format: text

text:
# 𝒮𝒫ℳ Bulletin Issue number 4: April 2003 CE

## 1. Editor’s note

This issue of the $`𝒮𝒫`$ Bulletin announces two conferences which are of interest to anyone working in SPM or general topology. In the conference announced in \[§3.2 below\] it is planned to have *a significant part devoted to SPM*. Those who are interested in participating should contact Ljubiša D. R. Kočinac at lkocinac@ptt.yu

Kočinac is a very active mathematician in the field of SPM. We announce here one of his most recent works.

The first issues of this bulletin, which contain general information (first issue), basic definitions, research announcements, and open problems (all issues) are available online:

1. First issue: http://arxiv.org/abs/math.GN/0301011
2. Second issue: http://arxiv.org/abs/math.GN/0302062
3. Third issue: http://arxiv.org/abs/math.GN/0303057

We are looking forward to receive more announcements from the recipients of this bulletin.

*Boaz Tsaban*, tsaban@math.huji.ac.il

http://www.cs.biu.ac.il/~tsaban

## 2. Research announcements

### 2.1. Selection principles in uniform spaces

We begin the investigation of selection principles in uniform spaces in a manner as it was done with selection principles theory for topological spaces. We introduced and characterized uniform versions of classical topological notions of the Menger, Hurewicz and Rothberger properties. The uniform $`\gamma `$-sets are also considered.

*Ljubiša D. R. Kočinac*, lkocinac@ptt.yu

## 3. Conferences

### 3.1. General and Set-Theoretic Topology

(dedicated to the 60th birthday of Istvan Juhasz) Budapest, Hungary, from 8 to 13 August, 2003.

The János Bolyai Mathematical Society, the Alfréd Renyi Institute of Mathematics and the Paul Erdõs Summer Research Center of Mathematics are organizing a Colloquium on General and Set-Theoretic Topology in the period of August 8-13, 2003 in Budapest. You are cordially invited to attend this conference. The aim of the Colloquium is to provide ground for the exchange of information on new achievements and on the recent problems of General and Set-Theoretic Topology.

Organizing Committee: A. Csaszar (cochairman), J. Gerlits, A. Hajnal (chairman), E. Makai, G. Sagi, L. Soukup(secretary), Z. Szentmiklossy

The following people will give invited addresses:

* A. V. Archangelskii (Athens, OH)
* A. Dow (Charlton, NC)
* K. Kunen (Madison)
* J. van Mill (Amsterdam)
* S. Romaguera (Valencia)
* S. Shelah (Jerusalem)
* W. A. R. Weiss (Toronto)

Besides these lectures there will be 20-minutes contributed talks.

The conference will take place at the Alfred Renyi Institute of Mathematics, Budapest (V. Realtanoda u. 13–15, Budapest).

*E-mail:* top2003@renyi.hu

*URL:* http://www.renyi.hu/~top2003

### 3.2. Interplay between Topology and Analysis

(accompanying the Congress of MASSEE) September 15–21, 2003, Bulgaria. Organizing and Programme Committee:

* A. V. Arhangel’skii, Univrsity of Ohaio, USA
* M. M. Choban, Tiraspol University in Kishineu, Moldova
* D. Dimovski, Univrsity of Skopje, Macedonia
* P. S. Kenderov (Co-Chair), Institute of Mathematics and Informatics, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences
* Lj. Kocinac, University of Nis, Serbia
* S. J. Nedev (Co-Chair), Institute of Mathematics and Informatics, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences
* J. Orihuela, University of Murcia, Spain
* J. Pelant, Institute of Mathematics, Czech Academy of Sciences
* I. Shishkov (Secretary), Institute of Mathematics and Informatics, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences
* St. Troyanski, Institute of Mathematics and Informatics, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences

The main purpose of this Mini Symposium is to bring together, within the Congress of MASSEE, people interested in the indicated areas, including Ph.D. and university students. Topology and the Analisys occupy central place in Mathematics. The interplay between Topology and Analysis is evident in such topics like Selections of set-valued mappings, Geometry of Banach spaces and, in particular, equivalent renorming of Banach spaces. Recent results in the area show that the renorming of Banach spaces is closely related to s-fragmentability of the weak topologies, and thus to the topological theory of metrizability. Useful tools when attacking problems in this area are Topological games and quasi-continuity. Any other related topics are welcome.

The program of the Workshop will include invited talks of approximately 45 min. duration, as well as contributed presentations of approximately 20 min. duration (including 5 min. discussion), depending on the total number of contributions. For the accommodation, participation fees, deadlines, abstracts, etc., please refer to

> http://www.math.bas.bg/massee2003

*Ivailo Shishkov*, shishkov@math.bas.bg

## 4. Modern selection principles: Open problems

By *modern selection principles* we mean selection principles involving modern types of open covers. These include groupable and weakly groupable covers , and $`\tau `$-covers. In this note we concentrate on this latter type of covers. The following is based on .

Fix a zero-dimensional, separable metric space $`X`$. (Topologically this is simply a zero-dimensional set of reals.) Recall that the symbols $`𝒪`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ denote the by-now-classical collections of (countable open) covers, $`\omega `$-covers, and $`\gamma `$-covers of $`X`$. $`𝒰`$ is a *$`\tau `$-cover* of $`X`$ if it is a large cover of $`X`$, and for each $`x,yX`$, either $`\{U𝒰:xU,yU\}`$ is finite, or $`\{U𝒰:yU,xU\}`$ is finite. As any $`\omega `$-cover of a set of reals contains a countable $`\omega `$-cover of that set, and every large subcover of a $`\tau `$-cover is a $`\tau `$-cover (and every $`\omega `$-cover is a large cover), we have that Every open $`\tau `$-cover of $`X`$ contains a countable $`\tau `$-cover of $`X`$. Let $`\mathrm{T}`$ denote the collection of countable open $`\tau `$-covers of $`X`$. Then

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{T}\mathrm{\Omega }𝒪.$$

The notion of $`\tau `$-covers introduces seven new pairs—namely, $`(\mathrm{T},𝒪)`$, $`(\mathrm{T},\mathrm{\Omega })`$, $`(\mathrm{T},\mathrm{T})`$, $`(\mathrm{T},\mathrm{\Gamma })`$, $`(𝒪,\mathrm{T})`$, $`(\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{T})`$, and $`(\mathrm{\Gamma },\mathrm{T})`$—to which any of the selection operators $`𝖲_1`$, $`𝖲_{fin}`$, and $`𝖴_{fin}`$ can be applied. This makes a total of $`21`$ new selection hypotheses. Fortunately, some of them are easily eliminated, and the surviving properties appear in the following diagram.

Below each property in the above diagram appears a “serial number” (to be used below), and its *critical cardinality*, the minimal cardinality of a set of reals not satisfying the property. The cardinal numbers $`𝔭`$, $`𝔱`$, $`𝔟`$, and $`𝔡`$ are the well-known psedudo-intersection, tower, (un)bounding, and dominating numbers, and $`\mathrm{𝖼𝗈𝗏}()`$ is the covering number for the meager ideal (see, e.g.,  or  for definitions and details). $`𝔵`$ is the excluded-middle number, and is equal to $`\mathrm{max}\{𝔰,𝔟\}`$, where $`𝔰`$ is the splitting number .

As indicated in the diagram, some of the critical cardinalities were not found yet.

###### Problem 4.1.

What are the unknown critical cardinalities in the above diagram?

Recall that Issue 2’s *Problem of the month* mentioned two unsettled implications in the corresponding diagram for the *classical* types of open covers. As there are many more properties when $`\tau `$-covers are incorporated into the framework, and since this investigation is new, there remain *many* unsettled implications in the above diagram. To be precise, there are exactly $`76`$(!) unsettled implications in this diagram. These appear as question marks in the following *implications table*. Entry $`(i,j)`$ in the table ($`i`$th row, $`j`$th column) is to be interpreted as follows: It is $`1`$ if property $`i`$ implies property $`j`$, $`0`$ if property $`i`$ does not imply property $`j`$ (that is, consistently there exists a counter-example), and $`\mathrm{?}`$ if the implication is unsettled.

|  | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | ? | ? | ? | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | ? | ? | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 1 | ? | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | ? | ? | ? | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | ? | ? | 0 | 0 | ? | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | ? | ? | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | ? | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ? | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| 4 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | ? | ? | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | ? | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 5 | ? | 1 | 1 | 1 | ? | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | ? | ? | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | ? | ? | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 6 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | ? | ? | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | ? | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| 7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ? | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| 8 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 9 | ? | 1 | 1 | 1 | ? | 1 | 1 | 1 | ? | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ? | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 10 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| 11 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| 12 | ? | ? | ? | ? | 0 | ? | ? | ? | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | ? | ? | 0 | 0 | ? | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 13 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | ? | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| 14 | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | 0 | 0 | ? | ? | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | ? | ? | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 15 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | ? | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| 16 | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ? | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 17 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| 18 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ? | 0 | ? | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 19 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ? | 0 | ? | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 20 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ? | 0 | ? | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| 21 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |

###### Problem 4.2.

Settle any of the unsettled implications in the above table.

Almost any solution logically implies several other solutions. The above implications table, as well as the remarks which follow, were obtained by using a simple computer program.

For example, if the solution to Issue 2’s *Problem of the month* is negative, that is, $`𝖴_{fin}(\mathrm{\Gamma },\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ does not imply $`𝖲_{fin}(\mathrm{\Gamma },\mathrm{\Omega })`$ (a plausible assumption), then $`6`$ implications are settled. If, in addition, the solution to Issue 1’s *Problem of the month* is positive, then only $`53`$ implications (out of the $`76`$ we began with) remain unsettled.

Marion Scheepers asked us which single solution would imply as many other solutions as possible. The answer found by our program is the following: If entry $`(12,5)`$ is $`1`$ (that is, $`𝖲_{fin}(\mathrm{\Gamma },\mathrm{T})`$ implies $`𝖲_1(\mathrm{T},\mathrm{T})`$), then there remain only 33 (!) open problems. The best possible negative entry in $`(16,3)`$: If $`𝖲_{fin}(\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{T})`$ does not imply $`𝖲_1(\mathrm{\Gamma },𝒪)`$, then only $`47`$ implications remain unsettled.

Finally, observe that any solution in Problem 4.1 would imply several new nonimplications.

*Boaz Tsaban*, tsaban@math.huji.ac.il

## 5. Problem of the month

Scheepers chose the following problem out of all the problems discussed above as the most interesting.

###### Problem 5.1.

Does $`𝖲_1(\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{T})`$ imply the Hurewicz property $`𝖴_{fin}(\mathrm{\Gamma },\mathrm{\Gamma })`$?

The reason for this choice is that if the answer is positive, then $`𝖲_1(\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{T})`$ implies the Gerlitz-Nagy $`()`$ property , which is equivalent to another modern selection property.

Observe that a positive answer to Issue 1’s *Problem of the month* implies a positive answer to this problem too.

*Boaz Tsaban*, tsaban@math.huji.ac.il


text:
# Does the small CMB quadrupole moment suggest new physics?

## 1 Introduction

One of the intriguing results of the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) is a smaller than expected correlation of temperature fluctuations on large angular scales, corresponding to a low value for the quadrupole moment. Figure 1 shows the WMAP results for $`C(\theta )`$ and the low-multipole $`C_l`$’s. Their “Basic results” paper  states that the “probability of so little $`C(\theta >60^{})`$ anisotropy power is $`2\times 10^3`$, given the best-fit \[running spectral index\] $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM model.” (See also refs.  for related discussions.) Given the large uncertainties in this region due to cosmic variance, one might never know whether this constitutes a truly significant deviation from standard cosmological expectations. However it has recently been suggested that measuring polarization from galaxy clusters may in the next decade give a complementary determination of the quadrupole moment  and its evolution with redshift.

Loss of power at large angles could be explained by lowering the primordial power spectrum of inflaton fluctuations $`(P(k))`$ at small wave numbers. Prior to the WMAP observation, there have been several suggestions for generating such an effect. Sharp features in the inflaton potential - can suppress power at low $`k`$. Recently  studied two other possibilities: an oscillating scalar field $`\chi `$ coupling to the inflaton can temporariliy suppress inflaton fluctuations, leading to a cutoff at low $`k`$; a prior period of matter or radiation domination before the beginning of inflation has a similar effect . Spatial compactness  or curvature  can also lead to a smaller CMB quadrupole moment. These scenarios require that the total amount of inflation is close to the minimum amount required to solve the horizon and flatness problems, or alternatively that the break in the inflaton potential is reached just when the relevant scales are crossing the horizon.

Recent papers  considered how cutting off $`P(k)`$ at low $`k`$ can improve the fit to the data. Ref.  found that the data favor having such a modified primordial spectrum at the $`2\sigma `$ level, whereas  obtain weaker evidence for a cutoff. The conclusion of ref.  was based upon using only the temperature anisotropy data, and ignoring polarization. The TE cross power spectrum represents one third of the total data set, and has an important effect on the determination of parameters that would lower the TT quadrupole moment. If one simply cuts off $`P(k)`$ at low $`k`$ while keeping all other cosmological parameters fixed, the improvement of the fit to the TT spectrum is accompanied by a deterioration in the fit to the TE spectrum, such that the overall improvement of the fit is nil. To counteract this, one needs to allow other parameters like the optical depth $`\tau `$ and the fraction of dark energy $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ to vary. In the present study, we do a complete likelihood analysis in which all the relevant cosmological parameters are varied in order to find those values which have the real maximum likelihood. We corroborate and extend the results of , who used a similar approach.

In the second section we describe the theoretical models which can lead to a suppression of low-$`k`$ power in the primordial fluctuations. Section three presents our likelihood analysis, in which we find that the preference for a cutoff in $`P(k)`$ is of marginal statistical significance. Our findings and conclusions are summarized in the final section.

## 2 Theoretical Models

There are many ways to alter the spectrum of inflaton fluctuations relative to the flat Harrison-Zeldovich form. Here we will concentrate only on those that produce a sharp reduction in large wavelength power, needed to suppress the low multipoles of the CMB. One way is to engineer the inflaton potential $`V(\varphi )`$, which in principle can yield any desired form for $`P(k)`$ . A model which predicts a step-like feature in $`P(k)`$ was proposed by Starobinsky , which assumes that there is a sudden change in the slope of $`V(\varphi )`$. If by chance the scales presently corresponding to large-angle CMB anisotropies exit the Hubble radius at the moment when $`\varphi `$ crosses the kink in $`V(\varphi )`$, then the power of smaller $`k`$ fluctuations which subsequently cross the horizon can be suppressed. The resulting power spectrum (shown in ) looks similar to the one we shall discuss below in fig. 2b.

More recently (but before WMAP’s data release) ref.  investigated possible effects of a limited duration of inflation on the power spectrum of the inflaton fluctuations. Two of these predicted that $`P(k)`$ should be strongly suppressed at low wave numbers. The first was in the context of the hybrid inflation model, with Lagrangian

$``$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{g}\left[\frac{1}{2}_\mu \varphi ^\mu \varphi +\frac{1}{2}_\mu \chi ^\mu \chi +V(\varphi ,\chi )\right],`$ (1)
$`\text{with}V(\varphi ,\chi )`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{1}{2}m^2\varphi ^2+\frac{1}{4}\lambda (\chi ^2v^2)^2+\frac{1}{2}g\chi ^2\varphi ^2+\frac{1}{12}\stackrel{~}{\lambda }\varphi ^4.`$
It was noticed that if the field $`\chi `$, which is responsible for triggering the end of inflation, is oscillating prior to horizon crossing of the relevant inflaton fluctuations, these oscillations can strongly affect $`P(k)`$ for $`k`$ values which are below some characteristic scale $`k_{\mathrm{max}}`$, defined by

$$k_{\mathrm{max}}=Me^{Ht_0}$$
(2)
Here $`M`$ is the $`\chi `$ field mass, and $`t_0`$ is the amount of time prior to horizon crossing of the mode $`k`$ during which $`\chi `$ was oscillating. In fact there are two important scales, this one, which comes about because the $`\chi `$ oscillations cause production of inflaton fluctuations, and a lower one, below which the fluctuations are suppressed. The suppression occurs because the average value of $`g\chi ^2`$ contributes to the squared mass of the inflaton, $`\delta m_\varphi ^2=g\chi ^2=\frac{1}{2}g\chi _0^2e^{3Ht}`$. When $`\delta m_\varphi ^2\text{ }\stackrel{>}{}\text{ }H^2`$, the inflaton rolls quickly, which suppresses fluctuations on scales $`k`$ which have not yet crossed the horizon. However, the amplitude of $`\chi `$ redshifts exponentially, and at a certain time $`\delta m_\varphi ^2`$ will fall below $`H^2`$. Fluctuations which have not yet frozen out by this time will have a chance to grow toward their normal amplitude, $`\delta \varphi (k)=H/2\pi `$; thus larger wave numbers will be unchanged by this effect. The fractional amount by which $`P(k)`$ is reduced at low $`k`$ is $`g\chi _0^2/H^2`$ for small values of this parameter, where $`\chi _0`$ is the initial amplitude of the $`\chi `$ oscillations, and $`H`$ is the Hubble parameter during inflation. For large values of $`g\chi _0^2/H^2`$, the suppression is essentially complete, $`P(k)0`$. This is illustrated for some typical parameter values in figure 2a.

The second situation studied in  is that in which the inflaton fluctuations with wave number $`k`$ cross the horizon shortly after the beginning of inflation, where the inflationary epoch is preceded by matter or radiation domination . In this case, power is suppressed on scales below $`kH`$, the only relevant scale in the problem. (This refers to the value of $`k`$ at the time when inflation starts. The physical wave number gets reduced by the subsequent inflation.) The deformation of the power spectrum has a unique form, which is shown in figure 2b for the case of prior matter domination. The suppression of $`P(k)`$ in this case is a factor of $`0.063`$.

Both of the above effects rely upon having a limited period of inflation: inflation must not have started much earlier than the time when the large-angle CMB fluctuations first crossed the inflationary horizon. For the oscillating scalar scenario, this is because its oscillations are quickly Hubble damped. After at most 30 e-foldings of inflation, the amplitude of $`\chi `$ will be too small to have any further effect on the CMB. In the second scenario, there must be a coincidence of scales such that the large angle fluctuations cross the horizon just at the beginning of inflation; in this case inflation can last no longer than the minimum duration needed for solving the horizon and flatness problems.

## 3 Effect on CMB temperature fluctuations

Let us consider the effect of the spectrum shown in fig. 2b on the CMB temperature anisotropy. The physical scale of wave numbers at which $`P(k)`$ changes is determined by the total amount of inflation following the horizon crossing of the corresponding mode, denoted by $`k=H`$ in fig. 2b. A longer period of inflation stretches the wavelength of this mode to larger physical values. We refer to this model-dependent cutoff scale as $`k_{}`$. Figure 3 shows the effect of varying $`k_{}`$ in a modified version of the CMBFAST code  which incorporates the distorted spectrum. There it is seen that the relevant scales for suppressing the lowest multipoles are on the order of $`k_{}`$ a few $`\times 10^4`$ Mpc-1. As noted in , even a sharp cutoff in $`P(k)`$ does not generate a sharp rise in the temperature multipoles since the latter are a convolution of the former of the form $`C_l𝑑kk^1j_l^2(k[\eta _0\eta _{\mathrm{dec}}])P(k)`$.

If we ignore the TE polarization data, it is possible to obtain a better fit to the measured WMAP anisotropy in the manner shown in fig. 3. However, if one changes $`P(k)`$ like this without altering any other parameters, it exacerbates the fit to the TE spectrum. Figure 4a shows the experimental data at low $`l`$ ; fig. 4b shows that larger values of the cutoff wave number $`k_{}`$ suppress the low TE multipoles in conflict with experimental observation of stronger power at low $`l`$. The strong TE signal at low $`l`$ is the basis for WMAP’s inference of a large optical depth $`\tau `$ and early reionization, which shows that $`\tau `$ is an important parameter to vary in order to try to repair the damage to the fit to TE done by modifying $`P(k)`$. However changing $`\tau `$ can also hurt the agreement between data and theory for the higher multipoles unless the scalar spectral index $`n_s`$ is also adjusted to compensate the change in $`\tau `$.

This kind of reasoning suggests that no safe conclusions can be drawn without doing a complete analysis in which at least a minimal set of cosmological parameters (like the six-dimensional parameter space considered in ) are allowed to vary. We have therefore generated grids111Our grids contain the points $`\omega _b\{0.019,`$ $`0.022,`$ $`0.025,`$ $`0.028\}`$, $`\omega _{cdm}\{0.08,`$ $`0.10,`$ $`0.12,`$ $`0.15,`$ $`0.18\}`$, $`h\{0.5,`$ $`0.6,`$ $`0.7,`$ $`0.8,`$ $`0.9\}`$, $`\tau \{0.0,`$ $`0.1,`$ $`0.2,`$ $`0.3,`$ $`0.4\}`$, $`n_s\{0.80,`$ $`0.86,`$ $`0.92,`$ $`0.98,`$ $`1.04,`$ $`1.10,`$ $`1.16,`$ $`1.22,`$ $`1.28\}`$ and for the cut-off scale $`k_{}\{0,`$ $`10^3,`$ $`2\times 10^3,\mathrm{},10\times 10^3\}`$ of theoretical power spectra with varying values for $`\omega _b\mathrm{\Omega }_bh^2`$, $`\omega _m\mathrm{\Omega }_mh^2`$, $`h`$, $`\tau `$, $`A_s`$, $`n_s`$ and for the cutoff scale $`k_{}`$, using several forms for the cutoff spectrum $`P(k)`$. We fixed to zero some parameters which are not strictly necessary for fitting the WMAP data, like the spatial curvature or the amount of primordial gravitational waves. In the following, the minimum $`\chi ^2`$ values have been found using a Powell minimization algorithm. For models which do not match one of the grid points, our code first computes the power spectra $`C_l^{TT}`$, $`C_l^{TE}`$, $`P(k)`$ by cubic interpolation between the grid’s neighboring points, and then calculates the corresponding $`\chi ^2`$ value. We checked that for our grid spacing, the interpolation is always accurate to one per cent. To be sure that we understand the results of ref. , we started with their ansatz

$$P(k)=A_s(1e^{(k/k_{})^\alpha })k^{n_s1}$$
(3)
where $`\alpha =3.35`$ is chosen to match the shape at low $`k`$ of a model similar to that shown in fig. 2b (they considered a period of prior kination rather than matter domination). We performed comparisons with three different data sets: WMAP TT power spectrum alone, WMAP TT and TE combined spectra, and WMAP TT$`+`$TE supplemented by large scale structure data from the 2 degree field (2dF) galaxy redshift survey . For WMAP, we computed the likelihood of a given model using the software provided by the collaboration and described in . For the 2dF power spectrum, we used the window functions and correlation matrix available at http://msowww.anu.edu.au/2dFGRS/.

First, we verify that there is some preference for a nonvanishing cutoff in $`k`$ space when only the temperature data is included. Figure 5 shows the likelihood (normalized to 1 at the best fit value) for $`k_{}`$, having marginalized over the other parameters. The model without a cutoff is excluded only at the 90% confidence level ($`\mathrm{\Delta }\chi ^22.6`$), which is not very significant. We note that artificially changing the first three theoretical multipoles, so as to exactly match the first three data points, improves $`\chi ^2`$ by 7.0, corresponding to a Bayesian confidence level of more than 99%. Had we been able to achieve such a large $`\mathrm{\Delta }\chi ^2`$, we would have been more convinced that there is some evidence for a cutoff power spectrum in the temperature data.

We obtain a smaller preferred value of $`k_{}0.0003`$ Mpc-1 than did ref. , who found $`k_{}0.0005`$ Mpc-1. We have verified explicitly that this discrepancy is due to their having done the analysis on a smaller grid, in a restricted subspace of the parameters, which does not include the true minimum $`\chi ^2`$. Ref.  only explored the space of the parameters which have a direct effect on the low–multipole temperature spectrum,222The parameters $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`n_s`$ affect both small and large multipoles. So, for consistency, the temperature power spectrum should be fitted with no restriction on $`\tau `$, $`\omega _m`$ and $`\omega _b`$, in order to have any possibility of compensating for the effects of ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, $`n_s`$) at large $`l`$. namely the primordial parameters $`A_s`$, $`n_s`$, $`k_{}`$ and the cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ (which can be re-expressed in our basis as $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=1\omega _m/h^2`$). Other parameters were kept fixed at $`\omega _m=0.135`$, $`\omega _b=0.022`$, $`\tau =0.17`$. These constraints correspond to the best-fit values (with a running $`n_s`$) for the “WMAPext+2dFGRS” data set which includes data from other CMB experiments and large scale structure measurements. A priori, there is no justification for imposing such constraints on a smaller data set (WMAP TT alone). For instance, we find that in the absence of a cutoff ($`k_{}=0`$), the maximum likelihood in the full six-dimensional parameter space has an effective $`\chi ^2`$ of 972 for 893 degrees of freedom, while imposing the previous constraints raises the best $`\chi ^2`$ to 979. When polarization and large scale structure data are included in the analysis, fig. 5 shows that the evidence for a cutoff spectrum gets even weaker, while values of $`k_{}`$ bigger than $`5\times 10^4`$ Mpc-1 are now excluded at $`2\sigma `$.

To see how parameters are correlated, in fig. 6 we also show confidence regions in the $`\tau `$-$`k_{}`$ plane for the three different data sets, and the maximum likelihood value of each parameter for fixed values $`k_{}`$. Using TT alone (fig. 6a), the preference for nonzero $`k_{}`$ is only slightly bigger than a $`1\sigma `$ effect. When TE polarization data is included (fig. 6b), the significance is further reduced, and the anticipated need for larger optical depth values is manifested. By examining the most likely values of the other parameters as a function of $`k_{}`$, fig. 6d, we see that an increase in $`k_{}`$ and $`\tau `$ can be compensated by an increase in $`n_s`$, $`h`$, $`\omega _b`$, and a decrease in $`\omega _{\mathrm{cdm}}`$. Inclusion of large scale structure data (fig. 6c) breaks this degeneracy, but does not much improve the low statistical significance of the determination of $`k_{}`$.

To give a more precise idea of the statistical significance, we tabulate the best fit parameters and $`\chi ^2`$ of the fit for the three cases in Table 1. As expected, the TT data by themselves show the strongest preference for a cutoff, but the change in $`\chi ^2`$ is still only 2.6. When the TE data are included $`\mathrm{\Delta }\chi ^2`$ falls to 1.8. With the inclusion of 2dF data, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\chi ^2=2.0`$. Thus the model with no cutoff is within $`1.4\sigma `$ of the minimum $`\chi ^2`$ point.

The above results were obtained using the ansatz (3) for $`P(k)`$. We repeated the analysis for primordial spectra of the forms shown in figs. 2a and 2b, as well as a sharp step-function cutoff. They give no better nor worse a fit relative to (3).

## 4 Summary and conclusions

We have investigated whether the anomalously small power of large-angle CMB temperature anisotropies is indicative of new physics that could suppress the primoridal power spectrum of inflaton fluctuations at low wave number by introducing a cutoff $`k_{}`$. We analyzed the complete WMAP data set including polarization, with and without the addition of the 2dF galaxy power spectrum data. Allowing for a variation of the six standard cosmological parameters characterizing a spatially flat universe, we find a marginal preference for a nonvanishing cutoff scale of $`k_{}=(2.7\pm 1)\times 10^4`$ Mpc-1, in agreement with ref. . Like them we find that the likelihood is nongaussian for low $`k`$ (fig. 5) so that $`k_{}`$ is bounded to be above zero at a confidence level of only $`5964`$ % (depending upon whether 2dF data is included). By contrast, ref.  finds $`k_{}>0`$ at the $`8793`$ % c.l. Moreover their most likely value of $`k_{}`$ is larger than ours, $`(4.9\pm 1)\times 10^4`$ Mpc-1. We have explained the reasons for the differences between these results and our own.

Thus we conclude that at present the motivation from the low quadrupole and octopole moments for a power spectrum with an infrared cut-off is quite weak. Nevertheless we have pointed out correlations between the parameters which will be relevant for fitting the low quadrupole with such models. In particular there is a tendency for optical depth $`\tau `$ to increase in order that the low-$`l`$ polarization data remain consistent with the model in the presence of a low-$`k`$ cutoff.

How can we reconcile the small statistical significance of the need for a cutoff with the WMAP collaboration’s statement that the probability of having such low power at large angles is only $`2\times 10^3`$? The answer lies in the highly nonGaussian nature of the likelihood function for the $`C_l`$’s . Expressing the temperature anisotropy as $`\delta T=_{lm}a_{lm}Y_{lm}(\varphi ,\theta )`$, the $`a_{lm}`$’s have a Gaussian distribution, but the multipole moments, $`C_l=_m|a_{lm}|^2`$, have the distribution

$$\frac{dP}{dC_l}x^{l1/2}e^{(l+1/2)x};x\frac{C_l^{\mathrm{obs}}}{C_l^{\mathrm{theo}}}.$$
(4)
For large $`l`$ this can be well-approximated by a Gaussian, but for low $`l`$ it is quite asymmetric about the average value $`x=1`$. From this fact we can easily reconcile the small probability $`2\times 10^3`$ with the lack of a significant improvement in the $`\chi ^2`$ when considering models with cutoff power spectra, as we now explain.

Let us review the method which was used to arrive at WMAP’s small probability, as described in section 7 of . From a large ensemble of models in the vicinity of the maximum likelihood model, one generates simulations of the data which include the effects of cosmic variance and the sky cut which is applied to the actual WMAP observations. Among these realizations, one then counts the number whose value of the quadrupole moment $`C_2`$ is less than or equal to the measured $`C_2^{\mathrm{obs}}`$, and compares to the total number in the ensemble. If we neglect the experimental noise (which is much smaller than cosmic variance at l=2) and the sky cut (which correlates the quadrupole with other multipoles), then for the quadrupole this amounts to computing

$$P[C_2<C_2^{\mathrm{obs}}]=\frac{_0^{0.1}𝑑x\frac{dP}{dC_2}}{_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑x\frac{dP}{dC_2}}0.008$$
(5)
where we used the observed value $`C_2^{\mathrm{obs}}=123`$ and the theoretical one $`C_2^{\mathrm{theo}}=1200`$. Evidently inclusion of the “experimental complications” decreases this probability somewhat, but at least we can roughly understand its small order of magnitude.

Such an analysis could in principle be repeated including a cutoff power spectrum. We can roughly anticipate the results using the same approximation as in equation (4.2), but replacing the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM integration bound $`x_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{CDM}}=0.1`$ by $`x_k_{}0.2`$, since the cutoff model is able to reduce the theoretical quadrupole by about a factor of 2 (further reduction comes at the expense of dragging down the higher multipoles too much). Then we would obtain $`P[C_2<C_2^{\mathrm{obs}}]=0.04`$. This is a five-fold increase over the low probability in (5), but it is still low. Neither model satisfactorily explains the observed low quadrupole, unless large statistical fluctuations are invoked. Because of the nongaussianity of the likelihood function, only a much more radical suppression of $`C_l^{\mathrm{theo}}`$ could significantly increase this probability.

This explains why in our Bayesian analysis, we do not see a big difference between the best $`\chi ^2`$ value for $`k_{}0`$ and that for $`k_{}=0`$. In this approach, we are making a different comparision, namely:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\chi ^22\left(\mathrm{ln}\frac{dP}{dC_2}(x_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{CDM}})\mathrm{ln}\frac{dP}{dC_2}(x_k_{})\right)1.6$$
(6)
This crude estimate does not replace the global seven-parameter analysis that we performed, but it gives a very good approximation for the improvement in $`\chi ^2`$ which we find. From this argument we conclude that there is no real discrepancy between WMAP’s low probability $`2\times 10^3`$ and the seemingly much higher probability found by us and by . However we also conclude that both the standard $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM model and the low-$`k`$ cutoff models are rather poor fits to the observed quadrupole, and to do better one should find a way to more effectively suppress the theoretical value of the quadrupole moment.

Note added: After the first version of this work appeared, ref.  proposed a realization of the kind of cutoff spectrum we have considered here. Their claim of a 2.5$`\sigma `$ signal (in version 1 of their paper) is subject to the same observations as we have made with regard to , since they apply exactly the same analysis. We also became aware of ref. , which considered theoretical implication of the low quadrupole moment when it was first measured by COBE.

###### Acknowledgments.

We thank L. Verde for her kind assistance with the WMAP likelihood code, and A. Lewis, D. Spergel, I. Tkachev and L. Verde, for valuable discussions concerning the last point of our conclusions. We also thank A. Cooray for interesting comments on the manuscript, and the referee for useful suggestions. The research of JC is partially supported by grants from NSERC. (Canada) and NATEQ (Québec).


text:
# Mesoscopic flux jumps in MgB2 films visualized by magneto-optical imaging

## Abstract

We report on the first spatially resolved observation of mesoscopic flux jumps in superconducting films. Magneto-optical imaging was used to visualize the flux penetration in MgB2 films subjected to a slowly varying perpendicular field. Below 10 K, flux jumps with typical size 10-20 microns and regular shape are found to occur at random locations along the flux front. The total number of vortices participating in one jump is varying between 50 and 10000. Simultaneously, big dendritic jumps with dimensions comparable to the sample size ($`10^6`$$`10^8`$ vortices) are also found in this temperature range. We believe that both types of jumps result from thermo-magnetic instability.

, Å. A. F. Olsena, ,

Magnetic flux often penetrates type-II superconductors via discrete jumps or avalanches where a few or many vortices hop at once from one position to another. Sometimes these jumps are small, with $`<100`$ vortices taking part in one event, and the avalanche size distribution is close to power law . Sometimes macroscopic flux jumps take place accompanied by abundant heat dissipated during the flux motion that gives essential positive feedback to the avalanche development . Such thermal flux jumps have been found in MgB2 films where they lead to a peculiar dendritic and highly-branching patterns of magnetic flux . These dendritic flux structures start entering the zero-field-cooled (ZFC) film after applying a perpendicular field exceeding some threshold value of 2–10 mT. In the present work we use magneto-optical (MO) imaging to study flux penetration below this threshold field, i.e. in the absence of dendritic jumps. Surprisingly, here we find flux jumps too, only now on a much smaller scale.

Films of MgB2 were fabricated on Al2O3 substrates using pulsed laser deposition . Two samples, 400 nm thick with lateral dimensions 5$`\times `$5 mm2, were studied and showed similar behaviour. The films had the critical temperature of $`39`$ K, and the critical current density of $`10^7`$A/cm2. The flux density distribution was visualized using MO imaging based on the Faraday effect, for a review see Ref. .

A ZFC film at 4 K was placed in a perpendicular applied field slowly increasing in time with rate of $`6\mu `$T/s. Shown in Fig.1(a) is the flux density distribution, $`B(𝐫,7.1`$mT), near the film edge that coincides with the bottom of the image. The flux front separating the flux-free interior (black) from the flux-penetrated region near the edge is highly non-uniform. By observing the dynamics of flux penetration in the MO microscope, one could immediately see numerous small jumps taking place along the flux front. The jumps seem instantaneous, thus their duration is smaller than $`0.1`$s. To analyse the jumps quantitatively, we took a series of MO images with field interval of $`0.01`$ mT, and subtracted every two subsequent images. Fig.1(b)

shows the difference image, $`B(𝐫,7.11`$mT$`)B(𝐫,7.10`$mT), where the gray color corresponds to unchanged flux density, while the white indicates increase in $`B`$. One can see that $`B`$ has increased only in one rather small region. By integrating the change in flux density over this region, we find that the total flux arrived here equals to 1900$`\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ is the flux quantum. Subsequent difference images (c) and (d) show similar jumps but in other places along the flux front. The first jump with the smallest size resolved by our setup, $`50\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$, was detected at $`B_a=4`$ mT. As $`B_a`$ increases, the average jump size increases too, the largest jumps being around $`10000\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$. At $`B_a=9`$mT the first macroscopic jump of dendritic shape  takes place with size exceeding $`10^6\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$. The small jumps continue to occur for $`B_a>9`$mT, but they only slightly affect the overall $`B(𝐫)`$ which is governed now by the dendritic jumps.

To imitate Hall-probe measurements  we plot in Fig.1(e) local flux density $`B`$ averaged over 10$`\times `$10 $`\mu `$m2 area as a function of applied field. Clear steps dominate the $`B(B_a)`$ dependence with only little growth of $`B`$ between them. The steps on different curves corresponding to three distinct areas are seemingly uncorrelated. Moreover, when the whole experiment is repeated, the flux distribution $`B(r)`$ turns out to be well reproduced, however the sequence of flux jumps is every time unique.

Two types of jumps different in the jump size were earlier found in Nb film, and argued to have different physical mechanisms. In our studies both the small jumps and the macroscopic dendritic jumps disappear above the same threshold temperature 10 K. This suggests that both types have the same mechanism – thermo-magnetic – and disappear at higher $`T`$ due to fast increase of the specific heat. We explain existence of two types of jumps by an additional positive feedback mechanism due to strong demagnetization effects in thin films. When a jump exceeds some critical size, bending of current lines around the jump area enhances the local field, and thus accelerates the jump development which is then limited only by the sample dimension.

In summary, the flux penetration in MgB2 film below 10 K proceeds via abrupt flux jumps on all spatial scales. The thermal origin of the jumps implies that the apparent critical current density is determined here by thermal parameters such as specific heat rather than by the pinning strength.

The work was financially supported by NorFa, INTAS 0175wp, FUNMAT/UiO, and the Research Council of Norway.


text:
# Full Current Statistics in the Regime of Weak Coulomb Interaction

## Abstract

We evaluate the full statistics of the current via a Coulomb island that is strongly coupled to the leads. This strong coupling weakens Coulomb interaction. We show that in this case the effects of the interaction can be incorporated into the renormalization of transmission eigenvalues of the scatterers that connect the island and the leads. We evaluate the Coulomb blockade gap in the current-voltage characteristics, the value of the gap being exponentially suppressed as compared to the classical charging energy of the island.

The electric charge is quantized. There are two important manifestations of this fact in electron transport on mesoscopic scale.

The first manifestation is a shot noise BlanterReview . The quantum mechanics modifies the shot noise in an arbitrary mesoscopic conductor with respect to its classical value $`S=2eI`$. It also changes the full statistics of charge transfer via a mesoscopic scatter, so that the statistics is not the simple Poissonian one Levitov .

The second manifestation of electron charge quantization is the Coulomb blockade phenomenon. The Coulomb blockade is most strong provided the conductance $`G`$ of a mesoscopic system is much smaller than the conductance quantum $`G_Q=e^2/2\pi \mathrm{}`$ IngoldNaz . The statistics of charge transfer in this strongly interacting case is that of a classical stochastic Markov process CB\_FCS . On the contrary, quantum mechanics is of importance for Coulomb blockade in the opposite limit $`GG_Q`$ where Coulomb interaction is weakened.

The charge quantization manifests itself in both ways in full current statistics under conditions of weak Coulomb interaction, this provides the motivation for the present study.

It has been understood that the charge quantization survives even in the limit $`GG_Q`$ Panyukov ; Grabert ; Zwerger ; Matveev ; Flensberg ; Nazarov . The ground state energy of the Coulomb island was shown to retain the periodic dependence on the induced ”off-set” charge $`q`$, thus indicating the Coulomb blockade. However, due to large quantum fluctuations of charge in the island, the effective charging energy $`\stackrel{~}{E}_C`$ (defined as the periodic $`q`$-dependent part of free energy) is exponentially suppressed as compared to the classical charging energy $`E_C=e^2/2C`$. It is important that the weak charge quantization persists not only for tunnel junctions Panyukov ; Grabert ; Zwerger  connecting the island and the leads. The connectors can be arbitrary mesoscopic scatterrers Nazarov . The quantization completely vanishes only for constrictions with perfectly transmitting channels Matveev ; Flensberg .

This research was concentrated on the equilibrium properties, an alternative is to study transport. Recent studies link the short noise in the conductor to the interaction correction to the conductance. corrnoise  The interaction correction to full current statistics was analyzed in Kindermann  for a scatterer embedded in the electromagnetic environment. The relation between interaction correction to the conductance and the formation of Coulomb blockade in an island was investigated in GolubevZaikin .

In this Letter we evaluate the full statistics of the current via the Coulomb island defined by several mesoscopic scatterers assuming weak Coulomb interaction, $`GG_Q`$. The results can be summarized as follows. At energy scale $`Eg_0E_c`$, $`g_0=G_0/G_Q`$ being the dimensionless conductance of the system in the absence of interaction, the dominant effect of Coulomb interaction is the energy-dependent renormalization of the transmission eigenvalues $`T_n^{[k]}`$ of the mesoscopic scatterers labeled by $`k`$,

$$\frac{dT_n^{[k]}}{d\mathrm{ln}E}=\frac{2T_n^{[k]}(1T_n^{[k]})}{_{n,k}T_n^{[k]}}.$$
(1)
The renormalization of a similar form was previously obtained in Glazman  for a scatteter in the weakly interacting 1d gas and in Kindermann  for a single multi-channel scatterer shunted by an external impedance. We thus prove this simple relation for a Coulomb island. The full current statistics is readily obtained from the energy-dependent $`T_n^{[k]}`$ with using non-interacting scattering theory approach of NazBag ; Levitov . This gives the voltage dependence of conductance, shot noise and all higher cumulants of charge transfer. In contrast to the case of a single scatterer, the renormalization of all transmission eigenvalues may break down at finite energy $`\stackrel{~}{E}_Cg_0E_Ce^{\alpha g_0}`$, $`\alpha `$ being a numerical factor depending on the details of the initial transmission distribution. Remarkably, $`\stackrel{~}{E}_C`$ coincides with the equilibrium effective charging energy evaluated with instanton technique.Nazarov  However, the renormalization stops at the effective Thouless energy $`E_{\mathrm{Th}}G(E)\delta /G_Q`$, $`\delta `$ being mean level spacing in the island. This gives rise to two distinct scenarios at low enegy. If $`g_0>\alpha ^1\mathrm{ln}(E_C/\delta )`$, Coulomb blockade does not occur with zero-bias conductance being saturated at the value $`G(E_{\mathrm{Th}})G_Q`$. Alternatively, $`G(0)0`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{E}_C`$ defines the Coulomb gap.

Let us give the details of the model in use. The Coulomb island is characterized by two parameters: charging energy $`E_C`$ and the mean level spacing $`\delta `$, $`E_C\delta `$. The island is connected to $`M2`$ external leads by means of $`M`$ arbitrary mesoscopic scatterers. (Fig. 1) Each scatterer, or connector, $`i`$ is characterized by the set of transmission eigenvalues $`T_n^{[i]}`$. We assume that the island is strongly coupled to the leads, $`g_0=_{n,m}T_n^{[i]}1`$. Our goal is to evaluate the cumulant generating function (CGF) $`S([\chi _i]))`$. The Fourier transform of $`\mathrm{exp}(S)`$ with respect to counting fields $`\chi _i`$ gives the probability $`P(\{N_i\})`$ for $`N_i1`$ electrons to be transferred to the terminal $`i`$ during time interval $`t_0`$. (See Levitov ) The derivatives of $`S`$ give the average value of currents, shot-noise correlations and higher order moments of charge transfer.

To evaluate the CGF of the Coulomb island, we have extended the semiclassical approach for the FCS of the non-interacting electrons NazBag . To account for Coulomb interactions, we introduce a dynamical phase variable $`\phi (t)`$ Schoen  that results from the Hubbard-Stratonovich transform of the charging energy. Its time derivative, $`\dot{\phi }(t)/e`$, presents the fluctuating electrostatic potential of the island. The CGF $`S(\{\chi _i\})`$ can be then represented in the form of a real-time path integral over the fields $`\phi _{1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}(t)`$ residing at two branches of the Keldysh contour

$`\mathrm{exp}(S\{\chi _i\})={\displaystyle }D\phi _{1,2}(t)\mathrm{exp}\{{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}E_C^1{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}}dt(\dot{\phi }_1^2\dot{\phi }_2^2)`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}S_{\mathrm{con}}^{[k]}(\{\widehat{G},\widehat{G}_k^\chi \})i\pi \delta ^1\mathrm{Tr}\{(i_t\dot{\mathrm{\Phi }})\widehat{G}\}\}`$ (2)
Here $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\varphi _1(t)& 0\\ 0& \varphi _2(t)\end{array}\right)`$ is the matrix in Keldysh space, $`2\times 2`$ matrix $`\widehat{G}(t_1,t_2)`$ presents the electron Green function in the island that implicitly depends on $`\phi _{1,2}(t)`$. The trace operation includes the summation over Keldysh indices and the integration in time. The contribution of each connector $`S_{\mathrm{con}}^{[k]}`$ has a form found in the circuit theory NazBag ; Wolfgang

$$S_{\mathrm{con}}^{[k]}=\frac{1}{2}\underset{n}{}\mathrm{Tr}\mathrm{ln}\left[1+\frac{1}{4}T_n^{[k]}(\{\widehat{G},\widehat{G}_k^\chi \}2)\right]$$
(3)
$`\{\widehat{G},\widehat{G}_k^\chi \}`$ denoting the anticommutator of the Green functions with respect to both Keldysh and time indices. The Green functions in the leads $`\widehat{G}_k(\chi )`$ are obtained by $`\chi `$-dependent gauge transformation Wolfgang  of the equilibrium Green functions in the reservoir $`k`$, $`\widehat{G}_k^{[0]}`$, $`\widehat{G}_k^\chi (ϵ)=\mathrm{exp}(i\chi _k\overline{\tau }_3/2)\widehat{G}_k^{(0)}(ϵ)\mathrm{exp}(i\chi _k\overline{\tau }_3/2)`$, where $`\widehat{G}_k^{[0]}`$ are given by $`\overline{G}_k^{[0]}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}12f_k& 2f_k\\ 2(1f_k)& 2f_k1\end{array}\right)`$. Here $`f_k(\epsilon )`$ presents the electron distribution function in the $`k`$-th reservoir. The expression (3) is valid under assumption of instantaneous electron transfer via a connector, this corresponds to energy independent $`T_n^{[k]}`$.

In order to find $`\widehat{G}(t_1,t_2)`$ at given $`\phi _{1,2}(t)`$, we minimize the action with respect to all $`\widehat{G}(t_1,t_2)`$ subject to the constrain $`\widehat{G}\widehat{G}=\delta (t_1t_2)`$. This yields the saddle point equation for $`\widehat{G}(t_1,t_2)`$:

$$\underset{n,k}{}\frac{T_n^{[k]}[\widehat{G}_k^\chi ,\widehat{G}]}{4+T_n^{[k]}\left(\{\widehat{G}_k^\chi ,\widehat{G}\}2\right)}=i\pi \delta ^1[i_t\dot{\mathrm{\Phi }},\widehat{G}]$$
(4)
where $`[..,..]`$ denotes the commutator in the Keldysh-time space. This relation expresses $`\widehat{G}(t_1,t_2)\widehat{G}(t_1,t_2;[\phi _{1,2}(t)])`$ via the reservoir Green functions $`\widehat{G}^{[k]}`$. This circuit theory relation is similar to obtained in NazBag . It disregards the mesoscopic fluctuations, since those lead to corrections of the order of $`1/g_0`$ at all energies, whereas the interaction corrections are of the order of $`1/g_0\mathrm{ln}(E)`$ tending to diverge at small energies. If $`\phi _{1,2}(t)=0`$, Eq. (4) separates in energy representation and coincides with that of Ref. NazBag .

This sets the model. We start the analysis of the model with perturbation theory in $`\phi _{1,2}`$ around the semiclassical saddle point $`\widehat{G}(t_1,t_2)=\widehat{G}_0`$, $`\phi _{1,2}(t)=0`$. The phase fluctuations are small, $`\delta \phi ^21/g_0`$, so we keep only quadratic terms to the action (2). The resulting Gaussian path integral over $`\phi _{1,2}`$ can be readily done. This procedure is equivalent to the summation of all one-loop diagrams of the conventional perturbation theory, i.e. to the ”random-phase approximation” (RPA).

For the rest, we restrict ourselves to the most interesting low voltage/temperature limit, $`\mathrm{max}\{eV,kT\}g_0E_C`$. In this limit, we evaluate the interaction correction to the CGF with the logarithmic accuracy. It reads

$`\mathrm{\Delta }S_\chi ={\displaystyle \frac{t_0}{g_0}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{g_0E_C}{\mathrm{max}\{eV,kT\}}}\right)\times `$ (5)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\epsilon }{2\pi }\underset{n,k}{}\frac{2T_n^{[k]}(1T_n^{[k]})\left(\{\widehat{G}_k^\chi ,\widehat{G}_0\}2\right)}{4+T_n^{[k]}\left(\{\widehat{G}_k^\chi ,\widehat{G}_0\}2\right)}}`$
provided $`\mathrm{max}\{eV,kT\}>E_{\mathrm{Th}}`$, where $`E_{\mathrm{Th}}=g_0\delta `$ is the Thouless energy of the island. In the opposite case, $`\mathrm{max}\{eV,kT\}<E_{\mathrm{Th}}`$, the voltage/temperature should be replaced with $`E_{\mathrm{Th}}`$. Note, that the correction (5) is contributed by only virtual inelastic processes that change the probabilities of real elastic scatterings.

For simplicity, we consider the shot-noise limit $`eVkT`$ only. Then the magnitude of the correction shall be compared with the zero-order CGF $`S_\chi ^{[\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}]}t_0eVg_0`$. This implies that the perturbative RPA result (5) is applicable only if $`g_0^1\mathrm{ln}\left(g_0E_C/eV\right)1`$. At lower voltages $`\mathrm{\Delta }S_\chi `$ logarithmically diverges. This indicates that we should proceed with a renormalization group (RG) analysis.

We perform the RG analysis of the action (2) in the one-loop approximation, this corresponds to the ”poor’s man scaling”. This is justified by $`g1`$. We follow the conventional procedure renormalization  and decompose $`\phi (t)`$ onto the fast $`\phi _f`$ and slow parts $`\phi _s`$. On each step of RG procedure we eliminate the fast degrees of freedom in the energy range $`E\delta E<\omega <E`$ to obtain new action $`S_{E\delta E}[\phi _s]`$, $`E`$ being the current ultraviolet cutoff. Our key result is that the change in the action at each step of RG procedure can be presented as a change of transmission eigenvalues $`T_n^{[k]}`$.

Therefore, the RG equations can be written directly for transmission eigenvalues and take a simple form (1). The equations are to be solved with initial conditions at the upper cutoff energy $`E=g_0E_C`$, those are given by ”bare” transmission eigenvalues $`T_n^{[k]}(E=g_0E_C)=T_n^{[k]}`$. The RG equations resemble those for the transmission coefficient for a scatterer in the weakly interacting one-dimensional electron gas Glazman  and for a single multi-channel scatterer in the electromagnetic environment Kindermann . The effective impedance $`Z`$ is just replaced by inverse conductance of the island to all reservoirs, $`G(E)=G_Q_{n,k}T_n^{[k]}(E)`$. The important difference is that this conductance is itself subject to renormalization. The difference becomes most evident in the case when all contacts are tunnel junctions, $`T_n^{[k]}1`$. In this case, one can sum up over $`k,n`$ in Eqs. (1) to obtain the RG for the conductance only : $`dG/d\mathrm{ln}E=2G_Q`$. This renormalization law Efetov  was recently applied to conductance of granular metals. The Eqs. (1) could be also derived in the framework of functional RG approach to $`\sigma `$-model of disordered metal. Feigelman .

We solve the RG Eqs. (1) in general case to obtain

$`T_n^{[k]}(E)`$ $`=`$ $`T_n^{[k]}y/\left(1T_n^{[k]}(1y)\right),`$ (6)
$`\mathrm{ln}(g_0E_C/E)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{n,k}{}}\mathrm{ln}(1T_n^{[k]}(1y))`$ (7)
The first equation gives the renormalized transmission eigenvalues at a given value $`E`$ of the upper cutoff in terms of variable $`y(E)`$, $`0y1`$. The second equation implicitly expresses $`y(E)`$.

We note that the energy dependence of transmission coefficients induced by interaction is very weak provided $`G(E)G_Q`$: If energy is changed by a factor of two, the conductance is changed by $`G_Q`$. To use the equations for evaluation of FCS at given voltages $`V^{[k]}`$ of the leads, one takes $`T_n^{[k]}(E)`$ at upper cutoff $`E=\mathrm{max}_k(V^{[k]})`$, and further disregards their energy dependence. Then one can follow the lines of Ref. NazBag : It is convenient to introduce the function $`S^{[k]}(x)=_n\mathrm{ln}[1+\frac{1}{2}T_n^{[k]}(x1)]`$ to incorporate all required information about transmission eigenvalues. The renormalization of $`S^{[k]}`$ in terms of $`y`$ is especially simple: $`S^{[k]}(x,y)=S^{[k]}((x+1)y1)S^{[k]}(2y1)`$. From this one readily finds the conductance of each scatterer, $`G^{[k]}(y)=2G_QS^{[k]}/x(1,y)`$, as well as the renormalized transmission distribution $`T^2\rho ^{[k]}(T,y)=(2/\pi )\mathrm{Im}\{S^{[k]}/x(12/Ti0,y)\}`$.

The RG equations (1) have a fixed point at $`T_n^{[k]}=0,y=0`$ that occur at finite energy

$$E=\stackrel{~}{E}_C=g_0E_C\underset{k,n}{}(1T_n^{[k]})^{1/2}$$
(8)
This indicates the breakdown of RG and formation of Coulomb blockade with the exponentially small gap $`\stackrel{~}{E}_C`$. The same energy scale was obtained from equilibrium instanton calculation of Ref. Nazarov . For a field theory, one generally expects different physics and different energy scales for instantons and perturbative RG. The fact that these scales are the same shows a hidden symmetry of the model which is yet to understand. understand

Alternative low-energy behavior is realized if the current cut-off reaches $`E_{\mathrm{Th}}=G(E)\delta /G_Q`$. (Fig.2) The log renormalization of the transmission eigenvalues stops at this point and their values saturate. We thus predict a sharp crossover between the two alternative scenarios, that occur at value of $`g_0=g_c`$ corresponding to $`\stackrel{~}{E}_C\delta `$. This value equals $`g_c=\alpha ^1\mathrm{ln}(E_C/\delta )`$, where $`\alpha =\frac{1}{2}g_0^1_{n,k}\mathrm{ln}(1T_n^{[k]})`$, and depends on transmission distribution of all connectors. If all connectors are tunnel juctions, $`\alpha _T=2`$. For diffusive connectors, $`\alpha _D=\pi ^2/8`$ and the energy dependence of the total conductivity is given by $`g_D(V)g_0\sqrt{\xi }\mathrm{ctg}\sqrt{\xi }`$, $`\xi 2g_0^1\mathrm{ln}(g_0E_C/eV)`$. (Fig. 2)

To give an example of FCS calculation in the regime of weak Coulomb interaction, we consider the 3-terminal Coulomb island with identical junctions, discussed in NazBag  (Fig. 1). The voltages applied are $`V_3=V,V_{1,2}=0`$ We plot in Fig. 3 the $`\mathrm{log}(P)`$, the logarithm of the probability to measure the same currents to the terminals $`1`$ and $`2`$, $`I_1=I_2=I_3/2`$, versus the current $`I_3`$ measured in the terminal $`3`$ (Fig. 3). Both $`\mathrm{log}(P)`$ and $`I_3`$ are normalized by the average current $`<I_3>`$, so that in the absence of interaction the curves corresponding to different voltages are the same (assuming $`eVT`$), the shape of the curve reflecting the transmission distribution in the contacts. To take interaction into account, we change the transmission eigenvalues according to Eqs. (6,7) and evaluate the probability with the method of Ref.NazBag .

The curves $`1`$ (tunnel junctions) and $`2`$ (ballistic contacts) stay the same not depending on the renormalization. Indeed, the renormalization does not affect ballistic transmission, as to tunnel junctions, it affects only their conductances. The interaction effect is visible for diffusive junctions. The curves (a)-(d) correspond to different values of $`y(E=eV)`$. The transmission distribution of each contact evolves from the diffusive form ($`\rho _D(T)=g(y)/2T\sqrt{1T}`$) at the highest voltage ($`y1`$) to the double junction form ($`\rho _{DJ}(T)=g(y)/\pi T^{3/2}\sqrt{1T}`$) at the lowest voltage ($`y0`$Kindermann . This visibly changes the form of $`\mathrm{log}P(I_3)`$.

To conclude, we have analyzed the effect of weak Coulomb interaction ($`GG_Q`$) on FCS in Coulomb island. We have revealed that the interaction effect can be incorporated into a simple energy-dependent renormalization of transmission eigenvalues, this enables easy evaluation of all transport properties. The Coulomb blockade develops only if the total conductance of the island is below some critical value $`G_Q\mathrm{log}(E_C/\delta )`$, otherwise the interaction correction to transport saturates at low energies.

This work is a part of the research program of the ”Stichting voor Fundamenteel Onderzoek der Materie” (FOM), and we acknowledge the financial support from the ”Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek” (NWO).


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The problems of the observed solar neutrino deficit and the atmospheric neutrino anomaly can be naturally solved through the interpretation of the neutrino oscillations among the different flavor neutrinos. Now the evidence of the neutrino masses and flavor mixings are almost established , and this is also the evidence of new physics beyond the standard model. Interestingly, the neutrino mass and mixing properties have been revealed to be very different from those of the other fermions, namely, neutrino masses are very small and the flavor mixing angles are very large. A new physics must explain them.

The supersymmetric (SUSY) SO(10) grand unified model is one of the attractive candidates for new physics. The experimental data support the unification of the three gauge couplings at the grand unified theory (GUT) scale $`M_G2\times 10^{16}`$ GeV with the particle contents of the minimal supersymmetric standard model (MSSM) . This model incorporates the right-handed neutrinos as the member of the 16 representation together with other standard model fermions, and provides the natural explanation of the smallness of the neutrino masses through the see-saw mechanism .

However, it is a non-trivial problem whether a SO(10) model can simultaneously accommodate all the observed quark-lepton mass matrix data, since the quark and lepton mass matrices are related with each other and severely constrained by virtue of the quark-lepton unification into the 16 representation. There are lots of works on this subject. Recently it has been shown  that the so-called minimal supersymmetric SO(10) model can simultaneously reproduce all the observed quark-lepton mass matrix data involving the neutrino oscillation data by fixing free parameters in the model appropriately. In this model, the neutrino Dirac Yukawa coupling matrix, together with all the other fermion mass matrices, is completely determined.

The evidence of the neutrino flavor mixing implies that the lepton flavor of each generation is not individually conserved. Therefore the lepton flavor violating (LFV) processes in the charged-lepton sector such as $`\mu e\gamma `$, $`\tau \mu \gamma `$ are allowed. In simply extended models so as to incorporate massive neutrinos into the standard model, the rate of the LFV processes is accompanied by a highly suppression factor, the ratio of neutrino mass to the weak boson mass, because of the GIM mechanism, and is far out of the reach of the experimental detection. However, in supersymmetric models, the situation is quite different. In this case, soft SUSY breaking parameters can be new LFV sources, and the rate of the LFV processes are suppressed by only the scale of the soft SUSY breaking parameters which is assumed to be the electroweak scale. Thus the huge enhancement occurs compared to the previous case. In fact, the LFV processes can be one of the most important processes as the low-energy SUSY search .

Any mechanism of the SUSY breaking mediation are normally considered so as to induce the soft SUSY breaking parameters being almost flavor blind and real because of sever constraints on the SUSY flavor and CP violating processes . Therefore the rate of the LFV processes is negligible at the SUSY breaking mediation scale. However, in a model with the LFV interactions, the sizable LFV sources at low energies may be induced through the renormalization effects. As well-motivated candidates for such models, the SUSY GUTs  and the models with see-saw mechanism  have been considered.

The magnitude of the LFV rate depends on the SUSY breaking mediation scenario and the LFV interactions. In this paper, we evaluate the rate of the LFV processes in the minimal SUSY SO(10) model, where the neutrino Dirac Yukawa couplings are the primary LFV sources. The minimal supergravity (mSUGRA) scenario is assumed as the SUSY breaking mediation mechanism. As mentioned above, all the Yukawa couplings are determined in the minimal SUSY SO(10) model, we can give the definite predictions for the rate of the LFV processes.

Recent result of the muon $`g2`$ from Brookhaven E821 experiment  reported the deviation from the standard model prediction. Although the uncertainty of the standard model prediction has not been settled , we would expect that the deviation lies in the range

$`\delta a_\mu =a_\mu (E821)a_\mu (SM)=(1040)\times 10^{10},`$ (1)
where $`a_\mu =(g_\mu 2)/2`$. This may be the first evidence of the low-energy SUSY . Except for the flavor indeces, both of the LFV processes such as $`\mu e\gamma `$ and the muon $`g2`$ originate from the same dipole-moment operators, and there is a correlation between their magnitudes . In the following, we calculate the SUSY contribution to the muon $`g2`$ with the same input parameters as in the calculations of the LFV processes, and show their correlations.

This paper is organized as follows: in the next section, we give a brief review of the minimal SUSY SO(10) model developed in , and present the predicted neutrino Dirac Yukawa coupling matrix which plays the central role in our results. In section 3, using the neutrino Yukawa coupling matrix, we calculate the rate of LFV processes and the magnitude of the SUSY contribution to the muon $`g2`$ for various input parameters in mSUGRA scenario. The last section is devoted to summary.

## 2 Minimal SO(10) model and its predictions

Here we give a brief review of the minimal SUSY SO(10) model111 There are other models which are also called “minimal SUSY SO(10) model” in literatures . Such models include only 10 Higgs multiplet and realize the Yukawa unification between bottom quark and tau lepton. In our “minimal” model, a $`\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟐𝟔}}`$ Higgs multiplet is additionally introduced, and Yukawa unification is not necessarily satisfied.  recently reconsidered in Ref. , and summarize its predictions. Even when we concentrate our discussion on the issue how to reproduce the realistic fermion mass matrices in the SO(10) model, there are lots of possibilities for introduction of Higgs multiplets. The minimal supersymmetric SO(10) model is the one where only one 10 and one $`\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟐𝟔}}`$ Higgs multiplets have Yukawa couplings (superpotential) with 16 matter multiplets such as

$`W_Y=Y_{10}^{ij}\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}_iH_{10}\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}_j+Y_{126}^{ij}\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}_iH_{126}\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}_j,`$ (2)
where $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}_i`$ is the matter multiplet of the $`i`$-th generation, $`H_{10}`$ and $`H_{126}`$ are the Higgs multiplet of 10 and $`\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟐𝟔}}`$ representations under SO(10), respectively. Note that, by virtue of the gauge symmetry, the Yukawa couplings, $`Y_{10}`$ and $`Y_{126}`$, are, in general, complex symmetric $`3\times 3`$ matrices.

We assume some appropriate Higgs multiplets, whose vacuum expectation values (VEVs) correctly break the SO(10) GUT gauge symmetry into the standard model one at the GUT scale, $`M_G2\times 10^{16}`$ GeV. Suppose the Pati-Salam subgroup , $`G_{422}=SU(4)_c\times SU(2)_L\times SU(2)_R`$, at the intermediate breaking stage. Under this symmetry, the above Higgs multiplets are decomposed as $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}(\mathrm{𝟔},\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟏})+(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟐},\mathrm{𝟐})`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟐𝟔}}(\mathrm{𝟔},\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟏})+(\mathrm{𝟏𝟎},\mathrm{𝟑},\mathrm{𝟏})+(\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}},\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟑})+(\mathrm{𝟏𝟓},\mathrm{𝟐},\mathrm{𝟐})`$, while $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}(\mathrm{𝟒},\mathrm{𝟐},\mathrm{𝟏})+(\overline{\mathrm{𝟒}},\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟐})`$. Breaking down to the standard model gauge group, $`SU(4)_c\times SU(2)_RSU(3)_c\times U(1)_Y`$, is accomplished by non-zero VEV of the $`(\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}},\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟑})`$ Higgs multiplet. Note that the Majorana masses for the right-handed neutrinos are also generated by this VEV through the Yukawa coupling $`Y_{126}`$ in Eq. (2).

After this symmetry breaking, we find two pair of Higgs doublets in the same representation as the pair in the MSSM. One pair comes from $`(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟐},\mathrm{𝟐})\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}`$ and the other comes from $`(\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟓}},\mathrm{𝟐},\mathrm{𝟐})\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟐𝟔}}`$. Using these two pairs of the Higgs doublets, the Yukawa couplings of Eq. (2) are rewritten as

$`W_Y`$ $`=`$ $`(u_R^c)_i\left(Y_{10}^{ij}H_{10}^u+Y_{126}^{ij}H_{126}^u\right)q_j+(d_R^c)_i\left(Y_{10}^{ij}H_{10}^d+Y_{126}^{ij}H_{126}^d\right)q_j`$ (3)
$`+`$ $`(\nu _R^c)_i\left(Y_{10}^{ij}H_{10}^u3Y_{126}^{ij}H_{126}^u\right)\mathrm{}_j+(e_R^c)_i\left(Y_{10}^{ij}H_{10}^d3Y_{126}^{ij}H_{126}^d\right)\mathrm{}_j`$
$`+`$ $`(\nu _R^c)_i\left(Y_{126}^{ij}v_R\right)(\nu _R^c)_j,`$
where $`u_R`$, $`d_R`$, $`\nu _R`$ and $`e_R`$ are the right-handed $`SU(2)_L`$ singlet quark and lepton superfields, $`q`$ and $`\mathrm{}`$ are the left-handed $`SU(2)_L`$ doublet quark and lepton superfields, $`H_{10}^{u,d}`$ and $`H_{126}^{u,d}`$ are up-type and down-type Higgs doublet superfields originated from $`H_{10}`$ and $`H_{126}`$, respectively, and the last term is the Majorana mass term of the right-handed neutrinos developed by the VEV of the $`(\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}},\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟑})`$ Higgs, $`v_R`$. The factor $`3`$ in the lepton sector is the Clebsch-Gordan coefficient.

In order to preserve the successful gauge coupling unification, suppose that one pair of Higgs doublets given by a linear combination $`H_{10}^{u,d}`$ and $`H_{126}^{u,d}`$ is light while the other pair is heavy ($`M_G`$). The light Higgs doublets are identified as the MSSM Higgs doublets ($`H_u`$ and $`H_d`$) and given by

$`H_u`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_uH_{10}^u+\stackrel{~}{\beta }_uH_{126}^u`$
$`H_d`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_dH_{10}^d+\stackrel{~}{\beta }_dH_{126}^d,`$ (4)
where $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_{u,d}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }_{u,d}`$ denote elements of the unitary matrix which rotate the flavor basis in the original model into the (SUSY) mass eigenstates. Omitting the heavy Higgs mass eigenstates, the low energy superpotential is described by only the light Higgs doublets $`H_u`$ and $`H_d`$ such that

$`W_Y`$ $`=`$ $`(u_R^c)_i\left(\alpha ^uY_{10}^{ij}+\beta ^uY_{126}^{ij}\right)H_uq_j+(d_R^c)_i\left(\alpha ^dY_{10}^{ij}+\beta ^dY_{126}^{ij}\right)H_dq_j`$ (5)
$`+`$ $`(\nu _R^c)_i\left(\alpha ^uY_{10}^{ij}3\beta ^uY_{126}^{ij}\right)H_u\mathrm{}_j+(e_R^c)_i\left(\alpha ^dY_{10}^{ij}3\beta ^dY_{126}^{ij}\right)H_d\mathrm{}_j`$
$`+`$ $`(\nu _R^c)_i\left(Y_{126}^{ij}v_R\right)(\nu _R^c)_j,`$
where the formulas of the inverse unitary transformation of Eq. (4), $`H_{10}^{u,d}=\alpha ^{u,d}H_{u,d}+\mathrm{}`$ and $`H_{126}^{u,d}=\beta ^{u,d}H_{u,d}+\mathrm{}`$, have been used. Note that the elements of the unitary matrix, $`\alpha ^{u,d}`$ and $`\beta ^{u,d}`$, are in general complex parameters, through which CP-violating phases are introduced into the fermion mass matrices.

Providing the Higgs VEVs, $`H_u=v\mathrm{sin}\beta `$ and $`H_d=v\mathrm{cos}\beta `$ with $`v=174\text{GeV}`$, the quark and lepton mass matrices can be read off as222 In general, the $`SU(2)_L`$ triplet Higgs in $`(\mathrm{𝟏𝟎},\mathrm{𝟑},\mathrm{𝟏})\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟐𝟔}}`$ can obtain the VEV induced through the electroweak symmetry breaking and may play a crucial role of the light Majorana neutrino mass matrix. This possibility, so-called type II see-saw model, has been discussed in detail in Ref. .

$`M_u`$ $`=`$ $`c_{10}M_{10}+c_{126}M_{126}`$
$`M_d`$ $`=`$ $`M_{10}+M_{126}`$
$`M_D`$ $`=`$ $`c_{10}M_{10}3c_{126}M_{126}`$
$`M_e`$ $`=`$ $`M_{10}3M_{126}`$
$`M_R`$ $`=`$ $`c_RM_{126},`$ (6)
where $`M_u`$, $`M_d`$, $`M_D`$, $`M_e`$, and $`M_R`$ denote the up-type quark, down-type quark, neutrino Dirac, charged-lepton, and right-handed neutrino Majorana mass matrices, respectively. Note that all the quark and lepton mass matrices are characterized by only two basic mass matrices, $`M_{10}`$ and $`M_{126}`$, and three complex coefficients $`c_{10}`$, $`c_{126}`$ and $`c_R`$, which are defined as $`M_{10}=Y_{10}\alpha ^dv\mathrm{cos}\beta `$, $`M_{126}=Y_{126}\beta ^dv\mathrm{cos}\beta `$, $`c_{10}=(\alpha ^u/\alpha ^d)\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, $`c_{126}=(\beta ^u/\beta ^d)\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ and $`c_R=v_R/(\beta ^dv\mathrm{cos}\beta )`$), respectively. Except for $`c_R`$, which is used to determine the overall neutrino mass scale, this system has fourteen free parameters in total , and the strong predictability to the fermion mass matrices.

Thirteen electroweak data of six quark masses, three mixing angles and one phase in the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa (CKM) matrix, and three charged-lepton masses are extrapolated to the GUT scale according to the renormalization group equations (RGEs) with given $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, and are used as inputs at the GUT scale.333 In our analysis, we have neglected SUSY threshold corrections to the quark Yukawa coupling whose importance in the case of large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ has been pointed out . In our following analysis with $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =45`$, we find the corrections about 10%, which would affect our final results. However we can check that this effects can be compensated away by slight changes of other input values, for example, mixing angles in CKM matrix within the experimental errors, and our final results is found to be almost unchanged.  Solving the GUT mass matrix relation among quarks and charged-leptons obtained by Eq. (6), we can describe the neutrino Dirac mass matrix $`M_D`$ and $`M_{126}`$ as functions of only one free parameter $`\sigma `$, the phase of the combination $`(3_{10}+c_{126})/(c_{10}+c_{126})`$. The light Majorana neutrino mass matrix, $`M_\nu =M_D^TM_R^1M_D=c_R^1M_D^TM_{126}^1M_D`$, given through the see-saw mechanism is extrapolated down to the electroweak scale according to the RGE for the effective dimension-five operator , and is compared to the neutrino oscillation data for various $`\sigma `$. It has been shown  that the appropriate value of $`\sigma `$ can reproduce three neutrino flavor mixing angles in the Maki-Nakagawa-Sakata (MNS) matrix and the ratio of mass-squared differences ( $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2/\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2`$) consistent with the current neutrino oscillation data. Here $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2`$ are the mass-squared differences relevant for the solar and the atmospheric neutrino oscillations, respectively. The parameter $`c_R`$ is used to determine the overall scale of the right-handed Majorana neutrino mass, and thus the scale of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2`$. Once the appropriate values of $`\sigma `$ and $`c_R`$ are chosen, all the fermion mass matrix (or fermion Yukawa couplings) are completely determined. Therefore the model has definite predictions to physics related to the fermion Yukawa couplings.

Although in Ref.  various cases with given $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =4055`$ have been analyzed, we consider only the case $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =45`$ in the following. Our final result in the next section is almost insensitive to $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ values in the above range. The predictions of the minimal SUSY SO(10) model that we need in our calculation in the next section are as follows : with $`\sigma =3.198`$ fixed, the right-handed Majorana neutrino mass eigenvalues are found to be (in GeV) $`M_{R_1}=1.64\times 10^{11}`$, $`M_{R_2}=2.50\times 10^{12}`$ and $`M_{R_3}=8.22\times 10^{12}`$, where $`c_R`$ is fixed so that $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2=2\times 10^3\text{eV}^2`$. In the basis where both of the charged-lepton and right-handed Majorana neutrino mass matrices are diagonal with real and positive eigenvalues, the neutrino Dirac Yukawa coupling matrix at the GUT scale is found to be

$`Y_\nu =\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0.0001350.00273i& 0.00113+0.0136i& 0.0339+0.0580i\\ 0.00759+0.0119i& 0.02700.00419i& 0.2720.175i\\ 0.0280+0.00397i& 0.06350.0119i& 0.4910.526i\end{array}\right).`$ (10)
## 3 LFV processes and muon $`g2`$

Even though the soft SUSY breaking parameters are flavor blind at the scale of the SUSY breaking mediation, the LFV interactions in the model can induce the LFV source at low energies through the renormalization effects. In the following analysis, we assume the mSUGRA scenario  as the SUSY breaking mediation mechanism. At the original scale of the SUSY breaking mediation, we impose the following boundary conditions characterized by only five parameters (all of them are assumed to be real in this paper), $`m_0`$, $`M_{1/2}`$, $`A_0`$, $`B`$ and $`\mu `$. Here, $`m_0`$ is the universal scalar mass, $`M_{1/2}`$ is the universal gaugino mass, and $`A_0`$ is the universal coefficient of the trilinear couplings. The parameters in the Higgs potential, $`B`$ and $`\mu `$, are determined at the electroweak scale so that the Higgs doublets obtain the correct electroweak symmetry breaking VEVs through the radiative breaking scenario . The soft SUSY breaking parameters at low energies are obtained through the RGE evolutions with the boundary conditions.

Although the SUSY breaking mediation scale is normally taken to be the (reduced) Planck scale or the string scale ($`10^{18}`$ GeV), in the following calculations we impose the boundary conditions at the GUT scale, and analyze the RGE evolutions from the GUT scale to the electroweak scale. This ansatz is the same as the one in the so-called constrained MSSM (CMSSM). Note that, even with only particle contents introduced in the previous section, the minimal SUSY SO(10) model is not the asymptotic free gauge theory. When a complete set of the Higgs multiplets is taken into account, the gauge coupling would quickly blow up just above the GUT scale. If this is the case, field theory description of the model will be no longer meaningful above the GUT scale, and thus it is reasonable to introduce the GUT scale cutoff into the model. If there exists new physics like M-theory , where the string scale comes down to the GUT scale, this treatment would be justified.

The effective theory which we analyze below the GUT scale is the MSSM with the right-handed neutrinos. The superpotential in the leptonic sector is given by

$`W_Y=Y_\nu ^{ij}(\nu _R^c)_i\mathrm{}_jH_u+Y_e^{ij}(e_R^c)_i\mathrm{}_jH_d+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}M_{R_{ij}}(\nu _R^c)_i(\nu _R^c)_j+\mu H_dH_u,`$ (11)
where the indeces $`i`$, $`j`$ run over three generations, $`H_u`$ and $`H_d`$ denote the up-type and down-type MSSM Higgs doublets, respectively, and $`M_{R_{ij}}`$ is the heavy right-handed Majorana neutrino mass matrix. We work in the basis where the charged-lepton Yukawa matrix $`Y_e`$ and the mass matrix $`M_{R_{ij}}`$ are real-positive and diagonal matrices: $`Y_e^{ij}=Y_{e_i}\delta _{ij}`$ and $`M_{R_{ij}}=\text{diag}(M_{R_1},M_{R_2},M_{R_3})`$. Thus the LFV is originated from the off-diagonal components of the neutrino Dirac Yukawa coupling matrix $`Y_\nu `$. The soft SUSY breaking terms in the leptonic sector is described as

$`_{\text{soft}}`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}_i^{}\left(m_\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}^2\right)_{ij}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}_j+\stackrel{~}{\nu }_{Ri}^{}\left(m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }}^2\right)_{ij}\stackrel{~}{\nu }_{Rj}+\stackrel{~}{e}_{Ri}^{}\left(m_{\stackrel{~}{e}}^2\right)_{ij}\stackrel{~}{e}_{Rj}`$ (12)
$`+`$ $`m_{H_u}^2H_u^{}H_u+m_{H_d}^2H_d^{}H_d+(B\mu H_dH_u+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}B_\nu M_{R_{ij}}\stackrel{~}{\nu }_{Ri}^{}\stackrel{~}{\nu }_{Rj}+h.c.)`$
$`+`$ $`(A_\nu ^{ij}\stackrel{~}{\nu }_{Ri}^{}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}_jH_u+A_e^{ij}\stackrel{~}{e}_{Ri}^{}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}_jH_d+h.c.)`$
$`+`$ $`({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}M_1\stackrel{~}{B}\stackrel{~}{B}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}M_2\stackrel{~}{W}^a\stackrel{~}{W}^a+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}M_3\stackrel{~}{G}^a\stackrel{~}{G}^a+h.c.).`$
As discussed above, we impose the universal boundary conditions at the GUT scale such that

$`\left(m_\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}^2\right)_{ij}=\left(m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }}^2\right)_{ij}=\left(m_{\stackrel{~}{e}}^2\right)_{ij}=m_0^2\delta _{ij},`$
$`m_{H_u}^2=m_{H_d}^2=m_0^2,`$
$`A_\nu ^{ij}=A_0Y_\nu ^{ij},A_e^{ij}=A_0Y_e^{ij},`$
$`M_1=M_2=M_3=M_{1/2},`$ (13)
and extrapolate the soft SUSY breaking parameters to the electroweak scale according to their RGEs. The LFV sources in the soft SUSY breaking parameters such as the off-diagonal components of $`\left(m_\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}^2\right)_{ij}`$ and $`A_e^{ij}`$ are induced by the LFV interactions through the neutrino Dirac Yukawa couplings. For example, the LFV effect most directly emerges in the left-handed slepton mass matrix through the RGEs such as

$`\mu {\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\mu }}\left(m_\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}^2\right)_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`\mu {\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\mu }}\left(m_\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}^2\right)_{ij}|_{\text{MSSM}}`$ (14)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi ^2}}\left(m_\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}^2Y_\nu ^{}Y_\nu +Y_\nu ^{}Y_\nu m_\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}^2+2Y_\nu ^{}m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }}^2Y_\nu +2m_{H_u}^2Y_\nu ^{}Y_\nu +2A_\nu ^{}A_\nu \right)_{ij},`$
where the first term in the right hand side denotes the normal MSSM term with no LFV. In the leading-logarithmic approximation, the off-diagonal components ($`ij`$) of the left-handed slepton mass matrix are estimated as

$`\left(\mathrm{\Delta }m_\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}^2\right)_{ij}{\displaystyle \frac{3m_0^2+A_0^2}{8\pi ^2}}\left(Y_\nu ^{}LY_\nu \right)_{ij},`$ (15)
where the distinct thresholds of the right-handed Majorana neutrinos are taken into account by the matrix $`L=\mathrm{log}[M_G/M_{R_i}]\delta _{ij}`$.

The effective Lagrangian relevant for the LFV processes ($`\mathrm{}_i\mathrm{}_j\gamma `$) and the muon $`g2`$ is described as

$`_{\text{eff}}={\displaystyle \frac{e}{2}}m_\mathrm{}_i\overline{\mathrm{}}_j\sigma _{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }\left(A_L^{ji}P_L+A_R^{ji}P_R\right)\mathrm{}_i,`$ (16)
where $`P_{R,L}=(1\pm \gamma _5)/2`$ is the chirality projection operator, and $`A_{L,R}`$ are the photon-penguin couplings of 1-loop diagrams in which chargino-sneutrino and neutralino-charged slepton are running. The explicit formulas of $`A_{L,R}`$ etc. used in our analysis are summarized in  . The rate of the LFV decay of charged-leptons is given by

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{}_i\mathrm{}_j\gamma )={\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{16\pi }}m_\mathrm{}_i^5\left(|A_L^{ji}|^2+|A_R^{ji}|^2\right),`$ (17)
while the real diagonal components of $`A_{L,R}`$ contribute to the anomalous magnetic moments of the charged-leptons such as

$`\delta a_\mathrm{}_i^{SUSY}={\displaystyle \frac{g_\mathrm{}_i2}{2}}=m_\mathrm{}_i^2\text{Re}\left[A_L^{ii}+A_R^{ii}\right].`$ (18)
In order to clarify the parameter dependence of the decay amplitude, we give here an approximate formula of the LFV decay rate ,

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{}_i\mathrm{}_j\gamma ){\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{16\pi }}m_\mathrm{}_i^5\times {\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _2}{16\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{|\left(\mathrm{\Delta }m_\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}^2\right)_{ij}|^2}{M_S^8}}\mathrm{tan}^2\beta ,`$ (19)
where $`M_S`$ is the average slepton mass at the electroweak scale, and $`\left(\mathrm{\Delta }m_\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}^2\right)_{ij}`$ is the slepton mass estimated in Eq. (15). We can see that the neutrino Dirac Yukawa coupling matrix plays the crucial role in calculations of the LFV processes. We use the neutrino Dirac Yukawa coupling matrix of Eq. (10) in our numerical calculations.

Now we present our results for the rate of the LFV processes and the muon $`g2`$. In Fig. 1, the branching ratio of the muon LFV decay, $`\text{Br}(\mu e\gamma )`$, is plotted as a function of the universal scalar mass $`m_0`$ for the various universal gaugino masses, $`M_{1/2}=400,600,800,1000`$ GeV, and $`A_0=0`$. The horizontal line denotes the present experimental upper bound, $`\text{Br}(\mu e\gamma )1.2\times 10^{11}`$ . We always take $`\mu >0`$, which leads to the SUSY contribution to the muon $`g2`$ being positive. On the other hand, for various $`m_0=400,600,800,1000`$ GeV the branching ratio as a function of $`M_{1/2}`$ is depicted in Fig. 2. The predicted branching ratios are large so that a parameter space with small $`m_0`$ and $`M_{1/2}`$ has already been excluded. Note that even for $`m_0,M_{1/2}1`$ TeV the branching ratios well exceed the future planed upper bound, $`\text{Br}(\mu e\gamma )10^{14}`$ . The LFV process may be observed in the near future. The branching ratios for the process $`\tau \mu \gamma `$ are plotted in Fig. 3 and 4 for the same input parameters in Fig. 1 and 2, respectively, together with the current upper bound, $`\text{Br}(\tau \mu \gamma )0.6\times 10^6`$ . In this case, the resultant branching ratio is too small to be accessible to the future sensitivity, $`\text{Br}(\tau \mu \gamma )10^9`$ , for input parameters consistent with the current bound on the muon LFV decay (see Fig. 1, 2). As can be understood from Eqs. (15) and (19), the branching ratio depends on $`A_0`$. For fixed $`m_0=600`$ GeV and $`M_{1/2}=800`$ GeV, the branching ratios of both $`\mu e\gamma `$ and $`\tau \mu \gamma `$ are plotted in Fig. 5 as functions of $`A_0`$. The other LFV processes such as $`\mu 3e`$ and $`\mu e`$ conversion rate in nuclei are also interesting, since they are strongly constrained by experiments. These processes consist of the 1-loop penguin-type and the box-type diagrams. In our parameter space, contributions from penguin-type diagrams involving the above $`A_{L,R}`$ dominates, and we can find the approximation formulas, $`\text{Br}(\mu 3e)/\text{Br}(\mu e\gamma )7\times 10^3`$  and $`R(\mu e;\text{Ti}(\text{Al}))/\text{Br}(\mu e\gamma )5(3)\times 10^3`$ (see, for example, Ref.  for detailed calculations) for the $`\mu e`$ conversion with the Ti (Al) target. These are close to the present experimental upper bounds, $`\text{Br}(\mu 3e)1.0\times 10^{12}`$  and $`R(\mu e;N)6.1\times 10^{13}`$ , when $`\text{Br}(\mu e\gamma )`$ is close to the present upper bound as seen in Fig. 1 and 2.

Next let us discuss the muon $`g2`$. Numerical results are depicted in Fig. 6 and 7 for the same input parameters in Fig. 1 and 2, respectively. Although these results are almost insensitive to the neutrino Dirac Yukawa couplings and the universal trilinear coupling $`A_0`$, they are correlated with the LFV branching ratios through the dependences on $`m_0`$ and $`M_{1/2}`$. Note that the input parameters providing $`\text{Br}(\mu e\gamma )`$ close to the present upper bound predict the suitable magnitude for the observed muon $`g2`$ in Eq. (1).

If the R-parity is conserved in SUSY models, the lightest superpartner (LSP) is stable. The neutralino, if it is the LSP, is the plausible candidate for the cold dark matter (CDM) in the present universe. The recent Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) satellite data  provide estimations of various cosmological parameters with greater accuracy. The current density of the universe is composed of about 73% of dark energy and 27% of matter. Most of the matter density is in the form of the CDM, and its density is estimated to be (in 2$`\sigma `$ range)

$`\mathrm{\Omega }_{CDM}h^2=0.1126_{0.0181}^{+0.0161}.`$ (20)
The parameter space of the CMSSM which allows the neutralino relic density suitable for the cold dark matter has been recently re-examined in the light of the WMAP data . It has been shown that the resultant parameter space is dramatically reduced into the narrow stripe due to the great accuracy of the WMAP data. It is interesting to combine this result with our analysis of the LFV processes and the muon $`g2`$. In the case relevant for our analysis, $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =45`$, $`\mu >0`$ and $`A_0=0`$, we can read off the approximate relation between $`m_0`$ and $`M_{1/2}`$ such as (see Figure 1 in the second paper of Ref. )

$`m_0(\text{GeV})={\displaystyle \frac{9}{28}}M_{1/2}(\text{GeV})+150(\text{GeV}),`$ (21)
along which the neutralino CDM is realized.444 We can see that our resultant soft SUSY breaking mass spectrum at the electroweak scale is almost the same as those in the CMSSM. Thus we use the CMSSM result of Eq. (21) as the neutralino CDM constraint.  $`M_{1/2}`$ parameter space is constrained within the range $`300\text{GeV}M_{1/2}1000\text{GeV}`$ due to the experimental bound on the SUSY contribution to the $`bs\gamma `$ branching ratio and the unwanted stau LSP parameter region. We show $`\text{Br}(\mu e\gamma )`$ and the muon $`g2`$ as functions of $`M_{1/2}`$ in Fig. 8 and 9, respectively, along the neutralino CDM condition of Eq. (21). We find the parameter region, $`560\text{GeV}M_{1/2}800\text{GeV}`$, being consistent with all the experimental data.

Before closing this section, we give a comment on the electric dipole moments (EDMs) of the charged-leptons. If the diagonal components of $`A_{L,R}`$ have imaginary parts, CP is violated and the EDMs of the charged-leptons are given by

$`d_\mathrm{}_i/e=m_\mathrm{}_i\text{Im}\left[A_L^{ii}A_R^{ii}\right].`$ (22)
These complex $`A_{L,R}`$ are induced through the renormalization effects in the same manner as for the LFV processes. Here the primary source of the CP-violation is the CP-phases in the complex neutrino Dirac Yukawa coupling matrix of Eq. (10). For the same input parameter region analyzed above, we obtain the results of the electron and muon EDMs such as (we find $`d_e,d_\mu <0`$) $`|d_e|=10^{34}10^{33}`$ \[e cm\] and $`|d_\mu |=10^{31}10^{30}`$ \[e cm\], respectively, which are far below the present experimental upper bounds , $`d_e1.6\times 10^{27}`$ \[e cm\] and $`d_\mu 3.7\times 10^{19}`$ \[e cm\]. As an example of our results, we present the electron EDM in Fig. 10 as a function of $`M_{1/2}`$ along the cosmological constraint of Eq. (21). If the measurement of the electron EDM could be improved by six orders of magnitude, $`d_e10^{33}`$ \[e cm\], as proposed in , there might be a chance to detect the electron EDM.

## 4 Summary

The evidence of the neutrino masses and flavor mixings implies the non-conservation of the lepton flavor symmetry in each generations. Thus the LFV processes in the charged-lepton sector are allowed. In SUSY theory, there is the possibility that the rate of the LFV processes will be accessible to the current or future experimental bounds. The concrete information of the LFV interactions is necessary to evaluate the rate of the LFV processes.

It has recently been shown  that the minimal SUSY SO(10) model can simultaneously accommodate all the observed quark-lepton mass matrix data involving the neutrino oscillation data with appropriately fixed free parameters. In this model, the neutrino Yukawa coupling matrix are completely determined, whose off-diagonal components are the primary source of the lepton flavor violation in the basis where the charged-lepton and the right-handed neutrino mass matrices are real and diagonal. Using this Yukawa coupling matrix, we have calculated the rate of the LFV processes assuming the mSUGRA scenario. The branching ratio of the $`\mu e\gamma `$ process is found to be large so that a parameter space with small universal scalar and gaugino masses has been already excluded by the present experimental upper bound. Even for 1 TeV input parameters, we found that the branching ratio well exceeds the future planed experimental upper bound.

We also have calculated the SUSY contribution to the muon $`g2`$, which is correlated with the rate of the LFV processes through the input parameters in mSUGRA scenario. The resultant magnitude of the muon $`g2`$ is found to be within the range of the recent result of Brookhaven E821 experiment for the input parameters providing the $`\mu e\gamma `$ branching ratio close to the current experimental bound.

In CMSSM the parameter region realizing the neutralino dark matter scenario has been dramatically reduced by the recent WMAP data. We have performed the same analysis for the LFV processes and the muon $`g2`$ by restricting the input parameters within the cosmologically allowed region. We have found that there exists a parameter region consistent with all the data.