text:
# No spin-glass transition in the “mobile-bond” model

## Abstract

The recently introduced “mobile-bond” model for two-dimensional spin glasses is studied. The model is characterized by an annealing temperature $`T_\mathrm{q}`$. On the basis of Monte Carlo simulations of small systems it has been claimed that this model exhibits a non-trivial spin-glass transition at finite temperature for small values of $`T_\mathrm{q}`$.

Here the model is studied by means of exact ground-state calculations of large systems up to $`N=256^2`$. The scaling of domain-wall energies is investigated as a function of the system size. For small values $`T_\mathrm{q}<0.95`$ the system behaves like a (gauge-transformed) ferromagnet having a small fraction of frustrated plaquettes. For $`T_\mathrm{q}0.95`$ the system behaves like the standard two-dimensional $`\pm J`$ spin-glass, i.e. it does not exhibit a phase transition at $`T>0`$.

Spin glasses reviewSG  are the prototype model for disordered systems investigated extensively during the last three decades in statistical physics. These systems exhibit complex energy landscapes resulting in many interesting phenomena like glassy behavior and aging. Despite much effort, still many open questions exists. The question about the lower critical dimension of Ising spin glasses had been discussed for quite a while mcmillan1984 ; bray1984 ; shirakura1997 ; matsubara1998 . Now it is clear that in two dimensions non stable spin-glass phase at finite temperature exists rieger1996 ; kawashima1997 ; stiff2d ; houdayer2001 ; carter2002 . This has motivated the search for other two-dimensional spin-glass-like systems exhibiting a $`T_\mathrm{c}>0`$ alex-rcf2001 . Recently D.K. Sunko has proposed sunko2002  a “mobile-bond” model where quenched-disorder realizations of $`\pm J`$ spin glasses are created by an annealed simulation, allowing the bonds to move. The system is equilibrated at high temperature, followed by a quench to a temperature $`T_\mathrm{q}`$. Sunko has performed Monte-Carlo simulations of systems up to size $`L=16`$ and claimed that for low quenching temperatures $`T_\mathrm{q}`$ the model exhibits a spin-glass transition at finite temperature $`T_\mathrm{c}>0`$.

In this rapid communication, the model is studied by means of exact ground-state calculations of large systems up to $`L=256`$. The scaling of domain-wall energies banavar1982 ; bray1984 ; mcmillan1984  is studied as a function of the system size. It is shown here that the model exhibits no spin-glass transition at finite temperature. For small values of $`T_\mathrm{q}<0.95`$ the system exhibits ferromagnetic order, while at $`T_\mathrm{q}`$ a transition to the normal two-dimensional spin-glass behavior is found, i.e. $`T_\mathrm{c}=0`$.

The model consists of $`N=L^2`$ Ising spins $`S_i=\pm 1`$ on a square lattice with the Hamiltonian

$$=\underset{i,j}{}J_{ij}S_iS_j,$$
(1)
where the sum runs over all pairs of nearest neighbors $`i,j`$ and the $`J_{ij}=\pm J`$ are quenched random variables.

The realizations are prepared exactly in the same way as in Ref. sunko2002, . For each realization, first $`N`$ bonds with strength $`+J`$ and $`N`$ bonds with strength $`J`$ are distributed randomly among all $`2N`$ bonds. Then the values of all spins are set randomly to orientations $`S_i=\pm 1`$. Next, an annealed Monte-Carlo (MC) simulation STAT-mc2  is performed. This means, at each step either a spin is allowed to flip or two bonds incident to the same site are allowed to exchange their positions. Each choice occurs with probability 0.5. Each step is accepted with the usual Metropolis probability depending on the energy change according to the Hamiltonian (1). First, the system is equilibrated at high temperature $`T=5`$ for 1000 MC steps per spin (MCS) footnote1 . Finally the system is quenched to $`T=T_\mathrm{q}`$ and simulated for further 1000 MCS. The result is a realization of the disorder which can used for further treatment, here ground-state calculations are applied.

In greater than two dimensions, or in the presence of a magnetic field, the exact calculation of spin-glass ground states belongs to the class of NP-hard problems barahona1982 ; opt-phys2001 . This means that only algorithms with exponentially increasing running time are known. However, for the special case of a planar system without magnetic field, e.g. a square lattice with periodic boundary conditions in at most one direction, there are efficient polynomial-time “matching” algorithms bieche1980 . The basic idea is to represent each realization of the disorder by its frustrated plaquettes toulouse1977 . Pairs of frustrated plaquettes are connected by paths in the lattice and the weight of a path is defined by the sum of the absolute values of the coupling constants which are crossed by the path. A ground state corresponds the set of paths with minimum total weight, such that each frustrated plaquette is connected to exactly one other frustrated plaquette. This is called a minimum-weight perfect matching. The bonds which are crossed by paths connecting the frustrated plaquettes are unsatisfied in the ground state, and all other bonds are satisfied.

For the calculation of the minimum-weight perfect matching, efficient polynomial-time algorithms are available barahona1982b ; derigs1991 . Recently, an implementation has been presentedpalmer1999 , where ground-state energies of large systems of size $`N1800^2`$ were calculated. Here, an algorithm from the LEDA library leda1999  has been applied, which allows a quick implementation. It was not necessary to go beyond $`N=256^2`$ (with is much larger than $`N=16^2`$ in the original work sunko2002 ) to obtain reliable results.

To study whether an ordered phase is stable at finite temperatures, the following procedure is usually applied mcmillan1984 ; bray1984 ; rieger1996 ; kawashima1997 ; alex-stiff ; alex-4d ; alex-rcf2001 . First a ground state of the system is calculated. Then the system is perturbed to introduce a domain wall and the new ground-state energy is evaluated. Typically, the system initially has periodic boundary conditions in both directions, and the perturbation involves replacing periodic by antiperiodic boundary conditions in one direction. The domain-wall energy $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ is given by the difference of the two ground-state energies. In case the model exhibits long-range ferromagnetic order at non-zero temperatures, the domain-wall energy, averaged over many independent samples, has to increase with system size. E.g. for a pure 2d ferromagnet, the domain wall consists of a straight line, resulting in $`\mathrm{\Delta }EL`$. For a spin-glass, none of the ground states with periodic and antiperiodic boundary conditions has a priori a lower energy. Hence one studies the absolute value of the domain-wall energy to detect whether the systems exhibits spin-glass ordering at finite temperatures.

However we cannot apply the matching algorithm for boundary conditions which “wrap around” in both directions. For this reason, here the periodic boundary conditions in the y-direction are broken for each realization (by setting the bonds connecting the first and the last row to zero). This has no influence on the fact of whether the systems orders or not because the change of the boundary conditions to create the domain walls occurs in the x-direction perpendicular to the open boundaries.

Here system sizes $`L=4,6,8,\mathrm{}192,256`$ are considered. For each size, 1000 independent realizations of the disorder were generated for quenching temperatures $`T_\mathrm{q}=0.1,0.9,0.95,1.0`$ and $`1.5`$. Then ground states with periodic (P) and antiperiodic (AP) boundary conditions in $`x`$-direction were calculated using the exact matching algorithm, resulting in ground-state energies $`E_\mathrm{P}^0`$ resp. $`E_{\mathrm{AP}}^0`$. The change in the boundary conditions introduces a domain wall in each realization with energy $`\mathrm{\Delta }E=E_{\mathrm{AP}}^0E_\mathrm{P}^0`$.

First, we consider a very low quenching temperature $`T_\mathrm{q}=0.1`$, which was claimed in Ref. sunko2002,  to exhibit a spin-glass transition at $`T_\mathrm{c}/J=2.22(1)`$ and no ferromagnetic order. In Fig. 1 the distribition $`P(\mathrm{\Delta }E,L)`$ over the disorder of the domain-wall energies is displayed for different system sizes $`L`$. Clearly, the domain-wall energies grow strongly with system size, which is an indicator for ferromagnetic order. Below (c.f. Fig. 4) it is shown that indeed the disorder average $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ grows linearly with $`L`$, as in the normal ferromagnet. But the model exhibits no global magnetic moment, as found already in Ref. sunko2002, . This is due to fact that 50% of all bonds are antiferromagnetic. Nevertheless, the model behaves like a ferromagnet. The reason is that the bonds are distributed in the system such that only few frustrated plaquettes are present. Hence, each realization can be mapped via a local gauge transformation on a ferromagnet with a small number of antiferromagnetic bonds. This explains the fact that in Ref. sunko2002,  the critical exponent of the correlation length found at $`T_\mathrm{c}/J=2.22`$ was indeed that of the pure ferromagnet.

Next, a large quenching temperature $`T_\mathrm{q}=1.5`$ is considered. In Fig. 2 again the distribution of domain-wall energies for different sizes are show. For large sizes, the distrubtions are centered around $`\mathrm{\Delta }E=0`$ indicating the absence of ferromagnetic order. Furthermore, the width of the distributions decreases slightly with increasing system size, which shows that spin-glass order is not stable against thermal fluctuations. This is the usual situation found for the two-dimensional $`\pm J`$ spin glass kawashima1997 ; stiff2d  (having $`T_\mathrm{c}/J=0`$).

To understand the behavior of the system better, next it is analysed as a function of $`T_\mathrm{q}`$. The behavior is probably mainly determined by the fraction of frustrated plauqettes. In Fig. 3 the average fraction of frustrated plaquettes of the quenched realizations is shown as a function of $`T_\mathrm{q}`$. This can be compared with the standard $`\pm J`$ random bond model (with parameter $`p[0,1]`$), which has on average $`2Np`$ antiferromagnetic and $`2N(1p)`$ ferromagnetic bonds. This results in a average fraction

$$x_\mathrm{f}=4x(1x)[x^2+(1x)^2]$$
(2)
of frustrated plaquettes kirkpatrick1977 . For the $`\pm J`$ model, a ferromagnet spin-glass ($`T_\mathrm{c}=0`$) transition occurs grinstein1979 ; freund1989 ; bendisch1992 ; kawashima1997 ; merz2002  near $`p=0.11`$ were $`x_f(0.11)0.31`$. This corresponds to a quenching temperature $`T_\mathrm{q}0.95`$, see Fig. 3. Hence, for a comparison, simulations near $`p=0.11`$ for the $`\pm J`$ model and near $`T_\mathrm{q}0.95`$ for the “mobile-bond” model have been performed. Furthermore both models were investigated for two other pairs of parameters exhibiting similar concentrations of frustrated plaquettes: $`T_\mathrm{q}=0.9;p=0.1`$ and $`T_\mathrm{q}=1.0;p=0.12`$.

In Fig. 4 the mean value $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ of the domain-wall energy is shown as a function of the system size for $`T_\mathrm{q}=0.1,0.9,0.95,1.0`$. For $`T_\mathrm{q}=0.1`$ a clear linear increase occurs, corresponding to a normal ferromagnet. For $`T_\mathrm{q}=0.9`$ the domain-wall energy still increases with system size. The resulting values are very similar to the domain-wall energies found at $`p=0.1`$ for the $`\pm J`$ model. For $`T_\mathrm{q}=0.95`$ and $`T_\mathrm{q}=1`$ the mean domain-wall energies decrease as a function of the system size, hence no ferromagnetic order persists. In these cases the data is almost equal to the results for $`p=0.11`$ resp. $`p=0.12`$ of the $`\pm J`$ model. Please note that it is not claimed here that e.g. $`T_\mathrm{q}=0.9`$ corresponds exactly to $`p=0.1`$. But it seems certainly possible to chose $`p`$ such that the results for both models agree exactly.

In Fig. 5 the corresponding results for the mean $`|\mathrm{\Delta }E|`$ of the absolute value of the domain-wall energy is shown. For values $`T_\mathrm{q}0.9`$ again an increase is observed, due to the increase of the mean (non absolute) $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$. If spin-glass ordering existed in a system, then $`|\mathrm{\Delta }E|`$ would increase with growing $`L`$, while $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ has to decrease. For $`T_\mathrm{q}=0.95,1.0`$ $`|\mathrm{\Delta }E|`$ increases only for small system sizes (which may cause signs of a stable spin-glass phase when simulating only small systems), while it starts to decrease with $`L`$ for larger values of $`L`$. Hence spin-glass order is destroyed for any finite temperature $`T>0`$. Please note that again the results at $`T_\mathrm{q}=0.9,0.95,1.0`$ agree well with the results at $`p=0.10,0.11,0.12`$ for the $`\pm J`$ model.

To conclude, in this work the recently proposed “mobile-bond” spin-glass model has been investigated. An exact ground-state matching algorithm has been applied, allowing to study large system sizes like $`N=256^2`$. The model turns out to be mainly equivalent to the $`\pm J`$ random-bond model, which has been studied extensively in the past. Hence, for low values of the annealing temperature $`T_\mathrm{q}`$, the model (corresponding to small concentrations $`p`$ of the antiferromagnetic bonds in the $`\pm J`$ model) exhibits ferromagnetic order. The only difference is that the Sunko model exhibits no magnetic moment, since by construction the number of ferromagnetic bonds equals the number of antiferromagnetic bonds. Both models can be mapped onto each other by local gauge-transformations, the characteristic parameter is the fraction of frustrated plaquettes.

For larger values of $`T_\mathrm{q}0.95`$ (corresponding to $`p0.11`$) the model displays the standard behavior of a two-dimensional $`\pm J`$ spin-glass, hence no order for $`T>0`$ exists. To summarize, the “mobile-bond” model does not exhibit a finite-temperature spin-glass transition at any value of $`T_\mathrm{q}`$, opposed to the claims made in Ref. sunko2002 .

Acknowledgements: The author obtained financial support from the VolkswagenStiftung (Germany) within the program “Nachwuchsgruppen an Universit ten”. He thanks A.P. Young for critically reading the manuscript. The simulations were performed on a Linux cluster at the Gesellschaft f r wissenschaftliche Datenverarbeitung G ttingen (GWDG) (Germany).


format: text

text:
# Ref. SISSA 9/2003/EP UCLA/03/TEP/04 hep-ph/0302054 On the Connection of Leptogenesis with Low Energy 𝐶𝑃 Violation and LFV Charged Lepton Decays

## 1 Introduction

Explaining both the observed baryon asymmetry of the Universe ($`Y_B`$) and the smallness of the neutrino masses, can be done successfully by combining the see–saw  and the leptogenesis  mechanisms. The first predicts the neutrinos to be Majorana particles and introduces additional right–handed heavy Majorana neutrinos, whose out–of–equilibrium decay in the early Universe generates $`Y_B`$ via the second. The mounting evidence in favor of neutrino oscillations (see, e.g., ) gave analyzes of these two mechanisms a firmer phenomenological basis. Establishing a connection between the low energy (neutrino mixing) and high energy (leptogenesis) parameters has gathered much attention in recent years . However, the number of parameters of the see–saw mechanism is significantly larger than the number of quantities measurable in the “low energy” neutrino experiments. It is the neutrino Dirac mass matrix $`m_D`$ that contains most of the unknown parameters and on whose knowledge any statement about a possible connection of low and high energy phenomena relies. While, in general, it is impossible to establish a direct link between the phenomena related to neutrino mixing and to leptogenesis, most specific models usually allow very well for such a connection.

In the present article we investigate the possible link between the leptogenesis, taking place at “high energy”, and the “low energy” phenomena associated with the existence of neutrino mixing. Our analysis is based on the assumption of a hierarchical structure of the heavy Majorana neutrino masses and of the Dirac mass matrix $`m_D`$, both of which are part of the see–saw mechanism. As specific examples of low energy phenomena related to neutrino mixing we consider the lepton flavour violating (LFV) charged lepton decays, $`\mu e+\gamma `$, $`\tau \mu +\gamma `$ and $`\tau e+\gamma `$, the effective Majorana mass in neutrinoless double beta ($`(\beta \beta )_{0\nu }`$–) decay, $`|m|`$, and the $`CP`$ violating asymmetry in neutrino oscillations. We analyze, in particular, the effects of the high energy $`CP`$ violating phases, which control the generation of the baryon asymmetry in the leptogenesis scenario, in $`|m|`$ and in the leptonic $`CP`$ violation rephasing invariant $`J_{CP}`$  which determines the magnitude of the $`CP`$ violation in neutrino oscillations 222For similar earlier attempts (not taking into account the questions of $`CP`$ violation and LFV decays), see, e.g., ..

In the next Section we briefly review the formalisms associated with the see–saw mechanism and with the leptogenesis scenario, and that of LFV charged lepton decays. Different parameterizations of $`m_D`$ used in the literature and the corresponding connection they imply between the high and low energy physical parameters are discussed in Section 3. In Section 4 we formulate the assumptions of a hierarchical structure of the heavy Majorana neutrino masses and of the Dirac mass matrix $`m_D`$ on which our investigation is based, and analyze the leptogenesis in the so–called “bi–unitary” parametrization of $`m_D`$. Predictions for the branching rations of the LFV charged lepton decays are also given. In Section 5 the effects of the high energy leptogenesis $`CP`$ violating phases on $`|m|`$ and on the leptonic $`CP`$ violation rephasing invariant $`J_{CP}`$. Finally, we conclude in Section 6.

## 2 Framework

The neutrino oscillation data can consistently be described within a 3–neutrino mixing scheme with massive Majorana neutrinos, in which the light neutrino Majorana mass matrix $`m_\nu `$ is given by:

$$m_\nu =U_{\mathrm{PMNS}}m_\nu ^{\mathrm{diag}}U_{\mathrm{PMNS}}^T.$$
(1)
Here $`m_\nu ^{\mathrm{diag}}`$ is a diagonal matrix containing the masses $`m_{1,2,3}`$ of the three massive Majorana neutrinos and $`U_{\mathrm{PMNS}}`$ is the unitary Pontecorvo–Maki–Nagakawa–Sakata  lepton mixing matrix, which can be parametrized as

$$\begin{array}{c}U_{\mathrm{PMNS}}=V\mathrm{diag}(1,e^{i\alpha },e^{i(\beta +\delta )})\\ =\left(\begin{array}{ccc}c_1c_3& s_1c_3& s_3e^{i\delta }\\ s_1c_2c_1s_2s_3e^{i\delta }& c_1c_2s_1s_2s_3e^{i\delta }& s_2c_3\\ s_1s_2c_1c_2s_3e^{i\delta }& c_1s_2s_1c_2s_3e^{i\delta }& c_2c_3\end{array}\right)\mathrm{diag}(1,e^{i\alpha },e^{i(\beta +\delta )}),\end{array}$$
(2)
where $`\delta `$ is a Dirac $`CP`$ violating phase, $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ are Majorana $`CP`$ violating phases , $`c_i=\mathrm{cos}\theta _i`$ and $`s_i=\mathrm{sin}\theta _i`$. The angles $`\theta _1`$ and $`\theta _2`$ control the oscillations of solar and atmospheric neutrinos, respectively. The angle $`\theta _3`$ is limited by the CHOOZ and Palo Verde reactor $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ experiments: one has $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _3<0.05`$ . The Dirac phase $`\delta `$ can be measured, in principle, in long base–line neutrino oscillation experiments (see, e.g., ). The flavour neutrino oscillations are insensitive to the Majorana phases $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ . Information about these phases can be obtained by studying processes in which the total lepton charge $`L`$ is not conserved and changes by two units : $`(\beta \beta )_{0\nu }`$–decay, $`K^+\pi ^{}+\mu ^++\mu ^+`$, etc.

Introducing a Dirac neutrino mass term and a Majorana mass term for the right–handed neutrinos via the Lagrangian

$$=\overline{\nu _{Li}}(m_D)_{ij}N_{Rj}+\frac{1}{2}\overline{(N_{Ri})^c}(M_R)_{ij}N_{Rj},$$
(3)
leads for sufficiently large $`M_R`$ to the well know see–saw  formula

$$m_\nu m_DM_R^1m_D^T,$$
(4)
where terms of order $`𝒪(M_R^2)`$ are neglected. In order to explain the smallness of neutrino masses, the see–saw mechanism requires the existence of heavy right–handed Majorana neutrinos. The latter can create a lepton asymmetry via their $`CP`$ violating out–of–equilibrium decays induced by the see–saw related Yukawa couplings. At later epoch the lepton asymmetry is converted into the baryon asymmetry of the Universe through sphaleron mediated processes . Thus, leptogenesis is naturally incorporated in the see–saw model, which makes the model particularly attractive.

### 2.1 Leptogenesis

Leptogenesis fulfills all of Sakharov’s three conditions  for generation of a non–vanishing baryon asymmetry $`Y_B`$. The requisite $`CP`$ violating asymmetry is caused by the interference of the tree level contribution and the one–loop corrections in the decay rate of the lightest of the three heavy Majorana neutrinos, $`N_1\mathrm{\Phi }^{}\mathrm{}^+`$ and $`N_1\mathrm{\Phi }^+\mathrm{}^{}`$:

$$\begin{array}{c}\epsilon _1=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(N_1\mathrm{\Phi }^{}\mathrm{}^+\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(N_1\mathrm{\Phi }^+\mathrm{}^{}\right)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(N_1\mathrm{\Phi }^{}\mathrm{}^+\right)+\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(N_1\mathrm{\Phi }^+\mathrm{}^{}\right)}\\ \frac{1}{8\pi v^2}\frac{1}{(m_D^{}m_D)_{11}}\underset{j=2,3}{}\mathrm{Im}(m_D^{}m_D)_{1j}^2\left(f(M_j^2/M_1^2)+g(M_j^2/M_1^2)\right).\end{array}$$
(5)
Here $`v174`$ GeV is the electroweak symmetry breaking scale. The function $`f`$ stems from vertex  and $`g`$ from self–energy  contributions:

$$\begin{array}{cc}f(x)=\sqrt{x}\left(1(1+x)\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{1+x}{x}\right)\right),& g(x)=\frac{\sqrt{x}}{1x}\end{array}.$$
(6)
For $`x1`$, i.e., for hierarchical heavy Majorana neutrinos, one has $`f(x)+g(x)\frac{3}{2\sqrt{x}}`$. The baryon asymmetry is obtained via

$$Y_B=a\frac{\kappa }{g^{}}\epsilon _1,$$
(7)
where $`a1/2`$ is the fraction of the lepton asymmetry converted into a baryon asymmetry , $`g^{}100`$ is the number of massless degrees of freedom at the time of the decay, and $`\kappa `$ is a dilution factor that is obtained by solving the Boltzmann equations. Typically, one gets $`Y_B10^{10}`$ when $`\epsilon _1(10^610^7)`$ and $`\kappa (10^310^2)`$. We note that this estimate of $`Y_B`$ is valid in the supersymmetric (SUSY) theories as well since in the latter both $`g^{}`$ and $`\epsilon _1`$ are larger approximately by the same factor of 2.

### 2.2 LFV Charged Lepton Decays

In extensions of the Standard Theory including massive neutrinos, lepton flavour non–conserving (LFV) processes such as $`\mu e+\gamma `$, $`\mu 3e`$, $`\tau \mu +\gamma `$, $`\tau e+\gamma `$, etc. are predicted to take place (see, e.g., ). However, in the non–SUSY versions of the see–saw model, the decay rates and cross sections of the LFV processes are strongly suppressed and are practically unobservable . The most stringent experimental limit on the $`\mu e+\gamma `$ decay branching ratio reads

$$BR(\mu e+\gamma )<1.2\times 10^{11}.$$
(8)
There are prospects to improve this limit by $`3`$ orders of magnitude in the future (see, e.g., ). The existing bounds on the LFV decays of the $`\tau `$lepton are considerably less stringent: one has, e.g., $`BR(\tau \mu +\gamma )<6.0\times 10^7`$ . There are possibilities to reach a sensitivity to values of $`BR(\tau \mu +\gamma )(10^810^9)`$ at B–factory and LHC experiments .

In SUSY theories incorporating the see–saw mechanism, new sources of lepton flavour violation arise. In SUSY GUT theories these are typically related to the soft SUSY–breaking terms of the Lagrangian. Under the assumption of flavour universality of the SUSY breaking sector (scalar masses and trilinear couplings) at the GUT scale $`M_X`$, new lepton flavour non–conserving couplings are induced at low energy by the matrix of neutrino Yukawa couplings $`m_D/v`$ through renormalization group running of the scalar lepton masses. The latter generates non–zero flavour non–diagonal entries in the slepton mass matrices and in the trilinear scalar couplings. These were shown to be proportional to $`m_Dm_D^{}`$ . More specifically, using the leading–log approximation, one can estimate  the branching ratio of the charged lepton decays $`\mathrm{}_i\mathrm{}_j+\gamma `$, $`\mathrm{}_i(\mathrm{}_j)=\tau ,\mu ,e`$ for $`i(j)=3,2,1`$, $`i>j`$,

$$BR(\mathrm{}_i\mathrm{}_j+\gamma )\alpha ^3\left(\frac{(3+a_0)m_0^2}{8\pi ^2m_S^4G_Fv^2}\right)^2\left|(m_DLm_D^{})_{ij}\right|^2\mathrm{tan}^2\beta ,$$
(9)
where $`m_S`$ denotes a slepton mass, $`m_0`$ is the universal mass scale of the sparticles and $`a_0`$ is a trilinear coupling (all at $`M_X`$). The diagonal matrix $`L`$ reads: $`L=\mathrm{diag}(L_1,L_2,L_3)`$, where $`L_i=\mathrm{log}M_X/M_i`$. To get a feeling for the numbers involved, for $`a_0=𝒪(1)`$, $`m_Sm_010^2`$ GeV, $`M_X10^{16}`$ GeV and $`M_i10^{10}`$ GeV, one finds

$$BR(\mathrm{}_i\mathrm{}_j+\gamma )10^{15}\mathrm{tan}^2\beta \left|\frac{(m_Dm_D^{})_{ij}}{\mathrm{GeV}^2}\right|^2.$$
(10)
This is within the planned sensitivity of the next generation experiments. The predicted values of $`BR(\mathrm{}_i\mathrm{}_j+\gamma )`$ are strongly dependent on the SUSY parameters, a topic beyond the scope of the present article.

Since the rates of LFV charged lepton decays depend on $`m_Dm_D^{}`$, the decay asymmetry $`\epsilon _1`$ depends on $`m_D^{}m_D`$ and leptonic $`CP`$ violating effects originate from $`m_\nu m_Dm_D^T`$, one might in a given model expect some interplay between these three phenomena. We shall investigate this in Sections 4 and 5.

## 3 How it Works

### 3.1 Parameterizations

At low energy and in the case of $`N`$ flavour neutrinos, we can measure, in principle, the $`N\times N`$ light neutrino mass matrix $`m_\nu `$. It contains $`N`$ mass eigenstates, $`\frac{1}{2}N(N1)`$ mixing angles and $`\frac{1}{2}N(N1)`$ phases, thus altogether $`N^2`$ measurable quantities. Of these $`\frac{1}{2}N(N+1)`$ are real and $`\frac{1}{2}N(N1)`$ are $`CP`$ violating phases. One can easily count the number of all see–saw parameters in the weak basis, in which both, $`M_R`$ and the charged lepton mass matrix are real and diagonal. In this basis the Dirac mass matrix $`m_D`$ contains all information about $`CP`$ violation. We shall discuss now three possible parameterizations of $`m_D`$.

1. Bi–unitary parametrization

With $`N`$ light and $`N^{}`$ heavy neutrinos, denoting this particle content as the “$`N\times N^{}`$ see–saw model”, one can write the complex $`N\times N^{}`$ Dirac mass matrix as

$$m_D=U_L^{}m_D^{\mathrm{diag}}U_R,$$
(11)
where $`U_L`$ ($`U_R`$) is a unitary $`N\times N`$ ($`N^{}\times N^{}`$) matrix and $`m_D^{\mathrm{diag}}`$ is a real matrix with non–zero elements only at its $`ii`$ entries. Thus, $`m_D^{\mathrm{diag}}`$ contains $`\mathrm{min}(N,N^{})`$ real parameters we shall denote by $`m_{Di}`$. Any unitary $`N\times N`$ matrix can be written as

$$U=e^{i\mathrm{\Phi }}P\stackrel{~}{U}Q,$$
(12)
where $`P\mathrm{diag}(1,e^{i\varphi _1},e^{i\varphi _2},\mathrm{})`$ and $`Q\mathrm{diag}(1,e^{i\alpha },e^{i\beta },\mathrm{})`$ are diagonal phase matrices with $`(N1)`$ phases, and $`\stackrel{~}{U}`$ is a unitary “CKM–like” matrix containing $`\frac{1}{2}(N2)(N1)`$ phases and $`\frac{1}{2}N(N1)`$ angles. In total $`U`$ contains $`\frac{1}{2}N(N+1)`$ phases. Parameterizing $`U_L^{}`$ and $`U_R`$ in the same way, we get for the Dirac mass matrix

$$m_D=e^{i(\mathrm{\Phi }_R+\mathrm{\Phi }_L)}P_L\stackrel{~}{U}_LQ_Lm_D^{\mathrm{diag}}P_R\stackrel{~}{U}_RQ_R,$$
(13)
where the index $`L(R)`$ indicates that the angles and phases in the respective matrices also carry this index. The common phase ($`\mathrm{\Phi }_R+\mathrm{\Phi }_L`$) and the $`(N1)`$ phases in $`P_L`$ can be absorbed by a redefinition of the charged lepton fields. ¿From the original $`(N+N^{}2)`$ phases in the matrices $`Q_L`$ and $`P_R`$, only $`(N+N^{}2)(\mathrm{max}(N,N^{})1)`$ appear in the product $`Q_Lm_D^{\mathrm{diag}}P_R`$. Thus, we can write

$$m_D=\stackrel{~}{U}_LWm_D^{\mathrm{diag}}\stackrel{~}{U}_RQ_R,$$
(14)
where $`W`$ is a diagonal matrix containing $`N^{}1`$ ($`N1`$) phases if $`N>N^{}(NN^{})`$. The number of physical $`CP`$ violating phases is therefore

$$\begin{array}{c}\frac{1}{2}N(N+1)+\frac{1}{2}N^{}(N^{}+1)2(N1)(\mathrm{max}(N,N^{})1)\\ =\frac{1}{2}N(N1)+\frac{1}{2}N^{}(N^{}+1)\mathrm{max}(N,N^{})\\ =\frac{1}{2}N(N3)+\frac{1}{2}N^{}(N^{}3)+N^{}+\mathrm{min}(N,N^{})\end{array}.$$
(15)
Adding the number of the real parameters $`m_{Di}`$, $`\mathrm{min}(N,N^{})`$, of the masses $`M_i`$, $`N^{}`$, and of the angles in $`\stackrel{~}{U}_L`$ $`(\stackrel{~}{U}_R)`$, $`\frac{1}{2}N(N1)`$ $`(\frac{1}{2}N^{}(N^{}1))`$, we obtain the total number of parameters in the $`N\times N^{}`$ see–saw model. The result is $`N(N1)+N^{}(N^{}+1)\mathrm{max}(N,N^{})+\mathrm{min}(N,N^{})`$. For $`N=N^{}`$ this reduces to $`2N^2`$ parameters, $`N(N1)`$ phases and $`N(N+1)`$ real one. In general, the difference between the number of real parameters and phases is $`N+N^{}`$.

Comparing the number of low and high energy parameters, we see that integrating out the heavy Majorana neutrinos leave us short of a total of $`N^{}(N^{}+1)N\mathrm{max}(N,N^{})+\mathrm{min}(N,N^{})`$ parameters, of which $`\frac{1}{2}N^{}(N^{}+1)N+\mathrm{min}(N,N^{})`$ are real and $`\frac{1}{2}N^{}(N^{}+1)\mathrm{max}(N,N^{})`$ are phases. For $`N=N^{}`$ half of the parameters “get lost”, $`\frac{1}{2}N(N1)`$ phases and $`\frac{1}{2}N(N1)`$ real ones. The counting of the independent physical parameters in $`m_D`$ through the independent parameters in $`U_{L,R}`$ made above, is valid for $`|NN^{}|=0,1`$. For arbitrary $`|NN^{}|>1`$, the total number of independent physical parameters in $`m_D`$ is obviously $`N(2N^{}1)`$, of which $`NN^{}`$ are moduli and $`N(N^{}1)`$ are phases. Their number is smaller than the number our counting through $`U_{L,R}`$ gives because when $`|NN^{}|>1`$ there are more unphysical parameters in $`U_{L,R}`$.

The usual $`3\times 3`$ see–saw model has therefore 18 parameters, which are composed of 12 real parameters and 6 phases. Integrating out the heavy Majorana neutrinos leaves us with the observable mass matrix $`m_\nu `$, which contains 9 observable parameters — 6 real and 3 phases. Hence, half of the parameters of the model get “lost” at low energy. However, in approaches to reconstruct the high energy physics from low energy data, one usually assumes the existence of relations between mass matrices (e.g., $`m_D=m_{\mathrm{up}}`$), which reduces the number of unknown parameters. If in addition specific textures in the matrices are implemented, the situation improves further.

It is worth noting that “reduced” models allow for a simpler connection between the high and low energy physics phenomena. Consider the minimal $`3\times 2`$ see–saw model , which contains only 2 heavy Majorana neutrinos. This model has altogether 11 parameters, 8 real and 3 $`CP`$ violating phases. Comparing with the 9 observable parameters in $`m_\nu `$, we see that only 2 real parameters are “missing” at low energy. Interestingly, this makes the model superior to the even more reduced “too minimal” $`2\times 2`$ see–saw model with 2 heavy and 2 light Majorana neutrinos 333This model can be motivated by a vanishing mixing angle $`\theta _3`$. The $`\nu _e`$ oscillates then into the flavor state $`(\nu _\mu +\nu _\tau )/\sqrt{2}`$ with an amplitude $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{}`$.. The latter has 8 parameters, two of which are phases, and this has to be compared with the 4 parameters (including 1 phase) a $`2\times 2`$ light Majorana neutrino mass matrix effectively contains.

We shall use in the analysis that follows the bi–unitary parametrization. Before proceeding further, however, we will describe briefly two alternative parameterizations.

2. Triangular parametrization
This parametrization relies on the property that any complex matrix can be written as a product of a unitary and a lower triangular matrix :

$$m_D=vUY.$$
(16)
The triangular matrix $`Y`$ has zeros as entries above the diagonal axis and contains 3 phases in the three off–diagonal entries. The unitary matrix $`U`$ can be parametrized in analogy to the PMNS matrix, i.e., in the form of a CKM–like matrix with one phase times a diagonal matrix containing the other two phases. An analysis of leptogenesis using this parametrization was performed in Ref. .

3. Orthogonal parametrization
The following parametrization shows clearly that without any assumptions there is no connection between the low and high energy parameters governing respectively neutrino mixing and leptogenesis. One can write the Dirac matrix as

$$m_D=iU_{\mathrm{PMNS}}\sqrt{m_\nu ^{\mathrm{diag}}}R\sqrt{M_R},$$
(17)
where $`R`$ is a complex orthogonal matrix. It contains 3 real parameters and 3 phases, which, together with the 3 $`M_i`$ and the 9 parameters from $`m_\nu `$, sums up again to a total of 18 parameters. In Eq. (17), $`m_D`$ seems to contain all 18 parameters. However, the product $`\sqrt{m_\nu ^{\mathrm{diag}}}R\sqrt{M_R}`$ includes only 9 independent parameters.

### 3.2 Leptogenesis, $`m_\nu `$ and LFV Charged Lepton Decays

The decay asymmetry $`\epsilon _1`$ depends on the three mass eigenvalues $`M_i`$ and on the hermitian matrix $`m_D^{}m_D`$. Due to its hermiticity, the latter will have a reduced number of parameters with respect to $`m_D`$: for every row (or column) we get rid of one complex number, or equivalently of one real parameter and one phase. Indeed,

$$m_D^{}m_D=\{\begin{array}{cc}U_R^{}(m_D^{\mathrm{diag}})^2U_R,& \text{bi–unitary;}\\ v^2Y^{}Y,& \mathrm{triangular};\\ \sqrt{M_R}R^{}m_\nu ^{\mathrm{diag}}R\sqrt{M_R},& \mathrm{orthogonal},\end{array}$$
(18)
depends on $`156=9`$ parameters, which for the bi–unitary parametrization are the 3 angles and 3 phases in $`U_R`$ and the 3 mass eigenvalues $`m_{Di}`$; for the triangular parametrization, these are the 6 real entries and 3 phases in $`Y`$. In the orthogonal parametrization we have the 9 parameters from the combination $`\sqrt{m_\nu ^{\mathrm{diag}}}R\sqrt{M_R}`$. Of course, there are three leptogenesis phases in each case.

The form of $`m_D^{}m_D`$ in the orthogonal parametrization shows that the PMNS matrix $`U_{\mathrm{PMNS}}`$ does not enter into the expression for $`\epsilon _1`$ and that there is, in general, no connection between the low energy observables in $`U_{\mathrm{PMNS}}`$ and leptogenesis. In particular, there is no connection between the low and high energy $`CP`$ violation. Figure 1 shows a sketch of the situation: in order to connect low energy lepton charge non–conservation and $`CP`$ violation effects (making an assumption about the currently unknown values of the phases and the lowest neutrino mass eigenstate) with the baryon asymmetry of the Universe $`Y_B`$, there must exist a connection between the light left–handed neutrinos $`\nu _L`$ and the heavy right–handed Majorana neutrinos $`N_R`$. This typically involves some kind of see–saw mechanism within the framework of a GUT theory. The $`N_R`$ produce $`Y_B`$ via the leptogenesis mechanism. Without the crucial GUT or see–saw link there is no connection.

Inserting the form of $`m_D`$ from Eqs. (11) and (16) in Eq. (4) shows 444Note that inserting Eq. (17) in (4) yields an identity. that all six phases in $`m_D`$ contribute to the phases in $`U_{\mathrm{PMNS}}`$:

$$m_\nu =\{\begin{array}{cc}U_L^{}m_D^{\mathrm{diag}}U_RM_R^1U_R^Tm_D^{\mathrm{diag}}U_L^{},& \text{bi–unitary;}\\ v^2UYM_R^1Y^TU^T,& \mathrm{triangular}.\end{array}$$
(19)
One may expect that a connection between the high and low energy $`CP`$ violation would exist if three of the phases in $`m_D`$ are negligible, so that the numbers of the $`CP`$ violating phases at high and low energy coincide. In order to have successful leptogenesis, the negligible phases should not be those appearing in $`Y`$ or $`U_R`$. Thus, one can assume that, e.g., $`U`$ in Eq. (16) is real, as has been done in . We shall pursue a different approach and consider the bi–unitary parametrization keeping all the phases.

In supersymmetric versions of the see–saw mechanism, the rates of LFV charged lepton decays, such as $`\mu e+\gamma `$, and the $`T`$ violating asymmetries in, e.g., $`\mu 3e`$ decay, depend approximately 555The actual dependence is a bit more evolved, see Section 2.2. on

$$m_Dm_D^{}=\{\begin{array}{cc}U_L^{}(m_D^{\mathrm{diag}})^2U_L,& \text{bi–unitary;}\\ v^2UYY^{}U^{},& \mathrm{triangular};\\ U_{\mathrm{PMNS}}\sqrt{m_\nu ^{\mathrm{diag}}}RM_RR^{}\sqrt{m_\nu ^{\mathrm{diag}}}U_{\mathrm{PMNS}}^{},& \mathrm{orthogonal}.\end{array}$$
(20)
In principle, taking also a possible data on the electric dipole moments of charged leptons into account, there are enough observables for a full reconstruction of the see–saw model. The bi–unitary parametrization seems to be especially convenient for this purpose.

## 4  The bi–Unitary Parametrization for $`m_D`$

As we saw, the $`3\times 3`$ see–saw model has 6 phases as possible sources of leptonic $`CP`$ violation. The 3 low energy $`CP`$ violating phases depend, in general, on all 6 see–saw phases. The unitary matrices $`U_L`$ and $`U_R`$ have a simple interpretation: $`U_L`$ diagonalizes $`m_Dm_D^{}`$, thus being responsible for lepton flavor violation, and $`U_R`$ diagonalizes $`m_D^{}m_D`$, therefore being responsible for the total lepton number non–conservation. Since the latter is a necessary ingredient of leptogenesis and leads also to $`(\beta \beta )_{0\nu }`$–decay, one might assume naively that there will be a certain connection between the $`(\beta \beta )_{0\nu }`$–decay rate and $`Y_B`$. We shall see that within certain plausible assumptions this is indeed the case.

The first step is to determine the form of $`U_L`$ and $`U_R`$. Since in any GUT theory $`m_D`$ is related to the known charged fermion masses, we can assume a hierarchical structure of $`m_D`$, i.e., $`m_{D3}m_{D2}m_{D1}`$, such that

$$m_D\mathrm{diag}(m_{D1},m_{D2},m_{D3})+𝒪(\mathrm{few}\%),$$
(21)
where the second term indicates that there are corrections not exceeding 10 $`\%`$ on both the diagonal and off–diagonal entries of $`m_D`$. It is helpful to parametrize $`U_L^{}`$ and $`U_R`$ in analogy to $`U_{\mathrm{PMNS}}`$ in Eq. (2), with the angles $`\theta _i`$ replaced by $`\theta _{L(R)i}`$. In what regards the $`CP`$ violating phases, we shall denote the phases in $`\stackrel{~}{U}_R`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{U}_L^{}`$ with $`\delta _R`$ and $`\delta _L`$ respectively, the two “Majorana phases” in $`Q_R`$ by $`\alpha _R`$, $`\beta _R+\delta _R`$ and the two phases in $`W`$ by $`\alpha _W`$ and $`\beta _W+\delta _L`$. In order to obtain a hierarchical $`m_D`$ we shall assume that $`s_{L(R)1}10^1>s_{L(R)2}10^2>s_{L(R)3}`$ with $`s_{L(R)3}<10^3`$, as well as that $`m_{D3}m_{D2}m_{D1}`$. These assumptions are inspired by observed mixing in the quark sector and by the known hierarchies between the masses of the up–type quarks, between the masses of the down–type quarks and between the charged lepton masses. In the numerical estimates we give in what follows we will always use the values $`m_{D1}100`$ MeV, $`m_{D2}1`$ GeV and $`m_{D3}100`$ GeV, which to a certain degree are suggested by the up–quark mass values.

Once $`U_L^{}`$ ($`U_R`$) is chosen to contain hierarchical mixing angles, the requirement that $`m_D`$ takes the form (21) implies hierarchical mixing angles also for $`U_R`$ ($`U_L^{}`$). The structure of the Dirac matrix is then found to be

$$m_D\left(\begin{array}{ccc}m_{D1}\stackrel{~}{m}_{D2}s_{1L}s_{1R}& e^{i\alpha _R}\stackrel{~}{m}_{D2}s_{1L}& e^{i\left(\beta _R+\delta _R\delta _L\right)}\stackrel{~}{m}_{D3}s_{3L}\\ \stackrel{~}{m}_{D2}s_{1R}& e^{i\alpha _R}\stackrel{~}{m}_{D2}& e^{i\left(\beta _R+\delta _R\right)}\stackrel{~}{m}_{D3}s_{2L}\\ \stackrel{~}{m}_{D3}\left(s_{1R}s_{2R}e^{i\delta _R}s_{3R}\right)& e^{i\alpha _R}\stackrel{~}{m}_{D3}s_{2R}& e^{i\left(\beta _R+\delta _R\right)}\stackrel{~}{m}_{D3}\end{array}\right),$$
(22)
where $`\stackrel{~}{m}_{D2}m_{D2}e^{i\alpha _W}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{m}_{D3}m_{D3}e^{i(\beta _W+\delta _L)}`$ and we have set all the $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _{L(R)i}`$ to one. Products of the $`\mathrm{sin}\theta _{L(R)i}`$ which are smaller than $`10^3`$ are neglected. We have neglected also terms of order $`𝒪(m_{D3}s_{2L}s_{2R})`$ with respect to $`m_{D2}`$. Not surprisingly, the off–diagonal entries of $`m_D`$ are suppressed with respect to the diagonal terms by the small quantities $`s_{iL(R)}`$, $`i=1,2,3`$. A hierarchical structure of $`m_D`$ is most naturally described using the bi–unitary parametrization.

Rather than tuning the parameters involved in the bi–unitary parametrization to reproduce precisely the neutrino mass squared differences and mixing angles determined from the available neutrino oscillation data, we shall focus only on the dependence of the quantities of interest on the parameters in $`m_D`$ and $`M_R`$: we are primarily interested to find out under which circumstances a connection between the neutrino mixing related phenomena and leptogenesis is possible. We made nevertheless extensive consistency checks regarding the form of $`m_\nu `$ as obtained with the matrix $`m_D`$ in Eq. (22) and with $`M_R`$. Using the form of $`m_D`$ given in Eq. (22) and assuming a hierarchy for $`M_i`$, $`M_1M_2M_3`$, from Eq. (4) one can obtain a theoretically predicted expression for the low energy neutrino mass matrix, $`m_\nu ^{\mathrm{th}}`$. The form of $`m_\nu ^{\mathrm{th}}`$ should be confronted with the neutrino mass matrix which is obtained from Eq. (1), $`m_\nu ^{\mathrm{exp}}`$. For the angles $`\theta _1\theta _{}`$ and $`\theta _2\theta _{\mathrm{atm}}`$, we use the best fit values found in the analyzes  of the solar and atmospheric neutrino data, respectively: $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _{}=0.46`$ and $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{\mathrm{atm}}=1`$. The angle $`\theta _3`$ is varied within its allowed $`3\sigma `$ range, $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _3<0.05`$, while the three $`CP`$ violating phases $`\delta `$, $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ are treated as free parameters. For the normal hierarchical neutrino mass spectrum one has: $`m_1m_2\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2}m_3\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{atm}}^2}`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2>0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{atm}}^2>0`$ drive the solar and atmospheric neutrino oscillations. In the numerical estimates which follow we use $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2=7.3\times 10^5\mathrm{eV}^2`$  and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{atm}}^2=2.7\times 10^3\mathrm{eV}^2`$ .

The expression for $`m_\nu ^{\mathrm{th}}`$ and the analysis of interest simplify considerably if the hierarchy between the masses $`M_1`$ and $`M_2`$ is relatively mild:

$$M_210M_1.$$
(23)
It is not difficult to convince oneself that if Eq. (23) holds and if in addition — in agreement with the hierarchy requirement in $`m_D`$ — the relation

$$m_{D3}s_{2R(L)}10^2m_{D3}m_{D2}$$
(24)
holds, the form of $`m_\nu ^{\mathrm{th}}`$ leads to $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _2\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{\mathrm{atm}}1`$ without any further fine–tuning as long as the terms $`1/M_3`$ in Eq. (26) give a sub–leading contribution to $`m_\nu ^{\mathrm{th}}`$. This is ensured provided the inequality

$$M_3s_{2R}^2M_210^4M_2,$$
(25)
implying a strong hierarchy between $`M_2`$ and $`M_3`$, holds. The existence of a mild hierarchy between $`M_1`$ and $`M_2`$, Eq. (23), and of a strong hierarchy between $`M_2`$ and $`M_3`$, Eq. (25) is, as we will see, also compatible with the requirement of effective leptogenesis.

Under the conditions (23) — (25) the matrix $`m_\nu ^{\mathrm{th}}`$ takes a relatively simple form:

$$\begin{array}{c}(m_\nu ^{\mathrm{th}})_{ee}\frac{(m_{D1}s_{1L}s_{1R}m_{D2}e^{i\alpha _W})^2}{M_1}+\frac{s_{1L}^2m_{D2}^2e^{2i(\alpha _W+\alpha _R)}}{M_2}\\ (m_\nu ^{\mathrm{th}})_{e\mu }\frac{(m_{D1}s_{1L}s_{1R}m_{D2}e^{i\alpha _W})s_{1R}m_{D2}e^{i\alpha _W}}{M_1}+\frac{m_{D2}^2s_{1L}e^{2i(\alpha _W+\alpha _R)}}{M_2}\\ (m_\nu ^{\mathrm{th}})_{e\tau }\frac{(m_{D1}s_{1L}s_{1R}m_{D2}e^{i\alpha _W})(s_{1L}s_{2R}s_{3R}e^{i\delta _R})m_{D3}^2e^{2i(\beta _W+\delta _L)}}{M_1}\\ \frac{m_{D2}m_{D3}s_{1L}s_{2R}e^{i(\alpha _W+\beta _W+\delta _L+2\alpha _R)}}{M_2}\\ (m_\nu ^{\mathrm{th}})_{\mu \mu }\frac{m_{D2}^2}{M_2}e^{2i(\alpha _R+\alpha _W)},\\ (m_\nu ^{\mathrm{th}})_{\mu \tau }\frac{m_{D2}m_{D3}}{M_2}s_{2R}e^{i(2\alpha _R+\alpha _W+\beta _W+\delta _L)},\\ (m_\nu ^{\mathrm{th}})_{\tau \tau }\frac{m_{D3}^2}{M_2}s_{2R}^2e^{2i(\alpha _R+\beta _W+\delta _L)},\end{array}$$
(26)
where we have not written explicitly the sub–leading terms $`1/M_1`$ and $`1/M_3`$. Further analysis shows that for the generic values of the parameters $`m_{Di}`$ and $`s_{jL(R)}`$ we use, the matrix $`m_\nu ^{\mathrm{th}}`$ thus obtained leads to a value of $`\theta _{}\theta _1`$ compatible with the observations for, e.g., $`M_210^{10}`$ GeV. The value of $`\theta _{}`$ is particularly sensitive to the specific value of $`m_{D1}`$ chosen: a very good agreement with the best fit value $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _{}(0.420.46)`$ determined in the analyses of the solar neutrino data is obtained for $`m_{D1}(7090)`$ MeV.

In what regards the angle $`\theta _3`$, for $`m_{D1}100`$ MeV and $`s_{1L}(0.100.25)`$ and the standard values of the other parameters we use, one generically has: $`\mathrm{sin}\theta _3s_{1L}/\sqrt{2}`$. Consequently, $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _3`$ is relatively large: typically one has $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _3>0.005`$. However, it is also possible to fine–tune the values of the parameters involved in the analysis to get $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _3<0.005`$ and this latter possibility cannot be ruled out.

The above analysis shows that the assumptions we made about the magnitude of the angles in $`U_L`$ and $`U_R`$ and of the values of $`m_{Di}`$ are very well in agreement with the existing data. We find, in particular, that the angle $`\theta _3`$ can be relatively large ($`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _3>0.0050.010`$), which has important implications for the searches for $`CP`$ violation in neutrino oscillations. In fact, we shall see that under the assumptions made, the $`CP`$ violating observables in neutrino oscillations can be sizable.

### 4.1  Leptogenesis in the bi–Unitary Parametrization

In the context of leptogenesis the lepton asymmetry depends on the parameter $`m_D^{}m_D`$, as discussed in Section 2. Using Eq. (18) we find for $`(m_D^{}m_D)_{11}`$ to leading order:

$$\begin{array}{c}(m_D^{}m_D)_{11}m_{D2}^2s_{1R}^2+m_{D3}^2\left(s_{1R}^2s_{2R}^22\mathrm{cos}\delta _Rs_{1R}s_{2R}s_{3R}+s_{3R}^2\right)\\ \left(m_{D2}^2+m_{D3}^2s_{2R}^2\right)s_{1R}^2.\end{array}$$
(27)
The decay asymmetry $`\epsilon _1`$ receives contribution from

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{Im}\left\{(m_D^{}m_D)_{12}^2\right\}\\ 2\left(\mathrm{cos}\alpha _Rs_{1R}\left(m_{D2}^2+m_{D3}^2s_{2R}^2\right)m_{D3}^2\mathrm{cos}(\alpha _R\delta _R)s_{2R}s_{3R}\right)\\ \left(\mathrm{sin}\alpha _Rs_{1R}\left(m_{D2}^2+m_{D3}^2s_{2R}^2\right)m_{D3}^2\mathrm{sin}(\alpha _R\delta _R)s_{2R}s_{3R}\right)\\ \left(m_{D2}^2+m_{D3}^2s_{2R}^2\right)^2s_{1R}^2\mathrm{sin}2\alpha _R,\end{array}$$
(28)
as well as from

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{Im}\left\{(m_D^{}m_D)_{13}^2\right\}\\ 2m_{D3}^4\left(\mathrm{cos}(\beta _R+\delta _R)s_{1R}s_{2R}\mathrm{cos}\beta _Rs_{3R}\right)\left(\mathrm{sin}(\beta _R+\delta _R)s_{1R}s_{2R}\mathrm{sin}\beta _Rs_{3R}\right)\\ m_{D3}^4s_{1R}^2s_{2R}^2\mathrm{sin}2(\beta _R+\delta _R),\end{array}$$
(29)
where $`s_{3R}`$ was neglected in the last expression. Assuming a hierarchical mass spectrum of the heavy Majorana neutrinos one finds for the decay asymmetry

$$\epsilon _1\frac{3}{2}\frac{1}{8\pi v^2}\left((m_{D2}^2+m_{D3}^2s_{2R}^2)\mathrm{sin}2\alpha _R\frac{M_1}{M_2}+\frac{m_{D3}^4s_{2R}^2}{m_{D2}^2+m_{D3}^2s_{2R}^2}\mathrm{sin}2(\beta _R+\delta _R)\frac{M_1}{M_3}\right).$$
(30)
Therefore, we can identify $`\alpha _R`$ and $`(\beta _R+\delta _R)`$ as the leptogenesis phases. Note that, as it should, $`\epsilon _1=0`$ for $`\alpha _R,\beta _R,\delta _R=0,\pi /2,\pi `$. Taking $`m_{D2}10^2m_{D3}`$ and $`s_{2R}10^2`$, we can estimate the decay asymmetry as 666Note that the form of this equation resembles Eq. (17) in the second paper in Ref. . A type II see–saw mechanism was used in that work.

$$\epsilon _110^9\left(\frac{m_{D3}}{\mathrm{GeV}}\right)^2\left(\mathrm{sin}2\alpha _R\frac{M_1}{M_2}+10^3\mathrm{sin}2(\beta _R+\delta _R)\frac{M_1}{M_3}\right).$$
(31)
As discussed earlier, the heavy Majorana neutrino masses $`M_i`$ are also expected to posses a hierarchy. Under the condition (25) of a strong hierarchy between $`M_2`$ and $`M_3`$, the second term in the last equation is negligible, and only the phase $`\alpha _R`$ is relevant for leptogenesis. If further one has $`m_{D3}10^2`$ GeV, as is suggested by up–quark mass values, it is possible to have $`\epsilon _110^610^7`$ if, e.g., $`M_1/M_20.1`$, which is compatible with the requirement of a mild hierarchy between $`M_1`$ and $`M_2`$, Eq. (23) which in the previous Section was shown to be also compatible with the low energy neutrino phenomenology.

Identifying $`m_D`$ with the down–quark or charged lepton mass matrix, i.e., $`m_{D3}1`$ GeV, leads to a rather small value of $`\epsilon _1`$ for $`M_1M_2M_3`$. In this case the lepton asymmetry can only be amplified to the requisite value by the resonance mechanism  which is operative for quasi–degenerate heavy Majorana neutrinos. Thus, leptogenesis with hierarchical neutrino Majorana and Dirac masses prefers up–quark type masses for the latter, a fact first noticed in .

The “effective mass” $`\stackrel{~}{m}_1`$, that represents a sensitive parameter for the Boltzmann equations, is given by

$$\stackrel{~}{m}_1=\frac{(m_D^{}m_D)_{11}}{M_1}\left(\frac{m_{D3}}{\mathrm{GeV}}\right)^2\left(\frac{10^9\mathrm{GeV}}{M_1}\right)10^5\mathrm{eV}.$$
(32)
For $`m_{D3}10^2`$ GeV and $`M_1`$ of $`10^9`$ to $`10^{10}`$ GeV, acceptable values of $`10^1`$ to $`10^3`$ eV for $`\stackrel{~}{m}_1`$ are obtained. This leads to values of $`\kappa 10^110^3`$. Assuming that the sine of the phases in Eq. (30) is not small, a value of $`Y_B10^{10}`$ is therefore “naturally” obtained for, e.g., $`m_{D3}10^2`$ GeV, $`M_110^9`$ GeV, and $`M_210^{10}\mathrm{GeV}M_310^{15}`$ GeV. The indicated values of $`M_1`$, $`M_2`$ and $`M_3`$ are also in very good agreement with the constraints Eqs. (23) and (25).

### 4.2 LFV Charged Lepton Decays

According to Eq. (9), the branching ratios of the LFV charged lepton decays, $`BR(\mathrm{}_i\mathrm{}_j+\gamma )`$, depend on $`(m_DLm_D^{})`$. We have calculated this matrix with the usual approximations for the masses and angles and found the leading terms to be

$$\begin{array}{cc}(m_DLm_D^{})_{21}& m_{D2}^2s_{1L}L_2,\\ (m_DLm_D^{})_{31}& m_{D3}^2(s_{1L}s_{2L}s_{3L}e^{i\delta _L})L_3+m_{D3}m_{D2}s_{1L}s_{2R}(L_2L_3).\\ (m_DLm_D^{})_{32}& m_{D3}^2s_{2L}L_3.\end{array}$$
(33)
Barring accidental cancellations in the expression for $`(m_DLm_D^{})_{31}`$, we obtain the following general relation between the branching ratios of interest 777Obviously, the relation we obtain does not hold if, e.g., the accidental cancellation $`(s_{1L}s_{2L}s_{3L}e^{i\delta _L})=0`$ takes place. The latter requires, however, a fine–tuning of the values of 4 parameters.:

$$BR(\tau \mu +\gamma )BR(\tau e+\gamma )BR(\mu e+\gamma ).$$
(34)
If we use the generic values of the relevant parameters we work with, we find

$$BR(\tau \mu +\gamma )10^2BR(\tau e+\gamma )10^5BR(\mu e+\gamma ).$$
(35)
The results do not differ significantly from the results obtained by using a common mass scale $`M`$ and taking the log–terms out of the matrix, i.e., for $`(m_Dm_D^{})\mathrm{log}M_X/M`$ instead of $`m_DLm_D^{}`$. Note that though $`m_D`$ contains $`U_L`$ and $`U_R`$, only the angles and phases of $`U_L`$ appear in $`BR(\mathrm{}_i\mathrm{}_j+\gamma )`$, which confirms that Eq. (20) represents a rather good approximation for estimating $`BR(\mathrm{}_i\mathrm{}_j+\gamma )`$.

## 5 Leptogenesis, $`(\beta \beta )_{0\nu }`$–decay and Low Energy Leptonic $`CP`$ Violation

We shall investigate next whether there exists a relation between the high energy $`CP`$ violation leading to the decay asymmetry Eq. (30) and low energy observables. We will consider the effective Majorana mass in $`(\beta \beta )_{0\nu }`$–decay and the $`CP`$ violating asymmetry in neutrino oscillations.

### 5.1  The Effective Majorana Mass in $`(\beta \beta )_{0\nu }`$–Decay

The observation of $`(\beta \beta )_{0\nu }`$–decay would provide direct evidence for the non–conservation of the total lepton charge, which is a necessary ingredient for the leptogenesis mechanism. In $`(\beta \beta )_{0\nu }`$–decay one measures the absolute value of the $`ee`$ element of $`m_\nu `$. Given the form of $`m_D`$ in Eq. (22), it is not difficult to find this element:

$$m\frac{(m_{D1}s_{1L}s_{1R}m_{D2}e^{i\alpha _W})^2}{M_1}+\frac{m_{D2}^2e^{2i(\alpha _W+\alpha _R)}}{M_2}+\frac{m_{D3}^2s_{3L}^2e^{2i(\beta _R+\beta _W+\delta _R)}}{M_3}.$$
(36)
The term of order $`m_{D3}^2`$ contains, in particular, the parameters $`\alpha _W`$ and $`\beta _W`$, which do not influence the baryon asymmetry. The condition that this term does not contribute significantly to $`|m|`$ is

$$\begin{array}{cc}\frac{m_{D3}^2}{M_3}s_{3L}^2\{\begin{array}{c}\frac{m_{D2}^2}{M_1}s_{1L}^2s_{1R}^2\\ \frac{m_{D2}^2}{M_2}s_{1L}^2\end{array}& M_3\{\begin{array}{c}M_1\left(\frac{m_{D3}}{m_{D2}}\right)^2\frac{s_{3L}^2}{s_{1L}^2s_{1R}^2}10^2M_1\\ M_2\left(\frac{m_{D3}}{m_{D2}}\right)^2\frac{s_{3L}^2}{s_{1L}^2}M_2\end{array}\end{array},$$
(37)
which is compatible with Eqs. (24) and (26) and the hierarchy between $`M_3`$ and $`M_{1,2}`$, required for generating a sufficient baryon asymmetry (see the discussion after Eq. (31)). The first two terms in (36) can contribute comparably to $`|m|`$ unless $`M_2s_{1R}^2M_1`$ or $`M_2s_{1R}^2M_1`$. From the two main possibilities for $`m_D`$, the choice of the up–quark type matrix, $`m_Dm_{\mathrm{up}}`$, favored by leptogenesis in the case of hierarchical $`M_i`$ and $`m_D`$, leads to $`|m|`$ which is larger by a factor of $`(m_c/m_{s,\mu })^210^2`$ then in the case of $`m_Dm_{\mathrm{down}}`$, $`m_c(m_s)`$ being the charm (strange) quark mass. If $`m_{D2}1`$ GeV and $`s_{1L(R)}^2(10^210^1)`$ (see Eq. (25)), one finds for $`M_110^9`$ GeV and $`M_210^{10}`$ GeV that $`|m|(0.0010.01)`$ eV 888We would like to emphasize that the numerical values for the observables we give should be taken not too literally: a spread within one order of magnitude, as included in the prediction for $`|m|`$ we give, should be allowed for., which may be within the reach of the 10t version of the GENIUS experiment .

If condition (37) holds, only the leptogenesis parameter $`\alpha _R`$ appears in the effective Majorana mass $`|m|`$. This condition corresponds to a rather strong hierarchy between the masses of the $`N_i`$ and thus to a decoupling of the heaviest Majorana neutrino $`N_3`$. In this case, one sees from Eq. (30) that only the term proportional to $`\mathrm{sin}2\alpha _R`$ contributes to $`Y_B`$ and there is a direct correlation between the rate of $`(\beta \beta )_{0\nu }`$–decay and the baryon asymmetry of the Universe. For a mild hierarchy between the masses $`M_i`$, the unknown phases $`\alpha _W`$ and $`\beta _W`$ spoil any simple connection between $`|m|`$ and $`Y_B`$.

### 5.2  $`CP`$ Violation in Leptogenesis and in Neutrino Oscillations

Manifest $`CP`$ violation can be probed in neutrino oscillation experiments (see, e.g., ). The corresponding $`CP`$ violating observables depend on the rephasing invariant quantity  $`J_{CP}`$ — the leptonic analog of the Jarlskog invariant. The following form  of $`J_{CP}`$ is particularly suited for our analysis:

$$J_{CP}=\frac{\mathrm{Im}(h_{12}h_{23}h_{31})}{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2},\text{ where }h=m_\nu m_\nu ^{}.$$
(38)
The invariant $`J_{CP}`$ can be calculated using Eqs. (4) and (22). The resulting expression is rather long and which is the leading term depends on the degree of hierarchy of the heavy Majorana neutrino masses. In general, however, we find that $`J_{CP}`$ vanishes for $`m_{D2}=0`$ and/or $`1/M_3=0`$. These approximations correspond effectively to a 2 flavour neutrino mixing case, and consequently to an absence of Dirac–like $`CP`$ violation. In general, all six phases contribute to $`J_{CP}`$, as is suggested by Eq. (19).

As an example, let us consider the hierarchy $`M_110^1M_210^4M_3`$. Then there are four leading terms in $`J_{CP}`$, which are proportional to $`(M_1M_2^4M_3)^1`$, $`(M_1M_3)^3`$, $`(M_1M_2M_3^4)^1`$ and $`(M_1M_2M_3)^2`$, respectively. They read:

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{Im}(h_{12}h_{23}h_{31})\frac{2m_{D2}^5m_{D3}^7s_{1L}^2s_{1R}^2s_{2L}s_{2R}^5}{M_1M_2^4M_3}\mathrm{cos}2\alpha _R\mathrm{sin}\left(\alpha _W(\beta _W+\delta _L)+2\alpha _R2(\beta _R+\delta _R)\right)\\ \frac{m_{D2}^5m_{D3}^7s_{1L}^2s_{1R}^5s_{2L}s_{3R}}{M_1^3M_3^3}\mathrm{sin}\left(\alpha _W2\beta _R\beta _W\delta _L\delta _R\right)\\ +\frac{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}m_{D2}^4m_{D3}^8s_{1L}^2s_{1R}^2s_{2L}s_{3L}}{M_1M_2M_3^4}\mathrm{cos}2\alpha _R\mathrm{sin}\delta _L\\ +\frac{m_{D2}^7m_{D3}^5s_{1L}^2s_{1R}^4s_{2L}s_{2R}}{M_1^2M_2^2M_3^2}\left(2\mathrm{sin}\left(\alpha _W\beta _W\delta _L\right)+\mathrm{sin}\left(\alpha _W4\alpha _R\beta _W\delta _L\right)\right)\\ +\frac{m_{D2}^5m_{D3}^5s_{1L}^2s_{1R}^4s_{2L}s_{2R}}{M_1^2M_2^2M_3^2}(m_{D2}^2(2\mathrm{sin}(\alpha _W\beta _W\delta _L)+\mathrm{sin}(\alpha _W4\alpha _R\beta _W\delta _L))\\ +m_{D3}^2s_{2R}^2\mathrm{sin}(\alpha _W\beta _W\delta _L)),\end{array}$$
(39)
which illustrates our general conclusions mentioned above. Choosing a different hierarchy of the heavy Majorana neutrino masses will lead to the presence of different terms with different combinations of the parameters, especially of the phases.

Of the 6 independent physical $`CP`$ violating phases of the see–saw model, 5 phases are present in Eq. (39), namely $`\alpha _R`$, $`\alpha _W\beta _W\delta _L`$, $`\beta _R`$, $`\delta _R`$ and $`\delta _L`$. This can be understood as being due to the fact that in the approximations we use $`m_{D1}`$ is neglected. Setting in addition $`s_{3L(R)}`$ to zero should remove two more phases from the parameter space. Indeed, one finds from Eq. (39) that only three independent phases ($`\alpha _R`$, $`\alpha _W\beta _W\delta _L`$ and $`\beta _R+\delta _R`$) enter into the expression for $`J_{CP}`$ in this case. Order–of–magnitude–wise we can predict the magnitude of the $`CP`$ violation to be

$$J_{CP}10^2\left(\frac{10^9\mathrm{GeV}}{M_1}\right)\left(\frac{10^{10}\mathrm{GeV}}{M_2}\right)^4\left(\frac{10^{14}\mathrm{GeV}}{M_3}\right)\mathrm{sin}\left(\alpha _W(\beta _W+\delta _L)+2\alpha _R2(\beta _R+\delta _R)\right).$$
(40)
One sees that within the approximation discussed in this paper there is no connection, in general, between leptogenesis in Eq. (31) and the low energy $`CP`$ violation in neutrino oscillations. Successful leptogenesis without low energy $`CP`$ violation in neutrino oscillations is, in principle, possible. This interesting case has recently been discussed in . However, given the results of the present Subsection, fine–tuning between the values of the different phases has to take place in order to have leptogenesis and $`J_{CP}0`$. Even if there is no direct connection between the leptogenesis and the value of $`J_{CP}`$, a measurement of $`J_{CP}`$ can shed light on the “non–leptogenesis” parameters. We note finally that the decoupling of leptogenesis from the low energy Dirac–phase has been noticed to take place in a number of models as well, e.g. in .

We comment finally on an interesting special case of Eq. (39). Suppose that the phases “conspire” to fulfill the relations $`\alpha _W\beta _W\delta _L=\beta _R=\delta _R=\delta _L=0`$ or, for $`s_{3L(R)}=0`$, $`\alpha _W\beta _W\delta _L=\beta _R+\delta _R=0`$. Then, only one phase contributes to the $`J_{CP}`$ asymmetry and one finds from Eq. (39) that $`J_{CP}\mathrm{sin}4\alpha _R`$. The baryon asymmetry, on the other hand, is proportional to $`\mathrm{sin}2\alpha _R`$ as can be seen from Eqs. (7) and (30). This situation allows for a correlation between the relative sign of the baryon asymmetry of the Universe and the $`CP`$ asymmetry in neutrino oscillations. The two quantities posses opposite signs if $`2\alpha _R`$ lies between $`\pi /2`$ and $`\pi `$ and the same signs for values of $`2\alpha _R`$ outside this range. The parameter space allowing for this correlation corresponds to the $`3\times 2`$ see–saw model with 2 texture zeros in the Dirac mass matrix discussed in Ref. .

## 6 Conclusions

Assuming only a hierarchical structure of the heavy Majorana neutrino masses $`M_{1,2,3}`$, $`M_1M_2M_3`$, and of the Dirac mass matrix $`m_D`$ of the see–saw mechanism (see Eq. (21)), and working in the bi–unitary parametrization of $`m_D`$, we find that in order to produce a sufficient amount of baryon asymmetry via the leptogenesis mechanism, the scale of $`m_D`$ should be given by the up–quark masses. In this class of “hierarchical” see–saw models, the branching ratios of LFV charged lepton decays, whose dependence on $`m_D`$ is introduced by RGE effects within the SUSY GUT version of the model, are predicted to fulfill the relations $`BR(\tau \mu +\gamma )BR(\tau e+\gamma )BR(\mu e+\gamma )`$: typically one has $`BR(\tau \mu +\gamma )10^2BR(\tau e+\gamma )10^5BR(\mu e+\gamma )`$. We find that the effective Majorana mass in $`(\beta \beta )_{0\nu }`$–decay depends on the $`CP`$ violating phase controlling the leptogenesis if one of the heavy Majorana neutrinos is much heavier than the other two, $`M_310^4M_2`$. A rather mild hierarchy between the masses of the lighter two heavy Majorana neutrinos, $`M_210M_1`$, is required for successful leptogenesis. The hierarchical relations $`M_310^4M_2`$ and $`M_210M_1`$ with, e.g., $`M_110^9`$ GeV, are also compatible with the low–energy neutrino mixing phenomenology. The $`CP`$ violation effects in neutrino oscillations can be observable. In general, there is no direct connection between the latter and the $`CP`$ violation in leptogenesis. We find, however, that if the $`CP`$ violating phases of the see–saw model “conspire” to satisfy certain relations, the baryon asymmetry of the Universe and the leptonic $`CP`$ violation rephasing invariant $`J_{CP}`$, which determines the magnitude of the $`CP`$ violation effects in neutrino oscillations, depend on the same $`CP`$ violating phase and their signs are correlated.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported in part by the EC network HPRN-CT-2000-00152 (S.T.P. and W.R.), by the Italian MIUR under the program “Fenomenologia delle Interazioni Fondamentali” (S.T.P.), and by the US Department of Energy Grant DE-FG03-91ER40662 (S.P.). S.P. would like to thank the Elementary Particle Physics Sector of SISSA (Trieste, Italy) and the Inst. de Fisica Teorica of the Universidad Autonoma de Madrid (Spain) for kind hospitality during part of this study.


text:
# Determination of the age of the earth from Kamland measurement of geo-neutrinos

## Abstract

The low energy component of the anti-neutrino spectrum observed in the recent Kamland experiment has significant contribution from the radioactive decay of $`{}_{}{}^{238}U`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{232}Th`$ in the earth. By taking the ratio of the anti-neutrino events observed in two different energy ranges we can determine the present value of the Thorium by Uranium abundance ratio, independent of the U,Th distribution in the earth. Comparing the present abundance ratio with the r-process predicted initial value we determine the age of the earth as a function of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ and $`Sin^22\theta `$. We find that the age of the earth determined from KamLAND data matches the age of solar system ($`4.5Gyrs`$ determined from meteorites) for the LMA-I solution. For the LMA-II solution the age of the earth does not match the solar system age even at $`90\%C.L.`$

The recent results from KamLAND kam  are significant for establishing the LMA solution of the solar neutrino problem. In addition they present the first statistically significant measurement the anti-neutrinos from radioactive decay of $`{}_{}{}^{238}U`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{232}Th`$ present in the crust and mantle of the earth. The possibility of detecting geo neutrinos from radioactivity in the the earth was first raised by Eder eder  and was revived by Krauss et al krauss  and Kobayashi and Fukao koba . Quantitative spectra of the anti-neutrino events which could be observed at Kamioka and Gran Sasso from radioactivity of $`Th`$ and $`U`$ in the earth has been given by Rothschild et al roth  and Raghavan et al ragh . The emphasis of these papers and the recent work of Fiorentini et al fior1  is to use the observations of $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ events at KamLAND and Borexino experiments to determine the distribution of $`U,Th`$ in the crust and mantle of the earth, and determine what fraction of the $`40TW`$ heat generated by earth from radioactivity. KamLAND kam  reports observing $`9`$ $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ events below $`2.6MeV`$ (visible positron energy) which are ascribed to $`U,Th`$ radioactivity in the earth. Subsequently a analysis of the geo neutrinos from KamLAND observations has been done by Fiorentini et al fior2  with the aim of determining the geological distribution of $`U`$ and $`Th`$ in the earth. Fiorentini et al. assume that $`[Th/U]=3.8`$ the solar system value and try to determine the $`U`$ and $`Th`$ content of the core and mantle.

In this paper we have a different aim which is to extract the average thorium by uranium abundance ratio, $`[Th/U]`$ from the KamLAND data, as this parameter is an ideal chronometer for measurement of cosmological time-scales. $`Th`$ and $`U`$ present in the earth are produced in supernova by r-process nucleosynthesis arnett . The theoretical prediction initial abundance ratio is robust against perturbations of the astrophysical parameters at the site of the r-process to within $`\pm 5\%`$ otsuki . By determining the present abundance ratio of $`[Th/U]`$ in the earth from KamLAND, we can measure the age of the earth-i.e the time elapsed between the supernova explosion where the $`Th`$ and $`U`$ in the earth were produced, and the present. KamLAND observes geo anti-neutrinos in the (positron signal) energy range $`0.9MeV<E<2.5MeV`$. Thorium decay neutrinos have a maximum $`E`$ value of $`1.5MeV`$ whereas Uranium neutrinos contribute in the entire observed energy range of the geo signal. The geo neutrinos undergo an energy independent suppression as their average distance from the detector $`10^3km`$ is much larger than the oscillation length $`10^2km`$. We take the ratio of the geo events, in the the $`(0.91.5)MeV`$ bins and the geo events, in the $`(1.52.5)MeV`$ energy bins to determine the $`[Th]/[U]`$. This enables us to determine the age of the earth independent of the geological distribution of $`Th`$ and $`U`$ in the earth.

Using the KamLAND data we can determine the age of the earth as a function of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ and $`Sin^22\theta `$, as these parameters determine the reactor background that has to be subtracted from the KamLAND observed events to arrive at the geo-neutrino signal. In Fig.1 we show the age of the earth as a function of the mixing angle for the LMA-I ($`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2=7\times 10^5eV^2`$) and LMA-II ($`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2=15\times 10^5eV^2`$ ) solutions kamfit . We estimate the total uncertainity in the age (for a given $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2,Sin^22\theta `$) to be $`\pm 36.5\%`$. The central shaded regions are the best fit points ($`\chi ^20`$) and the two outer lines enclose the allowed region of parameter space with $`C.L.`$ of $`68.3\%`$ and $`90\%`$ respectively. We see from Fig.1 that for the LMA-II solution $`t_{age}>5.0Gyrs`$ ( at $`90\%C.L`$) and $`t_{age}>9.0Gyrs`$ (at $`68.3\%C.L`$) . It is known from the radiochemical dating of meteorites that the age of the oldest meteorites (the chondrites) is $`4.5Gyrs`$ andres . If the age of the earth is close to the age of the chondrites then the LMA-II solution is ruled out. We see from Fig1 that for the LMA-I solution, the age of the earth agrees with the age of the meteorites for the mixing angle in the range $`0.88<Sin^22\theta <0.93`$.

The KamLAND detector consists of about $`1kiloton`$ of liquid scintillator surrounded by photo-multiplier tubes. Electron anti-neutrinos are detected by means of the inverse beta decay $`\overline{\nu }_e+pe^++n`$ by looking for the $`e^+`$ in delayed coincidence with the $`2.2MeV`$ $`\gamma `$-ray from the neutron capture by protons ($`n+pd+\gamma `$). The $`e^+`$ annihilate in the detector producing a total visible energy $`E`$ which is related to the initial $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ energy,$`E_\nu `$, as $`E=E_\nu (m_nm_p+m_e)+2m_e=E_\nu 0.78MeV`$. Only those radioactive product $`\overline{\nu }_e`$’s with energies above the inverse beta decay reaction threshold of $`m_nm_p+m_e=1.8MeV`$ can be detected. The main source of $`\overline{\nu }_e`$’s and radiogenic heat in the earth are decays of $`{}_{}{}^{238}U`$, $`{}_{}{}^{232}Th`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{40}K`$. The $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ from $`{}_{}{}^{40}K`$ decay have $`E_{\nu max}=1.31MeV`$ and will not register in the KamLAND detector. In the decay chain of $`{}_{}{}^{238}U`$, only $`\overline{\nu }_e`$’s from the $`\beta `$ decays of $`{}_{}{}^{234}Pa`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{214}Bi`$ are above the threshold for detection in KamLAND. In the $`{}_{}{}^{232}Th`$ decay chain, $`\overline{\nu }_e`$’s from the beta decays of $`{}_{}{}^{228}Ac`$ $`{}_{}{}^{212}Bi`$ contribute to the KamLAND signal. Thorium decay $`\overline{\nu }_e`$’s will contribute only to the (positron signal) energy bins below $`1.5MeV`$ whereas Uranium $`\overline{\nu }_e`$’s will contribute to all energy bins below $`E=2.5MeV`$. This fact enables us to separate the thorium neutrino signal from that of uranium. The energy spectrum of $`\overline{\nu }_e`$’s from each of these beta decays can be expressed analytically as follows,

$`\eta _X(E)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle A(Q,Z)\times F(Z,E_\nu )}`$
$`\times `$ $`E_\nu ^2(Q+m_eE_\nu )[(Q+m_eE_\nu )^2m_e^2)]^{1/2}`$
where $`F(Z,E_\nu )`$ is the Fermi function that accounts for the distortion of the spectrum due to Coulomb attraction of the outgoing $`e^{}`$ with the nucleus, the sum is over each of the beta decays in the $`X(=Th,U)`$ decay chain with $`Q`$ value above the $`1.8MeV`$ threshold, $`A(Q,Z)`$ are constants obtained by the normalizing the spectrum for each term in the sum to unity. The remaining terms are kinematical factors for the two body decay (assuming the recoil energy of the nucleus is negligible). Other nuclear physics effects can be parameterized by adjusting the overall normalization to match the tabulated experimental values Behrens  ( we fit the normalization of $`U`$ and $`Th`$ spectrum by requiring that $`I=𝑑E\sigma (E)\eta (E)=0.51(2.52)\times 10^{44}cm^2`$ for Thorium (Uranium) where $`\sigma `$ is the inverse beta decay cross section shown in (9) below.

The neutrino flux from the earth at a location $`\stackrel{}{R}_d`$ of the detector can be expressed as the integral

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_\nu (\stackrel{}{R}_d)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle d^3r\frac{1}{|\stackrel{}{r}\stackrel{}{R}_d|^2}\frac{n_X(\stackrel{}{r})}{\tau _X}P_{ee}(|\stackrel{}{r}\stackrel{}{R}_d|)}`$ (2)
where $`n_X(\stackrel{}{r})`$ is the number density of the radioactive atoms $`X(=U,Th)`$ and $`\tau _X`$ is the lifetime of $`X`$ and $`Pee(|\stackrel{}{r}\stackrel{}{R}_d|)`$ is the $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ survival probability. Assuming that $`n_X(\stackrel{}{r})`$ is approximately constant within a spherical shell, the expression for the flux from a shell of constant density of radioactive atoms can then be written as

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_\nu ={\displaystyle \frac{G_i}{4\pi R_e^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{M_i[X]_i}{\tau _X}}`$ (3)
where $`[X]_i`$ is the number of $`X`$ atoms per unit mass in the shell $`i`$ , $`M_i`$ is the mass of the $`i`$’ th shell and $`R_e`$ is the radius of the earth. The geometrical factor $`G_i`$ depends upon the thickness of the shell at the site of the detector and is given by

$`G_i={\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(x_2^3x_1^3)}}{\displaystyle _{x_1}^{x_2}}𝑑x{\displaystyle _1^1}𝑑\mu {\displaystyle \frac{x^2}{1+x^22\mu x}}P_{ee}`$ (4)
where $`x_1=r_1/R_e,x_2=r_2/R_e`$ are the inner and outer radii of the shell in units of $`R_e`$, $`\mu `$ is the cosine of the angle between the position of the detector, $`\stackrel{}{R}_d`$, and a point $`\stackrel{}{r}`$ inside the shell (the origin of the coordinates is chosen at the center of the earth). The survival probability of $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ is a function of the distance between the detector and the point $`\stackrel{}{x}`$ in the shell and is given explicitly by

$`P_{ee}=1sin^22\theta sin^2\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m^2R_e}{4E_\nu }}(1+x^22\mu x)^{1/2}\right]`$ (5)
Inserting $`P_{ee}`$ in the expression for the geometrical factor and carrying out the integration over the shell thickness $`x`$ and the angular variable $`\mu `$, we can express the energy dependence of $`G_i`$ as

$$G_i(E)=G_i(0)(1\frac{1}{2}Sin^22\theta \times f_i(E))$$
(6)
where $`G_i(0)`$ depends on the shell thickness and $`f_i(E)`$ is slowly varying function of $`E`$ (when $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^210^410^5eV^2`$). For the continental crust, with thickness $`30km`$, $`G_{cc}(0)=3.54`$ and $`f_{cc}(E)`$ is a monotonically decreasing function of the positron signal energy, $`E`$, with $`f_{cc}(0.9)=1.00`$ and $`f_{cc}(2.5)=0.98`$. For the oceanic crust with thickness of about $`6km`$, $`G_{oc}=4.34`$ and $`f_{oc}(E)`$ decreases monotonically from $`f_{oc}(0.9)=0.88`$ to $`f_{oc}(2.5)=0.82`$. For neutrinos coming from the mantle, there is an energy independent suppression, and we have $`G_m(0)=1.5`$ with $`f_m(E)=1`$.

The total contribution to the neutrino flux from the crust and mantle can be written as

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_\nu =\left({\displaystyle \frac{\eta _U(E)}{\tau _U}}+\left[{\displaystyle \frac{Th}{U}}\right]{\displaystyle \frac{\eta _{Th}(E)}{\tau _{Th}}}\right)\left[{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}M_i[U]_ig_iG_i(E)\right]`$
where the index $`i=cc,oc,m`$ denotes the continental crust,oceanic crust and mantle respectively. In the absence of significant chemical segregation of $`U`$ and $`Th`$ the ratio $`([Th]_i/[U]_i)`$ can be taken to be the same in the crust and the mantle. $`g_i`$ is the location parameter which represents the fraction of the the continental crust vis-a-vis the oceanic crust surrounding the detector . For a detector in Japan which has the oceanic crust on one side and the Asian continental crust on the other side we may take $`g_{cc}g_{oc}0.5`$.

The number of detection events $`N_i`$ in an energy bin centered at $`i`$ is,

$$N_i=(n_ptd_{eff})_{iϵ/2}^{i+ϵ/2}𝑑E\sigma (E)\eta _X(E)\mathrm{\Phi }_\nu $$
(8)
where $`n_p`$ number of free target protons in the fiducial volume ($`3.46\times 10^{31}`$ for this experiment) , t is the exposure time ($`145.1days`$) and $`d_{eff}`$ is the detector efficiency ($`78.3\%`$) and $`ϵ`$ is the width of the energy bins ($`0.425MeV`$). The low energy cutoff in KamLAND is $`0.9MeV`$.

The cross section for the $`\overline{\nu }_e+pe^++n`$ reaction is given by vogel1

$$\sigma =0.0952(\frac{E_ep_e}{MeV^2})\times 10^{42}cm^2$$
(9)
where $`E_e=E_\nu (m_nm_p)`$ is the positron energy and $`p_e`$ is the corresponding momentum. Thorium neutrinos have a $`E<1.5MeV`$, whereas Uranium neutrinos contribute in the entire range of $`(E_{min}2.5)MeV`$ (where $`E_{min}=0.9`$ is the threshold of the lowest energy bin). The ratio of the neutrino events in the energy bins between $`(E_{min}1.5)MeV`$, $`N_I`$, and the events in energy bins $`(1.52.5)MeV`$ , $`N_{II}`$, depends only on the Thorium to Uranium ratio $`[Th]/[U]`$, and the spectral shape of $`U`$ and $`Th`$ neutrinos folded with the cross section. The geology factor in the square brackets in (Determination of the age of the earth from Kamland measurement of geo-neutrinos) cancels out as it is independent of energy (to $`\pm 1\%`$). Specifically the ratio of the geo-neutrino events in the two energy ranges can be written in a simple form

$$\frac{N_I}{N_{II}}=\alpha +\left[\frac{Th}{U}\right]\times \beta $$
(10)
where

$$\alpha =\frac{_{E_{min}}^{1.5}𝑑E\sigma (E)\eta _U(E)}{_{1.5}^{2.5}𝑑E\sigma (E)\eta _U(E)}=0.89$$
(11)
and

$$\beta =\frac{\tau _U}{\tau _{Th}}\frac{_{E_{min}}^{1.5}𝑑E\sigma (E)\eta _{Th}(E)}{_{1.5}^{2.5}𝑑E\sigma (E)\eta _U(E)}=0.12.$$
(12)
One can determine the ratio $`N_I/N_{II}`$ and from that determine the global average abundance ratio of Th by U using 10. From the initial r-process abundance otsuki  $`[Th/U]_0=1.169\pm 0.08(1\sigma )`$ and the decay lifetimes of $`U`$ and $`Th`$ ($`\tau _U=6.45Gyrs,\tau _{Th}=20.03Gyrs`$) we can relate the time elapsed (in Giga-years) between between the supernova explosion where the earths $`U,Th`$ were formed and the present,

$$[Th/U]=[Th/U]_0\mathrm{exp}[t_{age}(\frac{1}{6.45}\frac{1}{20.03})].$$
(13)
We can directly relate the age of the earth to the experimentally measured quantity $`N_I/N_{II}`$ as

$$t_{age}=9.45\mathrm{ln}\left[\frac{1}{\beta [Th/U]_0}\left(\frac{N_I}{N_{II}}\alpha \right)\right]Gyrs$$
(14)
We calculate the reactor background using the procedure given in mur . We sum the neutrino flux from $`16`$ reactors using their power production and distances as input and assuming an average fuel composition in the ratio $`{}_{}{}^{235}U:^{238}U:^{239}Pu:^{241}Pu::0.568:0.078:0.297:0.057`$. The reactor neutrino flux is shown in Fig 2. We see that there although there is a significant difference between the reactor flux for the LMA-I and LMA-II solutions kamfit  in the geo-neutrinos energy regime.

The Kamland experiment reports the events in $`(0.91.75)MeV`$ and $`(1.752.6)MeV`$ energy. Using the theoretical spectrum of the $`Th`$ and $`U`$ geo-neutrinos we have distributed the $`67\%`$ of the events in the $`(0.91.75)MeV`$ bin to $`(0.91.5)MeV`$ and $`33\%`$ of this bin have been assigned to the $`(1.52.5)MeV`$ events. In the $`(0.91.5)MeV`$ energy range LMA-II reactor neutrinos are more suppressed than LMA-I, while in the $`(1.52.5)MeV`$ energy range the LMA-I reactor neutrinos are more suppressed than LMA-II. After this reactor signal is subtracted from the KamLAND observed events, the ratio of geo events in the two energy windows , $`N_I/N_{II}`$ will go up as we go from from LMA-I to LMA-II.

In Fig 3. we plot the simulated geo-neutrino events shown by points connected by dotted line - where we have used the input values of $`[Th/U]=3.8,Sin^22\theta =0.88`$, $`M_{cc}(U)=4.2\times 10^{17}kg`$, $`M_{oc}(U)=4.8\times 10^{15}kg`$ and $`M_m(U)=1.23\times 10^{17}kg`$. The geo-neutrino events have no dependence on $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$. In the same figure we have show the experimental points (Kamland events minus the reactor background) where stars represent LMA-I and squares represent LMA-II. Both the LMA-I and LMA-II data points agree with the geo-signal within the $`1\sigma `$ error bars of the KamLAND data points.The $`N_I/N_{II}`$ ratio which can be read off from the graph is considerably large for the LMA-II points compared to the LMA-I points which leads to a large value of $`t_{age}`$ for LMA-II compared to LMA-I. The error in determination of $`t_{age}`$ from KamLAND is estimated as follows. The systematic error in each of $`N_I`$ and $`N_{II}`$ from Table II of kam  is $`6.4\%`$ . The combined systematic and statistical error in $`N_I`$ is $`25\%`$ and in $`N_{II}`$ it is $`26\%`$. The total systematic and statistical error in determination of $`N_I/N_{II}`$ is $`36\%`$. The theoretical uncertainity in the initial r-process prediction of $`[Th/U]`$ is $`5\%`$. The assumption that the geometrical factor $`G_i(E)`$ is energy independent introduces an error of $`1\%`$. Added in quadrature the total error in $`t_{age}`$ is turns out to be $`36.5\%`$. With this error we plot the $`90\%`$ and $`68.3\%`$ allowed region for $`t_{age}`$ as a function of mixing angle in Fig 1. We see that the LMA-II solution does not overlap with the solar system age of $`4.5Gyrs`$ at $`90\%C.L.`$. We emphasize that the LMA-II data points fit the geo events in KamLAND, its the extra constraint of requiring $`N_I/N_{II}1.13`$ (which amounts to $`t_{age}=4.5Gyrs`$) which the LMA-II solution does not fulfill. We must add the cautionary caveat that although there is a large magnification in the ratio $`N_I/N_{II}`$ in going from LMA-I to LMA-II, this ratio is meaningful when $`N_I`$ and $`N_{II}`$ are non-zero. The present KamLAND observations kam  of geo-neutrino events are consistent with zero at $`2\sigma `$, so the conclusions derived in this paper should be treated as $`1\sigma `$ results.

Acknowledgments I thank Anjan Joshipura for his help and for valuable discussions at every stage of this work.