text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Leptogenesis is an interesting mechanism which has been proposed to generate the observed baryon asymmetry of the Universe (BAU) . The mechanism involves the out-of-equilibrium decay of a heavy right handed neutrino $`N_R`$. The net lepton number L produced in the decay is then reprocessed into baryon number B by anomalous (B+L) violating sphaleron interactions, which otherwise conserve (B-L) .

The advantage of this mechanism is that the same physics that allows the right handed neutrinos to decay into light leptons is also responsible for a see-saw neutrino mass matrix . This point of view has been strengthened by the latest experimental data on the solar neutrino problem by SNO  and Super-Kamiokande  which, when combined, now seems to confirm the existence of a solar neutrino mass scale, and suggests active neutrino oscillations based on either the LMA or the LOW solution . This in turn gives impetus to the see-saw mechanism. Combining the see-saw mechanism with the experimental data  seems to favour scales for right handed neutrino masses $`M_R`$ in the range $`10^7`$ \- $`10^{16}`$ GeV. There have been many studies of leptogenesis, all based on different models, for example left-right symmetry, SO(10), and so on .

In this paper we study leptogenesis in the framework of the (Supersymmetric) Standard Model plus the see-saw mechanism with single right-handed neutrino dominance , . SRHND is useful for both the LMA and the LOW solution  since it leads to a natural neutrino mass hierarchy in the presence of large mixing angles, and gives results which are stable under radiative corrections . This provides a relatively model independent approach which applies to a large class of models with a natural hierarchy of neutrino masses . Indeed in the case of the LOW solution, SRHND is almost inevitable in order to maintain the large neutrino mass hierarchy present in this case.

Within the SRHND framework we generalise previously presented analytic estimates for the mixing angles to the complex domain, and present new analytic results for the leptogenesis asymmetry parameter $`ϵ_1`$ and discuss the insights which this leads to. We then introduce a $`U(1)`$ family symmetry  and discuss our numerical approach to models of this kind. Our analytic results above are supported by the detailed numerical analysis of various texture models. Texture models involve unknown coefficients multiplying the expansion parameters, which implies some level of uncertainty in the predictions. In order to quantify this we perform a numerical scan over the unknown coefficients, to obtain distributions for predictions of neutrino masses, mixing angles as well as the predictions for $`ϵ_1`$ and the baryon asymmetry $`Y_B`$, for different classes of models. In presenting our analytic and numerical results we make a clear distinction between the theoretically clean asymmetry parameter $`ϵ_1`$ and the baryon asymmetry $`Y_B`$. In calculating $`Y_B`$ we propose and use a fit to the solutions to the Boltzmann equations which gives substantially more reliable results than parametrisations previously used in the literature. Using the numerical approach, supported by the analytic estimates, we then discuss two important aspects of leptogenesis, namely leptogenesis decoupling and leptogenesis discrimination.

We demonstrate explicitly that there is a decoupling between leptogenesis and the experimentally measurable neutrino parameters. Although such a result may be inferred by comparing the results from different individual models which have been proposed in the literature, the present paper represents the first attempt to systematically demonstrate this within a framework (SRHND) which can be plausibly applied to many different models. To support the decoupling claim we present examples of classes of models which give the same measurable neutrino parameters but have very different values for the CP asymmetry $`ϵ_1`$. Leptogenesis decoupling implies that there is no relation for example between the size of the solar neutrino angle or MNS phase and the baryon asymmetry predicted by leptogenesis.

On the other hand we show that leptogenesis is capable of discriminating between different models and thereby resolving ambiguities within classes of models giving the same low energy predictions. For example leptogenesis may resolve the ambiguity as to whether the dominant right-handed neutrino (the one chiefly responsible for the atmospheric neutrino mass in hierarchical models) is the heaviest or the lightest of the right-handed neutrinos. We show that within a standard hot big bang universe the models where the dominant right-handed neutrino is the heaviest are preferred and are more consistent with the gravitino constraint on the reheat temperature $`T_R\stackrel{<}{_{}}10^9\mathrm{GeV}`$ .

In section 2 we introduce our conventions, especially the use of the diagonal charged lepton and right-handed neutrino basis, the see-saw mechanism and the MNS matrix in this basis, and the standard model leptogenesis formulae in this basis. In calculating the baryon asymmetry $`Y_B`$ in section 2.3 we present and use a new fit formula based on a Boltzmann analysis. In section 3 we give our analytic results based on SRHND for the MNS parameters and leptogenesis, which give important insights into the numerical results which follow. In section 4 we discuss our numerical approach to $`U(1)`$ family symmetry models. Section 5 is a discussion of the decoupling feature of leptogenesis based on the calculation of the asymmetry parameter $`ϵ_1`$. In section 6 we discuss the calculation of $`Y_B`$ for the models where the dominant right-handed neutrino is the lightest, and show that such models are not consistent with a standard hot big bang scenario. In section 7 we then discuss models where the dominant right-handed neutrino is the heaviest and show that such models can lead to successful leptogenesis. Section 8 concludes the paper.

## 2 Conventions

### 2.1 The Diagonal Charged Lepton and Right-Handed Neutrino Basis

To fix the notation we consider the Yukawa terms with two Higgs doublets augmented by $`3`$ right-handed neutrinos, which, ignoring the quarks, are given by

$$_{yuk}=ϵ_{ab}\left[\stackrel{~}{Y}_{ij}^eH_d^aL_i^bE_j^c\stackrel{~}{Y}_{ij}^\nu H_u^aL_i^bN_j^c+\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{~}{Y}_{RR}^{ij}\mathrm{\Sigma }N_i^cN_j^c\right]+H.c.$$
(1)
where $`ϵ_{ab}=ϵ_{ba}`$, $`ϵ_{12}=1`$, and the remaining notation is standard except that the $`3`$ right-handed neutrinos $`N_R^p`$ have been replaced by their CP conjugates $`N_i^c`$ and we have introduced a singlet field $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ whose vacuum expectation value (VEV) induces a heavy complex symmetric Majorana matrix $`\stackrel{~}{M}_{RR}=<\mathrm{\Sigma }>\stackrel{~}{Y}_{RR}`$. When the two Higgs doublets get their VEVS $`<H_u^2>=v_2`$, $`<H_d^1>=v_1`$ we find the terms 111In the case of the standard model we must replace one of the two Higgs doublets by the charge conjugate of the other, $`H_d=H_u^c`$.

$$_{yuk}=v_1\stackrel{~}{Y}_{ij}^eE_iE_j^c+v_2\stackrel{~}{Y}_{ij}^\nu N_iN_j^c+\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{~}{M}_{RR}^{ij}N_i^cN_j^c+H.c.$$
(2)
Replacing CP conjugate fields we can write in a matrix notation

$$_{yuk}=\overline{E}_Lv_1\stackrel{~}{Y^e}^{}E_R+\overline{N}_Lv_2\stackrel{~}{Y^\nu }^{}N_R+\frac{1}{2}N_R^T\stackrel{~}{M}_{RR}^{}N_R+H.c.$$
(3)
It is convenient to work in the diagonal charged lepton basis

$$\mathrm{diag}(\mathrm{m}_\mathrm{e},\mathrm{m}_\mu ,\mathrm{m}_\tau )=V_{eL}v_1\stackrel{~}{Y^e}^{}V_{eR}^{}$$
(4)
and the diagonal right-handed neutrino basis

$$\mathrm{diag}(\mathrm{M}_1,\mathrm{M}_2,\mathrm{M}_3)=V_{\nu _R}\stackrel{~}{M^{}}_{RR}V_{\nu _R}^T$$
(5)
where $`V_{eL},V_{eR},V_{\nu _R}`$ are unitary transformations. In this basis the neutrino Yukawa couplings are given by

$$Y^\nu =V_{eL}\stackrel{~}{Y}^\nu ^{}V_{\nu _R}^T$$
(6)
and the Lagrangian in this basis is

$`_{yuk}`$ $`=`$ $`(\overline{e}_L\overline{\mu }_L\overline{\tau }_L)\mathrm{diag}(\mathrm{m}_\mathrm{e},\mathrm{m}_\mu ,\mathrm{m}_\tau )(e_R\mu _R\tau _R)^T`$ (7)
$`+`$ $`(\overline{\nu _e}_L\overline{\nu _\mu }_L\overline{\nu _\tau }_L)Y^\nu v_2(N_{R1}N_{R2}N_{R3})^T`$
$`+`$ $`(N_{R1}N_{R2}N_{R3})\mathrm{diag}(\mathrm{M}_1,\mathrm{M}_2,\mathrm{M}_3)(N_{R1}N_{R2}N_{R3})^T+H.c.`$
### 2.2 The See-Saw Mechanism and the MNS Matrix in this Basis

The light effective left-handed Majorana neutrino mass matrix in the above basis is

$$m_{LL}=v_2^2Y^\nu \mathrm{diag}(\mathrm{M}_1^1,\mathrm{M}_2^1,\mathrm{M}_3^1)Y_{}^{\nu }{}_{}{}^{T}$$
(8)
Having constructed the complex symmetric light Majorana mass matrix it must then be diagonalised by,

$$V_{\nu L}m_{LL}V_{\nu L}^T=\mathrm{diag}(|\mathrm{m}_1|,|\mathrm{m}_2|,|\mathrm{m}_3|)$$
(9)
where $`V_{\nu L}`$ is a unitary transformation and the neutrino mass eigenvalues are real and positive. The leptonic analogue of the CKM matrix is the MNS matrix defined as

$$U_{MNS}=V_{eL}V_{\nu L}^{},$$
(10)
where in the diagonal charged lepton basis $`V_{eL}`$ will only consist of a diagonal matrix of phases, $`V_{eL}=P_e`$ corresponding to the charged lepton phase freedom,

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}e\\ \mu \\ \tau \end{array}\right)_{L,R}P_e\left(\begin{array}{c}e\\ \mu \\ \tau \end{array}\right)_{L,R}$$
(11)
where

$$P_e=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}e^{i\varphi _1}& 0& 0\\ 0& e^{i\varphi _2}& 0\\ 0& 0& e^{i\varphi _3}\end{array}\right)$$
(12)
These transformations leave the charged lepton masses real and positive, and enable three phases to be removed from the unitary matrix $`V_{\nu L}`$, so that $`U_{MNS}`$ can be parameterized in terms of three mixing angles $`\theta _{ij}`$ and three complex phases $`\delta _{ij}`$, by regarding it as a product of three complex Euler rotations,

$$U_{MNS}=U_{23}U_{13}U_{12}$$
(13)
where

$$U_{23}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 0& 0\\ 0& c_{23}& s_{23}e^{i\delta _{23}}\\ 0& s_{23}e^{i\delta _{23}}& c_{23}\end{array}\right)$$
(14)
$$U_{13}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}c_{13}& 0& s_{13}e^{i\delta _{13}}\\ 0& 1& 0\\ s_{13}e^{i\delta _{13}}& 0& c_{13}\end{array}\right)$$
(15)
$$U_{12}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}c_{12}& s_{12}e^{i\delta _{12}}& 0\\ s_{12}e^{i\delta _{12}}& c_{12}& 0\\ 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right)$$
(16)
where $`c_{ij}=\mathrm{cos}\theta _{ij}`$ and $`s_{ij}=\mathrm{sin}\theta _{ij}`$. The resulting MNS matrix is:

$$\left(\begin{array}{ccc}c_{12}c_{13}& s_{12}c_{13}e^{i\delta _{12}}& s_{13}e^{i\delta _{13}}\\ s_{12}c_{23}e^{i\delta _{12}}c_{12}s_{23}s_{13}e^{i\left(\delta _{13}\delta _{23}\right)}& c_{12}c_{23}s_{12}s_{23}s_{13}e^{i\left(\delta _{23}+\delta _{13}\delta _{12}\right)}& s_{23}c_{13}e^{i\delta _{23}}\\ s_{12}s_{23}e^{i\left(\delta _{23}+\delta _{12}\right)}c_{12}c_{23}s_{13}e^{i\delta _{13}}& c_{12}s_{23}e^{i\delta _{23}}s_{12}c_{23}s_{13}e^{i\left(\delta _{13}\delta _{12}\right)}& c_{23}c_{13}\end{array}\right)$$
(17)
The Dirac phase which enters the CP odd part of neutrino oscillation probabilities is given by

$$\delta =\delta _{13}\delta _{23}\delta _{12}.$$
(18)
### 2.3 Leptogenesis in this Basis

CP violation in the decay of the lightest right-handed neutrino $`N_{R1}`$ comes from the interference between the tree-level and one-loop amplitudes . The CP asymmetries given by the interference with the one-loop vertex amplitude are in the SM :

$`ϵ_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(N_{R1}L_j+H_2)\mathrm{\Gamma }(N_{R1}^{}L_{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{}+H_2^{})}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(N_{R1}L_j+H_2)+\mathrm{\Gamma }(N_{R1}^{}L_{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{}+H_2^{})}}`$ (19)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi (Y_\nu ^{}Y_\nu )_{11}}}{\displaystyle \underset{i1}{}}Im\left(\left[(Y_\nu ^{}Y_\nu )_{1i}\right]^2\right)\left(f({\displaystyle \frac{M_1^2}{M_i^2}})+g({\displaystyle \frac{M_1^2}{M_i^2}})\right)`$
where

$$f(x)=\sqrt{x}\left[1(1+x)\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{1+x}{x}\right)\right],g(x)=\frac{\sqrt{x}}{1x},$$
(20)
where $`f(x)`$ arises from the interference between the tree level decay and the vertex correction, while $`g(x)`$ is due to the interference with the absorptive part of the one-loop self-energy, which can in principle be much larger if the right-handed neutrinos are almost degenerate . Assuming that $`M_1M_2M_3`$, we have approximately ,

$$ϵ_1\frac{3}{16\pi (Y_\nu ^{}Y_\nu )_{11}}\underset{i1}{}Im\left(\left[(Y_\nu ^{}Y_\nu )_{1i}\right]^2\right)\left(\frac{M_1}{M_i}\right)$$
(21)
In the Supersymmetric SM the result for $`ϵ_1`$ is twice as large as in Eq.21 due to the extra SUSY degrees of freedom in the diagrams.

The lepton asymmetry $`Y_L`$ of the universe created by this mechanism can be written as

$$Y_L=d\frac{ϵ_1}{g^{}}$$
(22)
where $`ϵ_1`$ has been defined above, $`g^{}`$ counts the effective number of degrees of freedom, for the SM $`g^{}=106.75`$ while for the Supersymmetric SM $`g^{}=228.75`$  and $`d`$ is the dilution factor which takes into account the washout effect produced by inverse decay and lepton number violating scattering. To calculate $`d`$ one has to solve, in principle, the full Boltzman equations, which can be done numerically .

However, many authors, for examples see , have used simple approximated solutions to the Boltzman equations expressed as

$$d=\frac{0.24}{k(lnk)^{3/5}}10k10^6$$
(23)
$$d=\frac{1}{2k}1k10$$
(24)
$$d=10k1$$
(25)
Recently, Nielson and Takanishi  suggested a slight modification of eqs (23)-(25), namely,

$$d=\frac{0.3}{k(lnk)^{3/5}}10k10^6$$
(26)
$$d=\frac{1}{2\sqrt{k^2+9}}k10$$

Here the parameter $`k`$ is given by,

$$k=\frac{M_P}{1.7\times 8\pi \sqrt{g^{}}}\frac{(Y_\nu ^{}Y_\nu )_{11}}{M_1}$$
(27)
where $`M_P`$ is the Planck mass. Physically $`k1`$ represents the desirable region where the couplings of the right-handed neutrinos are sufficiently strong for them to be copiously produced from particles in the thermal bath, but sufficiently weak for them to decay satisfying the out-of-equilibrium condition.

We have compared eqs (26)-(2.3) to the full numerical solution to the Boltzman equations as plotted in fig. 6 of . Buchmüller and Plümacher  use as a variable

$$\stackrel{~}{m}_1=v^2\frac{(Y_\nu ^{}Y_\nu )_{11}}{M_1}1.1\times 10^3k\mathrm{eV}.$$
(28)
The result of this comparison is shown in Fig. 1. As one can see, the approximate formulas, eqs (26)-(2.3), are a valid approximation for values of $`k1`$ and for small values of $`M_110^{10}`$ GeV. For smaller values of $`k1`$ or $`\stackrel{~}{m}_110^3\mathrm{eV}`$ the approximation formulas are clearly not valid since they do not take into account the production suppression apparent in the full treatment using the Boltzmann equations. For larger values of $`k1`$ or $`\stackrel{~}{m}_110^3\mathrm{eV}`$ (and larger values of $`M_1`$) the approximation formulas are also clearly not valid since they do not take into account the steep suppression due to the out-of-equilibrium condition being violated which is again apparent in the full treatment using the Boltzmann equations. From Fig. 1 it is obvious that in this case the analytic approximation seriously underestimates the suppression of $`d`$ by orders of magnitude.

For this reason we have devised a purely empirical fit formula for the exact solution to the Boltzman equations, which can be written as,

$`(a)Log_{10}(d_{BL})`$ $`=`$ $`0.8Log_{10}(\stackrel{~}{m}_1)+1.7+0.05Log_{10}(M_1^{10})`$ (29)
$`(b)Log_{10}(d_{BL})`$ $`=`$ $`1.20.05Log_{10}(M_1^{10})`$ (30)
$`(c)Log_{10}(d_{BL})`$ $`=`$ $`(3.8+Log_{10}(M_1^{10}))(Log_{10}(\stackrel{~}{m}_1)+2)`$
$``$ $`(5.4{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}Log_{10}(M_1))^2{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}`$
where $`M_1^{10}=M_1/10^{10}\mathrm{GeV}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{m}_1`$ is in units of \[eV\]. In implementing this fit it is always the smallest of (a)-(c) which is taken. 222We fit $`d_{BL}`$ since authors of  plot $`Y_{BL}`$, where $`d_{BL}`$ is related to $`d`$ via $`d=(1\alpha )d_{BL}`$, where $`\alpha `$ is defined in Eq.33. The results of this fit are superimposed onto the exact curves taken from  in Fig. 1.

Obviously eqs. (29)- (2.3) reproduce the exact results considerably better than eqs (26)-(2.3). However, in  the authors assumed that right-handed neutrinos are hierarchical. Also we have to assume that for small values of $`ϵ_1`$ the dilution function does not depend on $`ϵ_1`$. Thus, eqs (29)- (2.3) are still approximate, and may not be valid if these conditions are violated. Moreover, for large values of $`M_1`$, say $`M_110^{14}`$, we have to rely on an extrapolation beyond values of $`M_1`$ used in the fit.

Note also that since in the SUSY SM both $`ϵ_1`$ and $`g^{}`$ are twice as large as in the SM, the two effects tend to cancel in the estimate of $`Y_L`$. Also the approximations for $`d`$ over the above range of $`\stackrel{~}{m}_1`$ are valid for either the SM or the SUSY SM . Therefore the results we present are approximately valid for either the SM or the SUSY SM, although for definiteness we consider the SM from now on.

Due to sphaleron effects $`Y_L`$ finally is related to $`Y_B`$ approximately via

$$Y_B=\frac{\alpha }{\alpha 1}Y_L$$
(32)
where

$$\alpha =\frac{8N_F+4N_H}{22N_F+13N_H}$$
(33)
Here $`N_F`$ is the number of families and $`N_H`$ the number of Higgs doublets. In the SM $`\alpha 1/3`$. Experimentally $`Y_B`$ is expected to be in the range $`Y_B=(n_Bn_{\overline{B}})/s(0.51)\times 10^{10}`$ .

## 3 Analytic Estimates

### 3.1 MNS Parameters from SRHND

In the basis used in this paper where the charged leptons are diagonal, and the right-handed neutrinos are diagonal, we write the neutrino Yukawa matrix as

$$Y_\nu =\left(\begin{array}{ccc}a^{}& a& d\\ b^{}& b& e\\ c^{}& c& f\end{array}\right)$$
(34)
where the LR notation means that the second and third columns of $`Y_\nu `$ correspond to the second and third right-handed neutrinos. We use the phase freedom of the charged lepton masses in Eq.11 to make the couplings to the third right-handed neutrino $`d,e,f`$ real and positive, leaving $`a,b,c,a^{},b^{},c^{}`$ complex.

We write the diagonal (real, positive) Majorana masses in this basis as

$$M_{RR}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}X^{}& 0& 0\\ 0& X& 0\\ 0& 0& Y\end{array}\right)$$
(35)
Then using the see-saw formula for the light effective Majorana mass matrix $`m_{LL}=v_2^2Y^\nu M_{RR}^1Y_{}^{\nu }{}_{}{}^{T}`$ (valid for complex couplings) we find the symmetric matrix,

$$m_{LL}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\frac{a^2}{X^{}}+\frac{a^2}{X}+\frac{d^2}{Y}& \frac{a^{}b^{}}{X^{}}+\frac{ab}{X}+\frac{de}{Y}& \frac{a^{}c^{}}{X^{}}+\frac{ac}{X}+\frac{df}{Y}\\ .& \frac{b^2}{X^{}}+\frac{b^2}{X}+\frac{e^2}{Y}& \frac{b^{}c^{}}{X^{}}+\frac{bc}{X}+\frac{ef}{Y}\\ .& .& \frac{c^2}{X^{}}+\frac{c^2}{X}+\frac{f^2}{Y}\end{array}\right)$$
(36)
So far the discussion is completely general. In order to account for the atmospheric and solar neutrino data many models have been proposed  based on the see-saw mechanism . One question which is common to all these models is how to arrange for a large mixing angle involving the second and third generation of neutrinos, without destroying the hierarchy of mass splittings necessary to account for the solar and atmospheric data. Assuming $`\theta _{23}\pi /4`$ one might expect two similar eigenvalues $`m_2m_3`$, and then a hierarchy of neutrino masses seems rather unnatural.

For our analytic estimates, we assume for simplicity that the first right-handed neutrino $`X^{}`$ contributions are insignificant compared to the second right-handed neutrino $`X`$ contributions,

$$\frac{|a^{}+b^{}+c^{}|^2}{X^{}}\frac{|a+b+c|^2}{X}$$
(37)
Then one way to achieve a natural hierarchy is to suppose that the third right-handed neutrino contributions are much greater than the second right-handed neutrino contributions in the 23 block of $`m_{LL}`$ ,

$$\frac{(e^2,ef,f^2)}{Y}\frac{|a+b+c|^2}{X}$$
(38)
This implies an approximately vanishing 23 subdeterminant,

$$det[m_{LL}]_{23}=\left(\frac{e^2}{Y}+\frac{b^2}{X}\right)\left(\frac{f^2}{Y}+\frac{c^2}{X}\right)\left(\frac{ef}{Y}+\frac{bc}{X}\right)^20$$
(39)
and hence

$$m_2/m_31$$
(40)
Thus the assumption in Eq.38 that the right-handed neutrino $`Y`$ gives the dominant contribution to the 23 block of $`m_{LL}`$ naturally leads to a neutrino mass hierarchy. This mechanism is called single right-handed neutrino dominance (SRHND). In the limit that only a single right handed neutrino contributes the determinant clearly exactly vanishes and we have $`m_2=0`$ exactly. However the sub-dominant contributions from the right-handed neutrino $`X`$ will give a small finite mass $`m_20`$ as required by the MSW solution to the solar neutrino problem.

Assuming SRHND as discussed above, we may obtain a simple estimate for the third neutrino mass:

$$m_3v_2^2\frac{(d^2+e^2+f^2)}{Y}$$
(41)
Note that $`m_{1,2}`$ are determined by parameters associated with the subdominant right-handed neutrinos and so are naturally smaller. Given the SRHND assumption in Eq.38 we see that we have generated a hierarchical spectrum $`|m_{1,2}||m_3|`$.

In order to obtain the MNS parameters we must diagonalise $`m_{LL}`$ as in Eq.9,

$$V_{\nu L}m_{LL}V_{\nu L}^T=\mathrm{diag}(|\mathrm{m}_1|,|\mathrm{m}_2|,|\mathrm{m}_3|)$$
(42)
where we write $`V_{\nu L}`$ as a product of complex Euler rotations of the form of Eqs.13,14,15,16, together with diagonal phase matrix

$$P_\nu =\left(\begin{array}{ccc}e^{i\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_1/2}& 0& 0\\ 0& e^{i\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_2/2}& 0\\ 0& 0& e^{i\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_3/2}\end{array}\right)$$
(43)
which is required to remove the phases in $`m_i=|m_i|e^{i\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_i}`$,

$$V_{\nu L}=P_\nu ^{}\stackrel{~}{U}_{12}^{}\stackrel{~}{U}_{13}^{}\stackrel{~}{U}_{23}^{}$$
(44)
Thus $`V_{\nu L}`$ contains the 3 angles and 6 phases of a general unitary matrix. However in the basis where we have chosen the couplings $`d,e,f`$ to be real, $`m_3`$ is given in Eq.41 and $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_3`$ is zero to leading order.

In order to bring the MNS matrix into the form in Eq.17, additional charged lepton phase rotations are required as in Eqs.10, so that we have finally

$$U_{MNS}=P_e\stackrel{~}{U}_{23}\stackrel{~}{U}_{13}\stackrel{~}{U}_{12}P_\nu $$
(45)
where $`P_e`$ is a diagonal matrix of phases as in Eq.12. Note that the angles involved in the $`\stackrel{~}{U}_{ij}`$ are the same as those in the $`U_{ij}`$ in Eq.13, $`\stackrel{~}{\theta }_{ij}=\theta _{ij}`$, but the phases will be different, $`\stackrel{~}{\delta }_{ij}\delta _{ij}`$, due to the non-zero phases in $`P_e,P_\nu `$.

Since the couplings $`d,e,f`$ are real, we find that the previous estimates based on SRHND are still valid

$$\mathrm{tan}\theta _{23}\frac{e}{f},$$
(46)
$$\mathrm{tan}\theta _{13}\frac{d}{\sqrt{e^2+f^2}}$$
(47)
where the associated phases are approximately zero

$$\stackrel{~}{\delta }_{23}\stackrel{~}{\delta }_{13}0$$
(48)
By a suitable choice of parameters $`e=fd`$ it is possible to have maximal $`\theta _{23}`$ suitable for atmospheric oscillations, while maintaining a small $`\theta _{13}`$ consistent with the CHOOZ constraint .

To determine $`U_{12}`$ is quite complicated in general, but in the physically interesting cases where $`\theta _{12}`$ is near maximal $`\theta _{12}\pi /4`$ we find the simple analytical results

$$\mathrm{tan}\theta _{12}\sqrt{2}\frac{|a|}{|bc|}$$
(49)
$$\stackrel{~}{\delta }_{12}\varphi _{bc}\varphi _a$$
(50)
where $`\varphi _{bc}=arg(bc)`$ and $`\varphi _a=arg(a)`$. In the simple example that the phases in $`P_e,P_\nu `$ are zero, the observable Dirac phase in Eq.18 is given in Eq.50. In general the Dirac phase will involve a more complicated combination of phases.

### 3.2 Leptogenesis in SRHND

In leptogenesis it is generally the lightest right-handed neutrino which decays to produce lepton number, where we use the notation that $`M_1`$ is the lightest right-handed neutrino, $`M_3`$ is the heaviest right-handed neutrino and we assume $`M_1M_2M_3`$. In the notation of the previous subsection where $`Y`$ is the dominant right-handed neutrino there are two physically distinct cases to consider:

(a) $`YXX^{}`$ (i.e. $`Y=M_1`$, $`X=M_2`$, $`X^{}=M_3`$)

(b) $`X^{}XY`$ (i.e. $`X^{}=M_1`$, $`X=M_2`$, $`Y=M_3`$)

In other words the dominant right-handed neutrino may either be (a) the lightest, or (b) the heaviest right-handed neutrino, and both cases must be considered.

It is also worth emphasising that there is no generation ordering implied by the results in the previous subsection (or those in ,). In other words the dominant right-handed neutrino $`Y`$ may be associated with the third, second or first generation, by a simple reordering of the columns of $`Y_\nu `$. Due to the hierarchy of charged lepton masses, it is meaningful to associate the first row of $`Y_\nu `$ with the first generation, the second row of $`Y_\nu `$ with the second generation, and the third row of $`Y_\nu `$ with the third generation. However the physical neutrino mass matrix $`m_{LL}`$ is invariant under the operation of exchanging the columns of $`Y_\nu `$, along with the ordering of the right-handed neutrinos in $`M_{RR}`$, so the SRHND results apply quite generally to all generation orderings of the right-handed neutrinos , . Physically if the Yukawa couplings $`e,f`$ are of order unity, then it may be natural to associate $`Y`$ with the third generation. However if the couplings $`e,f1`$ then it may be more natural to associate $`Y`$ with the second generation, and re-order the matrices by interchanging of the second and third right-handed neutrinos in $`Y_\nu `$ and $`M_{RR}`$.

Returning to the leptogenesis asymmetry parameter in Eq.21, for case (a), where the dominant right-handed neutrino mass $`Y`$ is the lightest, using the SRHND results of the previous subsection, we find

$$ϵ_1^{(a)}\frac{3}{32\pi }\left(\frac{Y}{X}\right)\mathrm{sin}(2\varphi _{b+c})|b+c|^2$$
(51)
while for case (b), where the dominant right-handed neutrino mass $`Y`$ is the heaviest, we find

$$ϵ_1^{(b)}\frac{3}{16\pi }\left(\frac{X^{}}{Y}\right)\mathrm{sin}(2\varphi _{b^{}+c^{}})e^2\frac{|b^{}+c^{}|^2}{|a^{}|^2+|b^{}|^2+|c^{}|^2}$$
(52)
where $`\varphi _{b+c}=arg(b+c)`$ and $`\varphi _{b^{}+c^{}}=arg(b^{}+c^{})`$, and we have used the fact that $`m_2m_3`$ in obtaining Eq.52. 333It is also apparent that the phases which are relevant for leptogenesis in both cases are not identical to the Dirac phase which even in the simple example that the phases in $`P_e,P_\nu `$ are zero, is given as in Eq.18 as $`\delta \varphi _a\varphi _{bc}`$. In general the Dirac phase will involve a more complicated combination of phases still.

Are these values of $`ϵ_1`$ of the correct order of magnitude? We may use $`m_35\times 10^2`$eV and $`m_3v_2^2\frac{(2e^2)}{Y}`$ in Eq.41, and the crude order of magnitude approximation for $`m_2|bc|^2v_2^2/M_2`$, to obtain

$`ϵ_1^{(a)}`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{sin}(2\varphi _{b+c})10^5\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_2}{m_3}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{Y}{10^{11}GeV}}\right)`$ (53)
$`ϵ_1^{(b)}`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{sin}(2\varphi _{b^{}+c^{}})10^6\left({\displaystyle \frac{X^{}}{10^{10}GeV}}\right)`$ (54)
The results in Eqs.53, 54 express $`ϵ_1`$ in terms of the lightest right-handed neutrino mass in each case. Since $`ϵ_1^{(a)}`$ is suppressed relative to $`ϵ_1^{(b)}`$ by a factor of $`m_2/m_3`$ (which should be $`m_2/m_3<0.1`$), this implies that the lightest right-handed neutrino mass must be at least an order of magnitude larger in case (a) than in case (b). 444Note that since the dominant right-handed neutrino mass is given by $`Ye^25.10^{14}`$ GeV, case (a) requires $`e1`$, whereas for case (b) it is consistent with $`e1`$ providing there is a sufficiently large hierarchy in the right-handed neutrino sector. This means that in case (a) the dominant right-handed neutrino cannot be associated with the third family, whereas in case (b) it may be.

To understand which of the two cases (a) or (b) is more promising from the point of view of leptogenesis it is important to estimate the parameter $`\stackrel{~}{m}_1`$ in Eq.28 which controls the dilution factor as shown in Figs. 1,2. From Eqs.28,34,

$$\stackrel{~}{m}_1^{(a)}v_2^2\frac{(|d|^2+|e|^2+|f|^2)}{Y}$$
(55)
$$\stackrel{~}{m}_1^{(b)}v_2^2\frac{(|a^{}|^2+|b^{}|^2+|c^{}|^2)}{X^{}}$$
(56)
In case (a), where the dominant right-handed neutrino is the lightest one, the parameter $`\stackrel{~}{m}_1^{(a)}`$ in Eq.55 is approximately equal to the physical mass of the heaviest neutrino in Eq.41 which is measured by Super-Kamiokande. Thus for these models $`\stackrel{~}{m}_1^{(a)}m_35\times 10^2`$ eV which is generally beyond the plateau regions in Figs.1, 2, and this leads to the requirement that $`YM_1<10^9`$ GeV and a strong dilution suppression $`d1`$. However, according to Eq.53, $`YM_1<10^9`$ GeV leads to values of $`ϵ_1^{(a)}<10^8`$ which, when combined with the dilution suppression $`d1`$, implies from Eq.22 $`Y_B10^{10}`$ well below the observed value.

In case (b), on the other hand, where the dominant right-handed neutrino is the heaviest one, there is no association of $`\stackrel{~}{m}_1^{(b)}`$ in Eq.56 with a physical neutrino mass and so this parameter may in principle take smaller values closer to the plateau regions, leading to only a mild dilution suppression $`d\stackrel{<}{_{}}0.1`$ for a range of lightest right-handed neutrino mass $`X^{}`$. Furthermore, as we already remarked, by comparing Eqs.53, 54 we see that value of $`ϵ_1^{(b)}`$ is larger by an order of magnitude than $`ϵ_1^{(a)}`$. For example if we choose $`X^{}M_1\stackrel{<}{_{}}10^9`$ GeV, consistent with the gravitino constraint on the reheating temperature $`T_R\stackrel{<}{_{}}10^9\mathrm{GeV}`$ , we find $`ϵ_1^{(b)}\stackrel{<}{_{}}10^7`$ which, assuming a mild dilution suppression $`d\stackrel{<}{_{}}0.1`$, implies from Eq.22 $`Y_B\stackrel{<}{_{}}10^{10}`$ which is just about acceptable.

We shall later present specific examples with detailed numerical results which support the conclusion that leptogenesis prefers case (b) where the dominant right-handed neutrino is the heaviest one, at least according to the standard hot big bang picture, ignoring effects of inflation.

## 4 Numerical Approach to $`U(1)`$ Family Symmetry Models

Our numerical results are based on the SRHND models ,, with a $`U(1)`$ family symmetry. The idea of such a symmetry is that the three families of leptons are assigned different $`U(1)`$ charges, and these different charges then control the degree of suppression of the operators responsible for the Yukawa couplings, leading to Yukawa matrices with a hiearchy of entries, and approximate “texture” zeroes . As usual it is assumed that the $`U(1)`$ is slightly broken by the VEVs of some fields $`\theta ,\overline{\theta }`$ which are singlets under the standard model gauge group, but which have vector-like charges $`\pm 1`$ under the $`U(1)`$ flavour symmetry. The $`U(1)`$ breaking scale is set by $`<\theta >=<\overline{\theta }>`$. Additional exotic vector matter with mass $`M_V`$ allows an expansion parameter $`\lambda `$ to be generated by a Froggatt-Nielsen mechanism ,

$$\frac{<\theta >}{M_V}=\frac{<\overline{\theta }>}{M_V}=\lambda 0.22$$
(57)
where the numerical value of $`\lambda `$ is motivated by the size of the Cabibbo angle. Small Yukawa couplings are generated effectively from higher dimension non-renormalisable operators corresponding to insertions of $`\theta `$ and $`\overline{\theta }`$ fields and hence to powers of the expansion parameter in Eq.57. The number of powers of the expansion parameter is controlled by the $`U(1)`$ charge of the particular operator. The lepton doublets, neutrino singlets, Higgs doublet and Higgs singlet relevant to the construction of neutrino mass matrices are assigned $`U(1)`$ charges $`l_i`$, $`n_p`$, $`h_u=0`$ and $`\sigma `$. From this starting point one may then generate the neutrino Yukawa matrices as in . The neutrino Dirac Yukawa matrix is

$$\stackrel{~}{Y}^\nu =\left(\begin{array}{ccc}a_{11}\lambda ^{|l_1+n_1|}& a_{12}\lambda ^{|l_1+n_2|}& a_{13}\lambda ^{|l_1+n_3|}\\ a_{21}\lambda ^{|l_2+n_1|}& a_{22}\lambda ^{|l_2+n_2|}& a_{23}\lambda ^{|l_2+n_3|}\\ a_{31}\lambda ^{|l_3+n_1|}& a_{32}\lambda ^{|l_3+n_2|}& a_{33}\lambda ^{|l_3+n_3|}\end{array}\right)$$
(58)
where Eq.58 may be identified with Eq.34. The heavy Majorana matrix is

$$\stackrel{~}{Y}_{RR}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}A_{11}\overline{\lambda }^{|2n_1+\sigma |}& A_{12}\overline{\lambda }^{|n_1+n_2+\sigma |}& A_{13}\overline{\lambda }^{|n_1+n_3+\sigma |}\\ A_{12}\overline{\lambda }^{|n_2+n_1+\sigma |}& A_{22}\overline{\lambda }^{|2n_2+\sigma |}& A_{23}\overline{\lambda }^{|n_2+n_3+\sigma |}\\ A_{13}\overline{\lambda }^{|n_3+n_1+\sigma |}& A_{23}\overline{\lambda }^{|n_3+n_2+\sigma |}& A_{33}\overline{\lambda }^{|2n_3+\sigma |}\end{array}\right)$$
(59)
where $`A_{ij}`$ and $`a_{ij}`$ are undetermined coefficients, and $`\overline{\lambda }`$ is an independent expansion parameter relevant for the right-handed neutrino sector. 555We are grateful to G.Ross for emphasising that the right-handed neutrino sector is controlled by an independent expansion parameter.

The neutrino Yukawa matrices are generated in a particular basis defined by the $`U(1)`$ family symmetry. This corresponds to the starting basis defined by tildes in section 2, and numerically we follow the procedure to go to the diagonal right-handed neutrino basis, as outlined there. Note that we assume as an approximation that the charged lepton matrix is diagonal with positive eigenvalues in the starting basis. In practice this may be approximately achieved by a suitable choice of right-handed lepton $`U(1)`$ family charges, as discussed elsewhere ,.

In our numerical analysis we take account of the fact that the theory does not determine the complex coefficients $`A_{ij}`$ and $`a_{ij}`$ which one has to choose in some range. This is not a special feature of the SRHND models, which we are focussing on in this paper, but a limitation of texture models based on a $`U(1)`$ family symmetry. Usually one simply assumes that the unknown coefficients are of order $`𝒪(1)`$ and, therefore, the structure in the Yukawa matrices is given by the expansion parameter rather than the coefficients. Our approach to this problem is to scan over the unknown coefficients randomly and to construct distributions for the various observables of interest. This way we are able to determine distributions for masses and mixings of a given model. Given the statistical nature of our approach, one question comes immediately to mind: What is the correct range of values one should choose for the coefficients? Lacking any theoretical background we have chosen for the coefficients the interval

$$a_{ij},A_{ij}[\sqrt{\lambda },1/\sqrt{\lambda }]\times e^{i\varphi _{ij}},\varphi _{ij}[0,2\pi ]$$
(60)
It should be noted, that this choice is the minimum requirement for texture models to be sensible, simply because any larger variation in the coefficients would destroy the texture one originally assumed to be the dominant feature of the mass matrices of interest.

A word of caution might be in order. Obviously the distributions which we calculate depend on our choice for $`a_{ij},A_{ij}`$. Lacking further theoretical support for our choice, we can not evaluate the success of a given model in terms of confidence intervals. Instead our method is more minimalistic. We will consider a model to be a “good” model, if the main body of the distribution in a given observable coincides with or is close to the experimentally preferred value. Clearly, a model which fails even our simplistic test will fail even more badly under a more sophisticated numerical analysis. We would like to stress, however, that although the width of the peaks and the detailed shape of the distributions change under a change of the range of the coefficients, the position of the peaks remains nearly invariant.

In order to be able to compute the expectations for the leptogenesis “observable” $`ϵ_1`$ in the different models, our current computation goes beyond the one we discussed in a previous paper  in allowing the coefficients $`a_{ij},A_{ij}`$ to be complex. Since we do not have a theory of phases, we decided to choose the $`\varphi _{ij}`$ in the full interval $`[0,2\pi ]`$. In other words, since we do not know about any mechanism suppressing phases effectively in the Yukawa couplings, we simply expect that all phases should be large.

So, our numerical procedure may be summarised as follows. First select a particular flavour model defined by a choice of $`U(1)`$ charges. Second select randomly a set of complex coefficients $`a_{ij}`$ and $`A_{ij}`$. Third diagonalise the right-handed neutrino mass matrix to yield positive eigenvalues, and express the Dirac Yukawa matrix in this basis, as discussed in section 2.1. Fourth calculate the see-saw matrix $`m_{LL}`$ and hence the physical neutrino masses and the MNS angles and three phases as discussed in section 2.2. Fifth calculate the leptogenesis parameters $`ϵ_1`$ and $`Y_B`$ as discussed in section 2.3. Then the whole procedure is repeated for a different set of randomly chosen complex coefficients $`a_{ij}`$ and $`A_{ij}`$, and the results are binned to build up distributions of the observable quantities. In the figures we show in the following we use random sets of $`10^8`$ matrices for each of the distributions shown. Finally a different model is selected corresponding to a different set of $`U(1)`$ charges and the whole procedure is repeated for the new model. We disregard the effect of renormalisation group radiative corrections in going from high energy to low energy, which has been demonstrated to be of the order of a few per cent for SRHND models

## 5 Leptogenesis Decoupling

In this section we will discuss leptogenesis decoupling, namely, the fact that the leptogenesis observable $`ϵ_1`$ can take any value independent of the low energy observables, i.e. masses and mixings. Unfortunately this means that measurements of the solar angle or the MNS phase for example does not tell us anything about leptogenesis. On the other hand the results in this section also demonstrate another aspect of leptogenesis, namely that it can be used to resolve the ambiguity between different models which all lead to very similar predictions for low energy neutrino observables. In this way leptogenesis provides information about the high energy theory which would be impossible to determine by the measurement of low energy observables alone.

We will defer the discussion of $`Y_B`$ until the next section and concentrate here only on the calculation of $`ϵ_1`$, since the conversion of the CP asymmetry parameter to $`Y_B`$ depends highly on the assumed thermal history of the universe, whereas the calculation of $`ϵ_1`$ is theoretically clean.

In Table 1 we give four examples of models based on different choices of flavour charges. For simplicity, we start by assuming that the expansion parameter in the right-handed neutrino sector is equal to the Wolfenstein parameter $`\overline{\lambda }=\lambda `$, as was assumed in . Model FC1 was discussed analytically in , where it is seen that it yields a heavy Majorana matrix with an off-diagonal structure in the $`U(1)`$ charge basis. It satisfies the SRHND conditions, and has $`ab,c`$ and so leads to the LMA solution. FC2 also has an off-diagonal heavy Majorana matrix, but has $`ab,c`$ and so leads to the SMA solution. 666The latest data from the SNO collaboration  rather strongly disfavours the SMA solution . FC3 is also taken from , and is an example of a model with an approximately diagonal heavy Majorana matrix in the $`U(1)`$ charge basis. Using the analytic results in  we find the approximate expectations for the experimentally accesible quantities ($`\theta _{23}`$, $`\theta _{13}`$, $`\theta _{12}`$ and $`R|\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2|/|\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2|`$) where $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{ij}^2m_i^2m_j^2`$ as given in Table 1. Thus FC1 is suitable for the LMA solution, FC2 for the SMA solution, FC3 for the LMA but with a larger CHOOZ angle than FC1, and FC4 is a model without SRHND which is consequently expected to give a larger value of $`R`$ than models FC1-FC3 which all have SRHND. 777As a side remark we mention that for neutrinoless double beta decay, in flavour models which make use of the seesaw mechanism, one never expects that the effective Majorana neutrino mass ($`m_\nu =(m_{LL})_{11}`$) measured in double beta decay is exactly zero. However, these models produce a hierarchical spectrum of left-handed neutrinos and thus one expects $`m_\nu `$ to be small. In the models we have studied in this paper, one typically gets $`m_\nu 10^3`$ $`eV`$, albeit depending on the model and with a rather larger uncertainty.

Figure 1 shows the distributions for the solar ($`s_{}4\mathrm{sin}\theta _{12}^2(1\mathrm{sin}\theta _{12}^2)`$), atmospheric ($`s_{Atm}4\mathrm{sin}\theta _{23}^2(1\mathrm{sin}\theta _{23}^2)`$) and CHOOZ ($`s_C4\mathrm{sin}\theta _{13}^2(1\mathrm{sin}\theta _{13}^2)`$) angles as well as for $`R|\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2|/|\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2|`$ for the four models given in table 1. As discussed above, the detailed shape of the distributions is different to the one we calculated previously  using real coefficients. The positions of the peaks of the various distributions, however, did not change allowing for complex phases.

Figure 4 shows the distributions in the leptogenesis observable $`ϵ`$ for the models FC1-FC4. From the figures one might be tempted to think, that different low energy observables lead to different values of $`ϵ_1`$ and so might be distinguished. This is not true, and we now show that any of the models can be modified to give any desired value of $`ϵ_1`$, while keeping the low energy observables approximately unchanged.

Let us consider as an example the model FC3 discussed above, which predicts the LMA solution and a relatively large CHOOZ angle. Model FC3 gives (neglecting the coefficients and assuming $`\overline{\lambda }=\lambda `$) the following Dirac and Majorana mass matrices:

$$Y_\nu ^{FC3}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\lambda ^{1/2}& \lambda & \lambda ^{3/2}\\ \lambda ^{3/2}& \lambda & \lambda ^{1/2}\\ \lambda ^{3/2}& \lambda & \lambda ^{1/2}\end{array}\right)$$
(61)
$$Y_{RR}^{FC3}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& \lambda ^{1/2}& \lambda \\ & \lambda & \lambda ^{3/2}\\ & & \lambda ^2\end{array}\right)$$
(62)
which after see-sawing give the following leading order structure for $`m_{LL}`$:

$$m_{LL}^{FC3}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\lambda & 1& 1\\ 1& \lambda ^1& \lambda ^1\\ 1& \lambda ^1& \lambda ^1\end{array}\right)+𝒪\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\lambda & \lambda & \lambda \\ \lambda & \lambda & \lambda \\ \lambda & \lambda & \lambda \end{array}\right).$$
(63)
Note, that FC3 has a right-handed neutrino mass matrix which is diagonal to leading order and it is the lightest (third) right-handed neutrino which gives the dominant contribution to $`m_{LL}`$. The estimate for the asymmetry parameter is given in Eq.53, where it is clear that $`e\lambda ^{1/2}`$. In order to change $`ϵ_1`$ we must reduce $`e`$. This may be achieved by adjusting the $`l_i`$ charges in such a way that the Dirac neutrino matrix just gets multiplied by an overall scaling factor compared to eq. 61, while the heavy Majorana Yukawa matrix remains unchanged. The rescaling of the Dirac Yukawa matrix implies that the coupling $`e`$ is made smaller, and hence the scale of right-handed neutrino masses must be reduced in order to maintain the same value of $`m_3`$. This will lead to a different value of $`ϵ_1`$ without changing the other low energy observables at all.

This qualitative conclusion is supported by our numerical results. In table 2 we give sets of charges for variants of the model FC3 of table 1, which lead to a simple rescaling of $`Y_\nu `$,

$$Y_\nu ^{FC3(a,b,c,d,e)}=(\lambda ^{(1,2,3,4,5)})Y_\nu ^{FC3}$$
(64)
and hence the scale of right-handed neutrino masses as shown in fig 5.

All of these models were constructed to preserve the low-energy phenomenology, and in fact we have checked that they lead to identical predictions for $`s_{Atm}`$, $`s_{}`$, $`s_C`$ and $`R`$ as FC3. Figure 5 shows the resulting values of $`M_1`$ and $`ϵ`$. Note that the lightest right-handed neutrino mass for FC3a, FC3b and FC3c in Fig.5 is above the reheat temperature allowed by the gravitino constraint . This figure explicitly demonstrates that it is possible to completely decouple the predictions for leptogenesis from low energy observables.

How well do the analytic estimates for $`ϵ`$ discussed previously agree with the numerical results? In terms of our small expansion parameter $`\lambda 0.22`$ and inserting the flavour charges for the models FC3 (FC3a, FC3b, FC3c, FC3d and FC3e) into eq. 51 one finds:

$$ϵ_1^{(a)}\frac{3}{32\pi }\lambda ^3(\lambda ^5,\lambda ^7,\lambda ^9,\lambda ^{11},\lambda ^{13})$$
(65)
numerically $`3\times 10^4`$ ($`2\times 10^5`$, $`7\times 10^7`$, $`4\times 10^8`$, $`2\times 10^9`$ and $`8\times 10^{11}`$) which coincides approximately with the peaks of the distributions in $`ϵ`$ shown in fig. 5. Recall that model FC3 predicts a right-handed neutrino mass matrix with the dominant neutrino being the lightest one (case a, discussed in section 3.2).

Model FC3 produces predictions for low-energy neutrino phenomenology consistent with the large angle MSW solution of the solar neutrino problem. It is interesting to ask whether this solution is the only one for which one can decouple $`ϵ_1`$ from the low-energy observables.

In order to investigate this problem we have constructed variants of FC2, predicting a small angle MSW solution to the solar neutrino problem. The corresponding charges are given in Table. 3. All models in this table produce exactly the same distributions in $`R`$ and $`s_{Atm}`$ as model FC2, but lead to different predictions for $`s_{}`$, $`s_C`$ and $`ϵ_1`$ as is demonstrated in Fig. 6. Note that we have multiplied the distributions for FC2a and FC2b by a factor of $`1.1`$, since otherwise the curves would completely overlap in some of the variables.

As can be seen from Fig. 6 models FC2 and FC2a give the same predictions for $`s_{}`$ and $`s_C`$, but differ in their predictions for $`ϵ_1`$. FC2b and FC2c, on the other hand, give expectations for $`s_{}`$ and $`s_C`$ which are smaller than the one for FC2 by about $`1.5`$ orders of magnitude. Nevertheless, FC2b yields values of $`ϵ`$ which are very similiar to those of FC2. Also FC2c and FC2a have very similar expectations for leptogenesis while differing in $`s_{}`$ and $`s_C`$.

It is obviously easy to find models differing in their predictions for leptogenesis and at the same time being consistent with SMA MSW. Moreover, neither the size of the solar nor the size of the CHOOZ angles tell us anything about whether leptogenesis is possible or not.

Finally we have investigated the question whether a special value of $`R`$ determines $`ϵ_1`$. All the models discussed so far prefer values of $`R>10^4`$. The following assignment of charges defines a model (FC5), which prefers larger hierarchies, see fig. 7,

$$(l_1,l_2,l_3,n_1,n_2,n_3,\sigma )=(3,3,3,0,1/2,1,1),$$
(66)
while still keeping the atmospheric and solar angles large (and $`s_C1`$). FC5 therefore is consistent with the LOW solution of the solar neutrino problem. Nevertheless, as fig. 7 demonstrates FC5 leads to a very similar expectation for $`ϵ`$ as the model FC3b discussed above, which prefers $`R`$ in the range $`R10^310^2`$.

Obviously, any value of $`R`$ can produce approximately the same order-of-magnitude values of $`ϵ_1`$.

As a summary it can be stated that there is a decoupling between low energy neutrino observables and leptogenesis. We have demonstrated this point by constructing a number of different flavour models, which give the same predictions for neutrino masses and mixings while differing by huge factors in their expectations for leptogenesis.

On the other hand we have seen that leptogenesis is in principle able to resolve the ambiguity between different models which would lead to the same low energy neutrino observables, and which otherwise would be indistinguishable. Therefore leptogenesis is able to provide information about the high energy theory which could not be obtained by low energy measurements.

## 6 From $`ϵ_1`$ to $`Y_B`$ when the dominant right-handed neutrino is the lightest

While the calculation of $`ϵ_1`$ is straightforward, once a particular model has been specified, the calculation of $`Y_B`$ depends crucially on a number of assumptions made about the early universe. In the following calculation we will assume a standard hot big bang scenario in which the maximum temperature is higher than the largest right-handed neutrino mass we consider, such that the right-handed neutrinos can be thermally produced. This assumption is necessary if one wants to employ one of the parameterizations to the full solution of the Boltzman equations, see eqs 26-2.3 and 29-2.3, discussed in section 2.3.

Obviously the following discussion will not be valid, if the universe underwent a period of inflation with a rather low reheat temperature, as required by the gravitino problem.

Let us first discuss the different values for $`Y_B`$ one obtains using either eqs 26-2.3 or our parameterization eqs 29-2.3. As an example we will concentrate on the variants of the model FC3, discussed in the last section.

Fig. 8 shows calculated values of $`Y_B`$ using the two different approximations. Obviously for large values of $`M_1`$ the two different calculations differ by many orders of magnitude. Using the simplest approximation, eqs 26-2.3, it seems that larger values of $`M_1`$ lead to larger values of $`Y_B`$ and that, in principle, one can get $`Y_B`$ as large as one desires. One can trace back this scaling to eq. 51 in section 3.2 and to the fact that eqs 26-2.3 do not depend on the value of $`M_1`$.

On the other hand, using eqs 29-2.3, which take into account the suppresion of $`Y_B`$ for large values of $`M_1`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{m}_1`$ one gets a completely different picture. For large values of $`M_1`$, $`Y_B`$ is suppressed to negligible values and going to smaller values of $`M_1`$ increases $`Y_B`$. Note, however, that for the smallest values of $`M_1`$ of the order of $`𝒪(10^8)`$ \[GeV\] $`Y_B`$ stops growing and never reaches the experimentally preferred range of $`Y_B(0.51)\times 10^{10}`$. All these variants of FC3 therefore fail the leptogenesis test.

Since the simple approximation, eqs 26-2.3 , employed similarly by a number of authors , fails to take into account any $`M_1`$ dependence of the dilution function its use would lead to the opposite conclusion. A careful treatment of $`d`$ seems to be absolutely necessary for a reliable calculation of $`Y_B`$ and we stress again that also our treatment is still only approximate.

In fig. 9 we plot $`Y_B`$ as defined in eqs 22 and 32 with $`ϵ_1`$ estimated from eq. 53 and with $`d`$ calculated by a) the simple approximation, defined in eqs 26-2.3 and b) our fit to the exact solution of the Boltzman equations , defined in eqs 29-2.3. For both calculations we fixed $`\stackrel{~}{m}_1`$ to $`\stackrel{~}{m}_1=0.05`$ eV. For small values of $`M_1`$ both approximations agree quite well, whereas for $`M_1`$ larger than $`M_110^9`$ GeV the expectations from the different approximations differ by many orders of magnitude.

One can understand the failure of the models FC3 to produce the correct value of $`Y_B`$ on the basis of the discussion presented in section 2.3. 888For the analytic estimations of $`ϵ_1`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{m}_1`$ we assumed that the right-handed neutrino mass matrix is diagonal, which is approximately true for the variants of FC3. From the analytic estimates presented in section 2.3 one finds that in models where the dominant right-handed neutrino is the lightest, $`\stackrel{~}{m}_1`$ depends on the same combination of Yukawas as the value of the heaviest neutrino mass, fixed by the atmospheric neutrino mass scale. Thus, for these models $`\stackrel{~}{m}_1m_30.05`$ eV. At such large values of $`\stackrel{~}{m}_1`$, however, the dilution function $`d`$, see Fig. 1, is heavily suppressed for values of $`M_1`$ larger than $`M_110^8`$ GeV. Thus, although larger values of $`M_1`$ lead to larger values of $`ϵ_1`$, see eq. 53, the price one hast to pay for such large masses in the dilution function always overcompensates and $`Y_B`$ in these models can never be larger than $`Y_B10^{14}`$ as is demonstrated in fig. 9.

Since all models where the dominant right-handed neutrino is the lightest share the feature $`\stackrel{~}{m}_1m_3`$, we conclude that upon use of eqs 29-2.3 they all fail the leptogenesis test. In the next section we will therefore study models in which the dominant right-handed neutrino is the heaviest.

## 7 Leptogenesis prefers models where the dominant right-handed neutrino is the heaviest

In the previous section we have seen that although leptogenesis is decoupled from the low energy neutrino observables, nevertheless leptogenesis is capable of resolving the ambiguities between classes of models which would otherwise lead to the same experimental predictions. As an example of the power of leptogenesis to give information about the high energy theory, in this section we show that leptogenesis prefers models where the dominant right-handed neutrino is the heaviest one and discuss the implications of this for unified models. According to our analytic estimates we expect this class of models to yield a lightest right-handed neutrino mass which is lighter than in the previous case, and hence more acceptable from the point of view of the gravitino constraint. In addition these models may be more consistent with GUTs.

As a first example of a case (b) model we consider the charge vector

$$(l_1,l_2,l_3,n_1,n_2,n_3,\sigma )=(3,1,1,9,1,1,2),$$
(67)
which defines a new model called FC9. The charges in Eq.67 lead to

$$Y_\nu ^{FC9}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\lambda ^6& \lambda ^2& \lambda ^4\\ \lambda ^{10}& \lambda ^2& 1\\ \lambda ^{10}& \lambda ^2& 1\end{array}\right)$$
(68)
and an approximately diagonal Majorana matrix

$$Y_{RR}^{FC9}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\overline{\lambda }^{20}& \overline{\lambda }^{12}& \overline{\lambda }^{10}\\ \overline{\lambda }^{12}& \overline{\lambda }^4& \overline{\lambda }^2\\ \overline{\lambda }^{10}& \overline{\lambda }^2& 1\end{array}\right)$$
(69)
Now if we take $`\overline{\lambda }=\sqrt{\lambda }`$, this leads to the contributions from the heaviest (dominant), intermediate, and lightest right-handed neutrino, respectively, to the effective Majorana matrix of the order of,

$$m_{LL}^{FC9}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\lambda ^8& \lambda ^4& \lambda ^4\\ \lambda ^4& 1& 1\\ \lambda ^4& 1& 1\end{array}\right)+𝒪\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\lambda ^2& \lambda ^2& \lambda ^2\\ \lambda ^2& \lambda ^2& \lambda ^2\\ \lambda ^2& \lambda ^2& \lambda ^2\end{array}\right)+𝒪\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\lambda ^2& \lambda ^6& \lambda ^6\\ \lambda ^6& \lambda ^{10}& \lambda ^{10}\\ \lambda ^6& \lambda ^{10}& \lambda ^{10}\end{array}\right).$$
(70)
By inspection we see that the model predicts $`\theta _{12}1`$, $`\theta _{13}\lambda ^4`$, and, from the order $`\lambda ^2`$ accuracy of the SRHND condition, $`R\lambda ^4`$. It may therefore be suitable for one of the large mixing angle solar solutions, either LMA or LOW. Assuming $`\overline{\lambda }=\sqrt{\lambda }`$, the lightest right-handed neutrino mass is predicted to be $`X^{}\lambda ^{10}Y`$, or $`X^{}3.10^7Y10^8`$ GeV, which is rather small. In order to increase $`X^{}`$ we need to increase $`\overline{\lambda }`$.

As seen from Fig. 10 one can adjust the hierarchy in the right-handed sector by a rather small change in $`\overline{\lambda }`$. Going from $`\overline{\lambda }=\sqrt{\lambda }0.47`$ to $`\overline{\lambda }=0.55`$ ($`0.60`$) changes $`M_1`$ from $`M_1`$ (few) $`10^8`$ GeV to $`M_110^{10}`$ ($`10^{11}`$) GeV. This way it is possible to achieve larger values of $`ϵ`$ and a value of $`Y_B`$ marginally consistent with experimental data as shown in Fig. 11. Note, however, that the peaks in $`Y_B`$ for this model are still too small and the models survive the leptogenesis test only in the tails of the distributions. Although in principle in models of this kind (case (b)) there is no association of the parameter $`\stackrel{~}{m}_1^{(b)}`$ in Eq.56 with a physical neutrino mass, in this case when we calculate $`\stackrel{~}{m}_1^{(b)}`$ we must first rotate to the basis in which the right-handed neutrino mass matrix is diagonal. This will lead to larger values of $`\stackrel{~}{m}_1^{(b)}10^210^1`$ eV than would naively be estimated from Eq.68.

This change in $`\overline{\lambda }`$ also influences (although only rather weakly) the preferred values of $`R`$. As shown in Fig. 10 this model tends to prefer values of $`R`$ consistent with the LOW solution of the solar neutrino problem. As mentioned previously, the LOW solution really only makes sense within the framework of SRHND because of the large hierarchies of neutrino masses which would otherwise appear rather unnatural.

One of the advantages of having the dominant right-handed neutrino as the heaviest is that leptogenesis may be achieved consistent with $`e1`$, which allows the third (dominant, and heaviest) right-handed neutrino to be associated with the third family in unified models. An example of such a model was recently presented in the framework of a string-inspired SUSY Pati-Salam (PS) model . The model in  will not be repeated here, but we would emphasise that it was deduced from an analysis of the quark and lepton masses and mixing angles without any consideration of leptogenesis, and therefore we find it somewhat remarkable that it leads to a baryon asymmetry of the correct order of magnitude. The model in  leads to the following structure for the Yukawa and right-handed neutrino mass matrix:

$$Y_\nu ^{PS}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\lambda ^{7.5}& \lambda ^{3.5}& \lambda ^{1.5}\\ \lambda ^{6.5}& \lambda ^{3.5}& 1\\ \lambda ^{6.5}& \lambda ^{3.5}& 1\end{array}\right)$$
(71)
$$M_{RR}^{PS}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\lambda ^9& \lambda ^7& \lambda ^5\\ \lambda ^7& \lambda ^5& \lambda ^{3.5}\\ \lambda ^5& \lambda ^{3.5}& 1\end{array}\right)$$
(72)
The effective light Majorana matrix then has contributions from the third, second and first right-handed neutrinos of:

$$m_{LL}^{PS}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\lambda ^3& \lambda ^{1.5}& \lambda ^{1.5}\\ \lambda ^{1.5}& 1& 1\\ \lambda ^{1.5}& 1& 1\end{array}\right)+𝒪\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\lambda ^2& \lambda ^2& \lambda ^2\\ \lambda ^2& \lambda ^2& \lambda ^2\\ \lambda ^2& \lambda ^2& \lambda ^2\end{array}\right)+𝒪\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\lambda ^6& \lambda ^5& \lambda ^5\\ \lambda ^5& \lambda ^4& \lambda ^4\\ \lambda ^5& \lambda ^4& \lambda ^4\end{array}\right).$$
(73)
From the analytic estimates in 3.1 we expect this model to be consistent with the LMA MSW solution. This is explicitly demonstrated in Fig. 12. From the analytic estimates in 3.2 we also expect this model to give successful leptogenesis, and this is demonstrated in Fig. 13. From the matrices given above and from the analytical estimates of eq. 52 one expects that $`ϵ_13/(16\pi )\times \lambda ^97\times 10^8`$, which within a factor of $`2`$ or so agrees with the numerical calculation of $`ϵ_1`$ in fig. 13. Note, that the resulting values of $`Y_B`$ in fig. 13 are also consistent with the arguments in 3.2. In particular in such case (b) models where the dominant right-handed neutrino is the heaviest it is easier to avoid the gravitino constraint , although the values of $`M_1`$ are still a bit on the high side, as seen in fig. 12. As in the previous model, in the diagonal right-handed neutrino basis we obtain a larger value of $`\stackrel{~}{m}_1^{(b)}10^2`$ eV than would naively be estimated from Eq.71.

Note that supersymmetric models of case (b) have the feature that there is an order unity Yukawa coupling in the 23 position of the Yukawa matrix which leads to a large off-diagonal entry in the slepton mass matrix. This leads to the striking signature of the lepton flavour violating (LFV) process $`\tau \mu \gamma `$ close to the experimental upper limit, as first pointed out in . In general LFV constraints provide an additional window into the see-saw matrices in supersymmetric models .

## 8 Summary and Conclusions

This paper represents the first study of leptogenesis based on hierarchical models of neutrino masses in which SRHND is used to generate the neutrino mass hierarchy. Such models have been shown to accomodate the presently favoured large solar angle solutions such as LMA and LOW , and in the case of the LOW solution where the neutrino mass hierarchy is large it would seem that SRHND is almost inevitable. So we would argue that, far from this analysis being restricted to a particular small class of models, it is in fact quite generally applicable to large classes of models in which the neutrino mass hierarchy is generated in a natural way without any fine-tuning. Therefore the above results should be regarded as being quite generally applicable to see-saw models containing a neutrino mass hierarchy.

In presenting our analytic and numerical results we make a clear distinction between the theoretically clean asymmetry parameter $`ϵ_1`$ and the baryon asymmetry $`Y_B`$, for which we present and use a fit based on a Boltzmann analysis. We have presented analytic expressions for both the MNS parameters, extending the previously presented analytic results  to the complex domain, and for leptogenesis asymmetry parameter $`ϵ_1`$ in the cases where the dominant right-handed neutrino is either the heaviest or the lightest. We have compared the analytic estimates to full numerical results for models based on $`U(1)`$ family symmetry, and have performed a numerical scan over the unknown coefficients, and have seen that the peaks of the distributions in $`ϵ_1`$ are in good agreement with the analytic results. Using the analytic and numerical approaches we then discussed leptogenesis decoupling and leptogenesis discrimination.

We have shown that quite generally there is a decoupling between the low energy neutrino observables and the leptogenesis predictions for $`ϵ_1`$. Thus leptogenesis has nothing to tell us about which solar solution we would expect, and for example the LMA and the LOW solutions are equally acceptable, as indeed would have been the SMA solution were it not disfavoured by SNO and Super-Kamiokande. Furthermore the leptogenesis phase is independent of the measurable MNS phase, although the analytic estimates make it clear that since the two phases originate from the same Yukawa matrix, and even in some cases involve the phases of the same Yukawa couplings, the general expectation is that, barring cancellations, both sorts of phases should be of roughly the same order of magnitude.

In going from $`ϵ_1`$ to $`Y_B`$ one needs to make some assumptions concerning the cosmological history of the universe. In this paper we have assumed a standard hot big bang universe, which is equivalent to assuming a very high reheat temperature after inflation which is larger than the right-handed neutrino masses. Within this standard cosmology the right-handed neutrinos are produced via their couplings to the thermal bath, yet they are required to decay out-of-equilibrium, leading to a rather narrow range of couplings $`\stackrel{~}{m}_1`$ of the lightest right-handed neutrino consistent with successful leptogenesis. For the calculation of $`Y_B`$ a correct treatment of the Boltzman equations describing the number evolution of the heavy right-handed neutrinos in the early universe is essential . We therefore have devised an empirical fit formula and compared it to the exact results  as well as to the simpler approximation . Although for a small range in $`\stackrel{~}{m}_1`$ and small values of the lightest right-handed neutrino mass the simple approximation  agrees reasonably with the exact result , for most parts of the parameter space it fails badly. Only if one takes into account the suppresion of the dilution factor $`d`$ for larger values of $`\stackrel{~}{m}_1`$ and $`M_1`$, either by solving the Boltzman equations numerically or by the use of our approximate fit formula, does one find reliable results. Without taking this effect into account we would have wrongly concluded that $`Y_B`$ can get as large as $`Y_B10^5`$ in some models, whereas with our more refined treatment we find that $`Y_B`$ is always $`Y_B10^{14}`$, if the dominant right-handed neutrino is the lightest.

Based on the above analysis of $`Y_B`$ we have shown that leptogenesis excludes a large class of models where the dominant right-handed neutrino is the lightest one. The power of leptogenesis to resolve ambiguities between models which would otherwise lead to the same neutrino observables provides a welcome constraint on high energy theories. We have shown that models where the dominant right-handed neutrino is the heaviest are marginally consistent with the gravitino constraint and have studied an explicit example of a unified model of this type. We find it encouraging that a model which was written down to describe the fermion mass spectrum , including the neutrino spectrum and the LMA MSW solution, should be precisely of this kind and gives successful leptogenesis, subject to the uncertainties of our estimates discussed in section 2.3.

Finally we should emphasise that our conclusions are based on the assumed cosmological history being the standard hot big bang with a high reheat temperature. One plausible alternative is to suppose that the reheat temperature is below $`10^9`$ GeV, but that heavier right-handed (s)neutrinos can be produced in sufficient numbers by preheating at the end of inflation . The preheating must efficiently produce right-handed (s)neutrinos without over-producing gravitinos, and this will depend on the precise details of the inflation model. A model of leptogenesis with a low reheat temperature, based on preheating of heavy right-handed sneutrinos, which does not suffer from the gravitino problem has been recently studied in detail in . The same Pati-Salam model has also been studied in this context  and interestingly the results for $`Y_B`$ are also consistent, within the large uncertainty, with the estimates given here, based on an entirely different cosmological history of the universe.

Acknowledgements

We thank M.Plümacher for various discussion on the numerical solution to the Boltzman equations. S.K. is grateful to PPARC for the support of a Senior Fellowship.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The bound states of a quark and an antiquark are characterized by the quantum numbers $`J^{PC}`$, where $`J`$ is the total angular momentum, $`P`$ is the parity and $`C`$ is the charge conjugation. There exist three types of different quantum numbers for the known vector mesons . They are $`1^{}`$, $`1^{++}`$ and $`1^+`$. For instance, the first quantum numbers can be assigned to the $`\rho `$ and $`\omega `$, $`\varphi `$ vector mesons with isospin $`I=1`$ and $`I=0`$. The second and the third quantum numbers are assigned to the axial-vector mesons $`a_1`$, $`f_1`$ and $`b_1`$, $`h_1`$, correspondingly. Note that we have two different types of axial-vector mesons and the key point is the difference between the last two assignments for these.

Let us consider the extended Nambu–Jona-Lasinio (NJL)  models. In such models the Lagrangian contains only the quark fields, while the spontaneous symmetry breaking and the hadron states are generated dynamically by the model itself. The mesonic states arise as excitations of quark–antiquark pairs and that defines their interactions with the quarks.

In the relativistic theory the symmetry group is the Lorentz group $`O(3,1)`$, which is isomorphic to the direct product of the two spatial rotation groups $`O(3)\times O(3)`$. The lowest representations of the $`O(3,1)`$ group, which can be used as building blocks for the construction of higher spin representations, are chiral fundamental spinors transforming according to two inequivalent representations $`(1/2,0)`$ and $`(0,1/2)`$. They correspond to quarks with different chiralities. There exists two possibilities to construct the meson fields with the spin 1.

The vector representation $`(1/2,1/2)`$ arises from the product between the left $`(1/2,0)`$ and the right $`(0,1/2)`$ fundamental spinors. There are the vector $`\overline{\psi }\gamma _\mu \psi `$ and the axial-vector $`\overline{\psi }\gamma _\mu \gamma ^5\psi `$ bilinear forms of the quark spinor fields with quantum numbers $`1^{}`$ and $`1^{++}`$, which couple to the vector and axial-vector mesons respectively. They have gauge-like interactions with the quarks and can be described by the gauge vector $`V_\mu `$ and axial-vector $`A_\mu `$ fields.

To describe the mesons with the quantum numbers $`1^+`$ we must use other inequivalent chiral representations $`(1,0)`$ and $`(0,1)`$, which can be constructed, if one uses only the product either of the left $`(1/2,0)`$ or of the right $`(0,1/2)`$ fundamental spinors. These mesonic states correspond to the bilinear form $`\overline{\psi }\sigma _{\mu \nu }\psi `$, and are described by the antisymmetric tensor field $`T_{\mu \nu }`$, rather than by the gauge fields. The antisymmetric tensor field $`T_{\mu \nu }`$ have six independent components: three-vector and three-axial-vector, and can be decomposed in the axial-vector $`B_\mu =\frac{1}{2}ϵ_{\nu \mu \alpha \beta }\widehat{}_\nu T_{\alpha \beta }`$ and the vector $`R_\mu =\widehat{}_\nu T_{\nu \mu }`$ , where $`i\widehat{}_\mu =i_\mu /\sqrt{^2}`$ is a dimensionless unit vector111We assume that repeated indices are summed in all cases.. Each of the vectors $`B_\mu `$ and $`R_\mu `$ has three independent components due to the antisymmetric property of $`T_{\mu \nu }`$. Besides the axial-vector mesons $`B_\mu `$ with quantum numbers $`1^+`$, there are additional vector mesons $`R_\mu `$ with quantum numbers $`1^{}`$, like those of the gauge mesons $`V_\mu `$, but having different coupling to the quarks.

These excitations were missed in the NJL model and they are not considered as real particles at the present time. In this paper we shall show how we can use the newly introduced quasi-particles in the NJL framework. To demonstrate this idea we deal with the one-flavour NJL model only.

## 2 The effective Lagrangian.

One of the most important symmetries of the real world and QCD, which holds in the NJL model, is chiral symmetry. Following the classical paper  we require that the primary fermion interaction must be invariant under $`\gamma ^5`$\- and ordinary phase transformations:

$$\psi \mathrm{exp}[i\alpha \gamma ^5]\psi ,\overline{\psi }\overline{\psi }\mathrm{exp}[i\alpha \gamma ^5],$$
(1)
$$\psi \mathrm{exp}[i\alpha ]\psi ,\overline{\psi }\overline{\psi }\mathrm{exp}[i\alpha ],$$
(2)
where $`\alpha `$ is a constant and $`\psi `$ is the Dirac spinor corresponding to a quark field. We restrict ourselves to the consideration of quark-antiquark bound state formations as real particles. These states are explicitly invariant under transformations (2).

Whilst the Dirac spinor has four components one can construct 16 independent bilinear forms in quark-antiquark channel: $`\overline{\psi }\psi `$, $`\overline{\psi }\gamma ^5\psi `$, $`\overline{\psi }\gamma _\mu \psi `$, $`\overline{\psi }\gamma _\mu \gamma ^5\psi `$ and $`\overline{\psi }\sigma _{\mu \nu }\psi `$. Under the Lorentz group they transform as scalar, pseudoscalar, vector, axial-vector and antisymmetric tensor, correspondingly. To deal with the chiral properties of these bilinear forms it is useful to define chiral currents: $`𝒱_\mu =\overline{\psi }\gamma _\mu \psi `$, $`𝒜_\mu =\overline{\psi }\gamma _\mu \gamma ^5\psi `$, $`𝒮^\pm =\overline{\psi }(1\pm \gamma ^5)\psi `$ and $`𝒯_{\mu \nu }^\pm =\overline{\psi }\sigma _{\mu \nu }(1\pm \gamma ^5)\psi `$. The vector $`𝒱_\mu `$ and axial-vector $`𝒜_\mu `$ currents obviously satisfy the chiral invariance. The last two terms transform under (1) as follows:

$$𝒮^\pm \mathrm{exp}[\pm 2i\alpha ]𝒮^\pm ,𝒯_{\mu \nu }^\pm \mathrm{exp}[\pm 2i\alpha ]𝒯_{\mu \nu }^\pm .$$
(3)
Now we can construct the chiral invariant Lagrangian choosing scalar $`𝒮^\pm `$ and tensor $`𝒯_{\mu \nu }^\pm `$ current-current interactions with opposite chiralities and quadratic forms of $`𝒱_\mu `$ and $`𝒜_\mu `$ interactions. The former is the primary interaction in the original work  of Nambu and Jona-Lasinio. The latter interaction is used in the extensions of the NJL model to achieve a sufficient attractive force in the axial-vector channel . What about the tensor interactions? It is easy to check that its Lorentz invariant form

$$𝒯_{\mu \nu }^+𝒯_{\mu \nu }^{}=(\overline{\psi }\sigma _{\mu \nu }\psi )^2(\overline{\psi }\sigma _{\mu \nu }\gamma ^5\psi )^20$$
(4)
exactly equals zero, because $`𝒯_{\mu \nu }^+`$ and $`𝒯_{\mu \nu }^{}`$ belong to different irreducible representations of the Lorentz group, namely $`(1,0)`$ and $`(0,1)`$. It is therefore impossible to include tensor excitations in a local one-flavour NJL model. Possible minimal extension has been proposed in . The effective four-fermion Lagrangian has the form

$`_{int}=`$ $`+`$ $`G_S[(\overline{\psi }\psi )^2(\overline{\psi }\gamma ^5\psi )^2]G_V(\overline{\psi }\gamma _\mu \psi )^2G_A(\overline{\psi }\gamma _\mu \gamma ^5\psi )^2`$ (5)
$``$ $`G_T[\widehat{}_\mu (\overline{\psi }\sigma _{\mu \lambda }\psi )\widehat{}_\nu (\overline{\psi }\sigma _{\nu \lambda }\psi )\widehat{}_\mu (\overline{\psi }\sigma _{\mu \lambda }\gamma ^5\psi )\widehat{}_\nu (\overline{\psi }\sigma _{\nu \lambda }\gamma ^5\psi )].`$
## 3 The collective states.

The nonlinear current-current interactions (5) can be linearized by means of the formula

$$\mathrm{exp}[\frac{i}{2}J𝒦^1J]=C[\mathrm{d}\phi ]\mathrm{exp}[iJ\phi +\frac{i}{2}\phi 𝒦\phi ],$$
(6)
where auxiliary fields $`\phi `$ will play the role of collective meson states. Then the initial Lagrangian takes the form

$`_{init}`$ $`=`$ $`i\overline{\psi }/\psi +g_S\overline{\psi }\psi S{\displaystyle \frac{g_S^2}{4G_S}}S^2+ig_P\overline{\psi }\gamma ^5\psi P{\displaystyle \frac{g_P^2}{4G_P}}P^2`$ (7)
$`+`$ $`g_V\overline{\psi }\gamma _\mu \psi V_\mu +{\displaystyle \frac{g_V^2}{4G_V}}V_\mu ^2+g_A\overline{\psi }\gamma _\mu \gamma ^5\psi A_\mu +{\displaystyle \frac{g_A^2}{4G_A}}A_\mu ^2`$
$`+`$ $`g_R\widehat{}_\nu (\overline{\psi }\sigma _{\mu \nu }\psi )R_\mu +{\displaystyle \frac{g_R^2}{4G_R}}R_\mu ^2+ig_B\widehat{}_\nu (\overline{\psi }\sigma _{\mu \nu }\gamma ^5\psi )B_\mu +{\displaystyle \frac{g_B^2}{4G_B}}B_\mu ^2.`$
Here we have introduced all possible low-lying collective states. They are scalar $`S`$, pseudoscalar $`P`$, two vectors $`V_\mu `$, $`R_\mu `$ and two axial-vectors $`A_\mu `$, $`B_\mu `$ with the following quantum numbers:

| meson fields: | $`S`$ | $`P`$ | $`V_\mu `$ | $`A_\mu `$ | $`R_\mu `$ | $`B_\mu `$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| quantum numbers: | $`0^{++}`$ | $`0^+`$ | $`1^{}`$ | $`1^{++}`$ | $`1^{}`$ | $`1^+`$ |

Let us note that there are two different vector mesons $`V_\mu `$ and $`R_\mu `$ with the same quantum numbers. Therefore, the physical states of such mesons can be linear combinations of them222It means, in particular, that the $`\rho `$ meson can have both gauge and anomalous tensor couplings with the quarks , while the axial-vector mesons with quantum numbers $`1^{++}`$ have only gauge interactions and the axial-vector mesons with quantum numbers $`1^+`$ have only tensor interactions..

Integration over the quark field $`\psi `$ leads to an effective Lagrangian for the meson fields with proper induced kinetic and mass terms. Various interactions among the meson fields also arise . Here we are only interested in a mass matrix.

## 4 The mass matrix.

It is well known that after spontaneous symmetry breaking, when the quark field acquires mass $`m`$, we get the scalar meson with the mass $`2m`$ and the massless pseudoscalar meson. Due to interactions with the scalar field $`S`$ the mass terms for the vector and axial-vector mesons are also modified. The final Lagrangian for the mass terms reads

$`_M={\displaystyle \frac{M_V^2}{2}}V_\mu ^2+\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}}mV_{\mu \nu }\widehat{R}_{\mu \nu }+{\displaystyle \frac{M_T^26m^2}{2}}R_\mu ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{M_A^2+6m^2}{2}}A_\mu ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{M_T^2+6m^2}{2}}B_\mu ^2,`$ (8)
where $`V_{\mu \nu }=_\mu V_\nu _\nu V_\mu `$ and $`\widehat{R}_{\mu \nu }=\widehat{}_\mu R_\nu \widehat{}_\nu R_\mu `$. Here $`M_V`$, $`M_A`$, $`M_T`$ and $`m`$ masses can be independent. But if we believe that the effective four-fermion interactions of the quarks could originate in QCD by gluon exchange in the $`1/N_c`$ limit, one obtains $`M_V=M_A`$ . This reduces the number of unknown parameters to three. Therefore, we can derive one relation for four physical masses.

As it is expected, the vector mesons with the same quantum numbers are mixed

$$^2(q^2)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}M_V^2& \sqrt{6m^2q^2}\\ \sqrt{6m^2q^2}& M_T^26m^2\end{array}\right).$$
(9)
Let us note that it is dynamical mixing, because the mass matrix contains explicitly momentum $`q^2`$. Therefore, the mixing angle depends on the momenta.

As long as the isospin triplets consist of $`up`$ and $`down`$ quarks with approximately the same constituent masses we can apply this one-flavour model to the charged mesons $`\rho `$, $`a_1`$, $`b_1`$ and $`\rho ^{}`$ in order to avoid mixing with $`s`$ quark for $`I=0`$ multiplets. In this case $`m_{a_1}^2M_A^2+6m^2`$, $`m_{b_1}^2M_T^2+6m^2`$, and $`m_\rho ^2=\lambda _1(m_\rho ^2)`$, $`m_\rho ^{}^2=\lambda _2(m_\rho ^{}^2)`$ are solutions of the quadratic equation:

$$\lambda ^2(m_{a_1}^2+m_{b_1}^212m^2)\lambda +(m_{a_1}^26m^2)(m_{b_1}^212m^2)=0.$$
(10)
Using the Viète theorem we get immediately from (10) the following useful relationships:

$$\{\begin{array}{ccc}m_\rho ^{}^2+m_\rho ^2& =& m_{a_1}^2+m_{b_1}^212m^2,\hfill \\ m_\rho ^{}^2m_\rho ^2& =& (m_{a_1}^26m^2)(m_{b_1}^212m^2),\hfill \end{array}$$
(11)
or

$$m_{b_1}^2=\frac{m_\rho ^{}^4+m_\rho ^4m_{a_1}^4}{m_\rho ^{}^2+m_\rho ^2m_{a_1}^2}.$$
(12)
The last equation is the main result of our work, which can be compared with experiment.

As long as the masses of $`\rho `$ and $`b_1`$ mesons are known with better precision than the $`\rho ^{}`$ or $`a_1`$ masses, we take them as input parameters : $`m_\rho ^{exp}=769.9\pm 0.8`$ MeV and $`m_{b_1}^{exp}=1229.5\pm 3.2`$ MeV. Then we can compare the predicted $`m_\rho ^{}`$ – $`m_{a_1}`$ relation ($`3\sigma `$ allowed region between curves in Fig. 1) with the experimental data. For this purpose we have shown in Fig. 1 the combined result for the charged $`\rho ^{}\rho (1450)`$ mass measurements  and the PDG result  for $`a_1`$ mass with $`3\sigma `$ allowed intervals. The last high-precision measurement of $`a_1`$ mass  is also shown.

We can conclude that there is reasonable agreement between the prediction (12) and the experimental data. Quantitatively, the higher value of $`a_1`$ mass $`m_{a_1}=1307\pm 40`$ MeV is favoured (in comparison with PDG), if the following $`\rho ^{}`$ mass value $`m_\rho ^{}=1401\pm 26`$ MeV  is accepted. The latter is confirmed by the latest experimental data. The corresponding quark mass is $`m=235.5\pm 3.4`$ MeV. It leads to the prediction for the mass of the sigma meson $`m_\sigma =2m=471\pm 7`$ MeV that is also in excellent concordance with the recent experiment  $`m_\sigma ^{exp}=478\pm 29`$ MeV.


text:
# The Multiplicative Anomaly of Regularized Functional Determinants

## Abstract

The multiplicative anomaly related to the functional regularized determinants involving products of elliptic operators is introduced and some of its properties discussed. Its relevance concerning the mathematical consistency is stressed. With regard to its possible physical relevance, some examples are illustrated.

It is well known that the vacuum energy related to relativistic quantum fields defined on topological non-trivial manifolds may lead to interesting physical phenomena such as Casimir effects. Within this context, it is crucial the relativistic nature of quantum fields, namely the fact that an infinite number of degrees of freedom is involved.

In the one-loop approximation or in the external field approximation, one may describe quantum (scalar) field by means of path (Euclidean) integral and expressing the Euclidean partition function as

$$Z=\left(detA\right)^{1/2},$$
(1)
with $`A`$ an elliptic self-adjoint non negative differential operator. The latter quantity is ill defined, since naively, the determinant of a self-adjoint elliptic operator $`A`$, as product of its eigenvalues, is formally divergent. A large class of regularizations of this functional determinant are at disposal and within this class, the finite part, modulo a term depending on the renormalization scale, can be evaluated by means of the zeta-function regularization. When the ($`D`$-dimensional) manifold is smooth and compact, the spectrum is discrete and the zeta-function regularized determinant is given by  (see also )

$$\mathrm{ln}det(A/M^2)=\zeta ^{}(0|A)\zeta (0|A)\mathrm{ln}M^2,$$

where $`M^2`$ is a renormalization scale mass and $`\zeta (s|A)`$ is the zeta function related to $`A`$, an elliptic operator, analytically continued in the whole complex plane. It is possible to show that $`s=0`$ is regular. Thus $`\zeta ^{}(0|A)`$ exists and gives the value of the regularized functional determinant.

Now one arrives at a technical but crucial point: the zeta-function regularized determinants do not satisfy the relation

$$\mathrm{ln}det(AB)=\mathrm{ln}detA+\mathrm{ln}detB.$$

In fact, in general, there exists the so-called multiplicative anomaly, defined as:

$$a(A,B)=\mathrm{ln}det(AB)\mathrm{ln}det(A)\mathrm{ln}det(B),$$

with the determinants of the two elliptic operators, $`A`$ and $`B`$, defined (e.g., regularized) by means of the zeta-function. This anomaly has been discovered by Wodzicki . In the simple but important case in which $`A`$ and $`B`$ are commuting invertible self-adjoint elliptic operators of second order, the multiplicative anomaly can be directly evaluated by the Wodzicki formula

$$a(A,B)=\frac{1}{8}\text{res}\left[(\mathrm{ln}(AB^1))^2\right],$$
(2)
where the non-commutative residue  related to a classical pseudo-differential operator $`Q`$ of order zero may defined by the logarithmic term in $`t`$ of the following heat-kernel expansion

$$\text{Tr}(Qe^{tA})=\underset{j}{}c_jt^{(jD)/2}\frac{\text{res}Q}{2}\mathrm{ln}t+O(t\mathrm{ln}t),$$

where $`A`$ is an elliptic non negative operator of second order. It is possible to show that $`\text{res}Q`$ doesn not depend on $`A`$. The non-commutative residue can also be evaluated by means of

$$\text{res}Q=(2\pi )^D_{M_D}𝑑x_{|k|=1}Q_D(x,k)𝑑k.$$

Here the homogeneity component of order $`D`$ of the complete symbol appears. Recall that a classical pseudo-differential operator $`Q`$ of order zero has a complete symbol $`e^{ikx}Qe^{ikx}`$ admitting the following asymptotics expansion, valid for large $`|k|`$

$$Q(x,k)\underset{j=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}Q_j(x,k)$$

where the expansion coefficients satify the homogeneity property $`Q_j(x,\lambda k)=\lambda ^jQ_j(x,k)`$. Evaluation of the multiplicative anomaly in non trivial topological manifold can be found in .

Physical examples where multiplicative anomaly appears are the ones related to the presence of internal symmetry with vector valued fields . For its physical relevance, we shall considered first a gas of free charged Bose fields at finite temperature and non vanishing chemical potential. We also assume that the Coulomb interaction can be neglected.

It is well known that, in this case, the grand canonical partition function reads

$$Z_{\beta ,\mu }=_{\varphi (\tau )=\varphi (\tau +\beta )}D\varphi _ie^{\frac{1}{2}_0^\beta 𝑑\tau {\scriptscriptstyle d^3x\varphi _iA_{ij}\varphi _j}},$$
(3)
with

$$A_{ij}=\left(L_\tau +L_3\mu ^2\right)\delta _{ij}+2\mu ϵ_{ij}\sqrt{L_\tau },$$

$$L_3=\mathrm{\Delta }_3+m^2,$$

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_3`$ being the Laplace operator on $`R^3`$ (continuous spectrum $`\stackrel{}{k}^2`$) and $`L_\tau =_\tau ^2`$ (discrete spectrum over the Matsubara frequencies $`\omega _n^2=\frac{4\pi ^2}{\beta ^2}`$ ), $`\beta `$ is the inverse of the temperature and $`\mu `$ is the chemical potential. Thus, the grand canonical partition function may be written as (see, for example,  and references therein)

$$\mathrm{ln}Z_{\beta ,\mu }=\mathrm{ln}detA_{ik}..$$
(4)
Now the algebraic determinant, denoted by $`|A|`$, can be evaluated and gives

$$|A_{ik}|=(K_+K_{}),$$
(5)
with $`K_\pm =L_3+(\sqrt{L}_\tau \pm i\mu )^2`$. However, it is easy to show that another factorization exists, i.e.

$$|A_{ik}|=(L_+L_{}),$$
(6)
with $`L_\pm =L_\tau +(\sqrt{L}_3\pm \mu )^2`$. Of course, one has $`|A_{ik}|=L_+L_{}=K_+K_{}`$, and in both cases one is dealing with the product of two pseudo-differential operators ($`\mathrm{\Psi }`$DOs), the couple $`L_+`$ and $`L_{}`$ being also formally self-adjoint. As a consequence, one has to deal with the product of two different pair of operators. Thus, the partition function may be written as

$$\mathrm{ln}Z_{\beta ,\mu }=\mathrm{ln}detK_+\mathrm{ln}detK_{}+a(K_+,K_{}),$$
(7)
but also as

$$\mathrm{ln}Z_{\beta ,\mu }=\mathrm{ln}detL_+\mathrm{ln}detL_{}+a(L_+,L_{}).$$
(8)
The evaluation of the multiplicative anomalies which appear in the above expressions can be done making use of the Wodzicki formula and a complete agreement is found between the two expressions of the partition function . Thus, if one neglects the multiplicative anomaly, one arrives at a mathematical inconsistency.

Let us come to the possibile physical relevance. In the above example, the multiplicative anomaly is linear in $`\beta `$. As a result, it modifies only the vacuum structure. In normal situations, namely in absence of spontaneus symmetry breaking, a one-loop calculation shows that it can be re-absorbed in the one-loop renormalization process, or in other words, there is no contribution to one-loop beta function coming from the multiplicative anomaly . Briefly, the argument goes as follows: the one loop beta-function satifies the one-loop renormalization group equations

$$M\frac{dS(\lambda (M))}{dM}=\frac{1}{2}\zeta (0|A)+\text{higher loops},$$
(9)
where $`S`$ is the classical action thought as a function of the running coupling constant $`\lambda (M)`$ and on the background field. Since

$$A=\text{diag}(\mathrm{\Delta }+M_1^2,\mathrm{\Delta }+M_2^2)=\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}+V,$$

where $`M_1`$ and $`M_2`$ are effective masses depending on the running coupling constant and background field and $`1`$ represents the identity operator, one has

$$\zeta (0|A)=\frac{1}{2(4\pi )^2}d^4x\text{tr}V^2$$

$$=\frac{1}{2(4\pi )^2}d^4x(M_1^4+M_2^4).$$

Thus, the multiplicative anomaly does not give contribution at one-loop level.

However the situation may change when there exists a spontaneous symmetry breaking. In fact, one may perform a charge renormalization such that in the symmetry breaking phase, one obtains the usual condition for the critical temperature, with a corrected non relativistic limit. However, in the symmetric phase, namely when the temperature is higher than the critical temperature, such charge renormalization leaves a sub-leading contribution in the free energy which depends on the presence of the multiplicative anomaly .

Another interesting and related case has been recently considered  and involves a self-interacting charged Bose field at finite temperature. This system is highly non trivial, but it can be treated in the large N limit, in order to deal with higher loop contributions. As a consequence, in presence of symmetry breaking, standard renormalization can be done, but it seems that the presence of the multiplicative anomaly cannot be renormalized away and gives rise to additional terms which modify the transition temperature and leads to additional new terms for the pressure. With regards to the possible physical relevance of the multiplicative anomaly, different conclusions are reported in .

We conclude with some remarks about first order differential operators. As an example, we consider the Dirac operator $`K_0`$. One again should give a meaning to the formal effective action $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\mathrm{ln}detK_0`$. Let us start with massless Euclidean self-adjoint Dirac operator $`K_0^+=K_0`$. In this case the spectrum of $`K_0`$ on a compact (curved) manifold $`M`$ of dimension $`D`$, is unbounded over the whole real axis. If fact $`K_0=i\gamma ^\mu _\mu ,\gamma _\mu =e_k^\mu \gamma ^k`$ $`e_k^\mu `$ are “viel-bein” fields, $`_\mu `$ is the covariant derivative. There exists an ambiguity associated with negative eingenvalues and there are two inequivalent zeta-functions (see, for example  and references quoted therein). As a result, one has

$$\zeta _\pm (s|K_0)=\frac{1}{2}(1+e^{i\pi s})[\zeta (\frac{s}{2}|L)+\eta (s|K_0)]$$
(10)
in which $`L=K_0^2`$ is the spinor Laplacian and

$$\eta (s|K_0)=\underset{i}{}\lambda _i^s\underset{i}{}(\mu _i)^s$$
(11)
is the eta function. However, in the even dimensional case $`D=2p`$, $`\gamma ^{D+1}=\gamma ^1\mathrm{}\gamma ^D`$ exists, and eta-function is vanishing by symmetry. As a result, the effective action is proportional to

$$\zeta _\pm ^{}(0|K_0)=\frac{1}{2}\zeta ^{}(0|L)\frac{i\pi }{2}A_p(L)$$
(12)
Here $`A_p(L)`$ are the Seeley-De Witt integral coefficients associated with the second order elliptic operator $`L`$. In this case, the ambiguity depends on the local functionals $`A_p(L)`$, but such terms may be reassorbed by the renormalization process.

In the odd dimensional case $`D=2p+1`$, there is no symmetry in the Dirac spectrum and the spinor effective action reads

$$\zeta _\pm ^{}(0|K_0)=\frac{1}{2}\zeta ^{}(0|L)\pm \frac{i\pi }{2}\eta (0|K_0).$$
(13)
Here, the eta invariant $`\eta (0|A)`$ is a non local functional of the external geometrical fields and it cannot be removed by the renormalization.

The multiplicative anomaly appears in the massive case, when the Euclidean Dirac operator$`K=K_0+im`$ is not hermitian, the eingenvalues being $`\lambda _i+im`$. In this case, it is possible to show that there is no ambiguity, but again the odd dimensional case is non  trivial and we have

$$\zeta _+^{}(0|K)=\frac{1}{2}\zeta ^{}(0|L+m^2)+\frac{i\pi }{2}\eta (0|K_0)$$

$$is(K_0,m)\frac{\pi }{2}\underset{j=0}{\overset{p}{}}\frac{(1)^jm^{2j+1}A_{pj}(L)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(j+\frac{3}{2})}$$

where the eta-like function contribution appears. It can be evaluated by means of

$$s(K_0,m)=_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{\mathrm{sin}mt}{t}\text{Tr}(\frac{K_o}{|K_0|}e^{t|K_0|})$$

As a result, the Folk Theorem $`detK=detK^+=\sqrt{detK^+K}`$ strictly speaking, does not hold. In fact, the correct formulae for the relevant functional spinor determinats are, for $`D`$ even

$$\frac{detK}{\sqrt{det(L+m^2)}}=e^{i\frac{\pi }{2}\zeta (0|L+m^2)\frac{1}{2}a_{2p}(K^+,K)}$$

and for $`D`$ odd

$$\frac{detK}{\sqrt{det(L+m^2)}}=e^{i\frac{\pi }{2}\eta (0|A)+is(A,m)\frac{1}{2}a_{2p+1}(K^+,K)},$$

where the multiplicative anomalies are given respectively by

$$a_{2p}(K^+,K)=2\underset{j=1}{\overset{p}{}}\frac{(1)^jm^{2j}c_j}{j!}A_{pj}(L),$$

with

$$c_j=\underset{l=1}{\overset{j}{}}\frac{1}{2l1}$$

and

$$a_{2p+1}(K^+,K)=\pi \underset{j=0}{\overset{p}{}}\frac{(1)^{j+1}m^{2j+1}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(j+\frac{3}{2})}A_{pj}(L)$$

As an example, for $`D=4`$, one has

$$a_4(K^+,K)=\frac{4}{3}A_0(L)m^42m^2A_1(L).$$

It should be noted that the multiplicative anomaly term induces a Einstein-Hilbert term, linear in the scalar curvature, contained in the coefficient $`A_1(L)`$.

Finally, we also would like mention two other issues where the multiplicative anomaly seems to play a role. The first one is the relationship beteewen the so called covariant and consistent anomaly associated with vector-axial vector non abelian gauge symmetry. In two dimensions, it has been proved in  that the difference between the consistent and covariant anomaly can be thought as a multiplicative anomaly effect. The second issue is related to the so called dimensional reduction anomaly , an anomaly which is present in quantum field theory once a dimensional reduction is performed and a truncation of the related harmonic sum is done.


text:
# Prompt Photons in Photoproduction at HERA

## 1 Introduction.

The study of parton interactions is frequently hindered by the fact that outgoing quarks and gluons cannot be observed directly. Photons, however, referred to as “prompt photons”, can emerge as a primary product of hard parton processes without the hadronisation by which quarks and gluons form jets. In this way, they provide information that is relatively free from hadronisation uncertainties.

This talk summarises two recent analyses by ZEUS at HERA, which present measurements of prompt photon cross sections in photoproduction.

## 2 Experimental method.

Prompt photons are measured in the ZEUS Barrel Calorimeter. The fine-grained, pointing geometry of the electromagnetic section allows photons to be distinguished from $`\pi ^0`$ and $`\eta ^0`$ backgrounds by first removing those candidates consisting of a broad cluster of fired cells. A statistical subtraction is then performed as a function of the fraction of the energy in the highest-energy cell. An isolation condition removes further background, and reduces the contribution from photons radiated from final-state quarks.

The integrated $`e^+p`$ luminosity was $`38.6\pm 0.6`$ pb<sup>-1</sup>, with $`E_e=27.5`$ GeV and $`E_p=820`$ GeV. The analysis employed energy-flow objects which combine information from calorimeter cells and measured tracks. The incoming virtual photon energy was estimated using $`y_{\mathrm{JB}}`$ = $`(Ep_Z)/2E_e`$, summing over all energy-flow objects in the event, each treated as equivalent to a massless particle. After correcting for energy losses, limits on $`y_{\mathrm{JB}}`$ were applied, corresponding to limits on the centre-of-mass $`\gamma p`$ energy $`W`$. Events with a scattered beam positron in the calorimeter were rejected both explicitly and by the upper limit on $`y_{\mathrm{JB}}`$.

Jets were reconstructed, using energy-flow objects, by means of the Lorentz-invariant $`k_T`$-clustering algorithm KTCLUS in the inclusive mode. The momenta of the objects comprising the jet were summed to obtain the total jet-momentum vector. An energy correction was applied.

After correction, the photons and jets were respectively required to have $`E_T^\gamma >5`$ GeV with $`0.7<\eta ^\gamma <0.9`$, and $`E_T^{\mathrm{jet}}>5`$ GeV with $`1.5<\eta ^{\mathrm{jet}}<1.8`$, where $`\eta `$ is the laboratory pseudorapidity. The fraction of the incoming photon energy that takes part in the QCD subprocess was estimated as $`x_\gamma ^{\mathrm{meas}}=_{\gamma ,\mathrm{jet}}(Ep_Z)/2E_ey_{\mathrm{JB}},`$ summing over the high-energy photon and the jet.

## 3 Inclusive photoproduction of prompt photons.

Figure 1 shows the inclusive prompt photon cross section as a function of $`\eta ^\gamma `$. The magnitude is approximately described by PYTHIA; HERWIG is lower due to a smaller radiative contribution. The NLO parton-level calculations give a fair description. However at negative $`\eta ^\gamma `$, all the models are low. The shape of the $`E_T^\gamma `$ distribution is well described by each model. There are important contributions from the direct and resolved processes, and also from radiative processes.

The recent FGH calculation, still at the parton level, contains the NLO terms in LG and also a box diagram term that is included in K&Z. It is a slight improvement, but again fails to account fully for the backward cross section. Varying the effective transverse momentum of the partons in the proton has been investigated, and seems unable to generate the effect. As shown below, there is no significant discrepancy when a jet is included in the cross section definition; it is therefore worth asking whether the processes which give a very forward-backward event need special theoretical treatment. A recent calculation predicts a BFKL contribution of a suitable magnitude, namely $`d\sigma /d\eta ^\gamma 8`$ pb, but with no backward peaking. It will be of interest to see whether the CCFM approach can assist.

## 4 Prompt photons plus jets.

Figure 2 shows the distributions in $`x_\gamma ^{\mathrm{meas}}`$ and $`\eta ^\gamma `$ obtained when a jet is demanded. The strong peak near unity in $`x_\gamma ^{\mathrm{meas}}`$ is due to events in which the “direct photoproduction” process dominates. In photoproduction at leading order, the Compton process $`\gamma q\gamma q`$ is the only direct prompt photon process. The distributions are well described by PYTHIA (c.f. Fig. 1a), giving no suggestion for large errors in the photon PDFs.

The condition $`x_\gamma ^{\mathrm{meas}}>0.9`$ selects events due mainly to the direct Compton process, and little affected by the incoming photon’s hadronic structure. In these events, the transverse momentum $`<p_{}>`$ of the prompt photon perpendicular to the jet direction in the $`r\varphi `$ plane is sensitive to the momentum of the quarks in the proton, as is the azimuthal angle between the prompt photon and the jet (cf. Fig. 2c). The normalised distribution of $`<p_{}>`$ was used to fit the PYTHIA parameter $`k_0`$, the so-called “intrinsic” parton momentum in the proton. A good fit is obtained (Fig. 3). By combining $`k_0`$ with the effects of the initial-state parton showers, it is possible to obtain an overall value for the effective transverse momentum of the partons in the proton. The result is $`<k_T>=1.69\pm 0.18_{0.20}^{+0.18}\text{ GeV}`$, as shown in Fig. 3c in comparison with data from a variety of other experiments.

The ZEUS result is consistent with the trend shown by all the measurements, namely that the value of $`<k_T>`$ rises with hadronic interaction energy. This may be attributed to the effects of initial-state gluon radiation, but a full theoretical description is still awaited.