text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Leptogenesis  is an appealing mechanism for producing the baryon asymmetry of the Universe. In the seesaw model, heavy singlet (“right-handed”) neutrinos $`\nu _R`$ decay out-of-equilibrium, producing a net lepton asymmetry, which is reprocessed by Standard Model (SM) $`B+L`$ violating processes  into a baryon asymmetry. A natural and cosmology-independent way to produce the $`\nu _R`$ is by scattering in the thermal plasma. This scenario is refered to as “thermal leptogenesis”. However, the lightest $`\nu _R`$ can be produced only if their mass $`M_1`$ is less than the reheat temperature $`T_{RH}`$ of the plasma after inflation. In addition, the asymmetry is proportional to $`M_1`$, so there is a lower bound on $`M_1`$ to get a large enough asymmetry. This implies $`10^8`$ GeV $`<M_1<T_{RH}`$.

The seesaw is an attractive minimal extension of the SM that generates the observed small $`\nu `$ masses. Three right-handed neutrinos, with large majorana masses $`M_i`$, are added to the Standard Model, along with a Yukawa matrix for the neutrinos. It is desirable to supersymmetrise the seesaw, to address the hierarchy between the weak scale and the $`M_i`$. In the SUSY seesaw, $`T_{RH}`$ must be low enough to avoid over-producing gravitinos —the canonical bound for gravity mediated SUSY breaking is $`T_{RH}<10^9`$ GeV. The aim of this paper is to identify the parameter space where thermal leptogenesis can work, taking $`M_1T_{RH}10^9`$ GeV.

The SUSY seesaw has more low-energy consequences than the non-SUSY version. It induces lepton flavour violating (LFV) entries in the slepton mass matrix, which can lead to radiative lepton decays, such as $`\mu e\gamma `$, at experimentally accessible rates. Eighteen parameters are required to define the neutrino and sneutrino mass matrices (in the charged lepton mass eigenstate basis), which is the same number as there are high scale inputs for the seesaw model . It can be shown that the SUSY seesaw can be parametrised with the sneutrino and light neutrino mass matrices, in a texture model independent way. That is, the high-scale physical inputs of the SUSY seesaw—the $`\nu _R`$ masses $`M_i`$ and Yukawa coupling $`𝐘_\nu `$—can be “reconstructed” from the neutrino and sneutrino mass matrices111This “reconstruction” would require universal soft masses at the GUT scale, and improbable experimental accuracy at the weak scale, so is in practice impossible.. The baryon asymmetry can therefore be expressed as a function of weak scale observables. In this paper we identify the ranges of experimentally measurable quantities which are consistent with thermal leptogenesis. This phenomenological analysis differs from previous work  by making minimal assumptions about the high scale theory: we assume the SUSY seesaw and universal soft masses at the GUT scale. The usual approach is to assume a GUT-scale texture that generates the desired neutrino mass matrix, and discuss leptogenesis—the aim here is to input the slepton mass matrix instead of a texture. This analysis should be consistent with all GUTS and texture choices covered by these assumptions.

Section 2 includes notation, and a review of leptogenesis and our parametrisation of the seesaw model. Section 3 presents approximate analytic expressions for the quantities on which leptogenesis depends. The low energy signatures of the parameter space where thermal leptogenesis works are discussed in section 4. CP violation is briefly discussed in section 5. The results are discussed and summarised in section 6.

## 2 Review

The observed deficits in muon neutrinos from the atmosphere  and in electron neutrinos from the sun can be fit with small neutrino mass differences. The recent KamLAND observation of a $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ deficit from reactors confirms the neutrino mass explanation of the solar neutrino puzzle. The small $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ are consistent with three patterns of neutrino mass: hierarchical ($`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{atm}^2=m_3^2`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{sol}^2=m_2^2`$), degenerate ($`m_3m_2m_1\mathrm{\Delta }m_{atm}^2`$) and quasi-Dirac ($`m_3^2m_2^2\mathrm{\Delta }m_{atm}^2`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{sol}^2=m_3^2m_2^2`$). The leptogenesis scenario considered in this paper, where the $`\nu _R`$ are produced by scattering in the plasma, does not work for degenerate $`m_i`$  (see also  for a detailed discussion). The quasi-Dirac spectrum could be interesting, although it is possibly disfavoured by supernova data . We assume the $`m_i`$ are hierarchical, so the neutrino masses are much smaller than the charged lepton and quark masses. These small masses can be naturally understood in the seesaw model.

In subsection 2.1, the seesaw is reviewed from the top-down; introducing new physics at a high scale $`M_X`$, and seeing its low energy implications. This approach has been followed by many model builders who construct a natural or symmetry-motivated structure of the high-scale mass and Yukawa matrices, and then study its low energy consequences. See $`e.g.`$  for early works that produce neutrino mass matrices with small mixing angles, and  for more complete up-to-date references. Lepton flavour violation due to the SUSY seesaw, which could be observed in $`\mathrm{}_j\mathrm{}_i\gamma `$  or in slepton production and decay at colliders  has also been extensively studied from a top down approach (see $`e.g`$ citations of ). Recent studies (for instance ) have considered the branching ratios for $`\mathrm{}_j\mathrm{}_i\gamma `$ in models that induce the two observed large mixing angles among the light leptons.222see also  for a more phenomenological discussion of $`\mu e\gamma `$.

Subsection 2.3, is a “top-down” review of leptogenesis, which is the obvious approach  since the asymmetry is generated at high scales. See  for examples and models. The translation between this approach and our bottom-up phenomenological analysis is not obvious, so it is difficult to relate our work to these papers. A phenomenological analysis of leptogenesis in non-SUSY (so no LFV) SO(10) models was discussed in , with particular attention to the low-energy CP violation. A Yukawa-matrix independent analysis has also been done in the case where there are only two right-handed neutrinos.

### 2.1 Notation and Numbers

We consider the supersymmetric see-saw for two reasons: first, supersymmetry stabilizes the Higgs mass against the quadratic divergences that appear due to heavy particles ($`e.g.`$ the right-handed neutrinos). Secondly, the slepton masses enter our bottom-up parametrisation of the see-saw.

The leptonic part of the superpotential reads

$`W_{lep}=e_{R}^{c}{}_{}{}^{T}𝐘_𝐞LH_d+\nu _{R}^{c}{}_{}{}^{T}𝐘_\nu LH_u{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\nu _{R}^{c}{}_{}{}^{T}\nu _R^c,`$ (1)
where $`L_i`$ and $`e_{Ri}`$ ($`i=e,\mu ,\tau `$) are the left-handed lepton doublet and the right-handed charged-lepton singlet, respectively, and $`H_d`$ ($`H_u`$) is the hypercharge $`1/2`$ ($`+1/2`$) Higgs doublet. $`𝐘_𝐞`$ and $`𝐘_\nu `$ are the Yukawa couplings that give masses to the charged leptons and generate the neutrino Dirac mass, and $``$ is a $`3\times 3`$ Majorana mass matrix. This is the minimal seesaw; additional terms are possible, for instance in SO(10) models a small triplet vev $`T`$ is probable, leading to a $`\nu _LT\nu _L`$ mass term.

We work in the left-handed basis where the charged lepton mass matrix is diagonal, and in a basis of right-handed neutrinos where $``$ is diagonal

$$D_{}\mathrm{d}iag(M_1,M_2,M_3),$$
(2)
with $`M_i0`$, and $`M_1<M_2<M_3`$. In this basis, the neutrino Yukawa matrix must be non-diagonal, but can always be diagonalized by two unitary transformations:

$$𝐘_\nu =V_R^{}D_YV_L,$$
(3)
where $`D_{𝐘_\nu }\mathrm{d}iag(y_1,y_2,y_3)`$ and $`y_1y_2y_3`$. Later in the paper, we will assume that $`D_{𝐘_\nu }`$ is hierarchical, with a steeper hierarchy than is in the light neutrino mass matrix: $`(y_1/y_2)^2m_1/m_2`$.

It is natural to assume that the overall scale of $``$ is much larger than the electroweak scale or any soft mass. Therefore, at low energies the right-handed neutrinos are decoupled and the corresponding effective Lagrangian contains a Majorana mass term for the left-handed neutrinos: $`\delta _{lep}=\frac{1}{2}\nu ^Tm_\nu \nu +\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.,`$ with

$`m_\nu =𝐦_{𝐃}^{}{}_{}{}^{T}^1𝐦_𝐃=𝐘_{\nu }^{}{}_{}{}^{T}^1𝐘_\nu H_u^0^2.`$ (4)
We define the Higgs vev $`H_u^0^2=v_u^2=v^2\mathrm{sin}^2\beta `$, where $`v=174`$ GeV. In the basis where the charged-lepton Yukawa matrix, $`𝐘_𝐞`$ and the gauge interactions are diagonal, the $`[m_\nu ]`$ matrix can be diagonalized by the MNS  matrix $`U`$ according to

$$U^T[m_\nu ]U=\mathrm{d}iag(m_1,m_2,m_3)D_{m_\nu },$$
(5)
where $`U`$ is a unitary matrix that relates flavour to mass eigenstates

$`\left(\begin{array}{c}\nu _e\\ \nu _\mu \\ \nu _\tau \end{array}\right)=U\left(\begin{array}{c}\nu _1\\ \nu _2\\ \nu _3\end{array}\right),`$ (6)
and the $`m_i`$ can be chosen real and positive, and ordered such that $`m_1<m_2<m_3`$. Assuming hierarchical left-handed $`\nu `$ masses, we take $`m_3^2=\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{atm}}^2=2.7\times 10^3eV^2`$  and $`m_2^2=\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{solar}}^2=7.0\times 10^5eV^2`$ . This corresponds to $`m_3=5.2\times 10^2`$ eV ($`3.96.3\times 10^2`$ eV at 90% C.L.), and $`m_2=8.2\times 10^3`$ eV ($`715\times 10^3`$ eV at 3 $`\sigma `$). $`m_1`$ is unknown, usually unimportant, and we take it to be $`m_2/10`$. As we shall see, the baryon asymmetry is weakly dependent on $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ in the parametrisation we use, so we set $`\mathrm{sin}\beta =1`$.

$`U`$ can be written as

$`U=V\mathrm{diag}(e^{i\varphi /2},e^{i\varphi ^{}/2},1),`$ (7)
where $`\varphi `$ and $`\varphi ^{}`$ are CP violating phases, and $`V`$ has the form of the CKM matrix

$$V=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}c_{13}c_{12}& c_{13}s_{12}& s_{13}e^{i\delta }\\ c_{23}s_{12}s_{23}s_{13}c_{12}e^{i\delta }& c_{23}c_{12}s_{23}s_{13}s_{12}e^{i\delta }& s_{23}c_{13}\\ s_{23}s_{12}c_{23}s_{13}c_{12}e^{i\delta }& s_{23}c_{12}c_{23}s_{13}s_{12}e^{i\delta }& c_{23}c_{13}\end{array}\right).$$
(8)
The numerical values of the angles are $`.28\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _{sol}.91`$ (3$`\sigma `$), with best fit point $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _{sol}=.44`$ , so $`\theta _{sol}=.41`$. We take $`\theta _{atm}=\pi /4`$. The CHOOZ angle $`\theta _{13}`$ is experimentally constrained $`\mathrm{sin}\theta _{13}.2`$ . Considerable effort and thought has gone into designing experiments sensitive to smaller values of $`\theta _{13}`$. J-PARC hopes to reach $`O(0.05)`$ , and a neutrino factory could detect $`\theta _{13}`$ as small as $`0.020.001`$.

We assume a simple gravity-mediated SUSY breaking scenario, with universal soft masses at the scale $`M_X`$. The sneutrino mass matrix (in the charged lepton mass eigenstate basis) can be written in the leading log approximation as

$`\left(m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }}^2\right)_{ij}`$ $``$ $`\left(\mathrm{diagonal}\mathrm{part}\right){\displaystyle \frac{3m_0^2+A_0^2}{8\pi ^2}}[𝐘_\nu ^{}]_{ik}[𝐘_\nu ]_{kj}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{M_X}{M_k}},`$ (9)
where “diagonal-part” includes the tree level soft mass matrix, the radiative corrections from gauge and charged lepton Yukawa interactions, and the mass contributions from F- and D-terms.

The branching ratio for $`\mathrm{}_j\mathrm{}_i\gamma `$ can be estimated

$$\frac{BR(\mathrm{}_j\mathrm{}_i\gamma )}{BR(\mathrm{}_j\mathrm{}_i\overline{\nu }_i\nu _j)}C\frac{\alpha ^3}{G_F^2m_{SUSY}^4}|y_k^2\stackrel{~}{V}_{Lkj}^{}\stackrel{~}{V}_{Lki}|^2\mathrm{tan}^2\beta 10^7|y_3^2\stackrel{~}{V}_{L3j}^{}\stackrel{~}{V}_{L3i}|^2\left(\frac{100GeV}{m_{SUSY}}\right)^4\left(\frac{\mathrm{tan}\beta }{2}\right)^2$$
(10)
where $`CO(0.001÷0.01)`$, and $`\stackrel{~}{V}_L`$ diagonalises the second term of eqn (9). More accurate formulae for the branching ratios can be found in . To further simplify these estimates, it would be convenient to assume that $`V_L=\stackrel{~}{V}_L`$. That is, the lepton asymmetry will be a function of the angles of $`V_L`$, and it would be simplest to estimate $`\mathrm{}_j\mathrm{}_i\gamma `$ using the angles of $`V_L`$ for those of $`\stackrel{~}{V}_L`$. This a reasonable approximation when $`\theta _{Lij}\frac{y_i}{y_j}\theta _{Rij}`$ $`(i<j)`$, where $`\theta _{Rij}`$ ( $`\theta _{Lij}`$) is an angle of $`V_R`$($`V_L`$). For hierarchical Yukawa eigenvalues, this is likely to be true, even if an angle $`\theta _R`$ in $`V_R`$ is large, because the usual texture estimate for $`\theta _{Lij}`$ would be $`\sqrt{y_i/y_j}`$. We assume this condition is verified, so the principle contribution to $`[m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }}^2]_{ij}`$ is $`y_k^2V_{Lki}^{}V_{Lkj}`$.

Table 1 lists the current upper limits on the $`\mu e\gamma `$, $`\tau e\gamma `$ and $`\tau \mu \gamma `$ branching ratios, and the corresponding bounds on $`V_{L3j}`$ that can be estimated from eqn (10) . It also contains the hoped for sensitivity of some anticipated rare decay searches. Colliders could also be sensitive to flavour violating slepton masses .

Leptogenesis will depend on angles of $`V_L`$. In the remainder of the paper, we will claim that “leptogenesis predicts an observable $`BR(\mathrm{}_j\mathrm{}_i\gamma )`$”, if the $`V_L`$ elements required exceeed the last column of table 1 (last three rows), with $`y_3=1`$. It is clear that the branching ratios can be decreased, for fixed $`V_L`$, by decreasing $`y_3`$ and adjusting weak scale SUSY parameters. However, if SUSY is discovered, these masses and mixing angles could in principle be measured at colliders, and some information about the magnitude of $`y_3`$ could be available through the renormalisation group equations . This assumption of universal soft masses at the scale $`M_X`$ will not be crucial for our conclusions. Additional contributions to the off-diagonal soft masses are unlikely to cancel the ones we discuss, so the lower bounds we set on LFV branching ratios, from requiring leptogenesis to work, should remain.

Various CP violating phases in the neutrino and slepton mass matrices could be measured in upcoming experiments. However, the experimental sensitivity to the phases depends on the magnitude of unmeasured real parameters. Anticipated $`0\nu \beta \beta `$ experiments may be sensitive to a maximal phase $`\varphi ^{}`$, for the neutrino mass spectrum we consider. The minimum value of the angle $`\delta `$ that could be measured at a $`\nu `$ factory depends on $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2,\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2`$ and $`\theta _{13}`$ (see $`e.g.`$ ), so there is no forseeable clear upper bound. The imaginary part of the product of off-diagonal slepton masses $`\mathrm{}\{[m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }}^2]_{12}[m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }}^2]_{23}[m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }}^2]_{31}\}=\stackrel{~}{J}(\stackrel{~}{m}_2^2\stackrel{~}{m}_1^2)(\stackrel{~}{m}_3^2\stackrel{~}{m}_2^2)(\stackrel{~}{m}_1^2\stackrel{~}{m}_3^2)`$ could be measured in slepton flavour oscillations down to $`\stackrel{~}{J}=10^3`$ . $`\stackrel{~}{J}`$ depends on the magnitude of the $`[m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }}^2]_{ij}`$ as well as their phases, so all the phases in the (s)lepton sector can be of order 1.

### 2.2 Review of the parametrisation

It was shown in  that the seesaw can be parametrised from the bottom-up, using the neutrino and sneutrino mass matrices. See  for applications. A similar phenomenological parametrisation of the non-SUSY seesaw  could be used, if the scale $`M`$ of right-handed masses was low enough to measure dimension six operators $`1/M^2`$. We briefly review  here.

It is in principle possible to extract the matrix

$$P𝐘_\nu ^{}𝐘_\nu =V_L^{}D_Y^2V_L$$
(11)
from its contribution to the renormalisation group running of the slepton mass matrix. This relies critically on having universal soft masses at the GUT scale, and on very precise measurements of sneutrino masses and decays. It is therefore unrealistic. However, since SUSY has not yet been discovered, $`D_Y`$ and $`V_L`$ can be used as inputs in a “bottom-up” parametrisation of the seesaw.

The aim is to determine $`𝐘_\nu `$ and $``$ from $`[m_\nu ]`$ and $`P`$. $`V_L`$ and $`D_Y`$ can be determined from $`P`$, and used to strip the Yukawas off $`[m_\nu ]`$:

$$D_Y^1V_L^{}\frac{[m_\nu ]}{v_u^2}V_L^{}D_Y^1=V_R^{}D_{}^1V_R^{}=^1,$$
(12)
where the left hand side of this equation is known ($`[m_\nu ]`$ is one of the inputs, and $`V_L`$ and $`D_Y`$ were obtained from eq. (11)). Therefore, $`V_R`$ and $`D_{}`$ can also be determined. This shows that, working in the basis where the charged lepton Yukawa coupling, $`𝐘_𝐞`$, the right-handed Majorana mass matrix, $``$, and the gauge interactions are all diagonal, it is possible to determine uniquely the heavy Majorana mass matrix, $``$, and the neutrino Yukawa coupling, $`𝐘_\nu =V_R^{}D_YV_L`$, starting from $`[m_\nu ]`$ and $`𝐘_\nu ^{}𝐘_\nu `$.

### 2.3 Leptogenesis, and the upper bound

The see-saw mechanism provides a natural framework to generate the baryon asymmetry of the Universe, defined as $`\eta _B=(n_Bn_{\overline{B}})/s`$, where $`s`$ is the entropy density. As was shown by Sakharov, generating a baryon asymmetry requires baryon number violation, C and CP violation, and a deviation from thermal equilibrium. These three conditions are fulfilled in the out-of-equilibrium decay of the right-handed neutrinos and sneutrinos in the early Universe. In the remainder of this paper, “right-handed neutrinos”, and the shorthand notation $`\nu _R`$, refer to both right-handed neutrinos and right-handed sneutrinos.

In gravity mediated SUSY breaking scenarios, these is an upper bound from gravitino production on the reheat temperature $`T_{RH}`$ of the Universe after inflation. The gravitino has a mass $`m_{3/2}m_{SUSY}`$ and only gravitational interactions with SM particles, so it is very weakly coupled, and long-lived. If a significant number of them decay at or after Big Bang Nucleosynthesis, they could disrupt the predicted abundances of light elements. Gravitinos can be created by various mechanisms in the early Universe, such as scattering in the thermal plasma, or direct coupling to the inflaton (preheating) . The latter is effective, but avoidable . The number density of gravitinos produced in scattering increases with the plasma temperature, so the bound on $`n_{3/2}`$ sets an upper bound on the reheat temperature of the Universe after inflation of

$$T_{RH}<10^910^{12}GeV$$
(13)
(corresponding to $`m_{3/2}100`$ GeV $`10`$ TeV ). This bound assumes that the gravitino decays; there are models where the gravitino is the LSP, which allow $`T_{RH}<10^{11}`$ GeV .

Let us briefly review the mechanism of generation of the BAU through leptogenesis . At the end of inflation, a certain number density of right-handed neutrinos, $`n_{\nu _R}`$, is somehow produced. If these right-handed neutrinos $`\nu _{R_i}`$ decay out of equilibrium, a lepton asymmetry can be created. The subsequent ratio of the lepton excess to the entropy density $`s`$ is given by

$$\eta _L=\frac{n_{\mathrm{}}n_\overline{\mathrm{}}}{s}=\underset{i}{}\frac{n_{\nu _{R_i}}}{s}ϵ_i\stackrel{~}{d}_i.$$
(14)
The CP-violating parameter $`ϵ_i`$ is determined by the particle physics model that gives the masses and couplings of the $`\nu _R`$. The value of $`n_{\nu _R}/s`$ depends on the mechanism to generate the right-handed neutrinos. We assume the $`\nu _{R_1}`$ are generated by Yukawa scattering in the thermal plasma, in which case $`n_{\nu _R}/s<n^{eq}/s.2/g_{}`$, where $`n^{eq}`$ is the equilibrium number density of massless particles, and $`g_{}230`$ is the number of propagating states in the supersymmetric plasma 333in our conventions, $`n_{\nu _R}=(n_{\nu _R}+n_{\overline{\nu }_R})/2`$. The $`.2`$ is an approximation to $`g_{}n^{eq}/s=\zeta (3)135/(8\pi ^4)`$ .. This also implies an upper bound on the $`\nu _R`$ mass: $`M_1<T_{RH}`$. Finally, $`\stackrel{~}{d}_1`$ is the fraction of the produced asymmetry that survives after $`\nu _R`$ decay. To ensure $`\stackrel{~}{d}_11`$, lepton number violating interactions (decays, inverse decays and scatterings) must be out of equilibrium when the right-handed neutrinos decay. In the case of the lightest right-handed neutrino $`\nu _{R_1}`$, this corresponds approximately to

$$K=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{D_1}}{2H|_{TM_1}}<1$$
(15)
where $`H`$ is the Hubble parameter at the temperature $`T`$, and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{D_1}`$ the $`\nu _{R_1}`$ decay rate. There are two competing requirements on the $`\nu _R`$ parameters—the couplings must be large enough to produce a thermal distribution, but small enough that the $`\nu _R`$ decay out of equilibrium. Thermal leptogenesis has been carefully studied in 444See  for a detailed analysis of thermal leptogenesis at higher temperatures, including the effects of $`\nu _{R2}`$ and $`\nu _{R3}`$. The numerical results of  suggest that $`n_{\nu _R}\stackrel{~}{d}_1/s<n_{\nu _R}^{eq}/s`$: either $`n_{\nu _R}`$ does not attain its equilibrium number density, or lepton number violating interactions wash out a significant fraction of the asymmetry as it is produced. Defining an effective light neutrino “mass”

$$\frac{\stackrel{~}{m}_1}{v_u^2}=8\pi \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{D_1}}{M_1^2}=\frac{(𝐘_\nu 𝐘_{\nu }^{}{}_{}{}^{})_{11}}{M_1}$$
(16)
$`n_{\nu _R}\stackrel{~}{d}_1/s>10^4`$ is realised for  $`5\times 10^5\mathrm{eV}<\stackrel{~}{m}_1<10^2`$ eV. The precise numerical bound on $`\stackrel{~}{m}_1`$ depends on $`M_1`$, and can be found in .

For $`\stackrel{~}{m}_1>10^4`$ eV and $`M_110^9`$ GeV, the dilution factor $`d_1`$ can be approximated

$$\frac{n_{\nu _R}\stackrel{~}{d}_1}{s}d_1\frac{1}{6g_{}}\frac{1}{\sqrt{K^2+1}}$$
(17)
with $`K910\stackrel{~}{m}_1/eV`$ from eqn (15). This is a slight modification of the approximation, to ensure that it falls between the $`M_1=10^8`$ GeV and $`10^{10}`$ GeV lines of , in the relevant range $`.001`$ eV $`<\stackrel{~}{m}_1<.1`$ eV. The exact numerical factor is important, because it is difficult to get a large enough asymmetry. Multiplying $`d_1`$ by a factor of a few significantly increases the parameter space where thermal leptogenesis can work. The approximation (17) neglects the decrease in $`d_1`$ at $`\stackrel{~}{m}_1<10^4`$ eV, which is due to underproduction of $`\nu _{R_i}`$ in scattering. This is reasonable, because $`\stackrel{~}{m}_1m_1`$ , and we take $`m_1=m_2/10`$.

The last step is the transformation of the lepton asymmetry into a baryon asymmetry by non-perturbative B+L violating (sphaleron) processes , giving

$$\eta _B=C\eta _{BL}=(39)\times 10^{11},$$
(18)
where $`C=8/23`$ in the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model. Big Bang Nucleosynthesis constrains $`\eta _B`$ to lie in the range of eqn (18). In a flat Universe, the CMB determines $`\eta _B(0.751.0)\times 10^{10}`$ . The wider BBN range is used in this paper, because it is difficult to generate a large enough $`\eta _B`$.

The CP asymmetry can be approximated as

$`ϵ_1`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{8\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{[𝐘_\nu 𝐘_{\nu }^{}{}_{}{}^{}]_{11}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}\mathrm{Im}\left\{[𝐘_\nu 𝐘_\nu ^{}]_{1j}^2\right\}\left({\displaystyle \frac{M_1}{M_j}}\right)`$ (19)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{8\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{M_1}{[𝐘_\nu 𝐘_{\nu }^{}{}_{}{}^{}]_{11}}}\mathrm{Im}\left\{[𝐘_\nu {\displaystyle \frac{[m_\nu ]^{}}{v_u^2}}𝐘_{\nu }^{}{}_{}{}^{T}]_{11}\right\}.`$ (20)
if the lepton asymmetry is generated in the decay of the lightest right-handed neutrino, and if the masses of the right-handed neutrinos are hierarchical 555If the hierarchy in $`Y_\nu `$ is similar to that of the quarks and charged leptons, then a hierarchy in the $`M_i`$ is natural.. Were the asymmetry produced in the decay of $`\nu _{R_2}`$ or $`\nu _{R_3}`$, it would depend on a different combination of couplings.

It is straightforward to show  that if $`ϵ_1`$ is written

$`|ϵ_1|={\displaystyle \frac{3}{8\pi v_u^2}}M_1m_3\delta _{HMY}`$ (21)
then eqn (20) implies the upper bound $`\delta _{HMY}1`$. The numerical results of  agree with this constraint. Using eqns (14) and (18), this can be transformed into a lower bound on $`M_1`$:

M1

>

ηBC[nνR+nν~Rs38πm3vu2d~1]1=109(ηB3×1011)(.05eVm3)(4×104d1)GeV.

>

subscript𝑀1subscript𝜂𝐵𝐶superscriptdelimited-[]subscript𝑛subscript𝜈𝑅subscript𝑛subscript~𝜈𝑅𝑠38𝜋subscript𝑚3superscriptsubscript𝑣𝑢2subscript~𝑑11superscript109subscript𝜂𝐵3superscript1011.05𝑒𝑉subscript𝑚34superscript104subscript𝑑1GeV\displaystyle M_{1}\mathrel{\vbox{\hbox{$>$}\nointerlineskip\hbox{$\sim$}}}\frac{\eta_{B}}{C}\left[\frac{n_{\nu_{R}}+n_{\tilde{\nu}_{R}}}{s}~{}\frac{3}{8\pi}\frac{m_{3}}{v_{u}^{2}}~{}\tilde{d}_{1}\right]^{-1}=10^{9}\left(\frac{\eta_{B}}{3\times 10^{-11}}\right)\left(\frac{.05eV}{m_{3}}\right)\left(\frac{4\times 10^{-4}}{{d}_{1}}\right){\rm~{}GeV}. (22)
Setting $`m_3`$ to its $`90\%`$ C.L. upper bound 0.063 eV, and $`d_1`$ to its maximum value $`n^{eq}/s45/(2\pi ^4g_{})`$, implies $`M_1>3\times 10^8`$ GeV.

This lower bound on $`M_1`$ comes very close to the gravitino bound eqn (13) on the reheat temperature. Thermal production of the $`\nu _R`$ requires $`M_1<T_{RH}`$ so either $`ϵ`$ is close to its upper bound, or $`M_1,T_{RH}>10^9`$ GeV, or thermal leptogenesis does not generate the observed baryon asymmetry. We explore the first option, and somewhat the second. The third possibility, non-thermal $`\nu _R`$ production, has been discussed by many authors (see e.g. references of ).

## 3 Analytic approximations for $`\delta _{HMY}`$, $`M_1`$, $`\stackrel{~}{m}_1`$

At least three inputs are required to parametrise thermal leptogenesis . A possible choice would be the mass $`M_1`$ and decay rate $`\stackrel{~}{m}_1`$ of the $`\nu _R`$, and the CP asymmetry $`ϵ_1`$. However, $`ϵM_1`$, so we use $`M_1`$, $`\stackrel{~}{m}_1`$ and $`\delta _{HMY}`$ (introduced by Hamaguchi, Murayama and Yanagida), where $`\delta _{HMY}`$ measures how close $`ϵ`$ comes to saturating its upper bound. Note however, that $`\delta _{HMY}`$ is not a CP phase.

This section contains simple analytic approximations indicating the dependence of leptogenesis parameters on measurable quantities, such as neutrino masses and rare LFV decays. We used this approximation, with attention to the phases, in . A similar, somewhat simplified version was introduced in .

The inputs for the analytic approximation are:

$$V_L,D_Y,U,[m_\nu ]$$
(23)
Two of the angles of $`U`$ are known, and the CHOOZ angle is bounded above. The eigenvalues $`y_i`$ of the neutrino Yukawa matrix are unknown, and realistically cannot be determined from the sneutrino mass matrix. It seems reasonable to assume a hierarchy for the $`\{y_i\}`$, since we measure hierarchical Yukawas for the quarks and charged leptons. The $`y_i`$ remain as variables in the equations; we will discover that only the smallest eigenvalue $`y_1`$ is relevant, and can be “traded” for the mass $`M_1`$ of the lightest $`\nu _R`$, which is tightly constrained. $`V_L`$ contains three unknown angles, related to the lepton flavour violating decays $`\mathrm{}_j\mathrm{}_i\gamma `$. There are three phases in both U and $`V_L`$, all are unknown, and assumed to be chosen to maximise the baryon asymmetry.

The lightest eigenvalue and corresponding eigenvector of $``$ are estimated in the first Appendix, which also contains some simple (but illuminating) 3-d plots of leptogenesis parameters. The mass of the lightest $`\nu _R`$ is

$$|M_1|\frac{y_1^2v_u^2}{|W_{1j}^2m_j|}.$$
(24)
where the matrix $`W=V_LU`$ is the rotation from the basis where the $`\nu _L`$ masses are diagonal to the basis where the neutrino Yukawa matrix $`𝐘_\nu ^{}𝐘_\nu `$ is diagonal. There are three limiting values for $`M_1`$, corresponding to $`M_1y_1^2v_u^2/m_i`$: $`M_1y_1^2v_u^2/m_3`$ when $`W_{13}1`$, $`M_1y_1^2v_u^2/m_1`$ when $`W_{13},W_{12}0`$, and $`M_1y_1^2v_u^2/m_2`$ when $`W_{13}<m_2/m_3`$, $`W_{12}1`$. This is easy to see in figure 4.

$`M_1`$ is the only quantity relevant for leptogenesis which depends on $`y_1`$. The latter is effectively unmeasurable; it is constrained by theoretical expectations, and by the requirement that the analytic approximation be self-consistent. Theoretically, the eigenvalues of $`Y_\nu `$ are expected to be hierarchical, and of order the quark or lepton Yukawas, so figure 4 is plotted with $`y_110^4`$. The approximations of this section are consistent, provided that the dropped $`O(y_1^2,y_1^2/y_2^2)`$ terms are smaller than the $`O(m_1/m_3)`$ terms which are kept. This is the case for $`y_110^4`$. Since $`y_1`$ is unmeasurable and only weakly constrained, it can be adjusted, as function of $`m_i`$ and $`W_{1j}`$, to obtain a value for $`M_1`$ where leptogenesis could work. In fact, since $`M_1y_1^2`$ is tightly constrained, the requirement $`M_110^9`$ GeV “determines” $`y_1`$.

The eigenvector (50) can be used to evaluate the $`\nu _{R1}`$ decay rate: eqn. (16) becomes

$$\stackrel{~}{m}_1\frac{_k|W_{1k}^2|m__k^2}{|_nW_{1n}^2m__n|}$$
(25)
$`\stackrel{~}{m}_1`$ has various limits: $`\stackrel{~}{m}_1m_3`$ for $`W_{13}`$ large, $`\stackrel{~}{m}_1m_2`$ for $`W_{12}`$ large and $`W_{13}<m_2/m_3`$ , and $`\stackrel{~}{m}_1m_1`$ when $`W1`$. This is easy to see from the RHS of figure 4. In the $`W1`$ limit, washout is minimised, because the dilution factor $`d_11/\stackrel{~}{m}_1`$.

To saturate the upper bound (21), $`\delta _{HMY}`$ needs to approach 1. Evaluating eq. (20) with the eigenvector(50), gives

$`\delta _{HMY}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{Im}\left\{_{\mathrm{},m}W_1\mathrm{}^2m_{\mathrm{}}^3W_{1m}^2m_m\right\}}{m_3|_nW_{1n}^2m_n|(_j|W_{1j}|^2m_j^2)}}`$ (26)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{|W_{11}W_{12}|^2m_1m_2^3+|W_{11}W_{13}|^2m_1m_3^3+|W_{12}W_{13}|^2m_2m_3^3}{m_3(_n|W_{1n}|^2m_n)(_j|W_{1j}|^2m_j^2)}}`$
This paper is about the relation between real low energy observables (such as $`BR(\mu e\gamma )`$) and the baryon asymmetry, so scant attention will be paid to the phases in $`U`$ and $`V_L`$. For most of parameter space 666 everywhere but when the three terms upstairs have equal magnitude, the phases can be chosen such that $`\delta _{HMY}`$ is larger than the second expression in eqn (26).

This second expression is plotted on the LHS in figure 5. $`\delta _{HMY}`$ can approach 1 if the numerator (upstairs) is dominated by $`m_3^3m_2`$ or by $`m_3^3m_1`$. This is because of the $`m_3`$ in the denominator. If the $`m_3^3m_1`$ dominates upstairs, then $`\delta _{HMY}`$ will approach 1 when $`W_{1j}^2m_jW_{11}^2m_1`$ and $`|W_{1n}|^2m_n^2|W_{13}|^2m_3^2`$, or equivalently, when

$$\frac{m_1^2}{m_3^2}<W_{13}^2<\frac{m_1}{m_3}andW_{12}^2<\frac{m_1}{m_2},\frac{m_2^2}{m_3^2}$$
(27)
This corresponds to the highest ridge in $`\delta _{HMY}`$ in figure 5. Notice that the position of the peak depends sensitively on the lightest neutrino mass $`m_1`$.

If $`m_3^3m_2`$ dominates upstairs, then $`\delta _{HMY}1`$ when

$$W_{12}^2\frac{m_2^2}{m_3^2}<W_{13}^2<W_{12}^2\frac{m_2}{m_3}andW_{11}^2<W_{12}^2\frac{m_2}{m_1},W_{13}^2\frac{m_3^2}{m_1^2}$$
(28)
This corresponds to the shoulder at slightly large $`W_{13}`$, which is cut by $`W_{12}1`$ in the LH plot of figure 5.

Finally, for $`W_{13}`$ very small, $`\delta m_2/m_30.1`$ along the ridge at $`W_{12}0.1`$. This corresponds to the $`m_2^3m_1`$ term dominating upstairs, and arises when

$$W_{11}^2\frac{m_1^2}{m_2^2}<W_{12}^2<\frac{m_1}{m_2}W_{11}^2andW_{13}^2<W_{11}^2\frac{m_1}{m_3},W_{12}^2\frac{m_2^2}{m_3^2}$$
(29)
Although $`\delta _{HMY}`$ does not reach its maximum value for these parameters, the washout is small, so the baryon asymmetry generated is only slightly too small. As we will see in figure 3, it is large enough if $`M_1,T_{RH}10^{10}`$ GeV are allowed.

## 4 When does thermal leptogenesis work?

The baryon asymmetry can be approximated as

$$\eta _B\frac{8d_1}{23}\frac{3}{8\pi v_u^2}M_1m_3\delta _{HMY}$$
(30)
by combining eqns (14), (18), and (21). This is plotted in figure 1, which suggests that $`\eta _B`$ $`can`$ be large enough.

The issue is whether a large enough asymmetry can be generated, so the observational upper limit on $`\eta _B`$ is unimportant. Also, the asymmetry calculated here is the upper bound corresponding to maximal CP violation, so it can be reduced by taking smaller phases. We use the one-$`\sigma `$ observational lower bound on $`\eta _B`$ from nucleosynthesis: $`\eta _B>3\times 10^{11}`$. To obtain a large enough baryon asymmetry by thermal leptogenesis, the parameters $`M_1`$, $`\delta _{HMY}`$, and $`d_1`$ must occupy narrow ranges. The washout effects are minimised when the $`\nu _R`$ decay rate is small, which corresponds to $`W1`$. In this case, $`n_{\nu _R}\stackrel{~}{d}_1/s=d_1<10^3`$ which implies the lower bound $`ϵ>10^7`$. (If $`ϵ>10^6`$ can be obtained, then $`d_110^4`$ is large enough.) Eqn (21) implies a lower bound on $`M_1`$ to get $`ϵ_1`$ large enough. In addition, $`M_1<T_{RH}`$ is required for thermal production; the canonical SUSY gravitino bound is TRH

<

109

<

subscript𝑇𝑅𝐻superscript109T_{RH}\mathrel{\vbox{\hbox{$<$}\nointerlineskip\hbox{$\sim$}}}10^{9} GeV, so $`5ϵ\times 10^{15}\mathrm{GeV}<M_1<T_{RH}`$. Since $`ϵ10^7`$ is required, for M1

<

109

<

subscript𝑀1superscript109M_{1}\mathrel{\vbox{\hbox{$<$}\nointerlineskip\hbox{$\sim$}}}10^{9} GeV one must have $`\delta _{HMY}1`$. The parameter space of choice can be summarised as

$`few\times 10^8GeV`$ $`<M_1<`$ $`few\times 10^9GeV`$
$`d_1`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{45}{2\pi ^4g_{}}},g_{}=230`$ (31)
$`\delta _{HMY}`$ $``$ $`1`$
As can be seen from figures 45, it is difficult to simultaneously satisfy these conditions. $`M_1`$ and $`d_1`$ increase as $`W_{13},W_{12}0`$, but $`\delta `$ decreases.

The analytic approximations of the previous section show that the baryon asymmetry depends on $`U`$ and the first row of $`V_L`$ (via $`W_{1j}`$), on the light neutrino masses $`m_i`$, on the lightest neutrino Yukawa $`y_1`$, and on phases. These real parameters are known, or could be experimentally constrained in the next 20 years—with the exception of $`m_1`$, $`y_1`$, and $`V_{L12}`$. For the purposes of this paper, $`V_{L12}`$ is included with the measurable angles, and $`y_1`$ is $`determined`$ as a function of $`m_1`$, by requiring that $`M_1`$ be in the range (31) where leptogenesis could work. The baryon asymmetry then becomes independent of $`y_1`$. Some subtle dependence on $`m_1`$ remains: the area and location of the high ridge in figure 1 depend on $`m_1`$, but the baryon asymmetry and low energy footprints do not. This is discussed in the Appendix about $`m_1`$.

Notice also that it could be expected to have a similar hierarchy in the neutrino Yukawas as in the other fermions, in which case $`y_1h_u,h_e`$ or $`h_d`$. This gives

$$M_1\left(\frac{y_1}{h_u}\right)^2\left(\frac{m_2}{W_{1j}^2m_j}\right)3\times 10^6\mathrm{GeV}$$
(32)
where $`W_{1j}^2m_j`$ is usually of order $`m_2`$. If $`y_1h_u`$, then $`\eta _B`$ is too small over most of parameter space. This was found in some models by . The baryon asymmetry can be large enough, for $`y_1h_u`$, in the small area of parameter space where $`W_{1j}^2m_jm_1<m_2/100`$. This is in the $`m_1`$ Appendix too.

The baryon asymmetry depends weakly on $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, when $`M_1`$ is taken as an input, and $`d_1`$ is approximated as $`1/\stackrel{~}{m}_1\mathrm{sin}^2\beta `$. The $`m_i`$ are experimentally measured, and therefore independent of $`\mathrm{sin}^2\beta `$, so it is clear from eqn (30) that the $`\mathrm{sin}\beta `$ dependence arises entirely from $`\stackrel{~}{m}_1`$. If instead $`M_1=(y_1^2v_u^2)/|W_{1j}^2m_j|`$, then $`\eta _B\mathrm{sin}^4\beta `$. In both cases, larger $`\mathrm{sin}\beta `$ is marginally favoured.

The parameters $`W_{12}`$ and $`W_{13}`$ are convenient, because they summarise the unknown mixing angles and phases. The physically relevant quantities for leptogenesis ($`M_1,ϵ,`$…) can be plotted as a function of the two real unknowns $`|W_{12}|`$ and $`|W_{13}|`$. However, the $`W_{1j}`$ are not observable—the matrix $`W`$ is related to the more physical matrices $`V_L`$ and $`U`$ by $`W=V_LU`$. Recall that $`V_L`$ rotates from the basis where the neutrino Yukawa matrix $`Y_\nu `$ is diagonal to the basis where $`Y_e`$ is diagonal, and $`U`$ rotates from the basis where $`[m_\nu ]`$ is diagonal to the basis where $`Y_e`$ is diagonal. $`W`$ can be written

$`W_{13}`$ $`=`$ $`V_{L11}\mathrm{sin}\theta _{13}e^{i\delta }+V_{L12}/\sqrt{2}+V_{L12}/\sqrt{2}`$ (33)
$`W_{12}`$ $`=`$ $`V_{L11}\mathrm{sin}\theta _{sol}+V_{L12}(\mathrm{cos}\theta _{sol}\mathrm{sin}\theta _{sol}\mathrm{sin}\theta _{13}e^{i\delta })/\sqrt{2}`$ (34)
$`V_{L13}(\mathrm{cos}\theta _{sol}+\mathrm{sin}\theta _{sol}\mathrm{sin}\theta _{13}e^{i\delta })/\sqrt{2}`$
where $`\theta _{12}=\theta _{sol}`$ and $`\theta _{23}=\pi /4`$ in the MNS matrix.

From a model building perspective, there are two natural limits for $`W`$. The most popular is for the large leptonic mixing angles to come from the seesaw structure of the light neutrino mass matrix. In this case, $`V_L1`$ can easily arise, so $`WU`$. This is similar to the quark sector, where the CKM matrix (the analogue of $`V_L`$) has small angles. An example of this is texture models where the large atmospheric mixing angle is due to a $`\nu _R`$ mass eigenstate having approximately equal Yukawa couplings to $`\nu _\mu `$ and $`\nu _\tau `$ . Alternatively, the electron Yukawa matrix $`Y_e`$ could be “the odd man out” ; it could have large off-diagonal elements in a basis where the neutrino mass matrix $`[m_\nu ]`$ and $`Y_\nu `$ are simultaneously almost diagonal. In this case $`V_LU^{}`$ and $`W1`$. These two cases are discussed in the following two subsections. Figure 1 suggests that thermal leptogenesis can work for $`W1`$. As we shall see, a large enough asymmetry is also possible in the $`V_L1`$ limit, if a slightly larger $`T_{RH}`$ is allowed.

The plots are functions of $`\mathrm{log}W_{13}`$ and $`\mathrm{log}W_{12}`$, rather than, $`e.g.W_{12}`$ and $`W_{13}`$. It is sensible to use logarithmic measure on unknown physical parameters777 this choice of measure is neither unique nor universally agreed on because it is equally probable for mixing angles to have any order of magnitude between $`e.g.10^3`$ and 1. However, $`W_{1j}`$ are not physical parameters, so this reasoning does not apply to them. Specifically, values of $`W_{12}<\mathrm{sin}\theta _{sol}`$ arise in the presumably small area of parameter space where $`V_LU^{}`$. This reasoning does apply to the CHOOZ angle and the unknown angles of $`V_L`$, but we prefer to plot $`\eta _B`$ as a function of two unknowns, rather than four. So a more appropriate measure on $`W_{12}`$ might be logarithmic in the difference away from $`U_{12}\mathrm{sin}\theta _{sol}`$. Therefore, on the RHS of figure 1 is plotted the same function as on the LHS, but as a function of $`\omega _{13}`$ log($`W_{13}`$), and $`\chi _{12}`$, the latter defined such that

$$W_{12}=\mathrm{sin}(\theta _{sol}10^{\chi _{12}}\pi /2).$$
(35)
$`\chi _{12}\mathrm{log}[W_{12}U_{12}]`$ is an approximation to the log of the unknown angles of $`V_L`$ (see eqn (34)). So the RHS plot tells us the same information as its twin on the left: the asymmetry is largest if a large angle in $`V_L`$ cancels the large solar angle in the MNS matrix $`U`$.

A final technical comment: $`W1`$ and $`V_L1`$ mean the 12 and 13 matrix elements are small

<

.1

<

absent.1\mathrel{\vbox{\hbox{$<$}\nointerlineskip\hbox{$\sim$}}}.1. $`W1`$ means that $`W`$ maximises $`\eta _B`$, so W12

<

.1

<

subscript𝑊12.1W_{12}\mathrel{\vbox{\hbox{$<$}\nointerlineskip\hbox{$\sim$}}}.1 and .01

<

W13

<

.1

<

.01subscript𝑊13

<

.1.01\mathrel{\vbox{\hbox{$<$}\nointerlineskip\hbox{$\sim$}}}W_{13}\mathrel{\vbox{\hbox{$<$}\nointerlineskip\hbox{$\sim$}}}.1. $`V_L1`$ includes both the possibilities that the angles of $`V_L`$ are smaller, or larger, than the CHOOZ angle.

Section 4.1 studies the phenomenological consequences of sitting in the region where thermal leptogenesis works easily, which corresponds approximately to W12

<

.1

<

subscript𝑊12.1W_{12}\mathrel{\vbox{\hbox{$<$}\nointerlineskip\hbox{$\sim$}}}.1, .01

<

W13

<

.1

<

.01subscript𝑊13

<

.1.01\mathrel{\vbox{\hbox{$<$}\nointerlineskip\hbox{$\sim$}}}W_{13}\mathrel{\vbox{\hbox{$<$}\nointerlineskip\hbox{$\sim$}}}.1. Then in section 4.2, some of the parameters which are fixed in figure 1 are varied, so a large enough baryon asymmetry can be generated for $`V_L=1`$. The parameter space between these two limits is discussed in section 4.3.

### 4.1 $`W1`$

The parameter space where $`\eta _B`$ is largest in figure 1 corresponds roughly to

$$.01<W_{13}<.1W_{12}<.1.$$
(36)
This can be understood from the analytic approximation (30). We fix $`M_110^9`$ GeV, so $`\eta _Bd_1\delta _{HMY}`$. The factor $`d_1`$ is largest when the $`\nu _R`$ decay rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\stackrel{~}{m}_1`$ is smallest, so more of the asymmetry survives when $`W1`$ (see the expression 25). $`\delta _{HMY}`$ parametrises how close $`ϵ`$ can come to its upper bound (21). For $`m_1m_2/10`$, the values of $`W_{12}`$, $`W_{13}`$ where $`\delta _{HMY}`$ is maximised (eqn 27) correspond to eqn (36). $`\eta _B`$ is maximal at smaller $`W_{13}`$ than $`\delta _{HMY}`$, as can be seen by comparing figures 1 and 4. This is due to the lepton number washout encoded in $`d_1`$, which is faster at larger $`W_{13}`$.

To obtain $`W_{12}`$ and $`W_{13}`$ in this region, $`V_L`$ must have the form

$$V_L=R_{23}[U_{}]^{}$$
(37)
where $`R_{23}`$ is an unspecified complex rotation in the 23 plane (written in the form of eqn (8) with $`\theta _{12}=\theta _{13}=0`$, $`S\mathrm{sin}\theta _{23},`$ $`C\mathrm{cos}\theta _{23}`$, and taking a 23 phase $`\alpha `$), and $`[U_{}]`$ is a matrix whose angles are roughly those of the MNS matrix $`\pm .1`$. The unknown $`R_{23}`$ appears because leptogenesis only depends on the first row of $`W`$.

It is interesting to study the implications for $`\mathrm{}_j\mathrm{}_i\gamma `$ of eqn (37). Taking $`[U_{}]=U`$

$`V_{L31}`$ $`=`$ $`Se^{i(\alpha +\varphi ^{}/2)}c_{13}s_{12}+Cs_{13}e^{i\delta }`$
$``$ $`Se^{i(\alpha +\varphi ^{}/2)}s_{sol}+Cs_{13}e^{i\delta }`$
$`V_{L32}`$ $`=`$ $`Se^{i(\alpha +\varphi ^{}/2)}(c_{23}c_{12}s_{23}s_{13}s_{12}e^{i\delta })+Cs_{23}c_{13}`$
$``$ $`Se^{i(\alpha +\varphi ^{}/2)}c_{sol}/\sqrt{2}+C/\sqrt{2}`$
For generic values of $`S`$, this implies $`V_{L32}1`$, so an experimentally accessible $`\tau \mu \gamma `$ branching ratio. If, on the other hand, $`S`$ is tuned to make $`V_{L32}0`$, then $`BR(\tau \mu \gamma )`$ would be unobservable. However, in this case $`V_{L31}\mathrm{sin}\theta _{sol}/\sqrt{1+\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _{sol}}1/\sqrt{3}`$, so $`\tau e\gamma `$ should be observable. One can conclude that if leptogenesis takes place in the $`W1`$ peak of figure 1, then one or both of $`\tau \mu \gamma `$ and $`\tau e\gamma `$ should have a branching ratio $`>10^9`$ (according to the leading log approximation of the introduction). Similarly, $`BR(\mu e\gamma )`$ should be $`>10^{14}`$ if $`S`$ or $`s_{13}>10^3`$.

### 4.2 $`V_L=1`$

It is barely possible to get a large enough baryon asymmetry when the angles in $`V_L`$ are small, although this is not evident from figure 1. In the limit $`V_L1`$, the matrix $`WU`$, so $`W_{12}\mathrm{sin}\theta _{sol}`$ and $`W_{13}\mathrm{sin}\theta _{13}`$. In figure 1, $`\eta _B`$ is at least a factor of 6 to small at $`\mathrm{log}W_{12}0.5`$ (equivalently, $`\chi _{12}`$ small), but there is a bump at $`W_{13}.1`$. In this section, $`\eta _B`$ at $`V_L=1`$ is increased by varying $`m_3,m_2`$ and $`M_1`$; $`V_L`$ close to the identity is discussed in the following subsection.

If $`V_L=1`$, eqns (24) and (25) give

$`M_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{y_1^2v_u^2}{m_2s_{12}^2}}`$
$`\stackrel{~}{m}_1`$ $`=`$ $`m_2`$
To maximise the asymmetry, $`M_1`$ is taken to be $`f\times 10^9`$ GeV, where $`f`$ is a few (this determines $`y_1^2=M_1m_2s_{12}^2/v_u^27.2f\times 10^8`$ ). In figure 10 of , the lepton asymmetry is plotted as a function of $`\stackrel{~}{m}_1`$ for various values of $`M_1`$ and $`ϵ_1=10^6`$. This plot shows that for $`ϵ10^6`$, a large enough asymmetry can be generated when $`\stackrel{~}{m}_1m_2`$. Note that the washout effects are correctly included in this plot of , so this result does not depend on the analytic approximation of eqn (17). Also, the asymmetry increases as $`\stackrel{~}{m}_1`$ decreases, so small values of the solar mass are prefered.

The upper bound of eqn (21) implies that for $`ϵ=10^6`$, $`fm_3\delta _{HMY}=0.25`$eV. From the experimentally allowed range of $`m_3`$ given after eqn (6), we see that $`M_13\times 10^9`$ GeV is required, assuming $`\delta 1`$ is also possible. For $`V_L=1`$,

$$\delta _{HMY}\frac{s_{13}^2m_3^3s_{12}^2m_2\mathrm{sin}(\varphi ^{}2\delta )}{m_3(s_{12}^2m_2^2+s_{13}^2m_3^2)s_{12}^2m_2}$$
(38)
which approaches 1 when $`s_{13}s_{12}m_2/m_3`$. In the RH plot of figure (1), $`V_L=1`$ corresponds to $`W_{13}=\mathrm{sin}\theta _{13}`$ and $`\chi _{12}\mathrm{}`$. In figure 2, $`\delta _{HMY}`$ is plotted as a function of $`\theta _{13}`$ on the LHS; the analytic approximation to $`\eta _B`$ (eqn (30)) is plotted on the RHS. So thermal leptogenesis “works” at $`V_L=1`$, for $`M_16\times 10^9`$ GeV.

Phrased another way: for arbitrarily small $`\mathrm{}_j\mathrm{}_i\gamma `$ branching ratios, requiring thermal leptogenesis to work predicts the CHOOZ angle $`\theta _{13}`$. If $`m_3`$ is taken at its $`90\%C.L.`$ upper bound, and $`M_16\times 10^9`$ GeV, then $`\eta _B3\times 10^{11}`$ can be obtained. This requires a CHOOZ angle of $`\theta _{13}4\times 10^2`$, and phases which satisfy $`2\delta \varphi ^{}=\pi /2`$.

### 4.3 $`V_L`$ from $`1`$ to $`U^{}`$

It is clear from the RHS of figure 1, that if a large enough asymmetry can be generated at $`V_L=1`$ ($`\chi _{12}3`$), then enough baryons can be generated along the ridge leading to the peak, and also along the “other” ridge at $`W_{12}m_1/m_2`$. To sit on this second ridge requires $`W1`$, so has the same experimental signatures as discussed in section 4.1. This section is about the $`W_{13}m_2/m_3`$ ridge stretching from $`V_L1`$ to the $`W1`$ peak.

Starting from the small $`\chi _{12}`$, flat section of the ridge and moving towards the peak corresponds to allowing small matrix elements VL12,VL13

<

.1

<

subscript𝑉𝐿12subscript𝑉𝐿13.1V_{L12},V_{L13}\mathrel{\vbox{\hbox{$<$}\nointerlineskip\hbox{$\sim$}}}.1. In this limit,

$`W_{13}`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{sin}\theta _{13}+V_{L12}/\sqrt{2}+V_{L13}/\sqrt{2}`$
and $`W_{13}0.04`$ is required to get a large enough asymmetry. Unfortunately, $`W_{13}0.04`$ determines a sum of three unknowns: θ13

>

.04

>

subscript𝜃13.04\theta_{13}\mathrel{\vbox{\hbox{$>$}\nointerlineskip\hbox{$\sim$}}}.04 could be observed, $`V_{L13}0.04`$ induces a potentially observable $`\tau e\gamma `$ signal, but $`V_{L12}`$ has no observable consequences. For $`V_L1`$, the $`V_{L12}`$ contribution to $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }}^2`$ (eqn (9)) is suppressed by $`y_2^210^4`$.

Figure 3 is a contour plot in $`\omega _{13}`$ and $`\chi _{12}`$ space of the approximation (30) to $`\eta _B`$. The contours enclose the area when $`\eta _B>2\times 10^{11}`$, for $`M_1=f\times 10^9`$ GeV, central values of $`m_3`$ and $`m_2`$, $`m_1=m_2/10`$, and are labelled by $`f`$. Allowing $`f>1`$ significantly increases the available parameter space. This corresponds to increasing $`M_1`$ (which should be $`<T_{RH}`$), or increasing $`m_3`$, which is constrained by atmospheric neurtino oscillations, or for $`\chi _{12}<0.5`$, to decreasing $`m_2`$, which is constrained by solar neutrino experiments and KamLAND. Perhaps the most palatable way to increase $`f`$ is to allow $`T_{RH}10^{10}`$ GeV. The value of $`\eta _B`$ chosen, $`\eta _B=2\times 10^{11}`$, is minimal. To obtain the CMB favoured $`\eta _B9\times 10^{11}`$, would require values of $`f`$ that were four times larger.

## 5 CP violation

In a previous paper, we discussed the relation between the leptonic phases that could be measured at low energy, and the CP violation required for leptogenesis. We assumed that $`ϵ`$ was large enough, and studied the relative importance of the neutrino factory phase $`\delta `$ and the double beta decay phase $`\varphi ^{}`$ for leptogenesis. If the right-handed neutrinos $`\nu _{R1}`$ are produced non-thermally, getting $`ϵ`$ large enough may not be a significant constraint (see $`e.g.`$  for a discussion and references). However, we have seen that it is a challenge when the $`\nu _{R1}`$ are produced thermally. So in this section, we briefly discuss the relative importance of low-energy phases for thermal leptogenesis—imposing the constraint that $`ϵ`$ is large enough.

It is well known that there is no linear relation between the “leptogenesis phase” and $`\delta `$ or $`\varphi ^{}`$ . That is, the lepton asymmetry can be non-zero when $`\delta =\varphi ^{}=0`$, and it can be zero when $`\delta ,\varphi ^{}0`$. To overcome this, we introduced a statistical notion of “overlap” between the leptogenesis phase and the low energy phases of our parametrisation. The overlap $`O_\delta `$ aimed to quantify the relative importance of the phase $`\delta `$ for leptogenesis, assuming that all the low-energy phases were $`O(1)`$. In , we considered the cases where $`W_{13}^2W_{12}^2m_3^3m_2`$, or $`W_{12}^2W_{11}^2m_2^3m_1`$, is the most important term upstairs in $`\delta _{HMY}`$. That is, we consider $`V_L=1`$, $`V_L1`$ and the case of large $`V_L`$ angles that do not exactly cancel those in $`U`$. This occurs over most of the parameter space where $`ϵ`$ could be large enough. However, $`ϵ`$ is largest in the small area of parameter space where $`W1`$ and $`W_{13}^2W_{11}^2m_3^3m_1`$ dominates upstairs in $`\delta _{HMY}`$. So let us now consider which low-energy phases are important for leptogenesis in this case.

Writing the phases explicitely gives

$`ϵ\mathrm{}\{W_{11}^2W_{13}^2\}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{}\{e^{i\varphi }[V_{L11}c_{13}c_{12}+|V_{L12}|e^{i2\phi _{12}}(c_{23}s_{12}s_{23}c_{12}s_{13}e^{i\delta })`$ (39)
$`+|V_{L13}|e^{i2\phi _{13}}(s_{23}s_{12}c_{23}c_{12}s_{13}e^{i\delta })]^2\times [V_{L11}s_{13}e^{i\delta }+|V_{L12}|e^{i2\phi _{12}}s_{23}c_{13}`$
$`+|V_{L13}|e^{i2\phi _{13}}c_{23}c_{13}]^2\}`$
where $`\phi _{1j}`$ is the phase of $`V_{1j}`$. $`V_{1j}U_{j1}^{}e^{i\omega _1}`$, because $`Wdiag\{e^{i\omega _1},e^{i\omega _2},1\}`$ 888This constraint on $`W`$ is what we usually refer to as $`W1`$. Since $`V_{11}`$ is real, $`\omega _1\varphi /2`$.. The “neutrinoless double beta decay phase” $`\varphi ^{}`$ is irrelevant for leptogenesis, because it only enters into $`W_{12}`$. The phase $`\varphi `$ of $`m_1`$ will always be important, because $`W_{11}e^{i\varphi /2}`$, so $`ϵ`$ will be a sum of terms $`\mathrm{sin}(m\varphi \mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}+\mathrm{})`$. Both the phases $`\phi _{12}`$ and $`\phi _{13}`$ of $`V_{L12}`$ and $`V_{L13}`$ are likely to have significant overlap with the leptogenesis phase, because $`V_LU^{}`$ so the $`|V_{L1j}|`$ are large. The “neutrino factory phase” $`\delta `$ always multiplies the CHOOZ angle, which suppresses its contribution to $`ϵ`$.

The three weak-scale phases which have significant “overlap” with the leptogenesis phase, in the area of parameter space near $`W1`$, are therefore $`\phi _{12}`$, $`\phi _{13}`$ and $`\varphi `$. This is unfortunate, because although there is some hope of measuring $`\varphi ^{}`$ and $`\delta `$, there is no foreseeable experiment to determine any of these three.

## 6 Discussion and summary

This paper has discussed leptogenesis in a minimal model of the SUSY seesaw, with gravity mediated SUSY breaking and universal soft masses at a high scale. It uses a parametrisation of the model in terms of

$$D_{m_\nu },U,D_Y,V_L$$
(40)
where $`D_{m_\nu }`$ is the diagonal light majorana neutrino mass matrix (assumed hierarchical), $`U`$ is the MNS matrix, $`D_Y`$ is the diagonal neutrino Yukawa matrix, and $`V_L`$ diagonalises $`Y_\nu ^{}Y_\nu `$. The notation is briefly defined in table, 2. giving the equation numbers of more detailed definitions. The angles of the unitary matrix $`V_L`$ can be related, in SUSY models, to the rates for $`\mathrm{}_j\mathrm{}_i\gamma `$ because $`Y_\nu ^{}Y_\nu `$ contributes to the renormalisation group equations for the slepton masses. This allows the right handed neutrino masses and Yukawa couplings to be expressed as a function of quantities which could be measured, in principle or in practise, at the weak scale. This parametrisation is briefly reviewed in section 2.2.

The baryon asymmetry produced in leptogenesis depends on the number density of right-handed neutrinos which decay, on $`ϵ`$ the average lepton asymmetry produced per decay, and on the survival probability of the asymmetry in the thermal plasma after it is produced. We consider the “thermal leptogensis” scenario, in which the right-handed neutrinos are produced by scattering interactions in the plasma. Non-thermal production mechanisms are also possible, perhaps even probable, but depend on additional parameters from the sector which produces the right-handed neutrinos. Both the thermally produced $`\nu _R`$ number density, and the survival probability of the lepton asymmetry in the plasma after it is produced, can be computed from the reheat temperature of the plasma after inflation $`T_{RH}`$, and from the seesaw parameters. These processes have been carefully studied in .

A convenient analytic approximation to the numerical results of  is used in this paper. A single function $`d_1`$ (see equation (17)) is defined as the number density of $`\nu _R\times `$ the survival probabilty of the lepton asymmetry once it is produced. So the baryon to entropy ratio today is $`\eta _B8d_1ϵ/23`$. 999where the 8/23 arises in the transformation of the lepton asymmetry into a baryon asymmetry by the electroweak $`B+L`$ violating processes.

The $`CP`$ asymmetry produced in the decay of the lightest $`\nu _R`$ is bounded above (for hierarchical $`M_i`$ and $`m_j`$):

$$ϵ<\frac{3M_1m_3}{8\pi v_u^2}$$
(41)
where $`M_1`$ is the mass of the $`\nu _{R1}`$ and $`m_3=\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{atm}^2}`$. Since $`d_1`$ cannot exceed $`45/(2\pi ^4g_{})`$ for thermally produced $`\nu _{R1}`$, obtaining $`\eta _B>3\times 10^{11}`$ requires $`M_1>3\times 10^8`$ GeV.

In section 3, approximate analytic formulae for the lightest $`\nu _R`$ mass $`M_1`$, for the CP asymmetry $`ϵ`$ and for the baryon asymmetry $`\eta _B`$, are given in terms of our weak-scale parameters. These approximations are valid for hierarchical $`M_i`$ and neutrino Yukawa eigenvalues $`y_j`$. The baryon asymmetry can be written as a function

$$\eta _B(m_2,m_3,\theta _{23},\theta _{12};\theta _{13},V_{L12},V_{L13},y_1,m_1,phases)$$
(42)
where “known” low-energy parameters precede the semi-colon. We concentrate on the dependence of $`\eta _B`$ on real parameters, assuming that the phases can be chosen to maximise the asymmetry.

It is interesting that the baryon asymmetry only depends on 5 of the 8 unknown real parameters in eqn (40). Two of these, $`\theta _{13}`$ and $`V_{L13}`$, are possibly measurable; the constraints that thermal leptogenesis imposes on them will be discussed later for different areas of parameter space. On the other hand, there are no foreseen experiments that could determine $`y_1`$, $`m_1`$, and $`V_{L12}`$. $`V_{L12}`$ is included in the discussion with $`\theta _{13}`$ and $`V_{L13}`$, because these three unknowns can be exchanged for the 12 and 23 elements of $`W=V_LU`$. This simplifies expressions and is convenient for plotting. The dependence of $`\eta _B`$ on $`m_1`$ is subtle, comparatively unimportant, and discussed in an Appendix. The lightest right-handed neutrino mass $`M_1`$, and therefore the baryon asymmetry, is proportional to $`y_1^2`$. So $`y_1^2`$ is exchanged for $`M_1`$. This is a peculiar exchange— why do we want to use a GUT-scale mass as input in our weak-scale parametrisation? The off-diagonal elements of $`V_L`$, and the $`y_i`$, are related to lepton flavour violating off-diagonal slepton mass matrix entries (to which processes like $`\mathrm{}_j\mathrm{}_i\gamma `$ are sensitive), and to slepton mass differences. The smallest neutrino Yukawa $`y_1`$ makes negligeable contributions to both these effects. However, $`M_1>3\times 10^8`$ GeV is required for thermal leptogenesis to have any hope of working, and if SUSY is discovered, the sparticle spectrum could give some indication of the gravitino mass, and therefore the allowed reheat temperature $`T_{RH}>M_1`$. So we “determine” $`y_1`$ by requiring that thermal leptogenesis $`could`$ produce a large enough asymmetry: $`3\times 10^8`$ GeV $`<M_1<T_{RH}`$. Then we study the requirements on the remaining parameters such that the asymmetry $`is`$ large enough. These additional requirements may have observable consequences.

The analytic formulae of section 3 are simple and compact, but nonetheless difficult to visualise. The asymmetry depends on the first row of the matrix $`W`$, so for qualitative understanding, we show 3-dimensional figures of leptogenesis parameters as a function of $`\omega _{13}`$ log$`W_{13}`$, and $`\omega _{12}`$ log$`W_{12}`$. Logarithmic measure is reasonable for unmeasured but observable matrix elements—which the $`W_{1j}`$ are not. For small angles in $`V_L`$ (see section 4 for a general discussion), the $`W_{1j}`$ can be related to the more physical matrix elements $`V_{L1k}`$ and $`U_{ij}`$: $`W_{13}\theta _{13}+V_{L12}+V_{L13}`$, $`W_{12}\mathrm{sin}\theta _{sol}+V_{L12}+V_{L13}`$. To present the area of parameter space where leptogenesis works with a more physical measure, we therefore plot the baryon asymmetry as a function of $`\omega _{13}`$ and $`\chi _{12}`$ log$`[V_{L12}+V_{L13}]`$ in figures 1 and 3.

We define thermal leptogenesis to “work” if it can produce $`\eta _B>3\times 10^{11}`$, as required by Big Bang Nucleosynthesis. For $`M_110^9`$ GeV (consistent with the canonical gravitino bound $`T_{RH}10^9`$ GeV), leptogenesis can work: there is a limited parameter space where the upper bound on $`ϵ`$ is almost saturated, $`and`$ $`d_1`$ is close to maximal. This can be seen in figure 3, where the baryon asymmetry is large enough inside the contours, which are labelled by $`f`$, where $`M_1=f\times 10^9`$ GeV. Increasing $`T_{RH}`$ (and thereby the allowed $`M_1`$) enlarges the parameter space where thermal leptogenesis works.

We now come to the aim of the paper— what are the weak scale foot prints of thermal leptogenesis? What parameter values must be observed, if thermal leptogenesis works in an MSUGRA model?

Suppose first that $`f1`$, which corresponds to $`M_110^9`$ GeV for central values of the light neutrino masses. Thermal leptogenesis works in the area of figure 3 at $`\omega _{13}2`$ and $`\chi _{12}0.5`$. This small area of parameter space is discussed in section 4.1, and occurs if $`W=V_LU1`$. The phenomenological consequences of this area of parameter space are unambiguous: the branching ratio of $`\tau \mu \gamma `$, or $`\tau e\gamma `$, should be large. More concretely, at least one of $`V_{L32}`$ or $`V_{L31}`$ is $`O(1/\sqrt{2})`$, so according to the estimates of table 1, $`BR(\tau \mathrm{}\gamma )>10^8`$.

From a theoretical model building perspective, this area of parameter space corresponds to the neutrino Yukawa and light mass matrices $`Y_\nu `$ and $`[m_\nu ]`$ being almost simultaneously diagonalisable. The large leptonic mixing angles arise in the rotation from this basis to the one where the charged lepton Yukawa matrix $`Y_e`$ is diagonal.

The baryon asymmetry is largest at this point for two reasons. The $`\nu _R`$ decay rate (eqn (16)) is small, so lepton number violation is slow after the asymmetry is produced, and more of the asymmetry survives. Secondly, the asymmetry produced is almost maximal; it comes within a factor of $`O(1)`$ of the upper bound eqn (41). This is discussed after eqn (26).

The area of this parameter space, where $`\eta _B`$ is largest, depends on the smallest neutrino mass $`m_1`$. The plots are made with $`m_1=m_2/10`$; the area shrinks as $`m_1`$ decreases. This peak in $`\eta _B`$ only exists for $`m_10`$. It is interesting that the CP asymmetry and the low-energy footprints of this area of parameter space are independent of $`m_1`$. However, the number density of $`\nu _R`$ (and therefore the baryon asymmetry) decreases for $`m_1<10^5`$ eV, and our approximation fails. See the Appendix for a discussion.

In brief, if a sparticle spectrum consistent with gravity mediated SUSY breaking is measured, with a gravitino mass of $`m_{3/2}100`$ GeV ($`T_{RH}10^9`$ GeV), then $`\tau \mu \gamma `$ or $`\tau e\gamma `$ must be observable for thermal leptogenesis to work.

Now consider the enlarged parameter space allowed by $`M_1/(10^9`$ GeV) $`f>1`$ in figure 3: thermal leptogenesis works for $`W_{13}m_2/m_3`$ and pretty much all values of $`W_{12}`$. This sets one constraint on the three ”physical” matrix elements $`\mathrm{sin}\theta _{13}`$, $`V_{L13}`$ and $`V_{L12}`$. As discussed in sections 4.2 and 4.3, it can be satisfied if any one of the angles is $`O(m_2/m_3)`$. These possibilities have different weak-scale implications.

If $`V_L`$ has small angles like the CKM matrix, $`V_{L13},V_{L12}0.1`$, then leptogenesis requires that the CHOOZ angle $`\theta _{13}0.04`$, which is close to its current experimental bound. This implies that the baryon asymmetry is determined by parameters which can be measured in the neutrino sector 101010Caveat: $`\eta _BM_1m_3/m_2`$ in this case, and we “determine” $`M_16\times 10^9`$ GeV by requiring $`\eta _B`$ large enough. If $`m_3`$ ($`m_2`$) is larger (smaller) than the current best-fit values, $`\eta _B`$ increases.: $`m_3`$, $`m_2`$, $`\theta _{13}`$ and the phases $`\delta `$ and $`\varphi ^{}`$.

If the CHOOZ angle $`\theta _{13}0.1`$, then it is still possible to sit on the $`W_{13}0.04`$ ridge, by having $`V_{L13}`$, or $`V_{L12}0.04`$. The former angle is related to $`\tau e\gamma `$, and could perhaps be measured in this process. Unfortunately, $`V_{L12}`$ appears in the RGEs multiplying $`y_2^2`$, the middle Yukawa eigenvalue, so has no observable consequences in the slepton mass matrix. So thermal leptogenesis can “work” when $`\theta _{13}`$ and $`BR(\mathrm{}_j\mathrm{}_i\gamma )`$ are unobservably small.

The matrix elements $`V_{L13}`$, and $`V_{L12}`$ are small along most of the $`W_{13}`$ ridge currently under discussion. Many texture models occupy this area of parameters space, where the CKM-like matrix $`V_L`$ (between the bases where $`Y_\nu `$ and $`Y_e`$ are diagonal) has small angles. The large angles of the MNS matrix then arise from the majorana structure of $`Y^T^1Y`$.

The baryon asymmetry is larger along the ridge than in the rest of parameter space, because the washout is moderate—$`\stackrel{~}{m}m_2`$—and because the CP asymmetry $`ϵ`$ approaches its upper bound (41). Notice that the baryon asymmetry on this ridge is independent of $`m_1`$—the solution remains as $`m_10`$. As discussed after eqn (26), there are two limits in which $`ϵ`$ is maximal: the ridge where $`W_{13}m_2/m_3`$, and the previously discussed peak. There is an orthogonal ridge in figure 3, at $`\chi _{12}0.5`$ ($`W_{12}0.1`$), where $`\delta _{HMY}<m_2/m_3`$, but washout is minimised. It has the same observable footprints as the peak.

Until now we have considered if thermal leptogenesis works, then what should we see at low energy? Allowing $`T_{RH}10^{10}`$ GeV, it seems just about all phenomenology is consistent with thermal leptogenesis: large $`\tau \mu \gamma `$, $`\theta _{13}0.04`$, observable $`\tau e\gamma `$, nothing observable at all…So now consider the inverse question: are there weak-scale observations that can rule out thermal leptogenesis? The previous discussion is vague because SUSY has not been discovered. Clearly thermal leptogenesis does not work if $`W_{13}`$ is too big or too small. Since all the terms which contribute to $`W_{13}`$ cannot be measured, no experimental lower bound can be set. However, one could tell that $`W_{13}`$ is too $`large`$, for instance if large $`V_{L13}`$ ($`\tau e\gamma `$) is measured111111 If there are additional sources of flavour violation in the slepton masses, (e.g non-universal soft masses) this does not work..

The analysis of this paper relies crucially on the assumption that the $`\nu _R`$ are produced thermally. A larger number density of the lightest $`\nu _R`$, $`n_{\nu _R}/s`$, could be produced non-thermally, so a large enough baryon asymmetry could be produced with a smaller $`ϵ`$. This would enlarge the available parameter space. Furthermore, if the $`\nu _R`$ are produced non-thermally, they could be $`\nu _{R2}`$ or $`\nu _{R3}`$, making the formulae for $`ϵ`$ inapplicable.

In summary, we study the baryon asymmetry resulting from the decay of the lightest right-handed neutrino $`\nu _{R_1}`$, assuming the $`\nu _{R_1}`$s are produced thermally. We present compact analytic approximations for the quantities relevant to thermal leptogenesis, in terms of the light neutrino masses, the MNS matrix, the smallest eigenvalue of the neutrino Yukawa matrix $`Y_\nu `$, and the matrix $`V_L`$ which diagonalises $`Y_\nu `$ on its SU(2) doublet indices. In the MSUGRA scenario, we can trade these parameters for the neutrino and sneutrino mass matrices ($`m_\nu `$ and $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }}^2`$), or more usefully, for $`m_\nu `$, for the branching ratios of lepton flavour violating decays $`\mathrm{}_j\mathrm{}_i\gamma `$, and for the lightest right-handed neutrino mass $`M_1<T_{RH}`$. We find a small area of parameter space where a large enough baryon asymmetry is generated for $`T_{RH}10^9`$ GeV. It corresponds to large off-diagonal elements in $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }}^2`$, and therefore observable $`\tau e\gamma `$. For $`T_{RH}10^{10}`$ GeV, leptogenesis can also work for smaller off-diagonal elements in $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }}^2`$.

### Acknowledgements

Thanks to Oxford where we started this, and to Valencia, for a warm and sunny welcome when it was being completed. I am grateful to Marco Peloso for encouragement and asking the right questions, and to Michael Plümacher for many discussions, comments and for careful reading of the manuscript. I particularily thank Alejandro Ibarra for innumerable productive discussions and important contributions.

### Note added

After this work was completed, related analyses  appeared.

## 7 Appendix:the approximation and plots

In this Appendix, the lightest eigenvalue and corresponding eigenvector of $``$ are estimated, using an approximation borrowed from diagonalising neutrino mass matrices in R-parity violating theories.

It is first convenient to scale some powers of the smallest Yukawa out of the hermitian matrix $`^1^1`$:

$$v_u^4^1^1=D_Y^1V_L[m_\nu ]^{}V_L^TD_Y^2V_L^{}[m_\nu ]V_L^{}D_Y^1\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{y_1^4}.$$
(43)
This can be written more compactly as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{y_1^4}}`$ $`=`$ $`𝐃_𝐘^\mathrm{𝟏}\mathrm{\Delta }^{}𝐃_{𝐘}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\mathrm{\Delta }𝐃_𝐘^\mathrm{𝟏},`$ (44)
by defining

$$\mathrm{\Delta }=V_L^{}[m_\nu ]V_L^{}=V_L^{}U^{}D_{m_\nu }U^{}V_L^{}W^{}D_{m_\nu }W^{},$$
(45)
where the matrix $`W=V_LU`$ is the rotation from the basis where the $`\nu _L`$ masses are diagonal to the basis where the neutrino Yukawa matrix $`𝐘_\nu ^{}𝐘_\nu `$ is diagonal.

The matrix $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ can be written

$`[\mathrm{\Lambda }]_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`(\stackrel{}{\lambda }_i)(\stackrel{}{\lambda }_j^{})={\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}(\lambda _i)_k(\lambda _j^{})_k,`$ (46)
where

$$\stackrel{}{\lambda }_i\frac{y_1}{y_i}\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Delta }_{1i}^{}\\ y_1\mathrm{\Delta }_{2i}^{}/y_2\\ y_1\mathrm{\Delta }_{3i}^{}/y_3\end{array}\right).$$
(47)
If the hierarchy in the $`y_i`$ is steeper than in the $`m_j`$, and/or that the angles in $`W`$ are large, then

$$|\stackrel{}{\lambda }_1|^2|\stackrel{}{\lambda }_2|^2,|\stackrel{}{\lambda }_3|^2$$
(48)
so the largest eigenvalue of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ ($`=v_u^4y_1^4/|M_1|^2`$) is

$$|M_1|\frac{y_1^2v_u^2}{\sqrt{|\lambda _1|^2}}\frac{y_1^2v_u^2}{|\mathrm{\Delta }_{11}|}=\frac{y_1^2v_u^2}{|W_{1j}^2m_j|}$$
(49)
with associated eingevector (normalised $`\stackrel{}{\lambda }_1`$):

$$\widehat{\lambda }_1\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Delta }_{11}^{}\\ y_1\mathrm{\Delta }_{21}^{}/y_2\\ y_1\mathrm{\Delta }_{31}^{}/y_3\end{array}\right)\times \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }_{11}^{}}$$
(50)
In figure 4, $`M_1`$ is plotted as a function of $`\omega _{12}\mathrm{log}W_{12}`$ and $`\omega _{13}\mathrm{log}W_{13}`$, for $`y_1=10^4`$, and using the central values of $`m_i`$ listed after eqn (6). The precise definition is

$`W_{12}=\mathrm{cos}\theta _{W13}\mathrm{sin}\theta _{W12},`$ $`W_{13}=\mathrm{sin}\theta _{W13}`$
$`with\theta _{W1j}`$ $`=`$ $`10^{\omega _{1j}}\pi /2.`$ (51)
This Appendix contains many three dimensional plots of functions that will enter into the equation for the baryon asymmetry. The aim of these figures is to give a qualitative impression; quantitatively clearer contour plots of the baryon asymmetry are in the body of the paper. In figure 4, there are three limiting values for $`M_1`$, corresponding to $`M_1y_1^2v_u^2/m_i`$: $`M_1y_1^2v_u^2/m_3`$ when $`W_{13}1`$, $`M_1y_1^2v_u^2/m_1`$ when $`W_{13},W_{12}0`$, and $`M_1y_1^2v_u^2/m_2`$ when $`W_{13}<m_2/m_3`$, $`W_{12}1`$.

The $`\nu _R`$ decay rate can be evaluated with the eigenvector (50), which gives eqn (25). $`\stackrel{~}{m}_1`$ has three limits—$`m_1,m_2,m_3`$—depending ono the values of $`W_{1j}`$. The logarithm of $`\stackrel{~}{m}_1/m_3`$ is plotted on the RHS of figure 4. $`\stackrel{~}{m}_1`$ must be in the range given after eq. (16), which implies log $`(\stackrel{~}{m}_1/m_3)<1.4`$.

Finally, the CP asymmetry $`ϵ`$, eqn. (20), can be evaluated with the eigenvector (50) to obtain

$$ϵ\frac{3\mathrm{\Lambda }_{11}^2}{8\pi [\mathrm{\Lambda }D_Y^2\mathrm{\Lambda }]_{11}}\mathrm{Im}\left\{\frac{[\mathrm{\Lambda }D_Y\mathrm{\Delta }^{}D_Y\mathrm{\Lambda }^T]_{11}}{[\mathrm{\Lambda }D_Y^1\mathrm{\Delta }^{}D_Y^1\mathrm{\Lambda }^T]_{11}}\right\}=\frac{3y_1^2}{8\pi _j|W_{1j}|^2m_{\nu _j}^2}\mathrm{Im}\left\{\frac{_kW_{1k}^2m_{\nu _k}^3}{_nW_{1n}^2m_{\nu _n}}\right\},$$
(52)
where terms of order $`y_1/y_2`$ and $`y_1/y_3`$ have been dropped. $`\delta _{HMY}ϵ_1/M_1`$ is given in eqn (26), and plotted on the LHS of figure 5. $`ϵ_1`$ is plotted on the RHS; it peaks on the ridge of eqn (27) because this is where the larger values of $`M_1`$ and $`\delta _{HMY}`$ overlap.

The results in the remainder of the paper are based on the analytic approximations of this section. How reliable are these equations? The eqn (44) for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=y_1^4[^{}]^1`$ is exact, but the formula we use for $`ϵ_1`$ assumes hierarchical $`M_i`$, so it is consistent to assume this in solving for the eigenvalues and eigenvectors of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. The approximation is that the first column (or row) of $`y_1^2D_Y^1\mathrm{\Delta }D_Y^1`$ is the lightest eigenvalue, multiplying its eigenvector. It breaks down if the elements of the second or third row/column become of order $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{11}`$, as one can see by writing the eigenvector in a basis rotated by a small angle from the eigenbasis. $`y_1\mathrm{\Delta }_{12}/y_2,y_1\mathrm{\Delta }_{13}/y_3\mathrm{\Delta }_{11}`$ could occur if

1. the $`M_i`$ were of similar magnitude, rather than hierarchical. This is “unlikely”, because the hierarchy in $`D_Y`$ is much steeper than in $`[m_\nu ]`$.
2. $`m_1`$ too small—if $`m_1/m_2,m_1/m_3<y_2^2`$, then the terms being kept are smaller than the neglected ones. This is discussed in an appendix.

## 8 Appendix: $`m_1m_2/10`$

In this paper, we assumed a hierarchical spectrum for the light neutrino masses: $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{atm}^2=m_3^2`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{sol}^2=m_2^2`$, so the smallest neutrino mass $`m_1`$ is unlikely to be measured with anticipated data. However, it enters our formulae for the baryon asymmetry, as does the smallest Yukawa $`y_1`$. In the body of the paper, we fixed $`m_1=m_2/10`$, and determined $`y_1`$ as a function of $`M_1`$ and our weak scale parameters, by requiring $`M_1`$ to be in the range allowed by leptogenesis. In this Appendix, we discuss the dependence of our results on $`m_1`$. For most values of $`W_{12}`$ and $`W_{13}`$, $`m_1`$ is irrelevant because $`|W_{11}|^2m_1|W_{12}|^2m_2,|W_{13}|^2m_3`$. However, $`m_1`$ cannot be dropped from our analytic expressions, for $`W`$ close to the identity. This is the area of parameter space where $`\eta _B`$ is maximal; the remainder of the Appendix is restricted to this area of parameter space. We are interested in how $`\eta _B`$ scales with $`m_1`$, and in whether our analytic approximation is still valid.

The maximum value of $`ϵ`$, eqn (41), is independent of $`m_1`$, if $`M_1`$ is independent of $`m_1`$. We have fixed $`M_1T_{RH}`$, which determines $`y_1^2`$ as a function of $`W_{1n}^2m_nm_1`$. So varying $`m_1`$ allows $`y_1`$ to vary: $`m_1m_2/100`$ would allow leptogenesis to work for $`y_1h_u`$, which could be theoretically attractive.

As discussed after eqn (26), $`ϵ`$ approaches its upper bound (equivalently $`\delta _{HMY}1`$) on the peak in figure 5, where $`m_1^2/m_3^2W_{13}^2`$ and $`W_{12}^2<m_1^2/m_2^2`$. As $`m_1`$ decreases, the area in $`W_{12},W_{13}`$ space where $`\delta _{HMY}1`$ decreases, but the maximum value is unchanged. The numerical values of $`W_{12}`$ and $`W_{13}`$ where the maximum is reached will also decrease, making this parameter space increasingly “fine-tuned” ($`W`$ very close to the identity is unlikely to be stable under renormalisation group running).

The $`\nu _R`$ decay rate must have values in the range given after eqn (16), to ensure $`\eta _B`$ as large as possible. We first concern ourselves with the upper bound: $`\stackrel{~}{m}_1<3\times 10^3`$ eV. If $`W_{1n}^2m_n^2W_{13}^2m_3^2`$ and $`W_{1j}^2m_jW_{11}^2m_1`$, as required to maximise $`\delta _{HMY}`$, then from eqn (25), $`\stackrel{~}{m}_1W_{13}^2m_3^2/m_1`$. To maximise $`\eta _B\delta _{HMY}/\stackrel{~}{m}_1`$, requires $`W_{13}^2m_1^2/m_3^2`$, so that the decay rate is slow enough, but $`\delta _{HMY}`$ is still $`O(1)`$. So as $`m_1`$ decreases from $`m_2/10`$ to $`10^3m_2`$, the area of the peak on the RHS of figure 1 will shrink, but the height is unchanged.

For smaller values of $`m_1`$, the asymmetry will decrease. This is because $`\stackrel{~}{m}_1`$ is small, so $`\nu _R`$ production in the plasma is inefficient (see ).

It is straightforward to check that our analytic approximation holds, in the shrinking area of parameter space where $`W_{13}m_1/m_3`$ and $`W_{12}<m_1/m_2`$, provided that $`y_1^2/m_1y_2^2/m_2`$. This is the condition that $`y_1^2v_u^2/m_1`$ is the lightest $`\nu _R`$ mass. So the analytic approximation fails as $`m_1`$ approaches $`\frac{y_1^2}{y_2^2}m_2`$.

Finally, the low energy prediction of the peak are independent of $`m_1`$, because they follow from requiring that $`W1`$. As $`m_1`$ decreases, $`W`$ must approach the identity more and more closely, so $`V_L`$ becomes more precisely $`U^{}`$. But whether $`V_LU^{}`$, or $`V_L=U^{}`$, the expectation remains that $`\tau \mu \gamma `$ or $`\tau e\gamma `$ should be observable.

So in summary, the magnitude of the baryon asymmetry on the peak of figure 1 is independent of $`m_1`$ for $`10^3m_2<m_1<m_2/10`$. As $`m_1`$ decreases, the location of the peak shifts to smaller $`W_{13}`$, and its area will shrink. We cannot say anything for $`m_1<10^3m_2`$: our analytic formulae indicate that $`\eta _B`$ will decrease, but the approximation they are based on is unreliable.


format: text

text:
# Field-induced 𝑋𝑌 behavior in the 𝑆=1/2 antiferromagnet on the square lattice

## Abstract

Making use of the quantum Monte Carlo method based on the worm algorithm, we study the thermodynamic behavior of the $`S=\frac{1}{2}`$ isotropic Heisenberg antiferromagnet on the square lattice in a uniform magnetic field varying from very small values up to the saturation value. The field is found to induce a Berezinskii-Kosterlitz-Thouless transition at a finite temperature, above which a genuine $`XY`$ behavior in an extended temperature range is observed. The phase diagram of the system is drawn, and the thermodynamic behavior of the specific heat and of the uniform and staggered magnetization is discussed in sight of an experimental investigation of the field-induced $`XY`$ behavior.

Field-induced effects in low-dimensional antiferromagnets have been the subject of renewed interest in the last few years; while on the experimental side fields of very high intensity have become available, on the theoretical side the possibility of inducing novel magnetic phases via application of a strong field have been pointed out Cargese01 ; TroyerS1998 ; SchmidTTD2002 ; Yunoki2002 .

In this paper we consider the two-dimensional quantum Heisenberg antiferromagnet (2D QHAF) in a uniform magnetic field, described by the Hamiltonian

$$\widehat{}=\frac{J}{2}\underset{𝒊,𝒅}{}\widehat{𝑺}_𝒊\widehat{𝑺}_{𝒊+𝒅}g\mu __\mathrm{B}H\underset{𝒊}{}\widehat{S}_𝒊^z$$
(1)
where $`𝒊=(i_1,i_2)`$ runs over the sites of a square lattice, $`𝒅`$ connects each site to its four nearest neighbors, $`J>0`$ is the antiferromagnetic exchange coupling, $`H`$ is the applied Zeeman field, and $`|S|^2=S(S+1)`$. We will hereafter use reduced temperature and magnetic field, $`tT/J`$ and $`hg\mu __\mathrm{B}H/(JS)`$.

The rich phenomenology deJongh1990  of the model is ruled by the interplay between the exchange and the Zeeman terms in Eq. (1). The applied field breaks the $`O(3)`$ symmetry of the isotropic model and induces a uniform alignment in the $`z`$ direction; such alignment frustrates the antiferromagnetic order along $`z`$ but does not clash with antialignment on the $`xy`$ plane, where $`O(2)`$ symmetry stays untouched. For infinitesimally small fields one hence expects the spins to lay antialigned on the $`xy`$ plane, and progressively cant out of it as $`h`$ is increased. Saturation occurs at the critical value $`h_\mathrm{c}=8`$, above which the ground state displays uniform ferromagnetic alignment along the $`z`$ direction. In the range $`0<h<h_\mathrm{c}`$ one may also expect thermal fluctuations of the $`z`$ spin components to be smaller for larger field, while no such a reduction should occur as far as the $`x`$ and $`y`$ components are concerned. The above picture clearly suggests the model to share essential features with the easy-plane 2D QHAF CRTVVprb2002 .

In the classical limit ($`S\mathrm{}`$, $`JS^2J_{\mathrm{cl}}`$, $`g\mu __\mathrm{B}HhJ_{\mathrm{cl}}`$) both analytical VillainL1977 ; Pires1994  and numerical LandauB1981  calculations revealed the occurrence of a Berezinskii-Kosterlitz-Thouless (BKT) transition Berezinskii1970 ; KosterlitzT1973 , for all values of $`h`$ below saturation. In the quantum $`S=\frac{1}{2}`$ case, evidence of a field induced BKT transition was recently achieved for small fields by means of quantum Monte Carlo (QMC) simulations based on the continuous-time loop algorithm TroyerS1998 . Unfortunately the loop algorithm loses its efficiency exponentially as the field and/or the inverse temperature are increased OnishiNKM1999 : this fact has so far prevented from a systematic investigation of the strong-field regime Syljuasen2000 . However, the recently proposed worm CRTVVprb2002  (or directed-loop SyljuasenS2002 ) algorithm , working in any lattice dimension, is effective also in the presence of a uniform field of arbitrary intensity. Our QMC simulations are in fact based on such an algorithm, which is a pure-quantum cluster algorithm (by this meaning that it has no classical analogue, so far), that takes the field into account by the dynamical nature of the process of cluster (worm) growth, with the possibility that the worm traces back its route after bouncing at some point. In particular the update process is irreversible (i.e., the inverse of a single update step with finite probability can have a vanishing probability), thus reflecting the time-reversal symmetry breaking due to the presence of the field. A detailed description of the algorithm is beyond the scope of this paper and can be found in Ref. Roscilde2002, . Our simulations were performed on a $`L\times L`$ square lattice ($`L=16`$, $`32`$, $`64`$, and $`96`$), each consisting of $`10^4`$ MC steps for thermalization and of ($`1`$-$`1.5`$)$`\times 10^5`$ MC steps for evaluation of thermodynamic observables. During thermalization, the number of worms produced at each step is adjusted so that the total length of the worms in the imaginary-time direction roughly equals the size of the ($`2+1`$)-dimensional lattice, $`L^2/t`$; this number is then kept fixed during the measurement phase. In this way, autocorrelation times of the order of unity are achieved for all values of the field.

Thanks to this very effective tool, we got access to the thermodynamic behavior of the model (1) with $`S=\frac{1}{2}`$ and $`h`$ varying from $`0`$ to $`h_\mathrm{c}`$, looking for signatures of field-induced BKT behavior that can be object of experimental observation. In particular, we have focused our attention on the specific heat $`c(t,h)`$ and the field-induced uniform magnetization $`m_\mathrm{u}^z(t,h)`$, which are easily accessible to experiments, as well as on the staggered magnetization along the field axis $`m_{\mathrm{s},L}^z(t,h)`$, which provides further insight in the microscopic ordering mechanism. Seven values of the field have been considered: $`h=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.1}`$, $`0.2`$, $`0.4`$, $`1`$, $`2`$, $`4`$, and $`6`$.

First of all we have performed a detailed finite-size scaling analysis in order to check whether or not the predicted critical scaling behavior of the in-plane staggered susceptibility KosterlitzT1973  and of the helicity modulus OlssonM1991  are reproduced at consistent temperatures: having got a positive answer, we may state that a finite-temperature phase transition of BKT type occurs in the model for all the considered field values. The estimate of the critical temperature corresponding to each field has been obtained via the same procedure used in Ref. CRTVVprb2002,  for the easy-plane 2D QHAF: the resulting values are listed in Table 1; they are consistent with previous results TroyerS1998  for $`h=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.2}`$ and $`h=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.4}`$. In Fig. 1 we report the phase-diagram of the model for $`S=\frac{1}{2}`$ and $`S=\mathrm{}`$, the latter as from classical MC results LandauB1981 . We observe that the effect of quantum fluctuations is limited to a strong renormalization of $`t_{_{\mathrm{BKT}}}`$ with respect to the classical case, but the field dependence is qualitatively the same.

Let us first concentrate on the weak-field regime: from various analytical arguments Okwamoto1984 ; Pires1994 ; ZhitomirskyN1998  one can infer a mapping of the 2D QHAF in a field on a weakly easy-plane magnet with exchange anisotropy, i.e., Hamiltonian (1) with $`H=0`$ and the additional term $`J\mathrm{\Delta }_{𝒊,𝒅}\widehat{S}_𝒊^z\widehat{S}_{𝒊+𝒅}^z`$; the effective exchange anisotropy $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is expected to scale with the field as $`\mathrm{\Delta }h^2`$. Hence, the BKT critical temperature is expected to obey, both in the classical and in the quantum case CRTVVprb2002 , the following expression

$$t_{_{\mathrm{BKT}}}(h)\frac{4\pi \rho {}_{_S}{}^{}/J}{\mathrm{ln}(C/h^2)}$$
(2)
where $`\rho __S`$ is the spin stiffness of the isotropic model, and $`C`$ a constant. Fitting our results for the lowest three values of $`h`$ to the above expression we get $`\rho __S\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.22}J`$, and excluding the third value we find $`\rho __S\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.19}`$. Remarkably, these values are consistent with the renormalized spin stiffness of the $`S=\frac{1}{2}`$ isotropic 2D QHAF, $`\rho __S=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.180}J`$ BeardBGW1998 . We also notice that the fitting curve keeps interpolating the data up to $`h\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}`$. Finally, by directly comparing the low-field behavior of $`t_{_{\mathrm{BKT}}}(h)`$ with that of $`t_{_{\mathrm{BKT}}}(\mathrm{\Delta })`$ in the weakly planar antiferromagnet CRTVVprb2002 , we obtain an excellent agreement for $`\mathrm{\Delta }(3/8)h^2`$.

Moving towards higher fields two different effects are expected: (i ) the fluctuations of the $`z`$ components become smaller, resulting in an enhanced effective easy-plane anisotropy, and (ii ) the average projection of the spins in the $`xy`$ plane decreases, due to the increasing uniform magnetization. Globally, the system behaves as a renormalized planar rotator with progressively reduced rotator length. It is remarkable that, despite the spin configurations being characterized by a smaller and smaller projection in the $`xy`$ plane, the $`XY`$ character is apparent even for $`h`$ close to $`h_\mathrm{c}`$ and the transition verifies all the predictions of the BKT theory. The interplay between the two competing field effects yields the non-monotonous dependence of $`t_{_{\mathrm{BKT}}}(h)`$: for low field the reduction of $`z`$ fluctuations is dominant and $`t_{_{\mathrm{BKT}}}(h)`$ increases with $`h`$, starting as in Eq. (2), while for higher field spin canting prevails and $`t_{_{\mathrm{BKT}}}(h)`$ decreases, eventually vanishing at the saturation field $`h_\mathrm{c}`$. Therefore, a maximum in $`t_{_{\mathrm{BKT}}}(h)`$ connects the two limiting behaviors, as already observed in the classical phase diagram: the comparison in Fig. 1 shows that for $`S=\frac{1}{2}`$ the maximum shifts to slightly higher field as a consequence of quantum fluctuations.

We now consider the temperature dependence of some relevant observables, beginning with the specific heat $`c(t,h)`$. While our data resolution for $`h\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.4}`$ prevents from observing significant deviations with respect to the zero-field system, the results for the four largest fields are shown in Fig. 2; in particular, what is plotted is the specific heat variation upon application of the field, $`\mathrm{\Delta }c(t,h)=[c(t,h)c(t,0)]`$, divided by $`t`$. This quantity equals the difference of the entropy derivatives $`_tS(t,h)_tS(t,0)`$ and allows us to draw the following picture: At low temperature the entropy increase is smaller than in zero field reflecting the presence of quasi long-range order induced by the field via stabilization of bound vortex/antivortex pairs. Slightly above the BKT transition ($`t`$ about $`20÷\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}30}\%`$ larger) a sharp entropy increase occurs, which we interprete as due to vortex unbinding. When the temperature is further raised all vortices are free and then $`S(t,h)`$ increases slower than $`S(t,0)`$; eventually the entropy difference vanishes in the fully disordered system at $`t\mathrm{}`$. For incresing field the peak of $`c(t,h)`$, which mimics the BKT peak of the $`XY`$ model, moves to lower temperature, thereby getting narrower, as shown in the insets of Fig. 2. It is worth noting that $`\mathrm{\Delta }c(t,h)`$, which bears very clear signatures of the BKT behavior, is also easily accessible to experiments, because non-magnetic contributions cancel in its definition.

We have also considered the field-induced uniform magnetization, $`m_\mathrm{u}^z(t,h)\widehat{S}_𝒊^z`$; such a quantity, which can be experimentally determined via standard magnetometry measurements, is also a highly precise output of the QMC simulations. In Fig. 3 we report $`m_\mathrm{u}^z(t,h)/h`$ for different fields. For $`h\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}`$ and for high enough temperature this quantity is found to coincide with the uniform susceptibility of the zero-field case, thus showing that the magnetization process is linear. Upon lowering $`t`$ the nonlinearities show up and the uniform magnetization changes completely its temperature dependence, displaying a minimum at $`t=t_\mathrm{u}^{}(h)`$. This feature marks the onset of $`XY`$ behavior: as the temperature is lowered below $`t_\mathrm{u}^{}`$, the system is increasingly magnetized along the $`z`$-axis and the short-range antiferromagnetic correlations of the $`z`$ spin components, as well as their thermal fluctuations, are suppressed, in turn stabilizing the canted configurations. A remarkable feature is that this crossover to $`XY`$ behavior is located at a temperature $`t_\mathrm{u}^{}(h)`$ well above the critical point. For $`h\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}`$ the minimum above $`t_{_{\mathrm{BKT}}}`$ disappears, and the most prominent feature is rather the shift of the broad maximum to lower temperature.

The crossover from isotropic to $`XY`$ behavior in low fields ($`h\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}`$) can be also detected in the temperature dependence of the finite-size staggered magnetization along the hard $`z`$-axis CRVV2003 , $`m_{\mathrm{s},L}^z(t,h)L^2\left|_𝒊()^𝒊\widehat{S}_𝒊^z\right|`$, shown in Fig. 4. In absence of long-range order $`m_{\mathrm{s},L}^z`$ is known to scale to zero as $`1/L`$ (for large enough $`L`$BinderH1988 , and $`m_{\mathrm{s},L}^zL`$ is hence a bulk property of the system. In the limit $`t\mathrm{}`$ the system behaves as a collection of paramagnetic spins so that, by applying the central-limit theorem, one finds $`m_{\mathrm{s},L}^zL\sqrt{2S(S+1)/(3\pi )}0.399`$ for $`S=\frac{1}{2}`$. As $`t`$ decreases, $`m_{\mathrm{s},L}^zL`$ in the isotropic 2D QHAF monotonically increases and diverges for $`t\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$. In the 2D $`XY`$ model the same quantity decreases below the infinite-$`t`$ value, due to the suppression of out-of-plane fluctuations. The coexistence of both the above behaviors is most clearly observed for $`h\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}`$, and the appearance of a maximum in $`m_{\mathrm{s},L}^z`$ at $`tt_\mathrm{s}^{}`$ also marks the crossover from isotropic to $`XY`$ behavior.

Hitherto, we have identified two ways of locating a crossover temperature, at least for low and intermediate fields. One can check that for low fields these temperatures match with each other, $`t_\mathrm{s}^{}(h)t_\mathrm{u}^{}(h)`$, so that the crossover temperature is unambiguous and its estimates are $`t_\mathrm{s}^{}(0.1)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.22}(1)`$, $`t_\mathrm{s}^{}(0.2)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.25}(1)`$ and $`t_\mathrm{s}^{}(0.4)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.29}(1)`$. In this regime the crossover temperature is expected to follow a logarithmic behavior analogous to that of Eq. (2) (with a different coefficient $`C^{}`$) as suggested in Refs. CRTVVprb2002,  and CRVV2003, ; a fit of $`t_\mathrm{s}^{}(h)`$ for $`h\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.4}`$ gives $`\rho __S=0.19`$, again in good agreement with the known value BeardBGW1998  of the spin stiffness for $`S=\frac{1}{2}`$. For larger fields $`t_\mathrm{s}^{}(h)`$ is systematically higher than $`t_\mathrm{u}^{}(h)`$, suggesting that the crossover phenomenon extends over a wider temperature range, but we note that for intermediate fields the same fitting function still interpolates the data, $`t_\mathrm{s}^{}(1)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.36}(1)`$ and $`t_\mathrm{s}^{}(2)=0.48(2)`$, as shown in the inset of Fig. 1. Finally, for strong fields the explicit signature of the crossover gradually disappears from $`m_{\mathrm{s},L}^zL`$, and for $`h=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}6}`$ this quantity is nearly monotonic as in the $`XY`$ model; the antiferromagnetic interaction of the $`z`$ components is then almost completely overcome by the applied field.

In conclusion, we have studied the $`S=\frac{1}{2}`$ two-dimensional quantum Heisenberg antiferromagnet on the square lattice in an arbitrary uniform field by means of the quantum Monte Carlo method based on the worm algorithm. Our results point out that an arbitrarily small field is able to induce a BKT transition and an extended $`XY`$ phase above it, as in the case of an easy-plane exchange anisotropy. The field-induced $`XY`$ behavior becomes more and more marked for increasing fields, while for strong fields the antiferromagnetic behavior along the field axis is nearly washed out, so that the system behaves as a planar rotator model with antiferromagnetism surviving in the orthogonal plane only; the BKT critical temperature vanishes as the field reaches the saturation value $`h_\mathrm{c}`$ and the effective rotator length goes to zero. The model in a moderately strong field represents an ideal realization of the $`XY`$ model: $`XY`$ behavior can be detected by measuring standard non-critical quantities, as the specific heat or the induced magnetization; this opens the possibility for an experimental realization of the $`XY`$ model in purely magnetic systems, and for a systematic investigation of the dynamics of vortex/antivortex excitations.

Useful discussions with V. Tognetti, A. Rigamonti, and P. Carretta are gratefully acknowledged . This work has been partially performed on the parallel beowulf cluster at CINECA (Bologna, Italy) through INFM grant 1031154758.