text:
# Untitled Document

Astronomical and Astrophysical Transactions, 2001

Vol. 20, pp.393-403

EXPERIENCE OF HIGH RESOLUTION VLBI

IMAGING USING GENERALIZED

MAXIMUM ENTROPY METHOD

A.T.BAJKOVA

Institute of Applied Astronomy of RAS, St.Petersburg

(Received December 27, 2000)

The generalized maximum entropy method (GMEM) is a special modification of the standard maximum entropy method (MEM) which seeks solutions in the space of complex functions. In this work a reduced version of the GMEM intended for reconstructing real images with positive and negative values is used. As compared with the standard MEM, intended for the reconstruction of only non-negative images, the GMEM allows us to obtain higher-quality images with a much lower level of nonlinear distortions caused by errors in the data. Here, we present the results of the GMEM imaging of 36 selected extragalactic radio sources with a resolution of 0.3-0.5 mas on astrometric and geodetic VLBI observations at 8.2 GHz, obtained with a global array in the period from 1994-1996. In VLBI mapping practice this is the first experience of imaging with such a high resolution using maximum entropy technique. A differential maximum entropy method intended for increasing the dynamic range of images is demonstrated on the radio source 0059+581. In the case of unreliable ‘closure’ phases, completely ‘phaseless’ methods of mapping are recommended. Maps of two sources 0615+820 and 0642+214 are obtained using one such method.

KEY WORDS VLBI imaging, generalized maximum entropy method, compact extragalactic radio sources

1 INTRODUCTION

There are two main deconvolution algorithms in Very Long Baseline Interferometry (VLBI) imaging: CLEAN and maximum entropy method (MEM). The maximum entropy method is well known among physicists as a very powerful tool for the nonlinear regularization of incorrect tasks. But in spite of its high super resolution effect, MEM is less popular in VLBI. There are two main reasons: the high computational complexity and the nonlinear image distortions caused by errors in data (visibility function). But the situation can be change fundamentally by introducing into VLBI imaging an effective modification of the MEM called the generalized maximum entropy method (GMEM) which generally operates in the space of complex functions (Bajkova, 1990, 1993). Searching for solutions of complex functions in space allows us firstly to factor multidimensional MEM algorithms into series of simpler one-dimensional algorithms, which considerably decreases the computational complexity (Frieden and Bajkova, 1994) and, secondly, considerably decreases the nonlinear distortions of images (Bajkova, 1995).

Thus, due to its generalized form MEM can become preferable in VLBI to CLEAN, especially for imaging sources with a complicated extended structure (we know, that MEM produces maximally smooth images, but CLEAN sharpens them).

In this paper we present the first experience of applying the GMEM to mapping compact extragalactic sources with high resolution (0.3-0.5 mas). We used VLBI astrometric and geodetic observations (NEOS-A program) obtained with a global array at 8.2 GHz. Data were received from the Goddard Space Flight Center. Source imaging from astrometric and geodetic VLBI observations is of great interest both for astrometry, geodesy (geodynamics taking into account extended source structure on mas scales to more accurate determination of celestial/terrestrial coordinates) and astrophysics (investigation of the short-period structure variability of compact extragalactic radio sources).

For mapping we used the well-known ‘CalTech VLBI Program’ package into which we introduced the GMEM procedure as a deconvolution operation in the selfcalibration loop.

2 MAPPING COMPACT EXTRAGALACTIC RADIO SOURCES

For VLBI source mapping a reduced version of the GMEM intended for the reconstruction of real signals with positive and negative values was used. The selection of the GMEM instead of the MEM as a deconvolution operation was principally dictated by low signal-to-noise ratio typical of astrometric and geodetic VLBI observations.

A detailed description of the practical GMEM algorithm is given in Bajkova (1998a). The size of maps was chosen as 256$`\times `$256 pixels, with an interval between two pixels of 0.1 mas and an image domain size between 60$`\times `$60 and 100$`\times `$100 pixels, depending in each case on structure extent and data quality. Parameter ‘$`\alpha `$’ (Bajkova, 1990, 1998a) in the GMEM algorithm, which is responsible for separating ‘positive’ and ‘negative’ solutions, was chosen equal to $`10^8`$. A numerical solution of the entropic functional was realized using steepest-descent method. To ensure the high stability of the numerical algorithm to noise, an additional regularizing term was added to the principal entropic functional (Bajkova, 1998a).

Images of 36 selected compact extragalactic radio sources are shown in Figure 1. Characteristics of the sources are given in Table 1. Parameters of the maps (date of observations, list of VLBI stations, flux densities and agreement factors) are given in Table 2. The presented images were obtained by convolution of entropic solutions by a circular gaussian beam with a circle diameter on 0.2 mas. This size is enough to smooth over image samples distant which are 0.1 mas from each other (the beam circles are shown in bottom left corner of the maps).

The GMEM images can be compared with the corresponding CLEAN images published in Bajkova et al. (1996a). The comparison shows, that the GMEM maps are obtained with better agreement factors (nearly in 2.2 times) and are less ‘lumpy’. In this connection the total flux increased on the average by 1.036 times, i.e. practically did not change. But the peak flux decreased by 1.83 times. Taking into account this and the fact that MEM and GMEM principally seek a solution in space of smooth gaussian functions, it is possible to conclude that the new GMEM maps are smoother than the CLEAN maps.

Table 1. List of sources

| Source |  | Alias | Ident. | $`z`$ | $`m_v`$ | $`S_6`$ | $`S_{3.5}`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 0014+813 |  | S5 0014+81 | QSO | 3.384 | 16.50 | 0.551 | 1.355 |
| 0016+731 |  | S5 0016+73 | QSO | 1.781 | 18.00 | 1.700 | 1.900 |
| 0059+581 |  | - | - | - | - | - | 2.800 |
| 0202+149 |  | 4C +15.05, NRAO 91 | QSO | - | 21.90 | 2.400 | 3.100 |
| 0229+131 |  | 4C +13.14 | QSO | 2.067 | 17.03 | 1.000 | 1.900 |
| 0336-019 |  | CTA 26 | QSO | 0.852 | 18.41 | 2.500 | 2.800 |
| 0400+258 |  | - | QSO | 2.109 | 18.00 | 1.800 | 1.400 |
| 0402-362 |  | - | QSO | 1.417 | 17.17 | 1.400 | - |
| 0440+345 |  | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| 0458-020 |  | 4C -02.19 | QSO | 2.286 | 19.50 | 1.900 | 3.100 |
| 0528+134 |  | - | QSO | 2.070 | 20.30 | 3.900 | 4.500 |
| 0552+598 |  | DA 193 | QSO | 2.365 | 18.00 | 5.400 | 5.700 |
| 0615+820 |  | - | QSO | 0.710 | 17.50 | 0.999 | 0.900 |
| 0642+214 |  | 3C 166, 4C +21.21 | G | 0.245 | 19.50 | 1.100 | - |
| 0716+714 |  | - | LAC | - | 15.50 | 1.121 | 0.600 |
| 0735+178 |  | OI 158 | LAC | 0.424 | 16.22 | 1.800 | 1.900 |
| 0917+624 |  | OK 630 | QSO | 1.446 | 19.50 | 0.996 | 1.500 |
| 0955+476 |  | OK 492 | QSO | 1.873 | 18.00 | 0.739 | 0.700 |
| 1014+615 |  | - | BSO | - | 18.10 | 0.631 | 0.571 |
| 1101+384 |  | Mkn 421 | G | 0.031 | 13.10 | 0.725 | 0.700 |
| 1128+385 |  | OM 346.9 | QSO | 1.733 | 16.00 | 0.771 | 0.900 |
| 1219+285 |  | W Com, ON 231 | LAC | 0.102 | 16.11 | 2.000 | 0.700 |
| 1308+326 |  | AU CVn | LAC | 0.996 | 19.00 | 1.500 | 3.700 |
| 1357+769 |  | - | QSO | - | 19.00 | 0.844 | 0.600 |
| 1606+106 |  | 4C +10.45 | QSO | 1.226 | 18.50 | 1.400 | 1.600 |
| 1637+574 |  | OS 562 | QSO | 0.751 | 17.00 | 1.400 | 1.700 |
| 1638+398 |  | NRAO 512 | QSO | 1.666 | 16.50 | 1.160 | 1.500 |
| 1739+522 |  | 4C +51.37, OT 566 | QSO | 1.375 | 18.50 | 2.000 | 1.200 |
| 1741-038 |  | - | QSO | 1.057 | 18.60 | 3.000 | 3.000 |
| 1745+624 |  | 4C +62.29 | QSO | 3.886 | 18.70 | 0.580 | 0.480 |
| 1803+784 |  | - | LAC | 0.684 | 16.40 | 2.600 | 2.400 |
| 1823+568 |  | 4C +56.27 | LAC | 0.664 | 18.40 | 1.700 | 2.100 |
| 2145+067 |  | 4C +06.69 | QSO | 0.990 | 16.47 | 4.500 | 8.600 |
| 2200+420 |  | BL Lac, VRO 42.22.01 | LAC | 0.068 | 14.72 | 4.800 | 5.900 |
| 2201+315 |  | 4C +31.63 | QSO | 0.297 | 15.79 | 2.300 | 2.500 |
| 2230+114 |  | CTA 102, 4C +11.69 | QSO | 1.037 | 17.66 | 3.600 | 3.600 |

Improvement of agreement factors in case of GMEM shows that the space of smooth functions for searching for source distributions is more adequate than the space of $`\delta `$ functions in which the CLEAN solutions are sought, i.e. the considered sources reveal rather extended structure at the given resolution. Note that CLEAN always gives disconnected solution as a combination of $`\delta `$ functions (in addition, CLEAN sharpens bright components and damps weak ones), although CLEAN maps usually seem smooth. This is because a CLEAN map is a convolution of the CLEAN solution (model) by a smooth gaussian ‘clean’ beam. And, obviously, in general a CLEAN map is not obliged to agree with the data to such an extent as the corresponding CLEAN model. But when we use the GMEM we at once obtain a smooth solution which is in good agreement with the data.

Table 2. Parameters of maps

| Source | Date | Stations | Flux | $`\left[Jy\right]`$ | Agr. | factor |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  |  |  | total | peak | ampl. | phase | total |
| 0014+813 | 17.10.95 | G,W,N20,MK,NL,A,K | 0.960 | 0.234 | 2.32 | 2.79 | 2.52 |
| 0016+731 | 18.01.94 | F,W,G,K,MK,SC,N85 | 1.760 | 0.244 | 1.81 | 1.66 | 1.75 |
| 0059+581 | 27.06.95 | G,W,NY,F,N85, | 1.620 | 0.825 | 1.77 | 1.20 | 1.61 |
| 0202+149 | 09.01.96 | NY,W,F,N20,G,K | 1.310 | 0.592 | 3.15 | 1.59 | 2.77 |
| 0229+131 | 18.01.94 | F,W,G,SC,N85,BR,K,MK | 1.430 | 0.318 | 1.65 | 1.66 | 1.65 |
| 0336-019 | 18.01.94 | F,W,SC,N85,BR,K,G,MK | 2.070 | 0.737 | 2.02 | 1.92 | 1.99 |
| 0400+258 | 09.01.96 | F,W,NY,N85,G,K | 0.320 | 0.131 | 0.81 | 0.84 | 0.82 |
| 0402-362 | 23.01.95 | F,H26,MA,H,S,N85,SS,MK,P | 1.260 | 0.935 | 1.51 | 1.21 | 1.39 |
| 0440+345 | 22.08.95 | K,NY,G,W,F,N85 | 0.430 | 0.131 | 1.41 | 1.95 | 1.61 |
| 0458-020 | 23.01.95 | F,MA,H,N85,SC,P, | 1.500 | 0.693 | 2.18 | 1.62 | 2.00 |
|  |  | S,MK,H26,C |  |  |  |  |  |
| 0528+134 | 01.02.95 | C,D65,MA,ME,NY,W,O,N | 3.840 | 1.317 | 3.94 | 1.45 | 3.12 |
| 0552+398 | 04.01.94 | F,N85,K,W,G,A | 3.840 | 1.212 | 2.26 | 1.11 | 1.98 |
| 0615+820 | 26.03.96 | G,K,W,NY,N20 | 0.300 | 0.079 | 1.33 |  |  |
| 0642+214 | 14.11.95 | G,K,NY,W,F,N85 | 0.380 | 0.152 | 1.78 |  |  |
| 0716+714 | 14.11.95 | NY,W,G,K,F,N85 | 0.180 | 0.111 | 0.96 | 1.15 | 1.02 |
| 0735+178 | 18.01.94 | F,W,SC,G,BR,K,MK | 1.540 | 0.299 | 2.59 | 2.84 | 2.68 |
| 0917+624 | 05.03.96 | NY,W,N20,F,G,K | 1.090 | 0.222 | 1.81 | 1.37 | 1.67 |
| 0955+476 | 18.01.94 | G,K,W,BR,F,SC,MK | 0.970 | 0.393 | 1.38 | 1.52 | 1.45 |
| 1014+615 | 06.02.96 | G,K,N20,W,F | 0.340 | 0.136 | 1.87 | 2.01 | 1.92 |
| 1101+384 | 17.10.95 | A,G,NL,MK,K,W | 0.350 | 0.124 | 1.43 | 2.87 | 1.14 |
| 1128+385 | 31.10.95 | G,NY,K,N85,W,F | 0.630 | 0.268 | 1.31 | 1.37 | 1.33 |
| 1219+285 | 31.10.95 | G,NY,K,N85,W,F | 0.210 | 0.067 | 0.99 | 1.00 | 0.99 |
| 1308+326 | 04.10.94 | G,K,MK,W,F,SC,BR | 3.490 | 1.249 | 3.46 | 2.96 | 3.32 |
| 1357+769 | 17.10.95 | A,G,N20,W,NL,MK,K,F | 0.590 | 0.276 | 1.52 | 2.49 | 1.96 |
| 1606+106 | 18.01.94 | G,N85,K,BR,MK,F,W,SC | 1.310 | 0.420 | 1.23 | 1.98 | 1.51 |
| 1637+574 | 05.03.93 | K,N20,G,NY,W,F | 0.850 | 0.322 | 2.15 | 1.17 | 1.87 |
| 1638+398 | 08.08.95 | N85,W,G,K,F | 0.630 | 0.276 | 1.01 | 1.76 | 1.29 |
| 1739+522 | 18.01.94 | K,W,BR,MK,SC,N85,F | 1.080 | 0.267 | 1.66 | 1.80 | 1.71 |
| 1741-038 | 18.01.94 | G,K,BR,MK,N85,SC,F,W | 2.830 | 0.898 | 1.67 | 2.75 | 2.07 |
| 1745+624 | 03.10.95 | G,K,W,N20,F | 0.200 | 0.109 | 0.61 | 0.71 | 0.64 |
| 1803+784 | 18.01.94 | BR,MK,G,N85,K,SC,W,F | 1.710 | 0.575 | 3.53 | 3.81 | 3.64 |
| 1823+568 | 03.10.95 | G,W,N20,F,K | 0.600 | 0.324 | 3.76 | 2.32 | 3.32 |
| 2145+067 | 17.10.95 | A,F,G,N20,W,NL,MK,K | 8.010 | 1.838 | 6.37 | 10.0 | 7.88 |
| 2200+420 | 26.03.96 | G,K,W,NY,N20,F | 2.810 | 0.491 | 4.38 | 2.88 | 3.97 |
| 2201+315 | 18.01.94 | F,W,BR,MK,SC,N85,G,K | 1.950 | 0.306 | 1.59 | 2.56 | 1.99 |
| 2230+114 | 31.10.95 | NY,W,F,N85,G,K | 1.070 | 0.295 | 1.78 | 1.08 | 1.66 |

Abbreviations: A – Algopark; BR – VLBA-BR; C – Crimea; D65 – DSS65; F – Fortleza; G – Gilcreek; H – Hartrao; H26 – Hobart26; K – Kokee; MA – Matera; ME – Medicina; MK – VLBA-MK; N – Noto; N20 – NRAO20; N85 – NRAO85; NL – VLBA-NL; NY – NyAlesund20; O – Onsala; SC – VLBA-SC; W – Wettzell.

If we obtain GMEM solution with a worse agreement factor than the CLEAN one, we should conclude that in this case GMEM is less adequate than CLEAN and the source can be considered to be point-like source consisting of some $`\delta `$ functions. In our case, such a source is 0642+214 (in fact, its CLEAN solution has better agreement factor than the GMEM solution (by approximately two times)).

On the basis of careful analysis of both the CLEAN and GMEM maps we can conclude that the GMEM gave more accurate estimates of source distributions than the CLEAN map. In some of the sources (0400+258, 0458-020, 0917+624, 1606+106, 1823+568, 2230+114) the extended structure details are revealed to a fuller extent. All the images are free from the artifacts inherent in CLEAN.

To increase the dynamic range of the maps we used a differential GMEM (see Section 3). A more detailed comparison of CLEAN and GMEM images is given in Bajkova (1999).

It is also necessary to note that the maps of two sources with unreliable ‘closure’ phases 0615+820 and 0642+214 were obtained using completely ‘phaseless’ mapping (see section 4).

3 A DIFFERENTIAL METHOD OF MAXIMUM ENTROPY

At present, the idea of differential mapping is realized most comprehensively in the ‘DIFMAP’ program package at the CalTech, where CLEAN method is used as the deconvolution operation.

The method of differential mapping is based on the fundamental linear property of linearity of the Fourier transformation. According to this method, the bright components of the source, which were reconstructed at the first stage, are subtracted from the initial visibility function, the subsequent reconstruction is performed using the residual visibility function, and the reconstruction results are added at the final stage.

In the case of CLEAN, such a mapping method mainly influences the convergence rate. However, if the MEM, which has pronounced nonlinear properties, is used as the deconvolution operation, the principle of differential mapping can improve the reconstruction quality, particularly when the source has bright compact components against the background of a sufficiently weak extended base.

What is the cause of the reconstruction quality improvement? The fact is that after the subtraction of bright components, which were reconstructed at the first stage using the MEM, from the initial visibility function we obtain the residual visibility function, in which the proportion of the weak extended component becomes larger. Therefore, we artificially decrease the dynamic interval of the map, which corresponds to the residual visibility function, thus simplify the image reconstruction at the second stage.

Above we discussed the advantages of the GMEM for processing real non-negative images. With respect to differential mapping, another advantage of GMEM originated from the fact that an image with negative values can correspond to the residual visibility function after subtraction of the bright component that is reconstructed at the first stage of the algorithm from the initial visibility function. This is possible if the bright component was reconstructed at the first stage with an overestimated amplitude, which is quite typical of any nonlinear method. To rule out unwanted image distortions when a non-negative solution is sought using the data assuming the presence of negative components, we should use the generalized method rather than the standard one.

Simulation results of the differential GMEM are shown in Bajkova (1998b). Here we demonstrate potential of differential GMEM for mapping the radio source 0059+581, which is actively used as a reference source in the astrometric and geodetic VLBI programs. This source is of interest because it shows fast variation of both the total flux and the structure, which consists of a compact core and rather weak extended elements (jet). The maps that were constructed using GMEM for a number of dates between June 1994 and December 1995 are shown in Bajkova (1998b). Between the middle and the end of 1994 we observed an almost linear decrease in the total flux from $``$ 4 Jy to 1.5 Jy. As is obvious from Bajkova (1998b), we failed to obtain a map with a sufficient dynamic range detect an extended element from June 26, 1994, when the flux was maximal over the interval in question. Using the standard GMEM, we only detected extended elements from October 4, 1994, when their share with respect to the total flux became sufficient to be detected by the selected reconstruction method. In Figure 2, for comparison, we show maps, obtained using both the standard and differential GMEM for three dates on which the total flux was sufficiently large and the flux share corresponding to extended elements was insignificant. As is obvious from the figure, the use of differential mapping allowed us to increase the dynamic range of the maps such that the extended structures became very distinguished.

4 ‘PHASELESS’ MAPPING

A principle of ‘phaseless’ mapping used for imaging two sources 0615+820 and 0642+214 (see Figure 1) is based on reconstruction of the visibility function amplitude over the whole $`UV`$-plane. The image is then reconstructed using only the amplitude of the visibility function (the well-known ‘phase problem’). For reconstruction of the visibility amplitude GMEM has also been used in the self-calibration loop setting all the ‘closure’ phases to zero. For solving the ‘phase problem’ an effective modification of the well-known Fienup algorithm was used (Bajkova, 1996b). ‘Phaseless’ mapping is recommended in the case of bad ‘closure’ phases.

5 SUMMARY

This work is devoted to the first experience of the high resolution imaging of compact extragalactic sources using generalized maximum entropy method proposed by the author in earlier papers (Bajkova, 1990, 1993). Images of a sample of 36 selected compact extragalactic radio sources obtained with a resolution of 0.3–0.5 mas on astrometric and geodetic VLBI observations at 8.2 GHz with a global array (NEOS-A program) between 1994 and 1996 are presented. Comparison with the corresponding CLEAN images shows that the images obtained are smoother and characterized by better agreement factors, revealing rather complicated structures to a fuller extent.

The choice of reconstruction method as the deconvolution procedure in selfcalibration loop depends on the signal-to-noise ratio and a priori information about the source’s structure. In the case of point-like structures, which are the majority of sources observed in geodetic programs, the traditional CLEAN is the preferable procedure because it was invented especially for such sources and is very fast. In the case of complicated structures with strongly extended components, the nonlinear information methods can be preferable. Moreover, in the case of a low signal-to-noise ratio, which is typical for astrometric and geodetic VLBI observations, the generalized information methods for seeking a solution in the space of functions with positive and negative values are preferable to the standard ones which deal only with real non-negative distributions, because they ensure a much lower level of nonlinear distortions.

To increase the dynamic range of images we used a differential generalized maximum entropy method. Compared with the traditional methods, the nonlinear methods of differential mapping using the maximum entropy method as the deconvolution operation allow us to substantially improve the reconstruction quality of source images containing bright point components against a background of a weak base. The maps obtained using the differential method of maximum entropy are characterized by a higher dynamic range. To eliminate possible nonlinear distortions in the case of differential mapping, the generalized method of maximum entropy is preferred to the standard method.

In the case of unreliable ‘closure’ phases we recommend using completely ‘phaseless’ methods of mapping.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by Federal Program ‘Astronomy’ (Grant No 2.1.1.3.).

References

Bajkova, A.T. (1990) Astron. Astrophys. Trans. 1, 313.

Bajkova, A.T. (1993) Maximum Entropy and Bayesian Methods. Kluwer Academic, 407.

Bajkova, A.T. (1995) Izvestia vuzov. Radiofizika. 38, 1267 (in Russian).

Bajkova A.T. et al. (1996a) Communications of IAA RAS, 87, St.Petersburg (in Russian).

Bajkova, A.T. (1996b) Izvestia vuzov. Radiofizika. 39, 472 (in Russian).

Bajkova, A.T. (1998a) Trudy IPA RAN. 3, 287 (in Russian).

Bajkova, A.T. (1998b) Izvestia vuzov. Radiofizika. 41, 991 (in Russian).

Bajkova, A.T. (1999) Trudy IPA RAN. 4, 150 (in Russian).

Frieden, B.R., Bajkova, A.T. (1994) Applied Optics, 33, 219.


format: text

text:
# Transient domain walls and lepton asymmetry in the Left-Right symmetric model

## I Introduction

Explaining the observed baryon asymmetry of the Universe within the framework of gauge theories and the standard Big Bang cosmology remains an open problem. The study has resulted in a deeper understanding of nonperturbative phenomena at finite temperature in gauge theories including supersymmetric theories. Many of the particle physics models and scenarios considered so far seem to require unnatural extensions or very special choices of parameters for successful baryogenesis; prime among these are the standard model (SM) and its minimal supersymmetric extension (MSSM), using a first order phase transition shap ; CKN ; others . Among the alternative proposals are those which rely on the presence of topological defects, viz., domain walls mencoo , and cosmic strings sbdanduay1 ; branden1 . The latter are generic to many gauge theories. What makes them especially suited for baryogenesis is their nonthermal nature soon after their formation. Unlike the need for a first order phase transition which sets severe limitations on the couplings and particle content of the model, existence of defects relies only on topological features of the vacuum manifolds and permits nonthermal effects without fine tuning.

Many special features arise when studying cosmological consequences of topological defects in any given gauge model. The Left-Right symmetric (L-R) model was studied in the context of conventional baryogenesis mechanisms in mohzha ; Frere:1992bd  and in the context of domain wall mediated mechanism in lewrio . A detailed study of the possible defects existing in the L-R model was made in ywmmc . It was argued that the domain wall configurations implied by the symmetry breaking pattern present possibilities for baryogenesis. In this paper we study the interaction of neutrinos which derive Majorana masses from the scalar condensate which constitutes the domain wall. Many of the broad features encountered, e.g., asymmetric reflection and transmission of fermions from moving domain walls, have appeared in the study of electroweak baryogenesis. In the diffusion-enhanced scenario CKN  driven by thick walls, the asymmetry diffusing in front of the wall is equlibrated by high temperature sphalerons. In our mechanism this is replaced by helicity flipping interactions in front of the wall which arise from the scalar condensate imparting a Majorana mass to the fermions. Our parametric answer for the unprocessed Lepton asymmetry produced in this mechanism is therefore dominated by the Majorana mass parameter $`f`$ in eq. (42). The scalar condensate is absent behind the wall and therefore the asymmetry that has streamed through persists.

At the completion of the $`LR`$ symmetry breaking transition, a particular hypercharge $`\stackrel{~}{Y}=I_R^3\frac{1}{2}(BL)`$ is demonstrated to be spontaneously generated in the form of left-handed neutrinos. Due to the high-temperature electroweak sphalerons, which set $`B+L=0`$, this will be converted into an asymmetry of baryon minus lepton number ($`BL`$). The baryon asymmetry thus generated arises in addition to that from the well-known leptogenesis fukyan ; luty  mechanism due to Majorana neutrinos. However, the two mechanisms constrain the Left-Right model rather differently. The usual mechanism requires the $`Z_R`$ mass to be larger than the heavy neutrino mass luty ; plum ; buchplum . The present mechanism constrains the parameters of the Higgs sector for adequate $`CP`$ violation, and the Majorana Yukawa couplings as already pointed out. Our main result is the identification of broad ranges of these parameters that ensure sufficient lepton asymmetry. Further, the subsequent evolution of this asymmetry must successfully produce the abserved baryon asymmetry. This requirement can be used to constrain the temperature scale of the $`LR`$ phase transition, eq. (49), or alternatively, the light neutrino mass, eq. (51).

In Harvey:1990qw  and Fischler:1990gn  the possibility of $`BL`$ generated by any mechanism being neutralised due to presence of heavy majorana neutrino was considered. The bound first obtained in Harvey:1990qw  is $`20M_N\text{ }\stackrel{>}{}\text{ }\sqrt{T_{BL}M_{Pl}}`$ with $`M_N`$ the mass scale of the heavy majorana neutrino and $`T_{BL}`$ the temperature at which $`BL`$ originates. This is derived from lepton number depletion due to heavy neutrino mediated scattering processes and assumes $`T_{BL}>M_N`$. It was argued in Fischler:1990gn  that the requirement that the heavy neutrino decays occur only in out of equilibrium conditions places a more stringent bound. Using the see-saw relation, it requires

$$m_\nu \text{ }\stackrel{<}{}\text{ }m_{}4\pi g_{}^{1/2}\frac{G_N^{1/2}}{\sqrt{2}G_F}10^3eV.$$
(1)
where $`G_N`$ is the Newton constant and $`G_F`$ is the Fermi constant. Current neutrino data easily suggest a larger neutrino mass. In this case it is argued that Fischler:1990gn  one needs

$$T_{BL}\text{ }\stackrel{<}{}\text{ }M_N=\frac{h^2}{2}\left(\frac{m_{}}{m_\nu }\right)^210^{17}GeV$$
(2)
These considerations generically need a low scale for $`BL`$ creation. Detailed investigationsBuchmuller:2000as  of Leptogenesis scenrios, including lepton generation mixing, show that in several specific unified models this can be achieved in the context of conventional Leptogenesis. The present mechanism has the potential of meeting the requirement of low scale $`BL`$ generation in a natural way, although detailed investigations remain to be carried out. We shall return to this point in sec. VI.

The paper is organised as follows. Section II introduces the main features of the Left-Right symmetric model, synthesizing the conventions used by previous authors with the ones we follow. Section III discusses the microscopic mechanism of lepton number violation in scattering near the domain wall. It outlines the method that can be used for detailed study of lepton number creation in this context. Section IV demonstrates the existence of the conditions required for lepton number creation, in particular the CP-violating nature of the wall profiles. Section V presents a simplified version of the full theory to be studied and numerical results justifying the general conclusions of the previous section. Section VI discusses the implications to cosmology. Overall conclusions are presented in the last section.

## II The Left-Right symmetric model

For the purpose of model building, Left-Right symmetry is a broad category, with several possible implementations. In this paper we shall adopt its more popular version which is desribed below. From the point of view of our mechanism, the discrete symmetry under exchange of the $`SU(2)_R`$ field content of the model with $`SU(2)_L`$ field content is crucial. The breakdown of this symmetry gives rise to domain walls whose field configuration we study in detail. The most elegant version of the model consists of identical values of the two $`SU(2)`$ gauge couplings in addition to a strict equality of certain scalar couplings in the Higgs potential. This may seem like an artificial requirement, considering that the two semisimple groups are independent, and there are no dynamical hints why they must be exactly same to begin with. More importantly, if this requirement is imposed an unpleasant feature arises in the context of cosmology. Breakdown of an exact discrete symmetry gives rise to stable domain walls and unless some mechanism removes them, they quickly come to dominate the energy density of the Universe, contrary to observations. Thus departure from exact symmetry is in any case a phenomenologically desirable feature. Happily, the mechanism being proposed here works well so long as the departure from exact symmetry is small so that domain walls indeed form as transient constructs. A quantitiative discussion of this is taken up in sec. IV.1.

We now recapitulate the minimal $`SU(2)_LSU(2)_RU(1)_{BL}`$ model Senjanovic2 ; mohapbook . Parity is restored above an energy scale $`v_R`$, taken to be much higher than the electroweak scale, by introducing the $`SU(2)_R`$ gauge symmetry which breaks at $`v_R`$. Accordingly, a right-handed heavy neutrino species is added to each generation, and the gauge bosons consist of two triplets $`W_L^\mu (3,1,0)`$, $`W_R^\mu (1,3,0)`$ and a singlet $`B^\mu (1,1,0)`$. A Left-Right symmetric assignment of gauge SU(2) charges to the fermions shows that the new hypercharge needed to obtain the usual electric charge correctly is exactly $`BL`$. It is appealing that in this model the weak hypercharge is related to known conserved charges.

The electric charge formula now assumes a Left-Right symmetric form

$$Q=T_L^3+T_R^3+\frac{BL}{2},$$
(3)
where $`T_L^3`$ and $`T_R^3`$ are the weak isospin represented by $`\tau ^3/2`$, and $`\tau ^3`$ is the Pauli matrix.

The Higgs sector of the model is dictated by two considerations: the pattern of symmetry breaking and the small masses of the known neutrinos via the seesaw mechanism. The minimal set to achieve these goals is

$`\varphi =\left(\begin{array}{cc}\varphi _1^0& \varphi _1^+\\ \varphi _2^{}& \varphi _2^0\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2},0\end{array}\right),`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_L=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\frac{\delta _L^+}{\sqrt{2}}& \delta _L^{++}\\ \delta _L^0& \frac{\delta _L^+}{\sqrt{2}}\end{array}\right)(1,0,2),`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_R=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\frac{\delta _R^+}{\sqrt{2}}& \delta _R^{++}\\ \delta _R^0& \frac{\delta _R^+}{\sqrt{2}}\end{array}\right)(0,1,2).`$ (4)
where the electric charge assignment of the component fields has been displayed and the representation with respect to the gauge group is given in standard notation.

The minimal form of the Higgs potential needed to fulfill the main phenomenological requirements can be found in mohapbook . This is however not the most general form. In dgko  as well as barenber  the possibility of spontaneous CP violation was considered. In this case the couplings are chosen to be real, yet the translation invariant minimum of the potential occurs for complex VEV’s (vacuum expectation values). The absence of explicit CP-violating couplings makes it easier to accommodate phenomenological constraints on CP violation. In the cosmological context in which we treat this theory, this motivation is not as compelling. Nevertheless, the same simplifying assumption will be made here.

Consider the potential parameterized as 222Our conventions parallel those of barenber  but our $`\beta _2`$ and $`\beta _3`$ have been assumed equal in that reference.

$$V=V_\mathrm{\Phi }+V_\mathrm{\Delta }+V_{\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Delta }},$$
(5)
with

$`V_\mathrm{\Phi }=`$ $``$ $`\mu _1^2\mathrm{Tr}\varphi \varphi ^{}\mu _2^2(\mathrm{Tr}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }\varphi ^{}+\mathrm{Tr}\varphi \stackrel{~}{\varphi }^{})`$ (6)
$`+`$ $`\lambda _1(\mathrm{Tr}\varphi \varphi ^{})^2+\lambda _2\{(\mathrm{Tr}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }\varphi ^{})^2+(\mathrm{Tr}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }^{}\varphi )^2\}`$
$`+`$ $`\lambda _3(\mathrm{Tr}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }\varphi ^{})(\mathrm{Tr}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }^{}\varphi )+\lambda _4\{\mathrm{Tr}\varphi ^{}\varphi (\mathrm{Tr}\varphi ^{}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }+\mathrm{Tr}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }^{}\varphi )\},`$
$`V_\mathrm{\Delta }=`$ $``$ $`\mu _3^2\mathrm{Tr}\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{L}^{}\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{L}+\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{R}^{}\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{R}\right)+\rho _1\left[\left(\mathrm{Tr}(\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{L}^{}\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{L})\right)^2+\left(\mathrm{Tr}(\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{R}^{}\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{R})\right)^2\right]`$ (7)
$`+`$ $`\rho _2\left[\mathrm{Tr}\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{L}^{}\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{L}^{}\mathrm{Tr}\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{L}\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{L}+\mathrm{Tr}\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{R}^{}\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{R}^{}\mathrm{Tr}\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{R}\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{R}\right]+\rho _3\left[\mathrm{Tr}\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{L}^{}\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{L}\right)\mathrm{Tr}\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{R}^{}\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{R}\right)\right]`$
$`+`$ $`\rho _4\left[\mathrm{Tr}\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{L}\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{L}\mathrm{Tr}\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{R}^{}\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{R}^{}+\mathrm{Tr}\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{L}^{}\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{L}^{}\mathrm{Tr}\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{R}\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{R}\right],`$
$`V_{\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha _1\mathrm{Tr}\varphi \varphi ^{}(\mathrm{Tr}\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{L}\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{L}^{}+\mathrm{Tr}\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{R}\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{R}^{})`$ (8)
$`+`$ $`\alpha _2\left\{\mathrm{Tr}(\stackrel{~}{\varphi }^{}\varphi )\mathrm{Tr}(\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{R}\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{R}^{})+\mathrm{Tr}(\stackrel{~}{\varphi }\varphi ^{})\mathrm{Tr}(\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{L}\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{L}^{})\right\}`$
$`+`$ $`\alpha _2^{}\left\{\mathrm{Tr}(\stackrel{~}{\varphi }\varphi ^{})\mathrm{Tr}(\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{R}\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{R}^{})+\mathrm{Tr}(\stackrel{~}{\varphi }^{}\varphi )\mathrm{Tr}(\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{L}\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{L}^{})\right\}`$
$`+`$ $`\alpha _3\left\{\mathrm{Tr}(\varphi \varphi ^{}\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{L}\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{L}^{})+\mathrm{Tr}(\varphi ^{}\varphi \mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{R}\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{R}^{})\right\}`$
$`+`$ $`\beta _1\left\{\mathrm{Tr}(\varphi \mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{R}\varphi ^{}\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{L}^{})+\mathrm{Tr}(\varphi ^{}\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{L}\varphi \mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{R}^{})\right\}+\beta _2\left\{\mathrm{Tr}(\stackrel{~}{\varphi }\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{R}\varphi ^{}\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{L}^{})+\mathrm{Tr}(\stackrel{~}{\varphi }^{}\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{L}\varphi \mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{R}^{})\right\}`$
$`+`$ $`\beta _3\left\{\mathrm{Tr}(\varphi \mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{R}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }^{}\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{L}^{})+\mathrm{Tr}(\varphi ^{}\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{L}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{R}^{})\right\}.`$
All the parameters except $`\alpha _2`$ in the above are required to be real by imposing the discrete symmetry

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_L\mathrm{\Delta }_R,\varphi \varphi ^{},$$
(9)
simultaneously with the exchange of left-handed and right-handed fermions. Finally, $`\alpha _2`$ is chosen to be real from the requirement of spontaneous $`CP`$ violation dgko ; barenber .

The ansatz for the VEV’s of the scalar fields has been discussed extensively in the literature. After accounting for phases that can be eliminated by global symmetries and field redefinitions dgko , only two independent phases remain. We choose them for convenience as follows in the translation invariant VEV’s:

$$\varphi =\left(\begin{array}{cc}k_1e^{i\alpha }& 0\\ 0& k_2\end{array}\right),\mathrm{\Delta }_L=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 0\\ v_Le^{i\theta }& 0\end{array}\right),\mathrm{\Delta }_R=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 0\\ v_R& 0\end{array}\right),$$
(10)
where all the other parameters are taken to be real. Phenomenologically the hierarchy $`v_Lk_1,k_2`$, $`v_R`$ is required. This separates the electroweak scale from the L-R symmetry breaking scale. It has been argued barenber  that this is possible to achieve for natural values of the above parameter set while also obtaining (1) spontaneous CP violation, (2) mixing of $`W_R,Z_R`$ with their $`SU(2)_L`$ counterparts which is unobservable at accessible energies, and (3) suppression of flavor changing neutral currents.

Fermion masses are obtained from Yukawa couplings of quarks and leptons with the Higgs bosons. For one generation of quarks $`q`$ and leptons $`\psi `$, the couplings are given by mohapbook

$`_Y`$ $`=`$ $`h^q\overline{q}_L\varphi q_R+\stackrel{~}{h}^q\overline{q}_L\stackrel{~}{\varphi }q_R`$ (11)
$`+`$ $`h^l\overline{\psi }_L\varphi \psi _R+\stackrel{~}{h}^l\overline{\psi }_L\stackrel{~}{\varphi }\psi _R`$
$`+`$ $`f\left(\psi _L^TC^1\tau _2\mathrm{\Delta }_L\psi _L+\psi _R^TC^1\tau _2\mathrm{\Delta }_R\psi _R\right)+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.`$
where $`C`$ is the charge-conjugation matrix ($`\psi ^c=C\overline{\psi }^T`$). Neutrino mass terms resulting from the above parameterization of the scalar VEV’s are

$$_{\nu \mathrm{mass}}=\overline{\nu }_L(h^lk_1e^{i\alpha }+\stackrel{~}{h}^lk_2)\nu _R+\{f\nu _L^T\sigma ^2v_Le^{i\theta }\nu _L+f\nu _R^T\sigma ^2v_R\nu _R+h.c.\}$$
(12)
The Majorana mass terms allowed for the neutrinos are a source of lepton number violation, while the CP violation needed for leptogenesis results from the phase $`\alpha `$ in the Dirac mass term.

## III Leptogenesis mechanism

Sources of CP violation as well as existence of out-of-equilibrium conditions have been major challenges for realizing low energy baryogenesis. The presence of moving topological defects in unified theories is a novel source of out-of-equilibrium conditions. In ref. ywmmc  it was shown that in the L-R model, at the first stage of gauge symmetry breaking, domain walls can form, which separate phases of broken $`SU(2)_R`$ and $`SU(2)_L`$. The disappearance of the unstable domains with unbroken $`SU(2)_R`$ provides a preferred direction for the motion of the domain walls. This can fulfill the out-of-thermal-equilibrium requirement for leptogenesis.

Consider the interaction of neutrinos from the L-R wall, which is encroaching on the energetically disfavored phase. The left-handed neutrinos, $`\nu _L`$, are massive in this domain, whereas they are massless in the phase behind the wall. This can be seen from the Majorana mass term $`h_M\mathrm{\Delta }_L\overline{\nu _L^c}\nu _L`$, and the fact that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_L`$ has a kink-like profile, being zero behind the wall and $`O(v_R)`$ in front of it.

To get leptogenesis, one needs an asymmetry in the reflection and transmission coefficients from the wall between $`\nu _L`$ and its CP conjugate $`(\nu _L^c)`$. This can happen if a CP-violating condensate exists in the wall. This comes from the Dirac mass terms as discussed in section IV.2. Then there will be a preference for transmission of, say, $`\nu _L`$. The corresponding excess of antineutrinos $`(\nu _L^c)`$ reflected in front of the wall will quickly equilibrate with $`\nu _L`$ due to helicity-flipping scatterings, whose amplitude is proportional to the large Majorana mass. However the transmitted excess of $`\nu _L`$ survives because it is not coupled to its CP conjugate in the region behind the wall, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_L=0`$.

A quantitative analysis of this effect can be made either in the framework of quantum mechanical reflection, valid for domain walls which are narrow compared to the particles’ thermal de Broglie wavelengths, or using the classical force method jpt ; clijokai ; clikai , which is gives the dominant contribution for walls with larger widths. We adopt the latter here. The thickness of the wall depends on the shape of the effective quartic potential and we shall here treat the case of thick walls. Further, we assume that the potential energy difference between the two kinds of vacua is small, for example suppressed by Planck scale effects. In this case the pressure difference across the phase boundary is expected to be small, leading to slowly moving walls.

In refs. jpt ; clijokai ; clikai , it is shown that the classical CP-violating force of the condensate on a fermion (in our case a neutrino) with momentum component $`p_x`$ perpendicular to the wall is

$$F=\pm \mathrm{sign}(p_x)\frac{1}{2E^2}\left(m_\nu ^2(x)\alpha ^{}(x)\right)^{}.$$
(13)
The sign depends on whether the particle is $`\nu _L`$ or $`\nu _L^c`$, $`m_\nu ^2(x)`$ is the position-dependent mass, $`E`$ the energy and $`\alpha `$ is the spatially varying CP-violating phase. One can then derive a diffusion equation for the chemical potential $`\mu _L`$ of the $`\nu _L`$ as seen in the wall rest frame:

$$D_\nu \mu _L^{\prime \prime }v_w\mu _L^{}+\theta (x)\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{hf}}\mu _L=S(x).$$
(14)
Here $`D_\nu `$ is the neutrino diffusion coefficient, $`v_w`$ is the velocity of the wall, taken to be moving in the $`+x`$ direction, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{hf}}`$ is the rate of helicity flipping interactions taking place in front of the wall (hence the step function $`\theta (x)`$), and $`S`$ is the source term, given by

$$S(x)=\frac{v_wD_\nu }{\stackrel{}{v}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}v_xF(x)^{},$$
(15)
where $`\stackrel{}{v}`$ is the neutrino velocity and the angular brackets indicate thermal averages. The net lepton number excess can then be calculated from the chemical potential resulting as the solution of eq. (14).

In order to use this formalism it is necessary to establish the presence of a position-dependent phase $`\alpha `$. This is what we turn to in the following discussion of the nature of domain walls in the L-R model.

## IV  Domain walls

### IV.1 The Left-Right breaking phase transition

The fundamental L-R symmetry of the model, eq. (9), implies that the gauge forces visible at low energies might have been the $`SU(2)_R`$ rather than the $`SU(2)_L`$ with corresponding different hypercharge remnant of the $`U(1)_{BL}`$. In the early Universe when the symmetry breaking is first signaled, either $`\mathrm{\Delta }_L`$ or $`\mathrm{\Delta }_R`$ could acquire a VEV. In mutually uncorrelated horizon volumes, this choice is random. As such we expect a domain structure with either of these fields possessing a VEV in each domain. These may be referred to as $`L`$-like if they lead to observed phenomenology (with V-A currents), and $`R`$-like, if $`\mathrm{\Delta }_R`$ has remained zero. Such domains will be separated by domain walls, dubbed L-R walls in ywmmc .

The walls must disappear; otherwise they would contradict standard cosmology by dominating the energy density very soon after their formation. This must occur in such a way as to eliminate the $`R`$-like regions. What biases the survival of the $`L`$-like regions cannot be predicted within the model. We will assume that there are small corrections suppressed by a grand unification scale mass, which favour the $`L`$-like regions slightly. A time asymmetry, due to the motion of the walls into the $`R`$-like regions, arises as a result. The L-R walls necessarily convert the $`R`$-like regions into $`L`$-like ones and disappear by mutual collisions.

This can get implemented in two ways. One is explicit deviations from exact symmetry in the tree level Higgs lagrangian. An alternative is that the gauge couplings of the two $`SU(2)`$’s are not identical. In this case the thermal perturbative corrections to the Higgs field free energy will not be symmetric and the domain walls will be unstable.

A possible reason for such small deviations from exact discrete symmetry could be that the model is actually descended from another unified model, and the small departures from exact symmetry are due to terms suppressed by the ratio of L-R breaking scale to the scale of higher unification. If the higher unification is in a conventional gauge group like $`SO(10)`$, it may not constitute a good explanation since the breaking of such symmetry groups does not generically result in a low energy model with close-to-exact L-R symmetry. It is however possible that the unification is of a different type, for instance supergravity or string unification, wherein mechanisms as yet not understood impose the kind of symmetry required, while permitting small energy differences in the free energies of the $`L`$-like versus $`R`$-like phases. A study of disappearance of domain walls in the context of a Supersymmetric model has been made in Abel:1995wk  and a study of the effectiveness of the mechancism in Larsson:1996sp .

The breakdown of the L-R symmetry is described by the VEVs of two scalars $`\mathrm{\Delta }_L`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_R`$. The form of the potential (6)-(8) has been shown to have generic zero temperature vacua which are either $`R`$-like or $`L`$-like. Let the difference in vacuum energy densities due to departure from exact $`L`$-$`R`$ symmetry be $`\delta U_{LR}`$ such that $`L`$-like vacuum is favoured. If this difference is purely in the scalar self couplings, it is determined directly by the GUT scale mechanism and will not be altered at finite temperature. On the other hand if the gauge couplings differ due to these suppressed GUT effects, the corresponding thermal corrections will thereby acquire differences, producing a corrected $`\delta U_{LR}^T`$ at finite temperature. The condition for the formation of the unstable domains can now be obtained as follows. If the phase transition is second order, its dynamics may be considered to have terminated after the Ginzburg temperature $`T_G`$ is reached, which is given by Kibble:1980mv

$$\frac{(T_cT_G)}{T_c}\lambda $$
(16)
where $`T_c`$ is the critical temperature and $`\lambda `$ the effective quartic coupling. The correlation length at this temperature is estimated to be $`\xi _G1/(\lambda T_c)`$. For the walls to form, the fluctuations that can convert the false vacuum to the true one must be suppressed before the Ginzburg temperature is reached. Thus the energy excess available within a correlation volume must be substantially less than the energy needed to overcome the barrier set by $`T_cT_G`$, i.e.,

$$\delta U_{LR}^T\xi _G^3T_cT_G$$

or

$$\delta U_{LR}^T\lambda ^4T_c^4\lambda ^2V_{T}^{}{}_{}{}^{4}$$
(17)
where we took the temperture-dependent VEV $`V_T`$ to be $`\lambda ^{1/2}T_c`$. This bound is easily satisfied if the GUT scale is much higher than the $`LR`$ scale, as is expected.

### IV.2 Wall profiles and CP violating condensate

In order for nontrivial effects to be mediated by the walls, the fermion species of interest should get a space-dependent mass from the wall. Furthermore, the CP-violating phase $`\alpha `$ should also possess a nonvanishing gradient in the wall interior. We study the minimization of the total energy functional of the scalar sector with this in mind.

The minimization conditions for the various VEV’s introduced above are given in Appendix A, assuming translational invariance. The presence of walls breaks this invariance, requiring derivative terms to be added in the minimization conditions.

We demonstrate that there are sizeable domains in the parameter space for which a position-dependent, CP-violating condensate results. In order to simplify the analysis we assume $`k_1=k_2k`$. The range of the parameter values for which such minima would be phenomenologically viable have been studied, e.g., in barenber . The analysis can be repeated for other cases along similar lines. Let the L-R wall be located in the $`y`$-$`z`$ plane at $`x=0`$. Its equation of motion is

$`\ddot{k}k^{\prime \prime }+\left({\displaystyle \frac{d\alpha }{dx}}\right)^2k`$ $`+`$ $`(\mu _1^22\mu _2^2\mathrm{cos}\alpha +\mathrm{\Delta }\mu _T^2)k`$ (18)
$`+`$ $`(\alpha _2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\alpha _3+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\alpha _1)(v_L^2+v_R^2)k`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\{\beta _1\mathrm{cos}(\alpha \theta )+\beta _3\mathrm{cos}\theta +\beta _2\mathrm{cos}(2\alpha \theta )\}v_Lv_Rk`$
$`+`$ $`\{\lambda _1+\lambda _2(1+4\mathrm{cos}2\alpha )+\lambda _3+4\lambda _4\mathrm{cos}\alpha \}k^3=0.`$
The temperature correction to the mass-squared term ($`\mathrm{\Delta }\mu _T^2`$) is displayed explicitly. The remaining parameters are also mildly temperature-dependent but this is a small effect. The background fields $`v_L`$, $`v_R`$ have solutions of the form $`\mathrm{\Delta }_T(1\pm \mathrm{tanh}(x/\mathrm{\Delta }_w))`$, with upper and lower signs being for L and R respectively. $`\mathrm{\Delta }_T`$ is the temperature-dependent VEV which is possible for either of $`L`$ or $`R`$ fields. This value is of the order of the temperature $`T`$ relevant to the epoch immediately after the L-R breaking phase transition. $`\mathrm{\Delta }_w`$ is the wall width, of the order $`\mathrm{\Delta }_T^1\lambda ^{1/2}`$, $`\lambda `$ here standing for the generic quartic coupling in the effective hamiltonian for the $`v_L`$ and $`v_R`$ fields. The nonderivative terms of this equation can be schematically written as

$$m^2k+A(v_L^2+v_R^2)k+Bv_Lv_Rk+Lk^3=0.$$
(19)
We are assuming $`m^2>0`$ so that at the epoch in question, $`k=0`$ in the absence of walls. This potential has two minima,

$$k=0\mathrm{o}\mathrm{r}k=k_{(0)}\frac{1}{L}\left(m^2+A(v_L^2+v_R^2)+Bv_Lv_R\right).$$
(20)
We want $`k0`$ at the origin and $`k=0`$ asymptotically. The latter is achieved if

$$\frac{^2V}{k^2}|_{k=0}=m^2+A\mathrm{\Delta }_T^2>0.$$
(21)
At the origin the nontrivial value $`k_{(0)}`$ becomes

$$k_{(0)}^2\stackrel{x0}{}\frac{1}{L}\left(m^2+(2A+B)v_{(0)}^2\right),$$
(22)
where $`v_{(0)}\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Delta }_T`$ is the common value of $`v_L`$, $`v_R`$ at the origin. Thus

$$\frac{^2V}{k^2}|_{k=k_{(0)}}=2Lk_{(0)}^2=2\left(m^2+(2A+B)v_{(0)}^2\right)>0.$$
(23)
Comparing eqs. (21) and (23), both conditions are satisfied provided the effective coefficient $`B`$ becomes sufficiently negative.

We can now proceed to determine a sufficient condition for a position-dependent nontrivial solution. We have already restricted ourselves to the case $`|k_1|=k_2`$. We assume that the fates of the separate parts Im($`k_1`$) and Re($`k_1`$) are the same, i.e., if one of them is nontrivial, both would be so. So we focus on the condition for $`k`$ to be nontrivial. If the nontrivial solution is energetically favorable, the trivial solution should be unstable. Thus consider the linearized equation for the fluctuation $`\delta k`$ about the solution $`k=0`$. The desired time dependence of the solution is

$$\delta ke^{ϵ_kt}\times \left(\mathrm{spatial}\mathrm{part}\right)$$
(24)
with real parameter $`ϵ_k>0`$ for instability of the fluctuation. Then

$$\delta k^{\prime \prime }+(m^2+A(v_L^2+v_R^2)+Bv_Lv_R)\delta k=ϵ_k^2\delta k$$
(25)
We compare this with the Schrödinger equation for a bound state wavefunction

$$\psi ^{\prime \prime }(x)+V(x)\psi (x)=E\psi (x)$$
(26)
Our $`V(x)`$ has the form of an attractive potential; it approaches a positive constant value $`V_0`$ asymptotically, and $`V_0<0`$ near the origin due to eq. (23). In the Schrödinger equation above, for a bound state, $`E<0`$ if $`V(x)0`$ asymptotically. In the present case, due to the positive constant value of $`V(x)`$ asymptotically, bound states may exist even for $`E>0`$. However our stability analysis demands $`E<0`$, since we want $`ϵ_k`$ to be real. If we ensure that the $`E0`$ solution has at least one node then there will be a lower energy solution with no nodes, the required unstable fluctuation. In the WKB approximation this condition amounts to

$$_a^b\sqrt{V(x)}𝑑x\frac{3\pi }{2}$$
(27)
where $`a`$ and $`b`$ are the zeros of $`V(x)`$. Eqs. (21), (23) and (27) constitute one set of sufficient conditions on the parameter space for a CP violating condensate to occur within the width of the domain wall. They provide the range to be explored if a full numerical solution were to be attempted.

## V Effective hamiltonian

In this section we numerically study an effective Hamiltonian for the likelihood of generating a CP violating condensate. In a suggestive notation we choose three fields $`L`$, $`R`$ and $`K`$ representing the VEVs of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_L`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_R`$ and the electroweak Higgs respectively. The energy per unit area of the wall configuration can be taken to be

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }dx\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}|L^{}|^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\rho _1|L|^2(|L|M)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(R^{})^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\rho _1R^2(RM)^2+\rho _3|L|^2R^2`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}|K^{}|^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\lambda (|K|^2+m^2)^2+\alpha _1|K|^2(|L|^2+R^2)+\beta _1|K|^2(\mathrm{Re}L)R`$
$`+\beta _2|K|\mathrm{Re}(KL)R+\beta _3\mathrm{Re}(K^2L)R\}`$
where $`L`$ and $`K`$ are complex and $`R`$ is real. $`M`$ represents the Left-Right breaking mass scale and $`m`$ the electroweak breaking mass scale, both including the appropriate finite temperature corrections. Thus $`m^2`$ is positive. Likewise the other parameters are determined by the parameters of the original lagrangian. The equations we get after rescaling the fields by $`M`$ are

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^2L_1}{dx^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`\rho _1L_1^3\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\sqrt{L_1^2+L_2^2}}}\right)`$
$`+L_1\left[\rho _1\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}+L_2^2\sqrt{L_1^2+L_2^2}{\displaystyle \frac{L_2^2}{2\sqrt{L_1^2+L_2^2}}}\right)+2\rho _3R^2+2\alpha \left(K_1^2+K_2^2\right)\right]`$
$`+R\left[\beta _1\left(K_1^2+K_2^2\right)+\beta _2K_1\sqrt{K_1^2+K_2^2}+\beta _3\left(K_1^2K_2^2\right)\right]`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^2L_2}{dx^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`\rho _1L_2^3\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\sqrt{L_1^2+L_2^2}}}\right)`$
$`+L_2\left[\rho _1\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}+L_1^2\sqrt{L_1^2+L_2^2}{\displaystyle \frac{L_1^2}{\sqrt{L_1^2+L_2^2}}}\right)+2\rho _3R^2+2\alpha \left(K_1^2+K_2^2\right)\right]`$
$`R\left[\beta _2K_2\sqrt{K_1^2+K_2^2}+2\beta _3K_1K_2\right]`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^2R}{dx^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`R\left[\rho _1R\left(R{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _1}{2}}+2\rho _3\left(L_1^2+L_2^2\right)+2\alpha \left(K_1^2+K_2^2\right)\right]`$
$`+\beta _1L_1\left(K_1^2+K_2^2\right)+\beta _2\sqrt{K_1^2+K_2^2}\left(K_1L_1K_2L_2\right)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^2K_1}{dx^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`K_1\left[\lambda \left(K_1^2+K_2^2+\left({\displaystyle \frac{m}{M}}\right)^2\right)+2\alpha \left(L_1^2+L_2^2+R^2\right)+2\left(\beta _1+\beta _3\right)RL_1\right]`$
$`+K_1{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _2\left(K_1L_1K_2L_2\right)}{\sqrt{K_1^2+K_2^2}}}+\beta _2RL_1\sqrt{K_1^2+K_2^2}2\beta _3RL_2K_2`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^2K_2}{dx^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`K_2\left[\lambda \left(K_1^2+K_2^2+\left({\displaystyle \frac{m}{M}}\right)^2\right)+2\alpha \left(L_1^2+L_2^2+R^2\right)+2\left(\beta _1\beta _3\right)L_1R\right]`$
$`+K_2{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _2\left(K_1L_1K_2L_2\right)}{\sqrt{K_1^2+K_2^2}}}\beta _2RL_2\sqrt{K_1^2+K_2^2}2\beta _3RL_2K_1`$
In addition to the above we need the expression

$`{\displaystyle \frac{^2V}{|K|^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`2\alpha _1(|L|^2+R^2)+2\beta _1RL_1+2\beta _2R\left(L_1\mathrm{cos}\alpha L_2\mathrm{sin}\alpha \right)`$
$`+2\beta _3R\left(L_1\mathrm{cos}2\alpha L_2\mathrm{sin}2\alpha \right)+\lambda (3K^2+m^2)`$
for studying stability issues. This shows that to ensure K=0 asymptotically (no E-W breaking at L-R scale) we need

$$2\alpha _1+\lambda \left(\frac{m}{M}\right)^2>0.$$

To obtain $`K0`$ in the core of the wall, we again use (V) with the values of $`R`$ and $`L_1`$ in the core estimated to be $`0.5`$. This suggests the requirement

$$\lambda K^2=\lambda \left(\frac{m}{M}\right)^2\frac{1}{2}\left(2\alpha _1+\beta _1+\beta _2+\beta _3\right)>0$$

This has to be revised in view of the actual values of $`R`$ and $`L_1`$ due to backreaction of the $`K`$ fields, but serves as a good indicator to the required range of values.

The second equation clearly suggests taking $`\beta `$’s negative. In particular $`\beta _1`$ can be $`𝒪(1)`$ and negative, which will ensure the required instability of the $`K=0`$ vacuum inside the wall core. Two examples of numerical solutions are shown in figures 1 and 2. Parameters other than those displayed are taken to be unity. The shape of the $`K`$ profiles is of the form of the sech function, as expected for lowest linear perturbation in a $`\mathrm{tanh}`$ background. The numerical study indicates the field profiles are sensitive to the parameters governing the Yukawa couplings, but they have no appreciable variation with respect to the ratio of the mass scales $`\left(\frac{m}{M}\right)^2`$.

## VI Implications for cosmology

We are now in a position to use the formalism of eqs (13)-(15) to estimate the lepton asymmetry generated. The asymmetry in local number density is given by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }n_Ln_L(x)\overline{n}_L(x)=\frac{1}{6}\mu _L(x)T^2$$
(30)
where $`\mu _L`$ satisfies the diffusion equation (14). The general form of the solution to this equation is

$`\mu (x)`$ $`=`$ $`\{\begin{array}{cc}B_+e^{\lambda _+x}+B_{}e^{\lambda _{}x}+B_{\mathrm{}}^x𝑑y\left[e^{\lambda _+(xy)}e^{\lambda _{}(xy)}\right]S(y),\hfill & x<0\hfill \\ A_+e^{\rho _+x}+A_{}e^{\rho _{}x}+A_{\mathrm{}}^x𝑑y\left[e^{\rho _+(xy)}e^{\rho _{}(xy)}\right]S(y),\hfill & x>0\hfill \end{array}`$ (33)
where

$`\lambda _+`$ $`=`$ $`0,\lambda _{}={\displaystyle \frac{v_w}{D}},\rho _\pm ={\displaystyle \frac{v_w}{2D}}\pm \sqrt{\left({\displaystyle \frac{v_w}{D}}\right)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{hf}}}{D}}}`$ (34)
$`B`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{D(\lambda _{}\lambda _+)}}=v_w^1,A={\displaystyle \frac{1}{D(\rho _{}\rho _+)}}=\left(v_w^2+4\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{hf}}D\right)^{1/2}.`$ (35)
The integration constants $`A_\pm `$ and $`B_\pm `$ are chosen so that $`\mu (x)`$ and its derivative are continuous at $`x=0`$, and $`\mu `$ is finite as $`x\pm \mathrm{}`$. In particular, we are interested in the limiting value $`\mu _0=lim_x\mathrm{}\mu (x)=B_+`$, since this is relevant deep within the $`L`$-like phase and represents the uniform lepton asymmetry filling the universe long after the wall has passed by. It is given by

$$\mu _0=\frac{1}{v_w}_{\mathrm{}}^0𝑑y\left(1+\frac{\rho _+}{\rho _{}}e^{v_wy/D}\right)S(y)\frac{1}{\rho _{}D}_0^{\mathrm{}}e^{\rho _+y}S(y).$$
(36)
We note that in the limit $`v_w0`$, the above expression is finite for a generic source $`S(y)`$. But since our source vanishes when $`v_w=0`$, we get no lepton asymmetry in that limit, which is in accord with Sakharov’s out-of-equilibrium requirement. We can also verify that no lepton asymmetry arises when lepton violating interactions are turned off. For us, this means setting $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{hf}}=0`$, in which case we obtain $`\mu _0=v_w^1_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}S(y)𝑑y`$. The integral vanishes if the source itself does not violate global lepton number conservation, so this check also succeeds. The third necessary ingredient, CP violation, is contained within the source $`S(y)`$, since this depends on the neutrino masses having complex phases which vary within the domain wall.

Now we proceed to estimate the chemical potential $`\mu _0`$ which quantifies the generated lepton asymmetry. This requires the thermal averages cjk2

$`\stackrel{}{v}^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3x_\nu +2}{x_\nu ^2+3x_\nu +2}}1;x_\nu {\displaystyle \frac{m_\nu ^2(x)}{T^2}}`$ (37)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{|v_x|}{E^2}}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{abx_\nu }{T^2}};a0.24;b0.65`$ (38)
The first approximation (37) is good for relativistic neutrinos with $`x_\nu \text{ }\stackrel{<}{}\text{ }0.1`$, and the second one (38) is an approximation to the function given in cjk2  which is adequate for our estimate. By taking $`\stackrel{}{v}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}1`$ we can simplify the expression for $`\mu _0`$ since the source $`S(y)`$ becomes a total derivative. Integrating by parts,

$$\mu _0\frac{v_w}{T^2}\frac{\rho _+}{\rho _{}}\left[_{\mathrm{}}^0e^{v_wy/D}+_0^{\mathrm{}}e^{\rho _+y}\right]\left(\left(ab\frac{m_\nu ^2}{T^2}\right)(m_\nu ^2\alpha ^{})^{}\right)dy$$
(39)
Since the wall is much thinner than the diffusion scales $`D/v_w`$ and $`1/\rho _+`$, it is a good approximation to neglect these in the integral (setting $`e^{v_wy/D}`$ and $`e^{\rho _+y}`$ to 1). We will use the ansatz $`m_\nu ^2(y)=M_N^2h^2(y)`$, $`h(y)=\frac{1}{2}(1+\mathrm{tanh}(y/\mathrm{\Delta }_w))`$, for the real part of the neutrino mass, while for the phase, in accordance with the profiles found in the previous section, we take $`\alpha (y)=\mathrm{Im}(L(y))/\mathrm{Re}(L(y))`$, with $`\mathrm{Im}(L(y))=\alpha _0\mathrm{\Delta }_wh^{}(y)`$. Here $`M_N`$ is the large value of the neutrino Majorana mass neutrino, acquired by the left (right) -handed neutrino in the $`R`$-like ($`L`$-like) phase. We have performed the integral numerically to obtain the analytic result:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }n_L0.08v_w\frac{\alpha _0}{\mathrm{\Delta }_w}\frac{M_N^4}{T^2}$$
(40)
This is the raw value of the lepton number generated by this mechanism. One would like to express this as a ratio $`\eta _L`$ of lepton number to entropy as is standard to do with baryon number. Using the expression for the entropy density $`𝒮=2\pi ^2g_{}T^3/45`$ of $`g_{}`$ relativistic degrees of freedom, we get

$$\eta _L^{\mathrm{raw}}0.01v_w\frac{\alpha _0}{g_{}}\frac{M_N^4}{T^5\mathrm{\Delta }_w}$$
(41)
Let us consider whether this result can naturally be of the same order as the observed baryon asymmetry. Let $`\mathrm{\Delta }_T`$ \[as introduced above, eq. (18)\] denote the temperature-dependent VEV acquired by the $`\mathrm{\Delta }_R`$ in the phase of interest. Experience with the electroweak theory shows that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_T/T`$ is determined by the ratio of gauge and Higgs couplings, and is typically smaller than unity. If $`f`$ is the Yukawa coupling determining the Majorana mass, then $`M_N=f\mathrm{\Delta }_T`$. Moreover the inverse wall width $`\mathrm{\Delta }_w^1`$ is $`\sqrt{\lambda _{\mathrm{eff}}}\mathrm{\Delta }_T`$, where $`\lambda _{\mathrm{eff}}`$ is the effective quartic self-coupling of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ fields. This is assumed to be small, since we have taken the wall to be thick. Therefore we can reexpress (41) as

$$\eta _L^{\mathrm{raw}}0.01v_w\frac{\alpha _0}{g_{}}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_T}{T}\right)^5f^4\sqrt{\lambda _{\mathrm{eff}}}.$$
(42)
With $`g_{}10^2`$, this raw lepton asymmetry is close to $`\eta _B10^{11}`$, the desirable value for final baryon asymmetry, provided that

$$\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_T}{T}\right)^5f^4\sqrt{\lambda _{\mathrm{eff}}}10^7.$$
(43)
Even if $`\mathrm{\Delta }_T/TO(1)`$ and $`\sqrt{\lambda _{\mathrm{eff}}}1`$, this can be achieved with a reasonable value for the Majorana Yukawa coupling $`f_310^2`$ of the heaviest (third generation) sterile neutrino. Ignoring further evolution of the lepton asymmetry for the moment, one could turn this around to derive a lower bound on $`f`$, assuming that the present mechanism was responsible for baryogenesis. If all the Majorana neutrinos are lighter than $`10^2v_R`$, then it produces too small a lepton asymmetry to be significant.

After the domain walls have disappeared, the lepton asymmetry undergoes further processing by several interactions. Firstly the electroweak sphalerons will redistribute this asymmetry partially into baryonic form. This is the mechanism by which we get baryon asymmetry from the wall generated lepton asymmetry. The standard chemical equilibrium calculation khlebshap  gives

$$\mathrm{\Delta }n_B=\frac{28}{79}\mathrm{\Delta }n_{BL}=\frac{28}{51}\mathrm{\Delta }n_L$$
(44)
assuming the minimal Higgs and flavour content of the Standard Model.

However the presence of heavy majorana neutrinos gives rise to processes that can deplete the lepton asymmetry generated. Such processes were considered in a model independent way in luty ; Harvey:1990qw ; Fischler:1990gn , referred to in section I. The present model differs from classic GUT scenarios in that the temperature $`T_{BL}=T_{LR}`$ when the lepton asymmetry is created can be less than or comparable to the heavy neutrino mass $`M_N`$. The two processes of importance are the decay of the heavy neutrino with rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_D`$ and heavy neutrino-mediated scattering processes with rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_S`$. The latter class of processes in the context of the present model is shown in fig. 3. The rates are given roughly by

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_D\frac{h^2M_N^2}{16\pi (4T^2+M_N^2)^{1/2}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_S\frac{h^4}{13\pi ^3}\frac{T^3}{(9T^2+M_N^2)}$$
(45)
These expressions correctly interpolate between the high and low temperature limits which can be inferred from eqs. (3.1,3.8), (A15-A16) of ref. luty , using the Boltzmann approximation $`K_1(x)e^x/x`$ in the thermal average of the scattering cross section. (The factor $`13`$ in (45) is really $`96\zeta (3)/9`$.)

Let us first consider the case when the decays do not deplete the generated lepton asymmetry at all. This happens if the lightest of the heavy majorana neutrinos has $`M_{N1}>T_{LR}`$, so that the decays do not occur because of Boltzmann suppression. This limit tends to make the initial lepton asymmetry $`\eta _L`$ large, possibly $`O(1)`$ from (41). However the lepton-violating scattering processes will dilute this by the factor $`10^{d_L}\mathrm{exp}\left(_{t_{LR}}^{t_0}\mathrm{\Gamma }_S𝑑t\right)`$ where $`t_{LR}`$ is the time of the LR-breaking phase transition and $`t_0`$ is the present. At the same time, sphalerons will keep the baryon and lepton asymmetries in the same proportion khlebshap  until the electroweak phase transition, at which time the sphalerons go out of equilibrium. The corresponding depletion factor for baryons, rewritten in terms of an integral with respect to temperature, is

$$10^{d_B}\mathrm{exp}\left(_{T_{EW}}^{T_{\mathrm{min}}}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_S}{H}\frac{dT}{T}\right);T_{\mathrm{min}}\mathrm{min}(T_{LR},T_{\mathrm{sph}})$$
(46)
where $`T_{\mathrm{sph}}10^{12}`$ GeV is the maximum temperature below which sphalerons are in equilibrium. Evaluating the integral gives the baryon depletion exponent

$$d_B\frac{3\sqrt{10}}{13\pi ^4\mathrm{ln}10\sqrt{g_{}}}h^4\frac{M_{Pl}T_{\mathrm{min}}}{M_N^2}$$
(47)
where $`g_{}`$ is the average number of relativistic degrees of freedom, and we are assuming that $`M_{N1}>T_{\mathrm{min}}`$. Eq. (47) can be solved for the Yukawa coupling $`h`$ which gives the Dirac mass term for the neutrino: $`h^4\text{ }\stackrel{<}{}\text{ }3200d_B\left(\frac{M_N^2}{T_{\mathrm{min}}M_{Pl}}\right)`$ where we have taken $`g_{}=110`$ for definiteness. Since $`d_B`$ should be no greater than about 10 to avoid too much dilution of the baryon asymmetry, this can be further transformed into an upper limit on the light neutrino masses using the seesaw relation $`m_\nu =(hv)^2/M_N`$ where $`v`$ is the Higgs boson VEV, $`v=174`$ GeV:

$$m_\nu \text{ }\stackrel{<}{}\text{ }\frac{180v^2}{\sqrt{T_{\mathrm{min}}M_{Pl}}}\left(\frac{d_B}{10}\right)^{1/2}$$
(48)
If the heaviest neutrino mass is $`1`$ eV, for example, the temperature of the $`LR`$ phase transition (if it is smaller than $`T_{\mathrm{sph}}`$), being also the temperature at which most of the $`BL`$ is generated, is predicted to be

$$T_{BL}=T_{LR}\text{ }\stackrel{<}{}\text{ }10^{13}\mathrm{GeV}\times \left(\frac{\mathrm{eV}}{m_\nu }\right)^2\times \left(\frac{d_B}{10}\right)$$
(49)
The previous discussion of dilution by lepton-violating scattering assumed the heavy neutrinos $`N`$ had masses $`M_N>T_{LR}`$ so that the decay processes could be neglected. If we are in the opposite regime, $`M_N<T_{LR}`$, the decays and inverse decays of $`N`$ will dominate over scattering for the epoch of temperatures $`T>M_N`$. For lower temperatures, the decay rate is exponentially suppressed by the Boltzmann factor $`e^{M_N/T}`$. We can roughly estimate the dilution due to decays as

$$d_B=\frac{1}{\mathrm{ln}10}_M^{T_{\mathrm{min}}}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_D/H)𝑑T/T\frac{3\sqrt{10}}{96\pi ^2\sqrt{g_{}}\mathrm{ln}10}h^2\frac{M_{Pl}}{M_N}4\times 10^4\frac{m_\nu M_{Pl}}{v^2}$$
(50)
in the limit that $`M_NT_{\mathrm{min}}`$. Again requiring that $`d_B<10`$ gives the bound on the heaviest neutrino mass

$$m_\nu <0.3\mathrm{eV}\times \left(\frac{d_B}{10}\right)$$
(51)
It is interesting that this value is compatible with, and not very far from the value implied by atmospheric neutrino observations.

## VII Conclusion

We have shown that a hitherto unexplored mechanism exists in the Left-Right symmetric model for generation of the observed baryon asymmetry of the Universe. The idea is reminiscent of electroweak baryogenesis, but here the motion of domain walls with CP-violating reflections of neutrinos during the LR-breaking phase transition creates a large lepton asymmetry, which is subsequently reprocessed by sphalerons into the baryon asymmetry. Unlike electroweak baryogenesis, there is no suppression by $`\alpha _W^4`$, since the sphalerons are in equilibrium and they have sufficient time to equilibrate the baryon and lepton numbers. Rather, the answer is determined to a large extent by $`f^4`$ (see (42)) because asymmetry production is determined by the helicity flipping interactions. There are no natural smallness requirements on this parameter, although through see-saw formula it is constrained by the observed light neutrino mass. Furthermore there are no strong constraints on the CP violating phases since they appear in the interactions of the heavy right handed neutrino.

It is possible to generate the observed baryon asymmetry for a range of parameters of the model. We have studied a few limiting cases to demonstrate the intrinsic potential of this scenario for producing the observed baryon asymmetry. One extreme possibility is that we could start with the raw value of the lepton asymmetry (42) being of order $`10^{10}`$ by virtue of a small Majorana Yukawa coupling, eq. (43), while the heaviest left-handed neutrino mass satisfies the bounds (49, 51) (evaluated at $`d_B1`$) which guarantee that there is no subsequent dilution of the asymmetry by lepton-violating interactions. The other limiting case is to initially create an asymmetry of $`O(1)`$, by taking large Majorana Yukawa couplings; the asymmetry is subsequently diluted to the required level by saturating the bounds (49, 51), which make reference to the heaviest left-handed neutrino mass.

An interesting application of this mechanism is the possibility to generate a large lepton number as suggested in Harvey:1981cu  and considered in the context of new observations in cosmology e.g. in Rowan-Robinson:2000ys -LL , notably the MAP and PLANCK experiments to measure the cosmic microwave background (CMB) fluctuations. In the simplest model with just one lepton generation, we cannot create a large lepton asymmetry without also making the baryon asymmetry too large. But consider a model with a certain combination of lepton numbers conserved, such as $`L_e+L_\mu `$. This would be the case if the Majorana mass matrix had the form $`(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{0M}{M0})`$. Then the leptogenesis mechanism would create equal and opposite amounts of $`L_e`$ and $`L_\mu `$. Since sphalerons separately conserve $`\frac{1}{3}BL_e`$ and $`\frac{1}{3}BL_\mu `$, the combination $`\frac{2}{3}BL_eL_\mu `$ would remain conserved at all times, so that the resulting baryon asymmetry would be zero even if $`|L_e|`$ and $`|L_\mu |`$ separately were large. By adding a very small breaking of the $`L_e+L_\mu `$ symmetry, one could generate the observed baryon asymmetry simlutaneously with large lepton asymmetries MR . In addition to its imprint on the CMB, such an effect could have other observable consequences as observations relevant to nucleosynthesis are improved Shi  -sarkar .

## Acknowledgment

This work was started at the 6th workshop on High Energy Physics Phenomenology (WHEPP-6), IMSc, Chennai, India. The work of UAY and SNN is supported by a Department of Science and Technology research grant.

## Appendix A: minimization conditions for wall profiles

These conditions for finding the wall profiles were used in section IV.2

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta V}{\delta v_L}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\{\alpha _1k_1^2v_L+\alpha _1k_2^2v_L+\alpha _3k_2^2v_L2\mu _3^2v_L`$ (52)
$`+`$ $`2\rho _1v_L^3+\rho _3v_Lv_R^2+4\alpha _2k_1k_2v_L\mathrm{cos}(\alpha )`$
$`+`$ $`\beta _1k_1k_2v_R\mathrm{cos}(\alpha \theta )+\beta _2k_1^2v_R\mathrm{cos}(2\alpha \theta )+\beta _3k_2^2v_R\mathrm{cos}(\theta )\}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta V}{\delta v_R}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\{\alpha _1k_1^2v_R+\alpha _1k_2^2v_R+\alpha _3k_2^2v_R`$ (53)
$``$ $`2\mu _3^2v_R+\rho _3v_L^2v_R+2\rho _1v_R^3`$
$`+`$ $`4\alpha _2k_1k_2v_R\mathrm{cos}(\alpha )+\beta _1k_1k_2v_L\mathrm{cos}(\alpha \theta )`$
$`+`$ $`\beta _2k_1^2v_L\mathrm{cos}(2\alpha \theta )+\beta _3k_2^2v_L\mathrm{cos}(\theta )\}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta V}{\delta \theta }}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}v_Lv_R\{\beta _1k_1k_2\mathrm{sin}(\alpha \theta )\beta _2k_1^2\mathrm{sin}(2\alpha \theta )+\beta _3k_2^2\mathrm{sin}\theta \}`$ (54)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta V}{\delta k_2}}`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda _1(k_1^2k_2+k_2^3)+2\lambda _3k_1^2k_2`$ (55)
$``$ $`\mu _1^2k_2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\alpha _1k_2v_L^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\alpha _3k_2v_L^2`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\alpha _1k_2v_R^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\alpha _3k_2v_R^2+k_1^3\lambda _4\mathrm{cos}\alpha `$
$`+`$ $`3k_1k_2^2\lambda _4\mathrm{cos}\alpha 2k_1\mu _2^2\mathrm{cos}\alpha +\alpha _2k_1v_L^2\mathrm{cos}\alpha +\alpha _2k_1v_R^2\mathrm{cos}\alpha `$
$`+`$ $`4k_1^2k_2l\alpha _2\mathrm{cos}2\alpha +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\beta _1k_1v_Lv_R\mathrm{cos}(\alpha \theta )+\beta _3k_2v_Lv_R\mathrm{cos}\theta `$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta V}{\delta k_1}}`$ $`=`$ $`k_1^3\lambda _1+k_1k_2^2\lambda _1+2k_1k_2^2\lambda _3k_1\mu _1^2`$ (56)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\alpha _1k_1v_L^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\alpha _1k_1v_R^2+3k_1^2k_2\lambda _4\mathrm{cos}(\alpha )`$
$`+`$ $`k_2^3\lambda _4\mathrm{cos}(\alpha )2k_2\mu _2^2\mathrm{cos}(\alpha )+\alpha _2k_2v_L^2\mathrm{cos}(\alpha )`$
$`+`$ $`\alpha _2k_2v_R^2\mathrm{cos}(\alpha )+4k_1k_2^2\lambda _2\mathrm{cos}(2\alpha )+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\beta _1k_2v_Lv_R\mathrm{cos}(\alpha \theta )`$
$`+`$ $`\beta _2k_1v_Lv_R\mathrm{cos}(2\alpha \theta )`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta V}{\delta \alpha }}`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda _4k_1k_2(k_1^2+k_2^2)\mathrm{sin}\alpha +2k_1k_2\mu _2^2\mathrm{sin}\alpha `$ (57)
$``$ $`\alpha _2k_1k_2(v_L^2+v_R^2)\mathrm{sin}(\alpha )4k_1^2k_2^2\lambda _2\mathrm{sin}2\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\beta _1k_1k_2v_Lv_R\mathrm{sin}(\alpha \theta )`$
$``$ $`\beta _2k_1^2v_Lv_R\mathrm{sin}(2\alpha \theta )`$