1: %=============================================================================

2: \documentstyle[12pt,epsf,epsfig]{article}

3: \textwidth6.5in

4: \textheight8.7in

5: \oddsidemargin0.0in

6: \topmargin-0.5in

7: 

8: 

9: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Martti's macros

10: \newcommand{\ea}{{\it et al.}}

11: \newcommand{\ie}{{\it i.e.}}

12: \newcommand{\eg}{{\it e.g. }}

13: \newcommand{\mrm}[1]{\mbox{\rm #1}}

14: \newcommand{\beq}{\begin{equation}}

15: \newcommand{\eeq}{\end{equation}}

16: \newcommand{\bea}{\begin{eqnarray}}

17: \newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}}

18: \newcommand{\rfn}[1]{(\ref{#1})}

19: \newcommand{\eq}[1]{eq.(\ref{#1})}

20: \newcommand{\Eq}[1]{Eq.(\ref{#1})}

21: \newcommand{\nn}{\nonumber}

22: 

23: \newcommand{\np}[1]{{ Nucl.\ Phys. }{\bf #1}}

24: \newcommand{\pl}[1]{{ Phys. Lett. }{\bf #1}}

25: \newcommand{\pr}[1]{{ Phys. Rev. }{\bf #1}}

26: \newcommand{\prl}[1]{{ Phys. Rev. Lett. }{\bf #1}}

27: \newcommand{\zp}[1]{{ Z. Phys. }{\bf #1}}

28: \newcommand{\prep}[1]{{ Phys. Rep. }{\bf #1}}

29: \newcommand{\rmphys}[1]{{ Rev. Mod. Phys. }{\bf #1}}

30: \newcommand{\epj}[1]{Eur. Phys. J. {\bf #1}}

31: 

32: \def\lsim{\mathrel{\vcenter{\hbox{$<$}\nointerlineskip\hbox{$\sim$}}}}

33: \def\gsim{\mathrel{\vcenter{\hbox{$>$}\nointerlineskip\hbox{$\sim$}}}}

34: 

35: \def\mb{m_{\widetilde B}}

36: \def\msf{m_{\tilde f}}

37: \def\mst{m_{\tilde t}}

38: \def\m12{m_{1\!/2}}

39: \def\tb{\tan\beta}

40: 

41: 

42: 

43: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Paper starts here

44: 

45: \begin{document}

46: \begin{titlepage}

47: \pagestyle{empty}

48: \baselineskip=21pt

49: \rightline{hep-ph/0109125}

50: \rightline{CERN--TH/2001-236}     

51: \rightline{KEK-TH-779}

52: \vskip 0.25in

53: \begin{center}

54: {\large{\bf 

55: CP Violation in the Minimal Supersymmetric Seesaw Model

56: }}

57: \end{center}

58: \begin{center}

59: \vskip 0.25in

60: {{\bf John Ellis}$^1$,

61: {\bf Junji Hisano}$^{1,2}$,

62: {\bf Smaragda Lola }$^1$ and

63: {\bf Martti Raidal}$^{1,3}$

64: \vskip 0.15in

65: {\it

66: $^1${CERN, Geneva 23, CH-1211, Switzerland}\\

67: $^2${Theory Group, KEK, Oho 1-1, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305-0801, Japan}\\

68: $^3${National Institute of Chemical Physics and Biophysics, \\ 

69: Tallinn 10143, Estonia 

70: }\\

71: }}

72: \vskip 0.25in

73: {\bf Abstract}

74: \end{center}

75: \baselineskip=18pt \noindent

76: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

77: 

78: We study CP violation in the lepton sector of the supersymmetric extension

79: of the Standard Model with three generations of massive singlet neutrinos

80: with Yukawa couplings $Y_\nu$ to lepton doublets, in a minimal seesaw

81: model for light neutrino masses and mixing. This model contains six

82: physical CP-violating parameters, namely the phase $\delta$ observable in

83: oscillations between light neutrino species, two Majorana phases

84: $\phi_{1,2}$ that affect $\beta \beta_{0 \nu}$ decays, and three

85: independent phases appearing in ${Y_\nu}{Y_\nu}^\dagger$, that control the

86: rate of leptogenesis. Renormalization of the soft supersymmetry-breaking

87: parameters induces observable CP violation at low energies, including

88: T-odd asymmetries in polarized $\mu\to eee$ and $\tau \to \ell \ell \ell$

89: decays, as well as lepton electric dipole moments. In the

90: leading-logarithmic approximation in which the massive singlet neutrinos

91: are treated as degenerate, these low-energy observables are sensitive via

92: ${Y_\nu}^\dagger{Y_\nu}$ to just one combination of the leptogenesis and

93: light-neutrino phases. We present numerical results for the T-odd

94: asymmetry in polarized $\mu\to eee$ decay, which may be accessible to

95: experiment, but the lepton electric dipole moments are very small in this

96: approximation. To the extent that the massive singlet neutrinos are not

97: degenerate, low-energy observables become sensitive also to two other

98: combinations of leptogenesis and light-neutrino phases, in this minimal

99: supersymmetric seesaw model.

100: 

101: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

102: \vfill

103: %\vskip 0.15in

104: \leftline{CERN--TH/2001-236}

105: \leftline{September 2001}

106: \end{titlepage}

107: \baselineskip=18pt

108: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

109: 

110: 

111: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

112: 

113: \section{Introduction}

114: 

115: The solar \cite{sksol,sno} and atmospheric \cite{skatm} neutrino

116: anomalies, which imply the existence of non-zero masses for the light

117: neutrinos, provide the first experimental evidence for the existence of

118: physics beyond the Standard Model (SM). A minimal extension of the SM

119: includes three very heavy singlet neutrinos $N_{i}^c$, whose Yukawa

120: couplings ${Y_\nu}$ to the light neutrinos explain naturally the smallness

121: of their masses, via the seesaw mechanism \cite{seesaw}. At the same

122: time, the electroweak scale must be stabilized against large radiative

123: corrections. In particular, after introducing right-handed neutrinos, a

124: quadratically-divergent contribution to the Higgs boson mass proportional

125: to $M_{N}^2$ has to be cancelled. This is most commonly achieved by

126: supersymmetrizing the theory, leading to the minimal supersymmetric

127: extension of the Standard Model (MSSM) with singlet neutrinos. 

128: 

129: Neutrino-flavour mixing originates from off-diagonal components in the

130: Yukawa interaction $N^c{Y_\nu}LH_2$, in a basis where the charged-lepton

131: and singlet-neutrino mass matrices are real and diagonal. Renormalization

132: effects due to this interaction also induce flavour mixings in the soft

133: supersymmetry-breaking slepton mass terms~\cite{bm}. This may lead to

134: observable rates for charged-lepton flavour-violating (LFV)  processes

135: such as $\mu\to e\gamma$, $\mu$-$e$ conversion in nuclei, $\mu\to eee$ and

136: $\tau \to 3 \ell$~\cite{review,h1,ci,nlfv}, where $\ell = e, \mu$ denotes

137: a generic light charged lepton. LFV is also observable in principle in

138: rare kaon decays, but at rates that are likely to be far below the current

139: bounds~\cite{kaons}. 

140: 

141: In general, ${ Y_\nu}$ is complex, leading to CP violation in neutrino

142: oscillations and in the induced rare LFV processes, as well as in Majorana

143: phases for the light neutrinos and in electric dipole moments for the

144: charged leptons. The existence of CP violation in ${ Y_\nu}$ is also

145: required if the observed baryon asymmetry in the Universe originated in

146: leptogenesis~\cite{lepto}.  The purpose of this paper is to clarify the

147: relations between these different manifestations of CP violation in the

148: lepton sector, and to present numerical estimates of the T-odd

149: CP-violating asymmetry $A_T$ in $\mu\to eee$ decay, the electric dipole

150: moments of the electron and muon. We argue that measurements of CP

151: violation using charged leptons, combined with CP violation in the 

152: light-neutrino sector, in principle enable the leptogenesis phases to be

153: extracted - within the framework of the minimal supersymmetric seesaw

154: model. 

155: 

156: If the solar-neutrino mass-squared difference $\Delta m^2_{sol}$ and the

157: element $U_{e3}$ of the Maki-Nakagawa-Sakita (MNS) neutrino-mixing matrix $U$

158: are not too small, the CP-violating phase $\delta$ in $U$, which is

159: analogous to the Cabbibo-Kobayashi-Maskawa (CKM) phase in the quark

160: sector, can be measured via CP- and T-violating~\cite{cpt} observables in

161: neutrino oscillations using a neutrino factory or possibly a low-energy

162: neutrino superbeam.  The recent SNO result~\cite{sno} encourages this

163: possibility, since it further favours the large-mixing-angle (LMA) solution to

164: the solar-neutrino deficit~\cite{snofit}. 

165: 

166: As mentioned above, processes that violate charged-lepton flavour can

167: provide important complementary information on the leptonic

168: CP-violating phases. These may be measured using intense sources of

169: stopped muons. The SINDRUM II experiment is designed to be sensitive

170: to ${\cal B}(\mu Ti\to e Ti) \sim 10^{-14}$ \cite{sindrum2}, and

171: the MECO project would be sensitive to ${\cal B}(\mu Al \to e Al)

172: \sim 10^{-16}$ \cite{meco}. The experiment with the sesitivity ${Br}(\mu\to

173: e\gamma)\sim 10^{-14}$ is proposed at PSI \cite{PSI}. The PRISM

174: project~\cite{review,PRISM} and the front ends of neutrino factories

175: now under consideration at CERN~\cite{nf} and elsewhere will provide

176: beams of low-energy muons that are more intense by several orders of

177: magnitude than any of the present facilities. This will enable the

178: construction of stopped-muon experiments able to probe LFV processes

179: with sensitivities ${Br}(\mu\to e\gamma) \sim 10^{-15}$, 

180: ${Br}(\mu\to eee) \sim 10^{-16}$. The latter sensitivity opens the way to

181: measuring the T-odd, CP-violating asymmetry $A_T(\mu\to eee)$.

182: 

183: A measurement of the CP-violating electric dipole moment (EDM) of the muon

184: with a sensitivity $d_\mu \sim 5\times 10 ^{-26}$ e cm would also be

185: possible~\cite{nf}.  However, because the Yukawa coupling constants

186: ${Y_\nu}$ appear in the renormalization-group equations (RGEs) only in the

187: Hermitian combination ${ Y_\nu^\dagger Y_\nu}$, CP-violating phases are

188: induced only in the off-diagonal terms of the slepton masses.  This

189: implies suppression of the EDMs of the electron and muon, whereas CP

190: violation may occur in full strength in charged LFV processes, such as

191: $\mu\to eee$~\footnote{In the light of very stringent constraints from

192: electron, neutron and mercury EDMs~\cite{nath,khalil,masiero}, we neglect the

193: possible phases in diagonal soft supersymmetry-breaking terms throughout

194: this paper. This is natural in mechanisms which generate only real soft

195: terms, such as gravity-~\cite{grmed}, gauge-~\cite{gaugemed},  

196: anomaly-~\cite{ams}, gaugino-~\cite{ginom} and

197: radion-mediation~\cite{radion} mechanisms.}.

198: 

199: Another arena to probe LFV is provided by rare $\tau$ decays. There has

200: been some discussion in the literature of $\tau \to \ell \gamma$

201: decays~\cite{taumug}, and one could in principle hope to measure

202: CP-violating asymmetries in the various $\tau \to 3 \ell$ decays. Another

203: possibility is to search for LFV in sparticle decays \cite{acfh,sleptonosc}, 

204: e.g., $\tilde{\chi}^0_i \to e

205: \mu \tilde{\chi}^0_j$, where CP-violating asymmetries analogous to

206: $A_T(\mu\to eee)$ can also be defined in principle. However, we do not

207: investigate these possibilities further in this paper.

208: 

209: We concentrate here on CP-violating observables in the $\mu$

210: sector, assuming that the only sources of LFV and CP violation are the

211: interactions with heavy singlet $N^c$ neutrinos. We start by discussing

212: general parametrisations of the Yukawa matrix ${ Y_\nu}$ in terms of the

213: high- as well as the low-energy observables, paying particular attention

214: to the counting of physical degrees of freedom and their relations to 

215: CP-violating observables. Subsequently, we analyse

216: the renormalization-group running of soft supersymmetry-breaking terms,

217: assuming universal

218: boundary conditions at the GUT scale. 

219: Our first objective in this analysis is to

220: demonstrate in principle the complementarity of the different observables,

221: to see how all the CP-violating phases of the minimal seesaw model come

222: into play, and to clarify the relationship of the observable phases to the

223: phases appearing in leptogenesis. In the leading-logarithmic 

224: approximation, in which the heavy singlet neutrinos are treated as 

225: degenerate, this renormalization is sensitive to just one combination of 

226: the leptogenesis and light-neutrino phases, but two other combinations 

227: contribute beyond this 

228: approximation. We illustrate our results in a simple two-generation 

229: model. We then present numerical estimates of

230: ${Br}(\mu\to e\gamma)$, ${Br}(\mu\to eee)$ and $A_T(\mu\to eee)$, 

231: taking into account the present knowledge

232: of neutrino mixings and masses as well as bounds on sparticle masses. 

233: We find that the magnitude of $A_T$ is in general

234: anti-correlated with the rate of $\mu\to e\gamma$, and may be large in 

235: some models compatible with the experimental upper limit on $\mu\to 

236: e\gamma$ decay. If a

237: cancellation occurs between different contributions to the $\mu-e-\gamma$

238: vertex, so that the box and penguin diagrams contributing to $\mu\to eee$

239: become comparable in magnitude, the T-odd asymmetry $A_T$ in $\mu\to eee$

240: may be as large as $\sim 10\%$, while ${Br}(\mu\to eee)$ remains

241: appreciable. However, the EDMs of the $\mu$ and $e$ are rather small in 

242: the minimal seesaw model.

243: 

244: It is important to note that the neutrino-oscillation phase $\delta$ and

245: the Majorana phases $\phi_{1,2}$ are completely independent of the three

246: physical phases in the quantity ${ Y_\nu Y_\nu^\dagger}$ that enters in

247: leptogenesis calculations.  On the other hand, $A_T$ and the other

248: renormalization-induced observables depend on mixtures of the 

249: light-neutrino

250: and leptogenesis phases. Thus, neutrino factories and LFV measurements

251: provide complementary information on the leptonic CP-violating phases.  

252: In particular, observation of $A_T$ is possible even if CP violation in

253: neutrino oscillations is unobservable, i.e., if either $\delta=0,$

254: $U_{e3}=0$ or the solar-neutrino deficit is not explained by the LMA

255: solution. However, in the minimal supersymmetric seesaw model, it is

256: possible that a combination of CP-violating observables in the neutrino

257: and charged-lepton sectors may provide constraints on the angles and

258: phases responsible for leptogenesis.

259: 

260: Our work is organized as follows. In Section 2, we consider general

261: parameterisations of the neutrino Yukawa couplings $Y_\nu$ and discuss CP

262: violation in the minimal supersymmetric seesaw model. In Section 3, we

263: give general formulae for the EDMs of the charged leptons, $\mu\to

264: e\gamma$, and $\mu\to eee$, including the latter's T-odd asymmetry $A_T$.

265: We present the results of the numerical analysis in Section 4. Finally,

266: Section 5 is devoted to a discussion and our conclusions concerning the

267: observability of the CP-violating phases in the minimal supersymmetric

268: seesaw model.

269: 

270: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

271: 

272: \section{CP Violation in the Lepton Sector of the Minimal Supersymmetric

273: Seesaw Model}

274: 

275: We consider the MSSM with three additional heavy singlet-neutrino

276: superfields ${N^c}_i$, constituting the minimal supersymmetric seesaw

277: model. The relevant leptonic part of its superpotential is

278: %

279: \begin{eqnarray}

280: \label{w}

281: W = N^{c}_i (Y_\nu)_{ij} L_j H_2

282:   -  E^{c}_i (Y_e)_{ij}  L_j H_1 

283:   + \frac{1}{2}{N^c}_i {\cal M}_{ij} N^c_j + \mu H_2 H_1 \,,

284: \label{MseesawM}

285: \end{eqnarray}

286: %

287: where the indices $i,j$ run over three generations and ${\cal M}_{ij}$

288: is the heavy singlet-neutrino mass matrix. Taking account of the

289: possible field redefinitions, this minimal supersymmetric seesaw model

290: contains 21 parameters: 3 charged-lepton masses $m_\ell$, 3 

291: light-neutrino masses ${\cal M}^D_\nu$, 3 heavy Majorana neutrino masses

292: ${\cal M}^D$, 3 light-neutrino mixing angles $\theta_{ij}: 1 \le i \ne

293: j \le 3$, 3 CP-violating light-neutrino mixing phases $\delta,

294: \phi_{1,2}$ (the MNS phase and two Majorana phases),

295: and 3 additional mixing angles and 3 more phases associated with the

296: heavy-neutrino sector.

297: 

298: \subsection{High-Energy Parametrization}

299: 

300: In order to clarify the appearance and r\^oles of these parameters, we

301: first analyze (\ref{MseesawM}) in a basis where the charged leptons and

302: the heavy neutrinos both have real and diagonal mass matrices:

303: %

304: \begin{eqnarray}

305: %

306: (Y_e)_{ij} &=& {Y}^D_{e_i} \delta_{ij},

307: \nonumber\\

308: {\cal M}_{ij} &=& {\cal M}^D_i \delta_{ij},

309: \label{diagY}

310: \end{eqnarray}

311: %

312: where ${\cal M}^D=\mrm{diag}(M_{N_1},M_{N_2},M_{N_3})$.

313: {\it A priori}, the neutrino Yukawa-coupling matrix

314: ${Y}_{\nu}$ has nine phases, which can be exposed by writing it in the

315: form: $Y_\nu = Z^\star {Y}^D_{\nu_k} X^\dagger\tilde{P}^\star_1,$ where

316: ${Y}^D_{\nu}$ is diagonal and 

317: $\tilde{P}_1=\mrm{diag}(e^{i\sigma_{1}}, e^{i\sigma_{2}},

318: e^{i\sigma_{3}} )$. However, in the basis (\ref{diagY}) 

319: one may redefine the left-handed lepton fields

320: $L_i$, and thus rotate away the three phases in $\tilde{P}_1$, which are

321: unphysical. Thus the Yukawa-coupling matrix may be written in the form:

322: %

323: \begin{equation}

324: (Y_\nu)_{ij} = Z_{ik}^\star {Y}^D_{\nu_k} X_{kj}^\dagger.

325: \label{paramY}

326: \end{equation}

327: %

328: The matrix $X$ is the analogue in the lepton sector of the quark CKM

329: matrix, and thus it has only one physical phase. On the other

330: hand, we can always write $Z$ in the form

331: %

332: \begin{equation}

333: Z= P_1 \overline{Z} P_2,

334: \label{decomposeZ}

335: \end{equation}

336: %

337: where $\overline{Z}$ is a CKM-type matrix with three real mixing

338: angles and one physical phase, and

339: $P_{1,2}=\mrm{diag}(e^{i\theta_{1,3}}, e^{i\theta_{2,4}}, 1 )$ are

340: diagonal matrices containing two phases each. Thus $Z$ has 5 physical

341: phases to add to that in $X$, and all six real mixing angles and six

342: phase parameters in this basis are physical observables. 

343: 

344: We now study the combination $Y_\nu Y_\nu^\dagger$ of the Yukawa

345: couplings, which governs leptogenesis in this minimal seesaw model.

346: It is straightforward to see from (\ref{paramY}) that

347: %

348: \begin {equation}

349: \label{yy+1}

350: Y_\nu Y_\nu^\dagger 

351:  = P_1^\star \overline{Z}^\star (Y_\nu^D)^2 \overline{Z}^T P_1,

352: \end{equation}

353: %

354: which depends on just three of the CP-violating phases, namely the two

355: phases $\theta_{1,2}$ in $P_1$ and the single residual phase in

356: $\overline{Z}$, as well as the three real mixing angles in $\overline{Z}$.

357: This is consistent with the observation that, since the overall lepton

358: number involves a sum over the

359: light-lepton species (both charged leptons and light neutrinos), one would

360: not expect leptogenesis to depend on the 6 MNS angles and phases.

361: 

362: On the other hand, as we discuss in more detail below, mixing and CP

363: violation in the slepton sector of this minimal supersymmetric seesaw

364: model is controlled by the combination $Y_\nu^\dagger Y_\nu$ of the

365: neutrino Yukawa couplings, in the leading-logarithmic approximation where

366: $M_{GUT} \gg M_{N_{1,2,3}}$. It is again straightforward to see from

367: (\ref{paramY}) that

368: %

369: \begin{equation}

370: \label{y+y1}

371: Y_\nu^{\dagger} Y_{\nu} = X (Y_\nu{^D})^2 X^{\dagger} .

372: \end{equation}

373: %

374: Therefore, in this approximation, CP violation in charged LFV processes

375: arises only from the one physical phase in the diagonalizing matrix $X$.

376: 

377: \subsection{Low-Energy Parametrization}

378: 

379: We now reconsider leptonic CP violation from a more familiar point of

380: view \cite{valle}, 

381: namely that of the effective low-energy theory obtained after the

382: heavy neutrinos are decoupled. In this energy range, physics is

383: described by the following effective superpotential:

384: %

385: \begin{eqnarray}

386: \label{weff}

387: W_{eff}&=& L_i H_2 \left(Y_\nu^T \left({\cal M}^{D}\right)^{-1} 

388: Y_\nu\right)_{ij} L_j H_2 

389:   -  E^{c}_i (Y_e)_{ij}  L_j H_1 ,

390: \label{LEET}

391: \end{eqnarray}

392: where the effective light-neutrino masses are given in the basis

393: (\ref{diagY}) by

394: %

395: \bea 

396: {\cal M}_\nu={Y}_\nu^T \left({\cal M}^{D}\right)^{-1} {

397: Y}_\nu v^2 \sin^2\beta,

398: \label{seesaw1}

399: \eea

400: %

401: where $v=174$ GeV and as usual $\tan\beta=v_2/v_1$.

402: The mass matrix ${\cal M}_\nu$ can be diagonalized by a unitary matrix 

403: $U$:

404: %

405: \bea

406: U^T {\cal M}_\nu U = {\cal M}^D_\nu\,,

407: \label{Mnud}

408: \eea

409: %

410: where ${\cal M}^D_\nu=\mrm{diag}(m_{\nu_1},m_{\nu_2},m_{\nu_3}).$

411: Since ${\cal M}_\nu$ is a symmetric matrix and contains in general

412: six phases, $U$ must also have 6 phases. It can be expressed in the form

413: %

414: \begin{equation}

415: U=\tilde{P}_2 V P_0,

416: \label{generalU}

417: \end{equation}

418: %

419: where $P_0=\mrm{diag}(e^{-i\phi_1}, e^{-i\phi_2}, 1 ),$

420: $\tilde{P}_2=\mrm{diag}(e^{i\alpha_{1}}, e^{i\alpha_{2}}, 

421: e^{i\alpha_{3}} )$ and $V$ is the MNS matrix written in

422: the CKM form:

423: %

424: \bea 

425: \label{V} 

426: V=\pmatrix{c_{13}c_{12} & c_{13}s_{12} & s_{13}e^{-i\delta}\cr

427: -c_{23}s_{12}-s_{23}s_{13}c_{12}e^{i\delta} & 

428: c_{23}c_{12}-s_{23}s_{13}s_{12}e^{i\delta} & s_{23}c_{13}\cr

429: s_{23}s_{12}-c_{23}s_{13}c_{12}e^{i\delta} & 

430: -s_{23}c_{12}-c_{23}s_{13}s_{12}e^{i\delta} & c_{23}c_{13}\cr}.  

431: \eea

432: %

433: The phases in $\tilde{P}_2$ (\ref{generalU}) can be removed by

434: redefinition of the $L_i$ fields, leading to a new basis in which 

435: \bea

436: U=V P_0.

437: \label{U}

438: \eea 

439: This differs from the basis (\ref{diagY}) by the phase rotation

440: $\tilde{P}_2$. The new basis is appropriate if one works with the

441: effective low-energy observables in the effective superpotential

442: (\ref{weff}), e.g., for studying neutrino oscillations. Indeed, the

443: mixing angles $\theta_{ij}: 1 \le i \ne j \le 3$, whose $\sin, \cos$

444: we denote by $s_{ij},c_{ij}$, are measurable in neutrino-oscillation

445: experiments, as is the CP-violating MNS phase $\delta$. One

446: combination of two CP-violating Majorana phases $\phi_{1,2}$ is in

447: principle measurable in $\beta \beta_{0 \nu}$ experiments.

448: 

449: The physical interpretation of the Yukawa couplings in (\ref{w}) is made

450: more transparent in the basis (\ref{diagY}), which does not contain the

451: unphysical low-energy phases in $\tilde{P}_2$ that we rotated away in the

452: previous paragraph. Note that one must change $X\to \tilde{P}_2 X$ if one

453: works in the basis (\ref{U}). 

454: 

455: Our objective in this paper is to study CP-violating observables which are

456: sensitive to different physical phases. For this purpose, we need a proper

457: parametrization of the input parameters of the model.  The most

458: straightforward choice is to work in the basis (\ref{diagY}) and to choose

459: the physical observables in (\ref{diagY}) and (\ref{paramY}) 

460: as the input parameters.  In

461: this case, the physics is entirely transparent. However, the present

462: experiments do not measure heavy-neutrino masses, their Yukawa-coupling

463: and mixings directly. All the information we have on neutrinos comes from

464: the low-energy neutrino-oscillation and $\beta \beta_{0 \nu}$ experiments. 

465: If we choose the input parameters from (\ref{diagY}), (\ref{paramY}),

466: we have to check

467: every time that the induced ${\cal M}_\nu$ in (\ref{seesaw1})  agrees with

468: the experimental data. Instead, one can attempt to use the effective

469: low-energy observables as an input. 

470: 

471: To this end, we first rewrite the seesaw mechanism in the different form:

472: %

473: \beq

474: \label{seesaw4}

475: R \equiv \sqrt{{\cal M}^{D}}^{-1}Y_\nu U \sqrt{{\cal M}_\nu^{D}}^{-1} \; :

476: \; R^T R=1,

477: \eeq 

478: %

479: which is equivalent to (\ref{seesaw1}).

480: Starting with any given $Y_\nu$ and ${\cal M}^D$ as input

481: parameters, we obtain as outputs the seesaw-induced low-energy parameters

482: ${\cal M}_\nu^{D}$ and $U$, and an auxiliary complex orthogonal

483: matrix $R$. It is possible to choose different

484: parameter sets for $Y_\nu$ and ${\cal M}^D$ that give the same low

485: energy effective ${\cal M}_\nu^{D}$ and $U$, but lead to different values

486: for $R$. 

487: 

488: One can turn the argument around~\cite{ci}, and parameterize 

489: the neutrino Yukawa-coupling matrix in 

490: terms of an arbitrary complex orthogonal matrix $R'$ as follows:

491: %

492: \bea { Y_\nu'}= \frac{\sqrt{{\cal

493: M}^D} R' \sqrt{{\cal M}^D_\nu}\, U^\dagger}{v\sin\beta}.

494: \label{Ynu}

495: \eea

496: %

497: We emphasize that the output $Y_\nu'$ in this parametrization is in

498: the {\it low-energy} basis (\ref{U}), and therefore contains {\it

499: unphysical} phases. If one wants to use the induced $Y_\nu'$ to

500: parametrize the superpotential (\ref{w}), one should be careful to

501: count correctly the physical degrees of freedom. 

502: 

503: We now form the combinations $Y_\nu' Y_\nu^{'\dagger}$ and 

504: $Y_\nu^{'\dagger} Y_\nu'$ out of (\ref{Ynu}). In the first case, we obtain

505: %

506: \begin{eqnarray}

507: Y_\nu' Y_\nu^{'\dagger} 

508: =\frac{\sqrt{{\cal M}^D} R' {\cal M}_\nu^D R^{'\dagger} \sqrt{{\cal M}^D}}

509:               {v^2 \sin^2\beta},

510: \label{yy+2}

511: \end{eqnarray}

512: %

513: which contains three independent physical phases that are

514: given entirely 

515: in terms of the parameters in the orthogonal matrix $R'.$ 

516: This is consistent with (\ref{yy+1}), and the new parametrization

517: therefore has not changed the counting of phases in $Y_\nu

518: Y_\nu^{\dagger}.$ On the other hand, we also obtain from (\ref{Ynu})

519: %

520: \begin{eqnarray}

521: Y_\nu^{'\dagger} Y_\nu' 

522: = U \frac{\sqrt{{\cal M}_\nu^D} R^{'\dagger} 

523: {\cal M}^D R' \sqrt{{\cal M}^D_\nu}}

524:               {v^2 \sin^2\beta} U^\dagger .

525: \label{y+y2}

526: \end{eqnarray}

527: %

528: This expression also appears to contain three phases, which are

529: combinations of all the parameters in $U$ and $R'$. 

530: 

531: However, according to (\ref{y+y1}), $Y_\nu Y_\nu^{\dagger}$ is supposed to

532: contain only one physical phase. What has happened? The answer is that

533: physics has not changed, and thus two out of three phases in

534: $Y_\nu^{'\dagger} Y_\nu'$ are unphysical. This is the case because we are

535: working in the low-energy basis (\ref{U}), and not in the basis

536: (\ref{diagY}). The three phases in $\tilde{P}_2$, which were rotated away

537: in defining $U$, appear now in $Y_\nu'$. Instead of (\ref{y+y1}), we now

538: have $Y_\nu^{'\dagger} Y'_\nu= \tilde{P}_2 X(Y_\nu^D)^2

539: X^\dagger\tilde{P}_2^\star$. One overall phase is irrelevant, and the two

540: unphysical relative phases in $\tilde{P}_2$ explain the faulty phase

541: counting in (\ref{y+y2}). 

542: 

543: In the following, we show explicitly that the unphysical phases in

544: $\tilde{P}_2$ cancel out in the Jarlskog invariants which can be

545: constructed using $Y_\nu^{'\dagger} Y_\nu'$.  Therefore, in the

546: leading-logarithmic approximation, all the CP-violating LFV observables

547: depend only on the one physical phase in (\ref{y+y2}), which is a

548: combination of the phases in $U$ and $R'.$ {\it Henceforward, we omit the

549: superscript $'$, but one must still be careful to distinguish between the

550: different bases.}

551: 

552: \subsection{Relations to CP-Violating Observables}

553: 

554: So far we have only considered the parametrization of the input neutrino

555: parameters, which in general are complex, and the 6 resulting independent

556: CP-violating phases. We now consider how physical observables depend on

557: these various phases. 

558: 

559: \subsubsection{Leptogenesis}

560: 

561: At present, our only experimental knowledge on CP violation in the lepton

562: sector may be obtained from the baryon asymmetry of the Universe, assuming

563: that this originated from leptogenesis. In leptogenesis scenarios,

564: initial $B-L$ asymmetries $\varepsilon^i$ appeared in decays of the heavy

565: neutrinos $N^c_i$ in the early Universe, as results of interferences

566: between the tree-level and one-loop amplitudes for $N^c_i$ decays. The $L$

567: asymmetry in the decay of an individual species $N^c_i$ is given in the

568: supersymmetric case~\cite{vissani} by

569: %

570: \begin{eqnarray}

571: \varepsilon^i &=& -\frac{1}{8 \pi} \sum_{l} 

572: \frac{ \mbox{Im}\Big[

573: \left( { Y_\nu}{ Y_\nu}^\dagger  \right)^{li}

574: \left( { Y_\nu}{ Y_\nu}^\dagger \right)^{li}

575: \Big]}

576: { \sum_{j} |{ Y_\nu}^{ij}|^2 }

577: \nn \\

578: & &

579: \sqrt{x_l} \Big[  \mbox{Log} (1+1/x_l) +  \frac{2}{(x_l-1)}\Big] , 

580: \label{eps}

581: \end{eqnarray}

582: %

583: where $x_l=(M_{N_l} / M_{N_i})^2$ and both triangular and self-energy

584: type loop diagrams are taken into account. This $L$ asymmetry is

585: converted into the observed baryon asymmetry by sphalerons acting

586: before the electroweak phase transition. It is clear from (\ref{eps})

587: that the generated asymmetry depends only on the phases in ${ Y_\nu}{

588: Y_\nu}^\dagger$. Hence, according to the parametrization (\ref{Ynu}),

589: the only phases entering in the calculation of the baryon asymmetry of

590: the Universe are those in $R$. In order to demonstrate the feasibility

591: of leptogenesis, it would be necessary to prove that at least one of

592: the phases in $R$ is non-zero. Moreover, as we shall see, at least one

593: of the real part of the mixing angles in $R$ must also be non-zero,

594: and one would need to control other parameters, such as the

595: heavy-neutrino mass spectrum, before being able to calculate the

596: baryon asymmetry in terms of $R$, or vice versa.

597: 

598: \subsubsection{CP Violation in Neutrino Oscillations}

599: 

600: Measuring this is one of the main motivations for building neutrino

601: factories. We assume that the real MNS mixing angles $\theta_{ij}$ and

602: the mass-squared differences $\delta m_{ij}^2 \equiv m_{\nu_i}^2 -

603: m_{\nu_j}^2$ are all non-vanishing, in which case the the MNS phase

604: $\delta$ in (\ref{V}) is in principle observable.  It is,

605: realistically, observable in long-baseline neutrino factory

606: experiments if the LMA solution of the solar

607: neutrino problem is correct. The Majorana phases $\phi_{1,2}$ do not

608: affect neutrino oscillations at observable energies, but do affect

609: $\beta \beta_{0 \nu}$ decay. The conventional nuclear $\beta \beta_{0

610: \nu}$ experiments measure one combination of the light-neutrino masses

611: $m_{\nu_i}$ and the Majorana phases $\phi_{1,2}$. As in the CKM case,

612: one can introduce a Jarlskog invariant that characterizes the strength

613: of CP violation in neutrino oscillations:

614: %

615: \bea

616: J_{\nu}&=&

617: \mrm{Im}

618: \left[ 

619: \left( {\cal M}_\nu^\dagger {\cal M}_\nu  \right)_{12}

620: \left( {\cal M}_\nu^\dagger {\cal M}_\nu  \right)_{23}

621: \left( {\cal M}_\nu^\dagger {\cal M}_\nu  \right)_{31}

622: \right]\,

623: \nonumber\\

624: &=&

625:  \delta m^2_{12}

626: ~\delta m^2_{23}

627: ~\delta m^2_{31}

628: ~\mrm{Im}

629: \left[ 

630: V_{11}

631: V_{12}^\star

632: V_{22}

633: V_{21}^\star

634: \right] .

635: \label{Jnu}

636: \eea

637: %

638: %Substituting (\ref{Mnud}) and (\ref{U}) into (\ref{Jnu}) 

639: One sees explicitly that the Majorana phases $\phi_{1,2}$

640: cancel out in $J_{\nu}$.

641: 

642: It is clear from (\ref{seesaw1}) that, from the high-energy point of view,

643: $\delta$ depends on all the six independent phases in $Y_\nu$, including

644: those in the combinations $ Y_\nu Y_\nu^{\dagger}$ and $Y_\nu^{\dagger}

645: Y_\nu.$ On the other hand, in the low-energy parametrization of

646: (\ref{Ynu}), the phase $\delta$ is taken as an input parameter.

647: 

648: \subsubsection{Renormalization of Soft Supersymmetry-Breaking Terms:\\

649: Flavor-Changing Processes}

650: 

651: In the minimal supersymmetric seesaw model, renormalization induces

652: sensitivity to the neutrino Yukawa couplings ${ Y}_\nu$ in the soft

653: supersymmetry-breaking parameters in the slepton sector, in particular

654: to the CP-violating phases in ${ Y}_\nu$. These may have measurable

655: effects on several CP-violating lepton observables, including

656: asymmetries in LFV decays, which are

657: observable in rare $\mu$ and/or $\tau$ decays, 

658: and electric dipole moments. The $\mu$

659: electric dipole moment as well as rare $\mu$ decays may be measurable

660: using slow or stopped muons produced at the front end of a neutrino

661: factory. In this subsection, we concentrate on the flavor-changing

662: processes, such as asymmetries in LFV decays, and we will discuss

663: flavor-conserving processes, such as the electric dipole moment.

664: 

665: The soft supersymmetry-breaking terms in the leptonic sector of the

666: minimal supersymmetric seesaw model are

667: %

668: \begin{eqnarray}

669: -{\cal L}_{\rm soft}&=& 

670:   \tilde{L}_{i}^{\dagger} (m_{\tilde L}^2)_{ij}\tilde{L}_{j} 

671: + \tilde{ E}_{i}^{c\ast} (m_{\tilde E}^2)_{ij}\tilde{E}_{j}^{c}  

672: + \tilde{N}_{i}^{c\ast} (m_{{\tilde N}}^2)_{ij} \tilde{N}^{c}_{j}  

673: \nonumber\\

674: && 

675:  + \left(\tilde{N}^{c}_{i} (A_{N})_{ij} \tilde{L}_{j} H_2

676:   -\tilde{E}^{c}_{i} (A_{e})_{ij}\tilde{L}_{j} H_1

677:  +\frac12 \tilde{N}_{i}^{c\ast} (B_{N})_{ij}\tilde{N}^{c}_{j}  

678: \right. \nn \\

679: && \left.

680:  +\frac12 M_1 \tilde{B} \tilde{B}

681:  + \frac12 M_2 \tilde{W}^a \tilde{W}^a 

682:  + \frac12 M_3 \tilde{g}^a \tilde{g}^a

683:    + h.c.\right) .

684: \end{eqnarray}

685: %

686: We assume that the soft supersymmetry-breaking terms have

687: universal boundary conditions at the GUT scale $M_{GUT} \sim 2\times

688: 10^{16}$ GeV:

689: \bea

690: & 

691: (m^2_{\tilde E})_{ij}=(m^2_{\tilde L})_{ij}=(m^2_{\tilde N})_{ij}=

692: m_0^2 {\bf 1},

693: &\nn \\

694: & m^2_{H_1}=m^2_{ H_2}=m_0\,, & \nn\\

695: &(A_e)_{ij}=A_0 (Y_e)_{ij}\,,(A_\nu)_{ij}=A_0 (Y_\nu)_{ij}\,,   & \nn\\

696: & M_1=M_2=M_3=m_{1/2}\,.&

697: \label{mssmbound}

698: \eea

699: At lower energies below $M_{GUT}$ and above the heavy-neutrino mass scale 

700: $M_N$, which we assume

701: to be $\ll M_{GUT}$, off-diagonal entries in ${ Y}_\nu$ generate via the

702: renormalization-group running

703: off-diagonal entries in the effective soft supersymmetry-breaking terms.

704: In the leading-logarithmic approximation the flavor-dependent parts of the 

705: soft supersymmetry-breaking terms are given by

706: %

707: \bea

708: \label{llrge} 

709: \left(\delta m_{\tilde L}^2\right)_{ij} & \approx & 

710: -\frac{1}{8\pi^2}(3m_0^2 + A_0^2)

711: ({ Y_\nu^\dagger}{ Y_\nu}  +{ Y_e^\dagger}{ Y_e})_{ij}

712: \log\frac{M_{GUT}}{M_N}\ , 

713: \nn \\

714: \left(\delta m_{\tilde E}^2\right)_{ij} & \approx & 

715: -\frac{1}{4\pi^2}(3m_0^2 + A_0^2)

716: ({ Y_e}{ Y_e^\dagger})_{ji}

717: \log\frac{M_{GUT}}{M_N}\ , 

718: \nn \\

719: (\delta {A_e})_{ij}& \approx &  

720: - \frac{1}{8\pi^2} A_0 Y_{e_i} (

721: 3 { Y_e^\dagger}{Y_e}

722: + { Y_\nu^\dagger}{Y_\nu})_{ij}

723: \log\frac{M_{GUT}}{M_N} .

724: \eea

725: %

726: Here, the Yukawa coupling constants are given at $M_N$, and then

727: ${Y_e}$ is diagonal. This means that $m^2_{\tilde E}$ remains diagonal

728: in this approximation. Below $M_N$, the heavy neutrinos decouple, and

729: the renormalization-group running is given entirely in terms of the

730: MSSM particles and couplings, and is independent of $Y_\nu$. We use in

731: our numerical examples full numerical solutions to the one-loop

732: renormalization-group equations, but the approximate analytical

733: solutions (\ref{llrge}) are useful for a qualitative analysis.

734: 

735: It is important to notice that, in the leading-logarithmic

736: approximation (\ref{llrge}), the only combination of neutrino Yukawa

737: couplings entering the renormalization-group equations is

738: $Y_\nu^{\dagger} Y_\nu$. This implies that CP-violating phases are

739: induced only in the off-diagonal elements of $(m_{\tilde L}^2)_{ij}$

740: and $({A_e})_{ij}$, and further indicates that the lepton-flavour

741: conserving but CP-violating observables like the electric dipole

742: moments of charged leptons are naturally suppressed~\cite{khalil},

743: while CP violation in the charged LFV processes should occur in full

744: strength. This is analogous to CP violation in the quark sector of the

745: Standard Model, which is also directly related to flavour-changing

746: processes. As we saw earlier (\ref{y+y1}), the combination

747: $Y_\nu^{\dagger} Y_\nu$ depends on just one CP-violating phase, namely

748: that in the matrix $X$. Therefore, in the leading-logarithmic

749: approximation, {\it all} slepton-induced observables are independent

750: of the phases associated with leptogenesis, which are combinations of

751: those in the matrices $\overline{Z}$ and $P_1$ (\ref{y+y1}), in the

752: high energy parametrization. On the other hand, in the low-energy 

753: parametrization, 

754: $Y_\nu^{\dagger} Y_\nu$ depends on one combination of the phases in 

755: $U$ and $R$, as explained in subsection 2.2.

756: 

757: Since $Y_\nu^{\dagger}Y_\nu$ depends on only one physical phase, there is

758: only one invariant

759: for $m_{\tilde L}^2$  describing the strength of CP violation in any

760: process induced by sleptons. By analogy with the Standard Model quark

761: sector, this can be taken to be~\cite{acfh}

762: %

763: \bea 

764: J_{\tilde L}=\mrm{Im} \left[ \left(m_{\tilde

765: L}^2\right)_{12} \left(m_{\tilde L}^2\right)_{23} \left(m_{\tilde

766: L}^2\right)_{31} \right].  

767: \label{Jl}

768: \eea 

769: %

770: Additional invariants including the $A$

771: terms can be constructed:

772: %

773: \bea

774: J_{A_{12}}=\mrm{Im} \left[ \left(A_e\right)_{12} \left(m_{\tilde

775: L}^2\right)_{23} \left(m_{\tilde

776: L}^2\right)_{31} \right]

777: \label{Ajl}

778: \eea

779: %

780: and cyclic permutations, and similar invariants with two or three

781: $\left(A_e\right)_{ij}$ factors. However,

782: in this model they are all

783: related to the basic invariant (\ref{Jl}), and proportional to

784: %

785: \begin{eqnarray}

786: \mrm{Im}\left[

787: (Y_\nu^{\dagger}Y_\nu)^{12}

788: (Y_\nu^{\dagger}Y_\nu)^{23}

789: (Y_\nu^{\dagger}Y_\nu)^{31}

790: \right]

791: &=&

792:  \delta Y^2_{\nu 12} 

793: ~\delta Y^2_{\nu 23} 

794: ~\delta Y^2_{\nu 31} 

795: ~\mrm{Im}

796: \left[ 

797: X_{11}

798: X_{12}^\star

799: X_{22}

800: X_{21}^\star

801: \right] 

802: \end{eqnarray}

803: in the leading-logarithmic approximation (\ref{llrge}).

804: Here, $\delta Y^2_{\nu ij} \equiv (Y_{\nu_i}^D)^2-(Y_{\nu_j}^D)^2$.

805: 

806: 

807: The above analysis is modified when one includes in the

808: renormalization-group running effects associated with the non-degeneracy

809: of the heavy neutrinos: $M_{N_i} \ne M_{N_j}$. In this case, $(\delta

810: m^2_{\tilde L})_{ij}$ in (\ref{llrge}) is replaced as follows:

811: $(\delta m^2_{\tilde L})_{ij} \to (\delta

812: m^2_{\tilde L})_{ij} +

813: \left({\tilde \delta} m_{\tilde L}^2\right)_{ij}$, and

814: $\left({\tilde \delta} m_{\tilde L}^2\right)_{ij}$ is given by 

815: %

816: \bea

817: \label{nondegrge}

818: %(\delta m^2_{\tilde L})_{ij} \to (\delta

819: %m^2_{\tilde L})_{ij} +

820: %\left({\tilde \delta} m_{\tilde L}^2\right)_{ij}: 

821: \left({\tilde \delta}

822: m_{\tilde L}^2\right)_{ij} \approx

823: -\frac{1}{8\pi^2}(3m_0^2 + A_0^2)

824: ({ Y_\nu^\dagger} L { Y_\nu})_{ij}.: 

825: L \equiv \log\frac{M_{N}}{M_{N_i}} \delta_{ij}\ ,

826: \eea

827: %

828: where $M_{N}$ is now interpreted as the geometric mean of the heavy

829: singlet-neutrino mass eigenvalues $M_{N_i}$. The first term in

830: (\ref{nondegrge}) contains the matrix factor

831: %

832: \begin{equation}

833: Y^\dagger L Y = X Y^D P_2 {\overline Z}^T L {\overline Z}^*

834: P_2^* Y^D X^\dagger,

835: \end{equation}

836: %

837: which induces some dependence on phases in ${\overline Z} P_2$. In the

838: three-generation case, there are two independent entries in the traceless

839: diagonal matrix $L$, so the renormalization induces in principle

840: dependences on two new combinations of these phases, as well as the single

841: phase in ${Y_\nu^\dagger}{Y_\nu}$. Thus low-energy observables 

842: become sensitive to all three leptogenesis phases. However, the 

843: dependences on the two

844: extra phases are suppressed to the extent that $\log\frac{M_{N}}{M_{N_i}} \ll

845: \log\frac{M_{GUT}}{M_N}$. 

846: 

847: \subsubsection{Renormalization of Soft Supersymmetry-Breaking Terms:\\

848: Flavor-Conserving Processes}

849: 

850: As mentioned above, since the CP-violating phases are in the

851: off-diagonal components of the soft supersymmetry-breaking terms, the

852: electric dipole moment of lepton is naturally suppressed. The following is

853: the lowest-order combination of the Yukawa couplings $Y_{\nu}$ and

854: $Y_{e}$ whose diagonal components have imaginary parts:

855: %

856: \begin{eqnarray}

857: %

858: J^{(i)}_{\rm edm} &=& \mrm{Im} \left[\left[Y_e Y_\nu^\dagger Y_\nu 

859: \left[Y_e^\dagger Y_e,~ Y_\nu^\dagger Y_\nu \right] 

860: Y_\nu^\dagger Y_\nu \right]^{ii}\right] \,

861: \nonumber\\

862: &=&

863: 2 Y_{e_i}

864: ~\delta Y_{e jk}^2

865: ~\delta Y_{\nu 12}^2

866: ~\delta Y_{\nu 23}^2

867: ~\delta Y_{\nu 31}^2

868: %\nonumber\\

869: %&&\times

870: ~\mrm{Im}

871: \left[ 

872: X_{11}

873: X_{12}^\star

874: X_{22}

875: X_{21}^\star

876: \right] \sum_k \epsilon_{ijk} 

877: \label{jedm}

878: %

879: \end{eqnarray}

880: %

881: and the dominant contributions to the electric dipole moment are

882: proportional to it\footnote{

883: %

884: Similar studies for the electric dipole moment of neutron in the

885: MSSM are done in \cite{nedm}, assuming that  all CP violating phases  

886: come from the CKM matrix. 

887: }.

888:  Since $Y_\nu^\dagger Y_\nu$ in $J^{(i)}_{\rm edm}$

889: comes from the radiative correction to the soft supersymmetry-breaking

890: terms, the leading contribution to the electric dipole moment is

891: proportional to $\log^3\frac{M_{GUT}}{M_N}$ when

892: $\log\frac{M_{GUT}}{M_N}\ll 4\pi$. The dependence on $Y_e^\dagger

893: Y_e$ in $J^{(i)}_{\rm edm}$ comes from the radiative correction in the

894: soft supersymmetry-breaking terms or the tree-level mass matrix of the

895: charged sleptons. In this subsection, we present the Jarlskog

896: invariant for the soft supersymmetry-breaking terms contributing to 

897: the

898: electric dipole moment in ${\cal O}(\log^3 \frac{M_{GUT}}{M_N})$.

899: Also, we discuss cases where this approximation is invalid, namely 

900: when {\it

901: i)} $\tan\beta \gg 1$, or {\it ii)} 

902: non-degeneracy

903: between the heavy singlet neutrinos induces dependences of $m_{\tilde

904: L}^2$ and $A_e$ on phases in the product ${\overline Z} P_2$.

905: 

906: In order to evaluate the contribution to the electric dipole moment 

907: in ${\cal O}(\log^3\frac{M_{GUT}}{M_N})$, we need the corrections to the 

908: soft supersymmetry-breaking terms at ${\cal O}(\log^2 

909: \frac{M_{GUT}}{M_N})$, which are

910: \bea

911: \label{llrge2} 

912: \left(\delta^{(2)} m_{\tilde L}^2\right)_{ij} & \approx & 

913: \frac{4}{(4\pi)^2} A_0^2

914: (3{ Y_\nu^\dagger}{ Y_\nu} { Y_\nu^\dagger}{ Y_\nu} 

915:  +

916: 3  { Y_e^\dagger}{ Y_e}{ Y_e^\dagger}{ Y_e}

917: +\{{ Y_e^\dagger}{ Y_e},~{ Y_\nu^\dagger}{ Y_\nu}\})_{ij}

918: \log^2\frac{M_{GUT}}{M_N}\ , 

919: \nn \\

920: \left(\delta^{(2)} m_{\tilde E}^2\right)_{ij} & \approx & 

921: \frac{8}{(4\pi)^2} A_0^2

922: (3 { Y_e}{ Y_e^\dagger}{ Y_e} { Y_e^\dagger}

923: +{ Y_e}{ Y_\nu^\dagger}{ Y_\nu}{ Y_e^\dagger} )_{ji}

924: \log^2\frac{M_{GUT}}{M_N}\ , 

925: \nn \\

926: (\delta^{(2)} {A_e})_{ij}& \approx &  0 .

927: \eea

928: %

929: Here, we neglect irrelevant terms with a trace over flavor indices, or 

930: which are flavor-independent. The Yukawa couplings are evaluated at $M_N$.

931: From these equations and (\ref{llrge}), non-vanishing contributions to

932: $J^{(i)}_{\rm edm}$ arise from the following combinations of

933: ${\cal O}(\log^3 \frac{M_{GUT}}{M_N})$:

934: %

935: \begin{eqnarray}

936: %

937: \mrm{Im} \left[\delta A_e \delta A_e^\dagger \delta A_e \right]_{ii}

938: &=&

939: \frac{4}{(4 \pi)^6} 

940: A_0^3 J_{\rm edm}^{(i)}

941: \log^3\frac{M_{GUT}}{M_N}.

942: \label{jedm1}

943: %

944: \label{jedm2p}

945: \\

946: %

947: \mrm{Im}\left[\delta {A_e} {Y_e^\dagger}{Y_e} 

948: \delta^{(2)} m_{\tilde L}^2\right]_{ii}

949: &=&

950: -\frac{12}{(4 \pi)^6} 

951: A_0^3 J_{\rm edm}^{(i)}

952: \log^3\frac{M_{GUT}}{M_N},

953: %

954: \label{jedm2}

955: %

956: \end{eqnarray}

957: %

958: In (\ref{jedm2}), the combination ${Y_e^\dagger}{ Y_e}$ arises from the 

959: tree-level mass matrix of the charged sleptons. It is found from

960: (\ref{jedm2p},\ref{jedm2}) that the electric dipole moments depend

961: strongly on $A_0$ and less on $m_0$.

962: 

963: When $\tan\beta \gg 1$, (\ref{jedm2}) is proportional to

964: $\tan^2\beta$ and (\ref{jedm1}) is not enhanced. On the other hand,

965: terms such as

966: %

967: \begin{eqnarray}

968: \mrm{Im}\left[\delta^{(2)}m_{\tilde E}^2 Y_{e} \delta^{(2)}

969: m_{\tilde L}^2\right],

970: \end{eqnarray}

971: %

972: are proportional to $\tan^3\beta$ and

973: $\log^4 \frac{M_{GUT}}{M_N}$. Thus, they may make sizeable

974: contributions to the electric dipole moments for $\tan\beta \gg 1$,

975: even if $\log \frac{M_{GUT}}{M_N}\lsim 4\pi$.

976: 

977: If the heavy neutrinos are not degenerate in mass, they induce

978: dependences of the soft supersymmetry-breaking terms on phases in

979: ${\overline Z} P_2$, as mentioned in the previous Section, which then

980: contribute to the electric dipole moments. The Jarlskog invariant

981: $J^{(i)}_{\rm edm}$ depends on $Y_e^\dagger Y_e$, and this factor

982: suppresses the electric dipole moment when $\tan\beta$ is small. In

983: this case, the non-degeneracy of the heavy neutrinos may

984: have a more important effect on the electric dipole moment. The

985: corrections of ${\cal O}(\log \frac{M_{GUT}}{M_N}\log

986:  \frac{M_N}{M_{N_i}})$ are 

987: %

988: \bea

989: \left(\tilde{\delta}^{(2)} m_{\tilde L}^2\right)_{ij} & \approx & 

990: \frac{18}{(4\pi)^4} (m_0^2 +A_0^2)

991: \{

992: { Y_\nu^\dagger}L { Y_\nu}, 

993: {Y_\nu^\dagger}{ Y_\nu} 

994: \}

995: \log\frac{M_{GUT}}{M_N}\ , 

996: \nn \\

997: \left(\tilde{\delta}^{(2)} m_{\tilde E}^2\right)_{ij} & \approx & 

998: 0,

999: \nn \\

1000: \left(\tilde{\delta}^{(2)} {A_e}\right)_{ij}& \approx &  

1001: \frac{1}{(4\pi)^4} A_0 Y_e

1002: (

1003: 11 \{

1004: { Y_\nu^\dagger}L { Y_\nu}, 

1005: {Y_\nu^\dagger}{ Y_\nu} 

1006: \}

1007: +

1008: 7 [

1009: { Y_\nu^\dagger} L { Y_\nu}, 

1010: {Y_\nu^\dagger}{ Y_\nu} 

1011: ]

1012: )_{ij}

1013: \log\frac{M_{GUT}}{M_N}\ . 

1014: \eea

1015: %

1016: Here, we neglect terms with ${Y_e^\dagger}{ Y_e}$ factors. The 

1017: interesting

1018: point is that the second term in $\tilde{\delta}^{(2)} {A_e}$ can have

1019: imaginary parts in the diagonal components, and thus can contribute to

1020: the electric dipole moment~\footnote{

1021: %

1022: Whilst the combination $(\tilde{\delta}A_e \delta m_{\tilde

1023: L}^2)_{ii}$ has an imaginary part, it does not contribute to the electric

1024: dipole moments, since $\mrm{Im}[(\delta A_e + \tilde{\delta}A_e)

1025: (\delta m_{\tilde L}^2+\tilde{\delta} m_{\tilde L}^2)]_{ii}=0$. 

1026: %

1027: }.

1028: %

1029: Since phases in $\tilde{\delta}^{(2)} {A_e}$ arise from

1030: ${\overline Z} P_2$, we do not need three generations of leptons in order 

1031: for $\tilde{\delta}^{(2)} {A_e}$ to have imaginary parts in the diagonal

1032: terms. The behaviour of this contribution will be discussed in 

1033: the next subsection.

1034: 

1035: 

1036: 

1037: \subsection{Two-Generation Model}

1038: 

1039: We now demonstrate the interdependences of the above physical observables

1040: in a toy two-generation model. In this model, $X$ has no physical phase

1041: while there may be one phase in $Z$. We parametrize the 

1042: light- and heavy-neutrino masses and $R$ as follows:

1043: %

1044: \begin{eqnarray}

1045: &{\cal M}_\nu^D=

1046: \left(

1047: \begin{array}{cc}

1048: m_{\nu_1} & 0 \\

1049: 0  & m_{\nu_2}

1050: \end{array}

1051: \right), 

1052: \,\,\,

1053: \,\,\,

1054: \,\,\,

1055: {\cal M}^D=

1056: \left(

1057: \begin{array}{cc}

1058: M_{1} & 0 \\

1059: 0  & M_{2}

1060: \end{array}

1061: \right) ,& 

1062: \nn \\

1063: &

1064: R=

1065: \left(

1066: \begin{array}{cc}

1067: \cos(\theta_r+i \theta_i)  & \sin(\theta_r+i \theta_i)   \\

1068: -\sin(\theta_r+i \theta_i)  & \cos(\theta_r+i \theta_i)   

1069: \end{array}

1070: \right).

1071: &

1072: \end{eqnarray}

1073: %

1074: In this model, the leptogenesis invariant is $\mbox{Im}\Big[ \left( {

1075: Y_\nu}{ Y_\nu}^\dagger \right)^{21} \left( { Y_\nu}{ Y_\nu}^\dagger

1076: \right)^{21} \Big] = 2 \times \mbox{Im}\Big[ \left( { Y_\nu}{

1077: Y_\nu}^\dagger \right)^{12} \Big] \times \mbox{Re}\Big[ \left( { Y_\nu}{

1078: Y_\nu}^\dagger \right)^{12} \Big]$, where

1079: %

1080: \begin{eqnarray}

1081: \mbox{Im}\Big[ \left( { Y_\nu}{ Y_\nu}^\dagger  \right)^{12} \Big]

1082: &=&

1083: \frac{(m_{\nu_1}+m_{\nu_2}) \sqrt{M_1M_2}}{2 v^2\sin^2\beta}

1084: {\rm sinh}2 \theta_i, \nn \\

1085: \mbox{Re}\Big[ \left( { Y_\nu}{ Y_\nu}^\dagger  \right)^{12} \Big]

1086: &=&

1087: -\frac{(m_{\nu_1}-m_{\nu_2}) \sqrt{M_1M_2}}{2 v^2\sin^2\beta}

1088: {\rm sin}2 \theta_r,

1089: \label{ReIm}

1090: \end{eqnarray}

1091: %

1092: so that

1093: %

1094: \begin{equation}

1095: \mbox{Im}\Big[ \left( {

1096: Y_\nu}{ Y_\nu}^\dagger \right)^{21} \left( { Y_\nu}{ Y_\nu}^\dagger

1097: \right)^{21} \Big] = -\frac{(m^2_{\nu_1}-m^2_{\nu_2})M_1M_2}{2

1098: v^4\sin^4\beta} {\rm sinh}2 \theta_i {\rm sin}2 \theta_r

1099: \label{lepto2}

1100: \end{equation}

1101: %

1102: As explained above, the phase $\theta_i$ in $R$ controls

1103: leptogenesis, and the mixing angle $\theta_r$ must also be non-vanishing. 

1104: 

1105: As concerns neutrino observables, we recall that there is no analogue of

1106: the MNS phase $\delta$ in this two-generation model. There is one

1107: CP-violating Majorana phase $\phi$ for the light neutrinos, but this does

1108: not contribute to leptogenesis, as we argued previously on general grounds

1109: and now see explicitly in (\ref{lepto2}).

1110: 

1111: We now consider the quantity $Y_\nu^\dagger Y_\nu$ which controls the

1112: renormalization of the soft super- symmetry-breaking terms in the

1113: leading-logarithmic approximation, in particular $({Y_\nu}^\dagger {

1114: Y_\nu})^{12}$ which has a non-zero imaginary part.  For illustrational

1115: purposes, we assume that the light-neutrino mass matrix has maximal

1116: mixing: 

1117: %

1118: \begin{eqnarray}

1119: U &=&

1120: \left(

1121: \begin{array}{cc}

1122: 1/\sqrt{2} & 1/\sqrt{2}\\

1123: -1/\sqrt{2} & 1/\sqrt{2}

1124: \end{array}

1125: \right) \left(

1126: \begin{array}{cc}

1127: {\rm e}^{-i \phi}  & 0\\

1128: 0 & 1

1129: \end{array}

1130: \label{U2}

1131: \right)

1132: %

1133: \end{eqnarray}

1134: %

1135: where $\phi$ is a light-neutrino Majorana phase. In this case,

1136: %

1137: \begin{eqnarray}

1138: \mbox{Re}\Big[\left( { Y_\nu}^\dagger { Y_\nu} \right)^{12} \Big]

1139: &=&

1140: -\frac{m_{\nu_2} + m_{\nu_1}}{4 v^2\sin\beta^2}

1141: (M_1 - M_2) \cos 2 \theta_r 

1142: \nonumber\\

1143: &&

1144: -

1145: \frac{m_{\nu_2} - m_{\nu_1}}{4 v^2\sin\beta^2}

1146: (M_1 + M_2) {\rm cosh} 2 \theta_i , 

1147: \label{Rey+y} \\

1148: \mbox{Im}\Big[\left( { Y_\nu}^\dagger { Y_\nu} \right)^{12} \Big]

1149: &=&

1150: \frac{\sqrt{m_{\nu_1}m_{\nu_2}}}{2 v^2\sin\beta^2}

1151: (M_1+M_2) \cos\phi {\rm sinh} 2 \theta_i

1152: \nonumber\\

1153: &&

1154: - 

1155: \frac{\sqrt{m_{\nu_1}m_{\nu_2}}}{2 v^2\sin\beta^2}

1156: (M_1-M_2) \sin\phi \sin 2 \theta_r .

1157: \label{renorm2}

1158: \end{eqnarray}

1159: %

1160: We see that the imaginary part of the off-diagonal component depends both

1161: on the Majorana phase $\phi$ in $U$ (\ref{U2}) and the phase $\theta_i$ in

1162: $R$. Even if it could be measured, and the neutrino mass eigenvalues

1163: $M_{1,2}, m_{\nu_{1,2}}$ were known, still only one combination of the

1164: angle factors $\theta_{r,i}$ entering in leptogenesis (\ref{lepto2}) would

1165: be known, and there would still be an ambiguity associated with the

1166: Majorana phase $\phi$. In fact, no CP violation is induced by the

1167: renormalization (\ref{renorm2}) in this simple two-generation model, since

1168: it is not possible to define the Jarlskog invariant $J_{\tilde L}$

1169: (\ref{Jl}) and its analogues (\ref{Ajl}). Such invariants can be defined

1170: in a three-generation model, and CP-violating observables are demonstrably

1171: proportional to it, as we show in the next Section. 

1172: 

1173: As commented in subsections 2.3.3 and 2.3.4, non-degeneracy

1174: between the heavy singlet neutrinos $N_i$ induces, via

1175: renormalization, dependences of the entries of $m_{\tilde L}^2$ and

1176: $A_e$ on phases in the product ${\overline Z} P_2$. In the

1177: two-generation case, this dependence is on the one phase in $P_2$,

1178: since ${\overline Z}$ has no phases in this case. This makes changes in

1179: Arg$(m_{\tilde L}^2)_{12}$ and Arg$(A_e)_{12}$, but these are

1180: suppressed to the extent that $\log\frac{M_{N}}{M_{N_i}} \ll

1181: \log\frac{M_{GUT}}{M_N}$. Moreover, these small changes are identical

1182: in the leading-logarithmic approximation.  On the other hand, the

1183: corrections of the order of $\log\frac{M_{N}}{M_{N_i}}

1184: \log\frac{M_{GUT}}{M_N}$ to the phases of the diagonal terms in $A_e$

1185: may be sizeable. These are given in the two-generation model by

1186: %

1187: \begin{eqnarray}

1188: \mrm{Im}\left[[

1189: { Y_\nu^\dagger} L { Y_\nu}, 

1190: {Y_\nu^\dagger}{ Y_\nu} 

1191: ]^{11} \right]

1192: &=&

1193: \frac{\sqrt{m_{\nu_1} m_{\nu_2}}(m_{\nu_1}-m_{\nu_2}) M_1M_2}{2 v^4 \sin^4\beta} 

1194: \log\frac{M_2}{M_1}

1195: \cosh 2\theta_i \sin 2 \theta_r \sin\phi,

1196: \nonumber\\

1197: &+&

1198: \frac{\sqrt{m_{\nu_1} m_{\nu_2}}(m_{\nu_1}+m_{\nu_2}) M_1M_2}{2 v^4 \sin^4\beta} 

1199: \log\frac{M_2}{M_1}

1200: \sinh 2\theta_i \cos 2 \theta_r \cos\phi

1201: \nonumber\\

1202: \mrm{Im}\left[[

1203: { Y_\nu^\dagger} L { Y_\nu}, 

1204: {Y_\nu^\dagger}{ Y_\nu} 

1205: ]^{22} \right]

1206: &=&

1207: -\mrm{Im}\left[ [

1208: { Y_\nu^\dagger} L { Y_\nu}, 

1209: {Y_\nu^\dagger}{ Y_\nu} 

1210: ]^{11}\right].

1211: \label{39} 

1212: \end{eqnarray}

1213: %

1214: We see that this effect vanishes if $M_2=M_1.$ 

1215: Defining $M_2=M_1 (1+\delta),$ \Eq{39} 

1216: grows with the dimensionless parameter $\delta$ (linearly, if $\delta$

1217: is small) and is maximized when $\log[M_2 / M_1] = 1.$ 

1218: 

1219: 

1220: 

1221: \section{CP-Violating Observables in the Charged-lepton \\ Sector}

1222: 

1223: In this Section we discuss in more detail CP-violating and LFV observables

1224: in the charged-lepton sector. The slepton-mixing effects discussed in the

1225: previous Section generate LFV and CP-violating vertices involving

1226: charginos, which in turn induce effective non-renormalizable interactions,

1227: as we discuss in the following. 

1228: 

1229: \subsection{Chargino and Neutralino Interactions}

1230: 

1231: The relevant neutralino and chargino interactions

1232: for leptons and sleptons are given by~\cite{h1,Okada}

1233: \begin{eqnarray}

1234: {\cal L}  & = & \overline{e_{i}}(N^{L}_{iAX}P_{L}+N^{R}_{iAX}P_{R})

1235:                        \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{A}\tilde{e}_{X} 

1236:            + \overline{e_{i}}(C^{L}_{iAX}P_{L}+C^{R}_{iAX}P_{R})

1237:                        \tilde{\chi}^{-}_{A}\tilde{\nu}_{X} 

1238:               +h.c.,

1239: \end{eqnarray}

1240: where $P_{R}=(1+\gamma_{5})/2,$ $P_{L}=(1-\gamma_{5})/2$

1241: and

1242: \begin{eqnarray}

1243: N^{L}_{iAX} & = & -g\{ \sqrt{2}\tan\theta_{W}

1244:                        (O_{N})^{}_{A1}(U_{e})_{X i+3}^{*}

1245:                       +\frac{(m_{e})_{ij}}{\sqrt{2}m_{W}\cos\beta}

1246:                        (O_{N})^{}_{A3}(U_{e})_{Xj}^{*} \},

1247:  \\

1248: N^{R}_{iAX} & = & -g[-\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}

1249:                        \{(O_{N})_{A2}^{*}

1250:                    +\tan\theta_{W}(O_{N})_{A1}^{*} \}

1251:                        (U_{e})_{Xi}^{*} \nonumber \\

1252:             &   &  +\frac{(m_{e}^{\dag})_{ij}}{\sqrt{2}m_{W}\cos\beta}

1253:                        (O_{N})_{A3}^{*}(U_{e})_{Xj+3}^{*} ], \\

1254: C^{L}_{iAX} & = & g\frac{(m_{e})_{ij}}{\sqrt{2}m_{W}\cos\beta}

1255:                   (O_{CL})_{A2}^{*}(U_{\nu})_{Xj}^{*},

1256:  \\

1257: C^{R}_{iAX} & = & -g(O_{CR})_{A1}^{*}(U_{\nu})_{Xi}^{*}.

1258: \end{eqnarray}

1259: In these expressions the matrices $O_N,$ $O_{CL},$ $O_{CR},$

1260: $U_e$ and $U_\nu$ diagonalize the neutralino, left- and right-chargino,

1261: charged-slepton and sneutrino mass matrices, respectively.

1262: The indices run between $A=1,...,4$ for neutralinos, $A=1,2$ for charginos,

1263: $X=1,...,6$ for sleptons and $X=1,2,3$ for sneutrinos.

1264: In our framework the complex phases appear only in $U_e$ and $U_\nu.$

1265: 

1266: \subsection{LFV Muon Decays}

1267: 

1268: The effective Lagrangian for polarized

1269: $\mu^{+} \rightarrow e^{+}\gamma$ 

1270: and $\mu^{+} \rightarrow e^{+}e^{+}e^{-}$ decays is \cite{Okada}

1271: \begin{eqnarray}

1272: {\cal L} &=& -\frac{4G_F}{\sqrt{2}}\{  

1273:         {m_{\mu }}{A_R}\overline{\mu_{R}}

1274:         {{\sigma }^{\mu \nu}{e_L}{F_{\mu \nu}}}

1275:        + {m_{\mu }}{A_L}\overline{\mu_{L}}

1276:         {{\sigma }^{\mu \nu}{e_R}{F_{\mu \nu}}} \nonumber \\

1277:     &&   +{g_1}(\overline{{{\mu }_R}}{e_L})

1278:               (\overline{{e_R}}{e_L})

1279:        + {g_2}(\overline{{{\mu }_L}}{e_R})

1280:               (\overline{{e_L}}{e_R}) \nonumber \\

1281:     &&   +{g_3}(\overline{{{\mu }_R}}{{\gamma }^{\mu }}{e_R})

1282:               (\overline{{e_R}}{{\gamma }_{\mu }}{e_R})

1283:        + {g_4}(\overline{{{\mu }_L}}{{\gamma }^{\mu }}{e_L})

1284:               (\overline{{e_L}}{{\gamma }_{\mu }}{e_L})  \nonumber \\

1285:     &&   +{g_5}(\overline{{{\mu }_R}}{{\gamma }^{\mu }}{e_R})

1286:               (\overline{{e_L}}{{\gamma }_{\mu }}{e_L})

1287:        + {g_6}(\overline{{{\mu }_L}}{{\gamma }^{\mu }}{e_L})

1288:               (\overline{{e_R}}{{\gamma }_{\mu }}{e_R})

1289:        +  h.c. \}.

1290: \label{eq:effective}

1291: \end{eqnarray}

1292: %

1293: Here $A_{L}$ and $A_{R}$ are the dimensionless 

1294: photon-penguin couplings which 

1295: induce $\mu^{+} \rightarrow e_{L}^{+}\gamma$ and 

1296: $\mu^{+} \rightarrow e_{R}^{+}\gamma,$ respectively, which also contribute

1297: to the $\mu^{+} \rightarrow e^{+}e^{+}e^{-}$ process, and the

1298: $g_{i}: i=1,...,6$ are dimensionless four-fermion coupling constants 

1299: which contribute only to $\mu^{+} \rightarrow e^{+}e^{+}e^{-}$.

1300: Explicit expressions for $A_{L,R}$ and the $g_{i}$ in terms of 

1301: $N_{iAX}^{L,R},$ $C_{iAX}^{L,R}$ are lengthy~\cite{Okada}, so we do not

1302: rewrite them here.

1303: 

1304: In the notation (\ref{eq:effective}) the total $\mu^{+} \rightarrow

1305: e^{+}\gamma$ branching ratio is given by 

1306: \bea

1307: {Br}(\mu^{+} \rightarrow e^{+}\gamma)=384 \pi^2 

1308: \left(|A_L|^2+|A_R|^2 \right)\,,

1309: \eea

1310: and that of $\mu^{+} \rightarrow e^{+}e^{+}e^{-}$ by 

1311: \bea

1312: {{Br}}(\mu^+ \rightarrow e^+e^-e^+) &=& 2(C_1+C_2) +C_3+C_4+

1313: 32 \left\{\log\frac{m_\mu^2}{m_e^2}-\frac{11}{4}\right\} (C_5+C_6)

1314: \nonumber \\

1315: &&+16(C_7+C_8) + 8 (C_9+C_{10})\,.

1316: \label{alltheCs}

1317: \eea

1318: The coefficients $C_{i}$ appearing in (\ref{alltheCs}) are functions of

1319: $A_{L,R}$ and $g_{i}$:

1320: %

1321: \bea

1322: && C_{1} = \frac{|g_{1}|^{2}}{16} + |g_{3}|^{2},~  

1323: C_{2} = \frac{|g_{2}|^{2}}{16} + |g_{4}|^{2},~ \nonumber \\

1324: && C_{3} = |g_{5}|^{2},~ C_{4} = |g_{6}|^{2},C_{5} = |eA_{R}|^{2},~   

1325: C_{6}   =   |eA_{L}|^{2},~

1326:  C_{7}   =   {\rm Re}(eA_{R}g_{4}^{*}), \nn \\

1327: &&C_{8}   =   {\rm Re}(eA_{L}g_{3}^{*}),~

1328: C_{9}   =   {\rm Re}(eA_{R}g_{6}^{*}),~  

1329: C_{10}   =   {\rm Re}(eA_{L}g_{5}^{*})\,.

1330: \eea

1331: %

1332: In order for CP violation to appear in any process, interference between

1333: different terms in the amplitude for the process must occur. Therefore,

1334: all possible observables in $\mu\to e\gamma$ decays, such as differences

1335: between the $\mu^{+} \rightarrow e^{+}\gamma$ and $\mu^{-} \rightarrow

1336: e^{-}\gamma$ rates, vanish in the leading order of perturbation theory. 

1337: Moreover, the process $\mu^{-} \rightarrow e^{-}\gamma$ is not measurable

1338: with high accuracy because of the large backgrounds. However, when muons

1339: are polarized, a T-odd asymmetry for final-state particles in $\mu^{+}

1340: \rightarrow e^{+}e^{+}e^{-}$ can be defined. Since CPT is conserved, the

1341: T-odd asymmetry measures the amount of CP violation in our model. 

1342: 

1343: The muon polarization vector $\vec{P}$ can be defined in the coordinate

1344: system in which the $z$ axis is taken to be the direction of the electron

1345: momentum, the $x$ axis the direction of the most energetic positron

1346: momentum, and the $(z\times x)$ plane defines the decay plane

1347: perpendicular to the $y$ axis. It is necessary to introduce an energy

1348: cutoff for the more energetic positron: $E_1< (m_\mu/2)(1-\delta).$ We use

1349: $\delta=0.02$ to optimize the T-odd asymmetry, following~\cite{Okada}. 

1350: Assuming $100\%$-polarized muons the T-odd asymmetry is then defined by

1351: %

1352: \bea

1353: A_{T} &=& \frac{N(P_{\it y} >0)-N(P_{\it y} <0)}

1354: {N(P_{\it y} >0)+N(P_{\it y} <0)} =

1355: \frac{3}{2 {Br}(\delta=0.02)}

1356: \left\{2.0 C_{11}-1.6 C_{12} \right\},

1357: \label{AT}

1358: \eea

1359: %

1360: where $N(P_i >(<)0)$ 

1361: denotes the number of events with a positive (negative) $P_i$ 

1362: component for the muon polarization,

1363: %

1364: \bea

1365: C_{11}   =   {\rm Im} (eA_{R}g_{4}^{*}+eA_{L}g_{3}^{*}),~~~~

1366: C_{12}   =   {\rm Im} (eA_{R}g_{6}^{*}+eA_{L}g_{5}^{*})\,,

1367: \eea

1368: and the branching ratio for $\delta=0.02$ is

1369: %

1370: \bea

1371: {Br}(\delta=0.02) &=& 1.8 (C_1+C_2)+0.96 (C_3+C_4)

1372: +88 (C_5+C_6)  \nonumber \\

1373: && +14 (C_7+C_8) +8 (C_9+C_{10}).

1374: %

1375: \label{brd}

1376: \eea

1377: %

1378: It is known~\cite{Okada} that the asymmetry (\ref{AT}) may be large in

1379: SU(5) SUSY GUTs~\cite{bhs}.  We study below whether this is also the case

1380: in the minimal supersymmetric seesaw model. 

1381: 

1382: \subsection{Electric Dipole Moments}

1383: 

1384: The electric dipole moment of a generic lepton $\ell$ is defined as 

1385: the coefficient $d_\ell$ of the interaction

1386: %

1387: \bea

1388: {\cal L} = 

1389: -\frac{i}{2} d_\ell\,\bar \ell\, \sigma_{\mu\nu}\gamma_5\, \ell\,

1390: F^{\mu\nu}.

1391: \label{edm_eff}

1392: \eea

1393: %

1394: The current experimental bounds are $d_e<4.3\times 10^{-27}$ e cm for the

1395: electron \cite{eedm}, $d_\mu = (3.7 \pm 3.4) \times 10^{-19}$ e cm for the muon \cite{muedm}, and

1396: $|d_\tau| < 3.1

1397: \times 10^{-16}$ e cm for the $\tau$ \cite{tauedm}. An experiment has been proposed at

1398: BNL that could improve the sensitivity to $d_\mu$ down to $d_\mu \sim

1399: 10^{-24}$ e cm \cite{mnbuedm}, and PRISM and neutrino factory experiments aim at

1400: sensitivities $d_\mu \sim 5\times 10^{-26}$ e cm. These bounds will impose

1401: serious constraints on CP violation in the MSSM, as will prospective

1402: improvements in the sensitivity to $d_e$ and $d_\tau$. 

1403: 

1404: In the MSSM, the $d_\ell$ receive contributions from chargino and

1405: neutralino loops:

1406: %

1407: \bea

1408: d_l=d^{\chi^+}_l+d^{\chi^0}_l\,,

1409: \eea

1410: where \cite{nath,khalil}

1411: \bea

1412: \label{dl+}

1413:  d_l^{\chi^+}&=&-\frac{e}{(4\pi)^2} 

1414:       \sum_{A=1}^{2}\sum_{X=1}^{3} 

1415:  {\rm Im}(C^L_{lAX} C^{R*}_{lAX})\;   

1416:  {m_{\chi^+_A}\over {m_{\tilde{\nu}_X}^2}}

1417:    {\rm A}\biggl( \frac{m_{\chi^+_A}^2}{m_{\tilde{\nu}_X}^2} \biggr)\;,

1418: \label{dlc}

1419: \\ 

1420: \label{dl0}

1421:  d_l^{\chi^0 }&=&-\frac{e}{(4\pi)^2}

1422:    \sum_{A=1}^{4}\sum_{X=1}^{6} 

1423: {\rm Im}( N^L_{lAX} N^{R*}_{lAX}  )

1424:                \frac{m_{\chi^0_A}}{M_{\tilde{l}_X}^2}\;

1425: {\rm B}\biggl( \frac{m_{\chi^0_A}^2}{M_{\tilde{l}_X}^2}\biggr) \;,

1426: \eea

1427: and the loop functions are given by

1428: \bea

1429: && A(r)=\frac{1}{2(1-r)^2}\biggl(3-r+\frac{2\log r}{1-r}\biggr) \;, 

1430: \nonumber\\

1431: && B(r)=\frac{1}{2(r-1)^2}\biggl(1+r+\frac{2r\log r}{1-r}\biggr) \; . \nn

1432: \eea

1433: %

1434: where the relevant chargino and neutralino couplings were given above.

1435: We do not consider in our analysis the possibility of CP violation in the

1436: chargino and neutralino mass matrices.

1437: 

1438: \subsection{R\^{o}le of the Jarlskog Invariants}

1439: 

1440: We first present approximate formulae for the effective couplings in

1441: (\ref{eq:effective}), in order to show the qualitative behaviours of the

1442: LFV processes and demonstrate the r\^{o}le of the Jarlskog invariants.

1443: Since $(\delta m_{\tilde L}^2)$ and $(\delta {A_e})$ are the only sources

1444: of off-diagonal components, the only non-negligible terms are $A_R$, $g_4$

1445: and $g_6$: other terms are suppressed by the electron or muon masses. For

1446: illustrative purposes in this subsection only, we assign to the soft

1447: supersymmetry-breaking parameters common value $m_{S}$ at the

1448: electroweak scale: 

1449: %

1450: \begin{eqnarray}

1451: &M_2=M_1=\mu=(A_{e})_{22}/Y_{e_2}\equiv m_{S}& \, ,

1452: \nonumber\\

1453: &(m^2_{\tilde{L}})_{ii}=(m^2_{\tilde{E}})_{ii}\equiv m_{S}^2\, .&

1454: \label{limit1}

1455: \end{eqnarray}

1456: Assuming $m_{S}\gg m_Z$, we then find

1457: %

1458: \begin{eqnarray}

1459: &A_R = 4.8 \times 10^{-5} \left(\frac{\rm 100GeV}{m_{S}}\right)^2&

1460: \nonumber\\

1461: &

1462: \times \left\{

1463: \Delta_{21}^{\tilde{L}}

1464: -0.64      \Delta_{23}^{\tilde{L}}\Delta_{31}^{\tilde{L}}

1465: +0.66      \Delta_{21}^{A_e}

1466: -0.40      \Delta^{A_e}_{23} \Delta^{\tilde{L}}_{31}

1467: +\tan\beta

1468: (

1469: 2.4 \Delta^{\tilde{L}}_{21}

1470: -1.12 \Delta^{\tilde{L}}_{23}\Delta^{\tilde{L}}_{31}

1471: )

1472: \right\}\, ,&

1473: \\

1474: &g_4=6.4\times 10^{-5} \left(\frac{\rm 100GeV}{m_{S}}\right)^2&

1475: \nonumber\\

1476: &

1477: \times \left\{

1478: (1-0.24 \sin 2\beta) \Delta_{21}^{\tilde{L}}

1479: +(-0.81+0.12(\sin2\beta+\cos2\beta))\Delta_{23}^{\tilde{L}}\Delta_{31}^{\tilde{L}}

1480: \right\}\, ,&

1481: \\

1482: &g_6=-1.9 \times 10^{-5} \left(\frac{\rm 100GeV}{m_{S}}\right)^2&

1483: \nonumber\\

1484: &

1485: \times \left\{

1486: (1-0.70 \sin 2\beta) \Delta_{21}^{\tilde{L}}

1487: +(-0.43+0.35(\sin2\beta+\cos2\beta))\Delta_{23}^{\tilde{L}}\Delta_{31}^{\tilde{L}}

1488: \right\}\,,&

1489: \end{eqnarray}

1490: %

1491: where

1492: %

1493: \begin{eqnarray}

1494: \Delta^{\tilde{L}}_{ij} \equiv \left(\frac{(\delta m_{\tilde

1495: L}^2)_{ij}}{m_S^2}\right),

1496: \nonumber\\

1497: \Delta^{A_e}_{ij} \equiv \left(\frac{(\delta A_e)_{ij}/Y_{e_i}}

1498: {m_S}\right).

1499: \nonumber

1500: \end{eqnarray}

1501: %

1502: We remind that $\Delta_{21}^{\tilde{L}}=(\Delta_{12}^{\tilde{L}})^\star.$

1503: The $\sin2\beta$ and $\cos2\beta$ dependences of $g_4$ and $g_6$ 

1504: above are due to $Z$-penguin diagrams. In the branching ratio for

1505: $\mu

1506: \rightarrow 3e$, the contribution from $A_R$ tends to dominate

1507: due to the phase-space integral. Then, assuming that $A_R$ dominates

1508: in ${Br}(\mu^{+} \rightarrow e^{+}e^{+}e^{-})$, the T-odd asymmetry $A_T$

1509: is given by

1510: %

1511: \begin{eqnarray}

1512: %

1513: A_T=\frac{{\rm Im}\Big[\Delta_{12}^{\tilde{L}} \Delta_{23}^{\tilde{L}} 

1514: \Delta_{31}^{\tilde{L}} \Big]}{|\Delta_{12}^{\tilde{L}}|^2}

1515: \frac{0.039+0.196 \tan\beta + 0.017/\tan\beta }

1516:      {

1517: \left|(1+2.4\tan\beta)

1518: -

1519: \frac{\Delta_{23}^{\tilde{L}} \Delta_{31}^{\tilde{L}}}{\Delta_{21}^{\tilde{L}}}

1520: (0.64 +1.12\tan\beta)

1521: \right|^2

1522: }\,,

1523: \label{approxAT}

1524: \end{eqnarray}

1525: %

1526: where we have expanded $\sin2\beta$ and $\cos2\beta$ in terms of 

1527: $\tan\beta$.  Also, in writing

1528: (\ref{approxAT}), we have taken

1529: ${\Delta}_{21}^{A_e}={\Delta}_{23}^{A_e}=0$, for simplicity.

1530: 

1531: We see explicitly how $A_T$ (\ref{approxAT}) depends on the Jarlskog

1532: invariant $J_{\tilde L}$ (\ref{Jl}), and it is apparent how analogous

1533: invariants $J_{A_{12}}$, etc., with one or more

1534: ${\Delta}^{\tilde{L}}_{ij} \to {\Delta}^{A_e}_{ij}$ could also

1535: contribute.  We see that $A_T$ could in principle reach $\sim 10\%$.

1536: However, if ${\rm Im}[\Delta_{12}^{\tilde{L}} \Delta_{23}^{\tilde{L}}

1537: \Delta_{31}^{\tilde{L}}] \ll |\Delta_{12}^{\tilde{L}}|^2$, as one

1538: might expect, or if $\tan\beta\gg 1$, $A_T$ is suppressed.

1539: However, we stress that \Eq{approxAT} is approximately correct 

1540: only for \rfn{limit1} and cannot be used to predict $A_T$ in

1541: more general cases which will be considered in the next Section.  

1542: 

1543: 

1544: Next, we present approximate formulae for the effective coupling in

1545: (\ref{edm_eff}) in the specific case (\ref{limit1}). Since relative phases

1546: between $(m^2_{\tilde{L}})$, $(m^2_{\tilde{E}})$ and $(A_{e})$ contribute

1547: to the electric dipole moments, non-vanishing contributions to $d_l$ come

1548: only from slepton diagrams, not sneutrino diagrams. From the explicit

1549: formula (\ref{dlc}), it is also clear that the sneutrino diagrams do not

1550: give a non-vanishing value, since they depend on

1551: $(U_\nu)_{Xi}^\star(U_\nu)_{Xi}$, and the CP-violating phases exist only

1552: in the mixing matrices of the sleptons, in our approximation.

1553: 

1554: Since it depends on the neutrino model which contribution is

1555: dominant in the electric dipole moments, as shown in the previous Section,

1556: we first show the general formula for $d_l^{\tilde{\chi^0}}$

1557: in the limit (\ref{limit1}):

1558: %

1559: \begin{eqnarray}

1560: \frac{d_l^{\tilde{\chi^0}}}{e}

1561: &=&

1562: \frac{g_Y^2}{(4 \pi)^2}

1563: \frac{1}{m_S}

1564: \mrm{Im}\left[

1565: \sum_{N=1} \sum_{i_1,\cdots,i_N} 

1566: c_N \Delta_{l i_1}\Delta_{i_1 i_2}\cdots \Delta_{i_N l}

1567: \right]

1568: .

1569: %

1570: \end{eqnarray}

1571: %

1572: Here, $\Delta_{ij}$ is the flavor-dependent part of the slepton mass

1573: matrix, which normalized by $m_S^2$, and includes parts generated by

1574: the renormalization as well as tree-level parts. At least one of the

1575: $\Delta_{ij}$ in each product term involves the left-right mixing of a

1576: slepton. The coefficients $c_i$ are:

1577: %

1578: \begin{eqnarray}

1579: c_1=-\frac1{12},~

1580: c_2= \frac1{20},~

1581: c_3=-\frac1{30},~

1582: c_4= \frac1{42},~

1583: c_5=-\frac1{56}.

1584: \end{eqnarray}

1585: %

1586: When the heavy singlet-neutrino masses are not almost degenerate, and

1587: corrections to the soft supersymmetry-breaking terms and the relative

1588: phases among $(m^2_{\tilde{L}})$ and $(A_{e})$ are generated at

1589: ${\cal O}(\log^2\frac{M_{GUT}}{M_N})$, the approximate formula becomes

1590: %

1591: \begin{eqnarray}

1592: %

1593: \frac{d_l^{\tilde{\chi^0}}}{e}

1594: &=&

1595: \frac{g_Y^2}{(4 \pi)^2} \frac{m_l}{m_S^2}

1596: \left(

1597: \frac{1}{42} \tan\beta^2

1598: +\frac{1}{21} \tan\beta

1599: -\frac{1}{105}

1600: \right) 

1601: \sum_{j} \mrm{Im}\left[\Delta^{A_e}_{lj}

1602: \frac{m_{l_j}^2}{m_S^2}

1603: \Delta^{\tilde{L}}_{jl}

1604: \right]

1605: \nonumber\\

1606: &&

1607: -\frac1{30} \frac{g_Y^2}{(4 \pi)^2} \frac{m_l}{m_S^2}

1608: \sum_{j,k} \mrm{Im}\left[

1609: \Delta^{A_e}_{lj}

1610: \frac{m_{l_j}^2}{m_S^2}

1611: (\Delta^{A_e}_{kj})^\star

1612: \Delta^{A_e}_{kl}

1613: \right]

1614: ,

1615: \end{eqnarray}

1616: %

1617: where the first term is proportional to (\ref{jedm2}) and the second

1618: to (\ref{jedm2p}).

1619: 

1620: When the heavy singlet-neutrino masses are almost degenerate and the

1621: correction to $\mrm{Im}[A_e]_{ii}$, proportional to $\log

1622: \frac{M_{N_i}}{M_{N_j}} \log\frac{M_{GUT}}{M_{N}}$, is dominant in the

1623: electric dipole moments, the approximate formula is

1624: %

1625: \begin{eqnarray}

1626: %

1627: \frac{d_l^{\tilde{\chi^0}}}{e}

1628: &=&

1629: -\frac{1}{12} \frac{g_Y^2}{(4 \pi)^2} \frac{m_l}{m_S^2}

1630: \mrm{Im}\left[

1631: \Delta^{A_e}_{ll}

1632: \right] .

1633: \end{eqnarray}

1634: 

1635: \section{Numerical Analysis}

1636: 

1637: \subsection{Calculational Procedure}

1638: 

1639: We first fix the gauge couplings,

1640: charged-lepton and quark Yukawa couplings and $\tb$ (which is a free

1641: parameter) at the scale $M_Z$, and then run them with the two-loop

1642: MSSM renormalization-group equations up to the scale $M_N.$ At $M_N$, we

1643: introduce the heavy singlet neutrinos, fixing their masses, the

1644: light-neutrino masses and mixings according to the oscillation data. We

1645: then choose the matrix $R$ and calculate ${ Y_\nu}$ according to

1646: (\ref{Ynu}).

1647: Subsequently, we

1648: run all the Yukawa-coupling matrices from $M_N$ to $M_{GUT}$ using the

1649: one-loop renormalization-group equations~\cite{h1}. At $M_{GUT}$ we assume

1650: universal boundary conditions (\ref{mssmbound})  for the soft

1651: supersymmetry-breaking terms. We then run all the soft

1652: supersymmetry-breaking masses and Yukawa matrices back to $M_N$, where the

1653: heavy singlet neutrinos and sneutrinos decouple. The soft

1654: supersymmetry-breaking mass matrices at low energies are obtained finally

1655: by running all the MSSM parameters back down to $M_Z.$ We use the

1656: electroweak symmetry-breaking conditions to fix the magnitude of the Higgs 

1657: mixing parameter $\mu$, taking its sign positive as motivated by

1658: $g_\mu-2.$ This sign is also consistent with the bounds from $b\to

1659: s\gamma.$ Then we calculate the squark, slepton, chargino and

1660: neutralino mass matrices and finally LFV rates, the T-odd asymmetry 

1661: $A_T$ in polarized

1662: $\mu^{+} \rightarrow e^{+}e^{+}e^{-}$ decays and the EDMs of the electron 

1663: and muon, 

1664: for chosen values of the input parameters. 

1665: 

1666: \subsection{Illustrative Results}

1667: 

1668: In our numerical examples, we take~\cite{3nufit} $\Delta

1669: m^2_{atm}=3.5\times 10^{-3}$ eV$^2$ with $\sin\theta_{23}=0.7$ for

1670: atmospheric neutrinos, and $\Delta m^2_{sol}=5.0\times 10^{-5}$ eV$^2$

1671: with $\tan^2\theta_{12}=0.45$ for solar neutrinos, corresponding to the

1672: LMA solution. Also, we fix $\tan^2\theta_{13}=0.055$, which

1673: is the largest value allowed by the global three-neutrino data fit.

1674: We parametrize the orthogonal matrix $R$ in the form

1675: %

1676: \bea

1677: \label{R}

1678: R=\pmatrix{\hat c_2\hat c_3 & -\hat c_1\hat s_3-\hat s_1\hat s_2\hat

1679: c_3  & \hat s_1\hat s_3-\hat c_1\hat s_2\hat c_3 \cr  \hat c_2\hat s_3

1680: & \hat c_1\hat c_3-\hat s_1\hat s_2\hat s_3   & -\hat s_1\hat c_3-\hat

1681: c_1\hat s_2\hat s_3 \cr \hat s_2  & \hat s_1\hat c_2 & \hat c_1\hat

1682: c_2\cr}\;,  

1683: \eea

1684: %

1685: where $\hat \theta_1$, $\hat \theta_2$, $\hat \theta_3$ are arbitrary

1686: complex angles. Using a generic $R$ as input is crucial

1687: for neutrino phenomenology. We stress the following: 

1688: %

1689: \begin{enumerate}

1690: \item[{\it (i)}] 

1691: %

1692: Because $R$ is a complex orthogonal matrix, the values of its entries are

1693: not restricted to any small range, but rather are {\it exponential}

1694: functions of complex numbers. This implies via (\ref{Ynu}) that, for a

1695: suitable choice of $\hat \theta_{1,2,3}$, all the elements of ${

1696: Y}_\nu$ can be large even if one starts with small (for example

1697: hierarchical) neutrino masses;

1698: %

1699: \item[{\it (ii)}] 

1700: %

1701: Large imaginary components are in general present in every entry of ${

1702: Y}_\nu$. Since $Y^\dagger_\nu Y_\nu$ depends on the phases of both $R$ and

1703: $U$, as seen in (\ref{y+y2}), sizeable CP-violating

1704: effects may be induced. However, if $R=1$, only $\delta$ in $U$

1705: contributes to $Y^\dagger_\nu Y_\nu$.

1706: \end{enumerate} 

1707: 

1708: We first calculate $d_e$ and $d_\mu$ using (\ref{dl+}) and

1709: (\ref{dl0}), and study their possible ranges in our model by scanning

1710: over the allowed values of the free parameters.  As expected, $d_e$ and

1711: $d_\mu$ are very small. For degenerate right-handed neutrinos,

1712: typically $d_\mu$ does not exceed $10^{-31}$ e~cm for the values of

1713: the parameters consistent with the bounds on $\mu\to e\gamma,$ and is

1714: therefore many orders of magnitude below the sensitivity of any

1715: planned experiment. The approximate relation between muon and electron

1716: electric dipole moments in our model, $d_\mu/d_e\approx -m_\mu/m_e,$

1717: holds very well in this case. However, in the case of non-degenerate

1718: right-handed neutrinos, the $\log (M_{N_i}/M_{N_j})$ effects introduce

1719: a dependence of the electric dipole moments on the leptogenesis

1720: phases, as discussed previously. These new contributions may change the

1721: size of electric dipole moments by  a few orders of magnitude. 

1722: In particular, similarly to other supersymmetric

1723: models~\cite{strumia}, the sign of $d_\mu/d_e$ may be

1724: altered and the naive relation $d_\mu/d_e\approx -m_\mu/m_e$ may be

1725: violated by a large factor.

1726: Detailed analyses of the electric dipole moments in the case of

1727: non-degenerate heavy neutrinos will be presented elsewhere \cite{us2}.

1728: 

1729: 

1730: On the other hand, the situation with the T-odd asymmetry in polarized

1731: $\mu^{+} \rightarrow e^{+}e^{+}e^{-}$ decays can be different. As

1732: explained in the previous Section, the decay $\mu^{+} \rightarrow

1733: e^{+}e^{+}e^{-}$ receives contributions from box diagrams and photonic

1734: penguin diagrams, with the latter usually dominating. However, if there

1735: are cancellations in the dipole-moment-type $\mu-e-\gamma$ vertex, the box

1736: and penguin contributions to $\mu^{+} \rightarrow e^{+}e^{+}e^{-}$ may

1737: become comparable. In that case, if there are large CP-violating phases

1738: present in the slepton mass matrices, the T-odd asymmetry $A_T$ can be

1739: large.  This implies an anti-correlation between ${Br}(\mu\to e\gamma)$ and

1740: $A_T:$ the latter can be large only if the former is suppressed. 

1741: 

1742: 

1743: To illustrate how such a cancellation might come about, consider the

1744: two-generation example described at the end of Section 2, which also

1745: applies in the full three-generation case if $m_{\nu_3} \ll

1746: m_{\nu_{1,2}}$:  we assume for simplicity that also $m_{\nu_2} \ll

1747: m_{\nu_{1}}$.  We see from (\ref{Rey+y}) that $\mbox{Re}\Big[\left( {

1748: Y_\nu}^\dagger { Y_\nu} \right)^{12} \Big]$ is suppressed if

1749: %

1750: \begin{equation}

1751: (M_1 + M_2) \cos 2 \theta_r \approx (M_1 - M_2) {\rm cosh} 2 \theta_i,

1752: \label{cancelRe}

1753: \end{equation}

1754: %

1755: and that the smaller quantity $\mbox{Im}\Big[\left( { Y_\nu}^\dagger {

1756: Y_\nu} \right)^{12} \Big]$ is also suppressed if

1757: %

1758: \begin{equation}

1759: (M_1+M_2) \cos\phi {\rm sinh} 2 \theta_i \approx

1760: (M_1-M_2) \sin\phi \sin 2 \theta_r.

1761: \label{cancelIm}

1762: \end{equation}

1763: %

1764: Both the conditions (\ref{cancelRe},\ref{cancelIm}) may in principle be

1765: satisfied simultaneously for suitably tuned values of $\theta_i,

1766: \theta_r$ and $\phi$.

1767: 

1768: 

1769: 

1770: In a general and more physical

1771: case, the cancellation in ${Br}(\mu\to e\gamma)$ is much more 

1772: complicated and depends on all free parameters, namely

1773: the phases and mixing angles in

1774: the matrices $U$ and $R,$ the values of the light- and heavy- neutrino 

1775: masses,

1776: the choice of the soft supersymmetry-breaking initial conditions,

1777: details of the renormalization-group

1778: running procedure, etc.. However, the fact that such cancellations

1779: occur is robust and qualitatively well understood.

1780: To give a representative numerical example, we choose

1781: hierarchical neutrino masses with $m_{\nu_1}=0.028$ eV,

1782: $M_{N_1}=1.2\times 10^{15}$ GeV,

1783: $M_{N_2}=1.5\times 10^{15}$ GeV,

1784: $M_{N_3}=3\times 10^{14}$ GeV,

1785: $\delta=\pi/2,$ $\phi_1=-1,$ 

1786: $\hat \theta_1=0.3 i,$

1787: $\hat \theta_2=0.5 i,$ 

1788: $\hat \theta_3=0.1 i,$

1789: and use the same neutrino oscillation parameters as above.

1790: We run the renormalization-group equations with right-handed 

1791: neutrinos down to the scale $M_N=3\times 10^{14}$ GeV.

1792: 

1793: \begin{figure}[t]

1794: \centerline{\epsfxsize = 0.5\textwidth \epsffile{br3.ps} 

1795: \hfill \epsfxsize = 0.5\textwidth \epsffile{brmeee3.ps} }

1796: \caption{\it Branching ratios for the decays

1797: (a) $\mu^{+} \rightarrow e^{+}\gamma$   and 

1798: (b) $\mu^{+} \rightarrow e^{+}e^{+}e^{-}$   

1799: as functions of the common soft mass $m_0$ and the Majorana phase $\phi_2$, 

1800: for the fixed choice of neutrino parameters described in the text.

1801: \vspace*{0.5cm}}

1802: \label{fig1}

1803: \end{figure}

1804: 

1805: %

1806: \begin{figure}[htb]

1807: \centerline{\epsfxsize = 0.6\textwidth \epsffile{at3.ps} 

1808: %\hfill 

1809: %\epsfxsize = 0.5\textwidth \epsffile{brmeee3.ps} 

1810: }

1811: \caption{\it The T-odd asymmetry $A_T$ in polarized 

1812: $\mu^{+} \rightarrow e^{+}e^{+}e^{-}$

1813: decay for the same set of parameters as in Fig.~\ref{fig1}.

1814: \vspace*{0.5cm}}

1815: \label{fig2}

1816: \end{figure}

1817: 

1818: Fixing these parameters, we first choose $m_{1/2}=500$ GeV, 

1819: $A_0=0$ GeV and $\tb=20$ and scan over the remaining free parameters $m_0$ and 

1820: $\phi_2.$ In Fig. \ref{fig1} we plot the branching

1821: ratios of the decays $\mu^{+} \rightarrow e^{+}\gamma$ and $\mu^{+}

1822: \rightarrow e^{+}e^{+}e^{-}$ as functions of the common sfermion soft mass

1823: parameter $m_0$ and the Majorana phase $\phi_2.$ 

1824: For a large region in the plotted parameter space, 

1825: ${Br}(\mu^{+} \to e^{+}\gamma)$ is below the present experimental bound,

1826: whilst ${Br}(\mu^{+} \to e^{+}e^{+}e^{-})$ does not at present

1827: impose any constraints.

1828: The branching ratios in Fig. \ref{fig1} are correlated, implying that the

1829: photonic penguin diagrams are dominating also in $\mu^{+} \rightarrow

1830: e^{+}e^{+}e^{-}.$ For the plotted values, both rare decays should be observed

1831: in the planned experiments.

1832: 

1833: 

1834: The T-odd asymmetry $A_T$ is plotted in Fig. \ref{fig2} for the same

1835: set of parameters as in Fig. \ref{fig1}. Comparison with Fig. \ref{fig1}

1836: shows that $A_T$ is strongly anti-correlated with the branching ratios.  

1837: For the region with the deepest cancellation, the T-odd asymmetry is negative.

1838: Whilst its absolute value may exceed 10\%, the branching ratio of 

1839: $\mu^{+} \to e^{+}e^{+}e^{-}$ is relatively small in that region, making

1840: its precise determination difficult. However, for  large positive

1841: $A_T$, ${Br}(\mu^{+} \to e^{+}e^{+}e^{-})$ exceeds the $10^{-14}$ level,

1842: implying that several hundred events could be observed in the planned 

1843: experiments.

1844: Since the experimental sensitivity to $A_T$ should scale as

1845: $1/\sqrt{N_{events}}$, these future experiments

1846: would be able to measure a non-zero value of $A_T$ for large ranges of 

1847: $m_0$ and $\phi_2$ in Fig. \ref{fig2}.

1848: 

1849: 

1850: \begin{figure}[t]

1851: \centerline{\epsfxsize = 0.5\textwidth \epsffile{br2.ps} 

1852: \hfill \epsfxsize = 0.5\textwidth \epsffile{at2.ps} }

1853: \caption{\it (a) Branching ratios for the decays

1854: $\mu^{+} \rightarrow e^{+}\gamma$ and $\mu^{+} \rightarrow e^{+}e^{+}e^{-}$

1855: and (b) the T-odd asymmetry $A_T$ in $\mu^{+} \rightarrow e^{+}e^{+}e^{-}$

1856: decay, as functions of the common soft mass $m_0$, for the fixed choice of

1857: neutrino parameters described in the text.

1858: \vspace*{0.5cm}}

1859: \label{fig3}

1860: \end{figure}

1861: %

1862: \begin{figure}[t]

1863: \centerline{

1864: \epsfxsize = 0.5\textwidth \epsffile{brd2.ps} 

1865: \hfill

1866: \epsfxsize = 0.5\textwidth \epsffile{atd2.ps}

1867: }

1868: \caption{\it 

1869: (a) Branching ratios of the decays 

1870: $\mu^{+} \rightarrow e^{+}\gamma$ and $\mu^{+} \rightarrow e^{+}e^{+}e^{-}$

1871: and (b) the T-odd asymmetry $A_T$ in $\mu^{+} \rightarrow e^{+}e^{+}e^{-}$

1872: decay, as functions of the Majorana phase $\phi_2$ for  $m_0=300$ GeV.

1873: All other parameters are fixed as in Fig. \ref{fig3}.

1874: \vspace*{0.5cm}}

1875: \label{fig4}

1876: \end{figure}

1877: %

1878: 

1879: 

1880: Whilst the long-baseline oscillation experiments at neutrino factories

1881: will  measure  the phase $\delta$ in (\ref{V}), we stress here again that

1882: the T-odd asymmetry $A_T$  depends on all the phases in the matrices

1883: $U$ and $R$. Thus different combinations of phases in the Yukawa

1884: matrix ${ Y_\nu}$ are probed in the neutrino oscillation and

1885: stopped muon experiments. This point is made explicitly by the dependence

1886: of $A_T$ on the Majorana phase $\phi_2$ in Fig. \ref{fig2}.

1887: 

1888: 

1889: 

1890: 

1891: We have chosen the neutrino parameters in such a way that the absolute values

1892: of all the neutrino Yukawa couplings are close to unity. This induces large

1893: rates of LFV and CP violation. However, due to the cancellations in the

1894: photonic penguin diagrams, the induced ${Br}(\mu^{+} \to e^{+}\gamma)$

1895: can be consistent with the current experimental bounds even for

1896: relatively small sparticle masses. In Fig. \ref{fig3} we plot 

1897: (a) ${Br}(\mu^{+} \to e^{+}\gamma)$ and ${Br}(\mu^{+} \to e^{+}e^{+}e^{-})$ and

1898: (b) $A_T$ as functions of $m_0$ for fixed 

1899: $m_{1/2}=200$ GeV, $A_0=0$ GeV, $\tb=10$ and $\phi_2=2.1$.

1900: For a small region  around  $m_0=300$ GeV, ${Br}(\mu^{+} \to e^{+}\gamma)$

1901: is below the present limit. At the same time, the T-odd asymmetry in 

1902: $\mu^{+} \to e^{+}e^{+}e^{-}$ may be as large as 10\% for the

1903: allowed values of $m_0.$ The dependence of the branching ratios

1904: and the T-odd asymmetry on the Majorana phase $\phi_2$ is demonstrated

1905: in    Fig. \ref{fig4}. Again, large $A_T$ is expected if the 

1906: decay $\mu^{+} \to e^{+}\gamma$ is suppressed due to the cancellation.

1907: 

1908: %

1909: \begin{figure}[t]

1910: \centerline{

1911: \epsfxsize = 0.5\textwidth \epsffile{brtmu.ps} 

1912: %\hfill

1913: %\epsfxsize = 0.5\textwidth \epsffile{atd2.ps}

1914: }

1915: \caption{\it 

1916: Branching ratio of the decay

1917: $\tau^{+} \rightarrow \mu^{+}\gamma$ as a function of $m_0.$

1918: All other parameters are fixed as in Fig. \ref{fig3}.

1919: \vspace*{0.5cm}}

1920: \label{fig5}

1921: \end{figure}

1922: %

1923: 

1924: Finally, we note that the branching ratio of the decay 

1925: $\tau^{+} \to \mu^{+}\gamma$ {\it does not} have cancellations in the 

1926: parameter region considered, as seen in Fig. \ref{fig5}.

1927: Therefore, in this scenario ${Br}(\tau^{+} \to \mu^{+}\gamma)$

1928: might be just below the present experimental bound and discoverable at 

1929: the LHC or the B factories. As the decays $\tau \to \ell \ell \ell$ are 

1930: suppressed relative to

1931: $\tau^{+} \to \mu^{+}\gamma,$ detailed quantitative studies of them are

1932: beyond the interest of the present work.

1933: 

1934: 

1935: \section{Discussion and Conclusions}

1936: 

1937: We have seen in this paper that the T-odd asymmetry $A_T$ in polarized

1938: $\mu^{+} \rightarrow e^{+}e^{+}e^{-}$ decay may offer the best prospects

1939: for studying in the laboratory CP-violating effects in the minimal

1940: supersymmetric seesaw model. On the other hand, the electric dipole

1941: moments of the electron and muon are suppressed in the minimal

1942: supersymmetric seesaw scenario discussed here. This is because the

1943: CP-violating phases are induced by renormalization-group running only in

1944: the off-diagonal entries in the slepton mass matrices, as already

1945: discussed in~\cite{acfh}. The naive relation $d_\mu/d_e\approx -m_\mu/m_e$ 

1946: holds very well in the case of degenerate right-handed neutrinos.

1947: In the case of non-degenerate right-handed neutrinos, logarithmic effects

1948: arising from $\log (M_{N_i}/M_{N_j})$ introduce a 

1949: dependence on the leptogenesis

1950: phases. These new contributions may become dominant and 

1951: the naive relation  $d_\mu/d_e\approx -m_\mu/m_e$ is badly violated.

1952: In the most optimistic case, the electric dipole moments  may

1953: approach the level observable at the proposed experiments \cite{us2}.

1954: 

1955: 

1956: 

1957: 

1958: 

1959: The possibility of measuring a non-zero $A_T$ could have far-reaching

1960: consequences, since it provides complementary information on the

1961: CP-violating phases in the neutrino Yukawa matrix $Y_\nu$.  As has been

1962: discussed, $A_T$ depends in the leading-logarithmic approximation on a

1963: single combination of light-neutrino phases and the three phases in 

1964: $Y_\nu^\dagger Y_\nu$ that

1965: contribute to leptogenesis, whereas the CP-violating phases in the

1966: light-neutrino effective mass matrix depend on the phases in $Y_\nu

1967: Y_\nu^\dagger$, that do not contribute to leptogenesis.

1968: 

1969: This is one reason why $A_T$ may be observable even if CP violation is

1970: undetectable in neutrino oscillations. We recall also that the latter is

1971: in practice observable only if the neutrino masses and mixing angles are

1972: favourable.  For example, if $U_{e3}\approx 0$ and/or $\Delta m^2_{sol}$

1973: is small, as in the case of vacuum oscillations, CP violation is

1974: unobservable using neutrino factories. However, as seen in (\ref{Ynu}),

1975: (some of) the Yukawa couplings in $Y_\nu$ may still be large and

1976: imaginary, implying that $A_T$ might be large.

1977: 

1978: On the other hand, a large value of $A_T$ requires cancellations in the

1979: slepton-induced $\mu-e-\gamma^\star$ vertex, which happens only in a

1980: restricted region of the parameter space. The asymmetry $A_T$ is

1981: anti-correlated with the branching ratio of $\mu\rightarrow e \gamma$, and

1982: it can reach $\sim 10 \%$ if $\mu\rightarrow e \gamma$ is suppressed. The

1983: asymmetry $A_T$ may be measurable in planned high-intensity stopped-muon

1984: experiments, which aim at a sensitivity to ${Br}(\mu\rightarrow eee) \sim

1985: 10^{-16}.$

1986: 

1987: 

1988: In the case of $\tau\rightarrow \mu \gamma$ the cancellation does not happen 

1989: for the same parameters as in $\mu\rightarrow e \gamma.$ Therefore,

1990: in the scenario considered in this paper ${Br}(\tau\rightarrow \mu \gamma)$

1991: is large and can be observed at the LHC experiments.

1992: 

1993: 

1994: It is interesting to review what we would learn if non-vanishing $A_T$ 

1995: were observed. The T-odd asymmetry $A_T$ is approximately proportional to the

1996: CP invariant (\ref{Jl}). We recall that, if $Y_\nu$ has a hierarchical 

1997: structure, the

1998: off-diagonal components of the left-handed slepton mass matrix are given

1999: by

2000: %

2001: \bea

2002: \left(m_{\tilde L}^2\right)_{12} & \propto & 

2003:   (Y_{\nu_3}^D)^2 X_{31} X_{32}^\star 

2004:   +(Y_{\nu_2}^D)^2 X_{21} X_{22}^\star \, , 

2005: \nn \\

2006: \left(m_{\tilde L}^2\right)_{23} \left(m_{\tilde L}^2\right)_{31} 

2007: & \propto& 

2008:  (Y_{\nu_3}^D)^4 |X_{33}|^2

2009: X_{32} X_{31}^\star\, .

2010: \nn 

2011: \eea

2012: %

2013: The Jarlskog invariant $J_{\tilde{L}}$ may have a sizeable value if 

2014: $(Y^D_{\nu_3})^2 X_{31}

2015: X_{32}^\star$ and $(Y^D_{\nu_2})^2 X_{21} X_{22}^\star$ are

2016: comparable. Thus, if non-vanishing $A_T$ is observed, the generation

2017: structure in the neutrino Yukawa coupling may

2018: be constrained, as well as the CP-violating phase.

2019: 

2020: In conclusion: searching for CP violation in lepton-flavour-violating

2021: processes is a possibility that should not be neglected, since it provides

2022: information complementary to that provided by neutrino oscillation

2023: experiments. In particular, $A_T$ may be measurable even if CP violation

2024: is unobservable in neutrino oscillations.

2025: 

2026: 

2027: \vskip 0.5in

2028: \vbox{

2029: \noindent{ {\bf Acknowledgments} } \\

2030: \noindent  

2031: We thank L. N.~Chang, A. De~Gouvea, B.~Gavela, C.~Gonzalez-Garcia, 

2032: B.~Kayser, S.~Khalil, N.~Sakai, A.~Strumia and F. Vissani for 

2033: enlightening discussions.  This work is partially supported by EU TMR

2034: contract No.  HPMF-CT-2000-00460, ESF grant No. 3832, and the

2035: Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research from the Ministry of Education,

2036: Science, Sports and Culture of Japan, on Priority Area 707

2037: `Supersymmetry and Unified Theory of Elementary Particles'.

2038: 

2039: }

2040: 

2041: 

2042: 

2043: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

2044: 

2045: \bibitem{sksol}

2046: Y.~Fukuda {\it et al.}  [Super-Kamiokande Collaboration],

2047: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 82} (1999) 1810;

2048: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 82} (1999) 2430.

2049: 

2050: \bibitem{sno}

2051: Q.~R.~Ahmad {\it et al.}  [SNO Collaboration],

2052: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 87} (2001) 071301.

2053: 

2054: \bibitem{skatm}

2055: Y.~Fukuda {\it et al.}  [Super-Kamiokande Collaboration],

2056: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 81} (1998) 1562.

2057: 

2058: \bibitem{seesaw} M. Gell-Mann, P. Ramond and R. Slansky, Proceedings of   

2059: the Supergravity Stony Brook Workshop, New York, 1979, eds. P. Van   

2060: Nieuwenhuizen and D. Freedman (North-Holland, Amsterdam);

2061: T. Yanagida, Proceedings of

2062: the  Workshop  on Unified  Theories  and  Baryon  Number in the  

2063: Universe,  Tsukuba,  Japan 1979 (edited by A.  Sawada and A.

2064: Sugamoto, KEK Report No.  79-18, Tsukuba); 

2065: R.~Mohapatra and G.~Senjanovic, 

2066: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 44} (1980) 912.

2067: 

2068: \bibitem{bm}

2069: F.~Borzumati and A.~Masiero,

2070: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 57} (1986) 961.

2071: 

2072: \bibitem{review}

2073: Y. Kuno and  Y. Okada, 

2074: Rev.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ {\bf 73} (2001) 151.

2075: 

2076: \bibitem{h1}

2077: J.~Hisano, T.~Moroi, K.~Tobe and M.~Yamaguchi,

2078: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 53} (1996) 2442.

2079: 

2080: \bibitem{ci}

2081: J.~A.~Casas and A.~Ibarra,

2082: hep-ph/0103065.

2083: 

2084: \bibitem{nlfv}

2085: J.~Hisano, T.~Moroi, K.~Tobe and M.~Yamaguchi,

2086: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 53} (1996) 2442;

2087: J.~Hisano, D.~Nomura and T.~Yanagida,

2088: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 437} (1998) 351;

2089: J.~Hisano and D.~Nomura,

2090: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 59} (1999) 116005;

2091: W.~Buchm\"uller, D.~Delepine and F.~Vissani,

2092: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 459} (1999) 171;

2093: M.~E.~Gomez, G.~K.~Leontaris, S.~Lola and J.~D.~Vergados,

2094: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 59} (1999) 116009;

2095: J.~R.~Ellis, M.~E.~Gomez, G.~K.~Leontaris, S.~Lola and D.~V.~Nanopoulos,

2096: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 14} (2000) 319;

2097: W.~Buchm\"uller, D.~Delepine and L.~T.~Handoko,

2098: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 576} (2000) 445;

2099: J.~L.~Feng, Y.~Nir and Y.~Shadmi,

2100: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 61} (2000) 113005;

2101: J.~Sato and K.~Tobe,

2102: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 63} (2001) 116010;

2103: J.~Hisano and K.~Tobe,

2104: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 510} (2001) 197;

2105: D. Carvalho, J. Ellis, M. Gomez and S. Lola,

2106: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 515} (2001) 323;

2107: S.~Baek, T.~Goto, Y.~Okada and K.~Okumura,

2108: hep-ph/0104146;

2109: S. Lavignac, I. Masina and C.A. Savoy, 

2110: hep-ph/0106245.

2111: 

2112: \bibitem{kaons}

2113: A.~Belyaev {\it et al.}, 

2114: hep-ph/0008276; 

2115: A.~Belyaev {\it et al.}, 

2116: hep-ph/0107046.

2117: 

2118: \bibitem{lepto}

2119: M.~Fukugita and T.~Yanagida,

2120: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 174} (1986) 45.

2121: 

2122: \bibitem{cpt}

2123: For a complete reference list see, \eg, 

2124: T.~Ota, J.~Sato and Y.~Kuno, 

2125: hep-ph/0107007.

2126: 

2127: \bibitem{snofit}

2128: V.~Barger, D.~Marfatia and K.~Whisnant, 

2129: hep-ph/0106207;

2130: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0106207;%%

2131: G.~L.~Fogli, E.~Lisi, D.~Montanino and A.~Palazzo,

2132: hep-ph/0106247;

2133: J.~N.~Bahcall, M.~C.~Conzalez-Garcia and C.~Pena-Garay,

2134: hep-ph/0106258;

2135: A.~Bandyopadhyay, S.~Choubey, S.~Goswami and K.~Kar,

2136: hep-ph/0106264.

2137: 

2138: \bibitem{sindrum2}

2139: SINDRUM II Collaboration, Research Proposal for experiment at PSI (1999).

2140: 

2141: \bibitem{meco}

2142: M.~Bachmann {\it et al.}, MECO Collaboration,  Research Proposal E940 for 

2143: experiment at BNL (1997).

2144: 

2145: \bibitem{PSI}

2146: L.M.~Barkov {\it et al.}, Research Proposal for experiment at PSI (1999).

2147: 

2148: \bibitem{PRISM}

2149: M. Furusaka {\it et al.}, JAERI/KEK Joint Project Proposal 

2150: {\it The Joint Project for High-Intensity Proton Accelerators},

2151: KEK-REPORT-99-4, JAERI-TECH-99-056.

2152: 

2153: \bibitem{nf}

2154: J. \"Ayst\"o {\it et al.}, {\it Physics with Low-Energy Muons at a 

2155: Neutrino Factory Complex}, CERN-TH/2001-231, hep-ph/0109217.

2156: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0109217;%%

2157: 

2158: \bibitem{nath}

2159: T.~Ibrahim and P.~Nath,

2160: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 57} (1998) 478

2161: [Erratum - {\it ibid.} {\bf 58} (1998) 019901].

2162: 

2163: \bibitem{khalil}

2164: S.~Abel, S.~Khalil and O.~Lebedev,

2165: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 606} (2001) 151;

2166: S.~Abel, D.~Bailin, S.~Khalil and O.~Lebedev,

2167: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 504} (2001) 241.

2168: 

2169: \bibitem{masiero}

2170: For a general analyses see, e.g.,

2171: F.~Gabbiani, E.~Gabrielli, A.~Masiero and L.~Silvestrini,

2172: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 477} (1996) 321.

2173: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9604387;%%

2174: 

2175: \bibitem{grmed}

2176: R.~Barbieri, S.~Ferrara and C. A.~Savoy, 

2177: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 119} (1982) 343;

2178: R.~Arnovitt, P.~Nath and A.~Chamsedine, 

2179: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett. {\bf 49} (1982) 970;

2180: L. J.~Hall, J.~Lykken and S.~Weinberg, 

2181: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 27} (1983) 2359.

2182: 

2183: \bibitem{gaugemed}

2184: M.~Dine and A. E.~Nelson,  

2185: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 48} (1993) 1277;

2186: M.~Dine, A.~E.~Nelson and Y.~Shirman,

2187: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 51} (1995) 1362;

2188: M.~Dine, A.~E.~Nelson, Y.~Nir and Y.~Shirman,

2189: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 53} (1996) 2658;

2190: G.~F.~Giudice and R.~Rattazzi,

2191: Phys.\ Rept.\  {\bf 322} (1999) 419.

2192: 

2193: \bibitem{ams}

2194: L.~J.~Randall and R.~Sundrum,

2195: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 557} (1999) 79;

2196: G.~F.~Giudice, M.~A.~Luty, H.~Murayama and R.~Rattazzi,

2197: JHEP {\bf 9812} (1998) 027.

2198: 

2199: \bibitem{ginom}

2200: D.~E.~Kaplan, G.~D.~Kribs and M.~Schmaltz,

2201: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 62} (2000) 035010;

2202: Z.~Chacko, M.~A.~Luty, A.~E.~Nelson and E.~Ponton,

2203: JHEP {\bf 0001} (2000) 003;

2204: M.~Schmaltz and W.~Skiba,

2205: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 62} (2000) 095005.

2206: 

2207: \bibitem{radion}

2208: T.~Kobayashi and K.~Yoshioka,

2209: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 85} (2000) 5527;

2210: Z.~Chacko and M.~A.~Luty,

2211: JHEP {\bf 0105} (2001) 067.

2212: 

2213: \bibitem{taumug}

2214: See, for example, J.~Hisano, T.~Moroi, K.~Tobe and M.~Yamaguchi, 

2215: in~\cite{h1},

2216: and  

2217: J.~Ellis, M.~Gomez, G.~Leontaris, S.~Lola and D.~Nanopoulos, 

2218: in~\cite{nlfv};

2219: T.~Blazek and S.~F.~King,

2220: hep-ph/0105005.

2221: 

2222: \bibitem{acfh}

2223: N.~Arkani-Hamed, J.~L.~Feng, L.~J.~Hall and H.~Cheng,

2224: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 505} (1997) 3.

2225: 

2226: \bibitem{sleptonosc}

2227: N.~Arkani-Hamed, H.~Cheng, J.~L.~Feng and L.~J.~Hall,

2228: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 77} (1996) 1937;

2229: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 505} (1997) 3;

2230: J.~Hisano, M. M.~Nojiri, Y.~Shimizu and M.~Tanaka,

2231: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 60} (1999) 055008;

2232: I.~Hinchliffe and F. E.~Paige,

2233: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 63} (2001) 115006.

2234: 

2235: \bibitem{valle}

2236: For the early works see, e.g.,

2237: J.~Schechter and J.~W.~Valle,

2238: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 22} (1980) 2227,

2239: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D22,2227;%%

2240: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 23} (1981) 1666.

2241: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D23,1666;%%

2242: 

2243: \bibitem{vissani}

2244: L.~Covi, E.~Roulet and F.~Vissani,

2245: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 384} (1996) 169;

2246: W.~Buchm\"uller and M.~Pl\"umacher,

2247: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 389} (1996) 73,

2248: Phys.\ Rept.\  {\bf 320} (1999) 329;

2249: M.~Flanz, E.~A.~Paschos, U.~Sarkar and J.~Weiss,

2250: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 389} (1996) 693;

2251: A.~Pilaftsis,

2252: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 56} (1997) 5431,

2253: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9707235;%%

2254: Int.\ J.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 14} (1999) 1811.

2255: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9812256;%%

2256: 

2257: \bibitem{nedm}

2258: S.~Bertolini and F.~Vissani,

2259: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 324} (1994) 164;

2260: T.~Inui, Y.~Mimura, N.~Sakai and T.~Sasaki,

2261: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 449} (1995) 49;

2262: S.~A.~Abel, W.~N.~Cottingham and I.~B.~Whittingham,

2263: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 370} (1996) 106;

2264: A.~Romanino and A.~Strumia,

2265: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 490} (1997) 3;

2266: C.~Hamzaoui, M.~Pospelov and R.~Roiban,

2267: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 56} (1997) 4295.

2268: 

2269: \bibitem{Okada} Y.~Okada, K.~Okumura and Y.~Shimizu,

2270: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 58} (1998) 051901;

2271: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 61} (2000) 094001.

2272: 

2273: \bibitem{bhs}

2274: R.~Barbieri and L.~Hall, 

2275: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 338} (1994) 212;

2276: R.~Barbieri, L.~Hall and A.~Strumia,

2277: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 445} (1995) 219; 

2278: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B{\bf 449} (1995) 437;

2279: P.~Ciafaloni, A.~Romanino and A.~Strumia, 

2280: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 458} (1996) 3;

2281: J.~Hisano, T.~Moroi, K.~Tobe and M.~Yamaguchi,

2282: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {391} (1997) 341; 

2283: [Erratum - {\it ibid.} {\bf 397}, 357 (1997)];

2284: J.~Hisano, D.~Nomura, Y.~Okada, Y.~Shimizu and M.~Tanaka,

2285: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 58} (1998) 116010;

2286: J.~Hisano, D.~Nomura and T.~Yanagida,

2287: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 437} (1998) 351;

2288: G.~Barenboim, K.~Huitu and M.~Raidal,

2289: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 63} (2001) 055006;

2290: S.~F.~King and M.~Oliveira,

2291: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 60} (1999) 035003.

2292: 

2293: \bibitem{eedm}

2294: E.~D.~Commins, S.~B.~Ross, D.~DeMille and B.~C.~Regan,

2295: Phys.\ Rev.\ A {\bf 50} (1994) 2960.

2296: 

2297: \bibitem{muedm}

2298: H.~N.~Brown {\it et al.}  [Muon g-2 Collaboration],

2299: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 86} (2001) 2227.

2300: 

2301: \bibitem{tauedm}

2302: M.~Acciarri {\it et al.}  [L3 Collaboration],

2303: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 434} (1998) 169.

2304: 

2305: \bibitem{mnbuedm}

2306: Y.~K.~Semertzidis {\it et al.},

2307: hep-ph/0012087.

2308: 

2309: \bibitem{3nufit}

2310: M.~C.~Gonzalez-Garcia, M.~Maltoni, C.~Pena-Garay and J.~W.~Valle,

2311: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 63} (2001) 033005.

2312: 

2313: \bibitem{strumia}

2314: T.~Ibrahim and P.~Nath, 

2315: hep-ph/0105025;

2316: J.~L.~Feng, K.~T.~Matchev and Y.~Shadmi,

2317: hep-ph/0107182;

2318: A.~Romanino and A.~Strumia,

2319: hep-ph/0108275.

2320: 

2321: \bibitem{us2}

2322: J. Ellis, J. Hisano, M. Raidal and Y. Shimizu, 

2323: hep-ph/0111324.

2324: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0111324;%%

2325: 

2326: 

2327: \end{thebibliography}

2328: 

2329: \end{document}

2330: 

2331: