text:
# UWThPh-2003-42 Leptogenesis in seesaw models with a twofold-degenerate neutrino Dirac mass matrix

## 1 Introduction

Experimental cosmology has witnessed spectacular progress during the last few years. In particular, the WMAP experiment  has determined with fantastic precision the baryon asymmetry of the universe, which is given by the ratio of baryon number over the number of photons, experimentally measured to be

$$\eta _B\frac{n_Bn_{\overline{B}}}{n_\gamma }=6.5_{0.3}^{+0.4}\times 10^{10},$$
(1)
where $`n_B`$ is the (present) baryon density of the universe, $`n_{\overline{B}}`$ is the anti-baryon density and $`n_\gamma `$ is the (present) density of photons. This value of $`\eta _B`$ is in excellent agreement with the one inferred from big bang nucleosynthesis .

Another field which has lately witnessed outstanding experimental progress is neutrino masses and lepton mixing. On the one hand, the first results of the KamLAND experiment  have conclusively proved that solar neutrinos oscillate; a global analysis of all solar neutrino results, including the recent SNO measurement  and also the KamLAND result, gave a mass-squared difference

$$\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2m_2^2m_1^2=7.1_{0.6}^{+1.2}\times 10^5\mathrm{eV}^2$$
(2)
and a large but non-maximal mixing angle

$$\theta =32.5_{2.3}^{+2.4}\text{degrees},$$
(3)
where the errors reflect $`1\sigma `$ constraints in the two-dimensional $`\theta `$$`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2`$ region. Note that $`\mathrm{tan}\theta `$ is the ratio, in the decomposition of the electron neutrino $`\nu _e`$, of the amplitude for the heavier neutrino $`\nu _2`$ over the amplitude for the lighter neutrino $`\nu _1`$: $`\mathrm{tan}\theta =\left|U_{e2}/U_{e1}\right|`$, where $`U`$ is the lepton mixing matrix. On the other hand, the Super-Kamiokande experiment  has shown that atmospheric neutrinos oscillate with a mass-squared difference in the 90% CL range

$$1.3\times 10^3\mathrm{eV}^2<\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{atm}}^2\left|m_3^2m_1^2\right|<3.0\times 10^3\mathrm{eV}^2,$$
(4)
with best-fit value $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{atm}}^2=2.0\times 10^3\mathrm{eV}^2`$, and a (most likely) *maximal* mixing angle:

$$\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{\mathrm{atm}}4\left|U_{\mu 3}\right|^2\left(1\left|U_{\mu 3}\right|^2\right)>0.90$$
(5)
at 90% CL, the best-fit value being exactly 1. Finally, the CHOOZ experiment  and all other neutrino oscillation data yield the upper bound $`\left|U_{e3}\right|^2\stackrel{<}{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}0.054}`$ at $`3\sigma `$ . For recent reviews on neutrino oscillations see .

These experimental developments invite a renewed interest of theorists for leptogenesis . This is the possibility that the baryon asymmetry of the universe has been generated through the standard-model sphaleron transmutation of a previously existing lepton asymmetry, which in turn was generated at the decay of the heavy neutrinos involved in the seesaw mechanism . In the standard version of that mechanism one introduces three gauge-singlet right-handed neutrinos $`\nu _R`$. Let us define

$$\nu _L^{}C\overline{\nu }_R^T,$$
(6)
where $`C`$ is the charge-conjugation matrix. Then, the mass terms for the neutrinos are given by

$`_{\nu \mathrm{mass}}`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\nu }_RM_D\nu _L\overline{\nu }_LM_D^{}\nu _R{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\overline{\nu }_RM_RC\overline{\nu }_R^T+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\nu _R^TC^1M_R^{}\nu _R`$ (7)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}\nu _L^T,& \nu _{L}^{}{}_{}{}^{T}\end{array}\right)C^1\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& M_D^T\\ M_D& M_R\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\nu _L\\ \nu _L^{}\end{array}\right)+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.,`$ (13)
where $`M_R`$ is a symmetric matrix. If the eigenvalues of $`M_RM_R^{}`$ are all much larger than the eigenvalues of $`M_DM_D^{}`$, then the approximate Majorana mass matrix for the light neutrinos is given by

$$_\nu =M_D^TM_R^1M_D,$$
(14)
while the Majorana mass matrix for the heavy neutrinos is approximately equal to $`M_R`$ . In the weak basis where the mass matrix $`M_{\mathrm{}}`$ of the charged leptons is diagonal, $`M_{\mathrm{}}=\mathrm{diag}(m_e,m_\mu ,m_\tau )`$, one has

$$U^T_\nu U=\mathrm{diag}(m_1,m_2,m_3),$$
(15)
where $`m_{1,2,3}`$ are real non-negative and $`U`$ is once again the lepton mixing matrix.

Since leptogenesis needs $`CP`$ violation, an intriguing question is whether there is a connection between the $`CP`$ violation at the seesaw scale and the one at low energies. In the most general case, the answer to this question is negative . However, it is easy to find scenarios where such a connection exists—see, for instance, ; in minimal scenarios only two heavy Majorana neutrinos are required . Inspired by grand unified theories, it is also quite common in studies of leptogenesis to assume hierarchies in the neutrino sector—see  and references therein. In particular, one may assume that the Dirac neutrino mass matrix $`M_D`$ is strongly hierarchical, i.e. that the eigenvalues $`\left|a\right|^2`$, $`\left|b\right|^2`$, $`\left|c\right|^2`$ of $`M_DM_D^{}`$ satisfy $`\left|a\right|\left|b\right|\left|c\right|`$, and subsequently reconstruct the masses of the heavy Majorana neutrinos from the low energy data . The assumption of a hierarchy in $`M_D`$ is justified by the relationship, existing in some grand unified theories, between $`M_D`$ and the up-type-quark mass matrix, and by the fact that the latter matrix is known to be strongly hierarchical.

In this paper we take a different departure and start from the fact that atmospheric neutrino mixing is maximal (or nearly maximal), which suggests an alternative possibility . Since experimentally $`\left|U_{\mu 3}\right|\left|U_{\tau 3}\right|`$, there may exist in nature a $`\mu `$$`\tau `$ interchange symmetry. We know that $`m_\mu m_\tau `$, hence the $`\mu `$$`\tau `$ interchange symmetry must be broken in the charged-lepton sector, but it may be kept intact in the neutrino sector. This can be achieved through the introduction of three Higgs doublets, one of them ($`\varphi _1`$) with Yukawa couplings to the neutrino singlets and to the charged-lepton singlet $`e_R`$, and the other two ($`\varphi _2`$ and $`\varphi _3`$) with Yukawa couplings only to the charged-lepton singlets $`\mu _R`$ and $`\tau _R`$. Under the interchange $`\mu \tau `$ the doublet $`\varphi _2`$ remains invariant while $`\varphi _3`$ changes sign; this leads to $`m_\mu m_\tau `$. On the other hand, the neutrino Dirac mass matrix is twofold degenerate because $`\varphi _1`$ is invariant under $`\mu \tau `$:

$$M_D=\mathrm{diag}(a,b,b).$$
(16)
A crucial feature of these models is the existence of some other symmetry—either the continuous lepton-number symmetries  or a discrete symmetry —which forces $`M_D`$ and the charged-lepton mass matrix $`M_{\mathrm{}}`$ to be *simultaneously* diagonal. These other symmetries are allowed to be *softly* broken, hence the right-handed-neutrino Majorana mass matrix is non-diagonal and has the form

$$M_R=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}m& n& n\\ n& p& q\\ n& q& p\end{array}\right)$$
(17)
due to the $`\mu `$$`\tau `$ interchange symmetry. It is this matrix $`M_R`$ which produces lepton mixing.

The neutrino sectors of the $`_2`$ model of  and of the $`D_4`$ model of  are both characterized by equations (16) and (17); the $`D_4`$ model is more constrained than the $`_2`$ model since it has $`q=0`$ in $`M_R`$. Note that the $`CP`$-violating phase analogous to the CKM phase is absent from the models under discussion, because $`U_{e3}=0`$. This follows easily from equations (16) and (17), since

$$_\nu =\left(\begin{array}{ccc}x& y& y\\ y& z& w\\ y& w& z\end{array}\right)$$
(18)
in the basis in which $`M_{\mathrm{}}`$ is diagonal. Thus the only sources of $`CP`$ violation in the leptonic sector are the two physical Majorana phases in $`U`$.

The purpose of this paper consists in analyzing leptogenesis in the models of . In particular, we will show that they have the following properties:

1. Leptogenesis is a viable scenario.
2. Correctly reproducing $`\eta _B`$ constrains the spectra of both the light and the heavy neutrinos.
3. Only one of the two Majorana phases is responsible for leptogenesis, and that phase is also the only one which appears in the effective mass $`\left|m\right|`$ for neutrinoless $`\beta \beta `$ decay.

In section 2 we review the computation of $`\eta _B`$ from the knowledge of $`M_D`$ and $`M_R`$, with emphasis on the three-Higgs-doublet structure of our models. We proceed in section 3 to derive the relevant analytic formulae for the diagonalization of $`M_R`$ and $`_\nu `$, in order to calculate $`\eta _B`$. We apply those formulae in section 4 to study the variation of $`\eta _B`$ with the parameters of the models. In section 5 we draw our conclusions. An appendix contains calculational details related to section 3.

## 2 Baryogenesis from leptogenesis

The “natural” basis for our models is given by diagonal matrices $`M_D`$ and $`M_{\mathrm{}}`$ while $`M_R`$ is non-diagonal—see equations (16) and (17). However, the basis in which the leptogenesis formalism is established is the one where $`M_{\mathrm{}}`$ and the mass matrix of the right-handed neutrino singlets are diagonal; the latter matrix is then

$$\widehat{M}_R\mathrm{diag}(M_1,M_2,M_3),$$
(19)
with real non-negative diagonal elements. Defining a unitary matrix $`V`$ by

$$V^TM_RV=\widehat{M}_R,$$
(20)
we find, using equation (7),

$$M_D^{}=V^TM_D$$
(21)
for the neutrino Dirac mass matrix in the leptogenesis basis. For the actual calculation of $`\eta _B`$ one needs

$$RM_D^{}M_{D}^{}{}_{}{}^{}=V^TM_DM_D^{}V^{}.$$
(22)
We assume, for the masses of the heavy Majorana neutrinos $`N_{1,2,3}`$, that $`M_1M_{2,3}`$. Then, the $`CP`$ asymmetry $`ϵ_1`$ produced in the decay of $`N_1`$ (the heavy neutrino with mass $`M_1`$) is

$$ϵ_1=\frac{1}{8\pi \left|v_1\right|^2R_{11}}\underset{j=2}{\overset{3}{}}f\left(\frac{M_j^2}{M_1^2}\right)\mathrm{Im}\left[\left(R_{1j}\right)^2\right],$$
(23)
where $`v_1`$ denotes the vacuum expectation value (VEV) of $`\varphi _1^0`$. The function $`f`$ is given by

$$f\left(t\right)=\sqrt{t}\left[\frac{2t}{1t}+\left(1+t\right)\mathrm{ln}\frac{t}{1+t}\right].$$
(24)
For $`t1`$, we have

$$f\left(t\right)=\frac{3}{2}t^{1/2}\frac{5}{6}t^{3/2}\frac{13}{12}t^{5/2}\frac{19}{20}t^{7/2}\mathrm{}.$$
(25)
Thus, $`f\left(t\right)`$ is negative.

The leptonic asymmetry produced through the decay of $`N_1`$ is written as

$$Y_L\frac{n_L\overline{n}_L}{s}=\frac{ϵ_1\kappa _1}{g_1},$$
(26)
where $`n_L`$ is the lepton density, $`\overline{n}_L`$ is the anti-lepton density, $`s`$ is the entropy density, $`\kappa _1`$ is the dilution factor for the $`CP`$ asymmetry $`ϵ_1`$ and $`g_1`$ is the effective number of degrees of freedom at the temperature $`T=M_1`$. The effective number of degrees of freedom is given by (see for instance )

$$g_{}=\underset{j=\mathrm{boson}}{}g_j+\frac{7}{8}\underset{k=\mathrm{fermion}}{}g_k.$$
(27)
In the $`SU(2)\times U(1)`$ gauge theory with three Higgs doublets and supplemented by the seesaw mechanism one has

$$g_1=\left[28+\frac{7}{8}\times 90\right]_{\mathrm{SM}}+8+\frac{7}{8}\times 2=116.5,$$
(28)
where the terms within the brackets are the Standard Model contributions and the last two terms in the sum take into account the two additional Higgs doublets and the lightest heavy neutrino $`N_1`$, respectively.

The baryon asymmetry $`Y_B`$ produced through the sphaleron transmutation of $`Y_L`$, while the quantum number $`BL`$ remains conserved, is given by

$$Y_B=\frac{\omega }{\omega 1}Y_L\text{with}\omega =\frac{8N_F+4N_H}{22N_F+13N_H},$$
(29)
where $`N_F=3`$ is the number of fermion families and $`N_H`$ is the number of Higgs doublets. This relation derives from the thermal equilibrium of sphalerons for $`10^2\mathrm{GeV}\stackrel{<}{}T\stackrel{<}{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}10}^{12}\mathrm{GeV}`$ . Note that we must impose the condition $`M_1\stackrel{<}{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}10}^{12}\mathrm{GeV}`$, otherwise $`Y_L`$ could be erased before it transmutes into $`Y_B`$. From equation (29), $`\omega =12/35`$ in three-Higgs-doublet models.

Next we discuss the relation between $`Y_B`$ and $`\eta _B`$, where the latter quantity is the ratio baryon-number density over photon density. Note that this is the *present* ratio, and $`\eta _B`$ has last changed at the time of $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation, at which time the photon density (temperature) has increased relative to the neutrino density (temperature). On the other hand, $`Y_B`$ did *not* change since its generation—the baryon number per comoving volume and the entropy per comoving volume remain constant. Thus we have

$$\eta _B=\frac{s}{n_\gamma }|_0Y_B,$$
(30)
where $`n_\gamma `$ is the photon density. The index $`0`$ denotes *present* time. We know that

$$s=\frac{2\pi ^2}{45}g_0T^3\text{and}n_\gamma =\frac{2}{\pi ^2}\zeta \left(3\right)T^3,$$
(31)
where $`T`$ is the photon temperature and $`\zeta \left(3\right)1.20206`$, $`\zeta `$ being the zeta function. At present only photons and light neutrinos are relevant for $`s`$, since all other particles have annihilated apart from tiny remnants—actually, we are just discussing the baryon remnant. Thus

$$g_0=2+\frac{7}{8}\times 6\times \frac{4}{11}=\frac{43}{11},$$
(32)
where we have taken into account that the neutrino temperature after $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation is a factor of $`\left(4/11\right)^{1/3}`$ lower than the photon temperature $`T`$. One thus obtains

$$\frac{s}{n_\gamma }|_0=\frac{\pi ^4}{\zeta (3)}\frac{43}{495}=7.0394\text{and}\eta _B=7.0394Y_B3.15\times 10^2\kappa _1ϵ_1.$$
(33)
We have used the values for three-Higgs-doublet models.

We now turn to the dilution factor, which is approximately given by

$$\kappa _1\frac{0.3}{K_1\left(\mathrm{ln}K_1\right)^{3/5}},$$
(34)
where

$$K_1\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_1}{H_1}.$$
(35)
In this equation, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ is the decay width of $`N_1`$, given at tree level by

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_1=\frac{R_{11}M_1}{8\pi \left|v_1\right|^2},$$
(36)
and $`H_1`$ is the Hubble constant at temperature $`T=M_1`$,

$$H_1=1.66\sqrt{g_1}\frac{M_1^2}{M_{\mathrm{Planck}}},$$
(37)
where $`M_{\mathrm{Planck}}=1.221\times 10^{19}\mathrm{GeV}`$. Thus,

$$K_1=\frac{M_{\mathrm{Planck}}R_{11}}{1.66\sqrt{g_1}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}8}\pi \left|v_1\right|^2M_1}.$$
(38)
Equation (34) holds for $`10\stackrel{<}{}K_1\stackrel{<}{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}10}^6`$ . Numerically one obtains

$$K_1\frac{895.6}{1\mathrm{eV}}\frac{R_{11}}{M_1}\left(\frac{174\mathrm{GeV}}{\left|v_1\right|}\right)^2.$$
(39)
For $`g_1`$ we have used the value of equation (28).

With equations (23), (33), (34) and (38) one obtains, after a numerical evaluation,

$$\eta _B1.39\times 10^9\frac{1}{\left(\mathrm{ln}K_1\right)^{3/5}}\underset{j=2}{\overset{3}{}}f\left(\frac{M_j^2}{M_1^2}\right)\frac{\mathrm{Im}\left[\left(R_{1j}\right)^2\right]}{\left(R_{11}\right)^2}\frac{M_1}{10^{11}\mathrm{GeV}}.$$
(40)
This equation, which we shall use in conjunction with equation (39), clearly indicates the desired order of magnitude of $`M_1`$. Equation (40) shows that $`\eta _B`$ is approximately independent of $`\left|v_1\right|`$. Only the logarithm of $`K_1`$ in the denominator makes $`\eta _B`$ dependent on $`\left|v_1\right|`$. Also notice that the minus sign in equation (40) cancels with the negative sign of $`f\left(t\right)`$.

## 3 The baryon asymmetry in our models

It remains to calculate the quantities $`\mathrm{Im}\left[\left(R_{1j}\right)^2\right]`$ ($`j=2,3`$) and $`R_{11}`$ in our models. We will see that the $`_2`$ model allows a full analytical calculation of these quantities and, according to the discussion at the end of section 1, these quantities in the $`D_4`$ model are special cases of those in the $`_2`$ model.

We remind the reader that, in our models, the effective light-neutrino Majorana mass matrix $`_\nu `$ is as in equation (18), while the right-handed-neutrino Majorana mass matrix $`M_R`$ has the same form as $`_\nu `$ and is in equation (17). The matrix $`_\nu `$ is diagonalized by $`U`$, see equation (15), while $`M_R`$ is diagonalized by $`V`$, see equations (19) and (20). The analogies between $`_\nu `$ and $`M_R`$ and between $`U`$ and $`V`$ are used repeatedly throughout this paper.

It can be shown that, because $`_\nu `$ is of the specific form in equation (18), i.e. with $`\left(_\nu \right)_{\mu \mu }=\left(_\nu \right)_{\tau \tau }`$ and $`\left(_\nu \right)_{e\mu }=\left(_\nu \right)_{e\tau }`$, the matrix $`U`$ can be parametrized as

$$U=\mathrm{diag}(1,e^{i\alpha },e^{i\alpha })\left(\begin{array}{ccc}c& s& 0\\ s/\sqrt{2}& c/\sqrt{2}& 1/\sqrt{2}\\ s/\sqrt{2}& c/\sqrt{2}& 1/\sqrt{2}\end{array}\right)\mathrm{diag}(e^{i\beta _1},e^{i\beta _2},e^{i\beta _3}),$$
(41)
with $`c\mathrm{cos}\theta `$ and $`s\mathrm{sin}\theta `$.777Equation (41) is clearly not the most general parametrization for a unitary matrix, rather it is a consequence of the specific form of $`_\nu `$ in equation (18). We assume, without loss of generality, that $`\theta `$ belongs to the first quadrant while $`m_2>m_1`$. The phase $`\alpha `$ is unphysical; the only physical phases are the differences

$$\mathrm{\Delta }2(\beta _1\beta _2)$$
(42)
and $`2(\beta _1\beta _3)`$. The matrix $`_\nu `$ has six physical parameters: the moduli of $`x`$, $`y`$, $`z`$ and $`w`$ and the phases of $`zw^{}`$ and $`y^2x^{}z^{}`$.888The physical phases in $`_\nu `$ are the ones of its Jarlskog invariants. For instance, $`\mathrm{arg}\left(zw^{}\right)`$ is the phase of $`\left(_\nu \right)_{\mu \mu }\left(_\nu \right)_{e\tau }\left(_\nu \right)_{\mu \tau }^{}\left(_\nu \right)_{e\mu }^{}`$, and $`\mathrm{arg}\left(y^2x^{}z^{}\right)`$ is the phase of $`\left(_\nu \right)_{e\mu }\left(_\nu \right)_{\mu e}\left(_\nu \right)_{ee}^{}\left(_\nu \right)_{\mu \mu }^{}`$. It is better to use as physical parameters the moduli of $`z+w`$ and $`zw`$ instead of the moduli of $`z`$ and $`w`$, and the phases of $`\left(zw\right)\left(z+w\right)^{}`$ and $`y^2x^{}\left(z+w\right)^{}`$ instead of the phases of $`zw^{}`$ and $`y^2x^{}z^{}`$. The six parameters $`\left|x\right|`$, $`\left|y\right|`$, $`\left|z+w\right|`$, $`\left|zw\right|`$, $`\mathrm{arg}\left[y^2x^{}\left(z+w\right)^{}\right]`$ and $`\mathrm{arg}\left[\left(zw\right)\left(z+w\right)^{}\right]`$ correspond to the six observables $`m_1`$, $`m_2`$, $`m_3`$, $`\theta `$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`2(\beta _1\beta _3)`$.

Since the matrices $`M_R`$ and $`_\nu `$ have the same form, the matrix $`V`$ which diagonalizes $`M_R`$ has the same form as the matrix $`U`$ which diagonalizes $`_\nu `$:

$$V=\mathrm{diag}(1,e^{i\chi },e^{i\chi })\left(\begin{array}{ccc}c^{}& s^{}& 0\\ s^{}/\sqrt{2}& c^{}/\sqrt{2}& 1/\sqrt{2}\\ s^{}/\sqrt{2}& c^{}/\sqrt{2}& 1/\sqrt{2}\end{array}\right)\mathrm{diag}(e^{i\gamma _1},e^{i\gamma _2},e^{i\gamma _3}),$$
(43)
with $`c^{}\mathrm{cos}\theta ^{}`$ and $`s^{}\mathrm{sin}\theta ^{}`$. We assume, without loss of generality, that $`\theta ^{}`$ belongs to the first quadrant while $`M_2>M_1`$. Like in the previous paragraph, there are six observables originating in $`M_R`$: $`M_1`$, $`M_2`$, $`M_3`$, $`\theta ^{}`$, $`2(\gamma _1\gamma _2)`$ and $`2(\gamma _1\gamma _3)`$.

We proceed to the calculation of $`R`$—see equation (22). Using equations (16) and (43), we obtain

$$R=V^TM_DM_D^{}V^{}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\left|a\right|^2c_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+\left|b\right|^2s_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}& c^{}s^{}\left(\left|b\right|^2\left|a\right|^2\right)e^{i\left(\gamma _1\gamma _2\right)}& 0\\ c^{}s^{}\left(\left|b\right|^2\left|a\right|^2\right)e^{i\left(\gamma _2\gamma _1\right)}& \left|a\right|^2s_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+\left|b\right|^2c_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}& 0\\ 0& 0& \left|b\right|^2\end{array}\right).$$
(44)
The fact that

$$R_{13}=R_{23}=0$$
(45)
implies that in this model the third heavy neutrino has no bearing on leptogenesis—even if its mass $`M_3`$ happens to be lower than $`M_1`$ and $`M_2`$, the masses of the other two heavy neutrinos.

The matrices $`_\nu `$ and $`M_R`$ are related through equation (14), with $`M_D`$ given by equation (16). That relation contains only two extra parameters: $`\left|a\right|`$ and $`\left|b\right|`$. This means that, out of the six observables originating in $`M_R`$, only two can be considered as independent of the six observables originating in $`_\nu `$. We shall select $`M_{1,2}`$, together with the observables originating in $`_\nu `$, as the basic observables of the theory, and express the four remaining ones in terms of these. It will turn out that $`2\left(\beta _1\beta _3\right)`$ and $`m_3`$ play no role in the computation of $`\eta _B`$; the basic observables that we need for that computation are

$$m_{1,2},M_{1,2},\theta \text{and}\mathrm{\Delta }.$$
(46)
With the aim of using the experimental information on $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{atm}}^2`$, we express

$$m_2=\sqrt{m_1^2+\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2}\text{and}m_3=\sqrt{m_1^2+\sigma \mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{atm}}^2}(\sigma =\pm 1)$$
(47)
as functions of $`m_1`$. For $`m_3`$ there is a twofold ambiguity stemming from the two possible neutrino spectra: normal spectrum $`m_1<m_2<m_3`$ ($`\sigma =+1`$) and inverted spectrum $`m_3<m_1<m_2`$ ($`\sigma =1`$). The inverted spectrum is only allowed for $`m_1\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{atm}}^2}`$; the experimental result for the atmospheric mass-squared difference—see equation (4)—then requires $`m_1\stackrel{>}{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}0.04}\mathrm{eV}`$, which is rather large.

As shown in the Appendix, the parameters $`\left|x\right|`$, $`\left|y\right|`$ and $`\left|z+w\right|`$ are given in terms of the observables in equation (46) by

$`\left|x\right|`$ $`=`$ $`\left|c^2m_1+s^2m_2e^{i\mathrm{\Delta }}\right|,`$ (48)
$`\left|y\right|`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{cs}{\sqrt{2}}}\left|m_1m_2e^{i\mathrm{\Delta }}\right|,`$ (49)
$`\left|z+w\right|`$ $`=`$ $`\left|s^2m_1+c^2m_2e^{i\mathrm{\Delta }}\right|.`$ (50)
We may then compute

$`B`$ $`=`$ $`4m_1m_2M_1M_2\left|y\right|^2m_1^2m_2^2\left(M_1^2+M_2^2\right),`$ (51)
$`C`$ $`=`$ $`m_1^2m_2^2M_1^2M_2^2\left|x\right|^2\left|z+w\right|^2.`$ (52)
These are the coefficients of the equation

$$\left|x\right|^4\left|b\right|^8+B\left|x\right|^2\left|b\right|^4+C=0,$$
(53)
which is derived in the Appendix and allows one to compute the parameter $`\left|b\right|`$ as a function of the observables in equation (46). Indeed,

$$\left|b\right|^4=\frac{B\pm \sqrt{B^24C}}{2\left|x\right|^2}.$$
(54)
Moreover, the parameter $`\left|a\right|`$ is given by—see equation (A32)

$$\left|a\right|^4=\frac{B\sqrt{B^24C}}{2\left|z+w\right|^2},$$
(55)
and the mixing angle $`\theta ^{}`$ is given, as a function of the observables in equation (46), by—see equation (A34)

$$c_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}s_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}=\frac{\pm \sqrt{B^24C}}{m_1^2m_2^2\left(M_2^2M_1^2\right)}.$$
(56)
Thus, using $`m_{1,2}`$, $`M_{1,2}`$, $`\theta `$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ as input, we are able to compute, with a twofold ambiguity, $`\left|b\right|`$, $`\left|a\right|`$ and $`\theta ^{}`$. The twofold ambiguity corresponds to the interchanges $`\left|m\right|\left|p+q\right|`$ and $`c_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}s_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$, as is made clear in the Appendix.

One must check that the condition $`B^24C0`$ is respected. This condition leads to a lower bound on $`m_1`$; in the limit $`M_2M_1`$ one finds approximately

$$\frac{m_1}{m_2}\stackrel{>}{}\frac{M_1}{M_2}\mathrm{sin}^22\theta \text{or}m_1\stackrel{>}{}\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2}\frac{M_1}{M_2}\mathrm{sin}^22\theta .$$
(57)
On the other hand, it turns out that, in general, with $`m_2`$ given by the first equation (47), $`\left|a\right|^2`$ and $`\left|b\right|^2`$ increase with increasing $`m_1`$. In our models, $`a`$ and $`b`$ arise from the Yukawa Lagrangian

$$_\mathrm{Y}=\frac{(\varphi _1^0,\varphi _1^+)}{v_1}\left\{a\overline{\nu }_{eR}\left(\begin{array}{c}\nu _{eL}\\ e_L\end{array}\right)+b\left[\overline{\nu }_{\mu R}\left(\begin{array}{c}\nu _{\mu L}\\ \mu _L\end{array}\right)+\overline{\nu }_{\tau R}\left(\begin{array}{c}\nu _{\tau L}\\ \tau _L\end{array}\right)\right]\right\}+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.\mathrm{},$$
(58)
where $`\mathrm{}`$ represents the Yukawa couplings of the right-handed charged-lepton fields. If we require that the Yukawa coupling constants $`a/v_1`$ and $`b/v_1`$ should at most be of order 1, this implies a loose upper bound on $`m_1`$ (when $`m_2^2m_1^2`$ is kept fixed), since $`\left|a\right|`$ and $`\left|b\right|`$ increase with $`m_1`$. For $`M_2M_1`$ and using the solution $`|b|^2>|a|^2`$, i.e. the upper signs in equations (54) and (55), we find the approximate expressions

$`\left|a\right|^2`$ $``$ $`m_1M_1\left[1\mathrm{sin}^2\left(\mathrm{\Delta }/2\right)\mathrm{sin}^22\theta \right]^{1/2},`$ (59)
$`\left|b\right|^2`$ $``$ $`m_1M_2\left[1\mathrm{sin}^2\left(\mathrm{\Delta }/2\right)\mathrm{sin}^22\theta \right]^{1/2},`$ (60)
where we have used $`m_2m_1`$, valid for $`m_1\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2}`$. These equations may be used to compute the approximate upper bound on $`m_1`$. We see that $`\left|b\right|^2m_1M_2`$. Therefore, requiring $`\left|b\right|^2/\left|v_1\right|^2\stackrel{<}{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}1}`$ leads to

$$m_1\stackrel{<}{}\frac{\left|v_1\right|^2}{M_2}.$$
(61)
For instance, for $`\left|v_1\right|=10\mathrm{GeV}`$ and $`M_2=10^{13}\mathrm{GeV}`$, equation (61) yields $`m_1\stackrel{<}{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}0.01}\mathrm{eV}`$. If we choose $`\left|v_1\right|=50\mathrm{GeV}`$ and $`M_2=2.5\times 10^{12}\mathrm{GeV}`$, we have $`m_1\stackrel{<}{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}1}\mathrm{eV}`$.

An expression for $`\mathrm{Im}\left[\left(R_{12}\right)^2\right]`$ in terms of our basic observables is derived in the Appendix, see equation (A27). Using equation (40), the main result of this section is

$$\eta _B1.39\times 10^9\frac{1}{\left(\mathrm{ln}K_1\right)^{3/5}}f\left(\frac{M_2^2}{M_1^2}\right)\left(\left|b\right|^2\left|a\right|^2\right)^2\frac{M_1^2M_2\left(m_2^2m_1^2\right)c^2s^2\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Delta }}{m_1m_2\left(M_2^2M_1^2\right)\left(R_{11}\right)^2\left(10^{11}\mathrm{GeV}\right)}.$$
(62)
Here, a convenient expression for $`R_{11}`$—see equation (44)—is

$$R_{11}=\frac{1}{2}\left[|a|^2+|b|^2+(|a|^2|b|^2)\left(c_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}s_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\right)\right],$$
(63)
where $`c_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}s_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$ is given by equation (56).

Since $`f\left(M_2^2/M_1^2\right)`$ is negative, we find from equation (62) that $`\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Delta }>0`$. Notice the important point that the violation of $`CP`$ responsible for the generation of a non-zero $`\eta _B`$ all comes from the Majorana phase $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. This is the same Majorana phase entering the matrix element for neutrinoless double beta decay,

$$\left|m\right|=\left|\left(_\nu \right)_{ee}\right|=\left|x\right|,$$
(64)
which is given by equation (48). Thus, in these models neutrinoless double beta decay and leptogenesis depend on the same Majorana phase $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$.

To conclude this section, we discuss the extra condition on $`M_R`$ in the $`D_4`$ model of . As mentioned before, in that model $`\left(M_R\right)_{\mu \tau }=q=0`$. Since $`M_D`$ is diagonal, this leads to $`\left(_\nu ^1\right)_{\mu \tau }=0`$, or

$$\frac{s^2}{m_1}e^{2i\beta _1}+\frac{c^2}{m_2}e^{2i\beta _2}\frac{1}{m_3}e^{2i\beta _3}=0.$$
(65)
The Majorana phase $`2(\beta _1\beta _3)`$ is irrelevant for our purposes, therefore the important constraint is

$$\frac{1}{m_3}=\left|\frac{s^2}{m_1}e^{i\mathrm{\Delta }}+\frac{c^2}{m_2}\right|.$$
(66)
This forces $`m_3`$ to be larger than both $`m_1`$ and $`m_2`$ (normal spectrum). The Majorana phase $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ becomes a function of $`m_1`$ through

$$\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Delta }=\frac{\left(m_1m_2/m_3\right)^2c^4m_1^2s^4m_2^2}{2c^2s^2m_1m_2}$$
(67)
and through equations (47) with $`\sigma =+1`$. Thus, the $`D_4`$ model of  has one degree of freedom less than the $`_2`$ model of .

## 4 Numerical results

In this section we shall always use

$`\theta `$ $`=`$ $`33^{},`$ (68)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2`$ $`=`$ $`7.1\times 10^5\mathrm{eV}^2,`$ (69)
the best-fit values of . Then the observables in our set (46) which are still free to be chosen are $`m_1`$, $`M_{1,2}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$; we furthermore have to choose $`|v_1|`$—see equations (39) and (62). The mass $`m_2`$ is fixed via equations (47) and (69).

From this input one obtains $`\left|x\right|`$, $`\left|y\right|`$ and $`\left|z+w\right|`$ using equations (48)–(50). One then computes $`\left|a\right|`$, $`\left|b\right|`$ and $`\theta ^{}`$, with a twofold ambiguity, from equations (54)–(56). Thereafter, $`R_{11}`$ is found in equation (63) and $`K_1`$ is given by equation (39).

As for the twofold ambiguity in the computation of $`\left|a\right|`$ and $`\left|b\right|`$, we use the upper signs in equations (54)–(56). Numerically, the choice of the lower signs yields a smaller $`\eta _B`$.

The VEV $`\left|v_1\right|`$ must be smaller than $`174\mathrm{GeV}`$, in order that there is also room for the other two VEVs: $`_{j=1}^3\left|v_j\right|^2=(174\mathrm{GeV})^2`$. Since in the models of  both the neutrino masses and the electron mass originate in Yukawa couplings to $`\varphi _1`$, while the $`\mu `$ and $`\tau `$ masses originate in Yukawa couplings to $`\varphi _2`$ and $`\varphi _3`$, the smallness of the electron and neutrino masses suggests that $`v_1`$ should be relatively small.

In figure 1 we have plotted $`\eta _B`$ versus $`m_1`$ for three different values of $`M_1`$. We read off from that figure that $`M_1`$ must be larger than $`10^{11}\mathrm{GeV}`$ in order to reproduce the experimental value of $`\eta _B`$ in equation (1). Since a successful leptogenesis requires $`M_1<10^{12}\mathrm{GeV}`$ , the order of magnitude of $`M_1`$ becomes quite constrained. We furthermore see that small values of $`m_1`$ are preferred; for large values of $`m_1`$, $`\eta _B`$ becomes too small. Actually from figure 1 we gather that $`m_1`$ cannot exceed $`0.02\mathrm{eV}`$. This rules out the inverted neutrino spectrum if we want to accommodate leptogenesis in our model. As a function of $`m_1`$, the maximum of the theoretical expression (62) for $`\eta _B`$ is roughly at $`m_1=3\times 10^3\mathrm{eV}`$. If we consider $`\eta _B`$ as a function of the $`CP`$-violating Majorana phase $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, a numerical study shows that the maximum of $`\eta _B`$ is attained for $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ close to $`100^{}`$. As a function of $`\left|v_1\right|`$, $`\eta _B`$ increases by less than a factor of two when that VEV goes from $`10\mathrm{GeV}`$ to $`100\mathrm{GeV}`$.

In order to understand the dependence of $`\eta _B`$ of equation (62) on $`M_{1,2}`$, it is useful to perform a scale transformation $`M_{1,2}\lambda M_{1,2}`$ where $`\lambda `$ is an arbitrary positive number. From equations (54) and (55) we see that $`\left|a\right|^2`$ and $`\left|b\right|^2`$ scale with one power of $`\lambda `$; the same holds for $`R_{12}`$ and $`R_{11}`$. It follows that $`\eta _B`$ also scales with one power of $`\lambda `$; in other words, $`\eta _B`$ is a homogeneous function of order one in $`M_{1,2}`$.

In figure 2 we have plotted $`\eta _B`$ versus $`m_1`$ for $`M_1=2.5\times 10^{11}\mathrm{GeV}`$ and different values of $`M_2`$. This figure shows that fixing $`M_1`$ and varying $`M_2`$ with $`M_2M_1`$ does not drastically alter $`\eta _B`$, except for very small values of $`m_1`$. The lower bound on $`m_1`$ as a function of the ratio $`M_2/M_1`$ is also illustrated in figure 2.

## 5 Conclusions

In this paper we have computed the baryon asymmetry of the universe in the $`_2`$ model of  and in the $`D_4`$ model of . These models are characterized by a neutrino Dirac mass matrix $`M_D`$ with two degenerate eigenvalues, and by an interchange ($`_2`$) symmetry between the $`\mu `$ and $`\tau `$ families. Both models predict maximal atmospheric neutrino mixing and $`U_{e3}=0`$ as a consequence of their symmetries.

We have shown that these models can easily accommodate baryogenesis via leptogenesis and reproduce the experimental value of $`\eta _B`$,999On the other hand, as shown in , a mass hierarchy in $`M_D`$ requires finetuning of the masses in the heavy neutrino sector in order to reproduce $`\eta _B`$. provided the mass of $`N_1`$, the lightest heavy neutrino whose decays generate the relevant $`CP`$ asymmetry, is in the range $`10^{11}\mathrm{GeV}\stackrel{<}{}M_1\stackrel{<}{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}10}^{12}\mathrm{GeV}`$. Furthermore, the mass $`m_1`$ of the lightest neutrino has to be in the range $`10^3\mathrm{eV}\stackrel{<}{}m_1\stackrel{<}{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}10}^2\mathrm{eV}`$. Thus, an inverted neutrino mass spectrum is practically excluded.

In figure 3 we have plotted the effective mass $`\left|m\right|`$ probed in neutrinoless $`\beta \beta `$ decay. We see that, if our models are to have successful leptogenesis, then $`\left|m\right|`$ is at most $`0.01\mathrm{eV}`$; if the evidence for neutrinoless $`\beta \beta `$ decay of , with $`\left|m\right|>0.1\mathrm{eV}`$ is confirmed, then leptogenesis is not enough to generate an $`\eta _B`$ of the observed size.

We stress that the neutrino mass matrices of our models allow an analytical calculation of the $`CP`$ asymmetry $`ϵ_1`$ of equation (23). The results of this paper for the $`_2`$ and $`D_4`$ models may be valid in a wider context of general models with a twofold degenerate Dirac mass matrix $`M_D`$; the reason is that the mass matrix of the light neutrinos must have the form in equation (18) if one assumes maximal atmospheric neutrino mixing and $`U_{e3}=0`$, assumptions that, as experiment shows, cannot be far from true.

Acknowledgements: We are grateful to Ricardo González Felipe for helpful discussions. The work of L.L. was supported by the Portuguese Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia under the contract CFIF-Plurianual.

## Appendix A Algebraic details

### The matrices $`M_R`$ and $`_\nu `$

Those matrices are given in equations (17) and (18), and their relationship to each other is expressed by equations (14) and (16). We define

$`d`$ $``$ $`2n^2m\left(p+q\right),`$ (A1)
$`f`$ $``$ $`2y^2x\left(z+w\right),`$ (A2)
so that

$$detM_R=\left(qp\right)d\text{and}det_\nu =\left(wz\right)f.$$
(A3)
Then, by explicitly inverting $`M_R`$ and by using equation (14), we find

$`x`$ $`=`$ $`a^2{\displaystyle \frac{p+q}{d}},`$ (A4)
$`y`$ $`=`$ $`ab{\displaystyle \frac{n}{d}},`$ (A5)
$`z+w`$ $`=`$ $`b^2{\displaystyle \frac{m}{d}}`$ (A6)
and

$$\left(zw\right)\left(qp\right)=b^2.$$
(A7)
It is also useful to invert equation (14):

$$M_R=M_D_\nu ^1M_D^T.$$
(A8)
From this relation we compute

$`m`$ $`=`$ $`a^2{\displaystyle \frac{z+w}{f}},`$ (A9)
$`n`$ $`=`$ $`ab{\displaystyle \frac{y}{f}},`$ (A10)
$`p+q`$ $`=`$ $`b^2{\displaystyle \frac{x}{f}}.`$ (A11)
In addition, we obtain equation (A7) again.

### The parameters $`x`$, $`y`$, $`z`$ and $`w`$

From equations (15), (18) and (41) one may write

$$\left(\begin{array}{ccc}x& ye^{i\alpha }& ye^{i\alpha }\\ ye^{i\alpha }& ze^{2i\alpha }& we^{2i\alpha }\\ ye^{i\alpha }& we^{2i\alpha }& ze^{2i\alpha }\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}c& s& 0\\ s/\sqrt{2}& c/\sqrt{2}& 1/\sqrt{2}\\ s/\sqrt{2}& c/\sqrt{2}& 1/\sqrt{2}\end{array}\right)\widehat{\mu }\left(\begin{array}{ccc}c& s/\sqrt{2}& s/\sqrt{2}\\ s& c/\sqrt{2}& c/\sqrt{2}\\ 0& 1/\sqrt{2}& 1/\sqrt{2}\end{array}\right),$$
(A12)
where

$$\widehat{\mu }=\text{diag}(m_1e^{2i\beta _1},m_2e^{2i\beta _2},m_3e^{2i\beta _3}).$$
(A13)
From this we obtain equations giving the parameters of $`_\nu `$ as functions of the physical observables. We find equations (48)–(50) and also

$`y^2x^{}\left(z+w\right)^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{c^2s^2}{2}}\left(m_1m_2e^{i\mathrm{\Delta }}\right)^2\left(c^2m_1+s^2m_2e^{i\mathrm{\Delta }}\right)\left(s^2m_1+c^2m_2e^{i\mathrm{\Delta }}\right),`$ (A14)
$`\left|zw\right|`$ $`=`$ $`m_3,`$ (A15)
$`\left(zw\right)\left(z+w\right)^{}`$ $`=`$ $`m_3\left[s^2m_1e^{2i\left(\beta _1\beta _3\right)}+c^2m_2e^{2i\left(\beta _2\beta _3\right)}\right].`$ (A16)
In analogy to equation (A15) we also have, for $`M_R`$ instead of $`_\nu `$,

$$\left|pq\right|=M_3.$$
(A17)
### The parameters $`a`$ and $`b`$

We now express $`|a|`$ and $`|b|`$ as functions of the neutrino masses. Using equations (A7), (A15) and (A17) we obtain

$$\left|b\right|^2=m_3M_3.$$
(A18)
Comparing $`det_\nu `$ with $`detM_R`$ we readily find that $`\left|a\right|^2\left|b\right|^4=m_1m_2m_3M_1M_2M_3`$. Therefore, with equation (A18) we conclude that

$$\left|a\right|^2=\frac{m_1m_2M_1M_2}{m_3M_3}.$$
(A19)
Moreover, equations (A3), (A15) and (A17) lead to

$`\left|d\right|`$ $`=`$ $`M_1M_2,`$ (A20)
$`\left|f\right|`$ $`=`$ $`m_1m_2.`$ (A21)
### The imaginary part of $`\left(R_{12}\right)^2`$

From equation (A14) one derives

$$2\mathrm{Im}\left[y^2x^{}\left(z+w\right)^{}\right]=c^2s^2m_1m_2\left(m_2^2m_1^2\right)\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Delta }.$$
(A22)
Using the analogy between the matrices $`_\nu `$ and $`M_R`$, and between $`U`$ and $`V`$, one sees that

$$2\mathrm{Im}\left[n^2m^{}\left(p+q\right)^{}\right]=c_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}s_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}M_1M_2\left(M_2^2M_1^2\right)\mathrm{sin}\left(2\gamma _12\gamma _2\right).$$
(A23)
The matrix $`R`$ is given in equation (44). Using equation (A23) one sees that

$$\mathrm{Im}\left[\left(R_{12}\right)^2\right]=\left(\left|b\right|^2\left|a\right|^2\right)^2\frac{2\mathrm{Im}\left[n^2m^{}\left(p+q\right)^{}\right]}{M_1M_2\left(M_2^2M_1^2\right)}.$$
(A24)
Now, from equations (A4)–(A6) one finds the relation

$$y^2x^{}\left(z+w\right)^{}=\left|a\right|^4\left|b\right|^4\frac{n^2m^{}\left(p+q\right)^{}}{\left|d\right|^4}.$$
(A25)
Therefore, equations (A22) and (A24) give

$`\mathrm{Im}\left[\left(R_{12}\right)^2\right]`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\left|b\right|^2\left|a\right|^2\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{m_1m_2\left(m_2^2m_1^2\right)}{M_1M_2\left(M_2^2M_1^2\right)}}{\displaystyle \frac{\left|d\right|^4}{\left|a\right|^4\left|b\right|^4}}c^2s^2\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Delta }`$ (A26)
$`=`$ $`\left(\left|b\right|^2\left|a\right|^2\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{M_1M_2\left(m_2^2m_1^2\right)}{m_1m_2\left(M_2^2M_1^2\right)}}c^2s^2\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Delta },`$ (A27)
where we have used equations (A18)–(A20) in order to go from equation (A26) to equation (A27).

### The quadratic equation giving $`\left|a\right|`$ and $`\left|b\right|`$

Equations (A18) and (A19) contain $`m_3`$ and $`M_3`$. We shall now derive expressions for $`|a|`$ and $`|b|`$ which are functions solely of the observables in equation (46). With equations (48)–(50) it is easy to check that

$$m_1^2+m_2^2=\left|x\right|^2+4\left|y\right|^2+\left|z+w\right|^2.$$
(A28)
For $`M_R`$ instead of $`_\nu `$, the analogous relation is

$$M_1^2+M_2^2=\left|m\right|^2+4\left|n\right|^2+\left|p+q\right|^2.$$
(A29)
Using equations (A9)–(A11) and (A21), we find

$$m_1^2m_2^2\left(M_1^2+M_2^2\right)=\left|a\right|^4\left|z+w\right|^2+4\left|a\right|^2\left|b\right|^2\left|y\right|^2+\left|b\right|^4\left|x\right|^2.$$
(A30)
Multiplying this equation by $`\left|x\right|^2\left|b\right|^4`$ and using $`\left|a\right|^2\left|b\right|^2=m_1m_2M_1M_2`$ we finally obtain equations (51)–(53). The solutions to equation (53) are

$$m_1^2m_2^2\left|p+q\right|^2=\left|x\right|^2\left|b\right|^4=\frac{B\pm \sqrt{B^24C}}{2},$$
(A31)
where we have used equations (A11) and (A21). Since $`C=\left(\left|b\right|^4\left|x\right|^2\right)\left(\left|a\right|^4\left|z+w\right|^2\right)`$, cf. equation (52), we also see that, together with equation (A31),

$$m_1^2m_2^2\left|m\right|^2=\left|z+w\right|^2\left|a\right|^4=\frac{B\sqrt{B^24C}}{2}.$$
(A32)
In order to determine $`\theta ^{}`$ one notes, from equations (48) and (50), that

$$\left|z+w\right|^2\left|x\right|^2=\left(c^2s^2\right)\left(m_2^2m_1^2\right).$$
(A33)
The analogous relation for $`M_R`$ is

$$c_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}s_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}=\frac{\left|p+q\right|^2\left|m\right|^2}{M_2^2M_1^2}=\frac{\pm \sqrt{B^24C}}{m_1^2m_2^2\left(M_2^2M_1^2\right)}.$$
(A34)


format: text

text:
# Inadequacy of Scaling Arguments for Neutrino Cross Sections

## Abstract

The problem with the use of scaling arguments for simultaneous studies of different weak interaction processes is discussed. When different neutrino scattering cross sections involving quite different momentum transfers are being compared it difficult to define a meaningful single scaling factor to renormalize calculated cross sections. It has been suggested that the use of such scaling can be used to estimate high energy neutrino cross sections from low energy neutrino cross sections. This argument has lead to questions on the consistency of the magnitude of the LSND muon neutrino cross sections on 12C relative to other lower energy weak processes. The issue is revisited here and from inspection of the structure of the form factors involved it is seen that the problem arises from a poor description of the transition form factors at high momentum transfer. When wave functions that reproduce the transverse magnetic inelastic (e,e’) scattering form factor for the 15.11 MeV state in 12C are used there is no longer a need for scaling the axial current, and the different weak interactions rates involving the T=1 1+ triplet in mass 12 are consistent with one another.

Quenching of spin matrix elements relative to model predictions is a common phenomenon in nuclear structure calculationstowner . There are a number of reasons that this occurs, including inadequate model wave functions and the need to include meson-exchange and relativistic corrections to the operators involved. For low-energy M1 $`\gamma `$-transitions, magnetic moments, and Gamow-Teller $`\beta `$-decays effective one-body operator have been derived from calculationstowner ; arima  of the higher order corrections to both the wave functions and the bare operators, and from empirical fitswildenthal  to a large body of data. The simplest effective one-body operators involve a scaling of the orbital and spin gyromagnetic ratios appearing in the magnetic operators and a scaling of the axial vector coupling constant for the weak interaction Gamow-Teller (GT) strength.

For weak interaction processes involving higher momentum transfers, such as energetic neutrino scattering and muon capture, the issue of effective operators becomes more complicated because of the possible need for a momentum dependent effective coupling constants. Siiskonen et al.sii  have examined the quenching of the axial vector coupling by calculating corrections to the bare operator within the shell model. They found that the quenching factor remains approximately constant up to about 60 MeV/c, above which it becomes momentum dependent. Cowell and Pandharipandecowell  have calculated the momentum dependent quenching of the weak charge-current in nucleon matter and found that most of the quenching is due to spin-isospin correlations induced by one pion exchange interactions.

A momentum independent scaling to estimate neutrino cross sections has been used by Engel et al.engel  and Auerbach and Brownbrown . Engel et al.engel  examined the transition to the 1+ T=1 isospin triplet in mass 12 and determined the axial quenching factor from $`\beta `$-decay. Different models that had been fitted to various combinations of the electron scattering transverse magnetic form factor, $`\beta `$-decay, and $`\mu `$-capture were found to give very similar predictions for $`(\nu _e,e^{})`$ and $`(\nu _\mu ,\mu ^{})`$ scattering up to momentum transfers of about 100-200 MeV/c, provided the axial vector coupling constant was scaled separately for each model. All of the scaled models examined were in reasonable agreement with the measured LSND cross sections. More recently, Auerbach and Brownbrown  have examined quenching of the weak axial isovector strength in $`p`$-shell nuclei within the shell model using a single momentum-independent quenching factor. They found that a single quenching factor worked reasonably well for the lower momentum transfer processes but not for the LSND $`(\nu _\mu ,\mu ^{})`$ neutrino cross section on 12C from pion decay-in-flight neutrinos (DIF)DIF , where the average momentum transfer is $`200`$ MeV/c. They concluded that the failure of the model to reproduce the DIF cross section with the same quenching factor needed for the low-momentum transfer weak processes was evidence for a systematic problem with the LSND DIF data.

In this brief report I discuss the difficulties that arise from the use of a momentum independent scaling factor or effective axial coupling constant. In general, such scaling cannot be used to describe weak interaction processes involving quite different momentum transfers. Unless the model used is known to provide a reasonable description of the the semileptonic (or electromagnetic) form factor at the momentum transfers of interest (as was the case in engel ), estimates of high energy neutrino cross sections from experimentally determined cross sections for lower energy neutrino spectra (or $`\mu `$-capture) are unlikely to be reliable. As discussed below, such arguments provide no evidence for a problem with the LSND DIF cross sections. Rather they suggest a short coming in the model used.

The problem with simple scaling arguments can be demonstrated by examining model predictions for the transition to the T=1 $`1^+`$ isospin triplet in mass 12, for which there are extensive experimental data. Within a $`p`$-shell model the one-body transition is completely described by specifying four one-body density matrix elements (OBDMEs) and the oscillator parameter $`b`$. Several authorsengel ; haxton ; dubach ; brady  have obtained fits to the OBDMEs and the oscillator parameter from different combinations of the available experimental data. Comparisons of the predictions of these fitted models for neutrino scattering have been presented in engel .

There are four basic single particle operators the contribute to the T=1 1+ transition in mass 12. In general, the $`J=1^+`$ electron scattering form factor can be expressed as

$$F(q)=<J_f||T^{mag}(q)||J_i>=\frac{2\sqrt{2}q}{ZM_nb}(A+By+Cy^2+\mathrm{})e^yf_{sn}(q)f_{cm}(q),$$
(1)
where $`y=(bq/2)^2`$, $`f_{sn}(q)`$ is the single nucleon form factor, and $`f_{cm}(q)`$ is the center-of-mass correction. The coefficients A,B,C,D,… are determined by both the structure of the operator $`T^{mag}`$ and the OBDMEs describing the transition. A similar expression holds for the axial form factor contributing to neutrino scattering.

If the coefficient $`A`$ can be determined from $`\beta `$-decay or some other low-q observable (as is the case for the $`1^+`$ transition in mass 12), then those weak interaction processes for which $`A>>By`$ are likely to be well described by simply scaling the model form factors to $`A`$. However, for processes involving momentum transfers approaching $`q\frac{2\sqrt{A}}{b\sqrt{B}}`$ $`q`$-independent scaling arguments are invalid. To correct for an inadequate model description of the higher terms in $`y,y^2,..`$ in the form factors one has to calculate explicitly a momentum dependent effective scaling. Alternatively, the model can be adjusted (or fitted) provide a good description of the (e,e’) form factor up to momentum transfers of interest, see \[6, 9-11\]. In the case of the $`1^+`$ transition in mass 12, the magnitude of the second term in the (e,e’) form factor becomes equal to the first at about 250 MeV/c. Thus, the term $`By`$ is an important contribution to the LSND DIF cross section, and a simple scaling of the model to reproduce the term $`A`$ is not sufficient.

A simple demonstration of the problem is obtained by considering what happens if one simply changes the oscillator parameter for a given model calculation. This clearly has the effect of changing the relative magnitudes of the terms $`A`$, $`By`$, $`Cy^2`$, and therefore of changing the predicted ratio of the different neutrino cross sections. For the CK(8-16) OBDMEs A=-.468 and B=.226. Increasing the oscillator parameter shifts the position of the first minimum in the form factor and generally shift the form factor to lower $`q`$. An oscillator parameter of $`b=1.64`$ fm is needed to fit the 12C ground state rms radius, while a larger value $`b=1.821.888`$ fm brady ; dubach  is needed for the transverse magnetic (e,e’) form factor. The difference in the predicted shape of the (e,e’) form factor for these two oscillator parameters for the CK wave functions is shown in Fig.1. Also shown are the average momentum transfers involved in muon capture, the $`(\nu _e,e)`$ cross section from neutrino produced from the decay of the pion at rest (DAR), and the LSND DIF cross sections. The large difference between the predicted and measured shape for the (e,e’) form factor makes it impossible to find a momentum independent scaling correction to the CK prediction, especially for $`b`$= 1.64 fm. It is also clear from Fig. 1 that of the 3 weak processes considered the LSND DIF cross section is the most difficult to reproduce by simply quenching the axial vector coupling.

Table 1 lists the predicted weak interaction rates for the CK wave functions using the two different oscillator parameters. For b=1.64 fm, the muon capturemuon  and $`(\nu _e,e^{})`$ neutrino cross sectionsDAR  are in reasonable agreement with experiment, being about 10$`\%`$ too high. However, the $`(\nu _\mu ,\mu ^{})`$ cross section is $`50\%`$ too high. This is consistent with the calculations of Auerbach and Brown who use the the same size model space, b=1.64 fm, but a different $`p`$-shell interaction. These latter calculations predict the muon capture rate and the $`(\nu _e,e^{})`$ cross section about 60$`\%`$ too high and the $`(\nu _\mu ,\mu ^{})`$ cross section about 212% too high. Although, the CK wave functions are considerable closer to experiment, the two calculations show about the same level of discrepancy between the low $`q`$ and high $`q`$ weak processes. In strong contrast, the CK model predictions for b=1.888 fm provides a reasonable description of each of the three weak interaction processes and the predictions agree with experiment within the quoted experimental uncertainties. This is not surprising since the model fits the (e,e’) form factor reasonable well up to the average momentum transfer involved in all three weak processes. It does, however, simply demonstrate the increased importance of the higher order terms in eq. (1) for the DIF cross section and hence the danger in approximating the q-dependent core-polarization corrections to weak interaction form factors by a $`q`$-independent scaling.

A single effective coupling constant or scaling factor works only for processes involving momentum transfers where the shape of the form factors involved is correctly predicted. Otherwise, the use of such a scaling factor can produce quite unreliable results, particularly for higher momentum transfer processes where the shell model calculations restricted one-body weak currents have traditionally had difficulty. In contrast to the conclusions of Auerbach and Brown, we find no evidence for a problem with the LSND DIF exclusive cross section. This is in agreement with the findings of engel ; hayes . The shortcomings of a momentum independent quenching of the axial vector coupling constant is likely to be even worse for the LSND inclusive DIF cross section. There the final states are unbound and cannot be described with harmonic oscillator wave functions, and the cross section is difficult to predict accurately hayes2 .