Limiting two-Higgs-doublet models

Journal of High Energy Physics, Nov 2014

We update the constraints on two-Higgs-doublet models (2HDMs) focusing on the parameter space relevant to explain the present muon g −2 anomaly, Δa μ , in four different types of models, type I, II, “lepton specific” (or X) and “flipped” (or Y). We show that the strong constraints provided by the electroweak precision data on the mass of the pseudoscalar Higgs, whose contribution may account for Δa μ , are evaded in regions where the charged scalar is degenerate with the heavy neutral one and the mixing angles α and β satisfy the Standard Model limit β − α ≈ π/2. We combine theoretical constraints from vacuum stability and perturbativity with direct and indirect bounds arising from collider and B physics. Possible future constraints from the electron g −2 are also considered. If the 126 GeV resonance discovered at the LHC is interpreted as the light CP-even Higgs boson of the 2HDM, we find that only models of type X can satisfy all the considered theoretical and experimental constraints.

A PDF file should load here. If you do not see its contents the file may be temporarily unavailable at the journal website or you do not have a PDF plug-in installed and enabled in your browser.

Alternatively, you can download the file locally and open with any standalone PDF reader:

Limiting two-Higgs-doublet models

Alessandro Broggio 0 2 5 Eung Jin Chun 0 2 3 Massimo Passera 0 2 4 Ketan M. Patel 0 2 4 Sudhir K. Vempati 0 1 2 CH- 0 2 Villigen 0 2 Switzerland 0 2 I- 0 2 Padova 0 2 Italy 0 2 Open Access 0 2 c The Authors. 0 2 0 Bangalore 560012 , India 1 Centre for High Energy Physics, Indian Institute of Science 2 Seoul 130-722 , Korea 3 Korea Institute for Advanced Study 4 INFN - Sezione di Padova 5 Paul Scherrer Institut on the parameter space relevant to explain the present muon g 2 anomaly, a, in four different types of models, type I, II, lepton specific (or X) and flipped (or Y). We show that the strong constraints provided by the electroweak precision data on the mass of the pseudoscalar Higgs, whose contribution may account for a, are evaded in regions where the charged scalar is degenerate with the heavy neutral one and the mixing angles and satisfy the Standard Model limit /2. We combine theoretical constraints from vacuum stability and perturbativity with direct and indirect bounds arising from collider and B physics. Possible future constraints from the electron g 2 are also considered. If the 126 GeV resonance discovered at the LHC is interpreted as the light CP-even Higgs boson of the 2HDM, we find that only models of type X can satisfy all the considered theoretical and experimental constraints. 1 Introduction 2 3 4 Electroweak constraints Theoretical constraints on the splitting MA-MH+ Constraints from the muon g 2 Constraints from the electron g 2 The ATLAS and CMS Collaborations at the LHC [1, 2] found a neutral boson with a mass of about 126 GeV which confirms the Brout-Englert-Higgs mechanism. It is now of imminent interest to check whether this new boson is the unique one following exactly the Standard Model (SM) prediction, or if there are other bosons participating in the electroweak (EW) symmetry breaking. One of the simplest way to extend the SM is to consider two Higgs doublets participating in the EW symmetry breaking instead of the standard single one. There are in fact several theoretical and experimental reasons to go beyond the SM and look forward to non-standard signals at the next run of the LHC and at future collider experiments. For reviews on two-Higgs-doublet models, see [3, 4]. A major constraint to construct models with two Higgs doublets (2HDMs) arises from flavour changing neutral currents, which are typically ubiquitous in these models. Requiring Natural Flavour Conservation (NFC) restricts the models to four different classes which differ by the manner in which the Higgs doublets couple to fermions [46]. They are organized via discrete symmetries like Z2 under which different matter sectors, such as right-handed leptons or left-handed quarks, have different charge assignments. These models are labeled as type I, II, lepton-specific (or X) and flipped (or Y). Normalizing the Yukawa couplings of the neutral bosons in such a way that the explicit Yukawa interaction terms in the Lagrangian are given by (yf) mf ff for the CP-even scalars = h, H (lighter basis, the yfh,H,A factors are summarized in table I for each of these four types of 2HDMs the diagonalization angle of the two CP-even Higgs bosons (v = pv12 + v22 = 246 GeV). However it should be noted that in addition to these models, NFC can also occur in models with alignment, as in ref. [7]. In this class of models, more general sets of relations are imposed on the field content using discrete symmetries similar to Z2, which still conserve flavour but allow for CP violation. A class of 2HDMs also exists where one of the Higgs doublets does not participate in the dynamics and remains inert [8, 9]. Finally, in the so-called type III models both up and down fermions couple to both Higgs doublets. A detailed analysis of flavour and CP violation in type III models can be found in [10] and in type II and Ymodels. One of the possible experimental indications for new physics is the measurement of the out favourable extensions of the SM. In this paper we will study if such a deviation can two-loop diagrams [1115]. However, a light pseudoscalar may be in conflict with a heavy charged scalar whose mass is strongly constrained by direct and indirect searches. In fact, the general 2HDM lower bound on the mass of the charged scalar H from direct searches at LEP2 is MH >79 GeV [16], and even stronger indirect bounds can be set from B-physics In 2HDMs, the observed 126 GeV resonance can be identified with any of the two CP-even Higgs bosons.1 In the present paper we identified this resonance with the lightest CP-even scalar h. This interpretation is possible in all four 2HDMs types considered here. neutral Higgs h with the gauge bosons and fermions attain the SM values. In fact, the measured signal strengths and production cross section of such a particle are in very good agreement with the corresponding SM predictions [1834]. searches at colliders for the Higgs bosons h, H, A and H, B-physics observables, EW precision measurements and theoretical considerations of vacuum stability and perturbativity. The question then arises: which of these models are preferred by the present set of direct and indirect constraints? In this work we addressed this question concentrating on the 1In this paper, we work in the CP-conserving case i.e, we assume all the parameters to be real. The CP-violating case (see [4] for a review) is interesting in its own right as it can significantly modify the phenomenology (see for example ref. [17] and references therein). We will leave the CP-violating case for a four models described in table 1. Our analysis shows that only models of Type X (lepton specific) survive all these constraints. The paper is organised as follows. In section 2 we present a detailed analysis of the EW constraints on the masses of the pseudoscalar boson A, charged scalar H, and additional neutral heavy scalar H. We study radiative corrections in the 2HDMs and, in particular, the impact of the precise measurements of the W boson mass MW and the hierarchy between A and H is allowed by the Higgs measurements at the LHC and by the theoretical constraints on vacuum stability and perturbativity, which is discussed in section 3. In section 4 we present the additional contributions of the 2HDMs to the muon drawn in section 6. Electroweak constraints In this section we analyze the constraints arising from EW precision observables on 2HDMs. As it was shown for the first time in [36], in the SM the W mass can be computed perturbatively by means of the following relation M W2 = 1 form factor Z ll evaluated at q2 = MZ2 . where sin2W = 1 M W2 /MZ2 [36] and kl(q2) = 1 + kl(q2) is the real part of the vertex where the tilded quantities indicate the additional 2HDM contributions not contained in the SM prediction. These additional corrections depend only on the particles and parameters of the extended Higgs sector which are not present in the SM part. The radiative corrections QCD corrections [38, 39] (for a review of these corrections we refer the reader to [40]). For our purposes, this level of accuracy in the SM part is not needed, and in our codes [35] we implemented the full one-loop SM result plus the leading two-loop contributions of [41 this contribution and found agreement with the previous results. The additional 2HDM of [44]. For convenience, the calculation was carried out in the MS scheme and then translated to the on-shell scheme by means of the relations derived in [37, 45]. The analytic where a virtual Higgs is attached to an external fermion line, since they are suppressed by factors of O(Mf /MW ). As a result, no new contributions to vertex and box diagrams are present with respect to the SM ones. All the additional diagrams fall in the class of bosonic constraints do not depend on the way fermions couple to the Higgs bosons and, therefore, all four types of 2HDMs discussed in this paper share the same EW constraints. The 2HDM predictions for MW and sin2eleffpt depend on the Z boson mass MZ = light quarks, h(5a)d(MZ2 ) = 0.02763 (14) [47], the masses of the neutral Higgs bosons the LHC results on Higgs boson searches [1834]. To analyze the constraints on 2HDMs M W2HDM M WEXP !2 M WEXP = 80.385 0.015 GeV, The results of our analysis are displayed in figure 1, where we chose three different boson coupling = /2, Mh = 126 GeV, and we set MZ , mt, s(MZ ) and h(5a)d(MZ2 ) to their experimental central values. The green, yellow and gray regions of the plane MA vs. 2.3, 6.2, 11.8, respectively, which are the critical values corresponding to the 68.3, 95.4, and Note that in the case of a large splitting between MH and MH , MA is required to be almost degenerate with MH in order to satisfy the EW constraints. This point has already been remarked upon in [23, 29] (see also [51] for alternative conditions to satisfy the EW constraints). In addition, we observe that all values of MA are allowed when MH and MH are almost degenerate. This useful result will be used in section 4. Theoretical constraints on the splitting MA-MH+ Although, as shown in the previous section, any value of MA is allowed by the EW precision constrained by theoretical considerations of vacuum stability and perturbativity. Since discrepancy), it is important to check how small MA is allowed to be. In this section we study such constraints in a semi-analytical way. The CP-conserving 2HDM with softly broken Z2 symmetry is parametrized by seven V = m121|1|2 + m222|2|2 m122(12 + 21) where the Higgs vacuum expectation values are given by h1,2i = 12 (0, v1,2)T . The masses and perturbativity conditions put bounds on these parameters and correlate the masses of different neutral and charged scalars. For example, the vacuum stability condition and the requirement of global minimum is imposed by the condition [52] m122(m121 m222p1/2)(tan (1/2)1/4) > 0 , perturbativity criterion, we will consider three different values for the maximum couplings to see their impact on the allowed mass spectrum. A large separation between any two scalar masses in 2HDM is controlled by the above constraints. MA2 = M H2 = MA2 + conditions (3.2), (3.3) and (3.4) on the above equations. As can be seen from eq. (3.5), mentioned above, one gets the regions allowed in MA-M plane as shown in figure 2. can clearly see that for a light pseudoscalar with MA . 100 GeV the charged Higgs boson mass gets an upper bound of MH . 200 GeV. Also, figure 2 shows the presence of lower the implications of these correlations in the following sections. MH MH = {20,40, ,230,}4G}eVanadndvanmisahxin=g 4M.. Constraints from the muon g 2 contributions: aSM = aQED + aEW + aH. The QED prediction, computed up to five loops, aEW = 153.6 (1.0) 1011 [5456]. The latest calculations of the hadronic leading order way to improve its evaluation [6164]. Very recently, also the next-to-next-to leading order hadronic corrections have been determined: insertions of hadronic vacuum polarizations were computed to be aHNNLO(vp) = 12.4 (1) 1011 [65], while hadronic light-by-light aHLO = 6903 (53) 1011 of [58] (which roughly coincides with the average of the three 116 (39) 1011 of [57] and the rest of the other SM contributions, we obtain is, therefore, a aEXP aSM = +262 (85) 1011, i.e. 3.1 (all errors were added and charged Higgs bosons are [7375] where j = {h, H, A, H}, rj = m2/Mj2, and fh,H (r) = fA(r) = fH (r) = x2(2 x) 1 x + rx2 x 1 x + rx2 dx x(1 x) 1 (1 x)r in the additional 2HDM contribution (in any case, this contribution is negligible: setting Mh = 126 GeV and y h = 1 we obtain 2 1014). The formulae in eqs. (4.3)(4.6) show fh,H (r) = ln r 7/6 + O(r), fA(r) = + ln r + 11/6 + O(r), fH (r) = 1/6 + O(r), showing that in this limit fH (r) is suppressed with respect to fh,H,A(r). The one-loop results in eqs. (4.7)(4.9) also show that, in the limit r roughly scales with the fourth power of the muon mass. For this reason, two-loop effects may become relevant if one can avoid the suppression induced by these large powers of the to the muon g2 is [11, 12, 15, 54] X Nfc Qf2 yi yfi rfi gi(rfi ), where i = {h, H, A}, rfi = m2 /Mi2, and mf , Qf and Nfc are the mass, electric charge and f number of color degrees of freedom of the fermion f in the loop. The functions gi(r) are gi(r) = x(1 x) r x(1 x) fh = 1 and summing over top, bottom and tau lepton loops we obtain become larger than the one-loop ones. Moreover, the signs of the two-loop functions gh,H (negative) and gA (positive) for the CP-even and CP-odd contributions are opposite to those of the functions fh,H (positive) and fA (negative) at one-loop. In type II models with MA > 3 GeV can therefore generate a sizeable positive contribution which can account A similar conclusion is valid for the pseudoscalar contribution in type X models [78]. In fact, we notice from the pseudoscalar Yukawa couplings in table 1 that the contribution of the tau lepton loop is enhanced by a factor models of type I and Y. chosen instead (in fact, a lower MH induces a slightly larger negative scalar contribution experimentally [76] (see also [77]). line corresponds to MA = Mh/2 (see text for an explanation). for the down-type quark contribution. It is important to note that, on the contrary, In 2HDMs of type II (and Y) a very stringent limit can be set on MH from the flavour is much stronger than the model-independent one obtained at LEP, MH > 79.3 GeV at 95% CL [16, 83]. This strong constraint MH > 380 GeV, combined with the theoretical requirements shown in figure 2, leads to MA & 300 GeV. In turn, this lower bound on MA type II models are strongly disfavoured by these combined constraints. On the other hand, no such strong flavour bounds on MH exist in type X models [4, 81]. These models are large branching fraction even in the SM decoupling limit [78]. It will be thus interesting to perform a dedicated analysis for such a process by considering the further decays of light A in the type-X 2HDM. We do not perform such analysis here and leave it for future studies. However, we would like to emphasize that any limits arising from this process can still be avoided by considering the region MA > Mh/2. From figure 3, we see that even if MA > Mh/2, there is still sufficient parameter space left which can provide an explanation Constraints from the electron g 2 to be relevant; with this assumption, the measurement of ae is equated with the SM However, as discussed in [84], in the last few years the situation has been changing thanks to several theoretical [85] and experimental [86] advancements in the determination of ae dominating, has been significantly reduced, and one can start to view ae as a probe of physics beyond the SM. aEXP aeSM = 10.5(8.1)1013, i.e. 1.3 standard deviations, thus providing a beautiful test e ae = 10.5 1013, one still gets a negative value, which cannot be accounted for in the region of parameter space shown in figure 3. (Increasing the present central value by 1.4 one gets +0.8 1013, which is the input used to draw the dotted lines in figure 3.) In recent times there has been renewed interest in the phenomenology of models with two Higgs doublets. Most of the focus has been on four possible variations of them, namely, type I, II, X (or lepton specific) and Y (flipped). In this work we presented a detailed phenomenological analysis with the aim of challenging these four models. constraints from electroweak precision tests, vacuum stability and perturbativity, direct In these models, all the Higgses couple similarly to the gauge bosons, but differently to the fermions. Therefore, the electroweak constraints (along with the perturbativity and vacuum stability ones) are common to all of them, while the rest of the constraints vary from model to model. Using a stringent set of precision electroweak measurements we searches, all values of MA are allowed when MH and MH are almost degenerate. We considered a CP-conserving scenario where the 126 GeV resonance discovered at the LHC has been identified with the lightest CP-even boson h. The 2HDM predictions for observables which depend on fermion couplings are expected is the key distinguisher between the various types. A light pseudoscalar with couplings bound on the mass of the charged scalar which, taken together with the perturbativity and vacuum stability constraints, was shown to leave hardly any space for a light pseudoscalar. because both up and down type quarks couple to the same Higgs doublet in these models. Therefore, we showed that type X models are the only ones which can accommodate the further significant bounds on 2HDMs. even if this parameter region could be elusive because the productions of the additional leading search channels for the extra bosons would then be pair or associated productions A, H l+l, which can be readily tested at the next run of the LHC [4, 89]. We would like to thank G. Degrassi, T. Dorigo, A. Ferroglia, P. Paradisi, A. Sirlin and G. Venanzoni for very useful discussions. MP and KMP also thank the Department of Physics and Astronomy of the University of Padova for its support. Their work was supported in part by the PRIN 2010-11 of the Italian MIUR and by the European Program INVISIBLES (PITN-GA-2011-289442). MP and SKV thank the hospitality of KIAS, Seoul, where this work started. SKV also thanks DST, Govt. of India, for the support through the project SR/S2/RJN-25/2008. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC-BY 4.0), which permits any use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited. [1] ATLAS collaboration, Observation of a new particle in the search for the standard model Higgs boson with the ATLAS detector at the LHC, Phys. Lett. B 716 (2012) 1 [arXiv:1207.7214] [INSPIRE]. [2] CMS collaboration, Observation of a new boson at a mass of 125 GeV with the CMS experiment at the LHC, Phys. Lett. B 716 (2012) 30 [arXiv:1207.7235] [INSPIRE]. 80 (2000) 1 [INSPIRE]. (2012) 1 [arXiv:1106.0034] [INSPIRE]. Higgs doublet model and their collider phenomenology, Phys. Rev. D 80 (2009) 015017 [arXiv:0902.4665] [INSPIRE]. (2009) 091702 [arXiv:0908.1554] [INSPIRE]. [8] E. Ma, Verifiable radiative seesaw mechanism of neutrino mass and dark matter, Phys. Rev. D 73 (2006) 077301 [hep-ph/0601225] [INSPIRE]. with generic Yukawa structure, Phys. Rev. D 87 (2013) 094031 [arXiv:1303.5877] from a generic pseudoscalar boson, Phys. Rev. D 63 (2001) 091301 [hep-ph/0009292] Higgs doublet model and supersymmetry, Phys. Rev. D 64 (2001) 111301 [hep-ph/0103183] Phys. Polon. B 33 (2002) 2621 [hep-ph/0208076] [INSPIRE]. [14] F. Larios, G. Tavares-Velasco and C.P. Yuan, A very light CP odd scalar in the two Higgs doublet model, Phys. Rev. D 64 (2001) 055004 [hep-ph/0103292] [INSPIRE]. [15] K. Cheung and O.C.W. Kong, Can the two Higgs doublet model survive the constraint from the muon anomalous magnetic moment as suggested?, Phys. Rev. D 68 (2003) 053003 [hep-ph/0302111] [INSPIRE]. Phys. C 38 (2014) 090001. [17] L. Basso et al., Probing the charged Higgs boson at the LHC in the CP-violating type-II 2HDM, JHEP 11 (2012) 011 [arXiv:1205.6569] [INSPIRE]. Phys. Rev. D 86 (2012) 115009 [arXiv:1210.2465] [INSPIRE]. [18] W. Altmannshofer, S. Gori and G.D. Kribs, A minimal flavor violating 2HDM at the LHC, [19] S. Chang et al., Comprehensive study of two Higgs doublet model in light of the new boson with mass around 125 GeV, JHEP 05 (2013) 075 [arXiv:1210.3439] [INSPIRE]. Phys. Rev. D 87 (2013) 055016 [arXiv:1301.0309] [INSPIRE]. [21] C.-Y. Chen, S. Dawson and M. Sher, Heavy Higgs searches and constraints on two Higgs doublet models, Phys. Rev. D 88 (2013) 015018 [arXiv:1305.1624] [INSPIRE]. couplings model, JHEP 10 (2013) 134 [arXiv:1308.1979] [INSPIRE]. JHEP 07 (2013) 118 [arXiv:1305.1649] [INSPIRE]. [24] A. Barroso, 2HDM at the LHC The story so far, arXiv:1304.5225 [INSPIRE]. strengths and couplings and implications for extended Higgs sectors, Phys. Rev. D 88 (2013) 075008 [arXiv:1306.2941] [INSPIRE]. boson in two Higgs doublet models at the LHC, ILC and Muon Collider, Phys. Rev. D 88 (2013) 115003 [arXiv:1308.0052] [INSPIRE]. 8 TeV, JHEP 09 (2014) 101 [arXiv:1310.3374] [INSPIRE]. (2014) 085 [arXiv:1310.3937] [INSPIRE]. [29] A. Celis, V. Ilisie and A. Pich, Towards a general analysis of LHC data within two-Higgs-doublet models, JHEP 12 (2013) 095 [arXiv:1310.7941] [INSPIRE]. and heavy Higgs searches in the two-Higgs-doublet model of type II, Phys. Rev. D 90 (2014) 015008 [arXiv:1403.1264] [INSPIRE]. interactions in two-Higgs doublet models with Z2 symmetry, Eur. Phys. J. C 74 (2014) 3081 [arXiv:1401.6657] [INSPIRE]. [32] P.M. Ferreira et al., The CP-conserving 2HDM after the 8 TeV run, arXiv:1407.4396 two-Higgs-doublet models in light of the LHC Higgs signal, Phys. Rev. D 90 (2014) 035021 [arXiv:1405.3584] [INSPIRE]. [34] P.S.B. Dev and A. Pilaftsis, Maximally symmetric two Higgs doublet model with natural standard model alignment, arXiv:1408.3405 [INSPIRE]. [35] A. Broggio, Quantum effects in the two Higgs doublet model, M.Sc. thesis, University of [36] A. Sirlin, Radiative corrections in the SU(2)L U(1) theory: a simple renormalization framework, Phys. Rev. D 22 (1980) 971 [INSPIRE]. (1994) 1160 [hep-ph/9309326] [INSPIRE]. [38] M. Awramik, M. Czakon, A. Freitas and G. Weiglein, Precise prediction for the W boson mass in the standard model, Phys. Rev. D 69 (2004) 053006 [hep-ph/0311148] [INSPIRE]. weak mixing angle, JHEP 11 (2006) 048 [hep-ph/0608099] [INSPIRE]. perspective, Rev. Mod. Phys. 85 (2013) 263 [arXiv:1210.5296] [INSPIRE]. Nucl. Phys. B 272 (1986) 77 [INSPIRE]. [45] G. Degrassi, S. Fanchiotti and A. Sirlin, Relations between the on-shell and Ms frameworks and the MW -M Z interdependence, Nucl. Phys. B 351 (1991) 49 [INSPIRE]. mass measurements from the Tevatron collider, Phys. Rev. D 86 (2012) 092003 [arXiv:1207.1069] [INSPIRE]. [hep-ex/0509008] [INSPIRE]. [48] ALEPH, DELPHI, L3, OPAL, SLD, LEP Electroweak Working Group, SLD Electroweak Group, SLD Heavy Flavour Group collaboration, S. Schael et al., Precision electroweak measurements on the Z resonance, Phys. Rept. 427 (2006) 257 Phys. Rev. Lett. 98 (2007) 251802 [hep-ph/0703051] [INSPIRE]. doublet model, JHEP 06 (2013) 045 [arXiv:1303.5098] [INSPIRE]. to the muon g 2, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109 (2012) 111808 [arXiv:1205.5370] [INSPIRE]. [54] A. Czarnecki, B. Krause and W.J. Marciano, Electroweak fermion loop contributions to the muon anomalous magnetic moment, Phys. Rev. D 52 (1995) 2619 [hep-ph/9506256] [55] 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] [INSPIRE]. [56] C. Gnendiger, D. Stockinger and H. Stockinger-Kim, The electroweak contributions to [arXiv:1306.5546] [INSPIRE]. [59] B. Krause, Higher order hadronic contributions to the anomalous magnetic moment of leptons, Phys. Lett. B 390 (1997) 392 [hep-ph/9607259] [INSPIRE]. the muon anomalous magnetic moment, arXiv:0901.0306 [INSPIRE]. light-by-light scattering, JHEP 09 (2014) 091 [arXiv:1402.7081] [INSPIRE]. contribution to the muon anomalous magnetic moment from lattice QCD, arXiv:1407.2923 approach, arXiv:1409.0819 [INSPIRE]. anomalous magnetic moment to next-to-next-to-leading order, arXiv:1403.6400 [INSPIRE]. [arXiv:1403.7512] [INSPIRE]. [68] K. Melnikov and A. Vainshtein, Theory of the muon anomalous magnetic moment, Springer Tracts in Modern Physics volume 216, Springer, Germany (2006). [69] M. Davier and W.J. Marciano, The theoretical prediction for the muon anomalous magnetic moment, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 54 (2004) 115 [INSPIRE]. Phys. G 31 (2005) R75 [hep-ph/0411168] [INSPIRE]. Notes Phys. 629 (2004) 37 [hep-ph/0307239] [INSPIRE]. [70] M. Passera, The standard model prediction of the muon anomalous magnetic moment, J. [71] M. Knecht, The anomalous magnetic moment of the muon: a theoretical introduction, Lect. [72] Muon G-2 collaboration, G.W. Bennett et al., Final report of the muon E821 anomalous magnetic moment measurement at BNL, Phys. Rev. D 73 (2006) 072003 [hep-ex/0602035] [73] B. Lautrup, A. Peterman and E. de Rafael, Recent developments in the comparison between theory and experiments in quantum electrodynamics, Phys. Rept. 3 (1972) 193 [INSPIRE]. models, Nucl. Phys. B 137 (1978) 63 [INSPIRE]. anomalous magnetic moment?, JHEP 05 (2001) 006 [hep-ph/0102297] [INSPIRE]. Yukawa couplings, Phys. Rev. D 81 (2010) 035016 [arXiv:0907.1791] [INSPIRE]. at energies up to moment and the fine structure constant, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100 (2008) 120801 the fine structure constant and test of the quantum electrodynamics, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106 measurement of h/M , Phys. Rev. A 89 (2014) 052118 [arXiv:1312.2346] [INSPIRE].

This is a preview of a remote PDF:

Alessandro Broggio, Eung Jin Chun, Massimo Passera, Ketan M. Patel, Sudhir K. Vempati. Limiting two-Higgs-doublet models, Journal of High Energy Physics, 2014, DOI: 10.1007/JHEP11(2014)058