text:
# NLO corrections to ultra-high energy neutrino-nucleon scattering, saturation and small 𝑥

## 1 Introduction

Ultra-high energy neutrinos and their interactions continue to attract much attention. This is in spite of the fact that no such neutrino has been seen so far (and hence bounds been placed on their fluxes ). Much of the continuing interest has been occasioned by the observation, in more than one detector, of ultra-high energy cosmic rays (UHECR). An interaction of such cosmic rays with either the microwave background radiation or even the atmosphere would presumably lead to the generation of charged pions and through their decay, to extremely energetic neutrinos . Alternatively, primary ultra-high energy neutrinos themselves could lead to UHECR, thereby avoiding the GZK bound. A possible source for such primary neutrinos is the decay of an extremely massive primordial relic or even a cosmic string . Whatever their origin, it can safely be asserted that cosmic high energy neutrinos are inextricably linked to the very high energy cosmic rays. The experimental detection of such neutrino fluxes is thus expected to provide rare insight into the origin of such cosmic rays and probably to physics beyond the SM as well. Such observations have the additional promise of probing stellar structures , for unlike charged particles, cosmic neutrinos do not suffer any bending due to inter-galactic magnetic fields and hence arrive on earth in a direct line from their source.

Consequently, various experimental efforts are being planned. Pilot experiments, based on the optical detection of Cěrenkov light emitted by the muons created in charged current reactions of neutrinos with nucleons either in water or in ice, include the Antarctic Muon And Neutrino Detector Array (AMANDA)  in the South Pole ice and the one at Lake Baikal . The next generation experiments using similar techniques comprise the Neutrino Telescope and Abyss environmental RESearch (ANTARES) , the Neutrino Experiment SouthwesT Of GReece (NESTOR) project in the Mediterranean , as well as ICECUBE , the proposed kilometer scale version of the AMANDA detector. Recently, arguments have been forwarded in favour of facilities based on the detection of radio pulses emanating from the electromagnetic showers created by neutrino interactions in ice and other materials. The primary advantage of such a technique would be the scalability up to an effective area of $`10^4\mathrm{km}^2`$ and the Radio Ice Cěrenkov Experiment (RICE) experiment at the South Pole  is a functioning prototype. It has also been realized that neutrinos can initiate horizontal Extensive Air Showers (EAS) which could be detected by giant ground arrays and fluorescence detectors such as the cosmic ray Pierre Auger Project . Deeply penetrating EAS could also be detected by observing their fluorescence light from space based instruments such as the Orbiting Wide-angle Light-collector (OWL)  and the Extreme Universe Space Observatory (EUSO) . Finally, there is the newly approved balloon experiment ANtartic Impulsive Transient Antenna (ANITA) which will look for radio Cěrenkov pulses created by ultra-high energy neutrino interactions and emanating from very large chunks of the Antarctic ice cap. Its energy threshold is about $`10^{18}`$ eV, so it will primarily be looking for GZK neutrinos .

These experiments, taken together, are sensitive to neutrino energies of upto $`10^{11}`$ GeV or so. The actual event rates are somewhat uncertain though, as they depend crucially on both the predicted neutrino fluxes, as well as on the ultra-high energy neutrino cross sections which, for want of a better method, we may only estimate by a reasonable extrapolation beyond the measured regime. The interaction of UHE neutrinos with matter is through deep inelastic scattering of the neutrinos with protons and neutrons. Over the last few years, numerous issues with regard to the nature of the cross section of $`\nu N`$ scattering (where N is a proton or a neutron) have gained importance and some of these are discussed in Refs..

Most of the discussion on $`\nu N`$ scattering has been based on the leading order (LO) expressions for neutrino nucleon scattering (i.e. $`\alpha _\mathrm{s}`$ independent). The usual procedure followed has been to use the lowest order parton level cross section and convolute it with the LO or sometimes even next to leading order (NLO) parton distributions. QCD corrections to the partonic cross sections have typically been neglected, in view of the high energies involved and the consequent small value of the strong coupling constant $`\alpha _\mathrm{s}`$. While, at first sight, such an approximation may seem appropriate, it must be borne in mind that the consequent uncertainties may limit the sensitivity of neutrino telescopes  (and to a smaller extent, the cosmic-ray detectors ) to physics beyond the Standard Model. Amongst possible such scenarios, of particular interest are theories with supersymmetry , extended gauge or higgs sector  or, more recently, those with a low energy gravity sector . Perhaps, of even more importance, are the effects on the determination of neutrino mixing parameters , and neutrino-tomography of the earth’s interior . The importance of a more accurate estimation of the neutrino interaction rates as well as their kinematical distributions, thus, cannot be overstated.

In this paper, we explicitly calculate the $`𝒪(\alpha _\mathrm{s})`$ QCD corrections to the parton model result and show that while it is not very large, it is by no means negligible. Moreover, we study carefully the behavior of this correction as a function of neutrino energy and find behavior which is not necessarily very intuitive. For example, there is a delicate interplay between the magnitude of $`\alpha _\mathrm{s}`$, the structure of the higher order integrals and the size of the parton distributions (particularly the gluon) in LO and NLO. This gives a non-trivial energy dependence to the ratio of the LO and NLO cross section (which we will call the $`K`$-factor). We work throughout in the $`\overline{MS}`$ scheme.

Another issue which is of relevance in these energy ranges (and which, again, has been addressed in Refs.) is the question of carrying out perturbative calculations at ultra low Bjorken $`x`$ (down to $`10^8`$). No data exists to help in parametrisations of parton distribution functions at such values of $`x`$ and one can only be guided in these regions by a somewhat improperly understood physical picture of a highly dense nucleon of partons. Data from HERA stops around $`x10^5`$ or so and below that, some physical picture of shadowing and saturation effects (particularly at low $`Q^2`$) needs to be incorporated to understand the physics of a nucleon with a high density of partons.

We have tried to address both these issues in this paper. We have explicitly calculated the $`𝒪(\alpha _\mathrm{s})`$ corrections to the partonic cross sections and convoluted them with appropriate parton distributions. We have also addressed the issue of extrapolation of the partonic distributions to regions where simple DGLAP evolution is not expected to hold.

The paper is organised as follows. In Section 2, we present a discussion and justification for the various partonic distributions that we have used in various parts of the $`(Q^2,x)`$ plane. In Section 3, we present detailed expressions for the $`𝒪(\alpha _\mathrm{s})`$ corrections to the lowest order partonic cross section for neutrino and antineutrinos scattering against an isoscalar target. These expression are, of course available elsewhere but for the sake of completeness and clarity, we feel it would be useful to present them in a form that is amenable to discussions later in this paper. In Section 4, we present our results for LO and NLO cross sections, both for the differential distributions $`d\sigma /d\mathrm{log}x`$ and $`d\sigma /d\mathrm{log}Q^2`$, as well as the total cross section. This has been done for neutral as well as charged current cross sections. Section 5 has a short discussion on saturation and the final section makes a few concluding remarks.

## 2 Parton Distributions

As already mentioned briefly in the introduction, deep inelastic scattering of UHE neutrinos is unique in the sense that it explores extreme regions of the $`(Q^2,x)`$ phase space where no data from terrestrial accelerators exist to help with the nature of the distributions. We are therefore forced into making some assumptions regarding the nature of these distributions, particularly in the region of ultra low $`x`$ and low $`Q^2`$ (the so-called saturation region), as well in the region of ultra low $`x`$ and very high $`Q^2`$, for which too, no data exist. In what follows we shall expand a bit on this theme.

In the region between, say $`50\mathrm{GeV}^2<Q^2<10^5\mathrm{GeV}^2`$, standard parametrisations are expected to work reasonably well. All parametrisations in these regions use parton densities of the form $`Ax^\alpha (1x)^\beta f(\sqrt{x})`$ where the last function is some polynomial in $`\sqrt{x}`$. We have checked explicitly that all three of CTEQ5 , MRS99  and GRV98  parametrisations give very similar results within this region. However, the explicit parametrization for either of CTEQ and MRS ditributions do not work below $`x<10^5`$ whereas GRV98 allows $`x`$ values upto $`10^9`$. For our numerical results, we therefore work with GRV98, except in the saturation region and the very large $`Q^2`$ and small $`x`$ region.

The region above $`Q^2=10^6\mathrm{GeV}^2`$ and low $`x`$ ($`x<10^5`$) is beyond the region of validity of the explicit parametrisations of GRV (which is valid only upto $`Q^2=10^6\mathrm{GeV}^2`$). One option here is to use the starting distributions for GRV and evolve them (to LO or NLO order) into the above region. However, in this region, one also has the option of using an analytical form for the distribution function - the so-called double leading log (DLL) or Double Asymptotic Scaling (DAS) forms. In this approach, the DGLAP equations can be solved analytically, assuming that the evolution is driven by the splitting function $`P_{gg}`$. This was first shown in  and later developed for ultra-high energy neutrinos in . A general review with calculational details may be found in . This region is then matched appropriately at the boundary with GRV. One could also use, other than variations of the DGLAP approach, the $`\mathrm{ln}(1/x)`$ resummation programme of BFKL or the unified DGLAP-BFKL treatment of . The numerical changes are insignificant.

For the other region where the explicit GRV parametrization is not valid, namely large $`Q^2`$ ($`>10^6\mathrm{GeV}^2`$) and moderate $`x`$ ($`x>10^5`$), one may again evolve the parton densities appropriately and then use them. However, numerically, it is simpler to just use GRV98 with a fixed value of $`Q^2=10^6\mathrm{GeV}^2`$, and, within this region, the error due to such an approach is negligible. It might seem counterintuitive that the final result depends negligibly on which resummation scheme is used in the ultra-low $`x`$ and/or very high $`Q^2`$ scheme. However, as we show later in this paper, this simply follows from the fact that at these extreme ($`x,Q^2`$) values, the relative contribution in the integral (over $`x`$ and $`Q^2`$) to the total cross section is already very small.

The summary of the various evolution equations and their applicable regions are shown in Fig. 1. We have used the leading log expressions for DAS; this is appropriate for matching with NLO GRV.

Some comments regarding the saturation region are in order. In DIS at very low $`x`$ and low $`Q^2`$, we find a high density of partons which is a non perturbative system even though $`\alpha _\mathrm{s}`$ may be small. There are essentially two approaches to high density QCD - the GLR  and Mueller, Qiu  aproach and the effective Lagrangian method of McLerran and Venugopalan . Using these two approaches a non-linear evolution equation has been developed by the Tel-Aviv group and a review may be found in their paper . We have used saturated densities in the low $`x`$ and low $`Q^2`$ region using this approach . Some comments on the saturation region can be found later, in Section 5.

## 3 NLO expressions for $`\nu N`$ scattering

In this section we briefly review the $`O(\alpha _\mathrm{s})`$ (NLO) expressions for neutrino nucleon scattering. Many of these details may be found scattered in the literature — for example, see  — however it is convenient to write them down here in some detail, clearly demarcating the LO and NLO pieces. We will assume an isoscalar target $`N`$ \[$`(p+n)/2`$\] as this is an excellent approximation to the typical neutrino detector material.

The general expression for the neutral current (NC) reaction

$$\nu _\mu ^{^{()}}N\nu _\mu ^{^{()}}+anything$$

is given by

$$\frac{d^2\sigma ^{(\nu ,\overline{\nu })N}}{dxdy}=\frac{G_F^2}{2\pi }\left(\frac{M_Z^2}{Q^2+M_Z^2}\right)^2s\left[\mathrm{F}_2(1y)+\mathrm{F}_1xy^2\pm \mathrm{F}_3xy(1\frac{1}{2}y)\right],$$
(1)
where $`G_F`$ is the Fermi coupling, $`M_Z`$ the $`Z`$ boson mass and $`s`$ the total centre-of-mass energy squared. The quantity $`Q^2(q^2)`$ is the momentum transfer, the Bjorken variable $`x=Q^2/(2p.q)`$ with $`p`$ ($`p^2=M_p^2`$) being the four momentum of the proton (or the isoscalar target) and $`yQ^2/(xs)`$.

The structure functions $`\mathrm{F}_i\mathrm{F}_i(x,Q^2)\left(i=1,2,3\right)`$ are given by the convolution of bare parton distributions $`q_i^{(0)}(y_p)`$ and the partonic structure function $`\widehat{F}_i`$. In other words,

$$\mathrm{F}_\mathrm{i}(x,Q^2)=q_{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{(0)}\widehat{F}_i^{q_j}+\overline{q}_{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{(\mathit{0})}\widehat{F}_i^{\overline{q}_j}+g^{(\mathit{0})}\widehat{F}_i^g,$$
(2)
where $``$ denotes the convolution defined as

$$q_{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{(0)}\widehat{F}_i^{q_j}=_x^\mathit{1}\frac{\mathrm{𝑑𝑦}_p}{y_p}q_{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{(\mathit{0})}(y_p)\widehat{F}_i^{q_j}\left(\frac{x}{y_p}\right).$$
(3)
Denoting the generic weak interaction vertex involving a quark $`f`$ by $`\gamma ^\mu (c_V^f\pm c_A^f\gamma _5)`$, the leading order (LO) partonic structure functions are given by

$$\widehat{F}_i^\mathit{0}(z)=K_i\delta (\mathit{1}z)$$
(4)
where $`2K_1=K_2=\left((c_V^f)^2+(c_A^f)^2\right)`$ and $`K_3=2c_V^fc_A^f`$. Clearly, $`K_{1,2}`$ correspond to parity conserving interactions whereas $`K_3`$ is a measure of parity violation. In the case of DIS, NLO corrections implies corrections to the parton structure functions coming from $`𝒪(\alpha _\mathrm{s})`$ corrections to the partonic cross sections.

For the quark initiated process, to order $`\alpha _s`$, the partonic structure functions are given by

$`\widehat{F}_i^q(z,Q^\mathit{2})`$ $`=`$ $`K_i\left\{\delta (1z)+{\displaystyle \frac{2\alpha _s}{3\pi }}\left[\zeta P_{qq}(z)+P_{qq}(z)\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{\mu ^2}}\right)+C_i^q(z)\right]\right\},`$ (5)
where the first term is the zeroth-order piece and the rest comprise the next-to-leading order corrections. The splitting function $`P_{qq}`$ is defined through

$$P_{qq}(z)=\frac{(1+z^2)}{(1z)_+}+\frac{3}{2}\delta (1z),$$
(6)
where the “plus prescription” is defined as usual. The renormalisation scale $`\mu `$ is introduced to make the coupling dimensionless in $`n(=4+ϵ)`$ dimensions and

$$\zeta =\left[\frac{2}{n4}+\gamma \mathrm{ln}(4\pi )\right].$$
(7)
Clearly, the collinear singularity manifests itself in the $`\zeta `$ dependent term in eqn.(5) in the limit $`ϵ0`$. And, finally, the coefficient functions $`C_i^q(z)`$ are given by

$`C_i^q(z)`$ $`=`$ $`(1+z^2)\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}(1z)}{(1z)}}\right)_+{\displaystyle \frac{(1+z^2)}{(1z)}}\mathrm{ln}(z)`$ (8)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(1z)_+}}+3+2z\delta (1z)\left({\displaystyle \frac{9}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{3}}\right)+\mathrm{\Delta }_i^q,`$
with

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_1^q`$ $`=`$ $`2z\mathrm{\Delta }_2^q=0\mathrm{\Delta }_3^q=(1+z),`$ (9)
For the gluon initiated process, on the other hand, the parton structure functions are given by

$`\widehat{F}_i^g(z,Q^\mathit{2})`$ $`=`$ $`K_i{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{4\pi }}\left[\zeta P_{gq}(z)+P_{gq}(z)\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{\mu ^2}}\right)+C_i^g(z)\right],`$ (10)
where

$`P_{gq}(z)=(1z)^2+z^2;`$ (11)
and

$`C_i^g(z)`$ $`=`$ $`\left\{(1z)^2+z^2\right\}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1z}{z}}\right)+6z(1z)+\mathrm{\Delta }_i^g;`$ (12)
with

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_1^g=4z(1z)\mathrm{\Delta }_2^g=\mathrm{\Delta }_3^g=0.`$ (13)
Note that the gluonic contribution to $`F_3`$ vanishes identically. This feature follows from the $`VA`$ structure of the weak interaction whereby the quark contribution is exactly opposite to the anti-quark contribution. For the anti-quark initiated processes all the structure functions are the same except for $`\widehat{F}_\mathit{3}^q(z,Q^\mathit{2})`$ which appears with the opposite sign in eqn.(1). Absorbing the mass singularity into the bare parton distributions in the $`\overline{MS}`$ scheme, the $`Q^2`$ dependent structure functions can be expressed in terms of the renormalised parton distributions through

$`\mathrm{F}_1(x,Q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n_f}{}}}K_{q_j}^{(pc)}\{(q_j(x,Q^2)+\overline{q}_j(x,Q^2))`$ (14)
$`+\alpha _s(Q^2)[C_1^q(z)(q_j+\overline{q}_j)+2C_1^gg]\},`$
$`\mathrm{F}_2(x,Q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n_f}{}}}K_{q_j}^{(pc)}x\{(q_j(x,Q^2)+\overline{q}_j(x,Q^2))`$ (15)
$`+\alpha _s(Q^2)[C_2^q(z)(q_j+\overline{q}_j)+2C_2^gg]\},`$
$`\mathrm{F}_3(x,Q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n_f}{}}}K_{q_j}^{(pv)}\{(q_j(x,Q^2)\overline{q}_j(x,Q^2))`$ (16)
$`+\alpha _s(Q^2)[C_3^q(z)(q_j\overline{q}_j)]\}.`$
In eqns.(14 \- 16), the first term refers to the LO contribution to $`\mathrm{F}_\mathrm{i}(x,Q^2)`$ whereas the second term is the pure NLO contribution. The superscripts $`pc`$ and $`pv`$ stand for ’parity conserving’ and ’parity violating’ respectively. The fact that the tree-level relation $`F_2=2xF_1`$ is no longer valid will play a key role in understanding some of the results detailed in the next section.

It is useful, at this stage, to note that for an isoscalar target we have

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill _j^{n_f}K_{q_j}^{(pc)}\left(\mathrm{q}_j+\overline{\mathrm{q}}_j\right)& =& \frac{1}{2}\left(K_u^{(pc)}+K_d^{(pc)}\right)\left(u+d+\overline{u}+\overline{d}\right)\hfill \\ & +& K_d^{(pc)}\left(s+\overline{s}+b+\overline{b}\right)+K_u^{(pc)}\left(c+\overline{c}+t+\overline{t}\right),\hfill \\ \hfill _j^{n_f}K_{q_j}^{(pv)}\left(\mathrm{q}_j\overline{\mathrm{q}}_j\right)& =& \frac{1}{2}\left(K_u^{(pv)}+K_d^{(pv)}\right)\left(u+d\overline{u}\overline{d}\right),\hfill \end{array}$$
(17)
where $`K_u`$ and $`K_d`$ are the couplings of the $`up`$ and $`down`$ type quark respectively. All parton distributions are the “renormalized” parton distributions (i.e. $`\mathrm{q}_j\mathrm{q}_j(x,Q^2)`$).

The general expression for the charged current (CC) reaction

$$\nu _\mu ^{^{()}}N\mu ^\pm +anything,$$

is given by

$$\frac{d^2\sigma ^{(\nu ,\overline{\nu })N}}{dxdy}=\frac{2G_F^2}{\pi }\left(\frac{M_W^2}{Q^2+M_W^2}\right)^2s\left[\mathrm{F}_2(1y)+\mathrm{F}_1xy^2\pm \mathrm{F}_3xy(1\frac{1}{2}y)\right],$$
(18)
all the notation being the same as NC. As the couplings $`K_i`$ are now flavour independent ($`2K_1=K_2=K_3=\frac{1}{2}`$), they have been absorbed. For the isoscalar target, the quark distributions have the form

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill _j^{n_f}\left(\mathrm{q}_j+\overline{\mathrm{q}}_j\right)& =& \frac{1}{2}\left(u+d+\overline{u}+\overline{d}\right)+\left(s+b+c+t\right),\hfill \\ \hfill _j^{n_f}\left(\mathrm{q}_j\overline{q}_j\right)& =& \frac{1}{2}\left(u+d\overline{u}\overline{d}\right)+\left(s+bct\right).\hfill \end{array}$$
(19)
## 4 Results and discussion

Having set up the formalism, we now turn to an estimate of the numerical size of the NLO corrections. While the exact values of the cross sections for neutrino and antineutrino induced processes differ, (as also for charged-current and neutral-current interactions), one expects some similarities in the relative size of the corrections.

The total $`\nu `$ and $`\overline{\nu }`$ cross sections are displayed in Fig. 2. The rationale for choosing the particular scaling will become apparent as we progress. While the behaviour is essentially the same as that obtained by previous authors, the exact numbers (for the LO) differ marginally. The change is the result of our using a different set of parton distributions as compared to, say, Ref. . Moreover, we have taken care to use the parton distributions appropriate for the order to which the partonic subprocesses are being calculated in each instance. To obtain a quantitative estimate of the differences in the total cross sections, it is useful to express them as a function of the neutrino energy. While a polynomial fit for $`\mathrm{log}\sigma `$ in terms of $`\mathrm{log}E`$ is straightforward, it is, unfortunately, not very illuminating. We attempt, instead, a piecewise fitting of the form

$$\sigma (\mathrm{pb})𝒜\left(\frac{E_\nu }{1\mathrm{GeV}}\right)^\gamma ,$$
(20)
with the parameters $`𝒜`$ and $`\gamma `$ as given in Table 1. Thus, while $`\sigma `$ grows almost linearly with $`E_\nu `$ for relatively small neutrino energies, the growth is tempered to $`E_\nu ^{0.4}`$ for larger $`E_\nu `$. The particular scaling in Fig. 2, thus, serves to highlight the deviations at high energies from the exact scaling relation of eqn.(20). Such a behaviour for the total cross section was found earlier, in , and as demonstrated there, it is the result of the fact that when the differential cross section is integrated over $`x`$ and $`Q^2`$, the $`Q^2`$ integration is effectively cut-off at $`Q^2M_{Z,W}^2`$ coupled with the fact that the number of valence quarks is finite. One might wonder at this stage at the apparent lack of unitarity reflected by the value of the exponent $`\gamma `$ at high energies. In particular, in view of the rapidly rising parton distribution functions at low $`x`$ predicted by all evolution equations, the question of the total cross section saturating the unitarity bound already at around $`E_\nu 10^8`$ GeV is a serious one that is addressed, for example, in Refs. .

While both Fig. 2 and Table 1 seemingly demonstrate that, for small neutrino energies, the difference between the LO and the NLO cross sections is miniscule, the same certainly cannot be said of the results at large values of $`E_\nu `$, This difference can be quantified in terms of the $`K`$-factor:

$$K=\frac{\sigma _{\mathrm{NLO}}}{\sigma _{\mathrm{LO}}},$$
(21)
which we plot in Fig. 3.

Various points are worthy of note here. As already anticipated, for small neutrino energies, the $`K`$-factor is remarkably close to one and confirms the usual belief that QCD corrections are unimportant. At larger energies ($`E_\nu >10^4`$ GeV), the NLO contributions start to become important and the $`K`$-factor slowly grows to its maximum ($`1.08`$) at about $`E_\nu 2\times 10^6`$ GeV. Thereafter, the $`\sigma _{\mathrm{NLO}}`$ grows slower with energy than does $`\sigma _{\mathrm{LO}}`$ (see Table 1), resulting in a rather strong reduction of the $`K`$-factor by the time one reaches $`E_\nu 10^{10}`$ GeV.

### 4.1 $`\nu `$-NC scattering

The reasons for the afore-mentioned behaviour of the $`K`$-factor are manifold and intertwined. Hence, before we attempt an understanding of this, it is perhaps more useful to look at the differential distributions. We begin by concentrating on the neutral current scattering process of neutrinos off isoscalar targets. In Fig. 4, we show the variation with $`Q^2`$ for three representative neutrino energies. The shape of the distributions are governed by both the dynamics as well as the parton densities. For low neutrino energies, the maximal energy transfer falls well short of $`M_Z`$ and thus the neutrino-parton interaction is well described in terms of a 4-fermi interaction. As is well known, the cross section due to such an interaction Lagrangian grows with the available center of mass energy.

On the other hand, the partons densities fall very sharply as the fraction of the proton energy they carry approaches unity. The interplay of these two effects leads to the skewed bell-like shape of the distribution. As the neutrino energy increases, so does the typical value of the neutrino-parton center of mass energy. Once this crosses $`s(100\mathrm{GeV})^2`$, the natural scale of the problem, the contribution to the cross section is naturally dominated by virtual exchanges with $`Q^2M_Z^2`$. The skewness of the distribution is therefore removed to a large extent (see the central panel of Fig. 4). At even larger energies, this tendency is only reinforced.

The issues discussed above can also be understood in terms of distributions in the Bjorken variable $`x`$ (see Fig. 5). With the fast fall of the parton densities at large $`x`$, it is only natural that such regions of the phase space should contribute very little to the cross section. This, of course, is reflected in the first two panels of Fig. 5. However, for very large $`E_\nu `$, the situation is changed somewhat. Dynamics dictates that the region $`Q^2M_Z^2`$ (and, hence, relatively small $`x`$) receives prominence in the integration. As the maximum in distribution is still far away from $`x<1`$, the aforementioned damping does not come into play and the fall-off is much smoother.

With these features in mind, we now return to the issue of the $`K`$-factor. To start with, let us re-examine Fig. 4, more particularly the last two panels where the deviation is more pronounced. Even a casual glance (and this is indeed borne out by a quantitative test) shows that the ratio of the NLO and LO differential cross sections is roughly constant over the significant range of $`Q^2`$. The shift from unity is as large as 25% for extremely large $`E_\nu `$. As for the $`x`$ distribution, a similar effect is in operation for not too large neutrino energies ($`E_\nu <10^8\mathrm{GeV}`$). For progressively larger $`E_\nu `$’s though, the effect is concentrated more towards the peak in $`\mathrm{d}\sigma /\mathrm{d}\mathrm{log}x`$ (and may be as large as $`30\%`$). We may thus conclude that, while the NLO correction tends to be nearly independent of $`Q^2`$, it certainly does have a non-negligible variation in $`x`$, with the largest shifts occurring for $`x<M_Z^2/(2M_pE_\nu )`$. In other words, were we to consider the normalized differential distributions, the LO and NLO curves for $`\mathrm{d}\sigma /\mathrm{d}\mathrm{log}Q^2`$, for a given $`E_\nu `$, would be virtually indistinguishable from each other, while those for $`\mathrm{d}\sigma /\mathrm{d}\mathrm{log}x`$ would seem laterally displaced, with the effect more pronounced for larger $`E_\nu `$.

The various contributions to the $`K`$-factor are often separated (albeit not in a strictly gauge-invariant way) into two parts: those arising from the differences in the LO and the NLO parton distributions and those that are due to the changes in the partonic cross sections. In Fig. 6 we display the effects of such a division. This would also serve to facilitate a comparison of our results with those available in the literature. As is seen readily, ignoring the corrections to the lowest order partonic cross sections but using the NLO distributions would have led to a much steeper suppression for larger neutrino energies. The main reason for the fall is that while at large $`E_\nu `$ and hence large $`s`$, $`x`$ is small and hence the partonic distributions are large, the rise of the distributions is steeper for LO than for NLO. (This is, of course, a well known fact and arises because, at NLO, the splitting function (say $`P_{qg}`$) has a $`1/x`$ singularity at $`𝒪(\alpha _\mathrm{s})`$ which needs to be stemmed by choosing flatter distributions at a given energy compared to the LO case. Put differently, a stable evolution of, say, $`F_2`$ requires that the NLO steepness of $`P_{qg}`$ has to be compensated by a gluon density which is less steep at NLO than at LO. It is for this reason that the starting distributions for LO and NLO are always substantially different). In the literature (for example, Ref.), it has often been claimed that using the LO partonic cross section convoluted with the partonic distributions in the DIS scheme is an effective method for approximating the magnitude of the full NLO corrections. However, as Fig. 6 clearly shows this is not the case and the ’true’ NLO corrections (wherein the NLO partonic cross section is convoluted with the NLO distributions), gives a result very different from using just the LO partonic cross section convoluted with either the NLO $`\overline{MS}`$ distribution or the distributions in the DIS scheme.

Having understood a decreasing $`K`$-factor for high neutrino eneries, we now turn to the presence of a maximum. For sufficiently small $`E_\nu `$’s, when $`x`$ is not too small (see Fig. 5), the gluon, which is what may make the NLO large at small $`x`$, is still to kick in, and the LO and NLO curves for the total cross section start out virtually together. As we move to larger values of $`E_\nu `$, and hence smaller $`x`$, the gluon density itself becomes larger. Consequently, $`\sigma _{\mathrm{NLO}}`$ increases faster than $`\sigma _{\mathrm{LO}}`$. For even higher $`E_\nu `$’s, the bulk of the contribution comes from progressively smaller $`x`$ and the fact of the LO distributions being larger, at small $`x`$, than the NLO ones becomes the overriding factor; the rise in $`\sigma _{\mathrm{NLO}}`$ is suppressed.

Before concluding this section, we would like to recall that whereas the gluon is the main contributing factor in the NLO graphs, no gluon appears in the initial state in the LO case. However, even for the LO, the gluon manifests itself, indirectly, through large values of the sea quark distributions. The inclusion of the NLO contribution only serves to ameliorate this suppression. It is interesting to note that the ‘extra’ piece may contribute as much as 10% to the cross section and is, by no means, negligible.

### 4.2 The $`\overline{\nu }`$-NC and the CC cross-sections

Having discussed the $`\nu `$-NC interaction in detail, we now comment on the other interactions that we have briefly discussed above. As both Fig. 2 and Fig. 3 show, the main features are quite similar and it is the small differences that we concentrate on here. Starting with the $`\overline{\nu }`$-NC process, note that the $`K`$-factor at large energies is nearly the same as that for the corresponding $`\nu `$-NC interaction. While the value at the peak ($`E_{\overline{\nu }}10^6\mathrm{GeV}`$) is also approximately the same, the dip at lower energies is far more gradual. Even more striking, at low energies $`E_{\overline{\nu }}<10\mathrm{GeV}`$) is that the $`K`$-factor is discernibly different from unity. This difference is but an example of the afore-mentioned subtle interplay between the parton-level cross-sections and the parton densities. At the partonic level, the only difference between the $`\nu `$-NC and the $`\overline{\nu }`$-NC cross sections lies in the reversal of the sign of the structure function $`F_3`$, which in turn, is controlled by the valence quarks. At small energies, most of the contribution to the total cross section comes from the valence quarks and hence this extra additive piece has a significant role to play (and, indeed, is responsible for the difference in $`\nu `$-NC and $`\overline{\nu }`$-NC cross sections). This relative shift is less pronounced for the NLO, as the $`F_3`$ contribution is now smaller while the combined $`F_1`$ and $`F_2`$ contribution is marginally larger – again, a consequence of the interplay between the parton-level cross sections and the shape of the parton densities themselves. With the increase of the (anti-)neutrino energy the peak in $`\mathrm{d}\sigma /\mathrm{d}\mathrm{log}x`$ shifts to progressively smaller values of $`x`$ (see Fig. 5), thereby rendering the $`F_3`$ contribution insignificant.

As for the charged current processes, it is easy to see that the NLO corrections are quite analogous to the cases already considered. Thus, notwithstanding the difference in the absolute value of the cross sections, the $`K`$-factor is expected to be similar, and this indeed is attested to by Fig. 3. There is a minor difference though. Unlike the case for the NC processes, at high energies, the $`K`$-factors for the neutrino- and antineutrino-induced CC processes are no longer the same. This has its origin in the expression for the $`F_3`$ term as applied to CC (see eq.(19)). At high energies (and, hence, low $`x`$), the $`F_3`$ contribution is now nearly proportional to the strange sea content in the nucleon. As the latter is, by no means, small at such low $`x`$ values, the differences in the absolute values of the cross sections as well as in the $`K`$-factors are expected.

### 4.3 Observables ‘stable’ under QCD corrections

We have seen that all the four relevant cross sections receive significant corrections at the NLO level. Moreover, the corrections are not easy to parametrize as a function of energy. Added to this are dependencies on the parton distributions used. It is therefore of interest to inquire if there exist observables that are relatively insensitive to such corrections, not the least for their usefulness in searches for new physics. One such observable is the ratio of $`\sigma _\nu ^{\mathrm{CC}}`$ and $`\sigma _{\overline{\nu }}^{\mathrm{CC}}`$ (the corresponding ratio for the NC cross sections is not a measurable for cosmic neutrinos). In Fig. 7$`a`$, we exhibit this ratio as a function of the (anti-)neutrino energy. Since the bulk of the NLO corrections are common to the two cross sections under discussion, the ratio, as expected, changes little when these corrections are included.

Unfortunately, in the context of an actual experiment, the ratio above would be measurable only in the presence of a substantial magnetic field, and is hence of limited use as far as a neutrino telescope is concerned. However, the ratio of charged current and neutral current cross sections is measurable, and can indeed be a good discriminator in the search for new physics . As Fig. 7$`b`$ shows, this ratio, again, is far less sensitive to QCD corrections than are the individual cross sections.

## 5 Saturation effects

We have seen in the earlier section the complex interplay between partonic cross sections and the evolution of partonic densities at LO and NLO.

However, there is another issue which is of importance in this process. At the extremely low values of $`x`$ that we are considering, the proton is a dense collection of partons and saturation effects are expected to come into play. Typically, this happens when recombination effects from $`ggg`$ start having a discernible effect. Such processes are expected to slow down the usual rise of the gluon distribution predicted by DGLAP evolution and is expected to take place around a scale

$$Q_s^2=(1\mathrm{GeV})^2\left(\frac{x_0}{x}\right)^\lambda .$$
(22)
The parameters $`\lambda `$ and $`x_0`$ as fitted to HERA data are found to be $`\lambda =0.288`$ and $`x_0=3.04\times 10^4`$ . Around $`x10^8`$ this works out to $`Q_s^220\mathrm{GeV}^2`$. As is clear from the above, at larger values of $`x`$, saturation is expected to set in at even lower scales.

Keeping this in mind, we have smoothly interpolated, in the low $`Q^2`$ ( $`<50\mathrm{GeV}^2`$) and low $`x`$ ($`<10^6`$) region, from GRV to the saturation model mentioned in the introduction . All the graphs and the analyses discussed in this paper are based on interpolation of densities shown in Fig. 1.

While this is, of course, the consistent way of doing this, a useful exercise would be to estimate the effect of these saturation models on our results. To this end, we substituted the saturation model in the low $`x`$ and $`Q^2`$ region by the standard GRV evolution and compared the results. We find that the effect of saturation, in the total cross section is negligible and, at its largest, is of the order of around 0.2%. The reason for this is not far to seek. In the large range of $`x`$ and $`Q^2`$ values that we are spanning in our integrals, the saturation region accounts for an exceptionally tiny part of the phase space and consequently, has little effect on the final result. The physical requirement of saturation is however, an important one for many reasons, not least in stemming the rise of the distributions at ultra low $`x`$ and thereby preventing the cross section from crossing the unitarity bound. As mentioned earlier, we will not discuss this aspect here, but refer the reader to Refs. .

## 6 Conclusions

In this paper, we have explicitly calculated the NLO (i.e $`𝒪(\alpha _\mathrm{s})`$) corrections to ultra high energy neutrino–proton (or isoscalar nucleon) scattering. We have identified the various regions in the $`x`$$`Q^2`$ space where different parametrisations of the quark and gluon densities are valid and discussed the contributions of each of these regions. In particular, we have carefully looked at the low $`Q^2`$ and ultra low $`x`$ region and discussed the effect of saturation in this region and found it to have a very small effect on the overall NLO behaviour. We have also calculated the size of the NLO corrections compared with the LO (the $`K`$ factor) and tried to give a qualitative explanation for the results.

It is clear from our analysis that the higher order corrections are not small - in fact the NLO in a certain region substantially brings down the LO cross section and we have explained in the text why this happens. It is clear from our analysis that NLO calculations are necessary for UHE neutrino isoscalar scattering processes to get a complete picture, not least for isolating the QCD effects from those due to possible physics beyond the Standard Model.

We have also discussed briefly, observables that are insensitive to higher order corrections. Such observables, which are ’stable’ under QCD corrections would be useful discriminators in the search for new physics.

At this point, one should also perhaps consider how our results would change if one were to use other evolution equations like BFKL  or the unified BFKL-DGLAP equation of . There have also been attempts to use the BFKL power law rise of the structure function and relate this power to the average inelasticity . These approaches are relevant in the ultra low $`x`$ regions that we are discussing. However, as has been shown in , resumming leading and non-leading $`\mathrm{ln}(1/x)`$ effects through the above equations gives neutrino cross sections which are compatible with those obtained from the NLO DGLAP framework, thereby reducing potential ambiguities in the extrapolation of the cross section from the ($`x,Q^2`$) domain of terrestrial accelerators (particularly HERA) to the ultra low $`x`$ region that are explored by UHE neutrinos.

It is possible now to look at the next order in $`\alpha _\mathrm{s}`$ (NNLO) to see what effect this has at least upto values of $`x10^4`$ . This is the subject of a future study.

Acknowledgments

One of us (RB) would like to thank Uri Maor and Eran Naftali for useful discussions and providing us with the interpolation program for densities in the saturation region. We would also like to thank V. Ravindran for useful discussions. DC thanks the Dept. of Science and Technology, India for financial assistance under the Swarnajayanti Fellowship grant.


format: text

text:
# 1 Basics of the scenario

## 1 Basics of the scenario

With growing experimental evidence for neutrino masses in a range that is consistent with a GUT-scale-based see-saw mechanism , leptogenesis has become the standard scenario for the generation of the baryon asymmetry of the universe. In the original proposal , the heavy rhd neutrinos decay in an out-of-equilibrium fashion once the universe has cooled to a temperature below their mass scale. The resulting lepton number is then converted to baryon number by standard model (SM) sphaleron processes (for a recent review see, e.g., ). Alternatively, in a supersymmetric theory, lepton number can be generated by the decay of a condensate of the scalar component $`\stackrel{~}{N}`$ of the rhd neutrino superfield $`N`$ . In particular, a recent detailed analysis  of this scenario has shown that, if $`\stackrel{~}{N}`$ comes to dominate the universe, its decay can naturally produce the required lepton asymmetry independently of other cosmological initial conditions. At the same time, the number density of dangerous inflationary relics, such as the gravitino, is significantly diluted.

This cosmologically attractive variant of leptogenesis requires at least one of the rhd neutrino masses to be very small compared with the GUT scale, $`10^6\mathrm{GeV}`$, and the corresponding Yukawa coupling to be suppressed. In the present paper, we show that such a situation arises naturally in the context of independently motivated higher-dimensional GUTs (with inverse-GUT-scale-sized extra dimensions). Before embarking, in Sects. 2 and 3, upon a detailed discussion of the orbifold-GUT model and of the cosmology, we now explain the fundamentals of our scenario.

To be specific, we will formulate our ideas in the framework of supersymmetric SU(5) orbifold GUTs  in 5 dimensions. These theories are attractive because they incorporate the success of MSSM gauge-coupling unification , while providing natural doublet-triplet splitting as well as suppressed proton decay . Moreover, a three generation model with a geometrical origin of hierarchical Yukawa couplings and see-saw neutrinos can easily be realized .

The starting point for these models is a 5d super Yang-Mills theory compactified on an interval with coordinate $`y[0,l]`$. At the $`y=0`$ boundary (the ‘SU(5) brane’) the 5d gauge symmetry is unbroken by boundary conditions, while at $`y=l`$ (the ‘SM brane’), the boundary conditions on the gauge fields explicitly break the 5d SU(5) down to the SM gauge group. Below the compactification scale $`M_c1/l`$, one has a 4d effective field theory with SM gauge group (and N=1 supersymmetry).

A basic property of such models is that the ‘bulk’, $`y(0,l)`$, is moderately large compared to the fundamental 5d Planck (or UV cutoff) length. Arguments pointing to this conclusion include the weakness of the effective 4d unified coupling, the ‘observed’ smallness of GUT-scale threshold corrections, and the flavour hierarchies among the generations (see e.g. ). As we discuss in Sect. 2, an alternative way of quantifying the size of the bulk follows from the requirement that gauge coupling unification (including the KK-mode corrected logarithmic running above $`M_c`$) occurs at the 5d Planck scale. Concretely this argument favours an orbifold GUT setup with $`Ml300`$ and $`M1.4\times 10^{17}\mathrm{GeV}`$, where $`M`$ is the reduced 5d Planck mass. This is in accord with the size of the bulk deduced from other arguments.

If a bulk mass $`m`$, odd under 5d parity, is introduced for a bulk matter field, its zero mode develops an exponential profile $`\mathrm{exp}[ym]`$  (see also  and ). Thus, depending on the sign of $`m`$, zero modes can be strongly peaked at either brane. If one of the three SM-singlet rhd neutrino fields $`N_i`$ is exponentially peaked at the SU(5) brane, while lepton number violating mass terms $`N_i^2`$ are allowed only at the SM brane, an exponential suppression of both the 4d rhd neutrino mass and Yukawa coupling naturally arises. The crucial observation is that the light neutrino masses are not affected even if one or more of the $`N_i`$ are such bulk fields with arbitrary bulk profile. This is clear because the $`N_i`$ zero modes receive only their kinetic term from the bulk, while their effective 4d mass and Yukawa coupling come from the brane. When the $`N_i`$ are integrated out, their kinetic term plays no role and thus it is irrelevant whether they are brane or bulk fields. Therefore the traditional see-saw prediction for the lhd neutrino mass scale is maintained. However, the rhd sneutrino mass scale is exponentially suppressed, as are its Yukawa couplings, and thus decay width. These are the new features that allow us to realise the attractive scenario of sneutrino ($`\stackrel{~}{N}`$) dominated cosmology and leptogenesis.

In Sect. 2 we present a more detailed motivation and quantitative analysis of the basic orbifold picture of neutrino masses and interactions, in particular a demonstration that it can be successfully embedded in a full flavour model. Specifically, both Higgs doublets and the three $`\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}`$’s of SU(5) (denoted by $`\overline{F}_i`$) are localized at the SM brane, while the three $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}`$’s (denoted by $`T_i`$) are bulk fields. The quark and lepton mass hierarchies are generated by the bulk profiles of the $`T_i`$ s.

However, we emphasise that our neutrino mass construction is quite generic and does not rely on the details of the specific SU(5) model worked out in the rest of this paper. The crucial ingredient is a 5d, or higher-dimensional theory compactified on an interval with Yukawa couplings and lepton-number-violating neutrino masses localized at one of the boundaries. The exponential suppression of zero-mode wave functions at that boundary generates both the fermion mass hierarchy and the desired light rhd neutrinos.

The cosmology of the above model of neutrinos has many attractive aspects. In particular, over a wide parameter region it leads to the $`\stackrel{~}{N}`$ dominated early universe of , as $`\stackrel{~}{N}`$ has an exponentially enhanced life-time. In more detail, if the initial value of $`|\stackrel{~}{N}|`$ is of the order of $`M`$, a natural circumstance, then $`\stackrel{~}{N}`$ will come to dominate the universe for inflationary reheating temperatures $`T_R\stackrel{>}{}10^9\mathrm{GeV}`$. Moreover, if $`T_R`$ is varied between $`10^9\mathrm{GeV}`$ and $`10^{12}\mathrm{GeV}`$, the gravitino number density in the late universe remains fixed at the level corresponding to $`T_R10^9\mathrm{GeV}`$. This attractive feature of $`\stackrel{~}{N}`$ dominated cosmology is due to the entropy produced by $`\stackrel{~}{N}`$ decay. Finally, the decay of $`\stackrel{~}{N}`$ produces the lepton-number asymmetry.

This cosmology is a fascinating possibility since most of the important physical parameters in the present universe, such as baryon-number asymmetry, entropy (and, as we later discuss, even spectrum of density fluctuations), are determined by the nature of the scalar partner of the lightest rhd neutrino. In Sect. 3, we provide a more detailed discussion of this cosmology, while some further possibilities, together with our conclusions, are contained in Sect. 4.

## 2 The flavour model

Consistency of the orbifold GUT framework requires $`M_c=1/l`$ to be significantly smaller than the UV scale $`M`$ of the 5d gauge theory. To be more specific, the (reduced) Planck masses in 4d ($`\overline{M}_P`$) and in 5d ($`M`$), are related by

$$\overline{M}_P^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}=M^3l,\overline{M}_P=M_P/\sqrt{8\pi }2.4\times 10^{18}\text{GeV},$$
(1)
and we demand gauge coupling unification at the fundamental scale $`M`$. In spite of the UV sensitivity of the non-renormalizable 5d theory, the differences of inverse SM gauge couplings $`\alpha _{ij}=\alpha _i^1\alpha _j^1`$ $`(i=1,2,3)`$ continue to run logarithmically above $`M_c`$  because these differences are only sensitive to the SU(5)-breaking SM brane. In the context of the minimal model of , where the Higgs-doublets are localized at the SM brane, this ‘differential running’  comes entirely from the gauge sector. With the effective SUSY breaking scale set to $`m_Z`$, we have

$$\alpha _{ij}(m_Z)=\alpha _{ij}(M)+\frac{1}{2\pi }\left\{a_{ij}ln\frac{M}{m_Z}+\frac{1}{2}b_{ij}ln\frac{M}{M_c}\right\},$$
(2)
where $`a_{ij}=a_ia_j`$ and $`b_{ij}=b_ib_j`$ (with $`a_i=(33/5,1,3)`$ and $`b_i=(10,6,4)`$) characterise the familiar MSSM running and the KK mode contributions respectively. If we define the conventional 4d unification scale by the meeting of the U(1) and SU(2) couplings $`\alpha _1`$ and $`\alpha _2`$, then the low-energy data $`\alpha _i^1(m_Z)=(59.0,29.6,8.4)`$ imply $`M_{\mathrm{GUT}}1.9\times 10^{16}\mathrm{GeV}`$. By contrast, combining Eqs. (1) and (2) and assuming $`\alpha _{12}^1(M)=0`$, one derives the 5d unification scale $`M=1.4\times 10^{17}\mathrm{GeV}`$ and $`Ml=2.8\times 10^2`$. Of course, these numbers represent only rough estimates since the $`\alpha _{ij}(M)`$ have, in general, non-zero $`𝒪(1)`$ values, which perturb the calculation of $`Ml`$ and $`M`$. (In the slightly different approach of , the model is fixed by requiring the precision of simultaneous 1-2 and 2-3 unification to be better than with conventional MSSM running.)

The above discussion provides us with a motivation for an orbifold GUT setup with $`M1.4\times 10^{17}\mathrm{GeV}`$ and with the small parameter $`\epsilon ^21/(Ml)1/300`$. Flavour is described by introducing the three $`\overline{F}_i`$ fields and the two Higgs doublets $`H_u`$ and $`H_d`$ on the SM brane (recall that, because of the reduced symmetry of the SM brane, there is no need for Higgs triplets), while allowing the $`T_i`$ to propagate in the bulk.111 To be more precise, one introduces hypermultiplets $`T_i`$ and $`T_i^{}`$ and assigns boundary conditions ensuring that the zero modes correspond to the field content of three $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}`$’s of SU(5) . Moreover, the boundary conditions break N=2 to N=1 SUSY, leaving us with conventional chiral multiplets at low energy $`E<M_c`$.  This large disparity between $`T`$’s and $`\overline{F}`$’s is the geometric origin of small quark and large lepton mixing (cf.  and ). If a bulk mass $`m`$, odd under 5d parity, is introduced for a 5d hypermultiplet, its zero mode develops an exponential profile $`\mathrm{exp}[ym]`$. Thus, depending on the sign of $`m`$, zero modes can be strongly peaked at either brane. In particular, this allows for a dynamical realization of SM-brane fields with quantum numbers appropriate for an SU(5) representation (e.g., the Higgs doublets and the $`\overline{F}_i`$ above). We will use this additional tool to realize the fermion mass hierarchy by appropriately localizing the $`T_i`$.

An understanding of the observed hierarchies in the fermion masses and mixings emerges naturally if the bulk mass of $`T_3`$ is sufficiently large and negative, $`m<0`$ (so that, for all practical purposes, $`T_3`$ is a SM brane field), while $`T_2`$ has vanishing bulk mass (flat zero-mode) and $`T_1`$ has a finite bulk mass $`m>0`$ (its zero-mode therefore being suppressed at the SM brane).

Concretely, the primordial and unstructured $`𝒪(1)`$ Yukawa couplings $`\lambda `$ at the SM brane are rescaled as

$$\lambda \frac{\lambda }{\sqrt{Ml}}\sqrt{\frac{2ml}{e^{2ml}1}}$$
(3)
for each participating bulk field with bulk mass $`m`$. This rescaling follows from the 4d canonical normalization of the 5d kinetic term and the exponentially suppressed zero-mode field value at the SM brane. Applying this to $`T_2`$, one finds that this field enters Yukawa interactions with a suppression factor $`\epsilon `$. The analogous suppression factor for $`T_1`$ depends on $`m`$ and becomes $`\epsilon ^2`$ for the choice $`ml3.9`$. This leads to the following realistic Yukawa matrix structure for the two effective 4d interactions $`H_uT^T\lambda _{TT}T`$ and $`H_dT^T\lambda _{TF}\overline{F}`$:

$$\lambda _{TT}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\epsilon ^4& \epsilon ^3& \epsilon ^2\\ \epsilon ^3& \epsilon ^2& \epsilon \\ \epsilon ^2& \epsilon & 1\end{array}\right),\lambda _{TF}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\epsilon ^2& \epsilon ^2& \epsilon ^2\\ \epsilon & \epsilon & \epsilon \\ 1& 1& 1\end{array}\right),$$
(4)
with unknown $`𝒪(1)`$ factors multiplying each entry.222 A slight modification, leading to a welcome further suppression of electron and down-quark mass, is obtained by placing one of the $`\overline{F}`$’s in the bulk. In fact, such a construction can be motivated by its particularly high symmetry: One set of fields $`(T,\overline{F})`$ are on the SM brane, one set are massless bulk fields, and the third set are massive bulk fields with the sign of the mass flipped between $`T`$ and $`\overline{F}`$ (making $`\overline{F}`$ effectively a SM brane field).  It is known that this Yukawa coupling hierarchy also gives rise to an approximately correct CKM structure. The top Yukawa coupling is naturally $`𝒪(1)`$. The required relative suppression of down-type Yukawa couplings can be realized either by going to large tan$`\beta `$ or by slightly decreasing the strength with which $`H_d`$ is peaked at the SM brane.

The construction presented so far can be summarized as follows. By identifying the 5d Planck mass with the unification scale, we have argued for a relative bulk size characterized by $`\epsilon 1/\sqrt{Ml}1/\sqrt{300}`$. If all fields except $`T_1`$ and $`T_2`$ are localizing at the SM brane, this bulk suppression factor beautifully explains the mass hierarchy between the two heavier generations . To explain the extreme lightness of the first generation, we had to give $`T_1`$ a bulk profile exponentially suppressed at the SM brane using the additional tool of bulk masses. With this tool in hand, rhd neutrino singlets can easily acquire the exponentially suppressed 4d masses and couplings required for the $`\stackrel{~}{N}`$ dominated universe.

Now we discuss the rhd neutrinos in more detail. Consider introducing three neutrino fields $`N_i`$ at the SM brane. Given a Majorana mass matrix $`M_{N,ij}`$ with $`𝒪(M)`$ entries and $`𝒪(1)`$ Yukawa couplings between $`N_i`$, $`\overline{F}_i`$ and $`H_u`$, the conventional see-saw mechanism leads to a light neutrino mass scale $`|H_u|^2/M2\times 10^4`$ eV. In the present scenario, such a small mass scale is welcome since it ensures the out-of-equilibrium decay of $`\stackrel{~}{N}`$ (see Sect. 3). The observed neutrino oscillations, which require a somewhat larger light neutrino mass scale, can be accommodated by assuming that $`M_N`$ has two slightly suppressed eigenvalues. (A concrete example of such a suppression mechanism will be provided shortly.)

As discussed in Sect. 1, light neutrino masses are not affected if one or more of the $`N_i`$ are promoted to bulk fields. To be specific, let us declare $`N_1`$ to be a bulk field with bulk mass $`m_1`$ and effective 4d mass (cf. Sect. 5 of )

$$M_12m_1e^{2m_1l}.$$
(5)
Due to the exponential suppression factor, the desired small value of $`M_1`$ is easily realized: for example, $`M_13\times 10^6\mathrm{GeV}`$ for $`m_1l11`$. While this concludes the description of our basic flavour model with a naturally light rhd neutrino, several open issues deserve further discussion.

Firstly, we need to enhance two of the light neutrino masses. For example, one could introduce a Froggatt-Nielsen U(1), broken by two charge-($`\pm `$1) fields with vacuum expectation values $`|\mathrm{\Phi }_\pm |`$ where $`|\mathrm{\Phi }_\pm |/M\eta 1`$ . With charge assignments (0,$``$1,$``$1) and (1,1,1) for the $`N_i`$ and $`\overline{F}_i`$ respectively, one obtains the following structures for the Yukawa matrix $`\lambda _N`$ in $`H_u\overline{F}_i^T\lambda _{N,ij}N_j`$ and the mass matrix:

$$\lambda _N\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\eta & 1& 1\\ \eta & 1& 1\\ \eta & 1& 1\end{array}\right),M_N\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& \eta & \eta \\ \eta & \eta ^2& \eta ^2\\ \eta & \eta ^2& \eta ^2\end{array}\right).$$
(6)
It is easy to convince oneself that all entries of the resulting light neutrino mass matrix $`m_\nu \lambda _NM_N^1\lambda _N^T\times |H_u|^2`$ are of the order $`\eta ^2|H_u|^2/M`$. This also sets the scale for two of the eigenvalues. Although the remaining eigenvalue is suppressed to $`\eta ^2|H_u|^2/M`$, all three mixing angles are generically large.333 The smallness of 1-3 mixing may be accidental (cf. ). Alternatively, it could be explained in a modified model where one of the $`\overline{F}`$’s is a bulk field.  In our setup, realistic neutrino phenomenology requires $`\eta 10^1`$. Furthermore, assigning a suitable U(1) charge to $`H_d`$ provides an alternative way to realize suppressed down-type masses. Let us finally argue why the family-symmetry should be broken in the U(1) charge assignment of the $`N_i`$. One possibility is to demand vanishing U(1) charges for all bulk fields. Alternatively, one could replace the U(1) with a $`Z_3`$ and then note that, while the cancellation of the mixed $`Z_3`$-SU(5) anomaly forces all three $`\overline{F_i}`$ to have the same charge, the $`N_i`$ charges remain unrestricted.

Secondly, it is necessary to forbid both parity-even bulk masses as well as SU(5)-brane-localized mass terms for the rhd neutrinos. Following , this can be done by gauging U(1)χ (named as in ), defined by SU(5)$`\times `$U(1)$`{}_{\chi }{}^{}`$SO(10). Since $`\stackrel{~}{N}`$ domination requires a large initial value of $`\stackrel{~}{N}_1`$, the $`D`$-term potential for $`\stackrel{~}{N}_1`$ has to be suppressed. This can be achieved by dynamically breaking U(1)χ at the high scale $`M`$ in 5d. A surviving discrete subgroup will be sufficient to forbid the dangerous mass operators. In addition, it is natural that U(1)χ is broken by orbifolding at the SM brane , making it the only possible location for the required lepton-number violating mass term.

Furthermore, we would like to comment on the relation of our method of generating the fermion mass hierarchy and the light $`N_1`$ field to the familiar Froggatt-Nielsen approach. Certainly the assignment of bulk masses to different sets of fields resembles the assignment of U(1) charges. This similarity becomes even more pronounced if the bulk masses are dynamically realized by expectation values of U(1) fields with Fayet-Iliopoulos terms at the boundary (see, e.g., ). However, especially in the case of the large suppression factor needed for $`N_1`$, it is a significant advantage that the bulk mass effect is exponential rather than power-like. Furthermore, there are crucial qualitative differences in the resulting phenomenology. For example, higher-order Kähler-terms involving $`T_i^{}T_i`$ together with the SUSY-breaking spurion, which can lead to dangerous flavour violation, are unrestricted by U(1) symmetries. In our case, if SUSY breaking is localized at the SM brane, such terms will be geometrically suppressed for the first two generations. The argument extends to the $`\overline{F}_i`$ if some of them are promoted to bulk fields.

Finally, note that the bulk masses used in the above construction are significantly smaller than the fundamental 5d scale $`M`$. This may follow naturally if bulk masses come from expectation values of weakly coupled U(1) fields. Alternatively, one may imagine the 5d theory to descend from a 6d theory, where bulk masses are forbidden, so that 5d bulk masses are due to small, non-perturbative effects arising in the 6d to 5d compactification process.

## 3 Cosmology

Let us turn to the discussion of cosmology. It is a reasonable assumption that the scalar partner of at least one of the right-handed neutrinos has, during inflation, an expectation value of the order of the cutoff scale $`M`$. The reason for this is that higher-dimension operators in the Kähler potential link the inflationary sector, in particular the superfield whose $`F`$-term or $`D`$-term gives rise to the non-zero vacuum energy, and the rhd neutrino superfields. (Higher order superpotential terms can be forbidden by a continuous or discrete symmetry acting on the superfield $`N_1`$.) This leads to a contribution to the $`(\mathrm{mass})^2`$ of the sneutrino of order $`m_{\mathrm{eff}}^2(H_{\mathrm{inf}})^2`$, where $`H_{\mathrm{inf}}`$ is the inflationary expansion rate. The sign depends upon the unknown Kähler operator coefficient. If $`m_{\mathrm{eff}}^2<0`$, then $`\stackrel{~}{N}_1`$ gains an expectation value only limited by yet higher-order terms in the Kähler potential, suppressed by powers of $`M`$. (Note that the parametrically small inflationary $`F`$\- or $`D`$-term expectation value multiplies the entire set of higher dimension operators which lead to a potential for $`\stackrel{~}{N}_1`$.) Here we have assumed that $`H_{\mathrm{inf}}`$ is larger than the mass of the right-handed neutrino.

As described in the previous sections, for the lightest rhd sneutrino field $`\stackrel{~}{N}_1`$ both its mass $`M_1`$ (cf. Eq. 5) and its effective 4d Yukawa coupling,

$$\lambda _{N,i1}\eta \sqrt{2m_1/M}e^{m_1l},$$
(7)
are exponentially suppressed. When the expansion rate $`H`$ after the end of inflation decreases below $`M_1`$, $`\stackrel{~}{N}_1`$ starts coherently oscillating. Given a condition on the post-inflationary reheating temperature $`T_R`$ (to be discussed below), the oscillation energy dominates the energy density of the early universe, and its decay produces the baryon asymmetry observed today without any cosmological difficulty.

If the Yukawa couplings $`\lambda _{N,ij}`$ of the $`N_j`$ have $`CP`$ violating phases, the decay of $`\stackrel{~}{N}_1`$ produces a lepton-number asymmetry $`\epsilon _1`$ given by

$$\epsilon _11\times 10^{10}(M_1/10^6\mathrm{GeV})(m_{\nu _3}/0.05\mathrm{eV})\delta _{eff}.$$
(8)
Here, $`\delta _{eff}`$ is an effective $`CP`$ violating phase. This lepton asymmetry is converted into a combined baryon and lepton asymmetry through non-perturbative electroweak sphaleron effects. A crucial observation of ref.  is that the final baryon asymmetry is determined by the reheating temperature, $`T_{N_1}`$, of the $`\stackrel{~}{N}_1`$ decay once it dominates the energy density of the early universe. The net baryon to entropy ratio is given by

$$n_B/s(8/23)(3/4)\epsilon _1(T_{N_1}/M_1)0.3\times 10^{10}(T_{N_1}/10^6\mathrm{GeV})(m_{\nu _3}/0.05\mathrm{eV})\delta _{eff},$$
(9)
where $`n_B`$ and $`s`$ are baryon-number and entropy densities, respectively. The observed baryon asymmetry $`n_B/s(0.41)\times 10^{10}`$ is obtained by taking $`T_{N_1}2\times 10^6\mathrm{GeV}`$ for $`\delta _{eff}1`$. On the other hand, the reheating temperature $`T_{N_1}`$ due to $`\stackrel{~}{N}_1`$ decay is given by $`T_{N_1}^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{N_1}\overline{M}_P`$, where the decay rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{N_1}`$ is

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{N_1}(3/4\pi )\lambda _{N,i1}^2M_1.$$
(10)
We see that the desired reheating temperature $`T_{N_1}2\times 10^6\mathrm{GeV}`$ is obtained for $`m_1l=11`$, where we have used Eqs. (5) and (7). Notice that the rhd neutrino mass $`M_13\times 10^6\mathrm{GeV}>T_{N_1}`$, and hence the out-of-equilibrium condition for $`\stackrel{~}{N}_1`$ decay is automatically satisfied.

Let us now discuss the condition for the $`\stackrel{~}{N}_1`$ domination in the early universe. Since the initial value of $`|\stackrel{~}{N}_1|10^{17}\mathrm{GeV}`$, the energy density of the coherent $`\stackrel{~}{N}_1`$ oscillation, at the start of this oscillation, is a minor component of the total density. However, if the $`\stackrel{~}{N}_1`$ lifetime is sufficiently longer than that of the inflaton, it can dominate the early universe since the energy density of the radiation resulting from the inflaton decay dilutes faster than the energy density of the coherent oscillation. Thus, the condition for the $`\stackrel{~}{N}_1`$ domination is translated to an upper limit on the inflaton lifetime for a given $`\stackrel{~}{N}_1`$ lifetime. Written in terms of the post-inflationary reheating temperature, $`T_R`$, this condition is

$$T_R>3T_{N_1}(\overline{M}_P/|\stackrel{~}{N}_1|)^22\times 10^9\mathrm{GeV},$$
(11)
which is easily satisfied in a variety of inflationary models.

The post-inflationary reheating temperature must also satisfy an upper bound so as to avoid the over-production of gravitinos. In the standard cosmology (without $`\stackrel{~}{N}_1`$ domination) the upper bound is determined to be $`T_R<10^{10}\mathrm{GeV}`$ for a gravitino mass $`1\mathrm{TeV}`$  (for a recent analysis see also ), giving a stringent restriction on inflationary models.

However, with $`\stackrel{~}{N}`$-dominated cosmology, only a weaker constraint applies. The reason for this is that $`\stackrel{~}{N}_1`$ decay reheats the universe once more, and the associated entropy production dilutes substantially the density of earlier-produced gravitinos. In detail, start from a situation where $`T_R`$ is at its lower bound given by Eq. (11) and raise the reheating temperature gradually. While the post-inflationary gravitino production increases proportionally to $`T_R`$, the subsequent $`\stackrel{~}{N}_1`$ decay introduces the dilution factor

$$1/\mathrm{\Delta }3T_{N_1}/T_R(\overline{M}_P/|\stackrel{~}{N}_1|)^2,$$
(12)
which precisely compensates the previous effect. Thus, the number density of gravitinos is determined by an effective reheating temperature $`T_{R,eff}`$ instead of the original $`T_R`$. This effective temperature is given by

$$T_{R,eff}=1/\mathrm{\Delta }\times T_R=3T_{N_1}(\overline{M}_P/|\stackrel{~}{N}_1|)^22\times 10^9\mathrm{GeV}.$$
(13)
However, if the reheating temperature rises above $`T_R10^{12}`$ GeV, the situation changes because now reheating takes place before $`\stackrel{~}{N_1}`$ oscillations start. While the initial gravitino production continues to grow with $`T_R`$, the dilution factor remains constant, giving

$$T_{R,eff}=1/\mathrm{\Delta }\times T_R=3T_{N_1}(\overline{M}_P/|\stackrel{~}{N}_1|)^2(T_R/10^{12}\mathrm{GeV})2\times 10^9\mathrm{GeV}(T_R/10^{12}\mathrm{GeV}).$$
(14)
Applying the analysis of Ref., we see that a gravitino of mass of order $`1\mathrm{TeV}`$ is consistent with a significantly extended range of post-inflationary reheating temperatures, $`T_R<10^{13}\mathrm{GeV}`$. Putting this upper bound together with our earlier lower bound from $`\stackrel{~}{N}`$ domination leads to an allowed range, $`2\times 10^9\mathrm{GeV}<T_R<10^{13}\mathrm{GeV}`$, for successful sneutrino-dominated leptogenesis.

## 4 Conclusions

In summary, we have presented a higher-dimensional scenario, well motivated from a particle-physics perspective, in which cosmological heavy sneutrino domination occurs naturally and low-scale leptogenesis is responsible for the observed baryon asymmetry of the universe. The entropy produced in the decay of the $`\stackrel{~}{N}`$ condensate dilutes unwanted relics from the period of reheating, alleviating in particular the danger of gravitino over-production.

We briefly comment on density perturbations in this scenario. The dominant density perturbation can originate from the fluctuations of $`\stackrel{~}{N}`$ during inflation . The deviation of the spectrum from scale invariance depends upon $`m_{\mathrm{eff}}^2/H_{\mathrm{inf}}^2`$, where $`m_{\mathrm{eff}}^2`$ is the effective (mass)2 discussed at the beginning of Sect. 3. Scale invariance thus requires the dimensionless Kähler potential couplings between $`N`$ and the inflaton to be slightly suppressed. Moreover, as in our scenario $`\stackrel{~}{N}`$ decay is the origin of baryon number asymmetry and dark matter, we necessarily have adiabatic perturbation dominance .

Thus, the role of the inflaton is reduced to providing a period of exponential expansion while its two main dynamical effects, the production of density perturbations and the reheating of the universe, are taken over by the heavy sneutrino. In fact, the presence of the inflaton mainly has a constraining effect – it has to decay sufficiently early to allow for heavy sneutrino domination and sufficiently late not to produce an excess of gravitinos. Thus, one might also wonder whether it is possible to get rid of the inflaton altogether. One obvious possibility would be to assume a sneutrino potential with a flat region away from the origin, so that a sufficiently long inflationary period driven by the sneutrino condensate is realized. It would be a very interesting and challenging task to understand the origin of such an unusual sneutrino potential.

Finally, we discuss a less radical way of avoiding the constraints associated with the decay of the inflaton entirely. If the inflaton potential is such that, in the true vacuum, the inflaton is massless, its energy density during the oscillation period decays faster444 We are grateful to J. Garcia-Bellido for helpful discussions on this point.  than that of $`\stackrel{~}{N}`$, which varies with the scale factor $`R`$ as $`R^3`$. Thus, the desired $`\stackrel{~}{N}`$ domination is always obtained. The masslessness of the inflaton is technically natural since we do not require any non-gravitational coupling of the inflaton to the matter sector. It would be interesting to write down and analyse a well-motivated and complete inflation model with a potential that leads to such a ‘harmless’ late time behaviour of the inflaton.

Acknowledgements: We thank David Lyth for helpful discussions. The work by T.Y. is supported in part by Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (S)14102004.