{A.~Sirlin, R.~Zucchini}{\NP}{B266}{389}{1986};

5256: \art{R.~Hempfling, B.A.~Kniehl}{\PR}{D51}{1386}{1995}.

5257: 

5258: 

5259: \bibitem{SMRGE}

5260: \art[hep-ph/9306333]{P.H.~Chankowski,

5261: Z.~Pluciennik}{\PL}{B316}{312}{1993};

5262: \art[hep-ph/9309223]{K.S.~Babu, C.N.~Leung,

5263: J.~Pantaleone}{\PL}{B319}{191}{1993}.

5264: An error has been corrected

5265: in \art[hep-ph/0108005]{S.~Antusch, M.~Drees, J.~Kersten,

5266: M.~Lindner, M.~Ratz}{\PL}{B519}{238}{2001}.

5267: 

5268: 

5269: \bibitem{Gamma(T)}

5270: Thermal corrections to decay rates have been employed

5271: in \art{D.A. Dicus et al.}{\PR}{D26}{2694}{1982} and formalized in

5272: H.~A.~Weldon, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {28}, 2007 (1983).

5273: 

5274: 

5275: \bibitem{russi}

5276: I.~F.~Ginzburg,

5277: Nucl.\ Phys.\ Proc.\ Suppl.\  {51A} (1996) 85

5278: [hep-ph/9601272];

5279: K.~Melnikov, G.~L.~Kotkin, V.~G.~Serbo,

5280: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {54} (1996) 3289

5281: [hep-ph/9603352].

5282: 

5283: \bibitem{diagrammar}

5284: Diagrammar,

5285: by G. 't Hooft, M.J.G. Veltman,  CERN report 73-9 (1973). 

5286: %	 In Louvain 1973, Particle Interactions At Very High

5287: %	Energies, Part B, New York 1973, 177-322 and CERN Geneva -

5288: %	CERN 73-9 (73,REC.OCT) 114p. 

5289: 

5290: 

5291: 

5292: \end{thebibliography}

5293: \end{multicols}

5294: \end{document}

5295: