text:
# Nova nucleosynthesis and Galactic evolution of the CNO isotopes

## 1 Introduction

In the last 30 years, many studies have been devoted to the evolution of the CNO isotopic ratios (e.g., Audouze, Lequeux & Vigroux 1975; Vigroux, Audouze & Lequeux 1976; Dearborn, Tinsley & Schramm 1978; Tosi 1982; D’Antona & Matteucci 1991; Matteucci & D’Antona 1991; Prantzos, Aubert & Audouze 1996; see also Tosi 2000 for a recent reappraisal of the problem). Isotopic ratios are generally not affected by physicochemical fractionation effects (but see, e.g., Sheffer, Lambert & Federman 2002). Therefore, they reflect rather faithfully the relevant production processes which occurred in stars of different masses and lifetimes. However, despite the considerable progress in the theories of stellar evolution and nucleosynthesis, important questions related to the yields and the production sites of some of the CNO isotopes still remain open. In this context, chemical evolution models can be regarded as a powerful tool in order to discriminate among different sets of stellar yields and even different stellar factories. In fact, as discussed by Tosi (1988), model predictions on elemental and isotopic ratios depend primarily on the adopted stellar nucleosynthesis, stellar lifetimes and initial mass function (IMF), rather than on the other uncertain parameters of the galactic evolution, like star formation and infall rates.

Among the CNO group nuclei, 16O is the best understood. It is a primary element, i.e., it is always synthesized starting from H and He in the parent star. When only the most reliable oxygen measurements are considered, a good agreement is found between theoretical predictions on 16O evolution and observations (e.g., Chiappini, Romano & Matteucci 2003), which confirms that 16O production is well understood both qualitatively and quantitatively. The bulk of 16O comes from massive stars ($`m>`$ 10 $`M_{}`$).

The production of 12C is instead more uncertain: we know that it is synthesized as a primary element, but the exact amount restored into the interstellar medium (ISM) by stars of different masses is still uncertain. The ‘old’ view that 12C is mainly produced by low- and intermediate-mass stars (LIMS) has been challenged by several papers (Prantzos, Vangioni-Flam & Chauveau 1994; Carigi 2000; Henry, Edmunds & Köppen 2000) suggesting that mass-loosing massive stars could be the main source of carbon. The conclusion of those authors rests on the adoption of the metallicity dependent yields for massive stars from Maeder (1992), which are computed in presence of mass loss. On the other hand, very recently it has been demonstrated that, in order to reproduce simultaneously the features of the C/O vs. O/H diagrams observed for galaxies of different morphological type, as well as the \[C/Fe\] vs. \[Fe/H\] and \[C/O\] vs. \[Fe/H\] diagrams for dwarf stars in the solar vicinity, the bulk of 12C should originate from LIMS (Chiappini et al. 2003). Indeed, the carbon yields due to mass loss have been revised downward (Meynet & Maeder 2002a).

The nature of 14N is still controversial: it should be a typical secondary element, but with a primary component as well. The secondary component is mainly produced through the CN cycle in stars of all masses, thus its amount depends on the 12C present in the star at the time of its birth. Secondary nitrogen can also be produced in the ON cycle by transformation of 16O, but at a much slower rate. The primary component is instead produced starting from fresh carbon generated by the parent star, provided there is some mixing mechanism which transports this newly synthesized carbon in a hydrogen-burning region, where the CNO cycle can convert it to nitrogen. In intermediate-mass stars (2.5 – 3.5 $``$ $`m/M_{}`$ $``$ 6 – 8), primary 14N is produced when hot bottom burning (HBB) takes place at the base of the star convective envelope, during the asymptotic giant branch (AGB) phase (Renzini & Voli 1981). The amount of primary nitrogen depends mostly on the adopted value of the mixing length parameter determining the depth of the convective stellar envelope, which is very uncertain (see a discussion in van den Hoek & Groenewegen 1997). Primary 14N production might take place also in massive stars (e.g., Matteucci 1986; Meynet & Maeder 2002b). According to Meynet & Maeder (2002b), the mechanism which allows the freshly made carbon to be turned into primary nitrogen is stellar axial rotation, and primary nitrogen production in massive stars is favored at low metallicity. In fact, in this case (rotating stellar models at low $`Z`$), the stars loose less angular momentum, thus they rotate faster. Simultaneously, they are more compact, so that differential rotation and shear mixing are stronger. Moreover, the H-burning shell has a much higher temperature and is thus closer to the core, which favours mixing between the two. However, the primary nitrogen yields obtained by Meynet & Maeder from their low-metallicity massive star models do not contribute to a significant chemical enrichment at very low metallicities (see Chiappini et al. 2003).

As far as the minor isotopes are concerned, it has been claimed that 13C and possibly also 17O are mainly formed in the external regions of stars in the red giant branch (RGB), planetary nebula (PN) and supernova (SN) phase (Audouze et al. 1975; Dearborn et al. 1978). Marigo, Bressan & Chiosi (1996) explored the formation of a pocket of primary 13C during the AGB phase of intermediate-mass stars.

The thermonuclear runaway (TNR) responsible for the nova outbursts has also been identified as a promising channel for the synthesis of 13C, 15N, and 17O (Starrfield et al. 1972; Starrfield, Sparks & Truran 1974), eventually being responsible for most of the Galactic abundances of 13C and 17O (José & Hernanz 1998; Woosley et al. 1997). Indeed, classical novae, binary systems consisting of a carbon-oxygen or oxygen-neon-magnesium white dwarf accreting hydrogen-rich matter from a main-sequence companion, sporadically inject nuclearly processed material into the ISM. The TNR, responsible for the explosion causing the ejection of almost the whole previously accreted envelope, leads to the synthesis of some rare nuclei during the nova outburst. The most recent nova hydrodynamical models confirm large overproduction factors with respect to the solar abundances for 7Li, 13C, 15N and 17O (José & Hernanz 1998). Therefore, although novae are processing only a minor fraction of the total matter in a galaxy, nevertheless they could produce important amounts of the species with the highest overproduction factors. In the past, it has been suggested that the bulk of 15N production should come from novae (Audouze et al. 1975; Dearborn et al. 1978; Matteucci & D’Antona 1991); Type II SNe might also contribute, although to a lower extent (Audouze et al. 1977; Timmes, Woosley & Weaver 1995). Recent detections of extragalactic 15N seem to support the idea that 15N production is due to rotationally induced mixing of protons into the helium-burning shells of massive stars (Chin et al. 1999 and references therein). A small contribution from Type Ia SNe could also be possible (Clayton et al. 1997; although see Nomoto, Thielemann & Yokoi 1984).

The aim of this paper is to present some theoretical results concerning the evolution of the 12C/13C, 14N/15N, and 16O/17O isotopic ratios in the solar neighbourhood as well as along the Galactic disc by taking advantage of a complete model for the chemical evolution of the Galaxy in which the nucleosynthesis from stars of different masses is included in a detailed way. In particular, we include in the model the nucleosynthesis from novae and try to establish whether they can actually be regarded as important contributors to the Galactic abundances of the CNO isotopes 13C, 15N, and 17O. For each of these stable nuclei, we make an attempt in identifying the main contributors to the chemical enrichment by means of a comparison with the available observational data.

The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 we report on the status of the observations. In Section 3 we describe the adopted chemical evolution model. In Section 4 we present model results. Finally, our conclusions are drawn in Section 5.

## 2 Observations

### 2.1 Galactic 12C/13C abundance ratio

The Solar System 12C/13C ratio is (12C/13C) = 89 $`\pm `$ 2 (Cameron 1982), higher than the estimates for the local ISM: (12C/13C)ISM = 47.3$`{}_{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4.4}}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}5.5}}`$ (from CN; Crane & Hegyi 1988); 77 $`\pm `$ 3 (from CH+; Stahl et al. 1989); 62 $`\pm `$ 4 (from CO; Langer & Penzias 1993); 77 $`\pm `$ 7 (average from H2CO and CO data for sources near the Sun; Wilson & Rood 1994); 58 $`\pm `$ 12 (from atomic C; Keene et al. 1998); 58 $`\pm `$ 6 (from atomic C+; Boreiko & Betz 1996); 69 $`\pm `$ 15 (from the solid state CO2; Boogert et al. 2000)111 A value of (12C/13C)ISM between 60 and 80 is the preferred one.. This clearly indicates a decrease in the last 4.5 Gyr, which is exactly what one expects for a primary to secondary elemental ratio (according to Talbot & Arnett 1974, a chemical species is defined as primary or secondary according to whether the yields, i.e., the mass fractions of a star ejected in the form of the newly produced element, are insensitive, or sensitive, to the original metallicity of the star; as a consequence, the abundance of a secondary element increases more steeply in time than that of its seed nuclei).

The Galactic 12C/13C gradient gives a consistent picture: $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$(12C/13C)/$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$RG = (4.5 $`\pm `$ 2.2) kpc-1 (weighted fit to the 12CO2/13CO2 ratio as a function of Galactocentric radius – Boogert et al. 2000). The gradient found from the solid state agrees well with gas phase studies (Tosi 1982; Wilson & Rood 1994). However, solid state determinations are more reliable than gas phase studies, because the column densities can be determined without uncertain radiative transfer effects. A limitation of the Boogert et al. analysis is the paucity of solid CO2 observations at low Galactic radii (3 – 6 kpc). Moreover, the considerable scatter in the 12C/13C ratio at radii larger than 6 kpc prevents from identifying a clear trend in the outer disc. However, the decrease of the ratio towards the Galactic centre is apparent and can be taken as a clear signature of an important secondary component to 13C nucleosynthesis. This decrease is confirmed also by 12C/13C ratios derived from 12CN, 13CN observations, which however tend to be lower than those derived from other molecules (Savage, Apponi & Ziurys 2001).

### 2.2 Galactic 14N/15N abundance ratio

The 14N/15N ratio in our Galaxy has been studied by Dahmen, Wilson & Matteucci (1995), who analysed high quality data of HCN double isotopomer ratios for 11 warm, dense molecular clouds in the Galactic disc. After fitting 12C/13C ratios from published data as a function of Galactocentric distance, the 14N/15N ratios were obtained. A linear regression using these ratios and previously published data allowed the determination of the Galactic gradient: $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$(14N/15N)/$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$RG = (19.7 $`\pm `$ 8.9) kpc-1, shallower than that found by Tosi (1982).

The Solar System 14N/15N ratio is (14N/15N) = 270 (Anders & Grevesse 1989). For the local ISM, values as high as (14N/15N)ISM = 450 $`\pm `$ 22 (Wilson & Rood 1994) or as low as (14N/15N)ISM = 237$`{}_{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}21}}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}27}}`$ (Lucas & Liszt 1998) have been reported. The former is in contradiction with the existence of a positive gradient across the Galactic disc since, from a theoretical point of view, if 14N/15N increases in time and hence with metallicity, it should also increase with decreasing Galactocentric distance, owing to the higher metallicity content attained in the innermost Galactic regions.

### 2.3 Galactic 16O/17O abundance ratio

The 16O/17O abundance ratio has decreased from its solar value of (16O/17O) = 2465 (Anders & Grevesse 1989) to its present local value of (16O/17O)ISM = 1900 $`\pm `$ 200, an unmistakable sign of secondary production for 17O.

The secondary origin of 17O is confirmed by the behavior of the 16O/17O gradient along the Galactic disc, which decreases with decreasing distance from the Galactic centre (16O/17O ratios along the Galactic disc are obtained by multiplying the corresponding 16O/18O ratios by the ISM value of 18O/17O = 3.5 – see Prantzos et al. 1996 and references therein).

## 3 The chemical evolution model

### 3.1 Basic aspects

The two-infall model for the chemical evolution of the Galaxy (Chiappini, Matteucci & Gratton 1997; Chiappini, Matteucci & Romano 2001) is adopted, with the aim of reassessing the problem of whether novae significantly contribute to the Galactic chemical evolution of the minor CNO isotopes.

In the framework of the adopted model, the Galaxy forms out of two main infall episodes. During the first one, the bulge, inner halo and thick disc are built up, on a very short time-scale ($``$ 1 Gyr). During the second one, the thin disc is formed, on a much longer time-scale (being $``$ 7 Gyr at the solar ring and increasing with increasing Galactocentric distance) out of matter of primordial chemical composition plus traces of halo gas.

For a complete description of the model basic assumptions and equations we address the interested reader to Chiappini et al. (1997, 2001, 2003). Here we only briefly outline how novae have been included in the model (see also D’Antona & Matteucci 1991 and Romano et al. 1999). The rate of formation of nova systems at a given time $`t`$ is computed as a fraction $`\alpha `$ of the rate of formation of white dwarfs (WDs) at a previous time $`t\mathrm{\Delta }t`$:

$$R_{\mathrm{novae}}(t)=\alpha _{0.8}^8\psi (t\tau _m\mathrm{\Delta }t)\phi (m)dm,$$
(1)
where $`\tau _m`$ is the lifetime of the star of mass $`m`$, $`\psi (t)`$ is the star formation rate and $`\phi (m)`$ is the IMF. The Scalo (1986) IMF is assumed. All the stars between $`m`$ = 0.8 $`M_{}`$ and $`m`$ = 8 $`M_{}`$ end up as WDs. $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ is a suitable delay-time which guarantees the cooling of the WD at a level that ensures a strong enough nova outburst. Here we assume $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ = 2 Gyr, which is a typical value for novae (see also Romano et al. 1999 and D’Antona & Mazzitelli 1982). The parameter $`\alpha `$ represents the fraction of WDs which belong to nova systems and its value (constant in time) is fixed by the request of reproducing the current rate of nova outbursts in the Galaxy. Unfortunately, this is a free parameter. Here we set $`\alpha `$ 0.01. The rate of nova outbursts is computed from the rate of formation of nova systems by assuming that each nova suffers roughly 104 outbursts during its life (Bath & Shaviv 1978). A value of $`\alpha `$ between $``$ 0.01 and $``$ 0.02 leads to $`R_{\mathrm{outbursts}}(t_{\mathrm{Gal}})`$ $``$ 20 – 30 yr-1, which has to be compared with the value inferred from scalings from extragalactic nova surveys, $`R_{\mathrm{outbursts}}^{\mathrm{obs}}(t_{\mathrm{Gal}})`$ = 15 – 50 yr-1 (Della Valle & Livio 1994; see also Shafter 1997).

Since the evolution of the CNO isotopic ratios (as well as that of the other elemental ratios) depends mainly on the nucleosynthesis prescriptions, rather than on the parameters of the galactic evolution like star formation and infall rates, chemical evolution models can put constraints mainly on the nucleosynthesis and time-scales for element production. The validity of this statement rests on the fact that any variation in the star formation and/or infall laws affects the main and the minor isotopes at the same extent. In the framework of a model where nova nucleosynthesis is taken into account, the situation is more complicated. In fact, in this case the evolution of the CNO isotopic ratios depends also on the parameters which enter the computation of the theoretical nova outburst rate. Since novae produce large amounts of the minor isotopes, whereas their contribution to the main ones is almost negligible, each variation in the parameters regulating the nova rate does not cancel out in the CNO isotopic ratios. One should always keep in mind this when discussing predictions from models in which nova nucleosynthesis is included. We will come back on this issue in Section 4.3.

### 3.2 Nucleosynthesis prescriptions

The nucleosynthesis prescriptions adopted here are from i) van den Hoek & Groenewegen (1997) and Ventura, D’Antona & Mazzitelli (2002) for LIMS; ii) either Woosley & Weaver (1995) or Nomoto et al. (1997) for Type II SNe; iii) Thielemann et al. (1993) for Type Ia SNe; iv) José & Hernanz (1998) for novae.

It is worth emphasizing that metallicity dependent yields are available from a limited number of studies, especially in the range of massive stars ($`m>`$ 10 $`M_{}`$). Moreover, nucleosynthesis studies are usually restricted to specific mass ranges (e.g., $`m`$ 0.9 – 8.0 $`M_{}`$ – van den Hoek & Groenewegen 1997; $`m`$ 2.5 – 6.0 $`M_{}`$ – Ventura et al. 2002; $`m`$ 11 – 40 $`M_{}`$ – Woosley & Weaver 1995; $`m`$ 13 – 70 $`M_{}`$ – Nomoto et al. 1997) and/or do not deal with some specific chemical species, so that it is neither possible to homogeneously cover the mass spectrum over which stars distribute ($`m`$ 0.1 – 100 $`M_{}`$) nor to treat all the relevant chemical species by adopting a single stellar nucleosynthesis study.

For instance, van den Hoek & Groenewegen (1997) give metallicity dependent yields of 4He, 12C, 13C, 14N and 16O for stars in the mass range $`m`$ 0.9 – 8.0 $`M_{}`$, but do not provide the yields of 17O. Therefore, one must complete their grid of stellar yields by means of 17O yields coming from some other study. We adopt the 17O yields recently computed by Ventura et al. (2002) for stars in the mass range $`m`$ 2.5 – 6.0 $`M_{}`$, for different initial chemical compositions. Since their yields do not extend to metallicities higher than $`Z`$ = 0.01, we must extrapolate them to supersolar metallicities. This makes the modelisation of 17O evolution in the inner disk inaccurate. Stars with $`m<`$ 2.0 $`M_{}`$ are not 17O producers, since they do not go through the NO cycle during which this element is synthesized. Therefore, we set to zero the 17O yields from stars in the mass range $`m`$ 1.0 – 2.0 $`M_{}`$. We also set to zero the 15N production from LIMS. In fact, the net yield of this element from LIMS is negative, due to the effect of the first and second dredge-up for stars in the mass range 0.8 – 3.5 $`M_{}`$ and to HBB for higher mass stars (Marigo 2001).

Among the input parameters of nova hydrodynamical models with a deep influence on the nova nucleosynthesis there is the chemical composition of the H-rich envelope accreted by the WD from the main-sequence companion which fills its Roche lobe. The problem of the chemical composition of nova envelopes is complex and far from being understood. The matter transferred from the companion is assumed to be solarlike and is mixed in a given fraction with the outermost shells of the underlying core (e.g., Politano et al. 1995; José & Hernanz 1998). This is done in order to get the enhanced CNO or ONeMg abundances required both to power the explosion and to account for the spectroscopic abundance determination. It is not clear how the composition of the nova ejecta changes during the evolution of the Galaxy, as a function, e.g., of the chemical composition of the matter accreted from the WD companion. Dearborn et al. (1978) assumed that the amount of 15N ejected per nova outburst scales with the initial 12C + 13C + 14N abundance of the star. This means that 15N from novae is an element of purely secondary origin. On the contrary, 13C and 15N from novae were assumed to be of purely primary origin by D’Antona & Matteucci (1991) and Matteucci & D’Antona (1991). However, as noticed by these authors, a primary element mainly produced in long-lived progenitors still behaves like a secondary one from the point of view of galactic chemical evolution, owing to the delay with which it is restored to the ISM (see also Matteucci & François 1989). In Section 4.3 we will show results obtained by assuming two limiting cases for 13C, 15N and 17O production during nova outbursts: in the first case, the yields of 13C, 15N and 17O from novae are assumed to be always the same, at each time of Galaxy’s evolution; in the second case, they are scaled with the abundance of the seed nuclei in the star.

The nucleosynthesis from novae is taken into account in the chemical evolution code as follows. We consider that 30% of novae arise from systems containing ONe WDs and 70% from systems containing CO WDs (e.g., Gehrz et al. 1998) and compute the abundance (in mass fraction) of element $`i`$ in the ejecta of the typical nova as:

$$X_i=0.3\times X_i_{\mathrm{O}Nenova}+0.7\times X_i_{\mathrm{C}Onova},$$
(2)
where $`X_i_{\mathrm{O}Nenova}`$ and $`X_i_{\mathrm{C}Onova}`$ are the average abundances of the element $`i`$ in the ejecta of ONe novae and CO novae, respectively (Romano et al. 1999). These quantities are obtained in turn by averaging the results of two grids of 7 evolutionary sequences each computed by José & Hernanz (1998) for ONe and CO WDs, respectively (see their tables 3 and 4). Once the elemental abundances in the ejecta of the typical nova have been estimated, we still need to assume a fiducial value for the mass ejected during each nova outburst. This is a highly uncertain quantity. The observationally derived mass distribution of nova ejecta indicates that the data peak close to a few 10$`{}_{}{}^{4}M_{}^{}`$ (Della Valle 2000 and references therein), but this estimate could be seriously challenged if the filling factor of the ejected shells is closer to 10-2 – 10-5 rather than $``$ 0.1 – 1 (e.g., Shara et al. 1997). We assume $`M^{\mathrm{e}j}`$ 2 $`\times `$ 10-5 $`M_{}`$, in agreement with the predictions of the mass ejected during a nova outburst from nova hydrodynamical models, and compute the mass of the element $`i`$ ejected during the whole nova evolution as:

$$M_i^{\mathrm{e}j}=X_i\times M^{\mathrm{e}j}\times n,$$
(3)
where $`n`$ = 10 4 is the number of nova outbursts suffered on an average by each nova system.

In columns 3 and 4 of Table 1 we list the nucleosynthesis prescriptions for 12C, 13C, 14N, 15N, 16O and 17O from LIMS and massive stars adopted in our different models. Models are labelled as given in column 1. The average masses of 12C, 13C, 14N, 15N, 16O and 17O ejected by each nova system during its overall evolution are listed in column 5. In some cases, they differ from the average values obtained with the procedure described above (Eq. 3), since these latter tend to overestimate the solar abundances of 13C, 15N and 17O, while in this table we want to list the contributions we actually used in order to reproduce the observations. For each model, column 6 indicates if the CNO production from novae is treated as primary or secondary. When the CNO production is treated as secondary, the quantities listed in Table 1, corresponding to accreted envelopes of solar chemical composition, have been scaled according to the abundances of the seed nuclei predicted by the model at each time.

## 4 Results

### 4.1 13C production from LIMS

It is well known that LIMS produce 13C, both as a primary and secondary element. 13C is also produced by massive stars, although in smaller amounts. In Fig. 1 we show as a dashed line the results of a model (Model 1, Table 1) in which 13C is made only by single stars. Nucleosynthesis prescriptions for LIMS and massive stars are from van den Hoek & Groenewegen (1997 – their standard case in which the mass loss parameter for stars on the AGB, $`\eta _{\mathrm{A}GB}`$, remains constant and equal to 4) and Nomoto et al. (1997), respectively. It is found that although single stars alone can explain the solar abundance of 13C (Table 2), they fail in accounting for the observed decrease of the 12C/13C ratio in the solar neighbourhood in the last 4.5 Gyr (Fig. 1, left panel). Conversely, they predict a roughly constant 12C/13C ratio in the past $``$ 12 Gyr. The same conclusions still hold if we adopt the van den Hoek & Groenewegen (1997) yields computed with $`\eta _{\mathrm{A}GB}=1`$ for $`Z=0.001`$ and $`\eta _{\mathrm{A}GB}=2`$ for $`Z=0.004`$ for LIMS, and the Woosley & Weaver (1995) yields rather than the Nomoto et al. (1997) ones for massive stars. This is due to the fact that in all these models the bulk of 13C comes from intermediate-mass stars suffering HBB ($`m`$ 4 $`M_{}`$, $`\tau _m`$ 180 Myr). Therefore, changing the yields either in massive stars or in the low-metallicity range does not affect our main conclusions.

During HBB, 13C is mostly produced as a primary element. However, a secondary component is present as well, depending on how much of the dredged-up 12C is newly produced inside the star and how much was already present at the time of the star birth (see van den Hoek & Groenewegen 1997). The constancy of the 12C/13C ratio we predict in the last $``$ 12 Gyr is mainly due to the fact that most of the 13C is of primary origin, and to the fact that in the framework of our model 13C production proceeds almost in step with that of 12C. In order to solve the discrepancy with the observations, one may argue whether the 13C yields from single low-mass stars, which produce 13C always as a secondary element, are underestimated.

Indeed, in the last few years a great deal of work has appeared in the literature on whether standard stellar nucleosynthesis models are underestimating the 13C content in the material ejected from LIMS. It has often been suggested that the progenitors of the PNe which are observed to have carbon isotopic ratios below the values expected from standard AGB models must have undergone some non-standard mixing process, perhaps induced by rotation, during their red giant phase and/or AGB phase (Bachiller et al. 1997; Palla et al. 2000; Balser, McMullin & Wilson 2002). The existence of this non-standard mixing mechanism is also invoked in order to reconcile predictions from standard Galactic evolutionary models with observations of 3He (e.g., Galli et al. 1997; Charbonnel & do Nascimento 1998; Chiappini, Renda & Matteucci 2002).

However, the extent of the 13C enhancement as a function of mass with varying metallicity is, to date, rather uncertain. In fact, the requirement of sampling low-mass objects has often led to concentrating the observational efforts on metal-poor clusters. Charbonnel, Brown & Wallerstein (1998) found that field giants belonging to the old Galactic disc population (\[Fe/H\] $``$ $``$0.6) can reach 12C/13C $``$ 7. For more metal-rich stars, a reasonable estimate might be $``$ 10 – 15 (from observations of the carbon isotopic ratio in stars ascending the RGB in the open cluster M 67; Gilroy & Brown 1991). Measurements of 12C and 13C abundances in eleven bright giant members of the globular cluster $`\omega `$ Centauri spanning the metallicity range $``$1.8 $`<`$ \[Fe/H\] $`<`$ $``$0.8 do not reveal any real trend of the efficacy of the first giant branch mixing with metallicity (Smith, Terndrup & Suntzeff 2002). The mean value for this sample is $`^{12}`$C/13C$`=4.3\pm 0.4`$, with nine stars sharing, within the errors, the equilibrium ratio of 3.5. Standard stellar evolution theory predicts a decrease of 12C/13C from $``$ 90 to $``$ 25 during the first dredge-up on the RGB for LIMS (Iben 1964; Iben & Renzini 1984). Therefore, an extra-mixing which further processes material during the RGB seems to be at work.

The 12C/13C ratio in Galactic carbon stars has been observed by Lambert et al. (1986), Onhaka & Tsuji (1996, 1999), Abia & Isern (1997) and Schöier & Olofsson (2000). In particular, Onhaka & Tsuji (1996, 1999) found 12C/13C ratios about a factor of 2 to 3 smaller than those of Lambert et al. (1986) for the same stars222 The values for three of the stars have been revised upwards later on by Onhaka et al. (2000) and found to be closer to those estimated by Lambert et al. (1986)., whereas Abia & Isern (1997) found something falling in between the results obtained by Lambert et al. (1986) and Onhaka & Tsuji (1996). To solve the controversy, Schöier & Olofsson (2000) performed independent estimates of the 12C/13C ratio, using CO radio line emission from the circumstellar envelopes, for a sample of carbon stars showing large discrepancies between the sets of photospheric estimates. They used a non-LTE radiative transfer code. The 12C/13C ratios range from 2.5 to 90 and agree with those estimated in the photospheres by Lambert et al. (1986). Finally, in a recent paper, Abia et al. (2001) suggest the activation of slow circulation mechanisms below the convective border of the envelope for most of the observed stars, in order to explain the low observed 12C/13C values. In conclusion, it appears that at least a fraction of PN progenitors do have reduced 12C/13C ratios compared to standard model expectations, and that some extra-mixing should be required.

In Fig. 2 we show the 12C/13C ratio vs. progenitor mass in the total ejecta of LIMS compared to observations in PNe (Palla et al. 2000). Stellar models are either from van den Hoek & Groenewegen (1997) (upper panel) or Ventura et al. (2002) (lower panel), and have been computed for different values of the initial stellar metallicity. Ventura et al. (2002) predict sistematically lower ratios than van den Hoek & Groenewegen (1997) in the mass range 3 – 6 $`M_{}`$. However, their computations do not extend to the 1 – 3 $`M_{}`$ range, where model predictions could be usefully compared to observations. This is the reason why we do not adopt the carbon yields of Ventura et al. (2002). Notice that in this figure we are comparing theoretical total yields with 12C/13C ratios observed in PNe. It would be better to compare the observations with the yields at the tip of the AGB. We choose the total yields rather than those at the end of the AGB phase in order to compare the results from van den Hoek & Groenewegen (1997) to those from Ventura et al. (2002). In fact, these latter authors do not give the yields at the tip of the AGB, but only the total ones. Theoretical 12C/13C ratios at the tip of the AGB from van den Hoek & Groenewegen (1997) are in general higher than those in the total ejecta. It is immediately seen that the adopted yields overestimate the 12C/13C ratio in the ejecta of low-mass stars. However, as demonstrated by Palla et al. (2000), as far as 12C/13C is concerned, the fraction of low-mass stars experiencing deep mixing does not affect significantly the overall results of the chemical evolution models, due to the fact that the Galactic evolution of 12C and 13C is mainly governed by stars in which this process is not expected to occur. Therefore, the main conclusions reached in the present paper should not be largely affected by the adoption of stellar yields taking extra-mixing into account.

On the other hand, the discrepancy between model predictions and observations can be solved if the adopted stellar yields overestimate the effect of HBB: running a model which adopts AGB yields computed with less HBB (tables from 22 to 31 of van den Hoek & Groenewegen 1997) leads to a 12C/13C ratio which decreases in the last 12 Gyr (Fig. 3), in agreement with observations. However, in this case the predicted solar abundance of 13C is lower (13C = 1.48 $`\times `$ 10-5). Notice also that the level of HBB required by this model is the lowest one still compatible with observations in stars.

In Section 4.3 we examine in detail the possibility that novae contribute to the 13C production.

### 4.2 17O production from single stars

17O is produced by the NO cycle in both intermediate- and high-mass stars; contrary to 13C, it is not produced in the 1 – 2 $`M_{}`$ mass range where the NO cycle does not operate. It is mostly produced as a secondary element, owing to the dependence of its abundance on the initial 16O content of the star. In Figs. 4a,b we show the predictions from Model 1 (17O production from single stars alone) as dashed lines. The nucleosynthesis prescriptions for 17O from LIMS and massive stars are from Ventura et al. (2002) and Nomoto et al. (1997), respectively (see Table 1). It is worth noticing that, since the study of Nomoto et al. (1997) concerns only the He-cores and does not treat properly the products of the H-burning surviving outside the receding He-core, the yields of 17O from massive stars adopted by Model 1 are underestimated. Therefore, in this model 17O comes practically solely from intermediate-mass stars in the mass range 2.5 – 6 $`M_{}`$. Nevertheless, in this model we have to reduce the 17O yields by Ventura et al. (2002) by a factor of $``$ 6 in order not to overestimate the 17O solar abundance. In fact, Ventura et al. (2002) predict a too large production factor for 17O. This problem was already encountered by Prantzos et al. (1996), who adopted the 17O yields from LIMS by Marigo et al. (1996). They showed that the Marigo et al. yields have to be reduced by a factor of $``$ 3 in order not to overproduce the solar 17O (cfr. figure 1f of Prantzos et al. 1996 and figure 7 of Ventura et al. 2002).

Model 1 predicts that the 16O/17O ratio decreases during the first $``$ 7 Gyrs of Galactic evolution, then it flattens out and finally increases at around $`t`$ = 10 Gyr. At first glance, this is unexpected, since the 16O/17O ratio is a typical primary to secondary ratio and hence, according to common wisdom, it should always decrease in time. The explanation of this behavior stems from the stellar mass range from which 17O originates in our model, and from the star formation history. The yields of Ventura et al. (2002) we adopt here are computed for stars in the mass range 2.5 – 6 $`M_{}`$. The lifetime of a 6 $`M_{}`$ star is $``$ 0.065 Gyr, while that of a 2.5 $`M_{}`$ star is $``$ 0.75 Gyr. Therefore, stars in this mass range start restoring their newly synthesized 17O rather early during Galaxy’s evolution. An age of 7 Gyr (the age at which the oxygen isotopic ratio flattens out) corresponds to the lifetime of a 1.4 $`M_{}`$ star, while an age of 10 Gyr (the age at which the oxygen isotopic ratio starts increasing) corresponds to the lifetime of a 1 $`M_{}`$ star. Stars with $`m<`$ 2.5 $`M_{}`$ do not produce 17O in our model. From this fact and from an inspection of Fig. 5, it can be immediately understood why, although 17O is produced as a secondary element, the 16O/17O ratio first flattens and then increases in time: this happens because a significant fraction of the stars which die at those times are not 17O producers. Moreover, they formed out of gas characterized by high 16O/17O ratios, and so the fraction of unburnt material that they restore into the ISM is characterized by the same high ratios. The predicted gradient across the Galactic disc can be easily explained by the same arguments. In particular, the high 16O/17O ratio we find at inner radii at the present time is due to the formation of an important fraction of low-mass stars at early times, out of gas with a high 16O/17O content, which die at late times and restore into the ISM matter characterized by this high 16O/17O ratio – and low metal abundance (Fig. 5, top panel).

Summarizing: stars in the mass range 2.5 – 6 $`M_{}`$ are able to reproduce the solar abundance of 17O without requiring further 17O producers, but their theoretical yields have to be reduced (e.g., by a factor of $``$ 6 in the case of the 17O yields adopted in this work). However, once the solar 17O abundance is explained, theoretical predictions on both the temporal evolution of the 16O/17O ratio in the solar neighbourhood and the 16O/17O gradient along the Galactic disc are not in agreement with the observations.

It is interesting to note that we reach the same conclusion also if we adopt the metallicity dependent yields by Woosley & Weaver (1995) for massive stars and set them as the only 17O producers. In fact, by using the metallicity dependent yields by Woosley & Weaver (1995) for massive stars, the solar abundance of 17O is reproduced (within the errors), but the oxygen isotopic ratio remains almost flat in the past 4.5 Gyr. This result disagrees with previous investigations suggesting that massive stars alone can explain the observed evolution of 16O/17O in the Galaxy, once the metallicity effects on the stellar yields are properly taken into account (e.g., Timmes et al. 1995; Goswami & Prantzos 2000). We argue that the differences could be due to the fact that in our models many stars in the mass range 1 – 2 $`M_{}`$ die and restore matter with high 16O/17O at late times. Moreover, the effect of the threshold in the star formation process can play a role in the same direction.

In conclusion, our results suggest: i) the need for a major revision of the theoretical 17O yields from intermediate-mass stars on the one hand and ii) the occurrence of late 17O pollution from some different, long-lived stellar source on the other.

### 4.3 CNO production during nova outbursts

In previous papers (Romano et al. 1999, 2001) we adopted the 7Li yields from novae by José & Hernanz (1998) and showed that novae are among the best candidates in order to explain the sudden increase of the lithium abundance in the ISM at \[Fe/H\] $`>`$ $``$0.5 dex, as traced by dwarf stars in the solar vicinity hotter than 5700 K in the $`\mathrm{log}ϵ(^7`$Li$`)`$ – \[Fe/H\] diagram. The key ingredients which led to this result were i) the high overproduction factors of 7Li with respect to its solar abundance and ii) the long delay with which novae restore their nuclearly processed material into the ISM.

Large overproduction factors have been found also for 13C, 15N and 17O (see figures 1 to 3 of José & Hernanz 1998). These overproduction factors are so large that one can argue that novae can eventually account for most of the Galactic 13C, 15N and 17O (see the discussion in Section 1). Moreover, it is apparent that novae, restoring their newly synthesized 13C, 15N and 17O to the ISM on very long time-scales, act in the right direction in solving any discrepancy between model predictions and observations when dealing with the Galactic evolution of the CNO isotopic ratios.

In Figs. 1, 4 and 6 we show as dotted lines the results of a detailed chemical evolution model in which all of the Galactic 13C, 15N and 17O are supposed to come from nova outbursts (Model 2, Table 1). In this model, the 13C, 15N and 17O production from novae is treated as primary, i.e., 13C, 15N and 17O are assumed to be produced independently of the initial metallicity in the nova outburst. The average masses ejected in the form of 12C, 13C, 14N, 15N, 16O and 17O assumed by the model are listed in column 5 of Table 1. We assume that the mean mass ejected during a single burst is $``$ 2 $`\times `$ 10-5 $`M_{}`$ and that each nova experiences 104 bursts during its life (see Section 3.2). Nucleosynthesis prescriptions for LIMS and massive stars are from van den Hoek & Groenewegen (1997 – their standard case in which the mass loss parameter for stars on the AGB, $`\eta _{\mathrm{A}GB}`$, is equal to 4 and does not vary with metallicity) and Nomoto et al. (1997), respectively. In this model, the 13C, 15N and 17O production from LIMS and massive stars is set to zero. It is found that it is necessary to lower the average nova yields of 13C, 15N and 17O from José & Hernanz (1998) in order to avoid to overestimate their meteoritic abundances.

In Figs. 1, 4 and 6, panels a, the temporal evolution of the CNO isotopic ratios in the solar neighbourhood is displayed. If novae are the only sources of 13C, 15N and 17O and produce them as primary elements, once the solar values are reproduced, the present-day local isotopic ratios fall to values smaller than observed (unless the 2 $`\sigma `$ level of uncertainty for measurements in the local ISM is assumed), due to the delayed contribution of too large amounts of 13C, 15N and 17O from nova systems at late times. Moreover, the slope of the theoretical gradients is sistematically flatter than observed (Table 3).

If instead 13C, 15N and 17O from novae are secondary (Model 2s, Table 1), we obtain that: i) the decrease of the CNO isotopic ratios in the solar vicinity in the last 4.5 Gyr is more pronounced (Fig. 7, left panels); ii) the gradients steepen out (Fig. 7, right panels); in particular, in the case of nitrogen the agreement with the observations improves, while in the case of carbon it worsens (Table 3).

It is interesting to analyse what is the effect of changing the free parameters involved in the computation of the nova outburst rate on the predicted CNO ratios. Changing the value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$, i.e., the delay time required to cool the WD at a level that guarantees strong enough nova bursts, from 2 to 5 Gyr, results in a lower nova rate at the present time, and hence lower solar abundances for the CNO group elements (both in the case in which the production of the minor CNO isotopes from novae is treated as primary and in the case in which it is treated as secondary), unless the value of $`\alpha n`$ is properly increased333Notice that we cannot put constraints upon $`\alpha `$ and $`n`$ singularly, but rather on the product $`\alpha n`$.. Increasing $`\alpha `$ so that the value of $`R_{\mathrm{novae}}(t_{\mathrm{Gal}})`$ predicted with $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ = 5 Gyr is the same as that found with $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ = 2 Gyr results in flattening too much the gradients along the disc.

It is clear that the nova contribution to the chemical evolution of the Galaxy is at present only poorly constrained: the rate of nova outbursts in the past is virtually unknown; the delay time $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ could vary from system to system; the mass ejected by a single nova during each burst is very uncertain (see D’Antona & Matteucci 1991 and the discussion in Section 3.2). However, our analysis allows us to remark at least two important things: i) first, if the fraction of WDs which enter the formation of nova systems is constant in time (similarly to what is assumed for the fraction of WDs entering the formation of binary systems ending up as Type Ia SNe), the nova yields of 13C, 15N and 17O computed by José & Hernanz for a solar composition of the matter accreted by the WD overestimate the solar abundances of 15N and 17O; ii) second, if novae are the only sources of 13C, 15N and 17O, the predicted 12C/13C, 14N/15N and 16O/17O ratios tend to decrease too fast from the time of Sun formation up to now, especially in the case in which their yields are scaled with the initial stellar metallicity.

In Figs. 1 and 4, we also show as continuous lines the predictions of a model (Model 3, Table 1) in which 13C and 17O are produced both by single stars and novae (as primary elements, in this latter case). The decrease of the 12C/13C ratio in the solar neighbourhood in the last 4.5 Gyr can be now reproduced without requiring a reduction of the HBB strength in the van den Hoek & Groenewegen (1997) standard set of yields. Also the gradient of this same ratio across the disc is well reproduced. However, in order not to overproduce the 17O abundance in the Sun, we need to lower in Model 3 the 17O yields from both novae and intermediate-mass stars. In particular, in this model novae produce almost 50 per cent of the solar 17O, while the remaining 50 per cent comes from intermediate-mass stars. Actually, favouring a higher nova contribution with respect to that from LIMS would improve the agreement with the observations. However, any percentage would be very tentative, due to the uncertainties in the nova and intermediate-mass star yields just mentioned before. Therefore, any acceptable solution would be by no means unique.

### 4.4 Changing the nucleosynthesis prescriptions for massive stars and LIMS

Finally, one could ask how firm are the results we presented in the previous section with respect to changes in the nucleosynthesis prescriptions for novae, massive stars and LIMS; in other words, how much do our conclusions depend on the choice of the particular set of stellar yields we have adopted? In this section we show the results of a chemical evolution model, Model 3s, similar to Model 3, but where the yields from novae are scaled according to the initial metallicity of the star (Fig. 8, thin lines). In the same figure, we also show results from a model, Model 3n, similar to Model 3s, except for the fact that the yields for LIMS from van den Hoek & Groenewegen (1997) are computed with $`\eta _{\mathrm{A}GB}`$ increasing with increasing metallicity (from $`\eta _{\mathrm{A}GB}`$ = 1 to $`\eta _{\mathrm{A}GB}`$ = 4). Furthermore, Model 3n adopts the yields from massive stars by Woosley & Weaver (1995) rather than Nomoto et al. (1997). It is worth noticing that the yields from LIMS increase with decreasing values of $`\eta _{\mathrm{A}GB}`$ (i.e., smaller mass-loss rates) as a lower value of $`\eta _{\mathrm{A}GB}`$ results in longer AGB lifetimes and therefore more thermal pulses (assuming that the amount of dredged-up matter during a thermal pulse is roughly constant). Moreover, the yields of 13C and 17O from Woosley & Weaver (1995) are larger than those from Nomoto et al. (1997), owing to the fact that they take into account nuclear burning outside the receding He-core. They also predict larger yields for 12C, but slightly lower ones for 16O.

As a consequence, Model 3n predicts a solar abundance of 12C larger than that predicted by Model 3s. On the contrary, the predicted solar abundance of 16O is lower (see Table 2). Therefore, the secondary production of 13C and 15N from novae increases, as the mean masses ejected from novae in the form of 13C and 15N are now scaled with a higher initial abundance of 12C at each time. Owing to that, higher 13C and 15N solar abundances are found (Table 2). On the other hand, the secondary production of 17O from novae in the case of Model 3n is lower than in the case of Model 3s, since it scales with the initial abundance of 16O in the star, which is now lower. However, Model 3n predicts for 17O a solar abundance higher than Model 3s, due to the non-negligible 17O contribution from massive stars when the yields of Woosley & Weaver (1995) are adopted rather than those of Nomoto et al. (1997).

Once the CNO isotopic ratios are normalized to their theoretical solar values, it is seen that the model predictions for the 12C/13C and 14N/15N ratios from Model 3n, as far as both the temporal evolution at the solar ring and the present-day distribution across the disc are concerned, do not change appreciably with respect to those from Model 3s (Fig. 8 and Table 3). On the other hand, in the case of Model 3n the 16O/17O ratio shows a smoother decrease from the time of the birth of the Sun up to now, and a shallower gradient is predicted across the disc. This is due to the injection into the ISM of a non-negligible amount of 17O from massive stars.

At this point, it has to be noticed that if the theoretical isotopic ratios are not normalized to the solar values predicted by the models themselves, the situation is even worse. Our models predict solar abundances of 12C, 14N and 16O in good agreement with the more recent abundance determinations in the solar photosphere by Holweger (2001) (except for 12C) and Allende Prieto, Lambert & Asplund (2001, 2002), but too low when compared to the meteoritic abundances by Anders & Grevesse (1989) (Table 2; see also Chiappini et al. 2003). Since the isotopic ratios given in Anders & Grevesse can still be considered as the right Solar System values (P. Hoppe, private communication), it is likely that the solar abundances of the minor isotopes have to be scaled according to the revised values of the corresponding main isotopes. In other words, we should require an even lower contribution from novae and/or LIMS to the Galactic 13C and 17O abundances than suggested above. This may be a precious information for people dealing with stellar evolution and nucleosynthesis.

Finally, we address the problem of 17O destruction in stars. 17O is destroyed in stellar interiors by proton captures through the reactions 17O (p, $`\alpha `$) 14N and 17O (p, $`\gamma `$) 18F (this latter occurs only at high temperatures). All the models previously discussed assume that all the 17O injected into the ISM by stars of different masses is newly produced, i.e., all the 17O present in the protostellar nebula is destroyed in the hot stellar interior. In Fig. 9a,b we compare results from Model 3n (solid lines) to those from Model 3m (dashed lines). Model 3m is the same as Model 3n, except for the fact that now all the pristine 17O is assumed to survive and to be returned back into the ISM at the death of the star. A realistic situation should be probably something in between the two. Assuming that all the 17O present in the gas out of which the stars form is preserved, causes a steepening of the 16O/17O gradient and a more pronounced decrease of the ratio in the solar neighbourhood in the last 4.5 Gyr. Obviously, in the case of Model 3m we need also to further reduce the production of newly formed 17O in order not to overestimate its solar abundance. We choose to lower the yields of 17O from intermediate-mass stars (see Table 1).

## 5 Conclusions

In this paper we discuss the problem of the evolution of the CNO isotopes in both the solar vicinity and the disc of the Galaxy. In particular, we analyse the implications of updated results from stellar nucleosynthesis studies (including nova nucleosynthesis). Our main conclusions can be summarized as follows:

1. A model which considers only single low-, intermediate- and high-mass stars as 13C, 15N and 17O producers, is in trouble with reproducing the data relevant to the temporal variation of the CNO isotopic ratios in the solar neighbourhood as well as their behavior across the Galactic disc at the present time, unless one does not allow for a proper revision of current stellar yields. In particular, in the specific case of the carbon isotopic ratio, we show that a good agreement with the observations can be obtained only by reducing the strength of HBB in intermediate-mass stars.
2. Current theoretical yields of 17O from intermediate-mass stars are overestimated; this may suggest the need of considering some neglected reactions resulting in 17O destruction inside stars.
3. It has been claimed that novae can contribute to large amounts of 13C, 15N and 17O and eventually explain the whole solar abundances of these elements (e.g., Starrfield et al. 1972, 1974; D’Antona & Matteucci 1991; Matteucci & D’Antona 1991; Woosley et al. 1997; José & Hernanz 1998). In this paper, we adopt detailed nucleosynthesis in the ejecta of classical novae as published by José & Hernanz (1998) for a grid of hydrodynamical nova models spanning a wide range of CO and ONe WD masses (0.8 – 1.35 $`M_{}`$) and mixing levels between the accreted envelope and the outermost shells of the underlying WD core (25% – 75%). We find that, when included in a detailed model for the chemical evolution of the Milky Way, they produce 12C/13C, 14N/15N and 16O/17O ratios decreasing with increasing metallicity, i.e., decreasing with time at the solar radius and increasing with Galactocentric distance at the present time, in agreement with the trends inferred from observations. However, if novae are the only 13C, 15N and 17O producers, the CNO isotopic ratios are found to decrease too steeply at $`R=R_{}`$, often producing present-day ratios across the Galactic disc lying at the lower observational limit suggested by the observations at each radius. These results are almost independent of whether the production of 13C, 15N and 17O from novae is treated as primary or secondary. In fact, also in the case of primary production, 13C, 15N and 17O behave as secondary elements from a point of view of Galactic chemical evolution, owing to the long delay with which they are restored into the ISM. However, in the case of purely primary production (from the nucleosynthesis point of view) of 13C, 15N and 17O from novae, flatter gradients and less pronounced decreasing trends at the solar radius are found for all the ratios.
4. A model in which 13C and 17O are produced by intermediate- and high-mass stars as well as novae fits better the observations; however, in the case of 17O it is necessary to lower by hand the yields from both intermediate-mass stars and novae in order to reproduce the solar 17O abundance. We know that 17O is always produced as a secondary element in intermediate- and high-mass stars. However, our models do not rule out that at least a minor fraction of the solar 17O might be of primary origin. This fraction would originate from nova systems.
5. The behavior of the 14N/15N ratio along the Galactic disc and as a function of time in the solar neighbourhood seems to suggest that 15N has been produced on long time-scales, even longer than those of 14N. Novae are the best candidates for producing 15N on very long time-scales in the framework of the presently available nucleosynthesis calculations. However, large uncertainties are still present in the 15N abundance determinations in the local ISM and this prevents us from drawing firm conclusions on the origin of this element.

## Acknowledgments

We thank C. Chiappini for many useful discussions and M. Tosi for reading the manuscript and giving us useful suggestions. We also acknowledge C. Allende Prieto, H. Holweger and P. Hoppe for explanations regarding the Solar System isotopic ratio data. Finally, we thank an anonymous referee for suggestions that improved the final version of this paper.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

A discrete R-symmetry $`Z_{NR}`$ often appears as a remnant of the rotational symmetry of the compactified extra space in higher dimensional supergravity or string theory . This discrete R-symmetry should be nonanomalous since this is a gauge symmetry. An R-symmetry plays a crucial role in the phenomenology of supersymmetric (SUSY) theory. First, it can suppress the cosmological constant compared to the Planck scale. Second, the SUSY-invariant mass term (the $`\mu `$-term) of the Higgs chiral multiplet can be forbidden so that the Higgs mass not be the Planck scale. If an R-symmetry breaking is related to SUSY breaking, the Higgs chiral multiplet can obtain a mass of the order of the gravitino mass $`m_{3/2}1\text{TeV}`$ by the Giudice-Masiero (GM) mechanism . Third, an R-parity forbids the dimension-four baryon and lepton number violating operators causing too rapid proton decay . These observations motivate us to ask whether we can find a nonanomalous discrete R-symmetry with the above properties. In a paper by Kurosawa, Maru and Yanagida , nonanomalous discrete R-symmetries in the minimal SUSY standard model (MSSM) and the SUSY grand unified theory (GUT) were found under the situation that the GM mechanism works. These solutions can also forbid the dimension-five baryon- and lepton-number violating operators. Furthermore, extra fields $`\mathrm{𝟓}\mathrm{𝟓}^{}`$ with the mass of order $`1\text{TeV}`$, which can be testable in collider experiments, are predicted from the anomaly cancellations in the GUT case.

In this paper, we consider nonanomalous R-symmetries without the GM mechanism.111We do not consider a possibility of anomaly cancellations by Green-Schwarz mechanism . In particular, we consider that the $`\mu `$-term is induced by the vacuum expectation value (VEV) of the superpotential $`W`$, assuming that a fractional power of $`W`$ is allowed in the superpotential. The fractional power makes it possible to obtain the correct size of the $`\mu `$-term even for gravitino mass smaller than the electroweak scale. We find that the $`\mu 1\text{TeV}`$ is obtained only if the gravitino is extremely light as $`m_{3/2}10^3\text{eV}`$ in the minimal SU(5) GUT. If extra fields such as $`\mathrm{𝟓}\mathrm{𝟓}^{}`$ or $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^{}`$ are added to the minimal SU(5) GUT, we find many charge assignments predicting $`m_{3/2}^{}{}_{}{}^{>}10^3\text{eV}`$. These charge assignments can be considered as solutions to the $`\mu `$-problem in low energy SUSY breaking models such as the gauge mediated SUSY breaking (GMSB) models .222Solutions to the $`\mu `$-problem in the GMSB models have been reported so far in Refs. . Also interesting mechanisms for the $`\mu `$-problem in various mediation mechanisms of SUSY breaking are recently proposed .

In our framework, the R-parity is in general violated due to the fractional powers of $`W`$. However, the R-parity violating couplings are well controlled by the symmetry. In fact, it turns out that R-parity violation is small enough for some charge assignments. It is further shown that the dimension-five baryon- and lepton-number violating operators are naturally suppressed. In these charge assignments the gravitino masses are predicted in the range $`m_{3/2}𝒪(10^3\text{eV})`$$`𝒪(1\text{MeV})`$, and hence the gravitino is the lightest supersymmetric particle (LSP). Its lifetime is much longer than the age of the universe, and the gravitino can be the dominant component of the dark matter.

This paper is organized as follows. In the next section, after discussing the general constraint on the power of the superpotential, we search for anomaly-free solutions of the minimal SU(5), and the minimal SU(5) with $`\mathrm{𝟓}\mathrm{𝟓}^{}`$ or $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^{}`$. In our analysis, constraints on the R-parity violating operators from the proton decay and neutrino masses are taken into account. A brief discussion on the cosmology of the gravitino LSP with R-parity violation is also given. The last section contains a summary of our paper. In the appendix, a subtle issue between the fractional power and the discrete symmetry is discussed.

## 2 Discrete R-symmetry in GUT

In this section, we consider the discrete R-symmetry in the GUT. Before discussing anomaly cancellations in detail, we give a general constraint on powers of the VEV of the superpotential in the next subsection.

### 2.1 General constraint on the powers of $`W`$

We assume that the $`\mu `$-term is generated from

$`W\left({\displaystyle \frac{W}{M_P^3}}\right)^yM_PH\overline{H},`$ (1)
where $`y`$ is a non-negative number and $`M_P=2.4\times 10^{18}`$ GeV is the reduced Planck scale. Here and hereafter, we omit coefficients of order unity. Then, the following conditions should be satisfied,

$`2\alpha y+h+\overline{h}`$ $`=`$ $`2\alpha (\mathrm{mod}N),`$ (2)
$`h+\overline{h}`$ $``$ $`2\alpha (\mathrm{mod}N),`$ (3)
where $`h,\overline{h}`$ and $`\alpha `$ denote the R-charge of $`H,\overline{H}`$ and the Grassmann coordinate $`\theta `$, respectively and they are all integers. (See Table 1.) The second condition (3) is necessary to forbid the Higgs mass term with Planck scale. From Eq. (1), we can predict the gravitino mass because

$`\mu \left({\displaystyle \frac{W}{M_P^3}}\right)^yM_P\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_{3/2}}{M_P}}\right)^yM_P,`$ (4)
and hence

$`m_{3/2}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{M_P}}\right)^{1/y}M_P10^{18.415.4/y}\text{GeV},`$ (5)
where $`\mu \text{TeV}`$ is assumed throughout this paper. Eq. (5) can be rewritten as

$`y{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{log}(M_P/\mu )}{\mathrm{log}(M_P/m_{3/2})}}.`$ (6)
From this equation, we can derive lower and upper bounds on $`y`$. We assume

$`m_{3/2}^{}{}_{}{}^{<}\mu M_P.`$ (7)
Thus, Eqs.(6) and (7) lead to

$`0<y_{}^<1.`$ (8)
Here, one might wonder if the fractional power $`y<1`$ is incompatible with the discrete symmetry. This issue is briefly discussed in the Appendix. As can be seen from Eq. (4), the fractional power $`y<1`$ is crucial to obtain the correct size of $`\mu `$-term for a gravitino mass smaller than the weak scale.

Besides the constraint in Eq.(8), there is a lower bound on $`y`$ coming from the lower bound on the gravitino mass $`m_{3/2}`$. In the GMSB model, when we fix the soft mass scale $`m_{\mathrm{soft}}`$, the SUSY breaking $`F`$-term is bounded from below as $`\sqrt{F}_{}^>𝒪(10\text{TeV})\times (m_{\mathrm{soft}}/100\text{GeV})`$ in order to avoid the negative mass squared for the scalar field in the messenger sector . This leads to a lower bound on the gravitino mass, $`m_{3/2}^{}{}_{}{}^{>}𝒪(0.01\text{eV})`$. Even lighter gravitino mass $`m_{3/2}𝒪(10^3\text{eV})`$ can be allowed in some SUSY breaking models in higher dimensional spacetime . For $`m_{3/2}10^3\text{eV}`$, one can see from Eq. (6) that $`y`$ can be as small as $`y1/2`$. From the above arguments, we impose the following constraints on the parameter $`y`$:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}y1.`$ (9)
### 2.2 Anomaly cancellation

We are now at the position to discuss the anomaly cancellation. Let us first take the minimal SU(5) GUT. Its matter content is described in Table 1. $`Z_{NR}`$ charge of the fields, which is taken to be generation independent for simplicity, denotes those of the scalar component and are integers. Note that we take the R-charge of the Grassmann coordinate $`\theta `$ to be an arbitrary integer $`\alpha `$. The Yukawa couplings and the Majorana mass term are given by333We have suppressed $`𝒪`$(1) coefficients of the terms.

$`W=TTH+T\overline{F}\overline{H}+\overline{F}\overline{N}H+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}M_m\overline{N}^2,`$ (10)
where $`M_m`$ is a Majorana mass for the right-handed neutrinos. For Eq. (10) to be allowed, the corresponding R-charges have to satisfy

$`2t+h=2\alpha (\mathrm{mod}N),`$ (11)
$`t+\overline{f}+\overline{h}=2\alpha (\mathrm{mod}N),`$ (12)
$`\overline{f}+\overline{n}+h=2\alpha (\mathrm{mod}N),`$ (13)
$`2\overline{n}=2\alpha (\mathrm{mod}N).`$ (14)
Anomaly cancellation conditions for $`Z_{NR}[SU(3)_C]^2`$ and $`Z_{NR}[SU(2)_L]^2`$ are

$`Z_{NR}[SU(3)_C]^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\{3(t\alpha )+(\overline{f}\alpha )\}+3\alpha ={\displaystyle \frac{N}{2}}k(k𝐙),`$ (15)
$`Z_{NR}[SU(2)_L]^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\{9(t\alpha )+3(\overline{f}\alpha )\}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\{(h\alpha )+(\overline{h}\alpha )\}+2\alpha `$ (16)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N}{2}}k^{}(k^{}𝐙).`$
These conditions are simplified to

$`h+\overline{h}`$ $`=`$ $`2\alpha (\mathrm{mod}{\displaystyle \frac{N}{3}}),`$ (17)
$`h+\overline{h}`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha (\mathrm{mod}{\displaystyle \frac{N}{2}}).`$ (18)
Eqs. (17) and (18) lead to

$`h+\overline{h}=4\alpha (\mathrm{mod}N).`$ (19)
Substituting this back into (17) or (18) results in $`6\alpha =0(\mathrm{mod}N)`$, or equivalently

$`6\alpha =Nk(k𝐙).`$ (20)
Taking into account $`0<\alpha <N`$, $`0<k<6`$ is obtained. If we take $`k=3`$, then $`2\alpha =N`$, and

$`h+\overline{h}=4\alpha =2\alpha (\mathrm{mod}2\alpha ),`$ (21)
is derived and contradicts the condition (3). Thus, we find $`k=`$ 1, 2, 4 and 5. In other words, $`N`$ is classified as,

$`N=6\alpha ,3\alpha ,3\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{2}}\right),6\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{5}}\right).`$ (22)
First, $`N=6\alpha `$ case is considered. From Eqs. (2) and (19),

$`2\alpha y+4\alpha =2\alpha (\mathrm{mod}6\alpha )y=1+3n(n𝐙).`$ (23)
This has no solution for $`1/2y1`$. Second case is $`N=3\alpha `$. From Eqs. (2) and (19), we obtain

$`2\alpha y+4\alpha =2\alpha (\mathrm{mod}3\alpha )y=1+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}n(n𝐙).`$ (24)
This has a solution $`y=1/2`$ for $`n=1`$. Third case is $`N=3\left(\alpha /2\right)=3\alpha ^{}(\alpha =2\alpha ^{},\alpha ^{}𝐙)`$. From Eqs. (2) and (19), we obtain

$`2\alpha y+4\alpha =2\alpha (\mathrm{mod}3\alpha ^{}),`$ (25)
$`4\alpha ^{}y+8\alpha ^{}=4\alpha ^{}(\mathrm{mod}3\alpha ^{})y=1+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}n(n𝐙).`$ (26)
This also has a solution $`y=1/2`$ for $`n=2`$. The last case is $`N=6\left(\alpha /5\right)=6\alpha ^{}(\alpha =5\alpha ^{},\alpha ^{}𝐙)`$. From Eqs. (2) and (19), we obtain

$`2\alpha y+4\alpha =2\alpha (\mathrm{mod}6\alpha ^{}),`$ (27)
$`10\alpha ^{}y+20\alpha ^{}=10\alpha ^{}(\mathrm{mod}6\alpha ^{})y=1+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{5}}n(n𝐙).`$ (28)
Taking into account $`1/2y1`$, $`5/2<n10/3`$ is obtained. This has a solution $`n=3`$, but it does not correspond to the minimum solution for positive $`y`$. The dominant $`\mu `$-term comes from the term with $`y=1/5`$ (i.e. $`n=2`$), and it would cause $`\mu 1\text{TeV}`$ unless $`m_{3/2}10^3\text{eV}`$. Thus, this case has no solution.

Therefore, the correct size of the $`\mu `$-term can be obtained for $`y=1/2`$ when $`N=3\alpha `$ and $`N=3(\alpha /2)`$, which predict an extremely light gravitino with mass $`m_{3/2}𝒪(10^3\text{eV})`$.

#### Baryon- and lepton-number violating operators

We have shown that the correct size of $`\mu `$-term can be obtained for ultralight gravitino $`m_{3/2}10^3\text{eV}`$, by means of the fractional power of the superpotential’s VEV, $`W^{1/2}`$. However, if we allow general interaction terms including the fractional power of $`W`$, there appear baryon- and lepton-number violating operators as well. Therefore we have next to consider constraints on these operators.

Let us first consider the following superpotential

$`W\left({\displaystyle \frac{W}{M_P^3}}\right)^zM_P\overline{F}H,`$ (29)
which includes the so-called bilinear R-parity violation, $`W=\widehat{\mu }_iL_iH_u`$. The coupling is given by

$`\widehat{\mu }\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_{3/2}}{M_P}}\right)^zM_P.`$ (30)
The bilinear R-parity violation can generate the neutrino mass  which explains the atmospheric neutrino oscillation if $`\widehat{\mu }/\mu 𝒪(10^4`$$`10^7)`$ . In other words, $`\widehat{\mu }`$ should be smaller than $`𝒪(10^1\text{GeV}`$$`10^4\text{GeV})`$ in order to avoid a too large neutrino mass.

The power $`z`$ is determined by the symmetry:

$`2\alpha z+\overline{f}+h=2\alpha (\mathrm{mod}N),`$ (31)
$``$ $`2\alpha z=\overline{n}(\mathrm{mod}N),`$
$``$ $`z={\displaystyle \frac{\overline{n}+rN}{2\alpha }}(r𝐙),`$
where we have used Eq. (13). From Eq. (14), the charge of the right-handed neutrino should be either $`\overline{n}=\alpha `$ or $`\overline{n}=\alpha +N/2(\mathrm{mod}N)`$. If $`\overline{n}=\alpha `$, the minimum non-negative $`z`$ is given by $`z=1/2`$ since $`N>\alpha `$. In this case, the bilinear coupling is given by

$`\widehat{\mu }\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_{3/2}}{M_P}}\right)^{1/2}M_P10^3\text{GeV}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_{3/2}}{10^3\text{eV}}}\right)^{1/2}.`$ (32)
This generates too large neutrino mass and hence is excluded. Thus, the charge of the right-handed neutrino should be $`\overline{n}=\alpha +N/2(\mathrm{mod}N)`$. This also means that the case of $`N=`$ odd is excluded. If $`N=`$ even and $`\overline{n}=\alpha +N/2(\mathrm{mod}N)`$, Eq. (31) gives rise to

$`z=\{\begin{array}{ccc}{\displaystyle \frac{5+6r}{4}}& \mathrm{for}& N=3\alpha ,\hfill \\ & & \\ {\displaystyle \frac{7+6r}{8}}& \mathrm{for}& N={\displaystyle \frac{3\alpha }{2}}.\hfill \end{array}`$ (36)
The minimum non-negative $`z`$ are given by $`z=5/4`$ ($`r=0`$) and $`z=1/8`$ ($`r=1`$), respectively. Therefore, the bilinear R-parity violating coupling is given by

$`\widehat{\mu }\{\begin{array}{ccc}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_{3/2}}{M_P}}\right)^{5/4}M_P\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}\times 10^{20}\text{GeV}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_{3/2}}{10^3\text{eV}}}\right)^{5/4}& \mathrm{for}& N=3\alpha ,\hfill \\ & & \\ \left({\displaystyle \frac{m_{3/2}}{M_P}}\right)^{1/8}M_P\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}\times 10^{14}\text{GeV}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_{3/2}}{10^3\text{eV}}}\right)^{1/8}& \mathrm{for}& N={\displaystyle \frac{3\alpha }{2}}.\hfill \end{array}`$ (40)
Thus, the $`N=3(\alpha /2)`$ case is clearly excluded. On the other hand, for $`N=3\alpha `$ the contribution to the neutrino mass from the R-parity violation is extremely small. Therefore, the dominant contribution to the neutrino masses are understood to be generated by the standard seesaw mechanism .

Next we consider the trilinear R-parity violation caused by the following superpotential

$`W\left({\displaystyle \frac{W}{M_P^3}}\right)^z^{}T\overline{F}\overline{F}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_{3/2}}{M_P}}\right)^z^{}T\overline{F}\overline{F}\lambda _{\mathrm{eff}}T\overline{F}\overline{F},`$ (41)
which includes both of the baryon- and lepton-number violating operators, $`\lambda _{ijk}L_iL_jE_k^c`$, $`\lambda _{ijk}^{}L_iQ_jD_k^c`$ and $`\lambda _{ijk}^{\prime \prime }U_i^cD_j^cD_k^c`$. The power $`z^{}`$ is determined by

$`2\alpha z^{}+t+2\overline{f}=2\alpha (\mathrm{mod}N),`$ (42)
$``$ $`2\alpha z^{}=2\alpha +\overline{n}(\mathrm{mod}N),`$
where we have used Eqs. (12), (13) and $`h+\overline{h}=4\alpha `$. For $`N=3\alpha `$ ($`=`$ even) and $`\overline{n}=\alpha +N/2(\mathrm{mod}N)`$, $`z^{}`$ is given by

$`z^{}={\displaystyle \frac{9+6r^{}}{4}}(r^{}𝐙).`$ (43)
The minimum non-negative $`z^{}`$ is given by $`z^{}=3/4`$ ($`r^{}=1`$) and the effective coupling becomes

$`\lambda _{\mathrm{eff}}10^{23}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_{3/2}}{10^3\text{eV}}}\right)^{3/4},`$ (44)
which easily satisfy the constraint from the proton decay, $`\lambda _{11j}^{}\lambda _{11j}^{\prime \prime }{}_{}{}^{<}2\times 10^{27}(m_{\mathrm{soft}}/100\text{GeV})^2`$ $`(j=2,3)`$ .

Let us also discuss the dimension five operator $`W(1/M_{\mathrm{eff}})TTT\overline{F}`$, which causes the proton decay . In order to suppress the proton decay rate below the experimental bound, the effective mass scale should be $`M_{\mathrm{eff}}>𝒪(10^{25}\text{GeV})`$ , i.e., much larger than $`M_P`$. Notice that the R-parity cannot forbid this operator. In our framework, the operator is given by

$`W{\displaystyle \frac{1}{M_P}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{W}{M_P^3}}\right)^{z^{\prime \prime }}TTT\overline{F}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{M_P}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_{3/2}}{M_P}}\right)^{z^{\prime \prime }}TTT\overline{F}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{M_{\mathrm{eff}}}}TTT\overline{F},`$ (45)
and $`z^{\prime \prime }`$ should satisfy

$`2\alpha z^{\prime \prime }+3t+\overline{f}=2\alpha (\mathrm{mod}N),`$ (46)
$``$ $`2\alpha z^{\prime \prime }=2\alpha (\mathrm{mod}N),`$
$``$ $`z^{\prime \prime }={\displaystyle \frac{2\alpha +r^{\prime \prime }N}{2\alpha }}={\displaystyle \frac{2+3r^{\prime \prime }}{2}}(r^{\prime \prime }𝐙),`$
where we have used Eqs. (11), (12), $`h+\overline{h}=4\alpha `$, and $`N=3\alpha `$. The minimum non-negative $`z^{\prime \prime }`$ is given by $`z^{\prime \prime }=1`$ ($`r^{\prime \prime }=0`$), and hence the effective mass scale $`M_{\mathrm{eff}}M_P(M_P/m_{3/2})10^{48}\text{GeV}(10^3\text{eV}/m_{3/2})`$ is much above the experimental bound. Therefore, the discrete R-symmetry naturally suppresses the dimension five proton decay operator.

#### explicit $`Z_{NR}`$ charge assignments

Before closing this subsection, we comment on the explicit form of $`Z_{NR}`$. Nonanomalous R-symmetries are represented by $`Z_{NR}=P^\alpha V^\beta A^\gamma (\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma 𝐙)`$  where the generators $`P,V`$ and $`A`$ are summarized in Table 2. One can easily check that the charge assignments in Table 2 satisfy Yukawa conditions (11)-(13).444By imposing 3 conditions (11)-(13) on the 6 parameters $`t`$, $`\overline{f}`$, $`\overline{n}`$, $`h`$, $`\overline{h}`$ and $`\theta `$, the charge assignments can be represented in terms of 3 parameters $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$ and $`\gamma `$. For $`N=3\alpha `$ ($`=`$ even) and $`\overline{n}=\alpha +N/2(\mathrm{mod}N)`$, we obtain

$`\overline{n}=\alpha +5\beta +\gamma =\alpha +{\displaystyle \frac{N}{2}}(\mathrm{mod}N)`$ $``$ $`5\beta +\gamma ={\displaystyle \frac{N}{2}}={\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\alpha (\mathrm{mod}N),`$ (47)
while Eq. (19) leads to

$`2\beta +(2\beta +\gamma )=\gamma =4\alpha (\mathrm{mod}N).`$ (48)
From Eqs. (47) and (48), we obtain

$`Z_{3\alpha R}`$ $`=`$ $`(PA^4)^\alpha V^\beta ,`$ (49)
$`5\beta `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{5}{2}}\alpha (\mathrm{mod}N=3\alpha )`$ (50)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{5}{2}}\alpha +3\alpha m(m𝐙).`$
Therefore,

$`\alpha :\beta :N=10:(5+6m):30,`$ (51)
and the explicit forms of the $`Z_{NR}`$ are given by

$`Z_{30R}`$ $`=`$ $`(PA^4)^{10}V^{6m5}(m=1,2,3,4),`$ (52)
$`Z_{6R}`$ $`=`$ $`(PA^4)^2V^5.`$ (53)
### 2.3 Introducing $`\mathrm{𝟓}\mathrm{𝟓}^{}`$

In this subsection and the next, we consider the possibility that $`10^3\text{eV}_{}^<m_{3/2}^{}{}_{}{}^{<}1\text{TeV}`$ is predicted by introducing a pair of $`\mathrm{𝟓}\mathrm{𝟓}^{}`$ or $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^{}`$. If we introduce a pair of $`\mathrm{𝟓}\mathrm{𝟓}^{}`$ with $`Z_{NR}`$ charges $`\xi `$ and $`\overline{\xi }`$, respectively, the anomaly cancellation conditions are modified as

$`Z_{NR}[SU(3)_C]^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\{3(t\alpha )+(\overline{f}\alpha )\}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\{(\xi \alpha )+(\overline{\xi }\alpha )\}+3\alpha ={\displaystyle \frac{N}{2}}k(k𝐙)`$ (54)
$``$ $`3(h+\overline{h})(\xi +\overline{\xi })=4\alpha (\mathrm{mod}N),`$
$`Z_{NR}[SU(2)_L]^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\{9(t\alpha )+3(\overline{f}\alpha )\}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(h+\overline{h}2\alpha )`$ (55)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\{(\xi \alpha )+(\overline{\xi }\alpha )\}+2\alpha ={\displaystyle \frac{N}{2}}k^{}(k^{}𝐙)`$
$``$ $`2(h+\overline{h})=\xi +\overline{\xi }(\mathrm{mod}N).`$
From these conditions,

$`h+\overline{h}=4\alpha (\mathrm{mod}N),`$ (56)
$`\xi +\overline{\xi }=8\alpha (\mathrm{mod}N),`$ (57)
are obtained. At this stage, $`N`$ is undetermined. In order to fix $`N`$, let us take into account the mixed gravitational anomaly cancellation ,

$`Z_{NR}[\mathrm{gravity}]^2`$ $`=`$ $`30(t\alpha )+15(\overline{f}\alpha )+3(\overline{n}\alpha )+2(h\alpha )+2(\overline{h}\alpha )`$ (58)
$`+5(\xi \alpha )+5(\overline{\xi }\alpha )+(8+3+1)\alpha 21\alpha `$
$`=`$ $`23\alpha (\mathrm{mod}N\mathrm{or}N/2).`$
Mod $`N\mathrm{or}N/2`$ depends on whether $`N`$ is odd or even. In the following, we consider whether the mixed anomaly can be canceled without introducing singlets.

If $`N`$ is odd,

$`N={\displaystyle \frac{23}{k}}\alpha (k=1,2,\mathrm{},22).`$ (59)
Eq. (5) tells us

$`m_{3/2}10^{18.4\frac{15.4}{1+\frac{23}{2k}n}}\text{GeV}(n𝐙),`$ (60)
because

$`2\alpha y+4\alpha =2\alpha (\mathrm{mod}23\alpha /k)y=1+{\displaystyle \frac{23}{2k}}n.`$ (61)
Taking into account that $`1/2y1`$ and $`y`$ is a minimum of non-negative value, we obtain

$`k=6,7(\mathrm{for}n=1),`$ (62)
$`k=12,13,14,15(\mathrm{for}n=2).`$ (63)
The gravitino mass is summarized in Table 3.

If $`N`$ is even,

$`N={\displaystyle \frac{46}{k}}\alpha (k=1,2,\mathrm{},45),`$ (64)
$`2\alpha y+4\alpha =2\alpha (\mathrm{mod}46\alpha /k)y=1+{\displaystyle \frac{23}{k}}n,`$ (65)
and Eq. (5) leads to

$`m_{3/2}10^{18.4\frac{15.4}{1+\frac{23}{k}n}}\text{GeV}(n𝐙).`$ (66)
Taking into account that $`1/2y1`$ and $`y`$ is a minimum of non-negative value, we obtain

$`k=1215(\mathrm{for}n=1),`$ (67)
$`k=2430(\mathrm{for}n=2).`$ (68)
The gravitino mass in this case is also summarized in Table 3.

Now let us turn to discuss the baryon- and lepton-number violating operators. First, the bilinear R-parity violating coupling $`\widehat{\mu }`$ is given by Eq. (30), with a fractional power $`z`$ in Eq. (31). One can show in the same way as before that the case of $`\overline{n}=\alpha `$ is excluded since it results in $`z=1/2`$, which induces too large neutrino masses. If $`N=`$ even and $`\overline{n}=\alpha +N/2(\mathrm{mod}N)`$, Eq. (31) and Eq. (64) give rise to

$`z={\displaystyle \frac{k+23+46r}{2k}}(r𝐙).`$ (69)
The minimum non-negative $`z`$ is given by $`r=0`$ for $`k=12`$$`15`$, and $`r=1`$ for $`k=24`$$`30`$. The resultant bilinear couplings are given by $`\widehat{\mu }(8\times 10^7`$$`7\times 10^{19})\text{GeV}`$ for $`k=12`$$`15`$, and $`\widehat{\mu }(10^{15}`$$`10^{18})\text{GeV}`$ for $`k=24`$$`30`$. Hence, $`k=24`$$`30`$ cases are excluded. Namely, the remaining charge assignments are $`N=(46/k)\alpha =`$ even, $`\overline{n}=\alpha +N/2(\mathrm{mod}N)`$, and $`k=12`$$`15`$.

Next we consider the trilinear R-parity violating coupling $`W\lambda _{\mathrm{eff}}T\overline{F}\overline{F}`$. The effective coupling $`\lambda _{\mathrm{eff}}`$ is given by $`\lambda _{\mathrm{eff}}(m_{3/2}/M_P)^z^{}`$. The power $`z^{}`$ is again determined by Eq. (42), $`2\alpha z^{}=2\alpha +\overline{n}(\mathrm{mod}N)`$. (Notice that $`h+\overline{h}=4\alpha `$ is satisfied also in the present case. See Eq. (56).) Therefore, for $`N=(46/k)\alpha =`$ even and $`\overline{n}=\alpha +N/2(\mathrm{mod}N)`$, $`z^{}`$ is given by

$`z^{}={\displaystyle \frac{3k+23+46r^{}}{2k}}(r^{}𝐙).`$ (70)
The minimum non-negative $`z^{}`$ is given by $`r^{}=0`$ for $`k=12`$$`15`$, and the trilinear couplings are $`\lambda _{\mathrm{eff}}8\times 10^{10}`$ ($`k=12`$), $`5\times 10^{13}`$ ($`k=13`$), $`6\times 10^{17}`$ ($`k=14`$), and $`7\times 10^{22}`$ ($`k=15`$). Thus, the cases of $`k=12,13`$ are excluded by the constraint from the proton decay, $`\lambda _{11j}^{}\lambda _{11j}^{\prime \prime }{}_{}{}^{<}2\times 10^{27}(m_{\mathrm{soft}}/100\text{GeV})^2(j=2,3)`$ .

The R-parity violating couplings are listed in Table. 4 for the remaining charge assignments $`k=14,15`$ together with the gravitino masses. We find that the neutrino mass induced by these R-parity violations is too small to explain the mass scale observed in the atmospheric and solar neutrino oscillation experiments, and hence the dominant contribution to the neutrino masses should be generated by the seesaw mechanism.

As for the dimension five operator $`W(1/M_{\mathrm{eff}})TTT\overline{F}`$, the effective mass scale is given by Eq. (45), $`M_{\mathrm{eff}}M_P(M_P/m_{3/2})^{z^{\prime \prime }}`$. It is easy to show that the power is again given by $`z^{\prime \prime }=1`$ for $`N=(46/k)\alpha =`$ even, $`\overline{n}=\alpha +N/2(\mathrm{mod}N)`$ and $`k=14,15`$. Thus, the effective mass scale $`M_{\mathrm{eff}}M_P(M_P/m_{3/2})10^{39}\text{GeV}(1\text{keV}/m_{3/2})`$ is much above the experimental bound and the proton decay via the dimension five operator is naturally suppressed by the discrete R-symmetry also in these charge assignments.

Finally, we comment on the explicit form of $`Z_{NR}=P^\alpha V^\beta A^\gamma (\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma 𝐙)`$. (See Table 2). We only consider the cases of $`N=`$ even, $`\overline{n}=\alpha +N/2(\mathrm{mod}N)`$ and $`k=14,15`$, since other cases are excluded by the constraints on R-parity violation, as we have shown. Thus,

$`\overline{n}=\alpha +5\beta +\gamma =\alpha +{\displaystyle \frac{N}{2}}(\mathrm{mod}N)`$ $``$ $`5\beta +\gamma ={\displaystyle \frac{N}{2}}(\mathrm{mod}N).`$ (71)
Eq. (56) leads to

$`2\beta +(2\beta +\gamma )=\gamma =4\alpha (\mathrm{mod}N).`$ (72)
From Eqs. (71) and (72),

$`5\beta +4\alpha ={\displaystyle \frac{N}{2}}(\mathrm{mod}N),`$ (73)
is obtained. Thus, we have

$`Z_{\frac{46}{k}\alpha R}`$ $`=`$ $`(PA^4)^\alpha V^\beta ,`$ (74)
$`5\beta +4\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{23}{k}}\alpha (\mathrm{mod}{\displaystyle \frac{46}{k}}\alpha )={\displaystyle \frac{23}{k}}\alpha +{\displaystyle \frac{46}{k}}\alpha m(m𝐙).`$ (75)
Therefore,

$`\alpha :\beta :N=5k:(46m+234k):230,`$ (76)
and we obtain

$`Z_{230R}`$ $`=`$ $`(PA^4)^{70}V^{46m33}(k=14,m=1,2,4,5),`$ (77)
$`(PA^4)^{75}V^{46m37}(k=15,m=1,3,4,5).`$
$`Z_{46R}`$ $`=`$ $`(PA^4)^{14}V^{21}(k=14),(PA^4)^{15}V^{11}(k=15).`$ (78)
### 2.4 Introducing $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^{}`$

Next, we consider the case with $`\xi (\mathrm{𝟏𝟎})\overline{\xi }(\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^{})`$. The anomaly cancellation conditions are modified as

$`Z_{NR}[SU(3)_C]^2:`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}(h+\overline{h})+3\alpha +{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}(\xi +\overline{\xi })+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}Nk\mathrm{"}3\alpha ={\displaystyle \frac{N}{2}}k,`$ (79)
$`Z_{NR}[SU(2)_L]^2:`$ $`(h+\overline{h})+\alpha +{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}(\xi +\overline{\xi })3\alpha ={\displaystyle \frac{N}{2}}k^{}.`$ (80)
These are simplified to

$`3(h+\overline{h})`$ $`=`$ $`3(\xi +\overline{\xi })(\mathrm{mod}N),`$ (81)
$`2(h+\overline{h})`$ $`=`$ $`3(\xi +\overline{\xi })4\alpha (\mathrm{mod}N),`$ (82)
and then

$`h+\overline{h}=4\alpha (\mathrm{mod}N),`$ (83)
$`3(\xi +\overline{\xi })=12\alpha (\mathrm{mod}N),`$ (84)
are obtained. In order to fix $`N`$, let us take into account the mixed gravitational anomaly cancellation,

$`Z_{NR}[\mathrm{gravity}]^2`$ $`=`$ $`30(t\alpha )+15(\overline{f}\alpha )+3(\overline{n}\alpha )+2(h\alpha )+2(\overline{h}\alpha )+10(\xi \alpha )`$ (85)
$`+10(\overline{\xi }\alpha )+(8+3+1)\alpha 21\alpha `$
$`=`$ $`(\xi +\overline{\xi })37\alpha (\mathrm{mod}N\mathrm{or}N/2).`$
In the same manner as the $`\xi (\mathrm{𝟓})\overline{\xi }(\mathrm{𝟓}^{})`$ case, one can show that the $`\overline{n}=\alpha `$ case is excluded because it would generate too large neutrino mass from the bilinear R-parity violation. Therefore, we consider the case of $`N=`$ even and $`\overline{n}=\alpha +N/2`$. Then, Eqs. (84) and (85) lead to

$`3Z_{NR}[\mathrm{gravity}]^2=99\alpha (\mathrm{mod}N/2),`$ (86)
$`N={\displaystyle \frac{198}{k}}\alpha (k=1,2,\mathrm{},197).`$ (87)
From Eq. (2), we obtain

$`y=1+{\displaystyle \frac{99}{k}}n(n𝐙).`$ (88)
Taking into account that $`1/2y1`$ and $`y`$ is a minimum of positive values,

$`k=5066(\mathrm{for}n=1),`$ (89)
$`k=100132(\mathrm{for}n=2),`$ (90)
are obtained.

Some of these charge assignments cause too large baryon- or lepton-number violation via the R-parity violation. The orders of magnitudes of bilinear ($`\widehat{\mu }`$) and trilinear ($`\lambda _{\mathrm{eff}}`$) couplings can be estimated in the same way as $`\mathrm{𝟓}\mathrm{𝟓}^{}`$ case. In Table. 5, we show the gravitino mass and these couplings for the cases in which the R-parity violations are below the experimental bounds ($`k=57`$$`66`$). In these cases, the dimension five operator $`W(1/M_{\mathrm{eff}})TTT\overline{F}`$ are naturally suppressed as $`M_{\mathrm{eff}}10^{36}\text{GeV}`$ like the $`\mathrm{𝟓}\mathrm{𝟓}^{}`$ case.

Finally, we comment on the concrete form of $`Z_{NR}`$. From Eqs. (83), (87) and $`\overline{n}=\alpha +N/2`$, we obtain

$`Z_{\frac{198}{k}\alpha R}`$ $`=`$ $`(PA^4)^\alpha V^\beta ,`$ (91)
$`5\beta +4\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{99}{k}}\alpha (\mathrm{mod}N={\displaystyle \frac{198}{k}}\alpha )={\displaystyle \frac{99}{k}}\alpha +{\displaystyle \frac{198}{k}}\alpha m(m𝐙),`$ (92)
and hence

$`\alpha :\beta :N=5k:(198m+994k):990.`$ (93)
For $`k=66`$, it reduces to $`Z_{30R}`$ or $`Z_{6R}`$ given in Eqs. (52) and (53). For $`k=57`$$`65`$, we obtain

$`Z_{110R}`$ $`=`$ $`(PA^4)^{35}V^{22m17}(k=63),`$ (94)
$`Z_{330R}`$ $`=`$ $`(PA^4)^{95}V^{66m43}(k=57),(PA^4)^{100}V^{66m47}(k=60),`$ (95)
$`Z_{990R}`$ $`=`$ $`(PA^4)^{5k}V^{198m+994k}(\mathrm{other}k),`$ (96)
where $`m=1,2,3,4,5`$. Among these cases, for $`198m+994k=5m^{}(m^{}𝐙)`$, they reduce to $`Z_{22R}`$, $`Z_{66R}`$, and $`Z_{198R}`$.

### 2.5 Gravitino LSP with R-parity violation

As can be seen from Table. 4 and 5, the predicted masses of the gravitino are $`𝒪(10^3\text{eV}`$$`1\text{MeV})`$. Therefore, the gravitino is the LSP. Here, let us comment on the cosmology of this gravitino LSP. Gravitino LSP dark matter without R-parity was investigated in Ref.  under the assumption that the R-parity violation is the dominant contribution to the neutrino masses. According to them, we have found that the lifetime of the gravitino is much longer than the age of the universe,555The lifetime of the LSP gravitino could be shorter than the age of the universe  if there is a large trilinear coupling $`\lambda 𝒪(0.1`$$`1)`$ close to the experimental bound and if the gravitino mass is relatively large, $`m_{3/2}^{}{}_{}{}^{>}𝒪(1\text{GeV})`$. However, this is not the case in our scenario. since the decay rate is suppressed by the small R-parity violating coupling in addition to the Planck scale. (Notice that the R-parity violation in our scenario is even smaller than that considered in Ref. . Thus, the lifetime of the gravitino in our case is much longer than that in their case.) For such a long lifetime, the flux of the diffuse gamma ray generated by the gravitino decay is smaller than the observed value . Therefore, for $`m_{3/2}>𝒪(1\text{keV})`$, the gravitino can be the dominant component of the dark matter in spite of the presence of the R-parity violation.666For $`m_{3/2}<𝒪(1\text{keV})`$ the gravitino cannot be a cold dark matter, and hence the dominant component of the dark matter should be another particle or object.

As for the next-to-lightest SUSY particle (NLSP), it can decay either (i) into gravitino via the usual R-parity conserving interaction, or (ii) into the standard model particles via R-parity violating couplings. We have found that the partial decay rate of the latter one is much smaller than that of the former one, since the R-parity violations are extremely small. (See Table. 4 and 5.) Thus, the NLSP decay rate is determined by the former channel. If the decay occurs during or after the big-bang nucleosynthesis (BBN), $`t1`$$`100`$ sec, it might spoil the success of the BBN . However, for $`m_{3/2}<𝒪(1\text{MeV})`$ the lifetime of the NLSP is shorter than 1 sec and this problem is avoided.

## 3 Summary

In this paper, we have studied nonanomalous discrete R-symmetry in GUT without imposing the Giudice-Masiero condition. In the minimal SU(5) GUT, $`\mu 1\text{TeV}`$ is obtained only if the gravitino is ultralight as $`m_{3/2}10^3\text{eV}`$, and we find simple solutions $`Z_{6R}`$ and $`Z_{30R}`$. If a pair of $`\mathrm{𝟓}\mathrm{𝟓}^{}`$ or $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^{}`$ are added to the minimal SU(5) GUT, we can find many solutions predicting $`m_{3/2}^{}{}_{}{}^{>}10^3\text{eV}`$. Here, we comment on the mass of these additional multiplets, $`\xi +\overline{\xi }`$, which can be estimated since their charges are determined by the anomaly cancellation condition. \[See Eqs.(57) and (84).\] The effective operator which induces the mass of $`\xi +\overline{\xi }`$ is given by $`W(W/M_P^3)^y^{}M_P\xi \overline{\xi }`$. We have checked that the mass $`m_\xi (m_{3/2}/M_P)^y^{}M_P`$ is larger than the electroweak scale in all cases we have discussed.

Since the fractional power of $`W`$ is considered in this paper, R-parity is necessarily violated, but R-parity violating couplings are controlled by the symmetry. In fact, the couplings were found to be small enough to avoid the constraints from proton decay and neutrino masses for some charge assignments. Furthermore, it has also been shown that dimension-five baryon- and lepton-number violating operators are naturally suppressed. Therefore, the proton stability is ensured by the symmetry.

Low energy baryon- and/or lepton-number violating interactions might cause a difficulty for baryogenesis since they might wash out the baryon asymmetry together with the sphaleron  process. However, we found that this is not the case for our scenario because the R-parity violating couplings are so small that their interactions have never been in thermal equilibrium.

The predicted gravitino masses were found to be in the range $`m_{3/2}𝒪(10^3\text{eV})`$$`𝒪(1\text{MeV})`$ and the gravitino is the LSP. Since the lifetime of the gravitino is much longer than the age of the universe, the gravitino can be the dominant component of the dark matter.

As for the neutrino mass, there are two contributions in our framework, i.e., the seesaw mechanism and the R-parity violation. The R-parity violation can explain the neutrino mass scale if $`\widehat{\mu }/\mu 𝒪(10^4`$$`10^7)`$ and/or $`\lambda _{\mathrm{eff}}𝒪(10^4`$$`10^5)`$ . However, the predicted values of these couplings are either much larger or much smaller than these ranges. The charge assignments predicting too large couplings are excluded. Therefore, the neutrino mass scale should be generated by the seesaw mechanism, and contributions from the R-parity violation gives only tiny perturbation to it.

The discrete R-symmetry considered in this paper can explain the order of magnitude of the $`\mu `$-term for light gravitinos. Hence, they can be considered as solutions to the $`\mu `$-problem in low energy SUSY breaking models such as the gauge mediation.

### Note Added

1 In our scenario, the predicted masses of the gravitino are very small. We would like to stress that, if the gravitino is lighter than about 100 keV, there is an interesting possibility to detect the slow decay of the lightest neutralino into gravitino in future collider .
2 If the gravitino is lighter than the proton, proton can decay into the gravitino via the R-parity violating coupling $`\lambda ^{\prime \prime }U^cD^cD^c`$. This leads to a stringent limit on the coupling as $`\lambda ^{\prime \prime }<10^{15}(m_{3/2}/\mathrm{eV})`$ . We found, however, that all the charge assignments which satisfy the constraints discussed in the text also satisfy this constraint, and hence the conclusion does not change. (We are grateful to Ryuichiro Kitano for pointing out this constraint.)
3 $`B`$-parameter in our case is at most of order loop suppression factor times gaugino mass, which is induced at 2-loops in gauge mediation. This implies that large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ is preferred. (We wish to thank Stephan Huber for useful comments and discussion.)

## Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank T. Yanagida for a collaboration at the early stage of this work and valuable discussions. We also wish to thank Rohini M. Godbole, Stephan Huber, and Ryuichiro Kitano for useful comments and discussion. This work was supported by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (K.H. and N.M.).

## Appendix

In this appendix we briefly comment on the fractional power and discrete symmetry. Although we have derived Eq.(2) from Eq.(1), it is nontrivial in the case of fractional power $`y<1`$ since the R-charges are defined under mod $`N`$ in the framework of discrete $`Z_{NR}`$ symmetry.

Let us first discuss the vacuum expectation value of the superpotential, $`W`$. Suppose that a gauge singlet operator $`X`$ has a $`Z_{NR}`$ charge $`2\alpha `$ and it develops a vacuum expectation value $`XM_P`$. Under the $`Z_{NR}`$ symmetry, it is also possible to consider that $`X`$ has a charge $`2\alpha +nN`$ with $`n𝐙`$. Then, in general, the superpotential can have the following vacuum expectation value:

$`W`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n>2\alpha /N}{}}c_n\left({\displaystyle \frac{X}{M_P}}\right)^{\frac{2\alpha }{2\alpha +nN}}M_P^3,`$ (97)
where we have renormalized the mass dimension of $`X`$ operator to be $`1`$. If all of the coefficients $`c_n`$ are of order one, the vacuum expectation value of the superpotential becomes Planck scale, which is inconsistent with almost vanishing cosmological constant or low energy SUSY. Thus we expect that the right-hand side of the above equation is dominated by a certain term with $`n=n_0`$:

$`W`$ $``$ $`c_{n_0}\left({\displaystyle \frac{X}{M_P}}\right)^{\frac{2\alpha }{2\alpha +n_0N}}M_P^3.`$ (98)
The number $`n_0`$ is likely to depend on the operator $`X`$ as well as on the origin of the $`Z_{NR}`$ symmetry, which we do not discuss in this paper. On the other hand, the operator relevant to the $`\mu `$-term is also written in terms of $`X`$:

$`W`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n>2\alpha /N}{}}c_n^{}\left({\displaystyle \frac{X}{M_P}}\right)^{\frac{2\alpha h\overline{h}+rN}{2\alpha +nN}}M_PH\overline{H},`$ (99)
where $`r`$ is the minimum integer which gives $`2\alpha h\overline{h}+rN>0`$. Then, we naturally expect that the above operator is also dominated by the term with $`n=n_0`$:

$`W`$ $``$ $`c_{n_0}^{}\left({\displaystyle \frac{X}{M_P}}\right)^{\frac{2\alpha h\overline{h}+rN}{2\alpha +n_0N}}M_PH\overline{H}.`$ (100)
Though it is possible that the fractional power which gives rise to the $`\mu `$-term is different from the one responsible for the $`W`$, we argue that it is unnatural and assume that both of them are dominated by the term with same $`n=n_0`$. Then, from Eqs.(98) and (100), we obtain the following expression of the $`\mu `$-term,

$`W`$ $``$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{W}{M_P^3}}\right)^{\frac{2\alpha h\overline{h}+rN}{2\alpha }}M_PH\overline{H},`$ (101)
which leads to Eq.(1) with the $`y`$ given in (2). The same argument is also applied to the cases of baryon- and lepton-number violating operators discussed in the text.