1: \documentstyle[12pt,epsfig,epsf,feynarts]{article}
2: \textheight 224mm
3: \textwidth 162mm
4: \topmargin -11mm
5: \oddsidemargin 0mm
6: %\evensidemargin 0mm
7: \def\ga{\mathrel{\raise.3ex\hbox{$>$\kern-.75em\lower1ex\hbox{$\sim$}}}}
8: \def\la{\mathrel{\raise.3ex\hbox{$<$\kern-.75em\lower1ex\hbox{$\sim$}}}}
9:
10: \renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\fnsymbol{footnote} }
11:
12: \begin{document}
13: \begin{flushright}
14: LPHEP-04-03\\
15: September 2004 \\
16: \end{flushright}
17:
18: \vspace*{.8cm}
19: \begin{center}
20: {\large{{\bf
21: Higgs bosons decay into bottom-strange\\
22: in two Higgs Doublets Models }}}
23:
24: \vspace{1.1cm}
25: Abdesslam Arhrib \\
26: D\'epartement de Math\'ematiques, Facult\'e des Sciences et Techniques\\
27: B.P 416 Tanger, Morocco.\\
28: and\\
29: LPHEA, D\'epartement de Physique, Facult\'e des Sciences-Semlalia,\\
30: B.P. 2390 Marrakech, Morocco.\\
31: \end{center}
32:
33: \begin{abstract}
34: We analyze the decays $\{h^0,H^0,A^0\}\to \bar{s}b$
35: within two Higgs Doublet Models with Natural Flavor Conservation
36: (2HDM) type I and II.
37: It is found that the Higgs bosons decay
38: into bottom-strange can lead
39: to a branching ratio
40: in the range $10^{-5}\to 10^{-3}$ for small $\tan\beta \approx
41: 0.1\to 0.5$ and rather light charged Higgs in the 2HDM type I.
42: When $\tan\beta \ga 1$, one can easily
43: reach a branching ratio of the order $10^{-5}$.
44: In 2HDM type II, without imposing $b\to s\gamma$ constraint,
45: the situation is the same as in 2HDM type I.
46: If $b\to s\gamma$ constraint
47: on charged Higgs mass ($M_{H\pm}\geq 350$ GeV) is imposed,
48: we obtain $Br(h^0 \to \bar{s}b)$ in the range $10^{-5}$--$10^{-6}$.
49: A comparison between the rates of
50: $h^0\to \bar{s}b$ and $h^0\to \gamma \gamma$
51: is made. It is found that in the fermiophobic scenario,
52: $h^0\to \gamma \gamma$ is still the dominant decay mode.
53: \end{abstract}
54:
55:
56: \newpage
57: \section{Introduction}
58: \label{sec:1}
59: One of the goals of the next generation of
60: high energy colliders, such as the large hadron
61: collider LHC \cite{LHC} or the linear collider LC \cite{TESLA}
62: or muon colliders, is to probe top Flavor-Changing Neutral
63: Couplings `top FCNC' as well as the Higgs
64: Flavor-Changing Neutral Couplings `Higgs FCNC'.
65: FCNC of heavy quarks have been
66: intensively studied both from the theoretical and experimental point of view.
67: Such processes are being well established in the Standard Model (SM)
68: and are excellent probes for the presence
69: of new physics effects such as Supersymmetry,
70: extended Higgs sector and extra fermions families.
71:
72: Within the SM, with one Higgs doublet, the FCNC $Z \bar{t} c$
73: vanishes at tree-level
74: by the GIM mechanism, while the
75: $\gamma \bar{t}c$ and $g\bar{t}c$ couplings are zero as a
76: consequence of the unbroken $SU(3)_c \times {U(1)}_{\mbox{em}}$
77: gauge symmetry. The Higgs FCNC $H\bar{t}c$ and $H\bar{s}b$
78: couplings also vanish
79: due to the existence of only one Higgs doublet.
80: Both top FCNC and Higgs FCNC are generated at one loop level
81: by charged current exchange, but they are very suppressed by
82: the GIM mechanism. The calculation of the branching ratios for top decays
83: yields the SM predictions \cite{sm1}, \cite{sm2}:
84: \begin{eqnarray}
85: & & \mathrm{Br}(t \to Zc) = 1.3 \times 10^{-13},
86: \mathrm{Br}(t \to \gamma c) = 4.3 \times 10^{-13},
87: \mathrm{Br}(t \to gc) = 3.8 \times 10^{-11},\nonumber\\
88: & & \mathrm{Br}(t \to Hc) = 5.6 \to 3.2 \times 10^{-14}\qquad
89: \mathrm{for}\qquad M_H=115 \to 130\ \ \mathrm{GeV}.\label{eq2}
90: \end{eqnarray}
91: While for Higgs FCNC, calculation within SM leads to:
92: \begin{eqnarray}
93: & & \mathrm{Br}(H \to \bar{s}b) \approx 10^{-7}\ \
94: (\mathrm{resp}\ 10^{-9})\ \ m_H=100\ \ (\mathrm{resp}\ 200) \
95: \mathrm{GeV}\nonumber \\
96: & & \mathrm{Br}(H \to \bar{t}c) \approx 1.5\times 10^{-16} \ \
97: (\mathrm{resp}\ 3\times 10^{-13})\ \ m_H=200\ \ (\mathrm{resp}\ 500) \
98: \mathrm{GeV}\label{eq3}
99: \end{eqnarray}
100:
101: Many SM extensions predict that
102: these top and Higgs FCNC can be orders of magnitude
103: larger than their SM values (see \cite{review} for an overview).
104: For the Higgs FCNC, an important class of models where
105: Higgs FCNC appear at tree level are the so called Two Higgs Doublet
106: Model without Natural Flavor Conservation (NFC) 2HDM-III
107: \cite{sher,2hdm2,2hdm1,soni}. In this class of models,
108: the branching ratio of $h\to \bar{t}c$ can be larger than 10\%
109: in some cases \cite{2hdm2}.
110: In the framework of 2HDM with NFC type I and II,
111: top and Higgs FCNC have been studied in \cite{2hdm44,2hdm4}. It was shown
112: that in 2HDM-II the $Br(\Phi\to \bar{t}c)$, $\Phi=h^0$ or $H^0$,
113: may reach $10^{-5}$ for CP-even states \cite{2hdm4}.
114: This rate is almost eight orders of magnitude larger than the SM one.\\
115: Top and Higgs FCNC couplings have been addressed also in supersymmetry
116: \cite{maria1,maria2,bdgs,susy3,susy1}.
117: In those studies it has been shown
118: that $Br(h^0\to \bar{s}b)$ can be in the range of $10^{-4}$-$10^{-3}$.
119: This rate originates mainly from the flavor violation interactions
120: mediated by the gluino \cite{maria1,bdgs}.
121: In case of MSSM with R parity conservation,
122: the top FCNC
123: coupling $t\to c h^0$, can reach $10^{-4}$ branching ratio \cite{susy3}
124: in case of flavour violation induced by gluino.
125:
126:
127: Hence, Higgs and top FCNC offer a good place to search for new
128: physics, which may manifest itself if those couplings are observed in
129: future experiments such as LHC or LC \cite{LHC,TESLA}.
130: Therefore, models which can enhance those FCNC couplings are welcome.
131:
132:
133:
134: The aim of this paper is to study Higgs FCNC
135: couplings such as $\Phi \to \bar{s}b$, $\Phi=h^0, H^0, A^0$,
136: in the framework of NFC two Higgs Doublet Models type I and II.
137: It is found that the branching ratios of
138: $Br(\Phi\to \bar{s}b)$, $\Phi=h^0, H^0, A^0$, can be
139: greater than $\ga 10^{-5}$ in quite a substantial region of the 2HDM
140: parameters space. $Br(\Phi\to \bar{t}c)$ requires large $\tan\beta$ and
141: light charged Higgs \cite{2hdm4} while $Br(\Phi\to \bar{s}b)$ requires
142: rather small $\tan\beta$ together with light charged Higgs
143: and large soft breaking term $\lambda_5$.\\
144: We would like to mention here that due to the isolated top quark signature,
145: Higgs FCNC $\Phi\to \bar{t}c$ event may be easy to search for experimentally.
146: However, it is very difficult to isolate
147: Higgs FCNC $\Phi\to \bar{s}b$ events from the background.
148:
149: The paper is organized as follows.
150: In the next section, the 2HDM is introduced. Relevant couplings are
151: given, theoretical and experimental constraints
152: on 2HDM parameters are discussed.
153: In the third section, we will study the effects
154: of 2HDM on $Br(\Phi\to \bar{s}b)$ which are evaluated
155: in 2HDM-I and 2HDM-II. A comparison between
156: $Br(h^0\to \bar{s}b)$ and $Br(h^0\to \gamma \gamma)$ is also
157: discussed. Our conclusion is given in section 4.
158:
159: \section{The 2HDM}
160: Two Higgs Doublet Models (2HDM) are formed by adding an extra complex
161: $SU(2)_L\otimes U(1)_Y$ scalar doublet to the SM Lagrangian.
162: Motivations for such a structure include CP--violation in the Higgs
163: sector and the fact that some models of
164: dynamical electroweak symmetry breaking
165: yield the 2HDM as their low-energy effective theory \cite{dewsb}.
166:
167: The most general 2HDM scalar potential which is both
168: $SU(2)_L\otimes U(1)_Y$ and CP invariant is given by \cite{Gun}:
169: \begin{eqnarray}
170: V(\Phi_{1}, \Phi_{2})& & = \lambda_{1} ( |\Phi_{1}|^2-v_{1}^2)^2
171: +\lambda_{2} (|\Phi_{2}|^2-v_{2}^2)^2+
172: \lambda_{3}((|\Phi_{1}|^2-v_{1}^2)+(|\Phi_{2}|^2-v_{2}^2))^2
173: +\nonumber\\ [0.2cm]
174: & & \lambda_{4}(|\Phi_{1}|^2 |\Phi_{2}|^2 - |\Phi_{1}^+\Phi_{2}|^2 )+
175: \lambda_{5} (\Re(\Phi^+_{1}\Phi_{2})
176: -v_{1}v_{2})^2+ \lambda_{6} [\Im(\Phi^+_{1}\Phi_{2})]^2
177: \label{higgspot}
178: \end{eqnarray}
179: where $\Phi_1$ and $\Phi_2$ have weak hypercharge Y=1, $v_1$ and
180: $v_2$ are respectively the vacuum
181: expectation values of $\Phi_1$ and $\Phi_2$ and the $\lambda_i$
182: are real--valued parameters.
183: Note that this potential violates the discrete symmetry
184: $\Phi_i\to -\Phi_i$ softly by the dimension two term
185: $\lambda_5 \Re(\Phi^+_{1}\Phi_{2})$.
186: The above scalar potential has 8 independent parameters
187: $(\lambda_i)_{i=1,...,6}$, $v_1$ and $v_2$.
188: After electroweak symmetry breaking, the combination $v_1^2 + v_2^2$
189: is thus fixed by the electroweak
190: scale through $v_1^2 + v_2^2=(2\sqrt{2} G_F)^{-1}$.
191: We are left then with 7 independent parameters.\\
192: Meanwhile, three of the eight degrees of freedom
193: of the two Higgs doublets correspond to
194: the 3 Goldstone bosons ($G^\pm$, $G^0$) and
195: the remaining five become physical Higgs bosons:
196: $H^0$, $h^0$ (CP--even), $A^0$ (CP--odd)
197: and $H^\pm$. Their masses are obtained as usual
198: by diagonalizing the mass matrix.
199: The presence of charged Higgs bosons will give new contributions
200: to the one--loop induced FCNC couplings, as shown in Fig.~(\ref{hsbb})
201: $d_{11}\to d_{18}$.
202:
203:
204: It is possible to write the $\lambda_i$ in terms of
205: physical scalar masses, $\tan\beta$, $\alpha$ and $\lambda_5$
206: (see \cite{AA} for details). We
207: are then free to take as 7 independent parameters
208: $(\lambda_i)_{i=1,\ldots , 6}$ and $\tan\beta$
209: or equivalently the four scalar masses, $\tan\beta$, $\alpha$
210: and one of the $\lambda_i$. In what
211: follows we will take $\lambda_5$ as a free parameter as well as the
212: physical masses and mixing.
213:
214: We list hereafter the Feynman rules in the general 2HDM
215: for the trilinear scalar couplings relevant for our study.
216: They are written in terms of
217: the physical masses, $\alpha$, $\beta$ and the soft
218: breaking term $\lambda_5$:
219:
220:
221: \begin{eqnarray}
222: {H^0H^+H^-}= & &\frac{-ig}{M_W \sin 2\beta } (
223: M_{H^0}^2 (\cos^3\beta \sin\alpha +\sin^3\beta \cos\alpha)+
224: M_{H^{\pm}}^2\sin{2\beta} \cos({\beta-\alpha})\nonumber \\ & & -
225: \sin({\beta+\alpha})\lambda_5 v^2 )\label{scalar1} \\
226: {H^0H^+G^-} =& & \frac{ig}{2 M_W} \sin({\beta-\alpha})
227: (M_{H^0}^2-M_{H^{\pm}}^2)\label{scalar2} \\
228: {h^0H^+H^-} = && \frac{- ig}{M_W \sin 2\beta} (
229: M_{h^0}^2(\cos{\alpha}\cos^3{\beta}-
230: \sin{\alpha}\sin^3{\beta})
231: +M_{H^{\pm}}^2\sin{2\beta}\sin({\beta-\alpha})
232: \nonumber \\ && -
233: \cos({\beta+\alpha}){\lambda_5} v^2)\label{scalar3} \\
234: {h^0H^+G^-} =&&\frac{-ig}{2 M_W} \cos({\beta-\alpha})
235: (M_{h^0}^2-M_{H^{\pm}}^2) \label{scalar4} \\
236: {A^0H^+G^-} = & & \frac{-g}{2 M_W}
237: (M_{H^{\pm}}^2 - M_A^2)\qquad , \ \ v^2 = \frac{2M_W^2}{g^2} \label{scalar5}
238: \end{eqnarray}
239:
240: We need also the couplings of scalar boson to a pair of fermions
241: both in 2HDM-I and 2HDM-II. In those couplings, the relevant terms
242: are as follows:
243: \begin{eqnarray}
244: & & h^0\bar{t}t \propto M_t\frac{\cos\alpha}{\sin\beta} \ \ \ , \ \ \
245: H^0\bar{t}t \propto M_t \frac{\sin\alpha}{\sin\beta}\ \ \ , \ \ \
246: A^0\bar{t}t \propto \frac{M_t}{\tan\beta} \ \ {\rm 2HDM-I , II}
247: \label{coupl1}\\
248: & & h^0\bar{b}b \propto M_b\frac{\cos\alpha}{\sin\beta} \ \ \ , \ \ \
249: H^0\bar{b}b \propto M_b \frac{\sin\alpha}{\sin\beta}\ \ \ , \ \ \
250: A^0\bar{b}b \propto \frac{M_b}{\tan\beta}\ \ {\rm 2HDM-I }\label{coupl2}\\
251: & & h^0\bar{b}b \propto M_b\frac{\sin\alpha}{\cos\beta} \ \ \ , \ \ \
252: H^0\bar{b}b \propto M_b \frac{\cos\alpha}{\cos\beta}\ \ \ , \ \ \
253: A^0\bar{b}b \propto M_b\tan\beta \ \ {\rm 2HDM-II }\label{coupl3}\\
254: & & (H^-\bar{b}t)_L \propto \frac{M_b}{\tan\beta} \ \ \ , \ \ \
255: (H^-\bar{b}t)_R \propto \frac{M_t}{\tan\beta} \ \ {\rm 2HDM-I }
256: \label{coupl4}\\
257: & & (H^-\bar{b}t)_L \propto {M_b}{\tan\beta} \ \ \ , \ \ \
258: (H^-\bar{b}t)_R \propto \frac{M_t}{\tan\beta} \ \ {\rm 2HDM-II }
259: \label{coupl5}
260: \end{eqnarray}
261:
262:
263:
264:
265:
266:
267:
268: In this analysis, we take into account the following
269: constraints when the independent parameters are varied.
270: From the theoretical point of view:\\
271: $i)$ The contributions to the $\delta\rho$ parameter from the Higgs
272: scalars \cite{hollik} should not exceed the current limits from precision
273: measurements \cite{PDG}: $|\delta\rho|\la 0.001$.
274: We stress in passing that the extra contribution to
275: $\delta\rho$ constraint \cite{hollik} vanish when
276: we take $M_{H^\pm}=M_A$ ($\lambda_4=\lambda_6$).
277: Under this constraint the 2HDM scalar
278: potential is $O(4)$ symmetric \cite{negative}. In this case
279: $(H^+,A^0,H^-)$ form a triplet under the residual global $SU(2)$ of
280: the Higgs potential. It is this residual symmetry which ensures that
281: $\rho$ is equal to unity at tree level. One conclude then that large
282: splitting between $M_{H^\pm}$ and $M_A$ could violate
283: $|\delta\rho|\la 0.001$ constraint.
284: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
285: \begin{figure}[t!]
286: \begin{center}
287: \vspace{-2.3cm}
288: \input{hsbb.tex}
289: \vspace{-8.7cm}
290: \caption{Generic contribution to $\Phi \to f_1 f_2$ in SM $d_1\to d_{10}$,
291: in 2HDM $d_{11}\to d_{18}$}
292: \label{hsbb}
293: \end{center}
294: \end{figure}
295: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
296: \\
297: \noindent
298: $ii)$ From the requirement of perturbativity for the
299: top and bottom Yukawa couplings \cite{berger}, $\tan\beta$ is
300: constrained to lie in the range $0.1\leq \tan\beta \leq 70$. \\
301: $iii)$ It has been shown in~\cite{bsg} that
302: for models of the type 2HDM-II, data on $b\to s \gamma$
303: imposes a lower limit of
304: $M_{H^\pm} \ge 350$\,GeV.
305: In type I 2HDM, there is no such a constraint
306: on charged Higgs mass \cite{bsg}.
307: In our numerical analysis we will ignore this
308: constraint in order to localize regions in the 2HDM parameters
309: space where the branching ratios are sizeable.\\
310: $iv)$ Unitarity and perturbativity constraints on scalar parameters:\\
311: It is well known that the unitarity bounds coming from a tree-level
312: analysis~\cite{abdesunit,kan} put severe constraints
313: on all scalar trilinear and quartic couplings.
314: The tree level unitarity bounds are derived with
315: the help of the equivalence theorem, which itself is a
316: high-energy approximation where it is assumed that the
317: energy scale is much larger than the $Z^0$ and $W^\pm$
318: gauge-boson masses. We will use, instead
319: of unitarity constraints, the perturbativity constraints
320: by assuming that all $\lambda_i$ satisfy:
321: \begin{eqnarray}
322: |\lambda_i| \leq 4 \pi .\label{pert}
323: \end{eqnarray}
324: Those perturbative constraints on the
325: $\lambda_i$ allow us to investigate a larger parameter space
326: than the one allowed by unitarity constraints.\\
327: We would like to mention also that when performing the scan over the
328: 2HDM parameters space, we realize that
329: for some points the widths $\Gamma_{\Phi}$ of the scalar particles
330: become bigger than their corresponding masses:
331: $\Gamma_{\Phi} \geq M_{\Phi}$ ($\Phi=h^0,H^0,A^0,H^\pm$).
332: This happens both when we impose tree level unitarity constraints
333: and/or perturbativity constraints. The width becomes large
334: specially when the pure scalar decays like $H^0\to h^0h^0$,
335: $H^0\to H^+H^-$, $h^0\to H^+H^-$, $H^0\to A^0A^0$
336: and $h^0\to A^0A^0$ are open.
337: We find it is natural to add to the
338: above constraints the requirement that the width of the scalar
339: particles remains smaller than the mass
340: of the corresponding particles:
341: \begin{eqnarray}
342: \Gamma_{\Phi}< M_{\Phi} \label{wid}
343: \end{eqnarray}
344:
345: From the experimental point of view,
346: the combined null--searches from all four CERN LEP collaborations derive the
347: lower limit $M_{H^{\pm}}\ge 78.6$ GeV $(95\%\, CL)$, a limit
348: which applies to all models in which Br($H^{\pm}\to \tau\nu_{\tau}$)+
349: Br($H^{\pm}\to c\bar{s}$)=1. For the neutral Higgs bosons,
350: OPAL collaboration has put a limit on
351: $h^0$ and $A^0$ masses
352: of the 2HDM. They conclude that the regions
353: $1\la M_h \la 44$ GeV and $12\la M_A \la 56$ GeV
354: are excluded at 95\% CL
355: independent of $\alpha$ and $\tan\beta$ \cite{opal}.
356: For simplicity we will assume that all scalar particles
357: masses are $\ga 90$ GeV.
358:
359:
360: \section{Higgs FCNC in 2HDM}
361:
362: \subsection{Higgs FCNC in SM}
363: Before presenting our results in 2HDM, we would like to
364: give the Branching ratio of $H\to {\bar{t}}c$
365: and $H\to {\bar{s}}b$ in the SM.
366: To our best knowledge, the first calculation for $Br(H\to {\bar{s}}b)$
367: has been carried out in \cite{sonism}. However, in \cite{sonism},
368: numerical results have been given only for a very light Higgs boson
369: $M_H=9$ GeV. Recently a new estimation,
370: using dimensional analysis and power counting,
371: has appeared both for $Br(H\to {\bar{s}}b)$
372: \cite{bdgs} and $Br(H\to {\bar{t}}c)$ \cite{2hdm4}.
373: We refer the reader to \cite{2hdm4,bdgs} for more details
374: on those estimations.
375: Here we present exact result based on diagrammatic calculations
376: both for $Br(H\to {\bar{s}}b)$ and $Br(H\to {\bar{t}}c)$.
377: We give numerical results for the width as well as for the
378: branching ratio.\\
379: The Feynman diagrams contributing to those process in SM are depicted
380: in Fig~.(\ref{hsbb}) d$_1 \to$ d$_{10}$.
381: In the case of $H\to {\bar{t}}c$, in Fig.~(\ref{hsbb})
382: $(f_1,f_2)=(t,c)$ and $f_i^\prime=d,s,b$, while
383: for $H\to {\bar{s}}b$
384: $(f_1,f_2)$ is $(b,s)$ and $f_i^\prime=u,c,t$.
385: The full loop calculation presented here is done with the help of
386: FormCalc \cite{FA2}. FF and LoopTools packages \cite{FF}
387: are used in numerical analysis. The numerical results shown
388: in eqs.~(\ref{eq2},\ref{eq3}) is derived by FormCalc \cite{FA2}.\\
389: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
390: \begin{figure}[t!]
391: \smallskip\smallskip
392: \vskip-3.8cm
393: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
394: \centerline{{
395: \epsfxsize2.8 in
396: \epsffile{htcsm.eps}}
397: \hskip0.4cm
398: \epsfxsize2.88 in
399: \epsffile{hsbsm.eps} }
400: \smallskip\smallskip
401: \caption{SM width and Branching ratio for
402: $H\to \bar{t}c$ (left) and
403: $H\to \bar{s}b$ (right)
404: as a function of Higgs mass.}
405: \label{fig2}
406: \end{figure}
407: In the SM, as expected, the branching ratio of $H\to \bar{t}c$ and
408: $H\to \bar{s}b$
409: are very suppressed due to GIM mechanism.
410: The branching ratio is very small in both cases for
411: higher Higgs mass $M_H\geq 2 M_Z$ where
412: $H\to W^+W^-$ and $H\to Z^0Z^0$ are open.
413:
414:
415: Both in SM and 2HDM, the decay widths $\Gamma_{\Phi}^{\rm{SM}}$
416: and $\Gamma_{\Phi}^{\rm{2HDM}}$ of scalar particles:
417: $\Phi=H^{\rm{SM}}$, $h^0$, $H^0$, $A^0$ and
418: $H^\pm$ are computed at tree level as follows:
419: \begin{eqnarray}
420: \Gamma_{\Phi}^{\rm{SM}}=\sum_{f}\Gamma(\Phi\to f\bar{f}) +
421: \Gamma(\Phi\to VV) \nonumber\\
422: \Gamma_{\Phi}^{\rm{2HDM}}=\sum_{f}\Gamma(\Phi\to f\bar{f}) +
423: \Gamma(\Phi\to VV) + \Gamma(\Phi\to V H_i)
424: +\Gamma(\Phi\to H_i H_j)\label{widd}
425: \end{eqnarray}
426: QCD corrections
427: to $\Phi \to f\bar{f}$ and $\Phi \to \{ g g, \gamma \gamma, \gamma Z,
428: V^*V^*, VV^*, V^*H_i\}$ decays are not included in the widths.
429: The decay widths of the Higgs bosons are taken from
430: \cite{AKZ}.
431:
432:
433: For a Higgs mass heavier than 250 GeV, we get branching ratio
434: of the order $10^{-14} \to 10^{-12}$ (resp $10^{-10} \to 10^{-9}$) for
435: $H\to {\bar{t}}c$ (resp $H\to {\bar{s}}b$).
436: \\
437: In the case of $H\to {\bar{s}}b$, the branching ratio
438: is enhanced for Higgs boson mass of the order $M_H\approx 100 \to 120$ GeV
439: where the width of the Higgs is very narrow.
440: We have plotted in Fig.~(\ref{fig2}) both the decay width and the branching
441: ratios of $H\to {\bar{t}}c$ (left plot)
442: and $H\to {\bar{s}}b$ (right plot) as well as the branching ratio
443: of $H\to \mu^+\mu^-$. As it can be seen from the right plot
444: $Br(H\to \bar{s}b)$ is two orders of magnitude smaller
445: than $Br(H\to \mu^+\mu^-)$.\\
446: Since the decay width of $H\to {\bar{t}}c$ is very suppressed,
447: %and the Br of $H\to \bar{t}t$ is small compared to the Br of $H\to W^+W^-$,
448: the threshold for $t\bar{t}$ production is absent in Fig.~2 (left).
449: The situation is slightly different for $H\to \bar{s}b$
450: where the decay width of $H\to \bar{s}b$ is about 6 order of magnitude
451: larger than decay width of $H\to \bar{t}c$. From the right plot of
452: Fig.~(\ref{fig2}) one can see that the Br of $H\to \bar{s}b$
453: is smaller once the $t\bar{t}$ threshold has been passed.
454:
455:
456: \subsection{$h^0 \to {\bar{s}}b$}
457:
458:
459: Turning now to the 2HDM Higgs bosons FCNC couplings $\Phi \to {\bar{s}}b$,
460: $\Phi=h^0,H^0,A^0$. The Feynman diagrams are depicted in
461: Fig.~(\ref{hsbb}). The amplitude
462: is sensitive to the $\Phi H^+ H^-$ and
463: $\Phi H^\pm G^\mp $ couplings through diagrams $d_{12,13,14}$
464: as well as to the $\Phi t\bar{t}$ and
465: $(H^- \bar{b}t)_{L,R}$ couplings through diagrams $d_{11,12,13,14}$.
466: In 2HDM, it is expected that the dominant contribution to the
467: amplitude of $\Phi^0\to \bar{s}b$ comes from diagram $d_{12}$.
468: The amplitude of $d_{12}$
469: is proportional to the trilinear Higgs coupling $\Phi^0H^+H^-$
470: and is given by ($\Phi=h^0, H^0$):
471: \begin{eqnarray}
472: M_{d_{12}}=\Phi^0H^+H^- \frac{\alpha V_{ts}}{8 \pi}
473: \frac{M_t^2}{\tan^2\beta}\frac{M_b}{8 M_W^2 s_W^2}
474: [(1 + \tan\beta Y_b) C_0 + C_1 + C_2]\bar{v}(M_s)\frac{1+\gamma_5}{2}u(M_b)
475: \end{eqnarray}
476: where we have neglected the strange quark mass.
477: In the conventions of \cite{FA2},
478: the arguments of the Passarino-Veltman functions $C_i$ are
479: $\{M_b^2, M_s^2, M_\Phi^2, M_{H\pm}^2, M_t^2, M_{H\pm}^2\}$.
480: The Yukawa coupling $Y_b$ of the bottom is model dependant
481: and is given by $Y_b=-1/\tan\beta$ (resp $Y_b=\tan\beta$)
482: for 2HDM-I (resp 2HDM-II).\\
483: In 2HDM-I, $1 + \tan\beta Y_b=0$, the amplitude of $d_{12}$
484: is enhanced by $\frac{M_t^2}{\tan^2\beta}$
485: factor for small $\tan\beta$ as well as by the
486: trilinear coupling $\Phi^0H^+H^-$.
487:
488: The diagram $d_{11}$ is sensitive to the coupling $\Phi^0\bar{t}t$.
489: It is clear from equation (\ref{coupl1}) that the top effect
490: is enhanced for small $\tan\beta$ in the case of CP-odd $A^0$ boson.
491: While in the case of CP-even $H^0$ and $h^0$, the couplings are enhanced
492: at small $\tan\beta$ and large $\sin\alpha$ (resp large $\cos\alpha$)
493: for $H^0$ (resp $h^0$).
494: Consequently, our numerics are presented for
495: small $\tan\beta=0.3$, $\sin\alpha=0.1$ for $h^0 \to {\bar{s}}b$
496: and $\sin\alpha=0.95$ for $H^0 \to {\bar{s}}b$.\\
497: We also give other numerical results for specific 2HDM parameters
498: where $Br(h^0\to \bar{s}b)$ and $Br(H^0\to \bar{s}b)$
499: get their maximum values without violating $\delta\rho$ and
500: perturbativity constraints.
501: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
502: \begin{figure}[t!]
503: \smallskip\smallskip
504: \vskip-.1cm
505: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
506: \centerline{{
507: \epsfxsize2.83 in
508: \epsffile{hsb2.eps}} \hskip0.4cm
509: \epsfxsize2.8 in
510: \epsffile{hsb3.eps}}
511: \smallskip\smallskip
512: \caption{Contours for $2\times Br(h^0\to \bar{s}b)$ in
513: 2HDM-II $\tan\beta=0.3$ (left),
514: $\tan\beta=1.5$ (right) in the ($M_{H\pm}$, $\lambda_5$) plane with
515: $M_h=110$ GeV, $M_H=180$ GeV, $\sin\alpha=0.1$ and $M_{A^0}=M_{H\pm}$}
516: \label{fig9}
517: \end{figure}
518:
519: We show in Fig.~(\ref{fig9})
520: contour plots for $Br(h^0\to \bar{s}b)$ in
521: 2HDM-II $\tan\beta=0.3$ (left) and
522: $\tan\beta=1.5$ GeV (right) in the ($M_{H\pm}$, $\lambda_5$) plane.
523: $\lambda_5$ is varied in the perturbative range $|\lambda_5|< 4 \pi$.
524: The other inputs are $M_h=110$ GeV, $M_H=180$ GeV, $\sin\alpha=0.1$
525: and $M_{A^0}=M_{H\pm}$. The width $\Gamma_{h^0}$ is computed at
526: tree level according to eq.~(\ref{widd}).
527: Since the mass of $h^0$ is taken at 110 GeV,
528: only light fermions contribute to $\Gamma_{h^0}$ and so the width is
529: very narrow and is of the order $57\times 10^{-4}$ (resp $83\times 10^{-5}$
530: GeV) at $\tan\beta=0.3$ (resp $\tan\beta=1.5$). Such narrow width
531: could enhance the branching ratio $Br(h^0\to \bar{s}b)$.
532: We would like to mention first that for this set of parameters, the
533: perturbativity of scalar quartic couplings $\lambda_i$ is violated around
534: $\lambda_5\ga 5.5$. We get $|\lambda_1|>4 \pi$ for
535: $\tan\beta=0.3$, while for $\tan\beta=1.5$ there is no such bound.
536:
537:
538: Large branching ratios
539: can be obtained for light charged Higgs mass. This can be seen
540: in the left panel black and blue areas of Fig.~(\ref{fig9}) which correspond
541: to small $\tan\beta=0.3$ and large $|\lambda_5|$.
542: In those areas the coupling $h^0H^+H^-$ gets
543: its largest value (see also Fig.~(\ref{fig12})).
544: In this case one can obtain branching ratio
545: in the range: $10^{-4}< Br(h^0\to \bar{s}b) < 6\times
546: 10^{-4}$ for $M_{H\pm}< 200 $ GeV , $\lambda_5\la -1.2$ and
547: $\lambda_5\ga 3$. For charged Higgs mass greater than 200 GeV,
548: there is also a region where the branching ratio can be in the range
549: $10^{-5} \to 10^{-4}$. This can be achieved by taking large and
550: negative $\lambda_5\la -1$. In the case of positive $\lambda_5$
551: and $M_{H\pm}\ga 250$ GeV, the branching ratio decreases to a value
552: $\la 10^{-5}$.
553:
554:
555:
556: When $\tan\beta=1.5$, the coupling $h^0t\bar{t}$ is reduced,
557: and we are left only with a small region where the branching ratio
558: $Br(h^0\to \bar{s}b)$
559: is of the order $10^{-5}\to 10^{-4}$ for $M_{H\pm}\la 250 $ GeV
560: and large $|\lambda_5|\ga 5$. In both plots (left and right),
561: the coupling $h^0H^+H^-$ reaches its minimal value
562: in the region where $\lambda_5\approx 0\to 2$, which explains why
563: the branching ratio is so small in this region.
564:
565: Now we turn to the case where $M_{H\pm}\neq M_A$, $\delta\rho\neq 0$.
566: We have performed a systematic scan over the full 2HDM parameters space
567: taking into account $\delta\rho$ and perturbativity constraints.
568: The maximum branching ratios found for $h^0\to \bar{s}b$ in
569: 2HDM-I and II are displayed in table~1.
570: We show not only width and Br of
571: $h^0\to \bar{s}b$ but also the width and Br of
572: $h^0\to \gamma \gamma$ for comparison.
573: The total width of the Higgs
574: $\Gamma_{h^0}$ is also given. When $\Gamma_{h^0}$
575: becomes comparable to the width of $h^0\to \bar{s}b$ and/or
576: $h^0\to \gamma \gamma$, those decays widths have to be included
577: in the total width $\Gamma_{h^0}$ in order to
578: compute the Br$_{\bar{s}b}$ and Br$_{\gamma\gamma}$.
579:
580: \begin{table}
581: \begin{center}
582: \begin{tabular}{||c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
583: \hline
584: \hline
585: $ \begin{array}{c}
586: M_h \\
587: M_H
588: \end{array}\begin{array}{c}
589: M_{H\pm}\\
590: M_A
591: \end{array}$ & $ \begin{array}{c}
592: \sin\alpha \\
593: \tan\beta
594: \end{array}$&
595: $\lambda_5$ & $2\times$ Br$_{\bar{s}b}$ & $2\times$ $\Gamma_{\bar{s}b}$
596: & $2\times$ Br$_{\gamma\gamma}$
597: & $2\times \Gamma_{\gamma\gamma}$ & $\Gamma_h$
598: \\
599: \hline
600: $ \begin{array}{c}
601: 95 \\
602: 340
603: \end{array} \begin{array}{c}
604: 100 \\
605: 110
606: \end{array}$ &
607: $ \begin{array}{c}
608: -.98 \\
609: .2
610: \end{array}$ & 6
611: & $ \begin{array}{c}
612: 10^{-3} \\
613: 7\times 10^{-4}
614: \end{array}$ &
615: $ \begin{array}{c}
616: 6\times 10^{-6} \\
617: 3\times 10^{-6}
618: \end{array}$ &
619: $ \begin{array}{c}
620: 6\times 10^{-3} \\
621: 6\times 10^{-3}
622: \end{array}$ &
623: $ \begin{array}{c}
624: 3\times 10^{-5} \\
625: 3\times 10^{-5}
626: \end{array}$ &
627: $ \begin{array}{c}
628: 5\times 10^{-3} \\
629: 5\times 10^{-3}
630: \end{array}$
631: \\
632: \hline
633: $ \begin{array}{c}
634: 140 \\
635: 340
636: \end{array}\begin{array}{c}
637: 110 \\
638: 100
639: \end{array}$ &$ \begin{array}{c}
640: -.96 \\
641: .25
642: \end{array}$ & 6 &
643: $ \begin{array}{c}
644: 4\times 10^{-4} \\
645: 3\times 10^{-4}
646: \end{array}$ &
647: $ \begin{array}{c}
648: 4\times 10^{-6} \\
649: 2\times 10^{-6}
650: \end{array}$ &
651: $ \begin{array}{c}
652: 10^{-2} \\
653: 2\times 10^{-2}
654: \end{array}$ &
655: $ \begin{array}{c}
656: 10^{-4} \\
657: 10^{-4}
658: \end{array}$ &
659: $ \begin{array}{c}
660: 9\times 10^{-3} \\
661: 7\times 10^{-3}
662: \end{array}$
663: \\
664: \hline
665: $ \begin{array}{c}
666: 135 \\
667: 160
668: \end{array}\begin{array}{c}
669: 105 \\
670: 240
671: \end{array}$ &$ \begin{array}{c}
672: -.98 \\
673: .46
674: \end{array}$& -12 &
675: $ \begin{array}{c}
676: 10^{-3} \\
677: 2\times 10^{-4}
678: \end{array}$ &
679: $ \begin{array}{c}
680: 2\times 10^{-6} \\
681: 10^{-6}
682: \end{array}$ &
683: $ \begin{array}{c}
684: 7\times 10^{-3} \\
685: 2\times 10^{-3}
686: \end{array}$ &
687: $ \begin{array}{c}
688: 10^{-5} \\
689: 10^{-5}
690: \end{array}$ &
691: $ \begin{array}{c}
692: 2\times 10^{-3} \\
693: 7\times 10^{-3}
694: \end{array}$ \\
695: \hline
696: $ \begin{array}{c}
697: 115 \\
698: 250
699: \end{array}\begin{array}{c}
700: 110 \\
701: 190
702: \end{array}$ &$ \begin{array}{c}
703: .1 \\
704: .1
705: \end{array}$& 0 &
706: $ \begin{array}{c}
707: 9\times 10^{-4} \\
708: 10^{-3}
709: \end{array}$ &
710: $ \begin{array}{c}
711: 5\times 10^{-4} \\
712: 5\times 10^{-5}
713: \end{array}$ &
714: $ \begin{array}{c}
715: 2 \times10^{-4} \\
716: 3 \times10^{-3}
717: \end{array}$ &
718: $ \begin{array}{c}
719: 10^{-4} \\
720: 10^{-4}
721: \end{array}$ &
722: $ \begin{array}{c}
723: .55 \\
724: 5\times 10^{-2}
725: \end{array}$
726: \\
727: \hline
728: $ \begin{array}{c}
729: 110 \\
730: 210
731: \end{array}\begin{array}{c}
732: 105 \\
733: 150
734: \end{array}$ &$ \begin{array}{c}
735: .18 \\
736: .1
737: \end{array}$& 0 &
738: $ \begin{array}{c}
739: 9\times 10^{-4} \\
740: 10^{-3}
741: \end{array}$ &
742: $ \begin{array}{c}
743: 5\times 10^{-4} \\
744: 5\times 10^{-5}
745: \end{array}$ &
746: $ \begin{array}{c}
747: 2 \times10^{-4} \\
748: 3 \times10^{-3}
749: \end{array}$ &
750: $ \begin{array}{c}
751: 10^{-4} \\
752: 10^{-4}
753: \end{array}$ &
754: $ \begin{array}{c}
755: .52 \\
756: 5\times 10^{-2}
757: \end{array}$
758: \\
759: \hline
760: \end{tabular}
761: {\caption{Maximum Branching ratios of $h^0\to \bar{s}b$
762: in 2HDM-I and II and corresponding 2HDM parameters, all masses and
763: decay width are in GeV. In $Br$ and widths $\Gamma$ columns,
764: the upper row is for 2HDM-I and the down row is for 2HDM-II}}
765: \end{center}
766: \end{table}
767: %\end{table}
768: \noindent
769: The first three columns of table~1 are for 2HDM parameters.
770: From 4th to 8th columns we give Br and widths. In those columns,
771: the upper row is for 2HDM-I and the down row is for 2HDM-II.\\
772: In 2HDM-I, Br$(h^0\to \bar{s}b)$ of the order $10^{-3}$
773: can be reached in the limit $\sin\alpha\to -0.98$
774: ($\alpha\to -\pi/2$) and small
775: $\tan\beta \leq 0.5$. In fact, this limit ($\alpha\to -\pi/2$)
776: is very close to fermiophobic scenario $\alpha=\pm \pi/2$.
777: In the fermiophobic limit, all couplings of $h^0$ to down
778: quarks and leptons are suppressed eq.~(\ref{coupl2}). In this limit,
779: $h^0\bar{t}t$ is also suppressed eq.~(\ref{coupl1}).
780: The width of light Higgs $h^0$ ($M_h<160$ GeV) is then very tiny
781: in the limit $\sin\alpha\to -0.98$. This tiny width together with
782: large $h^0H^+H^-$ are the sources of enhancement of
783: the Br$(h^0\to \bar{s}b)$ to $10^{-3}$ level.
784: This can be seen in the first, second and third lines of table~1\\
785: In 2HDM-II, the couplings of $h^0$ to down
786: quarks and leptons are suppressed for $\sin\alpha\approx 0.1$
787: eq.~(\ref{coupl3}).
788: Hence, the width of light Higgs ($M_h<160$ GeV)
789: is very tiny in the limit $\sin\alpha\approx 0.1$.
790: Moreover, in this limit, the coupling $h^0\bar{t}t$ is enhanced
791: in both models 2HDM-I and II. The decay width $\Gamma(h^0\to
792: {\bar{s}b})$ which was $\approx 10^{-6}$ for $\sin\alpha=-0.98$
793: is of the order $\approx 10^{-5}$ for $\sin\alpha=0.1$.
794: Consequently, the Br$(h^0\to \bar{s}b)$ reaches $10^{-3}$.\\
795: In this scenario, as one can see from table~1, the
796: Br$(h^0\to \gamma\gamma)$ in 2HDM-I is $2\times 10^{-4}$ which is
797: smaller than Br$(h^0\to \bar{s}b)=9\times 10^{-4}$. This is mainly due
798: to the fact that the trilinear coupling $h^0H^+H^-$ is very suppressed
799: in this scenario (see more details in next section).\\
800: As one can see from the last line of the table~1, there exist also
801: values of $\sin\alpha=0.18$, far from fermiophobic
802: scenario but with small $\lambda_5=0$, where
803: Br$(h^0\to \bar{s}b)$ can be of the order $10^{-3}$.\\
804: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
805: \begin{figure}[t!]
806: \smallskip\smallskip
807: \vskip-3.8cm
808: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
809: \centerline{{
810: \epsfxsize2.8 in
811: \epsffile{ggbs0.3.eps}} \hskip0.4cm
812: \epsfxsize2.8 in
813: \epsffile{ggbs5.eps} }
814: \smallskip\smallskip
815: \caption{$2\times Br(h^0\to \gamma \gamma)$ and $2\times Br(h^0 \to \bar{s}b)$
816: in 2HDM-I and II, $m_{H\pm}=100$ GeV, $\tan\beta=0.3$ (left)
817: and $\tan\beta=5$ (right). All the other parameters are
818: the same as in Fig.~(\ref{fig9}).}
819: \label{fig12}
820: \end{figure}
821:
822:
823:
824: \subsection{Can $h^0\to \bar{s}b$ compete with $h^0\to \gamma \gamma$?}
825: It is well known that the decay $h^0\to \gamma \gamma$
826: is loop induced and so is suppressed. In the SM, the branching ratio
827: $Br(H^{SM}\to \gamma \gamma)$ is about $\approx 10^{-3}$
828: for Higgs mass in the range $M_H=100\to 160$ GeV.
829: Hence, with maximum branching ratio for $h^0\to \bar{s}b$ of the order
830: $1\times 10^{-4}\to 6 \times 10^{-4}$
831: in 2HDM-I or II, it is legitimate to compare $h^0\to \gamma \gamma$
832: and $h^0\to \bar{s}b$ in 2HDM-I or II. Of course, even if
833: $h^0\to \bar{s}b$ and $h^0\to \gamma \gamma$ has a competitive
834: branching ratio, we should keep in mind that $h^0\to \gamma \gamma$
835: decay has a clear signature while the FCNC decay $h^0\to \bar{s}b$
836: has not.
837:
838: We illustrate in Fig.~(\ref{fig12}) the branching ratio for
839: $h^0\to \bar{s}b$ and $h^0\to \gamma \gamma$ both in 2HDM-I and II.
840: The charged Higgs mass is fixed to 100 GeV.
841: It is clear that in the case $\tan\beta=0.3$ $h^0\to \gamma \gamma$
842: is about one order of magnitude bigger than $h^0\to \bar{s}b$.
843: While, in the case of $\tan\beta=5$ $h^0\to \gamma \gamma$
844: is more than four orders of magnitude bigger than $h^0\to \bar{s}b$.
845: This is because at $\tan\beta=0.3$ (resp $\tan\beta=5$)
846: the W loop are suppressed by a
847: factor $h^0W^+W^-\propto \sin(\beta-\alpha)\approx 0.2$
848: (resp enhanced by $h^0W^+W^-\propto \sin(\beta-\alpha)\approx 0.96$).
849: All the dips observed in the plots correspond to the minimum of the
850: coupling $h^0H^-H^+$. Those dips are not located at the same
851: $\lambda_5$, this is due to a destructive interference
852: with others diagrams. When $h^0H^-H^+$ coupling is very suppressed,
853: it may be possible that the Br$(h^0\to \bar{s}b)$ could be higher
854: than Br$(h^0\to \gamma \gamma)$ as it can be seen
855: both in the left plot of Fig.~(\ref{fig12}) for $\lambda_5=2.5$ and
856: in table~1 for $\sin\alpha=0.1$ in 2HDM-II.\\
857: However, even if Br$(h^0\to \gamma \gamma)$ and Br$(h^0\to \bar{s}b)$
858: become comparable,
859: we should keep in mind that $h^0\to \gamma \gamma$
860: has a very clear signature while $h^0\to \bar{s}b$ does not.
861:
862:
863: An interesting feature of the 2HDM-I, is its fermiophobic scenario.
864: The light CP-even Higgs $h^0$ of the 2HDM-I
865: is fermiophobic in the limit $\alpha\to \pi/2$,
866: all $h^0$ couplings to fermions vanishes for $\alpha=\pi/2$ \cite{andrew,Gun}.
867: If $h^0$, with a mass in the range $100\to 160$ GeV, is fermiophobic
868: the dominant decay mode is $h^0\to \gamma \gamma$.
869: It has been shown in Ref.~\cite{santos} that in the fermiophobic
870: limit, the branching ratio of the one loop induced decay
871: $h^0\to \bar{b}b$\footnote{In fact, in the 2HDM, not only the
872: coupling $h^0 \gamma \gamma$ and
873: $h^0 \gamma Z$ \cite{ITPM} can have non decoupling effects,
874: but also one loop contribution to $h^0\bar{s}b$ \cite{AHPC} and
875: $h^0h^0h^0$ \cite{okada}.} is
876: below $10\% \to 30\%$.
877: As the decay $h^0\to \bar{s}b$ is concerned, we have checked by
878: systematic scan that in the fermiophobic limit, the decay width
879: of $h^0\to \gamma \gamma$ is more than one order of magnitude bigger than
880: the width of $h^0\to \bar{s}b$.
881:
882:
883: \subsection{$H^0 \to {\bar{s}}b$}
884: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
885: \begin{figure}[t!]
886: \smallskip\smallskip
887: \vskip-.1cm
888: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
889: \centerline{{
890: \epsfxsize2.8 in
891: \epsffile{hsb4.eps }} \hskip0.4cm
892: \epsfxsize2.8 in
893: \epsffile{hsb5.eps }}
894: \smallskip\smallskip
895: \caption{Contours for $2\times Br(H^0\to \bar{s}b)$ in
896: 2HDM-II in the plan ($M_{H\pm}$, $\lambda_5$) $M_H=140$ GeV (left),
897: ($M_{H\pm}$, $M_H$) $\lambda_5=5$ (right) with
898: $\tan\beta=0.3$, $M_h=110$ GeV, $\sin\alpha=0.95$ and $M_{A^0}=M_{H\pm}$}
899: \label{fig10}
900: \end{figure}
901: We now discuss the heavy CP-even decay $H^0\to \bar{s}b$.
902: Our numerical results are shown in Fig.~(\ref{fig10}). To maximize
903: the coupling $H^0\bar{t}t$, we choose of course small $\tan\beta\approx
904: 0.3$ and large $\sin\alpha\approx 0.95$. In the right plot of
905: Fig.~(\ref{fig10}), we show contour plots for
906: $Br(H^0\to \bar{s}b)$ in the plane $(M_{H\pm},\lambda_5)$
907: for $M_{H}=140$ GeV. For CP-even Higgs mass 140 GeV, $H^0\to W^+W^- $,
908: $H^0\to ZZ $, $H^0\to \bar{t}t$,
909: $H^0\to A^0 Z$ and $H^0\to H_i H_j$ are not yet
910: open, and so the width is narrow. In particular, for the set of
911: parameters fixed here:
912: $M_h=110$ GeV, $\sin\alpha=0.95$ and $M_{A^0}=M_{H\pm}$,
913: the width is $73\times 10^{-4}$ GeV. \\
914: The behavior is similar to what we obtain
915: for $Br(h^0\to \bar{s}b)$.
916: In the black regions (large $\lambda_5$), the coupling
917: $H^0H^+H^-$ is maximal while for $\lambda_5\in [0,2]$
918: $H^0H^+H^-$ is minimal.
919: In the black region the branching ratio of
920: $Br(H^0\to \bar{s}b)$ can reach $\approx 7\times 10^{-4}$.
921: From the left panel of Fig.~(\ref{fig10}), it is evident that
922: there is a relatively large region in the plane ($M_{H\pm},\lambda_5$)
923: where the $Br(H^0\to \bar{s}b) \ga 10^{-5}$.
924:
925:
926: \begin{table}[t!]
927: \begin{center}
928: \begin{tabular}{||c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
929: \hline
930: \hline
931: $ \begin{array}{c}
932: M_h \\
933: M_H
934: \end{array}\begin{array}{c}
935: M_{H\pm}\\
936: M_A
937: \end{array}$ & $ \begin{array}{c}
938: \sin\alpha \\
939: \tan\beta
940: \end{array}$ &
941: $\lambda_5$ & $2\times$ Br$_{\bar{s}b}$ & $2\times$ $\Gamma_{\bar{s}b}$
942: & $2\times$ Br$_{\gamma\gamma}$
943: & $2\times \Gamma_{\gamma\gamma}$ & $\Gamma_H$
944: \\
945: \hline
946: $ \begin{array}{c}
947: 115 \\
948: 155
949: \end{array}\begin{array}{c}
950: 142 \\
951: 183
952: \end{array}$ & $ \begin{array}{c}
953: .1 \\
954: .5
955: \end{array}$ &
956: -12 & $ \begin{array}{c}
957: 10^{-3} \\
958: 4\times 10^{-5}
959: \end{array}$
960: & $ \begin{array}{c}
961: 5\times 10^{-7} \\
962: 4\times 10^{-7}
963: \end{array}$ &
964: $ \begin{array}{c}
965: 3\times 10^{-2} \\
966: 10^{-3}
967: \end{array}$ &
968: $ \begin{array}{c}
969: 10^{-5} \\
970: 10^{-5}
971: \end{array}$&
972: $ \begin{array}{c}
973: 4\times 10^{-4} \\
974: 8\times 10^{-3}
975: \end{array}$
976: \\
977: \hline
978: $ \begin{array}{c}
979: 100 \\
980: 155
981: \end{array}\begin{array}{c}
982: 115 \\
983: 103
984: \end{array}$ & $ \begin{array}{c}
985: .1 \\
986: .34
987: \end{array} $&
988: -6 & $ \begin{array}{c}
989: 2\times 10^{-3} \\
990: 8\times 10^{-5}
991: \end{array}$ & $ \begin{array}{c}
992: 10^{-6} \\
993: 6\times 10^{-7}
994: \end{array}$ &
995: $ \begin{array}{c}
996: 2\times 10^{-2} \\
997: 2\times 10^{-3}
998: \end{array}$ & $ \begin{array}{c}
999: 2\times 10^{-5} \\
1000: 2\times 10^{-5}
1001: \end{array}$ & $ \begin{array}{c}
1002: 7\times 10^{-4} \\
1003: 8\times 10^{-3}
1004: \end{array}$
1005: \\
1006: \hline
1007: $ \begin{array}{c}
1008: 100 \\
1009: 155
1010: \end{array} \begin{array}{c}
1011: 120 \\
1012: 140
1013: \end{array}$ & $ \begin{array}{c}
1014: .08 \\
1015: .45
1016: \end{array}$ &
1017: 12 & $ \begin{array}{c}
1018: 2\times 10^{-3} \\
1019: 8\times 10^{-5}
1020: \end{array}$ & $ \begin{array}{c}
1021: 7\times 10^{-7} \\
1022: 6\times 10^{-7}
1023: \end{array}$ &
1024: $ \begin{array}{c}
1025: .73 \\
1026: 3\times 10^{-2}
1027: \end{array}$ & $ \begin{array}{c}
1028: 2\times 10^{-4} \\
1029: 2\times 10^{-4}
1030: \end{array}$ & $ \begin{array}{c}
1031: 3\times 10^{-4} \\
1032: 8\times 10^{-3}
1033: \end{array}$
1034: \\
1035: \hline
1036: $ \begin{array}{c}
1037: 100 \\
1038: 125
1039: \end{array} \begin{array}{c}
1040: 115 \\
1041: 103
1042: \end{array}$ &
1043: $ \begin{array}{c}
1044: -.98 \\
1045: .1
1046: \end{array} $ & 0 &
1047: $ \begin{array}{c}
1048: 9\times 10^{-4} \\
1049: 10^{-3}
1050: \end{array}$ &
1051: $ \begin{array}{c}
1052: 5\times 10^{-4} \\
1053: 6\times 10^{-5}
1054: \end{array}$ &
1055: $ \begin{array}{c}
1056: 3\times 10^{-4} \\
1057: 4\times 10^{-3}
1058: \end{array}$ &
1059: $ \begin{array}{c}
1060: 2\times 10^{-4} \\
1061: 2\times 10^{-4}
1062: \end{array}$ &$ \begin{array}{c}
1063: .58 \\
1064: 5\times 10^{-2}
1065: \end{array}$
1066: \\
1067: \hline
1068: $ \begin{array}{c}
1069: 100 \\
1070: 130
1071: \end{array} \begin{array}{c}
1072: 110 \\
1073: 300
1074: \end{array}$ &$ \begin{array}{c} .9 \\ .1 \end{array}$ & 0 &
1075: $ \begin{array}{c}
1076: 10^{-3} \\ 10^{-3}
1077: \end{array}$ & $ \begin{array}{c}
1078: 5\times 10^{-4} \\ 6\times 10^{-5}
1079: \end{array}$
1080: &$ \begin{array}{c}
1081: 2\times 10^{-4} \\ 2\times 10^{-3}
1082: \end{array}$ &
1083: $ \begin{array}{c}
1084: 10^{-4} \\ 10^{-4}
1085: \end{array}$ & $ \begin{array}{c}
1086: .51\\ 5\times 10^{-2}
1087: \end{array}$
1088: \\
1089: \hline
1090: $ \begin{array}{c}
1091: 100 \\
1092: 145
1093: \end{array} \begin{array}{c}
1094: 115 \\
1095: 103
1096: \end{array}$ &$ \begin{array}{c} -.58 \\ .1 \end{array}$ & 0 &
1097: $ \begin{array}{c}
1098: 9\times 10^{-4} \\ 10^{-3}
1099: \end{array}$ & $ \begin{array}{c}
1100: 2\times 10^{-4} \\ 3\times 10^{-5}
1101: \end{array}$
1102: &$ \begin{array}{c}
1103: 10^{-3} \\ 10^{-2}
1104: \end{array}$ &
1105: $ \begin{array}{c}
1106: 2\times 10^{-4} \\ 3 \times 10^{-4}
1107: \end{array}$ & $ \begin{array}{c}
1108: .24\\ 3\times 10^{-2}
1109: \end{array}$
1110: \\ \hline
1111: \end{tabular}
1112: {\caption{Maximum Branching ratios of $H^0\to \bar{s}b$
1113: in 2HDM-I and II and corresponding 2HDM parameters, all masses and
1114: decay width are in GeV. In $Br$ and widths $\Gamma$ columns,
1115: the upper row is for 2HDM-I and the down row is for 2HDM-II}}
1116: \end{center}
1117: \end{table}
1118: In the right panel of Fig.~(\ref{fig10}), we show $Br(H^0\to
1119: \bar{s}b)$ in the plan $(M_H,M_{H\pm})$ for $\lambda_5=5$.
1120: One can see that when CP-even mass $M_H < 2 M_W$, the decay $H^0\to
1121: W^+W^-$ is not yet open. The width $\Gamma_{H^0}$ is narrow,
1122: and so the branching ratio is large. For $M_{H\pm}<250$ GeV
1123: and $M_H< 2 M_W$, one can have $Br(H^0\to
1124: \bar{s}{b})\ga 10^{-5}$. Once the CP-even Higgs mass
1125: $M_H > 2 M_W$, the decay $H^0\to W^+W^-$ is open, and
1126: the width is larger than $5\times 10^{-2}$ GeV. The Branching ratio
1127: $Br(H^0\to \bar{s}{b})$ is then reduced. As it can be seen
1128: from the right plot, for $M_H \ga 220$ GeV, the branching ratio $Br(H^0\to
1129: \bar{s}{b})$ is less than $\la 10^{-6}$.
1130:
1131: In case of 2HDM-I, both $h^0t\bar{t}$, $H^0\bar{t}t$
1132: and $(H^-\bar{b}t)_R$ couplings are the same as in 2HDM-II,
1133: while $(H^-\bar{b}t)_L$
1134: which is proportional to $M_b\tan\beta$ in 2HDM-II is now
1135: proportional to $M_b/\tan\beta$. For small $\tan\beta\approx 0.3$,
1136: both $Br(h^0\to \bar{s}b)$ and
1137: $Br(H^0\to \bar{s}b)$ are of the same order as in
1138: 2HDM-II, while for large $\tan\beta$ those Branching ratios are less
1139: than about $\approx 10^{-6}$.
1140:
1141: In case where $M_{H\pm}\neq M_A$ ($\delta\rho\neq 0$),
1142: we present our results of maximum branching ratios of $H^0\to \bar{s}b$
1143: in the table~2. It turns out that in 2HDM-I (resp 2HDM-II),
1144: Br$(H^0\to \bar{s}b)$ reach $10^{-3}$ for small
1145: $\sin\alpha\approx 0.1$ (resp large $|\sin\alpha|\approx 0.9$).
1146: The interpretation is the same as in the case of light CP even Higgs
1147: $h^0$. In 2HDM-I (resp 2HDM-II), the couplings of $H^0$ to down
1148: quarks and leptons are suppressed for $\sin\alpha\approx 0.1$
1149: (resp $|\sin\alpha|\approx 0.9$). In those cases the total Higgs width
1150: is very tiny and so the branching ratio of $H^0\to \bar{s}b$ is
1151: enhanced.\\
1152: Of course, Br$(H^0\to \bar{s}b)$ reach $10^{-3}$ only for light
1153: charged Higgs, which is strongly disfavored by
1154: $b\to s\gamma$ constraint \cite{bsg} in 2HDM-II.\\
1155: From table~2, one can see also that in 2HDM-II and for
1156: $\sin\alpha\approx \{0.9,-0.98\}$ the Br$(H^0\to \bar{s}b)$
1157: and Br$(H^0\to \gamma \gamma)$ are of comparable size.
1158: This is again mainly due to the suppression of the
1159: coupling $H^0H^+H^-$ in those limits.\\
1160: As in the case of light CP-even Higgs $h^0$, there exist
1161: values of $\sin\alpha=-0.58$ far from
1162: fermiophobic limit with small $\lambda_5=0$ where
1163: Br$(H^0\to \bar{s}b)$ can reach $10^{-3}$.
1164:
1165:
1166:
1167: \subsection{$A^0 \to {\bar{s}}b$}
1168: Let us now look at 2HDM contribution to $A^0\to \bar{s}b$. Since $A^0$
1169: is CP-odd, it does not couple to a pair of charged Higgs. The
1170: only pure trilinear scalar coupling which contributes to
1171: $A^0\to \bar{s}b$ is $A^0H^\pm G^\mp$ eq.~(\ref{scalar5}).
1172: Unlike the couplings $H^0H^+H^-$ and $h^0H^+H^-$
1173: eqs~(\ref{scalar1},\ref{scalar3}), which depend both on Higgs masses,
1174: $\tan\beta$ as well as the soft breaking term $\lambda_5$,
1175: the coupling $A^0H^\pm G^\mp$ depends only on the splitting
1176: $M_{H\pm}^2-M_A^2$. As mentioned above, such splitting
1177: should not be too large, otherwise the $\delta\rho$ constraint is
1178: not satisfied. As one can read from eqs.~(\ref{coupl1},\ref{coupl5}),
1179: the couplings $A^0\bar{t}t$ and $(H^-\bar{b}t)_R$
1180: are proportional to $M_t/\tan\beta$. Hence enhancement is expected at
1181: small $\tan\beta$.
1182:
1183: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1184: \begin{figure}[t!]
1185: \smallskip\smallskip
1186: \vskip-3.8cm
1187: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1188: \centerline{{
1189: \epsfxsize2.8 in
1190: \epsffile{A0sb.eps}} \hskip0.4cm
1191: \epsfxsize2.8 in
1192: \epsffile{A0gamma.eps} }
1193: \smallskip\smallskip
1194: \caption{$2\times Br(A^0\to \bar{s}b)$ (left) and CP-odd $A^0$ width
1195: $\Gamma_{A^0}$ (right) as function of $M_A$
1196: for several values of $\tan\beta$}
1197: \label{fig11}
1198: \end{figure}
1199: As we stressed before, our 2HDM parameters in this case are:
1200: $\tan\beta$, $M_A$ and $M_{H\pm}$.
1201: For simplification, we use the MSSM sum-rules to fix
1202: charged Higgs mass and $\alpha$ by using
1203: $\tan\beta$, CP-odd mass $M_A$ and
1204: a SUSY scale which we take at 1 TeV.
1205: CP-odd mass will be varied from 100 GeV to 600 GeV
1206: without worrying about perturbativity.
1207: $\tan\beta$ is taken to be $\ga 0.1$.\\
1208: We present our numerical results for
1209: $A^0\to \bar{s}b$ in 2HDM-II in Fig.~(\ref{fig11}).
1210: As can be seen from the left plot, the Branching ratio $Br(A^0\to
1211: \bar{s}b)$ is greater than $10^{-5}$ only for small $\tan\beta\approx
1212: 0.1\to 0.35$ and light $M_A$ and $M_{H\pm}$. For light $M_A\la 200$
1213: GeV and low $\tan\beta \la 1$, the width of $A^0$ is still small
1214: and so the branching ratio
1215: is enhanced. For $M_A\ga 200$ GeV, the decay $A^0\to h^0 Z$ is open
1216: and the decay width $\Gamma_{A^0}$ increases. Therefore, the branching
1217: ratio is reduced.
1218: Note that for $\tan\beta=0.2$, we cut off the curve at $M_A\approx 400$
1219: GeV where the width $\Gamma_{A^0}$ starts to be greater than $M_A$.
1220: At large $\tan\beta$, due to the bottom Yukawa coupling,
1221: both the partial width $\Gamma(A^0\to \bar{s}b)$ and total
1222: width $\Gamma_{A^0}$ are enhanced, and the branching ratio is saturated
1223: in the range $[10^{-6},10^{-5}]$.\\
1224: The situation is almost the same in 2HDM-I.
1225:
1226:
1227:
1228: \section{Conclusions}
1229: In the framework of the 2HDM with natural flavor conservation,
1230: we have studied various Higgs FCNC $\Phi\to \bar{s}b$.
1231: The study has been carried out
1232: taking into account the experimental constraint on the $\rho$ parameter
1233: and also perturbativity constraints on all the scalar
1234: quartic couplings $\lambda_i$.
1235: Numerical results for the branching ratios have been discussed.
1236: We emphasized the effect coming from both top and bottom Yukawa couplings
1237: and pure trilinear scalar couplings such as $h^0H^+H^-$ and $H^0H^+H^-$.
1238: \\
1239: \noindent
1240: We have shown that, in 2HDM-I and 2HDM-II,
1241: the branching ratios of Higgs FCNC
1242: $\{h^0 ,H^0, A^0\}\to \bar{s}b$ are enhanced to the range of
1243: $10^{-4} \to 7\times 10^{-4} $
1244: for small $\tan\beta$, rather light charged Higgs boson and
1245: large soft breaking term $\lambda_5$.
1246: The branching ratio of $Br(\{h^0 ,H^0\}\to \bar{s}b)$ can be pushed to
1247: $10^{-3}$ level when $\sin\alpha$ is close to fermiophobic
1248: limit ($\sin\alpha\approx -0.98$)
1249: or $\sin\alpha\approx 0.1$ and even for $\sin\alpha$ far from those
1250: limits but with small $\lambda_5=0$.\\
1251: Charged Higgs mass of 2HDM-I is
1252: not constrained by $b\to s \gamma$,
1253: $Br(\{h^0 ,H^0\}\to \bar{s}b)$ can be of
1254: the order $10^{-4}\to10^{-3}$ for light charged Higgs which is
1255: comparable to size of SUSY predictions \cite{maria1,bdgs}.
1256: Those branching ratios rates, could still leads to large
1257: number of events at LHC \cite{2hdm4}.\\
1258: In 2HDM-II with $b\to s \gamma$ constraint, branching ratios of
1259: $\{h^0 ,H^0\}\to \bar{s}b$ are smaller than $10^{-5}$
1260: (resp $10^{-4}$) for $\tan\beta > 1$ (resp $\tan\beta < 1$). \\
1261: In the case of light CP-even $m_{h^0}\approx 100\to 160$ GeV,
1262: we have also shown that the branching ratio of $Br(h^0\to \bar{s}b)$
1263: is well below $Br(h^0\to \gamma \gamma)$ in most of the case.
1264: This is also the case in the fermiophobic scenario of 2HDM-I.\\
1265: One interesting scenario is that both $Br(h^0\to \gamma \gamma)$
1266: and $Br(h^0\to \bar{s}b)$
1267: develop a dips for some $\lambda_5$ (see Fig.~4). Those dips are
1268: not located at the same $\lambda_5$ due to the presence
1269: of diagrams which contribute
1270: to $h^0\to \bar{s}b$ but not to $h^0\to \gamma \gamma$.
1271: The dip for $Br(h^0\to \bar{s}b)$ is located for $\lambda_5=1$
1272: while for $Br(h^0\to \gamma \gamma)$ it is located for
1273: $\lambda_5\approx 2.5$. For $\lambda_5\approx 2.5$, we are already
1274: away from $Br(h^0\to \bar{s}b)$ dip, the
1275: $Br(h^0\to \bar{s}b)$ is slightly higher than $Br(h^0\to \gamma \gamma)$.
1276:
1277:
1278:
1279:
1280:
1281:
1282:
1283: \vspace{1cm}
1284: \noindent
1285: {\Large \bf Acknowledgments}
1286: This work was done within the framework of the
1287: Associate Scheme of ICTP. Thanks to Thomas Hahn for his help.
1288: We also want to thank Andrew Akeroyd for discussions and for reading the
1289: manuscript.
1290:
1291:
1292: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
1293: \bibitem{LHC}
1294: M. Beneke, I. Efthymipopulos, M. L. Mangano, J. Womersley
1295: (conveners) {\em et al.}, report in the {\em Workshop on Standard
1296: Model Physics (and more) at the LHC}, Geneva, hep-ph/0003033
1297: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0003033;%%
1298:
1299: \bibitem{TESLA}
1300: J.~A.~Aguilar-Saavedra {\it et al.}
1301: [ECFA/DESY LC Physics Working Group Collaboration],
1302: %``TESLA Technical Design Report Part III: Physics at an e+e-
1303: % Linear Collider,''
1304: arXiv:hep-ph/0106315.
1305: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0106315;%%
1306:
1307: \bibitem{sm1}
1308: G.~Eilam, J.~L.~Hewett and A.~Soni,
1309: %``Rare Decays Of The Top Quark In The Standard And Two Higgs Doublet Models,''
1310: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 44} (1991) 1473
1311: [Erratum-ibid.\ D {\bf 59} (1999) 039901].
1312: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D44,1473;%%
1313:
1314: \bibitem{sm2}
1315: B. Mele, S. Petrarca and A. Soddu, Phys. Lett. {\bf B435}, 401 (1998)
1316: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9805498;%%
1317:
1318:
1319: \bibitem{review}
1320: J.~A.~Aguilar-Saavedra,
1321: %``Top flavour-changing neutral interactions: Theoretical expectations and
1322: %experimental detection,''
1323: Acta Phys.\ Polon.\ B {\bf 35} (2004) 2695
1324: [arXiv:hep-ph/0409342].
1325: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0409342;%%
1326: E.~W.~N.~Glover {\it et al.},
1327: %``Top quark physics,''
1328: Acta Phys.\ Polon.\ B {\bf 35} (2004) 2671
1329: [arXiv:hep-ph/0410110].
1330: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0410110;%%
1331: 0409342,0410110
1332:
1333: \bibitem{sher}
1334: T.~P.~Cheng and M.~Sher,
1335: %``Mass Matrix Ansatz And Flavor Nonconservation In Models With Multiple Higgs
1336: %Doublets,''
1337: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 35}, 3484 (1987).
1338: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D35,3484;%%
1339:
1340:
1341:
1342: \bibitem{2hdm2}
1343: W.~S.~Hou,
1344: %``Tree level t $\to$ c h or h $\to$ t anti-c decays,''
1345: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 296}, 179 (1992).
1346: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B296,179;%%
1347:
1348: \bibitem{2hdm1}
1349: D. Atwood, L. Reina and A. Soni, Phys. Rev. {\bf D55}, 3156 (1997)
1350: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9609279;%%
1351:
1352: \bibitem{soni}
1353: D.~Atwood, L.~Reina and A.~Soni,
1354: %``Probing flavor changing top - charm - scalar interactions in e+ e-
1355: %collisions,''
1356: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 53}, 1199 (1996)
1357: [arXiv:hep-ph/9506243].
1358: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9506243;%%
1359: W.~S.~Hou, G.~L.~Lin and C.~Y.~Ma,
1360: %``Flavor changing neutral Higgs couplings and top charm production at next
1361: %linear collider,''
1362: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 56}, 7434 (1997).
1363: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9708228;%%
1364:
1365: \bibitem{2hdm44}
1366: S.~B\'ejar, J.~Guasch and J.~Sol\`a,
1367: %``Loop induced flavor changing neutral decays of the top
1368: % quark in a general two-Higgs-doublet model,''
1369: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 600}, 21 (2001)
1370: [arXiv:hep-ph/0011091]; [arXiv:hep-ph/0101294].
1371: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0011091;%%
1372:
1373: \bibitem{2hdm4}
1374: S.~B\'ejar, J.~Guasch and J.~Sol\`a,
1375: %``Higgs boson flavor-changing neutral decays into top quark in a general
1376: %two-Higgs-doublet model,''
1377: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 675}, 270 (2003).
1378: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0307144;%%
1379:
1380: \bibitem{maria1}
1381: A.~M.~Curiel, M.~J.~Herrero, W.~Hollik, F.~Merz and S.~Pe\~naranda,
1382: %``SUSY - electroweak one-loop contributions to flavour-changing Higgs-boson
1383: %decays,''
1384: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 69}, 075009 (2004).
1385: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0312135;%%
1386: A.~M.~Curiel, M.~J.~Herrero and D.~Temes,
1387: %``Flavour changing neutral Higgs boson decays from squark: Gluino loops.
1388: %((W)),''
1389: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 67}, 075008 (2003).
1390: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0210335;%%
1391:
1392: \bibitem{maria2}
1393: D.~A.~Demir,
1394: %``Higgs boson couplings to quarks with supersymmetric CP and flavor
1395: %violations,''
1396: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 571}, 193 (2003).
1397: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0303249;%%
1398:
1399: \bibitem{bdgs}
1400: S.~B\'ejar, F.~Dilme, J.~Guasch and J.~Sol\`a,
1401: %``Higgs boson flavor-changing neutral decays into bottom quarks in
1402: %supersymmetry,''
1403: JHEP {\bf 0408}, 018 (2004).
1404: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0402188;%%
1405:
1406: \bibitem{susy3}
1407: J.~Guasch and J.~Sol\`a,
1408: %``FCNC top quark decays: A door to SUSY physics in high
1409: %luminosity colliders?,''
1410: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 562}, 3 (1999)
1411: [arXiv:hep-ph/9906268].
1412: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9906268;%%
1413:
1414: \bibitem{susy1}
1415: J. M. Yang, B. Young and X. Zhang, Phys. Rev. {\bf D58}, 055001 (1998)
1416: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9705341;%%
1417: G.~Eilam, A.~Gemintern, T.~Han, J.~M.~Yang and X.~Zhang,
1418: %``Top quark rare decay t $\to$ c h in R-parity-violating SUSY,''
1419: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 510}, 227 (2001)
1420: [arXiv:hep-ph/0102037];
1421: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0102037;%%
1422: J.~M.~Yang and C.~S.~Li,
1423: %``Top quark rare decay t $\to$ c H(i) in the minimal supersymmetric model,''
1424: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 49}, 3412 (1994)
1425: [Erratum-ibid.\ D {\bf 51}, 3974 (1995)].
1426: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D49,3412;%%
1427:
1428: \bibitem{dewsb}
1429: H.~J.~He, C.~T.~Hill and T.~M.~Tait,
1430: %``Top quark seesaw, vacuum structure and electroweak precision constraints,''
1431: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 65}, 055006 (2002).
1432: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0108041;%%
1433:
1434: \bibitem{Gun}
1435: For a review see e.g. J.F.
1436: Gunion, H.E. Haber, G.L. Kane and S. Dawson,
1437: The Higgs hunter's guide (Addison-Wesley),
1438: Redwood City, 1990.
1439:
1440: \bibitem{AA}
1441: A.~G.~Akeroyd, A.~Arhrib and E.~Naimi,
1442: %``Radiative corrections to the decay H+ $\to$ W+ A0,''
1443: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 20}, 51 (2001)
1444: [arXiv:hep-ph/0002288].
1445: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0002288;%%
1446: A.~Arhrib and G.~Moultaka,
1447: %``Radiative corrections to e+ e- $\to$ H+ H-: THDM versus MSSM,''
1448: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 558}, 3 (1999).
1449: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9808317;%%
1450:
1451: \bibitem{hollik}
1452: A.~Denner, R.~J.~Guth, W.~Hollik and J.~H.~Kuhn,
1453: %``The Z width in the two Higgs doublet model,''
1454: Z.\ Phys.\ C {\bf 51}, 695 (1991).
1455: %%CITATION = ZEPYA,C51,695;%%
1456:
1457: \bibitem{PDG}
1458: K. Hagiwara {\it et al.} [Particle Data Group],
1459: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 66} (2002) 010001.
1460:
1461: \bibitem{negative}
1462: P.~Q.~Hung, R.~McCoy and D.~Singleton,
1463: %``Negative Delta Rho With Four Families In The Standard Model,''
1464: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 50}, 2082 (1994).
1465: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D50,2082;%%
1466:
1467: \bibitem{berger}
1468: V.~D.~Barger, J.~L.~Hewett and R.~J.~Phillips,
1469: %``New Constraints On The Charged Higgs Sector In Two Higgs Doublet Models,''
1470: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 41}, 3421 (1990);
1471: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D41,3421;%%
1472: Y.~Grossman,
1473: %``Phenomenology of models with more than two Higgs doublets,''
1474: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 426}, 355 (1994).
1475: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9401311;%%
1476:
1477: \bibitem{bsg} P.~Gambino and M.~Misiak,
1478: Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B611}, 338 (2001);
1479: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0104034;%%
1480: F.~M.~Borzumati and C.~Greub,
1481: Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D58}, 074004 (1998);
1482: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9802391;%%
1483: {\it ibid} Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D59}, 057501 (1999);
1484: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9809438;%%
1485:
1486: \bibitem{abdesunit}
1487: A.~G.~Akeroyd, A.~Arhrib, E.~M.~Naimi,
1488: Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B490}, 119 (2000);
1489: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0006035;%%
1490: A.~Arhrib, hep-ph/0012353.
1491: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0012353;%%
1492:
1493: \bibitem{kan}
1494: S.~Kanemura, T.~Kubota, E.~Takasugi,
1495: Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B313}, 155 (1993);
1496: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9303263;%%
1497:
1498: \bibitem{opal}
1499: G.~Abbiendi {\it et al.} [OPAL Collaboration],
1500: %``Two Higgs doublet model and model independent
1501: %interpretation of neutral Higgs boson searches,''
1502: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 18}, 425 (2001).
1503: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0007040;%%
1504:
1505: \bibitem{sonism}
1506: G.~Eilam, B.~Haeri and A.~Soni,
1507: %``Flavor Changing Higgs Transitions,''
1508: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 41}, 875 (1990).
1509: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D41,875;%%
1510:
1511: \bibitem{FA2}
1512: T.~Hahn, Comput.\ Phys.\ Commun.\ {\bf 140}, 418 (2001);
1513: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0012260;%%
1514: T.~Hahn, C.~Schappacher,
1515: Comput.\ Phys.\ Commun.\ {\bf 143}, 54 (2002);
1516: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0105349;%%
1517: T.~Hahn, M.~Perez-Victoria,
1518: Comput.\ Phys.\ Commun.\ {\bf 118}, 153 (1999);
1519: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9807565;%%
1520: J.~K\"ublbeck, M.~B\"ohm, A.~Denner,
1521: Comput.\ Phys.\ Commun.\ {\bf 60}, 165 (1990);
1522: %%CITATION = CPHCB,60,165;%%
1523:
1524: \bibitem{FF}
1525: G.~J.~van Oldenborgh,
1526: Comput.\ Phys.\ Commun.\ {\bf 66}, 1 (1991);
1527: %%CITATION = CPHCB,66,1;%%
1528: T.~Hahn, Acta Phys.\ Polon.\ B {\bf 30}, 3469 (1999)
1529: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9910227;%%
1530:
1531: \bibitem{AKZ}
1532: A.~Djouadi, J.~Kalinowski and P.~M.~Zerwas,
1533: %``Two- and Three-Body Decay Modes of SUSY Higgs Particles,''
1534: Z.\ Phys.\ C {\bf 70}, 435 (1996).
1535: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9511342;%%
1536:
1537: \bibitem{andrew}
1538: A.~G.~Akeroyd,
1539: %``Fermiophobic Higgs bosons at the Tevatron,''
1540: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 368}, 89 (1996)
1541: [arXiv:hep-ph/9511347].
1542: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9511347;%%
1543:
1544: \bibitem{santos}
1545: L.~Br\"ucher and R.~Santos,
1546: %``Experimental signatures of fermiophobic Higgs bosons,''
1547: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 12}, 87 (2000).
1548: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9907434;%%
1549:
1550: \bibitem{ITPM}
1551: I.~F.~Ginzburg, M.~Krawczyk and P.~Osland,
1552: %``Potential of photon collider in resolving SM-like scenarios,''
1553: Nucl.\ Instrum.\ Meth.\ A {\bf 472}, 149 (2001).
1554: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0101229;%%
1555: A.~Djouadi, V.~Driesen, W.~Hollik and J.~I.~Illana,
1556: %``The coupling of the lightest SUSY Higgs boson to two photons in the
1557: %decoupling regime,''
1558: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 1}, 149 (1998).
1559: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9612362;%%
1560: A.~Djouadi, V.~Driesen, W.~Hollik and A.~Kraft,
1561: %``The Higgs photon Z boson coupling revisited,''
1562: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 1}, 163 (1998).
1563: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9701342;%%
1564:
1565:
1566: \bibitem{AHPC}
1567: A.~Arhrib, W.~Hollik, S.~Pe\~naranda and M.~Capdequi Peyran\`ere,
1568: %``Higgs decays in the two Higgs doublet model: Large quantum effects in the
1569: %decoupling regime,''
1570: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 579} (2004) 361.
1571: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B579,361;%%
1572:
1573: \bibitem{okada}
1574: S.~Kanemura, Y.~Okada, E.~Senaha and C.~P.~Yuan,
1575: %``Higgs coupling constants as a probe of new physics,''
1576: arXiv:hep-ph/0408364.
1577: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0408364;%%
1578: S.~Kanemura, S.~Kiyoura, Y.~Okada, E.~Senaha and C.~P.~Yuan,
1579: %``New physics effect on the Higgs self-coupling,''
1580: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 558}, 157 (2003)
1581: [arXiv:hep-ph/0211308].
1582: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0211308;%%
1583:
1584: \end{thebibliography}
1585: \end{document}
1586:
1587: