1: \chapter{Two Higgs Doublet Models (2HDM)}
2: \label{cha:2hdm}
3: \section{Introduction}
4: \label{sec:2hdm:introduction}
5:
6: The 2HDM are models that extend minimally the Higgs sector of the SM. They
7: introduce one more doublet of complex scalar fields with hypercharge $Y = +1$. The
8: most general Lagrangian with the SM gauge symmetry $SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y$ that
9: contains these Higgs bosons can be divided in three terms: a kinetic term
10: $\Lcin$, the Yukawa couplings term (Higgs-fermions interactions) $\LY$ and the
11: potential for the two Higgs doublets $\Vab$:
12: \begin{align}
13: \label{eq:2hdm:lagrangian}
14: \LHiggs &= \Lcin+\LY-\Vab\,,\\
15: \Lcin &= \sum_{i=1,2} \bigl(D_{\mu}\phi_i\bigr)^\dagger \bigl(D^{\mu}\phi_i\bigr)\,,\\
16: D_{\mu} &=
17: \partial_{\mu}-ig\frac{\overrightarrow{\sigma}}{2}\overrightarrow{W}_{\mu}-ig'\frac{Y}{2}B_\mu\,,
18: \end{align}
19: where $D_{\mu}$ is the covariant derivative of $SU(2)_L\otimes U(1)_Y$, and
20: $\sigma_{i}$ are the Pauli matrices\footnote{$tr(\sigma_i
21: \sigma_j)=2\delta_{ij}$}.
22:
23: The Higgs potential that spontaneously breaks the symmetry $SU(2)_L\otimes
24: U(1)_Y$ to $U(1)_{EM}$ is\cite{Gunion:1989we,Gunion:1992hs}:
25: \begin{align}
26: \label{eq:potencial}
27: \begin{split}
28: \Vab=&\lambda_1(\phi_1^\dagger\phi_1-v_1^2)^2
29: +\lambda_2(\phi_2^\dagger\phi_2-v_2^2)^2+\\
30: &+\lambda_3\left[(\phi_1^\dagger\phi_1-v_1^2)+(\phi_2^\dagger\phi_2-v_2^2)\right]^2+\\
31: &+\lambda_4\left[(\phi_1^\dagger\phi_1)(\phi_2^\dagger\phi_2)
32: -(\phi_1^\dagger\phi_2)(\phi_2^\dagger\phi_1)\right]+\\
33: &+\lambda_5\left[\re(\phi_1^\dagger\phi_2)-v_1v_2\cos\xi\right]^2+\\
34: &+\lambda_6\left[\im(\phi_1^\dagger\phi_2)-v_1v_2\sin\xi\right]^2\,,
35: \end{split}
36: \end{align}
37: where all the $\lambda_i$ are real parameters, because the Lagrangian must be
38: hermitic. This is the most general Lagrangian compatible with the gauge
39: symmetry and the discrete symmetry $\phi_1 \rightarrow
40: -\phi_1$\cite{Gunion:1989we,Gunion:1992hs}, this symmetry is only violated by
41: soft terms of dimension two. We impose this last symmetry to
42: forbid the FCNC at tree level. Moreover, this potential must be bounded from
43: below, so the $\lambda_i$ must be non-negative. But in fact, the allowed range for
44: the parameters $\lambda_i$ corresponding to this minimum is a range in the
45: parameter space such that the square Higgs boson masses are positive and that
46: $V(0,0) > 0$.
47:
48: In this context the minimum of the potential is:
49: \begin{align}
50: \langle\phi_1\rangle&\equiv\begin{pmatrix}0\\v_1\end{pmatrix}\,,\\
51: \langle\phi_2\rangle&\equiv\begin{pmatrix}0\\v_2e^{i\xi}\end{pmatrix},
52: \end{align}
53: which breaks the gauge symmetry giving $U(1)_{EM}$.
54:
55: We need two physical parameters in order to know their value, which are
56: usually taken to be:
57: \begin{equation}
58: M_W^2=\frac{1}{2} g^2 (v_1^2+v_2^2)\equiv
59: g^2\frac{v^2}{2}~~,~~\tan\beta=\frac{v_2}{v_1}\,\,,
60: \;\;\;0<\beta<\frac{\pi}{2}.
61: \label{eq:2hdm:VEV}
62: \end{equation}
63:
64: If we impose
65: $\lambda_5=\lambda_6$ (like in sypersymmetry) we can write the last two terms
66: of eq.~(\ref{eq:potencial}) as:
67: \begin{equation}
68: \label{eq:lambda56}
69: \left|\phi_1^\dagger\phi_2-v_1v_2e^{i\xi}\right|^2.
70: \end{equation}
71: The phase $\xi$ can disappear with a redefinition of the fields without
72: affecting the others terms of the potential (this phase will appear in other
73: terms of the total Lagrangian). Then, the Higgs potential is CP conserving.
74:
75: At last, the final Higgs potential is:
76: \begin{align}
77: \label{eq:potencialHiggs}
78: \begin{split}
79: \Vab=&\lambda_1(\phi_1^\dagger\phi_1-v_1^2)^2
80: +\lambda_2(\phi_2^\dagger\phi_2-v_2^2)^2+\\
81: &+\lambda_3\left[(\phi_1^\dagger\phi_1-v_1^2)+(\phi_2^\dagger\phi_2-v_2^2)\right]^2+\\
82: &+\lambda_4\left[(\phi_1^\dagger\phi_1)(\phi_2^\dagger\phi_2)
83: -(\phi_1^\dagger\phi_2)(\phi_2^\dagger\phi_1)\right]+\\
84: &+\lambda_5|\phi_1^\dagger\phi_2-v_1v_2|^2\,.
85: \end{split}
86: \end{align}
87:
88: There are different forms for the Yukawa terms of the Lagrangian to satisfy
89: the Glashow and Weinberg \cite{Glashow:1977nt} theorem. The Glashow and
90: Weinberg theorem says that for a general $SU(2)\times U(1)$ gauge theory where
91: we demand that the neutral-current interactions conserve all quark flavor
92: naturally the necessary and sufficient conditions are: All quarks of fixed
93: charge and helicity must (1) transform according to the same irreducible
94: representations of weak $SU(2)$, (2) correspond to the same eigenvalue of weak
95: $T_3$, and (3) receive their contributions in the quark mass matrix form a
96: single source (either from the vacuum expectations value of a single neutral
97: Higgs boson or from a unique gauge-invariant bare mass term). In practice this
98: implies that all fermions of a given electric charge couple to no more than
99: one Higgs doublet.
100:
101: From the Lagrangian~\eqref{eq:potencial} with the
102: potential~\eqref{eq:potencialHiggs} and the Yukawa terms we can obtain the
103: full 2HDM spectrum, as well as the interactions, which contain the usual SM
104: gauge interactions, the fermion-Higgs interactions, and the pure 2HDM
105: interactions. A detailed treatment of this Lagrangian, and the process of
106: derivation of the forthcoming results can be found in\,\cite{TesinaSanti}.
107:
108: \subsection{{\thdm} I}
109: \label{sec:2hdmI}
110: In this model one of the Higgs doublets ($\phi_2$) couple to all the
111: fermions. The couplings with the quarks is of the form:
112: \begin{equation}
113: \label{eq:lagrangia2hdmI}
114: \LY^{(I)}=
115: -\sum_{i,j=1}^3\left[D_{ij}^q\left(\bar{q}_L^{(i)}\phi_2\right)q_{dR}^{(j)}
116: +U_{ij}^q\left(\bar{q}_L^{(i)}\tilde{\phi}_2\right)q_{uR}^{(j)}
117: +\text{h.c.}\right]+\text{leptons}\,,
118: \end{equation}
119: where
120: \begin{align}
121: \tilde{\phi}&=i\sigma_2\phi^*\,,\\
122: q^{(i)}&=\begin{pmatrix}q_u^{(i)}\\q_d^{(i)}\end{pmatrix}\,,\\
123: q^{(1)}=\begin{pmatrix}u\\d\end{pmatrix}\,,\quad
124: q^{(2)}&=\begin{pmatrix}c\\s\end{pmatrix}\,,\quad
125: q^{(3)}=\begin{pmatrix}t\\b\end{pmatrix}\,,
126: \end{align}
127:
128: and similarly for the leptonic doublets $l^{(i)}$ that contain the neutrinos and
129: the leptons.
130:
131: This model is very related with the minimal model (SM), being the only
132: difference a smaller \vev\ $v_2 < v_{\ms}$ ($v \sim
133: 174\, GeV$) and bigger Yukawa couplings.
134:
135: \subsection{{\thdm} II}
136: \label{sec:2hdmII}
137: Now one doublet ($\phi_1$) couples to the right-handed (RH) down fermions
138: ($q_{dR},l_{dR}$) and is responsible of the down masses; the other doublet
139: ($\phi_2$) couples to the RH up fermions ($q_{uR},l_{uR}$) and is responsible
140: of their masses. Taking any flavor base, i.e. one in which $f_L^{(i)}$
141: are isospin doublets the Lagrangian is:
142: \begin{equation}
143: \label{eq:lagrangia2hdmII}
144: \LY^{(II)}=-\sum_{i,j=1}^3
145: \left[D_{ij}^q\left(\bar{q}_L^{(i)}\phi_1\right)q_{dR}^{(j)}
146: +U_{ij}^q\left(\bar{q}_L^{(i)}\tilde{\phi}_2\right)q_{uR}^{(j)}
147: +\text{h.c.}\right]+\text{leptons}\,.
148: \end{equation}
149: The mass matrix will be proportional to the \vev\ of the Higgs as:
150: \begin{align}
151: M_u^{(q,l)} &= v_2U^{(q,l)}\,,\\
152: M_d^{(q,l)} &= v_1D^{(q,l)}\,,
153: \end{align}
154:
155: This is basically the Higgs sector required in the MSSM.
156:
157: \subsection{{\thdm} III}
158: \label{sec:2hdmIII}
159: This is the most general \thdm\ without FCNC at tree level, being the other
160: two important particular cases. The Yukawa interactions in this case, using
161: any flavor base, is:
162: \begin{align}
163: \LY^{(III)}=-\sum_{i,j=1}^3
164: &\Bigl[D_{1,ij}^q\bigl(\bar{q}_L^{(i)}\phi_1\bigr)q_{dR}^{(j)}+
165: D_{2,ij}^q\bigl(\bar{q}_L^{(i)}\phi_2\bigr)q_{dR}^{(j)}+\\
166: &+U_{1,ij}^q\bigl(\bar{q}_L^{(i)}\tilde{\phi}_1\bigr)q_{uR}^{(j)}+
167: U_{2,ij}^q\bigl(\bar{q}_L^{(i)}\tilde{\phi}_2\bigr)q_{uR}^{(j)}
168: +\text{h.c.}\Bigr]+\\
169: &+[\bar{l}Hl\quad\text{ terms}]\,,
170: \end{align}
171:
172: where the $3\times3$ matrices $D_1,D_2,U_1,U_2$ are such that diagonalize
173: simultaneously with the quark mass matrix.
174:
175: \section{\thdm\ spectrum}
176: \label{sec:2hdm:spectrum}
177: \subsection{Higgs sector}
178: \label{sec:2hdm:hmas}
179:
180: We will use this structure for the doublets:
181: \begin{equation}
182: \label{eq:phi_espinor}
183: \phi_i=
184: \begin{pmatrix}\phi_i^+\\\re\phi_i^0+i\im\phi_i^0\end{pmatrix}
185: \hspace{1cm}i=1,2\,.
186: \end{equation}
187:
188: These fields are not physical fields, they do not have a well defined mass, as
189: there are bilinear terms within the scalar fields with different fields. The
190: next thing is to diagonalize the mass matrix. It can be seen that the mass
191: matrix is a diagonal matrix in boxes for the fields a) $\phi_1^+,\phi_2^+$, b)
192: $\re\phi_1^0,\re\phi_2^0$ and c) $\im\phi_1^0,\im\phi_2^0$ (the real and
193: imaginary part can be treated separately by CP invariance). So we have to
194: separately diagonalize the different boxes. If we define the rotation angle as:
195:
196: \begin{equation}
197: R(\omega)=
198: \begin{pmatrix}
199: \cos\omega & \sin\omega\\ -\sin\omega & \cos\omega
200: \end{pmatrix}\,,
201: \end{equation}
202: the rotations (transformations) of the fields are:
203:
204: \begin{align}
205: \label{eq:definiciocamps}
206: \begin{pmatrix}G^{\pm}\\ H^{\pm}\end{pmatrix}
207: &=R(\beta)\begin{pmatrix}\phi_1^{\pm}\\ \phi_2^{\pm}\end{pmatrix}\,,\\
208: \begin{pmatrix}H^{0}\\ h^{0}\end{pmatrix}
209: &=\sqrt{2}R(\alpha)\begin{pmatrix}\re\phi_1^{0}-v_1\\ \re\phi_2^{0}-v_2\end{pmatrix}\,,\\
210: \begin{pmatrix}G^{0}\\ A^{0}\end{pmatrix}
211: &=\sqrt{2}R(\beta)
212: \begin{pmatrix}\im\phi_1^{0}\\ \im\phi_2^{0}\end{pmatrix}\,,
213: \end{align}
214: with their masses:
215: \begin{align}
216: \label{eq:massesHiggs}
217: m_{H^\pm}^2&=\lambda_4(v_1^2+v_2^2)\,,\\
218: m_{A^0}^2&=\lambda_5(v_1^2+v_2^2)\,,\\
219: m_{H^0,h^0}^2&=\frac{1}{2}\left[M_{11}+M_{22}\pm
220: \sqrt{(M_{11}-M_{22})^2+4M_{12}^2}\right]\,,\\
221: \intertext{where $M_{ij}$ are defined from the CP-even mass matrix}
222: M&=\begin{pmatrix} 4v_1^2(\lambda_1+\lambda_3)+v_2^2\lambda_5
223: &(4\lambda_3+\lambda_5)v_1v_2\\
224: (4\lambda_3+\lambda_5)v_1v_2
225: &4v_2^2(\lambda_2+\lambda_3)+v_1^2\lambda_5
226: \end{pmatrix}\,.
227: \end{align}
228: The mixing angles $\beta$ and $\alpha$ are:
229: \begin{align}
230: \label{eq:definicio_beta}
231: \tan\beta&=\frac{v_2}{v_1}\,,\\
232: \sin 2\alpha&=\frac{2M_{12}}{\sqrt{(M_{11}-M_{22})^2+4M_{12}^2}}\,,\notag\\
233: \cos 2\alpha&=\frac{M_{11}-M_{22}}{\sqrt{(M_{11}-M_{22})^2+4M_{12}^2}}\,.
234: \label{eq:definicio_alfa}
235: \end{align}
236: Now we can redefine the parameters of the theory as:
237: \begin{align}
238: \label{eq:freeparam}
239: 4\text{ masses} &: m_{h^{0}},m_{H^{0}},m_{A^{0}},m_{H^{\pm}}\\
240: 2\text{ mixing angles} &:\alpha,\beta
241: \end{align}
242: At tree level we get:
243: \begin{align}
244: \frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}&=\frac{g^2}{8M_W^2}\,,\\
245: \intertext{where we find the value of $v$}
246: v=\sqrt{v_1^2+v_2^2}&=2^{-3/4}G_F^{-1/2}\sim 174\, GeV.
247: \end{align}
248:
249: To obtain the magnitudes as functions of the physical magnitudes one has to
250: invert the mass equations~(\ref{eq:massesHiggs})~and~(\ref{eq:definicio_alfa}):
251: \begin{align}
252: \lambda_1&=\frac{\cos^2\alpha\, m_{H^0}^2+\sin^2\alpha\, m_{h^0}^2}{4\, v_1^2}-
253: \frac{v_2^2}{4\, v_1^2}\, \lambda_5 - \lambda_3\,,\\
254: \lambda_2&=\frac{\sin^2\alpha\, m_{H^0}^2+\cos^2\alpha\, m_{h^0}^2}{4\, v_2^2}-
255: \frac{v_1^2}{4\, v_2^2} \lambda_5- \lambda_3\,,\\
256: \lambda_3&=\cos\alpha\,\sin\alpha\, \frac{m_{H^0}^2-m_{h^0}^2}{4\, v_1 v_2}-\frac{\lambda_5}{4}\,,\\
257: \lambda_4&=\frac{m_{H^\pm}^2}{v^2}\,,\\
258: \lambda_5&=\frac{m_{A^0}^2}{v^2}\,.
259: \end{align}
260:
261: \section{Interactions in the mass-eigenstate basis}
262: \label{sec:2hdm:interactions}
263:
264: We need to convert the interaction Lagrangian to a Lagrangian in the
265: mass-eigenstate basis, which is the one used in the computation of the
266: physical quantities. We quote only the interactions that we will need in our
267: studies.
268:
269: \begin{itemize}
270: \item $W$--Higgs: this interaction is obtained from the kinetic term of
271: the Lagrangian:
272: \begin{align}
273: \begin{split}
274: \mathcal{L}_{WHH}&=\frac{ig}{2}W_\mu^+
275: \begin{pmatrix}G_1^+\\H_2^+\end{pmatrix}^{\dagger}
276: \overleftrightarrow{\partial_\mu}\left[R(\beta-\alpha)
277: \begin{pmatrix}H^0\\h^0\end{pmatrix}+i
278: \begin{pmatrix}G^0\\A^0\end{pmatrix}\right]+\text{h. c.}\\
279: \mathcal{L}_{WWH}&=gM_WW^2
280: \begin{pmatrix}\cos(\beta-\alpha)&\sin(\beta-\alpha)\end{pmatrix}
281: \begin{pmatrix}H^0\\h^0\end{pmatrix}\,.
282: \end{split}
283: \end{align}
284:
285: \item quarks--Higgs: they follow after replacing in \eqref{eq:lagrangia2hdmI}
286: and \eqref{eq:lagrangia2hdmII} the mass-eigenstates Higgs fields
287: \eqref{eq:definiciocamps}:
288:
289: \begin{align}
290: \left\{\begin{array}{c}\mathcal{L}_{Htb}^{I}\\\mathcal{L}_{Htb}^{II}
291: \end{array}\right\}
292: &=\frac{gV_{tb}}{\sqrt{2}\,M_{W}}\,H^{-}\overline{b}\,
293: \left[ m_{t}\cot \beta \,P_{R}+m_{b}\,
294: \left\{\begin{array}{c}-\cot\beta\\\tan \beta\end{array}\right\}\,
295: \,P_{L}\right]\,t+\text{h.c.}\\
296: \begin{split}
297: \left\{\begin{array}{c}\mathcal{L}_{hqq}^{I}\\\mathcal{L}_{hqq}^{II}
298: \end{array}\right\}
299: &=\frac{-g\,m_{b}}{2\,M_{W}\,\left\{
300: \begin{array}{c}
301: \sin \beta \\
302: \cos \beta
303: \end{array}
304: \right\} }\,\overline{b}\left[ h^{0}\,\left\{
305: \begin{array}{c}
306: \cos \alpha \\
307: -\sin \alpha
308: \end{array}
309: \right\} +H^{0}\,\left\{
310: \begin{array}{c}
311: \sin \alpha \\
312: \cos \alpha
313: \end{array}
314: \right\} \right] \,b\\
315: &+\frac{i\,g\,m_{b}}{2\,M_{W}}
316: \left\{\begin{array}{c}-\cot\beta\\\tan \beta\end{array}\right\}\,\overline{b}%
317: \,\gamma _{5}\,b\,A^{0}+\frac{i\,g\,m_{t}}{2\,M_{W}\tb}\,%
318: \overline{t}\,\gamma _{5}\,t\,A^{0}\\
319: &+\frac{-g\,m_{t}}{2\,M_{W}\,\sin \beta }\,\overline{t}\left[ h^{0}\,\cos
320: \alpha +H^{0}\,\sin \alpha \right] \,t\,\,.
321: \end{split}
322: \label{Hqq}
323: \end{align}
324:
325: where we have used the third quark family, the
326: $V_{tb}$ is the corresponding element of the CKM matrix and $P_{L,R}=(1/2)(1\mp \gamma _{5})$
327: are the chiral projectors.
328:
329: \item Trilinear Higgs couplings: they are summarized in \ref{tab:trilineals}, and are
330: valid for Type I and Type II models. Had we not imposed the restriction
331: $\lambda _{5}=\lambda _{6}$, then the trilinear rules would be explicitly
332: dependent on the $\lambda _{5}$ parameter.
333: \begin{table}[tb]
334: \centering
335: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|}
336: \hline
337: $H^{\pm}H^{\mp}H^0$&$-\frac{g}{\mw\stbt}
338: \left[(\mHps-\mAs+\frac{1}{2}\mHs)\stbt\cbma+\right.$\\
339: &$\phantom{\frac{g}{\mw\stbt}}\left.+(\mAs-\mHs)\ctbt\sbma\right]$\\\hline
340: $H^{\pm}H^{\mp}h^0$&$-\frac{g}{\mw\stbt}
341: \left[(\mHp^2-\mA^2+\frac12\mh^2)\sin{2\beta}\sin(\beta-\alpha)+\right.$\\
342: &$\phantom{\frac{g}{\mw\stbt}}
343: \left.+(\mh^2-\mA^2)\,\cos{2\beta}\,\cos(\beta-\alpha)\right]$\\\hline
344: $h^0h^0H^0$&$-\frac{g\,\cos(\beta-\alpha)}{2\,M_W\,\sin{2\beta}}\,
345: \left[(2\,\mh^2+\mH^2)\,\sin{2\alpha}-\right.$\\
346: &$\phantom{-\frac{g}{\mw\stbt}}
347: \left.-\mA^2\,(3\sin{2\alpha}-\sin{2\beta})\right]$\\\hline
348: $A^0A^0H^0$&$-\frac{g}{2\,M_{W}\sin{2\beta}}\,
349: \left[\mH^2\,\sin{2\beta}\cos(\beta-\alpha)+\right.$\\
350: &$\phantom{-\frac{g}{\mw\stbt}}
351: \left.+2(\mH^2-\mA^2)\,\cos{2\beta}\,\sin(\beta-\alpha)\right]$\\\hline
352: $A^0A^0h^0$&$-\frac{g}{2\,\mw\stbt}
353: \left[\mh^2\,\sin{2\beta}\sin(\beta-\alpha)+\right.$\\
354: &$\phantom{-\frac{g}{\mw\stbt}}
355: \left.+2(\mh^2-\mA^2)\,\cos{2\beta}\,\cos(\beta-\alpha)\right]$\\\hline
356: $H^{\pm}-H^{\mp}-A^0$&$0$\\\hline
357: $H^{\pm}-G^{\mp}-H^0$&$(-ig)(\mHps-\mHs)\dfrac{\sbma}{2\mw}$\\\hline
358: $H^{\pm}-G^{\mp}-h^0$&$ig(\mHps-\mhs)\dfrac{\cbma}{2\mw}$\\\hline
359: $H^{\pm}-G^{\mp}-A^0$&$\pm g\,\dfrac{(\mHps-\mAs)}{2\mw}$\\\hline
360: $G^{\pm}-G^{\mp}-H^0$&$(-ig)\dfrac{\mHs\cbma}{2\mw}$\\\hline
361: $G^{\pm}-G^{\mp}-h^0$&$(-ig)\dfrac{\mhs\sbma}{2\mw}$\\\hline
362: $G^{\pm}-G^{\mp}-A^0$&$0$\\\hline
363: \end{tabular}
364: \caption{Feynman rules for the trilinear couplings involving the Higgs
365: self-interactions and the Higgs and Goldstone boson vertices in the Feynman
366: gauge, with all momenta pointing inward. These rules are common to both Type~I
367: and Type~II 2HDM under the conditions explained in the text. We have singled out
368: some null entries associated to CP violation.}
369: \label{tab:trilineals}
370: \end{table}
371:
372: \end{itemize}
373:
374: \section{Constraints}
375: \label{sec:constraints}
376: There are multiple constraints that must be imposed, obviously one of such
377: constraints is that they must reproduce the behaviour of the SM up to energy
378: scales probed so far.
379:
380: Analysing the perturbativity of the theory one finds that the allowed range for
381: $\tb$ is:
382: \begin{equation}
383: 0.1<\tan\beta\lesssim60\,. \label{eq:tbrange}
384: \end{equation}
385:
386: The custodial symmetry\cite{Einhorn:1981cy,Veltman:1977kh} ($SU(2)$) is a good
387: symmetry at tree level, so the quadratic violations of this symmetry must be
388: experimentally fixed. So, the one-loop corrections of the parameter $\rho$
389: from the 2HDM sector can not be bigger than one per mil of the SM
390: \thinspace\cite{Groom:2000in}:
391: \begin{equation}
392: |\delta\rho^{\text{2HDM}}|\leqslant0.001\,. \label{eq:drho}
393: \end{equation}
394: To be precise, the latter is the extra effect
395: that $\delta\rho$ can accommodate at one standard deviation
396: ($1\,\sigma$) from the 2HDM fields beyond the SM contribution
397: \cite{\GuaschNPo}. This is a stringent restriction that affects the
398: possible mass splittings among the Higgs fields of the 2HDM, and
399: its implementation in our codes does severely prevent the
400: possibility from playing with the Higgs boson masses to
401: artificially enhance the FCNC contributions.
402:
403: Moreover, the charged Higgs bosons have an important indirect
404: restriction from the radiative decays of the $B$ meson, specially the ratio
405: $B(B\rightarrow X_{s}\,\gamma) $ -- or $\Bbsg$ at the quark
406: level~\cite{\bsgexp}:
407: \begin{equation}
408: \Bbsg=(3.3\pm0.4)\times 10^{-4}\,.
409: \label{eq:CLEO}
410: \end{equation}
411: The Higgs contribution to $\Bbsg$ (that have been computed at the NLO in
412: QCD\,\cite{\Gambino}) is positive: bigger experimental ratio means
413: that the charged Higgs mass can be smaller. From the different analysis of the
414: literature \cite{\bsgthdm} we get:
415: \begin{equation}
416: \label{eq:restbsg}
417: m_{H^{\pm}}>350\GeV
418: \end{equation}
419: for virtually any $\tan\beta\gtrsim1$.
420: This bound does not apply to Type~I models because
421: at large $\tan\beta$ the charged Higgs couplings are severely suppressed,
422: whereas at low $\tan\beta$ we recover the previous unrestricted situation of
423: Type~II models.
424:
425: We can derive lower bounds for the neutral Higgs masses in these
426: models~\cite{Krawczyk:1997be,Krawczyk:1998wg}. For example, using the Bjorken
427: process $e^{+}e^{-}\rightarrow Z+h^{0}$ and the production of pairs of Higgs
428: boson $e^{+}e^{-}\rightarrow h^{0}(H^{0})+A^{0}$ we can get the following
429: restrictions in almost all the parameter
430: space~\cite{Abbiendi:2000ug,Abbiendi:1998rd}:
431: \begin{equation}
432: \label{eq:restbjorken}
433: m_{h^{0}}+m_{A^{0}}\begin{cases}\gtrsim100\GeV &\forall\tan\beta\\
434: \gtrsim150\GeV&\tan\beta>1\end{cases}\,.
435: \end{equation}
436: In each of these cases there is a small region in the parameter space in the
437: ranges of the CP-even Higgs masses and CP-odd masses
438: around~\cite{Abbiendi:2000ug,Abbiendi:1998rd}:
439: \begin{equation}
440: \label{eq:raco}
441: m_{h,^{0}A^{0}}=20-30\GeV\,.
442: \end{equation}
443: Although, as can be seen in the electroweak precision fits in
444: Ref.~\cite{Chankowski:1999ta}, in the high $\tan\beta$ range a light Higgs
445: boson $h^{0}$ is statistically correlated with a light $H^{\pm}$, so
446: this situation is not favoured by the $\bsg$ restriction.
447: Moreover, since our interest in Type~II
448: models is mainly focused in the large $\tan \beta$ regime, the corner in the
449: light CP-even mass range is a bit contrived. At the end of the day
450: one finds that, even in the worst situation, the strict experimental limits still allow generic 2HDM neutral scalar bosons as light as $70\,GeV$ or so. As we said, most of
451: these limits apply to Type~II 2HDM's, but we will conservatively apply them
452: to Type~I models as well.
453:
454: Finally, the unitarity bound can be approximately formulated by imposing
455: that the absolute value of the trilinear coupling
456: of the 2HDM Higgs can not be bigger than the Trilinear coupling of the SM
457: Higgs:
458: \begin{equation}
459: \ \left| \lambda_{HHH}\right| \leqslant\left|
460: \lambda_{HHH}^{(SM)}(m_{H}=1\,TeV)\right| =\frac{3\,g\,(1\,TeV)^{2}}{2\,M_{W}}\,\,.
461: \label{eq:unitbound}
462: \end{equation}
463:
464: %%% Local Variables:
465: %%% mode: latex
466: %%% TeX-master: "tesi"
467: %%% End:
468: