text:
# Plaquette Ordering in SU(4) Antiferromagnets

## Abstract

We use fermion mean field theory to study possible plaquette ordering in the antiferromagnetic SU(4) Heisenberg model. We find the ground state for both the square and triangular lattices to be the disconnected plaquette state. Our mean field theory gives a first order transition for plaquette ordering for the triangular lattice. Our results suggest a large number of low lying states.

PACS numbers: 75.10.Jm, 11.30.-j

Recently, the importance of orbital degeneracy in the physics of the insulating phase of transition metal oxides has been emphasized . The understanding of the ground state and elementary excitations in these materials requires consideration of both the orbital and spin degrees of freedom. In $`V_2O_3`$ for example, the anomalous ordering of the antiferromagnetic insulator can be understood quite simply as a result of spin-orbital coupling . The interplay between spins and orbitals may also be responsible for the lack of magnetic ordering down to very low temperature in $`LiNiO_2`$ . The orbital ordering and correlations have recently been observed in synchrotron x-ray diffraction measurements  and in resonant x-ray scattering experiments .

It has been pointed out that for a $`S=1/2`$ system with a double orbital degeneracy there is an ideal limit where the spin and orbital degrees of freedom can be unified into a higher SU(4) symmetry . While this symmetry is usually not realized in the transition metal oxides due to Hund’s rule and anisotropy in hopping amplitudes, the SU(4) symmetric point may still shed light on the physics of more realistic systems, especially if the deviation from the ideal limit is not too large. Using fermion mean field theory(MFT), Li et.al.  showed that the SU(4) ground state on a square lattice possesses no magnetic long range order. Possible candidates for the ground state include the commensurate flux phase (1/4 flux per plaquette), and the plaquette solid state. The commensurate flux phase has broken time reversal invariance which is troublesome (although time reversal invariance may be restored when projected into the physical Hilbert space of one fermion per site). Simple variational calculations on the square and triangular lattice support the lack of long ranged order, but also suggest the ground state should be a plaquette solid or a resonating plaquette liquid . On the other hand, Schwinger boson mean field theory predicts a long range ordered state . More recently, finite size numerical calculations on the square lattice provides further evidence that the ground state has no magnetic long range order . However, while the commensurate flux phase is two-fold degenerate, their numerical results suggest a 4-fold degeneracy.

A possible explanation for the 4-fold degeneracy is the spontaneous formation of plaquette state with alternating plaquettes of strong and weak correlations. This would be consistent with variational calculations. In this paper, we will investigate plaquette ordering within fermion MFT, a possibility not considered in the mean field calculation of Li et.al.. Using fermion MFT, we will show that the uniform bond amplitude mean field ground state is unstable with respect to plaquette formation on square and triangular lattices. Plaquette ordering breaks the lattice translational invariance. Since the symmetry is discrete, a finite temperature phase transition is possible even in 2 dimensions. Within the MFT, we find the plaquette transition to be first order for the triangular lattice. For the square lattice, the result turns out to be ambiguous.

We start with the antiferromagnetic SU(4) Hamiltonian .

$`H={\displaystyle \underset{i,j}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{m,n}{}}S_m^n(i)S_n^m(j),`$ (1)
where $`i,j`$ are the pairs of the nearest neighbor sites $`i`$ and $`j`$ on the lattice, and $`m=1,2,3,4`$ is the flavor index. $`S_m^n`$ are SU(4) generators. The Hamiltonian is equivalent to an isotropic antiferromagnetic quantum spin-1/2 system with two-fold degenerate orbitals . In terms of electron operators, $`S_m^n(i)=c_{i,m}^{}c_{i,n}`$, where $`c_{i,n}`$ is the annihilation operator of an electron of flavor $`n`$ at site $`i`$, the Hamiltonian in eq.(1) may be rewritten as

$`H={\displaystyle \underset{i,j}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{m,n}{}}c_{i,m}^{}c_{i,n}c_{j,n}^{}c_{j,m}.`$ (2)
It is implied that there is a constraint on the number of electrons at every lattice site, given by $`_nc_{i,n}^{}c_{i,n}=1`$.

In this paper, we shall apply a fermion MFT to study the possibility of plaquette ordering for the square and triangular lattices. Such an ordering would break the translational invariance of the crystal lattice. The fermion MFT is well known from literature . We define the bond operator $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{ij}=_nc_{i,n}^{}c_{j,n}`$, and introduce Lagrange multipliers $`\lambda _i`$ to describe the constraint on site $`i`$. We then use mean field to approximate the bond operator by its self-consistently calculated average, and assume that $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{ij}^{}=\mathrm{\Phi }_{ij}=t_{ij}`$ is real. Also, we replace the local constraint by a global one and set $`\lambda _i=\lambda `$, independent of the site. The mean field Hamiltonian is then given by,

$`H_{mf}={\displaystyle \underset{i,j,n}{}}t_{ij}(c_{i,n}^{}c_{j,n}+h.c)+{\displaystyle \underset{i,j}{}}t_{ij}^2\lambda ({\displaystyle \underset{i,n}{}}c_{i,n}^{}c_{i,n}N),`$ (3)
where $`N`$ is the total number of lattice sites, and an overall constant has been dropped for simplicity. We see that $`\lambda `$ acts as a chemical potential.

We first discuss the square lattice case. As shown in Fig.(1), we consider two types of the bonds in the lattice, denoted by type-A and type-B, representing stronger and weaker bonds, respectively. In a square lattice, there are equal numbers of type-A and type-B bonds. The hopping amplitude on each bond is thus given by

$`t_{ij}=t_a,ifi,j\{A\}`$ (4)
$`=t_b,ifi,j\{B\}`$ (5)
The mean field Hamiltonian becomes

$`H_{mf}=`$ $``$ $`t{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{}{k},n}{}}\left(\mathrm{cos}k_xa+\mathrm{cos}k_ya\right)c_{\stackrel{}{k},n}^{}c_{\stackrel{}{k},n}`$ (6)
$`+`$ $`irt{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{}{k},n}{}}\left(\mathrm{sin}k_xa\right)c_{\stackrel{}{k}+(\pi ,0),n}^{}c_{\stackrel{}{k},n}`$ (7)
$`+`$ $`irt{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{}{k},n}{}}\left(\mathrm{sin}k_ya\right)c_{\stackrel{}{k}+(0,\pi ),n}^{}c_{\stackrel{}{k},n}`$ (8)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{Nt^2}{2}}(1+r^2)\lambda \left({\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{}{k},n}{}}c_{\stackrel{}{k},n}^{}c_{\stackrel{}{k},n}N\right).`$ (9)
In the above eqn., $`t=t_a+t_b`$, $`r=(t_at_b)/(t_a+t_b)`$, $`\stackrel{}{k}`$ is a crystal momentum, and the sum is over the first Brillouin zone.

In a square lattice, the Hamiltonian is invariant under each of the following transformations: a) $`tt`$, i.e. $`(t_a,t_b)(t_a,t_b)`$; b) $`rr`$, i.e. $`(t_a,t_b)(t_b,t_a)`$; and c) $`r1/r`$, i.e. $`(t_a,t_b)(t_a,t_b)`$. Therefore, it suffices to consider the parameter space $`t0`$, and $`0r1`$. The case of $`r=0`$ corresponds to the uniform bond amplitude mean-field state and the case of $`r=1`$ corresponds to a periodic array of disconnected plaquettes.

The mean field Hamiltonian can be diagonalized and we obtain

$`H_{mf}={\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{}{k},\alpha ,n}{}}ϵ_{\stackrel{}{k},\alpha ,n}\beta _{\stackrel{}{k},\alpha ,n}^{}\beta _{\stackrel{}{k},\alpha ,n}+{\displaystyle \frac{Nt^2}{2}}\left(1+r^2\right)\lambda \left({\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{}{k},\alpha ,n}{}}\beta _{\stackrel{}{k},\alpha ,n}^{}\beta _{\stackrel{}{k},\alpha ,n}N\right),`$

where $`\beta _{\stackrel{}{k},\alpha ,n}^{}`$ is the creation operator for a particle in the state $`|\stackrel{}{k},\alpha ,n`$ with the energy $`ϵ_{\stackrel{}{k},\alpha ,n}`$. Here, $`\alpha =1,2,3,4`$ is the band index, and the sum over $`\stackrel{}{k}`$ is restricted to within the reduced Brillouin zone, which is a quarter of the first Brillouin zone of the crystal. The reduction of the Brillouin zone is the result of the translational symmetry broken by the plaquette state. The four flavor states for a given $`\stackrel{}{k}`$ and $`\alpha `$ are energetically degenerate. Numerically, we find that for $`r0.3`$, the four energy bands are separated by band gaps. The ground state of the system is a filled Fermi sea, with Fermi energy $`\mu _f=\lambda `$ determined by the electron number equation,

$`{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{}{k},\alpha ,n}{}}\beta _{\stackrel{}{k},\alpha ,n}^{}\beta _{\stackrel{}{k},\alpha ,n}={\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{}{k},\alpha ,n}{}}\theta \left(\lambda ϵ_{\stackrel{}{k},\alpha ,n}\right)=N.`$

To obtain the mean field ground state of the system, we minimize the energy $`E`$ below with respect to $`t`$ and $`r`$,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{E}{N}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{}{k},\alpha ,n}{}}ϵ_{\stackrel{}{k},\alpha ,n}\theta \left(\lambda ϵ_{\stackrel{}{k},\alpha ,n}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{t^2}{2}}\left(1+r^2\right).`$ (10)
We first minimize $`E`$ with respect to $`t`$ for a given $`r`$. The energy as a function of $`r`$ thus obtained is plotted in Fig.(2). As shown in Fig.(2), the uniform bond amplitude state, given by $`r=0`$, i.e., $`t_a=t_b`$, is locally unstable with respect to the plaquette formation. The energy decreases monotonically as $`r`$ increases from 0 to 1. The lowest energy state corresponds to $`r=1`$, the disconnected plaquette state. The local stability of $`r=1`$ state can be confirmed independently by solving the weakly connected plaquette problem using simple second order perturbation.

The plaquette state is 4-fold degenerate. The discrete symmetry implies the ordering will remain stable at low temperature in 2D and vanishes either continuously or through a first order transition at some finite critical temperature. Within MFT, there will be another critical temperature above which $`t`$ vanishes. Since $`t`$ represents short-ranged order, this transition is unphysical and is an artifact of this type of MFT.

At a finite temperature, the mean field free energy is given by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{F}{N}}={\displaystyle \frac{k_bT}{N}}{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{}{k},\alpha ,n}{}}\mathrm{ln}[1+e^{\beta \left(ϵ_{\stackrel{}{k},\alpha ,n}\lambda \right)}]+\lambda +{\displaystyle \frac{t^2}{2}}\left(1+r^2\right),`$

where $`\beta =1/k_BT`$, and $`\lambda `$ is determined by the electron number eq.,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{}{k},\alpha ,n}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+e^{\beta \left(ϵ_{\stackrel{}{k},\alpha ,n}\lambda \right)}}}=1.`$

The mean field amplitudes $`t`$ and $`r`$ are obtained by minimizing the free energy at a given temperature. As $`T`$ is increased from zero, we find that the $`F`$ vs. $`r`$ curve is qualitatively identical to the $`E`$ vs. $`r`$ curve at $`T=0`$ (Fig.(2)). Thus, the disconnected plaquette state ($`r=1`$) remains as the lowest free energy state (note that since $`r=1`$ is trivially a self-consistent solution, it is always a free energy extremum). Meanwhile the short-ranged correlation $`t`$ decreases as $`T`$ increases. In Fig.(3) we show the values of $`t`$ that minimizes the free energy for $`r=0`$ and $`r=1`$ as a function of $`T.`$ Other $`r`$ value curves lie between these two curves. We see that at critical temperature $`T_t=0.75,`$ $`t0`$ for all values of $`r`$. Above $`T_t,`$ even nearest neighbor sites are uncorrelated. $`T_t`$ can be calculated analytically easily. The free energy $`F_{MF}`$ for $`H_{MF}`$ in eq.(11) can be formally expanded in a series in $`t_{ij}.`$ Assuming the transition in $`t`$ is continuous (which is likely since $`F_{MF}`$ is even in $`t)`$, $`T_t`$ is given by the temperature where the coefficient in front of the quadratic term changes sign from positive to negative. To quadratic order, $`F_{MF}`$ can be easily found using perturbation by taking the chemical potential part of $`H_{MF}`$ as the unperturbed Hamiltonian $`H_0`$ and the remaining part as the perturbation $`H^{}`$(essentially doing high temperature expansion in $`H^{}`$). By expanding to second order in $`H^{},`$ we obtain

$`F_{MF}=F_0+{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}\beta \right)t_{ij}^2+O(t^4).`$ (11)
From this, we see that $`T_t=3/4`$ and that $`T_t`$ is independent of the configuration of $`t_{ij},`$ hence of $`r.`$ The best configuration for $`t_{ij}`$ is determined by the higher order terms in $`F_{MF}.`$ Our calculation indicates it corresponds to $`r=1.`$ Since for all $`T<T_t`$, $`r=1`$, the transition in $`r`$ is preempted by the transition in $`t.`$ Within our MFT, we are therefore not able to answer the question of whether the plaquette ordering transition is a first order or a continuous one. However, the mean field transition in $`t`$ is unphysical and merely signifies a crossover from weak to strong nearest neighbor correlations. We thus interpret our mean field result to imply that as soon as significant nearest neighbor correlations develop, the system has complete plaquette ordering.

We now turn to the triangular lattice case. Similar to the square lattice, we consider plaquette ordering due to spontaneous formation of different (type-A and type-B) bond amplitudes as shown in Fig.(1). On the triangular lattice, there are more type-B bonds than A-type. Out of 3N bonds, 5N/4 are A-type, and 7N/4 are B-type. Rigorously speaking, the bonds within A-type (or B-type) are not all equivalent. For example, among the A-type bonds illustrated in Fig.(1), the diagonal one has different connectivity from the four edge bonds. This requires, in principle, to assign different amplitudes for these bonds in a fully self-consistent mean field theory. Instead, we approximate all A bonds and all B bonds to be identical among themselves, which simplifies the calculation greatly. Our calculation then amounts to a variational calculation with two types of bonds or equivalently, a mean field calculation that is self-consistent when averaged over the A bonds or over the B bonds. The physics should not be affected qualitatively by this simplification. Quantitatively, we have also checked this point by examining a single A-plaquette problem explicitly. Assuming all bonds to be equivalent, we find $`t_a=1.025,`$ while allowing the $`4`$ edge bonds ($`t_a^{})`$ and the diagonal bond ( $`t_a^{\prime \prime })`$ to be different, we find $`t_a^{}=0.943`$ and $`t_a^{\prime \prime }=1.333,`$ giving an average of $`1.021.`$ The ground state energies in the two cases are also within $`2\%`$ of each other, with values $`1.31`$ and $`1.33`$ respectively. The simplified scheme of only allowing two different bond strengths is therefore sufficient for our purpose.

We thus introduce two average mean field amplitudes: one for A-type and one for B-type. The self-consistent condition is then given by their average one, $`t_a=\mathrm{\Phi }_{ij}/N_A`$, and $`t_b=\mathrm{\Phi }_{ij}/N_B`$, where $`i,j\{A\}`$ and $`\{B\}`$ respectively, and $`N_A`$ and $`N_B`$ are the number of A and B type bonds. With this approximation, the mean field Hamiltonian in a triangular lattice reads,

$`H_{mf}=`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{}{k},n}{}}[t\left(\mathrm{cos}k_xa+\mathrm{cos}k_ya\right)+\left(1r/2\right)t\mathrm{cos}\left(k_xa+k_ya\right)]c_{\stackrel{}{k},n}^{}c_{\stackrel{}{k},n}`$ (12)
$`+`$ $`irt{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{}{k},n}{}}\left(\mathrm{sin}k_xa+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{sin}\left(k_xa+k_ya\right)\right)c_{\stackrel{}{k}+(\pi ,0),n}^{}c_{\stackrel{}{k},n}`$ (13)
$`+`$ $`irt{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{}{k},n}{}}\left(\mathrm{sin}k_ya+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{sin}\left(k_xa+k_ya\right)\right)c_{\stackrel{}{k}+(0,\pi ),n}^{}c_{\stackrel{}{k},n}`$ (14)
$``$ $`rt{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{}{k},n}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{cos}\left(k_xa+k_ya\right)c_{\stackrel{}{k}+(\pi ,\pi ),n}^{}c_{\stackrel{}{k},n}`$ (15)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{Nt^2}{4}}\left(3+3r^2r\right)\lambda \left({\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{}{k},n}{}}c_{\stackrel{}{k},n}^{}c_{\stackrel{}{k},n}N\right).`$ (16)
In the above eqn., we have used the same notation as for the square lattice. Note that in the triangular lattice, there is a lack of symmetry between the strong and the weak bonds. Consequently, the Hamiltonian does not possess all the symmetries of the square lattice. In particular, the system is not symmetric under the transformation $`rr`$. From the definition of $`r`$ and $`t`$, we have a symmetry in parameter space, $`r1/r,trt`$. This allows us to study $`r`$ within \[-1, 1\]. $`tt`$ symmetry is also not present for the triangular lattice. For $`r=0`$ and $`r=1,`$ the energy is minimized by $`t`$ positive, and we assume this holds for other $`r0`$ also. The mean field Hamiltonian can be written in the diagonalized form,

$`H_{mf}={\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{}{k},\alpha ,n}{}}ϵ_{\stackrel{}{k},\alpha ,n}\beta _{\stackrel{}{k},\alpha ,n}^{}\beta _{\stackrel{}{k},\alpha ,n}+{\displaystyle \frac{Nt^2}{4}}[3\left(1+r^2\right)r]\lambda \left({\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{}{k},\alpha ,n}{}}\beta _{\stackrel{}{k},\alpha ,n}^{}\beta _{\stackrel{}{k},\alpha ,n}N\right).`$

The ground state is given by a filled Fermi sea , whose total energy is given by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{E}{N}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{}{k},\alpha ,n}{}}ϵ_{\stackrel{}{k},\alpha ,n}\theta \left(\lambda ϵ_{\stackrel{}{k},\alpha ,n}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{t^2}{4}}[3\left(1+r^2\right)r].`$ (17)
Since there is no $`rr`$ symmetry, $`E(r)E(r).`$ Our mean field result shows that $`E(r)`$ has lower energy for positive $`r.`$ Similar to the square lattice, the ground state is the disconnected plaquette state corresponding to $`r=1`$. In this case, the ground state is $`12`$-fold degenerate. Again, the local stability of $`r=1`$ can be confirmed by second order perturbation theory. This also gives a heuristic understanding of why the energy is lower for positive vs. negative $`r.`$ The $`r=1`$ state is a plaquette state such that neighboring plaquettes are connected by a single diagonal bond of equal strength as the bonds in the plaquette. Now imagine this connecting bond is not equal but much weaker, which will make this state quite similar to $`r`$ less than but very close to $`1.`$ The local stability of $`r=1`$ is thus consistent with it being lower in energy than $`r=1,`$ and by continuity with positive $`r`$ having the lower energy vs. negative $`r`$ for at least a range of $`r`$ close to $`1.`$

To study the finite temperature phase, we minimize the free energy

$`{\displaystyle \frac{F}{N}}={\displaystyle \frac{k_bT}{N}}{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{}{k},\alpha ,n}{}}\mathrm{ln}[1+e^{\beta \left(ϵ_{\stackrel{}{k},\alpha ,n}\lambda \right)}]+\lambda `$ $`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{t^2}{4}}[3\left(1+r^2\right)r],`$ (18)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{}{k},\alpha ,n}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+e^{\beta \left(ϵ_{\stackrel{}{k},\alpha ,n}\lambda \right)}}}`$ $`=`$ $`1.`$ (19)
As in the square lattice, $`r=1`$ remains the stable state at low $`T`$ (Fig.(4)). On the triangular lattice however, the transition in $`r`$ is not preempted by the one in $`t,`$ and we are able to study its phase transition. At $`T0.74,`$ the curvature of the free energy curve at $`r=0`$ changes sign and $`r=0`$ changes from a local maximum to local minimum. When $`T`$ is increased to $`T_c=0.782,`$ $`r=0`$ and $`r=1`$ states become degenerate in free energy and there is a first order transition from the disconnected plaquette state to the uniform state (or the other way round if we consider lowering the temperature). These results are summarized in Fig(5). Since the lack of reflection symmetry in $`r`$ allows for a cubic invariant in the Landau theory for its phase transition, the first order transition obtained is to be expected. Indeed, the behavior of $`F`$ vs. $`r`$ as a function of $`T`$ is precisely what one would expect from such a Landau-Ginzburg free-energy functional. Upon further raising the temperature, the average nearest neighbor correlation continues to decrease, with the mean field transition to a completely uncorrelated state occurring at $`T_t0.8.`$ Unlike the square lattice case, on the triangular lattice, the transition in $`t`$ occurs at different temperature for different $`r,`$ i.e. $`T_t=T_t(r).`$ This can be readily understood from the lack of $`tt`$ symmetry. As a result, the corresponding $`F_{MF}`$ (eq.(11)) contains odd power terms, which in turn results in first order transition in $`t_{ij}.`$ Naturally then, the transition temperature will occur above the second order temperature at $`0.75`$ and will depend on the configuration of $`t_{ij,}`$ hence on $`r.`$ As always, the transition in $`t`$ should be interpreted physically as a crossover.

In summary, within MFT, we find the uniform mean field state to be unstable with respect to plaquette ordering at $`T=0`$ for both the square and triangular lattices. For the triangular lattice, the plaquette ordering transition at finite temperature is first order, in agreement with Landau theory argument. For the square lattice, the plaquette to uniform state is preempted by a mean field transition in $`t,`$ and MFT does not give an unambiguous answer to if the plaquette transition is first order or continuous. Taking the MFT on its face value, the transition is continuous as there is no entropy jump, although this is complicated by it being also a transition in $`t.`$ Based on the reflection symmetry in $`r,`$ Landau theory would also suggest a continuous transition. However, we cannot rule out a first order transition due to a negative quartic invariant in the Landau free energy functional or due to fluctuations. For the triangular lattice, the plaquette transition is first order as expected from symmetry.

Within MFT, the ground states of the SU(4) model in both square and triangular lattice are found to be disconnected plaquette states ($`r=1`$). Naively, this implies huge degeneracies in the ground states. Consider a lattice with periodic boundary condition. All the plaquette states with plaquettes covering all the lattice sites have the same lowest mean field energy. A simple lower bound for ground state degeneracy would then be $`D2^\sqrt{N}`$ for the square lattice, and $`D3^{N/12}`$ for the triangular lattice. However, such plaquette states are not orthogonal to each other whether we consider the mean field states or the actual SU(4) states. They may not even be independent, so these lower bounds for degeneracy may not be valid, but should be taken as suggestive of huge degeneracy. Obviously, the exact SU(4) ground state will not exhibit saturated plaquette ordering (there will be for example resonance between plaquette states), and the actual ground state will only be $`4`$-fold and $`12`$-fold degenerate respectively. Nevertheless, we may still interpret the mean field ground state to imply a very strong, although not saturated plaquette ordering, so that plaquettes are only weakly coupled. We would then expect a huge number of low lying energy states in the energy spectrum. This is consistent with the preliminary results of Penc et al.  on the square and triangular lattices using variational calculations on relatively large systems.

This work was supported in part by DOE grant No. DE/FG03-01ER45687 and by URC summer fellowship at University of Cincinnati. The authors wish to thank F. Mila and X. R. Wang for discussions.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

In the Standard Model (SM), lepton number is exactly preserved in contradiction with the observed neutrino oscillations kamiokande , chooz . Several extension of the SM include patterns of neutrino masses and mixings which can provide a satisfactory explanation for these flavor oscillations. The consequences of the individual violation of the lepton numbers $`L_{e,\mu ,\tau }`$ for charged lepton will be manifest in processes such as $`\mu e\gamma `$, $`\mu 3e`$, $`\mu e`$ conversion in heavy nuclei, $`\tau \mu \gamma `$ and $`K_L\mu e`$ kaon . The experimental upper bound for these processes is quite restrictive, which imposes a significant constraint for the explanation of flavor in models beyond the SM. However, the mechanisms used to explain the origin of the tiny neutrino masses required to explain solar and atmospheric neutrino oscillations, typically imply that these processes may occur at small rates, motivating an increasing experimental interest in exploring further charged lepton flavor violating processes.

The rates for charged lepton flavor violation (LFV) are extremely small in the SM with right–handed neutrinos ($`\mathrm{\Delta }m_\nu ^4/M_W^4`$ P.. ). In R–parity conserving supersymmetric (SUSY) models, like the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM), the presence of LFV processes is associated with vertices involving leptons and their superpartners rh-nu . These processes are sensitive to the scalar mass matrices structure, a non–diagonality of the latter in a basis in which fermions are diagonal, leads to a hard violation of flavor. The structure of the scalar mass matrices is very sensitive to the SUSY–breaking, in particular in models where SUSY is softly broken, LFV imposes a severe constraint in the flavor dependence of the soft–terms as they are generated in GUT’s and string inspired models Carvalho:2000xg .

The inclusion of a “see–saw” mechanism in the MSSM provides a very attractive scenario to understand neutrino oscillations with very small neutrino masses, and at the same time gives rates for LFV processes accessible in projected experiments hisano , Carvalho:2001ex . The waiving of the R-parity symmetry in the MSSM provides an alternative scenario to explain the generation of small neutrino masses. In this case the R-parity violating operators can be constrained by rare processes frank , r-par , Cheung:2001sb , Hirsch:1999kc .

The simplest extension of the MSSM with bilinear R–parity violation (BRpV) e3others  (allowing B–conserving but L-violating interactions) can explain neutrino masses and mixings which can account for the observed neutrino oscillations Romao:1999up . The BRpV model has been extensively discussed in the literature epsrad . It is motivated by the fact that it provides an effective truncation of models where R–parity breaks *spontaneously* by singlet sneutrino vev’s around the weak scale SBRpV . Moreover, they allow for the radiative breaking of R-parity, opening also new ways to unify Gauge and Yukawa couplings Diaz:1999wz  and with a potentially slightly lower prediction for $`\alpha _s`$ Diaz:1999is . For recent papers on phenomenological implications of these models see Ref. rphen00 , chargedhiggs . As the parameters involved in the R–parity violating operator are constrained in order to predict neutrino masses in the sub-eV range, we address in this paper the question of whether this operator will induce rates for charged LFV processes of experimental interest. Some of them occur at tree–level such as double $`\beta `$ decay dbd , Hirsch:1999kc  and $`\mu e`$ conversion in nuclei Faessler:pn . One loop LFV decays as $`l_jl_i\gamma `$ become interesting on this framework due to the experimental interest in improving the current limits lfv-limit :

$`BR(\mu e\gamma )`$ $`<`$ $`1.2\times 10^{11}`$
$`BR(\tau \mu \gamma )`$ $`<`$ $`1.1\times 10^6`$
$`BR(\tau e\gamma )`$ $`<`$ $`2.7\times 10^6.`$ (1)
As we will show, the predictions for the last two processes are much lower than the above limits and will not constrain the BRpV model. For $`\mu e\gamma `$ the predictions are compatible with the current limit but could begin to constrain the model for the bounds that will be reached in current psi  or planned experiments prism , if only the atmospheric neutrino data were taken in account. However the requirement that the one–loop induced $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{12}^2`$ is in agreement with the solar neutrino data will imply that the predicted rates for $`\mu e\gamma `$ will not be visible, even in those new experiments.

This paper is organized as follows. In sections 2, 3 and 4 we describe the model, the scalar potential and the fermion mass matrices, respectively. In section 5 we derive the expressions for the LFV processes. The results are presented in section 6 and in section 7 we give our conclusions. The more technical questions regarding the mass matrices, couplings and the explicit formulas for the amplitudes are given in the appendices.

## 2 The Superpotential and the Soft Breaking Terms

Using the conventions of Refs. chargedhiggs , HabKaneGun  we introduce the model by specifying the superpotential, which includes BRpV epsrad  in three generations. It is given by

$$W=\epsilon _{ab}\left[h_U^{ij}\widehat{Q}_i^a\widehat{U}_j\widehat{H}_u^b+h_D^{ij}\widehat{Q}_i^b\widehat{D}_j\widehat{H}_d^a+h_E^{ij}\widehat{L}_i^b\widehat{R}_j\widehat{H}_d^a\mu \widehat{H}_d^a\widehat{H}_u^b+ϵ_i\widehat{L}_i^a\widehat{H}_u^b\right]$$
(2)
where the couplings $`h_U`$, $`h_D`$ and $`h_E`$ are $`3\times 3`$ Yukawa matrices and $`\mu `$ and $`ϵ_i`$ are parameters with units of mass. The second bilinear term in Eq. (2) violates lepton number and therefore also breaks R–parity. The inclusion of the R–parity violating term, though small, can modify the predictions of the MSSM. The most salient features are that neutrinos become massive and the lightest neutralino is no longer a dark matter candidate because it is allowed to decay. Furthermore, we can observe that this model implies the mixing of the leptons with the usual charginos and neutralinos of the MSSM. Lepton Yukawa couplings can be written as diagonal matrices without any loss of generality since it is possible to rotate the superfields $`\widehat{L}_{}^{b}{}_{i}{}^{}`$ in the superpotential, Eq. (2), such that Yukawa matrix $`h_E`$ becomes diagonal. Conversely, in BRpV models it is possible to apply a similar rotation to reduce the number $`ϵ`$ parameters and provide a non-trivial structure to $`h_E`$ Gomez:1998sd .

Supersymmetry breaking is parameterized with a set of soft supersymmetry breaking terms. In the MSSM these are given by

$$_{soft}=V_{soft}^{MSSM}+[\frac{1}{2}M_s\lambda _s\lambda _s+\frac{1}{2}M\lambda \lambda +\frac{1}{2}M^{}\lambda ^{}\lambda ^{}+h.c.]$$
(3)
where

$`V_{soft}^{MSSM}`$ $`=`$ $`M_Q^{ij2}\stackrel{~}{Q}_i^a\stackrel{~}{Q}_j^a+M_U^{ij2}\stackrel{~}{U}_i\stackrel{~}{U}_j^{}+M_D^{ij2}\stackrel{~}{D}_i\stackrel{~}{D}_j^{}+M_L^{ij2}\stackrel{~}{L}_i^a\stackrel{~}{L}_j^a+M_R^{ij2}\stackrel{~}{R}_i\stackrel{~}{R}_j^{}`$
$`+m_{H_d}^2H_d^aH_d^a+m_{H_u}^2H_u^aH_u^a`$
$`+\epsilon _{ab}\left[A_U^{ij}\stackrel{~}{Q}_i^a\stackrel{~}{U}_jH_u^b+A_D^{ij}\stackrel{~}{Q}_i^b\stackrel{~}{D}_jH_d^a+A_E^{ij}\stackrel{~}{L}_i^b\stackrel{~}{R}_jH_d^aB\mu H_d^aH_u^b\right].`$
In addition to the MSSM soft SUSY breaking terms in $`V_{soft}^{MSSM}`$ the BRpV model contains the following extra term

$$V_{soft}^{BRpV}=B_iϵ_i\epsilon _{ab}\stackrel{~}{L}_i^aH_u^b,$$
(5)
where the $`B_i`$ have units of mass.

The electroweak symmetry is broken when the two Higgs doublets $`H_d`$ and $`H_u`$, and the neutral component of the slepton doublets $`\stackrel{~}{L}_i`$ acquire vacuum expectation values. We introduce the notation:

$$H_d=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{H_d^0}{H_d^{}}\right),H_u=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{H_u^+}{H_u^0}\right),\stackrel{~}{L}_i=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\stackrel{~}{L}_i^0}{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}_i^{}}\right),$$
(6)
where we shift the neutral fields with non–zero vev’s as

$$H_d^0\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}[\sigma _d^0+v_d+i\phi _d^0],H_u^0\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}[\sigma _u^0+v_u+i\phi _u^0],\stackrel{~}{L}_i^0\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}[\stackrel{~}{\nu }_i^R+v_i+i\stackrel{~}{\nu }_i^I].$$
(7)
Note that the $`W`$ boson acquires a mass $`m_W^2=\frac{1}{4}g^2v^2`$, where $`v^2v_d^2+v_u^2+v_1^2+v_2^2+v_3^2(246\text{GeV})^2`$.

In addition to the above MSSM parameters, our model contains nine new parameters, $`ϵ_i`$, $`v_i`$ and $`B_i`$. The minimization of the scalar potential allows to relate some of these free parameters. The values of $`ϵ_i`$, $`v_i`$ are directly related with the neutrino masses and mixings as we will discuss below.

## 3 The Scalar Potential

The electroweak symmetry is broken when the neutral Higgses and the neutral slepton fields acquire non–zero vev’s. These are calculated via the minimization of the effective potential or, in the diagrammatic method, via the tadpole equations. The full scalar potential at tree level is

$$V_{total}^0=\underset{i}{}\left|\frac{W}{z_i}\right|^2+V_D+V_{soft}^{MSSM}+V_{soft}^{BRpV}$$
(8)
where $`z_i`$ is any one of the scalar components of the superfields in the superpotential in Eq. (2), $`V_D`$ are the $`D`$-terms, and $`V_{soft}^{BRpV}`$ is given in Eq. (5).

The tree level scalar potential contains the following linear terms

$$V_{linear}^0=t_d^0\sigma _d^0+t_u^0\sigma _u^0+t_1^0\stackrel{~}{\nu }_1^R+t_2^0\stackrel{~}{\nu }_2^R+t_3^0\stackrel{~}{\nu }_3^R,$$
(9)
where the different $`t^0`$ are the tadpoles at tree level, their explicit expressions can be found in Ref. Romao:1999up . The five tree level tadpoles $`t_\alpha ^0`$ are equal to zero at the minimum of the tree level potential, therefore we can use them to express the parameters:

$$\mu ,B,B_1,B_2,B_3,$$
(10)
in terms of:

$$v_u,v_d,ϵ_i,v_i,M_{Lij}^2,m_{H_u}^2,m_{H_d}^2.$$
(11)
We have two possible solutions for $`\mu `$:

$$\mu =\frac{b\pm \sqrt{b^24ac}}{2a}$$
(12)
where $`a=v_u^2v_d^2`$, $`b=2v_d_{i=1}^3ϵ_iv_i`$ and

$$c=v_u^2\left(\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}ϵ_i^2+m_{H_u}^2\right)v_d^2m_{H_d}^2\left(\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}ϵ_iv_i\right)^2Dv^2\frac{1}{2}\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}\underset{j=1}{\overset{3}{}}v_iv_j(M_{Lij}^2+M_{Lji}^2)$$
(13)
where we have defined $`D=\frac{1}{8}(g^2+g^2)(v_1^2+v_2^2+v_3^2+v_d^2v_u^2)`$.

As one can easily verify, the above relations lead to the MSSM relation for $`\mu ^2`$ in the limit of vanishing $`ϵ_i`$ and $`v_i`$. The uncertainty of the sign in the MSSM is translated here into two possible values for $`\mu `$–term. However for the values of $`ϵ_i`$ and $`v_i`$ relevant to our work both solutions are close in module and of opposite sign. The values for $`B`$ and $`B_i`$ ’s can be expressed in terms of $`\mu `$ as:

$`B`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{v_u}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{v_d}{\mu }}(m_{H_d}^2+\mu ^2+D){\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}}ϵ_iv_i\right]`$ (14)
$`B_i`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{v_u}}\left[v_d\mu {\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{3}{}}}ϵ_jv_j{\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ_i}}(Dv_i+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{3}{}}}v_j(M_{Lij}^2+M_{Lji}^2))\right]`$ (15)
The equivalent equations for the MSSM equations are obtained by setting $`ϵ_i,v_i`$ equal to zero.

## 4  Fermion Masses with BRpV

As we discussed in the previous section the presence of BRpV terms in the superpotential, Eq. (2), induces non–zero vev’s for the sneutrinos and enables the neutrinos to have a mass, with a value related to the size of $`ϵ_i,v_i`$ and the SUSY parameters involved on the electroweak symmetry breaking. Furthermore, the non–conservation of the R–parity allows the SUSY partners to mix with the SM particles. In this section we describe with detail the resulting neutralino–neutrino and chargino–charged–lepton mass matrices, since they are the most directly related to our problem. The complete set of mass matrices for the BRpV Model can be found in Ref. Romao:1999up .

### 4.1 Neutralino–Neutrino Mass Matrix

The range of values of the $`ϵ`$–parameters is indirectly associated to the size of the neutrino masses predicted by the model. To explore this relation we describe next the mass mixings among neutralinos and neutrinos. In the basis $`\psi ^{0T}=(i\lambda ^{},i\lambda ^3,\stackrel{~}{H}_d^0,\stackrel{~}{H}_u^0,\nu _e,\nu _\mu ,\nu _\tau )`$ the neutral fermion mass matrix $`MMM_N`$ is given by

$$MMM_N=\left[\begin{array}{cc}_{\chi ^0}& m^T\\ m& 0\end{array}\right]$$
(16)
where,

$$_{\chi ^0}=\left[\begin{array}{cccc}M_1& 0& \frac{1}{2}g^{}v_d& \frac{1}{2}g^{}v_u\\ 0& M_2& \frac{1}{2}gv_d& \frac{1}{2}gv_u\\ \frac{1}{2}g^{}v_d& \frac{1}{2}gv_d& 0& \mu \\ \frac{1}{2}g^{}v_u& \frac{1}{2}gv_u& \mu & 0\end{array}\right]$$
(17)
is the standard MSSM neutralino mass matrix and

$$m=\left[\begin{array}{cccc}\frac{1}{2}g^{}v_1& \frac{1}{2}gv_1& 0& ϵ_1\\ \frac{1}{2}g^{}v_2& \frac{1}{2}gv_2& 0& ϵ_2\\ \frac{1}{2}g^{}v_3& \frac{1}{2}gv_3& 0& ϵ_3\end{array}\right]$$
(18)
characterizes the breaking of R-parity.

The mass matrix $`MMM_N`$ is diagonalized by

$$𝒩^{}MMM_N𝒩^1=diag(m_{\chi _i^0},m_{\nu _j}),$$
(19)
where $`(i=1,\mathrm{},4)`$ for the neutralinos, and $`(j=1,\mathrm{},3)`$ for the neutrinos.

Since $`m_\nu m_{\chi ^0}`$ the mass matrix $`MMM_N`$ is similar to the ”see–saw” mass matrices and takes approximately the form diag($`_{\chi ^0},m_{eff}`$), with:

$$m_{eff}=m_{\chi ^0}^1m^T=\frac{M_1g^2+M_2g_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{4det(_{\chi ^0})}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{\Lambda }_e^2& \mathrm{\Lambda }_e\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mu & \mathrm{\Lambda }_e\mathrm{\Lambda }_\tau \\ \mathrm{\Lambda }_e\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mu & \mathrm{\Lambda }_\mu ^2& \mathrm{\Lambda }_\mu \mathrm{\Lambda }_\tau \\ \mathrm{\Lambda }_e\mathrm{\Lambda }_\tau & \mathrm{\Lambda }_\mu \mathrm{\Lambda }_\tau & \mathrm{\Lambda }_\tau ^2\end{array}\right).$$
(20)
where the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_i`$ parameters in Eq. (20) are defined as:

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_i\mu v_i+v_dϵ_i$$
(21)
One of the neutrino species acquire a tree level non–zero mass, given by:

$$m_{\nu _3}=Tr(m_{eff})=\frac{M_1g^2+M_2g_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{4det(_{\chi ^0})}|\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}|^2,$$
(22)
where $`|\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}|^2_{i=1}^3\mathrm{\Lambda }_i^2`$. The two other neutrinos can get masses at one–loop as it is discussed in Ref. Romao:1999up . For our purposes it will be important to have an estimate of the values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{12}^2=m_{\nu _2}^2m_{\nu _1}^2`$. We will use the results of Ref. Corfu2001  where it was found that, to a very good approximation, $`m_{\nu _1}=0`$ and

$$m_{\nu _2}=\frac{3}{16\pi ^2}m_b\mathrm{sin}2\theta _b\frac{h_b^2}{\mu ^2}\mathrm{log}\frac{m_{\stackrel{~}{b}_2}^2}{m_{\stackrel{~}{b}_1}^2}\frac{\left(\stackrel{}{ϵ}\times \stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\right)^2}{|\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}|^2}$$
(23)
The explanation of the data on neutrino oscillations given in Ref. Romao:1999up  requires the neutrino masses to be be on the sub-eV range in order to fit the data on atmospheric neutrino oscillations. In our examples we take a $`m_{\nu _3}=0.1\mathrm{eV}`$, which leads to values of the $`|\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}|`$ in the range of $`0.11\mathrm{GeV}^2`$, for the values of the SUSY parameters that we will consider. Considering that we take positive values for $`\mu `$ we should also take negative values for the product $`ϵ_iv_i`$ to avoid our analysis to be constrained to small values of $`ϵ_i`$. However, as we will see, for the values of the SUSY parameters that give the largest $`BR(\mu e\gamma )`$, the values of the $`|ϵ_i|`$ have to be below 0.1 GeV, if $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{12}^2<10^4`$ (eV)2, as required by the solar neutrino data.

### 4.2 Chargino–Charged Lepton Mass Matrix

Due to the R-parity violating terms in the superpotential, Eq. (2), the charginos mix with the charged leptons, linking therefore the problem of the masses of the neutrinos with the problem of the charged lepton flavor violation. We describe in this subsection the chargino–lepton mass matrix to explain how the flavor mixing on the charged lepton sector arises. In a basis where

$$\psi ^{+T}=(i\lambda ^+,\stackrel{~}{H}_u^+,e_R^+,\mu _R^+,\tau _R^+)\mathrm{and}\psi ^T=(i\lambda ^{},\stackrel{~}{H}_d^{},e_L^{},\mu _L^{},\tau _L^{})$$
(24)
the corresponding charged fermion mass terms in the Lagrangian are

$$_m=\frac{1}{2}(\psi ^{+T},\psi ^T)\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& M_C^T\\ M_C& 0\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\psi ^+\\ \psi ^{}\end{array}\right)+h.c.$$
(25)
where the chargino–charged lepton mass matrix $`M_C`$ is given in the Appendix A. As in the MSSM, $`M_C`$ is diagonalized by two rotation matrices, and we include the physical charged leptons and charginos into a set of five charged fermions defined as:

$$F_i^{}=U_{ij}\psi _j^{};F_i^+=V_{ij}\psi _j^+$$
(26)
Such that

$$UUU^{}M_CM_CM_CVVV^1=M_{CD}M_{CD}M_{CD}$$
(27)
where $`M_{CD}`$$`M_{CD}`$$`M_{CD}`$ is the diagonal charged fermion mass matrix.

In the previous expressions the $`F_i^\pm `$ are two component spinors. We construct the four component Dirac spinors out of the two component spinors with the conventions***Here we depart from the conventions of Ref. HabKaneGun  because we want the $`e^{}`$, $`\mu ^{}`$ and $`\tau ^{}`$ to be the particles and not the anti–particles. ,

$$\chi _i^{}=\left(\begin{array}{c}F_i^{}\\ \overline{F_i^+}\end{array}\right)$$
(28)
The parameterization of the matrices $`V`$, and $`U`$ given in Appendix A, that was introduced in Ref. dbd , original\_ref , provides a very accurate representation of the exact result. By comparing the numerical results with the analytical expressions shown in Appendix A, we found discrepancies of less than the $`1\%`$. To obtain this level of accuracy we had to introduce corrections in the definition of $`V_L`$, $`V_R`$, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_R`$ with respect to the formulas of Ref. dbd . These arise mainly from including the sub-matrix $`E^{}`$ in our derivation (see Appendix A). Although the size of the matrix elements of $`E^{}`$ is smaller than the other components of $`M_C`$, it must be taken into account in order to match the results of the smaller elements of $`U`$ and $`V`$ found in the exact diagonalization. Our definition of $`V_L`$ and $`V_R`$ leads to the correct form for the lower right $`3\times 3`$ sub-matrices of $`U`$ and $`V`$. We will make use of it to explain the details of our results. The inclusion of the matrix $`E^{}`$ in the determination of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_R`$ allows to display the dependence of the matrix elements on the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-parameters, rather than a explicit dependence on the $`ϵ`$’s as quoted in Ref. dbd .

Also, we must observe that the elements of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_L`$ exceed the ones of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_R`$ by several orders of magnitude. Therefore we can anticipate that the couplings containing the matrix $`V`$ in Appendix C, will be suppressed with respect to the ones containing the elements of $`U`$.

## 5 $`l_jl_i\gamma `$ Flavor Violating Processes and the $`\mu `$ Anomalous Magnetic Moment

### 5.1 Effective Lagrangian and Diagrams

The effective operators that generate the decays $`l_j^{}l_i^{}\gamma `$ and the lepton anomalous magnetic moment can be written as:

$$_{eff}=e\frac{m_{l_j}}{2}\overline{l}_i\sigma _{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }\left(A_{Lij}P_L+A_{Rij}P_R\right)l_j$$
(29)
The one–loop contributions to $`A_{L,R}`$ in the model under consideration arise from the diagrams of Figs. 13

$`A_{Lij}`$ $`=`$ $`A_{Lij}^S+A_{Lij}^G+A_{Lij}^Q`$ (30)
$`A_{Rij}`$ $`=`$ $`A_{Rij}^S+A_{Rij}^G+A_{Rij}^Q`$ (31)
The partial contributions on the above expression correspond to the addition of the sets of diagrams represented in each figure:

$`A_{L,Rij}^G`$ $`=`$ $`A_{L,Rij}^{N^0W^\pm }+A_{L,Rij}^{C^\pm Z^0}`$ (32)
$`A_{L,Rij}^S`$ $`=`$ $`A_{L,Rij}^{N^0S^\pm }+A_{L,Rij}^{C^\pm S^0}+A_{L,Rij}^{C^\pm P^0}`$ (33)
$`A_{L,Rij}^Q`$ $`=`$ $`A_{L,Rij}^{d\gamma \stackrel{~}{u}}+A_{L,Rij}^{d\stackrel{~}{u}\gamma }+A_{L,Rij}^{u\gamma \stackrel{~}{d}}+A_{L,Rij}^{u\stackrel{~}{d}\gamma }`$ (34)
The superscripts in each contribution on the right denote the fermion and boson internal lines of the corresponding diagram. For the quarks-squarks diagrams we include the symbol $`\gamma `$ to indicate whether the photon is attached to the fermion or the boson line. We follow the notation of Romao:1999up  indicating by $`S^\pm `$ the eigenstates of the charged scalar mass matrix, by $`S^0`$ and $`P^0`$ the eigenstates for the sneutrino–Higgs scalar mass matrices, CP–even and CP–odd, respectively.

The contributions to $`A_{L,Rij}^G`$ arise from the diagrams in Fig. 1. The index $`A=1,\mathrm{},5`$ corresponds to the eigenstates of the chargino–lepton mass matrix, while the indices $`i,j=1,2,3`$ correspond to the lepton generation indices in the limit of the MSSM with R–parity conservation. These diagrams will become the SM contribution to $`_{eff}`$, Eq. (29), in the limit $`ϵ_i=0`$. In the case of the SM it provides the main contribution to $`a_\mu `$, no contribution for charged LFV processes when neutrinos are considered massless and a very suppressed contribution for the values of $`m_{\nu _i}`$ compatible with the experimental limits P.. .

The contributions to $`A_{L/R}^{S,ij}`$ arise from the three diagrams of Fig. 2, where the index $`X`$ refers to the eigenstates of scalar mass matrices. $`S^\pm `$ are the eigenstates of the $`8\times 8`$ charged Higgs–slepton mass matrix and $`S^0,P^0`$ represent the eigenstates of the $`5\times 5`$ neutral Higgs–sneutrino scalar and pseudoscalar mass matrices, respectively. In the limit where R–parity is conserved these three diagrams will be combined in the two supersymmetric diagrams contributing to the $`A_{L/R}`$ in the MSSM. In this this limit, these diagrams are flavor conserving when the soft-terms are universal as given by minimal Supergravity version of the MSSM.

$`A_{L/R}^{Q,ij}`$ arise from the four diagrams of Fig. 3, where the indices $`X=1,\mathrm{},6`$ refer to the eigenstates of $`6\times 6`$ squark mass matrices and indices $`a=1,2,3`$ are the quark generation indices. These diagrams are not present when R–parity is conserved.

### 5.2 $`BR(l_jl_i\gamma )`$ for Flavor Violating Processes

The branching ratio for the rare lepton decays $`l_jl_i\gamma `$ is given in the literature hisano  and we do not repeat the derivation here. The result is

$$BR(l_j^{}l_i^{}\gamma )=\frac{48\pi ^3\alpha }{G_F^2}\left(\left|A_{Lij}\right|^2+\left|A_{Rij}\right|^2\right)$$
(35)
where the amplitudes $`A_{Lij}`$ and $`A_{Rij}`$ were defined in Eq. (30). The complete expressions for the amplitudes corresponding to these processes in the BRpV model are given in the Appendix C. In their derivation we have neglected the mass of the outgoing fermion.

### 5.3 The Muon Anomalous Magnetic Moment

The expression for the muon anomalous magnetic moment can be obtained from the Lagrangian given in Eq. (29). One obtains eno ,

$$a^\mu =\frac{(g_\mu 2)}{2}=m_\mu ^2(A_L^{\mu \mu }+A_R^{\mu \mu })$$
(36)
The amplitudes $`A_{L/R}^{\mu \mu }`$ can also be obtained from the formulas of Appendix C by including the effect of $`m_\mu `$ in both external lines of the diagrams. To do that we just have to include a factor of 2 in the part of the amplitude containing the function $`f_P,P=N,C,W,Z`$:

$$A_{L/R}^{a_\mu }=A_{L/R}^{22}(f_P(x)2f_P(x))$$
(37)
## 6 Results

### 6.1 The Parameter Space

The BRpV model that we consider adds more free parameters to the ones already present on the MSSM. However, if we consider the phenomenological constraints imposed on the MSSM by the limits on the mass of the lightest neutral $`CP`$–even Higgs $`m_h`$, by the $`BR(bs\gamma )`$ and by the value of the $`a^\mu `$, as well as those derived from neutrino physics on the BRpV parameters, we can narrow the space of parameters such that generic predictions for $`BR(\mu e\gamma )`$ and $`BR(\tau \mu \gamma )`$ can be made.

We assume the parameter space of the MSSM with universal soft-terms and GUT–unification,

$$\alpha _G,M_{GUT},m_0,M_{1/2},\mathrm{tan}\beta ,\mu ,B,h_E,h_U,h_D,A_0$$
(38)
with the addition of the BRpV parameters,

$$ϵ_i,B_i,v_i,i=1,2,3.$$
(39)
$`A_0`$ is defined such that $`A_I(GUT)=A_0h_I,I=U,D,E`$. The quantities $`\alpha _G=g_G^2/4\pi `$ ($`g_G`$ being the GUT gauge coupling constant) and $`M_{GUT}`$ are evaluated consistently with the experimental values of $`\alpha _{em}`$, $`\alpha _s`$, and $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W`$ at $`m_Z`$. We integrate numerically the RGE’s for the BRpV model, at two loops in the gauge and Yukawa couplings and a one loop in the soft terms, from $`M_{GUT}`$ down to a common supersymmetric threshold $`M_S\sqrt{m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_2}}`$. From this energy to $`m_Z`$, the RGE’s of the SM are used.

As we explained before, the minimum conditions of the effective scalar potential allows us to express the values of $`\mu ,B,B_1B_2,B_3`$ in terms of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta ,ϵ_i,v_i`$. These are evaluated at the scale $`M_S`$. The value of $`\mu `$ obtained at this scale is similar to the one obtained by minimizing the effective potential with the complete 1-loop MSSM contributions dn92 . The 1-loop contributions arising from Rp-violating terms for these parameters are comparatively much smaller.

We fix the elements of the quark Yukawa matrices at the GUT scale, consistently with the experimental values of the quark masses and the absolute values of the CKM matrix elements. In the case of the charged leptons we have to make sure that the three lightest eigenvalues of the chargino–charged lepton matrix are consistent with the experimental values of the charged lepton masses.

The values of $`m_0`$ and $`m_{1/2}`$ are chosen in region of the parameter space favored by the considerations presented in Ref. eno , so that we can compare our results with typical predictions for the $`BR(\mu e\gamma )`$ in the MSSM with a “see–saw” mechanism, as discussed in Ref. Carvalho:2001ex . Obviously, since our model breaks R-parity, the LSP is not a dark matter candidate and therefore the cosmological preferred areas of Ref. eno  do not apply to our study. However, the restriction of considering points in the $`m_0m_{1/2}`$ plane such that $`m_h>113\mathrm{GeV}`$, is the most restrictive. The SUSY contribution to $`a^\mu `$ g-2  favors the sign of $`\mu `$ to be positive for the choice of SUSY parameters given below. We found that the upper bound of Eq. (48) (see below) on $`\delta a^\mu `$ is less restrictive than the one imposed by $`m_h>113\mathrm{GeV}`$. We analyze three sets of SUSY parameters,

* $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =10`$, $`m_{1/2}=400\mathrm{GeV}`$, $`m_0=200\mathrm{GeV}`$, $`A_0=0`$, $`m_\nu =0.1\mathrm{eV}`$.
* $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =30`$, $`m_{1/2}=400\mathrm{GeV}`$, $`m_0=300\mathrm{GeV}`$, $`A_0=0`$, $`m_\nu =0.1\mathrm{eV}`$.
* $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =30`$, $`m_{1/2}=600\mathrm{GeV}`$, $`m_0=300\mathrm{GeV}`$, $`A_0=0`$, $`m_\nu =0.1\mathrm{eV}`$.

The six free BRpV parameters $`ϵ_i,v_i`$ reduce to three if we take into account the constraints imposed by the predictions for neutrino oscillations in this model, as given in Ref. Romao:1999up . By setting the atmospheric neutrino anomaly scale to the magnitude of the tree level non–zero value of one of the neutrinos, Eq. (22), we fix the value $`_i\mathrm{\Lambda }_i^2`$ for each SUSY point, where the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_i`$ were defined in Eq. (21). We then follow the discussion of Ref. Romao:1999up , where it was shown that the conditions $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_3\mathrm{\Lambda }_25\times \mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$ satisfy both the atmospheric neutrino anomaly mixings and the CHOOZ result chooz . We then obtain a linear relationship between each couple $`ϵ_i,v_i`$.

Therefore we study the dependence of the process under consideration on the values of $`ϵ_1,ϵ_2,ϵ_3`$ for a neutrino mass of $`m_{\nu _3}=0.1\mathrm{eV}`$, on the upper limit of the allowed range for the atmospheric neutrino anomaly. For comparison purposes we also present some results for $`m_{\nu _3}=0.05\mathrm{eV}`$ on the middle of that range, anf for $`m_{\nu _3}=1\mathrm{eV}`$.

We will assign random values to $`ϵ_1`$ and $`ϵ_2`$ in the range:

$$2\times 10^3\text{GeV}ϵ_1,ϵ_260\text{GeV}.$$
(40)
However the requirement that $`m_{\nu _2}<0.01\mathrm{eV}`$ will exclude values of $`|ϵ_i|>0.1\mathrm{GeV}`$. This will be explicitly shown in our results. The value of $`ϵ_3`$ is kept fixed since our results are not altered when it varies on the above range.

### 6.2 The Branching Ratio for $`l_j^{}l_i^{}\gamma `$

We perform a full numerical analysis with the exact diagonalization of matrices involved in the computation of branching ratios. The main contribution for $`BR(\mu e\gamma )`$, Eq. (35), comes from the amplitudes $`A_R`$. The partial contributions from the various diagrams listed in Eq. (3234) are displayed in Fig. 4, for the set of parameters b). We have found that they are all independent of $`ϵ_3`$ and that they display a linear behavior as a function of the product $`ϵ_1ϵ_2`$, when this product is larger than 0.1 GeV except for the cancellation observed in $`A_R^C=A_R^{C^\pm S^0}+A_R^{C^\pm P^0}`$. The values of the amplitudes arising from the diagrams of Fig. 1 depend on the $`ϵ`$’s through the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$’s which are kept fixed, and therefore remain constant. We also found the contributions of the diagrams of Fig. 3 to be of the same order of magnitude. As we can see, the sum of all of them, $`A_R^Q`$, is almost a linear function of $`ϵ_1ϵ_2`$. The amplitudes arising from the diagrams of Fig. 2 are the dominant ones. The one mediated by the neutralino ($`A_R^N`$) is smaller than the dominant chargino exchange ($`A_R^C`$), except in the range where the cancellation takes place.

We can also observe in Fig. 4 that the cancellation which appear in the $`A_R^C`$ depends on the value of $`ϵ_1`$. The values that we show correspond to two different choices of $`ϵ_1`$ (note that if we allow $`ϵ_1`$ to change randomly, as we have done with the other amplitudes, the values for $`A_R^C`$ would be a distribution of dots). The behavior of $`A_R^C`$ cannot be attributed to an accidental cancellation between the scalar and pseudoscalar parts as one may naively expect, on the contrary both parts add constructively and almost vanish simultaneously. The behavior of that amplitude can be explained when we identify which are the particles running in the loops of Fig. 2 that are responsible for the main contributions: $`X=1,A=1`$ and $`X=4,A=1,2`$. Then we can obtain an accurate approximation for the amplitude by using the formulas given in the Appendices AB and C. Let’s consider $`A_R^{C^\pm S^0}`$ since the contribution of the corresponding pseudoscalar exchange is almost identical. We get from Eq. (100) for the dominant contributions,

$$A_{R34}^{C^\pm S^0}\frac{1}{32\pi ^2}\left[\frac{1}{m_{S_1^0}^2}h_C(x_{11})\frac{m_{\chi _1^\pm }}{m_\mu }V_{R311}^{ccs}V_{L411}^{ccs}+\frac{1}{m_{S_4^0}^2}\underset{A=1}{\overset{2}{}}h_C(x_{A4})\frac{m_{\chi _A^\pm }}{m_\mu }V_{R3A4}^{ccs}V_{L4A4}^{ccs}\right]$$
(41)
Using the definitions of Appendix B we find,

$$V_{R311}^{ccs}V_{L411}^{ccs}\frac{gh_\mu }{\sqrt{2}}U_{32}U_{14},V_{R3A4}^{ccs}V_{L4A4}^{ccs}\frac{gh_\mu }{\sqrt{2}}U_{34}V_{A1}U_{A2}$$
(42)
where $`h_\mu `$ is the Yukawa coupling of the muon. We can then write,

$$A_{R34}^{C^\pm S^0}F_1U_{32}U_{14}+F_2U_{34}$$
(43)
where

$`F_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{gh_\mu }{32\sqrt{2}\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_{S_1^0}^2}}h_C(x_{11}){\displaystyle \frac{m_{\chi _1^\pm }}{m_\mu }}`$ (44)
$`F_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{gh_\mu }{32\sqrt{2}\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_{S_4^0}^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{A=1}{\overset{2}{}}}h_C(x_{A4}){\displaystyle \frac{m_{\chi _A^\pm }}{m_\mu }}V_{A1}U_{A2}`$ (45)
The quantities $`F_1`$ and $`F_2`$ are independent of the BRpV parameters $`ϵ_i`$ and can be evaluated given the SUSY parameters. The dependence of the amplitude $`A_{R34}^{C^\pm S^0}`$ on the $`ϵ_i`$ comes from the matrix elements $`U_{32}`$, $`U_{14}`$ and $`U_{34}`$. Using the Appendix A we can find approximate expressions for these matrix elements that display explicitly this dependence. We get,

$$U_{34}\frac{ϵ_1ϵ_2}{\mu ^2}+\frac{ϵ_1\mathrm{\Lambda }_2}{v_d\mu ^2},U_{32}\frac{ϵ_1}{\mu },U_{14}U_{12}^L\frac{ϵ_2}{\mu }.$$
(46)
Hence we can find the value of $`ϵ_2`$ at which $`A_R^C0`$,

$$ϵ_2\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_2F_2/v_d}{F_2+F_1U_{12}^L}$$
(47)
The position of the cancellation changes, with the value of the SUSY parameters and also with value of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_2`$, as we can see from Eq. (47). This explains the qualitative changes we find in Figs. 58.

Some of the the amplitudes contributing to the BR($`\mu e\gamma `$) presented above have been previously discussed in Refs. frank , Cheung:2001sb . We agree with Ref. Cheung:2001sb  in that the main contribution arises from $`A_R^C`$ except for the values of parameters affected by the cancellation mentioned above. However we find smaller values for $`A_R^Q`$ than the ones quoted in frank .

The contribution of $`A_L`$ to the branching ratio is negligible compared with $`A_R`$, due to the fact that the matrix $`U`$ is replaced by $`V`$ with suppressed mixings. This holds even for the element $`V_{34}`$. As we can see in Appendix A this element is determined by $`V_R`$ which is obtained in a similar way as $`V_L`$ for the matrix U. However, we observe that the main contribution to $`V_{34}`$ is suppressed by a factor $`m_e/m_\mu `$ with respect to the corresponding one in $`U_{34}`$.

Fig. 5 shows the impact of the cancellation in $`A_R^C`$ on the predictions of BR($`\mu e\gamma `$) for the choice of parameters b). As we can deduce from Eq. (47) the value of the $`ϵ_2`$ at which the cancellation in $`A_R^C`$ takes place depend on the values of the SUSY parameters. This determines the shape of the curves of constant BR in Figs. 67 and 8. Since the main contribution comes from the chargino mediated diagram of Fig. 2, we can expect that the $`BR`$ increases with $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ and decreases as $`m_{1/2}`$ grows. The increase of $`m_0`$ produces the same qualitative effect as the increase of $`m_{1/2}`$, however it has a lower impact on BR than the changes in $`m_{1/2}`$.

Our results can be compared with the predictions of a model based in the MSSM with a “see–saw” mechanism presented in Ref. Carvalho:2001ex , where the results for $`BR(\mu e\gamma )`$ are of order $`10^{13}`$ for case a) and between $`10^{12}`$ and $`10^{13}`$ for b) and c). If we observe our predictions for case b) on the left graph of Fig. 6, we can see that the model predicts ratios of $`10^{11}10^{13}`$ for values of $`|ϵ_1|`$ and $`|ϵ_2|`$ ranging from $`1`$ to $`10`$ GeV (independently of the value of $`ϵ_3`$). Values in the range of $`0.1`$ to $`1`$ GeV would lead to rates of order $`10^{14}10^{16}`$, still interesting for the next generation experiments psi , prism . Similarly, a window of $`0.1<ϵ_1,ϵ_2<1`$ GeV, is crossed only by the $`10^{16}`$ line in case c) and by lines below this value for case a). Such values of $`|ϵ_i|`$ are however excluded if one takes in account the constraint coming from the solar neutrinos mass scale. This is shown in Figs. 6 and 7, where the dashed line gives the upper limit on the $`|ϵ_i|`$ as obtained from Eq. (23) for the requirement that $`m_{\nu _2}<0.01\mathrm{eV}`$ .

In these figures we can appreciate that the parameters that enhance the ratios also make $`m_{\nu _2}`$ larger. From Eq.(23) we can observe that $`m_{\nu _2}`$ increases with $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ (through the dependence on $`h_b`$) and decreases as the $`\mu `$-term increases (i.e with $`m_{1/2}`$ and $`m_0`$). Furthermore, since we have choosen the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-parameters to be related, $`m_{\nu _2}`$ is proportional to a combination of $`ϵ_i^2`$ with no accidental cancellation amoung them. Therefore we can not find suitable values for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, $`m_{1/2}`$ and $`m_0`$, such that we can find an overlaping of areas with $`m_{\nu _2}<0.01`$ eV and BR($`\mu e\gamma `$) $`>10^{16}`$.

In Fig. 8 we consider $`m_{\nu _3}=0.05\mathrm{eV}`$ and $`m_{\nu _3}=1\mathrm{eV}`$ both for case b). This decreases (increases) the values of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$’s by about a factor of $`\sqrt{2}`$ ($`\sqrt{10}`$), respectively. By looking at the parameterization of the matrix U in Appendix A we can infer that these changes in the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$’s have not a decisive impact on the $`\mu e\gamma `$ rates. The reason for this is that the dominant contributions to $`A_{R34}^{C^\pm S^0,P^0}`$ are determined by the matrix $`\mathrm{\Omega }_L`$ and its elements that depend explicitly on the $`ϵ`$’s are much larger than the ones containing $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$’s (at least for values of $`ϵ`$’s leading to relevant ratios). However the position of the cancellation on $`A_{R34}^{C^\pm S^0}`$ depends on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_2`$ as we can see in Eq. (47) and it therefore determines the changes in the figures.

The changes on the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$’s have only a direct impact on the smaller contributions, such as the ones arising from the diagrams of Fig. 1 and on the $`A_L`$, which size is controlled by the elements of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_R`$, which, as we have said, are several orders of magnitude below the main contribution coming from $`\mathrm{\Omega }_L`$.

The predictions for $`BR(\tau \mu \gamma )`$ that we obtain with this model are of the same order as those for $`BR(\mu e\gamma )`$, the reason being that we have assumed the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$’s to be of the same order of magnitude, as it is required to explain neutrino oscillations. The results in this case are independent of $`ϵ_1`$. If we consider values for $`ϵ_2`$ and $`ϵ_3`$ in the same range as in Fig. 6 we obtain similar curves. This result contrasts with the LFV results on the framework of the R-parity conserving MSSM, where $`BR(\mu e\gamma )`$ is typically suppressed by several orders of magnitude with respect to $`BR(\tau \mu \gamma )`$. In this case the hierarchy of Yukawas couplings makes a distinction between the two processes.

We conclude therefore that the values of the parameters of the BRpV model that successfully explain the solar and atmospheric neutrino data Romao:1999up , predict rates for $`\mu e\gamma `$, $`\tau \mu \gamma `$ and $`\tau e\gamma `$, that are well below the current limits and well as those of planned experiments.

### 6.3 The Muon Anomalous Magnetic Moment

The difference on the value of the muon anomalous magnetic moment found in the BNL E821 measurement Brown:2001mg  with respect to the SM prediction, which originally was considered to be $`2.6\sigma `$ is now reduced to $`1.6\sigma `$ after a theoretical error has been corrected cog2 . When the $`2\sigma `$ range is considered, the allowed values for contributions beyond the SM become,

$$6\times 10^{10}\delta a_\mu a_\mu ^{exp}a_\mu ^{SM}58\times 10^{10},$$
(48)
Several studies eno  indicate that the MSSM extension of the SM can account for this discrepancy. When R–parity is broken the SUSY particles are allowed to enter in the SM diagrams (Fig. 1) and conversely the SM particles run in the SUSY loops (Figs. 2 and 3).

The contribution due to the R-parity violating operators to $`\delta a_\mu `$ is obtained by subtracting from the amplitudes arising from Fig. 1 ($`\delta a_\mu ^Z(RpV)`$, $`\delta a_\mu ^W(RpV)`$) and Fig. 2 ($`\delta a_\mu ^{\stackrel{~}{\chi }^\pm }(RpV)`$, $`\delta a_\mu ^{\stackrel{~}{\chi }^0}(RpV)`$) the contribution of the SM and the MSSM, respectively (which are obtained in the limit of vanishing $`ϵ_i`$’s). The contribution from Fig. 3 ($`a_\mu ^q`$) is not present in the MSSM. All these contributions are found to be small when the R-parity violating terms are associated with neutrino masses of experimental interest.

In Table 1 we show the different contributions to $`\delta a_\mu `$ for the selected values of $`m_0,m_{1/2}`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ discussed in the section 6.1. The main contributions to $`\delta a_\mu `$ arise basically from the MSSM components of the diagrams in Fig. 2 ($`a_\mu ^{\stackrel{~}{\chi }^+}`$, $`a_\mu ^{\stackrel{~}{\chi }^0}`$). The contribution from BRpV operators just adds a small percentage to the total values arising from physics beyond the SM. The values that we show correspond to the maximum value obtained in the conditions for the $`ϵ`$–parameters described in section 6.1, when we allow $`|ϵ_1|,|ϵ_2|`$ to range from $`0`$ to $`60\mathrm{GeV}`$ (the result is almost independent of the value of $`ϵ_3`$).

## 7 Conclusions

We studied the LFV in one–loop induced rare processes $`l_jl_i\gamma ,ij`$ in SUSY models with bi–linear R–parity violation. In this context, the R–parity violating interactions can explain the neutrino masses and mixings without adding new fields to the particle content of the MSSM which represent an appealing alternative to the ”see–saw” mechanism. In this work we addressed the question of whether neutrino masses in the sub–eV range can be compatible with rates for charged LFV processes of experimental interest.

We have performed an exhaustive study of the interactions and of the SUSY parameters involved in the processes $`l_jl_i\gamma ,ij`$ and contributing to the muon anomalous magnetic moment. For the case of rare decays we find the diagram mediated by the Higgs–sneutrino scalars to be the dominant. Contributions arising from diagrams including lepton–squark and lepton–gauge bosons vertices, possible in this model, are very suppressed in the range of neutrino masses considered in this work. Regarding $`a_\mu `$, the additional contributions introduced by the R–parity violating interactions modify in a small percentage the value obtained in the MSSM limit.

As in a previous analysis Cheung:2001sb  we find the BR($`\mu e\gamma `$) to be very sensitive to the product $`ϵ_1ϵ_2`$. However the presence of a cancellation in the main amplitude contributing to this process (which we have analyzed in detail through an accurate parameterization of the matrices $`U,V`$), makes our contour plots sensitive to the values of $`ϵ_1`$ and $`ϵ_2`$ in most of our examples. The rate increases with $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ as it is the case in the MSSM with ”see–saw” mechanism. However as the one–loop induced neutrino masses will also grow with $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, the requirement that $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{12}^2`$ is compatible with the solar neutrino data excludes the region in parameter space where the BR($`\mu e\gamma `$) could be of experimental interest. On the other hand the rates for $`\tau \mu \gamma `$ found in our study are of the same order as the ones for $`\mu e\gamma `$, therefore also out of the experimental range.

Unlike the situation in these models, the rates for $`\tau \mu \gamma `$ found in our study are of the same order as the ones for $`\mu e\gamma `$, therefore out of the experimental range.

To conclude, we must say, that the obtained results for the $`\mu e\gamma `$ show us that if the BRpV model is the explanation for both the solar and atmospheric neutrino ocillations, the predicted LFV will not be testable at PSI psi  or at PRISM prism . The correlations of the BRpV parameters with the neutralino decays, as proposed in Ref. Porod:2000hv , will remain the main test of the model.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This project was supported in part by the TMR Network of the EC under contract HPRN-CT-2000-00148. D. F. C. and M. E. G. acknowledge support from the ‘Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia’ under contracts PRAXIS XXI/ BD/9416/96 and SFRH/BPD/5711/2001 respectively. We are grateful to P. Nogueira for his help with the figures presented in this work.

## Appendix A Chargino–Charged Lepton Mass Matrix

The chargino–charged lepton mass matrix, in the basis of of Eq. (24), takes the form:

$$M_C=\left[\begin{array}{cc}M_{\chi ^\pm }& E^{}\\ E& M_E\end{array}\right]$$
(49)
where $`M_E=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}v_dh_E`$ is the charged leptons mass matrix and $`M_{\chi ^\pm }`$ is the usual MSSM chargino mass matrix,

$$M_{\chi ^\pm }=\left[\begin{array}{cc}M_2& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}gv_u\\ \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}gv_d& \mu \end{array}\right]$$
(50)
The sub-matrix $`E`$ is

$$E=\left[\begin{array}{cc}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}gv_1& ϵ_1\\ \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}gv_2& ϵ_2\\ \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}gv_3& ϵ_3\end{array}\right]$$
(51)
and $`E^{}`$ can be written as $`E^{}=v.h_E`$, where $`v`$ is defined as:

$$v=\left[\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& 0\\ \frac{v_1}{\sqrt{2}}& \frac{v_2}{\sqrt{2}}& \frac{v_3}{\sqrt{2}}\end{array}\right]$$
(52)
As the R–parity breaking parameters are small compared with the SUSY scale, it is possible to have an approximate diagonalization of $`M_C`$. This will be very useful in understanding the numerical results as we can have approximate analytical formulas. This approximate diagonalization is obtained by using the following parameterization, introduced in Refs. original\_ref , dbd , for $`U^{}`$and $`V^{}`$

$`U^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\left[\begin{array}{cc}U_L^{}& 0\\ 0& V_L\end{array}\right]\left[\begin{array}{cc}1\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Omega }_L^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_L& \mathrm{\Omega }_L^{}\\ \mathrm{\Omega }_L& 1\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Omega }_L\mathrm{\Omega }_L^{}\end{array}\right]`$ (57)
$`V^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\left[\begin{array}{cc}1\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Omega }_R^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_R& \mathrm{\Omega }_R^{}\\ \mathrm{\Omega }_R& 1\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Omega }_R\mathrm{\Omega }_R^{}\end{array}\right]\left[\begin{array}{cc}U_R^{}& 0\\ 0& V_R^{}\end{array}\right]`$ (62)
where $`U_{L,R}`$ are the MSSM rotation matrices,

$$U_L^{}M_{\chi ^\pm }U_R^{}=M_{\chi ^\pm }^{diag}$$
(63)
The matrices $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{L,R}`$ and $`V_{L,R}`$ are to be determined from the unitarity of $`U`$ and $`V`$, and from the defining condition

$$U^{}M_CV^{}=\left[\begin{array}{cc}M_{\chi ^\pm }^{diag}& 0\\ 0& M_E^{diag}\end{array}\right]$$
(64)
In the literature original\_ref , dbd , the matrices $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{L,R}`$ and $`V_{L,R}`$ were obtained in the approximation $`E^{}=0`$. However we discovered that this approximation was not good enough to explain our numerical results. So we re-derived the expressions for these matrices without neglecting $`E^{}`$. We get the following expressions for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{L,R}`$,

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_L=EM_{\chi ^\pm }^1=\frac{1}{det(M_{\chi ^\pm })}\left[\begin{array}{cc}\frac{g}{\sqrt{2}}\mathrm{\Lambda }_1& \frac{1}{\mu }(ϵ_1det(M_{\chi ^\pm })+\frac{1}{2}g^2v_u\mathrm{\Lambda }_1)\\ \frac{g}{\sqrt{2}}\mathrm{\Lambda }_2& \frac{1}{\mu }(ϵ_2det(M_{\chi ^\pm })+\frac{1}{2}g^2v_u\mathrm{\Lambda }_2)\\ \frac{g}{\sqrt{2}}\mathrm{\Lambda }_3& \frac{1}{\mu }(ϵ_3det(M_{\chi ^\pm })+\frac{1}{2}g^2v_u\mathrm{\Lambda }_3)\end{array}\right]$$
(65)
$`\mathrm{\Omega }_R`$ $`=`$ $`\left(E^{}+M_e^{}EM_{\chi ^\pm }^1\right)(M_{\chi ^\pm }^1)^T=h_E^{}\left(v^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}v_d\mathrm{\Omega }_L\right)(M_{\chi ^\pm }^1)^T`$ (69)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{det(M_{\chi ^\pm })}}\left[\begin{array}{cc}\frac{g}{\sqrt{2}}(M_E)_{i1}\mathrm{\Lambda }_i& \frac{M_2}{v_d}(M_E)_{i1}\mathrm{\Lambda }_i\\ \frac{g}{\sqrt{2}}(M_E)_{i2}\mathrm{\Lambda }_i& \frac{M_2}{v_d}(M_E)_{i2}\mathrm{\Lambda }_i\\ \frac{g}{\sqrt{2}}(M_E)_{i3}\mathrm{\Lambda }_i& \frac{M_2}{v_d}(M_E)_{i3}\mathrm{\Lambda }_i\end{array}\right](M_{\chi ^\pm }^1)^T`$
where summation over $`i=1,2,3`$ is implied in each matrix element. The expression for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_L`$ coincides with the one found in the literature but the expression for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_R`$ it is different. For $`V_{L,R}`$ we found that instead of the relation original\_ref , dbd

$`V_LM_EV_R^{}`$ $`=`$ $`M_E^{diag}`$ (70)
they should satisfy,

$`V_L\left(M_E\mathrm{\Omega }_LE^{}\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Omega }_L\mathrm{\Omega }_L^TM_E\right)V_R^{}`$ $`=`$ $`M_E^{diag}`$ (71)
For a general form of the matrix $`M_E`$ it will be difficult to have an explicit form for $`V_{L,R}`$. However for the case, that we consider, where the matrix $`M_E`$ is diagonal, we can obtain an analytical approximate expression for these matrices,

$$V_{L,R}\left[\begin{array}{ccc}1& \eta _{12}^{L,R}& \eta _{13}^{L,R}\\ \eta _{12}^{L,R}& 1& \eta _{23}^{L,R}\\ \eta _{13}^{L,R}& \eta _{23}^{L,R}& 1\end{array}\right]$$
(72)
where

$`\eta _{ij}^L`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ_iϵ_j}{2\mu ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_i^2+m_j^2}{m_i^2m_j^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ_i\mathrm{\Lambda }_j}{\mu ^2v_d}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{g^2v_uv_d}{2det(M_{\chi ^\pm })}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_j^2}{m_i^2m_j^2}}\right]`$ (73)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ_j\mathrm{\Lambda }_i}{\mu ^2v_d}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{g^2v_uv_d}{2det(M_{\chi ^\pm })}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_i^2}{m_i^2m_j^2}}\right]{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_i\mathrm{\Lambda }_j}{det(M_{\chi ^\pm })\mu ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{g^2v_u}{v_d}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_i^2+m_j^2}{m_i^2m_j^2}}`$
$`\eta _{ij}^R`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ_iϵ_j}{\mu ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_im_j}{m_i^2m_j^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ_i\mathrm{\Lambda }_j}{\mu ^2v_d}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_im_j}{m_i^2m_j^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ_j\mathrm{\Lambda }_i}{\mu ^2v_d}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_im_j}{m_i^2m_j^2}}`$ (74)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_i\mathrm{\Lambda }_j}{det(M_{\chi ^\pm })\mu ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{2g^2v_u}{v_d}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_im_j}{m_i^2m_j^2}}`$
and $`m_i`$ are the charged lepton physical masses.

Putting everything together we can find analytical expressions for the matrix $`U`$ that will be useful in explaining our results. We get,

$`U_{2+i,1}^{}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g}{\sqrt{2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_i}{det(M_{\chi ^\pm })}}`$ (75)
$`U_{2+i,2}^{}`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{Li2}{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ_i}{\mu }}`$ (76)
$`U_{1,2+i}^{}`$ $``$ $`U_{L12}^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_{Li2}U_{L12}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ_i}{\mu }}`$ (77)
$`U_{2,2+i}^{}`$ $``$ $`U_{L22}^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_{Li2}U_{L22}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ_i}{\mu }}`$ (78)
$`U_{2+i,2+j}^{}`$ $``$ $`\left(V_L\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Omega }_L\mathrm{\Omega }_L^T\right)_{ij}`$ (79)
For further reference we give the approximate expression for $`U_{3,4}^{}`$. We get

$`U_{34}^{}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ_1ϵ_2}{\mu ^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ_1\mathrm{\Lambda }_2}{\mu ^2v_d}}{\displaystyle \frac{gv_uϵ_2\mathrm{\Lambda }_1}{det(M_{\chi ^\pm })\mu ^2}}`$ (80)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ_1ϵ_2}{\mu ^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ_1\mathrm{\Lambda }_2}{\mu ^2v_d}}`$ (81)
where we have assumed that the parameters are in the ranges described in section 6.1.

## Appendix B The Couplings

The relevant part of the Lagrangian, using four component spinor notation is,

$``$ $`=`$ $`[\overline{\chi _i^{}}(V_{LiAX}^{cns}P_L+V_{RiAX}^{cns}P_R)\chi _A^0S_X^{}+\overline{\chi _i^{}}(V_{LiAX}^{cd\stackrel{~}{u}}P_L+V_{RiAX}^{cd\stackrel{~}{u}}P_R)d_A\stackrel{~}{u}_X^{}`$ (82)
$`+\overline{\chi _i^+}(V_{LiAX}^{cu\stackrel{~}{d}}P_L+V_{RiAX}^{cu\stackrel{~}{d}}P_R)u_A\stackrel{~}{d}_X^{}+\overline{\chi _i^{}}\gamma ^\mu (V_{LiA}^{cnW}P_L+V_{RiA}^{cnW}P_R)\chi _A^0W_\mu ^{}+h.c.]`$
$`+\overline{\chi _i^{}}(V_{LiAX}^{ccs}P_L+V_{RiAX}^{ccs}P_R)\chi _A^{}S_X^0+\overline{\chi _i^{}}(V_{LiAX}^{ccp}P_L+V_{RiAX}^{ccp}P_R)\chi _A^{}P_X^0`$
$`+\overline{\chi _i^{}}\gamma ^\mu (V_{LiA}^{ccZ}P_L+V_{RiA}^{ccZ}P_R)\chi _A^{}Z_\mu ^0`$
The definition of these couplings is given in the following sections. These definitions extend those of Ref. Romao:1999up  which conventions we follow.

### B.1 Chargino-Neutralino-Charged Scalars

$`V_{LiAX}^{cns}`$ $`=`$ $`\rho _A[gR_{X2}^{S^\pm }({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}N_{A2}^{}V_{i2}^{}+N_{A4}^{}V_{i1}^{})+g^{}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}R_{X2}^{S^\pm }N_{A1}^{}V_{i2}^{}+\sqrt{2}R_{X5+\alpha }^{S^\pm }V_{i2+\alpha }^{}N_{A1}^{})`$ (83)
$`+R_{X2+\alpha }^{S^\pm }h_E^{\alpha \beta }V_{i2+\beta }^{}N_{A3}^{}R_{X1}^{S^\pm }N_{A4+\alpha }^{}h_E^{\alpha \beta }V_{i2+\beta }^{}]`$
$`V_{RiAX}^{cns}`$ $`=`$ $`\eta _i[gR_{X1}^{S^\pm }({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}N_{A2}U_{i2}N_{A3}U_{i1})+gR_{X2+\alpha }^{S^\pm }({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}U_{i2+\alpha }N_{A2}N_{A4+\alpha }U_{i1})`$ (84)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{g^{}}{\sqrt{2}}}(R_{X1}^{S^\pm }N_{A1}U_{i2}+R_{X2+\alpha }^{S^\pm }U_{i2+\alpha }N_{A1})+(U_{i2}N_{A4+\alpha }N_{A3}U_{i2+\alpha })h_E^{\alpha \beta }R_{X5+\beta }^{S^\pm }]`$
where the indices have the following ranges: $`A=1,\mathrm{},7`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},5`$, $`\alpha ,\beta =1,\mathrm{},3`$ and $`\rho _A`$ ($`\eta _i`$) are the signs of the neutralinos (respectively charginos) as they are obtained from the numerical evaluation of the eigenvalues Romao:1999up .

### B.2 Chargino-Chargino-CP Even Neutral Scalars

$`V_{LiAX}^{ccs}`$ $`=`$ $`\eta _A{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}[g(R_{X1}^{S^0}U_{A2}^{}V_{i1}^{}+R_{X2}^{S^0}U_{A1}^{}V_{i2}^{}+R_{X2+\alpha }^{S^0}U_{A2+\alpha }^{}V_{i1}^{})`$ (85)
$`\text{ }+(R_{X1}^{S^0}U_{A2+\alpha }^{}U_{A2}^{}R_{X2+\alpha }^{S^0})h_E^{\alpha \beta }V_{i2+\beta }^{}]`$
$`V_{RiAX}^{ccs}`$ $`=`$ $`V_{LAiX}^{ccs}`$ (86)
### B.3 Chargino-Chargino-CP Odd Neutral Scalars

$`V_{LiAX}^{ccp}`$ $`=`$ $`i\eta _A{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}[g(R_{X1}^{P^0}U_{A2}^{}V_{i1}^{}+R_{X2}^{P^0}U_{A1}^{}V_{i2}^{}+R_{X2+\alpha }^{P^0}U_{A2+\alpha }^{}V_{i1}^{})`$ (87)
$`\text{ }+(U_{A2}^{}R_{X2+\alpha }^{P^0}R_{X1}^{S^0}U_{A2+\alpha }^{})h_E^{\alpha \beta }V_{i2+\beta }^{}]`$
$`V_{RiAX}^{ccp}`$ $`=`$ $`V_{LAiX}^{ccp}`$ (88)
### B.4 Chargino-Neutralino-$`W^\pm `$

$`V_{LiA}^{cnW}`$ $`=`$ $`\eta _i\rho _Ag\left[N_{A2}^{}U_{i1}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(N_{A3}^{}U_{i2}+N_{A4+\alpha }^{}U_{i2+\alpha }\right)\right]`$ (89)
$`V_{RiA}^{cnW}`$ $`=`$ $`g\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}N_{A4}V_{i2}^{}N_{A2}V_{i1}^{}\right]`$ (90)
### B.5 Chargino-Chargino-$`Z^0`$

$`V_{LiA}^{ccZ}`$ $`=`$ $`\eta _i\eta _A{\displaystyle \frac{g}{\mathrm{cos}\theta _W}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}U_{i1}U_{A1}^{}+\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W\right)\delta _{iA}\right]`$ (91)
$`V_{RiA}^{ccZ}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g}{\mathrm{cos}\theta _W}}\left[V_{i1}^{}V_{A1}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}V_{i2}^{}V_{A2}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W\delta _{iA}\right]`$ (92)
### B.6 Chargino-Quark Down-Squark Up

$`V_{LiAX}^{cd\stackrel{~}{u}}`$ $`=`$ $`\eta _A^d\left[gV_{i1}^{}R_{X\alpha }^{\stackrel{~}{u}}R_{LA\alpha }^d+V_{i2}^{}R_{LA\alpha }^dh_U^{\alpha \beta }R_{X3+\beta }^{\stackrel{~}{u}}\right]`$ (93)
$`V_{RiAX}^{cd\stackrel{~}{u}}`$ $`=`$ $`\eta _i\left[U_{i2}R_{X\alpha }^{\stackrel{~}{u}}h_D^{\alpha \beta }R_{RA\beta }^d\right]`$ (94)
### B.7 Chargino-Quark Up-Squark Down

$`V_{LiAX}^{cu\stackrel{~}{d}}`$ $`=`$ $`\eta _i\eta _A^u\left[gU_{i1}^{}R_{X\alpha }^{\stackrel{~}{d}}R_{LA\alpha }^u+U_{i2}^{}R_{LA\alpha }^uh_D^{\alpha \beta }R_{X3+\beta }^{\stackrel{~}{d}}\right]`$ (95)
$`V_{RiAX}^{cu\stackrel{~}{d}}`$ $`=`$ $`V_{i2}R_{X\alpha }^{\stackrel{~}{d}}h_U^{\alpha \beta }R_{RA\beta }^u`$ (96)
## Appendix C Amplitudes

We collect here the various amplitudes corresponding to the diagrams of Figs. 13. In these amplitudes the mass of the outgoing fermion was neglected. We give only the amplitudes $`A_L`$ because the $`A_R`$ can be obtained from these with the substitution rule

$$A_{Rij}=A_{Lij}(L/RR/L).$$
(97)
### C.1 Neutralinos–Charged Scalars

$$A_{Lij}^{N^0S^\pm }=\underset{A=1}{\overset{5}{}}\underset{X=1}{\overset{8}{}}\frac{1}{32\pi ^2}\frac{1}{m_{S_X^\pm }^2}\left[f_N(x_{AX})V_{LiAX}^{cns}V_{LjAX}^{cns}+h_N(x_{AX})\frac{m_{\chi _A^0}}{m_{l_j}}V_{LiAX}^{cns}V_{RjAX}^{cns}\right]$$
(98)
with $`x_{AX}=\left(\frac{m_{\chi _A^0}}{m_{S_X^\pm }}\right)^2`$ and the functions $`f_N,h_N`$ given by

$$f_N(x)=\frac{16x+3x^2+2x^36x^2\mathrm{ln}x}{6(1x)^4}h_N(x)=\frac{1x^2+2x\mathrm{ln}x}{(1x)^3}$$
(99)
### C.2 Charginos–CP Even Neutral Scalars

$$A_{Lij}^{C^\pm S^0}=\underset{A=1}{\overset{5}{}}\underset{X=1}{\overset{5}{}}\frac{1}{32\pi ^2}\frac{1}{m_{S_X^0}^2}\left[f_C(x_{AX})V_{LiAX}^{ccs}V_{LjAX}^{ccs}+h_C(x_{AX})\frac{m_{\chi _A^\pm }}{m_{l_j}}V_{LiAX}^{ccs}V_{RjAX}^{ccs}\right]$$
(100)
with $`x_{AX}=\left(\frac{m_{\chi _A^\pm }}{m_{S_X^0}}\right)^2`$ and the functions $`f_C,h_C`$ given by

$$f_C(x)=\frac{2+3x6x^2+x^3+6x\mathrm{ln}x}{6(1x)^4}h_C(x)=\frac{3+4xx^22\mathrm{ln}x}{(1x)^3}$$
(101)
### C.3 Charginos–CP Odd Neutral Scalars

$$A_{Lij}^{C^\pm P^0}=\underset{A=1}{\overset{5}{}}\underset{X=1}{\overset{5}{}}\frac{1}{32\pi ^2}\frac{1}{m_{P_X^0}^2}\left[f_C(x_{AX})V_{LiAX}^{ccp}V_{LjAX}^{ccp}+h_C(x_{AX})\frac{m_{\chi _A^\pm }}{m_{l_j}}V_{LiAX}^{ccp}V_{RjAX}^{ccp}\right]$$
(102)
with $`x_{AX}=\left(\frac{m_{\chi _A^\pm }}{m_{P_X^0}}\right)^2`$.

### C.4 Quarks–Squarks

$$A_{Lij}^{d\gamma \stackrel{~}{u}}=\underset{A=1}{\overset{3}{}}\underset{X=1}{\overset{6}{}}3(\frac{1}{3})\frac{1}{32\pi ^2}\frac{1}{m_{\stackrel{~}{u}_X}^2}\left[f_C(x_{AX})V_{LiAX}^{cd\stackrel{~}{u}}V_{LjAX}^{cd\stackrel{~}{u}}+h_C(x_{AX})\frac{m_{d_A}}{m_{l_j}}V_{LiAX}^{cd\stackrel{~}{u}}V_{RjAX}^{cd\stackrel{~}{u}}\right]$$
(103)
with $`x_{AX}=\left(\frac{m_{d_A}}{m_{\stackrel{~}{u}_X}}\right)^2`$.

$$A_{Lij}^{u\gamma \stackrel{~}{d}}=\underset{A=1}{\overset{3}{}}\underset{X=1}{\overset{6}{}}3(\frac{2}{3})\frac{1}{32\pi ^2}\frac{1}{m_{\stackrel{~}{d}_X}^2}\left[f_C(x_{AX})V_{RiAX}^{cu\stackrel{~}{d}}V_{RjAX}^{cu\stackrel{~}{d}}+h_C(x_{AX})\frac{m_{u_A}}{m_{l_j}}V_{RiAX}^{cu\stackrel{~}{d}}V_{LjAX}^{cu\stackrel{~}{d}}\right]$$
(104)
with $`x_{AX}=\left(\frac{m_{u_A}}{m_{\stackrel{~}{d}_X}}\right)^2`$.

$$A_{Lij}^{d\stackrel{~}{u}\gamma }=\underset{A=1}{\overset{3}{}}\underset{X=1}{\overset{6}{}}3(\frac{2}{3})\frac{1}{32\pi ^2}\frac{1}{m_{\stackrel{~}{u}_X}^2}\left[f_N(x_{AX})V_{LiAX}^{cd\stackrel{~}{u}}V_{LjAX}^{cd\stackrel{~}{u}}+h_N(x_{AX})\frac{m_{d_A}}{m_{l_j}}V_{LiAX}^{cd\stackrel{~}{u}}V_{RjAX}^{cd\stackrel{~}{u}}\right]$$
(105)
with $`x_{AX}=\left(\frac{m_{d_A}}{m_{\stackrel{~}{u}_X}}\right)^2`$.

$$A_{Lij}^{u\stackrel{~}{d}\gamma }=\underset{A=1}{\overset{3}{}}\underset{X=1}{\overset{6}{}}3(\frac{1}{3})\frac{1}{32\pi ^2}\frac{1}{m_{\stackrel{~}{d}_X}^2}\left[f_N(x_{AX})V_{RiAX}^{cu\stackrel{~}{d}}V_{RjAX}^{cu\stackrel{~}{d}}+h_N(x_{AX})\frac{m_{u_A}}{m_{l_j}}V_{RiAX}^{cu\stackrel{~}{d}}V_{LjAX}^{cu\stackrel{~}{d}}\right]$$
(106)
with $`x_{AX}=\left(\frac{m_{u_A}}{m_{\stackrel{~}{d}_X}}\right)^2`$.

### C.5 W-Neutralinos

For W–Neutralinos the amplitude, in the unitary gauge ($`\xi +\mathrm{}`$) is,

$$A_{Lij}^{N^0W^\pm }=\underset{A=1}{\overset{5}{}}\frac{1}{32\pi ^2}\frac{1}{m_W^2}\left[f_W(x_A)V_{RiA}^{cnW}V_{RjA}^{cnW}+h_W(x_A)\frac{m_{\chi _A^0}}{m_{l_j}}V_{RiA}^{cnW}V_{LjA}^{cnW}\right]$$
(107)
with $`x_A=\left(\frac{m_{\chi _A^0}}{m_W}\right)^2`$ and the functions $`f_W,h_W`$ given by

$`f_W(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1043x+78x^249x^3+4x^4+18x^3\mathrm{ln}x}{6(1x)^4}}`$ (108)
$`h_W(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4+15x12x^2+x^3+6x^2\mathrm{ln}x}{(1x)^3}}`$ (109)
### C.6 Z–Charginos

For Z–Charginos the amplitude, in the unitary gauge ($`\xi +\mathrm{}`$) is,

$$A_{Lij}^{C^\pm Z^0}=\underset{A=1}{\overset{5}{}}\frac{1}{32\pi ^2}\frac{1}{m_Z^2}\left[f_Z(x_A)V_{RiA}^{ccZ}V_{RjA}^{ccZ}+h_Z(x_A)\frac{m_{\chi _A^\pm }}{m_{l_j}}V_{RiA}^{ccZ}V_{LjA}^{ccZ}\right]$$
(110)
with $`x_A=\left(\frac{m_{\chi _A^\pm }}{m_Z}\right)^2`$ and the functions $`f_Z,h_Z`$ given by

$`f_Z(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{838x+39x^214x^3+5x^418x^2\mathrm{ln}x}{6(1x)^4}}`$ (111)
$`h_Z(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4+3x+x^36x\mathrm{ln}x}{(1x)^3}}`$ (112)