1: %% ****** Start of file template.aps ****** %
2: %%
3: %%
4: %% This file is part of the APS files in the REVTeX 4 distribution.
5: %% Version 4.0 of REVTeX, August 2001
6: %%
7: %%
8: %% Copyright (c) 2001 The American Physical Society.
9: %%
10: %% See the REVTeX 4 README file for restrictions and more information.
11: %%
12: %
13: % This is a template for producing manuscripts for use with REVTEX 4.0
14: % Copy this file to another name and then work on that file.
15: % That way, you always have this original template file to use.
16: %
17: % Group addresses by affiliation; use superscriptaddress for long
18: % author lists, or if there are many overlapping affiliations.
19: % For Phys. Rev. appearance, change preprint to twocolumn.
20: % Choose pra, prb, prc, prd, pre, prl, prstab, or rmp for journal
21: % Add 'draft' option to mark overfull boxes with black boxes
22: % Add 'showpacs' option to make PACS codes appear
23: % Add 'showkeys' option to make keywords appear
24: %\documentclass[aps,prl,preprint,groupedaddress]{revtex4}
25: %\documentclass[aps,prl,preprint,superscriptaddress]{revtex4}
26: %\documentclass[aps,prl,twocolumn,groupedaddress]{revtex4}
27: %\documentclass[aps,prd,preprint,groupedaddress,showpacs]{revtex4}
28: %\documentclass[aps,prd,twocolumn,groupedaddress,showpacs,floatfix]{revtex4}
29: \documentclass[aps,prd,preprint,superscriptaddress,showpacs,floatfix,11pt]{revtex4}
30:
31:
32: % You should use BibTeX and apsrev.bst for references
33: % Choosing a journal automatically selects the correct APS
34: % BibTeX style file (bst file), so only uncomment the line
35: % below if necessary.
36: %\bibliographystyle{apsrev}
37:
38: \usepackage[dvips]{graphics}
39: \usepackage[dvips]{graphicx}
40: \usepackage{psfrag}
41: \usepackage{longtable}
42: \usepackage{amsfonts}
43: \usepackage{mathrsfs}
44:
45: \begin{document}
46:
47: \preprint{BNL-HET-04/14, COLO-HEP-502}
48: \preprint{August, 2004}
49: \vskip 1.5in
50:
51: \title{Lepton Flavor Violating Decays, Soft Leptogenesis and SUSY SO(10)}
52:
53: \author{Mu-Chun Chen}
54: \email[]{chen@quark.phy.bnl.gov}
55: \affiliation{High Energy Theory Group, Department of Physics,
56: Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, NY 11973, U.S.A.}
57: \author{K.T. Mahanthappa}
58: \email[]{ktm@pizero.colorado.edu}
59: %\homepage[]{Your web page}
60: %\thanks{}
61: %\altaffiliation{}
62: \affiliation{Department of Physics, University of Colorado,
63: Boulder, CO80309-0390, U.S.A.}
64:
65: %Collaboration name if desired (requires use of superscriptaddress
66: %option in \documentclass). \noaffiliation is required (may also be
67: %used with the \author command).
68: %\collaboration can be followed by \email, \homepage, \thanks as well.
69: %\collaboration{}
70: %\noaffiliation
71:
72: %\date{\today}
73:
74: \begin{abstract}
75: We investigate lepton flavor violating decays in a SUSY SO(10) model
76: with symmetric
77: textures recently constructed by us. Unlike the models with lop-sided
78: textures which
79: give rise to a large decay rate for $\mu \rightarrow e \gamma$, the decay rate
80: we get is much suppressed and yet it is large enough to be accessible
81: to the next generation
82: of experiments. We have also investigated the
83: possibility of baryogenesis resulting from
84: soft leptogenesis. We find that
85: with the soft SUSY masses assuming their natural values, $B^\prime
86: \equiv \sqrt{BM_{1}} \sim 1.4 \; TeV$
87: and $Im(A) \sim 1 \; TeV$,
88: the observed baryon asymmetry in the Universe can be accommodated in our model.
89: We have also updated the predictions of our model
90: for the masses, mixing angles and CP violating
91: measures in both charged fermion and neutrino sectors, using the most up-to-date
92: experimental data as input.
93:
94: \end{abstract}
95:
96: % insert suggested PACS numbers in braces on next line
97: \pacs{12.15Ff,12.10Kt,14.60Pq}
98:
99: % insert suggested keywords - APS authors don't need to do this
100: %\keywords{}
101:
102: %\maketitle must follow title, authors, abstract and \pacs
103: \maketitle
104:
105: % body of paper here - Use proper section commands
106: % References should be done using the \cite, \ref, and \label commands
107: %{\bf Introduction}
108: %\label{}
109: %\subsection{}
110: %\subsubsection{}
111:
112: \section{Introduction}
113:
114: After Neutrino 2004, the allowed region for the neutrino oscillation parameters
115: has been reduced significantly, and their measurements have now entered the precision phase.
116: There have been a few supersymmetric (SUSY)
117: $SO(10)$ models constructed aiming to accommodate the
118: observed neutrino masses and mixing angles
119: (For a recent review on SO(10) models, see Ref.~\cite{Chen:2003zv}.)
120: By far, the LMA solution is the most difficult to obtain.
121: Most of the models in the literature assume ``lopsided'' mass matrices.
122: In our model based on SUSY $SO(10) \times SU(2)$~\cite{Chen:2000fp}%,Chen:2001pr,Chen:2002pa}
123: (referred to ``CM'' herein), we consider {\it symmetric} mass matrices which
124: result from the left-right symmetric breaking of $SO(10)$ and the breaking of
125: family symmetry $SU(2)$. In view of the much improved experimental data on
126: neutrino oscillation parameters as well as those in the quark mixing from B Physics,
127: we re-analyze our model and find that it can still accommodate
128: all experimental data within $1 \sigma$. We investigate several lepton flavor
129: violating (LFV) processes in our model, including the decay of the muon
130: into an electron and a photon, which is the most stringently
131: constrained LFV process. We also investigate in this paper
132: the possibility of baryogenesis utilizing
133: soft leptogenesis.
134:
135: This paper is organized as follows:
136: In Sec. \ref{model}, we briefly describe our model, and show
137: its predictions for the masses, mixing angles and CP violating phases in both
138: charged fermion and neutrino sectors, using the most up-to-date
139: experimental data as input.
140: Various decay rates for lepton flavor violation processes are
141: calculated in Sec. \ref{lfv}.
142: Sec. \ref{leptogenesis} concerns soft leptogenesis
143: in our model, while Sec. \ref{concl} concludes this paper.
144:
145:
146: \section{The Model}\label{model}
147:
148:
149: The details of our model based on $SO(10) \times SU(2)_{F}$ are contained
150: in CM~\cite{Chen:2000fp}.%,Chen:2001pr,Chen:2002pa}.
151: The following is
152: an outline of its salient features. In order to
153: specify the superpotential uniquely, we invoke
154: $Z_{2} \times Z_{2} \times Z_{2}$ discrete symmetry. The matter fields are
155: \begin{displaymath}
156: \psi_{a} \sim (16,2)^{-++} \quad (a=1,2), \qquad
157: \psi_{3} \sim (16,1)^{+++}
158: \end{displaymath}
159: where $a=1,2$ and the subscripts refer to family indices; the superscripts
160: $+/-$ refer to $(Z_{2})^{3}$ charges. The Higgs fields which break $SO(10)$
161: and give rise to mass matrices upon acquiring VEV's are
162: \begin{eqnarray}
163: (10,1):\quad & T_{1}^{+++}, \quad T_{2}^{-+-},\quad
164: T_{3}^{--+}, \quad T_{4}^{---}, \quad T_{5}^{+--} \nonumber\\
165: (\overline{126},1):\quad & \overline{C}^{---}, \quad \overline{C}_{1}^{+++},
166: \quad \overline{C}_{2}^{++-}
167: \nonumber
168: \end{eqnarray}
169: Higgs representations $10$ and $\overline{126}$ give rise to Yukawa couplings
170: to the matter fields which are symmetric under the interchange of family
171: indices. $SO(10)$ is broken through the left-right symmetry breaking chain, and
172: symmetric mass matrices arise.
173: The $SU(2)$ family symmetry~\cite{Barbieri:1997ww} is broken in two steps and
174: the mass hierarchy is produced using the Froggatt-Nielsen
175: mechanism:
176: %\begin{equation}
177: %\label{eq:steps}
178: $SU(2) \stackrel{\epsilon M}{\longrightarrow}
179: U(1) \stackrel{\epsilon' M}{\longrightarrow}
180: nothing$
181: %\end{equation}
182: where $M$ is the UV-cutoff of the effective theory above which the family
183: symmetry is exact, and $\epsilon M$ and $\epsilon^{'} M$ are the VEV's
184: accompanying the flavon fields given by
185: \begin{eqnarray}
186: (1,2): \quad & \phi_{(1)}^{++-}, \quad \phi_{(2)}^{+-+}, \quad \Phi^{-+-}
187: \nonumber\\
188: (1,3): \quad & S_{(1)}^{+--}, \quad S_{(2)}^{---}, \quad
189: \Sigma^{++-}
190: \end{eqnarray}
191: The various aspects of VEV's of Higgs and flavon fields are given in CM.
192:
193: The superpotential of our model is
194: \begin{equation}
195: W = W_{Dirac} + W_{\nu_{RR}}
196: \end{equation}
197: \begin{eqnarray}
198: W_{Dirac}=\psi_{3}\psi_{3} T_{1}
199: + \frac{1}{M} \psi_{3} \psi_{a}
200: \left(T_{2}\phi_{(1)}+T_{3}\phi_{(2)}\right)
201: \nonumber\\
202: + \frac{1}{M} \psi_{a} \psi_{b} \left(T_{4} + \overline{C}\right) S_{(2)}
203: + \frac{1}{M} \psi_{a} \psi_{b} T_{5} S_{(1)}
204: \nonumber\\
205: W_{\nu_{RR}}=\psi_{3} \psi_{3} \overline{C}_{1}
206: + \frac{1}{M} \psi_{3} \psi_{a} \Phi \overline{C}_{2}
207: + \frac{1}{M} \psi_{a} \psi_{b} \Sigma \overline{C}_{2} \; .
208: \end{eqnarray}
209: The mass matrices then can be read from the superpotential to be
210: \begin{eqnarray}
211: M_{u,\nu_{LR}} & = &
212: \left( \begin{array}{ccc}
213: 0 & 0 & \left<10_{2}^{+} \right> \epsilon'\\
214: 0 & \left<10_{4}^{+} \right> \epsilon & \left<10_{3}^{+} \right> \epsilon \\
215: \left<10_{2}^{+} \right> \epsilon' & \left<10_{3}^{+} \right> \epsilon &
216: \left<10_{1}^{+} \right>
217: \end{array} \right)
218: \nonumber\\
219: & = &
220: \left( \begin{array}{ccc}
221: 0 & 0 & r_{2} \epsilon'\\
222: 0 & r_{4} \epsilon & \epsilon \\
223: r_{2} \epsilon' & \epsilon & 1
224: \end{array} \right) M_{U}
225: \end{eqnarray}
226: \begin{eqnarray}
227: M_{d,e} & = &
228: \left(\begin{array}{ccc}
229: 0 & \left<10_{5}^{-} \right> \epsilon' & 0 \\
230: \left<10_{5}^{-} \right> \epsilon' & (1,-3)\left<\overline{126}^{-} \right>
231: \epsilon & 0\\ 0 & 0 & \left<10_{1}^{-} \right>
232: \end{array} \right)
233: \nonumber\\
234: & = &
235: \left(\begin{array}{ccc}
236: 0 & \epsilon' & 0 \\
237: \epsilon' & (1,-3) p \epsilon & 0\\
238: 0 & 0 & 1
239: \end{array} \right) M_{D} \; ,
240: \end{eqnarray}
241: where
242: $M_{U} \equiv \left<10_{1}^{+} \right>$,
243: $M_{D} \equiv \left<10_{1}^{-} \right>$,
244: $r_{2} \equiv \left<10_{2}^{+} \right> / \left<10_{1}^{+} \right>$,
245: $r_{4} \equiv \left<10_{4}^{+} \right> / \left<10_{1}^{+} \right>$ and
246: $p \equiv \left<\overline{126}^{-}\right> / \left<10_{1}^{-} \right>$.
247: The right-handed neutrino mass matrix is
248: \begin{eqnarray}
249: M_{\nu_{RR}} & = &
250: \left( \begin{array}{ccc}
251: 0 & 0 & \left<\overline{126}_{2}^{'0} \right> \delta_{1}\\
252: 0 & \left<\overline{126}_{2}^{'0} \right> \delta_{2}
253: & \left<\overline{126}_{2}^{'0} \right> \delta_{3} \\
254: \left<\overline{126}_{2}^{'0} \right> \delta_{1}
255: & \left<\overline{126}_{2}^{'0} \right> \delta_{3} &
256: \left<\overline{126}_{1}^{'0} \right> \end{array} \right)
257: \nonumber\\
258: & = &
259: \left( \begin{array}{ccc}
260: 0 & 0 & \delta_{1}\\
261: 0 & \delta_{2} & \delta_{3} \\
262: \delta_{1} & \delta_{3} & 1
263: \end{array} \right) M_{R}
264: \label{Mrr}
265: \end{eqnarray}
266: with $M_{R} \equiv \left<\overline{126}^{'0}_{1}\right>$.
267: Here the superscripts $+/-/0$ refer to the sign of the hypercharge.
268: It is to be noted that there is a factor of $-3$ difference between the $(22)$
269: elements of mass matrices $M_{d}$ and $M_{e}$. This is due to the CG
270: coefficients associated with $\overline{126}$; as a consequence, we obtain the
271: phenomenologically viable Georgi-Jarlskog relation.
272: We then parameterize the Yukawa matrices as follows, after removing
273: all the non-physical phases by rephasing various matter fields:
274: \begin{eqnarray}
275: Y_{u, \nu_{LR}} & = & \left(
276: \begin{array}{ccc}
277: 0 & 0 & a\\
278: 0 & b e^{i\theta} & c\\
279: a & c & 1
280: \end{array}
281: \right) d
282: \\
283: Y_{d,e} & = & \left(
284: \begin{array}{ccc}
285: 0 & e e^{-i\xi} & 0 \\
286: e e^{i\xi} & (1,-3) f & 0 \\
287: 0 & 0 & 1
288: \end{array}
289: \right) h \quad .
290: \label{phaseremoved}
291: \end{eqnarray}
292:
293: We use the following as inputs at
294: $M_{Z}=91.187 \; GeV$~\cite{Eidelman:2004wy,Fusaoka:1998vc}: %,Hocker:2001xe}:
295: \begin{eqnarray}
296: m_{u} & = & 2.21 \; MeV (2.33^{+0.42}_{-0.45})\nonumber\\
297: m_{c} & = & 682 \; MeV (677^{+56}_{-61})\nonumber\\
298: m_{t} & = & 181 \; GeV (181^{+}_{-}13) \nonumber\\
299: m_{e} & = & 0.486 \; MeV (0.486847)\nonumber\\
300: m_{\mu} & = & 103 \; MeV (102.75)\nonumber\\
301: m_{\tau} & = & 1.74 \; GeV (1.7467) \nonumber\\
302: \vert V_{us} \vert & = & 0.225 (0.221-0.227)\nonumber\\
303: \vert V_{ub} \vert & = & 0.00368 (0.0029-0.0045)\nonumber\\
304: \vert V_{cb} \vert & = & 0.0392 (0.039-0.044)\nonumber
305: \end{eqnarray}
306: where the values extrapolated from experimental data are given inside the
307: parentheses. Note that the masses given above are defined in the
308: modified minimal subtraction ($\overline{\mbox{MS}}$) scheme and are
309: evaluated at $M_{Z}$.
310: These values correspond to the following set of input parameters
311: at the GUT scale, $M_{GUT} = 1.03 \times 10^{16} \; GeV$:
312: \begin{eqnarray}
313: & a = 0.00250, \quad b = 3.26 \times 10^{-3}\nonumber\\
314: & c = 0.0346, \quad d = 0.650\nonumber\\
315: & \theta = 0.74 \nonumber\\
316: & e = 4.036 \times 10^{-3}, \quad f = 0.0195 \nonumber\\
317: & h = 0.06878, \quad \xi = -1.52 \nonumber\\
318: & g_{1} = g_{2} = g_{3} = 0.746
319: \end{eqnarray}
320: the one-loop renormalization group equations for the MSSM spectrum with three
321: right-handed neutrinos
322: are solved numerically down to the effective
323: right-handed neutrino mass scale, $M_{R}$. At $M_{R}$, the seesaw mechanism
324: is implemented. With the constraints
325: $|m_{\nu_{3}}| \gg |m_{\nu_{2}}|, \; |m_{\nu_{1}}|$ and
326: maximal mixing in the atmospheric sector, the up-type mass texture leads us
327: to choose the following effective neutrino mass matrix
328: \begin{equation}\label{mll}
329: M_{\nu_{LL}} = \left(
330: \begin{array}{ccc}
331: 0 & 0 & t\\
332: 0 & 1 & 1+t^{n}\\
333: t & 1+t^{n} & 1
334: \end{array}
335: \right)\frac{d^{2}v_{u}^{2}}{M_{R}}
336: \end{equation}
337: with $n=1.15$, and from the seesaw formula we obtain
338: \begin{eqnarray}
339: \label{delta}
340: \delta_{1} & = & \frac{a^{2}}{r}
341: \\
342: \delta_{2} & = & \frac{b^{2}t e^{2i\theta}}
343: {r}
344: \\
345: \delta_{3} & = & \frac{-a(be^{i\theta}(1+t^{1.15})-c)+bct e^{i\theta}}
346: {r} \; ,
347: \end{eqnarray}
348: where $r=(c^{2}t+a^{2}t^{0.15}(2+t^{1.15})-2a(-1+c+ct^{1.15}))$.
349: We then solve the two-loop RGE's for the MSSM spectrum
350: down to the SUSY breaking scale, taken to be $m_{t}(m_{t})=176.4 \; GeV$, and
351: then the SM RGE's from $m_{t}(m_{t})$ to the weak scale, $M_{Z}$.
352: We assume that
353: $\tan \beta \equiv v_{u}/v_{d} = 10$, with
354: $v_{u}^{2} + v_{d}^{2} = (246/\sqrt{2} \; GeV) ^{2}$. At the weak scale
355: $M_{Z}$, the predictions for
356: $\alpha_{i}
357: \equiv g_{i}^{2}/4\pi$ are
358: \begin{displaymath}
359: \alpha_{1}=0.01663,
360: \quad \alpha_{2}=0.03374,
361: \quad \alpha_{3}=0.1242 \; .
362: \end{displaymath}
363: These values compare very well with the values extrapolated to $M_{Z}$ from the
364: experimental data,
365: $(\alpha_{1},\alpha_{2},\alpha_{3})=
366: (0.01696,0.03371,0.1214 \pm 0.0031)$.
367: The predictions at the weak scale $M_{Z}$ for the
368: charged fermion masses, CKM matrix elements and strengths of CP violation,
369: are summarized in Table.~\ref{table:predict}.
370: \begin{table}
371: \caption{
372: The predictions for the charged fermion masses, the
373: CKM matrix elements and the CP violation measures.
374: \label{table:predict}}
375: \begin{ruledtabular}
376: \begin{tabular}{l c | c c l c c c l}
377: & & & & experimental results \qquad \qquad
378: & & & & predictions at $M_{z}$ \\
379: & & & & extrapolated to $M_{Z}$ \qquad \qquad
380: & & & & \\
381: \hline
382: $m_{s}/m_{d}$
383: & & & & $17 \sim 25$
384: & & & & $25$\\
385: $m_{s}$
386: & & & & $93.4^{+11.8}_{-13.0}MeV$
387: & & & & $86.0 MeV$\\
388: $m_{b}$
389: & & & & $3.00\pm 0.11GeV$
390: & & & & $3.03 GeV$\\
391: \hline
392: $\vert V_{ud} \vert$
393: & & & & $0.9739-0.9751$
394: & & & & $0.974$\\
395: $\vert V_{cd} \vert$
396: & & & & $0.221-0.227$
397: & & & & $0.225$\\
398: $\vert V_{cs} \vert$
399: & & & & $0.9730-0.9744$
400: & & & & $0.973$\\
401: $\vert V_{td} \vert$
402: & & & & $0.0048-0.014$
403: & & & & $0.00801$\\
404: $\vert V_{ts} \vert$
405: & & & & $0.037-0.043$
406: & & & & $0.0386$\\
407: $\vert V_{tb} \vert$
408: & & & & $0.9990-0.9992$
409: & & & & $0.999$ \\
410: $J_{CP}^{q}$
411: & & & & $(2.88 \pm 0.33) \times 10^{-5}$
412: & & & & $2.87 \times 10^{-5}$ \\
413: $\sin 2\alpha$
414: & & & & $-0.16 \pm 0.26$
415: & & & & $-0.048$ \\
416: $\sin 2\beta$
417: & & & & $0.736 \pm 0.049$
418: & & & & $0.740$ \\
419: $\gamma$
420: & & & & $60^{0} \pm 14^{0}$
421: & & & & $64^{0}$\\
422: $\overline{\rho}$
423: & & & & $0.20 \pm 0.09$
424: & & & & $0.173$\\
425: $\overline{\eta}$
426: & & & & $0.33 \pm 0.05$
427: & & & & $0.366$
428: \end{tabular}
429: \end{ruledtabular}
430: \end{table}
431: The predictions of our model in this {\it updated} fit are in
432: good agreement with all
433: experimental data within $1 \sigma$, including much improved measurements in
434: B Physics that give rise to precise values for the CKM matrix elements and for
435: the unitarity triangle~\cite{Charles:2004jd}. Note that we have
436: taken the SUSY threshold correction to $m_{b}$ to be
437: $-18 \%$~\cite{Hall:1993gn}.
438:
439: The allowed region for the neutrino oscillation parameters
440: has been reduced significantly after Neutrino 2004.
441: In the atmospheric sector, the global
442: analysis including the most recent K2K result yields,
443: at $90\%$ CL~\cite{Maltoni:2004ei},
444: \begin{eqnarray}
445: \Delta m_{atm}^{2} = 2.3^{+0.7}_{-0.4} \times 10^{-3} eV^{2}
446: \\
447: \sin^{2} 2\theta_{atm} > 0.9 \\
448: (\mbox{best fit value:} \sin^{2} 2\theta_{atm} =1.0) \quad .
449: \end{eqnarray}
450: In the solar sector, the global analysis with SNO and most recent KamLAND data
451: yields, at $1 \sigma \; (3 \sigma)$~\cite{Bahcall:2004ut},
452: \begin{eqnarray}
453: \Delta m_{\odot}^{2} & = & 8.2^{+0.3}_{-0.3}(^{+1.0}_{-0.8}) \times 10^{-5} eV^{2}
454: \\
455: \tan^{2} \theta_{\odot}& = & 0.39^{+0.05}_{-0.04}(^{+0.19}_{-0.11}) \quad .
456: \end{eqnarray}
457: Combining with the CHOOZ result, a global analysis shows that the
458: angle $\theta_{13}$ is constrained to be~\cite{Bahcall:2004ut}
459: \begin{equation}
460: \sin^{2}\theta_{13} < 0.015 (0.048)
461: \end{equation}
462: at $1 \sigma \; (3 \sigma)$.
463: Using the mass square difference in the atmospheric sector
464: $\Delta m_{atm}^{2}=2.33 \times 10^{-3} \; eV^{2}$ and
465: the mass square difference for the LMA solution
466: $\Delta m_{\odot}^{2}=8.14 \times 10^{-5} \; eV^{2}$ as input
467: parameters, we determine
468: $t = 0.344$ and $M_{R} = 6.97 \times 10^{12} GeV$, which yield
469: $(\delta_{1},\delta_{2},\delta_{3})
470: = (0.00120,0.000703 e^{i \; (1.47)},0.0210 e^{i \;(0.175)})$. We obtain
471: the following predictions in the neutrino sector:
472: The three mass eigenvalues are give by
473: \begin{equation}
474: (m_{\nu_{1}},m_{\nu_{2}},m_{\nu_{3}}) = (0.00262,0.00939,0.0492) \; eV \; .
475: \end{equation}
476: The prediction for the MNS matrix is
477: \begin{equation}
478: \vert U_{MNS} \vert =
479: \left(
480: \begin{array}{ccc}
481: 0.852 & 0.511 & 0.116\\
482: 0.427 & 0.560 & 0.710\\
483: 0.304 & 0.652 & 0.695
484: \end{array}
485: \right)
486: \end{equation}
487: which translates into the mixing angles in the atmospheric,
488: solar and reactor sectors,
489: \begin{eqnarray}
490: \sin^{2} 2 \theta_{atm} & \equiv & \frac{
491: 4 \vert U_{\mu \nu_{3}} \vert^{2} |U_{\tau \nu_{3}}|^{2}}
492: {(1-|U_{e\nu_{3}}|^2)^{2}}
493: = 1.00
494: \\
495: \tan^{2} \theta_{\odot} & \equiv & \frac{\vert U_{e \nu_{2}}\vert^{2}}
496: {|U_{e \nu_{1}}|^{2}} = 0.36
497: \\
498: \sin^{2}\theta_{13} & = & |U_{e\nu_{3}}|^{2} = 0.0134 \; .
499: \end{eqnarray}
500: The prediction of our model for the strengths of CP violation in
501: the lepton sector are
502: \begin{eqnarray}
503: J_{CP}^{l} \equiv Im\{ U_{11} U_{12}^{\ast} U_{21}^{\ast} U_{22} \}
504: = -0.00941
505: \\
506: (\alpha_{31},\alpha_{21}) = (0.934,-1.49) \; .
507: \end{eqnarray}
508: Using the predictions for the neutrino masses, mixing angles and the
509: two Majorana phases,
510: $\alpha_{31}$ and $\alpha_{21}$, the matrix element for the neutrinoless double
511: $\beta$ decay can be calculated and is given by
512: $\vert < m > \vert = 3.1 \times 10^{-3} \; eV$,
513: with the present experimental upper bound being $0.35 \; eV$~\cite{Eidelman:2004wy}.
514: Masses of the heavy right-handed neutrinos are
515: \begin{eqnarray}
516: M_{1} & = & 1.09 \times 10^{7} \; GeV
517: \label{mr1}\\
518: M_{2} & = & 4.53 \times 10^{9} \; GeV
519: \label{mr2}\\
520: M_{3} & = & 6.97 \times 10^{12} \; GeV \; .
521: \label{mr3}
522: \end{eqnarray}
523: The prediction for the $\sin^{2}\theta_{13}$ value is $0.0134$,
524: in agreement with the current bound $0.015$ at $1 \sigma$.
525: Because our prediction for
526: $\sin^{2}\theta_{13}$ is very close to the present sensitivity
527: of the experiment, the validity of our model can be tested in
528: the foreseeable future~\cite{Diwan:2003bp}.
529:
530: \section{Lepton Flavor Violating Decays}\label{lfv}
531:
532: In light of the neutrino oscillation, extensive searches for lepton flavor
533: violation processes, such as $\ell_{i}\rightarrow \ell_{j} \gamma$,
534: $\ell_{i}^{-} \rightarrow \ell_{j}^{-} \ell_{j}^{+} \ell_{j}^{-}$,
535: muon-electron conversion, are underway. In the SM, as the lepton number is
536: conserved, there is no lepton flavor violation.
537: Non-zero neutrino masses imply lepton number violation. If neutrino masses are
538: induced by the seesaw mechanism, new Yukawa coupling involving the RH neutrinos
539: can induce flavor violation~\cite{Masiero:2004js},
540: similar to its quark counter part.
541: In the non-supersymmetric case, the decay amplitudes for these processes
542: are inversely proportional to the RH neutrino mass, $M_{R}^{2}$,
543: which is typically much higher than the electroweak scale.
544: As a consequence, in non-supersymmetric models, these
545: processes are highly suppressed to the level that are unobservable.
546:
547: Significant enhancement in the decay rate can be obtained in supersymmetric models,
548: as the characteristic scale in this case is the SUSY scale, which is
549: expected to be not too far from the electroweak scale.
550: Thus the amplitudes for these decay processes scale as inverse
551: square of the SUSY breaking scale, rather than $1/M_{R}^{2}$.
552: The relevant interactions that
553: give rise to lepton flavor violating decays
554: come from the soft-SUSY breaking Lagrangian,
555: \begin{eqnarray}
556: -\mathcal{L}_{soft} & = &
557: (m_{\widetilde{L}}^{2})_{ij}
558: \widetilde{\ell}_{L_{i}}^{\dagger} \widetilde{\ell}_{L_{j}}
559: + (m_{\widetilde{e}}^{2})_{ij}
560: \widetilde{e}_{R_{i}}^{\dagger} \widetilde{e}_{R_{j}}
561: +(m_{\widetilde{\nu}}^{2})_{ij}
562: \widetilde{\ell}_{R_{i}}^{\dagger} \widetilde{\ell}_{R_{j}}
563: \nonumber\\
564: & &
565: +(\widetilde{m}_{h_{d}}^{2})\widetilde{H}_{d}^{\dagger}\widetilde{H}_{d}
566: + (\widetilde{m}_{h_{2}}^{2}) \widetilde{H}_{u}^{\dagger} \widetilde{H}_{u}
567: + \biggl[ A_{\nu}^{ij} \widetilde{H}_{u}
568: \widetilde{\nu}_{R_{i}}^{\ast} \widetilde{\nu}_{L_{j}}
569: \nonumber\\
570: & &
571: + A_{e}^{ij} H_{d} \widetilde{e}_{R_{i}}^{\ast} \widetilde{e}_{L_{j}}
572: +\frac{1}{2} B_{\nu}^{ij} \widetilde{\nu}_{R_{i}} \widetilde{\nu}_{R_{j}}
573: + B_{h} H_{d} H_{u}
574: \nonumber\\
575: &&+ h.c. \biggr] \quad ,
576: \end{eqnarray}
577: where $\widetilde{\ell}_{L}$, $\widetilde{e}_{R}$
578: and $\widetilde{\nu}_{R}$ are the LH
579: slepton doublets, RH charged sleptons, and RH sneutrinos, respectively;
580: $H_{u}$ ($\widetilde{H}_{u}$) and $H_{d}$ ($\widetilde{H}_{d}$) are
581: the two Higgs (higgsino) doublets in MSSM.
582: Assuming mSUGRA boundary conditions at the GUT scale,
583: \begin{eqnarray}
584: (m_{\widetilde{L}}^{2})_{ij}
585: = (m_{\widetilde{e}}^{2})_{ij}=(m_{\widetilde{\nu}}^{2})_{ij}
586: = m_{0} \delta_{ij}
587: \\
588: \widetilde{m}_{H_{d}}^{2} = \widetilde{m}_{H_{u}}^{2} = m_{0}^{2}
589: \\
590: A_{\nu}^{ij} = (Y_{\nu})_{ij} A_{0}, \quad A_{e}^{ij} = (Y_{e})_{ij} A_{0}
591: \\
592: B_{\nu}^{ij} = M_{\nu_{RR}} B_{0}, \quad B_{h} = \mu B_{0}
593: \end{eqnarray}
594: where $Y_{\nu}$ and $Y_{e}$ are the Yukawa couplings of the neutrinos
595: and charged leptons, and $M_{\nu_{RR}}$ is the Majorana mass
596: matrix of the RH neutrinos.
597: As the slepton mass matrix $(m_{\widetilde{L}}^{2})_{ij}$ is
598: flavor-blind at the GUT scale, there is no flavor violation
599: at $M_{GUT}$. However, as $(m_{\widetilde{L}}^{2})_{ij}$ evolves
600: from $M_{GUT}$ to the RH neutrino mass scale, $M_{R}$,
601: according to the renormalization group equation,
602: \begin{eqnarray}
603: \frac{d}{d\ln \mu} (m_{\widetilde{L}}^{2})_{ij} & = &
604: \frac{1}{16\pi^{2}}
605: \biggl[
606: m_{\widetilde{L}}^{2} (Y_{\nu}^{\dagger}Y_{\nu})_{ij}
607: \nonumber\\
608: & &
609: + 2 \biggl( (Y_{\nu}^{\dagger} m_{\widetilde{\nu}}^{2} Y_{\nu})_{ij}
610: + m_{\widetilde{h}}^{2} (Y_{\nu}^{\dagger}Y_{\nu})_{ij}
611: \nonumber\\
612: & &
613: + (A_{\nu}^{\dagger}A_{\nu})_{ij} \biggr)
614: \biggr] \; , \quad \mbox{for} \; i \ne j \; ,
615: \end{eqnarray}
616: the off diagonal elements in the slepton mass matrix $m_{\widetilde{L}}^{2}$
617: can be generated at low energies due to the RG
618: corrections~\cite{Hisano:1995cp}, %Hisano:1998fj},
619: \begin{eqnarray}
620: \delta (m_{\widetilde{L}}^{2})_{ij} & = & -\frac{1}{8\pi} (3m_{0}^{2} + A_{0}^{2})
621: \nonumber\\
622: & & \times
623: \sum_{k=1,2,3} (\mathcal{Y}_{\nu}^{\dagger})_{ik} (\mathcal{Y}_{\nu})_{kj}
624: \ln (\frac{M_{GUT}}{M_{R_{k}}}) \; ,
625: \end{eqnarray}
626: for $i \ne j$.
627: Here $\mathcal{Y}_{\nu}$ is the Yukawa couplings for the neutrinos in
628: the basis where both charged lepton Yukawa matrix and the Majorana
629: mass matrix for the RH neutrinos are diagonal; $M_{R_{k}}$ are the
630: masses of the heavy neutrinos.
631: The Yukawa coupling $\mathcal{Y}_{\nu}$ in the new basis is related
632: to $Y_{\nu}$ in the original basis by
633: \begin{equation}\label{ybasis}
634: \mathcal{Y}_{\nu} = P_{R} O_{R} Y_{\nu} O_{e_{L}}^{\dagger}.
635: \end{equation}
636: Here $O_{L_{e}}$ is the diagonalization matrix for
637: \begin{equation}
638: \mathcal{M}_{e}^{\mbox{\tiny diag}} = O_{e_{R}} M_{e} O_{e_{L}}^{\dagger} \; ,
639: \end{equation}
640: and the diagonal phase matrix $P_{R}$ and the orthogonal matrix $O_{R}$
641: are defined by,
642: \begin{eqnarray}
643: \mathcal{M}_{\nu_{RR}}^{\mbox{\tiny diag}} & = &
644: \mbox{diag}(M_{1}, M_{2},M_{3})
645: \nonumber\\
646: & = & P_{R} O_{R} M_{\nu_{RR}} O_{R}^{T} P_{R} \; ,
647: \end{eqnarray}
648: where $M_{1,2,3}$ are real and positive, and their numerical values
649: are given in Eq.~(\ref{mr1})-(\ref{mr3}).
650: In our model, the Yukawa matrix $\mathcal{Y}_{\nu}$ is,
651: \begin{widetext}
652: \begin{equation}
653: \mathcal{Y}_{\nu} =
654: \left( \begin{array}{ccc}
655: 2.69 \times 10^{-6} e^{-(0.695)i} &
656: 5.92 \times 10^{-5} e^{-(2.75)i} &
657: 6.54 \times 10^{-4} e^{-(1.68)i} \\
658: 1.44 \times 10^{-4} e^{(1.54)i} &
659: 1.73 \times 10^{-3} e^{-(0.176)i} &
660: 8.91 \times 10^{-3} e^{-(1.32)i}\\
661: 2.18 \times 10^{-3} e^{(0.737)i} &
662: 0.0213 e^{(0.0064)i} &
663: 0.618 %e^{5.14\times 10^{-5}}
664: \end{array}
665: \right) \;.
666: \end{equation}
667: \end{widetext}
668: The non-vanishing off-diagonal matrix elements in $(\delta m_{\widetilde{L}}^{2})_{ij}$
669: induces lepton flavor violating processes mediated by the superpartners
670: of the neutrinos through the one-loop diagram shown in
671: Fig.~\ref{fig.1loop}.
672: %These processes have been studied before in various
673: %models~\cite{Casas:2001sr}. %,Lavignac:2001vp,Ellis:2001xt,Lavignac:2002gf,Ellis:2002xg,Masiero:2002jn,Masiero:2004js}.
674: \begin{figure}[b!]
675: \includegraphics[scale=0.55]{lfv1loop.eps}%
676: \caption{The dominant diagram that contribute to the decay $\ell_{i} \rightarrow
677: \ell_{j} \gamma$ at one loop, mediated by the neutralino $\widetilde{\chi}_{A}$
678: and the sneutrinos $\widetilde{\nu}$. The inserted mass term
679: $(\delta m_{\widetilde{L}}^{2})_{ij}$
680: is induced by the renormalization group evolution from the GUT scale to the RH
681: neutrino mass scales.
682: \label{fig.1loop}}
683: \end{figure}
684:
685: In Table \ref{table.lfv} we summarize current status and future
686: proposals of the experimental searches for lepton flavor violating decays.
687: \begin{table*}
688: \caption{Summary of current status and future proposals of the
689: experimental searches for lepton flavor violating decays.
690: \label{table.lfv}}
691: \begin{ruledtabular}
692: \begin{tabular}{lll}
693: Decay & current bound on the branching ratio & reach of future experiment\\
694: \hline
695: $\mu \rightarrow e\gamma$ &
696: $< 1.2 \times 10^{-11}$ (MEGA, 1999)\cite{Brooks:1999pu} &
697: $10^{-14}$ (PSI)\cite{Barkov:1999}\\
698: & & $10^{-15}$ (J-PARC)\\
699: $\mu \rightarrow 3e$ &
700: $< 1.0 \times 10^{-12}$ (SINDRUM, 1988)\cite{Bellgardt:1987du} &
701: \\
702: $\mu \rightarrow e$ in ${ }^{48}_{22}Ti$&
703: $< 6.1\times 10^{-13}$ (SINDRUM II, 1998)\cite{Wints:1998} &
704: $2.0 \times 10^{-17}$ (MECO)\cite{Bachman:1997}\\
705: & & $10^{-18}$ (J-PARC) \\
706: $\tau \rightarrow \mu \gamma$ &
707: $< 3.1\times 10^{-7}$ (BELLE, 2003) \cite{Inami:2003}&
708: $10^{-9}$ (BELLE)\cite{Inami:2003}\\
709: $\tau \rightarrow e\gamma$ &
710: $< 3.6 \times 10^{-7}$ (BELLE, 2003) \cite{Abe:2003sx} &
711: \end{tabular}
712: \end{ruledtabular}
713: \end{table*}
714: In the following subsections, we discuss each LFV process individually.
715: %in the context of our model.
716:
717: \subsection{$\mu \rightarrow e \gamma$, $\tau \rightarrow
718: \mu \gamma$ and $\tau \rightarrow e\gamma$}
719:
720: The branching ratios for the decay of $\ell_{i} \rightarrow \ell_{j} + \gamma$
721: induced by the renormalization group effects described above
722: is given by~\cite{Hisano:1995cp}
723: \begin{eqnarray}
724: Br(\ell_{i} \rightarrow \ell_{j} \gamma)
725: & = & \frac{\alpha^{3}}{G_{F}^{2}m_{S}^{8}}
726: |\frac{-1}{8\pi} (3m_{0}^{2} + A_{0}^{2}) |^{2} \tan^{2} \beta
727: \nonumber\\
728: & & \times
729: |\sum_{k=1,2,3} (\mathcal{Y}_{\nu}^{\dagger})_{ik} (\mathcal{Y}_{\nu})_{kj}
730: \ln (\frac{M_{GUT}}{M_{R_{k}}}) |^{2}
731: \quad .\nonumber\\
732: \end{eqnarray}
733: Here $\alpha$ is the fine structure constant, $G_{F}$ is the
734: Fermi constant,
735: and $m_{S}$ is the typical SUSY scalar mass which is given by,
736: to a very good approximation~\cite{Petcov:2003zb},
737: \begin{equation}
738: m_{S}^{8} = \frac{1}{2} m_{0}^{2} M_{1/2}^{2} (m_{0}^{2} + 0.6 M_{1/2}^{2})^{2},
739: \end{equation}
740: where $M_{1/2}$ is the universal gaugino mass.
741: In our model, $|\delta (m_{\widetilde{L}}^{2})_{ij}|$ is given by,
742: \begin{eqnarray}
743: |\delta (m_{\widetilde{L}}^{2})_{ij} |
744: & = & |\frac{1}{8\pi} (3m_{0}^{2} + A_{0}^{2})|
745: \nonumber\\
746: & & \times
747: \left(\begin{array}{ccc}
748: \ast & 3.41 \times 10^{-4} & 0.0098\\
749: 3.41 \times 10^{-4} & \ast & 0.0962\\
750: 0.0098 & 0.0962 & \ast
751: \end{array}\right) \; , \nonumber\\
752: \end{eqnarray}
753: for $i \ne j$.
754: Thus the following relation is predicted,
755: \begin{equation}
756: Br(\mu \rightarrow e \gamma) < Br(\tau \rightarrow e \gamma)
757: < Br(\tau \rightarrow \mu \gamma) \; .
758: \end{equation}
759: Similar relation was observed in Ref.~\cite{Bando:2004hi} in which symmetric
760: mass matrices with four texture zeros are utilized. We also note that
761: the value for $\tan\beta$ is $10$, thus there is no $\tan\beta$ enhancement
762: in our predictions.
763:
764: Currently the most stringent experimental bound on the lepton
765: flavor violating processes is on the decay $\mu \rightarrow e \gamma$.
766: The prediction of our model for $Br(\mu \rightarrow e \gamma)$ is well
767: below the most stringent bound up-to-date from MEGA at LANL~\cite{Brooks:1999pu}.
768: In Fig. \ref{fig.muegamma}, the branching ratio of the decay
769: $\mu \rightarrow e \gamma$ as a function of the universal gaugino mass
770: $M_{1/2}$ is shown for various scalar masses $A_{0}$ and $m_{0}$.
771: For large $A_{0}$ and low $m_{0}$ and $M_{1/2}$,
772: there is a large soft SUSY parameter space that give rise
773: to predictions which can be probed by MEG at PSI and/or at J-PARC.
774: In Fig. \ref{fig.taumugamma}, the branching ratio of the decay
775: $\tau \rightarrow \mu \gamma$ as a function of the universal gaugino mass
776: $M_{1/2}$ is shown for various scalar masses $A_{0}$ and $m_{0}$.
777: For $A_{0} \sim \mathcal{O}(1 \; TeV)$ and $m_{0}$ and $M_{1/2}$
778: both of order $\mathcal{O}(100 \; GeV)$, the prediction of
779: our model on $\tau \rightarrow \mu \gamma$ may be tested
780: at BELLE in the future.
781: In Fig. \ref{fig.tauegamma}, the branching ratio of the decay
782: $\tau \rightarrow e \gamma$ as a function of the universal gaugino mass
783: $M_{1/2}$ is shown for various scalar mass $A_{0}$ and $m_{0}$.
784: For the SUSY parameter space we consider, the prediction
785: for $Br(\tau \rightarrow e \gamma)$ is at least four orders of
786: magnitudes below the current experimental upper bound.
787:
788: \begin{figure}[t!]
789: \includegraphics[scale=0.55,angle=270]{muegamma.eps}%
790: \caption{The branching ratio of the decay $\mu \rightarrow e \gamma$
791: as a function of the universal gaugino mass $M_{1/2}$ for various
792: scalar masses $A_{0}$ and $m_{0}$. (S1): $m_{0} = A_{0} = 100 \; GeV$;
793: (S11): $m_{0} = 100 \; GeV, A_{0} = 1 \; TeV$; (S2): $m_{0} = A_{0} = 500 \; GeV$;
794: (S3): $m_{0} = A_{0} = 1 \; TeV$. The dash line corresponds to the current
795: experimental limit $1.2 \times 10^{-11}$ from MEGA, while the solid line indicates
796: the reach of a future experiment at J-PARC, $10^{-15}$. The value of $\tan\beta$
797: in our model is $\tan\beta = 10$.
798: \label{fig.muegamma}}
799: \end{figure}
800:
801: \begin{figure}[t!]
802: \includegraphics[scale=0.55,angle=270]{taumugamma.eps}%
803: \caption{The branching ratio of the decay $\tau \rightarrow \mu \gamma$
804: as a function of the universal gaugino mass $M_{1/2}$ for various
805: scalar masses $A_{0}$ and $m_{0}$. (S1): $m_{0} = A_{0} = 100 \; GeV$;
806: (S11): $m_{0} = 100 \; GeV, A_{0} = 1 \; TeV$; (S2): $m_{0} = A_{0} = 500 \; GeV$;
807: (S3): $m_{0} = A_{0} = 1 \; TeV$. The dash line corresponds to the current
808: experimental limit $3.1 \times 10^{-7}$ from BELLE, while the solid line indicates
809: the reach of a future experiment at BELLE, $10^{-9}$. The value of $\tan\beta$
810: in our model is $\tan\beta = 10$.
811: \label{fig.taumugamma}}
812: \end{figure}
813:
814: \begin{figure}[t!]
815: \includegraphics[scale=0.55,angle=270]{tauegamma.eps}%
816: \caption{The branching ratio of the decay $\tau \rightarrow e \gamma$
817: as a function of the universal gaugino mass $M_{1/2}$ for various
818: scalar masses $A_{0}$ and $m_{0}$. (S1): $m_{0} = A_{0} = 100 \; GeV$;
819: (S11): $m_{0} = 100 \; GeV, A_{0} = 1 \; TeV$; (S2): $m_{0} = A_{0} = 500 \; GeV$;
820: (S3): $m_{0} = A_{0} = 1 \; TeV$. The dash line corresponds to
821: the current upper bound, $3.6 \times 10^{-7}$, from BELLE. The value of $\tan\beta$
822: in our model is $\tan\beta = 10$. \label{fig.tauegamma}}
823: \end{figure}
824:
825:
826: We comment that, in models with lop-sided textures~\cite{Albright:1998vf},
827: the maximal mixing angle observed in the atmospheric neutrino sector is due to
828: a large $(23)$ mixing in the charged lepton sector.
829: As a result, the off-diagonal elements in $(23)$ sector of $O_{e_{L}}$ are of order
830: $\mathcal{O}(1)$, which in turn gives rise to an enhancement in the decay
831: branching ratios. In order to satisfy the current experimental
832: upper bound, some new mechanism must be in place to suppress the decay rate of
833: $\mu \rightarrow e\gamma$ in models with lop-sided textures~\cite{Barr:2003fn}.
834: In our model which utilizes symmetric textures, as
835: large leptonic mixing in our model is a result of the seesaw mechanism,
836: all off-diagonal matrix elements in $Y_{\nu}$, $O_{e_{L}}$ and $O_{R}$ are
837: much smaller than unity, leading to a much smaller branching ratio for
838: $\mu \rightarrow e\gamma$ than that predicted in models with lop-sided textures.
839: Yet our prediction is large enough to be probed by the next generation of experiments
840: within a few years.
841:
842: \subsection{$\mu \rightarrow 3e$}
843:
844: For the process $\mu \rightarrow 3e$, as penguium diagrams are the dominant contributions,
845: the branching ratio of the decay $\ell_{i}^{-}
846: \rightarrow \ell_{j}^{-} \ell_{j}^{+}
847: \ell_{j}^{-}$ has similar structure as that of
848: the decay $\ell_{i}^{-} \rightarrow \ell_{j}^{-} \gamma$.
849: To a very good approximation, the relation between these two processes
850: reads~\cite{Hisano:1995cp},
851: \begin{equation}
852: \frac{Br(\ell_{i}^{-} \rightarrow
853: \ell_{j}^{-} \ell_{j}^{+} \ell_{j}^{-})}
854: {Br(\ell_{i}^{-} \rightarrow \ell_{j}^{-} \gamma)}
855: \simeq \frac{\alpha}{8\pi} \biggl[ \frac{16}{3}
856: \ln(\frac{m_{\ell_{i}}}{2m_{\ell_{j}}})
857: - \frac{14}{9} \biggr]
858: \quad ,
859: \end{equation}
860: where $m_{\ell_{i}}$ is the $i-$th generation lepton mass.
861: For the decay $\mu \rightarrow 3e$, we thus have
862: \begin{equation}
863: Br(\mu \rightarrow 3e) \simeq 7 \times 10^{-3} Br(\mu \rightarrow e \gamma) \; .
864: \end{equation}
865: In Fig.~\ref{fig.mu3e}, the branching ratio of the decay
866: $\mu \rightarrow 3e$ as a function of the universal gaugino mass
867: $M_{1/2}$ is shown for various scalar mass $A_{0}$ and $m_{0}$.
868: As the current experimental upper bound and the reach of the next phase of
869: experiment at BELLE are still quite high, the prediction for $\mu \rightarrow 3e$
870: in our model can not be tested, even with a high value of the scalar mass,
871: $A_{0} = 1 \; TeV$.
872: \begin{figure}[t!]
873: \includegraphics[scale=0.55,angle=270]{mu3e.eps}%
874: \caption{The branching ratio of the decay $\mu^{-} \rightarrow e^{-} e^{+} e^{-}$
875: as a function of the universal gaugino mass $M_{1/2}$ for various
876: scalar masses $A_{0}$ and $m_{0}$. (S1): $m_{0} = A_{0} = 100 \; GeV$;
877: (S11): $m_{0} = 100 \; GeV, A_{0} = 1 \; TeV$; (S2): $m_{0} = A_{0} = 500 \; GeV$;
878: (S3): $m_{0} = A_{0} = 1 \; TeV$. The dash line corresponds to the current
879: experimental limit $1.0 \times 10^{-12}$ from SINDRUM. The value of $\tan\beta$
880: in our model is $\tan\beta = 10$. \label{fig.mu3e}}
881: \end{figure}
882:
883: \subsection{$\mu$-$e$ Conversion}
884:
885: Similar to the case of $\mu \rightarrow 3e$,
886: the branching ratio for muon-electron conversion is also related to
887: the branching ratio of the decay $\mu \rightarrow e\gamma$ as long as $\tan\beta$
888: is not too small. In the region $\tan\beta > 1$, the relation between these
889: two processes is given by,
890: to a very good approximation~\cite{Hisano:1995cp},
891: \begin{equation}
892: \frac{Br(\mu \rightarrow e)}{Br(\mu \rightarrow e\gamma)}
893: \simeq 16\alpha^{4} Z_{eff}^{4} Z |F(q^{2})|^{2} \quad ,
894: \end{equation}
895: where $Z_{eff}$ is the effective charge of the nucleon, $Z$ is the
896: proton number and $F(q^{2})$ is the nuclear
897: form factor at momentum transfer $q$. For ${ }^{48}_{22}Ti$, the conversion rate is
898: \begin{equation}
899: Br(\mu \rightarrow e; \; { }^{48}_{22}Ti) \simeq 6 \times 10^{-3}
900: Br(\mu \rightarrow e\gamma) \quad,
901: \end{equation}
902: where $Z_{eff} = 17.6$ and $F(q^{2} = -m_{\mu}^{2}) = 0.54$ have been used.
903: In Fig. \ref{fig.mue}, the branching ratio of the decay
904: $\mu \rightarrow e$ in ${ }^{48}_{22}Ti$ as a function of the universal gaugino mass
905: $M_{1/2}$ is shown for various scalar mass $A_{0}$ and $m_{0}$.
906: For low values of $m_{0}$ and $M_{1/2}$,
907: there is a very large soft SUSY parameter space that give
908: rise to prediction for $\mu-e$ conversion rate that is sensitive to
909: MECO~\cite{Bachman:1997} at BNL and the proposal at J-PARC.
910: \begin{figure}[t!]
911: \includegraphics[scale=0.55,angle=270]{mue.eps}%
912: \caption{The branching ratio of the decay
913: $\mu^{-} \rightarrow e^{-}$ in ${ }^{48}_{22}$Ti.
914: as a function of the universal gaugino mass $M_{1/2}$ for various
915: scalar masses $A_{0}$ and $m_{0}$. (S1): $m_{0} = A_{0} = 100 \; GeV$;
916: (S11): $m_{0} = 100 \; GeV, A_{0} = 1 \; TeV$; (S2): $m_{0} = A_{0} = 500 \; GeV$;
917: (S3): $m_{0} = A_{0} = 1 \; TeV$. The dash line corresponds to the current
918: experimental limit $6.1 \times 10^{-13}$ from SINDRUM II,
919: while the solid line indicates
920: the reach of a future experiment at J-PARC, $10^{-18}$. The value of $\tan\beta$
921: in our model is $\tan\beta = 10$. \label{fig.mue}}
922: \end{figure}
923:
924:
925: \section{Baryogenesis {\it \`{a} la} Soft Leptogenesis}\label{leptogenesis}
926:
927: It is well known that the CP violation in the quark sector is too small
928: to explain the observed baryon asymmetry of the Universe (BAU), expressed
929: in terms of the ratio of the baryon number to
930: entropy~\cite{Bennett:2003bz},
931: \begin{equation}
932: \frac{n_{b}}{ s} = (0.87 \pm 0.04) \times 10^{-10} \; ,
933: \end{equation}
934: derived from CMB and nucleosynthesis measurements.
935: In leptogenesis, leptonic CP violating phases are used to
936: produce asymmetry in leptonic number which
937: then is converted into baryon asymmetry by the electroweak
938: non-perturbative effects due to sphalerons.
939: There are two ways of producing lepton number
940: asymmetry: (i) Standard leptogenesis
941: (STDL)~\cite{Fukugita:1986hr} %,Luty:1992un,Buchmuller:1996pa}
942: and (ii) Soft leptogenesis
943: (SFTL)~\cite{Grossman:2003jv,D'Ambrosio:2003wy,Boubekeur:2002jn}.
944:
945: In STDL scenario, the primordial leptonic
946: asymmetry is generated by the decay of the heavy right-handed Majorana neutrinos and
947: their scalar partners, mediated by the Yukawa interactions in the superpotential.
948: In our model, the large hierarchy among the three heavy neutrinos leads to
949: a very small CP asymmetry, which is of the order of $\mathcal{O}(10^{-9})$.
950: In addition, the low value for the mass of the lightest RH neutrino,
951: $M_{1} = 1.09 \times 10^{7} \; GeV$, leads to an extremely large wash-out effect.
952: Due to these reasons, the prediction in our model for the baryonic asymmetry
953: utilizing the standard leptogenesis is of the order of $\mathcal{O}(10^{-15})$,
954: which is four orders of magnitude below the value derived from experimental observations.
955:
956: SFTL utilizes the soft SUSY breaking sector,
957: and the asymmetry in the lepton number is
958: generated in the decay of the superpartner of the RH
959: neutrinos~\cite{Grossman:2003jv,D'Ambrosio:2003wy},
960: as opposed to the lightest RH neutrino in the case of STDL.
961: Unlike in STDL where the Yukawa sector is responsible
962: for the required CP violation and lepton number violation,
963: in the scenario of SFTL, the CP violation
964: and lepton number violation
965: trace their origins to SUSY breaking.
966: As a result, it allows a much lower bound on
967: the mass of the lightest RH neutrino, $M_{1}$,
968: compared to that in STDL.
969: In fact, it has been shown
970: very recently that in contrast to the STDL scenario in which
971: $M_{1} > 10^{9} GeV$ is typically required to have sufficient baryonic
972: asymmetry~\cite{Buchmuller:2002jk},
973: SFTL can only work in the region where
974: $M_{1} < 10^{9} \; GeV$~\cite{Grossman:2004dz}.
975: As a result, the problem of the gravitino
976: over-production~\cite{Ross:1995dq} may be avoided.
977:
978: For SFTL, the relevant soft SUSY Lagrangian
979: that involves lightest RH sneutrinos $\widetilde{\nu}_{R_{1}}$
980: is the following,
981: \begin{eqnarray}
982: -\mathcal{L}_{soft} & = & (\frac{1}{2} B M_{1} \widetilde{\nu}_{R_{1}}
983: \widetilde{\nu}_{R_{1}}
984: + A \mathcal{Y}_{1i} \widetilde{L}_{i} \widetilde{\nu}_{R_{1}} H_{u} + h.c.)
985: \nonumber\\
986: & & \quad + \widetilde{m}^{2} \widetilde{\nu}_{R_{1}}^{\dagger}
987: \widetilde{\nu}_{R_{1}}
988: \; .
989: \end{eqnarray}
990: This soft SUSY Lagrangian and the superpotential that involves
991: the lightest RH neutrino, $N_{1}$,
992: \begin{equation}
993: W = M_{1} N_{1} N_{1} + \mathcal{Y}_{1i} L_{i} N_{1} H_{u}
994: \end{equation}
995: give rise to the following interactions
996: \begin{eqnarray}
997: -\mathcal{L}_{\mathscr{A}} & = &
998: \widetilde{\nu}_{R_{1}} (
999: M_{1} Y_{1i}^{\ast} \widetilde{\ell}_{i}^{\ast} H_{u}^{\ast}
1000: +\mathcal{Y}_{1i} \overline{\widetilde{H}}_{u} \ell_{L}^{i}
1001: + A \mathcal{Y}_{1i} \widetilde{\ell}_{i} H_{u}
1002: )
1003: \nonumber\\
1004: & & \qquad + h. c. \quad ,
1005: \end{eqnarray}
1006: and mass terms (to leading order in soft SUSY breaking terms),
1007: \begin{equation}
1008: -\mathcal{L}_{\mathscr{M}} =
1009: (M_{1}^{2} \widetilde{\nu}_{R_{1}}^{\dagger} \widetilde{\nu}_{R_{1}} +
1010: \frac{1}{2} B M_{1}
1011: \widetilde{\nu}_{R_{1}} \widetilde{\nu}_{R_{1}} ) + h.c. \; .
1012: \end{equation}
1013: Diagonalization of the mass matrix $\mathcal{M}$ with
1014: the two states $\widetilde{\nu}_{R_{1}}$ and
1015: $\widetilde{\nu}_{R_{1}}^{\dagger}$
1016: leads to eigenstates
1017: $\widetilde{N}_{+}$ and $\widetilde{N}_{-}$
1018: with masses,
1019: \begin{equation}
1020: M_{\pm} \simeq M_{1} (1 \pm \frac{|B|}{2M_{1}}) \; ,
1021: \end{equation}
1022: where the leading order term $M_{1}$ is the F-term contribution
1023: from the superpotential (RH neutrino mass term) and
1024: the mass difference between the two mass eigenstates $\widetilde{N}_{+}$
1025: and $\widetilde{N}_{-}$ is induced by the SUSY breaking $B$ term.
1026: The time evolution of the
1027: $\widetilde{\nu}_{R_{1}}$-$\widetilde{\nu}^{\dagger}_{R_{1}}$ system
1028: is governed by the Schr\"{o}dinger equation,
1029: \begin{equation}
1030: \frac{d}{dt} \left(
1031: \begin{array}{c}
1032: \widetilde{\nu}_{R_{1}}\\
1033: \widetilde{\nu}_{R_{1}}^{\dagger}
1034: \end{array}\right)
1035: = \mathcal{H}
1036: \left(
1037: \begin{array}{c}
1038: \widetilde{\nu}_{R_{1}}\\
1039: \widetilde{\nu}_{R_{1}}^{\dagger}
1040: \end{array}\right) \; ,
1041: \end{equation}
1042: where the Hamiltonian $\mathcal{H}$ is given
1043: by~\cite{Grossman:2003jv,D'Ambrosio:2003wy},
1044: \begin{eqnarray}
1045: \mathcal{H} & = & \mathcal{M} - \frac{i}{2} \mathscr{A}
1046: \\
1047: \mathcal{M} & = & \left(
1048: \begin{array}{cc}
1049: 1 & \frac{B^{\ast}}{2M_{1}}\\
1050: \frac{B}{2M_{1}} & 1
1051: \end{array}\right) \; M_{1} \; ,
1052: \\
1053: \mathscr{A} & = & \left(
1054: \begin{array}{cc}
1055: 1 & \frac{A^{\ast}}{M_{1}}\\
1056: \frac{A}{M_{1}} & 1
1057: \end{array}\right) \Gamma_{1} \; .
1058: \end{eqnarray}
1059: For the decay of the lightest RH sneutrino, $\widetilde{\nu}_{R_{1}}$,
1060: the total decay width $\Gamma_{1}$ is given by, in the basis
1061: defined in Eq.~(\ref{ybasis}) where both the charged lepton
1062: mass matrix and the RH neutrino mass matrix are diagonal,
1063: \begin{equation}
1064: \Gamma_{1} = \frac{1}{4\pi}
1065: (\mathcal{Y}_{\nu}\mathcal{Y}_{\nu}^{\dagger})_{11} M_{1}
1066: = 0.374 \; GeV \; .
1067: \end{equation}
1068: The eigenstates of the Hamiltonian $\mathcal{H}$ are
1069: $\widetilde{N}_{\pm}^{\prime} = p \widetilde{N}
1070: \pm q \widetilde{N}^{\dagger}$, where $|p|^{2} + |q|^{2} = 1$.
1071: The ratio $q/p$ is given in terms of $\mathcal{M}$ and $\Gamma$ as,
1072: \begin{eqnarray}
1073: \biggl( \frac{q}{p} \biggr)^{2} & = &
1074: \frac{2\mathcal{M}_{12}^{\ast} - i \mathscr{A}_{12}^{\ast}}
1075: {2\mathcal{M}_{12} - i \mathscr{A}_{12}}
1076: \nonumber\\
1077: & \simeq &
1078: 1 + Im \biggl( \frac{2\Gamma_{1} A}{BM_{1}} \biggr) \; ,
1079: \end{eqnarray}
1080: in the limit $\mathscr{A}_{12} \ll \mathcal{M}_{12}$.
1081: Similar to the $K^{0}-\overline{K}^{0}$ system,
1082: the source of CP violation in the lepton number asymmetry
1083: considered here is due to
1084: the CP violation in the mixing which occurs when the two neutral
1085: mass eigenstates ($\widetilde{N}_{+}$, $\widetilde{N}_{-}$),
1086: are different from the interaction eigenstates,
1087: ($\widetilde{N}^{\prime}_{+}$, $\widetilde{N}^{\prime}_{-}$).
1088: Therefore CP violation in mixing is present
1089: as long as the quantity $|q/p| \ne 1$, which requires
1090: \begin{equation}
1091: Im \biggl( \frac{A\Gamma_{1}}{M_{1} B} \biggr) \ne 0 \; .
1092: \end{equation}
1093: For this to occur, SUSY breaking, {\it i.e.} non-vanishing $A$
1094: {\it and} $B$, is required.
1095: As the relative phase between the parameters $A$ and $B$
1096: can be rotated away by an $U(1)_{R}$-rotaion, without loss of generality
1097: we assume from now on that the physical phase that remains
1098: is solely coming from the tri-linear coupling $A$.
1099:
1100: The total lepton number asymmetry integrated over time, $\epsilon$,
1101: is defined as the ratio of difference to the sum of the decay widths $\Gamma$
1102: for $\widetilde{\nu}_{R_{1}}$ and $\widetilde{\nu}_{R_{1}}^{\dagger}$
1103: into final states of the slepton doublet $\widetilde{L}$ and the Higgs doublet $H$,
1104: or the lepton doublet $L$ and the higgsino $\widetilde{H}$ or their conjugates,
1105: \begin{equation}
1106: \epsilon = \frac{\sum_{f} \int_{0}^{\infty} [
1107: \Gamma(\widetilde{\nu}_{R_{1}}, \widetilde{\nu}_{R_{1}}^{\dagger} \rightarrow
1108: f) -
1109: \Gamma(\widetilde{\nu}_{R_{1}}, \widetilde{\nu}_{R_{1}}^{\dagger} \rightarrow
1110: \overline{f})]}
1111: {\sum_{f} \int_{0}^{\infty}
1112: [\Gamma( \widetilde{\nu}_{R_{1}}, \widetilde{\nu}_{R_{1}}^{\dagger}
1113: \rightarrow f) +
1114: \Gamma(\widetilde{\nu}_{R_{1}}, \widetilde{\nu}_{R_{1}}^{\dagger}
1115: \rightarrow \overline{f})]}
1116: \end{equation}
1117: where final states $f = (\widetilde{L}\; H),
1118: \; (L \; \widetilde{H})$ have lepton number
1119: $+1$, and $\overline{f}$ denotes their conjugate, $(\widetilde{L}^{\dagger}
1120: \; H^{\dagger}),
1121: \; (\overline{L} \; \overline{\widetilde{H}})$, which have lepton number
1122: $-1$.
1123: After carrying out the time integration, the total CP asymmetry
1124: is~\cite{Grossman:2003jv,D'Ambrosio:2003wy},
1125: \begin{equation}
1126: \epsilon = \biggl(
1127: \frac{4\Gamma_{1} B}{\Gamma_{1}^{2}+4B^{2}} \biggr)
1128: \frac{Im(A)}{M_{1}} \delta_{B-F}
1129: \end{equation}
1130: where the additional factor $\delta_{B-F}$ takes into account the thermal effects
1131: due to the difference between the occupation numbers of bosons and
1132: fermions~\cite{Covi:1997dr}.
1133: The final result for the baryon asymmetry is~\cite{Grossman:2003jv,D'Ambrosio:2003wy},
1134: \begin{eqnarray}
1135: \frac{n_{B}}{s} & \simeq &
1136: - c \; d_{\widetilde{\nu}_{R}} \;
1137: \epsilon \; \kappa
1138: \nonumber\\
1139: & \simeq &
1140: -1.48 \times 10^{-3} \epsilon \; \kappa
1141: \nonumber\\
1142: & \simeq & -(1.48 \times 10^{-3})
1143: \biggl( \frac{Im(A)}{M_{1}} \biggl)
1144: \; R \; \delta_{B-F} \; \kappa
1145: \end{eqnarray}
1146: where $d_{\widetilde{N}}$ in the first line is the density of the lightest sneutrino
1147: in equilibrium in units of entropy density, and is given by, $d_{\widetilde{\nu}_{R}}
1148: = 45 \zeta(3)/(\pi^{4}g_{\ast})$; the factor $c = (8N_{F}+4N_{H})/(22N_{F}+13N_{H})$
1149: characterizes the amount of $B-L$ asymmetry being converted into the baryon asymmetry $Y_{B}$,
1150: with $N_{F}$ and $N_{H}$ being the number of families and the
1151: $SU(2)$ Higgs doublets, respectively.
1152: For the MSSM particle spectrum, $(N_{F},N_{H})=(3,2)$. The parameter
1153: $\kappa$ is the dilution factor which
1154: characterizes the wash-out effects due to the inverse decays and lepton number violating
1155: scattering processes together with the time evolution of the system.
1156: It is obtained by solving the Boltzmann equations for the system.
1157: An approximation is given by~\cite{Kolb:1990vq}
1158: \begin{eqnarray}
1159: 10^{6} \le r: & \quad
1160: \kappa = (0.1 r)^{1/2} e^{-(\frac{4}{3})(0.1r)^{1/4}} \\
1161: 10 \le r \le 10^{6}: & \quad \kappa = 0.3/(r (\ln r)^{0.6}) \\
1162: 0 \le r \le 10: & \quad \kappa = 1/(2\sqrt{r^{2}+9}) \; .
1163: \end{eqnarray}
1164: where $r$ is defined as
1165: \begin{equation}
1166: r \equiv \frac{M_{pl}}{(1.7)(32\pi)\sqrt{g_{\ast}}}
1167: \frac{( \mathcal{Y}_{\nu} \mathcal{Y}_{\nu}^{\dagger} )_{11}}{M_{1}}
1168: \end{equation}
1169: with $M_{Pl}$ being the Planck scale taken to be $1.2 \times 10^{19} \; GeV$.
1170: We have $r = 183$ and correspondingly $\kappa = 0.00061$ in our model.
1171: The parameter $R$ is defined as the ratio,
1172: \begin{equation}
1173: R \equiv \frac{4 \Gamma_{1} B}{\Gamma_{1}^{2} + 4 B^{2}} \; ,
1174: \end{equation}
1175: which gives a value equal to one when the resonance condition, $\Gamma_{1} = 2|B|$,
1176: is satisfied,
1177: leading to maximal CP asymmetry. As $\Gamma_{1}$ is of the order of
1178: $\mathcal{O}(0.1-1) \; GeV$, to satisfy the resonance condition,
1179: a small value for $B \ll \widetilde{m}$ is thus needed.
1180: Such a small value of $B$ can be generated by some dynamical
1181: relaxation mechanisms~\cite{Yamaguchi:2002zy}
1182: in which $B$ vanishes in the leading order. A small
1183: value of $B \sim \widetilde{m}^{2}/M_{1}$ is then generated by an operator
1184: $\int d^{4} \theta ZZ^{\dagger}N_{1}^{2} / M_{pl}^{2}$ in the K\"{a}hler
1185: potential, where $Z$ is the SUSY breaking spurion field,
1186: $Z = \theta^{2}~\widetilde{m} M_{pl}$~\cite{D'Ambrosio:2003wy}.
1187: In our model, with the parameter $B^\prime \equiv \sqrt{BM_{1}}$
1188: having the size of the natural
1189: SUSY breaking scale $\sqrt{\widetilde{m}^{2}} \sim \mathcal{O}(1 \; TeV)$, a small
1190: value for $B$ required by the resonance condition
1191: $B \sim \Gamma_{1} \sim \mathcal{O}(0.1 \; GeV)$ can thus be obtained.
1192:
1193: \begin{figure}[b]
1194: \includegraphics[scale=0.55,angle=270]{res.eps}%
1195: \caption{The ratio $R$ as a function of $B^\prime$. The resonance occurs at around
1196: $B^\prime \sim 1.4 \; TeV$.
1197: \label{softlpg.res}}
1198: \end{figure}
1199:
1200: \begin{figure}[t]
1201: \includegraphics[scale=0.55,angle=270]{ab.eps}%
1202: \caption{
1203: The parameter space on the $Im(A)$ versus $B^{\prime}$ plane that gives rise to
1204: an amount of baryon asymmetry consistent with the value derived from observations,
1205: $n_{B}/s = (0.87 \pm 0.04) \times 10^{-10}$,
1206: is the region bounded by these two curves.
1207: The upper curve corresponds to the upper bound from observation,
1208: $n_{B}/s = 0.91 \times 10^{-10}$, while the lower curve corresponds to
1209: the lower bound, $n_{B}/s = 0.83 \times 10^{-10}$.
1210: \label{softlpg.ab}}
1211: \end{figure}
1212:
1213: \begin{figure}[t]
1214: \includegraphics[scale=0.55,angle=270]{nb.eps}%
1215: \caption{The prediction for $n_{B}/s$ as a function of $B^\prime$ for
1216: $|Im(A)| = 10 \; TeV$ (circles), $5 \; TeV$ (triangles) and
1217: $1 \; TeV$ (squares).
1218: \label{softlpg.nb}}
1219: \end{figure}
1220:
1221: Fig.~\ref{softlpg.res} shows the ratio $R$
1222: as a function of $B^\prime$. For the specific value of the decay width
1223: $\Gamma_{1}$ predicted in our model, the resonance occurs at around
1224: $B^\prime \sim 1.4 \; TeV$.
1225: In Fig.~\ref{softlpg.ab}, the
1226: region on the $Im(A)$ versus $B^{\prime}$ plane that gives rise to an
1227: amount of baryon asymmetry consistent with the value derived from
1228: observation, $n_{B}/s = (0.87 \pm 0.04) \times 10^{-10}$, is shown.
1229: The required value for $B^\prime$ near the resonance is
1230: around $800 \; GeV - 2 \; TeV$, and the required
1231: value for $|Im(A)|$ is around $(1-2) \; TeV$. At the resonance $B^\prime$,
1232: the value for $|Im(A)|$ can be as low as $~ 1 \; TeV$ to generate sufficient
1233: amount of baryon asymmetry. In Fig.~\ref{softlpg.nb}, we show the predictions
1234: for the asymmetry, $n_{B}/s$, as a function of $B^\prime$ for different values
1235: of $Im(A)$.
1236: In the numerical analyses presented in
1237: Fig.~\ref{softlpg.ab} and \ref{softlpg.nb}, we assume $\delta_{B-F} = 1$.
1238: We note that even if an additional suppresion
1239: $\delta_{B-F} \sim 0.1$ is present, with a value of
1240: $Im(A) \simeq 10 \; TeV$ at the resonance our model can still account
1241: for the observed BAU.
1242:
1243: \section{Conclusion}\label{concl}
1244:
1245: We have shown in this paper that, in contrast to the predictions of models with
1246: lop-sided textures, the predictions for LFV decays are well below the current experimental
1247: bounds. This is demonstrated in a model based on SUSY SO(10) with symmetric mass
1248: textures which give rise to predictions for all fermion masses and mixing angles,
1249: including those in the neutrino sector, that are in good agreement with experimental data
1250: within $1 \sigma$. The predictions of our model for LFV processes,
1251: $\ell_{i} \rightarrow \ell_{j} \gamma$, $\mu-e$ conversion as well as
1252: $\mu \rightarrow 3e$, are well below the
1253: most stringent bounds up-to date. Our predictions for many processes
1254: are within the reach
1255: of the next generation of LFV searches. This is especially true
1256: for $\mu-e$ conversion and $\mu \rightarrow e \gamma$.
1257: We have also investigated the possibility of baryogenesis resulting from
1258: soft leptogenesis.
1259: Our model predicts $M_{1} < 10^{9} GeV$ which is the
1260: required condition for this mechanism to work.
1261: With the soft SUSY masses assuming their natural
1262: values, $B^\prime \sim 1.4 \; TeV$ and $Im(A) \sim 1 \; TeV$,
1263: we find that our model can indeed accommodate the observed
1264: baryon asymmetry of the Universe.
1265:
1266:
1267: \begin{acknowledgments}
1268: M-CC and KTM are supported, in part,
1269: by the U.S. Department of Energy under Grant No. DE-AC02-98CH10886 and
1270: DE-FG03-95ER40892, respectively. M-CC would also like to acknowledge
1271: Aspen Center for Physics, where part of this work was done, for its
1272: hospitality and for providing a very stimulating atmosphere.
1273: \end{acknowledgments}
1274:
1275:
1276:
1277: %\appendix
1278:
1279: %\section{Vacuum alignment in the flavon sector}
1280:
1281:
1282: % Create the reference section using BibTeX:
1283: \bibliography{lfv}
1284:
1285:
1286:
1287: \end{document}
1288:
1289:
1290:
1291:
1292:
1293:
1294:
1295:
1296:
1297:
1298:
1299:
1300:
1301:
1302:
1303:
1304:
1305:
1306:
1307:
1308:
1309:
1310:
1311:
1312:
1313:
1314: