Phenomenology of two Higgs doublet models with flavor-changing neutral currents

Physical Review D - Particles, Fields, Gravitation and Cosmology

Volumn 55, Issue 5, 1997, Pages 3156-3176

  Atwood, David ^a   Reina, Laura ^b   Soni, Amarjit ^b  

^a THEORY CENTER   (United States)

^b BROOKHAVEN NATIONAL LABORATORY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0000320780     PISSN: 15507998     EISSN: 15502368     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.55.3156     Document Type: Article

References (72)

1. D. Atwood, L. Reina, and A. Soni, Phys. Rev. D53, 1199 (1996).
2. D. Atwood, L. Reina, and A. Soni, Phys. Rev. Lett.75, 3800 (1995).
3. T. P. Cheng and M. Sher, Phys. Rev. D35, 3484 (1987);
4. A. Antaramian, L. J. Hall, and A. Rasin, Phys. Rev. Lett.69, 1871 (1992).
5. L. J. Hall and S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. D48, R979 (1993).
6. M. J. Savage, Phys. Lett. B266, 135 (1991).
7. M. Luke and M. J. Savage, Phys. Lett. B307, 387 (1993).
8. Gorazd Cvetič, Electroweak Symmetry Breaking, Proceeding of the Budapest Workshop (World Scientific, Singapore, 1995).
9. S. L. Glashow, J. Iliopoulos, and L. Maiani, Phys. Rev. D2, 1285 (1970).
10. S. Glashow and S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. D15, 1958 (1977).
11. W. S. Hou, Phys. Lett. B296, 179 (1992);
12. D. Chang, W. S. Hou, and W. Y. Keung, Phys. Rev. D48, 217 (1993).
13. For a review see J. Gunion, H. Haber, G. Kane, and S. Dawson, The Higgs Hunter’s Guide (Addison-Wesley, New York, 1990).
14. C. D. Froggatt, R. G. Moorhouse, and I. G. Knowles, Nucl. Phys.B386, 63 (1992).
15. The only other contributions to the effective (Formula presented) and (Formula presented) vertices are from the SM (Formula presented) boson which we are ignoring since we expect the contributions from model III to be much bigger due to the presence of both neutral and charged scalars with large couplings to the top quark (see Fig. 11). Moreover, we expect model III to give bigger predictions, even with respect to model I and model II, due to the presence of the new FC couplings proportional to (Formula presented) and to the particular structure of the charged scalar couplings [see Eq. (9)]. See Ref. 15 for the explicit calculation of (Formula presented) in the SM and in model I and model II 2HDM’s. Our expectations are also confirmed by the case of rare top decays, discussed in Sec. IV, in which the same form factors are used (see in particular Table I for a quantitative comparison of the SM and of the different types of 2HDM’s).
16. C.-H. Chang, X.-Q. Li, J.-X. Wang, and M.-Z. Yang, Phys. Lett. B313, 389 (1993).
17. G. Eilam, J. L. Hewett, and A. Soni, Phys. Rev. D44, 1473 (1991).
18. B. Grzadkowski, J. F. Gunion, and P. Krawcyzk, Phys. Lett. B268, 106 (1991).
19. We also observe that in Ref. 7 the form factors used in the analytical expressions for the rates [see their Eq. (10)] should include the factor (Formula presented), which is factored out in their Eq. (9), where the form factors are defined.
20. Note that in Fig. 22 of Ref. 7 the authors factor out the FC coupling dependence: (Formula presented). For (Formula presented) GeV and (Formula presented) GeV, taking as we did (Formula presented), this amounts to multiplying their results by a factor (Formula presented). Also note that, unlike them, we have not multiplied the (Formula presented) by the (Formula presented).
21. D. Cline, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A350, 24 (1994).
22. D. V. Neuffer, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A350, 27 (1994).
23. W. A. Barletta and A. M. Sessler, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A350, 36 (1994);
24. A. G. Ruggiero, 350, 45 (1994);
25. S. Chattopadhyay et al., 350, 53 (1994).
26. R. B. Palmer, “High Luminosity (Formula presented) Collider Design, ” Report No. SLAC-AAS-Note81, 1993 (unpublished).
27. V. Barger, M. Berger, K. Fujii, J. F. Gunion, T. Han, C. Heusch, W. Hong, S. K. Oh, Z. Parsa, S. Rajpoot, R. Thun, and B. Willis, in Proceedings of the First Workshop on the Physics Potential and Development of (Formula presented) Colliders, Sausalito, CA, 1994, edited by D. Cline (unpublished).
28. V. Barger, M. Berger, J. Gunion, and T. Han, Phys. Rev. Lett.75, 1462 (1995).
29. D. Atwood and A. Soni, Phys. Rev. D52, 6271 (1995).
30. T. Inami and C. S. Lim, Prog. Theor. Phys.65, 297 (1981);
31. 65, 1772(E) (1981).
32. See, e.g., A. Soni, in Lattice ’95, Proceedings of the International Symposium, Melbourne, Australia, edited by T. D. Kieu et al. [Nucl. Phys. B (Proc. Suppl.)47, 43 (1996)]; NPBSE7
33. G. Martinelli, in Lattice ’94, Proceedings of the International Symposium, Bielefeld, Germany, edited by F. Karsch et al. [ 42, 127 (1995)].
34. B. Mc Williams and O. Shanker, Phys. Rev. D11, 2853 (1980).
35. See also, G. Beall, M. Bander, and A. Soni, Phys. Rev. Lett.48, 848 (1982).
36. See Ref. 28.
37. A. J. Buras, M. Jamin, and P. H. Weisz, Nucl. Phys.B347, 491 (1990).
38. S. Herrlichl and U. Nierste, Nucl. Phys.B419, 292 (1994);
39. Phys. Rev. D52, 6505 (1995).
40. In fact, the SM predictions for the different (Formula presented) mixings reported in Table II include also QCD corrections.
41. Results presented at the International Europhysics Conference on High Energy Physics, Brussels, 1995 (World Scientific, Singapore, 1995);and at the 17th International Symposium on Lepton-Photon Interactions, Beijing, China, 1995 (unpublished).See also LEP Electroweak Working Group Report No. 95-02 (unpublished).
42. Particle Data Group, L. Montanet et al., Phys. Rev. D50, 1173 (1994).
43. T. Ohl, G. Ricciardi, and E. H. Simmons, Nucl. Phys.B403, 605 (1993).
44. A. K. Grant, Phys. Rev. D51, 207 (1995).
45. CLEO Collaboration, R. Ammar et al., Phys. Rev. Lett.71, 674 (1993);
46. CLEO Collaboration, M. S. Alam et al., 74, 2885 (1995).
47. Results presented at the XXXIst Rencontres de Moriond, “Electroweak Interactions and Unified Theories”, Les Arcs, France, 1996, edited by J. Trân Thanh Vân (unpublished).
48. P. Bamert, C. P. Burgess, J. M. Cline, D. London, and E. Nardi, Phys. Rev. D54, 4275 (1996).
49. D. Atwood, L. Reina, and A. Soni, Phys. Rev. D54, 3295 (1996).
50. I. Dunietz, Fermilab Report No. FERMILAB-PUB-96-104-T, hep-ph/9606247 (unpublished);
51. I. Dunietz, J. Incandela, F. D. Snider, K. Tesima, and I. Watanabe, Fermilab Report No. FERMILAB-PUB-96-026-T, hep-ph/9606327 (unpublished).
52. M. Ciuchini, E. Franco, G. Martinelli, L. Reina, and L. Silvestrini, Phys. Lett. B316, 127 (1993);
53. Nucl. Phys.B421, 41 (1994).
54. A. J. Buras, M. Misiak, M. Münz, and S. Pokorski, Nucl. Phys.B424, 137 (1994).
55. M. Ciuchini, E. Franco, G. Martinelli, L. Reina, and L. Silvestrini, Phys. Lett. B344, 137 (1994).
56. According to the results of Sec. VI, we neglect the mixing with the first family.
57. In passing, we should also mention that, we have also examined the decay (Formula presented) in model III. We found that due to the different couplings involved, this decay is never consistently enhanced with respect to the SM prediction.
58. In our calculation all the quarks except the top quark are taken to be massless, keeping (Formula presented) only in the (Formula presented) couplings as in Eq. (10).
59. J. Bernabéu, A. Pich, and A. Santamaria, Nucl. Phys.B363, 326 (1991).
60. A. Denner, R. J. Guth, W. Hollik, and J. H. Kühn, Z. Phys. C51, 695 (1991).ZPCFD2
61. We assume that the changes for (Formula presented) and (Formula presented) in model III with suppressed FC couplings for the first family, i.e., in case 2 and case 3, are negligible.
62. P. Langacker, in Precision Tests of the Standard Electroweak Model, edited by P. Langacker (World Scientific, Singapore, 1994).
63. CDF Collaboration, F. Abe et al., Phys. Rev. Lett.74, 2626 (1995);
64. D0 Collaboration, S. Abachi et al., 74, 2632 (1995).
65. S. Bertolini, Nucl. Phys.B272, 77 (1986).
66. ALEPH Collaboration, D. Buskulic et al., Phys. Lett. B377, 205 (1996).
67. UA1 Collaboration, C. Albajar et al., Phys. Lett. B262, 163 (1991).
68. CDF Collaboration, F. Abe et al., Phys. Rev. Lett.76, 4675 (1996).
69. UA1 Collaboration, C. Albajar et al., Phys. Lett. B262, 163 (1991).
70. B. Grinstein, M. J. Savage, and M. B. Wise, Nucl. Phys.B319, 271 (1989).
71. A. J. Buras and M. Münz, Phys. Rev. D52, 186 (1995).
72. Even if the pole terms are not explicitly given in Ref. 7, they can be easily deduced from the corresponding logarithmic term (Formula presented) in each diagram.