1: %s!TEX TS-program = pdflatex

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

3: %\usepackage{amssymb}

4: \usepackage{graphicx}

5: %\usepackage{graphicx,epstopdf,pdfsync}

6: %\DeclareGraphicsRule{.tif}{png}{.png}{`convert #1 `basename #1 .tif`.png}

7: 

8: \usepackage{multicol}

9: \usepackage{color}

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

24: \newcommand{\lambdaN}{\lambda}

25: \newcommand{\SU}{\,{\rm SU}}

26: 

27: 

28: 

29: %\font\tenrsfs=rsfs10

30: %\font\sevenrsfs=rsfs7

31: %\font\fiversfs=rsfs5

32: %\newfam\rsfsfam

33: %\textfont\rsfsfam=\tenrsfs

34: %\scriptfont\rsfsfam=\sevenrsfs

35: %\scriptscriptfont\rsfsfam=\fiversfs

36: %\def\mathscr#1{{\fam\rsfsfam\relax#1}}

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

38: \def\Lag{{\cal L}}

39: 

40: \newcommand{\mT}{\mb{m}_T}

41: 

42: \topmargin -1.4cm

43:       \textheight 46.\baselineskip

44: \advance\textheight by \topskip

45:      \textwidth      17.2cm

46:      \marginparwidth 0cm

47:      \oddsidemargin -0.5cm

48: 

49: 

50: \lineskip 2pt

51: \normallineskip 2pt

52: \parskip 4pt

53: \pagestyle{plain}

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

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

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

57: \newcommand{\eg}{{\it e.g. }}

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

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

60: \newcommand{\bea}{\begin{eqnarray}}

61: \newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}}

62: \newcommand{\mrm}[1]{\mbox{\rm #1}}

63: %\newcommand{\eq}[1]{eq.~(\ref{#1})}

64: \newcommand{\Eq}[1]{eq.~(\ref{#1})}

65: \newcommand{\rfn}[1]{(\ref{#1})}

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

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

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

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

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

71: \newcommand{\cm}{{\rm cm}}

72: \newcommand{\km}{{\rm km}}

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

74: \newcommand{\s}{{\rm s}}

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

85: 

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

87: \makeatletter

88: %

89: % formato bibliografico standard

90: %

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

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

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

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

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

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

97: %

98: % definizione della macro EQNSYSTEM

99: %

100: \newcounter{alphaequation}[equation]

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

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

103: 0.6em{\hfil\alph{alphaequation}\hfil}}

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

105: \def\eqnsystem#1{

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

107: %

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

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

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

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

112: %

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

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

115: %

116: \refstepcounter{alphaequation}

117: \let\@currentlabel\thealphaequation

118: %

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

126: %

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

128: 

129: 

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

131: 

132: \newcommand{\xxx}[1]{{\bf\color{red} #1}}

133: 

134: \begin{document}%\twocolumn[

135: \centerline{\hfill IFUP--TH/2005-17}

136: \color{black}

137: \vspace{1.0cm}

138: \centerline{\LARGE\bf\color{rossos}Efficiency and maximal CP-asymmetry}

139: \centerline{\LARGE\bf\color{rossos}of scalar triplet leptogenesis}

140: \medskip\bigskip\color{black}\vspace{0.6cm}

141: \centerline{\large\bf Thomas Hambye$^a$,  Martti Raidal$^b$,

142: Alessandro  Strumia$^c$}\vspace{0.5cm}

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

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

145: \centerline{\em $^b$ National Institute of Chemical Physics and Biophysics,

146: Ravala 10,Tallinn 10143, Estonia}\vspace{0.13cm}

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

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

149: 

150: \centerline{\large\bf\color{blus} Abstract}

151: \begin{quote}

152: %\large

153: \vspace{-0.25cm}

154: \indent\color{blus}\large

155: We study thermal leptogenesis induced by 

156: decays of a scalar $\SU(2)_L$ triplet.

157: Despite the presence

158: of gauge interactions,

159: unexpected features of the Boltzmann equations

160: make the efficiency close to maximal

161: in most of the parameter space. 

162: We derive the maximal CP asymmetry

163: in triplet decays, assuming that it is generated by

164: heavier sources of neutrino masses: in this case

165: successful leptogenesis needs a triplet heavier than 

166: $2.8 \cdot 10^{10}$~GeV 

167: and does not further restrict its couplings, 

168: allowing detectable $\mu\to e\gamma,\tau\to\mu\gamma$ rates 

169: in the context of supersymmetric models.

170: Triplet masses down to the TeV scale are viable

171: in presence of extra sources of CP-violation.

172: 

173: \color{black}

174: \end{quote}

175: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 

176: %%%%%

177: 

178: \section{Introduction}

179: Majorana neutrino masses can be mediated by tree-level exchange of

180: three different kinds of new particles:

181: I) fermion singlets~\cite{type-I};

182: II) scalar  SU(2)$_L$ triplets~\cite{type-II};

183: III) fermion SU(2)$_L$ triplets~\cite{tripletferm}.

184: Indeed these particles can have renormalizable

185: couplings to lepton doublets $L$ and Higgs $H$,

186: generating the unique Majorana neutrino mass operator $(LH)^2$.

187: Low energy experiments can see neutrino masses and

188: reconstruct the coefficients of the $(LH)^2$ operator,

189: but cannot tell their origin.

190: More information about the unknown high-energy theory that generates neutrino masses

191: can be obtained assuming that the observed baryon asymmetry of the Universe

192: is produced via thermal leptogenesis~\cite{FY} in decays of the lightest

193: of these three kinds of particles.

194: 

195: Leptogenesis has been extensively studied only in case I)~\cite{FY,GNRRS}.

196: The main concern with the other possibilities is that 

197: gauge scatterings can keep

198: $\SU(2)_L $ triplets close to thermal equilibrium,

199: conflicting with the third Sakharov condition~\cite{Sakharov}.

200: Since gauge scatterings are slower than the expansion rate of the Universe

201: only at temperatures $T\circa{>} 10^{15}$~GeV~\cite{Olive,sasa},

202: it was generally expected that 

203: successful triplet leptogenesis is possible only

204: around that energy scale. 

205: %This oversimplified conclusion was possible because

206: %no Boltzmann equations were calculated nor solved for those leptogenesis 

207: %scenarios. 

208: However, first estimates of the leptogenesis efficiency in scalar 

209: triplet decays~\cite{scaltriplepto,hs,seesaw25TH}

210: as well as the full calculation for fermion triplet~\cite{HLNPS} have shown 

211: that thermal leptogenesis is efficient enough even at lower temperatures.

212: 

213: %increase the leptogenesis scale not more

214: %than an order of magnitude. The precise magnitude of the effect depends on 

215: %the considered parameter 

216: %values and, as we show in this paper, for large parameter

217: %space gauge scatterings may even lower the leptogenesis scale.

218: 

219: 

220: 

221: In this paper we present the first full calculation of thermal 

222: leptogenesis in 

223: the decays of a $\SU(2)_L $ triplet scalar $T$. 

224: We start deriving the maximal  CP asymmetry $\varepsilon_L$ 

225: in triplet  decays generated by any other source of neutrino masses

226: much heavier than $T$  (e.g.\ additional triplets $T'$, right-handed 

227: neutrinos, etc).

228: We next derive and solve the full set of Boltzmann equations describing the

229: thermal evolution of the relevant abundances.

230: %Our results differ from

231: %earlier works where Boltzmann equations with gauge interactions where 

232: %either not 

233: %considered \cite{sod,masar} or incomplete~\cite{scaltriplepto,hs,DHHRR};

234: %The structure of Boltzmann equations derived in this work is 

235: %similar to the one

236: %for the singlet sneutrinos $\tilde N_i$ in supersymmetric singlet seesaw 

237: %model with one crucial difference. While supersymmetry requires the 

238: %$\tilde N_i$ decay rates to leptons and sleptons to be equal, the triplet 

239: %Higgs branching fractions $B_L=B(T\to LL)$ and $B_H=B(T\to \bar H\bar H)$ 

240: %to leptons and Higgs doublets, respectively, are in general different.

241: %We solve the Boltzmann equations and analyze the allowed parameter space.

242: We find that thermal leptogenesis from scalar triplets proceeds in a

243: qualitatively different way from the alternative scenarios studied so far.

244: In particular, a quasi-maximal efficiency can be obtained even if

245: gauge scatterings 

246: keep the triplet abundancy very close to thermal equilibrium.

247: 

248: %Although gauge scatterings force $T+\bar T$ close to thermal equilibrium,

249: %in large portions of the parameter space  the efficiency is close to maximal,

250: %because a lepton asymmetry is stored in $T-\bar{T}$.

251: %Because $B_L\equiv {\rm BR}(T\to LL)$ can be much larger or much smaller than 

252: %$B_H\equiv {\rm BR}(T\to \bar H\bar H)$, and because large asymmetry in $T-\bar T$ 

253: %which is not affected by the gauge 

254: %scatterings can be generated, large lepton asymmetry can be generated with the efficiency

255: %$\eta\sim {\cal O}(1)$ over a large range of parameters. 

256: 

257: The CP asymmetry induced by the heavier sources of 

258: neutrino masses decreases with the triplet mass $M_T$,

259: so that successful  leptogenesis needs 

260: $

261: M_T>2.8 \times 10^{10}\;\; \mrm{GeV}$.

262: %The gauge scatterings have effect only when $B_L \sim B_H$ and the lightest triplet 

263: %contribution to the neutrino masses is subdominant. 

264: %If the light neutrino masses are entirely generated by the 

265: %lightest triplet $T$, the generated baryon asymmetry is maximized for very small

266: %or very large values of the triplet Yukawa couplings. In supersymmetric models 

267: %the latter case induces observable rates for the lepton flavour violating (LFV) 

268: %decays  $\mu\to e\gamma$ and  $\tau\to \mu\gamma$ via renormalization effects

269: %and can be probed in terrestrial experiments. 

270: More general sources of CP violation allow thermal leptogenesis even down to $M_T\sim\TeV$:

271: such light triplets can be tested at collider experiments~\cite{HMPR}. 

272: 

273: 

274: 

275: Our paper is organized as follows.

276: Section~\ref{T} contains the technical details necessary for this analysis.

277: Results are discussed in section~\ref{res} and summarized in the conclusions.

278: 

279: 

280: 

281: 

282: 

283: 

284: \section{Scalar triplet}\label{T}

285: 

286: 

287: We start by presenting the model under consideration.

288: The relevant parts of the scalar triplet  Lagrangian are

289: \beq\label{eq:tripletS}

290: \Lag = \Lag_{\rm SM} + |D_\mu T|^2- M_T^2 |T^a|^2+\frac{1}{2}

291: \bigg(\mb{\lambda}^{gg'}_L L^i_g  \tau^a_{ij}  \epsilon L^j_{g'} T^a  + 

292: M_T\lambda_H\, H^i\tau^a_{ij} 

293: \epsilon H^j T^{a*}+\hbox{h.c.} \bigg),

294: \eeq

295: where $3\times3$ flavour matrices are denoted in bold-face, 

296: $g,g'=\{1,2,3\}$ are generation indices,

297: $\epsilon$ is the permutation matrix

298: and $\tau^a$ are the usual $\SU(2)_L$ Pauli matrices.

299: The hypercharges are $Y_L=-1/2$, $Y_H=1/2$ and $Y_T=1$.

300: The triplet Lagrangian can be supersymmetrized introducing two 

301: chiral superfields $T$ and $\bar{T}$

302: with superpotential couplings:

303: \beq\label{eq:tripletSUSY}

304: W = W_{\rm MSSM} + M_T T\bar{T} + \frac{1}{2}

305:  \bigg(

306: \mb{\lambda}^{gg'}_L L_g L_{g'} T  + 

307: \lambda_{H_{\rm d}}  H_{\rm d} H_{\rm d} T +

308: \lambda_{H_{\rm u}}  H_{\rm u} H_{\rm u} \bar{T}\bigg).\eeq

309: Triplet exchange mediates the dimension-5 neutrino mass operator 

310: $(LH_{\rm u})^2$ such that

311: the triplet contribution $\mb{m}_T$ to the  neutrino mass matrix $\mb{m}_\nu$ is

312: \beq 

313: \mT =  \mb{\lambda}_L \lambda_{H_{\rm u}}\frac{v_{\rm u}^2}{M_T}

314: \label{mT}

315: \eeq

316: where 

317: $v=174\GeV$ and the subscript u is present only in the SUSY version of the model.

318: 

319: 

320: \subsection{Decay rates and CP-asymmetry}

321: From now on we work explicitly with the non-supersymmetric 

322: version of the model.  The tree-level triplet decay rates are

323: \beq\Gamma(T\to LL) =\frac{M_T}{16\pi} 

324: {\rm Tr}\, \mb{\lambda}_L \mb{\lambda}_L^\dagger=B_L \Gamma_T ,\qquad

325: \Gamma(T\to \bar H\bar H) =\frac{M_T}{16\pi} 

326: \lambda_H \lambda_H^\dagger=B_H \Gamma_T ,

327: \eeq

328: where $B_L$ and $B_H$ are the tree-level branching ratios to leptons and Higgs

329: doublets, respectively, and $\Gamma_T$ is the total triplet decay width.

330: Assuming that these are the only decay modes, i.e. $B_L+B_H=1$,

331: and taking into account

332: CPT-invariance,

333: a single parameter $\varepsilon_L$ determines CP-violation in $T,\bar{T}$ 

334: decays to be:

335: \begin{equation}\label{eq:GammaTs}\begin{array}{rclrcl}

336: \Gamma({\bar{T}}\to LL)  &=& \Gamma_T\,(B_L +{\varepsilon_L}/{2}

337: %\sqrt{B_LB_H}

338: ), \qquad&

339: \Gamma({\bar{T}}\to {\bar{H}}{\bar{H}})  &=& \Gamma_T\,(B_H-{\varepsilon_L}/{2}

340: %\sqrt{B_LB_H}

341: ), \\

342: \Gamma(T\to \bar{L}\bar{L})  &=& \Gamma_T\,(B_L -{\varepsilon_L}/{2}

343: %\sqrt{B_LB_H}

344: ), &

345: \Gamma(T\to HH)  &=&\Gamma_T\,(B_H+{\varepsilon_L}/{2}

346: %\sqrt{B_LB_H}

347: ),\end{array}

348: \end{equation}

349: where $\varepsilon_L$ is the CP-asymmetry (i.e.~the average lepton number 

350: produced per decay):

351: \begin{equation}\label{eq:epsLepsT}

352: \varepsilon_L\equiv 2  \frac{\Gamma({\bar{T}}\rightarrow LL)-

353: \Gamma(T\rightarrow \bar{L}\bar{L})}{\Gamma_{T}+\Gamma_{\bar T}}.

354: %= 2\varepsilon_T\sqrt{B_L B_H}.

355: \end{equation}

356: The overall factor 2 arises because $\bar T \to LL$ generates 2 leptons.

357: Defining, as usual, 

358: the efficiency factor to be unity in the limit where the triplets 

359: decay strongly out-of-equilibrium, the lepton to photon number density 

360: ratio produced is

361: \beq

362: \frac{n_L}{n_\gamma}= \varepsilon_L \eta  

363: \left.\frac{n_T+n_{\bar{T}}}{n_\gamma}\right|_{T \gg M_T},

364: \eeq

365: where $n_T$ is the total triplet number density 

366: $n_T=n_{T^{--}}+n_{T^{-}}+n_{T^{0}}$. 

367: After partial conversion of the lepton asymmetry to a baryon asymmetry 

368: by sphalerons this leads to

369: \beq

370: \label{eq:uusm}

371: \frac{n_B}{n_\gamma}=-0.029 \varepsilon_L \eta \,.

372: \eeq 

373: 

374: One triplet $T$ alone can mediate the whole observed light neutrino mass 

375: matrix via \Eq{mT}

376: (see e.g.~\cite{Senj} for models of this type). 

377: However, in this case the 

378: CP-asymmetry $\varepsilon_L$ is generated only at higher loops and

379:  is highly suppressed. To get a sizable CP-asymmetry 

380:  extra couplings are needed.

381:  The minimal option is that the CP-asymmetry

382:  is generated by extra contributions to neutrino masses,

383:  mediated e.g.\ by heavier right-handed neutrinos (fig.~1a \cite{sod,hs}),

384:  or by additional heavier triplets 

385: (fig.~1b \cite{masar,scaltriplepto}) or by any other heavier particle

386: which induces the dimension-5 operator as shown in fig.~1c.

387: In this case the neutrino mass $\mb{m}_\nu$ is given by the 

388: sum of the triplet contribution $\mT$,

389: plus an extra contribution $\mb{m}_H$ mediated by these $H$eavier particles:

390: $\mb{m}_\nu = \mT + \mb{m}_H$.

391: %

392: \begin{figure}[t]

393: $$\hspace{-5mm}

394: \includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{FeynCP}$$

395: \caption{\label{fig:FeynCP}\em

396: One-loop diagrams contributing to the asymmetry

397: in scalar triplet decays.}

398: \end{figure}

399: %

400: Assuming that these particles 

401: are substantially heavier than the scalar triplet,

402: %so heavy that we can 

403: %fully encode their effects in $\mb{m}_H$ and neglect

404: % higher-order operators,

405: the neutrino mass contribution to the CP-asymmetry is

406: \beq\label{eq:DIT} 

407: |\varepsilon_L|  =   \frac{1}{4\pi}\frac{M_T}{v^2}\sqrt{B_L B_H}

408:  \frac{|{\rm Im}\,{\rm Tr}\, \mT^\dagger \mb{m}_H|}{\tilde{m}_T},\eeq

409:  where $\tilde{m}_T^2\equiv {\rm Tr}\,\mT^\dagger\mT$. 

410: We stress that, as for the decay of a right-handed  

411: neutrino \cite{AK}, this result is independent of the nature of the heavier particle 

412: contributing to the neutrino masses (fig.~1a or fig.~1b or whatever) 

413: because  the heavier particle effects on the asymmetries

414:  can be fully encoded 

415: in $\mb{m}_H$, i.e.~in term of the unique dimension-5 neutrino mass 

416: operator they induce 

417: (fig.~1c).\footnote{In the case of fig.~1a, our result in 

418: eq.~(\ref{eq:epsmax}) differs by a factor 1/2 from the first 

419: calculation performed in~\cite{hs}.}

420: % i.e.~Eq.~(9) in \cite{hs} has to be multiplied by a factor 2.}

421: % higher-order operators,

422: 

423: 

424:  We remind that when the lightest particle is a right-handed neutrino $N_1$ 

425:  the CP-asymmetry in its decays is given by an analogous formula~\cite{CP,leptogenesisBounds}:

426:  \beq\label{eq:DIN} 

427:  | \varepsilon_1 |  = \frac{3}{16\pi}\frac{M_N}{v^2} 

428:  \frac{|{\rm Im}\,{\rm Tr} \,{\mb{m}}_1^\dagger \mb{m}_H|}{\tilde{m}_1}

429: \le

430:  \frac{3}{16\pi}\frac{M_1}{v^2} (m_{\nu_3} - m_{\nu_1}),

431: \eeq

432: where, to make contact with the standard notation,

433: the contribution to the neutrino mass matrix mediated by $N_1$

434: has been denoted as $\tilde{\mb{m}}_1$.

435: The bound of eq.~(\ref{eq:DIN}) holds assuming that the heavier particles 

436: are two right-handed neutrinos~\cite{leptogenesisBounds}.

437:  In the case of generic heavy particles $m_{\nu_3}-m_{\nu_1}$ gets replaced by $m_{\nu_3}$.

438: 

439: In a similar way one obtains an upper bound on the 

440: neutrino mass contribution to the triplet

441: CP-asymmetry of \Eq{eq:DIT}:

442:  \beq \label{eq:epsmax}  | \varepsilon_L |  \le 

443:  \frac{1}{4\pi} \frac{M_T}{v^2}\sqrt{B_L B_H\sum_i  m_{\nu_i}^2} .\eeq

444: The result is different from the singlet case

445: because $\mT$ is a generic matrix, while $\tilde{\mb{m}}_1$ has  rank~1.

446: As a result $\varepsilon_L$ increases 

447: for larger  $m_{\nu_i}$ \cite{hs}, 

448: unlike $\varepsilon_1$ which decreases for larger quasi-degenerate neutrino masses.

449: If extra information on how

450: $\mb{m}_\nu$ decomposes as the sum of $\mb{m}_T$ and $\mb{m}_H$ is available

451: (as e.g.\ happens when considering particular neutrino mass models)

452: the bound\eq{epsmax} can be strengthened, by replacing its last factor with

453: $\min (\sum_i m_{\nu_i}^2, \tilde{m}_H^2)$ where

454: $\tilde{m}_H^2\equiv {\rm Tr} \,{\mb{m}}_H^\dagger \mb{m}_H^{\phantom{\dagger}}$.  

455: 

456: 

457:  When all terms in the effective Lagrangian are perturbative, 

458:  % lambdaL, lambdaT and also m_nu (LH)^2

459:  this CP asymmetry is smaller

460:  (often much smaller) than the generic absolute maximal value

461:  allowed by unitarity (i.e.\ by demanding positivity of all decay widths in eq.\eq{GammaTs}):

462: % the maximal value allowed by having $\Gamma>0$ in all channels: 

463: % $\varepsilon_T <\sqrt{\min(B_L/B_H,B_H/B_L)}$

464: \bea 

465: \label{unit}

466: |\varepsilon_L|<2\min(B_L,B_H).

467: \eea

468: Complex soft terms in  supersymmetric triplet models

469: are a concrete example of an extra source

470: of CP-asymmetry that (unlike the neutrino mass contribution)

471: is not suppressed

472: for small $M_T$~\cite{DHHRR,SOFTN}.

473: Alternatively one can add extra terms to the triplet Lagrangian,

474: obtaining more complex phases.

475: %One example is triplet soft 

476: %leptogenesis 

477: 

478: % one extra source of CP-asymmetry

479: %that 

480: 

481: %The unitarity constraint can be saturated e.g.\ in triplet soft 

482: %leptogenesis models,

483: %where the CP-asymmetry is produced by complex soft terms.

484: %We here do not consider models with two quasi-degenerate triplets:

485: %in this case a larger CP-asymmetry is possible: $|\varepsilon_L|<\sqrt{B_L B_H}$.

486: 

487: 

488:  %If neutrinos are hierarchical, $m_{\nu_3}\gg m_{\nu}_{2,1}$.

489:  

490: 

491: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

492: %%

493: %\begin{figure}

494: %\begin{center}

495: %\begin{picture}(310,60)(0,0)

496: %%1st diagram

497: %\DashArrowLine(0,30)(30,30){5}

498: %\ArrowLine(60,60)(90,60)

499: %\ArrowLine(60,0)(90,0)

500: %\Line(60,60)(60,0)

501: %\DashArrowLine(30,30)(60,60){5}

502: %\DashArrowLine(30,30)(60,0){5}

503: %\Text(3,22)[]{$\bar{T}$}

504: %\Text(35,12)[]{$\bar{H}$}

505: %\Text(37,51)[]{$\bar{H}$}

506: %\Text(69,30)[]{$N_k$}

507: %\Text(85,52)[]{$l_i$}

508: %\Text(85,8)[]{$l_{l}$}

509: %%%2d diagram

510: %\DashArrowLine(110,30)(130,30){5}

511: %%\DashArrowLine(110,30)(130,30)

512: %\DashArrowArc(145,30)(15,180,360){5}

513: %\DashArrowArcn(145,30)(15,180,0){5}

514: %\DashArrowLine(160,30)(180,30){5}

515: %\ArrowLine(180,30)(210,60)

516: %\ArrowLine(180,30)(210,0)

517: %\Text(115,22)[]{$\bar{T}_1$}

518: %\Text(145,6)[]{$\bar{H}$}

519: %\Text(146,55)[]{$\bar{H}$}

520: %\Text(172,22)[]{$\bar{T}_2$}

521: %\Text(197,55)[]{$l_{k}$}

522: %\Text(197,4)[]{$ l_{l}$}

523: %%%\Text(160,3)[]{(b)}

524: %%3rd diagram

525: %\DashArrowLine(230,30)(250,30){5}

526: %%\DashArrowLine(230,30)(250,30)

527: %\DashArrowArc(265,30)(15,180,360){5}

528: %\DashArrowArcn(265,30)(15,180,0){5}

529: %%\DashArrowLine(280,30)(300,30){5}

530: %\ArrowLine(280,30)(310,60)

531: %\ArrowLine(280,30)(310,0)

532: %\Text(235,22)[]{$\bar{T}_1$}

533: %\Text(265,6)[]{$\bar{H}$}

534: %\Text(266,55)[]{$\bar{H}$}

535: %%\Text(292,22)[]{$\bar{T}_2$}

536: %\Text(297,55)[]{$l_{k}$}

537: %\Text(297,4)[]{$ l_{l}$}

538: %\Text(280,30)[]{$\bullet$}

539: %%\Text(160,3)[]{(b)}

540: %\end{picture}

541: %\end{center}

542: %\caption{One-loop diagrams contributing to the asymmetry

543: %from the scalar triplet decays.}

544: %\label{fig3}

545: %\end{figure}

546: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 

547: 

548: 

549: 

550: 

551: 

552:  

553:  

554: \bigskip

555: 

556: 

557: 

558: 

559: \begin{figure}[t]

560: $$\hspace{-5mm}

561: \includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{FeynTscalar}$$

562: \caption{\label{fig:FeynA}\em

563: Feynman diagrams that contribute to the interaction rate $\gamma_A$.}

564: \end{figure}

565: 

566: 

567: 

568: \subsection{Boltzmann equations}

569: We denote with $n_p$ the number density of the type `$p$' particles.

570: Boltzmann equations describe the evolution as function of $z\equiv M_T/T$ of the total $T,\bar{T}$ density

571: $\Sigma_T=(n_T + n_{\bar T})/s$ 

572: and of the asymmetries $\Delta_p = (n_p-n_{\bar p})/s$ stored 

573: in $p=\{T,L,H\}$.

574: They are: 

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

576: sHz \frac{d\Sigma_{T}}{dz} &=&

577:   -\bigg(\frac{\Sigma_{T}}{\Sigma_{T}^{\rm eq}}-1\bigg)\gamma_D

578:   -2\bigg(\frac{\Sigma_{T}^2}{\Sigma_{T}^{2\rm eq}}-1\bigg)\gamma_A \,, 

579: \label{eq:BoltzST}\\

580: sHz \frac{d\Delta_L}{dz} &=&  X

581: -2\gamma_DB_L(\frac{\Delta_L}{Y_L^{\rm eq}}+\frac{\Delta_T}{\Sigma_T^{\rm eq}}) ,

582: \label{eq:BoltzdL}\\

583: %

584: sHz \frac{d\Delta_H}{dz} &=& X

585: -2\gamma_DB_H(\frac{\Delta_H}{Y_H^{\rm eq}}-\frac{\Delta_T}{\Sigma_T^{\rm eq}}),

586: \label{eq:BoltzdH}

587: \\

588: %

589: sHz \frac{d\Delta_T}{dz} &=&-\gamma_D\left(\frac{\Delta_T}{\Sigma_{T}^{\rm eq}}+B_L

590: \frac{\Delta_L}{Y_{L}^{\rm eq}}-B_H \frac{\Delta_H}{Y_{H}^{\rm eq}}\right) ,

591:  \label{eq:BoltzdT}

592: \end{eqnsystem}

593: where $H$ is the Hubble constant at temperature $T$, 

594: $s$ is the total entropy density,

595: $Y_X=n_X/s$,

596: a suffix $^{\rm eq}$ denotes equilibrium values, $\gamma_P$ is the 

597: space-time density of type `$P$' 

598: processes computed in thermal equilibrium, and

599: \beq

600: \label{eq:Xdef}

601: X= \gamma_D \varepsilon_L \bigg(\frac{\Sigma_{T}}{\Sigma_{T}^{\rm eq}}-1\bigg)  -2

602: (\frac{\Delta_L}{Y_L^{\rm eq}} + \frac{\Delta_H}{Y_H^{\rm eq}}) 

603: (\gamma_{Ts}^{\rm sub}+\gamma_{Tt}).

604: \eeq

605: Notice that because of hypercharge (or electric charge) conservation 

606: only three out of the four Boltzmann equations are independent.

607: There exists a sum rule $$2 \Delta_T+\Delta_H-\Delta_L=0,$$

608: satisfied by eq.s~(\ref{sys:Boltz}).

609: An important comment to be made here is that,  since

610: triplets are not self-conjugated (unlike right-handed neutrinos),

611: there is a Boltzmann equation (\ref{eq:BoltzdT}) for $\Delta_T.$

612: As we discuss later, this structure of Boltzmann equations allows

613: new effects which are absent in the heavy neutrino leptogenesis.

614: 

615: 

616: The relevant processes contributing to triplet leptogenesis are:

617: \begin{itemize} 

618: \item Decays and inverse decays. $\gamma_D$ is the total decay 

619: space-time density of $T$ plus $\bar T$ decays, given by

620: the usual expression:

621: \beq \gamma_D =s\Gamma_T \Sigma_T^{\rm eq}  {\rm K}_1(z)/{\rm K_2}(z),

622: \eeq

623: where ${\rm K}_{1,2}$ are Bessel functions.

624: 

625: \item $\Delta T=2$ scatterings.

626: $\gamma_A$ is the space-time density of the $\SU(2)_L\otimes{\rm U}(1)_Y$

627: gauge scatterings $T\bar{T}\to \hbox{SM particles}$

628: shown in fig.\fig{FeynA}. This is a new effect not present with 

629: right-handed neutrinos.

630: The contributions of the various final states to the reduced cross 

631: section\footnote{We remind that reduced cross sections for $2\to  2$ 

632: scatterings are defined as

633: $\hat{\sigma} = \sum \int dt\,{|A|^2}/{8\pi s}$

634: where here $s,t$ are the usual Mandelstam variables

635: and  the sum runs over

636: initial and final spins and gauge indices.

637: The reaction densities are obtained as

638: $$\gamma=

639: \frac{T}{64 \pi^4} \int_{s_{\rm min}}^{\infty} ds~ s^{1/2}

640:  {\rm K}_1\bigg(\frac{\sqrt{s}}{T}\bigg)

641:   \hat{\sigma}(s).$$}

642:   $\hat\sigma_A$  are

643: \begin{eqnsystem}{sys:sigmaA}

644: \hat\sigma_A(T\bar{T}\to F\bar{F})&=&\frac{6g_2^4+5 g_Y^4}{2\pi } r^3,\\

645: \hat\sigma_A(T\bar{T}\to H\bar H)&=&\frac{g_2^4+g_Y^4/2}{8\pi} r^3,\\

646: \hat\sigma_A(T\bar {T}\to W^a W^b) &=& \frac{g_2^4}{\pi}\bigg[r(5+34/x)-

647: \frac{24}{x^2}(x-1)\ln\frac{1+r}{1-r}\bigg],\\

648: \hat\sigma_A(T\bar {T}\to YY,W^a Y) &=&

649: \frac{3g_Y^2 (g_Y^2 + 4 g_2^2)}{2\pi}\bigg[r(1+4/x)-\frac{4}{x^2}(x-2)\ln\frac{1+r}{1-r}\bigg],

650: \end{eqnsystem}

651: where $F$ denotes SM fermions, $r = \sqrt{1-4/x}$ and $x=s/M_T^2$.

652: The low-energy behavior ($\hat\sigma_A\propto r^3$ in the first two cases and

653: $\hat\sigma_A\propto r$ in the last two cases) is dictated by conservation 

654: of angular momentum.

655: Notice that by summing over $\SU(2)_L$ indices we include

656: all  `coannihilation' processes among different $X$ components.

657: 

658:   

659: 

660: 

661: \item  $\Delta L=2$ scatterings. 

662: Unlike in the singlet fermion case, the scalar triplet generates

663:  the $LL\leftrightarrow \bar H \bar H $ density rate

664: $\gamma_{Ts}$  only

665: by $s$-channel exchange;

666: and generates the $LH \leftrightarrow\bar L\bar H$ density rate $\gamma_{Tt}$ 

667: only by  $t$-channel exchange.

668: The reduced cross sections are

669: %\beq \hat\sigma_{Ts}=\frac{3\lambda_L^2 \lambda_H^2x }{4\pi(1-x)^2},\qquad

670: %\hat\sigma_{Tt}=\frac{3\lambda_L^2 \lambda_H^2}{2\pi }\bigg[-\frac{1}{1+x} + \frac{\ln (1+x)}{x}\bigg].\eeq

671: \begin{eqnsystem}{sys:DeltaL2}

672:  \hat\sigma_{Ts}&=&\frac{3xM_T^2}{4\pi v^4}\bigg[\frac{M_T}{1-x}+m_H\bigg]^2,\\

673: \hat\sigma_{Tt}&=&\frac{3 M_T^2}{4\pi v^4}\bigg[m_H^2 x + 4 m_H M_T

674: \bigg(1-\frac{\ln (1+x)}{x}\bigg)+

675: 2M_T^2\bigg(-\frac{1}{1+x} + \frac{\ln (1+x)}{x}\bigg)\bigg]\!.\end{eqnsystem}

676: Note that in $\hat\sigma_{Ts}$ we included an extra factor 2 by hand which we 

677: took out in the coefficient of $\hat\sigma_{Ts}$ in eq.~(\ref{eq:Xdef}), 

678: %to a non-standard factor 2 in the definition of $\hat\sigma_{Ts}$,

679: so that $\hat\sigma_{Ts}$  becomes equal to $\hat\sigma_{Tt}$ in the low 

680: energy limit, where neutrino masses encode all $L$-violating effects:

681: \beq \hat\sigma_{Ts,Tt}\stackrel{s\ll M_T^2}{\simeq} \frac{m_\nu^2}{v^2} 

682: \frac{3s}{4\pi}.\eeq

683: 

684: 

685: In Boltzmann equations one must subtract from $\gamma_{Ts}$ the contribution

686: due to on-shell $T$-exchange, already taken into account by successive

687: decays and inverse-decays.

688: The subtracted reaction density is 

689: $\gamma_{Ts}^{\rm sub}\equiv \gamma_{Ts} - B_L B_H \gamma_D$

690: and can be more conveniently computed by replacing the $T$ propagator

691: with its off-shell part, as described in~\cite{GNRRS}.

692: Once this is done, $\gamma_{Ts}^{\rm sub},\gamma_{Tt}\ll \gamma_D$ at $T\sim M_T$,

693: unless the couplings $\lambda_{L,H}$ are big enough

694: that $\gamma_{Ts}^{\rm sub},\gamma_{Tt}$ are sizable, producing a 

695: strong wash-out of the baryon asymmetry. 

696: \end{itemize}

697: To conclude, we comment on various small additional effects.

698: We neglect all processes that give corrections of relative order 

699: $\alpha \circa{<} \hbox{few }\%$. 

700: We included RGE corrections to gauge couplings and neutrino masses: 

701: the result roughly is

702: $m_\nu(\hbox{High scale})\sim (1.2\div1.3) m_\nu$~\cite{bcst,GNRRS}.

703: We assumed that the lepton asymmetry is concentrated in a single flavour

704: (this e.g.\ typically happens if $\mb{m}_T\approx \mb{m}_\nu$ and neutrinos 

705: are hierarchical):

706: to fully include flavor one needs to evolve a $3\times 3 $ density matrix 

707: of lepton asymmetries

708: as described in~\cite{bcst}. 

709: At $T\circa{<}10^{11}\GeV$

710: sphalerons and SM Yukawa couplings

711: redistribute the asymmetries to left-handed quarks and

712: right-handed fermions respectively.

713: These effects can be taken into account

714: inserting appropriate ${\cal O}(1)$ redistribution factors (see e.g.~\cite{bcst});

715: apart from generating the baryon asymmetry of eq.\eq{uusm}, 

716: they have small impact on the dynamics of leptogenesis.

717: 

718: 

719: 

720: 

721: 

722: 

723: \section{Results for triplet scalar leptogenesis}\label{res}

724: %

725: %{\bf Martti:  Here I am really confused. We start discussing singlet fermion and triplet

726: %fermion cases and then comment on the triplet scalar which is the topic of this paper.

727: %The same is true for the discussion of the CP asymmetries. Instead we should 

728: %talk about our work and, when necessary, comment on the other scenarios when we want to

729: %stress the differences. I really do not like the beginning of this section because

730: %the reader is totally confused.}

731: 

732: %

733: %To discuss the details of scalar triplet leptogenesis

734: % we first remind to the reader that the leptogenesis

735: %efficiency for decaying right-handed neutrinos is given by

736: %\be

737: %\eta(\hbox{fermion singlet}) \approx \min\left[\frac{H}{\Gamma},X\right],

738: %\ee

739: %where $\Gamma$ is the decay rate, and $H$ the expansion rate at $T\sim M$, 

740: %with $X$ parametrizing the dependence on the right-handed neutrino 

741: %abundancy \cite{thermal}

742: %$$X=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}

743: %1&\hbox{for thermal}\\

744: %\Gamma/H&\hbox{for negligible}\\

745: %g_{\rm SM}&\hbox{for dominant}

746: %\end{array}\right.\hbox{abundancy}.$$

747: 

748: 

749: The efficiency $\eta$ depends on 3 parameters

750: which can be chosen to be  $M_T$, 

751: $\lambda_L^2 \equiv \hbox{Tr}({\mb{\lambda}_L \mb{\lambda}_L^\dagger})$ and 

752:  $\tilde{m}_T$,

753: the contribution to neutrino masses mediated by triplet exchange.

754: We choose $\lambda_L$ because  in supersymmetric models it 

755: controls the renormalization induced Lepton Flavour Violating (LFV)

756: signals due to triplet interactions.

757: If $\mb{m}_T$ dominates neutrino masses, these signals are of

758: Minimal Flavour Violation~\cite{MFV} type;

759: if furthermore neutrinos are hierarchical then 

760: $\tilde{m}_T = (\Delta m^2_{\rm atm})^{1/2}\equiv m_{\rm atm}\approx 0.05\eV$. 

761: 

762: 

763: 

764: 

765: Boltzmann equations for leptogenesis in  scalar triplet decays

766:  show two main 

767: qualitative differences with respect to the well known case of

768: right-handed neutrinos.

769: Firstly, gauge scatterings keep the triplet abundancy $\Sigma_T$ close 

770: to thermal equilibrium such that the final lepton asymmetry does not depend on

771:  the initial conditions. 

772: This effect is present also in the case of leptogenesis from Majorana fermion triplets~\cite{HLNPS},

773: and tends to reduce the efficiency.

774: It affects the efficiency in a negligible way only if the decay rate is much 

775: faster than the expansion rate because in this case the triplets decay 

776: before annihilating.

777: Secondly, unlike for Majorana triplets, due to the fact that the scalar 

778: triplets

779: have two independent types of

780: decay, and due to the related fact that there is one more Boltzmann

781: equation, the wash-out from decay can be avoided even if the decay is

782: much faster than the expansion rate. 

783: Lepton number is violated by the contemporaneous presence of

784: $\lambda_L$ and $\lambda_H$, so that the

785:  lepton asymmetry is 

786: washed-out  only when both

787: partial decay rates to leptons and Higgses are faster than the expansion rate.

788: Otherwise, even for a fast total decay

789: rate, a quasi maximal

790: efficiency can be obtained in large portions of the parameter space.

791: 

792: 

793: 

794: %The other two features circumvent this suppression, allowing

795: %a quasi-maximal efficiency in large portions of the parameter space.

796: %Secondly, the richer structure of Boltzmann equations allows to store

797: %the asymmetries in $\Delta_T,\Delta_L,\Delta_H$:

798: %these can be washed-out only by decays, not by gauge scatterings. 

799: %Thirdly,  processes at $T\sim M_T$ effectively violate lepton number only if both

800: %$\lambda_L$ and $\lambda_H$ are big enough. 

801: 

802: 

803: 

804: 

805: \begin{figure}[t]

806: $$\includegraphics[height=0.45\textwidth]{gammaT}\hspace{0.1\textwidth}

807: \includegraphics[height =0.45\textwidth]{runT}$$

808: %$$\includegraphics[height=0.3\textwidth]{fig3a}\hspace{0.\textwidth}

809: %\includegraphics[height =0.3\textwidth]{fig3b}$$

810: \caption{\label{fig:gammaT}\em

811: Left panel:

812: interaction rates $\gamma_{DL},\gamma_{DH},\gamma_A,|\gamma_{Ts}^{\rm sub}|,

813: \gamma_{Tt}$ in units of $Hn_\gamma$: a value below 

814: ${\cal O}(1)$ is `slow' on cosmological time-scale.

815: Right panel: 

816:  evolution of $\Sigma_T$ (indistinguishable from $\Sigma_T^{\rm eq}$,

817:  black dashed line),

818: $\Sigma_T-\Sigma_T^{\rm eq}$, $\Delta_L$, $\Delta_H$, $\Delta_T$.

819: Asymmetries are plotted in units of $\varepsilon_L$.

820: We take $M_1 = 10^{10}\GeV$, $\tilde{m}_T = (\Delta m^2_{\rm atm})^{1/2}\approx

821: 0.05\eV$, $\lambda_L=0.1$ giving $\lambda_H\approx 2\cdot 10^{-4}$ and

822: efficiency  $\eta\approx 0.38$.}

823: \end{figure}

824: 

825: 

826: 

827: To demonstrate how a large efficiency $\eta\sim 1$ arises, we plot

828: in fig.\fig{gammaT} the interaction rates as function of temperature 

829: (left panel) as well as the evolution of the abundances of  $\Sigma_T$,

830: $\Sigma_T-\Sigma_T^{\rm eq}$, $\Delta_L$, $\Delta_H$, $\Delta_T$ (right panel)

831: for $M_T = 10^{10}\GeV$, $\tilde{m}_T = m_{\rm atm}$ and $\lambda_L=0.1.$ This choice of parameters implies 

832: $B_L\simeq 1\gg B_H\sim 10^{-5}$ and very different decay rates $\gamma_{DL} \equiv B_L\gamma_D$ and

833: $\gamma_{DH}\equiv B_H\gamma_D$. 

834: It happens that only $\gamma_{DL}$ is faster than the expansion rate, so that 

835: the washout of the produced $L$ asymmetry is not effective.

836: Furthermore, gauge scatterings do not give a significant suppression

837: despite being much faster than the expansion rate, 

838: because they are not much faster than $\gamma_{D}$ (see fig.\fig{gammaT}a):

839: triplets decay before annihilating. While gauge scatterings keep

840: triplets in equilibrium, all asymmetries  grow much larger 

841: than $\Sigma_T-\Sigma_T^{\rm eq}$. Altogether the resulting efficiency in this

842: example is quasi-maximal: $\eta\approx 0.38$.

843: 

844: \smallskip

845: 

846: 

847: \begin{figure}[t]

848: $$

849: \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{etaT}\qquad

850: \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{etaTsmall}$$

851: \caption{\label{fig:eta}\em

852: Iso-curves of the efficiency $\eta$ in the ($\lambda_L,M_T$) plane

853: at fixed $\tilde{m}_T = 0.05\eV$ (left panel) and $\tilde{m}_T = 10^{-3}\eV$ (right panel).

854: The diagonal line corresponds to ${\rm BR}(T\to \bar L\bar L) = {\rm BR}(T\to HH)=1/2$

855: and shading covers regions with $\lambda_H>1$.}

856: \end{figure}

857: 

858: 

859: \begin{figure}[t]

860: $$

861: \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{EtamM}\qquad

862: \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{EtamMsmall}$$

863: \caption{\label{fig:EtamM}\em

864: Efficiency $\eta$  in the $(\tilde{m}_T,M_T)$

865: plane at fixed $\lambda_L=0.1$ (left panel) and  $\lambda_L=0.001$ (right panel).

866: The diagonal line corresponds to ${\rm BR}(T\to \bar L\bar L) = {\rm BR}(T\to HH)=1/2$

867: and shading covers regions with $\lambda_H>1$.}

868: \end{figure}

869: 

870: 

871: Let us present a more technical explanation of the behavior discussed above.

872: In general, Boltzmann equations

873: reduce to thermal equilibrium  (giving a vanishingly small efficiency $\eta$)

874: when the source terms in their

875: right-handed sides have coefficients much larger than the expansion rate.

876: From their explicit form one can see that when $B_L\to 0$ or when $B_H\to 0$ the combinations 

877: of $\Delta_L,\Delta_H,\Delta_T$

878: that are forced to vanish become linearly dependent, 

879: so that one combination gets not washed out and can store a large lepton asymmetry.

880: %This is indeed obtained when  3 independent combinations of the 3 asymmetries must vanish.

881: %\footnote{To be precise, only 2  combinations are independent

882: %because hyper-charge, proportional to $2\Delta_T + \Delta_H-\Delta_L$, is conserved.

883: %Since the universe is charge-neutral one has $2\Delta_T + \Delta_H-\Delta_L=0$,

884: %leaving 2 independent conditions for 2 independent asymmetries.}

885: This behavior is possible because $B_L$ and $B_H$ can be  

886: different from each other, which results in the additional  

887: Boltzmann equation, eq.~(\ref{eq:BoltzdT}).\footnote{An aside 

888: comment: Boltzmann equations for decays of 

889: right-handed sneutrinos have a similar form

890: as leptogenesis from decays of scalar triplets.

891: In the sneutrino case the new effect discussed here is typically negligible, 

892: because unbroken supersymmetry forces equal branching ratios for the 2 different 

893: sneutrino decay modes.}

894: We can analytically explain the numerical results in fig.~3.

895: In this example

896: $\Gamma(\bar T\rightarrow LL) \gg  H$ and 

897: $\Gamma(T \rightarrow H H) \circa{<} H$.

898: Then: 

899: \begin{itemize}

900: \item[a)] Eq.~(\ref{eq:BoltzST}) is 

901: dominated by the $\gamma_D$ term which puts $\Sigma_T$ close to 

902: $\Sigma_T^{\rm eq}$; gauge scatterings have a negligible effect.

903: \item[b)] The washout terms in eq.~(\ref{eq:BoltzdH}) can be neglected

904: thanks to $B_H\ll1$, and a large $\Delta_H$ asymmetry develops:

905: it does not depend on $\gamma_D$, because it is

906: proportional to $\gamma_D$ times $\Sigma_T/\Sigma_T^{\rm eq}-1$ 

907: (which is inversely proportional to $\gamma_D$). 

908: Indeed the approximate analytical solution is 

909: $\Delta_H(T)\approx\varepsilon_L [\Sigma_T^{\rm eq}(T\gg M_T)- \Sigma_T^{\rm eq}(T)]$

910: where $\Sigma_T^{\rm eq}(T\gg M_T)$ is a constant and

911: $\Sigma_T^{\rm eq}(T\ll M_T)\simeq 0$.

912: 

913: 

914: 

915: 

916: %, there is no processes faster than the Hubble 

917: %rate which could suppress the production of a $\Delta_H$ 

918: %asymmetry and eq.~(\ref{eq:BoltzdH}) decouples 

919: %from Eqs.~(\ref{eq:BoltzdL}) and (\ref{eq:BoltzdT}). 

920: %Therefore, a large $\Delta_H$ asymmetry is produced 

921: \item[c)] Due to 

922: the $2 \Delta_T+\Delta_H-\Delta_L=0$ sum rule, 

923: an equally large $2 \Delta_T-\Delta_L$ asymmetry is also 

924: produced.

925: \item[d)] Subsequently, as all triplets decay, $\Delta_T$ goes 

926: to zero so that the large $2 \Delta_T-\Delta_L$ becomes a 

927: large $\Delta_L$ asymmetry, with efficiency of order unity.

928: \end{itemize}

929: %A rough approximation of the efficiency is given by 

930: %\begin{equation}

931: %{sys:etascalar}

932: %\eta(\hbox{scalar triplet}) \approx 

933: %\min\left[\frac{2}{\sqrt{B_L B_H}}\frac{H}{\Gamma},1 ,\frac{2}{\sqrt{B_L B_H}}

934: %\frac{M}{10^{12}\GeV}\max(1,\frac{\Gamma}{H})\right].

935: %\label{eq:etaTFscal}\quad TO\, BE\, CHECKED

936: %\end{equation}

937: 

938:  

939: 

940: %Note, however, that in models where only CP-violation in $T$ decays 

941: %is relevant, as we consider here, the fact that there is no suppression 

942: %of the efficiency when one of the decay mode dominates over the other, 

943: %does not mean that the final lepton or baryon asymmetry produced will 

944: %not be suppressed. The point is that if $B_L$ or $B_H$ is close to zero 

945: %the upper bound on the $CP$ asymmetry will be suppressed through 

946: %the $\sqrt{B_L B_H}$ factor of eq.~(\ref{eq:epsmax}).\footnote{To 

947: %see what is the total suppression of the produced B-asymmetry, it 

948: %might be therefore useful to consider the rescaled efficiency 

949: %$\eta_T\equiv 2\eta\sqrt{B_LB_H} \le \eta$ by rescaling also 

950: %the asymmetry $\varepsilon_T\equiv \varepsilon_L/2\eta\sqrt{B_LB_H}$,

951: %with $\varepsilon_L \eta= \varepsilon_T \eta_T$,

952: %so that the total suppression of the asymmetry can be obtained 

953: %from the efficiency factor $\eta_T$. We will not do so in the following.}

954: 

955: To show the dependence of the efficiency in the 3 parameters $M_T$, 

956: $\lambda_L$ and $\tilde{m}_T$, various isocurve plots can be considered. 

957: Fig.\fig{eta} shows  $\eta$ in the ($\lambda_L,M_T$) plane for

958: $\tilde{m}_T  = m_{\rm atm}=0.05\eV$ (left panel) and for

959: $\tilde{m}_T = 10^{-3}\eV$ (right panel).

960: Fig.\fig{EtamM} shows $\eta$ in 

961: the  $(\tilde{m}_T,M_T)$ plane for  $\lambda_L=0.1$ (left panel) and 

962:  $\lambda_L=0.001$ (right panel). 

963: For $B_L=B_H=1/2$ (represented in the plot by the diagonal line) 

964: the efficiency

965: is dominantly determined by $\gamma_D$ and $\gamma_A$;

966: $\Delta L =2$

967: scatterings are relevant only above $\sim 10^{14}$~GeV).

968: By comparing their rates with the Hubble rate

969: \beq

970: \frac{\gamma_D}{H n_\gamma}\Big|_{T\approx M_T}\approx

971: \frac{\Gamma_T}{H}\Big|_{T\approx  M_T}\approx 

972: \frac{\tilde{m}_T}{10^{-3}\,\eV},\qquad

973: \frac{\gamma_A}{H n_\gamma}\Big|_{T\approx  M_T}\simeq 

974: \frac{10^{14} \GeV}{M_T}\,,

975: \eeq 

976: one can understand our numerical results:

977: for $\tilde{m}_T=0.05$~eV decays are more important 

978: than gauge scatterings and 

979: $\eta \approx 10^{-3}$ almost independently on $M_T$;

980: the reverse happens for $\tilde{m}_T=10^{-3}$~eV and $\eta$ decreases with $M_T$.

981: For $B_L\gg B_H$ ($B_H\gg B_L$), the efficiency is larger

982: thanks to $\gamma_{DL}<H n_\gamma$ ($\gamma_{DH}<H n_\gamma$).

983: In conclusion, numerical results shows the features anticipated above:

984: i.) The efficiency is maximal, $\eta\sim 1$, when either $B_L\gg B_H$ or $B_H\gg B_L$

985: and minimal when $B_L=B_H=1/2$.

986: ii.) Even when $B_L=B_H=1/2$ the efficiency does not depend much 

987: on $M_T$, especially for larger $\tilde{m}_T\circa{>}10^{-3}\eV$,

988: remaining relatively large even for $M_T\sim\TeV$. 

989: 

990: 

991: 

992: \begin{figure}[t]

993: $$

994: \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{epsL}\qquad

995: \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{epsLsmall}$$

996: \caption{\label{fig:isoepsL}\em

997: Iso-curves of value of $\varepsilon_L/\sqrt{4B_L B_H}$ needed to have successful leptogenesis 

998: in the $(\lambda_L,M_T)$

999: plane for two values of $\tilde{m}_T$ as indicated in the figure. The 

1000: dark-green (grey) 

1001: region is the allowed region assuming that the CP-asymmetry

1002: arises from heavier sources of 

1003: neutrino masses, i.e.~fulfilling eq.~(\ref{eq:epsmax}).

1004: The light green (grey) region is obtained assuming that the CP-asymmetry is bounded only 

1005: by unitarity, eq.~\rfn{unit}.}

1006: \end{figure}

1007: 

1008: 

1009: 

1010: %\begin{figure}[t]

1011: %$$

1012: %\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{fig7a}\qquad

1013: %\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{fig7b.eps}$$

1014: %\caption{\label{fig:mM}\em

1015: %Regions of successful leptogenesis 

1016: %in the $(\lambda_L,M_T)$ plane for $\tilde{m}_T=0.05$ eV (left panel) and 

1017: % $\tilde{m}_T=0.001$ eV (right panel) assuming

1018: %the CP asymmetry (\ref{eq:epsmax}) in the case the gauge interactions are switched off. 

1019: %Comparison with fig.~\ref{fig:isoepsL} reveals the effect of gauge interactions.}

1020: %\end{figure}

1021: \medskip

1022: 

1023:  % The comparison of  fig. with  fig.~6 shows that the maximal efficiency 

1024: %and thus the minimum 

1025: %of $M_T$ is realized for $\tilde{m}_T\approx 10^{-3}$ eV.

1026: 

1027: %Finally the question is what would the result be without gauge scatterings?

1028: %Therefore we plot in fig.~7 the same calculation as in fig. but without 

1029: %gauge scatterings. Comparison of those figures tells us that for 

1030: %$m_T=m_{atm}$ the effect is very small. In fact, the gauge scatterings

1031: %{\bf increase} the efficiency $\eta$ by a small factor. However, 

1032: %for  $m_T=10^{-3}$ eV the gauge scatterings do reduce the efficiency

1033: %by an order of magnitude if $B_L\approx B_H.$ This result agrees with the 

1034: %fermion triplet case. If $B_L\gg B_H$ or $B_L\ll B_H$ the new effects described

1035: %in the beginning of this section dominate and the evolution of the lepton

1036: %asymmetry in our scenario is very different from the fermion letpogenesis case.

1037: %As a result, gauge scatterings do not reduce the leptogenesis efficiency.

1038: 

1039: 

1040: 

1041: \medskip

1042: 

1043: We now come to the calculation of the produced baryon asymmetry. The 

1044: values of $\varepsilon_L$ necessary for obtaining

1045: the observed baryon asymmetry,

1046: $n_B/n_\gamma\approx 6.2 \cdot 10^{-10}$, can be obtained 

1047: straightforwardly from fig.s~\ref{fig:eta}, \ref{fig:EtamM} 

1048: using eq.~(\ref{eq:uusm}). 

1049: Notice that, while 

1050: the efficiency is maximal when $B_L\to 0$ or $B_H\to 0$,

1051: in these limits the CP-asymmetry gets suppressed, 

1052: in a way which depends on its origin.

1053: In the minimal model $\varepsilon_L\propto \sqrt{B_L B_H}$, see eq.\eq{DIT}.

1054: %A numerical analysis is needed to study in which cases thermal leptogenesis from triplet decays

1055: %can produce the observed baryon asymmetry.

1056: To illustrate this fact,

1057: fig.\fig{isoepsL} shows the values of $|\varepsilon_L|/\sqrt{4 B_L B_H}$ needed for successful 

1058: leptogenesis for 

1059:  $\tilde{m}_T=m_{\rm atm}$ (left panel) and $\tilde{m}_T=10^{-3}$ eV (right 

1060: panel). 

1061: Using the upper bound  on $|\varepsilon_L|$ of eq.~(\ref{eq:epsmax})

1062: (valid assuming the minimal model where $\varepsilon_L$ is generated only by other sources

1063: of neutrino masses much heavier than the scalar triplet; we evaluate

1064: it assuming hierarchical neutrino masses)

1065: restricts the ranges of $M_T$ and $\lambda_L$ which can lead to successful 

1066: leptogenesis to the region shaded in dark green. 

1067: This allowed region covers a wide range of $\lambda_L$ values:

1068: the decrease of the maximal 

1069: $|\varepsilon_L|$ when  $B_L\to 0$ or $B_H\to 0$

1070: is roughly compensated by the increase in the efficiency, such that

1071: successful leptogenesis does not need $B_L\approx B_H$.

1072: In this minimal model $\varepsilon_L\propto M_T$, so that

1073: successful leptogenesis needs a heavy enough triplet.

1074: %~\cite{scaltriplepto,hs,seesaw25TH},

1075: Assuming a hierarchical spectrum of light neutrinos 

1076: (i.e.~setting $\sum_i m_{\nu_i}^2=\Delta m^2_{\rm {atm}}$ 

1077: in eq.~(\ref{eq:epsmax})) we find the model-independent bounds:

1078: \begin{eqnsystem}{sys:bounds}

1079: \label{eq:MTbound}

1080: M_T & > & 2.8 \cdot 10^{10}\,\mrm{GeV} \quad (\tilde{m}_T=0.001\,\eV);\\

1081: M_T & > & 1.3 \cdot 10^{11}\,\mrm{GeV} \quad (\tilde{m}_T=0.05\,\eV). 

1082: \end{eqnsystem}

1083: A stronger bound on the CP asymmetry holds in models where heavier sources of neutrino masses

1084: are predicted to give a small contribution $\mb{m}_H$. 

1085: A too small $\mb{m}_H$ prevents successful leptogenesis, and

1086: the bounds of eqs.~(\ref{sys:bounds}) become stronger, by a factor

1087: well approximated by $(\sum_i m_{\nu_i}^2)^{1/2}/\tilde{m}_H$ 

1088: where $\tilde{m}_H^2\equiv {\rm Tr}\,\mb{m}_H^\dagger\mb{m}_H$.

1089: For example, 

1090: for $\tilde{m}_H = (\Delta m^2_{\rm sun})^{1/2}=0.007$~eV this gives:

1091: $M_T  >  8 \cdot 10^{11}\,\mrm{GeV}$ (with $\tilde{m}_T=0.05\,\eV$).

1092: These precise constraints can be compared to the estimated constraint: 

1093: $M_T > 10^{11-12}$~GeV \cite{scaltriplepto,hs,seesaw25TH}. 

1094: 

1095: 

1096: For larger values of $\sum_i m_{\nu_i}^2$ the constraints of 

1097: eqs.~(\ref{sys:bounds}) get relaxed by a

1098: $(\Delta m^2_{\rm atm}/\sum_i m_{\nu_i}^2)^{1/2}$ factor: i.e.~by  one order of magnitude for quasi-degenerate neutrinos with $m_\nu\approx0.5\eV\approx 10 m_{\rm atm}$.

1099: In fact, by increasing the neutrino mass scale keeping $m_T$ fixed,

1100: the asymmetry increases but the efficiency remains unchanged~\cite{hs}.

1101: 

1102: 

1103: 

1104: 

1105: 

1106: 

1107: %They are valid for a hierarchical spectrum of light neutrinos (i.e.~in 

1108: %eq.~(\ref{eq:epsmax}) we took $\sum_i m_{\nu_i}^2=\Delta m^2_{\rm {atm}}$).

1109: %For larger values of $\sum_i m_{\nu_i}^2$ these constraints get relaxed 

1110: %by a

1111: %$(\Delta m^2_{\hbox{atm}}/\sum_i m_{\nu_i}^2)^{1/2}$ factor: i.e.~by  

1112: %one order of magnitude for quasi-degenerate neutrinos 

1113: %with $m_\nu\approx0.5\eV\approx 10 m_{\rm atm}$.

1114: %In fact, by increasing the neutrino mass scale keeping $\tilde{m}_T$ fixed,

1115: %the asymmetry increases but the efficiency remains unchanged~\cite{hs}.

1116: 

1117: 

1118: 

1119: %Note that the bounds on $M_T$ shown in fig.~6 are not only valid in the 

1120: %limit where the triplet is much lighter than the other heavy particles. It 

1121: %remains approximately true for heavy masses of same order as long as these 

1122: %other particles don't create themselves a sizable asymmetry and as long as 

1123: %there is no resonance mechanism occurring. As well known 

1124: %vertex type CP-violation (such as from  fig.1a) cannot lead to any resonance effect but CP violation from T mixing can (such as from fig.1b or in 

1125: %supersymmetric models 

1126: %with appropriated values of the triplet soft terms \cite{DHHRR}).

1127: %For quasi-degenerate triplets,

1128: 

1129: \medskip

1130: 

1131: We expect that adding supersymmetry does not significantly affect our results.

1132: More precisely, the interaction rates and the CP-asymmetry generated 

1133: by neutrino masses

1134: become ${\cal O}(2)$ times bigger,

1135: and the numerical coefficient in eq.\eq{uusm} remains almost unchanged.

1136: This means that the constraint on $M_T$ 

1137: in eq.~(\ref{eq:MTbound})

1138: conflicts with the gravitino

1139: constraint on the maximal big-bang temperature~\cite{nucleo}.

1140: From this point of view, triplet leptogenesis is not better than the other two

1141: mechanisms that can mediate tree-level masses.

1142: In all 3 cases this incompatibly can be circumvented in many ways;

1143: in particular extra sources of CP-violation unrelated to neutrino masses

1144: (and related e.g.\ to soft supersymmetry-breaking terms)

1145: allow much larger 

1146: asymmetries and the lower bound on $M_T$ can be considerably 

1147: relaxed.

1148: In general the CP-asymmetry is bounded only by eq.~(\ref{unit}),

1149: that does not depend on $M_T$: 

1150: a light triplet can produce successful leptogenesis

1151: because its efficiency remains large enough.

1152: Fig.\fig{isoepsL} shows that even $M_T\sim\TeV$ is allowed:

1153: the region allowed  by the unitarity bound is shaded in light green.

1154: 

1155: 

1156: %\medskip

1157: Notice that the fact that relatively large values of $\lambda_L$ are 

1158: compatible with thermal triplet leptogenesis, see fig.\fig{isoepsL},

1159: has an interesting consequence

1160: in SUSY models: 

1161: RGE corrections imprint $\lambda_L$ in slepton masses.

1162: If $\mb{\lambda}_L$ violates lepton flavour this effect induces LFV charged-lepton processes

1163: with possibly detectable rates.

1164: As usual, the predicted LFV rates depend also on sparticle masses which can

1165: be measured at colliders. Taking into account naturalness considerations

1166: and experimental bounds and hints, we give our numerical examples in the leading log approximation for

1167: $m_0=M_{1/2}=200\GeV$, $A_0=0$, $\tan\beta=5$.

1168: The most relevant effects are then  approximately given by

1169: (see also~\cite{anna})

1170: \begin{eqnsystem}{sys:BR}\label{eq:BR}

1171: {\rm BR}(\mu\to e\gamma) &\approx& 1.2\cdot 10^{-4}r\, 

1172: |\mb{\lambda}_L^\dagger\cdot \mb{\lambda}_L|_{e\mu}^2 

1173: \ln^2\frac{M_{\rm GUT}}{M_T},\\

1174: {\rm BR}(\tau\to\mu\gamma) &\approx& 2\cdot 10^{-5}r|\mb{\lambda}_L^\dagger \cdot \mb{\lambda}_L|_{\mu\tau}^2 

1175: \ln^2\frac{M_{\rm GUT}}{M_T}

1176: \end{eqnsystem}

1177: where $r\approx (\tan\beta/5)^2(200\GeV/M_\mathrm{SUSY})^4$

1178:   equals 1 at our reference point.

1179: $\lambda_L^{\tau\mu}\circa{>}10^{-1}$ gives rise to detectable $\tau\to \mu\gamma$ rates,

1180: $\lambda_L^{e\mu}\circa{>}10^{-2}$ gives rise to detectable $\mu\to e\gamma$ rates.

1181: 

1182: 

1183: 

1184: 

1185: 

1186: 

1187: 

1188: \bigskip

1189: 

1190: %Finally, one can consider CP-violation in $T$ mixing:

1191: %unlike in the case of CP-violation from $T$ decay,

1192: %one can have a large CP-asymmetry even for small $M_T$.

1193: %This scenario is e.g.\ realized in supersymmetric models for

1194: %appropriate values of the triplet soft terms~\cite{DHHRR}.

1195: %MAKE SOME PLOT..........

1196: %We see that one can have $M_T\sim\TeV$.

1197: 

1198: \section{Conclusions}\label{concl}

1199: We computed the efficiency factor $\eta$ that summarizes the dynamics of scalar triplet thermal leptogenesis.

1200: Despite the presence of gauge interactions, that tend to maintain the triplet abundancy

1201: very close to thermal equilibrium, one can have even maximal efficiency, $\eta\sim 1$, for any triplet mass $M_T$,

1202: even $M_T\sim \TeV$.

1203: This happens when 

1204: i) one of the two decay rates ($T\to \bar L\bar L$ or $T\to HH$)

1205: is faster than the annihilation rate;

1206: ii)  the other one is slower than the expansion rate.

1207: Thanks to i) gauge scatterings are ineffective: triplets decay before annihilating.

1208: Thanks to ii) fast decays do not produce

1209: a strong washout of the lepton asymmetry (and consequently a small efficiency $\eta$),

1210: because  lepton number is violated only by the contemporaneous presence

1211: of the two $T\to \bar L\bar L$ and $T\to HH$ processes.

1212: Our numerical results are obtained by writing and solving the 

1213: full set of Boltzmann equations, eq.s~(\ref{sys:Boltz}).

1214: 

1215:  

1216:  \medskip

1217:  

1218:  

1219: We obtained in eq.\eq{DIT} an expression for the CP asymmetry in triplet decays, assuming

1220:  that it is related to neutrino masses.

1221:  Neutrino masses   $\mb{m}_\nu = \mb{m}_T + \mb{m}_H$ can be written

1222:  as the sum of the

1223: triplet contribution  $\mb{m}_T$,

1224: plus the contribution $\mb{m}_H$ from any other sources.

1225: The suffix $H$ indicates that we assume that other sources are  much $H$eavier than $M_T$,

1226:  such that at energies $E\circa{<}M_T$

1227:  all their effects are encoded in $\mb{m}_H$.

1228: This assumption allows us to derive an upper bound on the 

1229: triplet CP-asymmetry,

1230: eq.\eq{epsmax},

1231: analogous (but not equal) to the bound that holds in the

1232: right-handed neutrino case.

1233: %Our considerations simplify and extend the right-handed neutrino case.

1234:   

1235:  

1236: \medskip

1237: 

1238: Combining $\eta$ with the maximal CP-asymmetry generated by neutrino masses

1239: %(assumed to be hierarchical)

1240: allows us to derive

1241: a lower bound on the triplet mass $M_T$ which 

1242: varies between $10^9$~GeV and $10^{12}$~GeV, depending on the neutrino 

1243: mass contribution of both triplet and heavier source of neutrino mass, 

1244: see eq.s~(\ref{sys:bounds}).

1245: %\beq

1246: %M_T > 2.8 \cdot 10^{10}\,\hbox{GeV}\,,

1247: %\eeq

1248: This also leads on lower and upper bounds on the

1249: triplet Yukawa coupling to leptons, that in supersymmetric models

1250: induces LFV processes such as $\mu\to e\gamma$ and $\tau\to\mu\gamma$.

1251: Neutrino masses depend on the product $\lambda_L\lambda_H$ of

1252: triplet couplings to leptons and Higgs.

1253: Leptogenesis separately depends on $\lambda_L$ and $\lambda_H$, but

1254: adds no more information: 

1255: the region $\lambda_L\sim \lambda_H$ is not singlet out,

1256: due to the unexpected  behavior of the efficiency.

1257: As a result large values of $\lambda_L$, and therefore 

1258: large rates of LFV 

1259: processes, are allowed.

1260: 

1261: \medskip

1262: 

1263: By relaxing the assumption on the origin of the CP-asymmetry,

1264: it can reach larger values (bounded only by unitarity) that can be

1265: realized e.g.\ in  supersymmetric models with complex soft terms (`soft leptogenesis'),

1266: especially if the triplet mass is not much heavier than the scale of SUSY breaking.

1267: In this context the competing effect of the CP-asymmetry and of the efficiency

1268: favors $\lambda_L\sim\lambda_H$, allowing

1269: successful triplet thermal leptogenesis even at $M_T\sim\TeV$

1270: provided that $\lambda_L/\lambda_H\circa{<}(0.1\div 10)$.

1271: 

1272: 

1273: \paragraph{Acknowledgments}

1274: We thank S. Davidson for useful discussions.

1275: We thank the CERN TH division, where this work was partly produced.

1276: The work of T.H.~is supported by the EU Marie Curie fellowship HPMF-CT-01765.

1277: The work of A.S.\ is supported in part by the European Programme `The Quest For Unification', contract MRTN-CT-2004-503369.

1278: M.R. is supported by ESF grant nr.\ 6140.

1279:    

1280: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1281: \appendix

1282:  

1283: \footnotesize

1284: \begin{multicols}{2}

1285:   \begin{thebibliography}{99}

1286:   

1287:   %Seesaw type-I:

1288: \bibitem{type-I}

1289: P. Minkowski, {\it Phys. Lett.} {B67} (1977) 421.

1290: The see-saw was later discussed in many conferences, 

1291: see e.g.\  M. Gell-Mann, P. Ramond and R. Slansky,

1292:    in {\it Supergravity}, eds. P. van Nieuwenhuizen et al.,

1293:    (North-Holland, 1979) 315;

1294:   S.L. Glashow, in Quarks and Leptons, Carg\`ese, eds. M. L\'evy et al.,

1295: (Plenum, 1980) 707;

1296:   T. Yanagida, 

1297: %in {\it Proceedings of the Workshop on the Unified Theory

1298: %   and the Baryon Number in the Universe}, eds. O. Sawada et al., 

1299: (KEK Report~79-18, Tsukuba, 1979);

1300:   R.N.~Mohapatra and G. Senjanovi\'{c}, Phys. Rev. Lett. {44}

1301:    (1980) 912.

1302: 

1303: %\bibitem{scalartriplet} G. Lazarides, Q. Shafi and C. Wetterich,

1304: %Nucl Phys. {B181} (1981) 287; R.N. Mohapatra and G. Senjanovi\'c, Phys.

1305: %Rev. {D23} (1981) 165; C. Wetterich, Nucl. Phys. {B187} (1981) 343.

1306: 

1307: %Type-II seesaw:

1308: \bibitem{type-II} M.~Magg and C.~Wetterich, 

1309: Phys. Lett. B94 (1980) 61; 

1310: J.~Schechter and J.~W.~F.~Valle, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {22} (1980) 2227;

1311: C. Wetterich, 

1312: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B187 (1981) 343;  

1313: G. Lazarides, Q. Shafi and C. Wetterich,

1314: Nucl Phys. B181 (1981) 287; R.N. Mohapatra and G. Senjanovi\'c,

1315: Phys. \ Rev. \ D23 (1981) 165.

1316: 

1317: \bibitem{tripletferm} R. Foot, H. Lew, X.-G. He and G.C. Joshi,

1318:    Z. Phys. {C44} (1989) 441.

1319: %\bibitem{ma} E. Ma, Phys. Rev. Lett.  {81}

1320: %   (1998) 1171; E. Ma and D.P. Roy, Nucl. Phys. {B644} (2002) 290.

1321: 

1322: %Triplet fermion seesaw: 

1323: %\bibitem{type-III} R. Foot, H. Lew, X.-G. He and G.C. Joshi,

1324: %   Z. Phys. {C44} (1989) 441; E. Ma, Phys. Rev. Lett.  {81}

1325: %   (1998) 1171.

1326: % E. Ma and D.P. Roy, Nucl. Phys. {B644} (2002) 290.

1327: 

1328: \bibitem{FY}

1329: M. Fukugita and T. Yanagida, {Phys. Lett.} B174 (1986) 45.

1330: 

1331: \bibitem{GNRRS} Building on many previous works, the first (hopefully) 

1332: complete computation

1333: of leptogenesis from right-handed neutrinos has been presented in

1334: G.F. Giudice, A. Notari,

1335: M. Raidal, A. Riotto, A. Strumia, {Nucl. Phys.} {B685} (2004) 89.

1336: 

1337: 

1338: \bibitem{Sakharov} \art{A.D. Sakharov}{JETP Lett.}{91B}{24}{1967}.

1339: 

1340: 

1341: \bibitem{Olive} J.N Fry, K.A. Olive and M.S. Turner, Phys.~Rev. D22 (1980) 2977.

1342: 

1343: \bibitem{sasa} E. Ma, S. Sarkar and U. Sarkar, Phys. Lett. B458 (1999) 73.

1344: 

1345: 

1346: 

1347: \bibitem{scaltriplepto} 

1348: T. Hambye,

1349: E. Ma and U. Sarkar, Nucl.

1350: Phys. {B602} (2001) 23.

1351: 

1352: %First study of type-I + type-II leptogenesis:

1353: \bibitem{hs} T. Hambye and G. Senjanovic, Phys. Lett. B582 (2004) 73.

1354: 

1355: \bibitem{seesaw25TH} T. Hambye, hep-ph/0412053.

1356: 

1357: \bibitem{HLNPS} T. Hambye, Y. Lin, A. Notari, M. Papucci and 

1358: A. Strumia, Nucl. Phys. B695 (2004) 169.

1359: 

1360: 

1361: 

1362: 

1363: \bibitem{HMPR}

1364:   K.~Huitu, J.~Maalampi, A.~Pietila and M.~Raidal,

1365:   %``Doubly charged Higgs at LHC,''

1366:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {487} (1997) 27

1367:   [hep-ph/9606311].

1368:      F.~Cuypers and M.~Raidal,

1369:   %``Discovering and studying bileptons with e- e- collisions,''

1370:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {501} (1997) 3

1371:   [hep-ph/9704224];

1372:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9704224;%%

1373:  M.~Raidal,

1374:   %``Lower bounds on bilepton processes at e- e- and mu- mu- colliders,''

1375:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {57} (1998) 2013

1376:   [hep-ph/9706279].

1377:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9706279;%%

1378: 

1379: %Example of triplets models in SO(10) where neutrino masses are dominated by triplet source:

1380: 

1381: \bibitem{Senj} B. Bajc, G. Senjanovic and 

1382: F. Vissani, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90 (2003) 051802; R.N. Mohapatra 

1383: and S.P. Ng, Phys. Lett. B570 (2003) 215.

1384: 

1385: \bibitem{sod}  P. O'Donnell and U. Sarkar, Phys. Rev. {D49} (1994) 2118.

1386: 

1387: \bibitem{masar}

1388: E. Ma and U. Sarkar, 

1389: Phys. Rev. Lett. {80} (1998) 5716.

1390: 

1391: \bibitem{AK} 

1392: S. Antusch and S.F. King, Phys.  Lett. B597 (2004) 199.

1393: 

1394: \bibitem{CP}

1395: \art[hep-ph/9712468]{E. Roulet, L. Covi, F. Vissani}{\PL}{B424}{101}{1998}. 

1396: See also

1397: \art[hep-ph/9710460 version 2]{W. Buchm\"uller, M. Pl\"umacher}{\PL}{B431}{354}{1998};

1398: \art[hep-ph/9805427]{M. Flanz, E.A. Paschos}{\PR}{D58}{11309}{1998}.

1399: 

1400: 

1401: 

1402: \bibitem{leptogenesisBounds}

1403: S. Davidson, A. Ibarra, Phys. Lett. B535 (2002) 25. For a hierarchical or inverted hierarchical spectrum of light neutrinos

1404: this bound on $\varepsilon_1$ was also present in \cite{bcst}, in

1405: K. Hamaguchi, H. Murayama, T. Yanagida, Phys. Rev. D65 (2002) 043512, and in T.~Hambye, Nucl. Phys. B633 (2002) 171.

1406: 

1407: 

1408: 

1409: %Soft triplet:

1410: \bibitem{DHHRR} 

1411: G. D'Ambrosio, T. Hambye, A. Hektor, M. Raidal and A. Rossi, 

1412: Phys.~Lett. B604 (2004) 199.

1413: 

1414: 

1415: %Soft right-handed neutrinos (the Grossman paper is missing here): IT IS WRONG

1416: \bibitem{SOFTN} 

1417: \art{Y.~Grossman, T.~Kashti, Y.~Nir, E.~Roulet}{Phys. Rev. Lett.}{91}{251801}{2003}.

1418: G. D'Ambrosio, G.F. Giudice and M. Raidal, Phys. Lett. B575 (2003) 75.

1419: Y.~Grossman, T.~Kashti, Y.~Nir, E.~Roulet, JHEP 11 (2004) 080.

1420: L. Boubekeur, T. Hambye, G. Senjanovic, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93 (2004) 111601.

1421: 

1422: 

1423: 

1424: 

1425: \bibitem{bcst}

1426: {R.~Barbieri, P.~Creminelli,

1427: A.~Strumia, N.~Tetradis}, Nucl. Phys. B575 (2000) 61 [hep-ph/9911315].

1428: 

1429: 

1430: 

1431: \bibitem{MFV} 

1432: The effective theory approach to Minimal Flavor Violation (MFV)

1433: presented in G.~D'Ambrosio et al.,   Nucl.\ Phys.\ B645 (2002) 155  

1434: %[hep-ph/0207036]

1435: was extended to leptons in

1436: V.~Cirigliano, B.~Grinstein, G.~Isidori, M.~B.~Wise,  hep-ph/0507001.

1437: While in the quark sector experimental constraints suggest MFV,

1438: the lepton sector allows much more freedom.

1439: 

1440: 

1441: 

1442: 

1443: \bibitem{nucleo}

1444: J. R. Ellis, J. Kim,  D. V. Nanopoulos,

1445: Phys. Lett. B145 (1984) 181;

1446: L. M. Krauss,

1447: Nucl. Phys. B227 (1983) 556;

1448: M. Yu. Khlopov, A. D. Linde,

1449: Phys. Lett. B138 (1984) 265;

1450: J. R. Ellis, D. V. Nanopoulos, K. A. Olive, S.-J. Rey,

1451: Astropart. Phys. 4 (1996) 371;

1452: M. Bolz, A. Brandenburg, W. Buchmuller,

1453: Nucl. Phys. B606 (2001) 518.

1454: R. H. Cyburt, J. Ellis, B. D. Fields, K. A. Olive,

1455: Phys. Rev. D67 (2003) 103521.

1456: For a review see

1457: M.Yu. Khlopov, `Cosmoparticle physics', World Scientific, 1999.

1458: 

1459: 

1460: 

1461: %\bibitem{lazdent} See also 

1462: %G. Lazarides and Q. Shafi, Phys. Rev. {D58} (1998) 071702,

1463: %%R. Allahverdi and A. Mazumdar, Phys. Rev. D67 (2003) 023509 (hep-ph/0208268) and

1464: %T. Dent, G. Lazarides and R. Ruiz de Austri, hep-ph/0312033.

1465: 

1466: %\bibitem{epsP}

1467: %\art[hep-ph/0302092]

1468: %{W.~Buchmuller,

1469: %P.~Di Bari, M.~Pl\"umacher}, Nucl. Phys. B665 (2003) 445.

1470: 

1471: 

1472: %\bibitem{flanz} M. Flanz, E.A. Paschos, U. Sarkar, Phys. Lett.

1473: %{B345} (1995) 248;

1474: %M.~Flanz, E.A.~Paschos, U.~Sarkar, J.~Weiss,

1475: %Phys. Lett. {B389} (1996) 693; L. Covi, E. Roulet, F. Vissani, Phys. Lett. {B384}

1476: %(1996) 169; A. Pilaftsis, Phys. Rev. {D56} (1997) 5431; 

1477: %A. Pilaftsis, T.E.J. Underwood,  

1478: %%hep-ph/0309342.

1479: %Nucl. Phys. B692 (2004) 303.

1480: 

1481: 

1482: 

1483: 

1484: 

1485: 

1486: %Type-I+type-II leptgenesis have been considered briefly here too 

1487: %(only for the case where M_N << M_T, opposite to our case):

1488: 

1489: 

1490: 

1491: 

1492: \bibitem{anna} A. Rossi, Phys. Rev. D66 (2002) 075003.

1493: 

1494: \end{thebibliography}

1495: \end{multicols}

1496: \end{document}

1497: