1:
2: \documentstyle[aps]{revtex}
3: \begin{document}
4:
5: \title{On Unitarity Based Relations Between Various \\Lepton Family Violating
6: Processes}
7:
8: \author{S. Nussinov}
9: \address{\it Department of Physics,Tel-Aviv University, Ramat-Aviv, Tel-Aviv, Israel}
10: \author{R. D. Peccei}
11: \address{\it Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of California, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1547}
12: \author{X. M. Zhang}
13: \address{\it Institute of High Energy Physics, Beijing 100039, PR China}
14:
15: \maketitle
16:
17: \begin{abstract}
18: Simple ``unitarity inspired" relations between two- and
19: three-body lepton flavor violating decays are noted and discussed. In the absence of cancellations, the existing strong bounds on $\mu \to 3e$ and $ \mu\to e\gamma\gamma$ severly constrain two-body lepton flavor violating decays.
20: \end{abstract}
21:
22:
23:
24: Lepton flavor violating (LFV) processes are strongly suppressed in the standard
25: model by powers of (small) neutrino masses. Such decays signal therefore
26: new physics. At present we have stringent bounds for $\mu$ decays [BR$(\mu\to 3e)\leq
27: 10^{-12}$, BR$(\mu\to e\gamma\gamma) \leq 10^{-10}$]
28: and somewhat weaker
29: $O(10^{-6})$ bounds on LFV $\tau$ decays.~\cite{PDG}
30:
31: The availability of large samples of decaying vector bosons [$V=J/\psi,~\Upsilon$, and
32: $Z^o$] or pseudoscalars [$\pi^o,\eta$] and the clear signature provided by
33: $\mu^\pm e^\mp$ final states suggests searching for LFV two-body decays
34: $V\to \mu^\pm e^\mp$ or $\pi^o/\eta\to \mu^\pm e^\mp$. In this note we show that rather simple considerations, based on unitarity, provide rather strong constraints on two-body LFV processes. Hence, most three-body $\mu$ and $\tau$ LFV decays are likely to
35: remain more sensitive tests of lepton flavor violation, rather than the corresponding two-body decays.
36:
37: \section*{Basic Considerations}
38:
39: Let us assume that a vector boson $V_i$ [ Here $V_i$ could be either a fundamental state, like the $Z^o$,
40: or a quark-antiquark bound state like the $\phi,J/\psi$, or $\Upsilon$] couples to $\mu^\pm e^\mp$. If it couples also
41: to $e^+e^-$--- as all the states above do--- then by unitarity its exchange contributes
42: also to $\mu\to 3e$. Let us write the effective coupling between the vector boson $V_i$ and $\mu^\pm e^\mp$ as
43: \begin{equation}
44: {\cal L}_{\rm eff}=\tilde g_{V\mu e}\bar\mu\gamma_\alpha e
45: V^\alpha ~+{\rm h. c.}~.
46: \end{equation}
47: This coupling, through the diagram of Fig. 1, contributes to the $A(\mu\to 3e)$
48: amplitude a term
49: \begin{equation}
50: A(\mu \to e)=\bar u_\mu(p)\gamma^\alpha u_e(k_3)\bar v_e(k_1)\gamma_\alpha
51: u_e(k_2)\cdot\frac{ \tilde{g}_{V\mu e}g_{Vee}}{M_V^2-s}~.
52: \end{equation}
53: Here $g_{Vee}$ is the effective coupling of the vector boson $V_i$ to $e^+e^-$, while $s\equiv (k_1+k_2)^2\leq m_\mu^2$. ~\footnote{There are, of course, also axial vector couplings of the $Z^o$ to $e^+e^-$, which contribute to this process. These have not been included in the above, since they do not change our qualitative discussion. These couplings are, however, taken into account in the $Z$ bounds given in Eqs. (5) and (9) below.}
54: As a first approximation, it is sensible to neglect $s$ in comparison
55: with $M_V^2$. Then comparing the above contribution to the $\mu \to 3e$ process to that of ordinary muon decay, $\mu\to e\nu\bar \nu$, which proceeds via $W$ exchange and (almost) identical kinematics, gives the relation:
56: \begin{equation}
57: \frac{[\Gamma(\mu\to 3e)]_{V-{\rm exch.}}}{\Gamma(\mu\to e\nu\bar \nu)}\approx
58: \frac{\tilde g_{V\mu e}^2g_{Vee}^2}{M_V^4}/\frac{g_W^4}{M_W^4}~.
59: \end{equation}
60: Since $\Gamma(V\to e^+e^-)\sim g_{Vee}^2M_V$ and $\Gamma(V\to \mu e) \sim \tilde g_{V\mu e}^2 M_V$, while
61: $\Gamma(W\to e\nu)\sim g_W^2M_W$,
62: we can rewrite the last expression as
63: \begin{equation}
64: [{\rm BR}(\mu\to 3e)]_{V-{\rm exch.}} \approx
65: \frac{\Gamma(V\to e^+e^-)\Gamma(V\to \mu^\pm e^\mp)}{\Gamma^2(W\to e\nu)}
66: \left(\frac{M_W}{M_V}\right)^6~.
67: \end{equation}
68: Using BR$(\mu\to 3e)\leq 10^{-12}$ and other data pertaining to the
69: $e^+e^-$ widths of the various vector mesons $V_i$, we find a set of bounds for the two-body LFV branching ratios of these vector bosons. These bounds are:
70: \begin{eqnarray}
71: {\rm BR}(Z^o\to \mu e) &\leq& 5 \times 10^{-13} \\
72: {\rm BR}(J/\psi\to\mu e)&\leq&4 \times 10^{-13} \\
73: {\rm BR}(\Upsilon\to \mu e) &\leq&2 \times 10^{-9} \\
74: {\rm BR}(\phi\to\mu e) &\leq& 4 \times 10^{-17}~.
75: \end{eqnarray}
76: Likewise, the generic upper bounds on LFV tau decays BR$(\tau\to
77: \ell \ell^\prime\bar\ell^\prime)\leq 10^{-6}$ yields
78: \begin{eqnarray}
79: {\rm BR}(Z^o\to \tau\bar \ell) &\leq& 3 \times 10^{-6} \\
80: {\rm BR}(J/\psi\to \tau\bar\ell) &\leq&6 \times 10^{-7} \\
81: {\rm BR}(\Upsilon\to\tau\bar\ell) &\leq& 10^{-2}~,
82: \end{eqnarray}
83: with $\ell/\ell^\prime = e/\mu$. Except for (11), these inferred bounds
84: are unlikely to be improved by future experimental data on two-body decays.
85:
86: One can use similar considerations to obtain bounds on the LFV decays of pseudoscalar states. For these purposes, one considers instead of the $\mu \to 3e$ process the $\mu^-\to e^-\gamma\gamma$ decay, which has a LFV bound BR$(\mu\to e\gamma\gamma)\leq 10^{-10}$. For this latter process the LFV couplings of the $\pi^o/\eta^o$ contribute, due to the exchange of these particles in the
87: s-channel. We can again
88: utilize this fact to infer upper bounds on $\pi^o/\eta^o\to \mu^\pm e^\mp$.
89: The $\pi^o/\eta^o\gamma\gamma$ vertex, because of gauge invariance, involves two derivatives:
90: \begin{equation}
91: {\cal L}_{\rm eff}=\frac{\phi}
92: {f_{\phi}}F^{\mu \nu}\tilde F_{\mu \nu}~,
93: \end{equation}
94: where $\phi=\pi^o,\eta^o$. This derivative coupling, in contrast to the $V\to \mu e$ non-derivative coupling
95: encountered earlier, kinematically suppresses the off-shell
96: $\pi^o/\eta^0\to\gamma\gamma$ contribution at $s=(k_1+k_2)^2 \leq m_\mu^2$
97: relative to what it would be for on-shell $\pi^o/\eta^o$ decay. Consequently
98: the analog to Eq. (4) for the present case,
99: \begin{equation}
100: [{\rm BR}(\mu\to e\gamma\gamma)]_{\pi^o/\eta^o-{\rm exch.}}\approx \frac{\Gamma(\pi^o/\eta^o\to\gamma\gamma)
101: \cdot\Gamma(\pi^o/\eta^o\to \mu^\pm e^\mp)}{\Gamma^2(W\to e\nu)}
102: \left(\frac{M_W}{m_{\pi^/\eta}}\right)^6\cdot
103: \left(\frac{\langle s_{\gamma\gamma}\rangle}{m_{\pi/\eta}^2}\right)^2~,
104: \end{equation}
105: contains an extra factor
106: \begin{equation}
107: \frac{\langle s^2_{\gamma\gamma}\rangle}{m^4_{\pi/\eta}} \approx \left(
108: \frac{m_\mu}{2m_{\pi/\eta}}\right)^4~,
109: \end{equation}
110: which tends to weaken the bounds one can derive. One finds, for pseudoscalar LFV decays the bounds:
111: \begin{eqnarray}
112: {\rm BR}(\eta\to\mu e) &\leq& 10^{-8} \\
113: {\rm BR}(\pi^o\to\mu e) &\leq& 10^{-10}~.
114: \end{eqnarray}
115:
116: In the discussion above we have obtained the quoted bounds purely by concentrating on the contribution of the exchanged state in question to the LFV process. One can imagine, however, additional LFV contributions. For example, for the $\mu^-\to e^-\gamma\gamma$ decay, in addition to $\pi^o/\eta^0$ exchange in the
117: $s$ channel, we have also the contribution of electron exchange in the $t$ and $u$
118: channels (see Fig. 2). In this case, however, the stringent bound on the
119: $\mu\to e\gamma$ vertex coming from experiment [BR ($\mu\to e\gamma)\leq 5\times 10^{-11}$] strongly
120: suppresses these additional diagrams and causes negligible modifications to the bounds (15), (16). Even in the absence of a strong bound on the $\mu\to e\gamma$ coupling, we would like to note that cancellations between $s$ and
121: $t$ channel contributions are in general expected to be at best rather
122: partial. Unless all particles, both external and exchanged, are spinless any
123: specific $s$ channel amplitude will have different $\cos\theta_s$ (or
124: $\cos\theta_t$) dependence, and will contribute to different combinations
125: of helicity amplitudes than the $t$ channel exchange
126: contributions.
127:
128: By the same token, it is clear that cancellations among different angular momentum
129: states exchanged in the $s$ channel are also impossible. Indeed, for example, the total decay rate for $\mu \to 3e$ can be expressed as
130: \begin{eqnarray}
131: \Gamma(\mu\to 3e) &=& \int^{\mu^2}_0 ds \sum_{\alpha\beta,\gamma\delta}
132: (s-4m_e^2)^{-1/2}\left[\frac{\Delta(m_\mu^2,s,m_e^2)}{s}\right]^{-1/2}
133: \nonumber \\
134: & &{}\times\sum_J
135: (2J+1) |A^J_{\alpha\beta,\gamma\delta}(s)|^2
136: \end{eqnarray}
137: with $\Delta$ the triangular function expressing the initial C.M. momentum in the
138: $s$ channel, which here is that of $\mu\bar e_1$ or, equivalently, $ \bar e_3e_2$. The $A^J_{\alpha\beta,\gamma\delta}(s)$ are the partial waves in the Jacob-Wick
139: expansion of the various $s$ channel helicity amplitudes.
140: Note that for the $\mu\to 3e$ case, adding the $t$ channel amplitude amounts
141: to enforcing the (anti) symmetrization between the $e_3$ and $e_2$ fermions.
142: Since Fermi statistics does not preclude the vectorial coupling contributing to $\mu\to 3e$ considered
143: here [c.f. Eq. (2)], no cancellation of $s$ and $t$ contributions should
144: arise as well.
145:
146: \section*{ Possible Limitations on the Derived LFV Bounds }
147:
148: Although we have called the bounds we obtained above unitarity bounds, in the strict sense the inferred bounds are not true unitarity bounds--as would
149: be the case if the exchanged particle(s) were on mass shell. To illustrate this point, let us recall a
150: well known example of a true unitarity bound arising in rare Kaon decays. This is the lower bound for the BR$(K_L\to\mu^+\mu^-)$ derived from the measured branching ratio of $K_L\to\gamma\gamma$. The $K_L\to \gamma\gamma$
151: process, with an on-shell
152: $\gamma\gamma$ intermediate state, contributes to Im $A(K_L\to\mu^+\mu^-)$
153: via unitarity since Im $A(K_L\to\mu^+\mu^-)\sim$
154: $A(K_L\to\gamma\gamma)* A(\gamma\gamma\to\mu^+\mu^-)$. This contribution provides a strict lower bound to the BR$(K_L\to\mu^+\mu^-)$, so the apparent violation of this
155: bound in early $K_L\to\mu^+\mu^-$ data was a source for much concern. Modern day data, as expected, agrees with this bound.~\cite{Kmumu}
156:
157: In the present context, an example of a ``pure" unitarity bound for a LFV
158: process is provided by the ``$\tau$ analog" of the $\phi\to\mu e$ process. Because the decay
159: $\phi\to\tau\bar \ell$ is kinematically forbidden, what one should consider
160: instead is $\tau\to\phi\mu$ (or $\tau\to\phi e$). The ``on-shell" $\phi$ emitted in this
161: putative process propagates over a long distance, of order $1/\Gamma_\phi
162: \simeq 30$ fm, before decaying into $K\bar K,\mu^+\mu^-,e^+e^-$ in a manner
163: which is completely independent
164: of its production.
165: This will generate a distinct narrow contribution to the corresponding three body processes $\tau\to
166: K \bar K \mu$, $\tau\to
167: \mu^+\mu^-\mu $, $\tau\to
168: e^+e^-\mu$ ,contributing to the imaginary part of these amplitudes at $s=m_\phi^2$. Hence, for example, there is an attendant lower bound
169: on BR$[\tau\to \ell\ell^\prime\bar\ell^\prime]$ which is simply
170: BR$(\tau\to\phi\bar\ell)\cdot{\rm BR}(\phi\to\ell^\prime\bar\ell^\prime)
171: \simeq 3\times10^{-4}\times {\rm BR}(\tau\to\phi\bar\ell)$. The resulting
172: rigorous upper bound one obtains,
173: \begin{equation}
174: {\rm BR}(\tau\to\phi\bar\ell)\leq 3\times 10^{-3}~,
175: \end{equation}
176: unfortunately happens to be rather weak.
177:
178: All the vector (or pseudoscalars) used as
179: intermediaries in deriving the bounds in Eqs (5)-(11) and Eqs. (15) and (16) are
180: not on-shell. Thus we must entertain the possibility that their
181: contribution to the three-body decays considered are reduced. This could void, or at least weaken the various strong bounds obtained above. In the rest of this note we will focus on possible mechanisms for such a reduction.
182:
183: \subsection*{Kinematical Suppression of the LFV Bounds}
184:
185: The size of the boson
186: exchange contribution to the three-body decay amplitude can be reduced if there are {\bf kinematical} suppressions. These arise when the effective
187: boson couplings are not minimal, involving derivatives (or momentum
188: factors). We already encountered one such case above, when we discussed the $\pi^o/\eta^o$ contribution to $\mu\to e\gamma\gamma$. We want to discuss here whether such kinematical suppressions may not also affect the vector exchange contributions.
189:
190: It is clearly possible to imagine that the LFV $V_i\mu^\pm e^\mp$ vertex, instead of having the form of Eq. (1), involves an
191: anomalous magnetic moment coupling:
192: \begin{equation}
193: {\cal L}_{\rm eff}^{\rm Magnetic}=\frac{1}{M_V}\bar\mu
194: \sigma_{\alpha\beta} e
195: (\partial^\alpha V^\beta-\partial^\beta V^\alpha) ~+{\rm h. c.}~.
196: \end{equation}
197: In this case
198: the contribution of the virtual $V_i$ to $\mu\to 3e$ is reduced by
199: \begin{equation}
200: \frac{q^2}{M_{V}^2} \approx \frac{\langle s\rangle}{M_{V}^2}\approx
201: \frac{m_\mu^2}{2M_{V}^2} = \left\{ \begin{array}{lll}
202: 3\times 10^{-3} & & V=\phi \\
203: 3\times 10^{-4} & & V=J/\psi \\
204: 3\times 10^{-5} & & V=\Upsilon \\
205: 3\times 10^{-7} & & V=Z^o
206: \end{array} \right\}
207: \end{equation}
208: This would considerably weaken the bounds in Eqs. (6)-(8) and reduce the bound on $Z$ decay to only BR$(Z^o\to e\mu)\leq 1.5 \times 10^{-6}$.
209:
210: It does not seem likely to us, however, that the strong suppression factors appearing in Eq. (20) obtain in practice. Indeed, various model calculation involving mixing among heavy
211: neutrinos~\cite{IJR} lead to $Z^o\to e\mu$ and effective $c\bar c\to\mu e$ flavor violating vertices, which involve non anomalous terms---
212: terms like the $Z\mu e$ coupling of Eq. (1) and vectorial couplings like
213: $\bar c\gamma_\alpha c\bar\mu\gamma^\alpha e$. ~\cite{wang} Hence we believe that the kinematic suppression given by Eq. (20) probably should not be included in our bounds.
214:
215: \subsection*{Dynamical Suppression of the LFV Bounds}
216:
217: There is another possible source of suppression which needs to be considered. This is connected to possible "form factor" effects due to the {\bf dynamics} which would, for example, reduce the contribution of the
218: various $V_i$ states to $\mu\to 3e$ compared to the naive expectations. However, the effect of form factors should be minimal or controllable
219: if the LFV is induced by physics at scales much higher than the EW scale
220: or the $Z$ mass. The effects of dynamics are nicely illustrated in a recent paper by Ilana, Jack and Riemann~\cite{IJR}. These authors find, in fact, an apparent mild enhancement when the $Z^o\to\mu e$ process is induced by relatively light
221: ($m_{\nu_i}\leq 45$ GeV) neutrinos. Indeed, in this case the on-shell
222: contribution of $\nu\bar\nu$ loops enhances the $Z$ decay rates
223: relative to the $s\approx 0$ contribution by factors of 10-100. However, such light active neutrinos would contribute to the $Z^o$
224: width and are hence ruled out. Thus such an ehancement is not physically expected. \footnote {The BR considered in Ref. [3] for light neutrinos-- i.e. neutrinos with masses in the eV range, as inferred from the SuperKamiokande~\cite{SuperK} data-- are very much below our bounds}
225:
226:
227:
228: In terms of the dispersive approach adopted here, such a "form factor"
229: suppression would result from cancellations in the corresponding partial wave amplitudes. Consider, for example, the $A^{J=1}$ partial wave amplitude for the $\mu \to 3e$ process:
230:
231: \begin{equation}
232: A^{J=1}_{\alpha \beta,\gamma \delta}(s) = \sum_i
233: \frac{g_{V_iee}\tilde g_{V_i\mu e}}{M_i^2-s} +
234: \int \frac{ds^\prime \rho_{\rm LFV}^{J=1}(s^\prime)}{s^\prime-s}~.
235: \end{equation}
236: To get a "form factor" suppression, there must be a cancellation between the contributions of the various $(V_i)$ particles among themselves, or between these contributions and those of the continuum. Let us examine these possibilities.
237:
238:
239: For the case of quarkonium intermediate states, besides the lowest energy bound state there are towers of states of the same spin and parity. Thus, for example, in Eq.(21) besides the contribution of the $J/\psi$ one should also take into acount the exchange of the $\psi^\prime,
240: \psi^{\prime\prime},\ldots,\psi^{(n)}$ charmonium bound resonances. Is it possible that these additional contributions largely cancel the $J/\Psi$ term in Eq. (21)? This is unlikely for the following reason. To get
241: $J/\psi$ exchange to contribute to $\mu\to 3e$ in the first place, one needs
242: to assume that the LFV physics at a high scale induces an effective
243: four-Fermi coupling of the form:
244: \begin{equation}
245: {\cal L_{\rm eff}}=\tilde G_{c\bar c\mu e}\bar c\gamma_\alpha c\bar\mu\gamma^\alpha e~.
246: \end{equation}
247: Such a coupling underlies all the other charmonium contributions. In fact,
248: quark-hadron duality identifies the $J/\psi,\psi^\prime,\ldots,\psi^{(n)}$
249: contributions to $\mu \to 3e$ as arising from specific portions of the
250: $s^\prime \equiv M_{\bar cc}$ integration region where
251: due to non-perturbative QCD effects $1^{--}$ $c \bar c$ bound states dominate, as shown schematically in Fig. 3. Both the $g_{\psi^{(n)}ee}$ and $\tilde g_{\psi^{(n)}\mu e}$ couplings appearing in Eq. (21) are proportional to
252: the wave function of $\psi^{(n)}$ at the origin, ${\bf {\Psi^{(n)}(0)}}$.
253: Thus all the terms in the sum share a common sign--- fixed by the sign of $\tilde G_{c\bar c \mu e}\cdot Q_c $, with $Q_c=2/3$ being the charge of the charm quark---
254: and cancellation cannot occur. Similar arguments apply against possible
255: cancellations among the various states in the $\Upsilon$ sector.
256:
257: The above discussion still leaves open the possibility of cancellations
258: in the partial wave amplitude between different quarks-antiquark contributions ($c\bar c, b\bar b,s\bar s,\dots$) or, equivalently, between the various resonant states ($J/\psi,\Upsilon,\phi,\ldots$. While possible this seems highly unlikely. For example, even if all the effective couplings
259: $\tilde G_{q_i\bar q_i\mu e}$ were equal due to some universality, and the
260: bubble kinematics were identical, the net contribution would not vanish since the total contribution would be proportional to
261: $\sum Q_{q_i}\not= 0$. Furthermore,
262: for the case of light quarks such cancellations cannot work even in
263: principle. The $s$ dependence for $0 \leq s\leq m_\mu^2$ neglected above
264: implies, for example, that a $\omega/\rho$ and $\phi$ contribution to the total
265: decay rate cancel only at the level of $(m_\mu^2/3)(m_\phi^2-m_{\rho/\omega}^2)/(m_\phi^2)^2 \approx 10^{-3}$.
266:
267:
268: \section*{Concluding Remarks}
269:
270: In general, lepton flavor violating processes have been analyzed within a specific theoretical framework. In this context, the restrictive role played by the low energy bounds ($\mu\to 3e~\mu\to e$ conversion, etc.) has been noted by many authors.~\cite{IJR}~\cite{DT} In this note instead we
271: tried to present in a, relatively model-independent manner, the connections which unitarity implies between some two-body and three-body LFV decays. We have illustrated these connections by focusing on a few processes. Clearly, many other bounds can be obtained. Indeed, since the Particle Data Group~\cite{PDG}
272: lists altogether about one hundred LFV processes, many additional
273: results can come from a more comprehensive analysis.
274:
275: We have noted that the
276: bounds that we derived can be avoided if one can kinematically suppress the small $s$ contributions (e.g. by having a purely anomalous
277: magnetic $Z^o\mu e$ coupling), or as a result of some (rather unlikely) cancellations. Because we cannot rule out these possibilities with absolute certainty, we hope that
278: our discussion will not dissuade future efforts to improve the
279: bounds on LFV decays of the $Z,J/\psi, \ldots$. Such decays would not
280: only signal new LFV physics but, because of our considerations, this physics must also naturally give cancellations among terms so as to lead to a small $\mu\to 3e$ branching ratio.
281: Thus searching
282: for $V_i\to\mu^\pm e^\mp$ decays at levels considerably higher than our suggested
283: bounds remains a worthwhile experimental challenge.
284: \section*{Acknowledgements}
285:
286: Both S. N. and X. M. Z. would like to acknowledge the hospitality of the department of Physics and Astronomy at UCLA, where this work was initiated. S. N. would like to acknowledge the support of USA-Israel Binational and Israeli Academy Grants. X. M. Z. thanks Z. H. Lin for discussions. The
287: work of R. D. P. was supported in part by the Department of Energy under contract No. DE-FG03-91ER40662, Task C.
288:
289: \section*{References}
290:
291: \begin{thebibliography}{9}
292: \bibitem{PDG} Particle Data Group, C. Caso {\it et al.}, Europ. Phys.J. {\bf C3}, 1 (1998).
293:
294: \bibitem{Kmumu} E871 Collaboration, D. Ambrose {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 81}, 4309 (1998).
295:
296: \bibitem{IJR} J. Illana,
297: M. Jack, and T. Riemann, hep-ph/0001273, and references therein.
298:
299: \bibitem{wang} "Probing lepton flavor violation in decays of charmonium and bottomonium systems", R. D. Peccei, J. X. Wang and X. M. Zhang, May 1998 note (unpublished).
300:
301: \bibitem{SuperK} SuperKamiokande Collaboration, Y Fukuda {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 81}, 1562 (1998).
302:
303:
304: \bibitem{DT} See, for example,
305: P. Langacker and D. London, Phys. Rev. D{\bf 38}, 886 (1988); D. Tommasini {\it et al.}, Nucl. Phys. B{\bf 444}, 451 (1995).
306:
307: \end{thebibliography}
308:
309: \section*{Figure Captions}
310: \begin{description}
311: \item{Fig. 1.} A vector exchange diagram contributing to $\mu\to 3e$.
312: \item{Fig. 2.} The $\pi/\eta^o$ ($s$ channel) and $e$ ($t$ and $u$ channel)
313: exchange contributing to $\mu\to e\gamma\gamma$.
314: \item{Fig. 3.} The $\bar cc$ bubble and its equivalent description in terms of
315: $\psi,\psi^{\prime},\ldots,\psi^n$ exchanges.
316: \end{description}
317:
318: \end{document}
319: