Prepared for submission to JHEP PSI-PR-19-02, ZU-TH 10/19
b→ s`+`− Transitions in
Two-Higgs-Doublet Models
Andreas Crivellin,a,b Dario Mullera,b Christoph Wiegandc
aPaul Scherrer Institut, CH–5232 Villigen PSI, Switzerland
bPhysik-Institut, Universitat Zurich, Winterthurerstrasse 190, CH-8057 Zurich, Switzer-
land
cAlbert Einstein Center for Fundamental Physics, Institute for Theoretical Physics, Uni-
versity of Bern, CH-3012 Bern, Switzerland
E-mail: [email protected], [email protected],
Abstract: In this article we study b→ sµ+µ− transitions and possible correlations
with the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon (aµ) within two-Higgs-doublet
models with generic Yukawa couplings, including the possibility of right-handed neu-
trinos. We perform the matching on the relevant effective Hamiltonian and calculate
the leading one-loop effects for b → s``(′), b → sγ, ∆B = ∆S = 2, b → sνν and
` → `′γ transitions in a general Rξ gauge. Concerning the phenomenology, we find
that an explanation of the hints for new physics in b→ sµ+µ− data is possible once
right-handed neutrinos are included. If lepton flavour violating couplings are allowed,
one can account for the discrepancy in aµ as well. However, only a small portion
of parameter space gives a good fit to b → sµ+µ− data and the current bound on
h→ τµ requires the mixing between the neutral Higgses to be very small if one aims
at an explanation of aµ.
arX
iv:1
903.
1044
0v1
[he
p-ph
] 2
5 M
ar 2
019
Contents
1 Introduction 2
2 Model and Conventions 4
3 b→ s`+`− Processes 6
3.1 Tree-Level 7
3.2 b→ sγ 8
3.3 One-Loop Effects in b→ s``(′) 10
3.3.1 Self-Energies and Renormalization 11
3.3.2 Z and γ Penguins 14
3.3.3 Higgs Penguin and W -Higgs Boxes 15
3.3.4 H± Boxes 17
3.4 Processes and Observables 18
4 b→ sνν, Bs − Bs Mixing, aµ and `→ `′γ 20
4.1 b→ sνν 20
4.2 Bs − Bs Mixing 21
4.3 `→ `′γ and a` 23
4.4 h→ τµ 24
5 Phenomenological Analysis 24
6 Conclusions 26
– 1 –
1 Introduction
Two-Higgs-doublet models (2HDMs) [1] have been under intensive investigation for a
long time (see e.g. Ref. [2] for an introduction or Ref. [3] for a review article). There
are several reasons for this intense interest: First of all, 2HDMs are extremely simple
extensions of the Standard Model (SM) obtained by adding a single scalar SU(2)L
doublet to the SM particle content. Furthermore, motivation for 2HDMs comes from
axion models [4] because a possible CP violating QCD-theta term can be absorbed [5]
if the Lagrangian possesses a global U(1) symmetry. This is only possible if the SM is
extended by at least one Higgs doublet. Also the baryon asymmetry of the universe
can be generated within 2HDMs while the amount of CP violation in the SM alone is
too small to achieve this [6]. Finally, the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model
predicts the presence of a second Higgs doublet [7], due to the holomorphicity of the
superpotential. The effective theory obtained after integrating out the superpartners
of the SM particles (sfermions, gaugions and higgsinos) is a 2HDM (with the addition
of higher dimensional operators involving two Higgs doublets [8]).
2HDMs possess three additional physical scalars with respect to the single Higgs
boson of the SM; a neutral CP-even H0, a CP-odd scalar A0 and a charged scalar
H± (under the assumption of CP conservation). These new particles are not only
interesting with respect to direct searches at the LHC (see e.g. Ref. [9, 10, 11, 12,
13, 14, 15, 16, 17] for recent reports). In addition, they give rise to important effects
in low-energy precision flavour observables, providing a complementary window to
physics beyond the SM. In this respect, decays of neutral mesons to charged lepton
pairs (e.g. Bs(d) → µ+µ−, D → µ+µ− and KL → µ+µ−) are very interesting because
they are especially sensitive to scalar operators which possess enhanced matrix ele-
ments with respect to vector operators. For this reason, Bs → µ+µ− (which can be
calculated more precisely than D → µ+µ− or KL → µ+µ− and has a larger branching
fraction than Bd → µ+µ−) has been studied frequently in the context of 2HDMs.
However, the focus was on models with natural flavour conservation (i.e. with a
Z2 symmetry in the Yukawa sector) [18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24], alignment [25, 26]
or generic flavour violation in the down sector [27, 28, 29, 30]. In all these setups,
the dominant effect originates from scalar operators. The current measurement of
Bs → µ+µ− [31] (by ATLAS, CMS and LHCb [32, 33, 34, 35])
Br[Bs → µ+µ−]EXP = (3.1± 0.7)× 10−9 , (1.1)
– 2 –
agrees quite well with the SM prediction [36, 37]
Br[Bs → µ+µ−]SM = (3.57± 0.17)× 10−9 . (1.2)
This puts stringent constraints on 2HDMs with scalar operators contributing to
b → sµ+µ− transitions. Furthermore, LHCb found significant hints for new physics
in b→ s`+`− data, showing a coherent pattern of deviations from the SM predictions
with a significance of more than 4–5σ [38, 39]1. However, in order to explain these
anomalies, vector operators, in particular O9, are necessary while an explanation of
the anomalies with scalar operators alone is not possible.
Within 2HDMs, vector operators at the dimension 6 level can only be generated
via loop effects. However, contributions to other loop-induced processes such as b→sγ (for which the SM prediction [47] is in very well agreement with the experimental
average [31]), b→ sνν, (where the experimental upper bound [48, 49] approaches the
SM prediction [50]) or Bs − Bs mixing [31] unavoidably arise and their constraints
must be taken into account. Therefore, an explanation of b → s`+`− data in the
context of multi-Higgs-doublet models might require the introduction of right-handed
neutrinos [51, 52]. Furthermore, any model with sizeable couplings to muons could
potentially address the long-lasting discrepancy between experiment [53] and the SM
prediction2
∆aµ = aEXPµ − aSM
µ ∼ 270(85)× 10−11 , (1.3)
of 3–4 σ. For definiteness, and in order to be conservative, we choose a value at the
lower end. In the case of lepton flavour violation, aµ is intrinsically correlated to
lepton flavour violating decays such as τ → µγ whose bound must be taken into
account. Furthermore, in 2HDMs also h → τµ gives relevant bounds due to the
mixing between the neutral CP-even Higgses.
In this article we want to investigate b→ sµ+µ− transitions within 2HDMs in the
light of the corresponding hints for new physics and its correlations with other b→ s
transitions and aµ. For this purpose, we will consider a 2HDM with a CP conserving
Higgs potential but with generic sources of flavour violation and the possible addition
of right-handed neutrinos. After establishing our conventions in Sec. 2, we will use
1Including only R(K) and R(K∗), the significance is at the 4σ level [40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46].2The SM prediction of aµ is currently re-evaluated in a community-wide effort prompted by
upcoming improved measurements at Fermilab [54] and J-PARC [55] (see also [56]). With elec-
troweak [57, 58, 59] and QED [60] contributions under good control, recent advances in the evalua-
tion of the hadronic part include: hadronic vacuum polarization [61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67], hadronic
light-by-light scattering [68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73], and higher-order hadronic corrections [74, 75].
– 3 –
Type cdy cuy c`y cdε cuε c`ε
I cot (β) cot (β) cot (β) − sin (β) − sin (β) − sin (β)
II − tan (β) cot (β) − tan (β) cos (β) − sin (β) cos (β)
X cot (β) cot (β) − tan (β) − sin (β) − sin (β) cos (β)
Y − tan (β) cot (β) cot (β) cos (β) − sin (β) − sin (β)
Table 1. Relations between the parameters εFij of the Higgs basis and the new parameters
εFij in one of the other four bases with εFij = cFy yfi δij+ε
Fij/c
Fε . The εFij break the Z2 symmetry
of the four 2HDMs with natural flavour conservation and induce flavour changing neutral
currents.
this setup to calculate the tree-level matching on the effective Hamiltonian governing
b → s transitions and the leading one-loop effects in Sec. 3. Section 4 is devoted to
the calculation of the matching on the ∆B = ∆S = 2 Hamiltonian, to aµ, h → τµ
and b→ sνν. In our phenomenological analysis in Sec. 5 we will address the question
if the hints for new physics in b→ sµ+µ− transitions can be explained within 2HDMs
without violating the bounds from other processes, before we conclude in Sec. 6.
2 Model and Conventions
As outlined in the introduction, we supplement the SM by a second scalar doublet
with the same hypercharge as the first one. For the calculation of flavour observables
it is convenient to work in the Higgs basis [76, 77, 78] where only one Higgs doublet
acquires a vacuum expectation value and therefore the generation of the fermions and
gauge boson masses is separated from the couplings to fermions. Using the notation
of Ref. [79], we have
Φ1 =
G+
v +H01 + iG0
√2
, Φ2 =
H+
H02 + iA0
√2
, (2.1)
with v ' 246 GeV. G+ and G0 are the Goldstone bosons and A0 denotes the physical
CP-odd scalar, assuming that CP is conserved in the Higgs potential. The CP-even
mass eigenstates are
h0 = H01 sin(β − α) +H0
2 cos(β − α) ,
H0 = H01 cos(β − α)−H0
2 sin(β − α) ,(2.2)
– 4 –
where we defined the mixing angle as β − α for easier comparison with the well-
known type-I/II/X/Y 2HDMs. In the following, we will abbreviate sβα ≡ sin(β−α)
and cβα ≡ cos(β − α) and assume that h0 is the SM-like Higgs boson with a mass of
around 125 GeV. We require cβα to be small (at most O(0.1)) such that its properties
are compatible with experiments [80, 81]. With these conventions the couplings of
the scalar bosons to fermions are given by
LY = −∑
F=u,d,`,ν
[Ff
( mFf
vδficβα−
(εFfiPR + εF∗if PL
)sβα
)FiH
0
+ Ff
( mFf
vδfisβα+
(εFfiPR + εF∗if PL
)cβα
)Fih
0
+ iηF Ff(εFfiPR − εF∗if PL
)FiA
0
]−√
2[uf(Vfjε
djiPR−εu∗jfVjiPL
)diH
++νf(U∗jfε
`jiPR−εν∗jfU∗ijPL
)`iH
++h.c.].
(2.3)
V (U) is the CKM (PMNS) matrix, mFi is the mass of the fermion F = {u, d, `, ν}
with flavour index i and
− ηu = −ην = η` = ηd = 1 . (2.4)
We also allowed for the presence of right-handed neutrinos N with a Majorana mass
term −1/2MN cN . This manifests itself in Eq. (2.3) through the terms mν and
εν which otherwise would be absent. Note that mν corresponds to the Dirac mass
term of the neutrinos which is related to the physical neutrino mass via the see-saw
mechanism. Assuming a mass scale of the right-handed neutrinos at the TeV scale
requires mν to be at most around 10 MeV. Thus we can safely neglect its effect on
the Higgs couplings to fermions and focus on εν which is decoupled from the neutrino
masses and thus unconstrained.
We do not need to discuss the Higgs potential in detail since, in addition to
the physical masses and mixing angles, only the two Higgs self-couplings enter in
our calculation in the case of CP conservation. We will simply parametrize these
couplings as λh0H+H− and λH0H+H− and refer the interested reader to Eq. (6.2) in
the appendix for the explicit expressions.
The Higgs basis defined in Eq. (2.3) is useful for calculations and phenomenol-
ogy since fermion masses (generated from electroweak symmetry breaking) and the
additional free couplings are decoupled. However, this basis is not motivated by a
Z2 symmetry which is capable to provide protection against flavour changing neutral
– 5 –
b
s
H0, h0, A0
`
`′
Figure 1. Tree-level effects in b → s`+`− transitions induced by the flavour-changing
couplings εd23,32. These diagrams contribute to the Wilson coefficients of scalar operator
C(′)IJS,P as given in Eq. (3.5).
currents. However, the parameters εFij in the Higgs basis can be related to the ones
within the four 2HDMs with natural flavour conservation (type-I/II/X/Y) as
εFij = cFymFi
vδij +
εFijcFε
. (2.5)
The εFij are the flavour changing entries in the new basis, i.e. the corrections to
natural flavour conservation. The coefficients cfy and cFε are given in Table 1. In
this basis, the terms εFij break the Z2 symmetry and lead to deviations from natural
flavour conservation.
3 b→ s`+`− Processes
We define the effective Hamiltonian giving direct effects in b→ s``(′) and b→ sγ
transitions as
H`I`Jeff = −4GF√
2VtbV
∗ts
(∑K=7,8
C(′)K O
(′)K +
∑K=9,10,S,P
C(′)IJK O
(′)IJK
), (3.1)
with the operators
O7 =e
16π2mbsσ
µνPRbFµν , O8 =gs
16π2mbsσ
µνT aPRbGaµν ,
OIJ9 =
e2
16π2sγµPLb¯Iγ
µ`J , OIJ10 =
e2
16π2sγµPLb¯Iγ
µγ5`J ,
OIJS =
e2
16π2sPLb¯I`J , OIJ
P =e2
16π2sPLb¯Iγ5`J ,
(3.2)
plus their primed counterparts which are obtained by exchanging PL and PR. We
did not include tensor operators here since they are not generated at the dim-6 level.
– 6 –
In addition, we include four-quark operators which are generated by charged
Higgs exchange (analogous to O2 in the SM)
Hsccbeff = −4GF√
2VtbV
∗ts
5∑K={LL,LR,RL,RR}
CKOK , (3.3)
which can contribute to b → s`+`− processes at the loop-level. The operators are
defined as
OAB = (sPAc) (cPBb) , (3.4)
with A,B = L,R and the colour indices are contracted within the bilinears.
3.1 Tree-Level
At tree-level, in the approximation of vanishing external momenta, we only get con-
tributions to semi-leptonic scalar and pseudoscalar operators from neutral Higgs
exchange (see Fig. 1). They are given by
CIJS =
16π2
g42s
2WVtbV
∗ts
m2W
m2H±
εd∗32
(2sβαcβα
m`IδIJv
(yh − yH) + LIJ+
),
CIJP =
16π2
g42s
2WVtbV
∗ts
m2W
m2H±
εd∗32
((c2βαyh + s2
βαyH)(ε`IJ − ε`∗JI
)+ yA
(ε`IJ + ε`∗JI
)),
C ′IJS =16π2
g42s
2WVtbV
∗ts
m2W
m2H±
εd23
(2sβαcβα
m`IδIJv
(yh − yH
)− LIJ−
),
C ′IJP =16π2
g42s
2WVtbV
∗ts
m2W
m2H±
εd23
((c2βαyh + s2
βαyH)(ε`IJ − ε`∗JI
)− yA
(ε`IJ + ε`∗JI
)),
(3.5)
where we defined
LIJ± = yA(ε`IJ − ε`∗JI
)±(c2βαyh + s2
βαyH) (ε`IJ + ε`∗JI
), (3.6)
and
yA =m2H±
m2A0
, yh =m2H±
m2h0
, yH =m2H±
m2H0
. (3.7)
In addition, we define for future convenience the squared mass ratios for heavy Ma-
jorana neutrino, up-type quark and the W boson with respect to the charged Higgs
xi =m2Ni
m2H±
, zi =m2ui
m2H±
, y =m2W
m2H±
. (3.8)
– 7 –
b sH−
c, tc, t
γ
b sc, t
H−H−
γ
b sH−
c, tc, t
g
Figure 2. Feynman diagrams showing the 2HDM contribution to C(′)7 and C
(′)8 given in
Eq. (3.10), Eq. (3.11) and Eq. (3.12).
We derived Eq. (3.5) by working at leading order in the external momenta (which
we will also do for all following results). This corresponds to an expansion in mb,s
and m` over the Higgs masses which we assume to be at least at the EW scale. For
consistency, one has to take into account all masses mb,s and m` in this expansion,
also the ones entering via Higgs couplings3. Equation (3.5) contains terms linear in
light fermion masses which therefore correspond to dim-7 contributions. However,
since from the expansion in the external momenta no dim-7 terms arise (the next
non-vanishing order is dim-8), it is consistent to keep these terms even though in the
loop effects, to be studied later, we only consider dim-6 terms.
The Wilson coefficients of the four-quark operators in Eq. (3.3) due to tree-level
charged Higgs exchange read
CLL =4εd∗k2V
∗2kε
u∗n2Vn3m
2W
g22VtbV
∗tsm
2H±
,
CLR = −4V ∗k2εuk2ε
u∗n2Vn3m
2W
g22VtbV
∗tsm
2H±
,
CRL = −4εd∗k2V∗
2kV2nεdn3m
2W
g22VtbV
∗tsm
2H±
,
CRR =4V ∗k2ε
uk2V2nε
dn3m
2W
g22VtbV
∗tsm
2H±
.
(3.9)
3.2 b→ sγ
Here (and for all loop effects to be calculated) we do not consider multiple
flavour changes which are phenomenologically known to be small. Regarding the
(numerically) leading contributions due to the charged Higgs (see Fig. 2) exchange
we therefore only have to distinguish the top contribution (for which all particles in
3Note that it is a convenient feature of the Higgs basis that only the couplings which are related
to EW symmetry breaking contain fermion masses (unlike in type-I/II/X/Y). Thus one can directly
expand in these parameters without taking into account factors of sinα, tanβ, etc.
– 8 –
the loop are heavy) from the charm contribution (where we set the mass equal to
zero). For the first case the result is given by
C7H± =− 1
18
m2W
M2H±
V ∗k2εuk3ε
u∗n3Vn3
g22VtbV
∗ts
f1(z3)− 1
3
mt
mb
m2W
M2H±
V ∗k2εuk3V3nε
dn3
g22VtbV
∗ts
f2(z3) ,
C ′H±
7 =− 1
18
m2W
M2H±
εd∗k2V∗
3kV3nεdn3
g22VtbV
∗ts
f1(z3)− 1
3
mt
mb
m2W
M2H±
εd∗k2V∗
3kεu∗n3Vn3
g22VtbV
∗ts
f2(z3) ,
C8H± =− 1
6
m2W
M2H±
V ∗k2εuk3ε
u∗n3Vn3
g22VtbV
∗ts
f3(z3)− mt
mb
m2W
M2H±
V ∗k2εuk3V3nε
dn3
g22VtbV
∗ts
f4(z3) ,
C ′H±
8 =− 1
6
m2W
M2H±
εd∗k2V∗
3kV3nεdn3
g22VtbV
∗ts
f3(z3)− mt
mb
m2W
M2H±
εd∗k2V∗
3kεu∗n3Vn3
g22VtbV
∗ts
f4(z3) ,
(3.10)
which is in agreement with e.g. [29, 82, 83]. Since we assume the charm quark in
the denominator of the propagator to be massless, while we keep the leading term in
the numerator, there is a dimensionally regularised infrared singularity which has to
cancel with the EFT contribution originating from the four-quark operators defined
in Eq. (3.9). The result at the matching scale µ is thus given by
C7H±(µ) =− 7
18
m2W
M2H±
V ∗k2εuk2ε
u∗n2Vn3
g22VtbV
∗ts
− 1
3
mc
mb
m2W
M2H±
V ∗k2εuk2V2nε
dn3
g22VtbV
∗ts
(3 + 4 log
(µ2
m2H+
)),
C ′H±
7 (µ) =− 7
18
m2W
M2H±
εd∗k2V∗
2kV2nεdn3
g22VtbV
∗ts
− 1
3
mc
mb
m2W
M2H±
εd∗k2V∗
2kεu∗n2Vn3
g22VtbV
∗ts
(3 + 4 log
(µ2
m2H+
)),
C8H±(µ) =− 1
3
m2W
M2H±
V ∗k2εuk2ε
u∗n2Vn3
g22VtbV
∗ts
− mc
mb
m2W
M2H±
V ∗k2εuk2V2nε
dn3
g22VtbV
∗ts
(3 + 2 log
(µ2
m2H+
)),
C ′H±
8 (µ) =− 1
3
m2W
M2H±
εd∗k2V∗
2kV2nεdn3
g22VtbV
∗ts
− mc
mb
m2W
M2H±
εd∗k2V∗
2kεu∗n2Vn3
g22VtbV
∗ts
(3 + 2 log
(µ2
m2H+
)).
(3.11)
The four fermion operators in Eq. (3.3) mix into C(′)7,8 (at order α0
s) from the matching
µ down to the B meson scale µb, resulting in
CH±
7 mix(µ) =− 4
3
mc
mb
m2W
M2H±
V ∗k2εuk2V2nε
dn3
g22VtbV
∗ts
log
(µ2b
µ2
),
C ′H±
7 mix(µ) =− 4
3
mc
mb
m2W
M2H±
εd∗k2V∗
2kεu∗n2Vn3
g22VtbV
∗ts
log
(µ2b
µ2
),
CH±
8 mix(µ) =3
2CH±
7 mix(µ) ,
C ′H±
8 mix(µ) =3
2C ′H
±
7 mix(µ) .
(3.12)
Therefore, the dependence on the matching scale µ cancels as required once both
the hard matching contribution and the soft contribution from the EFT are added
– 9 –
to each other. Since there is no constant term in Eq. (3.12) the inclusion of the soft
contribution just leads to a replacement of µ by µb in Eq. (3.11).
While an explicit splitting into the hard matching contribution and the effect
from the four-quark operators is necessary if one aims at including αs corrections,
this is not necessary at leading order and one can just add both contributions. In
fact, since the neutral Higgs contribution is phenomenologically small, a leading order
estimate is sufficient and we give here the sum of the soft and the hard contribution
at the B meson scale µb
CH0
7 (µb) =m2W ε
d23
18g22m
2H+V ∗tsVtb
[εd∗33
(yA + c2
βαyh + s2βαyH
)+ 3εd33
((3 + 2 log
(µ2b
m2A0
))yA
−(
3 + 2 log
(µ2b
m2h0
))c2βαyh −
(3 + 2 log
(µ2b
m2H0
))s2βαyH
)],
C ′H0
7 (µb) =m2W ε
d∗32
18g22m
2H+V ∗tsVtb
[εd33
(yA + c2
βαyh + s2βαyH
)+ 3εd∗33
((3 + 2 log
(µ2b
m2A0
))yA
−(
3 + 2 log
(µ2b
m2h0
))c2βαyh −
(3 + 2 log
(µ2b
m2H0
))s2βαyH
)],
CH0
8 (µb) =− 3CH07 (µb) ,
C ′H0
8 (µb) =− 3C ′H07 (µb) .
(3.13)
It is straightforward to use the NLO QCD corrections calculated in Ref. [82] (for
our prediction with a top-quark in the loop), where QCD corrections in a generic
2HDM with a discrete symmetry were considered. The Wilson coefficients C7 and
C8 can be included by simply setting the couplings X and Y defined in Ref. [82] to
|Y |2 =4m2
W
g22m
2t
V ∗k2εuk3ε
u∗l3 Vl3
V33V ∗32
,
XY ∗ = − 4m2W
g22mtmb
V ∗k2εuk3V3lε
dl3
V33V ∗32
.
(3.14)
The primed operators can be treated in an analogous way taking into account that
C ′2 = 0.
3.3 One-Loop Effects in b→ s``(′)
We will now calculate the ”leading” one-loop matching contributions to the op-
erators C(′)S , C
(′)P , C
(′)9 and C
(′)10 . We will perform this calculation in a general Rξ gauge
expanding all diagrams up to the first non-vanishing order in the external momenta,
corresponding to dim-6 operators. In addition, we neglect all quark masses, except
– 10 –
for the top-quark and integrate out all Higgses, W , Z and the top at a common scale
mEW.
By ”leading” one-loop effects we also mean that we will only calculate the loop
corrections to a Wilson coefficient if there is no corresponding tree-level effect. In
addition, we will neglect small effects originating from multiple flavour changes, i.e.
3 → 1 → 2. Thus, since the tree-level contribution involve εd23,32, we will assume
these couplings to be zero when calculating the loop correction. Therefore, flavour
violation in the quark sector can either originate from the CKM matrix multiplying
a diagonal εdii or from the term εu∗jfVjiPL which contributes both for diagonal and also
off-diagonal elements εu∗jf . Note that the latter terms only enter via charged Higgs
couplings to quarks. Hence, we just need to calculate diagrams with a charged Higgs
and/or W boson together with the corresponding charged Goldstones. Finally, we
obtain gauge-invariant results.
3.3.1 Self-Energies and Renormalization
Here we will discuss the renormalization which can be solely derived from expressions
for the self-energies. The reason is that in our setup (with εd23,32 = 0) ultraviolet
divergences only arise in (pseudo)scalar operators originating from Higgs penguins
and Higgs couplings are intrinsically related to chirality changing self-energies (see
Ref. [84]). We will also use this opportunity to illustrate the cancellation of the
gauge dependence in the renormalization of the quark masses. We performed the
calculation in a general Rξ gauge.
We begin by defining the self-energies as
b s= −i
(p/PLΣLL
sb + p/PRΣRRsb + PRΣLR
sb + PLΣRLsb
), (3.15)
and we obtain the following expressions for b→ s transitions
ΣLRsb =
e2V ∗i2Vi3mbξzi32π2s2
W (zi − ξy)
[log(ξy)− log(zi)
]− e2V ∗i2Vi3mbzi
32π2s2Wy
[log(zi)−
(1 +
1
ε+ log
(µ2
m2H+
))]
+εd33Vi3V
∗k2ε
ukimui
8π2
[1 +
1
ε+ log
(µ2
m2H+
)− log (zi) zi
zi − 1
],
(3.16)
ΣRLsb =
εd∗22εu∗niVn3V
∗i2mui
8π2
[1 +
1
ε+ log
(µ2
m2H+
)− log (zi) zi
zi − 1
], (3.17)
– 11 –
ΣLLsb =− e2V ∗i2Vi3zi
64π2s2Wy
[1
ε+ log
(µ2
m2H+
)]− Vn3ε
u∗niε
ukiV
∗k2
16π2
[1
ε+ log
(µ2
m2H+
)]− e2V ∗i2Vi3ξzi
16π2s2W (zi − ξy)
[log (ξy)− log (zi)
]− e2V ∗i2Vi3zi
128π2s2Wy (y − zi)2
[6 log (y) y2 + 3(z2
i − y2)− log (zi)(8y2 − 4yzi + 2z2
i
) ]− Vn3ε
u∗niε
ukiV
∗k2
32π2 (−1 + zi)2
[1− 4zi + 3z2
i − 2 log (zi) z2i
],
(3.18)
ΣRRsb =
εd∗22εd33V
∗i2Vi3
16π2zi
[1
1− zi+zi log(zi)
(zi − 1)2
], (3.19)
with ξ denoting the gauge parameter.
Let us now consider the general effect of self-energies on kinetic terms and quark
masses (see e.g. Ref. [85]). First of all, one has to render the kinetic terms canonical,
leading to the shifts in the quark fields
qL,Ri →(δij +
1
2ΣLL,RRij
)qL,Rj . (3.20)
These shifts then enter not only in all couplings but also in quark masses. Since the
quark mass terms receive contributions from the chirality changing self-energies as
well, we have
mfδfi → mdfi =
(δfj +
1
2ΣLLfj
)mjδjk
(δki +
1
2ΣRRki
)+ ΣLR
fi . (3.21)
The eigenvalues of this matrix after renormalization in the MS scheme are identified
with the physical quark masses, extracted from data according to the SM prescrip-
tion. Note that at first order in perturbation theory (i.e. linear in Σ), the eigenvalues
just correspond to the diagonal terms
mi
(1 +
1
2ΣRRii +
1
2ΣLLii
)+ ΣLR
ii , (3.22)
where the dependence on ξ drops out and thus rendering the renormalized parameter
gauge-independent, as required for a physical quantity. The rotations that diagonal-
ize the mass matrix as
UL∗jf m
djkU
Rki = md
i δfi , (3.23)
– 12 –
read at leading order (considering only the s-b sector)
UL=
11
2ΣLL
23 +ΣLR
23
mb
−1
2ΣLL∗
23 −ΣLR∗
23
mb
1
, UR=
11
2ΣRR
23 +ΣRL
23
mb
−1
2ΣRR∗
23 − ΣRL∗23
mb
1
.These rotations, together with the shifts in Eq. (3.20) result in
UL ≈
1 +1
2ΣLL
22 ΣLL23 +
ΣLR23
mb
−ΣLR∗23
mb
1 +1
2ΣLL
33
, UR ≈
1 +1
2ΣRR
22 ΣRR23 +
ΣRL23
mb
−ΣRL∗23
mb
1 +1
2ΣRR
33
. (3.24)
This agrees with the diagrammatical approach of Ref. [86] and confirms the state-
ments of Ref. [22] that diagrams involving flavour changing self-energies can be
treated as one-particle irreducible. Thus, we apply Eq. (3.24) to the couplings εdij
and take into account all self-energy contributions.
Let us now turn to the renormalization. As stated above, it can be determined
solely from the expressions for the self-energies. Unlike in the SM or in 2HDMs with
natural flavour conservation, our results for b → s`+`− will be divergent for generic
couplings εuij. The reason for this is that once εuij does not correspond to a special case
of the four 2HDMs with natural flavour conservation (see Table 1), the Z2 symmetry
in the Yukawa sector is broken and no symmetry protects εdij from being flavour
changing. In fact, counterterms to off-diagonal elements of εdij are required to render
the result finite. Since all divergences originate from Higgs penguin diagrams, we
can determine the 1/ε structure of our results from the self-energies. For this, we
start with the interaction basis in which the Yukawa Lagrangian is given by
− LEWY = df(Y dfiH
d0 + εdfiH
u0
)PRdi + uf
(Y ufiH
u0 + εufiH
d0
)PRui , (3.25)
where for simplicity we considered the neutral current part only. Assuming (3.25) is
already in the basis with diagonal mass matrices, the masses then are given by
mdfjδji = vdY
dfi + vuε
dfi , mu
fi = vuYufi + vdε
ufi . (3.26)
Since the chirality flip on the fermion line in ΣLR23 always originates from an up-quark
mass, we can define
(Y u∗kl vu + εu∗kl vd)σ
klfi = ΣLR
fi
∣∣div. (3.27)
– 13 –
b sH−
c, tc, t
Z, γ
`′ `
b sc, t
H−H−
Z, γ
`′ `
Figure 3. Feynman diagrams showing the off-shell photon and Z penguin contributions
to C(′)9(10), given in Eqs. (3.30, 3.31, 3.32)
We keep only the relevant divergent part and we obtain
σij23 =εd33V
∗k2ε
ukiVj3
8π2
1
ε, σij32 = − ε
d22V
∗k3ε
ukiVj2
8π2
1
ε. (3.28)
We invert the relations in Table 1 to go to the Higgs basis and set for consistency
reasons the quark masses to zero. Then we apply the rotations in Eq. (3.24) and find
δεd23 =
(ΣLR
23
mb
εd33 − εd22
(ΣRR
23 +ΣRL
23
mb
))div
− σijsbεu∗ji ,
δεd32 =
(εd33
ΣRL∗23
mb
−(
ΣLL∗23 +
ΣLR∗23
mb
)εd22
)div
− σijbsεu∗ji ,
(3.29)
where the definition for the bare couplings εd(0)23,32 = εd23,32 + δεd23,32 was used. Again,
note that these counterterms are independent of the gauge parameter ξ. As we will
see later, these counterterms, inserted into the tree-level expressions for Bs → `+`−
(see Eq. (3.5)), will render the results finite.
3.3.2 Z and γ Penguins
The Wilson coefficients originating from Z penguins and involving the charged Higgs
(see Fig. 3), are only relevant for top exchange and are given by
CIJ9 = −δIJ
V ∗k2εuk3ε
u∗n3Vn3
2e2VtbV ∗ts
(1− 4s2
W
) (I1(z3)− 1
),
CIJ10 = δIJ
V ∗k2εuk3ε
u∗n3Vn3
2e2VtbV ∗ts
(I1(z3)− 1
),
C ′IJ9 = δIJεd∗k2V
∗3kV3nε
dn3
2e2VtbV ∗ts
(1− 4s2
W
) (I1(z3)− 1
),
C ′IJ10 = −δIJεd∗k2V
∗3kV3nε
dn3
2e2VtbV ∗ts
(I1(z3)− 1
),
(3.30)
– 14 –
b sH−
c, tc, t
H0, h0, A0
`′ `
b sc, t
H−H−
H0, h0, A0
`′ `
Figure 4. Higgs-penguin Feynman diagrams contributing to C(′)IJS(P )(HH) in Eqs. (3.34, ??).
where the loop function I1(x) is defined in the appendix. Note that I1(0) − 1 = 0
justifying that we only consider the top quark here.
For the off-shell photon penguin, also shown in Fig. 3, we obtain for the top
quark
CIJ9 = δIJ
V ∗k2εuk3ε
u∗n3Vn3
27g22VtbV
∗ts
m2W
M2H±
f5(z3) ,
C ′IJ9 = δIJεd∗k2V
∗3kV3nε
dn3
27g22VtbV
∗ts
m2W
M2H±
f5(z3) .
(3.31)
Concerning light-quarks, the hard matching contributions get amended by the mixing
of the four-quark operators in Eq. (3.9) into C9 and C ′9. We obtain
CIJ9 (µb) = δIJ
2
27
V ∗k2εuk2ε
u∗n2Vn3
g22VtbV
∗ts
m2W
M2H±
(19 + 12 log
(µ2b
M2H±
)),
C ′IJ9 (µb) = δIJ2
27
εd∗k2V∗
2kV2nεdn3
g22VtbV
∗ts
m2W
M2H±
(19 + 12 log
(µ2b
M2H±
)).
(3.32)
The same result can be obtained by expanding Eq. (3.31) in mt and then replacing
mt in the logarithm by the B meson scale µb. Once more, note that at LO adding
the soft to the hard matching contribution is justified.
3.3.3 Higgs Penguin and W -Higgs Boxes
Here, contributions originating from flavour changing self-energies appear that are
parametrically enhanced by
ti =mui
mb
, (3.33)
– 15 –
for i = 3. Using these definitions, the neutral Higgs penguin contributions involving
a top quarks and a H± in the loop, (see Fig. 4) read
CIJS(HH) =
εd∗22
g42s
2WV
∗tsVtb
(− m2
W
2m2H±
LIJ+
[4I1 (z3) t3(z3 − 1)
(εd33V
∗k2ε
uk3V33 − εd∗33V
∗32ε
u∗n3Vn3
)− 2 log
(µ2
m2H+
)(2(εd33V
∗k2ε
uk3V33 − εd∗33V
∗32ε
u∗n3Vn3
)t3 + 2V ∗32ε
u33ε
u∗n3Vn3
− V ∗k2εuk3ε
u∗n3Vn3
)− I0 (z3)V ∗k2ε
uk3ε
u∗n3Vn3 + 4I5 (z3, z3)V ∗32ε
u33ε
u∗n3Vn3
]+ 2I4 (z3, z3)V ∗32ε
u∗33ε
u∗n3Vn3L
IJ−m2W
m2H±
− V ∗32εu∗n3Vn3
mW
mH±
√z3
(ε`IJ + ε`∗JI
)[2(1− I1 (z3))cβαg2sβα(yh − yH)
+ I1 (z3)mW
mH±
(cβαyh
λh0H+H−
mH+
− sβαyHλH0H+H−
mH+
)]),
C ′IJS(HH) =1
g42s
2WV
∗tsVtb
(m2W
m2H±
LIJ−
[−2I1(z3) t3(z3−1)
((εd33
)2V ∗k2ε
uk3V33−εd∗22ε
d22V
∗32ε
u∗n3Vn3
)+2 log
(µ2
m2H+
)(−εd33V
∗k2ε
uk3ε
u∗33V33+
((εd33
)2V ∗k2ε
uk3V33−εd∗22ε
d22V
∗32ε
u∗n3Vn3
)t3)
+ εd33
(I7 (z3) εd∗22ε
d22V
∗32V33 + 2I5 (z3, z3)V ∗k2ε
uk3ε
u∗33V33
)]− 2I4 (z3, z3) εd33V
∗k2ε
uk3ε
u33V33L
IJ+
m2W
m2H±
− εd33V∗k2ε
uk3V33
mW
mH±
√z3
(ε`IJ + ε`∗JI
)[2(1− I1 (z3))cβαg2sβα(yh − yH)
+ I1 (z3)mW
mH±
(cβα
λh0H+H−
mH+
yh −λH0H+H−
mH+
sβαyH
)]).
(3.34)
The charm contribution is obtained in the limit z → 0 and is explicitly given in the
appendix. The top quark contributions of diagrams including both W± and H±, i.e.
mixed boxes and Higgs penguins with a W in the loop (see Fig. 5) yield the result
CIJS(HW ) =
εd∗22
g22s
2W
(z3
4log
(µ2
m2H+
)LIJ+ +
1
8I3 (y, z3)LIJ+ + I2 (z3) ε`IJ
),
C ′IJS(HW ) =εd33
g22s
2W
(z3
2log
(µ2
m2H+
)LIJ− −
1
2I6 (z3)LIJ− + I2 (z3) ε`∗JI
),
(3.35)
– 16 –
b
s
c, t ν
W−
H− `′
`
b sc, t
H−W−
H0, h0, A0
`′ `
b sc, t
W−H−
H0, h0, A0
`′ `
Figure 5. Mixed H-W box-diagrams and Higgs penguins contributing to C(′)IJS(P )(HW ) in
Eq. 3.35). It is understood for the W diagrams that the Goldstone bosons are implicitly
included.
which constitutes a gauge invariant subset. The expressions for C(′)IJP are related to
the ones given above by
CIJP = CIJ
S
∣∣∣ε`∗JI→−ε
`∗JI
, C ′IJP = C ′IJS
∣∣∣ε`∗JI→−ε
`∗JI
. (3.36)
The charm contribution vanishes in limit mc → 0 since the loop functions involved
approach zero in the approximation.
The sum of the results in Eq. (3.34) and Eq. (3.35) is renormalized in the MS
scheme using the counterterms of Eq. (3.29) inserted into the tree-level expressions
of Eq. (3.5). As a further check of the correctness of the result, note that in the limit
of one of the four 2HDMs with natural flavour violation the result is finite without
any counterterm.
3.3.4 H± Boxes
The expressions for the box diagrams involving two charged Higgses (see Fig. 6) are
given by
CIJ9 =
−m2W
g42s
2WVtbV
∗tsm
2H±
(V ∗k2ε
ukiε
u∗niVn3
)(ε`∗mIε
`mJI1(zi)− UIpενpjεν∗mjU∗JmI8(zi, xj)
),
CIJ10 =
−m2W
g42s
2WVtbV
∗tsm
2H±
(V ∗k2ε
ukiε
u∗niVn3
)(ε`∗mIε
`mJI1(zi) + UIpε
νpjε
ν∗mjU
∗JmI8(zi, xj
)),
C ′IJ9 =−m2
W
g42s
2WVtbV
∗tsm
2H±
(εd∗k2V
∗ikVinε
dn3
)(ε`∗mIε
`mJI1(zi)− UIpενpjεν∗mjU∗JmI8(zi, xj
)),
C ′IJ10 =−m2
W
g42s
2WVtbV
∗tsm
2H±
(εd∗k2V
∗ikVinε
dn3
)(ε`∗mIε
`mJI1(zi) + UIpε
νpjε
ν∗mjU
∗JmI8(zi, xj
)).
(3.37)
Note that ε` (εν) generates C9 = (−)C10 and C ′9 = (−)C ′10. The limit mc → 0 exists
and the corresponding expressions for the loop-functions are given in the appendix.
– 17 –
b
s
c, t ν
H−
H− `′
`
Figure 6. Box diagrams involving only charged Higgses contributing to C(′)IJ9,10 in Eq. (3.37).
3.4 Processes and Observables
For b→ sµ+µ− transitions it is helpful to distinguish three regimes, the one of scalar
operators (C(′)S and C
(′)P ), the one of vector operators (C
(′)9 and C
(′)10 ) and the one of
magnetic operators (C(′)7 ). In Bs → ``′ processes both scalar and vector operators
enter in the branching ratio (see e.g. [29, 87])
Br[Bs → `+
I `−J
]=G4FM
4W s
4W
32π5
∣∣V ∗tbVts∣∣2f (r2I , r
2J
)MBs f
2Bs
(m`I +m`J )2 τBs
×
∣∣∣∣∣ M2
Bs
(CIJ∗P − C ′IJ∗P
)(mqf +mqi
)(m`I +m`J )
−(CIJ∗
10 − C ′IJ∗10
)∣∣∣∣∣2[
1− (rI − rJ)2]
+
∣∣∣∣∣ M2Bs
(C ′IJ∗S − CIJ∗
S
)(mqf +mqi)(m`I +m`J )
+(m`I −m`J )
(m`I +m`J )
(CIJ∗
9 − C ′IJ∗9
)∣∣∣∣∣2[
1− (rI + rJ)2] ,
(3.38)
with f (rI , rJ) and rI defined as
f (rI , rJ) =
√1− 2 (rI + rJ) + (rI − rJ)2 , rI =
m`I
MBs
. (3.39)
Note that [29] uses a different definition for the operator basis. As one can see, the
effect of scalar operators is enhanced by a factor ≈M2Bs/(mbm`max[I,J]
), with respect
to the vector ones. Thus, these processes (also since they are two-body decays)
are most sensitive to scalar operators taking into account Eq. (1.1) and Eq. (1.2).
However, the effect of vector operators cannot be neglected here, since they have
different parametric dependences, notably contributions independent of εdij.
Concerning magnetic operators, the inclusive b → sγ decay is most sensitive.
The SM prediction [47, 88]
Br[B → Xsγ]SM = (3.36± 0.23)× 10−4 (3.40)
has to be compared to the experimental value [31]
Br[B → Xsγ]EXP = (3.32± 0.15)× 10−4 . (3.41)
– 18 –
In case of vanishing C ′7,8 one can use the numerical formula [47] to express the
branching ratio in terms of the Wilson coefficients4 at the matching scale
Br[B → Xsγ] = (3.36± 0.23− 8.22C7 − 1.99C8)× 10−4 . (3.42)
Note that the contributions in Eqs. (3.11, 3.13), which would require the addition
of the four Fermion operators in Eq. (3.9) are all proportional to εd, which we set
to zero in our analysis. Finally, semi-leptonic decays are important to constrain
vector operators since their dependence on scalar ones is very weak [90]. However,
many processes and observables have been measured and one therefore should use a
global fit to constrain C(′)µµ9,10 (taking also into account Bs → µ+µ− if one assumes the
absence of scalar operators). The scenario with a lepton flavour conserving C10 effect
(CU10) and a contribution to C9 = −C10 with muons only (CV
9 = −CV10) (following the
conventions of Ref. [91]) is phenomenologically the most important scenario for us.
We will discuss this in the next section.
Concerning the case of decays into tau leptons, one can calculate the semi-
leptonic processes using the relevant expressions for the factors. We use the results
of Ref. [92] and find for tau leptons
107 × Br[B → Kτ+τ−
][15,22]=(
1.20 + 0.15C ′9 − 0.42C ′10 + 0.02C ′ 29
+ 0.05C ′ 210 + 0.15CNP9 − 0.42CNP
10 + 0.04CNP9 C ′9 + 0.10CNP
10 C′10
+ 0.02CNP 29 + 0.05CNP 2
10
)±(
0.12 + 0.02CNP9 − 0.04CNP
10
+ 0.01C ′9 − 0.04C ′10 + 0.08C ′ 210 + 0.01CNP10 C
′10 + 0.01CNP 2
10
),
(3.43)
107 × Br[B → K∗τ+τ−
][15,19]=(
0.98− 0.30C ′9 + 0.12C ′10 + 0.05C ′ 29
+ 0.02C ′ 210 + 0.38CNP9 − 0.14CNP
10 − 0.08CNP9 C ′9 − 0.03CNP
10 C′10
+ 0.05CNP 29 + 0.02CNP 2
10
)±(
0.09 + 0.03CNP9 − 0.01CNP
10
− 0.01CNP9 C ′9 − 0.03C ′9 − 0.01C ′9C
′10 + 0.01C ′ 29 − 0.01C ′ 210
),
(3.44)
107×Br[Bs → φτ+τ−
][15,18.8]=(
0.86− 0.28C ′9 + 0.10C ′10 + 0.05C ′ 29
+ 0.01C ′ 210 + 0.34CNP9 − 0.11CNP
10 − 0.08CNP9 C ′9 − 0.02CNP
10 C′10
+ 0.05CNP 29 + 0.01CNP 2
10
)±(0.06 + 0.02CNP
9 − 0.02C ′9 + 0.02C ′ 210
).
(3.45)
4For a more detailed analysis included primed operators see e.g. Ref. [89].
– 19 –
For lepton flavour violating transitions one finds [93]
Br[B → K`+`′−] = 10−9
(aK``′
∣∣∣C``′
9 + C ′``′
9
∣∣∣2 + bK``′∣∣∣C``′
10 + C ′``′
10
∣∣∣2) , (3.46)
Br[B → K∗`+`′−] = 10−9
(aK∗``′
∣∣∣C``′
9 + C ′``′
9
∣∣∣2 + bK∗``′∣∣∣C``′
10 + C ′``′
10
∣∣∣2+ cK∗``′
∣∣∣C``′
9 − C ′``′
9
∣∣∣2 + dK∗``′∣∣∣C``′
10 − C ′``′
10
∣∣∣2) ,
(3.47)
with
``′ aK``′ bK``′ aK∗``′ bK∗``′ cK∗``′ dK∗``′
τµ 9.6± 1.0 10.0± 1.3 3.0± 0.8 2.7± 0.7 16.4± 2.1 15.4± 1.9
µe 15.4± 3.1 15.7± 3.1 5.6± 1.9 5.6± 1.9 29.1± 4.9 29.1± 4.9
4 b→ sνν, Bs − Bs Mixing, aµ and `→ `′γ
Let us now turn to the matching for the remaining b → s processes, b → sνν
and Bs − Bs mixing. In addition, we consider the anomalous magnetic moments of
charged leptons together with the closely related radiative lepton decays and h→ τµ.
4.1 b→ sνν
For b→ sνν processes the corresponding effective Hamiltonian is defined as
HνIνJeff = −4GF√
2VtbV
∗ts
(CIJL OIJ
L + CIJR OIJ
R
), (4.1)
with the operators
OIJL =
e2
16π2sγµPLbνIγ
µ (1− γ5) νJ , OIJR =
e2
16π2sγµPRbνIγ
µ (1− γ5) νJ . (4.2)
From box diagrams with charged Higgses we obtain
CIJL =
y
g42s
2WVtbV
∗ts
(V ∗m2ε
umiε
u∗li Vl3U
∗nIε
`njε
`∗pjUpJ
)I1(zi) , (4.3)
CIJR =
y
g42s
2WVtbV
∗ts
(εd∗m2V
∗imVilε
dl3U∗nIε
`njε
`∗pjUpJ
)I1(zi) . (4.4)
We follow [50] and define
εIJ =
√∣∣CIJL
∣∣2 +∣∣CIJ
R
∣∣2∣∣CSML
∣∣ , ηIJ =−Re
[CIJL CJI∗
R
]∣∣CIJL
∣∣2 +∣∣CIJ
R
∣∣2 . (4.5)
– 20 –
This allows us to write the branching ratio in terms of
RK =1
3
3∑{I,J}=1
(1− 2ηIJ)ε2IJ , RK∗ =1
3
3∑{I,J}=1
(1 + κηηIJ)ε2IJ , (4.6)
where κη encapsules the dependence on the form factors. In Ref. [50] this quantity is
evaluated using as input for the B → K∗ form factors a combined fit to lattice and
LCSR results performed in [94], finding κη = 1.34± 0.04. The branching ratio reads
Br [B → Xsνν] ≈ Br [B → Xsνν]SM
(κηRK + 2R∗K
2 + κη
). (4.7)
This has to be compared to the experimental limits [48]
RννK < 3.9 , Rνν
K∗ < 2.7 . (4.8)
4.2 Bs − Bs Mixing
The effective Hamiltonian is defined as
H∆F=2eff =
5∑a=1
CaOa +3∑
a=1
C ′aO′a , (4.9)
with
O(′)1 =
[sαγ
µPL(R)bα] [sβγµPL(R)bβ
], O
(′)2 =
[sαPL(R)bα
] [sβPL(R)bβ
],
O(′)3 =
[sαPL(R)bβ
] [sβPL(R)bα
], O4 = [sαPLbα] [sβPRbβ] ,
O5 = [sαPLbβ] [sβPRbα] .
(4.10)
We obtain at tree level (see left diagram in Fig. 7)
C2 = −1
2
(εd∗32
)2(s2βα
m2H0
+c2βα
m2h0
− 1
m2A0
),
C ′2 = −1
2
(εd23
)2(s2βα
m2H0
+c2βα
m2h0
− 1
m2A0
),
C4 = −εd23εd∗32
(s2βα
m2H0
+c2βα
m2h0
+1
m2A0
).
(4.11)
Like in the case for b → s`+`−, we only calculate a loop effect in the case of a
vanishing tree-level contribution, i.e. for εd23,32 = 0. In agreement with Ref. [29] we
– 21 –
b
s
H0, h0, A0
s
b
b
s
c, t c, t
H−
H− b
s b
s
c, t c, t
W−
H− b
s
Figure 7. Feynman diagrams contributing to Bs − Bs mixing. Note that the tree-level
contribution is absent for εd23 = εd32 = 0.
find for the pure H+ boxes
C1 = −(V ∗k2ε
ukjε
u∗lj Vl3
)(V ∗m2ε
umiε
u∗niVn3
)32π2m2
H+
I8(zj, zi) ,
C ′1 = −(εd∗22ε
d33V
∗i2Vi3
)(εd∗22ε
d33V
∗j2Vj3
)32π2m2
H+
I9(zi, zj) ,
C2 = −(εd∗22V
∗j2ε
u∗lj Vl3
)(εd∗22V
∗i2ε
u∗niVn3
)8π2
√zi√zj
m2H+
I10(zi, zj) ,
C ′2 = −(V ∗n2ε
uniVi3ε
d33
)(V ∗l2ε
uljVj3ε
d33
)8π2
√zi√zj
m2H+
I10(zi, zj) ,
C4 = −(εd∗22V
∗j2ε
u∗lj Vl3
)(V ∗m2ε
umiVi3ε
d33
)4π2
√zi√zj
m2H+
I10(zi, zj) ,
C5 =
(εd∗22V
∗j2Vj3ε
d33
)(V ∗m2ε
umkε
u∗nkVn3
)8π2m2
H+
(I8(zj, zk) + I1(zj)) ,
(4.12)
and for the W+-H+ boxes
C1 =g2
2
64π2
√zj√zk
m2W
(V ∗j2ε
u∗ij Vi3
)(V ∗l2ε
ulkVk3
)I11(y, zk, zj) ,
C4 = −g2
2
(εd∗22ε
d33V
∗k2Vk3V
∗j2Vj3
)16π2m2
W
I12(zj, zk) .
(4.13)
The corresponding diagrams are shown in Fig. 7. The loop functions are given in
the appendix and once more we did not distinguish between the cases of light and
heavy quarks, since the contribution of the light quarks trivially follows by taking
the convergent limit zi → 0.
Phenomenologically, we only need to consider the contributions to C1, since the
other Wilson coefficients are proportional to εdij which we will assume to be small.
The constraints on NP crucially depend on the hadronic matrix elements calculated
in lattice QCD. While Ref. [95] finds a preference for destructive interference with
the SM, Ref. [96] finds a preference for constructive interference. We will therefore
– 22 –
use the ratio CNP1 /CSM
1 , where all hadronic uncertainties drop out. We assume a
conservative bound of ±30%.
4.3 `→ `′γ and a`
Since it is important for our phenomenological analysis, we generalize the formula
of Ref. [29] to include right-handed neutrinos. Following the conventions of Ref. [97]
we define
Heff = c`F `IR¯FσµνPR`IF
µν + h.c. , (4.14)
with
a`I = −4m`I
e<[c`I`IR
], (4.15)
and
Br [`I → `Fγ] =m3`I
4πτ`I
(∣∣cFIR ∣∣2 +∣∣cIFR ∣∣2) . (4.16)
For the loop diagrams with charged Higgses we obtain
c`F `IR = −em`I
(UFkε
νkjε
ν∗njU
∗In
)192π2m2
H+
[2x2
j + 5xj − 1
(1− xj)3+
6x2j log(xj)
(1− xj)4
]+em`F ε
`∗kF ε
`kI
192π2m2H+
,
c`F `IL = −em`F
(UFkε
νkjε
ν∗njU
∗In
)192π2m2
H+
[2x2
j + 5xj − 1
(1− xj)3+
6x2j log(xj)
(1− xj)4
]+em`Iε
`∗kF ε
`kI
192π2m2H+
,
(4.17)
where we set the left-handed neutrino mass to zero. The neutral Higgs bosons give
c`F `IR =∑
H={H0,h0,A0}
−e(m`F ΓH∗jF ΓHjI +m`IΓ
H∗jF ΓHjI
)192π2m2
H
+em`jΓ
HFjΓ
HjI
64π2m2H
(3 + 2 log
(m2`j
m2H
))(4.18)
with
ΓH0FI = cβα
m`F
vδFI − sβαε`FI , Γh0FI = sβα
m`F
vδFI + cβαε
`FI , ΓA0
FI = iε`FI . (4.19)
Also here, we included the hard matching contribution together with the soft con-
tribution from the effective theory in the formula since we do not aim at calculating
QED corrections [98]. For our purposes we require only the lepton flavour violating
decay τ → µγ whose experimental upper limit is given by Br [τ → µγ] < 4.4 · 10−8
[99, 100].
– 23 –
-1
-1
-0.5
-0.5
-0.1
-0.1
0.1 0.1
0.5
0.5
1
1
-0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4
-0.4
-0.2
0.0
0.2
0.4
ϵ23u
ϵ33u
ΔmBs (+15%)
ΔmBs (+30%)
ΔmBs (-15%)
ΔmBs (-30%)
b → sγ excluded
C10U
Figure 8. Effect in Bs − Bs mixing and CU10 in the εu23-εu32 plane for MH+ = 400GeV
assuming all other couplings ε = 0. Note that the relative effect in CU10 with respect to the
one in Bs − Bs mixing is to a good approximation independent of the Higgs masses. The
small allowed regions in the bottom-left (top-right) of the plot correspond to cancellations
between boxes with two charged Higgses and mixed boxes with W and H±.
4.4 h→ τµ
Here, we find for the decay width
Γ [h→ τµ] '3c2βαmh
8π
(|ε`23|2 + |ε`32|2
)(1− m2
τ
m2h
)2
, (4.20)
with ΓSM ' 4.1MeV. This has to be compared to the current experimental limit [101,
102]
Br [h→ τµ] ≤ 1.43% . (4.21)
Due to the suppressed SM decay width, h → τµ will turn out to be surprisingly
constraining.
5 Phenomenological Analysis
In our numerical analysis we want to focus on the possibility to explain the hints for
NP in b → sµ+µ− transitions and aµ within 2HDMs. Concerning b → sµ+µ− data,
it is well-known from global fits that a sizeable contribution to the Wilson coefficient
C9 (and possibly also C10) is required to explain the data. Additional substantial
– 24 –
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.60.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
ϵ32ℓ
Br[h0→
τμ]×102
cβα = 0.005
cβα = 0.003
cβα = 0.001
h0 → τμ excluded
δaμ 1 σ (cβα = 0.003)
δaμ 2 σ (cβα = 0.003)
Figure 9. Prediction for the decay of the SM-like Higgs boson h→ τµ as a function of ε`32
under the assumption that ε`23 is chosen in such a way that the anomalous magnetic moment
of the muon is explained. We used MH+ = 400GeV, MH0 = 250GeV and MA0 = 300GeV.
For cβα = 0.003 the whole 2σ region to explain aµ is shown while for cβα = 0.001 and
cβα = 0.005 only the predictions for the central value of aµ are depicted.
effects in C ′9 and C ′10 are possible. However, contributions to scalar operators must
be suppressed due to the strong constraints from Bs → µ+µ− where they enter with
an enhancement factor of m2b/m
2µ.
C9 and C10 can only be generated from γ and Z penguins (see Eqs. (3.30)-
(3.32)) or from charged Higgs boxes (see Eq. (3.37)). Interestingly, all contributions
to C9 and C10 involve εuij but not εdij while the effect in C ′9, C ′10 only appears once
εdii is unequal to zero. Furthermore, scalar operators involve both εdii and εuij. To
accommodate the strong constraints on scalar operators we will assume that εdii is
negligibly small in the following. As stated above, an effect in C9 is mandatory to
explain the anomalies. However, the Z penguin contribution to C9 is suppressed by
(1−4s2W ) and the off-shell photon effect is small due to the electromagnetic coupling.
Hence, in the limit of ε`ij = ενij = 0 we are left with a lepton flavour universal CU10
effect (following the conventions of Ref. [91]) to a good approximation. This effect
is also strongly correlated to (and therefore limited by) Bs − Bs mixing, as shown
in Fig. 8. Note that this correlation is to a good approximation independent of the
Higgs masses. The bound from b→ sγ in this setup turns out to be in general weaker
than the ones from Bs − Bs mixing.
Therefore, we need in addition the charged Higgs boxes if we aim at a good fit
to b → sµ+µ− data. Here, ε`I2 generates CV9 = CV
10 effect in muons only, while εν2I
gives CV9 = −CV
10. Let us first consider the case with only ε`IJ since these couplings
– 25 –
are present also in the scenario without right-handed neutrinos. Since we aim at an
explanation of aµ, we focus on the elements ε`23,32 which give an mτ/mµ enhanced
effect in this observable5. For the numerical analysis we chose for definiteness mA0 =
300 GeV and mH0 = 250 GeV. Even though a detailed collider analysis is well beyond
the scope of this article, note that the small values of cβα are compatible with direct
LHC searches [80]. The effect in aµ is directly correlated to h → τµ which strongly
constrains cβα as shown in Fig. 9. The bounds from h→ τµ do not only depend on
fewer parameters than τ → µγ but are even much stronger for ε`22,33 = 0. Concerning
b → s`+`−, the impact with ε`23,32 6= 0 is small. Since the effect in aµ is chirally
enhanced, it significantly limits the product ε`23ε`32 rendering the deviation from CV
9 =
−CV10 unimportant.
In a next step, we allow for the presence of right-handed neutrinos and ενij 6= 0
where the CV9 = −CV
10 effect has to be added to CU10 from the Z penguin. The result
is shown in Fig. 10 where we can see that it is difficult to find points which give a
good fit to b→ sµ+µ− data. While the effect of ενIJ 6= 0 in aµ is always destructive,
i.e. it increases the discrepancy between theory and experiment, the effect is small
since it is not enhanced by mτ/mµ. It is therefore possible to tackle b → sµ+µ−
fixing ενIJ and δaµ fixing ε`IJ semi independently, while choosing the Higgs masses
consistent with direct searches and taking into account the smallness of cβα, required
by h → τµ. One can see that in order to be in agreement with b → s`+`− data,
positive effects in Bs − Bs mixing are preferred.
6 Conclusions
In this article we studied b→ s transitions in 2HDMs with generic Yukawa couplings
(including right-handed neutrinos) with focus on b → sµ+µ− transitions and its
possible correlations with aµ. We first recalled the tree-level effects in b→ s observ-
ables which involve εd23,32. If these elements are zero or negligibly small, loop effects
involving W bosons and charged Higgses can become numerically important. We cal-
culated these leading one-loop corrections to b→ s`+`−, b→ sνν and ∆B = ∆S = 2
transitions in a general Rξ gauge and confirmed their correctness finding gauge in-
variant results. Additionally, we discuss the treatment of self-energy contributions
and renormalization in detail. In addition, we provided the formula for τ → µγ and
aµ including the contributions from heavy (TeV scale) right-handed neutrinos.
5Since it is a chirally enhanced effect, it has a free phase and can thus give a sizeable effect in
the electric dipole moment of the muon [97].
– 26 –
-1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5-1.5
-1.0
-0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
C9V = -C10
V
C10U
-0.3 < ΔmBsNP/ΔmBs
SM < 0
0 < ΔmBsNP/ΔmBs
SM < 0.3
b → sℓ+ℓ- (1 σ)
b → sℓ+ℓ- (2 σ)
b → sℓ+ℓ- (3 σ)
Figure 10. Scatter plot with εu22,32,23,33 and εν21,22,32,23,33 varied between ±1.5. Concern-
ing the masses we scanned over are (in GeV) mNi ∈ [100, 1000], mH+ ∈ [100, 500] and
{mH0 ,mA0} ∈ [100, 350]. In total, we generated 106 points. The red regions are preferred
by b→ s`+`− data according to updated fit of Ref. [39] and includes the new LHCb [103]
and Belle [104] measurement of R(K) and R(K∗), respectively. It is interesting to note
that using the new fit significantly more points lie within the preferred regions.
Concerning the phenomenology, we found that without right-handed neutrinos
sizeable contributions to vector operators can only be generated via photon and Z
penguins. However, this does not allow for lepton flavour universality violation and
the effect in CU10 with respect to CU
9 is too big to give a good fit to data. Therefore,
we included in a next step right-handed neutrinos which lead in general to a lepton
flavour universality violating CV9 = −CV
10 effect. This can provide an explanation of
the anomalies especially with the recently updated b→ s`+`− data.
If we allow for Higgs to τµ couplings, we can explain the anomalous magnetic
moment by a chirally enhanced mτ/mµ effect. This leads at the same time to non-
vanishing branching ratios τ → µγ and τ → 3µ which are however compatible with
the experimental limits. The effect in h → τµ is found to be dominant, i.e. most
constraining. In case of an explanation of aµ, h → τµ requires a close alignment
in the Higgs sector, i.e. very small cβα. Furthermore, a small CV9 = +CV
10 effect is
generated which does not significantly improve the goodness of the fit to data.
2HDMs have a rich flavour phenomenology since they give effects in many classes
of observables. As we showed in this article, these models are in principle capable
to explain the discrepancies between the SM and experiment. Once one allows for a
generic flavour structure and right-handed neutrinos, this provides a possible solu-
tion to the deviations in b→ s`+`− transitions and aµ, even though some degree of
– 27 –
finetuning is necessary. Furthermore, also the anomalies in b → cτν processes [31]
might be addressed by 2HDMs [29, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113].
However, these solutions are under pressure from the measurement of the Bc life-
time [114, 115, 116, 117] and LHC searches [118]. Furthermore, also the ε′/ε anomaly
(see e.g. Ref. [119] for a review) could be explained [52, 120], leaving 2HDMs still as
one of the most appealing NP scenarios.
Acknowledgments
The work of A.C. and D.M. is supported by an Ambizione Grant (PZ00P2 154834)
and a Professorship Grant (PP00P2 176884) of the Swiss National Science Founda-
tion. The work of C.W. is supported by the Swiss National Foundation under grant
200020 175449/1. We are grateful to Bernat Capdevilla for providing us with the
global fit used for Fig. 10 and to Emanuele Bagnaschi for useful discussions. We
thank Christoph Greub for collaboration in the early stages of the project and for
useful comments on the manuscript.
Appendix
We define the Higgs potential as
V(Φ1,Φ2) = m211Φ†1Φ1 +m2
22Φ†2Φ2 −(m2
12Φ†1Φ2 +m2∗12Φ†2Φ1
)+λ1
2
(Φ†1Φ1
)2
+λ2
2
(Φ†2Φ2
)2+ λ3
(Φ†1Φ1
)(Φ†2Φ2
)+ λ4
(Φ†1Φ2
)(Φ†2Φ1
)+λ5
2
((Φ†1Φ2
)2+(Φ†2Φ1
)2).
(6.1)
Using the definition of Eq. (2.1) and transforming to the CP-even mass eigenstates
according to Eq. (2.2), we express m11, m22, m21, λ1 and λ4 in terms of the Higgs
masses. Therefore, the remaining couplings are λ2, λ3 and λ5. The triple Higgs
couplings appearing in Eq. (3.34) are then given by
λh0H+H− = vsβαλ3 ,
λH0H+H− = vcβαλ3 .(6.2)
Note that with these conventions the expressions are as simple as possible and only
λ3 enters.
– 28 –
Loop Functions
The loop functions that we used throughout our article are defined as
f1(b) =(12b (log (b)− 1)− 3b2 (6 log (b) + 1) + 8b3 + 7)
(1− b)4 ,
f2(b) =(4 log (b) + 3− 2b (3 log (b) + 4) + 5b2)
(1− b)3 ,
f3(b) =(3b (2 log (b) + 1)− 6b2 + b3 + 2)
(1− b)4 ,
f4(b) =(2 log (b) + 3− 4b+ b2)
(1− b)3 ,
f5(b) =2 (12 log (b) + 19)− 9b (4 log (b) + 13)
(1− b)4 +126b2 + b3 (18 log (b)− 47)
(1− b)4 ,
I0 (b) =1− 3b
−1 + b+
2b2 log (b)
(b− 1)2 ,
I1 (b) = − 1
b− 1+
log (b) b
(b− 1)2 ,
I2 (b) =log (b) b
1− b= (1− b)I1(b)− 1 ,
I3 (a, b) =(7a− b)ba− b
+2b2 log (b) (2a2 − b2 − 6a+ 3b+ 2ab)
(a− b)2 (b− 1)− 6a2b log (a)
(a− b)2 ,
I4 (a, b) =
√a3√b log (a)
(a− 1)(a− b)−√a√b3 log (b)
(b− 1)(a− b),
I5 (a, b) = −1 +a2 log (a)
(a− 1)(a− b)− b2 log (b)
(b− 1)(a− b),
I6 (b) = −b+b2 log (b)
b− 1= b(b− 1)I1(b),
I7 (b) =b
b− 1− b2 log (b)
(b− 1)2 = −bI1(b)
I8(a, b) =−1
(1− a)(1− b)+
b2 log(b)
(1− b)2(a− b)+
a2 log(a)
(1− a)2(b− a),
I9(a, b) =−ab
(1− a)(1− b)+
ab log(b)
(1− b)2(a− b)+
ab log(a)
(1− a)2(b− a),
I10(a, b) =−1
(1− a)(1− b)+
a log(a)
(1− a)2(b− a)+
b log(b)
(1− b)2(a− b),
I11(a, b, c) =−3a2 log(a)
(a− 1)(a− b)(a− c)+
b(4a− b) log(b)
(b− 1)(a− b)(b− c)+
c(4a− c) log(c)
(c− 1)(a− c)(c− b),
I12(a, b) =ab log(a)
(1− a)(a− b)− ab log(b)
(1− b)(a− b).
(6.3)
– 29 –
If the Higgs penguins contain a charm quark in the loop (whose mass we neglect),
i.e. z2 = 0, the loop functions simplify to
I0(0) = −1 ,
I1(0) = 1 ,
I4(b, 0) = I4(0, b) = I4(0, 0) = 0 ,
I5(b, 0) = I5(0, b) = −1 +b log(b)
b− 1,
I5(0, 0) = −1 ,
I7(0) = 0 ,
I8(0, xj) = I1(xj) ,
(6.4)
and the corresponding Wilsons coefficients in Eq. (3.34) become
CIJS(HH) =
−yεd∗22LIJ+
2g42s
2WV
∗tsVtb
[4t2(εd33V
∗k2ε
uk2V23 − εd∗33V
∗22ε
u∗n2Vn3
)+ V ∗k2ε
uk2ε
u∗n2Vn3
− 2 log
(µ2
m2H+
)(2(εd33V
∗k2ε
uk2V23 − εd∗33V
∗22ε
u∗n2Vn3
)t2
+ Vn3(2V ∗22εu∗n2ε
u22 + 2V ∗22ε
u∗n3ε
u23 + 2V ∗32ε
u∗n2ε
u32 − V ∗k2ε
u∗n2ε
uk2))
− 4 (V ∗22εu22ε
u∗n2Vn3 − I5 (z3, 0) (V ∗22ε
u23ε
u∗n3Vn3 + V ∗32ε
u32ε
u∗n2Vn3))
](6.5)
C ′IJS(HH) =yLIJ−
g42s
2WV
∗tsVtb
[−2t2
((εd33
)2V ∗k2ε
uk2V23−εd∗22ε
d22V
∗22ε
u∗n2Vn3
)+2 log
(µ2
m2H+
)(−εd33V
∗k2ε
uk2ε
u∗22V23 −εd33V
∗k2ε
uk2ε
u∗32V33 −εd33V
∗k2ε
uk3ε
u∗23V23
+((εd33
)2V ∗k2ε
uk2V23−εd∗22ε
d22V
∗22ε
u∗n2Vn3
)t2
)− 2εd33V
∗k2ε
uk2ε
u∗22V23
+ εd33
(− εd∗22ε
d22V
∗22V23 + 2I5 (z3, 0)V ∗k2 (εuk3ε
u∗23V23 + εuk2ε
u∗32V33)
)](6.6)
– 30 –
References
[1] T. D. Lee, A Theory of Spontaneous T Violation, Phys. Rev. D8 (1973) 1226.
[2] J. F. Gunion, H. E. Haber, G. L. Kane and S. Dawson, The Higgs Hunter’s Guide,
Front. Phys. 80 (2000) 1.
[3] G. C. Branco, P. M. Ferreira, L. Lavoura, M. N. Rebelo, M. Sher and J. P. Silva,
Theory and phenomenology of two-Higgs-doublet models, Phys. Rept. 516 (2012) 1
[1106.0034].
[4] J. E. Kim, Light Pseudoscalars, Particle Physics and Cosmology, Phys. Rept. 150
(1987) 1.
[5] R. D. Peccei and H. R. Quinn, CP Conservation in the Presence of Instantons,
Phys. Rev. Lett. 38 (1977) 1440.
[6] M. Trodden, Electroweak baryogenesis: A Brief review, in Proceedings, 33rd
Rencontres de Moriond 98 electrowek interactions and unified theories: Les Arcs,
France, Mar 14-21, 1998, pp. 471–480, 1998, hep-ph/9805252.
[7] H. E. Haber and G. L. Kane, The Search for Supersymmetry: Probing Physics
Beyond the Standard Model, Phys. Rept. 117 (1985) 75.
[8] A. Crivellin, M. Ghezzi and M. Procura, Effective Field Theory with Two Higgs
Doublets, JHEP 09 (2016) 160 [1608.00975].
[9] D. Bhatia, U. Maitra and S. Niyogi, Discovery prospects of a light Higgs boson at
the LHC in type-I 2HDM, Phys. Rev. D97 (2018) 055027 [1704.07850].
[10] A. Arbey, F. Mahmoudi, O. Stal and T. Stefaniak, Status of the Charged Higgs
Boson in Two Higgs Doublet Models, Eur. Phys. J. C78 (2018) 182 [1706.07414].
[11] P. Basler, P. M. Ferreira, M. Mhlleitner and R. Santos, High scale impact in
alignment and decoupling in two-Higgs doublet models, Phys. Rev. D97 (2018)
095024 [1710.10410].
[12] U. Haisch and A. Malinauskas, Let there be light from a second light Higgs doublet,
JHEP 03 (2018) 135 [1712.06599].
[13] L. Jenniches, C. Sturm and S. Uccirati, Electroweak corrections in the 2HDM for
neutral scalar Higgs-boson production through gluon fusion, JHEP 09 (2018) 017
[1805.05869].
[14] N. Chen, C. Du, Y. Wu and X.-J. Xu, Further study of the global minimum
constraint on the two-Higgs-doublet models: LHC searches for heavy Higgs bosons,
Phys. Rev. D99 (2019) 035011 [1810.04689].
– 31 –
[15] R. Enberg, W. Klemm, S. Moretti and S. Munir, Electroweak production of multiple
(pseudo)scalars in the 2HDM, 1812.01147.
[16] A. Arhrib, R. Benbrik, H. Harouiz, S. Moretti and A. Rouchad, A Guidebook to
Hunting Charged Higgs Bosons at the LHC, 1810.09106.
[17] E. Hanson, W. Klemm, R. Naranjo, Y. Peters and A. Pilaftsis, Charged Higgs
Bosons in Naturally Aligned Two Higgs Doublet Models at the LHC, 1812.04713.
[18] X. G. He, T. D. Nguyen and R. R. Volkas, B Meson Rare Decays in Two Higgs
Doublets Models, Phys. Rev. D38 (1988) 814.
[19] W. Skiba and J. Kalinowski, Bs → τ+τ− decay in a two Higgs doublet model, Nucl.
Phys. B404 (1993) 3.
[20] Y.-B. Dai, C.-S. Huang and H.-W. Huang, B → X(s)τ+τ− in a two Higgs doublet
model, Phys. Lett. B390 (1997) 257 [hep-ph/9607389].
[21] C.-S. Huang and Q.-S. Yan, B → Xsτ+τ− in the flipped SU(5) model, Phys. Lett.
B442 (1998) 209 [hep-ph/9803366].
[22] H. E. Logan and U. Nierste, Bs,d → `+`− in a two Higgs doublet model, Nucl. Phys.
B586 (2000) 39 [hep-ph/0004139].
[23] X.-D. Cheng, Y.-D. Yang and X.-B. Yuan, Revisiting Bs → µ+µ− in the two-Higgs
doublet models with Z2 symmetry, Eur. Phys. J. C76 (2016) 151 [1511.01829].
[24] P. Arnan, D. Beirevi, F. Mescia and O. Sumensari, Two Higgs doublet models and
b→ s exclusive decays, Eur. Phys. J. C77 (2017) 796 [1703.03426].
[25] E. O. Iltan and G. Turan, BS → τ+τ− decay in the general two Higgs doublet
model, JHEP 11 (2002) 031 [hep-ph/0011005].
[26] X.-Q. Li, J. Lu and A. Pich, B0s,d → `+`− Decays in the Aligned Two-Higgs-Doublet
Model, JHEP 06 (2014) 022 [1404.5865].
[27] F. Mahmoudi and O. Stal, Flavor constraints on the two-Higgs-doublet model with
general Yukawa couplings, Phys. Rev. D81 (2010) 035016 [0907.1791].
[28] A. J. Buras, M. V. Carlucci, S. Gori and G. Isidori, Higgs-mediated FCNCs:
Natural Flavour Conservation vs. Minimal Flavour Violation, JHEP 10 (2010) 009
[1005.5310].
[29] A. Crivellin, A. Kokulu and C. Greub, Flavor-phenomenology of two-Higgs-doublet
models with generic Yukawa structure, Phys. Rev. D87 (2013) 094031 [1303.5877].
[30] A. Crivellin, J. Heeck and D. Mller, Large h→ bs in generic two-Higgs-doublet
models, Phys. Rev. D97 (2018) 035008 [1710.04663].
– 32 –
[31] HFLAV collaboration, Averages of b-hadron, c-hadron, and τ -lepton properties as
of summer 2016, Eur. Phys. J. C77 (2017) 895 [1612.07233].
[32] CMS, LHCb collaboration, Observation of the rare B0s → µ+µ− decay from the
combined analysis of CMS and LHCb data, Nature 522 (2015) 68 [1411.4413].
[33] LHCb collaboration, Measurement of the B0s → µ+µ− branching fraction and
search for B0 → µ+µ− decays at the LHCb experiment, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111 (2013)
101805 [1307.5024].
[34] CMS collaboration, Measurement of the B0s → µ+µ− Branching Fraction and
Search for B0 → µ+µ− with the CMS Experiment, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111 (2013)
101804 [1307.5025].
[35] ATLAS collaboration, Study of the rare decays of B0s and B0 mesons into muon
pairs using data collected during 2015 and 2016 with the ATLAS detector,
Submitted to: JHEP (2018) [1812.03017].
[36] C. Bobeth, M. Gorbahn, T. Hermann, M. Misiak, E. Stamou and M. Steinhauser,
Bs,d → l+l− in the Standard Model with Reduced Theoretical Uncertainty, Phys.
Rev. Lett. 112 (2014) 101801 [1311.0903].
[37] M. Beneke, C. Bobeth and R. Szafron, Enhanced electromagnetic correction to the
rare B-meson decay Bs,d → µ+µ−, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120 (2018) 011801
[1708.09152].
[38] B. Capdevila, A. Crivellin, S. Descotes-Genon, J. Matias and J. Virto, Patterns of
New Physics in b→ s`+`− transitions in the light of recent data, JHEP 01 (2018)
093 [1704.05340].
[39] M. Alguero, B. Capdevila, A. Crivellin, S. Descotes-Genon, P. Masjuan, J. Matias
et al., Addendum: ”Patterns of New Physics in b→ s`+`− transitions in the light
of recent data”, 1903.09578.
[40] W. Altmannshofer, P. Stangl and D. M. Straub, Interpreting Hints for Lepton
Flavor Universality Violation, Phys. Rev. D96 (2017) 055008 [1704.05435].
[41] G. D’Amico, M. Nardecchia, P. Panci, F. Sannino, A. Strumia, R. Torre et al.,
Flavour anomalies after the RK∗ measurement, JHEP 09 (2017) 010 [1704.05438].
[42] L.-S. Geng, B. Grinstein, S. Jger, J. Martin Camalich, X.-L. Ren and R.-X. Shi,
Towards the discovery of new physics with lepton-universality ratios of b→ s``
decays, Phys. Rev. D96 (2017) 093006 [1704.05446].
[43] M. Ciuchini, A. M. Coutinho, M. Fedele, E. Franco, A. Paul, L. Silvestrini et al.,
On Flavourful Easter eggs for New Physics hunger and Lepton Flavour Universality
violation, Eur. Phys. J. C77 (2017) 688 [1704.05447].
– 33 –
[44] G. Hiller and I. Nisandzic, RK and RK∗ beyond the standard model, Phys. Rev.
D96 (2017) 035003 [1704.05444].
[45] T. Hurth, F. Mahmoudi, D. Martinez Santos and S. Neshatpour, Lepton
nonuniversality in exclusive b→s`` decays, Phys. Rev. D96 (2017) 095034
[1705.06274].
[46] M. Ciuchini, A. M. Coutinho, M. Fedele, E. Franco, A. Paul, L. Silvestrini et al.,
New Physics in b→ s`+`− confronts new data on Lepton Universality, 1903.09632.
[47] M. Misiak et al., Updated NNLO QCD predictions for the weak radiative B-meson
decays, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114 (2015) 221801 [1503.01789].
[48] Belle collaboration, Search for B → hνν decays with semileptonic tagging at
Belle, Phys. Rev. D96 (2017) 091101 [1702.03224].
[49] BaBar collaboration, Search for B → K(∗)νν and invisible quarkonium decays,
Phys. Rev. D87 (2013) 112005 [1303.7465].
[50] A. J. Buras, J. Girrbach-Noe, C. Niehoff and D. M. Straub, B → K(∗)νν decays in
the Standard Model and beyond, JHEP 02 (2015) 184 [1409.4557].
[51] S.-P. Li, X.-Q. Li, Y.-D. Yang and X. Zhang, RD(∗) , RK(∗) and neutrino mass in the
2HDM-III with right-handed neutrinos, JHEP 09 (2018) 149 [1807.08530].
[52] C. Marzo, L. Marzola and M. Raidal, Common explanation to the RK(∗), RD(∗) and
ε′/ε anomalies in a 3HDM+νR and connections to neutrino physics, 1901.08290.
[53] Muon g-2 collaboration, Final Report of the Muon E821 Anomalous Magnetic
Moment Measurement at BNL, Phys. Rev. D73 (2006) 072003 [hep-ex/0602035].
[54] Muon g-2 collaboration, Muon (g-2) Technical Design Report, 1501.06858.
[55] J-PARC g-’2/EDM collaboration, A novel precision measurement of muon g-2
and EDM at J-PARC, AIP Conf. Proc. 1467 (2012) 45.
[56] T. P. Gorringe and D. W. Hertzog, Precision Muon Physics, Prog. Part. Nucl.
Phys. 84 (2015) 73 [1506.01465].
[57] A. Czarnecki, B. Krause and W. J. Marciano, Electroweak Fermion loop
contributions to the muon anomalous magnetic moment, Phys. Rev. D52 (1995)
R2619 [hep-ph/9506256].
[58] A. Czarnecki, B. Krause and W. J. Marciano, Electroweak corrections to the muon
anomalous magnetic moment, Phys. Rev. Lett. 76 (1996) 3267 [hep-ph/9512369].
[59] C. Gnendiger, D. Stckinger and H. Stckinger-Kim, The electroweak contributions to
(g − 2)µ after the Higgs boson mass measurement, Phys. Rev. D88 (2013) 053005
[1306.5546].
– 34 –
[60] T. Aoyama, T. Kinoshita and M. Nio, Revised and Improved Value of the QED
Tenth-Order Electron Anomalous Magnetic Moment, Phys. Rev. D97 (2018)
036001 [1712.06060].
[61] M. Della Morte, A. Francis, V. Glpers, G. Herdoza, G. von Hippel, H. Horch et al.,
The hadronic vacuum polarization contribution to the muon g − 2 from lattice
QCD, JHEP 10 (2017) 020 [1705.01775].
[62] M. Davier, A. Hoecker, B. Malaescu and Z. Zhang, Reevaluation of the hadronic
vacuum polarisation contributions to the Standard Model predictions of the muon
g − 2 and α(m2Z) using newest hadronic cross-section data, Eur. Phys. J. C77
(2017) 827 [1706.09436].
[63] Budapest-Marseille-Wuppertal collaboration, Hadronic vacuum polarization
contribution to the anomalous magnetic moments of leptons from first principles,
Phys. Rev. Lett. 121 (2018) 022002 [1711.04980].
[64] RBC, UKQCD collaboration, Calculation of the hadronic vacuum polarization
contribution to the muon anomalous magnetic moment, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121
(2018) 022003 [1801.07224].
[65] A. Keshavarzi, D. Nomura and T. Teubner, Muon g − 2 and α(M2Z): a new
data-based analysis, Phys. Rev. D97 (2018) 114025 [1802.02995].
[66] D. Giusti, F. Sanfilippo and S. Simula, Light-quark contribution to the leading
hadronic vacuum polarization term of the muon g − 2 from twisted-mass fermions,
Phys. Rev. D98 (2018) 114504 [1808.00887].
[67] G. Colangelo, M. Hoferichter and P. Stoffer, Two-pion contribution to hadronic
vacuum polarization, JHEP 02 (2019) 006 [1810.00007].
[68] A. Grardin, H. B. Meyer and A. Nyffeler, Lattice calculation of the pion transition
form factor π0 → γ∗γ∗, Phys. Rev. D94 (2016) 074507 [1607.08174].
[69] T. Blum, N. Christ, M. Hayakawa, T. Izubuchi, L. Jin, C. Jung et al., Connected
and Leading Disconnected Hadronic Light-by-Light Contribution to the Muon
Anomalous Magnetic Moment with a Physical Pion Mass, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118
(2017) 022005 [1610.04603].
[70] G. Colangelo, M. Hoferichter, M. Procura and P. Stoffer, Rescattering effects in the
hadronic-light-by-light contribution to the anomalous magnetic moment of the
muon, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118 (2017) 232001 [1701.06554].
[71] G. Colangelo, M. Hoferichter, M. Procura and P. Stoffer, Dispersion relation for
hadronic light-by-light scattering: two-pion contributions, JHEP 04 (2017) 161
[1702.07347].
– 35 –
[72] T. Blum, N. Christ, M. Hayakawa, T. Izubuchi, L. Jin, C. Jung et al., Using
infinite volume, continuum QED and lattice QCD for the hadronic light-by-light
contribution to the muon anomalous magnetic moment, Phys. Rev. D96 (2017)
034515 [1705.01067].
[73] M. Hoferichter, B.-L. Hoid, B. Kubis, S. Leupold and S. P. Schneider, Pion-pole
contribution to hadronic light-by-light scattering in the anomalous magnetic
moment of the muon, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121 (2018) 112002 [1805.01471].
[74] A. Kurz, T. Liu, P. Marquard and M. Steinhauser, Hadronic contribution to the
muon anomalous magnetic moment to next-to-next-to-leading order, Phys. Lett.
B734 (2014) 144 [1403.6400].
[75] G. Colangelo, M. Hoferichter, A. Nyffeler, M. Passera and P. Stoffer, Remarks on
higher-order hadronic corrections to the muon g-2, Phys. Lett. B735 (2014) 90
[1403.7512].
[76] H. Georgi and D. V. Nanopoulos, Suppression of Flavor Changing Effects From
Neutral Spinless Meson Exchange in Gauge Theories, Phys. Lett. 82B (1979) 95.
[77] L. Lavoura and J. P. Silva, Fundamental CP violating quantities in a SU(2) x U(1)
model with many Higgs doublets, Phys. Rev. D50 (1994) 4619 [hep-ph/9404276].
[78] F. J. Botella and J. P. Silva, Jarlskog - like invariants for theories with scalars and
fermions, Phys. Rev. D51 (1995) 3870 [hep-ph/9411288].
[79] S. Davidson, µ→ eγ in the 2HDM: an exercise in EFT, Eur. Phys. J. C76 (2016)
258 [1601.01949].
[80] CMS collaboration, Combined measurements of Higgs boson couplings in
proton-proton collisions at√s = 13 TeV, Submitted to: Eur. Phys. J. (2018)
[1809.10733].
[81] ATLAS collaboration, Combined measurements of Higgs boson production and
decay using up to 80 fb−1 of proton–proton collision data at√s = 13 TeV collected
with the ATLAS experiment, .
[82] F. Borzumati and C. Greub, 2HDMs predictions for B → X(s)γ in NLO QCD,
Phys. Rev. D58 (1998) 074004 [hep-ph/9802391].
[83] F. Borzumati and C. Greub, Two Higgs doublet model predictions for B → X(s)γ
in NLO QCD: Addendum, Phys. Rev. D59 (1999) 057501 [hep-ph/9809438].
[84] A. Crivellin, Effective Higgs Vertices in the generic MSSM, Phys. Rev. D83 (2011)
056001 [1012.4840].
[85] A. J. Buras, P. H. Chankowski, J. Rosiek and L. Slawianowska,
– 36 –
∆Md,s, B0d,s → µ+µ− and B → Xsγ in supersymmetry at large tanβ, Nucl. Phys.
B659 (2003) 3 [hep-ph/0210145].
[86] A. Crivellin and J. Girrbach, Constraining the MSSM sfermion mass matrices with
light fermion masses, Phys. Rev. D81 (2010) 076001 [1002.0227].
[87] A. Dedes, J. Rosiek and P. Tanedo, Complete One-Loop MSSM Predictions for
B → lepton lepton’ at the Tevatron and LHC, Phys. Rev. D79 (2009) 055006
[0812.4320].
[88] M. Misiak, A. Rehman and M. Steinhauser, NNLO QCD counterterm contributions
to B → Xsγ for the physical value of mc, Phys. Lett. B770 (2017) 431
[1702.07674].
[89] T. Hurth, E. Lunghi and W. Porod, Untagged B → Xs+dγ CP asymmetry as a
probe for new physics, Nucl. Phys. B704 (2005) 56 [hep-ph/0312260].
[90] D. Becirevic, N. Kosnik, F. Mescia and E. Schneider, Complementarity of the
constraints on New Physics from Bs → µ+µ− and from B → Kl+l− decays, Phys.
Rev. D86 (2012) 034034 [1205.5811].
[91] M. Alguer, B. Capdevila, S. Descotes-Genon, P. Masjuan and J. Matias, Are we
overlooking Lepton Flavour Universal New Physics in b→ s`` ?, 1809.08447.
[92] B. Capdevila, A. Crivellin, S. Descotes-Genon, L. Hofer and J. Matias, Searching
for New Physics with b→ sτ+τ− processes, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120 (2018) 181802
[1712.01919].
[93] A. Crivellin, L. Hofer, J. Matias, U. Nierste, S. Pokorski and J. Rosiek,
Lepton-flavour violating B decays in generic Z ′ models, Phys. Rev. D92 (2015)
054013 [1504.07928].
[94] A. Bharucha, D. M. Straub and R. Zwicky, B → V `+`− in the Standard Model
from light-cone sum rules, JHEP 08 (2016) 098 [1503.05534].
[95] L. Di Luzio, M. Kirk and A. Lenz, Updated Bs-mixing constraints on new physics
models for b→ s`+`− anomalies, Phys. Rev. D97 (2018) 095035 [1712.06572].
[96] UTfit online update collaboration, Model-independent constraints on ∆F = 2
operators and the scale of new physics, JHEP 03 (2008) 049 [0707.0636].
[97] A. Crivellin, M. Hoferichter and P. Schmidt-Wellenburg, Combined explanations of
(g − 2)µ,e and implications for a large muon EDM, Phys. Rev. D98 (2018) 113002
[1807.11484].
[98] A. Crivellin, S. Davidson, G. M. Pruna and A. Signer, Renormalisation-group
– 37 –
improved analysis of µ→ e processes in a systematic effective-field-theory approach,
JHEP 05 (2017) 117 [1702.03020].
[99] BaBar collaboration, Searches for Lepton Flavor Violation in the Decays
τ± → e±γ and τ± → µ±γ, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104 (2010) 021802 [0908.2381].
[100] Belle collaboration, New Search for τ → µγ and τ → eγ Decays at Belle, Phys.
Lett. B666 (2008) 16 [0705.0650].
[101] ATLAS collaboration, Search for lepton-flavour-violating decays of the Higgs and
Z bosons with the ATLAS detector, Eur. Phys. J. C77 (2017) 70 [1604.07730].
[102] CMS collaboration, Search for Lepton-Flavour-Violating Decays of the Higgs
Boson, Phys. Lett. B749 (2015) 337 [1502.07400].
[103] LHCb collaboration, Search for lepton-universality violation in B+ → K+`+`−
decays, 1903.09252.
[104] M. Prim, Study of Lepton universality at Belle, Talk presented at Moriond EW on
22nd of March 2019 .
[105] A. Crivellin, C. Greub and A. Kokulu, Explaining B → Dτν, B → D∗τν and
B → τν in a 2HDM of type III, Phys. Rev. D86 (2012) 054014 [1206.2634].
[106] A. Celis, M. Jung, X.-Q. Li and A. Pich, Sensitivity to charged scalars in
b→ d(∗)τντ and b→ τντ decays, JHEP 01 (2013) 054 [1210.8443].
[107] P. Ko, Y. Omura and C. Yu, B → D(∗)τν and B → τν in chiral U(1)′ models with
flavored multi Higgs doublets, JHEP 03 (2013) 151 [1212.4607].
[108] A. Crivellin, J. Heeck and P. Stoffer, A perturbed lepton-specific two-Higgs-doublet
model facing experimental hints for physics beyond the Standard Model, Phys. Rev.
Lett. 116 (2016) 081801 [1507.07567].
[109] L. Dhargyal, R(D(∗)) and Br(B → τντ ) in a Flipped/Lepton-Specific 2HDM with
anomalously enhanced charged Higgs coupling to τ/b, Phys. Rev. D93 (2016)
115009 [1605.02794].
[110] C.-H. Chen and T. Nomura, Charged-Higgs on RD(∗), τ polarization, and FBA,
Eur. Phys. J. C77 (2017) 631 [1703.03646].
[111] S. Iguro and K. Tobe, R(D(∗)) in a general two Higgs doublet model, Nucl. Phys.
B925 (2017) 560 [1708.06176].
[112] R. Martinez, C. F. Sierra and G. Valencia, Beyond R(D(∗)) with the general
type-III 2HDM for b→ cτν, Phys. Rev. D98 (2018) 115012 [1805.04098].
[113] A. Biswas, D. K. Ghosh, S. K. Patra and A. Shaw, b→ c`ν anomalies in light of
extended scalar sectors, 1801.03375.
– 38 –
[114] A. Celis, M. Jung, X.-Q. Li and A. Pich, Scalar contributions to b→ c(u)τν
transitions, Phys. Lett. B771 (2017) 168 [1612.07757].
[115] R. Alonso, B. Grinstein and J. Martin Camalich, Lifetime of B−c Constrains
Explanations for Anomalies in B → D(∗)τν, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118 (2017) 081802
[1611.06676].
[116] A. G. Akeroyd and C.-H. Chen, Constraint on the branching ratio of Bc → τ ν from
LEP1 and consequences for R(D(∗)) anomaly, Phys. Rev. D96 (2017) 075011
[1708.04072].
[117] M. Blanke, A. Crivellin, S. de Boer, M. Moscati, U. Nierste, I. Niandi et al., Impact
of polarization observables and Bc → τν on new physics explanations of the
b→ cτν anomaly, 1811.09603.
[118] D. A. Faroughy, A. Greljo and J. F. Kamenik, Confronting lepton flavor
universality violation in B decays with high-pT tau lepton searches at LHC, Phys.
Lett. B764 (2017) 126 [1609.07138].
[119] J. Aebischer, C. Bobeth, A. J. Buras and D. M. Straub, Anatomy of ε′/ε beyond
the Standard Model, 1808.00466.
[120] C.-H. Chen and T. Nomura, ε′/ε from charged-Higgs-induced gluonic dipole
operators, Phys. Lett. B787 (2018) 182 [1805.07522].
– 39 –