format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The possibility to perform a CKM-like precision physics in the leptonic sector employing terrestrial neutrino oscillation experiments has been deeply debated in the last few years. At present, the occurrence of neutrino oscillations seems rather well established . Current experimental evidence indicates two hierarchical mass scale differences ($`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2|\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2||\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2|`$) driving, respectively, the oscillations at the “solar” and “atmospheric” scale. Moreover, the $`\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2/|\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2|`$ ratio is constrained by the LMA solution of the solar neutrino puzzle to lie between $`𝒪(0.1)`$ and $`𝒪(0.01)`$ . If this scenario will be confirmed after the completion of ongoing experiments (K2K , KAMLAND  and MiniBoone ) and next generation long baseline projects (MINOS , ICARUS , OPERA ), terrestrial neutrino experiments based on “Superbeams” (SB) or “Neutrino Factories” (NF) could be the ideal tool for precision measurements of the PMNS  leptonic mixing matrix and the discovery of leptonic CP violation . These experiments explore subdominant effects in the neutrino transition probabilities at the atmospheric scale which, in general, are suppressed by at least one power of $`\alpha `$. Hence, the recent KAMLAND result places SB and NF proposals on a firmer ground since guarantees that subdominant effects will not be suppressed to an unobservable level ($`\alpha 10^2`$). This condition, however, is not enough to establish the physics reach of SB/NF. As for the case of CKM physics, CP violating effects depend on the size of the Jarlskog invariant . In the standard parameterization  of the PMNS matrix this coefficient can be expressed as:

$$Js_{12}s_{23}s_{13}c_{12}c_{23}c_{13}^2\mathrm{sin}\delta =\frac{1}{8}\mathrm{sin}2\theta _{12}\mathrm{sin}2\theta _{23}\mathrm{sin}2\theta _{13}c_{13}\mathrm{sin}\delta $$
(1)
where $`s_{ij}\mathrm{sin}\theta _{ij}`$ and $`c_{ij}\mathrm{cos}\theta _{ij}`$. Differently from the quark case, the leptonic Jarlskog invariant is enhanced by the large mixing angles $`\theta _{23}`$ and $`\theta _{12}`$. On the other hand, due to the null result of the CHOOZ  and PALO VERDE  experiments, the full three-flavor mixing of neutrinos is still unestablished and only upper limits on the $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}`$ parameter have been drawn ($`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}<𝒪(10^1)`$). Moreover, no theoretical inputs are available to constrain the size of $`\theta _{13}`$ in a convincing manner, so that its experimental determination is mandatory. The discovery of $`\theta _{13}0`$ has not only a scientific relevance but also a high practical value. The commissioning and running of an apparatus to observe CP violation in the leptonic sector at the atmospheric scale (e.g. JHF-Phase II or a Neutrino Factory) is a major technical and economical challenge; since most of its physics reach - in particular the measurement of leptonic CP violation and the determination of $`U_{e3}`$ in the PMNS matrix - depends crucially on the size of $`\theta _{13}`$, the latter should be determined by “Phase I” experiments (e.g. JHF-SK  or NuMI Off-Axis ) tuned to maximize their $`\theta _{13}`$ sensitivity. Otherwise, the physics case of SB/NF should be drawn independently of their PMNS reach. This is marginally possible for JHF-Phase II (proton decay with HyperK) but rather unrealistic for NF. The physics case of Phase I experiments is very appealing due to their unprecedented precision in the determination of the parameters leading the oscillations at the atmospheric scale ($`\theta _{23}`$ and $`|\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2|`$) and their significant discovery potential for high values of $`\theta _{13}`$. On the other hand, the sensitivity of Phase I experiments to $`\theta _{13}`$ has been questioned since a significant deterioration is expected once we account for our complete ignorance of the leptonic CP phase, the sign of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2`$ and the $`\theta _{23}`$ ambiguity . In this context, the advantage of a “pure” $`\theta _{13}`$ measurement has been put forward especially in connection with new reactor experiments .

In this letter we quantify the trade-off between a setup optimized to be ancillary with respect the SB/NF project (maximum $`\theta _{13}`$ sensitivity) and one highly sensitive to the subdominant terms of the transition probability (maximum discovery potential). In particular, we challenge the claim that a Phase I experiment can reach a sensitivity able to ground (or discourage in a definitive manner) the building of SB/NF and show that, in case of null results and without a dedicated $`\overline{\nu }`$ run, this capability is almost saturated by first generation long baseline experiments like CNGS.

## 2 Oscillation probabilities

The next generation long baseline experiments (MINOS, ICARUS and OPERA) and Phase I experiments (JHF-SK and NuMI Off-Axis) employ baselines in the 300-700 km range. In most of the cases, the neutrino energy is optimized to maximize the oscillation probability at the atmospheric scale for the corresponding baseline ($`E_\nu 0.73`$ GeV). The CNGS experiments, however, make use of a high energy beam, well beyond the kinematic threshold for $`\tau `$ production ($`E_\nu 17`$ GeV). The main parameters for the setups under consideration are listed in Table 1. In all cases the subleading oscillations at the solar scale are suppressed by at least one order of magnitude compared with the atmospheric ones. Hence, oscillation probabilities can be expanded in the small parameters $`\alpha `$ and $`\mathrm{sin}2\theta _{13}`$. The inclusion of matter effects is simplified here, since the earth density can be considered constant along baselines shorter than $``$1000 km. In particular, the $`\nu _\mu \nu _e`$ oscillation probability can be expressed as :

$`P_{\nu _\mu \nu _e}`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{23}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}^2[(1\widehat{A})\mathrm{\Delta }]}{(1\widehat{A})^2}}`$ (2)
$``$ $`\alpha \mathrm{sin}2\theta _{13}\xi \mathrm{sin}\delta \mathrm{sin}(\mathrm{\Delta }){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}(\widehat{A}\mathrm{\Delta })}{\widehat{A}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}[(1\widehat{A})\mathrm{\Delta }]}{(1\widehat{A})}}`$
$`+`$ $`\alpha \mathrm{sin}2\theta _{13}\xi \mathrm{cos}\delta \mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Delta }){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}(\widehat{A}\mathrm{\Delta })}{\widehat{A}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}[(1\widehat{A})\mathrm{\Delta }]}{(1\widehat{A})}}`$
$`+`$ $`\alpha ^2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _{23}\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{12}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}^2(\widehat{A}\mathrm{\Delta })}{\widehat{A}^2}}`$
$``$ $`O_1+O_2(\delta )+O_3(\delta )+O_4.`$
In this formula $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2L/(4E)`$ and the terms contributing to the Jarlskog invariant are split into the small parameter $`\mathrm{sin}2\theta _{13}`$, the $`𝒪(1)`$ term $`\xi \mathrm{cos}\theta _{13}\mathrm{sin}2\theta _{12}\mathrm{sin}2\theta _{23}`$ and the CP term $`\mathrm{sin}\delta `$; $`\widehat{A}2\sqrt{2}G_Fn_eE/\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2`$ with $`G_F`$ the Fermi coupling constant and $`n_e`$ the electron density in matter. Note that the sign of $`\widehat{A}`$ depends on the sign of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2`$ which is positive (negative) for normal (inverted) hierarchy of neutrino masses. The dominant contributions among the four terms $`O_1\mathrm{}O_4`$ of Eq. 2 are determined by the choice of $`L`$ and $`E`$. In the following, if not stated explicitly, we assume the present best fits for the solar and atmospheric parameters ($`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2=7.3\times 10^5`$ eV2, $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{12}=0.8`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2=2.5\times 10^3`$ eV2, $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{23}=1`$ 333 For $`\theta _{23}\pi /4`$ other degenerate solutions appear at $`\theta _{23}^{}=\pi /2\theta _{23}`$ ..

### JHF-SK

JHF-SK has been tuned to maximize the discovery potential and subdominant contributions depending on the CP phase are enhanced. Given its short baseline matter effects represent a small correction to the oscillation probability ($`\widehat{A}5\times 10^2`$). Assuming an average neutrino energy of 0.76 GeV, the following hierarchy among the terms of Eq. 2 is obtained:

$`P_{\nu _\mu \nu _e}`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}A_1\mathrm{sin}\delta \mathrm{sin}2\theta _{13}\alpha A_2+\mathrm{cos}\delta \mathrm{sin}2\theta _{13}\alpha \mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Delta })A_3+\alpha ^2A_4`$ (3)
where the $`A_i`$ ($`i=1,\mathrm{}4`$) coefficients are $`𝒪(1)`$. The actual values of the terms contributing to Eq. 2 are shown in Fig. 1. Here, the $`\delta `$-depending terms $`O_2`$ and $`O_3`$ are computed at maximum amplitude, $`O_2=O_2(\delta =\pi /2)`$ and $`O_3=O_3(\delta =0)`$, to illustrate the impact of assuming complete ignorance on $`\delta `$ in the extraction of $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}`$. Of course, in the oscillation probability formula when $`O_2`$ ($`O_3`$) is maximal, i.e. $`\delta =\pi /2`$ ($`\delta =0`$), the other coefficient $`O_3`$ ($`O_2`$) is zero. For $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}`$ sufficiently high:

$$P_{\nu _\mu \nu _e}\mathrm{sin}2\theta _{13}(\mathrm{sin}2\theta _{13}A_1\mathrm{sin}\delta \alpha A_2)$$
(4)
Eq. 3 and 4 show that the deterioration of the $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}`$ sensitivity coming from the $`\theta _{13}`$-$`\delta `$ ambiguity  is strictly connected to the mass scale ratio $`\alpha `$. Hence, the maximum sensitivity is achieved in the limit $`\alpha 0`$ which corresponds to minimum sensitivity to the subdominant terms of $`P_{\nu _\mu \nu _e}`$ (minimum discovery potential). Clearly, this contradictory request is at the origin of the conflict between setups ancillary to SB/NF and experiments able to explore a significant fraction of the PMNS parameter space. For JHF-SK, the deterioration effect becomes sizable already at $`\theta _{13}3^{}`$ (see Fig. 1). Values of $`\alpha `$ higher than the ones assumed in Fig. 1 ($`\alpha 0.03`$) imply earlier appearance of the ($`\theta _{13}\delta `$) deterioration effect.

Note that Eq. 3 cannot be used in a straightforward manner to extract the actual sensitivity of a Phase I experiment. The signal rate is:

$$SYA𝑑E\mathrm{\Phi }(E)P_{\nu _\mu \nu _e}(E)\sigma (E)ϵ(E)$$
(5)
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }(E)`$ is the $`\nu _\mu `$ flux at the surface of the detector, $`A`$ is proportional to the detector mass, $`Y`$ are the years of data taking and $`\sigma (E)ϵ(E)`$ is the production cross-section weighted with the detection efficiency for the $`\nu _e`$ CC final state. The signal rate is proportional to $`P_{\nu _\mu \nu _e}(E)`$ only in the narrow band limit $`\mathrm{\Phi }(E)\delta (EE)`$. The minimum accessible probability $`P_{min}`$ depends on the background rate and it has to be computed through a full simulation. We further address this issue in Sec. 3. Finally, note that for $`P_{min}`$ sufficiently low (“Phase II” measurements), setups can be envisaged to lift explicitly the $`\theta _{13}\delta `$ ambiguity, e.g. combining different baselines  or different oscillation channels  or building a single baseline experiment with a detector capable of observing more than one oscillation peak .

### NuMI Off-Axis and MINOS

The NuMI Off-Axis proposal envisages the possibility of getting a very narrow $`\nu _\mu `$ beam placing a dedicated detector for $`\nu _e`$ appearance (20 kton, low-Z calorimeter) at an angle of $`0.7^{}`$ with respect to the present NuMI axis. Again, L and $`E`$ are tuned close to the first oscillation maximum at the atmospheric scale. A significant reduction of the background coming from $`\nu _\mu `$ NC with $`\pi ^0`$ production can be reached, compared with the MINOS setup, thanks to the suppression of the high energy tail of the $`\nu _\mu `$ beam. Once more, the terms contributing to Eq. 2 keeps the form of Eq. 3 with $`A_i`$ ($`i=1,\mathrm{}4`$) ranging between 0.4 and 0.6. However, both MINOS and NuMI Off-Axis employ a baseline of $`700`$ km and matter effects are sizable ($`\widehat{A}0.2`$) in this regime since they modify the size of the leading term $`A_1`$. As a consequence, these setups offer a significant sensitivity to the sign of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2`$. On the other hand, if it is not possible to disentangle the sign($`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2`$) degeneracy from the effect proportional to $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}`$, an additional source of deterioration of the $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}`$ sensitivity appears. In principle, it could be possible to re-tune NuMI Off-Axis releasing the condition $`\mathrm{\Delta }\pi /2`$ and, hence, modifying the relative weights of the $`A_i`$ coefficients. In this scenario, NuMI would be complementary to JHF-SK since the former would lower its bare $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}`$ sensitivity allowing the latter to relieve the ($`\delta \theta _{13}`$) deterioration discussed above. This possibility and the overall improvement in the PMNS reach of the synergic JHF/NuMI physics programme has been discussed in details in  and will not be further considered here.

### CNGS

The CNGS beam has been tuned to reach maximum sensitivity to the $`\nu _\tau `$ appearance channel. To overcome the limitation of the high threshold for $`\tau `$ production, the condition $`\mathrm{\Delta }\pi /2`$ has been given up and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{CNGS}𝒪(10^1)`$. As a consequence, the oscillation probability is suppressed by the dumping term $`\mathrm{\Delta }^2𝒪(10^2)`$

$$P(\nu _\mu \nu _\tau )\mathrm{cos}^4\theta _{13}\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{23}\mathrm{\Delta }^2$$
(6)
but the event rate profits of the high $`\nu _\tau `$-CC cross-section. The same dumping factor limits the search for $`\nu _\mu \nu _e`$. Again, this loss of signal events is partially compensated by the linear rise of the $`\nu _e`$-CC cross-section and by the high granularity of the corresponding detectors tuned for $`\nu _\tau `$ (in particular $`\tau e`$) appearance and hence, extremely effective in suppressing the NC($`\pi ^0`$) and $`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau \tau (e)X`$ background. It has been shown  that ICARUS and OPERA combined could explore the region down to $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}0.025`$ at $`|\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2|=2.5\times 10^3`$ eV2 and assuming $`6.75\times 10^{19}`$ pot/year ($`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}<0.03`$ for ICARUS and $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}<0.05`$ for OPERA separately). The analysis is dominated by the statistical fluctuations of the $`\nu _e`$ beam contamination from $`K_{e3}`$ decays and, for higher exposure time, by the systematics uncertainty on its overall normalization 444The CNGS physics programme does not foresee the construction of a near detector. (see Fig. 7 in Section 3). However, this analysis does not include the deterioration effect coming from the CP phase and the sign of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2`$. In principle, matter effects should be even higher than NuMI because $`\widehat{A}`$ grows linearly with $`E`$ and the two setups have the same baseline ($`\widehat{A}1.6`$). However, since $`|(1\widehat{A})\mathrm{\Delta }|1`$, we get:

$$\frac{\mathrm{sin}^2[(1\widehat{A})\mathrm{\Delta }]}{(1\widehat{A})^2}\mathrm{\Delta }^2$$
(7)
and the leading term $`A_1`$ turns out to be unaffected by the sign of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2`$. Eq. 2 reads now:

$$P_{\nu _\mu \nu _e}\left[\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}A_1\mathrm{sin}\delta \mathrm{sin}2\theta _{13}\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }A_2+\mathrm{cos}\delta \mathrm{sin}2\theta _{13}\alpha A_3+\alpha ^2A_4\right]\mathrm{\Delta }^2$$
(8)
and, again, $`A_1\mathrm{}A_4`$ are $`𝒪(1)`$ coefficients, albeit different from the ones of Eq. 3. The values of the terms contributing to Eq. 2 at CNGS are shown in Fig. 2. The overall scale is suppressed by $`\mathrm{\Delta }^2`$ and the role of the $`O_2`$ and $`O_3`$ terms are exchanged w.r.t. JHF due to the different size of $`\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Here, $`O_3`$ is responsible for the ($`\delta \theta _{13}`$) deterioration effect which is sizable in the same $`\theta _{13}`$ region as for JHF. Note, however, that $`O_3`$ ($`O_2`$) is odd (even) under the transformation $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2`$; so, at CNGS, going from normal to inverted hierarchy has the same effect of performing a $`\delta \pi \delta `$ transformation in the CP phase. Note also that both JHF-SK and CNGS see a deterioration of their sensitivity to $`\theta _{13}`$ starting from the $`3^{}`$ region (or before for higher $`\alpha `$).

## 3 Numerical calculations

Analyses of the $`\nu _\mu \nu _e`$ channel in the leading order approximation $`P(\nu _\mu \nu _e)O_1`$ have been published by the collaborations involved in the Phase I and next generation long baseline experiments. Hence, it is possible to make a reliable estimation of the actual sensitivities side-stepping the full simulation of the various setups. The condition that excludes a point $`(\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13},\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2)`$ of the parameter space at a given confidence level, once the null hypothesis $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}=0`$ has been experimentally observed and a given value of $`\delta `$ is assumed, is

$$\chi ^2(\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13},\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2)>\zeta $$
(9)
where

$`\chi ^2(\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13},\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2)\left({\displaystyle \frac{R^{th}R^{obs}}{\sigma }}\right)^2=`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\left[(S(\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13},\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2)+B)(S_{null}+B)\right]^2}{S_{null}+B+\eta ^2B^2}}>\zeta `$ (10)
In this formula, which holds in Gaussian approximation, $`R^{th}`$ is the expected $`\nu _e`$ rate for the current value of ($`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13},\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2`$) and $`R^{obs}`$ is the rate corresponding to the null hypothesis. Eq. 2 shows that the null hypothesis is independent of the CP phase and the sign of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2`$ and depends only on $`|\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2|`$. $`S`$ and $`B`$ represent the signal and background rate, $`\eta `$ is the systematic uncertainty on the background normalization and $`\zeta `$ is a constant depending on the confidence level ($`\zeta =4.6`$ for 90% CL contours). If the $`\tau e`$ contamination is negligible w.r.t. the NC($`\pi ^0`$) and the $`\nu _e`$ contamination from the beam in the $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2`$ region of interest, $`B`$ is independent of the oscillation parameters. Dropping the $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2`$ dependence, the minimum value of $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}`$ excluded by the experiment is the one fulfilling:

$$\frac{\left[(S(\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13})+B)(S_{null}+B)\right]^2}{S_{null}+B+\eta ^2B^2}=\zeta $$
(11)
The expected signal rate in Eq. 10 can be written (see Eq. 5) as:

$$S(\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13},\delta )YA𝑑E\mathrm{\Phi }(E)P_{\nu _\mu \nu _e}(\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13},\delta ,E)\sigma (E)ϵ(E)$$
(12)
and in the narrow beam approximation ($`\overline{E}E`$ )

$$S(\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13},\delta )=Y\gamma P_{\nu _\mu \nu _e}(\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13},\delta ,\overline{E})$$
(13)
where

$$\gamma A\mathrm{\Phi }(\overline{E})\sigma (\overline{E})ϵ(\overline{E})$$
(14)
Similarly, $`S_{null}=Y\gamma P_{\nu _\mu \nu _e}(\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}=0,\overline{E})Y\gamma P_{null}(\overline{E})`$ and $`BY\beta `$, being $`\beta `$ the background rate per year. Now Eq. 10 reads:

$`P(\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13},\delta ,\overline{E})`$ $`>`$ $`P_{null}(\overline{E})+\sqrt{\zeta }\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{Y\gamma ^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\eta ^2\beta ^2}{\gamma ^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{P_{null}(\overline{E})}{Y\gamma }}\right\}^{1/2}`$ (15)
$`P_{null}(\overline{E})+\sqrt{\zeta }\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{Y\gamma ^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\eta ^2\beta ^2}{\gamma ^2}}\right\}^{1/2}`$
Exclusion plots for $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}`$ are available  in the approximation $`P(\nu _\mu \nu _e)O_1`$. This corresponds to the assumption $`\delta =0`$ for on-peak experiment ($`\mathrm{\Delta }\pi /2`$) and $`\delta =\pi /2`$ for off-peak ones ($`\mathrm{\Delta }\pi /2`$). Hence, it is possible to extract the minimum accessible probability $`P_{min}`$:

$$P_{min}\sqrt{\zeta }\left\{\frac{\beta }{Y\gamma ^2}+\frac{\eta ^2\beta ^2}{\gamma ^2}\right\}^{1/2}$$
(16)
from literature and compute Eq. 15 using the correct oscillation probability 555The results shown in this sections have been obtained using the complete three family oscillation formula at constant matter density and not the approximate expansion of Eq. 2.. Fig. 3 shows the $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}`$ sensitivity at 90% CL as a function of $`\delta `$ for JHF-SK and CNGS. Note that for positive values of the CP phase, the $`\delta `$ dependence of JHF-SK has the worst possible behaviour for a Phase I experiment, since the minimum sensitivity to $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}`$ is achieved at maximum CP violation (maximum discovery potential of phase II setups). This is illustrated in Fig.4. Plot (a) shows the region where a $`3\sigma `$ discovery of CP violation at JHF-HK can be achieved as a function of $`\mathrm{sin}\delta `$ and $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}`$ . The horizontal band is the exclusion limit of JHF-SK at 90%CL in the approximation $`P(\nu _\mu \nu _e)O_1`$. The correct exclusion limit from JHF-SK is shown in plot (b) for positive (dashed line) or negative (dotted line) $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2`$. Assuming complete ignorance on the value of the CP phase and using no other external information to lift the $`\theta _{13}\delta `$ ambiguity (e.g. an $`\overline{\nu }`$ run with similar statistics), the actual excluded $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}`$ is

$$\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}|_{excl}=\underset{\pi <\delta <\pi }{\mathrm{max}}\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}|_{excl}(\delta )$$
(17)
In other words, the effective sensitivity is computed “finding the largest value of $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}`$ which fits the true $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}=0`$ at the selected confidence level” . If we assume complete ignorance also on the sign of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2`$ the final excluded value of $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}`$ is the maximum between the value of $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}`$ calculated by Eq. 17 assuming $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2>0`$ and the one with $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2<0`$.

Fig. 5 shows the expected precision for the experiments considered in Sec. 2 for $`|\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2|=\mathrm{3\; 10}^3`$ eV2 and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2=\mathrm{7.3\; 10}^5`$ eV2. The empty boxes indicate the deterioration coming from the integration on the CP phase $`\delta `$. Full boxes show the effect of the sign$`(\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2)`$ degeneracy. A few comments are in order. Both JHF-SK and CNGS appear to be almost insensitive to the sign of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2`$ but in fact the effect is subtler. In JHF-SK, the leading term $`O_1`$ is independent of the transformation $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2`$ thanks to the smallness of the $`\widehat{A}`$ parameter. $`O_2`$ is invariant under this transformation and $`O_3`$ is suppressed as well as $`O_4`$. On the other hand, at CNGS the leading term $`O_1`$ does not depend significantly on the $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2`$ sign thanks to the cancellation of matter effect at work for small values of $`|(1\widehat{A})\mathrm{\Delta }|`$ (see Sec. 2). The next-to-leading term in the oscillation probability ($`O_3`$) is odd under the sign exchange. This effect is equivalent to a $`\delta \pi \delta `$ transformation so that the same variation of probability appears during the integration in $`\delta `$; hence, in Fig. 5 the deterioration of the sensitivity coming from the sign degeneracy is absorbed into the deterioration caused by the CP phase. This different behavior is unveiled examining the exclusion plots at different values of $`\delta `$ (Fig. 3666Note that for values of $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}`$ close to the CHOOZ limit, it could be possible to use synergically JHF-SK and CNGS to get information on the hierarchy of neutrino masses.. On the other hands, MINOS and NuMI Off-Axis have the highest sensitivity to the $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2`$ transformation since the condition $`\widehat{A}0`$ affects directly the leading term $`O_1`$. Plots similar to Fig. 5 have already been obtained for JHF and NuMI Off-Axis by the authors of  using a detailed simulation of the setups. The bands of Fig. 5 corresponding to these experiments are in good agreement with their results. The CNGS sensitivity has been cross-checked applying the full oscillation probability to the analysis described in . The sensitivity deterioration at $`|\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2|=\mathrm{3\; 10}^3`$ eV2 for the two experiments separately is $`0.0250.034`$ (ICARUS) and $`0.0350.045`$ (OPERA).

In Sec. 2 we argued that the trade-off between maximal $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}`$ sensitivity and maximal PMNS reach is connected with the size of the ratio $`\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2/|\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2|`$. Fig. 6 shows the $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}`$ sensitivity versus $`\alpha `$ for mass ratios up to $`10^1`$. As expected, the Phase I experiments loose their capability to perform a “pure” $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}`$ measurement in the high-LMA region of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2`$. Note also that the present CHOOZ limits become more stringent in the high-$`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2`$ regime .

Fig. 7-a describes the sensitivity in $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}`$ versus the integrated flux expressed in years of data taking, assuming the nominal intensity of JHF-SK 777It corresponds to a proton intensity of 0.7 MW. Note that 1 year of JHF-HK data taking corresponds to about 125 years of JHF-SK due to the increase of beam intensity and detector mass.. The limits have been extracted rescaling naively with $`\sqrt{Y}`$ the minimum accessible probability $`P_{min}`$ and ignoring the saturation effect coming from the background normalization. In fact, JHF is expected to be limited by systematics only in the Phase II of its physics programme. It is worth noting that the deterioration coming from the degeneracies does not imply a plateau of the sensitivity. Phase II experiments will access a region of $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}`$ deeper than the one accessible by their Phase I counterparts. As an example in Fig. 7-a the achievable sensitivity on $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}`$ after one year data taking of JHF-HK is shown ($`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2=7.3\times 10^5`$ eV2).

After the $`\overline{\nu }`$ run, JHF-HK will be able to observe maximal CP violation in the leptonic sector down to $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}2\times 10^3`$ for $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^25\times 10^5`$ eV2  and the highest the solar mass, the better the CP-sensitivity (the worse the Phase I “pure” $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}`$ sensitivity). So, a null result of JHF-SK cannot rule out convincingly the possibility to perform PMNS precision physics with terrestrial experiments. Of course, this holds also for the Neutrino Factories which have an even higher CP sensitivity than JHF-HK.

Finally, Fig. 7-b shows the $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}`$ sensitivity versus the exposure for a CNGS-like beam. For the actual CNGS, the background systematics $`\eta `$ cannot be neglected. The horizontal lines in the plot indicate the region where the beam systematics will saturate the limits on $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}`$ ($`\sqrt{B}=\eta B`$). They correspond to a precision in the normalization of the $`\nu _e`$ background of 10% and 5%. The limit from beam systematics for a setup with a near detector ($`\eta 2`$%) is also shown.

Up to now, we only considered the interplay between on-peak and off-peak beams in the case of null result. However, for high values of $`\theta _{13}`$ ($`\theta _{13}>7^{}`$) CNGS could be able to establish $`\nu _\mu \nu _e`$ oscillations at $`3\sigma `$ level for any value of $`\delta `$. In this scenario, a very strong improvement in the measurement of the angle (as a function of $`\delta `$) is obtained after the JHF-SK data taking. The three plots on the left of Fig. 8 show the 90% CL allowed region after 5 years of CNGS data taking for $`\theta _{13}=10^{}`$, normal hierarchy and $`\delta =90^{}`$ (upper), $`\delta =0^{}`$ (middle), $`\delta =90^{}`$ (lower plot). The plots on the right show the corresponding regions obtained combining CNGS data with a 5-year run of JHF-SK. Note that the combined $`(\theta _{13},\delta )`$ band has no more uniform width, as it would be for JHF-SK alone, and shrinking of the region around $`\delta =\pm 90^{}`$ results from the combination of experiments with different $`(\theta _{13},\delta )`$ patterns. Clearly, it is possible to lift explicitly the $`(\theta _{13},\delta )`$ correlation after a $`\overline{\nu }`$ run. For the optimization of the JHF-SK $`\nu +\overline{\nu }`$ data taking in case of positive signal, we refer to .

## 4 Conclusions

Phase I experiments will measure the parameters leading the oscillations at the atmospheric scale with unprecedented precision. They will fix the $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{23}`$ and $`|\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2|`$ terms at the 1% level and observe a clear oscillation patters in $`\nu _\mu `$ disappearance mode. Moreover, they can test the subdominant $`\nu _\mu \nu _e`$ transition improving significantly the present knowledge of $`\theta _{13}`$. On the other hand, the actual sensitivity to $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}`$ is strongly deteriorated by the present ignorance on the CP violating phase and the sign of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2`$. In Sec. 3 it has been shown that, in case of null result, the improvements in the exclusion limits for $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}`$ will be marginal with respect to long baseline experiments like ICARUS and OPERA ($`0.030.015`$) at $`\alpha 0.02`$ and negligible for higher values of $`\alpha `$. On the other hand, a high solar scale ($`\alpha >0.02`$) enhances significantly the capability of Superbeam and Neutrino Factory to access CP violation even for values of $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}𝒪(10^3÷10^4)`$. Hence, a null result at Phase I will not constrain in a significant way the physics reach of SB/NF. Clearly, it is impossible to tune a Phase I experiment to reach simultaneously a high $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}`$ sensitivity (setups “ancillary” to Phase II) and a high sensitivity to the CP phase and the mass hierarchy (setups with high “PMNS reach”). At present we do not know if JHF-SK and NuMI Off-Axis belong to the former or latter category, due to the large uncertainty on $`\alpha `$. Anyway, a real Phase I experiment (or cluster of experiments) performing a “pure” $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}`$ along the line proposed by the authors of  would be highly advisable to firmly ground the SB/NF physics programme.

## Acknowledgements

We thank A. Donini, M. Lindner, M. Mezzetto and P. Strolin for discussions and careful reading of the manuscript. We are indebted to D. Meloni for providing us with the three family oscillation code and to P. Huber for useful remarks on Eq. 2.


text:
# Recursive function templates as a solution of linear algebra expressions in C++

## Introduction

The C++ programming language has a powerful template facility that enables the development of flexible software without incurring a large abstraction penalty ,. The main goal is the resolving of all templates of a program during the compilation time. In this way C++ language can be meant as a two-level language . A function template takes both template parameters (solved in the compilation time) and function arguments (work dynamically in the program code).

A naive implementation of linear algebra operations in C++ using the known object-oriented features, such as providing of classes and operator overloading, yields an inefficient code. The main reason for that is generation of temporary objects by each overloaded operator (1). This problem is usually solved by expression templates technique ,, which is implemented in the known optimized C++ libraries for linear algebra, e.g. valarray standard library (Linux RedHat 7.2), Blitz++ etc. Their tests and descriptions  prove that computational performance of such libraries can be equal to ones written in FORTRAN without any object-oriented limitations.

But there are some processor and cash oriented implementations, which have better performance. The best example of such linear algebra library is Basic Linear Algebra Subprograms . They exist for most of the hardware platforms with the same interface, although specifically implemented (in FORTRAN or Assembler) for some types of commonly used processors.

$$\begin{array}{cc}𝐳=\hfill & \underset{}{c𝐱}+𝐲\\ 𝐳=\hfill & \underset{}{𝐭_1+𝐲}\\ 𝐳=\hfill & 𝐭_2\end{array}$$
(1)
Therefore the combination of an expression templates abstraction with the incorporation of BLAS in a specialization can produce a better performance than the best pure C++ libraries.

## Expression templates

We consider a simple example of a vector expression (2) to see, how the expression templates are used to collect the arguments and the operators of the vector expression.

$$X=A+B+C.$$
(2)
As assumed in C++, the right hand side of the equation (2) is resolved from left to right before the assign operator is applied. So, we have the series of operators:

1. $`X=A+B+C`$. The first operator ’+’ is applied.
2. $`X=BinClos<A,B,+>+C`$. The second operator ’+’ is applied.
3. $`X=BinClos<BinClos<A,B,+>,C,+>`$. The assign operator ’=’ is applied.

We have just introduced a new symbolic notation BinClos for a binary operation. It looks intentionally like a template class, where $`A`$, $`B`$ and ’+’ must be data types as template parameters. The basic trick of the approach is to substitute a template class as a template parameter into itself and to build parse trees using operator overloading .

The C++ class for description of binary expression closure is defined using three template parameters: the right and the left hand side and the operation. But it has also to save references (not the values) to the arguments of the binary expression:

```
template<class Left, class Right, class Oper>
struct BinClos {
   const Left&  arg1;
   const Right& arg2;
   BinClos(const Left& a, const Right& b):arg1(a),arg2(b) {}  //constructor
};

```

Now we have to declare the class for a vector, which can be implemented later. Further, the addition operator should be described as a data type. The simple structure includes only the function apply to realize the addition:

```
class Vector;     // some vector class
struct add {      // encapsulates the ’+’ operation
   static double apply(double a, double b) {
      return a+b;
   }
};

```

For the whole minimal implementation we need a C++ operator, that yields the structure BinClos. There are some possibilities to define this operator. The following example represents an addition of any object of type Left with a vector:

```
template<class Left>
BinClos<Left,Vector,add> operator + (Left& a, Vector& b) {
   return BinClos<Left,Vector,add>(a,b);
}

```

So, the right hand side of the equation (2) is gathered in the compile time to the single template structure:

BinClos\<BinClos\<Vector,Vector,add\>,Vector,add\> (3)
The next step in the solution of (2) is to assign the last complicated template structure (3) to the resulting vector $`X`$. We consider, at first, the usual approach that exists in the optimized C++ libraries, such as valarray and Blitz++ . It uses the operator overloading to assign the whole expression in only one loop per component (4).

$$X_i=A_i+B_i+C_i.$$
(4)
The structure BinClos is supplemented with an operator\[\], that adds $`i`$-th components of two data members arg1 and arg2 of the structure. If the arg1 (or arg2) is a simple vector, than the operator\[\] is called in the class Vector, else the same operator is called recursively in the structure BinClos. That process is started by operator=, which is represented by the single loop and calls operator\[\] due to the expr\[i\]:

```
template<class Left, class Right, class Oper>
struct BinClos {
   const Left&  arg1;
   const Right& arg2;
   BinClos(const Left& a, const Right& b):arg1(a),arg2(b) {}
   double operator[](int i) {
      return Oper::apply(arg1[i],arg2[i]);
   }
};
class Vector
   double* data;
   int     size;
public:
   ...  //definition of constructors
   template<class Left, class Right, class Oper>
   void operator=(const BinClos<Left,Right,Oper>& expr) {
      for (int i=0; i<size; ++i) data[i]=expr[i];
   }
   double operator[](int i)  { return data[i]; }
};

```

As it can be seen, the solution is distributed to some overloaded operators. Therefore, there is no possibility to substitute an external optimized subprogram. The next approach provides another template technique to realize the last step of the solution.

## Recursive function templates

The basic idea of the following approach is to divide the right hand side of (2) into simple units, which are bounded by addition or subtraction and than to apply the operations consequently to the vector $`X`$ (fig. 1). We have always two types of arguments and a type of operation at the top level of recursive built structure (3).

These two types can be applied to the $`X`$ with the type of the operation. If an argument is complicated, than the process continues in the same way recursively, else we get a simple addition or subtraction of a vector $`X`$ with another vector. The last can be done in a single function without any overloading of operators. In the next step we have to construct the recursion using such functions. The optimal decision in terms of maintaining the efficiency is to apply recursion with respect to the template parameters of the functions. In order to minimize the number of the function parameters the functions are implemented as member functions of the structure BinClos.

We need first to implement a C++ trait  to represent the rule of addition. In the terms of the set theory, we have a mapping:

$$\{+,+\}\{+\},\{+,\}\{\},\{,+\}\{\},\{,\}\{+\}.$$
(5)
Both addition and subtraction operations are now implemented as two empty structures and are used as template parameters for the recursive functions. They have only a meaning of different data types.

```
struct add {};
struct sub {};

```

The trait add\_rule receives two such empty structures as template parameters and produces the result of the data type oper. Two members of the mapping (5) are described by the next template instantiation:

```
template<class Op1, class Op2>
struct add_rule {
   typedef Op2 oper;
};

```

and the other two are specialized:

```
template<>
struct add_rule<sub,add> {
   typedef sub oper;
};
template<>
struct add_rule<sub,sub> {
   typedef add oper;
};

```

We have now all tools to implement recursive function templates. These are functions Assign and Operation (either addition or subtraction). The first function Assign assigns the first argument arg1 due to the recursive call of itself (see below). If the argument is simple, e.g. vector, than the same function has to be implemented in the corresponding class (e.g. class Vector). The function Assign has one template parameter, which defines the return type. Thus, it is generalized for any operation.

The second argument arg2 of the binary closure have to be added or subtracted from x. For this purpose, the function Operation is called. It receives also the second template parameter LeftOp to recognize the operation. The second function Operation is recursive too and used especially for C++ like expressions, e.g. $`X+=AB`$. In this case the first argument $`A`$ is added (first line of Operation implementation) and the second is subtracted. The last subtraction is obtained by compiler from two symbols $`\{+,\}`$ as data types with the help of the addition rule trait.

The function recursion must be finished. It means that two described template functions must be specialized as the member functions in each of the class (e.g. class Vector) that occurs in expressions resolved by this method.

```
template<class Left, class Right, class Oper>
struct BinClos {
   const Left&  arg1;
   const Right& arg2;
   BinClos(const Left& a, const Right& b):arg1(a),arg2(b) {}

   template<class Ret>
   void Assign(Ret x) {
      arg1.Assign<Ret>(x);
      arg2.Operation<Oper,Ret>(x);
   }
   template<class LeftOp, class Ret>
   void Operation(Ret x) {
      arg1.Operation<LeftOp,Ret>(x);
      arg2.Operation<typename add_rule<LeftOp,Oper>::oper,Ret>(x);
   }
};

```

The specialization in the class Vector is very simple using the BLAS library. The recursion process is initiated also in the class Vector from an overloaded operator, e.g. operator=, by corresponding call of the template function (e.g. Assign):

```
class Vector
   double* data;
   int     size;
public:
   ...  //definition of constructors
   template<class Left, class Right, class Oper>
   void operator=(const BinClos<Left,Right,Oper>& expr) {
      expr.Assign(data);
   }
   template<class LeftOp, class Ret>
   void Operation(Ret x) {
      cblas_daxpy(size,1.,data,1,x,1);   //sample specialization using CBLAS
   }
};

```

The provided template functions can be specialized in the structure BinClos for some often used short algebraic expressions. It also leads to the increase in computational efficiency. For instance:

```
template<> template<> inline void
BinClos<Vector,Vector,add>::Assign<double*>(double* x) {        // X=A+B
   . . .
}
template<> template<> inline void
BinClos<Vector,double,mul>::Operation<add,double*>(double* x) { // X+=c*A
   . . .
}

```

Moreover, multiplication operations, such as vector-constant and vector-matrix multiplications, must necessarily be specialized, because they cannot be partially applied to the vector $`X`$.

In a whole library for linear algebra we need to implement besides the binary expression closure in the same way a unary expression closure and a unary and a binary function closure. It is also important to consider that the described method of recursive functions does not work if any unspecialized expression in some mathematical function is substituted, for instance:

$$X=sin(A+B+C),\text{ where }X,A,B,C\text{ are vectors.}$$
(6)
The acceptable solution allows the library to yield a temporary vector $`T`$. This vector receives the expression value in the mathematical function ($`T=A+B+C`$) and than is plugged into the function ($`X=sin(T)`$). The copying of a complicated argument result to the temporary vector does not reduce the computational performance significantly. This can be evidently proved by the following performance tests.

## Performance tests

Three performance tests were developed to verify the functionality of the library and to find its weak points.

* Test 1: Short expressions. A vector-matrix product and a vector-constant product are repeated 1000 times. That combination is often used in many mathematical and engineering computations.
$`x=Ay,y=y+cx,c=const`$
* Test 2: Long expressions. The sum of 7 vector-constant products are calculated 100000 times. The test can show how slower is the evaluation using some loops (with the help of BLAS) and a single loop (due to overloaded operator\[\]).
$`y=y+c_1u_1+\mathrm{}+c_7u_7,y=c_8y,c_i=const`$
* Test 3: Long function expressions. The sum of 3 mathematical functions are calculated 50000 times. It has the same aim as the second test. The temporary vectors in the computation of mathematical functions and their penalty are tested.
$`y=y+log(u_1)cos(c_2u_2+u_3)+sin(c_4u_4+c_5u_5u_6),y=c_6y,c_i=const`$

The tests were performed on two completely different hardware platforms, that have their own specific optimized BLAS version:

* Intel Pentium III 800MHz with Linux RedHat 7.3.
Compiler: GNU C++, gcc 2.96 version. BLAS: Intel Math Kernel Library.
The first three bars of the test diagram (fig. 2) show the CPU time of the pure C++ implementation. It proves that the new implementation (third bar) has a performance similar to optimized libraries valarray and Blitz++. The implementation using BLAS is quicker in the most cases (test 1 and test 3), especially using hardware specific BLAS version Intel MKL. The last two bars in the tests 1 and 2 estimate the abstraction penalty, that is acceptable.
* IBM M80 enterprise server having 8 Power3 500MHz processors and IBM AIX operating system. (Each test uses one processor).
Compiler: GNU C++, gcc 2.95 version. BLAS: IBM ESSL library.
The both tests (fig. 3) do not show any abstraction penalty of the new library. The optimized BLAS (ESSL) library requires 2-3 times less computational time compared to the pure C++ implementation to the same task.

The same compiler with following optimization options was used on the both hardware platforms:

```
-O7 -ffast-math -funroll-loops -fomit-frame-pointer -fexpensive-optimizations

```

## Conclusions

The new library for the linear algebra was developed, which uses the expression templates technique and the optimized BLAS to achieve higher computational performance than the known C++ libraries. According to the BLAS specification the library provides vectors and matrices of only single and double precision types. Any other types are not allowed, although, the algebraic expressions resolved by the library are not limited and implemented traditionally for both general and sparse vectors and matrices.

The main trick of the implementation is the recursion of function templates realized by factitious empty classes add and sub. They have the aim to separate definition of structure BinClos and member function templates for addition and subtraction operations in the compilation time. Some old compilers do not allow to write function template if one of the template parameters is not a data type of an argument. For some C++ developer it can seem to be a mistake. But it works efficiently in the described implementation, since the template parameters are resolved in the compilation time without loss of the code performance. This code can be produced by some commonly used compilers:

* GNU C++, gcc 2.95x, gcc 2.96x, gcc 3.x versions
* Intel C++ compiler, version 5.0
* KAI C++ compiler


text:
# Right-Handed Sneutrinos as Curvatons

## 1 Introduction

The observation of neutrino masses and mass splittings, via solar and atmospheric neutrinos , strongly suggests the existence of right-handed (r.h.) neutrinos. In extensions of the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM)  which can accomodate neutrino masses we therefore expect to have right-handed sneutrinos. In the cosmology of the MSSM and its extensions, Bose condensates of scalar fields such as squarks and sleptons form naturally after inflation . These may have important consequences for cosmology; for example, they allow for the possibility of baryogenesis and leptogenesis via the Affleck-Dine mechanism . Since right-handed sneutrinos may also form condensates, it is important to consider in some detail the cosmological evolution of a r.h. sneutrino condensate.

Due to the weak coupling of the r.h. sneutrinos to the MSSM fields, a condensate of r.h. sneutrinos will be long-lived and so may come to dominate the energy density of the Universe before it decays. The question of whether the r.h. sneutrino condensate can dominate the energy density of the Universe when it decays has recently acquired some importance. It has been noted  that if a scalar dominates the energy density when it decays, and if that scalar is effectively massless during inflation, then quantum fluctuations of the scalar during inflation can in principle account for the primordial energy density perturbations leading to structure formation . This has been labelled the curvaton scenario . Should the curvaton be able to account for the density perturbations, the parameters of the inflation model would be more weakly constrained than in the conventional case where density perturbations arise from quantum fluctuations of the inflaton.

Thus if there exists a natural curvaton candidate such as the r.h. sneutrino, it is important to confirm or exclude that candidate as a curvaton111Models have recently been proposed where the curvaton corresponds to an MSSM flat direction scalar  and an MSSM Higgs scalar .. The main goal of this paper is to investigate the possibility of a r.h. sneutrino curvaton.

The masses of the r.h. sneutrinos and their coupling to the MSSM fields are determined by the model of neutrino masses, in particular whether they have Dirac masses or Majorana masses via a see-saw mechanism . The Yukawa coupling of the r.h. sneutrino to the MSSM fields plays a fundamental role in determining the evolution of the r.h. sneutrino condensate, in particular its decay temperature, its effective mass from interacting with the background of inflaton decay products  and its rate of thermalisation/scattering from the background.

Throughout this paper we will consider the simplest model for inflation and reheating, coresponding to a constant expansion rate during inflation followed by formation of a coherently oscillating inflaton condensate and reheating due to perturbative inflaton decays.

The paper is organised as follows. In Section 2 we discuss the cosmological enviroment due to perturbative inflaton decays. In Section 3 we consider the evolution of the r.h. sneutrino condensate in this enviroment. In Section 4 we present our conclusions.

## 2 Cosmological Background from Perturbative Inflaton Decays

After inflation we consider the inflaton $`S`$ to have a mass $`m_S`$ and to be coherently oscillating about the minimum of its potential. The inflaton is assumed to decay into pairs of relativistic MSSM particles with initial energy $`m_S/2`$. If the initial energy of the decay products is sufficiently large, the initial scattering rate of the inflaton decay products may be small enough that thermalisation only occurs once the Universe has expanded sufficiently for the decay product scattering rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{sc}`$ to exceed the expansion rate $`H`$. There are therefore two possibilities:
(a) Instantaneous Thermalisation. The inflaton decay products thermalise immediately after decay. In this case there will be two epochs: (i) Inflaton Matter Domination (IMD), where the energy density of the Universe is dominated by the coherently oscillating inflaton, and (ii) Radiation Domination (RD), defined to mean domination of the energy density of the Universe by relativistic inflaton decay products, not necessarily thermalised.

(b) Non-instantaneous Thermalisation. The relativistic inflaton decay products are unthermalised initially. In this case we will show that thermalisation cannot occur during IMD and so must occur during RD. Therefore in this case the background will have three distinct epochs: (i) IMD, (ii) RD pre-thermalisation and (iii) RD post-thermalisation.

### 2.1 Inflaton decay product thermalisation

Prior to thermalisation there is a spectrum of decay products, ranging from red-shifted products from the earliest decays (occuring at the end of inflation) to products from the most recent decays. Most of the energy density in decay products will come from the most recent decays. Following the discussion of , the spectrum of unthermalised decay products as a function of energy during IMD and RD epochs is given by

$$\frac{dn}{dE}\frac{3}{2}\left(\frac{H}{H_R}\right)^\gamma \frac{\rho _S\left(H_R\right)}{m_S}\frac{E^{1/2}}{m_S^{3/2}},$$
(1)
where $`\gamma =1`$ during IMD ($`3/4`$ during RD), $`n(E)`$ is the number density of decay products with energy less than $`E`$ and $`H_R`$ is the expansion rate at the onset of radiation domination. Thus $`n(E)E^{3/2}`$ and so 80$`\%`$ of the decay products at a given time have energy between $`E_d`$ and $`E_d/3`$, where $`E_d`$ is the energy of the most recent decay products. In addition, once thermalisation by scattering begins, the lower energy decay products tend first to increase their energy by scattering from the more numerous higher-energy decay products in the spectrum , so that they may be regarded as higher-energy decay products as far as thermalisation is concerned. Thus we will consider the energy of the decay products at a given time to be approximately $`E_d`$. During IMD, $`E_dm_S/2`$. Once the inflaton condensate has decayed away and the Universe enters the RD epoch, the energy of the dominant unthermalised decay products will be red-shifted to $`E_d\left(\frac{a_R}{a}\right)\frac{m_S}{2}`$, where $`a_R`$ is the scale factor at the onset of radiation domination.

The centre of mass (CM) cross-section of the relativistic inflaton decay products is

$$\sigma _{sc}\frac{\alpha _{sc}^2}{E_{CM}^2},$$
(2)
where $`E_{CM}2E_d`$ and $`\alpha _{sc}=g^2/4\pi `$, where $`g`$ is a typical MSSM gauge or Yukawa coupling. Therefore the scattering rate of the inflaton decay products is $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{sc}=n\sigma _{sc}`$, where $`n`$ is the number density of inflaton decay products.

During IMD most of the decay products at a given scale factor are produced during the previous e-folding. The energy density in the inflaton condensate during IMD is

$$\rho _S=\left(\frac{a_e}{a}\right)^3e^{\mathrm{\Gamma }_dt}\rho _I,$$
(3)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_d`$ is the decay rate of the inflaton, $`a_e`$ is the scale factor at the end of inflation and $`\rho _I`$ is the energy density during inflation, assumed constant. Therefore the number of inflatons which decay during an e-folding ($`\delta tH^1`$) (and so the number of inflaton decay products produced) is

$$n\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_d}{H}\frac{\rho _S}{m_S}$$
(4)
for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_d/H<1`$. The condition for thermalisation to occur during IMD, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{sc}^>{}_{}{}^{}H`$, is then

$$\frac{3\alpha _{sc}^2M^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_d}{m_S^3}_{}^>\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1},$$
(5)
where $`M=M_{Pl}/\sqrt{8\pi }`$ and we have used $`E_d=m_S/2`$ and $`\rho _S3M^2H^2`$ during IMD. Eq. (5) is independent of the scale factor, so if it is not satisfied immediately at the end of inflation, it will not be satisfied during IMD. Therefore for the case of perturbative inflaton decay, thermalisation must either be instantaneous or must occur during RD.

After IMD, the number density and energy of the relativistic decay products is

$$n=\left(\frac{a_R}{a}\right)^3n(a_R);E_d\left(\frac{a_R}{a}\right)\frac{m_S}{2}.$$
(6)
The inflaton decay rate, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_d`$, may be expressed in terms of the reheating temperature222The reheating temperature is defined in the following to be the temperature of a thermalised Universe at the onset of radiation domination. It is therefore used generally to parameterise the energy density at the onset of radiation domination, even if the relativistic decay products at that time have not yet thermalised., $`T_R`$, as $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_d=k_{T_R}T_R^2/M_{Pl}`$, where $`k_{T_R}=(4\pi ^3g(T_R)/45)^{1/2}`$ and $`g(T_R)`$ is the effective number of massless degrees of freedom in thermal equilibrium . (In the following we will consider $`k_{T_R}20`$, corresponding to the field content of the MSSM with $`g(T_R)200`$.)

The thermalisation condition $`n\sigma _{sc}^>{}_{}{}^{}H`$ (where $`H=\left(\frac{a_R}{a}\right)^2H(a_R)`$ during RD) then implies that thermalisation occurs at scale factor $`a_{th}`$ given by

$$\frac{a_{th}}{a_e}\frac{m_S^3}{3\alpha _{sc}^2M^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_d}\left(\frac{H_I}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_d}\right)^{2/3},$$
(7)
with the corresponding temperature given by

$$T_{th}\frac{3}{\sqrt{8\pi }}\frac{k_{T_R}\alpha _{sc}^2MT_R^3}{m_S^3}.$$
(8)
Here $`H_I`$ is the expansion rate during inflation.

### 2.2 Scalar field squared expectation value of the inflaton decay product background

When discussing the evolution of the r.h. sneutrino condensate, we will need the expectation value $`<\mathrm{\Psi }^2>`$, where $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ represents a generic real MSSM scalar in the inflaton decay product background .
(i) Unthermalised Decay Products during IMD. If we consider the average momentum of the scalar modes in the inflaton decay product background to be $`k`$, then the average energy density of a real massless scalar field $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is

$$<\rho _\mathrm{\Psi }>=<\frac{1}{2}\dot{\mathrm{\Psi }}^2+\frac{1}{2}(\mathrm{\Psi })^2>k^2<\mathrm{\Psi }^2>.$$
(9)
Thus with $`kE_dm_S/2`$ and $`<\rho _\mathrm{\Psi }>=f_\mathrm{\Psi }\rho _d`$, where $`\rho _d(\mathrm{\Gamma }_d/H)\rho _S`$ is the energy density of the inflaton decay products during IMD and $`f_\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is the fraction of the total inflaton decay product energy density in the real scalar field $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$, we obtain

$$<\mathrm{\Psi }^2>\frac{f_\mathrm{\Psi }\rho _d}{k^2}\frac{12f_\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Gamma }_dM^2H}{m_S^2}.$$
(10)
(ii) Unthermalised Decay Products during RD. In this case the energy of the dominant decay products red-shifts as $`E_d\left(\frac{a_R}{a}\right)\frac{m_S}{2}`$ whilst $`\rho _da^4`$ for relativistic decay products, with $`\rho _d(a_R)\rho _S(a_R)`$. Thus $`<\mathrm{\Psi }^2>\rho _d/E_d^2a^2H`$. Therefore the same relation, Eq. (10), between $`<\mathrm{\Psi }^2>`$ and $`H`$ also holds during RD.
(iii) Thermalised Decay Products. In this case the energy density of the inflaton decay products is $`\rho _d=\frac{\pi ^2g(T)T^4}{30}`$, where for a real scalar field $`g(T)=1`$. Therefore, with $`kT`$ for effectively massless thermalised particles, we find

$$<\mathrm{\Psi }^2>\gamma _TT^2;\gamma _T=\frac{\pi ^2}{30}.$$
(11)
We note that in the case where the inflaton decay products thermalise immediately at the end of inflation, the temperature during IMD is related to $`H`$ by

$$T=k_r(M_{Pl}HT_R^2)^{1/4};k_r=\left(\frac{9}{5\pi ^3g(T)}\right)^{1/8}.$$
(12)
## 3 Right-Handed Sneutrino Condensate Evolution

### 3.1 Neutrino masses and the r.h. sneutrino scalar potential

For simplicity we will consider a single neutrino generation. The superpotential of the r.h. neutrino superfield, $`N`$, is given by

$$W_\nu =\lambda _\nu NH_uL+\frac{M_NN^2}{2},$$
(13)
where $`H_u`$ and $`L`$ are the MSSM Higgs and charged lepton superfield $`SU(2)_L`$ doublets . The corresponding scalar potential for the r.h. sneutrino is then $`V(N)=\frac{m_{\stackrel{~}{N}}^2}{2}N^2`$ (with $`N`$ a conventionally normalised real scalar field), where $`m_{\stackrel{~}{N}}^2=m_o^2+M_N^2+m_{eff}^2`$. Here $`m_o^2`$ is the conventional SUSY breaking mass squared term ($`m_o100\mathrm{GeV}`$) whilst $`m_{eff}^2\lambda _\nu ^2<\mathrm{\Psi }^2>`$ is the effective mass squared term due to the interaction of the r.h. sneutrinos with the inflaton decay product backround . In addition, we expect terms due to Planck-scale suppressed interactions. For now we will consider the evolution of the sneutrino condensate in the absence of such terms.

If $`M_N=0`$ we will have Dirac neutrino masses, with $`m_\nu =\lambda _\nu v_u`$. The r.h. sneutrino mass is then given by $`m_{\stackrel{~}{N}}^2=m_o^2+m_{eff}^2`$. If $`M_N\lambda _\nu v_u`$ (where $`v_u=<H_u>`$) we will have Majorana neutrino masses from the see-saw mechanism, $`m_\nu =\frac{\lambda _\nu ^2v_u^2}{M_N}`$, such that the Yukawa coupling $`\lambda _\nu `$ can be expressed as a function of $`m_\nu `$,

$$\lambda _\nu =\left(\frac{m_\nu M_N}{v_u^2}\right)^{1/2}.$$
(14)
The usual idea of the see-saw mechanism  is to consider the magnitude of $`\lambda _\nu `$ to be similar to the charged lepton Yukawa couplings, which requires e.g. $`M_N10^9\mathrm{GeV}`$ for $`\lambda _\nu \lambda _\tau 10^2`$ and $`m_\nu 0.1`$eV. However, other natural mass scales could also be of interest, for example $`M_N100\mathrm{GeV}1\mathrm{TeV}`$, as suggested by the electroweak scale and by the scale of the SUSY mass term $`\mu H_uH_d`$ of the MSSM superpotential .

### 3.2 Conditions for r.h. sneutrino to act as a curvaton

R.h. sneutrino oscillations begin once the r.h. sneutrino mass satisfies $`m_{\stackrel{~}{N}}^>{}_{}{}^{}H`$. We denote the scale factor at this time by $`a_{osc}`$ and the homogeneous sneutrino expectation value by $`N_{osc}`$. During inflation, in order to serve as a curvaton, the r.h. sneutrino must be effectively massless, $`m_{\stackrel{~}{N}}H_I`$. The quantum fluctuation of an effectively massless r.h. sneutrino mode at horizon crossing is given by $`\delta NH_I/2\pi `$ . In the case of a scalar potential consisting purely of a mass term ($`N^2`$), once the perturbation mode is stretched outside the horizon by the expansion of the Universe, its amplitude on sub-horizon scales will evolve in the same way as the homogeneous field. This can be seen by considering $`N=N_o+\delta N`$, where $`N_o`$ is the homogeneous field and $`\delta N`$ is a perturbation of wavenumber $`𝐤`$. The equations of motion for these are

$$\ddot{N}_o+3H\dot{N}_o=V^{^{}}(N_o)$$
(15)
and

$$\delta \ddot{N}+3H\delta \dot{N}\frac{𝐤^2}{a^2}\delta N=V^{^{\prime \prime }}(N_o)\delta N.$$
(16)
For a mode outside the horizon, the $`𝐤^2/a^2`$ term $`(H^2)`$ will effectively play no role in the evolution of the scalar field. Therefore, for $`V(N)N^2`$, Eq. (15) $``$ Eq. (16) under $`N_o\delta N`$. Thus $`N_o`$ and $`\delta N`$ will evolve in the same way. Therefore $`\delta N/N`$ for a superhorizon perturbation will be fixed by its value at the onset of oscillations, $`(\delta N/N)_{osc}`$. Once coherent oscillations of the r.h. sneutrino begin, the energy density in the r.h. sneutrino field will be proportional to its amplitude squared. Therefore if the energy density of the Universe becomes dominated by the r.h. sneutrino oscillations before the sneutrinos decay, the energy density perturbation when a given mode re-enters the horizon will be given by

$$\delta _\rho \frac{\delta \rho }{\rho }\left(\frac{2\delta N}{N}\right)_{osc}=\frac{H_I}{\pi N_I}.$$
(17)
(A more precise calculation gives the same result up to a factor of the order of 1 .) For $`H_I`$ and $`N_I`$ constant this corresponds to a scale-invariant perturbation spectrum. In order to account for the observed CMB temperature fluctuations, we then require that $`\delta _\rho 10^5`$ .

### 3.3 Condensate evolution without Planck-suppressed terms

The evolution of the r.h. sneutrino expectation value depends on the inflaton decay product background and reheating temperature. We will consider the case where the r.h. sneutrino begins coherent oscillations during the IMD epoch, $`a_{osc}<a_R`$. Oscillations begin at $`H_{osc}m_{\stackrel{~}{N}}^>{}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}100}\mathrm{GeV}`$. The condition $`H_R<H_{osc}m_{\stackrel{~}{N}}`$ then implies an upper bound on $`T_R`$,

$$T_R^<{}_{}{}^{}\left(\frac{m_{\stackrel{~}{N}}M_{Pl}}{k_{T_R}}\right)_{}^{1/2}7.8\times 10^9\left(\frac{m_{\stackrel{~}{N}}}{100\mathrm{GeV}}\right)^{1/2}\mathrm{GeV}.$$
(18)
In particular, if $`T_R^<{}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}10}_{}^{8}\mathrm{GeV}`$, as would be required by the thermal gravitino upper bound  if the inflaton decay products are thermalised at the onset of radiation domination, then r.h. sneutrino oscillations would generally begin during IMD. However, it is possible that thermalisation of the relativistic decay products could occur at $`T_{th}^<{}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}10}_{}^{8}\mathrm{GeV}`$ even though $`T_R>10^8\mathrm{GeV}`$, in which case the thermal gravitino bound on $`T_R`$ could be evaded.

We will also assume that thermalisation of the inflaton decay products occurs after the Universe becomes radiation dominated. This is true if Eq. (5) is not satisfied, which in turn requires that the inflaton mass satisfies

$$m_S^>{}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}6}\times 10^{11}\alpha _{sc}^{2/3}\left(\frac{T_R}{10^8\mathrm{GeV}}\right)^{2/3}\mathrm{GeV},$$
(19)
where $`\alpha _{sc}`$, being due to typical MSSM couplings, is not expected to be much smaller than 1. We finally assume that $`m_{\stackrel{~}{N}}^2`$ is dominated by the time-independent terms when the sneutrino oscillations begin, $`m_{\stackrel{~}{N}}^2m_{\stackrel{~}{N}_c}^2m_o^2+M_N^2`$. This requires that $`m_{eff}^2<m_{\stackrel{~}{N}_c}^2`$ at $`H_{osc}m_{\stackrel{~}{N}_c}`$. Using $`<\mathrm{\Psi }^2>`$ for an unthermalised background during IMD, Eq. (10), this requires that

$$m_S^2{}_{}{}^{>}\frac{12k_{T_R}f_\mathrm{\Psi }\lambda _\nu ^2MT_R^2}{\sqrt{8\pi }m_{\stackrel{~}{N}_c}}.$$
(20)
For the case of Dirac neutrinos this implies that

$$m_S^>{}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1.1}\times 10^5f_\mathrm{\Psi }^{1/2}\left(\frac{100\mathrm{GeV}}{m_{\stackrel{~}{N}_c}}\right)^{1/2}\left(\frac{T_R}{10^8\mathrm{GeV}}\right)\left(\frac{m_\nu }{0.1\mathrm{eV}}\right)\mathrm{GeV},$$
(21)
where we have assumed $`v_u100\mathrm{GeV}`$, whilst for the case of Majorana neutrino masses

$$m_S^>{}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}\times 10^{11}f_\mathrm{\Psi }^{1/2}\left(\frac{M_N}{m_{\stackrel{~}{N}_c}}\right)^{1/2}\left(\frac{T_R}{10^8\mathrm{GeV}}\right)\left(\frac{m_\nu }{0.1\mathrm{eV}}\right)^{1/2}\mathrm{GeV}.$$
(22)
This assumption will give the largest r.h. sneutrino energy density at late times for a given $`T_R`$ and $`N_{osc}`$, since the effect of having $`m_{eff}>m_{\stackrel{~}{N}_c}`$ at $`Hm_{\stackrel{~}{N}_c}`$ would be to cause r.h. sneutrino oscillations to begin earlier and so to experience a greater dilution of the r.h. sneutrino energy density due to expansion. From now on we will consider $`m_{\stackrel{~}{N}}m_{\stackrel{~}{N}_c}`$.

A fundamental condition for the r.h. sneutrino to play the role of a curvaton is that the r.h. sneutrinos decay after the Universe becomes dominated by the energy density in their coherent oscillations. The r.h. sneutrino decay rate is given by

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\stackrel{~}{N}d}\frac{\lambda _\nu ^2m_{\stackrel{~}{N}}}{4\pi }.$$
(23)
The r.h. sneutrinos decay once $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\stackrel{~}{N}d}H`$. At the onset of r.h. sneutrino oscillations, $`\rho _{\stackrel{~}{N}}m_{\stackrel{~}{N}}^2N_{osc}^2/2`$ whilst $`\rho _S3H_{osc}^2M^23m_{\stackrel{~}{N}}^2M^2`$. During IMD, the energy density in the inflaton oscillations and the r.h. sneutrino oscillations are both evolve as $`a^3`$. Thus $`\rho _{\stackrel{~}{N}}/\rho _S`$ is constant. Once the Universe is radiation dominated, the energy density in the dominant relativistic background, $`\rho `$, evolves as $`a^4`$ whilst the energy density in the r.h. sneutrino evolves as $`a^3`$. Therefore once $`a>a_R`$,

$$\frac{\rho _{\stackrel{~}{N}}}{\rho }=\left(\frac{a}{a_R}\right)\left(\frac{\rho _N}{\rho _S}\right)_{osc}\left(\frac{a}{a_R}\right)\frac{N_{osc}^2}{6M^2}.$$
(24)
Thus the Universe becomes r.h. sneutrino dominated once $`H<H_{dom}`$, where

$$H_{dom}\left(\frac{N_{osc}^2}{6M^2}\right)^2H_R.$$
(25)
The condition that r.h. sneutrino decay occurs after r.h. sneutrino domination, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\stackrel{~}{N}d}<H_{dom}`$, then implies that

$$m_{\stackrel{~}{N}}^<{}_{}{}^{}\left(\frac{4\pi k_{T_R}T_R^2}{\lambda _\nu ^2M_{Pl}}\right)\left(\frac{N_{osc}^2}{6M^2}\right)^2.$$
(26)
We will refer to Eq. (26) as the late decay condition in the following.

For the case of Dirac neutrino masses the late decay condition becomes

$$m_{\stackrel{~}{N}}^<{}_{}{}^{}\left(\frac{4\pi v_u^2}{m_\nu ^2}\right)\left(\frac{k_{T_R}T_R^2}{M_{Pl}}\right)\left(\frac{N_{osc}^2}{6M^2}\right)^2,$$
(27)
which implies that

$$m_{\stackrel{~}{N}}^<{}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}5.8}\times 10^{21}\left(\frac{0.1\mathrm{eV}}{m_\nu }\right)^2\left(\frac{T_R}{10^8\mathrm{GeV}}\right)^2\left(\frac{N_{osc}}{M}\right)^4\mathrm{GeV}.$$
(28)
Thus in order to have $`m_{\stackrel{~}{N}}^>{}_{}{}^{}m_{o}^{}100\mathrm{GeV}`$ we require that $`N_{osc}/M_{}^>\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}\times 10^5`$. We will see that values of $`N_{osc}/M`$ in this range require some suppression of Planck-scale suppressed non-renormalisable corrections to the r.h. neutrino superpotential.

For the case of Majorana neutrino masses the late decay condition becomes

$$m_{\stackrel{~}{N}}^<{}_{}{}^{}\left(\frac{m_{\stackrel{~}{N}}}{M_N}\right)_{}^{1/2}\left(\frac{4\pi v_u^2}{m_\nu }\right)^{1/2}\left(\frac{k_{T_R}T_R^2}{M_{Pl}}\right)^{1/2}\frac{N_{osc}^2}{6M^2},$$
(29)
such that

$$m_{\stackrel{~}{N}}^<{}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}7.6}\times 10^5\left(\frac{m_{\stackrel{~}{N}}}{M_N}\right)^{1/2}\left(\frac{0.1\mathrm{eV}}{m_\nu }\right)^{1/2}\left(\frac{T_R}{10^8\mathrm{GeV}}\right)\left(\frac{N_{osc}}{M}\right)^2\mathrm{GeV}.$$
(30)
We will restrict attention to r.h. neutrino masses $`M_N^>{}_{}{}^{}m_{o}^{}100\mathrm{GeV}`$, since masses smaller than this would have little motivation from neutrino mass models or natural particle physics scales. In this case $`m_{\stackrel{~}{N}}M_N`$. Eq. (30) then shows that a right-handed Majorana sneutrino curvaton with $`M_N^>{}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}100}\mathrm{GeV}`$ is possible only if $`N_{osc}`$ is not very small compared with the reduced Planck scale $`M`$. ($`N_{osc}/M_{}^>\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0.01}`$ if $`T_R^<{}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}10}_{}^{8}\mathrm{GeV}`$). It also shows that $`T_R`$ cannot be very small compared with the thermal gravitino upper bound of $`10^8\mathrm{GeV}`$ if $`N_{osc}^<{}_{}{}^{}M`$. The requirement that $`N_{osc}`$ is not very small compared with $`M`$ is a strong constraint on a Majorana r.h. sneutrino curvaton, since, as we discuss below, it requires a high degree of suppression of Planck-scale suppressed contributions to the r.h. sneutrino superpotential.

From Eq. (17) and the density perturbation constraint, $`\delta _\rho 10^5`$, the expansion rate during inflation is $`H_I=\pi \delta _\rho N_I^>{}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}10}_{}^{9}\mathrm{GeV}`$ if $`N_IN_{osc}^>{}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}\times 10^5M`$, corresponding to the case of Dirac neutrino masses. This can be substantially lower than the typical value of the expansion rate during inflation found in conventional SUSY inflation models, $`H_I10^{13}\mathrm{GeV}`$ . For the case of Majorana neutrino masses with $`N_IN_{osc}^>{}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0.01}M`$, the corresponding bound on $`H_I`$ is $`H_I^>{}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}7}\times 10^{11}\mathrm{GeV}`$. These bounds assume that $`N`$ does not evolve significantly from the end of inflation to the onset of sneutrino oscillations, so that $`N_{osc}N_I`$. We will see that the range of allowed $`H_I`$ can be increased if this assumption is altered.

### 3.4 Effect of Planck-suppressed terms

In general, in addition to the globally SUSY scalar potential we expect (in the absence of specific symmetries) terms suppressed by powers of the reduced Planck mass, $`M=M_{Pl}/\sqrt{8\pi }`$, corresponding to the natural scale of supergravity (SUGRA) corrections . Thus we expect Planck-scale suppressed non-renormalisable terms to appear in the r.h. neutrino superpotential. We also expect contributions to the mass squared term of the form $`cH^2`$, where $`|c|`$ is model-dependent but expected to be of the order of 1 in the simplest models. These arise from terms in the full Lagrangian of the form $`\frac{1}{M^2}d^4\theta S^{}SN^{}N=|F_S|^2/M^2`$, where $`S`$ is the inflaton field (or any other field with a non-zero F-term contributing to the energy density of the Universe).
(i) $`cH^2`$ corrections

During inflation the value of $`|c|`$ is constrained by the deviation of the curvaton perturbation from scale-invariance. We consider the r.h. sneutrino potential during inflation to be

$$V(N)\frac{1}{2}cH^2N^2.$$
(31)
The expansion rate during inflation is then

$$H_I^2=\frac{1}{3M^2}\left(\rho _S+\frac{cH_I^2N^2}{2}\right)$$
(32)
where $`\rho _S`$ is the energy density of the inflaton field, which we assume to be constant.

The index $`n`$ of the perturbation spectrum as a function of present wavenumber $`k`$ is given by

$$n=1+\frac{2k}{\delta _\rho }\frac{d\delta _\rho }{dk},$$
(33)
such that $`\delta \rho /\rho k^{\frac{n1}{2}}`$ and $`n=1`$ corresponds to scale-invariance. $`\delta _\rho `$ will remain constant once the perturbation is outside the horizon, since both $`N`$ and $`\delta N`$ evolve in the same way for $`V(N)N^2`$. Therefore we have

$$\delta _\rho \frac{2\delta N}{N}=\left(\frac{H_I}{\pi N}\right)_{a_\lambda },$$
(34)
where $`a_\lambda `$ is the scale-factor at which a perturbation of wavelength $`\lambda `$ exits the horizon.

The value of $`N`$ as a function of the scale factor during inflation is given by the solution of

$$\ddot{N}+3H\dot{N}=cH^2N$$
(35)
With $`Ha^m`$, this has a solution of the form $`Na^\gamma `$, where

$$\gamma =\frac{1}{2}\left[(3m)+\sqrt{(3m)^24c}\right].$$
(36)
Thus during inflation ($`m=0`$) the solution corresponds to

$$\gamma =\frac{1}{2}\left[3+\sqrt{94c}\right].$$
(37)
If $`|4c|9`$ then during inflation $`\gamma c/3`$ and so $`N/N_\lambda =(a/a_\lambda )^{c/3}`$, where $`N_\lambda `$ is the value at $`a_\lambda `$. Thus for a given $`N`$ and $`a`$ (for example, their values at the end of inflation), $`N_\lambda a_\lambda ^{c/3}`$. The wavenumber at present is related to the scale factor at horizon exit ($`\lambda H_I^1`$) by $`k=2\pi H_Ia_\lambda /a_p`$, where $`a_p`$ is the scale factor at present. Thus

$$\frac{dN_\lambda }{dk}=\frac{dN_\lambda }{da_\lambda }\frac{da_\lambda }{dk}=\frac{cN_\lambda }{3k}.$$
(38)
For the case where the energy density is dominated by $`\rho _S`$, we have

$$\frac{d\delta _\rho }{dN_\lambda }\frac{H}{\pi N_\lambda ^2}.$$
(39)
Therefore

$$n=1+\frac{2k}{\delta _\rho }\frac{d\delta _\rho }{dN_\lambda }\frac{dN_\lambda }{dk}1+\frac{2c}{3}.$$
(40)
Note that $`c>0`$ ($`<0`$) results in a blue (red) spectrum of perturbations. Observation requires that $`|\mathrm{\Delta }n|<0.1`$ . Therefore during inflation we must have

$$|c|<0.15\left|\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }n}{0.1}\right|.$$
(41)
If $`|c|`$ is close to this upper bound then a significant blue or red perturbation spectrum is expected. We note that this would allow the r.h. sneutrino curvaton scenario to be consistent with the recent observation by WMAP of a blue perturbation spectrum on comoving scales of the order of 500 Mpc, with $`n=1.10_{0.06}^{+0.07}`$ .

Thus $`|c|`$ is constrained to be not much larger than 0.1 during inflation. This is significantly larger than the value $`|c|1`$ expected on dimensional grounds in SUGRA models . This problem is similar to the conventional ’$`\eta `$-problem’ encountered in SUSY inflation models , where order $`H^2`$ corrections lead both to a large deviation from scale-invariance and to insufficient slow-roll inflation . It has a natural solution in the case of SUSY D-term hybrid inflation (driven by the energy density of a Fayet-Illiopoulos D-term) , in which case $`|F|=0`$ and so $`|c|=0`$ during inflation (although a non-zero value is expected once inflation ends and coherent inflaton oscillations begin, since $`d^4\theta S^{}S\mathrm{\Phi }^{}\mathrm{\Phi }=\left(\left|_\mu S\right|^2+|F_S|^2+\mathrm{}\right)|\mathrm{\Phi }|^2`$, with $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ a general scalar superfield). Since in the r.h. sneutrino curvaton scenario inflation must still be driven by an inflaton, it is possible that the mechanism which suppresses $`|c|`$ for the inflaton during inflation also suppresses $`|c|`$ for the curvaton.

After inflation we generally expect a non-zero F-term from the energy density of the coherently oscillating inflaton field. The solution of Eq. (35) during IMD corresponds to Eq. (36) with $`m=3/2`$. Thus assuming that $`N`$ has a constant value during inflation, $`N_I`$, we find

$$\frac{N_{osc}}{N_I}=\left(\frac{a_{osc}}{a_e}\right)^\gamma =\left(\frac{H_I}{H_{osc}}\right)^{2\gamma /3},$$
(42)
where $`H_{osc}m_{\stackrel{~}{N}}`$.

We previously derived lower bounds on the value of $`H_I`$ compatible with the observed density perturbations based on the assumption that $`N_{osc}N_I`$. However, if $`c<0`$ during IMD then the growth of $`N`$ after inflation will allow a wider range of $`H_I`$ to be compatible with a given value of $`N_{osc}`$,

$$\frac{2\gamma }{3}=\frac{\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\pi \delta _\rho N_{osc}}{H_I}\right)}{\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{H_I}{m_{\stackrel{~}{N}}}\right)},$$
(43)
where we have used $`N_IH_I/\pi \delta _\rho `$ in Eq. (42). For example, for the case of Dirac neutrino masses, with $`\delta _\rho 10^5`$, $`m_{\stackrel{~}{N}}100\mathrm{GeV}`$ and $`N_{osc}10^4M`$, it is possible to have $`H_I10^6\mathrm{GeV}`$ if $`\gamma =1.45`$, corresponding to $`c=4.3`$. This also shows that $`|c|`$ need not be small compared with 1 after inflation.

We conclude that the $`cH^2`$ correction to the r.h. sneutrino mass squared term is no more problematical for the curvaton than for the conventional inflaton: we require that $`|c|_{}^<\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0.1}`$ during inflation, in which case a significantly blue or red perturbation spectrum can arise depending on the sign and magnitude of $`c`$. After inflation $`|c|`$ need not be small compared with 1 (in the case where $`c<0`$) and the $`cH^2`$ term can even widen the range of expansion rate and energy density during inflation which is compatible with the observed density perturbations.
(ii) Non-renormalisable superpotential corrections

We next consider adding Planck scale-suppressed non-renormalisable terms (NRTs) to the r.h. sneutrino superpotential,

$$W_N=\frac{1}{2}M_NN^2+\frac{\lambda _nN^n}{n!M^{n3}},$$
(44)
where $`n!`$ is a symmetry factor and $`\lambda _n1`$. For large enough $`|N|`$ the scalar potential becomes dominated by the NRT contribution,

$$V(N)\frac{\lambda _n^2N^{2\left(n1\right)}}{2^{n1}\left(n1\right)!^2M^{2\left(n3\right)}}.$$
(45)
The effect of the NRTs is to place an upper limit on the value of $`N_{osc}`$. During inflation, the effective mass $`V^{^{\prime \prime }}(N)`$ must be small compared with $`H^2`$. After inflation and during IMD, $`H^2a^3`$. Therefore $`V^{^{\prime \prime }}(N)`$ may become larger than $`H^2`$, at which point the $`N`$ field will begin to evolve. $`N`$ will then track the value at which $`V^{^{\prime \prime }}(N)H^2`$, since as $`H^2`$ decreases below $`V^{^{\prime \prime }}(N)`$, the rate of roll of $`N`$ will increase until the rate of decrease of $`V^{^{\prime \prime }}(N)`$ matches rate of the decrease of $`H^2`$. In particular, when $`N`$ will first begins to slow-roll we have $`3H\dot{N}V^{^{}}(N)`$. For $`V(N)N^{2\left(n1\right)}`$, this has a solution $`Na^{3/(42n)}`$, such that $`V^{^{\prime \prime }}(N)a^3H^2`$. So the slow-rolling solution will be such that $`V^{^{\prime \prime }}(N)`$ tracks $`H^2`$ and is of the same order of magnitude as $`H^2`$. Thus the value of $`N`$ at which $`V^{^{\prime \prime }}(N)H^2`$ places an upper limit on $`N`$ for a given value of $`H`$, $`N_{lim}`$, given by

$$\frac{N_{lim}}{M}\frac{\alpha _n}{\lambda _n^{\frac{1}{n2}}}\left(\frac{H}{M}\right)^{\frac{1}{n2}},$$
(46)
where $`\alpha _n`$ is a constant of order 1. Therefore for $`N_{lim}`$ to be greater than $`N_{osc}`$ at $`H_{osc}`$ we require that $`n`$ is greater than $`n_{lim}`$, where

$$n_{lim}=2+\frac{\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{H_{osc}}{M}\right)}{\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\lambda _n^{\frac{1}{n2}}N_{osc}}{\alpha _nM}\right)}.$$
(47)
For the case of Dirac neutrino masses, we require from the late decay condition that $`N_{osc}/M_{}^>\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}\times 10^5`$. Thus with $`H_{osc}m_{\stackrel{~}{N}}=100\mathrm{GeV}`$, $`N_{osc}/M1\times 10^5`$ and $`\lambda _n\alpha _n1`$, we require that $`n>n_{lim}=5.3`$. Thus a suppression of Planck-scale suppressed NRTs in the r.h. neutrino superpotential of dimension less than 6 is required in this case. This might be achieved by a modest discrete symmetry.

For the case of Majorana neutrino masses, with $`H_{osc}m_{\stackrel{~}{N}}=100\mathrm{GeV}`$, $`N_{osc}/M0.01`$ and $`\lambda _n\alpha _n1`$, we require that $`n>n_{lim}=10.2`$. This is a significant problem for a Majorana r.h. sneutrino curvaton. It requires a high degree of suppression of Planck-suppressed non-renormalisable terms, eliminating all NRTs in the r.h. neutrino superpotential up to $`n<11`$. However, as we will discuss, there is likely to be a more severe problem for the Majorana r.h. sneutrino curvaton, namely the survival of the r.h. sneutrino condensate in the inflaton decay product background.

Although Planck scale-suppressed NRTs appear to disfavour a r.h. sneutrino curvaton, it should be noted that conventional SUSY inflation models also have problems with Planck scale-suppressed NRTs. Chaotic inflation models require that the inflaton expectation value is greater than $`M`$ , whilst SUSY hybrid inflation models require that $`N`$ is close to $`M`$ when scales corresponding to observed cosmic microwave background (CMB) perturbations exit the horizon (assuming natural values of the renormalisable gauge and Yukawa couplings) . In this sense the r.h. sneutrino curvaton may be no more problematical that conventional SUSY inflation models with respect to Planck scale-suppressed superpotential terms.

### 3.5 Decay temperature of the Dirac and Majorana r.h. sneutrino condensate

The neutrino mass is related to the Yukawa coupling by $`m_\nu =\lambda _\nu v_u`$. The r.h. sneutrino mass is simply given by the SUSY breaking mass term, $`m_{\stackrel{~}{N}}=m_o100\mathrm{GeV}`$. Thus the temperature of the Universe when the condensate decays, $`T_{\stackrel{~}{N}d}`$, is given by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\stackrel{~}{N}d}H(T_{\stackrel{~}{N}d})`$, where $`H(T)=k_TT^2/M_{Pl}`$ and $`k_T=(4\pi ^3g(T)/45)^{1/2}`$. Thus with the r.h. sneutrino decay rate given by Eq. (23), the temperature of r.h. sneutrino decay is, in general,

$$T_{\stackrel{~}{N}d}=\left(\frac{\lambda _\nu ^2m_{\stackrel{~}{N}}M_{Pl}}{4\pi k_{T_{\stackrel{~}{N}d}}}\right)^{1/2}.$$
(48)
For the case of the Dirac r.h. sneutrinos, Eq. (48) implies that

$$T_{\stackrel{~}{N}d}=\left(\frac{m_\nu ^2m_{\stackrel{~}{N}}M_{Pl}}{4\pi v_u^2k_{T_{\stackrel{~}{N}d}}}\right)^{1/2}=4.4\left(\frac{m_\nu }{0.1\mathrm{eV}}\right)\left(\frac{m_{\stackrel{~}{N}}}{100\mathrm{GeV}}\right)^{1/2}\mathrm{MeV},$$
(49)
where we have used $`v_u100\mathrm{GeV}`$ and $`k_{T_{\stackrel{~}{N}d}}5`$, corresponding to $`\gamma `$, $`e^\pm `$ and $`\nu _i`$ ($`i=1,2,3`$) as light degrees of freedom . Thus the Dirac r.h. sneutrino condensate typically decays in the temperature range $`110\mathrm{MeV}`$. (Note that if the energy density of the r.h. sneutrino condensate dominates the energy density of the Universe when it decays, $`T_{\stackrel{~}{N}d}`$ should then be interpreted as the temperature to which the Universe reheats after the condensate decays.) Since the Dirac r.h. sneutrino condensate decays well below the temperature at which weakly interacting particles of mass of the order of $`m_W`$ freeze out of chemical equilibrium ($`T_{freeze}110\mathrm{GeV}`$), an important constraint on the Dirac r.h. sneutrino curvaton is the requirement that the lightest supersymmetric particles (LSPs) produced in decay of the r.h. sneutrino condensate do not overclose the Universe. This requires that the LSPs decay before nucleosynthesis at $`T1\mathrm{MeV}`$, in order that the light element abundances are not disrupted by photo-dissociation due to LSP decay cascades . Therefore the LSP lifetime must satisfy

$$\tau _{LSP}^<{}_{}{}^{}H_{}^{1}(T1\mathrm{MeV})1s.$$
(50)
Thus although the LSP must be unstable its lifetime can be much longer than the time required to escape particle detectors ($`10^8`$s), in which case experimental searches for SUSY particles would be unaffected. A wider range of LSP candidates would be allowed than in the R-parity conserving case where the LSP properties are constrained by the thermal relic cold dark matter density. This might be testable at future colliders such as the CERN Large Hadron Collider.

For the case of Majorana r.h. sneutrinos, Eq. (48) implies that

$$T_{\stackrel{~}{N}d}=\left(\frac{m_\nu m_{\stackrel{~}{N}}^2M_{Pl}}{4\pi v_u^2k_{T_{\stackrel{~}{N}d}}}\right)^{1/2}=2.2\times 10^3\left(\frac{m_\nu }{0.1\mathrm{eV}}\right)^{1/2}\left(\frac{m_{\stackrel{~}{N}}}{100\mathrm{GeV}}\right)\mathrm{GeV}.$$
(51)
Thus since $`m_{\stackrel{~}{N}}`$ typically will not be much larger than $`1\mathrm{TeV}`$ as a result of the late decay condition, Eq. (30), we expect that $`T_{\stackrel{~}{N}d}10^4\mathrm{GeV}`$ for the Majorana r.h. sneutrino condensate.

### 3.6 Thermalisation of the right-handed sneutrino condensate

We have been assuming throughout the preceeding discussion that the r.h. sneutrino condensate survives in the enviroment of the inflaton decay products. However, it is possible that r.h. sneutrinos in the condensate could be inelastically scattered by collisions with the MSSM particles in the inflaton decay product background. If the relativistic particles in the background have energy $`E_d`$, then the scattering cross-section of a r.h. sneutrino, at rest in the condensate, from a relativistic particle in the inflaton decay product background via Higgs(ino) or (s)lepton exchange is expected to be

$$\sigma _{\stackrel{~}{N}sc}\frac{\alpha _\nu \alpha _g}{E_{CM}^2},$$
(52)
where $`\alpha _\nu =\lambda _\nu ^2/4\pi `$, $`\alpha _g=g^2/4\pi `$, where $`g`$ is a typical MSSM gauge/Yukawa coupling and $`E_{CM}\sqrt{E_dm_{\stackrel{~}{N}}}`$ is the centre of mass energy of the process. The scattering rate from the decay product background is then $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\stackrel{~}{N}sc}=n\sigma _{\stackrel{~}{N}sc}`$, where $`n`$ is the number density of particles in the inflaton decay product background. The largest scattering rate will occur for the largest $`n`$ and smallest $`E_d`$, which corresponds to thermalised decay products ($`T_{}^<T_{th}`$). In this case $`n=g(T)T^3/\pi ^2`$ and $`E_dT`$ . Therefore

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\stackrel{~}{N}sc}\frac{g(T)\alpha _\nu \alpha _g}{\pi ^2}\frac{T^2}{m_{\stackrel{~}{N}}}.$$
(53)
Then assuming that thermalisation of the inflaton decay products occurs during RD, the condition that the condensate is unthermalised is $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\stackrel{~}{N}sc}^<{}_{}{}^{}H(T)k_TT^2/M_{Pl}`$, which implies

$$\lambda _\nu ^<{}_{}{}^{}\left(\frac{4\pi ^3k_T}{\alpha _gg(T)}\right)_{}^{1/2}\left(\frac{m_{\stackrel{~}{N}}}{M_{Pl}}\right)^{1/2}.$$
(54)
For the case of Dirac neutrino masses, this condition becomes

$$m_\nu ^<{}_{}{}^{}\left(\frac{4\pi ^3k_Tv_u^2}{\alpha _gg(T)}\right)_{}^{1/2}\left(\frac{m_{\stackrel{~}{N}}}{M_{Pl}}\right)^{1/2}\frac{1.0}{\alpha _g^{1/2}}\left(\frac{m_{\stackrel{~}{N}}}{100\mathrm{GeV}}\right)^{1/2}\left(\frac{v_u}{100\mathrm{GeV}}\right)\mathrm{keV},$$
(55)
where we have used $`g(T)200`$ and $`k_T20`$. Therefore, since $`m_\nu 0.1`$eV, the Dirac r.h. sneutrino condensate will not be thermalised.

For the case of Majorana neutrino masses, the non-thermalisation condition becomes

$$m_\nu ^<{}_{}{}^{}\left(\frac{4\pi ^3k_T}{\alpha _gg(T)}\right)\frac{v_u^2}{M_{Pl}}\frac{10^5}{\alpha _g}\left(\frac{v_u}{100\mathrm{GeV}}\right)^2\mathrm{eV}.$$
(56)
Thus typically we expect that this will not be satisfied. For example, if we consider $`\alpha _g`$ to correspond to the top quark Yukawa (r.h. sneutrinos scattering from thermal top quarks via $`H_u`$ exchange) then $`\alpha _g0.1`$ and so $`m_\nu ^<{}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}10}_{}^{4}`$eV would be required to evade thermalisation. Therefore with $`m_\nu 0.1`$eV the Majorana r.h. sneutrino condensate will be thermalised at $`T_{th}`$, when the inflaton decay product background thermalises.

One possible escape from this conclusion is that the inflaton decay product background could remain unthermalised until the energy density of the sneutrino condensate comes to dominate the energy density of the Universe. Since the Majorana r.h. sneutrino condensate decays at a temperature typically around $`10^4\mathrm{GeV}`$, if $`T_{th}^<{}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}10}_{}^{4}\mathrm{GeV}`$ then the Majorana r.h. sneutrino curvaton may remain a possibility. For the case of perturbative inflaton decays, the thermalisation temperature of the inflaton decay product background $`T_{th}`$, Eq. (8), is proportional to $`(T_R/m_S)^3`$. Therefore a very low background thermalisation temperature is a possibility if $`T_Rm_S`$.

The above applies to condensate thermalisation during RD. It is straightforward to see that if condensate thermalisation does not occur during RD then it will not occur earlier during IMD. If we assume that the background is thermalised during IMD (which should give the largest rate of condensate thermalisation), then since during IMD $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\stackrel{~}{N}sc}T^2`$ and $`HT^4`$, it follows that once $`T>T_R`$ the thermalisation condition $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\stackrel{~}{N}sc}^>{}_{}{}^{}H`$ will become more difficult to satisfy. Thus if the r.h. sneutrino condensate does not thermalise during RD it will not thermalise at all.

In discussing the thermalisation rate, we have implicitly assumed that the mass of the $`H_u`$ and $`L`$ fields coupling directly to the r.h. sneutrino condensate is small compared with $`T`$ and $`E_{CM}(Tm_{\stackrel{~}{N}})^{1/2}`$. The effective mass is given by $`\lambda _\nu <N>`$, where $`<N>`$ is the amplitude of the coherent oscillations. In general $`<N>`$ is given by

$$<N>=\left(\frac{a_{osc}}{a}\right)^{3/2}N_{osc}\left(\frac{T}{T_R}\right)^{3/2}\left(\frac{H_R}{H_{osc}}\right)N_{osc}.$$
(57)
Thus for the case of Majorana r.h. sneutrinos the effective mass is given by

$$\lambda _\nu <N>=\frac{k_TT^{3/2}T_R^{1/2}}{\sqrt{8\pi }}\left(\frac{m_\nu }{m_{\stackrel{~}{N}}v_u^2}\right)^{1/2}\left(\frac{N_{osc}}{M}\right),$$
(58)
which implies that

$$\lambda _\nu <N>=4\times 10^2\left(\frac{m_\nu }{0.1\mathrm{eV}}\right)^{1/2}\left(\frac{T}{10^4\mathrm{GeV}}\right)^{3/2}$$

$$\times \left(\frac{T_R}{10^8\mathrm{GeV}}\right)^{1/2}\left(\frac{100\mathrm{GeV}}{m_{\stackrel{~}{N}}}\right)^{1/2}\left(\frac{N_{osc}}{M}\right)\mathrm{GeV},$$
(59)
where we have used $`k_T20`$ and $`v_u=100\mathrm{GeV}`$. Thus for $`N_{osc}/M<1`$, $`m_{\stackrel{~}{N}}^>{}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}100}\mathrm{GeV}`$ and for a decay temperature of $`10^4\mathrm{GeV}`$ for the Majorana r.h. sneutrino, we find that $`\lambda _\nu <N>`$ is smaller than $`T`$ and $`E_{CM}`$ and so may be neglected when considering condensate thermalisation.

For the case of Dirac r.h. sneutrinos the effective mass is given by

$$\lambda _\nu <N>=\frac{k_TT^{3/2}T_R^{1/2}m_\nu }{\sqrt{8\pi }v_um_{\stackrel{~}{N}}}\left(\frac{N_{osc}}{M}\right),$$
(60)
which implies that

$$\lambda _\nu <N>=3\times 10^{15}\left(\frac{m_\nu }{0.1\mathrm{eV}}\right)\left(\frac{T}{10\mathrm{MeV}}\right)^{3/2}$$

$$\times \left(\frac{T_R}{10^8\mathrm{GeV}}\right)^{1/2}\left(\frac{100\mathrm{GeV}}{m_{\stackrel{~}{N}}}\right)\left(\frac{N_{osc}}{M}\right)\mathrm{GeV}.$$
(61)
Thus the effective mass is generally negligible in the case of Dirac r.h. sneutrinos.

## 4 Conclusions

We have considered the possibility that a r.h. sneutrino could play the role of a curvaton in the cosmology of the MSSM extended to accomodate neutrino masses.

In the case of a Dirac r.h. sneutrino, the expectation value of the r.h. sneutrino at the onset of its coherent oscillations must satisfy $`N_{osc}/M_{}^>\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}10}^5`$, in order that the energy density of the r.h. sneutrino condensate dominates the Universe when it decays. As a result, Planck-scale corrections to the r.h. neutrino superpotential must be suppressed, eliminating all superpotential terms $`N^n`$ with $`n<6`$. $`cH^2`$ corrections to the r.h. sneutrino mass squared must also be suppressed during inflation ($`|c|_{}^<\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0.1}`$). The inflaton sector of the Dirac r.h. sneutrino curvaton scenario can have a much smaller expansion rate during inflation than conventional SUSY inflation models, with $`H_I10^9\mathrm{GeV}`$ possible. (Including the effect of a negative $`cH^2`$ term after inflation, values of $`H_I`$ as small as $`10^6\mathrm{GeV}`$ or less are possible.)

In addition, depending on the sign and magnitude of the $`cH^2`$ correction, it is possible to have a significantly blue ($`c>0`$) or red ($`c<0`$) perturbation spectrum. The recent suggestion from WMAP observations  of a blue perturbation spectrum on comoving scales of the order of $`500`$ Mpc could therefore be accomodated within the curvaton scenario.

The late decay of the Dirac r.h. sneutrino condensate (at $`T110\mathrm{MeV}`$) requires that R-parity be broken and that the LSP decays before nucleosynthesis, corresponding to a lifetime shorter than 1s. (Since this would result in the loss of LSP cold dark matter, a new dark matter candidate would also be needed.) Thus the Dirac curvaton scenario predicts that LSP properties will typically be inconsistent with thermal relic cold dark matter.

In the case of a Majorana r.h. sneutrino curvaton, we find that the requirement that the r.h. sneutrino condensate dominates the energy density of the Universe before it decays implies that $`N_{osc}/M_{}^>\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0.01}`$. This imposes a strong constraint on Planck-scale suppressed contributions to the r.h. neutrino superpotential, requiring elimination of all terms $`N^n`$ with $`n<11`$. However, a more severe problem may arise from scattering of the condensate sneutrinos by particles in the thermal background, since it is likely that the Majorana r.h. sneutrino condensate will be thermalised as soon as the inflaton decay product background thermalises. Thus if the inflaton decay products thermalise earlier than the time of r.h. sneutrino condensate domination of the energy density then the Majorana curvaton scenario will be ruled out. Only a sufficiently low background thermalisation temperature could evade this conclusion. Therefore, although not absolutely excluded, the Majorana r.h. sneutrino curvaton scenario appears to be more difficult to implement that the Dirac curvaton scenario.

In conclusion, we find that a r.h. sneutrino can serve as the source of the density perturbations leading to structure formation. For the favoured case of a Dirac r.h. sneutrino, this requires some suppression of its Planck-scale suppressed superpotential self-interactions together with sufficiently rapid R-parity violation. If these conditions are met, the Dirac r.h. sneutrino would provide us with the only curvaton candidate which is strongly motivated by particle physics.

Note Added: After completing this work we became aware of  and , which also discuss the case of a Majorana r.h. sneutrino curvaton.