1: \documentclass[a4paper,oneside,11pt]{article}

2: %\usepackage{amssymb}

3: \usepackage{graphicx}

4: \usepackage{multicol}

5: \usepackage{color}

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

14: \definecolor{verdes}{cmyk}{0.92,0,0.59,0.4}

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

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

17: \newcommand{\diag}{\hbox{diag}\,}

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

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

20: \newcommand{\lambdaN}{\lambda}

21: 

22: \font\tenrsfs=rsfs10

23: \font\sevenrsfs=rsfs7

24: \font\fiversfs=rsfs5

25: \newfam\rsfsfam

26: \textfont\rsfsfam=\tenrsfs

27: \scriptfont\rsfsfam=\sevenrsfs

28: \scriptscriptfont\rsfsfam=\fiversfs

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

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

31: 

32: 

33: \topmargin -1cm

34:       \textheight 51.4\baselineskip

35: \advance\textheight by \topskip

36:      \textwidth      17.2cm

37:      \marginparwidth 0cm

38:      \oddsidemargin -0.5cm

39: 

40: 

41: \lineskip 2pt

42: \normallineskip 2pt

43: \parskip 4pt

44: \pagestyle{plain}

45: \def\baselinestretch{0.95}\large\normalsize

46: \setlength{\unitlength}{1cm}

47: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}

48: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}

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

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

51: \newcommand{\dm}{\Delta m^2}

52: \newcommand{\tg}{\tan^2 \theta}

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

54: \newcommand{\cm}{{\rm cm}}

55: \newcommand{\km}{{\rm km}}

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

57: \newcommand{\s}{{\rm s}}

58: \newcommand{\etal}{{\em et al.}}

59: \newcommand{\dchi}{$\Delta\chi^2$}

60: \def\Red  {\special{color cmyk 0 1. 1. 0.5}}

61: \def\BrightRed  {\special{color cmyk 0 1. 1. 0.2}}

62: \def\Black{\special{color cmyk 0 0 0 1.}}

63: \def\Orange{\special{color cmyk 0 0.46 0.50 0.3}} % PANTONE 177

64: \def\Green{\special{color cmyk 0.92 0 0.59 0.5}} % PANTONE 323

65: \def\Salmon{\special{color cmyk 0 0.53 0.38 0}} % PANTONE 183

66: \def\Purple{\special{color cmyk 0 0.63 0 0.3}} % PANTONE 218

67: \def\Peach{\special{color cmyk 0 0.50 0.70 0.25}} % PANTONE 164

68: \def\Blue {\special{color cmyk 1. 1. 0.3 0}}

69: \def\Cyan{\special{color cmyk 1. 0 0 0.5}} % PANTONE PROCESS-CYAN

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

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

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

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

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

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

76: \newcommand{\mb}[1]{\mbox{\normalsize\boldmath $#1$}}

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

78: 

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

80: \makeatletter

81: %

82: % formato bibliografico standard

83: %

84: %\art[hep-ph/0102234]{autori}{rivista}{numero}{pagina}{anno}

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

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

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

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

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

90: %

91: % definizione della macro EQNSYSTEM

92: %

93: \newcounter{alphaequation}[equation]

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

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

96: 0.6em{\hfil\alph{alphaequation}\hfil}}

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

98: \def\eqnsystem#1{

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

100: %

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

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

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

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

105: %

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

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

108: %

109: \refstepcounter{alphaequation}

110: \let\@currentlabel\thealphaequation

111: %

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

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

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

115: \hskip2\arraycolsep\hfil${##}$\hfil&  

116: \global\@eqcnt\tw@\hskip2\arraycolsep

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

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

119: %

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

121: 

122: 

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

124: 

125: 

126: 

127: \begin{document}%\twocolumn[

128: \centerline{hep-ph/0312203\hfill IFUP--TH/2003-48}

129: \Black

130: \vspace{1.0cm}

131: \centerline{\LARGE\bf\Red Constraints on neutrino masses from leptogenesis models}

132: \medskip\bigskip\Black\vspace{0.6cm}

133:    \centerline{\large\bf Thomas Hambye$^a$, Yin Lin$^b$,

134: Alessio Notari$^b$,}\vspace{0.15cm}

135: \centerline{\large\bf Michele Papucci$^b$ {\rm and} Alessandro  

136: Strumia$^c$}\vspace{0.5cm}

137:    \centerline{\em $^a$ Department of Physics, Theoretical Physics,

138: University of Oxford, Oxford OX1\hspace{0.2em}3NP, UK }\vspace{0.13cm}

139:    \centerline{\em $^b$ Scuola Normale Superiore,

140: Piazza dei Cavalieri 7, I--56126 Pisa and INFN, Italia}\vspace{0.13cm}

141:    \centerline{\em $^c$ Dipartimento di Fisica dell'Universit\`a di Pisa

142:    and INFN, Italia}\vspace{1.cm}

143: 

144: \Blue\centerline{\large\bf Abstract}

145: \begin{quote}

146: %\large

147: \vspace{-0.25cm}

148: \indent

149: Upper bounds on the CP asymmetry relevant for leptogenesis are

150: reexamined and found weaker than in previous literature, both for

151: hierarchical and for quasi-degenerate right-handed neutrinos. 

152: Successful leptogenesis implies the usual 

153: lower bound on right-handed neutrino masses,

154: and an upper bound on left-handed neutrino masses (which we

155: obtain to be $0.15\eV$ at  $3\sigma$)

156: only if right-handed neutrinos 

157: are assumed to be $\,$much$\,$ more hierarchical than left-handed neutrinos.

158: Otherwise both bounds can be considerably relaxed.

159: The constraint on light neutrino masses varies assuming 

160: different interpretations of why neutrinos should be quasi-degenerate.

161: With conservative assumptions, 

162: we find that a mild quasi-degeneracy allows neutrinos  

163: heavier than an eV compatibly with leptogenesis.

164: 

165: We also extend computations of thermal leptogenesis to an

166: alternative model of neutrino mass mediated by fermion triplets which  

167: was never

168: considered so far for leptogenesis.

169: Leptogenesis can be successful despite the

170: effect of gauge interactions, resulting in only

171: slightly stronger constraints on neutrino masses.

172: 

173: \Black

174: \end{quote}

175: 

176: \vspace{0.5cm}\noindent

177: Assuming that neutrino masses are generated

178: by tree level exchange of right-handed neutrinos, that

179: the observed baryon asymmetry is produced

180: via thermal leptogenesis \cite{FY}

181: and that right-handed neutrinos are hierarchical,

182: one can derive interesting

183: constraints~\cite{leptogenesisBounds,epsP,thermal}:

184: right-handed neutrinos must be heavier than about $10^{8}\GeV$ and

185: left-handed neutrinos must be lighter than about

186: $0.1\eV$~\cite{epsP,thermal}.

187: Since the former constraint leads to a possible conflict

188: between leptogenesis and gravitino overproduction, and since the later

189: one is stronger than present experimental bounds and is

190: close to the mass scale suggested

191: by atmospheric oscillations (i.e.~$m_3 \circa{>} 0.05 \eV$), in

192: this article we reconsider these constraints in details.

193: To this end we adopt the results

194: of \cite{thermal} for a

195: precise computation of the dynamics of

196: thermal leptogenesis, and we reexamine the upper bound on

197: CP violation in right-handed neutrino decays.

198: 

199: In section~\ref{H} we consider a hierarchical spectrum of

200: right-handed neutrinos. We show that the lower bound above on

201: their masses can be significantly evaded dropping

202: the assumption (made in~\cite{leptogenesisBounds}) that

203: the hierarchy among right-handed neutrinos is much 

204: larger than the observed one among left-handed neutrinos.

205: Moreover, even under this assumption, we derive a precise

206: upper bound on the CP-asymmetry

207: and find it weaker than in previous literature~\cite{epsP}, leading to

208: a slightly higher neutrino mass bound.

209: 

210: 

211: Since this constraint is based on the doubtful assumption that

212: quasi-degenerate neutrinos

213: be produced by hierarchical right-handed

214: neutrinos, in section~\ref{sec:boundG}

215: we study what happens allowing quasi-degenerate

216: right-handed neutrinos.

217: As well known, the asymmetry can be resonantly enhanced~\cite{flanz,pil2};

218: with respect to the analysis of \cite{epsP}

219: we find other effects that relax the upper bound on the CP-asymmetry

220: so that our constraint on

221: neutrino masses is much weaker.

222: We discuss how the result depends on possible

223: reasons that naturally give rise to quasi-degenerate left-handed

224: neutrinos.

225: 

226: In section~\ref{T} we study alternative mechanisms of

227: leptogenesis and discuss the

228: corresponding constraints on neutrino masses.

229: Neutrino masses can be produced by tree-level exchange of

230: three different kinds of particles:

231: a) right-handed neutrinos \cite{seesawsinglet};

232: b) fermion $\hbox{SU}(2)_L$ triplets~\cite{tripletferm,ma};

233: c) one or more scalar triplets~\cite{scalartriplet}.

234: Special emphasis is put on the case b) which has never been

235: considered for leptogenesis. We show that it is efficient,

236: even if in this case the gauge interactions can keep triplets close to

237: thermal equilibrium.

238: 

239: Results are summarized in section~\ref{concl}.

240: 

241: 

242: 

243: 

244: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 

245: %

246: \section{Hierarchical right-handed neutrinos}\label{H}

247: If neutrino masses  are produced

248: by the see-saw model described by the following Lagrangian

249: \beq\label{eq:Lseesaw}

250: \Lag = \Lag_{\rm SM} +\bar N_i i\partial\hspace{-1.3ex}/\, N_i +

251: (\lambdaN ^{ij} ~  N^i L^jH  +

252: \frac{M_N^{ij}}{2}   N_i N_j  +\hbox{h.c.})\,, \eeq

253: the most generic high energy parameters that give rise to

254: the desired neutrino masses $m_3>m_2>m_1\ge0$ and mixings $V$

255: can be written as~\cite{seesawparam}

256: \beq \label{eq:seesawParamCI}M_N =

257: \diag(M_1,M_2,M_3)\,,\qquad

258: \lambdaN  = \frac{1}{v} M_N^{1/2} \cdot R \cdot

259: \diag(m_{1},m_{2},m_{3})^{1/2}\cdot V^\dagger \,.  \eeq

260: One can always work in the mass eigenstate basis of

261: right-handed neutrinos, and choose

262: $M_3>M_2>M_1\ge0$.

263: $R$ is an arbitrary complex orthogonal matrix (i.e.\

264: $R^T\cdot R=1$),

265: that can be written in terms of 3 complex mixing angles as

266: \begin{equation}

267: R=\hbox{diag}\,(\pm1,\pm1,\pm1) \, R^{(23)}(z_{23}) R^{(13)}(z_{13})

268: R^{(12)}(z_{12}) \ ,  \label{eq:Rmatrix}

269: \end{equation}

270: where $R^{(ij)}$ is a rotation in the $(ij$) plane

271: with complex angles $z_{ij}$.

272: This parameterization explicitly shows

273: that the see-saw model has $12$ real and 6 complex parameters

274: beyond ones already present in the SM:

275: $6+3$ can be measured by low energy experiments

276: ($m_1,m_2,m_3$ and the three complex mixing angles in $V$)

277: %,\theta_{12},\theta_{23},\theta_{13}$ and the CP-phases in $V$: $\phi,\alpha,\beta$) 

278: while the

279: remaining $6+3$ ($M_1, M_2, M_3$ and 

280: the three complex mixing angles in $R$:  $z_{12},z_{23},z_{13}$) cannot.

281: 

282: 

283: 

284: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

285: \subsection*{The CP asymmetry}

286: One important ingredient that determines

287: the baryon asymmetry produced by thermal leptogenesis is the

288: CP asymmetry $\varepsilon_i$ in decays of right-handed neutrinos $N_i$.

289: Since we will later study the generic case where right-handed neutrinos  

290: can be

291: quasi-degenerate, it is useful to decompose the CP-asymmetry

292: in $N_1$ decays (and similarly for $N_{2,3}$ decays)

293: as the sum of a $V$ertex contribution %$\varepsilon_1^V$

294: and of a $S$elf-energy contribution (with the self energy contribution 

295: as given in \cite{pil2}) %$\varepsilon_1^S$

296:                               

297: \begin{equation}\label{eq:eps}

298: \varepsilon_1=-\sum_{j=2,3}\frac{3}{2}

299:   \frac{M_1 }{M_j }\frac{\Gamma_j }{M_j }

300:   I_j\frac{2 S_j + V_j}{3} \,,

301: \end{equation}

302: where

303: \begin{equation}\label{eq:IGamma}

304: I_j = \frac{ \hbox{Im}\,[ (\lambdaN  \lambdaN ^\dagger)_{1j}^2 ]}

305: {|\lambdaN \lambdaN ^\dagger |_{11} |\lambdaN \lambdaN ^\dagger |_{jj}}

306:  \, ,\qquad

307: \frac{\Gamma_j}{M_j} = \frac{|\lambdaN \lambdaN ^\dagger |_{jj}}{8\pi}

308: \equiv \frac{\tilde{m}_j M_j}{8\pi v^2}

309: \,,

310: \end{equation}

311: and where

312: \begin{equation}

313: S_j = \frac{M^2_j  \Delta M^2_{1j}}{(\Delta M^2_{1j})^2+M_1 ^2

314:    \Gamma_j ^2} \,, \qquad

315: V_j = 2 \frac{M^2_j }{M^2_1}

316: \bigg[ (1+\frac{M^2_j }{M^2_1})\log(1+\frac{M^2_1}{M^2_j })

317: - 1 \bigg]\,,

318: \end{equation}

319: are loop factors, with $\Delta M^2_{ij}=M^2_j-M^2_i$.

320: In the parameterization of eq.\eq{seesawParamCI},

321: the light neutrino mixing matrix $V$ does not affect $\varepsilon_1$

322: and CP-violation in leptogenesis arises from $R$.

323: While $V_j\le 1$, the factor $S_j$ is resonantly enhanced,

324: up to $S_j\sim M_j/\Gamma_j$, when $M_j-M_1\sim\Gamma_j$.

325: We normalized

326: the resonance factors $S_j$ and the vertex factors $V_j$ in

327: such a way that $S_{2,3}=1$

328: and $V_{2,3}=1$ (so that $(2S_j+V_j)/3=1$)

329: in the hierarchical limit $M_{2,3}/M_1\to\infty$.

330: In this limit, inserting the parameterization of eq.\eq{seesawParamCI}

331: into eq.\eq{IGamma} gives

332:   \begin{equation}\label{eq:epspreDI}

333: \varepsilon_1=-\sum_{j=2,3}

334: \frac{3}{16 \pi} \frac{M_1 }{M_j }

335: \frac{ \hbox{Im}\,[ (\lambdaN  \lambdaN ^\dagger)_{1j}^2 ]}

336: {|\lambdaN \lambdaN ^\dagger |_{11} }=-

337:   \frac{3}{16\pi}\frac{M_1}{v^2}

338:   \frac{\sum_i m_{i}^2 \hbox{Im}\, R_{1i}^2}{\sum_i

339: m_{i} |R_{1i}|^2} \,,

340: \end{equation}

341: which leads to the Davidson-Ibarra (DI) bound~\cite{leptogenesisBounds}:

342: \beq\label{eq:epsDI}  |\varepsilon_1| \le \varepsilon_{\rm max}^{\rm  

343: DI}=

344:   \frac{3}{16\pi}\frac{M_1}{v^2}(m_{3} - m_{1})\,, \eeq 

345: where $m_{3}$ ($m_{1}$) is the mass of the heaviest (lightest)  

346: neutrino.

347: The DI upper bound is plotted in fig.\fig{EpsDI}, together with

348: a random sampling that turns out to find points above it.

349: In fact, the DI bound is derived and holds for $M_{2,3}/M_1=\infty$

350: while in fig.\fig{EpsDI} we assumed a finite hierarchy.

351: One expects that for $M_{2,3}\gg M_1$ the DI bound remains  

352: approximatively valid,

353: up to small corrections of relative order $(M_1/M_{2,3})^2$.

354: We now explain why this is not the case.

355: 

356: 

357: 

358: 

359: 

360: \begin{figure}[t]

361: $$\hspace{-4mm}\includegraphics[width=17.4cm]{EpsDI}$$

362: \caption{\label{fig:EpsDI}\em

363: The Davidson-Ibarra bound on the CP asymmetry $\varepsilon_1$ was derived and

364: holds for $M_{2,3}/M_1 = \infty$.

365: The random samplings of the parameter space

366: (performed

367: assuming  different finite hierarchies among right-handed neutrinos)

368: confirms that $|\varepsilon_1|$ can be above the DI bound.

369: For all points $|\lambda_{ij}|<\sqrt{4\pi}$,

370: $\Delta m^2_{\rm atm} = 2~10^{-3}\eV^2$,

371: $M_1=10^8\GeV$.

372: As usual,

373: the density of points depends on 

374: arbitrary details of the sampling procedure

375: and carries no information about the 

376: likelihood of different regions.}

377: \end{figure}

378: 

379: 

380: 

381: 

382: In the infinitely hierarchical limit $\varepsilon_1$ is given by

383: a sum over right-handed neutrinos weighted by $1/M_j$ exactly like

384: neutrino masses:

385: the resulting simple expression has special properties,

386: e.g.~in this limit

387: CP violation in leptogenesis  disappears when light neutrinos are degenerate.

388: The extra terms suppressed by $(M_1/M_{2,3})^2$

389: do not share this property: e.g.\ they do not vanish when neutrinos

390: are degenerate.

391: Moreover, even with hierarchical neutrinos, these extra terms can be enhanced by

392: $\tilde{m}_{2,3}/m_{2,3}$.

393: %       $$\tilde{m}_i\equiv

394: %         |\lambdaN \lambdaN ^\dagger|_{ii} \frac{v^2}{M_i }\,.$$

395: One gets points above the DI bound

396: when the enhancements overcompensate the $(M_1/M_{2,3})^2$ suppression.

397: 

398: 

399: This observation can be relevant for leptogenesis, since

400: this enhancement of $\varepsilon_1$

401: can be achieved without

402: introducing significant wash-out factors

403: in the dynamics of thermal leptogenesis.

404: In fact, $\Delta L=2$ washout scatterings mediated by

405: off-shell $N_{1,2,3}$ exchange

406: are controlled

407: by neutrino masses and do not depend on $\tilde{m}_{2,3}$

408: (and scatterings mediated by on-shell $N_{2,3}$ are Boltzmann suppressed).

409: On the contrary $\Delta L=2$ scatterings mediated by on-shell $N_1$  

410: exchange

411: are controlled by $\tilde{m}_1$, and the efficiency of leptogenesis is  

412: maximal

413: for a relatively small value of $\tilde{m}_1\sim 

414: 10^{-3}\eV$~\cite{epsP,thermal}.

415: Therefore we must show that the enhancement under discussion is

416: possible for small $\tilde{m}_1$.

417: We show this analytically and obtain simple estimates by

418: focussing on the simple limit $m_1=m_2=0$.

419: (Our final result remains valid in the more complicated

420: realistic case with small non-zero $m_1$ and $m_2$).

421: Inserting in the parameterization\eq{seesawParamCI}

422: $z_{23} = 0+i y_{23}$ and

423: $z_{13} = x_{13} + i y_{13}$ with $\cos2x_{13} = 1/\cosh 2y_{13}$ we get

424: \begin{equation}

425: \varepsilon_1 =- \frac{3}{16\pi}\frac{M_1 m_3}{v^2}(F_3 \cosh^2 y_{23}-

426: F_2 \sinh^2 y_{23}) \,,\qquad

427: \tilde{m}_1 = m_3 |\sin z_{13}|^2 = m_3 \frac{\cosh2y_{13}-\cos

428:    2x_{13}}{2} \,.

429: \end{equation}

430: Choosing a small $x_{13}$ allows to keep $\tilde{m}_1$ arbitrarily  

431: small without affecting $\varepsilon_1$.

432: In the fully hierarchical limit the loop functions $F_i = (2S_i+V_i)/3$

433: satisfy $F_2 = F_3=1$ and the last term in $\varepsilon_1$ simplifies  

434: to 1, giving $|\varepsilon_1| = \varepsilon_{\rm DI}^{\rm max}$.

435: For finite $M_1/M_{2,3}$ one instead has

436: $F_2\neq F_3$ and $\varepsilon_1$ can be enhanced by choosing a large  

437: $y_{23}$.

438: The maximal value is limited only by perturbativity of the largest

439: neutrino Yukawa coupling.

440: This violation of the DI bound

441: does not correspond to a local maximum of $\varepsilon_1$

442: and therefore was missed in analyses that tried to maximize $\varepsilon_1$ by imposing

443: $d\varepsilon_1/dz_{ij}=0$.

444: Imposing $\lambda_{33} = \cosh y_{23}

445: \sqrt{M_3 m_3}/{v}\circa{<}\sqrt{4\pi}$ gives

446: \begin{equation}\color{blus}\label{eq:stimaDI}

447: |\varepsilon_1| \circa{<} \max(\frac{M_1^3}{M_3M_2^2},

448:   \varepsilon_{\rm max}^{\rm DI}) \,.

449: \end{equation}

450: This estimate is confirmed by the random sampling

451: in figure\fig{EpsDI}, performed for $M_1=10^8\GeV$

452: which is probably the most interesting choice,

453: as the DI bound implies $M_1\circa{>}10^8\GeV$

454: (see e.g.\ \cite{thermal}).

455: Allowing only neutrino Yukawa couplings smaller than\footnote{In supersymmetric models where

456: sleptons acquire SUSY-breaking mass terms at high scale

457: the non-observation

458: of $\mu\to e\gamma$  

459: implies a

460: somewhat stronger bound,

461: $|\lambda^\dagger\lambda|_{e\mu}\circa{<}10^{-1\pm 1}$.}

462: $\sqrt{4\pi}$ and assuming $M_3/M_2 = M_2/M_1 = 10^n$ 

463: the new configuration under discussion allows

464: to reach $|\varepsilon_1|\circa{<} 10^{-4n}$.

465: The DI bound was derived and holds in the limit  $n\to\infty$.

466: For $n=3$ the DI bound is still an excellent approximation (fig.\fig{EpsDI}a).

467: For $n=2$ the DI bound starts failing only when neutrinos are quasi-degenerate (fig.\fig{EpsDI}b).

468: For $n=1$ the DI bound can be significantly evaded (fig.\fig{EpsDI}c).

469: This is possibly the most realistic case, as

470: solar and atmospheric oscillations indicate that there

471: is at most a mild hierarchy between left-handed neutrinos:  

472: $m_3/m_2\circa{<}6$.

473: Allowing right-handed neutrinos to have a similarly mild hierarchy,

474: $M_2/M_1 \sim 10$,

475: eq.\eq{stimaDI} shows that

476: successful leptogenesis with hierarchical $N_i$

477: is possible even for $N_1$ much lighter than $10^{8}\GeV$,

478: as possibly needed in supersymmetric models

479: in order to avoid overproduction of gravitinos~\cite{nucleo}.

480: Thermal leptogenesis can be successful even if right-handed neutrinos are light and hierarchical.

481: We can make a more quantitative statement by assuming a $10^{-3}$ efficiency 

482: (this is a reasonably conservative value, see e.g.~\cite{thermal}):

483: eq.\eq{stimaDI} then requires

484: $M_3 M_2^2/M_1^3\circa{<} 10^4 $ and consequently

485: allows some hierarchy among $M_{1,2,3}$.

486: 

487: \medskip

488: 

489: However, a CP-asymmetry above the DI bound is realized for

490: $\tilde{m}_{2,3}\gg m_{2,3}$ and therefore

491: involves apparently unlikely cancellations, as it needs that $N_2$ and  

492: $N_3$ each

493: gives a large contribution to neutrino masses,

494: but they cancel among each others.

495: This configuration seems justifiable in a natural way,

496: by e.g.\ building models where $N_2$ and $N_3$ form a quasi-Dirac couple

497: with quasi-chiral Yukawa couplings.

498: See also the appendix of~\cite{jarlskog}.

499: 

500: 

501: In the rest of this section we assume that $M_3M_2^2/M_1^3$ is large enough

502: for the DI upper bound to hold

503: and precisely compute, under all stated assumptions, the maximal

504: value of neutrino masses

505: compatible with thermal leptogenesis.

506: We find that previous bounds must be weakened

507: for a different reason, which has no relation with the above discussion.

508: 

509: 

510: 

511: 

512: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

513: \subsection*{Bound on neutrino masses}

514: 

515: The DI bound becomes more stringent if neutrinos are quasi-degenerate  

516: since

517: in this case

518: $m_3-m_1\simeq \Delta m^2_{\rm atm}/2m_3$ in eq.\eq{epsDI} decreases.

519: Moreover in this case the efficiency factor $\eta$ is

520: smaller because larger neutrino masses need larger neutrino Yukawa  

521: couplings

522: and therefore implies larger wash-out scattering rates.

523: In fact the out-of equilibrium condition $\Gamma \circa{<} H(M_1)$

524: means $\tilde{m}_1\circa{<} 10^3 v^2/M_{\rm Pl}\sim 10^{-3}\eV$ where

525: $$\tilde{m}_1\equiv 

526:   |\lambdaN \lambdaN ^\dagger|_{11} \frac{v^2}{M_1 }=

527: 8\pi \Gamma_1 \frac{v^2}{M_1 ^2}=

528: \sum_i m_{i} |R_{1i}|^2$$

529: is always larger than $m_1$.

530: The minimum value $\tilde{m}_1 = m_1$ implies $R_{12} = R_{13}=0$ and therefore

531: a vanishing CP-asymmetry (in the $M_{2,3}/M_1 = \infty$ limit).

532: Conversely, the DI bound is saturated for large values

533: of $\tilde{m}_1$, when $\eta$ is strongly suppressed.

534: As a result

535:  the maximal baryon asymmetry is reached for $\tilde{m}_1$

536: larger than $m_1\approx m_3$ but rather close to it~\cite{epsP}.

537: 

538: 

539: 

540: \begin{figure}[t]

541: $$

542: \includegraphics[width=8cm]{EpsBound}$$

543: \caption{\label{fig:EpsBound}\em

544: Maximal value of $\varepsilon_1$ assuming a large hierarchy at

545: fixed $\tilde{m}_1$.

546: The dashed line shows the attempt in~\cite{epsP}. The random sampling was

547: performed as an additional check that the analytical bound of eq.\eq{epsDeg} 

548: is correct.

549: }

550: \end{figure}

551: 

552: In order to compute the leptogenesis constraint

553: on neutrino masses, one must

554: compute the maximal value of $\varepsilon_1$ at given $\tilde{m}_1$,

555: and next maximize the baryon asymmetry $n_B/n_\gamma \approx 0.01  

556: \varepsilon_1\eta$

557: with respect to remaining free parameters,

558: essentially $\tilde{m}_1$ and $M_1$. To determine

559: the bound on $\varepsilon_1$ at fixed

560: $\tilde{m}_1$

561: we can neglect $\Delta m^2_{\rm sun}\ll \Delta m^2_{\rm atm}$,

562: so  that $m_1=m_2$ and we end up with a 2 neutrino case:

563: rotations in the (12) plane do not have physical effects.\footnote{One  

564: can explicitly verify that they do not affect $\varepsilon_1$.

565: From its explicit expression in eq.\eq{epspreDI}

566: the matrix $R_{12}$ in $\lambdaN $

567: commutes with $\hbox{\rm diag}\,(m_1,m_2,m_3)$ and cancels out with

568: $R_{12}^T$ coming from $\lambdaN ^T$.

569: This holds for the

570: numerator of eq.\eq{epspreDI}

571: because we assumed $M_{2,3}/M_1 = \infty$ and will

572: be no longer true when we will relax this assumption.

573: % To be more precise, the

574: The denominator has a dependence on $\hbox{Im} (z_{12})$, but

575: only as $c +c' \cosh \left[\hbox{Im}

576: (z_{12})\right]$ with $c$, $c'$ positive. The maximization of  

577: $\varepsilon_1$

578: naturally leads to $\hbox{Im} (z_{12})=0$,

579: hence the validity of what stated.}

580: We can write $R$ as

581: $$ R =R^{(13)}(z_{13}) = \pmatrix{\cos z_{13}

582: &0&\sin z_{13}\cr

583: 0&1&0\cr -\sin z_{13} &0 &\cos z_{13}}\ ,$$

584: because $\varepsilon_1$ does not depend on $z_{23}$.

585: Here $z_{13} = x+ iy$ is a complex mixing angle.

586: The condition $\tilde{m}_1 = m_1 |R_{11}|^2 + m_3

587: |R_{13}|^2$ fixes $x$

588: as function of $y$:

589: $$\cos 2x = \frac{2\tilde{m}_1 - (m_1 + m_3)\cosh 2y}{m_3 -

590: m_1} \,,$$

591: allowing to write the CP asymmetry as

592: $$ |\varepsilon_1| = \frac{3}{16\pi}\frac{M_1}{v^2}

593: \frac{m_3^2- m_1^2}{\tilde{m}_1}

594: |\hbox{Im}R_{11}^2|=

595: \frac{3}{16\pi}\frac{M_1}{v^2}

596: \frac{m_3^2- m_1^2}{2\tilde{m}_1}

597: \sinh2y\sqrt{1 - \bigg(\frac{2\tilde{m}_1 -

598: (m_1+m_3)\cosh 2y}{m_3-m_1}\bigg)^2}\,.$$

599: Maximizing with respect to $y$ gives our bound:

600: \beq\label{eq:epsDeg}\color{blus}

601:   |\varepsilon_1| \le \varepsilon_{\rm max}=

602: \frac{ \varepsilon_{\rm DI}^{\rm max}}{2}

603: \sqrt{1-[(1-a)\tilde{m}_1/ (m_3-m_1)]^2}

604: \sqrt{(1+a)^2-[(m_3+m_1)/ \tilde{m}_1]^2 } \,, \label{eq:realepsbound}\eeq

605: where

606: $$a = 2  \hbox{Re} \bigg[\frac{m_1 m_3}{\tilde{m}_1^2}\bigg]^{1/3}

607: \bigg[-1 - i \sqrt{\frac{\left(m_1^2+m_3^2 +

608: \tilde{m}_1^2\right)^3}{27 m_1^2 m_3^2 \tilde{m}_1^2} -1}\bigg]^{1/3} >  

609: 0 \,.

610: $$

611: In the hierarchical and  quasi-degenerate light neutrino 

612: limits it simplifies to

613: \beq\label{eq:epsDegApprox}

614:   |\varepsilon_1| \le \varepsilon_{\rm max}\simeq  \varepsilon_{\rm  

615: DI}^{\rm max}\times

616:   \left\{\begin{array}{ll}

617: 1-m_1/\tilde{m}_1 & \hbox{if $m_1\ll m_3$}\\

618: \sqrt{1- m_1^2/\tilde{m}_1^2}&

619: \hbox{if $m_1\simeq m_3$}

620: \end{array}\right. .

621: \eeq

622: The continuous line in fig.\fig{EpsBound} (plotted assuming $m_1 =  

623: 0.12\eV$)

624: is our upper bound.

625: The dashed line shows the result of~\cite{epsP},

626: that first attempted to compute $\varepsilon_{\rm max}$.

627: Their bound in the quasi-degenerate limit  reduces to

628: $ \varepsilon_{\rm DI}^{\rm max}(1-m_1^2/\tilde{m}_1^2)$

629: and would be stronger than our bound, but

630: does not hold as confirmed by the numerical scanning.\footnote{We  

631: explain analytically the reason of the disagreement.

632: Ref.~\cite{epsP} made unjustified assumptions on the elements of $R$.

633: In their notation variables $x_i$ and $y_i$ were used (with

634: $i=1,2,3$), together with the correspondence:

635: $

636: {R_{1i}^2 m_i}/{(\lambda \lambda^{\dagger} )_{11}}\equiv x_i+ i y_i

637: $.

638: The maximal $|\varepsilon_1|$ is reached for maximal $y_3$.

639: In order to find this maximum they assume $x_2=y_2=x_3=0$.

640: The first two assumptions are correct in the

641: limit $\Delta m^2_{\rm sun}\ll

642: \Delta m^2_{\rm atm}$ and

643: correspond to our $z_{12}=0$.

644: But the extra assumption $x_3=0$ (which would corresponds to

645: $\hbox{Re} R_{13}^2=0$) is incorrect, and doing so one does not

646: get the true maximum. In our numerical example with quasi-degenerate

647: neutrinos the maximum is reached

648: for $x_3\approx 0.4$.}

649: In the hierarchical limit $m_1\ll m_3$ the difference becomes less  

650: relevant.

651: In the MSSM the CP-asymmetry, and consequently its upper limit,

652: is 2 times larger than in the SM.

653: The MSSM result in fig.\fig{m3}b is obtained using the Boltzmann equations of~\cite{thermal}.

654: 

655: 

656: 

657: \bigskip

658: 

659: Combining our revised bound on the CP-asymmetry with the

660: revised computation of the efficiency of leptogenesis of~\cite{thermal}\footnote{In appendix~\ref{fla} we explain why, when computing such constraints,

661: the full network of Boltzmann equations can be approximated with a  

662: single equation

663: for the total $B-L$ asymmetry,

664: as tacitly assumed in previous analyses.}

665: we get

666: \begin{equation}

667: m_{3} < 0.15\eV \,\,\,\,\,\, (\hbox{at $3\sigma$})

668: \end{equation}

669: as illustrated in fig.\fig{m3}.

670: This constraint holds under the

671: doubtful assumption

672: that hierarchical right-handed neutrinos

673: give quasi-degenerate left-handed neutrinos.

674: 

675: 

676: \begin{figure}[t]

677: $$\includegraphics[width=0.98\textwidth]{m3} $$

678: \caption{\em\label{fig:m3}

679: {\bf Leptogenesis constraint on neutrino masses} assuming $M_{2,3}\gg  

680: M_1$.

681: The plot shows the measured baryon asymmetry (horizontal line)

682: compared with the maximal leptogenesis value as function of

683: the heaviest neutrino mass $m_3$, renormalized at low energy.

684: Error bars are at $3\sigma$.  }

685: \end{figure}

686: 

687: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 

688: %%%

689: 

690: 

691: 

692: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

693: \section{Quasi-degenerate right-handed neutrinos}\label{sec:boundG}

694: Successful thermal leptogenesis implies

695: interesting restrictions on the masses of quasi-degenerate neutrinos

696: under the hypothesis of hierarchical right-handed neutrinos.

697: This is a crucial but doubtful assumption.

698: In fact, one expects that quasi-degenerate

699: neutrinos  be more naturally  produced by quasi-degenerate

700: right-handed neutrinos

701: (rather than by an interplay between heavier $N_{2,3}$ with bigger

702: Yukawa couplings and lighter $N_1$ with smaller couplings).

703: In absence of simple predictive models

704: one might  na\"{\i}vely expect that left-handed and

705: right-handed neutrinos show similar levels of degeneracy.

706: 

707: 

708: In this section we study how much the

709: constraint on neutrino masses gets relaxed

710: when we make this kind of `reasonable' assumptions.

711: We think this is an interesting but qualitative issue.

712: Therefore (unlike in the hierarchical case) we do not attempt

713: to derive a precise absolute constraint.

714: Our results should however be a qualitatively correct approximation to  

715: it.

716: A fully precise discussion is anyhow prevented by the fact that,

717: in a generic see-saw model, quasi-degenerate

718: neutrinos are not even stable under radiative corrections.

719: %(the bound is saturated when the smallest neutrino Yukawa coupling is  $\sim 0.3$).

720: 

721: 

722: We start studying

723: simple particular cases

724: and later show that they catch the new relevant effects

725: that we need to consider.

726: 

727: 

728: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 

729: %%%%

730: \subsection*{The conservative case}

731: We first study what happens for  $M_3\gg M_2  \sim M_1 $.

732: Using eq.\eq{eps}, in this limit $\varepsilon_1$ (and similarly 

733: $\varepsilon_2$) can be approximated as

734: \begin{equation}

735: |\varepsilon_1|=\frac{M_1 }{M_2 } \frac{\Gamma_{2}}{M_2 }

736: S_2 |I_2| < \frac{1}{2} \frac{M_1 }{M_2 } |I_2| \simeq \frac{1}{2} |I_2| \,,

737: \label{eq:epsmaxdeg}

738: \end{equation}

739: where the inequality is obtained by taking the resonance

740: condition $M_2 -M_1 =\Gamma_2/2$ which maximizes the resonance

741: factor $S_2$ and gives $S_2 = M_2 /2\Gamma_2$.

742: It is useful to compare eq.\eq{epsmaxdeg} with

743: eq.\eq{epspreDI}.

744: The DI upper bound in eq.\eq{epsDI}

745: can be rewritten schematically as the product of two

746: suppression factors,

747: \begin{equation}

748: \frac{3}{2}

749: \frac{M_1 }{M_j }\frac{\Gamma_j }{M_j }\qquad\hbox{times}\qquad

750: \frac{m_3-m_1}{\tilde{m}_j}

751: \label{eq:supprfactors}

752: \end{equation}

753: present for different physical reasons.

754:   The first factor is related to the fact that heavy particles with

755:   small couplings

756: give small effects

757:   and it is just the result of a na\"{\i}ve estimation of $\varepsilon_1$

758: performed dropping the flavour indices:

759: \begin{equation}

760: \varepsilon_1 \sim \frac{3}{16 \pi}

761: \frac{M_1 }{M_j }

762: \frac{\lambda_j^2\lambda_1^2}{\lambda_1^2} \sim

763: \frac{3}{2} \frac{M_1 }{M_j } \frac{\Gamma_j }{M_j } \,.

764: \label{eq:naiveepsilon}

765: \end{equation}

766: The second factor comes from a flavour subtelty.

767: In the hierarchical limit, due to the orthogonality

768: of the $R$ matrix in eq.\eq{seesawParamCI}, the $\lambda_j^2$ in the

769: numerator of the asymmetry is not proportional to $\Gamma_j$ (or to

770: $\tilde{m}_j$) as in eq.\eq{naiveepsilon} but to

771: the $m_3-m_1$ mass difference.

772: This

773: results in the

774: extra  $(m_3-m_1)/\tilde{m}_j$ suppression of the asymmetry,

775: which is significant when neutrinos are quasi-degenerate.

776: For example for

777: $m_1 \sim 1$~eV this suppression is at least

778: of order $[\Delta m^2_{\rm atm}/(m_3+m_1)]/\tilde{m}_j\sim   

779: %2\cdot

780: 10^{-3}$.

781: 

782: Eq.\eq{epsmaxdeg} shows that, when  also right-handed neutrinos are

783: quasi-degenerate, none of these two suppressions are there.

784: The first one can be completely compensated

785: by the resonance factor $S_2$ which is 1 in the hierarchical case

786: and $ M_2 /2\Gamma_2$ at the resonance.

787: The second suppression disappears

788: because $\varepsilon_1$ is no longer directly related to neutrino  

789: masses,

790: so that it no longer vanishes when neutrinos are degenerate.

791: More technically,  $I_2$ (unlike eq.\eq{epspreDI})

792: is not suppressed by an orthogonality relation coming from the $R$ matrix.

793: 

794: The net result is that the CP asymmetry can be of order unity  

795: independently

796: on the magnitude of the neutrino masses. Whether it is of order unity

797: is controlled by the size of $I_2$ in eq.\eq{epsmaxdeg}. As shown in

798: details in appendix~\ref{I2},

799: $I_2$ can be easily of order unity except if $\tilde{m}_i$ are very  

800: close to

801: their minimum values (where $\varepsilon_1$ vanishes).

802: 

803: A formula that correctly estimates the maximal CP asymmetry

804: not only in the quasi-degenerate case we are considering

805: but also in the hierarchical limit and in intermediate cases

806: is obtained by multiplying our bound  

807: $ \varepsilon_{\rm max} $ of eq.\eq{epsDeg}

808: valid in the hierarchical limit with an appropriate rescaling  factor:

809: \begin{equation}\label{eq:conservative}

810: |\varepsilon_1| \circa{<} \varepsilon_{\rm max} \frac{S_2 m_3-m_1}{m_3  

811: -m_1} \,.

812: \end{equation}

813: This bound reduces to eq.\eq{realepsbound} in the hierarchical limit  

814: $m_3\gg m_1$.

815: In the quasi-degenerate limit, $m_3\simeq m_1$, it reproduces  

816: eq.\eq{epsmaxdeg} up to an order-one factor.

817: This is the maximal CP-asymmetry possible

818: if a  quasi-degeneracy in neutrino masses, $m_1\approx m_2\approx  

819: m_3\approx\tilde{m}_1\approx\tilde{m}_2\approx \tilde m_3$

820: arises accidentally, as can happen if no flavour symmetry acts on  

821: neutrinos.

822: In such a case one expects that the three $\tilde{m}_i$ are equal

823: only up to order-one factors.

824: The resulting bound on $m_\nu$ is given by the solid line in fig.\fig{mdeg}a.

825: %       (the shaded area indicates the difference with respect to

826: %       a more precise approximation obtained including $\varepsilon_2$ and

827: %       using the results of the appendix). 

828: A numerical sampling performed including ${\cal O}(1)$ factors 

829: reveals that\eq{conservative} can be reached, 

830: and in fact the most conservative bound would be even somewhat weaker.

831: Already for a $\sim 10\%$ degeneracy between $N_2$ and $N_1$

832: successful leptogenesis can occur for neutrinos heavier than 1 eV.

833: 

834: 

835: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 

836: %%%%

837: \subsection*{A simple special limit}

838: 

839: Next we consider the case where the 3 right-handed neutrinos are

840: quasi-degenerate. It is interesting to consider first the case

841: where two neutrinos are exactly degenerate and quasi-degenerate to a

842: third one, i.e.~$M_1  \simeq M_2 =M_{3}$ and assuming

843:   $\Gamma_2=\Gamma_{3}$. In such a special case $S_2=S_3$ and the

844: asymmetry reduces to:

845: \begin{equation}

846: |\varepsilon_1|= \frac{M_1 }{M_2 } \frac{\Gamma_2}{M_2 }

847: S_2 |I_2+I_3| < \frac{1}{8 \pi} \frac{M_1}{v^2} (m_3-m_1) S_2 \,.

848: \end{equation}

849: At the resonance this gives

850: \begin{equation}

851: |\varepsilon_1|

852: = \frac{1}{2} \frac{M_1 }{M_2 }

853: |I_2+I_3| \simeq \frac{1}{2} |I_2+I_3|

854:    < \frac{1}{2}

855: \frac{(m_3-m_1)}{\tilde{m}_2} \,.

856: \label{eq:epsmax3deg}

857: \end{equation}

858: As a result the asymmetry is smaller than in the previous 2 quasi

859: degenerate right-handed neutrino

860: case

861: by {\em one} power of the orthogonality factor that suppresses   

862: $I_2+I_3$. In other words

863: $\varepsilon_1$ is enhanced by the resonance factor but

864: still suppressed when neutrinos are quasi-degenerate, by the

865: $(m_{3}-m_{1})/\tilde{m}_2=

866: \Delta m^2_{\rm atm}/\tilde{m}_2(m_3+m_1)$ factor already discussed  

867: above.

868: 

869: The constraint on neutrino masses

870: obtained in this special case

871: is shown by the dashed line in fig.\fig{mdeg}a

872: and is significantly stronger than

873: the one obtained in the previous case (continuous line).

874: This special case, which does not correspond to the most conservative

875: situation,

876: roughly corresponds to what is obtained in~\cite{epsP}.

877: In this reference, the hierarchical asymmetry has been enhanced 

878: by the resonance factor but was

879: still suppressed by the orthogonality factor (which

880: is $\sim 10^{-3}$ for $m_1 \sim 1$~eV).

881: 

882: \begin{figure}[t]

883: $$\includegraphics[width=7.5cm]{mdeg}\hspace{8mm}

884: \includegraphics[width=7.5cm]{degdeg}$$

885: \caption{\label{fig:mdeg}\em In fig.\fig{mdeg}a

886: we {\rm estimate} how much the

887: maximal value of neutrino mass compatible with thermal

888: leptogenesis increases

889: when right-handed neutrinos are allowed to be

890: quasi-degenerate.

891: The dashed line includes only the resonant enhancement of

892: CP-violation, eq.~\eq{epsmax3deg},

893: while the continuous line includes all effects.

894: A numerical sampling confirms that these constraints

895: can be saturated and even slightly exceeded.

896: Fig.\fig{mdeg}b holds 

897: in models where everything is as degenerate as neutrinos,

898: see eq.s~(\ref{sys:splits}).

899: The parameter $n$ quantifies how much $\tilde{m}_i$ are

900: assumed to be close to neutrino masses $m_i$.

901: As $n$ increases our assumptions get relaxed,

902: and therefore the constraint on $m_3$ becomes weaker.}

903: %so that $\tilde{m}$ must now be close to neutrino masses, 

904: %	considering

905: %	the natural possibility that the $\tilde{m}_i$ should be

906: %	quasi-degenerate with the neutrino masses (taking here for simplicity

907: %	$\tilde{m}_{1,2,3} \equiv \tilde{m}$ with

908: %	$\tilde{m}=m_1+n(m_3-m_1)$). 

909: \end{figure}

910: 

911: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 

912: %%

913: \subsection*{The most realistic case}

914: Since the leptogenesis  constraint on neutrino masses is relevant

915:   only for a quasi-degenerate spectrum of light neutrinos, one can

916:   wonder which is the most natural right-handed neutrino mass

917:   spectrum that produces quasi-degenerate neutrinos.

918:  Presumably the answer is: three  quasi-degenerate right-handed neutrinos.

919:  In fact, other spectra (e.g.\ hierarchical right-handed neutrinos)

920: can give rise to quasi-degenerate neutrinos

921:  only in presence of an appropriate precise correlation

922:  between the Yukawa couplings and the right-handed neutrino masses.

923:  It is difficult to find a theoretical reason that can justify 

924:  this kind of correlation among different objects.

925: 

926: With three 

927: quasi-degenerate right-handed neutrinos, no qualitatively new effect appears with respect to the

928: `two neutrino' quasi-degenerate case of eq.\eq{epsmaxdeg} we discussed above.

929: An orthogonality suppression similar to the one of the special case  

930: above

931: is generically not present.

932: As a consequence the constraint on neutrino masses

933: is again well estimated by the continuous line in fig.\fig{mdeg}a.

934: 

935: 

936: 

937: 

938: There exists one specific pattern,

939: which is probably the most realistic one, which leads

940: to more stringent bounds.

941: In fact, if neutrinos were quasi-degenerate,

942: the degeneracy would presumably not be accidental but due to

943: some reason:

944: a broken SO(3) flavour symmetry is probably the simplest possibility.

945: One expects that in such framework all quantities, and not only

946: neutrino masses, are close to the ideal limit

947: where three degenerate right-handed neutrinos

948: give equal masses (with equal CP phases)

949: to three orthogonal combinations of left-handed  

950: neutrinos.

951: Therefore one expects something like $\tilde{m}_i - \tilde{m}_j\approx m_i - m_j$ and

952: \begin{eqnsystem}{sys:splits}

953: &&\frac{M_2-M_1}{M_1}\sim

954: \frac{\tilde{m}_2-\tilde{m}_1}{\tilde{m_1}}\sim

955: \frac{m_2-m_1}{m_1} \approx \frac{\Delta m^2_{\rm sun}}{2 m_1^2}\approx

956: 0.5~10^{-4} \bigg(\frac{\eV}{m_{2}}\bigg)^2, \label{eq:splitsol}\\

957: &&\frac{M_3-M_2}{M_2}\sim \frac{m_3-m_2}{m_2} \sim

958: \frac{\tilde{m}_3-\tilde{m}_2}{\tilde{m_2}}

959: \approx \frac{\Delta m^2_{\rm atm}}{2 m_3^2}\approx

960: 10^{-3} \bigg(\frac{\eV}{m_{2}}\bigg)^2. \label{eq:splitatm}

961: \end{eqnsystem}

962: Right-handed neutrinos can be more degenerate than in the above  

963: estimates

964: if only the neutrino Yukawa couplings

965: deviate from the symmetric limit, and can be less degenerate only

966: if there are accidental cancellations between non-universal

967: Yukawa couplings and non-degenerate $M_{1,2,3}$

968: in the see-saw prediction for neutrino masses.

969: %  ...if only .... only if... e'giusto cosi'. Non'e'una svista.

970: Within the parameterization of eq.\eq{seesawParamCI}, our reasonable  

971: assumption means

972: $|y_{ij}|\circa{<} \Delta m^2/m^2$.

973: 

974: To calculate the bound on the neutrino mass considering the realistic

975: example of eq.s~(\ref{sys:splits}), it is an excellent

976: approximation to take in eq.\eq{eps} (and similar equation for $N_{2,3}$) all

977: $M_i$ equal to the same value $M$ everywhere except in the resonance

978: $S$ factors, and to take all decay widths equal to the same value

979: $\Gamma$ everywhere except in the Yukawa coupling $I$ factors. It 

980: is also an excellent  

981: approximation to

982: calculate the

983: wash-out effects in the symmetric limits with

984: $\tilde{m}_1=\tilde{m}_2=\tilde{m}_3\equiv\tilde{m}$.

985: Making these approximations

986: (and assuming $M_{1,2,3}\gg10^{10}\GeV$, so that 

987: interaction rates induced by

988: charged lepton Yukawa couplings can be neglected)

989: the complicated set of Boltzmann equations for

990: the lepton asymmetries generated by $N_{1,2,3}$ decays

991: splits into three independent  Boltzmann equations.

992: The net result is that the efficiency is the same as

993: in `one flavour' approximation, with the CP-asymmetry now given by

994: $\varepsilon=\varepsilon_1+\varepsilon_2+\varepsilon_3$

995: (which can be rewritten in a rephasing-invariant way as a trace

996: of an appropriate matrix function of $\lambda$ and $M_N$, see~\cite{jarlskog}).

997: In this case in the limit $M_1=M_2$ the asymmetry reduces to the one

998: of the special case above which is orthogonality suppressed by factors 

999: $(m_3-m_1)/\tilde{m}_i$. Therefore the only terms which are not

1000: orthogonality suppressed and which are dominant are the terms

1001: involving

1002: the $M_2^2-M_1^2$ splitting. Neglecting higher order terms in the splitting

1003: parameters $(M_3-M_1)/M_1$, $(M_2-M_1)/M_1$ and $(M_2-M_1)/(M_3-M_1)$

1004: these terms are:

1005: \begin{equation}

1006: %\varepsilon \simeq 2 \frac{\Gamma}{M}- S_2 I_2 - 2 \frac{\Gamma}{M} S_3

1007: %S_3 \frac{M^2_2-M^2_1}{M_3^2-M_1^2} 

1008: %\frac{(M_3^2-M_1^2)^2- M^2 \Gamma^2}{(M_3^2-M_1^2)^2+M^2 \Gamma^2}  

1009: \varepsilon  \simeq - 2 \frac{\Gamma}{M} S_2 I_2 + 2

1010: \frac{\Gamma}{M} S_3

1011: I_3 \frac{M_2-M_1}{M_3-M_1}\frac{(M_3-M_1)^2-

1012: \Gamma^2/4}{(M_3-M_1)^2+ \Gamma^2/4}  \,.

1013: \label{eq:epsreal}

1014: \end{equation}

1015: The first term is the asymmetry of the 2 quasi

1016: degenerate case of eq.\eq{epsmaxdeg} (from both $\varepsilon_1$ and

1017: $\varepsilon_2$) in which $N_3$ has a negligible effect.

1018: The second term comes from the difference between the $N_1$-$N_3$

1019: and $N_2$-$N_3$ mass splittings in the diagram involving these

1020: right-handed neutrinos. It is easy to check that although this term

1021: can have large effects for large $M$,\footnote{At large $M$

1022:   (e.g.~above $10^{13\div14}$~GeV), unlike for smaller $M$, the sum

1023:   of both terms is suppressed by orthogonality $(m_3-m_1)/\tilde{m}_i$ 

1024:   factors, and the corresponding neutrino mass bound is therefore suppressed.}

1025: % (e.g. above $10^{13}$~GeV), 

1026: it 

1027: has a completely negligible effect

1028: on the bound which is obtained for smaller $M$.

1029: The asymmetry relevant for the determination of the bound

1030: reduces therefore to the 2 quasi-degenerate

1031: case above of eq.\eq{epsmaxdeg} summed on both $\varepsilon_1$ and

1032: $\varepsilon_2$.

1033: In addition to the fact that

1034: it is not

1035: suppressed by any orthogonality relation factor, it turns out to be

1036: little suppressed by the resonance factor $S_2$.

1037: For values of

1038: $m_1$ around eV and with $\tilde{m}_j \sim m_i$ the 

1039: factor $S_2$ is naturally at

1040: the resonance or close to it.

1041: From eq.\eq{splitsol}, the resonance

1042: condition $\Gamma \sim 2(M_2-M_1)$ gives:

1043: \begin{equation}\label{eq:Mdeg}

1044: M \simeq 10^{11} \,\, \hbox{GeV} \Big( \frac{\eV}{m_i} \Big)^3 \,,

1045: \end{equation}

1046: The only large suppression can come from the factor

1047: $I_2$ for values of the $\tilde{m}_i$ close to $m_1$.

1048: From the bound on $I_2$ given in appendix~\ref{I2}, this suppression goes  

1049: like:

1050: \begin{equation}

1051: |\varepsilon_{\rm max}|=I_2^{\rm max}

1052: \simeq (1-m_1/\tilde{m})^{3/2} \,,

1053: \label{eq:I2suppress}

1054: \end{equation}

1055: where for simplicity in the last equality we have taken all

1056: $\tilde{m}_i$

1057: equal to the same value $\tilde{m}$.

1058: Using this bound, in fig.\fig{mdeg}b we give the

1059: baryon asymmetry we obtain as a function of $m_3$ for values of

1060: $\tilde{m}=m_1+n(m_3-m_1)$ with $n=\{1/2,1,2,4\}$. Taking  

1061: $\tilde{m}=m_3$ ($n=1$),

1062: as the generic example for the case that the $\tilde{m}$ would be

1063: precisely of order the neutrino masses, gives the constraint

1064: \begin{equation}

1065: m_3 < 0.6 \,\, \hbox{eV}  \label{eq:m3reali}

1066: \end{equation}

1067: which is stronger than in the conservative case %(continuous line of fig.\fig{mdeg}a)

1068: because we are now assuming smaller $\tilde{m}$, close to neutrino masses.

1069: %while $n=1/2$ gives $m_3<0.45$~eV.

1070: Taking larger values of $\tilde{m}$ leads rapidly to larger bounds. For

1071: example taking $n=4$ (which starts be fine-tuned)

1072: gives $m_3<1$~eV.

1073: The dependence of the bound on $M_1$ is quite sensitive to the exact

1074: value of the splitting we take for the right-handed neutrinos because  

1075: this

1076: determines the position of the resonance. For 

1077: eq.s~(\ref{sys:splits}) the

1078: bound is obtained for values close to where the $N_1/N_2$

1079: resonance occurs, i.e.~around  $M\sim10^{11}$~GeV.

1080: Without a predictive flavour model which would show how

1081: the correlations between the seesaw parameters

1082: at the origin of the degenerate spectrum occur, these bounds obtained

1083: from eq.s~(\ref{sys:splits}) are only indicative of what  

1084: happens and

1085: in order to have a safe bound we must consider the conservative case

1086: of fig.\fig{mdeg}a

1087:  (where $n$ was left as a free parameter in order to maximize the asymmetry, 

1088: so that $\tilde{m}_j$ can differ from $m_i$ by factors of order one).

1089: Even in a very constrained situation the

1090: neutrino masses

1091: can be as large as 0.6~eV, eq.\eq{m3reali}.\footnote{Stronger constraints will arise if supersymmetry exists

1092: and if right-handed neutrinos lighter than in eq.\eq{Mdeg}

1093: will be needed to avoid gravitino overproduction~\cite{nucleo}.

1094: Furthermore, making extra `reasonable' assumptions about the flavour

1095: structure of Yukawa couplings one gets

1096: a smaller CP-asymmetry (suppressed by 2 powers of the quasi-degeneracy factor,

1097: rather than by 3/2 powers) and consequently a slightly stronger constraint on neutrino masses.}

1098: 

1099: 

1100: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 

1101: %%%%%

1102: \section{Leptogenesis in alternative minimal models of neutrino  

1103: masses}\label{T}

1104: Generic neutrino masses can be mediated by tree-level exchange of:

1105: \begin{itemize}

1106: \item[a)] At least three fermion singlets

1107: (`right-handed neutrinos'), described by the see-saw Lagrangian of  

1108: eq.\eq{Lseesaw}.

1109: 

1110: \item[b)] At least three fermion SU(2)$_L$ triplets with zero hypercharges:

1111: the Lagrangian keeps the same structure as in the singlet case,

1112: but with different contractions of the SU$(2)_L$ indices that we  

1113: explicitly show:

1114: \beq\label{eq:Lseesaw3}

1115: \Lag = \Lag_{\rm SM} +\bar N_i iD\hspace{-1.5ex}/\, N_i +

1116: (\lambdaN ^{ij} ~  \tau^a_{\alpha\beta} N^a_i  

1117: L_j^\alpha H^\beta  + \frac{M_N^{ij}}{2}   N_i^a N_j^a+\hbox{h.c.}).  \eeq

1118: The index $a$ runs over $\{1,2,3\}$,

1119: $\alpha,\beta$ over $\{1,2\}$ and

1120: $\tau^{a}$ are the Pauli matrices.

1121: 

1122: 

1123: 

1124: \item[c)] One scalar (`Higgs') triplet $T$ with

1125: appropriate hypercharge, such that

1126: the most generic renormalizable Lagrangian is

1127: \beq\label{eq:tripletS}\Lag = \Lag_{\rm SM} + |D_\mu T|^2- M_T^2 |T|^2+

1128: ({\lambda}^{ij}_T L^iL^j T  + M\, HH T^*+\hbox{h.c.} ).\eeq

1129: 

1130: \end{itemize}

1131: Neutrino masses can be also mediated by combinations of the above possibilities,

1132: among which it is interesting to consider:

1133: \begin{itemize}

1134: \item[d)] Two or more scalar triplets $T$ with similar interactions.

1135: \item[e)] One scalar triplet and fermion singlets.

1136: \end{itemize}

1137: Model c) has the minimal number of beyond-the-SM parameters

1138: (8+3, while a) and b) have both 12+6 extra parameters)

1139: but does not lead to a large enough lepton asymmetry.\footnote{One  

1140: expects

1141: that a CP asymmetry in the total triplet

1142: decay rate, $\Gamma(T\to LL)\neq \Gamma(T^*\to\bar L\bar L)$

1143: arises at two or more loops.

1144: Taking into account

1145: how $\lambda_T$ and the Yukawa couplings of charged leptons

1146: break  U(3)$_L\otimes{\rm U}(3)_E$ flavour rotations

1147: and proceeding along the lines of~\cite{dipoli}

1148: we find that a non zero CP asymmetry needs four powers of

1149: $\lambda_\tau$ and two powers of $\lambda_\mu$, and is therefore

1150: too small (unless enhanced by IR effects, which might

1151: give only a mild logarithmic GIM-like suppression).}

1152: Adding to c) other scalar triplets as in d) or fermion singlets as in e) 

1153: allows successful leptogenesis\footnote{Leptogenesis in case d) has  

1154: been studied

1155: in~\cite{masar,scaltriplepto}. We do not consider further this

1156: possibility here.} at the price of introducing more unknown parameters

1157: than in a), b) and c).

1158: Theoretically, case a) is

1159: preferred because singlets

1160: nicely marry with grand unification

1161: (which is maybe the most promising speculation that we have today).

1162: The combination e) can also find theoretical support because

1163: 3 singlets and a Higgs triplet are naturally present in

1164: renormalizable SO(10) models (as well as the in underlying left-right  

1165: models)

1166: and can play an important r\^ole in leptogenesis~\cite{sod,hs,lazdent}. This

1167: possibility does not lead to relevant constraints on neutrino mass.

1168: %\footnote{In renormalizable

1169: %$SO(10)$ or left-right models, both a) and c) can play a role for

1170: %leptogenesis \cite{hs}. Fermion triplets can be present if there is

1171: %for example $ 24$ multiplets of SU(5)~\cite{ma}.}.

1172: Cases b) and d) seem to be less natural within a grand

1173: unified scheme.

1174: E.g.\ fermion triplets with the needed Yukawa  

1175: couplings

1176: can arise from adjoints of SU(5).

1177: However we believe that it is worth to study case b) because it

1178: is the only possibility which, with as few parameters as the singlet

1179: model,

1180: can lead to successful

1181: leptogenesis.

1182: This is what we show in the following.

1183: 

1184: \begin{figure}[t]

1185: $$

1186: \includegraphics[width=16cm]{FeynT}$$

1187: \caption{\label{fig:FeynT}\em

1188: {\bf Fermion triplet leptogenesis}. 

1189: Feynman diagrams that give the new interaction rate $\gamma_A$.}

1190: \end{figure}

1191: 

1192: 

1193: 

1194: Neutrino singlets trivially allow thermal leptogenesis:

1195: not having gauge interactions they

1196: easily satisfy the out-of-equilibrium Sacharov condition for  

1197: baryogenesis.

1198: Fermion triplets (as scalar triplets) have gauge interactions so that

1199: it is more difficult to have a  non thermal abundancy.

1200: We now study thermal leptogenesis in decays of charged particles,

1201: finding that gauge interactions, rather than preventing baryogenesis,

1202: make it more predictive.

1203: The point is that gauge interactions involve two particles (see fig.\fig{FeynT})

1204: and are therefore doubly Boltzmann suppressed at temperatures below  

1205: their mass

1206: (fig.\fig{etaT}a shows an explicit example), so that

1207: they cannot wash-out the lepton asymmetry in an efficient

1208: way.\footnote{A similar result was found for

1209: scalar triplets in~\cite{scaltriplepto}.}

1210: On the contrary gauge interactions are efficient at higher temperatures

1211: and thermalize the initial abundancy, so that the final baryon  

1212: asymmetry

1213: almost never depends on it

1214: (unlike what happens in the singlet case).

1215: 

1216: With fermion triplets neutrino masses are

1217: still given by the usual see-saw formula,

1218: $m = -v^2 \lambda^T \cdot M_N^{-1} \cdot \lambda$,

1219: without changing any ${\cal O}(1)$ factor.

1220: Using the same notations as in the singlet case (see eq.\eq{eps} for a more precise discussion)

1221: the CP asymmetry is now given by

1222: \begin{equation}\label{eq:epsT}

1223: \varepsilon_1=\sum_{j=2,3}\frac{3}{2}

1224:   \frac{M_1 }{M_j }\frac{\Gamma_j }{M_j }

1225:   I_j\frac{V_j-2 S_j }{3} \,,

1226: \end{equation}

1227: and is therefore 3 times smaller in the hierarchical limit.

1228: The final amount of baryon asymmetry is given by

1229: the CP-asymmetry times the efficiency factor $\eta$ times a

1230: numerical coefficient which is  3 times bigger than in the singlet case  

1231: because now $N_1$ has three components:

1232: \begin{equation}

1233: \label{uusm}

1234: \frac{n_{B}}{n_\gamma} =-0.029 \varepsilon_{1} \eta \,.

1235: \end{equation}

1236: The $N_1$ decay width is given by the same expression as in the singlet  

1237: case,

1238: so that the thermally averaged decay rate $\gamma_D$ becomes 3 times  

1239: bigger

1240: (again because $N_1$ now has 3 components).

1241: The on-shell part of $\Delta L=2$ scattering rates, equal

1242: to $\gamma_D/4$~\cite{thermal},

1243: becomes therefore also 3 times bigger, and the off-shell part is  

1244: affected in a different way.

1245: We find:

1246: \begin{eqnsystem}{sys:scatt}

1247: \hat\sigma_{Ns} (LH\to\bar L H^*)&=& \frac{(\lambda \lambda^\dagger)_{11}^2}{4\pi}\bigg[\nonumber

1248: 2+x D_s^{\rm 2sub}+(2-3x\xi )\hbox{Re}D_s+3\xi (x\xi -2)-\\

1249: &&-\frac{2\ln(1+x)}{x}(1-(\hbox{Re}D_s-3\xi )(1+x))\bigg]\\

1250: \hat\sigma_{Nt} (LL\to H^* H^*)&=& \frac{(\lambda \lambda^\dagger)_{11}^2}{2\pi}\bigg[\frac{3x}{2}(\xi ^2+\frac{2}{1+x})+

1251: (3\xi -\frac{3}{2+x})\ln(1+x)\bigg]\\

1252: \riga{where $x=s/M_1^2$.

1253: A `natural' value of the parameter $\xi$ is

1254: $\xi = m_3/\tilde{m}_1$. 

1255: It is defined as follows: the amplitude of $N_{2,3}$-mediated scatterings is 

1256: written as $\xi$ times the value computed assuming that $N_{2,3}$ give the same neutrino masses as $N_1$.

1257: In order to deal with this issue in a more precise way

1258: one should know the flavour structure of $N_1$ couplings

1259: and solve Boltzmann equations for the asymmetries in the various flavours.

1260: Our simplified approach is justified by the fact that 

1261: $\xi$ has a minor impact in most of the `reasonable' parameter space.

1262: The reduced cross sections $\hat\sigma$ are related to the corresponding interaction rates

1263: as summarized in~\cite{thermal}, that also explains how to perform

1264: a proper subtraction of the $s$-channel propagator $D_s$.

1265: 

1266: 

1267: \smallskip

1268: 

1269: We computed gauge scatterings $\hat{\sigma}_A$ (see fig.\fig{FeynT})

1270: summing over the 12 SM fermionic doublets $D=\{L_{1,2,3},Q_{1,2,3}\}$

1271: and neglecting scatterings into Higgs doublets 

1272: (since they are not enhanced by a large

1273: number of final states and since the threshold behavior at $s\simeq M_1^2$ is the same).

1274: At $s\gg M_1^2$ the $NN\to AA$ cross section is enhanced by IR effects.

1275: We find:

1276: }\\

1277: \hat\sigma_A(N_1N_1\to D\bar{D},AA)&=& \frac{6 g_2^4}{\pi }(1+\frac{2}{x})r +

1278: %\frac{g_2^4}{4\pi} \bigg[-r(31 +\frac{134}{x}) + 24(1+\frac{4}{x}-\frac{4}{x^2})\ln\frac{1+r}{1-r}\bigg]

1279: \frac{2g_2^4}{\pi} \bigg[-r(4 +\frac{17}{x}) + 3(1+\frac{4}{x}-\frac{4}{x^2})\ln\frac{1+r}{1-r}\bigg]

1280: \end{eqnsystem}

1281: where $r= \sqrt{1-4/x}$.

1282: Symmetry factors for initial and final state particles are included in the reduced cross sections. 

1283: For simplicity we neglected $\Delta L=1$ scatterings, three body decays,

1284: one loop and thermal corrections.

1285: 

1286: 

1287: 

1288: \begin{figure}[t]

1289: $$

1290: \includegraphics[height=8cm]{GammaT}~~~

1291: \includegraphics[height =8cm]{etaT}$$

1292: \caption{\label{fig:etaT}\em

1293: {\bf Fermion triplet leptogenesis}. 

1294: Fig.\fig{etaT}a: Interaction rates $|\gamma/Hn_\gamma|$

1295: for $M_1 = 10^{10}\GeV$ and $\tilde{m}_1 = 0.06\eV$.

1296: Fig.\fig{etaT}b: contour-levels of the efficiency $\eta$.

1297: Successful leptogenesis with (infinitely)

1298: hierarchical triplets is possible inside the green area.

1299: }

1300: \end{figure}

1301: 

1302: 

1303: 

1304: 

1305: 

1306: 

1307: 

1308: The Boltzmann equation involve the new gauge term, $\gamma_A$:

1309:    \begin{eqnsystem}{sys:Boltz}

1310: sHz \frac{dY_{N_1}}{dz} &=&

1311:   -\bigg(\frac{Y_{N_1}}{Y_{N_1}^{\rm eq}}-1\bigg)\gamma_D

1312:   -\bigg(\frac{Y_{N_1}^2}{Y_{N_1}^{2\rm eq}}-1\bigg)\gamma_A \,, \\

1313: sHz \frac{dY_{{\cal B} - {\cal L}}}{dz} &=&

1314: -\gamma_D \varepsilon_{N_1} \bigg(\frac{Y_{N_1}}{Y_{N_1}^{\rm eq}}-1\bigg)  

1315: -\frac{Y_{{\cal B} - {\cal L}}}{Y_{L}^{\rm eq}}\bigg(\frac{\gamma_D}{2}+

1316: 2\gamma_{N}^{\rm sub}\bigg) \,,

1317:   \label{eq:BoltzB-L}

1318: \end{eqnsystem}

1319:   where $s$ is the entropy of SM  

1320: particles,

1321: $H$ is the Hubble constant at temperature $T$.

1322: 

1323: 

1324: The efficiency factor $\eta(\tilde{m}_1, M_1,\xi)$,

1325: computed solving numerically the Boltzmann equations,

1326: is shown in fig.\fig{etaT}b, assuming

1327: the reasonable value of $\xi$

1328: (other reasonable values would give minor differences).

1329: The result is qualitatively different from the analogous

1330: result in the singlet case, shown in fig.~8 of~\cite{thermal}:

1331: \begin{itemize}

1332: \item At $\tilde{m}_1\ll 10^{-3}\eV$ only  gauge interactions drive the  

1333: $N_1$ abundancy close

1334: to thermal equilibrium (unless $M_1\circa{>} 10^{15}\GeV$).

1335: A `relic' fraction of $N_1$ survives to gauge annihilations

1336: and later decays generating the baryon asymmetry with efficiency

1337: $\eta \approx M_1/10^{13}\GeV$

1338: ($\eta$ is larger if $\tilde{m}_1\sim 10^{-3}\eV$ because

1339: some $N_1$ decay during the annihilation stage).

1340: Gauge interactions give a stronger suppression at smaller $M_1$, because at low temperatures

1341: the expansion of the universe is slower, $H\sim T^2/M_{\rm Pl}$.

1342: This can be contrasted to what happens in the $\nu_R$ case:

1343: since it has no  gauge interactions the efficiency $\eta$ only has a  

1344: minor dependence on $M_1$.

1345: \item At  $\tilde{m}_1\gg 10^{-3}\eV$ neutrino Yukawa interactions  

1346: drive the $N_1$ abundancy close

1347: to thermal equilibrium.

1348: As a consequence there are only ${\cal O}(1)$ differences between

1349: singlet and triplet leptogenesis. 

1350: \end{itemize}

1351: Assuming a sufficiently huge hierarchy, $M_1\gg M_{2,3}$ we can

1352: derive a region where thermal leptogenesis can be successful

1353: using our maximal CP-asymmetry

1354: (which is $1/3$ of what obtained in eq.\eq{epsDeg} in the singlet case).

1355: The lower bound on the $N_1$ mass and the upper bound

1356: on neutrino masses are

1357: at $3\sigma$

1358: \begin{equation}\label{eq:Tripletbound}

1359: M_1\circa{>}1.5~10^{10}\GeV\qquad m_3 < 0.12\eV\,.

1360: \end{equation}

1361: These bounds are slightly stronger than in the right-handed neutrino

1362: case\footnote{Within one order of magnitude, our bound

1363: on $M_1$ is in agreement with the estimated

1364:    bound in~\cite{scaltriplepto} for scalar triplets (see

1365: also~\cite{hs}).},

1366: and are subject to all the caveats discussed in that case.

1367: In particular quasi-degenerate $N_i$ allow leptogenesis

1368: at the TeV-scale: fig.\fig{etaT}b shows that, despite gauge interactions, the efficiency

1369: remains large enough.

1370: This case is testable at collider,

1371: where $N_i$ triplets can be produced and detected

1372: (while $N_i$ singlets cannot, because have too low cross sections).

1373: 

1374: Only ${\cal O}(1)$ factors are modified if

1375: supersymmetry is introduced in the usual minimal way.

1376: 

1377: 

1378: 

1379: 

1380: 

1381: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1382: \section{Conclusions}\label{concl}

1383: Atmospheric oscillations suggest that the heaviest neutrino mass $m_3$

1384: is larger than about $0.05\eV$.

1385: Various techniques could reach the necessary sensitivity

1386: and presently give the following 95\% C.L.\ bounds:

1387: %time delay from 1987A supernova implies $m_3\circa{<} 10\eV$,

1388: $m_3 < 2.2\eV$ from $\beta$-decay~\cite{beta},

1389: $m_3<1.0 h~\eV$ from neutrino-less double-beta decay~\cite{0n2b}

1390: (assuming Majorana masses; $h\approx 1$ renormalizes the uncertain  

1391: nuclear matrix element),

1392: $m_3 < 0.23\eV$ from cosmology~\cite{WMAP} (assuming a minimal model).

1393: A stronger constraint, $m_3 \circa{<} 0.1\eV$~\cite{epsP}, 

1394: is obtained assuming thermal leptogenesis within  

1395: see-saw models

1396: with hierarchical right-handed neutrinos.

1397: We reanalyzed this leptogenesis constraint,

1398: merging the revised computation of dynamics of leptogenesis  

1399: of~\cite{thermal}

1400: with a revised  bound on the CP-asymmetry (see eq.\eq{epsDeg}).

1401: It is weaker than previous bounds, and its validity needs extra  

1402: assumptions

1403: to discard a special (but non necessarily fine-tuned)

1404: choice of parameters that can give a much larger asymmetry

1405: (see eq.\eq{stimaDI} and fig.\fig{EpsDI}).

1406: Furthermore in  appendix~\ref{fla}

1407: we explained why  and which  single Boltzmann equation for the

1408: total $B-L$ asymmetry is a good approximation

1409: in the region where the constraint on neutrino masses is saturated.

1410: 

1411: From this revised analysis we obtain that if neutrinos

1412: % If neutrinos will 

1413: turn out to be lighter than 

1414: \begin{equation}

1415: m_i <0.15\eV

1416: \end{equation}

1417: thermal leptogenesis

1418: can generically

1419: produce the observed baryon abundancy.

1420: This critical value is the present $3\sigma$ bound (see fig.\fig{m3})

1421: and can mildly shift with more accurate measurements

1422: of $\Delta m^2_{\rm atm}$, of $n_B$, or if supersymmetry will be  

1423: discovered.

1424: 

1425: \medskip

1426: 

1427: We studied what happens dropping the dubious

1428: assumption that hierarchical right-handed neutrinos give

1429: quasi-degenerate neutrino masses.

1430: If neutrinos are heavier than $0.15\eV$

1431: quasi-degenerate $\nu_R$ would be suggested by good taste

1432: and allow to weaken largely the leptogenesis constraint.

1433: How much depends on why neutrinos are quasi-degenerate.

1434: We consider two possible classes of interpretations:

1435: 

1436: \begin{itemize}

1437: \item[a)] Neutrinos are not controlled by any flavour symmetry:

1438: this naturally gives large mixing angles and

1439: comparable neutrino masses, which might accidentally show

1440: some mild level of quasi-degeneracy.

1441: If we therefore assume $m_i\approx \tilde{m}_j$ we 

1442: find that a mild degeneracy,  

1443: $(M_2-M_1)/M_1 \sim 0.1$

1444: is sufficient to push the leptogenesis constraint above 1 eV  

1445: (continuous line in fig.\fig{mdeg}a).

1446: This happens for two different reasons: the CP asymmetry can be  

1447: resonantly enhanced

1448: and is no longer suppressed by one power of the orthogonality

1449: suppression 

1450: factor  

1451: %$\Delta m^2_{\rm atm}/[(m_3+m_1) \tilde{m}_j]\sim  A CHE SERVE?

1452: $\Delta m^2_{\rm atm}/m_3^2 $, see eq.\eq{supprfactors}.

1453: A sub-eV leptogenesis constraint would survive only if one of these two  

1454: suppressions were present

1455: (dashed line in fig.\fig{mdeg}a and previous analyses \cite{epsP}),

1456: but this has no reason to generically occur.

1457: 

1458: \item[b)] Some flavour symmetry (e.g.\ SO(3)) keeps left and  

1459: right-handed neutrinos quasi-degenerate giving

1460: $\tilde{m}_j$ very close to neutrino masses $m_i$.

1461: %       $1-m_i / m_j\approx 1-M_i/M_j\approx 1-\tilde{m}_i /  

1462: %       \tilde{m}_j $  INESATTO, PERMETTE GRANDI mtildei

1463: We find that this gives a CP-asymmetry

1464: suppressed by 3/2 powers of the quasi degeneracy factor  

1465: $1-m_1/\tilde{m}_j\sim \Delta m^2_{\rm atm}/m_3^2$, see eq.\eq{I2suppress},

1466: resulting in a constraint $m_3 \circa{<} 0.6\eV$ (which can be  

1467: largely relaxed if the $\tilde{m}_j$ are slightly larger than the $m_i$,

1468: see fig.\fig{mdeg}b). 

1469: 

1470: \end{itemize}

1471: In the last section we studied leptogenesis in alternative minimal  

1472: models.

1473: Neutrino masses can be mediated by tree-level exchange of

1474: right-handed neutrinos, or of fermion SU(2)$_L$ triplets or of

1475: scalar triplets.

1476: We find that in the last two cases

1477: leptogenesis can proceed enough out-of-equilibrium,

1478: despite the new effect of gauge interactions.

1479: The reason is that their rates are strongly Boltzmann suppressed

1480: in the last stages of decay processes.

1481: While fermion triplets lead to successful leptogenesis (giving

1482: only slightly

1483: stronger constraints than with singlets, eq.\eq{Tripletbound})

1484: using only a single scalar triplet it seems impossible to achieve

1485: a sufficiently large CP-asymmetry.

1486: 

1487: 

1488: \paragraph{Acknowledgments}

1489: This work has been partially supported by the EU under TMR

1490: contracts HPRN--CT--2000--00148, HPRN--CT--2000--00152 and for

1491: T.H.~by the EU

1492: Marie Curie contract HPMF-CT-01765. We

1493: thank Sacha Davidson for useful

1494: suggestions and painful criticisms.

1495: 

1496:    

1497: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1498: \appendix

1499: 

1500: \section{Boltzmann equations with flavour}\label{fla}

1501: We here explain how

1502: the full network of Boltzmann equations can be approximated with a  

1503: single equation

1504: for the total $B-L$ asymmetry

1505: when computing the constraint on quasi-degenerate neutrino masses.

1506: In the standard approximation one writes one Boltzmann equation

1507: for the total asymmetry, without caring about how

1508: it is shared among different lepton doublet flavours.

1509: In simple cases this can be a good

1510: approximation~\cite{bcst} if done properly,

1511: as the following example shows.

1512: Let us suppose that $N_1$ decays generate a lepton asymmetry

1513: in $\nu_1  = (\nu_\mu + \nu_\tau)/\sqrt{2}$

1514: and that there are wash-out interactions acting

1515: on $\nu_2 = (\nu_\mu - \nu_\tau)/\sqrt{2}$:

1516: one can wonder if they are weighted by

1517: a) $|\langle \nu_1 | \nu_{\mu,\tau}\rangle|^2 = 1/2$

1518: or by

1519: b) $|\langle \nu_1 | \nu_{2}\rangle|^2 = 0$?

1520: The answer is a)

1521: when scatterings induced by the $\tau$ Yukawa coupling

1522: are much faster than the expansion of the universe

1523: (because they convert $\nu_1$ into a incoherent mixture of $\nu_\mu$ and $\nu_\tau$)

1524: and b) when they are much slower

1525: (because $\nu_1$ remains a coherent superposition of $\nu_\mu$ and $\nu_\tau$).

1526: Around the values $T\sim M_1 \gg 10^{11}\GeV$ for which

1527: the leptogenesis constraint is saturated,

1528: all SM lepton Yukawa couplings can be neglected (case b)

1529: and the Boltzmann equation for leptogenesis is~\cite{bcst}

1530: \begin{equation}\label{eq:rho}\frac{d\rho}{dt}=

1531: zsH \frac{d\rho}{dz} =  \gamma_D(1-\frac{Y_{N_1}}{Y_{N_1}^{\rm eq}})

1532: \frac{\Gamma \Pi - \bar\Gamma \bar \Pi}{\Gamma + \bar\Gamma}

1533: -\frac{ \{\gamma_N,\rho\}}{8Y_L^{\rm eq}} \,,

1534: \end{equation}

1535: where $\rho$ is the $3\times 3$ matrix density that fully describes

1536: how the 3 flavours share the $B-L$ asymmetry.

1537: $\Pi$ ($\bar\Pi$) is the projector over the lepton (anti-lepton)

1538: flavour to which $N_1$ decays with decay width $\Gamma$ ($\bar\Gamma$).

1539: At tree level $\Gamma = \bar\Gamma = \Gamma_1/2$ and

1540: $\Pi_{ij} =\bar\Pi_{ij} = ( \Pi_1)_{ij}\equiv

1541:   \lambda_{1i}\lambda_{1j}^*/|\lambda\lambda^\dagger|_{11}$.

1542: At one-loop $N_1$ decays into leptons and anti-leptons

1543: with different rates 

1544: (giving the total CP-asymmetry $\varepsilon_1 = (\Gamma-\bar\Gamma)/(\Gamma+\bar\Gamma)$)

1545: and into different flavours ($\Pi \neq\bar\Pi$).

1546: $\hat\gamma_N$ is the  $3\times 3$ flavour matrix

1547: of interaction rates of $\Delta L=2$ scatterings.

1548: It can be decomposed as $\hat\gamma_N = 4\gamma_D \Pi_1 +

1549: \hat\gamma_N^{\rm sub}$,

1550: where the first term takes into account resonant scatterings mediated

1551: by on-shell $N_1$, and $\hat\gamma_N^{\rm sub}$ describes off-shell

1552: scatterings mediated by $N_{1,2,3}$.

1553: For all the other symbols we adopted the notations of \cite{thermal}

1554: (e.g.\ $z= M_1/T$, $\gamma_D$ is the decay interaction rate,\ldots).

1555: 

1556: 

1557: 

1558: 

1559: In general,

1560: without making approximations

1561: the matrix equation\eq{rho} cannot be replaced by a single equation

1562: for the total asymmetry  $Y_{B-L} =  \hbox{Tr}\rho$,

1563: nor by three equations for the diagonal components of $\rho$ (in

1564: some flavour basis).

1565: In the present case, taking into account that

1566:   for quasi-degenerate neutrinos

1567:   $\hat\gamma_N^{\rm sub}$ is a linear combination of

1568:   $\Pi_1$ and of $1-\Pi_1$,\footnote{A less accurate approximation is

1569:   $(\hat\gamma_N^{\rm sub})_{ij}\approx

1570: \gamma_N^{\rm sub}\delta_{ij}$:

1571:   when left-handed neutrinos are quasi-degenerate

1572:   $\gamma_N^{\rm sub}$ is controlled by the average squared neutrino mass

1573:   (rather than by their sum, which is 3 times larger).}

1574:   it is non trivial to verify that at leading order in $\varepsilon_1$

1575:   the solution to\eq{rho} is

1576: $$ \rho = Y_{B-L} (\Pi_1+ \frac{\Pi-\bar\Pi}{2\varepsilon_1}) \,,$$

1577: where $Y_{B-L}$ satisfies the Boltzmann equation of~\cite{thermal}

1578: in `one flavour' approximation,

1579: $$zsH\frac{dY_{B-L}}{dz} =

1580: \varepsilon_1\gamma_D(1-\frac{Y_{N_1}}{Y_{N_1}^{\rm eq}})

1581: -\frac{Y_{B-L}}{Y_L^{\rm eq}} (\frac{\gamma_D}{2} + 2\gamma_N^{\rm sub})

1582: \,,$$

1583: that is therefore adequate for studying

1584: the heaviest neutrino mass compatible with leptogenesis.

1585: This is the equation we used to calculate the constraint on neutrino masses.

1586: 

1587: 

1588: \section{Maximal CP asymmetry with 2 quasi-degenerate $\nu_R$}\label{I2}

1589: In the following we compute the maximum value of $I_2$ for fixed value 

1590: of max$(\tilde{m}_1, \tilde{m}_2)$, which allows to give a bound on the

1591: asymmetry both in the 2 quasi-degenerate case, eq.\eq{epsmaxdeg}, and

1592: in the ``most realistic case'' of eq.\eq{epsreal}.

1593: Using the parameterization in eq.\eq{seesawParamCI}, $I_2$ can be  

1594: written as

1595: \begin{equation}

1596: I_2=\frac{1}{\tilde{m}_1 \, \tilde{m}_2 }

1597: {\hbox{Im}[(R \cdot \hbox{diag}(m_1,m_2,m_3)\cdot   

1598: R^{\dagger})_{12}^2]} \,,

1599: \end{equation}

1600: with

1601: \begin{equation}\label{eq:constr}

1602: \tilde m_1= (R \cdot  \hbox{diag}(m_1,m_2,m_3)\cdot R^{\dagger})_{11} \,,  

1603: \qquad\hbox{and}\qquad

1604: \tilde m_2 =(R\cdot  \hbox{diag}(m_1,m_2,m_3)\cdot  R^{\dagger})_{22} \,. 

1605: \eeq

1606: Neglecting the solar mass splitting, $I_2$ depends on 5 real  

1607: parameters: the complex angles

1608: $z_{13}$ and $z_{23}$ and the imaginary part of the angle $z_{12}$

1609: (the real part of $z_{12}$ cancels out because $m_1=m_2$).

1610: However, numerical inspection shows that the maximal value of $I_2$

1611: can be obtained for any value of  $\hbox{Re} z_{13}$ and of $\hbox{Re}  

1612: z_{23}$:

1613: we can therefore put them to zero,

1614: simplifying the expression and reducing the number of the free  

1615: parameters to 3. Moreover,  for fixed

1616: value of max$(\tilde{m}_1, \tilde{m}_2)$ the bound is obtained for

1617: $\tilde{m}_1=\tilde{m}_2 \equiv \tilde{m}$. For fixed

1618: $\tilde{m}_1$ the maximum of $\varepsilon_1+\varepsilon_2$ is

1619: also obtained for $\tilde{m}_1=\tilde{m}_2$. 

1620: All this together with eq.\eq{constr} gives   

1621: {\small \begin{equation}\label{eq:asym2}

1622: I_2^{\rm max}= 2 \max_z \,z \,\sqrt{1 - z} \bigg( 1 -  

1623: \frac{m_1}{\tilde m} \bigg)

1624: \bigg(1-\frac{m_1^2}{\tilde m^2}\bigg)^{-1/2}

1625: \left(1 - \frac{\tilde m - {m_1}}{\tilde m + {m_1}}z \right)^{1/2}

1626: \left(1 + \frac{\tilde m - {m_1}}{\tilde m + {m_3}} z\right)^{1/2}

1627: \left(1 - \frac{\tilde m - {m_1}}{\tilde m + {m_3}}z\right)^{-1/2} ,

1628: \end{equation}

1629: }

1630: where $z=[\cosh (2\, \hbox{Im}\,z_{23}) -1]( \tilde m + m_3 )/2( \tilde m - m_1) $

1631: can  vary in the

1632: interval $[0,1]$.

1633: We now need to maximize the previous expression with respect to $z$.

1634: This can be done analytically, but gives a lengthy expression.

1635: In the limit $\tilde m \gg m_i$ the maximum is reached for $z =  

1636: 1/\sqrt{2}$,

1637: while in the opposite limit $\tilde{m}\to m_1$ it is reached for $z = 2/3$.

1638: Since these two values are  close (and since functions are almost flat  

1639: around their maximum),

1640: an excellent approximation is obtained by setting $z$ to any of these  

1641: two numbers.

1642: Assuming quasi-degenerate neutrinos, $m_1 \simeq m_3$, one finds a  

1643: simple expression that interpolates between these two numbers,

1644: %$z=[3-\sqrt{1+8r}]/4(1-\sqrt{r})$ (where ),

1645: giving

1646: \begin{equation}  I_2^{\rm max}  

1647: =\sqrt{1+\frac{5}{2r}-\frac{1+(1+8r)^{3/2}}{8r^2}}

1648: \approx (1-m_1/\tilde{m})^{3/2}

1649: \label{eq:I2appendix}

1650: \end{equation}

1651: where $r=\tilde{m}^2/m_1^2$ and the last simple approximation is  

1652: accurate to better than $10\%$.

1653: So far we didn't put any restriction on $\tilde{m}_3$. Requiring in

1654: addition

1655: $\tilde{m}_3=\tilde{m}_{1,2}$ also gives eq.\eq{I2appendix}

1656: with an accuracy better than $10\%$. We used therefore eq.\eq{I2appendix}

1657: for all numerical analyses.

1658: Note that $I_2^{\rm {max}}$ reaches unity asymptotically for large $\tilde{m}$.

1659:  

1660: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 

1661: %%%%

1662: \footnotesize

1663: \begin{multicols}{2}

1664:   \begin{thebibliography}{99}

1665: 

1666: \bibitem{FY}

1667: M. Fukugita and T. Yanagida, Phys. Lett. {174B} (1986) 45.

1668: 

1669: \bibitem{leptogenesisBounds}

1670: \hepart[hep-ph/0202239]{S. Davidson, A. Ibarra}.

1671: The DI value of $\varepsilon_1$ was present also in

1672: \hepart[hep-ph/0109030]{K. Hamaguchi, H. Murayama, T. Yanagida}.

1673: An earlier work (\cite{bcst} around eq.~(5.1))

1674: presented the DI bound as valid only up to cancellations,

1675: in agreement with our present findings.

1676: 

1677: 

1678: 

1679: \bibitem{epsP}

1680: \art[hep-ph/0302092]{W.~Buchmuller,

1681: P.~Di Bari, M.~Pl\"umacher}{\NP}{B665}{445}{2003}.

1682: 

1683: \bibitem{thermal}

1684: \hepart[hep-ph/0310123]{G.F. Giudice, A. Notari,

1685: M. Raidal, A. Riotto, A. Strumia}

1686: 

1687: \bibitem{flanz} M. Flanz, E.A. Paschos, U. Sarkar, Phys. Lett.

1688: {B345} (1995) 248;

1689: M.~Flanz, E.A.~Paschos, U.~Sarkar, J.~Weiss,

1690: Phys. Lett. {B389} (1996) 693; L. Covi, E. Roulet, F. Vissani, Phys. Lett. {B384}

1691: (1996) 169; A. Pilaftsis, Phys. Rev. {D56} (1997) 5431; 

1692: A. Pilaftsis, T.E.J. Underwood,  

1693: hep-ph/0309342;

1694: T.~Hambye, Nucl. Phys. {B633} (2002) 171.

1695: 

1696: \bibitem{pil2} A. Pilaftsis, Nucl. Phys. {B504} (1997) 61.

1697: 

1698: \bibitem{seesawsinglet}

1699:   M. Gell-Mann, P. Ramond and R. Slansky,

1700:    in {\it Supergravity}, edited by P. van Nieuwenhuizen and D. Freedman,

1701:    (North-Holland, 1979), p.~315;

1702:   S.L. Glashow, in Quarks and Leptons, Carg\`ese, eds. M. L\'evy et al.,

1703: (Plenum, 1980, New-York), p. 707;

1704:   T. Yanagida, in {\it Proceedings of the Workshop on the Unified Theory

1705:    and the Baryon Number in the Universe}, edited by O. Sawada and

1706:    A. Sugamoto (KEK Report No.~79-18, Tsukuba, 1979), p.~95;

1707:   R.N.~Mohapatra and G. Senjanovi\'{c}, Phys. Rev. Lett. {44},

1708:    (1980) 912.

1709: 

1710: \bibitem{tripletferm} R. Foot, H. Lew, X.-G. He and G.C. Joshi,

1711:    Z. Phys. {C44} (1989) 441.

1712: \bibitem{ma} E. Ma, Phys. Rev. Lett.  {81}

1713:    (1998) 1171; E. Ma and D.P. Roy, Nucl. Phys. {B644} (2002) 290.

1714: 

1715: \bibitem{scalartriplet} G. Lazarides, Q. Shafi and C. Wetterich,

1716: Nucl Phys. {B181} (1981) 287; R.N. Mohapatra and G. Senjanovi\'c, Phys.

1717: Rev. {D23} (1981) 165; C. Wetterich, Nucl. Phys. {B187} (1981) 343.

1718: 

1719: 

1720: \bibitem{seesawparam}

1721: \hepart[hep-ph/0103065]{J.A. Casas, A. Ibarra}.

1722: 

1723: 

1724: \bibitem{nucleo}

1725: J. R. Ellis, J. Kim,  D. V. Nanopoulos,

1726: Phys. Lett. B145, 181 (1984);

1727: L. M. Krauss,

1728: Nucl. Phys. B227, 556 (1983);

1729: M. Yu. Khlopov, A. D. Linde,

1730: Phys. Lett. 138B, 265 (1984);

1731: J. R. Ellis, D. V. Nanopoulos, K. A. Olive, S.-J. Rey,

1732: Astropart. Phys. 4, 371 (1996);

1733: M. Bolz, A. Brandenburg, W. Buchmuller,

1734: Nucl. Phys. B 606, 518 (2001).

1735: R. H. Cyburt, J. Ellis, B. D. Fields, K. A. Olive,

1736: Phys. Rev. D 67, 103521 (2003).

1737: For a review see

1738: M.Yu. Khlopov, `Cosmoparticle physics', World Scientific, 1999.

1739: 

1740: \bibitem{jarlskog}

1741: \hepart[hep-ph/0312007]{S. Davidson, R. Kitano}.

1742: 

1743: 

1744: \bibitem{bcst}

1745: \art[hep-ph/9911315]{R.~Barbieri, P.~Creminelli,

1746: A.~Strumia, N.~Tetradis}{\NP}{B575}{61}{2000}.

1747: 

1748: 

1749: \bibitem{dipoli}

1750: \art[hep-ph/9610485]{A. Romanino and A. Strumia}{\NP}{B490}{204}{1997}.

1751: 

1752: \bibitem{masar}

1753: E. Ma and U. Sarkar, Phys. Rev. Lett. {80} (1998) 5716.

1754: 

1755: \bibitem{scaltriplepto} 

1756: T. Hambye,

1757: E. Ma and U. Sarkar, Nucl.

1758: Phys. {B602} (2001) 23.

1759: 

1760: \bibitem{sod}  P. O'Donnell and

1761: U. Sarkar, Phys. Rev. {D49} (1994)

1762: 2118.

1763: 

1764: \bibitem{hs} T. Hambye and G. Senjanovic, to appear in

1765: Phys. Lett. {B}, hep-ph/0307237.

1766: 

1767: \bibitem{lazdent} See also G. Lazarides and Q. Shafi,

1768: Phys. Rev. {D58} (1998) 071702. For a related model based on

1769: inflation see also T. Dent, G. Lazarides and R. Ruiz de

1770: Austri, hep-ph/0312033.

1771: 

1772: 

1773: 

1774: \bibitem{beta}

1775: \art{The {\sc Mainz} collaboration}{Nucl.\ Phys.\ Proc.  

1776: Suppl.}{91}{273}{2001};

1777: \art{The {\sc Troitsk} collaboration}{Nucl.\ Phys.\ Proc.  

1778: Suppl.}{91}{280}{2001}.

1779: 

1780: 

1781: 

1782: \bibitem{0n2b} The $0\nu2\beta$ bound on neutrino masses

1783: is obtained  by combining $0\nu2\beta$ data, 

1784: \art[hep-ph/0103062]{The {\sc Heidelberg--Moscow} collaboration,

1785: H.V.~Klap\-dor-Klein\-grot\-haus {\it et al.}}{Eur.\ Phys.\  

1786: J.}{A12}{147}{2001},

1787:   with oscillation data: see

1788:   \art[hep-ph/0201291]{F.~Feruglio, A.~Strumia and  

1789: F.~Vissani}{\NP}{B637}{345}{2002}.

1790: and references therein.

1791: 

1792: 

1793: 

1794:   \bibitem{WMAP}

1795: The cosmological bound on neutrino masses

1796: is obtained by combining WMAP data,

1797: \hepart[astro-ph/0302207]{C. L. Bennett et al.},

1798: with large-scale structure data: see

1799: \hepart[astro-ph/0302209]{D. N. Spergel et al.}

1800: and references therein.

1801: This is similar to pre-WMAP analyses,

1802: \art{A.~Lewis and S.~Bridle}{\PR}{D66}{103511}{2002}.

1803: Weaker more conservative bounds are obtained in

1804: \hepart[astro-ph/0303076]{S. Hannestad}{JCAP}{0305}{004}{2003}.

1805: 

1806: 

1807: 

1808: 

1809: \end{thebibliography}

1810: \end{multicols}

1811: 

1812: \end{document}

1813: 

1814: 

1815: