1: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2: %              OBSERVABLE ELECTRON EDM AND LEPTOGENESIS               %

3: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

4: %                                                                     %

5: %               F. R. Joaquim, I. Masina, A. Riotto                   %

6: %                                                                     %

7: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

8: 

9: \documentclass[12pt]{article}

10: 

11: \usepackage{amssymb,amsthm,amsfonts,epsfig, multicol,mathrsfs,bm}

12: 

13: \textwidth=16cm

14: \textheight=23cm

15: \topmargin -1cm

16: \oddsidemargin -0.cm

17: \evensidemargin -0.cm

18: \hoffset -0 cm

19: 

20: \def\baselinestretch{1.1}

21: \parskip .1cm

22: 

23: %

24: \def\gappeq{\mathrel{\rlap {\raise.5ex\hbox{$>$}} {\lower.5ex\hbox{$\sim$}}}}

25: \def\lappeq{\mathrel{\rlap{\raise.5ex\hbox{$<$}} {\lower.5ex\hbox{$\sim$}}}}

26: \def\beq{\begin{equation}} \def\eeq{\end{equation}}

27: \def\bea{\begin{eqnarray}} \def\eea{\end{eqnarray}}

28: \def\bq{\begin{quote}} \def\eq{\end{quote}}

29: \def\bc{\begin{center}} \def\ec{\end{center}}

30: \def\ov{\overline}

31: \def\nn{\nonumber}

32: \def\FC{{\rm FC}}

33: \def\FV{{\rm FV}}

34: \def\Pl{{\rm Pl}}

35: \def\dd{\displaystyle}

36: \def\wh{\widehat}

37: \def\ti{\tilde}

38: \def\latin#1{{\it #1}}

39: \def\cf{{cf.}} \def\ie{{i.e.}} \def\eg{{\it e.g.~}} \def\etc{{etc~\ldots}}

40: \def\adhoc{{ad hoc}} \def\defacto{{de facto}} \def\viceversa{{vice versa}}

41: \def\apriori{{a priori}} \def\Apriori{{A priori}} \def\grosso{{grosso modo}}

42: \def\aposteriori{{a posteriori}} \def\afortiori{{a fortiori}}

43: \def\ra {$\rightarrow$}

44: %

45: \newcommand{\nsect}{\setcounter{equation}{0} \def\theequation{\thesection.\arabic{equation}}\section}

46: \newcommand{\nappend}{\setcounter{equation}{0} \def\theequation{\rm{A}.\arabic{equation}}\section*}

47: \newcommand{\appendixA}{\setcounter{equation}{0}\def\theequation{\rm{A}.\arabic{equation}}\section*}

48: \newcommand{\appendixB}{\setcounter{equation}{0}\def\theequation{\rm{B}.\arabic{equation}}\section*}

49: %

50: %\draft

51: \def\meg{\mu \rightarrow e \gamma}\def\tmg{\tau \rightarrow \mu \gamma}

52: \def\teg{\tau \rightarrow e \gamma}

53: 

54: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

55: 

56: \begin{document}

57: \pagestyle{empty}

58: %\def\footnote{\fnsymbol{footnote}}

59: \begin{flushright}

60: CERN-PH-TH/2007-023 \\

61: DFPD-07/TH/01\end{flushright} \vspace*{2cm}

62: 

63: \begin{center}

64: {\Large\textbf{Observable Electron EDM and Leptogenesis}

65: }\vspace*{0.80cm}

66: 

67: {\large \sf F.~R. Joaquim $^{a,*}$, I. Masina

68: $^{b,\S}$ and A. Riotto $^{a,c,\ddag}$}\\[0.4cm]

69: 

70: $^{a}$\textit{Dipartimento di Fisica ``G. Galilei'', Universit\`a di

71: Padova and INFN, Sezione di Padova, Via Marzolo, 8 - I-35131 Padua - Italy} \\

72: 

73: $^b$ \textit{CERN, Department of Physics, Theory Division, CH-1211

74: Geneva 23, Switzerland}

75: 

76: $^c$ \textit{D\'epartement de Physique Th\'eorique, Universit\'e de

77: Gen\`eve, 24 Quai Ansermet, Gen\`eve, Switzerland}

78: \end{center}

79: 

80: \vskip 1cm

81: \begin{center}{\bf Abstract} \end{center}

82: 

83: \begin{quote}

84: {In the context of the minimal supersymmetric seesaw model, the

85: CP-violating neutrino Yukawa couplings might induce an electron EDM.

86: The same interactions may also be responsible for the generation of

87: the observed baryon asymmetry of the Universe via leptogenesis. We

88: identify in a model-independent way those patterns within the seesaw

89: models which predict an electron EDM at a level probed by planned

90: laboratory experiments and show that negative searches on $\teg$

91: decay may provide the strongest upper bound on the electron EDM. We

92: also conclude that a possible future detection of the electron EDM

93: is incompatible with thermal leptogenesis, even when flavour effects

94: are accounted for.} \end{quote}

95: 

96: \vspace*{0.8cm}

97: 

98: \noindent $^*$ joaquim@pd.infn.it\\

99: $^\S$ isabella.masina@cern.ch\\

100: $^\ddag$ riotto@pd.infn.it

101: 

102: 

103: \newpage

104: \setcounter{page}{1}

105: \pagestyle{plain}

106: \def\thefootnote{\arabic{footnote}}

107: \setcounter{footnote}{0}

108: 

109: 

110: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%  INTRODUCTION %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

111: 

112: \section{Introduction}

113: 

114: New physics has to be invoked in order to explain why neutrinos are

115: massive and mix among each other, and also why they turn out to be

116: much lighter than the other known fermions. Among the proposed

117: explanations, the idea that neutrino mass suppression is due to the

118: decoupling of heavy states at a very high energy has prevailed in

119: the last three decades. This principle is behind the formulation of

120: the well-known seesaw mechanism~\cite{seesaw}.

121: 

122: Besides many experiments aiming to characterize neutrino

123: oscillations, several other present and future experiments are

124: planned to search for alternative signals of lepton flavour

125: violation (LFV), {\em e.g.} in radiative charged lepton decays. It

126: is therefore of great importance to explore theoretical scenarios

127: where LFV is enhanced to levels at reach of planned experiments. One

128: of the most appealing theoretical frameworks where this may actually

129: occur relies on supersymmetry (SUSY). Within the minimal

130: supersymmetric extension of the standard model (MSSM), LFV can be

131: communicated to the SUSY-breaking sector by the same interactions

132: which participate in the seesaw mechanism producing a misalignment

133: between leptons and sleptons~\cite{Borzumati:1986qx}. This turns out

134: to be particularly interesting in the case where the dynamics

135: responsible for breaking SUSY is flavour-blind, like in

136: minimal-supergravity scenarios (mSUGRA).

137: 

138: The phenomenological aspects related to supersymmetric seesaw

139: mechanisms have been widely studied in the literature, especially

140: those which concern LFV

141: decays~\cite{rgess,Casas:2001sr,Lavignac:2001vp,Masina:2002mv,

142: Joaquim:2006uz}. In particular, most of the analysis have been based

143: on the extension of the MSSM particle content where right-handed

144: (RH) heavy neutrinos (responsible for the neutrino mass suppression)

145: are added. RH neutrinos may play a role in the generation of the

146: baryon asymmetry. If their couplings to the ordinary charged leptons

147: are complex and therefore violate CP, then their out-of-equilibrium

148: decays may induce the observed baryon asymmetry of the Universe,

149: $Y_B=(0.87\pm 0.03)\times 10^{-10}$~\cite{wmap}, via the

150: leptogenesis mechanism~\cite{Fukugita:1986hr}. In the simplest

151: thermal scenario, the lightest heavy Majorana neutrino is produced

152: after inflation by thermal scatterings and subsequently decays

153: out-of-equilibrium violating CP and lepton number. Flavour effects

154: play also a role in thermal leptogenesis since its dynamics depends

155: on which charged lepton Yukawa interactions are in thermal

156: equilibrium and, therefore, the computation of $Y_B$ depends on

157: which temperature regime the heavy Majorana neutrino decays occur.

158: We will come back to this point later.

159: 

160: Besides flavour violation, also CP-violating (CPV) effects may be

161: induced in the soft SUSY breaking terms by the CPV seesaw

162: interactions. These may lead to relevant contributions to the

163: charged lepton electric dipole moments (EDM), in particular that of

164: the

165: electron~\cite{Ellis:2001xt,Ellis:2002xg,Masina:2003wt,Farzan:2004qu,Masina:2005am}.

166: The present upper bound on the electron EDM is $d_e< 1.6\times

167: 10^{-27}$ e cm at $90\%$ C.L.~\cite{Regan:2002ta}. Within three

168: years, the Yale group plans to reach a sensitivity of about

169: $10^{-29}$ e cm~\cite{DeMille} and hopefully go down to $10^{-31}$ e

170: cm within five years. A more ambitious proposal, based on

171: solid-state physics methods, exists to probe $d_e$ down to

172: $10^{-35}$ e cm~\cite{Lamoreaux}.

173: 

174: The above discussion shows that, by extending the MSSM particle

175: content with heavy neutrino singlets, a new window is widely opened

176: into the investigation of new effects in flavour physics and

177: cosmology. Ultimately, one expects to be able to relate various

178: phenomena like neutrino oscillations, LFV, leptogenesis and EDMs.

179: This programme is of extreme importance and may shed some light over

180: the origin of neutrino masses and mixing and its relation with

181: possible new physics observations. In what follows, we consider the

182: scenario where the (dominant) LFV and CPV effects in the SUSY soft

183: breaking sector are exclusively generated by the seesaw Yukawa

184: interactions. Under these assumptions, we identify the Yukawa

185: structure leading to an observable $d_e$ and at the same time

186: compatible with the present bounds on LFV decays and show that there

187: is an upper bound on $d_e$ coming from negative searches of the

188: $\teg$ decay. This indirect bound can be even stronger than the

189: direct-search limit. We will also study the impact on thermal

190: flavoured-leptogenesis for cases where $d_e$ is at hand of future

191: experiments, showing that a positive detection of $d_e$ is

192: incompatible with thermal leptogenesis.

193: 

194: The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 we review the issue

195: of EDM and LFV within supersymmetric seesaw models and discuss the

196: bound on $d_e$ provided by the $\teg$. In Section 3 we give a short

197: review of thermal leptogenesis, including flavour effects. In

198: Section 4 we discuss the patterns of neutrino Yukawas giving rise to

199: a large $d_e$, but still compatible with present bounds on $\meg$,

200: $\teg$ and $\tmg$. The conclusions are drawn in Section 5.

201: 

202: 

203: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

204: 

205: \section{EDM and LFV from seesaw Yukawa couplings}

206: 

207: We consider the framework of the minimal supersymmetric standard

208: model (MSSM) extended with three heavy Majorana neutrino singlets

209: $N$. Working in the basis where the charged lepton mass matrix

210: $m_{\ell}$ is real and diagonal, the seesaw~\cite{seesaw}

211: interactions at high energy are described by the following

212: superpotential terms

213: %

214: \beq

215: {\cal W_{SS}}= N\, Y_\nu \,L\, H_u +\frac{1}{2} N \hat M N\;\;,\;\;

216: \hat M={\rm diag}(M_1,M_2,M_3)\,,

217: \eeq

218: %

219: where $Y_\nu$ is the Dirac neutrino Yukawa coupling matrix and $M_i$

220: stand for the (positive) heavy Majorana neutrino masses ordered as

221: $M_1<M_2<M_3$. As usual, $L$ denotes the lepton doublets and $H_u$

222: the hypercharge $1/2$ Higgs superfield. Integrating out the heavy

223: neutrino singlets, after electroweak symmetry breaking one obtains

224: the effective Majorana neutrino mass matrix

225: %

226: \beq

227: m_\nu^{eff}=Y_\nu^T \frac{1}{\hat M} Y_\nu v_u^2 = U^* \hat m\,

228: U^\dagger \;\;,\;\; \hat m={\rm diag}(m_1,m_2,m_3)\,,

229: \eeq

230: %

231: where $U$ is the leptonic mixing matrix (parameterized in the usual

232: way, see Eq.~(\ref{parU})), $m_i$ are the (positive) effective

233: neutrino masses, $v_u=v\sin\beta$ with $v=174\,{\rm GeV}$ and

234: $\tan\beta=\langle H_u\rangle/\langle H_d \rangle$.

235: 

236: Because of RGE running from high to low energy scales, the seesaw

237: Yukawa couplings potentially induce flavour and CP violations in

238: slepton masses. In the following we review their impact by assuming

239: universal and real boundary conditions at the Planck scale $M_{\rm

240: Pl}$: $m^2_X=m_0^2$ for the soft scalar masses, $A_X=a_0 Y_X$ for

241: the trilinear $A$-terms and $\tilde M_i=M_{1/2}$ for the gaugino

242: mass parameters. In addition, we assume that the $\mu$-term is real.

243: Under these circumstances, the flavour and CP violations in the

244: low-energy slepton masses arise from those present in the seesaw

245: Yukawa couplings through RGE running.

246: 

247: The most relevant flavour misalignment is induced by the seesaw

248: Yukawas in the slepton doublet mass matrix

249: $m^2_L$~\cite{Borzumati:1986qx}. Following the widely used mass

250: insertion approximation, the flavour-violating entries of $m^2_L$

251: can be parametrized by

252: %

253: \beq \delta^{LL}_{ij}  =  \frac{m^2_{L ij}}{\bar m^2_L} = -

254: \frac{1}{(4 \pi)^2} \frac{6 m_0^2 + 2 a_0^2}{\bar m^2_L}~ C_{ij}

255: ~~~~(i\neq j)~,

256: \eeq

257: %

258: where $\bar m_L$ is an average doublet slepton mass and $C_{ij}$

259: encodes the dependence of $\delta^{LL}_{ij} $ on the Yukawa

260: interactions:

261: \beq

262:  \label{Cgen}

263: C_{ij}  =  \sum_{k} C_{ij}^k~~~~~,~~~~C_{ij}^k = Y^*_{\nu ki} Y_{\nu

264: kj}^{} \ln \frac{ M_\mathrm{Pl} }{ M_k }\,.

265: \eeq

266: %

267: For later convenience, we have isolated the contribution of each

268: $N_k$ to $C_{ij}$ denoting it by $C^k_{ij}$. Notice that in

269: Eq.~(\ref{Cgen}) $Y_\nu$ has to be evaluated at $M_{\rm Pl}$.

270: The induced LFV decays are

271: \beq

272: \label{BR}

273: \mathrm{BR}(\ell_i \rightarrow \ell_j \gamma) =

274: \mathrm{BR}(\ell_i \rightarrow \ell_j \bar \nu_j \nu_i)~F_B ~

275: \tan^2\beta~ |\delta^{LL}_{ij}|^2 ~~,

276: \eeq

277: where $F_B$ is an adimensional function of supersymmetric masses

278: which includes the contributions from chargino and neutralino

279: exchange -- see {\em e.g.}~\cite{Masina:2002mv} and references

280: therein.

281: 

282: From the above considerations, it is clear that the present

283: experimental limits on LFV decays can be translated into upper

284: bounds on $|C_{ij}|$, denoted by $C^{\rm ub}_{ij}$, which depend on

285: $\tan\beta$ and supersymmetric masses~\cite{Lavignac:2001vp}. In

286: mSUGRA, once the relation between $a_0$ and $m_0$ has been assigned

287: and radiative electroweak breaking required, the supersymmetric

288: spectrum can be expressed in terms of two masses, {\em e.g.} the

289: bino mass $\tilde M_1$ and the average singlet charged slepton mass

290: $\bar m_R$ at low energy (we recall that $\tilde M_1 \approx 0.4

291: M_{1/2}$ and $\bar m_R^2 \approx m_0^2 + 0.15 M_{1/2}^2$). For

292: definiteness, we will take from now on $a_0=m_0+M_{1/2}$.

293: Considering in particular the point $P=(\tilde M_1,\bar

294: m_R)=(200,500)\,{\rm GeV}$, for which the SUSY contribution to the

295: anomalous magnetic moment of the muon $\delta a_\mu$ is within the

296: observed discrepancy between the SM and experimental result for

297: $\tan\beta> 35$, we obtain

298: %

299: \beq

300: C^{{\rm ub}}_{21}\simeq 5\times10^{-3} \frac{50}{\tan\beta}~~~~,~~~~

301: C^{{\rm ub}}_{32}\simeq 0.8 \,\frac{50}{\tan\beta} ~~~~,~~~~ C^{{\rm

302: ub}}_{31}\simeq \frac{50}{\tan\beta} ~~.

303: \eeq

304: %

305: The strongest constraint

306: comes from $\meg$, although also those from $\teg$ and $\tmg$ become

307: non-trivial for $\tan\beta \gtrsim 10$, as they imply that $Y_\nu$

308: couplings are at most of ${\cal O}(1)$. This, in turn, supports the

309: use of the perturbative approach. In Fig.~\ref{fig1} of the Appendix

310: we display the dependence of $C^{{\rm ub}}_{ij}$ in the plane

311: $(\tilde M_1,\bar m_R)$. %for $a_0=m_0+M_{1/2}$ .

312: 

313: There are two potentially important sources of CP violation induced

314: by the seesaw Yukawa couplings in the doublet slepton mass matrix.

315: One is associated to the flavour-conserving (FC)

316: $A$-terms~\cite{Ellis:2001xt, Ellis:2002xg, Masina:2003wt}, while

317: the other, generically dominant for $\tan\beta \gtrsim 10$, is

318: mediated by flavour-violating (FV) $\delta$'s~\cite{Masina:2003wt,

319: Farzan:2004qu}. The corresponding contributions to lepton EDMs are

320: given by

321: %

322: \beq

323: \label{di} d^{\FC}_{i} ~[e~{\rm cm}]= F_{d}

324: ~m_{\ell_i}~\mathrm{Im}(a_{i})~~~~~,~~~~~~ d^{\FV}_{i} ~[e~{\rm

325: cm}]= F''_d ~\mu\tan\beta~ \mathrm{Im}(\delta^{RR} m_{\ell}\,

326: \delta^{LL} )_{ii}\,,

327: \eeq

328: %

329: where $F_d$, $F''_d$ (with dimension of mass$^{-2}$) are functions

330: of the slepton, chargino and neutralino masses -- see

331: e.g.~\cite{Masina:2002mv} and references therein. These sources of

332: CPV are

333: %

334: \beq

335: \mathrm{Im}(a_i)= \frac{8 a_0}{(4 \pi)^4}~I^{\FC}_i ~~~ ,~~~

336: \mathrm{Im}(\delta^{RR} m_{\ell} \delta^{LL} )_{ii} = \frac{8

337: m_{\ell_i}}{(4 \pi)^6}  \frac{(6 m_0^2 + 2 a_0^2) (6 m_0^2 + 3

338: a_0^2)}{\bar m_L^2 \bar m_R^2} \frac{m^2_\tau \tan^2\beta}{v^2}

339: ~I^{\FV}_i ~,

340: \eeq

341: %

342: \noindent where

343: \beq

344: \label{IeFCIeFV}%

345: I^{\FC}_i = \sum_{k > k'} I^{(k k'){\FC}}_i~~,~~I^{\FV}_i = \sum_{k

346: > k'} I^{(k k')\FV}_i\,.

347: \eeq

348: %

349: Adopting a notation which renders more explicit the link with LFV

350: decays and defining ${\ln}^{a}_{b}=\ln(M_a/M_{b})$ for short, one

351: has~\cite{Masina:2005am}

352: %

353: \beq

354: I^{(k k')\FC}_i=\frac{ \ln^k_{k'} }{\ln^{\Pl}_{k'} }~\mathrm{Im} (

355: C^{k} C^{k'} )_{ii}~~~,~~~ I^{(k k')\FV}_i =

356: \widetilde{\ln}^{k}_{k'} ~\mathrm{Im} \!\left(\!C^{k} \,\frac{ m^2

357: _{\ell}}{m^2_\tau} \,C^{k'} \!\right)_{\!ii}\,,%

358: \label{LeI}

359: \eeq

360: %

361: with $\widetilde{ \ln }^3_2= \ln^3_2$, $\widetilde{ \ln}^3_1 =

362: \ln^3_1 (1 - 2 \ln^3_2    \ln^2_1 / \ln^3_1 \ln^{\Pl}_1 )$,

363: $\widetilde{ \ln }^2_1= \ln^2_1 (1 - 2 \ln^{\Pl}_3 \ln^3_2/

364: \ln^{\Pl}_2 \ln^{\Pl}_1 )$. Notice that these contributions arise as

365: an effect of a splitted spectrum of right-handed neutrinos and would

366: vanish in the case of a degenerate spectrum~\cite{Ellis:2001xt,

367: RomStru}. It turns out that the seesaw-induced contributions to

368: $d_\mu$ and $d_\tau$ are below the planned experimental

369: sensitivities; on the contrary the seesaw-induced contribution to

370: $d_e$ might be at the level of planned experiments. The present

371: experimental upper limit, $d_e^{exp}=1.4\times 10^{-27}$ e cm, can

372: correspondingly be translated into upper bounds on $|I_e^{\FC}|$ and

373: $|I_e^{\FV}|$, with a dependence on $\tan\beta$ and supersymmetric

374: masses - see~\cite{Masina:2003wt,Masina:2005am} for more details.

375: Within the mSugra framework, we display these bounds in

376: Fig.~\ref{fig1} of the Appendix. In particular, for the point $P$

377: introduced before, the upper bounds are

378: \beq

379: \label{upperb}%

380: I_e^{{\rm ub},\FC} \simeq 10^3~~~~,~~~~I_e^{{\rm

381: ub},\FV} \simeq 10^2~ \left(\frac{50}{\tan\beta}\right)^3\,.

382: \label{Iub}

383: \eeq

384: For comparison, it is useful to estimate the upper allowed values of

385: $I_e^{\FC}$ and $I_e^{\FV}$ assuming perturbativity: by allowing the

386: relevant Yukawa couplings of $Y_\nu$ to be of ${\cal O}(1)$ and the

387: logarithms to be large enough, from Eq.~(\ref{LeI}) one obtains

388: $I_e^{\FC}\lesssim 50$ and $I_e^{\FV} \lesssim 300$. This means that

389: in point $P$ the FC-type seesaw-induced contribution, $d_e^{\FC}$,

390: is below the level of the present experimental sensitivity; an

391: improvement by two orders of magnitude, pushing $d_e^{exp}$ at the

392: level of $10^{-29}$ e cm, would be needed to start testing it. On

393: the contrary, the FV-type seesaw-induced contribution, $d_e^{\FV}$,

394: might have already exceeded the present experimental bound in $P$

395: for $\tan\beta\gtrsim 35$ (and for even smaller $\tan\beta$ if the

396: supersymmetric masses are taken to be smaller than those in $P$).

397: 

398: However, as we now turn to discuss, also the experimental limit on

399: $\teg$ provides an upper bound to the seesaw-induced $I_e^{\FC}$ and

400: $I_e^{\FV}$. At present, such indirect bounds are even stronger than

401: those from direct searches of the electron EDM. Once the constraint

402: from $\teg$ is taken into account, it turns out that both the FC and

403: FV-type seesaw contributions have to be sizeably smaller than what

404: would be allowed assuming perturbativity. The argument is based on

405: the fact that, barring cancelations, $|C^k_{ij}|< C^{{\rm ub}}_{ij}$

406: for each $k$. In Eq.~(\ref{LeI}), the strong bound from $\meg$ makes

407: the terms involving $C^k_{12}$ to be negligibly small. If large,

408: $I_e^{\FC}$ and $I_e^{\FV}$ are then proportional to the same

409: combination of Yukawas~\cite{Masina:2005am}:

410: \bea

411: I_e^{\FC}\approx \sum_{k >

412: k'}\frac{\ln^{k}_{k'}}{\ln^{\Pl}_{k'}}\,{\rm

413: Im}(C^k_{13}C^{k'*}_{13})~~~~,~~~ I_e^{\FV}\approx \sum_{k >

414: k'}\widetilde\ln^k_{k'} ~{\rm Im}(C^k_{13}C^{k'*}_{13})\,.

415: \eea

416: In the discussion of the next sections, it will turn out that the

417: only relevant contribution comes from $(k,k')=(3,2)$. Therefore, in

418: what follows, we will focus on $I_e^{(32)\FC} \ln^{\Pl}_{2} \approx

419: I_e^{(32)\FV}\approx \ln^3_{2} {\rm Im}(C^3_{13}C^{2*}_{13}) $.

420: Requiring ${\rm Im}(C^k_{13}C^{k'*}_{13})\le{C^{\rm ub}_{13}}^2$,

421: one thus obtains an indirect upper bound from $\teg$, to be denoted

422: by $I_e^\tau$. Considering in particular the point $P$, the indirect

423: upper bounds from $\teg$ are

424: %

425: \beq

426: I_e^{\tau \FC} \ln^{\Pl}_{2}=I_e^{\tau \FV} =  \ln^3_2

427: \left(\frac{50}{\tan\beta}\right)^2\,.

428: \eeq

429: %

430: As a comparison, allowing the relevant Yukawa couplings $Y_\nu$ to

431: be (at most) of ${\cal O}(1)$ and the logarithms involved to be large,

432: %again $(M_2,M_3)\simeq(10^{-5},10^{-2})\,M_{\Pl}$,

433: one would have ${\rm Im}(C^3_{13}C^{2*}_{13}) \lesssim 50$. This means that, for

434: $\tan\beta\gtrsim 5$, both $I_e^{\tau \FC}$ and $I_e^{\tau \FV}$ are

435: smaller than what allowed by perturbativity. Typically,  $10\,

436: I_e^{\tau \FC}\sim I_e^{\tau \FV}\sim 500$ for $\tan \beta= 5$,

437: while $10\, I_e^{\tau \FC} \sim I_e^{\tau \FV}\sim 5$ for $\tan

438: \beta= 50$. The indirect bounds from $\teg$ are thus stronger than

439: those from direct searches of $d_e$, shown in Eq.~(\ref{Iub}).

440: Taking $P$ and representative splittings between $M_3$ and $M_2$, we

441: display in Fig.~\ref{fig2} the ratio $d_e^\tau/d_e^{exp}= I_e^{\tau

442: \FC}/I_e^{{\rm ub},\FC}+I_e^{\tau \FV}/I_e^{{\rm ub},\FV}$ as a

443: function of $\tan\beta$. It turns out that the indirect upper bound

444: from $\teg$, $d_e^\tau$, is stronger than the present direct one,

445: $d_e^{\rm exp}$, by about two orders of magnitude\footnote{ As a

446: consequence, a potential discovery of the electron EDM within an

447: order of magnitude from the present sensitivity should not to be

448: interpreted as due to the seesaw-induced effects - this of course

449: holds for mSugra and point $P$.}. Planned experiments lowering the

450: bounds on $d_e$ by about three orders of magnitude will then provide

451: sensible tests of the seesaw-induced effects. Clearly they will test

452: the seesaw models that maximize $I_e^{\FV}$ (hence also

453: $I_e^{\FC}$), {\em i.e.} the models where: 1) $M_3\gtrsim 10~ M_2$;

454: 2) ${\rm Im}(C^3_{13}C^{2*}_{13}) \sim {C^{\rm ub}_{13}}^2$. The

455: latter of course also implies that $\teg$ is close to the

456: experimental bound.

457: 

458: 

459: \begin{figure}

460: \label{fig2}

461: \begin{center}

462: \begin{tabular}{c}

463: \includegraphics[width=9cm]{fig1.eps}

464: \end{tabular}

465: \end{center}

466: \vspace*{-0.5cm} \caption{Ratios $\min(I_e^{\tau\FC},\ln^3_2

467: 50/\ln^\Pl_2)/I_e^{\rm{ub}\FC}$ (dashed) and

468: $\min(I_e^{\tau\FV},\ln^3_2 50)/I_e^{\rm{ub}FV}$ (dash-dotted)

469: evaluated in $P$ as a function of $\tan\beta$. Their sum is

470: $d_e^\tau/d^{exp}_e$ (solid). We take $M_2=5\times 10^{14}$~GeV and

471: $M_3/M_2= 10^3,10^2,10$ from top to bottom, respectively.}

472: \end{figure}

473: 

474: 

475: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

476: \section{Thermal leptogenesis including flavours}

477: 

478: \noindent In this section we provide a short review of leptogenesis

479: which will be useful to establish the link between the high energy

480: CP-violation responsible for the generation of the baryon asymmetry

481: through thermal leptogenesis and the one responsible for the EDM of

482: the electron.

483: 

484: Thermal leptogenesis~\cite{lept,ogen,work} takes place through the

485: decay of the lightest of the heavy Majorana neutrinos if these are

486: present in the early Universe. The out-of-equilibrium decays occur

487: violating lepton number and CP, thus satisfying the Sakharov's

488: conditions~\cite{sakharov}. In grand unified theories (GUT) the

489: heavy Majorana neutrino masses are typically smaller than the scale

490: of unification of the electroweak and strong interactions, $M_{\rm

491: GUT} \simeq 2\times 10^{16}$~GeV, by a few to several orders of

492: magnitude. This range coincides with the range of values of the

493: heavy Majorana neutrino masses required for a successful thermal

494: leptogenesis.

495: 

496: We will account for the flavour effects which appear for $M_1\lappeq

497: 10^{12}$~GeV and have been recently investigated in  detail

498: in~\cite{Barbieri99,endoh,davidsonetal,nardietal,dibari,

499: davidsonetal2,antusch,silvia1,Branco:2006ce,aat,silvia2,adsar}

500: including the quantum oscillations/correlations of the asymmetries

501: in lepton flavour space~\cite{davidsonetal,adsar}. The Boltzmann

502: equations describing the asymmetries in flavour space have

503: additional terms which can significantly affect the result for the

504: final baryon asymmetry. The ultimate reason is that realistic

505: leptogenesis is a dynamical process, involving  the  production and

506: destruction of the heavy RH neutrinos, and of a lepton asymmetry

507: that is distributed among {\it distinguishable} lepton flavours.

508: Contrarily to what is generically assumed in the one-single flavour

509: approximation, the $\Delta L=1$ inverse decay processes which

510: wash-out the net lepton number are flavour dependent, that is the

511: lepton asymmetry carried by, say, electrons can be washed out only

512: by the inverse decays involving the electron flavour. The

513: asymmetries in each lepton flavour, are therefore washed out

514: differently, and will appear with different weights in the final

515: formula for the baryon asymmetry. This is physically inequivalent to

516: the treatment of wash-out in the one-flavour approximation, where

517: the flavours are taken indistinguishable, thus obtaining  the

518: unphysical result that, {\em e.g.}, an asymmetry stored in the

519: electron lepton charge may be washed out by inverse decays involving

520: the muon or the tau charges.

521: 

522: When flavour effects are accounted for, the final value of the

523: baryon asymmetry is the sum of three contributions. Each term is

524: given by the CP asymmetry in a given lepton flavour $\ell$, properly

525: weighted by a wash-out factor induced by the same  lepton number

526: violating processes. The wash-out factors are also flavour

527: dependent.

528: 

529: Of course, since we are dealing with the MSSM, we have  to consider

530: the presence of the supersymmetric partners of the RH heavy

531: neutrinos, the sneutrinos $\widetilde{N}_i$ ($i=1,2,3)$, which  also

532: give a contribution to the flavour asymmetries, and of the

533: supersymmetric partners of the lepton doublets, the slepton

534: doublets. Since the effects of supersymmetry breaking may be safely

535: neglected, the  flavour CP asymmetries in the MSSM are twice those

536: in the SM and double is also the possible channels by which a lepton

537: flavour asymmetry is reproduced. However, the $\Delta L=1$

538: scatterings washing out the asymmetries are also doubled and the

539: number of relativistic degrees of freedom is almost twice the  one

540: for  the SM case. As a result, introducing new degrees of freedom

541: and interactions does not appreciably change the flavour

542: asymmetries. There are  however  two other and important differences

543: with respect to the nonsupersymmetric thermal leptogenesis SM case.

544: First, in the MSSM, the flavour-independent formulae can only be

545: applied for temperatures larger than $(1+\tan^2

546: \beta)\times 10^{12}$ GeV. Indeed, the squared charged lepton Yukawa

547: couplings in the MSSM are multiplied by $(1+\tan^2 \beta)$.

548: Consequently, the $\mu$ and $\tau$ lepton Yukawa couplings are in

549: thermal equilibrium for

550:  $(1+\tan^2 \beta)\times 10^5 \: \mbox{GeV}

551: \ll T \ll (1+\tan^2 \beta)\times 10^{9} \: \mbox{GeV}$ and all

552: flavours in the Boltzmann equations are to be treated separately.

553: For $(1+\tan^2 \beta)\times 10^9 \: \mbox{GeV} \ll T \ll (1+\tan^2

554: \beta) \times 10^{12} \: \mbox{GeV}$, only the $\tau$ Yukawa

555: coupling is in equilibrium and only the $\tau$ flavour is treated

556: separately in the Boltzmann equations, while the $e$ and $\mu$

557: flavours are indistinguishable. Secondly, the relation between the

558: baryon asymmetry $Y_B$ and the lepton flavour asymmetries has to be

559: modified to account for the presence of two Higgs fields. Between

560: $(1+\tan^2 \beta)\times 10^5$ and $(1+\tan^2 \beta)\times 10^{9}$

561: GeV, the relation is

562: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

563: \begin{equation}

564: Y_{B} \simeq  -\frac{10}{31 g_*} \left[ \epsilon_e \eta

565: \left(\frac{93}{110} \widetilde{m}_e\right) + \epsilon_\mu \eta

566: \left(\frac{19}{30} \widetilde{m}_\mu\right) + \epsilon_\tau \eta

567: \left(\frac{19}{30} \widetilde{m}_\tau \right) \right], \label{a}

568: \end{equation}

569: where the flavour lepton asymmetries are computed including

570: leptons and sleptons.

571: Between

572: $(1+\tan^2 \beta)\times 10^9$ and $(1+\tan^2 \beta)\times 10^{12}$ GeV,

573: the relation is

574: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

575: \begin{equation}

576: Y_{B} \simeq  -\frac{10}{31 g_*} \left[\epsilon_2 \eta

577: \left(\frac{541}{761}\widetilde{m}_2\right) + \epsilon_\tau \eta

578: \left(\frac{494}{761}\widetilde{m}_\tau\right) \right]\,, \label{aa}

579: \end{equation}

580: where the number of relativistic degrees of freedom is counted by

581: $g_*=228.75$. The observed value is $Y_B=(8.7\pm

582: 0.3)\times10^{-11}$~\cite{wmap}. Let us explain the various terms

583: entering in Eqs.~(\ref{a}) and (\ref{aa}). The CP-asymmetry in each

584: flavour is given

585: by~\cite{Barbieri99,nardietal,davidsonetal,davidsonetal2}

586: %

587: \begin{equation}

588: \epsilon_{\ell} = -\frac{3 M_1}{8\pi v_u^2}\, \frac{{\rm Im}\left(

589: \sum_{\beta\rho} m_\beta^{1/2}m_\rho^{3/2} U^*_{\ell \beta}U_{\ell

590: \rho} R_{1\beta}R_{1\rho}\right)}{\sum_\beta

591: m_\beta\left|R_{1\beta}\right|^2}\,,~~ \ell=e,\mu,\tau\,,

592: \label{epsa1}

593: \end{equation}

594: %

595: where the (in general complex) orthogonal matrix $R$~\cite{Casas:2001sr}

596: is defined as

597: %

598: \beq

599: \label{CIb}%

600: Y_\nu  =\frac{\sqrt{\hat M}}{v_u} R\,\sqrt{\hat m} \,U^\dagger\,.

601: \eeq

602: %

603: \\

604: Similarly, one defines a ``wash-out mass parameter'' for each

605: flavour

606: $\ell$~\cite{Barbieri99,nardietal,davidsonetal,davidsonetal2}:

607: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

608: \begin{equation}

609: \left( \frac{\widetilde{m}_\ell}{2\,\sin^2\beta\times 10^{-3}\,{\rm

610: eV}}\right) \equiv \frac{\Gamma(N_1\rightarrow H\,

611: \ell)}{H(M_1)}\;\;,\;\; \widetilde{m}_\ell \equiv \frac{|Y_{\nu 1

612: \ell}|^2\,v_u^2}{M_{1}}= \left|\sum_{k}R_{1k}m_k^{1/2}U_{\ell

613: k}^*\right|^2 \,. \label{tildmal1}

614: \end{equation}

615: %

616: \\

617: The quantity $\widetilde{m}_\ell$ parametrizes the decay rate of

618: $N_1$ to the leptons of flavour $\ell$. Furthermore, in

619: Eq.~(\ref{aa}), $\epsilon_2 =\epsilon_{e}+\epsilon_{\mu}$ and

620: $\widetilde{m}_2=\widetilde{m}_e+ \widetilde{m}_\mu$. Finally,

621: %

622: \begin{equation}

623: \eta\left(\widetilde{m}_\ell\right)\simeq \left[

624: \left(\frac{\widetilde{m}_\ell}{8.25\times 10^{-3}\,{\rm

625: eV}}\right)^{-1}+ \left(\frac{0.2\times 10^{-3}\,{\rm

626: eV}}{\widetilde{m}_\ell} \right)^{-1.16}\ \right]^{-1}\,

627: \label{eta1}

628: \end{equation}

629: %

630: parametrizes the wash-out suppression of the asymmetry due to

631: $\Delta L=1$ inverse decays and scatterings. Notice that the

632: wash-out masses $\widetilde{m}_2$ and $\widetilde{m}_\tau$ in

633: Eq.~(\ref{a}) are multiplied by some numerical coefficients which

634: account for the dynamics involving the lepton doublet asymmetries

635: and the asymmetries stored in the charges

636: $\Delta_\ell=(1/3)B-L_\ell$~\cite{davidsonetal2}.

637: 

638: 

639: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

640: 

641: \section{Maximizing $\bm{d_e}$ with the constraint from $\bm{\meg}$

642: and impact on thermal leptogenesis}

643: 

644: 

645: In this section our goal is to identify those patterns within the

646: seesaw models which predict $d_e$ at hand of future experiments,

647: while keeping the prediction for LFV decays, in particular $\meg$,

648: below the present bound. In this respect, the analysis we perform is

649: model-independent. From the discussion of the previous section, it

650: is clear that to have $d_e$ at hand of future experiments, the

651: quantities $I_e$ defined in Eq.~(\ref{IeFCIeFV}) have to be

652: maximized. Our aim is also to understand whether these models can

653: explain the observed baryon asymmetry of the universe via $N_1$

654: decays. Our work differs from that of Ref.~\cite{Ellis:2002xg} in

655: two respects. First, our analysis includes also the FV contribution

656: to the electron EDM, which is dominant for large values of

657: $\tan\beta$ and, secondly, we include flavour effects in computing

658: the baryon asymmetry from leptogenesis.

659: 

660: We choose to work with not too heavy RH neutrino $N_1$, say $M_1$ in

661: the range $(10^{10}-10^{11})$ GeV. This choice has the advantage

662: that, barring accidental cancelations, the couplings of $N_1$ are

663: rather small, $Y_{\nu1j} \lesssim x = {\cal O}(10^{-2})$. This has

664: important consequences: i) $C^1_{21}$ does not exceed the $\meg$

665: bound; ii) the eventual contributions to $d_e$ from

666: $I_e^{(31),(21)}$ (both FV and FC) are much smaller than the limit

667: inferred from experiment and can be neglected in first

668: approximation. The only potential source of a large $d_e$ is

669: therefore

670: %

671: \beq

672: \label{FVFCap}%

673: I_e^{(32)\FC} \ln^{\Pl}_2 \approx I_e^{(32)\FV} \approx I_4

674: \ln^{\Pl}_3\ln^{\Pl}_2\ln^3_2~~~,~~~~I_4={\rm Im}( Y_{\nu31}^*

675: Y_{\nu33}^{} Y_{\nu21}^{} Y_{\nu23}^* )\,, \label{4Y}

676: \eeq

677: which is maximized requiring that:\\ %

678: \noindent 1) the splitting between $M_3$ and $M_2$ is large; \\

679: \noindent 2) the four Yukawas appearing in Eq.~(\ref{4Y}) are of

680: ${\cal O}(1)$, but satisfy the bound from $\teg$.

681: %

682: 

683: Barring conspiracies between $C^2_{21}$ and $C^3_{21}$, to suppress

684: $\meg$ below the present bound one must require both to be smaller

685: than $C_{21}^{\rm{ub}}$. Since $C^k_{21} \propto Y_{\nu k2}^* Y_{\nu

686: k1}^{}$, in order to keep $I_e^{(32)}$ large, one has to impose

687: $|Y_{\nu32}|, |Y_{\nu33}| \lesssim y \approx

688: C_{21}^{\rm{ub}}/5$. Explicitly, we are looking for textures of the

689: form

690: %

691: \beq

692: Y_\nu = \left( \matrix{%

693: \lesssim x & \lesssim x & \lesssim x \cr %

694: {\cal O}(1)&\lesssim y & {\cal O}(1)\cr %

695: {\cal O}(1) &\lesssim y  & {\cal O}(1)} \right)\,,

696: \label{Ynu}%

697: \eeq

698: where, as already mentioned, $x ={\cal O}(10^{-2})$ ensures that

699: $C_{21}^1$ satisfies the upper bound on $\meg$. Notice also that

700: this pattern enhances $\teg$ while suppressing $\tmg$.

701: %

702: 

703: It is convenient to exploit the complex orthogonal matrix

704: $R$~\cite{Casas:2001sr} introduced in Eq. (\ref{CIb}) and adopt a

705: standard parameterization for the MNS mixing matrix

706: %

707: \beq

708: U =O_{23}(\theta_{23})\,\Gamma_\delta \,O_{13}(\theta_{13})

709: \,\Gamma^*_\delta \,O_{12}(\theta_{12}) \times

710: \textrm{diag}(e^{i\alpha_1/2}, e^{i\alpha_2/2}, 1)\,, \label{parU}

711: \eeq

712: %

713: where $\Gamma_\delta=$ diag$(1,1,e^{i\delta})$,

714: $O_{ij}=[(c_{ij},s_{ij})(-s_{ij},c_{ij})]$ with $c_{ij}=\cos

715: \theta_{ij}$ and $s_{ij}=\sin \theta_{ij}$. The Dirac and Majorana

716: type phases were denoted by $\delta$ and $\alpha_{1,2}$,

717: respectively. We adopt for $R$ a parameterization in terms of three

718: complex angles $\theta^R_{ij}$:

719: \beq

720: R=O_{12}(\theta^R_{12})

721: \,O_{13}(\theta^R_{13})\,O_{23}(\theta^R_{23})

722: =\left( \matrix{%

723: c^R_{12} c^R_{13} &  s^R_{12} c^R_{23}-c^R_{12} s^R_{23} s^R_{13} &

724: s^R_{12} s^R_{23}+c^R_{12} c^R_{23} s^R_{13} \cr %

725: %

726: -s^R_{12}c^R_{13} &  c^R_{12} c^R_{23}+s^R_{12} s^R_{23} s^R_{13}&

727: c^R_{12} s^R_{23}-s^R_{12} c^R_{23} s^R_{13} \cr

728: %

729: - s^R_{13}        & -s^R_{23} c^R_{13}&c^R_{23}c^R_{13} } \right)\,.

730: \eeq

731: 

732: As already discussed, the $\meg$ constraint is implemented by

733: requiring $|Y_{\nu32}|, |Y_{\nu22}| \lesssim y$. In the  approximation

734: $y=0$ (which turns out to be very satisfactory),

735: this means that $R$ must satisfy respectively the conditions

736: %

737: \beq

738:  R_{i3} \sqrt{m_3} U^*_{23} +   R_{i2} \sqrt{m_2} U^*_{22}+

739:  R_{i1} \sqrt{m_1} U^*_{21} =0~~~~~~,~~~~ i=3,2~~.

740: \label{la1}

741: \eeq

742: %

743: Simultaneously we want to enhance

744: \beq

745: \label{I42}%

746: I_4= \frac{M_3 M_2}{v_u^4}{\rm Im}\left[(R \sqrt{\hat

747: m}\, U^\dagger)^*_{31}(R \sqrt{\hat m}\, U^\dagger)_{33}(R

748: \sqrt{\hat m} \,U^\dagger)_{21}(R \sqrt{\hat m}

749: \,U^\dagger)^*_{23}\right].

750: \eeq

751: A potentially interesting contribution to the electron EDM requires

752: $M_3$ and $M_2$ to be as large as possible and, as already stressed,

753: enough splitted to ensure a large $\ln^3_2$. This also explains why

754: we cannot rely here on resonant leptogenesis~\cite{resonant}. One

755: could have, for instance, $M_1 \simeq M_2 \ll M_3$. But since $M_1$

756: has to be small (for $\meg$), this would imply small $M_2$ and

757: consequently a suppressed $I_4$. Instead, the pattern $M_1 \ll

758: M_2\simeq M_3$ implies $\ln^3_2 \ll 1$. Moreover, any baryon

759: asymmetry resulting from the resonant decays of $N_2$ and $N_3$ can

760: be washed out by $N_1$ (see however~\cite{vives} and

761: especially~\cite{Engelhard:2006yg}). Finally, the situation $M_1

762: \simeq M_2 \simeq M_3$ would lead to a very suppressed

763: $d_e$~\cite{Ellis:2001xt, RomStru}.

764: 

765: As we are going to discuss in the next section, the structure of

766: $Y_\nu$ in Eq.~(\ref{Ynu}) determines, to some extent, the form of

767: $R$. From a qualitative point of view, one can already put forward

768: some guesses. The requirement of a large atmospheric angle implies

769: that for some $N_j$ it should be $Y_{\nu j2}\approx Y_{\nu j3}$, but

770: from Eq.~(\ref{Ynu}), this can happen only for $j=1$. In the case of

771: hierarchical light neutrinos, this implies dominance of $m_3$ by

772: $M_1$, while $M_3$ and $M_2$ will be mainly associated to the

773: lighter masses. Since we aim at $M_2<<M_3$, this means that $M_2$

774: and $M_3$ will dominate respectively $m_2$ and $m_1$.  According to

775: the interpretation of $R$ as a dominance

776: matrix~\cite{Lavignac:2002gf}, these considerations in particular

777: determine the first row of $R$, which is relevant for leptogenesis,

778: to be approximately $(0, \sqrt{m_2/m_3}, 1-{\cal O}(m_2/m_3))$.

779: 

780: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

781: 

782: In the following we treat separately the

783: cases of normal and inverted hierarchy for light neutrinos.

784: 

785: \subsection{Normal hierarchy for light neutrinos}

786: 

787: For normal hierarchy (NH) we take $m_3\approx m_@=\sqrt{m_3^2-m_2^2}$, $m_2\approx

788: m_\odot=\sqrt{m_2^2-m_1^2}$ and leave $m_1\ll m_2$ undetermined. It

789: is convenient to rewrite the conditions (\ref{la1}) assuming

790: $R_{i3}\neq 0$,

791: %

792: \beq

793: -\frac{R_{i2}}{R_{i3}}= \bar t + \frac{R_{i1}}{R_{i3}} \tilde t~\,,

794: \label{eqRHI}

795: \eeq

796: %

797: where the quantities $\bar t$ and $\widetilde t$ depend only on the neutrino

798: parameters at low energy,

799: %

800: \bea

801: \bar t  &=&\sqrt{\frac{m_3}{m_2}} ~\frac{U^*_{23}}{U^*_{22}}

802:         = \sqrt{\frac{m_3}{m_2}}\, \frac{e^{i\frac{\alpha_2}{2}}

803:         t_{23}}{c_{12}} ~\left[1+{\cal O}(s_{13})\right]\,,\nn \\\label{tt}\\

804: \widetilde t&=&\sqrt{\frac{m_1}{m_2}} ~\frac{U^*_{21}}{U^*_{22}}

805:         =- \sqrt{\frac{m_1}{m_2}} \,t_{12}\, e^{i \frac{\alpha_2-\alpha_1}

806:         {2}} ~\left[1+{\cal O}(s_{13})\right]\,\,,    \nn

807: \eea

808: %

809: with $t_{ij}=\tan\theta_{ij}$. In particular, for a light neutrino spectrum

810: with NH and taking into

811: account the present neutrino oscillation data, $|\bar t|\approx 3$

812: while $|\widetilde t|\ll 1$.

813: 

814: Using the above expressions and introducing the reference scale

815: $M_@=v_u^2/m_@\approx 5\times 10^{14}$~GeV for the right-handed

816: neutrino masses, the Yukawa couplings of the second and third rows

817: of $Y_\nu$ are given by

818: %

819: \begin{eqnarray}

820: Y_{\nu2i}&\!\!=\!\!&\sqrt{\frac{M_2}{M_@}} \left(\!R_{23}  {\mathbb

821: U_i^*}

822: +R_{21}  \sqrt{\frac{m_1}{m_3}} \mathbb{W}^*_i \right)\,,\nn\\

823: Y_{\nu3i}&\!\!=\!\!&\sqrt{\frac{M_3}{M_@}} \left(\!R_{33}  {\mathbb

824: U_i^*} +R_{31} \sqrt{\frac{m_1}{m_3}} \mathbb{W}^*_i \right)\,,

825: \label{eqYHI}

826: \end{eqnarray}

827: %

828: with

829: %

830: \beq

831: \mathbb{U}_i = U_{i3} -\frac{U_{23}}{U_{22}}

832: U_{i2}~~~,~~~~\mathbb{W}_i = U_{i1} - \frac{U_{21}}{U_{22}}\,

833: U_{i2}\,.

834: \eeq

835: Notice that $\mathbb{U}_2$ and $\mathbb{W}_2$ correctly vanish, as

836: required by the conditions $Y_{\nu 22},Y_{\nu 32}=0$. We also anticipate

837: that, for $m_1=0$, one has $I_4 \propto {\rm Im}(|{\mathbb U_1}|^2|{\mathbb U_3}|^2)=0$ which,

838: in the present framework, leads to a very suppressed $d_e$.

839: For the sake

840: of the following discussion, we report the approximate expressions

841: for $\mathbb{U}_{1,3}$ and $\mathbb{W}_{1,3}$ at first order in

842: $s_{13}$:

843: \bea

844: \mathbb{U}_1 &\!\!\!\!=\!\!\!\!& -t_{23} t_{12} (1+t_{23}t_{12}

845: s_{13} e^{i\delta}) +s_{13} e^{-i\delta} ~~~~,~~~~~

846: %

847: \mathbb{W}_1  =  e^{i\frac{\alpha_1}{2}} \frac{1}{c_{12}}

848: (1+ s_{13} e^{i\delta} t_{23} t_{12})\,,\nn\\

849: %

850: \mathbb{U}_3 &\!\!\!\!=\!\!\!\!&  \frac{1}{c_{23}} (1+ s_{13}

851: e^{i\delta} t_{23}t_{12}) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~,~~~~~~~~~~~

852: %

853: \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\mathbb{W}_3 =   - s_{13}

854: e^{i(\delta+\frac{\alpha_1}{2})} \frac{1}{c_{23}c_{12}}~~.

855: \eea

856: As an example, for tri-bimaximal mixing one has:

857: $\mathbb{U}_3=\sqrt{2}$, $\mathbb{U}_1=-1/\sqrt{2}$,

858: $\mathbb{W}_3=0$ and $\mathbb{W}_1=\sqrt{3/2} \,e^{i\alpha_1/2}$.

859: 

860: From the above expressions, and taking into account the smallness of

861: $\mathbb{W}_3={\cal O}(U_{e3})$, it turns out that large $Y_{\nu23}$

862: requires $R_{23}={\cal O}(1)$ and $M_2 ={\cal O}( M_@)$. Then, the

863: condition of large splitting between $M_2$ and $M_3$ implies

864: $M_3>>M_@$ while large $Y_{\nu 33}$ requires $R_{33}={\cal O}(

865: \sqrt{M_@/M_3}) < 1$. Explicitly, $R_{33}=c^R_{23} c^R_{13}$ but,

866: since the condition for $i=3$ in Eq.~(\ref{eqRHI}), $t^R_{23}= \bar

867: t - {t^R_{13}}\, \widetilde t/ {c^R_{23}}$, naturally suggests

868: $c^R_{23}$ to be large\footnote{Clearly, $c^R_{23}$ is small only

869: when $\theta_{23}\approx \pi/2$, but in this case the condition for

870: $i=3$ in Eq.~(\ref{eqRHI}) forces $c^R_{13}$ to be still small,

871: $c^R_{13}\approx -\widetilde t$.}, the parameter to be suppressed is

872: rather $c^R_{13}$. We then define $c^R_{13} =\chi  <1$ and expand at

873: first order in $\chi$. In particular, from Eq.(\ref{eqYHI}), we have

874: $c^R_{23}\chi \approx \sqrt{M_@/M_3} Y_{\nu33}/\mathbb{U}_3^*$. The

875: conditions in Eq.~(\ref{eqRHI}) get now simplified:

876: \beq

877: \frac{c^R_{12} c^R_{23} + s^R_{12} s^R_{23}}{-c^R_{12} s^R_{23}

878:  + s^R_{12} c^R_{23}}+{\cal O}\left(\chi\widetilde t\,\right)

879: = \bar t = t^R_{23} +   \frac{1}{\chi \,c^R_{23}} \widetilde t\,.

880: \label{simplyHI}

881: \eeq

882: One can then envisage two relevant cases according to the value of

883: $\theta^R_{12}\,$:

884: 

885: \vskip .5cm

886: \begin{itemize}

887: 

888: \item If $s^R_{12}=\epsilon <1$, Eq.~(\ref{simplyHI}) gives

889: $t^R_{23}\approx -1/\bar t +\epsilon$ and $\widetilde t \approx

890: (\bar t+1/\bar t)\, \chi c^R_{23}$. The latter can be rewritten as

891: %

892: \beq %

893: \sqrt{\frac{m_1}{m_3}} \sqrt{\frac{M_3}{M_@}} \approx

894: \frac{s_{23}}{s_{12}} |Y_{\nu33}| ={\cal O}(1)\,.

895: \eeq

896: Here, $m_1$ cannot be arbitrarily small, otherwise $M_3$ would

897: exceed the GUT or Planck scale. At first order in $\epsilon$ one has

898: $s^R_{23}\approx-\bar c+\epsilon \bar s$, $c^R_{23}\approx\bar

899: s+\epsilon \bar c$, so that

900: %

901: \beq

902: R = \left( \matrix{ \chi & \bar c  & \bar s \cr

903:      0  &  \bar s & -\bar c \cr

904:      -1 & \chi \bar c & \chi \bar s } \right) +{\cal O}(\epsilon^2, \epsilon \chi,\chi^2)\,.

905: \eeq

906: %

907: As expected, since $\bar c\approx 1/\bar t<1$ and $\bar s\approx

908: 1-1/(2 \,\bar t^2)$, this structure means that $m_3\approx m_@$ is

909: dominated by the lightest right-handed neutrino $N_1$, while

910: $m_2\approx m_\odot$ by $N_2$. Instead, $m_1$ is dominated by the

911: heaviest, $N_3$, which decouples the more $\chi$ is small. Notice

912: that such a precise determination of the first row of $R$ allows to

913: predict leptogenesis, as we are going to discuss. The Yukawa

914: couplings relevant for $d_e$ are

915: %

916: \beq

917: Y_{\nu3i}=\sqrt{\frac{M_3}{M_@}} \left(\bar s \chi \mathbb{U}^*_i -

918: \sqrt{\frac{m_1}{m_3}}  \mathbb{W}^*_i \right)~,~Y_{\nu2i}=

919: \sqrt{\frac{M_2}{M_@}} \left(-\bar c\, \mathbb{U}^*_i + {\cal

920: O}(\chi) \sqrt{\frac{m_1}{m_3}} \,\mathbb{W}^*_i \right)\,,

921: \eeq

922: %

923: so that

924: %

925: \bea

926: I_4 &=&  \frac{M_2}{M_@} \frac{M_3}{M_@} |\bar c\,|^2

927: \sqrt{\frac{m_1}{m_3}} \, {\rm Im}\!\left( -\bar s \chi \mathbb{W}_1

928: \mathbb{U}_1^* |\mathbb{U}_3|^2+\bar s \chi\mathbb{W}_3

929: \mathbb{U}_3^* |\mathbb{U}_1|^2+ \sqrt{\frac{m_1}{m_3}}

930: \mathbb{W}_3^* \mathbb{W}_1 \mathbb{U}_1^* \mathbb{U}_3 \right)\nn\\

931: &=&|Y_{\nu33} Y_{\nu 31} Y_{\nu21} Y_{\nu23}| \left[  -

932: \frac{m_2}{m_3} \frac{1}{t^2_{23}} \sin\alpha_2 + {\cal

933: O}(s_{13}\sin\delta) \right]\,.

934: \eea

935: %

936: The first term is the only one present in the limit $|U_{e3}|=0$ and

937: displays a suppression by a factor $m_\odot/m_@\simeq 0.17$. For

938: large values of $|U_{e3}|$ and $\delta \sim \pm \pi/2$ (large

939: Dirac-type CP violation at low-energies), the second and third terms

940: can be dominant.

941: 

942: \item If $c^R_{12}=\epsilon <1$, Eq.~(\ref{simplyHI}) gives

943: $t^R_{23} \approx \bar t\,(1-\epsilon \,\bar t\,)$ and $\widetilde t

944: \approx  \epsilon \,\bar t \,(\bar t+1/\bar t\,) \chi c^R_{23}$. The

945: latter can be rewritten as

946: %

947: \beq

948: \sqrt{\frac{m_1}{m_3}}   \sqrt{\frac{M_3}{M_@}} \approx |\epsilon\,

949: \bar t\,| ~\frac{s_{23}}{s_{12}}  |Y_{\nu33}| ={\cal O}(\epsilon)\,.

950: \eeq

951: %

952: In this case $m_1$ is allowed to be small and the limit

953: $m_1\rightarrow 0$ can be applied. At first order in $\epsilon$ one

954: has $s^R_{23}\approx\bar s-\epsilon \bar c$, $c^R_{23}\approx\bar

955: c+\epsilon \bar s$, leading to

956: %

957: \beq

958: R= \left( \matrix{ 0 &   \bar c  &   \bar s\cr -\chi &  \bar s &  -

959: \bar c \cr -1  & -\chi \bar s  & \chi \bar c } \right) +{\cal O}

960: (\epsilon^2,\epsilon\chi,\chi^2)\,.

961: \eeq

962: %

963: Again, dominance of $N_1$ and $N_2$ has been obtained respectively

964: for $m_@$ and $m_\odot$, while $m_1$ is associated to $N_3$, which

965: decouples the more $\chi$ is small. The Yukawa couplings are now

966: %

967: \beq

968: Y_{\nu3i}=\sqrt{\frac{M_3}{M_@}} \left(\bar c \chi \mathbb{U}^*_i -

969: \sqrt{\frac{m_1}{m_3}}  \mathbb{W}^*_i \right)~~,~~ Y_{\nu2i}=

970: \sqrt{\frac{M_2}{M_@}} \left(-\bar c\, \mathbb{U}^*_i+{\cal O}

971: (\chi) \sqrt{\frac{m_1}{m_3}}  \mathbb{W}^*_i \right)\,,

972: \eeq

973: %

974: and, consequently,

975: %

976: \bea

977: I_4 &=& \frac{M_2}{M_@} \frac{M_3}{M_@} |\bar c|^2

978: \sqrt{\frac{m_1}{m_3}}\, {\rm Im}\left( -\bar c \chi \mathbb{W}_1

979: \mathbb{U}_1^* |\mathbb{U}_3|^2+\bar c \chi\mathbb{W}_3

980: \mathbb{U}_3^* |\mathbb{U}_1|^2+ \sqrt{\frac{m_1}{m_3}}

981: \mathbb{W}_3^* \mathbb{W}_1 \mathbb{U}_1^* \mathbb{U}_3 \right)\nn\\

982: &=& \epsilon\, |Y_{\nu33} Y_{\nu 31} Y_{\nu21} Y_{\nu23}| \left[

983: -\frac{t_{23}}{c_{12}^3} \sin\frac{\alpha_2}{2} + {\cal

984: O}(s_{13}\sin\delta) \right]\,,

985: \eea

986: %

987: which is suppressed the more $\epsilon$ is small. Indeed, as already

988: mentioned, $I_4$ vanishes in the limit $m_1=0$ (namely

989: $\epsilon=0$), as a consequence of the alignment between the second

990: and third rows of $Y_\nu$, which ensures a vanishing eigenvalue.

991: The remaining contributions from $I^{(31),(32)}_e$ do not vanish

992: but, as stressed before, are negligible even considering future

993: sensitivities.

994: 

995: \end{itemize}

996: 

997: Summarising, it turns out that a large $d_e$ is obtained only under

998: the conditions of the first case, namely if $M_2\sim M_@$ and the

999: relation $m_1/m_@ \sim M_@/M_3 $ holds. The contribution induced by

1000: $\delta$ could even exceed the one associated to $\alpha_2$; the

1001: phase $\alpha_1$ plays no role. Notice in particular that values of

1002: $m_1 \lesssim 0.5\times 10^{-3} m_3$ are incompatible with an

1003: experimentally relevant $d_e$.

1004: 

1005: We remark that in all the expressions above, the Yukawa couplings,

1006: the elements of the matrix $U$ and the light neutrino mass

1007: eigenstates are consistently evaluated at $M_{\Pl}$. For instance,

1008: in the case of NH, the effect of running is such that $\hat m$ is

1009: rescaled by a numerical factor, while the parameters of $U$ do not

1010: change significantly. We illustrate this point by considering a

1011: numerical example for the first case discussed previously. If we

1012: take the low energy neutrino spectrum consistent with the

1013: present-day neutrino oscillation data, $\hat m=(0.96\times

1014: 10^{-2},0.17,1)m_@$, then, for $\tan\beta=30$, $(M_3,M_2)= (10^2,

1015: 2)M_@$, $M_1=3\times10^{11}$ GeV, $\alpha_2=\pi/2$, $\delta=\pi/2$

1016: and any $\alpha_1$, at the Planckian scale we obtain\footnote{In

1017: practice we do the opposite, namely we assign $U$ and rescale $\hat

1018: m$  by a numerical factor at high energy and check that, when

1019: evolved at low energy, the parameters of $U$ and the neutrino

1020: spectrum are still within the experimental window.} $\hat m=1.8

1021: (10^{-2},0.166,1)m_@$. Correspondingly, the mixing angles change

1022: from $\theta_{23}=47^\circ$, $\theta_{12}=35.2^\circ$,

1023: $\theta_{13}=9.7^\circ$ to $\theta_{23}=45^\circ,\theta_{12}=35^

1024: \circ,\theta_{13}=10^\circ$. With these choices one obtains:

1025: $I_e^{\FV}=10.2$, $I_e^{\FC}=1.35$, $C_{31}=1.5$, $C_{32}/8=

1026: C_{21}=10^{-3}$. These values are slightly changed taking different

1027: values of $\tan\beta$, which enters only through the running

1028: effects. This means that, in the point $P$ and for any $\tan\beta$,

1029: the present example gives $d_e^{\FC}=1.3\times 10^{-3} d_e^{exp}$,

1030: which may escape detection. Since $d_e^{FV}$ and LFV decays

1031: explicitly depend on $\tan\beta$, we need to specify it. Taking for

1032: instance $\tan\beta=30$, one has $d_e^{\FV}=0.022 \,d_e^{exp}$,

1033: which is at hand of future experiments. With $\tan\beta=30$, the BRs

1034: of $\teg$, $\tmg$ and $\meg$ turn out to be smaller than their

1035: corresponding experimental limits by factors of $0.8$, $4\times

1036: 10^{-5}$ and $0.02$, respectively.

1037: 

1038: The left-hand side of Fig.~\ref{figNH} shows the dependence of

1039: $I_e^{\FV}$ and $Y_B$ on $\alpha_2$ for a given set of values for

1040: $\delta$, keeping for the remaining parameters of $U$ and light and

1041: heavy neutrino masses the same set as before - in particular we

1042: recall that $M_1=3\times 10^{11}$~GeV and $\tan\beta=30$, but the

1043: dependence of $Y_\nu(M_{\Pl})$ on $\tan\beta$ is mild. On the

1044: right-hand side of the same figure, we show the behaviour of

1045: $I_e^{\FV}$ and $Y_B$ in the $(\alpha_2,\delta)$-plane. Hence,

1046: $I_e^{\FV}$ displayed in Fig.~\ref{figNH} slightly changes

1047: considering other values of $\tan\beta$. The same applies separately

1048: for each asymmetry $\epsilon_\ell$, but not to $Y_B$, for which two

1049: different regimes can be identified according to the value of

1050: $\tan\beta$. Indeed, having $M_1=3\times 10^{11}$~GeV, in the case

1051: that $\tan\beta> 10$ the baryon asymmetry is generated in the range

1052: of temperatures for which all the lepton flavours, but the electron

1053: one, are in thermal equilibrium and Eq.~(\ref{a}) applies, see

1054: Fig.~\ref{figNH}; in the case that $\tan\beta<10$ thermal

1055: leptogenesis takes place in a range of temperatures where only the

1056: tau flavour is in thermal equilibrium and, in this case, one has to

1057: apply Eq.~(\ref{aa}), see Fig.~\ref{figNH1}. From the comparison of

1058: the upper and lower plots of Fig.~\ref{figNH} one can see that there

1059: are regions in the $(\alpha_2,\delta)$ parameter space where the

1060: seesaw-induced effects can lead to values of $d_e$ within future

1061: experimental sensitivities and $Y_B$ is compatible with its observed

1062: value. For $\tan\beta<10$ the baryon asymmetry is on the contrary

1063: below its observed value (the horizontal grey line) and one would

1064: need slightly larger values of the mass $M_1$ to obtain a value of

1065: the baryon asymmetry consistent with observation. This seems to be a

1066: generic conclusion. Also notice that, in this temperature regime,

1067: $Y_B$ does not depend strongly on $\delta$.

1068: 

1069: \begin{figure}

1070: \begin{center}

1071: \begin{tabular}{cc}

1072: \includegraphics[width=7.1cm]{IFVHI.eps}

1073: &\includegraphics[width=7.1cm]{IFVHIcontour.eps}\\

1074: \includegraphics[width=7.1cm]{YBHI.eps}

1075: &\includegraphics[width=7.1cm]{YBHIcontour.eps}

1076: \end{tabular}

1077: \end{center}

1078: \vspace*{-0.5cm} \caption{Dependence of $I_e^{\FV}$ (left

1079: upper-plot) and $Y_B$ (left lower-plot) on $\alpha_2$ for a given

1080: set of values for $\delta$ and $\tan\beta>10$ ($\mu$ and $\tau$ in

1081: equilibrium): we take $\delta=0,\pi/2,\pi,3\pi/2$. On the right-hand

1082: side we show the behaviour of $I_e^{\FV}$ (upper plot) and  $Y_B$

1083: (lower-plot) in the $(\alpha_2,\delta)$-plane. For the choice of the

1084: remaining parameters, see the text.}\label{figNH}

1085: \end{figure}

1086: 

1087: \begin{figure}

1088: \begin{center}

1089: \begin{tabular}{cc}

1090: \includegraphics[width=7.1cm]{YBHI10.eps}

1091: &\includegraphics[width=7.1cm]{YBHI10contour.eps}

1092: \end{tabular}

1093: \end{center}

1094: \vspace*{-0.5cm} \caption{The same as in Fig.~\ref{figNH} for $Y_B$

1095: taking $\tan\beta<10$ (only $\tau$ in equilibrium).}\label{figNH1}

1096: \end{figure}

1097: 

1098: Fig.~\ref{figmlight} shows the dependence of $I_e^{FV}$ and $Y_B$ on

1099: $m_1/m_3$ (left and right panel respectively), keeping $m_1/m_3=M_@/M_3$ as in the previous example,

1100: as well as the same set for the remaining parameters.

1101: We also display (dashed line) the baryon asymmetry computed

1102: in the one-single flavour approximation.

1103: We see that there is almost one order of magnitude difference.

1104: 

1105: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1106: 

1107: 

1108: \subsection{Inverted hierarchy for light neutrinos}

1109: 

1110: For inverted hierarchy (IH), we take $m_{2,1}\approx  m_@$ and leave

1111: $m_3$ undetermined. It is convenient to redefine the matrix $R$

1112: according to: $R=O_{12}O_{13}O_{23}\times{\rm antidiag}(1,1,1)$.

1113: This simple exchange of the first and third columns of $R$ allows to

1114: carry on the discussion in a parallel way to what done before.

1115: Indeed, assuming also $R_{i1}\neq 0$, the conditions (\ref{la1})

1116: become

1117: %

1118: \beq

1119: -\frac{R_{i2}}{R_{i1}}= \widetilde t + \frac{R_{i3}}{R_{i1}} \,\bar

1120: t\,,%

1121: \label{eqRIH}

1122: \eeq

1123: %

1124: where $\widetilde t$ and $\bar t$ are defined as in Eq.~(\ref{tt}),

1125: but now we have $|\widetilde t|\approx 1/\sqrt{2}$ while $|\bar

1126: t|\ll 1$.

1127: 

1128: Using these expressions, the Yukawa couplings of the second and

1129: third rows are given by

1130: %

1131: \bea

1132: Y_{\nu2i}=\sqrt{\frac{M_2}{M_@}} \left(R_{21}{\mathbb W_i^*}  +

1133: R_{23}  \sqrt{\frac{m_3}{m_1}} \mathbb{U}^*_i \right)\,,\nn\\

1134: %

1135: Y_{\nu3i}=\sqrt{\frac{M_3}{M_@}} \left(R_{31}  {\mathbb W_i^*}  +

1136: R_{33} \sqrt{\frac{m_3}{m_1}} \mathbb{U}^*_i \right)\,,

1137: \eea

1138: %

1139: which, as before, correctly vanish for $i=2$. Large $Y_{\nu21}$

1140: requires $M_2 ={\cal O}(M_@)$, so that to maximize $d_e$ we require

1141: $M_3\gg M_@$. Instead, large $Y_{\nu 31}$ is obtained provided

1142: $R_{13} ={\cal O}(\sqrt{M_@/M_3}) < 1$. Explicitly, $R_{31}=c^R_{23}

1143: c^R_{13}$, but the condition for $i=3$ of Eq.~(\ref{eqRIH}),

1144: $t^R_{23}= \widetilde t - t^R_{13} \bar t/c^R_{23}$, suggests that

1145: $c^R_{23}$ is quite large. We rather suppress $c^R_{13} =\chi <1$

1146: and expand at first order in $\chi$. In particular, now

1147: $c^R_{23}\,\chi\approx\sqrt{M_@/M_3}Y_{\nu31}/\mathbb{W}_1^*$ and

1148: the conditions in (\ref{eqRIH}) get simplified:

1149: %

1150: \beq

1151: \frac{c^R_{12} c^R_{23} + s^R_{12} s^R_{23}}{-c^R_{12} s^R_{23} +

1152: s^R_{12} c^R_{23}}+{\cal O}(\chi\bar t) = \widetilde t = t^R_{23} +

1153: \frac{1}{\chi c^R_{23}} \bar t\,.

1154: \label{simplyIH}%

1155: \eeq

1156: %

1157: It is useful to distinguish between two relevant cases.

1158: 

1159: \begin{itemize}

1160: 

1161: \item If $s^R_{12}=\epsilon <1$, Eq.~(\ref{simplyIH}) gives $t^R_{23}

1162: =-1/\widetilde t +\epsilon$ and $\bar t \approx (\widetilde

1163: t+1/\widetilde t) \chi c^R_{23}$. The latter can be rewritten as

1164: %

1165: \beq

1166: \sqrt{\frac{m_3}{m_2}} \sqrt{\frac{M_3}{M_@}} ={\cal O}(1)\,. %Y_{\nu31}

1167: \eeq

1168: %

1169: Notice that in this case $m_3$ cannot be arbitrarily small, otherwise

1170: $M_3$ would exceed the GUT or Planck scale.

1171: %$s^R_{23}\approx-\tilde c$, $c^R_{23}\approx\tilde s$,

1172: In addition

1173: %

1174: \beq

1175: R = \left( \matrix{ \widetilde s  & \widetilde c  & \chi \cr

1176: -\widetilde c  &  \widetilde s &  0 \cr \widetilde s \chi & \chi

1177: \widetilde c & -1 } \right) +{\cal

1178: O}(\epsilon^2,\epsilon\chi,\chi^2)\,.

1179: \eeq

1180: %

1181: The large masses $m_2$ and $m_1$ are dominated by $N_1$ and $N_2$

1182: with competitive strenght\footnote{Assuming for instance

1183: $\alpha_1=\alpha_2$ and tri-bimaximal mixing one has $\widetilde c =

1184: \sqrt{2/3}$, $\widetilde s = \sqrt{1/3}$; while for

1185: $\alpha_2-\alpha_1=\pi$ one has $\widetilde c = \sqrt{2}$,

1186: $\widetilde s =-i$.}. In particular, the first row of $R$ determines

1187: leptogenesis, as we are going to discuss. The

1188: smallest mass $m_3$ is instead dominated by $N_3$, which decouples

1189: the more $\chi$ is small. The Yukawas are

1190: %

1191: \beq

1192: Y_{\nu3i}=    \sqrt{\frac{M_3}{M_@ }} \left(\widetilde s \chi

1193: \mathbb{W}^*_i - \sqrt{\frac{m_3}{m_1}}  \mathbb{U}^*_i \right)~~,~~

1194: Y_{\nu2i}=   \sqrt{\frac{M_2}{M_@}} \left(-\widetilde c

1195: \mathbb{W}^*_i +{\cal O}(\chi \epsilon) \sqrt{\frac{m_3}{m_1}}

1196: \mathbb{U}^*_i\right)\,,

1197: \eeq

1198: %

1199: so that

1200: %

1201: \beq

1202: I_4 =  \frac{M_2}{M_@} \frac{M_3}{M_@} |\widetilde c|^2

1203: \sqrt{\frac{m_3}{m_1}} \,\,{\rm Im}\!\left( -\widetilde s \chi

1204: \mathbb{U}_1 \mathbb{W}_1^* |\mathbb{W}_3|^2+\widetilde s

1205: \chi\mathbb{U}_3 \mathbb{W}_3^* |\mathbb{W}_1|^2 +

1206: \sqrt{\frac{m_3}{m_1}} \mathbb{U}_3^* \mathbb{U}_1 \mathbb{W}_1^*

1207: \mathbb{W}_3 \right)\,,\nn\\

1208: \label{i4}

1209: \eeq

1210: %

1211: which turns out to be proportional to $U_{e3}$.

1212: 

1213: \item  If $c^R_{12}=\epsilon <1$, one has $t^R_{23} = \widetilde t\,

1214: (1-\epsilon\widetilde t)$ and $\bar t \approx \epsilon  \,\widetilde

1215: t\,(\widetilde t+1/\widetilde t\,) \chi c^R_{23}$, which in turn

1216: implies

1217: %

1218: \beq

1219: \sqrt{\frac{m_3}{m_2}}  \sqrt{\frac{M_3}{M_@}} ={\cal O}( \epsilon)

1220: \eeq

1221: %

1222: In this case $m_3$ is allowed to be small and the limit

1223: $m_3\rightarrow 0$ can be applied. In addition

1224: %

1225: \beq

1226: R= \left( \matrix{ \widetilde s &   \widetilde c  &   0 \cr

1227: -\widetilde c &  \widetilde s &  - \chi \cr \widetilde c \chi  &

1228: -\chi \widetilde s  & -1 } \right) +{\cal

1229: O}(\epsilon^2,\epsilon\chi,\chi^2)\,.

1230: \eeq

1231: %

1232: The Yukawas are

1233: %

1234: \beq

1235: Y_{\nu3i}=    \sqrt{\frac{M_3}{M_@}} \left(\widetilde c \chi

1236: \mathbb{W}^*_i - \sqrt{\frac{m_3}{m_1}}  \mathbb{U}^*_i \right)~~,~~

1237: Y_{\nu2i}=    \sqrt{\frac{M_2}{M_@}} \left(-\widetilde c

1238: \mathbb{W}^*_i -{\cal O}(\chi)\sqrt{\frac{m_3}{m_1}} \mathbb{U}^*_i

1239: \right)\,,

1240: \eeq

1241: %

1242: so that

1243: %

1244: \beq

1245: I_4 =  \frac{M_2}{M_@} \frac{M_3}{M_@} |\widetilde c|^2

1246: \sqrt{\frac{m_3}{m_1}} {\rm Im}\left( -\widetilde c \chi

1247: \mathbb{U}_1 \mathbb{W}_1^* |\mathbb{W}_3|^2+\widetilde c

1248: \chi\mathbb{U}_3 \mathbb{W}_3^* |\mathbb{W}_1|^2

1249: + \sqrt{\frac{m_3}{m_1}} \mathbb{U}_3^* \mathbb{U}_1

1250: \mathbb{W}_1^* \mathbb{W}_3 \right)\,,\nn\\

1251: \eeq

1252: %

1253: which is again proportional to $U_{e3}$ and suppressed by a factor

1254: of $\epsilon$ with respect to (\ref{i4}). Hence, it vanishes in the

1255: limit $m_3=0$ due to the fact that the second and third rows of

1256: $Y_\nu$ are aligned. The contributions from $I^{(31),(32)}_e$ are

1257: negligible even for the future sensitivities.

1258: 

1259: \end{itemize}

1260: 

1261: Summarizing, in the inverted-hierarchical case $d_e$ can be at hand

1262: of future experiments only if $M_2\sim M_@$, $m_3/m_@ \sim M_@/M_3$

1263: and $|U_{e3}|$ is large. The dependence on $\alpha_2$ and $\delta$

1264: is quite complicated and also $\alpha_1$ plays a role.

1265: 

1266: With an IH light neutrino spectrum, the RGE effects might be

1267: important, in particular for the solar angle and mass squared

1268: difference. Nevertheless, the above conclusions remain valid. In

1269: practice, one has just to rescale $\hat m$ and $m_\odot$ at high

1270: energy by a numerical factor, and check whether the parameters of

1271: $U$, when evolved at low energy, fall within the experimental

1272: window. It is well known~\cite{RGEIH} that this is always the case

1273: if $|\alpha_2-\alpha_1|=\pi$, namely if the solar pair of

1274: eigenstates are of pseudo-Dirac type. Then, $I_e^{\FV}$ and all the

1275: $C_{ij}$ are mildly dependent on $\alpha_2$ and essentially depend

1276: only on $\delta$. This will turn out to be the case also for $Y_B$.

1277: 

1278: We illustrate this considering an example of the first case where

1279: the RGE effects turn out to be quite small. We consider

1280: $\tan\beta=30$ and take at $M_{\Pl}$: $\hat m=1.5

1281: (1,0.97,10^{-2})m_@$, $(M_3,M_2)= (8, 0.1)M_@$, $M_1=10^{11}$ GeV,

1282: $\theta_{23}=45^\circ,\theta_{12}=35^\circ,\theta_{13}=10^\circ$,

1283: $\delta=3\pi/2$, and any $\alpha_2=\alpha_1+\pi$. At low energy, the

1284: neutrino spectrum is viable, $\hat m=(1,0.98,10^{-2})m_@$, and the

1285: angles of the MNS are $\theta_{23}=44.4^\circ$,

1286: $\theta_{12}=35^\circ$, $\theta_{13}=10.4^\circ$. We obtain

1287: $I_e^{\FV}=-4.8$, $I_e^{\FC}=-0.45$, $C_{31}=1.4$, $C_{32}/4=

1288: C_{21}=3\times 10^{-3}$. Hence, for the point $P$,

1289: $d_e^{\FC}=-5\times 10^{-4} d_e^{exp}$. With $\tan\beta=30$, the FV

1290: contribution to $d_e$ is at hand of future experiments

1291: $d_e^{\FV}=0.01 d_e^{exp}$; as for the BR of $\teg$, $\tmg$, $\meg$,

1292: they are smaller than their corresponding experimental limits by

1293: factors of $0.7$, $4\times 10^{-7}$, $0.15$, respectively.

1294: 

1295: Fig.~\ref{figIH} shows the dependence of $I_e^{FV}$ and $Y_B$ on

1296: $\delta$, keeping for the remaining parameters the same set as

1297: before. The curves are absent for $\delta$ very small or close to

1298: $2\pi$, where $C_{31}>10$ because some of the Yukawas in $Y_\nu$

1299: blow up. Since both $Y_B$ and $I_e^{\FV}$ are directly proportional

1300: to $|U_{e3}|$, the plot can be adapted correspondingly to other

1301: values of $\theta_{13}$. For a sizeable $d_e$ and $Y_B$,

1302: $\theta_{13}$ cannot be smaller than a few degrees. The value chosen

1303: for $M_1$ is $10^{11}$ GeV which corresponds to the regime of

1304: temperatures where all lepton flavours, but the electron one, are in

1305: thermal equilibrium, since $\tan\beta=30$. In this case,

1306: Eq.~(\ref{a}) applies. We have checked that for smaller values of

1307: $\tan\beta$, where only the tau is in equilibrium, the final baryon

1308: asymmetry does not change significantly.

1309: 

1310: \begin{figure}

1311: \begin{tabular}{cc}

1312: \includegraphics[width=7.6cm]{IFVIH.eps}

1313: &\includegraphics[width=7.6cm]{YBIH.eps}

1314: \end{tabular}

1315: \caption{Dependence of $I_e^{\FV}$ and $Y_B$ on $\delta$ for

1316: $\alpha_2=\alpha_1+\pi$: we take $\alpha_2=0,\pi/2,\pi,3\pi/2$. The

1317: vertical light-grey regions are excluded by requiring perturbative

1318: $Y_\nu$. For the choice of the other parameters, see the text.}

1319: \label{figIH}

1320: \end{figure}

1321: 

1322: In Fig. \ref{figmlight} we show the dependence of $I_e^{\FV}$ and

1323: $Y_B$ on $m_3/m_2$ (left and right panels, respectively), while

1324: keeping $m_3/m_2 = 0.08\,M_@/M_3$ as in the previous example and

1325: assuming the same set for the remaining parameters (in particular we

1326: selected $\alpha_2=0$, $\alpha_1=\pi$). On the right-hand side we

1327: compare the baryon asymmetry computed with the flavour effects

1328: included to the baryon asymmetry computed in the one-single flavour

1329: approximation. We see that there is almost one order of magnitude

1330: difference, both in the normal and in the inverted hierarchical

1331: case. The main reason is that in the one-flavour case the total

1332: lepton asymmetry is strongly washed out since the wash-out parameter

1333: $\widetilde{m}=\widetilde{m}_e+\widetilde{m}_\mu

1334: +\widetilde{m}_\tau$ is larger than $m_@$, yielding a suppressed

1335: baryon asymmetry. On the contrary, in the flavour approximation, the

1336: asymmetries in the electron and muon flavours are only weakly washed

1337: out. Furthermore, in the inverted hierarchy case, the one-flavour

1338: approximation leads to a suppression in the CP asymmetry that goes

1339: like $m_\odot^2/m_@$, while including flavours the individual CP

1340: asymmetries go as $m_@$.

1341: 

1342: 

1343: \begin{figure}

1344: \begin{center}

1345: \includegraphics[width=15cm]{figm1m3.eps}

1346: \end{center}

1347: \vspace*{-0.5cm} \caption{Dependence of $I_e^{\FV}$ and $Y_B$ on

1348: $m_{\rm{l}}/m_{\rm{h}}$. For normal hierarchy

1349: $m_{\rm{l}}/m_{\rm{h}}=m_{\rm{1}}/m_{\rm{3}}$, while inverted

1350: hierarchy $m_{\rm{l}}/m_{\rm{h}}=m_{\rm{3}}/m_{\rm{2}}$. For the

1351: choice of the other parameters, see the text. The dashed lines are

1352: the result of the 1-flavour approximation.}\label{figmlight}

1353: \end{figure}

1354: 

1355: 

1356: \section{Conclusions}

1357: \label{conclusions}

1358: 

1359: The predictions for the electron EDM in the context of the

1360: supersymmetric seesaw and mSUGRA have been investigated. First, we

1361: showed the existence of an indirect upper bound on $d_e$ from

1362: negative searches for $\teg$, within the supersymmetric seesaw.

1363: This indirect bound may be even stronger than the present experimental direct upper limit.

1364: Planned searches for $d_e$, improving the sensitivity by about three

1365: orders of magnitude, will be able to supersede the indirect bound

1366: from $\teg$ and provide considerable tests of the seesaw-induced

1367: effects. %Requiring $M_1\lesssim {\cal O}(10^{11})$ GeV,

1368: We identified in a model-independent way the patterns of seesaw

1369: models that lead to a potentially observable electron EDM,

1370: considering in turn the case of normal and inverted light neutrino

1371: spectra. A widely splitted spectrum for right-handed neutrinos is a

1372: crucial ingredient, as well as the relation $m_{\rm l}/m_{\rm h}

1373: \sim M_@/M_{3}$, where $M_@ = v_u^2/m_@$. Indeed, in the limit of a

1374: vanishing lightest neutrino mass, the electron EDM drops much below

1375: the planned sensitivities.

1376: 

1377: The seesaw interactions may also be responsible for the generation

1378: of the baryon asymmetry of the Universe via the mechanism of

1379: leptogenesis. The patterns of seesaw models identified requiring an

1380: electron EDM within future experimental sensitivities allow to

1381: extract the value of $M_1$ required to generate a sufficiently large

1382: baryon asymmetry via thermal leptogenesis. The importance of taking

1383: into account flavour effects has been emphasized.  Our findings show

1384: that a large enough baryon asymmetry may be achieved through thermal

1385: leptogenesis for those patterns which give rise to a large electric

1386: EDM and suppressed $\teg$, $\tmg$, $\meg$ branching ratios. However,

1387: a sufficiently large baryon asymmetry is reached only for large

1388: values of $M_1$, at least larger than about $10^{11}$ GeV. Since we

1389: are dealing with a  supersymmetric leptogenesis set-up, we should

1390: face the problem arising from the so-called gravitino bound. The

1391: latter is posed by the possible overproduction of gravitinos during

1392: the reheating stage after inflation, see for instance~\cite{grav}.

1393: Being only gravitationally coupled to the SM particles, gravitinos

1394: may decay very late jeopardising the successfull predictions of Big

1395: Bang nucleosynthesis. This does not happen, however, if gravitinos

1396: are not efficiently generated during reheating, that is if the

1397: reheating temperature $T_{RH}$ is bounded from above,

1398: $T_{RH}\lesssim 10^{10}$~GeV~\cite{grav}. The severe bound on the

1399: reheating temperature makes the generation of the RH neutrinos

1400: problematic (for complete studies see~\cite{lept,aat}), if the

1401: latter are a few times heavier than the reheating temperature,

1402: rendering the thermal leptogenesis scenario unviable.

1403: 

1404: In view of the above, if a large $d_e$ is measured in the near

1405: future and assuming that its main contribution comes from

1406: CP-violating effects induced by the see-saw Yukawas, either the

1407: baryon asymmetry is not explained within the thermal leptogenesis

1408: scenario or leptogenesis occurs in a non-thermal way. This second

1409: alternative stems from the fact that the RH neutrinos might be

1410: generated not through thermal scatterings, but by other mechanisms,

1411: for example during  the preheating stage~\cite{preh}, from the

1412: inflaton decays~\cite{preh,asaka} or quantum fluctuations~\cite{gr}.

1413: In these cases, the baryon asymmetry depends crucially on the

1414: abundance of RH neutrinos and sneutrinos generated non-thermally.

1415: For instance, these heavy states may be produced very efficiently

1416: during the first oscillations of the inflaton field during

1417: preheating up to masses of order $(10^{17}-10^{18})$

1418: GeV~\cite{preh}; the final baryon asymmetry is generated of the

1419: right-order of magnitude if the flavour lepton asymmetries satisfy

1420: the mild condition $\epsilon_\ell \gtrsim 10^{-8}(10^{10}\,{\rm

1421: GeV}/ T_{RH})(M_1/10^{11}\,{\rm GeV})$, as one can readily deduce

1422: from Ref.~\cite{preh}.

1423: 

1424: 

1425: \section*{Acknowledgements} F.R.J. thanks A. Rossi for many enlightening

1426: discussions. A.R. thanks the CERN Theory Group where part of this work was done.

1427: The work of F.R.J. is supported by {\em

1428: Funda\c{c}\~{a}o para a Ci\^{e}ncia e a Tecnologia} (FCT, Portugal)

1429: under the grant \mbox{SFRH/BPD/14473/2003}, INFN and PRIN Fisica

1430: Astroparticellare (MIUR). We also acknowledge the EC RTN Network

1431: MRTN-CT-2004-503369.

1432: 

1433: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1434: \newpage

1435: 

1436: \appendix

1437: 

1438: \section{Constraints from LFV e EDM}

1439: 

1440: In Fig.~\ref{fig1} we display $C_{ij}^{\rm ub}$, $I_e^{\rm ubFC}$

1441: and $I_e^{\rm ubFV}$ from the present $90 \%$ C.L. limits~\cite{PDG2006},

1442: ${\rm BR}(\meg)< 1.2\times 10^{-11}\;,\; {\rm BR}(\tmg)<6.8\times

1443: 10^{-8} \;,\; {\rm BR}(\teg)< 1.1\times10^{-7}$.

1444: The upper bounds $I_e^{\rm ubFC}$ and $I_e^{\rm ubFV}$ are also

1445: shown taking $d_e < 1.6 \times 10^{-27}$ e cm.

1446: %

1447: We consider mSugra with $a_0=m_0+M_{1/2}$. For better sensitivities,

1448: the values of $C^{\rm ub}_{ij}$ have to be multiplied by a factor

1449: $\sqrt{{\rm BR}^{\rm fut}/{\rm BR}^{\rm pr}}$, while those of

1450: $I_e^{\rm FCub}$ and $I_e^{\rm FVub}$ by a factor $d_e^{\rm

1451: fut}/d_e^{\rm pr}$. We recall that $\tilde M_1 \simeq 0.4  M_{1/2}$

1452: and $\bar m_R^2 \simeq m_0^2 + 0.15 M_{1/2}^2$. The plots are

1453: adapted from those in~\cite{Masina:2005am}, where the reader can

1454: find more details and references to the literature.

1455: 

1456: \begin{figure}[h!]

1457: \begin{center}

1458: \includegraphics[width=12cm]{CIJIFV.eps}

1459: \end{center}

1460: %

1461: \vspace*{-0.5cm}%

1462: \caption{Contours of $C_{ij}^{\rm ub}$ (upper plots), from the

1463: present $90 \%$ C.L. limits~\cite{PDG2006}. The lower plots show the

1464: contours of $I_e^{\rm ubFC}$ and $I_e^{\rm ubFV}$ taking $d_e < 1.6

1465: \times 10^{-27}$ e cm.} \label{fig1}

1466: \end{figure}

1467: 

1468: 

1469: 

1470: \newpage

1471: 

1472: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%  Bibliography   %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1473: 

1474: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

1475: 

1476: \bibitem{seesaw}

1477: P.~Minkowski,

1478: %``Mu $\to$ E Gamma At A Rate Of One Out Of 1-Billion Muon Decays?,''

1479: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 67} 421 (1977); M. Gell-Mann, P. Ramond and R.

1480: Slansky, in {\it  Supergravity}, eds.\ P. Van Nieuwenhuizen and D.

1481: Freedman (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1979),p.~315; T. Yanagida, in

1482: {\it Proceedings of the Workshop on the Unified Theory and the

1483: Baryon Number in the Universe}, eds.\ O. Sawada and A. Sugamoto

1484: (KEK, Tsukuba, 1979), p.~95; S.L. Glashow, in {\it Quarks and

1485: Leptons}, eds.\ M. L\'evy et al., (Plenum, 1980, New-York), p. 707;

1486: R.N.~Mohapatra and G. Senjanovi\'{c}, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 44},

1487: 912 (1980).

1488: %%CITATION = PRLTA,44,912;%%

1489: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B67,421;%%

1490: 

1491: \bibitem{Borzumati:1986qx}  F.~Borzumati and A.~Masiero,

1492: %``Large Muon And Electron Number Violations In Supergravity Theories,''

1493: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 57}, 961 (1986).

1494: 

1495: \bibitem{rgess}

1496: A partial list: J.~Hisano, D.~Nomura and T.~Yanagida,

1497: %``Atmospheric neutrino oscillation and large lepton flavour violation in  the SUSY SU(5) GUT,''

1498: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 437},  351 (1998);

1499: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9711348;%%

1500: J.~Hisano and D.~Nomura,

1501: %   ``Solar and atmospheric neutrino oscillations and lepton flavour violation  in

1502: %supersymmetric models with the right-handed neutrinos,''

1503: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 59} (1999) 116005;

1504: % [arXiv:hep-ph/9810479].

1505: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9810479;%%

1506: J.~R.~Ellis, M.~E.~Gomez, G.~K.~Leontaris, S.~Lola and

1507: D.~V.~Nanopoulos, Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 14} (2000) 319;

1508: %[arXiv:hep-ph/9911459].

1509: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9911459;%%

1510:  %\cite{Kageyama:2001tn}

1511: ~A.~Kageyama, S.~Kaneko, N.~Shimoyama and M.~Tanimoto, Phys.\ Rev.\

1512: D {\bf 65} (2002) 096010;

1513: %  [arXiv:hep-ph/0112359].

1514: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0112359;%%

1515: ~A.~Masiero, S.~K.~Vempati and O.~Vives,

1516: %%``Seesaw and lepton flavour violation in SUSY SO(10),''

1517: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 649},  189 (2003);

1518: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0209303;%%

1519: %

1520: %\cite{Arganda:2005ji}

1521: %\cite{Babu:2002tb}

1522: K.~S.~Babu, B.~Dutta and R.~N.~Mohapatra, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 67}

1523: (2003) 076006;

1524: % [arXiv:hep-ph/0211068].

1525: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0211068;%%

1526: %\cite{Blazek:2002wq}

1527: T.~Blazek and S.~F.~King, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 662} (2003) 359;

1528: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0211368].

1529: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0211368;%%

1530: %\cite{Petcov:2003zb}

1531: S.~T.~Petcov, S.~Profumo, Y.~Takanishi and C.~E.~Yaguna, Nucl.\

1532: Phys.\ B {\bf 676} (2004) 453;

1533: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0306195].

1534: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0306195;%%

1535: L.~Calibbi, A.~Faccia, A.~Masiero and S.~K.~Vempati,

1536: arXiv:hep-ph/0605139;

1537: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0605139;%%

1538: S.~Antusch, E.~Arganda, M.~J.~Herrero and A.~M.~Teixeira,

1539: arXiv:hep-ph/0607263.

1540: 

1541: \bibitem{Casas:2001sr} J.~A.~Casas and A.~Ibarra,

1542: %``Oscillating neutrinos and mu --> e, gamma,''

1543: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 618}, 171 (2001) [arXiv:hep-ph/0103065].

1544: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0103065;%%

1545: 

1546: \bibitem{Lavignac:2001vp}  S.~Lavignac, I.~Masina and C.~A.~Savoy,

1547: %``tau --> mu gamma and mu --> e gamma as probes of neutrino mass models,''

1548: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 520}, 269 (2001) [arXiv:hep-ph/0106245].

1549: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0106245;%%

1550: 

1551: \bibitem{Masina:2002mv}  I.~Masina and C.~A.~Savoy,

1552: %``Sleptonarium (constraints on the CP and flavour pattern of scalar lepton masses),''

1553: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 661}, 365 (2003) [arXiv:hep-ph/0211283, v3].

1554: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0211283;%%

1555: 

1556: %\cite{Joaquim:2006uz}

1557: \bibitem{Joaquim:2006uz}

1558: For LFV studies in the supersymmetric Type II seesaw see: A.~Rossi,

1559: %``Supersymmetric seesaw without singlet neutrinos: Neutrino masses and

1560: %lepton-flavour violation,''

1561: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 66} (2002) 075003 [arXiv:hep-ph/0207006];

1562: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0207006;%%

1563: F.~R.~Joaquim and A.~Rossi,

1564: %``Gauge and Yukawa mediated supersymmetry breaking in the triplet seesaw

1565: %scenario,''

1566: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 97} (2006) 181801 [arXiv:hep-ph/0604083];

1567: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0604083;%%

1568: %\cite{Joaquim:2006mn}

1569: %\bibitem{Joaquim:2006mn}

1570: F.~R.~Joaquim and A.~Rossi,

1571: %``Phenomenology of the triplet seesaw mechanism with gauge and Yukawa

1572: %mediation of SUSY breaking,''

1573: arXiv:hep-ph/0607298.

1574: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0607298;%%

1575: 

1576: \bibitem{wmap}

1577: D.~N.~Spergel {\it et al.}  [WMAP Collaboration],

1578: %``First Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations:

1579: %Determination of Cosmological Parameters,''

1580: Astrophys.\ J.\ Suppl.\  {\bf 148}, 175 (2003)

1581: [arXiv:astro-ph/0302209].

1582: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0302209;%%

1583: 

1584: %\cite{Fukugita:1986hr}

1585: \bibitem{Fukugita:1986hr}

1586: M.~Fukugita and T.~Yanagida,

1587: %``Baryogenesis Without Grand Unification,''

1588: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 174}, 45 (1986).

1589: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B174,45;%%

1590: 

1591: 

1592: \bibitem{Ellis:2001xt} J.~R.~Ellis, J.~Hisano, S.~Lola and M.~Raidal,

1593: %``CP violation in the minimal supersymmetric seesaw model,''

1594: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 621}, 208 (2002) [arXiv:hep-ph/0109125];

1595: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0109125;%%

1596: J.~R.~Ellis, J.~Hisano, M.~Raidal and Y.~Shimizu,

1597: %``Lepton electric dipole moments in non-degenerate supersymmetric

1598: %seesaw models,''

1599: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 528}, 86 (2002) [arXiv:hep-ph/0111324];

1600: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0111324;%%

1601: %J.~R.~Ellis, J.~Hisano, M.~Raidal and Y.~Shimizu,

1602: %``A new parametrization of the seesaw mechanism and applications in

1603: %supersymmetric models,'' Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 66}, 115013 (2002)

1604: [arXiv:hep-ph/0206110].

1605: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0206110;%%

1606: 

1607: \bibitem{Ellis:2002xg} J.~R.~Ellis and M.~Raidal,

1608: %``Leptogenesis and the violation of lepton number and CP at low energies,''

1609: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 643}, 229 (2002) [arXiv:hep-ph/0206174].

1610: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0206174;%%

1611: 

1612: \bibitem{Masina:2003wt} I.~Masina,

1613: %``Lepton electric dipole moments from heavy states Yukawa couplings,''

1614: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 671}, 432 (2003) [arXiv:hep-ph/0304299].

1615: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0304299;%%

1616: 

1617: \bibitem{Farzan:2004qu} Y.~Farzan and M.~E.~Peskin,

1618: %``The contribution from neutrino Yukawa couplings to lepton electric  dipole moments,''

1619: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 70}, 095001 (2004) [arXiv:hep-ph/0405214];

1620: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0405214;%%

1621: D.~A.~Demir and Y.~Farzan,

1622: %``Can measurements of electric dipole moments determine the seesaw parameters?,''

1623: JHEP {\bf 0510}, 068 (2005) [arXiv:hep-ph/0508236].

1624: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0508236;%%

1625: 

1626: \bibitem{Masina:2005am} I.~Masina and C.~A.~Savoy,

1627: %``On power and complementarity of the experimental constraints on seesaw models,''

1628: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 71}, 093003 (2005) [arXiv:hep-ph/0501166].

1629: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0501166;%%

1630: 

1631: \bibitem{Regan:2002ta}

1632: B.~C.~Regan, E.~D.~Commins, C.~J.~Schmidt and D.~DeMille,

1633: %``New limit on the electron electric dipole moment,''

1634: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 88}, 071805 (2002).

1635: %%CITATION = PRLTA,88,071805;%%

1636: 

1637: \bibitem{DeMille}

1638: D. DeMille, F. Bay, S. Bickman, D. Kawall, D. Krause Jr., S.E. Maxwell and L.R. Hunter,

1639: Phys. Rev. A 61 (2000) 052507;

1640: D.~DeMille, S.~Bickman, P.~Hamilton, Y.~Jiang, V.~Prasad, D.~Kawall and R.~Paolino,

1641: %``Search for the electron electric dipole moment,''

1642: AIP Conf.\ Proc.\  {\bf 842} (2006) 759.

1643: %%CITATION = APCPC,842,759;%%

1644: 

1645: \bibitem{Lamoreaux}

1646: S.~K.~Lamoreaux,

1647: %``Solid state systems for electron electric dipole moment and other

1648: %fundamental measurements,''

1649: arXiv:nucl-ex/0109014;

1650: %%CITATION = NUCL-EX 0109014;%%

1651: S.~K.~Lamoreaux,

1652: %``Gadolinium Iron Garnet as a Solid State Material for an Electron Electric

1653: %Dipole Moment Search,''

1654: arXiv:physics/0701198.

1655: %%CITATION = PHYS-ICS 0701198;%%

1656: 

1657: \bibitem{RomStru}

1658: A. Romanino and A. Strumia, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B 622} (2002) 73,

1659: hep-ph/0108275.

1660: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0108275;%%

1661: See also: A. Romanino and A. Strumia, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B 490} (1997)

1662: 3, hep-ph/9610485;

1663: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9619485;%%

1664: O. Lebedev, Phys. Rev. {\bf D 67} (2003) 015013, hep-ph/0209023.

1665: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0209023;%%

1666: 

1667: 

1668: \bibitem{lept} See, e.g. G.~F.~Giudice, A.~Notari, M.~Raidal, A.~Riotto and A.~Strumia,

1669: %``Towards a complete theory of thermal leptogenesis in the SM and MSSM,''

1670: Nucl.\ Phys.\  B {\bf 685}, 89 (2004) [arXiv:hep-ph/0310123].

1671: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0310123;%%

1672: 

1673: 

1674: \bibitem{ogen} W.~Buchmuller, P.~Di Bari and M.~Plumacher,

1675: %``Leptogenesis for pedestrians,''

1676: Annals Phys.\  {\bf 315} (2005) 305 [arXiv:hep-ph/0401240].

1677: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0401240;%%

1678: 

1679: \bibitem{work} A partial list:~W.~Buchmuller, P.~Di Bari and M.~Plumacher,

1680: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 643} (2002) 367 [arXiv:hep-ph/0205349];

1681: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0205349;%%

1682: J.~R.~Ellis, M.~Raidal and T.~Yanagida,

1683: %``Observable consequences of partially degenerate leptogenesis,''

1684: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 546} (2002) 228 [arXiv:hep-ph/0206300];

1685: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0206300;%%

1686: G.~C.~Branco, R.~Gonzalez Felipe, F.~R.~Joaquim and M.~N.~Rebelo,

1687: %``Leptogenesis, CP violation and neutrino data: What can we learn?,''

1688: Nucl.\ Phys.\  B {\bf 640} (2002) 202 [arXiv:hep-ph/0202030];

1689: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0202030;%%

1690: G.~C.~Branco, R.~Gonzalez Felipe, F.~R.~Joaquim, I.~Masina,

1691: M.~N.~Rebelo and C.~A.~Savoy,

1692: %``Minimal scenarios for leptogenesis and CP violation,''

1693: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 67}, 073025 (2003) [arXiv:hep-ph/0211001];

1694: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0211001;%%

1695: R.~N.~Mohapatra, S.~Nasri and H.~B.~Yu,

1696: %``Leptogenesis, mu - tau symmetry and theta(13),''

1697: Phys.\ Lett.\  B {\bf 615} (2005) 231 [arXiv:hep-ph/0502026];

1698: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0502026;%%

1699: A.~Broncano, M.~B.~Gavela and E.~Jenkins,

1700: %``Neutrino physics in the seesaw model,''

1701: Nucl.\ Phys.\  B {\bf 672} (2003) 163 [arXiv:hep-ph/0307058];

1702: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0307058;%%

1703: A.~Pilaftsis,

1704: %``CP violation and baryogenesis due to heavy Majorana neutrinos,''

1705: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 56} (1997) 5431 [arXiv:hep-ph/9707235];

1706: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9707235;%%

1707: E.~Nezri and J.~Orloff,

1708: %``Neutrino oscillations vs. leptogenesis in S{\cal O}(10) models,''

1709: JHEP {\bf 0304} (2003) 020 [arXiv:hep-ph/0004227];

1710: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0004227;%%

1711: S.~Davidson and A.~Ibarra,

1712: %``Leptogenesis and low-energy phases,''

1713: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 648}, 345 (2003) [arXiv:hep-ph/0206304];

1714: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0206304;%%

1715: S.~Davidson,

1716: %``From weak-scale observables to leptogenesis,''

1717: JHEP {\bf 0303} (2003) 037 [arXiv:hep-ph/0302075];

1718: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0302075;%%

1719: S.~T.~Petcov, W.~Rodejohann, T.~Shindou and Y.~Takanishi,

1720: %``The see-saw mechanism, neutrino Yukawa couplings, LFV decays l(i) ...

1721: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 739} (2006) 208 [arXiv:hep-ph/0510404].

1722: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0510404;%%

1723: 

1724: 

1725: 

1726: \bibitem{sakharov} A.D. Sakharov. \newblock  JETP Lett. {\bf 5} (1967) 24.

1727: For a review, see A.~Riotto and M.~Trodden,

1728: %``Recent progress in baryogenesis,''

1729: Ann.\ Rev.\ Nucl.\ Part.\ Sci.\  {\bf 49}, 35 (1999)

1730: [arXiv:hep-ph/9901362].

1731: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9901362;%%

1732: 

1733: \bibitem{Barbieri99}

1734: R.~Barbieri, P.~Creminelli, A.~Strumia and N.~Tetradis,

1735: %``Baryogenesis through leptogenesis,''

1736: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 575} (2000) 61.

1737: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9911315;%%

1738: 

1739: \bibitem{endoh}

1740: T.~Endoh, T.~Morozumi and Z.~h.~Xiong,

1741: %``Primordial lepton family asymmetries in seesaw model,''

1742: Prog.\ Theor.\ Phys.\  {\bf 111} (2004) 123.

1743: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0308276;%%

1744: 

1745: \bibitem{davidsonetal}

1746: A.~Abada, S.~Davidson, F.~X.~Josse-Michaux, M.~Losada and A.~Riotto,

1747: %``Flavour issues in leptogenesis,''

1748: JCAP {\bf 0604}, 004 (2006) [arXiv:hep-ph/0601083].

1749: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0601083;%%

1750: 

1751: \bibitem{nardietal}

1752: E.~Nardi, Y.~Nir, E.~Roulet and J.~Racker,

1753: %``The importance of flavour in leptogenesis,''

1754: JHEP {\bf 0601}, 164 (2006) [arXiv:hep-ph/0601084].

1755: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0601084;%%

1756: 

1757: 

1758: \bibitem{dibari}

1759: S.~Blanchet and P.~Di Bari,

1760: %``Flavour effects on leptogenesis predictions,''

1761: arXiv:hep-ph/0607330.

1762: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0607330;%%

1763: 

1764: 

1765: \bibitem{davidsonetal2}

1766: A.~Abada, S.~Davidson, A.~Ibarra, F.~X.~Josse-Michaux, M.~Losada and

1767: A.~Riotto,

1768: %``Flavour matters in leptogenesis,''

1769: JHEP {\bf 0609}, 010 (2006) [arXiv:hep-ph/0605281].

1770: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0605281;%%

1771: 

1772: 

1773: \bibitem{antusch}

1774: S.~Antusch, S.~F.~King and A.~Riotto,

1775: %``Flavour-dependent leptogenesis with sequential dominance,''

1776: JCAP {\bf 0611}, 011 (2006) [arXiv:hep-ph/0609038].

1777: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0609038;%%

1778: 

1779: 

1780: \bibitem{silvia1} S.~Pascoli, S.~T.~Petcov and A.~Riotto,

1781: %``Connecting low energy leptonic CP-violation to leptogenesis,''

1782: arXiv:hep-ph/0609125.

1783: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0609125;%%

1784: 

1785: \bibitem{Branco:2006ce}

1786: G.~C.~Branco, R.~Gonzalez Felipe and F.~R.~Joaquim,

1787: %``A new bridge between leptonic CP violation and leptogenesis,''

1788: arXiv:hep-ph/0609297.

1789: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0609297;%%

1790: 

1791: \bibitem{aat} S.~Antusch and A.~M.~Teixeira,

1792: %``Towards constraints on the SUSY seesaw from flavour-dependent

1793: %leptogenesis,''

1794: arXiv:hep-ph/0611232.

1795: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0611232;%%

1796: 

1797: \bibitem{silvia2} S.~Pascoli, S.~T.~Petcov and A.~Riotto,

1798: %``Leptogenesis and low energy CP violation in neutrino physics,''

1799: arXiv:hep-ph/0611338.

1800: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0611338;%%

1801: 

1802: \bibitem{adsar} A.~De Simone and A.~Riotto,

1803: %``On the impact of flavour oscillations in leptogenesis,''

1804: arXiv:hep-ph/0611357; S.~Blanchet, P.~Di Bari and G.~G.~Raffelt,

1805: %``Quantum Zeno effect and the impact of flavour in leptogenesis,''

1806: arXiv:hep-ph/0611337.

1807: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0611357;%%

1808: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0611337;%%

1809: 

1810: \bibitem{resonant} %\cite{Flanz:1994yx}

1811: M.~Flanz, E.~A.~Paschos and U.~Sarkar,

1812: %``Baryogenesis from a lepton asymmetric universe,''

1813: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 345} (1995) 248 [Erratum-ibid.\ B {\bf 382}

1814: (1996) 447] [arXiv:hep-ph/9411366];

1815: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9411366;%%

1816: %\cite{Pilaftsis:1997jf}

1817: %\bibitem{Pilaftsis:1997jf}

1818: A.~Pilaftsis,

1819: %``CP violation and baryogenesis due to heavy Majorana neutrinos,''

1820: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 56} (1997) 5431 [arXiv:hep-ph/9707235].

1821: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9707235;%%

1822: 

1823: \bibitem{vives}

1824: O. Vives, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 73}, 073006 (2006)

1825: [arXiv:hep-ph/0512160].

1826: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0512160;%%

1827: 

1828: %\cite{Engelhard:2006yg}

1829: \bibitem{Engelhard:2006yg}

1830: G.~Engelhard, Y.~Grossman, E.~Nardi and Y.~Nir,

1831: %``The importance of N2 leptogenesis,''

1832: arXiv:hep-ph/0612187.

1833: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0612187;%%

1834: 

1835: 

1836: \bibitem{Lavignac:2002gf} S.~Lavignac, I.~Masina and C.~A.~Savoy,

1837: %``Large solar angle and seesaw mechanism: A bottom-up perspective,''

1838: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 633}, 139 (2002) [arXiv:hep-ph/0202086];

1839: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0202086;%%

1840: I. Masina, arXiv:hep-ph/0210125; S.~F.~King,

1841: %``Invariant see-saw models and sequential dominance,''

1842: arXiv:hep-ph/0610239.

1843: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0610239;%%

1844: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0210125;%%

1845: 

1846: \bibitem{RGEIH}

1847: P.~H.~Chankowski, W.~Krolikowski and S.~Pokorski,

1848: %``Fixed points in the evolution of neutrino mixings,''

1849: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 473}, 109 (2000) [arXiv:hep-ph/9910231];

1850: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9910231;%%

1851: J.~A.~Casas, J.~R.~Espinosa, A.~Ibarra and I.~Navarro,

1852: %``General RG equations for physical neutrino parameters and their

1853: %phenomenological implications,''

1854: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 573}, 652 (2000) [arXiv:hep-ph/9910420].

1855: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9910420;%%

1856: See also: S.~Antusch, J.~Kersten, M.~Lindner, M.~Ratz and

1857: M.~A.~Schmidt,

1858: %``Running neutrino mass parameters in see-saw scenarios,''

1859: JHEP {\bf 0503}, 024 (2005) [arXiv:hep-ph/0501272].

1860: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0501272;%%

1861: 

1862: 

1863: \bibitem{grav} For a review, see

1864: T.~Moroi,

1865: %``Gravitino production in the early universe and its implications to

1866: AIP Conf.\ Proc.\  {\bf 805}, 37 (2006) [arXiv:hep-ph/0509121].

1867: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0509121;%%

1868: 

1869: \bibitem{preh} G.~F.~Giudice, M.~Peloso, A.~Riotto and I.~Tkachev,

1870: %``Production of massive fermions at preheating and leptogenesis,''

1871: JHEP {\bf 9908}, 014 (1999) [arXiv:hep-ph/9905242].

1872: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9905242;%%

1873: 

1874: \bibitem{asaka} T.~Asaka, K.~Hamaguchi, M.~Kawasaki and T.~Yanagida,

1875: %``Leptogenesis in inflaton decay,''

1876: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 464}, 12 (1999) [arXiv:hep-ph/9906366];

1877: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9906366;%%

1878: T.~Asaka, K.~Hamaguchi, M.~Kawasaki and T.~Yanagida,

1879: %``Leptogenesis in inflationary universe,''

1880: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 61}, 083512 (2000) [arXiv:hep-ph/9907559].

1881: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9907559%

1882: 

1883: \bibitem{gr} G.~F.~Giudice, A.~Riotto and A.~Zaffaroni,

1884: %``Heavy particles from inflation,''

1885: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 710}, 511 (2005) [arXiv:hep-ph/0408155].

1886: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0408155;%%

1887: 

1888: \bibitem{PDG2006} The Review of Particle Physics, W.M. Yao et al., J. Phys. G 33, 1 (2006).

1889: 

1890: \end{thebibliography}

1891: 

1892: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1893: \end{document}

1894: