Why are τ→μγ and μ→eγ measurements less sensitive probes than their quark-sector equivalents for ruling out new physics?

Your question asks why lepton flavor-violating (LFV) decays like τ→μγ and μ→eγ are weaker constraints on new physics than their quark-sector counterparts (like rare top or bottom decays).

The provided preprints don't directly address this comparison, but I can point to why the archive's authors are working to *improve* leptonic sensitivity—which hints at the underlying issue.

The core reason is suppression of leading contributions by helicity selection rules. In the Standard Model, massless fermions have definite helicities, and electroweak interactions preserve chirality. This means dimension-6 effective operators that would couple to τ or μ in LFV decays are heavily suppressed by helicity mismatch [AG-2024.08-1005]. The τ dipole's interference contributions are naturally screened—only higher-order or spin-correlated effects can resurrect them [AG-2024.08-1005].

By contrast, quark processes (especially top FCNC like t→qγ) don't face the same degree of helicity suppression. Top quarks are heavy, so left- and right-handed components mix significantly in their wavefunctions, and new physics couplings don't encounter the same kinematic barriers.

A second practical factor: the branching ratios of LFV lepton decays are intrinsically tiny. Measuring τ→μγ or μ→eγ requires extraordinary experimental precision, whereas top-quark FCNC can be produced at high rates at colliders. Even μ→eγ in muonic atoms shows "non-trivial" spectra that complicate extraction [AG-2024.11-1263].

This is why the archive emphasizes future colliders (muon colliders, FCC) to push leptonic dipole sensitivity to 10⁻⁴–10⁻⁵ precision [AG-2024.10-1276, AG-2026.04-1198]—to overcome these inherent disadvantages.

The preprints don't directly compare lepton vs. quark LFV sensitivity, so this answer draws on context rather than explicit statements in the archive.