arxiv: v1 [hep-ph] 23 Aug 2018

Transcription

1 Natural Stabilization of the Higgs Boson s Mass and Alignment arxiv: v1 [hep-ph] 23 Aug 2018 Kenneth Lane 1 and William Shepherd 2,3 1 Department of Physics, Boston University 590 Commonwealth Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts 02215, USA 2 PRISMA Cluster of Excellence & Mainz Institute of Theoretical Physics Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz, Mainz, Germany 3 Department of Physics, Sam Houston State University Huntsville, Texas 77341, USA August 27, 2018 Abstract Current data from the LHC indicate that the 125 GeV Higgs boson, H, is either the single Higgs of the Standard Model or, to a good approximation, an aligned Higgs. We propose that H is the pseudo- Goldstone dilaton of Gildener and Weinberg. We point out for the first time that this naturally and, as far as we know, uniquely accounts for its low mass and its alignment. It further implies the existence of additional Higgs bosons in the vicinity of GeV. We illustrate our proposal in a version of the two-higgs-doublet model of Lee and Pilaftsis and we discuss the model s observational consequences at the LHC. lane@bu.edu shepherd@shsu.edu 1

2 1. The Gildener-Weinberg mechanism for stabilizing the Higgs mass and alignment The 125 GeV Higgs boson H discovered at the LHC in 2012 is a puzzle [1, 2]. Its known couplings to electroweak (EW) gauge bosons (W, Z and γ), gluons and fermions (τ, b and t, so far) are consistent at the 10 20% level with those predicted for the single Higgs of the Standard Model (SM) [3, 4, 5, 6]. But is that all? Why is the Higgs so light especially in the absence of a shred of evidence for any new physics that could explain its low mass? Is naturalness a chimera? If there are more Higgs bosons as favored in most of the new physics proposed to account for H and a prime search topic of the ATLAS and CMS Collaborations why are H s known couplings so SM-like? The common and attractive answer is that of Higgs alignment. In the context, e.g., of a model with several Higgs doublets, Φ i = 1 ( ) 2φ + i, i = 1, 2,..., (1) 2 v i + ρ i + ia i where v i / 2 is the vacuum expectation value (vev) of Φ i, an aligned Higgs is a mass eigenstate given by H = i v i ρ i /v (2) with v = i v2 i = 246 GeV. Eq. (2) has the same form as the linear combination of φ ± i and a i eaten by the W ± and Z. And this H has exactly SM couplings to W, Z, γ, gluons and quarks and leptons. To our knowledge, the first discussion of an aligned Higgs boson appeared in Ref. [7]. It was discussed there in the context of a two-higgs-doublet model (2HDM) in the decoupling limit in which all the particles of one doublet are very much heavier than v, and so decouple from EW symmetry breaking. The physical scalar of the lighter doublet then necessarily has SM couplings. There have been many discussions of Higgs alignment in the literature since Ref. [7], including in contexts other than the decoupling limit; see, e.g., Ref. [8]. However, with only one exception, see Refs. [9, 10], these 2

3 discussions have not addressed an important theoretical question: is Higgs alignment natural, i.e., is there an approximate symmetry which protects it from large radiative corrections? It might seem that, as in Refs. [9, 10], this is a separate naturalness question from that of the radiative stability of the Higgs mass, M H. In this paper, we shall see that they can be answered by a single symmetry and this fact appears to have gone unappreciated for decades. In 1973, S. Coleman and E. Weinberg (CW) [11] considered a classically scale-invariant theory of a dilaton scalar with an abelian gauge interaction, massless scalar electrodynamics. They showed that one-loop quantum corrections can fundamentally change the character of the theory by explicitly breaking the scale invariance, giving the dilaton a mass and a vev and, thereby, spontaneously breaking the gauge symmetry. In 1976, E. Gildener and S. Weinberg (GW) [12] generalized CW to arbitrary gauge interactions with arbitrary scalar multiplets and fermions, using a formalism previously invented by S. Weinberg [13]. Despite the generality, their motivation was clearly in the context of what is now known as the Standard Model. In brief, they assumed that, due to some unspecified underlying dynamics, the scalars Φ i in their model have no mass terms nor cubic couplings and, so, the model is classically scale-invariant. 1 The quartic potential of the massless scalar fields, which are real in this notation, is (see Ref. [12] for details) V 0 (Φ) = 1 24 f ijkl Φ i Φ j Φ k Φ l, (3) with dimensionless quartic couplings f ijkl. 2 A minimum of V 0 may or may not spontaneously break any continuous symmetries. If it does, it will also break the scale invariance resulting in a massless Goldstone boson, the dilaton. A minimum of V 0 does occur for the trivial vacuum, Φ i = 0 for all i. At this minimum, all fields are massless and scale invariance is realized in the Wigner mode. However, GW supposed that V 0 has a nontrivial minimum on the ray 1 It was assumed that all gauge boson and fermion masses are due to their couplings to Higgs bosons. 2 We assume that the f ijkl satisfy positivity conditions guaranteeing that V 0 has only finite minima. Hermiticity of V 0 also constrains these couplings. 3

4 (Φ n ) i = n i φ, i = 1, 2,... (4) where i n2 i = 1 and φ > 0 is an arbitrary mass scale. 3 They did this by adjusting the renormalization scale to have a value Λ W so that the minimum of the real continuous function V 0 (N) is zero on the unit sphere N i N i = 1. If this minimum is attained for a specific unit vector N i = n i, then V 0 (Φ) has this minimum value everywhere on the ray (4): V 0 (Φ = Φ n nφ) = 1 24 f ijkl n i n j n k n l φ 4 = 0. (5) Obviously, for this to be a minimum, V 0 (Φ) Φ i = f ijkl n j n k n l φ 3 = 0, (6) Φn and the matrix P ij = 1 2 f ijkl n k n l (7) must be positive semi-definite. Now comes the punchline: The combination Φ n = nφ is an eigenvector of P with eigenvalue zero. It is the dilaton associated with the ray (4), the flat direction of V 0 s minimum and the spontaneous breaking of scale-invariance. GW called the Higgs boson Φ n the scalon. Massive eigenstates of P are other Higgs bosons. Any other massless scalars have to be Goldstone bosons ultimately absorbed via the Higgs mechanism. Then, à la CW, one-loop quantum corrections V 1 (Φ) can explicitly break the scale invariance, picking out a definite value φ 0 = v of φ at which V 0 +V 1 has a minimum and giving the scalon a mass. Including quantum fluctuations about this minimum, (Φ n ) i = n i (v + H) + H i = v i + v i H/v + H i, (8) where, with knowledge aforethought, we name the scalon H. The other Higgs bosons H i are orthogonal to H. To the extent that V 1 is not a large perturbation on the masses and mixings of the other Higgs bosons 3 They later justify this assumption along with the fact that, when one-loop corrections are taken into account, this provides a deeper minimum than the trivial one. 4

5 of the tree approximation, the H i are small components of Φ n. 4 Thus, the scalon is an aligned Higgs boson. 5 Furthermore, the alignment of H is protected from large renormalizations in the same way that its mass is: by perturbatively small corrections to V 0 and its scale invariance. While the Higgs s alignment is apparent in the model we adopt in Sec. 2 as a concrete example [14], this fact and its protected status are not stressed in that paper nor in any other paper referring to Ref. [12]. From now on, we identify H with the 125 GeV Higgs boson discovered at the LHC. From the one-loop potential, i.e., first-order perturbation theory, GW obtained the following formula for M H (which we restate in the context of known elementary particles, extra Higgs scalars, and their electroweak interactions): ( MH 2 = 1 6M 4 8π 2 v 2 W + 3MZ 4 + ) MH 4 12m 4 t. (9) H Here, the sum is over Higgs bosons H other than H that may exist. Because this is first-order perturbation theory, the masses on the right side are those determined in zeroth order and evaluated at the scale-invariance breaking value v of φ. For M H = 125 GeV, Eq. (9) implies the sum rule ( 1/4 MH) 4 = 540 GeV. (10) H This result has been obtained in Ref. [15] and used in Ref. [14] to constrain the masses of new scalars. So long as loop factors suppress the higher-order corrections, it should be a good indication of the mass range of additional Higgs bosons in this class of models. It is for all such extra-higgs models that do not contain additional weak bosons or heavy fermions. Thus, the more Higgs multiplets such a scalon model has, the lighter they must be. In Sec. 2 a simple variant of a 2HDM of Lee and Pilaftsis (LP) [14] is used to illustrate the main point of this paper, namely, that the Gildener-Weinberg 4 As we shall discuss, this is the case in the model we discuss in Sec Eqs. (5.2) (5.6) in Ref. [12] show that GW recognized that the scalon has the same couplings to gauge bosons and fermions as the Higgs boson does in a one-doublet model. 5

6 scalon scheme provides a Higgs boson that is naturally both light and aligned by virtue of approximate scale invariance. A sample diagonalization of the mass matrix containing H(125) and comparison with the same calculation in Ref. [14] is in the Appendix. In Sec. 3 we examine constraints on our version of the LP model from precision electroweak measurements at LEP and searches for new, extra Higgs bosons at the LHC. We find that there is much room for improvement in these searches, and we list several targets of opportunity for both establishing the model and for excluding it. A short Conclusion re-emphasizes our main points. 2. The Lee-Pilaftsis model The Lee-Pilaftsis model employs two Higgs doublets, Φ 1 and Φ 2. We impose a type-i Z 2 symmetry under which the scalar doublets and all SM fermions, left and right-handed quark and lepton fields ψ L, ψ ur, ψ dr transform as follows: 6 Φ 1 Φ 1, Φ 2 Φ 2, ψ L ψ L, ψ ur ψ ur, ψ dr ψ dr. (11) Thus, all fermions couple to Φ 1 only, and there are no flavor-changing neutral current interactions induced by Higgs exchange at tree level[16]. Some unknown dynamics at high energies is assumed to generate a Higgs potential that is Z 2 -invariant and classically scale-invariant, i.e., has no quadratic terms: V 0 (Φ 1, Φ 2 ) = λ 1 (Φ 1Φ 1 ) 2 + λ 2 (Φ 2Φ 2 ) 2 + λ 3 (Φ 1Φ 1 )(Φ 2Φ 2 ) + λ 4 (Φ 1Φ 2 )(Φ 2Φ 1 ) + 1λ 2 5 ((Φ 1Φ 2 ) 2 + (Φ 2Φ ) 1 ) 2. (12) All five quartic couplings are real so that V 0 is CP-invariant as well. The scalars Φ 1,2 are parameterized as in Eq. (1) except that Φ 1,2 cannot have specific vevs v i at this stage. That would correspond to an explicit 6 The scalar doublets and fermion fields have the usual weak hypercharges Y so that their electric charges are Q = T 3 + Y. 6

7 breaking of scale invariance, and V 0 has no such breaking. 7 V 0 does have a trivial CP and electric charge-conserving extremum at Φ 1 = Φ 2 = 0. Following GW, we ask if there is another vacuum at which V 0 vanishes, but which is nontrivial, spontaneously breaking scale invariance. There is: consider V 0 on the ray Φ 1β = 1 ( ) 0, Φ 2β = 1 ( ) 0. (13) 2 φ c β 2 φ s β Here φ > 0 is any real mass scale, c β = cos β and s β = sin β, where β is an angle to be determined. Then V 0β V 0 (Φ 1β, Φ 2β ) = 1 4 ( λ1 c 4 β + λ 2s 4 β + λ ) 345c 2 β s2 β φ 4, (14) where λ 345 = λ 3 + λ 4 + λ 5. We require that V 0 is a minimum on this ray. The extremal ( no tadpole ) conditions are V 0 ( ρ 1 = φ 3 c β λ1 c 2 β + 1λ 2 345sβ) 2 = 0, Φi =Φ iβ V 0 ( ρ 2 = φ 3 s β λ2 s 2 β + 1λ 2 345cβ) 2 = 0. (15) Φi =Φ iβ The nontrivial solutions imply λ 1 /λ 2 = tan 4 β, λ 345 = ±2 λ 1 λ 2. (16) The potential V 0β = 0 if these conditions are satisfied with λ 345 = 2 λ 1 λ 2. Vacuum stability of V 0 requires that λ 1 and λ 2 are positive, so that λ 345 < 0. As we see next, this guarantees that the matrices of second derivatives of V 0 on the ray (13) are positive-semidefinite, so that V 0β is indeed a minimum. The matrices of second derivatives for the neutral CP-odd, charged and 7 Here, we depart from the development in LP to follow the analysis in GW. We do end up in the same place as LP when the one-loop potential induces explicit scale symmetry breaking. 7

8 CP-even scalars, respectively, are: M 2 H 0 = λ 5φ 2 ( s 2 β s β c β s β c β c 2 β ( s M 2 H = 1λ ± 2 45φ 2 2 β s β c β s β c β c 2 β ( ) M 2 H 0 = φ 2 2λ1 c 2 β λ 345 s β c β + λ 345 s β c β 2λ 2 s 2 β ), (17) ), (18) = λ 345 φ 2 ( s 2 β s β c β s β c β c 2 β ),(19) where λ 45 = λ 4 +λ 5 and we used Eqs. (15). The eigenvectors and eigenvalues of these matrices are (taking some liberty with the eigenvalue notation): ( z ) A ( w ± ) H ± ( H H ) = = = ( cβ s β ) ( a1 a 2 s β c β ( ) ( cβ s β φ ± 1 s β c β φ ± 2 ( ) ( cβ s β ρ1 s β Positivity of the nonzero masses requires c β ρ 2 ), M 2 z = 0, M 2 A = λ 5 φ 2 ; (20) ), M 2 w ± = 0, M 2 H ± = 1 2 λ 45φ 2 ; (21) ), M 2 H = 0, M 2 H = λ 345φ 2. (22) λ 5 < 0, λ 45 < 0, λ 345 < 0. (23) This is consistent with the convexity conditions on V 0 [14]. The minimum 8 defined by the ray in Eq. (13) has spontaneously broken scale invariance. The scalar fields, A, H ± and H, are massive and the massless CP-even scalar H = c β ρ 1 + s β ρ 2 is the dilaton associated with this breaking. It is an aligned Higgs boson, the GW scalon. The Goldstone bosons z and w ± are, of course, the longitudinal components of the EW gauge bosons Z and W ±. The minimum V 0β of V 0 is degenerate with the trivial one. The nontrivial one-loop corrections to V 0 will have a deeper minimum than the potential at zero fields [12]. It is interesting that, at this stage, (H, w +, w, z) are a degenerate quartet at the critical, zero-mass point for electroweak symmetry breaking. It has 8 Actually, of course, the infinity of degenerate minima. 8

9 been suggested that, if this quartet are bound states of fermions with a new strong interaction, being close to this critical situation gives rise to nearly degenerate isovectors that are ρ-like and a 1 -like resonances and that decay, respectively and almost exclusively, to pairs of longitudinally polarized EW bosons and to a longitudinal EW boson plus the 125 GeV Higgs boson; see Refs. [17, 18, 19] for details. We speculate that, once the scale symmetry is explicitly broken by quantum corrections, the massive but light Higgs and the longitudinal weak bosons remain close enough to the critical point that the diboson resonances likely carry this imprint of their origin. Whether these resonances are light enough to be seen at the LHC or a successor collider, we do not know but, of course, searches for them continue, as they should. For their 2HDM, LP calculated the one-loop effective potential V 1 and, following GW, extremized it along the ray (13). The nontrivial extremal conditions are [14]: (V 0 + V 1 ) ρ 1 (V 0 + V 1 ) ρ 2 ( = v 3 c β λ1 c 2 β + 1λ 2 345s 2 β + t 1 /64π 2) = 0, Φi =Φ iβ ( = v 3 s β λ2 s 2 β + 1λ 2 345c 2 β + t 2 /64π 2) = 0. (24) Φi =Φ iβ Here, we are using the fact that these conditions lead to a deeper minimum V 0β + V 1β < V 0β = V 0 (0) + V 1 (0) = 0, so that, at the minimum, a particular value v of φ is picked out. This is the vev of EW symmetry breaking, v = 246 GeV, and the vevs of Φ 1, Φ 2 are v 1 = vc β, v 2 = vs β with tan β = v 2 /v 1. (25) The angle β can be chosen to be in the first quadrant so that v 1, v 2 are real and non-negative [20]. Since v 0 explicitly breaks scale invariance, all masses and other dimensionful quantities are proportional to the appropriate power of it. The one-loop functions t 1,2 are given by t i = 4 ( [2M 4 v 4 W 3 ln M ) ( W M 4 Λ 2 Z 3 ln M ) ( Z M 4H ln M H 2 GW Λ 2 GW Λ 2 GW ( +MA 4 ln M ) ( A M 4H± ln M ) ( 2 H ± 1 12m 4 Λ 2 GW Λ 2 t ln m2 t 1 GW Λ 2 2 GW 9 ) 1 ) δ i1 ], (26)

10 where MW 2 = 1 4 g2 v 2 = MZ 2 cos2 θ W, MH 2 = λ 345v 2, etc. Here, Λ GW is the renormalization scale at which Gildener and Weinberg s one-loop potential has a nontrivial stationary point (and from which Eq. (9) and Eq. (34) below follow). Of course, physical quantities do not depend upon it. Next, LP determined the one-loop-corrected mass matrices of the scalars. For the CP-odd and charged Higgs bosons, the corrections are just the oneloop extremal conditions above, so that these mass matrices are given by Eqs. (17,18) with φ = v [14]. For the CP-even mass matrix, the explicit scale breaking φ = v gives the scalon a mass. After using Eqs. (24, the mass matrix is [14] M 2 H 0 + = v2 ( (2λ1 + m 2 11/64π 2 )c 2 β (λ m 2 12/64π 2 )s β c β (λ m 2 12/64π 2 )s β c β (2λ 2 + m 2 22/64π 2 )s 2 β Here, m 2 ij = 8 v 4 [2M 4 W ( 3 ln M ) ( W M 4 Λ 2 Z GW +MA 4 ln M A 2 + 2M 4 Λ 2 H ln M 2 H ± ± GW Λ 2 GW 3 ln M 2 Z 12m 4 t Λ 2 GW ). (27) ) MH 4 ln M H 2 Λ 2 GW ( ) ] ln m2 t + 1 δ Λ 2 2 i1 δ j1. (28) GW While the top-quark term in m 2 11 breaks the universality of the one-loop corrections to M 2 H 0, even if that term were absent the scalon would still + become massive because the tree-level relations (16) are modified by the one-loop extremal conditions: 2λ 1 + λ 345 tan 2 β = O(one loop), etc. There are simple relations between m 2 ij and t i, namely, m π = 2 t π + M H 2 2 v, 2 (29) m π = m π = 2 t π + M H 2 2 v 2 + 3m4 t 2π 2 v, 4 (30) where M H is the scalon mass, given below in Eq. (34). Using Eqs. (24) again, the logs and scale-dependence disappear from M 2 H, leaving 0 + ( ) M 2 H 0 = [ (2λ + 1 λ 345 )s 2 βv 2 + MH] 2 c 2 β 11 ( ) M 2 H 0 = [ (2λ + 2 λ 345 )c 2 βv 2 + MH 2 + 3m 4 t /2π 2 v 2] s 2 β, 22 ( ) M 2 H 0 = [ (λ λ 2 )s 2 βv 2 + MH 2 + 3m 4 t /2π 2 v 2] s β c β. (31) 12 10

11 The CP-even mass-eigenstates are the scalon H 1 and, by convention, a heavier H 2 defined by ( H1 H 2 where β = β δ and ) ( cδ s = δ s δ c δ ) ( H H ) ( ) ( cβ s = β ρ1 s β c β ρ 2 ), (32) tan 2β = [ (λ345 2λ 2 )s 2 β + M H 2 /v2 + 3m 4 t /2π 2 v 4] sin 2β [ 2(λ1 λ 2 )s 2 β c2 β + (M H 2 /v2 ) cos 2β 3m 4 t s 2 β /2π2 v4]. (33) It is easy to check that β = β and M 2 H 1 = 0 in the tree approximation. 500 M S2 (GeV) M H + =M S1 (GeV) Figure 1: The mass of the neutral Higgs S 2 = H /A as a function of the common mass of H ± and the other neutral Higgs, S 1 = A/H, from the sum rule in Eq.(34) with M H = 125 GeV. Note the considerable sensitivity of M S2 to M H + = M S1 when the latter is large. The validity of first-order nondegenerate perturbation theory requires 11

12 that β β so that δ β. 9,10 Then H 1 = H and its mass in this model is (from Eq. (9)) MH 2 1 = M 2 H = 1 ( 6M 4 8π 2 v 2 W + 3MZ 4 + MH 4 + M 4 A + 2M 4 H ) ± 12m4 t, (34) where, again, all the masses on the right side of this formula are obtained from zeroth-order perturbation theory, i.e., from V 0 plus gauge and Yukawa interactions, with φ = v. The way this formula is used to estimate heavy Higgs masses is to fix the left side at M H1 = 125 GeV, thereby determining (MH 4 +M4 A +2M 4 H ) 1/4. Then, as an example, one might fix M ± H ± = M A and search for H 2 = H near the mass M H determined by the formula. The sum rule is illustrated in Fig. 1 for M H1 = 125 GeV and M H ± = M A or M H ; the mass of the other neutral scalar is plotted against M H ±. The figure shows that the mass of that scalar is very sensitive to small changes in M H ± when the latter is large. In the Appendix we compute M H1,H 2 as a function of λ 3, equivalently MH 2, for M H ± = M A = 400 GeV. We shall see then that there can be appreciable differences between M H and the mass eigenvalue M H2 even though M H1 = MH and the angle δ β. Thus, the sum rule should be used with some caution in designing searches for large values of M H ± = M A/H. 11 The diagonalization of M H0 + and the comparison of our results with those of Ref. [14] are in the Appendix. Here we only mention that we find δ and δ/β = O(10 2 ) for tan β 1/3 1.0, hence near perfect alignment, as we see next in the Higgs couplings to EW bosons and fermions. With weak hypercharges of 1/2, the EW gauge couplings of the physical 9 Below and in Sec. 3, experimental constraints will require tan β < 1/2, so this means that δ must be small. 10 Eq. (31) shows that, for β = 0 or π/2, M 2 still has a zero eigenvalue despite the H 0+ fact that scale invariance is explicitly broken by v = v 1 0 or v = v 2 0. Eq. (33) implies that tan(2β ) = 0 in this case so that, requiring β β, they are equal and δ = 0 in these singular cases. Our numerical calculations for small positive β confirm that δ/β is always just a few percent. 11 Recall that the masses on the right in Eq. (34) are correct or very nearly so to one-loop order except, possibly, for M H. 12

13 Higgs bosons, H 1 = H(125), H2, A and H ±, of the LP model are given by: L EW = ieh µ H + (A µ + Z µ cot 2θ W ) e + A µ (H 1 sin δ H 2 cos δ) Z µ sin 2θ W ie ( + H ) µ (H 1 sin δ H 2 cos δ + ia)w +,µ h.c. 2 sin θ W ( emw + (H 1 cos δ + H 2 sin δ) W +,µ W µ + sin θ W em Z sin 2θ W Z µ Z µ ).(35) The alignment of H 1 and anti-alignment of H 2 for small δ are obvious. The Yukawa couplings to mass eigenstate quarks and leptons of the physical Higgs bosons dictated by the Z 2 symmetry in Eq. (11) are given by: L Y = 2 tan β 3 [ H + (ū kl V kl m dl d lr ū kr m uk V kl d ll + m lk ν kl l kr δ kl ) + h.c. ] v k,l=1 ( ) 3 v cos β + H1 cos β H 2 sin β ( ) muk ū k u k + m dk dk d k + m lk lk l k ia tan β v v cos β k=1 3 ( ) muk ū k γ 5 u k m dk dk γ 5 d k m lk lk γ 5 l k. (36) k=1 Here, V is the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa matrix and fermion masses are to be evaluated at O(300 GeV). Again the alignment of H 1 is obvious for small δ. The charged Higgs couplings in Eq. (36) contribute to b sγ decays. Ref. [21] studied this transition and bounded M H ± > 295 GeV at the 95% CL in 2HDM with type-ii couplings, i.e., in which up-quarks get their mass from Φ 2 and down-quarks from Φ 1 [22]. Their bound is for tan β 2 in such a model. The Yukawa couplings of our model are the simple variant of type-i with Φ 1 and Φ 2 interchanged. The bound then corresponds to tan β 1/2. In Sec. 3.2 we find a similar bound on tan β from a search for H ±. We briefly mention two theoretical constraints on this model considered in Ref. [14]. The first is perturbative unitarity. One of its most stringent conditions comes from requiring that the eigenvalue a + of the scattering 13

14 amplitudes in Ref. [23] obeys the bound a + = 1 [3(λ 1 + λ 2 ) + ] 9(λ 1 λ 2 ) 16π 2 + (2λ 3 + λ 4 ) 2 1. (37) 2 Note that this is symmetric under c β s β. Assuming, e.g, that M H ± = M A = 400 GeV, we have a + = { 0.38 for tan β = for tan β = 1 3 (38) The second constraint comes from the oblique parameters S, T [24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29]. We note here that the contribution to T from the Higgs scalars in this model vanishes identically when λ 4 = λ 5 [30, 31]. For this reason, we often assume M H ± = M A in the phenomenological considerations of Sec. 3. The constraints following from the S-parameter will be discussed there as well. 3. Experimental constraints and opportunities In this section, we discuss constraints from precision EW measurements at LEP and searches for new charged and neutral Higgs bosons at the LHC and, finally, we summarize targets of opportunity at the LHC. 3.1 Precision Electroweak Constraints The constraints from Z and W boson properties [3], parameterized by S and T are independent of the choice of Yukawa couplings for the 2HDM. We follow Ref. [14] to evaluate the contributions of the new Higgses to these parameters which included the (formally) two-loop effect of vertex corrections which arise due to the potentially large quartic couplings. The general form 14

15 of these corrections is [32] [ S Φ = 1 ( ) δγz H± F 4π (M H ±, M H ±) ] ( ) ghi AZ + δ H i 2 Z F (M Hi, M A ), i=1,2 { 2GF T Φ = ( ) 1 + δ A 2 16π 2 W F (M A, M H ±) (39) α EM + i=1,2 [ (ghiaz + δ H i Z ) 2 F (M Hi, M A ) ( g Hi H W + + ) δh i 2 ] } W F (M Hi, M H ±), where δv H is the vertex correction to the coupling of the vector boson V to Higgs boson H (see Ref. [14]) and F ( ) (M 1, M 2 ) are the bubble-graph integrals given in Ref. [33]. As noted, the Higgs contribution to T vanishes in this model when M H ± = M A. The regions of tan β M H ± parameter space allowed by precision EW data for the cases M H + = M A and M H + = M H are shown in Fig. 2. The mass of the lone neutral scalar in either of these scenarios is taken from the sum rule (34); see Fig. 1. The axes in Fig. 2 are chosen to span the parameter space technically available to the model after direct LEP searches. The lower bound of 70 GeV corresponds to the LEP search for charged Higgses [34]. The upper limit of 410 GeV is chosen to avoid the region of low M H or M A in Fig. 1. For M H ± = M H, the shared mass must be greater than about 315 GeV to satisfy EW precision data constraints at the 1σ level, and the higher masses allow for smaller values of tan β. In the M H + = M A case, a similar region in shared mass and tan β is allowed, but there is a second region within 1σ at low common mass and tan β. In fact, nearly the entire possible mass range is allowed at the 2σ level for tan β > 0.2. We shall see below in Fig. 6 that a CMS search at 8 TeV for a charged Higgs boson decaying to t b requires tan β < 0.5 for 180 < M H ± < 500 GeV [35]. 3.2 Direct Searches at the LHC In the alignment limit (small δ/β), the Yukawa couplings of the new charged and neutral Higgs bosons are proportional to tan β. The strong alignment renders ineffective existing searches for such Higgses in weak boson final 15

16 1.0 M H + =M A 1.0 M H + =M H' tan β tan β M H + (GeV) M H + (GeV) Figure 2: The constraints on the type-i scale-invariant 2HDM arising from precision electroweak measurements. The green (yellow) regions indicate 1σ (2σ) agreement with precision data. In the left panel M H + = M A, which also enforces that the scalars contribution T Φ to the T -parameter vanishes. In the right panel M H + = M H for which T Φ 0. The remaining neutral scalar s mass is set by Eq. (34). states, specifically H 2 H and A W + W, ZZ. At the same time, it may strengthen searches in fermionic final states. Reference production cross sections for the new Higgses for several potentially important processes are shown in Figs. 3,4. Note that all the single-higgs production cross sections which may be efficient in the alignment limit are proportional to tan 2 β. Among heavy scalars, the most promising search is for th ± -associated production, with H + t b. The subprocess for this is gb( b) th ( th + ). The most stringent constraint so far on this channel is from the CMS search at 8 TeV [35]. In the aligned limit, the other potentially important decay mode is H ± W ± H or W ± A, whichever neutral Higgs is lighter. That 12 neutral Higgs decays mainly to bb. Fig. 5 shows the dependence of the branching ratio B(H + t b) as a function of M H + and tan β. In this figure, 12 It also decays to τ + τ with a branching ratio of O(15%). 16

17 Single-Higgs Production 10 σ/tan 2 β (pb) gg A gg H' pp th - pp bbh'/a M S (GeV) Figure 3: The cross sections for single Higgs production processes in the alignment limit (δ 0) with the dependence on tan β scaled out. Both charged Higgs states are included in pp th. M H + = M A or M H and the other neutral scalar s mass is given by the sum rule (34). There has been no dedicated search yet for H ± W ± H /A. However, the final state for this decay mode, th ± tw ± H /A tw ± bb, is similar to that of th ± tt b tw ± bb. Therefore, we conservatively assume that it contributes with equal acceptance to the search at CMS so that the branching ratio of B(tH ± tw ± bb) = 1. The signal rate then scales as for the single Higgs production, σ B tan 2 β. Because CMS has reported unfolded bounds on σ B for this final state, we are able to recast the search from its type-ii 2HDM form into bounds on our type-i model. We show the constraints on tan β as a function of M H + in Fig. 6. As did CMS, we extrapolated linearly between points at which cross section limits were reported. Further constraints can come from searches for neutral Higgs bosons pro- 17

18 Drell-Yan Production σ (fb) pp AH + pp H + H - pp H'H + pp AH' M H + (GeV) Figure 4: The cross sections for Drell-Yan production of Higgs pairs in the alignment limit (δ 0). They are independent of tan β. M H ± = M A is assumed, with M H taken from Eq.(34). The sharp increase at large M H ± is due to the rapid decrease of M H there; see Fig. 1. For the case M H ± = M H, simply interchange the labels A and H in the figure. duced in gluon fusion and decaying to top, bottom or tau pairs. 13 From the sum rule in Eq. (34), the heaviest H or A can be is almost 540 GeV when all other masses are 100 GeV. An ATLAS search at 8 TeV [36] for resonant production of tt has been performed only for scalars heavier than 500 GeV because of the complexity of interference effects in regions near threshold where off-shell tops become important in heavy Higgs decays. A neutral scalar mass of M H = 500 GeV corresponds to M H ± = M A = 295 GeV. In principle, such searches are sensitive to the full mass range within 1σ at lower mass and tan β in the left panel of Fig. 2. The case M H ± = M H = 295 GeV 13 Note that W W and ZZ fusion of H and A is very small in the alignment limit. 18

19 1.0 BR(H + tb) tan M H + (GeV) Figure 5: The branching ratio B(H + t b) as a function of M H + and tan β. The only other significant decay mode is H + W + H /A. It is assumed that M H + = M A or M H ; the other neutral scalar s mass is then given by Eq. (34). is within 2σ of Fig,2 and should not be ignored out of hand. This particular search is fairly difficult to recast because the analysis was performed 19

20 tan βmax M H + (GeV) Figure 6: Constraints on tan β in any type-i 2HDM à la the model of Sec. 2 from a CMS search at 8 TeV for charged Higgs production in association with another top quark and decaying to t b [35]. The kinks in this plot occur at the data points provided by CMS, and arise due to linear interpolation of the excluded cross section for intermediate values of charged Higgs mass. primarily in terms of signal strength in a 2HDM. Using the signal rate quoted in auxiliary material together with the constrained signal strength leads to constraints at fixed M A = 500 GeV of σ B < pb, corresponding to tan β < in our model. For M H = 500 GeV, the limits are σ B < pb, corresponding to tan β < Choosing even the smallest of these bounds on tan β, this search does not reach the 1σ region at low M H ± = M A in Fig. 2. A search at 13 TeV for production of a neutral scalar in association with a bb pair and decaying to another bb pair in the mass range GeV has been carried out by CMS [38]. It is not appreciably sensitive to these models, as the bottom Yukawa coupling is not enhanced as it is in the models targeted 20

21 tan β from τ pairs gg A τ + τ - gg H' τ + τ - tan β M S (GeV) Figure 7: The constraints on tan β in the model of Sec. 2 from the ATLAS search at 13 TeV for a neutral Higgs S = H 2, A decaying to τ + τ [37]. They apply only to the lighter neutral Higgs because decays to light fermions are quickly overwhelmed by, e.g., A H 2 Z or A tt when the channels open. by this analysis. The largest bb-associated new Higgs production cross section in our model, independent of subsequent decay branching ratios, is already sub-femtobarn for tan β = 1 and, so, is unconstrained by this analysis. A search for neutral Higgs production from either gluon fusion or bbassociated production with subsequent decays to τ + τ has been performed at 13 TeV by ATLAS in the mass range GeV [37]. Gluon fusion production is more promising for our model, with cross sections as large as 20 pb for pseudoscalar production at tan β = 1. Decays to light fermions in this model are quickly overwhelmed by bosonic decays, such as A H 2 Z, when accessible. Thus, these searches are capable of constraining only the lighter new neutral scalar in the model. In this limit, the competing 21

22 decays are to third-generation quarks. The bounds on tanβ arising from these searches are shown in Fig. 7. Due to the opening of the top quark decay channel, these searches also become ineffective for M > H2,A 350 GeV. Finally, two searches for a neutral scalar produced in association with bb and decaying to Z plus another scalar which itself decays to bb or τ + τ has been performed at 13 TeV by CMS and ATLAS [39, 40] for models with both scalars masses below 1 TeV. In order that there is adequate splitting between the scalars in our model, either the common scalar mass of the charged and selected neutral scalar must be greater than 400 GeV or less than 350 GeV, implying that the heavier scalar s mass is at least 400 GeV. From Fig. 3, the greatest production cross section for pp b bh /A for tan β = 1 is 10 fb. The CMS cross section limits (and comparable ones from ATLAS) for the lighter scalar decaying into bb are greater than this largest possible cross section. Limits for decays to τ + τ are a few fb. Including the tau branching ratio of the H /A, this limit is also well above the cross section predicted in our model. A search of interest to ATLAS and CMS is for resonant pair-production of H(125). Unfortunately, the amplitude for H 2 H 1 H 1 vanishes in the alignment limit of 2HDM models of type considered here and, so, we expect that it will be a very weak signal. This is related to the vanishing of H 2 W W and ZZ in this limit. As noted in Sec. 2, before the explicit scalebreaking potential V 1 is turned on, (H, w +, w, z) are a degenerate quartet at the critical zero-mass point for electroweak symmetry breaking. Therefore, the three-point amplitude coupling of H = lim δ 0 H 2 to any pair of these Goldstone bosons vanishes. 3.3 Targets of opportunity at the LHC We summarize here the likely targets of opportunity at the LHC that we discussed above and remind the reader of some unlikely ones which serve as negative tests of the model we considered. We preface this by recalling that we found that tan β < 1/2 in our variant of the LP 2HDM model and this negatively affects both certain production rates and decay branching ratios. 1.) Update the search carried out in Ref. [35] for H + t b W + bb via 22

23 the process g b th + and charge conjugate modes ) Perform a dedicated search for g b th + followed by H + W + H /A W + b b. Recall that this has a similar final state as the search above, but includes a resonant bb signal. 3.) Search for single production of H /A b b in gluon fusion and possibly in association with b b. If H 2 or A are light, in the neighborhood of GeV, the decay to τ + τ can be important. It is also then possible that the heavier of the two neutral scalars decays to the lighter one plus a Z-boson. 4.) If possible, search for gluon fusion of H /A t t nearer to the tt threshold than was done in Ref. [36]. 5.) Search for diboson resonances decaying to V L V L and V L H, as discussed in Sec. 2. The mass of such resonances is dictated by the underlying dynamics that produce the scale-invariant potential V 0 in Eq. (12), dynamics whose energy scale is not specified in the model. 6.) Drell-Yan production of H ± A, H ± H 2, H 2 A and H + H are at most a few femtobarns and may, therefore, be more difficult targets than gg H 2, A. On the other hand, these cross sections have no tan 2 β suppression. 7.) Gluon fusion of H /A γγ is probably too small to be detected because this cross section is proportional to tan 4 β. 8). The alignment of the 125 GeV Higgs strongly suppresses the decays of H 2 and A to W + W and ZZ, as well as W W and ZZ fusion of H 2 and A, providing a second negative test of the model. 9.) The decay H = lim δ 0 H 2 HH is a third negative test of the model; if it is seen, that is inconsistent with the type of model considered here. 14 Ref. [41], which appeared recently, is a 13 TeV search by ATLAS which addresses this final state. However, its bounds at low masses are not appreciably stronger than those of Ref. [35]. 23

24 4. Conclusion In conclusion, we have emphasized here for the first time that the low mass and apparent Standard-Model couplings to gauge bosons and fermions of H(125) can have the same symmetry origin. It is the pseudo-goldstone boson of broken scale symmetry, the scalon of Gildener and Weinberg [12], and this fact stabilizes its mass and its alignment. This is an important theoretical point. But there is also an important experimental one to make here. The Gildener-Weinberg scalon picture identifies a specific mass range for new, non-sm Higgs bosons, and that mass range is not far above H(125). Therefore, at the LHC, the relatively low region below about 500 GeV currently deserves as much attention as has been given to pushing the machine and the detectors to their limits. Acknowledgments We are grateful for conversations with and comments from several members of the CMS and ATLAS Collaborations. KL thanks Erick Weinberg, Ben Grinstein, Tom Appelquist, Estia Eichten, Adam Martin and Luke Pritchett for valuable comments and insights He also thanks the CERN TH Division and, especially, Luis Álvarez-Gaumé and Cinzia Da Via for their warm and generous hospitality during the initial stages of this work. The work of WS was supported by the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation in the framework of the Sofja Kovalevskaja Award 2016, endowed by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research. 24

25 Appendix: CP-even masses and comparison with Lee & Pilaftsis Scalar Masses (full 1-loop) Scalar Mixing (full 1-loop) δ δ β M (GeV) M H M H' 0.04 M H1 50 M H λ λ 3 Figure 8: Left: The CP-even Higgs one-loop mass eigenvalues M H1 and M H2, the tree-level mass M H = λ 345 v and the one-loop mass M H from Eq. (34) as functions of λ 3 = (2M 2 H M 2 ± H )/v2. Here, tan β = 1 and M H ± = M A = 400 GeV corresponding to λ 4 = λ 5 = The input H = H 1 mass is M H = GeV, the corresponding initial M H = GeV and λ 3 = M H vanishes at λ 3 = 2M 2 H /v 2 = Right: The angle ± δ = β β and ratio δ/β for β = π/4. We diagonalized M 2 H 0 with elements in Eqs. (31) for a range of tan β + 1 and M H ± = M A 400 GeV. The general features of our results are fairly insensitive to these choices. The input parameters for the calculation reported here were chosen to be the same as those in Ref. [14], namely, tan β = 1.0 and M H ± = M A = 400 GeV. These masses determine λ 4 = λ 5 = MA 2/v2 = To initiate the calculation, the value (M H )i = GeV was chosen from which, using Eq. (34), (M H ) i = GeV and (λ 3 ) i = were determined; λ 3 was then incremented to the maximum value (λ 3 ) f = 2M 2 H /v 2 = at which M 2 ± H = λ 345v 2 vanishes. For each value of λ 3, a new value of M H = λ 345 v is determined and used in the 25

26 Figure 9: The CP-even Higgs masses M H1, M H2 as functions of λ 3 = (2M 2 H M 2 ± H )/v2 for M H ± = M A = 400 GeV and tan = 1. The input H = H 1 mass at λ 3 = 4.40 is M H = GeV. The dashed blue line is the tree-level M H = λ 345 v with λ 4 = λ 5 = MA 2/v2 = From Ref. [14]. sum rule to update M H in the matrix elements of Eqs. (31). Note that it is consistent loop-perturbation theory to use tree-level expressions to compute the nonzero, one-loop value of M H. Fig. 8 shows M H from Eq. (34), the zeroth-order mass M H, and the eigenvalues M H1,H 2 (left) and the angle δ = β β and ratio δ/β (right). In the masses plot, M H1 /M H = 1.03 for all λ3 ; M H2 starts off about 10% greater than M H and increases to 70% greater when M H = M H at λ 3 = Then M H2 diverges upward while M H plunges to zero. The mixing angle δ (right), which measures the deviation from perfect alignment of H 1, is just several percent and a small fraction of β; δ/β has a broad maximum of about 6% near λ 3 = For this choice of input parameters, then, the alignment of 26

27 the 125 GeV Higgs boson H is nearly perfect Scalar Masses (incomplete 1-loop) Scalar Mixing (incomplete 1-loop) δ δ β 150 M (GeV) 100 M H M H' M H1 0.5 M 0 H λ λ 3 Figure 10: Left: The CP-even Higgs masses, with input parameters of Fig 8, except that the eigenvalues M 2 H 1, H 2 of M 2 H 0+ were calculated using the treelevel extremal conditions 2λ 1 + λ 345 tan 2 β = 2λ 2 + λ 345 cot 2 β = 0. Right: The angle δ = β β (solid) and ratio δ/β (dashed) for β = π/4. These results are qualitatively similar to those obtained by LP in Ref. [14], but only up to λ 3 4.8; see Fig. 9. The LP paper was submitted in April 2012, before the announcement of the discovery of H(125) and before a more precise value of its mass had been announced. Hence, it appears, their chosen input value of M H = GeV. Up to λ 3 4.9, H 2 = H with the treelevel mass M H2 = MH = λ 345 v = 2M 2 H λ ± 3 v. Meanwhile, H 1 = H with M H1 given by Eq. (34) is almost constant at 120 GeV. In this region, δ is small and β = β = π/4. Beyond λ3 4.9, there is a clear deviation from this behavior and a level crossing which LP identify as occurring at λ c 3 = Above λ c 3, M H2 = 120 GeV while MH1 and M H coalesce and fall 15 An extreme example takes M H ± = M A = 300 GeV. Then (M H ) i = 485 GeV and (λ 3 ) i = The Higgs mass M H calculated from the sum rule and M H1 remain very close as do M H and M H2, and the angle δ = O(1%) until near (λ 3 ) f = 2.97 where it rises rapidly, but only to 10%. As noted in footnote 10, our calculations show that δ/β is always a few percent for all β > 0. 27

28 to zero at (λ 3 ) f = Here, δ π/2 = 2β, and the LP calculation is well past the point of reliable first-order perturbation theory. We cannot reproduce the level crossing seen in Fig. 9 using the M 2 H 0 + matrix elements in Eq. (31). However, we found that we could by using the tree-level extremal conditions, 2λ 1 + λ 345 tan 2 β = 2λ 2 + λ 345 cot 2 β = 0. The result is illustrated in Fig. 10. The level crossing in the M H0 + eigenvalues occurs at the same place as in LP s calculation. Because it is much more rapid in our calculation than in LP s, we can pinpoint it at λ 3 = We do not know if this is why LP obtained their level crossing. But there is no doubt that using the tree-level extremal conditions in M 2 H 0 is not consistent + loop-perturbation theory and, in fact, the results are renormalization-scale dependent. 28

29 References [1] ATLAS Collaboration, G. Aad et. al., Observation of a new particle in the search for the Standard Model Higgs boson with the ATLAS detector at the LHC, Phys.Lett. B716 (2012) 1 29, [2] CMS Collaboration, S. Chatrchyan et. al., Observation of a new boson at a mass of 125 GeV with the CMS experiment at the LHC, Phys.Lett. B716 (2012) 30 61, [3] Particle Data Group Collaboration, C. Patrignani et. al., Review of Particle Physics, Chin. Phys. C40 (2016), no. 10, [4] CMS Collaboration, A. M. Sirunyan et. al., Observation of tth production, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120 (2018), no. 23, , [5] ATLAS Collaboration, M. Aaboud et. al., Evidence for the associated production of the Higgs boson and a top quark pair with the ATLAS detector, Phys. Rev. D97 (2018), no. 7, , [6] ATLAS Collaboration, M. Aaboud et. al., Observation of Higgs boson production in association with a top quark pair at the LHC with the ATLAS detector, [7] J. F. Gunion and H. E. Haber, The CP conserving two Higgs doublet model: The Approach to the decoupling limit, Phys. Rev. D67 (2003) , hep-ph/ [8] M. Carena, I. Low, N. R. Shah, and C. E. M. Wagner, Impersonating the Standard Model Higgs Boson: Alignment without Decoupling, JHEP 04 (2014) 015, [9] P. S. Bhupal Dev and A. Pilaftsis, Maximally Symmetric Two Higgs Doublet Model with Natural Standard Model Alignment, JHEP 12 (2014) 024, [Erratum: JHEP11,147(2015)]. [10] P. S. B. Dev and A. Pilaftsis, Natural Standard Model Alignment in the Two Higgs Doublet Model, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 631 (2015), no. 1, ,

30 [11] S. R. Coleman and E. J. Weinberg, Radiative Corrections as the Origin of Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking, Phys. Rev. D7 (1973) [12] E. Gildener and S. Weinberg, Symmetry Breaking and Scalar Bosons, Phys. Rev. D13 (1976) [13] S. Weinberg, Perturbative Calculations of Symmetry Breaking, Phys. Rev. D7 (1973) [14] J. S. Lee and A. Pilaftsis, Radiative Corrections to Scalar Masses and Mixing in a Scale Invariant Two Higgs Doublet Model, Phys. Rev. D86 (2012) , [15] K. Hashino, S. Kanemura, and Y. Orikasa, Discriminative phenomenological features of scale invariant models for electroweak symmetry breaking, Phys. Lett. B752 (2016) , [16] S. L. Glashow and S. Weinberg, Natural Conservation Laws for Neutral Currents, Phys. Rev. D15 (1977) [17] K. Lane and L. Pritchett, Heavy Vector Partners of the Light Composite Higgs, Phys. Lett. B753 (2016) , [18] T. Appelquist, Y. Bai, J. Ingoldby, and M. Piai, Spectrum-doubled Heavy Vector Bosons at the LHC, JHEP 01 (2016) 109, [19] G. Brooijmans et. al., Les Houches 2015: Physics at TeV colliders - new physics working group report, in 9th Les Houches Workshop on Physics at TeV Colliders (PhysTeV 2015) Les Houches, France, June 1-19, [20] M. Carena and H. E. Haber, Higgs boson theory and phenomenology, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 50 (2003) , hep-ph/ [21] M. Misiak et. al., Estimate of B( B X s γ) at O(α 2 s), Phys. Rev. Lett. 98 (2007) , hep-ph/

31 [22] 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) 1 102, [23] S. Kanemura, T. Kubota, and E. Takasugi, Lee-Quigg-Thacker bounds for Higgs boson masses in a two doublet model, Phys. Lett. B313 (1993) , hep-ph/ [24] D. C. Kennedy and B. W. Lynn, Electroweak Radiative Corrections with an Effective Lagrangian: Four Fermion Processes, Nucl. Phys. B322 (1989) 1. [25] M. E. Peskin and T. Takeuchi, A new constraint on a strongly interacting Higgs sector, Phys. Rev. Lett. 65 (1990) [26] M. E. Peskin and T. Takeuchi, Estimation of oblique electroweak corrections, Phys. Rev. D46 (1992) [27] M. Golden and L. Randall, Radiative corrections to electroweak parameters in technicolor theories, Nucl. Phys. B361 (1991) [28] B. Holdom and J. Terning, Large corrections to electroweak parameters in technicolor theories, Phys. Lett. B247 (1990) [29] G. Altarelli, R. Barbieri, and S. Jadach, Toward a model independent analysis of electroweak data, Nucl. Phys. B369 (1992) [30] R. A. Battye, G. D. Brawn, and A. Pilaftsis, Vacuum Topology of the Two Higgs Doublet Model, JHEP 08 (2011) 020, [31] A. Pilaftsis, On the Classification of Accidental Symmetries of the Two Higgs Doublet Model Potential, Phys. Lett. B706 (2012) , [32] D. Toussaint, Renormalization Effects From Superheavy Higgs Particles, Phys. Rev. D18 (1978)

32 [33] S. Kanemura, Y. Okada, H. Taniguchi, and K. Tsumura, Indirect bounds on heavy scalar masses of the two-higgs-doublet model in light of recent Higgs boson searches, Phys. Lett. B704 (2011) , [34] LEP, DELPHI, OPAL, ALEPH, L3 Collaboration, G. Abbiendi et. al., Search for Charged Higgs bosons: Combined Results Using LEP Data, Eur. Phys. J. C73 (2013) 2463, [35] CMS Collaboration, V. Khachatryan et. al., Search for a charged Higgs boson in pp collisions at s = 8 TeV, JHEP 11 (2015) 018, [36] ATLAS Collaboration, M. Aaboud et. al., Search for Heavy Higgs Bosons A/H Decaying to a Top Quark Pair in pp Collisions at s = 8 TeV with the ATLAS Detector, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119 (2017), no. 19, , [37] ATLAS Collaboration, M. Aaboud et. al., Search for additional heavy neutral Higgs and gauge bosons in the ditau final state produced in 36 fb 1 of pp collisions at s = 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector, JHEP 01 (2018) 055, [38] CMS Collaboration, A. M. Sirunyan et. al., Search for beyond the standard model Higgs bosons decaying into a bb pair in pp collisions at s = 13 TeV, [39] CMS Collaboration, V. Khachatryan et. al., Search for neutral resonances decaying into a Z boson and a pair of b jets or τ leptons, Phys. Lett. B759 (2016) , [40] ATLAS Collaboration, M. Aaboud et. al., Search for a heavy Higgs boson decaying into a Z boson and another heavy Higgs boson in the llbb final state in pp collisions at s = 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector, Phys. Lett. B783 (2018) ,

33 [41] ATLAS Collaboration, M. Aaboud et. al., Search for charged Higgs bosons decaying into top and bottom quarks at s = 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector,