format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

While lepton-flavor violating processes are suppressed due to the small neutrino masses if only right-handed neutrinos are added to the Standard Model , in supersymmetric models new sources of lepton-flavor violation (LFV) exist . In this report, the focus is on virtual effects of the massive neutrinos in the renormalization group running of the slepton mass and trilinear coupling matrices that give rise to LFV. Adopting the SUSY see-saw model we investigate ways to probe and extract the Majorana mass scale $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{M}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{R}$}`$ from measurements of the branching ratios $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{B}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{r}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{(}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{l}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{i}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{l}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{j}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\gamma }$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{)}$}`$, $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{l}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{i}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{=}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{e}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{,}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mu }$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{,}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\tau }$}`$ in low-energy experiments. This is compared to the sensitivity of the high-energy processes $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{e}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{+}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{e}$}^{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{l}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{i}$}^{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{l}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{j}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{+}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{+}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{/}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{E}$}`$ at an electron-positron linear collider.

## 2 Induced LFV in the SUSY see-saw framework

The supersymmetric see-saw mechanism with three right-handed neutrino singlet fields leads to the following mass matrix for the light neutrinos :

$$\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{M}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\nu }$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{=}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{m}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{D}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{T}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{M}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{1}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{m}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{D}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{=}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{Y}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\nu }$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{T}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{M}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{1}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{Y}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\nu }$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{(}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{v}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{sin}}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\beta }$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{)}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{.}$}$$
(1)
Here $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{Y}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\nu }$}`$ denotes the matrix of neutrino Yukawa couplings and $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{m}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{D}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{=}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{Y}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\nu }$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{H}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}`$ the corresponding Dirac mass matrix with $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{H}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{=}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{v}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{sin}}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\beta }$}`$ being the appropriate Higgs v.e.v., $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{v}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{=}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{174}$}`$ GeV and $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{tan}}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\beta }$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{=}$}\frac{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{H}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}}{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{H}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{1}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}}`$. Light neutrino masses are naturally obtained if the mass scale $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{M}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{R}$}`$ of the Majorana matrix $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{M}$}`$ of right-handed neutrinos is much larger than the electroweak scale of the Dirac mass matrix $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{m}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{D}$}`$. The matrix $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{M}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\nu }$}`$ is diagonalized by the unitary MNS matrix $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{U}$}`$,

$$\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{U}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{T}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{M}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\nu }$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{U}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{=}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\text{diag}}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{(}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{m}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{1}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{,}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{m}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{,}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{m}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{3}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{)}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{,}$}$$
(2)
in order to obtain the mass eigenvalues $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{m}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{i}$}`$ of the light neutrinos. The matrix $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{U}$}`$ and the masses $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{m}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{i}$}`$ are constrained by neutrino experiments .

On the other hand, the massive neutrinos give rise to virtual corrections to the slepton mass matrices that are responsible for lepton-flavor violating effects. These corrections depend on the product $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{Y}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\nu }$}^{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{Y}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\nu }$}`$, where

$`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{Y}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\nu }$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{=}$}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{M}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{R}$}}}{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{v}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{sin}}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\beta }$}}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{R}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\text{diag}}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{(}$}\sqrt{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{m}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{1}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{,}$}\sqrt{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{m}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{,}$}\sqrt{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{m}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{3}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{)}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{U}$}^{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{.}$}`$ (3)
Here, we work in the basis where the charged lepton Yukawa couplings are diagonal and assume degenerate right-handed Majorana masses. If the unknown complex orthogonal matrix $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{R}$}`$ is real, a case which is sufficient to make our points, it drops out from the product $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{Y}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\nu }$}^{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{Y}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\nu }$}`$. For hierarchical (a) and degenerate (b) neutrinos one then obtains

$`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\text{(a) }}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\left(}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{Y}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\nu }$}^{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{Y}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\nu }$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\right)}$}_{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{i}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{j}$}}`$ $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{M}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{R}$}}{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{v}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{sin}}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\beta }$}}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\left(}$}\sqrt{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{\Delta }}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{m}$}_{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{12}$}}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{U}$}_{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{i}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{U}$}_{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{j}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}}^{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{+}$}\sqrt{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{\Delta }}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{m}$}_{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{23}$}}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{U}$}_{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{i}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{3}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{U}$}_{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{j}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{3}$}}^{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\right)}$}`$ (4)
$`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\text{(b) }}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\left(}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{Y}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\nu }$}^{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{Y}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\nu }$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\right)}$}_{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{i}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{j}$}}`$ $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{M}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{R}$}}{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{v}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{sin}}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\beta }$}}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\left(}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{m}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{1}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\delta }$}_{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{i}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{j}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{+}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\left(}$}{\displaystyle \frac{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{\Delta }}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{m}$}_{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{12}$}}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}}{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{m}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{1}$}}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{U}$}_{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{i}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{U}$}_{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{j}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}}^{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{+}$}{\displaystyle \frac{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{\Delta }}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{m}$}_{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{23}$}}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}}{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{m}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{1}$}}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{U}$}_{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{i}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{3}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{U}$}_{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{j}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{3}$}}^{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\right)}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\right)}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{,}$}`$ (5)
where $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{\Delta }}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{m}$}_{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{i}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{j}$}}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{=}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{m}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{j}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{m}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{i}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}`$ and, in (b), $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{m}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{1}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{\Delta }}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{m}$}_{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{23}$}}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{\Delta }}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{m}$}_{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{12}$}}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}`$.

Using the results from neutrino experiments as an input at the low scale $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{𝒪}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{(}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{M}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{Z}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{)}$}`$, the neutrino Yukawa couplings are evolved to the unification scale $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{M}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{X}$}`$. Then, the slepton mass matrix is run from $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{M}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{X}$}`$ to the electroweak scale assuming the mSUGRA universality conditions,

$$\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{m}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{L}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{=}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{m}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{𝟏}}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{,}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{m}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{R}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{=}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{m}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{𝟏}}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{,}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{A}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{l}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{=}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{A}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{Y}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{l}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{,}$}$$
(6)
where $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{m}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}$}`$ is the common soft SUSY-breaking scalar mass and $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{A}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}$}`$ the trilinear coupling. This evolution generates off-diagonal terms involving $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{Y}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\nu }$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{(}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{M}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{X}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{)}$}`$ which in leading-log approximation are given by

$`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\delta }$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{m}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{L}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}`$ $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{=}$}`$ $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}{\displaystyle \frac{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{1}$}}{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{8}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pi }$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{(}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{3}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{m}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{+}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{A}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{)}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{(}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{Y}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\nu }$}^{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{Y}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\nu }$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{)}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{ln}}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\left(}$}{\displaystyle \frac{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{M}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{X}$}}{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{M}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{R}$}}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\right)}$}`$ (7)
$`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\delta }$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{m}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{R}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}`$ $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{=}$}`$ $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}$}`$ (8)
$`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\delta }$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{A}$}`$ $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{=}$}`$ $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}{\displaystyle \frac{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{3}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{A}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}$}}{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{16}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pi }$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{(}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{Y}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{l}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{Y}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\nu }$}^{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{Y}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\nu }$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{)}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{ln}}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\left(}$}{\displaystyle \frac{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{M}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{X}$}}{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{M}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{R}$}}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\right)}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{.}$}`$ (9)
## 3 LFV at low energies

At low energies, the flavor off-diagonal terms in the slepton mass matrix induce radiative decays such as $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{l}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{i}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{l}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{j}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\gamma }$}`$. The effective Lagrangian for $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{l}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{i}$}^{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{l}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{j}$}^{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\gamma }$}`$ is given by

$$\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}_{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{e}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{f}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{f}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{=}$}\frac{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{e}$}}{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}}\overline{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{l}$}}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{j}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\sigma }$}_{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\alpha }$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\beta }$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{F}$}^{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\alpha }$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\beta }$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\left(}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{A}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{L}$}^{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{i}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{j}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{P}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{L}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{+}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{A}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{R}$}^{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{i}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{j}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{P}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{R}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\right)}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{l}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{i}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{,}$}$$
(10)
where $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{F}$}^{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\alpha }$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\beta }$}}`$ is the electromagnetic field strength tensor, $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\sigma }$}_{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\alpha }$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\beta }$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{=}$}\frac{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{i}$}}{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{[}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\gamma }$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\alpha }$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{,}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\gamma }$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\beta }$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{]}$}`$, $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{i}$}`$ and $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{j}$}`$ are flavor indices, and $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{P}$}_{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{R}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{,}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{L}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{=}$}\frac{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{1}$}}{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{(}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{1}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pm }$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\gamma }$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{5}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{)}$}`$ are the helicity projection operators. The coefficients $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{A}$}_{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{L}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{,}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{R}$}}^{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{i}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{j}$}}`$ are calculated from the photon penguin diagrams shown in Fig. 1 with charginos/sneutrinos or neutralinos/charged sleptons in the loop.

From (10) one obtains the decay rate

$$\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\left(}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{l}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{i}$}^{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{l}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{j}$}^{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\gamma }$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\right)}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{=}$}\frac{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\alpha }$}}{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{4}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{m}$}_{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{l}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{i}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\left(}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\left|}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{A}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{L}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{c}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{+}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{A}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{L}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{n}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\right|}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{+}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\left|}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{A}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{R}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{c}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{+}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{A}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{R}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{n}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\right|}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\right)}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{,}$}$$
(11)
where the superscript $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{c}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{(}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{n}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{)}$}`$ refers to the chargino (neutralino) diagram of Fig. 1, while flavor indices $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{i}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{,}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{j}$}`$ are omitted. Note that the coefficients $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{A}$}_{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{R}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{,}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{L}$}}^{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{c}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{,}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{n}$}}`$ are roughly proportional to $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{m}$}_{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{l}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{i}$}}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}\frac{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\delta }$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{m}$}_{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{L}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{,}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{R}$}}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}}{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{m}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{S}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{4}$}}`$, where $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{m}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{S}$}`$ denotes the typical mass scale of supersymmetric particles in the loop.

## 4 LFV in high energy processes

A favourable channel at high energies is represented by the process $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{e}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{+}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{e}$}^{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\stackrel{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{~}$}}{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{l}$}}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\alpha }$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{+}$}\stackrel{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{~}$}}{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{l}$}}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\beta }$}^{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{l}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{i}$}^{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{l}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{j}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{+}$}\stackrel{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{~}$}}{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\chi }$}}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{a}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}$}\stackrel{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{~}$}}{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\chi }$}}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{b}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}$}`$. From the Feynman graphs shown in Fig. 2 one can see that lepton-flavor violating couplings appear both in production and decays vertices. The helicity amplitudes $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{M}$}_{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\alpha }$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\beta }$}}`$ for the pair production of $`\stackrel{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{~}$}}{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{l}$}}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\alpha }$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{+}$}`$ and $`\stackrel{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{~}$}}{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{l}$}}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\beta }$}^{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}}`$, as well as the decay amplitudes $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{M}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\alpha }$}`$ and $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{M}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\beta }$}`$ are given explicitly in . The amplitude squared can be written as

$`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{|}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{M}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{|}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}`$ $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{=}$}`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\alpha }$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\beta }$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\gamma }$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\delta }$}}{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{(}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{M}$}_{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\alpha }$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\beta }$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{M}$}_{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\gamma }$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\delta }$}}^{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{)}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{(}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{M}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\alpha }$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{M}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\gamma }$}^{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{)}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{(}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{M}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\beta }$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{M}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\delta }$}^{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{)}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{C}$}_{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\alpha }$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\gamma }$}}{\displaystyle \frac{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pi }$}}{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}\overline{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{m}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}$}}_{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\alpha }$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\gamma }$}}}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{C}$}_{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\beta }$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\delta }$}}{\displaystyle \frac{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pi }$}}{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}\overline{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{m}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}$}}_{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\beta }$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\delta }$}}}}`$ (12)
$`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\times }$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\left(}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\delta }$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{(}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{p}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{3}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{m}$}_{\stackrel{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{~}$}}{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{l}$}}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\alpha }$}}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{)}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{+}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\delta }$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{(}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{p}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{3}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{m}$}_{\stackrel{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{~}$}}{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{l}$}}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\gamma }$}}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{)}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\right)}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\left(}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\delta }$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{(}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{p}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{4}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{m}$}_{\stackrel{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{~}$}}{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{l}$}}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\beta }$}}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{)}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{+}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\delta }$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{(}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{p}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{4}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{m}$}_{\stackrel{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{~}$}}{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{l}$}}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\delta }$}}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{)}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\right)}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{,}$}`$
where the sum runs over all internal sleptons, and

$`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{C}$}_{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\alpha }$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\gamma }$}}`$ $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{=}$}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{1}$}}{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{1}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{+}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{i}$}\frac{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{\Delta }}$}\stackrel{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{~}$}}{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{m}$}}_{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\alpha }$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\gamma }$}}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}}{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}\overline{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{m}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}$}}_{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\alpha }$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\gamma }$}}}}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{,}$}`$
$`\overline{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{m}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}$}}_{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\alpha }$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\gamma }$}}`$ $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{=}$}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{1}$}}{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{(}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{m}$}_{\stackrel{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{~}$}}{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{l}$}}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\alpha }$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}$}_{\stackrel{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{~}$}}{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{l}$}}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\alpha }$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{+}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{m}$}_{\stackrel{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{~}$}}{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{l}$}}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\gamma }$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}$}_{\stackrel{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{~}$}}{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{l}$}}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\gamma }$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{)}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{,}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{\Delta }}$}\stackrel{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{~}$}}{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{m}$}}_{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\alpha }$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\gamma }$}}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{=}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{m}$}_{\stackrel{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{~}$}}{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{l}$}}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\alpha }$}}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{m}$}_{\stackrel{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{~}$}}{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{l}$}}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\gamma }$}}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{.}$}`$ (13)
Obviously, the narrow width approximation has been used here in the slepton propagators.

## 5 Numerical Results

For numerical investigations we consider the mSUGRA benchmark scenarios proposed in  for linear collider studies. Only the benchmark scenarios B, C, G, and I have sleptons light enough to be pair-produced in $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{e}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{+}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{e}$}^{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}}`$ collisions at c.m. energies $`\sqrt{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{s}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{=}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{500}$}`$ GeV and 800 GeV. On the other hand, in the case of radiative lepton decays with SUSY particles in the loop, all thirteen mSUGRA scenarios proposed in  are interesting.

For the neutrino input we take the global three neutrino LMA fit given in  and vary the parameters within the 90% CL intervals. In order to demonstrate possible future improvements, we also show results for the smaller uncertainty intervals expected in future experiments . Finally, the Majorana mass scale $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{M}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{R}$}`$ is treated as a free parameter.

The dependence of the decays $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mu }$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{e}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\gamma }$}`$ and $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\tau }$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mu }$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\gamma }$}`$ on $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{M}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{R}$}`$ is displayed in Figs. 3 and 4 for the mSUGRA scenarios L and H, which lead to the largest and smallest branching ratios, respectively. The present experimental bounds still allow $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{M}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{R}$}`$ to be as large as $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{10}$}^{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{15}$}}`$ GeV, while the sensitivity of the new PSI experiment on $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mu }$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{e}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\gamma }$}`$ will probe $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{M}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{R}$}`$ below $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{5}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{10}$}^{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{14}$}}`$ GeV in all mSUGRA scenarios considered. By comparing Fig. 3 to Fig. 4, one can see that the branching ratio of $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mu }$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{e}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\gamma }$}`$ reflects more strongly the uncertainties in the neutrino parameters than the branching ratios of $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\tau }$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mu }$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\gamma }$}`$. This is because $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{B}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{r}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{(}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mu }$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{e}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\gamma }$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{)}$}`$ also depends on the small mixing angle $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\theta }$}_{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{13}$}}`$ which is badly known, whereas $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{B}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{r}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{(}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\tau }$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mu }$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\gamma }$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{)}$}`$ mainly depends on the large angle $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\theta }$}_{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{23}$}}`$. More quantitatively, while a measurement of $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{B}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{r}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{(}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mu }$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{e}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\gamma }$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{)}$}`$ would only allow to constrain $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{M}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{R}$}`$ within a factor of 10-100, in a given mSUGRA scenario, a measurement $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{B}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{r}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{(}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\tau }$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mu }$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\gamma }$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{)}$}`$ would determine $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{M}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{R}$}`$ within a factor of 2. On the other hand, $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mu }$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{e}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\gamma }$}`$ is sensitive to lower values of $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{M}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{R}$}`$ than $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\tau }$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mu }$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\gamma }$}`$.

Fig. 5 shows the cross-section for $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{e}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{+}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{e}$}^{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{e}$}^{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mu }$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{+}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{+}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}\stackrel{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{~}$}}{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\chi }$}}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{1}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}$}`$ and $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{e}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{+}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{e}$}^{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mu }$}^{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\tau }$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{+}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{+}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}\stackrel{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{~}$}}{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\chi }$}}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{1}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}$}`$ versus $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{M}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{R}$}`$ at the c.m. energy $`\sqrt{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{s}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{=}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{500}$}`$ GeV. Since the channel $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{e}$}^{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\tau }$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{+}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{+}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}\stackrel{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{~}$}}{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\chi }$}}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{1}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}$}`$ is strongly suppressed by the small mixing angle $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\theta }$}_{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{13}$}}`$, it is more difficult to observe and not shown here. An important point is the strong correlation between LFV in the radiative decays and in high-energy slepton pair production. This is illustrated in Fig. 6 for $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{B}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{r}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{(}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mu }$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{e}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\gamma }$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{)}$}`$ and $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{e}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{+}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{e}$}^{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{e}$}^{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mu }$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{+}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{+}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}\stackrel{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{~}$}}{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\chi }$}}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{1}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}$}`$. Because of this correlation the neutrino uncertainties almost drop out in such a comparison, while the dependence on the mSUGRA scenarios remains.

Finally it is interesting to note that in the case of degenerate neutrino masses, the lepton-flavor violating effects from $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{(}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{Y}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\nu }$}^{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{Y}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\nu }$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{)}$}_{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{i}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{j}$}}`$ are suppressed by $`\sqrt{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{\Delta }}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{m}$}_{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{i}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{j}$}}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{/}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{m}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{1}$}`$, relative to the case of hierarchical neutrino masses, as can be seen in (5) and Fig. 4.

## 6 Conclusions

We have systematically studied the sensitivity of $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{B}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{r}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{(}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{l}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{i}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{l}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{j}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\gamma }$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{)}$}`$ and $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\sigma }$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{(}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{e}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{+}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{e}$}^{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\stackrel{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{~}$}}{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{l}$}}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\alpha }$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{+}$}\stackrel{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{~}$}}{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{l}$}}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\beta }$}^{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{l}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{i}$}^{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{l}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{j}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{+}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{+}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{/}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{E}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{)}$}`$ on the Majorana mass scale $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{M}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{R}$}`$ in new post-LEP mSUGRA scenarios. Furthermore, we have investigated the correlation of LFV in these low and high energy processes. In the case of normal neutrino mass hierarchies a measurement of $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{B}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{r}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{(}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mu }$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{e}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\gamma }$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{)}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{10}$}^{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{14}$}}`$ would imply a value of $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{M}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{R}$}`$ between $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{3}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{10}$}^{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{11}$}}`$ GeV and $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{4}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{10}$}^{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{14}$}}`$ GeV, depending on the mSUGRA scenario. On the other hand, a measurement of $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{B}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{r}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{(}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\tau }$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mu }$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\gamma }$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{)}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{10}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{9}$}`$ would actually determine $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{M}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{R}$}`$ with an accuracy of a factor of 2 for a given scenario. Moreover, we find that the present bound on $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{B}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{r}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{(}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mu }$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{e}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\gamma }$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{)}$}`$ still allows for cross-sections $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\sigma }$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{(}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{e}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{+}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{e}$}^{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mu }$}^{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\tau }$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{+}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{+}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}\stackrel{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{~}$}}{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\chi }$}}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{1}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{)}$}`$ and $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\sigma }$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{(}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{e}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{+}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{e}$}^{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{e}$}^{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mu }$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{+}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{+}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}\stackrel{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{~}$}}{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\chi }$}}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{1}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{)}$}`$ of the order of 1 fb at c.m. energies of 500 to 800 GeV.

## Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (BMBF, Bonn, Germany) under the contract number 05HT1WWA2.


text:
# Exploiting quantum parallelism of entanglement for a complete experimental quantum characterization of a single qubit device

Also at \]Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL 60208

## Abstract

We present the first full experimental quantum tomographic characterization of a single-qubit device achieved with a single entangled input state. The entangled input state plays the role of all possible input states in quantum parallel on the tested device. The method can be trivially extended to any $`n`$-qubits device by just replicating the whole experimental setup $`n`$ times.

October 30, 2002The new field of Quantum Informationnielsen\_book  has recently opened the way to realize radically new processing devices, with the possibility of tremendous speedups of complex computational tasks, and of cryptographic communications guaranteed by the laws of physics. Among the many problems posed by the new information technology there is the need of making a complete experimental characterization of the functioning of the new quantum devices. As shown recently in Ref. darianolopresti , quantum mechanics provides us with the perfect tool to achieve the task easily and efficiently: this is the so called quantum entanglement, the basis of the quantum parallelism of future computers. In this letter we present the first full experimental quantum characterization of a single-qubit device, based on this method. Since the method can be easily extended to any $`n`$-qubit device, the present experiment represents a first test of the feasibility and of the experimental limits of the new general tomographic method.

How we characterize the operation of a device? In quantum mechanics the evolution of the state is completely described by the so called quantum operationkraus  of the device, that here we will denote by $`\mathrm{E}`$. More precisely, the output state $`\rho _{out}`$ is given by the quantum operation $`\mathrm{E}`$ applied to the input state $`\rho _{in}`$ as follows

$$\rho _{out}=\frac{\mathrm{E}\left(\rho _{in}\right)}{\text{Tr}\left[\mathrm{E}\left(\rho _{in}\right)\right]}.$$
(1)
The normalization constant $`\text{Tr}\left[\mathrm{E}\left(\rho _{in}\right)\right]`$ in Eq. (1) is also the probability of occurrence of the transformation $`\mathrm{E}`$ (e. g. when there are other possible alternatives, such as when we consider the state transformation due to a measuring device for a given outcome). Therefore, apart from a normalization factor, the quantum evolution is always linear, with the quantum operation playing the role of the so-called transfer matrix of the device, a mathematical tool very popular in optics and electrical engineering.

Now the problem is: how to reconstruct the form of $`\mathrm{E}`$ experimentally? Since $`\mathrm{E}`$ is essentially a transfer matrix for a linear system, one would be tempted to adopt the conventional method of running an orthogonal basis $`|n`$ of inputs and measuring the corresponding outputs by quantum tomographyvarenna . However, since states are actually operators—not vectors—as a consequence of the polarization identity in order to get all off-diagonal (complex) matrix elements of the state one actually needs to run not the basis itself, but all the linear combinations of its vectors $`2^{\frac{1}{2}}\left(|n^{}+\kappa |n^{\prime \prime }\right)`$, with $`\kappa =\pm 1,\pm i`$. In the following we will call such sets of states faithful, since they are sufficient to make a complete tomography of a quantum operation. This method is essentially the quantum process tomography given in Ref. nielsen\_book , which was experimentally demonstrated in NMR NMR  and recently in quantum optics kwiat . The main problem with such method is the fact that in most practical situations faithful sets of input states are not feasible in the lab. For example, for continuous-variables process tomography in the Fock representation, the states $`|n^{}`$ and $`|n^{\prime \prime }`$ would be photon number states, and achieving their superpositions will remain a dream for experimentalists for many years. But here the quantum parallelism of entanglement comes to help us, with a single input entangled state that is equivalent to running all possible input states in parallel darianolopresti . Thus, we don’t need to prepare a complete set of states, but just a single entangled one, a state commonly available in any modern quantum optical laboratory.

In the following we will use the double-ket notation $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ to denote bipartite states corresponding to the matrix $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{nm}`$ of coefficients on fixed given orthonormal basis $`|n|m|nm`$ of $``$

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }=\underset{nm}{}\mathrm{\Psi }_{nm}|nm.$$
(2)
In our optical implementation the entangled systems consist of two single-mode optical beams, and the Hilbert space is two-dimensional, since we will consider only single-photon polarization states. The key feature of the method implies that only one of the two systems is input into the unknown transformation $`\mathrm{E}`$, whereas the other is left untouched, as in Fig. 1. This setup leads to the output state $`R_{out}`$, which in tensor notation writes as follows

$$R_{out}=\mathrm{E}\mathrm{I}(|\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }|),$$
(3)
where $`\mathrm{I}`$ denotes the identical operation. It is a result of linear algebra that $`R_{out}`$ is in one-to-one correspondence with the quantum operation $`\mathrm{E}`$, as long as the state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is full-rank, i. e. its matrix $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is invertible. This is the case of a so-called maximally entangled state, where the matrix $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is proportional to a unitary one. Full-rank entangled states can be easily generated by spontaneous parametric down conversion of vacuum, as in the experiment reported here. Note that even when a faithful set of input states is available in the lab—which is actually true in our case of single-photon polarization states—nevertheless a single faithful entangled state can be much more efficient and more practical. As a matter of fact, in practice, generation of single-photon polarization states relays anyway on entanglement, and, as we will see in the following, the present method uses all experimental data much more efficiently than the conventional quantum process tomography nielsen\_book ; kwiat .

Now, how to characterize the entangled state Rout at the output? For this purpose a technique for the full determination of the quantum state has been introduced and developed since 1994. The method named Quantum Tomography varenna  has been initially introduced for the state of a single-mode of radiation, the so called Homodyne Tomography, and thereafter it has been generalized to any quantum system. The basis of the method is the measurement of a suitably complete set of observables called quorum. In our case we need to measure jointly two quora of observables on the entangled qubit, here the quorum being the Pauli matrices $`\sigma _x`$, $`\sigma _y`$, $`\sigma _z`$. The qubit is encoded on polarization of single photons, as follows

$$|0h^{}|\mathrm{\Omega },|1v^{}|\mathrm{\Omega },$$
(4)
where $`|\mathrm{\Omega }`$ denotes the e. m. vacuum, and $`h`$, $`h^{}`$ and $`v`$, $`v^{}`$ the annihilation and creation operators of the horizontally and vertically polarized modes associated to a fixed wave-vector $`𝐤`$, respectively. In synthesis, Eq. (4) means that the ”logical zero” is encoded on a single horizontally polarized photon, whereas the ”logical one” is encoded on a vertically polarized photon. In the present representation, the Pauli matrices write as follows

$$\sigma _x=h^{}v+v^{}h,\sigma _y=i\left(h^{}vv^{}h\right),\sigma _z=h^{}hv^{}v.$$
(5)
According to Eq. (5), the $`\sigma _z`$-photo-detector is simply achieved as in Fig. 2.

In order to understand how to design detectors for $`\sigma _y`$ and $`\sigma _z`$ we still need some simple algebra for wave-plates. The ring of Pauli matrices is completed by including the “identity” $`\sigma _0=h^{}h+v^{}v`$, corresponding to single-photons states. In the following we use the popular relativistic conventions, denoting by $`\stackrel{}{\sigma }`$ the three-vector of operators $`\stackrel{}{\sigma }`$ = $`(\sigma _1,\sigma _2,\sigma _3)`$ and by $`\sigma `$ the tetra-vector $`\sigma `$ = $`(\sigma _0,\sigma _1,\sigma _2,\sigma _3)`$, and use Greek indices for three-vectors components $`\alpha =1,2,3`$ (or $`\alpha =x,y,z`$), and Latin indices for tetra-vector components $`i=0,1,2,3`$.

A wave-plate changes the two radiation modes according to the matrix transformation

$$\left[\begin{array}{c}h\\ v\end{array}\right]𝕎_{\varphi ,\theta }\left[\begin{array}{c}h\\ v\end{array}\right]$$
(6)
where the matrix $`𝕎_{\varphi ,\theta }`$ is given by

$$𝕎_{\varphi ,\theta }=\left[\begin{array}{cc}z_++cz_{}& sz_{}\\ sz_{}& z_+cz_{}\end{array}\right]$$
(7)
where $`s=\mathrm{sin}2\theta `$, $`c=\mathrm{cos}2\theta `$, $`z_\pm =\frac{1}{2}\left(1\pm e^{i\varphi }\right)`$, $`\theta `$ is the wave-plate orientation angle around the wave-vector $`𝐤`$, $`\varphi =2\pi \delta /\lambda `$, $`\lambda `$ is the wave-length, and $`\delta `$ is the length of the optical path through the plate. Special cases are the $`\frac{\lambda }{4}`$ wave-plate which can be used with $`\theta =\pi /4`$ to give the right $`c_+`$ and left $`c_{}`$ circularly polarized modes $`c_\pm =e^{i\pi /4}2^{\frac{1}{2}}(\pm h+iv)`$, and the $`\frac{\lambda }{2}`$ wave-plate which can be used to give the diagonal linearly polarized modes $`d_\pm =2^{\frac{1}{2}}(h\pm v)`$. On the Pauli operator vector $`\stackrel{}{\sigma }`$ the mode transformation due to a wave-plate writes

$$\stackrel{}{\sigma }_{\varphi ,\theta }\stackrel{}{\sigma },$$
(8)
with rotation matrix

$$_{\varphi ,\theta }=\left[\begin{array}{ccc}s^2+c^2\mathrm{cos}\varphi & c\mathrm{cos}\varphi & sc(1\mathrm{cos}\varphi )\\ c\mathrm{sin}\varphi & \mathrm{cos}\varphi & s\mathrm{sin}\varphi \\ sc(1\mathrm{cos}\varphi )& s\mathrm{sin}\varphi & c^2+s^2\mathrm{cos}\varphi \end{array}\right].$$
(9)
From Eq. (9) we can see that a $`\sigma _x`$-detector can be obtained by preceding the $`\sigma _z`$-detector with a $`\frac{\lambda }{2}`$ wave-p1ate oriented at $`\theta =\pi /8`$, whereas a $`\sigma _y`$-detector is obtained by preceding the $`\sigma _z`$-detector with a $`\frac{\lambda }{4}`$ wave-plate oriented at $`\theta =\pi /4`$. When collecting data at a $`\sigma _\alpha `$-detector, we will denote by $`s_\alpha =\pm 1`$ the corresponding random outcome, $`s_\alpha =+1`$ corresponding to the $`h`$-detector flashing, and $`s_\alpha =1`$ to the $`v`$-detector flashing. The general experimental setup is then given by two Pauli detectors—for measuring $`\sigma _\alpha `$ and $`\sigma _\beta `$ for varying $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$—at the output of the entangled beams, as in Fig. 1. The experimental data are collected in coincidence, with two of the four photo-detectors firing, one for each Pauli detector, thus guaranteeing that the result will be essentially unaffected by quantum efficiency. The experimental correlations $`\overline{s_i^{(1)}s_j^{(2)}}`$ of the random outcomes $`s_i^{(n)}`$ of the detector at the $`n`$-th beam ($`n=1,2`$) on the entangled state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ must coincide with the following theoretical expectations

$$\overline{s_i^{(1)}s_j^{(2)}}=\mathrm{\Psi }|(\sigma _i^{(1)}\sigma _j^{(2)})|\mathrm{\Psi }=\text{Tr}\left[\mathrm{\Psi }^+\sigma _i\mathrm{\Psi }\sigma _j^{}\right],$$
(10)
and, obviously, $`\overline{s_i^{(1)}}\overline{s_i^{(1)}s_0^{(2)}}`$ and $`\overline{s_i^{(2)}}\overline{s_0^{(1)}s_i^{(2)}}`$. For maximally entangled states we have the isotropy condition $`\overline{s_\alpha ^{(1)}}=`$ $`\overline{s_\alpha ^{(2)}}=0`$ for $`\alpha =x,y,z`$. The four Bell states will correspond to the four Pauli matrices $`\sigma _j`$ via a state coefficients matrix $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ given by $`\mathrm{\Psi }=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\sigma _j`$. On the other hand, when a quantum device performing the unitary transformation $`U`$ is inserted in one of the two entangled beams as in Fig. 1, the entangled state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is changed to $`UI|\mathrm{\Psi }`$, which corresponds to the new coefficients matrix $`\mathrm{\Psi }U\mathrm{\Psi }`$. In our lab we used the “triplet” state corresponding to $`\mathrm{\Psi }=\sigma _x/\sqrt{2}`$, which is generated via spontaneous parametric downconversion by an optical parametric amplifier physically consisting of a nonlinear BBO (ß-barium-borate) crystal plate, 2 mm thick, cut for Type II phase matching and excited by a pulsed mode-locked ultraviolet laser UV having pulse duration $`\tau =140`$ fsec and wavelength $`\lambda _p`$=397.5 nm. The wavelength of the emitted photons is $`\lambda =795`$nm. The measurement apparatus consisted of two equal polarizing beam splitters with output modes coupled to four equal Si-avalanche photo-detectors SPCM-AQR14 with quantum efficiencies QE $``$ 0.42. The beams exciting the detectors are filtered by equal interference filters within a bandwidth $`\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda =6`$nm. The detector outputs are finally analyzed by a computer.

With the above apparatus we want now to experimentally determine the matrix elements of the state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ in Eq. (2). From the trivial identity

$$nm|\mathrm{\Psi }=\mathrm{\Psi }_{nm},$$
(11)
we obtain the matrix $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{nm}`$ for the input states in terms of the following ensemble averages

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{nm}=e^{i\phi }\frac{\mathrm{\Psi }|01nm|\mathrm{\Psi }}{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Psi }|0101|\mathrm{\Psi }}}$$
(12)
where $`\mathrm{exp}\left(i\phi \right)=\mathrm{\Psi }_{01}/\left|\mathrm{\Psi }_{01}\right|`$ is an unmeasurable phase factor. The choice of the vector $`|01`$ is arbitrary, and it is needed only for the sake of normalization, e. g. we could have used $`|10`$ or $`|11`$, instead. Using the tomographic expansion over the four Pauli matrices varenna  we see that, via Eq. (12), the matrix element of the input state is obtained from the following experimental averages

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{nm}=\frac{1}{4\sqrt{p}}\underset{ij}{}Q_{nm}^{ij}\overline{s_i^{(1)}s_j^{(2)}}$$
(13)
where

$$p=\mathrm{\Psi }|0101|\mathrm{\Psi }=\frac{1}{4}\overline{(1+s_3^{(1)})(1s_3^{(2)})}$$
(14)
is the fraction of events with one $`\sigma _z`$-detector firing on $`h`$ and the other on $`v`$, and the matrix $`Q_{nm}^{ij}`$ is given by

$$Q_{nm}^{ij}=n|\sigma _i|0m|\sigma _j|1.$$
(15)
The unitary matrix $`U_{nm}`$ of the device is now obtained with the same averaging as above, but now for the state at the output of the device $`|U\mathrm{\Psi }=(UI)|\mathrm{\Psi }`$, namely

$$\left(U\mathrm{\Psi }\right)_{nm}=e^{i\phi }\frac{U\mathrm{\Psi }|01nm|\mathrm{\Psi }U}{\sqrt{U\mathrm{\Psi }|0101|\mathrm{\Psi }U}}$$
(16)
where we use again Eqs. (14) and (15), but now the average expressed by Eq. (12) is carried out over the output state $`|U\mathrm{\Psi }`$. The (complex) matrix elements $`U_{nm}`$ are obtained from Eq. (16) by matrix inversion. This is of course possible since the matrix $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is invertible, due to the maximally entangled character of $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$.

An experimental demonstration of the tomographic method is given in Figures 3 and 4, where both the real and imaginary parts of the four measured matrix elements of the unitary operator $`U`$ of the analyzed device are reported for two different devices, and compared with the theoretical values. As one can see, the experimental results are in very good agreement with theory, within experimental errors. As a first experimental demonstration we have considered only unitary devices, however, it is clear that the method works for non unitary devices as well.

It is also obvious that the method can be used to characterize $`n`$-qubit devices—e. g. a controlled-NOT gate—in which case we just need multiply by $`n`$ the whole setup, by providing an input entangled state and two Pauli detectors for each qubit of the device, with the full quantum characterization of the the device obtained by a joint tomography on all output entangled pairs. It is clear that the precision of the method will not depend on the particular tested device—whether it is unitary or not—and will also be independent on the number of qubits. What makes the method particularly reliable in the present single-photon polarization encoding is the fact that all measurements are performed in coincidence, making the effect of nonunit quantum efficiency of detectors negligible, and effectively purifying the input entangled state. In a different context—e. g. for continuous variables, such as homodyne tomography of twin-beams kumardariano —quantum efficiency and entanglement purity will actually affect the final result: however, the quantum tomographic reconstruction can handle all these kinds of detection noises below some thresholdsvarenna , and a mixed input state in place of $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ work well (but less efficiently) as long as the state is faithful, namely it is related to a maximally entangled one by an invertible map faith . Unfortunately, for the twin-beam homodyne tomography kumardariano , faithfulness requires the knowledge of the phase of the pump relative to the local oscillator—a feasible but difficult experimental task—whereas in the present experiment the form of the entangled input state is completely under control, being determined only by the orientation of the nonlinear crystal with respect to the pump wave-vector and polarization.

In conclusion, we have given the first demonstration of a new tomographic method which allows us to perform a complete characterization of any quantum device, exploiting the intrinsic parallelism of quantum entanglement, with a single entangled state playing the role of all possible input states in quantum parallel. The method works for any generally non unitary multi-qubit device, and is particularly reliable in the present context of single-photon polarization encoding of the qubit.

This work has been supported by the FET European Network on QIC (Contract IST-2000-29681-ATESIT) and the INFM PRA 2001 CLON.


text:
# Local Hidden Variable Theories for Quantum States

## Appendix

In this Appendix we discuss the semidefinite program that constructs symmetric extensions in more detail and show that it is possible to construct symmetric extensions for many Werner states using our semi-definite programming approach. The ingredients of the argument are the semi-definite programming duality, the behavior of convex optimizations under symmetry and some simple group representation theory for the permutation group.

The semi-definite program that attempts to construct a symmetric extension has a natural dual that will turn out to be simpler to solve. We first review, for completeness, some standard descriptions and properties of semi-definite programs and their duals.

Vandenberghe and Boyd VB:sp  write the general semi-definite program as

$`\mathrm{minimize}`$ $`𝐜^T𝐱,`$
$`\mathrm{subject}\mathrm{to}`$ $`F_0+{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}x_iF_i0,`$
where $`𝐜`$ is a vector of length $`m`$, and $`(F_0,F_i)`$ are $`n`$-by-$`n`$ Hermitian matrices with $`i=1,\mathrm{},m`$. The optimization variables form the vector $`𝐱`$, also of length $`m`$. If there exists any vector $`𝐱`$ such that $`F(𝐱)=F_0+_ix_iF_i>0`$ the semi-definite program is said to be strictly feasible. The dual optimization, also a semi-definite program, may be written

$`\mathrm{maximize}`$ $`\mathrm{Tr}F_0Z,`$
$`\mathrm{subject}\mathrm{to}`$ $`Z0,`$
$`\mathrm{Tr}F_iZ=c_i,`$
where the optimization variable is the $`n`$-by-$`n`$ matrix $`Z`$. Again, the dual semi-definite program is said to be strictly feasible if there is an $`Z>0`$ satisfying the trace constraints.

The most important relation between the primal and dual optimizations is that all allowed values of the primal objective function are greater than all allowed values of the dual objective function. Thus feasible points of the dual problem can be used to bound the optimum of any semi-definite program. This property results from simply evaluating the difference between the primal and dual objective functions for any feasible pair $`(𝐱,Z)`$

$$𝐜^T𝐱+\mathrm{Tr}F_0Z=\underset{i}{}\mathrm{Tr}x_iF_iZ+\mathrm{Tr}F_0Z=\mathrm{Tr}F(𝐱)Z0.$$

The first equality results from the dual feasibility constraints and the inequality holds since $`\mathrm{Tr}AB`$ is positive if $`A`$ and $`B`$ are positive and Hermitian. Typically, the dual optimizations are more closely related, this is captured in Theorem 3.1 of VB:sp . If both the primal and dual forms of a semi-definite program are strictly feasible, their optima are equal and achieved by some feasible pair $`(𝐱_{\mathrm{opt}},Z_{\mathrm{opt}})`$.

Comparing the semi-definite programs above with the semi-definite program for constructing symmetric extensions we see that it corresponds to the dual form defined above with $`F_i=\mathrm{𝖲𝗒𝗆}_A\mathrm{𝖲𝗒𝗆}_B(\sigma _i𝐈)`$, $`c_i=r_i=\mathrm{Tr}\sigma _i\rho `$ and $`F_0=I_{d_A}I_{d_B}𝐈`$. We have $`m=(d_Ad_B)^21`$ and $`n=d_A^{s_a}d_B^{s_b}`$. The sign of the objective function was changed for clarity. Recall that there is a symmetric extension for $`\rho `$ so long as the optimum is less than or equal to one. From now on we will write $`\mathrm{𝖲𝗒𝗆}^{}=\mathrm{𝖲𝗒𝗆}_A\mathrm{𝖲𝗒𝗆}_B`$. To see that this optimization is strictly feasible consider any, not necessarily positive, matrix $`K^{}`$ satisfying the trace constraints ($`K^{}`$ exists since these constraints fix only a small number of the matrix elements of $`K^{}`$). Then $`K=K^{}+\eta I_{d_A}I_{d_B}𝐈`$ is strictly positive so long as $`\eta >0`$ is greater than the magnitude of the largest negative eigenvalue of $`K^{}`$. $`K`$ defined in this way still satisfies the trace constraints so the semi-definite program is strictly feasible. If we define the matrix $`X=I_{d_A}I_{d_B}+x_i\sigma _i`$, the dual form of our semi-definite program may be written

$`\mathrm{maximize}`$ $`1\mathrm{Tr}X\rho `$
$`\mathrm{subject}\mathrm{to}`$ $`\mathrm{𝖲𝗒𝗆}^{}(X𝐈)0.`$
The advantage of this semi-definite program from the point of view of analytical work is that the number of variables is very much smaller and we will see in the following that it can be further reduced by symmetry methods. Numerical implementations solve both optimizations at once. To see that this program is also strictly feasible consider the point $`x_i=0`$ for all $`i`$, for which $`X=I_{d_A}I_{d_B}`$ and so $`\mathrm{𝖲𝗒𝗆}^{}(X𝐈)>0`$. From this we can conclude, by Theorem 3.1 of VB:sp  as described above, that if the maximum of this optimization is less than or equal to one ($`\mathrm{Tr}X_{\mathrm{opt}}\rho 0`$) there is a symmetric extension for $`\rho `$. It is not necessary to construct the extension explicitly.

We now use the symmetry of the Werner states to simplify this semi-definite program. The Werner states have the property that $`(UU)\rho _\mathrm{W}(UU)^{}=\rho _\mathrm{W}`$ for all unitary transformations $`U`$ on $``$ EW:uuu . As a result the objective function is unchanged under the action $`X(UU)X(UU)^{}`$ since $`\mathrm{Tr}(UU)X(UU)^{}\rho _\mathrm{W}=\mathrm{Tr}X(UU)^{}\rho _\mathrm{W}(UU)=\mathrm{Tr}X\rho _\mathrm{W}`$. Similarly if we choose an $`X`$ such that the positivity constraints are satisfied then

$$U^{(s_a+s_b)}\mathrm{𝖲𝗒𝗆}^{}(X𝐈)U^{(s_a+s_b)}0.$$

On the other hand, $`U^{(s_a+s_b)}`$ commutes with all matrices that permute the tensor factors and so it commutes with the symmetrization operation. As a result

$$\mathrm{𝖲𝗒𝗆}^{}((UU)X(UU)^{}𝐈)0.$$

So the set of allowed matrices $`X`$ is also invariant under the operation $`X(UU)X(UU)^{}`$. In fact since sums of positive matrices are positive convex combinations of matrices $`(UU)X(UU)^{}`$ for different $`U`$ are also feasible and also achieve the same value of the objective function. As a result we may restrict our attention to matrices $`\overline{X}`$ such that $`\frac{1}{\mathrm{Vol}(U)}(UU)\overline{X}(UU)^{}𝑑U=\overline{X}`$. For any feasible $`X`$ of lower symmetry there is some feasible symmetrized matrix $`\overline{X}`$ such that $`\mathrm{Tr}\overline{X}\rho _\mathrm{W}=\mathrm{Tr}X\rho _\mathrm{W}`$. As discussed in EW:uuu  all the Hermitian matrices of this form may be written $`\overline{X}=x_II_{d_A}I_{d_B}+xV`$ for some real $`x_I`$ and $`x`$. For the matrices $`X`$ arising in our semi-definite program $`x_I=1`$ so we are left with a single variable optimization. (Note that there are general methods along these lines for reducing the dimensionality of semi-definite programs with symmetry GP:sss ; Rains:spde . The key property is the convexity of the optimization.)

The objective function to be maximized for the Werner state is $`1\mathrm{Tr}X\rho _\mathrm{W}=x\mathrm{\Phi }`$. Since $`\rho _\mathrm{W}`$ is separable for $`\mathrm{\Phi }0`$ we already know that an extension will exist for positive $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and can assume that $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is negative in the following. As a result we wish to find the maximum value of $`x`$ for which the following matrix inequality holds

$$I_d^{(s_a+s_b)}+x\mathrm{𝖲𝗒𝗆}^{}(V𝐈)0.$$

The eigenvalues of $`\mathrm{𝖲𝗒𝗆}^{}(X𝐈)`$ are simply $`1+x\lambda _i`$ where $`\lambda _i`$ are the eigenvalues of $`\mathrm{𝖲𝗒𝗆}(V𝐈)`$. Supposing that the largest magnitude negative eigenvalue of $`\mathrm{𝖲𝗒𝗆}^{}(V𝐈)`$ is $`\lambda _\mathrm{m}`$, the optimum is $`x_{\mathrm{opt}}=1/\lambda _\mathrm{m}`$. Since the optimization is now over a single variable, the semi-definite program essentially reduces to an eigenvalue problem. The optimum of the semi-definite program will be $`x_{\mathrm{opt}}\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and if this is less than or equal to one there is a symmetric extension for $`\rho _\mathrm{W}`$. So $`\rho _\mathrm{W}`$ has a symmetric extension over the range $`1/x_{\mathrm{opt}}=\lambda _\mathrm{m}\mathrm{\Phi }1`$. Note that the symmetrization is a completely positive map and maps positive matrices $`X`$ to positive matrices $`\mathrm{𝖲𝗒𝗆}^{}(X𝐈)`$. Since $`X=I+xV`$ is positive for $`1x1`$, $`\mathrm{𝖲𝗒𝗆}^{}(X𝐈)`$ must also be positive over this range so $`x_{\mathrm{opt}}1`$.

To proceed further we must evaluate the smallest eigenvalue of $`\mathrm{𝖲𝗒𝗆}^{}(V𝐈)`$. The matrix $`V`$ swaps the Hilbert spaces belonging to Alice and Bob and therefore is an element of the representation of the group of permutations $`𝒮_{s_a+s_b}`$ that is made up of permutations of the $`s_a+s_b`$ copies of $``$. If $`\pi _{(i,j)}`$ is the matrix that swaps the $`i`$-th and $`j`$-th spaces, we have $`V=\pi _{(1,2)}`$. For clarity we will modify the order of the Hilbert spaces that we used above and imagine that odd-numbered spaces $`i=1,3,\mathrm{},s_a+s_b1`$ are copies of Alice’s system and that even-numbered spaces are copies of Bob’s.

As a preliminary, consider evaluating $`\mathrm{𝖲𝗒𝗆}(\sigma I_d^{(s1)})`$ on $`^s`$. Clearly $`\sigma I_d^{(s1)}`$ is unaffected by any permutation that fixes the first object and so in some sense the only permutations that matter are the ones that swap the first Hilbert space with one of the others. More formally, we can divide the elements of the permutation group of $`s`$ objects into cosets of the subgroup that fixes the first object. Any permutation can be realized by some permutation that fixes the first object followed by the transposition $`\pi _{(1,i)}`$ for some $`i`$ that labels which coset the permutation is in. Thus if we write the elements of the subgroup that fixes the first element as $`\overline{\pi }`$ we have

$`\mathrm{𝖲𝗒𝗆}(H)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{s!}}{\displaystyle \underset{\pi }{}}\pi H\pi ^{}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{s}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{s}{}}}\pi _{(1,i)}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{(s1)!}}{\displaystyle \underset{\overline{\pi }}{}}\overline{\pi }H\overline{\pi }^{}\right)\pi _{(1,i)}.`$
Finally, $`\sigma I_d^{(s1)}`$ maps to itself under all $`\overline{\pi }`$ so $`\mathrm{𝖲𝗒𝗆}(\sigma I_d^{(s1)})=\pi _{(1,i)}(\sigma I)\pi _{(1,i)}/s`$. Applying this observation to the local symmetrization in the particular case where $`X=V=\pi _{(1,2)}`$ gives

$$\mathrm{𝖲𝗒𝗆}^{}(V𝐈)=\frac{1}{s_as_b}\underset{i=1}{\overset{s_a}{}}\underset{j=1}{\overset{s_b}{}}\pi _{(2i1,2j)}.$$

So the symmetrized matrix reduces to a linear combination of transpositions of Hilbert spaces.

The matrices $`\pi `$ form a reducible unitary representation of the symmetric group $`𝒮_{s_a+s_b}`$. There is a single unitary transformation that will block-diagonalize all the $`\pi `$ with the blocks being, possibly repeated, irreducible representations of the group (see for example book:fultonharris ). Since this is a single unitary transformation applied to all $`\pi `$ it does not change the eigenvalues of linear combinations of different $`\pi `$. Such linear combinations will be positive if and only if all the blocks are positive and so we can restrict our attention to the eigenvalues of the blocks of $`\mathrm{𝖲𝗒𝗆}^{}(V𝐈)`$ in this basis. Now suppose that the alternating representation occurs in this decomposition at least once. Since in this irreducible representation even permutations are represented by $`1`$ and odd ones by $`1`$, the value of this block of $`\mathrm{𝖲𝗒𝗆}^{}(V𝐈)`$ is $`1`$. This implies that $`x_{\mathrm{opt}}1`$. Combined with the earlier lower bound on the optimum we have $`x_{\mathrm{opt}}=1`$ and $`\rho _W`$ has a symmetric extension for all allowed values $`1\mathrm{\Phi }1`$.

It is a standard result that the alternating representation occurs in the decomposition into irreducibles of the representation of $`𝒮_{s_a+s_b}`$ by permutations of tensor factors of $`_d^{(s_a+s_b)}`$ so long as $`s_a+s_bd`$ book:fultonharris . In fact it is easy to see that the alternating representation occurs if and only if there is a non-trivial completely antisymmetric subspace of $`_d^{(s_a+s_b)}`$. This completes the argument. All Werner states have a $`(s_a,s_b)`$-symmetric extension and an LHV theory for all Bell experiments with $`(s_a,s_b)`$ settings if $`s_a+s_bd`$.

Note that the converse is not true, a symmetric extension may exist even if this condition is not met. Consider $`s_a=s_b=2`$ and $`d=2`$. In both these cases the decomposition includes the two-dimensional irreducible representation of $`𝒮_4`$ book:fultonharris  that can be generated by

$$\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(1,2)}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 1& \hfill 0\\ \hfill 1& \hfill 1\end{array}\right)=\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(3,4)},\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(2,3)}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right).$$

Any block corresponding to this irrep is then equal to

$$\left(\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(1,2)}+\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(1,4)}+\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(2,3)}+\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(3,4)}\right)/4=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 0& \hfill \frac{1}{2}\\ \hfill \frac{1}{2}& \hfill 0\end{array}\right).$$

Since this has eigenvalues $`(1/2,1/2)`$ we have $`x_{\mathrm{opt}}2`$. It is straightforward to check the blocks corresponding to the other irreducible representations to confirm that $`x_{\mathrm{opt}}=2`$. As a result we may say that Werner states in two dimensions have $`(2,2)`$, $`(2,1)`$ and $`(1,2)`$-extensions if $`1/2\mathrm{\Phi }1`$. It is straightforward to confirm numerically that the same statement applies to decomposable $`(2,2)`$-quasi-extensions. The irreducible representations of $`𝒮_n`$ for large $`n`$ are typically high dimensional. Note, however, that further block diagonalization is possible in principle since $`\mathrm{𝖲𝗒𝗆}^{}(V𝐈)`$ is invariant under any permutation of Alice’s spaces or of Bob’s. This means that each block of $`\mathrm{𝖲𝗒𝗆}^{}(V𝐈)`$ is in the commutant algebra of the reducible representation of $`𝒮_{s_a}\times 𝒮_{s_b}`$ that arises from restricting an irreducible representation of $`𝒮_{s_a+s_b}`$ to a representation of $`𝒮_{s_a}\times 𝒮_{s_b}`$. This commutant algebra will typically have very much smaller block size.