Abstract
We study the production of a neutral Higgs boson at a Future Circular Collider in the electron-hadron mode (FCC-eh) through the leading process \(e^- p \rightarrow \nu _e h q \) assuming the decay channel \(h \rightarrow c \bar{c} \), where h is the Standard Model (SM)-like state discovered at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC). This process is studied in the context of a 2-Higgs Doublet Model Type III (2HDM-III) embedding a four-zero texture in the Yukawa matrices and a general Higgs potential, where both Higgs doublets are coupled with up- and down-type fermions. Flavour Changing Neutral Currents (FCNCs) are well controlled by this approach through the adoption of a suitable texture once flavour physics constraints are taken in account. Considering the parameter space where the signal is enhanced and in agreement with both experimental data and theoretical conditions, we analyse the aforementioned signal by taking into account the most important SM backgrounds, separating c-jets from light-flavour and gluon ones as well as b-jets by means of efficient flavour tagging. We find that the \(h c \bar{c} \) coupling strength can be accessed with good significance after a luminosity of 1 ab\(^{-1}\) for a 50 TeV proton beam and a 60 GeV electron one, the latter with a 80% (longitudinal) polarisation.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
1 Introduction
Since the July 2012 discovery of a Higgs boson, h, with properties very consistent with those predicted by the Standard Model (SM), at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), by the ATLAS and CMS experiments, spontaneous Electro-Weak Symmetry Breaking (EWSB) resting on a minimal Higgs mechanism is apparently well established. While a mass of 125 GeV is not really an indication for the SM construct being the one responsible for these LHC signals, as \(m_h\) is a free parameter in it, the fact that production and decay rates involving couplings to \(W^\pm \) and Z bosons as well as \(t,b,\tau \) and \(\mu \) fermions have been measured and are compatible with the SM genuine predictions (once \(m_h\) is measured) is a strong sign in flavour of such a minimal Higgs construct.
However, a notable absence in the list of the SM-like Higgs couplings so far measured is the one involving the \(hc{\bar{c}}\) vertex, which is presently unconstrained. The reason is that corresponding signals at the LHC are masked by an enormous QCD background. In fact, not even the ability to tag c-jets, on a similar footing with what has successfully been done for b-jets, is sufficient to enable a measurement of the Yukawa coupling to c-(anti)quarks at a level comparable to the case of b-ones, as the displaced vertex associated to semi-leptonic c-meson decays is much closer to the interaction point (where the gluon and light flavour jet backgrounds originates) than the one stemming from the corresponding b-meson transitions. Another drawback is that the strength of the \(hc{\bar{c}}\) vertex in the SM is much smaller than that of the \(hb{\bar{b}}\) vertex, as they scale with the fermion mass, which in turn means that the Branching Ratios (BRs) for \(h\rightarrow c{\bar{c}}\) is \((m_c/m_b)^2\) times smaller than BR(\(h\rightarrow b{\bar{b}}\)), see, e.g., Ref. [1]. On the other hand, the precise evaluation of decay width \(h \rightarrow c {\bar{c}}\) has been studied recently at next-to-next-to-leading order QCD (including the flavour-singlet contribution) and the next-to-leading order electroweak [2].
However, there exist extensions of the SM in which the Higgs sector is enlarged by additional (pseudo)scalar multiplets (singlets, doublets, triplets, etc.), where the \(h\rightarrow c{\bar{c}}\) rate can be increased substantially. Herein, owing to the fact that the SM-like Higgs discovered at the LHC has a clear doublet nature, we focus on the simplest extension of the SM involving such Higgs multiplet, the so-called 2-Higgs Doublet Model (2HDM). The latter comes in several guises, known as Type I, II, III (or Y) and IV (or X), wherein Flavour Changing Neutral Currents (FCNCs) mediated by (pseudo)scalars can be eliminated under discrete symmetries [3,4,5,6,7,8,9], entirely if the latter are exact or sufficiently to comply with experimental limits if they are softly broken. In fact, another, very interesting kind of 2HDM is the one where FCNCs can be controlled by a particular texture in the Yukawa matrices [10]. In particular, in previous papers, we have implemented a four-zero texture, in a scenario which we have called 2HDM Type III (2HDM-III) [11]. This model has a phenomenology that is very rich, which we studied at colliders in various instances [12, 13], and some very interesting aspects, like flavour-violating quarks decays, which can be enhanced for neutral Higgs bosons with intermediate mass (i.e., below the top quark mass). In particular, we have studied the signal \(\phi _i^0 \rightarrow s \bar{b} + h.c.\) (\(\phi _i^0= h, \, H\)) [14, 15]. Furthermore, in this model, the parameter space can avoid the current experimental constraints from flavour and Higgs physics and a light charged Higgs boson is allowed [16], so that the decay \(H^- \rightarrow b \bar{c}\) is enhanced and its BR can be dominant [17, 18].
In fact, the 2HDM-III is also an ideal candidate in providing enhanced \(h\rightarrow c{\bar{c}}\) rates, as the Yukawa texture parameters that affect the aforementioned \(H^\pm \) signatures also enter the \(h\rightarrow b{\bar{b}}\) and \(h\rightarrow c{\bar{c}}\) ones. In particular, it is always possible to maintain the Yukawa coupling to the b-(anti)quark in the range currently measured at the LHC, and indeed the one foreseen by the end of the High Luminosity LHC (HL-LHC) era [19, 20], while enhancing the \(h\rightarrow c{\bar{c}}\) one. It is the purpose of this paper to study the scope of the electron-proton Future Circular Collider (FCC-eh), with a Center-of-Mass (CM) energy of 3.5 TeV [21,22,23]. This configuration is obtained by the collisions of a 50 TeV proton beam coming from the FCC-hh [24] and a 60 GeV electron beam from an external linear accelerator (Electron Recovery Linac (ERL)) tangential to the FCC main tunnel [23] and offers good prospects as a Higgs boson factory, as herein one could elucidate the nature of the couplings of generic Higgs bosons to most fermions, especially the \(h \rightarrow b \bar{b} \) one, which remains difficult to establish with high precision at both the LHC and the HL-LHC because of the overwhelming QCD background.Footnote 1 Given these encouraging results for the \(hb{\bar{b}}\) vertex, we specifically analyse here the prospects of also establishing the \(hc{\bar{c}}\) one.
Our work is organised as follows. In the next section we describe briefly the 2HDM-III, specifically, its Yukawa structure. Then in the following one we discuss the theoretical and experimental constraints applying to it and select some benchmark scenarios for numerical analysis. In Sect. 4 we give our results whereas in Sect. 5 we finally summarise.
2 The Higgs sector of the 2HDM-III
The 2HDM-III is described by two scalar Higgs doublets \(\Phi _i =(\phi _i^- , \, \phi _i^{0*} ) \) (\(i=1\), 2), with hypercharge \(+1\), which can couple to all fermions. FCNCs are controlled by a specific four-zero texture in the Yukawa matrices, the latter being an effective flavour theory of the Yukawa sector. Therefore, a discrete symmetry is not necessary in this approach, so that the \(SU(2)_L \times U(1)_Y\) invariant scalar potential in its general form can be considered, which is given by [26,27,28,29]:
wherein, for simplicity, we suppose that all parameters are realFootnote 2 as so are the Vacuum Expectation Values (VEVs) of the Higgs fields. Besides, notice that, when a discrete symmetry is implemented in the model, the \(\lambda _{6,7}\) terms are absent. However, in our model, the latter can be kept in the Higgs potential when the four-zero texture is implemented in the Yukawa matrices. This is rather interesting, as we have shown that these parameters (\(\lambda _{6,7}\)) can be relevant in one-loop processes but do not contribute to EW parameter \(\rho = m_W^2/m_Z^2 \cos _W^2\) [30]. However, the ordinary custodial symmetry [3, 7](twisted custodial symmetry [31]) associated to the \(\rho \) parameter is broken when the difference \(m_{H^\pm } -m_A \)(\(m_{H^\pm } -m_H\)) is sizeable, being \(H^\pm \) the charged Higgs boson and A(H) the heavy CP-odd(even) one belonging to this construct, in addition to the aforementioned SM-like h state. Reasonable models with such an extended Higgs sector are those for which \(\rho \approx 1\) when radiative corrections are included [7, 27, 31,32,33,34,35,36] or, more in general, those in good agreement with the experimental constraints from the oblique parameters S, T and U [37, 38], part of the so-called EW Precision Observables (EWPOs) [39]. The described Higgs bosons spectrum emerges after EWSB, which provide mass to the \(W^\pm \) and Z bosons, thus releasing five physical Higgs fields: two CP-even neutral states h, H (with \(m_h < m_H\)), one CP-odd neutral state A plus two charged Higgs bosons \(H^\pm \). Furthermore, one also has the mixing angle \(\alpha \), that relates the two CP-even neutral bosons (h, H) and \(\beta \) (being \(\tan \beta \) the ratio of VEVs of the two Higgs doublets). The masses of these Higgs fields and these two angles are the inputs parameters chosen here to describe the scalar potential.
About the Yukawa sector of our model, this is defined by [16]:
being \(\tilde{\Phi }_i = i \sigma _2 \Phi _{i}^*\) (\(i=1, 2\)) and where both Higgs doublets are coupled with up- and down-type fermions. Following the procedure of Refs. [16, 40], after EWSB, the fermion mass matrices are:
where the Yukawa matrices \(Y_{1,2}^f\) have the four-zero texture form and are Hermitian. Considering the diagonalisation of the fermion mass matrices through \(\bar{M}_f= V_{fL}^\dag M_f V_{fL} \), we have \(\tilde{Y}_n^f= V_{fL}^\dag Y_n^f V_{fL}\), then one can get a good approximation for the rotated matrix \(\tilde{Y}_n^f\) as follows [16]:
where the \(\chi \)s are dimensionless and constrained by flavour physics experimental data, which will be discussed in the following section. Then, one can obtain the generic Lagrangian of the Yukawa sector, which gives the interactions of physical (pseudo)scalars fields with fermions, as:Footnote 3
where \(X_{ij}\), \(Y_{ij}\), \(Z_{ij}\), \(A_{ij}\) are given in [16]. For our study it is sufficient to consider the functions \(h_{ij}^f\), which are given by:
wherein the parameters X, Y, \(\varepsilon _{h,H}^{u,d}\) are given in Table 1, where it is made clear that our 2HDM-III construct with a four-zero Yukawa texture can be related to the ordinary Yukawa types known as Type I, II and Y (or flipped) by choosing appropriately these parameters.
In general, the Higgs-fermion–fermion couplings are expressed as \(g^{ff\phi }_{\mathrm{2HDM-III}} = g^{ff\phi }_{\textrm{any}}+ \Delta g\), where \(g^{ff\phi }_{\textrm{any}}\) represents the \(ff \phi \) coupling in any 2HDM with a discrete symmetry and \(\Delta g\) is the contribution of the four-zero texture [16].
3 Constraints and benchmark scenarios
In previous works [11, 16, 40, 45], we have constrained our model by considering EWPOs, flavour and Higgs physics constraints from experimental data as well as theoretical bounds (such as unitarity [46, 47], vacuum stability [48, 49] and perturbativity). Since the theoretical bounds and EWPO constraints have been analysed very recently [50], and these have not changed, we refer the reader to such a paper. In contrast, experimental constraints evolve continuously so here we have re-evaluated them in the light of the very latest results. Specifically, the parameter space of the model was constrained by flavour physics measurements, through the experimental data bounds from leptonic and semileptonic meson decays, the inclusive decay \(B \rightarrow X_s \gamma \) , the \(B_0-B_0\) and \( K_0 -K_0\) mixing as well as the process \(B_s \rightarrow \mu ^+ \mu ^-\) [16, 51]. We have then used HiggsBounds [39, 52] and HiggsSignals [53, 54] to place bounds over the masses and couplings of neutral [55, 56] and charged Higgs bosons [57,58,59,60,61,62], so as to make sure that the parameter space of the 2HDM-III considered here is consistent with any Higgs boson searches and measurements conducted at the LHC and previous colliders. In particular, using LHC measurements of the SM-like Higgs boson in the decays \(h\rightarrow \gamma \gamma \) and \(\gamma Z \) [54, 63,64,65,66,67], we made sure that the Yukawa texture involving the couplings of the charged Higgs boson with fermions in the loops of these processes is in agreement with data. Specifically, in the permitted region of parameter space of our model, rather low masses for the charged Higgs bosons are allowed [30, 45, 50, 68].
As intimated, in this study, the scalar field h is the SM-like Higgs boson, hence, \(m_h =125\) GeV. Furthermore, we choose the following parameter space: \(m_A = 150\) GeV, 125 GeV \(< m_H<\) 200 GeV, 100 GeV \(< m_{H^\pm } < 170\) GeV and \(\cos (\beta -\alpha ) \approx 0.1\), with \(0.014 \le S \le 0.026\) and \( -\,0.02 \le T \le 0.028\) and tensioned these against the measured values \(S = -\,0.010.07\) and \(T = 0.040.06\) (fixing \(U = 0\)) taken from [69], being all this parameter space consistent with the aforementioned theoretical conditions and experimental data. Then, we select some sets of free parameters \(\chi \)’s which will represent our benchmark scenarios for each of the discussed 2HDM-III realisations (or incarnations). Explicitly, these benchmark scenarios are shown in Table 2. We have characterised these benchmark scenarios in Fig. 1, where we show the events rates for the aforementioned production and decay process over the (X, Y) plane for case Ia, IIa and Y of Table 2. These events rates are realised at parton level, taking the efficiency of c-tagged jets as \(\epsilon _c=0.24\) and assuming 1 ab\(^{-1}\) of (integrated) luminosity. The coloured regions over the (X, Y) plane shown herein are compliant with all aforementioned constraints while the white backgrounds correspond to regions ruled out. Furthermore, we have demanded that for all benchmark points the BR\((h\rightarrow b{\bar{b}})\) is in agreement with the latest experimental observations, which established as ratio of the measured value to the SM prediction the following one \(\mu =1.04\pm 0.20\) [70,71,72]. Moreover, we have considered the most recent and stringent direct constraint for the Higgs-charm Yukawa coupling modifier \(\kappa _c\) obtained by CMS and ATLAS [73, 74], where \( 1.1<|\kappa _c|<5. 5\) and this one is interpreted in the \(\kappa \)-framework [75, 76]. These last constraints are responsible for the absence of continuity across all allowed regions. This is due to the fact that the Yukawa couplings are strongly sensitive to the X and Y values, hence the BR\((h\rightarrow b{\bar{b}})\) is too, as well as BR\((h\rightarrow c{\bar{c}})\). For example, for the Ia scenario, over the region with \(2<X<5\), the BR\((h\rightarrow b \bar{b})\) is above the mentioned experimental bounds but, if Y grows larger, \(h\rightarrow c \bar{c}\) starts to be relevant and the BR\((h\rightarrow b \bar{b})\) decreases until acceptable values. In contrast, in the region \(0<X<1\), the channel \(h\rightarrow b \bar{b}\) is generally inconsistent with experimental data unless Y is small, so that the \(h\rightarrow c\bar{c}\) decay rate is small too and the BR\((h\rightarrow b\bar{b})\) is within the allowed limits from the experimental data connected at the CERN machine.
The discussed event rates are calculated via the formula \(\sigma (ep\rightarrow \nu _e h j)~\times \) BR\((h\rightarrow c{\bar{c}})\times \) 1 ab\(^{-1}~\times \epsilon _c^2\) (as mentioned, we take \(\epsilon _c=0.24\) as an approximation of the efficiency of a standard c-tagging algorithm suitable for the FCC-eh environment [77]). The cross sections and BRs have been calculated using CalcHEP 3.7.5 [78], wherein the 2HDM-III has been implemented by ourselves. The proton beam is taken with 50 TeV of energy (\(E_b\)), assuming CTEQ6L1 as Parton Distribution Functions (PDFs) [79], while the electron beam is considered to be of 60 GeV (\(E_{e^-}\)) with a (longitudinal) polarisation (\(P_L^{\; e^-}\)) of \(-\,80\%\) [80]. For each of these BPs we give herein the common cross section, the BRs into \(b{\bar{b}}\), \(c{\bar{c}}\), \(s{\bar{b}}\) plus Charge Conjugate (C.C.) and \(s{\bar{s}}\).
As prospect of our work, for ee-colliders as ILC [81] ( CLIC [82]) machine the cross sections of Higgs production would be \(\sigma (e^+ e^- \rightarrow \nu _e \bar{\nu _e} h) \sim 220 \) fb (\(\sim 600\) fb) and the main cross section \(\sigma (e^- p \rightarrow h j \nu _e) \sim 190 \) fb (\(\sim 1000 fb \)) for electron proton-colliders LHeC (FCC-he), with center-of mass energy of \(\sqrt{s}= 1.3 \)TeV ( \(\sqrt{s}= 3.5 \) TeV) . One can see, the cross sections are the same order of magnitude. Therefore, the studies of Higgs factories would be complement among ee-colliders and ep- colliders.
4 Numerical analysis
The first step of our numerical analysis is to compare the production and decay rate of signal events to those of the various backgrounds, in presence of acceptance and selection cuts. The latter are implemented at the parton level as \(p_T(q)>10\) GeV, \(\Delta R(q,q)>0.3\) and \(|\eta (q)|<7\), where q represents any quark involved. For our Signal (S), we refer to the inclusive rates in Table 3. For the Background (B), final states of the type \(E_T / ~~~+ 3\) jet are considered. In order to not overload with information the forthcoming histograms, we consider the following five compounded contributions (wherein j represents any jet except a b-one): \(\nu 3j\) (it represents the set of \(\nu _e j j j\), \(\nu _e b j j\) and \(\nu _e b b j\) final states), \(\nu _e l l j\) (for any configuration of charged leptons and quarks), \(\nu _e t b\), e3j (for ejjj, ebjj and ebbj) and ett. In Table 4, one can see the corresponding cross sections at parton level for all these backgrounds as well as the corresponding event rates for the usual FCC-eh parameters.
For the analysis at detector level, we proceed in the following way: we use PYTHIA8 [83] as parton shower and hadronisation generator and Delphes [84] as detector simulator. Delphes was run via a FCC-eh card provided in [85]. Finally, we employed MadAnalysis5 [86] to construct histograms and implement the event selections.
In order to reconstruct the final state of interest, enriched by two c-jets, we need to worry about the presence of b-jets, as both c- and b-quarks will originate jets with displaced vertices: thus, just like there is a non-zero probability of b-jets being tagged as c-jets also the vice versa is possible. Furthermore, a value of \(60\%\) for \(\epsilon _b\) essentially means that some b-jets (precisely, 40% of them) could be tagged as either c-jet or lighter ones.Footnote 4 In essence, it is not obvious what will be the number of true \(c{\bar{c}}\) events in the complete di-jet sample (although this is all modelled by Delphes). However, in order to extract the \(hc{\bar{c}}\) vertex strength, we can proceed as follows. To start with, the portion of \(b{\bar{b}}\) events recognised as such, \(N_b\approx \epsilon _b^2\), can be filtered out. Conversely, around \(1-\epsilon _b^2\) of \(b{\bar{b}}\) events would be accounted as light di-jets ones (including \(c{\bar{c}}\) ones, that we do not separate out), which we label as \(N_{b\rightarrow j}\). (In fact, the latter also includes a \(\propto (1-\epsilon _b)\) subleading contribution from mistagged \(s{\bar{b}}\) + C.C. events.) This will add to the true number of events with only light jets, \(N_j\), where \(j=s\). Likewise, the portion of \(c{\bar{c}}\) events recognised as such is \(N_c=\epsilon _c^2\), which in turn implies that \(1-\epsilon _c^2\) of these will appear as light jets, labelled as \(N_{c\rightarrow j}\). These will also add to the \(N_j\) rate alongside the \(N_{b\rightarrow j}\) one. In order to perform an unbiased measurement of the Yukawa coupling \(hc{\bar{c}}\) we can only rely on the \(N_c\) sample. However, we can use the sample constituted by \(N_j+N_{b\rightarrow j}+N_{c\rightarrow j}\) di-jet events, wherein it is not necessary to extract the fraction of b-jets appearing as c-jets, for validation purposes, to ensure that the two measurements are consistent with each other, so that, in the remainder of our analysis, we will consider the two cases in parallel.Footnote 5
Now, having defined two di-jet samples accounting for flavour (mis)tagging effects, in order to remove the contamination from backgrounds having kinematic configurations similar to the signals, irrespectively of the flavour composition, we proceed by enforcing the following sets of cuts. (Notice that the kinematics of any h decay into di-jets is the same, given the much larger value of \(m_h=125\) GeV with respect to any \(m_q\) with \(q=d,u,s,c\) and b.)
- A) :
-
We impose the following initial conditions for jets and leptons: \(p_T(j)>10\) GeV, \(p_T(l)>10\) GeV and \(|\eta (j)|<6\). Once these requirements are combined with the described tagging procedure, we have events composed of missing (transverse) energy and three jets.
- B) :
-
From the left histogram of Fig. 2, one can select the most relevant signature in terms of jet multiplicity, specifically, we select events with exactly two jets. In fact, the third jet typically comes directly from the primary vertex and is very forward, when not outside the detection zone (i.e., \(|\eta (j_3)|>6\)), therefore it is not considered in our analysis. Furthermore, for any jet multiplicity \(N[j]>3\), the signal yield is far too depleted to be of numerical interest. Another cut is over the missing (transverse) energy, as we take \(E_T/~~~ >30\) GeV (see the histogram on the right-hand side of Fig. 2). Specifically, this cut is very strong against the ejjj background, as it keeps only around \(20\%\) of such events without penalising the signals excessively.
- C) :
-
The third set of cuts are imposed over the pseudorapidity and transverse momentum of each jet. To start with, we use \(\eta \) ordering to tag the first or second jet (i.e., \(|\eta (j_1)|>|\eta (j_2)|\)). About pseudorapidity, we demand \(\eta (j_1)<-3.5\) and \(\eta (j_2)<-4\). These cuts are highly restrictive onto ejjj and \(\nu jjj\), kee** around of \(8\%\) and \(50\%\) of these events, respectively (see top histograms in Fig. 3). Furthermore, the selections in jet transverse momentum are \(p_T(j_1)<90\) GeV, which has a strong impact on the ejjj and ett backgrounds, and \(p_T(j_2)>30\) GeV, which affects mainly the \(\nu jjj\) and \(\nu tb\) noises (see bottom histograms in Fig. 3).
- D) :
-
We impose that \(\Delta R(j_1,j_2)\!\equiv \!\sqrt{\Delta \phi (j_1,j_2)^2\!+\!\Delta \eta (j_1,j_2)^2}>1.6\). This cut enhances the signal above all backgrounds except ejjj: see Fig. 4.
- E) :
-
Finally, we impose a selection on invariant mass for of the two jets, which are the candidates to reconstruct the SM-like Higgs boson mass. Specifically, this cut is 100 GeV\(<M(j_1,j_2)<125\) GeV: see Fig. 5.
(Notice that we have illustrated the kinematics of the Ia incarnation of the 2HDM-III signal but we can confirm that results are extremely similar for the IIa and Y cases as well.)
The response of all signals and backgrounds to each of the above cuts is captured in Table 5. Here, the top value in each row represents the signal rate with no flavour being filtered, i.e., this is the effective di-jet final state defined above as \(N_j+N_{b\rightarrow j}+N_{c\rightarrow j}\) while the bottom value is the estimated number of \(N_c\) events made up by \(c{\bar{c}}\) pairs recognised as such. It is clear that the kinematic selection is effective in significantly reducing all of the latter without greatly affecting all of the former. This is well exemplified by the values of the final S versus B rates, including the significances, defined as \(\frac{S}{\sqrt{S+B}}\). The fact that the corresponding values are always well beyond 5, whichever flavour tagging, clearly indicates the discovery potential of both \(h\rightarrow jj\) and \(h\rightarrow c{\bar{c}}\) events at the FCC-eh with a confidence level against the possibility of a background fluctuation far higher than at any hadron collider foreseen at CERN, i.e., a HL-LHC and FCC-hh [20, 24], and comparable to that of the FCC-ee [87], a future \(e^+e^-\) collider therein.
5 Conclusions
In summary, we have studied the process \(e^- p \rightarrow \nu _e h q \) assuming the decay channel \(h \rightarrow c \bar{c} \), where h is the discovered SM-like state, at a FCC-eh with \(E_b=50\) TeV and \(E_{e^-}= 60\) GeV in presence of a \(-\,80\%\) polarisation of the \(e^-\) beam. We considered this channel in the context of a 2HDM-III embedding a four-zero texture in the Yukawa matrices and a general Higgs potential, where both Higgs doublets are coupled with up- and down-type fermions, as a theoretical framework that can be mapped into the standard four types of 2HDM. Hence, we have defined three limits of it reproducing the Type I, II and Y (but not X, which offers no sensitivity to our study) setups. The purpose was to show that this collider has the ability to access the Yukawa coupling between the SM-like Higgs state and c-quarks, which can only be determined with significant errors at present and future hadronic machines, like the (HL-)LHC and FCC-hh.
Upon accounting for flavour mistagging effects in a realistic way in presence of parton shower, hadronisation and detector effects and simulating both reducible and irreducible backgrounds, we have proven that large significances can be achieved at such FCC-eh, above and beyond what attainable at the aforementioned hadronic machines and comparable to the FCC-ee expectations. This conclusion applies to all three 2HDM-III incarnations discussed, each being exemplified by two BPs at the edges of the currently allowed (by LHC data) interval on the Yukawa coupling between the SM-like Higgs state and b-quarks.
Data Availability Statement
This manuscript has no associated data or the data will not be deposited. [Authors’ comment: All results are documented using the ar**v metadata repository. Research data from this work has been submitted to ar**v and is available to the international physics community and the general public. The data are results of numerical calculations considering theoretical and analytical computations. All calculations were done with high energy physics tools and mathematical.]
Notes
Other interesting studies for probes of Higgs coupling in Higgs pair production at hadron electron colliders LHeC and FCC-eh have been realised recently [25].
The \( \mu _{12}^2 \) and \( \lambda _i\) \( (i=5,6,7)\) parameters could be complex in general, which then induce CP-violation in the Higgs sector.
We neglect here the possibility of s-jets to be tagged as c- or b-ones, so that we need not worry about the role of \(s{\bar{b}}\) + C.C. and \(s{\bar{s}}\) events.
This search technique of \(h c {\bar{c}}\) coupling can be employed for the nearer future Large Hadron-electron Collider (LHeC).
References
S. Moretti, W. J. Stirling, Phys. Lett. B 347, 291 (1995) [Erratum: Phys. Lett. B 366, 451 (1996)]
S.-Y. Li, Z.-Y. Li, P.-C. Lu, Z.-G. Si, Chin. Phys. C 45, 093105 (2021)
G.C. Branco, P.M. Ferreira, L. Lavoura, M.N. Rebelo, M. Sher, J.P. Silva, Phys. Rep. 516, 1 (2012)
V.D. Barger, J.L. Hewett, R.J.N. Phillips, Phys. Rev. D 41, 3421 (1990)
Y. Grossman, Nucl. Phys. B 426, 355 (1994). ar**v:hep-ph/9401311
M. Aoki, S. Kanemura, K. Tsumura, K. Yagyu, Phys. Rev. D 80, 015017 (2009). ar**v:0902.4665 [hep-ph]
J.F. Gunion, H.E. Haber, G.L. Kane, S. Dawson, Front. Phys. 80, 1–425 (2000)
J.F. Donoghue, L.F. Li, Phys. Rev. D 19, 945 (1979)
R.M. Barnett, G. Senjanovic, D. Wyler, Phys. Rev. D 30, 1529 (1984)
H. Fritzsch, Z.-Z. **ng, Phys. Lett. B 555, 63 (2003)
J.L. Diaz-Cruz, J. Hernandez-Sanchez, S. Moretti, R. Noriega-Papaqui, A. Rosado, Phys. Rev. D 79, 095025 (2009)
J. Hernández-Sánchez, O. Flores-Sánchez, C. G. Honorato, S. Moretti, S. Rosado, PoS CHARGED2016 032, 1–6 (2017)
J. Hernandez-Sanchez, S. Moretti, R. Noriega-Papaqui, A. Rosado, PoS CHARGED2012 029, 1–6 (2012)
J. Hernandez-Sanchez, S. P. Das, S. Moretti, A. Rosado, R. Xoxocotzi-Aguilar, PoS DIS2015 227, 1–6 (2015)
S.P. Das, J. Hernández-Sánchez, S. Moretti, A. Rosado, R. Xoxocotzi, Phys. Rev. D 94, 055003 (2016)
J. Hernandez-Sanchez, S. Moretti, R. Noriega-Papaqui, A. Rosado, JHEP 07, 044 (2013)
A.G. Akeroyd et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 77, 276 (2017)
A.G. Akeroyd, S. Moretti, J. Hernandez-Sanchez, Phys. Rev. D 85, 115002 (2012)
F. Gianotti et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 39, 293 (2005)
G. Apollinari, I. Béjar Alonso, O. Brüning, P. Fessia, M. Lamont, L. Rossi, L. Tavian, CERN- 2017-007-M 4/2017 (2017)
M. Kuze, Int. J. Mod. Phys. Conf. Ser. 46, 1860081 (2018)
D. Britzger, M. Klein, PoS DIS2017 105, 1–24 (2018)
A. Abada et al. (FCC), Eur. Phys. J. C 79, 474 (2019)
A. Abada et al. (FCC), Eur. Phys. J. ST 228, 755 (2019)
A. Jueid, J. Kim, S. Lee, J. Song, Phys. Lett. B 819, 136417 (2021)
H.E. Haber, R. Hempfling, Phys. Rev. D 48, 4280 (1993). ar**v:hep-ph/9307201
J.F. Gunion, H.E. Haber, Phys. Rev. D 67, 075019 (2003)
M.N. Dubinin, A.V. Semenov, Eur. Phys. J. C 28, 223 (2003). ar**v:hep-ph/0206205
J.F. Gunion, H.E. Haber, Phys. Rev. D 72, 095002 (2005). ar**v:hep-ph/0506227
A. Cordero-Cid, J. Hernandez-Sanchez, C.G. Honorato, S. Moretti, M.A. Perez, A. Rosado, JHEP 07, 057 (2014)
J.M. Gerard, M. Herquet, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 251802 (2007)
D. Toussaint, Phys. Rev. D 18, 1626 (1978)
S. Bertolini, Nucl. Phys. B 272, 77 (1986)
W. Hollik, Z. Phys. C 32, 291 (1986)
J.F. Gunion, A. Turski, Phys. Rev. D 39, 2701 (1989)
S. de Visscher, J.-M. Gerard, M. Herquet, V. Lemaitre, F. Maltoni, JHEP 08, 042 (2009)
J. Haller, A. Hoecker, R. Kogler, K. Mönig, T. Peiffer, J. Stelzer, Eur. Phys. J. C 78, 675 (2018)
S. Kanemura, Y. Okada, H. Taniguchi, K. Tsumura, Phys. Lett. B 704, 303 (2011)
P. Zyla et al. (Particle Data Group), PTEP 2022(8), 083C01 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1093/ptep/ptac097
O. Félix-Beltrán, F. González-Canales, J. Hernández-Sánchez, S. Moretti, R. Noriega-Papaqui, A. Rosado, Phys. Lett. B 742, 347 (2015)
A. Aranda, C. Bonilla, A.D. Rojas, Phys. Rev. D 85, 036004 (2012)
G. Branco, D. Emmanuel-Costa, C. Simõoes, Phys. Lett. B 690, 62 (2010)
F. Botella, G. Branco, M. Rebelo, Phys. Lett. B 722, 76 (2013)
M. Frigerio, S. Kaneko, E. Ma, M. Tanimoto, Phys. Rev. D 71, 011901 (R) (2005)
A. Cordero-Cid, J. Hernádez-Sánchez, C. Honorato, S. Moretti, PoS Charged 2014, 026 (2015)
R. Casalbuoni, D. Dominici, R. Gatto, C. Giunti, Phys. Lett. B 178, 235 (1986)
I.F. Ginzburg, I.P. Ivanov, Phys. Rev. D 72, 115010 (2005). ar**v:hep-ph/0508020
P.M. Ferreira, R. Santos, A. Barroso, Phys. Lett. B 603, 219 (2004) [Erratum: Phys.Lett.B 629, 114–114 (2005)]. ar**v:hep-ph/0406231
I.P. Ivanov, Phys. Rev. D 77, 015017 (2008). ar**v:0710.3490 [hep-ph]
J. Hernández-Sánchez, C.G. Honorato, S. Moretti, S. Rosado-Navarro, Phys. Rev. D 102, 055008 (2020)
A. Crivellin, C. Greub, A. Kokulu, Phys. Rev. D 87, 094031 (2013)
G. Aad et al. (ATLAS), Phys. Rev. D 101, 012002 (2020)
G. Aad et al. (ATLAS, CMS), JHEP 08, 045 (2016)
A.M. Sirunyan et al. (CMS), Eur. Phys. J. C 79, 421 (2019)
A.M. Sirunyan et al. (CMS), JHEP 03, 055 (2020)
V. Khachatryan et al. (CMS), Phys. Lett. B 759, 369 (2016)
G. Abbiendi et al. (ALEPH, DELPHI, L3, OPAL, LEP), Eur. Phys. J. C 73, 2463 (2013)
B. Abbott et al. (D0), Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 4975 (1999)
A. Abulencia et al. (CDF), Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 042003 (2006)
V.M. Abazov et al. (D0), Phys. Lett. B 682, 278 (2009)
A.M. Sirunyan et al. (CMS), JHEP 11, 115 (2018). ar**v:1808.06575 [hep-ex]
A.M. Sirunyan et al. (CMS), JHEP 07, 142 (2019)
M. Aaboud et al. (ATLAS), Phys. Lett. B 784, 345 (2018)
M. Aaboud et al. (ATLAS), Phys. Lett. B 786, 114 (2018)
G. Aad et al. (ATLAS), Phys. Lett. B 809, 135754 (2020)
M. Aaboud et al. (ATLAS), JHEP 10, 112 (2017)
A.M. Sirunyan et al. (CMS), JHEP 11, 152 (2018)
O. Flores-Sánchez, J. Hernández-Sánchez, C.G. Honorato, S. Moretti, S. Rosado-Navarro, Phys. Rev. D 99, 095009 (2019)
R.L. Workman et al. (Particle Data Group), PTEP 2022 083C01 (2022)
A. Sopczak (ATLAS, CMS), PoS FFK2019 006 (2020)
M. Aaboud et al. (ATLAS), Phys. Lett. B 786, 59 (2018)
A.M. Sirunyan et al. (CMS), Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 121801 (2018)
G. Aad et al. (ATLAS), Eur. Phys. J. C 82, 717 (2022). ar**v:2201.11428 [hep-ex]
(2022) ar**v:2205.05550 [hep-ex]
J.R. Andersen et al. (LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group), (2013). https://doi.org/10.5170/CERN-2013-004. ar**v:1307.1347 [hep-ph]
D. de Florian et al. (LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group), 2/2017 (2016). https://doi.org/10.23731/CYRM-2017-002. ar**v:1610.07922 [hep-ph]
U. Klein et al., in Meeting of the Physics Convenors of the LHeC, Higgs at LHeC/FCC-he conferences (2014). https://indico.cern.ch/event/350727/contributions/826001/attachments/693294/
A. Belyaev, N.D. Christensen, A. Pukhov, Comput. Phys. Commun. 184, 1729 (2013). ar**v:1207.6082 [hep-ph]
J. Pumplin, D.R. Stump, J. Huston, H.L. Lai, P.M. Nadolsky, W.K. Tung, JHEP 07, 012 (2002)
P. Agostini et al. (LHeC, FCC-he Study Group), JLAB-ACP-20-3180 (2020)
H. Aihara et al. (ILC), (2019). ar**v:1901.09829 [hep-ex]
4/2018 (2018). https://doi.org/10.23731/CYRM-2018-004. ar**v:1903.08655 [physics.acc-ph]
T. Sjöstrand, S. Ask, J.R. Christiansen, R. Corke, N. Desai, P. Ilten, S. Mrenna, S. Prestel, C.O. Rasmussen, P.Z. Skands, Comput. Phys. Commun. 191, 159 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpc.2015.01.024. ar**v:1410.3012 [hep-ph]
J. de Favereau, C. Delaere, P. Demin, A. Giammanco, V. Lemaître, A. Mertens, M. Selvaggi (DELPHES 3), JHEP 02, 057 (2014)
U. Klein et al., Final FCChe delphes card and discussion, Higgs and Top at LHeC conferences. (2017). https://indico.cern.ch/event/624658/
E. Conte, B. Fuks, G. Serret, Comput. Phys. Commun. 184, 222 (2013). ar**v:1206.1599 [hep-ph]
A. Abada et al. (FCC), Eur. Phys. J. ST 228, 261 (2019)
Acknowledgements
SM is financed in part through the NExT Institute. SM also acknowledges support from the UK STFC Consolidated Grant ST/L000296/1 and the H2020-MSCA-RISE-2014 Grant no. 645722 (NonMinimalHiggs). JH-S and CGH have been supported by SNI-CONACYT (México), VIEP-BUAP and PRODEP-SEP (México) under the Grant ‘Red Temática: Física del Higgs y del Sabor’. We all acknowledge useful discussions with Siba Prasad Das. Funding was supported by Benemérita Universidad Autónoma de Puebla (100446877-VIEP2021).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Funded by SCOAP3. SCOAP3 supports the goals of the International Year of Basic Sciences for Sustainable Development.
About this article
Cite this article
Hernández-Sánchez, J., Honorato, C.G. & Moretti, S. Probing the \(h c\bar{c} \) coupling at a Future Circular Collider in the electron-hadron mode. Eur. Phys. J. C 83, 77 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-023-11209-3
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-023-11209-3