1: \documentclass{JHEP}
2: \usepackage{epsfig}
3:
4: \title{
5: Single charged Higgs boson production at next generation linear
6: colliders}
7:
8: \author{Shinya Kanemura\\
9: Physics and Astronomy Department, Michigan State University\\
10: East Lansing, MI 48824--1116, USA}
11:
12: \author{Stefano Moretti\\
13: Theory Division, CERN, CH--1211 Gen\`eve 23, Switzerland}
14:
15: \author{Kosuke Odagiri\\
16: Theory Group, KEK, 1--1 Oho, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305--0801, Japan}
17:
18:
19: \abstract{
20: We study the single production of charged Higgs bosons in $e^+e^-$
21: collisions, chiefly in the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model. Our
22: analysis complements foregoing studies of the pair production channel
23: especially in regions where the kinematic constraint suppresses pair
24: production. We present cross sections relevant to experiments at the next
25: generation linear colliders and some brief discussions of their
26: phenomenology.
27: Our analysis shows that the single production is a useful alternative
28: channel for studying the phenomenology of charged Higgs bosons, and there
29: are regions of parameter space where it is accessible beyond the kinematic
30: limit for pair production.
31: }
32:
33: \keywords{Beyond Standard Model, Supersymmetric Models, Higgs Physics}
34:
35:
36: \preprint{CERN--TH/2000--347\\
37: KEK--TH--729\\
38: MSUHEP--00911\\
39: RAL--TR--2000--037}
40:
41: \begin{document}
42:
43: \section{Introduction}
44: Charged Higgs bosons $H^\pm$ are a cornerstone of
45: beyond-the-Standard-Model phenomenology. They arise as a prediction of the
46: supersymmetric extensions of the Standard Model (SM) from purely
47: theoretical requirements of consistency. Their discovery and the
48: confirmation of their properties will be a significant step towards a full
49: understanding of electroweak symmetry breaking.
50:
51: Some substantial effort has thus been channelled into the evaluation of
52: their phenomenology at future colliders, and over the past few years the
53: situation with respect to their discovery potential has become more clear.
54:
55: At hadron colliders \cite{LHC_search}, especially with the luminosity of
56: the LHC, charged Higgs bosons below the top quark mass are expected to be
57: produced abundantly in the decay of top quarks. When their mass is near or
58: greater than the top quark decay threshold, their discovery prospects are
59: further hindered by the falling structure function but they will be
60: produced mainly in the `$tb$-fusion' process, namely the parton level
61: process $gb\to tH^-$ and the charge conjugate. There have recently been
62: attempts \cite{gg_to_tbH} to connect the two channels together by looking
63: at a generic subprocess $gg\to t\bar bH^-$ which includes a component of
64: the latter process that is leading order at large transverse momentum of
65: the `spectator' bottom quark. In both cases the most promising decay mode
66: is presumably the $H^-\to\tau^-\bar\nu$ mode \cite{ko_tau_nu}. It is
67: claimed that relatively heavy charged Higgs bosons, of mass up to 1 TeV,
68: can be probed using this mode, especially at large $\tan\beta$, although a
69: full experimental simulation similar to that presented in
70: \cite{Les_Houches} will be essential to test this claim and to draw the
71: discovery contour. Here $\tan\beta$ is as usual defined as the ratio of
72: the vacuum expectation values of the two Higgs doublets. Several other
73: production channels have also been considered \cite{other_search}.
74:
75: At future electron-positron linear colliders (LCs), the dominant
76: production process,
77: if kinematically allowed, is the pair production process \cite{ee_pair}:
78: \begin{equation}\label{proc_pair}
79: e^-e^+ \to H^+H^-.
80: \end{equation}
81: The production rate depends only on the charged Higgs mass and the
82: process provides a hallmark channel through which we can study $H^\pm$
83: phenomenology \cite{pair_phenom}.
84:
85: When the charged Higgs mass is near or above half the centre-of-mass
86: energy the phenomenology is much less well understood. There has lately
87: been some interest in the associated production mode with $W^\pm$
88: \cite{zhu_HW, sk_HW, hollik_HW}:
89: \begin{equation}\label{proc_whi}
90: e^-e^+ \to H^\pm W^\mp,
91: \end{equation}
92: although the extent to which this channel could contribute towards the
93: study of charged Higgs phenomenology is not clear. In models with a
94: multi-Higgs-doublet structure, the process is loop-induced in the massless
95: electron limit, and therefore the cross section is suppressed. We also note
96: that no analysis of the SM background is available so far.
97:
98: Other channels that have been studied in the literature are the heavy
99: quark associated production mode \cite{ee_bbWH}:
100: \begin{equation}\label{proc_bbwhi}
101: e^-e^+ \to b\bar b W^\pm H^\mp,
102: \end{equation}
103: and the $\tau\nu_\tau$ associated production mode \cite{ee_taunuH}:
104: \begin{equation}\label{proc_taui}
105: e^-e^+ \to H^+\tau^-\bar\nu_\tau, H^-\tau^+\nu_\tau.
106: \end{equation}
107:
108: The purpose of this paper is to study the above processes in greater
109: detail and to collect them together with many other single production channels
110: of charged Higgs bosons in order to complement the pair production channel
111: both above and below its kinematic threshold.
112: Although our method is applicable generally in principle, we have adopted
113: the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM) for calculating Higgs
114: masses and mixings. The MSSM being a model with a decoupling structure in
115: the Higgs sector, the resulting cross sections are small compared to cases
116: where, for example, extra resonances are available.
117: However, it is beyond our intention to study models other than the
118: MSSM in the present paper.
119:
120: \section{Production processes}
121: We consider the following fourteen processes:
122: \begin{eqnarray}
123: e^-e^+ &\to& \tau^-\bar\nu_\tau H^+, \tau^+\nu_\tau H^-\label{proc_tau} \\
124: e^-e^+ &\to& \bar tbH^+, t\bar bH^- \label{proc_tb} \\
125: e^-e^+ &\to& W^\mp H^\pm \mathrm{(one\ loop)} \label{proc_wh} \\
126: e^-e^+ &\to& e^-\bar\nu H^+, e^+\nu H^-
127: \mathrm{ (one\ loop)} \label{proc_enu} \\
128: e^-e^+ &\to& Z^0W^\mp H^\pm \label{proc_zwh} \\
129: e^-e^+ &\to& h^0W^\mp H^\pm \label{proc_lwh} \\
130: e^-e^+ &\to& H^0W^\mp H^\pm \label{proc_bwh} \\
131: e^-e^+ &\to& A^0W^\mp H^\pm \label{proc_awh} \\
132: e^-e^+ &\to& e^-e^+W^\mp H^\pm \label{proc_eewh}\\
133: e^-e^+ &\to& \nu_e\bar\nu_eW^\mp H^\pm \label{proc_nnwh}\\
134: e^-e^+ &\to& e^-\bar\nu_eZ^0 H^+, e^+\nu_eZ^0H^- \label{proc_enzh}\\
135: e^-e^+ &\to& e^-\bar\nu_eh^0 H^+, e^+\nu_eh^0H^- \label{proc_enlh}\\
136: e^-e^+ &\to& e^-\bar\nu_eH^0 H^+, e^+\nu_eH^0H^- \label{proc_enbh}\\
137: e^-e^+ &\to& e^-\bar\nu_eA^0 H^+, e^+\nu_eA^0H^-.\label{proc_enah}
138: \end{eqnarray}
139: The Feynman graphs corresponding to the above are shown in figure
140: \ref{feynman_graphs}.
141:
142: \FIGURE[p]{
143: \epsfig{file=plots/kosuke1.eps,height=4cm}\\[1cm]
144: (a) processes (\ref{proc_tau}) and (\ref{proc_tb})\\[1cm]
145: \epsfig{file=plots/kosuke2.eps,height=3.8cm}\\[1cm]
146: (b) process (\ref{proc_wh}). Shaded circles represent one-loop
147: contributions.\\[1cm]
148: \epsfig{file=plots/kosuke6.eps,height=4cm}\\[1cm]
149: (c) process (\ref{proc_enu}). $W^\pm-H^\pm$ mixing is
150: taken into account by using the renormalised couplings. We neglect the
151: box diagram.
152: }
153: \FIGURE[p]{
154: \epsfig{file=plots/kosuke3.eps,height=4cm}\\[1cm]
155: (d) process (\ref{proc_zwh})\\[1cm]
156: \epsfig{file=plots/kosuke5.eps,height=4cm}\\[1cm]
157: (e) processes (\ref{proc_lwh})--(\ref{proc_awh})\\[1cm]
158: \epsfig{file=plots/kosuke4.eps,height=3.6cm}\\
159: (f) processes (\ref{proc_eewh})--(\ref{proc_enzh})
160: }
161: \FIGURE[p]{
162: \epsfig{file=plots/kosuke7.eps,height=15cm}\\[1cm]
163: (g) processes (\ref{proc_enlh})--(\ref{proc_enah})\\[1cm]
164: \caption{Feynman diagrams for the single $H^\pm$ production
165: processes. In all diagrams $H$ stands for $H^\pm$ and $W$ stands for
166: $W^\mp$, the charge being dictated by charge conservation in the
167: diagram concerned. Charge conjugated diagrams have been omitted from
168: (b), (c) and (f) for simplicity.}
169: \label{feynman_graphs}
170: }
171:
172: For all tree-level processes, the matrix elements were calculated both by
173: hand, for select set of diagrams in order to simplify the calculation,
174: using the usual trace method, and by using the helicity amplitude formalism
175: of \cite{helicity_HZ}. The two sets of results agree up to the numerical
176: precision employed. We present the matrix element squared for the
177: dominant tree-level signal
178: processes (\ref{proc_tau}) and (\ref{proc_tb}) in the
179: appendix.
180:
181: All processes were calculated at leading order only.
182: For the 2HDM parameters, we adopted the MSSM throughout.
183: For the SM parameters we adopted the following:
184: $m_b=4.25$ GeV, $m_t=175$ GeV, $m_e=0.511$ MeV, $m_\tau=1.78$ GeV,
185: $m_\nu=0$, $M_W=80.23$ GeV, $\Gamma_W=2.08$ GeV, $M_Z=91.19$ GeV,
186: $\Gamma_Z=2.50$ GeV, $\sin^2\theta_W=0.232$. The top quark width $\Gamma_t$
187: was evaluated at leading order for each value of $M_{H^\pm}$ and
188: $\tan\beta$. Neutral and charged Higgs masses were calculated for given
189: values of $M_{A^0}$ and $\tan\beta$ using the HDECAY package \cite{hdecay},
190: with the SUSY masses, the trilinear couplings and the Higgsino mass
191: parameter $\mu$ being set to 1 TeV. The charged Higgs boson width
192: $\Gamma_{H^\pm}$ was evaluated at leading order.
193:
194: The loop-induced processes (\ref{proc_wh}) and (\ref{proc_enu}) were
195: adapted from \cite{sk_HW, sk_WZdec}.
196: % The $WH$ associated production process (\ref{proc_wh}) was evaluated
197: %using the helicity amplitude formalism.
198: In the one-loop analyses, we
199: assumed that the superpartners are sufficiently heavy to decouple, so that
200: only the heavy quark loops and Higgs--gauge loops are included. We
201: introduced counter terms from $WH$ and $wH$ mixings ($w$ represents the
202: Nambu-Goldstone boson) \cite{capdequi} and used the renormalised coupling
203: to account for the mixing. Details of the calculation are shown in
204: \cite{sk_HW}. One of the renormalisation conditions is that the $WH$ mixing
205: is zero for onshell $H^\pm$, such that the third diagram of figure
206: \ref{feynman_graphs}(b) is effectively zero. The cross sections are
207: qualitatively consistent with other calculations \cite{zhu_HW, hollik_HW},
208: although we note that this renormalisation is not performed in
209: \cite{zhu_HW}.
210:
211: The $HWZ$ and $HW\gamma$ vertices, which enter into the process
212: (\ref{proc_enu}), have been calculated in \cite{sk_WZdec} and
213: \cite{rizzomendez} for the $HWZ$ vertex and in \cite{haber} for both
214: vertices. In our analysis, we improved on their calculations by
215: renormalising the $WH$ and $wH$ mixings according to the calculation in
216: \cite{sk_HW} and \cite{hollik_HW}.
217: Again, the superpartners were assumed to be heavy. In addition, for
218: process (\ref{proc_enu}), we dropped the bosonic loop contributions in
219: order to save time during numerical computation. This does not affect the
220: results, as the contributions from Higgs--gauge loop diagrams are small in
221: parameter regions where these vertices are substantial. We have explicitly
222: verified this statement numerically. The total cross sections were
223: evaluated using these vertices with the helicity amplitude method.
224:
225: In the results which we present, the charge conjugate subprocesses are
226: not included. Our results correspond to the production of either an $H^+$
227: or an $H^-$ (except for the pair production process). This is in order to
228: avoid double counting final states. For instance, if we consider
229: process (\ref{proc_tau}), the final state can be $\tau^-\bar\nu_\tau\
230: \tau^+\nu_\tau$.
231: % This final state is counted in both the $H^+$ and the $H^-$ processes,
232: % and to avoid double counting we do not include charge conjugation in our
233: % results.
234: Far from the kinematic threshold for pair
235: production the `total' single charged Higgs production for a final state
236: $XH^\pm$ may be given by:
237: \begin{equation}
238: \sigma(XH^\pm)=\sigma(XH^+)+\sigma(XH^-)-BR(H^\pm\to X)\sigma(H^+H^-).
239: \end{equation}
240: Near the kinematic threshold we can not treat the processes consistently
241: using this formula without specifying the particular final state, and this
242: would limit the generality of our approach.
243: % Therefore we do not consider the charge conjugated final state.
244: The total cross section is twice that presented here in regions where pair
245: production is forbidden, and nearly equal to that presented here in the
246: limit where the branching ratio $BR(H^\pm\to X)$ tends to one.
247:
248: \section{Production cross sections}
249: We present the cross sections as functions of the charged Higgs boson
250: mass $M_{H^\pm}$ at collider energies of 500 GeV and 1000 GeV and 4
251: different values of $\tan\beta$, 1.5, 7, 30 and 40. These are shown in
252: figures \ref{rate_tau} to \ref{rate_enlh}. If we assume, for instance, an
253: integrated luminosity of 500 fb$^{-1}$ \cite{nlc_params},
254: $10^{-5}$ pb corresponds to 5 events per year before acceptance cuts and
255: background reduction. We do not discuss the background reduction procedure
256: in detail in this study, and $10^{-5}$ pb is taken naively as the threshold
257: of the `relevance' of the process to the study of charged Higgs production
258: at LC. We emphasise that this is not intended in any way as a threshold of
259: detectability, or even visibility, as the evaluation of such thresholds
260: would require jet simulations and machine-dependent considerations which
261: are clearly beyond the scope of this current study.
262:
263: \FIGURE[p]{
264: \epsfig{file= plots/eetnhpm_500.ps,width=5cm,angle=90}
265: \epsfig{file=plots/eetnhpm_1000.ps,width=5cm,angle=90}\\
266: (a) Process (\ref{proc_tau})\\[1cm]
267: \epsfig{file= plots/eebthpm_500.ps,width=5cm,angle=90}
268: \epsfig{file=plots/eebthpm_1000.ps,width=5cm,angle=90}\\
269: (b) Process (\ref{proc_tb})\\%[1cm]
270: \caption{Total cross sections for the tau and the heavy quark
271: associated production channels.}
272: \label{rate_tau}
273: }
274:
275: \FIGURE[p]{
276: \epsfig{file= plots/eewhpm_500.ps,width=5cm,angle=90}
277: \epsfig{file=plots/eewhpm_1000.ps,width=5cm,angle=90}\\
278: \caption{Total cross sections for the $W^- H^+$ associated
279: production process (\ref{proc_wh}).}
280: \label{rate_wh}
281: }
282:
283: \FIGURE[p]{
284: \epsfig{file= plots/eeenhpm_500.ps,width=5cm,angle=90}
285: \epsfig{file=plots/eeenhpm_1000.ps,width=5cm,angle=90}\\
286: \caption{Total cross sections for the loop induced vector fusion process
287: (\ref{proc_enu}).}
288: \label{rate_enu}
289: }
290:
291: \FIGURE[p]{
292: \epsfig{file= plots/eezhpmw_500.ps,width=5cm,angle=90}
293: \epsfig{file=plots/eezhpmw_1000.ps,width=5cm,angle=90}\\
294: \caption{Total cross sections for the $Z^0W^- H^+$ associated
295: production process (\ref{proc_zwh}).}
296: \label{rate_zwh}
297: }
298:
299: \FIGURE[p]{
300: \epsfig{file= plots/eeh02hpmw_500.ps,width=5cm,angle=90}
301: \epsfig{file=plots/eeh02hpmw_1000.ps,width=5cm,angle=90}\\
302: (a) Process (\ref{proc_lwh})\\[1cm]
303: \epsfig{file= plots/eeh01hpmw_500.ps,width=5cm,angle=90}
304: \epsfig{file=plots/eeh01hpmw_1000.ps,width=5cm,angle=90}\\
305: (b) Process (\ref{proc_bwh})\\[1cm]
306: \epsfig{file= plots/eeh03hpmw_500.ps,width=5cm,angle=90}
307: \epsfig{file=plots/eeh03hpmw_1000.ps,width=5cm,angle=90}\\
308: (c) Process (\ref{proc_awh})\\[1cm]
309: \caption{Total cross sections for the neutral Higgs associated
310: production channels.}
311: \label{rate_lwh}
312: }
313:
314: \FIGURE[p]{
315: \epsfig{file= plots/eeeehpmw_500.ps,width=5cm,angle=90}
316: \epsfig{file=plots/eeeehpmw_1000.ps,width=5cm,angle=90}\\
317: (a) Process (\ref{proc_eewh})\\[1cm]
318: \epsfig{file= plots/eennhpmw_500.ps,width=5cm,angle=90}
319: \epsfig{file=plots/eennhpmw_1000.ps,width=5cm,angle=90}\\
320: (b) Process (\ref{proc_nnwh})\\[1cm]
321: \epsfig{file= plots/eeenzhpm_500.ps,width=5cm,angle=90}
322: \epsfig{file=plots/eeenzhpm_1000.ps,width=5cm,angle=90}\\
323: (c) Process (\ref{proc_enzh})\\[1cm]
324: \caption{Total cross sections for the vector fusion mediated gauge boson
325: associated production channels.}
326: \label{rate_eewh}
327: }
328:
329: \FIGURE[p]{
330: \epsfig{file= plots/eeenh02hpm_500.ps,width=5cm,angle=90}
331: \epsfig{file=plots/eeenh02hpm_1000.ps,width=5cm,angle=90}\\
332: (a) Process (\ref{proc_enlh})\\[1cm]
333: \epsfig{file= plots/eeenh01hpm_500.ps,width=5cm,angle=90}
334: \epsfig{file=plots/eeenh01hpm_1000.ps,width=5cm,angle=90}\\
335: (b) Process (\ref{proc_enbh})\\[1cm]
336: \epsfig{file= plots/eeenh03hpm_500.ps,width=5cm,angle=90}
337: \epsfig{file=plots/eeenh03hpm_1000.ps,width=5cm,angle=90}\\
338: (c) Process (\ref{proc_enah})\\[1cm]
339: \caption{Total cross sections for the vector fusion mediated neutral
340: Higgs associated production channels.}
341: \label{rate_enlh}
342: }
343:
344: For the sake of comparison we also present the cross sections of the
345: on-shell pair production mode (\ref{proc_pair}) in figure \ref{rate_pair}.
346:
347: \FIGURE[p]{
348: \epsfig{file=plots/eehphm.ps,width=8cm,angle=90}\\
349: \caption{Total cross sections for the pair production channel
350: (\ref{proc_pair}).}
351: \label{rate_pair}
352: }
353:
354: In the allowed kinematic ranges, the $\tau\nu_\tau$ and $tb$ associated
355: production processes (\ref{proc_tau}) and (\ref{proc_tb}), shown in figure
356: \ref{rate_tau}, are dominated by pair production. When $M_{H^\pm}$ is
357: small, process (\ref{proc_tb}) also has a large contribution from top pair
358: production followed by the decay of one of the top quarks into $bH^\pm$,
359: which explains the rise of the cross section below 175 GeV. Beyond the
360: kinematic limit for pair production, which occurs at
361: $M_{H^\pm}\sim\sqrt{s}/2$, the cross sections still exceed $10^{-5}$ pb for
362: some values of $\tan\beta$. Process (\ref{proc_tau}) is enhanced for large
363: $\tan\beta$ whereas process (\ref{proc_tb}) is enhanced for both large and
364: small values of $\tan\beta$ and the minimum is at
365: $\tan\beta=\sqrt{m_t/m_b}\sim7$.
366:
367: Figure \ref{rate_wh} shows the rate for the loop-induced $W^\pm H^\mp$
368: associated production process (\ref{proc_wh}). When $\tan\beta$ is small,
369: the top Yukawa coupling is enhanced and the cross section is large. Hence
370: this channel complements process (\ref{proc_tau}). We note that the
371: $\tan\beta$ dependence of the signal rate for this process is $\sim m_t^4
372: \cot^2\beta$ at small $\tan\beta$ and $\sim m_b^4\tan^2\beta$ at very large
373: $\tan\beta$. Hence the bottom Yukawa contribution is suppressed.
374: The cross section remains large beyond the pair production kinematic
375: limit. The peak in the cross section near 200 GeV corresponds to the
376: threshold $m_t+m_b\sim M_{H^\pm}$, after which the cross section falls
377: slowly up to the kinematic limit at $M_{H^\pm} \sim\sqrt{s}-M_{W^\pm}$.
378:
379: We note that at $\tan\beta\sim7$, both the $\tau^-\bar\nu_\tau H^+$ mode and
380: the $W^\pm H^\mp$ mode have cross sections near $10^{-5}$ pb at $\sqrt{s}=
381: 500$ GeV and $M_{H^\pm}>250$ GeV. Thus there are always regions in
382: $M_{H^\pm}$ where charged Higgs bosons can be produced at a 500 GeV machine
383: even when the pair production channel is unavailable. However, we should
384: bear in mind that the detectability of such processes needs more realistic
385: simulations in order to quantify the effect of the decay, the fragmentation
386: and detector resolutions.
387: % It is even possible that $10^{-5}$ pb is not enough to make the signal
388: % visible at all.
389:
390: In figure \ref{rate_enu} we show the rate for the loop induced vector
391: boson fusion process (\ref{proc_enu}). The overall rate is small at both
392: 500 GeV and 1 TeV, but there is an interesting $\tan\beta$ dependence of
393: the cross section where, near the $t\bar b\to H^+$ kinematic threshold, the
394: rates are enhanced for large $\tan\beta$. As with the other vector fusion
395: induced processes which we present later, the cross section is larger at 1
396: TeV because of the `$t$-channel' vector boson propagators.
397:
398: Figure \ref{rate_zwh} shows the rate for the $W^\pm Z^0H^\mp$ associated
399: production process (\ref{proc_zwh}). The cross section is small for all
400: parameter values that we are considering. This is because the amplitude is
401: proportional to $\sin(\beta-\alpha)\cos(\beta-\alpha)$ and this is
402: suppressed in the MSSM as, in the decoupling limit when $M_{H^\pm}$
403: becomes large, $\cos(\beta-\alpha)$ becomes small. There is also a
404: cancellation between the $h^0$ and $H^0$ mediated diagrams.
405:
406: The situation with process (\ref{proc_zwh}) is in good contrast with
407: $(h^0/H^0/A^0) W^\pm H^\mp$ associated production,
408: (\ref{proc_lwh}) -- (\ref{proc_awh}), shown in figures \ref{rate_lwh}.
409: Process (\ref{proc_lwh}) is enhanced when the decay $H^\pm\to h^0W^\pm$ has
410: a large branching ratio. This occurs at low $\tan\beta$ below the $H^+\to
411: t\bar b$ kinematic threshold. The cross section falls rapidly as the
412: $H^+H^-$ pair production becomes unavailable, since there is coupling
413: suppression as in process (\ref{proc_zwh}).
414:
415: Processes (\ref{proc_bwh}) and (\ref{proc_awh}) are not kinematically
416: enhanced, but they are not coupling suppressed and are large compared to
417: process (\ref{proc_zwh}). At large $M_{H^\pm}$ the neutral Higgs boson
418: masses also become large and these two channels are kinematically
419: suppressed.
420:
421: The same situation as process (\ref{proc_zwh}) is found in processes
422: (\ref{proc_eewh}) -- (\ref{proc_enzh}), shown in figures \ref{rate_eewh}.
423: The cross sections are small because of the coupling suppression and
424: because of the cancellation between the $h^0$ and $H^0$ diagrams.
425:
426: It is interesting to compare the cross sections of the vector fusion
427: processes (\ref{proc_enlh}) -- (\ref{proc_enah}), shown in figures
428: \ref{rate_enlh}, against the $s$-channel processes (\ref{proc_lwh}) --
429: (\ref{proc_awh}). Although the vector fusion processes are at higher order
430: in $\alpha_{\rm EW}$, they are not suppressed compared to the $s$-channel
431: processes especially when the centre-of-mass energy $\sqrt{s}$ is large.
432: The general behaviour of the cross sections are similar, except the $h^0$
433: associated production processes (\ref{proc_enlh}) which, compared to
434: (\ref{proc_lwh}), does not have the enhancement due to the resonant decay
435: $H^\pm\to h^0W^\pm$. Compared to the $Z^0$ associated production process
436: (\ref{proc_enzh}), the cross sections are typically two orders of magnitude
437: higher, when the neutral Higgs masses are small, partly because of the
438: enhancement coming from the collinear photon which contributes to the
439: neutral Higgs associated production modes, and partly, again, because of
440: the cancellation between the $h^0$ and $H^0$ diagrams found in process
441: (\ref{proc_enzh}).
442: The cross sections are small at a 500 GeV collider but the
443: situation improves at
444: a 1 TeV machine, where there are significant regions in $M_{H^\pm}$ and
445: $\tan\beta$ where the signal exceeds $10^{-5}$ GeV.
446:
447: \section{Discussion of phenomenology}
448:
449: We note that processes (\ref{proc_tb}), (\ref{proc_lwh}),
450: (\ref{proc_bwh}) and (\ref{proc_awh}), as well as the $Z\to b\bar b$ decay
451: mode of process (\ref{proc_zwh}), which has branching ratio of 15.13\%
452: \cite{PDG}, all typically lead to the final state $b\bar bH^\pm W^\mp$,
453: and the different resonance structures imply that there is little
454: interference between these processes. This indicates that, as proposed
455: in \cite{ee_bbWH}, $e^-e^+\to b\bar bH^\pm W^\mp$ is an excellent
456: alternative mode for charged Higgs study at LC, even in cases where the
457: charged Higgs mass is more than half the collider energy.
458:
459: The exact procedure for the tagging of the final state $b\bar bH^\pm
460: W^\mp$ requires background simulations and is beyond the scope of this
461: study. Here we only outline the procedure.
462:
463: In regions where the dominant decay mode of the charged Higgs bosons is
464: $\tau^-\bar\nu_\tau$,
465: we can look at the hadronic decay of the $W$. If we assume
466: that the initial state radiation is negligible, we can estimate the
467: four-momentum of the neutrino. The exact reconstruction is not possible as
468: $\tau^-$ also carries some missing momentum, and it is dependent on the
469: $\tau^-$ decay spectrum.
470:
471: Although there is large background coming from the decay of the top pair
472: at $O(0.1~\mathrm{pb})$, the reconstruction of the mass of $\tau^-\bar\nu_\tau$
473: and other kinematic cuts to suppress events that can come from top pair
474: production should reduce this background to a negligible level. If the
475: initial state radiation is not negligible the signal selection becomes
476: more involved, but we note that the $\tau^-\bar\nu_\tau$ decay mode is relevant
477: mainly when the charged Higgs mass is below the top quark mass, and in
478: this region a 500 GeV collider suffices, where the initial state radiation
479: is relatively small.
480:
481: In regions where the dominant decay mode of the charged Higgs bosons is
482: $t\bar b$ (or $b\bar bW^+$), the final state is $b\bar bb\bar bW^+W^-$. We
483: can select the leptonic
484: mode of one of the $W$'s, with the other decaying hadronically,
485: retaining about $4/9$ of the total rate. We then reconstruct the $W$'s. The
486: analysis from then on is taxing, but the total SM background rate for the
487: final state $t\bar tb\bar b$ is $O(\alpha_\mathrm {EW}^2\alpha_S^2)$ and
488: should be small after we introduce a cut to eliminate soft $b$'s.
489:
490: The $\tau\nu_\tau$ associated production mode (\ref{proc_tau}) is interesting
491: for our purposes only in the large $M_{H^\pm}$ region where the pair
492: production contribution is suppressed and the dominant decay mode is $t\bar
493: b$. The dominant background contribution is presumably from top quark pair
494: production followed by the decay of one of the top quarks into
495: $b\bar\tau\nu_\tau$. The background reduction procedure would rely on $W$
496: and $t$ mass reconstruction to eliminate events with two top quarks or with
497: two $W$'s, and naively this would reduce the background by $\mathcal
498: O(\alpha_{\mathrm EW}^2)$, so that the signal would be visible. Detailed
499: simulations are nevertheless desirable.
500:
501: In the $H^\pm W^\mp$ associated production mode, if the decay mode is
502: $\tau^-\bar\nu_\tau$, we can select the hadronic decay of the $W$. We can again
503: find the missing momentum and reconstruct the charged Higgs mass, and by
504: filtering events where this mass is small we can eliminate the SM $W^+W^-$
505: background. If the decay mode is $t\bar b$ we can deal with the top pair
506: background by totally reconstructing the final state and eliminating events
507: with two top quarks. This is expected to reduce the top pair background by
508: about $\alpha_\mathrm{EW}$, hence nearly two orders of magnitude. This
509: should enable the observation of the peak at the charged Higgs mass in some
510: regions of the parameter space. We note that the situation in this channel
511: is better than at the hadron collider \cite{lhc_wh} as the background is
512: smaller and the final state is more clean. Finally,
513: we note that at fixed centre-of-mass energy the $H^\pm W^\mp$ cross
514: section peaks at $M_{H^\pm}\sim m_t+m_b$ \cite{zhu_HW} as seen above, and
515: at fixed $M_{H^\pm}$ the cross section peaks at $\sqrt{s}\sim 2m_t$
516: \cite{sk_HW}, which is the energy range that is scanned over for the SM top
517: threshold studies. At the exact cross section peak, the rate is one order
518: of magnitude greater, if it is kinematically accessible viz $M_{H^\pm}+
519: M_{W^\pm}<\sqrt{s}$.
520:
521: In all of the above cases, the measurement of the tau
522: \cite{tau_polarisation} or the top \cite{top_polarisation} polarisation
523: will provide confirmation of the presence of the charged Higgs.
524:
525: \section{Conclusion}
526:
527: We discussed the single production of charged Higgs bosons at next
528: generation linear colliders, and found that the cross sections are large
529: enough to allow us to use these modes to study the properties of the
530: charged Higgs bosons. Such analyses will complement the usual pair
531: production process. Above the kinematical bound for the pair production
532: process, the single production cross sections are also small, although the
533: signal remains visible in some channels.
534:
535: We found that the $\tau\bar\nu_\tau H^+$ channel, the various channels
536: contributing to the $b\bar bH^\pm W^\mp$ final state, and the loop induced
537: $H^\pm W^\mp$ channel are all useful modes for studying charged Higgs
538: phenomenology. The $H^\pm W^\mp$ channel is enhanced at low $\tan\beta$,
539: whereas the $\tau\bar\nu_\tau H^+$ channel is enhanced at large $\tan\beta$.
540: These two are the most promising channels for charged Higgs study beyond
541: the kinematic limit for pair production.
542: The $b\bar bH^\pm W^\mp$ channel, which has contributions from the
543: $t\bar bH^-$ process and from the $(h^0/H^0/A^0) W^\pm H^\mp$ process, is
544: large at both large and small values of $\tan\beta$, but the various
545: channels contributing to this final state are kinematically suppressed and
546: the cross section falls rapidly at large $M_{H^\pm}$. At small
547: $M_{H^\pm}$, this mode offers an attractive alternative for studying
548: charged Higgs boson properties, as there are many different channels
549: contributing to it, which could be distinguished by means of kinematic
550: cuts. The analysis of this final state can then be used as a test of the
551: underlying theory.
552:
553: Our analysis has been carried out at the production level only and we
554: have refrained from commenting on the possible `discovery' or even
555: `detection' contours. The evaluation of these would require a study of the
556: decay modes, the partially or fully hadronic final states, and the
557: backgrounds. The concretisation of these numbers would require machine
558: dependent detector level simulations which will serve to complement our
559: analysis.
560:
561: \subsection*{Acknowledgements}
562:
563: Part of SK's work was done when he worked at Institut f\"{u}r
564: Theoretische Physik, Universit\"{a}t Karlsruhe. SK would also like to thank
565: Rutherford Appleton Laboratory (RAL)
566: for financial support during his visits. SM
567: and KO thank RAL where part of this work was carried out, and special
568: thanks go to members of the RAL theory group for many discussions.
569:
570: \appendix\refstepcounter{section}
571: \section*{Appendix}
572: The processes (\ref{proc_tau}) and (\ref{proc_tb}), denoted generically
573: as:
574: \begin{equation}
575: e^-_1 e^+_2 \to f_3 \bar{f}_4 H^+_5,
576: \end{equation}
577: were calculated as follows. The charge conjugate process is equivalent
578: upto gauge violating effects introduced in the treatment of the widths in
579: the propagators.
580:
581: First, we define the helicity-dependent propagators:
582: \begin{equation}
583: \Delta_i(\lambda_e,\lambda_i)=\frac
584: {Q_eQ_i+
585: \frac{s\Delta_Z}{\sin^22\theta_W}\eta_e(\lambda_e)\eta_i(\lambda_i)}
586: {s-2p_0\cdot p_i+iM_i\Gamma_i}.
587: %{(p_0-p_i)^2-M_i^2+iM_i\Gamma_i}.
588: \end{equation}
589: $p_0=p_1+p_2$, $s=p_0^2$ is the centre-of-mass energy squared, and
590: $\Delta_Z$ is the $Z^0$ propagator. The coupling coefficients $Q$ and
591: $\eta$ are given in table \ref{app_coup}, where we defined
592: $x_W=2\sin^2\theta_W$ for convenience.
593:
594: \TABLE[hbt]{
595: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|} \hline
596: & $e$ & $H^+$ & $b,\tau$ & $t,\nu$ \\\hline
597: $Q$ & $-1$ & $1$ & $Q_3$ & $Q_4$ \\
598: $\eta(L)$ & $-1+x_W$ & \raisebox{-\height}[0pt][0pt]{$1-x_W$}
599: & $-1-Q_3x_W$ & $1-Q_4x_W$ \\
600: $\eta(R)$ & $x_W$ & & $-Q_3x_W$ & $-Q_4x_W$ \\\hline
601: \end{tabular}
602: \caption{The coupling coefficients in processes
603: (\ref{proc_tau}) and (\ref{proc_tb}).}\label{app_coup}
604: }
605:
606: In terms of these propagators the amplitude is written:
607: \begin{eqnarray}\nonumber
608: \mathcal{M}_{\rm tot}(\lambda_e) &=&
609: \frac{e^3}{sM_W\sqrt{x_W}}\times\sum_\lambda \\\nonumber
610: && \bar u_3\Bigl[
611: (m_3\tan\beta P_L+m_4\cot\beta P_R)(\not\!k_3+m_4)
612: \not\!\!E_{\lambda_e}\Delta_4(\lambda_e,\lambda)P_\lambda-
613: \\\nonumber&&-\not\!\!E_{\lambda_e}\Delta_3(\lambda_e,\lambda)
614: P_\lambda(\not\!k_4-m_3)(m_3\tan\beta P_L+m_4\cot\beta P_R)+\\
615: &&+\Delta_5(\lambda_e)(2p_5-p_0)\cdot E_{\lambda_e}
616: (m_3\tan\beta P_L+m_4\cot\beta P_R)P_\lambda\Bigr]v_4.
617: \end{eqnarray}
618: Here $P_{L/R}=P_{-/+}=(1-/+\gamma_5)/2$ are the left and right chirality
619: projection operators. The electron current $E^\mu_{\lambda_e}$ is defined
620: as:
621: \begin{equation}
622: E^\mu_{\lambda_e} = \bar v_2\gamma^\mu P_{\lambda_e} u_1.
623: \end{equation}
624: We define $\mu(+,-)=m_{4,3}(\tan\beta,\cot\beta)/M_W$, and the following
625: mass dimension $-1$ variables:
626: \begin{eqnarray}
627: {\rm P}(\lambda_e,\lambda)&=& -\mu(\bar\lambda)\sqrt{s}
628: [\Delta_4(\lambda_e,\bar\lambda)+\Delta_3(\lambda_e,\lambda)]\\
629: \nonumber {\rm M}(\lambda_e,\lambda)&=& m_4\mu(\bar\lambda)
630: [\Delta_4(\lambda_e,\lambda)-\Delta_4(\lambda_e,\bar\lambda)]+\\
631: &+& m_3\mu(\lambda)
632: [\Delta_3(\lambda_e,\lambda)-\Delta_3(\lambda_e,\bar\lambda)]\\
633: {\rm Q}^\mu(\lambda_e,\lambda)&=& \mu(\lambda)[
634: \Delta_3(\lambda_e,\bar\lambda) p_3^\mu-
635: \Delta_4(\lambda_e, \lambda)(p_4^\mu-p_0^\mu)+
636: \Delta_5(\lambda_e)(p_5^\mu-\frac{p_0^\mu}{2})].
637: \end{eqnarray}
638: Here $k_3=p_0-p_4$ and $k_4=p_0-p_3$. We introduced the notation
639: $\bar\lambda=-\lambda$.
640: Let us suppress the index $\lambda_e$ from here on. The dependence on
641: the incoming electron chirality will be implicit. The total amplitude is
642: now written as:
643: \begin{equation}\label{app_simp}
644: \mathcal{M}_{\rm tot}(\lambda_e)=\frac{e^3}{s\sqrt{x_W}}
645: \sum_\lambda\bar u_3\left[\not\!\!EP_\lambda\left[{\rm P}_\lambda
646: s^{-1/2}\not\!p_0+{\rm M}_\lambda\right]+2{\rm Q}_\lambda\cdot E
647: P_\lambda\right]v_4.
648: \end{equation}
649: The requirement of gauge invariance implies that the above amplitude is
650: equivalent to the amplitude due to a Goldstone boson if we replace $E$ by
651: the momentum carried by the gauge boson $p_0$, and set all widths equal to
652: zero. This condition can be stated in terms of the above variables as
653: follows:
654: \begin{equation}
655: 2{\rm Q}_\lambda\cdot p_0 + {\rm P}_{\bar\lambda}\sqrt{s} = 0,
656: \end{equation}
657: \begin{equation}
658: {\rm M}_\lambda=
659: \left(\frac{\lambda\eta_e(\lambda_e)s\Delta_Z}{\sin^22\theta_W}\right)
660: \left[\frac{m_3\mu( \lambda)}{s-2p_0\cdot p_3}-
661: \frac{m_4\mu(\bar\lambda)}{s-2p_0\cdot p_4}\right].
662: %\left[\frac{m_3\mu( \lambda)}{(p_0-p_3)^2-M_3^2}-
663: % \frac{m_4\mu(\bar\lambda)}{(p_0-p_4)^2-M_4^2}\right].
664: \end{equation}
665:
666: Squaring up equation (\ref{app_simp}) and summing over final state
667: helicities, but not dividing by 4 for combinations of initial state
668: chiralities, we obtain:
669: \begin{eqnarray}\label{app_res}
670: \nonumber {|\mathcal{M}_{\rm tot}|^2}(\lambda_e)&=&
671: \frac{4e^6}{s^2x_W}\sum_\lambda{\rm Re}\Bigl[
672: 4p_{\bar\lambda}\cdot p_3\left(|{\rm P}_\lambda|^2p_{\bar\lambda}
673: \cdot p_4+|{\rm M}_\lambda|^2p_\lambda\cdot p_4\right)-\\
674: \nonumber &-& 4\sqrt{s}{\rm P}_\lambda\left(m_4p_{\bar\lambda}
675: \cdot p_3{\rm M}_\lambda^*+m_3p_{\bar\lambda}\cdot p_4
676: {\rm M}_{\bar\lambda}^*\right)+m_3m_4s\left({\rm P}_\lambda
677: {\rm P}_{\bar\lambda}^*+{\rm M}_\lambda{\rm M}_{\bar\lambda}^*
678: \right)+\\\nonumber &+& 2\left({\rm Q}_{\bar\lambda}\cdot E\right)^*
679: \Bigl[
680: p_3\cdot p_4{\rm Q}_{\bar\lambda}\cdot E-m_3m_4{\rm Q}_\lambda\cdot E
681: + \\ &+&
682: \Bigl(m_3{\rm M}_{\bar\lambda}-\frac{2{\rm P}_\lambda}{\sqrt{s}}
683: p_{\bar\lambda}\cdot p_3\Bigr)p_4\cdot E -
684: \Bigl(m_4{\rm M}_{ \lambda}-\frac{2{\rm P}_\lambda}{\sqrt{s}}
685: p_{\bar\lambda}\cdot p_4\Bigr)p_3\cdot E
686: \Bigr]\Bigr].
687: \end{eqnarray}
688: We defined $p_\lambda$ such that $p_{\lambda_e}=p_1$ and
689: $p_{\bar\lambda_e}=p_2$. We observe that the above expression is symmetric
690: under the exchange $(3\leftrightarrow4), ({\rm M}_\lambda\leftrightarrow
691: {\rm M}_{\bar\lambda}), ({\rm Q}_\lambda\leftrightarrow-{\rm Q}_\lambda)$,
692: as the amplitude is. This can easily be seen by running a charge
693: conjugation operator through equation (\ref{app_simp}).
694: For numerical evaluation we can take:
695: \begin{eqnarray}
696: p_1&=&\frac{\sqrt{s}}{2}\left(1,0,0, 1\right) \\
697: p_2&=&\frac{\sqrt{s}}{2}\left(1,0,0,-1\right).
698: \end{eqnarray}
699: so that for any 4-vector $A^\mu$ and up to the phase of $E_{\lambda_e}$
700: we have:
701: \begin{eqnarray}
702: A\cdot p_0&=& \sqrt{s}A^0\\
703: A\cdot p_\lambda&=&
704: \frac{\sqrt{s}}{2}\left(A^0-\lambda\lambda_e A^z\right)\\
705: A\cdot E_{\lambda_e}&=& \sqrt{s}\left(A^x+i\lambda_eA^y\right).
706: \end{eqnarray}
707: The evaluation is relatively straightforward, and easily testable using
708: the gauge invariance and charge conjugation symmetry tests given above.
709:
710: \begin{thebibliography}{MM}
711:
712: \bibitem{LHC_search} CMS Technical Proposal, CERN/LHCC/94--38 (1994);\\
713: ATLAS Technical Proposal, CERN/LHCC/94--43 (1994).
714:
715: \bibitem{gg_to_tbH} F.~Borzumati, J.-L.~Kneur and N.~Polonsky,
716: \prd{60}{1999}{115011}.
717:
718: \bibitem{ko_tau_nu} K.~Odagiri, preprint RAL--TR--1999--012, January 1999,
719: \hepph{9901432};\\
720: D.P.~Roy, \plb{459}{1999}{607}.
721:
722: \bibitem{Les_Houches} K.A.~Assamagan {\it et al.}, contribution to the
723: Workshop `Physics at TeV Colliders', Les Houches,
724: France, 8--18 June 1999, preprint PM/00--03,
725: pages 36--53, February 2000, \hepph{0002258}.
726:
727: \bibitem{other_search} S.~Raychaudhuri and D.P.~Roy, \prd{52}{1995}{1556},
728: \prd{53}{1996}{4902};\\
729: J.F.~Gunion, \plb{322}{1994}{125};\\
730: V.~Barger, R.J.N.~Phillips and D.P.~Roy,
731: \plb{324}{1994}{236};\\
732: D.J.~Miller, S.~Moretti, D.P.~Roy and
733: W.J.~Stirling, \prd{61}{2000}{055011};\\
734: S.~Moretti and D.P.~Roy, \plb{470}{1999}{209};\\
735: M.~Drees, M.~Guchait and D.P.~Roy,
736: \plb{471}{1999}{39};\\
737: S.~Moretti, \plb{481}{2000}{49};\\
738: M.~Bisset, M.~Guchait and S.~Moretti,
739: preprint DESY 00--150, TUHEP--TH--00124,
740: RAL--TR--2000--029, October 2000,
741: \hepph{0010253};\\
742: D.A.~Dicus, J.L.~Hewett, C.~Kao and T.G.~Rizzo,
743: \prd{40}{1989}{787};\\
744: A.A.~Barrientos Bendez\'u and B.A.~Kniehl,
745: \npb{568}{2000}{305};\\
746: A.~Krause, T.~Plehn, M.~Spira and P.M.~Zerwas,
747: \npb{519}{1998}{85};\\
748: Y.~Jiang, W.-G.~Ma, L.~Han, M.~Han and Z.-H.~Yu,
749: \jphg{24}{1998}{83};\\
750: O.~Brein and W.~Hollik, \epjc{13}{2000}{175};\\
751: A.A.~Barrientos Bendez\'u and B.A.~Kniehl,
752: \prd{59}{1999}{015009}, {\it ibidem} {D61} (2000)
753: 097701, preprint DESY 00--110, MPI-PhT/2000--27,
754: July 2000, \hepph{0007336};\\
755: O.~Brein, W.~Hollik and S.~Kanemura, preprint
756: KA--TP--14--2000, August 2000, \hepph{0008308};\\
757: S.~Moretti and K.~Odagiri, \prd{55}{1997}{5627}.\\
758: For experimental studies, see:\\
759: K.A.~Assamagan, preprint ATL--PHYS--99--013 and
760: ATL--PHYS--99--025;\\
761: K.A.~Assamagan and Y.~Coadou, preprint
762: ATL--COM--PHYS--2000--017.
763:
764: \bibitem{ee_pair} S.~Komamiya, \prd{38}{1988}{2158}.
765:
766: \bibitem{pair_phenom} A.~Kiiskinen, talk at the Linear Collider Workshop,
767: Fermilab, October 24th--28th, 2000,
768: \verb!http://www-lc.fnal.gov/lcws2000/.!
769:
770: \bibitem{zhu_HW} S.H.~Zhu, preprint January 1999, \hepph{9901221}.
771:
772: \bibitem{sk_HW} S.~Kanemura, \epjc{17}{2000}{473}.
773:
774: \bibitem{hollik_HW} A.~Arhrib, M.~Capdequi~Peyran\`ere, W.~Hollik,
775: G.~Moultaka, \npb{581}{2000}{34}.
776:
777: \bibitem{ee_bbWH} S.~Moretti and K.~Odagiri, \epjc{1}{1998}{633}.
778:
779: \bibitem{ee_taunuH} A.~Gutierrez-Rodriguez and O.A.~Sampayo,
780: preprint November 1999, \hepph{9911361}.
781:
782: \bibitem{helicity_HZ} H.~Murayama, I.~Watanabe and K.~Hagiwara,
783: KEK Report 91--11, January 1992.
784:
785: \bibitem{hdecay} A.~Djouadi, J.~Kalinowski and M.~Spira,
786: \cpc{108}{1998}{56}.
787:
788: \bibitem{sk_WZdec} S.~Kanemura, \prd{61}{2000}{095001}.
789:
790: \bibitem{capdequi} M.~Capdequi~Peyran\`ere, \ijmpa{14}{1999}{429}.
791:
792: \bibitem{rizzomendez} T.G.~Rizzo, \mpla{4}{1989}{2757};\\
793: A.~Mendez and A.~Pomarol, \npb{349}{1991}{369}.
794:
795: \bibitem{haber} M.~Capdequi~Peyran\`ere, H.E.~Haber, P.~Irulegui,
796: \prd{44}{1991}{191}.
797:
798: \bibitem{nlc_params} For the TESLA design, see, e.g.:\\
799: \verb!http://www.desy.de/~njwalker/ecfa-desy-wg4/parameter_list.html.!
800:
801: \bibitem{PDG} Particle Data Group, D.E.~Groom {\it et.\ al.},
802: \epjc{15}{2000}{1}.
803:
804: \bibitem{lhc_wh} S.~Moretti and K.~Odagiri, \prd{59}{1999}{055008}.
805:
806: \bibitem{tau_polarisation} B.K.~Bullock, K.~Hagiwara and A.D.~Martin,
807: \prl{67}{1991}{3055}.
808:
809: \bibitem{top_polarisation} K.~Odagiri, \plb{452}{1999}{327}.
810:
811: \end{thebibliography}
812:
813: \end{document}
814: