2HDM and chiral U(1)′ models - Yonsei...
Transcript of 2HDM and chiral U(1)′ models - Yonsei...
2HDM and chiral U(1)′ models
1
Chaehyun Yu (KIAS)
Yonsei University, May 14, 2013
Based on Phys. Lett. B 717, 202 (2012);
EPJC 73, 2269 (2013);
JHEP 1303, 151 (2013).
with P. Ko (KIAS) and Yuji Omura (TUM)
2
• Higgs mechanism in the SM
Outline
• Chiral U(1)′ models
• Two Higgs doublet models with Z2 symmetry
• Phenomenology
- Top forward-backward asymmetry
- B→D(*)τν and B→τν
• Conclusions
• Two Higgs doublet models with spontaneous Higgs symmetry breaking
3
Introduction • A Higgs-like scalar boson with 125 GeV was discovered at LHC.
- a SM Higgs boson?
- exist extra Higgs bosons?
• Multi-Higgs scenario may be motivated by SUSY or GUT, etc.
- FCNC, gauge anomaly, stable charged particle,…
• two Higgs doublet models and chiral U(1)′ models.
4
Higgs mechanism in SM • generate particle masses in an SU(2)XU(1) gauge invariant way.
• three d.o.f masses for MW and MZ.
• fermion masses can be generated by using the same .
• resolve the unitarity problem in the SM.
5
Problems in SM • Hierarchy problem or naturalness problem.
• stability problem.
6
Stability of vacuum
7
New Physics extends Higgs sector
8
2HDM • One of the simplest models to extend the SM.
• Two doublets of SU(2) : 8 d.o.f. → 3 gauge boson masses+5 physical
Higgs bosons.
9
Two Higgs Double Model
• In general, the models with many Higgs suffer from Flavor changing
process.
mass matrix
neutral Higgs h coupling
• In general, each doublet couple to the SM fermions.
- type III or general 2HDM.
10
Two Higgs Double Model
• Flavor changing neutral current (FCNC).
11
• A simple way to avoid FCNC problem is to assign an ad hoc Z2
symmetry.
Z2 symmetry
→ Natural Flavor Conservation (NFC).
12
• A simple way to avoid FCNC problem is to assign an ad hoc Z2
symmetry.
Z2 symmetry
S.L.Glashow, S.Weinberg, PRD15, 1958 (1977);V.D.Barger, J.L.Hewett, R.J.N.Phillips, PRD41, 3421 (1990); M.Aoki, S.Kanemura, K.Tsumura, K.Yagyu, PRD80, 015017 (2009).
• Type I :
→ Natural Flavor Conservation (NFC).
Each sector (mass matrices) depends on one Higgs (VEV).
13
• A simple way to avoid FCNC problem is to assign an ad hoc Z2
symmetry.
Z2 symmetry
• Type II :
→ Natural Flavor Conservation (NFC).
Each sector (mass matrices) depends on one Higgs (VEV).
14
• A simple way to avoid FCNC problem is to assign an ad hoc Z2
symmetry.
Z2 symmetry
• Type III :
→ Natural Flavor Conservation (NFC).
Each sector (mass matrices) depends on one Higgs (VEV).
15
• A simple way to avoid FCNC problem is to assign an ad hoc Z2
symmetry.
Z2 symmetry
• Type IV :
→ Natural Flavor Conservation (NFC).
Each sector (mass matrices) depends on one Higgs (VEV).
16
• It is well known that discrete symmetry could generate a domain wall
problem when it is spontaneously broken.
Generic problems of 2HDM
• Usually the Z2 symmetry is assumed to be broken softly by a dim-2
operator, term. †
1 2H H
17
2HDM with spontaneous Higgs Symmetry breaking
propose to replace the Z2 symmetry in 2HDM by a new U(1)H symmetry
associated with Higgs flavors.
• H1 and H2 have different U(1)H charges.
• no domain wall problem.
• Higgs signal will be changed by new U(1)H gauge boson ZH.
• Good CDM candidates will be naturally added.
• The origin of such a discrete symmetry is not clear at all.
18
• Higgs interacts with ZH.
Higgs sector
mass base
Z and ZH mix at the tree level.
SM
19
• could give the bound on the tree-level mixing.
ρ parameter
• In the 2HDM with U(1)H,
• Compared with the experimental value
• large mZH or small tanβ (for h1=0) is favored.
20
Gauged U(1)H
Potential in typical 2HDM
Source of pseudo-scalar mass Z2 odd
Good answer for FCNC and those problems is
massless eaten
Explicit Z2 may be required to avoid domain wall and light extra scalar scalars
light gauge boson (ZH)
required (?)
21
• is gauge-invariant if .
2HDM with U(1)H
†
1 2H H 1 2h h h
Source of pseudo-scalar mass
• is forbidden if . †
1 2BH H 1 2h h
• If not gauged with the extra U(1)H, encounter the usual problem of a
massless pseudoscalar.
• The massless mode is eaten by ZH.
• The scalar spectrum is different from the usual 2HDM.
2 2
5 / m
22
Z2→gauged U(1)H extension
• very naïve assignment
23
Type-I 2HDM
• Only one Higgs couples with fermions.
• anomaly free U(1)H with RH neutrino.
There appear an infinite number of new models.
24
Type-I 2HDM
• Only one Higgs couples with fermions.
• anomaly free U(1)H with RH neutrino.
25
Type-I 2HDM
• Only one Higgs couples with fermions.
• anomaly free U(1)H with RH neutrino.
• SM fermions are U(1)H singlets.
• ZH is fermiophobic and Higgphilic.
• is the main source of production and discovery of ZH. HH W Z
26
Type-I 2HDM
• Only one Higgs couples with fermions.
• anomaly free U(1)H with RH neutrino.
• U(1)H=U(1)B-L.
• ZH gets its mass from H2 (and also by Φ).
• different from the usual (B-L) model, where U(1)B-L is broken by Φ.
27
Type-I 2HDM
• Only one Higgs couples with fermions.
• anomaly free U(1)H with RH neutrino.
• U(1)H=U(1)R.
• ZH couples only to the RH fermions.
• the would-be SM Higgs doublet H1 also carries nonzero U(1)H charge.
28
Type-I 2HDM
• Only one Higgs couples with fermions.
• anomaly free U(1)H with RH neutrino.
• U(1)H=U(1)Y.
• different from the SM because h1=1/2≠0 (in SM, h1=0).
N.B. vectorlike U(1)B or U(1)L : anomaly free with extra chiral fermions.
29
Type-II 2HDM
• H1 couples to the up-type fermions, while H2 couples to the down-type
fermions.
• Requires extra chiral fermions for cancellation of gauge anomaly.
3(1)HU
2(1) (1)Y HU U
Two SM vector-like pairs
1 2
0 0 0 0 0
R R L R RU D Q L E N H H
u u u
30
Type-II 2HDM
• The mass terms of extra fermions are given by .
• forbid mixing terms which may cause FCNC such as
for .
or ij Li Rj ij Li Rjm q U q U ˆ ˆ, , 0,R R RQ Q n u
Extra fermions become stable ....
31
CDM in Type-II 2HDM
or
SU(2) doublet case SU(3) triplet case
U(1)H forbids the mixing with SM fields
U(1)H forbids the mixing with SM fields
stable charged and neutral stable colored particles
radiative corrections make charged heavier and
neutral becomes CDM
adding U(1)H charged scalar, X †
1 2i Ri L i Ri LX D q XD q
X is CDM
1 2 1, , 0 and 0,2 2
u d u dq h e l n h q u d h e n
32
Type-II,-III,-IV 2HDMs
• In Tyep-II case, possible to make the leptophobic Z′ model in the
context of E6.
- could generate the mixing terms between the SM fermions and the
extra fermions at tree level.
- the Yukawa couplings must be tuned.
• Type-IV case could be realized by nonzero u=e≠0.
• Type-III case: may be leptophobic or leptophilic models by
33
Phenomenology
• the phenomenology would differ model by model.
• a new channel is
h h
Z
ZH ZH
ZH
Contribute to Z boson mass.
<H> <H> h
ZH
ZH
Z Z Z Z X X
34
Minimal flavor violation
• might be a guideline for new physics.
• all flavor violating and CP-violating transitions are governed by the CKM
matrix and the only relevant local operators are the ones that are relevant
in the SM → Minimal flavor violation (MFV).
• new physics scale ~ a few TeV.
• 2HDM respects this hypothesis.
• the excellent agreement of flavor data with the SM predictions.
• If there exist experimental results with large flavor violation, MFV must
be broken.
35
Chiral U(1)′ model
• necessary to generate large FCNCs for the discrepancies without
conflict with experiments.
• extension of 2HDM with spontaneous Higgs symmetry breaking.
• slightly breaks the 2HDM with spontaneous Higgs symmetry breaking.
• difficult to assign flavor-dependent charges to down-type quarks due to
the strong constraints from FCNC experiments → assign U(1)′ charges
only to right-handed up-type quarks (flavor-dependent).
36
Chiral U(1)′ model
37
Chiral U(1)′ model
• consider a gauge boson of U(1)′ : Z′
• Z′ is leptophobic : avoid the LEP II and Drell-Yan bounds.
• a flavor-dependent leptophobic U(1)′ : anomalous.
- introduce additional fermions to cancel the gauge anomalies.
• exists a candidate of cold dark matters.
• Higgs sector must be extended to construct a realistic Yukawa interactions.
• Yukawa interactions : additional Higgs fields are inevitable.
• Both Z′ and Higgs fields affect the top AFB and charge asymmetry.
• Charged Higgs bosons contribute to B physics.
38
• U(1)′ charged Higgs fields generate the Z′ boson mass.
Why need additional Higgs?
• If there is no Higgs fields charged under U(1)′, the top quark would be
massless.
• similar to the WLWL scattering in the intermediate vector boson model.
- restores unitarity with U(1)′ charged Higgs fields.
• also true in the W′, axigluon, and any other models if a new spin-1
particle has a chiral U(1)′ charge.
39
• Charge assignment : SM fermions
Left-handed quarks and right-
handed down-type quarks have
universal couplings.
Flavor-dependent
Higgs
Chiral U(1)′ model
40
• Charge assignment : Higgs fields
• The U(1)′ is spontaneously broken by U(1)′ charged complex scalar Φ.
• introduce three Higgs doublets charged under U(1)′ in addition to H
uncharged under U(1)′.
Chiral U(1)′ model
41
• Anomaly cancelation requires extra fermions I: SU(2) doublets
one extra
generation
vector-like
pairs
SU(2)L2∙U(1)′
U(1)′ 2∙U(1)
a candidate for CDM
Chiral U(1)′ model
42
• Anomaly cancelation requires extra fermions II: SU(3)c triplets
a candidate for CDM
• introduce the singlet scalar X to the SM in order to allow the decay of
the extra colored particles.
Chiral U(1)′ model
43
• 2 Higgs doublet model :
∝ the fermion mass
1 2 3( , , ) (0,0,1)u u u
Chiral U(1)′ model
44
• 3 Higgs doublet model: 1 2 3( , , ) ( ,0, )u u u q q
Chiral U(1)′ model
45
• Gauge coupling in the mass base
- Z′ interacts only with the right-handed up-type quarks
- The 3 X 3 coupling matrix is defined by
biunitary matrix diagonalizing the up-type quark mass matrix
Chiral U(1)′ model
46
• Yukawa coupling in the mass base (2HDM)
- lightest Higgs h:
- lightest charged Higgs h+:
- lightest pseudoscalar Higgs a:
Chiral U(1)′ model
47
• Our models are
so-called type-III-like 2HDM (3HDM),
where Yukawa couplings are controlled by gauged U(1) symmetry.
There are tree-level FCNCs.
Chiral U(1)′ model
- large (t,u) of scalars, Z′ → enhance the top AFB
, , ,Z h H a Z
- O(1) (t,u) coupling is required to achieve a large top AFB
48
• Tevatron
forward
backward
Top AFB at the Tevatron
• AFB is generated by the difference in top and anti-top distributions.
q
q
- an incident quark repels the top quark, while it attracts the anti-top
quark.
- an incident anti-quark repels the anti-top quark, while it attracts the top
quark.
• QCD Coulomb interaction
49
• LHC
q
q
Top charge asymmetry at LHC
• Charge asymmetry is generated by the shape difference in distributions.
q
q in the parton rest frame
50
Top AFB at Tevatron in ~5 fb-1
~ 2σ
~ 2σ No conclusive evidence for the dependence of top AFB on the ttbar invariant mass.
51
Top AFB at CDF in 8.7 fb-1
~ 2σ
52
Top charge asymmetry at LHC
CMS-PAS-TOP-11-030
ATLAS, 1203.4211
SM prediction at MC@NLO : 0.006 0.002CA
0.004 0.010 0.012CA
0.018 0.028 0.023CA
53
Top charge asymmetry at LHC
• No tendency in distribution. ttm
• compatible with the prediction from MC@NLO.
54
History of AFB in the SM
• AFB in the b, t quark production in QCD : Halzen, Hoyer, Kim, PLB195
(1987).
• detailed QCD calculation at NLO : Kuhn, Rodrigo, PRL81 (1998).
- 4~5% at the Tevatron.
• update the previous analysis: Kuhn, Rodrigo, PRD77 (2008).
- at the Tevatron.
• NLO+NNLL accuracy: Ahrens, Ferroglia, Neubert, Peciak, Yang, PRD84
(2011).
• EW contributions at NLO: Hollik, Pagani, PRD84(2011); Kuhn, Rodrigo,
JHEP1201.
5.1 0.6%
NLO
NLO+NNLL
CDF lep+jets
55
FB
ttAFB( 450 GeV)tt
ttA M FB( 450 GeV)tt
ttA M
0.67
0.547.14
1.05
0.687.16
0.4
0.45.3
0.8
0.65.2
1.0
0.610.4
1.7
0.910.8
47.5 11.211.6 15.3
Ahrens,Ferroglia,Neubert,Pecjak,Yang,PRD84
15.8 7.5
(In units of %)
SM prediction at NLO+NNLL
56
Kühn, Rodrigo, JHEP1201 • reanalyze electromagnetic as well as weak corrections.
- enhancement of AFB by about a factor 1.1.
• restrict the system to a transverse momentum < 20 GeV.
- enhancement of AFB by factors between 1.3 and 1.5.
tt
SM(NLO+EW)
MCFM(NLO)
CDF lep+jets
FB
ttAFB( 450 GeV)tt
ttA M FB( 450 GeV)tt
ttA M
8.7 1.0
5.8 0.9 4.0 0.6
12.8 1.1
8.8 1.3
47.5 11.211.6 15.3
6.2 0.4
15.8 7.5
(In units of %)
EW contributions in the SM
57
tt
TP
• D0 disagrees with MC@NLO.
• changes sign at ~ 20 GeV.
• disagreement between MC
generators.
• the asymmetry would be
enhanced if the data are lost
at high pT.
dependence D0, PRD84 ,112005(2011)
58
59
60
• flavor dependent.
• challenging to
construct a realistic
model.
- anomaly free,
renormalizable,
realistic Yukawa
couplings.
, ,Z W
New physics models for top AFB
61
General remarks on new models
• σth in new physics models must be close
to σexp.
• int quad. in new physics
• no evidence for a resonant state between
350 GeV and 1.5 TeV (model-dependent).
• required to produce a large AFB.
• the exotic decay of the top quark must be
suppressed.
62
Models with s-channel exchange
• requires couplings to both
and .
• axigluon, KK gluon, and etc.
5q qG
5t tG
• strongly constrained by dijet production,
where no resonant states have been
observed.
- small couplings to the light quarks.
- large coupling to the top quarks.
• LHC limits for top resonance could be
problematic.
• light gluon with a large decay width?
Ferrario, Rodrigo, PRD78; PRD80; Frampton, Shu, Wang, PLB683; Bai, Hewett, Kaplan, Rizzo, JHEP1103
63
Models with t-channel exchange
• Z′, W′, or scalar exchanges with large flavor
changing neutral currents.
• could not be constrained by dijet production
and top resonance searches.
• usually assume that only one off-diagonal
coupling to the top quark is relevant.
- can be realized in a complete model?
• severely constrained by the
same sign top pair production.
- the t-channel scalar exchange
model has a similar constraint.
64
Z’ model
• assume large flavor-offdiagonal coupling and
small diagonal couplings.
• In general, could have different couplings to
the top and antitop quarks.
• light Z′ is favored from the Mtt
distribution.
Jung, Murayama, Pierce, Wells, PRD81
65
Same sign top pair production at LHC
CMS: σ(pp→tt( j))<17 pb at 95C.L. ATLAS: σ(pp→tt( j))<2 pb at 95C.L.
CMS, JHEP1108; ATLAS, 1202.5520
• the t-channel Z′ or scalar exchange models are excluded?
66
Same sign top pair production at LHC
CMS: σ(pp→tt( j))<17 pb at 95C.L. ATLAS: σ(pp→tt( j))<2 pb at 95C.L.
CMS, JHEP1108; ATLAS, 1202.5520
• the t-channel Z′ or scalar exchange models are excluded?
• the answer is NO.
67
68
• assume the large coupling to the down and
top quarks.
69
W’ model Cheung, Keung, Yuan, PLB682; Cheung, Yuan, PRD83
• free from the same sign top pair production.
d
d
W
• could be constrained by the Mtt
distribution.
• D0 data:
- support W′ model.
(15.2 4.0)%l
FBA D0, PRD84, 112005
Berger et al., PRL108, 072002
(SM: (2.1 0.1)%)l
FBA
70
Models with u-channel exchange
• color-sextet, color-triplet models etc.
Ligeti, Schmaltz, Tavares, JHEP1106; Shu, Tait, Wang, PRD81; Grinstein, Kagan, Trott, Zupan, PRL107
: SU(3)c Clebsch-Gordan coefficients connecting the color indices between scalar and quarks.
a
rT
• not constrained by the same sign top
pair.
• enhancement in the large tail.
Shu, Tait, Wang, PRD81
71
AFB and AC
ATLAS, 1203.4211
CMS
72
Model-independent approach Jung, Ko, Lee, Nam, PLB691; Jung, Ko, Lee, PLB701; PLB708; Zhang, Willenbrock, PRD83
• If new physics scale is high enough, the effective operator approach
where all heavy d.o.f. is integrated out is legitimate.
• useful approach even though AFB becomes close to the SM prediction.
73
1. Z′ dominant scenario
2. Higgs dominant scenario
3. Mixed scenario
cf. Babu, Frank, Rai, PRL107(2011)
cf. Jung, Murayama, Pierce, Wells, PRD81(2010) , ,Z h a
Z
2( ), ,
4
uaRut
X tu tu
g gY Y
Top-antitop pair production in chiral U(1)′ models
74
• decay into W+b in SM : Br(t→Wb)~100%.
• If the top quark decays to or , Br(t→Wb) might significantly
be changed. Z u h u
• requires Br(t →non-SM)<5% .
• choose either or . ' tZm m
h tm m
Top quark decay
75
• D0
• CMS
D0, 1105.2788
CMS, 1106.3052
( ) 2.90 0.59 pbpp tbq
( ) 83.6 29.8 3.3 pbpp tbq
In the SM,
2.1 1.5
0.7 1.7( ) 64.3 pbpp tbq
( ) 2.26 0.12 pbpp tbq
Single top quark production
76
• D0
• CMS
D0, 1105.2788
CMS, 1106.3052
( ) 2.90 0.59 pbpp tbq
( ) 83.6 29.8 3.3 pbpp tbq
In the SM,
2.1 1.5
0.7 1.7( ) 64.3 pbpp tbq
( ) 2.26 0.12 pbpp tbq
, ,Z h a
Single top quark production
⇒ no b quark or W boson in the final state
Z′ dominant case
77
= similar to Jung, Murayama, Pierce, Wells’ model (PRD81)
Favored region
78
Scalar Higgs (h) dominant case
= similar to Babu, Frank, Rai’s model (PRL107)
Favored region
Z′+h+a case
79
145 GeVZm
180 GeVhm
300 GeVam
1.1a
tuY
Favored region
• destructive interference between Z and Higgs bosons in the same signe top pair production.
• consistent with the CMS bound, but not with the ATLAS bound.
80
145 GeVZm
180 GeVhm
300 GeVam
0.01x
mixed case
Only Z′ case
1.0tuY
1.1a
tuY
145 GeVZm
0.029x
Invariant mass distribution
81
• In the SM,
LO,F NLO,F LO,B NLO,BSM LO NLOFB
LO NLO LO NLO
~ 8.7%.A
• In our calculation,
New LO NEW LO NEWFB
LO NEW LO NEW
( )~ 12%.
( )
KA
K
• Combining both contributions of NLO and New physics,
SM New
FB FB FB / ~18%.A A A K
AFB with SM NLO contribution
82
AFB versus σtt
145 GeVZm
180 GeV< 1 TeVhm
180 GeV< 1 TeVam
0.005< 0.025X
0.5<Y 1.5tu
0.5<Y 1.5a
tu
Z′+h+a case
83
AFB versus ACy
145 GeVZm
180 GeV< 1 TeVhm
180 GeV< 1 TeVam
0.005< 0.025X
0.5<Y 1.5tu
0.5<Y 1.5a
tu
Z′+h+a case
84
AFB versus σtt
145 GeVZm
180 GeV< 1 TeVhm
180 GeV< 1 TeVam
0.005< 0.025X
0.5<Y 1.5tu
0.5<Y 1.5a
tu
Excluded!
Z′+h+a case
85
AFB versus σtt
126 GeVhm
180 GeV< 1.5 TeVZm
180 GeV< 1 TeVam
0.005< 0.025X
0.1<Y 0.5tu
0.1<Y 1.5a
tu
Z′+h+a case
86
mZ' versus σtt
126 GeVhm
180 GeV< 1.5 TeVZm
180 GeV< 1 TeVam
0.005< 0.025X
0.1<Y 0.5tu
0.1<Y 1.5a
tu
Z′+h+a case
87
AFB versus σtt
125 GeVhm
180 GeV< 1 TeVHm
180 GeV< 1 TeVam
0< 0.025X
0<Y 0.5h
tu
0<Y 1.5a
tu
160 GeV< 300 GeVZm
0<Y 1.5H
tu
Z′+h+H+a case
88
AFB versus ACy
125 GeVhm
180 GeV< 1 TeVHm
180 GeV< 1 TeVam
0< 0.025X
0<Y 0.5h
tu
0<Y 1.5a
tu
160 GeV< 300 GeVZm
0<Y 1.5H
tu
Z′+h+H+a case
89
90
Tauonic B decays
(*)B D B
(b,c) coupling (b,u) coupling
b
q
q
cB
(*)D
W
b
q
q
cB
(*)D
h
b
u
BW
b
u
B h
• Both decays may be affected by the same new physics.
• SM
91
(*)B D
(*)B D
BABAR, 1205.5442 BABAR
SM
( )R D*( )R D
0.297 0.017
0.440 0.071 0.252 0.003
0.332 0.029
Fajfer,Kamenik,Nisandzic, Mescia
2.0 2.7
combined 3.4
92
*( ) and ( ) in 2HDM (type-II)R D R D
BABAR, 1205.5442
• Allowed regions:
tan / 0.44 0 fo ( ).02 r Hm R D
*tan / 0.75 0 for .04 ( )Hm R D
• Combination of and
excludes full parameter
space with 99.8% probability.
SM ( )R D *( )R D
b
q
q
ch
2
2
tan
H
bm mm
BABAR 2HDM
93
BR( )B
• Before 2012 summer
• After 2012 summer
Y.Horii, Tau 2012
94
BR( )B
Y.Horii, Tau 2012
95
Effective Hamiltonian
• Effective Hamiltonian
Charged Higgs
96
Wilson coefficients Type-II 2HDM
• only CR has sizable contribution.
97
2HDM
( )R D*( )R D
• Large CL with CR=0 could
explain data.
• Large CR is not capable of
achieving R(D(*)) without
sizable CL.
• Type-II 2HDM (or 2HDM III
with MFV) generate only CR.
→ could not explain R(D(*)).
Crivellin,Greub,Kokulu,1206.2634
98
2HDM with FCNCs From Minoru Tanaka’s slide at HPNP2013
99
B physics
• Charged Higgs contributes to B physics.
( ) ( ) ( )
( ) ( ) ( )
( ) ( ) ( )
( ) ( )
a a a
uu uc ut R
a a a
L L L cu cc ct R
a a a
tu tc tt R
Y Y Y u
u c t Y Y Y c h ia
Y Y Y t
( )
du dc dt R
L L L su sc st R
bu bc bt R
Y Y Y u
d s b Y Y Y c h
Y Y Y t
Neutral (pseudo)scalar
Charged Higgs sector
Top mass enhance Top AFB
strong relation *
CKM2( )u au
ij li ljY V Y
B (*)B D in one loopb s
100
Wilson coefficients
Flavor-independent
New terms in chiral U(1)΄ model
• diagonalization matrix gR
: the same as the type-II 2HDM.
: generate non-MFV interactions.
101
Constraints from B
SM
In our 2HDM
• The small tanβ is favored from the tree-level ρ parameter.
→ can be
( ) (0,0,1)ku
102
B In our 2HDM
• The BABAR discrepancies require large charged Higgs contribution
(*)B D and
• B→τν requires small (t,u) coupling,
- cannot achieve a large top AFB.
103
3HDM • 2 pairs of charged Higgs + 2 CP-odd pseudoscalars.
• parameter spaces are large → not difficult to find the allowed region
without fine-tuning.
• ex) degenerate case 1 2h h
m m
104
Conclusions
• We also constructed 2HDM and 3HDM, where gauged U(1) controls
FCNC.
- difficult to accommodate all with data within MFV models.
• chiral U(1)′ models provide non-MFV couplings.
• AFB and B→D(*)τν requires large new physics effects while B→τν
strongly suppress new physics effects.
• In 3HDM, it might be possible to achieve top AFB, BABAR discrepancies,
and B→τν.
• We proposed a new resoluton of the Higgs mediated FCNC problem in
2HDM with gauged U(1)H.
• easily realize “Natural Flavor Conservation” for proper U(1)H assignment.