Upload
others
View
4
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
CPV in 2HDMSatoru Inoue
(UMass Amherst, ACFI) based on SI, Ramsey-Musolf, Zhang, PRD89, 115023 (2014)
ACFI Workshop, May 1, 2015
Outline
•Intro to 2HDM - motivations and problems
•CP violation in 2HDM
•Collider signatures (briefly)
•EDM tests
•Summary
2HDMSelf-explanatory - 2 Higgs doublets:
More structure to Higgs potential and Yukawa:
� YLL̄�lR � YDQ̄�dR � YU Q̄(i⌧2)�⇤uR + h.c.
!X
i=1,2
⇥�YL,iL̄�ilR � YD,iQ̄�idR � YU,iQ̄(i⌧2)�
⇤i uR + h.c.
⇤
v =qv21 + v22 = 246 GeV, tan� = |v2|/|v1|
�i !✓
H+i
1p2
�vi +H0
i + iA0i
�◆, i = 1, 2,
V (�) ! V (�1,�2)
•We’ve seen the Higgs. Can the scalar sector be minimal?
•2 doublets exist in SUSY extensions, as well as in popular Peccei-Quinn models
•EW baryogenesis - new CPV source(s) and modified EWPT
2HDM - Motivations
2HDM - ScalarsScalar degrees of freedom after EWSB (subtract 3 Goldstones)
SM - 1 complex doublet:
2HDM - 2 complex doublets:
Start with
end up with
CP-odd A0 is crucial for CPV
4� 3 = 1
8� 3 = 5
�i !✓
H+i
1p2
�vi +H0
i + iA0i
�◆
H01 , H
02 , A
0, H±
Flavor-changing NCSM Yukawa interaction:
Mass matrix ∝ Yukawa:
-> Yukawa is diagonal in mass basis (no tree level FCNC)
General 2HDM:
No simple proportionality:
-> Tree level FCNC (BAD!)
�yij� ̄i j
Mij = vyij/p2
�(y1,ij�1 ̄i j + y2,ij�2 ̄i j)
Mij = (v1y1,ij + v2y2,ij)/p2
2HDM w/ Z2
Z2 symmetry - type II 2HDM example:
Each fermion type couples to only one doublet:
Mass matrix ∝ Yukawa as in SM -> No FCNC
Types I, X, Y are different manifestations of this idea
“Aligned” 2HDM is more general: Z2 models are special limits
�1 ! ��1, dR ! �dR, eR ! �eR
LY = �YUQL(i⌧2)�⇤2uR � YDQL�1dR � YLL�1eR + h.c.
2HDM scalar potentialAllowing soft breaking of Z2 (m12 term)
λ5 and m12 terms break CP.
Re-phasing invariant CP phase is
-> Both CPV terms need to be nonzero for CPV physics
V =�1
2|�1|4 +
�2
2|�2|4 + �3|�1|2|�2|2 + �4|�†
1�2|2+
+1
2
h
�5(�†1�2)
2 + h.c.i
� 1
2
n
m211|�1|2 +
h
m212(�
†1�2) + h.c.
i
+m222|�2|2
o
Im⇥�⇤5(m
212)
2⇤
Scalar mass matrixNeutral scalar mass matrix comes from the potential:
in basis.
λ5 generates mixing between CP-even and odd states
(we’ve rotated to a basis where both vevs are real)
M2 = v2
0
@�1c2� + ⌫s2� (�345 � ⌫)c�s� � 1
2 Im�5 s�(�345 � ⌫)c�s� �2s2� + ⌫c2� � 1
2 Im�5 c�� 1
2 Im�5 s� � 12 Im�5 c� �Re�5 + ⌫
1
A
(H01 , H
02 , A
0)
(�345 = �3 + �4 +Re�5, ⌫ ⌘ Rem212/2v
2s�c�)
Higgs mass basis3x3 rotation matrix takes us to mass basis (h1 is 125 GeV Higgs)
Explicitly,
α mixes CP-even states; survives CP-conserving limit
SM-like Yukawas in “aligned” limit (↵ = � � ⇡/2)
0
@h1
h2
h3
1
A = R
0
@H0
1
H02
A0
1
A
R =R23(↵c)R13(↵b)R12(↵+ ⇡/2)
=
0
@�s↵c↵b c↵c↵b s↵b
s↵s↵bs↵c � c↵c↵c �s↵c↵c � c↵s↵bs↵c c↵bs↵c
s↵s↵bc↵c + c↵s↵c s↵s↵c � c↵s↵bc↵c c↵bc↵c
1
A
Higgs mass basis3x3 rotation matrix takes us to mass basis (h1 is 125 GeV Higgs)
Explicitly,
αb and αc both parameterize CP mixing,
but αb is all you need for lightest Higgs
R =R23(↵c)R13(↵b)R12(↵+ ⇡/2)
=
0
@�s↵c↵b c↵c↵b s↵b
s↵s↵bs↵c � c↵c↵c �s↵c↵c � c↵s↵bs↵c c↵bs↵c
s↵s↵bc↵c + c↵s↵c s↵s↵c � c↵s↵bc↵c c↵bc↵c
1
A
0
@h1
h2
h3
1
A = R
0
@H0
1
H02
A0
1
A
Counting parameters
Subtlety: 10 input, 10 output, but there should only be 1 CPV
1 of 3 minimization conditions:
-> and are not independent
Once you specify {masses, α, β}, αc can be solved from αb
Potential parameters Phenomenological parameters
�1, �2, �3, �4, Re�5, Im�5 v, tan�, ⌫, ↵, ↵b, ↵c
m211, m
222, Rem
212, Imm2
12 mh1 , mh2 , mh3 , mH+
Im(m212) = v2 sin� cos�Im(�5)
Im(m212) Im(�5)
Yukawa in mass basisHiggs mass eigenstate has both S and P Yukawa couplings
Note: P Yukawa is not by itself CPV; the mixing is CPV
Couplings depend on 2HDM type
ct,i cb,i c̃t,i c̃b,iType I Ri2/ sin� Ri2/ sin� �Ri3 cot� Ri3 cot�Type II Ri2/ sin� Ri1/ cos� �Ri3 cot� �Ri3 tan�
f
hi
�mf
vhi
�cf,if̄f + c̃f,if̄ i�5f
�
Other new interactionsNew/modified cubic and quartic interactions: e.g.
Rescaling of gauge-Higgs coupling:
H+ H+
hi
aihi
✓2m2
W
vWµW
µ +m2
Z
vZµZ
µ
◆hi
W+ W+ai = Ri2s� +Ri1c�
Recap…1. We introduced a second Higgs doublet
2. We get 3 neutral (2 CP-even, 1 CP-odd) + charged Higgs
3. FCNC is a serious problem - assume softly broken Z2
4. One invariant CPV phase in the potential:
5. The phase mixes CP-even and odd scalars
6. Scalar mass eigenstates acquire both S and P Yukawas
Im⇥�⇤5(m
212)
2⇤
Collider signaturesProduction and decay rates of 125 GeV Higgs are modified
Rates are CP-even, so CPV effects enter as squares
�gg!h1
�SMgg!h1
=�h1!gg
�SMh!gg
⇡ (1.03ct � 0.06cb)2 + (1.57c̃t � 0.06c̃b)2
(1.03� 0.06)2
�h1!��
�SMh!��
⇡ (0.23ct � 1.04a)2 + (0.35c̃t)2
(0.23� 1.04)2
�V V!h1
�SMV V!h
=�V ⇤!V h1
�SMV ⇤!V h
=�h1!WW
�SMh!WW
=�h1!ZZ
�SMh!ZZ
⇡ a2
�h1!bb̄
�SMh!bb̄
=�h1!⌧+⌧�
�SMh!⌧+⌧�
⇡ cb2 + c̃b
2
LHC fit (NOT latest)
α often near alignment limit. αb not well bounded
…more on collider physics from other talks at this workshop
SM
-1.5-1.0-0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5-1.0
-0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
a
a b
Combined, tan b=0.6
SM
-1.5-1.0-0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5-1.0
-0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
a
Combined, tan b=1.0
SM
-1.5-1.0-0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5-1.0
-0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
a
Combined, tan b=5
�� WW ZZ V bb ⌧⌧ATLAS 1.6± 0.3 1.0± 0.3 1.5± 0.4 �0.4± 1.0 0.8± 0.7CMS 0.8± 0.3 0.8± 0.2 0.9± 0.2 1.3± 0.6 1.1± 0.4
Current EDM limits (90% CL)electron:
ACME experiment on ThO molecules (2013) - Ongoing
neutron:
(Grenoble 2006) - New experiments in development
mercury:
(Seattle 2009) - New limit soon
radium (this week!): (95% CL)
|dHg| < 2.6⇥ 10�29e cm
|dn| < 2.9⇥ 10�26e cm
|de| < 8.7⇥ 10�28e cm
|dRa| < 5.0⇥ 10�22e cm
EFT for EDMs2HDM generates d=6 CPV operators at EW scale:
EDM:
Chromo-EDM:
Weinberg:
- dimensionless Wilson coefficients
�f⇤2
mfef̄�µ⌫�5fFµ⌫
�̃q⇤2
mqgsq̄�µ⌫�5TaqGaµ⌫
CG̃
2⇤2gsf
abc✏µ⌫⇢�Gaµ�G
b�⌫ Gc
⇢�
�f , �̃q, CG̃
Yukawa suppression4-fermion operators (generated at tree level) are suppressed by 2 powers of small Yukawas for light fermions
Similarly, 1-loop EDMs for light fermions are small
2-loop diagramsLeading contributions to d=6 operators are 2-loop:
Abe et al. 2013 - most complete calculation of 2-loop EDM
hi
g
g g
t
f f f
g
t
g hi
f f f
γ
t,H+
W+, G+
γ,Z hi
QCD runningWe need Wilson coefficients at low scale.
Anomalous dimensions matrix for EDM, CEDM, Weinberg (Degrassi et al. 2012, Hisano et al. 2012, Dekens & de Vries 2013):
There is nontrivial mixing among the 3 types of operators
All 3 must be calculated and run down to QCD scale
↵S
4⇡
0
@8CF 0 0�8CF 16CF � 4N 0
0 2N N + 2nf + �0
1
A
Low-energy QCDNeutron and atomic EDMs are connected to the Wilson coefficients by hadronic/nuclear matrix elements, e.g.
with best value , etc.
Finding the matrix elements is a non-perturbative QCD problem
-> Large uncertainties
dn =�e⇣un�u + e⇣dn�d
�+
⇣e⇣̃un �̃u + e⇣̃dn�̃d
⌘+ �G
n CG̃
EDM CEDM Weinberg
⇣un = (4� 12)⇥ 10�9 8.2⇥ 10�9
Low-energy QCD
Matrix elements from appendix of Engel et al. 2013
Param Coe↵ Best Valuea Range Coe↵ Best Valueb,c Rangeb,c
✓̄ ↵n 0.002 (0.0005-0.004) �(0) 0.02 (0.005-0.04)
↵p �(1) 2⇥ 10�4 (0.5� 4)⇥ 10�4
ImCqG �uGn 4⇥ 10�4 (1� 10)⇥ 10�4 �+G
(0) -0.01 (-0.03) � 0.03
�dGn 8⇥ 10�4 (2� 18)⇥ 10�4 ��G
(1) -0.02 (-0.07) � (-0.01)
d̃q e⇢̃un �0.35 �(0.09� 0.9) !̃(0) 8.8 (-25)� 25
e⇢̃dn �0.7 �(0.2� 1.8) !̃(1) 17.7 9� 62
�̃q e⇣̃un 8.2⇥ 10�9 (2� 20)⇥ 10�9 ⌘̃(0) �2⇥ 10�7 (-6� 6)⇥ 10�7
e⇣̃dn 16.3⇥ 10�9 (4� 40)⇥ 10�9 ⌘̃(1) �4⇥ 10�7 �(2� 14)⇥ 10�7
ImCq� �u�n 0.4⇥ 10�3 (0.2� 0.6)⇥ 10�3 �+�
(0) � ��d�n �1.6⇥ 10�3 �(0.8� 2.4)⇥ 10�3 ���
(1) � �
dq ⇢un �0.35 (�0.17)� 0.52 !(0) � �⇢dn 1.4 0.7-2.1 !(1) � �
�q ⇣un 8.2⇥ 10�9 (4� 12)⇥ 10�9 ⌘(0) � �⇣dn �33⇥ 10�9 �(16� 50)⇥ 10�9 ⌘(1) � �
CG̃ �G̃n 2⇥ 10�7 (0.2� 40)⇥ 10�7 �G̃
(i) 2⇥ 10�6 (1� 10)⇥ 10�6
ImC'ud �'udn 3⇥ 10�8 (1� 10)⇥ 10�8 �'ud
(1) 1⇥ 10�6 (5� 150)⇥ 10�7
ImC(1,8)quqd �quqd
n 40⇥ 10�7 (10� 80)⇥ 10�7 �quqd(i) 2⇥ 10�6 (1� 10)⇥ 10�6
ImC(�)eq g(0)S 12.7 11-14.5
ImC(+)eq g(1)S 0.9 0.6-1.2
Table 6: Best values and reasonable ranges for hadronic matrix elements of CPV operators. Firstcolumn indicates the coe�cient of the operator in the CPV Lagrangian, while second column indicatesthe hadronic matrix element (sensitivity coe�cient) governing its manifestation to the neutron EDM.Third and fourth columns give the best values and reasonable ranges for these hadronic coe�cients.Firth to seventh columns give corresponding result for contributions to TVPV ⇡NN couplings. a Unitsare e fm for all but the ⇢̃qn and ⇢qn.
b We do not list entries for (�±�(i) , !(i), ⌘(i)) as they are suppressed by
↵/⇡ with respect to (�̃±�(i) , !̃(i), ⌘̃(i)) . c The !̃(0,1) are in units of fm�1.
74
Current EDM constraintsExclusion plots from electron, neutron, mercury
Mixing angle αb must be from eEDM
But there are cancellation regions (t- and W-loop, h and H)
. 10�2
15
FIG. 6: Current constraints from the electron EDM (left), neutron EDM (middle) and 199Hg EDM (right).First row: type-Imodel; Second row: type-II model. In all the plots, we have imposed the condition that ↵ = � � ⇡/2. The other parametersare chosen to be mH+ = 420 GeV, mh2 = 400 GeV, mh3 = 450 GeV and ⌫ = 1.0. Again, ↵c is a dependent parametersolved using Eq. (43). The purple region is theoretically not accessible because Eq. (43) does not have a real solution. Forthe neutron and Mercury EDMs, theoretical uncertainties from hadronic and nuclear matrix elements are reflected by di↵erentcurves. For the neutron EDM, we vary one of the most important hadronic matrix elements: ⇣̃d
n = 1.63 ⇥ 10�8 (solid, centralvalue), 0.4 ⇥ 10�8 (dot-dashed) and 4.0 ⇥ 10�8 (dashed). For the Mercury EDM, we take di↵erent sets of nuclear matrixelement values: a0 = 0.01, a1 = 0.02 (solid, central value). a0 = 0.01, a1 = 0.09 (long-dashed), a0 = 0.01, a1 = �0.03 (dashed),a0 = 0.005, a1 = 0.02 (dotted) and a0 = 0.05, a1 = 0.02 (dot-dashed).
H�� contributions. As we will show below, these cancellation regions can be closed when the neutron and mercuryEDM limits are taken into account. A generic feature is that for growing tan�, the EDM constraints become weakerin the type-I 2HDM, but become stronger in the type-II 2HDM, which can be understood from the tan� dependencesin Eq. (27).
C. Ine↵ectiveness of a Light-Higgs-Only Theory
From the discussion of electron EDM, we have learned that the heavy Higgs contributions via H�� and H±W⌥�diagrams make non-negligible contributions to the total EDM. They can even be dominant at large tan� & 20. Thisexample illustrates the ine↵ectiveness of the “light Higgs e↵ective theory”, often performed as model independentanalyses, which include the CPV e↵ects only from the lightest Higgs (mass 125 GeV). The key point is that a CPviolating Higgs sector usually contains more than one scalar at the electroweak scale, and all of them have CPVinteractions in general. The total contribution therefore includes CPV e↵ects from not only CP even-odd neutralscalar mixings, but also the CPV neutral-charged scalar interactions from the Higgs potential. This is necessarilymodel dependent. In this work, we have included the complete contributions to EDMs in the flavor-conserving (type-Iand type-II) 2HDMs .
Current EDM constraintsExclusion plots from electron, neutron, mercury
Different lines for n & Hg: possible values of matrix elements
~order of magnitude uncertainty in low energy QCD
15
FIG. 6: Current constraints from the electron EDM (left), neutron EDM (middle) and 199Hg EDM (right).First row: type-Imodel; Second row: type-II model. In all the plots, we have imposed the condition that ↵ = � � ⇡/2. The other parametersare chosen to be mH+ = 420 GeV, mh2 = 400 GeV, mh3 = 450 GeV and ⌫ = 1.0. Again, ↵c is a dependent parametersolved using Eq. (43). The purple region is theoretically not accessible because Eq. (43) does not have a real solution. Forthe neutron and Mercury EDMs, theoretical uncertainties from hadronic and nuclear matrix elements are reflected by di↵erentcurves. For the neutron EDM, we vary one of the most important hadronic matrix elements: ⇣̃d
n = 1.63 ⇥ 10�8 (solid, centralvalue), 0.4 ⇥ 10�8 (dot-dashed) and 4.0 ⇥ 10�8 (dashed). For the Mercury EDM, we take di↵erent sets of nuclear matrixelement values: a0 = 0.01, a1 = 0.02 (solid, central value). a0 = 0.01, a1 = 0.09 (long-dashed), a0 = 0.01, a1 = �0.03 (dashed),a0 = 0.005, a1 = 0.02 (dotted) and a0 = 0.05, a1 = 0.02 (dot-dashed).
H�� contributions. As we will show below, these cancellation regions can be closed when the neutron and mercuryEDM limits are taken into account. A generic feature is that for growing tan�, the EDM constraints become weakerin the type-I 2HDM, but become stronger in the type-II 2HDM, which can be understood from the tan� dependencesin Eq. (27).
C. Ine↵ectiveness of a Light-Higgs-Only Theory
From the discussion of electron EDM, we have learned that the heavy Higgs contributions via H�� and H±W⌥�diagrams make non-negligible contributions to the total EDM. They can even be dominant at large tan� & 20. Thisexample illustrates the ine↵ectiveness of the “light Higgs e↵ective theory”, often performed as model independentanalyses, which include the CPV e↵ects only from the lightest Higgs (mass 125 GeV). The key point is that a CPviolating Higgs sector usually contains more than one scalar at the electroweak scale, and all of them have CPVinteractions in general. The total contribution therefore includes CPV e↵ects from not only CP even-odd neutralscalar mixings, but also the CPV neutral-charged scalar interactions from the Higgs potential. This is necessarilymodel dependent. In this work, we have included the complete contributions to EDMs in the flavor-conserving (type-Iand type-II) 2HDMs .
Future EDM constraintselectron, neutron, mercury, radium
middle: 10x improvement in each + radium
right: 100x improvement in nEDM
19
FIG. 10: Current and prospective future constraints from electron EDM (blue), neutron EDM (green), Mercury EDM (red) andRadium (yellow) in flavor conserving 2HDMs. First row: type-I model; Second row: type-II model. The model parametersused are the same as Fig. 6. Central values of the hadronic and nuclear matrix elements are used. Left: Combined currentlimits. Middle: combined future limits if the Mercury and neutron EDMs are both improved by one order of magnitude. Alsoshown are the future constraints if electron EDM is improved by another order of magnitude (in blue dashed curves). Right:combined future limits if the Mercury and neutron EDMs are improved by one and two orders of magnitude, respectively.
V. SUMMARY
The nature of CPV beyond the Standard Model remains a question at the forefront of fundamental physics. Thecosmic matter-antimatter asymmetry strongly implies that such BSM CPV should exist, but the associated mass scaleand dynamics remain unknown. With the observation of the 125 GeV boson at the LHC, it is particularly interestingto ask whether the scalar sector of the larger framework containing the SM admits new sources of CPV and, if so,whether their e↵ects are experimentally accessible. In this study, we have explored this question in the context offlavor conserving 2HDMs, allowing for a new source of CPV in the scalar potential. The present constraints on thistype of CPV are generally weaker than for scenarios where the BSM directly enters the couplings to SM fermions, asthe associated contributions to electric dipole moments generically first appear at two-loop order. In this context, wefind that present EDM limits are complementary to scalar sector constraints from LHC results, as the latter generallyconstrain the CP-conserving sector of the type-I and type-II models, whereas EDMs probe the CPV parameter space.Moreover, despite the additional loop suppression, the present ThO, 199Hg, and neutron EDM search constraints arequite severe, limiting | sin↵b| to ⇠ 0.01 or smaller for most values of tan�.
The next generation of EDM searches could extend the present reach by an order of magnitude or more and couldallow one to distinguish between the type-I and type-II models. In particular, a non-zero neutron or diamagneticatom EDM result would likely point to the type-II model, as even the present ThO limit precludes an observablee↵ect in the type-I scenario given the planned sensitivity of the neutron and diamagnetic atom searches. Furthermore,
Summary
• 2HDM is a well-motivated framework to explore CPV Higgs
• New CPV source results in CP mixing of scalars
• LHC results mainly constrain CP-conserving angle α
• EDMs constrain CP mixing angle αb to ~10-2
• Electron EDMs currently put tightest bounds, but others can become competitive in the foreseeable future
• …but hadronic uncertainties are troublesome
Precision constraintsImportant phenomenological constraints on heavy Higgs:
1. Oblique parameter
T parameter forces mass splitting between charged and
neutral heavy Higgses to be small
2. Flavor
Charged Higgs must be heavy, from
Type-II can’t explain
B ! Xs�
B̄ ! D(⇤)⌧�⌫̄⌧
QCD running
Values of EDMs and CEDMs do change due to running
Weinberg term was not important for our parameter space
déu
du
dd
déd
CGé
1 2 5 10 20 5010-12
10-10
10-8
10-6
10-4
tanb
»Wilsoncoefficients»
UV scale
déu
du
dd
déd
CGé
1 2 5 10 20 5010-12
10-10
10-8
10-6
10-4
tanb
»Wilsoncoefficients»
IR scale
Anatomy of eEDM
2 cancellation regions:
tan β ~ 1 t-loop and W-loop cancellation in hγγ
large tan β cancellation between hγγ and Hγγ
Total
gH
WHgh
ZH
Zh
1 2 5 10 20 5010-30
10-29
10-28
10-27
10-26
tanb
d eHecm
L
Anatomy of eEDM
Not as intricate as eEDM
No cancellation regions (depends on choice of M.E.s)
Total EDM
CEDM
3G
1 2 5 10 20 5010-30
10-29
10-28
10-27
10-26
10-25
tanb
d nHecm
L
Charged Higgs and Goldstones
The charged sector divides up into the physical charged Higgs H+
and charged Goldstone G+:
H+ = � sin�H+1 + cos�H+
2 , G+ = cos�H+1 + sin�H+
2
Charged Higgs mass is m2H+ = 1
2 (2⌫ � �4 � Re�5) v2
There are also neutral Goldstones, from CP-odd sector:
A0 = � sin�A01 + cos�A0
2, G 0 = cos�A01 + sin�A0
2
Physical pseudoscalar A0 can mix with scalar Higgs H01,2
Fit to LHC Higgs data (type-I)
Fit to Higgs decay signal strengths (⇠ 25 fb�1)�� WW ZZ Vbb ⌧⌧
ATLAS 1.6± 0.3 1.0± 0.3 1.5± 0.4 �0.4± 1.0 0.8± 0.7CMS 0.8± 0.3 0.8± 0.2 0.9± 0.2 1.3± 0.6 1.1± 0.4
SM
-1.5-1.0-0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5-1.0
-0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
a
a b
Combined, tan b=0.6
SM
-1.5-1.0-0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5-1.0
-0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
a
Combined, tan b=1
SM
-1.5-1.0-0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5-1.0
-0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
a
Combined, tan b=5
↵ mostly constrained near SM value (� � ⇡/2)↵b not well constrained
EDM current bounds (type-I)
Exclusion plots on tan� � sin↵b plane:electron, neutron, Hg(magenta - theoretically inaccessible)
eEDM places strongest constraints: sin↵b . .01 for small tan�nEDM does not constrain this model