1: \documentclass[12pt,twoside]{article}
2:
3: \addtolength{\oddsidemargin}{1cm}
4: \addtolength{\evensidemargin}{-2cm}
5: \addtolength{\textwidth}{1cm}
6:
7: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% make nicer headings %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
8: \usepackage{fancyheadings}
9: \usepackage{graphics}
10: \pagestyle{fancyplain}
11: \renewcommand{\sectionmark}[1]{
12: % \markright{\thesection\ #1}} % section title
13: \markboth{\thesection\ #1}{\thesubsection\ #1}} % section title
14: %\lhead[\fancyplain{}{\thepage}]{\fancyplain{}{\rightmark}}
15: \lhead[\fancyplain{}{\thepage}]{\fancyplain{}{\leftmark}}
16: \rhead[\fancyplain{}{
17: $B_{s,d} \rightarrow \ell^+ \ell^-$ in a Two-Higgs-doublet Model
18: }]{\fancyplain{}{\thepage}}
19: \cfoot{}
20: \advance \headheight by 3.0truept % for 12pt mandatory...
21:
22: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% end nicer headings %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
23:
24: \usepackage{cite} % collapse adjacent citations
25: \usepackage{epsf}
26: %\usepackage{/Users/logan/bin/equations}
27:
28: \parindent=0pt
29: \usepackage{times}
30:
31: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% macros %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
32: \newcommand{\ov}{\overline}
33: \newcommand{\lt}{\left}
34: \newcommand{\rt}{\right}
35: \newcommand{\nn}{\nonumber \\}
36: \newcommand{\no}{\nonumber }
37: \newcommand{\gev}{\,\mbox{GeV}}
38: \newcommand{\mev}{\,\mbox{MeV}}
39: \newcommand{\eq}[1]{(\ref{#1})}
40: \newcommand{\bra}[1]{\ensuremath{\langle \, #1 \, |}}
41: \newcommand{\ket}[1]{\ensuremath{| \, #1 \, \rangle }}
42: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% end macros %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
43: \def\nicefrac#1#2{\hbox{${#1\over #2}$}}
44:
45: \hyphenation{Higgs-es}
46:
47: \begin{document}
48: \thispagestyle{plain}
49: ~\\[-20truemm]
50: FERMILAB-Pub-00/084-T, \hfill
51: \parbox{3cm}{hep-ph/0004139}\\
52: %
53: ~\vspace{0.5truecm}
54: %
55: \begin{center}
56: %
57: {\LARGE\bf
58: $\bf{ B_{s,d} \rightarrow \ell^+ \ell^-}$ in a Two-Higgs-Doublet Model
59: }\\[2\baselineskip]
60: %
61: \textsl{
62: Heather E. Logan\footnote{electronic addresses: logan@fnal.gov, nierste@fnal.gov }
63: and \addtocounter{footnote}{-1}
64: Ulrich Nierste\footnotemark\\
65: Theoretical Physics Department, Fermilab, Batavia, IL 60510-0500,
66: USA.\footnote{Fermilab is operated by Universities Research Association Inc.\
67: under contract no.~DE-AC02-76CH03000 with the US Department of Energy} \\[2mm]
68: }
69: %
70: \end{center}
71: \vspace{5mm}
72: \begin{center}
73:
74: \textbf{\large Abstract}
75: \end{center}
76: We compute the branching fractions of $B_{s,d} \to \ell^+ \ell^-$ in the
77: type-II two-Higgs-doublet model with large $\tan\beta$.
78: We find that the parameters of the neutral Higgs sector of the
79: two-Higgs-doublet model cancel in the result,
80: so that the branching fractions depend only on the charged
81: Higgs mass and $\tan\beta$.
82: For large values of $\tan\beta$ and a charged Higgs mass above the
83: bound from $b \to s \gamma$, we find that the branching fractions
84: can be enhanced by up to an order of magnitude or suppressed by up to a
85: factor of two compared to the Standard Model result.
86: We point out that previous calculations in the literature are
87: gauge-dependent due to the omission of an important diagram, which
88: gives the dominant contribution in the 't Hooft-Feynman gauge.
89: We have analyzed in detail the region of the $(M_{H^+}, \tan \beta)$
90: plane to be probed by searches for $B_s \to \mu^+ \mu^-$ in
91: Run II of the Tevatron. Since the branching fraction increases like
92: $\tan^4 \beta$, this decay mode is complementary to $ b \to s
93: \gamma$ and efficiently probes the large $\tan \beta$ region. For
94: $\tan \beta=60$, an integrated luminosity of 20 fb$^{-1}$ in an
95: extended Run II will
96: probe charged Higgs masses up to 260 GeV, if the background to
97: $B_s \to \mu^+ \mu^-$ is small.
98: For the same value of $\tan\beta$, the LHC may be able to explore charged
99: Higgs masses up to 1 TeV using this decay. \\[2mm]
100: {\small PACS: 13.20.He, 12.60.Fr, 14.80.Cp\\
101: Keywords: $B$, leptonic decay; Higgs particle, multiplet; Higgs particle, mass}
102: \begin{center}
103: -------------------------------------------------------------------
104: \end{center}
105:
106:
107: %------------------------------------------------------------------
108: \section{Introduction}
109: The ongoing and forthcoming high-statistics B-physics experiments at
110: BaBar, BELLE, HERA-B, the Tevatron, and the LHC experiments ATLAS,
111: CMS and LHCb \cite{exp} will probe the
112: flavor sector of the Standard Model (SM) with high precision. These
113: experiments may reveal physics beyond the SM, and a
114: substantial theoretical effort is devoted to calculating the
115: observables that will be tested in various scenarios of new physics.
116:
117: A common feature of
118: all popular weakly-coupled extensions of the SM is an
119: enlarged Higgs sector. In this paper we study the type-II
120: two-Higgs-doublet model (2HDM), which has the same particle
121: content and tree-level Yukawa couplings as
122: the Higgs sector of the
123: Minimal Supersymmetric Model (MSSM).
124: If the ratio $\tan\beta$ of the two Higgs vacuum expectation values
125: is large, the Yukawa
126: coupling to $b$ quarks is of order one and large effects on $B$ decays
127: are possible. Direct searches for the lightest neutral MSSM Higgs
128: particle have begun to constrain the low $\tan \beta$ region in the MSSM,
129: because the
130: theoretically predicted mass range increases with $\tan \beta$. Hence
131: observables allowing us to study the complementary region of large $\tan
132: \beta$ are increasingly interesting. A further theoretical motivation
133: to study the large $\tan \beta$ case is SO(10) grand unified
134: theories \cite{SO10}: they unify the top and bottom Yukawa couplings at high
135: energies, corresponding to $\tan \beta$ of order 50.
136:
137: The leptonic decay $B_{d^{\prime}} \rightarrow \ell^+ \ell^-$,
138: where $d^{\prime} = d$ or $s$ and $\ell = e$, $\mu$ or $\tau$,
139: is especially well suited to the study of an enlarged Higgs sector
140: with large $\tan\beta$.
141: In the SM the decay amplitude suffers from a
142: helicity-suppression factor of $m_{\ell}/m_b$, which is absent in the
143: Higgs-mediated contribution.
144: This helicity suppression factor numerically competes with the
145: suppression factor of $(m_{\ell}/M_W)\tan\beta $ stemming from the
146: Higgs Yukawa couplings to the final state leptons, so that one expects the
147: new contributions in the 2HDM to be similar in size to those of the SM.
148:
149: Earlier papers have already addressed the decay
150: $B_{d^\prime}\rightarrow \ell^+ \ell^-$ in the 2HDM or the full MSSM
151: \cite{hnv,savage,sk,dhh,hly,cg}. Yet the presented results differ analytically
152: and numerically substantially from each other, so that we have decided
153: to perform a new analysis.
154:
155: This paper is organized as follows. In section \ref{sec:2HDM} we give
156: a brief review of the type-II 2HDM. In section \ref{sec:EHcalc} we
157: review the SM calculation of the decay $B_{d^{\prime}} \to \ell^+ \ell^-$
158: and describe our calculation of the
159: relevant 2HDM diagrams. We finish section \ref{sec:EHcalc} by
160: combining the results for the 2HDM diagrams and giving compact
161: expressions for the branching fractions. In section
162: \ref{sec:comparisons} we compare our result with previous
163: calculations. In section \ref{sec:phenomenology} we present a
164: numerical analysis of our result and estimate the reach of future
165: experiments. We present our conclusions in section
166: \ref{sec:conclusions}. Finally the appendix contains a discussion of
167: trilinear Higgs couplings.
168:
169:
170:
171: %---------------------------------------------------------------
172: \section{The two-Higgs-doublet model}
173: \label{sec:2HDM}
174: In this paper we study the type-II 2HDM. The model is reviewed
175: in detail in ref. \cite{HHG}.
176: The 2HDM contains two complex SU(2) doublet scalar fields,
177: \begin{equation}
178: \Phi_1 = \left(\begin{array}{c}
179: \phi_1^+ \\
180: \phi_1^0 \end{array} \right),
181: \qquad
182: \Phi_2 = \left(\begin{array}{c}
183: \phi_2^+ \\
184: \phi_2^0 \end{array} \right),
185: \end{equation}
186: which acquire the vacuum expectation values (vevs)
187: $\langle \phi_i^0 \rangle = v_i$ and break the electroweak symmetry.
188: The Higgs vevs $v_1$ and $v_2$ are constrained by the $W$ boson mass,
189: $M^2_W = \nicefrac{1}{2}g^2(v_1^2 + v_2^2)
190: = \nicefrac{1}{2}g^2v^2_{SM}$, where $v_{SM} = 174$ GeV is the SM Higgs
191: vev. Their ratio is parameterized by $\tan\beta = v_2/v_1$.
192:
193: Since in this paper we are not interested in CP-violating quantities,
194: we assume CP is conserved by the Higgs sector for simplicity.
195: The mass eigenstates are then given as follows.
196: The charged Higgs states are
197: \begin{eqnarray}
198: G^+ &=& \phi_1^+ \cos\beta + \phi_2^+ \sin\beta \nonumber \\
199: H^+ &=& -\phi_1^+ \sin\beta + \phi_2^+ \cos\beta,
200: \end{eqnarray}
201: and their hermitian conjugates. The CP-odd states are
202: \begin{eqnarray}
203: G^0 &=& \phi_1^{0,i} \cos\beta + \phi_2^{0,i} \sin\beta \nonumber \\
204: A^0 &=& -\phi_1^{0,i} \sin\beta + \phi_2^{0,i} \cos\beta,
205: \end{eqnarray}
206: where we use the notation $\phi^0_i = v_i + \nicefrac{1}{\sqrt{2}}
207: (\phi_i^{0,r} + i\phi_i^{0,i})$
208: for the real and imaginary parts of $\phi^0_i$.
209: The would-be Goldstone bosons $G^{\pm}$ and $G^0$ are eaten
210: by the $W$ and $Z$ bosons.
211: The CP-even states mix by an angle $\alpha$ giving two states,
212: \begin{eqnarray}
213: H^0 &=& \phi_1^{0,r} \cos\alpha + \phi_2^{0,r} \sin\alpha \nonumber \\
214: h^0 &=& -\phi_1^{0,r} \sin\alpha + \phi_2^{0,r} \cos\alpha.
215: \end{eqnarray}
216:
217: In order to avoid large flavor-changing neutral Higgs interactions
218: we require natural flavor conservation \cite{GlashowWeinbergPaschos}.
219: We impose the discrete symmetry $\Phi_1 \to -\Phi_1$,
220: $\Phi_2 \to \Phi_2$ (which is softly
221: broken by dimension-two terms in the Higgs potential), with the SU(2)
222: singlet fermion fields transforming as $d \to -d$, $u \to u$, $e \to -e$.
223: These transformation rules define the type-II 2HDM and determine the
224: Higgs-fermion Yukawa couplings.
225: The Yukawa terms in the Lagrangian are:
226: \begin{equation}
227: \mathcal{L}_{\rm Yuk} = -Y_d \bar Q \Phi_1 d
228: - Y_u \bar Q \Phi_2^c u - Y_l \bar L \Phi_1 e + {\rm h.c.}
229: \end{equation}
230: where $\Phi^c = i \tau_2 \Phi^*$. Down-type
231: quarks and charged leptons (up-type quarks) are given mass by their
232: couplings to $\Phi_1$ ($\Phi_2$).
233:
234: Most of the Higgs couplings needed in our calculation are given
235: in ref. \cite{HHG}. In addition we must consider the trilinear
236: $H^+H^-H$ couplings ($H=h^0,H^0$) which were first given in ref.
237: \cite{sk} and are discussed in appendix \ref{app:trilinear}.
238:
239:
240: %--------------------------------------------------------------------------
241: \section{Effective hamiltonian for $\mathbf{B \rightarrow \ell^+ \ell^-}$}
242: \label{sec:EHcalc}
243: The decay $B_{d^{\prime}} \to \ell^+ \ell^-$
244: proceeds through loop diagrams and is of fourth order in the weak
245: coupling. In both the SM and 2HDM, the contributions with a top quark
246: in the loop are dominant, so that one may describe the decay at low energies
247: of order $m_b$ by a local $\bar b d^{\prime} \bar \ell \ell$ coupling
248: via the effective hamiltonian,
249: \begin{equation}
250: H = \frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}
251: \frac{\alpha_{EM}}{2\pi \sin^2\theta_W} \xi_t
252: \left[ C_S Q_S + C_P Q_P + C_A Q_A \right].
253: \label{hami}
254: \end{equation}
255: Here $G_F$ is the Fermi constant, $\alpha_{EM}$ is the electromagnetic
256: fine structure
257: constant and $\theta_W$ is the Weinberg angle. The CKM elements are
258: contained in $\xi_t= V_{tb}^* V_{td^{\prime}}$. The operators in
259: \eq{hami} are
260: \begin{equation}
261: Q_S \; = \; m_b \, \bar b P_L d^{\prime} \, \bar \ell \ell, \qquad
262: Q_P \; = \; m_b \, \bar b P_L d^{\prime} \, \bar \ell \gamma_5 \ell,
263: \qquad
264: Q_A \; = \; \bar b \gamma^{\mu} P_L d^{\prime} \,
265: \bar \ell \gamma_{\mu} \gamma_5 \ell,
266: \label{ops}
267: \end{equation}
268: where $P_L = (1-\gamma_5)/2$ is the left-handed projection operator.
269: We have neglected the right-handed scalar quark operators because
270: they give contributions only proportional to the $d^{\prime}$ mass.
271: The vector leptonic operator $\bar \ell \gamma^{\mu} \ell$ does not
272: contribute to $B_{d^\prime}\rightarrow \ell^+ \ell^-$, because it
273: gives zero when contracted with the $B_{d^{\prime}}$ momentum.
274: Finally, no operators involving
275: $\sigma_{\mu \nu}=i \, [\gamma_{\mu} ,\gamma_{\nu}]/2$ contribute
276: to $B_{d^{\prime}} \to \ell^+ \ell ^-$.
277:
278: Because $m_b \ll M_W,m_t,M_{H^+}$, there are highly separated mass
279: scales in the decay $B_{d^{\prime}} \to \ell^+ \ell^-$.
280: Short-distance QCD corrections can therefore contain large logarithms
281: like $\log (m_b/M_W)$, which must be summed to all orders in
282: perturbation theory with the help of renormalization group techniques.
283: The calculation of the diagrams in the full high-energy theory gives
284: the initial condition for the Wilson coefficients at a high
285: renormalization scale $\mu$ on the order of the heavy masses in the
286: loops. The hadronic matrix elements, however, are calculated at a low
287: scale $\mu={\cal O} (m_b)$ characteristic of the $B_{d^{\prime}}$
288: decay. The renormalization group evolution down to this low scale
289: requires the solution of the renormalization group equations of the
290: operators $Q_A$, $Q_S$ and $Q_P$. Yet the operator $Q_A$ has zero
291: anomalous dimension because it is a ($V - A$) quark current, which is
292: conserved in the limit of vanishing quark masses. Similarly, the
293: operators $Q_S$ and $Q_P$ have zero anomalous dimension because the
294: anomalous dimensions of the quark mass $m_b (\mu)$ and the (chiral)
295: scalar current $\bar b P_L d^\prime (\mu)$ add to zero. Hence the
296: renormalization group evolution is trivial: if the bottom quark mass
297: in $Q_S$ and $Q_P$ is normalized at a low scale $\mu={\cal O} (m_b)$,
298: then no large logarithms appear in the effective hamiltonian or in the decay
299: rate.
300:
301: In the SM, the dominant contributions to this decay come
302: from the $W$ box and $Z$ penguin diagrams shown in fig.\ \ref{fig:SMdiags}.
303: \begin{figure}[tbp]
304: \begin{center}
305: \resizebox{8cm}{8cm}
306: {\includegraphics*[53mm,131mm][163mm,244mm]{BllSMdiags.ps}}
307: \end{center}
308: \caption{Dominant SM diagrams.}
309: \label{fig:SMdiags}
310: \end{figure}
311: These diagrams were first calculated
312: in \cite{InamiLim} and give a non-negligible contribution only to the
313: Wilson coefficient $C_A$. There is no contribution from
314: a photonic penguin because of the photon's pure vector coupling to leptons.
315: There are also contributions to the Wilson coefficient $C_S$ from a
316: SM Higgs penguin \cite{GK}
317: and to the Wilson coefficient $C_P$ from the would-be neutral Goldstone
318: boson penguin \cite{Krawczyk},
319: but these contributions to the amplitude are suppressed by a factor
320: of $m_b^2/M_W^2$ relative to the dominant contributions and can be ignored.
321:
322: The SM decay amplitude is then given by the Wilson coefficient \cite{InamiLim}
323: \begin{equation}
324: C_A = 2 Y(x_t),
325: \label{eq:CA}
326: \end{equation}
327: where $x_t = m_t^2(m_t)/M_W^2 = 4.27 \pm 0.26$ and $m_t$ is evaluated in the
328: $\overline{\rm MS}$ scheme at $\mu = m_t$, giving $m_t(m_t) = 166$ GeV.
329: The function $Y(x_t)$ is given by
330: $Y(x_t) = Y_0(x_t) + \frac{\alpha_s}{4\pi}Y_1(x_t)$, where
331: $Y_0(x_t)$ gives the leading order (LO) contribution calculated in
332: \cite{InamiLim} and $Y_1(x_t)$ incorporates the next-to-leading (NLO)
333: QCD corrections and is
334: given in \cite{bbmu}. The NLO corrections increase $Y(x_t)$ by about
335: 3\%, if $m_t$ is normalized at $\mu=m_t$. Numerically,
336: \begin{equation}
337: Y(x_t) = 0.997 \left[\frac{m_t(m_t)}{166 \, {\rm GeV}}\right]^{1.55},
338: \label{eq:Y}
339: \end{equation}
340: where we have parameterized the dependence on the running top quark
341: mass in the $\overline{\rm MS}$ scheme.
342:
343: We limit our consideration to the case of large $\tan\beta$, for
344: which the 2HDM contributions to this decay are significant.
345: In the large $\tan\beta$ limit, the Wilson coefficients $C_P$ and $C_S$
346: receive sizeable contributions from the box diagram involving $W$
347: and $H^+$ and the penguins and fermion self-energy diagrams with
348: neutral Higgs boson exchange shown in fig.\
349: \ref{fig:2HDMdiags}.
350: \begin{figure}[tbp]
351: \begin{center}
352: \resizebox{9cm}{!}
353: {\includegraphics*[2.03in,6.56in][6.53in,9.58in]{Bll2HDMdiags.ps}}
354: \end{center}
355: \caption{Dominant diagrams in the 2HDM with large $\tan\beta$.}
356: \label{fig:2HDMdiags}
357: \end{figure}
358: There are no new contributions to $C_A$ in the 2HDM, which therefore
359: retains its SM value.
360:
361: We have calculated the individual diagrams explicitly in a general
362: $R_{\xi}$ gauge, keeping only the terms proportional to
363: $\tan^2\beta$. Although each diagram that involves a $W^{\pm}$
364: or $G^{\pm}$ boson is gauge-dependent, their sum is
365: gauge-independent. For compactness, we give the results of the
366: individual diagrams below in the 't~Hooft-Feynman gauge.
367:
368:
369: %-------------------------------------------------------------------
370: \subsection{Box diagram}
371: The box diagram in fig.~\ref{fig:2HDMdiags} gives the following
372: contribution to $C_S$ and $C_P$:
373: \begin{eqnarray}
374: C_S^{box} &=& C_P^{box} \;= \;
375: \frac{m_{\ell}}{2 M_W^2} \tan^2 \beta \, B_+ \! \lt( x_{H^+}, x_t \rt).
376: \label{box}
377: \end{eqnarray}
378: Here $x_{H^+} = M^2_{H^+}/M^2_W$ and $x_t$ was defined after
379: \eq{eq:CA} in terms of $m_t(m_t)$. Strictly speaking, in a LO
380: calculation like ours, one is not sensitive to the renormalization
381: scheme and we could equally well use the top quark pole mass in $x_t$.
382: However, experience with NLO calculations in the SM \cite{bbmu}
383: shows that with the definition of $m_t$ adopted here, higher-order
384: QCD corrections are small in leptonic decays. Finally the loop
385: function $B_+$ in \eq{box} reads
386: \begin{eqnarray}
387: B_+ \! \lt( x , y \rt) &=& \frac{y}{x-y}
388: \lt[ \frac{\log y}{y-1} - \frac{\log x}{x-1} \rt].
389: \label{boxf}
390: \end{eqnarray}
391: $B_+ ( x_{H^+}, x_t ) $ also contains the contribution from internal
392: up and charm quarks with $m_c=m_u=0$ from the implementation of the
393: GIM mechanism. The effect of a nonzero charm quark mass is negligibly
394: small.
395:
396: %--------------------------------------------------------------------
397: \subsection{Penguins}
398: \label{sect:penguins}
399: The penguin diagram with $H^+$ and $W^+$ in the loop (see
400: fig.~\ref{fig:2HDMdiags}) contributes
401: \begin{eqnarray}
402: C_S^{peng,1} &=&
403: \frac{m_{\ell}}{2} \, \tan^2 \beta \, P_+ \! \lt( x_{H^+}, x_t \rt)
404: \lt[ \frac{\sin^2 \alpha}{M_{h^0}^2} +
405: \frac{\cos^2 \alpha}{M_{H^0}^2} \rt], \nn
406: %
407: C_P^{peng,1} &=&
408: \frac{m_{\ell}}{2} \, \tan^2 \beta \, P_+ \! \lt( x_{H^+}, x_t \rt)
409: \frac{1}{M_{A_0}^2} .
410: \label{peng1}
411: \end{eqnarray}
412: Here again all three quark flavors enter the result from the GIM
413: mechanism, and the effect of nonzero charm quark mass is negligible.
414: By contrast, in the penguin diagram involving $H^+$ and $G^+$ in the
415: loop only the internal top quark contribution is relevant, because the
416: coupling of $G^+$ to quarks is proportional to either of the quark
417: masses and we neglect $m_s$. This diagram gives
418: \begin{eqnarray}
419: C_S^{peng,2} &=&
420: -\frac{m_{\ell}}{2} \, \tan^2 \beta \,
421: P_+ \! \lt( x_{H^+}, x_t \rt)
422: \lt[ \, \frac{\sin^2 \alpha}{M^2_{h^0}}
423: \frac{(M_{H^+}^2 - M_{h_0}^2)}{M_W^2} \rt. \nn
424: && \lt.
425: \phantom{ - \frac{m_{\ell}}{2 M_W^2} \tan^2 \beta P_+ \lt( x_{H^+}, x_t \rt)}
426: + \frac{\cos^2 \alpha}{M^2_{H^0}}
427: \frac{(M_{H^+}^2 - M_{H_0}^2)}{M_W^2}
428: \rt], \nn
429: %
430: C_P^{peng,2} &=&
431: -\frac{m_{\ell}}{2} \, \tan^2 \beta \,
432: P_+ \! \lt( x_{H^+}, x_t \rt) \frac{1}{M^2_{A^0}}
433: \lt[ \, \frac{M_{H^+}^2 - M_{A^0}^2}{M_W^2} \rt] .
434: \label{peng2}
435: \end{eqnarray}
436: The results in \eq{peng1} and \eq{peng2} involve the loop function
437: \begin{eqnarray}
438: P_+ \! \lt( x , y \rt) &=& \frac{y}{x-y}
439: \lt[ \frac{x \, \log x}{x-1} - \frac{y\, \log y}{y-1} \rt] .
440: \label{pengf}
441: \end{eqnarray}
442:
443: %-------------------------------------------------------------------
444: \subsection{Self-energies}
445: Before we write down the result from the diagrams with self-energies
446: in the external quark lines, we discuss how these contributions come
447: into play. A treatment of flavor-changing self-energies has been
448: proposed in \cite{ahkkm,ms} and analyzed in some detail in \cite{ds}.
449: In these works flavor-changing self-energies have been discussed in
450: a different context, the renormalization of the $W$-boson coupling to
451: quarks. In \cite{ahkkm,ms,ds} counterterms have been chosen in such a
452: way that the flavor-changing self-energies vanish if either of the
453: involved quarks is on-shell.
454: For the down-type
455: quarks these counterterms form two $3\times 3$ matrices in flavor
456: space, one for the left-handed quark fields and one for the
457: right-handed ones, and similarly for the up-type quarks.
458: It was argued in \cite{ms,ds} that the
459: anti-hermitian parts of the counterterm matrices for the left-handed
460: fields can be absorbed into a renormalization of the CKM matrix, and
461: the hermitian parts of the matrices can be interpreted as wave
462: function renormalization matrices $Z^L_{ij}$ and $Z^R_{ij}$ with
463: $i,j=d,s,b$ for our case of external down-type quarks.
464:
465: However, it has also been argued \cite{ggm} that the on-shell scheme
466: of \cite{ms,ds} is not gauge invariant. In addition we find that the
467: approach of \cite{ahkkm,ms,ds} leads to an inconsistency in our
468: calculation. We cannot cancel the anti-hermitian parts of the
469: self-energies in the external lines with the counterterms for the CKM
470: matrix, because unlike in the case of the $W$ coupling renormalization
471: there is no tree-level coupling of a neutral scalar or vector boson
472: to $\bar b d^{\prime}$ to be renormalized. Hence we cannot absorb the
473: anti-hermitian parts of the flavor-changing self-energy matrices
474: into counterterms and they do contribute to our calculation.
475:
476: The absorption of the hermitian parts into wave function counterterm
477: matrices is optional, because the introduction of wave function
478: counterterms only trivially shuffles self-energy contributions into
479: vertex counterterms. It is most straightforward then to avoid the
480: issue of counterterms altogether by simply calculating the fermion
481: self-energy diagrams as they are shown in fig.\ \ref{fig:2HDMdiags}.
482: This calculation is straightforward because the internal $b$ quark
483: line is off-shell and therefore it does not contribute to the
484: 1-particle pole of the $s$ quark and needs not be truncated. It is
485: crucial to note that one must start with $m_s \neq m_b$ in the
486: diagrams with external self-energies in fig.~\ref{fig:2HDMdiags} to
487: properly account for the quark propagator $1/(m_b-m_s)$, and then take the
488: limit $m_b,m_s \rightarrow 0$ (except in the $\tan \beta$-enhanced
489: Higgs couplings, of course) at the end. FCNC transitions become
490: meaningless for degenerate quark masses, and one obtains an incorrect result
491: if one starts with $m_s = m_b$ and regulates the propagator pole with
492: an off-shell momentum $p$ with $p\rightarrow 0$. In this respect the
493: Higgs exchange diagrams in fig.~\ref{fig:2HDMdiags} differ from the
494: situation with $\gamma$- or $Z$- exchanges, where both methods give
495: the same correct result. Further we note that for $m_s \neq m_b$
496: one must include flavor-changing
497: self-energies in external lines with a factor of 1 rather than of 1/2
498: as in the flavor-conserving case. This is due to the fact that
499: flavor-conserving self-energies come from the residue of the
500: one-particle pole, while in our approach flavor-changing self-energies
501: are part of the non-truncated Green's function. By close inspection of
502: the formulae in \cite{ds} one also recovers this ``factor of 1 rule''
503: from the expressions for the wave function renormalization matrices
504: derived in \cite{ds}.
505:
506: There are two fermion self-energy diagrams that contribute in the
507: 2HDM, one with a would-be Goldstone boson $G^+$ and one with the
508: physical charged Higgs $H^+$. Their sum is ultraviolet-finite. This is
509: different from the SM case, in which the UV divergence of the
510: $G^+$ diagram cancels with the UV divergence of a SM Higgs vertex diagram
511: involving a $G^+$ and a top quark in the loop.
512: As in the penguin diagrams involving $H^+$ and $G^+$ in the loop,
513: only the internal top quark contributions to the self-energy are
514: relevant here, because the coupling of $H^+$ or $G^+$ to quarks is proportional
515: to either of the quark masses and we neglect $m_s$.
516: The self-energy diagrams add the following term to the Wilson coefficients:
517: \begin{eqnarray}
518: C_S^{self} &=&
519: \frac{m_{\ell}}{2} \, \tan^2 \beta \,
520: \left( x_{H^+} - 1 \right) \, P_+ (x_{H^+}, x_t)
521: \lt[ \frac{\sin^2 \alpha}{M_{h^0}^2} +
522: \frac{\cos^2 \alpha}{M_{H^0}^2}
523: \rt], \nn
524: C_P^{self} &=&
525: \frac{m_{\ell}}{2} \, \tan^2 \beta \,
526: \left( x_{H^+} - 1 \right) \, P_+ (x_{H^+}, x_t)
527: \frac{1}{M_{A_0}^2} .
528: \label{self}
529: \end{eqnarray}
530:
531:
532:
533:
534:
535: %------------------------------------------------------------------
536: \subsection{2HDM Wilson coefficients and branching ratios}
537: Adding \eq{box}, \eq{peng1}, \eq{peng2} and \eq{self} we obtain the
538: 2HDM Wilson coefficients in \eq{hami}:
539: \begin{equation}
540: C_S = C_P = \frac{m_{\ell}}{2 M_W^2} \tan^2 \beta \,\,
541: \frac{\log r}{r-1},
542: \label{wc}
543: \end{equation}
544: where $r \equiv x_{H^+}/x_t = M_{H^+}^2/m_t^2(m_t)$. Note that the
545: dependence on the masses of the neutral Higgs bosons from the penguin
546: and fermion self-energy diagrams has dropped out in their sum without
547: invoking any relation between the mixing angle
548: $\alpha$ and the Higgs masses. The
549: result depends on only two of the 2HDM parameters:
550: $\tan\beta$ and $M_{H^+}$.
551:
552:
553: The two hadronic matrix elements involved are related by the field
554: equation of motion
555: \begin{eqnarray}
556: \bra{0} \bar b \gamma^{\mu} \gamma_5 d^{\prime} (x)
557: \ket{ B_{d^{\prime}} (P_{B_{d^{\prime}}})}
558: &=&
559: i \, f_{B_{d^{\prime}}} \, P_{B_{d^{\prime}}}^\mu
560: e^{-i \, P_{B_{d^{\prime}}} \cdot x} \nn
561: %
562: \bra{0} \bar b \gamma_5 d^{\prime} (x)
563: \ket{ B_{d^{\prime}} (P_{B_{d^{\prime}}})}
564: &=&
565: - i \, f_{B_{d^{\prime}}} \,
566: \frac{m_{B_{d^{\prime}}}^2}{m_b+m_{d^{\prime}}}
567: e^{-i \, P_{B_{d^{\prime}}} \cdot x}.
568: \end{eqnarray}
569:
570: The resulting decay amplitude is
571: \begin{equation}
572: \left| \mathcal{A} \right| = \frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}
573: \frac{\alpha_{EM} m_{B_{d^{\prime}}} f_{B_{d^{\prime}}}}
574: {4\pi \sin^2\theta_W}
575: \left| \xi_t
576: \left[ \left( m_{B_{d^{\prime}}} C_S \right) \bar \ell \ell
577: + \left( m_{B_{d^{\prime}}} C_P
578: - \frac{2m_{\ell}}{m_{B_{d^{\prime}}}} C_A \right)
579: \bar \ell \gamma_5 \ell \right] \right| .
580: \end{equation}
581: Here $f_{B_{d^{\prime}}}$ is the $B_{d^{\prime}}$ decay constant,
582: normalized according to $f_{\pi} = 132$ MeV.
583: The corresponding branching ratio is
584: \begin{eqnarray}
585: \mathcal{B}(B_{d^{\prime}} \to \ell^+\ell^-)
586: &=& \frac{G_F^2 \alpha_{EM}^2}{32 \pi^2 \sin^4 \theta_W}
587: \frac{m_{B_{d^{\prime}}}^3 \tau_{B_{d^{\prime}}} f^2_{B_{d^{\prime}}}}
588: {8 \pi} |\xi_t|^2
589: \sqrt{1 - \frac{4m_{\ell}^2}{m^2_{B_{d^{\prime}}}}}
590: \nonumber \\
591: && \times
592: \left[ \left(1 - \frac{4m_{\ell}^2}{m^2_{B_{d^{\prime}}}}\right)
593: m^2_{B_{d^{\prime}}} C_S^2
594: + \left( m_{B_{d^{\prime}}} C_P
595: - \frac{2m_{\ell}}{m_{B_{d^{\prime}}}} C_A \right)^2 \right],
596: \label{eq:BR}
597: \end{eqnarray}
598: where $\tau_{B_{d^{\prime}}}$ is the $B_{d^{\prime}}$ lifetime.
599:
600: Numerically, the branching fractions are given by
601: \begin{eqnarray}
602: \mathcal{B}(B_d \to \ell^+ \ell^-) &=&
603: (3.0 \times 10^{-7})
604: \left[ \frac{\tau_{B_d}}{1.54 \, {\rm ps}} \right]
605: \left[ \frac{f_{B_d}}{210 \, {\rm MeV}} \right]^2
606: \left[ \frac{|V_{td}|}{0.008} \right]^2
607: % \nonumber \\ & & \times
608: \frac{m_{\ell}^2}{m_{B_d}^2}
609: \sqrt{1- \frac{4m_{\ell}^2}{m_{B_d}^2}} \nonumber \\
610: && \hspace{-2.5cm} \times
611: \left[ \left(1 - \frac{4 m_{\ell}^2}{m_{B_d}^2}\right)
612: \left( \frac{m_{B_d}^2 \tan^2\beta}{8 M_W^2}
613: \frac{\log r}{r-1} \right)^2
614: + \left( \frac{m_{B_d}^2 \tan^2\beta}{8 M_W^2}
615: \frac{\log r}{r-1} - Y(x_t) \right)^2 \right], \nonumber \\
616: %
617: \mathcal{B}(B_s \to \ell^+ \ell^-) &=&
618: (1.1 \times 10^{-5})
619: \left[ \frac{\tau_{B_s}}{1.54 \, {\rm ps}} \right]
620: \left[ \frac{f_{B_s}}{245 \, {\rm MeV}} \right]^2
621: \left[ \frac{|V_{ts}|}{0.040} \right]^2
622: % \nonumber \\ & & \times
623: \frac{m_{\ell}^2}{m_{B_s}^2}
624: \sqrt{1- \frac{4m_{\ell}^2}{m_{B_s}^2}} \nonumber \\
625: && \hspace{-2.5cm} \times
626: \left[ \left(1 - \frac{4 m_{\ell}^2}{m_{B_s}^2}\right)
627: \left( \frac{m_{B_s}^2 \tan^2\beta}{8 M_W^2}
628: \frac{\log r}{r-1} \right)^2
629: + \left( \frac{m_{B_s}^2 \tan^2\beta}{8 M_W^2}
630: \frac{\log r}{r-1} - Y(x_t) \right)^2 \right].
631: \label{eq:numBRs}
632: \end{eqnarray}
633:
634: It is a well known property of the 2HDM that there exists a limit
635: in which the particles $A^0$, $H^0$, and $H^+$ become very heavy
636: and decouple from processes at the electroweak energy scale while
637: $h^0$ remains light and its couplings approach those of the SM
638: Higgs particle \cite{decoupling}.
639: In the limit of large $M_{H^+}$, $C_P$ and $C_S$ fall as $M_{H^+}^{-2}$.
640: Thus the deviation of the branching fractions from their SM prediction falls as
641: $M_{H^+}^{-2}$ in the large $M_{H^+}$ limit, and the effects of the
642: enlarged Higgs sector decouple.
643:
644: Next we discuss the accuracy of the large $\tan \beta$ approximation.
645: Subleading terms in $\tan \beta$ could be enhanced by powers of
646: $m_t/m_b$ compared to our result in \eq{wc}, as is the case for the
647: SM contribution. Such terms indeed occur, but they are
648: suppressed by two powers of $\cot \beta$ compared to the SM
649: terms in \eq{wc}. Hence the formulae above are sufficient for all
650: purposes; e.g.\ if $\tan\beta =50$ the terms subleading in $\tan\beta$
651: give a correction only of $\mathcal{O} (2\%)$.
652: If $\tan\beta $ is between a few and 15 the 2HDM corrections are
653: small and experimentally hard to resolve, so that an error of order
654: $\cot \beta$ is tolerable as well.
655:
656: %---------------------------------------------------------------------
657: \section{Comparison with other calculations}
658: \label{sec:comparisons}
659:
660: \subsection{The analyses of He et al. and of Savage}
661: In the paper of He, Nguyen and Volkas \cite{hnv}, the decays
662: $B \to \ell^+ \ell^-$, $B \to K \ell^+ \ell^-$ and $b \to s \ell^+ \ell^-$
663: are analyzed in both type-I and type-II 2HDMs.
664: In \cite{hnv},
665: the only diagrams considered are the box diagram
666: involving two charged Higgs bosons and the $A^0$ penguin involving
667: $H^+$ and $W^+$ in the loop. Although the calculations of \cite{hnv}
668: are performed in the 't~Hooft-Feynman gauge, the $A^0$ penguin
669: involving $H^+$ and $G^+$ in the loop is not considered.
670: Similarly, in the paper of Savage \cite{savage}, the decay $B \to \mu^+ \mu^-$
671: is considered in the 2HDM, with and without tree-level flavor-changing
672: neutral Higgs couplings. Only the contribution of the $A^0$
673: penguin is considered.
674: In both \cite{hnv} and \cite{savage}, several diagrams that are
675: important at large $\tan\beta$
676: and required in order to obtain a gauge-independent result are neglected.
677:
678:
679:
680: \subsection{The analysis of Skiba and Kalinowski}
681: In the paper of Skiba and Kalinowski \cite{sk},
682: the decay $B_s \to \tau^+ \tau^-$ is analyzed in the type-II 2HDM.
683: In \cite{sk} additional penguin diagrams are considered that are not
684: proportional to $\tan^2\beta$, but rather contain one or no powers of
685: $\tan\beta$. We have neglected these contributions in our analysis,
686: because they are not relevant for the interesting case of large
687: $\tan\beta$. These additional penguin diagrams can be important for
688: small values of $\tan\beta$ and in regions of the parameter space where
689: some of the Higgs quartic couplings are very large resulting in large
690: trilinear $H^+H^-H$ couplings ($H=h^0,H^0,A^0$).
691:
692: Considering only terms proportional to $\tan^2\beta$, our results for
693: the individual diagrams agree with those of \cite{sk}, with two
694: important exceptions. First, the authors of \cite{sk} incorrectly
695: conclude that the box diagram involving $H^+$ and $W^+$
696: is negligible and therefore neglect it. If we neglect the
697: box diagram, we find that the sum of the remaining contributions
698: proportional to $\tan^2\beta$ is gauge-dependent. In the
699: 't~Hooft-Feynman gauge employed in \cite{sk} the omitted diagram gives
700: the dominant contribution, affecting the numerical result substantially.
701: Second, our result for the $A^0$ penguin diagram involving
702: $H^+$ and $G^+$ in the loop differs from that of \cite{sk} by a sign.
703: Our sign is required for the gauge-independence of $C_P$.
704:
705:
706: \subsection{The analyses of Huang et al.\ and Choudhury et al.}
707: In the paper of Dai, Huang and Huang \cite{dhh}, the Wilson
708: coefficients in \eq{hami} are calculated in the type-II 2HDM at large
709: $\tan\beta$. As in our calculation, only the diagrams proportional to
710: $\tan^2\beta$ are considered. However, the authors of \cite{dhh}
711: consider only the penguin and fermion self-energy diagrams with
712: neutral Higgs boson exchange and neglect the box diagram with a $W$
713: and charged Higgs boson in the loop. Still, after leaving out the box
714: diagram, our results for $C_S$ and $C_P$ in the 't~Hooft-Feynman
715: gauge do not agree with those of \cite{dhh}. This is partly due to a
716: typographical error in \cite{dhh}, which is corrected in \cite{hly,cg}.
717: There are two remaining discrepancies. First, our result for the
718: $A^0$ penguin diagram involving $H^+$ and $W^+$ in the loop differs
719: from that of \cite{dhh} by a sign. Second, in \cite{dhh} a
720: contribution from the $h^0$ and $H^0$ penguin diagrams with two $H^+$
721: bosons in the loop is included. This diagram is included in
722: \cite{dhh} because it apparently receives a factor of $\tan\beta$ from
723: the trilinear $H^+H^-H$ couplings ($H=h^0,H^0$). We argue in appendix
724: \ref{app:trilinear} that the trilinear couplings should not be
725: considered $\tan\beta$ enhanced. Therefore we conclude that the
726: penguin diagram with two $H^+$ bosons in the loop should not be
727: included in the $\mathcal{O}(\tan^2\beta)$ calculation because it
728: is of subleading order in $\tan\beta$.
729:
730: In \cite{hly,cg} the Wilson coefficients in \eq{hami} are calculated
731: for supersymmetric models with large $\tan\beta$. If the diagrams
732: involving supersymmetric particles are neglected, this calculation
733: reduces to that for the type-II 2HDM with parameters constrained by
734: supersymmetric relations. Again, in \cite{hly,cg} only the diagrams
735: with neutral Higgs boson exchange are considered, and the box diagram
736: with a charged Higgs boson and $W$ boson is not included. Leaving out
737: the box diagram, our result for $C_S$ and $C_P$ in the
738: 't~Hooft-Feynman gauge does not agree with the non-SUSY part of that
739: of \cite{hly,cg}. This discrepancy arises because our result for the
740: penguin diagrams involving $H^+$ and $W^+$ in the loop differs from
741: that of \cite{hly,cg} by a sign. Once SUSY relations are imposed on
742: the Higgs sector, it is clear that the penguin diagrams with two $H^+$
743: bosons in the loop are not of order $\tan^2\beta$, and the authors of
744: \cite{hly,cg} have omitted these diagrams, as we did.
745:
746: A final critical remark concerns the treatment of the renormalization
747: group in the paper by Choudhury and Gaur \cite{cg}. They include an
748: additional renormalization group factor to account for the running of
749: the Wilson coefficients. Yet these authors have overlooked that the
750: running of the (chiral) scalar quark current in $Q_S$ and $Q_P$ (see
751: \eq{ops}) is compensated by the running of the $b$-quark mass multiplying
752: the currents as explained in sect.~\ref{sec:EHcalc}. This leads to an
753: underestimate of the Wilson coefficients by roughly 23\%.
754:
755: In conclusion, the papers in \cite{hnv,savage}, \cite{sk} and \cite{dhh,hly,cg}
756: disagree with each other, and our calculation does not agree
757: with any of them. None of the results in \cite{hnv,savage,sk,dhh,hly,cg} passes
758: the test of gauge-independence and, in our opinion, each contains mistakes.
759:
760: %--------------------------------------------------------------
761: \section{Phenomenology}
762: \label{sec:phenomenology}
763: As can be seen from the numerical coefficients in \eq{eq:numBRs},
764: $\mathcal{B}(B_s \to \ell^+\ell^-)$ is significantly larger than
765: the corresponding branching fraction for $B_d$. This is due
766: primarily to the relative sizes of $|V_{ts}|$ and $|V_{td}|$.
767: As a result, even though the production rate of $B_s$ is three
768: times smaller than that of $B_d$ at the Tevatron, the bounds on
769: the leptonic branching fractions of $B_s$ are much closer to the
770: SM predictions than those of $B_d$ \cite{cdf}. For this reason
771: we concentrate on the decays of $B_s$.
772: Because of the suppression of the branching fractions by $m_{\ell}^2/m_B^2$,
773: clearly the decay to $\tau$ pairs is the largest of the leptonic branching
774: fractions in both the SM and the 2HDM.
775: However, this decay is very difficult to reconstruct
776: experimentally (due to the two missing neutrinos),
777: and as a result the experimental limits on $B$ decays to $\tau$ pairs
778: are very weak. Therefore in our numerical analysis we focus on the
779: decay $B_s \to \mu^+ \mu^-$,
780: for which the experimental bound is the closest to the SM prediction.
781: The best experimental bound comes from CDF \cite{cdf}, where
782: one candidate event for $B \to \mu^+ \mu^-$ has been reported;
783: this event was consistent with the expected background and lay in
784: the overlapping part of the search windows for $B_d$ and $B_s$.
785: The corresponding 95\% confidence level upper bound on the
786: $B_s \to \mu^+ \mu^-$ branching fraction is \cite{cdf}
787: \begin{equation}
788: \mathcal{B}(B_s \to \mu^+\mu^-) < 2.6 \times 10^{-6}
789: \qquad ({\rm expt}).
790: \end{equation}
791: The SM prediction for the branching fraction is
792: \begin{equation}
793: \mathcal{B}(B_s \to \mu^+\mu^-) = 4.1 \times 10^{-9} \qquad ({\rm SM}),
794: \end{equation}
795: where we have taken the central values for all inputs in \eq{eq:numBRs} and
796: ignored the 2HDM contributions as well as the errors in the hadronic
797: parameters.
798:
799: Because the 2HDM Wilson coefficients in \eq{wc} depend on only two of
800: the parameters of the 2HDM, $\tan\beta$ and $M_{H^+}$, the behavior of
801: the result in different parts of parameter space is easy to
802: understand. In regions of the parameter space with a large 2HDM contribution
803: to $\mathcal{B}(B_{d^{\prime}} \to \ell^+ \ell^-)$ compared
804: to the SM contribution, we may neglect $Y(x_t)$ in
805: \eq{eq:numBRs}. Then the result is particularly simple: the
806: branching fractions are proportional to $\tan^4 \beta \, \log^2 r /
807: (r-1)^2$.
808:
809: We can see from \eq{eq:numBRs} and the value of $Y(x_t)$
810: given in \eq{eq:Y} that the interference between the SM and 2HDM
811: contributions to the branching fractions is destructive.
812: The effect of the destructive interference can clearly be seen in
813: fig.\ \ref{fig:BRplot}.
814: %
815: \begin{figure}[tbp]
816: \begin{center}
817: \resizebox{13cm}{!}
818: {\rotatebox{270}
819: {\includegraphics{BRplot4.ps}}}
820: \end{center}
821: \caption{$\mathcal{B}(B_s \to \mu^+\mu^-)$ in the 2HDM as a function
822: of $M_{H^+}$ for $\tan\beta = 100$, 75, 60, 50 and 25.
823: For comparison we show the
824: current experimental bound \cite{cdf} and the SM prediction for the
825: branching fraction. The vertical line is the lower bound on $M_{H^+}$
826: in the type-II 2HDM from $b \to s \gamma$
827: \cite{btosgamma}.}
828: \label{fig:BRplot}
829: \end{figure}
830: %
831: In fig.\ \ref{fig:BRplot} we plot the predicted value of
832: $\mathcal{B}(B_s \to \mu^+\mu^-)$ in the 2HDM as a function of
833: $M_{H^+}$, for various values of $\tan\beta$. For comparison we
834: show the constraint on $M_{H^+}$ from $b \to s \gamma$ \cite{btosgamma},
835: obtained from the current 95\% confidence level experimental upper bound
836: of $\mathcal{B}(b \to s \gamma) < 4.5 \times 10^{-4}$ from the
837: CLEO experiment.
838: For very large $\tan\beta$ and relatively light $H^+$, the 2HDM contribution
839: dominates and the branching fraction is significantly enhanced
840: compared to its SM value.
841: As the 2HDM contribution becomes smaller due to increasing $M_{H^+}$
842: or decreasing $\tan\beta$, the branching fraction drops, eventually
843: falling below the SM prediction due to the destructive interference.
844: If we ignore the kinematical factor of
845: $(1 - 4m_{\ell}^2/m_{B_{d^{\prime}}}^2)$ in front of $C_S$ in \eq{eq:BR}
846: (which is a good approximation for $B_{d^{\prime}} \to \mu^+ \mu^-$
847: but not for $B_{d^{\prime}} \to \tau^+ \tau^-$)
848: then we can easily show that
849: the branching fraction in the 2HDM crosses the SM value when
850: \begin{equation}
851: \frac{m^2_{B_s} \tan^2\beta}{8 M_W^2} \frac{\log r}{r-1}
852: = Y(x_t),
853: \end{equation}
854: and reaches a minimum of half the SM value when
855: \begin{equation}
856: \frac{m^2_{B_s} \tan^2\beta}{8 M_W^2} \frac{\log r}{r-1}
857: = \frac{1}{2} Y(x_t).
858: \end{equation}
859: These correspond to $\tan^2 \beta \log r /(r-1) = 1790$ and 893, respectively.
860: As a numerical example, taking $\tan\beta = 60$ and $M_{H^+} = 175$ GeV
861: (500 GeV),
862: we find $\mathcal{B}(B_s \to \mu^+ \mu^-) = 1.8 \times 10^{-8}$
863: ($2.1 \times 10^{-9}$).
864:
865: In fig.\ \ref{fig:exclusionplot}
866: \begin{figure}[tbp]
867: \begin{center}
868: \resizebox{14cm}{!}
869: {\rotatebox{270}
870: {\includegraphics{exclusionplot5.ps}}}
871: \end{center}
872: \caption{Regions of $M_{H^+}$ and $\tan\beta$ parameter space
873: probed by measurements of $\mathcal{B}(B_s \to \mu^+\mu^-)$.
874: Contours are chosen as described in the text.
875: The vertical dashed line is the present lower bound on $M_{H^+}$
876: in the type-II 2HDM from $b \to s \gamma$ \cite{btosgamma}.}
877: \label{fig:exclusionplot}
878: \end{figure}
879: we plot the regions of $M_{H^+}$ and $\tan\beta$ parameter space
880: that will be probed as the sensitivity to the decay $B_s \to \mu^+\mu^-$
881: improves at the Tevatron Run II.
882: The contours shown (from left to right) were chosen as follows.
883: The current upper bound on $\mathcal{B}(B_s \to \mu^+ \mu^-)$ is
884: $2.6 \times 10^{-6}$ from CDF \cite{cdf} with about 100 pb$^{-1}$ of integrated
885: luminosity. This bound excludes a small region of parameter space
886: with very high $\tan\beta$ and very light $H^+$, shown by the solid line
887: at the far left of fig.\ \ref{fig:exclusionplot}. Such low $H^+$ masses
888: are already excluded by the constraint from $b \to s \gamma$
889: \cite{btosgamma}. The rest of the contours in fig.\ \ref{fig:exclusionplot}
890: show the regions that we expect to be probed at the Tevatron Run II and
891: extended Run II with various amounts of integrated
892: luminosity, assuming
893: that the background for this process remains negligible. In this case
894: the sensitivity to the branching fraction should scale with the luminosity.
895: If there is background however, then the sensitivity will scale only
896: with the square root of the luminosity.
897: With 2 fb$^{-1}$ from each of the two detectors, the sensitivity
898: should improve by a factor of 40
899: over the current sensitivity, to $6.5 \times 10^{-8}$,
900: shown by the short dashes in fig.\ \ref{fig:exclusionplot}.
901: For the values of $\tan\beta$ that
902: we consider, this sensitivity will still only probe values of $M_{H^+}$
903: already excluded by $b \to s \gamma$.
904: We also show two contours for the expected sensitivity with 10 fb$^{-1}$
905: and 20 fb$^{-1}$ of integrated luminosity per detector
906: (dotted and dot-dashed lines in fig.\ \ref{fig:exclusionplot}, respectively).
907: These correspond to an extended Run II of the Tevatron.
908: With 10 fb$^{-1}$ we expect the sensitivity to reach a branching fraction
909: of $1.3 \times 10^{-8}$, allowing one to begin to probe $H^+$ masses above
910: the current bound from $b \to s \gamma$ for $\tan\beta > 54$.
911: With 20 fb$^{-1}$ we expect a reach of $6.5 \times 10^{-9}$, less than
912: a factor of two above the predicted SM branching fraction. This would
913: allow one to probe $H^+$ masses above the current bound from $b \to s \gamma$
914: for $\tan\beta > 47$. In particular, for $\tan\beta = 60$,
915: a non-observation of $B_s \to \mu^+ \mu^-$ at this sensitivity would
916: rule out $H^+$ lighter than 260 GeV.
917:
918: Looking farther into the future, the experiments at the CERN LHC expect
919: to observe the following numbers of signal (background) events for
920: $B_s \to \mu^+ \mu^-$ after
921: three years of running at low luminosity, assuming the SM branching
922: fraction \cite{LHCBreport}: ATLAS: 27 (93); CMS: 21 (3);
923: and LHCb: 33 (10). Since the suppression of this branching fraction
924: in the 2HDM is at most a factor of two, the LHC experiments will be
925: able to observe this decay for any configuration of the 2HDM at
926: large $\tan\beta$.
927: For e.g.\ $\tan\beta = 60$ and $M_{H^+} < 285$ GeV, the branching fraction
928: in the 2HDM is enhanced by 30\% or more compared to the SM.
929: Similarly, for $\tan\beta = 60$ and 375 GeV $< M_{H^+} <$ 1 TeV,
930: the branching fraction
931: is suppressed by 30\% or more compared to the SM\footnote{We
932: do not consider
933: charged Higgs masses larger than 1 TeV for naturalness reasons.}. In
934: these regions, we expect the LHC to be able to distinguish the 2HDM from
935: the SM. In the region of large $M_{H^+}$, the dependence on $M_{H^+}$
936: is very weak; hence the LHC measurement will give powerful constraints on
937: $\tan \beta$ in the large $\tan \beta$ region.
938:
939: We have made no attempt to simulate the experimental background for
940: this decay in order to obtain an accurate estimate of the reach of
941: the Tevatron Run II. Neither have we taken into account the
942: theoretical uncertainty. We expect the largest theoretical
943: uncertainty to come from uncertainties in the input parameters,
944: primarily the $B$ meson decay constants and CKM matrix elements
945: in \eq{eq:numBRs}.
946: These uncertainties will be reduced as the $B$ physics experiments progress
947: and lattice calculations improve.
948: Also QCD corrections to the 2HDM contribution will arise at NLO and require
949: the calculation of two-loop diagrams. In the SM, the NLO corrections
950: increase the decay amplitude by about 3\%, and therefore increase the
951: branching fraction by about 6\%. We expect the NLO corrections
952: to the 2HDM contribution to be of the same order, in which case our
953: conclusions are not significantly modified.
954:
955: In order to evaluate the usefulness of $B_s \to \mu^+ \mu^-$ as a
956: probe of the 2HDM, we must compare it to other measurements that
957: constrain the 2HDM in the large $\tan\beta$ regime.
958: As the statistics of $B$ physics experiments improve, the measurement
959: of $b \to s \gamma$ will improve as well. If $B_s \to \mu^+ \mu^-$
960: is to be a useful probe of the 2HDM, it must be sensitive to a range
961: of parameter space not already explored by $b \to s \gamma$ at each
962: integrated luminosity. Fortunately,
963: $B_s \to \mu^+ \mu^-$ is complementary to $b \to s \gamma$ because of
964: the different dependence on $\tan\beta$. While the 2HDM contributions
965: to $b \to s \gamma$ are independent of $\tan\beta$ for $\tan\beta$ larger
966: than a few, the 2HDM contributions to $B_s \to \mu^+ \mu^-$ depend
967: sensitively on $\tan\beta$. This makes $B_s \to \mu^+ \mu^-$ an
968: especially sensitive probe of the 2HDM in the large $\tan\beta$ regime,
969: while $b \to s \gamma$ will remain more sensitive for moderate and small
970: $\tan\beta$.
971: Finally, a fit to the $Z$ decay data in the 2HDM \cite{olegetal}
972: puts weak constraints on the $H^+$ mass for very large $\tan\beta$:
973: $M_{H^+} > 40$ GeV at 95\% confidence level for $\tan\beta = 100$.
974: The fit gives no constraint for $\tan\beta < 94$.
975:
976: % Finally, if $\mathcal{B}(B_s \to \mu^+ \mu^-)$ is observed close to its
977: % SM value, a 2HDM is not ruled out. Rather, $M_{H^+}$ can be large or
978: % $\tan\beta$ can be small or moderate.
979: % In this case, additional 2HDM
980: % contributions not dominant in the large $\tan\beta$ limit should be
981: % taken into account. These contributions were calculated in \cite{sk},
982: % apart from the important box diagram involving $W$ and $H^+$.
983:
984:
985: %--------------------------------------------------------------
986: \section{Conclusions}
987: \label{sec:conclusions}
988: In this paper we have analyzed the decays $B_{d^{\prime}} \to \ell^+ \ell^-$
989: in the type-II 2HDM with large $\tan\beta$. Although these decays
990: have been studied in a 2HDM before, the previous analyses omitted the
991: box diagram involving $W$ and $H^+$, which is the dominant
992: contribution at large $\tan\beta$ in the 't~Hooft-Feynman gauge and is
993: needed for gauge independence. We showed that when all the contributions
994: are properly included in the large $\tan\beta$ limit, the resulting
995: expressions for the branching fractions are quite simple and depend
996: only on $\tan\beta$ and the charged Higgs mass.
997: These 2HDM contributions can enhance or suppress the branching fractions
998: by a significant amount compared to their SM values, providing
999: tantalizing search possibilities with the potential to probe
1000: large parts of the large $\tan\beta$ parameter space of the 2HDM.
1001: We have focused in our numerical analysis on $B_s \to \mu^+ \mu^-$,
1002: for which the the experimental sensitivity is best. We find that
1003: for reasonable values of $\tan\beta$ up to 60 and charged Higgs masses
1004: above the lower bound set by $b \to s \gamma$,
1005: $\mathcal{B}(B_s \to \mu^+ \mu^-)$ can be increased by
1006: up to a factor of five
1007: above its SM expectation or suppressed by up to a factor of
1008: two, depending on the charged Higgs mass. Although very high statistics
1009: will be needed to observe this decay, it promises to be an
1010: experimentally and theoretically clean probe of new Higgs physics.
1011:
1012:
1013: \vskip1cm
1014:
1015: {\Large \bf Acknowledgments}
1016: \vskip0.5cm
1017: We are grateful to Jan Kalinowski and Witold Skiba for helpful discussions,
1018: and to Jonathan Lewis for discussions on the reach of the Tevatron in Run II.
1019: We would also like to thank the conveners of the B-Physics at Run II
1020: Workshop at Fermilab for facilitating useful interaction among theorists
1021: and experimentalists.
1022: Finally we owe a debt of gratitude to Piotr Chankowski and
1023: \L ucja S\l awianowska for pointing out
1024: an error in the relative sign between the SM- and 2HDM-induced
1025: contributions to the decay rate
1026: in an earlier version of this manuscript,
1027: and for confirming our result for the 2HDM Wilson coefficients.
1028:
1029:
1030:
1031: %--------------------------------------------------------------
1032: \appendix
1033:
1034: \section{Trilinear Higgs couplings}
1035: \label{app:trilinear}
1036: The trilinear $H^+H^-H$ couplings ($H=h^0,H^0$) for the non-supersymmetric
1037: 2HDM were first presented in \cite{sk}. These couplings depend strongly on
1038: the model considered. For the most general CP-conserving 2HDM with
1039: natural flavor conservation, the $H^+H^-H$ couplings are given by
1040: $igQ_H/M_W$, where
1041: \begin{eqnarray}
1042: Q_{h^0} &=& -v_{SM}^2 \lt[
1043: \sin(\beta - \alpha)(2\lambda_3 + \lambda_4)
1044: - \sin\beta\cos\beta\cos(\alpha + \beta) \lambda_5 \rt.
1045: \nonumber \\
1046: && \qquad \lt. + 2 \sin\beta\cos\beta
1047: \lt(-\sin\alpha\sin\beta \lambda_1
1048: + \cos\alpha\cos\beta \lambda_2 \rt) \rt]
1049: \nonumber \\
1050: %
1051: Q_{H^0} &=& -v_{SM}^2 \lt[
1052: \cos(\beta - \alpha)(2\lambda_3 + \lambda_4)
1053: - \sin\beta \cos\beta \sin(\alpha + \beta) \lambda_5 \rt.
1054: \nonumber \\
1055: && \qquad \lt. + 2 \sin\beta\cos\beta
1056: \lt( \cos\alpha\sin\beta \lambda_1
1057: + \sin\alpha\cos\beta \lambda_2 \rt) \rt].
1058: \label{Qh}
1059: \end{eqnarray}
1060: The $H^+H^-A^0$ coupling is zero.
1061: Here $v_{\rm SM} = 174$ GeV is the SM Higgs vev, and the
1062: $\lambda_i$ are the scalar quartic couplings of the Higgs potential
1063: given in \cite{HHG}. To write these couplings in terms of Higgs masses
1064: and mixing angles, one must make an assumption to eliminate one of the
1065: independent $\lambda_i$. In \cite{sk}, formulae are presented for the
1066: two cases $\lambda_1 = \lambda_2$ and $\lambda_5 = \lambda_6$. The
1067: formulae in \eq{Qh} agree with \cite{sk} in these two cases.
1068:
1069: At large $\tan\beta$, \eq{Qh} reduces to
1070: \begin{eqnarray}
1071: Q_{h^0} &\simeq& -v^2_{\rm SM} \cos\alpha
1072: (2\lambda_3 + \lambda_4) \, [1 + \mathcal{O}(\cot\beta)] \nonumber \\
1073: %
1074: Q_{H^0} &\simeq& -v^2_{\rm SM} \sin\alpha
1075: (2\lambda_3 + \lambda_4) \, [1 + \mathcal{O}(\cot\beta)].
1076: \label{Qexpansions}
1077: \end{eqnarray}
1078: These couplings are not enhanced at large $\tan\beta$.
1079:
1080: Considering instead the case $\lambda_1 = \lambda_2$ and writing the
1081: trilinear couplings in terms of Higgs masses and mixing angles, we
1082: find at large $\tan\beta$,
1083: \begin{eqnarray}
1084: Q_{h^0} &\simeq& - \nicefrac{1}{2} M^2_{H^0}
1085: \tan\beta \cos^2\alpha \sin\alpha \, [1 + \mathcal{O}(\cot\beta)]
1086: \nonumber \\
1087: %
1088: Q_{H^0} &\simeq& \nicefrac{1}{2} M^2_{h^0}
1089: \tan\beta \cos\alpha \sin^2\alpha \, [1 + \mathcal{O}(\cot\beta)].
1090: \label{Qmh}
1091: \end{eqnarray}
1092: Naively, one would conclude that these couplings are enhanced at large
1093: $\tan\beta$. This is incorrect because the angle $\alpha$ depends
1094: on $\tan\beta$. At large $\tan\beta$ we have
1095: \begin{equation}
1096: \tan 2\alpha = \frac{2(4\lambda_3 + \lambda_5)}
1097: {\lambda_5 - 4(\lambda_2 + \lambda_3)} \cot\beta \,
1098: [1 + \mathcal{O}(\cot^2\beta)].
1099: \end{equation}
1100: Thus for generic values of the $\lambda_i$, $\sin\alpha \sim \cot\beta$,
1101: and the $\tan\beta$ enhancement in \eq{Qmh} is cancelled.
1102:
1103: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
1104:
1105: \bibitem{exp} {D.~Boutigny {\it et al.}}, {\it BaBar technical design
1106: report}, SLAC-R-0457; { M.~T.~Cheng {\it et al}.\ (Belle
1107: collaboration)}, {\it A study of CP violation in B meson
1108: decays: Technical design report}, BELLE-TDR-3-95;
1109: {K.~Pitts (for Fermilab D0 and CDF collaborations)},
1110: Proceedings 4th Workshop on Heavy Quarks at Fixed Target (HQ 98),
1111: Batavia, USA, 1998; { P.~Krizan {\it et al.}},
1112: {\it HERA-B, an experiment
1113: to study CP violation at the HERA proton ring using an internal
1114: target}, Nucl.\ Instrum.\ Meth.~\textbf{A351}, 111 (1994);
1115: The ATLAS Collaboration, {\it ATLAS Technical Proposal},
1116: CERN/LHCC/94-43;
1117: The CMS Collaboration, {\it CMS Technical Proposal},
1118: CERN/LHCC/94-38;
1119: The LHCb Collaboration, {\it LHCb Technical Proposal},
1120: CERN/LHCC/98-4.
1121:
1122: \bibitem{SO10}
1123: H.~Fritzsch and P.~Minkowski,
1124: %``Unified Interactions Of Leptons And Hadrons,''
1125: Annals Phys.\ {\bf 93} (1975) 193.
1126: %%CITATION = APNYA,93,193;%%
1127: M.~S.~Chanowitz, J.~Ellis and M.~K.~Gaillard,
1128: %``The Price Of Natural Flavor Conservation In Neutral Weak Interactions,''
1129: Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B128} (1977) 506.
1130: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B128,506;%%
1131: H.~Georgi and D.~V.~Nanopoulos,
1132: %``Ordinary Predictions From Grand Principles: T Quark Mass In O(10),''
1133: Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B155} (1979) 52.
1134: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B155,52;%%
1135:
1136: \bibitem{hnv}
1137: X.~G.~He, T.~D.~Nguyen and R.~R.~Volkas,
1138: %``B Meson Rare Decays In Two Higgs Doublets Models,''
1139: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 38}, 814 (1988).
1140:
1141: \bibitem{savage}
1142: M.~J.~Savage,
1143: % ``Constraining flavour changing neutral currents with $B \to \mu^+ \mu^-$,''
1144: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 266}, 135 (1991).
1145:
1146: \bibitem{sk}
1147: W.~Skiba and J.~Kalinowski,
1148: %``B(s) $\to$ tau+ tau- decay in a two Higgs doublet model,''
1149: Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B404}, 3 (1993).
1150:
1151: \bibitem{dhh}
1152: Y.-B.~Dai, C.-S.~Huang and H.-W.~Huang,
1153: % ``$B \to X_s \tau^+ \tau^-$ in a two Higgs doublet model,''
1154: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 390}, 257 (1997).
1155:
1156: \bibitem{hly}
1157: C.-S.~Huang and Q.-S.~Yan,
1158: % ``B \to X_s \tau^+ \tau^-$ in the flipped SU(5) model,''
1159: hep-ph/9803366;
1160: C.-S.~Huang, W.~Liao and Q.-S.~Yan,
1161: % ``The promising process to distinguish supersymmetric models
1162: % with large $\tan\beta$ from the Standard Model:
1163: % $B \to X_s \mu^+ \mu^-$,''
1164: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 59}, 011701 (1999).
1165:
1166: \bibitem{cg}
1167: S.~R.~Choudhury and N.~Gaur,
1168: %``Dileptonic decay of B/s meson in SUSY models with large tan(beta),''
1169: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 451}, 86 (1999).
1170:
1171: \bibitem{HHG}
1172: J.~F.~Gunion, H.~E.~Haber, G.~Kane and S.~Dawson,
1173: {\it The Higgs Hunter's Guide}
1174: (Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1990); errata hep-ph/9302272.
1175:
1176: \bibitem{GlashowWeinbergPaschos}
1177: S.~L.~Glashow and S.~Weinberg, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 15}, 1958 (1977);
1178: E.~A.~Paschos, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 15}, 1966 (1977).
1179:
1180: \bibitem{InamiLim}
1181: T.~Inami and C.~S.~Lim,
1182: Prog.\ Theor.\ Phys.\ {\bf 65}, 297 (1981)
1183: [erratum {\bf 65}, 1772 (1981)].
1184:
1185: \bibitem{GK}
1186: B.~Grz\c{a}dkowski and P.~Krawczyk,
1187: Z.\ Phys.\ C {\bf 18}, 43 (1983).
1188:
1189: \bibitem{Krawczyk}
1190: P.~Krawczyk,
1191: Z.\ Phys.\ C {\bf 44}, 509 (1989).
1192:
1193: \bibitem{bbmu}
1194: G.~Buchalla and A.~J.~Buras,
1195: %``QCD corrections to rare K and B decays for arbitrary top quark mass,''
1196: Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B400}, 225 (1993);
1197: M.~Misiak and J.~Urban,
1198: %``QCD corrections to FCNC decays mediated by Z-penguins and W-boxes,''
1199: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 451}, 161 (1999).
1200:
1201: %\bibitem{bbdm}
1202: %W.A.~Bardeen, A.J.~Buras, D.W.~Duke and T.~Muta,
1203: %Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D18}, 3998 (1978).
1204:
1205: \bibitem{ahkkm}
1206: K.~I.~Aoki, Z.~Hioki, M.~Konuma, R.~Kawabe and T.~Muta,
1207: %``Electroweak Theory. Framework Of On-Shell Renormalization
1208: % And Study Of Higher Order Effects,''
1209: Prog.\ Theor.\ Phys.\ Suppl.\ {\bf 73}, 1 (1982).
1210:
1211: \bibitem{ms}
1212: W.~J.~Marciano and A.~Sirlin, Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B93}, 303 (1975).
1213:
1214: \bibitem{ds}
1215: A.~Denner and T.~Sack,
1216: %``Renormalization Of The Quark Mixing Matrix,''
1217: Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B347}, 203 (1990).
1218:
1219: \bibitem{ggm}
1220: P.~Gambino, P.~A.~Grassi and F.~Madricardo,
1221: % ``Fermion mixing renormalization and gauge invariance,''
1222: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 454}, 98 (1999),
1223: hep-ph/9811470.
1224:
1225: \bibitem{decoupling}
1226: H.~E.~Haber and Y.~Nir, Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B335}, 363 (1990);
1227: H.~E.~Haber,
1228: %talk presented at the Workshop on Electroweak Symmetry
1229: %Breaking, Budapest, Hungary, July 11-15, 1994 and at the Joint U.S.-Polish
1230: %Workshop on Physics from Planck Scale to Electroweak Scale (SUSY94),
1231: %Warsaw, Poland, 21-24 September 1994, published
1232: in {\it Budapest Electroweak
1233: 1994}, F.~Csikor and G.~Pocsik (Ed.) (World Scientific, Singapore, 1995), 1,
1234: hep-ph/9501320.
1235:
1236: \bibitem{cdf} F.~Abe {\it et al.} (CDF collaboration),
1237: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 57}, 3811 (1998).
1238:
1239: \bibitem{btosgamma}
1240: J.~L.~Hewett, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 70}, 1045 (1993);
1241: V.~Barger, M.~Berger and R.~J.~N.~Phillips,
1242: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 70}, 1368 (1993);
1243: S.~Bertolini, F.~Borzumati and A.~Masiero,
1244: ``Probing new physics in FCNC B decays and oscillations'',
1245: in {\it B Decays}, S.~Stone (Ed.)
1246: (World Scientific, Singapore, 1992), 458-478 (1st Edition)
1247: and (1994), 620-643 (2nd Edition);
1248: M.~S.~Alam {\it et al.} (CLEO collaboration), CLEO CONF 98-17,
1249: talk presented at XXIX International Conference on High Energy Physics,
1250: Vancouver, Canada, 23-29 July 1998;
1251: F.~M.~Borzumati and C.~Greub, hep-ph/9810240.
1252:
1253: \bibitem{LHCBreport}
1254: P.~Ball {\it et al.},
1255: % ``B decays at the LHC,''
1256: hep-ph/0003238.
1257:
1258: \bibitem{olegetal}
1259: O.~Lebedev, W.~Loinaz and T.~Takeuchi,
1260: hep-ph/0002106.
1261:
1262: \end{thebibliography}
1263:
1264: \end{document}
1265:
1266: