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: andreas.crivellin@psi.ch, dario.mueller@psi.ch,

wiegand@itp.unibe.ch

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 –