Observables of low-lying supersymmetric vectorlike leptonic

generations via loop corrections

arXiv:1808.00071v2 [hep-ph] 28 Sep 2018

Amin Aboubrahima∗ , Tarek Ibrahimb† , Ahmad Itanic‡ and Pran Natha§

a
Department of Physics, Northeastern University, Boston, MA 02115-5000, USA
b
University of Science and Technology, Zewail City of Science and Technology,
6th of October City, Giza 12588, Egypt5
c
Department of Physics, Faculty of Science, Lebanese International University, Beirut, Lebanon

Abstract
A correlated analysis of observables arising from loop induced effects from a vectorlike generation is given.
The observables include flavor changing radiative decays µ → eγ, τ → µγ, τ → eγ, electric dipole moments
of the charged leptons e, µ, τ , and corrections to magnetic dipole moments of gµ − 2 and ge − 2. In this work
we give a full analysis of the corrections to these observables by taking into account both the supersymmetry
loops as well as the exchange of a vectorlike leptonic generation. Thus the fermion mass matrix involves
a 5 × 5 mixing matrix while the scalar sector involves a 10 × 10 mixing matrix including the CP violating
phases from the vectorlike sector. The analysis is done under the constraint of the Higgs boson mass at
the experimentally measured value. The loops considered include the exchange of W and Z bosons and of
leptons and a mirror lepton, and the exchange of charginos and neutralinos, sleptons and mirror sleptons.
The correction to the diphoton decay of the Higgs h → γγ including the exchange of the vectorlike leptonic
multiplet is also computed.
Keywords: Vectorlike leptons, edms, radiative decays, anomalous moments
PACS numbers: 12.60.-i, 14.60.Fg

∗ Email: [email protected]
† Email: [email protected]
‡ Email: [email protected]
§ Email: [email protected]
5 Permanent address: Department of Physics, Faculty of Science, University of Alexandria, Alexandria, Egypt
1 Introduction
Precision measurements can reveal small deviations from the standard model (SM) prediction and indicate
the existence of new physics beyond the standard model. There are a variety of experiments which are
exploring the properties of elementary particles to a high precision to this end. These include flavor changing
radiative decays of the charged leptons µ → eγ, τ → µγ and τ → eγ, i.e., the MEG experiment [1], BaBar
Collaboration [2] and the Belle Collaboration [3], the electric dipole moment (EDM) of the electron [4], of
the muon as well as of quarks [5], and the precision measurement of the anomalous magnetic moment of the
muon [6] and of the electron. In this work we explore the implications of a low-lying vectorlike generation on
the leptonic processes mentioned above. Vectorlike generations exist in a variety of models including grand
unified models, string models and D brane models [7, 8, 9]. Some of these vectorlike generations may be
light. Further, vectorlike generations are anomaly free so they preserve good properties of the model as a
quantum field theory. The mixings of these light vectorlike generations with the three generations of leptons
can lead to contributions to the processes noted above. Several studies of the effects of vectorlike leptons in
various processes already exist [10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20] and in non-supersymmetric context
in [21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27]. In this analysis we perform a correlated study of the contributions of the
vectorlike generation to these phenomena. The analysis involves an enlarged leptonic mass matrix which
is 5 × 5 and a slepton mass-squared matrix which is 10 × 10 including the CP violating phases from the
vectorlike sector. In the analysis we consider loop exchange of W and Z bosons, leptons and mirror leptons,
and exchange of charginos and neutralinos along with the sleptons and mirror sleptons. The analysis is done
under the constraint of the Higgs boson mass at ∼ 125 GeV, and an analysis of the contribution to the
branching ratio h → γγ from the vectorlike leptonic exchange is also given.
The outline of the rest of the paper is as follows: In section 2 we give a description of the model. In section 3
we give an analysis of the flavor changing decays of the charged leptons. An analysis of the EDM of the
charged leptons is given in section 4. In section 5 we give an analysis of g − 2 for the charged leptons. An
analysis of the contribution of the vectorlike leptonic generation to the diphoton decay of the Higgs boson is
given in section 6. A numerical analysis is given in section 7 and conclusions are given in section 8. Further
details of the analysis is given in appendices A and B.

2 Description of the model

In this section we give details of the model used in the rest of the paper. As mentioned in section 1 the model
consists of three generations of sequential leptons (e, µ, τ ) and in addition a single vectorlike generation. Thus
one has four sequential families and a mirror generation. The properties of the sequential generation under

1
SU (3)C × SU (2)L × U (1)Y are given by
 
νiL 1
ψiL ≡ ∼ (1, 2, − ), `ciL ∼ (1, 1, 1), νiL
c
∼ (1, 1, 0), (1)
`iL 2

where the last entry on the right hand side of each ∼ is the value of the hypercharge Y defined so that
Q = T3 + Y and we have included in our analysis the singlet field νic , where i runs from 1−4. The mirrors
are given by
c
 
EµL 1
χc ≡ ∼ (1, 2, ), EµL ∼ (1, 1, −1), NL ∼ (1, 1, 0). (2)
NLc 2

The main difference between the leptons and the mirrors is that while the leptons have V −A type interactions
with SU (2)L × U (1)Y gauge bosons the mirrors have V + A type interactions.
We assume that the mirrors of the vectorlike generation escape acquiring mass at the GUT scale and
remain light down to the electroweak scale where the superpotential of the model for the lepton part may
be written in the form

W = −µij Ĥ1i Ĥ2j + ij [f1 Ĥ1i ψ̂L

j c
τ̂L + f10 Ĥ2j ψ̂L ν̂τ L + f2 Ĥ1i χ̂cj N̂L + f20 Ĥ2j χ̂ci ÊL
i c

j
+ h1 Ĥ1i ψ̂µL µ̂cL + h01 Ĥ2j ψ̂µL
i c
ν̂µL j
+ h2 Ĥ1i ψ̂eL êcL + h02 Ĥ2j ψ̂eL
i c
ν̂eL j ˆc
+ y5 Ĥ1i ψ̂4L `4L + y50 Ĥ2j ψ̂4L
i c
ν̂4L ]
j j
+ f3 ij χ̂ci ψ̂L + f30 ij χ̂ci ψ̂µL + f4 τ̂Lc ÊL + f5 ν̂τcL N̂L + f40 µ̂cL ÊL + f50 ν̂µL
c
N̂L
j j
+ f300 ij χ̂ci ψ̂eL + f400 êcL ÊL + f500 ν̂eL
c
N̂L + h6 ij χ̂ci ψ̂4L + h7 `ˆc4L ÊL + h8 ν̂4L
c
N̂L , (3)

where ˆ implies superfields, ψ̂L ≡ ψ̂τ L stands for ψ̂3L , ψ̂µL stands for ψ̂2L and ψ̂eL stands for ψ̂1L .
The mass terms for the neutrinos, mirror neutrinos, leptons and mirror leptons arise from the term

1 ∂2W
L=− ψi ψj + h.c., (4)
2 ∂Ai ∂Aj

where ψ and A stand for generic two-component fermion and scalar fields. After spontaneous breaking of
√ √
the electroweak symmetry, (hH11 i = v1 / 2 and hH22 i = v2 / 2), we have the following set of mass terms
written in the four-component spinor notation so that

− Lm = ξ¯R
T T
(Mf )ξL + η̄R (M` )ηL + h.c., (5)

where the basis vectors in which the mass matrix is written is given by

ξ¯R
T


= ν̄τ R N̄R ν̄µR ν̄eR ν̄4R ,
T


ξL = ντ L NL νµL νeL ν4L ,
T
`¯4R ,


η̄R = τ¯R ĒR µ¯R e¯R
T


ηL = τL EL µL eL `4L , (6)

2
and the mass matrix Mf of neutrinos is given by
 0 √ 
f1 v2 / 2 f5 √ 0 0 0
 −f3
 f2 v 1 / 2 −f30√ −f300 −h6  
Mf =  0 0 . (7)
 0 f5 h 1 v2 / 2 0√ 0 
 0 f500 0 h02 v2 / 2 0√ 
0 h8 0 0 y50 v2 / 2
We define the matrix elements (2, 2) and (5, 5) of the mass matrix as mN and mνG , respectively, so that
√ √
mN = f2 v1 / 2 and mνG = y50 v2 / 2 . (8)

The mass matrix is not hermitian and thus one needs biunitary transformations to diagonalize it. We define
the biunitary transformation so that

ν† ν
DR (Mf )DL = diag(mψ1 , mψ2 , mψ3 , mψ4 , mψ5 ), (9)

where ψ1 , ψ2 , ψ3 , ψ4 , ψ5 are the mass eigenstates for the neutrinos. In the limit of no mixing we identify
ψ1 as the light tau neutrino, ψ2 as the heavier mass mirror eigenstate, ψ3 as the muon neutrino, ψ4 as the
electron neutrino and ψ5 as the other heavy four-sequential generation neutrino. A similar analysis goes to
the lepton mass matrix M` where
 √ 
f1 v1 / 2 f4 √ 0 0 0
 f3
 f20 v2 / 2 f30 √ f300 h6  
M` =  0 f40 h1 v1 / 2 0√ 0 .
 (10)
 0 f400 0 h2 v1 / 2 0√ 
0 h7 0 0 y 5 v1 / 2
We introduce now the mass parameters mE and mG for the elements (2,2) and (5,5), respectively, of the
mass matrix above so that
√ √
mE = f20 v2 / 2 and mG = y5 v1 / 2 . (11)

CP phases that arise from the new sector are defined so that
0 00 00 00
fi = |fi |eiχi , fi0 = |fi0 |eiχi , fi = |fi |eiχi (i = 3, 4, 5),

hk = |hk |eiχk , k = 6, 7, 8 . (12)

As in the neutrino mass matrix case, the charged lepton mass matrix is not hermitian and thus one needs
again a biunitary transformation to diagonalize it. We define the biunitary transformation so that

τ† τ
DR (M` )DL = diag(mτ1 , mτ2 , mτ3 , mτ4 , mτ5 ), (13)

where τα (α =1−5) are the mass eigenstates for the charged lepton matrix.
The mass-squared matrices of the slepton-mirror slepton and sneutrino-mirror sneutrino sectors come from

3
three sources: the F term, the D term of the potential and the soft SUSY breaking terms. After spontaneous
breaking of the electroweak symmetry the Lagrangian is given by

L = LF + LD + Lsoft , (14)

where LF is deduced from −LF = Fi Fi∗ , while the LD is given by

1 2
−LD = m cos2 θW cos 2β{ν̃τ L ν̃τ∗L − τ̃L τ̃L∗ + ν̃µL ν̃µL ∗
− µ̃L µ̃∗L + ν̃eL ν̃eL
∗
− ẽL ẽ∗L
2 Z
1
+ ẼR ẼR ∗
− ÑR ÑR∗ + ν̃4L ν̃4L∗
− `˜4L `˜∗4L } + m2Z sin2 θW cos 2β{ν̃τ L ν̃τ∗L + τ̃L τ̃L∗ + ν̃µL ν̃µL
∗
+ µ̃L µ̃∗L
2
∗
+ ν̃eL ν̃eL + ẽL ẽ∗L + ν̃4L ν̃4L
∗
+ `˜4L `˜∗4L
∗
− ẼR ẼR − ÑR ÑR∗ + 2ẼL ẼL∗ − 2τ̃R τ̃R∗ − 2µ̃R µ̃∗R − 2ẽR ẽ∗R − 2`˜4R `˜∗4R }, (15)

and Lsoft is given in appendix A.

3 The analysis of B(`i → `j γ) with inclusion of vectorlike leptons

Stringent bounds exist on the decay µ → eγ from the MEG experiment [1]

B(µ → eγ) < 5.7 × 10−13 at 90% CL (MEG). (16)

Other flavor changing decays are τ → µγ and τ → eγ. Here the current experimental limits on the branching
ratios of these processes from the BaBar Collaboration [2] and from the Belle Collaboration [3] are

B(τ → µγ) < 4.4 × 10−8 at 90% CL (BaBar),

B(τ → µγ) < 4.5 × 10−8 at 90% CL (Belle),

B(τ → eγ) < 3.3 × 10−8 at 90% CL (BaBar). (17)

Improvement in the measurements of flavor changing processes is expected to occur at the SuperB facto-
ries [28, 29, 30] (for a review see [31]). Thus it is of interest to see if theoretical estimates for these branching
ratios can lie close to the current experimental limits to be detectable in improved experiment. Flavor vio-
lating radiative decays have been analyzed in several previous works (see, e.g., [31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37]).
However, none of these works explore the class of models discussed here.
We discuss now the specifics of the model. Thus the decay µ → eγ is induced by one-loop electric and
magnetic transition dipole moments, which arise from the diagrams of Fig. 1. For an incoming muon of
momentum p and a resulting electron of momentum p0 , we define the amplitude

he(p0 )|Jα |µ(p)i = ūe (p0 )Γα uµ (p), (18)

4
Figure 1: The diagrams that allow the decay of µ → eγ via supersymmetric loops involving the chargino (top
left) and the neutralino (top right) and via W loop (bottom left) and Z loop (bottom right) with emission
of the photon from the charged particle inside the loop.

where
F2µe (q)iσαβ q β F µe (q)σαβ γ5 q β
Γα (q) = + 3 + ..., (19)
mµ + me mµ + me
with q = p0 − p and where mf denotes the mass of the fermion f . The branching ratio of µ → eγ is given by

24π 2
B(µ → eγ) = {|F2µe (0)|2 + |F3µe (0)|2 }, (20)
G2F m2µ (mµ + me )2

where the form factors F2µe and F3µe arise from the chargino, neutralino and vector bosons contributions as
follows

F2µe (0) = F2χ

µe µe µe µe
+ + F2χ0 + F2W + F2Z , (21)

F3µe (0) = F3χ

µe µe µe µe
+ + F3χ0 + F3W + F3Z . (22)

It is also useful to define Bm and Be as follows

24π 2
Bm (µ → eγ) = |F µe (0)|2 , (23)
G2F m2µ (mµ + me )2 2
24π 2
Be (µ → eγ) = |F µe (0)|2 , (24)
G2F m2µ (mµ + me )2 3

where Bm is the branching ratio from the magnetic dipole operator and Be is the branching ratio from the
electric dipole operator. We discuss now the individual contributions to F2µe and F3µe from supersymmetric

5
and non-supersymmetric loops.
µe
The chargino contribution F2χ+ is given by

2 X
10 
!
µe
X −mµ (mµ + me ) L L∗ R R∗
Mν2˜j
F2χ + = {C4ij C3ij + C4ij C3ij }F4
i=1 j=1
192π 2 m2χ˜i + m2χ˜i +
!
(mµ + me ) L R∗ R L∗
Mν2˜j
+ {C4ij C3ij + C4ij C3ij }F3 , (25)
64π 2 mχ˜i + m2χ˜i +

where F3 (x) and F4 (x) are given by

1  2
3x − 4x + 1 − 2x2 ln x ,

F3 (x) = (26)
(x − 1)3

and

1  3
2x + 3x2 − 6x + 1 − 6x2 ln x .

F4 (x) = (27)
(x − 1)4
µe
The neutralino contribution F2χ0 is given by

4 X
10 
!
µe
X −mµ (mµ + me ) 0L 0L∗ 0R 0R∗
Mτ2˜j
F2χ 0 = {C4ij C3ij + C4ij C3ij }F2
i=1 j=1
192π 2 m2χ˜i 0 m2χ˜i 0
!
(mµ + me ) 0L 0R∗ 0R 0L∗
Mτ2˜j
− {C4ij C3ij + C4ij C3ij }F1 , (28)
64π 2 mχ˜i 0 m2χ˜i 0

where F1 (x) and F2 (x) are given by

1
1 − x2 + 2x ln x ,
 
F1 (x) = (29)
(x − 1)3

and

1  3
−x + 6x2 − 3x − 2 − 6x ln x .

F2 (x) = (30)
(x − 1)4
µe
The contributions from the W exchange F2W is given by
5 
!
µe
X mµ (mµ + me ) W W∗ W W∗
m2ψi
F2W = [CLi4 CLi3 + CRi4 CRi3 ]FW
i=1
32π 2 m2W m2W
!
mψi (mµ + me ) W W ∗ W W∗
m2ψi
+ [CLi4 CRi3 + CRi4 CLi3 ]GW , (31)
32π 2 m2W m2W

where the form factors FW (x) and GW (x) are given by

1  4
4x − 49x3 + 18x3 ln x + 78x2 − 43x + 10 ,

FW (x) = (32)
6(x − 1)4

6
and

1
4 − 15x + 12x2 − x3 − 6x2 ln x .
 
GW (x) = 3
(33)
(x − 1)
µe
The contribution F2Z from the Z exchange is given by
5 
!
µe
X mµ (mµ + me ) Z Z∗ Z Z∗
m2τβ
F2Z = [CLβ4 CLβ3 + CRβ4 CRβ3 ]FZ
64π 2 m2Z m2Z
β=1
!
mτβ (mµ + me ) Z Z∗ Z Z∗
m2τβ
+ [CLβ4 CRβ3 + CRβ4 CLβ3 ]GZ , (34)
64π 2 m2Z m2Z

where the form factors FZ (x) and GZ (x) are given by

1
−5x4 + 14x3 − 39x2 + 18x2 ln x + 38x − 8 ,
 
FZ (x) = (35)
3(x − 1)4

and

2  3 
GZ (x) = x + 3x − 6x ln x − 4 . (36)
(x − 1)3
µe
The chargino contribution F3χ+ is given by

2 X 10
!
µe
X (mµ + me )mχ˜i +  L R∗ R L∗
 m2χ˜i +
F3χ + = 2 C4ij C3ij − C4ij C3ij F6 , (37)
i=1 j=1
2
32π Mν˜j Mν2˜j

where  
1 2 ln x
F6 (x) = −x + 3 + . (38)
2(x − 1)2 1−x
µe
The neutralino contribution F3χ0 is given by

4 X 10
!
µe
X (mµ + me )mχ˜i 0  0L 0R∗ 0R 0L∗
 m2χ˜i 0
F3χ 0 = 2 C4ij C3ij − C4ij C3ij F5 , (39)
i=1 j=1
2
32π Mτ˜j Mτ2˜j

where  
1 2x ln x
F5 (x) = x + 1 + . (40)
2(x − 1)2 1−x
µe
The W boson contribution F3W is given by
5
!
µe
X mψi (mµ + me ) W W ∗ W W∗
m2ψi
F3W =− 2 m2
[CLi4 CRi3 − CRi4 CLi3 ]I1 , (41)
i=1
32π W m2W

where the form factor I1 is given by

3x2 ln x
 
2 11 1 2
I1 (x) = 1− x+ x − . (42)
(1 − x)2 4 4 2(1 − x)

7
 µe
And finally, the Z exchange diagram contribution F3Z is given by
5
!
µe
X (mµ + me ) mτβ Z m2τβ
F3Z = [C C Z∗ − CR4β
Z Z∗
CL3β ]I2 , (43)
32π 2 m2Z L4β R3β m2Z
β=1

where the form factor I2 is given by

 
2 1 1 2 3x ln x
I2 (x) = 1 + x + x + . (44)
(1 − x)2 4 4 2(1 − x)
0 0
All couplings C L , C R , C L , C R , CLW , CR
W
, CLZ and CR
Z
in Eqs. (25)−(37), (39), (41) and (43), are given in
appendix B.
An analysis for B(τ → eγ) can be done similarly so that

24π 2
B(τ → eγ) = {|F2τ e (0)|2 + |F3τ e (0)|2 }, (45)
G2F m2τ (mτ + me )2

where the expressions for the form factors, F2τ e and F3τ e , can be obtained from Eqs. (21) and (22) by the
0 W Z 0 W Z
replacements: mµ → mτ and C3ij , C3ij , Ci3 , Cβ3 −→ C1ij , C1ij , Ci1 , Cβ1 .
Also for B(τ → µγ) we have

24π 2
B(τ → µγ) = {|F2τ µ (0)|2 + |F3τ µ (0)|2 }, (46)
G2F m2τ (mτ + mµ )2

where the expressions for the form factors F2τ µ and F3τ µ can be deduced from Eqs. (21) and (22) by the re-
0 W Z 0 W Z 0 W Z
placements: mµ → mτ , me → mµ , C3ij , C3ij , Ci3 , Cβ3 −→ C1ij , C1ij , Ci1 , Cβ1 and C4ij , C4ij , Ci4 , Cβ4 −→
0 W Z
C3ij , C3ij , Ci3 , Cβ3 .

4 EDM analysis by inclusion of vectorlike leptons

The electric dipole moment (EDM) of elementary particles arises only at the multi-loop level in the standard
model and is beyond the scope of observation in the current or in the near future experiment. However,
beyond the standard model physics can generate EDMs which are within the range of observability. The
current experimental limits on de , dµ , dτ are as follows. For the electron we have [4]

de < 9.3 × 10−29 ecm (90% CL). (47)

For the muon the current limit on the EDM is [6]

dµ < 1.9 × 10−19 ecm (95% CL). (48)

The current experimental limit on the EDM of the tau lepton is [38]

dτ < 1.1 × 10−17 ecm. (49)

8
Figure 2: Upper diagrams: Supersymmetric contributions to the leptonic EDMs arising from the exchange
of the charginos, sneutrinos and mirror sneutrinos (upper left) and the exchange of neutralinos, sleptons,
and mirror sleptons (upper right) inside the loop. Lower diagrams: Non-supersymmetric diagrams that
contribute to the leptonic EDMs via the exchange of the W , the sequential and vector like neutrinos (lower
left) and the exchange of the Z, the sequential and vector like charged leptons (lower right).

Next we discuss the case when we include a vectorlike leptonic multiplet which mixes with the three genera-
tions of leptons. In this case the mass eigenstates will be linear combinations of the three generations plus the
vectorlike generation which includes mirror particles. Here we discuss the contribution of the model to the
lepton EDM. These contributions arise from four sources: the chargino exchange, the neutralino exchange,
the W boson exchange and the Z boson exchange.
Using the interactions given in appendix B, the chargino contribution is given by

m2χ+
2 10
!
χ+ 1 X X m χ+ L R∗
dα = − i
Im(Cαij Cαij )F6 i
, (50)
16π 2 i=1 j=1 m2ν̃j m2ν̃j

where the form factor F6 (x) is given by Eq. (38).

Using the interactions given in appendix B, the neutralino contribution is given by

m2χ0
4 X 10
!
0 1 X mχ 0
0L 0R∗
dχα = − i
Im(Cαij Cαij )F5 i
, (51)
16π 2 i=1 j=1 m2τ̃j m2τ̃j

where the form factor F5 (x) is given by Eq. (40).

The contributions to the lepton electric dipole moment from the W and Z exchange arise from similar loops.

9
Using the interactions given in appendix B the contribution arising from the W exchange diagram is given
by
5
!
1 X mψi+ W∗
m2ψi
dW
α = W
Im(CLiα CRiα )I1 , (52)
16π 2 i=1 m2W m2W

where the form factor I1 is given by Eq. (42).

The Z boson exchange diagram contribution is given by

5
!
1 X m τβ m2τβ
dZ
α =− Z
Im(CLαβ Z∗
CRαβ )I2 , (53)
16π 2 m2Z m2Z
β=1

0 0
where the form factor I2 is given by Eq. (44). Again, all couplings C L , C R , C L , C R , CLW , CR
W Z
, CLZ and CR
used here are given in appendix B.

5 Analysis of g − 2 with exchange of vectorlike leptons

The current experimental result for the muon g − 2 [5] is

−10
∆aµ = aexp SM
µ − aµ = (28.8 ± 7.9) × 10 , (54)

which is about a three sigma deviation from the standard model prediction. For the electron ge −2 experiment
gives [39]

∆ae = aexp
e − aSM
e = 8.70(8.07) × 10−13 . (55)

This result relies on a QED calculation up to four loops. Thus along with Eq. (54), Eq. (55) also acts as
a constraint on the standard model extensions. We compute beyond the standard model contributions to
these within the model of section 2. Below we discuss details of the various contributions. The contribution
arising from the exchange of the charginos, sneutrinos and mirror sneutrinos as shown in the left diagram in
Fig. 3 is given by
2 X
10
!
+ X mτα m2ν̃j
aχα =− L
Re(Cαij R∗
Cαij )F3
i=1 j=1
16π 2 mχ− m2χ−
i i
2 X
10
!
X m2τα  L 2 R 2
 m2ν̃j
+ 2 |Cαij | + |Cαij | F4 , (56)
i=1 j=1
2
96π mχ− m2χ−
i i

where mχ− is the mass of chargino χ−

i and mν̃j is the mass of sneutrino ν̃j and where the form factors F3
i

and F4 are given by Eqs. (26) and (27).

10
Figure 3: The diagrams that contribute to the leptonic (τα ) magnetic dipole moment via exchange of
charginos (χ−i ), sneutrinos and mirror sneutrinos (ν̃j ) (left diagram) inside the loop and from the exchange
of neutralinos (χ0i ), sleptons and mirror sleptons (τ̃j ) (right diagram) inside the loop.

Figure 4: The W loop (the left diagram) involving the exchange of sequential and vectorlike neutrinos ψi
and the Z loop (the right diagram) involving the exchange of sequential and vectorlike charged leptons τβ
that contribute to the magnetic dipole moment of the charged lepton τα .

The contribution arising from the exchange of neutralinos, charged sleptons and charged mirror sleptons
as shown in the right diagram of Fig. 3 is given by
10
4 X
!
0 X mτα 0 0 m2τ̃j
aχα = L
Re(Cαij R∗
Cαij )F1
i=1 j=1
2
16π mχ0i m2χ0
i

4 X
10
!
X m2τα h 0
L 2 0
R 2
i m2τ̃j
+ |Cαij | + |Cαij | F2 , (57)
i=1 j=1
96π 2 m2χ0 m2χ0
i i

where the form factors F1 and F2 are given by Eqs. (29) and (30).
Next we compute the contribution from the exchange of the W and Z bosons. Thus the exchange of the W
and the exchange of neutrinos and mirror neutrinos as shown in the left diagram of Fig. 4 gives
5
" ! !#
W m2τα X W 2 W 2
m2ψi mψi W W∗
m2ψi
aτα = [|CLiα | + |CRiα | ]FW + Re(CLiα CRiα )GW , (58)
16π 2 m2W i=1 m2W m τα m2W

where the form factors FW and GW are given by Eqs. (32) and (33).
Finally the exchange of the Z and the exchange of leptons and mirror leptons as shown in the right diagram

11
of Fig. 4 gives
5
" ! !#
m2τα X m2τβ mτβ m2τβ
aZ
τα = Z
[|CLβα |2 + |CRβα
Z
|2 ]FZ + Z
Re(CLβα Z∗
CRβα )GZ , (59)
32π 2 m2Z m2Z m τα m2Z
β=1

where the form factors FZ and GZ are given by Eqs. (35) and (36) and mZ is the Z boson mass. The
couplings that enter in Eqs. (56), (57), (58) and (59) are given in appendix B. For other works relating the
muon anomalous magnetic moment to new physics see [40, 41].

6 Leptonic vectorlike contribution to h → γγ

The observed diphoton decay of the Higgs boson shows an agreement with the standard model prediction
within the limits of uncertainty which is still significant. As more data is collected and uncertainties better
modeled, the signal strength, Rγγ , will be measured with a larger accuracy and any new physics manifest
as particles in the loop will be better probed. Thus the ATLAS and CMS collaborations [42, 43] report a
signal strength of
σ(pp → h)obs Γ(h → γγ)obs
Rγγ ≡ · = 0.99+0.15 +0.17
−0.14 (ATLAS), 1.18−0.14 (CMS). (60)
σ(pp → h)SM Γ(h → γγ)SM
In the SM, the largest contribution to h → γγ comes from the exchange of W bosons and top quarks in the
loop. Thus the SM decay width of a Higgs boson of mass mh may be approximated by the expression [44]
2
αem m3h 2 2
2
αem m3h
ΓSM (h → γγ) ≈ |A 1 (τW ) + N c Qt A 1 (τt )| → |ASM |2 , (61)
256v 2 π 3 2 256v 2 π 3
where ASM ≈ −6.49, A1 and A 21 are loop functions (see Appendix of [44]), τi = 4m2i /m2h , Nc is the color
number and Qt the top quark charge. The inclusion of SUSY allows for the exchange of heavier particles in
the loop. In general the decay width of h → γγ in supersymmetry takes the form
2
αem m3h cos α
ΓSUSY (h → γγ) ≈ sin(β − α)Q2W A1 (τW ) + Nt Q2t A 12 (τt )
256v 2 π 3 sin β
b 21 v
 
2 ∂ 2 ∂ 2
+ Nf Qf cos α log mf − sin α log mf
2 ∂v2 ∂v1
  2
b0 v 2 ∂ 2 ∂ 2
+ Nc,S QS cos α log mS − sin α log mS , (62)
2 ∂v2 ∂v1
4
where α is the CP-even Higgs mixing angle, QW is the W -boson charge, b 21 = 3 (for Dirac fermions of mass
1
mf , number Nf and charge Qf ) and b0 = 3 (for charged scalars of mass mS , number Nc,S and charge QS ).
The inclusion of the vectorlike leptonic generation contributes to the fermionic and scalar parts where the
latter is due to the supersymmetric partners of the vectorlike leptons.
In this analysis the couplings of the Higgs boson to the first three generations are assumed negligible in

12
comparison with the vectorlike counterparts. Hence the mixings between the vectorlike generation and the
first three generations in Eq. (7) can be assumed negligible and so the lepton mass matrix from the vectorlike
generation may be written as
√
f20 v2 / 2
 
h6 √
Mfv = . (63)
h7 y5 v1 / 2
The two mass-squared eigenvalues resulting from diagonalizing the matrix of Eq. (63) are
1h 0
m21,2 = 2|h6 |2 + 2|h7 |2 + y52 v12 + f22 v22
4
q i
0
± (2|h6 |2 + 2|h7 |2 + y52 v12 + f22 v22 )2 − 4|2h6 h7 − f20 y5 v1 v2 |2 . (64)

Calculating the vectorlike fermionic contribution, one finds that

X f 0 y5 v

∂ ∂
cos α 2
log mi − sin α log mi = − 2
2
cos(α + β). (65)
i
∂v2 ∂v1 m1 m2

Considering only this fermionic contribution, we find that the Higgs diphoton rate is enhanced by a factor
of
Γ(h → γγ) 1 −v 2 f20 y5 2
≈ 1+ b 12 Nf Q2f cos(α + β)
Γ(h → γγ)SM ASM 2m1 m2
v 2 f20 y5 2
≈ 1 + 0.1Nf cos(α + β) ≡ |1 + rf |2 . (66)
m1 m2
Now turning to the bosonic contribution which is due to the four scalar superpartners of the vectorlike
leptons. The mass eigenvalues are obtained from a 4 × 4 mass-squared mixing matrix and in the basis
(ẼL , ẼR , `˜4L , `˜4R ) is given by
√ f20 v2 h6 + y5 v1 h∗7
 
0
2(MẼ2 )2×2
1  0 f20 v2 h∗7 + y5 v1 h6 
√  0  ∗ √
 , (67)
2 f2 v2 h6 + y5 v1 h7 0 2
2(M`˜ )2×2

0 f20 v2 h7 + y5 v1 h∗6 4
4×4

where (M`˜2 )2×2 is given by

4
 
v12 |y5 |2 1
− sin2 θW √1 y5 (A∗ v1 − µv2 )
2


M̃4L + 2 + |h6 |2 − m2Z cos 2β 2 4`
(M`˜2 )2×2 = v1 |y5 |2
2
2  , (68)
4
√1 y5 (A4` v1
2
− µ∗ v2 ) M̃42 + 2 + |h7 |2
− m2Z cos 2β sin2 θW

and (MẼ2 )2×2 is given by

 
v 2 |f 0 |2 1
− sin2 θW √1 f 0 (A∗ v2 − µv1 )


2
M̃χ2 + 2 22 + |h6 |2 + m2Z cos 2β 2 2 2 E
(MẼ )2×2 =  2 0 2
v2 |f2 |
 . (69)
√1 f 0 (AE v2 − µ∗ v1 )
2 2
M̃E2 + 2 + |h7 |2 + m2Z cos 2β sin2 θW

2
In this analysis, the scalar masses-squared, M̃4L , M̃42 , M̃χ2 , M̃E2 are much larger than the vectorlike masses,
|h6 |, |h7 | and so the 4 × 4 mass-squared matrix becomes block diagonal. Thus the two mass-squared matrices

13
are now decoupled with superpartner `˜41,2 for the first and Ẽ1,2 for the second. The total bosonic contribution
is the sum of the contributions coming from the two decoupled mass-squared matrices and can be written as

1 b0 v 2
rb = r1 + r2 ≡ Q (Σ1 + Σ2 ). (70)
ASM 2 S

Here

m2Z √
 
1 2 2 2 2
Σ1 = 2 2 sin θW M11 + cos 2θW M22 sin(α + β) + 2M12 y5 (A4L sin α + µ cos α) , (71)
m`˜ m2`˜ v
41 42

and

m2Z √
 
1 2 02 02 02 0
Σ2 = 2 −2 sin θW M11 − cos 2θW M22 sin(α + β) − 2M12 f2 (AE cos α + µ sin α) , (72)
mẼ m2Ẽ v
1 2

where, for convenience, we renamed the matrices as M 2 ≡ M`˜2 and M 02 ≡ MẼ2 . Assuming σ(pp → h)obs =
4

σ(pp → h)SM the enhancement factor Rγγ is given by

Rγγ = |1 + rf + rb |2 . (73)

7 Numerical Analysis
Here we present a correlated analysis of the observables discussed in the previous sections including the effect
of vectorlike leptons (for other works related to vectorlike leptons see [45, 46]). In the analysis we will include
the CP violating phases from the vectorlike generation. SUSY CP phases are known to affect electroweak
phenomena and these effects can be very significant [47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56]. In the analysis we
use SUGRA model [57] with non-universal soft parameters given by m0 , A0 , m1 , m2 , m3 , tan β, sgn(µ),
with m0 the universal scalar mass, A0 the universal trilinear coupling, m1 , m2 , m3 are the U (1), SU (2)
and SU (3) gaugino masses, tan β the ratio of the Higgs vevs and sgn(µ) is the sign of the Higgs mixing
parameter appearing in the superpotential, Eq. (3), which is taken to be positive. Using the soft parameters
as input at the GUT scale, the renormalization group equations (RGE) are run down to the electroweak
scale using SoftSUSY 4.1.0 [58, 59] which generates the weak scale inputs that enter into the calculation
of the observables in this analysis. Also, the SM Higgs boson mass is determined at the two-loop level. The
high scale input and the computed Higgs boson masses, consistent with a mass of 125 ± 2 GeV, for several
representative benchmark points are presented in Table 1.

14
 Model m0 A0 m1 m2 m3 tan β h0
(a) 3974 −10412 486 388 4517 39 124.5
(b) 4769 −14593 463 245 3389 23 123.5
(c) 9026 −20940 484 280 4143 14 124.3
(d) 3306 −9554 351 228 2799 25 123.7
(e) 7004 −8825 619 427 5194 31 123.5

Table 1: Input parameters for the benchmark points used in this analysis along with the calculated Higgs
boson (h0 ) mass. The high scale boundary conditions are obtained in the non-universal gaugino sector. All
masses are in GeV.

Model point
Observable (a) (b) (c) Upper limits
B(µ → eγ) 3.5 × 10−13 5.0 × 10−13 5.6 × 10−13 5.7 × 10−13
B(τ → µγ) 4.1 × 10−8 3.4 × 10−8 4.3 × 10−8 4.4 × 10−8
B(τ → eγ) 3.6 × 10−11 8.2 × 10−11 1.2 × 10−10 3.3 × 10−8
|de | 2.4 × 10−29 4.8 × 10−29 4.3 × 10−29 9.3 × 10−29
|dµ | 2.1 × 10−26 2.1 × 10−26 2.1 × 10−26 1.9 × 10−19
|dτ | 2.5 × 10−23 1.4 × 10−22 2.3 × 10−22 1.1 × 10−17
|∆aµ | 2.3 × 10−11 7.1 × 10−12 1.2 × 10−12 (28.8 ± 7.9) × 10−10
|∆ae | 5.4 × 10−16 1.6 × 10−16 2.5 × 10−17 −10.5(8.1) × 10−13
Rγγ 1.07 1.13 1.03 ATLAS/CMS, Eq. (60)

Table 2: An exhibition of the branching ratios B(`i → `j γ), electric dipole moments |dα |, anomalous magnetic
moments ∆aα and the Higgs diphoton decay enhancement Rγγ for three benchmark points (a), (b) and (c) of
Table 1. For point (a), |f3 | = 2.9, |f4 | = 9.3, |f4 00 | = 3.5 × 10−3 , |f3 00 | = 7.9 × 10−4 , M̃E = 700, M̃χ = 37300
for point (b), |f3 | = 3, |f4 | = 5, |f4 00 | = 7 × 10−3 , |f3 00 | = 7.9 × 10−4 , M̃E = 800, M̃χ = 20500 and for point
(c) |f3 | = 1, |f4 | = 25, |f4 00 | = 5 × 10−3 , |f3 00 | = 1 × 10−3 , M̃E = 700, M̃χ = 18100. The remaining scalar
masses and trilinear couplings are taken to be universal at mV0 = 5 × 104 and |AV0 | = 8 × 103 . Also, common
for all points: |f30 | = 1.8 × 10−2 , |f40 | = 1.4 × 10−1 , |f5 | = 4.5 × 10−8 , |f50 | = 3 × 10−8 , |f5 00 | = 1.2 × 10−8 ,
|h6 | = 9.8, |h7 | = 2.5, |h8 | = 498, αµ = ξ1 = ξ2 = αA0 = αAν̃ = 0, χ3 = 3.1, χ03 = 0.2, χ3 00 = 1.1, χ4 =
4.7, χ04 = 4.0, χ4 00 = 3.9, χ5 = 3.6, χ05 = 3.4, χ5 00 = 1.3, χ6 = 3.9, χ7 = 1.7, χ8 = 6.0, mE = mN = 500,
mG = 400 and mνG = 340. EDM is in ecm. All masses are in GeV and all phases in rad.

Since SUSY contributions involve the exchange of scalars (sleptons and sneutrinos), the input of Table 1
suggests that such a contribution will be suppressed due to the high scalar masses (being in the several TeV
range). Hence, we expect the mirror and fourth sequential generations to have a more significant contribution
to the observables. The parameters in the vectorlike sector are chosen so as to be consistent with the lepton
masses obtained after diagonalization. We present in Table 2 the results of the observables obtained for three
benchmark points, (a), (b) and (c) of Table 1. On the right-most column, the experimental limits on the
corresponding observables is summarized for comparison purpose and the computed values of the observables
satisfy these bounds. Thus the branching ratios of µ → eγ and τ → µγ are below but close to their upper

15
limits, especially for points (b) and (c) and could be probed by a small improvement in experiment. The
branching ratio of τ → eγ appears to be two to three orders of magnitude smaller than its upper limit.
However, one can achieve somewhat higher values by varying the Yukawa masses mE and/or mG as we will
see later. It is interesting that for the same parameter set the EDM of the electron is also close to its current
limit while the EDMs of the muon and of tau are five to seven orders of magnitude smaller than the upper
limits. The electron and muon anomalous magnetic moments are typically small and the contribution is not
significant to explain the ∼ 3σ deviation if indeed it holds up in improved experiment. As for the diphoton
rate enhancement there are discernible corrections to the branching ratio but consistent with the current
limits from ATLAS and CMS, Eq. (60). Here we note that it was shown in previous works (see, e.g.,[46])
that a muon g − 2 close to the experimental limit can be obtained via leptonic vectorlike exchange. To see if
this is possible with the current constraints we take point (a) from Table 2 and modify the input parameters.
The results are listed in Table 3 where a muon g − 2 of O(10−9 ) and with in the observed 3σ deviation is
obtained. The rest of the observables are still in check but one of the branching ratios, namely, τ → eγ, has
become very small. Also, we have obtained a four orders of magnitude increase in the muon EDM.

Observable Point (a) Upper limits

B(µ → eγ) 4.0 × 10−14 5.7 × 10−13
B(τ → µγ) 1.3 × 10−8 4.4 × 10−8
B(τ → eγ) 6.3 × 10−23 3.3 × 10−8
|de | 1.4 × 10−36 9.3 × 10−29
|dµ | 2.2 × 10−22 1.9 × 10−19
|dτ | 1.4 × 10−27 1.1 × 10−17
|∆aµ | 2.2 × 10−9 (28.8 ± 7.9) × 10−10
|∆ae | 5.4 × 10−16 −10.5(8.1) × 10−13
Rγγ 1.07 ATLAS/CMS, Eq. (60)

Table 3: An exhibition of the branching ratios B(`i → `j γ), electric dipole moments |dα |, anomalous magnetic
moments ∆aα and the Higgs diphoton decay enhancement Rγγ for the benchmark point (a) of Table 1. The
input is |f3 | = 0.3, |f30 | = 3.8 × 102 , |f300 | = 7.9 × 10−6 , |f4 | = 9.3 × 10−4 , |f40 | = 3.2 × 10−1 , |f4 00 | = 3.5 × 10−7 ,
|f5 | = 4.5×10−8 , |f50 | = 3×10−8 , |f5 00 | = 1.2×10−8 , |h6 | = 9.8, |h7 | = 2.5, |h8 | = 498, αµ = ξ1 = ξ2 = αA0 =
αAν̃ = 0, χ3 = 3.1, χ03 = 0.2, χ3 00 = 1.1, χ4 = 4.7, χ04 = 4.0, χ4 00 = 3.9, χ5 = 3.6, χ05 = 3.4, χ5 00 = 1.3, χ6 =
3.9, χ7 = 1.7, χ8 = 6.0, mE = mN = 500, mG = 400 and mνG = 340, M̃E = 700, M̃χ = 37300. The remaining
scalar masses and trilinear couplings are taken to be universal at mV0 = 5 × 104 and |AV0 | = 8 × 103 . EDM
is in ecm. All masses are in GeV and all phases in rad.

16
Figure 5: Scatter plots for different observables where the scan is performed over all couplings and their
phases for a set of SUGRA benchmark points satisfying the Higgs mass. The upper left panel shows all
branching ratios, the upper right panel displays the diphoton enhancement factor, Rγγ for different values of
the scalar mass, M̃χ , and the Higgs mass. In the bottom panel, a display of Rγγ and B(µ → eγ) for different
tan β. Dashed vertical and horizontal lines correspond to experimental upper limits on the corresponding
observables.

While the results presented here are for an explicit sample set, we have analyzed the parameter space of
the model much more widely in the ranges displayed in Eq. (74),

|f3 | ∈ [1, 10], |f30 | ∈ [1 × 10−2 , 10], |f300 | ∈ [1 × 10−6 , 1 × 10−4 ],

|f4 | ∈ [1, 20], |f40 | ∈ [1 × 10−2 , 10], |f300 | ∈ [1 × 10−5 , 1 × 10−2 ],

|h6 | ∈ [1, 20], |h7 | ∈ [1 × 10−3 , 10], |h8 | ∈ [5, 600],

M̃E ∈ [600, 800], M̃χ ∈ [3, 5] × 104 , χi ∈ [0, 2π], (74)

where the vectorlike Yukawa masses are fixed so that mE = mN = 500 GeV, mG = 400 GeV and mνG = 340
GeV. The couplings |f5 |, |f50 | and |f500 | are kept small, i.e. O(10−8 ). The scan results in 17 million points
but is greatly reduced when the constraints on the nine observables are applied. The results are displayed
as scatter plots in Fig. 5.

17
Figure 6: An exhibition of the branching ratios and electron EDM versus the CP phases for point (a) of
Table 1. The upper panels show B(µ → eγ) as a function of the CP phases χ03 and χ004 for different values
of |f30 | and |f400 |, respectively. The middle panels show B(τ → eγ) and B(τ → µγ) as a function of the CP
phases χ3 and χ4 for different values of |f3 | and |f4 |, respectively. The bottom panel displays the electron
EDM versus χ003 for different values of |f300 |. All other parameters are the same as for point (a) in Table 2.

Thus, in the upper left panel of Fig. 5 we display a scatter plot in the three observables, B(µ → eγ),
B(τ → µγ) and B(τ → eγ). The dashed vertical and horizontal lines are the upper limits on B(µ → eγ) and
B(τ → µγ), respectively. One can see that there are plenty of points below but close to the upper limits
while satisfying all the other observables. The upper right and bottom panels show scatter plots in Rγγ
versus the scalar mass from the vectorlike sector, M̃χ in one and B(µ → eγ) in the other. The Higgs boson
mass and tan β are also shown in the z-direction. One can see that values of Rγγ within the experimental
limits are more favorable for lower M̃χ values. The reason for this is the following: For vectorlike masses
much smaller than their Yukawa counterparts, i.e. |h6 ||h7 |  21 f20 y5 v1 v2 , the fermionic contribution, rf in

18
Eq. (66), to the diphoton rate enhancement is negative and large (∼ −0.4 for the parameter space under
consideration). To get values of Rγγ consistent with experiment, a positive and large contribution must come
from the bosonic part, rb , Eq. (70). It is shown that smaller values of M̃E and M̃χ , in the range given by
Eq. (74), can achieve this purpose with out affecting other observables. Having this range of values means
lighter vectorlike superpartners and the loop contributions become less suppressed. Since the SUSY loops
are suppressed, the vectorlike sector is the largest contributor to the various observables considered here.
We discuss now in further detail the sensitivity of some of the observables on the various input parameters.
Thus in Fig. 6 we display the variation of B(µ → eγ), B(τ → eγ), B(τ → µγ) and the electron EDM, |de | as a
function of the CP phases from the vectorlike sector. It is clear that all those observables exhibit a sensitive
dependence on the CP phases where the branching ratios oscillate above and below their upper limits. Also,
the electron EDM shows large variations very close to the experimental upper limit. The different curves
in each plot correspond to different choices of the couplings |f3 |, |f30 |, |f300 |, |f4 | and |f400 | where larger values
of the observables are obtained for larger couplings. Note that those couplings cannot take arbitrarly large
values since this will spoil the lepton masses.
In Fig. 7 we show the dependence of the branching ratios of µ → eγ, τ → µγ, τ → eγ and the electron
EDM on the vectorlike Yukawa masses for points (c) and (e) of Table 1. The observables show a decaying
trend for larger values of the masses which is due to larger suppression of loop effects due to the exchange
of heavier particles. For point (c), the branching ratio of µ → eγ drops below its upper limit for a mass
∼ 250 GeV while τ → µγ does that for a heavier mass, ∼ 450 GeV (top panel). The different curves in each
plot correspond to different choices of the vectorlike mass |h6 | where, as one would expect, the contribution
from the vectorlike sector is larger for smaller values of |h6 |. The interesting aspect of point (e) is in the
variation of the branching ratios (middle-right and bottom panels) against mE . As Fig. 7 shows, one can
simultaneously get all three branching ratios just below their upper limits by choosing particular values of
mE = mG and |h7 |. Thus, B(τ → eγ) and B(τ → µγ) plunge right below their upper limits at around 350
GeV while B(µ → eγ) is already below the upper limit for even smaller mE = mG . This shows how the
interplay of those parameters lead to all constraints to fall in place. While it was difficult to achieve larger
B(τ → eγ) values (in Table 2), it was easier to do so for point (e).
The coupling f3 mixes the vectorlike generation with the first leptonic generation of Eq. (10). Thus we
expect this coupling to have the largest impact on observables pertaining to the τ lepton. To check this, we
exhibit the variation of the radiative tau decay branching ratios, the muon EDM and tau EDM against |f3 |
in Fig. 8. The plots are drawn for different values of |f4 |. As one can clearly see, the branching ratios of tau
and the tau EDM are impacted the most where the former observables may shoot above their upper limits
for higher values of |f3 |, while the variation of the muon EDM is rather mild. Larger values of |f4 |, which

19
couples the vectorlike and first generation singlet fields, produces larger values of the considered observables
as one would expect as well.

Figure 7: An exhibition of the µ → eγ and τ → µγ branching ratios (top panel) and the electron EDM
(middle-left panel) as a function of mE (= mG ) for different values of |h6 | for benchmark point (c) while
plots of all branching ratios (middle-right and bottom panels) are drawn for different |h7 | for point (e) of
Table 1. For point (c), all other parameters are the same as in Table 2. As for point (e), the other scalar
masses are mV0 = 5 × 104 except for M̃E = 700 and M̃χ = 18100 and the rest of the trilinear couplings
are |AV0 | = 8 × 103 . Also, |f3 | = 7, |f30 | = 2 × 10−3 , |f300 | = 2 × 10−5 , |f4 | = 4 × 10−1 , |f40 | = 5 × 10−2 ,
|f400 | = 4 × 10−2 , |f5 | = 4.5 × 10−10 , |f50 | = 3 × 10−10 , |f500 | = 1.2 × 10−10 , |h6 | = 9.8, |h8 | = 4.98 × 102 ,
MN = 500, mνG = 340, χ3 = 3.1, χ03 = 0.2, χ003 = 1.1, χ4 = −1.58, χ04 = −2.3, χ004 = −2.35, χ5 = −2.7,
χ05 = −2.9, χ005 = 1.3, χ6 = −2.4, χ7 = 1.7 and χ8 = −0.3. All masses are in GeV and phases in rad.

20
Figure 8: An exhibition of the τ → eγ and τ → µγ branching ratios and the muon and tau EDMs as a
function of |f3 | for different values of |f4 | for point (d) of Table 1. The other scalar masses are mV0 = 5 × 104
except for M̃E = 700 and M̃χ = 18100 and the rest of the trilinear couplings are |AV0 | = 8 × 103 . Also,
|f30 | = 2 × 10−3 , |f300 | = 2 × 10−5 , |f40 | = 5 × 10−2 , |f400 | = 4 × 10−2 , |f5 | = 4.5 × 10−10 , |f50 | = 3 × 10−10 ,
|f500 | = 1.2 × 10−10 , |h6 | = 9.8, |h7 | = 2.5, |h8 | = 4.98 × 102 , MN = mE = 500, mG = 400, mνG = 340,
χ3 = 3.1, χ03 = 0.2, χ003 = 1.1, χ4 = −1.58, χ04 = −2.3, χ004 = −2.35, χ5 = −2.7, χ05 = −2.9, χ005 = 1.3,
χ6 = −2.4, χ7 = 1.7 and χ8 = −0.3. All masses are in GeV and phases in rad.

In the above we discussed the lepton flavor changing process µ → eγ but did not discuss the flavor
changing processes µ → e conversion and µ → 3e. A proper treatment of these processes at the same level of
care as done for the other processes treated here is outside the scope of this work. Thus, for example, for the
µ → e conversion one needs computation of a set of box and penguin diagrams which would again involve our
10 × 10 scalar mass matrices in the loops. In addition µ → e conversion has much more model dependence
because of nuclear physics effects. Here we give approximate results for them valid in certain limits which,
however, do indicate the expected size of the branching ratios for these processes for the parameter sets in
our case given in Table 2. Thus in the dipole dominance approximation, one has [60]
!
B(µ → 3e) αem m2µ 11
' log 2 − . (75)
B(µ → eγ) 3π me 4

The right hand side of Eq. (75) evaluates to ∼ 6 × 10−3 . Using this ratio B(µ → 3e) ∼ 3.4 × 10−15 for column
3 in Table 2. This is to be compared with the current experimental limit [61]

21
 B(µ → 3e) < 1.0 × 10−12 at 90% C.L. (76)

In future experiment [62] this limits may reach B(µ → 3e) ≤ 10−16 . For the µ → e conversion process
the analysis of [63] in the limit m2χ± /m2`˜ ∼ 1 gives B(µ → e)N /B(µ → eγ) ∼ αem /3 for Aluminum and
B(µ → e)N /B(µ → eγ) ∼ αem /2 for Gold. Numerically, for Aluminum this gives B(µ → e)Al ∼ 1.3 × 10−15
and for Gold it gives B(µ → e)G ∼ 1.95 × 10−15 for the third column in Table 2. The current experimental
limit for µ → e conversion for Gold is [64]

B(µ → e)Au < 7 × 10−13 at 90% C.L.. (77)

In the future one expects that experiments using Al nuclei will reach a sensitivity in the range [31, 65]
B(µ → e)Al < 10−16 − 10−18 .

8 Conclusion
In a large class of models such as based on grand unification, on strings and branes, one has vectorlike states
some of which could be light and lie in the low energy region accessible to experiment. Their presence can
affect low energy phenomena through loop corrections. In supersymmetric theories the vectorlike generations
will have particles and their mirrors as well as sparticles and their mirrors. This means that in a model with
three generations there will be two more particles that can appear in the mixing matrix, making the fermionic
mixing matrix a 5 × 5 mixing matrix. In the slepton sector, one will have in general a 10 × 10 mixing matrix.
The analysis is done including the CP violating phases in the mixings of the vectorlike generation. In his
work we have carried out a correlated study of the effects of the vectorlike generation on several observables.
These include µ → eγ, τ → µγ, τ → eγ, muon and electron magnetic moments, gµ − 2 and ge − 2, and EDMs
of the charged leptons de , dµ , dτ . We also examine the effect of the vectorlike generation on h → γγ. The
analysis is done under the constraints of the Higgs boson mass at 125 GeV. Several interesting correlations
are observed which are discussed in the numerical section. In the coming years improvement in experiment
on several fronts will occur and the predictions of the vectorlike generations can be checked or the model
further constrained.

Acknowledgments: This research was supported in part by NSF Grant PHY-1620526.

22
Appendix A The extended MSSM with a vectorlike leptonic gen-
eration
The mass-squared matrices of the supersymmetric scalar sectors (sleptons, sneutrinos and their mirrors)
arise from the F and D terms of the potential and from the soft SUSY breaking terms such that Lsoft takes
the form

−Lsoft = M̃τ2L ψ̃τi∗L ψ̃τi L + M̃χ2 χ̃ci∗ χ̃ci + M̃µL

2 i∗ i
ψ̃µL ψ̃µL
2 i∗ i
+ M̃eL ψ̃eL ψ̃eL + M̃ν2τ ν̃τc∗L ν̃τcL + M̃ν2µ ν̃µL
c∗ c
ν̃µL
2 i∗ i
+ M̃4L ψ̃4L ψ̃4L + M̃ν24 ν̃4L
c∗ c
ν̃4L + M̃ν2e ν̃eL
c∗ c
ν̃eL + M̃τ2 τ̃Lc∗ τ̃Lc + M̃µ2 µ̃c∗ c
L µ̃L

2 ∗ ∗ 2 ˜c∗ ˜c
+ M̃e2 ẽc∗ c 2
L ẽL + M̃E ẼL ẼL + M̃N ÑL ÑL + M̃4 `4L `4L

+ ij {f1 Aτ H1i ψ̃τj L τ̃Lc − f10 Aντ H2i ψ̃τj L ν̃τcL + h1 Aµ H1i ψ̃µL
j j
µ̃cL − h01 Aνµ H2i ψ̃µL c
ν̃µL
j j
+ h2 Ae H1i ψ̃eL ẽcL − h02 Aνe H2i ψ̃eL c
ν̃eL + f2 AN H1i χ̃cj ÑL − f20 AE H2i χ̃cj ẼL
j ˜c j
+ y5 A4` H1i ψ̃4L `4L − y50 A4ν H2i ψ̃4L c
ν̃4L + h.c.}. (78)

We define the slepton mass-squared matrix Mτ̃2 in the basis

(τ̃L , ẼL , τ̃R , ẼR , µ̃L , µ̃R , ẽL , ẽR , `˜4L , `˜4R ), (79)

and label the matrix elements as (Mτ̃2 )ij = Mij 2

where these elements are given by

v12 |f1 |2
 
2 2 2 2 1 2
M11 = M̃τ L + + |f3 | − mZ cos 2β − sin θW ,
2 2
v 2 |f 0 |2
2
M22 = M̃E2 + 2 2 + |f4 |2 + |f40 |2 + |f400 |2 + |h7 |2 + m2Z cos 2β sin2 θW ,
2
v 2 |f1 |2
M33 = M̃τ2 + 1
2
+ |f4 |2 − m2Z cos 2β sin2 θW ,
2
v22 |f20 |2
 
2 2 2 0 2 00 2 2 2 1 2
M44 = M̃χ + + |f3 | + |f3 | + |f3 | + |h6 | + mZ cos 2β − sin θW ,
2 2
v 2 |h1 |2
 
1
2
M55 = M̃µL 2
+ 1 + |f30 |2 − m2Z cos 2β − sin2 θW ,
2 2
v 2 |h1 |2
M66 2
= M̃µ2 + 1 + |f40 |2 − m2Z cos 2β sin2 θW ,
2
v 2 |h2 |2
 
1
2
M77 = M̃eL 2
+ 1 + |f300 |2 − m2Z cos 2β − sin2 θW ,
2 2
2 2
v |h2 |
M88 2
= M̃e2 + 1 + |f400 |2 − m2Z cos 2β sin2 θW ,
2
v12 |y5 |2
 
2 2 2 2 1 2
M99 = M̃4L + + |h6 | − mZ cos 2β − sin θW ,
2 2
v 2 |y5 |2
M10102
= M̃42 + 1 + |h7 |2 − m2Z cos 2β sin2 θW ,
2

23
 v2 f20 f3∗ v1 f4 f ∗
2
M12 2∗
= M21 = √ + √ 1,
2 2
∗
f
M132
= M312∗
= √1 (v1 A∗τ − µv2 ),
2
2
M14 2∗
= M41 = 0, M152
= M512∗
= f30 f3∗ ,
2
M16 = M61 2∗
= 0, M17 2
= M71 2∗
= f300 f3∗ , M18 2
= M81 2∗
= 0, M23 2
= M32 2∗
= 0,
0∗ 0 0∗ ∗
f v2 f f v1 h1 f
M24 2
= M42 2∗
= √2 (v2 A∗E − µv1 ), M25 2
= M52 2∗
= √3 2 + √ 4 ,
2 2 2
00 0∗ 0∗
2 2∗ 2 2∗ v 2 f 3 f 2 v 1 h 1 f 4 2 2∗
M26 = M62 = 0, M27 = M72 = √ + √ , M28 = M82 = 0,
2 2
v2 f4 f 0∗ v1 f 1 f ∗
2
M34 = M43 2∗
= √ 2 + √ 3 , M35 2
= M53 2∗
= 0, M36 2
= M63 2∗
= f4 f40∗ ,
2 2
v2 f 0 f 0∗ v1 f 0 h∗
2
M37 2∗
= M73 = 0, M38 2
= M83 2∗
= f4 f400∗ , M452
= M54 2∗
= 0, M46 2
= M64 2∗
= √2 4 + √3 1 ,
2 2
0 00∗ 00 ∗
v 2 f f v 1 f h
M472
= M74 2∗
= 0, M48 2
= M84 2∗
= √2 4 + √3 2 ,
2 2
∗
h
2
M56 2∗
= M65 = √1 (v1 A∗µ − µv2 ), M57 2
= M75 2∗
= f300 f30∗ , M58 2
= M85 2∗
= 0, M67 2 2∗
= M76 = 0,
2
h∗
M68 2
= M86 2∗
= f40 f400∗ , M78
2
= M87 2∗
= √2 (v1 A∗e − µv2 )
2
M19 2
= M91 2∗
= f3∗ h6 , M110 2
= M101 2∗
= 0,
∗ 0∗
v y
1 5 h v h
2 6 f
M292
= M92 2∗
= √ 7 + √ 2 , M210 2
= M102 2∗
= 0,
2 2
M39 2
= M93 2∗
= 0, M310 2
= M103 2∗
= f4 h∗7 ,
v2 f 0 h∗ v1 h6 y ∗
M49 2
= M94 2∗
= 0, M410 2
= M104 2∗
= √2 7 + √ 5 ,
2 2
M59 2
= M95 2∗
= f30∗ h6 , M510 2
= M105 2∗
= 0,
2
M69 2∗
= M96 2
= 0, M610 2∗
= M106 = f40 h∗7 ,
2
M79 2∗
= M97 = f300∗ h6 , M710
2 2∗
= M107 = 0,
2
M89 2∗
= M98 2
= 0, M810 2∗
= M108 = f500 h∗7 ,
y∗
2
M910 2∗
= M109 = √5 (v1 A∗4` − µv2 ). (80)
2

We assume that the masses that enter the mass-squared matrix for the scalars are all of electroweak size.
This mass-squared matrix is hermitian and can be diagonalized with a unitary transformation

D̃τ † Mτ̃2 D̃τ = diag(Mτ̃21 , Mτ̃22 , Mτ̃23 , Mτ̃24 , Mτ̃25 , Mτ̃26 , Mτ̃27 , Mτ̃28 Mτ̃29 , Mτ̃210 ). (81)

The mass-squared matrix in the sneutrino sector has a similar structure. In the basis

(ν̃τ L , ÑL , ν̃τ R , ÑR , ν̃µL , ν̃µR , ν̃eL , ν̃eR , ν̃4L , ν̃4R ), (82)

24
where the sneutrino mass squared matrix (Mν̃2 )ij = m2ij has elements given by

v22 0 2 1
m211 = M̃τ2L + |f | + |f3 |2 + m2Z cos 2β,
2 1 2
v12
m222 = M̃N
2
+ |f2 |2 + |f5 |2 + |f50 |2 + |f500 |2 + |h8 |2 ,
2
v2
m233 = M̃ν2τ + 2 |f10 |2 + |f5 |2 ,
2
2
v 1
m244 = M̃χ2 + 1 |f2 |2 + |f3 |2 + |f30 |2 + |f300 |2 + |h6 |2 − m2Z cos 2β,
2 2
2 2 v22 0 2 0 2 1 2
m55 = M̃µL + |h1 | + |f3 | + mZ cos 2β,
2 2
2
v
m266 = M̃ν2µ + 2 |h01 |2 + |f50 |2 ,
2
2
v 1
m277 = M̃eL 2
+ 2 |h02 |2 + |f300 |2 + m2Z cos 2β,
2 2
2
v
m288 = M̃ν2e + |h02 |2 + |f500 |2 ,
2
2
2
v 1
m299 = M̃4L 2
+ 2 |y50 |2 + |h6 |2 + m2Z cos 2β,
2 2
2 2 2 v22 0 2
m1010 = M̃ν4 + |h8 | + |y5 | ,
2
0∗
v 2 f f v f f∗
m212 = m2∗ 21 = √ 1 − 1√2 3 ,
5
2 2
f10∗ ∗
m13 = m31 = √ (v2 Aντ − µv1 ), m14 = m2∗
2 2∗ 2
41 = 0,
2
0 ∗
m215 = m2∗ 2
51 = f3 f3 , m16 = m61 = 0,
2∗

00 ∗
m217 = m2∗ 2
71 = f3 f3 , m18 = m81 = 0,
2∗

f2∗ ∗ v1 f2∗ f30 h0 v2 f 0∗

m223 = m2∗ 2 2∗
32 = 0, m24 = m42 = √ (v1 AN − µv2 ), m25 = m52 = − √
2 2∗
+ 1√ 5 ,
2 2 2
∗ 00 0 00∗
v f
1 2 3 f h v 2 f
m226 = m2∗ 2
62 = 0, m27 = m72 = − √
2∗
+ 2√ 5 ,
2 2
∗ 0 ∗
v f
1 2 5 f v 2 f f
m228 = m2∗ 2
82 = 0, m34 = m43 =
2∗
√ − √1 3 ,
2 2
0∗
m235 = m2∗
53 = 0, m2
36 = m 2∗
63 = f f
5 5 , m 2
37 = m 2∗
73 = 0, m 2
38 = m 2∗
83 = f5 f500∗ , m245 = m2∗ 54 = 0,
0∗ 0 0∗
h1 v2 f3 v1 f2 f
m246 = m2∗ 64 = − √ + √ 5 , m247 = m2∗ 74 = 0,
2 2
v1 f2 f500∗ v2 h0∗ f 00 h0∗ ∗
m248 = m2∗84 = √ − √2 3 , m256 = m2∗ 1
65 = √ (v2 Aνµ − µv1 ),
2 2 2
00 0∗
m257 = m2∗ 2 2∗
75 = f3 f3 , m58 = m85 = 0, m67 = m76 = 0,
2 2∗

0 00∗ h0∗2 ∗
m268 = m2∗ 2 2∗
86 = f5 f5 , m78 = m87 = √ (v2 Aνe − µv1 ),
2

25
 ∗
m219 = m2∗ 2 2∗
91 = h6 f3 , m110 = m101 = 0,
∗
f2 v1 h6 v2 h8 y
m229 = m2∗
92 = − √ + √ 5 , m2210 = m2∗ 102 = 0,
2 2
∗
m239 = m2∗ 2 2∗
93 = 0, m310 = m103 = f5 h8 ,
v2 y50 h6 v1 h∗ f2
m249 = m2∗ 2 2∗
94 = 0, m410 = m104 = − √ + √8 ,
2 2
2 2∗ 0∗ 2 2∗
m59 = m95 = h6 f3 , m510 = m105 = 0,
0 ∗
m269 = m2∗ 2 2∗
96 = 0, m610 = m106 = f5 h8 ,

00∗
m279 = m2∗ 2 2∗
97 = h6 f3 , m710 = m107 = 0,

00 ∗
m289 = m2∗ 2 2∗
98 = 0, m810 = m108 = f5 h8 ,
y50 ∗
m2910 = m2∗
109 = √ (v2 A4ν − µv1 ). (83)
2
Again as in the charged slepton sector we assume that all the masses are of the electroweak size so all
the terms enter in the mass-squared matrix. This mass-squared matrix can be diagonalized by the unitary
transformation

D̃ν† Mν̃2 D̃ν = diag(Mν̃21 , Mν̃22 , Mν̃23 , Mν̃24 , Mν̃25 , Mν̃26 , Mν̃27 , Mν̃28 , Mν̃29 , Mν̃210 ). (84)

Appendix B Interactions that enter in the analyses of the radia-

tive decays, of the EDMs and of the magnetic dipole
moments of the leptons
In this appendix we discuss the interactions in the mass diagonal basis involving charged leptons, sneutrinos
and charginos. Thus we have
2 X
X 10
L R
− Lτ ν̃ χ̃− = τ̄α (Cαij PL + Cαij PR )χ̃ci ν̃j + h.c., (85)
i=1 j=1

such that
L ∗ τ∗ ν ∗ τ∗ ν ∗ τ∗ ν
Cαij =g(−κτ Ui2 DR1α D̃1j − κµ Ui2 DR3α D̃5j − κe Ui2 DR4α D̃7j
(86)
∗ τ∗ ν ∗ τ∗ ν ∗ τ∗ ν
− κ4` Ui2 DR5α D̃9j + Ui1 DR2α D̃4j − κN Ui2 DR2α D̃2j )

R τ∗ ν τ∗ ν τ∗ ν τ∗ ν τ∗ ν
Cαij =g(−κντ Vi2 DL1α D̃3j − κνµ Vi2 DL3α D̃6j − κνe Vi2 DL4α D̃8j + Vi1 DL1α D̃1j + Vi1 DL3α D̃5j
(87)
τ∗ ν τ∗ ν τ∗ ν
− κν4 Vi2 DL5α D̃10j + Vi1 DL4α D̃7j − κE Vi2 DL2α D̃4j ),
τ
where DL,R and D̃ν are the charged lepton and sneutrino diagonalizing matrices and are defined by Eq. (13)
and Eq. (84), respectively and U and V are the matrices that diagonalize the chargino mass matrix MC so

26
that [56]
U ∗ MC V −1 = diag(mχ± mχ± ) . (88)
1 2

Further,
(mN , mτ , mµ , me , m4` )
(κN , κτ , κµ , κe , κ4` ) = √ , (89)
2mW cos β

(mE , mντ , mνµ , mνe , mν4 )

(κE , κντ , κνµ , κνe , κν4 ) = √ . (90)
2mW sin β
where mW is the mass of the W boson and tan β = hH22 i/hH11 i where H1 , H2 are the two Higgs doublets of
MSSM.
We now discuss the interactions in the mass diagonal basis involving charged leptons, sleptons and neutrali-
nos. Thus we have
10
4 X
X 0 0
L R
− Lτ τ̃ χ̃0 = τ̄α (Cαij PL + Cαij PR )χ̃0i τ̃j + h.c., (91)
i=1 j=1

such that
0
L
√ τ∗ τ τ∗ τ τ∗ τ τ∗ τ τ∗ τ τ∗ τ
Cαij = 2(ατ i DR1α D̃1j − δEi DR2α D̃2j − γτ i DR1α D̃3j + βEi DR2α D̃4j + αµi DR3α D̃5j − γµi DR3α D̃6j
τ∗ τ τ∗ τ τ∗ τ τ∗ τ
+ αei DR4α D̃7j − γei DR4α D̃8j + α4`i DR5α D̃9j − γ4`i DR5α D̃10j ), (92)

0
R
√ τ∗ τ τ∗ τ τ∗ τ τ∗ τ τ∗ τ τ∗ τ
Cαij = 2(βτ i DL1α D̃1j − γEi DL2α D̃2j − δτ i DL1α D̃3j + αEi DL2α D̃4j + βµi DL3α D̃5j − δµi DL3α D̃6j
τ∗ τ τ∗ τ τ∗ τ τ∗ τ
+ βei DL4α D̃7j − δei DL4α D̃8j + β4`i DL5α D̃9j − δ4`i DL5α D̃10j ), (93)

where
∗
 
gmE X4i 0 g 1
αEi = ; βEi = eX1i + X0 − sin2 θW (94)
2mW sin β cos θW 2i 2
0 g sin2 θW 0 ∗ gmE X4i
γEi = eX1i∗ − X2i ; δEi = − (95)
cos θW 2mW sin β
and
gmτ X3i gmµ X3i gme X3i gm4` X3i
ατ i = ; αµi = ; αei = ; α4`i = , (96)
2mW cos β 2mW cos β 2mW cos β 2mW cos β
∗ ∗ ∗ ∗
gmτ X3i gmµ X3i gme X3i gm4` X3i
δτ i =− ; δµi =− ; δei = − ; δ4`i =− , (97)
2mW cos β 2mW cos β 2mW cos β 2mW cos β
and where
 
0 g 0 1
βτ i = βµi = βei = β4`i = −eX1i∗ + X2i∗ − + sin2 θW , (98)
cos θW 2
0 g sin2 θW 0
γτ i = γµi = γei = γ4`i = −eX1i + X2i . (99)
cos θW

27
Here X 0 are defined by
0
X1i = X1i cos θW + X2i sin θW , (100)
0
X2i = −X1i sin θW + X2i cos θW , (101)

where X diagonalizes the neutralino mass matrix, i.e.,

X T Mχ0 X = diag(mχ01 , mχ02 , mχ03 , mχ04 ). (102)

Further, D̃τ that enter in Eqs. (92) and (93) is a matrix which diagonalizes the charged slepton mass squared
matrix and is defined in Eq. (81).
In addition to the supersymmetric loop diagrams, we compute the contributions arising from the exchange
of W and Z bosons and leptons and mirror leptons in the loops. For the W boson exchange the interactions
are given by
5 X
X 5
− Lτ W ψ = Wρ† ψ̄i γ ρ (CLiα
W W
PL + CRiα PR )τα + h.c., (103)
i=1 α=1
where
g
CLWiα = √ [DL1i
ν∗ τ
DL1α ν∗
+ DL3i τ
DL3α ν∗
+ DL4i τ
DL4α ν∗
+ DL5i τ
DL5α ], (104)
2
and
W g ν∗ τ
CR iα
= √ [DR2i DR2α ]. (105)
2
ν
Here DL,R are matrices of a biunitary transformation that diagonalizes the neutrino mass matrix and are
defined in Eq. (9). For the Z boson exchange the interactions that enter are given by
5 X
X 5
− L τ τ Z = Zρ τ̄α γ ρ (CLαβ
Z Z
PL + CRαβ PR )τβ , (106)
α=1 β=1

where
g τ† τ† τ† τ† τ†
CLZαβ = [x(DLα1 τ
DL1β + DLα2 τ
DL2β + DLα3 τ
DL3β + DLα4 τ
DL4β + DLα5 τ
DL5β )
cos θW
1 τ† τ τ† τ τ† τ τ† τ
− (DLα1 DL1β + DLα3 DL3β + DLα4 DL4β + DLα5 DL5β )], (107)
2
and
Z g τ† τ τ† τ τ† τ τ† τ τ† τ
CR = [x(DRα1 DR1β + DRα2 DR2β + DRα3 DR3β + DRα4 DR4β + DRα5 DR5β )
αβ
cos θW
1 τ† τ
− (DRα2 DR2β )] . (108)
2
with x = sin2 θW .

28
References
[1] J. Adam et al. [MEG Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 201801 (2013)
doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.201801 [arXiv:1303.0754 [hep-ex]].

[2] B. Aubert et al. [BaBar Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 021802 (2010)
doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.104.021802 [arXiv:0908.2381 [hep-ex]].

[3] K. Hayasaka et al. [Belle Collaboration], Phys. Lett. B 666, 16 (2008)

doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2008.06.056 [arXiv:0705.0650 [hep-ex]].

[4] J. Baron et al. [ACME Collaboration], New J. Phys. 19, no. 7, 073029 (2017) doi:10.1088/1367-
2630/aa708e [arXiv:1612.09318 [physics.atom-ph]].

[5] J. Beringer et al. [Particle Data Group], Phys. Rev. D 86, 010001 (2012).
doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.86.010001

[6] G. W. Bennett et al. [Muon (g-2) Collaboration], Phys. Rev. D 80, 052008 (2009)
doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.80.052008 [arXiv:0811.1207 [hep-ex]].

[7] H. Georgi, Nucl. Phys. B 156, 126 (1979); F. Wilczek and A. Zee, Phys. Rev. D 25, 553 (1982);
G. Senjanovic, F. Wilczek and A. Zee, Phys. Lett. B 141, 389 (1984), doi:10.1016/0370-2693(84)90269-
7; J. Maalampi, J.T. Peltoniemi, and M. Roos, PLB 220, 441(1989); B. Kors and P. Nath, Nucl. Phys. B
681, 77 (2004) doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2004.01.00; K. S. Babu, I. Gogoladze, P. Nath and R. M. Syed,
Phys. Rev. D 74, 075004 (2006): Phys. Rev. D 74, 075004 (2006).

[8] T. P. T. Dijkstra, L. R. Huiszoon and A. N. Schellekens, Nucl. Phys. B 710, 3 (2005)

doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2004.12.032 [hep-th/0411129].

[9] O. Lebedev, H. P. Nilles, S. Raby, S. Ramos-Sanchez, M. Ratz, P. K. S. Vaudrevange and A. Wingerter,

Phys. Lett. B 645, 88 (2007) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2006.12.012 [hep-th/0611095].

[10] T. Ibrahim and P. Nath, Phys. Rev. D 81, no. 3, 033007 (2010) Erratum: [Phys. Rev. D 89, no.
11, 119902 (2014)] doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.81.033007, 10.1103/PhysRevD.89.119902 [arXiv:1001.0231
[hep-ph]].

[11] T. Ibrahim and P. Nath, Phys. Rev. D 87, no. 1, 015030 (2013) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.87.015030
[arXiv:1211.0622 [hep-ph]].

[12] A. Aboubrahim, T. Ibrahim and P. Nath, Phys. Rev. D 88, 013019 (2013)
doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.88.013019 [arXiv:1306.2275 [hep-ph]].

29
[13] T. Ibrahim, A. Itani and P. Nath, Phys. Rev. D 92, no. 1, 015003 (2015)
doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.92.015003 [arXiv:1503.01078 [hep-ph]].

[14] S. P. Martin, Phys. Rev. D 81, 035004 (2010) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.81.035004 [arXiv:0910.2732 [hep-
ph]].

[15] P. W. Graham, A. Ismail, S. Rajendran and P. Saraswat, Phys. Rev. D 81, 055016 (2010)
doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.81.055016 [arXiv:0910.3020 [hep-ph]].

[16] S. P. Martin, Phys. Rev. D 82, 055019 (2010) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.82.055019 [arXiv:1006.4186 [hep-
ph]].

[17] S. P. Martin and J. D. Wells, Phys. Rev. D 86, 035017 (2012) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.86.035017
[arXiv:1206.2956 [hep-ph]].

[18] T. Moroi, R. Sato and T. T. Yanagida, Phys. Lett. B 709, 218 (2012) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2012.02.012
[arXiv:1112.3142 [hep-ph]].

[19] W. Fischler and W. Tangarife, JHEP 1405, 151 (2014) doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2014)151 [arXiv:1310.6369
[hep-ph]].

[20] M. Endo, K. Hamaguchi, S. Iwamoto and N. Yokozaki, Phys. Rev. D 85, 095012 (2012)
doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.85.095012 [arXiv:1112.5653 [hep-ph]].

[21] F. del Aguila, J. de Blas and M. Perez-Victoria, Phys. Rev. D 78, 013010 (2008)
doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.78.013010 [arXiv:0803.4008 [hep-ph]].

[22] N. Arkani-Hamed, K. Blum, R. T. D’Agnolo and J. Fan, JHEP 1301, 149 (2013)
doi:10.1007/JHEP01(2013)149 [arXiv:1207.4482 [hep-ph]].

[23] J. Kearney, A. Pierce and N. Weiner, Phys. Rev. D 86, 113005 (2012) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.86.113005
[arXiv:1207.7062 [hep-ph]].

[24] A. Joglekar, P. Schwaller and C. E. M. Wagner, JHEP 1212, 064 (2012) doi:10.1007/JHEP12(2012)064
[arXiv:1207.4235 [hep-ph]].

[25] K. Ishiwata and M. B. Wise, Phys. Rev. D 88, no. 5, 055009 (2013) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.88.055009
[arXiv:1307.1112 [hep-ph]].

[26] K. Ishiwata, Z. Ligeti and M. B. Wise, JHEP 1510, 027 (2015) doi:10.1007/JHEP10(2015)027
[arXiv:1506.03484 [hep-ph]].

30
[27] S. A. R. Ellis, R. M. Godbole, S. Gopalakrishna and J. D. Wells, JHEP 1409, 130 (2014)
doi:10.1007/JHEP09(2014)130 [arXiv:1404.4398 [hep-ph]].

[28] B. O’Leary et al. [SuperB Collaboration], arXiv:1008.1541 [hep-ex].

[29] T. Aushev et al., arXiv:1002.5012 [hep-ex].

[30] M. E. Biagini et al. [SuperB Collaboration], arXiv:1009.6178 [physics.acc-ph].

[31] J. L. Hewett et al., doi:10.2172/1042577 arXiv:1205.2671 [hep-ex].

[32] F. Gabbiani and A. Masiero, Nucl. Phys. B 322, 235 (1989). doi:10.1016/0550-3213(89)90492-6

[33] R. L. Arnowitt and P. Nath, Phys. Rev. Lett. 66, 2708 (1991). doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.66.2708

[34] F. Gabbiani, E. Gabrielli, A. Masiero and L. Silvestrini, Nucl. Phys. B 477, 321 (1996)
doi:10.1016/0550-3213(96)00390-2 [hep-ph/9604387].

[35] A. Abada, C. Biggio, F. Bonnet, M. B. Gavela and T. Hambye, Phys. Rev. D 78, 033007 (2008)
doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.78.033007 [arXiv:0803.0481 [hep-ph]].

[36] W. Altmannshofer, A. J. Buras, S. Gori, P. Paradisi and D. M. Straub, Nucl. Phys. B 830, 17 (2010)
doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2009.12.019 [arXiv:0909.1333 [hep-ph]].

[37] D. McKeen, M. Pospelov and A. Ritz, Phys. Rev. D 87, no. 11, 113002 (2013)
doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.87.113002 [arXiv:1303.1172 [hep-ph]].

[38] R. Escribano and E. Masso, Phys. Lett. B 395, 369 (1997) doi:10.1016/S0370-2693(97)00059-2 [hep-
ph/9609423].

[39] C. Patrignani et al. [Particle Data Group], Chin. Phys. C 40, no. 10, 100001 (2016). doi:10.1088/1674-
1137/40/10/100001

[40] M. Lindner, M. Platscher and F. S. Queiroz, Phys. Rept. 731, 1 (2018)

doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2017.12.001 [arXiv:1610.06587 [hep-ph]].

[41] A. Crivellin, M. Hoferichter and P. Schmidt-Wellenburg, arXiv:1807.11484 [hep-ph].

[42] M. Aaboud et al. [ATLAS Collaboration], arXiv:1802.04146 [hep-ex].

[43] A. M. Sirunyan et al. [CMS Collaboration], arXiv:1804.02716 [hep-ex].

31
[44] W. Z. Feng and P. Nath, Phys. Rev. D 87, no. 7, 075018 (2013) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.87.075018
[arXiv:1303.0289 [hep-ph]].

[45] R. Dermisek and A. Raval, Phys. Rev. D 88, 013017 (2013) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.88.013017
[arXiv:1305.3522 [hep-ph]]; Z. Poh and S. Raby, Phys. Rev. D 96, no. 1, 015032 (2017)
doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.96.015032 [arXiv:1705.07007 [hep-ph]]; A. Choudhury, L. Darm, L. Roszkowski,
E. M. Sessolo and S. Trojanowski, JHEP 1705, 072 (2017) doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2017)072
[arXiv:1701.08778 [hep-ph]].

[46] A. Aboubrahim, T. Ibrahim and P. Nath, Phys. Rev. D 94, no. 1, 015032 (2016)
doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.94.015032 [arXiv:1606.08336 [hep-ph]].

[47] P. Nath, Phys. Rev. Lett. 66, 2565 (1991). doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.66.2565

[48] Y. Kizukuri and N. Oshimo, Phys. Rev. D 46, 3025 (1992). doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.46.3025

[49] T. Ibrahim and P. Nath, Phys. Rev. D 58, 111301 (1998) Erratum: [Phys. Rev. D 60, 099902 (1999)]
doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.60.099902, 10.1103/PhysRevD.58.111301 [hep-ph/9807501].

[50] T. Ibrahim and P. Nath, Phys. Rev. D 57, 478 (1998) Erratum: [Phys. Rev. D 58,
019901 (1998)] Erratum: [Phys. Rev. D 60, 079903 (1999)] Erratum: [Phys. Rev. D
60, 119901 (1999)] doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.58.019901, 10.1103/PhysRevD.60.079903, 10.1103/Phys-
RevD.60.119901, 10.1103/PhysRevD.57.478 [hep-ph/9708456].

[51] T. Falk and K. A. Olive, Phys. Lett. B 439, 71 (1998) doi:10.1016/S0370-2693(98)01022-3 [hep-
ph/9806236].

[52] M. Brhlik, G. J. Good and G. L. Kane, Phys. Rev. D 59, 115004 (1999)
doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.59.115004 [hep-ph/9810457].

[53] T. Ibrahim and P. Nath, Phys. Rev. D 61, 093004 (2000) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.61.093004 [hep-
ph/9910553].

[54] T. Ibrahim and P. Nath, Phys. Rev. D 84, 015003 (2011) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.84.015003
[arXiv:1104.3851 [hep-ph]].

[55] M. E. Gomez, T. Ibrahim, P. Nath and S. Skadhauge, Phys. Rev. D 74, 015015 (2006)
doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.74.015015 [hep-ph/0601163].

[56] T. Ibrahim and P. Nath, Rev. Mod. Phys. 80, 577 (2008) doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.80.577
[arXiv:0705.2008 [hep-ph]].

32
[57] A. H. Chamseddine, R. L. Arnowitt and P. Nath, Phys. Rev. Lett. 49, 970 (1982).
doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.49.970

[58] B. C. Allanach, Comput. Phys. Commun. 143, 305 (2002) doi:10.1016/S0010-4655(01)00460-X [hep-
ph/0104145].

[59] B. C. Allanach, S. P. Martin, D. G. Robertson and R. Ruiz de Austri, Comput. Phys. Commun. 219,
339 (2017) doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2017.05.006 [arXiv:1601.06657 [hep-ph]].

[60] W. Altmannshofer, R. Harnik and J. Zupan, JHEP 1311, 202 (2013) doi:10.1007/JHEP11(2013)202
[arXiv:1308.3653 [hep-ph]].

[61] U. Bellgardt et al. [SINDRUM Collaboration], Nucl. Phys. B 299, 1 (1988). doi:10.1016/0550-
3213(88)90462-2

[62] A. M. Baldini et al., arXiv:1301.7225 [physics.ins-det].

[63] S. A. R. Ellis and A. Pierce, Phys. Rev. D 94, no. 1, 015014 (2016) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.94.015014
[arXiv:1604.01419 [hep-ph]].

[64] W. H. Bertl et al. [SINDRUM II Collaboration], Eur. Phys. J. C 47, 337 (2006). doi:10.1140/epjc/s2006-
02582-x

[65] R. J. Abrams et al. [Mu2e Collaboration], arXiv:1211.7019 [physics.ins-det].

33