text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

We consider the following situation. Let $`X`$ be a smooth projective surface and let $`B`$ be a smooth projective curve, defined over an algebraically closed field $`k`$ of characteristic zero. Let $`f:XB`$ be a surjective morphism and let $`\omega _{X/B}`$ denote the relatively canonical sheaf of differentials. Let us assume that the generic fibre is smooth of genus $`g`$ and let us denote by $`\delta `$ the number of singular points in the fibres. We write $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_n`$ for the determinant of $`f_{}\omega _{X/B}^n`$ and $`\lambda _n`$ for the degree of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_n`$. Finally, let us assume that $`f`$ is a relatively minimal model, which means that there are no exceptional curves among the fibres.

In this situation, Iitaka’s conjecture $`C_{2,1}`$ is well-known:

###### Theorem 1.1

If, in the situation above, $`X_b`$ denotes a general fibre, we have the subadditivity

$$\kappa (X)\kappa (B)+\kappa (X_b)$$

of the Kodaira dimensions.

We immediately notice that, in order to give a proof for this, we may assume both $`B`$ and $`X_b`$ to have genus greater than zero.

The result 1.1 contributes to the Enriques-Kodaira classification of surfaces, as it is presented in , VI., for example. A proof for 1.1 is given in , III. 18.4, and as it is worked out there, Iitaka’s conjecture $`C_{2,1}`$ basically follows from:

###### Theorem 1.2

Keeping the assumptions made above and assuming in addition that $`f`$ is non-isotrivial, we have $`\lambda _1>0`$.

There have been several kinds of proof for 1.2, but most of them used analytic methods. In , III.17, for example, a proof is given by considering the period map. In case this map is not constant, 1.2 follows from constructing a section of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_n`$, which locally arises from modular forms. For the constant case, the image of the period map is exactly the period point of all the smooth fibres. After excluding the existence of singular fibres, 1.2 then follows from Torelli’s theorem. Other proofs used analytic methods in order to achieve the weak positivity of $`f_{}\omega _{X/B}`$ (see 2.2) like Fujita (), Kawamata () or Viehweg (). In case algebraic methods were used, those were developed in a more general set up in order to apply for higher dimensions, too.

But in the special case of a familiy of curves over a curve, one can give both an elementary and a purely algebraic proof of 1.2 based on positivity methods. The aim of this paper is to present this proof, which exclusively uses methods from algebraic geometry and hence yields an algebraic proof for 1.1.

## 2 Positivity

First we want to recall the following positivity notations and give some properties, which we shall need below. We refer to , 5., for example.

###### Definition and Lemma 2.1

Let $``$ be an invertible sheaf on a smooth projective variety $`Y`$. We call $``$ big if its Kodaira dimension is maximal or, equivalently, some power of $``$ contains an ample subsheaf. We call $``$ numerically effective if for every curve $`C`$ on $`X`$ one has $`\mathrm{deg}_{|_C}0`$ or, equivalently, if for every $`\nu 0`$ and for every ample invertible sheaf $``$ one has that $`^\nu `$ is ample. This implies that the self intersection number of $``$ is not negative and that it is positive if and only if $``$ is big. Moreover, a locally free sheaf $`𝒢`$ on $`Y`$ is called weakly positive if every quotient sheaf of $`𝒢`$ has non-negative degree, even after a finite covering.

The following theorem is well known:

###### Theorem 2.2

The direct image sheaf $`f_{}\omega _{X/B}`$ is weakly positive.

There have been proofs by Fujita () and Kawamata (), using analytic methods, and there have been several generalizations. By means of Kollár’s vanishing theorem one obtains a proof (, see also , Theorem 2.41), which is based on methods from algebraic geometry.

###### Corollary 2.3

The relatively canonical sheaf $`\omega _{X/B}`$ is numerically effective and hence for the self intersection number we have $`c_1(\omega _{X/B})^20`$.

Proof: Let $`C`$ be a curve on $`X`$. Since $`f`$ is assumed to be a relatively minimal model, we have $`c_1(\omega _{X/B}).C0`$ in case $`C`$ is a fibre. If not, then the natural map $`f^{}f_{}\omega _{X/B}\omega _{X/B}`$ restricted to $`C`$ is surjective, and

$$\mathrm{deg}\omega _{X/B}^{}{}_{|_C}{}^{}=c_1(\omega _{X/B}).C0,$$

since $`f_{}\omega _{X/B}`$ is weakly positive. Thus $`\omega _{X/B}`$ is numerically effective and by 2.1 we obtain that $`c_1(\omega _{X/B})^20`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

We should remark here that, in case $`g>1`$, one even obtains strict positivity for $`c_1(\omega _{X/B})^2`$. We will, however, not need this in the sequel.

## 3 Reductions

In order to show 1.2 we may, without loss of generality, make some reductions, which we shall deduce in the following.

First of all, we may assume $`f`$ to be a semi-stable model, which means that all the fibres are reduced normal crossing divisors. For if this is not the case, then for some finite covering $`\tau :B^{}B`$ , for the fibre product $`X^{}=X\times _BB^{}`$ with projections $`f^{}:X^{}B^{}`$ and $`\tau ^{}:X^{}X`$ and for a desingularization $`d:X^{\prime \prime }X^{}`$ the induced map $`f^{\prime \prime }:X^{\prime \prime }B^{}`$ will be semi-stable. Considering the trace map $`d_{}\omega _{X^{\prime \prime }}\omega _X^{}`$, which induces an injective map $`d_{}\omega _{X^{\prime \prime }/B^{}}\omega _{X^{}/B^{}}=\tau _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\omega _{X/B}`$, and applying flat base change we obtain an injective map $`f_{}^{\prime \prime }\omega _{X^{\prime \prime }/B^{}}=f_{}^{}d_{}\omega _{X^{\prime \prime }/B^{}}f_{}^{}\tau _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\omega _{X/B}=\tau ^{}f_{}\omega _{X/B}`$. Comparing degrees, we notice that if 1.2 holds for the semi-stable model $`f^{\prime \prime }`$, it will hold for $`f`$ as well.

Our next reduction is based on the following lemma which is due to Mumford (, 5.10) and follows from an easy calculation of the Riemann Roch formulae on $`X`$ and on $`B`$.

###### Lemma 3.1

For every $`n`$ we have

$$\lambda _n=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{2}\right)\left(12\lambda _1\delta \right)+\lambda _1=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{2}\right)c_1(\omega _{X/B})^2+\lambda _1$$

in case $`g>1`$ and $`12\lambda _n=n\delta =12n\lambda _1`$ in case $`g=1`$.

In case $`g>1`$ the above formula tells us that $`12\lambda _1\delta `$ (since by 2.3 we have $`c_1(\omega _{X/B})^20`$) and, moreover, $`\lambda _1=0`$ implies $`\lambda _n0`$ for all $`n`$. In case $`g=1`$ we have $`12\lambda _1=\delta `$ and $`\lambda _n=n\lambda _1`$. Hence in both cases, in order to show $`\lambda _1>0`$, we may assume from now on that all the fibres are smooth and, moreover, it suffices to show $`\lambda _n>0`$ for some $`n`$.

More reductions can be made considering the genus $`g`$ of the fibres. We can immediately exclude the case $`g=1`$, for if all the fibres are smooth elliptic curves, then associating to each $`b`$ the $`j`$-invariant of the corresponding fibre gives a morphism $`j:B𝔸^1`$, which has to be constant and thereby forces $`f`$ to be isotrivial.

Moreover, we may assume that all the fibres are smooth non-hyperelliptic curves of genus $`g2`$, as we shall prove now. To this end, we have to distinguish two cases. First, let us assume that all the fibres are smooth and hyperelliptic curves. Then $`f`$ again turns out to be isotrivial. To see this, let us consider the projective bundle $`\pi :(f_{}\omega _{X/B})B`$ associated to $`f_{}\omega _{X/B}`$ and let us denote by $``$ the image of the morphism $`\phi :X(f_{}\omega _{X/B})`$, which corresponds to the surjective map $`f^{}f_{}\omega _{X/B}\omega _{X/B}`$. Since all the fibres are assumed to be hyperelliptic and thus $`\phi `$ is given fibrewise by double coverings of $`^1`$, $``$ turns out to be a ruled suface. Denoting by $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ the discriminant, the branched covering trick (, I.18.2) implies that there exists an étale covering $`\gamma :B^{}B`$ such that the pull back of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ to $`^{}`$ has $`2g+2`$ disjoint components, where $`^{}`$ denotes the fibre product. These components correspond to $`2g+2`$ disjoint sections of the bundle $`\pi ^{}:^{}B^{}`$, forcing it to be trivial, since $`g1`$. Hence the corresponding morphism $`f^{}:X^{}B^{}`$ is isotrivial, and by property of the fibre product, so is $`f`$.

For the second case we need the following

###### Lemma 3.2

For $`n`$ sufficiently large, the multiplication map

$$\mu _n:S^n(f_{}\omega _{X/B})f_{}\omega _{X/B}^n$$

is surjective outside hyperelliptic fibres.

Proof: Let $`X_b`$ be a non-hyperelliptic fibre of $`f`$, thus $`\omega _{X_b}`$ is very ample and we consider the embedding $`X_b_k^{g1}`$ given by the global sections of $`\omega _{X_b}`$. We may identify those sections with $`H^0(_k^{g1},𝒪_{_k^{g1}}(1))`$ which implies an isomorphism

$$S^n(H^0(X_b,\omega _{X_b}))H^0(_k^{g1},𝒪_{_k^{g1}}(n))$$

for every $`n`$. Considering the long exact cohomology sequence corresponding to the ideal sheaf of $`X_b`$ and twisting by $`n`$, Serre’s Vanishing Theorem implies a surjective map

$$H^0(_k^{g1},𝒪_{_k^{g1}}(n))H^0(X_b,\omega _{X_b}^n),$$

if we choose $`n`$ to be sufficiently large. Thus we obtain a surjective map

$$S^n(H^0(X_b,\omega _{X_b}))H^0(X_b,\omega _{X_b}^n),$$

and by base change we are done. $`\mathrm{}`$

Now in case some of the fibres are hyperelliptic, we consider the factorization of $`\mu _n`$ over its image sheaf. Since symmetric products of weakly positive sheaves are again weakly positive (see for example , 2.20), $`S^n(f_{}\omega _{X/B})`$ is weakly positive by 2.2, and we obtain by definition of weak positivity that the image sheaf has non-negative degree, hence $`\lambda _n>0`$ and by 3.1 we are done.

Putting all this together, it remains, in order to prove 1.2, to show the following

###### Theorem 3.3

Keeping the assumptions from 1.2 and assuming in addition that $`f`$ is semi-stable and all the fibres are smooth and non-hyperelliptic curves, we have $`\lambda _n>0`$ for some $`n`$.

## 4 The proof of 3.3

In this section we prove 3.3 using the method of the universal basis as it was used by Viehweg in .

Let $``$ be a locally free sheaf on $`B`$ of rank $`m`$ and let $`\pi :B`$ denote the projective bundle associated to $`^m^{}`$. From the construction of the projective bundle (see for example , II.7.12) we get a surjective map

$$\pi ^{}\stackrel{m}{}^{}𝒪_{}(1)$$

and by dualizing we obtain an injective map

$$𝒪_{}(1)\pi ^{}\stackrel{m}{},$$

sending a local section $`l`$ of $`𝒪_{}(1)`$ to a tuple $`(s_1,\mathrm{},s_m)`$. This induces a map

$$s:\stackrel{m}{}𝒪_{}(1)\pi ^{},$$

injective, too, sending $`(f_1l,\mathrm{},f_ml)`$ to the sum of the $`f_is_i`$. We call $`s`$ the universal basis associated to $``$.

Next we apply this method to $`=f_{}\omega _{X/B}`$. Taking for $`n`$ symmetric product of the corresponding universal basis $`s`$ and composing with the multiplication map, we obtain a map

$$S^n\left(\stackrel{m}{}𝒪_{}(1)\right)S^n\left(\pi ^{}f_{}\omega _{X/B}\right)=\pi ^{}S^n(f_{}\omega _{X/B})\pi ^{}f_{}\omega _{X/B}^n,$$

which by 3.2 is surjective outside the zero divisor $`D`$ of $`dets`$, provided we have chosen $`n`$ to be sufficiently large. We denote the image sheaf of this morphism by $``$.

Next we consider a blowing up $`\tau :^{}`$ with center in $`D`$ such that $`^{}=\tau ^{}`$ is locally free. Denoting by $`\pi ^{}:^{}B`$ the composed map, we obtain a surjection

$$\rho :S^n\left(\stackrel{m}{}𝒪_{^{}}(1)\right)^{}.$$

Now since the invertible quotients of a locally free sheaf correspond exactly to the sections of the projective bundle (see , II.7.12), we obtain a morphism

$$\mathrm{\Phi }^{}:^{}(V),$$

where for $`r=\mathrm{rk}f_{}\omega _{X/B}^n`$ we denote by $`V`$ the linear space $`^rS^n(k^m)`$. Moreover, we have $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}𝒪_{(V)}(1)=det^{}`$, and our next step is to show that this sheaf is ample. This immediately follows from:

###### Lemma 4.1

In the situation above, $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{}`$ is generically finite.

Proof: Let us denote by $`G`$ the Grassmannian manifold parametrizing the $`r`$-dimensional quotients of the linear space $`S^n(k^m)`$. Then $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{}`$ factors over $`G`$ by considering pointwise the surjective map $`\rho `$, which we recall to be given basically by the multiplication map, and then composing with the Plücker embedding of $`G`$. Now let us assume that there exists a generic fibre containing some curve $`C`$. Then, of course, $`C`$ is not contained in any fibre of $`\pi ^{}`$ over $`B`$, hence maps surjectively to $`B`$. Now, considering the factorization described above, the image of $`C`$ in $`G`$ is assumed to be a point, and, moreover, all the fibres $`X_b`$ can be embedded in projective space by the sections of their canonical sheaves. This implies that the global sections of all the ideal sheaves corresponding to the fibres $`X_b`$, twisted by $`n`$, are the same. Since, by increasing $`n`$ again if necessary, we may assume that these sheaves are globally generated, all the fibres $`X_b`$ turn out to be isomorphic, which contradicts the non-isotriviality of the family $`f`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

As an immediate consequence, $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{}`$ preserves ampleness, and hence the inclusion

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}𝒪_{(V)}(1)=det^{}\pi _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_n(nr)$$

implies that $`\pi _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_n(nr)`$ is big on $`^{}`$.

Let us now denote $`\pi _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_n(nr)`$ by $``$ and the general fibre of $`\pi ^{}`$ by $`F`$. For every $`\nu `$ we obtain the long exact cohomology sequence

$$0H^0(^{},^\nu (F))H^0(^{},^\nu )H^0(F,_{|_F}^\nu )\mathrm{}$$

Since $``$ is big, for $`\nu `$ sufficiently large $`^\nu (F)`$ is going to have a non-trivial section, corresponding to a non-trivial map

$$𝒪_{^{}}\pi _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_n^\nu (\nu nr)(F),$$

and so we obtain, for a point $`P`$ in general position,

$$𝒪_B\mathrm{\Lambda }_n^\nu (P)\pi _{}^{}𝒪_{^{}}(\nu nr)=\mathrm{\Lambda }_n^\nu (P)S^{\nu nr}\stackrel{m}{}f_{}\omega _{X/B}^{},$$

where the last equality holds by definition of the projective bundle. Dualizing again, we get a non-trivial map

$$S^{\nu nr}\stackrel{m}{}f_{}\omega _{X/B}\mathrm{\Lambda }_n^\nu (P).$$

Since $`f_{}\omega _{X/B}`$ is weakly positive, we obtain by definition $`\mathrm{deg}\mathrm{\Lambda }_n^\nu (P)0`$, hence $`\lambda _n>0`$, which completes the proof of 3.3.


format: text

text:
# March 2001 Active-sterile neutrino oscillations in the early Universe: asymmetry generation at low |𝛿m²| and the Landau-Zener approximation

## I Introduction

Previous work has established that $`\nu _\alpha \nu _{\mathrm{sterile}}(\alpha =e,\mu ,\tau )`$ neutrino oscillations typically generate large \[$`𝒪(0.1)`$\] neutrino asymmetries for negative values of $`\delta m^2`$ ***We define $`\delta m^2m_2^2m_1^2`$, with $`m_1`$ and $`m_2`$ eigenvalues of the mass eigenstates such that in the limit of $`\theta _00`$ they coincide with the $`\alpha `$ and sterile weak eigenstates respectively. With this definition in mind, one can say that negative values of $`\delta m^2`$ imply a sterile neutrino lighter than the $`\alpha `$. and small mixing angles ($`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _01`$) . Such a large value for the neutrino asymmetry can have several interesting consequences and applications including: a suppression of the sterile neutrino production , a modification of the standard BBN predictions in different ways  A particular interesting case is the possibility that a neutrino asymmetry generation can solve the claimed discrepancy between the value of baryon density from standard BBN with that one inferred from recent CMBR anisotropies observations . and, perhaps not emphasized enough, it implies a relic $`\alpha `$ neutrino background in which mainly neutrinos or anti-neutrinos (according to the sign of the generated asymmetry) are present.

We define the asymmetry of the particle species $`X`$ as the net number of $`X`$ particles at temperature $`T`$ per number of photons at some fixed initial temperature $`T_{\mathrm{in}}`$, such that $`m_\mu T_{\mathrm{in}}m_{\mathrm{el}}`$, in a comoving volume $`R^3`$:

$$L_X\frac{N_XN_{\overline{X}}}{N_\gamma ^{\mathrm{in}}},$$
(1)
where $`N_Xn_XR^3`$ is the number of $`X`$-particles in $`R^3`$, while $`n_x`$ is the $`X`$-particle density If one defines:
$$T_\nu T_{\mathrm{in}}\frac{R_{\mathrm{in}}}{R}$$
(2)  it is simple to chech that the asymmetry $`L_X`$ is connected to the asymmetry abundance (relative to photons) $`\eta _X(n_Xn_{\overline{X}})/n_\gamma `$ by the simple relation:
$$\eta _X=hL_X,$$
(3)  where $`h(T_\nu /T)^31`$ is the dilution factor that takes into account the photon production during the electron-positron annihilations around $`m_e/20.25\mathrm{MeV}`$. .

The exact borders of the generation in the space of mixing parameters have not yet been fully determined. Using the so called “static approximation” in  it was found that, to have a final neutrino asymmetry larger than $`10^5`$, the following rough lower limit on the mixing angle (for a fixed $`\delta m^2`$) holds:

$$\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _06(5)\times 10^{10}\left(\frac{|\delta m^2|}{\mathrm{eV}^2}\right)^{\frac{1}{6}}\alpha =e(\mu ,\tau )$$
(4)
An upper limit on the mixing angle for which the neutrino generation occurs is still unknown as numerical solutions are made quite difficult (i.e. CPU time consuming) by the presence of a sterile neutrino production prior the onset of neutrino asymmetry generation that is strongly coupled to the neutrino asymmetry generation. Moreover, at large angles ($`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _010^6`$), the phenomenon of rapid oscillations of the asymmetry at the onset of the generation appears , making things even more complicated §§§Actually the appearance of neutrino asymmetry sign oscillations, in the region where the sterile neutrino production is not negligible, may not be a coincidence. It is likely that the strong coupling between a copious sterile neutrino production and the neutrino asymmetry evolution is responsible for the rapid sign changes .. Requiring that the final effective number of extra-neutrino species (in energy density) does not violate the BBN bound, $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu ^\rho <\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu ^{\mathrm{max}}<1`$, and with the definition $`f(\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu ^{\mathrm{max}})\mathrm{ln}(1\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu ^{\mathrm{max}})/\mathrm{ln}(0.4)`$, one finds, for $`\alpha =e(\mu ,\tau )`$, the constraint  :

$$\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _02.1(4.1)\times 10^5\left(\frac{\mathrm{eV}^2}{|\delta m^2|}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}f^2(\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu ^{\mathrm{max}}),$$
(5)
valid for $`|\delta m^2|10^4\mathrm{eV}^2`$ (with $`\delta m^2<0`$) and $`0.9\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu ^{\mathrm{max}}0.3`$. This constraint is however applicable only in the case of two flavour $`\nu _\alpha \nu _s`$ (with $`\alpha =\mu ,\tau `$) neutrino oscillations. In the general case of multiflavor oscillations the neutrino asymmetry produced by the oscillations with the largest $`|\delta m^2|`$ can suppress the sterile neutrino production from the other oscillations . Therefore Eq. (5) can only possibly apply for oscillations with the largest $`|\delta m^2|`$, with the constraints on other two flavor oscillations being much weaker. Also, if $`\alpha =e`$, or if the muon or tauon neutrino is also mixed to the electron neutrino then an electron neutrino asymmetry can be generated, the constraint $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu ^\rho <\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu ^{\mathrm{max}}`$ has to be replaced by a more general constraint $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu ^\rho +\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu ^{f_{\nu _e}}<\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu ^{\mathrm{max}}`$, in which the quantity $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu ^{f_{\nu _e}}`$ takes into account the BBN effect of the deviation of the electron neutrino distribution from the standard case, in which a Fermi-Dirac distribution with zero chemical potential is assumed A more detailed discussion on the definition of $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu ^\rho `$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu ^{f_{\nu _e}}`$ can be found in .. If a positive electron neutrino asymmetry is generated before the freezing of the neutron to proton abundance ratio, then $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu ^{f_{\nu _e}}`$ is negative . In this case the upper limit on the mixing angle can be strongly relaxed and is related to the limit for the neutrino asymmetry generation, that however, as we said, has not been determined. Moreover one has conservatively to keep in mind that the current observational situation on the values of primordial nuclear abundances cannot strictly exclude a value $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu ^{\mathrm{max}}1`$, for which no BBN constraints on active-sterile neutrino oscillations would apply at all if $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu ^{f_{\nu _e}}=0`$ More generally no BBN constraint applies if $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu ^{\mathrm{max}}1+\mathrm{max}(\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu ^{f_{\nu _e}})`$.. It has also to be mentioned that the region of the mixing parameter space in which a positive electron neutrino asymmetry is generated such that $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu ^{f_{\nu _e}}`$ is negative and with a mixing angle large enough that $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu ^\rho 1`$, would be very interesting as in this case the standard BBN would be modified such that the primordial nuclear abundances predictions would still agree with the measured values and at the same time a higher value for the baryon density would be allowed, in agreement with that one inferred from CMBR acoustic peaks .

For

$$|\delta m^2|10^4\mathrm{eV}^2,$$
(6)
the numerical calculations performed with the quantum kinetic equations (QKE)  found that the final value of the neutrino asymmetry is in the range $`0.230.35`$ approximately independently of $`\mathrm{sin}2\theta _0`$ for most of the range of values set by Eqs.(4,5). These calculations also showed that the final values can be well reproduced within the adiabatic approximation. Let us shortly recall the main features of the neutrino asymmetry generation effect and of what the adiabatic approximation consists \**\**\**See also  for a more detailed review.. Neutrino asymmetry evolution in the region of mixing parameters set by the equations (4), (5) and (6), is characterized by the presence of a critical temperature $`T_c`$ that is approximately given by the following expression:

$$T_cT_{\mathrm{res}}^0(y_c)15.0(18.6)\left(\frac{|\delta m^2|}{\text{eV}^2}\right)^{\frac{1}{6}}\left(\frac{2}{y_c}\right)^{\frac{1}{3}}\text{MeV},$$
(7)
where $`y_cp_c/T`$ is the critical (dimensionless) resonant momentum and its value is $`2`$ ††††††This is true until the constraint (5) on the mixing angle is adopted, otherwise $`y_c`$ can grow to much higher values  as an effect of sterile neutrino production. The asymmetry generation should go off when $`y_c`$ becomes so high to be in the tail of the distribution ($`y_c>y_c^{\mathrm{off}}10`$), but this has not yet been studied by numerical calculations and the exact value of $`y_c^{\mathrm{off}}`$ has not been determined.. The total effective asymmetry $`L^{(\alpha )}`$ is defined as ‡‡‡‡‡‡When not necessary we will drop the subscript in $`L^{(\alpha )},\stackrel{~}{L}^{(\alpha )}`$ and just indicate them with $`L,\stackrel{~}{L}`$.:

$$L^{(\alpha )}2L_{\nu _\alpha }+\stackrel{~}{L}^{(\alpha )}$$
(8)
where $`\stackrel{~}{L}`$ contains the asymmetry of the other neutrino flavours ($`\beta \alpha `$) and also a contribution coming from electrons and baryons. We assume that $`\stackrel{~}{L}`$ is of the same order of magnitude as the baryon asymmetry $`5\times 10^{10}`$, a value that we adopted in our calculations \**\**\**In any case the final value of $`L`$ is not dependent on a particular choice for $`\stackrel{~}{L}`$. Moreover note that in the realistic case of multiflavor oscillations a mixing $`\nu _{\beta \alpha }\nu _s`$ could create an $`|L_{\nu _\beta }|5\times 10^{10}`$ prior the occurrence of $`\nu _\alpha \nu _s`$ oscillations. Thus, in the case of multiflavor mixing, our assumption is valid if either the $`\nu _\alpha \nu _s`$ oscillations have the largest $`|\delta m^2|`$ or the oscillations $`\nu _\beta \nu _s`$ do not have the right parameters (negative $`\delta m^2`$, large enough mixing angle, …) to create a large $`|L_{\nu _\beta }|`$.. The evolution of the total asymmetry experiences different stages. At high $`T\stackrel{>}{}T_c`$, oscillations drive $`|L|<<|\stackrel{~}{L}|`$. When $`T`$ approaches $`T_c`$ a decrease of $`|L|`$ to arbitrarly small values is prevented by the presence of chemical potentials in neutrino equilibrium distributions and $`|L|`$ starts to grow slowly. At $`T=T_c`$, by definition, $`L=\stackrel{~}{L}`$ and $`L_{\nu _\alpha }=0`$ \*†\*†\*†Within the static approximation a definition of $`T_c`$ is more rigorous . This is a sort of numerical definition.. Until this momentum, the resonant momentum $`y_{\mathrm{res}}=p_{\mathrm{res}}/T`$ of neutrinos and antineutrinos is practically the same and evolving as $`T^3`$. At $`TT_c`$ the asymmetry growth becomes exponential and the neutrino and antineutrino resonances quickly become separated: for $`L>0`$ the antineutrino resonant momentum gets smaller than the critical momentum $`y_c`$, while the neutrino resonant momentum increases rapidly moving into the tail of the distribution where the number of neutrinos becomes negligibly small (and vice-versa for negative $`L`$). When $`|L^{(\alpha )}|`$ reaches a threshold value $`L_t^{(\alpha )}1.0(0.4)\times 10^6(y_c|\delta m^2|/\mathrm{eV}^2)^{1/3}`$ for $`\alpha =e,(\mu ,\tau )`$, non linear effects of the medium start to act and the exponential growth turns into a power law (with $`LT^4`$ initially), while (for $`L`$ positive) anti-neutrino resonant momentum gets a minimum value $`y_{\mathrm{res}}^{\mathrm{min}}`$ and then starts to grow again. A relation between $`y_{\mathrm{res}}`$ and $`L`$ can be obtained from the resonance condition and is given by the following approximate expression:

$$y_{\mathrm{res}}\frac{|\delta m^2|/\mathrm{eV}^2}{a_0L(T/MeV)^4},$$
(9)
with $`a_0(4\sqrt{2}\zeta (3)/\pi ^2)\times 10^{12}G_F\mathrm{MeV}^28`$. When $`y_{\mathrm{res}}10`$ the asymmetry stops its growth and gets frozen to its final value $`L_\mathrm{f}0.3`$. It is simple, from the Eq. (9), to see that this happens at a temperature given by:

$$T_f0.5\mathrm{MeV}\left(\frac{|\delta m^2|}{\mathrm{eV}^2}\right)^{\frac{1}{4}}.$$
(10)
It is quite interesting that this complicated behaviour of the neutrino evolution can be regarded as the effect of two different physical regimes. The relevant quantity is the ratio $`r(\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{int}}/\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{osc}})_{\mathrm{res}}`$ betweeen the interaction length and the oscillation length for the resonant neutrinos. If $`r1`$ collisions are able to inhibit the MSW effect and the regime is collision dominated and can be described by a simplified set of kinetic equations obtainable within the static approximation procedure . On the other hand if $`r1`$, the MSW effect can take place and the regime is MSW dominated. In  it has been clarified that the transition between the two regimes depends on the value of the asymmetry and not just on the temperature. It is in fact possible to show that the following asymptotic expressions for $`r`$ holds:

$`r`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}2\theta _0}{0.8(2.0)10^2}}(|L|L_t)`$ (11)
$`r`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}2\theta _0}{0.8(2.0)10^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{|L|}{L_t}}\right)^{\frac{3}{2}}(|L|L_t)`$ (12)
First of all note that a collisional regime can exist only if $`\mathrm{sin}2\theta _010^2`$. Thus $`\mathrm{sin}2\theta _010^2`$ is a border between two very different regions of mixing parameters. In this paper we will only be interested to the case of very small mixing angles ($`\mathrm{sin}2\theta _010^2`$) in which collisions are important at low values of the asymmetry ($`|L|<L_t`$), independently on the temperature. In this case only when $`|L|(10^2/\mathrm{sin}2\theta _0)^{2/3}L_t`$ the MSW regime can begin. It is then crucial that, during the collisional regime, a fast growth of the asymmetry occurs for the MSW effect to start to be effective and for the resonance of neutrinos and antineutrinos to become separated. If in fact now one assumes (for $`L>0`$) that the expansion is slow enough that the resonant momentum of antineutrinos, after the minimum, increases so slowly that antineutrinos adiabatically cross the resonance, then all $`\alpha `$-antineutrinos are converted into antisterile neutrinos. This easily explains why the final values of the $`\alpha `$-neutrino asymmetry are in a range of values slightly lower than the value $`N_{\overline{\nu }_\alpha }(T_{\mathrm{in}})/N_\gamma (T_{\mathrm{in}})=0.375`$, corresponding to an extreme situation in which all anti-neutrinos are converted. This simple picture is the adiabatic approximation first described in .

As we said, the numerical solution of the QKE’s have shown that for $`|\delta m^2|10^4\mathrm{eV}^2`$ and for the mixing angle within the limits (4) and (5) (without however a systematic investigation at the borders) this physical approximated two-regime picture works very well in the description of the neutrino asymmetry evolution and of its final value \*‡\*‡\*‡Excluding the phenomenon of rapid oscillations at the onset of the exponential growth for $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _010^6`$  that requires some further physical picture still not completely understood..

What about for $`|\delta m^2|<10^4\mathrm{eV}^2`$ ? Does neutrino asymmetry generation still occur ? Does the static-adiabatic approximation picture still work ?

The authors of ref. , with an analytical procedure based on the mean momentum approximation This approximation works very well in the description of the sterile neutrino production  for reasons explained in . However in the case of the neutrino asymmetry generation, especially in the MSW dominated regime, the momentum dependence is such a crucial feature that the mean momentum approximation is a very drastic one and in our opinion it should be regarded more as a toy model., were finding that, even though an exponential growth occurs for $`|\delta m^2|10^7\mathrm{eV}^2`$, soon the non linear term in the effective potential is able stop the growth and concluded that no neutrino asymmetry (larger than $`10^7`$) can be generated in any point of the parameter space. This result seemed to be confirmed by numerical results . These were obtained also employing the mean momentum approximation for $`\delta m^2=10^5\mathrm{eV}^2`$ and $`\theta _0=0.1`$. At some critical temperature an oscillatory behaviour of the neutrino asymmetry, with an amplitude exponentially growing, was found, but the amplitude was not growing higher than $`10^7`$, although this may simply be because the evolution was stopped at $`T0.3\mathrm{MeV}`$, below the freezing temperature of neutron to proton abundance ratio or simply an artifact of not including the momentum degree of freedom. In any case the authors of Ref. concluded that neutrino oscillations cannot generate a large neutrino asymmetry in the early Universe, in apparent agreement with . In  it was shown that a large neutrino asymmetry can be generated due to the crucial role of the collisions, thus disproving the general conclusions of , although this result is still not necessarily in disagreement with the conclusions of  for $`|\delta m^2|10^4`$ and this point has still remained unclear.

It has also to be said that the main attention was put at higher values of $`|\delta m^2|`$ because only in this case the asymmetry generation occurs early enough to modify the standard BBN predictions for the nuclear abundances. Moreover there are also qualitative reasons to suspect that at low $`|\delta m^2|`$ the static approximation is not valid. In  it has been infact pointed out that for $`|\delta m^2|10^4eV^2`$, oscillations betweeen collisions can give a non negligible contribution to the rate of the neutrino asymmetry, suggesting a possible deviation from the static approximation. This statement is justified observing that, if one requires that the change of the mixing angle in matter is negligible between collisions on average This is equivalent to imposing that the derivative of the effective potential, with negligible neutrino asymmetry, is much less that the total interaction rate, then the critical temperature has to be higher than approximately $`3\mathrm{MeV}`$ and from the Eq. (7) this implies just $`|\delta m^2|10^4\mathrm{eV}^2`$. On the other hand we already noted that the role of collisions in inhibiting the MSW effect, for low values of the asymmetry, is effective at all temperatures (for $`\mathrm{sin}2\theta _010^2)`$.

Which kind of deviations from the static approximation are then expected at small $`|\delta m^2|`$ and, above all, does the asymmetry generation still occur ? Are oscillations in the neutrino asymmetry expected to appear as the mean momentum calculations of  suggest ?

The purpose of this paper is to answer these questions, mainly understanding the exact border of neutrino asymmetry generation at low values of $`|\delta m^2|`$. We will however also give some results concerning the presence of neutrino asymmetry oscillations. Moreover we will study the border of the generation at small mixing angles using the QKE’s and show that the limit (4), derived in the static approximation, has actually to be replaced with a less stringent one (section II). We will show that the small mixing angle border can be explained within an analysis on the limits of validity of the adiabaticity approximation in the description of the MSW dominated regime. This analysis will also involve extending the adiabatic approximation in the border region and outside by means of the Landau-Zener approximation, that is able to describe how the neutrino asymmetry generation dies at small mixing angles (section III). In section IV we will study the cosmological consequences of the neutrino asymmetry generation in the light of the new results. If neutrino asymmetry generation occurs also at low values of $`|\delta m^2|`$, even though this implies that it is generated at temperatures too low to produce remarkable changes in standard BBN, one can still consider which kind of cosmological effects (and maybe observations !) can result from it. In particular we will correct some wrong claims, which have appeared recently in the literature, on the role that the neutrino asymmetry generated in active-sterile neutrino oscillations would have on CMBR. We will consider the implications on the possibilities of a detection of relic neutrino background by the light of recent studies . In section V we will draw the conclusions of this work.

## II Numerical results

### A Set of equations and numerical procedure

We have numerically solved the QKE’s for the density matrix distribution in the momentum space, describing the statistical properties of the $`\nu _\alpha ,\nu _s`$ states, including their mixing. Since we are interested in extending previous studies to values of $`|\delta m^2|/\mathrm{eV}^2<10^4`$ and since from the equation (10), obtained within the adiabatic approximation, one would have that the neutrino asymmetry is generated down to temperatures below $`T0.05\mathrm{MeV}`$, we have to take into account the occurance of electron-positron annihilations that will make $`T_\nu T`$. The first modification is that the re-scaled momentum $`pR/R_{\mathrm{in}}=pT_{\mathrm{in}}/T_\nu `$ and thus now all neutrino distributions are more conveniently expressed in terms of $`yp/T_\nu `$.

The QKE’s describing neutrino propagation are given by the following set of equations for 8 distributions in momentum space, $`\stackrel{}{P}(y,t),P_0(y,t),\stackrel{}{\overline{P}}(y,t),\overline{P}_0(y,t)`$ (for notational simplicity we drop the dependence on momentum and on time):

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dP_x}{dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda P_yDP_x`$ (13)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dP_y}{dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda P_x\beta P_zDP_y`$ (14)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dP_z}{dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`\beta P_y+R`$ (15)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dP_0}{dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`R`$ (16)
The function $`R(y,t)`$ takes into account the (thermal) redistribution of neutrinos at each quantum state due to the effect of collisions, that in a linear approximation is given by :

$$R\mathrm{\Gamma }\left[\frac{f_\xi ^{\mathrm{eq}}}{f_0}\frac{1}{2}(P_0+P_z)\right]$$
(17)
where $`f_\xi ^{\mathrm{eq}}(y,t)[1+e^{y\xi (t)}]^1`$ is the Fermi-Dirac distribution, $`\xi (t)`$ is the (dimensionless) chemical potential and $`f_0f_{\xi =0}^{\mathrm{eq}}`$. The variables $`P_0`$ and $`P_z`$ can be replaced with the variables $`z_s=(P_0P_z)/2`$ and $`z_\alpha =(P_0+P_z)/2`$. These variables are the diagonal entries of the density matrix and are related to the $`\alpha `$ and sterile neutrino distributions simply by $`z_{\alpha ,s}f_{\nu _\alpha ,s}/f_0`$. In this case the equations (15) and (16) are replaced by the following ones:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dz_s}{dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\beta P_y`$ (18)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dz_\alpha }{dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{dz_s}{dt}}+R`$ (19)
while the repopulation function $`R`$ now can be recasted as $`R=\mathrm{\Gamma }(z_\alpha ^{\mathrm{eq}}z_\alpha )`$.

The anti-neutrinos barred distributions $`\stackrel{}{\overline{P}},\overline{P}_0`$ obey the same equations with the same total collision rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, the same decoherence parameter $`D`$, and the same function $`\beta `$ \*∥\*∥\*∥We neglect a small term, proportional to the asymmetry $`L`$, that makes the collision rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ for neutrinos and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$ for anti-neutrinos different . Within the static approximation this term proves not to give any difference. It has to be investigated whether in the region of rapid oscillations this term can play or not any role.. The function $`\lambda `$, containing the effective potential of neutrinos, depends explicitly also on $`L`$ and for anti-neutrinos it changes such that $`\overline{\gamma }(L)=\gamma (L)`$. Thus the presence of a total asymmetry $`L`$ couples together the neutrino and antineutrino sets of equations. They are coupled also by the presence of the chemical potentials in the equilibrium active neutrino distributions. These are infact different if a neutrino asymmetry is present, considering that:

$$L_{\nu _\alpha }=\frac{1}{4\zeta (3)}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑yy^2\left[\frac{1}{1+e^{y\xi }}\frac{1}{1+e^{y\overline{\xi }}}\right]$$
(20)
Note that if $`\stackrel{~}{L}=0`$, then one would have simply $`L=2L_{\nu _\alpha }`$ and $`L=L_{\nu _\alpha }=0`$ would be an exact solution of the set of equations. Above the critical temperature this would be a stable solution and $`L`$ would get so small that the statistical fluctuations on very small scales would determine the sign of the asymmetry below the critical temperature when the solution becomes unstable. This sign would be different on distances as small as the scale of the dominant statistical fluctuations that is smaller than the interaction length . On these scales neutrino free-steam and the free-streaming is faster than the neutrino asymmetry generation such that immmediately regions with different sign would destroy each other and no asymmetry generation could take place. This picture is consistent with the idea that the generation of a neutrino asymmetry can occur only if CP is violated at some level, in this case due to the presence of a CP asymmetric medium ($`\stackrel{~}{L}0`$) that can push the neutrino asymmetry toward some direction in any point of the space and strongly enough to dominate on statistical fluctuations. This surely happens in a large region of mixing parameters where the presence of rapid oscillations can be excluded .

Note also that the integral equation (20) is coupled to the set of differential equations for the $`\stackrel{}{P},P_0,\stackrel{}{\overline{P}},\overline{P}_0`$, as the value of the neutrino asymmetry appears in the expression for $`\lambda `$. However, as already discussed in previous works , it is numerically more convenient to calculate the neutrino asymmetry not from the equation (20) but through the following integro-differential equation:

$$\frac{dL_{\nu _\alpha }}{dt}=\frac{1}{8\zeta (3)}\beta (y)[P_y(y)\overline{P}_y(y)]f_0(y)y^2𝑑y.$$
(21)
The set of equations (13-17,21) is still not ‘closed’ as one still needs some equations describing the evolution of the chemical potentials $`\xi `$ and $`\overline{\xi }`$ in the equilibrium active neutrino distributions. We use the instantaneous chemical decoupling procedure developed in Ref. with kinetic decoupling temperatures, $`T_{\mathrm{dec}}^\alpha =3.5`$ MeV for $`\alpha =\mu ,\tau `$ and $`2.5`$ MeV for $`\alpha =e`$. The approximate validity of this procedure has been checked in Ref..

The last step is to replace the time with temperature. It is well known that the neutrino temperature $`T_\nu `$ can be expressed as a function of the photon temperature $`T`$, simply imposing entropy conservation during electron-positron annihilations:

$$T_\nu =T\left[\frac{g_S(m_e/T)}{g_S(0)}\right]^{\frac{1}{3}}$$
(22)
with the effective number of (entropy) degrees of freedom of photons and electron-positrons given by:

$$g_S(x)=2+\frac{45}{\pi ^4}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑yy^2\frac{\sqrt{y^2+x^2}+\frac{1}{3}\frac{y^2}{\sqrt{y^2+x^2}}}{e^{\sqrt{y^2+x^2}}+1}$$
(23)
and $`g_S(0)=11/2`$ (in figure 1 both $`g_s`$ and $`T_\nu /T`$ are shown for illustrative purposes). One can choose either $`T`$ or $`T_\nu `$ as the independent variable for the numerical calculations (we used both choices in two different codes). For our discussion it is simpler to choose $`T_\nu `$ and thus we have to express all quantities as a function of $`T_\nu `$. The quantity $`\beta `$ can be written as:

$$\beta (y,T_\nu )=\frac{\delta m^2}{2yT_\nu }\mathrm{sin}2\theta _0$$
(24)
Since we treat neutrinos as fully decoupled during the period of electron-positron annihilations, interactions will be effective only until $`TT_\nu `$ and thus we can simply write:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(y,T_\nu )1.27(0.92)G_F^2T_\nu ^5y\alpha =e(\mu ,\tau )$$
(25)
The quantity $`\lambda `$ can be written as:

$$\lambda (y,T_\nu ,L)=\frac{\delta m^2}{2yT_\nu }[\mathrm{cos}2\theta _0b(y,T_\nu )\pm a(y,T_\nu ,L)].$$
(26)
where the $`+`$ ($``$) sign holds for neutrinos (anti-neutrinos). The term $`b(y,T_\nu )`$ is the finite temperature contribution to the (dimensionless) effective potential in the early Universe . This term is important when $`|L|L_t`$, but it becomes negligible after the exponential growth, when $`|L|L_t`$, for $`TT_c`$. We will mainly consider $`T_c0.25\mathrm{MeV}`$ for which electron-positron number densities are still approximately equal to the ultra-relativistic limit. Thus we can just replace $`T`$ with $`T_\nu `$ and write \***\***\***Actually we will even consider values of $`\delta m^2/\mathrm{eV}^210^{11}`$ for which $`T_c0.25\mathrm{MeV}`$. In this case one should replace the constant $`T_\alpha `$ with a function of temperature taking into account that electron and positrons number densities decrease during annihilations. We neglected this modification and used the standard Notzold-Raffelt expression for the finite temperature term.:

$$b(y,T_\nu )=\frac{\mathrm{eV}^2}{\delta \mathrm{m}^2}\left(\frac{T_\nu }{T_\alpha }\right)^6y^2$$
(27)
where $`T_\alpha 18.9(23.4)\mathrm{MeV}`$ for $`\alpha =e(\mu ,\tau )`$. The term $`a`$ is proportional to the total asymmetry $`L`$. Electron-positron annihilations do not change electron asymmetry in $`\stackrel{~}{L}`$ and as usually is done, we also neglect a small change in $`\stackrel{~}{L}`$ arising from neutron-proton conversions. Thus we can write the term $`a`$ in the usual way, where now however $`T`$ has to be replaced with $`T_\nu `$ because of the definition (1) of particle asymmetry that we are using:

$$aa_0\frac{\mathrm{eV}^2}{\delta \mathrm{m}^2}LT_\nu ^4y$$
(28)
So far, the electron positron-annihilations have not caused any change in the equations when these are written in $`T_\nu `$. This because we could approximately assume that $`\alpha `$\- neutrinos, during the electron positron annihilations, are not sensitive to all other particle species, either because they do not interact with them any more or because the contribution of the other particle species in the effective potentials can be neglected when $`T0.25\mathrm{MeV}`$ and $`|L|L_t`$. There is however an indirect effect due to the expansion rate. In replacing the time $`t`$ with the neutrino temperature $`T_\nu `$, one needs to calculate the quantity:

$$\frac{dT_\nu }{dt}\frac{1.66\sqrt{g_\rho }T_\nu ^3}{M_{\mathrm{Pl}}}\left(\frac{T}{T_\nu }\right)^2,$$
(29)
where $`M_{\mathrm{Pl}}`$ is the Planck mass and the number of (energy density) degrees of freedom is given by \*††\*††\*††We neglect any contribution to $`g_\rho `$ from the sterile neutrino production or from the modification of $`\alpha `$ neutrino distribution, due to the generation of the asymmetry. This because we are primarily interested in small values of mixing angles satisfying the Eq. (5) and to values of $`|\delta m^2|/\mathrm{eV}^2100`$ for which most of the neutrino asymmetry is generated below $`T_{\mathrm{cdec}}^\alpha `$ and thus $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu ^\rho 0`$.:

$$g_\rho (T_\nu )=2+\frac{21}{4}\left(\frac{T_\nu }{T}\right)^4+\frac{60}{\pi ^4}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑y\frac{y^2\sqrt{y^2+x^2}}{1+e^{\sqrt{y^2+x^2}}}$$
(30)
with $`xm_e/T`$ and where $`T`$ has to be regarded as a function of $`T_\nu `$ (in figure 1 the function $`g_\rho `$ is also plotted). Thus electron-positron annihilations cause a change in the expansion rate. In section IV we will obtain physical insight into this effect.

In figures 2,3,4 we show the evolution of the absolute value of the total asymmetry with the temperature $`T`$. In figure 2 we show solutions for many different values of $`\delta m^2`$ but for a fixed value of the mixing angle $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _0=10^8`$ and for $`\alpha =e`$. The solid lines are the solutions obtained solving the set of QKE equations. The dotted lines are curves obtained integrating the QKE’s only until $`r<3`$ (see the Eq. 12). From that moment we started to use the adiabatic approximation as described in . It can be seen how the asymmetry generation occurs at values of $`\delta m^2`$ much below $`10^4\mathrm{eV}^2`$ and goes off only around $`\delta m^210^{10}\mathrm{eV}^2`$. In particular for $`\delta m^2=10^{10}\mathrm{eV}^2`$ the final value of neutrino asymmetry is still at the level of $`10^5`$.

The numerical convergence of the solutions has been obtained integrating around the resonance  but the interval of the integration highly increases for low $`|\delta m^2|`$ and covers up to two orders of magnitude in momentum space. The behaviour at low values of the asymmetry is well reproduced by the static approximation at any value of $`|\delta m^2|`$. In particular note that no sign changes are present.

In figure 3 solutions for $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _0=10^7`$, $`\delta m^2/\mathrm{eV}^2=100,1,10^2,10^8`$ and $`\alpha =e`$ are shown. While for the first two cases there are no sign changes, which was already known, in the case $`\delta m^2=10^8`$ two sign changes appear. Note that, changing the initial neutrino asymmetry, the solutions converge to the same values at some stage. The final sign is still the same of $`\stackrel{~}{L}`$, like the static approximation predicts. For the numerical convergence of this solution a momentum integration over an interval of 5 orders of magnitude has been necessary, much larger than for $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _0=10^8`$. In figure 4 another example is shown with the mixing parameters $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _0=10^7`$, $`\delta m^2/eV^2=10^7`$ for the $`\alpha =\mu `$ case. In this case three sign changes are present and the final sign is therefore opposite to that of $`\stackrel{~}{L}`$. We tested this solution with both codes, obtaining the same behaviour. Thus we can say that the numerical calculations suggest the appearance of slow oscillations in the neutrino asymmetry. These seem to have a different nature than the rapid oscillations observed in  for $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _010^6`$ and $`10^2|\delta m^2|/\mathrm{eV}^2500`$. They are ‘slower’ and with just a few sign changes and do not occur during the exponential growth but before, above the critical temperature. Moreover, even though the integration has to be very accurate, a numerical convergence can be obtained and thus any character of chaoticity seems to be excluded. This is also supported by the fact that starting with two slightly different initial conditions the final sign is the same. We can thus exclude the possibility that statistical fluctuations, estimated in , can influence the solutions. However, it would be desirable to have some analytical insight supporting the presence of sign changes found in the numerical results. In any case, if confirmed, they would suggest a deviation from the static approximation at low $`|\delta m^2|`$ and sufficiently high mixing angles ($`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _010^7`$) due to the presence of sign changes that are not predicted by the static approximation. We did not investigate whether at even higher mixing angles, rapid oscillations appear, as in the case of high $`\delta m^2`$. This requires a dedicated analysis beyond the goals of this work.

In figures 5a we give the final value of the asymmetry for $`\alpha =e`$, five values of the mixing angle ($`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _0=10^7`$, $`10^8`$, $`10^9`$, $`4\times 10^{10}`$, $`10^{10}`$) and for $`\delta m^2`$ in the range $`10^{13}<\delta m^2/eV^2<10^4`$ \*‡‡\*‡‡\*‡‡The chosen upper limit for $`|\delta m^2|`$ comes from the requirement to have the critical temperature $`T_c100\mathrm{MeV}`$ considering that, for higher temperatures, the expression that we used for the effective potentials are not valid. However in the case $`\alpha =e`$, direct mass measurements from Tritium $`\beta `$ decay limit $`\delta m^2`$ to be less than $`100\mathrm{eV}^2`$.. In figure 5b the final value of the asymmetry is shown in the case $`\alpha =\mu `$ and for two values of the mixing angle ($`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _0=10^7`$ and $`10^8`$) and one can see that there is not much difference with the case $`\alpha =e`$. This because in the MSW regime, when the neutrino asymmetry gets its final value, the finite temperature term in the effective potential (the $`b`$-term, see Eq. (27) ) is negligible and only the Wolfenstein term is relevant (the $`a`$-term, see Eq. (28) ). This term is the same for $`\alpha =e`$ and $`\alpha =\mu `$.

For values of the mixing angles $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _0=10^7`$, $`10^8`$ and $`10^9`$, the final value of the neutrino asymmetry can be quite easily understood as being due to MSW transitions as the resonance momentum passes through the neutrino distribution. Previous work focussed on the adiabatic limit where complete conversion occured. The solid curves describe the results obtained solving the QKE. The dotted lines correspond to the results obtained with the adiabatic approximation, with a slight difference between figure 5a and figure 5b. In figure 5a ($`\alpha =e`$), the results correspond to the solutions in figure 2 and 3 obtained combining QKE and the adiabatic approximation as already illustrated. In figure 5b the adiabatic approximation is started from $`TT_c/2`$ with an initial asymmetry corresponding to a resonant momentum $`y_{\mathrm{res}}^{\mathrm{min}}=0.3`$ (see Eq. 9). In the first case one gets a compromise of a fast procedure (most of the CPU time is required in the MSW dominated regime) but still able to reproduce accurately the correct neutrino asymmetry evolution at any temperature. In the second case one has a super-fast procedure able to reproduce accurately the final stages ($`|L|10^2`$) of the evolution, and a fair description of the intermediate stages. At high values of $`\delta m^2`$ the adiabatic approximation well describes the results obtained using the QKE’s. Note also that, for $`|\delta m^2|/\mathrm{eV}^210^2`$, not all anti-neutrinos are converted into anti-sterile neutrinos (we refer to positive $`L`$, otherwise neutrinos would be converted instead of anti-neutrinos) and $`|L_{\nu _\alpha }^{\mathrm{fin}}|`$ can be well below the value $`0.375`$ corresponding to a full conversion and for $`y_{\mathrm{res}}^{\mathrm{min}}1`$. This is because at high values of $`|\delta m^2|`$ the MSW dominated regime occurs mostly at temperature above $`1\mathrm{MeV}`$ and collisions are able to re-distribute thermally the asymmetry after it has been produced at $`y=y_{\mathrm{res}}`$. In particular this means that (on statistical average) some anti-neutrinos in quantum states with $`y>y_{\mathrm{res}}`$ will move to quantum states with $`y<y_{\mathrm{res}}`$. Since $`y_{\mathrm{res}}`$ increases with time, this means that these anti-neutrinos cannot be converted any more. In a pictorial way, we can say that these anti-neutrinos evade the resonance and manage not to be converted. This evasion effect can be described correctly only numerically.

For lower values of $`\delta m^2`$ the asymmetry becomes large only for low temperatures $`\stackrel{<}{}1\mathrm{MeV}`$, where collisions have an approximately negligible effect and the evasion effect does not occur. The final value of the neutrino asymmetry gets very close to the upper limit of $`0.375`$ around $`\delta m^210^2\mathrm{eV}^2`$. For lower values of $`\delta m^2`$ the adiabatic approximation predicts that the final value remains approximately constant at $`0.375`$ †\*†\*†\*More precisely, as it is shown figure 5a, for $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _0=10^8`$ in the adiabatic approximation, the final value gets again slowly lower than $`0.375`$ for $`\delta m^2/\mathrm{eV}^210^2`$. This because in that case we integrated the QKE’s in the collision dominated regime and in this case the correct value for the initial $`y_{\mathrm{res}}^{\mathrm{min}}`$ at which the MSW conversions start is reproduced. This value gets as high as 1 at $`\delta m^2=10^8\mathrm{eV}^2`$ and thus not all-antineutrinos are converted as it happens in figure 5b. On the other hand, for larger $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _0`$, the value of $`y_{\mathrm{res}}^{\mathrm{min}}1`$ and the two procedures, the fast one and the super-fast one, give the same answer.. However at low enough values of $`\delta m^2`$, the adiabatic approximation clearly fails in reproducing the results obtained fully integrating the QKE’s. These show that, for a fixed value of $`\mathrm{sin}^2\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\theta _0`$, there is a value of $`\delta m^2/\mathrm{eV}^2`$ below which the final value of the asymmetry becomes rapidly negligible. The region of mixing parameters where the adiabatic approximation holds and the final asymmetry $`|L_{\nu _\alpha }^{\mathrm{fin}}|0.8|L_{\nu _\alpha }^{\mathrm{fin}}|^{(\mathrm{ad})}`$, with the value of the adiabatic limit $`|L_{\nu _\alpha }^{\mathrm{fin}}|^{(\mathrm{ad})}`$ in the range $`0.260.375`$ (the exact value depending on $`\delta m^2`$), is given approximately by:

$$\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _0\left(\frac{|\delta m^2|}{\mathrm{eV}^2}\right)^{\frac{1}{4}}\stackrel{>}{}1.2\times 10^9$$
(31)
It is also simple to infer from figure 5a ††††††We concentrated, for values of the final asymmetry much less than $`0.01`$, on the case $`\alpha =e`$. However in the case $`\alpha =\mu `$ one does not expect differences, as the Wolfenstein term in the effective potential, responsible for the final value of the asymmetry in the MSW regime, is the same. the following equations describing the iso-$`|L_{\nu _\alpha }^{\mathrm{fin}}|`$ curves in the space of mixing parameters:

$$\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _0\left(\frac{|\delta m^2|}{\mathrm{eV}^2}\right)^{\frac{1}{4}}0.8\times 10^9|L_{\nu _\alpha }^{\mathrm{fin}}|^{\frac{1}{4}}$$
(32)
For $`|L_{\nu _\alpha }^{\mathrm{fin}}|>10^5`$ one finds a larger region compared to the condition (4) from the static approximation. This is because the MSW effect enhances the neutrino asymmetry generation compared to a collision dominated regime. The curves (32) are however valid, if one consider values of $`|L_{\nu _\alpha }^{\mathrm{fin}}|10^5`$, only for $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _010^9`$. For smaller angles the validity of (32) breaks down for $`10^5|L_{\nu _\alpha }^{\mathrm{fin}}|L_{\nu _\alpha }^{}(\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _0)`$. For example for $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _0=4\times 10^{10}`$ we found that $`L_{\nu _\alpha }^{}10^3`$ corresponding to $`\delta m^2/\mathrm{eV}^2=10^2`$ and this is clearly visible in figure 5a. For lower values of $`\delta m^2`$ and a fixed value of $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _0`$, there is a sharp cutoff in the generation.

In figure 6 we plotted the iso-$`|L_{\nu _e}^{\mathrm{fin}}|`$ curves for $`\mathrm{log}|L_{\nu _e}^{\mathrm{fin}}|=1,2,3,4,5`$. For $`\mathrm{sin}^2\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\theta _010^9`$ the curves (32) are found while for smaller mixing angles they do not hold and the generation goes off much faster for a decreasing $`\delta m^2`$ and for a fixed value of $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _0`$.

One can easily explain this cutoff in the generation of neutrino asymmetry at low values of mixing angles ($`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _010^9`$) where Eq.’s (32) start not to be valid for $`|L_{\nu _e}^{\mathrm{fin}}|<L^{}`$. This can be done in terms of current understanding of neutrino asymmetry generation outlined in the introduction. In fact for too small mixing angles the collision dominated regime †‡†‡†‡Note that the rate of neutrino asymmetry generation in the collision dominated regime, as deduced within the static approximation, is proportional to $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _0`$ . is not efficient enough in generating a neutrino asymmetry $`|L^{(e)}|(10^2/\mathrm{sin}2\theta _0)^{2/3}L_t`$ and the MSW dominated regime cannot start at all (see Eq. (12) ). This can be seen in figure 7, where we plotted the evolution of the neutrino asymmetry with temperature for $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _0=4\times 10^{10}`$ and a few values of $`\delta m^2/\mathrm{eV}^2`$. One can see how, in the case $`\delta m^2/\mathrm{eV}^2=10^3`$, the asymmetry gets frozen much before it can get the value $`(10^2/\mathrm{sin}2\theta _0)^{2/3}L_t10^4`$ and the MSW dominated regime never starts.

We are still lacking in a physical description of the (32) themselves for $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _010^9`$. In the next section, we will develop a simple physical picture providing such a description improving the adiabatic approximation in the MSW dominated regime.

## III The Landau-Zener approximation

We will now develop a useful extension to the adiabatic approximation by taking into account non-adiabatic effects which inevitably occur for a choice of mixing parameters outside of the region (31). For definiteness let us refer to positive values of the asymmetry. In this case when the total asymmetry has reached values $`L^{(\alpha )}L_t`$, the resonant momentum of anti-neutrinos is given by the expression (9). After it has reached its minimum value $`y_{\mathrm{res}}^{\mathrm{min}}`$, it starts to grow again eventually passing all of the anti-neutrino distribution at $`y>y_{\mathrm{res}}^{\mathrm{min}}`$ †§†§†§We recall that at this stage the resonant momentum of neutrinos is by far in the tail of the distribution and continues to increase further while the asymmetry grows and therefore neutrinos are completely out of the game.. In the adiabatic limit all anti-neutrinos at $`y=y_{\mathrm{res}}`$ are converted. It is then easy to find the following rate equation for the neutrino asymmetry :

$$\left(\frac{dL_{\nu _\alpha }}{dt}\right)_{\mathrm{ad}}=\frac{y_{\mathrm{res}}^2}{4\zeta (3)}\left[f_{\overline{\nu }_\alpha }(y_{\mathrm{res}})f_{\overline{\nu }_s}(y_{\mathrm{res}})\right]\frac{dy_{\mathrm{res}}}{dt}$$
(33)
In the case of negative asymmetry one has to make the replacement $`[f_{\overline{\nu }_\alpha }f_{\overline{\nu }_s}][f_{\nu _s}f_{\nu _\alpha }]`$.

In order to incorporate non adiabatic effects, which can be important if $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta `$ is small enough, we will use the standard Landau-Zener approximation . In this case, due to the quantum level crossing between matter eigenstates, not all active anti-neutrinos will be converted into sterile anti-neutrinos. The number of active anti-neutrinos that undergo level crossing and are not converted is given by the well known ‘jumping probability’ $`Pe^{\pi \gamma _r/2}`$ where $`\gamma _r|2\dot{\overline{\theta }}_m\overline{\mathrm{}}_m|_{\mathrm{res}}^1`$ is the adiabaticity parameter at the resonance and $`\overline{\theta }_m`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{}}_m`$ are respectively the mixing angle and the oscillation length in matter given by:

$$\mathrm{sin}2\overline{\theta }_m=\frac{\mathrm{sin}2\theta _0}{\sqrt{\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _0+(\mathrm{cos}2\theta _0ba)^2}}$$
(34)
$$\overline{\mathrm{}}_m=\frac{2yT/|\delta m^2|}{\sqrt{\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _0+(\mathrm{cos}2\theta _0ba)^2}}$$
(35)
Since we are considering a regime of high values of the asymmetry ($`LL_t`$), one can neglect the finite temperature term $`b`$ in the effective potential and thus one can find easily the following expression for the adiabaticity parameter:

$$\gamma _r=\frac{|\delta m^2|}{2y_{\mathrm{res}}T_\nu }\frac{\mathrm{sin}^2\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\theta _0}{|da/dt|_{\mathrm{res}}}$$
(36)
For computational purposes this can be then transformed with easy algebraic arrangements making use of the Eq. (9), defining $`\alpha d\mathrm{ln}L_{\nu _\alpha }/d\mathrm{ln}T_\nu >0`$, replacing time derivative with neutrino temperature derivative (using the expression (29) ) and finding in the end:

$$\gamma _{\mathrm{res}}1.8\times 10^{10}\sqrt{\frac{10.75}{g_\rho (T_\nu )}}\left(\frac{T_\nu }{T}\right)^2\frac{\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _0L_{\nu _\alpha }T_\nu }{|4\alpha |}$$
(37)
For $`\alpha =4`$ the adiabaticity parameter is infinite and this is perfectly understandable because when this happens, from the Eq. (9), one can see that $`y_{\mathrm{res}}=y_{\mathrm{res}}^{\mathrm{min}}`$ and $`dy_{\mathrm{res}}/dt=0`$ †¶†¶†¶Thus in this precise moment, and only in this moment $`LT^4`$ (exactly). After this moment a power-law with $`\alpha =4`$ cannot hold exactly, since if all neutrinos are adiabatically MSW converted, the resonant momentum has to start to grow to sustain the asymmetry growth. However while $`L0.1`$, $`LT^4`$ (approximately) since the resonance need only move very slowly to produce the required asymmetry. One could measure the average value of $`\alpha `$ fitting the numerical solutions if one is really interested in this quantity. See  for a detailed analysis on this (in our opinion academic) issue.. The Landau-Zener approximation can be started from $`y_{\mathrm{res}}y_{\mathrm{res}}^{\mathrm{min}}`$ and in this case the rate equation for the asymmetry will be given by:

$$\frac{dL_{\nu _\alpha }}{dt}=\left(\frac{dL_{\nu _\alpha }}{dt}\right)_{\mathrm{ad}}\left(1e^{\frac{\pi }{2}\gamma _{\mathrm{res}}}\right)$$
(38)
This equation can be solved numerically and clearly is much less CPU time consumming then the QKE’s. The results from the Landau-Zener approximation for the final value of the asymmetry are shown in figures 5a,5b with dashed lines and we find a good agreement with the QKE’s in both cases $`\alpha =e`$ and $`\alpha =\mu ,\tau `$. The Landau-Zener approximation provides useful physical insight into the numerical results. First of all we can understand equation (31) for the adiabatic region looking at the expression (37) for the adiabaticity parameter. The jumping probability starts to be non-negligible for $`\gamma _r2`$. The adiabaticity decreases (on average) during neutrino asymmetry (MSW dominated) growth, since initially $`\alpha =4`$ while when the growth stops at $`T=T_\mathrm{f}`$ one has $`\alpha =0`$. The whole MSW regime will be then adiabatic and the final value of neutrino asymmetry will be close to $`0.375`$ if $`\gamma _{\mathrm{res}}(T_\mathrm{f})2`$. Using the expression (10) for the final temperature one can immediately check that this condition reproduces the condition (31) for the adiabaticity region in the space of mixing parameters. We can also try to estimate the equations (32) for the iso-asymmetry curves. For $`\gamma _r^{\mathrm{fin}}1`$ the final neutrino asymmetry is given approximately by:

$$L_{\nu _\alpha }^{\mathrm{fin}}0.375\frac{\pi }{2}\gamma _r$$
(39)
In this equation the quantity $`\gamma _r`$ is the statistical average of the adiabaticity parameter done with the Fermi-Dirac distribution with zero chemical potential (assuming that all generation of the asymmetry occurs below the chemical decoupling temperature). If one neglects the annihilations and assume $`T_\nu =T`$ and $`g_\rho =10.75=\mathrm{const}`$, then this quantity can be expressed through the expression (37) where the quantity $`\alpha `$ must be replaced with its averaged value $`\alpha `$ and $`L_{\nu _\alpha }L_\mathrm{f}/2`$. Again, from the expresssion (9) for the resonant momentum and using $`y_{\mathrm{res}}^{\mathrm{fin}}10`$, obtains an expression for $`T_\mathrm{f}(|\delta m^2|/\mathrm{eV}^2)^{1/4}(L_{\nu _\alpha }^{\mathrm{fin}})^{1/4}/3`$, and the the iso-asymmetry curves (32) are roughly reproduced when $`\alpha 3`$, that is a quite reasonable value considering that $`\alpha `$ decreases from $`\alpha =4`$ when $`y=y_{\mathrm{res}}^{\mathrm{min}}`$ to $`\alpha =0`$ when $`y_{\mathrm{res}}10`$ an the asymmetry gets frozen to its final value. Thus the Landau-Zener approximation provides the correct approach to get a physical insight into the generation of neutrino asymmetry at low $`\delta m^2`$ and small mixing angles.

The Landau-Zener approach is also useful to get a physical insight into the effect of the electron-positron annihilations. From the espression (37) for the adiabaticity parameter we can infact study the following quantity:

$$f(T/m_e)\left[\frac{\gamma _r(T=T_\nu )}{\gamma _r}\right]=\sqrt{\frac{g_\rho }{10.75}\left(\frac{T}{T_\nu }\right)^4}$$
(40)
One can plot this function (see figure 1) and discover that it monotonically increases from 1 to its asymptotical value $`f(0)1.1`$. Thus the answer is that the effect of electron-positron annihilatons is to make the MSW conversions less adiabatic and thus to decrease the neutrino asymmetry generation. This is an effect clearly negligible in the fully adiabatic region, since if $`\gamma _r(T=T_\nu )1`$ then also $`\gamma _r1`$ and the final value of the neutrino asymmetry does not change. While, considering the equation (39), one can see that for $`|L_{\nu _\alpha }^{\mathrm{fin}}|1`$ the annihilations decrease the final value of $`10\%`$, just a correcting effect.

## IV Can the generation of neutrino asymmetry be observed ?

#### 1 Big Bang Nucleosynthesis

It remains to briefly discuss the impact of neutrino asymmetry generation on cosmology. The most straightforward consequence is a modification of the predictions of standard Big Bang Nucleosynthesis . Standard BBN is modified by active - sterile neutrino oscillations in two ways. One is by changing the energy density, described by $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu ^\rho `$, and the second is by modifying the standard electron neutrino distributions $`[e^{p/T}+1]^1`$, described by $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu ^{f_{\nu _e}}`$. This second change occurs both because an electron neutrino asymmetry can be generated and also because oscillations below the thermal decoupling temperature at $`1\mathrm{Mev}`$ produce deviations from thermal equilibrium. In the case of $`\alpha =\mu ,\tau `$, clearly in the idealized case of two neutrino mixing considered in this paper, only the first effect is present in first approximation †∥†∥†∥Actually a small effect on electron neutrino distribution, giving a not zero $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu ^{f_{\nu _e}}`$, is present also for $`\alpha =\mu ,\tau `$ if one describes exactly the chemical decoupling. This because a few electron neutrino-antineutrino annihilations will occur to restore $`\mu `$ (or $`\tau `$) number densities depleting electron neutrino number densities .. However this effect is not significant unless a significant neutrino asymmetry is generated before the chemical decoupling temperature of about $`3.5`$ MeV. This in turn requires relatively large values of $`\delta m^2\stackrel{>}{}100eV^2`$. Even if all the asymmetry is produced before the chemical decoupling (for $`\delta m^2100\mathrm{eV}^2`$), one gets at maximum a value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu ^\rho 0.4`$ . In the case $`\alpha =e`$ the neutrino asymmetry generation gives also a significant contribution to $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu ^{f_{\nu _e}}`$ and in particular if the generated asymmetry is positive then negative values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu ^{f_{\nu _e}}`$ are possible . However, this effect is only important when a significant neutrino asymmetry is produced before the freezing of the neutron to proton ratio at $`T0.75\mathrm{MeV}`$. This requires a $`\delta m^2\stackrel{>}{}0.01\mathrm{eV}^2`$. This can also be seen from figure 5a where the value of the asymmetry at $`T=0.75\mathrm{MeV}`$ has been plotted for mixing angles large enough ($`\mathrm{sin}^2\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\theta _010^8`$) that the generation is adiabatic at $`\delta m^2/\mathrm{eV}^210^2`$. Also in the multi-flavour case where a heavier $`\nu _\tau `$ (and/or $`\nu _\mu `$) oscillates with the $`\nu _s`$ which generates a large $`L_{\nu _\tau }`$ (and/or $`L_{\nu _\mu }`$) asymmetry, and subsequent oscillations of $`\nu _\tau `$ (and/or $`\nu _\mu `$) with $`\nu _e`$ transfers some of this asymmetry to the $`\nu _e`$ sector (thereby generating $`L_{\nu _e}`$) one similarly obtains that significant $`L_{\nu _e}`$ production requires a $`\delta m^2\stackrel{>}{}0.5eV^2`$ . Thus for $`|\delta m^2|10^2\mathrm{eV}^2`$, the asymmetry generation effects are unlikely to produce observable deviations on the standard BBN predictions.

#### 2 Cosmic Microwave Background

It has been pointed out how a neutrino asymmetry generated above the chemical decoupling temperature would imply a $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu ^\rho `$ able to change the matter-radiation equivalence and thus modifying the height and position of CMBR acoustic peaks . However in this case such an asymmetry cannot be generated from active-sterile neutrino oscillations because, as already pointed out discussing BBN, they generate the asymmetry generally below the chemical decoupling and thus produce a value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu ^\rho `$ not high enough to produce remarkable effects. However a $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu ^\rho `$ is also produced for mixing angles large enough (see Eq. (5)) that a significant sterile neutrino production occurs. This also modifies the matter-radiation equivalence time and gives effects on CMBR anisotropies . In the case of negative $`\delta m^2`$ the neutrino asymmetry generation can modify the sterile neutrino production, especially in multiflavor mixing. Thus this indirect effect of neutrino asymmetry generation has effects on CMBR. In other words a calculation of $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu ^\rho `$ including the account of asymmetry generation is needed to derive the correct effects on CMBR anisotropies.

#### 3 Relic Neutrinos

We have seen that the effects of neutrino asymmetry generation on BBN for low values of $`\delta m^2`$ are not significant, while on CMBR they can be only indirect. However it is still remarkable that neutrino asymmetry generation would lead to a relic neutrino background in which mainly anti-neutrinos or neutrinos are present. At the moment nobody has been able to experimentally detect relic neutrinos. However it has been noted in  that the presence of an asymmetry in the relic neutrino background can have observable effects in future neutrino detectors. If very high energy $`\alpha `$-neutrinos are produced from cosmological sources at high redshift, their vacuum probability oscillation can be changed by matter effects due to the presence of an asymmetry in the relic background. Thus, if one knows the vacuum probability and the fluxes and energy spectrum of produced neutrinos, it is possible in principle to observe a change in the oscillation probability induced by matter effects. These effects depend crucially on the value of $`\eta _0^{(\alpha )}h_0L^{(\alpha )}`$, where $`h_0=4/11`$ is the dilution factor at the present. Thus the maximum value of $`\eta _0^{(\alpha )}`$ that can be generated from active-sterile neutrino oscillations is $`0.27`$. According to the analysis presented in , such a value can give at maximum effects of about $`0.5\%`$ in the change of vacuum probability which is probably unobservably small. Nevertheless, it shows how the possibilities of detecting relic neutrino background can be changed by the presence of an asymmmetry produced by active-sterile neutrino oscillations and thus the issue of relic neutrino background detection should be reconsidered in light of this and deserves further investigations.

## V Conclusions

We have shown that the generation of large neutrino asymmetry via active - sterile neutrino oscillations occurs for much lower values of $`|\delta m^2|`$ than previously supposed. We have made a detailed study of the final asymmetry values in the $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _010^7`$ parameter region. The evolution of neutrino asymmetry in this parameter region can be understood quite simply by means of the Landau-Zener approximation that made possible to derive analytical results in good agreement with the numerical ones. For very small $`\delta m^20.01eV^2`$, the oscillations generate the asymmetry too late to have significant effects on BBN. The account of neutrino asymmetry generation can modify the sterile neutrino production (this is especially true when considered within a multiflavor mixing scheme) and thus has to be taken into account when studying the effects on CMBR anisotropies. Properties of relic neutrino background are also modified by neutrino asymmetry generation and this observation should certainly encourage new investigations on relic neutrinos detection.

Acknowledgements For the numerical calculations we used the machines of the MARC centre at the University of Melbourne. We thank the staff members for technical support. One of us, PDB, wishes to thank A.D. Dolgov for nice discussions during the XXXVIth Rencontres de Moriond session on Electroweak Interactions and Unified Theories held in Les Arcs.

Figure Captions

Figure 1. Effect of electron-positron annihilations on the degrees of freedom, on neutrino temperature and on the adiabaticity parameter.

Figure 2. Evolution of $`L^{(e)}=2L_{\nu _e}+\stackrel{~}{L}`$ with (photon) temperature for $`\mathrm{sin}^2\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\theta _0=10^8`$ and values of $`\delta m^2`$ as indicated. The solid lines are the QKE’s solutions while the dotted lines employ an adiabatic description for the growth in the MSW dominated regime. The initial value is $`L^{(e)}=\stackrel{~}{L}=5\times 10^{10}`$.

Figure 3. The same as in figure 2 but for $`\mathrm{sin}^2\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\theta _0=10^7`$ and a different choice of values for $`\delta m^2`$. For $`\delta m^2/\mathrm{eV}^2=10^8`$ we also show an example for a different choice of the initial asymmetry.

Figure 4. An example of evolution with temperature for $`L^{(\mu )}`$. The mixing parameters are $`\mathrm{sin}^2\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\theta _0=\delta m^2/\mathrm{eV}^2=10^7`$.

Figure 5. Final values of the neutrino asymmetry in the case $`\alpha =e`$ (a) and $`\alpha =\mu `$ (b). Solid lines are solutions from the QKE’s. Dashed lines are the solution with Landau-Zener approximation. Dotted lines are the adiabatic limit. In the figure 5a we also show with a thin solid line the value of neutrino asymmetry at $`T=0.75\mathrm{MeV}`$ (for mixing angles $`10^8`$) that is approximately the freezing temperature of the neutron to proton ratio.

Figure 6. Adiabatic region and iso-$`|L_{\nu _e}^{\mathrm{fin}}|`$ curves.

Figure 7. The same as in figure 2 but for $`\mathrm{sin}^2\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\theta _0=4\times 10^{10}`$ and a different choice of values for $`\delta m^2`$. For $`\delta m^2=10^3\mathrm{eV}^2`$ the MSW dominated regime never starts.