2HDM and the new LHC data

Rui Santos

11 March 2013

Rencontres de Moriond QCD and High Energy Interactions

ISEL & CFTC (Lisbon)

A. Barroso, P.M. Ferreira, H. Haber, I. Ivanov, M. Sher and J.P. Silva

Why?

2�HDMSM � LikeLimit�

?

�1.0 �0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0

5

10

15

20

25

30

sinΑ

tanΒ

Best set of variables to present the results –

in this plane there is a very clear SM-like limit

If it is cornered into the SM-like limit within precision it is

as good as excluded

SM-like limit = limit where Yukawa and gauge coupling to lightest scalar are the SM ones

The softly broken Z2 symmetric 2HDM potential

7 free parameters + MW: €

φ1 =12

0v1

⎛

⎝ ⎜ ⎞

⎠ ⎟ ; φ2 =

12

0v2

⎛

⎝ ⎜

⎞

⎠ ⎟

ratio of vacuum expectation values

€

tanβ =v2v1

2HDM Lagrangian

scalars-gauge bosons couplings

Yukawa couplings

€

sinα

€

tanβ

€

gSM sin(β −α)

€

gSMf (α)g(β)

€

hW +W −

€

h f f

we use as independent parameters IV = II’ = X = Leptonic III = I’ = Y = Flipped

Extending the Z2 symmetry to the fermions – 4 independent

Yukawa Lagrangians

The Constraints - Experimental

Limits where the 2HDMs contributions

cancel

LEP

B factories

H-

Type II Best available bound on the charged Higgs mass

Experimental

Any

Experimental

€

pp → t t →b bW +H −

€

mt

tanβ€

mb tanβ

€

BR(H − →τν )Corrected for

Theoretical

No soft breaking term = strong constraint on tanβ

B. Gorczyca, M. Krawczyk, arXiv: 1112.5086 Z2 symmetric potential

If a 2HDM has only one “normal” minimum then this is the absolute minimum – all other SP if they exist are saddle points

Theoretical

But (at most) two “normal” minima possible – panic vacuum can occur

How to avoid the panic vacuum?

Global minimum – ALSO NORMAL

Local minimum –”NORMAL”

Not possible

Local minimum – “NORMAL”

Panic

€

v ≠ 246GeV

A.Barroso, P.Ferreira, RS, PLB603 (2004)

I.Ivanov, PRD75(2007)

A.Barroso, P.Ferreira, I.Ivanov, RS, J.P.Silva, arXiv:1211.6119

I.Ivanov, PRD75(2007)

•  Set mh = 125 GeV.

•  Generate random values for potential’s parameters such that

•  Impose all experimental and theoretical constraints previously described.

•  Calculate all branching ratios and production rates at the LHC.

•  Impose averaged ATLAS and CMS results: Arbey, Battaglia, Djouadi, Mahmoudi, 1211.4004.

€

µXX =σ2HDM (pp→h) × BR2HDM (h→XX)σSM (pp→h) × BRSM (h→XX)

LHC data

Green – Allowed (1σ)

SM-like limit sin(β - α) = 1

sin(β + α) = 1

Comparison between type I and type II

Greater dispersion of points in Model I due to the difference in the μZZ expression

Blue – Allowed (2σ)

The green points all have a charged Higgs mass below 125 GeV

Model II excluded at 1σ and two regions are still allowed at 2σ (in blue) : -  The region just below the SM-like limit

-  The region just below the limit sin(β+α) = 1

We then took all masses except mh=125 GeV to be above 600 GeV.

Model I 1σ points killed.

At 2σ (in blue) the blue regions shrink moving closer to the SM-like limit.

After

Before

After

Correlation between μZZ and μγγ makes the one sigma allowed region much larger for ATLAS.

Updated plots for Model II with last week data

Green 1σ Blue 2σ

CMS ATLAS

Large positive values of sinα are definitely excluded in all 2HDMs

€

µXXVBF /RXX

Degenerate states?

P.M. Ferreira, H. E. Haber, R. S., J. P. Silva, 1211.3131 (to appear in PRD)

A. Drozd, B. Grzadkowski, J.F. Gunion and Y. Jiang, 1211.3580

Choices for the degenerate pairs: (h, A), (h, H), or (H,A)

Degenerate Higgs mass of 125 GeV

One of the neutral Higgs boson has SM-like couplings (±20%) to W and Z gauge bosons

Impose 2HDM constraints

Perform scan focusing on 0.5 <̰ tan β < ̰ 2.0

Is it possible that the excess in the h -> γγ is due to two 2HDMs degenerate states?

Is it possible that the excess in the h -> γγ is due to two 2HDMs degenerate states? Yes, but only for small tanβ.

If the results on h -> ττ and h -> ϒϒ are confirmed all the degenerate scenarios will soon be excluded

Model I (h, A) Model II (h, H)

Conclusions

In the CP-conserving 2HDM the lightest CP-even 125 GeV is being cornered into the SM-like limit although the region near sin(β+α)=1 is still allowed in type II.

When all masses but the one from the lightest CP-even scalar are above 600 GeV, the two models are even closer to the SM-like limit. However the sin(β+α)=1 region still survives in Type II.

Degenerate sates could enhance h->γγ but h-> ττ is also large.

Are we nearly there yet? No, there are still no constraints on the masses.

Same is true for the other masses except for the bound on the charged Higgs mass in type II.

100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40Type I

mH!

tan

100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40Type II

mA

tan

Red points β-α = π/2 + ε

Blue points 2σ

Again no special trend is observed for type II. In type I values of positive M2 seem to be preferred. We saw that the exact Z2 type I was

excluded at 2σ. Now we see that negative M2 is also excluded.

This is related to the h -> γγ constraint.

Red points β-α = π/2 + ε

Blue points before LHC

Green points 2σ

1 0.5 0 0.5 11

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

5.5

6

sin

tan

Model II Panic Effect

Panic points – the ones where two normal minima coexist and where the “bad” minimum is below the

“good” one.

In red we present the panic points. Excluding these points

goes unnoticed in a scan.

In type I the LHC already allow us to exclude these points at 2σ.

Experimental - not considered

SM – 3.4σ deviation

Type II Type X,Y

Type I

For most of the parameter space

2HDM=SM

1 0.5 0 0.5 11

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

5.5

6

sin

tan

Model II Exact Z2 Symmetry

What about the exact Z2 symmetric scenario? A clear non-MSSM version of 2HDM

Type I is killed at 2σ

B. Gorczyca, M. Krawczyk

Type II is still allowed at 2σ

Maximum of Rγγ below 1

P. Posch PLB696

(2011) 447.

At 1σ everything is excluded.

At 2σ (in blue) two regions are still allowed:

-  The region just below the SM-like limit

-  The region just below the limit sin(β+α) = 1

SM-like limit sin(β - α) = 1

sin(β + α) = 1

Same plot now as a function of sin(β-α)

At 2σ (in yellow) and 3σ (in green)

Note that if tanβ >> 1 sin(β-α) ≅ sin(β+α) ≅ cos(α)

€

µγγ =cosαsinβ

⎛

⎝ ⎜

⎞

⎠ ⎟

2BR2HDM (h→γγ )BRSM (h→γγ )

The simplest example is to take model type I and consider that the production occurs only via gluon-gluon fusion

€

µZZ ≈ sin2(β −α)

€

RZZ → 1 SM - like limit

BR now depends on sinα, tanβ, charged Higgs mass and its coupling to neutral scalars.

€

µγγ =σ2HDM (pp→h) × BR2HDM (h→γγ )σSM (pp→h) × BRSM (h→γγ )

In type II even gluon fusion has a different factor in the top and in the bottom loop – with different QCD corrections.

Higlu was used for gg and bb@nnlo for bb.

€

if h→ bb dominates

μZZ in ATLAS has a larger central values – Model I is very sensitive to (large) values of μZZ

Updated plots with last week data

Green 1σ Blue 2σ

CMS ATLAS

€

µXX =σ2HDM (pp→h) × BR2HDM (h→XX)σSM (pp→h) × BRSM (h→XX)

The value for each individual production process is

multiplied by the corresponding 2HDM factor.

What do we compare to data?

J. Baglio and A. Djouadi, JHEP 03 (2011) 055

2HDM branching ratios are calculated using our own code.

SM BR are calculated with the same code in the SM-like

limit.