AG-2026.01-1333·hep-ph
Revisiting $μ$-$e$ conversion in $R$-parity violating SUSY
Authors
- Yu-Qi Xiao
- Xiao-Gang He
- Hong-Yi Niu
- Rong-Rong Zhang
Abstract
The $μ$-$e$ conversion process is one of the most powerful ways to test lepton-flavor-violating (LFV) interactions involving charged leptons. The standard model with massive neutrinos predicts an extremely low rate for $μ$-$e$ conversion, making this process an excellent probe for testing LFV arising from new physics. Among many theoretical models that can induce LFV, the Supersymmetric model with R-parity violating interactions is one of the most studied for $μ$-$e$ conversion. In this work, we revisit trilinear R-parity violating interactions for $μ$-$e$ conversion, considering renormalization group (RG) running effects from high to low energy scales. The $μ$-$e$ conversion, $μ\to e γ$, and $μ\to eee$ experimental data are compared to give upper limits on the relevant 15 combinations of the trilinear $λ^{\prime}$ couplings and 6 combinations of the $λ$ couplings, certain of which are underexplored in previous studies. We find that RG running effects influence the limits by no more than 30\% in most cases, but can improve constraints by $\sim$80\% in certain combinations, which cannot be neglected. In the near future, COMET and Mu2e are expected to begin data-taking and aim to provide the most stringent constraints on $μ$-$e$ conversion. These next-generation $μ$-$e$ experiments have the ability to give much more comprehensive examinations on most trilinear coupling combinations than the $μ\to eγ$ and $μ\to 3e$ decay experiments. The $μ$-$e$ experiments will not only deepen our understanding of LFV but also provide a crucial way to examine the underlying new physics contributions.
Submitted
26 January 20263 months ago
Version
v1
License
CC-BY-4.0
DOI
10.48550/arXiv.2601.18237
Chat with this PDF
Ask questions, probe assumptions, request a plain-English summary. Answers cite sections from the preprint itself.
Community
Questions and answers about this paper from other readers. No formal peer review — just a place to think out loud.