Abstract
We make an attempt to study neutrino phenomenology in the framework of type-III seesaw by considering \(A_4\) modular symmetry in the super-symmetric context. In addition, we have included a local \(U(1)_{B-L}\) symmetry which eventually helps us to avoid certain unwanted terms in the superpotential. Hitherto, the seesaw being type-III, it involves three fermion triplet superfields \(\Sigma _R\), along with which, we have included a singlet weighton field \((\rho )\). In here, modular symmetry plays a crucial role by avoiding the usage of excess flavon (weighton) fields. Also, the Yukawa couplings acquire modular forms which are expressed in terms of Dedekind eta function \(\eta (\tau )\). However, for numerical analysis we use q expansion expressions of these couplings. Therefore, the model discussed here is triumphant enough to accommodate the observed neutrino oscillation data and also successfully explains observed baryon asymmetry of the universe through leptogenesis.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Find the latest articles, discoveries, and news in related topics.Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
1 Introduction
Decades ago when standard model (SM) was built it seemed impeccable, but its foundation was again questioned when some unresolved puzzles came into existence. To name a few, it does not provide any satisfactory explanation to the tininess of neutrino mass [1], neutrino oscillation, strong CP problem, matter–antimatter asymmetry, the nature of dark matter and dark energy, etc. To resolve the issue regarding smallness of neutrino masses within the context of SM, Weinberg operator [2, 3] helps to an extent. However, to demonstrate other phenomena, we need to go beyond standard model (BSM), so introducing right handed (RH) neutrinos becomes a necessity. This becomes the basis of canonical seesaw mechanism, i.e., as soon as these RH neutrinos come into picture, they allow Dirac mass terms for neutrinos. In this regard, type-I seesaw [4,5,6,7] is the simplest one, which includes singlet heavy (\(\simeq 10^{14}\) GeV) RH neutrinos and brings down the mass scale of active neutrinos to 0.1 eV range, as observed from experimental data. Also, there exists other variants of seesaw i.e., type-II [8,9,10,11,12] which incorporates scalar triplets, type-III [13, 14] involving fermion triplets, linear seesaw [15,16,17,18,19] and inverse seesaw [20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27] which are modified type-I seesaw. In this work, we intend to study the case of type-III seesaw in the context of discrete \(A_4\) modular symmetry as it has not been studied earlier in this framework. In general, it is presumed that type III seesaw is more complicated compared to the canonical type I seesaw due to the involvement of triplet fermions. However, it has been shown in Refs. [28, 29] that, in some cases, e.g., realistic SO(10) model, type III seesaw may have less difficulty in reproducing realistic neutrino masses and mixings than the conventional type-I seesaw. Therefore, in this work we would like to investigate the implications of \(A_4\) modular symmetry in the context of type III seesaw for describing the observed neutrino oscillation data.
It is interesting to notice that many non-abelian discrete symmetries i.e., \(S_3\) [30,31,32,33], \(A_4\) [34,35,36,37], \(S_4\) [38,39,40] etc. and continuous symmetries like \(U(1)_{B-L}\) [41,42,43,44,45,46,47], \(U(1)_{L_e-L_\mu }\) [48,49,50,51], \(U(1)_{H}\) [52,53,54,55] etc. come to our rescue to develop the model and generate neutrino mass matrix, which gives results in-accordance with experimental data. Implementation of the discrete non-abelian symmetries demand the usage of excess flavon fields. These flavon insertions make the Yukawa interaction terms non-renormalizable and bring down the predictability of the model. Therefore, a clever approach of modular symmetry [56,57,58,59,60] is introduced to breach the scenario of flavon fields. In here, the approach involves discrete symmetry group because they are isomorphic to finite modular groups, for example, \(\Gamma _2 \simeq S_3\) [61,62,63,64], \(\Gamma _3 \simeq A_4\) [65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73], \(\Gamma _4 \simeq S_4\) [74,75,76,77,78,79,80], \(\Gamma _5 \simeq A_5\) [81,82,83], \(\Gamma ^\prime _5 \simeq A^\prime _5\) [84,85,86,87] etc. We make an attempt to use \(A_4\) modular symmetry, which is isomorphic to \(\Gamma _3\). The alluring feature of modular symmetry is that, it transforms Yukawa couplings i.e., it makes them modular in nature. Therefore, the flexibility to fine tune the Yukawa couplings is lost and now it is governed by the modulus \(\tau \). The involvement of modulus \(\tau \) is seen in the expression of Dedekind eta function, as shown in Eq. (A12), and further the acquisition of VEV by it, helps in the symmetry breaking of the \(A_4\) group. As, \(N=3\) for \(\Gamma _3 \simeq A_4\) is finite, hence, they can be constructed using \(k=1\) being the lowest weight. The dimension of \(\Gamma _3\) being \(2k+1\) (see appendix D of [59]) yielding three linearly independent \(Y_i(\tau )\) shown in Eqs. (A9–A11). These Yukawa couplings are utilised in curating the neutrino mass matrices after applying the \(A_4\) product rules and are implicitly governed by the range of modulus \(\tau \), as will become more clear while performing the analysis numerically. Further, we are able to explain the baryon asymmetry of the universe through leptogenesis [88, 89], because of presence of heavy RH neutrino, which yields the order of lepton asymmetry to be \(\sim 10^{-10}\).
This work is organised as follows. In Sect. 2, we discuss the model framework containing particles contributing towards expressing the superpotential for type-III seesaw and its associated mass matrices. Further, in Sect. 3, we perform the numerical analysis where a common parameter space along with best-fit data set are extracted using chi-square minimization technique using the data of all the phenomena discussed in our model. Additionally, Sect. 4 sheds light on lepton asymmetry generated through leptogenesis, in the context of our model and collider bound on the mass of new gauge boson \(Z^\prime \) is presented in Sect. 5. Finally, in Sect. 6, we conclude our results.
2 Model framework
In order to fulfil our desired goal, we incorporate new particles and assign them suitable charges under extended symmetries (i.e., modular \(A_4\) and \(U(1)_{B-L}\)), as presented in Table 1, such that the superpotential remains invariant. The idea behind the inclusion of \(U(1)_{B-L}\) symmetry along with \(A_4\) modular symmetry is to avoid certain unwanted terms in the superpotential which is not possible by \(A_4\) modular symmetry. The suitability to go beyond standard model (BSM) paves the way to include heavy RH neutrinos \(\Sigma _R\) in our model, which transform as triplet under \(SU(2)_L\), and accompanying these, we have also included a weighton (\(\rho \)). These symmetries are broken at a very high scale, much greater than the scale of electroweak symmetry breaking. The \(U(1)_{B-L}\) symmetry is spontaneously broken by assigning non-zero VEV to the singlet weighton \(\rho \) and the \(Z^\prime \) boson associated with it acquires its mass by the singlet VEV \(v_\rho \). We will show in Sect. 5 that its mass and gauge coupling satisfy the present experimental bounds. Moreover, the non-zero VEV acquired by the singlet weighton helps heavy RH neutrinos to gain mass. We implement modular symmetry because it restricts the usage of excess flavon fields, which otherwise, overfill the particle gamut and reduces the predictability of the model while working in BSM. This becomes possible only because Yukawa couplings acquire modular form and also takeover the job performed by extra flavon fields. In addition, the complete superpotential of our model is represented below,
where, the terms \({\mathcal {W}}_{M_\ell }\), \({\mathcal {W}}_{M_D}\) and \({\mathcal {W}}_{M_R}\) are responsible for generating the mass term for the charged leptons, Dirac mass term for the neutrinos and Majorana mass term for the RH neutrinos and their explicit forms are provided in the following subsections.
Masses of charged leptons
We urge to have a simplified form of charged lepton mass matrix for which we assign \(U(1)_{B-L}\) charge to the right-handed (RH) charged leptons i.e., \(E_{Ri}^c\) as \(+1\), and three generations of left-handed (LH) charged leptons have the value \(-1\). While under \(A_4\) symmetry, RH and LH charged leptons transform as \(\{1, 1^\prime , 1^{\prime \prime }\}\) and {\(1, 1^{\prime \prime }, 1^\prime \)}. In addition, the modular weight assigned to the charged leptons is zero. The Higgsinos \(H_{u,d}\) are given charges 0 and 1 under \(U(1)_{B-L}\) and \(A_4\) symmetry respectively, with zero modular weight. The VEVs of Higgsinos i.e., \((v_u, v_d)\) are related to the SM Higgs VEV \((v_H)\) by a simple equation \(v_H =\frac{1}{2} \sqrt{v_u^2 + v_d^2}\). The ratio of Higgsinos VEV is written as \(\tan \beta = ({v_u}/{v_d}) \simeq 5\) (used in our analysis) [90,91,92]. The admissible superpotential term for the charged lepton sector is given below:
After the electroweak symmetry breaking the mass matrix for the charged leptons takes the diagonal form:
Dirac mass term
The neutral lepton sector gets mass as and when \(H_u\) acquires non-vanishing VEV. To keep Dirac term invariant under \(A_4\) modular group, we need fermion triplets to have charge 3 as Yukawa couplings are triplet (Y=\((y_1,y_2,y_3\))) (Table 2). Hence, the Dirac interaction term of neutral multiplet of fermion triplet with the SM left-handed neutral leptons can be written as:
with \(G_D = \hbox {diag}\{\alpha _1,\alpha _2, \alpha _3\}\), which gives the mass matrix
Majorana mass term
The superpotential for Majorana mass term for right handed neutrinos is given as,
where, \(M^{\prime }_{\Sigma _{}}\) is the free mass parameter and \(\Sigma ^c_{R_i}\) with \((i=1,2,3)\), which can be represented in SU(2) basis as,
Applying \(A_4\) symmetry product rule to Eq. (6), yields both symmetric and anti-symmetric parts with \(\beta _{\Sigma } =\hbox {diag}\{\beta _1, \beta _2, \beta _3\}\) and \(\gamma _{\Sigma } =\hbox {diag}\{\gamma _1, \gamma _2, \gamma _3\}\) being the associated free parameter matrices respectively:
The active neutrino mass matrix in the framework of type-III seesaw is given as,
3 Numerical analysis
The global fit neutrino oscillation data at 3\(\sigma \) interval from [93] is used for numerical analysis, as given in Table 3. The neutrino mass matrix calculated using Eq. (9) is numerically diagonalized using the relation \(U^{\dagger } {\mathcal {M}} U= \textrm{diag}(m_{\nu _1}^2, m_{\nu _2}^2, m_{\nu _3}^2)\), where, \({\mathcal {M}}=m_\nu m_\nu ^{\dagger }\) and U is a unitary matrix, from which the neutrino mixing angles can be derived using the conventional relations:
Other observables related to the mixing angles and phases of PMNS matrix are
The effective Majorana mass parameter \(\langle m_{ee}\rangle \) is expected to have improved sensitivity measured by KamLAND-Zen experiment in coming future [94]. Further, we chose the following model parameter ranges to fit the present neutrino oscillation data:
We consider the free mass parameter (\(M^\prime _\Sigma \)), real and imaginary part of \(\tau \), VEV of weighton (\(v_\rho \)) and cut-off parameter (\(\Lambda \)) randomly in the range given in Eq. (13). The range of \(\tau \) is taken to be \([-0.5,0.5]\) for the real part and [0.75, 2] for the imaginary part, which provides the validity of model to follow normal hierarchy (NH). Considering these ranges, we arbitrarily scrutinise the input values of parameters and extract the best-fit values of those by applying chi-square minimization technique. The approach followed here by considering the general chi-square formula [95, 96], which is utilized for calculating the \(\chi ^2\) values for all the available observables of the neutrino sector, like two mass squared differences and three mixing angles, further yielding cumulative \(\chi ^2\) minimum allowing us to get the values of the free parameters corresponding to the minimum i.e., best-fit values [87, 97]. As there are a large number of free parameters involved in this framework, i.e., total number of free parameters are much larger than the number of observed neutrino oscillation parameters, it is not possible to get a constrained a correlated plot. Therefore, we calculate minimal chi-square and the the associated values of free parameters are considered as the best-fit values of the free parameters. Hence, Table 4 is obtained by keeping the experimentally observed oscillation parameters along with the cosmological bound for sum of neutrino masses \(\Sigma m_{\nu _i} \le 0.12 ~\textrm{eV}\) [98]. We have not mentioned the best-fit values of \(\gamma _\Sigma \) here in the Table 4, since it gives negligible contribution to the observables as compared to \(G_D\) and \(\beta _\Sigma \), hence, conventionally we deal with total six free parameters. As a consequence, the left panel of Fig. 1 projects the correlation between \(\sin ^2\theta _{13}\) w.r.t. \(\sum m_{\nu _i}\), where, the sum of neutrino mass is above its lower bound i.e., 0.058 eV [99], while the right panel shows the inter-dependence of \(\sum m_{\nu _i}\) with (\(\sin ^2 \theta _{12}, \sin ^2 \theta _{23}\)) with grid-lines showing their respective \(3\sigma \) ranges. Moreover, in Fig. 2 the left panel shows an interdependence of \(\sin ^2\theta _{13}\) with Jarlskog invariant \(| J_{CP} |\) whose value is constrained to be \(| J_{CP}| \le 7.1 \times 10^{-3}\). As can be seen in the plot of \(\delta _{CP}\) against \(\sin ^2\theta _{13}\) on the right panel of Fig. 2, \(\delta _{CP}\) is varying in the range [202\(^\circ \)–211\(^\circ \)] while constrained by 3\(\sigma \) bound of \(\sin ^2\theta _{13}\).
The process of neutrinoless double beta decay (NDBD) involves the simultaneous conversion of two neutrons into two protons and two electrons without any emission of neutrinos [100,101,102,103], as shown in the left panel of Fig. 3. In the presence of new heavy neutral fermions, the additional contribution to the NDBD is linked to the mixing between active and heavy neutrinos and is expected to be rather small. The mixing of active and sterile neutrinos is generally described by the parameters \(U_{\alpha i}\) and \(\Theta _{\alpha i}\) which plays a crucial role [104] in the description of neutrinoless double beta decay. Thus, the \(6 \times 6\) neutrino mass matrix takes the form
We can diagonalize it by using the unitary matrix \(\hat{U}\) as \(\hat{U} ^{\dagger } \hat{M} \hat{U}^* = \hat{M}^{diag} \). The seesaw mechanism shows that \(\hat{U}\) at the leading order takes the form [104]
where, U is the PMNS matrix, diagonalizing the light active neutrino mass matrix as
with \(M_\nu = - M_D M_\Sigma ^{-1} M_D^T\) as the light neutrino mass matrix obtained from Type-III seesaw. The eigenstates related to masses \(m_i\) and \(M_\Sigma \) are \(\nu _i\) and \(\Sigma _{R_i}\). The neutrino mixing in the charged current is then induced through
where, the \(3\times 3\) mixing matrix \(\Theta \) is found to at the leading order as
The vertex coupling, thus given as \(V^{v\Sigma } = \frac{1}{v_u} M_D U^{-1} M_\nu ^{-1}\) [105].
Upper left panel shows the correlation in the plane of effective mass parameter \(\langle m_{ee} \rangle \) and \(\sum m_{\nu _i}\), whereas, upper right panel projects the correlation of \(\langle m_{ee} \rangle \) and with lightest neutrino mass \(m_1\) (i.e., \(m_{min}\)). Lower panel shows the correlation Majorana phases \(\alpha _{21}\) and \(\alpha _{31}\)
The right panel of Fig. 3 represents the Feynman diagram due the exchange of the heavy neutrinos \(\Sigma _{Ri}\) consisting all the relevant vertex couplings [105] whose relevance is seen in numerical deductions, due to which the effective mass parameter \(\langle m_{ee} \rangle \) receives additional contribution. We showcase the results in Fig. 4, wherein the upper left (right) panel reflects the behaviour of \(\langle m_{ee} \rangle \) [106, 107] w.r.t. sum of neutrino mass (\(\sum m_{\nu _i}\)) (lightest neutrino mass \(m_{\textrm{min}})\) [108, 109] abiding the KamLAND-Zen bound [110] and the bottom panel shows the correlation between Majorana phases i.e., (\(\alpha _{21}\) and \(\alpha _{31}\)).
Figure 5 shows the dependence of Yukawa couplings on the real and imaginary parts of \(\tau \), while keeping the model parameters at their best-fit values. Finally, in Fig. 6 we show the hierarchical nature of the heavy neutrinos which follow the pattern \(M_{\Sigma _{R_1}} \ll M_{\Sigma _{R_2}} \ll M_{\Sigma _{R_3}}\).
4 Leptogenesis
Considering the fact that the universe had started from an intially symmetric state of baryons and antibaryons, the present baryon asymmetry can be explained, as suggested by Sakharov [111], if the following three criteria are satisfied: Baryon number violation, C and CP violation and departure from thermal equilibrium during the evolution of the universe. Though the SM assures all these criteria for an expanding universe akin ours, the extent of CP violation found in the SM is quite small to accommodate the observed baryon asymmetry of the universe. Therefore, additional sources of CP violation are absolutely essential for explaining this asymmetry. The most common new sources of CP violation possibly could arise in the lepton sector, which is however, not yet firmly established experimentally. Leptogenesis is the phenomenon that furnishes a minimal setup to correlate the CP violation in the lepton sector to the observed baryon asymmetry, as well as imposes indirect constraints on the CP phases from the requirement that it would yield the correct baryon asymmetry. In here, we explore leptogenesis in type-III seesaw model with fermion triplets, where, the lightest heavy fermion is in TeV scale. The general expression for CP asymmetry is mentioned below [112]
where, \(Y_\Sigma =\left( {M_D}/{v_u}\right) \) is the Yukawa matrix of Dirac mass term with its corresponding free parameters given in Eq. (5) and \(U_R\) being the eigenvector matrix of \(M_R\) used for its diagonalization i.e., \(U_R M_R U_R^T\simeq \hbox {diag} \{M_{\Sigma _{R_1}},M_{\Sigma _{R_2}}, M_{\Sigma _{R_3}}\}\). From Eq. (19) it is evident that vertex (\(V_j\)) and self-energy (\(S_j\)) diagrams [112] must contribute to CP asymmetry significantly. However, in the hierarchical limit (i.e., \(M_{\Sigma _{R_1}} \ll M_{\Sigma _{R_{2,3}}}\) and \(M_{\Sigma _{R_2}} \ne M_{\Sigma _{R_3}}\)) they attain the value unity i.e., (\(S_j=V_j=1\)). As, we don’t have the hold on fine tuning of the Yukawa couplings, in order to calculate correct lepton asymmetry, we utilize the following benchmark values as shown in Table 5. Moreover, we also show in Fig. 7 the correlation between the one flavor CP asymmetry i.e., \(\epsilon _{CP}\ {\mathcal {O}} (10^{-4})\)Footnote 1 with the Yukawa couplings within their corresponding ranges i.e., \(0.99 \lesssim y_1 \lesssim 1.015\) (upper left panel), \(0.4 \lesssim y_2 \lesssim 1.3\) (upper right panel) and \(0.1 \lesssim y_3 \lesssim 0.8\) (bottom panel).
Left panel exhibits the comparison of interaction rates with Hubble expansion rate (H) represented by red solid line, where, green solid line corresponds to decay \(\left( \Gamma _D = \Gamma _\Sigma \frac{K_1(z)}{K_2(z)} \right) \) [118], inverse decay (\(\Gamma _{ID} = \Gamma _{D} \left( \nicefrac {Y_\Sigma ^{eq}}{Y_\ell ^{eq}}\right) \)) [119] is shown by dotted orange line and annihilation rate (\(\Gamma _A\)) by dotted purple line. Right panel projects the evolution of \(Y_{B-L}\) (green solid line) as a function of \(z = \frac{M_{\Sigma _{R_1}}}{T}\)
4.1 Boltzmann equations
The dynamics of applicable Boltzmann equations determine the evolution of particle number densities. The Sakharov conditions [111] necessitate the decay of the parent heavy fermion, which must be out of equilibrium in order to generate the lepton asymmetry. To do so, one must compare the Hubble expansion rate to the decay rate, as shown below:
The Hubble rate is defined as \(H = \frac{1.67 \sqrt{g_\star }~ T^2 }{M_{\textrm{Pl}}}\), where, \(g_{\star } = 106.75\) is the number of relativistic degrees of freedom in the thermal bath and \(M_{\textrm{Pl}} = 1.22 \times 10^{19}\) GeV is the Planck mass. The size of the couplings between the triplet fermions and leptons become the determining factor, guaranteeing that inverse decay does not approach thermal equilibrium. For example, if the value is less than or equal to \(10^{-7}\), it gives \(K_{\Sigma _{R_i}} \sim 1\). The Boltzmann equations associated with evolution of the number densities of right-handed fermion field and lepton can be articulated in terms of the yield parameters, i.e., the ratio of number densities to entropy density, and are expressed as [113,114,115,116]
where \(z = M_{\Sigma _{R_i}}/T\), s is the entropy density, and the equilibrium number densities have the form [88]
\(K_{1,2}\) in Eq. (22) represent the modified Bessel functions, the lepton and RH fermion degrees of freedom take the values \(g_\ell =2\) and \(g_{\Sigma _{R_i}}=2\) and the decay rate \(\gamma _D\) is given as
[112, 117], with g being the typical gauge coupling. The comparison of the interaction rates with Hubble expansion rate (H) is displayed in the left panel of Fig. 8, while the solution of Boltzmann Eq. (21) is presented in the right panel. For coupling strength of around (\(\simeq ~ 10^{-7}\)), \(Y_{\Sigma }\) (magenta solid curve) with \(|Y_\Sigma -Y^{\textrm{eq}}_{\Sigma }|\) (blue dashed curve) are shown where the generated lepton asymmetry is around (\(\simeq 10^{-10}\)) (green thick curve). The lepton asymmetry thus obtained can be converted into baryon asymmetry through the sphaleron transition process, and is given as [113, 120, 121]
where, \(n_f\) represents the number of triplet fermion generations, \(n_H\) denotes the no. of Higgs doublets and the factor of 3 comes from the three \(SU(2)_L\) degrees of freedom of the triplets. The observed baryon asymmetry of the universe generally expressed in terms of baryon to photon ratio as [98]
The current bound on baryon asymmetry [122] can be procured from the relation \(Y_{B} = \eta / 7.04\) as \(Y_{B} = (8.6 \pm 0.1)\times 10^{-11} \equiv Y^{obs}_B\). Using the asymptotic value of the lepton asymmetry as (\(8.77 \times 10^{-10}\)) from Fig. 8, we obtain the value of baryon asymmetry as \(Y_{B} =\frac{24}{23}~Y_{B-L} \sim 10^{-10}\).
4.2 A note on flavor consideration
When (\(T>10^{12}\) GeV), one flavor approximation suffices in leptogenesis, indicating that all Yukawa interactions are out of equilibrium. However, at temperatures \(\ll 10^8\) GeV, various charged lepton Yukawa couplings (i.e., each for three generations) come into equilibrium, making flavor effects a crucial factor in determining the final lepton asymmetry. All Yukawa interactions occur in equilibrium at temperatures below \(10^6\) GeV, and the asymmetry is encoded in the individual lepton flavor. Numerous studies on flavor effects in type-I leptogenesis can be found in the literature [123,124,125,126,127,128]. The lower bounds on heavy Majorana masses are relaxed when flavour effects are taken into account, giving more room for low scale leptogenesis [129,130,131]. Given the significance of flavour effects in low scale leptogenesis, we briefly examine their implications in the current framework in relation to the CP asymmetry for each particular lepton flavour (\(\alpha =e,\mu ,\tau \)) given below [132, 133]
The Boltzmann equation describing the generation of \((B-L)\) asymmetry for each lepton flavor is [124]
where, \(\epsilon ^\alpha _{\Sigma }\) i.e., \((\alpha =e,\mu ,\tau )\) represents the CP asymmetry in each lepton flavor
The matrix A is given by [125],
In addition to which we have expressed a plot to show the interdependence of each flavor on \(\delta _{CP}\) in Fig. 9. Subsequently, for the flavor case, benchmark values of CP asymmetry associated with (\(e,\mu , \tau \)) flavors are \(\epsilon _{\Sigma }^e =4.7\times 10^{-4}\), \(\epsilon _{\Sigma }^\mu =5.6\times 10^{-4}\) and \(\epsilon _{\Sigma }^\tau =7.2\times 10^{-4}\) respectively. Therefore, we estimate the \(B-L\) yield with flavor consideration in the left panel of Fig. 10. It is quite obvious to notice that the enhancement in \(B-L\) asymmetry is obtained in case of flavor consideration (green dashed line) over the one flavor approximation (orange solid line), as displayed in the right panel. This is because, in one flavor approximation the decay of the heavy fermion to a particular lepton flavor final state can get washed away by the inverse decays of any flavor unlike the flavored case [126].
5 Collider bound on \(Z'\) mass
As previously mentioned in Sect. 2, the \(U(1)_{B-L}\) gauge symmetry is spontaneously broken by assigning the vacuum expectation value \(v_\rho \) to the singlet scalar \(\rho \). Consequently, the neutral gauge boson \(Z'\) associated with this symmetry becomes massive by absorbing the massless pseudoscalar component of \(\rho \) and its mass is given as,
where, \(g_{BL}\) is the gauge coupling constant of \(U(1)_{B-L}\). The LEP-II provides the constraint on the ratio of mass of \(Z'\) boson to its coupling as \(M_{Z'}/g_{BL} >6.9\) TeV [134]. Hence, in this work we have considered the range of the \(v_\rho \) as [\(10^3-10^4\)] TeV (13), consistent with the LEP-II bound.
The ATLAS and CMS collaborations have performed extensive searches for the new resonances in both dilepton and dijet channels. In the absence of any excess events over the SM background, they put lower bounds on the mass of \(Z'\) boson. These bounds are usually limited to a specific model, and typically the experiments report their results assuming simplified models, like the Sequential Standard Model (SSM) or GUT-inspired \(E_6\) models.
The colored lines represent the dilepton signal cross sections for \(pp \rightarrow Z' \rightarrow ee(\mu \mu )\) as a function of \(M_{Z'}\) for a representative set of \(g_{BL}\) values and the black dashed line symbolizes the ATLAS bound [135]
Recent results from ATLAS [135], provide the lower limits on the \(Z'\) mass from the dilepton search using Run 2 data, collected with the center of mass energy \(\sqrt{s} =13\) TeV. In this work, we use CalcHEP [136] to compute the production cross section of \(Z'\), i.e., \(pp \rightarrow Z' \rightarrow ee(\mu \mu )\). In Fig. 11, we show the \(Z'\) production cross section times the branching fraction of \(Z'\) decaying to dilepton (\(ee,\mu \mu \)) signal as a function of \(M_{Z'}\), for some representative values of the gauge coupling \(g_{BL}=0.03,0.08,0.11\). The black dashed line denotes the dilepton bound from ATLAS [135]. It can be noticed from the figure that the region below \(M_{Z'}\simeq \) 1.3 TeV is excluded for \(g_{BL}= 0.03\) in red color. For \(g_{BL}= 0.08\), \(M_{Z'}< 2.47\) TeV in blue color is ruled out and the mass region of \(M_{Z'} > 2.69\) TeV is allowed for \(g_{BL}= 0.11\) in orange color. Thus, one can generalize these observations as the lower limits on \(M_{Z'}\) increases with the increase of the gauge couplings.
6 Conclusion
We have curated a model involving \( \textrm{A}_4\) modular symmetry and \(U(1)_{B-L }\) gauged symmetry using type-III seesaw mechanism in super-symmetric context in order to realize the neutrino phenomenology and to explain the observed oscillation data. We have incorporated \(SU(2)_L\) triplet fermions (\(\Sigma \)) along with a singlet weighton field (\(\rho \)). The Yukawa couplings acquire modular forms under \(A_4\) modular discrete symmetry, where, acquisition of VEV by modulus \(\tau \) breaks \(A_4\) symmetry. This discrete symmetry is useful in procuring a definite neutrino mass matrix structure. Here, in analysis section numerical diagonalization technique lessens the burden and the predicted results are in accordance to the 3\(\sigma \) bound as obtained through several experiments. We can extract the best fit values for the model parameters using the Chi-square minimization approach, which helps us find strong correlations between the observables. As a consequence, we obtain the sum of active neutrino masses \(\sum m_{\nu _i}\) within \([0.058-0.12]\) eV and mixing angles are seen to be within their 3\(\sigma \) ranges. The model engenders neutrinoless double beta decay mass parameter \(\langle m_{ee} \rangle \) between 0.0039 and 0.0087, which assures the limit coming from KamLAND-Zen experiment. Also, Majorana phases \(\alpha _{21}\) and \(\alpha _{31}\) are revealed in the range \([0^\circ ,80^\circ ]\) and \([0^\circ ,360^\circ ]\) respectively. Proceeding further, the results for \(\delta _{\textrm{CP}}\) and Jarlskog invariant \(J_{\textrm{CP}}\) is seen to be within \([202^{\circ },211^\circ ]\) and [5.5,7.1] \(\times 10^{-3}\) respectively establishing a strong correlation. Further, as there is an hierarchical mass difference between the heavy fermions (\(M_\Sigma \)) in the model with \(M_{\Sigma _{R_1}}\), \(M_{\Sigma _{R_2}}\) and \(M_{\Sigma _{R_3}}\) are found to be within the range [\(6-8.5\)] TeV, [\(50-110\)] TeV and [\(2000-4500\)] TeV respectively, hence, the decay of lightest one gives rise to non-zero CP asymmetry. The lepton asymmetry coming from Boltzmann equation is \(\simeq 10^{-10}\), and hence explains the baryon asymmetry of the Universe and also we have discussed the flavor effects as our lightest heavy fermion is in TeV scale. Additionally, we have discussed the mass of the new neutral \(Z^\prime \) gauge boson associated with \(U (1)_{B-L}\) symmetry which is within the present experimental collider bounds.
Data Availability Statement
This manuscript has no associated data or the data will not be deposited. [Authors’ comment: Since this work is of theoretical nature, there is no data to deposit.]
Notes
It is to note that the ranges of the Yukawa couplings are same as in neutrino sector but in Fig. 5 the plots are expressed in log scale while implementing \(\chi ^2\) minimisation, hence, suppressing the upper bounds and magnifying the lower bounds more prominently, therefore the ranges might look different due to different scales utilized.
References
E. Ma, Pathways to naturally small neutrino masses. Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 1171 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.81.1171. arXiv:hep-ph/9805219
S. Weinberg, Baryon and lepton nonconserving processes. Phys. Rev. Lett. 43, 1566 (1979). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.43.1566
A. Abada, C. Biggio, F. Bonnet, M.B. Gavela, T. Hambye, Low energy effects of neutrino masses. JHEP 12, 061 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1088/1126-6708/2007/12/061. arXiv:0707.4058
P. Minkowski, \(\mu \rightarrow e\gamma \) at a rate of one out of \(10^{9}\) muon decays? Phys. Lett. B 67, 421 (1977). https://doi.org/10.1016/0370-2693(77)90435-X
T. Yanagida, Horizontal gauge symmetry and masses of neutrinos. Conf. Proc. C 7902131, 95 (1979)
S.L. Glashow, The future of elementary particle physics. NATO Sci. Ser. B 61, 687 (1980). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4684-7197-7_15
R.N. Mohapatra, G. Senjanovic, Neutrino mass and spontaneous parity nonconservation. Phys. Rev. Lett. 44, 912 (1980). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.44.912
R.N. Mohapatra, G. Senjanovic, Neutrino masses and mixings in gauge models with spontaneous parity violation. Phys. Rev. D 23, 165 (1981). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.23.165
S. Antusch, S.F. King, Type II leptogenesis and the neutrino mass scale. Phys. Lett. B 597, 199 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2004.07.009. arXiv:hep-ph/0405093
P.-H. Gu, H. Zhang, S. Zhou, A minimal type II seesaw model. Phys. Rev. D 74, 076002 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.74.076002. arXiv:hep-ph/0606302
A. Arhrib, R. Benbrik, M. Chabab, G. Moultaka, M.C. Peyranere, L. Rahili et al., The Higgs potential in the type II seesaw model. Phys. Rev. D 84, 095005 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.84.095005. arXiv:1105.1925
D.K. Ghosh, N. Ghosh, I. Saha, A. Shaw, Revisiting the high-scale validity of the type II seesaw model with novel LHC signature. Phys. Rev. D 97, 115022 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.97.115022. arXiv:1711.06062
R. Foot, H. Lew, X.G. He, G.C. Joshi, Seesaw neutrino masses induced by a triplet of leptons. Z. Phys. C 44, 441 (1989). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01415558
Y. Liao, J.-Y. Liu, G.-Z. Ning, Radiative neutrino mass in type III seesaw model. Phys. Rev. D 79, 073003 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.79.073003. arXiv:0902.1434
E. Ma, Deciphering the seesaw nature of neutrino mass from unitarity violation. Mod. Phys. Lett. A 24, 2161 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1142/S0217732309031776. arXiv:0904.1580
W. Wang, Z.-L. Han, Radiative linear seesaw model, dark matter, and \(U(1)_{B-L}\). Phys. Rev. D 92, 095001 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.92.095001. arXiv:1508.00706
D. Borah, B. Karmakar, Linear seesaw for Dirac neutrinos with \(A_4\) flavour symmetry. Phys. Lett. B 789, 59 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2018.12.006. arXiv:1806.10685
A.E. Cárcamo Hernández, L.T. Hue, S. Kovalenko, H.N. Long, An extended 3-3-1 model with two scalar triplets and linear seesaw mechanism. Eur. Phys. J. Plus 136, 1158 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1140/epjp/s13360-021-02146-9. arXiv:2001.01748
M. Sruthilaya, R. Mohanta, S. Patra, \(A_4\) realization of linear seesaw and neutrino phenomenology. Eur. Phys. J. C 78, 719 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-018-6181-6. arXiv:1709.01737
M. Hirsch, S. Morisi, J.W.F. Valle, A4-based tri-bimaximal mixing within inverse and linear seesaw schemes. Phys. Lett. B 679, 454 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2009.08.003. arXiv:0905.3056
P.-H. Gu, U. Sarkar, Leptogenesis with linear, inverse or double seesaw. Phys. Lett. B 694, 226 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2010.09.062. arXiv:1007.2323
A. Das, N. Okada, Inverse seesaw neutrino signatures at the LHC and ILC. Phys. Rev. D 88, 113001 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.88.113001. arXiv:1207.3734
E. Arganda, M.J. Herrero, X. Marcano, C. Weiland, Imprints of massive inverse seesaw model neutrinos in lepton flavor violating Higgs boson decays. Phys. Rev. D 91, 015001 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.91.015001. arXiv:1405.4300
A.G. Dias, C.A. de S. Pires, P.S. Rodrigues da Silva, A. Sampieri, A simple realization of the inverse seesaw mechanism. Phys. Rev. D 86, 035007 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.86.035007. arXiv:1206.2590
P.S.B. Dev, A. Pilaftsis, Minimal radiative neutrino mass mechanism for inverse seesaw models. Phys. Rev. D 86, 113001 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.86.113001. arXiv:1209.4051
A.G. Dias, C.A. de S. Pires, P.S.R. da Silva, How the inverse see-saw mechanism can reveal itself natural, canonical and independent of the right-handed neutrino mass. Phys. Rev. D 84, 053011 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.84.053011. arXiv:1107.0739
F. Bazzocchi, Minimal dynamical inverse see saw. Phys. Rev. D 83, 093009 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.83.093009. arXiv:1011.6299
S.M. Barr, A different seesaw formula for neutrino masses. Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 101601 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.92.101601. arXiv:hep-ph/0309152
C.H. Albright, S.M. Barr, Leptogenesis in the type III seesaw mechanism. Phys. Rev. D 69, 073010 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.69.073010. arXiv:hep-ph/0312224
E. Ma, Non-Abelian discrete symmetries and neutrino masses: two examples. New J. Phys. 6, 104 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/6/1/104. arXiv:hep-ph/0405152
J. Kubo, A. Mondragon, M. Mondragon, E. Rodriguez-Jauregui, The flavor symmetry. Prog. Theor. Phys. 109, 795 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1143/PTP.109.795. arXiv:hep-ph/0302196
S. Pakvasa, H. Sugawara, Discrete symmetry and Cabibbo angle. Phys. Lett. B 73, 61 (1978). https://doi.org/10.1016/0370-2693(78)90172-7
E. Ma, R. Srivastava, Dirac or inverse seesaw neutrino masses with \(B-L\) gauge symmetry and \(S_3\) flavor symmetry. Phys. Lett. B 741, 217 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2014.12.049. arXiv:1411.5042
E. Ma, G. Rajasekaran, Softly broken A(4) symmetry for nearly degenerate neutrino masses. Phys. Rev. D 64, 113012 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.64.113012. arXiv:hep-ph/0106291
K.S. Babu, E. Ma, J.W.F. Valle, Underlying A(4) symmetry for the neutrino mass matrix and the quark mixing matrix. Phys. Lett. B 552, 207 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0370-2693(02)03153-2. arXiv:hep-ph/0206292
G. Altarelli, F. Feruglio, Tri-bimaximal neutrino mixing from discrete symmetry in extra dimensions. Nucl. Phys. B 720, 64 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2005.05.005. arXiv:hep-ph/0504165
E. Ma, A(4) symmetry and neutrinos with very different masses. Phys. Rev. D 70, 031901 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.70.031901. arXiv:hep-ph/0404199
E. Ma, Neutrino mass matrix from S(4) symmetry. Phys. Lett. B 632, 352 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2005.10.019. arXiv:hep-ph/0508231
R. Krishnan, P.F. Harrison, W.G. Scott, Simplest neutrino mixing from S4 symmetry. JHEP 04, 087 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP04(2013)087. arXiv:1211.2000
W. Grimus, L. Lavoura, P.O. Ludl, Is S(4) the horizontal symmetry of tri-bimaximal lepton mixing? J. Phys. G 36, 115007 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1088/0954-3899/36/11/115007. arXiv:0906.2689
S. Mishra, M.K. Behera, R. Mohanta, S. Patra, S. Singirala, Neutrino phenomenology and dark matter in an \(A_4\) flavour extended \(BL\) model. Eur. Phys. J. C 80, 420 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-020-7968-9. arXiv:1907.06429
E. Ma, R. Srivastava, Dirac or inverse seesaw neutrino masses from gauged \(B-L\) symmetry. Mod. Phys. Lett. A 30, 1530020 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1142/S0217732315300207. arXiv:1504.00111
S. Singirala, R. Mohanta, S. Patra, Singlet scalar dark matter in \(U(1)_{B-L}\) models without right-handed neutrinos. Eur. Phys. J. Plus 133, 477 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1140/epjp/i2018-12270-0. arXiv:1704.01107
S. Singirala, R. Mohanta, S. Patra, S. Rao, Majorana dark matter in a new \(BL\) model. JCAP 11, 026 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2018/11/026. arXiv:1710.05775
T. Nomura, H. Okada, Neutrinophilic two Higgs doublet model with dark matter under an alternative \(U(1)_{B-L}\) gauge symmetry. Eur. Phys. J. C 78, 189 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-018-5667-6. arXiv:1708.08737
T. Nomura, H. Okada, Radiative neutrino mass in an alternative \(U(1)_{B-L}\) gauge symmetry. Nucl. Phys. B 941, 586 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2019.02.025. arXiv:1705.08309
T. Nomura, H. Okada, A radiative seesaw model with higher order terms under an alternative \(U(1)_{B-L}\). Phys. Lett. B 781, 561 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2018.04.034. arXiv:1711.05115
M.K. Behera, P. Panda, P. Mishra, S. Singirala, R. Mohanta, Exploring neutrino masses and mixing in the seesaw model with \({L_e-L_j}\) gauged symmetry. arXiv:2108.04066
R. Foot, New physics from electric charge quantization? Mod. Phys. Lett. A 6, 527 (1991). https://doi.org/10.1142/S0217732391000543
P. Panda, P. Mishra, M.K. Behera, R. Mohanta, Neutrino phenomenology, muon and electron (g-2) under \(U(1)\) gauged symmetries in an extended inverse seesaw model. arXiv:2203.14536
X.-G. He, G.C. Joshi, H. Lew, R.R. Volkas, Simplest Z-prime model. Phys. Rev. D 44, 2118 (1991). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.44.2118
E. Nardi, Horizontal \(U(1)_H\) symmetry: a non-anomalous model. PoS silafae–III, 023 (2000). https://doi.org/10.22323/1.005.0023. arXiv:hep-ph/0009329
L.E. Ibanez, G.G. Ross, Fermion masses and mixing angles from gauge symmetries. Phys. Lett. B 332, 100 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1016/0370-2693(94)90865-6. arXiv:hep-ph/9403338
P. Binetruy, P. Ramond, Yukawa textures and anomalies. Phys. Lett. B 350, 49 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1016/0370-2693(95)00297-X. arXiv:hep-ph/9412385
Y. Nir, Gauge unification, Yukawa hierarchy and the mu problem. Phys. Lett. B 354, 107 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1016/0370-2693(95)00619-V. arXiv:hep-ph/9504312
S. Ferrara, D. Lust, A.D. Shapere, S. Theisen, Modular invariance in supersymmetric field theories. Phys. Lett. B 225, 363 (1989). https://doi.org/10.1016/0370-2693(89)90583-2
S. Ferrara, D. Lust, S. Theisen, Target space modular invariance and low-energy couplings in orbifold compactifications. Phys. Lett. B 233, 147 (1989). https://doi.org/10.1016/0370-2693(89)90631-X
G.K. Leontaris, N.D. Tracas, Modular weights, U(1)’s and mass matrices. Phys. Lett. B 419, 206 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0370-2693(97)01412-3. arXiv:hep-ph/9709510
F. Feruglio, Are neutrino masses modular forms?, in From My Vast Repertoire... Guido Altarelli’s Legacy (World Scientific, 2019), p. 227–266
S.J.D. King, S.F. King, Fermion mass hierarchies from modular symmetry. JHEP 09, 043 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP09(2020)043. arXiv:2002.00969
H. Okada, Y. Orikasa, Modular \(S_3\) symmetric radiative seesaw model. Phys. Rev. D 100, 115037 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.100.115037. arXiv:1907.04716
T. Kobayashi, K. Tanaka, T.H. Tatsuishi, Neutrino mixing from finite modular groups. Phys. Rev. D 98, 016004 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.98.016004. arXiv:1803.10391
T. Kobayashi, Y. Shimizu, K. Takagi, M. Tanimoto, T.H. Tatsuishi, H. Uchida, Finite modular subgroups for fermion mass matrices and baryon/lepton number violation. Phys. Lett. B 794, 114 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2019.05.034. arXiv:1812.11072
T. Kobayashi, Y. Shimizu, K. Takagi, M. Tanimoto, T.H. Tatsuishi, Modular \(S_3\)-invariant flavor model in SU(5) grand unified theory. PTEP 2020, 053B05 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1093/ptep/ptaa055. arXiv:1906.10341
M.K. Behera, S. Singirala, S. Mishra, R. Mohanta, A modular A \(_{4}\) symmetric scotogenic model for neutrino mass and dark matter. J. Phys. G 49, 035002 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6471/ac3cc2. arXiv:2009.01806
T. Nomura, H. Okada, Y. Shoji, \(SU(4)_C \times SU(2)_L \times U(1)_R\) models with modular \(A_4\) symmetry. arXiv:2206.04466
M. Kashav, S. Verma, On Minimal realization of topological lorentz structures with one-loop seesaw extensions in A\(_4\) modular symmetry. arXiv:2205.06545
M. Kashav, S. Verma, Broken scaling neutrino mass matrix and leptogenesis based on A\(_{4}\) modular invariance. JHEP 09, 100 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP09(2021)100. arXiv:2103.07207
M.K. Behera, S. Mishra, S. Singirala, R. Mohanta, Implications of \(A_4\) modular symmetry on neutrino mass, mixing and leptogenesis with linear seesaw. arXiv:2007.00545
T. Asaka, Y. Heo, T. Yoshida, Lepton flavor model with modular \(A_4\) symmetry in large volume limit. Phys. Lett. B 811, 135956 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2020.135956. arXiv:2009.12120
M. Abbas, Modular \({A}_{{4}}\) invariance model for lepton masses and mixing. Phys. Atom. Nucl. 83, 764 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1134/S1063778820050038
H. Okada, Y. Shoji, A radiative seesaw model with three Higgs doublets in modular \(A_4\) symmetry. Nucl. Phys. B 961, 115216 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2020.115216. arXiv:2003.13219
G. Altarelli, F. Feruglio, ‘, Tri-bimaximal neutrino mixing, A(4) and the modular symmetry. Nucl. Phys. B 741, 215 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2006.02.015. arXiv:hep-ph/0512103
T. Kobayashi, Y. Shimizu, K. Takagi, M. Tanimoto, T.H. Tatsuishi, \(A_4\) lepton flavor model and modulus stabilization from \(S_4\) modular symmetry. Phys. Rev. D 100, 115045 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.100.115045. arXiv:1909.05139
X. Wang, S. Zhou, The minimal seesaw model with a modular S\(_{4}\) symmetry. JHEP 05, 017 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP05(2020)017. arXiv:1910.09473
H. Okada, Y. Orikasa, Neutrino mass model with a modular \(S_4\) symmetry. arXiv:1908.08409
S.F. King, Y.-L. Zhou, Trimaximal TM\(_1\) mixing with two modular \(S_4\) groups. Phys. Rev. D 101, 015001 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.101.015001. arXiv:1908.02770
T. Kobayashi, Y. Shimizu, K. Takagi, M. Tanimoto, T.H. Tatsuishi, New \(A_4\) lepton flavor model from \(S_4\) modular symmetry. JHEP 02, 097 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP02(2020)097. arXiv:1907.09141
P.P. Novichkov, J.T. Penedo, S.T. Petcov, A.V. Titov, Modular S\(_{4}\) models of lepton masses and mixing. JHEP 04, 005 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP04(2019)005. arXiv:1811.04933
J.T. Penedo, S.T. Petcov, Lepton masses and mixing from modular \(S_4\) symmetry. Nucl. Phys. B 939, 292 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2018.12.016. arXiv:1806.11040
J.C. Criado, F. Feruglio, S.J.D. King, Modular invariant models of lepton masses at levels 4 and 5. JHEP 02, 001 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP02(2020)001. arXiv:1908.11867
P.P. Novichkov, J.T. Penedo, S.T. Petcov, A.V. Titov, Modular A\(_{5}\) symmetry for flavour model building. JHEP 04, 174 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP04(2019)174. arXiv:1812.02158
G.-J. Ding, S.F. King, X.-G. Liu, Neutrino mass and mixing with \(A_5\) modular symmetry. Phys. Rev. D 100, 115005 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.100.115005. arXiv:1903.12588
M.K. Behera, R. Mohanta, Inverse seesaw in \(A_5^\prime \) modular symmetry. J. Phys. G 49, 045001 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6471/ac4d7a. arXiv:2108.01059
M.K. Behera, R. Mohanta, Linear seesaw in \(A^\prime _5\) modular symmetry with leptogenesis. arXiv:2201.10429
C.-Y. Yao, X.-G. Liu, G.-J. Ding, Fermion masses and mixing from the double cover and metaplectic cover of the \(A_5\) modular group. Phys. Rev. D 103, 095013 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.103.095013. arXiv:2011.03501
X. Wang, B. Yu, S. Zhou, Double covering of the modular \(A_5\) group and lepton flavor mixing in the minimal seesaw model. Phys. Rev. D 103, 076005 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.103.076005. arXiv:2010.10159
S. Davidson, E. Nardi, Y. Nir, Leptogenesis. Phys. Rep. 466, 105 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2008.06.002. arXiv:0802.2962
M. Fukugita, T. Yanagida, Baryogenesis without grand unification. Phys. Lett. B 174, 45 (1986). https://doi.org/10.1016/0370-2693(86)91126-3
S. Antusch, V. Maurer, Running quark and lepton parameters at various scales. JHEP 11, 115 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP11(2013)115. arXiv:1306.6879
H. Okada, M. Tanimoto, Towards unification of quark and lepton flavors in \(A_4\) modular invariance. Eur. Phys. J. C 81, 52 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-021-08845-y. arXiv:1905.13421
F. Björkeroth, F.J. de Anda, I. de Medeiros Varzielas, S.F. King, Towards a complete A\(_{4} \times \) SU(5) SUSY GUT. JHEP 06, 141 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP06(2015)141. arXiv:1503.03306
I. Esteban, M.C. Gonzalez-Garcia, M. Maltoni, T. Schwetz, A. Zhou, The fate of hints: updated global analysis of three-flavor neutrino oscillations. JHEP 09, 178 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP09(2020)178. arXiv:2007.14792
KamLAND-Zen collaboration, Search for Majorana Neutrinos near the Inverted Mass Hierarchy Region with KamLAND-Zen. Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 082503 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.082503. arXiv:1605.02889
B. Roe, Chi-square fitting when overall normalization is a fit parameter. arXiv:1506.09077
G.-J. Ding, S.F. King, J.-N. Lu, SO(10) models with A\(_{4}\) modular symmetry. JHEP 11, 007 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP11(2021)007. arXiv:2108.09655
P.P. Novichkov, J.T. Penedo, S.T. Petcov, Double cover of modular \(S_4\) for flavour model building. Nucl. Phys. B 963, 115301 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2020.115301. arXiv:2006.03058
Planck collaboration, Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters. Astron. Astrophys. 641, A6 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201833910. arXiv:1807.06209
S. Roy Choudhury, S. Hannestad, Updated results on neutrino mass and mass hierarchy from cosmology with Planck 2018 likelihoods. JCAP 07, 037 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2020/07/037. arXiv:1907.12598
A. Nucciotti, Double beta decay: experiments and theory review. eConf C070512, 025 (2007). arXiv:0707.2216
KATRIN collaboration, KATRIN: an experiment to determine the neutrino mass from the beta decay of tritium, in Community Summer Study 2013: Snowmass on the Mississippi, 7 (2013). arXiv:1307.5486
L. Cardani, Neutrinoless double beta decay overview. SciPost Phys. Proc. 1, 024 (2019). https://doi.org/10.21468/SciPostPhysProc.1.024. arXiv:1810.12828
M.J. Dolinski, A.W.P. Poon, W. Rodejohann, Neutrinoless double-beta decay: status and prospects. Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 69, 219 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-nucl-101918-023407. arXiv:1902.04097
T. Asaka, S. Eijima, H. Ishida, Mixing of active and sterile neutrinos. JHEP 04, 011 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP04(2011)011. arXiv:1101.1382
N. Dash, S. Patra, P. Pritimita, U.A. Yajnik, Effect of large light-heavy neutrino mixing and natural type-II seesaw dominance to lepton flavor violation and neutrinoless double beta decay. Eur. Phys. J. C 82, 847 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-022-10804-0. arXiv:2105.11795
M. Agostini, G. Benato, J.A. Detwiler, J. Menéndez, F. Vissani, Toward the discovery of matter creation with neutrinoless double-beta decay. arXiv:2202.01787
S.F. King, A. Merle, A.J. Stuart, The power of neutrino mass sum rules for neutrinoless double beta decay experiments. JHEP 12, 005 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP12(2013)005. arXiv:1307.2901
J. Gehrlein, M. Spinrath, Leptonic sum rules from flavour models with modular symmetries. JHEP 03, 177 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP03(2021)177. arXiv:2012.04131
J. Barry, W. Rodejohann, Neutrino mass sum-rules in flavor symmetry models. Nucl. Phys. B 842, 33 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2010.08.015. arXiv:1007.5217
KamLAND-Zen collaboration, First search for the majorana nature of neutrinos in the inverted mass ordering region with KamLAND-Zen. arXiv:2203.02139
A.D. Sakharov, Violation of CP invariance, c asymmetry, and baryon asymmetry of the universe. Pisma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 5, 32 (1967). https://doi.org/10.1070/PU1991v034n05ABEH002497
T. Hambye, Leptogenesis: beyond the minimal type I seesaw scenario. New J. Phys. 14, 125014 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/14/12/125014. arXiv:1212.2888
M. Plumacher, Baryogenesis and lepton number violation. Z. Phys. C 74, 549 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1007/s002880050418. arXiv:hep-ph/9604229
G.F. Giudice, A. Notari, M. Raidal, A. Riotto, A. Strumia, Towards a complete theory of thermal leptogenesis in the SM and MSSM. Nucl. Phys. B 685, 89 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2004.02.019. arXiv:hep-ph/0310123
W. Buchmuller, P. Di Bari, M. Plumacher, Leptogenesis for pedestrians. Ann. Phys. 315, 305 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aop.2004.02.003. arXiv:hep-ph/0401240
S. Iso, N. Okada, Y. Orikasa, Resonant leptogenesis in the minimal B-L extended standard model at TeV. Phys. Rev. D 83, 093011 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.83.093011. arXiv:1011.4769
S. Mishra, Neutrino mixing and Leptogenesis with modular \(S_3\) symmetry in the framework of type III seesaw. arXiv:2008.02095
S. Davidson, M. Elmer, Similar dark matter and baryon abundances with TeV-scale leptogenesis. JHEP 10, 148 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP10(2012)148. arXiv:1208.0551
A. Strumia, Baryogenesis via leptogenesis. Les Houches Summer School on Theoretical Physics: Session 84: Particle Physics Beyond the Standard Model 8, 655–680 (2006). arXiv:hep-ph/0608347
D. Vatsyayan, S. Goswami, Low-scale Fermion triplet leptogenesis. arXiv:2208.12011
J.A. Harvey, M.S. Turner, Cosmological baryon and lepton number in the presence of electroweak fermion number violation. Phys. Rev. D 42, 3344 (1990). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.42.3344
S. Aharony Shapira, Current bounds on baryogenesis from complex Yukawa couplings of light fermions. Phys. Rev. D 105, 095037 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.105.095037. arXiv:2106.05338
S. Pascoli, S.T. Petcov, A. Riotto, Leptogenesis and low energy CP violation in neutrino physics. Nucl. Phys. B 774, 1 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2007.02.019. arXiv:hep-ph/0611338
S. Antusch, S.F. King, A. Riotto, Flavour-dependent leptogenesis with sequential dominance. JCAP 11, 011 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2006/11/011. arXiv:hep-ph/0609038
E. Nardi, Y. Nir, E. Roulet, J. Racker, The importance of flavor in leptogenesis. JHEP 01, 164 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1088/1126-6708/2006/01/164. arXiv:hep-ph/0601084
A. Abada, S. Davidson, A. Ibarra, F.X. Josse-Michaux, M. Losada, A. Riotto, Flavour matters in leptogenesis. JHEP 09, 010 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1088/1126-6708/2006/09/010. arXiv:hep-ph/0605281
A. Granelli, K. Moffat, S.T. Petcov, Flavoured resonant leptogenesis at sub-TeV scales. Nucl. Phys. B 973, 115597 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2021.115597. arXiv:2009.03166
P.S.B. Dev, P. Di Bari, B. Garbrecht, S. Lavignac, P. Millington, D. Teresi, Flavor effects in leptogenesis. Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 33, 1842001 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1142/S0217751X18420010. arXiv:1711.02861
A. Abada, G. Arcadi, V. Domcke, M. Drewes, J. Klaric, M. Lucente, Low-scale leptogenesis with three heavy neutrinos. JHEP 01, 164 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP01(2019)164. arXiv:1810.12463
M. Drewes, Y. Georis, C. Hagedorn, J. Klarić, Low-scale leptogenesis with flavour and CP symmetries. arXiv:2203.08538
T. Alanne, T. Hugle, M. Platscher, K. Schmitz, Low-scale leptogenesis assisted by a real scalar singlet. JCAP 03, 037 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2019/03/037. arXiv:1812.04421
P.S.B. Dev, TeV scale leptogenesis. Springer Proc. Phys. 174, 245 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-25619-1_38. arXiv:1506.00837
S. Mishra, S. Singirala, S. Sahoo, Scalar dark matter, neutrino mass and leptogenesis in a U(1)\(_{BL}\) model. J. Phys. G 48, 075003 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6471/abd83f. arXiv:1908.09187
ALEPH, DELPHI, L3, OPAL, LEP Electroweak collaboration, Electroweak measurements in electron-positron collisions at W-boson-pair energies at LEP. Phys. Rep. 532, 119 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2013.07.004. arXiv:1302.3415
ATLAS collaboration, Search for high-mass dilepton resonances using 139 fb\(^{-1}\) of \(pp\) collision data collected at \(\sqrt{s}=\)13 TeV with the ATLAS detector. Phys. Lett. B 796, 68 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2019.07.016. arXiv:1903.06248
A. Belyaev, N.D. Christensen, A. Pukhov, CalcHEP 3.4 for collider physics within and beyond the Standard Model. Comput. Phys. Commun. 184, 1729 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpc.2013.01.014. arXiv:1207.6082
Acknowledgements
PM and PP want to thank Prime Minister’s Research Fellowship (PMRF) scheme for its financial support. MKB wants to thank DST-Inspire for financial help. RM would like to acknowledge University of Hyderabad IoE project grant no. RC1-20-012. The use of CMSD HPC facility of Univ. of Hyderabad to carry out computational work is duly acknowledged. We thank Purushottam Sahu and Dr. Shivaramakrishna Singirala for useful discussion.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix A: \(A_4\) modular symmetry
Appendix A: \(A_4\) modular symmetry
\(\textrm{A}_4\) group is the alternating group of even permutations of four entries. It is isomorphic to the tetrahedral symmetry. The generators of the group S and T, following the relations,
Group formed by the generators S and T is the inhomogeneous modular group \(\bar{\Gamma }\) and the transformations are abbreviated as follows [59, 60]
Representation of S and T in the SL(2,\({\mathbb {Z}}\) ) group is,
A group of linear fractional transformations forms the modular group, which transforms the modulus \(\tau \) in the upper half-plane [Im(\(\tau \)) > 0],
and the mapping,
is an isomorphism from the modular group. Following is the series of groups \(\Gamma (N)\), where \(\hbox {N}=1, 2, 3...\),
where, \(\Gamma = \hbox {SL}(2,{\mathbb {Z}})\) is homogeneous modular group and \(\Gamma \)(N). The group \(\Gamma \)(N) operates on the complex modulus \(\tau \), in the upper half plane as the linear fractional transformation,
A significant modular invariant element is the modular function \(f(\tau )\) which is holomorphic function of \(\tau \) with level N and modular weight 2k, under \(\Gamma (N)\) is,
Here, N can vary according to the symmetry group \(\textrm{A}_4\), \(\textrm{S}_3\), \(\textrm{S}_4\), or \(\textrm{A}_5\). In reference [60], it is given that for \(\hbox {N} = 2\), 3, 4, and 5; \(\Gamma _2\), \(\Gamma _3\), \(\Gamma _4\) and \(\Gamma _5\) are isomorphic to \(\textrm{S}_3\), \(\textrm{A}_4\), \(\textrm{S}_4\), and \(\textrm{A}_5\) respectively. The modular forms of \(A_4\) triplet Yukawa couplings read as,
where \(\eta (\tau )\) is Dedekind eta-function which can be defined in the upper half plane of the complex plane.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Funded by SCOAP3. SCOAP3 supports the goals of the International Year of Basic Sciences for Sustainable Development.
About this article
Cite this article
Mishra, P., Behera, M.K., Panda, P. et al. Type III seesaw under \(A_4\) modular symmetry with leptogenesis. Eur. Phys. J. C 82, 1115 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-022-11074-6
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-022-11074-6