text:
# Adhesion-induced phase separation of multiple species of membrane junctions

## I Introduction

Adhesion of membranes is responsible for cell adhesion which plays an important role in embryological development, immune response, and the pathology of tumors ref:alberts\_book . In many cases, membrane adhesion in biological systems is mediated by the specific attractive interactions between complementary pairs of ligands and receptors which are anchored in the membranes. ref:lipowsky\_book\_95  At the same time, the adhesion between multi-component bio-membranes or biomimetic membranes is also intimately related to domain formation. ref:sackmann\_BJ\_97 ; ref:sackmann\_EPL\_97 ; ref:sackmann\_PRE\_00 ; ref:lipowsky\_PRE\_00 ; ref:lipowsky\_PRE\_01 ; ref:andelman\_EPE\_00 ; ref:bruinsma\_PRL\_95 ; ref:andelman\_EPE\_02 ; ref:lipowsky\_EPL\_02  When the membrane adhesion is mediated by the specific lock-and-key type of bonds between the anchored ligands and receptors, i.e., junctions, adhesion-induced lateral phase separations have been observed in many experiments in biomimetic systems ref:sackmann\_BJ\_97 ; ref:sackmann\_EPL\_97 ; ref:sackmann\_PRE\_00 . Theoretical models and Monte Carlo simulations ref:lipowsky\_PRE\_00 ; ref:lipowsky\_PRE\_01 ; ref:andelman\_EPE\_00 ; ref:bruinsma\_PRL\_95 ; ref:andelman\_EPE\_02 ; ref:lipowsky\_EPL\_02  have also shown similar phase separation behavior in various systems.

So far, studies on adhesion-induced lateral phase separation have focused on the case when the system has a single type of junctions. The presence of the glycol proteins anchored in the membranes (i.e., repellers), and the interplay between generic interactions (for example, Van der Waals, or electrostatic interactions) and specific ligand/receptor interactions are believed to enhance this phase separation. However, in biological systems membrane adhesion are often mediated by more than one type of junctions, and the adhesion-induced junction separation are believed to play an important role in some biological processes. For example, a key event governing a mature immune response when T lymphocytes interact with antigen-present cells is the formation of immunological synapses. An immunological synapse is a patch of membrane adhesion region between a T cell and an antigen-present cell, where the TCR/MHC-peptide complexes aggregate in the center with a LFA-1/ICAM-1 complexes rich region surrounds it. ref:groves\_pnas\_01 ; ref:exp ; ref:Burroughs\_BPJ\_02  Since a complete understanding of the physical mechanism behind this type of adhesion-induced multi-species membrane junction separation is still unavailable, in the present work I develop a theoretical model to study the equilibrium properties of such systems.

This article is organized as follows. In section II, I discuss a coarse grained model for the adhesion of two membranes due to the formation of two types of junctions. To concentrate on the effect of the differences between type-1 and type-2 junctions, the glycocalyx and the generic interactions between the membranes are not considered in this model. Furthermore, I assume that the membranes are bound to each other due to the formation of the membrane junctions. Hence I will not discuss another interesting problem of the unbinding transition. An approximate solution of this model which neglects the fluctuations of membrane-membrane distance (the “hard membrane” solution) is studied in section III. This simplified solution already reveals several mechanisms which are important to the phase behavior of the system. For example, when type-1 and type-2 junctions have the same rigidity, membrane adhesion can induce a junction separation which is driven by the height difference of the junctions. In this situation the membranes separate into a type-1-junction-rich domain and a type-2-junction-rich domain. On the other hand, when the junctions have different rigidities and the height difference is not very large, membrane adhesion can induce an aggregation of the “softer” junctions, i.e., the membranes can separate into two domains which are both rich in the softer junctions. Thus, in general situations both mechanisms contribute to the adhesion-induced junction separation. When phase separation occurs, the system separates into two domains with different membrane-membrane distance because of the height mismatch of the junctions, and the total number of the softer junctions in the system is greater than the total number of the stiffer junctions.

The fact that the hard membrane solution assumes that the membrane-membrane distance is a constant has its drawback, too. An apparent artifact of the hard membrane solution is that when junction separation occurs, the total junction density, i.e., $`\varphi _1+\varphi _2`$ ($`\varphi _\alpha `$ is the density of type-$`\alpha `$ junctions), is the same in domains which have different values of $`(\varphi _1\varphi _2)/(\varphi _1+\varphi _2)`$ (the relative densities of the junctions)! This artifact also shows that, in order to acquire a complete physical picture of the junction separation, the effect of non-constant membrane-membrane distance, and the thermally activated fluctuations of the membranes and junction densities should be taken into account. Therefore in section IV I study the effects of these fluctuations. The fluctuation analysis shows that, first, the thermally activated membrane fluctuations renormalize the chemical potentials of the junctions, and effectively reduce the binding energies of the junctions. This chemical potential renormalization is less significant for the softer junctions because they allow the membranes more freedom to move. Second, the fluctuation analysis also reveals nonlocal interactions between the junctions which are mediated by the membrane elasticity and thermally activated fluctuations of the junction densities and membrane-membrane distance . These interactions are not included in the simple physical picture provided by the hard membrane solution. As a result of these effects, when junction separation occurs, domains with different values of $`(\varphi _1\varphi _2)/(\varphi _1+\varphi _2)`$ also have different values of $`\varphi _1+\varphi _2`$. The fluctuation analysis also shows that, when the hard membrane solution of the junction densities are small, or when the junctions are very short or very soft, the membrane fluctuations are sufficiently large such that the present analysis cannot provide the complete physical picture for the system. This criterion shows under what conditions one needs a numerical simulation of the model to provide a better picture of the physics in this system. Section V summarizes this work. The Appendix discusses the details of the fluctuation analysis around the hard membrane solution.

## II The model

To focus on the physics of adhesion-induced phase separation, I will not discuss the binding/unbinding transition but only consider the case when the membranes are bound to each other due to the presence of the junctions. The system is shown schematically in Fig. 1. The heights of the membranes measured from the reference plane (i.e., the $`xy`$-plane) are denoted as $`z_1(𝐫)`$ and $`z_2(𝐫)`$, respectively, where $`𝐫=(x,y)`$ is a two-dimensional planar vector. There are two types of anchored receptors in membrane 1, and two types of anchored ligands in membrane 2. Type-$`\alpha `$ receptors ($`\alpha `$ is $`1`$ or $`2`$) form specific lock-and-key complexes with type-$`\alpha `$ ligands, these are the junctions which mediate the membrane adhesion. The density of type-$`\alpha `$ junctions at $`𝐫`$ is $`\varphi _\alpha (𝐫)`$, and the densities of free type-$`\alpha `$ receptors and ligands at $`𝐫`$ are denoted by $`\psi _{R\alpha }(𝐫)`$ and $`\psi _{L\alpha }(𝐫)`$, respectively. The binding energy of a type-$`\alpha `$ junction is denoted by $`E_{B\alpha }`$.

The effective Hamiltonian of the system can be written as

$`H={\displaystyle d^2r\left\{\frac{\kappa }{2}\left(^2h(𝐫)\right)^2+\frac{\gamma }{2}\left(h(𝐫)\right)^2+\underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{2}{}}\frac{\lambda _\alpha }{2}\varphi _\alpha (𝐫)\left(h(𝐫)h_\alpha \right)^2\underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{2}{}}\varphi _\alpha E_{B\alpha }\right\}}.`$ (1)
The energy unit is chosen to be $`k_BT`$. Here $`h(𝐫)=z_1(𝐫)z_2(𝐫)`$ is the membrane-membrane distance at $`𝐫`$. The first and second terms on the right hand side are the bending elastic energy and surface tension of the membranes. $`\kappa `$ is related to the bending moduli of the membranes by $`\kappa =\kappa _1\kappa _2/(\kappa _1+\kappa _2)`$ ref:lipowsky\_PRL\_96  , and $`\gamma `$ is related to the surface tension of the membranes by $`\gamma =\gamma _1\gamma _2/(\gamma _1+\gamma _2)`$ ref:lipowsky\_PRL\_96 . In this simple model it is assumed that $`\kappa `$ and $`\gamma `$ are independent of the densities of the receptors and ligands anchored in the membranes. I also assume that in the presence of a type-$`\alpha `$ junction, the interaction energy between the membranes acquires a minimum at $`h=h_\alpha `$ (the natural height of a type-$`\alpha `$ junction), and the coupling term $`_{\alpha =1}^2\frac{\lambda _\alpha }{2}\varphi _\alpha (𝐫)\left(h(𝐫)h_\alpha \right)^2`$ comes from the Taylor expansion around this minimum. Here $`\lambda _\alpha `$ is the rigidity of a type-$`\alpha `$ junction against stretch or compression. The last term on the right hand side is the binding energy between the receptors and the ligands. To focus on the effect of adhesion-induced interactions, I have neglected all the direct interactions between the junctions, receptors, and ligands. The nonspecific interactions between the membranes are also neglected. For simplicity, from now on I further choose the unit length in the $`xy`$-plane to be $`\sqrt{a}`$, where $`a`$ is the in-plane size of an inclusion, and the unit length in the $`z`$-direction is chosen to be $`\sqrt{a/\kappa }l_0`$. Thus the Hamiltonian of the system can be expressed in the non-dimensional form,

$`H={\displaystyle d^2r\left\{\frac{1}{2}\left(^2h(𝐫)\right)^2+\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{2}\left(h(𝐫)\right)^2+\underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{2}{}}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\alpha }{2}\varphi _\alpha (𝐫)\left(h(𝐫)h_\alpha \right)^2\underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{2}{}}\varphi _\alpha E_{B\alpha }\right\}},`$ (2)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\gamma l_0^2`$ is the dimensionless surface tension, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\alpha =\lambda _\alpha l_0^2`$ is the dimensionless junction rigidity, and all in-plane lengths and heights are scaled by $`\sqrt{a}`$ and $`\sqrt{a/\kappa }l_0`$, respectively.

The effective interaction free energy between the junctions due to the membrane-junction coupling is obtained by integrating over $`h(𝐫)`$,

$`F_c[\varphi _\alpha ]=\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle D[h]e^{H[h,\varphi _\alpha ]}}\right).`$ (3)
Thus in the spirit of density functional theory, the total free energy of the system is provided by

$`F=F_c+F_s,`$ (4)
where

$`F_s={\displaystyle \underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{2}{}}}{\displaystyle d^2r\left(\varphi _\alpha (𝐫)(\mathrm{ln}\varphi _\alpha 1)+\psi _{R\alpha }(𝐫)(\mathrm{ln}\psi _{R\alpha }1)+\psi _{L\alpha }(𝐫)(\mathrm{ln}\psi _{L\alpha }1)\right)}`$ (5)
is the contribution from the entropy of the junctions, receptors and ligands. Here I have assumed that $`\varphi _\alpha 1`$, $`\psi _{R\alpha }1`$, and $`\psi _{L\alpha }1`$. In principle, once $`F_c`$ is calculated, the equilibrium distribution of the junction density is determined by minimizing the total free energy of the system under the constraint that the total numbers of the receptors and ligands in the system are fixed, i.e,

$`{\displaystyle d^2r\left\{\varphi _\alpha (𝐫)+\psi _{R\alpha }(𝐫)\right\}}`$ $`=`$ $`N_{R\alpha },`$
$`{\displaystyle d^2r\left\{\varphi _\alpha (𝐫)+\psi _{L\alpha }(𝐫)\right\}}`$ $`=`$ $`N_{L\alpha },`$ (6)
here $`N_{R\alpha }`$ and $`N_{L\alpha }`$ are the total number of type-$`\alpha `$ receptors and ligands in each membranes when the membranes are completely detached.

## III “Hard membrane” solution

Since the integral in Eq. (3) cannot be carried out exactly, in this section I discuss an approximate solution in which $`\varphi _\alpha `$ and $`h(𝐫)`$ are independent of $`𝐫`$. In this approximation, $`F_c`$ can be easily calculated by looking for the saddle point in the integrand. This is equivalent to neglecting the fluctuations of the membrane-membrane distance, therefore I call this mean-field approximate solution the “hard membrane” solution. To simplify the notation, I define $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\pm =\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\pm \mathrm{\Lambda }_2`$, $`\varphi _\pm =(\varphi _1\pm \varphi _2)/2`$, and let $`h_1=h_0\mathrm{}_h`$, $`h_2=h_0+\mathrm{}_h`$. Thus the hard membrane solution of the membrane-membrane distance can be expressed by

$`h`$ $`=`$ $`h_0{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}\varphi _++\mathrm{\Lambda }_+\varphi _{}}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_+\varphi _++\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}\varphi _{}}}\mathrm{}_h`$ (7)
$``$ $`h_0l_M.`$
Notice that $`l_M`$ depends on the junction densities. After substituting $`h`$ back to the Hamiltonian, the effective interaction free energy between the junctions, $`F_c`$, can be expressed by its saddle-point value

$`F_c={\displaystyle d^2r\left\{\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_+\varphi _++\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}\varphi _{}}{2}\left(l_M^2+\mathrm{}_h^2\right)+\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}\varphi _++\mathrm{\Lambda }_+\varphi _{}\right)l_M\mathrm{}_h\left(E_+\varphi _++E_{}\varphi _{}\right)\right\}},`$ (8)
where $`E_\pm =E_{B1}\pm E_{B2}`$. It is clear that there is an interaction between the junctions due to the membrane adhesion. To minimize the total free energy under the constraints in Eq. (6), it is convenient to work in the grand canonical ensemble and define the free energy $`G`$ of the system under constant chemical potentials,

$`G=F_c+F_s{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}\mu _{R\alpha }{\displaystyle d^2r(\varphi _\alpha +\psi _{R\alpha })}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}\mu _{L\alpha }{\displaystyle d^2r(\varphi _\alpha +\psi _{L\alpha })}.`$ (9)
The chemical potentials, $`\mu _{R\alpha }`$, $`\mu _{L\alpha }`$ are determined by fixing the total number of receptors and ligands in the system. However, for convenience I will proceed the discussion in the grand canonical ensemble. After some straightforward algebra, $`G`$ is expressed as

$`G={\displaystyle d^2r\varphi _+\left\{g(\varphi )+2\left(\mathrm{ln}\varphi _+1\right)\mu _+\right\}}+G_\psi ,`$ (10)
where

$`g(\varphi )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}_h^2}{2}}\mathrm{\Lambda }_+{\displaystyle \frac{(\lambda +\varphi )^2}{1+\lambda \varphi }}+\left(1+\varphi \right)\mathrm{ln}\left(1+\varphi \right)+\left(1\varphi \right)\mathrm{ln}\left(1\varphi \right)\mu _{}\varphi `$ (11)
$``$ $`f(\varphi )\mu _{}\varphi ,`$
$`\lambda \mathrm{\Lambda }_{}/\mathrm{\Lambda }_+`$, $`\varphi \varphi _{}/\varphi _+`$, and $`\mu _\pm =(\mu _{R1}+\mu _{L1})\pm (\mu _{R2}+\mu _{L2})+E_{B1}\pm E_{B2}\frac{\mathrm{}_h^2}{2}\mathrm{\Lambda }_\pm `$. $`G_\psi `$ includes terms which only depend on $`\psi _{R\alpha }`$ and $`\psi _{L\alpha }`$, they are decoupled from the other terms, hence from now on I neglect $`G_\psi `$. From Eq. (10), it is clear that in the hard membrane solution the phase behavior of the junctions is governed by $`\mathrm{}_h^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_+`$, $`\lambda `$, and $`\mu _\pm `$. Minimizing $`g(\varphi )`$ leads to the equilibrium value of $`\varphi `$, and later I will show that there can be a phase separation in $`\varphi `$. On the other hand, from Eq. (10), $`\varphi _+`$ satisfies

$`\varphi _+=\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mu _+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g(\varphi )\right).`$ (12)
Because in equilibrium $`\varphi `$ is determined by minimizing $`g(\varphi )`$, $`g(\varphi )`$ takes single value even when there is a phase separation in $`\varphi `$. Therefore in the hard membrane solution $`\varphi _+`$ is single-valued even when the system separates into two domains with different values of $`\varphi `$! In the next section I will show that, when the effects of fluctuations around the hard membrane solution are taken into account, the analysis reveals a renormalization of the binding energy of the junctions and (nonlocal) interactions between the junctions which are mediated by the membrane elasticities and thermally activated membrane fluctuations. As a result, the true equilibrium solution of $`\varphi _+`$ is not single-valued in the regime where junction separation happens. Thus, the fact that $`\varphi _+`$ is single-valued in the hard membrane solution is an artifact of the approximation which assumes constant junction densities and membrane-membrane distance.

Now I discuss the hard membrane solution of $`\varphi `$. To emphasize different roles played by $`\mathrm{}_h^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_+`$ and $`\lambda `$, I begin the discussion with the special case when $`\lambda =0`$, i.e., when both types of junctions have the same rigidities. In this case the important parameter of the theory is $`\mathrm{}_h^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_+`$, and $`g(\varphi )`$ has a very simple form

$`g(\varphi )={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}_h^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_+}{2}}\varphi ^2+\left(1+\varphi \right)\mathrm{ln}\left(1+\varphi \right)+\left(1\varphi \right)\mathrm{ln}\left(1\varphi \right)\mu _{}\varphi .`$ (13)
This form is exactly the same as the Flory-Huggins theory for binary mixtures ref:doi\_book , where phase separation occurs when $`\mathrm{}_h^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_+>2`$ and the phase coexistence curve is a straight line at $`\mu _{}=0`$. This phase coexistence curve ends at a critical point $`\mu _{}=0`$, $`\mathrm{}_h^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_+=2`$. The physics in this special case $`\lambda =0`$ is clear: the difference in junction height drives a junction separation, and this separation only occurs when the factor $`\mathrm{}_h^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_+`$, a combination of junction height difference and junction rigidity, is sufficiently large. On the phase coexistence curve, the system separates into $`\varphi _1`$-rich and $`\varphi _2`$-rich domains, and the system is symmetric under $`\varphi \varphi `$.

Next I discuss the more general case $`\lambda 0`$, i.e., the junctions have different rigidities. Fig. 2 shows the shape of $`g(\varphi )`$ with different values of $`\mu _{}`$ when $`\lambda =0.2`$ and $`\mathrm{}_h^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_+=1.998`$. Notice that this is the case when $`\mathrm{}_h^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_+<2`$, i.e., there is no junction separation if $`\lambda =0`$. Nevertheless, Fig. 2 clearly shows that $`g(\varphi )`$ has two local minimum, both at negative $`\varphi `$, and phase coexistence occurs when $`\mu _{}0.4045`$. Since this is the case when $`\lambda >0`$, i.e., type-2 junctions are “softer” than type-1 junctions, double minimum at $`\varphi =\varphi _1\varphi _2<0`$ means that the softer junctions tend to aggregate, when phase coexistence occurs a domain with high $`\varphi _2\varphi _1`$ coexists with a domain with small $`\varphi _2\varphi _1`$. The density of type-2 junctions is higher than the density of type-1 junctions in both domains.

Another effect of nonzero $`\lambda `$ can be seen in Fig. 3 , where $`g(\varphi )`$ for different values of $`\lambda `$ is shown at $`\mathrm{}_h^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_+=2.04>2`$. It shows that $`g(\varphi )`$ is symmetric in $`\varphi `$ when $`\lambda =0`$ but asymmetric in $`\varphi `$ for nonzero $`\lambda `$, i.e., the symmetry under $`\varphi \varphi `$ no longer exists when the junctions have different rigidities. Comparing to $`\lambda =0`$ case, in the case when $`\lambda >0`$, the minima of $`g(\varphi )`$ are shifted towards smaller $`\varphi `$ values, i.e., the softer junctions are easier to be formed. Notice that different from the example in Fig. 2, in Fig. 3 when phase coexistence occurs the membranes separate into $`\varphi _1`$-rich and $`\varphi _2`$-rich domains, but the softer junctions (in this case type-2 junctions) are the “favored” species, i.e., the total number of the softer junctions in the system is greater than the total number of the stiffer junctions. From these two examples of nonzero $`\lambda `$, I conclude that in general the experimentally observed junction separation induced by membrane adhesion is actually a result of the combined effect of the aggregation of softer junctions and the separation of the junctions due to the mismatch of junction heights.

In the neighborhood of $`\mathrm{}_h^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_+=2`$, $`\lambda =0`$, the equilibrium value of $`\varphi `$ is small compared to unity, therefore the phase diagram of the system in this regime can be studied by expanding $`g(\varphi )`$ around $`\varphi =0`$,

$`g(\varphi )`$ $`=`$ $`r_2\varphi ^2+r_3\varphi ^3+r_4\varphi ^4\stackrel{~}{\mu }_{}\varphi +const.+𝒪(\varphi ^5),`$ (14)
$`r_2`$ $`=`$ $`1{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}_h^2}{2}}\mathrm{\Lambda }_+\left(1\lambda ^2\right)^2,`$
$`r_3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}_h^2}{2}}\mathrm{\Lambda }_+\lambda \left(1\lambda ^2\right)^2,`$
$`r_4`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}_h^2}{2}}\mathrm{\Lambda }_+\lambda ^2\left(1\lambda ^2\right)^2,`$
$`\stackrel{~}{\mu }_{}`$ $`=`$ $`\mu _{}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}_h^2}{2}}\mathrm{\Lambda }_+\lambda \left(2\lambda ^2\right),`$
$`const.`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}_h^2}{2}}\mathrm{\Lambda }_+\lambda ^2,`$ (15)
and $`𝒪(\varphi ^5)`$ is the contribution from terms of order $`\varphi ^5`$ and higher. The phase diagram in the neighborhood of $`\mathrm{}_h^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_+=2`$, $`\lambda =0`$ is plotted schematically in Fig. 4. where the phase coexistence curve for $`\lambda =0`$ ends at a critical point $`\mathrm{}_h^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_+=2,\mu _{}=0`$, and the end points of the phase coexistence curves for $`\lambda 0`$ occurs at the triple root of $`g/\varphi =0`$. Straightforward calculation leads to the position of the end points of the phase coexistence curves at

$`\mathrm{}_h^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_+`$ $`=`$ $`2(19\lambda ^2/4)+𝒪(\lambda ^4),`$
$`\mu _{}`$ $`=`$ $`2\lambda +𝒪(\lambda ^3).`$ (16)
This shows how the smallest value of $`\mathrm{}_h^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_+`$ above which phase separation can occur decreases as the difference of junction rigidities increases. The phase coexistence curves move towards the $`\lambda =0`$ phase boundary as the value of $`\frac{\mathrm{}_h^2}{2}\mathrm{\Lambda }_+`$ increases. This is because as $`\frac{\mathrm{}_h^2}{2}\mathrm{\Lambda }_+`$ increases, the effect of junction height mismatch becomes more important, and the difference in the junction rigidities becomes less important.

Although the hard membrane solution is a very simplified analysis of the model, it nevertheless reveals interesting physics of the junction separation due to membrane adhesion. First of all, the height difference between different types of junctions is not the only factor which is important for the junction distribution. It is only when the rigidities of both types of junctions are the same that the difference in the junction height is the most important factor in the junction separation. If the system consists of junctions with different rigidities, the softer junctions are more favored, and the junction separation is a result of the interplay between the aggregation of the softer junctions and the separation of the junctions due to the height difference. Therefore the smallest value of $`\mathrm{}_h^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_+`$ above which phase separation can occur is smaller for systems with larger $`|\lambda |`$. However, the approximations in the hard membrane solution lead to the surprising result that $`\varphi _+`$ is the same in both domains when junction separation occurs. This indicates that analysis which includes the elasticity of the membranes and the thermal fluctuations around the hard membrane solution is very much needed for a full understanding of the nature of the membrane adhesion-induced interactions between the junctions.

## IV Beyond “hard membrane” solution

As mentioned in the previous section, the hard membrane solution neglects the effects of nonuniform membrane-membrane distance and junction densities, therefore fails to take the effects of membrane-mediated nonlocal interactions between the junctions into account. The result is reflected in the unrealistic solution of single valued $`\varphi _+`$ in both domains when phase coexistence occurs. To study these membrane-mediated effects, in this section I include the fluctuations of membrane-membrane distance and junction densities by expanding the free energy of the system around the hard membrane solution. In the following I denote the true membrane-membrane distance as

$`h(𝐫)=h_0+l_M+\delta l(𝐫)h_M+\delta l(𝐫),`$ (17)
and the densities of the junctions are expressed by

$`\varphi _\alpha =\varphi _{\alpha M}+\delta \varphi (𝐫).`$ (18)
Here $`\delta l`$, $`\delta \varphi _\alpha `$ are the deviations of the true values of $`h`$ and $`\varphi _\alpha `$ from their hard membrane solutions, $`\varphi _{\alpha M}`$ and $`h_M`$ are the hard membrane solution of $`\varphi _\alpha (𝐫)`$ and $`h(𝐫)`$, respectively. In this expansion, the coarse grained Hamiltonian can be expressed as

$`H=H_M+H_0+H_1+H_\varphi ,`$ (19)
where $`H_M`$ is $`H(h_M,\varphi _{1M},\varphi _{2M})`$,

$`H_0={\displaystyle d^2r\left\{\frac{1}{2}(^2\delta l)^2+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\delta l)^2+\left[l_M(\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\delta \varphi _1+\mathrm{\Lambda }_2\delta \varphi _2)+\mathrm{}_h(\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\delta \varphi _1\mathrm{\Lambda }_2\delta \varphi _2)\right]\delta l\right\}}`$ (20)
includes terms which are bilinear in $`\delta l`$ and $`\delta \varphi _\alpha `$,

$`H_1={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle d^2r(\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\delta \varphi _1+\mathrm{\Lambda }_2\delta \varphi _2)(\delta l)^2}`$ (21)
is the nonlinear coupling between $`\delta l`$ and $`\delta \varphi _\alpha `$, and $`H_\varphi `$ includes terms which are linear in $`\delta \varphi _\alpha `$.

First I discuss the contribution from $`H_0`$, i.e., the Gaussian fluctuations around the hard membrane solution. In this Gaussian approximation, $`F_c`$ has acquired two correction terms which can be expressed by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{q}{}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{q^4+\mathrm{\Gamma }q^2+m_+}}{\displaystyle \underset{q}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{|l_M\delta m_+(𝐪)+\mathrm{}_h\delta m_{}(𝐪)|^2}{q^4+\mathrm{\Gamma }q^2+m_+}},`$ (22)
for convenience I have defined $`m_\pm =\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\varphi _{1M}\pm \mathrm{\Lambda }_2\varphi _{2M}`$, and $`\delta m_\pm =\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\delta \varphi _1\pm \mathrm{\Lambda }_2\delta \varphi _2`$. The first term is independent of $`\delta \varphi _\alpha `$, therefore I neglect it in the rest of the discussion. The second term is a membrane-mediated nonlocal interaction between the junctions. This interaction has two characteristic lengths: $`m_+^{1/4}`$ is the distance it takes for a perturbation in membrane-membrane distance to relax back to its hard membrane solution due to the membrane bending rigidity, another length is $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{1/2}`$, for lengths greater than $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{1/2}`$ the elasticity of the membrane is dominated by the surface tension of the membrane, and the contribution from the bending rigidity is negligible. In the rest of this article, I focus on the case when $`\mathrm{\Gamma }<\sqrt{m_+}`$, in which the membrane bending rigidity is the dominant effect which drives a perturbation in $`h`$ back to $`h_M`$, thus the contribution from surface tension of the membranes is negligible. To understand the nature of the nonlocal interaction, it is convenient to transform the second term to real space. Calculations in the Appendix show that, when $`\mathrm{\Gamma }<\sqrt{m_+}`$, the second term in the real space has the form which is derived in Eq. (35)

$`{\displaystyle d^2rd^2r^{}\frac{\mathrm{}_h^2}{8\pi \sqrt{m_+}}G(|𝐫𝐫^{}|m_+^{1/4})\left[\left(1\frac{m_{}}{m_+}\right)\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\delta \varphi _1(𝐫)\left(1+\frac{m_{}}{m_+}\right)\mathrm{\Lambda }_2\delta \varphi _2(𝐫)\right]}`$
$`\times \left[\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{m_{}}{m_+}}\right)\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\delta \varphi _1(𝐫^{})\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{m_{}}{m_+}}\right)\mathrm{\Lambda }_2\delta \varphi _2(𝐫^{})\right],`$ (23)
where $`G(x)`$ is a MeijerG function ref:mathematica . $`G(x)`$ is vanishingly small for $`x5`$. Eq. (23) shows that this membrane-mediated interaction is attractive between junctions of the same type, and repulsive between junctions of different types. This interaction is short-ranged with a characteristic length $`m_+^{1/4}`$. Also notice that the contribution from $`H_1`$ is proportional to $`\mathrm{}_h^2`$, i.e., there is no membrane-mediated interactions in the level of Gaussian approximations when the junctions have the same height. The physical picture of this interaction can be seen from Fig. 5. A small perturbation of the junction density from the hard membrane solution induces a deviation of membrane-membrane distance from $`h_M`$, and there is a membrane bending energy associated with any given distribution of non-uniform membrane-membrane distance. To reduce the bending energy, a region with positive $`\delta \varphi _{1(2)}`$ attracts a region with positive $`\delta \varphi _{1(2)}`$ in order to reduce the elastic energy cost of a “pit” or a “bump” between these two regions due to the non-uniform $`h(𝐫)`$. Similarly, a region with positive $`\delta \varphi _1`$ repels a region with positive $`\delta \varphi _2`$, in order to reduce the bending energy cost due to the high curvature configuration between these two regions. This also explains the fact that these interactions vanish when both types of junctions have the same height, i.e., $`\mathrm{}_h=0`$. A similar kind of membrane-mediated nonlocal interaction between the junctions is discussed in the celebrated article by Bruinsma, Goulian, and Pincus ref:BPG\_93 , where in their “van der Waals regime”, the competition between the potential minimum due to the van der Waals interaction between the membranes and another potential minimum due to the stiff membrane junctions results in a strong interaction between the junctions. Although there is only one type of junctions in the system discussed in Ref. ref:BPG\_93 , the interaction between the junctions in Ref. ref:BPG\_93  and the present case share the same physical mechanism, i.e., the bending elasticity of the membranes mediates this interaction.

Another type of nonlocal interactions between the junctions can be studied by considering the effect of nonlinear couplings between $`\delta l`$ and $`\delta \varphi _\alpha `$. This is done by including the contributions form $`H_1`$ perturbatively to one loop order. The resulting effective interaction free energy between the junctions, $`F_c`$, now has the form

$`F_c=F_M+F_G+F_{loop}+H_\varphi ,`$ (24)
where $`F_M`$ is the hard membrane solution of $`F_c`$, $`F_G`$ is the contribution from terms which are bilinear in $`\delta l`$ and $`\delta \varphi _\alpha `$, and $`F_{loop}`$ is the contribution from the nonlinear couplings between $`\delta l`$ and $`\delta \varphi _\alpha `$ to one loop order. The details of the calculations for $`F_{loop}`$ is discussed in the Appendix. When $`\mathrm{\Gamma }<\sqrt{m_+}`$, the result (up to terms quadratic in $`\delta \varphi _\alpha `$) is provided by Eq. (37), Eq. (39), and Eq. (41),

$`F_{loop}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\sqrt{m_+}}}{\displaystyle d^2r(\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\delta \varphi _1+\mathrm{\Lambda }_2\delta \varphi _2)}`$ (25)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\sqrt{m_+}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2q}{(2\pi )^2}\frac{1}{q^4+4m_+}|\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\delta \varphi _1(q)+\mathrm{\Lambda }_2\delta \varphi _2(q)|^2}.`$
Here the first term is a “renormalization” of the chemical potentials of the junctions due to membrane fluctuations. This term effectively reduces the binding energies of the junctions. The fact that the renormalization of the chemical potential for the softer junctions is less significant compared to that for the stiffer junctions is because the membrane fluctuations are energetically less costly for the softer junctions. The second term is a fluctuation-induced nonlocal interaction between the junctions, and higher order terms are neglected. Notice that, as discussed in the Appendix, the second term in Eq. (25) is actually an approximate form of the much more complicated true result, it provides the correct asymptotic behavior of the true result at large and small $`q`$ limits in the case when $`\mathrm{\Gamma }<\sqrt{m_+}`$. Similar to the case of Gaussian approximation, when the fluctuation-induced interaction between the junctions is expressed in real space, one finds that the interaction between the junctions is nonlocal, short-ranged, and has a characteristic length on the order of $`m_+^{1/4}`$. Since $`F_{loop}`$ is non-vanishing even when $`\mathrm{}_h=0`$, it is clear that the thermal fluctuations of the membrane-membrane distance is the mechanism which induces the nonlocal interactions between the junctions in $`F_{loop}`$. This is similar but not the same as the interaction between the junctions in the “Helfrich regime” discussed in Ref. ref:BPG\_93 . In Ref. ref:BPG\_93 , the interaction between the junctions in the Helfrich regime comes from the collisions between the membranes. Here in the one-loop calculation the interaction between the junctions comes from the fluctuations of the membrane-membrane distance around the hard membrane solution, the effect of membrane collisions is not included.

When the fluctuations around the hard membrane solution are taken into account to one-loop order, the total free energy of the system to second order in $`\delta \varphi _\alpha `$ can be expressed by

$`F=F_M`$ $`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d^2q}{(2\pi )^2}\left(\underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{2}{}}\frac{1}{2\varphi _{\alpha M}}|\delta \varphi _\alpha (q)|^2\right)}`$ (26)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d^2q}{(2\pi )^2}\frac{\mathrm{}_h^2}{q^4+m_+}\left|\left(1\frac{m_{}}{m_+}\right)\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\delta \varphi _1(q)\left(1+\frac{m_{}}{m_+}\right)\mathrm{\Lambda }_2\delta \varphi _2(q)\right|^2}`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\sqrt{m_+}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2q}{(2\pi )^2}\frac{1}{q^4+4m_+}|\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\delta \varphi _1(q)+\mathrm{\Lambda }_2\delta \varphi _2(q)|^2}`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\sqrt{m_+}}}{\displaystyle d^2r(\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\delta \varphi _1+\mathrm{\Lambda }_2\delta \varphi _2)}.`$
Here the first term on the right hand side is the hard membrane solution, the second term comes from the entropy of the junctions, the third term is the nonlocal interaction between the junctions due to Gaussian fluctuations, the fourth and the fifth terms come from the nonlinear couplings between $`\delta l`$ and $`\delta \varphi _\alpha `$. Notice that the contribution from $`H_\varphi `$ does not appear in the total free energy of the system, it cancels with the linear terms in the expansion of the entropy of the junctions. This is because $`\varphi _{\alpha M}`$ minimizes the hard-membrane free energy, therefore in the expansion around the hard-membrane solution terms which are linear in $`\delta \varphi `$ cancel with each other. The contribution from one-loop calculation, however, includes terms which are linear in $`\delta \varphi _\alpha `$ because they come from the nonlinear couplings between $`\delta \varphi _\alpha `$ and $`\delta l`$. An important consequence of the presence of these terms is that in general the equilibrium values of $`\delta \varphi _1`$ and $`\delta \varphi _2`$ are nonzero due to the membrane fluctuations. Therefore when a phase separation occurs, the values of $`\varphi _1+\varphi _2`$ are different in domains with different values of $`\varphi `$.

To discuss the correction of $`\varphi _\alpha `$ and $`h(𝐫)`$ due to the thermally activated fluctuations, it is convenient to express Eq. (26) as

$`F=F_M+{\displaystyle d^2r\left(\delta \mu _1\delta \varphi _1(𝐫)+\delta \mu _2\delta \varphi _2(𝐫)\right)}+{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha \beta }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2q}{(2\pi )^2}M_{\alpha \beta }(q)\delta \varphi _\alpha (q)\delta \varphi _\beta (q)},`$ (27)
where

$`\delta \mu _\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\alpha }{16\sqrt{m_+}}},`$
$`M_{11}(q)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\varphi _{1M}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}_h^2}{q^4+m_+}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{m_{}}{m_+}}\right)^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_1^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\sqrt{m_+}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_1^2}{q^4+4m_+}},`$
$`M_{22}(q)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\varphi _{2M}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}_h^2}{q^4+m_+}}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{m_{}}{m_+}}\right)^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_2^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\sqrt{m_+}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_2^2}{q^4+4m_+}},`$
$`M_{12}(q)`$ $`=`$ $`M_{21}(q)={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}_h^2}{q^4+m_+}}\left(1\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_{}}{m_+}}\right)^2\right)\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\mathrm{\Lambda }_2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\sqrt{m_+}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\mathrm{\Lambda }_2}{q^4+4m_+}}.`$ (28)
Now $`\delta \varphi _\alpha (q)`$ can be expressed by $`\delta \mu _\alpha `$ and $`M_{\alpha \beta }`$,

$`\delta \varphi _1(q)+\delta \varphi _2(q)`$ $`=`$ $`\delta (q)\times {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2det𝐌}}\left\{\left(M_{22}M_{21}\right)\delta \mu _1+\left(M_{11}M_{12}\right)\delta \mu _2\right\},`$
$`\delta \varphi _1(q)\delta \varphi _2(q)`$ $`=`$ $`\delta (q)\times {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2det𝐌}}\left\{\left(M_{22}+M_{21}\right)\delta \mu _1\left(M_{11}+M_{12}\right)\delta \mu _2\right\},`$ (29)
where $`det𝐌=M_{11}M_{22}M_{12}M_{21}`$. This rather complicated expression shows that, besides $`\mu _{}`$, $`\lambda `$, and $`\mathrm{}_h^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_+`$, the answer to the question of which domain has higher total junction density when the phase coexistence occurs also depends on the values of $`\mathrm{}_h^2`$ and $`\varphi _{\alpha M}`$ (to determine $`\varphi _{\alpha M}`$, one needs to know the value of $`\mu _+`$)! In this article I shall not discuss the details of the values of $`\varphi _1+\varphi _2`$ for different given parameters in the theory, but simply comment that when $`det𝐌`$ is positive, the phase diagram of the hard membrane solution is not modified by the thermal fluctuations. However, when $`det𝐌<0`$, the hard membrane solution is not stable at any finite temperature. The result in Eq. (29) also provides some criteria for the current analysis. For example, when the fluctuations are large, the deviation from hard membrane solution can no longer be treated by perturbation theory. This is true when $`\delta \varphi _\alpha /\varphi _\alpha 𝒪(1)`$. Since $`\delta \varphi _\alpha `$ becomes large for small $`det𝐌`$, which occurs at small $`m_+=\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\varphi _{1M}+\mathrm{\Lambda }_2\varphi _{2M}`$, I conclude that the perturbation theory breaks down at small junction densities. Finally, I point out that the collisions between the membranes are also neglected in the present analysis, this approximation is valid when the fluctuations of membrane-membrane distance is not large, i.e., when

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{<(\delta l)^2>_0}}{h_M}}=\left({\displaystyle \frac{d^2q}{(2\pi )^2}\frac{1}{q^4+m_+}}\right)^{1/2}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{h_M}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4m_+^{1/4}h_M}}𝒪(1).`$ (30)
In the regime where $`m_+^{1/4}h_M=(\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\varphi _{1M}+\mathrm{\Lambda }_2\varphi _{2M})^{1/4}h_M𝒪(1)`$, i.e., when the junction densities are small, or the when junctions are very soft, or when the junctions are very “short”, the contributions from membrane collisions should be taken into account for a complete analysis of this system. Thus, when the membrane fluctuations or the membrane collisions become important, numerical simulations ref:chen\_future  or other methods which take the full membrane fluctuations into account should be applied to study the physics of this system.

## V Summary

I have discussed the phase separation of multiple species membrane junctions induced by membrane-membrane adhesion with a continuum theory. In the hard membrane approximation where the membrane-membrane distance and junction densities are assumed to be constants, we find that $`\mathrm{}_h^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_+`$ and $`\lambda `$ are the important parameters which governs the junction separation. When $`\lambda =0`$, both types of junctions have the same rigidity, and the junction separation is driven by the height difference of the junctions. Under this condition the junction separation is very similar to the Flory-Huggins theory for a binary mixture. Phase separation occurs when $`\mathrm{}_h^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_+>2`$ and $`\mu _{}=0`$, the phase coexistence curve ends at a critical point $`\mu _{}=0`$, $`\mathrm{}_h^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_+=2`$. When $`\lambda 0`$, the junctions have different rigidities, and the softer junctions are easier to form than the stiffer junctions. Therefore the softer junctions have a tendency to aggregate. In this more general case, the height difference and the junction rigidities difference both drive the phase separation, thus the phase separation can occur at $`\mathrm{}_h^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_+<2`$.

The Gaussian fluctuations around the hard membrane solution reveals a membrane-mediated nonlocal interaction between the junctions. This interaction is short-ranged, which decays with a characteristic length $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }_+\varphi _{+M}+\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}\varphi _M)^{1/4}`$, it is attractive between the same type of junctions, but repulsive between different types of junctions. The strength of this interaction is proportional to $`\mathrm{}_h^2`$, and it is due to the membrane bending energy cost between regions with different junction densities. Perturbation theory to one-loop order shows other effects of thermal fluctuations, this includes a renormalization of the chemical potential of the junctions which effectively reduces the binding energies of the junctions, and a nonlocal interaction between the junctions which is independent of $`\mathrm{}_h`$. The fact that the contribution from one-loop calculation is non-vanishing even when junctions of type-1 and type-2 have the same height indicates that this contribution is a result of thermal fluctuations of the membranes. Hence it is non-vanishing at all finite temperatures. When the contribution from one-loop calculation becomes very large, the hard membrane solution is qualitatively incorrect, and the effects of thermal fluctuations is a dominant factor. This can occur at very low junction densities. The Gaussian fluctuations of the membrane-membrane distance also provide another limit of the present analysis: the mean squared fluctuations of the membrane-membrane distance should be small compare to $`h_M`$. As a result, the analysis in this article does not provide the complete physical picture of the system for very soft or very short junctions, either.

In summary, mean field and fluctuation analysis of a simple coarse grained model for adhesion-induced phase separation of multiple species of membrane junctions is studied in this article. This model shows rich behaviors which capture much of the physics of multi-species membrane junction separation induced by adhesion. I show that not only the difference of junction height, but also the difference of junction rigidities, and the membrane-mediated interactions between the junctions play important roles in the junction separation. The fluctuation analysis also shows that current analysis does not provide the complete physical picture for systems with very soft or very short junctions, or in the situation when the junction densities are extremely low, where the thermally activated membrane fluctuations or the Helfrich repulsion between the membranes become important interactions in the system ref:BPG\_93 . In this regime, numerical simulations ref:lipowsky\_PRE\_01 ; ref:chen\_future  should provide valuable information on the distribution of the junctions, as well as a complete picture of the phase diagram which includes the bind/unbinding transition between the membranes, and adhesion-induced junction separations.

## Acknowledgment

It is a pleasure to thank David Lu and David Jasnow for very helpful discussions. This work is supported by the National Science Council of the Republic of China (Taiwan) under grant No. NSC 90-2112-M-008-053.

## Appendix

In this Appendix, I discuss the details of some calculations mentioned in the text. For simplicity I define

$`\delta m_+(𝐫)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\delta \varphi _1(𝐫)+\mathrm{\Lambda }_2\delta \varphi _2(𝐫)`$
$`\delta m_{}(𝐫)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\delta \varphi _1(𝐫)\mathrm{\Lambda }_2\delta \varphi _2(𝐫).`$ (31)
First, an integral which is very useful for the rest of this Appendix is calculated.

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^2q}{(2\pi )^2}\frac{A(q)B(q)}{q^4+m_+}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^2rd^2r^{}\frac{d^2q}{(2\pi )^2}\frac{A(𝐫)B(𝐫^{})e^{i𝐪(𝐫𝐫^{})}}{q^4+m_+}}`$ (32)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^2rd^2r^{}\frac{1}{\sqrt{m_+}}_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dx}{2\pi }\frac{xJ_0(x|𝐫𝐫^{}|m_+^{1/4})}{x^4+1}A(𝐫)B(𝐫^{})}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi \sqrt{m_+}}}{\displaystyle d^2rd^2r^{}G(|𝐫𝐫^{}|m_+^{1/4})A(𝐫)B(𝐫^{})},`$
where $`G(x)`$ is a MeijerG function ref:mathematica . Also,

$`G(x)\{\begin{array}{cc}\pi ,\hfill & x1\hfill \\ 0,\hfill & x5.\hfill \end{array}`$ (34)
The shape of $`G(x)`$ is plotted in Fig. 6.

Now I consider the nonlocal interaction between the junctions in the Gaussian approximation. Neglecting the first term of Eq. (22), the second term can be expressed by

$`F_G`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{q}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{|l_M\delta m_+(𝐪)+\mathrm{}_h\delta m_{}(𝐪)|^2}{q^4+\mathrm{\Gamma }q^2+m_+}}`$ (35)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d^2q}{(2\pi )^2}\frac{|l_M\delta m_+(𝐪)+\mathrm{}_h\delta m_{}(𝐪)|^2}{q^4+\mathrm{\Gamma }q^2+m_+}}`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle d^2rd^2r^{}\frac{\mathrm{}_h^2}{8\pi \sqrt{m_+}}G(|𝐫𝐫^{}|m_+^{1/4})\left[\left(1\frac{m_{}}{m_+}\right)\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\delta \varphi _1(𝐫)\left(1+\frac{m_{}}{m_+}\right)\mathrm{\Lambda }_2\delta \varphi _2(𝐫)\right]}`$
$`\times \left[\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{m_{}}{m_+}}\right)\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\delta \varphi _1(𝐫^{})\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{m_{}}{m_+}}\right)\mathrm{\Lambda }_2\delta \varphi _2(𝐫^{})\right],`$
where the last expression holds when $`\mathrm{\Gamma }<\sqrt{m_+}`$, and the integral in Eq. (32) is used to calculate the Fourier transformation from the momentum space to the real space. The range of this membrane mediated interaction between the junctions is determined by the shape of $`G(x)`$, which sets the length scale of this interaction to $`m_+^{1/4}`$.

Next I show that the interaction between the junctions due to the contribution of $`H_1`$ is of the form in Eq. (25). The effective interaction free energy between the junctions is

$`F_c`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{ln}\left[{\displaystyle D[h]e^{H_MH_0H_1H_\varphi }}\right]`$ (36)
$`=`$ $`H_M+H_\varphi \mathrm{ln}\left[{\displaystyle D[\delta l]e^{H_0H_1}}\right].`$
When the contribution of $`H_1`$ is included by a one-loop calculation,

$`F_c`$ $`=`$ $`H_M+H_\varphi +F_G+<H_1>_0{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(<H_1^2>_0<H_1>_0^2\right)`$ (37)
$``$ $`F_M+F_G+F_{loop}+H_\varphi .`$
Here

$`F_M=H_M,F_G=\mathrm{ln}[{\displaystyle D[\delta l]e^{H_0}}],\text{and}<𝒪>_0={\displaystyle \frac{D[\delta l]𝒪e^{H_0}}{D[\delta l]e^{H_0}}}`$ (38)
for any $`𝒪`$. The calculation of $`<H_1>_0`$ is straightforward, which in the case $`\mathrm{\Gamma }<\sqrt{m_+}`$ leads to

$`<H_1>_0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle d^2r(\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\delta \varphi _1(𝐫)+\mathrm{\Lambda }_2\delta \varphi _2(𝐫))<(\delta l(𝐫))^2>_0}`$ (39)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{d^2q}{(2\pi )^2}\frac{1}{q^4+\mathrm{\Gamma }q^2+m_+}}\right)(\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\delta \varphi _1(𝐫)+\mathrm{\Lambda }_2\delta \varphi _2(𝐫))`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\sqrt{m_+}}}{\displaystyle d^2r(\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\delta \varphi _1(𝐫)+\mathrm{\Lambda }_2\delta \varphi _2(𝐫))}.`$
Terms of higher order than $`\delta \varphi _\alpha ^2`$ have been neglected. The calculation for $`<H_1^2>_0`$ is longer but also straightforward,

$`<H_1^2>_0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle d^2rd^2r^{}<\delta l(𝐫)\delta l(𝐫)\delta l(𝐫^{})\delta l(𝐫^{})>_0\delta m_+(𝐫)\delta m_+(𝐫^{})}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2q}{(2\pi )^2}\frac{d^2q^{}}{(2\pi )^2}\frac{1}{q^4+\mathrm{\Gamma }q^2+m_+}\frac{1}{(𝐪+𝐪^{})^4+\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝐪+𝐪^{})^2+m_+}|\delta m_+(𝐪)|^2}+<H_1>_0^2.`$
Again, terms of higher order than $`\delta \varphi _\alpha ^2`$ are neglected. When the contribution from the surface tension can be neglected, the following form provides a good approximation of $`<H_1^2>_0<H_1>_0^2`$ref:netz\_PRE\_95  this form gives the correct asymptotic behavior of the true result at large and small $`q`$ limits,

$`<H_1^2>_0<H_1>_0^2`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\sqrt{m_+}}}{\displaystyle d^2q\frac{|\delta m_+(q)|^2}{q^4+4m_+}}`$ (41)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{64\pi \sqrt{m_+^3}}}{\displaystyle d^2rd^2r^{}G(|𝐫𝐫^{}|(4m_+)^{1/4})\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\delta \varphi _1(𝐫)+\mathrm{\Lambda }_2\delta \varphi _2(𝐫)\right)}`$
$`\times \left(\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\delta \varphi _1(𝐫^{})+\mathrm{\Lambda }_2\delta \varphi _2(𝐫^{})\right)`$
Putting $`<H_1>_0`$ and $`<H_1^2>_0<H_1>_0^2`$ together leads to the resulting expression of $`F_c`$ in the one-loop order, which is given in Eq. (24) and Eq. (25). The real space form of $`<H_1^2>_0<H_1>_0^2`$ also shows that the membrane fluctuation induced interaction between the junctions is short ranged with a characteristic length on the order of $`m_+^{1/4}`$

Figure Captions

*
* Fig.1 Schematics of the system. The membrane heights are $`z_1(𝐫)`$ and $`z_2(𝐫)`$ from the reference plane. There are two types of receptors in one membrane, two types of ligands in another membrane. Two types of junctions can be formed from the ligands and receptors. They have different natural lengths $`h_1`$ and $`h_2`$. In general, different types of junctions also have different rigidities. The softer junctions are easier to be stretched or compressed from their natural length.
* Fig.2 The shape of $`g(\varphi )`$ with different values of $`\mu _{}`$ when $`\lambda =0.2`$, and $`\mathrm{}_h^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_+=1.998`$. Solid line: $`\mu =0.404`$, dashed line: $`\mu =0.4045`$, dash-dotted line: $`\mu =0.405`$. Phase coexistence occurs at $`\mu 0.4045`$ even though $`\mathrm{}_h^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_+<2.0`$.
* Fig.3 $`g(\varphi )`$ in the phase coexistence for different values of $`\lambda `$ with $`\mathrm{}_h^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_+=2.04`$. Solid line: $`\lambda =0`$, dashed line: $`\lambda =0.025`$, dash-dotted line: $`\lambda =0.05`$. $`\lambda =0`$ curve is symmetric around $`\varphi =0`$, $`\lambda >0`$ curves shows that the positions of the minima are shifted towards smaller $`\varphi `$ values, i.e., softer junctions are the favored species.
* Fig.4 Schematics of the phase coexistence curves near $`\mathrm{}_h^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_+=2`$ for $`\lambda 1`$ for $`\lambda =0`$ (thick solid line), $`\lambda =\pm \lambda _1`$ (thick short-dashed lines), and $`\lambda =\pm \lambda _2`$ (thick long-dashed lines). $`\lambda _1>\lambda _2>0`$. The thin dashed curve is the position of the end points of the phase coexistence curves, this is given by $`\mathrm{}_h^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_+2(19\lambda ^2/4),\mu _{}2\lambda `$. The curves move towards the $`\lambda =0`$ phase boundary as $`\mathrm{}_h^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_+`$ increases because the effect of junction height mismatch becomes more important.
* Fig.5 Membrane-mediated interaction revealed by the Gaussian approximation. This interaction comes from the bilinear coupling between $`\delta l`$ and $`\delta \varphi _\alpha `$. (A) A small region which has higher density in the junctions with greater natural height (or lower density in the junctions with smaller natural height) induces a positive $`\delta l`$. Two regions with positive $`\delta l`$ can reduce the bending elastic energy of the membranes by moving close to each other. Similarly, a region with negative $`\delta l`$ attracts another region with negative $`\delta l`$ due to the cost of membrane bending energy. (B) A small region with positive $`\delta l`$ repels with a region with negative $`\delta l`$ because of the bending elastic energy cost of the the high curvature region between them.
* Fig.6 The shape of the MeijerG function $`G(x)`$. Although $`G(x)`$ oscillates very weakly, and has a local minimum close to $`x=5`$, the important feature of $`G(x)`$ is that this function is vanishingly small when $`x5`$.


format: text

text:
# Leptogenesis via multiscalar coherent evolution with supersymmetric neutrino see-saw

## Abstract

A novel scenario of leptogenesis is investigated in the supersymmetric neutrino see-saw model. The right-handed sneutrino $`\stackrel{~}{N}`$ and the $`\varphi `$ field in the $`\stackrel{~}{L}H_u`$ direction of the slepton and Higgs doublets start together coherent evolution after the inflation with right-handed neutrino mass $`M_N`$ smaller than the Hubble parameter of inflation. Then, after some period the motion of $`\stackrel{~}{N}`$ and $`\varphi `$ is drastically changed by the cross coupling $`M_Nh_\nu \stackrel{~}{N}^{}\varphi \varphi `$ from the $`M_NNN`$ and $`h_\nu NLH_u`$ terms, and the significant asymmetries of $`\stackrel{~}{N}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{L}`$ are generated. The $`\stackrel{~}{L}`$ asymmetry is fixed later by the thermal effect as the lepton number asymmetry for baryogenesis, while the $`\stackrel{~}{N}`$ asymmetry disappears through the decays $`\stackrel{~}{N}\overline{L}\overline{\stackrel{~}{H}}_u,\stackrel{~}{L}H_u`$ with almost the same rate but opposite final lepton numbers.

right-handed neutrino

Baryogenesis via leptogenesis is considered as one of the promising scenarios to explain the baryon number asymmetry in the universe FY . The leptogenesis is interesting particularly in the point that it may be related to the neutrino mass generation. In the supersymmetric standard model, as investigated fully so far, the leptogenesis may be realized via the Affleck-Dine mechanism AD ; DRT  in the $`\stackrel{~}{L}H_u`$ flat direction of the slepton and Higgs doublets, $`\stackrel{~}{L}`$ and $`H_u`$, requiring the very small mass of the lightest ordinary neutrino AFHY . It is also possible to realize the leptogenesis on the flat manifold of $`\stackrel{~}{L}`$-$`H_u`$-$`H_d`$, where the restriction on the lightest neutrino mass may be considerably moderated flatmanifold . In this letter, we investigate another novel scenario of leptogenesis in the supersymmetric see-saw model for neutrino masses seesaw . The lepton number asymmetry is indeed generated via the coherent evolution of the multiscalar fields, the right-handed sneutrino $`\stackrel{~}{N}`$ and the $`\varphi `$ field in the $`\stackrel{~}{L}H_u`$ direction. The potential terms provided with the supersymmetric neutrino see-saw and also the thermal effect thermaleffect  play important roles for leptogenesis in the respective epochs. The leptogenesis is completed when the generated lepton number asymmetry is fixed to some significant value by the thermal effect at the scale much higher than the gravitino mass $`m_{3/2}10^3\mathrm{GeV}`$. Hence, this scenario is not restricted by the low-energy electroweak physics.

In the present scenario of leptogenesis, it is supposed that some of the masses $`M_N`$’s of the right-handed neutrinos $`N`$’s (antineutrinos strictly) are smaller than the Hubble parameter $`H_{\mathrm{inf}}10^{13}\mathrm{GeV}`$ during the inflation. Specifically, we describe the generation of lepton number asymmetry by considering the simple case that

$$M_{N_1}<H_{\mathrm{inf}}$$
(1)
for one $`N_1`$ while $`M_{N_2},M_{N_3}>H_{\mathrm{inf}}`$ for the others $`N_2,N_3`$. The lepton doublets are arranged with unitary transformation so that only $`L_1`$ has the Yukawa coupling with $`N_1`$. Then, the right-handed sneutrino $`\stackrel{~}{N}_1`$ and the $`\varphi `$ field in $`\stackrel{~}{L}_1H_u`$ start together coherent evolution with large initial field values after the inflation in the manner of Affleck and Dine. The motions of $`\stackrel{~}{N}_1`$ and $`\varphi `$ are linked through the superpotential term $`h_\nu N_1L_1H_u`$. ($`\stackrel{~}{N}_2=\stackrel{~}{N}_3=0`$ due to the large masses $`M_{N_2},M_{N_3}>H_{\mathrm{inf}}`$.) Henceforth the generation indices are suppressed by considering only the one generation for leptogenesis, and the relevant scalar fields are specified as

$$\stackrel{~}{N},\stackrel{~}{L}=\left(\begin{array}{c}\varphi /\sqrt{2}\\ 0\end{array}\right),H_u=\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ \varphi /\sqrt{2}\end{array}\right).$$
(2)
If some of $`M_N`$’s are smaller than $`H_{\mathrm{inf}}`$ in general, the coherent evolution after the inflation may be much more multidimensional involving the $`\stackrel{~}{N}`$’s, $`\stackrel{~}{L}`$’s and $`H_u`$. The leptogenesis scenario is essentially valid even in such cases, where the main source for asymmetry generation is the cross coupling $`M_Nh_\nu \stackrel{~}{N}^{}\varphi \varphi `$ from the $`M_NNN`$ and $`h_\nu NLH_u`$ terms of supersymmetric neutrino see-saw.

The relevant superpotential is given by

$`W`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{M_N}{2}}NN+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{e}^{i\delta _N}}{4M}}NNNN+h_\nu NLH_u.`$ (3)
The $`NNNN`$ term may originate in the physics of Planck scale, and its phase factor $`\mathrm{e}^{i\delta _N}`$ is included here with real $`M_N`$. The $`NNN`$ term is discarded for simplicity by requiring the $`R`$-parity. The $`LH_uLH_u`$ term is not considered either, since it does not provide significant effect if the Yukawa coupling $`h_\nu >0`$ is not extremely small. As seen later in Eqs. (6) and (7), the Yukawa coupling $`h_\nu 3\times 10^3`$ is relevant for the present scenario of leptogenesis starting at the large scale $`10^{15}\mathrm{GeV}`$. Then, its value at the electroweak scale $`M_W`$ is evaluated as $`h_\nu (M_W)10^3`$ by considering the renormalization group effects mainly provided by the top quark loop for the $`H_u`$ field. The ordinary neutrino mass via see-saw mechanism is roughly estimated as

$`m_\nu 10^4\mathrm{eV}\left({\displaystyle \frac{h_\nu (M_W)}{10^3}}\right)^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{10^{11}\mathrm{GeV}}{M_N}}\right)`$ (4)
depending on $`h_\nu (M_W)`$ and $`M_N`$. (The neutrino mixing is present in general with matrix form of $`h_\nu `$.) Hence, this neutrino relevant for leptogenesis should be identified with the lightest one, being compatible with the data on the atmospheric and solar neutrino experiments SK ; SNO . It is interesting that the lightest neutrino mass is expected to be $`m_\nu 10^4\mathrm{eV}`$ for the present leptogenesis with $`\stackrel{~}{N}`$ and $`\varphi `$, while $`m_\nu 10^8\mathrm{eV}`$ is required for the conventional Affleck-Dine leptogenesis in the $`\stackrel{~}{L}H_u`$ flat direction AFHY .

The scalar potential is given with $`W`$ in Eq. (3) as

$`V`$ $`=`$ $`c_NH^2|\stackrel{~}{N}|^2c_\varphi H^2|\varphi |^2`$ (5)
$`+`$ $`\left|M_N\stackrel{~}{N}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{e}^{i\delta _N}}{M}}\stackrel{~}{N}\stackrel{~}{N}\stackrel{~}{N}+{\displaystyle \frac{h_\nu }{2}}\varphi \varphi \right|^2+h_\nu ^2|\stackrel{~}{N}|^2|\varphi |^2`$
$`+`$ $`H(b_N{\displaystyle \frac{M_N}{2}}\stackrel{~}{N}\stackrel{~}{N}+a_N{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{e}^{i\delta _N}}{4M}}\stackrel{~}{N}\stackrel{~}{N}\stackrel{~}{N}\stackrel{~}{N}+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.)`$
$`+`$ $`H(a_h{\displaystyle \frac{h_\nu }{2}}\stackrel{~}{N}\varphi \varphi +\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.)+V_{\mathrm{th}}(\varphi ).`$
Here the soft supersymmetry breaking terms are induced by the expansion of the universe with the Hubble parameter $`H`$. The thermal terms thermaleffect  are also included in $`V_{\mathrm{th}}(\varphi )`$. The $`D^2`$ terms are vanishing for the $`\varphi `$ field. The evolution of the scalar fields is governed by the equations of motion with this potential $`V`$ and the redshift of $`H`$.

(i) Inflation epoch: $`H=H_{\mathrm{inf}}`$

The scalar fields settle into one of the minima $`(\stackrel{~}{N}_0,\varphi _0)`$ of $`V`$ during the inflation with $`H=H_{\mathrm{inf}}`$, which are determined as

$`|\stackrel{~}{N}_0||\varphi _0|3\times 10^{15}\mathrm{GeV}\left({\displaystyle \frac{H_{\mathrm{inf}}M}{10^{13}\mathrm{GeV10}^{18}\mathrm{GeV}}}\right)^{1/2}`$ (6)
for the Yukawa coupling

$`h_\nu 3\times 10^3\left({\displaystyle \frac{H_{\mathrm{inf}}/M}{10^{13}\mathrm{GeV}/10^{18}\mathrm{GeV}}}\right)^{1/2}.`$ (7)
(We henceforth take $`H_{\mathrm{inf}}=10^{13}\mathrm{GeV}`$ typically.) We consider for definiteness the case with this range of $`h_\nu `$, though it does not require a fine tuning. If $`h_\nu <(H_{\mathrm{inf}}/M)^{1/2}`$, $`|\stackrel{~}{N}_0|`$ and $`|\varphi _0|`$ take larger values. If $`h_\nu >(H_{\mathrm{inf}}/M)^{1/2}`$, on the other hand, $`\varphi _0=0`$ may be obtained due to the $`h_\nu ^2|\stackrel{~}{N}|^2|\varphi |^2`$ term. The leptogenesis can be realized even in these cases with some modifications of scenario, which will be described elsewhere.

(ii) Oscillation epoch: $`H_{\mathrm{inf}}>H>H_{\mathrm{tr}}`$

After the inflation the Hubble parameter decreases as $`H=(2/3)t^1`$ in the matter dominated universe, and the multiscalar coherent evolution of $`\stackrel{~}{N}`$ and $`\varphi `$ starts with the initial condition $`(\stackrel{~}{N},\varphi )=(\stackrel{~}{N}_0,\varphi _0)`$ at $`t=t_0H_{\mathrm{inf}}^1`$, as given in Eq. (6). The higher order potential terms suppressed by $`M`$ are soon reduced by redshift, and the quartic couplings $`h_\nu ^2|\varphi |^4`$ and $`h_\nu ^2|\stackrel{~}{N}|^2|\varphi |^2`$ dominate in this epoch with $`h_\nu `$ as given in Eq. (7). Then, driven by these quartic couplings, the scalar fields oscillate in magnitude with scaling by redshift as

$`|\stackrel{~}{N}||\varphi |(H_{\mathrm{inf}}M)^{1/2}(H/H_{\mathrm{inf}})^{2/3}H^{2/3}.`$ (8)
The field phases, however, remain almost constant except for the vicinities of $`\stackrel{~}{N}=0`$ and $`\varphi =0`$, and the significant asymmetries of $`\stackrel{~}{N}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{L}`$ do not appear in this epoch.

(iii) Transition epoch: $`H_{\mathrm{tr}}H>H_{\mathrm{th}}`$

Since $`\stackrel{~}{N}`$ and $`\varphi `$ decrease with $`H`$ as given in Eq. (8), the mass term $`M_N^2|\stackrel{~}{N}|^2`$ and $`M_N`$-$`h_\nu `$ cross coupling $`M_Nh_\nu \stackrel{~}{N}^{}\varphi \varphi `$ become comparable to the quartic couplings $`h_\nu ^2|\varphi |^4`$ and $`h_\nu ^2|\stackrel{~}{N}|^2|\varphi |^2`$ with $`|\stackrel{~}{N}||\varphi |M_N/h_\nu `$ and the Hubble parameter

$$H_{\mathrm{tr}}10^{10}\mathrm{GeV}\left(\frac{M_N}{10^{11}\mathrm{GeV}}\right)^{3/2},$$
(9)
where $`h_\nu (H_{\mathrm{inf}}/M)^{1/2}`$ with $`H_{\mathrm{inf}}=10^{13}\mathrm{GeV}`$ is taken from Eq. (7). The thermal mass term should also be considered at $`HH_{\mathrm{tr}}`$, which is given by $`(yT_\mathrm{p})^2|\varphi |^2`$ with relevant coupling $`y`$ under the condition $`y|\varphi |<T_\mathrm{p}`$ thermaleffect . The temperature $`T_\mathrm{p}`$ of the dilute plasma of inflaton decay products is given in terms of the reheating temperature $`T_\mathrm{R}`$ of the universe after the inflaton decay is completed:

$$T_\mathrm{p}(T_\mathrm{R}^2HM_\mathrm{P})^{1/4},$$
(10)
where $`M_\mathrm{P}=2.4\times 10^{18}\mathrm{GeV}`$ is the reduced Planck mass. The thermal mass is constrained at $`HH_{\mathrm{tr}}`$ as $`yT_\mathrm{p}<T_\mathrm{p}^2/|\varphi |h_\nu T_\mathrm{p}^2/M_N`$ for $`y|\varphi |<T_\mathrm{p}`$ with $`|\stackrel{~}{N}||\varphi |M_N/h_\nu `$. Hence, the thermal mass term $`(yT_\mathrm{p})^2|\varphi |^2`$ is smaller than the $`M_N^2|\stackrel{~}{N}|^2`$ and $`M_Nh_\nu \stackrel{~}{N}^{}\varphi \varphi `$ terms at $`HH_{\mathrm{tr}}`$ for the right-handed neutrino mass

$$M_N10^{10}\mathrm{GeV}\left(\frac{h_\nu }{3\times 10^3}\right)^{4/5}\left(\frac{T_\mathrm{R}}{10^9\mathrm{GeV}}\right)^{4/5}.$$
(11)
In this situation, the $`M_N^2|\stackrel{~}{N}|^2`$ and $`M_Nh_\nu \stackrel{~}{N}^{}\varphi \varphi `$ terms as well as the $`h_\nu ^2|\varphi |^4`$ term dominate for $`HH_{\mathrm{tr}}`$, so that the motion of $`\stackrel{~}{N}`$ and $`\varphi `$ is changed drastically. Specifically, the $`\stackrel{~}{N}`$ field oscillates mainly driven by the mass term $`M_N^2|\stackrel{~}{N}|^2`$ with $`|\stackrel{~}{N}|H`$. The motion of $`\varphi `$ follows after $`\stackrel{~}{N}`$ toward the new stable configuration with $`(h_\nu /2)\varphi \varphi M_N\stackrel{~}{N}`$ so as to make $`|F_N|^2|F_\varphi |^2M_N^2|\stackrel{~}{N}|^2`$ in $`V`$, where $`F_NM_N\stackrel{~}{N}+(h_\nu /2)\varphi \varphi `$ and $`F_\varphi =h_\nu \stackrel{~}{N}\varphi `$. Consequently, the scalar fields decrease roughly as

$`|\stackrel{~}{N}|(M_N/h_\nu )(H/H_{\mathrm{tr}})H,`$ (12)
$`|\varphi |(M_N/h_\nu )(H/H_{\mathrm{tr}})^{1/2}H^{1/2}`$ (13)
with $`|F_N||F_\varphi |H^{3/2}`$. Through this drastic change in the multiscalar coherent evolution, the significant asymmetries of $`\stackrel{~}{N}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{L}`$ appear, which is really seen in the rate equations

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{n_{\stackrel{~}{N}}}{H^2}}\right)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{H^2}}\mathrm{Im}[b_NM_NH\stackrel{~}{N}\stackrel{~}{N}]`$ (14)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{H^2}}\mathrm{Im}\left[M_N\stackrel{~}{N}F_N^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{a_hh_\nu }{2}}H\stackrel{~}{N}\varphi \varphi \right],`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{n_{\stackrel{~}{L}}}{H^2}}\right)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{H^2}}\mathrm{Im}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{h_\nu }{2}}\varphi \varphi F_N^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{a_hh_\nu }{2}}H\stackrel{~}{N}\varphi \varphi \right]`$ (15)
with $`n_{\stackrel{~}{L}}=n_{H_u}=n_\varphi /2`$. The main sources are scaled as $`\mathrm{Im}[(h_\nu /2)\varphi \varphi F_N^{}]/H^2`$ $`\mathrm{Im}[M_N\stackrel{~}{N}F_N^{}]/H^2`$ $`H^{5/2}/H^2`$ with $`|F_N|H^{3/2}`$, and hence the asymmetries $`n_{\stackrel{~}{N}}`$ and $`n_{\stackrel{~}{L}}`$ oscillate rapidly by the exchange $`\stackrel{~}{N}\stackrel{~}{L}`$. The sum $`n_{\stackrel{~}{N}}+n_{\stackrel{~}{L}}`$, however, varies rather moderately with the remaining sources $`H^3`$, since the main sources are cancelled as $`\mathrm{Im}[F_NF_N^{}]=0`$ with $`F_NM_N\stackrel{~}{N}+(h_\nu /2)\varphi \varphi `$.

(iv) Completion epoch: $`H_{\mathrm{th}}Hm_{3/2}`$

After the transition epoch continues for some period, the thermal log term thermaleffect  eventually becomes significant on the evolution of $`\varphi `$. It is mainly provided as

$$a_{\mathrm{th}}\alpha _s^2T_\mathrm{p}^4\mathrm{ln}(|\varphi |^2/T_\mathrm{p}^2)$$
(16)
($`a_{\mathrm{th}}=9/8`$) through the modification of $`\mathrm{SU}(3)_C`$ coupling due to the decoupling of top quark from the plasma with large mass $`h_t|\varphi |/\sqrt{2}>T_\mathrm{p}`$. This thermal log term acts as the effective mass term for the $`\varphi `$ field giving $`(a_{\mathrm{th}}\alpha _s^2T_\mathrm{p}^4/|\varphi |^2)\varphi `$ $`H^{1/2}`$ in $`V/\varphi ^{}`$. It dominates over the term $`F_Nh_\nu \varphi ^{}`$ $`H^2`$ in $`V/\varphi ^{}`$ ($`|F_N||F_\varphi |=h_\nu |\stackrel{~}{N}||\varphi |`$) with the Hubble parameter

$`H_{\mathrm{th}}`$ $``$ $`10^7\mathrm{GeV}\left({\displaystyle \frac{h_\nu }{3\times 10^3}}\right)^{4/3}`$ (17)
$`\times `$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{M_N}{10^{11}\mathrm{GeV}}}\right)^{1/6}\left({\displaystyle \frac{T_\mathrm{R}}{10^9\mathrm{GeV}}}\right)^{4/3},`$
where Eqs. (10), (13) and (12) are considered. Then, the rotation of the $`\varphi `$ field phase is accelerated by this thermal log term with the change of field scaling

$$|\varphi |H^{1/2}H^{3/2}$$
(18)
while keeping $`|\stackrel{~}{N}|H`$. After a while the top quark enters the plasma at $`H0.1H_{\mathrm{th}}`$ with $`|\varphi |T_\mathrm{p}`$ ($`h_t1`$). Then, the thermal mass term $`T_\mathrm{p}^2|\varphi |^2`$ instead becomes important, and the $`\varphi `$ field decreases as $`|\varphi |H^{7/8}`$. In the preceding epoch, the significant exchange of asymmetries, $`n_{\stackrel{~}{N}}n_{\stackrel{~}{L}}`$, took place through the $`\stackrel{~}{N}`$-$`\varphi `$ couplings, as seen in Eqs. (14) and (15). These couplings are actually turned off in this epoch with the rapid decrease of $`|\varphi |H^{3/2}`$ and $`H^{7/8}`$ later due to the thermal terms, and the $`\varphi `$ and $`\stackrel{~}{N}`$ evolve almost independently.

In this way, the $`\stackrel{~}{L}`$ asymmetry is fixed to some significant value as the lepton number asymmetry for $`t>H_{\mathrm{th}}^1`$,

$$n_{\stackrel{~}{L}}n_Lϵ_L[(3/2)H^2M],$$
(19)
since the $`\stackrel{~}{L}`$ violating sources in Eq. (15) decreases fast enough as $`H^4/H^2`$ and $`H^{11/4}/H^2`$ later with rapidly varying phase of $`\stackrel{~}{N}^{}\varphi \varphi `$. This concludes that the thermal effect plays the positive role for the completion of leptogenesis, which is in salient contrast to the conventional Affleck-Dine mechanism where the thermal effect rather suppresses the asymmetry seriously. The resultant lepton-to-entropy ratio after the reheating is estimated with $`s3H_\mathrm{R}^2M_\mathrm{P}^2/T_\mathrm{R}`$ as

$$\frac{n_L}{s}10^{10}\left(\frac{ϵ_L}{1}\right)\left(\frac{M}{10^{18}\mathrm{GeV}}\right)\left(\frac{T_\mathrm{R}}{10^9\mathrm{GeV}}\right).$$
(20)
Here the reheating temperature is restricted as $`T_\mathrm{R}10^810^{10}\mathrm{GeV}`$ to avoid the gravitino problem gravitino ; gravitino2 ; gravitino3 . The lepton number asymmetry is converted to the baryon number asymmetry through the electroweak anomalous effect as $`n_B/s=(8/23)n_L/s`$ harveyturner . Hence, the sufficient baryon-to-entropy ratio can be provided for the nucleosynthesis with $`\eta =(2.66.2)\times 10^{10}`$ PDG .

The motion of $`\stackrel{~}{N}`$ after the decoupling from $`\varphi `$ for $`H<H_{\mathrm{th}}M_N`$ is determined by the $`M_N^2|\stackrel{~}{N}|^2`$ and $`b_NHM_N\stackrel{~}{N}\stackrel{~}{N}`$ terms, and the analytic solution is obtained in a good approximation with $`HM_N`$ for the two eigenmodes $`\eta _\mathrm{R}(t)`$ and $`\eta _\mathrm{I}(t)`$ in $`\stackrel{~}{N}(t)`$ as

$$\eta _{\mathrm{R},\mathrm{I}}(t)\overline{\eta }_{\mathrm{R},\mathrm{I}}\mathrm{cos}\left[M_Nt+\sigma _{\mathrm{R},\mathrm{I}}(|b_N|/3)\mathrm{ln}t+\delta _{\mathrm{R},\mathrm{I}}\right]$$
(21)
with $`\sigma _\mathrm{R}=+1`$, $`\sigma _\mathrm{I}=1`$, and

$$\stackrel{~}{N}H(M/M_N)^{1/2}(b_N/|b_N|)^{1/2}(\eta _\mathrm{R}+i\eta _\mathrm{I}).$$
(22)
The parameters $`\overline{\eta }_{\mathrm{R},\mathrm{I}}`$ and $`\delta _{\mathrm{R},\mathrm{I}}`$ are determined as the result of $`\stackrel{~}{N}`$ motion from $`t=t_0H_{\mathrm{inf}}^1`$ through $`t>H_{\mathrm{th}}^1M_N^1`$. The $`\stackrel{~}{N}`$ asymmetry is evaluated with Eqs. (21) and (22) as

$`n_{\stackrel{~}{N}}(t)2H^2M\overline{\eta }_\mathrm{R}\overline{\eta }_\mathrm{I}\mathrm{cos}[(2|b_N|/3)\mathrm{ln}t+\delta _\mathrm{R}\delta _\mathrm{I}],`$ (23)
where the rapid oscillations of $`\eta _\mathrm{R}`$ and $`\eta _\mathrm{I}`$ with $`M_Nt`$ in Eq. (21) are cancelled.

This $`\stackrel{~}{N}`$ asymmetry oscillates slowly in $`\mathrm{ln}t`$ for some while due to the $`b_N`$ term, as seen in Eq. (23). Then, the incoherent decays of $`\stackrel{~}{N}`$ become significant with the dominant modes

$$\stackrel{~}{N}\overline{L}\overline{\stackrel{~}{H}}_u[L=1],\stackrel{~}{L}H_u[L=+1],$$
(24)
where the decay products are ultra-relativistic with $`h_\nu |\stackrel{~}{N}|M_N/2`$. The motion of $`\stackrel{~}{N}`$ is significantly decelerated by these $`\stackrel{~}{N}`$ decays at $`H\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\stackrel{~}{N}}(h_\nu ^2/4\pi )M_N`$ ($`10^5\mathrm{GeV}`$ numerically), so that it is linked again to $`\varphi `$, tracking the instantaneous minimum of $`V`$ as $`\stackrel{~}{N}(h_\nu /2M_N)\varphi \varphi `$ with $`|\stackrel{~}{N}||\varphi |^2H^{7/4}`$ in magnitude and $`d\theta _{\stackrel{~}{N}}/dt2d\theta _\varphi /dt`$ $`H^{1/4}`$ in phase. Then, the $`\stackrel{~}{N}`$ asymmetry remaining after the transition epoch diminishes rapidly through the decays as $`n_{\stackrel{~}{N}}=2(d\theta _{\stackrel{~}{N}}/dt)|\stackrel{~}{N}|^2`$ $`H^{15/4}`$. It is the essential point that the decay modes (24) have almost the same rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\stackrel{~}{N}}/2`$ but the opposite final lepton numbers $`L=\pm 1`$. This means that the $`\stackrel{~}{N}`$ asymmetry does not leave any significant lepton number asymmetry.

The equations of motion for $`\stackrel{~}{N}`$ and $`\varphi `$ are solved by numerical calculations to confirm the present scenario of leptogenesis. The typical time variations of $`n_{\stackrel{~}{N}}(t)`$ and $`n_{\stackrel{~}{L}}(t)n_L(t)`$ are depicted in Fig. 1 in terms of the asymmetry fractions $`ϵ_an_a/[(3/2)H^2M]`$. Here the model parameters are taken for example as $`H_{\mathrm{inf}}=10^{13}\mathrm{GeV}`$, $`M=5\times 10^{18}\mathrm{GeV}`$, $`M_N=10^{11}\mathrm{GeV}`$, $`\mathrm{e}^{i\delta _N}=\mathrm{e}^{i(3/10)\pi }`$, $`h_\nu =3\times 10^3`$, $`c_N=1.2`$, $`c_\varphi =0.8`$, $`b_N=1.3\mathrm{e}^{i(2/3)\pi }`$, $`a_N=1.5\mathrm{e}^{i(5/4)\pi }`$, $`a_h=0.8\mathrm{e}^{i(1/4)\pi }`$, $`T_\mathrm{R}=10^9\mathrm{GeV}`$. The relevant scales, $`H_{\mathrm{inf}}`$, $`H_{\mathrm{tr}}`$ and $`H_{\mathrm{th}}`$, are marked together specifying the respective epochs. We really observe the expected changes of the asymmetries through $`H_{\mathrm{inf}}H_{\mathrm{tr}}H_{\mathrm{th}}`$, resulting in the desired lepton number asymmetry $`ϵ_L1`$. Particularly, the variations of $`ϵ_{\stackrel{~}{L}}`$ and $`ϵ_{\stackrel{~}{N}}`$ are separated for $`t>H_{\mathrm{th}}^1`$; $`ϵ_{\stackrel{~}{L}}`$ is fixed to some significant value while $`ϵ_{\stackrel{~}{N}}`$ oscillates slowly in $`\mathrm{ln}t`$ as given in Eq. (23). It is also checked that the sum $`n_{\stackrel{~}{N}}+n_{\stackrel{~}{L}}`$ varies rather moderately in the transition epoch, while the respective asymmetries oscillate rapidly.

In summary, we have investigated the leptogenesis via multiscalar coherent evolution in the supersymmetric see-saw model. The right-handed sneutrino $`\stackrel{~}{N}`$ and the $`\varphi `$ field in $`\stackrel{~}{L}H_u`$ of the slepton and Higgs doublets start together coherent evolution after the inflation with $`M_N`$ smaller than $`H_{\mathrm{inf}}`$. Then, after some period the motion of $`\stackrel{~}{N}`$ and $`\varphi `$ is drastically changed by the cross coupling $`M_Nh_\nu \stackrel{~}{N}^{}\varphi \varphi `$, and the significant asymmetries of $`\stackrel{~}{N}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{L}`$ are generated. The $`\stackrel{~}{L}`$ asymmetry is fixed later by the thermal effect as the lepton number asymmetry $`n_L`$. The $`\stackrel{~}{N}`$ asymmetry, on the other hand, disappears through the incoherent decays $`\stackrel{~}{N}\overline{L}\overline{\stackrel{~}{H}}_u,\stackrel{~}{L}H_u`$ with almost the same rate but opposite final lepton numbers. The sufficient amount of $`n_L`$ for baryogenesis can be obtained with the lightest neutrino mass $`m_\nu 10^3\mathrm{eV}`$ given by the see-saw mechanism with the right-handed neutrino mass $`M_N10^{10}10^{14}\mathrm{GeV}H_{\mathrm{inf}}`$.

###### Acknowledgements.

This work is supported in part by Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research on Priority Areas B (No. 13135214) from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, Japan.