1: %\documentclass[a4paper]{JHEP3}
2: \documentclass[a4paper]{JHEP3-1-4}
3:
4: \usepackage[english]{babel}
5: \usepackage{amsmath,amssymb}
6: %\usepackage[dvips]{graphicx}
7: \usepackage{graphicx}
8: \usepackage{ifthen,array}
9: \usepackage[comma,square,sort&compress]{natbib}
10: \usepackage{amsfonts}
11: \usepackage{bbm}
12: %\usepackage{epsfig}
13:
14: \renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.25}
15:
16: \allowdisplaybreaks
17:
18: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% DEFINITIONS %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
19: %
20: %\newcommand{\nc}{\newcommand}
21: %
22: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}
23: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}
24: \newcommand{\bea}{\begin{eqnarray}}
25: \newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}}
26: \newcommand{\nn}{\nonumber}
27:
28: \newcommand{\lp}{\left(}
29: \newcommand{\rp}{\right)}
30:
31: \newcommand{\markb}{$\clubsuit \Rightarrow $}
32: \newcommand{\marke}{$ \Leftarrow \clubsuit $}
33: \newcommand{\markx}{$ \clubsuit !! \clubsuit $}
34: \newcommand{\markeq}{ \clubsuit !! \clubsuit }
35:
36: \newcommand{\eq}{{Eq.}}
37: \newcommand{\eqs}{{Eqs.}}
38:
39: \DeclareMathOperator{\imag}{Im}
40:
41:
42: \title{Stability and leptogenesis in the left-right symmetric seesaw mechanism}
43:
44: \author{Evgeny Akhmedov\thanks{On leave from the National Research
45: Centre Kurchatov Institute, Moscow, Russia}, Mattias Blennow, Tomas
46: H\"allgren, Thomas Konstandin, and Tommy Ohlsson\\ Department of
47: Theoretical Physics, School of Engineering Sciences\\ Royal Institute
48: of Technology (KTH)\\ AlbaNova University Center \\ Roslagstullsbacken
49: 21, 106 91 Stockholm, Sweden\\ E-mail:
50: \email{akhmedov@ictp.trieste.it}, \email{emb@kth.se},
51: \email{tomashal@kth.se}, \email{konstand@kth.se},
52: \email{tommy@theophys.kth.se}}
53:
54: %\date{\today}
55:
56: \abstract{We analyze the left-right symmetric type I+II seesaw
57: mechanism, where an eight-fold degeneracy among the mass matrices of
58: heavy right-handed neutrinos $M_R$ is known to exist. Using the
59: stability property of the solutions and their ability to lead to
60: successful baryogenesis via leptogenesis as additional criteria, we
61: discriminate among these eight solutions and partially lift their
62: eight-fold degeneracy. In particular, we find that viable leptogenesis
63: is generically possible for four out of the eight solutions.}
64:
65: \keywords{neutrino masses and mixing, seesaw mechanism, leptogenesis}
66:
67: \preprint{}
68:
69:
70: \begin{document}
71:
72: \section{Introduction}
73:
74: In recent years, it has become an established fact that neutrinos,
75: though relatively light, are massive. Since the first experimental
76: evidence of neutrino oscillations until today an enormous progress has
77: been made in determining the low-energy properties of neutrinos, such
78: as mass squared differences and mixing. The existence of neutrino
79: masses poses some fundamental theoretical challenges, such as
80: understanding why the neutrino mass is so much smaller than the masses
81: of the other fermions. An elegant and attractive solution to this
82: problem is given by the seesaw mechanism~\cite{Minkowski:1977sc,
83: Gell-Mann:1980vs,Yanagida:1979as,Glashow:1979nm,
84: Mohapatra:1979ia,Magg:1980ut,Lazarides:1980nt,Schechter:1980gr,Mohapatra:1980yp},
85: which explains the smallness of the neutrino mass through the
86: existence of very heavy particles (usually right-handed Majorana
87: neutrinos or Higgs triplets), the mass scale of which could be related
88: to that of Grand Unification. In addition, the seesaw mechanism
89: provides a natural explanation of the baryon asymmetry of the Universe
90: through the baryogenesis via leptogenesis
91: mechanism~\cite{Fukugita:1986hr} (for recent reviews, see
92: refs.~\cite{Buchmuller:2004tu,Buchmuller:2005eh,Strumia:2006qk}).
93: However, the large mass scale of the seesaw particles jeopardizes the
94: hopes of testing this mechanism in the laboratory and hence reduces
95: its predictivity.
96:
97: In the present work, we consider the seesaw mechanism in a class of
98: left-right symmetric models in which the intermediate states with both
99: right-handed neutrinos (type I) and heavy triplet scalars (type II)
100: contributions to the light neutrino mass matrix $m_\nu $ are naturally
101: present. We focus on a special case with a discrete left-right
102: symmetry, in which type I and type II seesaw contributions contain the
103: same triplet Yukawa coupling $f$. This case has much fewer parameters
104: than the most general one and is therefore more predictive. After
105: integrating out the heavy particles, the light neutrino mass matrix is
106: given by
107: %
108: \be
109: m_\nu = f \, v_L - \frac{v^2}{v_R} \, y \, f^{-1} y^T\,,
110: \label{eq:ss1}
111: \ee
112: %
113: where $f$ is the triplet Majorana-type Yukawa coupling, $y$ is the
114: Dirac-type Yukawa coupling of neutrinos and $v$, $v_L$, and $v_R$ are
115: vacuum expectation values (VEVs). The first term in eq.~(\ref{eq:ss1})
116: is the type II contribution, while the second term is the type I
117: contribution from the original seesaw scenario. In the case when $y$
118: is a complex symmetric matrix, it was shown in
119: ref.~\cite{Akhmedov:2005np} that if the light neutrino mass matrix
120: $m_\nu$, the VEVs, and the Dirac-type Yukawa coupling matrix $y$ are
121: known, the seesaw formula (\ref{eq:ss1}) can be inverted analytically
122: to find the triplet Yukawa coupling matrix $f$. Since the seesaw
123: equation is non-linear in $f$, one can expect multiple solutions, and
124: indeed an eight-fold of allowed solutions is found
125: \cite{Akhmedov:2005np}. As the mass matrix of heavy right-handed
126: Majorana neutrinos is given by $M_R=f v_R$, this also implies an
127: eight-fold ambiguity for this mass matrix. For given Dirac-type
128: Yukawa coupling matrix $y$ and VEVs, all eight solutions for $f$
129: result in exactly the same mass matrix of light neutrinos $m_\nu$, and
130: thus, the seesaw relation by itself does not allow one to select the
131: true solution among the possible ones. One therefore has to invoke
132: some additional information and/or selection criteria. The present
133: work is an attempt in this direction.
134:
135: One possibility to discriminate among the eight allowed solutions
136: for $f$ is to introduce a notion of naturalness. For example, for
137: certain ranges of the VEVs and certain solutions, a very special
138: triplet coupling matrix $f$ might be needed, in the sense that
139: marginally different $f$ would lead to significantly
140: different low-energy phenomenology. We consider such a situation
141: unnatural; the degree of tuning that is required in the right-handed
142: sector to obtain the observed neutrino phenomenology will be
143: quantified and the corresponding selection criterion for $f$ discussed
144: in section~\ref{sec_stab}.
145:
146: Another possibility to discriminate among the allowed solutions is
147: to constrain them by the phenomenology of the right-handed
148: neutrinos. Since the right-handed sector of the theory is not directly
149: accessible to laboratory experiments, cosmological benchmarks turn out
150: to be the most promising tool. Namely, we will classify the solutions
151: according to their ability to lead to successful baryogenesis via
152: leptogenesis. This will be discussed in section~\ref{sec_lep}, before
153: we draw our conclusions in section~\ref{sec_summary}.
154:
155: Recently, leptogenesis in a class of models with the left-right symmetric
156: seesaw mechanism has been considered in a similar framework in
157: ref.~\cite{Hosteins:2006ja}. We compare our results with those in
158: ref.~\cite{Hosteins:2006ja} in sections~\ref{sec_lep}
159: and~\ref{sec_summary}.
160:
161: \section{The model and the inversion formula}
162: \label{sec_model}
163:
164: In this section, we introduce our framework and set up the notation.
165: In the basis where the mass matrix of charged leptons is diagonal, the
166: light neutrino mass matrix can be written as
167: %
168: \be
169: m_\nu = (P_{l} \, U_{\rm PMNS} \, P_\nu)^* \, m_{\nu}^{\rm diag}\,
170: (P_{l} \, U_{\rm PMNS} \, P_\nu)^\dag\,,
171: %\, P_\nu^* \, U^\dag_{\rm PMNS} P_{l}^*\,,
172: \ee
173: %
174: where $m_{\nu}^{\rm diag}={\rm diag}(m_1,\,m_2,\,m_3)$ is the diagonal
175: matrix of neutrino masses, $U_{\rm PMNS}$ is the leptonic mixing
176: matrix which depends on three mixing angles and a Dirac-type
177: CP-violating phase, and $P_l$ and $P_\nu$ are diagonal matrices of
178: phase factors, which in general contain five independent complex
179: phases.
180:
181: The neutrino masses $m_1$, $m_2$, and $m_3$ can be expressed through
182: the lightest neutrino mass $m_0$ and the two mass squared differences
183: $\Delta m_{21}^2$ and $\Delta m_{31}^2$. In our numerical calculations,
184: we will use the current best-fit values of the parameters defining the
185: neutrino mass
186: matrix~\cite{Maltoni:2004ei,Strumia:2005tc,Fogli:2006qg}:
187: %
188: \be
189: \label{pmns_1}
190: \Delta m^2_{21} \simeq 7.9 \times 10^{-5}~\textrm{eV}^2\,, \quad
191: \Delta m^2_{31} \simeq \pm 2.6 \times 10^{-3}~\textrm{eV}^2\,,
192: \ee
193: \be
194: \quad\theta_{12} \simeq 33.2^\circ\,, \quad
195: \theta_{23} \simeq 45^\circ\,.
196: \ee
197: %
198: For the mixing angle $\theta_{13}$, only the upper limit $\theta_{13}
199: \lesssim 11.5^\circ$ exists. Unless explicitly stated otherwise,
200: we will use the value $\theta_{13}=0$ in our analysis.
201:
202: We will be assuming that the Dirac-type Yukawa coupling matrix of
203: neutrinos $y$ coincides with that of the up-type quarks $y_u$. This is
204: a natural choice in the light of quark-lepton symmetry and grand
205: unified theories (GUTs)
206: \cite{Pati:1973uk,Georgi:1974my,Fritzsch:1974nn}.
207: Actually, this relation is unlikely to hold exactly, since, in the GUT
208: framework, it would also imply that the Yukawa couplings of the
209: down-type quarks and charged leptons coincide, $y_d=y_l$, in
210: contradiction with experiment. GUT models that modify this relation
211: usually also modify the relation between the up-type and neutrino
212: Yukawa matrices~\cite{Babu:1992ia, Anderson:1993fe}. However, most of
213: the qualitative results in the present work depend only on the fact
214: that the eigenvalues of $y$ are hierarchical. Whenever a result relies
215: on the assumption $y=y_u$, we will comment explicitly on this
216: issue. Following ref.~\cite{Akhmedov:2005np}, we will also assume $y$
217: to be symmetric. In this case, the two VEVs ($v_L$ and $v_R$), the
218: sign of $\Delta m_{31}^2$, and the mass scale of the light neutrinos
219: are the only free parameters (ignoring for the moment the CP-violating
220: phases, which will be discussed in section~\ref{sec_lep}).
221:
222: Our choice of the Dirac-type Yukawa coupling matrix implies that it
223: can be written as
224: %
225: \be
226: y = P_{d} \, U_{\rm CKM}^T \, P_{u} \, y_{u}^{\rm diag}
227: \, P_{u} \, U_{\rm CKM} \, P_{d}\,,
228: \label{y}
229: \ee
230: %
231: where the eigenvalues of $y_{u}^{\rm diag}$ are
232: %
233: \be
234: \label{ckm_1}
235: y_u^{\rm diag} = {\rm diag}(4.2 \times 10^{-6},\, 1.75 \times 10^{-3},
236: \,0.7)\,,
237: \ee
238: %
239: and we use the standard parameterization of the CKM matrix $U_{\rm CKM}$
240: \cite{Yao:2006px} with
241: %
242: \be
243: \label{ckm_2}
244: \theta^q_{12} \simeq 13.0^\circ, \quad
245: \theta^q_{13} \simeq 0.2^\circ,\quad \theta^q_{23} \simeq 2.2^\circ, \quad
246: \delta^q \simeq 1.05\,.
247: \ee
248: %
249: The values in eqs.~(\ref{ckm_1}) and (\ref{ckm_2}) are evaluated at
250: the GUT scale, following ref.~\cite{Hosteins:2006ja}.
251: The matrices $P_{u}$ and $P_{d}$ in eq.~(\ref{y}) are
252: diagonal matrices of phase factors. The phases in the four matrices
253: $P_{l}$, $P_\nu$, $P_u$, and $P_{d}$ are partially redundant. For
254: example, by a redefinition of the fields, the three phases of $P_{l}$
255: can be moved into $P_{d}$, so that we are left with the two usual
256: Majorana phases and the Dirac phase in the low-energy sector, while
257: five additional Majorana phases and one Dirac phase reside in $y$ and
258: can only affect high-energy processes such as leptogenesis. Even
259: though these phases can marginally influence the stability of the
260: seesaw solutions, we set the high-energy phases to zero in the first
261: part of our work and consider them only in the part where leptogenesis
262: is discussed.
263:
264: In order to invert the seesaw formula, it is useful to introduce the
265: following dimensionful quantities:
266: %
267: \be
268: g = v_L \, f\,, \qquad \mu = \frac{v_R}{v_L \, v^2}\,,
269: \ee
270: %
271: with the VEV $v \simeq 174$~GeV, so that eq.~(\ref{eq:ss1}) turns into
272: %
273: \be
274: m_\nu = g - \frac{1}{\mu} \, y \, g^{-1} y^T.
275: \label{eq:ss2}
276: \ee
277: %
278: This convention has the advantage that the matrix $g$ will only depend
279: on $\mu$ and not on the two VEVs, $v_L$ and $v_R$, separately. It will
280: turn out that the baryon asymmetry produced via leptogenesis depends
281: only on this combination of VEVs, so that, besides the CP-violating
282: phases, we are left with two parameters only, the quantity $\mu$ and
283: the lightest neutrino mass $m_0$. The hierarchy of the light neutrino
284: masses can be considered as an additional discrete parameter.
285:
286: In the following, we give a short description of the seesaw inversion
287: formula from refs.~\cite{Akhmedov:2005np,Akhmedov:2006de} in the case
288: of three lepton generations and when $y$ is a complex symmetric
289: matrix. In the basis where $y$ is diagonal, the seesaw equation for
290: $g$ reduces to the following system of six coupled non-linear
291: equations for its matrix elements $g_{ij}$:
292: %
293: \begin{equation}\label{eq:coupledeqs}
294: \mu G [ g_{ij}-(m_{\nu})_{ij} ]=y_{i}y_{j}G_{ij}\,.
295: \end{equation}
296: %
297: Here we use the notation
298: %
299: \be
300: G \equiv {\det}\,g, \qquad
301: G_{ij}=\frac{1}{2} \sum_{k,l,m,n=1}^3\epsilon_{ikl}
302: \epsilon_{jmn}g_{km}g_{ln}\,.
303: \ee
304: %
305: It was found in ref.~\cite{Akhmedov:2005np} that in the case when $y$
306: is symmetric, for every solution $g$ there exists another solution
307: $\tilde{g}$ which is related to $g$ by the duality transformation
308: $\tilde{g}=m_{\nu}-g$. For $\tilde{g}$, eq.~(\ref{eq:coupledeqs}) reads
309: %
310: \begin{equation}
311: \mu\tilde{G}[\tilde{g}_{ij}-(m_{\nu})_{ij}]=-\mu\tilde{G}g_{ij}=y_{i}y_{j}
312: \tilde{G}_{ij}
313: \end{equation}
314: %
315: with $\tilde{G}\equiv {\det}\,\tilde{g}$. The system of equations in
316: eq.~(\ref{eq:coupledeqs}) can now be solved by making use of the
317: following procedure. First, we introduce the rescaled matrices
318: $g'=g/\lambda^{1/3}$, $m_{\nu}'=m_{\nu}/\lambda^{1/3}$, and
319: $y'=y/\lambda^{1/3}$, where $\lambda$ is to be determined from the
320: equation $G'(\lambda)\equiv {\det}\, g'(\lambda)=1$. Then, using
321: the equation for the dual quantities $\tilde g'$, one can linearize the
322: system of equations for $g'_{ij}$. Next, this system can be solved and
323: one obtains the following solution for $g$:
324: %
325: \begin{equation}\label{eq:g_{ij}}
326: g_{ij}=\frac{\lambda^{2}[(\lambda^{2}-Y^{2})^{2}-Y^{2}\lambda \,{\rm
327: det}\,m_{\nu} +
328: Y^{4}S](m_{\nu})_{ij}+\lambda(\lambda^{4}-Y^{4})A_{ij}-Y^{2}\lambda^{2}
329: (\lambda^{2}+Y^{2})S_{ij}}{(\lambda^2-Y^2)^3-Y^2\lambda^2(\lambda^{2}-Y^{2})
330: S-2Y^{2}\lambda^{3}\,{\det}\, m_{\nu}}\,,
331: \end{equation}
332: %
333: where
334: %
335: \begin{equation}
336: Y^{2}\equiv\frac{(y_{1}y_{2}y_{3})^{2}}{\mu^{3}},\quad S\equiv \mu
337: \sum_{k,l=1}^{3}\left[\frac{(m_{\nu})_{kl}^{2}}{y_{k}y_{l}}\right],
338: \quad A_{ij}\equiv\frac{y_{i}y_{j}M_{ij}}{\mu},\quad
339: \ee
340: \be
341: S_{ij}\equiv \mu \sum_{k,l=1}^{3}\left[(m_{\nu})_{ik}(m_{\nu})_{jl}
342: \frac{(m_{\nu})_{kl}}{y_{k}y_{l}}\right]
343: \end{equation}
344: %
345: with $M_{ij}=\frac{1}{2}\epsilon_{ikl}\epsilon_{jmn}(m_{\nu})_{km}
346: (m_{\nu})_{ln}$. In terms of the original (non-rescaled) quantities,
347: one has $G(\lambda)\equiv{\det}\,g(\lambda)=\lambda$, which yields
348: an eighth order equation for $\lambda$. Using the duality property,
349: one can reduce it to a pair of fourth order equations. Substituting the
350: solutions for $\lambda$ into eq.~(\ref{eq:g_{ij}}) gives eight
351: solutions for $g_{ij}$. In general, for $n$ lepton generations the
352: number of solutions is $2^n$ \cite{Akhmedov:2005np}.
353:
354: The matrix structure of the solutions of the seesaw equation was
355: studied in some detail in ref.~\cite{Akhmedov:2006de}. In the present
356: work, we will rather focus on the eigenvalues of the matrices $g$,
357: the corresponding mixing parameters, stability properties of the
358: solutions, and the implications for leptogenesis.
359:
360:
361: \section{Stability analysis\label{sec_stab}}
362:
363: Since the neutrino Dirac-type Yukawa coupling matrix in our framework
364: is given by the up-type quark mass matrix, the inversion formula of
365: the previous section can be used to determine the eight allowed
366: structures of the triplet coupling matrix $f=g/v_L$ for given
367: low-energy neutrino mass matrix $m_\nu$ and the parameters $v_L$,
368: $v_R$, and $m_0$. Our stability analysis is based on the assumption
369: that the Dirac-type coupling matrix $y$ and the Majorana-type coupling
370: matrix $f$ are {\it a priori} independent (for a discussion of the
371: situations when this is not the case, see section 5 of
372: ref.~\cite{Akhmedov:2006de}). We pose the question of whether the
373: resulting low-energy phenomenology is stable under small changes in
374: $f$. Since the inversion formula in general yields eight valid
375: solutions, the mass matrix $m_\nu$ and the corresponding Majorana
376: coupling matrix $f$ are in a 1-to-8 correspondence. It is still a
377: reasonable question to ask if for the measured $m_\nu$ some of the
378: predicted $f$ have to be very special, so that a fine-tuning is
379: required and a small modification of their elements may lead to a
380: large change in $(m_\nu)_{ij}$.
381:
382: The measure we use to quantify the stability property of the solutions
383: is the following:
384: %
385: \be
386: \label{Q_measure}
387: Q = \left| \frac{\det{f}}{\det{m_\nu}} \right|^{1/n} \sqrt{\sum_{k,l=1}^{2N}
388: \left( \frac{\partial {m_l}}{\partial f_k} \right)^2}\,.
389: \ee
390: %
391: The real coefficients $f_k$ and $m_l$ determine the matrices $f$
392: and $m_\nu$ according to
393: %
394: \bea
395: f &=& \sum_k ( f_k + i f_{k+N}) T_k, \\
396: m_\nu &=& \sum_k ( m_k + i m_{k+N}) T_k,
397: \eea
398: %
399: where $T_k$, $k\in[1,N]$ with $N=n(n+1)/2$, form a basis of complex
400: symmetric $n\times n$ matrices.
401: For this basis, we choose the normalization
402: %
403: \be
404: \label{T_normalize}
405: {\rm tr \,} ( T^\dagger_l \, T_k ) = \delta_{lk}\,.
406: \ee
407: %
408: The resulting stability measure $Q$ does not depend on the chosen
409: basis. This can be easily seen in the following way. Consider another
410: basis $T_k^\prime$ satisfying eq.~(\ref{T_normalize}). The two bases
411: are then connected via a unitary transformation $T_k^\prime=\sum_l
412: U_{kl}
413: \, T_l$. The coefficients in the old and new bases are determined as
414: %
415: \bea
416: f_k = {\rm \, Re \,} \left[ {\rm \, tr \,} (T^\dagger_k\, f) \right], &&
417: f_{k+N} = {\rm \, Im \,} \left[ {\rm \, tr \,} (T^\dagger_k\, f) \right], \\
418: f^\prime_k = {\rm \, Re \,} \left[ {\rm \, tr \,} (T^{\prime\dagger}_k\, f)
419: \right], && f^\prime_{k+N} = {\rm \, Im \,} \left[ {\rm \, tr \,}
420: (T^{\prime\dagger}_k\, f) \right],
421: \eea
422: %
423: and hence, are related by an orthogonal transformation
424: %
425: \be
426: f_a^\prime = \sum_b O_{ab} \, f_b, \quad
427: a,b \in[1,2N], \quad
428: O =
429: \begin{pmatrix}
430: {\rm \,Re\,} U & {\rm \,Im\,} U \\
431: -{\rm \,Im\,} U & {\rm \,Re\,} U \\
432: \end{pmatrix},
433: \ee
434: %
435: which leaves the measure in eq.~(\ref{Q_measure}) invariant~\footnote{
436: Note that the stability issue was also discussed in
437: ref.~\cite{Hosteins:2006ja} where a different stability criterion,
438: constraining only the element $f_{33}$, was introduced. }.
439:
440: Many interesting properties of the seesaw inversion formula appear
441: already in the one-flavor case. The solutions $g$ are then given by
442: %
443: \be
444: g = \frac{m_\nu}{2} \pm \sqrt{\frac{m^2_\nu}{4} + \frac{y^2}{\mu}}
445: \ee
446: %
447: and our stability measure simplifies to
448: %
449: \be
450: Q = f \, \frac{d}{d f} \log{|m_\nu|} =
451: g \, \frac{d}{d g} \log{|m_\nu|}
452: = \sqrt{1 + \frac{4\, y^2}{\mu m_\nu^2}}\;.~~~
453: \label{Q1}
454: \ee
455: %
456: In the following, we will discuss the qualitative behavior of the
457: solutions $f$ in various regions of the parameter space and its
458: implications for the stability of these solutions.
459:
460: %
461: \FIGURE[t]{
462: \includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth,clip]{figs_new/f_1_p0001.eps}
463: \caption{An example of our labeling convention for the solution
464: '$-++$'.}
465: \label{ex_conv}
466: }
467: %
468: \FIGURE[t]{
469: \includegraphics[width=0.9 \textwidth,clip]{figs_new/7p0001.eps}
470: \caption{The right-handed neutrino masses $m_{N_i}$ and mixing
471: parameters $u_i$ as functions of $v_R/v_L$ for the solution
472: '$---$'. Normal mass hierarchy, $m_0=0.001$~eV.}
473: \label{ex_1}
474: }
475: %
476: \FIGURE[t]{
477: \includegraphics[width=0.9 \textwidth,clip]{figs_new/8p0001.eps}
478: \caption{Same as in fig.~\ref{ex_1}, but for the solution '$+++$'.}
479: \label{ex_2}
480: }
481: %
482: \FIGURE[t]{
483: \includegraphics[width=0.9 \textwidth,clip]{figs_new/3n0001.eps}
484: \caption{The right-handed neutrino masses $m_{N_i}$ and mixing
485: parameters $u_i$ as functions of $v_R/v_L$ for the solution
486: '$+-+$'. Inverted mass hierarchy, $m_0=0.001$~eV.}
487: \label{ex_3}
488: }
489: %
490: \FIGURE[t]{
491: \includegraphics[width=0.9 \textwidth,clip]{figs_new/6n0001.eps}
492: \caption{Same as in fig.~\ref{ex_3}, but for the solution '$--+$'.}
493: \label{ex_4}
494: }
495:
496:
497: \subsection[Large $\mu$ regime]{Large $\boldsymbol{\mu}$ regime}
498:
499: In the regime of large $\mu$,
500: %
501: \be
502: \mu \gg \frac{4y^2}{m_\nu^2}\,,
503: \label{large_mu}
504: \ee
505: %
506: the two solutions in the one-flavor case are given by
507: %
508: \be
509: g \to - \frac{y^2}{\mu m_\nu} \quad \textrm{and} \quad g \to m_\nu\,.
510: \ee
511: %
512: In this regime, the solutions are purely type I or type II dominated.
513: In the three-flavor case, the eight solutions follow from the eight
514: corresponding choices for the eigenvalues and we will label these
515: solutions according to their limiting behavior at large $\mu$ as '$-$'
516: or '$+$' in the case of type I or type II dominance (starting with
517: the largest eigenvalue in the small $\mu$ regime). This notation
518: agrees with the one used in ref.~\cite{Hosteins:2006ja}.
519: %
520: Our convention is illustrated in fig.~\ref{ex_conv} using the solution
521: '$-++$' as an example.
522:
523: From eq.~(\ref{Q1}) one can observe that in the large $\mu$ regime
524: of the one-flavor case, both solutions for $g$ are characterized by
525: the stability measure $Q \simeq 1$, which is a very stable
526: situation. Note that for the three-flavor case, no fine-tuning
527: corresponds to $Q \simeq 10$. However, for several flavors and
528: hierarchical $y$, there is in general an instability related to mixing
529: that will be discussed in the next subsection.
530:
531:
532: \subsection{Hierarchy induced large mixing}
533:
534: For simplicity, we start with a discussion of the two-flavor case in
535: the pure type I seesaw framework. By hierarchy induced large mixing we
536: mean the following: Suppose that $y$ has a hierarchical structure
537: %
538: \be
539: y \sim \begin{pmatrix}
540: \epsilon & 0 \\
541: 0 & 1 \\
542: \end{pmatrix},
543: \ee
544: %
545: while, in contrast to this, the low-energy neutrino mass has a rather
546: mild or even no hierarchy. Then, the corresponding matrix $g$ is
547: necessarily characterized by the hierarchy that is the squared
548: hierarchy of $y$. Indeed, introducing a unitary matrix $U(\theta)$
549: that diagonalizes $g$, one finds
550: %
551: \be
552: g = -\frac1\mu {y \, m_\nu^{-1}\, y}=U^\dagger(\theta)\,\hat g \, U^*(\theta)
553: \ee
554: %
555: with the diagonal matrix
556: %
557: \be
558: \hat g \sim
559: \begin{pmatrix}
560: \epsilon^2 & 0 \\
561: 0 & 1 \\
562: \end{pmatrix},
563: \ee
564: %
565: and, in addition, mixing has to be small, i.e.~$\theta \sim \epsilon$. This
566: was already observed in
567: refs.~\cite{Smirnov:1993af,Tanimoto:1995uw,Altarelli:1999dg} and
568: suggested as a possible mechanism for generating large mixing angles
569: in the light neutrino mass matrix out of small mixing angles in the
570: right-handed and Dirac sectors. However, in our context, this is not a
571: desirable situation, since it would require a fine-tuning between the
572: Dirac and Majorana Yukawa couplings, i.e.~between the sectors that we
573: have assumed to be unrelated. In terms of stability, this would lead
574: to large values of $Q$. In addition, the large hierarchy among the
575: elements of the Dirac-type Yukawa coupling matrix $y$ would induce a
576: huge hierarchy among the elements of $g$, leading in general to an
577: extremely small mixing in the right-handed neutrino sector, which may
578: preclude successful leptogenesis.
579:
580: The above consideration was based on the type I seesaw formula, and
581: hence, is not fully applicable to our framework. Still, it applies to
582: the solutions dominated by type I seesaw. Figure~\ref{ex_1} shows the
583: one out of the eight solutions that is fully dominated by the type I
584: term in the large $\mu$ regime and is labeled as '$---$'. As a measure
585: of mixing, we consider the parameters $u_i$ which are related to the
586: off-diagonal elements of the unitary matrix $U$ diagonalizing $g$ as
587: follows~\footnote{Recall that we work in the basis where the matrix
588: $y$ is diagonal.}:
589: %
590: \be
591: u_1^2=\frac12 (|U_{12}|^2 + |U_{21}|^2)\,, \quad
592: u_2^2=\frac12 (|U_{13}|^2 + |U_{31}|^2)\,, \quad
593: u_3^2=\frac12 (|U_{23}|^2 + |U_{32}|^2)\,.
594: \ee
595: %
596: These parameters, along with the masses of right-handed neutrinos, are
597: plotted for several solutions in figs.~\ref{ex_1}-\ref{ex_4}.
598:
599: For the solution '$---$', mixing is small in the large $\mu$ regime,
600: as can be seen from fig.~\ref{ex_1}. For the other seven solutions,
601: this does not hold in general, as can be seen e.g.~in fig.~\ref{ex_2}.
602: However, even in the general case, one feature seems to be universal:
603: If the matrix elements of $g$ exhibit a strong hierarchy, then the
604: mixing in the right-handed sector is suppressed, which leads to the
605: necessity of fine-tuning between the Dirac and Majorana sectors and
606: related instabilities. This also explains why the two solutions
607: '$++-$' and '$+--$' are very unstable with almost equal stability
608: measure $Q$. The strong hierarchy between the largest and smallest
609: right-handed masses leads to large instabilities, while the behavior
610: of the third mass is rather irrelevant.
611:
612:
613: \subsection[Small $\mu$ regime]{Small $\boldsymbol{\mu}$ regime}
614:
615: When $\mu$ is small in the sense that
616: %
617: \be
618: \mu \ll \frac{4y^2}{m_\nu^2}\,,
619: \label{small_mu}
620: \ee
621: %
622: in the one-flavor case, one finds the following limiting behavior for $g$:
623: %
624: \be
625: g \to \pm \frac{y}{\sqrt{\mu}} + \frac{m_\nu}{2} + \mathcal{O}(\sqrt{\mu}),
626: \quad \mu \to 0. \label{sol_small_mu}
627: \ee
628: For the stability measure, eq.~(\ref{Q1}) gives
629: %
630: \be
631: Q = \left|\frac{g}{m_\nu} \frac{d m_\nu}{d g} \, \right|
632: \to \frac{2y}{\sqrt{\mu} \, m_\nu} \to \infty
633: \ee
634: %
635: in this limit, and therefore a very unstable situation. This had to be
636: expected, since there is an almost exact cancellation between the type
637: I and type II contributions to $m_\nu$ in the seesaw formula in this
638: regime. In the multi-flavor case, there is an additional instability
639: in the small $\mu$ limit which stems from the fact that mixing in $g$
640: is suppressed by the hierarchy in $y$. This can be illustrated by the
641: two-flavor case, in which the four solutions are of the form
642: %
643: \be
644: g = \frac{1}{\sqrt{\mu}} y^{1/2} P y^{1/2}
645: \ee
646: %
647: with $P$ of the form
648: %
649: \be
650: P ~\propto ~\pm \mathbbm{1} + {\cal O}(\sqrt{\mu})
651: \quad {\rm or } \quad
652: P ~\propto ~\pm
653: \begin{pmatrix}
654: \cos \alpha & \sin \alpha \\
655: \sin \alpha & -\cos \alpha \\
656: \end{pmatrix}
657: + {\cal O}(\sqrt{\mu}).
658: \ee
659: %
660: For the first pair of solutions, mixing vanishes in the limit $\mu \to
661: 0$, while for the second pair, mixing in $g$ is suppressed by the
662: hierarchy in $y$. A similar argument applies to the three-flavor case
663: and can be observed in our numerical results. For example, this
664: behavior can be seen in figs.~\ref{ex_1} and \ref{ex_2} which display
665: two out of the eight solutions for the normal mass hierarchy and
666: $m_0=0.001$~eV.
667:
668:
669: \subsection{Numerical results}
670:
671: Figures~\ref{stab_1} and~\ref{stab_2} show the stability measure $Q$
672: for small and large $m_0$ and normal/inverted mass hierarchy. For
673: small $m_0$, the transition from the large $\mu$ to the small $\mu$
674: regime appears for larger values of $\mu$, in accordance with
675: eqs.~(\ref{large_mu}) and (\ref{small_mu}). In all four scenarios, the
676: solutions are unstable in the regime of small $\mu$, which is due to
677: the cancellation between type I and type II contributions to the mass
678: matrix of light neutrinos. In addition, the solutions where the
679: smallest eigenvalue is dominated by type I seesaw in the large $\mu$
680: regime ('$\pm\pm-$'), are unstable for large $\mu$ as well, since the
681: lightest right-handed mass stays below $10^6$~GeV in this limit and
682: this generally leads to a large spread in the eigenvalues and to
683: instabilities, as explained in the previous sections. Examples of the
684: eigenvalues in these cases are given in fig.~\ref{ex_1}. Analogously,
685: the stability measure of the solutions '$\pm-+$' increases for
686: $v_R/v_L \gtrsim 10^{20}$, since the smallest right-handed neutrino
687: mass approaches its asymptotic value of about $10^9$~GeV, as can be
688: seen in figs.~\ref{ex_3} and \ref{ex_4}. A similar effect
689: appears for the solution '$-++$' at values $v_R/v_L \gtrsim 10^{24}$.
690: The purely type II dominated solution ('$+++$') is the most stable one
691: in almost all the cases.
692: %
693: \FIGURE[t]{
694: \includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth,clip]{figs_new/stab_p0001.eps}
695: \includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth,clip]{figs_new/stab_n0001.eps}
696: \caption{%
697: \label{stab_1}
698: The stability measure $Q$ as a function of $v_R/v_L$ for $m_0=0.001$
699: eV. The left (right) panel corresponds to the normal (inverted) neutrino
700: mass hierarchy.}
701: }
702: %
703: \FIGURE[t]{
704: \includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth,clip]{figs_new/stab_p01.eps}
705: \includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth,clip]{figs_new/stab_n01.eps}
706: \caption{%
707: \label{stab_2}
708: Same as in fig.~\ref{stab_1}, but for $m_0=0.1$~eV.}
709: }
710: %
711: If one allows for a tuning at a percent level, $Q \lesssim 10^3$,
712: then the stability analysis favors the two solutions '$\pm++$' with
713: $v_R/v_L \gtrsim 10^{18}$ and the two solutions '$\pm-+$' with
714: $v_R/v_L \simeq 10^{20}$.
715:
716: It should be noted that the qualitative behavior of the stability
717: measure $Q$ depends mostly on the eigenvalues of the Yukawa coupling
718: matrix $y$ and the neutrino mass scale $m_0$. On the other hand, the
719: mixing in $y$ and additional CP-violating Majorana phases influence
720: the results only marginally.
721:
722: \section{Leptogenesis}
723: \label{sec_lep}
724:
725: In this section, we present our analysis of leptogenesis and its
726: implications for the discrimination among the eight allowed solutions
727: for $g$. Our analysis is based on the results of
728: refs.~\cite{Hambye:2003ka,Antusch:2004xy}.
729:
730: Assuming that the lightest of the right-handed neutrinos is separated
731: from the other two as well as from the Higgs triplets by a large mass
732: gap, the baryon asymmetry arising from leptogenesis can be written as
733: %
734: \be
735: \eta_B \equiv \frac{n_B}{n_\gamma} = \eta \, \epsilon_{N_1}.
736: \label{eta_fac}
737: \ee
738: %
739: The observed value of the baryon asymmetry is $\eta_B = (6.1 \pm 0.2)
740: \times 10^{-10}$ \cite{Spergel:2003cb}. In eq.~(\ref{eta_fac}), $\eta$
741: is the so-called efficiency factor that takes into account the initial
742: density of right-handed neutrinos, the deviation from equilibrium in
743: their decay and washout effects, while $\epsilon_{N_1}$ denotes the
744: lepton asymmetry produced in the decay of the lightest right-handed
745: neutrino. For the decay of the $i$th right-handed neutrino, it is
746: defined as
747: %
748: \be
749: \epsilon_{N_i} = \frac{\Gamma(N_i \to l\, H) - \Gamma(N_i \to \bar l\, H^*)}
750: {\Gamma(N_i \to l\, H) + \Gamma(N_i \to \bar l\, H^*)}\,.
751: \ee
752: %
753:
754: %Equation (\ref{eta_fac}) implies that the lepton asymmetry is produced only
755: %in the decays of the lightest right-handed neutrino and that there is
756: %a hierarchy in their masses.
757: If the two lightest right-handed neutrinos have similar masses,
758: eq.~(\ref{eta_fac}) is generalized to
759: %
760: \be
761: \eta_B = \eta_1 \, \epsilon_{N_1} + \eta_2 \, \epsilon_{N_2}\,.
762: \ee
763: %
764: The coefficients $\eta_i$ mostly depend on the effective neutrino
765: masses, defined as
766: %
767: \be
768: \tilde m_i = \frac{v^2 \, (\hat y^\dagger \hat y)_{ii}}{2m_{N_i}}\,.
769: \ee
770: %
771: Here and below, the hat indicates that the matrices are evaluated in
772: the basis where the triplet Yukawa coupling matrix $g$ is diagonal
773: with real and positive eigenvalues. In the case of quasi-degenerate
774: right-handed neutrinos, $m_{N_1}\simeq m_{N_2}$, and nearly coinciding
775: effective masses $\tilde m_1$ and $\tilde m_2$, an order-of-magnitude
776: estimate of the washout coefficients gives~\cite{Pilaftsis:2005rv}
777: %
778: \be
779: \eta_i\simeq \frac{1}{200}\lp \frac{10^{-3} \, {\rm eV}}{\tilde m_i} \rp.
780: \ee
781: %
782: However, deviations from the condition $\tilde m_1 \simeq \tilde m_2$
783: can lead to large corrections to this estimate. In particular, a large
784: effective mass $\tilde m_2$ reduces the coefficient $\eta_1$ close to
785: the mass degeneracy point, as is shown in fig.~\ref{etaOeps}. The
786: results in ref.~\cite{Pilaftsis:2005rv} have been obtained for rather
787: light and quasi-degenerate right-handed neutrinos, $m_{N_1}\simeq
788: m_{N_2} \sim 1$~TeV. For hierarchical right-handed neutrino masses
789: $m_{N_1} \ll m_{N_2}$ and the mass scale under consideration in the
790: present case, $m_{N_1} \sim 10^8$ GeV, one finds
791: %
792: \be
793: \eta_1 = 1.45 \times 10^{-2}\lp \frac{10^{-3} \, {\rm eV}}{\tilde m_1} \rp,
794: \qquad \eta_2 \simeq 0\,,
795: \ee
796: %
797: and we will employ these values in the following. This result and
798: fig.~\ref{etaOeps} have been obtained by solving the Boltzmann
799: equations as suggested in ref.~\cite{Pilaftsis:2005rv} and assuming
800: thermal initial abundance of right-handed neutrinos.
801: %
802: \FIGURE[t]{
803: \includegraphics[width=0.90 \textwidth]{figs_new/fig7.eps}
804: \caption{%
805: \label{etaOeps}
806: The contributions $\eta_1$ and $\eta_2$ to the baryon-to-photon ratio
807: from the decays of the two lightest right-handed neutrinos versus the
808: ratio of their masses $m_{N_2}/m_{N_1}$. Left panel: $\tilde m_1 =
809: \tilde m_2 = 10^{-3}$~eV, right panel: $\tilde m_1 = 10^{-3}$~eV,
810: $\tilde m_2 = 10^{-2}$~eV.} }
811: %
812:
813: With the washout factors $\eta_i$ at hand, the determination of the
814: baryon asymmetry requires only the knowledge of the CP-violating decay
815: asymmetries of the right-handed neutrinos $\epsilon_{N_i}$. In the
816: case when the low-energy limit of the theory is the Standard Model,
817: $\epsilon_{N_1}$ is given by~\cite{Antusch:2004xy}
818: %
819: \bea
820: \epsilon_{N_1} &=& \epsilon^I_{N_1} + \epsilon^{II}_{N_1}\,,
821: \label{first}\\
822: \epsilon^I_{N_1} &=& \frac{1}{8 \pi}
823: \sum_{j\not= 1} \frac{ \imag[(\hat y^\dagger \hat y)^2_{1j}]}
824: { (\hat y^\dagger \hat y)_{11}}
825: \sqrt{x_j} \left( \frac{2-x_j}{1-x_j} - (1+x_j)\ln{\frac{x_j+1}{x_j}} \right)\,, \\
826: \epsilon^{II}_{N_1} &=& \frac{3}{8 \pi} \hat g_{11} \mu \frac{\imag[(\hat
827: y^\dagger \, \hat g \hat y^*)_{11}]}{(\hat y^\dagger \hat y)_{11}}
828: \, z \left( 1-z\,\ln{\frac{z+1}z}\,\right),
829: \label{lep_exact}
830: \eea
831: %
832: and analogous formulas hold for $\epsilon_{N_2}$. Here
833: $z=m^2_\Delta/m^2_{N_1}$, and $x_j$ is defined as the ratio of the
834: squared right-handed neutrino masses:
835: %
836: \be
837: x_{j} = \frac{\hat g^2_{jj}}{\hat g^2_{11}}.
838: \ee
839: %
840: In the following, we discuss only the limit of a very heavy $SU(2)_L$
841: Higgs triplet, $z\to \infty$, so that
842: %
843: \be
844: \epsilon^{II}_{N_1} \to \frac{3}{16 \pi} \hat g_{11} \mu
845: \frac{\imag[(\hat y^\dagger \, \hat g \hat y^*)_{11}]}{(\hat y^\dagger
846: \hat y)_{11}}.
847: \ee
848: %
849: In the limit of a strong hierarchy in the right-handed
850: sector, $x_j \gg 1$, the first contribution in eq.~(\ref{first}) can
851: be rewritten as
852: %
853: \be
854: \epsilon^I_{N_1} \to -\frac{1}{8 \pi}
855: \sum_{j\not= 1}
856: \frac{ \imag[(\hat y^\dagger \hat y)^2_{1j}]}
857: { (\hat y^\dagger \hat y)_{11}}
858: \frac{3}{2\sqrt{x_j}}
859: = -\frac{3}{16 \pi} \hat g_{11}
860: \frac{\imag[(\hat y^\dagger \, \hat y \hat g^{-1} \hat y^T \hat y^*)_{11}]}
861: {(\hat y^\dagger \hat y)_{11}},
862: \ee
863: %
864: so that
865: %
866: \be
867: \epsilon_{N_1} = \epsilon^I_{N_1} + \epsilon^{II}_{N_1} \to \frac{3}{16
868: \pi} \hat g_{11} \mu \frac{\imag[(\hat y^\dagger \, \hat m_\nu \hat y^*)_{11}]}
869: {(\hat y^\dagger \hat y)_{11}}\,.
870: \label{lep_approx}
871: \ee
872: %
873: However, even in this limit, this approximation can lead to large
874: deviations from the exact result of
875: eqs.~(\ref{first})-(\ref{lep_exact}). Consider e.g.~the regime of
876: small $\mu$, where type I and type II seesaw contributions almost
877: cancel each other in the expression for the light neutrino mass
878: matrix. In this case, even a small correction to the coefficient of
879: the asymmetry $\epsilon^I_{N_1}$ leads to an incomplete cancellation
880: and to large errors in the approximation of
881: eq.~(\ref{lep_approx}). This effect is also partially present at
882: intermediate values of $\mu$. In addition, close to the mass
883: degeneracy ($x_j \simeq 1$), a resonant feature is expected in
884: $\epsilon^I_{N_1}$, which can lead to successful leptogenesis even at
885: a TeV scale~\cite{Pilaftsis:2005rv}.
886: %
887: \FIGURE[t]{
888: \includegraphics[width=0.99 \textwidth]{figs_new/eps_m.eps}
889: \caption{%
890: \label{lep1}
891: The upper (lower) panels show the effective neutrino mass $\tilde m_1/
892: \textrm{eV}$ ($\tilde m_2/\textrm{eV}$) and the asymmetry
893: $\epsilon_{N_1}$ ($\epsilon_{N_2}$) as functions of $v_R/v_L$ for the
894: solution '$+-+$'. The dashed curves in the right panels correspond to
895: the approximation in eq.~(\ref{lep_approx}), while the solid curves
896: represent the exact result. The step-like behavior of $\tilde{m}_1$
897: and $\tilde{m}_2$ is due to the level crossing. Inverted mass
898: hierarchy, $m_0=0.001$~eV.}
899: }
900: This is demonstrated in fig.~\ref{lep1}, where the asymmetries
901: $\epsilon_{N_1}$ and $\epsilon_{N_2}$ produced in the decays of the
902: two lightest right-handed neutrinos and the corresponding effective
903: mass parameters $\tilde m_1$ and $\tilde m_2$ are plotted. The results
904: show sizable deviations from the approximation (\ref{lep_approx}),
905: even outside the resonant enhancement region. The corresponding
906: baryon-to-photon ratio is shown in fig.~\ref{eta1}. In addition, this
907: figure shows the baryon-to-photon ratio in the case of non-vanishing
908: $\theta_{13}$ and the Dirac-type leptonic CP-violating phase
909: $\delta_{\rm CP}=30^\circ$. The resonant behavior is less distinct for
910: larger values of $\theta_{13}$, which can be traced back to the fact
911: that the two lightest right-handed neutrinos never become exactly
912: degenerate in mass in this case. On the other hand, the Dirac-type
913: phase constitutes an additional source of CP violation in the case of
914: non-vanishing $\theta_{13}$, leading to an enhancement of
915: $\epsilon_{N_1}$ below the mass degeneracy point for smaller values of
916: $\theta_{13}$, and thus, widening the $v_R/v_L$ region where
917: successful leptogenesis is possible (see the dashed curve in
918: fig.~\ref{eta1}).
919:
920: %
921: \FIGURE[t]{
922: \includegraphics[width=0.6 \textwidth]{figs_new/eta.eps}
923: \caption{%
924: \label{eta1}
925: The baryon-to-photon ratio $\eta_B$ from the decay of the lightest
926: right-handed neutrino for the solution '$+ - +$'. The same parameters
927: as in fig.~\ref{lep1}, except that the dashed and dotted curves
928: correspond to nonzero $\theta_{13}$ and $\delta_{\rm
929: CP}=30^\circ$. The shaded area corresponds to values of $\eta_B$ below
930: the observed value.} }
931: %
932: Thus, we find that viable leptogenesis is possible in this scenario if
933: the ratio of the VEVs is close to $v_R/v_L \simeq (1 \div 2) \times
934: 10^{19}$. Note that leptogenesis in the case of the left-right
935: symmetric seesaw mechanism was previously considered in a similar
936: framework in ref.~\cite{Hosteins:2006ja}. For the specific choice of
937: the parameters made there, the washout processes were found to be too
938: strong to allow successful leptogenesis. However, for our choice of
939: the parameters with the inverted mass hierarchy in the light neutrino
940: sector, the drop in the effective mass $\tilde{m}_1$ below the level
941: crossing point of the two lightest right-handed neutrinos resolves
942: this issue. We notice that the use of the exact formulas (4.7-4.9)
943: rather than the approximation (4.13) is essential in this region.
944:
945:
946: It should be also
947: noted that a similar effect of incomplete cancellation can appear if
948: the mass of the Higgs triplet is of the same order as the mass of the
949: lightest right-handed neutrino. In this case, the asymmetry
950: $\epsilon^{II}_{N_1}$ is modified and the cancellation between type I
951: and type II contributions is incomplete as well, which in the small
952: and intermediate $\mu$ regimes can enhance the produced lepton
953: asymmetry by several orders of magnitude compared to the approximation
954: in eq.~(\ref{lep_approx}).
955:
956: With the parameters of fig.~\ref{eta1}, the lightest right-handed
957: neutrino has a mass of order $m_{N_1} \simeq 5\times 10^9$~GeV, as can
958: be seen in fig.~\ref{ex_3}. Since thermal leptogenesis requires a
959: reheating temperature $T \gtrsim M_{N_1}$, this can potentially lead
960: to a tension with bounds coming from gravitino cosmology in
961: supersymmetric theories, namely $T \lesssim (10^7 \div
962: 10^{10})$~GeV~\cite{Kawasaki:2004qu}. Thus, this possibility imposes
963: constraints which are similar to those in the usual pure type I seesaw
964: scenario.
965:
966: Another difference from the standard leptogenesis scenario is the
967: appearance of the phases contained in $P_\nu$, $P_{l}$, $P_{u}$, and
968: $P_{d}$ in the neutrino mass matrix $m_\nu$ and in the Dirac Yukawa
969: coupling matrix $y$, which up to now have been set to zero in our
970: discussion. Due to these phases and an interplay between type I and
971: type II contributions to the neutrino mass matrix, leptogenesis is
972: possible, in principle, even in the case of one leptonic flavor, as
973: will be demonstrated below. This case is quite similar to the
974: framework with three left-handed neutrinos and one right-handed
975: neutrino discussed in ref.~\cite{Gu:2006wj} (see also
976: ref.~\cite{Akhmedov:2006de}). In the following, we will present some
977: analytic results for the left-right symmetric one- and two-flavor
978: cases, before presenting numerical results for the three-flavor case.
979:
980: In the one-flavor case, the light neutrino mass is given by
981: %
982: \be
983: m_\nu = g - \frac{y^2}{\mu g}
984: \ee
985: %
986: and the lepton asymmetry produced in the decay of the heavy
987: right-handed neutrino is
988: %
989: \be
990: \epsilon = \frac{3}{32 \pi} \frac{{\rm Im}[\hat y^{*2} \hat
991: m_\nu]}{\tilde m}\,.
992: \ee
993: %
994: Once again, the hat indicates that $y$ and $m_\nu$ are in the basis
995: where $g$ is real and positive. It turns out that the most interesting
996: regime is given by large values of $\mu$ and a relative phase of
997: $\pi/4$ between $m_\nu$ and $y$. In this case, only the solution
998: dominated by the type II term is relevant, since the type I
999: contribution to $\hat{y}^{*2} \hat m_\nu$ is real and cannot generate any
1000: CP asymmetry. Thus, we obtain
1001: %
1002: \be
1003: g \simeq m_\nu, \quad m_N = m_\nu \mu v^2\,, \\
1004: \ee
1005: %
1006: and
1007: %
1008: \bea
1009: \tilde m &=& \frac{|y|^2\, v^2}{2 m_N} = \frac{|y|^2}{2\, m_\nu \mu}\,,\\
1010: \epsilon &=& \frac{3}{16 \pi} m_\nu^2 \mu = \frac{3}{16 \pi}
1011: \frac{m_\nu m_N}{v^2}\,,\\
1012: \eta_B &=& 1.7 \times 10^{-6} \, {\rm eV} \, \frac{m_\nu^3 \mu^2}{|y|^2}
1013: = 1.7 \times 10^{-6} \, {\rm eV} \, \frac{m_\nu m_N^2}{|y|^2\, v^4}\,.
1014: \eea
1015: %
1016: Thus, it is possible to reproduce the observed baryon asymmetry
1017: e.g.~with the values
1018: %
1019: \be
1020: |y|=10^{-4}\,,\qquad m_\nu=0.1\; {\rm eV}\,,\qquad
1021: \mu = 6.0 \times 10^{-5}\; {\rm eV}^{-2}\,,
1022: \ee
1023: %
1024: which leads to
1025: %
1026: \be
1027: \tilde m = 8.3 \times 10^{-4} \; {\rm eV}\,, \qquad m_N = 1.8 \times
1028: 10^8 \; {\rm GeV}\,.
1029: \ee
1030: %
1031:
1032: The situation, however, is more complicated in scenarios with more than
1033: one lepton flavor. For instance, mixing could give large contributions
1034: to $\tilde m_1$, thereby enhancing the washout. On the other hand,
1035: it can also lead to additional sources of CP violation, which might
1036: improve the prospects for successful leptogenesis in realistic models
1037: with several flavors. Consider, for example, the situation when the
1038: third right-handed neutrino is much heavier than the other two and the
1039: mixing with the third flavor in the right-handed sector is
1040: suppressed. A novel aspect of this effective two-flavor case is that
1041: large mixing and resonant amplification of the lepton asymmetries due
1042: to the level crossing of right-handed neutrinos can enhance
1043: leptogenesis. These effects are similar to those discussed above in
1044: the full three-flavor framework.
1045: %
1046: We will study the regime with a large hierarchy between the two
1047: lightest right-handed neutrinos, which allows a simple analytic
1048: approach. As a toy example, we consider the following scenario: We
1049: assume maximal mixing in the light neutrino sector and one complex
1050: phase in $P_{l}$, which can be moved into the Yukawa coupling matrix
1051: $y$ by rephasing the electron neutrino field. Thus, the neutrino mass
1052: matrix is taken to have the form
1053: %
1054: \be
1055: \label{2dex}
1056: m_\nu = \begin{pmatrix}
1057: e^{2i\kappa}\, \bar m & e^{i\kappa}\, \delta m \\
1058: e^{i \kappa}\, \delta m & \bar m \\
1059: \end{pmatrix}
1060: \ee
1061: %
1062: with $\delta m\ll \bar m$. The parameters $\bar m$ and $\delta m$ can
1063: be determined from the mass of the lightest active neutrino $m_0$ and
1064: $\Delta m^2_{21}$:
1065: %
1066: \be
1067: \bar m \simeq m_0, \quad \delta m \simeq \frac{\Delta m^2_{21}}{4 m_0}\,.
1068: \ee
1069: %
1070: Numerical analysis indicates that the most interesting region in the
1071: parameter space corresponds to the situation when the smaller
1072: eigenvalue of $g$ is in the large $\mu$ regime, while the larger
1073: eigenvalue is in the small $\mu$ regime, i.e.
1074: %
1075: \be
1076: \label{mu_bounds}
1077: \frac{4 \, y_1^2}{\bar m^2} \ll \mu \ll \frac{4 \, y_2^2}{\bar m^2}\,,
1078: \ee
1079: %
1080: and we will assume this to hold in the present example. In this case,
1081: two solutions for $g$ are, to first order in $\lambda$, given by the
1082: ansatz\footnote{The other two solutions do not lead to successful
1083: leptogenesis.}
1084: %
1085: \be
1086: g = U^\dagger \, \begin{pmatrix}
1087: \bar m & 0 \\
1088: 0 & \pm \frac{y_2}{\sqrt{\mu}} + \frac{\bar m}2\\
1089: \end{pmatrix}\, U^*, \quad
1090: U = \begin{pmatrix}
1091: e^{-i \kappa} & \lambda e^{-i(\phi+\kappa)} \\
1092: -\lambda e^{i\phi} & 1
1093: \end{pmatrix}
1094: \ee
1095: %
1096: with
1097: %
1098: \bea
1099: \lambda &=& \mp \frac{\delta m \sqrt{\mu}}{y_2}\,, \\
1100: \sin(\phi+\kappa) &\simeq& \mp \sin(2\kappa) \frac{y_1}{\bar m
1101: \sqrt{\mu}}\,,
1102: \eea
1103: %
1104: and thus, we find
1105: %
1106: \bea
1107: \tilde m_1 &=& \frac{y_1^2 + y_2^2 \lambda^2}{2 \bar m \mu} =
1108: \frac{y_1^2 + \delta m^2 \mu}{2 \bar m \mu}\,,
1109: \label{ex2mt} \\
1110: \epsilon_{N_1} &=& \frac{3}{32 \pi \tilde m_1} \,
1111: \left[ \sin(2\phi+2\kappa) \, \bar m \, \delta m^2 \mu
1112: + \sin(4 \kappa) \bar m y_1^2 \right].
1113: \label{ex2eps}
1114: \eea
1115: %
1116: The second term in $\epsilon_{N_1}$ essentially coincides with the
1117: corresponding expression in the one-flavor case. Hence, in this
1118: case, it is possible to generate a sufficient lepton asymmetry in
1119: exactly the same way as in the one-flavor case as long as the
1120: contribution from mixing to $\tilde m_1$ does not lead to a strong
1121: washout. The latter condition reads
1122: %
1123: \be
1124: \frac{\delta m^2}{ 2\bar m} \simeq \frac{(\Delta m^2_{21})^2}{ 32 m_0^3}
1125: \lesssim 10^{-3}~ {\rm eV}\,,
1126: \ee
1127: %
1128: which is easily satisfied if $ m_0 > 10^{-3}$~eV.
1129: It is interesting to note that for $\kappa=\pi/8$ and quasi-degenerate
1130: neutrino masses, the obtained asymmetry $\epsilon_{N_1}$ saturates the
1131: upper limit obtained in ref.~\cite{Antusch:2004xy}.
1132:
1133:
1134: But even in the case $\kappa \simeq \pi/4$, when the second term in
1135: the expression for $\epsilon_{N_1}$ in eq.~(\ref{ex2eps}) is
1136: suppressed, the first term can lead to viable leptogenesis. The
1137: corresponding contribution to $\eta_B$ takes its largest value when
1138: $\delta m^2 = y_1^2/\mu$, so that eqs.~(\ref{ex2mt}) and
1139: (\ref{ex2eps}) become
1140: %
1141: \bea
1142: \tilde m_1 &=& \frac{y_1^2}{\bar m \mu}, \\
1143: \epsilon_{N_1} &=& \frac{3}{16 \pi} y_1 \bar m \sqrt{\mu}.
1144: \eea
1145: %
1146: In this case, $\eta_B$ is smaller than it is in the one-flavor case
1147: only by a factor
1148: %
1149: \be
1150: \frac{y_1 }{ 2\bar m\sqrt{\mu}} = \frac12 \sqrt{\frac{\tilde
1151: m_1}{\bar m}} \simeq 0.1.
1152: \ee
1153: %
1154: It should be noted that the baryon asymmetry increases with the
1155: parameter $\mu$, so that, depending on the Yukawa couplings,
1156: saturation of the upper limit on $\mu$ in eq.~(\ref{mu_bounds}) might
1157: be necessary, which can lead to deviations from our analytic results.
1158:
1159: Thus, in the two-flavor case, two different sources of leptogenesis
1160: exist: The first source is similar to that in the one-flavor case,
1161: which is related to the type II seesaw term and is sensitive to the
1162: high-energy CP-violating phases, while the second source results from
1163: mixing effects and has no analogue in the one-generation case.
1164:
1165: In the three-flavor framework, sources of both types are, in general,
1166: present as well, but mixing with the third flavor can further increase
1167: $\tilde m_1$. Figure~\ref{eta2} shows the baryon-to-photon ratio
1168: $\eta_B$ when an additional phase is attributed to the electron
1169: neutrino, as in the two-flavor example of eq.~(\ref{2dex}). We choose
1170: the phase $\kappa=\pi/4$ ($\kappa=\pi/8$), so that the source similar
1171: to the first (second) term in eq.~(\ref{ex2eps}) gives the largest
1172: contribution to the baryon asymmetry. Our numerical results indicate that,
1173: similarly to the two-flavor case, the upper bound on the decay
1174: asymmetry found in ref.~\cite{Antusch:2004xy} can be
1175: saturated.
1176: %
1177: \FIGURE[t]{
1178: \includegraphics[width=0.6 \textwidth]{figs_new/eta2.eps}
1179: \caption{
1180: \label{eta2}
1181: The baryon-to-photon ratio $\eta_B$ with an additional complex phase
1182: $\pi/8$ or $\pi/4$ attributed to the electron neutrino for the
1183: solution '$--+$'. The shaded area corresponds to values of $\eta_B$
1184: below the observed value. Inverted mass hierarchy, $m_0 = 0.1$~eV.}}
1185: %
1186: The mass of the lightest right-handed neutrino that is required to
1187: reproduce the observed baryon asymmetry is $m_{N_1}\gtrsim 1.4 \times
1188: 10^9$~GeV ($m_{N_1}\gtrsim 2.5\times 10^8$~GeV). These bounds can be
1189: relaxed by choosing Yukawa couplings different from those of the
1190: up-type quarks. With an appropriate choice, the results for the four
1191: solutions of the type '$\pm\pm+$' agree with the analytic predictions
1192: of the two-flavor analysis presented in this section. Notice that the
1193: results in the two-flavor case in eqs.~(\ref{ex2mt}) and
1194: (\ref{ex2eps}) do not depend on $y_2$ as long as the constraint
1195: (\ref{mu_bounds}) is fulfilled. Likewise, we observe in the numerical
1196: analysis of the three-flavor case that in this limit leptogenesis is
1197: not very sensitive to the two largest eigenvalues $y_2$ and
1198: $y_3$. This is, however, a consequence of the fact that the mixing in
1199: the 1-3 sector of the Dirac-type Yukawa coupling $y$ is small in our
1200: framework according to eq.~(\ref{ckm_2}). If this mixing is sizable,
1201: $\theta^q_{13} \gtrsim 5^\circ$, and depending on the other parameters
1202: determining the Yukawa coupling $y$ and the
1203: neutrino mixing matrix $U_{\rm PMNS}$, leptogenesis might be
1204: suppressed, mainly due to a large contribution to the effective mass
1205: parameter $\tilde m_1$ from the eigenvalue $y_3$ and the
1206: resulting increased washout.
1207:
1208: Thus, we conclude that successful leptogenesis is possible for four
1209: out of the eight solutions provided that the value of the
1210: electron-type Majorana phase is in an appropriate range. For the other
1211: four solutions, leptogenesis is not viable, as was first pointed out
1212: in ref.~\cite{Hosteins:2006ja}. The reason for this is that, as long
1213: as the Dirac Yukawa coupling matrix is chosen to coincide with that of
1214: the up-type quarks, the mass of the lightest right-handed neutrino
1215: never exceeds $10^6$~GeV and no level crossings occur. We note that in
1216: the left-right symmetric case with type I+II seesaw mechanism the
1217: bounds on the mass of the lightest right-handed neutrino can be
1218: slightly relaxed compared to those in the pure type I case which, for
1219: right-handed neutrinos with thermal initial abundance and hierarchical
1220: masses, requires $m_{N_1}\gtrsim 5\times
1221: 10^8$~GeV~\cite{Davidson:2002qv,Buchmuller:2002rq,Giudice:2003jh}.
1222:
1223:
1224: \section{Summary and conclusions\label{sec_summary}}
1225:
1226: \TABLE{
1227: \begin{tabular}[b]{|c||c|c|c|}
1228: \hline
1229: & $\pm++$ & $\pm-+$ & $\pm\pm-$ \\
1230: \hline
1231: \hline
1232: Stability & $v_R/v_L > 10^{18}$ & $v_R/v_L \simeq 10^{20}$ & disfavored \\
1233: \hline
1234: \quad Leptogenesis \quad & $v_R/v_L > 10^{18}$ & $v_R/v_L > 10^{18}$ &
1235: excluded \\
1236: \hline
1237: Gravitinos & \quad $v_R/v_L < 10^{21}$ \quad & \quad unconstrained
1238: \quad & \quad unconstrained \quad \\
1239: \hline
1240: \end{tabular}
1241: \caption{The allowed regions of the parameter $v_R/v_L$ for the eight
1242: different types of solutions.\label{finaltab}}
1243: }
1244:
1245: We have analyzed the left-right symmetric type I+II seesaw mechanism
1246: with a hierarchical Dirac mass term motivated by GUTs. It was
1247: previously shown that a reconstruction of the mass matrix of heavy
1248: right-handed neutrinos in this framework produces eight solutions
1249: which result in exactly the same low-energy phenomenology. Our goal
1250: was to discriminate among these solutions using their stability
1251: properties and leptogenesis as additional criteria.
1252: %
1253: As a measure of the stability, we have chosen the parameter $Q$ which
1254: quantifies the degree of fine-tuning necessary to obtain a given mass
1255: matrix of light neutrinos and was defined in
1256: eq.~(\ref{Q_measure}). For three lepton generations, no fine-tuning
1257: corresponds to $Q\sim 10$. We have selected the value $Q=10^3$, which
1258: corresponds to a fine-tuning at the percent level, as a maximal
1259: allowed value. The leptogenesis criterion we used was the ability of
1260: a given solution to reproduce the observed baryon asymmetry of the
1261: Universe.
1262:
1263: Our results complement the results of the leptogenesis analysis
1264: performed in ref.~\cite{Hosteins:2006ja} in the following aspects. In
1265: the case without additional Majorana phases, we obtain, in accordance
1266: with ref.~\cite{Hosteins:2006ja}, that a sizable decay asymmetry
1267: $\epsilon_{N_1}$ is possible close to the mass degeneracy of the two
1268: lightest right-handed neutrinos. However, while for the specific
1269: parameters used in ref.~\cite{Hosteins:2006ja} the washout is too
1270: large to allow viable leptogenesis, we find that assuming the inverted
1271: mass hierarchy for the light neutrinos resolves the problem, as shown
1272: in fig.~\ref{lep1}. Similarly, in the cases with additional
1273: CP-violating Majorana phases we found that for certain solutions the
1274: choice of the parameters made in ref.~\cite{Hosteins:2006ja} leads
1275: either to a strong washout (solutions '$\pm-+$'), or to a violation of
1276: the gravitino bound (solutions '$\pm++$'). In section~\ref{sec_lep},
1277: we presented a systematic study showing that those problems can be
1278: solved for the four solutions '$\pm\pm+$' if the value of the of
1279: electron-type Majorana phase is in the appropriate range. In
1280: particular, the upper bound on the decay asymmetry for the type I+II
1281: seesaw model found in ref.~\cite{Antusch:2004xy} can be saturated for
1282: a certain choice of the parameters. This is illustrated by the
1283: analytic results for the two-flavor case in eqs.~(\ref{ex2mt}) and
1284: (\ref{ex2eps}) and the numerical results for the three-flavor case in
1285: fig.~\ref{eta2}. We would like to emphasize that if the Dirac-type Yukawa
1286: coupling matrix $y$ is characterized by hierarchical eigenvalues and rather
1287: small mixing, successful leptogenesis is quite a generic feature of the
1288: left-right symmetric seesaw models.
1289:
1290: Our findings are summarized in tab.~\ref{finaltab}. One can observe
1291: that the stability criterion disfavors the four solutions of the type
1292: '$\pm\pm-$' and restricts the solutions of the type '$\pm-+$' to the
1293: region of the parameter space where $v_R/v_L \simeq 10^{20}$. The
1294: remaining two solutions of the type '$\pm++$' are stable, provided
1295: that $v_R/v_L \gtrsim 10^{18}$. We found that successful leptogenesis
1296: is possible for the four solution of the type '$\pm\pm+$' as long as
1297: $v_R/v_L \gtrsim 10^{18}$. This possibility requires the existence of
1298: additional Majorana-type phases which are absent in the pure type I
1299: seesaw framework. Further constraints come from the potentially
1300: dangerous overproduction of gravitinos in supersymmetric theories,
1301: giving rise to an upper bound on the lightest right-handed
1302: neutrino mass. For our choice of the Yukawa couplings, $y=y_u$, only
1303: the solutions of the type '$\pm++$' are affected by this constraint,
1304: which leads to the requirement $v_R/v_L \lesssim 10^{21}$. For the other
1305: six solutions, the smallest right-handed neutrino mass is always below
1306: $10^{10}$~GeV, so that these solutions are not constrained by this criterion.
1307: In the cases when the middle eigenvalue of $y$ is chosen to be
1308: significantly larger than the one in our framework, $y_2\gtrsim 10^{-2}$,
1309: the constraint $v_R/v_L \lesssim 10^{21}$ would also apply to the two
1310: solutions of the form '$\pm-+$'. On the other hand, a very small middle
1311: eigenvalue, $y_2\lesssim 5 \times 10^{-4}$, would render leptogenesis
1312: impossible for these two solutions, since the decay asymmetry would be too
1313: small due to the small mass of the lightest right-handed neutrino.
1314:
1315: Thus, we have shown, within the chosen framework, that the stability
1316: and leptogenesis criteria partially lift the eight-fold degeneracy
1317: among the solutions for the mass matrix of heavy right-handed
1318: neutrinos in the left-right symmetric type I+II seesaw.
1319:
1320:
1321: \acknowledgments
1322: We thank S. Lavignac and C. Savoy for useful communications.
1323: This work was supported by the Wenner-Gren Foundation [E.A.], the
1324: G\"oran Gustafsson Foundation [T.H. and T.O.], the Swedish Research
1325: Council (Vetenskapsr{\aa}det), contract nos. 621-2001-1611 [T.K. and
1326: T.O.] and 621-2005-3588 [T.O.], and the Royal Swedish Academy of
1327: Sciences (KVA) [T.O.].
1328:
1329:
1330: \bibliographystyle{JHEP}
1331: \bibliography{references}
1332:
1333: \end{document}
1334:
1335:
1336:
1337: