1: \documentclass[twocolumn,showpacs,preprintnumbers,amssymb]{revtex4}
2:
3: \usepackage{graphicx}% Include figure files
4: \usepackage{epsfig}
5: \usepackage{dcolumn}% Align table columns on decimal point
6: \usepackage{bm}% bold math
7: \def\gsim{\lower0.5ex\hbox{$\:\buildrel >\over\sim\:$}}
8: \def\lsim{\lower0.5ex\hbox{$\:\buildrel <\over\sim\:$}}
9: \def \rp{{R\hspace{-0.22cm}/}_P}
10: \def \lp{{L\!\!\!/}}
11: \def \n{\noindent}
12:
13: \begin{document}
14:
15: \preprint{AMES-HET-03-06}
16: \preprint{BNL-HET-03/19}
17:
18: %\title{Analysis of the Higgs Yukawa Couplings at Hadron Colliders via Three
19: %Heavy jet events}
20:
21: \title{Three heavy jet events at hadron colliders as a sensitive probe
22: of the Higgs sector}
23:
24:
25:
26: \author{David Atwood}%
27: \email{atwood@iastate.edu}
28: \affiliation{Department of Physics and Astronomy, Iowa State University, Ames,
29: IA 50011, USA}
30: %
31: %
32: \author{Shaouly Bar-Shalom}%
33: \email{shaouly@physics.technion.ac.il}
34: \affiliation{Physics Department, Technion-Institute of Technology, Haifa 32000, Israel}
35: %
36: %
37: \author{Gad Eilam}
38: \email{eilam@physics.technion.ac.il}
39: \affiliation{Physics Department, Technion-Institute of Technology, Haifa 32000, Israel}
40: %
41: %
42: \author{Amarjit Soni}%
43: \email{soni@bnl.gov}
44: \affiliation{Theory Group, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, NY 11973, USA}
45: \date{\today}
46:
47: \begin{abstract}
48: Assuming that a non-standard neutral Higgs with an enhanced Yukawa coupling
49: to a bottom quark is observed at future hadron experiments,
50: we propose a method for
51: a better understanding of the Higgs sector. Our procedure is
52: based on ``counting'' the number of events with heavy jets
53: (where ``heavy'' stands for a
54: $c$ or $b$ jet) versus $b$ jets, in the final state of processes in which
55: the Higgs is produced in association with a single high $p_T$
56: $c$ or $b$ jet. We show that an
57: observed signal of the type proposed, at either the Tevatron or the LHC,
58: will {\rm rule out} the popular two Higgs doublet
59: model of type II as well as its supersymmeric version - the Minimal
60: Supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM), and may
61: provide new evidence in favor of some more exotic multi Higgs scenarios.
62: As an example, we show that in a version of a two Higgs doublet model
63: which naturally accounts for the large mass of the top quark,
64: our signal can be easily detected
65: at the LHC within that framework.
66: We also find that such a signal may be
67: observable at the upgraded Tevatron RunIII,
68: if the neutral Higgs in this model has a mass around 100 GeV
69: and $\tan\beta \gsim 50$ and if the efficiency for distinguishing
70: a $c$ jet from a light jet reaches the level of $\sim 50\%$.
71:
72:
73: \end{abstract}
74:
75: \pacs{12.15.Ji, 12.60.Fr, 12.60.-i, 14.80.Cp}
76:
77: \maketitle
78:
79: \section{Introduction}
80:
81: With the Tevatron RunII underway at Fermilab,
82: the future Tevatron upgrade RunIII and the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN,
83: the discovery of the Higgs boson is currently
84: believed to be ``around the corner''.
85: These machines will be able to detect the neutral Higgs
86: over its entire theoretically allowed mass range \cite{hadhiggs}.
87:
88: If the Higgs Yukawa coupling to a bottom quark
89: is enhanced, as predicted for example in general multi Higgs models and
90: in the supersymmetric version of the
91: two Higgs Doublet Model (2HDM) - the MSSM - when
92: $\tan\beta$ is large, then the neutral Higgs may be
93: produced at Leading Order (LO) through
94: $b \bar b$ fusion $b \bar b \to h$ \cite{bh3}. In such models,
95: a sizable production rate of a neutral Higgs
96: in association with $b$ quark jets is also expected
97: via the sub-processes $gb \to b h$ \cite{bh1,bh2} and
98: $gg,~q \bar q \to b \bar b h$ \cite{bbh}.$^{[1]}$\footnotetext[1]{Unless
99: stated otherwise,
100: $h$ will be used to denote the neutral Higgs that drives the processes
101: under consideration.}
102: In particular, as was shown in \cite{bh1}, if
103: one demands that {\it only} one $b$ jet will be produced
104: (in association with the Higgs) at high $p_T$,
105: then
106: $gb \to b h$ becomes the LO and is therefore the dominant
107: Higgs-bottom associated production mechanism for
108: large $\tan\beta$. For example,
109: $gb \to b h$ followed by $h\to b \bar b$ may already prove to be a useful
110: probe of the neutral Higgs sector at the Tevatron future runs
111: \cite{datta}.
112:
113: In this work we assume that indeed the Higgs has an enhanced coupling to
114: bottom quarks and that it will be therefore discovered or observed
115: in association with bottom quarks jets,
116: via one of the above production channels.
117: Discovery of such a non-standard Higgs should start an exploration era of
118: the various Higgs Yukawa couplings to fermions in order to decipher
119: the origin and detailed properties of the Higgs sector.
120: For that purpose, special observables should be devised that will enable
121: the experimentalists to pin-down some specific Higgs Yukawa interactions.
122: In particular, one should find observables
123: which are sensitive to a specific
124: Yukawa coupling or combination of couplings, and are therefore able
125: to exclude models with an enhanced
126: Higgs-bottom Yukawa vertex, or provide further evidence
127: in favor of a definite Higgs scenario.
128:
129: In this paper we follow this line of thought and present a method which is
130: useful for an investigation of the relation between the Higgs-charm
131: and Higgs-bottom Yukawa couplings.
132: We focus on neutral Higgs production via a
133: single high $p_T$ charm or bottom jet, $qg \to qh$, $q=c$ or $b$,
134: followed by $h \to b \bar b$ or
135: $h \to c \bar c$.$^{[2]}$\footnotetext[2]{We will not explicitly write
136: the charge of the quarks involved. All charge-conjugate
137: sub-processes are understood throughout this paper.}
138: Our final state is therefore
139: defined to be composed out of {\it exactly} three non-light jets,
140: where a light jet means a $u,d,s$ or $g$ (gluon) jet.
141: If the Higgs is not the Standard Model (SM)
142: one, particularly if the Higgs-bottom Yukawa is large,
143: then this class of processes may play an important
144: role in Higgs searches, discovery and characterization at hadron colliders.
145:
146: Based on this type of production mechanism, we suggest an
147: observable which is particularly sensitive to new physics
148: in the ratio between the Higgs-charm and the Higgs-bottom Yukawa
149: couplings. We find that our signal is insensitive to the Higgs
150: sectors of the type II 2HDM (2HDMII) and of the MSSM. Therefore, a positive
151: signal of our observable at either the Tevatron or the LHC will rule out
152: these models.
153: We also consider a different type of a 2HDM, the so called
154: ``2HDM for the top quark'' (T2HDM), which is an interesting model
155: designed to naturally accommodate the large mass of the top quark.
156: This model may be viewed as an effective low energy theory
157: wherein the Yukawa interactions mimic some high energy dynamics
158: which generates both the top mass and the weak scale.
159: The two scalar doublets could be composite, as in top-color models,
160: and the Yukawa interactions could be the residual effect of some
161: higher energy
162: four-Fermi operators. Interestingly, for this T2HDM our
163: signal is significantly enhanced.
164: We thus show that if this version of a
165: 2HDM underlies the
166: Higgs sector, then our signal will be easily detected (to many standard
167: deviations) at the LHC and
168: may also be detected at the Tevatron if $\tan\beta$ is large enough
169: and if the efficiency of tagging a $c$ jet as a heavy jet
170: is of ${\cal O}(50\%)$.
171:
172: The paper is organized as follows: in section II we define our signal.
173: In section III we present the numerical setup and discuss the
174: experimental background.
175: In section IV we evaluate our signal in three different versions
176: of a 2HDM and discuss the expectations from the T2HDM, the 2HDMII
177: and the MSSM.
178: In section V we summarize our results.
179:
180: \section{Notation and definition of the signal}
181:
182: Let $j_h$ denote a ``heavy'' $b$ or $c$-quark jet. Specifically,
183: a $j_h$ jet should not be a $u$, $d$, $s$ or gluon jet
184: (i.e., with the veto $j_h \neq u,d,s,g$ jet).
185: Let $j_b$ be a $b$-quark jet. Clearly, every jet of type $j_b$
186: is also a $j_h$. Likewise, let us denote by $j_c$ a $c$-quark jet.
187:
188: We thus define the cross-sections
189:
190: \begin{eqnarray}
191: \sigma_{j_hj_hj_h} &\equiv& \sigma(pp~{\rm or}~p \bar p\to j_hj_hj_h +X)~,\\
192: \sigma_{j_bj_bj_b} &\equiv& \sigma(pp~{\rm or}~p \bar p\to j_bj_bj_b +X)~,
193: \end{eqnarray}
194:
195: \noindent and the ratio
196:
197: \begin{equation}
198: {\cal R} \equiv
199: \frac{\sigma_{j_hj_hj_h}}{\sigma_{j_bj_bj_b}} \label{calR}~.
200: \end{equation}
201:
202: \noindent Note that, since $j_h$ is either a $j_b$ or a $j_c$,
203: it follows that:
204:
205: \begin{equation}
206: \sigma_{j_hj_hj_h} \equiv \sigma_{j_bj_bj_b}+\sigma_{j_cj_bj_b}
207: +\sigma_{j_bj_cj_c}+\sigma_{j_cj_cj_c} ~.
208: \end{equation}
209:
210: \noindent From the above definitions it is evident that:
211:
212: \begin{equation}
213: {\cal R}-1 \propto \frac{Y_c^2}{Y_b^2} +
214: {\cal O} \left( \frac{Y_c^4}{Y_b^4} \right) ~.
215: \end{equation}
216:
217: \noindent where $Y_c$ and $Y_b$ are the Higgs-charm and Higgs-bottom
218: Yukawa couplings, respectively.
219:
220: In reality, one has to include non-ideal efficiencies for jet
221: identification. Therefore, we define the quantity $\epsilon_j^k$ to be
222: the efficiency for identifying a $j$ jet as a $k$ jet.
223: Thus, for example,
224: $\epsilon_l^b$ or $\epsilon_l^h$ are the efficiencies
225: for misidentifying a light jet ($j_l$) as
226: a $b$ jet ($j_b$) or as a heavy jet ($j_h$), respectively.
227: Using these efficiency factors we define the experimental observable as:
228:
229: \begin{equation}
230: R^M \equiv
231: \frac{\bar\sigma^M_{j_hj_hj_h}}{\bar\sigma^M_{j_bj_bj_b}} \label{eq6} ~,
232: \end{equation}
233:
234: \noindent where $R=\bar\sigma_{j_hj_hj_h}/\bar\sigma_{j_bj_bj_b}$
235: with $\bar\sigma_{j_hj_hj_h}$,
236: $\bar\sigma_{j_bj_bj_b}$ being the
237: effective signals for cross-sections that will actually be measured in
238: the experiment
239: and $R^M$ is the value of $R$ calculated
240: within a specific Higgs model M via
241: the sub-processes $g q \to q h \to q q q$, $q=c$ or $b$.
242: Thus, in the limit of an ideal detector where $\epsilon^k_j=\delta^k_j$,
243: $R^M = {\cal R}^M$ (where ${\cal R}^M$ means the ``ideal'' ratio
244: defined in (\ref{calR}) calculated within model M).
245: In particular, these cross-sections include all tagging efficiencies as
246: follows:
247:
248: \begin{eqnarray}
249: \bar\sigma^M_{j_bj_bj_b}&=&\sum_{j_1,j_2,j_3}
250: \epsilon_{j_1}^b\epsilon_{j_2}^b\epsilon_{j_3}^b \times
251: \sigma^M_{j_1j_2j_3} ~,\\
252: \bar\sigma^M_{j_hj_hj_h}&=&\sum_{j_1,j_2,j_3}
253: \epsilon_{j_1}^h\epsilon_{j_2}^h\epsilon_{j_3}^h \times
254: \sigma^M_{j_1j_2j_3} \label{eq8} ~.
255: \end{eqnarray}
256:
257: \noindent In the limit $(Y_{c}/Y_{b})^2 \to 0$,
258: one obtains
259:
260: \begin{equation}
261: R^M \to R^0 \equiv \frac{\bar\sigma^M_{j_hj_hj_h}}{\bar\sigma^M_{j_bj_bj_b}}
262: \left|_{\left(\frac{Y_c}{Y_b}\right)^2\to 0} \right. \to
263: \frac{(\epsilon_b^h)^3\sigma^M_{j_bj_bj_b}}{(\epsilon_b^b)^3
264: \sigma^M_{j_bj_bj_b}} = \left(\frac{\epsilon_b^h}{\epsilon_b^b}\right)^3 ~.
265: \end{equation}
266:
267: \noindent Therefore, due to the non-ideal
268: efficiencies (in particular if $\epsilon_b^h \neq \epsilon_b^b$),
269: we have $R^0 \neq 1$
270: even if the Higgs Yukawa coupling
271: to the charm quark is negligible.
272: As will be shown below, this limit is applicable
273: to a neutral Higgs either of MSSM
274: or of 2HDMII origin,
275: if $\tan\beta$ is large. That is, for large $\tan\beta$
276:
277: \begin{equation}
278: R^{MSSM},~R^{2HDMII} \to R^0 =
279: \left(\frac{\epsilon_b^h}{\epsilon_b^b}\right)^3 \label{susyrel}~.
280: \end{equation}
281:
282: \noindent A deviation from $R^M=R^0$, indicating a high rate
283: for $h \to c \bar c$, signals a specific type
284: of new physics in the Higgs sector, e.g., beyond the MSSM or the 2HDMII
285: Higgs scenario. Such a deviation is parameterized by:
286:
287: \begin{equation}
288: \delta R^M = R^M-R^0 \propto \left(\frac{Y_c}{Y_b}\right)^2 +
289: {\cal O} \left( \frac{Y_c^4}{Y_b^4} \right) \label{delRth} ~.
290: \end{equation}
291:
292: \noindent The significance with which $\delta R^M$ can be measured depends
293: on the experimental error $\delta R^M_{\rm exp}$:
294:
295: \begin{equation}
296: \delta R^M_{\rm exp}=R^M \sqrt{ \frac{(\Delta
297: N_{j_hj_hj_h})^2}{(N_{j_hj_hj_h}^M)^2}+\frac{(\Delta
298: N_{j_bj_bj_b})^2}{(N_{j_bj_bj_b}^M)^2} } \label{delRMexp}~,
299: \end{equation}
300:
301: \noindent where $N_{j_hj_hj_h}^M=\bar\sigma^M_{j_hj_hj_h} \times L$
302: and similarly for $N_{j_bj_bj_b}^M$, with
303: $L$ being the integrated luminosity at the given collider.
304: The errors in the measurements of $N_{j_hj_hj_h}^M$ and
305: $N_{j_bj_bj_b}^M$ are (statistical only):
306: $\Delta N_{j_hj_hj_h} = \sqrt{N_{j_hj_hj_h}}$ and
307: $\Delta N_{j_bj_bj_b} = \sqrt{N_{j_bj_bj_b}}$,
308: where $N_{j_hj_hj_h}$ and $N_{j_bj_bj_b}$
309: (i.e., without the superscript M) are
310: the total number of events dominated by the background processes.
311:
312: Eq.(\ref{delRMexp}) can be simplified to:
313:
314: \begin{equation}
315: \delta R^M_{\rm exp} =
316: \frac{\sqrt{N_{j_hj_hj_h}+(R^M)^2 N_{j_bj_bj_b}}}{N_{j_bj_bj_b}^M}
317: \label{delRexp}~,
318: \end{equation}
319:
320: \noindent therefore, since $N_{j_bj_bj_b}^M \propto Y_b^2$,
321: it follows that $\delta R^M_{\rm exp} \propto 1/Y_b^2$. In particular,
322: if $Y_b \propto \tan\beta$, then
323: $\delta R^M_{\rm exp} \propto 1/\tan^2\beta$.
324:
325: The condition, $\delta R^M > \delta R^M_{\rm exp}$
326: signals that new physics in the ratio between the $hcc$ and $hbb$ Yukawa
327: couplings can be seen, with a statistical significance of
328:
329: \begin{equation}
330: N_{SD}=\frac{\delta R^M}{\delta R_{\rm exp}^M} \label{NSD}~.
331: \end{equation}
332:
333:
334: \section{Numerical setup and background \label{sec3}}
335:
336: Before presenting our results let us describe the numerical setup:
337: \begin{itemize}
338:
339: \item All signal and background cross-sections are calculated
340: at leading order (tree-level),
341: using the COMPHEP package \cite{comphep} with the CTEQ5L \cite{cteq5l} parton
342: distribution functions.
343:
344: \item Throughout our entire analysis to follow,
345: the following set of cuts are employed in {\it both}
346: signal and background cross-sections:
347: \begin{enumerate}
348: \item For both the Tevatron and the LHC, in order for
349: the jets to be within the tagging region of the silicon vertex detector,
350: we require all three jets to have the following minimum transverse momentum
351: ($p_T$) and rapidity ($\eta$) coverages:\\
352: Tevatron: $p_T(j)>15~{\rm GeV}~,~|\eta(j)|<2$,\\
353: LHC: $~~~~~~p_T(j)>30~{\rm GeV}~,~|\eta(j)|<2.5$,\\
354: \noindent where $j$ is any of the three jets in the final state.
355:
356: \item The signal cross-sections always have one pair of jets (coming from the
357: Higgs decay) that should reconstruct
358: the Higgs mass. Thus, in order to improve the signal to background ratio,
359: we require for both the signal and background cross-sections
360: that {\it only one} jet pair (out of the
361: three possible jet pairs in the final state), will have an invariant mass
362: within $m_h \pm 0.05 m_h$, i.e., within $\pm 5\%$ of $m_h$
363: around $m_h$. That is, we reject events if the invariant masses
364: of {\it more than} one
365: $j_ij_k$ pair are within
366: $m_h - 0.05 m_h <M_{j_i j_k}<m_h + 0.05 m_h$. This acceptance cut
367: is found to significantly improve the signal to background ratio.
368:
369: \item We impose a common lower cut on the invariant masses of
370: all three jet pairs: $M_{j_i j_k} > m_h/2$.
371: This additional cut further improves the signal to background ratio.
372:
373: \item We require the final state partons to be separated by a cone
374: angle of $\Delta R > 0.7$, where here $\Delta R$ stands for
375: $\sqrt{\Delta\eta^2+\Delta\varphi^2}$.
376: \end{enumerate}
377:
378: \item We use the $\overline{MS}$
379: running Yukawa couplings $\bar Y_b(\mu_R) \propto (\bar m_b(\mu_R)/v)$,
380: $\bar Y_c(\mu_R) \propto (\bar m_c(\mu_R)/v)$,
381: where $\bar m_b(\mu_R)$ and $\bar m_c(\mu_R)$ are
382: $\overline{MS}$ running masses. We take a
383: renormalization scale of $\mu_R=m_h$ as our
384: central value.
385: In particular, $\bar m_b(m_h)$ and $\bar m_c(m_h)$ are calculated
386: via the next-to-leading-order heavy quark $\overline{MS}$ running
387: mass equation \cite{MSrun},
388: using $\bar m_b(\bar m_b)$ and $\bar m_c(\bar m_c)$ as the initial
389: conditions. This brings up some uncertainty corresponding to the
390: allowed range of $\bar m_b(\bar m_b)$ and $\bar m_c(\bar m_c)$:
391: $4 ~{\rm GeV}< \bar m_b(\bar m_b) < 4.5 ~{\rm GeV}$ and
392: $1 ~{\rm GeV}< \bar m_c(\bar m_c) < 1.4 ~{\rm GeV}$, see \cite{PDG}.
393: In what follows we use $\bar m_b(\bar m_b)=4.26$ GeV
394: and $\bar m_c(\bar m_c)=1.26$ GeV as our central values \cite{PDG}, which
395: give the $\bar m_b(m_h)$ and $\bar m_c(m_h)$ masses
396: listed in Table \ref{runmass}.
397:
398: \begin{table}[htb]
399: \begin{center}
400: \caption[first entry]{Running charm and bottom
401: quark $\overline{MS}$ (NLO) masses
402: at $\mu_R=m_h$ for $m_h=100,~120$ and $140$ GeV, with
403: the initial conditions
404: $\bar m_b(\bar m_b)=4.26$ GeV and $\bar m_c(\bar m_c)=1.26$ GeV.
405: \bigskip
406: \protect\label{runmass}}
407: \begin{tabular}{|c||c|c|c|}
408: \multicolumn{4}{|c|}{running charm and bottom $\overline{MS}$ masses} \\
409: \multicolumn{4}{|c|}{$\bar m_b(\bar m_b)=4.26$ GeV, $\bar m_c(\bar m_c)=1.26$ GeV} \\ \hline \hline
410: $~\Downarrow$[GeV]$\Rightarrow~$& $~\mu_R=100~$ & $~\mu_R=120~$ &$~\mu_R=140~$\\ \hline
411: $\bar m_b(\mu_R)$ & $2.94$ & $2.89$ & $2.86$ \\
412: $\bar m_c(\mu_R)$ & $0.61$ & $0.6$ & $0.59$ \\ \cline{1-4}
413: \end{tabular}
414: \end{center}
415: \end{table}
416:
417: At some instances we will refer to the ``maximal signal'' possible.
418: This means that we are evaluating the signal cross-sections with
419: the initial conditions $\bar m_b(\bar m_b)=4.5$ GeV
420: and $\bar m_c(\bar m_c)=1.4$ GeV, i.e., at their upper allowed values,
421: which at $\mu_R=100$ GeV gives: $\bar m_b(100~{\rm GeV})=3.1$ GeV and
422: $\bar m_c(100~{\rm GeV})=0.68$ GeV.
423:
424: \item Unless stated otherwise, the parton distribution
425: functions are evaluated with a factorization
426: scale of $\mu_F=m_h$. Thus, we use a common
427: factorization and renormalization scale $\mu=\mu_F=\mu_R$ and
428: take $\mu=m_h$ as our nominal value. The uncertainty of our signal
429: cross-sections, obtained by varying the factorization scale $\mu_F$ about
430: its central value ($\mu_F=m_h$) within the range $m_h/4 < \mu_F < 2m_h$,
431: will also be investigated.
432:
433: \item We do not consider the next-to-leading-order (NLO) contributions
434: to $\sigma(qg \to qh)$.
435: As was shown in \cite{bh1}, the NLO contribution
436: to $\sigma(bg \to bh)$
437: can amount to an effective $K$-factor of about
438: $1.5$ at the Tevatron and about $1.2$ at the LHC. Assuming that a similar
439: $K$-factor applies also to $\sigma(cg \to ch)$, our signal $R^{M}$
440: is essentially insensitive to the NLO corrections since it involves ratios
441: of these cross-sections.
442: Moreover, $\delta R_{\rm exp}^M$ is proportional to $\sqrt{K^B}/K^S$, where
443: $K^B$ and $K^S$ are the $K$-factors for the background and the
444: signal three jets events,
445: respectively. Thus, at NLO, the statistical significance of our signal
446: ($N_{SD}=\delta R^M/\delta R_{\rm exp}^M$)
447: should be about a factor
448: of $K^S/\sqrt{K^B}$ larger or smaller than our tree-level estimate,
449: depending on
450: the size of $K^B$ and $K^S$. For $K^B \sim K^S > 1$, our tree-level
451: prediction for $N_{SD}$ is on the conservative side.
452:
453:
454: \item Since we require our signal to be
455: composed out of events with {\it exactly} three jets in the final state
456: (i.e., 3 heavy jets, $j_hj_hj_h$),
457: we do not consider
458: processes with 4 heavy jets or 4 $b$ jets in the final state, e.g.,
459: $gg,~q\bar q \to b\bar bh \to b \bar b b \bar b$.
460: These type of sub-processes constitute a
461: partial source of the $K$ factor for the 3 heavy jets signal
462: cross-sections \cite{bh1}.
463: Moreover, as was further demonstrated in \cite{bh1} for
464: the case of Higgs-bottom associated production at hadron colliders,
465: even if we had relaxed our demand for
466: {\it exactly} 3 jets in the final state to allow for 3 or 4 jets
467: with 3 or 4 jet tags,
468: the contribution of events with 4 jets to $R^M$ would
469: still constitute no more than $10\%$ of those with exactly 3 jets
470: in the final state.
471:
472: \end{itemize}
473:
474: Let us now discuss the background cross-sections.
475: The irreducible background for the various
476: three heavy jet final states, $j_hj_hj_h$ with $h=c$ or $b$,
477: is dominated by the QCD sub-processes
478: $b g \to b g \to bbb,~bcc$ and $c g \to c g \to ccc,~cbb$. Other
479: processes like
480: $Z$ production followed by its decay,
481: $b g \to b Z \to bbb,~bcc$ and $c g \to c Z \to ccc,~cbb$,
482: and QED also contribute to the background.
483: In what follows, this irreducible background
484: is calculated using the COMPHEP package \cite{comphep}, where
485: all possible tree-level
486: diagrams (QCD, Electroweak and QED) for the
487: $j_hj_hj_h$ final state are included.
488: In addition, due to the non-ideal efficiencies, e.g., the non-zero probability
489: of misidentifying a light jet for a heavy jet,
490: there is a reducible background for the three heavy jet
491: final states coming from sub-processes in which one, two or all three
492: jets are light. Since one expects that
493: $\epsilon_l^h,~\epsilon_l^b \ll \epsilon_b^h,~\epsilon_b^b,~\epsilon_c^h,~\epsilon_c^b$ (see e.g., \cite{epsnumbers}), the
494: reducible background
495: cross-sections, when multiplied by $\epsilon_l^h$ or $\epsilon_l^b$
496: are dominated
497: by processes in which only one jet out of the
498: three is light. Moreover, we find that, at both the Tevatron and the LHC,
499: the one-light-jet reducible background is by far controlled by the
500: $gg \to g bb$ and $gg \to gcc$ sub-processes, which will be therefore
501: included in our background estimation. For example, the contribution
502: of $gg \to g bb$ to the $j_hj_hj_h$ final state is:
503: $\bar\sigma_{j_hj_hj_h}^B=\sigma_{gg \to g bb} \times
504: \epsilon_l^h (\epsilon_b^h)^2$ (the background signals will always be
505: denoted by the superscript $B$).
506:
507: In Tables \ref{tabbcgTEV} and \ref{tabbcgLHC} we list the
508: background cross-sections at the Tevatron and at the LHC, respectively,
509: where all cross-sections are calculated with the set of cuts 1-4,
510: described earlier. The background cross-sections
511: are calculated with a factorization scale set to $\mu_F=\sqrt{\hat s}$, where
512: $\hat s$ is the square of the c.m. energy of the hard cross-sections.
513:
514: \begin{table}[htb]
515: \begin{center}
516: \caption[first entry]{Background cross-sections in [fb],
517: for the Tevatron with a c.m. of $\sqrt{s}=2$ TeV. All cross-sections
518: are calculated with the following kinematical cuts (some defined
519: as a function of $m_h$):
520: (1) $p_T(j)>15$ GeV, (2) $|\eta_j|<2$, where $j$ is
521: any (heavy and light) of the three jets
522: in the final state, (3) the acceptance cut that
523: the invariant mass of only one jet pair $M_{j_i j_k}$,
524: $i\neq k$, out of the three possible pairs of
525: jets in the final state is within the mass range
526: $(m_h - 0.05 m_h) <M_{j_i j_k}<(m_h + 0.05 m_h)$, (4)
527: $M_{j_i j_k}> m_h/2$, for all three jet pairs, and (5) any two
528: partons in the final state are separated by a cone of $\Delta R >0.7$.
529: Numbers are rounded to the $1\%$ accuracy as was
530: obtained from the COMPHEP numerical sessions.
531: \bigskip
532: \protect\label{tabbcgTEV}}
533: \begin{tabular}{|c||c|c|c|}
534: \multicolumn{4}{|c|}{Background cross-sections at the Tevatron} \\ \hline
535: & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{$m_h$ used for the kinematical cuts} \\ \cline{2-4}
536: [fb]$\Downarrow$ / [GeV]$\Rightarrow$& $m_h=100$ & $m_h=120$ &$m_h=140$\\ \hline \hline
537: $\sigma^{B}(gb \to bbb~{\rm or}~bcc)$ & $4.4\cdot10^3$ & $1.8\cdot10^3$ & $9.5\cdot10^2$ \\
538: $\sigma^{B}(gc \to cbb~{\rm or}~ccc)$ & $7.2\cdot10^3$ & $3.0\cdot10^3$ & $16.3\cdot10^2$ \\
539: $\sigma^{B}(gg \to gbb~{\rm or}~gcc)$ & $230\cdot10^3$ & $94\cdot10^3$ & $41\cdot10^3$ \\ \cline{1-4}
540: \end{tabular}
541: \end{center}
542: \end{table}
543:
544: \begin{table}[htb]
545: \begin{center}
546: \caption[first entry]{Background cross-sections in [fb],
547: for the LHC with a c.m. of $\sqrt{s}=14$ TeV. All cross-sections
548: are calculated with $p_T(j)>30$ GeV, $|\eta_j|<2.5$ and the additional
549: kinematical cuts 3-5
550: as in Table \ref{tabbcgTEV} (see caption to Table \ref{tabbcgTEV}).
551: \bigskip
552: \protect\label{tabbcgLHC}}
553: \begin{tabular}{|r||r|r|r|}
554: \multicolumn{4}{|c|}{Background cross-sections at the LHC} \\ \hline
555: & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{$m_h$ used for the kinematical cuts} \\ \cline{2-4}
556: [fb]$\Downarrow$ / [GeV]$\Rightarrow$& $m_h=100$ & $m_h=120$ &$m_h=140$\\ \hline \hline
557: $\sigma^{B}(gb \to bbb~{\rm or}~bcc)$ & $133\cdot10^3$ & $111\cdot10^3$ & $84\cdot10^3$ \\
558: $\sigma^{B}(gc \to cbb~{\rm or}~ccc)$ & $190\cdot10^3$ & $159\cdot10^3$ & $120\cdot10^3$ \\
559: $\sigma^{B}(gg \to gbb~{\rm or}~gcc)$ & $5680\cdot10^3$ & $4720\cdot10^3$ & $3540\cdot10^3$ \\ \cline{1-4}
560: \end{tabular}
561: \end{center}
562: \end{table}
563:
564: \section{Expectations from Two Higgs doublet models}
565:
566: The signal cross-sections depend on the Higgs couplings and therefore
567: on the underlying Higgs model. In what follows we will
568: investigate the sensitivity of our signal $R^M$ to various versions
569: of a 2HDM.
570:
571: The most general 2HDM Yukawa term is given by
572:
573: \begin{eqnarray}
574: {\cal L}_Y &=& - \sum_{i,j} \bar Q_L^i
575: \left[ \left(U_{ij}^1 \tilde\Phi_1 +U_{ij}^2 \tilde\Phi_2 \right) u^j_R
576: \right. \nonumber\\
577: && \left. +
578: \left(D_{ij}^1 \Phi_1 +D_{ij}^2 \Phi_2 \right) d^j_R \right] \label{yukawa1}~,
579: \end{eqnarray}
580:
581: \noindent where $Q_L$ is the SU(2) left-handed quark doublet,
582: $u_R$ and $d_R$ are the right-handed up and down quark SU(2) singlets,
583: respectively, and
584: $\tilde\Phi_{1,2}=i \sigma_2 \Phi_{1,2}^*$. Also, $U^1,U^2,D^1,D^2$
585: are general Yukawa $3 \times 3$ matrices in flavor space.
586: The different types of 2HDM's are then categorized according to
587: the different choices of the Yukawa matrices $U^1,U^2,D^1,D^2$.
588:
589: \subsection{The 2HDM for the top quark - T2HDM}
590:
591: As an example of a Higgs sector that can give rise to an observable
592: effect via $R^M$, we consider first the so called ``2HDM for the top'',
593: in which the top quark receives a special
594: status \cite{T2HDM}. We will denote this model by T2HDM.
595: In the T2HDM one defines \cite{T2HDM}
596:
597: \begin{eqnarray}
598: U^1_{ij} &\to& G_{ij} \times (\delta_{j1}+\delta_{j2}) ~,\nonumber \\
599: U^2_{ij} &\to& G_{ij} \times \delta_{j3} \label{yukawa2} ~,\\
600: D^2_{ij} &\to& 0 \nonumber ~,
601: \end{eqnarray}
602:
603: \noindent where $G$ is an unknown Yukawa $3 \times 3$ matrix
604: in quark flavor space. The large mass of the top is, thus,
605: naturally accommodated in the T2HDM by coupling the second Higgs doublet
606: ($\Phi_2$), which has a much larger
607: Vacuum Expectation Value (VEV), only to the top quark. This model
608: has therefore
609: large $\tan\beta = v_2/v_1$ by construction. That is,
610: $v_2$ is the VEV responsible for the top quark mass, while $v_1$ generates
611: the masses of all the other quarks.
612:
613: Like any other 2HDM, the Higgs spectrum of the T2HDM is composed out of
614: three neutral Higgs; two CP-even scalars and one pseudoscalar, and
615: a charged Higgs. Choosing the basis $\alpha=\beta$,
616: where $\alpha$ is the usual mixing angle between the two CP-even Higgs
617: particles (see e.g.,
618: \cite{HHG}), the
619: neutral Higgs spectrum of the T2HDM is rotated such that it contains
620: a SM-like neutral Higgs, $H_{SM}$,
621: (with the SM couplings to fermions), a CP-even Higgs, $h$,
622: and a pseudoscalar (CP-odd Higgs), $A$.
623: The Yukawa couplings of $h$ and $A$ to down and up-type quarks in the
624: T2HDM are:
625:
626: \begin{eqnarray}
627: hd \bar d&:&~Y^{SM}_d \times \tan\beta ~, \nonumber \\
628: hu \bar u&:&~Y^{SM}_u \times \tan\beta ~;~u=u~{\rm or}~c ~, \nonumber \\
629: ht \bar t&:&~Y^{SM}_t \times \cot\beta ~, \nonumber \\
630: Ad \bar d&:&~Y^{SM}_d \times \tan\beta \gamma_5 ~, \nonumber \\
631: Au \bar u&:&~Y^{SM}_u \times \tan\beta \gamma_5 ~;~u=u~{\rm or}~c ~, \nonumber \\
632: At \bar t&:&~Y^{SM}_t \times \cot\beta \gamma_5 \label{yuktop2HDM} ~.
633: \end{eqnarray}
634:
635: \noindent where $d=d~,s$ or $b$ and $Y^{SM}_f = m_f/v$,
636: $v=\sqrt{v_1^2+v_2^2}=246$ GeV.
637:
638: We therefore see that while the Yukawa couplings of $h$ and $A$ to
639: down quarks in the T2HDM have the same pattern
640: as in the 2HDMII and the MSSM, i.e.,
641: $Y_d \propto Y_d^{SM} \times \tan\beta$, their
642: Yukawa couplings to a $u$ and a $c$ quark exhibit a different behavior,
643: due to the special structure of the T2HDM's
644: Yukawa matrices in (\ref{yukawa2}). In particular, $Y_c$ and $Y_u$
645: are enhanced in the T2HDM by a factor of $\tan^2\beta$
646: as compared to their values in the 2HDMII or
647: in the MSSM, in which $Y_u \propto Y_u^{SM} \times \cot\beta$ for
648: $u=u,~c$ or $t$. Notice also that $Y_t$ (in the T2HDM)
649: remains the same as in the 2HDMII and the MSSM.
650:
651: Therefore, as will be shown below,
652: since $\delta R^M \propto (Y_c/Y_b)^2$ [see (\ref{delRth})],
653: we can expect to have
654: the following relations: $\delta R^{T2HDM} \sim \delta R^{SM} \propto
655: (m_c/m_b)^2$ and $\delta R^{2HDMII},~\delta R^{MSSM} \ll
656: \delta R^{T2HDM}$, when $\tan\beta$ is large. Note that in spite of
657: the fact that $\delta R^{SM} \sim \delta R^{T2HDM}$,
658: due to the small production rate of a SM (or a SM-like) Higgs via the
659: gluon-$b$ and gluon-$c$ fusion channels, $\delta R^{SM}$ is
660: overwhelmed by the very large background (i.e., $\delta R_{\rm exp}^{SM}$)
661: and is thus unobservable.
662:
663: In Tables \ref{tabsigTEV} and \ref{tabsigLHC} we give
664: the signal cross-sections at the Tevatron and at the LHC, respectively,
665: for the T2HDM with $\tan\beta=30$ and evaluated
666: at $\mu=m_h$ as the central value. To appreciate the
667: uncertainties corresponding to
668: variations of the factorization scale ($\mu_F$),
669: we also give in Tables \ref{tabsigTEV} and \ref{tabsigLHC}
670: the signal cross-sections evaluated with
671: $\mu_F=m_h/4$ (upper uncertainty) and with $\mu_F=2m_h$ (lower uncertainty),
672: while keeping a fixed renormalization scale $\mu_R=m_h$.
673: The effect of $\mu_F$ on the statistical significance of the signal
674: will be discussed below.
675:
676: All cross-sections in Tables \ref{tabsigTEV} and \ref{tabsigLHC}
677: are calculated with the set of cuts, as described in the
678: previous section.$^{[3]}$\footnotetext[3]{The relevant Lagrangian pieces
679: of the T2HDM were implemented
680: into COMPHEP. Also, the Higgs width was explicitly
681: calculated within the T2HDM via COMPHEP.}
682: To a good approximation, the signal cross-sections
683: given in Tables \ref{tabsigTEV} and \ref{tabsigLHC} are
684: essentially insensitive to whether the Higgs produced is
685: $h$ or the pseudoscalar $A$. The difference between the two is
686: the $1$ versus the $\gamma_5$ couplings to fermions, which amounts to
687: sign differences in the sub-leading terms involving $m_b$ or $m_c$.
688:
689:
690:
691: \begin{table}[htb]
692: \begin{center}
693: \caption[first entry]{Signal cross-sections in [fb], for the T2HDM with $\tan\beta=30$,
694: at the Tevatron with a c.m. of $\sqrt{s}=2$ TeV.
695: All cuts are the same as for the background cross-sections at the Tevatron
696: (see caption to Table \ref{tabbcgTEV}).
697: The upper and lower uncertainties correspond
698: to $\mu_F=m_h/4$ and $\mu_F=2m_h$, respectively.
699:
700: \bigskip
701: \protect\label{tabsigTEV}}
702: \begin{tabular}{|c||c|c|c|}
703: \multicolumn{4}{|c|}{Signal cross-sections for the T2HDM with $\tan\beta=30$} \\ \hline
704: & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{Tevatron, $\sqrt{s}=2$ TeV} \\ \cline{2-4}
705: [fb]$\Downarrow$ / [GeV]$\Rightarrow$& $m_h=100$ & $m_h=120$ &$m_h=140$\\ \hline \hline
706: $\sigma^{T2HDM}(gb \to bbb)$ & $970^{+9\%}_{-9\%}$ & $385^{+15\%}_{-10\%}$ & $166^{+20\%}_{-12\%}$ \\
707: &&&\\ %\cline{1-4}
708: $\sigma^{T2HDM}(gb \to bcc)$ & $42^{+9\%}_{-9\%}$ & $16.6^{+15\%}_{-10\%}$ & $7^{+20\%}_{-12\%}$ \\
709: &&&\\%\cline{1-4}
710: $\sigma^{T2HDM}(gc \to cbb)$ & $72^{+35\%}_{-14\%}$ & $28.4^{+39\%}_{-15\%}$ & $12.1^{+42\%}_{-15\%}$ \\
711: &&&\\ %\cline{1-4}
712: $\sigma^{T2HDM}(gc \to ccc)$ & $3.1^{+35\%}_{-14\%}$ & $1.23^{+39\%}_{-15\%}$ & $0.52^{+42\%}_{-15\%}$ \\ \cline{1-4}
713: \end{tabular}
714: \end{center}
715: \end{table}
716:
717: \begin{table}[htb]
718: \begin{center}
719: \caption[first entry]{Signal cross-sections in [fb], for the T2HDM
720: with $\tan\beta=30$,
721: at the LHC with a c.m. of $\sqrt{s}=14$ TeV.
722: All cuts are the same as for the background cross-sections at the LHC.
723: See also captions to Table \ref{tabbcgLHC} and \ref{tabsigTEV}.
724:
725:
726: \bigskip
727: \protect\label{tabsigLHC}}
728: \begin{tabular}{|c||c|c|c|} %\cline{2-4}
729: \multicolumn{4}{|c|}{Signal cross-sections for the T2HDM with $\tan\beta=30$} \\ \hline
730: & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{LHC, $\sqrt{s}=14$ TeV} \\ \cline{2-4}
731: [fb]$\Downarrow$ / [GeV]$\Rightarrow$& $m_h=100$ & $m_h=120$ &$m_h=140$\\ \hline \hline
732: $\sigma^{T2HDM}(gb \to bbb)$ & $46000^{-18\%}_{+1\%}$ & $32400^{-12\%}_{+2\%}$ & $21900^{-9\%}_{-1\%}$ \\
733: &&&\\ %\cline{1-4}
734: $\sigma^{T2HDM}(gb \to bcc)$ & $2000^{-18\%}_{+1\%}$ & $1400^{-12\%}_{+2\%}$ & $940^{-9\%}_{-1\%}$ \\
735: &&&\\ %\cline{1-4}
736: $\sigma^{T2HDM}(gc \to cbb)$ & $3050^{+0\%}_{-4\%}$ & $2120^{+5\%}_{-3\%}$ & $1400^{+7\%}_{-5\%}$ \\
737: &&&\\%\cline{1-4}
738: $\sigma^{T2HDM}(gc \to ccc)$ & $131^{+0\%}_{-4\%}$ & $92^{+5\%}_{-3\%}$ & $60^{+7\%}_{-5\%}$ \\ \cline{1-4}
739: \end{tabular}
740: \end{center}
741: \end{table}
742:
743:
744: \begin{figure*}[htb]
745: \psfull
746: \begin{center}
747: \leavevmode
748: \epsfig{file=fig1_tb.ps,height=17cm,width=9cm,bbllx=0cm,bblly=2cm,bburx=20cm,bbury=25cm,angle=270}
749: \end{center}
750: \caption{The statistical significance of the signal in the T2HDM
751: ($N_{SD}=\delta R^{T2HDM}/\delta R_{exp}^{T2HDM}$)
752: as a function of $\tan\beta$ and for $m_h=100,~120$ and $140$ GeV,
753: at the LHC with integrated luminosity of
754: 30 fb$^{-1}$ and 100 fb$^{-1}$ (left plot) and at the Tevatron
755: with integrated luminosity of 30 fb$^{-1}$ (right plot). The upper
756: solid curve on the right plot is for the case of maximal
757: charm and bottom $\overline{MS}$ quark masses at $\mu_R=m_h=100$ GeV (see
758: discussion in section \ref{sec3}).
759: All cross-sections were calculated for
760: $\mu=\mu_F=\mu_R=m_h$ and with the set of cuts 1-4 as
761: outlined in section \ref{sec3}.}
762: \label{fig1tb}
763: \end{figure*}
764:
765: \begin{figure*}[htb]
766: \psfull
767: \begin{center}
768: \leavevmode
769: \epsfig{file=fig2_tb.ps,height=17cm,width=9cm,bbllx=0cm,bblly=2cm,bburx=20cm,bbury=25cm,angle=270}
770: \end{center}
771: \caption{Same as Fig.~\ref{fig1tb}, for $\epsilon_c^h=0.3$.}
772: \label{fig2tb}
773: \end{figure*}
774:
775: \begin{figure*}[htb]
776: \psfull
777: \begin{center}
778: \leavevmode
779: \epsfig{file=fig1_scatter1.eps,height=17cm,width=15cm,bbllx=0cm,bblly=0cm,bburx=20cm,bbury=20cm,angle=0}
780: \end{center}
781: \caption{Scatter plot for the LHC ($\sqrt{s}=14$ TeV)
782: in the $\epsilon_b^h - \epsilon_c^h$ plane,
783: for $\tan\beta=20$,
784: $\epsilon_l^b=0.005$, $\epsilon_l^h=0.01$, $\epsilon_c^b=0.1$
785: and $\epsilon_b^b=0.6$.
786: The shaded area allows an above 3-sigma detection of $R^{T2HDM}$ at the
787: LHC with integrated luminosity of
788: 30 fb$^{-1}$ (right column) and 100 fb$^{-1}$ (left column) and
789: for $m_h=100,~120$ and $140$ GeV on the first, second and third rows,
790: respectively.
791: The shaded area enclosed to the right of the solid lines corresponds to
792: the conditions
793: $\epsilon_b^h \geq \epsilon_c^h$ and $\epsilon_b^h \geq \epsilon_b^b$.
794: All cross-sections were calculated for
795: $\mu=\mu_F=\mu_R=m_h$ and with the set of cuts 1-4 as
796: outlined in section \ref{sec3}.}
797: \label{fig1scatter1}
798: \end{figure*}
799:
800: \begin{figure*}[htb]
801: \psfull
802: \begin{center}
803: \leavevmode
804: \epsfig{file=fig1_scatter2.eps,height=17cm,width=15cm,bbllx=0cm,bblly=0cm,bburx=20cm,bbury=20cm,angle=0}
805: \end{center}
806: \caption{Same as Fig.~\ref{fig1scatter1}, for $\epsilon_b^h=0.4$.}
807: \label{fig1scatter2}
808: \end{figure*}
809:
810:
811: Using
812: eqs. (\ref{eq6})-(\ref{eq8}) and (\ref{delRexp}), (\ref{NSD}), we plot
813: in Figs.~\ref{fig1tb} and \ref{fig2tb}
814: the statistical significance ($N_{SD}$) of
815: $\delta R^{T2HDM}$ (the signal within the T2HDM), as a function of
816: $\tan\beta$ for the LHC with an integrated
817: luminosity of 30 fb$^{-1}$ and 100 fb$^{-1}$ and for the Tevatron with
818: an integrated luminosity of 30 fb$^{-1}$.
819: The statistical significance was calculated
820: for $\tan\beta=10,~20,~30,~40,~50$ and interpolation was employed to obtain
821: the results for other values of $\tan\beta$.
822: As our nominal values,
823: the following efficiency factors were chosen \cite{epsnumbers}:
824: $\epsilon_l^b=0.005$,
825: $\epsilon_l^h=0.01$,
826: $\epsilon_c^b=0.1$,
827: $\epsilon_b^b=0.6$,
828: $\epsilon_b^h=0.8$, with $\epsilon_c^h=0.6$ in Fig.~\ref{fig1tb}
829: and $\epsilon_c^h=0.3$ in Fig.~\ref{fig2tb}.
830:
831: Evidently, $\delta R^{T2HDM}$ can be
832: easily observed at the LHC for $m_h=100-140$ GeV,
833: with a significance of more than 3-sigma
834: for $\tan\beta \sim {\cal O}(20)$ if $\epsilon_c^h=0.6$
835: and for $\tan\beta \sim {\cal O}(35)$ if $\epsilon_c^h=0.3$.
836: For example, already at the low luminosity stage of the LHC, i.e.,
837: with $L=30$ fb$^{-1}$, a 5-sigma detection of
838: $\delta R^{T2HDM}$ will be obtained for $m_h \sim 100$ GeV if
839: $\epsilon_c^h=0.6$ and $\tan\beta \sim 20$ or
840: if $\epsilon_c^h=0.3$ and $\tan\beta \sim 35$.
841: On the other hand, a 3-sigma detection of
842: $\delta R^{T2HDM}$ will be possible at the Tevatron
843: only if $\epsilon_c^h \gsim 0.5$ and if $m_h$ is around 100 GeV and
844: $\tan\beta \gsim 50$.
845: The maximal signal case [obtained when
846: $\bar m_b(m_h)$ and $\bar m_c(m_h)$ are evaluated with maximal
847: $\bar m_b(\bar m_b)$ and $\bar m_c(\bar m_c)$ as initial conditions, see
848: the discussion in section \ref{sec3}], is expected to give a
849: 3-sigma effect at the Tevatron for $m_h=100$ GeV and $\tan\beta \gsim 45$
850: and if $\epsilon_c^h \sim 0.6$.
851:
852: In Figs.~\ref{fig1scatter1} and \ref{fig1scatter2} we give
853: scatter plots which show the
854: region in the $\epsilon_b^h - \epsilon_c^h$ plane that will allow
855: a 3-sigma detection of $\delta R^{T2HDM}$ at the LHC
856: when $\tan\beta=20$, $m_h=100-140$ GeV,
857: $\epsilon_l^b=0.005$,
858: $\epsilon_l^h=0.01$,
859: $\epsilon_c^b=0.1$,
860: and with a $b$ jet tagging efficiency of
861: $\epsilon_b^b=0.6$ in Fig.~\ref{fig1scatter1} or
862: of $\epsilon_b^b=0.4$ in Fig.~\ref{fig1scatter2}.
863: Clearly, a 3-sigma detection of $\delta R^{T2HDM}$ over the
864: entire $m_h$ mass
865: range shown,
866: will be possible at the LHC for a b-tagging efficiency of $60\%$
867: ($\epsilon_b^b=0.6$) \cite{epsnumbers}
868: and with $\epsilon_b^h,~\epsilon_c^h$
869: as low as $\sim 0.3 - 0.4$ if $L=100$ fb$^{-1}$,
870: or with $\epsilon_b^h,~\epsilon_c^h \sim 0.5-0.6$
871: if $L=30$ fb$^{-1}$.
872: Fig.~\ref{fig1scatter2} shows that for a lower b tagging
873: efficiency
874: of $\epsilon_b^b=0.4$, the requirements of
875: $\epsilon_b^h, ~ \epsilon_c^h \gsim 0.4$ for $L=100$ fb$^{-1}$
876: and $\epsilon_b^h, ~ \epsilon_c^h \gsim 0.6$ for $L=30$ fb$^{-1}$, will
877: also suffice for a 3-sigma detection.
878:
879: \begin{table}[htb]
880: \begin{center}
881: \caption[first entry]{Comparison of the statistical significance
882: in the T2HDM ($N_{SD}=\delta R^{T2HDM}/\delta R_{exp}^{T2HDM}$)
883: for three values of the factorization scale $\mu_F=m_h/4,~m_h$ and $2m_h$.
884: $N_{SD}$ is given
885: for $m_h=100,~120$ and $140$ GeV and $\tan\beta=30$,
886: at the LHC with an integrated luminosity of
887: 100 fb$^{-1}$.
888:
889:
890: \bigskip
891: \protect\label{tabNSD}}
892: \begin{tabular}{|c||c|c|c|}
893: \multicolumn{4}{|c|}{$N_{SD}$ in the T2HDM with $\tan\beta=30$} \\ \hline
894: & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{LHC with ${\cal L}=100$ fb$^{-1}$} \\ \cline{2-4}
895: [GeV]$\Rightarrow$& $m_h=100$ & $m_h=120$ &$m_h=140$\\ \hline \hline
896: $\mu_F=m_h/4$ & $6.37$ & $5.15$ & $4.03$ \\
897: &&&\\
898: $\mu_F=m_h$ & $6.71$ & $5.14$ & $3.92$ \\
899: &&&\\
900: $\mu_F=2m_h$ & $6.51$ & $5.03$ & $3.77$ \\
901: &&&\\ \cline{1-4}
902: \end{tabular}
903: \end{center}
904: \end{table}
905:
906:
907: Finally, in Table \ref{tabNSD} we show the variation of the
908: statistical significance of the signal ($N_{SD}$ of
909: $\delta R^{T2HDM}$) for different choices of the factorization scale,
910: $\mu_F=m_h/4,~m_h$ and $2m_h$. The numbers in Table \ref{tabNSD} correspond
911: to the LHC with an integrated luminosity of 100 fb$^{-1}$ and are given for
912: $\tan\beta=30$. Evidently, only mild changes (smaller than 5\%)
913: in $N_{SD}$ are obtained when varying the factorization scale
914: within the range $m_h/4 \leq \mu_F \leq 2m_h$.
915:
916: \subsection{The 2HDMII and the MSSM}
917:
918: Let us now examine the expected signals
919: $\delta R^{2HDMII}$ and $\delta R^{MSSM}$ in the 2HDMII
920: and in the MSSM, respectively.
921: Here too, we assume from the outset
922: that $\tan\beta$ is large enough so that the
923: non-standard Higgs can be observed in association with bottom quark
924: jets at the hadron
925: colliders under investigation (recall that if the neutral
926: Higgs does not have the necessary $\tan\beta$
927: enhancement in its Yukawa coupling to the bottom quark, then our signal
928: ceases to be effective). Thus, in what follows we will focus only on the large
929: $\tan\beta$ case.
930:
931: The 2HDMII Yukawa couplings follow from the Yukawa potential in
932: (\ref{yukawa1}) by setting $U^1=0$ and $D^2=0$. Thus, in this model $\Phi_2$
933: is responsible for the mass generation of the
934: up-type quarks while the down-type quark masses are generated through the
935: VEV of $\Phi_1$. Denoting again the three neutral Higgs species of the 2HDMII
936: by $h$, $H$ (the two CP-even scalars) and $A$ (the CP-odd Higgs), their
937: couplings to fermions are given by (see e.g., \cite{HHG}):
938:
939: \begin{eqnarray}
940: hd \bar d&:&~Y^{SM}_d \times \left[ \sin(\beta-\alpha)-\tan\beta \cos(\beta-\alpha) \right]~, \nonumber \\
941: hu \bar u&:&~Y^{SM}_u \times \left[ \sin(\beta-\alpha)+\cot\beta \cos(\beta-\alpha) \right]~, \nonumber \\
942: Hd \bar d&:&~Y^{SM}_d \times \left[ \cos(\beta-\alpha)+\tan\beta \sin(\beta-\alpha) \right]~, \nonumber \\
943: Hu \bar u&:&~Y^{SM}_u \times \left[ \cos(\beta-\alpha)-\cot\beta \sin(\beta-\alpha) \right]~, \nonumber \\
944: Ad \bar d&:&~Y^{SM}_d \times \tan\beta \gamma_5 ~, \nonumber \\
945: Au \bar u&:&~Y^{SM}_u \times \cot\beta \gamma_5 \label{yuk2HDMII}~,
946: \end{eqnarray}
947:
948: \noindent where $d$($u$) stands for a down(up) quark and
949: $\alpha$ is the mixing angle in the CP-even Higgs sector.
950: We will study three representative cases:
951:
952: \begin{description}
953:
954: \item{Case 1:} $\cos(\beta-\alpha) \to 1$ or $\alpha \to \beta$.
955:
956: \item{Case 2:} $\cos(\beta-\alpha) \to 0$ or $\alpha \to \beta -\pi/2$.
957:
958: \item{Case 3:} $\cos(\beta-\alpha) \sim \sin(\beta-\alpha) \to 1/\sqrt{2}$ or $\alpha \to \beta -\pi/4$.
959:
960: \end{description}
961:
962:
963: The charm and bottom Yukawa couplings and their ratio, $Y_c/Y_b$,
964: are given in Table \ref{tabratio}, for the three cases above and for each of
965: the neutral Higgs bosons $h,~H$ and $A$.
966:
967: \begin{table}[htb]
968: %\begin{center}
969: \caption[first entry]{The charm and bottom Yukawa couplings $Y_c$ and $Y_b$
970: scaled by their SM Yukawa coupling $Y_c^{SM}$ and $Y_b^{SM}$, respectively,
971: and their ratio $|Y_c/Y_b|$,
972: in the 2HDM of type II.
973: The Yukawa couplings of $h,~H$ and $A$ are given for the
974: three cases: (1) $\cos(\beta-\alpha) \to 1$,
975: (2) $\cos(\beta-\alpha) \to 0$ and
976: (3) $\cos(\beta-\alpha) \sim \sin(\beta-\alpha) \sim 1/\sqrt{2}$,
977: see also text.
978: \bigskip
979: \protect\label{tabratio}}
980: \begin{tabular}{|c|c||c|c|c|} %\cline{2-4}
981: \multicolumn{5}{|c|}{$Y_c$ and $Y_b$ in the 2HDMII} \\ \hline
982: Case & Higgs & & & \\
983: & particle& $|Y_c/Y^{SM}_c|$ & $|Y_b/Y^{SM}_b|$& $|Y_c/Y_b|$ \\ \hline \hline
984: & $h$ & $\frac{1}{\tan\beta}$ & $\tan\beta$ & $\frac{m_c}{m_b \tan^2\beta}$ \\ %\cline{2-5}
985: 1 &$H$ & $1$ & $1$ & $\frac{m_c}{m_b}$ \\ %\cline{2-5}
986: & $A$ & $\frac{1}{\tan\beta}$ & $\tan\beta$ & $\frac{m_c}{m_b\tan^2\beta}$ \\ \hline \hline
987: & $h$ & $1$ & $1$ & $\frac{m_c}{m_b}$ \\ %\cline{2-5}
988: 2 &$H$ & $\frac{1}{\tan\beta}$ & $\tan\beta$ & $\frac{m_c}{m_b\tan^2\beta}$ \\ %\cline{2-5}
989: & $A$ & $\frac{1}{\tan\beta}$ & $\tan\beta$ & $\frac{m_c}{m_b\tan^2\beta}$ \\ \hline \hline
990: & $h$ & $\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}$ & $\frac{\tan\beta}{\sqrt{2}}$ & $\frac{m_c}{m_b \tan\beta}$ \\ %\cline{2-5}
991: 3 &$H$ & $\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}$ & $\frac{\tan\beta}{\sqrt{2}}$ & $\frac{m_c}{m_b\tan\beta}$ \\ %\cline{2-5}
992: & $A$ & $\frac{1}{\tan\beta}$ & $\tan\beta$ & $\frac{m_c}{m_b\tan^2\beta}$ \\ \hline \cline{1-5}
993: \end{tabular}
994: %\end{center}
995: \end{table}
996:
997: The expected signals and their statistical significance for the three limiting
998: cases and for the three neutral Higgs particles of the 2HDMII
999: are compared to the T2HDM case in Table \ref{tab2HDMII}.
1000: Clearly, even in the more favorable cases in which
1001: $N_{SD}(2HDMII) \sim N_{SD}(T2HDM)/\tan^2\beta$, the expected statistical
1002: significance in the 2HDMII case
1003: is still at least two orders of magnitudes smaller than the one
1004: expected in the T2HDM when $\tan\beta \gsim 10$.
1005: Therefore, based on the results obtained for the T2HDM scenario, we
1006: conclude that, no signal of $R$ is expected to be observed
1007: at the LHC or at the Tevatron
1008: if the Yukawa Higgs sector is controlled by the 2HDMII.
1009: Hence, a measured signal of $\delta R$ at these hadron colliders
1010: will {\it rule out} the 2HDMII Higgs scenario with many standard deviations.
1011:
1012: \begin{table}[htb]
1013: %\begin{center}
1014: \caption[first entry]{The expected 2HDMII signals, $\delta R^{2HDMII}$,
1015: and their
1016: statistical significance, $N_{SD}^{2HDMII}$, scaled by the
1017: corresponding values
1018: in the T2HDM, for cases (1) $\cos(\beta-\alpha) \to 1$,
1019: (2) $\cos(\beta-\alpha) \to 0$ and
1020: (3) $\cos(\beta-\alpha) \sim \sin(\beta-\alpha) \sim 1/\sqrt{2}$,
1021: and for the three neutral Higgs of the model $h$, $H$ and $A$.
1022: \bigskip
1023: \protect\label{tab2HDMII}}
1024: \begin{tabular}{|c|c||c|c|c|} %\cline{2-4}
1025: \multicolumn{5}{|c|}{Expected signals in the 2HDMII} \\ \hline
1026: Case & Higgs & & & \\
1027: & particle& $\frac{\delta R^{2HDMII}}{\delta R^{T2HDM}}$ &
1028: $\frac{\delta R^{2HDMII}_{\rm exp}}{\delta R^{T2HDM}_{\rm exp}}$ &
1029: $\frac{N_{SD}^{2HDMII}}{N_{SD}^{T2HDM}}$ \\ \hline \hline
1030: & $h$ & $\frac{1}{\tan^4\beta}$ & $1$ & $\frac{1}{\tan^4\beta}$ \\ %\cline{2-5}
1031: 1 &$H$ & $1$ & $\tan^2\beta$ & $\frac{1}{\tan^2\beta}$ \\ %\cline{2-5}
1032: & $A$ & $\frac{1}{\tan^4\beta}$ & $1$ & $\frac{1}{\tan^4\beta}$ \\ \hline \hline
1033: & $h$ & $1$ & $\tan^2\beta$ & $\frac{1}{\tan^2\beta}$ \\ %\cline{2-5}
1034: 2 &$H$ & $\frac{1}{\tan^4\beta}$ & $1$ & $\frac{1}{\tan^4\beta}$ \\ %\cline{2-5}
1035: & $A$ & $\frac{1}{\tan^4\beta}$ & $1$ & $\frac{1}{\tan^4\beta}$ \\ \hline \hline
1036: & $h$ & $\frac{1}{\tan^2\beta}$ & $1$ & $\frac{1}{\tan^2\beta}$ \\ %\cline{2-5}
1037: 3 &$H$ & $\frac{1}{\tan^2\beta}$ & $1$ & $\frac{1}{\tan^2\beta}$ \\ %\cline{2-5}
1038: & $A$ & $\frac{1}{\tan^4\beta}$ & $1$ & $\frac{1}{\tan^4\beta}$ \\ \hline \cline{1-5}
1039: \end{tabular}
1040: %\end{center}
1041: \end{table}
1042:
1043: The 2HDMII Higgs framework also underlies the MSSM Higgs sector.
1044: However, due to the supersymmetric structure of the theory,
1045: the MSSM's Higgs sector is completely determined at tree-level
1046: by only two free parameters, conventionally chosen to be $m_A$ and $\tan\beta$.
1047: That is, the mixing angle $\alpha$ is fixed
1048: by $m_A$ and $\tan\beta$ at tree level. Concentrating again on the large
1049: $\tan\beta$ case, in the MSSM one can distinguish two limiting cases:
1050:
1051: \begin{description}
1052:
1053: \item{Case 1:} $m_A \lsim m_h^{max}$, where
1054: $m_h^{max} \sim 120 ~{\rm or}~135$ GeV, is
1055: the maximal allowed mass of the lighter CP-even Higgs
1056: after radiative corrections are included
1057: in the CP-even sector, depending whether one takes the minimal
1058: or the maximal stop mixing scenario, respectively \cite{susyhiggs}.
1059: In this case $\cos(\beta-\alpha) \to 1$.
1060:
1061: \item{Case 2:} $m_A^2 >> m_Z^2$, the so called decoupling limit.
1062: In this limit $\cos(\beta-\alpha) \to 0$.
1063:
1064: \end{description}
1065:
1066: These two MSSM limiting cases for large $\tan\beta$
1067: remain valid also after
1068: the radiative corrections to the Higgs sector are
1069: included \cite{susyrad1}, thereby shifting the value of the mixing angle
1070: $\alpha$ (the higher order contribution to $\alpha$ can, on the other hand,
1071: cause a large shift
1072: to the lighter CP-even Higgs mass, $m_h$).$^{[4]}$\footnotetext[4]{There
1073: are also vertex
1074: corrections to the Higgs-fermion Yukawa couplings which do not depend
1075: on the mixing angle $\alpha$. However, these have a negligible effect in the
1076: up quark sector, and even more so for large $\tan\beta$
1077: values \cite{susyrad2}.}
1078: It should also be noted that, in the large $\tan\beta$ case,
1079: $\cos^2(\beta-\alpha)$ approaches zero very rapidly as $m_A$ is increased.
1080: In particular, an order of magnitude
1081: drop of $\cos^2(\beta-\alpha)$ (from 1 to 0.1) is spanned over no more than
1082: about $10$ GeV mass range of $m_A$ \cite{susyrad1}.
1083:
1084: Since cases 1 and 2 in the MSSM Higgs sector are equivalent to
1085: cases 1 and 2 of the 2HDMII framework, they have the same Yukawa
1086: couplings pattern as given in Table \ref{tabratio}. Thus, applying the
1087: results obtained in the 2HDMII to the MSSM case, we conclude
1088: here too that
1089: $\delta R^{MSSM}$ {\it cannot} be observed either at the
1090: Tevatron or at the LHC.
1091: Reversing the argument, a
1092: measured signal of $\delta R$ at these hadron colliders will
1093: {\it rule out} the MSSM.
1094:
1095: \section{Summary}
1096:
1097: To summarize, we have proposed a signal,
1098: $\delta R$ [see (\ref{delRth})], based on
1099: counting the number
1100: of three heavy ($c$ or $b$) jets events versus
1101: the number of events with three $b$ jets, in processes
1102: in which the neutral Higgs is produced in association with a single high
1103: $p_T$ $c$ or $b$ jet. This signal assumes that the Higgs Yukawa coupling to
1104: the $b$ quark is enhanced, say by a large $\tan\beta$ in multi Higgs
1105: doublet models, and that the neutral Higgs will therefore be
1106: observed in association
1107: with $b$ jets at future hadron collider experiments.
1108:
1109: This signal was calculated in the framework of multi Higgs models which
1110: have at least one neutral Higgs with an enhanced Yukawa coupling to the $b$
1111: quark when $\tan\beta$ is large.
1112: We have found that in such cases, the signal to background cross-section ratio
1113: is typically (after applying some useful kinematical cuts)
1114: $S/B \sim 0.1 - 1$ at the LHC and $S/B \sim 0.05-0.3$ at the Tevatron,
1115: depending on the value of $\tan\beta$.
1116:
1117: The measurement of such a signal will require an efficiency
1118: for distinguishing a $c$ jet from a light jet at the level
1119: of about $\epsilon_c^h \sim 20\% -30\%$ or $\epsilon_c^h \sim 50\%-60\%$ at the LHC or at the Tevatron,
1120: respectively. Such efficiencies seem to be somewhat higher
1121: than what has been attained in the simulations to date
1122: ($\epsilon_c^h \sim 10\%$)
1123: \cite{frank}.
1124: We have shown that if such $c$ jet tagging efficiencies are acomplished,
1125: then our
1126: signal will be very efficient for probing the
1127: ratio between the charm and bottom Yukawa couplings, $Y_c/Y_b$, thus allowing
1128: a deeper insight into the Higgs Yukawa potential. This, in turn,
1129: will be useful for categorizing the theory that underlies the Higgs sector.
1130: It should be noted, that our predictions for the Tevatron rely
1131: on an accumulated yearly luminosity of 30 inverse [fb], which is, at
1132: present, considerably higher than the expected Fermilab's run II
1133: luminosity.
1134:
1135: It should also be noted that the background estimate made for our signal
1136: was based on a low probability for misidentifying a light jet as a
1137: heavy jet, i.e., $\epsilon_l^h \sim {\cal O}(1\%)$.
1138: While that value is comparable to the present
1139: estimate for $\epsilon_l^b$ (or even a little conservative),
1140: it is somewhat optimistic for $\epsilon_l^c$
1141: which is not yet well studied by present detector simulations. A more
1142: realistic value for the distinction between a light jet and a charm
1143: jet, based on the technology of today, would be
1144: $\epsilon_l^c \sim {\cal O}(10\%)$.
1145: Nontheless, our background estimate (and therefore also our estimate for
1146: the significance of the signal) holds roughly for values of
1147: $\epsilon_l^c$ not larger than about 10\%.
1148: For $\epsilon_l^c$ at the level of tens of percents there may well be
1149: other processes, e.g., $gg \to ggg$, that may
1150: alter our signal to background estimate to the level that
1151: the observability of our signal becomes difficult.
1152: Another potential problem to the detection of our signal may
1153: arise if the
1154: trigger algorithm for
1155: b-jet tagging requires a minimum transverse
1156: momentum cut at the level of 100 GeV and above
1157: and the $p_T$ cut of
1158: 30 GeV we used for the LHC and 15 GeV for the Tevatron
1159: proves to be too optimistic. In that case
1160: also, the signal proposed in this paper may be degraded and
1161: difficult to observe due to the large QCD background.
1162:
1163: If the difficulties mentioned above can be surmounted and such a signal is
1164: detected at the Tevatron or at the LHC,
1165: then the popular MSSM and the 2HDMII can be {\it ruled out} with many standard
1166: deviations, since in these theories the ratio $Y_c/Y_b$ is too small
1167: for our signal to have any measurable consequences.
1168: On the other hand, we have shown that within a version of a
1169: 2HDM - the ``2HDM for the top''
1170: (T2HDM) - in which the large mass of the top quark
1171: is naturally accommodated for large $\tan\beta$,
1172: our signal
1173: can be easily observed at the LHC within the entire relevant mass range
1174: of the neutral Higgs if $\tan\beta \gsim 20$ and
1175: $\epsilon_c^h \sim 20\% -30\%$. In addition, if the
1176: neutral Higgs of the T2HDM has a
1177: mass around 100 GeV and $\tan\beta \gsim 50$,
1178: then our signal may also give an effect with more than 3-sigma significance
1179: at the Tevatron provided that $\epsilon_c^h \sim 50\%-60\%$.
1180:
1181: \begin{acknowledgments}
1182: We would like to thank F. Paige, W. Kilgore and S. Dawson
1183: for their helpful comments.
1184: G.E. also thanks
1185: the Technion President Fund.
1186: This work was also supported in part by US DOE Contract Nos.
1187: DE-FG02-94ER40817 (ISU) and DE-AC02-98CH10886 (BNL).
1188: \end{acknowledgments}
1189:
1190: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
1191:
1192: %1
1193: \bibitem{hadhiggs} See e.g.,
1194: D. Cavalli {\it et al.}, in
1195: ``Les Houches 2001, Physics at TeV Colliders'',
1196: R. Aurenche {\it et al.}, IN2P3, Paris, France (2001),
1197: pp. 1-120, hep-ph/0203056;
1198: A. Djouadi, review talk given at the 7th Workshop
1199: on High-Energy Physics Phenomenology, WHEPP VII,
1200: Allahabad, India, January 4-15, 2002,
1201: Pramana {\bf 40}, pp. 215-238 (2003), hep-ph/0205248;
1202: B. Mellado, for the CMS and ATLAS collaborations, talk given
1203: at the 14th Topical Conference on Hadron Collider Physics (HCP 2002),
1204: Karlsruhe, Germany, September 29 - October 4, 2002,
1205: Springer (2003), pp. 348-355, hep-ex/0211062.
1206:
1207: %2
1208: \bibitem{bh3} D. Dicus, T. Stelzer, Z. Sullivan and S. Willenbrock,
1209: Phys. Rev. {\bf D59}, 094016 (1999);
1210: F. Maltoni, Z. Sullivan and S. Willenbrock,
1211: Phys. Rev. {\bf D67}, 093005 (2003);
1212: R.V. Harlander and W.B. Kilgore, hep-ph/0304035;
1213:
1214: %3
1215: \bibitem{bh1} J. Campbell, R.K. Ellis, F. Maltoni and S. Willenbrock,
1216: Phys. Rev. {\bf D67}, 095002 (2003).
1217:
1218: %4
1219: \bibitem{bh2} C.S. Huang and S.H. Zhu, Phys. Rev. {\bf D60}, 075012 (1999);
1220: J.-J. Cao, G.-P. Gao, Y.-L. Su and J.M. Yang,
1221: Phys. Rev. {\bf D68}, 075012 (2003);
1222:
1223: %5
1224: \bibitem{bbh}
1225: J. Dai, J.F. Gunion and R. Vega, Phys. Lett. {\bf B345}, 29 (1995);
1226: J. Dai, J.F. Gunion and R. Vega, Phys. Lett. {\bf B387}, 801 (1996);
1227: E. Richter-Was and D. Froidevaux, Z. Phys. {\bf C76}, 665 (1997);
1228: J.L. Diaz-Cruz, H.J. He, T. Tait and C.P. Yuan, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 80}, 4641 (1998);
1229: C. Balazs {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. {\bf D59}, 055016 (1999);
1230: M. Carena, S. Mrenna and C.E. Wagner, Phys. Rev. {\bf D60}, 075010 (1999).
1231:
1232: \bibitem{datta} D. Choudhury, A. Datta and S. Raychaudhuri, hep-ph/9809552.
1233: %6
1234: \bibitem{comphep} Comphep version 4.2.0 - a package for evaluation of
1235: Feynman diagrams and integration over multi-particle phase space.
1236: User's manual for version 3.3: A. Pukhov {\it et al.}, hep-ph/9908288.
1237: URL: http://theory.sinp.msu.ru/comphep.
1238:
1239: %7
1240: \bibitem{cteq5l} H.L. Lai {\it et al.,} Eur. Phys. J.
1241: {\bf C12}, 375 (2000).
1242:
1243: %8
1244: \bibitem{MSrun} See e.g.,
1245: J.A.M. Vermaseren, S.A. Larin and T. van Ritbergen,
1246: Phys. Lett. {\bf B405}, 327 (1997);
1247: H. Fusaoka and Y. Koide, Phys. Rev. {\bf D57}, 3986 (1998).
1248:
1249: %9
1250: \bibitem{PDG} K. Hagiwara {\it et al.} (Partical Data Group),
1251: Phys. Rev. {\bf D66}, 010001 (2002).
1252:
1253: %10
1254: \bibitem{epsnumbers} See e.g., E. Richter-Was, D. Froidevaux and L. Poggioli,
1255: ATLAS Peport No. ATL-PHYS-98-131;
1256: M. Sapinski (on behalf on the ATLAS collaboration),
1257: Eur. Phys. J. directC {\bf 4S1}, 08 (2002).
1258:
1259: %11
1260: \bibitem{T2HDM} A.K. Das and C. Kao, Phys. Lett. {\bf B372}, 106 (1996);
1261: K. Kiers, A. Soni and G.-H. Wu, Phys. Rev. {\bf D59}, 096001 (1999);
1262: G.-H. Wu, and A. Soni, Phys. Rev. {\bf D62}, 056005 (2000);
1263: K. Kiers, A. Soni and G.-H. Wu, Phys. Rev. {\bf D62}, 116004 (2000).
1264:
1265: %12
1266: \bibitem{HHG} For reviews on the Higgs sector in the Standard Model,
1267: the two Higgs doublet model and in supersymmetry, see e.g.,
1268: J. Gunion, H. Haber, G. Kane and S. Dawson, ``The Higgs Hunters Guide'',
1269: Addison-Wesley, Reading 1990;
1270: D. Atwood, S. Bar-Shalom, G. Eilam and A. Soni,
1271: Phys. Rep. {\bf 347}, 1 (2001).
1272:
1273:
1274: %13
1275: \bibitem{susyhiggs} See e.g.,
1276: J.R. Espinosa and R.-J. Zhang, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B586}, 3 (2000);
1277: S. Heinemeyer, W. Hollik and G. Weiglein, hep-ph/0002213.
1278:
1279: %14
1280: \bibitem{susyrad1} See e.g.,
1281: J.F. Gunion, H.E. Haber and R. van Kooten, hep-ph/0301023 and references
1282: therein.
1283:
1284: %15
1285: \bibitem{susyrad2} See e.g.,
1286: M. Carena, H.E. Haber, H.E. Logan and S. Mrenna, Phys. Rev. {\bf D65}, 055005 (2002)
1287: and references therein.
1288:
1289: \bibitem{frank} F. Paige and W. Kilgore, private communications.
1290:
1291: \end{thebibliography}
1292:
1293: \end{document}
1294:
1295:
1296:
1297:
1298:
1299: