1: \documentclass[prd,twocolumn,nofootinbib]{revtex4}
2: %\documentclass{article}
3: \usepackage{amsfonts}
4: \usepackage{amsmath}
5: \usepackage{epsfig}
6:
7: %\setcounter{MaxMatrixCols}{10}
8: %\textwidth=17cm
9: %\textheight=22.5cm
10: %\topmargin 0.0cm
11: %\oddsidemargin -0.3cm
12: %\evensidemargin -0.8cm
13:
14: \def\beq{\begin{equation}}
15: \def\eeq{\end{equation}}
16: \def\bea{\begin{eqnarray}}
17: \def\eea{\end{eqnarray}}
18: \def\bq{\begin{quote}}
19: \def\eq{\end{quote}}
20: \def\simlt{\stackrel{<}{{}_\sim}}
21: \def\simgt{\stackrel{>}{{}_\sim}}
22: \def\sqt{\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}
23: \newcommand{\YY}[1]{{Y}_\nu^{#1}}
24:
25: \begin{document}
26:
27: \title{Quasi-degenerate neutrinos and leptogenesis from $L_\mu-L_\tau$}
28: \date{\today}
29: \author{E.\ J.\ Chun}
30: \affiliation{Michigan Center for Theoretical Physics, Department of Physics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor MI 48109, USA}
31: \affiliation{Korea Institute for Advanced Study, 207-43 Cheongryangri-dong, Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul 130-012, Korea}
32: \author{K.\ Turzy\'nski}
33: \affiliation{Department of Physics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor MI 48109, USA}
34:
35:
36: %\centerline{\Large \today}
37: \begin{abstract}
38: We provide a framework for quasi-degenerate
39: neutrinos consistent with a successful leptogenesis,
40: based on the $L_\mu-L_\tau$ flavor symmetry and its breaking pattern.
41: In this scheme, a fine-tuning is needed to arrange the small solar neutrino
42: mass splitting. Once it is ensured,
43: the atmospheric neutrino mass splitting and the deviation from
44: the maximal atmospheric mixing angle $\Delta
45: \theta_{23}$ are driven by the same symmetry breaking parameter $\lambda\sim 0.1$,
46: and the reactor angle $\theta_{13}$ is predicted to be slightly smaller than $\lambda$
47: while the Dirac CP phase is generically of order one.
48: Given that the pseudo-Dirac nature of right-handed neutrinos is protected
49: from the flavor
50: symmetry breaking,
51: a small mass splitting can be generated radiatively.
52: For moderate values of $\tan\beta\sim 10$,
53: this allows for low-scale supersymmetric leptogenesis,
54: overcoming a strong wash-out effect
55: of the quasi-degenerate light neutrinos
56: and evading the gravitino overproduction.
57:
58: \end{abstract}
59:
60: \preprint{MCTP-07-07}
61:
62: \maketitle
63:
64:
65: \section{Introduction}
66:
67:
68: Thanks to an impressive progress made in neutrino oscillation
69: experiments, we have fairly good information of the low-energy
70: observables like neutrino mass differences and mixing angles
71: \cite{Strumia06}.
72: The least known parameter is the so-called reactor angle
73: $\theta_{13}$. A measurement of this angle and a study of
74: CP violation in
75: neutrino oscillation is one of major tasks in the next neutrino
76: oscillation
77: experiments. These endeavors cannot, however, reveal
78: what the absolute neutrino
79: mass scale is.
80: A future determination of this feature would be a key element in
81: exploring the origin of neutrino mass, which clearly lies
82: beyond the Standard Model (SM).
83: Among all still allowed possibilities, the scenario
84: of quasi-degenerate neutrinos is interesting,
85: as it can be confirmed or disproved in
86: the future neutrino-less double beta decay experiments or in the
87: cosmological observations of the cosmic microwave radiation and
88: the large scale structure of the universe \cite{Strumia06}.
89:
90: One of the most fascinating connections between neutrino physics
91: and cosmology would be a possible explanation of the baryon
92: asymmetry of the Universe,
93: $\eta_B\equiv(n_B-n_{\bar{B}})/n_\gamma=6.15(25)\times 10^{-10}$
94: \cite{wmap3} through leptogenesis \cite{Fukugita86} (see also
95: \cite{Buchmuller04} for a review of subsequent developments),
96: which is linked with the neutrino masses and mixing originating
97: from the seesaw mechanism \cite{seesaw}. Recent studies of
98: leptogenesis revealed a meaningful constraint on the scale of the
99: heavy right-handed neutrino mass $M$ at which the baryon asymmetry
100: is generated. Under the assumptions of a hierarchy in the masses
101: of the heavy right-handed neutrinos and a CP phase of order one in
102: their decay, $M\simgt10^8-10^9$ GeV is required to account for the
103: baryon asymmetry of the Universe, if the inverse-decay of this
104: right-handed neutrino is negligible \cite{Davidson02}. In case of
105: the quasi-degeneracy for low-energy neutrinos, the resulting
106: leptonic CP asymmetry is suppressed by a strong inverse-decay
107: effect coming from larger neutrino Yukawa couplings, and as a
108: result, one needs to increase the scale $M$ by a factor of
109: $\sim10^{2-3}$ compared to the above value. Such a high
110: leptogenesis scale $M$ sets a lower bound on the the reheating
111: temperature after inflation, which may endanger the successful
112: prediction of the primordial nucleosynthesis due to gravitino
113: overproduction \cite{gravitino}.
114:
115: Of course, the above-mentioned constraint on $M$ is
116: model-dependent. For instance, nearly mass-degenerate
117: right-handed neutrinos can lead to an increase in the asymmetry
118: \cite{resonance}. In fact, the quasi-degeneracy of the low-energy
119: neutrinos could be a consequence of that of the high-energy
120: right-handed neutrinos. An extreme possibility along this line is
121: to have the right-handed neutrino mass difference comparable to
122: their decay rate $\Delta M \sim \Gamma$, which leads to the
123: leptonic CP asymmetry resonantly enhanced to its near maximum
124: value and thus the mass scale $M$ can go down to the TeV scale
125: \cite{Pilaftsis97}. An interesting way of realizing such a
126: resonant enhancement is to invoke a radiatively induced mass
127: splitting through the renormalization group running from the
128: flavor scale to the mass scale $M$ \cite{Turzynski04,Branco05}.
129: Such radiative resonant leptogenesis has also been studied in the
130: context of minimal flavor violation \cite{mfv} and $\mu$-$\tau$
131: symmetry \cite{mutau}. An almost exact degeneracy requires a
132: theoretical justification; in a
133: flavor model of neutrino masses and mixing, an (nearly) exact
134: degeneracy of the singlet right-handed neutrino sector can be a
135: consequence of the flavor symmetry and should also be protected
136: from its breaking effect \cite{Branco05}.
137:
138: In this work, we have taken the viewpoint that, since
139: baryogenesis {\em via} leptogenesis is a theoretically elegant
140: explanation of the baryon asymmetry of the Universe, a requirement
141: of successful leptogenesis (with a low reheating temperature to
142: avoid the gravitino problem) can be added to the list of
143: phenomenological constraints that a neutrino seesaw mass model
144: should observe\footnote{One should, however, remember that, unlike
145: the results of purely empirical studies, this constraint
146: introduces a strong theoretical prior, as it heavily relies on
147: several presently unverifiable assumptions: (i) that the neutrino
148: masses are generated in the seesaw mechanism, (ii) that the baryon
149: asymmetry of the Universe is generated through leptogenesis, and
150: (iii) that the mechanism of supersymmetry breaking predicts
151: the gravitino mass in the range potentially dangerous for
152: primordial nucleosynthesis. There exist models abandoning some of
153: these assumptions.}. We illustrate this point by investigating the
154: properties of a quasi-degenerate neutrino mass model based on the
155: $L_\mu-L_\tau$ flavor symmetry, which also provides a successful realization of
156: the radiative resonant leptogenesis. The $L_\mu-L_\tau$ flavor
157: symmetry is motivated by the fact that the symmetry-preserving
158: right-handed neutrino mass term, $M N_\mu N_\tau$, naturally leads
159: to a maximal mixing required for the atmospheric neutrino
160: oscillation, $\theta_{23} = \pi/4$ \cite{lmlt0,lmlt1,lmlt1a,lmlt2}. Note also
161: that such a pseudo-Dirac structure of in the $\mu$-$\tau$ sector
162: implies an exact degeneracy for two right-handed neutrinos $M_2 =
163: M_3 =M$. As a consequence of it, the resulting low-energy neutrino
164: mass pattern is required to be quasi-degenerate, and a fine-tuning
165: has to be introduced to arrange a small mass splitting for the
166: solar neutrino oscillation as we will discuss in detail. We will
167: analyze how the atmospheric and solar mass splitting can arise in
168: connection with a small reactor angle and a large solar angle from
169: the flavor symmetry breaking which introduces small complex order
170: parameters $\lambda_i$, suppressed by a factor $\lambda ={\cal O}(0.1)$
171: with respect to the symmetry preserving ones. Such a flavor
172: symmetry breaking effect can be exempt in the right-handed
173: neutrino mass matrix by assigning an additional discrete symmetry,
174: as a result of which the resonant leptogenesis can naturally
175: explain the observed baryon asymmetry of the universe for
176: $\tan\beta \sim 10$ (thereby partially compensating the
177: above-mentioned fine-tuning). Our scheme predicts generically
178: order-one CP phases for the neutrino oscillation and leptogenesis
179: which are unrelated to each other.
180:
181:
182: \section{Quasi-degenerate neutrino mass model}
183:
184: \subsection{General remarks}
185:
186: Let us write down the Lagrangian with three right-handed
187: neutrinos $N$ as
188: \beq
189: {\cal L} = N \YY{} L H_2 + \frac{1}{2} N {M} N + h.c.
190: \eeq
191: which leads to the seesaw mechanism explaining the smallness of
192: the neutrino masses:
193: \beq
194: {m}_\nu = -\langle H_2 \rangle^2
195: \YY{T} {M}^{-1} \YY{} \label{seesaw}
196: \eeq
197: where ${m}_\nu$ is the mass matrix of the light neutrinos,
198: ${M}$ is the Majorana mass matrix of the heavy right-handed
199: neutrinos and $\YY{}$ is the matrix of the neutrino Yukawa
200: coupling. The matrix ${m}_\nu$ can be diagonalized by a
201: unitary flavor transformation:
202: \beq
203: {V}_\nu^T
204: {m}_\nu {V}_\nu = \mathrm{diag}(m_1,m_2,m_3)
205: \label{eqdiag}
206: \eeq
207: where we take $m_1,m_2,m_3$ to be {\it a priori} complex and the
208: neutrino mixing matrix has a CKM-like form:
209: \begin{widetext}
210: \beq {V}_\nu =
211: \left(
212: \begin{array}{ccc}
213: c_{12}c_{13} & s_{12}c_{13} & \tilde s_{13}^\ast \\
214: -c_{23}s_{12}-s_{23}c_{12}\tilde s_{13} & c_{23}c_{12}-s_{23}s_{12}\tilde s_{13} & c_{13}s_{23} \\
215: s_{23}s_{12}-c_{23}c_{12}\tilde s_{13} & -s_{23}c_{12}-c_{23}s_{12}\tilde s_{13} & c_{13}c_{23}
216: \end{array}
217: \right) \, .\label{ckmlike}
218: \eeq
219: \end{widetext}
220: Here $\tilde s_{13}=s_{13}e^{\imath\delta}$,
221: and $s_{ij}$, $c_{ij}$ stand for $\sin\theta_{ij}$,
222: $\cos\theta_{ij}$, respectively. The experimental constraints on
223: the dimensionless neutrino observables can be summarized as (see,
224: e.g., \cite{Strumia06}):
225: \begin{eqnarray}
226: &
227: \frac{|m_2|^2-|m_1|^2}{|m_3|^2-|m_1|^2} = 0.032(3)\, , &\nonumber\\
228: &
229: \sin\theta_{13} = 0.00(5)\, , &\nonumber\\
230: &
231: \tan^2\theta_{12}= 0.45(5)\, , &\nonumber\\
232: \label{expval}
233: &
234: \tan^2\theta_{23} = 1.0(2) \, .
235: \end{eqnarray}
236: The challenge of
237: building a neutrino flavor model consists in reproducing this
238: peculiar observed pattern of the neutrino mass squared differences
239: and two large and one small mixing angles.
240:
241:
242: Writing Eqs.\ (\ref{seesaw})-(\ref{ckmlike}), we tacitly assumed
243: that they are valid at the low energy scales at which the neutrino
244: experiments are performed. In order to match these expressions
245: with the neutrino Yukawa couplings and the masses of the
246: right-handed neutrinos defined at the high scale at which the
247: right-handed neutrinos are integrated out, one needs to compute
248: quantum corrections which typically contain large logarithms due
249: to a vast difference in the energy scales. These large logarithms
250: can be conveniently summed up with the use of the renormalization
251: group (RG) technique \cite{Chankowski00}. The RG corrections to
252: the neutrino masses and mixing angles in the Supersymmetric
253: Standard Model are particularly large for the degenerate mass
254: spectrum with definite CP parities $(\mp,\mp,\pm)$ and for large
255: $\tan\beta$. In particular, for the overall neutrino mass scale
256: $\sim 0.1\,\mathrm{eV}$ and $\tan\beta\simgt15$, the RG
257: corrections normally drive $\sin2\theta_{12}$ towards a small
258: fixed-point value inconsistent with experimental constraints,
259: unless the neutrino mass model is very finely tuned at high scales
260: \cite{Chankowski01}. Here, we adopt a perspective that the
261: observed pattern of the neutrino masses and mixing does not
262: accidentally emerge from the RG corrections, but that it reflects
263: features of the underlying flavor model, and therefore our scheme
264: fits better for $\tan\beta\simlt15$.
265: We illustrate this point in Figure \ref{figrge}, where we plot
266: the running $t_{23}^2(M_X)$ and $t^2_{12}(M_X)$ as functions of
267: $\tan\beta$ for two values $M_X=10^8,\,10^{14}$ GeV.
268: The values of $t_{23}^2(M_X)$ and $t^2_{12}(M_X)$ corresponding
269: to $t^2_{23}$ and $t^2_{12}$ fixed at their best-fit values
270: (2$\sigma$ deviations) at the low scale, as given in (\ref{expval}),
271: are shown as central solid (outer dashed) lines.
272: We also chose
273: $m_1=0.1\,\mathrm{eV}$, $s_{13}=0.075$
274: and $M_{N_A}=(1.0,1.1,1.2)\times 10^8\mathrm{GeV}$.
275: For such low masses of the right-handed neutrinos, the effects
276: of the contributions from the neutrino Yukawa couplings are negligible,
277: nevertheless, for $M_X=10^{14}$ GeV we include them into the RG
278: equations, choosing the texture corresponding to
279: the Casas-Ibarra matrix ${R}={1}$ \cite{casas01}
280: and `switching on' the relevant neutrino Yukawa coupling at the
281: appropriate thresholds.
282: It is convenient to note that
283: the procedure of deriving the RG equations for the neutrino masses
284: and mixing angles allows maintaining an arbitrarily chosen phase
285: convention for the neutrino masses and the neutrino mixing matrix
286: \cite{Turzynski05}, and we shall utilize it to adhere to the phase
287: choice corresponding to Eq.\ (\ref{ckmlike}) throughout the entire
288: RG evolution.
289:
290: \begin{figure}
291: \begin{center}
292: \hspace{-3cm}
293: \includegraphics*[height=9cm]{fig1.ps}
294: \end{center}
295: \caption{Running $t_{12}(M_X)$ and $t_{23}^2(M_X)$ for $m_1=0.1\,\mathrm{eV}$ at two scales $M_X=10^8\mathrm{GeV}$ and $10^{14}\mathrm{GeV}$. In the latter case, the neutrino Yukawa couplings corresponds to Casas-Ibarra matrix ${R}={1}$ and they are included into the RG equations at appropriate thresholds $M_{N_A}=(1.0,1.1,1.2)\times 10^8\mathrm{GeV}$. The central solid (outer dashed) lines correspond to central values (2$\sigma$ deviations) of the relevant observables. We also chose $s_{13}=0.075$. \label{figrge}}
296: \end{figure}
297:
298:
299: \subsection{The $L_\mu-L_\tau$ flavor model}
300: \label{flamo}
301:
302: Flavor structure of the Yukawa couplings of quarks and leptons are
303: often explained with the use of a Froggatt-Nielsen mechanism with
304: one or more flavons $\Phi_A$, i.e.\ scalar fields acquiring vacuum
305: expectation values (vevs), spontaneously breaking a beyond-SM
306: flavor symmetry, but coupling to the matter fields in a
307: symmetry-preserving manner. One of numerous attempts to address
308: the empirically determined pattern of the neutrino observables is
309: to postulate an approximate $L_\mu-L_\tau$ global $U(1)$ symmetry
310: in the lepton sector, which has a virtue of predicting almost
311: maximal atmospheric mixing from a pseudo-Dirac structure of the
312: right-handed neutrino mass matrix. In addition, we assume that
313: there is a discrete ${Z}_n$ symmetry in the lepton-flavon
314: sector. A full field content and charge assignment is given in
315: Table \ref{tabfla}.
316: The couplings allowed by symmetries give rise to the almost
317: maximal atmospheric mixing, while those arising by the spontaneous
318: breaking of $U(1)$ and thus flavor-scale suppressed allow
319: reproducing the remaining features of the neutrino masses, given
320: that certain constraints are fulfilled. The presence of
321: ${Z}_n$ symmetry prevents the flavon vevs from contributing
322: to the mass matrix of the right-handed neutrinos, which shall turn
323: out to be important for the possibility of radiative resonant
324: leptogenesis. We would, however, like to stress that our goal
325: consist in exploring a phenomenologically motivated neutrino
326: flavor pattern which may provide successful leptogenesis rather
327: than in pretending that our construction is the ultimate model of
328: leptonic flavor.
329:
330:
331: \begin{table}
332: \begin{center}
333: \begin{tabular}{|c|ccc|ccc|cc|}
334: \hline
335: field & $L_e$ & $L_\mu$ & $L_\tau$ & $N_e$ & $N_\mu$ & $N_\tau$ & $\Phi_{\pm1}$ & $\Phi_{\pm2}$\\% & $\Phi_{+2}$ \\
336: \hline
337: $U(1)$ charge & 0 & $+1$ & $-1$ & 0 & $-1$ & $+1$ & $\pm1$ & $\pm2$ \\ %& $+2$ \\
338: ${Z}_n$ multiplicity & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & $n-1$ & $n-1$ \\ %& 3 \\
339: \hline
340: \end{tabular}
341: \end{center}
342: \caption{Field content and the charge assignment in the lepton-flavon
343: sector. \label{tabfla}}
344: \end{table}
345:
346:
347: The resulting neutrino Yukawa matrix and the Majorana mass matrix
348: of the right-handed neutrinos are:
349: \beq
350: \YY{} = \frac{1}{\langle H_2\rangle}
351: \left(
352: \begin{array}{ccc}
353: a & \lambda_1 & \lambda_2 \\
354: \lambda_6 & b & \lambda_3 \\
355: \lambda_5 & \lambda_4 & d
356: \end{array}
357: \right)
358: \label{assumpt0}
359: \eeq
360: and
361: \beq
362: {M} =
363: \left(
364: \begin{array}{ccc}
365: X & 0 & 0 \\
366: 0 & 0 & Y \\
367: 0 & Y & 0
368: \end{array}
369: \right) \, . \label{assumpt}
370: \eeq
371: The parameters $X$ and $Y$ consistent with the $U(1)$ symmetry are
372: of the same order of magnitude, and the same is true for $a,b,d$.
373: On the other hand, the flavor symmetry breaking parameters $\lambda_i$ are smaller than the latter as they arise from the flavon vacuum expectation values: $\lambda_{1,5} \propto \langle\Phi_{-1}\rangle/M_X$,
374: $\lambda_{2,6} \propto \langle\Phi_{+1}\rangle/M_X$ and $\lambda_{3,4} \propto \langle\Phi_{\pm2}\rangle/M_X$ where $M_X$ is the flavor symmetry breaking scale. We take the flavor suppresion factors
375: $\lambda_i/a$ of the order $\lambda\sim\mathcal{O}(10^{-1})$.
376: It follows
377: from the pseudo-Dirac structure the 2-3 sector of ${M}$
378: that two right-handed neutrinos are exactly degenerate in masses,
379: while the mass of the third right-handed can be slightly
380: different.
381:
382: So far, we have not chosen any specific phase convention for the
383: right-handed neutrinos. We can use the transformations $N_1\to
384: e^{\imath\varphi_1}N_1$ and $N_{2,3}\to
385: e^{\imath\varphi_2}N_{2,3}$ to ensure that $X$ and $Y$ are real
386: and positive. The remaining phase redefinition $N_{2,3}\to
387: e^{\pm\imath\varphi_3}N_{2,3}$ leaves ${M}$ invariant, but
388: it changes phases in the second and third row of the neutrino
389: Yukawa matrix. We can also make the phase redefinitions of
390: the charged lepton doublets, $L_i\to e^{\imath\phi_i}L_i$
391: ($i=e,\mu,\tau$).
392: First,
393: we can redefine the overall leptonic phase $\phi_e+\phi_\mu+\phi_\tau$
394: and the phase $\varphi_3$ so that $d$ is
395: real and positive, and $b$ is real and negative (these transformations
396: do not depend on the phase convention imposed by Eq.\ (\ref{ckmlike})).
397: The remaining freedom of the phase choice must be then utilized
398: to ensure that the neutrino mass matrix
399: is diagonalized with a matrix of the form
400: (\ref{ckmlike}). As we shall see, this will introduce some
401: consistency constraints.
402: These unphysical phases correspond to
403: the freedom of $\phi_e$ (allowing to set an arbitrary
404: phase to $a$)
405: and to the freedom of shifting $\varphi_3$,
406: $-\phi_\mu$ and $\phi_\tau$ by the same value; it would be a
407: symmetry of the neutrino Yukawa matrix, if the $L_\mu-L_\tau$
408: breaking were absent.
409:
410: Given the form of the neutrino mass matrix from
411: Eq.~(\ref{assumpt0})-(\ref{assumpt}),
412: the low-energy observables like neutrino mass splitting
413: and mixing angles can be explicitly calculated perturbatively
414: treating the small symmetry breaking entries as expansion
415: parameters. Using Eqs.\ (\ref{eqdiag}) and (\ref{ckmlike}), we can
416: expand the neutrino mass matrix around $s_{13}=0$ and
417: $\theta_{23}=\pi/4$ for an arbitrary $\theta_{12}$ as:
418: \beq
419: {m}_\nu =
420: {m}_\nu^{(0)}+{m}_\nu^{(1)}+
421: %{m}_\nu^{(2)}+
422: \ldots
423: \label{mnexp}
424: \eeq
425: In Eq.\ (\ref{mnexp}),
426: ${m}_\nu^{(0)}$ is the
427: neutrino mass matrix in the limit $\lambda_i,\delta_a^{(n)}\to 0$
428: and ${m}_\nu^{(1)}$ accounts for
429: The $\mathcal{O}(\lambda)$ correction
430: to the neutrino mass matrix:
431: %\begin{widetext}
432: \begin{eqnarray}
433: {m}_\nu^{(1)} &=&
434: \left. {m}_\nu \right|_{\begin{array}{l} s_{13}=0\\\theta_{23}=\pi/4\\ m_i=m_i^{(1)}\end{array}}
435: +
436: \Delta s_{13}^{(1)}\left. \frac{\partial{m}_\nu}{\partial s_{13}} \right|_{\begin{array}{l} s_{13}=0\\\theta_{23}=\pi/4\\ m_i=m_i^{(0)}\end{array}}
437: + \nonumber\\
438: &&
439: +\Delta \theta_{23}^{(1)}\left. \frac{\partial{m}_\nu}{\partial \theta_{23}} \right|_{\begin{array}{l} s_{13}=0\\\theta_{23}=\pi/4\\ m_i=m_i^{(0)}\end{array}}
440: \label{exp1}
441: \end{eqnarray}
442: %\end{widetext}
443: where $\Delta s_{13}^{(1)}$ and
444: $\Delta\theta_{23}^{(1)}$ are corrections
445: to the leading pattern of the neutrino
446: mixing, and $m_i^{(1)}$ are corrections to the eigenvalues
447: of the neutrino mass matrix.
448: It is straightforward to derive higher order terms of this expansion.
449: Now we shall compare the neutrino mass matrix decomposed as described above
450: with the
451: mass matrix resulting from (\ref{assumpt}) {\em via} (\ref{seesaw}).
452:
453:
454: At the leading order, $\mathcal{O}(\lambda^0)$, we obtain a
455: neutrino mass matrix which has a pseudo-Dirac structure in the 2-3
456: sector. This picture can be extended to the first generation,
457: predicting an exactly degenerate mass spectrum, given that:
458: \beq
459: \frac{a^2}{X} = \left(-\frac{bd}{Y}+\sum_{n}\delta_a^{(n)}\right) e^{\imath\alpha} \, ,
460: \label{ft1}
461: \eeq
462: where $\delta_a^{(n)} \sim\mathcal{O}(\lambda^n)$
463: are real and $\alpha\sim\mathcal{O}(\lambda)$.
464: Then we find that
465: $(m_1^{(0)},m_2^{(0)},m_3^{(0)}) = (-1,-1,+1)\times |b|d/Y$ the
466: atmospheric mixing is maximal, $s_{13}$ vanishes and the solar
467: mixing remains undetermined. Clearly, Eq.\ (\ref{ft1}) indicates
468: that our model requires a fine-tuning to describe the neutrino
469: masses and mixing correctly. We shall address the issue of actual
470: fine-tuning compared to other neutrino mass models in the
471: following section.
472:
473: Let us turn to calculating $\mathcal{O}(\lambda)$ corrections to this result.
474: {}From now on, we shall further simplify our model by setting
475: $\lambda_1=\lambda_5=0$, which is ensured by the absence of the flavon field
476: $\Phi_{-1}$. Such an assumption does not change
477: qualitative features of the model, while simplifying the following
478: formulae.
479: Comparing the sum and the difference of the 12 and 13 entries of
480: ${m}_\nu^{(1)}$ with the appropriate combinations of the
481: $\mathcal{O}(\lambda)$ entries of the neutrino
482: mass matrix resulting from (\ref{assumpt0}) and (\ref{assumpt})
483: {\em via} (\ref{seesaw}):
484: \beq
485: m_\nu =
486: \left(
487: \begin{array}{ccc}
488: \frac{a^2}{X} & \frac{\lambda_4\lambda_6}{Y} & \frac{\lambda_2a}{X}+\frac{\lambda_6d}{Y} \\
489: \ast & \frac{2\lambda_4b}{Y} & \frac{bd+\lambda_3\lambda_4}{Y} \\
490: \ast & \ast & \frac{2\lambda_3d}{Y}+\frac{\lambda_2^2}{X}
491: \end{array}
492: \right) \, ,
493: \label{mnuour}
494: \eeq
495: (entries denoted by $\ast$ are given by symmetry of $m_\nu$)
496: we obtain:
497: \begin{eqnarray}
498: -\frac{a\lambda_2}{X}-\frac{d\lambda_6}{Y} &=& 2\sqrt{2}m_3^{(0)} \cos\delta\, \Delta s_{13}^{(1)}
499: \label{fo11}
500: \\
501: -\frac{a\lambda_2}{X}-\frac{d\lambda_6}{Y} &=& \sqrt{2}(m_1^{(1)}-m_2^{(1)})s_{12}c_{12} \, .
502: \label{fo12}
503: \end{eqnarray}
504: Since we know from the data that the solar mass splitting is much smaller
505: than the atmospheric one, the quantities in Eq.\ (\ref{fo12})
506: should be smaller than naively assumed $\mathcal{O}(\lambda)$,
507: %{}From the phenomenological point of view, this might correspond to
508: %$|c_\delta|\ll 1$ (almost maximal CP violation in neutrino
509: %oscillations) or $\Delta s_{13}^{(1)}=0$; both possibilities yield
510: which yields
511: $m_1^{(1)}=m_2^{(1)}$ for large $s_{12}$.
512: {}From the point of view of the flavor model, the two contributions
513: to the left-hand sides of Eqs.\ (\ref{fo11})-(\ref{fo12})
514: should either interfere destructively or be small. The first option
515: represents another fine-tuning, while the second can be achieved
516: with a small hierarchy among the flavon vevs; $\lambda_{2,6}/\lambda_{3,4} \propto \langle \Phi_{+1}\rangle/ \langle \Phi_{\pm2}\rangle \sim\lambda$.
517: Irrespective of the actual origin of this feature,
518: it seems more appropriate to defer the discussion
519: of the terms proportional to $-\frac{a\lambda_2}{X}-\frac{d\lambda_6}{Y}$
520: to the analysis of the $\mathcal{O}(\lambda^2)$ corrections.
521: A similar comparison for the remaining entries of ${m}_\nu^{(1)}$ gives:
522: \begin{eqnarray}
523: \label{fo3}
524: -\frac{d\lambda_3}{Y}-\frac{|b|\lambda_4}{Y} &=& -2m_3^{(0)} \Delta\theta_{23}^{(1)} \, , \\
525: -\frac{d\lambda_3}{Y}+\frac{|b|\lambda_4}{Y} &=& m_2^{(1)}c_{12}^2+m_1^{(1)}s_{12}^2 \, ,\\
526: -\frac{d\lambda_3}{Y}+\frac{|b|\lambda_4}{Y} &=& m_3^{(1)} \, , \\
527: -\delta_a^{(1)} +\imath\alpha\frac{bd}{Y}&=& m_1^{(1)}c_{12}^2+m_2^{(1)}s_{12}^2 \, ,
528: \label{fo6}
529: \end{eqnarray}
530: where we chose such combinations of the 11, 22, 23 and 33 entries
531: that the results are particularly simple.
532: It may appear that the phases of $\lambda_3$
533: and $\lambda_4$ must be aligned so that $d\lambda_3+|b|\lambda_4$
534: is real up to $\mathcal{O}(\lambda^2)$ corrections. However, we still have one
535: phase redefinition, which we can use to impose this
536: condition, so it does not represent another fine-tuning.
537: By taking a linear combination of Eqs.\ (\ref{fo3})-(\ref{fo6}), we obtain
538: a consistency condition for a small solar mass splitting:
539: \beq
540: -\frac{-d\lambda_3+|b|\lambda_4-\imath\alpha bd}{Y}+\delta_a^{(1)} = (c_{12}^2-s_{12}^2)(m_2^{(1)}-m_1^{(1)}) \approx 0 \,
541: \label{corafo1}
542: \eeq
543: which
544: determine the unphysical phase $\alpha$ and
545: imposes a constraint on
546: $\delta_a^{(1)}$, thereby
547: increasing the
548: already present fine-tuning (\ref{ft1}).
549: A relation of this type seems unavoidable in any neutrino mass model predicting
550: a degenerate spectrum.
551: The atmospheric mass splitting is then:
552: \beq
553: \label{amd}
554: \Delta m^2_\mathrm{atm} = |m_3|^2-|m_2|^2 = 4 m_3^{(0)}\mathrm{Re}[m_3^{(1)}] \, ,
555: \eeq
556: which is naturally of the order $\mathcal{O}(\lambda)$ with respect to
557: the neutrino mass scale and, for fixed $|\lambda_3|,|\lambda_4|$,
558: it is maximal if $\lambda_3$ and $\lambda_4$
559: are approximately real.
560:
561: Using this approach, one can also write the relations between the flavor
562: model and the phenomenological parameterization
563: at the $\mathcal{O}(\lambda^2)$ order.
564: These lengthy expressions, which we omit here,
565: give 6 independent relations between the flavor model parameters
566: and the variables
567: $m_i^{(2)}$, $\theta_{12}$, $\Delta\theta_{23}^{(2)}$ and
568: $s_\delta\Delta s_{13}^{(1)}$ or $c_\delta\Delta s_{13}^{(2)}$.
569: Hence, no further fine-tunings appear at this stage
570: and the solar splitting is then given by:
571: \begin{eqnarray}
572: \Delta m^2_\mathrm{sol} &=& |m_2|^2-|m_1|^2 = \nonumber\\
573: &=& -2m_3^{(0)}\left(\mathrm{Re}[m_2^{(2)}]-\mathrm{Re}[m_1^{(2)}]\right) \, .
574: \end{eqnarray}
575: Finally, we note that the model considered here corresponds in some
576: limiting cases to models already present in the literature.
577: Therefore, the following considerations regarding the viability of
578: our model and, in particular, the amount of fine-tuning necessary to
579: describe the neutrino oscillation data can also be applied to those
580: models.
581: For $\lambda_3=\lambda_6=0$ and real $Y_\nu$, we obtain the model
582: studied previously in Ref.~\cite{lmlt2}. We also note that
583: for $\lambda_3=\lambda_6=0$ and $X=Y$ the neutrino mass matrix (\ref{mnuour})
584: is identical to that considered in an $A_4$-inspired model of
585: Ref.~\cite{hirsch}.
586:
587:
588: \subsection{Fine-tuning}
589: \label{seft}
590:
591:
592: In Section \ref{flamo}, we have seen that our model requires
593: a fine-tuning, necessary for arranging a small solar neutrino
594: mass-squared splitting. Here, we shall discuss this issue in more detail and
595: compare our model to other models of neutrino masses and mixing.
596:
597: Addressing the issue of fine-tuning in a quantitative way
598: is a cumbersome task, since it inevitably requires introducing
599: a probability measure in the parameter space.
600: We shall therefore make a comparative
601: study, checking the performance of our neutrino mass model
602: (with $\lambda_1=\lambda_5=0$)
603: {\it versus} another neutrino mass model which also arises
604: from breaking of an $U(1)$ flavor gauge symmetry
605: through Froggatt-Nielsen mechanism and is
606: regarded as rather natural. As the reference model, we chose the
607: HII model of Altarelli, Feruglio and Masina (AFM) \cite{afm},
608: which predicts a hierarchical spectrum of neutrino masses.
609: In order to make a comparison with another model explaining quasi-degenerate
610: neutrino masses, we shall also analyze the model of He, Keum and Volkas
611: (HKV) \cite{he} based on $A_4$ symmetry.
612: For completeness,
613: we shall also compare our model with an {\em anarchical} seesaw
614: model, {\em i.e.}~one exhibiting no structure in $\YY{}$ or $M$
615: \cite{Hall}.
616:
617: \begin{figure}
618: \begin{center}
619: \hspace{-3cm}
620: %\includegraphics*[height=5cm]{di1.ps}
621: %\hspace{0.3cm}
622: %\includegraphics*[height=5cm]{di2.ps}
623: %\\
624: %\hspace{-2cm}
625: %\includegraphics*[height=5cm]{di3.ps}
626: %\hspace{0.3cm}
627: \includegraphics*[height=10cm]{fig2.ps}
628: \end{center}
629: \caption{Probability distributions for
630: $\Delta m^2_\mathrm{sol}/\Delta m^2_\mathrm{atm}$, $s_{13}$, $t^2_{12}$
631: and $t^2_{23}$. The lines correspond to predictions of our model for
632: (i) general choice of the parameters and (ii) choice of the parameters
633: with $\Delta m^2_\mathrm{sol}/\Delta m^2_\mathrm{atm}$
634: in the experimentally allowed range.
635: The filled (empty) histograms correspond to
636: the AFM (HKV) model. \label{figdis}}
637: \end{figure}
638:
639:
640:
641: The comparison has been performed along the lines of the analysis
642: presented by AFM.
643: Each entry $\mathcal{O}(\lambda^n)$ allowed by symmetry
644: was parameterized as $fe^{\imath\omega}\lambda^n$, where $0.8\leq f\leq 1.2$
645: and $0\leq\omega\leq 2\pi$ were chosen randomly with a constant
646: probability density. We used
647: an optimized value $\lambda=0.35$ for the AFM model,
648: while we set a suggestive value $\lambda=0.22$
649: in our model. For the HKV model, we assumed that
650: all unperturbed entries are $\mathcal{O}(\lambda^0)$
651: and that the perturbations are $\mathcal{O}(\lambda)$ with $\lambda=0.1$.
652: For the anarchical model all the entries in $\YY{}$ and $M$
653: were assumed to be $fe^{\imath\omega}$.
654: We then diagonalized numerically the resulting neutrino mass
655: matrices and calculated four dimensionless
656: observables unambiguously constrained
657: by the present neutrino data:
658: $\Delta m^2_\mathrm{sol}/\Delta m^2_\mathrm{atm}$, $s_{13}$, $t^2_{12}$
659: and $t^2_{23}$. This procedure was repeated $10^6$ times for each model.
660: The resulting probability distributions of the observables
661: are shown in Figure \ref{figdis}.
662: The overall success rate of each model can be defined
663: as the fraction of points lying
664: in a four-dimensional box whose sides correspond to $3\sigma$
665: ranges of the observables allowed by the present data. Such a success rate
666: was approximately $3\times10^{-3}$ for the AFM model, $2\times10^{-2}$ for the HKV model and
667: $4\times10^{-4}$ for our model, the actual number depending on the
668: RG corrections (admitting $\lambda_{1,5}\sim\lambda_{2,6}$ does not change
669: this result qualitatively).
670: A purely anarchical model has the success rate twice
671: smaller than our model.
672:
673: If we consider the success rate an unambivalent measure of naturalness,
674: the AFM model and HKV model are favored over ours by the oscillation data.
675: As regards $\Delta m^2_\mathrm{sol}/\Delta m^2_\mathrm{atm}$,
676: the AFM distribution, peaked around $10^{-2}$ is rather wide and it could
677: easily account for
678: a wide range of values of this observable, whose experimentally allowed
679: $3\sigma$ range (with RG correction neglected)
680: is assumed with $15\%$ probability. In contrast,
681: the lower value of this observable in our model and in the HKV model,
682: the larger fine-tuning is required,
683: and the probability of obtaining
684: $\Delta m^2_\mathrm{sol}/\Delta m^2_\mathrm{atm}$
685: in the allowed range is $\sim1\%$ and $\sim4\%$, respectively.
686: The sign of this observable in our model is positive in more than
687: $95\%$ of cases in our model, which justifies {\em a posteriori}
688: the assumptions made in Section \ref{flamo}.
689: Values of $s_{13}$ come out small in all models but the anarchical one,
690: with $\sim30\%$ (HKV), $\sim50\%$ (AFM) and $\sim60\%$ (our) of the
691: distribution in the allowed range. The atmospheric mixing is peaked
692: around the maximal mixing models, with the HKV distribution being the
693: most narrow.
694:
695:
696: As we already argued in Section \ref{flamo}, there is no point
697: in discussing the solar mixing independently of the solar mass
698: splitting in our model, as
699: the consistency with experimental data introduces some
700: correlation between observables. As shown
701: in Figure \ref{figdis} (where we also plot
702: the distribution of conditional probability
703: density given that the solar-to-atmospheric ratio lies
704: within the experimentally allowed range),
705: once the fine-tuning required for the
706: solar-to-atmospheric mass ratio is achieved, the distribution
707: of $t_{12}^2$ becomes peaked around values consistent with experiment.
708: Similarly,
709: the distribution of conditional probability
710: density for $s_{13}$ given that the solar-to-atmospheric ratio
711: (empty cyan boxes) is shifted towards smaller
712: values of this observable, pursuant to Eq.\ (\ref{fo12}).
713:
714:
715: In conclusion, in comparison
716: to the AFM model and the HKV model,
717: our model's overall performance is worse by a factor
718: of 10 to 100, following mainly from the fine-tuning necessary for the small
719: solar mass splitting.
720: However,
721: if our model can explain the baryon asymmetry of the Universe as
722: resulting from leptogenesis with a low reheating temperature, while
723: the AFM and HKV model cannot, this may be a hint that a
724: quantitatively moderate fine-tuning discussed
725: above
726: allows a glimpse at the structure of a more fundamental physics
727: rather than being an unnatural coincidence.
728:
729: \section{Leptogenesis}
730:
731: In the MSSM, the effects of supersymmetry breaking in leptogenesis
732: can be safely neglected. The CP asymmetries are twice larger than those
733: in the Standard Model and the number of channels through which the lepton
734: asymmetry is generated is also doubled. This is compensated by doubled
735: amplitudes of the washout processes and an almost doubled
736: number of relativistic degrees of freedom after leptogenesis. The conversion
737: factors, relating the generated lepton asymmetry with the final baryon
738: asymmetry are also very similar \cite{jmr}.
739: Therefore, the order of magnitude of
740: the baryon asymmetry of the Universe resulting from leptogenesis
741: can be approximated by the nonsupersymmetric formula \cite{Underwood06}:
742: \beq
743: \eta_B \sim 10^{-2} \sum_{i=1}^{3} e^{1-M_i/M_1}\sum_\alpha \varepsilon_{i\alpha} \frac{K_{i\alpha}}{K_iK_\alpha} \,
744: \label{bmlmaster}
745: \eeq
746: where
747: $\alpha$ runs over distinguishable lepton flavors $\alpha=e,\mu,\tau$
748: (we assume a reheating
749: temperature $\simlt10^9\,\mathrm{GeV}$) and
750: $\varepsilon_{i\alpha}$ are CP asymmetries in the decays of the
751: right-handed neutrinos of mass $M_i$ into flavor $\alpha$.
752: The washout parameters are defined as
753: \begin{eqnarray}
754: K_{i\alpha}&=& \frac{\left(\Gamma(N_i\to L_\alpha H_2)+
755: \Gamma(N_i\to \bar{L}_\alpha H_2^\ast)\right)}{H(T=M_i)} \approx \nonumber\\
756: &\approx& \frac{\tilde{m}_{i\alpha}}{10^{-3}\,\mathrm{eV}} \, ,
757: \label{kpar}
758: \end{eqnarray}
759: where $\tilde{m}_{i\alpha} =|{y}_{i\alpha}|^2\langle H_2\rangle^2/M_i$,
760: $K_i=\sum_\alpha K_{i\alpha}$, $K_\alpha=\sum_i e^{1-M_i/M_1}K_{i\alpha}$,
761: and
762: ${y}$ is the neutrino
763: Yukawa matrix written in the basis of the mass eigenstates for the right-handed
764: neutrinos.
765: It follows from Eq.\ (\ref{kpar}) that for the light neutrinos with masses
766: $0.1\,\mathrm{eV}$, we need $|\varepsilon_{i\alpha}|\sim 10^{-4}$
767: for successful leptogenesis. However, for $M_i\simlt 10^9\,\mathrm{GeV}$
768: which allows avoiding the gravitino problem, a natural scale for
769: the CP asymmetries is
770: \beq
771: \label{natscaeps}
772: |\varepsilon_{i\alpha}| \sim
773: M_i m_\nu/\langle H_2\rangle^2\sim 10^{-6}
774: \eeq
775: (we neglect various $\mathcal{O}(1)$ factors),
776: unless, e.g., the
777: right-handed neutrinos are almost degenerate in masses,
778: since in that case the CP asymmetries in the decays of these
779: right-handed neutrinos are resonantly enhanced.
780:
781:
782: In our model, the right-handed neutrinos mass matrix ${M}$ in
783: Eq.\ (\ref{assumpt}) has two exactly degenerate eigenvalues, $M_2=M_3=Y$, which
784: may become slightly split by RG corrections if the scale $Q_f$ of
785: $U(1)$
786: breaking is larger than the leptogenesis scale. If the splitting
787: $\delta_N=1-M_2/M_3$ is much smaller than
788: $({y}{y}^\dagger)_{22,33}/8\pi$,
789: the relevant CP asymmetries are given by \cite{Pilaftsis97} (see also \cite{Covi96}):
790: \beq
791: \varepsilon_{J\alpha} \approx
792: \frac{16\pi\,\delta_N\,\mathrm{Re}[{y}{y}^\dagger]_{23}\,
793: \mathrm{Im}[{y}_{2\alpha}{y}^\ast_{3\alpha}]}
794: {({y}{y}^\dagger)_{22}
795: ({y}{y}^\dagger)_{33}({y}{y}^\dagger)_{JJ}}
796: \, . \label{cpass1}
797: \eeq
798: It may appear that for $M_2=M_3$ a transformation
799: $N_2\to\cos\zeta N_2+\sin\zeta N_3$ and
800: $N_2\to-\sin\zeta N_2+\cos\zeta N_3$ is a symmetry of the mass matrix
801: of the right-handed neutrinos, but it allows for rearranging the neutrino
802: Yukawa couplings. However, it has been noted in \cite{Turzynski04}
803: that if we require that the neutrino Yukawa couplings
804: are continuous functions of the renormalization scale
805: then $\zeta$ is fixed at a value corresponding to
806: $\mathrm{Re}[{{y}}{{y}}^\dagger]_{23}=0$.
807: Hence, the CP asymmetries vanish at
808: the scale of the exact degeneracy of $N_2$ and
809: $N_3$. They assume nonzero values if
810: $\mathrm{Re}[{{y}}{{y}}^\dagger]_{23}\neq0$
811: is generated through RG corrections.
812: In the leading order, the solutions of
813: the RG equations for degenerate right-handed
814: neutrinos are:
815: \begin{eqnarray}
816: \delta_N &\approx& 4
817: \left(
818: ({y}{y}^\dagger)_{22}-
819: ({y}{y}^\dagger)_{33}\right)
820: \Delta t = \nonumber\\
821: &=& 8\langle H_2 \rangle^{-2} |b\lambda_4^\ast+d\lambda_3|
822: \Delta t \, , \label{solrgedelta} \\
823: \mathrm{Re}[{y}{y}^\dagger]_{23}
824: &\approx&
825: \mathrm{Re}[{y}_{23}{y}^\ast_{33}] y_\tau^2\Delta t= \nonumber\\
826: &=& \langle H_2 \rangle^{-2}
827: \,\frac{|b|d\,\mathrm{Im}[\lambda_3\lambda_4]}{|b\lambda_4^\ast+d\lambda_3|}\, y_\tau^2\Delta t \, ,
828: \label{solrgere}
829: \end{eqnarray}
830: where $y_\tau\sim 10^{-2}\tan\beta$ is the
831: tau Yukawa coupling and
832: $\Delta t=(4\pi)^{-2}\ln(Q_f/Y)\sim0.1+0.006\ln(Q_f/10^7Y)$.
833: Other combinations of parameters appearing in (\ref{cpass1})
834: receive negligible RG corrections and can be replaced by their
835: values at the scale $Q_f$. The CP asymmetries can be then expressed as:
836: \beq
837: \varepsilon_{2\alpha}=\varepsilon_{3\alpha}
838: \approx \frac{64\pi \,y_\tau^2\,|b|d
839: \,\mathrm{Im}[\lambda_3\lambda_4]\,(\Delta
840: t)^2}{\left(\frac{|b|^2+d^2}{2}\right)^3} \times \left\{
841: \begin{array}{l}
842: \mathcal{O}(\lambda^4)
843: %& :\textrm{for $\alpha=e$}
844: \\
845: -|b|^2
846: %& :\textrm{for $\alpha=\mu$}
847: \\
848: d^2
849: %& :\textrm{for $\alpha=\tau$}
850: \end{array}
851: \right.
852: \label{ourcp}
853: \eeq
854: where the upper, middle and lower factors correspond to $\alpha=e,\mu,\tau$,
855: respectively.
856: The other CP asymmetries,
857: $\varepsilon_{1\alpha}$, are much smaller and can be neglected.
858: We estimate from (\ref{ourcp})
859: that $|\varepsilon_{2\alpha}|\simlt 10^{-6}\tan^2\beta$,
860: so the CP asymmetries are sufficiently large for successful leptogenesis
861: if $\tan\beta\simgt10$.
862:
863: \begin{figure}
864: \begin{center}
865: \hspace*{1cm}
866: \includegraphics*[height=12cm]{fig3.ps}
867: \end{center}
868: \caption{Probability distributions for
869: $\varepsilon_\mathrm{max}$ and $\eta_B$.
870: The lines correspond to predictions of our model for
871: (i) general choice of the parameters and (ii) choice of the parameters
872: satisfying constraints from the oscillations data.
873: The filled (empty) histograms correspond to
874: the AFM (HKV) model. \label{figeps}}
875: \end{figure}
876:
877:
878: The predictions of our neutrino mass model for the CP asymmetries
879: given in Eq.\ (\ref{ourcp}) are presented in Figure \ref{figeps}, where
880: we plot the distribution probability for
881: $\varepsilon_\mathrm{max}=\mathrm{max}\{|\varepsilon_j|;\,j=1,2,3\}$, where
882: $\varepsilon_j=\sum_\alpha\varepsilon_{j\alpha}$.
883: The numerical procedure is identical to that described in Section \ref{seft},
884: with the exception that we scan over $10^7$ points in the parameter space
885: for the conditional probability distribution.
886: For definiteness, we assume that $\Delta t=0.1$, $\tan\beta=10$
887: and $M_1=10^9\,\mathrm{GeV}$.
888: %Again, we compare our model with the AFM model:
889: The black, solid lines correspond to the general parameter
890: choice in our model, while the blue, dotted lines represent
891: parameter choices satisfying all four
892: phenomenological constraints; the filled (empty) histogram shows
893: the predictions of the AFM (HKV) model.
894: In this Figure, we also show the estimates the baryon
895: asymmetry of the Universe $\eta_B$ given by formula (\ref{bmlmaster}).
896: According to the discussion in Section \ref{flamo}, a requirement of a
897: small solar neutrino mass splitting favors almost real
898: $\lambda_3$ and $\lambda_4$,
899: which in turn leads to a certain suppression of
900: the CP asymmetry (\ref{ourcp}).
901: Moreover, the fact that $\varepsilon_{j\mu}$ and $\varepsilon_{j\tau}$
902: are proportional to $-|b^2|$ and $d^2$, respectively, is the reason for
903: another slight suppression of the resulting baryon asymmetry.
904: These suppressions can, however, be easily overcome by the enhancement
905: of the tau Yukawa coupling for $\tan\beta\simgt10$, and
906: we conclude that we can easily have
907: the CP asymmetry of the order of $10^{-4}$ which can account for
908: the baryon asymmetry of the Universe.
909: As regards the AFM and HKV models, with an optimistic assumption
910: that the largest values of $\varepsilon_\mathrm{max}$ correspond
911: to washout as small as $0.1$, we conclude that these models can
912: be only marginally consistent with baryogenesis via leptogenesis
913: for a low reheating temperature.
914:
915: The crucial ingredient of our model which allows for a low-scale
916: leptogenesis is the assumption that the $L_\mu-L_\tau$ flavor symmetry
917: is broken at a scale $M_X$ much larger than the leptogenesis scale $M_{N_A}$
918: and that this breaking is transmitted to the mass matrix of the
919: right-handed neutrinos only through RG corrections. At the leptogenesis scale,
920: the masses of the pseudo-Dirac right-handed neutrinos are then split by
921: a factor proportional to the neutrino Yukawa couplings and it is precisely
922: this small splitting which makes it possible to overcome the naive scaling
923: (\ref{natscaeps}) \cite{Turzynski04}.
924: For comparison, in model described in
925: \cite{lmlt2}, also based on $L_\mu-L_\tau$ symmetry, the scale
926: of symmetry breaking is identified with the leptogenesis scale,
927: the RG corrections are absent
928: and the pseudo-Dirac right-handed neutrinos are exactly degenerate, which leads
929: to a vanishing CP asymmetry in their decays. (Besides, only one CP violating phase is assumed in this model; although it is straightforward to include other phases in the neutrino sector, this would not change the latter conclusion.) Hence, the scaling (\ref{natscaeps}) holds approximately and large values of the right-handed neutrino masses of are necessary for successful leptogenesis.
930: In contrast, in the model of \cite{lmlt1a} (in which the symmetry breaking scale is also identified with the leptogenesis scale), the $L_\mu-L_\tau$ symmetry
931: is broken in {\em both} the neutrino Yukawa matrix and the mass matrix of
932: the right-handed neutrinos which again leads to the approximate scaling
933: (\ref{natscaeps}) and large values of the right-handed neutrino masses
934: necessary for successful leptogenesis.
935:
936:
937: \section{Conclusion}
938:
939: In this work, we have considered a
940: neutrino mass model where the neutrino Yukawa and mass structures are dictated by
941: the flavor symmetry, $L_\mu-L_\tau$, and its breaking patterns which is controlled by
942: an additional discrete symmetry.
943: The model requires a fine-tuning to correctly predict the smallness of
944: the solar mass splitting. Taking the expansion parameter $\lambda=0.22$,
945: we have made a quantitative discussion on
946: the fine-tuning in the combined explanation of all the low-energy observables and
947: the demanded baryon asymmetry of the Universe. Once such a fine-tuning is ensured, the bi-large pattern
948: of mixing angles and a successful leptogenesis
949: with a low reheating temperature becomes a natural prediction
950: of this model. In addition, the Dirac CP phase is generically order-one while
951: the reactor mixing angle $\theta_{13}$ is peaked at $\theta_{13}=0.06$.
952:
953:
954: \begin{acknowledgments}
955: KT thanks S.~Pokorski and P.~H.~Chankowski for
956: discussions at early stages of this project.
957: This work is supported by the Department of Energy.
958: \end{acknowledgments}
959:
960: \begin{thebibliography}{999}
961:
962:
963: \bibitem{Strumia06}
964: For a recent review, see A.~Strumia and F.~Vissani,
965: arXiv:hep-ph/0606054.
966: \bibitem{wmap3}
967: D.~N.~Spergel {\it et al.},
968: %``Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) three year results:
969: %Implications for cosmology,''
970: arXiv:astro-ph/0603449.
971: \bibitem{Fukugita86}
972: M.~Fukugita and T.~Yanagida,
973: %``Baryogenesis Without Grand Unification,''
974: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 174}, 45 (1986).
975: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B174,45;%%.
976: \bibitem{Buchmuller04}
977: For a review, see
978: W.~Buchm\"uller, P.~Di Bari and M.~Pl\"umacher,
979: Annals Phys.\ {\bf 315}, 305 (2005)
980: [arXiv:hep-ph/0401240].
981: %\cite{Davidson:2002qv}
982: \bibitem{seesaw}
983: P.~Minkowski, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 67} (1977) 421. See also M.~Gell-Mann, P.~Ramond and
984: R.~Slansky,
985: in {\sl Supergravity}, eds.~P.~van Nieuwenhuizen and D.~Freedman, (North-Holland,
986: 1979), p.\ 315; S.L.~Glashow, in {\sl Quarks and Leptons}, Carg\'ese, eds.~M. L\'evy {\em et al.}, (Plenum,
987: 1980, New-York), p.\ 707; T.~Yanagida, in {\sl Proceedings of the Workshop on the Unified
988: Theory and the Baryon Number in the Universe}, eds.~O.~Sawada and A.~Sugamoto
989: (KEK Report No.\ 79- 18, Tsukuba, 1979), p.\ 95; R.N.~Mohapatra and G.~Senjanovic,
990: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 44} (1980) 912.
991:
992: \bibitem{Davidson02}
993: S.~Davidson and A.~Ibarra,
994: %``A lower bound on the right-handed neutrino mass from leptogenesis,''
995: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 535}, 25 (2002)
996: [arXiv:hep-ph/0202239].
997: \bibitem{gravitino}
998: J.~R.~Ellis, A.~D.~Linde and D.~V.~Nanopoulos,
999: %``Inflation Can Save The Gravitino,''
1000: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 118}, 59 (1982);
1001: M.~Y.~Khlopov and A.~D.~Linde, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 138}, 265 (1984);
1002: K.~Kohri, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 64} 043515 (2001) [arXiv:astro-ph/0103411];
1003: see also, e.g.,
1004: M. Kawasaki, K. Kohri and T. Moroi, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 625}, 7 (2005)
1005: [arXiv:astro-ph/0402490];
1006: D.~G.~Cerdeno, K.~Y.~Choi, K.~Jedamzik, L.~Roszkowski and R.~Ruiz de Austri,
1007: %``Gravitino dark matter in the CMSSM with improved constraints from BBN,''
1008: JCAP {\bf 0606}, 005 (2006)
1009: [arXiv:hep-ph/0509275].
1010: %%CITATION = JCAPA,0606,005;%%
1011: F.~D.~Steffen, JCAP {\bf 0609}, 001 (2006) [arXiv:hep-ph/0605306];
1012: J.~Pradler and F.~D.~Steffen, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 75} 023509 (2007) [arXiv:hep-ph/0608344].
1013: \bibitem{resonance}
1014: M.~Flanz, E.~A.~Paschos and U.~Sarkar, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 345}, 248 (1995)
1015: [Erratum-ibid.\ B {\bf 382}, 447 (1996)] [arXiv:hep-ph/9411366];
1016: M.~Flanz, E.~A.~Paschos, U.~Sarkar and J.~Weiss, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 389}, 693 (1996)
1017: [arXiv:hep-ph/9607310]; see also J.~R.~Ellis, M.~Raidal and T.~Yanagida,
1018: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 546} 228 (2002) [arXiv:hep-ph/0206300];
1019: M.~Fujii, K.~Hamaguchi and T.~Yanagida, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 65}, 115012 (2002)
1020: [arXiv:hep-ph/0202210].
1021: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0202239;%%
1022: \bibitem{Pilaftsis97}
1023: A.~Pilaftsis,
1024: %``CP violation and baryogenesis due to heavy Majorana neutrinos,''
1025: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 56}, 5431 (1997)
1026: [arXiv:hep-ph/9707235];
1027: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9707235;%%
1028: A.~Pilaftsis and T.~E.~J.~Underwood,
1029: %``Resonant leptogenesis,''
1030: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 692},303 (2004)
1031: [arXiv:hep-ph/0309342].
1032: \bibitem{Turzynski04}
1033: K.~Turzynski,
1034: %``Degenerate minimal see-saw and leptogenesis,''
1035: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 589}, 135 (2004)
1036: [arXiv:hep-ph/0401219];
1037: R.~Gonz\'{a}lez Felipe, F.~R.~Joaquim and B.~M.~Nobre,
1038: %``Radiatively induced leptogenesis in a minimal seesaw model,''
1039: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 70}, 085009 (2004)
1040: [arXiv:hep-ph/0311029].
1041: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0401219;%%
1042: \bibitem{Branco05}
1043: %\cite{Branco:2005ye}
1044: %\bibitem{Branco:2005ye}
1045: G.~C.~Branco, R.~Gonzalez Felipe, F.~R.~Joaquim and B.~M.~Nobre,
1046: %``Enlarging the window for radiative leptogenesis,''
1047: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 633}, 336 (2006)
1048: [arXiv:hep-ph/0507092].
1049: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0507092;%%
1050: \bibitem{mfv}
1051: V.~Cirigliano, G.~Isidori and V.~Porretti,
1052: %``CP violation and leptogenesis in models with minimal lepton flavour
1053: %violation,''
1054: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 763}, 228 (2007)
1055: [arXiv:hep-ph/0607068];
1056: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0607068;%%
1057: %\bibitem{Branco06}
1058: G.~C.~Branco, A.~J.~Buras, S.~J\"ager, S.~Uhlig and A.~Weiler,
1059: arXiv:hep-ph/0609067.
1060: \bibitem{mutau}
1061: Y.~H.~Ahn, S.~K.~Kang, C.~S.~Kim and J.~Lee,
1062: arXiv:hep-ph/0610007
1063: \bibitem{lmlt0}
1064: P.~Binetruy, S.~Lavignac, S.~T.~Petcov and P.~Ramond,
1065: %``Quasi-degenerate neutrinos from an Abelian family symmetry,''
1066: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 496}, 3 (1997)
1067: [arXiv:hep-ph/9610481];
1068: N.~F.~Bell and R.~R.~Volkas,
1069: %``Bottom-up model for maximal nu/mu-nu/tau mixing,''
1070: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 63}, 013006 (2001)
1071: [arXiv:hep-ph/0008177].
1072: \bibitem{lmlt1}
1073: S.~Choubey and W.~Rodejohann,
1074: %``A flavor symmetry for quasi-degenerate neutrinos: L(mu)-L(tau),''
1075: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 40}, 259 (2005)
1076: [arXiv:hep-ph/0411190];
1077: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0411190;%%
1078: \bibitem{lmlt1a}
1079: B.~Adhikary, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 74}, 033002 (2006) [arXiv:hep-ph/0604009].
1080: \bibitem{lmlt2}
1081: T.~Ota and W.~Rodejohann,
1082: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 639}, 322 (2006) [arXiv:hep-ph/0605231].
1083:
1084: \bibitem{Chankowski00}
1085: P.~H.~Chankowski, W.~Kr\'olikowski and S.~Pokorski, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 473}, 109 (2000) [arXiv:hep-ph/9910231]; J.~A.~Casas, J.~R.~Espinosa, A.~Ibarra and I.~Navarro, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 573}, 652 (2000) [arXiv:hep-ph/9910420]
1086: \bibitem{Chankowski01}
1087: P.~H.~Chankowski and S.~Pokorski,
1088: %``Quantum corrections to neutrino masses and mixing angles,''
1089: Int.\ J.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 17}, 575 (2002)
1090: [arXiv:hep-ph/0110249].
1091: \bibitem{casas01}
1092: J.~A.~Casas and A.~Ibarra, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 618}, 171 (2001) [arXiv:hep-ph/0103065].
1093:
1094: \bibitem{Turzynski05}
1095: K.~Turzynski,
1096: %``On leptogenesis with two degenerate right-chiral neutrinos,''
1097: Czech.\ J.\ Phys.\ {\bf 55}, 1193 (2005).
1098:
1099: \bibitem{hirsch}
1100: M.~Hirsch, A.~S.~Joshipura, S.~Kaneko and J.~W.~F.~Valle, arXiv:hep-ph/0703046.
1101:
1102: \bibitem{afm}
1103: G.~Altarelli, F.~Feruglio and I.~Masina,
1104: %``Models of neutrino masses: Anarchy versus hierarchy,''
1105: JHEP {\bf 0301}, 035 (2003)
1106: [arXiv:hep-ph/0210342].
1107: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0210342;%%
1108:
1109: \bibitem{he}
1110: X.-G.~He, Y.~-Y.~Keum and R.~R.~Volkas, JHEP {\bf 0604}, 039 (2006) [arXiv:hep-ph/0601001].
1111:
1112: \bibitem{Hall}
1113: L.~J.~Hall, H.~Murayama and N.~Weiner,
1114: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 84}, 2572 (2000)
1115: [arXiv:hep-ph/9911341].
1116:
1117: \bibitem{jmr}
1118: F.~R.~Joaquim, I.~Masina and A.~Riotto, arXiv:hep-ph/0701270.
1119:
1120: \bibitem{Underwood06}
1121: A.~Pilaftsis and T.~E.~J.~Underwood,
1122: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 72}, 113001 (2005) [arXiv:hep-ph/0506107].
1123: For a more thorough discussion of flavor effects
1124: in leptogenesis see, {\em e.g.}: A.~Abada, S.~Davidson, F.~X.~Josse-Michaux, M.~Losada and A.~Riotto,
1125: %``Flavour issues in leptogenesis,''
1126: JCAP {\bf 0604}, 004 (2006)
1127: [arXiv:hep-ph/0601083];
1128: A.~Abada, S.~Davidson, A.~Ibarra, F.~X.~Josse-Michaux, M.~Losada and A.~Riotto,
1129: %``Flavour matters in leptogenesis,''
1130: JHEP {\bf 0609}, 010 (2006)
1131: [arXiv:hep-ph/0605281];
1132: E.~Nardi, Y.~Nir, E.~Roulet and J.~Racker,
1133: %``The importance of flavor in leptogenesis,''
1134: JHEP {\bf 0601}, 164 (2006)
1135: [arXiv:hep-ph/0601084];
1136: S.~Pascoli, S.~T.~Petcov and A.~Riotto,
1137: %``Leptogenesis and low energy CP violation in neutrino physics,''
1138: arXiv:hep-ph/0611338.
1139: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0605232;%%
1140: \bibitem{Covi96}
1141: L.~Covi, E.~Roulet and F.~Vissani,
1142: %``CP violating decays in leptogenesis scenarios,''
1143: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 384}, 169 (1996)
1144: [arXiv:hep-ph/9605319].
1145: \end{thebibliography}
1146:
1147:
1148:
1149:
1150:
1151:
1152: \end{document}
1153: