1: \documentstyle [12pt, epsfig]{article}
2: \textwidth 6.25in \hoffset -.375in
3: \voffset -0.7in
4: \textheight = 8.5in
5:
6: \begin{document}
7:
8: \hfill {CUMQ/HEP 120}
9:
10: \hfill {\today}
11:
12: \vskip 0.5in \baselineskip 24pt
13:
14: {
15: \Large
16: \bigskip
17: \centerline{ {\Large $b \rightarrow s \gamma$ in the left-right
18: supersymmetric
19: model} }
20: }
21:
22: \vskip .6in
23: \def\bar{\overline}
24:
25: \centerline{Mariana Frank \footnote{Email: mfrank@vax2.concordia.ca}
26: and Shuquan Nie \footnote{Email: sxnie@alcor.concordia.ca}}
27: \bigskip
28: \centerline {\it Department of Physics, Concordia University, 1455 De
29: Maisonneuve Blvd. W.}
30: \centerline {\it Montreal, Quebec, Canada, H3G 1M8}
31:
32: \vskip 0.5in
33:
34: {\narrower\narrower The rare decay $b \rightarrow s \gamma$ is studied
35: in the left-right supersymmetric
36: model. We give explicit expressions for all the amplitudes
37: associated with the supersymmetric contributions
38: coming from gluinos, charginos and neutralinos in the model to
39: one-loop level. The branching ratio is enhanced
40: significantly compared to the standard model and minimal
41: supersymmetric standard model values by contributions from the
42: right-handed gaugino and squark sector. We give numerical results
43: coming from the leading order contributions. If the only
44: source of flavor violation comes from the CKM matrix, we constrain
45: the scalar fermion-gaugino sector. If
46: intergenerational mixings are allowed in the squark mass matrix, we
47: constrain such supersymmetric sources of flavor
48: violation. The decay $b \rightarrow s \gamma$ sets constraints on the
49: parameters of the model
50: and provides distinguishing signs from other supersymmetric scenarios. }
51:
52: PACS number(s): 12.38.Bx, 12.60.Jv, 12.35.Hw
53:
54: \newpage
55:
56:
57: \section{Introduction}
58:
59: The experimental and theoretical investigation of the inclusive decay
60: $B \rightarrow X_s \gamma$ is an
61: important benchmark for physics beyond the Standard Model (SM).
62: Experimentally, the inclusive decay $B \rightarrow X_s
63: \gamma$ has been measured at ALEPH \cite{aleph}, BELLE \cite{belle}
64: and CLEO \cite{cleo},with BABAR
65: measurements keenly awaited, giving the following weighted average:
66: \begin{equation}
67: BR(B \rightarrow X_s \gamma)=(3.23 \pm 0.41) \times 10^{-4}.
68: \end{equation}
69: This present experimental average is in good agreement with the
70: next-to-leading order predictions in the SM \cite{smbsg}:
71: \begin{equation}
72: BR(B \rightarrow X_s \gamma)_{SM}=(3.35 \pm 0.30) \times 10^{-4},
73: \end{equation}
74: But this value still allows a large acceptable range for the
75: inclusive decay \cite{range}:
76: \begin{equation}
77: 2 \times 10^{-4} < BR(B \rightarrow X_s \gamma) < 4.5 \times 10^{-4}.
78: \end{equation}
79: Flavor changing neutral currents (FCNC) are forbidden at the tree level
80: in the SM. The first SM contributions to the process $b
81: \rightarrow s
82: \gamma$ appear at one-loop level through the
83: Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa (CKM) flavor
84: mixing. Despite small uncertainties in the theoretical
85: evaluation of the branching ratio, agreement between experiment and
86: theory is impressive, and this fact is used to
87: set constraints on the parameters for beyond the SM
88: scenarios, such as two-Higgs-Doublet-Models (2HDM) \cite{2HDM},
89: left-right symmetric models (LRM) \cite{LR}, and
90: minimal supersymmetric standard model (MSSM) \cite{SUSY}. Although
91: attempts have been
92: made to reconcile $b \rightarrow s \gamma$ with right-handed $b$-quark
93: decays
94: \cite{gronau}, a complete analysis for a fully left-right supersymmetric
95: model is still lacking.
96:
97: The Left-Right Supersymmetric (LRSUSY) model is perhaps the most natural
98: extension of the MSSM \cite{history, mohapatra, frank1, huitu}.
99: Left-right supersymmetry is based on the group $SU(2)_L
100: \times SU(2)_R \times U(1)_{B-L}$, which would then break
101: spontaneously to $SU(2)_L \times U(1)_Y$ \cite{history}. LRSUSY was
102: originally seen as a natural way
103: to suppress rapid proton decay
104: \cite {frank1} and has recently received renewed attention for providing
105: small neutrino masses and lepton radiative decays \cite{leptonsusylr}.
106: Besides being a
107: plausible symmetry itself, LRSUSY models have the added attractive
108: features that
109: they can be embedded in a supersymmetric grand unified theory such as
110: $SO(10)$ \cite{SO10}. Another support for left-right theories is
111: provided by
112: building realistic brane worlds from Type I strings. This involves
113: left-right
114: supersymmetry, with supersymmetry broken either at the string scale
115: $M_{SUSY} \approx 10^{10-12}$ GeV, or at $M_{SUSY} \approx 1$ TeV, the
116: difference having implications for gauge unification \cite{string}.
117:
118: In this paper we study all contributions of the LRSUSY model to the
119: branching ratio of $b \rightarrow s \gamma$ at one-loop level. The decay $b
120: \rightarrow s \gamma$ can be mediated by left-handed and right-handed
121: W bosons and charged Higgs bosons as
122: in nonsupersymmetric case, but also by
123: charginos, neutralinos and gluinos. The structure of the LRSUSY
124: provides a significant contributions
125: to the decay $b \rightarrow s \gamma$ from the right-handed squarks
126: and an enlarged
127: gaugino-Higgsino sector with right-handed couplings, which is not as
128: constrained as the
129: right-handed gauge sector in left-right symmetric models. We anticipate
130: that these would contribute a large enhancement of the decay rate
131: and would constrain some of the parameters of the model.
132:
133: The paper is organized as follows. We describe the structure of the model
134: in Sec. II, with
135: particular emphasis on the gaugino-Higgsino and squark structure. In
136: Sec. III, we give the
137: supersymmetric contributions in LRSUSY to the decay
138: $b
139: \rightarrow s
140: \gamma$. We confront the calculation with
141: experimental results in Sec. IV, where we present the numerical analysis to
142: constrain the
143: parameters of the model for two scenarios: one with CKM flavor mixing
144: only, the other
145: including supersymmetric soft breaking flavor violation. We reach our
146: conclusions in Sec. V.
147:
148: \section{The Model}
149:
150: The LRSUSY electroweak symmetry group, $SU(2)_{L}\times
151: SU(2)_{R}\times U(1)_{B-L}$,
152: has matter
153: doublets for both left- and right-handed fermions and their
154: corresponding left-
155: and right-handed scalar partners (sleptons and squarks)~\cite{frank1}.
156: In the gauge sector,
157: corresponding to $SU(2)_{L}$ and $SU(2)_{R}$, there are triplet
158: gauge bosons $(W^{+}, W^{-},W^{0})_{L}$, $(W^{+}, W^{-},W^{0})_{R}$,
159: respectively, and a singlet
160: gauge
161: boson $V$ corresponding to $U(1)_{B-L}$, together with their
162: superpartners.
163: The Higgs sector of this model
164: consists of two Higgs bi-doublets, $\Phi_{u}(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2},0)$
165: and
166: $\Phi_{d}(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2},0)$, which are required to give masses
167: to
168: the up and down quarks. The spontaneous symmetry breaking of the group
169: $SU(2)_{R}\times U(1)_{B-L}$ to the hypercharge symmetry group
170: $U(1)_{Y}$ is
171: accomplished by giving vacuum expectation values to a pair of Higgs
172: triplet fields
173: $\Delta_{L}(1,0,2)$ and $\Delta_{R}(0,1,2)$, which transform as the
174: adjoint
175: representation of $SU(2)_R$. The choice of two triplets (versus four
176: doublets) is
177: preferred because with this choice a large Majorana mass can be
178: generated (through
179: the see-saw mechanism) for the right-handed neutrino and a small one for
180: the left-handed neutrino~\cite{mohapatra}.
181: In addition to the triplets $\Delta_{L,R}$, the model must contain two
182: additional triplets, $\delta_{L}(1,0,-2)$ and $\delta_{R}(0,1,-2)$, with
183: quantum number $B-L= -2$, to insure cancellation of the anomalies which
184: would
185: otherwise occur in the fermionic sector.
186: The superpotential for the LRSUSY model is:
187: \begin{eqnarray}
188: \label{superpotential}
189: W_{LRSUSY} & = & {\bf h}_{q}^{(i)} Q^T\tau_{2}\Phi_{i} \tau_{2}Q^{c} + {\bf
190: h}_{l}^{(i)}
191: L^T\tau_{2}\Phi_{i} \tau_{2}L^{c} + i({\bf h}_{LR}L^T\tau_{2} \Delta_L L
192: + {\bf
193: h}_{LR}L^{cT}\tau_{2}
194: \Delta_R L^{c}) \nonumber \\
195: & & + M_{LR}\left [Tr (\Delta_L \delta_L +\Delta_R
196: \delta_R)\right] + \mu_{ij}Tr(\tau_{2}\Phi^{T}_{i} \tau_{2} \Phi_{j})
197: +W_{NR}
198: \end{eqnarray}
199: where $W_{NR}$ denotes (possible) non-renormalizable terms arising
200: from higher scale
201: physics or Planck scale effects~\cite{recmohapatra}. The presence of
202: these terms
203: insures that, when the SUSY breaking scale is above $M_{W_{R}}$, the
204: ground state is R-parity conserving ~\cite{km}.
205:
206: The neutral Higgs fields acquire non-zero vacuum
207: expectation values $(VEV's)$ through spontaneous symmetry breaking:
208: \begin{eqnarray}
209: \langle \Delta \rangle_{L,R} = \left(\begin{array}{cc}
210: 0&0\\v_{L,R}&0
211: \end{array}\right),
212: ~\rm{and}~
213: \langle \Phi \rangle_{u,d} = \left (\begin{array}{cc}
214: \kappa_{u,d}&0\\0&\kappa^{\prime}_{u,d} e^{i\omega}
215: \end{array}\right).
216: \nonumber
217: \end{eqnarray}
218: $\langle \Phi \rangle$ causes the mixing of $W_{L}$ and $W_{R}$
219: bosons with $CP$-violating
220: phase $\omega$. The non-zero Higgs $VEV's$
221: breaks both parity and $SU(2)_{R}$.
222: In the first stage of breaking, the right-handed gauge bosons, $W_{R}$ and
223: $Z_{R}$ acquire masses proportional to $v_{R}$ and become much heavier
224: than the SM (left-handed) gauge bosons $W_{L}$ and $Z_{L}$, which pick
225: up masses
226: proportional to $\kappa_{u}$ and $\kappa_{d}$ at the second stage of
227: breaking.
228:
229: In the supersymmetric sector of the model there are six singly-charged
230: charginos, corresponding to $\tilde\lambda_{L}$,
231: $\tilde\lambda_{R}$, $\tilde\phi_{u}$,
232: $\tilde\phi_{d}$, $\tilde\Delta_{L}^{\pm}$, and
233: $\tilde\Delta_{R}^{\pm}$.
234: The model also has eleven neutralinos, corresponding to
235: $\tilde\lambda_{Z}$,
236: $\tilde\lambda_{Z^{\prime}}$,
237: $\tilde\lambda_{V}$, $\tilde\phi_{1u}^0$, $\tilde\phi_{2u}^0$,
238: $\tilde\phi_{1d}^0$, $\tilde\phi_{2d}^0$, $\tilde\Delta_{L}^0$,
239: $\tilde\Delta_{R}^0$, $\tilde\delta_{L}^0$, and
240: $\tilde\delta_{R}^0$. Although $\Delta_{L}$
241: is not necessary for symmetry breaking~\cite{huitu}, and is
242: introduced only for preserving left-right symmetry, both
243: $\Delta_{L}^{--}({\tilde \Delta_{L}^{--}})$ and its
244: right-handed counterparts $\Delta_{R}^{--}({\tilde \Delta_{R}^{--}})$
245: play very important
246: roles in lepton phenomenology of the LRSUSY model. The doubly charged Higgs
247: and Higgsinos do not
248: affect quark phenomenology, but the neutral and singly charged
249: components do, through
250: mixings in the chargino and neutralino mass matrices. We include only
251: the
252: ${\tilde \Delta}_R$ contribution in the numerical analysis.
253:
254: The supersymmetric sources of flavor violation in the LRSUSY model
255: come from either the
256: Yukawa potential or the trilinear scalar coupling.
257:
258: The interaction of fermions with scalar (Higgs) fields has the following
259: form:
260: \begin{eqnarray}
261: \label{eq:yukawa}
262: {\cal L}_Y= {\bf h}_u\bar{Q}_L \Phi_u Q_R + {\bf h}_d \bar{Q}_L \Phi_d
263: Q_R\,
264: +{\bf h}_\nu\bar{L}_L \Phi_u L_R + {\bf h}_e \bar{L}_L \Phi_d
265: L_R+\,H.c.;\nonumber \\
266: {\cal L}_M=i{\bf h}_{LR}(L_L^TC^{-1}\tau_2\Delta_LL_L+
267: L_R^TC^{-1}\tau_2\Delta_RL_R) + H.c.
268: \end{eqnarray}
269: where ${\bf h}_u$, ${\bf h}_d$, ${\bf h}_{\nu}$ and ${\bf h}_e$ are
270: the Yukawa couplings
271: for the up and down quarks and neutrino and electron, respectively,
272: and ${\bf h}_{LR}$ is
273: the coupling for the triplet Higgs bosons. LR symmetry requires all
274: ${\bf h}$-matrices to be Hermitean in generation space and
275: ${\bf h}_{LR}$ matrix to be symmetric.
276: We present below the gaugino-Higgsino as well as the sfermion structure
277: of the model, before proceeding with calculation of the branching ratio
278: of $b
279: \rightarrow s \gamma$.
280:
281: \subsection{Charginos}
282:
283: The terms relevant to the masses of charginos in the Lagrangian are:
284: \begin{equation}
285: {\cal L}_C=-\frac{1}{2}(\psi^+, \psi^-) \left ( \begin{array}{cc}
286: 0 & X^T \\
287: X & 0
288: \end{array}
289: \right ) \left (
290: \begin{array}{c}
291: \psi^+ \\
292: \psi^-
293: \end{array}
294: \right ) + H.c. \ ,
295: \end{equation}
296: where $\psi^+=(-i \lambda^+_L, -i \lambda^+_R, \tilde{\phi}_{u1}^+,
297: \tilde{\phi}_{d1}^+, \tilde{\Delta}_R^+)^T$
298: and $\psi^-=(-i \lambda^-_L, -i \lambda^-_R, \tilde{\phi}_{u2}^-,
299: \tilde{\phi}_{d2}^-, \tilde{\delta}_R^-)^T$, and:
300: \begin{equation}
301: X=\left( \begin{array}{ccccc}
302: M_L & 0 & g_L \kappa_u & 0 & 0 \\
303: 0 & M_R & g_R \kappa_u & 0 & 0 \\
304: 0 & 0 & 0 & -\mu & 0 \\
305: g_L \kappa_d & g_R \kappa_d & -\mu & 0 & 0 \\
306: 0 & \sqrt{2} g_R v_R & 0 & 0 & -\mu
307: \end{array}
308: \right )
309: \end{equation}
310: where we have taken, for simplification, $\mu_{ij}=\mu$. The chargino mass
311: eigenstates $\chi_i$ are obtained by:
312: \begin{eqnarray}
313: \chi_i^+=V_{ij}\psi_j^+, \ \chi_i^-=U_{ij}\psi_j^-, \ i,j=1, \ldots 5,
314: \end{eqnarray}
315: with $V$ and $U$ unitary matrices satisfying:
316: \begin{equation}
317: U^* X V^{-1} = M_D,
318: \end{equation}
319: where $M_D$ is a diagonal matrix with non-negative entries. Positive
320: square roots of the eigenvalues of
321: $X^{\dagger} X$ ($X X^{\dagger}$) will be the diagonal entries of
322: $M_D$ such that:
323: \begin{equation}
324: V X^{\dagger} X V^{-1}=U^* X X^{\dagger} (U^*)^{-1}=M_D^2.
325: \label{equationC}
326: \end{equation}
327: The diagonalizing matrices $U^*$ and $V$ are obtained by
328: computing the eigenvectors corresponding
329: to the eigenvalues of $X^{\dagger} X$ and $X X^{\dagger}$, respectively.
330:
331:
332:
333:
334: \subsection{Neutralinos}
335:
336: The terms relevant to the masses of neutralinos in the Lagrangian are:
337: \begin{equation}
338: {\cal L}_N=-\frac{1}{2} {\psi^0}^T Y \psi^0 + H.c. \ ,
339: \end{equation}
340: where $\psi^0=(-i \lambda_L^3, -i \lambda_R^3, -i \lambda_V,
341: \tilde{\phi}_{u1}^0, \tilde{\phi}^0_{u2},
342: \tilde{\phi}_{d1}^0, \tilde{\phi}^0_{d2}, \tilde{\Delta}_R^0,
343: \tilde{\delta}_R^0 )^T $, and:
344: and
345: \begin{equation}
346: Y=\left( \begin{array}{ccccccccc}
347: M_L & 0 & 0 & \frac{g_L \kappa_u}{\sqrt{2}} & 0 & 0 & -
348: \frac{g_L \kappa_d}{\sqrt{2}} & 0 & 0 \\
349: 0 & M_R & 0 & \frac{g_R \kappa_u}{\sqrt{2}} & 0 & 0 &
350: -\frac{g_R \kappa_d}{\sqrt{2}} & -\sqrt{2}g_R v_R & 0 \\
351: 0 & 0 & M_V & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 2 \sqrt{2} g_V v_R & 0 \\
352: \frac{g_L \kappa_u}{\sqrt{2}} & \frac{g_R \kappa_u}{\sqrt{2}}
353: &
354: 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & -\mu & 0 & 0 \\
355: 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & -\mu & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
356: 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & -\mu & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
357: -\frac{g_L \kappa_d}{\sqrt{2}} & -\frac{g_R
358: \kappa_d}{\sqrt{2}}
359: & 0 & -\mu & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
360: 0 & -\sqrt{2}g_R v_R & \sqrt{2}g_V v_R & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 &
361: -\mu \\
362: 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & -\mu & 0
363: \end{array}
364: \right ).
365: \end{equation}
366: The mass eigenstates are defined by:
367: \begin{equation}
368: \chi^0_i=N_{ij} \psi^0_j \ (i,j=1,2, \ldots 9),
369: \end{equation}
370: where $N$ is a unitary matrix chosen such that:
371: \begin{equation}
372: N^* Y N^{-1} = N_D,
373: \label{equationN}
374: \end{equation}
375: and $N_D$ is a diagonal matrix with non-negative entries.
376: To determine $N$, we take the square of Eq. (\ref{equationN})
377: obtaining:
378: \begin{equation}
379: N Y^{\dagger} Y N^{-1} = N_D^2,
380: \end{equation}
381: which is similar to Eq. (\ref{equationC}).
382:
383: We found it convenient to define the neutralino states in terms of
384: the photino and
385: left and right zino states:
386: \begin{equation}
387: {\psi^0}^{\prime}=(-i \lambda_{\gamma}, -i \lambda_{Z_L}, -i
388: \lambda_{Z_R}, \tilde{\phi}_{u1}^0, \tilde{\phi}^0_{u2},
389: \tilde{\phi}_{d1}^0, \tilde{\phi}^0_{d2}, \tilde{\Delta}_R^0,
390: \tilde{\delta}_R^0 )^T,
391: \end{equation}
392: with:
393: \begin{eqnarray}
394: \lambda_{\gamma} &=& \lambda_L^3 \sin \theta_W + \lambda_R^3 \sin
395: \theta_W + \lambda_V \sqrt{\cos 2 \theta_W} \nonumber \\
396: \lambda_{Z_L} &=& \lambda_L^3 \cos \theta_W - \lambda_R^3 \sin \theta_W
397: \tan \theta_W - \lambda_V \sqrt{\cos 2 \theta_W} \tan \theta_W \nonumber
398: \\
399: \lambda_{Z_R} &=& \lambda_R^3 \frac{\sqrt{\cos 2 \theta_W}}{\cos
400: \theta_W} - \lambda_V \tan \theta_W
401: \end{eqnarray}
402: Then the mass matrix $Y$ would be replaced by a matrix $Y^{\prime}$
403: found to
404: be:
405:
406: \begin{equation}
407: {\small
408: Y^{\prime}=\left( \begin{array}{ccccccccc}
409: m_{\tilde{\gamma}} & 0 & 0 & F & 0 & 0 & -F & -2 \sqrt{2} e
410: v_R & 0 \\
411: 0 & m_{\tilde{Z}_L} & 0 & A_1 & 0 & 0 & A_2 & D & 0 \\
412: 0 & 0 & m_{\tilde{Z}_R} & E & 0 & 0 & C & B & 0 \\
413: F & A_1 & E & 0 & 0 & 0 & -\mu & 0 & 0 \\
414: 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & -\mu & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
415: 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & -\mu & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
416: -F & A_2 & C & -\mu & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
417: -2 \sqrt{2} e v_R & D & B & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & -\mu \\
418: 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & -\mu & 0
419: \end{array}
420: \right ).
421: }
422: \end{equation}
423: with:
424: \begin{eqnarray}
425: m_{\tilde{\gamma}}&=& M_V \cos 2 \theta_W + (M_L+M_R) \sin^2 \theta_W ,
426: \nonumber \\
427: m_{\tilde{Z}_L}&=&M_V \cos 2 \theta_W \tan^2 \theta_W +M_L \cos^2
428: \theta_W + M_R \sin^2 \theta_W \tan^2 \theta_W , \nonumber \\
429: m_{\tilde{Z}_R}&=&M_V \tan^2 \theta_W + M_R (1-\tan^2 \theta_W) ,
430: \nonumber \\
431: A_1&=& \frac{g}{\sqrt{2} \cos \theta_W} ( \kappa_u \cos^2 \theta_W
432: -\kappa_d \sin \theta_W) , \nonumber \\
433: A_2&=& \frac{g}{\sqrt{2} \cos \theta_W} ( \kappa_d \cos^2 \theta_W
434: -\kappa_u \sin \theta_W) , \nonumber \\
435: B&=&-\sqrt{2} g \frac{1-2 \tan^2 \theta_W}{\sqrt{1-\tan^2 \theta_W}}
436: v_R , \nonumber \\
437: C&=&-\frac{g \sqrt{\cos 2 \theta_W }}{\sqrt{2}\cos \theta_W}
438: \kappa_u,
439: \nonumber \\
440: D&=&-\frac{\sqrt{2} g \sqrt{\cos 2 \theta_W}}{\cos \theta_W} v_R ,
441: \nonumber \\
442: E&=&\frac{g \sqrt{\cos 2 \theta_W}}{\sqrt{2}\cos \theta_W} \kappa_d ,
443: \nonumber \\
444: F&=& \frac{e }{\sqrt{2}}(\kappa_u+\kappa_d),
445: \end{eqnarray}
446: The unitary matrix $N$ would be replaced by a new matrix:
447: $N^{\prime}$ given by:
448: \begin{eqnarray}
449: N_{j1}^{\prime}&=&N_{j1} \sin \theta_W + N_{j2} \sin \theta_W+ N_{j3}
450: \sqrt{\cos 2 \theta_W} \nonumber \\
451: N_{j2}^{\prime}&=&N_{j1} \cos \theta_W - N_{j2} \sin \theta_W \tan
452: \theta_W - N_{j3} \sqrt{\cos 2 \theta_W} \tan \theta_W \nonumber \\
453: N_{j3}^{\prime}&=&N_{j2} \frac{\sqrt{\cos 2 \theta_W}}{\cos \theta_W} -
454: N_{j3} \tan \theta_W \nonumber \\
455: N_{jk}^{\prime}&=&N_{jk}, \ (k=4, 5, \ldots 9).
456: \end{eqnarray}
457: Similarly $N$ can be expressed in term of $N^{\prime}$ by:
458: \begin{eqnarray}
459: N_{j1}&=&N_{j1}^{\prime} \sin \theta_W + N_{j2}^{\prime} \cos \theta_W
460: \nonumber \\
461: N_{j2}&=&N_{j1}^{\prime} \sin \theta_W - N_{j2}^{\prime} \sin \theta_W
462: \tan \theta_W - N_{j3}^{\prime} \frac{\sqrt{\cos 2 \theta_W}}{ \cos
463: \theta_W} \nonumber \\
464: N_{j3}&=&N_{j1}^{\prime} \sqrt{\cos 2 \theta_W} - N_{j2}^{\prime} \tan
465: \theta_W \sqrt{\cos 2 \theta_W} \nonumber - N_{j3} \tan \theta_W \\
466: N_{jk}&=&N_{jk}^{\prime}, \ (k=4, 5, \ldots 9).
467: \end{eqnarray}
468:
469:
470: \subsection{Squarks}
471:
472: In the interaction basis, $(\tilde{q}_L^{i}, \tilde{q}_R^{i})$, the
473: squared-mass matrix for a squark of flavor $f$ has the form:
474: \begin{equation}
475: {\cal M}_f^2= \left( \begin{array}{cc}
476: m_{f,LL}^2+F_{f,LL}+D_{f,LL} &
477: (m_{f,LR}^2)+F_{f,LR} \\
478: (m_{f,LR}^2)^{\dagger}+F_{f,RL} &
479: m_{f,RR}^2+F_{f,RR}+D_{f,RR}
480: \end{array}
481: \right).
482: \end{equation}
483: The F-terms are diagonal in the flavor space, $F_{f,LL, RR}=m_f^2$,
484: $(F_{d \ LR})_{ij}=-\mu
485: (m_{d_i} \tan \beta ) {\bf 1}_{ij}$, $(F_{u \ LR})_{ij}=-\mu
486: (m_{u_i} \cot \beta ) {\bf 1}_{ij}$.
487: The D-terms is also flavor-diagonal:
488: \begin{eqnarray}
489: D_{f \ LL}&=&M_Z^2 \cos 2 \beta (T_f^3-Q_f \sin^2 \theta_W) {\bf 1}
490: \nonumber \\
491: D_{f \ RR}&=&M_Z^2 \cos 2 \beta Q_f \sin^2 \theta_W {\bf 1}
492: \end{eqnarray}
493: The term $(m_{f,LL,RR}^2)_{ij}=m^2_{\tilde{Q}_{L,R}} \delta_{ij}$, $m_{f
494: \ LR}^2=A_f^* m_f$.
495: To reduce the number of free parameters, we consider the parameters
496: to be universal,
497: with:
498: $(m^2_{\tilde{Q}_{L,R}})_{ij}=m_0^2 \delta_{ij}$, $A_{d,ij}=A
499: \delta_{ij}$ and $A_{u,ij}=A \delta_{ij}$.
500:
501: The squared-mass matrix for U-type squarks reduces to:
502: \begin{equation}
503: {\cal M}_{U_k}^2= \left( \begin{array}{cc}
504: m_0^2+M_Z^2(T_u^3-Q_u \sin^2 \theta_W) \cos 2
505: \beta & m_{u_k} (A-\mu \cot \beta) \\
506: m_{u_k} (A-\mu \cot \beta) &
507: m_0^2+M_Z^2 Q_u \sin^2 \theta_W \cos 2 \beta
508: \end{array}
509: \right).
510: \end{equation}
511: with the diagonal F-terms absorbed into the $m_0^2$. For D-type squarks:
512: \begin{equation}
513: {\cal M}_{D_k}^2= \left( \begin{array}{cc}
514: m_0^2+M_Z^2(T_d^3-Q_d \sin^2 \theta_W) \cos 2
515: \beta & m_{d_k} (A-\mu \tan \beta)\\
516: m_{d_k} (A-\mu \tan \beta) &
517: m_0^2+M_Z^2 Q_d \sin^2 \theta_W \cos2 \beta
518: \end{array}
519: \right).
520: \end{equation}
521: The corresponding mass eigenstates are defined as:
522: \begin{equation}
523: {\tilde q}_{L,R}=\Gamma^{\dagger}_{Q \ L,R} \tilde{q}
524: \end{equation}
525: where $\Gamma^{\dagger}_{Q \ L,R}$ are 6$\times$ 3 mixing matrices.
526: In the universal case, there is no intergenerational mixings for
527: squarks and the only source of flavor mixing comes from the CKM
528: matrix. We will analyse this
529: case first. Next we will look at the case in which mixing in the squark
530: sector is permitted and consider
531: the effect of intergenerational mixings on the rate of the process $b
532: \rightarrow s \gamma$.
533: As it is generally done
534: in the mass insertion approximation method \cite{MI}, where the
535: off-diagonal
536: squark mass matrix
537: elements are assumed to be small and
538: their higher orders can be neglected, we use normalized parameters:
539: \begin{eqnarray}
540: \label{massins}
541: \delta_{d,LL,ij}&=&\frac{(m^2_{d,LL})_{ij}}{m_0^2},~~~
542: \delta_{d,RR,ij}=\frac{(m^2_{d,RR})_{ij}}{m_0^2}, \nonumber \\
543: \delta_{d,LR,ij}&=&\frac{(m^2_{d,LR})_{ij}}{m_0^2},~~~
544: \delta_{d,RL,ij}=\frac{(m^2_{d,RL})_{ij}}{m_0^2},
545: \end{eqnarray}
546: In our analysis, we use the mass eigenstate formalism, which is valid
547: no matter how large
548: the intergenerational mixings are. We assume significant mixing between
549: the second and third
550: generations in the down-squarks mass matrix only.
551:
552: \section{Supersymmetric contributions to $b \rightarrow s \gamma$}
553:
554: The low-energy effective Hamiltonian responsible for the B meson decay rates
555: at the scale
556: $\mu$ can be written as:
557: \begin{equation}
558: {\cal H}_{eff}=-\frac{4 G_F}{\sqrt{2}}K_{tb}K^*_{ts} \sum_i C_i(\mu)
559: Q_i(\mu).
560: \end{equation}
561: The operators relevant to the process $b \rightarrow s \gamma$ in LRSUSY
562: are:
563: \begin{eqnarray}
564: Q_7&=&\frac{e}{16 \pi^2}m_b(\mu) \bar{s} \sigma_{\mu \nu} P_R b F^{\mu
565: \nu}, \nonumber \\
566: Q_7^{\prime}&=&\frac{e}{16 \pi^2}m_b(\mu) \bar{s} \sigma_{\mu \nu} P_L
567: b F^{\mu \nu}, \nonumber \\
568: Q_8&=&\frac{g_s}{16 \pi^2}m_b(\mu) \bar{s} \sigma_{\mu \nu} G^{\mu
569: \nu}_a T^a P_R b , \nonumber \\
570: Q_8^{\prime}&=&\frac{g_s}{16 \pi^2}m_b(\mu) \bar{s} \sigma_{\mu \nu}
571: G^{\mu
572: \nu}_a T^a P_L b
573: \end{eqnarray}
574: and the Wilson coefficients $C_{7,8}^{\prime}$ are initially evaluated
575: at the
576: electroweak or soft supersymmetry breaking scale, then evolved down
577: to the scale $\mu$.
578: The Feynman diagrams contributing to this decay in LRSUSY are
579: illustrated in Fig.
580: \ref{feynmandiagrams}.
581: \begin{figure}
582: \centerline{ \epsfysize 1.0in
583: \rotatebox{360}{\epsfbox{feynmandiagrams.eps}} }
584: \caption{The Feynman diagrams contributing to the decay $b \rightarrow s
585: \gamma$. The outgoing photon line can be attached in all possible ways. }
586: \protect \label{feynmandiagrams}
587: \end{figure}
588:
589: The matrix elements responsible for the $b \rightarrow s \gamma$
590: decay acquire the
591: following contributions from the supersymmetric sector of the model.
592: For $b_L$ decay:
593: \begin{equation}
594: M_{\gamma_R}=A_{\tilde{g}}^R+A_{\tilde{\chi}^-}^R+A_{\tilde{\chi}^0}^R
595: \end{equation}
596: with the gluino, chargino and neutralino contributions given by:
597: \begin{eqnarray}
598: A_{\tilde{g}}^R &=& - \frac{\pi \alpha_s}{\sqrt{2} G_F} Q_d C(R)
599: \sum_{k=1}^6
600: \frac{1}{m_{\tilde{d}_k}^2} \{ \Gamma_{DL}^{kb} \Gamma_{DL}^{*ks}
601: F_2(x_{\tilde{g} \tilde{d_k}})
602: -\frac{m_{\tilde{g}}}{m_b} \Gamma_{DR}^{kb} \Gamma_{DL}^{*ks}
603: F_4(x_{\tilde{g} \tilde{d_k}}) \} \\
604: A_{\tilde{\chi}^-}^R &=& - \frac{\pi \alpha_w}{\sqrt{2} G_F}
605: \sum_{j=1}^5 \sum_{k=1}^6
606: \frac{1}{m_{\tilde{u}_k}^2} \{
607: (G_{UL}^{jkb}-H_{UR}^{jkb})(G_{UL}^{*jks}-H_{UR}^{*jks})
608: [ F_1(x_{\tilde{\chi}_j \tilde{u}_k})+ Q_u F_2(x_{\tilde{\chi}_j
609: \tilde{u}_k})] \nonumber \\
610: & & +\frac{m_{\tilde{\chi}_j}}{m_b} (G_{UR}^{jkb}-H_{UL}^{jkb})
611: (G_{UL}^{*jks}
612: -H_{UR}^{*jks}) [F_3 (x_{\tilde{\chi}_j \tilde{u}_k})+ Q_u
613: F_4(x_{\tilde{\chi}_j \tilde{u}_k})] \} \\
614: A_{\tilde{\chi}^0}^R &=& - \frac{\pi \alpha_w}{\sqrt{2} G_F} Q_d
615: \sum_{j=1}^9 \sum_{k=1}^6
616: \frac{1}{m_{\tilde{u}_k}^2} \{
617: (\sqrt{2}G_{0DL}^{jkb}-H_{0DR}^{jkb})(\sqrt{2}G_{0DL}^{*jks}-H_{0DR}^{*jks})
618: F_2(x_{\tilde{\chi}_j^0 \tilde{d}_k}) \nonumber \\
619: & & +\frac{m_{\tilde{\chi}_j^0}}{m_b}
620: (\sqrt{2}G_{0DR}^{jkb}-H_{DL}^{jkb}) (\sqrt{2} G_{0DL}^{*jks}
621: -H_{0DR}^{*jks}) F_4(x_{\tilde{\chi}_j^0 \tilde{d}_k}) \}
622: \end{eqnarray}
623: and, for the decay of $b_R$:
624: \begin{equation}
625: M_{\gamma_L}=A_{\tilde{g}}^L+A_{\tilde{\chi}^-}^L+A_{\tilde{\chi}^0}^L
626: \end{equation}
627: again, with the following gluino, chargino and neutralino contributions:
628: \begin{eqnarray}
629: A_{\tilde{g}}^L &=& - \frac{\pi \alpha_s}{\sqrt{2} G_F} Q_d C(R)
630: \sum_{k=1}^6
631: \frac{1}{m_{\tilde{d}_k}^2} \{ \Gamma_{DR}^{kb} \Gamma_{DR}^{*ks}
632: F_2(x_{\tilde{g} \tilde{d_k}})
633: -\frac{m_{\tilde{g}}}{m_b} \Gamma_{DL}^{kb} \Gamma_{DR}^{*ks}
634: F_4(x_{\tilde{g} \tilde{d_k}}) \} \\
635: A_{\tilde{\chi}^-}^L &=& - \frac{\pi \alpha_w}{\sqrt{2} G_F}
636: \sum_{j=1}^5 \sum_{k=1}^6
637: \frac{1}{m_{\tilde{u}_k}^2} \{
638: (G_{UR}^{jkb}-H_{UL}^{jkb})(G_{UR}^{*jks}-H_{UL}^{*jks})
639: [ F_1(x_{\tilde{\chi}_j \tilde{u}_k})+ Q_u F_2(x_{\tilde{\chi}_j
640: \tilde{u}_k})] \nonumber \\
641: & & +\frac{m_{\tilde{\chi}_j}}{m_b} (G_{UL}^{jkb}-H_{UR}^{jkb})
642: (G_{UR}^{*jks}
643: -H_{UL}^{*jks}) [F_3 (x_{\tilde{\chi}_j \tilde{u}_k})+ Q_u
644: F_4(x_{\tilde{\chi}_j \tilde{u}_k})] \} \\
645: A_{\tilde{\chi}^0}^L &=& - \frac{\pi \alpha_w}{\sqrt{2} G_F} Q_d
646: \sum_{j=1}^9 \sum_{k=1}^6
647: \frac{1}{m_{\tilde{u}_k}^2} \{
648: (\sqrt{2}G_{0DR}^{jkb}-H_{0DL}^{jkb})(\sqrt{2}G_{0DR}^{*jks}-
649: H_{0DL}^{*jks})
650: F_2(x_{\tilde{\chi}_j^0 \tilde{d}_k}) \nonumber \\
651: & & +\frac{m_{\tilde{\chi}_j^0}}{m_b}
652: (\sqrt{2}G_{0DL}^{jkb}-H_{DR}^{jkb}) (\sqrt{2} G_{0DR}^{*jks}
653: -H_{0DL}^{*jks}) F_4(x_{\tilde{\chi}_j^0 \tilde{d}_k}) \}
654: \end{eqnarray}
655: where vertex mixing matrices $G$, $H$, $G_0$ and $H_0$ are defined in
656: the Appendix.
657: The convention
658: $x_{ab}=m_a^2/m_b^2$ is used. $C(R) =4/3$ is the quadratic Casimir
659: operator of the fundamental
660: representation of $SU(3)_C$.
661:
662: In order to compare the results obtained with experimental branching
663: ratios, QCD
664: corrections must be taken into account.
665: We assume below the SM renormalization group evolution pattern;
666: supersymmetric estimates
667: exist for the gluino
668: contributions only \cite{bghw}. There is no mixing between left and
669: right-handed contributions.
670: \begin{equation}
671: A^{\gamma} (m_b)=\eta^{-16/23} \{ A^{\gamma} (M_W) + A^{\gamma}_0 [
672: \frac{116}{135} (\eta^{28/23}-1)
673: +\frac{58}{189}(\eta^{28/23}-1)] \},
674: \end{equation}
675: where $\eta=\alpha_s(m_b)/ \alpha_s(M_W)$ and $A^{\gamma}_0= \frac{\pi
676: \alpha_w }{2 \sqrt{2} G_F}
677: \frac{1}{M_W^2}$. We choose the renormalization scale to be $\mu=m_b=4.2$ GeV.
678:
679: The inclusive decay width for the process $b \rightarrow s \gamma$ is
680: given by:
681: \begin{equation}
682: \Gamma(b \rightarrow s \gamma)=\frac{m_b^5 G_F^2 |K_{tb} K_{ts}^*|^2
683: \alpha}{32 \pi^4}
684: \left( \hat{M}_{\gamma L}^2+\hat{M}_{\gamma R}^2
685: \right),
686: \end{equation}
687: where the hat means evolving down to the decay scale $\mu=m_b$.
688: The branching ratio can be expressed as
689: \begin{equation}
690: BR (b\rightarrow s \gamma)= \frac{\Gamma (b\rightarrow s
691: \gamma)}{\Gamma_{SL}} BR_{SL},
692: \end{equation}
693: where the semileptonic branching ratio $BR_{SL}=BR(b \rightarrow ce
694: {\bar \nu})=(10.49
695: \pm 0.46)\%$ and:
696: \begin{equation}
697: \Gamma_{SL}=\frac{m_b^5 G_F^2 |K_{cb} |^2 }{192 \pi^3}g(z),
698: \end{equation}
699: where $z=m_c^2/m_b^2$ and $g(z)=1-8z+8z^3-z^4-12z^2 \mathrm{log}$$z$.
700:
701: \section{Numerical results}
702:
703: We are interested in analysing the case in which the supersymmetric
704: partners have
705: masses around the weak scale, so we will assume relatively light
706: superpartner masses. We diagonalize the neutralino and chargino mass matrices
707: numerically and we require in all calculations that the masses of
708: gluinos, charginos,
709: neutralinos and squarks be above their experimental bounds. There are
710: some extra
711: constraints in the
712: non-supersymmetric sector of the theory, requiring the FCNC Higgs
713: boson $\Phi_d$ to be heavy,
714: but no such constraints exist in the Higgsino sector \cite{pospelov}.
715: We choose the gluino
716: mass
717: $m_{\tilde g}=300$ GeV, and left-handed gaugino masses of $M_L=500$
718: GeV. The mass of the
719: lightest bottom squark will be in the $150-200$ GeV range. We include
720: in our numerical
721: estimates the non-supersymmetric LRM results, and for this we
722: constrain the lightest Higgs
723: mass to be
724: $115$ GeV \cite{higgs}. We analyze our results for low and moderate
725: values of $\tan \beta$,
726: although we study the dependence of the branching ratio on $\tan
727: \beta$. We also investigate
728: the dependence of the
729: branching ratio on both positive and negative values of the $\mu$
730: parameter.
731:
732: As a first step, we assume the only source of flavor violation to
733: come from the CKM
734: matrix. This scenario is related to the minimal flavor violation
735: scenario in
736: supergravity. This restricted possibility of flavor violation will
737: set important constraints
738: on the parameter space of LRSUSY.
739:
740: We then allow, in the second stage of our investigation, for new
741: sources of flavor
742: violation coming from the
743: soft breaking terms. In MSSM, this scenario is known as the
744: unconstrained MSSM and there
745: the gluino contribution dominates. This is not so in LRSUSY, where the
746: chargino
747: contribution is important for low to intermediate values of $M_R$,
748: the right-handed
749: gaugino mass
750: parameter. We restrict all allowable LL, LR, RL and RR sflavor
751: mixing, assuming them to
752: be dominated by mixings between the second and third squark family.
753:
754: We now proceed to discuss both these scenarios in turn.
755:
756: \subsection{The constrained LRSUSY}
757:
758: By the constrained LRSUSY model, we mean the scenario
759: in which the only source
760: of flavor violation comes from the quark sector, through the CKM
761: matrix, which we assume
762: to be the same for both the left and right handed sectors.
763:
764: Before any meaningful numerical results be obtained, explicit values for
765: the
766: parameters in the model must be specified. There are many parameters in
767: the model
768: such that it is hard, if not impossible, to get an illustrative
769: presentation of
770: calculation results. If LRSUSY is embedded in a supersymmetric grand
771: unification
772: theory such as $SO(\mathrm{10})$, there exist some relationships among
773: the parameters
774: at the unification scale $M_{GUT}$. We can generally choose specific
775: values for much less
776: parameters at mass scales $\mu= M_{GUT}$, then use renormalization
777: group equations to run
778: them down to the low energy scale
779: which is relevant to
780: phenomenology. But, for maintaining both simplicity and generality,
781: we can present an
782: analysis in which LRSUSY is not embedded into another group. Then we
783: can choose all
784: parameters as independently free parameters, with the numerical
785: results confronting with
786: experiments directly.
787:
788: To make the results tractable, we assume all trilinear scalar couplings
789: in the soft
790: supersymmetry breaking Lagrangian as $A_{ij}=A \delta_{ij}$ and
791: $\mu_{ij}=\mu \delta_{ij}$, and we fix $A$ to be $50$ GeV in all the
792: analysis. We also set a common mass parameter for all the squarks
793: $M_{0UL}=M_{0UR}=
794: M_{0DL}=M_{0DR}=m_0$. The general range of these
795: parameters is as discussed in the previous paragraphs.
796: We also take $K^L_{CKM}=K^R_{CKM}$. This choice is conservative, and
797: much larger values
798: of mixing matrix elements are allowed in scenarios that attempt to
799: explain the decay
800: properties of the $b$ quark as being saturated by the right-handed $b$
801: \cite{gronau}. Our
802: choice does not favor one handedness over the other, and has the
803: added advantage that no
804: new mixing angles are introduced in the quark matrices.
805:
806: We investigate first the dependence of the branching ratio on the
807: values of $\tan
808: \beta$ in Fig. \ref{figbeta}. The solid line represents the
809: supersymmetric
810: contribution, the dashed the total contribution (including the SM and
811: LRM). All the graphs
812: show the experimental bounds as horizontal lines in the figures. The
813: universal squark mass is
814: around 200 GeV, and the chargino and neutralino are light. The choice of
815: parameters puts
816: stringent restrictions on the allowed values for $\tan
817: \beta$: either very low ($\tan \beta =$2-4), or intermediate in a very
818: small range ($\tan
819: \beta =$12-14) values are allowed.
820: As $\tan \beta$ becomes large, the branching
821: ration is almost linearly proportional to $\tan \beta$. For larger
822: values of $\tan \beta$ the
823: branching ratio will exceed the acceptable range easily.
824: In our analysis, larger values of $\tan \beta$ are
825: allowed only for a
826: heavier supersymmetric mass spectra. For $sign(\mu)<0$, the range of
827: acceptable intermediate
828: values of $\tan \beta $ increases. For example, if $\mu=-100$ GeV,
829: the larger range $\tan
830: \beta =22-33$ is allowed.
831: We note that constraints on supersymmetry with large $\tan \beta$ were studied
832: in Ref. \cite{beta} where $\tan \beta$-enhanced chargino and charged
833: Higgs contributions were resummed to all order in perturbation theory.
834:
835: \begin{figure}
836: \centerline{ \epsfysize 4.0in \rotatebox{270}{\epsfbox{beta.eps}} }
837: \caption{Supersymmetric contributions to BR($b \rightarrow s
838: \gamma$) as a function of $\tan \beta$, obtained when
839: $m_{\tilde{g}}=300$ GeV,
840: $\mu=100$ GeV, $M_L=M_R=500$ GeV and $m_0=200$ GeV. The full
841: contributions is also shown(dashed). The range of acceptable values of
842: branching ratios is given.}
843: \protect \label{figbeta}
844: \end{figure}
845:
846: As a general feature of the LRSUSY branching ratio, in a large region
847: of parameter space, the
848: chargino contribution is
849: comparable to the gluino, while
850: the neutralino contribution is always smaller.
851: We investigate the dependence of
852: the branching ratio on the gluino mass, for a light squark scenario.
853: The chargino and
854: neutralino masses are light and $\mu/M_{L,R} \sim {\cal O}(1)$, a scenario
855: favored by recent analyses of the
856: anomalous magnetic moment of the muon \cite{g-2}. We present the
857: results in Fig.
858: \ref{figmgluino}. The gluino
859: is constrained to be heavier than 300 GeV, albeit for a very light
860: supersymmetric
861: spectrum, close to experimental limits.
862:
863: \begin{figure}
864: \centerline{ \epsfysize 4.0in \rotatebox{270}{\epsfbox{mgluino.eps}} }
865: \caption{Supersymmetric contributions to BR($b \rightarrow s
866: \gamma$) as a function of the mass of the gluino $m_{\tilde{g}}$,
867: obtained when $\tan \beta =5$,
868: $\mu=100$ GeV, $M_L=M_R=500$ GeV and $m_0=100$ GeV. The full
869: contributions is also shown(dashed). The range of acceptable values of
870: branching ratios is given.}
871: \protect \label{figmgluino}
872: \end{figure}
873:
874: \begin{figure}
875: \centerline{ \epsfysize 4.0in \rotatebox{270}{\epsfbox{mu1.eps}} }
876: \caption{Supersymmetric contributions to BR($b \rightarrow s
877: \gamma$) as a function of $\mu$, obtained when $\tan \beta =5$,
878: $m_{\tilde{g}}=300$ GeV,
879: $M_L=M_R=500$ GeV and $m_0=100$ GeV. The full contributions is also
880: shown(dashed). The range of acceptable values of branching ratios is
881: given.}
882: \protect \label{figmu1}
883: \end{figure}
884:
885: In the next two figures, we investigate the dependence of the
886: branching ratio of $b
887: \rightarrow s \gamma$ to the sign and magnitude of the Higgsino
888: mixing parameter $\mu$.
889: There have been indications that the new accurate measurement of the
890: anomalous magnetic
891: moment of the muon restrict the $\mu$ parameter to be positive, while $b
892: \rightarrow s \gamma$ favors a negative sign. For a light
893: squark-gaugino scenario, and
894: low $\tan \beta$, the bound on $b \rightarrow s \gamma$ is satisfied
895: for either sign of
896: the $\mu$ parameter. In Fig. \ref{figmu1} one could see that a
897: restricted region of
898: intermediate values for $\mu$, with sign$(\mu)>0$ is allowed by the
899: experimental
900: constraints on $b \rightarrow s \gamma$, in the 225-325 GeV region.
901: The parameter space
902: is less restrictive for $\mu$ negative, to -175 GeV. Note that for
903: $\mu \rightarrow 0$
904: the branching ratio drops outside the allowed range. This phenomenon occurs
905: because the mixing term
906: obtained from flipping chirality on the gaugino leg decouples. We
907: reject such small vaules of
908: the
909: $\mu$ parameter because the chargino and neutralino masses are smaller
910: than the
911: existing experimental bounds.
912:
913: \begin{figure}
914: \centerline{ \epsfysize 4.0in \rotatebox{270}{\epsfbox{munegative.eps}}}
915: \caption{Supersymmetric contributions to BR($b \rightarrow s
916: \gamma$) as a function of $\mu$, obtained when $\tan \beta =5$,
917: $m_{\tilde{g}}=300$ GeV,
918: $M_L=M_R=500$ GeV and $m_0=150$ GeV. The full contributions is also
919: shown(dashed). The range of acceptable values of branching ratios is
920: given.}
921: \protect \label{figmunegative}
922: \end{figure}
923:
924: The branching ratio for $b \rightarrow s \gamma$ is sensitive to the
925: universal scalar
926: mass $m_0$ in the region of small masses only. For $m_0 \ge 400$ GeV,
927: the branching
928: ratio reaches its QCD-corrected value and is stable against further
929: variations in the
930: scalar mass. In this scenario, the neutralinos and gluinos are light
931: and $\tan \beta=5$.
932: This situation is not unlike the dependence of the SM contribution on
933: the $t$ quark mass
934: \cite{smbsg, SUSY}. This dependence is shown in Fig. \ref{figm0}.
935:
936: \begin{figure}
937: \centerline{ \epsfysize 4.0in \rotatebox{270}{\epsfbox{m0.eps}} }
938: \caption{Supersymmetric contributions to BR($b \rightarrow s
939: \gamma$) as a function of $m_0$, obtained when $\tan \beta =5$,
940: $m_{\tilde{g}}=300$ GeV,
941: $M_L=M_R=500$ GeV and $\mu=100$ GeV. The full contributions is also
942: shown(dashed). The range of acceptable values of branching ratios is
943: given.}
944: \protect \label{figm0}
945: \end{figure}
946:
947: In all the previous figures we set the left and right handed gaugino
948: masses to the same
949: value. This allowed a large contribution to the decay ratio of $b
950: \rightarrow s \gamma$ to come from the right-handed sector. We
951: investigate in
952: Fig. \ref{figMR} the dependence of the branching ratio on the
953: gaugino mass. As opposed
954: to the right-handed gauge sector, the restriction on the right handed
955: gaugino scale is not as
956: severe. There exist scenarios in which the right handed symmetry is
957: broken at the same
958: scale as supersymmetry; we expect in those cases to have approximately
959: $M_L=M_R$ \cite{kai}. For light squarks, Higgsinos and gluinos, the
960: gaugino mass must be
961: heavy, in the 600-800 GeV range.
962:
963: \begin{figure}
964: \centerline{ \epsfysize 4.0in \rotatebox{270}{\epsfbox{MR.eps}} }
965: \caption{Supersymmetric contributions to BR($b \rightarrow s
966: \gamma$) as a function of $M_R$, obtained when $\tan \beta =5$,
967: $m_{\tilde{g}}=300$ GeV, $m_0=100$ GeV
968: $\mu=100$ GeV and $M_L=M_R$ is assumed. The full contributions is also
969: shown(dashed). The range of acceptable values of branching ratios is
970: given.}
971: \protect \label{figMR}
972: \end{figure}
973:
974: \subsection{The unconstrained LRSUSY}
975:
976:
977: When supersymmetry is softly broken, there is no reason to expect
978: that the soft parameters
979: would be flavor blind, or that they would violate flavor in the same way as
980: in the SM.
981: Yukawa couplings generally form a matrix in the generation space, and
982: the off-diagonal elements will lead naturally to flavor changing
983: radiative decays.
984: Neutrino oscillations, in particular, indicate strong flavor
985: mixing
986: between the second and
987: third neutrino generations, and various analyses have been carried out
988: assuming the same for the
989: charged sleptons. In the quark/squark sector, the kaon system
990: strongly limits mixings
991: between the first and the second generations; but constraints for the
992: third generation are
993: much weaker, and expected to come from $b \rightarrow s \gamma$. The
994: unconstrained LRSUSY
995: model, similar to the unconstrained MSSM, allows for new sources of
996: flavor violation between
997: the second and third families only, both chirality conserving (LL and
998: RR) and chirality
999: flipping (LR and RL). We will assume that intergenerational mixing
1000: occurs in the down squark
1001: mass matrix only and that the up type squark mass matrix is diagonal.
1002:
1003: With the definition of the mass insertion as in Eq. (\ref{massins}),
1004: we can investigate the
1005: effect of intergenerational mixing on the $b \rightarrow s \gamma$
1006: decays. In the MSSM, the
1007: branching ratio is dominated in this case by the gluino diagram, in
1008: particular by the
1009: chirality flip part of the gluino contribution, due to the
1010: $\alpha_s/\alpha$ and $m_{\tilde
1011: g}/m_b$ enhancements, respectively. In this case only the gluino
1012: scenario is analysed in the
1013: MSSM, and found to be dominated by $\delta_{23}^{RL}$ \cite{bghw}.
1014: In LRSUSY, the situation
1015: is different: the chargino graph contribution is comparable to the
1016: gluino for a large range
1017: of gaugino masses.
1018:
1019: We keep our analysis general, but to
1020: show our results, we select only one possible source of flavor
1021: violation in the squark
1022: sector at a time, and assume the others vanish. All diagonal entries
1023: in the squark
1024: mass matrix are set equal and we study the branching ratio as a
1025: function of their common
1026: value $m_0^2$ and the relevant off-diagonal element. In Fig.
1027: \ref{figdeltadLR23} we show the
1028: dependence of $b \rightarrow s \gamma$ as a function of $\delta_{d,
1029: LR,23}$ when this is the
1030: only source of flavor violation. The horizontal lines represent the
1031: range of values allowed
1032: experimentally for the branching ratio. The ratio is plotted as a
1033: function of different
1034: values for the ratio $x=m^2_{\tilde{g}}/m^2_{0}$. Fixing $m_0=500$
1035: GeV, this corresponds to
1036: gluino masses of 200 GeV, 400 GeV and 600 GeV respectively. Negative
1037: values of $\delta_{d,
1038: LR,23}$ are more constrained than positive values, but in any case
1039: $\delta_{d, LR,23} \le
1040: 4\%$.
1041: This flavor violating parameter is strongly constrained because through the
1042: $\delta_{d,LR,23}$ term, the helicity flip needed for $b \rightarrow
1043: s \gamma$ can be
1044: realized in the exchange particle loop.
1045: Comparison with the MSSM \cite{bghw,kane} shows that this
1046: parameter is more
1047: constrained in LRSUSY, but only slightly.
1048:
1049: \begin{figure}
1050: \centerline{ \epsfysize 4.0in \rotatebox{270}{\epsfbox{deltadLR23.eps}}}
1051: \caption{Dependence of BR($b \rightarrow s
1052: \gamma$) on $\delta_{d,LR,23}$, obtained when $\tan \beta =5$,
1053: $\mu=500$ GeV and $M_L=M_R=500$ GeV. The different lines correspond to
1054: different values
1055: of $x=m^2_{\tilde{g}}/m^2_{0}$, 0.16(solid), 0.64(dashed) and
1056: 1.44(dot-dashed).
1057: $m_0$ is fixed to be $500$ GeV.
1058: The range of acceptable values of branching ratios is given.}
1059: \protect \label{figdeltadLR23}
1060: \end{figure}
1061:
1062: The situation is very different when the only source of flavor violation
1063: is
1064: $\delta_{d, RL,23}$, as shown in Fig. \ref{figdeltadRL23}. MSSM results for
1065: $b
1066: \rightarrow s \gamma$ are
1067: symmetric around
1068: $\delta_{d, RL,23}=0$ and the experimental
1069: bounds are satisfied for any small values of $\delta_{d, RL,23}$ . In
1070: LRSUSY, practically no
1071: negative values of $\delta_{d, RL,23}$ satisfy the bounds, and this
1072: flavor violating
1073: parameter is less restricted than $\delta_{d, LR,23}$ for the same
1074: values of the squark and
1075: gluino masses.
1076:
1077: \begin{figure}
1078: \centerline{ \epsfysize 4.0in \rotatebox{270}{\epsfbox{deltadRL23.eps}}}
1079:
1080: \caption{Dependence of BR($b \rightarrow s
1081: \gamma$) on $\delta_{d,RL,23}$, obtained when $\tan \beta =5$,
1082: $\mu=500$ GeV and $M_L=M_R=500$ GeV. The different lines correspond to
1083: different values
1084: of $x=m^2_{\tilde{g}}/m^2_{0}$, 0.16(solid), 0.64(dashed) and
1085: 1.44(dot-dashed).
1086: $m_0$ is fixed to be $500$ GeV.
1087: The range of acceptable values of branching ratios is given.}
1088: \protect \label{figdeltadRL23}
1089: \end{figure}
1090:
1091: In Fig. \ref{figdeltadLL23} and Fig. \ref{figdeltadRR23} we plot the
1092: dependence of the
1093: branching ratio of $b \rightarrow s \gamma$ on the chirality conserving
1094: mixings $\delta_{d,LL,23}$ and
1095: $\delta_{d,RR,23}$ respectively, with the proviso that these are the
1096: only off-diagonal
1097: matrix elements in the squark mass matrix squared. Although the
1098: restriction is not as
1099: pronounced as the one for chirality flipping parameters, nonetheless
1100: the parameter
1101: $\delta_{d,LL,23}$ is more restricted if it is negative (to 50\%)
1102: than if positive (where almost
1103: all values allowed for large gluino masses), quite different than in
1104: the MSSM, where values
1105: centered around
1106: $\delta_{d,LL,23}=0$ were favored \cite{bghw}. The same is true for
1107: the parameter
1108: $\delta_{d,RR,23}$ which in MSSM was restricted slightly only for
1109: $\pm$ 100\% values, but in
1110: LRSUSY regions of restrictions are centered around 50\% , and
1111: increasing with gluino mass
1112: for fixed scalar mass; again, any negative values are ruled out by
1113: the experimental bounds
1114: in the parameter region considered.
1115:
1116: In Ref. \cite{Gabbiani}, a detailed analysis of FCNC and CP
1117: constraints on these parameters
1118: was presented. For the decay $b \rightarrow s \gamma$, only poor
1119: constraints on $\delta_{d,LL, 23}$
1120: existed, while $\delta_{d, LR, 23}$ was found to be constrained
1121: strongly. This is compatible with our
1122: analysis even though only the gluino-mediated contribution to the decay was
1123: considered there.
1124:
1125: \begin{figure}
1126: \centerline{ \epsfysize 4.0in \rotatebox{270}{\epsfbox{deltadLL23.eps}}}
1127: \caption{Dependence of BR($b \rightarrow s
1128: \gamma$) on $\delta_{d,LL,23}$, obtained when $\tan \beta =5$,
1129: $\mu=400$ GeV and $M_L=M_R=500$ GeV. The different lines correspond to
1130: different values
1131: of $x=m^2_{\tilde{g}}/m^2_{0}$, 0.16(solid), 0.64(dashed) and
1132: 1.44(dot-dashed).
1133: $m_0$ is fixed to be $500$ GeV.
1134: The range of acceptable values of branching ratios is given.}
1135: \protect \label{figdeltadLL23}
1136: \end{figure}
1137:
1138: \begin{figure}
1139: \centerline{ \epsfysize 4.0in \rotatebox{270}{\epsfbox{deltadRR23.eps}}}
1140:
1141: \caption{Dependence of BR($b \rightarrow s
1142: \gamma$) on $\delta_{d,RR,23}$, obtained when $\tan \beta =5$,
1143: $\mu=500$ GeV and $M_L=M_R=500$ GeV. The different lines correspond to
1144: different values
1145: of $x=m^2_{\tilde{g}}/m^2_{0}$, 0.16(solid), 0.64(dashed) and
1146: 1.44(dot-dashed).
1147: $m_0$ is fixed to be $500$ GeV.
1148: The range of acceptable values of branching ratios is given.}
1149: \protect \label{figdeltadRR23}
1150: \end{figure}
1151:
1152:
1153: \section{Conclusions}
1154:
1155: We have presented a detailed and complete analysis of all one-loop
1156: contributions to the
1157: branching ratio of $b \rightarrow s \gamma$ in the LRSUSY model. We
1158: analysed separately the
1159: case in which the only source of flavor violation comes from the
1160: quark sector (CKM matrix).
1161: We refer to that case as the constrained LRSUSY model, in analogy
1162: with MSSM. If we allow
1163: for soft-supersymmetry intergenerational mixing in the squark sector,
1164: new sources flavor
1165: violation can occur; we refer to that case as the unconstrained
1166: LRSUSY and we analyse it and
1167: compare it to MSSM under similar conditions.
1168:
1169: The model contains too many parameters to allow for a precise
1170: restriction on any single one.
1171: However as a general feature, some constraints arise for low squark
1172: masses. In the
1173: constrained LRSUSY case, for intermediate gluino-neutralino masses,
1174: the $\mu$ parameter is
1175: favored to be such that
1176: $\mu/M_{L,R} \sim {\cal O}(1)$, and a larger region of parameter space
1177: satisfies the experimental
1178: constraints for
1179: $sign(\mu)<0$ than for
1180: $sign(\mu)>0$. A small range of low or intermediate values of $\tan
1181: \beta $ are allowed for
1182: such a choice: for larger values of $\tan \beta $ the gaugino,
1183: Higgsino and squark masses
1184: must be higher. The branching ratio is relatively insensitive to values
1185: of squark masses above
1186: 500 GeV, where the branching ratio becomes equal to its QCD-corrected
1187: value. For a light
1188: neutralino-chargino scenario, the mass of the gluino must be $ \ge
1189: 300$ GeV. For a gluino mass
1190: of order 300 GeV and very light squarks ($m_{\tilde t}=100$ GeV), the
1191: left and/or right
1192: gaugino masses must be in the 600-800 GeV range.
1193:
1194: For the unconstrained LRSUSY model, assuming flavor mixing only
1195: between the second and third
1196: generation in the down squark mass mixing matrix, the branching ratio
1197: is dominated by the
1198: internal chirality flipping diagrams, as in MSSM. Here however, the
1199: chargino graphs are
1200: comparable to the gluino contributions. The model puts stricter
1201: constrains on the chirality
1202: flipping mass mixings
1203: $\delta_{d,LR,23}$ and
1204: $\delta_{d,RL,23}$ than the chirality conserving flavor mixing parameters
1205: $\delta_{d,LL,23}$ and
1206: $\delta_{d,RR,23}$. The difference between LRSUSY and MSSM is quite
1207: striking in restrictions
1208: on the chirality conserving
1209: $\delta_{d,LL,23}$ and $\delta_{d,RR,23}$. As opposed to MSSM where
1210: both negative and
1211: positive values of these parameters are allowed, LRSUSY severely
1212: restricts the range of the
1213: negative values. This is understood as a consequence of the
1214: left-right structure of the
1215: gauge-gaugino sector. For $\delta_{d,RR,23}$, there seems to be a
1216: small range of disallowed
1217: values in a narrow range around 50\%. If the dominant sources of
1218: flavor violation come from
1219: chirality conserving sflavor mixing, the MSSM and LRSUSY allow for a
1220: distinguishingly
1221: different range of parameters.
1222:
1223: \bigskip
1224: \noindent {\bf Acknowledgements}
1225:
1226: This work was funded by NSERC of Canada (SAP0105354).
1227:
1228: \newpage
1229:
1230: \begin{appendix}
1231:
1232: \noindent {\Large {\bf Appendix}}
1233:
1234: The relevant Feynman rules used in the calculation are listed in this
1235: appendix.
1236: The three vertices of gluino-quark-squark, chargino-quark-squark and
1237: neutralino-quark-squark interactions are represented in Fig.
1238: \ref{figfeynmanrules}. From the
1239: first graph:
1240:
1241: \begin{figure}
1242: \centerline{ \epsfysize 1.5in
1243: \rotatebox{360}{\epsfbox{feynmanrules.eps}} }
1244: \caption{The Feynman rules used in the calculation. }
1245: \protect \label{figfeynmanrules}
1246: \end{figure}
1247:
1248: \begin{equation}
1249: (I)=-i g_s \sqrt{2} T^a_{\alpha \beta} (\Gamma_{QL}^{ki} P_L -
1250: \Gamma_{QR}^{ki} P_R),
1251: \end{equation}
1252: where $P_{L,R}=(1 \pm \gamma_5)/2$, and $T^a$ are SU(3) color generators
1253: normalized
1254: to $Tr(T^aT^b)=\delta^{ab}/2$; and $\Gamma_{QL,R}$ are mixing matrices for
1255: scalar quarks. From the second graph:
1256: \begin{equation}
1257: (II)=-i g C^{-1} [ (G_{UL}^{jki}-H_{UR}^{jki})P_L + (G_{UR}^{jki} -
1258: H_{UL}^{jki}) P_R ],
1259: \end{equation}
1260: where $C$ is the charge conjugation operator (in spinor space) and the
1261: chargino-quark-squark mixing martices $G$
1262: and $H$ are defined as:
1263: \begin{eqnarray}
1264: G^{jki}_{UL} &=& V_{j1}^{\ast} (K_{CKM})_{il} (\Gamma_{UL})_{kl}
1265: \nonumber \\
1266: G^{jki}_{UR} &=& U_{j2} (K_{CKM})_{il} (\Gamma_{UR})_{kl} \nonumber \\
1267: H_{UL}^{jki} &=& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2} m_W} ( \frac{m_{u_l}}{\sin \beta}
1268: U_{j3}+
1269: \frac{m_{d_l}}{\cos \beta} U_{j4} ) (K_{CKM})_{il} (\Gamma_{UL})_{kl}
1270: \nonumber \\
1271: H_{UR}^{jki} &=& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2} m_W} ( \frac{m_{u_l}}{\sin \beta}
1272: V_{j3}^*+
1273: \frac{m_{d_l}}{\cos \beta} V_{j4}^* ) (K_{CKM})_{il} (\Gamma_{UR})_{kl}.
1274: \end{eqnarray}
1275: Finally the contribution from the third graph is:
1276: \begin{equation}
1277: (III)=-i g [ (\sqrt{2} G_{0DL}^{jki}+H_{0DR}^{jki})P_L - (\sqrt{2}
1278: G_{0DR}^{jki} - H_{0DL}^{jki}) P_R],
1279: \end{equation}
1280: where the neutralino-quark-squark mixing matrices $G_0$
1281: and $H_0$ are defined as
1282: \begin{eqnarray}
1283: G^{jki}_{0DL} &=& [\sin \theta_W Q_d N^{\prime}_{j1} + \frac{1}{\cos
1284: \theta_W} (T^3_{d}-Q_d \sin^2 \theta_W)
1285: N^{\prime}_{j2} \nonumber \\
1286: & -&\frac{\sqrt{\cos 2 \theta_W }}{\cos \theta_W}
1287: \frac{Q_u+Q_d}{2} N^{\prime}_{j3}
1288: ] (K_{CKM})_{il} (\Gamma_{DL})_{kl} \nonumber \\
1289: G^{jki}_{0DR} &=& -[\sin \theta_W Q_d N^{\prime}_{j1} - \frac{Q_d \sin^2
1290: \theta_W}{\cos \theta_W}
1291: N^{\prime}_{j2} \nonumber \\
1292: &+&\frac{\sqrt{\cos 2 \theta_W }}{\cos \theta_W}
1293: (T^3_{d}-Q_d \sin^2 \theta_W) N^{\prime}_{j3}
1294: ] (K_{CKM})_{il} (\Gamma_{DR})_{kl} \nonumber \\
1295: H_{0DL}^{jki} &=& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2} m_W} ( \frac{m_{u_l}}{\sin \beta}
1296: N^{\prime}_{j5}+
1297: \frac{m_{d_l}}{\cos \beta} N^{\prime}_{j7}) (K_{CKM})_{il}
1298: (\Gamma_{DL})_{kl} \nonumber \\
1299: H_{0DR}^{jki} &=& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2} m_W} ( \frac{m_{u_l}}{\sin \beta}
1300: N^{\prime *}_{j5}+
1301: \frac{m_{d_l}}{\cos \beta} N^{\prime \ast}_{j7} ) (K_{CKM})_{il}
1302: (\Gamma_{DR})_{kl}.
1303: \end{eqnarray}
1304:
1305:
1306:
1307: \end{appendix}
1308:
1309:
1310:
1311:
1312: \def\oldprd#1#2#3{{\rm Phys. ~Rev. ~}{\bf D#1}, #3 (19#2)}
1313: \def\newprd#1#2#3{{\rm Phys. ~Rev. ~}{\bf D#1}, #3 (20#2)}
1314: \def\plb#1#2#3{{\rm Phys. ~Lett. ~}{\bf B#1}, #3 (#2)}
1315: \def\newplb#1#2#3{{\rm Phys. ~Lett. ~}{\bf B#1}, #3 (20#2)}
1316: \def\npb#1#2#3{{\rm Nucl. ~Phys. ~}{\bf B#1}, #3 (19#2)}
1317: \def\newnpb#1#2#3{{\rm Nucl. ~Phys. ~}{\bf B#1}, #3 (20#2)}
1318: \def\prl#1#2#3{{\rm Phys. ~Rev. ~Lett. ~}{\bf #1}, #3 (19#2)}
1319: \def\prl20#1#2#3{{\rm Phys. ~Rev. ~Lett. ~}{\bf #1}, #3 (20#2)}
1320: \def\rep19#1#2#3{{\rm Phys. ~Rep. ~}{\bf #1}, #3 (19#2)}
1321: \def\rep20#1#2#3{{\rm Phys. ~Rep. ~}{\bf #1}, #3 (20#2)}
1322: \def\epjc#1#2#3{{\rm Eur. ~Phys. J.~}{\bf C#1}, #3 (#2)}
1323:
1324: \bibliographystyle{unsrt}
1325: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
1326: \bibitem{aleph}
1327: R. Barate {\it et. al}, ALEPH Collaboration, \plb{429}{1998}{169}.
1328:
1329: \bibitem{belle}
1330: G. Taylor, talk at the {\it XXXVIth Rencontres de Moriond}, Les Arcs,
1331: March 2001;
1332: K. Abe {\it et. al.} [BELLE Collaboration] \plb{511}{2001}{151}.
1333:
1334: \bibitem{cleo}
1335: S. Chen {\it et al} [CLEO Collaboration], hep-ex/0108032.
1336:
1337: \bibitem{smbsg}
1338: K. Chetyrkin, M. Misiak and M. M{\"u}nz, \plb{400}{1997}{206};
1339: A.L. Kagan and M. Neubert, \epjc{7}{1999}{5}.
1340:
1341: \bibitem{range}
1342: CLEO Collaboration, S. Ahmed {\it et al.}, CLEO CONF 99-10,
1343: hep-ex/9908022.
1344:
1345: \bibitem{2HDM}
1346: T. G. Rizzo, \oldprd{38}{88}{820};
1347: W.-S. Hou and R. S. Willey, \plb{202}{88}{591};
1348: G. T. Park, \oldprd{50}{94}{599};
1349: L. Wolfenstein and Y. L. Wu, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 73}, 2809 (1994);
1350: C.-D. Lu, \npb{441}{95}{33};
1351: T. M. Aliev and E. O. Iltan, J. Phys. {\bf G25}, 989 (1999);
1352: D. Bowser-Chao, K. Cheung and W.-Y. Keung, \oldprd{59}{99}{115006}.
1353:
1354: \bibitem{LR}
1355: D. Cocolicchio, G. Costa, G. L. Fogli, J. H. Kim and A. Masiero,
1356: \oldprd{40}{89}{1477};
1357: K. S. Babu, K. Fujikawa and A. Yamada, \plb{333}{1994}{196};
1358: P. Cho and M. Misiak, \oldprd{49}{94}{5894};
1359: T. G. Rizzo, \oldprd{50}{94}{3303};
1360: G. Bhattacharyya and A. Raychaudhuri, \plb{357}{1995}{119};
1361: H. Asatrian and A. Ioannissian, \oldprd{54}{96}{5642};
1362: C. S. Kim and Y. G. Kim, \newprd{61}{00}{054008}.
1363:
1364: \bibitem{SUSY}
1365: M. J. Duncan, \npb{221}{83}{285};
1366: J. F. Donoghue, H. P. Nilles and D. Wyler, \plb{134}{1984}{400};
1367: S. Bertolini, F. Borzumati and A. Masiero, \plb{192}{1987}{437};
1368: S. Bertolini, F. Borzumati, A. Masiero and G. Ridolfi,
1369: \npb{353}{91}{591};
1370: R. Barbieri and G. F. Giudice, \plb{309}{1993}{86};
1371: M. Aoki, G.-C. Cho and N. Oshimo, \npb{554}{99}{50};
1372: E. Gabrielli, S. Khalil and E. Torrente-Lujan, \newnpb{594}{01}{3};
1373: F. Borzumati, C. Greub, T. Hurth and D. Wyler, \newprd{62}{00}{075005};
1374: T. Besmer, C. Greub and T. Hurth, \newnpb{609}{01}{359}.
1375:
1376: \bibitem{gronau}
1377: M. Gronau, Seiichi Wakaizumi, {\rm Phys. Rev. Lett.}
1378: {\bf 60}, 1814 (1992) .
1379:
1380: \bibitem{history}
1381: M. Cvet\v{c} and J. Pati, {\rm Phys. Lett.} {\bf B135}, 57 (1984);
1382: R. N. Mohapatra and A. Ra\v{s}in, {\rm Phys. Rev.} {\bf D54}, 5835 (1996);
1383: R. Kuchimanchi, {\rm Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 79}, 3486 (1996);
1384: R. N. Mohapatra, A. Ra\v{s}in and G. Senjanovi{\'c}, {\rm Phys. Rev.
1385: Lett.} {\bf
1386: 79}, 4744 (1997);
1387: C. S. Aulakh, K. Benakli, G. Senjanovi{\'c},
1388: C. Aulakh, A. Melfo and G. Senjanovi{\'c},
1389: {\rm Phys. Rev.} {\bf D57}, 4174 (1998).
1390:
1391: \bibitem{mohapatra}
1392: J. C. Pati and A. Salam, {\rm Phys. Rev.} {\bf D10}, 275 (1974);
1393: R. N. Mohapatra and J. C. Pati, {\rm Phys. Rev.} {\bf D11}, 566, 2558 (1975);
1394: G. Senjanovi\v{c} and R. N. Mohapatra, {\rm Phys. Rev.} {\bf D12}, 1502 (1975);
1395: R. N. Mohapatra and R. E. Marshak, {\rm Phys. Lett.} {\bf B91}, 222 (1980).
1396:
1397: \bibitem{frank1}
1398: R. Francis, M. Frank, C. S. Kalman, {\rm Phys. Rev.} {\bf D43}, 2369 (1991).
1399:
1400: \bibitem{huitu}
1401: K. Huitu, J. Maalampi, {\rm Phys. Lett.} {\bf B344}, 217 (1995);
1402: K. Huitu, J. Maalampi, M. Raidal, {\rm Phys. Lett.} {\bf B328}, 60 (1994);
1403: K. Huitu, J. Maalampi, M. Raidal, {\rm Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B420}, 449 (1994).
1404:
1405: \bibitem{leptonsusylr}
1406: M. Frank, {\rm Phys. Rev.} {\bf D59}, 013003 (1999);
1407: M. Frank, {\rm Phys. Rev.} {\bf D64}, 053013 (2001);
1408: M. Frank, {\rm Phys. Rev.} {\bf D65}, 033011 (2002).
1409:
1410:
1411: \bibitem{SO10}
1412: K. S.~Babu and S.M.~Barr,
1413: {\rm Phys. Rev.} {\bf D48}, 5354 (1993);
1414: K. S.~Babu and S.M.~Barr,
1415: {\rm Phys. Rev.} {\bf D50}, 3529 (1994);
1416: M.~Frank, H.~Hamidian and K.~Puolam{\"{a}}ki,
1417: {\rm Phys. Lett.} {\bf B456}, 179 (1999);
1418: M.~Frank, H.~Hamidian and K.~Puolam{\"{a}}ki,
1419: {\rm Phys. Rev.} {\bf D60}, 095011 (1999);
1420: For a review and further references see e.g. R.N.~Mohapatra,
1421: hep-ph/9801235.
1422:
1423: \bibitem{string}
1424: G. Aldazabal, L. Ibanez, F. Quevedo, {\rm JHEP} {\bf 0002}, 015
1425: (2000); hep-ph/0005033.
1426:
1427: \bibitem{recmohapatra}
1428: Z. Chacko and R. N. Mohapatra , \oldprd{58}{98}{015003};
1429: B. Dutta and R. N. Mohapatra, \oldprd{59}{99}{015018}.
1430:
1431: \bibitem{km}
1432: R. Kuchimanchi, R. N. Mohapatra {\rm Phys. Rev.} {\bf D48}, 4352 (1993).
1433:
1434: \bibitem{MI}
1435: L. J. Hall, V. A. Kostelecky and S. Raby, {\rm Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B267}, 415
1436: (1986).
1437:
1438: \bibitem{cfkp}
1439: G. Couture, M. Frank, H. K\"onig and M. Pospelov, {\rm Eur. Phys.
1440: J.} {\bf C7}, 135 (1999).
1441:
1442: \bibitem{frank5}
1443: M. Frank, H. Saif, {\em Z. Phys.} {\bf C67}, 32 (1995); {\rm Z. Phys.}
1444: {\bf
1445: C69}, 673 (1996); {\rm Mod. Phys. Lett.} {\bf A11}, 2443 (1996); {\rm
1446: J. Phys.} {\bf G22}, 1653 (1996).
1447:
1448: \bibitem{bghw}
1449: F. Borzumati, C. Greub, T. Hurth and D. Wyler, in \cite{SUSY}.
1450:
1451: \bibitem{pospelov}
1452: M. Pospelov, \oldprd{56}{97}{259}.
1453:
1454: \bibitem{higgs}
1455: ALEPH Collaboration, \plb{526}{2002}{191}.
1456:
1457: \bibitem{beta}
1458: M. Carena, D. Garcia, U. Nierste and C. E. M. Wagner
1459: {\rm Phys. Lett.} {\bf B499}, 141 (2001).
1460:
1461: \bibitem{g-2}
1462: G. C. Cho and K. Hagiwara, \plb{514}{2001}{123}.
1463:
1464: \bibitem{kai}
1465: M. Frank, H. Hamidian, K. Puolam\"aki, in \cite{SO10}.
1466:
1467: \bibitem{kane}
1468: L. Everett, G. L. Kane, S. Rigolin, L.-T. Wang and T. T. Wang,
1469: hep-ph/0112126.
1470:
1471: \bibitem{Gabbiani}
1472: F. Gabbiani, E. Gabrielli, A. Masiero and L. Silvestrini,
1473: {\rm Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B477}, 321 (1996).
1474:
1475: \end{thebibliography}
1476:
1477:
1478:
1479: \end{document}
1480:
1481: