Abstract
Abstract In minimal supersymmetric models the Z-penguin usually provides sub-dominant contributions to charged lepton flavour violating observables. In this study, we consider the supersymmetric inverse seesaw in which the non-minimal particle content allows for dominant contributions of the Z-penguin to several lepton flavour violating observables. In particular, and due to the low-scale (TeV) seesaw, the penguin contribution to, for instance, Br(μ → 3e) and μ − e conversion in nuclei, allows to render some of these observables within future sensitivity reach. Moreover, we show that in this framework, the Z-penguin exhibits the same non-decoupling behaviour which had previously been identified in flavour violating Higgs decays in the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model.
Highlights
Generation of high-intensity facilities dedicated to discovering flavour violation in charged lepton processes render feasible the observation of such an event in the near future
Our analysis reveals that, to what occurs in the MSSM, flavour changing Higgs boson decays, the Z-penguin contributions to the LFV observables are not suppressed by a large SUSY scale
We find that the non-SUSY contributions to Br(μ → eγ) become relevant only for MR < 1 TeV, and for MR = 100 GeV the non-SUSY contributions totally dominate, so that all dependence on m0, M1/2 and on the rest of constrained Minimal Supersymmetry Standard Model (cMSSM) parameters disappears
Summary
The inverse seesaw model consists of a gauge singlet extension of the MSSM. Three pairs of singlet superfields, νic and Xi (i = 1, 2, 3) with lepton numbers assigned to be −1 and +1, respectively, are added to the superfield content. The “Dirac”-type right-handed neutrino mass term MRij conserves lepton number, while the “Majorana” mass term μXij violates it by two units. In view of this the total lepton number L is no longer conserved; notice that in this formulation (−1)L remains a good quantum number. From eq (2.1) one can verify that the two singlets νic and Xi are differently treated in the superpotential, so that, while a ∆L = 2 Majorana mass term is present for Xi (μXij XiXj), no μνicj νicνjc term is included in W The latter term can be present in a superpotential, where (−1)L is a good quantum number, we assume here for simplicity μνicj = 0. Μνc ≪ μX can be realised in some extended frameworks [13]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
