1: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% L a T e X (no macros) %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2: \documentclass[12pt]{article}
3:
4: \textwidth 16.25cm
5: \textheight 22.5cm
6: \hoffset -1.5cm
7: \voffset -1cm
8:
9: \setlength{\parindent}{1cm}
10: \setlength{\parskip}{5pt plus 2pt minus 1pt}
11: \renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.25}
12:
13: \usepackage{cite}
14: \usepackage{axodraw}
15: \usepackage[dvips]{graphicx}
16:
17: \def\theequation{\arabic{section}.\arabic{equation}}
18: \renewcommand{\textfraction}{0}
19: \renewcommand{\topfraction}{1}
20: \renewcommand{\bottomfraction}{1}
21: \renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\fnsymbol{footnote}}
22:
23:
24: \def\tablename{\bf Table}
25: \def\figurename{\bf Figure}
26:
27:
28: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
29: \begin{document}
30:
31: \begin{flushright}
32: %%% MC-TH-2005-xx\\[-2pt]
33: {\tt hep-ph/0506107}\\
34: June 2005
35: \end{flushright}
36: \bigskip
37:
38: \begin{center}
39: {\LARGE {\bf Electroweak--Scale Resonant Leptogenesis}}\\[1.5cm]
40: {\large Apostolos Pilaftsis and Thomas E.~J. Underwood}\\[0.3cm]
41: {\em School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Manchester,}\\
42: {\em Manchester M13 9PL, United Kingdom}
43: \end{center}
44:
45: \vspace{1.5cm}
46:
47: \centerline{\bf ABSTRACT}
48:
49: \noindent
50: {\small
51: We study minimal scenarios of resonant leptogenesis near the
52: electroweak phase transition. These models offer a number of testable
53: phenomenological signatures for low-energy experiments and future
54: high-energy colliders. Our study extends previous analyses of the
55: relevant network of Boltzmann equations, consistently taking into
56: account effects from out of equilibrium sphalerons and single lepton
57: flavours. We show that the effects from single lepton flavours become
58: very important in variants of resonant leptogenesis, where the
59: observed baryon asymmetry in the Universe is created by
60: lepton-to-baryon conversion of an individual lepton number, for
61: example that of the $\tau$-lepton. The predictions of such resonant
62: $\tau$-leptogenesis models for the final baryon asymmetry are almost
63: independent of the initial lepton-number and heavy neutrino
64: abundances. These models accommodate the current neutrino data and
65: have a number of testable phenomenological implications. They contain
66: electroweak-scale heavy Majorana neutrinos with appreciable couplings
67: to electrons and muons, which can be probed at future $e^+e^-$ and
68: $\mu^+\mu^-$ high-energy colliders. In particular, resonant
69: $\tau$-leptogenesis models predict sizeable $0\nu\beta\beta$ decay, as
70: well as $e$- and $\mu$-number-violating processes, such as $\mu \to
71: e\gamma$ and $\mu \to e$ conversion in nuclei, with rates that are
72: within reach of the experiments proposed by the MEG and MECO
73: collaborations. }
74:
75:
76: \medskip
77: \noindent
78: {\small PACS numbers: 11.30.Er, 14.60.St, 98.80.Cq}
79:
80: \newpage
81:
82: \setcounter{equation}{0}
83: \section{Introduction}
84:
85: The origin of the baryon asymmetry in our Universe (BAU) has always
86: been one of the central topics in particle cosmology. Recently, the
87: high-precision determination of many cosmological parameters,
88: including the baryon-to-photon ratio of number densities, $\eta_B
89: \approx 6.1 \times 10^{-10}$~\cite{WMAP}, has given renewed momentum
90: for extensive studies on this topic~\cite{reviews}. The established
91: BAU provides one of the strongest pieces of evidence towards physics
92: beyond the Standard Model~(SM). One interesting suggestion for
93: explaining the BAU, known as {\it leptogenesis}~\cite{FY}, is linked
94: with neutrinos. Although strictly massless in the SM, neutrinos can
95: naturally acquire their small observed mass through the presence of
96: superheavy partners and the so-called seesaw mechanism~\cite{seesaw}.
97: These superheavy neutrinos are singlets under the SM gauge group and
98: may therefore possess large Majorana masses that violate lepton
99: number~($L$) conservation by two units. In an expanding Universe,
100: these heavy Majorana neutrinos will in general decay out of
101: equilibrium, potentially generating a net lepton asymmetry. The
102: so-produced lepton asymmetry will eventually be converted into the
103: observed BAU~\cite{FY} by means of in-thermal equilibrium
104: $(B+L)$-violating sphaleron interactions~\cite{KRS}.
105:
106: One difficulty faced by ordinary seesaw models embedded in grand
107: unified theories (GUTs) is associated with the natural mass scale of
108: the heavy Majorana neutrinos. This is expected to be of order the GUT
109: scale $M_{\rm GUT} = 10^{16}$~GeV. On the other hand, inflationary
110: supergravity models generically predict a reheating temperature
111: $T_{\rm reh}$ of order $10^9$~GeV. In these models, a significant
112: constraint on the upper bound for $T_{\rm reh}$ comes from the
113: requirement that gravitinos are underabundant in the early Universe
114: and so their late decays do not disrupt the nucleosynthesis of the
115: light elements~\cite{AHJMP}. However, the low $T_{\rm reh}$ gives
116: rise to another constraint within the context of thermal leptogenesis.
117: The heavy Majorana neutrino, whose $L$-violating decays are
118: responsible for the BAU, has to be somewhat lighter than $T_{\rm reh}
119: \sim 10^9$~GeV, so as to be abundantly produced in the early Universe.
120: Such a mass for the heavy Majorana neutrino should be regarded as
121: unnaturally low for GUT-scale thermal leptogenesis. Finally, further
122: constraints on successful GUT-scale
123: leptogenesis~\cite{DI,BBP,GCBetal,CT} may be obtained from solar and
124: atmospheric neutrino data~\cite{PDG}.
125:
126: The aforementioned problem with a low reheating temperature may be
127: completely avoided in models that realize low-scale thermal
128: leptogenesis~\cite{APRD,APreview,LB}. In particular, the lowering of
129: the scale may rely on a dynamical mechanism, in which heavy-neutrino
130: self-energy effects~\cite{LiuSegre} on the leptonic asymmetry become
131: dominant~\cite{Paschos} and get resonantly enhanced~\cite{APRD}, when
132: a pair of heavy Majorana neutrinos has a mass difference comparable to
133: the heavy neutrino decay widths. In~\cite{PU}, this dynamical
134: mechanism was termed {\it resonant leptogenesis}~(RL). As a
135: consequence of RL, the heavy Majorana mass scale can be as low as
136: $\sim$~1~TeV~\cite{APRD,APreview} in complete agreement with the solar
137: and atmospheric neutrino data~\cite{PU}.
138:
139: A crucial model-building aspect of RL models is that such models have
140: to rely on a nearly degenerate heavy neutrino mass spectrum.
141: Although, without any additional lepton-flavour symmetry, such a
142: requirement would appear very fine-tuned, there is no theoretical or
143: phenomenologically compelling reason that would prevent the singlet
144: neutrino sector of the SM from possessing such a symmetry.
145: Specifically, the RL model discussed in~\cite{APRD}, which was
146: motivated by E$_6$ unified theories~\cite{MV}, was based on a
147: particular lepton symmetry in the heavy neutrino sector. This lepton
148: symmetry was broken very approximately by GUT- and/or Planck-scale
149: suppressed operators of dimension 5 and higher. In~\cite{PU}, another
150: RL scenario was put forward based on the Froggatt--Nielsen~(FN)
151: mechanism~\cite{FN}, where two of the heavy neutrinos naturally had a
152: mass difference comparable to their decay widths. Recently, several
153: constructions of RL models appeared in the literature within the
154: context of supersymmetric theories~\cite{HMW,softL,DLR,GJN}, or even
155: embedded in SO(10) unified theories~\cite{AFS,AB}.
156:
157: One of the great advantages of RL models is that their predictions for
158: the BAU are almost independent of the primordial $L$-number,
159: $B$-number and heavy neutrino abundances~\cite{APreview,PU}. This fact
160: may be explained as follows: in RL scenarios, the $L$-violating decay
161: widths of the heavy Majorana neutrinos can be significantly larger
162: than the Hubble expansion rate $H$ of the Universe. As a consequence,
163: the heavy Majorana neutrinos can rapidly thermalize from their decays,
164: inverse decays and scatterings with the other SM particles in the
165: plasma, even if there were no heavy Majorana neutrinos at high
166: temperatures. Moreover, in this high temperature regime, any
167: pre-existing lepton asymmetry will rapidly be driven to zero, due to
168: the $L$-violating inverse decays and scattering processes which are
169: almost in thermal equilibrium. As the Universe cools down, a net
170: lepton asymmetry can be created at temperatures just below the heavy
171: neutrino mass as a consequence of the aforementioned CP-violating
172: resonant enhancement that occurs in RL models. This $L$ asymmetry will
173: survive wash-out effects and will be converted by the
174: $(B+L)$-violating sphalerons into the observed~BAU.
175:
176: In this paper we provide a detailed study of a new variant of RL where
177: a given single lepton flavour asymmetry is resonantly produced by the
178: quasi-in-equilibrium decays of heavy Majorana neutrinos of a
179: particular family type. Such a variant of RL was first discussed
180: in~\cite{APtau}, and for the case of the $\tau$-lepton number this
181: mechanism has been called {\it resonant
182: $\tau$-leptogenesis}~(R$\tau$L). This mechanism makes use of the
183: property that, in addition to $B - L$, sphalerons preserve the
184: individual quantum numbers $\frac{1}{3} B -
185: L_{e,\mu,\tau}$~\cite{KS,HT,DR,LS}. In a R$\tau$L model, the
186: generated excess in the $L_\tau$ number will be converted into the
187: observed BAU, provided the $L_\tau$-violating reactions are not strong
188: enough to wash out such an excess.
189:
190: Although our focus will be on minimal {\em non-supersymmetric}
191: 3-generation RL models, supersymmetry could account for the origin of
192: the electroweak-scale heavy Majorana neutrinos. In particular, one
193: may tie the singlet Majorana neutrino mass scale $m_N$ to the
194: $\mu$-parameter through the vacuum expectation value (VEV) of a chiral
195: singlet superfield $\widehat{S}$~\cite{Borzumati}. The proposed model
196: is a variant of the so-called Next-to-Minimal Supersymmetric Standard
197: Model (NMSSM) and is described by the following superpotential
198: (summation over repeated indices implied):
199: \begin{equation}
200: W\ =\ W_{\rm MSSM} (\mu = 0)\ +\ h^{\nu_R}_{ij}\, \widehat{L}_i
201: \widehat{H}_2 \widehat{\nu}_{jR}\ +\ \lambda\, \widehat{S} \widehat{H}_1
202: \widehat{H}_2 \ +\ \frac{\rho}{2}\, \widehat{S}\,
203: \widehat{\nu}_{iR}\widehat{\nu}_{iR}\ +\ \frac{\kappa}{3}\,
204: \widehat{S}^3\ ,
205: \end{equation}
206: where $W_{\rm MSSM} (\mu = 0)$ is the superpotential of the well-known
207: Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM) without the $\mu$-term,
208: and $\widehat{H}_{1,2}$, $\widehat{L}_{1,2,3}$ and
209: $\widehat{\nu}_{1,2,3\,R}$ are the Higgs-doublet, lepton-doublet and
210: right-handed neutrino superfields, respectively. Once the scalar
211: component of $\widehat{S}$ develops a VEV $v_S$, then both the
212: would-be $\mu$-parameter, $\mu = \lambda v_S$, and the SO(3)-symmetric
213: singlet scale, $m_N = \frac{1}{2}\,\rho\, v_S$, are expected to be
214: comparable in magnitude (asumming that $\lambda \sim \rho$), thus
215: providing a natural framework for the possible existence of 3 nearly
216: degenerate electroweak-scale heavy Majorana neutrinos~\cite{Anupam}.
217: In this minimal extension of the MSSM, the predictions for the BAU
218: will depend on the size of the soft SUSY-breaking mass scale $M_{\rm
219: SUSY}$. However, if $M_{\rm SUSY}$ is relatively larger than the
220: singlet Majorana neutrino mass scale $m_N$, e.g.~$M_{\rm SUSY}
221: \stackrel{>}{{}_\sim} 2m_N$, the dominant source of leptogenesis will
222: be the minimal non-supersymmetric sector that we are studying here, so
223: our predictions will remain almost unaffected in this case.
224:
225: As mentioned above, single lepton-flavour effects on the net $L$ and
226: $B$ asymmetries play a key role in R$\tau$L models. To properly treat
227: these as well as SM chemical potential effects, the relevant network
228: of the Boltzmann equations (BEs) needs to be extended consistently. In
229: particular, single lepton-flavour effects can have a dramatic impact
230: on the predictions for the $B$ asymmetry. These predictions for the
231: BAU can differ by many orders of magnitude with respect to those
232: obtained in the conventional BE formalism, which is commonly used in
233: the literature. Although our primary interest will be to analyze RL
234: models, we should stress that single lepton-flavour effects could also
235: significantly affect the predictions obtained in hierarchical
236: leptogenesis scenarios. The improved set of BEs derived here will
237: therefore be of general use.
238:
239: Another important question we wish to address is whether the
240: leptogenesis scale can be lowered to energies 100--250~GeV, very close
241: to the critical temperature $T_c$, where the electroweak phase
242: transition occurs. In this temperature region, freeze-out effects from
243: sphaleron processes dropping out of equilibrium need to be considered,
244: as they can significantly modify the predicted values for the final
245: baryon asymmetry. Our treatment of these sphaleron freeze-out effects
246: will be approximate and based on the calculations
247: of~\cite{CLMW,KS,LS}. Our approximate treatment is motivated by the
248: fact that, within the framework of RL models, the creation of a net
249: lepton asymmetry at the electroweak scale does not require the
250: electroweak phase transition to be strongly first order.
251:
252: Most importantly, in models where the BAU is generated from an
253: individual lepton-number asymmetry, a range of testable
254: phenomenological implications may arise. The key aspect is that
255: scenarios such as R$\tau$L can contain heavy Majorana neutrinos with
256: appreciable Yukawa couplings to electrons and muons. The (normalized
257: to the SM) $W^\pm$-boson couplings of $e$ and $\mu$ leptons to these
258: heavy Majorana neutrinos could be as large as $10^{-2}$. For
259: electroweak-scale heavy neutrinos, such couplings would be sufficient
260: to produce these particles at future $e^+e^-$ and $\mu^+\mu^-$
261: colliders. Furthermore, minimal (non-supersymmetric) 3-generation
262: R$\tau$L models can predict $\mu \to e\gamma$ and $\mu \to e$
263: conversion in nuclei at rates that can be tested by the foreseeable
264: experiments MEG at PSI~\cite{MEG} and MECO at BNL~\cite{MECO},
265: respectively. Finally, R$\tau$L models naturally realize an inverted
266: hierarchy for the light neutrino spectrum and therefore also predict
267: neutrinoless double beta ($0\nu\beta\beta$) decay with a sizeable
268: effective neutrino mass $|\langle m \rangle |$, as large as $\sim
269: 0.02$~eV. This value falls within reach of proposals for future
270: $0\nu\beta\beta$-decay experiments sensitive to $|\langle m \rangle |
271: \sim 0.01$--0.05~eV~\cite{CA}, e.g.~CUORE ($^{130}{\rm Te}$), GERDA
272: ($^{76}{\rm Ge}$), EXO ($^{136}{\rm Xe}$), MOON ($^{100}{\rm Xe}$),
273: XMASS ($^{136}{\rm Xe}$), CANDLES ($^{48}{\rm Ca}$), SuperNEMO
274: ($^{82}{\rm Se}$) etc.
275:
276:
277: Our paper has been organized as follows: Section 2 presents a minimal
278: model for resonant $\tau$-leptogenesis. In Section 3 we derive the BEs
279: for single lepton flavours, by carefully taking into account SM
280: chemical potential effects. Technical details pertinent to this
281: derivation have been relegated to Appendix A. In Section 4 we review
282: the calculation of out of equilibrium sphaleron effects at the
283: electroweak phase transition and apply it to leptogenesis. In Section
284: 5 we give several numerical examples of R$\tau$L models, focusing our
285: attention on scenarios that can be tested at future $e^+e^-$ and
286: $\mu^+\mu^-$ colliders and in low-energy experiments. In particular,
287: in Section 6, we present predictions for lepton-flavour-violating
288: (LFV) processes, such as $\mu \to e\gamma$, $\mu \to eee$ and $\mu \to
289: e$ conversion in nuclei. Finally, we present our conclusions and
290: future prospects in Section 7.
291:
292:
293:
294: \setcounter{equation}{0}
295: \section{Minimal Model for Resonant {\boldmath $\tau$}-Leptogenesis}
296:
297: There have been several studies on RL models in the
298: literature~\cite{APreview,LB,PU,GJN,softL,AB,HMW}. Here, we will
299: focus our attention on a variant of resonant leptogenesis where the
300: BAU is generated by the production of an individual lepton
301: number~\cite{APtau}. For definiteness, we consider a minimal
302: (non-supersymmetric) model for R$\tau$L.
303:
304: Let us start our discussion by briefly reviewing the relevant
305: low-energy structure of the SM symmetrically extended with one singlet
306: neutrino $\nu_{iR}$ per $i$ family (with $i=1,2,3$). The leptonic
307: Yukawa and Majorana sectors of such a model are given by the
308: Lagrangian
309: \begin{eqnarray}
310: \label{Lym}
311: -\, {\cal L}_{\rm M,Y} &=& \frac{1}{2}\,\sum_{i,j=1}^3\,
312: \bigg(\, (\bar{\nu}_{iR})^C\, (M_S)_{ij}\, \nu_{jR}\ +\
313: \mbox{h.c.}\,\bigg)\nonumber\\
314: &&+\: \sum_{i=e,\mu,\tau}\, \bigg[\, \hat{h}^l_{ii}\,
315: \bar{L}_i\,\Phi\, l_{iR} \ +\
316: \bigg(\,\sum_{j=1}^3\, h^{\nu_R}_{ij}\,
317: \bar{L}_i\, \tilde{\Phi}\, \nu_{jR} \ +\ \mbox{h.c.}\bigg)\,\bigg]\,,
318: \end{eqnarray}
319: where $L_i = (\nu_{iL}, l_{iL})^T$ are the left-handed lepton
320: doublets~\footnote[1]{Occasionally we will also denote the
321: individual lepton numbers with $L_{e,\mu,\tau}$. This apparent
322: abuse of notation should cause no confusion to the reader, as the
323: precise meaning of $L_{e,\mu,\tau}$ can be easily inferred from the
324: context.}, $l_{iR}$ are the right-handed leptons, and $\tilde{\Phi}$
325: is the isospin conjugate of the Higgs doublet $\Phi$.
326:
327: In the Lagrangian~(\ref{Lym}), we have defined the individual lepton
328: numbers $L_{e,\mu,\tau}$ in the would-be charged-lepton mass basis,
329: where the charged-lepton Yukawa matrix $\hat{h}^l$ is positive and
330: diagonal. In fact, without loss of generality, it can be shown that
331: sphaleron transitions exhibit a U(3) flavour symmetry and so they can
332: be rotated to become flavour diagonal in the same would-be mass basis.
333: To prove this, one may write the operator $O_{B+L}$ responsible for
334: $B+L$-violating sphaleron transitions as follows (group-invariant
335: contraction of the colour and weak degrees of freedom
336: implied)~\cite{HT}:
337: \begin{equation}
338: \label{OBplusL}
339: O_{B+L}\ =\ \prod\limits_{i=1}^3\, Q'_i\, Q'_i\, Q'_i\, L'_i\; ,
340: \end{equation}
341: where $Q'_i$ and $L'_i$ denote the quark and lepton doublets defined
342: in an arbitrary weak basis. The operator $O_{B+L}$ contains the fully
343: antisymmetric operator combinations: $Q'_1Q'_2Q'_3$ and
344: $L'_1L'_2L'_3$, which are invariant under U(3) flavour
345: rotations~\cite{GGR}. Thus, we can use this U(3)-rotational freedom
346: to render the charged lepton and up-quark sectors flavour diagonal and
347: positive.
348:
349: To obtain a phenomenologically relevant model, at least 3 singlet heavy
350: Majorana neutrinos $\nu_{1,2,3\,R}$ are needed and these have to be nearly
351: degenerate in mass. To ensure the latter, we assume that to leading order,
352: the heavy neutrino sector is SO(3) symmetric, i.e.
353: \begin{equation}
354: \label{MSSO3}
355: M_S\ =\ m_N\, {\bf 1}_3\: +\: \Delta M_S\; ,
356: \end{equation}
357: where ${\bf 1}_3$ is the $3\times 3$ identity matrix and $\Delta M_S$ is a
358: general SO(3)-breaking matrix. As we will discuss below, compatibility with
359: the observed light neutrino masses and mixings requires that $(\Delta
360: M_S)_{ij}/m_N \stackrel{<}{{}_\sim } 10^{-7}$, for electroweak-scale heavy
361: Majorana neutrinos, i.e.~for $m_N \approx 0.1$--1~TeV. One could imagine that
362: the soft SO(3)-breaking matrix $\Delta M_S$ originates from a sort of
363: Froggatt--Nielsen mechanism~\cite{FN}.
364:
365: In order to account for the smallness of the light neutrino masses, we
366: require that the neutrino Yukawa sector possesses a leptonic U(1)$_l$
367: symmetry. This will explicitly break the imposed SO(3) symmetry of
368: the heavy neutrino sector to a particular subgroup SO(2) $\simeq$
369: U(1)$_l$. For example, one possibility relevant to R$\tau$L is
370: to couple all lepton doublets to a particular heavy neutrino
371: combination: $\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\, (\nu_{2R} + i \nu_{3R})$. In
372: detail, the U(1)$_l$ charges of the fields are
373: \begin{equation}
374: Q (L_{i})\ =\ Q(l_{iR}) = 1\,,\quad
375: Q\bigg(\frac{\nu_{2R} + i \nu_{3R}}{\sqrt{2}}\bigg)\ =\ -Q\bigg(
376: \frac{\nu_{2R} - i \nu_{3R}}{\sqrt{2}}\bigg)\ =\
377: 1\,,\quad Q(\nu_{1R}) = 0\;.
378: \end{equation}
379: As a result of the U(1)$_l$ symmetry, the matrix for the neutrino
380: Yukawa couplings reads:
381: \begin{equation}
382: \label{hmatrix}
383: h^{\nu_R} \ =\ \left(\! \begin{array}{ccc}
384: 0 & a\, e^{-i\pi/4} & a\, e^{i\pi/4} \\
385: 0 & b\, e^{-i\pi/4} & b\, e^{i\pi/4} \\
386: 0 & c\, e^{-i\pi/4} & c\, e^{i\pi/4} \end{array} \!\right)\ +\
387: \delta h^{\nu_R}\; .
388: \end{equation}
389: In the above, $a,b$ and $c$ are arbitrary complex parameters of the model.
390: For electroweak-scale heavy neutrinos, the absolute value of these
391: parameters has to be smaller than about~$10^{-2}$, for
392: phenomenological reasons to be discussed below and in Section 6. In
393: particular, the requirement that an excess in $L_\tau$ is protected from
394: wash-out effects leads to the relatively stronger constraint $|c|
395: \stackrel{<}{{}_\sim} 10^{-5}$. In addition, $\delta h^{\nu_R}$ is a
396: $3\times 3$ matrix that parameterizes possible violations of the
397: U(1)$_l$ symmetry. It should be noted that the charged lepton sector
398: and the leading SO(3)-invariant form of the heavy neutrino mass matrix
399: are compatible with the U(1)$_l$ symmetry.
400:
401: In this paper we shall not address the possible origin of the
402: smallness of the SO(3)- and U(1)$_l$-breaking parameters $(\Delta
403: M_S)_{ij}$ and $\delta h^{\nu_R}_{ij}$, as there are many different
404: possibilities that could be considered for this purpose, e.g.~the
405: Froggatt--Nielsen mechanism~\cite{PU,FN}, Planck- or GUT-scale
406: lepton-number breaking~\cite{APRD,MV}. Instead, in our model-building
407: we will require that the symmetry breaking terms do not induce
408: radiative effects much larger than the tree-level contributions. This
409: naturalness condition will be applied to the light and heavy neutrino
410: mass matrices~${\bf m}^\nu$ and $M_S$, respectively.
411:
412: We start by observing that the U(1)$_l$ symmetry is sufficient to
413: ensure the vanishing of the light neutrino mass matrix ${\bf
414: m}^\nu$~\cite{BGL}. In fact, if U(1)$_l$ is an exact symmetry of the
415: theory, the light neutrino mass matrix will vanish to all orders in
416: perturbation theory~\cite{AZPC,APmix}. To leading order in the
417: U(1)$_l$-breaking parameters $\Delta M_S$, the tree-level light
418: neutrino mass matrix ${\bf m}^\nu$ is given by
419: \begin{equation}
420: \label{mnutree0}
421: {\bf m}^\nu\ =\ -\; \frac{v^2}{2}\, h^{\nu_R}\, M^{-1}_S
422: (h^{\nu_R})^T\ =\ \frac{v^2}{2m_N}\, \bigg(\,
423: \frac{h^{\nu_R}\Delta M_S \,(h^{\nu_R})^T}{m_N}\ -\
424: h^{\nu_R}\,(h^{\nu_R})^T\,\bigg)\,,
425: \end{equation}
426: where $v = 2M_W/g_w = 245$~GeV is the vacuum expectation value of the
427: SM Higgs field $\Phi$. As a minimal departure from U(1)$_l$ in the
428: neutrino Yukawa sector, we consider that this leptonic symmetry is
429: broken only by $\nu_{1R}$, through
430: \begin{equation}
431: \label{epshnu}
432: \delta h^{\nu_R}\ =\ \left(\! \begin{array}{ccc}
433: \varepsilon_e & 0 & 0 \\
434: \varepsilon_\mu & 0 & 0 \\
435: \varepsilon_\tau & 0 & 0 \end{array} \!\right)\; .
436: \end{equation}
437: In this case, the tree-level light neutrino mass
438: matrix~(\ref{mnutree0}) takes on the form
439: \begin{equation}
440: \label{mnutree}
441: {\bf m}^\nu\ =\ \frac{v^2}{2m_N}\,\left(\! \begin{array}{ccc}
442: \frac{\Delta m_N}{m_N}\,a^2 -\varepsilon^2_e &
443: \frac{\Delta m_N}{m_N}\,ab - \varepsilon_e\varepsilon_\mu &
444: \frac{\Delta m_N}{m_N}\,ac -\varepsilon_e\varepsilon_\tau \\
445: \frac{\Delta m_N}{m_N}\,ab -\varepsilon_e\varepsilon_\mu &
446: \frac{\Delta m_N}{m_N}\,b^2-\varepsilon^2_\mu &
447: \frac{\Delta m_N}{m_N}\,bc-\varepsilon_\mu\varepsilon_\tau \\
448: \frac{\Delta m_N}{m_N}\,ac -\varepsilon_e\varepsilon_\tau &
449: \frac{\Delta m_N}{m_N}\,bc -\varepsilon_\mu\varepsilon_\tau &
450: \frac{\Delta m_N}{m_N}\,c^2-\varepsilon^2_\tau \end{array} \!\right)\; ,
451: \end{equation}
452: where $\Delta m_N = 2 (\Delta M_S)_{23} + i [(\Delta M_S)_{33} -
453: (\Delta M_S)_{22}]$. It is interesting to notice that in this type of
454: U(1)$_l$ breaking, the parameters $\varepsilon_{e,\mu,\tau}$ enter the
455: tree-level light neutrino mass matrix ${\bf m}^\nu$ quadratically. As
456: a consequence, one finds that for $m_N \sim v$, these
457: U(1)$_l$-breaking parameters need not be much smaller than the
458: electron Yukawa coupling $h_e \sim 10^{-6}$. Moreover, one should
459: observe that only a particular combination of soft SO(3)- and
460: U(1)$_l$-breaking terms $(\Delta M_S)_{ij}$ appears in ${\bf m}^\nu$
461: through $\Delta m_N$. Nevertheless, for electroweak-scale heavy
462: neutrinos with mass differences $|\Delta m_N|/m_N
463: \stackrel{<}{{}_\sim} 10^{-7}$, one should have $|a|,\, |b|
464: \stackrel{<}{{}_\sim} 10^{-2}$ to avoid getting too large light
465: neutrino masses much above 0.5~eV. As we will see more explicitly in
466: Section~\ref{sec:num}, for the R$\tau$L scenario under study, the
467: favoured solution will be an inverted hierarchical neutrino mass
468: spectrum with large $\nu_e\nu_\mu$ and $\nu_\mu\nu_\tau$
469: mixings~\cite{PDG}.
470:
471:
472: %******************************************************************
473: %%% Figure 1
474: %******************************************************************
475: \begin{figure}[t]
476: \begin{center}
477: \begin{picture}(350,100)(0,0)
478: \SetWidth{0.8}
479:
480: \ArrowLine(0,50)(30,50)\Line(30,50)(90,50)\ArrowLine(120,50)(90,50)
481: \PhotonArc(60,50)(30,0,180){3}{6.5}
482: \Text(5,45)[t]{$\nu_{l'}$}\Text(60,45)[t]{$N_{1,2,3}$}\Text(120,45)[t]{$\nu_l$}
483: \Text(60,87)[b]{$Z$}
484:
485: \Text(60,10)[]{\bf (a)}
486:
487:
488: \ArrowLine(200,50)(230,50)\Line(230,50)(290,50)
489: \ArrowLine(320,50)(290,50)\DashArrowArc(260,50)(30,0,180){4}
490: \Text(205,45)[t]{$\nu_{l'}$}\Text(260,45)[t]{$N_{1,2,3}$}
491: \Text(320,45)[t]{$\nu_l$}
492: \Text(260,87)[b]{$H$}
493:
494: \Text(260,10)[]{\bf (b)}
495:
496:
497: \end{picture}
498: \end{center}
499: \caption{\it Finite radiative effects contributing to the
500: light-neutrino mass matrix.}\label{fig:rad}
501: \end{figure}
502:
503:
504: In addition to the tree level contributions given in~(\ref{mnutree}),
505: there are $Z$- and Higgs-boson-mediated threshold contributions
506: $\delta {\bf m}^\nu$ to ${\bf m}^{\nu}$~\cite{AZPC}. The contributing
507: graphs are displayed in Fig.~\ref{fig:rad}. In the heavy neutrino
508: mass basis, where $M_S \equiv {\rm diag} (m_{N_1}\,,\, m_{N_2}\,,\,
509: m_{N_3})$, with $m_{N_1}\leq m_{N_2}\leq m_{N_3}$, and $h^{\nu_R}
510: \equiv h^\nu$, these finite radiative corrections may conveniently be
511: expressed as follows~\cite{APmix}:
512: \begin{eqnarray}
513: \label{mnurad0}
514: (\delta {\bf m}^\nu)_{ll'} &=&
515: -\,\frac{\alpha_w}{32\pi}\,
516: \sum_{\alpha = 1,2,3}\,
517: \frac{h^\nu_{l\alpha}\, h^\nu_{l'\alpha}\, v^2}{m_{N_\alpha}}\; \bigg[\,
518: \frac{3 M^2_Z}{M^2_W}\, \bigg( B_0 (0,m^2_{N_\alpha}, M^2_Z)\: -\:
519: B_0(0,0,M^2_Z) \bigg)\nonumber\\
520: &&+\ \frac{m^2_{N_\alpha}}{M^2_Z}\, \bigg( B_0 (0,m^2_{N_\alpha}, M^2_H)\:
521: -\: B_0(0,m^2_{N_\alpha},m^2_{N_\alpha})\bigg)\, \bigg]\; ,
522: \end{eqnarray}
523: where $\alpha_w = g_w^2/(4\pi)$ and $M_H$ is the SM Higgs boson
524: mass. In~(\ref{mnurad0}), $B_0 (0,m^2_1,m^2_2)$ is the usual
525: Pasarino--Veltman one-loop function~\cite{PV}, i.e.
526: \begin{equation}
527: \label{B0}
528: B_0 (0,m^2_1,m^2_2)\ =\ C_{\rm UV}\: +\: 1\: -\:
529: \ln\bigg(\frac{m_1m_2}{\mu^2}\bigg)\ +\
530: \frac{m^2_1 + m^2_2}{m^2_1 - m^2_2}\, \ln\bigg(\frac{m_2}{m_1}\bigg)\, ,
531: \end{equation}
532: and $C_{\rm UV}$ is a UV infinite constant. Moreover, in
533: writing~(\ref{mnurad0}), we have neglected terms of order
534: $[(h^\nu_{l\alpha})^4\,v^3]/m^2_{N_\alpha}$, which are suppressed by
535: higher powers of the small Yukawa couplings. It can easily be
536: verified that the radiative lepton-number-violating contribution
537: $\delta {\bf m}^\nu$ to the light neutrino mass matrix is UV finite
538: and $\mu$-scale independent. For $m^2_{N_\alpha} \gg M^2_H$ and
539: $(m_{N_\alpha}-m_{N_1})/m_{N_1} \ll 1$, the expression~(\ref{mnurad0})
540: evaluated in the original weak basis simplifies to
541: \begin{equation}
542: \label{mnurad1}
543: \delta {\bf m}^\nu \ =\
544: \frac{\alpha_w}{16\pi}\, \frac{M^2_H + 3 M^2_Z}{M^2_W}\;
545: \frac{v^2}{m_N}\;
546: \frac{h^{\nu_R}\Delta M_S \,(h^{\nu_R})^T}{m_N}\; .
547: \end{equation}
548: For electroweak-scale heavy Majorana neutrinos $m_{N_\alpha} \sim v$
549: and $M_H = 120$--200~GeV, one may estimate that for
550: $(m_{N_\alpha}-m_{N_1})/m_{N_1} \stackrel{<}{{}_\sim} 10^{-7}$ and
551: $|a|,|b| \stackrel{<}{{}_\sim} 10^{-2}$, the finite radiative effects
552: $\delta {\bf m}^\nu$ stay well below 0.01~eV. In fact, up to an
553: overall coupling-suppressed constant, these corrections have the same
554: analytic form as the first term on the RHS of~(\ref{mnutree0}). They
555: can be absorbed by appropriately rescaling $\Delta m_N$ defined
556: after~(\ref{mnutree}). As a consequence, these finite radiative
557: effects do not modify the parametric dependence of the tree-level
558: light neutrino mass matrix given in~(\ref{mnutree}).
559:
560: We now turn our attention to the heavy Majorana neutrino sector. In
561: this case, renormalization-group (RG) running
562: effects~\cite{GJN,Antusch} become very significant. These effects explicitly
563: break the SO(3)-symmetric form of the heavy neutrino mass matrix, $M_S
564: (M_X) = m_N\, {\bf 1}_3$, imposed at some high energy scale $M_X$,
565: e.g.~at the GUT scale. A fairly good quantitative estimate of these
566: SO(3)-breaking effects can be obtained by solving the RG equation for
567: the heavy neutrino mass matrix $M_S$:
568: \begin{equation}
569: \label{RGMS}
570: \frac{d M_S}{dt}\ =\ -\, \frac{1}{16\pi^2}\,\bigg\{\,
571: \Big[\,(h^{\nu_R})^\dagger h^{\nu_R}\,\Big]\,M_S\: +\:
572: M_S\, \Big[\,(h^{\nu_R})^T (h^{\nu_R})^*\Big]\,\bigg\}\; ,
573: \end{equation}
574: with $t = \ln ( M_X/\mu )$. Considering that $h^{\nu_R}$ has
575: only a mild RG-scale dependence and assuming that $M_S (M_X) = m_N\,
576: {\bf 1}_3$ at some high scale $M_X$, we may calculate the RG effects by running
577: from $M_X$ to the low-energy scale $m_N \sim v$ through the relation
578: \begin{eqnarray}
579: \label{RGestimate}
580: M_S(m_N) & = & M_S(M_X)\: -\: \frac{m_N}{8\pi^2}\,
581: {\rm Re}\, \Big[\,(h^{\nu_R})^\dagger
582: h^{\nu_R}\,\Big]\, \ln\bigg(\frac{M_X}{m_N}\bigg)\nonumber\\
583: &&\hspace{-2cm}
584: =\ M_S(M_X)\: -\: \frac{|a|^2 + |b|^2}{8\pi^2}\, m_N\,
585: \ln\bigg(\frac{M_X}{m_N}\bigg)\, \bigg[\, {\rm diag}\, (0,1,1) \ +\ {\cal O}
586: \bigg(\frac{|\varepsilon_{e,\mu,\tau}|}{(|a|^2 + |b|^2)^{1/2}}
587: \bigg)\,\bigg]\,.\qquad\quad
588: \end{eqnarray}
589: If the scale $M_X$ of the SO(3) symmetry imposed on $M_S (M_X)$ is to
590: be naturally associated with the scale $M_{\rm GUT} \sim 10^{16}$~GeV
591: relevant to GUT dynamics, it can be estimated from~(\ref{RGestimate})
592: that the mass splittings $|m_{N_2}-m_{N_1}|/m_N$ and $|m_{N_3} -
593: m_{N_1}|/m_N$ should be larger than $10^{-5}$ for $|a|,\ |b| \sim
594: 10^{-2}$ ($|c|,\,|\varepsilon_{e,\mu,\tau}| \stackrel{<}{{}_\sim}
595: 10^{-5}$). Instead, the mass difference $|m_{N_3} - m_{N_2}|/m_N$
596: should be comparatively much smaller, as it is protected by an
597: approximate U(1)$_l$ symmetry. In particular, we find that $|m_{N_3}
598: - m_{N_2}|/m_N = {\cal O}(|\varepsilon_{e,\mu,\tau}a|,
599: |\varepsilon_{e,\mu,\tau}b|) \stackrel{<}{{}_\sim} 10^{-7}$. At this
600: point we should stress that in the scenarios we are considering, RG
601: effects predominantly modify the entries $(\Delta M_S)_{1i}$ (with
602: $i=1,2,3$) in~(\ref{MSSO3}) and so they do not affect the light
603: neutrino mass matrix~(\ref{mnutree}). However, these effects may
604: affect the single lepton flavour asymmetries and the flavour-dependent
605: wash-out factors that are discussed in the next section.
606:
607: In addition to RG effects, one might worry that thermal effects could
608: significantly modify the heavy neutrino mass spectrum. However,
609: thermal effects respect the underlying symmetries of the theory, such
610: as global, chiral and gauge symmetries~\cite{MBellac}. Hence, their
611: impact on the heavy neutrino mass spectrum is controlled by the size
612: of the SO(3)- and U(1)$_l$-breaking parameters in the Yukawa neutrino
613: sector. In the hard thermal loop (HTL)
614: approximation~\cite{MBellac,Weldon}, thermal corrections give rise to
615: an effective heavy neutrino mass matrix $M_S (T)$, which differs from
616: the one evaluated at $T=0$ by an amount~\cite{PU}
617: \begin{equation}
618: \label{MSthermal}
619: M_S (T)\: -\: M_S (0)\ \approx\ \frac{1}{16}\: {\rm Re}\,
620: \Big[\,(h^{\nu_R})^\dagger h^{\nu_R}\,\Big]\: \frac{T^2}{m_N}\ .
621: \end{equation}
622: By comparing~(\ref{MSthermal}) with (\ref{RGestimate}), we notice that
623: thermal corrections have a parametric dependence very similar to the
624: RG effects and are opposite in sign. Nevertheless, if the
625: SO(3)-breaking scale $M_X$ is identified with $M_{\rm GUT}$, RG
626: effects become larger than thermal effects by at least a factor 3, for
627: the temperature regime relevant to leptogenesis $T\stackrel{<}{{}_\sim }
628: m_N$.
629:
630: In Section~\ref{sec:num} we will present numerical estimates of the
631: BAU for electroweak-scale RL models that are motivated by the
632: naturalness of the light and heavy neutrino sectors. As we mentioned
633: above, this condition provides a potential link between these models
634: and GUT-scale physics.
635:
636:
637:
638: \setcounter{equation}{0}
639: \section{Boltzmann Equations for Single Lepton Flavours}
640:
641: In this section we derive a set of coupled BEs for the abundances of heavy
642: Majorana neutrinos and each lepton flavour. We follow a procedure analogous to
643: the one presented in \cite{PU}, where a number of controllable approximations
644: were made. In particular, we assume Maxwell-Boltzmann statistics for the
645: heavy Majorana neutrinos. For the SM particles, we instead consider the proper
646: Bose--Einstein and Fermi--Dirac statistics, but ignore
647: condensate effects~\cite{KW}. The above simplifications are expected to
648: introduce an error no larger than~20\%. Furthermore, we neglect thermal
649: effects on the collision terms, which become less significant in the
650: temperature domain $T \stackrel{<}{{}_\sim} m_{N_1}$ relevant to RL. As we
651: will see more explicitly in Section~\ref{sec:num}, the latter approximation
652: may partially be justified by the observation~\cite{PU} that the resulting BAU
653: predicted in RL models is independent of the initial abundances of the heavy
654: neutrinos and any initial baryon or lepton asymmetry.
655:
656:
657: Various definitions and notations that will be useful in deriving the BEs are
658: introduced in Appendix A. Adopting the formalism of \cite{KW,MAL}, the
659: evolution of the number density, $n_a$, of all particle species $a$ can be
660: modelled by a set of BEs. These are coupled first order differential
661: equations and may be generically written down as\footnote[2]{This formalism
662: neglects coherent time-oscillatory terms describing particle oscillations in
663: terms of number densities, as well as off-diagonal number densities
664: $n_{a\bar{b}}$, for the destruction of a particle species $b$ and the
665: correlated creation of a particle species $a$, where $a$ and $b$ could
666: represent the 3 lepton flavours or the 3 heavy neutrinos~$N_{1,2,3}$.
667: Although these effects can be modelled as well~\cite{Keldysh/Schwinger},
668: their impact on the BAU is expected to be negligible. Specifically,
669: coherent time-oscillatory terms between heavy Majorana neutrinos will
670: rapidly undergo strong damping, as a consequence of the quasi-in-thermal
671: equilibrium dynamics governing RL models. This results from the fact
672: that the decay widths $\Gamma_{N_{1,2,3}}$ of the heavy neutrinos are much
673: larger than the expansion rate of the Universe. Additionally, the
674: correlated off-diagonal number densities $n_{a\bar{b}}$ will be
675: Yukawa-coupling suppressed ${\cal O} ((h^\nu)^2)$ with respect to the
676: diagonal ones $n_{a,b}$, if the heavy neutrinos and the charged leptons are
677: defined in the diagonal mass basis. In particular, the contribution of
678: $n_{a\bar{b}}$ to $n_{a,b}$ will be further suppressed ${\cal O}
679: ((h^\nu)^4)$. We will therefore neglect the effects of the coherent
680: time-oscillatory terms and the off-diagonal number densities~$n_{a\bar{b}}$
681: on the~BEs.}
682: \begin{equation}
683: \label{BEgeneric}
684: \frac{dn_a}{dt}\: +\: 3 H n_a\ =\ -\, \sum\limits_{aX^\prime\leftrightarrow
685: Y}\,\bigg[\ \frac{n_a n_{X^\prime}}{n^{\rm eq}_a
686: n^{\rm eq}_{X^\prime}}\,\gamma (a X^\prime \to Y)\ -\
687: \frac{n_Y}{n^{\rm eq}_Y}\, \gamma (Y\to a X^\prime )\ \bigg]\; ,
688: \end{equation}
689: where all possible reactions of the form $a X^\prime \to Y$ or $Y\to a
690: X^\prime$, in which $a$ can be created or annihilated are summed
691: over. If $a$ is unstable, it could occur as a real intermediate state
692: (RIS) in a resonant process like $X \to a \to Y$. In this case,
693: special treatment is required to avoid overcounting processes.
694:
695: In principle, there is a large number of coupled BEs, one for each
696: particle degree of freedom. This number can be drastically reduced by
697: noting that rapidly occurring SM processes hold most of the different
698: particle degrees of freedom and particle species in thermal
699: equilibrium. The non-zero chemical potentials of the particle species
700: other than heavy Majorana neutrinos and leptons produce effects of
701: $\mathcal{O}(1)$ on the final baryon asymmetry~\cite{MPspect}. These
702: effects will be consistently included in the BEs for the heavy
703: Majorana neutrinos $N_{1,2,3}$ and the lepton doublets
704: $L_{e,\mu,\tau}$.
705:
706:
707: Although an infinite series of collision terms could be added to each
708: BE, only a few will have a significant contribution. Following the
709: procedure in \cite{PU}, terms of order $\bar{h}^{\nu\,4}_{\pm} h_u^2$
710: and higher will be neglected, where $\bar{h}^{\nu}_{\pm} \sim h^{\nu}$
711: are the one loop resummed effective Yukawa couplings introduced in
712: \cite{PU}. Also neglected are terms of order $\bar{h}^{\nu\,4}_{\pm}$
713: for $2 \leftrightarrow 2$ scatterings with two external heavy Majorana
714: neutrinos. This leaves $1 \leftrightarrow 2$ decays and inverse decays
715: of heavy Majorana neutrinos ${\cal O}(\bar{h}^{\nu \,2}_{\pm})$ and $2
716: \leftrightarrow 2$ scatterings between heavy Majorana neutrinos,
717: lepton doublets, gauge bosons, quarks and the Higgs field, which are
718: formally of order $\bar{h}^{\nu\,2}_{\pm} g^2$,
719: $\bar{h}_{\pm}^{\nu\,2} g^{\prime\,2}$ and $(\bar{h}^{\nu}_{\pm})^2
720: h_u^2$.
721:
722: An important step in the following derivation is the proper
723: subtraction of RISs. For example, the process $L_j
724: \Phi~\leftrightarrow~L_k^C\Phi^\dagger$ will contain real intermediate
725: heavy Majorana neutrino states. Their inverse decay and subsequent
726: decay have already been accounted for in the BEs and must be
727: subtracted to ensure that unitarity and CPT are respected~\cite{KW}.
728:
729: In analogy to $2\leftrightarrow 2$ scatterings, $2 \to 3$ processes,
730: such as $L_j Q^C~\to~L_k^C \Phi^\dagger u^C$, may also contain the
731: heavy neutrinos $N_\alpha$ as RISs. The resonant part of such a
732: process consists of the reaction $L_j Q^C~\to~N_\alpha u^C$, followed
733: by the decay $N_\alpha~\to~L_k^C \Phi^\dagger$. As before, to avoid
734: double counting, we subtract the RISs from such a $2 \to 3$ process.
735: Although the off-shell $2\to 3$ process is a higher order effect than
736: those we are considering, the subtracted resonant part contributes
737: terms of order $(\bar{h}^\nu_{\pm})^2 h_u^2$ and must be consistently
738: included within the given approximations for the BEs. Specifically,
739: the following relations among the collision terms are derived:
740: \begin{eqnarray}
741: \label{CPviolating}
742: \gamma^{\,\prime}(L^C_k \Phi^\dagger \to L_j \Phi) -
743: \gamma^{\,\prime}(L_k \Phi \to L^C_j \Phi^\dagger) & = &
744: -\,\frac{1}{2} \sum_{\alpha=1}^3 \bigg(B_{N_\alpha}^k
745: \delta_{N_\alpha}^j + B_{N_\alpha}^j \delta_{N_\alpha}^k \bigg)
746: \sum_{l\,=\,e,\mu,\tau} \!\!
747: \gamma^{N_{\alpha}}_{L_l \Phi}\,,\nonumber\\
748: \gamma^{\,\prime}(L_k \Phi \to L_j \Phi) -
749: \gamma^{\,\prime}(L^C_k \Phi^\dagger \to L^C_j \Phi^\dagger) & = &
750: -\,\frac{1}{2} \sum_{\alpha=1}^3 \bigg(B_{N_\alpha}^k
751: \delta_{N_\alpha}^j - B_{N_\alpha}^j \delta_{N_\alpha}^k \bigg)
752: \sum_{l\,=\,e,\mu,\tau} \!\!
753: \gamma^{N_{\alpha}}_{L_l \Phi}\,,\nonumber\\
754: \gamma^{\,\prime}(Q u^C \to L_j L_k \Phi) -
755: \gamma^{\,\prime}(Q^C u \to L^C_j L^C_k \Phi^\dagger) & = &\!\!
756: -\,S_{jk} \sum_{\alpha=1}^3 \bigg(B_{N_\alpha}^k
757: \delta_{N_\alpha}^j + B_{N_\alpha}^j \delta_{N_\alpha}^k \bigg)
758: \sum_{l\,=\,e,\mu,\tau} \!\!
759: \gamma^{N_{\alpha} L_l}_{Q u^C}\,,\nonumber\\
760: \gamma^{\,\prime}(Q u^C \to L_j L^C_k \Phi^\dagger) -
761: \gamma^{\,\prime}(Q^C u \to L^C_j L_k \Phi) & = &
762: -\,\frac{1}{2} \sum_{\alpha=1}^3 \bigg(B_{N_\alpha}^k
763: \delta_{N_\alpha}^j - B_{N_\alpha}^j \delta_{N_\alpha}^k \bigg)
764: \sum_{l\,=\,e,\mu,\tau} \!\!
765: \gamma^{N_{\alpha} L_l}_{Q u^C}\,,\nonumber\\
766: \gamma^{\,\prime}(L_j Q^C \to u^C \Phi^\dagger L^C_k) -
767: \gamma^{\,\prime}(L^C_j Q \to u \Phi L_k) & = &
768: \frac{1}{2} \sum_{\alpha=1}^3 \bigg(B_{N_\alpha}^k
769: \delta_{N_\alpha}^j + B_{N_\alpha}^j \delta_{N_\alpha}^k \bigg)
770: \sum_{l\,=\,e,\mu,\tau} \!\!
771: \gamma^{N_{\alpha} u^C}_{L_l Q^C}\,,\nonumber\\
772: \gamma^{\,\prime}(L_j Q^C \to u^C \Phi L_k) -
773: \gamma^{\,\prime}(L^C_j Q \to u \Phi^\dagger L^C_k) & = &
774: \frac{1}{2} \sum_{\alpha=1}^3 \bigg(B_{N_\alpha}^k
775: \delta_{N_\alpha}^j - B_{N_\alpha}^j \delta_{N_\alpha}^k \bigg)
776: \sum_{l\,=\,e,\mu,\tau} \!\!
777: \gamma^{N_{\alpha} u^C}_{L_l Q^C}\,,\nonumber\\
778: \end{eqnarray}
779: where a prime denotes subtraction of RISs, the indices $j,k =
780: e,\mu,\tau$ label lepton flavour, and $S_{jk} = (1+\delta_{jk})^{-1}$
781: is a statistical factor that corrects for the production or
782: annihilation of identical lepton flavours. In addition, we have
783: defined the individual lepton-flavour asymmetries and branching ratios
784: as
785: \begin{eqnarray}
786: \delta_{N_\alpha}^l & = & \frac{\Gamma (N_{\alpha} \to L_l \Phi) -
787: \Gamma (N_{\alpha} \to L^C_l \Phi^\dagger)} {\sum_k \Big[ \Gamma
788: (N_{\alpha} \to L_k \Phi) + \Gamma (N_{\alpha} \to L^C_k
789: \Phi^\dagger)\Big]}\ ,\nonumber\\
790: B_{N_\alpha}^l & = & \frac{\Gamma (N_{\alpha} \to L_l \Phi) +
791: \Gamma (N_{\alpha} \to L^C_l \Phi^\dagger)} {\sum_k \Big[ \Gamma
792: (N_{\alpha} \to L_k \Phi) + \Gamma (N_{\alpha} \to L^C_k
793: \Phi^\dagger)\Big]}\ .
794: \label{CPbranch}
795: \end{eqnarray}
796: As CP violation in these processes is predominantly caused by the
797: resonant exchange of heavy Majorana neutrinos, the CP-violating
798: collision terms have been approximated in terms of the CP-conserving
799: ones as follows:
800: \begin{eqnarray}
801: \label{simpl}
802: \delta \gamma^{N_{\alpha}}_{L_j\Phi} \!&=&\!
803: \delta^j_{N_{\alpha}} \sum_{l\,=\,e,\mu,\tau}\!\!\!
804: \gamma^{N_{\alpha}}_{L_l\Phi}\,,\qquad \delta \gamma^{N_{\alpha}
805: u^C}_{L_j Q^C}\ =\ \delta^j_{N_{\alpha}} \sum_{l\,=\,e,\mu,\tau}\!\!\!
806: \gamma^{N_{\alpha} u^C}_{L_l Q^C}\,,\nonumber\\
807: \delta \gamma^{N_{\alpha} L_j}_{Qu^C}\!&=&\! -\, \delta^j_{N_{\alpha}}
808: \sum_{l\,=\,e,\mu,\tau}\!\!\! \gamma^{N_{\alpha} L_l}_{Q u^C}\qquad
809: {\rm etc.}
810: \end{eqnarray}
811:
812: Unlike the $2 \to 3$ reactions, $3 \to 2$ processes are treated differently.
813: Although $3 \to 2$ processes could contain real intermediate $N_{\alpha}$
814: states, collision terms for their associated annihilation processes have not
815: been included before. For example, in the process $L_j L_k \Phi \to Q u^C$, a
816: real intermediate $N_{\alpha}$ state could be coherently created from $L$ and
817: $\Phi$ states. This coherent RIS would then interact with another $L$ state
818: producing $Q$ and $u^C$. Previously, the process $N_\alpha L \to Q u^C$ has
819: only been considered for heavy $N_{\alpha}$ neutrinos in a thermally
820: incoherent state. This implies that $3 \to 2$ processes containing $N_\alpha$
821: as RISs have not yet been accounted for and should not be subtracted. With
822: the help of CPT and unitarity, one may therefore obtain the following
823: relations for the $3 \to 2$ processes:
824: \begin{eqnarray}
825: \label{CPT2}
826: \gamma (L_j L_k \Phi \to Q u^C )\: -\:
827: \gamma (L_j^C L_k^C \Phi^\dagger \to Q^C u) & = &
828: \mathcal{O}(h^{\nu\,4} h_u^2)\,,\nonumber\\
829: \gamma (L_j L^C_k \Phi^\dagger \to Q u^C)\: -\:
830: \gamma (L_j^C L_k \Phi \to Q^C u ) & = &
831: \mathcal{O}(h^{\nu\,4} h_u^2)\,,\nonumber\\
832: \gamma (L_j \Phi u \to L_k^C Q)\: -\:
833: \gamma (L_j^C \Phi^\dagger u^C \to L_k Q^C) & = &
834: \mathcal{O}(h^{\nu\,4} h_u^2)\,,\nonumber\\
835: \gamma (L_j \Phi u^C \to L_k Q^C)\: -\:
836: \gamma (L^C_j \Phi^\dagger u \to L_k^C Q) & = &
837: \mathcal{O}(h^{\nu\,4} h_u^2)\,.
838: \end{eqnarray}
839: As a consequence of this, $3 \to 2$ processes will contribute extra
840: CP-conserving $2 \to 2$ collision terms, through the resonant exchange
841: of real intermediate $N_\alpha$ states. Applying the narrow width
842: approximation, we find
843: \begin{eqnarray}
844: \label{CPconserving}
845: \gamma (L_j L_k \Phi \to Q u^C )\: +\:
846: \gamma (L_j^C L_k^C \Phi^\dagger \to Q^C u) & = & S_{jk}
847: \sum_{\alpha=1}^3 \bigg(B_{N_\alpha}^j B_{N_\alpha}^k +
848: \delta_{N_\alpha}^j \delta_{N_\alpha}^k \bigg)
849: \sum_{l\,=\,e,\mu,\tau} \!\!
850: \gamma^{N_{\alpha} L_l}_{Q u^C}\,,\nonumber\\
851: \gamma (L_j L^C_k \Phi^\dagger \to Q u^C )\: +\:
852: \gamma (L_j^C L_k \Phi \to Q^C u) & = &
853: \frac{1}{2} \sum_{\alpha=1}^3 \bigg(B_{N_\alpha}^j B_{N_\alpha}^k -
854: \delta_{N_\alpha}^j \delta_{N_\alpha}^k \bigg)
855: \sum_{l\,=\,e,\mu,\tau} \!\!
856: \gamma^{N_{\alpha} L_l}_{Q u^C}\,,\nonumber\\
857: \gamma (L_j \Phi u \to L_k^C Q)\: +\:
858: \gamma (L_j^C \Phi^\dagger u^C \to L_k Q^C) & = &
859: \frac{1}{2} \sum_{\alpha=1}^3 \bigg(B_{N_\alpha}^j B_{N_\alpha}^k +
860: \delta_{N_\alpha}^j \delta_{N_\alpha}^k \bigg)
861: \sum_{l\,=\,e,\mu,\tau} \!\!
862: \gamma^{N_{\alpha} u^C}_{L_l Q^C}\,,\nonumber\\
863: \gamma (L_j \Phi u^C \to L_k Q^C)\: +\:
864: \gamma (L^C_j \Phi^\dagger u \to L_k^C Q) & = &
865: \frac{1}{2} \sum_{\alpha=1}^3 \bigg(B_{N_\alpha}^j B_{N_\alpha}^k -
866: \delta_{N_\alpha}^j \delta_{N_\alpha}^k \bigg)
867: \sum_{l\,=\,e,\mu,\tau} \!\!
868: \gamma^{N_{\alpha} u^C}_{L_l Q^C}\,.\nonumber\\
869: \end{eqnarray}
870:
871: We may now employ (\ref{BEgeneric}) and write down the BEs in terms of
872: the number densities of heavy Majorana neutrinos $n_{N_\alpha}$ and
873: the lepton-doublet asymmetries $n_{\Delta L_{e,\mu,\tau}}$,
874: \begin{eqnarray}
875: \label{BE1}
876: \frac{dn_{N_{\alpha}}}{dt}\: +\: 3 H n_{N_{\alpha}}
877: \!\!&=&\!\! \bigg( 1 \: -\: \frac{n_{N_{\alpha}}}{n^{\rm
878: eq}_{N_{\alpha}}}\,\bigg) \sum_{k\,=\,e,\mu,\tau} \bigg(
879: \gamma^{N_{\alpha}}_{L_k\Phi}\: +\: \gamma^{N_{\alpha} L_k}_{Q u^C}\:
880: +\: \gamma^{N_{\alpha} u^C}_{L_k Q^C}\: +\: \gamma^{N_{\alpha} Q}_{L_k
881: u}\nonumber\\
882: \!\!&&\!\!+\, \gamma^{N_{\alpha} V_\mu}_{L_k\Phi} \: +\:
883: \gamma^{N_{\alpha} L_k}_{\Phi^\dagger V_\mu}\: +\:
884: \gamma^{N_{\alpha}\Phi^\dagger }_{L_k V_\mu}\, \bigg)\nonumber\\
885: \!\!&&\!\!- \sum_{k\,=\,e,\mu,\tau} \frac{n_{\Delta L_k}}{2\,n^{\rm
886: eq}_{l_k}}\, \bigg[\, \delta\gamma^{N_{\alpha}}_{L_k\Phi}\: +\:
887: \delta\gamma^{N_{\alpha} u^C}_{L_k Q^C}\: +\: \delta\gamma^{N_{\alpha}
888: Q}_{L_k u}\: +\: \delta\gamma^{N_{\alpha} V_\mu}_{L_k \Phi}\: +\:
889: \delta\gamma^{N_{\alpha}\Phi^\dagger }_{L_k V_\mu}\nonumber\\
890: \!\!&&\!\! +\: \frac{n_{N_{\alpha}}}{n^{\rm eq}_{N_{\alpha}}}\,
891: \bigg(\, \delta\gamma^{N_{\alpha} L_k}_{Q u^C}\: +\:
892: \delta\gamma^{N_{\alpha} L_k}_{\Phi^\dagger
893: V_\mu}\,\bigg)\,\bigg]\;,\\[3mm]
894: \label{BE2}
895: \frac{dn_{\Delta L_j}}{dt}\: +\: 3 H n_{\Delta
896: L_j} \!\!&=&\!\! \sum^3_{\alpha = 1} \bigg(\,
897: \frac{n_{N_{\alpha}}}{n^{\rm eq}_{N_{\alpha}}} \: -\: 1\,\bigg)\,
898: \bigg( \delta\gamma^{N_{\alpha}}_{L_j \Phi}\: -\:
899: \delta\gamma^{N_{\alpha} L_j}_{Q u^C}\: +\: \delta\gamma^{N_{\alpha}
900: u^C}_{L_j Q^C}\: +\: \delta\gamma^{N_{\alpha} Q}_{L_j u}\nonumber\\
901: \!\!&&\!\!+\, \delta\gamma^{N_{\alpha} V_\mu}_{L_j \Phi}\: -\:
902: \delta\gamma^{N_{\alpha} L_j}_{\Phi^\dagger V_\mu}\: +\:
903: \delta\gamma^{N_{\alpha}\Phi^\dagger }_{L_j V_\mu}\, \bigg)\nonumber\\
904: \!\!&&\!\!-\, \frac{n_{\Delta L_j}}{2\,n^{\rm eq}_{l_j}}\, \bigg[\,
905: \sum^3_{\alpha = 1} \bigg(\,\gamma^{N_{\alpha}}_{L_j \Phi}\: +\: 2
906: \gamma^{N_{\alpha} u^C}_{L_j Q^C}\: +\: 2 \gamma^{N_{\alpha} Q}_{L_j
907: u} \: +\: 2 \gamma^{N_{\alpha} V_\mu}_{L_j \Phi}\: +\: 2
908: \gamma^{N_{\alpha}\Phi^\dagger }_{L_j V_\mu}\nonumber\\ \!\!&&\!\!
909: +\:2 \gamma^{N_{\alpha} L_j}_{Q u^C}\: +\: 2 \gamma^{N_{\alpha}
910: L_j}_{\Phi^\dagger V_\mu} \: +\: \frac{n_{N_{\alpha}}}{n^{\rm
911: eq}_{N_{\alpha}}}\, \bigg(\, \gamma^{N_{\alpha} L_j}_{Q u^C}\: +\:
912: \gamma^{N_{\alpha} L_j}_{\Phi^\dagger
913: V_\mu}\,\bigg)\,\bigg)\nonumber\\ \!\!&&\!\! +\!
914: \sum_{k\,=\,e,\mu,\tau} \bigg(\,\gamma^{\,\prime
915: L_j\Phi}_{\,L_k^C\Phi^\dagger} \: +\: \gamma^{L_j
916: L_k}_{\Phi^\dagger\Phi^\dagger} \: +\:
917: \gamma^{\,\prime\,L_j\Phi}_{\,L_k\Phi} \:+ \: \gamma^{L_j L^C_k}_{\Phi
918: \Phi^\dagger}\,\bigg)\,\bigg]\nonumber\\ \!\!&&\!\! -\!
919: \sum_{k\,=\,e,\mu,\tau} \frac{n_{\Delta L_k}}{2\,n^{\rm eq}_{l_k}}\,
920: \bigg[\, \gamma^{\,\prime L_k\Phi}_{\,L_j^C\Phi^\dagger} \: +\:
921: \gamma^{L_k L_j}_{\Phi^\dagger\Phi^\dagger} \: -\:
922: \gamma^{\,\prime\,L_k\Phi}_{\,L_j\Phi} \:- \: \gamma^{L_k L^C_j}_{\Phi
923: \Phi^\dagger}\nonumber\\ \!\!&&\!\!+ \: \sum^3_{\alpha = 1}
924: \delta^j_{N_{\alpha}} \delta^k_{N_{\alpha}} \sum_{l\,=\,e,\mu,\tau}
925: \bigg(\, \gamma^{N_{\alpha} u^C}_{L_l Q^C}\: +\: \gamma^{N_{\alpha}
926: Q}_{L_l u} \: +\: \gamma^{N_{\alpha} V_\mu}_{L_l \Phi}\: +\:
927: \gamma^{N_{\alpha}\Phi^\dagger }_{L_l V_\mu}\nonumber\\ \!\!&&\!\!+\:2
928: \gamma^{N_{\alpha} L_l}_{Q u^C}\: +\: 2 \gamma^{N_{\alpha}
929: L_l}_{\Phi^\dagger V_\mu}\,\bigg)\,\bigg]\,.
930: \end{eqnarray}
931: In the above set of BEs, we have only kept terms to leading order in
932: $n_{\Delta L_j}/n^{\rm eq}_{l_j}$, and implemented the relations given
933: in (\ref{CPviolating})--(\ref{CPconserving}).
934:
935: All SM species in the thermal bath, including the lepton doublets
936: $L_{e,\mu,\tau}$, possess non-zero chemical potentials. These
937: chemical potentials can be expressed in terms of the lepton-doublet
938: chemical potentials only, under the assumption that SM processes are
939: in full thermal equilibrium \cite{HT}. This analysis yields the
940: following relations:
941: \begin{eqnarray}
942: \label{ChemPot}
943: \mu_{V} \!&=&\! 0\,,\qquad
944: \mu_{\Phi}\ =\ \frac{4}{21} \sum_{l\,=\,e,\mu,\tau}\!\!\! \mu_{L_l}\,,
945: \qquad
946: \mu_{Q}\ =\ -\frac{1}{9} \sum_{l\,=\,e,\mu,\tau}\!\!\! \mu_{L_l}\,,\qquad
947: \mu_{u} \ = \ \frac{5}{63} \sum_{l\,=\,e,\mu,\tau}\!\!\!
948: \mu_{L_l}\,,\nonumber\\
949: \mu_{e_l} \!&=&\! \mu_{L_l} - \frac{4}{21} \sum_{l\,=\,e,\mu,\tau}\!\!\!
950: \mu_{L_l}\;,
951: \end{eqnarray}
952: where $\mu_x$ denotes the chemical potential of a particle species
953: $x$. The relations~(\ref{ChemPot}) can be used to implement the
954: effects of the SM chemical potentials in the BEs. They result in
955: corrections to the so-called wash-out terms in both the lepton and
956: heavy neutrino BEs. At this point we should also note that the BEs in
957: their present form are most accurate above $T_c$. As $T$ approaches
958: $T_c$, the assumption that the sphaleron processes are in thermal
959: equilibrium becomes less valid. This will result in
960: $\mathcal{O}(v/T)$ corrections to the relations in (\ref{ChemPot}).
961: The inclusion of the bulk of these corrections will be considered in
962: the next section.
963:
964: To numerically solve the BEs, it proves convenient to introduce a
965: number of new variables. In the radiation dominated epoch of the
966: Universe relevant to baryogenesis, the cosmic time $t$ is related to
967: the temperature $T$ through
968: \begin{equation}
969: \label{Tt}
970: t \ =\ \frac{z^2}{2\, H(z=1)}\ ,
971: \end{equation}
972: where
973: \begin{equation}
974: \label{zeta}
975: z\ =\ \frac{m_{N_1}}{T}\ ,\qquad H(z)\ \approx\ 17.2\, \times\,
976: \frac{m^2_{N_1}}{z^2\, M_{\rm Planck}}\ ,
977: \end{equation}
978: with $M_{\rm Planck} = 1.2\times 10^{19}$~GeV. Also, we normalize the
979: number density of a particle species, $n_a$, to the number density of
980: photons, $n_\gamma$, thereby defining the new parameter $\eta_a$,
981: \begin{equation}
982: \label{etas}
983: \eta_a (z) \ =\ \frac{n_a (z)}{n_\gamma (z)}\ ,
984: \end{equation}
985: with
986: \begin{equation}
987: \label{ngamma}
988: n_\gamma (z)\ =\ \frac{2\,T^3}{\pi^2}\ =\
989: \frac{2\, m^3_{N_1}}{\pi^2}\,\frac{1}{z^3}\ .
990: \end{equation}
991: To allow the BEs to be written in a slightly more compact form, we
992: will use the summation conventions
993: \begin{equation}
994: \label{sumconv}
995: \gamma^{N_{\alpha}\,X}_{L\,Y}\ =\
996: \sum_{l\,=\,e,\mu,\tau} \!\!\!
997: \gamma^{N_{\alpha}\,X}_{L_l\,Y}\;, \qquad
998: \eta_{\Delta L}\ =\
999: \sum_{l\,=\,e,\mu,\tau} \!\!\! \eta_{\Delta L_l}\;,
1000: \end{equation}
1001: where $X$ and $Y$ stand for any particle state other than $L_l$ and
1002: $N_\alpha$.
1003:
1004: Using (\ref{BE1})--(\ref{sumconv}) and incorporating corrections due
1005: to the SM chemical potentials, the BEs for heavy Majorana neutrinos
1006: and lepton doublets are written down
1007: \begin{eqnarray}
1008: \label{BEN}
1009: \frac{d \eta_{N_{\alpha}}}{dz} &=& \frac{z}{H(z=1)}\
1010: \Bigg[\,\Bigg( 1 \: -\: \frac{\eta_{N_{\alpha}}}{\eta^{\rm eq}_{N_{\alpha}}}\,
1011: \Bigg)\, \sum_{k\,=\,e,\mu,\tau} \bigg(\,
1012: \Gamma^{D\; (\alpha k)} \: +\: \Gamma^{S\; (\alpha k)}_{\rm Yukawa}\: +\:
1013: \Gamma^{S\; (\alpha k)}_{\rm Gauge}\, \bigg) \nonumber\\ &&-\,
1014: \frac{2}{3}\, \sum_{k\,=\,e,\mu,\tau} \eta_{\Delta L_k}\,
1015: \delta^{\,k}_{N_{\alpha}}\, \bigg(\,
1016: \widehat{\Gamma}^{D\; (\alpha k)} \: +\:
1017: \widehat{\Gamma}^{S\; (\alpha k)}_{\rm Yukawa} \: +\:
1018: \widehat{\Gamma}^{S\; (\alpha k)}_{\rm Gauge}\, \bigg)\,\Bigg]\,,\\[15mm]
1019: \label{BEL}
1020: \frac{d \eta_{\Delta L_j}}{dz} &=&
1021: \frac{z}{H(z=1)}\, \Bigg\{\, \sum\limits_{\alpha=1}^3\,
1022: \delta^{\,j}_{N_{\alpha}}\ \Bigg(
1023: \frac{\eta_{N_{\alpha}}}{\eta^{\rm eq}_{N_{\alpha}}} \: -\: 1\,\Bigg)\,
1024: \sum_{k\,=\,e,\mu,\tau} \bigg(\,
1025: \Gamma^{D\; (\alpha k)} \: +\: \Gamma^{S\; (\alpha k)}_{\rm Yukawa}\:
1026: +\: \Gamma^{S\; (\alpha k)}_{\rm Gauge}\, \bigg) \nonumber\\
1027: &&-\,\frac{2}{3}\, \eta_{\Delta L_j}\, \Bigg[\, \sum\limits_{\alpha=1}^3\,
1028: B_{N_{\alpha}}^{\,j}\,
1029: \bigg(\, \widetilde{\Gamma}^{D\; (\alpha j)} \: +\:
1030: \widetilde{\Gamma}^{S\;(\alpha j)}_{\rm Yukawa}\: +\:
1031: \widetilde{\Gamma}^{S\; (\alpha j)}_{\rm Gauge}\: +\:
1032: \Gamma^{W\; (\alpha j)}_{\rm Yukawa} + \Gamma^{W\;(\alpha j)}_{\rm Gauge}
1033: \,\bigg)\nonumber\\
1034: && \qquad\qquad\,\,\;
1035: \: +\: \sum_{k\,=\,e,\mu,\tau}\,\bigg(\,\Gamma^{\Delta L =2\:(j
1036: k)}_{\rm Yukawa} \: +\:\Gamma^{\Delta L =0\:(j k)}_{\rm
1037: Yukawa}\,\bigg) \Bigg] \nonumber\\
1038: &&-\, \frac{2}{3}\,\sum_{k\,=\,e,\mu,\tau} \eta_{\Delta L_k}\,
1039: \Bigg[\,\sum\limits_{\alpha=1}^3\,
1040: \delta^{\,j}_{N_{\alpha}}\,\delta^{\,k}_{N_{\alpha}}
1041: \bigg(\,\Gamma^{W\;(\alpha k)}_{\rm Yukawa}\:
1042: +\: \Gamma^{W\; (\alpha k)}_{\rm Gauge}\,\bigg)\nonumber\\
1043: && \qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\quad\,\, \: +\: \Gamma^{\,\Delta L =2\:
1044: (k j)}_{\rm Yukawa} \: -\: \Gamma^{\,\Delta L =0\: (k j)}_{\rm Yukawa}
1045: \Bigg]\,\Bigg\}\,,
1046: \end{eqnarray}
1047: where
1048: \begin{eqnarray}
1049: \label{GD}
1050: \Gamma^{D\; (\alpha l)} & = & \frac{1}{n_\gamma}\
1051: \gamma^{N_{\alpha}}_{L_l\Phi}\;, \\[3mm]
1052: \label{GDT}
1053: \widehat{\Gamma}^{D\; (\alpha l)} & = &
1054: \widetilde{\Gamma}^{D\; (\alpha l)} \,=\,
1055: \frac{1}{n_\gamma}\,
1056: \Bigg(1+\frac{4}{21}\,\frac{\eta_{\Delta L}}{\eta_{\Delta L_l}} \Bigg)\,
1057: \gamma^{N_{\alpha}}_{L\Phi}\;, \\[3mm]
1058: \label{GSY}
1059: \Gamma^{S\; (\alpha l)}_{\rm Yukawa} & = & \frac{1}{n_\gamma}\
1060: \bigg(\, \gamma^{N_{\alpha} L_l}_{Q u^C}\: +\: \gamma^{N_{\alpha}
1061: u^C}_{L_l Q^C}\: +\: \gamma^{N_{\alpha} Q}_{L_l u}\, \bigg)\; ,\\[3mm]
1062: \label{GSYhat}
1063: \widehat{\Gamma}^{S\;(\alpha l)}_{\rm Yukawa} &=& \frac{1}{n_\gamma}\
1064: \Bigg[\,\Bigg(-\frac{\eta_{N_{\alpha}}}{\eta^{\rm eq}_{N_{\alpha}}}
1065: +\frac{4}{21}\,\frac{\eta_{\Delta L}}{\eta_{\Delta L_l}}\Bigg)\,
1066: \gamma^{N_{\alpha} L}_{Q u^C}\: +\:
1067: \Bigg(1+\frac{1}{9}\,\frac{\eta_{\Delta L}}{\eta_{\Delta L_l}}
1068: -\frac{5}{63}\,\frac{\eta_{N_{\alpha}}}{\eta^{\rm eq}_{N_{\alpha}}}\,
1069: \frac{\eta_{\Delta L}}{\eta_{\Delta L_l}}\Bigg)\,
1070: \gamma^{N_{\alpha} u^C}_{L Q^C}\nonumber\\[1mm]
1071: & & +\:\Bigg(1+\frac{5}{63}\,\frac{\eta_{\Delta L}}{\eta_{\Delta L_l}}
1072: -\frac{1}{9}\,\frac{\eta_{N_{\alpha}}}{\eta^{\rm eq}_{N_{\alpha}}}\,
1073: \frac{\eta_{\Delta L}}{\eta_{\Delta L_l}}\Bigg)\,
1074: \gamma^{N_{\alpha} Q}_{L u}\, \Bigg]\;,\\[3mm]
1075: \label{GSYtilde}
1076: \widetilde{\Gamma}^{S\;(\alpha l)}_{\rm Yukawa} &=& \frac{1}{n_\gamma}\
1077: \Bigg[\,\Bigg(\frac{\eta_{N_{\alpha}}}{\eta^{\rm eq}_{N_{\alpha}}}
1078: +\frac{4}{21}\,\frac{\eta_{\Delta L}}{\eta_{\Delta L_l}}\Bigg)\,
1079: \gamma^{N_{\alpha} L}_{Q u^C}\: +\:
1080: \Bigg(1+\frac{1}{9}\,\frac{\eta_{\Delta L}}{\eta_{\Delta L_l}}
1081: +\frac{5}{63}\,\frac{\eta_{N_{\alpha}}}{\eta^{\rm eq}_{N_{\alpha}}}\,
1082: \frac{\eta_{\Delta L}}{\eta_{\Delta L_l}}\Bigg)\,
1083: \gamma^{N_{\alpha} u^C}_{L Q^C}\nonumber\\[1mm]
1084: & & +\: \Bigg(1+\frac{5}{63}\,\frac{\eta_{\Delta L}}{\eta_{\Delta L_l}}
1085: +\frac{1}{9}\,\frac{\eta_{N_{\alpha}}}{\eta^{\rm eq}_{N_{\alpha}}}\,
1086: \frac{\eta_{\Delta L}}{\eta_{\Delta L_l}}\Bigg)\,
1087: \gamma^{N_{\alpha} Q}_{L u}\, \Bigg]\;,\\[3mm]
1088: \label{GSG}
1089: \Gamma^{S\; (\alpha l)}_{\rm Gauge} & = & \frac{1}{n_\gamma}\
1090: \bigg(\, \gamma^{N_{\alpha} L_l}_{\Phi^\dagger V_\mu}\: +\:
1091: \gamma^{N_{\alpha} V_\mu}_{L_l\Phi}\: +\:
1092: \gamma^{N_{\alpha}\Phi^\dagger }_{L_l V_\mu}\, \bigg)\;,\\[3mm]
1093: \label{GSGhat}
1094: \widehat{\Gamma}^{S\; (\alpha l)}_{\rm Gauge} &=& \frac{1}{n_\gamma}\
1095: \Bigg[\,\Bigg(-\frac{\eta_{N_{\alpha}}}{\eta^{\rm eq}_{N_{\alpha}}}
1096: +\frac{4}{21}\,\frac{\eta_{\Delta L}}{\eta_{\Delta L_l}}\Bigg)\,
1097: \gamma^{N_{\alpha} L}_{\Phi^\dagger V_\mu}
1098: \: +\:\Bigg(1+\frac{4}{21}\,\frac{\eta_{\Delta L}}{\eta_{\Delta L_l}}\Bigg)\,
1099: \gamma^{N_{\alpha} V_\mu}_{L \Phi}\nonumber\\[1mm]
1100: & & +\: \Bigg(1-\frac{4}{21}\,\frac{\eta_{N_{\alpha}}}{\eta^{\rm
1101: eq}_{N_{\alpha}}}\,
1102: \frac{\eta_{\Delta L}}{\eta_{\Delta L_l}}\Bigg)\,
1103: \gamma^{N_{\alpha}\Phi^\dagger }_{L V_\mu}\, \Bigg]\; ,\\[3mm]
1104: \widetilde{\Gamma}^{S\; (\alpha l)}_{\rm Gauge} &=& \frac{1}{n_\gamma}\
1105: \Bigg[\,\Bigg(\frac{\eta_{N_{\alpha}}}{\eta^{\rm eq}_{N_{\alpha}}}
1106: +\frac{4}{21}\,\frac{\eta_{\Delta L}}{\eta_{\Delta L_l}}\Bigg)\,
1107: \gamma^{N_{\alpha} L}_{\Phi^\dagger V_\mu}
1108: \: +\:\Bigg(1+\frac{4}{21}\,\frac{\eta_{\Delta L}}{\eta_{\Delta L_l}}\Bigg)\,
1109: \gamma^{N_{\alpha} V_\mu}_{L \Phi}\nonumber\\[1mm]
1110: & & +\:\Bigg(1+\frac{4}{21}\,
1111: \frac{\eta_{N_{\alpha}}}{\eta^{\rm eq}_{N_{\alpha}}}\,
1112: \frac{\eta_{\Delta L}}{\eta_{\Delta L_l}}\Bigg)\,
1113: \gamma^{N_{\alpha}\Phi^\dagger }_{L V_\mu}\, \Bigg]\; ,\\[3mm]
1114: \label{GWY}
1115: \Gamma^{W\; (\alpha l)}_{\rm Yukawa} & = & \frac{1}{n_\gamma}\
1116: \Bigg[\,\Bigg(2+\frac{4}{21}\,\frac{\eta_{\Delta L}}{\eta_{\Delta L_l}}\Bigg)\,
1117: \gamma^{N_{\alpha} L}_{Q u^C}\: +\:
1118: \Bigg(1+\frac{17}{63}\,\frac{\eta_{\Delta L}}{\eta_{\Delta L_l}}\Bigg)\,
1119: \gamma^{N_{\alpha} u^C}_{L Q^C}\nonumber\\[1mm]
1120: & & +\:\Bigg(1+\frac{19}{63}\,\frac{\eta_{\Delta L}}{\eta_{\Delta L_l}}\Bigg)\,
1121: \gamma^{N_{\alpha} Q}_{L u}\, \Bigg]\; ,\\[3mm]
1122: \label{GWG}
1123: \Gamma^{W\; (\alpha l)}_{\rm Gauge} & = & \frac{1}{n_\gamma}\
1124: \Bigg[\,\Bigg(2+\frac{4}{21}\,\frac{\eta_{\Delta L}}{\eta_{\Delta L_l}}\Bigg)\,
1125: \gamma^{N_{\alpha} L}_{\Phi^\dagger V_\mu}\: +\:
1126: \Bigg(1+\frac{4}{21}\,\frac{\eta_{\Delta L}}{\eta_{\Delta L_l}}\Bigg)\,
1127: \gamma^{N_{\alpha} V_\mu}_{L \Phi}\nonumber\\[1mm]
1128: & & +\: \Bigg(1+\frac{8}{21}\,\frac{\eta_{\Delta L}}{\eta_{\Delta L_l}}\Bigg)\,
1129: \gamma^{N_{\alpha} \Phi^\dagger }_{L V_\mu} \, \Bigg]\;,\\[3mm]
1130: \label{GDL2}
1131: \Gamma^{\,\Delta L =2\:(j k)}_{\rm Yukawa} &=& \frac{1}{n_\gamma}\
1132: \Bigg[\,\Bigg(1+\frac{4}{21}\,\frac{\eta_{\Delta L}}{\eta_{\Delta L_j}}\Bigg)\,
1133: \bigg(\gamma^{\,\prime\,L_j\Phi}_{\,L_k^C\Phi^\dagger} \: + \:
1134: \gamma^{L_j L_k}_{\Phi^\dagger\Phi^\dagger}\,\bigg)\,\Bigg]\; ,\\[3mm]
1135: \label{GDL0}
1136: \Gamma^{\,\Delta L =0\:(j k)}_{\rm Yukawa} &=& \frac{1}{n_\gamma}\
1137: \Bigg[\,\Bigg(1+\frac{4}{21}\,\frac{\eta_{\Delta L}}{\eta_{\Delta L_j}}\Bigg)\,
1138: \gamma^{\,\prime\,L_j\Phi}_{\,L_k\Phi} \: + \:
1139: \gamma^{L_j\Phi^\dagger}_{L_k\Phi^\dagger} \: + \:
1140: \gamma^{L_j L^C_k}_{\Phi \Phi^\dagger}
1141: \,\Bigg]\; .
1142: \end{eqnarray}
1143: Notice that the would-be singularities in the limit of a vanishing
1144: $\eta_{\Delta L_l}$ in~(\ref{GDT})--(\ref{GSYtilde}) and
1145: (\ref{GSGhat})--(\ref{GDL0}) are exactly cancelled by corresponding
1146: factors $\eta_{\Delta L_l}$ that multiply the collision terms in the
1147: BEs~(\ref{BEN}) and (\ref{BEL}). We should also note that the
1148: flavour-diagonal $\Delta L=0$ processes, with $k=j$, do not contribute
1149: to the BEs, as it can be explicitly checked in (\ref{BEL}). Finally,
1150: it is worth commenting on the earlier form of the BEs, obtained in
1151: \cite{PU}. This can be recovered from (\ref{BEN})--(\ref{GDL0}), after
1152: summing over the three lepton-doublet BEs, with the assumption that
1153: $n_{\Delta L_i} = \frac13 n_{\Delta L}$, and after neglecting SM
1154: chemical potential corrections.
1155:
1156:
1157:
1158: \setcounter{equation}{0}
1159: \section{Out of Equilibrium Sphaleron Effects}
1160:
1161: In the SM, the combination of the baryon and lepton numbers, $B+L$, is
1162: anomalous~\cite{thooft}. Although at low energies this $B+L$
1163: violation is unobservably small, at temperatures close to and above
1164: the electroweak phase transition, e.g.~for $T \stackrel{>}{{}_\sim}
1165: 150$~GeV, thermal fluctuations more efficiently overcome the so-called
1166: sphaleron barrier allowing rapid $B+L$ violation in the SM~\cite{KRS}.
1167:
1168: The temperature dependence of the rate of $B+L$ violation is of
1169: particular interest in models of low-scale leptogenesis. Any lepton
1170: asymmetry produced after the $(B+L)$-violating interactions drop out
1171: of thermal equilibrium will not be converted into a baryon asymmetry.
1172: Therefore, in electroweak-scale leptogenesis scenarios, it is
1173: important to consider the rate of $B+L$ violation in the BEs, in order
1174: to offer a more reliable estimate of the final baryon asymmetry.
1175:
1176: The rate of $(B+L)$-violating transitions has been studied in detail
1177: in \cite{AM,CLMW} for temperatures satisfying the double inequality
1178: \begin{equation}
1179: \label{BLcond}
1180: M_W(T)\ \ll\ T\ \ll\ \frac{M_W(T)}{\alpha_w}\;,
1181: \end{equation}
1182: where $\alpha_w = g^2/4\pi$ is the SU(2)$_L$ fine structure constant,
1183: $M_W(T) = g\,v(T)/2$ is the $T$-dependent $W$-boson mass and
1184: \begin{equation}
1185: \label{vT}
1186: v(T)\ =\ v(0) \left(\,1-\frac{T^2}{T_c^2}\,\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}
1187: \end{equation}
1188: is the $T$-dependent VEV of the Higgs field. The critical temperature
1189: of the electroweak phase transition, $T_c$, is given by \cite{CKO}
1190: \begin{equation}
1191: T_c\ =\ v(0) \left(\,\frac{1}{2}+\frac{3\,g^2}{16\,\lambda}+
1192: \frac{g^{\prime\,2}}{16\,\lambda}+
1193: \frac{h_{t}}{4\,\lambda}\,
1194: \right)^{-\frac{1}{2}},
1195: \end{equation}
1196: where $\lambda$ is the quartic Higgs self-coupling, $g^\prime$ is the
1197: U(1)$_Y$ gauge coupling and $h_t$ is the top-quark Yukawa coupling.
1198:
1199: The rate of $B+L$ violation per unit volume is \cite{AM}
1200: \begin{equation}
1201: \label{BLrate}
1202: \gamma_{\Delta (B+L)}\ \equiv\ \frac{\Gamma}{V}\ =\
1203: \frac{\omega_-}{2\,\pi}\,{\cal N}_{\rm tr} ({\cal N}V)_{\rm rot}
1204: \left(\frac{\alpha_W\,T}{4\,\pi} \right)^3 \alpha_3^{-6}\,e^{-E_{\rm
1205: sp} / T} \kappa\; .
1206: \end{equation}
1207: According to (\ref{BLcond}), this expression is valid for temperatures
1208: $T\stackrel{<}{{}_\sim} T_c$. The various quantities
1209: in~(\ref{BLrate}) are related to the sphaleron dynamics and are
1210: discussed in \cite{AM,CLMW}. Following the notation of~\cite{AM}, the
1211: parameters $\omega_-$, ${\cal N}_{\rm tr}$ and ${\cal N}_{\rm rot}$
1212: are functions of $\lambda / g^2$, $V_{\rm rot} = 8\pi^2$ and $\alpha_3
1213: = g_3^2 / 4\pi$, where
1214: \begin{equation}
1215: g^2_3\ =\ \frac{g^2\,T}{2\,M_W(T)}\ .
1216: \end{equation}
1217: $E_{\rm sp}$ is the energy of the sphaleron and is given by
1218: \begin{equation}
1219: E_{\rm sp}\ =\ A\,\frac{2\,M_W(T)}{\alpha_W}\ ,
1220: \end{equation}
1221: where $A$ is a function of $\lambda / g^2$ and is of order 1 for all
1222: phenomenologically relevant values of $\lambda / g^2$. The dependence
1223: of the parameter $\kappa$ on $\lambda /g^2$ has been calculated
1224: in~\cite{AM,CLMW}, using various techniques. The results of those
1225: studies are summarized in Table~\ref{BLparams}, where the values of
1226: $\kappa$ and the other sphaleron-related parameters are exhibited for
1227: $\lambda /g^2 = 0.278$, which corresponds to a SM Higgs-boson mass
1228: $M_H$ of 120~GeV.
1229:
1230: \begin{table}[t]
1231: \begin{center}
1232: \begin{tabular}{|c||c|c|c|c|c|}
1233: \hline &&&&&\\[-11pt]
1234: $\lambda / g^2$ & $\omega_-$ & ${\cal N}_{\rm
1235: rot}$ & ${\cal N}_{\rm tr}$ & $\kappa$ & $A$\\[2pt] \hline \hline
1236: 0.278 & 0.806 $(g v)$ & 11.2 & 7.6 & 0.135 -- 1.65 & 1\\ \hline
1237: \end{tabular}
1238: \end{center}
1239: \caption{\sl Values of the various parameters in (\ref{BLrate}) for
1240: $\lambda/g^2 = 0.278$, corresponding to a SM Higgs-boson mass of
1241: 120~GeV.}\label{BLparams}
1242: \end{table}
1243:
1244: Given the present experimental limits on the SM Higgs-boson mass, $M_H
1245: \stackrel{>}{{}_\sim} 115$~GeV, it can be shown that the
1246: electroweak phase transition in the SM will either be a weakly first
1247: order one, or even a second or higher order one, without bubble
1248: nucleation and the formation of large spatial inhomogeneities in
1249: particle densities. Therefore, the use of a formalism describing the
1250: $(B+L)$-violating sphaleron dynamics in terms of spatially independent
1251: $B$- and $L$-number densities $n_{B}$ and $n_{L_j}$ may be justified.
1252: Further refinements to this approach will be presented elsewhere.
1253:
1254: We should bear in mind that heavy Majorana neutrino decays, sphaleron
1255: effects and other processes considered in the BEs (\ref{BEN}) and
1256: (\ref{BEL}) act directly on the number densities of SU(2)$_L$ lepton
1257: doublets, $n_{\Delta L_{e,\mu,\tau}}$. However, the quantity usually
1258: referred to as lepton number, $L$, has a contribution from the
1259: right-handed charged leptons $l_{e,\mu,\tau R}$ as well. In thermal
1260: equilibrium, one may relate the asymmetry in right-handed charged
1261: leptons to the asymmetry in SU(2)$_L$ lepton doublets by virtue
1262: of~(\ref{ChemPot}), leading to the result
1263: \begin{equation}
1264: \eta_{\Delta l_{iR}} = \frac{1}{2}\,\eta_{\Delta L_i}
1265: - \frac{2}{21}\,\eta_{\Delta L}\,.
1266: \end{equation}
1267: The change in lepton flavour can be thought of as having two
1268: components, one component termed leptogenesis due to
1269: lepton-number-violating processes considered in Section 3, and another
1270: due to the $(B+L)$-violating sphalerons:
1271: \begin{equation}
1272: \frac{d\eta_{L_i}}{dz} \ =\ \frac{d\eta_{L_i}}{dz}\Bigg|_{\rm leptogenesis} +\
1273: \frac{d\eta_{L_i}}{dz}\Bigg|_{\rm sphaleron}\,,
1274: \label{components}
1275: \end{equation}
1276: where, up to $\mathcal{O}(v/T)$ corrections,
1277: \begin{equation}
1278: \frac{d \eta_{L_i}}{dz}\Bigg|_{\rm leptogenesis} =\
1279: \frac{3}{2}\,\frac{d \eta_{\Delta L_i}}{dz}\
1280: -\ \frac{2}{21}\,\frac{d \eta_{\Delta L}}{dz}\; .
1281: \label{LRconvert}
1282: \end{equation}
1283: The BEs determining the leptogenesis component of~(\ref{components})
1284: have been discussed in Section~3. We shall now discuss the BEs
1285: determining the sphaleron component of~(\ref{components}), and the
1286: generation of a net $B$-number asymmetry.
1287:
1288: Within the context of the above formalism, the sphaleron components of
1289: the BEs for $n_{B}$ and $n_{L_j}$ are given by
1290: \begin{eqnarray}
1291: \label{BLexp}
1292: \frac{d n_{B}}{dt}\: +\: 3 H\,n_{B} & = &
1293: n_G\, \Big( e^{\beta(\mu_B Q_B+\mu_L Q_L)}\: -\:
1294: e^{\beta(\mu_B Q^\prime_B+\mu_L Q^\prime_L)}\: -\:
1295: e^{-\beta(\mu_B Q_{\bar{B}}\: +\: \mu_L Q_{\bar{L}})}\nonumber\\
1296: &&+\, e^{-\beta(\mu_B Q^\prime_{\bar{B}}+\mu_L Q^\prime_{\bar{L}})}\Big)\,
1297: \gamma_{\Delta(B+L)}\,,\nonumber\\
1298: \frac{dn_{L_j}}{dt}\: +\: 3 H n_{L_j} & = &
1299: \Big(\, e^{\beta(\mu_B Q_B+\mu_{L} Q_{L})}\: -\:
1300: e^{\beta(\mu_B Q^\prime_B+\mu_{L} Q^\prime_{L})}\nonumber\\
1301: &&-\, e^{-\beta(\mu_B Q_{\bar{B}}+\mu_{L} Q_{\bar{L}})}\:
1302: +\: e^{-\beta(\mu_B Q^\prime_{\bar{B}}+\mu_{L} Q^\prime_{\bar{L}})}\,
1303: \Big)\,\gamma_{\Delta(B+L)}\;,
1304: \end{eqnarray}
1305: where $n_G$ is the number of generations and $\beta =
1306: 1/T$. Furthermore, $Q_{B(L)}$ is the baryonic (or leptonic) charge of
1307: the system before the $(B+L)$-violating sphaleron transition and
1308: $Q_{B(L)}^\prime$ is the charge after the transition. Klinkhamer and
1309: Manton showed \cite{KM} that a sphaleron carries a baryon (and lepton)
1310: number of $n_G/2$, therefore $Q_{B} - Q_{B}^\prime = n_G/2$ and
1311: $Q_{L_i} - Q_{L_i}^\prime = 1/2$. Finally, assuming that the baryon
1312: and lepton chemical potentials are small with respect to the
1313: temperature, the BEs~(\ref{BLexp}) may be approximated by
1314: \begin{eqnarray}
1315: \label{BLlinear}
1316: \frac{d n_{B}}{dt}\: +\: 3 H\,n_{B} \!& = &\!
1317: -n_G\,\beta\,\bigg(\,n_G\,\mu_B + \sum_i \mu_{L_i}\,\bigg)\,
1318: \gamma_{\Delta(B+L)}\,,\nonumber\\
1319: \frac{dn_{L_j}}{dt}\: +\: 3 H n_{L_j} \!& = &\!
1320: \beta\,
1321: \bigg(\, n_G\,\mu_B + \sum_i \mu_{L_i}\,\bigg)\, \gamma_{\Delta(B+L)}\;.
1322: \end{eqnarray}
1323: Notice that the BEs~(\ref{BLlinear}) are linear in the chemical
1324: potentials, which is a very useful approximation for our numerical
1325: estimates.
1326:
1327: We now need to determine the relation between the baryon and lepton
1328: chemical potentials and their respective number densities. These
1329: relations can be found by considering the effective potential, $V$, of
1330: the Higgs and the SU(2)$_L$ and U(1)$_Y$ gauge fields. They have been
1331: computed in~\cite{LS} at finite temperatures, for small chemical
1332: potentials, $\mu_B,\,\mu_L \ll T$ and when $v(T) \stackrel{<}{{}_\sim}
1333: (\mbox{a few})\times T$. In this framework, the neutrality of the
1334: system with respect to gauge charges can be accounted for by
1335: minimizing the potential with respect to the temporal components of
1336: the SU(2)$_L$ and U(1)$_Y$ gauge fields, $W^a_0$ ($a=1,2,3$) and
1337: $B_0$, respectively. The baryon and lepton number densities are then
1338: given by
1339: \begin{equation}
1340: n_{B}\ =\ -\frac{\partial V}{\partial \mu_B}\ ,\qquad
1341: n_{L_i}\ =\ -\frac{\partial V}{\partial \mu_{L_i}}\ .
1342: \end{equation}
1343: For the SM with 3 generations and 1 Higgs doublet, we obtain
1344: \begin{eqnarray}
1345: \label{chemical}
1346: \mu_B &=& 3\,n_{B}\,\frac{77\,T^2 + 27\,v^2(T)}{132\,T^4 +
1347: 51\,T^2\,v^2(T)}\ -\ 2\,\frac{22\,T^2 + 3\,v^2(T)}{132\,T^4 +
1348: 51\,T^2\,v^2(T)}\sum_{j\,=e,\mu,\tau}\!\!\!n_{L_j}\;,\nonumber\\[12pt]
1349: \mu_{L_i} &=& \frac{2}{51\,T^2}\,\bigg(
1350: 51\,n_{L_i}\: -\: 3\,n_{B}\: +\:
1351: 4\!\!\sum_{j\,=e,\mu,\tau}\!\!\!n_{L_j}\,\bigg)\nonumber\\
1352: &&-\,\frac{484}{153\,\Big(44\,T^2+17\,v^2(T)\Big)}\ \bigg(\,
1353: 3\,n_{B}\: -\: 4\!\!\sum_{j\,=e,\mu,\tau}\!\!\!n_{L_j}\,\bigg)\;.
1354: \end{eqnarray}
1355:
1356: Employing the relations~(\ref{chemical}), we may now extend the system
1357: of BEs~(\ref{BEN}) and (\ref{BEL}), by explicitly taking the
1358: $(B+L)$-violating sphaleron transitions into account,
1359: \begin{eqnarray}
1360: \label{Bsph}
1361: \frac{d \eta_{B}}{dz} & = & -\, \frac{z}{H(z=1)}\\
1362: &&\times\,\bigg[\, \eta_{B}\: +\:
1363: \frac{28}{51}\, \sum_{j\,=e,\mu,\tau}\!\!\!\eta_{L_j}\:
1364: +\: \frac{225}{561}\,\frac{v^2(T)}{T^2}\,
1365: \bigg(\, \eta_{B}\: +\:\frac{108}{225}\, \sum_{j\,=e,\mu,\tau}\!\!\!
1366: \eta_{L_j}\,\bigg)\,\bigg]\ \Gamma_{\Delta (B+L)}\;,\nonumber\\[12pt]
1367: \label{Lsph}
1368: \frac{d \eta_{L_i}}{dz} & = &
1369: \frac{d\eta_{L_i}}{dz}\Bigg|_{\rm leptogenesis}
1370: \: +\: \frac13\,
1371: \frac{d \eta_{B}}{dz}\ ,
1372: \end{eqnarray}
1373: with
1374: \begin{equation}
1375: \Gamma_{\Delta (B+L)}\ =\ \frac{(3366/\pi^2 )\, T^2}{
1376: 132\, T^2\: +\: 51\, v^2(T) }\
1377: \frac{\gamma_{\Delta (B+L)}}{n_{\gamma}}\ .
1378: \end{equation}
1379: The leptogenesis component of (\ref{Lsph}) may be determined using
1380: relation (\ref{LRconvert}), along with the BEs (\ref{BEN}) and
1381: (\ref{BEL}).
1382:
1383: Observe that in the limit of infinite sphaleron transition rate,
1384: $\Gamma_{\Delta (B+L)}/H(z = 1)\to \infty$, and at high temperatures
1385: $T\gg v(T)$, the conversion of lepton-to-baryon number densities is
1386: given by the known relation:
1387: \begin{equation}
1388: \eta_{B}\ =\ -\,\frac{28}{51}\:
1389: \sum_{j\,=e,\mu,\tau}\!\!\!\eta_{L_j} \; .
1390: \end{equation}
1391: To account for the $T$-dependent $(B+L)$-violating sphaleron effects,
1392: our numerical estimates given in the next section will be based on the
1393: BEs~(\ref{BEN}), (\ref{BEL}), (\ref{LRconvert}), (\ref{Bsph}) and
1394: (\ref{Lsph}).
1395:
1396:
1397: \setcounter{equation}{0}
1398: \section{Numerical Examples}\label{sec:num}
1399:
1400: We shall now analyze R$\tau$L models that comply with the constraints
1401: obtained from the existing low-energy neutrino data~\cite{PDG,JVdata}
1402: and provide successful baryogenesis. As was discussed in Section~2,
1403: our specific choice of model parameters will be motivated by the
1404: naturalness of the light and heavy neutrino sectors.
1405:
1406: Phenomenologically relevant R$\tau$L models can be constructed for an
1407: SO(3) invariant heavy neutrino mass of the size of the electroweak
1408: scale, e.g.~$m_N = 250$~GeV [cf.~(\ref{MSSO3})], if $|a| \sim |b| \gg
1409: |c|$ and $|a|, |b| \sim 10^{-2}$. To protect the $\tau$-lepton number
1410: from wash-out effects, we also require that the small
1411: U(1)$_l$-breaking parameters $|\varepsilon_{e,\mu,\tau}|$ be no larger
1412: than about $10^{-6}$ and $|c| \stackrel{<}{{}_\sim} 10^{-5}$. For
1413: definiteness, the model parameters determining the light neutrino mass
1414: spectrum are chosen to be (in arbitrary complex units)
1415: \begin{equation}
1416: \label{nupars1}
1417: \frac{\Delta m_N}{m_N}\,a^2 \ =\ 4\,,\qquad
1418: \varepsilon_e \ =\ 2\: +\: \frac{21}{250}\; ,\qquad
1419: \varepsilon_\mu \ =\ \frac{13}{50} \; ,\qquad
1420: \varepsilon_\tau \ =\ -\, \frac{49}{128}\ , \quad
1421: \end{equation}
1422: where the ratio $b/a$ is kept fixed:
1423: \begin{equation}
1424: \label{nupars2}
1425: \frac{b}{a}\ =\ \frac{19}{50}\ .
1426: \end{equation}
1427: The actual values selected for the relevant parameters $a$, $(\Delta
1428: M_S)_{22}$, $(\Delta M_S)_{33}$ and $(\Delta M_S)_{23}$ vary with the
1429: SO(3) invariant mass $m_N$. As we will see in more detail below,
1430: Table~\ref{mnu-params} illustrates choices of these parameters
1431: consistent with the light neutrino data. For $m_N$ in the range
1432: 100--1000~GeV, the chosen parameters are consistent with the
1433: naturalness condition mentioned in Section~2, whilst giving rise to
1434: phenomenologically rich models.
1435:
1436: In our numerical analysis, we will focus on 4 examples, with $m_N =
1437: 100$, 250, 500, and~1000~GeV. Clearly, the model parameters selected
1438: in~(\ref{nupars1}), (\ref{nupars2}) and Table~\ref{mnu-params} imply
1439: that all the scenarios have the same tree-level light neutrino mass
1440: matrix:
1441: \begin{equation}
1442: {\bf m}^\nu\ \approx\
1443: -\left(\! \begin{array}{ccc}
1444: -1.27 & 3.63 & 2.96\\
1445: 3.63 & 1.89 & 0.370\\
1446: 2.96 & 0.370 & -0.544\end{array} \!\right)
1447: \times 10^{-2}\ \mathrm{eV}.
1448: \end{equation}
1449: This leads to an inverted hierarchy of light neutrino masses, with
1450: mass differences and mixings compatible with the current $3\sigma$
1451: bounds~\cite{JVdata}. Adopting the convention $m_{\nu_3} < m_{\nu_1}
1452: < m_{\nu_2}$, we find the mass squared differences and mixing angles
1453: \begin{eqnarray}
1454: m_{\nu_2}^2 - m_{\nu_1}^2 \!& = &\! 7.54 \times
1455: 10^{-5}\,\,\mathrm{eV}^2\,,\qquad m_{\nu_1}^2 - m_{\nu_3}^2 \ =\
1456: 2.45 \times 10^{-3}\,\,\mathrm{eV}^2\,,\nonumber\\
1457: \sin^2 \theta_{12} \! & = &\! 0.362 \,,\qquad
1458: \sin^2 \theta_{23} \ = \ 0.341 \,,\qquad
1459: \sin^2 \theta_{13} \ = \ 0.047 \;.
1460: \end{eqnarray}
1461: Since the mass matrix (\ref{mnutree}) is rank 2, one light neutrino
1462: will be massless at the tree level ($m_{\nu_3} = 0$), thus fixing the
1463: absolute scale of the light neutrino hierarchy.
1464:
1465: \begin{table}
1466: \begin{center}
1467: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|}
1468: \hline &&&\\[-15pt]
1469: $a/(m_N)^{\frac{1}{2}}$ (GeV)$^{-\frac{1}{2}}$ & $(\Delta
1470: M_S)_{22}/m_N$ & $(\Delta M_S)_{33}/m_N$ & $(\Delta
1471: M_S)_{23}/m_N$\\[2pt] \hline \hline
1472: $6.0 \times 10^{-4}$ & $4.0 \times 10^{-9}$ & $5.2 \times 10^{-9}$ &
1473: $(6.8 - 0.6\,i) \times 10^{-9}$\\ \hline
1474: \end{tabular}
1475: \end{center}
1476: \caption{\sl Choices of the parameters $a$, $(\Delta M_S)_{22}$,
1477: $(\Delta M_S)_{33}$ and $(\Delta M_S)_{23}$, consistent with light
1478: neutrino data.}
1479: \label{mnu-params}
1480: \end{table}
1481:
1482:
1483: The remaining soft SO(3)-breaking parameters, $(\Delta M_S)_{11}$,
1484: $(\Delta M_S)_{12}$, $(\Delta M_S)_{13}$, do not affect the light
1485: neutrino mass spectrum. These together with the parameter $c$ play a
1486: key role in obtaining the correct BAU and are exhibited in
1487: Table~\ref{baryon-param}. We choose $(\Delta M_S)_{11}$ to be
1488: relatively large, $(\Delta M_S)_{11} \sim 10^{-5}\,m_N$, providing
1489: large mass differences $|m_{N_2} - m_{N_1}|/m_N$ and $|m_{N_3} -
1490: m_{N_1}|/m_N \sim 10^{-5}$. Such a choice is consistent with thermal
1491: and RG effects running from the GUT scale $\sim 10^{16}$~GeV to the
1492: electroweak scale $\sim m_N$ (see also the discussion in Section 2). The
1493: other two soft SO(3)-breaking parameters, $(\Delta M_S)_{12}$ and
1494: $(\Delta M_S)_{13}$, are selected so as to give the observed BAU.
1495:
1496: To assess the degree of cancellation between tree-level and RG
1497: contributions to $\Delta M_S$, we introduce the parameter $r_C$
1498: defined as
1499: \begin{equation}
1500: \label{rC}
1501: r_C\ \equiv\ \prod\limits_{(i,j)}\ \frac{|(\Delta M^{\rm RG}_S)_{ij}|}{
1502: |(\Delta M_S)_{ij}|}\ .
1503: \end{equation}
1504: In~(\ref{rC}), the product $(i,j)$ is taken over contributions where
1505: $|(\Delta M^{\rm RG}_S)_{ij}| > |(\Delta M_S)_{ij}|$. The~parameter
1506: $r_C$ is always greater than 1 and represents that the degree of
1507: cancellation is 1 part in $r_C$. {}From the values of $r_C$ displayed
1508: in Table~\ref{baryon-param}, we observe that electroweak-scale heavy
1509: Majorana neutrinos are favoured by naturalness.
1510:
1511:
1512: The baryon asymmetry predicted for each model can be determined by
1513: solving the BEs~(\ref{BEN}), (\ref{BEL}), (\ref{LRconvert}),
1514: (\ref{Bsph}) and (\ref{Lsph}), and using the collision terms derived
1515: in Appendix A and \cite{PU}. These collision terms are calculated in
1516: the basis where the charged-lepton and heavy-Majorana mass matrices
1517: are positive and diagonal. They have been appropriately expressed in
1518: terms of the one-loop resummed effective Yukawa couplings derived in
1519: \cite{PU}. It is worth noting that all SM reactions, including those
1520: involving the $e$-Yukawa coupling, are in full thermal equilibrium for
1521: the temperatures relevant to our scenarios, $T \stackrel{<}{{}_\sim}
1522: 10$~TeV~\cite{CKO,BCST}. Moreover, since heavy Majorana neutrino
1523: decays are thermally blocked at temperatures $T \stackrel{>}{{}_\sim}
1524: 3 m_{N_\alpha}$~\cite{GNRRS}, we will only display numerical estimates
1525: of the evolution of lepton and baryon asymmetries, for $z = m_{N_1}/T
1526: \stackrel{>}{{}_\sim} 0.1$. Nevertheless, as we will see below, the
1527: predictions for the final BAU are relatively robust in RL models,
1528: because of the near or complete independence on the primordial baryon
1529: and lepton number abundances.
1530:
1531: Some of the Yukawa and gauge-mediated collision terms contain IR
1532: divergences, which are usually regulated in thermal field theory by
1533: considering the thermal masses of the exchanged
1534: particles~\cite{MBellac}. To assess the theoretical errors introduced
1535: by the choice of a universal thermal mass regulator (see the discussion in
1536: Appendix A), we have estimated the response of the final baryon
1537: asymmetry under variations of the IR mass regulator $m_{\rm IR}$. We
1538: find that the predicted BAU only varies by $\pm 7~\%$, for a variation
1539: of $m_{\rm IR}$ by $\pm 25~\%$.
1540:
1541:
1542:
1543: \begin{table}
1544: \begin{center}
1545: \begin{tabular}{|c||c|c|c|c||c|}
1546: \hline &&&&&\\[-15pt]
1547: $m_N$ (GeV) & $(\Delta M_S)_{11}/m_N$ & $(\Delta M_S)_{12}/m_N$ &
1548: $(\Delta M_S)_{13}/m_N$ & $c$ & $r_C$\\[2pt] \hline \hline
1549: $100$& $1.0 \times 10^{-5}$ & $-1.00 \times 10^{-9}$ & $-5.5 \times
1550: 10^{-10}$ & $1.0 \times 10^{-7}$ & $5$\\
1551: $250$& $1.0 \times 10^{-5}$ & $-1.36 \times 10^{-9}$ & $-8.0 \times
1552: 10^{-10}$ & $1.5 \times 10^{-7}$ & $39$\\
1553: $500$& $1.0 \times 10^{-5}$ & $-1.36 \times 10^{-9}$ & $-8.8 \times
1554: 10^{-10}$ & $ 2.0 \times 10^{-7}$ & $264$\\
1555: $1000$& $1.0 \times 10^{-5}$ & $-1.9 \times 10^{-9}$ & $-1.0 \times
1556: 10^{-9}$ & $ 2.5 \times 10^{-7}$ & $1240$\\ \hline
1557: \end{tabular}
1558: \end{center}
1559: \caption{\sl Choices of $(\Delta M_S)_{11}$, $(\Delta M_S)_{12}$,
1560: $(\Delta M_S)_{13}$ and $c$, which, in conjunction with those in Table
1561: \ref{mnu-params}, lead to successful baryogenesis. $r_C$
1562: parameterizes the degree of cancellation between radiatively
1563: induced and tree-level contributions to $\Delta M_S$.}
1564: \label{baryon-param}
1565: \end{table}
1566:
1567:
1568: \begin{figure}
1569: \begin{center}
1570: \includegraphics[scale=0.36]{100GeV-all.eps}\hspace{6mm}
1571: \includegraphics[scale=0.36]{250GeV-all.eps}\\[6mm]
1572: \includegraphics[scale=0.36]{500GeV-all.eps}\hspace{6mm}
1573: \includegraphics[scale=0.36]{1000GeV-all.eps}
1574: \end{center}
1575: \caption{\sl The predicted evolution of $\eta_{L_l}$ and $\eta_B$, for
1576: models with $m_N =$~100, 250, 500 and 1000~GeV, and
1577: $\eta_{N_{\alpha}}^{\mathrm{in}} = 1$. The model parameters are given
1578: in (\ref{nupars1}), (\ref{nupars2}), and Tables~\ref{mnu-params}
1579: and~\ref{baryon-param}. The horizontal grey dashed line shows the
1580: baryon asymmetry needed to agree with observational data.}
1581: \label{evolution-all}
1582: \end{figure}
1583:
1584:
1585: The BEs are solved numerically, using the Fortran code {\tt
1586: LeptoGen}\footnote[2]{{\tt LeptoGen} may be obtained from {\tt
1587: http://hep.man.ac.uk/u/thomasu/leptogen}}. Fig.~\ref{evolution-all}
1588: shows the predicted evolution of the baryon and individual lepton
1589: asymmetries, $\eta_B$ and $\eta_{L_l}$, as functions of the
1590: $T$-related parameter $z = m_{N_1}/T$, for each of the 4 examples,
1591: with $m_N =$~100, 250, 500 and 1000~GeV. The specific model
1592: parameters are given in (\ref{nupars1}), (\ref{nupars2}), and
1593: Tables~\ref{mnu-params} and~\ref{baryon-param}. Each scenario had an
1594: initially thermal heavy Majorana neutrino abundance and zero initial
1595: baryon and lepton asymmetries, i.e.~$\eta_{N_{\alpha}}^{\mathrm{in}} =
1596: 1$ and $\eta_{B}^{\mathrm{in}} = \eta_{L_l}^{\mathrm{in}} = 0$. The 4
1597: panels show that the large $L_{\tau}$ asymmetry is slightly reduced by
1598: less significant, but opposite sign $L_e$ and $L_{\mu}$ asymmetries.
1599: Clearly visible in each scenario is the effect of the rapidly
1600: decreasing rate of $B+L$ violation; the lepton and baryon asymmetries
1601: quickly decouple at $T \sim T_c$. This decoupling is particularly
1602: pronounced in the $m_N = 100$~GeV scenario where the baryon asymmetry
1603: freezes out exactly when the lepton asymmetry is maximal. In
1604: particular, the rapid decoupling of $\eta_B$ from $\eta_{L_l}$ at
1605: temperatures~$T$ close to $T_c$ has the virtue that, unlike
1606: $\eta_{L_l}$, $\eta_B$ remains almost unaffected from ordinary SM mass
1607: effects due to a non-zero VEV $v(T)$ [cf.\ (\ref{vT})], since it is
1608: $v(T\sim T_c) \ll v (T=0)$.
1609:
1610:
1611:
1612: \begin{figure}
1613: \begin{center}
1614: \begin{picture}(450,540)
1615: \put(15,425){\bf (a)}
1616: \put(15,140){\bf (b)}
1617: \put(50,275){\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{250GeV-initial.eps}}
1618: \put(50,-10){\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{100GeV-initial.eps}}
1619: \end{picture}
1620: \end{center}
1621: \caption{\sl The (in)dependence of the final baryon asymmetry on the
1622: initial lepton, baryon and heavy Majorana neutrino abundances for (a)
1623: $m_N =$~250~GeV and (b) $m_N =$~100~GeV. The model parameters and the
1624: meaning of the horizontal grey line are the same as in
1625: Fig.~\ref{evolution-all}.}
1626: \label{inicondsa}
1627: \end{figure}
1628:
1629:
1630:
1631: Fig.~\ref{inicondsa} shows the evolution of the baryon asymmetry for
1632: varying initial lepton, baryon and heavy neutrino abundances. For the
1633: 250~GeV scenario, Fig.~\ref{inicondsa}(a) illustrates the near
1634: independence of the resultant baryon asymmetry on the initial
1635: conditions. Even for the most extreme initial conditions
1636: $\eta^{\mathrm{in}}_{L_l} = \mp\,0.1$ and $\eta^{\mathrm{in}}_{B} =
1637: \pm\,0.1$, the variation in the final baryon asymmetry is only
1638: $\pm\,38\%$.
1639:
1640: For heavy neutrino masses $m_N \stackrel{<}{{}_\sim} 250$~GeV, the
1641: dependence on initial conditions becomes stronger. In the $m_N =
1642: 100$~GeV scenario, Fig.~\ref{inicondsa}(b) shows the dependence of the
1643: final BAU on the initial lepton and baryon asymmetries in a R$\tau$L
1644: scenario with $m_N = 100$~GeV. It is interesting to observe that the
1645: final $B$ asymmetry will remain almost unaffected, even if the
1646: primordial baryon asymmetry $\eta^{\mathrm{in}}_{B}$ at $T
1647: \stackrel{>}{{}_\sim} 10\, m_N$ is as large as $10^{-6}$, namely two
1648: orders of magnitude larger than the one required to agree with
1649: observational data.
1650:
1651: In R$\tau$L scenarios with $m_N > 250$~GeV, the final baryon asymmetry
1652: is completely independent of the initial conditions. This is
1653: illustrated in Fig.~\ref{inicondsb} for the R$\tau$L scenario with
1654: $m_N=$~500~GeV. In this numerical example, it is most striking to
1655: notice that the prediction for the final BAU remains unchanged, even
1656: if the initial conditions are set at temperatures {\em below} the
1657: heavy neutrino mass scale $m_N$, e.g.~at $T \sim 0.5\, m_N$.
1658:
1659:
1660: \begin{figure}[t]
1661: \includegraphics[scale=0.73]{500GeV-initial.eps}
1662: \caption{\sl The complete independence of the final BAU on the initial
1663: lepton and baryon abundances for the $m_N = 500$~GeV scenario, with
1664: model parameters the same as in Fig.~\ref{evolution-all}.}
1665: \label{inicondsb}
1666: \end{figure}
1667:
1668: Some insight into the independence on initial conditions is provided
1669: by Fig.~\ref{collision-plot}. The ratios of various collision terms to
1670: the Hubble parameter are plotted for the $m_N =$~250~GeV scenario.
1671: These ratios show that RL can take place almost completely in thermal
1672: equilibrium; in certain cases, the reaction rates are many orders of
1673: magnitude above the Hubble parameter $H (z=1)$. In spite of this
1674: fact, RL (R$\tau$L) can successfully generate the required excess in
1675: $L$ ($L_\tau$), because of the resonantly enhanced CP asymmetry.
1676:
1677: \begin{figure}[t]
1678: \includegraphics[scale=0.73]{250GeV-rates.eps}
1679: \caption{\sl The ratio of various collision terms to the Hubble
1680: parameter plotted for the $m_N = 250$~GeV scenario presented in
1681: Fig.~\ref{evolution-all}.}
1682: \label{collision-plot}
1683: \end{figure}
1684:
1685: To allow for a simple quantitative understanding of the baryon
1686: asymmetry in R$\tau$L (and similar) scenarios, we need to introduce
1687: the individual lepton flavour $K$-factors
1688: \begin{equation}
1689: K^{l}_{N_\alpha}\ =\ \frac{\Gamma (N_\alpha \to L_l \Phi)\: +\:
1690: \Gamma(N_\alpha \to L^C_l \Phi^\dagger)}{H (z=1)}\ .
1691: \end{equation}
1692: Note that the decay widths are calculated in terms of the one-loop
1693: resummed effective Yukawa couplings~\cite{PU}.
1694:
1695:
1696: \begin{table}
1697: \begin{center}
1698: \begin{tabular}{|cc||c|c|c|}
1699: \hline
1700: $K_{N_{\alpha}}^{l}$ & & & $\alpha$ & $\qquad\qquad$ \\
1701: & & 1 & 2 & 3 \\
1702: \hline \hline
1703: & $e$ & $1.0 \times 10^{10}$ & $1.0 \times 10^{10}$ & $25$\\ \hline
1704: $l$ & $\mu$ & $1.4 \times 10^{9}$ & $1.4 \times 10^{9}$ & $20$\\ \hline
1705: & $\tau$ & $2.5$ & $2.5$ & $5.0$\\
1706: \hline
1707: \end{tabular}
1708: \end{center}
1709: \caption{\sl Individual lepton flavour $K$-factors for the $m_N =
1710: 250$~GeV scenario.}
1711: \label{RTLKfactors}
1712: \end{table}
1713:
1714:
1715: Table~\ref{RTLKfactors} shows the various components of
1716: $K_{N_{\alpha}}^{l}$ for the $m_N =$~250~GeV scenario. This explicitly
1717: demonstrates how the texture provided by (\ref{hmatrix}) and
1718: (\ref{epshnu}) allows for a heavy Majorana neutrino to decay
1719: relatively out of equilibrium, whilst simultaneously protecting the
1720: $\tau$-lepton number from being washed-out, even though large $e$- and
1721: $\mu$-Yukawa couplings to $N_{1,2}$ exist. Bear in mind that we use
1722: the convention $m_{N_1} < m_{N_2} < m_{N_3}$ upon diagonalization of
1723: the heavy Majorana neutrino mass matrix $M_S$. As can be seen from
1724: Table~\ref{RTLKfactors}, $K$-factors $K^{e,\mu,\tau}_{N_3} \sim
1725: 10$--100 and a CP-asymmetry $\delta_{N_{3}}^{\tau} \sim -10^{-6}$ are
1726: sufficient to generate a large $\tau$-lepton asymmetry. Although the
1727: $K$-factors $K^{e,\mu}_{N_{1,2}}$ associated with $N_{1,2}$ and the
1728: $e$ and $\mu$ leptons are enormous of order $10^9$--$10^{10}$, these
1729: turn out to be harmless to the $\tau$-lepton asymmetry, as the latter
1730: is protected by the low $\tau$-lepton $K$-factors $K^\tau_{N_{1,2,3}}
1731: \sim 10$.
1732:
1733: An order of magnitude estimate of the final baryon asymmetry,
1734: including single lepton flavour effects, may be obtained using
1735: \begin{equation}
1736: \label{Bestimate}
1737: \eta_B\ \sim\ -\, 10^{-2}\,\times\, \sum_{l=1}^3\, \sum_{N_{\alpha}}\:
1738: e^{-(m_{N_{\alpha}} - m_{N_1})/m_{N_1}}\,
1739: \delta^l_{N_{\alpha}}\: \frac{K^{l}_{N_{\alpha}}}{K_l\,K_{N_{\alpha}}}\ .
1740: \end{equation}
1741: The above estimate for $\eta_B$ is also consistent with the one stated
1742: earlier in~\cite{APtau}. In~(\ref{Bestimate}), the $K$-factors are
1743: summed in the following way:
1744: \begin{eqnarray}
1745: \label{Kfactors}
1746: K_{N_{\alpha}} \!&=&\! \sum_{l = 1}^3\ K^{l}_{N_{\alpha}}\;,\qquad
1747: K_l \ =\ \sum_{N_{\alpha}}\, e^{-(m_{N_{\alpha}} - m_{N_1})/m_{N_1}}\,
1748: K^{l}_{N_{\alpha}}\; .
1749: \end{eqnarray}
1750: Notice that all $K$-factors are evaluated at $T = m_{N_1}$ (i.e.~$z=
1751: m_{N_1}/T = 1$), where $m_{N_1}$ is the lightest of the heavy Majorana
1752: neutrinos. The intuitive estimate~(\ref{Bestimate}) is applicable for
1753: all leptogenesis scenarios satisfying the approximate inequality
1754: \begin{equation}
1755: \label{Kineq}
1756: K_{lN_\alpha}\ \stackrel{>}{{}_\sim}\ 1\,,
1757: \end{equation}
1758: for each of the lepton flavours $l$ and the heavy Majorana neutrinos
1759: $N_{1,2,3}$. The inequality~(\ref{Kineq}) ensures that the energy scale
1760: $m_{N_1}$ can be identified as the true scale of leptogenesis.
1761:
1762: In RL scenarios, such as R$\tau$L, the importance of taking individual
1763: lepton flavour effects into account can be demonstrated by comparing
1764: (\ref{Bestimate}) with the naive estimate, in which lepton flavour
1765: effects are treated indiscriminately in a {\em universal} manner,
1766: \begin{equation}
1767: \label{Bnoflavour}
1768: \eta^{\,\mathrm{univ.}}_B\ \sim\ -\, 10^{-2}\,\times\, \sum_{N_{\alpha}}\:
1769: e^{-(m_{N_{\alpha}} - m_{N_1})/m_{N_1}}\,\frac{\delta_{N_{\alpha}}}{K}\,,
1770: \end{equation}
1771: where $K = \sum_{l=e,\mu\,\tau} K_l$. In the R$\tau$L scenario with
1772: $m_N = 250$~GeV, the dominant contribution to this estimate will come
1773: from $N_3$, with a total CP asymmetry $\delta_{N_3}\sim10^{-3}$.
1774: Taking the ratio of the two estimates yields
1775: \begin{equation}
1776: \frac{\eta^{\,\mathrm{univ.}}_B}{\eta_B}\ \sim\
1777: \frac{\delta_{N_3}}{\delta^{\tau}_{N_{3}}}\,
1778: \frac{K_{N_3}\,K_{\tau}}{K^{\tau}_{N_3}\,K} \ \approx\
1779: \frac{\delta_{N_3}}{\delta^{\tau}_{N_{3}}}\,
1780: \frac{|c|^2}{|a|^2+|b|^2} \ \approx\ -\,10^{-6}\,.
1781: \end{equation}
1782: Thus, without considering single lepton flavour effects in this
1783: particular R$\tau$L model, one obtains an erroneous prediction for the
1784: BAU, which is suppressed by 6 orders of magnitude and has the wrong
1785: sign. These estimates are confirmed by solving the total lepton
1786: number BEs presented in~\cite{PU}.
1787:
1788: \begin{figure}[t]
1789: \begin{center}
1790: \includegraphics[scale=0.6]{10-10GeV-hierarchy.eps}
1791: \end{center}
1792: \caption{\sl The predicted evolution of $\eta_{L_{\rm total}}$ and
1793: $\eta_{N_{\alpha}}$ for a model with a heavy neutrino spectrum:
1794: $m_{N_3} = 3\,m_{N_1}$, $m_{N_2} = 2\,m_{N_1}$ and $m_{N_1} =
1795: 10^{10}$~GeV.}
1796: \label{hierarchy-plot}
1797: \end{figure}
1798:
1799: In a hierarchical scenario, the number densities of the heavier
1800: neutrinos $N_{2,3}$ at $T = m_{N_1}$ will be Boltzmann suppressed. To
1801: account for this phenomenon, we have included the Boltzmann factors
1802: $e^{-(m_{N_\alpha} - m_{N_1})/m_{N_1}}$ in the
1803: estimates~(\ref{Bestimate}), (\ref{Bnoflavour}) and in the definition
1804: of $K_l$. Clearly, in RL models with each heavy neutrino nearly
1805: degenerate in mass, this last factor can be set to 1.
1806:
1807: Flavour effects can also play a significant role in mildly
1808: hierarchical scenarios. Figure~\ref{hierarchy-plot} shows the
1809: predicted evolution of the lepton asymmetry in a scenario where
1810: $m_{N_3} = 3\,m_{N_1}$, $m_{N_2} = 2\,m_{N_1}$ and $m_{N_1} =
1811: 10^{10}$~GeV. The Yukawa texture was chosen to be consistent with
1812: light neutrino data and a normal hierarchical light neutrino spectrum.
1813: In this example, neglecting individual lepton flavour effects
1814: introduces an ${\cal O}(10)$ suppression of the final lepton and
1815: baryon asymmetry.
1816:
1817: In fully hierarchical scenarios satisfying (\ref{Kineq}), it can be
1818: seen that the estimates (\ref{Bestimate}) and (\ref{Bnoflavour}) are
1819: completely equivalent. A large hierarchy in the heavy neutrino
1820: spectrum, combined with the condition (\ref{Kineq}), implies that the
1821: final lepton asymmetry is determined entirely by the decay of the
1822: lightest heavy Majorana neutrino $N_1$. This fact makes it impossible
1823: for a single lepton flavour to be protected from wash-out, whilst the
1824: neutrino decays out of equilibrium.
1825:
1826: Likewise, in flavour universal scenarios, where
1827: $\eta_{L_{e,\mu,\tau}} = \frac{1}{3} \eta_L$, the estimates
1828: (\ref{Bestimate}) and (\ref{Bnoflavour}) are completely equivalent for
1829: both nearly degenerate and hierarchical leptogenesis scenarios.
1830:
1831: Our numerical analysis presented in this section has explicitly
1832: demonstrated that models of R$\tau$L can provide a viable explanation
1833: for the observed BAU, in accordance with the current light neutrino
1834: data. In the next section, we will see how the scenarios considered
1835: here have far reaching phenomenological implications for low-energy
1836: observables of lepton flavour/number violation and collider
1837: experiments.
1838:
1839:
1840:
1841: \setcounter{equation}{0}
1842: \section{Phenomenological Implications}
1843:
1844: RL models, and especially R$\tau$L models, can give rise to a number
1845: of phenomenologically testable signatures. In particular, we will
1846: analyze the generic predictions of R$\tau$L models for the
1847: $0\nu\beta\beta$ decay, and for the LFV processes: $\mu \to e\gamma$,
1848: $\mu \to eee$ and $\mu \to e$ conversion in nuclei. Finally, we will
1849: present simple and realistic numerical estimates of production cross
1850: sections of heavy Majorana neutrinos at future $e^+e^-$ and
1851: $\mu^+\mu^-$ colliders, and apply these results to the R$\tau$L
1852: models.
1853:
1854: \subsection{{\boldmath $0\nu\beta\beta$} Decay}
1855:
1856: Neutrinoless double beta decay ($0\nu\beta\beta$) corresponds to a
1857: process in which two single $\beta$ decays~\cite{doi85,Klapdor,HKK}
1858: occur simultaneously in one nucleus. As a consequence of this, a
1859: nucleus $(Z,A)$ gets converted into a nucleus $(Z+2,A)$, i.e.\
1860: \begin{displaymath}
1861: ^{A}_{Z}\,X\ \to\ ^A_{Z+2}\,X\: +\: 2 e^-\; .
1862: \end{displaymath}
1863: Evidently, this process violates $L$-number by two units and can
1864: naturally take place in minimal RL models, in which the observed light
1865: neutrinos are Majorana particles. The observation of such a process
1866: would provide further information on the structure of the light
1867: neutrino mass matrix ${\bf m}^\nu$.
1868:
1869: To a very good approximation, the half life for a $0\nu\beta\beta$
1870: decay mediated by light Majorana neutrinos is given by
1871: \begin{equation}
1872: \label{t1/2}
1873: [T^{0\nu\beta\beta}_{1/2}]^{-1}\ =\ \frac{|\langle m
1874: \rangle |^2}{m^2_e}\ |{\cal M}_{0\nu\beta\beta}|^2\, G_{01}\; ,
1875: \end{equation}
1876: where $\langle m \rangle$ denotes the effective Majorana neutrino
1877: mass, $m_e$ is the electron mass and ${\cal M}_{0\nu\beta\beta}$ and
1878: $G_{01}$ denote the appropriate nuclear matrix element and the phase
1879: space factor, respectively. More details regarding the calculation of
1880: $T^{0\nu\beta\beta}_{1/2}$ may be found in~\cite{doi85,Klapdor,HKK}.
1881:
1882: In models of interest to us, the effective neutrino mass can be
1883: related to the entry $\{ 11 \}\ (\equiv \{ ee \})$ of the light
1884: neutrino mass matrix ${\bf m}^\nu$ in (\ref{mnutree}), i.e.
1885: \begin{equation}
1886: |\langle m \rangle|\ =\ |({\bf m}^\nu)_{ee}|\ =\
1887: \frac{v^2}{2m_N}\: \bigg|\,\frac{\Delta m_N}{m_N}\,a^2\ -\
1888: \varepsilon^2_e\,\bigg|\; .
1889: \end{equation}
1890: As has been explicitly demonstrated in the previous section, R$\tau$L
1891: models realize a light neutrino mass spectrum with an inverted
1892: hierarchy~\cite{KKS}, thus giving rise to a sizeable effective
1893: neutrino mass. The prediction for $|\langle m \rangle|$ in these
1894: models is
1895: \begin{equation}
1896: |\langle m \rangle|\ =\ |({\bf m}^\nu)_{ee}|\
1897: \approx\ 0.013~{\rm eV}\; .
1898: \end{equation}
1899: Such a prediction lies at the very low end of the value of the
1900: effective Majorana neutrino mass, reported recently by the
1901: Heidelberg--Moscow collaboration~\cite{HMexp}. There are proposals
1902: for future $0\nu\beta\beta$-decay experiments that will be sensitive
1903: to values of $|\langle m \rangle|$ of order $10^{-2}$~\cite{CA},
1904: significantly increasing the constraints on this parameter.
1905:
1906:
1907: \subsection{\boldmath $\mu \to e\gamma$}
1908:
1909: As shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:meg}, heavy Majorana neutrinos may induce
1910: LFV couplings to the photon ($\gamma$) and the $Z$ boson via loop
1911: effects. These couplings give rise to LFV decays, such as $\mu \to
1912: e\gamma$~\cite{CL} and $\mu \to eee$~\cite{IP}. Our discussion and
1913: notation closely follows the extensive studies~\cite{IP,Ara}. Related
1914: phenomenological analyses of LFV effects in the SM with singlet
1915: neutrinos may be found in~\cite{KPS,BKPS,MPLAP,LFVrev}.
1916:
1917: %******************************************************************
1918: % Figure on \gamma - e - mu and Z - e - mu couplings
1919: %******************************************************************
1920: \begin{figure}
1921:
1922: \begin{center}
1923: \begin{picture}(360,400)(0,0)
1924: \SetWidth{0.8}
1925:
1926: \ArrowLine(0,360)(20,360)\ArrowLine(60,360)(80,360)
1927: \GCirc(40,360){20}{0.7}\Photon(40,340)(40,320){3}{2}
1928: \Text(0,365)[b]{$\mu$}\Text(80,365)[b]{$e$}
1929: \Text(42,320)[l]{$Z,\gamma$}
1930:
1931: \Text(100,360)[]{$=$}
1932:
1933: \ArrowLine(120,360)(140,360)\ArrowLine(180,360)(200,360)
1934: \ArrowLine(140,360)(180,360)\Text(160,367)[b]{$N_\alpha$}
1935: \DashArrowArc(160,360)(20,180,270){3}\PhotonArc(160,360)(20,270,360){2}{3}
1936: \Text(145,340)[r]{$G^-$}\Text(175,340)[l]{$W^-$}
1937: \Photon(160,340)(160,320){3}{2}
1938: \Text(120,365)[b]{$\mu$}\Text(200,365)[b]{$e$}
1939: \Text(162,320)[l]{$Z,\gamma$}
1940: \Text(160,300)[]{\bf (a)}
1941:
1942: \ArrowLine(240,360)(260,360)\ArrowLine(300,360)(320,360)
1943: \ArrowLine(260,360)(300,360)\Text(280,367)[b]{$N_\alpha$}
1944: \DashArrowArc(280,360)(20,270,360){3}\PhotonArc(280,360)(20,180,270){2}{3}
1945: \Text(265,340)[r]{$W^-$}\Text(295,340)[l]{$G^-$}
1946: \Photon(280,340)(280,320){3}{2}
1947: \Text(240,365)[b]{$\mu$}\Text(320,365)[b]{$e$}
1948: \Text(282,320)[l]{$Z,\gamma$}
1949: \Text(280,300)[]{\bf (b)}
1950:
1951: \ArrowLine(0,260)(20,260)\ArrowLine(60,260)(80,260)
1952: \ArrowLine(20,260)(60,260)\Text(40,267)[b]{$N_\alpha$}
1953: \PhotonArc(40,260)(20,180,270){2}{3}\PhotonArc(40,260)(20,270,360){2}{3}
1954: \Text(25,240)[r]{$W^-$}\Text(55,240)[l]{$W^-$}
1955: \Photon(40,240)(40,220){3}{2}
1956: \Text(0,265)[b]{$\mu$}\Text(80,265)[b]{$e$}
1957: \Text(42,220)[l]{$Z,\gamma$}
1958: \Text(40,200)[]{\bf (c)}
1959:
1960: \ArrowLine(120,260)(140,260)\ArrowLine(180,260)(200,260)
1961: \ArrowLine(140,260)(180,260)\Text(160,267)[b]{$N_\alpha$}
1962: \DashArrowArc(160,260)(20,180,270){3}\DashArrowArc(160,260)(20,270,360){2}
1963: \Text(145,240)[r]{$G^-$}\Text(175,240)[l]{$G^-$}
1964: \Photon(160,240)(160,220){3}{2}
1965: \Text(120,265)[b]{$\mu$}\Text(200,265)[b]{$e$}
1966: \Text(162,220)[l]{$Z,\gamma$}
1967: \Text(160,200)[]{\bf (d)}
1968:
1969: \ArrowLine(240,260)(260,260)\ArrowLine(300,260)(320,260)
1970: \Photon(260,260)(300,260){2}{4}\Text(280,267)[b]{$W^-$}
1971: \ArrowLine(260,260)(280,240)\ArrowLine(280,240)(300,260)
1972: \Text(270,240)[r]{$N_\alpha$}\Text(295,240)[l]{$N_\beta$}
1973: \Photon(280,240)(280,220){3}{2}
1974: \Text(240,265)[b]{$\mu$}\Text(320,265)[b]{$e$}
1975: \Text(282,220)[l]{$Z$}
1976: \Text(280,200)[]{\bf (e)}
1977:
1978: \ArrowLine(0,160)(20,160)\ArrowLine(60,160)(80,160)
1979: \DashArrowLine(20,160)(60,160){3}\Text(40,167)[b]{$G^-$}
1980: \ArrowLine(20,160)(40,140)\ArrowLine(40,140)(60,160)
1981: \Text(30,140)[r]{$N_\alpha$}\Text(55,140)[l]{$N_\beta$}
1982: \Photon(40,140)(40,120){3}{2}
1983: \Text(0,165)[b]{$\mu$}\Text(80,165)[b]{$e$}
1984: \Text(42,120)[l]{$Z$}
1985: \Text(40,100)[]{\bf (f)}
1986:
1987: \ArrowLine(120,160)(135,160)\ArrowLine(135,160)(150,160)
1988: \ArrowLine(150,160)(180,160)\ArrowLine(180,160)(200,160)
1989: \Text(120,165)[b]{$\mu$}\Text(142,165)[b]{$\mu$}
1990: \Text(165,165)[b]{$N_\alpha$}\Text(200,165)[b]{$e$}
1991: \Photon(135,160)(135,120){3}{4}
1992: \Text(137,120)[l]{$Z,\gamma$}
1993: \PhotonArc(165,160)(15,180,360){2}{5}\Text(165,135)[]{$W^-$}
1994: \Text(160,100)[]{\bf (g)}
1995:
1996: \ArrowLine(240,160)(255,160)\ArrowLine(255,160)(270,160)
1997: \ArrowLine(270,160)(300,160)\ArrowLine(300,160)(320,160)
1998: \Text(240,165)[b]{$\mu$}\Text(262,165)[b]{$\mu$}
1999: \Text(285,165)[b]{$N_\alpha$}\Text(320,165)[b]{$e$}
2000: \Photon(255,160)(255,120){3}{4}
2001: \Text(257,120)[l]{$Z,\gamma$}
2002: \DashArrowArc(285,160)(15,180,360){3}\Text(285,135)[]{$G^-$}
2003: \Text(280,100)[]{\bf (h)}
2004:
2005: \ArrowLine(0,60)(20,60)\ArrowLine(20,60)(50,60)
2006: \ArrowLine(50,60)(65,60)\ArrowLine(65,60)(80,60)
2007: \Text(0,65)[b]{$\mu$}\Text(57,65)[b]{$e$}
2008: \Text(35,65)[b]{$N_\alpha$}\Text(80,65)[b]{$e$}
2009: \Photon(65,60)(65,20){3}{4}
2010: \Text(67,20)[l]{$Z,\gamma$}
2011: \PhotonArc(35,60)(15,180,360){2}{5}\Text(35,35)[]{$W^-$}
2012: \Text(40,0)[]{\bf (i)}
2013:
2014: \ArrowLine(120,60)(140,60)\ArrowLine(140,60)(170,60)
2015: \ArrowLine(170,60)(185,60)\ArrowLine(185,60)(200,60)
2016: \Text(120,65)[b]{$\mu$}\Text(177,65)[b]{$e$}
2017: \Text(155,65)[b]{$N_\alpha$}\Text(200,65)[b]{$e$}
2018: \Photon(185,60)(185,20){3}{4}
2019: \Text(187,20)[l]{$Z,\gamma$}
2020: \DashArrowArc(155,60)(15,180,360){3}\Text(155,35)[]{$G^-$}
2021: \Text(160,0)[]{\bf (j)}
2022:
2023: \end{picture}\\[0.7cm]
2024: \end{center}
2025:
2026: \caption{\sl Feynman graphs pertaining to the effective $\gamma e\mu$ and
2027: $Ze\mu$ couplings.}\label{fig:meg}
2028:
2029: \end{figure}
2030:
2031:
2032: To properly describe LFV in low-energy observables, we first introduce
2033: the so-called Langacker--London (LL) parameters~\cite{LL}:
2034: \begin{equation}
2035: \label{LL}
2036: (s^{\nu_l}_L)^2\ =\ 1\, -\,
2037: \sum_{l' = e,\mu,\tau}\, |B_{l\nu_{l'}}|^2\ \approx\
2038: \Big( m^*_D\, M^{*\,-1}_S\, M^{-1}_S\, m^T_D\Big)_{ll}\ ,
2039: \end{equation}
2040: where $m_D = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\,h^{\nu_R}\, v$ and $B_{l\nu_l'}$ are
2041: mixing-matrix factors close to 1 that multiply the SM tree-level $W
2042: l\nu_{l'}$ vertices~\cite{AZPC}. The LL parameters $(s^{\nu_l}_L)^2$
2043: quantify the deviation of the actual squared $W l\nu_{l'}$ couplings
2044: (summed over all light neutrinos) from the corresponding sum of
2045: squared couplings in the SM. The parameters
2046: $(s^{\nu_{e,\mu,\tau}}_L)^2$ are constrained by LEP and low-energy
2047: electroweak observables~\cite{LL,LLfit}. Independent constraints on
2048: these parameters typically give: $(s^{\nu_{e,\mu,\tau}}_L)^2
2049: \stackrel{<}{{}_\sim} 10^{-2}$. As we will see in a moment, however,
2050: LFV observables impose much more severe constraints on products of the
2051: LL parameters, and especially on~$s^{\nu_e}_L\, s^{\nu_\mu}_L$.
2052:
2053: As a first LFV observable, we consider the decay $\mu \to e\gamma$.
2054: The branching fraction for the decay $\mu \to e\gamma$ is given by
2055: \begin{equation}
2056: \label{Bllgamma}
2057: B(\mu \to e \gamma )\ =\ \frac{\alpha^3_w s^2_w}{256\pi^2}\,
2058: \frac{m^4_\mu}{M^4_W}\, \frac{m_\mu}{\Gamma_\mu}\, |G_\gamma^{\mu e}|^2\
2059: \approx\ \frac{\alpha^3_w s^2_w}{1024\pi^2}\,
2060: \frac{m^4_\mu}{M^4_W}\, \frac{m_\mu}{\Gamma_\mu}\; (s_L^{\nu_\mu})^2
2061: (s_L^{\nu_e})^2\, ,
2062: \end{equation}
2063: where $\Gamma_\mu = 2.997\times 10^{-19}$~GeV~\cite{PDG} is the
2064: experimentally measured muon decay width, and $G_\gamma^{\mu e}$ is a
2065: composite form-factor defined in~\cite{IP}. In arriving at the last
2066: equality in~(\ref{Bllgamma}), we have assumed that $m^2_N\gg
2067: M^2_W$, for a model with two nearly degenerate heavy Majorana
2068: neutrinos. In this case, one finds that $G_\gamma^{\mu e} \to
2069: \frac{e^{i\phi}}{2}\, s_L^{\nu_\mu} s_L^{\nu_e}$, where $\phi$ is an
2070: unobservable model-dependent phase. Confronting the theoretical
2071: prediction~(\ref{Bllgamma}) with the experimental upper
2072: limit~\cite{PDG}
2073: \begin{equation}
2074: \label{Bexpllgamma}
2075: B_{\rm exp} (\mu \to e \gamma)\ <\ 1.2\, \times 10^{-11}\, ,\quad
2076: \end{equation}
2077: we obtain the following constraint:
2078: \begin{equation}
2079: \label{meglimit}
2080: s_L^{\nu_e} s_L^{\nu_\mu}\ <\ 1.2\times 10^{-4}\, .
2081: \end{equation}
2082: This last constraint is stronger by one to two orders of magnitude
2083: with respect to those derived on $(s_L^{\nu_e})^2$ and
2084: $(s_L^{\nu_\mu})^2$ individually.
2085:
2086: In R$\tau$L models, only two of the right-handed neutrinos, $\nu_{2R}$
2087: and $\nu_{3R}$, which have appreciable $e$- and $\mu$-Yukawa
2088: couplings, will be relevant to LFV effects. In this case, the LL
2089: parameters $(s_L^{\nu_e})^2$ and $(s_L^{\nu_\mu})^2$ are, to a very
2090: good approximation, given by
2091: \begin{equation}
2092: (s_L^{\nu_e})^2\ =\ \frac{|a|^2\, v^2}{m^2_N}\; ,\qquad
2093: (s_L^{\nu_\mu})^2\ =\ \frac{|b|^2\, v^2}{m^2_N}\; .
2094: \end{equation}
2095: Then, the following theoretical prediction is obtained:
2096: \begin{equation}
2097: \label{RtLmeg}
2098: B(\mu \to e \gamma )\ =\ 9 \cdot 10^{-4}\, \times\,
2099: \frac{|a|^2\,|b|^2\, v^4}{m^4_N}\ .
2100: \end{equation}
2101: For the particular scenarios considered in Section~\ref{sec:num}, we
2102: find $B(\mu \to e \gamma ) \sim 10^{-12}$. These values are well
2103: within reach of the MEG collaboration, which will be sensitive to $B
2104: (\mu \to e\gamma ) \sim 10^{-14}$~\cite{MEG}.
2105:
2106:
2107: \subsection{\boldmath $\mu \to eee$}
2108:
2109: As illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:mue}, quantum effects mediated by
2110: heavy Majorana neutrinos may also give rise to the 3-body LFV decay
2111: mode $\mu^- \to e^-e^+e^-$. The branching ratio for this LFV decay
2112: may conveniently be expressed as
2113: \begin{eqnarray}
2114: \label{Bmueee}
2115: B(\mu \to eee ) &=&
2116: \frac{\alpha_w^4}{24576\pi^3}\ \frac{m_\mu^4}{M_W^4}\
2117: \frac{m_\mu}{\Gamma_\mu}\bigg\{\, 2 |{\textstyle \frac{1}{2}}
2118: F_{\rm box}^{\mu eee}+F_Z^{\mu e}
2119: -2s_w^2(F_Z^{\mu e}-F_\gamma^{\mu e})|^2\nonumber\\
2120: && +\, 4s_w^4 |F_Z^{\mu e}-F_\gamma^{\mu e}|^2\, +\,
2121: 16s_w^2\: {\rm Re} \Big[(F_Z^{\mu e}+{\textstyle \frac{1}{2}}
2122: F_{\rm box}^{\mu eee})
2123: G_\gamma^{\mu e\:\ast}\Big]\nonumber\\
2124: &&-\, 48s_w^4\: {\rm Re} \Big[\,(F_Z^{\mu e}-F_\gamma^{\mu e})
2125: G_\gamma^{\mu e\:\ast}\,\Big]\, +\, 32s_w^4 |G_\gamma^{\mu e} |^2\:
2126: \bigg(\ln\frac{m_\mu^2}{m_e^2}-\frac{11}{4}\bigg)\, \bigg\}\; .\qquad
2127: \end{eqnarray}
2128: The expressions $F_\gamma^{\mu e}$, $F_Z^{\mu e}$ and $F_{\rm
2129: box}^{\mu eee}$ are composite form-factors, defined and computed
2130: in~\cite{IP}. In the limit $m^2_N \gg M^2_W$ and up to an overall
2131: physically irrelevant phase factor $e^{i\phi}$, these composite
2132: form-factors simplify to~\cite{IP}
2133: \begin{eqnarray}
2134: \label{Fgamma1}
2135: F_\gamma^{\mu e} &\approx & -\,\frac{7}{12}\, s_L^{\nu_\mu} s_L^{\nu_{e}}\,
2136: -\, \frac{1}{6}\, s_L^{\nu_\mu} s_L^{\nu_{e}}
2137: \ln\bigg(\frac{m^2_N}{M^2_W}\bigg)\, , \\
2138: \label{FZ1}
2139: F_Z^{\mu e} &\approx&
2140: \bigg[\, \frac{5}{2}\, -\, \frac{3}{2}\,
2141: \ln\bigg(\frac{m^2_N}{M^2_W}\bigg)\, \bigg]\,
2142: s_L^{\nu_\mu}s_L^{\nu_e}\
2143: -\ \frac{1}{2} s_L^{\nu_\mu}s_L^{\nu_e}\sum_{k=e,\mu,\tau}\
2144: (s_L^{\nu_k})^2\:\frac{m^2_N}{M^2_W}\, ,\\
2145: \label{Fbox1}
2146: F_{\rm box}^{\mu eee} &\approx &
2147: -2\, s_L^{\nu_\mu}s_L^{\nu_{e}}\ +\
2148: \frac{1}{2}\; s_L^{\nu_\mu}s_L^{\nu_e} (s_L^{\nu_e})^2\:
2149: \frac{m^2_N}{M^2_W}\; .
2150: \end{eqnarray}
2151: Correspondingly, the analytic result~(\ref{Bmueee}) in the same limit
2152: may be cast into the form:
2153: \begin{eqnarray}
2154: \label{Amueee}
2155: B (\mu\to e e e) \!& \simeq &\!
2156: \frac{\alpha_w^4}{294912\,\pi^3}\
2157: \frac{m_\mu^4}{M_W^4}\ \frac{m_\mu}{\Gamma_\mu}\ (s_L^{\nu_\mu})^2
2158: (s_L^{\nu_e})^2\: \Bigg\{\, 54-300s_w^2+217s_w^4
2159: +96\,s_w^4\ln\bigg(\frac{m_{\mu}^2}{m_e^2}\bigg)\nonumber\\
2160: &&\hspace{-0.7cm}
2161: -\: \Big(108-492s_w^2+800s_w^4\Big)\ln\bigg(\frac{m^2_N}{M^2_W}\bigg)
2162: +\ \Big(54-192s_w^2+256s_w^4\Big)\ln^2\bigg(\frac{m^2_N}{M^2_W}\bigg)
2163: \nonumber\\
2164: &&\hspace{-0.7cm}+\ \frac{m^2_N}{M^2_W}\ \Bigg[\,
2165: \bigg(18- 50s_w^2 - \Big(18-32s_w^2\Big)
2166: \ln\bigg(\frac{m^2_N}{M^2_W}\bigg)\bigg)\ (s_L^{\nu_e})^2\nonumber\\[2mm]
2167: &&\hspace{-0.7cm}-\:
2168: \bigg(36-172s_w^2+300s_w^4 - \Big(36-136s_w^2+192s_w^4\Big)
2169: \ln\bigg(\frac{m^2_N}{M^2_W}\bigg)\bigg)
2170: \sum_{l=e,\mu,\tau} (s_L^{\nu_l})^2
2171: \Bigg]\nonumber\\[2mm]
2172: &&\hspace{-0.7cm}+\: \frac{m^4_N}{M^4_W}\ \Bigg[\,
2173: \frac{3}{2}(s_L^{\nu_e})^4\ -\ 6\,(1-2s^2_w)(s_L^{\nu_e})^2
2174: \sum_{l=e,\mu,\tau} (s_L^{\nu_l})^2\nonumber\\
2175: &&\hspace{-0.7cm}+\: 6\,\Big(1-4s_w^2+6s^4_w\Big)
2176: \Big(\sum_{l =e,\mu,\tau} (s_L^{\nu_l})^2\Big)^2\,
2177: \Bigg]\, \Bigg\}\; .
2178: \end{eqnarray}
2179: It can be seen from~(\ref{Amueee}) that the so-called non-decoupling
2180: terms proportional to $m^4_N/M^4_W$ are always multiplied with higher
2181: powers of the LL parameters. In general, these terms do not decouple
2182: and become very significant~\cite{IP}, for large heavy neutrino masses
2183: $m_N$ and fixed values of $s^{\nu_l}_L$, which amounts to scenarios
2184: with large neutrino Yukawa couplings $|h^{\nu_R}_{ij}|
2185: \stackrel{>}{{}_\sim} 0.5$~\cite{AZPC}. However, these non-decoupling
2186: terms are negligible, as long as $s^{\nu_l}_L\, m_N/M_W \ll 1$. This
2187: is actually the case for the R$\tau$L models discussed in
2188: Section~\ref{sec:num}. Neglecting terms proportional to $m^2_N/M^2_W$
2189: and $m^4_N/M^4_W$, we may relate $B (\mu\to e e e)$ to $B(\mu \to
2190: e\gamma)$ through:
2191: \begin{equation}
2192: \label{Rmueee}
2193: B (\mu\to e e e)\ \simeq\
2194: 8.2 \cdot 10^{-3}\, \times
2195: \Bigg[\,1\ -\ 0.8\ln\bigg(\frac{m^2_N}{M^2_W}\bigg)
2196: \ +\ 0.5 \ln^2\bigg(\frac{m^2_N}{M^2_W}\bigg)
2197: \, \Bigg]\: B(\mu\to e\gamma)\; .
2198: \end{equation}
2199: For example, for an R$\tau$L model with $m_N = 250$~GeV,
2200: (\ref{Rmueee}) implies
2201: \begin{equation}
2202: B (\mu\to e e e)\ \simeq\ 1.4\cdot 10^{-2}\,\times B(\mu \to e\gamma)\
2203: \simeq\ 1.4\cdot 10^{-14}
2204: \end{equation}
2205: This value is a factor $\sim 70$ below the present experimental
2206: bound~\cite{PDG}: $B_{\rm exp} (\mu \to eee) < 1.0 \times 10^{-12}$.
2207: In this respect, it would be very encouraging, if higher sensitivity
2208: experiments could be designed to probe this observable.
2209:
2210:
2211: %******************************************************************
2212: % Figure \mu -> e e e and \mu - e conversion
2213: %******************************************************************
2214: \begin{figure}
2215:
2216: \begin{center}
2217: \begin{picture}(360,200)(0,190)
2218: \SetWidth{0.8}
2219:
2220: \ArrowLine(0,360)(20,360)\ArrowLine(60,360)(80,360)
2221: \GCirc(40,360){20}{0.7}\Photon(40,340)(40,320){3}{2}
2222: \Text(0,365)[b]{$\mu^-$}\Text(80,365)[b]{$e^-$}
2223: \Text(45,333)[l]{$Z,\gamma$}
2224: \ArrowLine(40,320)(0,320)\ArrowLine(80,320)(40,320)
2225: \Text(0,317)[t]{$e\, (q)$}\Text(80,317)[t]{$e\, (q)$}
2226: \Text(40,280)[]{\bf (a)}
2227:
2228: \ArrowLine(120,360)(140,360)\ArrowLine(180,360)(200,360)
2229: \ArrowLine(140,360)(180,360)\Text(160,368)[b]{$N_\alpha$}
2230: \ArrowLine(140,320)(120,320)\ArrowLine(200,320)(180,320)
2231: \ArrowLine(180,320)(140,320)\Text(160,314)[t]{$N_\beta\, (q')$}
2232: \Photon(140,360)(140,320){2}{4}\Photon(180,360)(180,320){2}{4}
2233: \Text(120,365)[b]{$\mu^-$}\Text(200,365)[b]{$e^-$}
2234: \Text(120,317)[t]{$e\, (q)$}\Text(200,317)[t]{$e\, (q)$}
2235: \Text(137,340)[r]{$W^-$}\Text(185,340)[l]{$W^+$}
2236: \Text(160,280)[]{\bf (b)}
2237:
2238: \ArrowLine(240,360)(260,360)\ArrowLine(300,360)(320,360)
2239: \ArrowLine(260,360)(300,360)\Text(280,368)[b]{$N_\alpha$}
2240: \ArrowLine(260,320)(240,320)\ArrowLine(320,320)(300,320)
2241: \ArrowLine(300,320)(260,320)\Text(280,314)[t]{$N_\beta\, (q')$}
2242: \DashArrowLine(260,360)(260,320){3}\Photon(300,360)(300,320){2}{4}
2243: \Text(240,365)[b]{$\mu^-$}\Text(320,365)[b]{$e^-$}
2244: \Text(240,317)[t]{$e\, (q)$}\Text(320,317)[t]{$e\, (q)$}
2245: \Text(257,340)[r]{$G^-$}\Text(305,340)[l]{$W^+$}
2246: \Text(280,280)[]{\bf (c)}
2247:
2248: \ArrowLine(0,200)(20,200)\ArrowLine(60,200)(80,200)
2249: \ArrowLine(20,200)(60,200)\Text(40,208)[b]{$N_\alpha$}
2250: \ArrowLine(20,160)(0,160)\ArrowLine(80,160)(60,160)
2251: \ArrowLine(60,160)(20,160)\Text(40,154)[t]{$N_\beta\, (q')$}
2252: \Photon(20,200)(20,160){2}{4}\DashArrowLine(60,200)(60,160){3}
2253: \Text(0,205)[b]{$\mu^-$}\Text(80,205)[b]{$e^-$}
2254: \Text(0,157)[t]{$e\, (q)$}\Text(80,157)[t]{$e\, (q)$}
2255: \Text(17,180)[r]{$W^-$}\Text(65,180)[l]{$G^+$}
2256: \Text(40,120)[]{\bf (d)}
2257:
2258: \ArrowLine(120,200)(140,200)\ArrowLine(180,200)(200,200)
2259: \ArrowLine(140,200)(180,200)\Text(160,208)[b]{$N_\alpha$}
2260: \ArrowLine(140,160)(120,160)\ArrowLine(200,160)(180,160)
2261: \ArrowLine(180,160)(140,160)\Text(160,154)[t]{$N_\beta\, (q')$}
2262: \DashArrowLine(140,200)(140,160){3}\DashArrowLine(180,200)(180,160){3}
2263: \Text(120,205)[b]{$\mu^-$}\Text(200,205)[b]{$e^-$}
2264: \Text(120,157)[t]{$e\, (q)$}\Text(200,157)[t]{$e\, (q)$}
2265: \Text(137,180)[r]{$G^-$}\Text(185,180)[l]{$G^+$}
2266: \Text(160,120)[]{\bf (e)}
2267:
2268:
2269: \Text(300,180)[]{\boldmath $+\quad ( e \leftrightarrow e^-)$}
2270:
2271:
2272: \end{picture}\\
2273: \end{center}
2274: \vspace{2.5cm}
2275: \caption{\sl Feynman graphs responsible for $\mu^- \to e^- e^+ e^-$
2276: ($\mu \to e$ conversion in nuclei).}\label{fig:mue}
2277:
2278: \end{figure}
2279:
2280:
2281: \subsection{Coherent {\boldmath $\mu \to e$} Conversion in Nuclei}
2282:
2283: One of the most sensitive experiments to LFV is the coherent conversion of
2284: $\mu \to e$ in nuclei, e.g.\ $\mu^-\ {}^{48}_{22}{\rm Ti} \to e^-\
2285: {}^{48}_{22}{\rm Ti}$~\cite{FW,JDV}. The Feynman graphs responsible
2286: for such a process are displayed in Fig.~\ref{fig:mue}.
2287:
2288: Our calculation of $\mu \to e$ conversion in nuclei closely
2289: follows~\cite{FW,JDV,Ara}. We consider the kinematic approximations: $q^2
2290: \approx -m^2_\mu$ and $p^0_e \approx |\vec{p}_e| \approx m_\mu$, which are
2291: valid for $\mu \to e$ conversion. Given the above approximation, the $\mu \to
2292: e$ conversion rate in a nucleus with nucleon numbers $(N,Z)$, is given by
2293: \begin{equation}
2294: \label{Bmueconv}
2295: B_{\mu e} (N,Z)\ \equiv\ \frac{\Gamma [\mu\, (N,Z)\to e\, (N,Z) ] }{
2296: \Gamma [ \mu\, (N,Z) \to {\rm capture}]}\
2297: \approx\ \frac{ \alpha^3_{\rm em} \alpha^4_w m^5_\mu}{32\pi^2
2298: M^4_W \Gamma_{\rm capt.} }\, \frac{Z^4_{\rm eff}}{Z}\,
2299: |F(-m^2_\mu)|^2\, |Q_W|^2\, ,
2300: \end{equation}
2301: where $\alpha_{\rm em} = 1/137$ is the electromagnetic fine structure
2302: constant, $Z_{\rm eff}$ is the effective atomic number of coherence
2303: and $\Gamma_{\rm capt.}$ is the muon nuclear capture rate. For
2304: ${}^{48}_{22}{\rm Ti}$, experimental measurements give $Z_{\rm eff}
2305: \approx 17.6$ for ${}^{48}_{22}{\rm Ti}$~\cite{Zeff} and $\Gamma [
2306: \mu\ {}^{48}_{22}{\rm Ti} \to {\rm capture}] \approx 1.705\times
2307: 10^{-18}$~GeV~\cite{SMR}. Moreover, $|F(-m^2_\mu)| \approx 0.54$ is
2308: the nuclear form factor \cite{FPap}. Finally, $Q_W = V_u (2Z +N) + V_d
2309: (Z+2N)$ is the coherent charge of the nucleus, which is associated
2310: with the vector current. Its explicit form is given by
2311: \begin{eqnarray}
2312: \label{Vu}
2313: V_u &=& \frac{2}{3}\, s^2_w\, \Big(\, F^{\mu e}_\gamma\, -\,
2314: G^{\mu e}_\gamma\, -\, F^{\mu e}_Z\, \Big)\, +\, \frac{1}{4}\,
2315: \Big(\, F^{\mu e}_Z\, -\, F^{\mu e uu}_{\rm box}\, \Big)\, ,\\
2316: \label{Vd}
2317: V_d &=& -\, \frac{1}{3}\, s^2_w\,
2318: \Big(\, F^{\mu e}_\gamma\, -\, G^{\mu e}_\gamma
2319: \, -\, F^{\mu e}_Z\, \Big)\, -\, \frac{1}{4}\, \Big(\, F^{\mu e}_Z\, +\,
2320: F^{\mu e dd}_{\rm box}\, \Big)\, .
2321: \end{eqnarray}
2322: The composite form-factors $F^{\mu e uu}_{\rm box}$ and $F^{\mu e
2323: dd}_{\rm box}$ are defined in~\cite{Ara}. In the SM with two nearly
2324: degenerate heavy Majorana neutrinos and in the limit $m^2_N/M^2_W \gg
2325: 1$, these form-factors can be written down in the simplified forms:
2326: \begin{equation}
2327: \label{Fboxud}
2328: F_{\rm box}^{\mu euu}\ \approx\ F_{\rm box}^{\mu edd}\ \approx\
2329: -\, s_L^{\nu_\mu}s_L^{\nu_{e}}\; .
2330: \end{equation}
2331: In the same limit $m^2_N/M^2_W \gg 1$, $B_{\mu e} (N,Z)$ is given by
2332: \begin{eqnarray}
2333: \label{Amutoe}
2334: B_{\mu e} (N,Z) & \simeq & \frac{ \alpha^3_{\rm em}
2335: \alpha^4_w m^5_\mu}{18432\,\pi^2
2336: M^4_W \Gamma_{\rm capt.} }\, \frac{Z^4_{\rm eff}}{Z}\,
2337: |F(-m^2_\mu)|^2\, (s_L^{\nu_\mu})^2 (s_L^{\nu_e})^2\nonumber\\
2338: & &\times\, \Bigg\{\,\bigg[\,3N+(33-86s_w^2)Z+
2339: \Big(9N-(9-32s_w^2)Z\Big)\ln\bigg(\frac{m^2_N}{M^2_W}\bigg)\bigg]^2\nonumber\\
2340: & & +\ 6\ \frac{m^2_N}{M^2_W}\bigg[\,3N+(33-86s_w^2)Z+
2341: \Big(9N-(9-32s_w^2)Z\Big)\ln\bigg(\frac{m^2_N}{M^2_W}\bigg)\bigg]\nonumber\\
2342: & & \times\ \Big(N-(1-4s_w^2)Z\Big)\
2343: \sum_{l =e,\mu,\tau} (s_L^{\nu_l})^2\nonumber\\
2344: & & +\ 9\ \frac{m^4_N}{M^4_W}\ \Big(N-(1-4s_w^2)Z\Big)^2\
2345: \Big(\sum_{l =e,\mu,\tau} (s_L^{\nu_l})^2\Big)^2
2346: \,\Bigg\}\; .
2347: \end{eqnarray}
2348: For the ${}^{48}_{22}{\rm Ti}$ case, $B_{\mu e} (26,22)$ is related to
2349: $B(\mu \to e\gamma)$ through
2350: \begin{equation}
2351: \label{Rmue}
2352: B_{\mu e} (26,22)\ \simeq\
2353: 0.1\,\times \Bigg[\,1\ +\
2354: 0.5\ \ln\bigg(\frac{m^2_N}{M^2_W}\bigg)\Bigg]^2\:
2355: B(\mu\to e\gamma)\; .
2356: \end{equation}
2357:
2358: On the experimental side, the strongest upper bound on $B_{\mu e}
2359: (N,Z)$ is obtained from experimental data on $\mu \to e$ conversion in
2360: ${}^{48}_{22}{\rm Ti}$ \cite{SINDRUM}:
2361: \begin{equation}
2362: \label{mueconvexp}
2363: B^{\rm exp}_{\mu e} (26,22)\ <\ 4.3\,\times 10^{-12}\, ,
2364: \end{equation}
2365: at the 90\% CL. However, the proposed experiment by the MECO
2366: collaboration~\cite{MECO} will be sensitive to conversion rates of
2367: order $10^{-16}$.
2368:
2369: In the R$\tau$L model with $m_N = 250$~GeV, one obtains, on the basis
2370: of~(\ref{Rmue}), the prediction for $\mu \to e$ conversion in
2371: ${}^{48}_{22}{\rm Ti}$:
2372: \begin{equation}
2373: B_{\mu e} (26,22)\ \simeq\ 0.46 \times B(\mu \to e\gamma)\ \sim\
2374: 4.5 \times 10^{-13}\;.
2375: \end{equation}
2376: The above prediction falls well within reach of the sensitivity
2377: proposed by the MECO collaboration.
2378:
2379: \begin{table}
2380: \begin{center}
2381: \begin{tabular}{|c||c|c|c|}
2382: \hline
2383: $m_N$~(GeV) & $B(\mu \to e\gamma)$ & $B(\mu \to eee)$ & $B_{\mu e}(26,22)$\\
2384: \hline \hline
2385: $100$ & $6.2 \times 10^{-12}$ & $3.8 \times 10^{-14}$ & $9.2 \times
2386: 10^{-13}$\\
2387: $250$ & $9.9 \times 10^{-13}$ & $1.4 \times 10^{-14}$ & $4.5 \times
2388: 10^{-13}$\\
2389: $500$ & $2.5 \times 10^{-13}$ & $9.7 \times 10^{-15}$ & $2.0 \times
2390: 10^{-13}$\\
2391: $1000$ & $6.2 \times 10^{-14}$ & $4.9 \times 10^{-15}$ & $7.7 \times
2392: 10^{-14}$\\ \hline
2393: \end{tabular}
2394: \end{center}
2395: \caption{\sl Branching fractions for the 3 LFV processes $\mu \to
2396: e\gamma$, $\mu \to eee$ and coherent $\mu \to e$ conversion in
2397: ${}^{48}_{22}{\rm Ti}$ nuclei.}
2398: \label{LFVrates}
2399: \end{table}
2400:
2401: In Table~\ref{LFVrates}, we summarize our results for the branching
2402: ratios of the 3 LFV processes: $\mu \to e\gamma$, $\mu \to eee$ and
2403: coherent $\mu \to e$ conversion in ${}^{48}_{22}{\rm Ti}$ nuclei, for
2404: each R$\tau$L model considered in Section~\ref{sec:num}.
2405:
2406: As a final general remark, we should mention that R$\tau$L models, and
2407: leptogenesis models in general, do not suffer from too large
2408: contributions to the electron electric dipole moment
2409: (EDM)~\cite{APRD,NN}, which first arises at two loops. The reason is
2410: that EDM effects are suppressed either by higher powers of small
2411: Yukawa couplings of order $10^{-4}$ and less, or by very small
2412: factors, such as $(m_{N_1} - m_{N_{2,3}})/m_N \sim 10^{-7}$. The
2413: latter is the case in R$\tau$L models, which leads to unobservably
2414: small EDM effects of order $10^{-37}~e$~cm, namely 10 orders of
2415: magnitude smaller than the present experimental limits~\cite{PDG}.
2416:
2417:
2418:
2419:
2420: \subsection{Collider Heavy Majorana Neutrino Production}
2421:
2422: If heavy Majorana neutrinos have electroweak-scale masses and
2423: appreciable couplings to electrons and muons they can be
2424: copiously produced at future $e^+e^-$~\cite{BG,AAS} and $\mu^+\mu^-$
2425: colliders. As shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:prod}, this is exactly the
2426: kinematic situation for the heavy Majorana neutrinos $N_{2,3}$
2427: described by the R$\tau$L models. The heavy Majorana neutrino $N_1$
2428: has a very small coupling to leptons and it would be very difficult to
2429: produce this state directly.
2430:
2431:
2432: \begin{figure}
2433: \begin{center}
2434: \begin{picture}(400,100)(0,0)
2435: \SetWidth{0.8}
2436:
2437: \ArrowLine(10,70)(50,70)\Line(50,70)(90,70)\Photon(50,70)(50,30){4}{4}
2438: \ArrowLine(50,30)(10,30)\Line(50,30)(90,30)
2439: \Text(0,75)[b]{$e^-\, (\mu^- )$}\Text(0,25)[t]{$e^+\, (\mu^+ )$}
2440: \Text(95,75)[b]{$N_{2,3}$}\Text(95,25)[t]{$\nu$}
2441: \Text(57,50)[l]{$W^-$}
2442:
2443: \Text(50,0)[]{\bf (a)}
2444:
2445:
2446: \ArrowLine(160,70)(200,70)\Line(200,70)(240,70)\Photon(200,70)(200,30){4}{4}
2447: \ArrowLine(200,30)(160,30)\Line(200,30)(240,30)
2448: \Text(150,75)[b]{$e^-\, (\mu^- )$}\Text(150,25)[t]{$e^+\, (\mu^+ )$}
2449: \Text(245,75)[b]{$\nu$}\Text(245,25)[t]{$N_{2,3}$}
2450: \Text(207,50)[l]{$W^-$}
2451:
2452: \Text(200,0)[]{\bf (b)}
2453:
2454: \ArrowLine(300,70)(320,50)\ArrowLine(320,50)(300,30)
2455: \Photon(320,50)(360,50){4}{4}
2456: \Line(360,50)(380,70)\Line(360,50)(380,30)
2457: \Text(290,75)[b]{$e^-\, (\mu^- )$}\Text(290,25)[t]{$e^+\, (\mu^+ )$}
2458: \Text(385,75)[b]{$\nu$}\Text(385,25)[t]{$N_{2,3}$}
2459: \Text(340,43)[t]{$Z$}
2460:
2461: \Text(340,0)[]{\bf (c)}
2462:
2463:
2464: \end{picture}
2465: \end{center}
2466: \caption{\sl Diagrams related to the production of the heavy Majorana
2467: neutrinos $N_{2,3}$ at future $e^+ e^- (\mu^+ \mu^-)$ high-energy
2468: colliders.}
2469: \label{fig:prod}
2470: \end{figure}
2471:
2472:
2473: For collider c.m.s.~energies $\sqrt{s} \gg m_N$, the $t$-channel
2474: $W^-$-boson exchange graphs will dominate over the $Z$-boson exchange
2475: graph, which is $s$-channel propagator suppressed (see
2476: Fig.~\ref{fig:prod}). In this high-energy limit, the production cross
2477: section for heavy Majorana neutrinos approaches a constant~\cite{BG},
2478: i.e.
2479: \begin{equation}
2480: \label{cross}
2481: \sigma \Big[\,e^+e^-\,(\mu^+\mu^-) \to N_{2,3}\,\nu\,\Big] \ \approx\
2482: \frac{\pi\, \alpha^2_w}{4\, M^2_W}\: (s^{\nu_{e (\mu)}}_L)^2\ \approx\
2483: 10~{\rm fb}\,\times\, \Bigg(\,
2484: \frac{s^{\nu_{e (\mu)}}_L}{10^{-2}}\,\Bigg)^2\ .
2485: \end{equation}
2486: Since $s^{\nu_\tau}_L \approx 0$ in R$\tau$L models, the produced
2487: heavy Majorana neutrinos $N_{2,3}$ will have the characteristic
2488: signature that they will predominantly decay into electrons and muons,
2489: but {\em not} into $\tau$ leptons. Assuming that
2490: $m_N\stackrel{>}{{}_\sim} M_H$, the branching fraction of $N_{2,3}$
2491: decays into charged leptons and into $W^\pm$ bosons decaying
2492: hadronically is
2493: \begin{equation}
2494: \label{BRNs}
2495: B \Big( N_{2,3} \to e^\mp,\,\mu^\mp\,W^\pm (\to {\rm jets})\Big)\ \approx\
2496: \frac{1}{2}\,\times\, \frac{2}{3}\ =\ \frac{1}{3}\; .
2497: \end{equation}
2498: Given~(\ref{cross}), (\ref{BRNs}) and an integrated luminosity of
2499: 100~fb$^{-1}$, we expect to be able to analyze about 100 signal events
2500: for $(s^{\nu_{e (\mu)}}_L)^2 = 10^{-2}$ and $m_N \stackrel{<}{{}_\sim}
2501: 300$~GeV, at future $e^+e^-$ and $\mu^+\mu^-$ colliders with
2502: c.m.s.~energy $\sqrt{s} = 0.5$--$1~{\rm TeV}$.
2503:
2504: These simple estimates are supported by a recent analysis, where
2505: competitive background reactions to the signal have been
2506: considered~\cite{AAS}. This analysis showed that the inclusion of
2507: background processes reduces the number of signal events by a factor
2508: of 10. The authors in~\cite{AAS} find that an $e^+e^-$ linear
2509: collider with c.m.s.~energy $\sqrt{s} = 0.5$~TeV will be sensitive to
2510: values of $s^{\nu_{e}}_L = |a| v/m_N \sim 0.7 \times 10^{-2}$. This
2511: amounts to the same level of sensitivity to the parameter $|a|$, for
2512: R$\tau$L scenarios with $m_N = 250$~GeV. The sensitivity
2513: to~$s^{\nu_{e}}_L$ could be improved by a factor of 3,
2514: i.e.~$s^{\nu_{e}}_L \sim 0.2 \times 10^{-2}$, in proposed upgraded
2515: $e^+e^-$ accelerators such as CLIC.
2516:
2517: A similar analysis should be envisaged to hold for future $\mu^+\mu^-$
2518: colliders, leading to similar findings for $s^{\nu_{\mu}}_L = |b|
2519: v/m_N$. In general, we expect that the ratio of the two production
2520: cross sections of $N_{2,3}$ at the two colliders under identical
2521: conditions of c.m.s.~energy and luminosity will give a direct measure
2522: of the ratio of $|a|^2/|b|^2$. This information, together with that
2523: obtained from low-energy LFV observables, $0\nu\beta\beta$-decay
2524: experiments, and neutrino data, will significantly constrain the
2525: parameters of the R$\tau$L models. Finally, since the heavy Majorana
2526: neutrinos $N_{2,3}$ play an important synergetic role in resonantly
2527: enhancing $\delta^\tau_{N_1}$, potentially large CP asymmetries in
2528: their decays will determine the theoretical parameters of these models
2529: further. Evidently, more detailed studies are needed before one could
2530: reach a definite conclusion concerning the exciting possibility that
2531: electroweak-scale R$\tau$L models may naturally constitute a
2532: laboratory testable solution to the cosmological problem of the BAU.
2533:
2534:
2535:
2536: \setcounter{equation}{0}
2537: \section{Conclusions}
2538:
2539: We have studied a novel variant of RL, which may take place at the
2540: electroweak phase transition. This RL variant gives rise to a number
2541: of phenomenologically testable signatures for low-energy experiments
2542: and future high-energy colliders. The new RL scenario under study
2543: makes use of the property that, in addition to $B - L$ number,
2544: sphalerons preserve the individual quantum numbers $\frac{1}{3}B -
2545: L_{e,\mu,\tau}$~\cite{HT}. The observed BAU can be produced by
2546: lepton-to-baryon conversion of an individual lepton number. For the
2547: case of the $\tau$-lepton number this mechanism has been called
2548: resonant $\tau$-leptogenesis~\cite{APtau}.
2549:
2550: In studying leptogenesis, we have extended previous analyses of the
2551: relevant network of BEs. More explicitly, we have consistently taken
2552: into account SM chemical potential effects, as well as effects from
2553: out of equilibrium sphalerons and single lepton flavours. In
2554: particular, we have found that single lepton flavour effects become
2555: very important in R$\tau$L models. In this case, the difference
2556: between our improved formalism of BEs and the usual formalism followed
2557: in the literature could be dramatic. The predictions of the usual
2558: formalism could lead to an erroneous result which is suppressed by
2559: many orders of magnitude. The suppression factor could be enormous of
2560: order $10^{-6}$ for the R$\tau$L scenarios considered in
2561: Section~\ref{sec:num}. Even within leptogenesis models with a mild
2562: hierarchy between the heavy neutrino masses, the usual formalism turns
2563: out to be inadequate to properly treat single lepton flavour effects;
2564: its predictions may differ even up to one order of magnitude with
2565: respect to those obtained with our improved formalism.
2566:
2567: One generic feature of R$\tau$L models is that their predictions for
2568: the final baryon asymmetry are almost independent of the initial
2569: values for the primordial $B$-number, $L$-number and heavy Majorana
2570: neutrino abundances. Specifically, we have investigated the
2571: dependence of the BAU on the initial conditions, as a function of the
2572: heavy neutrino mass scale $m_N$. We have found that for $m_N
2573: \stackrel{>}{{}_\sim} 250$~GeV, the dependence of the BAU is always
2574: less than 7\%, even if the initial baryon asymmetry is as large as
2575: $\eta^{\rm in}_B = 10^{-2}$ at $z = m_N/T = 0.1$. For smaller values
2576: of $m_N$, this dependence starts getting larger. Thus, for $m_N =
2577: 100$~GeV, the dependence of the final baryon asymmetry on the initial
2578: conditions is stronger, unless the primordial baryon asymmetry is
2579: smaller than $\sim 10^{-6}$ at $z=0.1$.
2580:
2581:
2582: In order to have successful leptogenesis in the R$\tau$L models under
2583: study, the heavy Majorana neutrinos are required to be nearly
2584: degenerate. This nearly degenerate heavy neutrino mass spectrum may
2585: be obtained by enforcing an SO(3) symmetry, which is explicitly broken
2586: by the Yukawa interactions to a particular SO(2) sub-group isomorphic
2587: to a lepton-type group~U(1)$_l$. The approximate breaking of
2588: U(1)$_l$, which could result from a FN mechanism, leads to a Yukawa
2589: texture that accounts for the existing neutrino oscillation data,
2590: except those from the LSND experiment~\cite{LSND}. Our choice of the
2591: breaking parameters was motivated by the naturalness of the light and
2592: heavy neutrino sectors. To obtain natural R$\tau$L models, we have
2593: followed the principle that there should be no excessive cancellations
2594: between tree-level and radiative or thermal effects. In this way, we
2595: have found that R$\tau$L models strongly favour a light neutrino mass
2596: spectrum with an inverted hierarchy. Moreover, when the same
2597: naturalness condition is applied to the heavy neutrino sector, a
2598: particular hierarchy for the mass differences of the heavy Majorana
2599: neutrinos is obtained. In particular, the mass difference of one pair
2600: of heavy Majorana neutrinos is much smaller than the other two
2601: possible pairs.
2602:
2603:
2604: R$\tau$L models offer a number of testable phenomenological signatures
2605: for low-energy experiments and future high-energy colliders. These
2606: models contain electroweak-scale heavy Majorana neutrinos with
2607: appreciable couplings to electrons and muons, e.g.~$N_{1,2}$.
2608: Specifically, the (normalized to the SM) $W^\pm$-boson couplings of
2609: electrons and muons to the heavy Majorana neutrinos $N_{1,2}$ could be
2610: as large as 0.01, for $m_{N_{1,2}} = 100$--300~GeV. As a consequence,
2611: these heavy Majorana particles can be produced at future $e^+e^-$ and
2612: $\mu^+\mu^-$ colliders, operating with a c.m.s.~energy $\sqrt{s} =
2613: 0.5$--1~TeV. Another feature of R$\tau$L models is that thanks to the
2614: inverted hierarchic structure of the light neutrino mass spectrum,
2615: they can account for sizeable $0\nu\beta\beta$ decay. The predicted
2616: effective neutrino mass $|({\bf m}^\nu )_{ee} |$ can be as large as
2617: 0.02~eV, which is within the sensitivity of the proposed next round of
2618: $0\nu\beta\beta$ decay experiments. The most striking
2619: phenomenological feature of 3-generation (non-supersymmetric) R$\tau$L
2620: models is that they can predict $e$- and $\mu$-number-violating
2621: processes, such as the decay $\mu \to e\gamma$ and $\mu \to e$
2622: conversion in nuclei, with observable rates. In particular, these LFV
2623: effects could be as large as $10^{-12}$ for $B (\mu \to e\gamma )$ and
2624: as large as $5\times 10^{-13}$ for a $\mu \to e$ conversion rate in
2625: ${}^{48}_{22}$Ti, normalized to the $\mu$ capture rate. The above
2626: predicted values are within reach of the experiments proposed by the
2627: MEG and MECO collaborations.
2628:
2629: Although the present study improves previous analyses of the BEs
2630: related to leptogenesis models, there are still some additional
2631: smaller but relevant effects that would require special treatment.
2632: The first obvious improvement would be to calculate the thermal
2633: effects on the collision terms, beyond the HTL approximation. These
2634: corrections would eliminate some of the uncertainties pertinent to the
2635: actual choice of the IR regulator in some of the collision terms.
2636: These effects limit the accuracy of our predictions and introduce an
2637: estimated theoretical uncertainty of 30\% for leptogenesis models
2638: operating well above the electroweak phase transition, with relatively
2639: large $K$ factors, i.e.~$K_{lN_\alpha} \stackrel{>}{{}_\sim} 5$. For
2640: models at the electroweak phase transition, the IR problem is less
2641: serious, but larger uncertainties may enter due to the lack of a
2642: satisfactorily accurate quantitative framework for sphaleron dynamics.
2643: Although the implementation of the sphaleron dynamics in our BEs for
2644: RL models was based on the calculations of~\cite{CLMW,KS,LS},
2645: particular treatment would be needed, if the electroweak phase
2646: transition was a strong first-order one. In this case, the dynamics
2647: of the expanding bubbles during the electroweak phase transition
2648: becomes relevant~\cite{EWBAU}. This possibility may emerge in
2649: supersymmetric versions of RL models. Nevertheless, the inclusion of
2650: the aforementioned additional effects is expected not to modify the
2651: main results of the present analysis drastically and will be the
2652: subject of a future communication.
2653:
2654:
2655: \bigskip
2656:
2657: \subsection*{Acknowledgements}
2658: We thank Mikko Laine, Costas Panagiotakopoulos, Graham Ross, Kiriakos
2659: Tamvakis and Carlos Wagner for useful discussions and comments. The
2660: work of AP has been supported in part by the PPARC research grants:
2661: PPA/G/O/2002/00471 and PP/C504286/1. The work of TU has been funded by
2662: the PPARC studentship PPA/S/S/2002/03469.
2663:
2664:
2665:
2666: \newpage
2667:
2668: \def\theequation{\Alph{section}.\arabic{equation}}
2669: \begin{appendix}
2670:
2671: \setcounter{equation}{0}
2672: \section{Collision Terms}
2673: \subsection{Useful Notation and Definitions}
2674:
2675: The following notation and definitions are used in the derivation of
2676: the BEs. The number density, $n_a$, of a particle species, $a$, with
2677: $g_a$ internal degrees of freedom is given by \cite{KW}
2678: \begin{eqnarray}
2679: \label{na}
2680: n_a (T) &=& g_a\, \int \frac{d^3{\bf p}}{(2\pi)^3}\ \exp\Big[ -
2681: \Big(\sqrt{{\bf p}^2 + m^2_a} - \mu_a (T)\Big)/T\,\Big]\nonumber\\
2682: &=& \frac{g_a\, m^2_a\,T\ e^{\mu_a (T)/T}}{2\pi^2}\
2683: K_2\bigg(\frac{m_a}{T}\bigg)\; ,
2684: \end{eqnarray}
2685: where $\mu_a$ is the $T$-dependent chemical potential and $K_n(x)$ is
2686: the $n$th-order modified Bessel function~\cite{AS}. In our minimal
2687: leptogenesis model, the factors $g_a$ are: $g_{W^a} = 3 g_{B} = 6$ and
2688: $g_\Phi = g_{\Phi^\dagger} = 2$, and for the $i$th family: $g_{N_\alpha} =
2689: 2$, $g_{L_i} = g_{L^C_i} = 4$, $g_{Q_i} = g_{Q^C_i} = 12$, and
2690: $g_{u_i} = g_{u_i^C} = 6$. Using the same formalism as \cite{PU} the
2691: CP-conserving collision term for a generic process $X \to Y$ and its
2692: CP-conjugate $\overline{X} \to \overline{Y}$ is defined as
2693: \begin{equation}
2694: \label{CT}
2695: \gamma^X_Y\ \equiv \ \gamma ( X\to Y)\: +\: \gamma ( \overline{X}
2696: \to \overline{Y} )\; ,
2697: \end{equation}
2698: with
2699: \begin{equation}
2700: \label{gamma}
2701: \gamma ( X\to Y)\ =\ \int\! d\pi_X\, d\pi_Y\, (2\pi )^4\,
2702: \delta^{(4)} ( p_X - p_Y )\ e^{-p^0_X/T}\, |{\cal M}( X \to Y )|^2\; .
2703: \end{equation}
2704: In the above, $|{\cal M}( X \to Y )|^2$ is the squared matrix element
2705: which is summed but {\em not} averaged over the internal degrees of
2706: freedom of the initial and final multiparticle states $X$ and $Y$.
2707: Moreover, $d\pi_X$ represents the phase space factor of a
2708: multiparticle state $X$,
2709: \begin{equation}
2710: \label{dpiX}
2711: d\pi_X\ =\ \frac{1}{S_X}\, \prod\limits_{i=1}^{n_X}\,
2712: \frac{d^4 p_i}{(2\pi )^3}\ \delta ( p^2_i - m^2_i )\; \theta (p^0_i)\; ,
2713: \end{equation}
2714: where $S_X = n_{\rm id}!$ is a symmetry factor depending on the number
2715: of identical particles, $n_{\rm id}$, contained in $X$.
2716:
2717: As CPT is preserved, the CP-conserving collision term $\gamma^X_Y$
2718: obeys the relation
2719: \begin{equation}
2720: \gamma^X_Y\ =\ \gamma^Y_X\,.
2721: \end{equation}
2722: Analogously, it is possible to define a CP-violating collision term
2723: $\delta \gamma^X_Y$ as
2724: \begin{equation}
2725: \label{dgamma}
2726: \delta \gamma^X_Y\ \equiv\ \gamma (X\to Y)\ -\ \gamma (\overline{X}
2727: \to \overline{Y})\
2728: =\ -\,\delta \gamma^Y_X\; ,
2729: \end{equation}
2730: where the last equality follows from CPT invariance.
2731:
2732:
2733: \subsection{CP-Conserving Collision Terms}
2734:
2735: In numerically solving the BEs, we introduce the dimensionless
2736: parameters:
2737: \begin{equation}
2738: z\ =\ \frac{m_{N_1}}{T}\,, \quad x\ =\ \frac{s}{m_{N_1}^2}\,, \quad
2739: a_\alpha\ =\ \left(\frac{m_{N_\alpha}}{m_{N_1}}\right)^2,\quad a_r\ =\
2740: \left(\frac{m_{\rm IR}}{m_{N_1}}\right)^2,\quad c^{\,l}_\alpha\ =\
2741: \left(\,\frac{\Gamma^{\,l}_{N_\alpha}}{m_{N_1}}\,\right)^2,
2742: \end{equation}
2743: where $\alpha = 1,2,3$ labels the heavy Majorana neutrino states, $s$
2744: is the usual Mandelstam variable and $m_{\rm IR}$ is an infra-red (IR)
2745: mass regulator which is discussed below.
2746:
2747: In terms of the resummed effective Yukawa couplings
2748: $(\bar{h}^{\nu}_\pm)_{l\alpha}$ introduced in \cite{PU}, the
2749: radiatively corrected decay width $\Gamma_{N_\alpha}^{\,l}$ of a heavy
2750: Majorana neutrino $N_\alpha$ into a lepton flavour $l$ is given by
2751: \begin{equation}
2752: \Gamma_{N_\alpha}^{\,l}\ =\ \frac{m_{N_\alpha}}{16\pi}\
2753: \Big[\, (\bar{h}^{\nu}_+)^*_{l\alpha}\,(\bar{h}^\nu_+)_{l\alpha}\:
2754: +\:
2755: (\bar{h}^{\nu}_-)^*_{l\alpha}\,(\bar{h}^\nu_-)_{l\alpha}\,\Big]\; .
2756: \label{Nwidth}
2757: \end{equation}
2758: By means of (\ref{gamma}), the $1\to2$ CP-conserving collision term
2759: $\gamma^{N_\alpha}_{L_l \Phi}$ is found to be
2760: \begin{eqnarray}
2761: \gamma^{N_\alpha}_{L_l \Phi}\ =\ \gamma (N_\alpha \to L_l \Phi)\: +\:
2762: \gamma (N_\alpha \to L^C_l \Phi^\dagger) \!&=&\!
2763: \Gamma^{\,l}_{N_\alpha}\, g_{N_\alpha}\, \int \frac{d^3{\bf
2764: p}_{N_\alpha}}{(2\pi)^3}\,\frac{m_{N_\alpha}}{E_{N_\alpha}({\bf p})}\,
2765: e^{-E_{N_\alpha}({\bf p})/T} \nonumber\\ &=&\! \frac{m^4_{N_1}
2766: a_i\,\sqrt{c^{\,l}_i}}{\pi^2\, z}\ K_1(z \sqrt{a_i})\,,
2767: \end{eqnarray}
2768: where $E_{N_\alpha}({\bf p}) = \sqrt{{\bf p}^2 + m^2_{N_\alpha}}$ and
2769: $g_{N_\alpha} = 2$ is the number of internal degrees of freedom
2770: of~$N_\alpha$. Upon summation over lepton flavours~$l$, this
2771: collision term reduces to the corresponding one given in (B.4)
2772: of~\cite{PU}.
2773:
2774: For $2\to2$ processes, one can make use of the reduced cross section
2775: $\widehat{\sigma}(s)$ defined as
2776: \begin{equation}
2777: \label{reducedxs}
2778: \widehat{\sigma}(s)\ \equiv\ 8\pi\,\Phi (s)\int\! d\pi_Y\: (2\pi)^4
2779: \,\delta^{(4)} (q-p_Y)\: \left|{\cal M}(X\rightarrow Y)\right|^2\; ,
2780: \end{equation}
2781: where $s=q^2$ and the initial phase space integral is given by
2782: \begin{equation}
2783: \label{Phi}
2784: \Phi (s)\ \equiv\ \int\! d\pi_X\: (2\pi)^4\,\delta^{(4)} (p_X-q)\,.
2785: \end{equation}
2786: These expressions simplify to give
2787: \begin{equation}
2788: \label{sigmat}
2789: \widehat{\sigma}(s)\ =\ \frac{1}{8\pi s}\
2790: \int\limits_{t_-}^{t_+}\! dt\ \left|{\cal M}(X\rightarrow Y)\right|^2\; ,
2791: \end{equation}
2792: where $t$ is the usual Mandelstam variable, and the phase-space
2793: integration limits $t_\pm$ will be specified below.
2794:
2795: In processes, such as $N_{\alpha} V_{\mu} \to L_{l} \Phi$, the
2796: exchanged particles (e.g. $L$ and $\Phi$) occurring in the $t$ and $u$
2797: channels are massless. These collision terms possess IR divergences at
2798: the phase-space integration limits $t_{\pm}$ in~(\ref{sigmat}).
2799: Within a more appropriate framework, such as finite temperature field
2800: theory, these IR singularities would have been regulated by the
2801: thermal masses of the exchanged particles. In our $T=0$ field theory
2802: calculation, we have regulated the IR divergences by cutting off the
2803: phase-space integration limits $t_{\pm}$ using a universal thermal
2804: regulator $m_{\rm IR}$ related to the expected thermal masses of the
2805: exchanged particles. This procedure preserves chirality and gauge
2806: invariance, as would be expected within the framework of a finite
2807: temperature field theory~\cite{MBellac}.
2808:
2809: Thermal masses for the Higgs and leptons are predominantly generated
2810: by gauge and top-quark Yukawa interactions. In the HTL approximation,
2811: they are given by \cite{Weldon}
2812: \begin{eqnarray}
2813: \frac{m^2_L (T)}{T^2} & = & \frac{1}{32}\,\Big(3\,g^2 +
2814: g^{\prime\,2}\Big)\,,\nonumber\\
2815: \frac{m_{\Phi}^2 (T)}{T^2} & = & 2 d\,\Bigg(1-\frac{T_c^2}{T^2}\Bigg)\,,
2816: \end{eqnarray}
2817: where $d = (8M_W^2 + M_Z^2 + 2 m_t^2 + M_H^2)/(8v^2)$. In our
2818: numerical estimates, we choose the regulator $m_{\rm IR}$ to vary
2819: between the lepton and Higgs thermal masses, evaluated at $T\approx
2820: m_N$. The resulting variation in the predicted baryon asymmetry can be
2821: taken as a contribution to the theoretical uncertainties in our zero
2822: temperature calculation.
2823:
2824: For reduced cross-sections with an apparent singularity at the upper
2825: limit $t_+$, the following upper and lower limits are used:
2826: \begin{equation}
2827: t_{+} \ =\ -m_{\rm IR}^2\,, \qquad t_{-} \ =\ m_{N_{\alpha}}^2 - s\,.
2828: \end{equation}
2829: Likewise, for reduced cross-sections with apparent singularities at
2830: both the upper and lower limits $t_\pm$, the following limits are
2831: employed:
2832: \begin{equation}
2833: t_{+} \ =\ -m_{\rm IR}^2\,, \qquad t_{-} \ =\ m_{N_{\alpha}}^2 +
2834: m_{\rm IR}^2 - s\;.
2835: \end{equation}
2836: It is important to remark here that the collision terms do not suffer
2837: from IR singularities at $T\stackrel{<}{{}_\sim} T_c$, because the
2838: leptons, $W$ and $Z$ bosons receive $v(T)$-dependent masses during the
2839: electroweak phase transition. The full implementation of such effects
2840: will be given elsewhere.
2841:
2842: Substituting (\ref{reducedxs}) and (\ref{Phi}) into (\ref{gamma}), one
2843: obtains
2844: \begin{equation}
2845: \label{22CT}
2846: \gamma^X_Y\ =\ \frac{m^4_{N_1}}{64\,\pi^4 z}\
2847: \int\limits_{x_{\rm thr} }^\infty\! dx\
2848: \sqrt{x}\;K_1(z\sqrt{x})\;\widehat{\sigma}^X_Y (x)\; ,
2849: \end{equation}
2850: where $x_{\rm thr}$ is the kinematic threshold for a given $2\to 2$
2851: process.
2852:
2853: For $2\to2$ $\Delta L=1$ processes, one can repeat the procedure in
2854: \cite{PU} (Appendix~B), without summing over lepton flavours. Each
2855: $\Delta L=1$ process has an identical factor dependent on
2856: $\bar{h}^{\nu}_{\pm}$. To produce the $\Delta L=1$ collision terms for
2857: each lepton flavour, this factor needs to be replaced with its
2858: un-summed equivalent,
2859: \begin{equation}
2860: (\bar{h}^{\nu}_+)^*_{l\alpha}\,(\bar{h}^\nu_+)_{l\alpha}\: +\:
2861: (\bar{h}^{\nu}_-)^*_{l\alpha}\,(\bar{h}^\nu_-)_{l\alpha}\,,
2862: \end{equation}
2863: exactly as was done in~(\ref{Nwidth}). The remainder of the analytic
2864: expression for each of these terms is presented in \cite{PU}.
2865:
2866: In addition to the Higgs and gauge mediated $\Delta L=1$ terms, there
2867: are also $2\to2$ $\Delta L=2$ processes. As before, these processes
2868: are $L_k \Phi \leftrightarrow L_l^C \Phi^\dagger$ and $L_k L_l
2869: \leftrightarrow \Phi^\dagger \Phi^\dagger$ where the former has its
2870: real intermediate states subtracted. The analytic forms of these
2871: collision terms are identical to the total lepton number case but
2872: lepton flavour is not summed over. The reduced cross sections are
2873: given by
2874: \begin{eqnarray}
2875: \label{LHtoLH}
2876: \widehat{\sigma}^{\,\prime\, L_k \Phi}_{L_l^C\Phi^\dagger}
2877: \!\!&=&\!\! \sum_{\alpha,\beta=1}^{3}\ {\rm Re}\, \Bigg\{\,
2878: \bigg[\,(\bar{h}^{\nu}_+)^*_{k\alpha}\,(\bar{h}^\nu_+)_{k\beta}\,
2879: (\bar{h}^{\nu}_+)^*_{l\alpha}\,(\bar{h}^\nu_+)_{l\beta}\: +\:
2880: (\bar{h}^{\nu}_-)^*_{k\alpha}\,(\bar{h}^\nu_-)_{k\beta}\,
2881: (\bar{h}^{\nu}_-)^*_{l\alpha}\,(\bar{h}^\nu_-)_{l\beta}\,\bigg]
2882: \:\mathcal{A}^{(ss)}_{\alpha\beta}\nonumber\\*
2883: \!\!&&\qquad\qquad +\:2\,\bigg[\,(\bar{h}^{\nu}_+)^*_{l\alpha}\,
2884: h^{\nu}_{l\beta}\,
2885: (\bar{h}^{\nu}_+)^*_{k\alpha}\,h^{\nu}_{k\beta}\: +\:
2886: (\bar{h}^{\nu}_-)^*_{l\alpha}\,h^{\nu *}_{l\beta}\,
2887: (\bar{h}^{\nu}_-)^*_{k\alpha}\,h^{\nu *}_{k\beta}\,\bigg]
2888: \mathcal{A}^{(st)*}_{\alpha\beta}\nonumber\\*
2889: \!\!&&\qquad\qquad + \: 2\,
2890: \Big( h^{\nu *}_{k\alpha}\,h^\nu_{k\beta}\,h^{\nu *}_{l\alpha}\,
2891: h^\nu_{l\beta} \Big)\; \mathcal{A}^{(tt)}_{\alpha\beta}\,\Bigg\}\,,
2892: \end{eqnarray}
2893: and
2894: \begin{equation}
2895: \label{LLtoHH}
2896: \widehat{\sigma}^{L_k L_l}_{\Phi^\dagger\Phi^\dagger} \ = \
2897: \sum_{\alpha,\beta=1}^{3}\; {\rm Re}\,
2898: \Big(h^{\nu *}_{k\alpha}\,h^\nu_{k\beta}\,h^{\nu *}_{l\alpha}\,
2899: h^\nu_{l\beta} \Big)
2900: \; \mathcal{B}_{\alpha\beta}\;,
2901: \end{equation}
2902: where the $\mathcal{A}$ and $\mathcal{B}$ factors are presented in
2903: \cite{PU}.
2904:
2905: As we now consider lepton flavours separately, it is necessary to
2906: include $\Delta L=0$, but lepton flavour violating interactions. The
2907: three lowest order $2\leftrightarrow 2$ processes are shown
2908: diagrammatically in Figure~\ref{DeltaL0Fig}: $L_k \Phi \leftrightarrow
2909: L_l \Phi$, $L_k \Phi^\dagger \leftrightarrow L_l \Phi^\dagger$ and
2910: $L_k L^C_l \leftrightarrow \Phi^\dagger \Phi$ (note that $k \ne
2911: l$). The first of these reactions contains heavy Majorana neutrinos as
2912: RISs. These need be removed using the procedure outlined in
2913: \cite{PU}. The reduced cross section for each of these processes is
2914: \begin{equation}
2915: \widehat{\sigma}^{\,\prime\,L_k \Phi}_{\,L_l \Phi} =
2916: \sum_{\alpha,\beta=1}^3
2917: \Big[(\bar{h}^\nu_+)^*_{l\alpha}\,(\bar{h}^\nu_-)^*_{k\alpha}\,
2918: (\bar{h}^\nu_+)_{l\beta}\,
2919: (\bar{h}^\nu_-)_{k\beta} +
2920: (\bar{h}^\nu_-)^*_{l\alpha}\,(\bar{h}^\nu_+)^*_{k\alpha}\,
2921: (\bar{h}^\nu_-)_{l\beta}\,
2922: (\bar{h}^\nu_+)_{k\beta}\Big]\,\mathcal{C}_{\alpha\beta}
2923: \end{equation}
2924: with
2925: \begin{equation}
2926: \label{Cab}
2927: \mathcal{C}_{\alpha\beta} \ =\ \left\{
2928: \begin{array}{lc}
2929: \frac{\displaystyle x a_\alpha}{\displaystyle 4\pi |D^2_\alpha|}\ \to\ 0
2930: &\quad (\alpha = \beta)\\[5mm]
2931: \frac{\displaystyle x\sqrt{a_\alpha\,a_\beta}}{\displaystyle
2932: 4\pi P^*_\alpha P_\beta}\ &\quad (\alpha\neq \beta)
2933: \end{array} \right.
2934: \end{equation}
2935: In~(\ref{Cab}), $P^{-1}_\alpha (x)$ is the Breit--Wigner $s$-channel
2936: propagator
2937: \begin{equation}
2938: P_\alpha^{-1} (x) \ =\ \frac{1}{x -a_\alpha +
2939: i\sqrt{a_\alpha c_\alpha}}\ .
2940: \end{equation}
2941: Therefore, following the procedure in \cite{PU}, the RIS-subtracted
2942: propagator is determined by
2943: \begin{equation}
2944: |D_\alpha^{-1} (x)|^2 \ =\ |P_\alpha^{-1} (x)|^2 - \frac{\pi}{\sqrt{a_\alpha
2945: c_\alpha}}\,\delta(x-a_\alpha) \ \to\ 0.
2946: \end{equation}
2947:
2948: \begin{figure}
2949: \begin{picture}(433,90) (14,-8)
2950: \SetWidth{0.8}
2951: \Text(94,53)[]{\normalsize{$N_\alpha$}}
2952: \Text(30,13)[]{\normalsize{$\Phi$}}
2953: \Text(29,74)[]{\normalsize{$L_k$}}
2954: \Text(159,74)[]{\normalsize{$\Phi$}}
2955: \Text(159,14)[]{\normalsize{$L_l$}}
2956: \Text(322,69)[]{\normalsize{$L_k$}}
2957: \Text(322,21)[]{\normalsize{$L_l^C$}}
2958: \Text(432,70)[]{\normalsize{$\Phi^\dagger$}}
2959: \Text(430,21)[]{\normalsize{$\Phi$}}
2960: \Text(366,46)[]{\normalsize{$N_\alpha$}}
2961: \Text(297,70)[]{\normalsize{$\Phi^\dagger$}}
2962: \Text(187,69)[]{\normalsize{$L_k$}}
2963: \Text(187,22)[]{\normalsize{$\Phi^\dagger$}}
2964: \Text(295,21)[]{\normalsize{$L_l$}}
2965: \Text(231,46)[]{\normalsize{$N_\alpha$}}
2966: \SetWidth{0.8}
2967: \ArrowLine(37,75)(67,45)
2968: \DashArrowLine(37,15)(67,45){5}
2969: \Line(67,45)(120,45)
2970: \ArrowLine(120,45)(150,15)
2971: \DashArrowLine(120,45)(150,75){5}
2972: \ArrowLine(375,21)(330,21)
2973: \Line(375,69)(375,21)
2974: \DashArrowLine(420,69)(375,69){5}
2975: \DashArrowLine(375,21)(420,21){5}
2976: \ArrowLine(330,69)(375,69)
2977: \ArrowLine(195,69)(240,69)
2978: \DashArrowLine(240,21)(195,21){5}
2979: \Line(240,69)(240,21)
2980: \DashArrowLine(285,69)(240,69){5}
2981: \ArrowLine(240,21)(285,21)
2982: \Text(94,0)[]{\normalsize{\bf (a)}}
2983: \Text(240,0)[]{\normalsize{\bf (b)}}
2984: \Text(375,0)[]{\normalsize{\bf (c)}}
2985: \end{picture}
2986: \caption{\sl $\Delta L=0$ interactions between leptons of different
2987: flavours mediated by heavy Majorana neutrinos. (a) corresponds to the
2988: process $L_k \Phi \leftrightarrow L_l \Phi$, (b) corresponds to the
2989: process $L_k \Phi^\dagger \leftrightarrow L_l \Phi^\dagger$ and (c)
2990: corresponds to the process $L_k L^C_l \leftrightarrow \Phi^\dagger
2991: \Phi$.}
2992: \label{DeltaL0Fig}
2993: \end{figure}
2994:
2995: Processes (b) and (c) in Fig.~\ref{DeltaL0Fig} do not contain RISs and
2996: have the following reduced cross sections:
2997: \begin{eqnarray}
2998: \widehat{\sigma}^{\,L_k \Phi^\dagger}_{L_l \Phi^\dagger} \!& = &\!
2999: \sum_{\alpha,\beta=1}^3 \mathrm{Re} \Big( h^{\nu
3000: *}_{l\alpha}\,h^{\nu}_{k\alpha}\,
3001: h^{\nu}_{l\beta}\,h^{\nu *}_{k\beta} \Big)\,\mathcal{D}_{\alpha\beta}\,,\\[3mm]
3002: \widehat{\sigma}^{\,L_k L^C_l}_{\Phi^\dagger \Phi} \!& = &\!
3003: \sum_{\alpha,\beta=1}^3 \mathrm{Re}
3004: \Big( h^{\nu *}_{l\alpha}\,h^{\nu}_{k\alpha}\,
3005: h^{\nu}_{l\beta}\,h^{\nu *}_{k\beta} \Big)\,\mathcal{E}_{\alpha\beta}\,,
3006: \end{eqnarray}
3007: where for $\alpha\ne \beta$,
3008: \begin{eqnarray}
3009: \mathcal{D}_{\alpha\beta} \!& = &\! \frac{\sqrt{a_\alpha a_\beta}}{\pi
3010: x (a_\alpha - a_\beta)}\:
3011: \Bigg[\, (x+a_\beta)\ln\Bigg(\frac{x+a_\beta}{a_\beta}\Bigg)-(x+a_\alpha)
3012: \ln\Bigg(\frac{x+a_\alpha}{a_\alpha}\Bigg)\, \Bigg]\,,\\[3mm]
3013: \mathcal{E}_{\alpha\beta} \!& = &\! \frac{\sqrt{a_\alpha a_\beta}}{\pi
3014: (a_\alpha - a_\beta)}\:
3015: \ln\Bigg(\frac{a_\alpha (x+a_\beta)}{a_\beta (x+a_\alpha)}\Bigg)\,,
3016: \end{eqnarray}
3017: and for $\alpha=\beta$,
3018: \begin{eqnarray}
3019: \mathcal{D}_{\alpha\alpha} \!& = &\! \frac{a_\alpha}{\pi x}\:
3020: \Bigg[\,\frac{x}{a_\alpha} - \ln\Bigg(\frac{x+a_\alpha}{a_\alpha}\Bigg)\,
3021: \Bigg]\,,\\[3mm]
3022: \mathcal{E}_{\alpha\alpha} \!& = &\! \frac{x}{\pi (x+a_\alpha)}\,.
3023: \end{eqnarray}
3024: \end{appendix}
3025:
3026: \newpage
3027: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
3028:
3029: \bibitem{WMAP} D.N. Spergel {\em et al.}, Astrophys.\ J.\ Suppl.\ {\bf
3030: 148} (2003) 175.
3031:
3032: \bibitem{reviews} For recent reviews, see,\\
3033: W.~Buchm\"uller, R.~D.~Peccei and T.~Yanagida, hep-ph/0502169;\\
3034: M.~Dine and A.~Kusenko, Rev.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ {\bf 76} (2004) 1;\\
3035: K.~Enqvist and A.~Mazumdar, Phys.\ Rept.\ {\bf 380} (2003) 99.
3036:
3037: \bibitem{FY} M. Fukugita and T. Yanagida, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 174}
3038: (1986) 45.
3039:
3040: \bibitem{seesaw} P.~Minkowski, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 67} (1977) 421;\\
3041: M. Gell-Mann, P. Ramond and R. Slansky, in {\em Supergravity},
3042: eds.~D.Z. Freedman and P.~van Nieuwenhuizen (North-Holland, Amsterdam,
3043: 1979);\\
3044: T. Yanagida, in Proc.\ of the {\em Workshop on the Unified
3045: Theory and the Baryon Number in the Universe}, Tsukuba, Japan, 1979,
3046: eds.\ O.~Sawada and A.~Sugamoto;\\
3047: R.~N.~Mohapatra and G.~Senjanovi\'c, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 44} (1980) 912.
3048:
3049: \bibitem{KRS} V.~A.~Kuzmin, V.~A.~Rubakov and M.~E.~Shaposhnikov,
3050: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 155} (1985) 36.
3051:
3052: \bibitem{AHJMP} For an alternative suggestion, see,\\
3053: R.~Allahverdi, S.~Hannestad, A.~Jokinen, A.~Mazumdar and S.~Pascoli,\\
3054: hep-ph/0504102.
3055:
3056: \bibitem{DI} S.~Davidson and A.~Ibarra, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 535}
3057: (2002) 25.
3058:
3059: \bibitem{BBP} W. Buchm\"uller, P. Di Bari and M. Pl\"umacher, Nucl.\
3060: Phys.\ B {\bf 643} (2002) 367.
3061:
3062: \bibitem{GCBetal} G.C.~Branco, R.~Gonzalez Felipe, F.R.~Joaquim,
3063: I.~Masina, M.N.~Rebelo and C.A.~Savoy, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 67}
3064: (2003) 073025.
3065:
3066: \bibitem{CT} P.H.~Chankowski and K.~Turzynski, Phys.\ Lett.\ B
3067: {\bf 570} (2003) 198;\\
3068: T.~Hambye, Y.~Lin, A.~Notari, M.~Papucci and A.~Strumia, Nucl.\
3069: Phys.\ B {\bf 695} (2004) 169.
3070:
3071: \bibitem{PDG} Particle Data Group (S. Eidelman et al.), Phys.\ Lett.\
3072: B {\bf 592} (2004) 1.
3073:
3074: \bibitem{APRD} A.~Pilaftsis, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 56} (1997) 5431;
3075: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 504} (1997) 61.
3076:
3077: \bibitem{APreview} A.~Pilaftsis, Int.\ J. Mod.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 14} (1999) 1811.
3078:
3079: \bibitem{LB}T.~Hambye, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 633} (2002) 171;\\
3080: L. Boubekeur, hep-ph/0208003;\\
3081: L.~Boubekeur, T.~Hambye and G.~Senjanovic, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 93} (2004) 111601;\\
3082: A.~Abada, H.~Aissaoui and M.~Losada, hep-ph/0409343;\\
3083: L.~J.~Hall, H.~Murayama and G.~Perez, hep-ph/0504248.
3084:
3085: \bibitem{LiuSegre} J.~Liu and G.~Segr\'e, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 48} (1993)
3086: 4609.
3087:
3088: \bibitem{Paschos} M.~Flanz, E.A.~Paschos and U.~Sarkar, Phys.\ Lett.\
3089: B~{\bf 345} (1995) 248;\\
3090: L.~Covi, E.~Roulet and F.~Vissani, Phys.\ Lett.\
3091: B~{\bf 384} (1996) 169.
3092:
3093: \bibitem{PU} A.~Pilaftsis and T.E.J. Underwood, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 692}
3094: (2004) 303.
3095:
3096: \bibitem{MV} R.N. Mohapatra and J.W.F. Valle, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 34}
3097: (1986) 1642;\\
3098: S. Nandi and U. Sarkar, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 56}
3099: (1986) 564.
3100:
3101: \bibitem{FN} C.D. Froggatt and H.B. Nielsen, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 147}
3102: (1979) 277.
3103:
3104: \bibitem{HMW} T.~Hambye, J.~March-Russell and S.~M.~West, JHEP {\bf
3105: 0407} (2004) 070;\\
3106: S.~M.~West, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 71} (2005) 013004.
3107:
3108: \bibitem{softL} J.~R.~Ellis, M.~Raidal and T.~Yanagida, Phys.\ Lett.\
3109: B {\bf 546} (2002) 228;\\
3110: Y.~Grossman, T.~Kashti, Y.~Nir and E.~Roulet,
3111: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 91} (2003) 251801;\\
3112: G.~D'Ambrosio, G.~F.~Giudice and M.~Raidal, Phys.\ Lett.\ B
3113: {\bf 575} (2003) 75;\\
3114: E.~J.~Chun, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 69} (2004) 117303;\\
3115: R.~Allahverdi and M.~Drees,
3116: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 69} (2004) 103522;\\
3117: Y.~Grossman, R.~Kitano and H.~Murayama, hep-ph/0504160.
3118:
3119: \bibitem{DLR} T.~Dent, G.~Lazarides and R.~Ruiz de Austri, Phys.\
3120: Rev.\ D {\bf 69} (2004) 075012;\\
3121: S.~Dar, S.~Huber, V.N.~Senoguz and Q.~Shafi,
3122: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 69} (2004) 077701;\\
3123: T.~Dent, G.~Lazarides and R.~R.~de Austri, hep-ph/0503235.
3124:
3125: \bibitem{GJN} R.~Gonzalez Felipe, F.~R.~Joaquim and B.~M.~Nobre,
3126: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 70} (2004) 085009.
3127:
3128: \bibitem{AFS} E.~K.~Akhmedov, M.~Frigerio and A.~Y.~Smirnov, JHEP {\bf
3129: 0309} (2003) 021.
3130:
3131: \bibitem{AB} C.H.~Albright and S.M.~Barr, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 69}
3132: (2004) 073010.
3133:
3134: \bibitem{APtau} A. Pilaftsis, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 95} (2005)
3135: 081602.
3136:
3137: \bibitem{KS} S.~Y.~Khlebnikov and M.~E.~Shaposhnikov, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B
3138: {\bf 308} (1988) 885.
3139:
3140: \bibitem{HT} J.A.~Harvey and M.S.~Turner, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 42}
3141: (1990) 3344.
3142:
3143: \bibitem{DR} H. Dreiner and G.G. Ross, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 410} (1993)
3144: 188.
3145:
3146: \bibitem{LS} M.~Laine and M.~E.~Shaposhnikov, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 61}
3147: (2000) 117302.
3148:
3149: \bibitem{Borzumati} For alternative suggestions, albeit in extended
3150: supersymmetric settings, see,\\
3151: F.~Borzumati and Y.~Nomura,
3152: %``Low-scale see-saw mechanisms for light neutrinos,''
3153: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 64} (2001) 053005;\\
3154: N.~Arkani-Hamed, L.~J.~Hall, H.~Murayama, D.~R.~Smith and N.~Weiner,
3155: %``Small neutrino masses from supersymmetry breaking,''
3156: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 64} (2001) 115011.
3157:
3158: \bibitem{Anupam} Under rather generic conditions, the reheating
3159: temperature in supersymmetric theories could be very low, even as low
3160: as TeV, because of the presence of quasi-flat directions with large
3161: VEV's, which slow down the thermalization process in the early
3162: Universe [R.~Allahverdi and A.~Mazumdar, arXiv:hep-ph/0505050]. In
3163: such a scenario, electroweak-scale RL may be the only viable mechanism
3164: for successful baryogenesis.
3165:
3166: \bibitem{CLMW} L.~Carson, X.~Li, L.~D.~McLerran and R.~T.~Wang, Phys.\
3167: Rev.\ D {\bf 42} (1990) 2127.
3168:
3169: \bibitem{MEG} See proposal by MEG collaboration at {\tt
3170: http://meg.web.psi.ch/docs/index.html}.
3171:
3172: \bibitem{MECO} MECO collaboration, {\tt http://meco.ps.uci.edu/};\\
3173: M.~Hebert (MECO Collaboration), Nucl.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 721} (2003) 461.
3174:
3175: \bibitem{CA} C. Aalseth et al., hep-ph/0412300;\\
3176: S. Pascoli, S.T. Petcov and T. Schwetz, hep-ph/0505226.
3177:
3178: \bibitem{GGR} We thank Graham Ross for useful discussions on this point.
3179:
3180: \bibitem{BGL} G.~C.~Branco, W.~Grimus and L.~Lavoura, Nucl.\ Phys.\
3181: B {\bf 312} (1989) 492.
3182:
3183: \bibitem{AZPC} A. Pilaftsis, Z.\ Phys.\ C {\bf 55} (1992) 275.
3184:
3185: \bibitem{APmix} A. Pilaftsis, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 65} (2002) 115013.
3186:
3187: \bibitem{PV} G. Pasarino and M. Veltman, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 160}
3188: (1979) 151.
3189:
3190: \bibitem{Antusch}
3191: P.~H.~Chankowski and Z.~Pluciennik,
3192: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 316} (1993) 312;\\
3193: K.~S.~Babu, C.~N.~Leung and J.~T.~Pantaleone,
3194: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 319} (1993) 191;\\
3195: For recent studies, see,\\
3196: S.~Antusch, M.~Drees, J.~Kersten, M.~Lindner and M.~Ratz,
3197: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 519} (2001) 238;\\
3198: S.~Antusch, J.~Kersten, M.~Lindner, M.~Ratz and M.~A.~Schmidt, JHEP
3199: {\bf 0503} (2005) 024.
3200:
3201: \bibitem{MBellac} M. Le Bellac, {\em Thermal Field Theory}, (Cambridge
3202: University Press, Cambridge, England, 1996);\\
3203: J.I. Kapusta, {\em Finite-Temperature Field Theory},
3204: (Cambridge University Press,
3205: Cambridge, England, 1989).
3206:
3207: \bibitem{Weldon} H.A. Weldon, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 26} (1982) 2789.
3208:
3209: \bibitem{KW} E.~W.~Kolb and S.~Wolfram, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 172}
3210: (1980) 224 [Erratum-ibid.\ B {\bf 195} (1982) 542].
3211:
3212: \bibitem{MAL} M.~A.~Luty, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 45} (1992) 455.
3213:
3214: \bibitem{Keldysh/Schwinger} J.~S.~Schwinger,
3215: J.\ Math.\ Phys.\ {\bf 2} (1961) 407;\\
3216: L.~V.~Keldysh, Zh.\ Eksp.\ Teor.\ Fiz.\ {\bf 47} (1964) 1515
3217: [Sov.\ Phys.\ JETP {\bf 20} (1965) 1018];\\
3218: G.~Raffelt, G.~Sigl and L.~Stodolsky, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 70} (1993)
3219: 2363;\\
3220: G.~Sigl and G.~Raffelt, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 406} (1993) 423.
3221:
3222: \bibitem{MPspect} W.~Buchmuller and M.~Plumacher, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf
3223: 511} (2001) 74.
3224:
3225: \bibitem{thooft} G.~'t Hooft, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 37} (1976) 8.
3226:
3227: \bibitem{AM} P.~Arnold and L.~D.~McLerran, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 36} (1987) 581.
3228:
3229: \bibitem{CKO} J.M. Cline, K. Kainulainen and K.A. Olive, Phys.\
3230: Rev.\ D {\bf 49} (1994) 6394.
3231:
3232: \bibitem{KM} F.~R.~Klinkhamer and N.~S.~Manton, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 30}
3233: (1984) 2212.
3234:
3235: \bibitem{JVdata} For a recent analysis, see,
3236: M.~Maltoni, T.~Schwetz, M.~A.~Tortola and J.~W.~Valle, New J. Phys.\
3237: {\bf 6} (2004) 122.
3238:
3239: \bibitem{BCST} R.~Barbieri, P.~Creminelli, A.~Strumia and N.~Tetradis,
3240: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 575} (2000) 61.
3241:
3242: \bibitem{GNRRS} G.F.~Giudice, A.~Notari, M.~Raidal, A.~Riotto and A.~Strumia,
3243: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 685} (2004) 89.
3244:
3245: \bibitem{doi85} M.~Doi, T.~Kotani and E.~Takasugi, Prog.\ Theor.\
3246: Phys.\ Suppl.\ {\bf 83} (1985) 1.
3247:
3248: \bibitem{Klapdor} For example, see the textbook by K. Grotz and
3249: H.V. Klapdor, ``The Weak Interaction in Nuclear, Particle und
3250: Astrophysics,'' (Adam Hilger, Bristol, 1989).
3251:
3252: \bibitem{HKK} H.V. Klapdor-Kleingrothaus, ``Sixty Years of Double Beta
3253: Decay,'' (World Scientific, Singapore, 2001);\\
3254: H.V. Klapdor-Kleingrothaus, A. Dietz, H.L. Harney, I.V. Krivosheina,
3255: Mod.\ Phys.\ Lett.\ A {\bf 16} (2001) 2409;\\
3256: H.V. Klapdor-Kleingrothaus, A. Dietz and I. Krivosheina,
3257: Particles and Nuclei {\bf 110} (2002) 57;
3258: Foundations of Physics {\bf 32} (2002) 1181.
3259:
3260: \bibitem{KKS} H.V. Klapdor-Kleingrothaus and U. Sarkar, Mod.\ Phys.\
3261: Lett.\ A {\bf 16} (2001) 2469;\\
3262: H.V.~Klapdor-Kleingrothaus, H. P\"as and A. Yu. Smirnov,
3263: Phys.\ Rev.\ D~{\bf 63} (2001) 073005;\\
3264: W.~Rodejohann, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 597} (2001) 110; J.\ Phys.\ G {\bf
3265: 28} (2002) 1477;\\
3266: H. Minakata and H. Sugiyama, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 532} (2002) 275;\\
3267: S. Pascoli and S.T. Petcov, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 544} (2002) 239;\\
3268: H.~Nunokawa, W.~J.~C.~Teves and R.~Zukanovich Funchal, Phys.\ Rev.\
3269: D {\bf 66} (2002) 093010.
3270:
3271: \bibitem{HMexp} H.V.~Klapdor-Kleingrothaus, A.~Dietz, I.V.~Krivosheina
3272: and O.~Chkvorets, Nucl.\ Instrum.\ Meth.\ {\bf A522} (2004) 371.
3273:
3274: \bibitem{CL} T.P.~Cheng and L.F.~Li, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 45}
3275: (1980) 1908.
3276:
3277: \bibitem{IP} A. Ilakovac and A. Pilaftsis, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 437}
3278: (1995) 491.
3279:
3280: \bibitem{Ara} A. Ioannisian and A. Pilaftsis, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 62}
3281: (2000) 066001.
3282:
3283: \bibitem{KPS} J.G. K\"orner, A. Pilaftsis and K. Schilcher, Phys.\
3284: Lett.\ B {\bf 300} (1993) 381.
3285:
3286: \bibitem{BKPS} J. Bernab\'eu, J.G. K\"orner, A. Pilaftsis and K.\
3287: Schilcher, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 71} (1993) 2695.
3288:
3289: \bibitem{MPLAP} A. Pilaftsis, Mod.\ Phys.\ Lett.\ A~{\bf 9} (1994) 3595;\\
3290: M.C. Gonzalez-Garcia and J.W.F. Valle, Mod.\ Phys.\ Lett.\ A~{\bf
3291: 7} (1992) 477; Erratum~{\bf 9} (1994) 2569.
3292:
3293: \bibitem{LFVrev} L.N. Chang, D. Ng and J.N. Ng, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf
3294: 50} (1994) 4589;\\
3295: G. Bhattacharya, P. Kalyniak and I. Mello, Phys.\
3296: Rev.\ D {\bf 51} (1995) 3569;\\
3297: A. Pilaftsis, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 52} (1995) 459;\\
3298: A. Ilakovac, B.A. Kniehl, and A. Pilaftsis, Phys.\ Rev.\
3299: D {\bf 52} (1995) 3993;\\
3300: A. Ilakovac, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 54} (1996) 5653;\\
3301: M. Frank and H. Hamidian, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 54} (1996) 6790;\\
3302: P. Kalyniak and I. Mello, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 55} (1997) 1453;\\
3303: G. Barenboim and M. Raidal, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 484} (1997) 63;\\
3304: Z. Gagyi-Palffy, A. Pilaftsis and K. Schilcher, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf
3305: 513} (1998) 517;\\
3306: S. Fajfer and A. Ilakovac, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 57} (1998) 4219;\\
3307: M. Raidal and A. Santamaria, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 421} (1998) 250;\\
3308: M.~Czakon, M.~Zralek and J.~Gluza, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 573} (2000) 57;\\
3309: J.~I.~Illana and T.~Riemann, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 63} (2001) 053004;\\
3310: G.~Cvetic, C.~Dib, C.~S.~Kim and J.~D.~Kim, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 66} (2002)
3311: 034008; hep-ph/0504126;\\
3312: A.~Masiero, S.~K.~Vempati and O.~Vives, New J.\ Phys.\ {\bf 6} (2004) 202.
3313:
3314: \bibitem{LL} P. Langacker and D. London, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 38} (1988) 886.
3315:
3316: \bibitem{LLfit} C.~P.~Burgess, S.~Godfrey, H.~Konig, D.~London and I.~Maksymyk, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 49} (1994) 6115;\\
3317: E.~Nardi, E.~Roulet and D.~Tommasini, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 327} (1994) 319;\\
3318: D.~Tommasini, G.~Barenboim, J.~Bernabeu and C.~Jarlskog, Nucl.\ Phys.\
3319: B {\bf 444} (1995) 451;\\
3320: S.~Bergmann and A.~Kagan, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 538} (1999) 368.
3321:
3322: \bibitem{FW} G. Feinberg and S. Weinberg, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 3}
3323: (1959) 111; 244 (Erratum);\\
3324: W.J. Marciano and A.I. Sanda, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 78} (1977) 1512;\\
3325: O. Shanker, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 20} (1979) 1608;\\
3326: J. Bernab\'eu, E. Nardi and D. Tommasini, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf409} (1993) 69.
3327:
3328: \bibitem{JDV} For reviews, see, J.D. Vergados, Phys.\ Rep.\ {\bf 133}
3329: (1986) 1;\\
3330: T.S. Kosmas, G.K. Leontaris and J.D. Vergados,
3331: Prog.\ Part.\ Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf 33} (1994) 397.
3332:
3333: \bibitem{Zeff} J.C. Sens, Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf 113} (1959) 679;\\
3334: K.W. Ford and J.G. Wills, Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf 35} (1962) 295;\\
3335: R. Pla and J. Bernab\'eu, An.\ F\'\i s.\ {\bf 67} (1971) 455;\\
3336: H.C. Chiang, E. Oset, T.S. Kosmas, A. Faessler and J.D. Vergados,
3337: Nucl.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 559} (1993) 526.
3338:
3339: \bibitem{SMR} T. Suzuki, D.F. Measday and J.P. Roalsvig, Phys.\ Rev.\
3340: C {\bf 35} (1987) 2212.
3341:
3342: \bibitem{FPap} For instance, see, B. Frois and C.N. Papanicolas, Ann.\
3343: Rev.\ Nucl.\ Sci.\ {\bf 37} (1987) 133, and references therein.
3344:
3345: \bibitem{SINDRUM} C. Dohmen et al.\ (SINDRUM II Collaboration),
3346: Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B317} (1993) 631.
3347:
3348: \bibitem{NN} D. Ng and J.N. Ng, Mod.\ Phys.\ Lett.\ A {\bf 11} (1996) 211;\\
3349: J.P. Archaumbault, A. Czarnecki and M. Pospelov, hep-ph/0406089;\\
3350: W.-F. Chang and J.N. Ng, hep-ph/0411201.
3351:
3352: \bibitem{BG} W.~Buchm\"uller and C.~Greub, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 363}
3353: (1991) 345;\\
3354: G.~Cvetic, C.S.~Kim and C.W.~Kim,
3355: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 82} (1999) 4761;\\
3356: S.~F.~King and T.~Yanagida, hep-ph/0411030.
3357:
3358: \bibitem{AAS} F.~del Aguila, J.~A.~Aguilar-Saavedra, A.~Martinez de la Ossa
3359: and D.~Meloni, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 613} (2005) 170;\\
3360: F.~del Aguila and J.~A.~Aguilar-Saavedra, hep-ph/0503026.
3361:
3362: \bibitem{LSND} A.~Aguilar et al. (LSND Collaboration), Phys.\ Rev.\ D
3363: {\bf 64} (2001) 112007.
3364:
3365: \bibitem{EWBAU} For recent analyses, see,\\
3366: M.~Carena, M.~Quiros, M.~Seco and C.~E.~M.~Wagner,
3367: %``Improved results in supersymmetric electroweak baryogenesis,''
3368: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 650} (2003) 24;\\
3369: T.~Konstandin, T.~Prokopec and M.~G.~Schmidt,
3370: %``Kinetic description of fermion flavor mixing and CP-violating sources for
3371: %baryogenesis,''
3372: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 716} (2005) 373;\\
3373: M.~Carena, A.~Megevand, M.~Quiros and C.~E.~M.~Wagner,
3374: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 716} (2005)~319;\\
3375: T.~Konstandin, T.~Prokopec, M.~G.~Schmidt and M.~Seco,
3376: hep-ph/0505103.
3377:
3378: \bibitem{AS} {\em Handbook of Mathematical Functions}, edited by
3379: M. Abramowitz and I.~A. Stegun (Verlag Harri Deutsch, Frankfurt,
3380: 1984).
3381:
3382:
3383:
3384: \end{thebibliography}
3385:
3386: \end{document}
3387:
3388:
3389:
3390:
3391:
3392:
3393: