text:
# VUTH 01-03 The Collins fragmentation function: a simple model calculation

\[

## Abstract

The Collins function belongs to the class of the so-called time-reversal odd fragmentation functions. Being chiral-odd as well, it can serve as an important tool to observe the nucleon’s transversity distribution in semi-inclusive DIS. Due to the possible presence of final state interactions, this function can be non-zero, though this has never been demonstrated in an explicit model calculation. We use a simple pseudoscalar coupling between pions and quarks to model the fragmentation process and we show that the inclusion of one-loop corrections generates a non-vanishing Collins function, therefore giving support to its existence from the theoretical point of view.

\]

Our understanding of hadronic physics depends strongly on what we know about the parton distribution and fragmentation functions, which are universal, process-independent objects. While in the past several experiments provided us with considerable information on the parton distributions, our knowledge of the fragmentation functions is still rather limited.

A lot of attention has been devoted to the class of the so-called time-reversal odd (T-odd) fragmentation functions, among which the Collins function $`H_1^{}`$  is the most prominent example. In contrast to a naive expectation, these functions can be non-vanishing because time-reversal invariance does not impose any constraint  (in the literature they are sometimes referred to as naive T-odd functions ). This is a consequence of possible final state interactions in the fragmentation process, giving rise to a non-trivial phase (imaginary part) . We remark that final state interactions should not be considered exclusively as reinteractions of the outgoing hadron with the rest of the jet, as we will discuss in more detail later.

The Collins function describes the fragmentation of a transversely polarized quark into an unpolarized hadron (e.g. a pion), i.e. the process $`q^{}hX`$. The introduction of this function requires taking into account the quark’s transverse momentum. Although the Collins function in itself deserves attention towards understanding the physics governing the fragmentation process, it is particularly relevant because in semi-inclusive DIS it can serve as the chiral-odd partner needed to access the transversity distribution of the nucleon, $`h_1`$, which is chiral-odd as well. The transversity is a crucial property of the nucleon, carrying information on its spin structure complementary to what we can deduce from helicity distributions. Because of its chiral-odd nature, $`h_1`$ is suppressed in inclusive DIS, and therefore it has remained essentially unexplored on the experimental side. In the case of one-particle inclusive DIS, where one detects only a single hadron in the final state, the Collins function provides the only possibility to probe $`h_1`$ at the leading twist level.

Even if the Collins function can not be discarded in general on the basis of time-reversal invariance, it has been suspected to vanish since the effect arising from final state interactions may average out . Moreover, $`H_1^{}`$ has been proven elusive to previous modeling attempts . This suggested to turn the attention to the experimentally more challenging detection of two hadrons in a semi-inclusive measurement , as an alternative method to measure the transversity. Until now, no ab initio calculation has ever displayed the possibility of generating a non-zero Collins function in the framework of a simple, time-reversal invariant model.

On the experimental side, the HERMES collaboration reported the first observation of a single-spin asymmetry in semi-inclusive pion production , which could be interpreted as arising from the contribution of the Collins function . Analogously, large single-spin asymmetries in the process $`p^{}p\pi X`$  could also be explained by means of the Collins function . The situation is far from clear, but further investigations are among the priorities of the HERMES , COMPASS  and possibly eRHIC programs.

In these circumstances, producing a non-zero Collins function in a simple yet consistent model is an interesting and relevant result, which we are going to present in this letter. To this end we describe the fragmentation process by a pseudoscalar coupling between quarks and pions in the one-loop approximation. A similar calculation has been suggested earlier , but never carried out explicitly. For what concerns possible phenomenological applications, we do not pretend our calculation to be realistic, but we think that it can shed light on the identity of T-odd fragmentation functions and can conclusively affirm that there are no theoretical reasons to believe the Collins function to vanish.

Considering the fragmentation process $`q^{}(k)\pi (p)X`$, we define the Collins function, which depends on the longitudinal momentum fraction $`z`$ of the pion and the transverse momentum $`k_T`$ of the quark, as  ***Note that this definition of $`H_1^{}`$ slightly differs from the original one given by Collins .

$$\frac{ϵ_T^{ij}k_{Tj}}{m_\pi }H_1^{}(z,k_T^2)=\frac{1}{4z}dk^+\text{Tr}[\mathrm{\Delta }(k,p)\mathrm{i}\sigma ^i\gamma _5]|_{k^{}=\frac{p^{}}{z}},$$
(1)
with $`m_\pi `$ denoting the pion mass and $`ϵ_T^{ij}ϵ^{ij+}`$ (we specify the plus and minus lightcone components of a generic 4-vector $`a^\mu `$ according to $`a^\pm (a^0\pm a^3)/\sqrt{2}`$). The correlation function $`\mathrm{\Delta }(k,p)`$ in Eq. (1), omitting gauge links, takes the form

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(k,p)=\underset{X}{}\frac{\mathrm{d}^4\xi }{(2\pi )^4}\mathrm{e}^{+\mathrm{i}k\xi }0|\psi (\xi )|\pi ,X\pi ,X|\overline{\psi }(0)|0.$$
(2)
To describe the matrix elements in the correlation function, we use a pseudoscalar coupling between quarks and pions given by the interaction Lagrangian

$$_I(x)=\mathrm{i}g\overline{q}(x)\gamma _5q(x)\pi (x),$$
(3)
which is in the spirit of the Manohar–Georgi model . This is clearly an oversimplified approach to the fragmentation $`q^{}\pi X`$ but the model contains the essential elements required for our discussion. In particular, it is time-reversal invariant. One could also perform the calculation in a chirally invariant model by including a scalar $`\sigma `$ field as well as taking quark flavors properly into account. In our view, this is certainly necessary to improve the result obtained here for a better description of the phenomenology, but the essential result of a non-zero $`H_1^{}`$ is already evident without going to the complications arising from the inclusion of the $`\sigma `$ particle and the discussion of various flavors.

Using the Lagrangian in Eq. (3), at tree level the fragmentation of a quark is modeled through the process $`q^{}\pi q`$. The corresponding correlation function can be represented by the unitarity diagram in Fig. 1 and reads explicitly

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{(0)}(k,p)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{(2\pi )^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{(\text{/}k+m)}{k^2m^2}}\gamma _5(\text{/}k\text{/}p+m)\gamma _5{\displaystyle \frac{(\text{/}k+m)}{k^2m^2}}`$ (5)
$`\times 2\pi \delta ((kp)^2m^2),`$
where $`m`$ represents the mass of a constituent quark. Using this correlation function, the unpolarized fragmentation function

$$D_1(z,k_T^2)=\frac{1}{4z}dk^+\text{Tr}[\mathrm{\Delta }(k,p)\gamma ^{}]|_{k^{}=\frac{p^{}}{z}}$$
(6)
in our model at tree level becomes

$$D_1(z,k_T^2)=\frac{1}{z}\frac{g^2}{16\pi ^3}\frac{k_T^2+m^2}{(k_T^2+m^2+\frac{1z}{z^2}m_\pi ^2)^2}.$$
(7)
In the case of $`m_\pi =0`$ we recover the result already obtained by Collins . Contrary to $`D_1`$, the Collins function at tree level is zero. This is not surprising because at tree level no final state interaction appears in the fragmentation process, which is supposed to be the origin of the T-odd fragmentation functions like $`H_1^{}`$. The situation changes when we proceed to one-loop corrections, as we explicitly show in the following.

A consistent one-loop calculation of the fragmentation process requires the evaluation of all the diagrams shown in Fig. 2. In the actual calculation only the asymmetric diagrams (a–d) contribute. The contributions from the diagrams (e), (g) and (h) vanish individually when projecting out the Collins function, while the contributions of diagram (f) and its hermitian conjugate cancel each other.

It should be noted that not all the asymmetric (interference-type) diagrams contribute. For example, the diagram (f) and its hermitian conjugate represent the interference between two different tree level amplitudes describing the process $`q^{}\pi \pi q`$. However, their contributions to the Collins function cancel each other since the involved interfering amplitudes are purely real. In calculating $`H_1^{}`$, such a cancellation between contributions coming from a diagram and its hermitian conjugate takes place whenever the involved amplitudes are purely real and is a model independent feature.

In our computation, the relevant components to be included are the self-energy correction for diagrams (a) and (b), and the vertex correction for diagrams (c) and (d). These corrections are sketched in Fig. 3 and can be analytically expressed as

$`\mathrm{i}\mathrm{\Sigma }(k)`$ $`=`$ $`g^2{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}^4l}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{\text{/}l\text{/}k+m}{[(kl)^2m^2][l^2m_\pi ^2]}},`$ (8)
$`g\gamma _5\mathrm{\Gamma }(k,p)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{i}g^3\gamma _5{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}^4l}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{(\text{/}k\text{/}p\text{/}l+m)}{[(kpl)^2m^2]}}`$ (10)
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{(\text{/}l\text{/}k+m)}{[(lk)^2m^2][l^2m_\pi ^2]}}.`$
The functions $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(k)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(k,p)`$ can be parametrized as

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }(k)`$ $`=`$ $`A\text{/}k+Bm,`$ (11)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(k,p)`$ $`=`$ $`C+D\text{/}p+E\text{/}k+F\text{/}p\text{/}k.`$ (12)
The real parts of the functions $`A`$, $`B`$, $`C`$ etc. are UV-divergent and require in principle a proper renormalization. Though our model is renormalizable, we do not have to deal with this question at all, since only the imaginary parts of the loop diagrams will turn out to be important.

The contributions to the correlation function generated by the diagrams (a) and (c) are given by:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{(1)}^{(a)}(k,p)={\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{(2\pi )^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{(\text{/}k+m)}{k^2m^2}}\gamma _5(\text{/}k\text{/}p+m)\gamma _5`$ (14)
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{(\text{/}k+m)}{k^2m^2}}\mathrm{\Sigma }(k){\displaystyle \frac{(\text{/}k+m)}{k^2m^2}}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}\pi \delta ((kp)^2m^2),`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{(1)}^{(c)}(k,p)={\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{(2\pi )^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{(\text{/}k+m)}{k^2m^2}}\gamma _5(\text{/}k\text{/}p+m)\gamma _5`$ (16)
$`\times \mathrm{\Gamma }(k,p){\displaystyle \frac{(\text{/}k+m)}{k^2m^2}}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}\pi \delta ((kp)^2m^2).`$
The contributions from diagrams (b) and (d) follow from the hermiticity condition: $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{(1)}^{(b)}(k,p)=\gamma ^0\mathrm{\Delta }_{(1)}^{(a)}(k,p)\gamma ^0`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{(1)}^{(d)}(k,p)=\gamma ^0\mathrm{\Delta }_{(1)}^{(c)}(k,p)\gamma ^0`$.

Summing the contributions of the four diagrams and inserting the resulting correlation function in Eq. (1), we obtain the result

$`H_1^{}(z,k_T^2)`$ (17)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g^2m_\pi }{4\pi ^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{p^{}}{z}}{\displaystyle dk^+\delta ((kp)^2m^2)}`$ (19)
$`\times \left({\displaystyle \frac{m\mathrm{Im}(A+B)}{(k^2m^2)^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{Im}(D+E+mF)}{(k^2m^2)}}\right)|_{k^{}=\frac{p^{}}{z}}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g^2m_\pi }{8\pi ^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1z}}({\displaystyle \frac{m\mathrm{Im}(A+B)}{(k^2m^2)^2}}`$ (21)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{Im}(D+E+mF)}{(k^2m^2)}})|_{k^2=\frac{z}{1z}k_T^2+\frac{m^2}{1z}+\frac{m_\pi ^2}{z}}.`$
Thus the actual value of the Collins function in this model depends only on the imaginary parts of the coefficients defined in Eqs. (1112). The lack of an imaginary component in these coefficients would inevitably result in a vanishing Collins function. We can compute the imaginary parts by applying the Cutkosky rule to the self-energy and vertex diagram of Fig. 3. In this way, as mentioned before, we can avoid the issues related to renormalization, which affect only the real parts of the diagrams. Explicit calculation leads to

$`\mathrm{Im}(A+B)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{16\pi ^2}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{m^2m_\pi ^2}{k^2}}\right)I_1,`$ (22)
$`\mathrm{Im}(D+E+mF)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{8\pi ^2}}m{\displaystyle \frac{k^2m^2+m_\pi ^2}{\lambda (k^2,m^2,m_\pi ^2)}}`$ (24)
$`\times \left[I_1+(k^2m^22m_\pi ^2)I_2\right],`$
where we have introduced the so-called Källen function, $`\lambda (k^2,m^2,m_\pi ^2)=[k^2(m+m_\pi )^2][k^2(mm_\pi )^2]`$, and the factors

$`I_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \mathrm{d}^4l\delta (l^2m_\pi ^2)\delta ((kl)^2m^2)}`$ (25)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2k^2}}\sqrt{\lambda (k^2,m^2,m_\pi ^2)}\theta (k^2(m+m_\pi )^2),`$ (26)
$`I_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \mathrm{d}^4l\frac{\delta (l^2m_\pi ^2)\delta ((kl)^2m^2)}{(kpl)^2m^2}}`$ (27)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2\sqrt{\lambda (k^2,m^2,m_\pi ^2)}}}\mathrm{ln}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda (k^2,m^2,m_\pi ^2)}{k^2m^2(m^2m_\pi ^2)^2}}\right)`$ (29)
$`\times \theta (k^2(m+m_\pi )^2).`$
These integrals are finite and vanish below the threshold of quark-pion production, where the self-energy and vertex diagrams do not possess any imaginary part.

Thus Eq. (21) in combination with Eqs. (2229) gives an explicit non-vanishing result for the Collins function.

We point out that Collins suggested the idea of dressing the quark propagator as a possible mechanism to produce a non-zero $`H_1^{}`$ . Here, we have not only supported this conjecture by means of an explicit one-loop calculation, but we have also shown that the contributions due to the self-energy and the vertex corrections do not cancel each other.

To avoid possible confusions, we would like to make a few remarks on the issue of the final state interaction. One-loop corrections in our model can be viewed as containing a specific example of final state interaction, where the pion, after being emitted and before being detected, rescatters off the quark through the direct and crossed channels (see Fig. 4). This interpretation is possible because the outgoing hadron and the hadron appearing in the loop are the same. In general, however, it is too restrictive to treat final state interactions exclusively as a reinteraction of the outgoing hadrons. In fact, in an interference-type cut-diagram, any kind of final state interaction leading to an imaginary part in the amplitude of the process $`q^{}hX`$ generates a contribution to the Collins function. In our case, for instance, it is sufficient to employ a different particle in the loop to generate a final state interaction which is not a rescattering of the outgoing hadron.

As a final remark, we would like to mention that the model we discussed could be applied to describe the quark distribution inside a pion in an attempt to generate T-odd distribution functions . However, one can readily see that, because of the different kinematical conditions, self-energy and vertex diagrams do not acquire an imaginary part, which is essential for producing a non-zero T-odd function.

In conclusion, we have shown that the Collins function can be generated using a simple pseudoscalar coupling between quarks and pions to model the fragmentation process. The Collins function turns out to be zero at the tree level due to the absence of any final state interaction which is at the origin of its existence, but renders itself at the one-loop level. The calculation performed here suggests that the Collins function, being non-zero already in a simple model, is very unlikely to vanish in reality. It is therefore a worthwhile task to pursue the measurement of $`H_1^{}`$ in DIS and $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation. Moreover, our result supports the idea of using one-particle inclusive DIS as a promising process to investigate the transversity distribution of the nucleon.

We would like to thank E. Leader and D. Boer for useful discussions. This work is part of the research program of the Dutch Foundation for Fundamental Research on Matter (FOM) and it is partially funded by the European Commission IHP program under contract HPRN-CT-2000-00130.


format: text

text:
# The Generic Supersymmetric Standard Model as the Complete Theory of Supersymmetry without R-parity

## 1 INTRODUCTION

From the early history of supersymmetry (SUSY), there had been thinkings about its usage in the obviously non-supersymmetric low-energy phenomenology. One of the first idea was the identification of the neutrino as a goldstino, i.e. the Goldstone mode from (global) SUSY breaking. Nowadays, the question : “Is the masslessness of the neutrino a result of SUSY (breaking)?” is obvious an uninteresting one. Nevertheless, neutrinos and SUSY just may have everything to do with one another; afterall, nonzero masses of neutrinos may be a result of SUSY. The latter is related to the notion of R-parity violation — the topic discussed here.

The notion of R-parity came about also early in the history of SUSY. In those days, baryon and lepton number symmetries might look even better than the standard model (SM) itself. R-parity, being basically baryon and lepton number symmetries of a supersymmetric SM, seemed quite natural. However, global symmetries are understood to be less than sacred. The basic theoretical building block of the SM is the field spectrum and the gauge symmetries, while baryon and lepton number symmetries come out only as an accident. In fact, there are now strong evidence of nonzero neutrino masses. Moreover, such evidence is our only definite experimental indication of existence particle physics beyond the SM. On the contrary, SUSY itself still awaits discovery — that is, if it has anything to do with nature at all. Most, if not all, neutrino mass models actually violate lepton number symmetry. Of course if one simply adds (softly broken) SUSY to the basic building blocks of the SM, the (generic) supersymmetric SM thus obtained admits violations of baryon and lepton number symmetries and nonzero neutrino masses. There is the acute problem of superparticle mediated proton decay. But even in the consideration of the issue, R-parity certainly overkills. It is not the only candidate for the job, nor is it the most effective. It is the most restrictive though, in terms of what terms are admitted in the renormalizable Lagrangian and otherwise. May be the only advantage of R-parity is to provide a much simpler model for phenomenological analyses — the minimal supersymmetric SM (MSSM). However, the generic supersymmetric SM is, at least conceptually, the simplest model with SUSY and neutrino masses. Here, the latter can in fact be considered as a consequence of supersymmetrizing the SM. Hence, we take a simple phenomenological perspective here, taking the generic supersymmetric SM and study the experimental constraints on the various couplings with a priori bias. From the theoretical point of view, some sort of baryon number, in relation to proton decay, is expected to be protected by symmetry, while lepton numbers are likely to be violated.

## 2 THE GENERIC SUPERSYMMETRIC STANDARD MODEL

The most general renormalizable superpotential for the generic supersymmetric SM (without R-parity) can be written as

$`W`$ $`=`$ $`\epsilon _{ab}[\mu _\alpha \widehat{H}_u^a\widehat{L}_\alpha ^b+h_{ik}^u\widehat{Q}_i^a\widehat{H}_u^b\widehat{U}_k^C+\lambda _{\alpha jk}^{}\widehat{L}_\alpha ^a\widehat{Q}_j^b\widehat{D}_k^C`$ (1)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\lambda _{\alpha \beta k}\widehat{L}_\alpha ^a\widehat{L}_\beta ^b\widehat{E}_k^C]+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\lambda _{ijk}^{\prime \prime }\widehat{U}_i^C\widehat{D}_j^C\widehat{D}_k^C,`$
where $`(a,b)`$ are $`SU(2)`$ indices, $`(i,j,k)`$ are the usual family (flavor) indices, and $`(\alpha ,\beta )`$ are extended flavor index going from $`0`$ to $`3`$. In the limit where $`\lambda _{ijk},\lambda _{ijk}^{},\lambda _{ijk}^{\prime \prime }`$ and $`\mu _i`$ all vanish, one recovers the expression for the R-parity preserving case, with $`\widehat{L}_0`$ identified as $`\widehat{H}_d`$. Without R-parity imposed, the latter is not a priori distinguishable from the $`\widehat{L}_i`$’s. Note that $`\lambda `$ is antisymmetric in the first two indices, as required by the $`SU(2)`$ product rules, as shown explicitly here with $`\epsilon _{12}=\epsilon _{21}=1`$. Similarly, $`\lambda ^{\prime \prime }`$ is antisymmetric in the last two indices, from $`SU(3)_C`$.

R-parity is exactly an ad hoc symmetry put in to make $`\widehat{L}_0`$, stand out from the other $`\widehat{L}_i`$’s as the candidate for $`\widehat{H}_d`$. It is defined in terms of baryon number, lepton number, and spin as, explicitly, $`=(1)^{3B+L+2S}`$. The consequence is that the accidental symmetries of baryon number and lepton number in the SM are preserved, at the expense of making particles and superparticles having a categorically different quantum number, R-parity. As mentioned above, R-parity hence kills the dangerous proton decay but also forbides neutrino masses within the model.

There are certainly no lack of studies on various “R-parity violating models” in the literature. However, such models typically involve strong assumptions on the form of R-parity violation. In most cases, no clear statement on what motivates the assumptions taken is explicitly given. In fact, there are quite some confusing, or even plainly wrong, statements on the issues concerned. It is important to distinguish among the different RPV “theories”, and, especially, between such a theory and the unique generic supersymmetric SM. The latter is the complete theory of SUSY without R-parity, one which admits all the RPV terms without a priori bias.

R-parity violating (RPV) parameters come in various froms. These include the more popular trilinear ($`\lambda _{ijk}`$, $`\lambda _{ijk}^{}`$, and $`\lambda _{ijk}^{\prime \prime }`$) and bilinear ($`\mu _i`$) couplings in the superpotential, as well as soft SUSY breaking parameters of the trilinear, bilinear, and soft mass (mixing) types. From a phenomenological point of view, there is the related notion of (RPV) “sneutrino VEV’s”. In order not to miss any plausible RPV phenomenological features, it is important that all of the RPV parameters be taken into consideration. For example, they all have a role to play in neutrino mass generations. The soft SUSY breaking part of the Lagrangian is more interesting, if only for the fact that many of its interesting details have been overlooked in the literature. However, we will postpone the discussion for the moment, to the latter part of the article.

### 2.1 Supersymmetrizing the Standard Model

Let us review here the supersymmetrization of the SM. In the matter field sector, all fermions and scalars have to be promoted to chiral superfields containing both parts. It is straight forward for the quark doublets and singlets, and also for the leptonic singlet. The leptonic doublets, however, have the same quantum number as the Higgs doublet that couples to the down-sector quarks. Nevertheless, one cannot simply get the Higgs, $`H_d`$, from the scalar partners of the leptonic doublets, $`L`$’s. Holomorphicity of the superpotential requires a separate superfield to contribute the Higgs coupling to the up-sector quarks. This $`\widehat{H}_u`$ superfield then contributes a fermionic doublet, the Higgsino, with non-trivial gauge anomaly. To cancel the latter, an extra fermionic doublet with the quantum number of $`H_d`$ or $`L`$ is needed. So, the result is that we need four superfields with that quantum number. As they are a priori indistinguishable, we label them by $`\widehat{L}_\alpha `$ ($`\alpha =0`$ to $`3`$). With the superfield content and the SM gauge symmetries, we have the superpotential given above.

### 2.2 The Single-VEV Parametrization

After the supersymmetrization, however, some of the superfields lose the exact identities they have in relation to the physical particles. The latter has to be mass eigenstates, which have to be worked out from the Lagrangian of the model. Assuming electroweak symmetry breaking, we have now five (color-singlet) charged fermions, for example. There are also 1+4 VEV’s admitted, together with a SUSY breaking gaugino mass. If one writes down naively the (tree-level) mass matrix, the result is extremely complicated (see  for an explicit illsutration), with all the $`\mu _\alpha `$ and $`\lambda _{\alpha \beta k}`$ couplings involved, from which the only definite experimental data are the three physical lepton masses as the light eigenvalues, and the overall magnitude of the electroweak symmetry breaking VEV’s. The task of analyzing the model seems to be formidable.

Doing phenomenological studies without specifying a choice of flavor bases is, however, ambiguous. It is like doing SM quark physics with 18 complex Yukawa couplings, instead of the 10 real physical parameters. As far as the SM itself is concerned, the extra 26 real parameters are simply redundant, and attempts to relate the full 36 parameters to experimental data will be futile. In the case at hand, the choice of an optimal parametrization mainly concerns the 4 $`\widehat{L}_\alpha `$ flavors. We use here the single-VEV parametrization (SVP), in which flavor bases are chosen such that : 1/ among the $`\widehat{L}_\alpha `$’s, only $`\widehat{L}_0`$, bears a VEV, i.e. $`\widehat{L}_i0`$; 2/ $`h_{jk}^e\left(\lambda _{0jk}\right)=\frac{\sqrt{2}}{v_0}\mathrm{diag}\{m_1,m_2,m_3\}`$; 3/ $`h_{jk}^d(\lambda _{0jk}^{}=\lambda _{j0k})=\frac{\sqrt{2}}{v_0}\mathrm{diag}\{m_d,m_s,m_b\}`$; 4/ $`h_{ik}^u=\frac{\sqrt{2}}{v_u}V_{\text{CKM}}^T\mathrm{diag}\{m_u,m_c,m_t\}`$, where $`v_0\sqrt{2}\widehat{L}_0`$ and $`v_u\sqrt{2}\widehat{H}_u`$. Thus, the parametrization singles out the $`\widehat{L}_0`$ superfield as the one containing the Higgs. As a result, it gives the complete RPV effects on the tree-level mass matrices of all the states (scalars and fermions) the simplest structure. The latter is a strong technical advantage.

## 3 The (Color-singlet) Fermions

The SVP gives quark mass matrices exactly in the SM form. For the masses of the color-singlet fermions, all the RPV effects are paramatrized by the $`\mu _i`$’s only. For example, the five charged fermions (gaugino + higgsino + 3 charged leptons), we have

$$_C=\left(\begin{array}{ccccc}M_2& \frac{g_2v_0}{\sqrt{2}}& 0& 0& 0\\ \frac{g_2v_u}{\sqrt{2}}& \mu _0& \mu _1& \mu _2& \mu _3\\ 0& 0& m_1& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& m_2& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& m_3\end{array}\right).$$
(2)
Moreover each $`\mu _i`$ parameter here characterizes directly the RPV effect on the corresponding charged lepton ($`\mathrm{}_i=e`$, $`\mu `$, and $`\tau `$) . Hence, in the limit of small $`\mu _i`$’s (relative to $`M_2`$ and $`\mu _0`$), the superfields $`\widehat{L}_i`$’s and $`\widehat{E}_k^C`$’s have small deviations from the $`\mathrm{}_i`$ superfields, with $`m_i`$’s being roughly the physical masses. In general, for any set of other parameter inputs, the $`m_i`$’s can still be determined, through a numerical procedure, to guarantee that the correct mass eigenvalues of $`m_e`$, $`m_\mu `$, and $`m_\tau `$ are obtained — an issue first addressed and solved in Ref..

Under the SVP, neutral fermion (neutralino-neutrino) mass matrix has also RPV contributions from the three $`\mu _i`$’s only. The mass matrix can be written in the $`3+4`$ block form

$$_𝒩=\left(\begin{array}{cc}& \xi ^T\\ \xi & m_\nu ^0\end{array}\right),$$
(3)
where, at the tree-level,

$``$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cccc}M_1& 0& \frac{g_1v_u}{2}& \frac{g_1v_d}{2}\\ 0& M_2& \frac{g_2v_u}{2}& \frac{g_2v_d}{2}\\ \frac{g_1v_u}{2}& \frac{g_2v_u}{2}& 0& \mu _0\\ \frac{g_1v_d}{2}& \frac{g_2v_d}{2}& \mu _0& 0\end{array}\right),`$ (8)
$`\xi `$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 0& \mu _1& 0\\ 0& 0& \mu _2& 0\\ 0& 0& \mu _3& 0\end{array}\right),`$ (12)
$`m_\nu ^0`$ $`=`$ $`0_{3\times 3}.`$ (13)
For small $`\mu _i`$’s, it has a “seesaw” type structure, with the effective neutrino mass matrix given by

$$m_\nu =\xi ^1\xi ^T.$$
(14)
with one non-zero mass eigenvalue given as

$$\frac{1}{2}\frac{v^2\mathrm{cos}^2\beta \left(g_2^2M_1+g_1^2M_2\right)\mu _5^2}{\mu _0\left[2M_1M_2\mu _0\left(g_2^2M_1+g_1^2M_2\right)v^2\mathrm{sin}\beta \mathrm{cos}\beta \right]};$$

where $`\mu _5^2=\mu _1^2+\mu _2^2+\mu _3^2`$ and the corresponding eigenstate is an admixture of the three basis neutrino states of $`m_\nu `$ here exactly in proportion $`\frac{\mu _i}{\mu _5}`$. Note that at the limit of small $`\mu _i`$’s, the three neutrino states correspond to $`\nu _e`$, $`\nu _\mu `$, and $`\nu _\tau `$.

## 4 Some Phenomenlogical Implications

Taking the fermion mass matrices above and analyzing the resulted $`Z^0`$\- and $`W^\pm `$\- couplings of the physical states, an interesting list of tree-level RPV phenomenology from the gauge interactions can be exploited to get some constraints on the $`\mu _i`$ parameters. The topic is studied in detail in Ref., which we summarized here in Table 1.

As for neutrino masses, apart from the tree-level contribution given above, there are the well-studied 1-loop contributions from the $`\lambda ^{}`$\- or $`\lambda `$\- couplings, with interesting implications on the flavor structure of the classes of parameters. There are also contributions involving a bilinear together with a trilinear parameter, as first pointed out in the study of a SUSY version of the Zee model. Such kind of contributions are closely related to RPV contributions to scalar mixings. The topic is much overlooked till our recent analysis.

The most interesting RPV contributions to scalar masses involve both the bilinear and trilinear parameters, coming into the $`LR`$-mixings part of the mass matrices. It is then very easy to see that they give rise to RPV contributions to electric dipole moments (EDM’s), as well the important flavor changing processes such as $`bs\gamma `$ and $`\mu e\gamma `$. In the discussion below, we will illustrate some of these interesting recent results.

## 5 SOFT TERMS AND SQUARKS

### 5.1 The Soft SUSY Breaking Terms

The soft SUSY breaking part of the Lagrangian can be written as

$`V_{\mathrm{soft}}=\stackrel{~}{Q}^{}\stackrel{~}{m}_Q^2\stackrel{~}{Q}+\stackrel{~}{U}^{}\stackrel{~}{m}_U^2\stackrel{~}{U}+\stackrel{~}{D}^{}\stackrel{~}{m}_D^2\stackrel{~}{D}+\stackrel{~}{L}^{}\stackrel{~}{m}_L^2\stackrel{~}{L}`$ (15)
$`+`$ $`\stackrel{~}{E}^{}\stackrel{~}{m}_E^2\stackrel{~}{E}+\stackrel{~}{m}_{H_u}^2|H_u|^2+[{\displaystyle \frac{M_1}{2}}\stackrel{~}{B}\stackrel{~}{B}+{\displaystyle \frac{M_2}{2}}\stackrel{~}{W}\stackrel{~}{W}`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{M_3}{2}}\stackrel{~}{g}\stackrel{~}{g}+ϵ_{ab}(B_\alpha H_u^a\stackrel{~}{L}_\alpha ^b+A_{ij}^U\stackrel{~}{Q}_i^aH_u^b\stackrel{~}{U}_j^C`$
$`+`$ $`A_{ij}^DH_d^a\stackrel{~}{Q}_i^b\stackrel{~}{D}_j^C+A_{ij}^EH_d^a\stackrel{~}{L}_i^b\stackrel{~}{E}_j^C+A_{ijk}^\lambda ^{}\stackrel{~}{L}_i^a\stackrel{~}{Q}_j^b\stackrel{~}{D}_k^C`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}A_{ijk}^\lambda \stackrel{~}{L}_i^a\stackrel{~}{L}_j^b\stackrel{~}{E}_k^C)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}A_{ijk}^{\lambda ^{\prime \prime }}\stackrel{~}{U}_i^C\stackrel{~}{D}_j^C\stackrel{~}{D}_k^C+\text{h.c.}]`$
where we have separated the R-parity conserving $`A`$-terms from the RPV ones (recall $`\widehat{H}_d\widehat{L}_0`$). Note that $`\stackrel{~}{L}^{}\stackrel{~}{m}_{\stackrel{~}{L}}^2\stackrel{~}{L}`$, unlike the other soft mass terms, is given by a $`4\times 4`$ matrix. Explicitly, $`\stackrel{~}{m}_{L_{00}}^2`$ corresponds to $`\stackrel{~}{m}_{H_d}^2`$ of the MSSM case while $`\stackrel{~}{m}_{L_{0k}}^2`$’s give RPV mass mixings. Going from here, it is straight forward to obtain the squark and slepton masses.

### 5.2 Down Squark Mixings

The SVP also simplifies much the otherwise extremely complicated expressions for the mass-squared matrices of the scalar sectors. Firstly, we will look at the squarks sectors. The masses of up-squarks obviously have no RPV contribution. The down-squark sector, however, has interesting result. We have the mass-squared matrix as follows :

$$_D^2=\left(\begin{array}{cc}_{LL}^2& _{RL}^2\\ _{RL}^2& _{RR}^2\end{array}\right),$$
(16)
where

$`_{LL}^2`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{m}_Q^2+m_D^{}m_D+M_Z^2\mathrm{cos}2\beta \left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W\right],`$
$`_{RR}^2`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{m}_D^2+m_Dm_D^{}+M_Z^2\mathrm{cos}2\beta \left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W\right],`$
and

$`\left(_{RL}^2\right)^T`$ $`=`$ $`A^D{\displaystyle \frac{v_0}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(\mu _\alpha ^{}\lambda _{\alpha jk}^{}\right){\displaystyle \frac{v_u}{\sqrt{2}}}`$ (18)
$`=`$ $`\left[A_d\mu _0^{}\mathrm{tan}\beta \right]m_D+{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}M_W\mathrm{cos}\beta }{g_2}}\delta A^D`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}M_W\mathrm{sin}\beta }{g_2}}\left(\mu _i^{}\lambda _{ijk}^{}\right).`$
Here, $`m_D`$ is the down-quark mass matrix, which is diagonal under the parametrization adopted; $`A_d`$ is a constant (mass) parameter representing the “proportional” part of the $`A`$-term and the matrix $`\delta A^D`$ is the “proportionality” violating part; $`(\mu _i^{}\lambda _{ijk}^{})`$, and similarly $`(\mu _\alpha ^{}\lambda _{\alpha jk}^{})`$, denotes the $`3\times 3`$ matrix $`()_{jk}`$ with elements listed. The $`(\mu _\alpha ^{}\lambda _{\alpha jk}^{})`$ term is the full $`F`$-term contribution, while the $`(\mu _i^{}\lambda _{ijk}^{})`$ part separated out in the last expression gives the RPV contributions. It is important to note that the term contains flavor-changing ($`jk`$) parts which, unlike the $`A`$-terms ones, cannot be suppressed through a flavor-blind SUSY breaking spectrum; even for the diagonal part, the phase cannot be suppressed as that of the $`A`$-terms from gauge mediation. The novel issue here is that the RPV contributions come from supersymmetric, rather than SUSY breaking parameters.

## 6 CONTRIBUTIONS TO NEUTRON EDM

### 6.1 The Illustrative Gaugino Loop <br>Contributions

It is familiar in SUSY phenomenology that diagonal $`LR`$-scalar mixings giving rise to EDM’s. For the $`d`$ quark EDM, we have then a direct contribution coming from a gaugino loop. The diagram looks the same as the MSSM gluino and neutralino diagram with two gauge coupling vertices. The new RPV contributions here is a simple result of the RPV $`LR`$ squark mixings \[cf. Eq.(18)\]. In Ref., we focused on the illustrative gluino loop contribution; while the complete SUSY loop contributions to neutron EDM are analyzed in detail in Ref., with a comprehensive exact numerical study. Notice that though both the $`u`$ and $`d`$ quarks get EDM from gaugino loops in MSSM, only the $`d`$ quark has the RPV contribution. The $`u`$-squark sector simply has no RPV $`LR`$ mixings.

Neglecting inter-family mixings among the squarks, we have the gluino diagram contribution in the often quoted expression

$$\left(\frac{d_d}{e}\right)_{\stackrel{~}{g}}=\frac{2\alpha _s}{3\pi }\frac{M_{\stackrel{~}{g}}}{M_{\stackrel{~}{d}}^2}𝒬_{\stackrel{~}{d}}\text{Im}(\delta _{11}^D)F\left(\frac{M_{\stackrel{~}{g}}^2}{M_{\stackrel{~}{d}}^2}\right),$$
(19)
where $`\delta _{11}^D`$ is $`_{RL}^2/M_{\stackrel{~}{d}}^2`$ (with $`_{RL}^2`$ restricted to the $`\stackrel{~}{d}`$ family) and

$$F(x)=\frac{1}{(1x)^3}\left[\frac{1+5x}{2}+\frac{(2+x)x\mathrm{ln}x}{(1x)}\right].$$
(20)
The expression above is, in fact, the same as that of the MSSM case, except that $`\delta _{11}^D`$, or equivalently $`_{RL}^2`$, has now an extra RPV part. From the general result given in Eq.(18), we have for the $`\stackrel{~}{d}`$ squark,

$`\delta _{11}^DM_{\stackrel{~}{d}}^2`$ $`=`$ $`\left[A_d\mu _0^{}\mathrm{tan}\beta \right]m_d+{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}M_W\mathrm{cos}\beta }{g_2}}\delta A_{11}^D`$ (21)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}M_W\mathrm{sin}\beta }{g_2}}\left(\mu _i^{}\lambda _{i11}^{}\right).`$
Note that the $`\mu _i^{}\lambda _{i11}^{}`$ term does contain nontrivial CP violating phases and gives RPV contribution to $`d`$ quark EDM. Including inter-family mixings would complicate the mass eigenstate analysis but not modify the EDM result in any substantial way. We want to point out, without going into the details, that the analog of the type contribution to electron EDM, through a neutral (color-singlet) gaugino with a $`\mu _i^{}\lambda _{i11}`$ slepton mixing, is obvious.

If one naively imposes the constraint for this RPV contribution itself not to exceed the experimental bound on neutron EDM, one gets roughly $`\text{Im}(\mu _i^{}\lambda _{i11}^{})<10^6\text{GeV}`$, a constraint that is interesting even in comparison to the bounds on the corresponding parameters obtainable from asking no neutrino masses to exceed the super-Kamiokande (super-K) atmospheric oscillation scale. In fact, the most stringently interpreted bounds on the individual parameters involved are given by

$$\lambda _{311}^{}<\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0.05}0.1$$

and

$$\mu _i\mathrm{cos}\beta <10^4\text{GeV},$$

while the $`\mu _i`$ bounds admitting a heavier neutrinos are much weaker, as shown in Table 1.

### 6.2 Fermion Mixings and EDM

Once we see the above discussed EDM contribution through $`LR`$-scalar mixing, it is quite natural to expect the same kind of RPV parameter combinations could contribute in other diagrams. In fact, there are other 1-loop contributions. In the case of MSSM, the chargino contribution is known to be competitive or even dominates over the gluino one in some regions of the parameter space. The major part of the chargino contribution comes from a diagram with a gauge and a Yukawa coupling for the loop vertices, with pure $`L`$-squark running in the loop. Here we give the corresponding formula generalized to the case of SUSY without R-parity. This is given by

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{d_f}{e}}\right)_{\chi ^{\text{ -}}}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _{\text{em}}}{4\pi \mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W}}{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{~}{f}^{}}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{5}{}}}\text{Im}\left(𝒞_{fn}\right){\displaystyle \frac{M_{\chi _n^\text{-}}}{M_{\stackrel{~}{f}^{}}^2}}`$
$`\left[𝒬_{\stackrel{~}{f}^{}}B\left({\displaystyle \frac{M_{\chi _n^\text{-}}^2}{M_{\stackrel{~}{f}^{}}^2}}\right)+\left(𝒬_f𝒬_{\stackrel{~}{f}^{}}\right)A\left({\displaystyle \frac{M_{\chi _n^\text{-}}^2}{M_{\stackrel{~}{f}^{}}^2}}\right)\right],`$
for $`f`$ being $`u`$ ($`d`$) quark and $`f^{}`$ being $`d`$ ($`u`$), where

$`𝒞_{un}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{y_u}{g_2}}𝑽_{2n}^{}𝒟_{d1}(𝑼_{1n}𝒟_{d1}^{}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{y_d}{g_2}}𝑼_{2n}𝒟_{d2}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _{i11}^{}}{g_2}}𝑼_{(i+2)n}𝒟_{d2}^{}),`$
$`𝒞_{dn}`$ $`=`$ $`({\displaystyle \frac{y_d}{g_2}}𝑼_{2n}+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _{i11}^{}}{g_2}}𝑼_{(i+2)n})𝒟_{u1}`$
$`\left(𝑽_{1n}^{}𝒟_{u1}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{y_u}{g_2}}𝑽_{2n}^{}𝒟_{u2}^{}\right),`$
(only repeated index $`i`$ is to be summed)
and the loop integral function $`B(x)`$ and $`A(x)`$ given by

$`B(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2(x1)^2}}\left[1+x+{\displaystyle \frac{2x\mathrm{ln}x}{(1x)}}\right],`$
$`A(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2(1x)^2}}\left(3x+{\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{ln}x}{1x}}\right).`$ (24)
The fermion diagonalization matrices are defined as $`𝑽^{}_C𝑼=\text{diag}\{M_{\chi _n^\text{-}}\}`$; and $`𝒟_f`$ diagonalizes the $`f`$-squark.

The terms in $`𝒞_{dn}`$ with only one factor of $`\frac{1}{g_2}`$ and a $`\lambda _{i11}^{}`$ gives the RPV analog of the dominating MSSM chargino contribution. The term is described by a diagram, which at first order requires a $`l_{L_i}^{\text{ -}}`$$`\stackrel{~}{W}^+`$ mass mixing. The latter vanishes, as shown in Eq.(2). From the full formula above, it is easy to see that the exact mass eigenstate result would deviate from zero only to the extent that the mass dependence of the $`B`$ and $`A`$ functions spoils the GIM-like cancellation in the sum. The resultant contribution, however, is shown by our exact numerical calculation to be substantial. What is most interesting here is that an analysis through perturbational approximations illustrates that the contribution is proportional to, basically, the same combination of RPV parameters, i.e. $`\mu _i^{}\lambda _{i11}^{}`$. Readers are referred to Refs. for details. Again, we want to point out that the analog of the type of chargino-like loop contribution to electron EDM, through $`\mu _i^{}\lambda _{i11}`$ is obvious.

## 7 SLEPTON MASSES <br>AND PHENOMENOLOGY

### 7.1 The Charged Scalars

Things in the slepton sector are more complicated. We have eight charged scalar states, including an unphysical Goldstone mode, The $`8\times 8`$ mass-squared matrix of the following $`1+4+3`$ form :

$$_E^2=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\stackrel{~}{}_{Hu}^2& \stackrel{~}{}_{LH}^2& \stackrel{~}{}_{RH}^2\\ \stackrel{~}{}_{LH}^2& \stackrel{~}{}_{LL}^2& \stackrel{~}{}_{RL}^2\\ \stackrel{~}{}_{RH}^2& \stackrel{~}{}_{RL}^2& \stackrel{~}{}_{RR}^2\end{array}\right);$$
(25)
where

$`\stackrel{~}{}_{Hu}^2`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{m}_{H_u}^2+\mu _\alpha ^{}\mu _\alpha +M_Z^2\mathrm{cos}2\beta \left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W\right]`$
$`+M_Z^2\mathrm{sin}^2\beta \left[1\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W\right],`$
$`\stackrel{~}{}_{LL}^2`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{m}_L^2+m_L^{}m_L+\left(\mu _\alpha ^{}\mu _\beta \right)`$ (28)
$`+M_Z^2\mathrm{cos}2\beta \left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W\right]`$
$`+(\begin{array}{cc}M_Z^2\mathrm{cos}^2\beta \left[1\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W\right]& 0_{1\times 3}\\ 0_{3\times 1}& 0_{3\times 3}\end{array}),`$
$`\stackrel{~}{}_{RR}^2`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{m}_E^2+m_Em_E^{}+M_Z^2\mathrm{cos}2\beta \left[\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W\right],`$
$`\stackrel{~}{}_{LH}^2`$ $`=`$ $`\left(B_\alpha ^{}\right)+\left(\begin{array}{c}\frac{1}{2}M_Z^2\mathrm{sin}2\beta \left[1\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W\right]\\ 0_{3\times 1}\end{array}\right),`$ (31)
$`\stackrel{~}{}_{RH}^2`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\mu _i^{}\lambda _{i0k}\right){\displaystyle \frac{v_0}{\sqrt{2}}}`$
$`=`$ $`\left(\mu _k^{}m_k\right)\text{(no sum over }k\text{)},`$
$`\left(\stackrel{~}{}_{RL}^2\right)^T`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ A^E\end{array}\right){\displaystyle \frac{v_0}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(\mu _\alpha ^{}\lambda _{\alpha \beta k}\right){\displaystyle \frac{v_u}{\sqrt{2}}},`$ (34)
$`=`$ $`\left[A_e\mu _0^{}\mathrm{tan}\beta \right]\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ m_E\end{array}\right)`$ (43)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}M_W\mathrm{cos}\beta }{g_2}}\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ \delta A^E\end{array}\right)`$
$`\left(\begin{array}{c}\mu _k^{}m_k\mathrm{tan}\beta \\ \frac{\sqrt{2}M_W\mathrm{sin}\beta }{g_2}\left(\mu _i^{}\lambda _{ijk}\right)\end{array}\right).`$
Notations and results here are similar to the squark case above, with some difference. We have $`A_e`$ and $`\delta A^E`$, or the extended matrices $`\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ \end{array}\right)`$ incorporating them, denote the splitting of the $`A`$-term, with proportionality defined with respect to $`m_E`$; $`m_L=\text{diag}\{0,m_E\}=\text{diag}\{0,m_1,m_2,m_3\}`$. Recall that the $`m_i`$’s are approximately the charged lepton masses.

A $`4\times 3`$ matrix $`(\mu _i^{}\lambda _{i\beta k})`$ gives the RPV contributions to $`(\stackrel{~}{}_{RL}^2)^T`$ which is the $`LR`$-mixing part. In the above expression, we separate explicitly the first row of the former, which corresponds to mass-squared terms of the type $`\stackrel{~}{l}^+h_d^{\text{ -}}`$ type ($`h_d^{\text{ -}}\stackrel{~}{l}_0^{\text{ -}}`$). This is the piece that gives rise to the Zee neutrino mass diagram within the present SUSY framework, in which the $`R`$-handed sleptons play the role of the Zee scalar. The remaining $`3\times 3`$ part given by $`(\mu _i^{}\lambda _{ijk})`$ is the exact analog of the squark mixings discussed above. We have already pointed out the contributions to electron EDM from the RPV parameter combination $`\mu _i^{}\lambda _{i11}`$ in analog to that of the $`d`$ quark. Between the talk and the preparation of this proceedings submission, we have also published a comprehensive study of the $`\mu e\gamma `$ process, in which the $`\mu _i^{}\lambda _{i21}`$ and $`\mu _i^{}\lambda _{i12}`$ combinations play an important role.

Unlike the squarks,, however, we have also the $`\mu _i^{}\mu _j`$ flavor changing $`LL`$-mixing in $`\stackrel{~}{}_{LL}^2`$. Among other things, this also contributes to $`\mu e\gamma `$. The nonzero $`\stackrel{~}{}_{RH}^2`$ and the $`B_i^{}`$’s in $`\stackrel{~}{}_{LH}^2`$ are also RPV contributions. The former is a $`\stackrel{~}{l}^+(h_u^+)^{}`$ type, while the latter a $`\stackrel{~}{l}^{\text{ -}}h_u^+`$ term. Note that the parts with the $`[1\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W]`$ factor are singled out as they are extra contributions to the masses of the charged-Higgses (i.e. $`l_0^{\text{ -}}h_d^{\text{ -}}`$ and $`h_u^+`$).

The latter is the result of the quartic terms in the scalar potential and the fact that the Higgs doublets bear VEV’s. Such scalar mixings also play a role in contributing to EDM’s. For example, that is a top loop contribution to $`d`$ quark EDM of the form depicted in Fig. 1.

### 7.2 The Neutral Scalars

The neutral scalar mass terms, in terms of the $`(1+4)`$ complex scalar fields, $`\varphi _n`$’s, can be written in two parts — a simple $`(_{\varphi \varphi }^2)_{mn}\varphi _m^{}\varphi _n`$ part, and a Majorana-like part in the form $`\frac{1}{2}(_{\varphi \varphi }^2)_{mn}\varphi _m\varphi _n+\text{h.c.}`$. As the neutral scalars are originated from chiral doublet superfields, the existence of the Majorana-like part is a direct consequence of the electroweak symmetry breaking VEV’s, hence restricted to the scalars playing the Higgs role only. They come from the quartic terms of the Higgs fields in the scalar potential. We have explicitly

$`_{\varphi \varphi }^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}M_Z^2\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{sin}^2\beta & \mathrm{cos}\beta \mathrm{sin}\beta & 0_{1\times 3}\\ \mathrm{cos}\beta \mathrm{sin}\beta & \mathrm{cos}^2\beta & 0_{1\times 3}\\ 0_{3\times 1}& 0_{3\times 1}& 0_{3\times 3}\end{array}\right);`$ (47)
and

$`_{\varphi \varphi }^2`$ $`=`$ $`(\begin{array}{cc}\stackrel{~}{m}_{H_u}^2+\mu _\alpha ^{}\mu _\alpha \frac{1}{2}z& \left(B_\alpha \right)\\ \left(B_\alpha ^{}\right)& \stackrel{~}{m}_L^2+\left(\mu _\alpha ^{}\mu _\beta \right)+\frac{1}{2}z\end{array})`$ (52)
$`+_{\varphi \varphi }^2,`$
with

$$z=M_Z^2\mathrm{cos}2\beta .$$

Note that $`_{\varphi \varphi }^2`$ here is real (see the appendix), while $`_{\varphi \varphi }^2`$ does have complex entries. The full $`10\times 10`$ (real and symmetric) mass-squared matrix for the real scalars is then given by

$$_S^2=\left(\begin{array}{cc}_{SS}^2& _{SP}^2\\ (_{SP}^2)^T& _{PP}^2\end{array}\right),$$
(53)
where the scalar, pseudo-scalar, and mixing parts are

$`_{SS}^2`$ $`=`$ $`\text{Re}(_{\varphi \varphi }^2)+_{\varphi \varphi }^2,`$
$`_{PP}^2`$ $`=`$ $`\text{Re}(_{\varphi \varphi }^2)_{\varphi \varphi }^2,`$
$`_{SP}^2`$ $`=`$ $`\text{Im}(_{\varphi \varphi }^2),`$ (54)
respectively. If $`\text{Im}(_{\varphi \varphi }^2)`$ vanishes, the scalars and pseudo-scalars decouple from one another and the unphysical Goldstone mode would be found among the latter.

The most interesting part of the neutral scalar masses involves the RPV parameters $`B_i`$’s and the corresponding mixing part in $`\stackrel{~}{m}_L^2`$. These parameters are not all independent, as discussed below in the next subsection. The $`B_i`$’s, for example, lead to seesaw type Majorana-like mass terms for the “sneutrinos”, as depicted in Fig. 2.

One of the interesting consequence here is a gauge loop contribution to neutrino masses, depicted in Fig. 3.

### 7.3 A Look at the Scalar Potential

We would like to emphasize that the above scalar mass results are complete — all RPV contributions, SUSY breaking or otherwise, are included. The simplicity of the result is a consequence of the SVP. Explicitly, there are no RPV $`A`$-term contributions due to the vanishing of VEV’s $`v_i\sqrt{2}\widehat{L}_i`$. The Higgs-slepton results given as in Eqs.(25) and (53) contain redundancy of parameters and hide the unphysical Goldstone states. The latter can be easily identified, after implementation of the tadpole equations. The equations also identify important relations among dependent parameters.

In terms of the five, plausibly electroweak symmetry breaking, neutral scalars fields $`\varphi _n`$, the generic (tree-level) scalar potential, as constrained by SUSY, can be written as :

$`V_s`$ $`=`$ $`Y_n\left|\varphi _n\right|^4+X_{mn}\left|\varphi _m\right|^2\left|\varphi _n\right|^2+\widehat{m}_n^2\left|\varphi _n\right|^2`$
$`(\widehat{m}_{mn}^2e^{i\theta _{mn}}\varphi _m^{}\varphi _n+\text{h.c.})(m<n).`$
Here, we count the $`\varphi _n`$’s from $`1`$ to $`3`$ and identify a $`\varphi _\alpha `$ (recall $`\alpha =0`$ to $`3`$) as $`\stackrel{~}{l}_\alpha ^0`$ and $`\varphi _{\text{-}1}`$ as $`h_u^0`$. Parameters in the above expression for $`V_s`$ (all real) are then given by

$`\widehat{m}_\alpha ^2`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{m}_{L_{\alpha \alpha }}^2+\left|\mu _\alpha \right|^2,`$
$`\widehat{m}_{\text{-}1}^2`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{m}_{H_u}^2+\mu _\alpha ^{}\mu _\alpha ,`$
$`\widehat{m}_{\alpha \beta }^2e^{i\theta _{\alpha \beta }}`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{m}_{L_{\alpha \beta }}^2\mu _\alpha ^{}\mu _\beta \text{(no sum)},`$
$`\widehat{m}_{\text{-}1\alpha }^2e^{i\theta _{\text{-}1\alpha }}`$ $`=`$ $`B_\alpha \text{(no sum)},`$
$`Y_n`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}(g_1^2+g_2^2),`$
$`X_{\text{-}1\alpha }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(g_1^2+g_2^2)=X_{\alpha \beta }.`$ (56)
Under the SVP, we write the VEV’s as follows :

$`v_{\text{-}1}(\sqrt{2}\varphi _{\text{-}1})`$ $`=`$ $`v_u,`$
$`v_0(\sqrt{2}\varphi _0)`$ $`=`$ $`v_de^{i\theta _v},`$
$`v_i(\sqrt{2}\varphi _i)`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (57)
where we have put in a complex phase in the VEV $`v_0`$, for generality.

The equations from the vanishing derivatives of $`V_s`$ along $`\varphi _{\text{-}1}`$ and $`\varphi _0`$ give

$`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}(g_1^2+g_2^2)(v_u^2v_d^2)+\widehat{m}_{\text{-}1}^2\right]v_u`$ $`=`$ $`B_0v_de^{i\theta _v},`$
$`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}(g_1^2+g_2^2)(v_d^2v_u^2)+\widehat{m}_0^2\right]v_d`$ $`=`$ $`B_0v_ue^{i\theta _v}.`$ (58)
Hence, $`B_0e^{i\theta _v}`$ is real. In fact, the part of $`V_s`$ that is relevant to obtaining the tadpole equations is no different from that of MSSM apart from the fact that $`\stackrel{~}{m}_{H_u}^2`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{m}_{H_d}^2`$ of the latter are replaced by $`\widehat{m}_{\text{-}1}^2`$ and $`\widehat{m}_0^2`$ respectively. As in MSSM, the $`B_0`$ parameter can be taken as real. The conclusion here is therefore that $`\theta _v`$ vanishes, or all VEV’s are real, despite the existence of complex parameters in the scalar potential. Results from the other tadpole equations, in a $`\varphi _i`$ direction, are quite simple. They can be written as complex equations of the form

$$\widehat{m}_{\text{-}1i}^2e^{i\theta _{\text{-}1i}}\mathrm{tan}\beta =e^{i\theta _v}\widehat{m}_{0i}^2e^{i\theta _{0i}},$$
(59)
which is equivalent to

$$B_i\mathrm{tan}\beta =\stackrel{~}{m}_{L_{0i}}^2+\mu _0^{}\mu _i,$$
(60)
where we have used $`v_u=v\mathrm{sin}\beta `$ and $`v_d=v\mathrm{cos}\beta `$. Note that our $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ has the same physical meaning as that in the R-parity conserving case. For instance, $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, together with the corresponding Yukawa coupling ratio, gives the mass ratio between the top and the bottom quark.

The three complex equations for the $`B_i`$’s reflect the redundance of parameters in a generic $`\widehat{L}_\alpha `$ flavor basis. The equations also suggest that the $`B_i`$’s are expected to be suppressed, with respect to the R-parity conserving $`B_0`$, as the $`\mu _i`$’s are, with respect to $`\mu _0`$. They give consistence relationships among the involved RPV parameters (under the SVP) that should not be overlooked.

## 8 CONCLUDING REMARKS

The complete theory of SUSY without R-parity is just the generic supersymmetric SM. Giving up R-parity is particularly well-motivated by the expectation of Majorana neutrino masses. The model gives many interesting results, that would otherwise be missed in limited version of RPV models. It is important to have a consistent and efficient framework to deal with the various kinds of RPV parameters; a specific and optimal parametrization of the model is needed to match parameters unambiguously with experiemental data. Our formulation (SVP) reviewed here provides such a parametrization. It simplifies all (tree-level) mass matrices very substantially, hence giving a strong technical advantage to phenomenological studies of the model. We have summarized some of our interesting new result here. Many other features of the model awaits careful analysis.