| Literature DB >> 25983641 |
Lorenzo Calibbi1, Paride Paradisi2, Robert Ziegler3.
Abstract
We study the anatomy and phenomenology of lepton flavor violation (LFV) in the context of flavored gauge mediation (FGM). Within FGM, the messenger sector couples directly to the MSSM matter fields with couplings controlled by the same dynamics that explains the hierarchies in the SM Yukawas. Although the pattern of flavor violation depends on the particular underlying flavor model, FGM provides a built-in flavor suppression similar to wave function renormalization or SUSY partial compositeness. Moreover, in contrast to these models, there is an additional suppression of left-right flavor transitions by third-generation Yukawas that in particular provides an extra protection against flavor-blind phases. We exploit the consequences of this setup for lepton flavor phenomenology, assuming that the new couplings are controlled by simple [Formula: see text] flavor models that have been proposed to accommodate large neutrino mixing angles. Remarkably, it turns out that in the context of FGM these models can pass the impressive constraints from LFV processes and leptonic electric dipole moments (EDMs) even for light superpartners, therefore offering the possibility of resolving the longstanding muon [Formula: see text] anomaly.Entities:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25983641 PMCID: PMC4423892 DOI: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-014-3211-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Eur Phys J C Part Fields ISSN: 1434-6044 Impact factor: 4.590
Fig. 1Example diagram for the 2-loop generation of . denotes the scalar components of the superfields and denotes the scalar mass eigenstates of the messengers
Fig. 2Example diagram for the 1-loop generation of in the fermion mass basis
Current experimental bounds and future sensitivities for some low-energy LFV observables and the electron EDM
| LFV process | Present bound | Future sensitivity |
|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Electron EDM | Present bound | Future sensitivity |
|
|
|
|
Fig. 3Predictions for BR vs. for different values of : purple, blue and orange dots correspond to , respectively. The plots on the left (right) refer to the anarchical (hierarchical) case. For the upper (lower) plots the number of messenger is set to . Gray regions are excluded by MEG [41]. In the green (dark green) bands the discrepancy is reduced below the 2 (1) level
Fig. 4The same scenarios as in Fig. 3 for vs. . Gray regions are excluded by ACME [49]. In the green (dark green) bands the discrepancy is reduced below the 2 (1) level
Fig. 5Predictions for BR vs. for the anarchical (left) and hierarchical (right) cases. Yellow (green) points correspond to (). Gray regions are excluded by MEG [41] and/or ACME [49]
Fig. 6Bounds on the coefficient , see Eq. (46), from in the hierarchical scenario. For definiteness, we have assumed , and different choices of and . The yellow (green) areas give ()
Fig. 7Contours of BR() and for the same choice of the parameters as in Fig. 6 and , . The gray shaded regions are presently excluded by or . The yellow (green) areas give ()
Predictions for the mass insertions in various SUSY models with an underlying flavor model where () stands for the charges of doublets (singlets). Note that for the sake of simplicity we compare only single mass insertions, for large triple mass insertions can possibly give the dominant contributions to LR transitions
| SUGRA | PC | FGM | |
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|