1: \documentstyle[prd,aps,preprint,tighten,epsfig]{revtex}
2:
3: \begin{document}
4:
5: \draft
6:
7: \title{Radiative Corrections to Neutrino Mixing and CP Violation \\
8: in the Minimal Seesaw Model with Leptogenesis}
9: \author{{\bf Jian-wei Mei} ~ and ~ {\bf Zhi-zhong Xing}}
10: \address{CCAST (World Laboratory), P.O. Box 8730, Beijing 100080, China \\
11: and Institute of High Energy Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, \\
12: P.O. Box 918 (4), Beijing 100039, China
13: \footnote{Mailing address} \\
14: ({\it Electronic address: jwmei@mail.ihep.ac.cn; xingzz@mail.ihep.ac.cn}) }
15: \maketitle
16:
17: \begin{abstract}
18: Radiative corrections to neutrino mixing and CP violation are analyzed in
19: the minimal seesaw model with two heavy right-handed neutrinos. We find
20: that textures of the effective Majorana neutrino mass matrix
21: are essentially stable against renormalization effects. Taking account
22: of the Frampton-Glashow-Yanagida ansatz for the Dirac neutrino Yukawa
23: coupling matrix, we calculate the running effects of light neutrino
24: masses, lepton flavor mixing angles and CP-violating phases for both
25: $m_1 =0$ (normal mass hierarchy) and $m_3 =0$ (inverted mass hierarchy)
26: cases in the standard model and in its minimal supersymmetric extension.
27: Very instructive predictions for the cosmological baryon number asymmetry
28: via thermal leptogenesis are also given with the help of low-energy
29: neutrino mixing quantities.
30: \end{abstract}
31:
32: \pacs{PACS number(s): 14.60.Pq, 13.10.+q, 25.30.Pt}
33:
34: \newpage
35:
36: \section{Introduction}
37:
38: In the standard model (SM), lepton number conservation is assumed
39: and neutrinos are exactly massless Weyl particles. However, the recent
40: Super-Kamiokande \cite{SK}, SNO \cite{SNO}, KamLAND \cite{KM} and
41: K2K \cite{K2K} experiments have provided us with very compelling evidence
42: that neutrinos are actually massive and lepton flavors are mixed. The most
43: economical modification of the SM, which can
44: both accommodate neutrino masses and allow lepton number violation to
45: explain the cosmological baryon asymmetry via leptogenesis \cite{FY},
46: is to introduce two heavy right-handed neutrinos $N_{1,2}$ and
47: keep the Lagrangian of electroweak interactions invariant under
48: $\rm SU(2)_L \times U(1)_Y$ gauge
49: transformation \cite{FGY,Tanimoto,GX03,MSM}
50: In this case, the Yukawa interactions of leptons are described by
51: \begin{equation}
52: -{\cal L}_{\rm Y(SM)} \; =\; \bar{l}_{\rm L} Y_l e^{~}_{\rm R} H
53: + \bar{l}_{\rm L} Y_\nu \nu^{~}_{\rm R} H^{\rm c} +
54: \frac{1}{2} \overline{\nu^{\rm c}_{\rm R}} M_{\rm R} \nu^{~}_{\rm R}
55: + {\rm h.c.} \; ,
56: % (1)
57: \end{equation}
58: where $l_{\rm L}$ denotes the left-handed lepton doublet; $e^{~}_{\rm R}$
59: and $\nu^{~}_{\rm R}$ stand respectively for the right-handed charged
60: lepton and Majorana neutrino singlets; and $H$ is the Higgs-boson
61: weak isodoublet (with $H^{\rm c} \equiv i\sigma^{~}_2 H^*$). If the
62: minimal supersymmetric standard model (MSSM) is taken into account,
63: one may similarly write out the Yukawa interactions of leptons:
64: \begin{equation}
65: -{\cal L}_{\rm Y(MSSM)} \; =\; \bar{l}_{\rm L} Y_l e^{~}_{\rm R} H_1
66: + \bar{l}_{\rm L} Y_\nu \nu^{~}_{\rm R} H_2 +
67: \frac{1}{2} \overline{\nu^{\rm c}_{\rm R}} M_{\rm R} \nu^{~}_{\rm R}
68: + {\rm h.c.} \; ,
69: % (2)
70: \end{equation}
71: where $H_{1,2}$ (with hypercharges $\pm 1/2$) are the MSSM Higgs doublets.
72:
73: Without loss of generality, both the heavy Majorana
74: neutrino mass matrix $M_{\rm R}$ and the charged-lepton Yukawa
75: coupling matrix $Y_l$ can be taken to be diagonal, real and positive.
76: In this specific flavor basis, the Dirac neutrino Yukawa coupling matrix
77: $Y_\nu$ is a complex $3\times 2$ rectangular matrix:
78: \begin{equation}
79: Y_\nu \; =\; \left ( \matrix{
80: a_1 & a_2 \cr
81: b_1 & b_2 \cr
82: c_1 & c_2 \cr} \right ) \; .
83: % (3)
84: \end{equation}
85: Below the mass scale of the lightest right-handed neutrino $N_1$
86: (denoted as $M_1$), $M_{\rm R}$ can be integrated out of the theory.
87: Such a treatment corresponds to a replacement of
88: the last two terms in ${\cal L}_{\rm Y}$ by a dimension-5 operator,
89: whose coupling matrix takes the seesaw \cite{SS} form
90: \begin{eqnarray}
91: \kappa^{~} (M_1) \; = \; Y_\nu M^{-1}_{\rm R} Y^T_\nu
92: \; =\; \left ( \matrix{
93: \displaystyle\frac{a^2_1}{M_1} &
94: \displaystyle\frac{a_1 b_1}{M_1} &
95: \displaystyle\frac{a_1 c_1}{M_1} \cr\cr
96: \displaystyle\frac{a_1 b_1}{M_1} &
97: \displaystyle\frac{b^2_1}{M_1} &
98: \displaystyle\frac{b_1 c_1}{M_1} \cr\cr
99: \displaystyle\frac{a_1 c_1}{M_1} &
100: \displaystyle\frac{b_1 c_1}{M_1} &
101: \displaystyle\frac{c^2_1}{M_1} \cr}
102: \right ) +
103: \left ( \matrix{
104: \displaystyle\frac{a^2_2}{M_2} &
105: \displaystyle\frac{a_2 b_2}{M_2} &
106: \displaystyle\frac{a_2 c_2}{M_2} \cr\cr
107: \displaystyle\frac{a_2 b_2}{M_2} &
108: \displaystyle\frac{b^2_2}{M_2} &
109: \displaystyle\frac{b_2 c_2}{M_2} \cr\cr
110: \displaystyle\frac{a_2 c_2}{M_2} &
111: \displaystyle\frac{b_2 c_2}{M_2} &
112: \displaystyle\frac{c^2_2}{M_2} \cr}
113: \right ) \; .
114: % (4)
115: \end{eqnarray}
116: It has been shown that ${\rm Det}[\kappa^{~} (M_1)] =0$
117: holds for arbitrary $a_i$, $b_i$ and $c_i$ \cite{X03}.
118: This is a very special feature of the minimal seesaw model.
119:
120: After spontaneous gauge symmetry breaking, the neutral component of
121: $H$ acquires the vacuum expectation value $v \approx 174$ GeV. Then
122: one obtains the charged lepton mass matrix $M_l = v Y_l (M_Z)$ and
123: the light (left-handed) Majorana neutrino mass matrix
124: $M_\nu = v^2 \kappa (M_Z)$ at the electroweak scale $\mu = M_Z$
125: in the SM. The neutral
126: components of $H_1$ and $H_2$ may similarly acquire the vacuum
127: expectation values $v\cos\beta$ and $v\sin\beta$ at the electroweak
128: symmetry breaking scale. It turns out that
129: $M_l = v\cos\beta Y_l (M_Z)$ and
130: $M_\nu = v^2 \sin^2\beta \kappa (M_Z)$ in the MSSM. Note that
131: $\kappa (M_Z)$ and $\kappa (M_1)$ can be related to each other via
132: the following one-loop renormalization-group equation (RGE) \cite{RGE}:
133: \begin{equation}
134: 16\pi^2 \frac{{\rm d} \kappa}{{\rm d} t} \; = \;
135: \alpha \kappa + C \left [ \left (Y_l Y^\dagger_l \right ) \kappa
136: + \kappa \left (Y_l Y^\dagger_l \right )^T \right ] \; ,
137: % (5)
138: \end{equation}
139: where $t = \ln (\mu/M_1)$ with $\mu$ being the renormalization
140: scale. In the SM \cite{RGE1} or in its minimal supersymmetric
141: extension \cite{RGE2},
142: \begin{eqnarray}
143: C_{\rm SM} & = & -\frac{3}{2} \; ,
144: \nonumber \\
145: \alpha^{~}_{\rm SM} & = & -3g^2_2 + 6 f^2_t + \lambda \; ~~~~~~~
146: % (6)
147: \end{eqnarray}
148: or
149: \begin{eqnarray}
150: C_{\rm MSSM} & = & 1 \; ,
151: \nonumber \\
152: \alpha^{~}_{\rm MSSM} & = & -\frac{6}{5} g^2_1 - 6g^2_2 + 6 f^2_t \; ,
153: % (7)
154: \end{eqnarray}
155: where $g^{~}_{1,2}$ denote the gauge couplings, $f_t$ denotes
156: the top-quark Yukawa coupling, and $\lambda$ denotes the
157: Higgs self-coupling in the SM
158: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
159: \footnote{In the expression of $\alpha^{~}_{\rm SM}$, we have neglected
160: very small contributions from the lighter quarks and charged leptons.
161: Similarly, the up- and charm-quark Yukawa couplings have been neglected
162: in the expression of $\alpha^{~}_{\rm MSSM}$.}.
163: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
164: If $M_1 \gg M_Z$ holds, some deviation of $\kappa (M_Z)$ from
165: $\kappa (M_1)$ must take place.
166:
167: Apparently, it is $\kappa (M_Z)$ or $M_\nu$
168: that governs the low-energy phenomenology of neutrino masses and
169: lepton flavor mixing, because $Y_l$ keeps diagonal in the RGE running
170: from $M_1$ to $M_Z$. In all recent analyses of the minimal seesaw
171: model \cite{FGY,Tanimoto,GX03,MSM}, however, the quantum corrections
172: to $\kappa$ at the electroweak scale have been neglected for the sake
173: of simplicity and illustration. The importance of RGE effects on the
174: evaluation of baryogenesis via leptogenesis in the {\it bottom-up}
175: approach (i.e., from low energies to the mass scale of heavy
176: right-handed neutrinos) has been pointed out by some authors \cite{L},
177: but a careful analysis of such effects in the minimal seesaw model
178: has not been done.
179:
180: The purpose of this paper is to examine the stability of $\kappa$ against
181: radiative corrections in the minimal seesaw model.
182: We find that the texture of $\kappa$ is essentially
183: stable in the RGE evolution from $M_1$ to $M_Z$. To be specific, we
184: calculate the running effects of neutrino masses, lepton flavor mixing
185: angles and CP-violating phases by taking account of the
186: Frampton-Glashow-Yanagida (FGY) ansatz for $Y_\nu$ \cite{FGY}.
187: The cosmological baryon number asymmetry via leptogenesis is also
188: calculated at the scale $\mu = M_1$ with the help of
189: low-energy neutrino mixing quantities.
190:
191: \section{RGE running effects from $M_1$ to $M_Z$}
192:
193: In the flavor basis chosen above, one may simplify the RGE in Eq. (5)
194: and get the radiative corrections to $\kappa$ at $M_Z$. Let us define
195: the evolution functions
196: \begin{eqnarray}
197: I_\alpha & = & \exp \left [- \frac{1}{16\pi^2} \int^{\ln (M_1/M_Z)}_0
198: \alpha (t) ~ {\rm d} t \right ] \; ,
199: \nonumber \\
200: I^{~}_l & = & \exp \left [- \frac{C}{16\pi^2} \int^{\ln (M_1/M_Z)}_0
201: f^2_l (t) ~ {\rm d} t \right ] \; ,
202: % (8)
203: \end{eqnarray}
204: where $f^{~}_l$ (for $l=e,\mu,\tau$) denote the Yukawa coupling
205: eigenvalues of charged leptons. Then we solve Eq. (5) and arrive at
206: \begin{equation}
207: \kappa (M_Z) \; =\; I_\alpha
208: \left ( \matrix{
209: I_e & 0 & 0 \cr
210: 0 & I_\mu & 0 \cr
211: 0 & 0 & I_\tau \cr} \right )
212: \kappa (M_1)
213: \left ( \matrix{
214: I_e & 0 & 0 \cr
215: 0 & I_\mu & 0 \cr
216: 0 & 0 & I_\tau \cr} \right ) \; .
217: % (9)
218: \end{equation}
219: The overall factor $I_\alpha$ only affects the magnitudes of light
220: neutrino masses, while $I^{~}_l$ (for $l=e,\mu,\tau$) can modify
221: both neutrino masses and lepton flavor mixing parameters
222: \cite{Ellis}. The strong mass hierarchy of three charged leptons
223: (i.e., $f_e < f_\mu < f_\tau$) implies that $I_e < I_\mu < I_\tau$
224: (SM) or $I_e > I_\mu > I_\tau$ (MSSM) holds below the scale $M_1$
225: .
226:
227: Two comments on the consequences of Eq. (9) are in order.
228:
229: (1) The determinant of $\kappa$, which vanishes at the scale $M_1$,
230: keeps vanishing at the scale $M_Z$. This point can clearly be seen from
231: the relation
232: \begin{equation}
233: {\rm Det}[\kappa (M_Z)] \; =\; I^3_\alpha I^2_e I^2_\mu I^2_\tau ~
234: {\rm Det}[\kappa (M_1)] \; .
235: % (10)
236: \end{equation}
237: Because of $\left |{\rm Det}[\kappa (M_Z)] \right | = m_1 m_2 m_3$,
238: where $m_i$ (for $i=1,2,3$) denote the masses of three light neutrinos,
239: one may conclude that one of the three neutrino masses must vanish.
240: Considering that $m_2 > m_1$ is required by current solar neutrino
241: oscillation data \cite{SNO}, we are left with either $m_1=0$ (normal
242: mass hierarchy) or $m_3 =0$ (inverted mass hierarchy).
243:
244: (2) Comparing between Eqs. (4) and (9), we find that the radiative
245: correction to $\kappa$ can effectively be expressed as the RGE running
246: effects in $a_i$, $b_i$ and $c_i$ of $Y_\nu$ (in the assumption that
247: $M_1$ keeps unchanged):
248: \begin{eqnarray}
249: a_i (M_Z) & = & I_e \sqrt{I_\alpha} ~ a_i (M_1) \; ,
250: \nonumber \\
251: b_i (M_Z) & = & I_\mu \sqrt{I_\alpha} ~ b_i (M_1) \; ,
252: \nonumber \\
253: c_i (M_Z) & = & I_\tau \sqrt{I_\alpha} ~ c_i (M_1) \; ,
254: % (11)
255: \end{eqnarray}
256: where $i=1$ or $2$. These simple relations imply that possible texture
257: zeros of $\kappa$ at $M_1$ remain the same at $M_Z$,
258: at least at the one-loop level of RGE evolution. Hence the texture
259: of $\kappa$ is essentially stable against quantum corrections from
260: $M_1$ to $M_Z$.
261:
262: For illustration, we typically take $m_t (M_Z) \approx 181$ GeV \cite{Koide}
263: to calculate the evolution functions $I_\alpha$ and $I^{~}_l$ (for
264: $l=e,\mu,\tau$). It is found that $I_e \approx I_\mu \approx 1$ is an
265: excellent approximation both in the SM and in the MSSM. Thus the RGE
266: running of $\kappa$ is mainly governed by $I_\alpha$ and $I_\tau$.
267: The behaviors of $I_\alpha$ and $I_\tau$ changing with $M_1$ are shown
268: in Fig. 1. One can see that $I_\tau \approx 1$ is also a good
269: approximation, in particular in the SM. Hence the evolution of light
270: neutrino masses must be dominated by $I_\alpha$, which may significantly
271: deviate from unity in the SM with reasonable values of the Higgs mass
272: $m^{~}_H$ and in the MSSM with large values of $\tan\beta$.
273:
274: The effect of $I_\tau$ in the running of $\kappa$ will certainly lead to the
275: evolution of the lepton flavor mixing matrix $V$. At the electroweak scale,
276: $V$ is defined to diagonalize the neutrino mass matrix
277: $M_\nu$ in the chosen flavor basis; i.e.,
278: $V^\dagger M_\nu V^* = {\rm Diag} \{m_1, m_2, m_3 \}$. A commonly-used
279: parametrization of $V$ is
280: \begin{equation}
281: V \; = \; \left ( \matrix{
282: c_x c_z & s_x c_z & s_z \cr
283: - c_x s_y s_z - s_x c_y e^{-i\delta} &
284: - s_x s_y s_z + c_x c_y e^{-i\delta} &
285: s_y c_z \cr
286: - c_x c_y s_z + s_x s_y e^{-i\delta} &
287: - s_x c_y s_z - c_x s_y e^{-i\delta} &
288: c_y c_z \cr } \right )
289: \left ( \matrix{
290: e^{i\rho} & 0 & 0 \cr
291: 0 & e^{i\sigma} & 0 \cr
292: 0 & 0 & 1 \cr} \right ) \; ,
293: % (12)
294: \end{equation}
295: where $s_x \equiv \sin\theta_x$, $c_x \equiv \cos\theta_x$, and so
296: on. The Dirac phase $\delta$ measures CP violation in normal
297: neutrino oscillations, while the Majorana phases $\rho$ and
298: $\sigma$ are relevant to the neutrinoless double beta decay
299: \cite{FX01}. Current data on solar, atmospheric and reactor
300: neutrino oscillations yield $\theta_x \approx 32^\circ$ and
301: $\theta_y \approx 45^\circ$ (best-fit values \cite{FIT}) as well
302: as $\theta_z < 12^\circ$ \cite{CHOOZ}. The typical mass-squared
303: differences of solar and atmospheric neutrino oscillations read as
304: $\Delta m^2_{\rm sun} \equiv m^2_2 - m^2_1 \approx 7.13 \times
305: 10^{-5} ~{\rm eV}^2$ and $\Delta m^2_{\rm atm} \equiv |m^2_3 -
306: m^2_2| \approx 2.6 \times 10^{-3} ~{\rm eV}^2$ (best-fit values
307: \cite{FIT}), respectively. Following Ref. \cite{Casas} and Ref.
308: \cite{Lindner}, one may derive the RGEs of $(m_1, m_2, m_3)$,
309: $(\theta_x, \theta_y, \theta_z)$ and $(\delta,\rho, \sigma)$ with
310: the help of Eq. (5). The relevant analytical results can
311: considerably be simplified, if the smallness of $s_z$ and $\Delta
312: m^2_{\rm sun}/\Delta m^2_{\rm atm}$ is taken into account. It
313: should be noted that the parametrization of $V$ used here is
314: somehow different from that taken in Ref. \cite{Lindner}. To be
315: complete and explicit, we present our approximate analytical
316: expressions of $(\dot{m}_1, \dot{m}_2, \dot{m}_3)$,
317: $(\dot{\theta}_x, \dot{\theta}_y, \dot{\theta}_z)$ and
318: $(\dot{\delta},\dot{\rho}, \dot{\sigma})$ in Appendix A. Because
319: $m_1 =0$ or $m_3 =0$ must hold in the minimal seesaw model under
320: consideration, it is actually possible to obtain much simpler
321: results from Eqs. (A1)--(A4).
322:
323: \section{FGY ansatz and radiative corrections}
324:
325: The minimal seesaw model itself has no restriction on the structure
326: of $Y_\nu$. In Ref. \cite{FGY}, Frampton, Glashow and Yanagida (FGY)
327: have conjectured that $Y_\nu$ may have two texture zeros:
328: $a_2 = c_1 =0$ or $a_2 = b_1 =0$, which could stem from an underlying
329: horizontal flavor symmetry. The texture of $\kappa (M_1)$ in Eq. (4)
330: can then be simplified:
331: \begin{equation}
332: \kappa (M_1) \; =\; \left ( \matrix{
333: \displaystyle \frac{a^2_1}{M_1} &
334: \displaystyle \frac{a_1 b_1}{M_1} &
335: {\bf 0} \cr\cr
336: \displaystyle \frac{a_1 b_1}{M_1} &
337: \displaystyle \frac{b^2_1}{M_1} + \frac{b^2_2}{M_2} &
338: \displaystyle \frac{b_2 c_2}{M_2} \cr\cr
339: {\bf 0} &
340: \displaystyle \frac{b_2 c_2}{M_2} &
341: \displaystyle \frac{c^2_2}{M_2} \cr} \right ) \;
342: % (13)
343: \end{equation}
344: in the $a_2 = c_1 =0$ case; or
345: \begin{equation}
346: \kappa (M_1) \; =\; \left ( \matrix{
347: \displaystyle \frac{a^2_1}{M_1} &
348: {\bf 0} &
349: \displaystyle \frac{a_1 c_1}{M_1} \cr\cr
350: {\bf 0} &
351: \displaystyle \frac{b^2_2}{M_2} &
352: \displaystyle \frac{b_2 c_2}{M_2} \cr\cr
353: \displaystyle \frac{a_1 c_1}{M_1} &
354: \displaystyle \frac{b_2 c_2}{M_2} &
355: \displaystyle \frac{c^2_1}{M_1} + \frac{c^2_2}{M_2} \cr} \right ) \;
356: % (14)
357: \end{equation}
358: in the $a_2 = b_1 = 0$ case. Note that the $a_1 = c_2 = 0$ and
359: $a_1 = b_2 = 0$ cases are respectively equivalent to the
360: $a_2 = c_1 = 0$ and $a_2 = b_1 = 0$ cases in phenomenology. Note
361: also that the $b_2 = c_1 = 0$ (or $b_1 = c_2 = 0$) case, in which
362: the (2,3) and (3,2) matrix elements of $\kappa (M_1)$ vanish,
363: is not favored by current neutrino oscillation data \cite{X03} and
364: will not be taken into account in the subsequent discussions. In
365: addition, the two instructive patterns of $\kappa (M_1)$ in Eqs. (13) and
366: (14) are expected to have very similar consequences on neutrino masses,
367: lepton flavor mixing angles and CP-violating phases at low-energy scales
368: (See Ref. \cite{GX03} for some detailed discussions). We shall
369: therefore concentrate only on the FGY ansatz given in Eq. (13) later on.
370:
371: It is worth remarking that $a_1$, $b_{1,2}$ and $c_2$ in Eq. (13)
372: are all complex parameters. Given the specific parametrization of $V$
373: in Eq. (12), it is straightforward to obtain
374: \begin{equation}
375: \kappa (M_Z) \; =\; \frac{M_\nu}{\Omega} \; =\; V \left ( \matrix{
376: \displaystyle\frac{m_1}{\Omega} & 0 & 0 \cr
377: 0 & \displaystyle\frac{m_2}{\Omega} & 0 \cr
378: 0 & 0 & \displaystyle\frac{m_3}{\Omega} \cr} \right ) V^T \; ,
379: % (15)
380: \end{equation}
381: where $\Omega \equiv v^2$ in the SM and $\Omega \equiv v^2 \sin^2\beta$
382: in the MSSM. Then the phases of $a_1$, $b_{1,2}$ and $c_2$ can be
383: determined in terms of $\delta$, $\rho$ and $\sigma$.
384: In Refs. \cite{FGY,GX03}, the phase convention
385: $\arg (a_1) = \arg (b_2) = \arg (c_2) =0$ has
386: been taken. We do not adopt this phase convention in the present work.
387: The physical results predicted by the FGY ansatz are certainly
388: independent of any specific phase convention.
389:
390: Note that $\kappa (M_Z)$ takes the same texture as $\kappa (M_1)$,
391: and their corresponding matrix elements are related to each other
392: via Eq. (11). This observation implies
393: that the {\it bottom-up} approach should be more convenient for the
394: numerical evaluation of radiative corrections --- namely, we determine the
395: parameters of the FGY ansatz at low energies by using current neutrino
396: oscillation data, and then run them to the mass scale $M_1$
397: to examine how large the renormalization effects are.
398:
399: \subsection{Normal neutrino mass hierarchy ($m_1 =0$)}
400:
401: It is rather obvious that $m_1 =0$ leads to
402: $m_2 =\sqrt{\Delta m^2_{\rm sun}} \approx 8.4 \times 10^{-3}$ eV and
403: $m_3 =\sqrt{\Delta m^2_{\rm sun} + \Delta m^2_{\rm atm}}
404: \approx 5.2 \times 10^{-2}$ eV. Furthermore, $m_1 =0$ implies that
405: only the Majorana phase $\sigma$ is physically meaningful. Taking
406: account of the texture zero $(M_\nu)_{13} =0$, one can determine
407: both $\delta$ and $\sigma$ in terms of the flavor mixing angles
408: $(\theta_x, \theta_y, \theta_z)$ and the mass ratio
409: $\xi \equiv m_2/m_3 \approx 0.16$ \cite{GX03}:
410: \begin{eqnarray}
411: \delta & = & \arccos \left [ \frac{c^2_y s^2_z - \xi^2 s^2_x
412: \left (c^2_x s^2_y + s^2_x c^2_y s^2_z \right )}{2 \xi^2 s^3_x c_x
413: s_y c_y s_z} \right ] \; ,
414: \nonumber \\
415: \sigma & = & \frac{1}{2} \arctan \left [\frac{c_x s_y \sin\delta}
416: {s_x c_y s_z + c_x s_y \cos\delta} \right ] \; .
417: % (16)
418: \end{eqnarray}
419: Because $|\cos\delta| \leq 1$ must hold, we find that $\theta_z$
420: is restricted to a very narrow range:
421: $4.0^\circ \lesssim \theta_z \lesssim 4.4^\circ$ (i.e.,
422: $0.070 \lesssim s_z \lesssim 0.077$). The implication of this result
423: is that the FGY ansatz with $m_1 =0$ will simply be excluded, if the
424: experimental value of $\theta_z$ does not really lie in the predicted
425: region.
426:
427: As a direct consequence of $m_1 =0$, the RGEs of $m_1$, $m_2$ and $m_3$
428: in Eq. (A1) may be simplified to
429: \begin{eqnarray}
430: \dot{m}_1 & = & 0 \; ,
431: \nonumber \\
432: \dot{m}_2 & \approx & \frac{1}{16 \pi^2} \left( \alpha + 2 C f_\tau^2
433: c_x^2 s_y^2 \right) m_2 \; ,
434: \nonumber \\
435: \dot{m}_3 & \approx & \frac{1}{16 \pi^2} \left( \alpha + 2 C f_\tau^2
436: c_y^2 \right) m_3 \; .
437: % (17)
438: \end{eqnarray}
439: One can see that $m_1 =0$ holds
440: at any energy scale between $M_Z$ and $M_1$, and the running
441: behaviors of $m_2$ and $m_3$ are essentially identical (dominated
442: by the term proportional to $\alpha$). To illustrate,
443: we show the ratio $R \equiv m_2(M_Z)/m_2(M_1)$ changing with
444: $m^{~}_H$ in the SM or with $\tan\beta$ in the MSSM in Fig. 2,
445: where $M_1 = 10^{14}$ GeV is typically taken. It becomes clear that
446: $R_{m_1 =0} \approx I_\alpha$ is an excellent approximation in the
447: SM, and it is also a good approximation in the MSSM.
448:
449: We remark that
450: $m_2/m_3$ is approximately unchanged in the RGE evolution from $M_Z$
451: to $M_1$ --- in other words, $\xi \approx 0.16$ is nearly
452: a constant. It is then possible to simplify the RGEs of
453: $(\theta_x, \theta_y, \theta_z)$ and $(\delta, \sigma)$ in
454: Eqs. (A2) and (A3) up to ${\cal O}(\xi)$ or ${\cal O}(s_z)$:
455: \begin{eqnarray}
456: \dot{\theta}_x & \approx & - \frac{C f_\tau^2}{16 \pi^2} s_x c_x s_y^2 \; ,
457: \nonumber \\
458: \dot{\theta}_y & \approx & - \frac{C f_\tau^2}{16 \pi^2} s_y c_y
459: \left (1 + 2 \xi c_x^2 \cos \delta \right ) \; ,
460: \nonumber \\
461: \dot{\theta}_z & \approx & - \frac{C f_\tau^2}{8 \pi^2} \xi s_x c_x s_y
462: c_y \; ;
463: % (18)
464: \end{eqnarray}
465: and
466: \begin{eqnarray}
467: \dot{\sigma} & \approx & \frac{C f_\tau^2}{8 \pi^2} \left (s_x c_x s_y
468: c_y \frac{\xi}{s_z} \right ) \xi \sin \delta \; ,
469: \nonumber \\
470: \dot{\delta} & \approx & \frac{C f_\tau^2}{8 \pi^2}
471: \left [s_x c_x s_y c_y \frac{\xi}{s_z} + c^2_x \left( c_y^2 - s_y^2 \right)
472: \right] \xi \sin\delta \; .
473: % (19)
474: \end{eqnarray}
475: In obtaining Eqs. (18) and (19), we have considered the fact that
476: $\xi \sim 2 s_z$ holds at $M_Z$. One can see that the running effects
477: of three mixing angles and two CP-violating phases are all governed by
478: $f^2_\tau$. Because of $f^2_\tau \approx 10^{-4}$ in the SM, the
479: evolution of $(\theta_x, \theta_y, \theta_z)$ and $(\sigma, \delta)$
480: is negligibly small. When $\tan\beta$ is sufficiently large (e.g.,
481: $\tan\beta \sim 50$) in the MSSM, however,
482: $f^2_\tau \approx 10^{-4} /\cos^2\beta$ can be of ${\cal O}(0.1)$ and
483: even close to unity --- in this case, some small variation of
484: $(\theta_x, \theta_y, \theta_z)$ and $(\sigma, \delta)$ due to the RGE
485: running from $M_Z$ to $M_1$ will appear. Let us define
486: $\Delta \theta_i \equiv \theta_i (M_1) - \theta_i (M_Z)$
487: (for $i=x,y,z$),
488: $\Delta \delta \equiv \delta (M_1) - \delta (M_Z)$ and
489: $\Delta \sigma \equiv \sigma (M_1) - \sigma (M_Z)$.
490: The numerical results of $\Delta \theta_i/\theta_i (M_Z)$,
491: $\Delta \delta/\delta (M_Z)$ and $\Delta \sigma/\sigma (M_Z)$
492: are shown in Fig. 3 for the MSSM with different values of $M_1$ and
493: $\tan\beta$. We see that the ratio $\Delta \theta_z/\theta_z (M_Z)$
494: is most sensitive to the RGE running, but its magnitude is less than
495: $10\%$ even if $M_1 = 10^{14}$ GeV and $\tan\beta = 50$ are taken.
496: Thus we conclude that the RGE effects on three flavor mixing angles
497: and two CP-violating phases are practically negligible in the FGY
498: ansatz with $m_1 =0$.
499:
500: \subsection{Inverted neutrino mass hierarchy ($m_3 =0$)}
501:
502: If $m_3 =0$ holds, we will arrive at
503: $m_1 =\sqrt{\Delta m^2_{\rm atm} - \Delta m^2_{\rm sun}}
504: \approx 5.0 \times 10^{-2}$ eV and $m_2 =\sqrt{\Delta m^2_{\rm atm}}
505: \approx 5.1 \times 10^{-2}$ eV. In this case, only the difference of
506: two Majorana CP-violating phases $\sigma -\rho \equiv \sigma'$
507: is physically meaningful. Again, the texture zero $(M_\nu)_{13} =0$
508: allows us to determine $\delta$ and $\sigma'$ in terms of
509: the flavor mixing angles $(\theta_x, \theta_y, \theta_z)$ and the mass
510: ratio $\zeta \equiv m_1/m_2 \approx 0.98$ \cite{GX03}:
511: \begin{eqnarray}
512: \delta & = & \arccos \left [ \frac{\left (\zeta^2 c^4_x -
513: s^4_x \right ) c^2_y s^2_z + \left (\zeta^2 - 1 \right ) s^2_x
514: c^2_x s^2_y}{2 s_x c_x \left (s^2_x + \zeta^2 c^2_x \right )
515: s_y c_y s_z} \right ] \; ,
516: \nonumber \\
517: \sigma' & = & -\frac{1}{2}
518: \arctan \left [\frac{s_y c_y s_z \sin\delta}
519: {s_x c_x \left (s^2_y - c^2_y s^2_z \right ) +
520: \left (s^2_x - c^2_x \right ) s_y c_y s_z \cos\delta} \right ] \; .
521: % (20)
522: \end{eqnarray}
523: Different from the $m_1 =0$ case, $|\cos\delta| \leq 1$ does not
524: impose significant constraints on the magnitude of $\theta_z$
525: via Eq. (20), except that it requires
526: $\theta_z > 0.36^\circ$ \cite{GX03}. Hence the FGY ansatz with $m_3 =0$
527: is not very sensitive to the measurement of $\theta_z$.
528:
529: As a straightforward consequence of $m_3 =0$, the RGEs of $m_1$,
530: $m_2$ and $m_3$ in Eq. (A1) can be simplified to
531: \begin{eqnarray}
532: \dot{m}_1 & \approx & \frac{1}{16 \pi^2} \left (\alpha + 2 C f_\tau^2
533: s_x^2 s_y^2 \right ) m_1 \; ,
534: \nonumber \\
535: \dot{m}_2 & \approx & \frac{1}{16 \pi^2} \left (\alpha + 2 C f_\tau^2
536: c_x^2 s_y^2 \right ) m_2 \; ,
537: \nonumber \\
538: \dot{m}_3 & = & 0 \; .
539: % (21)
540: \end{eqnarray}
541: Again, $m_3 =0$ holds at any
542: energy scale between $M_Z$ and $M_1$; and the running behaviors of
543: $m_1$ and $m_2$ are essentially the same. Fig. 2 illustrates the
544: ratio $R \equiv m_2(M_Z)/m_2(M_1)$ as a function of $m^{~}_H$
545: in the SM or of $\tan\beta$ in the MSSM. We see that
546: $R_{m_3 =0} \approx R_{m_1 =0} \approx I_\alpha$ holds to an
547: excellent degree of accuracy in the SM and to a good degree of
548: accuracy in the MSSM. These numerical results confirm that the
549: evolution of three neutrino masses is dominated by $I_\alpha$,
550: as observed in section II.
551:
552: While $\zeta$ is approximately a constant in the RGE running
553: from $M_Z$ to $M_1$, it is not small. In this case, we simplify
554: Eqs. (A2) and (A3) up to ${\cal O}(s_z)$ so as to get the
555: leading-order RGEs of $(\theta_x, \theta_y, \theta_z)$ and
556: $(\delta, \sigma')$ as follows:
557: \begin{eqnarray}
558: \dot{\theta}_x & \approx & - \frac{C f_\tau^2}{16 \pi^2}
559: \left( \frac{ 1 + \zeta^2 + 2 \zeta \cos 2 \sigma'}
560: {1 - \zeta^2} \right) s_x c_x s_y^2 \; ,
561: \nonumber \\
562: \dot{\theta}_y & \approx & \frac{C f_\tau^2}{16 \pi^2}
563: s_y c_y \; ,
564: \nonumber \\
565: \dot{\theta}_z & \approx & \frac{C f_\tau^2}{16 \pi^2} c_y^2 s_z \; ;
566: % (22)
567: \end{eqnarray}
568: and
569: \begin{eqnarray}
570: \dot{\sigma}' & \approx & \frac{C f_\tau^2}{8 \pi^2}
571: \left ( \frac{c_x^2 - s_x^2}{1 - \zeta^2} \right )
572: \zeta s^2_y \sin 2 \sigma' \; ,
573: \nonumber \\
574: \dot{\delta} & \approx & \frac{C f_\tau^2}{8 \pi^2}
575: \left (\frac{1}{1 - \zeta^2} \right )
576: \zeta s_y^2 \sin 2 \sigma' \; .
577: % (23)
578: \end{eqnarray}
579: Unlike the $m_1 =0$ case, the RGE running effects of $\theta_x$,
580: $\delta$ and $\sigma'$ are enhanced by a factor
581: $1/(1-\zeta^2) \approx 25$ in the $m_3 =0$ case. One might
582: naively expect that the magnitudes of
583: $\Delta \theta_x \equiv \theta_x (M_1) - \theta_x (M_Z)$,
584: $\Delta \delta \equiv \delta (M_1) - \delta (M_Z)$ and
585: $\Delta \sigma' \equiv \sigma' (M_1) -
586: \sigma' (M_Z)$ are appreciable. Because of
587: $\sin \sigma' \sim {\cal O}(s_z)$,
588: however, $\dot{\delta}$ and $\dot{\sigma}'$ in
589: Eq. (23) are actually suppressed. Therefore, only $\theta_x$
590: is likely to be sensitive to the RGE evolution from $M_Z$
591: to $M_1$. We plot the numerical results of
592: $\Delta \theta_i/\theta_i (M_Z)$ (for $i=x,y,z$),
593: $\Delta \delta/\delta (M_Z)$ and
594: $\Delta \sigma'/\sigma' (M_Z)$
595: in Fig. 4 for the SM and in Fig. 5 for the MSSM.
596: One can see that the RGE effects on three flavor mixing angles
597: and two CP-violating phases are negligibly small in the SM,
598: but they may become significant in the MSSM if both $M_1$
599: and $\tan\beta$ are sufficiently large. In the latter case,
600: $\theta_x (M_1)$ is even possible to approach zero --- this
601: point has indeed been observed by some authors beyond the
602: minimal seesaw model \cite{ThetaX}. We conclude that the
603: near degeneracy between $m_1$ and $m_2$ in the $m_3 =0$
604: case may give rise to significant RGE running effects on
605: the mixing angle $\theta_x$ in the MSSM, and the evolution
606: of CP-violating phases $\delta$ and $\sigma'$
607: can also be appreciable if both $M_1$ and $\tan\beta$ take
608: properly large values.
609:
610: \section{Cosmological baryon number asymmetry}
611:
612: Lepton number violation induced by the third term of
613: ${\cal L}_{\rm Y}$ in Eq. (1) or Eq. (2) allows decays of
614: the heavy Majorana neutrinos $N_i$
615: (for $i=1$ and 2) to happen: $N_i \rightarrow l + h$ and
616: $N_i \rightarrow \bar{l} + h^{\rm c}$, where $h = H$ in the SM or
617: $h = H^{\rm c}_2$ in the MSSM. Because each decay mode occurs at
618: both tree and one-loop levels (via the self-energy and vertex
619: corrections), the interference between these two decay amplitudes may
620: result in a CP-violating asymmetry $\varepsilon_i$ between
621: $N_i \rightarrow l + h$ and its $CP$-conjugated process \cite{FY}.
622: If the masses of $N_1$ and $N_2$ are hierarchical
623: (i.e., $M_1 \ll M_2$), the interactions of $N_1$ can be in thermal
624: equilibrium when $N_2$ decays. The asymmetry $\varepsilon_2$
625: is therefore erased before $N_1$ decays, and only the asymmetry
626: $\varepsilon_1$ produced by the out-of-equilibrium decay
627: of $N_1$ survives. In the flavor basis chosen above, we have
628: \begin{eqnarray}
629: \varepsilon_1 & \equiv & \frac{\Gamma (N_1 \rightarrow l + h)
630: ~ - ~ \Gamma (N_1 \rightarrow \bar{l} + h^{\rm c})}
631: {\Gamma (N_1 \rightarrow l + h)
632: ~ + ~ \Gamma (N_1 \rightarrow \bar{l} + h^{\rm c})}
633: \nonumber \\
634: & \approx & \frac{C'}{8\pi} \cdot \frac{M_1}{M_2} \cdot
635: \frac{{\rm Im} \left [ (Y^\dagger_\nu Y_\nu)_{12} \right ]^2}
636: {(Y^\dagger_\nu Y_\nu)_{11}} \;\; ,
637: % (24)
638: \end{eqnarray}
639: where $C'_{\rm SM} = -3/2$ and $C'_{\rm MSSM} = -3$ \cite{R}.
640: Taking account of Eq. (3) with $a_2 = c_1 =0$, we immediately
641: arrive at
642: \begin{eqnarray}
643: (Y^\dagger_\nu Y_\nu)_{11} & = & |a_1(M_1)|^2 + |b_1(M_1)|^2
644: \nonumber \\
645: & \approx & \frac{1}{I_\alpha} \left [ |a_1(M_Z)|^2 + |b_1 (M_Z)|^2
646: \right ] \; ,
647: \nonumber \\
648: (Y^\dagger_\nu Y_\nu)_{12} & = & b^*_1(M_1) \cdot b_2(M_1)
649: \nonumber \\
650: & \approx & \frac{1}{I_\alpha} \left [ b^*_1(M_Z) \cdot b_2(M_Z)
651: \right ] \; ,
652: % (25)
653: \end{eqnarray}
654: where $I_e \approx I_\mu \approx 1$ has been used as an excellent
655: approximation.
656:
657: In the literature, $\varepsilon_1$ was calculated by neglecting
658: the RGE running effects of neutrino masses, lepton flavor mixing
659: angles and CP-violating phases from $M_Z$ to $M_1$ (i.e.,
660: $I_\alpha \approx 1$ was naively taken). Such an oversimplification
661: leads to the CP-violating asymmetry
662: \begin{equation}
663: \hat{\varepsilon}_1 \; \approx \;
664: \frac{C'}{8\pi \Omega} \cdot
665: \frac{\displaystyle M_1 |(M_\nu)_{12}|^2 |(M_\nu)_{23}|^2}
666: {\displaystyle \left [ |(M_\nu)_{11}|^2 + |(M_\nu)_{12}|^2 \right ]
667: |(M_\nu)_{33}|} \sin\Phi \; ,
668: % (26)
669: \end{equation}
670: where $\Omega = v^2$ (SM) or $\Omega = v^2 \sin^2\beta$ (MSSM),
671: and \cite{GX03}
672: \begin{equation}
673: \Phi \; \approx \; \left \{ \matrix{ \displaystyle \arctan \left (
674: \frac{\xi s^2_x c^2_z \sin 2\sigma}{s^2_z + \xi s^2_x c^2_z \cos
675: 2\sigma} \right ) \; , ~~ (m_1 =0) \; , ~~~ \cr\cr \displaystyle -
676: 2 \delta \; , ~~ (m_3 = 0) \; . ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
677: \cr} \right .
678: % (27)
679: \end{equation}
680: One can see that $\hat{\varepsilon}_1$ is actually independent of $M_2$,
681: as long as $M_2 \gg M_1$ is satisfied. Then it is straightforward to
682: obtain $\varepsilon_1 \approx \hat{\varepsilon}_1/I_\alpha$ at the
683: mass scale $M_1$. Although $I_\alpha$ is always smaller than unity for
684: $M_1 > M_Z$ (as already shown in Fig. 1), it remains of ${\cal O}(1)$
685: only if reasonable values of $M_1$ and $m^{~}_H$ (SM) or
686: $\tan\beta$ (MSSM) are taken. Hence the previously
687: oversimplified approximation $\varepsilon_1 \approx \hat{\varepsilon}_1$
688: is unable to cause any quantitative disaster.
689:
690: A nonvanishing CP-violating asymmetry $\varepsilon_1$ may result in
691: a net lepton number asymmetry $Y_{\rm L} \equiv n^{~}_{\rm L}/{\bf s} =
692: \varepsilon_1 d/g^{~}_*$, where $g^{~}_* = 106.75$ (SM) or 228.75 (MSSM)
693: is an effective number characterizing the relativistic degrees of freedom
694: which contribute to the entropy {\bf s} of the early universe, and $d$
695: accounts for the dilution effects induced by the lepton-number-violating
696: wash-out processes \cite{R}. If the effective neutrino mass parameter
697: $\tilde{m}_1 \equiv (Y^\dagger_\nu Y_\nu)_{11} \Omega/M_1$ \cite{BP}
698: lies in the range
699: $10^{-2} ~ {\rm eV} \leq \tilde{m}_1 \leq 10^3 ~ {\rm eV}$, one may
700: estimate the value of $d$ by using the following approximate
701: formula \cite{Kolb}
702: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
703: \footnote{In view of Eq. (25), we can easily obtain
704: $\tilde{m}_1 (M_1) \approx \tilde{m}_1 (M_Z)/I_\alpha$. It is
705: proper to use $\tilde{m}_1 (M_1)$ instead of
706: $\tilde{m}_1 (M_Z)$ to evaluate the dilution factor $d$ via
707: Eq. (28), but the numerical discrepancy between
708: $\tilde{m}_1 (M_1)$ and $\tilde{m}_1 (M_Z)$ is actually insignificant.}:
709: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
710: \begin{equation}
711: d \; \approx \; 0.3 \left (\frac{10^{-3} ~ {\rm eV}}{\tilde{m}_1} \right )
712: \left [ \ln \left ( \frac{\tilde{m}_1}{10^{-3} ~ {\rm eV}} \right )
713: \right ]^{-0.6} \; . ~~~
714: % (28)
715: \end{equation}
716: The lepton number asymmetry
717: $Y_{\rm L}$ is eventually converted into a net baryon number asymmetry
718: $Y_{\rm B}$ via the nonperturbative sphaleron processes \cite{Kuzmin}:
719: $Y_{\rm B} \equiv n^{~}_{\rm B}/{\bf s} \approx -0.55 Y_{\rm L}$ in the
720: SM or $Y_{\rm B} \equiv n^{~}_{\rm B}/{\bf s} \approx -0.53 Y_{\rm L}$
721: in the MSSM. A generous range
722: $0.7 \times 10^{-10} \lesssim Y_{\rm B} \lesssim 1.0 \times 10^{-10}$
723: has been drawn from the recent WMAP observational data \cite{WMAP}.
724:
725: Clearly $\varepsilon_1$ and $Y_{\rm B}$ involve three free
726: parameters in the SM ($M_1$, $\theta_z$ and $m^{~}_H$) and
727: three free parameters in the MSSM ($M_1$, $\theta_z$ and $\tan\beta$).
728: Note, however, that $I_\alpha$ is not very sensitive to $m^{~}_H$
729: in the SM and its sensitivity to $\tan\beta$ is mild in the MSSM
730: (see Fig. 1 for illustration). Therefore the size of $Y_{\rm B}$
731: calculated at $M_1$ is mainly dependent on how big $M_1$ and $\theta_z$
732: are. The numerical dependence of $Y_{\rm B}$ on $M_1$ and $\theta_z$
733: is illustrated in Fig. 6, where $m^{~}_H = 120$ GeV (SM) and
734: $\tan\beta = 50$ (MSSM) have typically been taken.
735: Some comments are in order.
736:
737: (1) In the $m_1 =0$ case, current observational data of $Y_{\rm B}$
738: require $M_1 > 3.1 \times 10^{10}$ GeV (SM) or
739: $M_1 > 3.4 \times 10^{10}$ GeV (MSSM) for the allowed range of
740: $\theta_z (M_Z)$. Once this mixing angle is precisely measured at
741: low energies, it is possible to fix the ball-park magnitude of
742: $M_1$ in most cases. However, to distinguish between the minimal
743: seesaw SM and its supersymmetric version needs other experimental
744: information (e.g., the MSSM-motivated lepton-flavor-violating
745: processes $\mu \rightarrow e\gamma$, $\tau \rightarrow \mu\gamma$,
746: and so on \cite{Raidal}).
747:
748: (2) In the $m_3 =0$ case, $M_1 > 2.25 \times 10^{13}$ GeV (SM)
749: or $M_1 > 2.5 \times 10^{13}$ GeV (MSSM)
750: is required by current observational
751: data of $Y_{\rm B}$. The magnitude of $Y_{\rm B}$ increases
752: monotonically with $\theta_z (M_Z)$ for any given value of $M_1$.
753: Once $\theta_z$ is measured at low energies, it is possible to
754: determine the rough value of $M_1$. Again, other experimental
755: information is needed in order to distinguish between the minimal
756: seesaw SM and its supersymmetric version.
757:
758: (3) We remark that there is a potential conflict between achieving
759: successful thermal leptogenesis and avoiding overproduction of
760: gravitinos in the minimal seesaw model with supersymmetry \cite{Raidal}.
761: If the mass scale of gravitinos is of ${\cal O}(1)$ TeV, one must
762: have $M_1 \lesssim 10^8$ GeV. This limit is completely disfavored in
763: the FGY ansatz with $M_1 \ll M_2$, because it would lead to
764: $Y_{\rm B} \ll 10^{-10}$. If $M_1$ and $M_2$ were almost degenerate,
765: a special case which has been discussed in Ref. \cite{R},
766: it would be possible to simultaneously accommodate
767: $m^{~}_{\tilde G} \sim {\cal O}(1)$ TeV and $M_1 \lesssim 10^8$ GeV
768: in the generic supergravity models with minimal seesaw and thermal
769: leptogenesis.
770:
771: \section{Summary}
772:
773: We have analyzed the radiative corrections to neutrino mixing and CP
774: violation in the minimal seesaw model with two heavy right-handed
775: neutrinos. It is shown that textures and vanishing eigenvalues
776: of the effective Majorana neutrino mass matrix
777: are essentially stable against renormalization effects. Taking account
778: of the Frampton-Glashow-Yanagida ansatz for the Dirac neutrino Yukawa
779: coupling matrix, we have calculated the RGE running effects of light
780: neutrino masses, lepton flavor mixing angles and CP-violating phases
781: from $M_Z$ to $M_1$ for both $m_1 =0$ and $m_3 =0$ cases in the SM
782: and its minimal supersymmetric extension. We find that such
783: quantum corrections are not always negligible, and they should
784: be taken into consideration in order to quantitatively test the FGY
785: ansatz. We have also discussed thermal leptogenesis in the minimal seesaw
786: model with $M_1 \ll M_2$. Very instructive predictions for the cosmological
787: baryon number asymmetry are obtained with the help of low-energy neutrino
788: mixing quantities. We conclude that a precise measurement of the mixing
789: angle $\theta_z$ in reactor- and accelerator-based neutrino oscillation
790: experiments will be extremely helpful to examine the FGY scenario and other
791: presently viable ans$\rm\ddot{a}$tze of lepton mass matrices.
792:
793: \acknowledgments{
794: We are grateful to W.L. Guo for very useful
795: discussions and helps. This work was supported in
796: part by the National Nature Science Foundation of China.}
797:
798: \newpage
799:
800: \appendix
801: \section{Analytical approximations of the RGEs for neutrino masses
802: and lepton flavor mixing parameters}
803: \setcounter{equation}{0}
804:
805: Following Ref. \cite{Casas} and taking account of $M_\nu = V {\rm
806: Diag}\{m_1, m_2, m_3\} V^T$ with the parametrization of $V$ given
807: in Eq. (12), we have derived the one-loop RGEs of $(m_1, m_2,
808: m_3)$, $(\theta_x, \theta_y, \theta_z)$ and $(\delta, \rho,
809: \sigma)$ with the help of Eq. (5). Our analytical results are
810: consistent with those obtained in Ref. \cite{Lindner}, where a
811: somehow different parametrization of $V$ has been used. For
812: simplicity, only the approximate expressions of $(\dot{m}_1,
813: \dot{m}_2, \dot{m}_3)$, $(\dot{\theta}_x, \dot{\theta}_y,
814: \dot{\theta}_z)$ and $(\dot{\delta}, \dot{\rho}, \dot{\sigma})$ up
815: to ${\cal O}(s_z)$ are presented below.
816:
817: (1) The running of three neutrino masses:
818: \begin{eqnarray}
819: \dot{m}_1 &=& \frac{1}{16 \pi^2} \left[ \alpha + 2 C f_\tau^2
820: \left( s_x^2 s_y^2 + {\cal O} (s_z) \right) \right] m_1 \; ,
821: \nonumber \\
822: \dot{m}_2 &=& \frac{1}{16 \pi^2} \left[ \alpha + 2 C f_\tau^2
823: \left( c_x^2 s_y^2 + {\cal O} (s_z) \right) \right] m_2 \; ,
824: \nonumber \\
825: \dot{m}_3 &=& \frac{1}{16 \pi^2} \left[ \alpha + 2 C f_\tau^2
826: c_y^2 c_z^2 \right] m_3 \; .
827: % (A.1)
828: \end{eqnarray}
829:
830: (2) The running of three lepton flavor mixing angles:
831: \begin{eqnarray}
832: \dot{\theta}_x &=& - \frac{C f_\tau^2}{16 \pi^2} \left[ \frac{
833: m_1^2 + m_2^2 +2 m_1 m_2 \cos 2 (\rho - \sigma) }{m_2^2 -
834: m_1^2} s_x c_x s_y^2 + {\cal O} (s_z) \right] \; ,
835: \nonumber \\
836: \dot{\theta}_y &=& - \frac{C f_\tau^2}{16 \pi^2} \left[
837: \frac{m_2^2 + m_3^2 + 2 m_2 m_3 \cos 2(\delta - \sigma)}{m_3^2 -
838: m_2^2} c^2_x s_y c_y \right .
839: \nonumber \\
840: & & \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \;
841: \left . + \frac{m_1^2 + m_3^2 + 2 m_1 m_3 \cos 2(\delta
842: - \rho) }{m_3^2 - m_1^2} s^2_x s_y c_y + {\cal O} (s_z) \right] \; ,
843: \nonumber \\
844: \dot{\theta}_z &=& - \frac{C f_\tau^2}{16 \pi^2} \left[ \left (
845: \frac{2 m_2 m_3 \cos(\delta - 2 \sigma)} {m_3^2 - m_2^2} - \frac{2
846: m_1 m_3 \cos(\delta - 2 \rho)} {m_3^2 - m_1^2} \right . \right .
847: \nonumber \\
848: & & \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \;
849: \left . \left . + \frac{m_2^2 - m_1^2}{m_3^2 - m_2^2} \cdot
850: \frac{2 m_3^2 \cos \delta}{m_3^2 - m_1^2} \right ) s_x c_x s_y c_y
851: + {\cal O} (s_z) \right] \; .
852: % (A.2)
853: \end{eqnarray}
854:
855: (3) The running of three CP-violating phases:
856: \begin{eqnarray}
857: \dot{\rho} &=& - \frac{C f_\tau^2}{16 \pi^2} \left[ \frac{ A}{
858: s_z} - \frac{2 m_2 m_3 \sin 2 \sigma}{m_3^2 - m_2^2} s_x^2 c_y^2 -
859: \frac{2 m_1 m_3 \sin 2 \rho}{m_3^2 - m_1^2} c_x^2 c_y^2 \right .
860: \nonumber \\
861: & & \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \;
862: \left . + \frac{2 m_1 m_2 \sin 2 (\rho - \sigma)}{m_2^2 - m_1^2} s_x^2
863: s_y^2 + {\cal O} (s_z) \right] \; ,
864: \nonumber \\
865: \dot{\sigma} &=& - \frac{C f_\tau^2}{16 \pi^2} \left[ \frac{ A}{
866: s_z} - \frac{2 m_2 m_3 \sin 2 \sigma}{m_3^2 - m_2^2} s_x^2 c_y^2 -
867: \frac{2 m_1 m_3 \sin 2 \rho}{m_3^2 - m_1^2} c_x^2 c_y^2 \right .
868: \nonumber \\
869: & & \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \;
870: \left . + \frac{2 m_1 m_2 \sin 2(\rho - \sigma)}{m_2^2 -
871: m_1^2} c^2_x s_y^2 + {\cal O} (s_z) \right] \; ,
872: \nonumber \\
873: \dot{\delta} &=& - \frac{C f_\tau^2}{16 \pi^2} \left[ \frac{A}
874: {s_z} + B + {\cal O} (s_z) \right] \; ,
875: % (A.3)
876: \end{eqnarray}
877: where
878: \begin{eqnarray}
879: A &=& s_x c_x s_y c_y \left[ \frac{2 m_2 m_3 \sin (\delta - 2
880: \sigma)}{m_3^2 - m_2^2} - \frac{2 m_1 m_3 \sin (\delta - 2
881: \rho)}{m_3^2 - m_1^2} \right .
882: \nonumber \\
883: & & \; \; \; \; \; \;
884: \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \left . - \frac{m_2^2 - m_1^2}{m_3^2 - m_2^2}
885: \cdot \frac{2 m_3^2 \sin \delta }{m_3^2 - m_1^2} \right] \; ,
886: \nonumber \\
887: B &=& \frac{2 m_1 m_2 s^2_y \sin 2(\rho - \sigma)}{m_2^2 - m_1^2}
888: \nonumber \\
889: & & - \frac{2 m_2 m_3}{m_3^2 - m_2^2} \left [
890: s_x^2 c^2_y \sin 2\sigma + c_x^2 \left (c_y^2 -s_y^2 \right )
891: \sin 2(\delta - \sigma) \right ]
892: \nonumber \\
893: & & - \frac{2 m_1 m_3}{m_3^2 - m_1^2}
894: \left [ c_x^2 c_y^2 \sin 2\rho + s^2_x \left (c_y^2 -s_y^2 \right )
895: \sin 2(\delta - \rho) \right ] \; .
896: \end{eqnarray}
897:
898: \newpage
899:
900: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
901: \bibitem{SK} For a review, see: C.K. Jung, C. McGrew, T. Kajita,
902: and T. Mann, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. {\bf 51}, 451 (2001).
903:
904: \bibitem{SNO} SNO Collaboration, Q.R. Ahmad {\it et al.},
905: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 89}, 011301 (2002); Phys. Rev. Lett.
906: {\bf 89}, 011302 (2002).
907:
908: \bibitem{KM} KamLAND Collaboration, K. Eguchi {\it et al.},
909: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 90}, 021802 (2003).
910:
911: \bibitem{K2K} K2K Collaboration, M.H. Ahn {\it et al.},
912: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 90}, 041801 (2003).
913:
914: \bibitem{FY} M. Fukugita and T. Yanagida,
915: Phys. Lett. B {\bf 174}, 45 (1986).
916:
917: \bibitem{FGY} P.H. Frampton, S.L. Glashow, and T. Yanagida,
918: Phys. Lett. B {\bf 548}, 119 (2002).
919:
920: \bibitem{Tanimoto} T. Endoh, S. Kaneko, S.K. Kang, T. Morozumi,
921: and M. Tanimoto, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 89}, 231601 (2002);
922: R. Kuchimanchi and R.N. Mohapatra, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 66}, 051301 (2002);
923: B. Datta and R.N. Mohapatra, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 68}, 056006 (2003);
924: P. Chankowski and K. Turzynski, hep-ph/0306059;
925: H.K. Dreiner, H. Murayama, and M. Thormeier, hep-ph/0312012.
926:
927: \bibitem{GX03} W.L. Guo and Z.Z. Xing, hep-ph/0310326; to appear in
928: Phys. Lett. B.
929:
930: \bibitem{MSM} M. Raidal and A. Strumia,
931: Phys. Lett. B {\bf 553}, 72 (2003);
932: V. Barger, D.A. Dicus, H.J. He, and T. Li, hep-ph/0310278;
933: R.G. Felipe, F.R. Joaquim, and B.M. Nobre, hep-ph/0311029;
934: A. Ibarra and G.G. Ross, hep-ph/0312138.
935:
936: \bibitem{SS} T. Yanagida, in {\it Proceedings of the Workshop on
937: Unified Theory and the Baryon Number of the Universe}, edited by
938: O. Sawada and A. Sugamoto (KEK, 1979); M. Gell-Mann, P. Ramond, and
939: R. Slansky, in {\it Supergravity}, edited by F. van Nieuwenhuizen
940: and D. Freedman (North Holland, Amsterdam, 1979); R.N. Mohapatra and
941: G. Senjanovic, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 44}, 912 (1980).
942:
943: \bibitem{X03} Z.Z. Xing, hep-ph/0307007; to appear in Phys. Rev. D.
944:
945: \bibitem{RGE} For a review with extensive references, see:
946: P. Chankowski and S. Pokorski,
947: Int. J. Mod. Phys. A {\bf 17}, 575 (2002).
948:
949: \bibitem{RGE1} S. Antusch, M. Drees, J. Kersten, M. Lindner, and
950: M. Ratz, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 519}, 238 (2001).
951:
952: \bibitem{RGE2} P. Chankowski and Z. Pluciennik,
953: Phys. Lett. B {\bf 316}, 312 (1993);
954: K.S. Babu, C.N. Leung, and J. Pantaleone,
955: Phys. Lett. B {\bf 319}, 191 (1993);
956: S. Antusch, M. Drees, J. Kersten, M. Lindner, and M. Ratz,
957: Phys. Lett. B {\bf 525}, 130 (2002).
958:
959: \bibitem{L} R. Barbieri, P. Creminelli, A. Strumia, N. Tetradis,
960: Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 575}, 61 (2000); hep-ph/9911315 (updated version);
961: S. Antusch, J. Kersten, M. Lindner, and M. Ratz,
962: Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 674}, 401 (2003);
963: G.F. Giudice, A. Notari, M. Raidal, A. Riotto, and A. Strumia,
964: hep-ph/0310123.
965:
966: \bibitem{Ellis} J.R. Ellis and S. Lola,
967: Phys. Lett. B {\bf 458}, 310 (1999);
968: Z.Z. Xing, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 63}, 057301 (2001).
969:
970: \bibitem{Koide} H. Fritzsch and Z.Z. Xing,
971: Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. {\bf 45}, 1 (2000);
972: H. Fusaoka and Y. Koide, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 57}, 3986 (1998).
973:
974: \bibitem{FX01} H. Fritzsch and Z.Z. Xing,
975: Phys. Lett. B {\bf 517}, 363 (2001);
976: Z.Z. Xing, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 530}, 159 (2002);
977: hep-ph/0307359.
978:
979: \bibitem{FIT} See, e.g., J.N. Bahcall and C. Pe$\rm\tilde{n}$a-Garay,
980: hep-ph/0305159 (v2);
981: M. Maltoni {\it et al.}, hep-ph/0309130;
982: P.V. de Holanda and A.Yu. Smirnov, hep-ph/0309299; and references therein.
983:
984: \bibitem{CHOOZ} CHOOZ Collaboration, M. Apollonio {\it et al.},
985: Phys. Lett. B {\bf 420}, 397 (1998);
986: Palo Verde Collaboration, F. Boehm {\it et al.},
987: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 84}, 3764 (2000).
988:
989: \bibitem{Casas} J.A. Casas, J.R. Espinosa, A. Ibarra, and
990: I. Navarro, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 573}, 652 (2000); and references therein.
991:
992: \bibitem{Lindner} S. Antusch, J. Kersten, M. Lindner, and M. Ratz,
993: in Ref. \cite{L}.
994:
995: \bibitem{ThetaX} See, e.g., S. Antusch, hep-ph/0208179.
996:
997: \bibitem{R} For recent reviews of leptogenesis with extensive references,
998: see: W. Buchm$\rm\ddot{u}$ller and M. Pl$\rm\ddot{u}$macher,
999: Int. J. Mod. Phys. A {\bf 15}, 5047 (2000);
1000: A. Pilaftsis and T.E.J. Underwood, hep-ph/0309342;
1001: G.F. Giudice, A. Notari, M. Raidal, A. Riotto, and A. Strumia,
1002: in Ref. \cite{L}.
1003:
1004: \bibitem{BP} W. Buchm$\rm\ddot{u}$ller and M. Pl$\rm\ddot{u}$macher,
1005: Phys. Lett. B {\bf 431}, 431 (1998);
1006: W. Buchm$\rm\ddot{u}$ller, P. Di Bari, and
1007: M. Pl$\rm\ddot{u}$macher, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 643}, 367 (2002).
1008:
1009: \bibitem{Kolb} E.W. Kolb and M.S. Turner, {\it The Early Universe},
1010: Addison-Wesley (1990);
1011: H.B. Nielsen and Y. Takanishi, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 507}, 241 (2001);
1012: E.Kh. Akhmedov, M. Frigerio, and A.Yu. Smirnov, JHEP {\bf 0309}, 021 (2003).
1013: A different analytical approximation for the dilution factor has
1014: been presented by Giudice {\it et al} in Ref. \cite{R}, but it
1015: has no significant numerical inconsistency with Eq. (21).
1016:
1017: \bibitem{Kuzmin} V.A. Kuzmin, V.A. Rubakov, and M.E. Shaposhnikov,
1018: Phys. Lett. B {\bf 155}, 36 (1985).
1019:
1020: \bibitem{WMAP} D.N. Spergel {\it et al.}, Astrophys. J. Suppl.
1021: {\bf 148}, 175 (2003).
1022:
1023: \bibitem{Raidal} See, e.g., J. Ellis and M. Raidal,
1024: Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 643}, 229 (2002);
1025: M. Raidal and A. Strumia, in Ref. \cite{MSM}; and references therein.
1026:
1027: \end{thebibliography}
1028:
1029: \newpage
1030:
1031: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Fig. 1 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1032: \begin{figure}[t]
1033: \vspace{2cm}
1034: \epsfig{file=fig1.ps,bbllx=1cm,bblly=4cm,bburx=20cm,bbury=26cm,
1035: width=14.5cm,height=17cm,angle=0,clip=0}
1036: \vspace{0.4cm}
1037: \caption{Numerical illustration of the evolution functions
1038: $ I_\alpha$ and $I_\tau $ changing with $M_1$ and $m^{~}_H$
1039: in the SM (up) or with $M_1$ and $\tan\beta$ in the MSSM (down).}
1040: \end{figure}
1041:
1042: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Fig. 2 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1043: \begin{figure}[t]
1044: \vspace{2cm}
1045: \epsfig{file=fig2.ps,bbllx=1cm,bblly=4cm,bburx=20cm,bbury=26cm,
1046: width=14.5cm,height=17cm,angle=0,clip=0}
1047: \vspace{0.3cm}
1048: \caption{The ratio of $m_2$ at $M_Z$ to its value at $M_1= 10^{14}$ GeV
1049: as a function of $m^{~}_H$ in the SM (up) or of $\tan\beta$ in the
1050: MSSM (down) for the FGY ansatz with $m_1 =0$ or $m_3 =0$.}
1051: \end{figure}
1052:
1053: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Fig. 3 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1054: \begin{figure}[t]
1055: \epsfig{file=fig3.ps,bbllx=1cm,bblly=4cm,bburx=20cm,bbury=26cm,
1056: width=14.5cm,height=17cm,angle=0,clip=0}
1057: \vspace{0.3cm}
1058: \caption{The RGE evolution of lepton flavor mixing angles and
1059: CP-violating phases for the FGY ansatz with $m_1 =0$ in the MSSM.
1060: We take $\tan \beta =10$ to illustrate the running effects changing
1061: with $M_1$ (up), and take $M_1 = 10^{14}$ GeV to illustrate the
1062: running effects changing with $\tan\beta$ (down). Note that
1063: $\theta_z(M_Z) \approx 4.3^\circ$ has typically been input.}
1064: \end{figure}
1065:
1066: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Fig. 4 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1067: \begin{figure}[t]
1068: \epsfig{file=fig4.ps,bbllx=1cm,bblly=4cm,bburx=20cm,bbury=26cm,
1069: width=14.5cm,height=17cm,angle=0,clip=0}
1070: \vspace{-4.1cm}
1071: \caption{The RGE evolution of lepton flavor mixing angles and
1072: CP-violating phases from $M_Z$ to $M_1$ for the FGY ansatz with
1073: $m_3 =0$ in the SM. We have typically input
1074: $\theta_z(M_Z) \approx 4.3^\circ$, and found that
1075: the influence of $m^{~}_H$ is negligible.}
1076: \end{figure}
1077:
1078: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Fig. 5 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1079: \begin{figure}[t]
1080: \epsfig{file=fig5.ps,bbllx=1cm,bblly=4cm,bburx=20cm,bbury=26cm,
1081: width=14.5cm,height=17cm,angle=0,clip=0}
1082: \vspace{0.3cm}
1083: \caption{The RGE evolution of lepton flavor mixing angles and
1084: CP-violating phases for the FGY ansatz with $m_3 =0$ in the MSSM.
1085: We take $\tan \beta =10$ to illustrate the running effects changing
1086: with $M_1$ (up), and take $M_1 = 10^{14}$ GeV to illustrate the
1087: running effects changing with $\tan\beta$ (down).
1088: Note that $\theta_z(M_Z) \approx 4.3^\circ$ has typically been input.}
1089: \end{figure}
1090:
1091: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Fig. 6 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1092: \begin{figure}[t]
1093: \epsfig{file=fig6.ps,bbllx=1cm,bblly=4cm,bburx=20cm,bbury=26cm,
1094: width=14.5cm,height=17cm,angle=0,clip=0}
1095: \vspace{0.3cm}
1096: \caption{Numerical illustration of $Y_{\rm B}$ changing with
1097: $\theta_z (M_Z)$ for the FGY ansatz with $m_1 =0$ (up) or
1098: $m_3 =0$ (down) in the SM ($m^{~}_H = 120$ GeV)
1099: and its minimal supersymmetric extension ($\tan\beta = 50$).
1100: The region between two dashed lines in each graph corresponding
1101: to the range of $Y_{\rm B}$ allowed by current observational
1102: data.}
1103: \end{figure}
1104:
1105:
1106: \end{document}
1107: