Arxiv:2010.09509V2 [Hep-Ph] 2 Apr 2021 in Searches for CLFV Or LNV, Incoming Muons Are the Source of Both the Μ → E Signal and the RMC Back- Ground

FERMILAB-PUB-20-525-T

The high energy spectrum of internal positrons from radiative muon capture on nuclei

Ryan Plestid1, 2, ∗ and Richard J. Hill1, 2, † 1Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40506, USA 2Theoretical Physics Department, Fermilab, Batavia, IL 60510,USA (Dated: April 5, 2021) The Mu2e and COMET collaborations will search for nucleus-catalyzed muon conversion to positrons (µ− → e+) as a signal of lepton number violation. A key background for this search is radiative muon capture where either: 1) a real photon converts to an e+e− pair “externally" in surrounding material; or 2) a virtual photon mediates the production of an e+e− pair “internally”. If the e+ has an energy approaching the signal region then it can serve as an irreducible background. In this work we describe how the near end-point internal positron spectrum can be related to the real photon spectrum from the same nucleus, which encodes all non-trivial nuclear physics.

I. INTRODUCTION Specifically, on a nucleus (e.g. aluminum), the reaction µ− + [A, Z] → e+ + [A, Z − 2] , (1) Charged lepton flavor violation (CLFV) is a smok- ing gun signature of physics beyond the Standard Model becomes a viable target for observation (see also [7]). (SM) and is one of the most sought-after signals at the While neutrinoless double beta (0νββ) decay is often intensity frontier [1–4]. Important search channels in- touted as the most promising direction for the discovery volving the lightest two lepton generations are µ → 3e, of LNV, there do exist extensions of the SM that predict µ → eγ, and nucleus-catalyzed µ → e [1–6]. The current a more competitive signal in the µe sector than in the best limits on µ → e come from SINDRUM-II [7, 8]. ee sector (cf. [11–13] and references therein). There also The upcoming Mu2e [9] and COMET [10] experiments remains the looming possibility that mee ≈ 0 (cf. Fig. 4 will either probe or discover CLFV at unprecedented lev- of [14]), rendering 0νββ insensitive to LNV if it is medi- els of precision. Both experiments expect on the order of ated by a light Majorana neutrino. The fact that Mu2e is 1018 muon capture events, and plan to measure the ratio, charge symmetric by design yields a new handle on LNV Reµ, of µ → e events to total muon captures, at the level “for free”. of 10−17. Unfortunately, the charge-changing nature of µ− → + Importantly, the Mu2e setup is “charge symmetric” e can result in a substantially lower positron energy such that the detection efficiencies for electrons and compared to the electron energy in the CLFV channel − − positrons are comparable. Thus, Mu2e will serve as a µ → e . This is driven by the mass difference between testing ground not just for the discovery of CLFV, but [A, Z] and [A, Z − 2] [15], and causes the signal region to also for the discovery of lepton number violation (LNV). approach, or overlap with, poorly-understood SM backgrounds. The most important of these backgrounds is radiative muon capture (RMC),

0 0 µ(k) + [A, Z](p) → νµ(k ) + [A, Z − 1](p ) + γ(q) , (2) where, for definiteness, we assume the final state nucleus is in its ground state1 (in the case of 27Al the final state would be 27Mg).

arXiv:2010.09509v2 [hep-ph] 2 Apr 2021 In searches for CLFV or LNV, incoming muons are the source of both the µ → e signal and the RMC background. It is therefore critical to constrain the energy (a) (b) spectrum of electrons and positrons from RMC in order to discriminate signal from background. FIG. 1. Radiative muon capture on a nucleus (double lines) There are two ways that RMC can contaminate the resulting in (a) a real photon and (b) a virtual photon that signal window in a CLFV or LNV search: mediates the production of an electron positron pair. In this work we study how the e+ (or e−) spectrum in (b) is related 1. External conversion: a (real) photon is produced to the photon spectrum in (a). and interacts with surrounding material ultimately pair-producing an electron positron pair.

∗ [email protected] 1 This assumption can be easily relaxed and a generic set of ﬁnal † [email protected] states summed over as discussed in Appendix D. 2

somewhat heuristically, they suggested that the infrared enhancement of the virtual photon favours small virtualities and argued for an approximation in terms of real photon matrix elements. In this work we critically re-examine this problem fo- cusing specifically on the viability of using measurements of the (real) photon spectrum to predict the internal positron (or electron) spectrum. The main conclusion of our work is that the real photon spectrum is sufficient to predict the internal spectrum of positrons near the end- point as shown in Fig. 2. This observation implies that if the real photon spectrum is measured, then the full (in- 90 92 94 96 98 100 ternal + external) electron and positron spectra can be predicted. If the photon spectrum cannot be measured, then Mu2e and COMET could use direct measurements of the total electron or positron spectrum to infer the FIG. 2. Spectrum of positrons/electrons as compared to real RMC photon spectrum. photons near the end-point assuming that the photon spec- The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In Sec- trum is given by dΓ/dE ∝ (1 − 2x + 2x2)x(1 − x)2 with γ tion II we define the non-perturbative matrix element x = Eγ /qmax and qmax = 100 MeV. This corresponds to the closure approximation spectrum used in the analysis of that governs the emission of real photons and discuss RMC data on various nuclear isotopes in [20]. The elec- how this same matrix element also governs the emission tron/positron spectrum is computed using Eqs. (36) and (44) of electron positron pairs at leading order in α. Next, below. The spectrum is softened relative to photons because in Section III we provide an explicit formula for the real 1) the end-point is shifted by me = 0.511 MeV, and 2) the photon spectrum, which naturally leads into Section IV probability of producing an e+e− pair rises sharply as one where we provide the corresponding expression for the moves further from the end-point as shown in Fig. 4. Errors positron spectrum. In Section V we discuss the near due to virtual-photon nuclear matrix elements (gray band) end-point spectrum and demonstrate how the real pho- are estimated by treating CL and CT (see Appendix A) as ton spectrum can be used to predict internally converted independent random variables drawn from a Gaussian distri- positrons. Finally, in Section VI we summarize our con- bution with unit variance. clusions, and suggest future improvements. We also provide four appendices. In Appendix A we 2. Internal conversion: a virtual photon mediates the discuss how one can parameterize sub-leading corrections production of an electron positron pair. to the near end-point approximation discussed above. In Appendix B we give a formal argument for some power These two possibilities are shown schematically in Fig. 1. counting details needed to justify the approximation of Both cases are subject to nuclear model dependence.2 transversely polarized virtual photon matrix elements by In the case of external conversion, nuclear model uncer- their real photon counter parts. To facilitate a compar- tainties can be circumvented at either Mu2e or COMET ison between our work and that of Kroll and Wada we by directly measuring the real photon spectrum from provide a short discussion of the correspondence in Ap- RMC on aluminium. With this information in hand, pendix C. We also discuss our disagreements with their dedicated Monte Carlo simulations (including the full de- conclusions there. Finally in Appendix D we describe tector geometry) can be used to predict the resultant how to generalize the analysis presented in the main text electron and positron spectra. In this sense, the collabo- to the case of inclusive final states. rations (Mu2e and COMET) control their own fate and can empirically constrain the external RMC backgrounds relevant for their own experiment. II. RADIATIVE MUON CAPTURE ON A Internal conversion is a more formidable challenge. NUCLEUS Early work by Kroll and Wada [23] investigated the ratio of e+e− production relative to single photon produc- The relevant S-matrix element for radiative muon cap- tion for a 1 → 2 process. The results of their investi- ture is the overlap of an in-state, |Aµ, atomiin containing gation showed, unsurprisingly, that the ratio is not cal- 0 a muonic atom, with an out state |A νµγiout containing 0 culable without microscopic theoretical input. Rather, a recoiling nuclear system A , a muon neutrino νµ, and a photon γ:

0 Sγ = outhA νµγ|Aµ, atomiin . (3) 2 The RMC rate and spectral shape for capture on hydrogen has been studied in heavy baryon chiral perturbation theory [16, 17]. This can be expressed via the LSZ reduction formula as Nuclear corrections substantially alter the spectral shape of RMC photons [18–21], especially near the end-point [22]. 4 (4) µ 0 ˆ Sγ = (2π) δ (Σ3P ) outhA νµ|Jµ|Aµ, atomiin , (4) 3

ˆ where Jµ denotes the electromagnetic current and the where an average over initial spin states, and sum over notation Σ3P signifies that this momentum conservation final spin states is performed. 2 is for three on-shell particles in the final state. The real photon matrix element squared, |Mγ | , can At leading order in α, the S matrix for inter- be expressed in terms of this tensor as ˆ nal pair production is given by (we use hJµi ≡ 2 ⊥ µν 0 ˆ |Mγ | = (−gµν )J0 , (11) outhA νµ|Jµ|Aµ, atomiin from here on for brevity’s sake) √ where we have used P ∗ = −g⊥ for the sum over 4πα µ ν µν 4 (4) ˆ µ (5) physical photon polarizations. The differential rate (or See = −(2π) δ (Σ4P )hJµi∗ 2 uγ¯ v . m∗ spectrum) of real photons in the lab frame is then given by Note that the in-out matrix element in (5) is evaluated 2 2 Z “off-shell”, in that m∗ ≡ (p+ + p−) 6= 0, where p± refer dΓγ 1 11 22 + − = dΦ3 J0 + J0 δ(q0 − Eγ ) . (12) to the four momenta of e and e respectively. dEγ 2Matom Stripping off the four-momentum conserving delta function, we can therefore identify the matrix elements as IV. POSITRON SPECTRUM

iM = h ˆ i µ , (6) γ Jµ 0 The matrix element for e+e− creation can be expressed √ µν ˆ 4πα µ in terms of J∗ as iMee = −hJµi∗ 2 uγ¯ v, (7) m∗ 2 4πα µν |Mee| = 4 Lµν J∗ , (13) where in Eq. (7) we work at leading order in α. The sub- m∗ script reminds us whether the matrix element has been ˆ ˆ where the lepton tensor Lµν is defined as evaluated for real, hJµi0, or virtual, hJµi∗, photon kinematics. h i Lµν = Tr (p/ + me)γµ(p/ − me)γν . (14) To calculate the rate of decay we can make use of the − + 3 standard formula The positron spectrum is then given by Z 1 2 Z Γ = dΦn |M| , (8) dΓee 1 4πα µν 2Matom = dΦ4 4 Lµν J∗ δ(E+ − E+) , (15) dE+ 2Matom m∗ where M is the mass of the muonic atomic (including atom where E is a function of the phase space variables that binding energy), |·|2 denotes an average over initial- + will be specified explicitly below in Eq. (26). state spins and a sum over final-state spins, and dΦ is n At this point, to make contact with the real photon n-body Lorentz invariant phase space, spectrum, it is important to decompose phase space ap- " n 3 # propriately. This can be done via [26] Y d pi dΦ = × (2π)4δ(4)(Σ P ) . (9) n 2E (2π)3 n dm2 i=1 i dΦ = dΦ ∗ dΦ (γ → e+e−) , (16) 4 3∗ 2π 2 ∗ In what follows we consider the spin-averaged matrix el- 0 ement which is rotationally invariant. This allows us to where Φ3∗ is the three body phase space for A , νµ and a particle of mass m∗. Let us compare to the massless choose our coordinate system to lie with the zˆ axis along 0 the direction of the photon’s momentum without loss of case. We will explicitly integrate over the A system’s generality. momentum such that only the energy conserving delta function, δ(Σ3∗E) and the neutrino-photon phase space remain III. REAL PHOTON SPECTRUM 1 d3k0 d3q dΦ3∗ = 0 3 3 (2π)δ(Σ3∗E) (17) 2EA0 2k (2π) 2q0(2π) Let us introduce the tensor 3 0 1 d k dΩq β∗q0 X = 0 3 3 × dq0(2π)δ(Σ3∗E) , µν ˆµ ˆν† 2E 0 2k (2π) (2π) 2 J∗ = hJ i∗ × hJ i∗ , (10) A spins p 2 2 where β∗ = q/q0 = 1 − m∗/q0, and we have made use of dq/dq0 = 1/β∗. This is to be compared with the case of a massless photon which does not have the factor of 3 The conventional muon capture formula (see e.g. [24]) written in β∗ 2 terms of |ψ1s(0)| can be recovered in the non-relativistic limit 3 0 by constructing the bound state |1s, Aµi out of plane-wave states 1 d k dΩq q0 |µ(k)i and |A(−k)i as described in §5 of [25]. dΦ3 = 0 3 3 × dq0(2π)δ(Σ3E) . (18) 2EA0 2k (2π) (2π) 2 4

0 The energy conservation condition is (for a recoiling A with Φ2 the two-body phase space for a virtual photon of + − of mass M) mass m∗ decaying into an e e pair. We have inserted the integral symbols explicitly to emphasize the order in q X 2 2 2 which the they must be performed. E = k+q0+ k + |~q| + 2|~q|k cos θνγ + M −Matom , Let us now study Eq. (15), performing the integrations 3∗ | {z } EA0 sequentially from right to left as suggested by Eq. (23). (19) Since the decomposed phase space is factorized into inde- 2 2 2 where |~q| = q0 − m∗ and θνγ is the opening angle be- pendently Lorentz invariant pieces we can carry out the tween the photon and neutrino in the lab frame. Inte- integration in the frame of our choice. The quantity Jµν grating over the neutrino energy introduces a factor of is independent of the two-body phase space Φ2 and so we −1 ∂Σ3∗E can first evaluate ∂k : Z 0 1 E dΦ2Lµν δ(E+ − E+) , (24) = A . (20) k+|~q| cos θ 1 + Matom − (1 − β∗ cos θνγ )q0 E 0 A in the rest frame of the photon. Two body phase space in this frame is given by The factor of EA0 cancels against the factor of EA0 in the denominator of Eqs. (17) and (18) such that the phase d cos ϑdϕ space for a massive photon can be related to the phase dΦ2 = 2 βe , (25) space for a massless photon via 32π where β = p1 − 4m2/m2 and coordinates are defined dΦ = dΦ × β F , (21) e e ∗ 3∗ 3 ∗ ∗ such that zˆ is parallel to the boost direction that connects the photon’s rest frame to the lab frame. As already with Φ being independent of m and dΦ , and the vari- 3 ∗ 2 discussed above, this choice can be made without loss able F being given by (cf. Eq. (2) of [24]) ∗ of generality because of the spherical symmetry of the 2 0 spin-averaged matrix element |M| . ∂Σ3E ∂Σ3∗E k∗ F∗ = × 0 In terms of these variables the function E+ that deter- ∂k ∂k k mines the positron’s energy is given by 0 (22) Matom − (1 − cos θνγ )q0 k∗ = × 0 , q0 Matom − (1 − β∗ cos θνγ )q0 k E (q , cos ϑ) = (1 + β β cos ϑ) , (26) + 0 2 e ∗ where the various energetic factors in the phase space p 2 2 measure are modified so that they satisfy Eq. (19). where β∗ = 1 − m∗/q0 is (as above) the velocity of the virtual photon. In terms of these variables we can then write The delta function is independent of ϕ and so it is 2 R dϕ Z Z Z q0 2 Z convenient to define hLµν iϕ = 2π Lµν given explicitly dm∗ dΦ4 = dΦ3 β∗F∗ dΦ2 , (23) by 2 2π 4me

  0 0 0 0  2 2  2 0 2 − 1 − cos ϑ βe 0 0  hLµν iϕ = m   (in photon rest frame) . (27) ∗  2 2  0 0 2 − 1 − cos ϑ βe 0  2 2 0 0 0 2 1 − cos ϑβe

Then we ﬁnd solving E+ = E+(q0, cos θ), being given explicitly by Z βe 1 2E+/q0 − 1 dΦ2Lµν δ(E+ − E+) = hLµν iϕ , (28) cos θ(E+, q0, m∗) = . (30) 8π q0βeβ∗ cos θ β∗βe where we have used (note the diﬀerent fonts of ϑ vs θ) Obviously, cos θ must lie in the interval [−1, 1] and so Heaviside functions enforcing this condition should be 2 included: δ(E+ − E+) = δ(cos ϑ − cos θ) . (29) q0β∗βe The emission angle of the positron, cos θ, is found by 5

µν In Eq. (31) we have contracted J∗ against the lepton Having introduced all of the necessary ingredients, we tensor evaluated in the rest frame of the photon.4 can now write the positron spectrum as if it were pro- Now let us deﬁne auxiliary variables to condense the duced by real photons converting “internally” via a prob- notation: abilistic process described by a function Pint [J 11 + J 22] − [J 11 + J 22] T 2 = ∗ ∗ 0 0 , (32) Z ∗ 11 + 22 dΓee 1 11 22 J0 J0 = dΦ3 J0 + J0 Pint(E+|q0, Π) . 33 dE+ 2Matom 2 J∗ (34) L∗ = 11 22 . (33) J0 + J0

2 2 The quantities T∗ , and L∗ are related to the trans- The symbol Π represents a set of 3-body phase space vari- verse and longitudinal matrix elements respectively. No- ables (e.g. the photon-neutrino opening angle cos θνγ ), 2 tice that T∗ (m∗ = 0) = 0 by construction such that and we have introduced the internal conversion probabil- 2 2 T∗ ∼ O(m∗) in the small m∗ limit. ity

Z 2 1 α dm∗ 2 2 2 2 2 2 Pint(E+|q0, Π) = 2 F∗ 2 − 1 − cos θ βe (1 + T∗ ) + 2 1 − cos θβe L∗ Θ(1 − |cos θ|) , (35) q0 4π m∗

R where dq0 × Pint(E+|q0, Π)dΠ can be interpreted as the by carrying out the integration over all of the 3-body probability for photons with energy between q0 and q0 + phase space except for dq0 in which case we find dq to produce an electron positron pair. 0 Z The functions T 2 and L2 are unconstrained by mea- dΓee dΓγ ∗ ∗ = dEγ Pint(E+|Eγ ) , (36) surements of the on-shell photon spectrum. As discussed dE+ dEγ 2 2 above, T∗ ∼ O(m∗) for small virtualities, and so if m∗ q0 then we can expect it to be small. In con- which allows us to construct the positron spectrum using 5 trast, L∗ is expected to be O(1) in the m∗ → 0 limit. the measured photon spectrum from the same nucleus, Notice, however, that as cos θ → 1 (or equivalently as and the calculable function Pint(E+|Eγ ). We now turn E+ → q0 − me) that the longitudinal matrix elements our attention to the aforementioned limit in which Pint 2 2 are suppressed. We will discuss this in more detail in is independent of T∗ and L∗. Section V. Our definition of Pint still depends on the uncon- 2 2 strained matrix elements L∗ and T∗ . As we will show V. NEAR END-POINT SPECTRUM 2 2 in the next section there exists a limit where L∗ and T∗ can be neglected. In this case Eq. (34) can be re-written As discussed in the introduction, for µ → e searches it is the high-energy tail of the RMC spectrum that is most important. This motivates studying the internal (max) conversion probability in the limit where E+ → E+ . 4 If the longitudinal matrix element is evaluated in the lab frame 2 2 This is conveniently parameterized by the dimensionless then one finds (m∗/q0) × [L∗]lab [23]. We can relate [L∗]lab to 2 2 ratio formed from the electron’s kinetic energy to the [L∗]rest by boosting between frames, and one finds that [L∗]lab = 2 (q0/m∗) × [L∗]rest such that the factor of m∗/q0 is precisely virtual photon energy, canceled. 5 This is qualitatively different than the conclusion of [23]. We q0 − (E+ + me) E− − me discuss the origin of these differences in Appendix C. δ = = , (37) q0 q0 6 which tends to zero as the positron approaches its end- ting plotting E+ for cos θ = ±1, as a function of m∗ at point. different fixed values of q0 as depicted in Fig. 3. At a fixed positron energy E+, the limits of integration over m∗ can be found by solving Let us now study the integral over m∗ in Eq. (35) more carefully. Having restricted ourselves to a specific value E+(m∗, q0, cos ϑ = 1) = E+ . (38) of E+, the limits of integration on m∗ are supplied by the Heaviside function. This can be understood by plot- These are given explicitly by

s q (±) 2 2 2 2 2 m∗ = 2 me + E+(q0 − E+) ± E+ − me ([q0 − E+] − me) . (39)

(−) Notice that m∗ ≥ 2me and consequently me/m∗ ≤ 1 100 ● over the full range of integration. If we introduce the ■ ■ ● small parameter 80

m 60 = e , (40) q0 40 then the maximal value of m∗ is set by 20 ■ h i 0 (+) p 0 20 40 60 80 100 m∗ = q0 2 (1 − δ)δ + O() . (41) √ We therefore find that m∗/q0 ≤ O( δ) in the small δ limit (provided δ). Similarly, for a high-energy FIG. 3. Phase space for radiative muon capture. Varying cos ϑ from −1 to 1 at fixed m moves from the bottom of the positron to emerge from a virtual photon, it must be ∗ hull to the top of the hull. Changing Eγ = q0 changes the emitted collinear to the photon’s momentum, cos θ ≈ 1. size of the hull to be integrated over (i.e. orange dotted curve Explicitly, [Eγ = 85 MeV] → blue dashed curve [Eγ = 100 MeV]). If E+ → q0 then only the top-tip of the hull contributes to the 2E /q − 1 1 − cos θ = 1 − + 0 = O(δ) , (42) phase space integration. Units of E+ and m∗ are in MeV. β∗βe where we treat βe ≈ β∗ ≈ 1 (see Appendix A for details). Thus, we can re-express the internal conversion This function is plotted, along with error estimates dis- probability for E → q as + 0 cussed in Appendix A, in Fig. 4. The small-δ form of (+) (−) m(+) m /m depends on the relative size of and δ. Ex- 1 α Z ∗ dm2 ∗ ∗ ∗ plicitly the various scaling limits are given by (always Pint = 2 F∗ q0 π (−) m m∗ ∗ taking δ, 1) 2 2 × 2 + 2T∗ − O(δ) + O(δ) × L∗ = P (0)(E |q ) + O(δ) . int + 0  (43) 2δ/ δ  (+)  √ 1/2 m∗  δ++δ 1+2/δ where we have counted T 2 ∼ O(δ) (see Appendix B for ∼ √ δ ∼ (45) ∗ (−) δ+−δ 1+2/δ more details). The longitudinal matrix elements, by con- m∗   p trast, are taken to be O(1) in the m∗ → 0 limit, but 1 + 2δ/ δ 2 2 are suppressed by cos θβe − 1 = O(δ). Therefore at leading order in δ we find, setting F∗ ≈ 1 as discussed in Appendix A, that If one wishes to straddle these various regimes then the (±) (+) exact expressions for m∗ , as presented in Eq. (39), Z m∗ 2 (0) 1 α dm∗ should be used. This is important for applications Pint (E+|q0) = 2 × 2 q0 4π (−) m m∗ ∗ (44) at Mu2e and COMET where energy resolution is of 1 α (+) (−) O(100 keV) [9] such that electron mass effects can be = log m∗ m∗ . q0 π resolved. 7

10 pirically with measured data. While our study has emphasized the near end-point 8 positron spectrum, it applies equally well to the near end-point electron spectrum. The reason that electrons 6 and positrons can be treated on an equal footing is that we have not included the influence of the nucleus’ strong 4 Coulomb field, which, in reality, will influence the outgoing electron and positron. Near the end-point, for in- 2 ternal conversion, this approximate neglect of Coulomb corrections may be insufficient. A high-energy positron

0 necessarily implies a low-energy electron whose outgoing wavefunction is then substantially distorted by the 90 92 94 96 98 100 Coulomb field of the nucleus (as is well known in the theory of beta decay [27]). This has been discussed in a more general setting in [28], and we will study this issue FIG. 4. Probability per differential bin (i.e. of width dEγ ) of in the context of the RMC end-point in future work [29]. producing a positron with energy E+ given a photon energy of We anticipate that our formalism of an internal conver- (0) Eγ = 100 MeV, Eqs. (39) and (44). We plot Pint of Eq. (43) sion probability can be readily adapted to account for as well as error estimates (gray band) obtained by considering Coulomb distortion effects. an ensemble of the two parameters CL, and CT , that capture nuclear structure dependence (see discussion in Appendix A). We treat CL and CT as random variables drawn from independent Gaussian distributions such that hC2 i = hC2 i = 1. L T ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We are indebted to Robert Bernstein, Michael Macken- VI. CONCLUSIONS AND OUTLOOK zie, Pavel Murat, and Stefano Di Falco for their consis- tent availability, enthusiasm, and willingness to help us We have shown that given the photon spectrum from understand the details and needs of the Mu2e experi- RMC on a nucleus, the spectrum of high energy positrons ment. We especially thank Pavel Murat for emphasizing or electrons can be computed accurately with errors con- the importance of the internal positron spectrum and for trolled by δ = (E− − me)/q0. This allows for a ro- the existing gap in the literature surrounding its near bust characterization of the internal RMC positron and end-point behavior. This work was made possible by the electron spectra near the end-point. External positrons, Intensity Frontier Fellowship program which supported stemming from real photons pair producing in surround- R.P.’s visit to Fermilab. R.P. is extremely grateful for ing detector material, can be calculated from the real- the support and hospitality of the Fermilab theory group. photon spectrum by dedicated Monte Carlo simulations This work was supported by the U.S. Department of En- that include the full detector geometry. Thus, with this ergy, Office of Science, Office of High Energy Physics, present work, a measurement of the real-photon spec- under Award Number DE-SC0019095. This manuscript trum becomes entirely predictive for the purposes of de- has been authored by Fermi Research Alliance, LLC un- termining the high-energy positron spectrum. Most im- der Contract No. DE-AC02-07CH11359 with the U.S. portantly, this allows for nuclear physics effects, which Department of Energy, Office of Science, Office of High have large theoretical uncertainties, to be included em- Energy Physics.

Appendix A: Error estimates

Here we consider corrections to the universal conversion probability Pint. As emphasized in Eq. (45), these corrections depend on the relative size of and δ. In what follows we will consider the cases of δ [i.e. a relativistic electron satisfying 2me (Eγ − E+)], ∼ δ [i.e. a quasi relativistic electron satisfying 2me ∼ (Eγ − E+)] , and δ [i.e. a non-relativstic electron 2me (Eγ − E+)] separately. For this section it is convenient to re-express Eq. (30) as

2(1 − δ − ) − 1 1 − 2δ − 2 cos θ = = . (A1) β∗βe β∗βe

p 2 2 p 2 2 (±) where we remind the reader that β∗ = 1 − m∗/q0, and βe = 1 − 4me/m∗. The ratio of m∗ to the photon energy 8 q0 will also be useful, and this can written in terms of β and as m(±) r h i ∗ = 2 + δ(1 − δ − 2) ± pδ(1 − δ)(1 − δ − 2)(δ + 2) . (A2) q0

Sub-leading corrections to Pint depend on nuclear matrix elements and are therefore model dependent. We can, however, parameterize this model dependence at next to leading order by defining 1 ∂2 C (Π) = q2 T 2 , (A3) T 0 2 ∂m2 ∗ ∗ m∗=0 2 CL(Π) = L , (A4) ∗ m∗=0 where CT and CL depend on the other phase-space variables Π (Π = cos θνγ , the opening angle between the photon and neutrino, for RMC). In estimating errors in the main text we treat CL and CT as constants independent of cos θνγ . 2 2 The small-m∗ behavior of the functions T∗ and L∗ can be expressed in terms of CT and CL via 2 2 m∗ 4 T∗ = CT (Π) × + O(m∗) , (A5) q0 2 2 L∗ = CL(Π) + O(m∗) . (A6) (±) Depending on the relative sizes of m∗ , either of βe or β∗ can deviate from unity at next to leading order. We therefore expand both of them in a Taylor series: s 2 2 4me 2me βe = 1 − 2 ∼ 1 − 2 , (A7) m∗ m∗ s 2 2 m∗ m∗ β∗ = 1 − 2 ∼ 1 − 2 . (A8) q0 2q0 2 2 While the expansion in me/m∗ may look ill-behaved for small m∗, recall that m∗ ≥ 2me, and for δ 1 we always √ 2 m∗ have that me/m∗ O( δ). Throughout the full region of phase space we find that F∗ ∼ 1 + O( ) and for . q0Matom medium-heavy nuclei these deviations from unity are at the permille level since m∗ ∼ 10 MeV, q0 ∼ 100 MeV, and Matom ∼ 30 GeV; we therefore set F∗ = 1 hereafter. We may then expand Eq. (35) under the integral sign subtracting off the leading-order expression. We therefore define (0) ∆Pint = Pint − Pint , (A9) given explicitly by α Z dm2 m2 m2 4m2 m2 ∆P = ∗ 2C (Π) ∗ − 4(δ + ) − ∗ − e + 2 4(δ + ) − ∗ C (Π) int 4π m2 T q2 q2 m2 q2 L ∗ 0 0 ∗ 0 (A10) Z 2 2 1 α dm∗ 1 m∗ 2me = 2[δ + ][2CL(Π) − 1] + [CT (Π) − CL(Π) + 2 ] 2 + 2 . q0 π m∗ q0 m∗ In deriving the above equation we have made use of 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 βe β∗ − (1 − 2δ − 2) m∗ 4me 2 (1 − cos θ)βe = 2 ∼ 4(δ + ) − 2 − 2 + O(δ ) , (A11) β∗ q0 m∗ 2 2 2 2 2 β∗ − (1 − 2δ − 2) m∗ 2 (1 − cos θβe ) = 2 ∼ 4(δ + ) − 2 + O(δ ) . (A12) β∗ q0

If we integrate over m∗ we then ﬁnd (+) 2 (−) 2 1 α (+) (−) 1 1 1 [m∗ ] − [m∗ ] ∆Pint = 2[δ + ][2CL(Π) − 1] log m∗ /m∗ + [ 2 CT (Π) − 2 CL(Π) + 4 ] 2 q0 π q0 " # (A13) m 2 m 2 + e − e . (−) (+) m∗ m∗ Diﬀerent terms in Eq. (A13) will be relevant or negligible depending on whether δ, ∼ δ, or δ. It is therefore useful to consider these limits separately. 9

1. Relativistic electron: δ

In this section we will power-count with ∼ O(δ2) such that

m(+) √ ∗ ∼ 2 δ , (A14) q0 m(−) ∗ ∼ √ ∼ O(δ3/2) . (A15) q0 δ

We then ﬁnd

2δ α ∆Pint = {[2CL(Π) − 1] log(2δ/) + [CT (Π) − CL(Π) + 1]} , (A16) q0 π where all contributions proportional to have been dropped because of the ∼ δ2 power counting. The ﬁnal term in (−) 2 (+) 2 Eq. (A16) receives a contribution from [me/m∗ ] ∼ O(δ) and [m∗ /q0] ∼ O(δ).

2. Quasi-relativistic electron: ∼ δ

In this section we treat ∼ O(δ) in our power counting, and ﬁnd

" #1/2 m(±) √ r 2 ∗ ∼ 2δ × 1 + ± 1 + . (A17) q0 δ δ

(+) (−) Notice that both m∗ and m∗ are parametrically of the same size, in contrast to the case where δ where we (+) (−) instead found that m∗ m∗ . We then ﬁnd 2δ α (+) (−) q 2 ∆Pint = [2CL(Π) − 1](1 + δ ) log m∗ /m∗ + 1 + δ [CT (Π) − CL(Π) + 1] , (A18) q0 π

(±) where, for compactness, we have left the dependence of m∗ on and δ implicit inside the logarithm. The ﬁnal term (±) in Eq. (A20) receives contributions from both roots of m∗ .

3. Non-relativistic electron: δ

In this section ∼ O(δ1/2) in our power counting, and

m(±) √ √ ∗ ∼ 2 ± δ . (A19) q0

Much like in the previous section both roots are of roughly the same size. We then ﬁnd that √ 8δ α ∆Pint = [CT (Π) + CL(Π)] , (A20) q0 π

(+) (−) where we have Taylor expanded log m∗ /m∗ taking advantage of the fact that δ . In this regime the error √ (0) p scales parametrically like O( δ). This should be compared to Pint in the same regime which is O( δ/). The 2 relative error is therefore O(). This stems from the photon virtuality m∗ tending towards m∗ → 2meq0 in the limit 2 2 that δ → 0 such that m∗/q0 ∼ O(me/q0) ∼ O(). 10

Appendix B: Virtuality dependence of the transverse electromagnetic current

2 2 In Eq. (43) we have assumed that corrections stemming from L∗ and T∗ are O(δ) or smaller. The longitudinal 2 2 2 matrix elements, L∗, are suppressed explicitly by a factor of (1 − βe cos θ) ∼ O(δ). In contrast, the transverse matrix 2 2 elements, T∗ , are not suppressed by explicitly O(δ) prefactors. For corrections from T∗ to be small, we therefore 2 2 2 require that terms proportional to the virtual photon mass m∗ are suppressed by energetic scales of O(q0) ∼ O(mµ) 2 2 2 such that T∗ ∼ m∗/q0 ∼ O(δ). One may be concerned that energy-level splittings (on the order of ∆E ∼ few MeV) 2 2 from low-lying nuclear excited states could enhance m∗ dependent contributions leading to O(m∗/∆E ) corrections. µν In this section we study the structure of J∗ by inserting a complete set of nuclear states, and deriving a time-ordered expression where energy-splitting denominators appear explicitly. We will study the matrix element

Z 3 0 ˆ d k ˜ 0 ˆ 0 ˆ outhν, A | Jµ |Aµ, atomi ≈ ψµ(k)outhν, A | Jµ |A(−k), µ(k)i ≈ ψµ(0)outhν, A | Jµ |A, µi (B1) in (2π)3 in in where we have assumed a non-relativistic treatment of the muon-nucleus bound state in the first approximation, and approximated the plane-wave matrix element by its value at k = 0 in the second approximation; we have also used R ˜ 3 3 ψµ(0) = ψµ(k)d k/(2π) . We are interested in this matrix element for real- and virtual-photon kinematics at fixed photon energy q0. We take the initial state as having zero three-momentum and an energy (i.e. rest mass) of Matom. The outgoing momentum of A0 is fixed by momentum conservation, and the energy of the neutrino by energy conservation. In the limit where 0 MA0 ∼ Matom → ∞ (i.e. neglecting the recoil energy of A ) we find

2 E = (M − M 0 ) − q + O(q /M 0 ) ν atom A 0 0 A (B2) ≈ mµ − q0 , where in the approximation we have neglected the binding energy of the muon and the mass diﬀerence MA0 − Matom. ˆ Let us evaluate outhJµiin at leading order in GF using Dyson’s formula, such that the lepton and nuclear matrix elements can be fully separated

R 4 0 ˆ 0 −i d yHint(y) ˆ outhν, A | Jµ |A, µiin = hν, A | T {e Jµ(0)} |µ, Ai Z (B3) GF 4 0 ν ˆ ˆ 2 = √ i d y hν, A | T {ν¯(y)γ (1 − γ5)`(y)Jν (y)Jµ(0)} |µ, Ai + O(G ) , 2 F where Jˆν is the weak-hadronic current. Furthermore, the electromagnetic current is a linear combination of a leptonic and hadronic piece ˆ ˆ X ¯ Jµ = Hµ + −e`γµ` . (B4) ` We can therefore write (dropping in- and out-labels since we are now calculating perturbatively) Z 0 ˆ GF 4 ν ¯ ν 0 ˆ hν, A | Jµ |µ, Ai = √ d y − e hν| T {ν¯(y)γ (1 − γ5)`(y)`(0)γ `(0)} |µi hA | Jν (y) |Ai 2 (B5) ν 0 ˆ ˆ + hν| ν¯(y)γ (1 − γ5)`(y) |µi hA | T {Jν (y)Jµ(0)} |Ai ,

0 ˆ ˆ 0 ˆ ˆ where we have used Eq. (B4) and the fact that hA | T {Jν (y)Jµ(0)} |Ai = hA | T {Jν (y)Hµ(0)} |Ai. The ﬁrst term can be reduced to a single weak-current nuclear matrix element (measurable with e.g. neutrino scattering) and an electroweak Feynman diagram with the muon radiating a photon. In the second term the nucleus radiates a photon and is excited by a weak current insertion. In between these two current insertions a virtual excitation of some low-lying nuclear energy level could, naively, supply an energetic denominator that is ∆E ∼ O(few MeV). Our focus therefore shifts to this term. 0 Translating the lepton ﬁelds to t = 0 and y = 0 and introducing Q` = k − k (the four momentum transferred out 2 of the leptons) we see that all of the nuclear physics that could enhance terms proportional to m∗ is buried in the current-current correlation function evaluated between two nuclear states Z 4 0 ˆ ˆ −iQ`y Wµν = d y hA | T {Jν (y)Jµ(0)} |Ai e . (B6) 11

In terms of this object the second term in Eq. (B5) can be expressed as √1 G uγ¯ ν (1 − γ )uW . Let us consider each 2 F 5 µν time ordering separately: Z ∞ Z + 3 0 ˆ ˆ −iQ`y Wµν = dy0 d y hA | Jν (y)Jµ(0) |Ai e , (B7) 0 Z 0 Z − 3 0 ˆ ˆ −iQ`y Wµν = dy0 d y hA | Jµ(0)Jν (y) |Ai e . (B8) −∞ Our approach is to: 1. Insert a complete set of energy eigenstates PR |XihX| = 1; we will refer to these states as isobars.

2. Integrate over space to get a momentum conserving delta function.

3. Integrate over time to get denominators of 1/(E ± iη). We ﬁnd

Z 0 ˆ ˆ + X 3 (3) ~ ~ 0 hA | Jν |Xi hX| Jµ |Ai Wµν = (2π) δ (Q` + PX − ~p ) 0 , (B9) (Q` + PX − p )0 − iη X Z 0 ˆ ˆ − X 3 (3) ~ ~ hA | Jµ |Xi hX| Jν |Ai Wµν = − (2π) δ (Q` − PX + ~p) . (B10) (Q` + p − PX )0 + iη X

PR P R Next, we can make use of Lorentz invariance to re-write X = n dfpn where states are now labeled by their quantum number n (which determines the mass and spin of the isobar state) and their three momentum |Xi = |n, P~ i; 1 3 3 0 here dp = d p/(2π) . Let us introduce |Zi = |n, P~ = ~p − Q~ `i and |Y i = |n, P~ = Q~ ` − ~pi such that f 2Ep

0 ˆ ˆ 0 ˆ ˆ X hA | Jν |ZihZ| Jµ |Ai X hA | Jµ |Y ihY | Jν |Ai Wµν = − . (B11) 2EZ (∆E` + [EZ − EA0 ]) − iη 2EY (∆E` − [EY − EA]) + iη Z Y

We have introduced ∆E` = (Q`)0 and the energies of the isobars EY and EZ . Notice that the isobars |Zi and |Y i are 0 discrete states whose momentum is fixed by three-momentum conservation, P~Z = ~p − Q~ ` and P~Y = Q~ ` − ~p. Small nuclear energy level splittings from the ground state do not lead to small denominators in Eq. (B11). ∆E` ∼ O(q0) ∼ 100 MeV is sufficiently large that any low-lying nuclear states are far off-shell. The only small denominators that can appear are in the second time ordering when [EY − EA] ≈ ∆E`; such considerations are beyond the scope of this work, and we do not consider them here.

Appendix C: Comparison with Kroll and Wada

The main difference between [23] (KW) and our study is that we focus on the end-point specifically and carefully consider the validity of approximating virtual photons by real ones. Since the authors of KW simply assume this approximation as an ansatz many of our results are similar to theirs. We disagree with the authors on certain technical points, and in particular on the validity of their advocated approximation in generic regions of phase space. We find, however, that the ansatz proposed in KW becomes a well controlled approximation in the limit that the electron’s kinetic energy becomes much smaller than the virtual photon energy, i.e. when δ 1. The notation of KW differs substantially from modern treatments and specifically this paper. Moreover, they consider a two-body system and so details of the phase space are slightly different between our works. For the benefit of the interested reader we spell out the differences in notation, derive the results of KW, and comment on typos and conceptual differences. Kroll and Wada consider a system A, initially at rest, that emits a photon becoming system B of mass M. The mass of system A is parameterized by MA = M +EAB with EAB the energy splitting between A and B. An important identity is that

1 EAB + M = 2 2 2 . (C1) 2EB∗ (EAB + M) + M − m∗ 12

The case of a massless photon, EB, is recovered by setting m∗ = 0. In Eq. (2) of KW, the rate of photon emission is calculated. To emphasize the difference in definition we denote our equivalent expression by (P&H) and the expressions of KW by (K&W), Z 1 q0MA 11 22 Γγ = 2 dΩ J0 + J0 (K&W) , (C2) 8π EB ¯ Z 1 β(MA, 0,MB) 11 22 Γγ = × 2 dΩ J0 + J0 (P&H) , (C3) 2MA 32π where (borrowing notation from [26]) r 2(m2 + m2) (m2 − m2)2 β¯(s, m , m ) = 1 − 1 2 + 1 2 . (C4) 1 2 s s2 ¯ ¯ For m1 = 0 we have that β = 2E1/MA such that β(MA, 0,MB) = 2q0/MA and therefore Z 1 1 q0 11 22 Γγ = 2 dΩ J0 + J0 (P&H) . (C5) 2MA 16π MA This allows us to identify the (K&W) current with our (P&H) matrix element via √ EB (K&W) Jµ = hJµi (P&H) . (C6) 2MA µν µν This means that there are implicit factors of EB contained in the expressions in KW, with J∗ ∝ EB∗ × J∗ . Having identified the appropriate current we can now jump ahead to the internal conversion coefficient ρ which is defined as the rate of electron-positron pair production to photon emission. KW gives (with expressions adapted to our notation) in Eq. (8)

Z q0 Z 1 2 α dm∗ EB∗ |~q∗| 2 2 2 2 m∗ ρ = d cos ϑ βe 2 + 2(cos ϑ − 1)βe RT (m∗) + 2 1 − βe cos ϑ 2 RL(m∗) (K&W) , 2π 2me m∗ −1 EB |~q| q0 (C7) where we have used

2 2 EAB + 2EABM + m∗ q0 = . (C8) 2(EAB + M) Modifying our discussion in the main text to account for two-body phase space we ﬁnd that ¯ β∗ Φ2∗ = Φ2 × ¯ , (C9) β0 with s 2 2 2 2 2 ¯ 2(MB + m∗) (MB − m∗) β∗ = 1 − 2 + 4 . (C10) MA MA

¯ ¯ 2 One can check that |~q∗|/|~q0| = β∗/β0. We therefore ﬁnd [using dm∗ = 2m∗dm∗ and keeping in mind that we are not including the delta function δ(E+ − E+)],

Z q0 Z 1 α dm∗ |~q∗| 2 2 2 2 2 2 ρ = d cos ϑ × βe 2 + 2(cos ϑ − 1)βe (1 + T∗ ) + 2 1 − βe cos ϑ L∗ (P&H) . (C11) 2π 2me m∗ −1 |~q|

2 2 The factor of EB∗/EB obtained in KW is absent from our expression because our functions T∗ and L∗ are defined in terms of J whereas RT and RL are defined in terms of KW’s J. As emphasized in Eq. (C6), upon being squared these differ by a factor of EB, and hence in KW’s expression there should be a ratio of EB/EB∗ instead of the factor 2 2 2 2 2 of EB∗/EB that appears in Eqs. (8) and (9) of KW (explicitly, [(E +M) +M −x ]/[(E +M) +M ] in the notation of KW); we ascribe this to a typo in KW. Despite appearances there is no discrepancy between our longitudinal matrix element and those in KW, because KW have evaluated their matrix elements in the lab frame, whereas our expression is evaluated in the rest-frame of 13

2 2 the virtual photon (or equivalently the electron positron pair). This accounts for the factor of m∗/q0 in KW, which can be interpreted as arising from boosting the rest-frame expression into the lab-frame. 2 This final point is important since the naive m∗ suppression appearing in front of RL(m∗) is artificial, but was used as a justification for the neglect of longitudinal matrix elements in KW. The fact that this is an artificial suppression can be seen in a simple example such as `+`− → e+e− where we can interpret the `+`− pair as a current sourcing µν µ ν µ ν 1 a virtual photon γ∗. In this case a straightforward calculation shows that J∗ = (k p + p k − 2 sgµν ) such that 33 2 33 2 2 J∗ = 2m` in the rest-frame (i.e. center of mass frame), whereas it equals J∗ = 2γ∗ m` in the lab frame, where 2 2 2 2 33 2 γ∗ = q0/m∗ is the boost of the virtual photon. Note, however, that in any frame the combination m∗/q0 ×J∗ = 2m` , which does not vanish in the m∗ → 0 limit. This illustrates that longitudinal matrix elements do not decouple in the m∗ → 0 limit. Instead, as we have shown in Eqs. (27), (31) and (35), they decouple when βe cos θ → 1. 2 2 2 The neglect of finite-m∗ corrections to the transverse matrix elements is only valid if m∗ q0. The integration (+) 2 measure is logarithmic in m∗, and so all scales contribute equally. Therefore, unless (m∗ /q0) 1, there is no reason to expect a real-photon approximation to be accurate. Additionally, as we have emphasized in the paragraph above, there is no small-virtuality suppression of longitudinal matrix elements. Rather, these are suppressed when 2 2 [1 − βe cos ϑ] is small. As the positron energy approaches its endpoint, both of these conditions are satisfied with errors being O(δ).

Appendix D: Generalization to arbitrary ﬁnal states

In Eq. (2) we have assumed a definite exclusive final state. As mentioned in the first footnote of the paper this assumption can be easily relaxed to accommodate inclusive final states for reactions of the form X |Aµ, atomi → |ν, γ, Xi . (D1) X

The expressions for the real photon spectrum and internal e+e− spectrum are given by Z 1 X µν ⊥ Γγ = dΦ3(X)J0 (X)(−gµν ) , (D2) 2Matom X Z 1 X µν 4πα Γe+e− = dΦ4(X)J∗ (X) 4 Lµν , (D3) 2Matom m X ∗ where we have included an X dependent evaluation of the electromagnetic current. Four-body phase space can be decomposed for each final state X as described in the main text. If X is has a multi-particle final state then an analogous decomposition for n-body phase space can be performed. Working at leading order in δ the resultant e+e− spectrum can then be related to the photon spectrum by the same internal conversion probability for every final state X Z dΓe+e− X dΓX (0) = dEγ Pint (E+|Eγ ) . (D4) dE+ dEγ X P The full differential photon flux is then easily identified as dΓ = X dΓX , such that Z dΓe+e− dΓ (0) = dEγ Pint (E+|Eγ ) . (D5) dE+ dEγ

This agrees with Eq. (36). 14

[1] Yoshitaka Kuno and Yasuhiro Okada, “Muon decay and physics beyond the standard model,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 73, 151–202 (2001), arXiv:hep-ph/9909265. [2] William J. Marciano, Toshinori Mori, and J.Michael Roney, “Charged Lepton Flavor Violation Experiments,” Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 58, 315–341 (2008). [3] Robert H. Bernstein and Peter S. Cooper, “Charged Lepton Flavor Violation: An Experimenter’s Guide,” Phys. Rept. 532, 27–64 (2013), arXiv:1307.5787 [hep-ex]. [4] Andre de Gouvea and Petr Vogel, “Lepton Flavor and Number Conservation, and Physics Beyond the Standard Model,” Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 71, 75–92 (2013), arXiv:1303.4097 [hep-ph]. [5] Lorenzo Calibbi and Giovanni Signorelli, “Charged Lepton Flavour Violation: An Experimental and Theoretical Introduc- tion,” Riv. Nuovo Cim. 41, 71–174 (2018), arXiv:1709.00294 [hep-ph]. [6] L. Galli, “Lepton Flavour violation in muon decays,” in 17th Conference on Flavor Physics and CP Violation (2019) arXiv:1906.10483 [hep-ex]. [7] J. Kaulard et al. (SINDRUM II), “Improved limit on the branching ratio of µ− → e+ conversion on titanium,” Phys. Lett. B 422, 334–338 (1998). [8] Wilhelm H. Bertl et al. (SINDRUM II), “A Search for muon to electron conversion in muonic gold,” Eur. Phys. J. C 47, 337–346 (2006). [9] R.H. Bernstein (Mu2e), “The Mu2e Experiment,” Front. in Phys. 7, 1 (2019), arXiv:1901.11099 [physics.ins-det]. [10] MyeongJae Lee, “COMET Muon Conversion Experiment in J-PARC,” Front. in Phys. 6 (2018), 10.3389/fphy.2018.00133. [11] Tanja Geib, Alexander Merle, and Kai Zuber, “µ− − e+ conversion in upcoming LFV experiments,” Phys. Lett. B 764, 157–162 (2017), arXiv:1609.09088 [hep-ph]. [12] André De Gouvêa, Wei-Chih Huang, Johannes König, and Manibrata Sen, “Accessible Lepton-Number-Violating Models and Negligible Neutrino Masses,” Phys. Rev. D 100, 075033 (2019), arXiv:1907.02541 [hep-ph]. [13] Jeffrey M. Berryman, André de Gouvêa, Kevin J. Kelly, and Andrew Kobach, “Lepton-number-violating searches for muon to positron conversion,” Phys. Rev. D 95, 115010 (2017), arXiv:1611.00032 [hep-ph]. [14] III Avignone, Frank T., Steven R. Elliott, and Jonathan Engel, “Double Beta Decay, Majorana Neutrinos, and Neutrino Mass,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 80, 481–516 (2008), arXiv:0708.1033 [nucl-ex]. [15] Beomki Yeo, Yoshitaka Kuno, MyeongJae Lee, and Kai Zuber, “Future experimental improvement for the search of lepton-number-violating processes in the eµ sector,” Phys. Rev. D 96, 075027 (2017), arXiv:1705.07464 [hep-ex]. [16] T. Meissner, F. Myhrer, and K . Kubodera, “Radiative muon capture by a proton in chiral perturbation theory,” Phys. Lett. B 416, 36–42 (1998), arXiv:nucl-th/9707019. [17] Shung-ichi Ando and Dong-Pil Min, “Radiative muon capture in heavy baryon chiral perturbation theory,” Phys. Lett. B 417, 177–185 (1998), arXiv:hep-ph/9707504. [18] Harold W. Fearing and G.E. Walker, “Radiative muon capture in a relativistic mean field theory: Fermi gas model,” Phys. Rev. C 39, 2349–2355 (1989). [19] Harold W. Fearing and Mark S. Welsh, “Radiative muon capture in medium heavy nuclei in a relativistic mean field theory model,” Phys. Rev. C 46, 2077–2089 (1992). [20] P.C. Bergbusch et al., “Radiative muon capture on O, Al, Si, Ti, Zr, and Ag,” Phys. Rev. C 59, 2853–2864 (1999). [21] M.K. Cheoun, K.S. Kim, and T.K. Choi, “Radiative muon capture and induced pseudoscalar coupling constant in nuclear matter,” J. Phys. G 29, 2099–2105 (2003). [22] P. Christillin, M. Rosa-Clot, and S. Servadio, “Radiative Muon Capture in Medium Heavy Nuclei,” Nucl. Phys. A 345, 331–366 (1980). [23] Norman M. Kroll and Walter Wada, “Internal pair production associated with the emission of high-energy gamma rays,” Phys. Rev. 98, 1355–1359 (1955). [24] Harold W. Fearing, “A Relativistic Calculation of Radiative Muon Capture in Hydrogen and 3He,” Phys. Rev. C 21, 1951–1958 (1980). [25] Michael E. Peskin and Daniel V. Schroeder, An Introduction to quantum field theory (Addison-Wesley, Reading, USA, 1995). 15

[26] Hitoshi Murayama, “Notes on phase space,” http://hitoshi.berkeley.edu/233B/phasespace.pdf, accessed: 2020-05-29. [27] Denys H. Wilkinson, “Analysis OF neutron beta decay,” Nucl. Phys. A 377, 474–504 (1982). [28] Paul Schlüter, Gerhard Soﬀ, and Walter Greiner, “Pair creation by internal conversion,” Phys. Rept. 75, 327–392 (1981). [29] Ryan Plestid and Richard J. Hill, (2020), in. prep.