1501 01886

New Paradigm for Baryon and Lepton Number Violation
Pavel Fileviez Perez

Particle and Astroparticle Physics Division
Max Planck Institut fuer Kernphysik, 69117 Heidelberg, Germany
Abstract
arXiv:1501.01886v2 [hep-ph] 17 Aug 2015
The possible discovery of proton decay, neutron-antineutron oscillation, neutrinoless double

beta decay in low energy experiments, and exotic signals related to the violation of the baryon
and lepton numbers at collider experiments will change our understanding of the conservation
of fundamental symmetries in nature. In this review we discuss the rare processes due to
the existence of baryon and lepton number violating interactions. The simplest grand unified
theories and the neutrino mass generation mechanisms are discussed. The theories where the
baryon and lepton numbers are defined as local gauge symmetries spontaneously broken at the
low scale are discussed in detail. The simplest supersymmetric gauge theory which predicts
the existence of lepton number violating processes at the low scale is investigated. The main
goal of this review is to discuss the main implications of baryon and lepton number violation
in physics beyond the Standard Model.
Preprint submitted to Elsevier August 19, 2015

CONTENTS 2
Contents
1 Introduction 3
2 Particle Physics and the Great Desert Hypothesis 4
3 Proton Stability 8
4 Neutron-antineutron oscillations 9
5 Mechanisms for Neutrino Masses 12
6 Neutrinoless double beta decay 15
7 Grand Unified Theories 16
8 Theories for Local Baryon and Lepton Numbers 20

8.1 Theoretical Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
8.2 Phenomenological Aspects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
8.3 Cosmological Aspects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
8.4 Towards Low Scale Unification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
9 Baryon and Lepton Number Violation in Supersymmetry 34

9.1 The Minimal Theory for Spontaneous R-parity Violation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
9.2 R-Parity Violating Interactions and Mass Spectrum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
9.3 Lepton Number Violation and Decays . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
9.4 Signatures at the LHC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
10 Final Discussions 49
1. Introduction 3
1. Introduction
The discovery of the Higgs boson at the Large Hadron Collider did close a chapter in the
history of particle physics. Now, the Standard Model of particle physics is completed and
describes most of the experiments with a great precision. There are many open questions in
particle physics and cosmology which we cannot answer in the context of the Standard Model.
Some of these questions are related to the understanding of the baryon asymmetry and the dark
matter in the Universe. There are even more fundamental questions related to the origin of all
interactions in nature. One of the most appealing scenarios for high energy physics correspond
to the case where a new theory is realized at the TeV scale and one could solve some of these
enigmas in this context.
The great desert hypothesis is very often considered as a well-defined scenario for physics
beyond the Standard Model. In the great desert picture one has the Standard Model describing
physics at the electroweak scale and a more fundamental theory at the high scale. This high
scale is often related to the scale where there is a grand unified theory or even a theory where
the unification of the gauge interactions and gravity is possible. From the low-energy point
of view or bottom-up approach it is important to have an effective field theory which is not
sensitive to the unknown physics at the high scale.
It is well-known that in the Standard Model baryon and lepton numbers are conserved
symmetries at the classical level. However, in our modern view the Standard Model is just an
effective theory which describes physics at the electroweak scale and one should think about
the impact of all possible higher-dimensional operators which could modify the Standard Model
predictions. For example, in the Standard Model one can have the following higher-dimensional
operators
cL cB cF
L `L `L H 2 + 2 qL qL qL `L + 2 (qL qL )(qL qL ), (1)
L B F
where the first operator violates lepton number, the second violates baryon and lepton num-
bers, and the third breaks the flavour symmetry of the Standard Model gauge sector. The
experimental bounds demand L < 1014 GeV, B > 1015 GeV [1], and F > 1034 TeV [2],
when cL , cB and cF are of order one. Since in any generic grand unified theory one generates
the second operator due to new gauge interactions, it is impossible to achieve unification at
the low scale without predicting an unstable proton and therefore one needs the great desert.
One could imagine a theoretical framework where the second operator is absent, the proton is
stable and the unification scale is only constrained by flavour violating processes. In this case
2. Particle Physics and the Great Desert Hypothesis 4
the unification scale must be above 104 TeV in order to satisfy all experimental constraints. In
this review we present new theories for physics beyond the Standard Model where the effective
theory at the TeV scale predicts a stable proton and the unification scale could be very low.
In the first part of this review we present new extensions of the Standard Model where the
baryon and lepton numbers are local gauge symmetries spontaneously broken at the low scale.
In this context one can define a simple anomaly free theory adding a simple set of fields with
baryon and lepton numbers which we call lepto-baryons. We show that in the spectrum of
these theories one has a candidate to describe the cold dark matter in the Universe. We discuss
the predictions for direct detection and the constraints from the allowed relic density. Using the
relic density constraints we find an upper bound on the symmetry breaking scale which tells
us that these theories can be tested or ruled out at current or future collider experiments. The
relation between the baryon asymmetry and dark matter density is investigated. We show that
even if the local baryon number is broken at the low scale one can have a consistent relation
between the baryon asymmetry and the B L asymmetry generated through a mechanism
such as leptogenesis. Finally, we discuss the possibility to achieve the unification of gauge
interactions at the low scale in agreement with the experiment.
In the second part of this review we discuss the main issues in supersymmetric theories
related to the existence of baryon and lepton number violating interactions. We discuss the
possible origin of the Rparity violating interactions and show that the simplest theories based
on the local B L gauge symmetry predicts that Rparity must be spontaneously broken at
the supersymmetric scale. We discuss the most striking signatures at the Large Hadron Collider
which one can use to test the theory in the near future. The predictions for the lepton number
violating channels with multi-leptons are discussed in detail. We discuss the main features of
this generic mechanism for spontaneous Rparity breaking and the consequences for cosmology.
The theories presented in this review can be considered as appealing extensions of the Standard
Model of particle physics which could be tested in the near future.
2. Particle Physics and the Great Desert Hypothesis
The Standard Model of particle physics describes the properties of quarks, leptons and gauge
bosons with great precision at the electroweak scale, EW 100200 GeV. Unfortunately, very
often when we try to understand the origin of the Standard Model interactions one postulates
the existence of a grand unified theory or another fundamental theory which describes physics
at the very high scale, MGU T 101517 GeV. Therefore, typically one postulates a large energy
Figure 1: The Desert Hypothesis in Particle Physics and proton decay mediated by dimension six operators. The
Standard Model describes physics at the electroweak scale and at the high scale one has some speculative ideas
related to the unification of fundamental forces. The grand unified theories could be realized at the 101516 GeV
scale, while string theories could be realized at the Planck scale.
gap or desert between the electroweak scale and the new scale MGU T . See Fig. 1 for a simple
representation of the desert hypothesis in particle physics. Notice that in the desert one could
have some animals such as the fields needed for the seesaw mechanism of neutrino masses.
However, in the simplest picture there are only two main energy scales where new theories are
defined, the electroweak scale and the unification scale.
Unfortunately, if the desert hypothesis is true there is no hope to test the unified theories
at colliders or low-energy experiments. One of the main reasons to postulate the great desert
is that in the Standard Model one can have new dimension six operators which mediate proton
decay. For example, one can write down the following baryon and lepton number violating
operator with three quarks and one lepton field,
qL qL qL `L
LSM cB , (2)
2B
and using the experimental bounds on the proton decay lifetime, p > 103234 years, one obtains
a very strong bound on the scale B , i.e. B > 101516 GeV. One can understand the origin
of these interactions in the context of grand unified theories.
The simplest grand unified theory is based on the gauge group SU (5) and it was proposed
by H. Georgi and S. Glashow in 1974 [3]. In this context one can understand the origin of the
Figure 2: The Desert Hypothesis in the case when we assume Low Energy Supersymmetry. We list the Rparity
violating interactions and the dimension five operators mediating proton decay. In this case one could describe
physics at the TeV scale in the context of the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model and at the high scale a
possible supersymmetric grand unified theories or superstring theories could play a role.
Standard Model interactions since they are just different manifestations of the same fundamental
force defined at the high scale. The desert hypothesis was postulated in the same article [3]
when the authors realized that the new gauge bosons present in SU (5) mediate proton decay
and generate the dimension six baryon number violating operator in Eq. (2). In the context of
grand unified theories the Standard Model quarks and leptons are unified in the same multiplets.
Therefore, the baryon number is explicitly broken at the high scale. One must mention that
the desert hypothesis is also in agreement with the extrapolation of the gauge couplings up to
the high scale. H. Georgi, H. R. Quinn and S. Weinberg [4] have shown also in 1974 that the
Standard Model gauge couplings could be unified at the high scale if we assume no new physics
between the electroweak and high scales. In 1974 they did not know the values of the gauge
couplings with good precision but the main idea was correct.
The minimal supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM) has been considered as one of the
most appealing theories to describe physics at the TeV scale. In this context the desert hy-
pothesis plays a main role because the unification of the Standard Model gauge couplings is
realized with good precision. The authors in Refs. [5, 6, 7, 8] studied the extrapolation of the
gauge couplings assuming the great desert, showing that they meet without the need of large
threshold effects. This result has been quite influential in the particle physics community and
very often is used as one of the main motivations for having supersymmetry at the low scale.
Unfortunately, in the context of the minimal supersymmetric Standard Model one finds new
interactions which violate the baryon and lepton numbers. In the MSSM superpotential one
has the terms
0 00
WM SSM LHu + LLec + QLdc + uc dc dc , (3)
where the first three terms violate the total lepton number and the last term breaks the baryon
number. Here we use the standard superfield notation for all MSSM multiplets. It is well-known
that the last two interactions together mediate the dimension four contributions to proton decay
and one needs to impose a discrete symmetry by hand to forbid these interactions. Imposing
the discrete symmetry called matter parity defined as
M = (1)3(BL) , (4)
one can forbid these interactions. Here, B and L are the baryon and lepton numbers, respec-
tively. Matter parity is defined in such way that it is equal to 1 for any matter superfield
and +1 for any gauge or Higgs superfield present in the MSSM. There is a very simple relation
between R-parity and M -parity,
R = (1)2S M, (5)
where S is the spin of the particle. Notice that the interactions in Eq. (3) break the R-parity
discrete symmetry as well and often we refer to these terms as R-parity violating interactions.
It is important to mention that even if we impose the conservation of M (R)-parity, still there
are interactions which mediate proton decay. These are the dimension five operators such as
QQQL
WM SSM c5 . (6)
B
In the context of grand unified theories these interactions are mediated by colored fermions and
one needs an extra suppression mechanism to satisfy the experimental bounds on the proton
decay lifetime. One can say that in the context of supersymmetric theories these interactions
are problematic and even assuming the great desert we need a suppression mechanism. See
Fig. 2 for a naive representation of the desert hypothesis in the case when we have low energy
supersymmetry.
As we have discussed before, the desert hypothesis plays a major role in the particle physics
community, and it is often assumed as true. This hypothesis is very naive and maybe we never
will know if it is true because there is no way to test the theories at the high scale. The
3. Proton Stability 8
only theory we know which describes physics at the electroweak scale is the Standard Model of
particle physics. Then, if we only worry about the theory defined at the low scale, the need to
assume a large cutoff is uncomfortable. This issue tells us that one should think about effective
theories defined at the low scale which are free of these baryon number violating operators
mediating proton decay.
3. Proton Stability
We have discussed in the previous section that the main reason to assume the great desert
between the weak and Planck scales is the proton stability. In the renormalizable Standard
Model of particle physics the proton is stable since the baryon number is broken in three units
by the SU (2) instantons. However, there are higher-dimensional operators [9] of dimension six
which are allowed by the Standard Model gauge symmetry and violate baryon number in one
unit. Those operators mediate proton decay and are highly constrained by the experimental
bounds. The simplest dimension six baryon number violating operators are given by
O1 = c1 (uc )L qL (ec )L qL , (7)
O2 = c2 (uc )L qL (dc )L `L , (8)
O3 = c3 (dc )L qL (uc )L `L . (9)
Here qL (3, 2, 1/6), `L (1, 2, 1/2), (ec )L (1, 1, 1), (uc )L (3, 1, 2/3) and (dc )L
(3, 1, 1/3) are the Standard Model quarks and leptons. These operators are generated once we
integrate out superheavy gauge bosons present in grand unified theories. The first two operators
are mediated by the gauge bosons (X , Y ) (3, 2, 5/6), while the last one is mediated by
0 0
(X , Y ) (3, 2, 1/6). These gauge bosons are present in SU (5) and flipped SU (5) grand
unified theories, respectively.
The coefficients ci in the above equations are proportional to the inverse of the gauge boson
masses squared, MV2 . Therefore, using the experimental bounds listed in Fig. 3 one finds
naively a very strong lower bound on the mass of the gauge bosons, i.e. MV > 101516 GeV.
Now, since these gauge bosons acquire mass once the grand unified symmetry is broken, the
unified scale has to be very large. This simple result tells us that there is no way to test these
theories at collider experiments. Even if proton decay is found in current and future experiments
it will be very difficult to realize the test of a grand unified theory. See Ref. [1] for a review
on grand unified theories and proton decay. For the possibility to find an upper bound on the
total proton decay lifetime see Ref. [11].
4. Neutron-antineutron oscillations 9
Figure 3: Experimental bounds on the proton decay lifetimes [10]. Here one can see the bounds from different
experimental collaborations.
As one can appreciate, these bounds have dramatic implications for particle physics because
the simplest unified theories must describe physics at the high scale and the great desert is
needed. A grand unified theory could be defined at the low scale. However, in this case baryon
number should be a local symmetry spontaneously broken at the low scale. In the next section
we will discuss the theories with gauged baryon number which predict that the proton is stable
and define a new path to low scale unification.
4. Neutron-antineutron oscillations
In this section we discuss the simplified models for nn oscillations studied in Ref. [12].
In Table 1 we list the different scalar di-quarks relevant for this study. Now, we list the
simplest models which give rise to processes with B = 2 and L = 0, but only the first three
models contribute to nn oscillations at tree-level due to the symmetry properties of the Yukawa
Interactions SU (3) SU (2) U (1)Y
XqL qL , XuR dR (6, 1, 1/3)

XqL qL (6, 3, 1/3)
XdR dR (3, 1, 2/3), (6, 1, 2/3)
XuR uR (6, 1, 4/3)
Table 1: Possible interactions between the scalar di-quarks and the Standard Model fermions [12].
interactions. The sextet field is defined as

X 11 X 12 / 2 X 13 / 2

X = X 12 / 2 X 22 X 23 / 2 , (10)

X 13 / 2 X 23 / 2 X 33
and the simplest models are discussed below.
Model 1: In this case the extra fields are X1 (6, 1, 1/3) and X2 (6, 1, 2/3), and the
relevant Lagrangian reads as

a
L1 = hab
1 X1
a
qL b
qL hab b
2 X2 (dR dR )
a 0 0 0
h0ab b
1 X1 (uR dR ) + X1 X1 X2 0 0 0 . (11)
Here the Greek indices , and are the color indices, while a and b are family indices. h1
must be antisymmetric in flavor space but this antisymmetry is not retained upon rotation into
the mass eigenstate basis. The coupling h2 must be symmetric because of the symmetric color
structure in the second term.
Model 2: In the second model one has the fields X1 (6, 3, 1/3) and X2 (6, 1, 2/3) with
A a a 0 0 0
A A
L2 = hab
1 X1 (qL A qL
b
) hab b
2 X2 (dR dR ) + X1 X1 X2 0 0 0 . (12)
Here the matrix A is symmetric, while the first and second terms have symmetric color struc-
tures, h1 and h2 must be symmetric in flavor.
Model 3: One can have a simple scenario with the fields X1 (6, 1, 2/3) and X2 (6, 1, 4/3)
and the Lagrangian in this case is given by
a 0 0 0
ab a
L3 = hab b b
1 X1 (dR dR ) h2 X2 (uR uR ) + X1 X1 X2 0 0 0 . (13)
d d
u X2 u
X1 X1
d d
Figure 4: Feynman Graph for neutron-antineutron oscillations [13, 12].
Both terms have symmetric color structures and no weak structure, so h1 and h2 must be sym-
metric in flavor.
Model 4: In the last scenario one has X1 (3, 1, 2/3) and X2 (6, 1, 4/3) with

a
L4 = hab 1 X1 da b
R R
d
hab b
2 X2 (uR uR ) + X1 X1 X2 . (14)
Because of the antisymmetric color structure in the first term, h1 must be antisymmetric in flavor
which prevents it from introducing meson-antimeson mixing. The antisymmetric structure of
h1 also prevents the existence of six-quark operators involving all first-generation quarks, and
one prevents nn oscillations.
In order to understand the constraints from the n n oscillation experiments the authors
in Ref. [12] studied model 1. The transition matrix element
m = hn|Heff |ni, (15)
leads to a transition probability for a neutron at rest to change into an antineutron after time t
equal to Pnn (t) = sin2 (|m| t). Neglecting the coupling h1 in the Lagrangian given by Eq.(11)
the effective |B| = 2 Hamiltonian that causes nn oscillations reads as [12]
(h011 )2 h11
Heff = 1 4 22 dRi dRi0 uRj dRj 0 uRk dRk0
4M1 M2

ijk i0 j 0 k0 + i0 jk ij 0 k0 + ij 0 k i0 jk0 + ijk0 i0 j 0 k + h.c. (16)
where Latin indices are color and Greek indices are spinor. It arises from the tree-level diagram
in Fig. 4. In the vacuum insertion approximation to Eq. (15) one finds [12, 14] that
|(h011 2 11
1 ) h2 |
|m| = 2 2 . (17)
3M14 M22
Here the constant ' 0.01 GeV3 . Using the current experimental limit on m [15],
|m| < 2 1033 GeV, (18)

5. Mechanisms for Neutrino Masses 12
assuming the relation M1 = M2 = M , the values of the couplings h011 11

1 = h2 = 1, and = M
one obtains
M & 500 TeV. (19)
The effect on nn oscillations is maximized if we choose M2 > M1 because |m| can be larger.
Assuming M1 = 5 TeV and = M2 experiments in the future may be able to probe nn
oscillations with increased sensitivity of |m| ' 7 1035 GeV. If no oscillations are observed
the new lower bound in the case of equal masses will be
M & 1000 TeV . (20)
In this way one can see the possible bounds that can be achieved if nn oscillations are not
discovered. It is important to say that nn experiments cannot probe the grand unified scale but
the discovery of this process will change the way we think about physics beyond the Standard
Model. More experiments are badly needed in this area. See Ref. [16] for a recent review on
nn oscillations.
5. Mechanisms for Neutrino Masses
The discovery of massive neutrinos have motivated the experts in the field to think about
the possible mechanisms to generate neutrino masses. The neutrinos could be Majorana or
Dirac particles. In the Majorana case the total lepton number must be broken in two units,
L = 2, as in the seesaw mechanisms. In this section we discuss the simplest mechanisms for
generating neutrino masses at tree and one-loop level. The simplest mechanisms at tree level
are the following:
Type I Seesaw [17, 18, 19, 20, 21]: This is perhaps the simplest mechanism for generating
neutrino masses. In this case one adds a SM singlet, c (1, 1, 0), and using the interactions
1
LI = Y l H c + M c c + h.c., (21)
2
in the limit M Y v0 one finds
1
MI = Y M 1 YT v02 , (22)
2
where M is typically defined by the BL breaking scale. Then, one understands the smallness of
the neutrino masses due to the existence of a mass scale, M Y v0 m . Here, if we assume
Y 1 the scale M 101415 GeV. Now, in general it is not possible to make predictions for
the neutrino masses and mixing in this framework since we do not know the matrices Y and
M . Then, one should look for a theory where one could predict these quantities. In the context
of SO(10) grand unified theories one can relate the charged fermion and neutrino masses in a
consistent way.
Once the right-handed neutrinos are present in the theory the BL symmetry can be defined
as a local symmetry. In this scenario the same Higgs breaking B L can generate Majorana
masses for the right-handed neutrinos. Therefore, the scale M is defined by the B L breaking
scale. In this case if the scale is in the TeV range one can produce the right-handed neutrinos
with large cross sections through the B L gauge boson

pp ZBL N1 N1 e
i ej W W ,
and one can have signatures with two same-sign dileptons at the LHC. Here ei = e, , and N1
is the lightest physical c -like state. See Ref. [22] for a recent study of these collider signals.
For the original idea of looking for lepton number violation at colliders see Ref. [23].
Type II Seesaw [24, 25, 26, 27, 28]: In this scenario one introduces a new Higgs boson,
(1, 3, 1), which couples to the leptonic doublets and the SM Higgs boson

LII
= Y `L `L + H H + h.c., (23)
and when the neutral component in = ( 0 , + , ++ ) acquires a vacuum expectation value,

v , one finds

MII
= 2 Y v = Y v02 /M
2
. (24)
Notice that if M and M 101415 GeV the vev v should be of order 1 eV. However,
in general the triplet mass can be around the TeV scale and can be small. Unfortunately,
in this context one cannot make predictions for neutrino masses because in general the matrix
Y and v are unknown. Then, as in the previous case, one should look for a theory where
one can predict these quantities. We would like to mention that the field can be light in
agreement with the unification constraints in a simple grand unified theory based on the SU (5)
gauge symmetry [29, 30, 31].
In this scenario one can have spectacular signatures at the LHC if the Higgs triplet is light.
When M 1 TeV one could produce at the LHC the doubly and singly charged Higgses
present in the model. When v < 104 GeV the dominant decays are H ++ e+ +
i ej and
H + e+
i , and we could learn about the neutrino spectrum. These signatures have been
investigated in great detail in Refs. [32, 33, 34, 35, 36].

Type III Seesaw [37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42]: In the case of Type III seesaw one adds new
fermions, L (1, 3, 0), and the neutrino masses are generated using the following interactions
LIII
= Y `L L H + M Tr 2L + h.c., (25)
where L = (0 , + , ). Integrating out the neutral component of the fermionic triplet one
finds
1
MIII
= Y M1 YT v02 . (26)
2
Here, as in the case of Type I seesaw, if Y 1 one needs M 101415 GeV. One faces the
same problem, if we want to make predictions for neutrinos masses and mixings, a theory where
Y and M can be predicted is needed. The existence of a light fermionic triplet is consistent
with unification of gauge interactions in the context of SU (5) theories. See Refs. [39, 43, 44] for
details. The testability of the Type III seesaw mechanism at the LHC has been investigated in
detail in Refs. [45, 46, 47].
We have mentioned the simplest mechanisms at tree level. Now, if Supersymmetry is real-
ized in nature one has the extra possibility to generate neutrino masses through the R-parity
violating couplings. One could say that in this case we use a combination of the different seesaw
mechanisms. We will discuss this possibility in the next sections.
There are several mechanisms for generating neutrino masses at one-loop level. In this
case one assumes that the mechanisms discussed above are absent and only through quantum
corrections one generates neutrino masses. This possibility is very appealing since the neutrino
masses are very tiny and the seesaw scale can be low.
Zee Model [48]: In the so-called Zee model one introduces two extra Higgs bosons, h
0
(1, 1, 1) and H (1, 2, 1/2). In this case the relevant interactions are
2
0
Yi ec Hi `L + h.c.,
X

LZee = Y `L h `L + H H h + (27)
i=1
where in general both Higgs doublets couple to the matter fields. Using these interactions one
can generate neutrino masses at one-loop level. See Ref. [48] for details. Now, it is important
to mention that in the simple case where only one Higgs doublet couples to the leptons [49] it
is not possible to generate neutrino masses in agreement with neutrino data. See for example
Refs. [50, 51, 52, 53, 54] for details.
Colored Seesaw [55]: Now, suppose that one looks for the simplest mechanism for neutrino
masses at one-loop level where we add only two types of representations, a fermionic and a scalar
one, and with no extra symmetry. All the possibilities were considered in Ref. [55] where we
found that only two cases are allowed by cosmology. In this case one has two possible scenarios:
6. Neutrinoless double beta decay 15
Figure 5: Colored Seesaw Mechanism [55]. The field S is a colored scalar octet, while is a fermionic colored
octet.
1. The extra fields are a fermionic 1 (8, 1, 0) and the scalar S (8, 2, 1/2).
2. One adds the fermion 2 (8, 3, 0) and the scalar field S (8, 2, 1/2).
In both cases one generates neutrino masses through the loop in Fig. 5. The relevant interactions
in this case are given by
2
LCS = Y2 `L S 1 + M1 Tr 21 + 2 Tr S H + h.c. (28)
Using as input parameters, M1 = 200 GeV, v0 = 246 GeV and MS = 2 TeV we find that
in order to get the neutrino scale, 1 eV, the combination of the couplings, Y22 2 108 .
The experimental bounds on the colored octet masses depend of their decays. See Ref. [56]
for a detailed discussion. This mechanism could be easily tested at the LHC. In this case the
seesaw fields can be produced with very large cross sections through the QCD interactions. See
Ref. [56] for a detailed analysis of the collider signatures in this context. We would like to
mention that this mechanism can be realized in the context of grand unified theories.
6. Neutrinoless double beta decay
The total lepton number can be broken in two units, L = 2, and one can have the exotic
process
A
ZX A
Z+2 Y + 2e , (29)
which is called neutrinoless double beta decay. Here AX is a nuclei with atomic number Z
Z
and atomic mass A. For a recent review on neutrinoless double beta decay see Ref. [57]. This
process proceeds through the Majorana neutrino mass insertion as one can see in Fig. 6 and
the amplitude of these processes is proportional to the quantity
7. Grand Unified Theories 16
Figure 6: Feynman Graph for neutrinoless double beta decay [57]. This contribution is present in any model for
Majorana neutrino masses.
X
2
m = Uei mi , (30)
i
where U is the PMNS mixing matrix [58, 59] in the leptonic sector and mi are the neutrino
eigenvalues. Unfortunately, the neutrino spectrum is unknown and one cannot predict the value
of m and the lifetime for this process. The most optimistic scenario corresponds to the case
when the neutrino spectrum has an inverted hierarchy. In this scenario the lower bound on m
is about 2102 eV and there is a hope to discover this process at current or future experiments.
See Ref. [57] for more details and Refs. [60, 61, 62] for the status of the experimental searches.
In many extensions of the standard model one can have extra contributions for neutrinoless
double beta decay. For example, in supersymmetric models with R-parity violation one has
extra terms mediated by the trilinear and bilinear interactions breaking lepton number. In
models with Type II seesaw the double charged Higgses give rise to new contributions and the
same in other scenarios. One can say that if neutrinoless double beta decay is discovered one
can establish that the neutrino is a Majorana particle but we cannot learn too much about the
mechanism for neutrino masses.
7. Grand Unified Theories
The grand unified theories (GUTs) have been considered the most appealing extensions of
the Standard Model where one can understand the origin of the Standard Model interactions. In
this context the gauge interactions of the SM are just different manifestations of the fundamental
force defined at a different scale. The simplest GUT was proposed in 1974 by H. Georgi and
S. Glashow in Ref. [3]. This theory is based on the SU (5) gauge symmetry and the matter is
unified in two representations in agreement with anomaly cancellation

dc1 0 uc3 uc2 u1 d1

c
d2 uc3 0 u1 u2 d2

5 = dc3 10 = u2 uc1
c
, 0 u3 3
d . (31)

1
u2 u3 c

e u 0 e

d1 d2 d3 ec 0
L L
The Higgs sector is composed of only two Higgs fields

T1

2
T

8 (3,2) 2 0
+ 1

5H = T3 , 24H = 24 . (32)

+

(3,2) 3 2 15 0 3
H

H0
The gauge bosons live in the adjoint representation 24G which contains the Standard Model
gauge bosons and the V gauge bosons mediating proton decay,

G V 1 2 0
24G = + B . (33)
V W 2 15 0 3
The new gauge bosons transform as V (3, 2, 5/6) and mediate the dimension six operators
discussed in the previous section. Unfortunately, the Georgi-Glashow model is not realistic
because it fails to explain the values of the gauge couplings at the low scale. The idea of
defining a simple and realistic grand unified theory based on SU (5) has been investigated by
many groups. There are two simple scenarios which are consistent with the experiment and we
discuss their main features.
Type II-SU(5) [29, 30, 31]:
In this context the neutrino masses are generated through the Type II seesaw mechanism
and one can have a consistent relation between the charged lepton and quark masses using
higher-dimensional operators allowed by the gauge symmetry. The neutrino masses are
generated using the following interactions
V Y 5 5 15H + 5H 5H 15H + h.c., (34)
where the 15H field contains three fields, a (1, 3, 1) is the field needed for Type
II seesaw, b (3, 2, 1/6) is a scalar leptoquark and c (6, 1, 2/3). In order to
12
MFb =4.31011 GeV
10
Log10 HMFb 1GeVL
M Fa
P3
M Fa
8
=8
M3
=13
.83
=1
1
0
0
.6
GeV
8
6
9
Ge
10
M
V
10

M
M Fa
3 =M
Ge

3 =1 Z
=10
V
04
4 Ge
4
V
Ge
P2 P1
V
MFb =242 GeV
2
1 1.5 2 2.5
MGUT H1014 GeVL
Figure 7: Constraints from gauge coupling unification in Type II-SU(5) [31]. Here we show the allowed masses
for the fields a , b , and 3 in agreement with gauge coupling unification at the one-loop level. The vertical
line defines the bound from proton decay. The points P1, P2, and P3 define the allowed area by unification and
proton decay.
understand the possible predictions in this model, the constraints coming from unification
have been investigated in detail in Refs. [29, 30, 31]. In Fig. 7 we show the constraints
on the spectrum of the theory assuming gauge coupling unification at the one-loop level.
As one can appreciate, in order to find the maximal value of the unification scale the
leptoquark b must be light. Here in order to achieve a proton lifetime consistent with
the experiment one needs to use the suppression mechanism proposed in Ref. [11]. This
model has two main features: a) Predicts the existence of a light lepto-quark which could
be discovered at the LHC, b) The total lifetime of the proton is p 1036 years. The
main phenomenological aspects of the leptoquark b were investigated in Ref. [63].
Type III-SU(5) [39, 43, 44]:
The neutrino masses can be generated through the Type III seesaw mechanism. In this
case one needs to include an extra fermionic representation in the adjoint representa-
tion, 24 = (8 , 3 , (3,2) , (3,2) , 24 ). This mechanism can be realized using the following
interactions
5
V Y1 5 24 5H + (Y2 24 24H + Y3 24H 24 + Y4 Tr(24 24H )) 5H + h.c. (35)

2.05
= 1.2 1019 GeV
2.04 M =M
MGUT
8
M 5 GeV
8
Z
Log10(M / 1 GeV)
=M
2.03
3

M
2.02
3
2.01
M =100 GeV
V
Ge
3
2
= 5 1012 GeV
= 1013 GeV
30
=1

3
M
1.99
(3,2)
(3,2)
M
M
1.98
15.5 15.55 15.6 15.65 15.7 15.75
Log10(MGUT / 1 GeV)
Figure 8: Constraints from gauge coupling unification in Type III-SU(5) [43]. Here we show the allowed masses
for the 3 , 3 and (3,2) fields in agreement with gauge coupling unification at one-loop level. The dashed and
blue vertical lines show the allowed parameter space by perturbativity. See Ref. [43] for more details.
Notice that 24 contains two relevant fields for the seesaw mechanism, 3 for Type III
seesaw and 24 for Type I seesaw. The unification constraints have been investigated
in great detail in this model [39, 43, 44, 64]. In Fig. 8 we show the allowed parameter
space in agreement with unification and the values of the gauge couplings at the low
scale. As one can appreciate, the field 3 needed for Type III seesaw must be light in the
theory. Therefore, one could hope to test the Type III seesaw mechanism at the LHC.
See Refs. [45, 46, 47] for the testability of this mechanism. This model also predicts a
lifetime of the proton equal to p < 103637 years [39, 43, 44].
As we have discussed above, there are two simple theories based on SU (5) which are consistent
with the experiment. Theories based on the SO(10) gauge symmetries are very appealing
because one has the unification of the Standard Model fermions in only one representation.
In the 16 spinor representation one has SM fermions for each family and the right-handed
neutrinos. Unfortunately, the Higgs sector of these theories are often very involved and since we
have several symmetry breaking paths to the Standard Model one cannot make good predictions
for proton decay. See Ref. [65] for a review on grand unified theories.
8. Theories for Local Baryon and Lepton Numbers 20
The supersymmetric version of SU (5) has been proposed by H. Georgi and S. Dimopou-
los [66], and independently by N. Sakai [67]. In this context one needs to impose by hand
the discrete symmetry Rparity in order to forbid the dimension four contributions to proton

decay coming from the term 10 5
5. The dimension five operators are also very important
in this context. However, in general it is very difficult to predict the lifetime of the proton
without knowing the full spectrum of supersymmetric particles. It is well-known, that the
minimal renormalizable supersymmetric SU (5) is ruled out because the relation Yd = Ye is in
disagreement with the experiment. Here Yd and Ye are the Yukawa matrices for down quarks
and charged leptons, respectively. The simplest solution to this problem is to include the al-
lowed higher-dimensional operators suppressed by the Planck scale. However, in this case one
can have even less predictivity for proton decay. See Ref. [1] for a review on proton decay and
Refs. [68, 69, 70, 71] for a detailed discussion of this issue.
8. Theories for Local Baryon and Lepton Numbers
In this section we discuss the simplest realistic theories where the baryon and lepton numbers
are defined as local gauge symmetries spontaneously broken at the low scale. Here we summarize
the main results presented in Refs. [72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82]. The original idea
related to the spontaneous breaking of local baryon number with the use of the Higgs mechanism
was proposed by A. Pais in Ref. [83]. In this article the author did not build a theory based on
local baryon number but he proposed to use the Higgs mechanism to understand the spontaneous
breaking of this symmetry. See also Refs. [84, 85, 86] for previous studies in theories with local
baryon number.
In the Standard Model the baryon and lepton numbers are accidental global symmetries
of the Lagrangian but they are not free of anomalies. In order to define a consistent theory
where baryon and lepton numbers are local gauge symmetries, all relevant anomalies need to
be cancelled. Therefore, the SM particle content has to be extended by additional fermions.
In our notation, the SM fermionic fields and their transformation properties under the gauge
group
SU (3) SU (2) U (1)Y U (1)B U (1)L
are listed in Table 2. Here, the right-handed neutrinos are part of the SM fermionic spectrum.
The baryonic anomalies are the following
A1 SU (3)2 U (1)B , A2 SU (2)2 U (1)B , A3 U (1)2Y U (1)B ,

A4 U (1)Y U (1)2B , A5 (U (1)B ) , A6 U (1)3B .

Field SU (3) SU (2) U (1)Y U (1)B U (1)L
qL 3 2 1/6 1/3 0
uR 3 1 2/3 1/3 0
dR 3 1 1/3 1/3 0
`L 1 2 1/2 0 1
eR 1 1 1 0 1
R 1 1 0 0 1
Table 2: The Standard Model fermionic content and the right-handed neutrinos.
In the Standard Model the only non-zero anomalies are ASM

2 = ASM
3 = 3/2, while leptonic
anomalies which must be cancelled are
A7 SU (3)2 U (1)L , A8 SU (2)2 U (1)L , A9 U (1)2Y U (1)L ,

A10 U (1)Y U (1)2L , A11 (U (1)L ) , A12 U (1)3L .

The anomalies which are non-zero in the Standard Model with right-handed neutrinos are
ASM
8 = ASM
9 = 3/2. One also has to think about the cancellation of the mixed anomalies for
the Abelian symmetries
A13 U (1)2B U (1)L , A14 U (1)2L U (1)B , A15 (U (1)Y U (1)L U (1)B ) ,

which of course vanish in the Standard Model. Various solutions to the equations which define
the cancellation of anomalies were studied in Refs. [72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78]. Here we discuss
the simplest solutions to understand how one can write down a realistic version which could be
tested at future experiments.
Sequential Family: In Refs. [72, 73, 74] a sequential (chiral) family was added to the
spectrum. In this case the new quarks have baryon number 1 and the leptons have
lepton number 3. This solution is ruled out today because the new quarks are chiral
and change the gluon fusion Higgs production by a large factor, approximately a factor 9.
Therefore, this is in clear disagreement with the recent experimental results at the Large
Hadron Collider.
Mirror Family: In Refs. [72, 73, 74] the possibility to use mirror fermions was considered.
However, as in the previous case, this scenario is ruled out by the Standard Model Higgs
properties.
Vector-Like Fermions: In Ref. [74] the anomalies are cancelled using vector-like fermions.
In this case, anomaly cancellation requires that the difference between the baryon numbers
of the new quarks is equal to 1, while the difference between the lepton numbers of
the new leptons is 3. In this scenario the neutrino masses are generated through the
Type I seesaw mechanism and the new charged leptons acquire masses only from the SM
Higgs vacuum expectation value. Therefore, the lepton number is broken by two units
and one does not have proton decay. Unfortunately, the new charged leptons change
dramatically the Higgs branching ratio into gamma gamma, reducing it by about a factor
of 3. Therefore, this scenario is also ruled by the Higgs results at the Large Hadron
Collider.
One can modify this model adding a new Higgs boson with lepton number and generate
vector-like masses for charged leptons, but one will generate dimension nine operators
mediating proton decay, e.g.,
c9 0
O9 = (uR uR dR eR ) SB SL SL . (36)
5
Here the Higgs bosons transform as
0
SB (1, 1, 0, 1, 0), SL (1, 1, 0, 0, 2), and SL (1, 1, 0, 0, 3).
0
Now, assuming that c9 1, and the vacuum expectation values for SB , SL , and SL around
a TeV, one finds that 1078 GeV. This means that one still has to postulate half of
the desert in order to satisfy the proton decay bounds or assume a small coupling c9 .
As one can appreciate the simplest solutions for anomaly cancellation are ruled out by the
collider experiments or require an extra mechanism to suppress proton decay.
The possibility to define an anomaly free theory with gauged baryon and lepton numbers
using lepto-baryons has been investigated. In this context lepto-baryons are fermions with
baryon and lepton numbers. There are two simple models which are in agreement with all
bounds from cosmology and collider physics:
In the first case adding only six vector-like fields one can define an anomaly free theory.
See Table 3 for the particle content and Ref. [76] for details. In this context the lightest
field could be a neutral Dirac fermion which is a good candidate for the cold dark matter
in the universe. We will discuss the properties of this model in the next section.
Field SU (3) SU (2) U (1)Y U (1)B U (1)L
L N 2 Y1 B1 L1
R N 2 Y1 B2 L2
R N 1 Y2 B3 = B1 L3 = L1
L N 1 Y2 B4 = B2 L4 = L2
R N 1 Y3 B5 = B1 L5 = L1
L N 1 Y3 B6 = B2 L6 = L2
Table 3: Fermionic Lepto-baryons in the model proposed in Ref. [76].
There is a second simple model with only four representations. See Table 5 for the particle
context and Ref. [78] for the detailed discussion. In this case one uses fields in the adjoint
and fundamental representation of SU (2) to cancel the non-trivial anomalies. The dark
matter candidate in this case is a Majorana fermion.
In order to find realistic scenarios one considers the particle content listed in Table 3, where
the new fermionic fields are singlets or live in the fundamental representation of SU (2). The
A2 SU (2)2 U (1)B anomaly can be cancelled if one imposes the condition

3
B1 B2 = . (37)
N
Now, to cancel the A1 SU (3)2 U (1)B anomaly when N 6= 1 one needs to impose the relation

2(B1 B2 ) (B3 B4 ) (B5 B6 ) = 0, (38)
which can be cancelled using
B1 = B3 = B5 , and B2 = B4 = B6 . (39)
See Table 3 for more details. There is a duality between the cancellation the baryonic and
leptonic anomalies. Both types of anomalies can be cancelled in the same way. The anomaly
A2 SU (2)2 U (1)L can be cancelled using the condition

3
L1 L2 = , (40)
N
for the leptonic charges and the others imposing the relation
L1 = L3 = L5 , and L2 = L4 = L6 . (41)
Finally, one has to think about the anomalies with weak hypercharge. Once one uses the above
assignment of baryon and lepton numbers, A4 and A10 are always cancelled and do not provide
a condition for the hypercharges. In order to cancel the anomaly U (1)2Y U (1)B , one needs
1
Y22 + Y32 2Y12 = . (42)
2
A simple set of solutions for this equation is given by

1 1 2 1 1 1
(Y1 , Y2 , Y3 ) ( , 1, 0), ( , , ), (0, , ) . (43)
2 6 3 3 2 2
It is important to mention that since the new particles are vector-like with respect to the
Standard Model gauge group, the SM anomalies do not pose a problem. One can prove that the
U (1)L U (1)2B , U (1)2L U (1)B and U (1)Y U (1)L U (1)B anomalies are cancelled automatically.
Now, one needs to discuss the possibility to satisfy all cosmological and collider constraints.
In these scenarios one must avoid a stable electrically charged or colored field. Therefore, the
new fields should have a direct coupling to the SM fermions or the lightest particle in the new
sector must be stable and neutral. Here we discuss the possible scenarios for different values of
N.
N = 1: In this case the new fields do not feel the strong interaction, and the only solution
which allows for a stable field in the new sector is the one with Y1 = 1/2, Y2 = 1, and Y3 = 0.
Then, when the lightest field is neutral one can have a dark matter candidate. The stability of
the dark matter candidate in these models is an automatic consequence coming from symmetry
breaking. This is a very appealing solution because as a bonus one has a candidate to describe
the cold dark matter in the Universe.
N = 3: In this scenario one can use the weak hypercharges Y1 = 1/6, Y2 = 2/3, and
Y3 = 1/3, and a stable colored field can be avoided. In order to generate vector-like masses
for the new fields one needs a scalar SBL (1, 1, 0, 1, 1), and one generates dimension seven
operators such as qL qL qL `L SBL /3 mediating proton decay. Then, in this case the great desert
must be postulated.
Fields SU (3) SU (2) U (1)Y U (1)B U (1)L
1
L 1 2 - 2 B1 L1
1
R 1 2 - 2 B2 L2
R 1 1 -1 B1 L1
L 1 1 -1 B2 L2
R 1 1 0 B1 L1
L 1 1 0 B2 L2
Table 4: Lepto-baryons in the model presented in Ref. [76].
N = 8: This scenario could be interesting but in order to couple the new lepto-baryons to
the SM fermions we need to include extra colored scalar fields. One way is to add color octet
scalars that let the new fermions couple to leptons. The new colored scalars can decay at one
loop to a pair of gluons after spontaneous symmetry breaking. This scenario is possible but we
will focus our discussions on the simplest case which corresponds to N = 1.
8.1. Theoretical Framework
The main goal here is to discuss a realistic anomaly free theory based on the gauge group [72]
SU (3) SU (2) U (1)Y U (1)B U (1)L .
The simplest solution discussed in the last section is the one with colorless fermions. The new
fermion fields of this model are given in Table 4 assuming N = 1, Y1 = 1/2, Y2 = 1, and
Y3 = 0. For simplicity, in this section we discuss only the baryonic sector of the theory. In this
case the relevant Lagrangian is given by
L = LSM + LB , (44)
where LSM is the Lagrangian for the fields present in the SM. Since all quarks have baryon
number their kinetic term is modified. In the above equation LB reads as
1 B ,B B B
LB = B B B B + Lf + LSB , (45)
4 2
B = B B B B is the U (1)
where B = B B is the U (1)Y strength tensor, B B
strength tensor, and Lf is
/ L + iR D
Lf = iL D / R + i L D
/ L + i R D
/ R + iL D
/ L + iR D
/ R
Y1 L HR Y2 L HR Y3 R HL Y4 R HL
L R SB R L SB R L SB + h.c. (46)
The term LSB is defined by

LSB = (D SB ) D SB m2B SB SB B (SB SB )2 HB (H H)(SB SB ). (47)
As we have discussed above the baryon numbers B1 and B2 of the new fermions are constrained
by the condition
B1 B2 = 3. (48)
In this context the scalar sector is composed of the SM Higgs and the new boson SB with the
following quantum numbers
H (1, 2, 1/2, 0), and SB (1, 1, 0, 3). (49)
Notice that the need to generate vector-like masses for the new fermions define the baryon
number of the new scalar. Once SB gets a vacuum expectation value we will have only |B| = 3
interactions and proton decay never occurs. Therefore, the great desert is not needed. For the
application of this idea in low energy supersymmetry see Ref. [87].
8.2. Phenomenological Aspects
The class of theories discussed above predict the existence of a new neutral gauge boson
associated to the local baryon number. The interactions of the lepto-phobic gauge boson are
given by
1 1 X
LB gB (B1 PL + B2 PR ) ZB + MZ2B ZB Z B, gB qi qi ZB , (50)
2 3
i
neglecting the kinetic mixing between the two Abelian symmetries, the term B in Eq. (45),
such that ZB = BB . Here PL = (1 5 )/2 and PR = (1 + 5 )/2 are the usual projection
Fields SU (3) SU (2) U (1)Y U (1)B U (1)L
1 3 3
L 1 2 2 2 2
1
R 1 2 2 - 32 - 32
L 1 3 0 - 32 - 32
L 1 1 0 - 32 - 32
Table 5: Lepto-baryons in the model presented in Ref. [78].
operators, while B1 and B2 are the baryon numbers of the dark matter candidate, see Table 4
for the quantum numbers. The mass of the leptophobic gauge boson is given by MZB = 3gB vB ,
where vB is the vacuum expectation value of the SB boson. The Dirac spinor, = L + R , is
stable and it is the cold dark matter candidate.
Using the decay of ZB into two top quarks the ATLAS collaboration has set bounds on this
tt.
type of gauge bosons, see Ref. [88]. Here the relevant production channel is pp ZB
The numerical results for the cross section are shown in Fig. 9 for different values of the gauge
coupling gB , we use the values 0.1, 0.5, and 1.0. The black curve in Fig. 9 shows the experimental
bounds from the ATLAS collaboration [88]. Then, since the area above the black curve is ruled
out by the experiment one can say that the gauge coupling must be smaller than 0.5 to be
consistent with the experiment in most of the parameter space. In Fig. 10 we show the bounds
on the gauge couplings and the gauge boson mass in a large range. As one can appreciate
the gauge coupling can be large in the low mass region. See Refs. [89, 90, 91] for a detailed
discussion of the experimental bounds. The properties of the Higgs sector of this models have
been investigated in detail in Ref. [82]. Here the new physical Higgs boson can decay with a
large branching ratio into dark matter when the mixing between the two physical Higgses is
small. This scenario is preferred by the recent discovery of a SM-like Higgs boson.
8.3. Cosmological Aspects
We have mentioned above that in the context of the simplest theories with gauged baryon
and lepton numbers one has a candidate for the cold dark matter in the Universe. In the model

s = 8 TeV, M = 500 GeV
105
gB = 1.0
104 gB = 0.5
gB = 0.1
ATLAS bound
(pp ZB tt) [fb]

103
102
101
100
101
102
500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
MZB [GeV]
Figure 9: Decay of the leptophobic gauge boson ZB into two top quarks. Here we show the experimental bounds
from the ATLAS collaboration [88] (solid black) and the theoretical predictions for different values of the gauge

couplings (gB = 1 in red, gB = 0.5 in blue, and gB = 0.1 in green) when s = 8 TeV. For more details see
Ref. [82].
discussed in the previous section the dark matter candidate is a Dirac fermion, = L + R .
Since the local baryon number symmetry is spontaneously broken at the low scale one must
understand the possibility to have a consistent scenario for baryogenesis and explain the possible
relation between the baryon asymmetry and the cold dark matter density. This issue has been
investigated in Ref. [80] and we outline the main results. See Ref. [93] for a review of asymmetric
dark matter mechanisms.
Baryon and Dark Matter Asymmetries: The model discussed in the previous section enjoys
three anomaly-free symmetries [80]:
B L in the Standard Model sector is conserved in the usual way. We will refer to this
symmetry as (B L)SM .
The accidental global symmetry in the new sector. Under this symmetry the new fields
transform in the following way:
L,R ei L,R , L,R ei L,R , L,R ei L,R .
Above the symmetry breaking scale, total baryon number BT carried by particles in both,
the standard model and the new sectors is also conserved. Here we will assume that the
symmetry breaking scale for baryon number is low, close to the electroweak scale.
2.5
CDF Run I
CMS CMS 5 fb-1
2.0 0.13 fb-1
UA2 ATLAS 1 fb-1

1.5
ATLAS
gB
CMS
13 fb-1
4 fb-1
1.0
CDF 1.1 fb-1
CMS 20 fb-1
0.5
0.0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
MZ'B (GeV)
Figure 10: Experimental bounds on the properties of a leptophobic gauge boson in the plane gauge coupling
gauge boson mass. For more details see Ref. [89].
We recall the thermodynamic relationship between the number density asymmetry n+ n

and the chemical potential in the limit T ,
n n+ n 15 g
= = 2 , (51)
s s 2 g T
where g counts the internal degrees of freedom, s is the entropy density, and g is the total
number of relativistic degrees of freedom. Here = 2 for fermions and = 1 for bosons.
In order to derive the relationship between the baryon asymmetry and the dark matter relic
density, one defines the densities associated with the conserved charges in this theory. Following
the notation of Ref. [92], the B L asymmetry in the SM sector is defined in the usual way
15
(B L)SM = 3(uL + uR + dL + dR L eL eR ), (52)
4 2 g T
and the charge density is given by
15
= 2 + 2 + + + + . (53)
4 2 g T L R L R L R
Isospin conservation T3 = 0 implies
uL = dL , eL = L , + = 0 . (54)
Standard Model interactions and the Yukawa interactions present in the theory give us other
equilibrium conditions for the chemical potentials. The conservation of electric charge Qem = 0
in this model implies
6(uL + uR ) 3(dL + dR ) 3(eL + eR ) + 20 L R L R = 0. (55)

The electroweak sphalerons in this context must satisfy the conservation of total baryon number,
and the associated t Hooft operator is
(qL qL qL `L )3 R L . (56)
Therefore, the sphalerons give us an additional equilibrium condition between the standard
model particles and new degrees of freedom
3(3uL + eL ) + L R = 0. (57)
This result is very unique. It is important to emphasize that the baryon number in the SM sector
is broken but the total baryon number is conserved. Notice that in this model the sphalerons
play the crucial role of transferring the asymmetry from the standard model sector to the dark
matter sector.
The total baryon number is conserved above the symmetry breaking scale. Therefore the
requirement of BT = 0 gives
15 h
BT = 2 3(uL + uR + dL + dR ) + B1 (2L + R + R ) + B2 (2R + L + L )
4 g T
i
6SB ) = 0. (58)
Using all conditions on the chemical potential in the theory, one can write the final baryon
asymmetry in the SM sector in terms of (B L)SM and [80],
15
BfSM (12uL ) = C1 (B L)SM + C2 ,
4 2 g T
with
32 (15 14B2 )
C1 = and C2 = . (59)
99 198
Requiring that the dark matter asymmetry is bounded from above by the observed dark matter
density, one finds the following upper bound on the dark matter mass
DM C2 Mp
M . (60)
|B C1 BL |
Here BL = s (B L)SM Mp /c , Mp is the proton mass, c is the critical density and s is
the entropy. As one can appreciate, this bound is a function of the baryon number B2 , and the
BL asymmetry generated through a mechanism such as leptogenesis. Therefore, in general one
could say that there is a consistent relation between the baryon and dark matter asymmetries.
In this model one does not have a mechanism to explain the primordial asymmetry in the dark
matter sector. Therefore, using = 0 we find the following relation
32
B = BL , (61)
99
DM h2 = 0.1199 0.0027
1043
XENON100
1044
[cm2 ]
LUX
45
10
N
SI
XENON1T
46
10
B = 1/2
B=2
1047
500 1000 1500 2000
M [GeV]
Figure 11: Prospects for DM direct detection, assuming the value of the DM relic density DM h2 = 0.11990.0027
SI
measured by Planck [94]. The plot shows the spin-independent elastic DMnucleon cross section N as a function
of the DM mass M . The exclusion limits of XENON100 [95] and LUX [96] are given, as well as the projected
limit for XENON1T [97]. The gauge coupling is varied inside gB [0.1, 0.5], and the gauge boson mass is varied
inside MZB = 0.5 5.0 TeV. Blue dots are for B = 1/2, red triangles are for B = 2. See Ref. [82] for more
details.
where BL is generated through a mechanism such as leptogenesis. In this case one has only
thermal dark matter relic density and a simple relation between the B L asymmetry and the
final baryon asymmetry.
Thermal Baryonic Dark Matter : In Refs. [79, 82] the possibility to achieve the correct relic
density and the constraints from direct detection have been investigated. Assuming that the
total cold dark matter relic density is explained with the Dirac spinor , the predictions for
direct detection are shown in Fig. 11. One can see that there are many allowed scenarios when
one can satisfy the relic density and direct detection constraints from dark matter experiments.
In this case the dark matter annihilation cross section into SM particles and the nucleondark
matter elastic cross section proceed through the leptophobic ZB . A nice feature of this model
is that the direct detection cross section is independent of the matrix element because baryon
number is a conserved current. See Refs. [79, 82] for more details.
Upper Bound on the Symmetry Breaking Scale: The existence of a non-zero relic density can
be used to find an upper bound on the symmetry breaking scale on models with gauged baryon
number when the dark matter candidate is a Dirac fermion. Here we summarize the results
presented in Ref. [82]. Using the upper bound on the dark matter relic density, DM h2 0.12,
and the fact that the dark matter and the gauge boson masses are generated through the same

Higgs mechanism, i.e. M = vB / 2 and MZB = 3gB vB in these models, one finds an upper
bound on the symmetry breaking scale given by
4 2 (B + B )2 1.77 109 GeV2
gB
2 1 2
vB 2 2 )2 + 9 g 8 x
, (62)
168 (2 9gB 4 2 B f
for a given value of the freeze-out temperature xf . Therefore, it is possible to find an upper
bound on the gauge boson mass using the above equation
(B1 + B2 )
MZB 316.1 TeV. (63)
xf
Now, using xf = 20 and B1 + B2 = 1/2 as example, the upper bound on the gauge boson mass
reads as
MZB 35.3 TeV, (64)
and M 17.7 TeV. Notice that this bound is true when ZB is heavier than the dark matter
candidate. This result is very interesting because one can say that there is a hope to test or
rule out this model at the current or future collider experiments. Of course, the LHC cannot
test the theory if the new gauge boson has a mass close to the upper bound. However, one
could rule out this type of spectrum at future 100 TeV colliders. Notice that this bound is much
smaller than the one coming from unitarity constraints [98].
8.4. Towards Low Scale Unification

The theories with local baryon number open up a new possibility for physics beyond the
Standard Model. Since the great desert is not needed in this picture one can imagine that the
unification of gauge forces can be realized at the low scale. Using a bottom-up approach we will
discuss the possibility to have the unification of the gauge interactions at the low scale [81]. In
order to investigate the unification of gauge interactions at the low scale it is important to make
sure that the proton is stable or the baryon number violating operators are highly suppressed.
This theory based on the gauge group
SU (3) SU (2) U (1)Y U (1)B U (1)L ,
has been discussed in the previous sections. In one of the models the new fermions called
lepto-baryons needed for anomaly cancellation are
L (1, 2, 1/2, B, L), R (1, 2, 1/2, B, L),
L (1, 3, 0, B, L), and L (1, 1, 0, B, L),

I 1 SM M
60
-1
50
I 2 SM M
-1
40
i -1 I 3 SM M
H 2 L -1
-1
30
20 H 1 L
-1
H 3 L -1
10
4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Log10 HM GeVL
Figure 12: Evolution of the gauge couplings in the Standard Model represented by dashed lines and in the new
model where the unification scale is realized at 104 TeV. See Ref. [81] for details.
where B = L = 3/(2nF ), and nF is the number of copies. Notice that these fields change only the
evolution of the SU (2) and U (1)Y gauge couplings. The Higgs sector of this theory is composed
of the fields SB (1, 1, 0, 2B, 2L) and SL (1, 1, 0, 0, 2). When U (1)B is spontaneously broken
and nF 6= 3n (n is an integer number) the proton is stable because one only has B = 3/nF
interactions.
The evolution of the Standard Model gauge couplings at one-loop level is described by the
equation

Bi M
ki i1 (M ) = i1 (MZ ) Log , (65)
2 MZ
where ki = (k1 , k2 , k3 ) are the normalization factors. In the simplest grand unified theory based
on SU (5) one has ki = (5/3, 1, 1). However, in general the k1 value depends of the embedding
in a given theory. The coefficients
Log(M/MF )
Bi = bSM
i + (M MF ) nF bnew
i , (66)
Log(M/MZ )
contain all possible contributions from the low scale, MZ , to the unification scale, MU . Here,
MF is the mass scale of the new fermions, (x) is the step function, and bSM
i = (41/6, 19/6, 7)
are the coefficients in the Standard Model. In the model discussed above the new coefficients
are bnew
i = (2/3, 2, 0).
In Fig. 12 one has the evolution of the gauge couplings in the Standard Model and in the
model with lepto-baryons. The lepto-baryons at the low scale change the evolution of 2 and 1
dramatically without affecting 3 . Here one assumes four copies of lepto-baryons with baryon
and lepton numbers equal to 3/8. Since they have different baryon and lepton numbers than
9. Baryon and Lepton Number Violation in Supersymmetry 34
the Standard Model fields one never induces new sources of flavor violation and the unification
scale MU is larger than 104 TeV in order to suppress the flavor violating effective operators.
The evolution of the new couplings is defined by the equation

1 1 BX MU
X (MZ ) = kX X (MU ) + Log , (67)
2 MZ
where X = B, L. The BX coefficients are given by
Log(MU /MF )
BB = bSM new
B + (MU MF ) bB , (68)
Log(MU /MZ )
and
Log(MU /MF )
BL = bSM new
L + (MU MF ) bL . (69)
Log(MU /MZ )
Notice that the values of these gauge couplings at different scales and the kX are barely con-
strained. However, one can envision that it is possible to define a theory where all gauge
couplings are unified, the Standard Model couplings, 1 , 2 , 3 , and the new couplings B and
L .Therefore, assuming unification at the MU scale, one can find the values of B and L at
the MZ scale for given values of kB and kL . The contribution of the Standard Model fields to
the running of the baryonic and leptonic couplings is given by the coefficients bSM
B = 8/3 and
bSM
L = 6. The new fields contribute as follows

new 16 4 (4nF + 1)
bB = nF + B2 = 3 , (70)
3 3 n2F
10
bnew
L = bnew
B + . (71)
3
In Fig. 13 one shows the numerical results for the running of all gauge couplings. As one can
appreciate, these results tell us that it is possible to have consistent unification of the gauge
interactions using a bottom-up approach. Of course, the embedding of this model in a grand
unified theory is very important.
Theories with local baryon number and left-right symmetry have been investigated in
Ref. [77]. These theories are based on the gauge group SU (3)SU (2)L SU (2)R U (1)L U (1)B
and define a possible new path towards the unification of gauge interactions.
9. Baryon and Lepton Number Violation in Supersymmetry
In the minimal supersymmetric Standard Model [99, 100, 101] one has interactions violating
the total lepton and baryon numbers at the renormalizable level. These interactions are given
by
0 00
WRpV = LHu + LLec + QLdc + uc dc dc , (72)
35
H L L -1
H 2 L -1
30
H 1 L -1 H B L -1
25
i -1
20
15
H 3 L -1
10
5
3 4 5 6 7
Log10 HM GeVL
Figure 13: Evolution of the gauge couplings with lepto-baryons where the unification scale is MU 2 104
TeV. Assuming for simplicity kB = kL = k1 for the running of the B and L . At the MZ scale one finds
1 1
B (MZ ) = 25.17 and L (MZ ) = 28.69 [81].
breaking B L and the discrete symmetry called matter parity, M = (1)3(BL) . There is a
simple relation between R-parity and M -parity, R = (1)2S M [102, 103] where S is the spin.
Now, even if the conservation of M -parity is imposed by hand there are also dimension five
operators which give rise to proton decay. These operators are
5 L R c c c c c c c c c
WRpC = QQQL + u d u e + u d d . (73)

Notice that these interactions conserve B L and in order to satisfy the experimental bounds on
proton decay one needs to assume a large cutoff scale, i.e. > 1017 GeV when we assume low-
energy supersymmetry and the coefficients are of order one. The simplest way to understand
the origin of the B and L violating interactions in the MSSM is to consider a theory where B L
is inside the algebra. The relation between M -parity and B L has been investigated by many
groups [104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111]. It is important to say that most of the people in
the SUSY community assume the conservation of matter parity because the lightest neutralino
can describe the cold dark matter of the Universe. Recently, this issue was investigated in
Refs. [112, 113, 114, 115, 116] and it has been shown that the minimal theory based on B L
predicts that Rparity must be spontaneously broken. These results are interesting because
the minimal theory for spontaneous Rparity violation could tells us what we should expect at
the Large Hadron Collider if low-energy supersymmetry is realized in nature. In this section we
discuss in great detail the minimal theory for spontaneous Rparity violation and the testability
at the Large Hadron Collider.
10 10
NH: Bino LSP IH: Bino LSP
1 1
Decay Length HmmL
Decay Length HmmL

0.1 0.1
0.01 0.01
0.001 0.001
10-4 10-4
100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
LSP Mass HGeVL LSP Mass HGeVL
(a) (b)
Figure 14: Decay length in millimeters versus LSP mass for a dominantly bino LSP in (a) for a NH and in (b)
for an IH. See Ref. [126] for details.
9.1. The Minimal Theory for Spontaneous R-parity Violation
The simplest gauge theory for spontaneous R-parity breaking was proposed in Ref. [113].
In this context one can understand dynamically the origin of the R-parity violating terms in
the MSSM. Here we discuss the structure of the theory and the full spectrum. This theory is
based on the gauge group
SU (3) SU (2) U (1)Y U (1)BL ,
and the different matter chiral superfields are given by
u

(2, 1/6, 1/3), L = (2, 1/2, 1),
Q = (74)

d e
uc (1, 2/3, 1/3), dc (1, 1/3, 1/3), ec (1, 1, 1). (75)
In order to cancel the B L anomalies one introduces three chiral superfields for the right-
handed neutrinos,
c (1, 0, 1). (76)

10 10
NH: Wino LSP IH: Wino LSP
1 1
Decay Length HmmL
Decay Length HmmL

0.1 0.1
0.01 0.01
0.001 0.001
10-4 10-4
100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
(a) (b)
Figure 15: Decay length in millimeters versus LSP mass for a dominantly wino LSP in (a) for a NH and in (b)
for an IH. See Ref. [126] for details.
The Higgs sector is composed of two Higgs chiral superfields as in the MSSM

+ 0
Hu Hd

Hu = (2, 1/2, 0), Hd = (2, 1/2, 0). (77)

0
Hu Hd
In this content the superpotential reads as
WBL = WM SSM + Y L Hu c , (78)
where
WM SSM = Yu Q Hu uc + Yd Q Hd dc + Ye L Hd ec + Hu Hd . (79)
In addition to the superpotential, the model is also specified by the soft terms
2
Vsof t = m c | | + mL L + m2ec |ec |2 + m2Hu |Hu |2 + m2Hd |Hd |2
2 c 2 2

1
+ MBL B 0 B 0 + A L Hu c + B Hu Hd + h.c. + Vsof M SSM
t , (80)
2
where the terms not shown here correspond to terms in the soft MSSM potential. Since we
have a new gauge symmetry in the theory we need to modify the kinetic terms for all MSSM
matter superfields, and include the kinetic term for right-handed neutrino superfields
Z
LKin ( ) = d2 d2 ( c ) egBL VBL c .
c
(81)
0.010
IH: Higgsino LSP IH: Higgsino LSP
0.01
0.005
Decay Length HmmL

Decay Length HmmL
0.001
0.001 5 10-4
1 10-4
10-4
5 10-5
10-5 1 10-5
100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
(a) (b)
Figure 16: Decay length in millimeters versus LSP mass for a dominantly Higgsino LSP in (a) for a NH and in
(b) for an IH. See Ref. [126] for details.
Here VBL is the B L vector superfield. Using these interactions we can study the full spectrum
of the theory. As in the MSSM, electroweak symmetry is broken by the vevs of Hu0 and Hd0 ,
while U (1)BL is broken due to the vev of right-handed sneutrinos. Notice that this is the only
field which can break local B L and give mass to the new neutral gauge boson in the theory.
Therefore, the theory predicts spontaneous R-parity violation. It is important to mention that
the B L and R-parity breaking scales are determined by the soft supersymmetric breaking
scale, and one must expect lepton number violation at the LHC.
The neutral fields are defined as
1 i
Hu0 = (vu + hu ) + Au , (82)
2 2
1 i
Hd0 = (vd + hd ) + Ad , (83)
2 2
1 i
i = vLi + hiL + AiL ,

(84)
2 2
1 i
ic = i
+ hiR + AiR ,

vR (85)
2 2
and the relevant scalar potential reads as
V = VF + VD + Vsof t , (86)
100 100
NH: Bino LSP Z e- W + + e+ W - IH: Bino LSP Z e- W + + e+ W -
70 h - W + + + W - 70 h - W + + + W -
- W + + + W - - W + + + W -
50 50
30 30
Brs H%L
Brs H%L
20 20
15 15
10 10
100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
(a) (b)
Figure 17: LSP branching ratios versus LSP mass for a dominantly bino LSP in (a) for a NH and in (b) for an
IH. See Ref. [126] for details.
with
X X
VF = ||2 |Hu0 |2 + | Hd0 + i Yij jc |2 + |Yij jc |2 |Hu0 |2 + |i Yij |2 |Hu0 |2 , (87)
i j
!2 !2
(g12 + g22 ) X g2 X
VD = |Hu0 |2 |Hd0 |2 |i |2 + BL (|ic |2 |i |2 ) , (88)
8 8
i i
Vsof t = (ic ) m2ijc jc + i m2L j + m2Hu |Hu0 |2 + 2 0 2
i aij c 0 0 0

mHd |Hd | + j Hu BHu Hd + h.c. .
ij
(89)
In order to have phenomenologically allowed solutions the vLi have to be small, and the vR
i have
to be much larger than vu , vd and vLi . These vacuum expectation values must be small in order
to have small neutrino masses generated through the R-parity violating terms. Up to negligibly
small terms the right-handed sneutrino acquire a vev in only one family. A possible solution is
i = (0, 0, v ). In this case
vR R
8(m2 c )33
(vR )2 2 , (90)
gBL
vd Yk3 ak3

vR vu
vLk h 2 2 2
gBL
i. (91)
2 (m2 )kk (g1 +g2 ) (v 2 v 2 ) 2
L 8 u d 8 (vR )
Notice that the vacuum expectation value for the right-handed sneutrino is determined by the
soft term. In this way we understand why the B L and R-parity violating scales are defined
by the SUSY breaking scale. In the MSSM, the large top Yukawa coupling drives the up-type
soft Higgs mass squared parameter to negative values for generic boundary conditions leading
100 100
NH: Wino LSP Z e- W + + e+ W - IH: Wino LSP Z e- W + + e+ W -
70 h - W + + + W - 70 h - W + + + W -
- W + + + W - - W + + + W -
50 50
30 30
Brs H%L
Brs H%L
20 20
15 15
10 10
100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
(a) (b)
Figure 18: LSP branching ratios versus LSP mass for a dominantly wino LSP in (a) for a NH and in (b) for an
IH. See Ref. [126] for details.
to radiative electroweak symmetry breaking [117, 118]; a celebrated success of the MSSM. A
valid question is then if the same success is possible in achieving a tachyonic right-handed
sneutrino mass in this B L model as required by Eq. (90). Unfortunately, this is not possible
through a large Yukawa coupling since the Yukawa couplings of the right-handed neutrino are
all dictated to be small by neutrino masses. However, there is an alternate possibility whereby
a positive mass squared parameter for the right-handed sneutrino at the high scale will run to
a tachyonic value at the low scale. This is due to the presence of the so-called S-term (due to
D-term contributions to the RGE) in the soft mass RGE, as discussed for this B L model in
Refs. [119, 120, 121]. For the implementation of the radiative mechanism in the non-minimal
model where the right-handed neutrino masses are generated through the Higgs mechanism see
Ref. [116].
9.2. R-Parity Violating Interactions and Mass Spectrum
After symmetry breaking lepton number is spontaneously broken in the form of bilinear
R-parity violating interactions. There are no trilinear R-parity violating interactions at the
renormalizable level. These bilinear interactions mix the leptons with the Higgsinos and gaug-
inos
1 0 1 1
gBL vR (3c B ), g2 vLi (i W 0 ), g2 vLi (ei W + ),
2 2 2
1 1 1 1
g1 vLi (i B), Yi3 vR (LTi i2 Hu ), Yij vLi (Hu0 jc ), Yei vLi (Hd eci ).
2 2 2 2
100 100
NH: Higgsino LSP Z e- W + + e+ W - IH: Higgsino LSP Z e- W + + e+ W -
70 h - W + + + W - 70 h - W + + + W -
- W + + + W - - W + + + W -
50 50
30 30
Brs H%L
Brs H%L
20 20
15 15
10 10
100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
(a) (b)
Figure 19: LSP branching ratios versus LSP mass for a dominantly Higgsino LSP in (a) for a NH and in (b) for
an IH. See Ref. [126] for details.
The first term is new and is the only term not suppressed by neutrino masses. The fifth term
corresponds to the so-called term, and second, third and fourth terms are small but important
for the decay of neutralinos and charginos. There are also lepton number violating interactions
coming from the soft terms and the B L D-term. From Vsof t one gets
vR T
Ai3
Li i2 Hu ,
2
while from the D-term one finds

2 c 1 1
gBL vR q q l l .
6 2
As one can expect these terms are important to understand the scalar sector of the theory.
The neutral gauge boson associated to the B L gauge group is ZBL . Using the covariant
0
derivative for the right-handed sneutrinos, D c = c + 2i gBL B c , the mass term for ZBL
is
gBL
MZBL = vR . (92)
2
Now, using the experimental collider constraint [122]
MZBL
3 TeV, (93)
gBL
and Eq. (21) one finds the condition
|(m c )33 | > 2.12 gBL TeV. (94)

Then, if gBL = 0.1 the soft mass above has to be larger than 200 GeV. This condition can be
easily satisfied without assuming a very heavy spectrum for the supersymmetric particles.
As in any supersymmetric theory where R-parity is broken all the fermions with the same
quantum numbers mix and form physical states which are linear combinations of the original
fields. The neutralinos in this theory are a linear combination of the fields,

i , jc , B 0 , B, W 0 , Hd0 , Hu0 .
Then, the neutralino mass matrix is given by

0 1 Yij vu 21 gBL vLi 12 g1 vLi 1

2 g2 vLi 0 1 Yij vR
j

2 2

Yij vu j ij
1 1 1 i

2 0 2 gBL vR 0 0 0 Y v
2 L

j

1 gBL v i 1
2 gBL vR MBL 0 0 0 0
2 L

MN = 1 g vi .

2 1 L 0 0 M1 0 12 g1 vd 1
g v
2 1 u

1 1 1
2 g2 vLi 0 0 0 M2 2 g2 vd 2 g2 vu

0 0 0 21 g1 vd 1
2 g2 vd 0

Yij v j Yij vLi
1
1 1
12 g2 vu

2 R 2
0 2 g1 vu 0
(95)
i = (0, 0, v ). Now,
We have discussed above that only one right-handed sneutrinos get a vev, vR R
integrating out the neutralinos one can find the mass matrix for the light neutrinos. In this
case one has three active neutrinos and two sterile neutrinos, and the mass matrix in the basis
(e , , , ec , c ) is given by

h i
A vLi vLj + B Yi3 vLj + Yj3 vLi + C Yi3 Yj3 1 vu Yi

2
M =

,
(96)

1 vu Yj

2
O22
where
!
22 2MBL vu2 vd2 vR
2

v 2vd vR
A= 3, B= u + , C= 2 v2 + , (97)
m 2vR m3 gBL R m3
4 vu vd g12 M2 + g22 M1 2M1 M2 2

3
m = . (98)
g12 M2 + g22 M1
Here and take only the values 1 and 2. From the experimental limits on active neutrino
masses we obtain (Y )i . 1012 . This can be compared to (Y )i3 . 105 , which is less
constrained because of the TeV scale seesaw suppression. It has been pointed out in Refs. [123,
124] (and earlier in a different context [125]) that this theory predicts the existence of two light
sterile neutrinos which are degenerate or lighter than the active neutrinos, a so-called 3 + 2
neutrino model.

In this theory the chargino mass matrix, in the basis ecj , W + , Hu+ and ei , W , Hd ,
is given by

0 MC

M =

,
(99)

MCT

0
with

1 ij 1 Yeij v j
2 Ye vd 0

2 L

MC =
1 g2 vLi M2
.
1 g2 vd
(100)
2 2

1 ij j
1 g2 vu

2 Y vR 2

In the sfermion sector, the mass matrices M2u , and M2d for squarks, and M2e for charged

sleptons, in the basis f, fc , are given by
1 2 2
MZ2 c2 + 13 DBL 1
2
m + m2u +

3 sW (au vu Yu vd )

2

Q 2
M2u

=

,

1 2
m2uc + m2u + 2 c2 s2W 13 DBL

2
(au vu Yu vd ) 3 MZ
(101)
1 1
s2W MZ2 c2 + 13 DBL 1
2
m + m2d

(Yd vu ad vd )

2 3

Q 2
M2d

=

,

1 1
m2dc + m2d MZ2 c2 s2W 31 DBL

2
(Yd vu ad vd ) 3
(102)

m + m2e 21 s2W MZ2 c2 DBL 1 (Ye vu ae vd )

2

L 2
M2e

=

,

1 (Ye vu ae vd ) m2ec + m2e MZ2 c2 s2W + DBL

2
(103)
where c2 = cos 2, sW = sin W and
1 2 2 1
DBL = gBL vR = MZ2BL . (104)
8 2
mu , md and me are the respective fermion masses and au , ad and ae are the trilinear a-terms
corresponding to the Yukawa couplings Yu , Yd and Ye . Regardless, the physical states are
related to the gauge states by

f1 cos f sin f f

= . (105)

f2 f
c
sin f cos f
The masses in the sneutrino sector are given by
1 2 1
M2i = m2L + M cos 2 MZ2BL , (106)
i 2 Z 2
M23c = MZ2BL , (107)
M2c = m2c + DBL , (108)
and = 1..2. For simplicity we listed the mass matrices in the limit vLi , a , Y 0. It is
important to mention that all sfermion masses are modified due to the existence of the B L
D-term. See Ref. [126] for a detailed study of the spectrum in this model.
At first glance, finding a dark matter in R-parity violating theories seems hopeless. But
while the traditional neutralino LSP case is no longer valid, the situation is not lost. As first
discussed in [127, 128], such models can have an unstable LSP gravitino, with a lifetime longer
than the age of the universe. The strong suppression on its lifetime is due to both the Planck
e+
i e
j
q W
e+ 01
i
, Z, ZBL
e
i 01
q W
e e
k
i
Figure 20: Topology of the signals with multi-leptons [126].
mass suppression associated with its interaction strength and bilinear R-parity violation which
is small due to neutrino masses and must facilitate the decay of the LSP. In the mass insertion
approximation, this can be understood as the gravitino going into a photon and neutralino which
then has some small mixing with the neutrino due to R-parity violation (m ), thereby allowing
G . Adopting approximations made in [127], the lifetime for the gravitino decaying into a
photon and neutrino (in years) is about
m 3 m /m 2
10 3/2
(G ) 2 10 6
years, (109)
100 GeV 10
which for appropriate values of the gravitino mass leads to a long enough life time. Unlike in
R-parity conserving models with a gravitino LSP, there are no issues with big bang nucleosyn-
thesis from slow NLSP decay since the NLSP decays more promptly through R-parity violating
interactions. Several interesting studies have been conducted on the signatures and constraints
of unstable gravitino dark matter, see for example [127, 129, 130].
9.3. Lepton Number Violation and Decays
At this point, the relevant pieces of this model have been laid out and the question of
interesting signals can now be tackled. Since lepton number is violated, same-sign dileptons
and multijets are possible final states. Such signatures are interesting since they have no SM
background. However, the final states depend critically on the nature of the LSP and since
R-parity is violated the possibilities are more numerous than normal, i.e. colored and charged
fields. In this section we will discuss only the decays of the lightest neutralino through the
R-parity violating couplings.
MZBL = 3 TeV
100 gBL = 0.3
10
14 TeV
HfbL
1
8 TeV
0.1
7 TeV
0.01
0.001
200 400 600 800 1000
me L HGeVL
Figure 21: Cross sections for p p , Z, ZBL e

i ei with LHC center of mass energies of 7 TeV (red), 8 TeV
(green) and 14 TeV (blue), assuming MZBL = 3 TeV and gBL = 0.3 versus the left-handed slepton mass. See
Ref. [131] for details.
Neutralino Decays: The leading decay channels for the lightest neutralino, 01 , include
01 e 0 0 0
i W , 1 i Z, 1 i hk , 1 ei H . (110)
The amplitudes for the two first channels are proportional to the mixing between the leptons
and neutralinos, while the last one is proportional to the Dirac-like Yukawa terms. While decays
to all the MSSM Higgses are possible, typically, only the lightest MSSM Higgs, h (k = 1), is
light enough for the scenario we consider here and so we will only take it into account. A naive
estimation of the decay width yields
g22
(01 ) |V |2 M , (111)
32
p
where V is the mixing between the neutralino and neutrino which is proportional to m /M .
Assuming that m < 0.1 eV for the decay length one finds L(01 ) 0.6 mm. Therefore, even
without making a detailed analysis of the decays of the lightest neutralino one expects signals
with lepton number violation and displaced vertices in part of the parameter space.
In Figs. 14-16 we show the decay lengths versus LSP mass resulting from a scan over all
the possible values of 1 and 2 and over the parameters and ranges specified in Ref. [126]. The
points are divided according to the largest component of the LSP and the neutrino hierarchy
with a dominantly bino, wino and Higgsino LSP in the case when the neutrino spectrum has
a Normal Hierarchy (NH) shown in (a) and for an Inverted Hierarchy (IH) in (b), respectively.
1.0
1.0
14 TeV LHC
20 50 5 10 MZBL = 3 TeV
10 20 gBL = 0.3
0.8
0.8 5 10
100
1 5
50
BrHei ei 1 L
0.6
BrHei ei 1 L
0
0.6 1
0
20

10

0.4 0.4
5
0.2 Num. of ei ei e j e j 4j Events20 fb-1 0.2

14 TeV LHC Num. of ei ei e j e j 4j Events20 fb-1

BrH 01 e j W L=0.5 MZBL = 3 TeV Me i = 200 GeV

BrH 01 e j W L=0.1 Me i = 400 GeV
gBL = 0.3
0.0 0.0
200 400 600 800 1000 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
0
Me i HGeVL BrH 1 ei W L

Figure 22: Number of events in the Br(e 0
i ei 1 ) vs Mei plane in the left panel assuming s = 14 TeV,
Br(01 e
kW ) = 0.1(0.5), when MZBL = 3 TeV and L = 20 fb 1
. In the right panel the number of events are
plotted in the plane Br(e
i e 0 0
i 1 )-Br(1 e
kW ) [131].
The relevant decay lengths can be understood by studying the mixings in Eq. (95). Since the
higgsino-neutrino decay strength is the largest, Y vR , the Higgsino LSP has the shortest
decay length. It is followed by the wino LSP with mixing g2 vL and finally the bino with
coupling g1 vL and therefore the largest possible decay lengths. Displaced vertices associated
with the lifetime of the LSP will only be discernible in a very limited part of the parameter
space.
The LSP branching ratios into the various possible channels versus the LSP mass are dis-
played in Figs. 17-19, plotting the dominantly bino, wino and Higgsino LSP in (a) for a NH
and in (b) for an IH. Although it is not obvious from the Figs. 17-19, the branching ratio to
the electron W channel is always smaller then either the W or the W in the NH.
9.4. Signatures at the LHC
We have mentioned in the previous section that the minimal supersymmetric B L theory
predicts lepton number violation at the LHC and the relevant couplings are small. Therefore,
the production mechanisms for the supersymmetric particles at the LHC are not modified but
the LSP is not stable and decays via the lepton number violating couplings. In this case one
could have the productions of several SM particles together with two LSPs
p p 1 . . . n LSP LSP 1 . . . n i j ,
where i is a SM particle, and n = 2, 4, 6, ... One example is the scenario where the stop is the
LSP and decays as a leptoquark:
p p t1 t1 b b + .
In Table 6 we list the possible LSP scenarios and their main decays, focusing only on light
third generation sfermions. As discussed in Ref. [126], the most exotic signals in this theory
LSP Scenario Decays
t1 t , j , b e+ +
i , j ei
b1 b , j , t e
i , j ei
01 e 0
i W, Z, ei H , Hi

1 e 0 0
i Z, W , ei Hi , Hi
e 0
i , q q , hW

3 qq, ei ej , W W, ZZ, hh, HH
Table 6: Lepton number violating LSP decays.
correspond to a neutralino LSP. In this case we can produce two charged sleptons through the
photon, the Z and the B L gauge boson:

p p , Z, ZBL e+
i ei . (112)
The sleptons subsequently decay as ei ei 01 and finally the neutralinos decay through
01 e
j W . In Ref. [126] has been shown that both of these branching ratios are typically
large. Therefore, one can expect a significant number of events with four leptons and two Ws.
When the W gauge bosons decay hadronically, one is left with the unambiguous lepton number
violating final states:
e
i ei ej ek 4j. (113)
10. Final Discussions 49
where ei = e, , . See Fig. 20 for the topology of these events.

The number of events for these channels with multileptons is given by
Nijk = L (pp e
i ei ) Cjk , (114)
where L is the integrated luminosity, and Cjk is given by
Cjk = 2(2jk )Br(e e 01 )2 Br(01 e 0 2

j W )Br(1 ek W )Br(W jj) . (115)
In order to analyze the testability of the channels with multi-leptons we need to estimate the
cross section using the production mechanism mentioned above and focusing on left-handed
sleptons, as motivated above. This study was done in Ref. [131] and here we discuss the main
results.
In Fig. 21 we show the production cross section for left-handed sleptons assuming that the
mass of the B L gauge boson is MZBL = 3 TeV and the corresponding coupling is gBL = 0.3.
In this figure we show the numerical results for (pp e
i ei ) when the center mass energy is

s = 7 TeV, s = 8 TeV, and s = 14 TeV. It is important to mention that when s = 14
TeV the cross section is above 1 fb when the selectron mass is below 400 GeV. For selectron
masses in the TeV range, the signals discussed above will be very difficult to test.

The number of events with four leptons and four jets are estimated for the scenario: s = 14
TeV and 20 fb1 in Fig. 22. The left panel in Fig. 22 shows the number of events in the Br(e
i
e 0 0
i 1 )Mei plane assuming an optimistic (pessimistic) branching ratio for 1 ei W
of 0.5
(0.1). In the left panel, the number of events is shown in the Br(e 0
i ei 1 )Br(1 ei W )
for a light (heavy) selectron mass of 200 GeV (400 GeV) for the 14 TeV run. Here one assumes
MZBL = 3 TeV and gBL = 0.3. As one can see, only when the sleptons are light with mass
below 300 GeV we expect a large number of events. See Ref. [131] for a more detailed study.
For recent phenomenological studies in these theories see Refs. [132, 133, 134].
10. Final Discussions
In this review we have discussed the desert hypothesis in particle physics and its role in
physics beyond the Standard Model. As we have mentioned, the main reason to assume the
great desert between the weak and Planck scales is the proton stability. The simplest grand
unified theories predict proton decay and in order to satisfy the experimental bounds on the
proton decay lifetimes one needs to assume that these theories describe physics at the very high
scale. This approach has been accepted by the particle physics community even if there is no
way to test these theories. The desert hypothesis is very naive and we have shown in this review
the possibility to define the simplest theories where the great desert is not needed.
In the first part of the review we have discussed simple theories where the baryon and
lepton numbers are defined as local symmetries. In this context one can define an anomaly free
theory adding new fermions with lepton and baryon number which we call lepto-baryons.
After symmetry breaking one finds that the baryon number is broken in three units. Therefore,
the proton is stable and there is no need to assume the great desert. We have shown that the
simplest theories with local B and L contain a candidate for the cold dark matter in the Universe.
Using the relic density constraints we found an upper bound on the symmetry breaking scale.
Therefore, one can test or rule out these theories in current or future colliders. We have
discussed the relation between the baryon asymmetry and cold dark matter density in these
theories, showing that these theories are consistent with cosmology. We have shown that these
theories open the possibility of having unification at the low scale. These theories are appealing
extensions of the Standard Model of particle physics.
In the second part of the review we have presented the simplest supersymmetric gauge theory
which predicts that Rparity must be spontaneously broken at the supersymmetric breaking
scale. As we have discussed, in the context of supersymmetric theories one needs to assume the
great desert to suppress the dimension five and six operators mediating proton decay. At the
same time the unification of gauge couplings is realized at the high scale. We have discussed
the main features of the simplest gauge theory for spontaneous Rparity violation. This theory
predicts lepton number violating signatures at collider. We have investigated the spectrum and
the signatures with multi-leptons which could help us to test the theory at the Large Collider
Collider. The most important result in this section is that the simplest theory for Rparity
predicts that this symmetry must be broken. Maybe this is the key element needed to discover
supersymmetry at colliders. As it has been discussed, in this case one does not expect signatures
with missing energy and one should look for signals with multi-leptons with the same electric
charge and multi-jets.
We would like to emphasize that the origin of baryon and lepton number (non)conservation
provides a unique guide to understand the different theories for physics beyond the Standard
Model. We have discussed two main type of these theories which could be tested in current and
future experiments. In our opinion the theories with local baryon and lepton numbers define a
new way to think about the unification of gauge interactions and cosmology.
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank my collaborators Jonathan M. Arnold, Borut Bajc, Vernon Barger,
Ilja Dorsner, Michael Duerr, Bartosz Fornal, Manfred Lindner, Pran Nath, Sebastian Ohmer,
Hiren H. Patel, German Rodrigo, Goran Senjanovic, Sogee Spinner and Mark B. Wise for
great collaborations in different projects related to this review. I would like to thank the Max
Planck Institut fuer Kernphysik (MPIK) and the California Institute of Technology (Caltech)
for supporting my work. This work has been partly supported by the Gordon and Betty Moore
Foundation through Grant 776 to the Caltech Moore Center for Theoretical Cosmology and
Physics.
REFERENCES 52
References
[1] P. Nath and P. Fileviez Perez, Proton stability in grand unified theories, in strings and in
branes, Phys. Rept. 441 (2007) 191 [hep-ph/0601023].
[2] G. Isidori and F. Teubert, Status of indirect searches for New Physics with heavy flavour decays
after the initial LHC run, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 129 (2014) 40 [arXiv:1402.2844 [hep-ph]].
[3] H. Georgi and S. L. Glashow, Unity of All Elementary Particle Forces, Phys. Rev. Lett. 32
(1974) 438.
[4] H. Georgi, H. R. Quinn and S. Weinberg, Hierarchy of Interactions in Unified Gauge Theories,
Phys. Rev. Lett. 33 (1974) 451.
[5] S. Dimopoulos, S. Raby and F. Wilczek, Supersymmetry and the Scale of Unification, Phys.
Rev. D 24 (1981) 1681.
[6] L. E. Ibanez and G. G. Ross, Low-Energy Predictions in Supersymmetric Grand Unified The-
ories, Phys. Lett. B 105 (1981) 439.
[7] W. J. Marciano and G. Senjanovic, Predictions of Supersymmetric Grand Unified Theories,

Phys. Rev. D 25 (1982) 3092.
[8] M. B. Einhorn and D. R. T. Jones, The Weak Mixing Angle and Unification Mass in Super-
symmetric SU(5), Nucl. Phys. B 196 (1982) 475.
[9] S. Weinberg, Baryon and Lepton Nonconserving Processes, Phys. Rev. Lett. 43 (1979) 1566.
[10] J. Raaf et al. [Super-Kamiokande Collaboration], Talk given at the International Workshop on
Next generation Nucleon Decay and Neutrino Detectors (NNN13), 2013, Japan.
[11] I. Dorsner and P. Fileviez Perez, How long could we live?, Phys. Lett. B 625 (2005) 88 [hep-
ph/0410198].
[12] J. M. Arnold, B. Fornal and M. B. Wise, Simplified models with baryon number violation but
no proton decay, Phys. Rev. D 87 (2013) 075004 [arXiv:1212.4556 [hep-ph]].
[13] R. N. Mohapatra and R. E. Marshak, Local B-L Symmetry of Electroweak Interactions, Ma-
jorana Neutrinos and Neutron Oscillations, Phys. Rev. Lett. 44 (1980) 1316 [Erratum-ibid. 44
(1980) 1643].
[14] B. Fornal, Baryon number violation beyond the standard model, CaltechTHESIS:04082014-
225653991.
[15] K. Abe et al. [Super-Kamiokande Collaboration], The Search for n n oscillation in Super-
Kamiokande I, arXiv:1109.4227 [hep-ex].
REFERENCES 53
[16] D. G. Phillips, II, W. M. Snow, K. Babu, S. Banerjee, D. V. Baxter, Z. Berezhiani, M. Bergevin

and S. Bhattacharya et al., Neutron-Antineutron Oscillations: Theoretical Status and Experi-
mental Prospects, [arXiv:1410.1100 [hep-ex]].
[17] P. Minkowski, Mu E Gamma At A Rate Of One Out Of 1-Billion Muon Decays?, Phys.
Lett. B 67, 421 (1977).
[18] T. Yanagida, in Proceedings of the Workshop on the Unified Theory and the Baryon Number in
the Universe, eds. O. Sawada et al., (KEK Report 79-18, Tsukuba, 1979), p. 95.
[19] M. Gell-Mann, P. Ramond and R. Slansky, in Supergravity, eds. P. van Nieuwenhuizen et al.,
(North-Holland, 1979), p. 315.
[20] S.L. Glashow, in Quarks and Leptons, Cargese, eds. M. Levy et al., (Plenum, 1980), p. 707.
[21] R. N. Mohapatra and G. Senjanovic, Neutrino mass and spontaneous parity nonconservation,
Phys. Rev. Lett. 44, 912 (1980).
[22] P. Fileviez Perez, T. Han and T. Li, Testability of Type I Seesaw at the CERN LHC: Revealing
the Existence of the B-L Symmetry, Phys. Rev. D 80 (2009) 073015 [arXiv:0907.4186 [hep-ph]].
[23] W. Y. Keung and G. Senjanovic, Majorana Neutrinos and the Production of the Right-handed
Charged Gauge Boson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 50 (1983) 1427.
[24] W. Konetschny and W. Kummer, Nonconservation Of Total Lepton Number With Scalar
Bosons, Phys. Lett. B 70 (1977) 433.
[25] T. P. Cheng and L. F. Li, Neutrino Masses, Mixings And Oscillations In SU(2) X U(1) Models
Of Electroweak Interactions, Phys. Rev. D 22 (1980) 2860.
[26] G. Lazarides, Q. Shafi and C. Wetterich, Proton Lifetime And Fermion Masses In An SO(10)
Model, Nucl. Phys. B 181 (1981) 287.
[27] J. Schechter and J. W. F. Valle, Neutrino Masses In SU(2) X U(1) Theories, Phys. Rev. D 22
(1980) 2227.
[28] R. N. Mohapatra and G. Senjanovic, Neutrino Masses And Mixings In Gauge Models with
Spontaneous Parity Violation, Phys. Rev. D 23 (1981) 165.
[29] I. Dorsner and P. Fileviez Perez, Unification without supersymmetry: Neutrino mass, proton
decay and light leptoquarks, Nucl. Phys. B 723 (2005) 53 [hep-ph/0504276].
[30] I. Dorsner, P. Fileviez Perez and R. Gonzalez Felipe, Phenomenological and cosmological aspects
of a minimal GUT scenario, Nucl. Phys. B 747 (2006) 312 [hep-ph/0512068].
REFERENCES 54
[31] I. Dorsner, P. Fileviez Perez and G. Rodrigo, Fermion masses and the UV cutoff of the minimal
realistic SU(5), Phys. Rev. D 75 (2007) 125007 [hep-ph/0607208].
[32] P. Fileviez Perez, T. Han, G. Y. Huang, T. Li and K. Wang, Testing a Neutrino Mass Generation
Mechanism at the Large Hadron Collider, Phys. Rev. D 78 (2008) 071301;
[33] P. Fileviez Perez, T. Han, G. y. Huang, T. Li and K. Wang, Neutrino Masses and the LHC:
Testing Type II Seesaw, Phys. Rev. D 78, 015018 (2008).
[34] J. Garayoa and T. Schwetz, Neutrino mass hierarchy and Majorana CP phases within the Higgs
triplet model at the LHC, JHEP 0803, 009 (2008).
[35] A. G. Akeroyd, M. Aoki and H. Sugiyama, Probing Majorana Phases and Neutrino Mass Spec-
trum in the Higgs Triplet Model at the LHC, Phys. Rev. D 77, 075010 (2008).
[36] F. del Aguila and J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra, Distinguishing seesaw models at LHC with multi-
lepton signals, Nucl. Phys. B 813, 22 (2009).
[37] R. Foot, H. Lew, X. G. He and G. C. Joshi, seesaw neutrino masses induced by a triplet of
leptons, Z. Phys. C 44 (1989) 441.
[38] E. Ma, Pathways to naturally small neutrino masses, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81 (1998) 1171;
[39] B. Bajc and G. Senjanovic, seesaw at LHC, JHEP 0708 (2007) 014;
[40] P. Fileviez Perez, Renormalizable Adjoint SU(5), Phys. Lett. B 654 (2007) 189.
[41] P. Fileviez Perez, Supersymmetric Adjoint SU(5), Phys. Rev. D 76 (2007) 071701.
[42] P. Fileviez Perez, Type III Seesaw and Left-Right Symmetry, JHEP 0903 (2009) 142.
[43] I. Dorsner and P. Fileviez Perez, Upper Bound on the Mass of the Type III Seesaw Triplet in
an SU(5) Model, JHEP 0706 (2007) 029 [hep-ph/0612216].
[44] B. Bajc, M. Nemevsek and G. Senjanovic, Probing seesaw at LHC, Phys. Rev. D 76 (2007)
055011 [hep-ph/0703080].
[45] R. Franceschini, T. Hambye and A. Strumia, Type-III see-saw at LHC, Phys. Rev. D 78 (2008)
033002 [arXiv:0805.1613 [hep-ph]].
[46] A. Arhrib, B. Bajc, D. K. Ghosh, T. Han, G. Y. Huang, I. Puljak and G. Senjanovic, Collider
Signatures for Heavy Lepton Triplet in Type I+III Seesaw, Phys. Rev. D 82 (2010) 053004
[arXiv:0904.2390 [hep-ph]].
[47] T. Li and X. G. He, Neutrino Masses and Heavy Triplet Leptons at the LHC: Testability of
Type III Seesaw, Phys. Rev. D 80 (2009) 093003 [arXiv:0907.4193 [hep-ph]].
REFERENCES 55
[48] A. Zee, A Theory Of Lepton Number Violation, Neutrino Majorana Mass, And Oscillation,
Phys. Lett. B 93 (1980) 389 [Erratum-ibid. B 95 (1980) 461].
[49] L. Wolfenstein, A Theoretical Pattern For Neutrino Oscillations, Nucl. Phys. B 175 (1980) 93.
[50] P. H. Frampton and S. L. Glashow, Can the Zee ansatz for neutrino masses be correct?, Phys.
Lett. B 461 (1999) 95.
[51] P. H. Frampton, M. C. Oh and T. Yoshikawa, Zee model confronts SNO data, Phys. Rev. D
65 (2002) 073014;
[52] X. G. He, Is the Zee model neutrino mass matrix ruled out?, Eur. Phys. J. C 34 (2004) 371.
[53] A. Y. Smirnov and M. Tanimoto, Is Zee Model The Model of Neutrino Masses?, Phys. Rev. D
55 (1997) 1665.
[54] Y. Koide, Can the Zee model explain the observed neutrino data?, Phys. Rev. D 64 (2001)
077301.
[55] P. Fileviez Perez and M. B. Wise, On the Origin of Neutrino Masses, Phys. Rev. D 80 (2009)
053006.
[56] P. Fileviez Perez, T. Han, S. Spinner and M. K. Trenkel, Lepton Number Violation from Colored
States at the LHC, JHEP 1101 (2011) 046 [arXiv:1010.5802 [hep-ph]].
[57] S. M. Bilenky and C. Giunti, Neutrinoless Double-Beta Decay: a Probe of Physics Beyond the
Standard Model, arXiv:1411.4791 [hep-ph].
[58] B. Pontecorvo, Neutrino Experiments and the Problem of Conservation of Leptonic Charge,
Sov. Phys. JETP 26 (1968) 984 [Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 53 (1967) 1717].
[59] Z. Maki, M. Nakagawa and S. Sakata, Remarks on the unified model of elementary particles,
Prog. Theor. Phys. 28 (1962) 870.
[60] C. Weinheimer and K. Zuber, Neutrino Masses, Annalen Phys. 525 (2013) 8-9, 565
[arXiv:1307.3518].
[61] B. Schwingenheuer, Status and prospects of searches for neutrinoless double beta decay, An-
nalen Phys. 525 (2013) 269 [arXiv:1210.7432 [hep-ex]].
[62] M. Agostini et al. [GERDA Collaboration], Results on Neutrinoless Double- Decay of 76 Ge from
Phase I of the GERDA Experiment, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111 (2013) 12, 122503 [arXiv:1307.4720
[nucl-ex]].
[63] P. Fileviez Perez, T. Han, T. Li and M. J. Ramsey-Musolf, Leptoquarks and Neutrino Masses
at the LHC, Nucl. Phys. B 819 (2009) 139 [arXiv:0810.4138 [hep-ph]].
REFERENCES 56
[64] L. Di Luzio and L. Mihaila, Unification scale vs. electroweak-triplet mass in the SU (5) + 24F
model at three loops, Phys. Rev. D 87 (2013) 11, 115025 [arXiv:1305.2850 [hep-ph]].
[65] G. Senjanovic, Supersymmetry and Unification: Heavy Top Was the Key, Int. J. Mod. Phys.
Conf. Ser. 13 (2012) 182 [arXiv:1205.5557 [hep-ph]].
[66] S. Dimopoulos and H. Georgi, Softly Broken Supersymmetry and SU(5), Nucl. Phys. B 193
(1981) 150.
[67] N. Sakai, Naturalness in Supersymmetric Guts, Z. Phys. C 11 (1981) 153.
[68] B. Bajc, P. Fileviez Perez and G. Senjanovic, Proton decay in minimal supersymmetric SU(5),
Phys. Rev. D 66 (2002) 075005 [hep-ph/0204311].
[69] D. Emmanuel-Costa and S. Wiesenfeldt, Proton decay in a consistent supersymmetric SU(5)

GUT model, Nucl. Phys. B 661 (2003) 62 [hep-ph/0302272].
[70] B. Bajc, P. Fileviez Perez and G. Senjanovic, Minimal supersymmetric SU(5) theory and proton
decay: Where do we stand?, hep-ph/0210374.
[71] J. Hisano, D. Kobayashi, T. Kuwahara and N. Nagata, Decoupling Can Revive Minimal Super-
symmetric SU(5), JHEP 1307 (2013) 038 [arXiv:1304.3651 [hep-ph]].
[72] P. Fileviez Perez and M. B. Wise, Baryon and lepton number as local gauge symmetries, Phys.
Rev. D 82 (2010) 011901 [Erratum-ibid. D 82 (2010) 079901] [arXiv:1002.1754 [hep-ph]].
[73] T. R. Dulaney, P. Fileviez Perez and M. B. Wise, Dark Matter, Baryon Asymmetry, and Spon-
taneous B and L Breaking, Phys. Rev. D 83 (2011) 023520 [arXiv:1005.0617 [hep-ph]].
[74] P. Fileviez Perez and M. B. Wise, Breaking Local Baryon and Lepton Number at the TeV
Scale, JHEP 1108 (2011) 068 [arXiv:1106.0343 [hep-ph]].
[75] P. Fileviez Perez and M. B. Wise, Low Energy Supersymmetry with Baryon and Lepton Number
Gauged, Phys. Rev. D 84 (2011) 055015 [arXiv:1105.3190 [hep-ph]].
[76] M. Duerr, P. Fileviez Perez and M. B. Wise, Gauge Theory for Baryon and Lepton Numbers
with Leptoquarks, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110 (2013) 231801 [arXiv:1304.0576 [hep-ph]].
[77] M. Duerr, P. Fileviez Perez and M. Lindner, Left-Right Symmetric Theory with Light Sterile
Neutrinos, Phys. Rev. D 88 (2013) 051701 [arXiv:1306.0568 [hep-ph]].
[78] P. Fileviez Perez, S. Ohmer and H. H. Patel, Minimal Theory for Lepto-Baryons, Phys. Lett.
B 735 (2014) 283 [arXiv:1403.8029 [hep-ph]].
[79] M. Duerr and P. Fileviez Perez, Baryonic Dark Matter, Phys. Lett. B 732 (2014) 101
[arXiv:1309.3970 [hep-ph]].
REFERENCES 57
[80] P. Fileviez Perez and H. H. Patel, Baryon Asymmetry, Dark Matter and Local Baryon Number,
Phys. Lett. B 731 (2014) 232 [arXiv:1311.6472 [hep-ph]].
[81] P. Fileviez Perez and S. Ohmer, Low Scale Unification of Gauge Interactions, Phys. Rev. D
90 (2014) 037701 [arXiv:1405.1199 [hep-ph]].
[82] M. Duerr and P. Fileviez Perez, Theory for Baryon Number and Dark Matter at the LHC,
Phys. Rev. D 91 (2015) 9, 095001 [arXiv:1409.8165 [hep-ph]].
[83] A. Pais, Remark on baryon conservation, Phys. Rev. D 8 (1973) 1844.
[84] S. Rajpoot, Gauge Symmetries Of Electroweak Interactions, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 27 (1988)
689.
[85] R. Foot, G. C. Joshi and H. Lew, Gauged Baryon and Lepton Numbers, Phys. Rev. D 40
(1989) 2487.
[86] C. D. Carone and H. Murayama, Realistic models with a light U(1) gauge boson coupled to
baryon number, Phys. Rev. D 52 (1995) 484 [hep-ph/9501220].
[87] J. M. Arnold, P. Fileviez Perez, B. Fornal and S. Spinner, B and L at the SUSY Scale, Dark
Matter and R-parity Violation, Phys. Rev. D 88 (2013) 115009 [arXiv:1310.7052 [hep-ph]].
[88] The ATLAS collaboration, A search for tt resonances in the lepton plus jets final state with

ATLAS using 14 fb1 of pp collisions at s = 8 TeV, ATLAS-CONF-2013-052.
[89] B. A. Dobrescu and F. Yu, Coupling-mass mapping of dijet peak searches, Phys. Rev. D 88
(2013) 3, 035021 [arXiv:1306.2629 [hep-ph]].
[90] H. An, R. Huo and L. T. Wang, Searching for Low Mass Dark Portal at the LHC, Phys. Dark
Univ. 2 (2013) 50 [arXiv:1212.2221 [hep-ph]].
[91] S. Tulin, New weakly-coupled forces hidden in low-energy QCD, Phys. Rev. D 89 (2014) 114008
[arXiv:1404.4370 [hep-ph]].
[92] J. A. Harvey and M. S. Turner, Cosmological baryon and lepton number in the presence of
electroweak fermion number violation, Phys. Rev. D 42 (1990) 3344.
[93] K. M. Zurek, Asymmetric Dark Matter: Theories, Signatures, and Constraints, Phys. Rept.
537 (2014) 91 [arXiv:1308.0338 [hep-ph]].
[94] P. A. R. Ade et al. [Planck Collaboration], Planck 2013 results. XVI. Cosmological parameters,
arXiv:1303.5076 [astro-ph.CO].
[95] E. Aprile et al. [XENON100 Collaboration], Dark Matter Results from 225 Live Days of
XENON100 Data, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109 (2012) 181301 [arXiv:1207.5988 [astro-ph.CO]].
REFERENCES 58
[96] D. S. Akerib et al. [LUX Collaboration], First results from the LUX dark matter experi-
ment at the Sanford Underground Research Facility, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112 (2014) 091303
[arXiv:1310.8214 [astro-ph.CO]].
[97] E. Aprile [XENON1T Collaboration], The XENON1T Dark Matter Search Experiment,
Springer Proc. Phys. 148 (2013) 93 [arXiv:1206.6288 [astro-ph.IM]].
[98] K. Griest and M. Kamionkowski, Unitarity Limits on the Mass and Radius of Dark Matter
Particles, Phys. Rev. Lett. 64 (1990) 615.
[99] P. Fayet, Supersymmetry and Weak, Electromagnetic and Strong Interactions, Phys. Lett. B
64 (1976) 159.
[100] P. Fayet, Spontaneously Broken Supersymmetric Theories of Weak, Electromagnetic and Strong
Interactions, Phys. Lett. B 69 (1977) 489.
[101] S. Dimopoulos and H. Georgi, Softly Broken Supersymmetry and SU(5), Nucl. Phys. B 193
(1981) 150.
[102] A. Salam and J. A. Strathdee, Supersymmetry and Fermion Number Conservation, Nucl. Phys.
B 87 (1975) 85.
[103] P. Fayet, Supergauge Invariant Extension of the Higgs Mechanism and a Model for the electron
and Its Neutrino, Nucl. Phys. B 90 (1975) 104.
[104] M. J. Hayashi and A. Murayama, Radiative Breaking of SU(2)-R x U(1)-(B-L) gauge symmetry
induced by broken N=1 supersymmetry in a left-right symmetry model, Phys. Lett. B 153
(1985) 251.
[105] S. P. Martin, Some simple criteria for gauged R-parity, Phys. Rev. D 46 (1992) 2769 [hep-
ph/9207218].
[106] C. S. Aulakh and R. N. Mohapatra, Neutrino as the Supersymmetric Partner of the Majoron,
Phys. Lett. B 119 (1982) 136.
[107] S. P. Martin, Implications of supersymmetric models with natural R-parity conservation, Phys.
Rev. D 54 (1996) 2340 [hep-ph/9602349].
[108] A. Masiero and J. W. F. Valle, A Model For Spontaneous R Parity Breaking, Phys. Lett. B
251 (1990) 273.
[109] C. S. Aulakh, A. Melfo, A. Rasin and G. Senjanovic, Seesaw and supersymmetry or exact
R-parity, Phys. Lett. B 459 (1999) 557 [hep-ph/9902409].
[110] C. S. Aulakh, B. Bajc, A. Melfo, A. Rasin and G. Senjanovic, SO(10) theory of R-parity and
neutrino mass, Nucl. Phys. B 597 (2001) 89 [hep-ph/0004031].
REFERENCES 59
[111] D. Feldman, P. Fileviez Perez and P. Nath, R-parity Conservation via the Stueckelberg Mech-
anism: LHC and Dark Matter Signals, JHEP 1201 (2012) 038 [arXiv:1109.2901 [hep-ph]].
[112] P. Fileviez Perez and S. Spinner, Spontaneous R-Parity Breaking and Left-Right Symmetry,
[113] V. Barger, P. Fileviez Perez and S. Spinner, Minimal gauged U(1)(B-L) model with spontaneous
R-parity violation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102 (2009) 181802 [arXiv:0812.3661 [hep-ph]].
[114] P. Fileviez Perez and S. Spinner, Spontaneous R-Parity Breaking in SUSY Models, Phys. Rev.
D 80 (2009) 015004 [arXiv:0904.2213 [hep-ph]].
[115] L. L. Everett, P. Fileviez Perez and S. Spinner, The Right Side of Tev Scale Spontaneous
R-Parity Violation, Phys. Rev. D 80 (2009) 055007 [arXiv:0906.4095 [hep-ph]].
[116] P. Fileviez Perez and S. Spinner, The Fate of R-Parity, Phys. Rev. D 83 (2011) 035004
[arXiv:1005.4930 [hep-ph]].
[117] L. Alvarez-Gaume, J. Polchinski and M. B. Wise, Minimal Low-Energy Supergravity, Nucl.

Phys. B 221, 495 (1983).
[118] L. E. Ibanez and G. G. Ross, SU(2)-L X U(1) Symmetry Breaking As A Radiative Effect Of
Supersymmetry Breaking In Guts, Phys. Lett. B 110, 215 (1982).
[119] M. Ambroso and B. Ovrut, The B-L/Electroweak Hierarchy in Heterotic String and M-Theory,
JHEP 0910 (2009) 011 [arXiv:0904.4509 [hep-th]].
[120] M. Ambroso and B. A. Ovrut, The B-L/Electroweak Hierarchy in Smooth Heterotic Compact-
ifications, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 25 (2010) 2631 [arXiv:0910.1129 [hep-th]].
[121] M. Ambroso and B. A. Ovrut, The Mass Spectra, Hierarchy and Cosmology of B-L MSSM
Heterotic Compactifications, arXiv:1005.5392 [hep-th].
[122] M. S. Carena, A. Daleo, B. A. Dobrescu and T. M. P. Tait, Z-prime gauge bosons at the
Tevatron, Phys. Rev. D 70 (2004) 093009 [arXiv:hep-ph/0408098].
[123] V. Barger, P. Fileviez Perez, S. Spinner, Three Layers of Neutrinos, Phys. Lett. B696 (2011)
509-512. [arXiv:1010.4023 [hep-ph]].
[124] D. K. Ghosh, G. Senjanovic and Y. Zhang, Naturally Light Sterile Neutrinos from Theory of
R-parity, Phys. Lett. B 698 (2011) 420 [arXiv:1010.3968 [hep-ph]].
[125] R. N. Mohapatra, Mechanism For Understanding Small Neutrino Mass In Superstring Theories,
Phys. Rev. Lett. 56 (1986) 561.
REFERENCES 60
[126] P. Fileviez Perez and S. Spinner, The Minimal Theory for R-parity Violation at the LHC,
JHEP 1204 (2012) 118 [arXiv:1201.5923 [hep-ph]].
[127] S. Borgani, A. Masiero and M. Yamaguchi, Light gravitinos as mixed dark matter, Phys. Lett.
B 386 (1996) 189 [hep-ph/9605222].
[128] F. Takayama and M. Yamaguchi, Gravitino dark matter without R-parity, Phys. Lett. B 485,
388 (2000) [hep-ph/0005214].
[129] W. Buchmuller, L. Covi, K. Hamaguchi, A. Ibarra and T. Yanagida, Gravitino Dark Matter in
R-Parity Breaking Vacua, JHEP 0703, 037 (2007) [hep-ph/0702184 [HEP-PH]].
[130] W. Buchmuller, Gravitino Dark Matter, AIP Conf. Proc. 1200 (2010) 155 [arXiv:0910.1870
[hep-ph]].
[131] P. Fileviez Perez and S. Spinner, Supersymmetry at the LHC and The Theory of R-parity,
[132] Z. Marshall, B. A. Ovrut, A. Purves and S. Spinner, Spontaneous R-Parity Breaking, Stop
LSP Decays and the Neutrino Mass Hierarchy, Phys. Lett. B 732 (2014) 325 [arXiv:1401.7989
[hep-ph]].
[133] Z. Marshall, B. A. Ovrut, A. Purves and S. Spinner, LSP Squark Decays at the LHC and the
Neutrino Mass Hierarchy, Phys. Rev. D 90 (2014) 015034 [arXiv:1402.5434 [hep-ph]].
[134] B. A. Ovrut, A. Purves and S. Spinner, A Statistical Analysis of the Minimal SUSY B-L
Theory, arXiv:1412.6103 [hep-ph].

1501 01886

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

1501 01886

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

New Paradigm for Baryon and Lepton Number Violation

Pavel Fileviez Perez

The possible discovery of proton decay, neutron-antineutron oscillation, neutrinoless double

Preprint submitted to Elsevier August 19, 2015

2 Particle Physics and the Great Desert Hypothesis 4

5 Mechanisms for Neutrino Masses 12

6 Neutrinoless double beta decay 15

7 Grand Unified Theories 16

8 Theories for Local Baryon and Lepton Numbers 20

9 Baryon and Lepton Number Violation in Supersymmetry 34

2. Particle Physics and the Great Desert Hypothesis

O1 = c1 (uc )L qL (ec )L qL , (7)

O2 = c2 (uc )L qL (dc )L `L , (8)

O3 = c3 (dc )L qL (uc )L `L . (9)

Interactions SU (3) SU (2) U (1)Y

XqL qL , XuR dR (6, 1, 1/3)

interactions. The sextet field is defined as

and the simplest models are discussed below.

Figure 4: Feynman Graph for neutron-antineutron oscillations [13, 12].

m = hn|Heff |ni, (15)

|m| < 2 1033 GeV, (18)

assuming the relation M1 = M2 = M , the values of the couplings h011 11

M & 500 TeV. (19)

M & 1000 TeV . (20)

5. Mechanisms for Neutrino Masses

in the limit M  Y v0 one finds

and when the neutral component in = ( 0 , + , ++ ) acquires a vacuum expectation value,

investigated in great detail in Refs. [32, 33, 34, 35, 36].

6. Neutrinoless double beta decay

7. Grand Unified Theories

unified in two representations in agreement with anomaly cancellation

The Higgs sector is composed of only two Higgs fields

Type II-SU(5) [29, 30, 31]:

V Y 5 5 15H + 5H 5H 15H + h.c., (34)

MFb =4.31011 GeV

Log10 HMFb 1GeVL

Type III-SU(5) [39, 43, 44]:

8. Theories for Local Baryon and Lepton Numbers

A1 SU (3)2 U (1)B , A2 SU (2)2 U (1)B , A3 U (1)2Y U (1)B ,

A4 U (1)Y U (1)2B , A5 (U (1)B ) , A6 U (1)3B .

Field SU (3) SU (2) U (1)Y U (1)B U (1)L

In the Standard Model the only non-zero anomalies are ASM

A7 SU (3)2 U (1)L , A8 SU (2)2 U (1)L , A9 U (1)2Y U (1)L ,

A10 U (1)Y U (1)2L , A11 (U (1)L ) , A12 U (1)3L .

Here the Higgs bosons transform as

Field SU (3) SU (2) U (1)Y U (1)B U (1)L

Table 3: Fermionic Lepto-baryons in the model proposed in Ref. [76].

2(B1 B2 ) (B3 B4 ) (B5 B6 ) = 0, (38)

which can be cancelled using

A2 SU (2)2 U (1)L can be cancelled using the condition

A simple set of solutions for this equation is given by

Fields SU (3) SU (2) U (1)Y U (1)B U (1)L

Table 4: Lepto-baryons in the model presented in Ref. [76].

8.1. Theoretical Framework

SU (3) SU (2) U (1)Y U (1)B U (1)L .

strength tensor, and Lf is

The term LSB is defined by

H (1, 2, 1/2, 0), and SB (1, 1, 0, 3). (49)

8.2. Phenomenological Aspects

Fields SU (3) SU (2) U (1)Y U (1)B U (1)L

Table 5: Lepto-baryons in the model presented in Ref. [78].

8.3. Cosmological Aspects

(pp ZB tt) [fb]

in the limit M Y v0 one finds