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

2: \usepackage{latexsym}

3: \usepackage{euscript}

4: \usepackage{epsfig,amsmath,amssymb}

5: %\usepackage{showlabels}

6: %\usepackage[tt]{drftcite}

7: %\usepackage{slashed}

8:  

9: \topmargin      -1.0mm  % distance to headers

10: \headheight      5.0mm  % height of header box

11: \headsep         8.0mm  % distance to top line

12: \textheight      220mm  % height of text

13: \footskip        8.0mm  % distance from bottom line

14: \oddsidemargin   4.8mm  % Horizontal alignment

15: \evensidemargin  4.8mm  % Horizontal alignment

16: \textwidth       160mm  % Horizontal alignment

17: %\date{\today}

18: \flushbottom

19: 

20: 

21: \renewcommand\({\left(}

22: \renewcommand\){\right)}

23: \renewcommand\[{\left[}

24: \renewcommand\]{\right]}

25: \newcommand{\pa}{\partial}

26: \newcommand{\dd}{{\rm d}}

27: \newcommand{\e}{{\rm e}}

28: \def\be{\begin{equation}}

29: \def\ee{\end{equation}}

30: \def\bea{\begin{eqnarray}}

31: \def\eea{\end{eqnarray}}

32: 

33: %units

34: \newcommand{\one}{\mbox{1\hspace{-7.1pt}1}}

35: 

36: \newcommand\mm{\,\mbox{mm}}

37: \newcommand\cm{\,\mbox{cm}}

38: \newcommand\km{\,\mbox{km}}

39: \newcommand\kg{\,\mbox{kg}}

40: \newcommand\TeV{\,\mbox{TeV}}

41: \newcommand\GeV{\,\mbox{GeV}}

42: \newcommand\MeV{\,\mbox{MeV}}   

43: \newcommand\keV{\,\mbox{keV}}

44: \newcommand\eV{\,\mbox{eV}}

45: \newcommand\mpl{m_{\rm p}}

46: \newcommand\mcN{\mathcal N}

47: \newcommand\mcA{\mathcal A}

48: \newcommand\mcO{\mathcal O}

49: \long\def\symbolfootnote[#1]#2{\begingroup%

50: \def\thefootnote{\fnsymbol{footnote}}\footnote[#1]{#2}\endgroup} 

51: 

52: 

53: \renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.3} \large\normalsize

54: \def\etal{{\it et al.}}

55: \def\eg{{\it e.g.}}

56: \def\ie{{\it i.e.}}

57: \begin{document}

58: %\draft

59: 

60: \begin{center}

61:   {\Large \bf Leptogenesis from reheating after inflation and cosmic

62:   string decay}

63: 

64: 

65: \vspace*{7mm}

66: {\ Rachel Jeannerot$^{a}$\symbolfootnote[1]{{E-mail:jeannerot@lorentz.leidenuniv.nl}} and Marieke Postma$^{b}$}\symbolfootnote[2]{E-mail:mpostma@nikhef.nl}

67: \vspace*{.25cm}

68: 

69: ${}^{a)}${\it Instituut-Lorentz for Theoretical Physics,

70: Niels Bohrweg 2, 2333 CA Leiden, The Netherlands}\\

71: \vspace*{.1cm} 

72: ${}^{b)}${\it NIKHEF, Kruislaan 409, 1098 SJ Amsterdam,

73: The Netherlands}

74: 

75: 

76: \begin{abstract}

77: 

78: Cosmic strings form at the end of standard supersymmetric hybrid

79: inflation, and both inflation and strings contribute to the CMB

80: anisotropies. If the symmetry which is broken at the end of inflation

81: is gauged $B$-$L$, there is a mixed scenario for leptogenesis:

82: Right-handed neutrinos can be produced non-thermally during reheating

83: via inflaton decay as well as via cosmic string decay. We show that

84: the parameter space consistent with CMB data can accommodate either or

85: both scenarios depending on the mass of the right-handed neutrinos.

86: 

87: \end{abstract}

88: \end{center}

89: 

90: %\newpage

91: 

92: 

93: \section{Introduction}

94: 

95: 

96: Supersymmetric theories beyond the standard model which predict light

97: neutrino masses via the see-saw mechanism easily accommodate SUSY

98: hybrid inflation \cite{Cop,Dvasha}. Reheating can proceed via inflaton

99: decay into right-handed (s)neutrinos and thereby these models also

100: provide an interesting framework for non-thermal leptogenesis

101: \cite{Yanagida,leptinfl,shafi1}. In the simplest version of hybrid

102: inflation cosmic strings form at the end \cite{prd,jrs}; if the

103: inflaton sector couples to right-handed (RH) (s)neutrinos these are

104: $B$-$L$ cosmic strings \cite{lept,B-L}. $B$-$L$ cosmic strings are not

105: superconducting \cite{maj,sugrastr}. Most of the energy lost by the

106: string network goes into gravitational radiation and right-handed

107: neutrinos, and therefore these strings provide a second mechanism of

108: non-thermal leptogenesis \cite{lept}. In this paper we calculate the

109: relative contributions to the baryon asymmetry of the universe from

110: reheating at the end of standard $F$-term inflation and from $B$-$L$

111: cosmic string decay.

112: 

113: Let $G_{\rm GUT}$ denote a gauge group which contains the Standard

114: Model gauge group as well as gauged $B$-$L$. $F$-term inflation

115: requires the existence of a gauge singlet and two Higgs superfields

116: which transform in complex conjugate representations of $G_{\rm GUT}$;

117: we assume that they break $B$-$L$ when acquiring a non vanishing

118: vacuum expectation value (VEV). In the case of SO(10), they could be a

119: $16 + \overline{16}$ or $126+\overline{126}$. Note that the

120: transformation properties of the Higgs representation can affect the

121: stability of the strings; we shall not discuss it further here

122: \cite{B-L}.  Inflation takes place as the scalar singlet slowly rolls

123: down a valley of local minima along which the VEV of the Higgs fields

124: vanish. When the singlet falls below a certain critical value, the

125: Higgs mass become tachyonic and inflation ends quickly in a phase

126: transition during which the Higgs fields acquire a non-vanishing VEV

127: breaking $B$-$L$ spontaneously. If $G_{\rm GUT}$ is semi-simple, the

128: assumption of standard SUSY hybrid inflation then requires that

129: $G_{\rm GUT}$ breaks down to the Standard Model (SM) gauge group via

130: at least one intermediate step, so that inflation solves the monopole

131: problem; the gauge group broken at the end of inflation is not $G_{\rm

132: GUT}$ but an intermediate symmetry group $G_{\rm int} \supset

133: U(1)_{B-L} \rightarrow H \not\supset U(1)_{B-L}$. During this phase

134: transition, $B$-$L$ cosmic strings form. The simplest example is

135: $G_{\rm GUT} = SO(10), E(6)$ or Pati-Salam, and $G_{\rm int} = SU(3)_c

136: \times SU(2)_L \times U(1)_R \times U(1)_{B-L}$ which breaks down to

137: the SM gauge group at the end of inflation \cite{prd1,prd2}.

138: 

139: The GUT Higgs fields which trigger the end of inflation give heavy

140: Majorana masses to the right-handed neutrinos. After inflation the

141: universe is reheated by inflaton decay into RH neutrinos and

142: sneutrinos.  If the reheat temperature is less than the neutrino mass

143: their out-of-equilibrium decay into (s)leptons and the SM Higgs(inos)

144: produces a net lepton asymmetry \cite{leptinfl}.  There is another

145: contribution to the lepton asymmetry, coming from the decay of cosmic

146: string loops~\cite{lept}. Cosmic string loops decay into $B$-$L$ Higgs

147: and gauge fields, which in turn decay in right-handed neutrinos. Loops

148: can also release right-handed neutrinos which are trapped as zero

149: modes.

150: 

151: 

152: Thus both inflation and cosmic strings contribute non-thermally to the

153: baryon asymmetry of the universe. We investigate here which of these

154: scenarios is most efficient using the observed CMB anisotropies as a

155: constraint.  The string tension, as well as the inflaton mass are set

156: by the symmetry breaking scale at the end of inflation $\eta$ (the

157: $B$-$L$ breaking scale) and the Higgs self quartic coupling $\kappa$

158: (the superpotential coupling). The string tension also depends

159: logarithmically on the gauge coupling constant which we set to the

160: unification value for the MSSM. The resulting lepton asymmetry depends

161: on $\eta$, $\kappa$ and the RH neutrino masses. Requiring that the

162: inflaton gives the observed density perturbations fixes $\eta$ as a

163: function of $\kappa$.  The string contribution to the density

164: perturbations is constrained to be less than about

165: 10\%~\cite{Pogosian}. This restricts the value of $\kappa$, as

166: discussed in our previous paper \cite{CMB}.

167: 

168: 

169: Most of the lepton asymmetry in $B$-$L$ string decay is generated at

170: the earliest time at which leptogenesis is possible.

171: Refs. \cite{Sahu,Gu} assume that the reheat temperature is high enough

172: for the lightest RH neutrino with mass $M_1$ to be initially in

173: thermal equilibrium.  Any asymmetry generated is washed-out until the

174: lightest RH neutrino freezes out.  Hence, in their analysis the lepton

175: asymmetry is dominated by the contribution generated at the freeze-out

176: temperature $T \sim M_1$. However, there is also the possibility that

177: the RH neutrinos are never in thermal equilibrium after

178: inflation. Then the loops formed immediately at the end of inflation

179: give the dominant contribution to the lepton asymmetry.  The final

180: asymmetry is determined by three factors.  First, it depends on the

181: initial string density, which can be different from the density during

182: the scaling regime.  Second, the universe goes from matter domination

183: to radiation domination during reheating.  The earlier this happens,

184: the larger the asymmetry. And the third factor which plays a r\^ole is

185: the CP asymmetry per decaying (s)neutrino, which depends on the

186: details of the neutrino sector.

187: 

188: The paper is organised as follows. In Sec.~2 we review standard SUSY

189: $F$-inflation coupled to N=1 SUGRA and discuss the CMB constraints

190: \cite{CMB}. In Sec.~3 we determine the parameter space for successful

191: non-thermal leptogenesis from reheating at the end of inflation. In

192: Sec.~4 we turn to the parameter space for successful non-thermal

193: leptogenesis which results from the decay of $B$-$L$ cosmic

194: strings. We distinguish three different cases. The first possibility

195: is that $M_1 < m_\chi/2$ and $M_1>T_{\rm R}$, with $M_1$ the lightest

196: RH neutrino mass, $m_\chi$ the inflaton mass and $T_{\rm R}$ the

197: reheat temperature.  In this case reheating goes via production of RH

198: neutrinos which are out-of-equilibrium at the end of inflation, and

199: both non-thermal leptogenesis scenarios compete.  The second

200: possibility is that $M_1 > m_\chi/2$ and reheating is

201: gravitational. Then cosmic strings give the sole contribution to the

202: lepton asymmetry. Finally there is the possibility that $M_1<T_{\rm

203: R}$ and the RH neutrinos are in thermal equilibrium at production. In

204: this case both cosmic string decay and standard thermal leptogenesis

205: contribute to the lepton asymmetry.  In Sec.~5 we consider the

206: consequences on leptogenesis of generating a dynamical $\mu$-term.

207: We give our conclusions in Sec. 6.

208: 

209: 

210: 

211: \section{Hybrid inflation \& CMB constraints}

212: \label{s:HI}

213: 

214: In this section we summarise the bounds on the parameter space implied

215: by current CMB data for standard hybrid inflation with cosmic

216: strings. The details can be found in Ref. \cite{CMB}.

217: 

218: The superpotential for standard hybrid inflation is 

219: \cite{Cop,Dvasha}

220: %

221: \be 

222: W_{\rm inf} = \kappa S( \phi \bar{\phi} - \eta^2),

223: \label{W}

224: \ee

225: %

226: with $S$ a gauge singlet superfield, and $\phi$, $\bar{\phi}$ Higgs

227: superfields in $\mcN$-dimensional complex conjugate representations of

228: a gauge group $G_{\rm GUT}$.  Upon acquiring a VEV the Higgs fields

229: break $G_{\rm int} \supset U(1)_{B-L} $ down to a subgroup $H

230: \not\supset U(1)_{B-L}$.  The supersymmetric part of the scalar

231: potential is given by (we represent the scalar components with the

232: same symbols as the superfields)

233: %

234: \be

235: V_{\rm SUSY} = \kappa^2 |\phi \bar{\phi} - \eta^2|^2 + \kappa^2

236: |S|^2(|\phi|^2+|\bar{\phi}|^2) + V_D.

237: \label{Vsusy}

238: \ee

239: %

240: Vanishing of the $D$-terms enforces $|\bar{\phi}| = |\phi|$.  Assuming

241: chaotic initial conditions the fields get trapped in the inflationary

242: valley of local minima at $|S| > S_c = \eta$ and $\bar{\phi} = \phi =

243: 0$. The potential is dominated by a constant term $ V_0 = \kappa^2

244: \eta^4 $ which drives inflation.  Inflation ends when the inflaton

245: drops below its critical value $S_c$ (or when the second slow-roll

246: parameter $\eta$ equals unity, whatever happens first) and the fields

247: roll toward the global SUSY minima of the potential $|\phi| =

248: |\bar{\phi}| = \eta$ and $S=0$.  During this phase transition $B$-$L$

249: cosmic strings form \cite{prd,lept}. For a discussion on various GUT

250: models see Ref. \cite{B-L}.

251: 

252: The scalar potential in Eq.~(\ref{Vsusy}) gets corrections from SUSY

253: breaking by the finite energy density in the universe during inflation

254: (given by the Coleman-Weinberg formula), from SUSY breaking today, and

255: from supergravity.  The hidden sector expectation values responsible

256: for low energy SUSY breaking can generically be written as $\langle z

257: \rangle = a \mpl, \quad \langle W_{\rm hid} \rangle = \mu \mpl^2,

258: \quad \langle \frac{\partial W_{\rm hid}}{\partial z} \rangle = c \mu

259: \mpl$, with $z$ a hidden sector field, $a,c$ dimensionless numbers,

260: and $\mu$ a mass parameter related to the gravitino mass via $m_{3/2}

261: = \e^{|a|^2/2} \mu$.  Further $\mpl = (8\pi G)^{-1/2} = 2.4 \times

262: 10^{18} \GeV$ is the reduced Planck mass. The scalar potential along

263: the inflationary valley can be calculated using the SUGRA formula

264: %

265: \be

266: V = \e^{K/\mpl^2} \left[ \sum_\alpha

267: \Big| \frac{\partial W}{\partial \phi_\alpha} 

268: + \frac{\phi_\alpha^* W}{\mpl^2} \Big|^2

269: - 3 \frac{|W|^2}{\mpl^2}

270: \right].

271: \label{Vsugra}

272: \ee

273: %

274: Assuming a minimal K\"ahler potential, the scalar potential including

275: all corrections is \cite{CMB}

276: %

277: \bea V &=& \kappa^2 \eta^4  \nonumber \\

278: &+& \frac{\kappa^4 \eta^4 \mcN}{32 \pi^2}

279: \Big[ 2 \ln\(\frac{2 \kappa^2 \sigma^2}{\Lambda^2}\) + (z+1)^2

280: \ln(1+z^{-1}) + (z-1)^2 \ln (1-z^{-1}) \Big] 

281: \nonumber \\

282: &+& \kappa^2 \eta^4 \Big[

283: {\sigma^4\over 8 \mpl^4} + {|a|^2 \sigma^2\over 2 \mpl^2} \Big]

284: + \kappa A m_{3/2} \eta^2 \sigma,

285: \label{V}

286: \eea

287: %

288: with $\sigma = |S|/\sqrt{2}$ the normalized real field, $A= 2 \sqrt{2}

289: \cos(\arg \mu - \arg S)$, and we assume that $\arg S$ is constant

290: during inflation. The cosmological constant today vanishes for $|c +

291: a^*|^2 = 3$, and we have dropped subdominant terms. Further we used

292: the notation $z= x^2 = {|S|^2}/\eta^2 = \sigma^2 /(2\eta^2)$ so that

293: $z=x=1$ when $\sigma = \sigma_c$.  The first line is the tree level

294: potential term, the second line is the one-loop Coleman-Weinberg

295: correction due to SUSY breaking during inflation \cite{Dvasha}, and

296: the third line are the SUGRA corrections.

297: 

298: The Coleman-Weinberg potential and the non-renormalisable terms are

299: always present, independent of low energy SUSY breaking.  The $A$- and

300: mass terms can be made small for a small gravitino mass (as in gauge

301: mediation), or by tuning $A$ and/or $a$.  Another possibility is that

302: the hidden sector superfield $z$ only acquires its VEV after

303: inflation, so that these terms are absent during inflation. We note

304: that, assuming gravity mediated SUSY breaking, the generic values

305: $m_{3/2} \sim 10^2 \GeV$, $A\sim 1$, $a\sim 1$, give rise to too large

306: $A$- and mass terms, incompatible with the CMB data~\cite{CMB}.

307: 

308: 

309: Both strings and the inflaton contribute to the primordial density

310: perturbations \cite{prd,CMB}. Cosmic strings do not predict the

311: measured acoustic peaks in the CMB and hence their contribution to the

312: temperature fluctuations should be small, less than about 10\%

313: ~\cite{Pogosian}.  The string contribution is proportional to the

314: string tension

315: %

316: \be 

317: \mu = 2 \pi \eta^2 \theta(\beta),

318: \label{mu}

319: \ee

320: %

321: with $\beta = (m_\phi / m_A)^2$.  The Higgs mass is $m_\phi^2 =

322: \kappa^2 \eta^2$ and the vector boson mass is $m_A^2 \simeq g_{\rm

323: GUT}^2 \eta^2$ with the GUT coupling $g_{\rm GUT}^2 \approx 4\pi/25$.

324: When $\beta =1$, the strings satisfy the Bogomolny bound (this is the

325: case of cosmic strings which form at the end of brane inflation) and

326: $\theta(1) = 1$. However in the case of SUSY GUTs, the strings never

327: satisfy the Bogomolny bound, $\beta < 1$ always, and ~\cite{Hill}

328: %

329: \be

330: \theta(\beta) \approx \left \{

331: \begin{array}{lll}

332: 1.04  \beta^{0.195}, & \qquad \beta > 10^{-2}, \\

333: {\displaystyle \frac{2.4}{ \log(2/\beta)}}, & \qquad \beta < 10^{-2}.

334: \end{array}

335: \right.

336: \label{theta}

337: \ee

338: %%

339: Requiring the string contribution to the quadrupole to be less than

340: 10\% gives the bound \cite{CMB}

341: %

342: \be

343: G \mu < 6.9 \times 10^{-7} \( \frac{3}{y} \) 

344: \quad \Rightarrow \quad

345: \eta_{\rm bnd} < 4.1 \times 10^{15} 

346: \sqrt{\frac{(3/y)}{\theta(\beta)}}.

347: \label{Pogosian}

348: \ee

349: %

350: Here $y$ parameterizes the density of the string network, and should

351: be taken form numerical simulations. Recent work predicts $y=9 \pm

352: 2.5$ \cite{Landriau}.  Older simulations give $y = 6$~\cite{Allen},

353: and semi-analytic approximations give $y = 3 -6$~\cite{approx}.

354: 

355: 

356: The density perturbations produced in hybrid inflation can be

357: calculated using the slow roll formalism for the potential in

358: Eq.~(\ref{V}). Setting it equal to the value observed by WMAP gives

359: $\eta$ as a function of $\kappa$.  We will use the analytic

360: approximations, derived in the limit that the

361: Coleman-Weinberg(CW)-potential respectively the non-renormalisable

362: (NR) terms dominate the potential:~\cite{CMB}

363: %

364: \bea

365: \eta_{_{\rm CW}} 

366: &=& 5 \times 10^{15} \GeV\, \mcN^{1/3}

367: \( \frac{\kappa}{10^{-3}} \)^{1/3} ,

368: \label{eta_l}

369: \\

370: \eta_{\rm NR} &=& 

371: 3 \times 10^{15} \GeV\, \( \frac{\kappa}{10^{-6}} \) .

372: \label{eta_NR}

373: \eea

374: %

375: The symmetry breaking scale is restricted to the range

376: %

377: \be

378: \eta_{_{\rm CW}} \leq \eta \leq \min[\eta_{\rm NR},\eta_{\rm bnd}].

379: \label{eta}

380: \ee

381: %

382: If the $A$- and mass terms are absent or subdominant during inflation

383: there are two distinct solutions, corresponding to $\eta_{_{\rm CW}}$

384: and $\eta_{\rm NR}$ (the upper bound $\eta_{\rm bnd}$ comes from the

385: fact that the string contribution to the CMB is limited). If on the

386: other hand these terms do play a role, the whole range is possible.

387: This is illustrated in Fig.~\ref{F:y3}, which shows $\eta$ as a

388: function of $\kappa$ for $\mcN=1,16,126$.  In this plot the $A$- and

389: mass term are assumed to be negligible; if they are not the solution

390: is somewhere in the range given by Eq.~(\ref{eta}). The straight part

391: at relatively large coupling is well approximated by $\eta_{_{\rm

392: CW}}$. At low value there is a second branch of solutions given by

393: $\eta_{\rm NR}$.  Also plotted is $\eta_{\rm bnd}$ for $y=3$; above

394: this line the string contribution to the CMB is more than 10\%. The

395: CMB constraints are satisfied for the coupling range $10^{-6} \lesssim

396: \kappa \lesssim 10^{-2}/\mcN$ and the SSB scale range $\eta \sim

397: 10^{15}-10^{16} \GeV$.

398: 

399: The CMB bound can be avoided if the strings are semi-local or not

400: topologically stable down to low energy  and decay at some

401: later phase transition \cite{B-L}.

402: 

403: 

404: \begin{figure}

405: \begin{center}

406: \leavevmode\epsfysize=9cm \epsfbox{y3.eps}

407: \caption{$\eta$ vs. $\kappa$ for $\mcN =1,16,126$ and $y=3$. Further

408: shown is the 10\%-bound.}

409: \label{F:y3}

410: \end{center}

411: \end{figure}

412: 

413: 

414: \section{Non-thermal leptogenesis from inflaton decay}

415: \label{s:NT_inflaton}

416: 

417: In this section we review the non-thermal leptogenesis scenario which

418: happens during reheating as a result of inflaton decay into

419: right-handed (s)neutrinos \cite{leptinfl,shafi1}.

420: 

421: The Higgs fields $\phi$ and $\bar{\phi}$ break local $B$-$L$

422: spontaneously when developing a VEV at the end of inflation. The

423: right-handed neutrinos acquire super-heavy Majorana masses via their

424: coupling to $\bar{\phi}$. Some other GUT superfield (this is model

425: dependent) gives a Dirac mass to the neutrinos and the light neutrinos

426: acquire a super light Majorana mass via the see-saw mechanism

427: \cite{seesaw}. The lepton asymmetry, generated as the right-handed

428: (s)neutrinos decay into SM Higgs(inos) and (s)leptons, is converted

429: into a baryon asymmetry via sphaleron transitions \cite{Yanagida}.

430: 

431: 

432: 

433: Depending on the transformation properties of the Higgs

434: representation, the right-handed neutrino masses are generated via

435: normalisable or non-renormalisable superpotential terms

436: %

437: \bea

438: W &=& \frac{1}{\mpl} \gamma_{ij} \bar{\phi} \bar{\phi} F_i F_j,

439: \label{Mi_NR} \\

440: W &=& y_{ij} \bar{\phi} F_i F_j,

441: \label{Mi_ren}

442: \eea

443: %

444: where $F$ is the $n$-dimensional spinorial representation of G which

445: contains the right-handed neutrino superfield $N$, and $i,j = 1..3$

446: for three families. At the end of inflation $S$ and $\phi_+ = (\delta

447: \phi + \delta \bar{\phi})/\sqrt{2}$, with $\phi =\eta + \delta \phi$

448: and $\bar{\phi} =\eta + \delta \bar{\phi}$, oscillate around the

449: global SUSY minimum of the potential until they decay into

450: right-handed neutrinos and sneutrinos, thereby reheating the universe

451: \cite{leptinfl}.  We work in the basis where the right-handed

452: neutrinos mass matrix is diagonal. The decay rates $\Gamma(\phi_+ \to

453: N_i N_i)$ and $\Gamma(S \to \tilde{N_i} \tilde{N_i})$ are equal and

454: given by

455: %

456: \be

457: \Gamma_N = \frac{1}{8 \pi} \(\frac{M_i}{\eta} \)^2 m_\chi,

458: \label{gamma}

459: \ee

460: %

461: with $\chi = S,\phi_+$ the oscillating fields which have equal mass

462: $m_\chi = \kappa \eta$, and $M_i = y_i \eta, \gamma_i

463: \frac{\eta^2}{\mpl} $ the mass of the heaviest right-handed neutrino

464: $N_i$ (sneutrino $\tilde{N_i}$) the inflaton can decay into (i.e.,

465: which satisfies $M_i < m_\chi/2$).  The reheat temperature is then

466: %

467: \be

468: T_{\rm R} = \({45\over 2 \pi^2 g^*}\)^{1/4} (\Gamma_N \, \mpl)^{1/2} 

469: \simeq 6\times 10^{-2} M_i \sqrt{ \frac{\kappa \mpl}{\eta}} .

470: \label{TR}

471: \ee

472: %

473: where we have used $g_* = 228.75$ for the MSSM spectrum.

474: 

475: Non-thermal leptogenesis from inflaton decay takes place if the

476: following constraints are satisfied:

477: 

478: \begin{description}

479: \item [Kinematic constraint:]

480: 

481: Inflaton decay into right-handed (s)neutrinos is kinematically allowed

482: if $M_i \leq m_\chi /2$, i.e.,

483: %

484: \be

485: M_i (\kappa) \leq \frac12 \kappa \eta

486: \ee

487: 

488: 

489: \item [Gravitino constraint:]

490: 

491: Gravitino overproduction is avoided if the reheat temperature $T_{\rm

492: R} \lesssim 10^{10} \GeV$ \cite{gravitino}. This gives

493: %

494: \be

495: M_i (\kappa) \lesssim 1.6 \times 10^{11} \GeV \( \frac{T_{\rm R}}{10^{10} \GeV}\)

496: \sqrt{\frac{\eta(\kappa)}{\kappa \mpl}}.

497: \label{gravitino}

498: \ee

499: %

500: The upper bound on $T_{\rm R}$ is model dependent and can be as low as

501: $10^6 \GeV$.  We note that the gravitino constraint can be avoided if

502: the gravitino mass is sufficiently large so that it decays before

503: BBN.

504: 

505: 

506: \item [Gravitational decay:]

507: 

508: The decay rate into right-handed (s)neutrinos should be larger than

509: the gravitational decay rate into light particles. In a full theory,

510: the superpotential is $W= W_{\rm infl} + W_{\rm hid} + W_{\rm GUT}$,

511: where $W_{\rm GUT}$ contains GUT superfields, some of them containing

512: the MSSM fields.  The gravitational decay rate of the inflaton into

513: light SM particles can then be computed by considering for example a

514: term of the form $W_{\rm GUT} = a H F F$, $F$ containing the standard

515: model fermions and $H$ some GUT Higgs superfield containing the SM

516: Higgs. In the SUGRA potential Eq.~(\ref{Vsugra}) there is a coupling

517: between the inflaton and the SM particles, leading to a decay rate

518: %

519: \be

520: \Gamma_{\rm grav} \simeq \frac{1}{8\pi} \frac{ m_\chi^3 \eta^2}{\mpl^4}. 

521: \label{grav}

522: \ee

523: %

524: Note that this is parametrically smaller than the standard

525: gravitational decay rate $\Gamma_{\rm grav} = (1/8\pi)

526: m_\chi^3/\mpl^2$ \cite{Nanopoulos}. Requiring $\Gamma_N

527: >\Gamma_{\rm grav}$ then leads to

528: %

529: \be

530: M_i(\kappa) \gtrsim \frac{\kappa^2 \eta^3}{\mpl^2}.

531: \label{grav_decay}

532: \ee

533: %

534: 

535: 

536: \item [The wash-out constraint:]

537: 

538: The lepton asymmetry produced by the decay of the RH neutrino $N_i$ is

539: washed out by the $L$-violating processes involving RH neutrinos,

540: unless they are out of thermal equilibrium which is automatic if $M_j

541: \lesssim T_{\rm R}$, with $j=1,2,3$. The strongest constraint is for

542: the lightest RH neutrino:

543: %

544: \be \frac{M_1(\kappa)}{M_i(\kappa)} \gtrsim \frac{1}{16} \sqrt{\frac{\mpl

545: \kappa}{\eta(\kappa)}},

546: \label{wash}

547: \ee

548: %

549: with as before $M_i$ the mass of the RH neutrino the inflaton decays

550: into.  This implies $M_1 \gtrsim 10^{-1}-10^{-3} M_i$ for ($\eta,

551: \kappa$) allowed by CMB data (see Eqs.~\ref{eta_l}-\ref{eta}). No

552: wash-out is assured if $M_1 < m_\chi < M_2,M_3$ and the inflaton

553: decays into the lightest right-handed neutrino.  The CP violating

554: parameter $\epsilon$ can be improved by at most a factor $(M_2/M_1)

555: \simeq 10^1-10^3$ if the decay is not into the lightest neutrino, but

556: into the next to lightest one (see the Appendix: $\epsilon_1 \propto

557: M_1$ and $\epsilon_2 \propto M_2$)~\cite{shafi1}.

558: 

559: 

560: 

561: \item [Perturbative couplings:]

562: 

563: We require the couplings $\gamma_i, y_i$ in

564: Eqs.~(\ref{Mi_NR},~\ref{Mi_ren}) to be less than unity. For a

565: renormalisable mass term this bound cannot compete with the kinematic

566: constraint.  For a non-renormalisable mass term this implies

567: %

568: \be

569: M_i \lesssim

570: \frac{\eta^2}{\mpl} \sim 1 \times 10^{15} \GeV 

571: (\mcN \kappa)^{2/3} ,

572: \label{pert}

573: \ee

574: %

575: where in the last step we used $\eta = \eta_{_{\rm CW}}$, see

576: Eq.~(\ref{eta_l}). If $\eta/\mpl < \kappa$, which only happens for $k

577: \gtrsim 10^{-2}$, then for non-renormalisable mass terms all neutrino

578: masses are lighter than the inflaton mass.

579: 

580: 

581: \item [Lepton asymmetry:]

582: 

583: The lepton asymmetry produced is~\cite{Asaka}

584: %

585: \be

586: \frac{n_L}{s} = \frac32 \frac{T_{\rm R}}{m_\chi} \epsilon_i,

587: \ee

588: %

589: with $\epsilon_i$ the CP asymmetry per decaying RH neutrino $N_i$.

590: For hierarchical RH neutrino masses and hierarchical light neutrinos

591: the CP asymmetry in the decay of the lightest RH neutrino is bounded

592: by \cite{Davidson,Buchmuller}

593: %

594: \be

595: |\epsilon_1| \leq 2 \times 10^{-10}  \( \frac{M_1}{10^6 \GeV} \) 

596: \( \frac{(\Delta m^2_{\rm atm})^{1/2}}{0.05 \eV}\).

597: \label{eps}

598: \ee

599: %

600: As discussed in the appendix, the upper bound on $\epsilon_2$ is of

601: the same order of magnitude, but with $M_1 \to M_2$ in the above

602: formula. The CP-asymmetry induced by the decay of the heaviest RH

603: neutrino is suppressed by a factor $M_2/M_3$.  For quasi-degenerate

604: light neutrinos ($m_1 \approx m_2 \approx m_3 \gg (\Delta m^2_{\rm

605: atm})^{1/2}$) the asymmetry is smaller ~\cite{Buchmuller}

606: %

607: \be

608: |\epsilon_1| \leq  2 \times 10^{-10}  \( \frac{M_i}{10^6 \GeV} \) 

609: \(\frac{(\Delta m^2_{\rm atm})^{1/2}}{0.05 \eV}\) 

610: \(\frac{(\Delta m^2_{\rm atm})^{1/2}}{\bar{m}}\),

611: \ee

612: %

613: with $\bar{m} = 1/3 \sqrt{m_1^2+m_2^2+m_3^2}$.  

614: 

615: If the RH neutrinos are quasi-degenerate and $M_i - M_j \sim \Gamma_i$

616: the CP-asymmetry is enhanced. The only constraint is then

617: $|\epsilon_i| < 1$.  Upper bounds on the CP-asymmetry in type II

618: see-saw models have also been derived for non-degenerate neutrinos,

619: and are of the same magnitude as Eq.~(\ref{eps})~\cite{king}.

620: 

621: 

622: 

623: The baryon asymmetry inferred from BBN translates into a primordial

624: lepton asymmetry given by $n_L/s = 2.4 \times 10^{-10}$ for the MSSM

625: spectrum. For hierarchical light neutrinos, this is obtained for

626: %

627: \be

628: M_i(k) \gtrsim {5.4 \times 10^3}

629: \( \frac{\kappa \eta(\kappa)^3}{\mpl} \)^{1/4} \sqrt{\GeV}.

630: \ee

631: %

632: For smaller $M_i$ the produced asymmetry is too small.

633: 

634: 

635: \end{description}

636: 

637: \begin{figure}[t]

638: \leavevmode\epsfysize=9cm \epsfbox{decay1.eps}

639: \caption{$M_i$ vs. $\kappa$ for $\eta= \eta_{_{\rm CW}}$ and

640: $\mcN=1$. The parameter space is bounded by the kinematic constraint

641: (left), successful leptogenesis (right), and the gravitino constraint

642: (lines, for $T_{\rm R} = 10^7,10^8,10^9,10^{10}\GeV$) .}

643: \label{F:decay1}

644: \end{figure}

645: 

646: 

647: The parameter space compatible with NT leptogenesis from inflaton

648: decay is shown in Figs.~\ref{F:decay1} and \ref{F:decay2}.  The

649: kinematic, perturbative coupling and gravitino constraints all give an

650: upper bound on $M_i$. The perturbative coupling constraint is weakest

651: and not shown.  The kinematic constraint is strongest for small

652: $\kappa$, whereas the gravitino constraint dominates for large

653: coupling.  The gravitational decay and leptogenesis constraint give a

654: lower bound on $M_i$.  The leptogenesis bound is strongest.  The

655: $\kappa$ range is bounded by the CMB data, as given by

656: Eqs.~(\ref{eta_l}, \ref{eta_NR}, \ref{eta}) and Fig.~\ref{F:y3}, to

657: $10^{-6} \lesssim \kappa \lesssim 10^{-2}/\mcN$.

658: 

659: 

660: Fig.~\ref{F:decay1} shows the parameter space for $\eta= \eta_{_{\rm

661: CW}}$ and $\mcN = 1$. The colored regions are excluded. The upper

662: bound is fixed by the reheat temperature; the bounds for $T_{\rm R} =

663: 10^7,10^8,10^9,10^{10} \GeV$ are shown.  Leptogenesis is only possible

664: for $T_{\rm R} > 10^6 \GeV$.  For $T_{\rm R} \sim 10^9 \GeV$,

665: successful leptogenesis requires $M_i = 10^9 - 10^{11}\GeV$ and $\kappa

666: = 10^{-5} - 10^{-3}$.  One should remember that in addition to the

667: constraints shown in the plot, it should be checked that $M_1 > T_{\rm

668: R}$ and there is no wash-out of asymmetry.  This is the case for $M_1

669: \gtrsim 10^{-2} M_i$, with leptogenesis dominated by inflaton decay

670: into $N_i$, in agreement with Eq.~(\ref{wash}).

671: 

672: For a fixed coupling value, the possible range of neutrino mass $M_i$

673: is about a decade.  Therefore the bounds are all close to saturation.

674: E.g. the leptogenesis constraint gives $M_i \propto

675: (\epsilon_i/\epsilon_i^{\rm max})^{-1/2}$, and thus

676: $(\epsilon_i/\epsilon_i^{\rm max}) \gtrsim 10^{-2}$ is

677: required. Hence, degenerate light neutrinos with $\bar{m} \sim \eV$

678: are marginally excluded.

679: 

680: \begin{figure}[t]

681: \leavevmode\epsfysize=9cm \epsfbox{decay2.eps}

682: \caption{$M_i$ vs. $\kappa$ for $\max[\eta_{_{\rm CW}},\eta_{\rm NR}]<

683: \eta < \eta_{\rm bnd}$, $T_{\rm R} = 10^{10} \GeV$ and $\mcN =

684: 1,16,126$. The parameter space is bounded by the kinematic constraint

685: (left), successful leptogenesis (bottom), the gravitino constraint

686: (top), and for $\mcN =16,\,126$ by the CMB data (right).}

687: \label{F:decay2}

688: \end{figure}

689: 

690: 

691: 

692: Fig.~\ref{F:decay2} shows the parameter space for $\eta$ in the whole

693: range of Eq.~(\ref{eta}) for $T_{\rm R} = 10^{10} \GeV$ and

694: $\mcN=1,16,126$.  The parameter space is enhanced compared to

695: Fig.~\ref{F:decay1}, about twice as big.  The main consequence of

696: increasing $\mcN$ is that the small $\kappa$ range is excluded by the

697: CMB data, and that leptogenesis requires a slightly larger neutrino

698: mass.

699: 

700: 

701: 

702: 

703: \section{Leptogenesis from string decay}

704: 

705: Cosmic strings form in SUSY GUT models with standard hybrid inflation

706: \cite{prd,jrs}. The string mass per unit length is then constrained by

707: CMB data, see Eqs.(\ref{mu}), (\ref{eta_l}) and (\ref{eta_NR}).  When

708: the symmetry broken is gauged $B$-$L$, they also provide a non-thermal

709: scenario for leptogenesis \cite{lept}.  We first describe various

710: possible NT leptogenesis scenarios with $B$-$L$ strings forming at the

711: end of inflation. We then discuss the evolution of the string network

712: and analyse the various scenarios in details.

713: 

714: 

715: \subsection{Leptogenesis scenarios}

716: 

717: 

718: Depending on whether the mass of the lightest RH neutrino $M_1$ is

719: larger or smaller than the reheat temperature $T_{\rm R}$, and on

720: whether the inflaton decays into right handed neutrinos or not, there

721: will also be a contribution to the lepton asymmetry of the universe

722: from inflaton decay or standard thermal leptogenesis. We distinguish

723: the following cases:

724: 

725: \begin{description}

726:   

727: \item [Case 1:] The reheat temperature is lower than the lightest

728:   right-handed neutrino mass, $T_{\rm R} < M_1$, and there is no

729:   wash-out at any time.  The lepton asymmetry is set by the earliest

730:   time that string loops form, which is right at the end of inflation.

731:   Reheating of the universe takes place at a later time, via inflaton

732:   decay into right-handed neutrinos.  Apart from NT leptogenesis from

733:   $B$-$L$ strings, there is also a contribution from non-thermal

734:   leptogenesis from inflaton decay as discussed in section

735:   \ref{s:NT_inflaton}.

736: 

737: Constraints: gravitino constraint $T_{\rm R} < 10^{10} \GeV$,

738: gravitational decay constraint $\Gamma_{\rm grav} < \Gamma_N$,

739: kinematical constraint $M_i < m_\chi/2$.

740: 

741: 

742: \item [Case 2:] Same as case 1 but now the inflaton does not decay

743:   into RH neutrinos. For example, if $M_i > m_\chi/2$ $\forall i$ and

744:   there is no other superpotential term involving the singlet or the

745:   Higgs fields, decay is through gravitational interactions: $\Gamma_N

746:   < \Gamma_{\rm grav}$. Gravitational reheating can alleviate the

747:   gravitino constraint.  Leptogenesis comes from the decay of the

748:   string forming gauge field in right handed neutrinos.  This is the

749:   only contribution to the lepton asymmetry.

750: 

751: Constraint: gravitino $T_{\rm R} < 10^{10} \GeV$.

752: 

753: 

754: 

755: 

756: \item [Case 3:] The reheat temperature is higher than the lightest

757:   neutrino mass $T_{\rm R} > M_1$.  The asymmetry will be washed out

758:   at high temperatures by $L$-violating processes mediated by $N_1$,

759:   and can only be created for $T_{\rm R} < M_1$.  The asymmetry is

760:   then dominated by the loop formation rate at $T \sim M_1$.  There are two

761:   contributions to the lepton asymmetry: NT leptogenesis from $B$-$L$

762:   strings and standard thermal leptogenesis.  This is the case

763:   considered before \cite{Sahu,Gu}.

764: 

765: Constraints: gravitino constraint $T_{\rm R} < 10^{10} \GeV$, kinematical

766: constraint $M_1 < m_\chi/2$. %$ \max[m_A,m_\phi]$.  

767: 

768: \end{description}

769: 

770: In order to analyse the various scenarios, we study analytically the

771: evolution of the string network, both in the scaling regime and at the

772: initial times.

773: 

774: 

775: \subsection{String network and neutrino density}

776: 

777: The evolution of a cosmic string network has been extensively studied

778: over the years \cite{ShelVil}.  Numerical simulations and analytical

779: studies agree that the string network reaches a scaling regime, in

780: which the energy-density carried by the network remains a constant

781: fraction of the total energy density in the universe. The scaling

782: solution is an attractor solution, and is independent of the initial

783: string density. This is one of the reasons that string network at

784: formation has not been discussed much in the literature.  However, the

785: lepton asymmetry is dominated by the initial time, and thus depends

786: sensitively on the initial density.  We first discuss the familiar

787: scaling regime, before turning to a discussion of the initial string

788: density.

789: 

790: 

791: 

792: \subsubsection{The scaling regime}

793:  

794: To describe the approach to the scaling regime, we introduce the

795: characteristic length-scale $L$ which sets the correlation length and

796: the average distance between long strings~\cite{ShelVil}. The energy

797: density in long strings, $\rho_\infty \sim \mu/L^2$, evolves as

798: %

799: \be

800: \dot{\rho}_\infty = -2H\rho_\infty -f(p) \frac{\rho_\infty}{L}

801: \label{dot_rho}

802: \ee

803: %

804: where the terms on the right hand side describe the energy loss due to

805: expansion of universe, and due to production of loops respectively.

806: The function $f(p)$ depends on the reconnection probability $p$ as

807: $f(p) \sim \sqrt{p}$. For gauge field theory cosmic strings $p =1$.

808: Introducing $\gamma(t)$ such that

809: %

810: \be

811: L = \gamma(t) t,

812: \label{L}

813: \ee

814: %

815: one finds that the above equation has a stable attractor solution, the

816: scaling solution. It does not depend on the initial string density:

817: %

818: \be

819: L = \gamma_s(t) t \equiv \frac{f(P)}{2(1-\beta)} t

820: \ee

821: %

822: where we wrote $\beta = H t$.  Since $\gamma_s = \sqrt{p}/(2(1-\beta)) =

823: {\mathcal O}(1)$ is constant, the long strings scale with the horizon.

824: 

825: 

826: The scale $L$ characterizes the network on macroscopic scales, but

827: does not say anything about what happens on the smallest

828: scales. Simulations show that the long strings have small-scale

829: wiggles, whose characteristic length also scales with time

830: \cite{ShelVil}. These wiggles set the typical loop size, which we

831: parametrise as

832: %

833: \be

834: l_{\rm loop} \sim \alpha t

835: \label{lloop}

836: \ee

837: %

838: with $\alpha \sim (\Gamma G \mu)^n$, and $\Gamma \sim 50$. The

839: ``standard'' value is $n=1$ giving $\alpha = \alpha_1 \equiv (\Gamma G

840: \mu)$~\cite{ShelVil}.  More recent simulations suggest $n=3/2 \,(5/2)$

841: in the radiation (matter) dominated era \cite{vilenkin}.  The loop

842: formation rate $\dot{n}_{\rm loop}$ is set by the requirement that the

843: string network keeps its scaling solution. The loops loose energy by

844: emitting gravitational radiation and contract until the loop radius

845: becomes of the order of the string width, at which point it decays

846: emitting $X$-particles (with $X = \phi,A,N$, i.e., the string Higgs or

847: gauge fields, or RH neutrino zero modes).  For $\alpha \lesssim

848: \alpha_1$, the loop lifetime is less than a Hubble time and we can

849: then neglect the red shifting between birth and death.  The injection

850: rate of right-handed neutrinos during scaling is then simply

851: %

852: \be

853: \dot{n}_N = x_N \dot{n}_{\rm loop} 

854: \simeq \frac{x_N}{\gamma^2 \alpha p} t^{-4},

855: \label{rate}

856: \ee

857: %

858: where $x_N$ is the number of right-handed (s)neutrinos produced per

859: decaying loop. 

860: 

861: The minimal number of RH neutrinos released per loop is $x_N = 1$.

862: However, we expect the loop to decay when its radius becomes of the

863: order of the string width $m_\phi^{-1}$ with a burst of the strings

864: Higgs and gauge particles \cite{ShelVil}. These in turn (mostly) decay

865: into RH neutrinos. The number of neutrinos emitted per loop is then of

866: the order

867: %

868: \be

869: x_N \lesssim \frac{E_{\rm loop} \big|_{R \sim m_\phi^{-1}}}{m_X} 

870: \simeq

871: \frac{(2\pi)^2 \theta(\beta)}{\kappa} \frac{\eta}{m_X}

872: \label{f_N}

873: \ee

874: %

875: with $\theta(\beta) \sim 0.1 -1$ given in Eq.~(\ref{theta}).  If the

876: loops decay mainly into Higgs fields $m_X = m_\phi$ and $x_N \sim

877: \kappa^{-2}$, whereas if decay is mainly into gauge bosons $m_X = m_A$

878: and $x_N \sim \kappa^{-1}$.  If the string width at which the loop

879: decays is smaller than the the inverse Higgs mass $m_\phi^{-1}$, then

880: $x_N$ is correspondingly smaller.

881: 

882: The lepton density is obtained by integrating Eq.~(\ref{rate}) with a

883: red shift factor $(a(t_{\rm in})/a(t))^3 = (t_{\rm in}/t)^{3/2}$ to

884: account for the expansion of the universe. Here it is assumed that

885: both $t$ and the initial time $t_{\rm in}$ are in the radiation

886: dominated era following inflaton decay. This gives (using $t \sim

887: H^{-1}$)

888: %

889: \be

890: n_L(H)

891: \simeq \frac{x_N\epsilon_i}{\gamma_{\rm s}^2 \alpha} 

892: H_{\rm in}^{3/2} H^{3/2}, 

893: \label{n_L1_tr}

894: \ee

895: %

896: independent of the reheating temperature.\\

897: 

898: 

899: Some simulations find that loops form on the smallest possible scale

900: (given by the resolution of the simulation). These results suggest

901: that scaling is maintained mostly by particle emission rather than via

902: loop formation and subsequent gravitational decay.  This is called the

903: VHS scenario, after the authors of Ref.~\cite{VHS}. The emitted

904: $X$-particles are the RH neutrinos themselves, due to the existence of

905: zero mode solutions, and the string forming Higgs and gauge fields which

906: then (mostly) decay into RH neutrinos.  This gives a RH neutrino

907: injection rate \cite{sigl}

908: %

909: \be

910: \dot{n}_N \simeq f_{_{X}} \frac{\mu}{m_X \gamma^2} t^{-3}.

911: \label{rate2}

912: \ee

913: %

914: with $X = \phi,A,N$, and $f_{_{X}}$ the fraction of the energy in

915: loops that goes into $X$-particles.  Not all of the loop energy can go

916: into high-energy particles, as this would give too large a diffuse

917: $\gamma$-ray back ground, in conflict with the EGRET

918: data~\cite{egret}.  Combining the EGRET bound with the CMB bound

919: gives\footnote{A similar injection rate and EGRET constraint apply for

920: large loops which undergo 'quick death', i.e., loops that decay

921: through many self-intersections into small loops which in turn decay

922: emitting heavy X-particles.}~\cite{sigl}

923: %

924: \be 

925: f_{_{X}}

926: \lesssim 10^{-5}

927: \( \frac{7 \times 10^{-7}} {G\mu} \) 

928: \ee

929: %

930: We note, however, that the EGRET flux is dominated by late times. It

931: is therefore not impossible that $f_{_{X}}$ is time-dependent,

932: and much larger than the bound above at early times.

933: 

934: When leptogenesis takes place after reheating, the lepton number

935: density is obtained by integrating (\ref{rate2}) taking into account

936: the expansion of the universe.  This gives

937: %

938: \be

939: n_L(H) 

940: \simeq  \frac{f_{_{X}} \epsilon_i} 

941: {\gamma_{\rm s}^2}  \frac{\mu H_{\rm in}^{1/2} H^{3/2}}{m_X} .

942: \label{n_L2_tr}

943: \ee

944: %

945: 

946: 

947: 

948: \subsubsection{The initial string density}

949: \label{sec-init}

950: 

951: 

952:  

953: Cosmic strings are formed during the $B$-$L$ breaking phase

954: transition. The string density is set by the correlation length at the

955: time of the phase transition $\hat{\xi}$~\cite{Kibble,Zurek}.  The

956: universe is cold at the end of inflation, and the equilibrium

957: correlation length is set by the mass of the symmetry breaking Higgs

958: fields $\xi(t)^{-1} =m_\phi(t) = \kappa^2(S^2(t)-\eta^2)$.  Both the

959: correlation length and the relaxation time $\tau = \xi$ diverge during

960: the phase transition, and eventually $\phi$ must fall out of

961: equilibrium.  The correlation length at freeze out $\hat{\xi}$ is thus

962: in the range

963: %

964: \be

965: (\kappa \eta)^{-1} < \hat{\xi} < H_*^{-1}.

966: \label{xi_range}

967: \ee

968: %

969: with $H_*$ the Hubble constant at the end of inflation.

970: The lower bound is set by the maximum Higgs mass $m_\phi = k \eta$

971: obtained in the vacuum.  The upper bound is set by causality, as

972: fluctuations cannot exceed the horizon.  A more careful estimate of

973: $\hat{\xi}$ is given in Ref.~\cite{Copeland}.  Writing $S(t) = S_c -

974: \dot{S} t $ near the phase transition, the inverse Higgs mass, which

975: sets the correlation length, is $m_\phi^2(t) = - (\kappa^2 \eta

976: \dot{S}) t$. Freeze out happens approximately at the time when the

977: relaxation time is equal to $|t|$, and thus

978: %

979: \be

980: \hat{\xi} \approx \xi(-\tau) = (\kappa^2 \eta \dot{S})^{-1/3}.

981: \label{xi_best}

982: \ee

983: %

984: During slow roll inflation $\dot{S} \sim (60 H^2)$.  If the velocity

985: does not change much between time observable scales leave the horizon

986: and the time of the phase transition, then this is a good estimate.

987: The freeze-out correlation length $\hat{\xi}$ determines the typical

988: distance between cosmic strings.

989: 

990: 

991: At the time of string formation (quantities will be denoted by subscript

992: $_*$), the correlation length $\hat {\xi} = L = \gamma_* t_*$ (see

993: Eq.~(\ref{L}))

994: %

995: \be

996: t_*^{-1} \sim H_* \sim \frac{\kappa \eta^2}{\mpl}.

997: \label{Hstar}

998: \ee

999: %

1000: Using Eqs.~(\ref{xi_range},~\ref{xi_best}), we get the range and

1001: ``best'' value for $\gamma_*$:

1002: %

1003: \be

1004: \gamma_{\rm min} \equiv \eta/\mpl < 

1005: \gamma_* < 1 \equiv \gamma_{\rm max},

1006: \qquad\qquad

1007: \gamma_{\rm best} \equiv \gamma_* \sim 0.1

1008: \kappa^{-1/3} (\eta/\mpl)^{1/3}.

1009: \label{gam_best}

1010: \ee

1011: %

1012: 

1013: Since $\gamma_* < \gamma_{s}$ and $\rho_\infty \propto \gamma^{-2}$,

1014: the energy density in the network is initially larger than during the

1015: scaling regime.  Solving Eq.~(\ref{dot_rho}) with the initial

1016: conditions above, it can be seen that the scaling regime is typically

1017: reached in only a couple of Hubble times.  We will use the

1018: approximation that initial network reaches the scaling regime

1019: instantaneously, and an amount of energy $\rho_* \sim \mu/(\gamma_*

1020: t_*)^2$ is dumped into loops and/or particles at the initial time

1021: given by Eq.~(\ref{Hstar}).~\footnote{We neglect friction in the

1022: thermal bath which is absent for $T < G\mu \mpl$. Note that the

1023: strings form before reheating has completed. Taking for $T$ the reheat

1024: temperature Eq.~(\ref{TR}), this gives $M_i < 4\theta

1025: \eta^{5/2}/(\kappa^{1/2} \mpl^{3/2}) \sim 6 \times 10^{14} \GeV \theta

1026: \kappa^{1/3} \mcN^{5/6}$, where in the last step we used

1027: $\eta=\eta_{_{\rm CW}}$.}

1028: 

1029: 

1030: Eq.~(\ref{lloop}) for the loop size breaks down at the initial time.

1031: The reason is that the loop radius is smaller than $\sim m_\phi^{-1}$,

1032: ($m_A^{-1}$), i.e., the width of the profile function of the Higgs

1033: (gauge) field, and various parts of the loop overlap.  It is not

1034: possible to speak of cosmic string loops anymore, which are well

1035: defined only for $l_{\rm loop} \sim \alpha t > 2 \pi m_\phi^{-1},

1036: (2\pi m_A^{-1})$, which requires $t \gg t_*$. Therefore it is expected

1037: that initially the energy loss in gravitational radiation is small,

1038: and the network mainly decays directly into RH neutrinos and into

1039: gauge and Higgs fields which (mostly) decay into RH neutrinos. The

1040: lepton number density at $H<T_R$ is then

1041: %

1042: \be n_L(H) \simeq f_{_{X}} \epsilon_i \frac{\rho_*}{m_X} \(

1043: \frac{a(t_*)}{a(t)} \)^3 \simeq  \frac{f_{_{X}} \epsilon_i}

1044: {\gamma_*^2} \frac{\mu \Gamma^{1/2} H^{3/2}}{m_X}.

1045: \label{n_L2}

1046: \ee

1047: %

1048: where $f_{_{X}}$ is the fraction of the energy going into X-particles and

1049: $\epsilon_i$ is the CP asymmetry per decaying RH neutrino, see

1050: Eq.~(\ref{eps}).  Before inflaton decay the universe is matter

1051: dominated and $a \propto t^{2/3}$, afterwards the universe is

1052: radiation dominated and $a \propto t^{1/2}$.  This is used in the

1053: second step to write $(a(t_*)/a(t))^3 = H^{3/2} H_*^{-2}

1054: \Gamma^{1/2}$, where the time $t \sim H^{-1}$ is after reheating of

1055: the universe $H < \Gamma$.  This factor takes the red shift due to the

1056: expansion of the universe into account.  The earlier the transition

1057: from matter to radiation domination, i.e., the larger the decay rate,

1058: the larger $T_R$ and the larger is the final number density.  The

1059: initial time $t_{\rm in}$ is right at the end of inflation, see

1060: Eq.~(\ref{Hstar}).

1061: 

1062: Eq.~(\ref{n_L2}) is the same as the lepton asymmetry produced during

1063: the scaling regime as given by Eq.~(\ref{n_L2_tr}) under the

1064: replacement $\gamma_* \to \gamma_s$ (difference in energy densities

1065: stored in long strings), and $\Gamma \to H_{\rm in}$ (difference in

1066: whether leptogenesis takes place before or after reheating).

1067: 

1068: 

1069: 

1070: 

1071: \subsection{Results}

1072: 

1073: For the parameters at hand $\Gamma < H_*$ and the inflaton decays some

1074: time after inflation.  The lepton asymmetry ${n_L}/{s}$ is to be

1075: evaluated after reheating, when entropy is defined.  The entropy is

1076: $s=(2\pi^2/45)g_*T^3 \sim 10^2 T^3$ with $T \simeq 0.4\sqrt{\mpl H}$.

1077: 

1078: \subsubsection{Case 1}

1079: 

1080: The string contribution is dominated by the asymmetry produced at the

1081: initial time.  The lepton number density is given by Eq.~(\ref{n_L2}).

1082: Dividing by the entropy gives

1083: %

1084: \be

1085: \frac{n_L}{s} \simeq \frac{\epsilon_i  f_{_{\rm X}}}{\gamma_{\rm in}^2}

1086: \frac{\mu \Gamma_N^{1/2}}{m_X \mpl^{3/2}}.

1087: \label{eta1}

1088: \ee

1089: %

1090: Using Eqs. (\ref{gamma}) and (\ref{eps}), we see that $n_L/s$ is

1091: proportional to $M_i M_j$ the mass of the heaviest RH neutrino the

1092: inflaton can decay into and the mass of the RH neutrino which is

1093: mostly produced by strings.  For $M_i=M_j$, which is automatic if the

1094: strings decay mostly into $\phi$-particles, successful leptogenesis

1095: with $n_L/s =2.4 \times 10^{-10}$ requires

1096: %

1097: \be

1098: M_i \simeq 9 \times 10^3 C

1099: \( \frac{\mpl^{3} \GeV^{2}}{\eta \kappa} \)^{1/4}

1100: = \frac{4 \times 10^{12} C \GeV}{\kappa^{1/3} \mcN^{1/12}} ,

1101: \label{M1}

1102: \ee

1103: %

1104: where in the second step we used $\eta=\eta_{_{\rm CW}}$, and we

1105: introduced

1106: %

1107: \be 

1108: C = \gamma_*

1109: \sqrt{ \frac{m_X/\eta}{\theta(\beta) f_{_{X}}}}.

1110: \label{C}

1111: \ee

1112: %

1113: $C$ is minimized for $\gamma_* \to \gamma_{\rm min}$ and $f_{_{X}} \to

1114: 1$.  In this limit the energy density in the string network is of the

1115: same order as the energy density in the oscillating inflaton field.

1116: If both the inflaton and the strings decay into $\phi$ particles ($X =

1117: \phi$) this gives a contribution to the lepton asymmetry of similar

1118: magnitude.  If however $\gamma_* > \gamma_{\rm min}$ or $f_{_{X}} <

1119: 1$, the energy stored in the string network is subdominant, and thus

1120: also its contribution to the asymmetry:

1121: %

1122: \be

1123: \frac{(n_L)_{\rm inflaton}}{(n_L)_{\rm strings}} \sim 

1124: f_{_{X}} \(\frac{\gamma_*}{\gamma_{\rm min}}\)^2

1125: \ee

1126: %

1127: 

1128: The string contribution can dominate over the inflaton contribution to

1129: the asymmetry if the strings decay mostly into RH (s)neutrinos.

1130: Another possibility is that $M_1 < m_\chi < M_2$ and the string decays

1131: mostly into gauge particles.  The inflaton decays into lightest RH

1132: (s)neutrino, whereas the gauge field can also decay in the next to

1133: lightest one.  Since $\epsilon_2/\epsilon_1 \sim M_2/M_1$ the

1134: CP-asymmetry is then larger per decaying $A$-particle than per

1135: decaying $\phi$-particle.  However, the number of gauge particles

1136: produced by string decay can be of the same order as the number of

1137: Higgs particles from inflaton decay only in the limit $\kappa \to 1$

1138: (so that $m_\phi \sim m_A$) and $f_{_{X}} \to 1$.

1139: 

1140: 

1141: For degenerate light neutrinos the CP asymmetry $\epsilon_i$ is

1142: smaller by a factor $\Delta m_{\rm atm}/m_3$, and $M_i \propto

1143: \epsilon_i^{1/2}$ is larger.  The $\mcN$-dependence of the neutrino

1144: mass $M_i$ is weak; the main effect of considering a larger Higgs

1145: representation is the stronger constraint on the coupling coming from

1146: CMB data: $\kappa \lesssim 10^{-2}/\mcN$.  The bound on the neutrino

1147: mass is weakest in the limit $\kappa \to 1$.  This is only possible if

1148: the strings do not contribute to the CMB anisotropies, i.e., if they

1149: are semi-local or are not topologically stable \cite{B-L}.

1150: 

1151: 

1152: \subsubsection{Case 2}

1153: 

1154: 

1155: \begin{figure}[t]

1156: \leavevmode\epsfysize=9cm \epsfbox{case2.eps}

1157: \caption{$M_i$ vs. $\kappa$ for case 2 with $\eta = \eta_{_{\rm CW}}$

1158: and $\mcN=1$. The lines A-C correspond to $A = (\gamma_{\rm

1159: in},X,f_{_{\rm X}}) = (\gamma_{\rm min},A,1)$, $B = (\gamma_{\rm

1160: best},A,1)$, $C = (\gamma_{\rm min},A,10^{-5})$.  The parameter space

1161: is bounded by the kinematic constraint (top and bottom), and gravitino

1162: constraint (parallel lines, for $T_R =10^7,...,10^{11} \GeV$).}

1163: \label{F:case2}

1164: \end{figure}

1165: 

1166: 

1167: If $m_\chi < M_i< \eta$ inflaton decay into RH neutrinos is

1168: kinematically forbidden, and in the absence of other direct couplings

1169: the inflaton decays gravitationally.  This implies a low reheat

1170: temperature which alleviates the gravitino constraint.  Note however

1171: that the lepton asymmetry $n_L \propto \Gamma^{1/2}$ is less efficient

1172: and large neutrino masses are needed.  The string loops decay into

1173: RH neutrinos and gauge quanta which subsequently decay into RH neutrinos.

1174: 

1175: To get the RH neutrino mass required for leptogenesis in case 2, we

1176: use Eq.~(\ref{eta1}) with $\Gamma_N$ replaced by the gravitational

1177: decay rate, to yield

1178: %

1179: \be

1180: M_i \simeq 9 \times 10^5 \GeV \frac{C^2}{\kappa^{3/2}}

1181: \( \frac{\mpl}{\eta} \)^{7/2} 

1182: =

1183: \frac{7\times 10^{11} \GeV C^2}{\kappa^{8/3} \mcN^{7/6}},

1184: \label{M2}

1185: \ee

1186: %

1187: with $C$ given by Eq.~(\ref{C}).  The neutrino mass is quadratic in

1188: $C$, and thus the dependence on the uncertain parameters grouped in

1189: $C$ is larger than in case 1. Minimizing $C$ gives $M_i \gtrsim 2

1190: \times 10^{13} \GeV$.

1191: 

1192: 

1193: The lower bound on the neutrino mass Eq.~(\ref{M2}) is shown in

1194: Fig.~(\ref{F:case2}) as well as the kinematic constraint $m_\chi/2 <

1195: M_i< m_A/2 \sim \eta/2$, and the gravitino constraint. The reheat

1196: temperature is independent of the neutrino mass, but does depend on

1197: the coupling $\kappa$.  For $\kappa < 10^{-2}$ one has $T_{\rm R} <

1198: 3\times 10^9\GeV $ and there is no gravitino problem. Leptogenesis is

1199: possible for $M_i \sim 10^{14}- 10^{16} \GeV$ and $\kappa \sim

1200: 10^{-2}$. The RH neutrino mass increases rapidly with small $\kappa$,

1201: and much smaller couplings are excluded. The large neutrino masses

1202: needed are incompatible with a non-renormalisable mass term as in

1203: Eq.~(\ref{Mi_NR}) and perturbative couplings, see Eq.~(\ref{pert}).

1204: 

1205: 

1206: 

1207: \subsubsection{Case 3}

1208: 

1209: 

1210: Consider now the case that the lightest RH neutrino reaches thermal

1211: equilibrium after inflation ($M_1 < T_{\rm R}$).  As follows from

1212: Eq.~(\ref{wash}) thermal equilibrium can only occur if the inflaton

1213: decays in $N_2$ or $N_3$, and not in the lightest RH neutrino.  The

1214: lepton asymmetry is thus produced via string decay in one of the

1215: heavier RH neutrinos and $i=2,3$. Any produced lepton asymmetry will

1216: be washed out until $L$-violating reactions fall out of equilibrium at

1217: $T\sim M_1$.  We assume that this occurs in the scaling regime.

1218: 

1219: 

1220: \paragraph{Loop scenario}

1221: 

1222: 

1223: The lepton number density is now given by

1224: Eq.~(\ref{n_L1_tr}). Diving by the entropy we get

1225: %

1226: \be

1227: \frac{n_L}{s} \simeq

1228: \frac{\epsilon_i f_N}{\gamma_{\rm in}^2 \alpha} 

1229: \(\frac{H_{\rm in}}{\mpl}\)^{3/2},

1230: \label{n_L3}

1231: \ee  

1232: %

1233: with $H_{\rm in} \simeq M_1^2/\mpl$.  Setting it equal to the observed

1234: value gives the RH neutrino mass needed for successful leptogenesis:

1235: %

1236: \be

1237: M_i \simeq 10^{14} \GeV C^{1/2} \(\frac{M_i}{M_1}\)^{3/4} 

1238: \gtrsim

1239: 2\times10^{14} \GeV \(\frac{C'^{2}\mcN^{1/2}}{\kappa}\)^{1/4}.

1240: \label{M3a}

1241: \ee

1242: %

1243: In the second step we used the equilibrium condition Eq.~(\ref{wash})

1244: and $\eta = \eta_{_{\rm CW}}$; further we defined

1245: %

1246: \be

1247: C' = \sqrt{ \frac{(\alpha/\alpha_1)}{f_N} } 

1248: \label{C'}

1249: \ee

1250: %

1251: The number of RH neutrinos released per loop is bounded by $x_N

1252: \lesssim \kappa^{-2}$  (see Eq.~(\ref{f_N})). Further $\alpha$

1253: gives the loop size at birth (see Eq.~(\ref{lloop})); taking $\alpha =

1254: (\Gamma G \mu)^n$ with $n=3/2$ instead of $n=1$ lowers $C'$ by about a

1255: factor 10. Thus $C' \gtrsim 0.1 \kappa$.  The lower bound on the RH

1256: neutrino mass is then

1257: %

1258: \be

1259: M_i \gtrsim 6 \times 10^{12} \GeV 

1260: \mcN^{1/8} \(\frac{\kappa}{10^{-2}}\)^{1/4},

1261: \ee

1262: %

1263: together with the CMB constraint $10^{-6} \lesssim \kappa \lesssim

1264: 10^{-2} / \mcN$. 

1265: 

1266: The bound on the neutrino mass Eq.~(\ref{M3a}) is shown in

1267: Fig.~(\ref{F:case3}) for $1 < f_N< \kappa^{-2}$, together with the

1268: kinetic and gravitino constraint.  Large couplings $\kappa \gtrsim

1269: 10^{-2}$ are needed, which is marginally excluded by the CMB data. The

1270: reheat temperature has to be large $T_R \gtrsim 10^{13} \GeV$.

1271: 

1272: 

1273: 

1274: 

1275: \begin{figure}[t]

1276: \leavevmode\epsfysize=9cm \epsfbox{case3.eps}

1277: \caption{$M_i$ vs. $\kappa$ for case 3 with $\eta= \eta_{_{\rm CW}}$,

1278: $\mcN=1$, and $\alpha = \alpha_1$.  The lila part corresponds to

1279: leptogenesis in the loop scenario with $1 < x_N < \kappa^{-2}$, and the

1280: lines A-B to the VHS scenario with $A = (\gamma_{\rm in},X,f_{_{\rm

1281: VHS}}) = (\gamma_{\rm s},\phi,1)$, and $B = (\gamma_{\rm s},A,1)$.

1282: The parameter space is bounded by the kinematic constraint (top), and

1283: the gravitino constraint (parallel lines, for $T_R

1284: =10^{11},...,10^{14} \GeV$).}

1285: \label{F:case3}

1286: \end{figure}

1287: 

1288: 

1289: 

1290: \paragraph{VHS Scenario}

1291: 

1292: The lepton number density is now given by Eq.~(\ref{n_L2_tr}), leading

1293: to

1294: %

1295: \be

1296: \frac{n_L}{s} = \frac{\epsilon_i  f_{_{X}}}{\gamma_{\rm in}^2}

1297: \frac{\mu H_{\rm in}^{1/2}}{m_X \mpl^{3/2}}

1298: \ee

1299: %

1300: with $H_{\rm in} \simeq M_1^2/\mpl$, $\gamma_{\rm in} = \gamma_s \sim

1301: 1$, and with $i=2,3$.  Leptogenesis requires

1302: %

1303: \be

1304: M_i \simeq 4\times 10^2 C \frac{\mpl \GeV^{1/2}}{\eta^{1/2}}

1305: \( \frac{M_i}{M_1} \)^{1/2}

1306: \gtrsim \frac{7 \times 10^{12} \GeV C}{\kappa^{1/3} \mcN^{1/12}}

1307: \label{M3b}

1308: \ee

1309: %

1310: where in the second step we used the equilibrium condition

1311: Eq.~(\ref{wash}) and $\eta = \eta_{_{\rm CW}}$.

1312: 

1313: The EGRET data requires the fraction of the total energy that goes

1314: into $X$-particles to be small $f_{_{X}} \lesssim 10^{-5}$; as a

1315: result leptogenesis is not efficient enough and too large neutrino

1316: masses are needed, incompatible with the kinematic constraint.  If

1317: however in the early scaling regime $f_{_{X}} \sim 1$ also possible

1318: --- remember that the EGRET bound is determined by late times ---

1319: smaller neutrino masses are possible, as shown in

1320: Fig.~(\ref{F:case3}).

1321: 

1322: 

1323: Our results Eq.~(\ref{M3a},~\ref{M3b}) for $C=1,\,C'=1$ agree with

1324: those found in Ref.~\cite{Sahu}.  Ref.~\cite{Gu} assumes degenerate light

1325: neutrino masses, and finds stronger bounds.

1326: 

1327: 

1328: 

1329: \section{$\mu$-term}

1330: 

1331: The $\mu$-problem can naturally be resolved in SUSY hybrid inflation

1332: with the introduction of a superpotential term \cite{Laz3}

1333: %

1334: \be W = \lambda S H H'  \ee

1335: %

1336: where $H,H'$ contains the two Higgs doublets of the MSSM.  After

1337: inflation, $S$ gets a VEV due to low energy SUSY breaking which is of

1338: order $\langle S \rangle \sim m_{3/2}/\kappa$ provided $\lambda >

1339: \kappa$ (otherwise $S$ ends up in wrong minimum), and the $\mu$-term

1340: is generated. However, the superpotential term above opens up a new

1341: decay channel for the inflaton and jeopardizes non-thermal

1342: leptogenesis.  

1343: 

1344: 

1345: The kinematic constraint $M_i < m_\chi/2$ together with the constraint

1346: $\lambda > \kappa$ assures that decay rate for inflaton decay into SM

1347: higgses and higgsinos

1348: %

1349: \be

1350: \Gamma_H = \frac{\lambda^2}{16\pi} m_\chi

1351: \label{gammaH}

1352: \ee

1353: %

1354: is larger than the decay rate into RH neutrinos.  Inflaton decay is

1355: predominantly into SM Higgs fields (unless all the couplings are tuned

1356: $2 M_i/\eta \sim \kappa \sim \lambda$), and NT leptogenesis via

1357: inflaton decay does not occur.  Likewise, string decay into Higgs

1358: fields does not contribute to the lepton asymmetry, since the Higgs

1359: decays into SM Higgses.  On the other hand, if the string decays into

1360: gauge fields, or if RH zero modes are released during decay,

1361: leptogenesis is still possible.  We will consider this possibility in

1362: some detail.  

1363: 

1364: As a side remark, we note that there are other ways in these models to

1365: generate a $\mu$-term which do not alter the inflaton decay rate, and

1366: are thus compatible with NT leptogenesis from reheating \cite{axion}.

1367: 

1368: 

1369: Either case 2 or case 3 is realized, depending on whether the reheat

1370: temperature

1371: %

1372: \be

1373: T_{\rm R} \simeq 4 \times 10^{-2} \kappa^{3/2} \sqrt{\eta \, \mpl}

1374: \( \frac{\lambda}{\kappa}\)

1375: \ee

1376: %

1377: is smaller or larger than the mass of the lightest RH neutrino.  Note

1378: that the reheat temperature is minimized in the limit $\lambda \to

1379: \kappa$.

1380: 

1381: \subsection{Results}

1382: \subsubsection{Case 2}

1383: 

1384: Leptogenesis is a result of string decay into RH neutrinos and into

1385: gauge fields which in turn decay into RH neutrinos. The RH neutrinos

1386: are out-of-equilibrium at all times, and the asymmetry is dominated by

1387: the initial time just at the end of inflation. There is no

1388: contribution to the asymmetry from inflaton decay nor from thermal

1389: leptogenesis.

1390: 

1391: 

1392: 

1393: \begin{figure}[t]

1394: \leavevmode\epsfysize=9cm \epsfbox{nu1.eps}

1395: \caption{$M_i$ vs. $\kappa$ for case 2 with $\mu$-term and $\eta=

1396: \eta_{_{\rm CW}}$, $\mcN=1$.  The lines A-B correspond to $A =

1397: (\gamma_{\rm in},X,f_{_{X}}) = (\gamma_{\rm min},A,1)$, and $B =

1398: (\gamma_{\rm best},A,1)$.  The parameter space is bounded by the

1399: kinematic constraint (top), and the wash-out constraint $T_R < M_1$

1400: (bottom).}

1401: \label{F:nu1}

1402: \end{figure}

1403: 

1404: 

1405: The lepton asymmetry is given by Eq.~(\ref{n_L2}) with the replacement

1406: $\Gamma_N \to \Gamma_H$ and $X =A$.  This gives

1407: %

1408: \be

1409: M_i \simeq \frac{3\times 10^{8} \GeV C^2}{\kappa^{2} \mcN^{1/2}}

1410: \(\frac{\kappa}{\lambda}\)

1411: \ee

1412: %

1413: where we used $\eta =\eta_{_{\rm CW}}$.  The reheat temperature is a

1414: function of $\kappa$ only: $T_{\rm R} (\kappa/\lambda) =

1415: 10^8,10^{10},10^{12} \GeV$ for $\kappa = 10^{-5},2\times 10^{-4}, 3

1416: \times 10^{-3}$. The neutrino mass can be lowered by lowering the

1417: ratio $(\kappa/\lambda) \leq 1$, but at the cost of increasing the

1418: reheat temperature with the inverse ratio. This makes it harder to

1419: satisfy the out-of-equilibrium condition $M_i > T_{\rm R}$.

1420: 

1421: The results are shown in Fig.~\ref{F:nu1} for various values of $C$

1422: together with the kinematic constraint $M_i < m_A \sim \eta$, and the

1423: out-of-equilibrium condition $M_i > T_{\rm R}$.  Note that the lower

1424: bound on the neutrino mass is proportional to $f_{_{X}}^{-1}$, and the

1425: results for different values of $f_{_{X}}$ can be obtained by

1426: multiplying with the appropriate factor.  Masses as low as $M_i \sim

1427: 10^8 \GeV$ are compatible with leptogenesis.

1428: 

1429: 

1430: 

1431: \subsubsection{Case 3}

1432: 

1433: The lightest RH neutrino reaches thermal equilibrium, and all asymmetry

1434: is erased until it falls out of equilibrium at $T \sim M_1$. 

1435: 

1436: 

1437: \paragraph{Loop scenario}

1438: 

1439: The lepton asymmetry is independent of the decay rate, in particular,

1440: on whether the inflaton decays into RH neutrinos or SM Higgses.

1441: Hence, the results of case 3 without a $\mu$-term apply and

1442: %

1443: \be

1444: M_i \simeq 10^{14}\GeV C'^{1/2} 

1445: \(\frac{M_i}{M_1} \)^{3/4}.

1446: \ee

1447: %

1448: The only differences are that now $i=1$ is possible and still the lightest RH

1449: neutrino reaches equilibrium, and $f_N < \kappa^{-1}$ so that

1450: $C>\kappa^{1/2}$.  The results do not depend on the decay rate and the

1451: symmetry breaking scale $\eta$; the $\kappa$-dependence enters only

1452: via $x_N$.

1453: 

1454: The lower bound on $M_i$ is shown in Fig.~\ref{F:nu3} for $1 < x_N <

1455: \kappa^{-1}$, together with the kinetic and equilibrium $M_1 < T_R$

1456: constraint. Here it is assumed that $(\kappa/\lambda)=1$, which

1457: minimizes the reheat temperature.  Hence, the equilibrium constraint

1458: can be relaxed by taking $(\kappa/\lambda)<1$, but at the cost of

1459: increasing the reheat temperature, and thereby aggravating the

1460: gravitino problem.

1461: 

1462: \begin{figure}[t]

1463: \leavevmode\epsfysize=9cm \epsfbox{nu3.eps}

1464: \caption{$M_i$ vs. $\kappa$ for case 1 with $\mu$-term and $\eta=

1465: \eta_{_{\rm CW}}$, $\mcN=1$.  The lila part corresponds to leptogenesis

1466: in the standard scenario with $1 < f_N < \kappa^{-1}$, and the line A

1467: to the VHS scenario with $(\gamma_{\rm in},X,f_{_{X}}) =

1468: (\gamma_{\rm s},\phi,1)$.  The parameter space is bounded by the

1469: kinematic constraint (top), and the equilibrium constraint $T_R > M_1$

1470: (top).}

1471: \label{F:nu3}

1472: \end{figure}

1473: 

1474: 

1475: \paragraph{VHS scenario}

1476: 

1477: The lepton asymmetry is the same as in case 3 without a $\mu$-term,

1478: and requires

1479: %

1480: \be

1481: M_i \simeq 4 \times 10^{2} \frac{\mpl \GeV^{1/2}}{\eta^{1/2}}

1482: \( \frac{M_i}{M_1} \)^{1/2} =

1483: \frac{4 \times 10^{12} \GeV C' }{(\kappa \mcN)^{1/6}}

1484: \( \frac{M_i}{M_1} \)^{1/2}

1485: \ee

1486: %

1487: where in the second step we used $\eta = \eta_{_{\rm CW}}$.  The result

1488: is shown in Fig.~\ref{F:nu3}.  The lower bound on the neutrino mass is

1489: proportional $C \propto f_{_{X}}^{-1/2}$, and the result for

1490: different values of $f_{_{X}}$ can be obtained by multiplying

1491: with the appropriate factor.\\

1492: 

1493: 

1494: For couplings $\kappa <10^{-4}$ the reheat temperature is $T_R <

1495: 10^{10} \GeV$, and this is a scenario with can accommodate inflation

1496: and leptogenesis, and in which both the gravitino problem and the

1497: $\mu$-problem are solved.  The lightest RH neutrino can be in

1498: equilibrium or not: both case 2 and 3 can work.

1499: 

1500: 

1501: 

1502: \section{Conclusions}

1503: 

1504: In this paper, we have investigated various possibilities for

1505: leptogenesis after hybrid inflation when gauged $B$-$L$ is

1506: spontaneously broken at the end. One of the Higgs fields gives heavy

1507: Majorana mass to the RH neutrinos and NT leptogenesis can take place

1508: during reheating via inflaton decay into RH (s)neutrinos. Cosmic

1509: strings form at the end of inflation~\cite{prd,jrs}.  If stable, they

1510: also contribute to primordial fluctuations. Interestingly enough,

1511: since the string Higgs field breaks $B$-$L$, these are the so-called

1512: $B$-$L$ strings whose decay gives a second NT contribution to the

1513: lepton asymmetry of the universe \cite{lept}. In this paper we

1514: investigated which of these two mechanisms is most efficient, taking

1515: into account the CMB constraints \cite{CMB}.

1516: 

1517: Leptogenesis via inflaton decay can account for the observed asymmetry

1518: for neutrino masses in the range $M_i = 10^9 - 10^{11} \GeV$, and

1519: quartic Higgs couplings $\kappa = 10^{-5} - 10^{-2}$. The minimal

1520: reheat temperature required for getting enough lepton asymmetry is

1521: $T_R \sim 7 \times 10^6$ GeV.  To assure that all are

1522: out-of-equilibrium at $T_R$, and there is no wash-out of lepton

1523: number, the mass of the RH neutrino the inflaton decays into has to

1524: satisfy $M_i \lesssim 10^2 \times T_R$.

1525: 

1526: 

1527: The calculation of the lepton asymmetry created by string decay is

1528: hampered by our poor knowledge of the properties of the string

1529: network.  The initial string density, the loop formation and decay

1530: mechanisms all introduce uncertainties.  In general, only the 'best

1531: case' scenarios give a large contribution to the lepton asymmetry, in

1532: which it is assumed that the initial string density is high and/or

1533: that the fraction of string energy going into $X$-particles is

1534: appreciable.  We argued that both of these assumptions are not

1535: far-fetched, as they fit well with our knowledge of cosmic strings.

1536: 

1537: We distinguished three different cases, depending on whether the

1538: inflaton field decays into RH (s)neutrinos, and wether the lightest

1539: neutrino is out-of-equilibrium at reheating.

1540: 

1541: In case 1, the inflaton decays into RH neutrinos and all RH neutrinos

1542: are out-of-equilibrium at $T_R$.  The lepton asymmetry is determined

1543: by the energy density in the string network right at the end of

1544: inflation.  If the strings mostly decay into Higgs particles, the

1545: contribution to the asymmetry is subdominant with respect to the

1546: contribution from inflaton decay.  The strings can give a dominant

1547: contribution if it decays mostly into RH neutrinos or into gauge

1548: particles, but for the latter only in the 'best case' scenario.

1549: 

1550: If inflaton decay is not into RH neutrinos and the RH neutrinos never

1551: attain thermal equilibrium (case 2), the only contribution to the

1552: baryon asymmetry of the Universe is from cosmic strings decay.  String

1553: decay into RH neutrinos and vector particles, which subsequently decay

1554: into RH neutrinos, can still produce a lepton asymmetry. The minimal

1555: reheat temperature required for getting enough lepton asymmetry $T_R

1556: \sim 10^6$ GeV.  Gravitational inflaton decay can ameliorate the

1557: gravitino constraint.  However, large $M_i \sim 10^{13}-10^{15} \GeV$

1558: RH neutrino masses and couplings $\kappa \gtrsim 10^{-3}$ are

1559: required.  Such large couplings favor small Higgs representations.

1560: 

1561: The most unfavorable scenario is case 3, in which the lightest RH

1562: neutrino attains thermal equilibrium.  The mass of the heaviest RH

1563: neutrino the inflaton can decay into (which cannot be $M_1$) must be

1564: large, $M_i > 10^{13} \GeV$, the coupling must also be large, and the

1565: reheat temperature must be high $T_{\rm R} \gtrsim 10^{13} \GeV$.  We

1566: note that in this case there is also a contribution to the lepton

1567: asymmetry from thermal leptogenesis.

1568: 

1569: Finally, we looked at the possibility of generating the MSSM $\mu$-term

1570: dynamically.  Inflaton decay is now into SM Higgses and Higgsinos, and

1571: only case 2 and 3 can occur.  For a wide range of RH neutrino masses

1572: and for couplings $\kappa <10^{-4}$ this is a scenario which can

1573: accommodate inflation and leptogenesis, and in which both the gravitino

1574: problem and the $\mu$-problem are solved.

1575: 

1576: 

1577: 

1578: \section*{Acknowledgements}

1579:                                                                                

1580: RJ would like to thank The Dutch Organisation for Scientific Research

1581: [NWO] for financial support. 

1582: 

1583: 

1584: \newpage

1585: \appendix

1586: \section{CP-asymmetry}

1587: 

1588: In this appendix we derive the typical values for the CP-asymmetry

1589: factor $\epsilon_i$, extending the usual analysis to $i=2,3$. We use

1590: the formalism and notation of \cite{smirnov}.

1591: 

1592: The CP-asymmetry is

1593: %

1594: \be

1595: \epsilon_i = -\frac{1}{8\pi} \frac{1}{(h h^\dagger)_{ii}}

1596: \sum_{j\neq i} {\rm Im} \[ \{ (hh^\dagger)_{ij} \}^2 \]

1597:  f (\frac{M_j^2}{M_i^2}) 

1598: \ee

1599: %

1600: with in SUSY theories 

1601: %

1602: \be 

1603: f(x) = \sqrt{x} \[ \frac{2}{x-1} + \ln(1+x^{-1}) \].  

1604: \ee

1605: %

1606: For hierarchical RH neutrino masses $M_1 \ll M_2 \ll M_3$, we need the

1607: limits $x \ll 1$ (where $f \to 3/\sqrt{x}$) and $x \gg 1$ (where $f

1608: \to -\sqrt{x}(2+\ln(x))$). The function $f$ is maximized for $f \sim

1609: 1$, but this does not occur for hierarchical RH masses.

1610: Then~\cite{smirnov}

1611: %

1612: \bea

1613: \epsilon_1 &=&

1614: -\frac{3}{8\pi} \frac{1}{(h h^\dagger)_{11}}

1615: \[ 

1616: {\rm Im} \[ \{ (hh^\dagger)_{12} \}^2 \] \frac{M_1}{M_2}

1617: + {\rm Im} \[ \{ (hh^\dagger)_{13} \}^2 \] \frac{M_1}{M_3}

1618: \] 

1619: \nonumber \\

1620: &\approx& 

1621: -\frac{3}{8\pi} \frac{m_u^2}{v^2}I.

1622: \eea

1623: %

1624: Here $I \sim {\mathcal O}(1)$ a phase factor, $v = 174 \GeV \sin

1625: \beta$ the Higgs VEV (note that $\sin \beta \approx 1$ for $\beta

1626: \gtrsim 3$).  In the second step we have used

1627: %

1628: \be

1629: (hh^\dagger)_{22} \approx (m_c^2/ v^2) I_{22},

1630: \quad

1631: (hh^\dagger)_{12} \approx (m_u m_c/ v^2) I_{12},

1632: \quad

1633: (hh^\dagger)_{23} \approx (m_t m_c/ v^2) I_{23},

1634: \ee

1635: %

1636: with $I$ order one constants, and $m_u, m_c, m_t$ he Dirac neutrino

1637: masses which are labeled in analogy with the quark masses.  One can

1638: express the Dirac masses in terms of the RH neutrino masses:

1639: %

1640: \be

1641: |M_1| = m_u^2/A_1, \quad |M_2| = m_c^2 /A_2, \quad 

1642: |M_3| = m_t^2/A_3, 

1643: \ee

1644: %

1645: with $A_1 = s_{12}^2 \sqrt {\Delta m_{sol}^2}$, $A_2 = \sqrt {\Delta

1646: m_{atm}^2}/2$ and $A_3 = 2|m_1|/s_{12}^2$.  The numerical values for

1647: $A_i$ depend on the spectrum of light neutrino masses.  For example

1648: $A_1 =2 \times 10^{-12} \GeV, \, 3 \times 10^{-11} \GeV$ for normal

1649: hierarchy ($m_3 \approx (\Delta m^2_{\rm atm})^{1/2} \gg m_2 \approx

1650: (\Delta m^2_{\rm sol})^{1/2} \gg m_1$) respectively inverted

1651: hierarchy($m_1 \approx m_2 \approx (\Delta m^2_{\rm atm})^{1/2} \gg

1652: m_3 \approx (\Delta m^2_{\rm sol})^{1/2}$)~\cite{smirnov}.  Here it is

1653: approximated that $\theta_{13}=0$ and $\theta_{23}=\pi/4$. The

1654: CP-asymmetry is

1655: %

1656: \be

1657: \epsilon_1 \approx  -\frac {3A_1 M_1}{8\pi v^2} = 10^{-11} -10^{-10}

1658: \( \frac{M_1}{10^6 \GeV}\).

1659: \ee

1660: %

1661: The bound in Eq.~(\ref{eps}) is obtained for inverted hierarchy and

1662: order one phases.  For quasi-degenerate neutrinos ($m_1 \approx m_2

1663: \approx m_3 \gg (\Delta m^2_{\rm atm})^{1/2}$) the asymmetry is

1664: suppressed by a factor $\Delta \sqrt{m_{\rm atm}^2}/\bar{m}$ with

1665: $\bar{m}= 1/3\sqrt{m_1^2+m_2^2+m_3^2}$~\cite{Buchmuller}.

1666: 

1667: A similar calculation for decay of the next to lightest RH neutrino

1668: gives

1669: %

1670: \bea

1671: \epsilon_2 &=&

1672: -\frac{1}{8\pi} \frac{1}{(h h^\dagger)_{22}}

1673: \[ 

1674: {\rm Im} \[ \{ (hh^\dagger)_{21} \}^2 \] \frac{M_1}{M_2}

1675: + {\rm Im} \[ \{ (hh^\dagger)_{23} \}^2 \] \frac{M_2}{M_3}

1676: \] 

1677: \nonumber \\

1678: &\approx& 

1679: -\frac{1}{8\pi} \[- \frac{m_u^2}{v^2} \frac{M_1}{M_2} + 3\frac{A_3}{v^2} M_2 \]

1680: \nonumber \\

1681: &\approx& 

1682: 2 \times 10^{-10} \( \frac{M_2}{10^6 \GeV}\)

1683: \eea

1684: %

1685: where in the last step we have neglected the subdominant term

1686: proportional to $M_1$, and we have used $A_3 < 6 \times 10^{-11} \GeV$

1687: valid for hierarchical (light) neutrinos.  The bound is of the same

1688: order of magnitude as the bound on $\epsilon_1$, but with $M_1

1689: \leftrightarrow M_2$. Finally, for the CP-asymmetry of the heaviest RH

1690: neutrino we get

1691: %

1692: \bea

1693: \epsilon_3 &=&\frac{1}{8\pi v^2}

1694: \[ \frac{M_1^2 A_1}{M_3} + \frac{M_2^2 A_2}{M_3} \]

1695: \approx  \frac {A_2 M_2}{8\pi v^2}  \frac{M_2}{M_3}

1696: \nonumber \\

1697: &=& 3-7\times 10^{-11} \( \frac{M_2}{10^6 \GeV}\)\frac{M_2}{M_3}

1698: \eea

1699: %

1700: where we have used $A_2 = 3 -5 \times 10^{-11}$ valid for

1701: hierarchical light neutrinos.  Note that $\epsilon_3$ is suppressed

1702: by a factor $M_2/M_3$ and is smaller than $\epsilon_1,\epsilon_2$.

1703: 

1704: 

1705: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

1706: 

1707: \bibitem{Cop}

1708: %\CopelandVG

1709: E.~J.~Copeland, A.~R.~Liddle, D.~H.~Lyth, E.~D.~Stewart and D.~Wands,

1710: %``False vacuum inflation with Einstein gravity,''

1711: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 49}, 6410 (1994)

1712: [arXiv:astro-ph/9401011].

1713: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 9401011;%%

1714: 

1715: \bibitem{Dvasha}

1716: G.~R.~Dvali, Q.~Shafi and R.~K.~Schaefer,

1717: %``Large scale structure and supersymmetric inflation without fine tuning,''

1718: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 73}, 1886 (1994)

1719: [arXiv:hep-ph/9406319].

1720: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9406319;%%

1721: 

1722: \bibitem{Yanagida}

1723:   M.~Fukugita and T.~Yanagida,

1724:   %``Baryogenesis Without Grand Unification,''

1725:   Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 174}, 45 (1986).

1726:   %%CITATION = PHLTA,B174,45;%%

1727: 

1728: 

1729: \bibitem{leptinfl}

1730:   G.~Lazarides and Q.~Shafi,

1731:   %``Origin of matter in the inflationary cosmology,''

1732:   Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 258} (1991) 305.

1733:   %%CITATION = PHLTA,B258,305;%%

1734: 

1735: \bibitem{shafi1}

1736: V.~N.~Senoguz and Q.~Shafi,

1737:   %``GUT scale inflation, non-thermal leptogenesis, and atmospheric neutrino

1738:   %oscillations,''

1739:   Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 582} (2004) 6

1740:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0309134].

1741:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0309134;%%

1742:  V.~N.~Senoguz and Q.~Shafi,

1743:   %``Inverted hybrid inflation and leptogenesis,''

1744:   Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 596}, 8 (2004)

1745:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0403294].

1746:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0403294;%%

1747: %\SenoguzVU

1748: V.~N.~Senoguz and Q.~Shafi,

1749: %``Reheat temperature in supersymmetric hybrid inflation models,''

1750: arXiv:hep-ph/0412102.

1751: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0412102;%%

1752: 

1753: \bibitem{prd} R.~Jeannerot,

1754: %``Inflation in supersymmetric unified theories,''

1755: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 56} (1997) 6205

1756: [arXiv:hep-ph/9706391].

1757: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9706391;%%  

1758: 

1759: \bibitem{jrs}

1760:  R.~Jeannerot, J.~Rocher and M.~Sakellariadou,

1761:   %``How generic is cosmic string formation in SUSY GUTs,''

1762:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 68}, 103514 (2003)

1763:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0308134].

1764:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0308134;%%

1765: 

1766: \bibitem{lept} 

1767: R.~Jeannerot,

1768: %``A new mechanism for leptogenesis,''

1769: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 77} (1996) 3292

1770: [arXiv:hep-ph/9609442].

1771: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9609442;%%

1772: 

1773: \bibitem{B-L} For a discussion on GUT models and Spontaneous Symmetry

1774: Breaking patterns which lead to B-L string formation See R. Jeannerot

1775: and M. Postma, to appear soon. 

1776: 

1777: \bibitem{maj}

1778:  R.~Jeannerot and M.~Postma,

1779:   %``Majorana zero modes,''

1780:   JHEP {\bf 0412}, 032 (2004)

1781:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0411259].

1782:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0411259;%%

1783: 

1784: \bibitem{sugrastr}

1785:   R.~Jeannerot and M.~Postma,

1786:   %``Chiral cosmic strings in supergravity,''

1787:   JHEP {\bf 0412}, 043 (2004)

1788:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0411260].

1789:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0411260;%%

1790: 

1791: 

1792: \bibitem{prd1}

1793: A.~C.~Davis and R.~Jeannerot,

1794:   %``Constraining supersymmetric SO(10) models,''

1795:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 52}, 7220 (1995)

1796:   [arXiv:hep-ph/9501275].

1797:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9501275;%%

1798: 

1799: \bibitem{prd2}

1800:  R.~Jeannerot,

1801:   %``A Supersymmetric SO(10) Model with Inflation and Cosmic Strings,''

1802:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 53}, 5426 (1996)

1803:   [arXiv:hep-ph/9509365].

1804:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9509365;%%

1805: 

1806: \bibitem{Pogosian}

1807: L.~Pogosian, S.~H.~H.~Tye, I.~Wasserman and M.~Wyman,

1808: %``Observational constraints on cosmic string production during brane

1809: %inflation,''

1810: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 68}, 023506 (2003)

1811: [arXiv:hep-th/0304188].

1812: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0304188;%%

1813:   M.~Wyman, L.~Pogosian and I.~Wasserman,

1814:   %``Bounds on cosmic strings from WMAP and SDSS,''

1815:   arXiv:astro-ph/0503364.

1816:   %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0503364;%%

1817: E.~Jeong and G.~F.~Smoot,

1818:   %``Search for cosmic strings in CMB anisotropies,''

1819:   Astrophys.\ J.\  {\bf 624} (2005) 21

1820:   [arXiv:astro-ph/0406432].

1821:   %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0406432;%%

1822: J.~H.~Wu,

1823:   %``Coherence constraint on the existence of cosmic defects,''

1824:   arXiv:astro-ph/0501239.

1825:   %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0501239;%%

1826: A.~A.~Fraisse,

1827:   %``Constraints on topological defects energy density from first year WMAP

1828:   %results,''

1829:   arXiv:astro-ph/0503402.

1830:   %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0503402;%%

1831: 

1832: 

1833: 

1834: \bibitem{CMB}

1835:   R.~Jeannerot and M.~Postma,

1836:   %``Confronting hybrid inflation in supergravity with CMB data,''

1837:   arXiv:hep-ph/0503146.

1838:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0503146;%%

1839: 

1840: \bibitem{Sahu}

1841:   N.~Sahu, P.~Bhattacharjee and U.~A.~Yajnik,

1842:   %``B-L cosmic strings and baryogenesis,''

1843:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 70} (2004) 083534

1844:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0406054].

1845:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0406054;%%

1846: 

1847: \bibitem{Gu}

1848:   P.~H.~Gu and H.~Mao,

1849:   %``Constraint on B-L cosmic string from leptogenesis with degenerate

1850:   %neutrinos,''

1851:   arXiv:hep-ph/0503126.

1852:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0503126;%%

1853: 

1854: 

1855: 

1856: \bibitem{Hill}

1857: C.~T.~Hill, H.~M.~Hodges and M.~S.~Turner,

1858: %``Variational Study Of Ordinary And Superconducting Cosmic Strings,''

1859: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 59} (1987) 2493.

1860: %%CITATION = PRLTA,59,2493;%%

1861: 

1862: \bibitem{Landriau}

1863: M.~Landriau and E.~P.~S.~Shellard,

1864: %``Large angle CMB fluctuations from cosmic strings with a comological

1865: %constant,''

1866: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 69} (2004) 023003

1867: [arXiv:astro-ph/0302166].

1868: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0302166;%%

1869: 

1870: \bibitem{Allen}

1871: B.~Allen, R.~R.~Caldwell, E.~P.~S.~Shellard, A.~Stebbins and S.~Veeraraghavan,

1872: %``Large angular scale CMB anisotropy induced by cosmic strings,''

1873: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 77} (1996) 3061

1874: [arXiv:astro-ph/9609038].

1875: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 9609038;%%

1876: 

1877: \bibitem{approx}

1878: L.~Perivolaropoulos,

1879: %``COBE versus cosmic strings: An Analytical model,''

1880: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 298} (1993) 305

1881: [arXiv:hep-ph/9208247].

1882: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9208247;%%

1883: D.~P.~Bennett, A.~Stebbins and F.~R.~Bouchet,

1884: %``The Implications of the COBE DMR results for cosmic strings,''

1885: Astrophys.\ J.\  {\bf 399} (1992) L5

1886: [arXiv:hep-ph/9206233].

1887: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9206233;%%

1888: D.~Coulson, P.~Ferreira, P.~Graham and N.~Turok,

1889: %``Pi in the sky? Microwave anisotropies from cosmic defects,''

1890: arXiv:hep-ph/9310322.

1891: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9310322;%%

1892: 

1893: \bibitem{seesaw}

1894:  P.~Minkowski,

1895:   %``Mu $\to$ E Gamma At A Rate Of One Out Of 1-Billion Muon Decays?,''

1896:   Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 67} (1977) 421,

1897:   %%CITATION = PHLTA,B67,421;%%

1898: M. Gell-Mann, P. Ramond and R. Slansky, in

1899: \emph{Supergravity},  P. van Nieuwenhuizen and D. Freeman eds.,  North

1900: Holland, Amsterdam 1979, p.~315;

1901: T.~Yanagida,

1902: %``Horizontal Gauge Symmetry And Masses Of Neutrinos,''

1903: Prog.\ Theor.\ Phys.\  {\bf 64} (1980) 1103;

1904: %%CITATION = PTPKA,64,1103;%%

1905: R.~N.~Mohapatra and G.~Senjanovic,

1906: %``Neutrino Mass And Spontaneous Parity Non-conservation,''

1907: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 44} (1980) 912;

1908: %%CITATION = PRLTA,44,912;%%

1909: J.~Schechter and J.~W.~F.~Valle,

1910: %``Neutrino Masses In SU(2) X U(1) Theories,''

1911: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 22} (1980) 2227.

1912: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D22,2227;%%

1913: 

1914: \bibitem{gravitino}

1915: M.~Y.~Khlopov and A.~D.~Linde,

1916: %``Is It Easy To Save The Gravitino?,''

1917: Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B138} (1984) 265;

1918: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B138,265;%%

1919: J.~Ellis, J.~E.~Kim and D.~V.~Nanopoulos,

1920: %``Cosmological Gravitino Regeneration And Decay,''

1921: Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B145} (1984) 181;

1922: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B145,181;%%

1923: J.~R.~Ellis, D.~V.~Nanopoulos and S.~Sarkar,

1924: %``The Cosmology Of Decaying Gravitinos,''

1925: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 259}, 175 (1985);

1926: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B259,175;%%

1927: J.~R.~Ellis, G.~B.~Gelmini, J.~L.~Lopez, D.~V.~Nanopoulos and S.~Sarkar,

1928: %``Astrophysical Constraints On Massive Unstable Neutral Relic Particles,''

1929: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 373}, 399 (1992);

1930: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B373,399;%%

1931: S.~Sarkar,

1932: %``Big bang nucleosynthesis and physics beyond the standard model,''

1933: Rept.\ Prog.\ Phys.\  {\bf 59}, 1493 (1996)

1934: [arXiv:hep-ph/9602260];

1935: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9602260;%%

1936: M.~Kawasaki and T.~Moroi,

1937: %``Gravitino production in the inflationary universe and the effects on big bang nucleosynthesis,''

1938: Prog.\ Theor.\ Phys.\ {\bf 93} (1995) 879,

1939: [hep-ph/9403364];

1940: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9403364;%%

1941: E.~Holtmann, M.~Kawasaki, K.~Kohri and T.~Moroi,

1942: %``Radiative decay of a long-lived particle and big-bang nucleosynthesis,''

1943: Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D 60} (1999) 023506;

1944: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9805405;%%

1945: M.~Kawasaki, K.~Kohri and T.~Moroi,

1946: %``Radiative decay of a massive particle and the non-thermal process in  primordial nucleosynthesis,''

1947: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 63} (2001) 103502,

1948: [hep-ph/0012279];

1949: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0012279;%%

1950: R.~G.~Leigh and R.~Rattazzi,

1951: %``Supersymmetry, finite temperature and gravitino production in the early universe,''

1952: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 352}, 20 (1995),

1953: [arXiv:hep-ph/9503402];

1954: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9503402;%%

1955: M.~Y.~Khlopov, Y.~L.~Levitan, E.~V.~Sedelnikov and I.~M.~Sobol,

1956: %``Inequilibrium cosmological light element nucleosynthesis. Calculations by the Monte Carlo method,''

1957: IC-93-191

1958: 

1959: 

1960: 

1961: \bibitem{Nanopoulos}

1962:   D.~V.~Nanopoulos, K.~A.~Olive and M.~Srednicki,

1963:   %``After Primordial Inflation,''

1964:   Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 127}, 30 (1983).

1965:   %%CITATION = PHLTA,B127,30;%%

1966: 

1967: 

1968: \bibitem{Asaka}

1969:   T.~Asaka, K.~Hamaguchi, M.~Kawasaki and T.~Yanagida,

1970:   %``Leptogenesis in inflationary universe,''

1971:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 61} (2000) 083512

1972:   [arXiv:hep-ph/9907559].

1973:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9907559;%%

1974: 

1975: 

1976: 

1977: 

1978: \bibitem{Davidson}

1979:   S.~Davidson and A.~Ibarra,

1980:   %``A lower bound on the right-handed neutrino mass from leptogenesis,''

1981:   Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 535} (2002) 25

1982:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0202239].

1983:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0202239;%%

1984: 

1985: 

1986: \bibitem{Buchmuller}

1987:   W.~Buchmuller, P.~Di Bari and M.~Plumacher,

1988:   %``Cosmic microwave background, matter-antimatter asymmetry and neutrino

1989:   %masses,''

1990:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 643} (2002) 367

1991:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0205349].

1992:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0205349;%%

1993: 

1994: 

1995: \bibitem{king}

1996:   S.~Antusch and S.~F.~King,

1997:   %``Type II leptogenesis and the neutrino mass scale,''

1998:   Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 597}, 199 (2004)

1999:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0405093].

2000:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0405093;%%

2001: 

2002: 

2003: 

2004: 

2005: \bibitem{ShelVil} 

2006: A.~Vilenkin and E.~P.~S.~Shellard, 

2007: {\em ``Cosmic strings and other topological defects''}, 

2008: Cambridge monographs on mathematical physics, Cambridge University Press, England, 1994;

2009: M.~B.~Hindmarsh and T.~W.~B.~Kibble,

2010: %``Cosmic strings,''

2011: Rept.\ Prog.\ Phys.\  {\bf 58} (1995) 477

2012: [arXiv:hep-ph/9411342].

2013: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9411342;%%

2014: 

2015: 

2016: \bibitem{vilenkin}

2017:   X.~Siemens, K.~D.~Olum and A.~Vilenkin,

2018:   %``On the size of the smallest scales in cosmic string networks,''

2019:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 66}, 043501 (2002)

2020:   [arXiv:gr-qc/0203006].

2021:   %%CITATION = GR-QC 0203006;%%

2022: 

2023: 

2024: \bibitem{VHS}

2025:  G.~R.~Vincent, M.~Hindmarsh and M.~Sakellariadou,

2026:   %``Scaling and small scale structure in cosmic string networks,''

2027:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 56}, 637 (1997)

2028:   [arXiv:astro-ph/9612135];

2029:   %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 9612135;%%

2030:   G.~Vincent, N.~D.~Antunes and M.~Hindmarsh,

2031:   %``Numerical simulations of string networks in the Abelian-Higgs model,''

2032:   Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 80}, 2277 (1998)

2033:   [arXiv:hep-ph/9708427].

2034:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9708427;%%

2035: 

2036: \bibitem{sigl}

2037: P.~Bhattacharjee and G.~Sigl,

2038:   %``Origin and propagation of extremely high energy cosmic rays,''

2039:   Phys.\ Rept.\  {\bf 327}, 109 (2000)

2040:   [arXiv:astro-ph/9811011].

2041:   %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 9811011;%%

2042: 

2043: 

2044: \bibitem{egret}

2045:   P.~Sreekumar {\it et al.}  [EGRET Collaboration],

2046:   %``EGRET observations of the extragalactic gamma ray emission,''

2047:   Astrophys.\ J.\  {\bf 494} (1998) 523

2048:   [arXiv:astro-ph/9709257].

2049:   %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 9709257;%%

2050: 

2051: 

2052: 

2053: 

2054: \bibitem{Kibble}

2055:   T.~W.~B.~Kibble,

2056:   %``Topology Of Cosmic Domains And Strings,''

2057:   J.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 9} (1976) 1387.

2058:   %%CITATION = JPAGB,A9,1387;%%

2059: 

2060: \bibitem{Zurek}

2061:   W.~H.~Zurek,

2062:   %``Cosmological Experiments in Condensed Matter Systems,''

2063:   Phys.\ Rept.\  {\bf 276} (1996) 177

2064:   [arXiv:cond-mat/9607135].

2065:   %%CITATION = COND-MAT 9607135;%%

2066: 

2067: \bibitem{Copeland}

2068:   E.~J.~Copeland, S.~Pascoli and A.~Rajantie,

2069:   %``Dynamics of tachyonic preheating after hybrid inflation,''

2070:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 65} (2002) 103517

2071:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0202031].

2072:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0202031;%%

2073: 

2074: \bibitem{Laz3} G.R. Dvali, G. Lazarides and Q. Shafi,

2075: Phys. Lett. B424, 259 (1998) [arXiv:hep-ph/9710314].

2076: 

2077: \bibitem{axion} G.~Lazarides and Q.~Shafi, %``R symmetry in MSSM and

2078:   beyond with several consequences,'' Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 58}, 071702

2079:   (1998) [arXiv:hep-ph/9803397].  %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9803397;%%;

2080:   R.~Jeannerot, S.~Khalil, G.~Lazarides and Q.~Shafi, %``Inflation and

2081:   monopoles in supersymmetric SU(4)c x SU(2)L x SU(2)R,'' JHEP {\bf

2082:   0010}, 012 (2000) [arXiv:hep-ph/0002151].

2083: 

2084: 

2085: 

2086: \bibitem{smirnov}

2087: E.~K.~Akhmedov, M.~Frigerio and A.~Y.~Smirnov,

2088:   %``Probing the seesaw mechanism with neutrino data and leptogenesis,''

2089:   JHEP {\bf 0309} (2003) 021

2090:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0305322].

2091:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0305322;%%

2092: 

2093: 

2094: \end{thebibliography}

2095: 

2096: \end{document}

2097: 

2098: 

2099: 

2100: 

2101: