This paper was converted on www.awesomepapers.org from LaTeX by an anonymous user.
Want to know more? Visit the Converter page.

Unveiling the Unexplored Decay Mode of a Light Charged Higgs Boson to an Off-Shell Top Quark and a Bottom Quark

Jinheung Kim jinheung.kim1216@gmail.com Department of Physics, Konkuk University, Seoul 05029, Republic of Korea    Soojin Lee soojinlee957@gmail.com Department of Physics, Konkuk University, Seoul 05029, Republic of Korea    Prasenjit Sanyal prasenjit.sanyal01@gmail.com Department of Physics, Konkuk University, Seoul 05029, Republic of Korea    Jeonghyeon Song jhsong@konkuk.ac.kr Department of Physics, Konkuk University, Seoul 05029, Republic of Korea    Daohan Wang daohan.wang@oeaw.ac.at Institute of High Energy Physics (HEPHY), Austrian Academy of Sciences (OeAW), Georg-Coch-Platz 2, A-1010 Vienna, Austria
Abstract

The charged Higgs boson (H±H^{\pm}) with a mass below the top quark mass remains a viable possibility within the type-I two-Higgs-doublet model under current constraints. While previous LHC searches have primarily focused on the H±τνH^{\pm}\to\tau\nu decay mode, the decay channel into an off-shell top quark and a bottom quark, H±tbH^{\pm}\rightarrow t^{*}b, is leading or subleading for H±H^{\pm} masses between 130 and 170 GeV. This study investigates the discovery potential of future colliders for this off-shell decay mode through pair-produced charged Higgs bosons decaying via H+HtbτνbbjjτνH^{+}H^{-}\rightarrow t^{*}b\tau\nu\rightarrow bbjj\tau\nu. We perform signal-to-background analyses at the HL-LHC and a prospective 100 TeV proton-proton collider, employing cut-flow strategies and the Boosted Decision Tree method. However, due to the softness of the bb jets, signal significances fall below detection thresholds at these facilities. Extending our study to a multi-TeV muon collider (MuC), we demonstrate that a 3 TeV MuC achieves high signal significance, surpassing the 5σ5\sigma threshold with an integrated luminosity of 1 ab-1, assuming a 10% background uncertainty. Specifically, for MH±=130M_{H^{\pm}}=130, 150, and 170 GeV, the significances are 13.7, 13.5, and 6.06, respectively. In contrast, a 10 TeV MuC requires 10 ab-1 to achieve similar results. Our findings highlight the critical role of the MuC in probing the new signal channel H±tbH^{\pm}\rightarrow t^{*}b, offering a promising avenue for future charged Higgs boson searches involving off-shell top quarks.

Higgs Physics, Beyond the Standard Model, Muon Collider

I Introduction

The milestone discovery of the Higgs boson at the LHC ATLAS:2012yve ; CMS:2012qbp seemingly completes the Standard Model (SM), yet the quest for a new particle physics theory beyond the SM (BSM) continues. This pursuit is driven by unresolved fundamental questions of the Universe, such as the naturalness problem, fermion mass hierarchy, baryogenesis, non-zero neutrino masses, and the identity of dark matter. High-energy collider experiments are indispensable in this quest, offering the ability to directly study fundamental particles in a highly controlled environment and providing complementary insights to cosmological and dark matter searches.

One of the most promising BSM signals at high-energy colliders is the presence of a light charged Higgs boson with a mass below the top quark mass mtm_{t}. This possibility remains viable under current constraints within the type-I and type-X111In type-II and type-Y 2HDM, the charged Higgs boson is tightly constrained to be as heavy as MH±800GeVM_{H^{\pm}}\gtrsim 800{\;{\rm GeV}} due to the measurements of the inclusive BB-meson decay into sγs\gamma Misiak:2020vlo . two-Higgs-doublet model (2HDM) Aoki:2009ha ; Branco:2011iw ; Craig:2013hca ; Wang:2022yhm ; Shen:2022yuo ; Kanemura:2022ldq ; Lee:2022gyf , three-Higgs doublet model Akeroyd:2018axd , next-to-2HDM Abouabid:2021yvw , lepton-specific Inert doublet model Han:2021gfu , and scalar-triplet model Ferreira:2021bdj .

Significant efforts have been made to search for the light charged Higgs boson at the LHC and future lepton colliders. For the decay H±τ±νH^{\pm}\rightarrow\tau^{\pm}\nu, various production channels have been explored, such as tH±bt\rightarrow H^{\pm}b Abbaspour:2018ysj ; Demir:2018iqo ; ATLAS:2018gfm ; Sanyal:2019xcp ; Sirunyan:2019hkq ; Ghosh:2022wbe , ppH±φ0pp\to H^{\pm}\varphi^{0} Kim:2023lxc , ppH±App\rightarrow H^{\pm}A Kanemura:2011kx , ppH+Hpp\rightarrow H^{+}H^{-} Duarte:2024zeh , cs/cbH±cs/cb\rightarrow H^{\pm} Hernandez-Sanchez:2012vxa ; Hernandez-Sanchez:2020vax , and W±W±H±H±W^{\pm*}W^{\pm*}\rightarrow H^{\pm}H^{\pm} Aiko:2019mww . Here, φ0\varphi^{0} denotes a new CP-even neutral Higgs boson. For the H±cb/csH^{\pm}\rightarrow cb/cs mode, the production channel of tH±bt\rightarrow H^{\pm}b has been considered ATLAS:2013uxj ; CMS:2015yvc ; Akeroyd:2018axd ; CMS:2018dzl ; ATLAS:2021zyv ; CMS:2020osd ; Akeroyd:2022ouy . The H±W±φ0/W±AH^{\pm}\rightarrow W^{\pm}\varphi^{0}/W^{\pm}A modes have been extensively studied for production channels such as tH±bt\rightarrow H^{\pm}b Dermisek:2012cn ; Arhrib:2020tqk ; Hu:2022gwd ; Fu:2023sng , ppH±φ0pp\rightarrow H^{\pm}\varphi^{0} Arhrib:2017wmo ; Mondal:2021bxa ; Arhrib:2022inj ; Kim:2022hvh ; Kim:2022nmm ; Bhatia:2022ugu ; Li:2023btx ; Mondal:2023wib , ppH±App\rightarrow H^{\pm}A Arhrib:2021xmc ; Arhrib:2021yqf , e+eH+He^{+}e^{-}\rightarrow H^{+}H^{-} Kausar:2020ims , ppH+Hpp\rightarrow H^{+}H^{-} Arhrib:2021xmc ; Arhrib:2021yqf ; Shen:2022yuo , W±W±H±H±W^{\pm*}W^{\pm*}\rightarrow H^{\pm}H^{\pm} Arhrib:2019ywg , ppH±Wpp\rightarrow H^{\pm}W^{\mp} Krab:2022lih , and ppH±hhpp\rightarrow H^{\pm}hh Kang:2022mdy .

However, one important decay mode has been largely overlooked: the decay of a light charged Higgs boson into an off-shell top quark (denoted as tt^{*}) and a bottom quark. In the type-I 2HDM, where the Yukawa couplings of H±H^{\pm} are inversely proportional to tanβ\tan\beta, the decay H±tbH^{\pm}\rightarrow t^{*}b becomes the leading mode for 135GeVMH±mt135{\;{\rm GeV}}\lesssim M_{H^{\pm}}\lesssim m_{t}, with H±τνH^{\pm}\rightarrow\tau\nu as the second leading mode. Thus, it is of great significance to investigate the discovery potential of future high-energy colliders for this decay mode. For the production of charged Higgs bosons, we consider pair production, yielding the final state of H+HtbτνbbjjτνH^{+}H^{-}\rightarrow t^{*}b\tau\nu\rightarrow bbjj\tau\nu. This approach is necessitated by the stringent constraints from searches for tbH±(τν)t\rightarrow bH^{\pm}(\rightarrow\tau\nu), which limit the branching ratio Br(tbH±)\text{Br}(t\rightarrow bH^{\pm}) to below 𝒪(104)\mathcal{O}(10^{-4}) in the type-I 2HDM.

We will rigorously investigate the discovery potential of the HL-LHC and a 100 TeV pppp collider for the signal H+HtbτνbbjjτνH^{+}H^{-}\rightarrow t^{*}b\tau\nu\rightarrow bbjj\tau\nu, employing both cut-flow strategies and the Boosted Decision Tree (BDT) method. The analysis reveals that these efforts are unfortunately unsuccessful due to the softness of the bb jets. Given these challenges, the focus of our research then shifts to the multi-TeV Muon Collider (MuC). This facility promises to offer a higher boost for the bb jets, potentially enhancing their detectability and opening new avenues for exploration.

The MuC stands out as a powerful tool for BSM searches Capdevilla:2020qel ; Bandyopadhyay:2021pld ; Sen:2021fha ; Asadi:2021gah ; Huang:2021nkl ; Choi:1999kn ; Han:2020uak ; Han:2021udl ; Jueid:2021avn ; Han:2022edd ; Black:2022qlg ; Belfkir:2023vpo ; Jueid:2023zxx , thanks to its clean collision environment, higher energy reach, reduced beamstrahlung, and efficient energy use. The prospects of the MuC program have been significantly enhanced by recent advancements in addressing critical challenges, such as cooling muon beams Antonelli:2013mmk ; Antonelli:2015nla and reducing beam-induced backgrounds (BIB) Collamati:2021sbv ; Ally:2022rgk .

Our study will conduct a signal-to-background analysis for two collider configurations: s=3 TeV\sqrt{s}=3\text{ TeV} with a total integrated luminosity of 1 ab11\text{ ab}^{-1} and s=10 TeV\sqrt{s}=10\text{ TeV} with a total integrated luminosity of 10 ab110\text{ ab}^{-1}. The analysis aims to demonstrate that the entire mass range of MH±[130,170] GeVM_{H^{\pm}}\in[130,170]\text{ GeV} can achieve a high signal significance, surpassing the 5σ5\sigma discovery threshold. These findings represent our main contributions to the study of the light charged Higgs boson.

The paper is organized as follows. In Sec. II, we briefly review the type-I 2HDM with CP invariance and softly broken Z2Z_{2} parity. Based on the results of random scans incorporating theoretical and experimental constraints, we investigate the characteristic features of the allowed parameters and suggest the golden channel to probe the unexplored H±tbH^{\pm}\rightarrow t^{*}b decay mode, H+HtbτνbbjjτνH^{+}H^{-}\rightarrow t^{*}b\tau\nu\rightarrow bbjj\tau\nu. Section III deals with the signal-to-background analysis at the HL-LHC and a 100 TeV pppp collider, incorporating comprehensive cut-based analysis and the BDT. In Sec. IV, we turn to the multi-TeV MuC and perform the signal-to-background analysis. Conclusions are presented in Sec. V.

II Brief review of the light charged Higgs boson in type-I 2HDM

The 2HDM introduces two complex SU(2)LSU(2)_{L} Higgs doublet scalar fields, Φ1\Phi_{1} and Φ2\Phi_{2}, with hypercharge Y=+1Y=+1 Branco:2011iw :

Φi=(wi+vi+hi+iηi2),i=1,2,\displaystyle\Phi_{i}=\left(\begin{array}[]{c}w_{i}^{+}\\[3.0pt] \dfrac{v_{i}+h_{i}+i\eta_{i}}{\sqrt{2}}\end{array}\right),\quad i=1,2, (3)

where v1v_{1} and v2v_{2} denote the non-zero vacuum expectation values of Φ1\Phi_{1} and Φ2\Phi_{2}, respectively. The ratio of v2v_{2} to v1v_{1} defines the mixing angle β\beta through tanβ=v2/v1\tan\beta=v_{2}/v_{1}. The electroweak symmetry is spontaneously broken by v=v12+v22246GeVv=\sqrt{v_{1}^{2}+v_{2}^{2}}\approx 246{\;{\rm GeV}}.

To prevent flavor-changing neutral currents at the tree level, a discrete Z2Z_{2} symmetry is imposed, under which Φ1Φ1\Phi_{1}\rightarrow\Phi_{1} and Φ2Φ2\Phi_{2}\rightarrow-\Phi_{2} Glashow:1976nt ; Paschos:1976ay . Assuming CP invariance and allowing for softly broken Z2Z_{2} parity, the scalar potential is defined as follows:

V=\displaystyle V= m112Φ1Φ1+m222Φ2Φ2m122(Φ1Φ2+H.c.)\displaystyle m^{2}_{11}\Phi^{\dagger}_{1}\Phi_{1}+m^{2}_{22}\Phi^{\dagger}_{2}\Phi_{2}-m^{2}_{12}(\Phi^{\dagger}_{1}\Phi_{2}+{\rm H.c.})
+12λ1(Φ1Φ1)2+12λ2(Φ2Φ2)2+λ3(Φ1Φ1)(Φ2Φ2)+λ4(Φ1Φ2)(Φ2Φ1)\displaystyle+\frac{1}{2}\lambda_{1}(\Phi^{\dagger}_{1}\Phi_{1})^{2}+\frac{1}{2}\lambda_{2}(\Phi^{\dagger}_{2}\Phi_{2})^{2}+\lambda_{3}(\Phi^{\dagger}_{1}\Phi_{1})(\Phi^{\dagger}_{2}\Phi_{2})+\lambda_{4}(\Phi^{\dagger}_{1}\Phi_{2})(\Phi^{\dagger}_{2}\Phi_{1})
+12λ5[(Φ1Φ2)2+H.c.].\displaystyle+\frac{1}{2}\lambda_{5}\left[(\Phi^{\dagger}_{1}\Phi_{2})^{2}+{\rm H.c.}\right].

In 2HDM, there are five distinct physical Higgs bosons: the lighter CP-even scalar hh, the heavier CP-even scalar HH, the CP-odd pseudoscalar AA, and a pair of charged Higgs bosons H±H^{\pm}. The relationships between these Higgs states and the weak eigenstates described in Equation 3 are determined by two mixing angles, α\alpha and β\beta, which can be found in Ref. Song:2019aav . The SM Higgs boson hSM{h_{\rm SM}} is a linear combination of hh and HH, specifically as hSM=sin(βα)h+cos(βα)H{h_{\rm SM}}=\sin(\beta-\alpha)h+\cos(\beta-\alpha)H.

According to the assignment of Z2Z_{2} parity to the right-handed fermions, the model has four variants, type-I, type-II, type-X, and type-Y. The mass of H±H^{\pm} in type-II and type-Y is heavily constrained by the measurements of the inclusive BB-meson decay into sγs\gamma, requiring MH±800GeVM_{H^{\pm}}\gtrsim 800{\;{\rm GeV}} Misiak:2020vlo . Only type-I and type-X allow for the existence of charged Higgs bosons lighter than the top quark. Therefore, we focus on type-I in this study.

We employ two popular conditions: the Higgs alignment limit for the SM-like Higgs boson Carena:2013ooa ; Celis:2013rcs ; Cheung:2013rva ; Bernon:2015qea ; Chang:2015goa ; Das:2015mwa ; Kanemura:2021dez and the mass degeneracy of HH and AA for the electroweak precision data Kanemura:2011sj ; Chang:2015goa ; Chen:2019pkq . The Higgs alignment limit precludes the decay channel H±W±hH^{\pm}\to W^{\pm}h. Furthermore, we restrict our analysis to scenarios where the charged Higgs boson is lighter than HH and AA. Under this condition, the charged Higgs boson decays exclusively into fermion pairs, ensuring that the H±tbH^{\pm}\rightarrow t^{*}b mode maintains a significant branching ratio. Conversely, if MH/A<MH±M_{H/A}<M_{H^{\pm}}, the decay modes H±W±()H/AH^{\pm}\rightarrow W^{\pm(*)}H/A become accessible222For a detailed phenomenological study of the scenario where MH/A<MH±M_{H/A}<M_{H^{\pm}}, see Ref. Sanyal:2023pfs ., suppressing the branching ratio of H±tbH^{\pm}\rightarrow t^{*}b.

In summary, our model configuration is as follows:

type-I:mh=125GeV,MH±<MH/A(=MH=MA),sin(βα)=1.\displaystyle\text{type-I:}\quad m_{h}=125{\;{\rm GeV}},\quad M_{H^{\pm}}<M_{H/A}(=M_{H}=M_{A}),\quad\sin(\beta-\alpha)=1. (5)

The Yukawa couplings of the charged Higgs boson to the SM fermions in type-I 2HDM are given by

Yuk=1tanβ{2VudvH+u¯(muPmdP+)d2mτvH+ν¯LτR+H.c.},\displaystyle\mathscr{L}_{\rm Yuk}=-\frac{1}{\tan\beta}\left\{\dfrac{\sqrt{2}V_{ud}}{v}H^{+}\overline{u}\left(m_{u}{P}_{-}-m_{d}{P}_{+}\right)d-\dfrac{\sqrt{2}m_{\tau}}{v}H^{+}\overline{\nu}_{L}\tau_{R}+{\rm H.c.}\right\}, (6)

where P±=(1±γ5)/2P_{\pm}=(1\pm\gamma^{5})/2. Because these Yukawa couplings have a common factor of 1/tanβ1/\tan\beta, the branching ratio of H±ff¯H^{\pm}\rightarrow f\bar{f} is independent of tanβ\tan\beta.

We also present the gauge interactions of a pair of charged Higgs bosons, crucial for the pair production at high-energy colliders Branco:2011iw :

gauge=\displaystyle\mathscr{L}_{\rm gauge}= i[eAμ+g(sW2cW2)2cWZμ](H+μHHμH+)\displaystyle\leavevmode\nobreak\ i\left[eA_{\mu}+\frac{g(s_{W}^{2}-c_{W}^{2})}{2c_{W}}Z_{\mu}\right]\left(H^{+}\partial^{\mu}H^{-}-H^{-}\partial^{\mu}H^{+}\right) (7)
+[g22WμWμ++e2AμAμ+g2(sW2cW2)24cW2ZμZμ+egcW(sW2cW2)AμZμ]H+H,\displaystyle+\left[\frac{g^{2}}{2}W^{-\mu}W^{+}_{\mu}+e^{2}A^{\mu}A_{\mu}+\frac{g^{2}(s_{W}^{2}-c_{W}^{2})^{2}}{4c_{W}^{2}}Z^{\mu}Z_{\mu}+\frac{eg}{c_{W}(s_{W}^{2}-c_{W}^{2})}A^{\mu}Z_{\mu}\right]H^{+}H^{-},

where sW=sinθWs_{W}=\sin\theta_{W}, cW=cosθWc_{W}=\cos\theta_{W}, and θW\theta_{W} is the electroweak mixing angle.

To study the characteristics of the permissible parameter space for the light charged Higgs boson that predominantly decays into tbt^{*}b, we set MH±=150GeVM_{H^{\pm}}=150{\;{\rm GeV}} and perform a random scan within the following parameter ranges:

MH/A[150,1000]GeV,m122[0,105]GeV2,tanβ[1,50].M_{H/A}\in[150,1000]{\;{\rm GeV}},\quad m_{12}^{2}\in[0,10^{5}]{\;{\rm GeV}}^{2},\quad\tan\beta\in[1,50]. (8)

The scan is conducted while imposing both theoretical requirements and experimental constraints.

For the theoretical requirements, we enforce conditions ensuring vacuum stability Ivanov:2008cxa ; Barroso:2012mj ; Barroso:2013awa , a bounded-from-below Higgs potential Ivanov:2006yq , tree-level unitarity in scalar-scalar scatterings Branco:2011iw ; Arhrib:2000is , and perturbativity of the Higgs quartic couplings Chang:2015goa . These conditions are evaluated using the public code 2HDMC Eriksson:2009ws . Additionally, we require that the cutoff scale exceed 10TeV10{\;{\rm TeV}}, where the cutoff scale is defined as the energy level at which any of the conditions for tree-level unitarity, perturbativity, or vacuum stability is violated Kim:2023lxc . The evolution of the model parameters via the renormalization group equations is facilitated using the public code 2HDME Oredsson:2018yho ; Oredsson:2018vio .

For the experimental constraints, we incorporated measurements at the 95% confidence level, encompassing inclusive BB-meson decay into XsγX_{s}\gamma Arbey:2017gmh ; Sanyal:2019xcp ; Misiak:2017bgg and direct search bounds from LEP, Tevatron, and LHC experiments. For the direct search constraints, we have employed the public code HiggsBounds-v5.10.2 Bechtle:2013wla . Notably, our adoption of the Higgs alignment limit ensures that the Higgs precision data at the LHC are inherently satisfied.

Refer to caption
Figure 1: Allowed parameter space of (MH/A,tanβ)(M_{H/A},\tan\beta) for MH±=150GeVM_{H^{\pm}}=150{\;{\rm GeV}}. The color code denotes m122m_{12}^{2}.

In Figure 1, we present the allowed parameter points in the (MH/A,tanβ)(M_{H/A},\tan\beta) plane for the given MH±=150GeVM_{H^{\pm}}=150{\;{\rm GeV}}. The color code denotes m122m_{12}^{2}. A notable feature is the upper bound on the masses of HH and AA, with MH/A236GeVM_{H/A}\lesssim 236{\;{\rm GeV}}. Although our focus in this paper is on the charged Higgs boson, the relatively low upper bounds on MH/AM_{H/A} suggest promising discovery prospects for the heavy neutral Higgs bosons at high-energy colliders. Additionally, we observe lower bounds on tanβ\tan\beta, specifically tanβ6\tan\beta\gtrsim 6.

Now, let us identify the optimal production mechanism at the LHC for the light charged Higgs boson. LHC searches have primarily focused on its production through top quark decay, tbH±t\rightarrow bH^{\pm}, followed by H±τνH^{\pm}\rightarrow\tau\nu ATLAS:2018gfm ; Sirunyan:2019hkq because the Yukawa couplings of H±H^{\pm} are proportional to the fermion mass with a common coupling modifier 1/tanβ1/\tan\beta. Despite comprehensive searches, no new signals have been observed, leading to stringent upper limits on the product of the two branching ratios, Br(tbH±)Br(H±τν)\text{Br}(t\rightarrow bH^{\pm})\text{Br}(H^{\pm}\rightarrow\tau\nu). As Br(tbH±)\text{Br}(t\rightarrow bH^{\pm}) depends solely on tanβ\tan\beta for the given MH±M_{H^{\pm}}, the observed upper bound strictly limits Br(tbH±)\text{Br}(t\rightarrow bH^{\pm}). For MH±100GeVM_{H^{\pm}}\sim 100{\;{\rm GeV}}, Br(tbH±)\text{Br}(t\rightarrow bH^{\pm}) must be below 𝒪(104)\mathcal{O}(10^{-4}). Consequently, leveraging top quark decay for H±H^{\pm} production proves ineffective.

Given this constraint, the production channels of H±H^{\pm} via the decay of heavier Higgs states, such as H/AH±W()H/A\rightarrow H^{\pm}W^{\mp(*)}, have been extensively investigated Arhrib:2017wmo ; Mondal:2021bxa ; Arhrib:2021xmc ; Cheung:2022ndq ; Bhatia:2022ugu ; Kim:2022hvh ; Kim:2022nmm ; Arhrib:2022inj ; Kim:2023lxc ; Li:2023btx ; Mondal:2023wib . The production of HH or AA occurs through gluon fusion (ggH/Agg\rightarrow H/A) or associated production (ggHAZgg\rightarrow H\rightarrow AZ, qq¯ZHZq\bar{q}\rightarrow Z\rightarrow HZ). However, the signal rates are sensitive to model parameters, such as MH/AM_{H/A} and tanβ\tan\beta. Furthermore, the allowed parameter space shown in Figure 1 does not permit the on-shell decay H/AH±WH/A\rightarrow H^{\pm}W^{\mp}, preventing the effective suppression of backgrounds by exploiting the WW boson mass constraint.

A more promising production mechanism is the pair production of charged Higgs bosons via the Drell-Yan process. This channel offers a straightforward and model-independent avenue for H±H^{\pm} production, as the production cross section is exclusively determined by the mass of the charged Higgs boson. Although this production channel has been studied for the decays H±τνH^{\pm}\rightarrow\tau\nu Duarte:2024zeh and H±W±()φ0/AH^{\pm}\rightarrow W^{\pm(*)}\varphi^{0}/A Arhrib:2021xmc ; Arhrib:2021yqf ; Shen:2022yuo , it has not been explored for our target decay mode H±tbH^{\pm}\rightarrow t^{*}b. Therefore, we focus our analysis on the pair production channel for the H±tbH^{\pm}\rightarrow t^{*}b decay mode.

Refer to caption
Figure 2: Branching ratios of Br(H±X)\text{Br}(H^{\pm}\rightarrow X) in the left panel and Br(H+HXX)\text{Br}(H^{+}H^{-}\rightarrow XX^{\prime}) in the right panel. We set MH=MA=200GeVM_{H}=M_{A}=200{\;{\rm GeV}}.

Let us delve into the decay of the light charged Higgs boson in the mass range between 130 GeV and 170 GeV. There are two dominant decay channels, H±tbH^{\pm}\rightarrow t^{*}b and H±τνH^{\pm}\rightarrow\tau\nu. Figure 2 depicts their branching ratios as functions of MH±M_{H^{\pm}}, comparing scenarios with a single charged Higgs boson (left panel) and a pair of charged Higgs bosons (right panel). Note that these results are independent of tanβ\tan\beta, m122m_{12}^{2}, or MH/AM_{H/A}. For the H±tbH^{\pm}\rightarrow t^{*}b decay, we incorporate QCD radiative corrections to order αs2\alpha_{s}^{2} in the MS¯\overline{\text{MS}} scheme, employing the 2HDMC Eriksson:2009ws . This includes adjustments for running fermion masses in the Higgs couplings, applying leading logarithmic corrections across all orders with the renormalization scale μR=MH±\mu_{R}=M_{H^{\pm}}.

The decay mode H±tbH^{\pm}\rightarrow t^{*}b exhibits significant branching ratios throughout the target MH±M_{H^{\pm}} range and becomes dominant if MH±135M_{H^{\pm}}\gtrsim 135 GeV. For MH±135M_{H^{\pm}}\lesssim 135 GeV, H±tbH^{\pm}\rightarrow t^{*}b becomes the subleading decay channel, with H±τνH^{\pm}\rightarrow\tau\nu being the leading one. In the pair production of charged Higgs bosons, H±tbH^{\pm}\rightarrow t^{*}b plays a more significant role. The H+HtbtbH^{+}H^{-}\rightarrow t^{*}b\,t^{*}b mode is leading for MH±143M_{H^{\pm}}\gtrsim 143 GeV. Interestingly, the process H+HtbτνH^{+}H^{-}\rightarrow t^{*}b\tau\nu emerges as the most prominent for MH±143M_{H^{\pm}}\lesssim 143 GeV and remains the second most dominant for MH±143M_{H^{\pm}}\gtrsim 143 GeV, which benefits from a combinatorial factor of two. In contrast, the τντν\tau\nu\tau\nu final state, heavily emphasized in prior studies for lighter H±H^{\pm}, exhibits markedly reduced branching ratios.

The results in Figure 2 strongly support investigating the off-shell tbt^{*}b mode as a potential discovery channel for the light charged Higgs boson within the mass range in 130 to 170GeV170{\;{\rm GeV}}. Since the tbtbt^{*}b\,t^{*}b final state faces challenges from the combinatoric complications and the larger QCD backgrounds at the LHC, our investigation targets the following discovery channel for the light charged Higgs boson in the mass range of 130 to 170 GeV:

H+H\displaystyle H^{+}H^{-} tbτν.\displaystyle\rightarrow t^{*}b\tau\nu. (9)

III H±tbH^{\pm}\rightarrow t^{*}b at the HL-LHC and a 100 TeV pppp collider

In the preceding section, we identified the pair production of charged Higgs bosons, followed by H+HtbτνH^{+}H^{-}\rightarrow t^{*}b\tau\nu, as a key channel for probing the light charged Higgs boson in the mass range of [130,170]GeV[130,170]{\;{\rm GeV}}. This section explores the discovery potential of the HL-LHC and a prospective 100 TeV pppp collider, focusing on the case with MH±=150GeVM_{H^{\pm}}=150{\;{\rm GeV}}. For the decay of the off-shell top quark, we consider the hadronic decay channel of the WW boson. Our signal process is summarized as:

ppH+H[t(Wb)b][τν][jjbb][τν],pp\rightarrow H^{+}H^{-}\rightarrow[t^{*}(\rightarrow Wb)b][\tau\nu]\rightarrow[jjbb][\tau\nu], (10)

where τ=τ+,τ\tau=\tau^{+},\tau^{-}, jj denotes a light quark jet, and the particles in a square bracket represent decay products originating from the same parent particle. The resultant final state includes two jets, two bb jets, a tau lepton, and missing transverse energy. The primary background originates from top quark pair production:

pptt¯[bW+][b¯W][bjj][bτν].pp\rightarrow t\bar{t}\rightarrow[bW^{+}][\bar{b}W^{-}]\rightarrow[bjj][b\tau\nu]. (11)

For the simulation of the signal and background, we followed a comprehensive procedure. We first calculated parton-level cross sections at the 14 TeV LHC using MadGraph5-aMC@NLO Alwall:2011uj version 3.5.0 with the PDF set to NNPDF31_nlo_as_0118, setting both the renormalization and factorization scales as μR=μF=ipT,i2+mi2\mu_{R}=\mu_{F}=\sum_{i}\sqrt{p_{T,i}^{2}+m_{i}^{2}}. We generated 3.2×1063.2\times 10^{6} signal events and 1.2×1071.2\times 10^{7} background events. Next, we applied NLO corrections for the signal and approximate N3LO corrections for the background by incorporating the KK-factor Kim:2024ppt . The parton-level cross sections were determined to be 1.593×10fb1.593\times 10{\;{\rm fb}} for the signal and 1.028×102pb1.028\times 10^{2}{\;{\rm pb}} for the background.

Parton showering and hadronization were performed using Pythia version 8.309 Bierlich:2022pfr . For the detector-level analysis, a fast detector response simulation was employed with Delphes deFavereau:2013fsa using the high-luminosity LHC card, delphes_card_HLLHC.tcl. Jet clustering was conducted with FastJet version 3.3.4 Cacciari:2011ma using the anti-kTk_{T} algorithm with a jet radius of R=0.4R=0.4.

Accurate identification of the final state in Equation 10 critically depends on bb-tagging and τ\tau-tagging procedures. A jet is designated as a bb jet if a BB hadron with pT>5GeVp_{T}>5{\;{\rm GeV}} is detected within a ΔR=0.3\Delta R=0.3 radius of the jet. Candidate bb jets are required to meet the threshold of pT>25GeVp_{T}>25{\;{\rm GeV}} and |η|<2.5|\eta|<2.5, after which the bb-tagging efficiency is applied. Charm and other light quark jets can be mistagged as bb jets. The efficiencies for bb tagging and mistagging depend on the jet’s kinematics and are approximately ATL-PHYS-PUB-2016-026 ; ATL-PHYS-PUB-2017-001 :

Pbb75%,Pcb10%,Pjb1%.\displaystyle P_{b\rightarrow b}\simeq 75\%,\quad P_{c\rightarrow b}\simeq 10\%,\quad P_{j\rightarrow b}\simeq 1\%. (12)

Identification of the tau lepton is feasible when it decays hadronically, denoted as τh{\tau_{\rm h}}, marked by a collimated jet with a sparse number of hadrons CMS:2007sch ; Bagliesi:2007qx ; CMS:2018jrd . The Delphes default settings for τ\tau tagging and mistagging efficiencies were applied, which are approximately

Pττh60%,Peτh0.5%,Pjτh1%.\displaystyle P_{\tau\rightarrow{\tau_{\rm h}}}\simeq 60\%,\quad P_{e\rightarrow{\tau_{\rm h}}}\simeq 0.5\%,\quad P_{j\rightarrow{\tau_{\rm h}}}\simeq 1\%. (13)

After completing the detector simulation, the following basic selection criteria are imposed:

  • Nj2N_{j}\geq 2, Nb2N_{b}\geq 2, and Nτh1N_{\tau_{\rm h}}\geq 1, where jj, bb, and τh{\tau_{\rm h}} satisfy pT>25p_{T}>25 GeV and |η|<2.5|\eta|<2.5;

  • ETmiss>25E^{\rm miss}_{T}>25 GeV.

The presence of neutrinos in the decay chain of H±τνH^{\pm}\rightarrow\tau\nu necessitates a minimum threshold for the missing transverse energy ETmiss{E_{T}^{\rm miss}}.

Despite the relatively loose selection criteria, the basic selection results in an exceedingly low acceptance rate for the signal, approximately 1%. In contrast, the background acceptance rate is substantially higher, around 2.7%. With the suppressed signal cross section after the basic selection being only 1.852×101fb1.852\times 10^{-1}{\;{\rm fb}}, even the final projected luminosity of 3ab13{\;{\rm ab}^{-1}} at the HL-LHC would result in merely a few hundred signal events. This scarcity of signal events severely limits the ability to devise an effective strategy using kinematic cuts to disentangle the signal from the backgrounds, irrespective of their efficiency.

Refer to caption
Figure 3: Normalized distributions of transverse momenta for the leading and subleading bb-jets at the parton level in the signal process ppH+Htbτνjjbbτνpp\rightarrow H^{+}H^{-}\rightarrow t^{*}b\tau\nu\rightarrow jjbb\tau\nu, with MH±=150GeVM_{H^{\pm}}=150{\;{\rm GeV}}. The left panel shows the distributions at the 14 TeV LHC, while the right panel presents the results for a 100 TeV pppp collider.

A primary factor contributing to the low signal acceptance after basic selection is the low transverse momentum (softness) of the bb jets originating from the decay H±tbH^{\pm}\rightarrow t^{*}b. This softness is due to the small mass difference between MH±M_{H^{\pm}} and mtm_{t}, which is crucial for ensuring a substantial branching ratio for the H±tbH^{\pm}\rightarrow t^{*}b decay mode, as depicted in Figure 2. Additionally, the bb quark from the decay of the off-shell top quark, tWbt^{*}\rightarrow Wb, also exhibits lower transverse momentum compared to its on-shell counterpart. The challenge with these soft bb jets is that the majority of the subleading bb jets fail to meet the minimum transverse momentum threshold (pT>25GeVp_{T}>25{\;{\rm GeV}}) required for jet clustering.

To illustrate the softness of the bb jets, we present in Figure 3 the parton-level pTp_{T} distributions of the leading and subleading bb jets for the signal process. We order jets by their descending pTp_{T}. The left panel shows the results at the 14 TeV LHC, while the right panel displays the results for a 100 TeV pppp collider. It is evident that approximately 70% of the subleading bb jets fail to surpass the pT>25GeVp_{T}>25{\;{\rm GeV}} threshold. This minimum pTp_{T} threshold for bb jets cannot be relaxed because it plays a pivotal role in jet clustering algorithms, primarily aimed at reducing noise from low-energy particles, suppressing background, and enhancing computational efficiency. Moreover, lowering this pTp_{T} threshold is counterproductive for the signal-to-background analysis, as the background acceptance would increase more than the signal acceptance.

Even at a higher collision energy of 100 TeV, as shown in the right panel, both the leading and subleading bb jets remain as soft as those at the HL-LHC. The bb jets do not receive a substantial boost because parton-parton collisions at hadron colliders do not fully utilize the beam energy.

Given the limited number of signal events after the basic selection, we need to devise a strategic approach using kinematic cuts that retain as many signal events as possible while effectively suppressing the backgrounds. With this goal in mind, we examined various kinematic distributions and identified key variables that could discriminate the signal from the background.

One set of crucial discriminating variables are the angular separations, defined by ΔR(Δη)2+(Δϕ)2\Delta R\equiv\sqrt{(\Delta\eta)^{2}+(\Delta\phi)^{2}}, among bb jets and light jets. These variables are efficient because the signal channel ppH+H[jjbb][τν]pp\rightarrow H^{+}H^{-}\rightarrow[jjbb][\tau\nu] results in a smaller angular separation within the [jjbb][jjbb] grouping. In contrast, the background channel pptt¯[bjj][bτν]pp\rightarrow t\bar{t}\rightarrow[bjj][b\tau\nu] forms a back-to-back topology between [bjj][bjj] and [bτν][b\tau\nu], leading to a larger ΔR\Delta R between two bb jets as well as a larger ΔR\Delta R between jj and the bb in the [bτν][b\tau\nu] system.

Refer to caption
Figure 4: Normalized distributions of ΔR(b1,b2)\Delta R(b_{1},b_{2}) (left) and ΔR(j1,b1)\Delta R(j_{1},b_{1}) (right) after applying the basic selection criteria outlined in the main text. The signal results with MH±=150GeVM_{H^{\pm}}=150{\;{\rm GeV}} are presented by blue solid lines while the tt¯t\bar{t} background results are by orange histograms, respectively.

In Figure 4, we present normalized distributions of two representative angular separations: ΔR(b1,b2)\Delta R(b_{1},b_{2}) in the left panel and ΔR(j1,b1)\Delta R(j_{1},b_{1}) in the right panel. For the signal ppH+H[jjbb][τν]pp\rightarrow H^{+}H^{-}\rightarrow[jjbb][\tau\nu], the ΔR(b1,b2)\Delta R(b_{1},b_{2}) distribution peaks near 0.4, indicating the close proximity of the two bb jets originating from the same parent particle H±H^{\pm}. In contrast, the background pptt¯[bjj][bτν]pp\rightarrow t\bar{t}\rightarrow[bjj][b\tau\nu] exhibits a broader ΔR(b1,b2)\Delta R(b_{1},b_{2}) distribution with a dominant peak near 3. This reflects the back-to-back motion of two bb jets, each originating from a different parent top quark. Moreover, the ΔR(j1,b1)\Delta R(j_{1},b_{1}) distributions further highlight differences between the signal and background. The signal’s ΔR(j1,b1)\Delta R(j_{1},b_{1}) distribution peaks at a lower value of approximately 0.8, whereas the background peaks at higher values near 3.

Based on these distinct features in the angular separation distributions, we impose the following ΔR\Delta R cuts to suppress the background while retaining a significant fraction of the signal events:

ΔR(b1,b2)<0.8,ΔR(ji,bj)<1.5 for i,j=1,2.\displaystyle\Delta R(b_{1},b_{2})<0.8,\quad\Delta R(j_{i},b_{j})<1.5\quad\text{ for }i,j=1,2. (14)

Other crucial discriminating variables pertain to the reconstruction of the charged Higgs boson mass MH±M_{H^{\pm}}. In the signal process H+H[bbjj][τν]H^{+}H^{-}\rightarrow[bbjj][\tau\nu], MH±M_{H^{\pm}} can be measured in two complementary ways: through the invariant mass of the [bbjj][bbjj] system and the transverse mass derived from the [τν][\tau\nu] system. The transverse mass MT(X)M_{T}(X) is a useful variable defined for a visible particle XX and the missing transverse energy ETmiss=ipT,i\vec{E}_{T}^{\rm miss}=-\sum_{i}\vec{p}_{T}^{,i}, where ii covers all observed particles:

MT(X)=mX2+2[ETXETmisspTXETmiss],\displaystyle M_{T}(X)=\sqrt{m_{X}^{2}+2\left[E_{T}^{X}E_{T}^{\rm miss}-\vec{p}_{T}^{\,X}\cdot\vec{E}_{T}^{\rm\,miss}\right]}, (15)

where ETX=mX2+(pTX)2E_{T}^{X}=\sqrt{m_{X}^{2}+(p_{T}^{X})^{2}}.

For the signal process H±τνH^{\pm}\rightarrow\tau\nu, with the visible particle being the tau lepton, MT(τ)M_{T}(\tau) is expected to peak at the charged Higgs boson mass MH±M_{H^{\pm}}. Since both the invariant mass MbbjjM_{bbjj} and the transverse mass MT(τ)M_{T}(\tau) should reconstruct the same MH±M_{H^{\pm}} for the signal events, we define an asymmetry variable 𝒜M\mathcal{A}_{M} to quantify the difference between these two mass observables:

𝒜M=|MbbjjMT(τ)Mbbjj+MT(τ)|.\displaystyle\mathcal{A}_{M}=\left|\frac{M_{bbjj}-M_{T}(\tau)}{M_{bbjj}+M_{T}(\tau)}\right|. (16)

By imposing an appropriate upper bound on 𝒜M\mathcal{A}_{M}, we can efficiently separate the signal from the background.

Refer to caption
Figure 5: Normalized distributions of the mass asymmetry 𝒜M\mathcal{A}_{M} (left) and the invariant mass M(j1j2b1b2)M(j_{1}j_{2}b_{1}b_{2}) (right), plotted after implementing ΔR(b1,b2)<0.8\Delta R(b_{1},b_{2})<0.8 and ΔR(ji,bj)<1.5\Delta R(j_{i},b_{j})<1.5 for i,j=1,2i,j=1,2. The definition of 𝒜M\mathcal{A}_{M} is provided in the main text. The blue curves represent the signal with MH±=150GeVM_{H^{\pm}}=150{\;{\rm GeV}}, while the orange histograms depict the tt¯t\bar{t} background.

In Figure 5, we present the normalized distributions of 𝒜M\mathcal{A}_{M} (left) and the invariant mass M(j1j2b1b2)M(j_{1}j_{2}b_{1}b_{2}) (right) for the signal with MH±=150GeVM_{H^{\pm}}=150{\;{\rm GeV}} (blue) and the tt¯t\bar{t} background (orange), after imposing the ΔR\Delta R cuts in Equation 14. Two distinct features are evident. First, as expected, the 𝒜M\mathcal{A}_{M} distribution for the signal peaks sharply at 𝒜M0\mathcal{A}_{M}\simeq 0, while the background prefers larger values above 0.2. Imposing an upper bound on 𝒜M\mathcal{A}_{M} will efficiently separate the signal events from the background.

The second notable feature is observed in the invariant mass distribution M(j1j2b1b2)M(j_{1}j_{2}b_{1}b_{2}). For the signal, it exhibits a resonance peak around 130 GeV, which is lower than the true charged Higgs boson mass of 150 GeV. This discrepancy is attributed to several factors, including neutrinos in BB meson decays, imperfect jet energy resolution, and gluon radiation not fully captured within the jet clustering cone. Despite this shift, the resonance peak in the M(j1j2b1b2)M(j_{1}j_{2}b_{1}b_{2}) distribution provides a distinct signature for the signal process.

Cut-flow for ppH+Htbτνjjbbτνpp\rightarrow H^{+}H^{-}\rightarrow t^{*}b\tau\nu\rightarrow jjbb\tau\nu at the 14 TeV LHC
σsg\sigma_{\rm sg} [fb] σbg\sigma_{\rm bg} [fb] 𝒮3ab110%\mathcal{S}^{10\%}_{3{\rm ab}^{-1}}
Basic Selection 1.852×1011.852\times 10^{-1} 2.814×1032.814\times 10^{3} 6.578×1046.578\times 10^{-4}
ΔR(b1,b2)<0.8\Delta R(b_{1},b_{2})<0.8 1.139×1011.139\times 10^{-1} 2.326×1022.326\times 10^{2} 4.897×1034.897\times 10^{-3}
ΔR(j1,b1)<1.5\Delta R(j_{1},b_{1})<1.5 5.319×1025.319\times 10^{-2} 3.198×1013.198\times 10^{1} 1.661×1021.661\times 10^{-2}
ΔR(j1,b2)<1.5\Delta R(j_{1},b_{2})<1.5 4.860×1024.860\times 10^{-2} 2.460×1012.460\times 10^{1} 1.973×1021.973\times 10^{-2}
ΔR(j2,b1)<1.5\Delta R(j_{2},b_{1})<1.5 1.989×1021.989\times 10^{-2} 4.6484.648 4.257×1024.257\times 10^{-2}
ΔR(j2,b2)<1.5\Delta R(j_{2},b_{2})<1.5 1.707×1021.707\times 10^{-2} 3.6253.625 4.680×1024.680\times 10^{-2}
𝒜M<0.2\mathcal{A}_{M}<0.2 5.073×1035.073\times 10^{-3} 4.179×1014.179\times 10^{-1} 1.164×1011.164\times 10^{-1}
M(j1j2b1b2)<mtM(j_{1}j_{2}b_{1}b_{2})<m_{t} 4.779×1034.779\times 10^{-3} 2.644×1012.644\times 10^{-1} 1.694×1011.694\times 10^{-1}
MT(τh)<mtM_{T}({\tau_{\rm h}})<m_{t} 4.650×1034.650\times 10^{-3} 2.303×1012.303\times 10^{-1} 1.875×1011.875\times 10^{-1}
Table 1: Cut-flow for the signal process ppH+Htbτνjjbbτνpp\rightarrow H^{+}H^{-}\rightarrow t^{*}b\tau\nu\rightarrow jjbb\tau\nu with MH±=150GeVM_{H^{\pm}}=150{\;{\rm GeV}} and the background process pptt¯jjbbτνpp\rightarrow t\bar{t}\rightarrow jjbb\tau\nu. The significance is calculated considering a 10% background uncertainty and an integrated luminosity of 3ab13{\;{\rm ab}^{-1}}.

To evaluate the discovery potential for this channel, we present in Table 1 the cut-flow for the signal process ppH+Htbτνjjbbτνpp\rightarrow H^{+}H^{-}\rightarrow t^{*}b\tau\nu\rightarrow jjbb\tau\nu at the 14 TeV LHC. The table shows the cross sections of the signal and background after each cut, as well as the significance considering a 10% background uncertainty for an integrated luminosity of 3ab13{\;{\rm ab}^{-1}}. The significance is defined as:

𝒮=[2(Ns+Nb)log((Ns+Nb)(Nb+δbg2)Nb2+(Ns+Nb)δbg2)2Nb2δb2log(1+δbg2NsNb(Nb+δbg2))]1/2,\displaystyle\mathcal{S}=\left[2(N_{\rm s}+N_{\rm b})\log\left(\frac{(N_{\rm s}+N_{\rm b})(N_{\rm b}+\delta_{\rm bg}^{2})}{N_{\rm b}^{2}+(N_{\rm s}+N_{\rm b})\delta_{\rm bg}^{2}}\right)-\frac{2N_{\rm b}^{2}}{\delta_{b}^{2}}\log\left(1+\frac{\delta_{\rm bg}^{2}N_{\rm s}}{N_{\rm b}(N_{\rm b}+\delta_{\rm bg}^{2})}\right)\right]^{1/2}, (17)

where NsN_{\rm s} denotes the number of signal events, NbN_{\rm b} the number of background events, and δbg=ΔBNb\delta_{\rm bg}=\Delta_{\rm B}N_{\rm b} the background uncertainty yield.

Despite applying the key kinematic cuts, the final significance reaches only 0.19. While our final selection cut boosts the signal significance by approximately 300-fold relative to the basic selection phase, the significance remains substantially below a detectable level. Moreover, the signal cross section after the final selection, approximately 4.65×103fb4.65\times 10^{-3}{\;{\rm fb}}, precludes any further refinements through cuts. This cut-based analysis highlights the challenges in probing the charged Higgs boson through the H+HtbτνH^{+}H^{-}\rightarrow t^{*}b\tau\nu channel at the HL-LHC using kinematic cuts alone, due to the extremely small signal cross section and overwhelming backgrounds.

To assess if the BDT method can enhance sensitivity to the tbt^{*}b decay mode of the light charged Higgs boson, we employed the Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost) package Chen:2016btl . XGBoost has seen increasing use in the particle physics community for a variety of analyses, including studies on the SM Higgs boson ATLAS:2017ztq ; CMS:2020tkr ; ATLAS:2021ifb ; CMS:2020cga ; CMS:2021sdq , dark matter ATLAS:2021jbf , vectorlike quarks Dasgupta:2021fzw , a composite pseudoscalar Cornell:2020usb , and innovative strategies for faster event generation Bishara:2019iwh . In our study, XGBoost was used as a binary classifier, aimed at more effectively distinguishing between signal and background events.

We initialized the XGBoost classifier with the objective set to binary and the evaluation metric set to logloss. The learning rate was configured at 0.1. For training the model, we generated 3.7×1043.7\times 10^{4} signal events and 3.3×1053.3\times 10^{5} background events, all of which met the basic selection criteria. We divided the dataset into three parts: 50% for training, 20% for validating the algorithm, and 30% for testing. As inputs for the XGBoost model, we used the following 50 variables:

  1. 1.

    Angular distance: ΔR(b1,b2)\Delta R(b_{1},b_{2}), ΔR(b1,j1j2)\Delta R(b_{1},j_{1}j_{2}), ΔR(b1,j1j2b2)\Delta R(b_{1},j_{1}j_{2}b_{2}), ΔR(b1,τh)\Delta R(b_{1},{\tau_{\rm h}}), ΔR(b1τh,j1j2)\Delta R(b_{1}{\tau_{\rm h}},j_{1}j_{2}), ΔR(b2,j1j2)\Delta R(b_{2},j_{1}j_{2}), ΔR(b2,j1j2b1)\Delta R(b_{2},j_{1}j_{2}b_{1}), ΔR(b2,τh)\Delta R(b_{2},{\tau_{\rm h}}), ΔR(b2τh,j1j2)\Delta R(b_{2}{\tau_{\rm h}},j_{1}j_{2}), ΔR(j1,b1)\Delta R(j_{1},b_{1}), ΔR(j1,b2)\Delta R(j_{1},b_{2}), ΔR(j1,j2)\Delta R(j_{1},j_{2}), ΔR(j1,τh)\Delta R(j_{1},{\tau_{\rm h}}), ΔR(j2,b1)\Delta R(j_{2},b_{1}), ΔR(j2,b2)\Delta R(j_{2},b_{2}), ΔR(j2,τh)\Delta R(j_{2},{\tau_{\rm h}}), ΔR(τh,j1j2)\Delta R({\tau_{\rm h}},j_{1}j_{2}), ΔR(τh,j1j2b1)\Delta R({\tau_{\rm h}},j_{1}j_{2}b_{1}), ΔR(τh,j1j2b1b2)\Delta R({\tau_{\rm h}},j_{1}j_{2}b_{1}b_{2}), ΔR(τh,j1j2b2)\Delta R({\tau_{\rm h}},j_{1}j_{2}b_{2}).

  2. 2.

    Invariant mass MM: M(j1j2)M(j_{1}j_{2}), M(j1j2b1)M(j_{1}j_{2}b_{1}), M(j1j2b1b2)M(j_{1}j_{2}b_{1}b_{2}), M(j1j2b2)M(j_{1}j_{2}b_{2}).

  3. 3.

    Transverse mass of MTM_{T}: MT(b1τh)M_{T}(b_{1}{\tau_{\rm h}}), MT(b2τh)M_{T}(b_{2}{\tau_{\rm h}}), MT(τh)M_{T}({\tau_{\rm h}}).

  4. 4.

    Four momentum of [pT,η,ϕ,m]\left[p_{T},\eta,\phi,m\right] for each of j1j_{1}, j2j_{2}, b1b_{1}, b2b_{2}, τh{\tau_{\rm h}}.

  5. 5.

    Missing transverse energy and Missing energy azimuthal angle: ETmissE_{T}^{\rm miss}, ϕmiss\phi^{\rm miss}.

  6. 6.

    Mass asymmetry: 𝒜M\mathcal{A}_{M}.

Here, the multiple particle symbol represents the system consisting of the constituent particles. For example, the term j1j2j_{1}j_{2} refers to a system whose momentum is the vector sum of the momenta of j1j_{1} and j2j_{2}.

Refer to caption
Figure 6: Normalized distributions of the signal (blue) and backgrounds (red) against the BDT score, based on the testing dataset.

In Figure 6, we illustrate the distributions of BDT scores for both the signal (in blue) and the background (in red). These results are derived exclusively from the testing dataset, which the model did not encounter during its training and validation phases. The BDT score distributions reveal a discernible separation between the signal and background. Applying a threshold of 0.98 for the XGBoost score results in cross sections of 1.42×102fb1.42\times 10^{-2}{\;{\rm fb}} for the signal and 8.53×102fb8.53\times 10^{-2}{\;{\rm fb}} for the background. Considering a 10% background uncertainty and an integrated luminosity of 3ab13{\;{\rm ab}^{-1}}, the signal significance reaches 1.35.

Although the signal significance in the BDT analysis shows a roughly sevenfold increase compared to the significance in the cut-based analysis, it remains below the threshold for a confident detection. This challenge is primarily due to the soft bb jets in the signal events, which fail to satisfy the basic selection.

To explore whether a 100 TeV pppp collider could offer higher discovery potential for the H±tbH^{\pm}\to t^{*}b signal, we conducted signal-to-background analyses for the same process, ppH+Htbτνbbjjτνpp\to H^{+}H^{-}\to t^{*}b\tau\nu\to bbjj\tau\nu, using the Delphes card FCChh.tcl. Unfortunately, the issue of excessively soft bb-jets persists even at a 100 TeV pppp collider, failing to yield a significance above the detection threshold.

Our cut-based analysis, employing sequential kinematic cuts of Nτh1N_{\tau_{\rm h}}\geq 1 (with pTτh>60GeVp_{T}^{\tau_{\rm h}}>60{\;{\rm GeV}}), Nb2N_{b}\geq 2, Nj2N_{j}\geq 2, ΔR(b1,b2)<1.5\Delta R(b_{1},b_{2})<1.5, ETmiss100GeV{E_{T}^{\rm miss}}\geq 100{\;{\rm GeV}}, 𝒜M<0.7\mathcal{A}_{M}<0.7, and M(j1j2b1b2)<200GeVM(j_{1}j_{2}b_{1}b_{2})<200{\;{\rm GeV}}, results in a significance of only 0.38 at a 100 TeV pppp collider. Moreover, the BDT analysis underperforms compared to the HL-LHC, with the signal significance reaching merely about 0.75.

In conclusion, high-energy hadron colliders, such as the HL-LHC and a prospective 100 TeV pppp collider, cannot effectively probe the tbt^{*}b decay mode of the light charged Higgs boson due to the inherent softness of the bb-jets in this channel. This limitation highlights the need for alternative approaches or collider technologies to investigate this particular decay mode of the light charged Higgs boson.

IV H±tbH^{\pm}\rightarrow t^{*}b at a Multi-TeV Muon Collider

In the previous section, we demonstrated that the proposed signal process ppH+Htbτνpp\rightarrow H^{+}H^{-}\rightarrow t^{*}b\tau\nu at the HL-LHC yields very low significance, reaching only 1.35 even with BDT analysis. This low significance is primarily due to the bb jets from the decay H±tbH^{\pm}\rightarrow t^{*}b being too soft for effective reconstruction. Additionally, a 100 TeV pppp collider cannot adequately boost the bb jets as the beam energy is not fully transferred to the parton-parton collision. Consequently, we shift our focus to a multi-TeV MuC, which fully harnesses the beam energy in collisions between two fundamental particles. We target two configurations: s=3TeV\sqrt{s}=3{\;{\rm TeV}} with an integrated luminosity of 1ab11{\;{\rm ab}^{-1}} and s=10TeV\sqrt{s}=10{\;{\rm TeV}} with an integrated luminosity of 10ab110{\;{\rm ab}^{-1}} Han:2021udl ; AlAli:2021let .

For the production of charged Higgs bosons, we consider their pair production with the following final state:

H+H[tb][τν][bbjj][τν].\displaystyle H^{+}H^{-}\rightarrow[t^{*}b][\tau\nu]\rightarrow[bbjj][\tau\nu]. (18)

At the MuC, there are three different production channels relevant to this final state:

μμ+\displaystyle\mu^{-}\mu^{+} H+H,\displaystyle\rightarrow H^{+}H^{-}, (19)
μ+μ\displaystyle\mu^{+}\mu^{-} H+Hνν¯,\displaystyle\rightarrow H^{+}H^{-}\nu\bar{\nu}, (20)
μ+μ\displaystyle\mu^{+}\mu^{-} H+Hμf+μf,\displaystyle\rightarrow H^{+}H^{-}\mu_{\rm f}^{+}\mu_{\rm f}^{-}, (21)

where ν\nu and ν¯\bar{\nu} include all three neutrino flavors, and μf\mu_{\rm f} denotes a forward muon with |η|>2.5|\eta|>2.5.

The first process in Equation 19 is the Drell-Yan process mediated by the ZZ boson and photon. The second process in Equation 20 involves H±H^{\pm} pair production associated with a pair of neutrinos. Since these additional neutrinos manifest as missing transverse energy, they create the same phenomenological signature as the final state with a single neutrino, making it indistinguishable from the first process. For this process, there are numerous Feynman diagrams, including those involving Z/γH+HZ^{*}/\gamma^{*}\rightarrow H^{+}H^{-} and Zνν¯Z^{*}\rightarrow\nu\bar{\nu}. Additionally, Vector Boson Scattering (VBS) processes such as W+Wγ/Z/hH+HW^{+}W^{-}\rightarrow\gamma^{*}/Z^{*}/h^{*}\rightarrow H^{+}H^{-}, VBS processes through the quartic vertex W+W^{+}-WW^{-}-H+H^{+}-HH^{-} in Equation 7, and VBS processes through the tt-channels mediated by HH and AA also contribute.

The third process in Equation 21 involves H±H^{\pm} pair production associated with two forward muons. In the conventional detector design of a multi-TeV MuC, forward muons are not detectable333Recently, the integration of forward muon detectors into the MuC’s design has been initiated within the MuC community, as the energetic forward muons can penetrate the tungsten nozzles. This forward muon detector is highly expected to play a crucial role in probing various BSM models Accettura:2023ked ; Ruhdorfer:2023uea ; Forslund:2023reu ; Bandyopadhyay:2024plc . because they fall outside the pseudorapidity coverage limit of |η|<2.5|\eta|<2.5. This limitation is due to tungsten nozzles designed to shield the detector from BIB particles Collamati:2021sbv ; Ally:2022rgk . This neutral-current VBS process occurs through ZZhH+HZZ\to h^{*}\to H^{+}H^{-}, the quartic vertex Z/γZ/\gamma-Z/γZ/\gamma-H+H^{+}-HH^{-}, and the tt-channels mediated by HH and AA.

Refer to caption
Figure 7: Parton-level cross sections as a function of MH/AM_{H/A} for the processes μ+μH+Hνν¯{\mu^{+}\mu^{-}}\to H^{+}H^{-}\nu\bar{\nu} (left) and μ+μH+Hμf+μf{\mu^{+}\mu^{-}}\to H^{+}H^{-}\mu_{\rm f}^{+}\mu_{\rm f}^{-} (right) for MH±=150GeVM_{H^{\pm}}=150{\;{\rm GeV}} at c.m. energy s=10TeV\sqrt{s}=10{\;{\rm TeV}}, over the allowed parameter points. μf\mu_{\rm f} denotes the forward muons with |ημ|>2.5|\eta_{\mu}|>2.5. The color scale represents the values of tanβ\tan\beta.

Let us discuss the dependence of cross sections for μ+μH+Hνν¯{\mu^{+}\mu^{-}}\to H^{+}H^{-}\nu\bar{\nu} and μ+μH+Hμf+μf{\mu^{+}\mu^{-}}\to H^{+}H^{-}\mu_{\rm f}^{+}\mu_{\rm f}^{-} on model parameters. Unlike the Drell-Yan process, these two associated production processes include contributions mediated by HH and AA, making their cross sections potentially sensitive to MH/AM_{H/A}. Additionally, VBS contributions through W+WhH+HW^{+}W^{-}\rightarrow h^{*}\rightarrow H^{+}H^{-} to μ+μH+Hνν¯{\mu^{+}\mu^{-}}\to H^{+}H^{-}\nu\bar{\nu} and ZZhH+HZZ\to h^{*}\to H^{+}H^{-} to μ+μH+Hμf+μf{\mu^{+}\mu^{-}}\to H^{+}H^{-}\mu_{\rm f}^{+}\mu_{\rm f}^{-}, though not dominant, introduce dependences on tanβ\tan\beta.

Figure 7 illustrates parton-level cross sections as a function of MH/AM_{H/A} for the processes μ+μH+Hνν¯{\mu^{+}\mu^{-}}\to H^{+}H^{-}\nu\bar{\nu} and μ+μH+Hμf+μf{\mu^{+}\mu^{-}}\to H^{+}H^{-}\mu_{\rm f}^{+}\mu_{\rm f}^{-} with MH±=150GeVM_{H^{\pm}}=150{\;{\rm GeV}} at s=10TeV\sqrt{s}=10{\;{\rm TeV}}. The color codes denote tanβ\tan\beta. The analysis considers parameter points allowed by theoretical and experimental constraints discussed in Sec. II. For forward muons μf\mu_{\rm f}, we apply the condition 2.5<|ημ|<4.74132.5<|\eta_{\mu}|<4.7413. The lower bound of |η|>2.5|\eta|>2.5 ensures that forward muons fall outside the conventional pseudorapidity coverage limit. The upper bound of |η|<4.7413|\eta|<4.7413 is implemented to manage cross section divergence that occurs as the scattering angle θ\theta approaches 0 or π\pi, a consequence of tt-channel photon-mediated diagrams. Typically, this divergence is canceled by higher-order QED corrections, particularly from soft photon emissions. In practice, such divergences are often handled by imposing a minimum scattering angle cut during data analysis. Considering the high collision energy at the MuC, we constrain the scattering angle to 1<θ<1791^{\circ}<\theta<179^{\circ}, which corresponds to |η|<4.7413|\eta|<4.7413.

Figure 7 clearly demonstrates that both processes exhibit modest dependence of cross sections on the model parameters MH/AM_{H/A} and tanβ\tan\beta. Notably, the cross section for μ+μH+Hμf+μf{\mu^{+}\mu^{-}}\to H^{+}H^{-}\mu_{\rm f}^{+}\mu_{\rm f}^{-} remains nearly constant across the allowed parameter space, varying by only about 10%. In contrast, the cross section for μ+μH+Hνν¯{\mu^{+}\mu^{-}}\to H^{+}H^{-}\nu\bar{\nu} shows a more pronounced dependence on the model parameters, with variations of approximately 70%. For a given tanβ\tan\beta, the cross section initially decreases as MH/AM_{H/A} increases, reaches a minimum at MH/A200GeVM_{H/A}\simeq 200{\;{\rm GeV}}, and then rises again.

Given these observations, we adopt a conservative approach by selecting MH=MA=200GeVM_{H}=M_{A}=200{\;{\rm GeV}}, tanβ=10\tan\beta=10, and m122=3.84×103GeV2m_{12}^{2}=3.84\times 10^{3}{\;{\rm GeV}}^{2} for our signal-to-background analysis. This choice represents a pessimistic scenario, ensuring that if we achieve signal significance above the discovery potential, it would guarantee the accessibility of the entire parameter space through our target signal H±tbH^{\pm}\to t^{*}b.

Cross sections of the pair production of charged Higgs bosons at the MuC
s=3TeV\sqrt{s}=3{\;{\rm TeV}} s=10TeV\sqrt{s}=10{\;{\rm TeV}}
MH±M_{H^{\pm}} 130GeV130{\;{\rm GeV}} 150GeV150{\;{\rm GeV}} 170GeV170{\;{\rm GeV}} 130GeV130{\;{\rm GeV}} 150GeV150{\;{\rm GeV}} 170GeV170{\;{\rm GeV}}
σ(μ+μH+H)\sigma({\mu^{+}\mu^{-}}\rightarrow H^{+}H^{-}) 3.26fb3.26{\;{\rm fb}} 3.24fb3.24{\;{\rm fb}} 3.22fb3.22{\;{\rm fb}} 0.294fb0.294{\;{\rm fb}} 0.296fb0.296{\;{\rm fb}} 0.295fb0.295{\;{\rm fb}}
σ(μ+μH+Hνν¯)\sigma({\mu^{+}\mu^{-}}\rightarrow H^{+}H^{-}\nu\bar{\nu}) 0.195fb0.195{\;{\rm fb}} 0.149fb0.149{\;{\rm fb}} 0.129fb0.129{\;{\rm fb}} 0.448fb0.448{\;{\rm fb}} 0.347fb0.347{\;{\rm fb}} 0.303fb0.303{\;{\rm fb}}
  σ(μ+μH+Hμf+μf)\sigma({\mu^{+}\mu^{-}}\rightarrow H^{+}H^{-}\mu_{\rm f}^{+}\mu_{\rm f}^{-}) 0.261fb0.261{\;{\rm fb}} 0.176fb0.176{\;{\rm fb}} 0.127fb0.127{\;{\rm fb}} 0.262fb0.262{\;{\rm fb}} 0.204fb0.204{\;{\rm fb}} 0.163fb0.163{\;{\rm fb}}
Table 2: Cross sections of the H±H^{\pm} pair production for the signal at the 3 TeV and 10 TeV MuC. We set MH=MA=200GeVM_{H}=M_{A}=200{\;{\rm GeV}}, tanβ=10\tan\beta=10, and m122=3.84×103GeV2m_{12}^{2}=3.84\times 10^{3}{\;{\rm GeV}}^{2}. For the H±H^{\pm} pair production associated with νν¯\nu\bar{\nu}, all three neutrino flavors are included. μf\mu_{\rm f} denotes the forward muons with |ημ|>2.5|\eta_{\mu}|>2.5.

We now compare the cross sections of the three production channels for the charged Higgs mass:

MH±=130, 150, 170GeV.M_{H^{\pm}}=130,\;150,\;170{\;{\rm GeV}}. (22)

Table 2 presents the parton-level cross sections at 3 TeV and 10 TeV MuC for MH/A=200GeVM_{H/A}=200{\;{\rm GeV}}, tanβ=10\tan\beta=10, and m122=3.84×103GeV2m_{12}^{2}=3.84\times 10^{3}{\;{\rm GeV}}^{2}. We used MadGraph5_aMC@NLO version 3.5.0.

The Drell-Yan process exhibits nearly constant cross sections for different MH±M_{H^{\pm}} values at a given s\sqrt{s}: approximately 3 fb at s=3TeV\sqrt{s}=3{\;{\rm TeV}} and 0.3 fb at s=10TeV\sqrt{s}=10{\;{\rm TeV}}. This consistency is due to the relatively light MH±M_{H^{\pm}} compared to the multi-TeV collision energy. The marked decrease in cross sections from s=3TeV\sqrt{s}=3{\;{\rm TeV}} to s=10TeV\sqrt{s}=10{\;{\rm TeV}} illustrates the typical behavior of Drell-Yan cross sections, which are inversely proportional to the square of the beam energy. In contrast, the cross sections for the second and third processes moderately increase with increasing s\sqrt{s}. This opposing trend is characteristic of VBS processes, whose cross sections increase according to log2(s/mV2)\log^{2}({s}/{m_{V}^{2}}) Han:2021udl .

The relative importance of the three production channels varies with collision energy. At s=3TeV\sqrt{s}=3{\;{\rm TeV}}, the Drell-Yan process dominates, yielding the highest cross section. Meanwhile, the processes involving two forward muons and those with two neutrinos exhibit comparable cross sections. However, this hierarchy changes at s=10TeV\sqrt{s}=10{\;{\rm TeV}}. In this higher energy regime, μ+μH+Hνν¯{\mu^{+}\mu^{-}}\rightarrow H^{+}H^{-}\nu\bar{\nu} emerges as the dominant process, exhibiting the largest cross section. The Drell-Yan process μ+μH+H{\mu^{+}\mu^{-}}\rightarrow H^{+}H^{-} becomes the second most significant, while μ+μH+Hνν¯{\mu^{+}\mu^{-}}\rightarrow H^{+}H^{-}\nu\bar{\nu} now shows the smallest cross section among the three channels. Despite this, we will demonstrate that even at s=10TeV\sqrt{s}=10{\;{\rm TeV}}, the Drell-Yan production remains dominant after the final selection.

Next, we present the signal-to-background analysis at the detector level. We conducted showering with Pythia version 8.307. A rapid detector simulation was performed using Delphes version 3.5.0, utilizing the delphes_card_MuonColliderDet.tcl card.444It is accessible at https://github.com/delphes/delphes/blob/master/cards/delphes_card_MuonColliderDet.tcl the MuC Delphes card accommodates slightly different values for the τ\tau tagging and mistagging rates compared to those for the HL-LHC: for pT10GeVp_{T}\geq 10{\;{\rm GeV}}, Pττ80%P_{\tau\to\tau}\simeq 80\%, Peτ0.1%P_{e\rightarrow\tau}\simeq 0.1\%, and Pjτ2%P_{j\to\tau}\simeq 2\%.

For jet clustering, we employed the exclusive Valencia algorithm Boronat:2014hva ; Boronat:2016tgd , implemented in FastJet. This algorithm is particularly well-suited for high-energy lepton colliders due to its adept handling of initial state radiation and beam-induced backgrounds by incorporating beam jets. We chose the exclusive clustering setting for two primary reasons. First, it is more efficient for signals with a predefined number of jets, such as our signal H+HtbτνH^{+}H^{-}\rightarrow t^{*}b\tau\nu, which requires five jets. The exclusive algorithm terminates jet clustering when the jet count matches the specified number of jets. Second, the inclusive algorithm is often ineffective for our signal jets since it can easily miss very close jets due to its requirement for a minimum distance between any two jets. Our signal jets, originating from the decay of the same parent particle H±H^{\pm} produced at the multi-TeV MuC, tend to have a small jet radius and thus can fail to be selected by the inclusive algorithm. To overcome this, we implemented the exclusive Valencia Algorithm with a jet radius of R=0.2R=0.2 and α=β=1\alpha=\beta=1.

To discuss the potential SM backgrounds for the final state bbjjτνbbjj\tau\nu at the MuC, we first note that producing the τν\tau\nu system requires the presence of a W±W^{\pm} boson. Since the W±W^{\pm} boson must be pair-produced at the MuC, the two light jets in the final state originate from the decay of the other W±W^{\pm} boson. Considering the possibility of light quark jets being misidentified as bb jets, we identify two primary background processes: μ+μW+Wbb¯\mu^{+}\mu^{-}\rightarrow W^{+}W^{-}b\bar{b} and μ+μW+Wjj\mu^{+}\mu^{-}\rightarrow W^{+}W^{-}jj. It is worth noting that the W+Wbb¯W^{+}W^{-}b\bar{b} process encompasses top quark pair production, whereas W+WjjW^{+}W^{-}jj includes the contribution from μ+μW+WZ\mu^{+}\mu^{-}\rightarrow W^{+}W^{-}Z. After applying bb-jet mistagging rates, we found that the contribution from the W+WjjW^{+}W^{-}jj process is negligible. Therefore, we identify μ+μW+Wbb¯\mu^{+}\mu^{-}\rightarrow W^{+}W^{-}b\bar{b} as the main background for the bbjjτνbbjj\tau\nu final state.

Brief comments on BIB are in order here. Beam-induced backgrounds arise from the decay of muons in the beam, which produces electrons and positrons. As these interact with machine components, various secondary particles such as photons, electron-positron pairs, hadrons, and neutrinos are generated. Many of these secondary particles result from forward scattering, causing most BIB particles to be directed along the beam and to have low energies, typically below 1 GeV Bartosik:2024ulr . Given that our final state requires five hard jets in the central region, BIB are of negligible concern. Thus, we do not consider BIB a significant background for our analysis of the bbjjτνbbjj\tau\nu final state at the MuC.

We establish the following basic selection criteria:

  • Jet multiplicity: Exactly 2 light jets and 2 bb-jets, along with one hadronically decaying tau lepton, with transverse momentum pT>25p_{T}>25 GeV and pseudorapidity |η|<2.5|\eta|<2.5 for all QCD jets and the tau jet.

  • Missing transverse energy: ETmiss>50E_{T}^{\rm miss}>50 GeV.

  • Lepton veto: Events containing any electrons or muons with pT>10p_{T}>10 GeV and |η|<2.5|\eta|<2.5 are vetoed to suppress backgrounds from leptonic decays of WW bosons.

Refer to caption
Figure 8: Normalized distributions for ΔR(b1,b2)\Delta R(b_{1},b_{2}) (upper-left), ΔR(j1,b1)\Delta R(j_{1},b_{1}) (upper-right), ETmiss{E_{T}^{\rm miss}} (lower-left), and M(j1j2b1b2)M(j_{1}j_{2}b_{1}b_{2}) (lower-right) for the signal (solid lines) and background (orange histograms). For the ΔR\Delta R and ETmiss{E_{T}^{\rm miss}} distributions, we show the results for MH±=130GeVM_{H^{\pm}}=130{\;{\rm GeV}} after applying the basic selection criteria, while for M(j1j2b1b2)M(j_{1}j_{2}b_{1}b_{2}), we show the results for MH±=130GeVM_{H^{\pm}}=130{\;{\rm GeV}} (blue), 150 GeV (green), and 170 GeV (red) after additionally imposing ETmiss>500GeV{E_{T}^{\rm miss}}>500{\;{\rm GeV}}, ΔR(b1,b2)<0.6\Delta R(b_{1},b_{2})<0.6 and ΔR(ji,bi)|i,i=1,2<0.6\Delta R(j_{i},b_{i^{\prime}})|_{i,i^{\prime}=1,2}<0.6.

To establish an effective cut-flow, we begin with a detailed analysis of the key kinematic variables that differentiate signal from background. The normalized distributions of the most critical variables are presented in Figure 8: ΔR(b1,b2)\Delta R(b_{1},b_{2}) in the upper-left panel, ΔR(j1,b1)\Delta R(j_{1},b_{1}) in the upper-right panel, ETmiss{E_{T}^{\rm miss}} in the lower-left panel, and M(j1j2b1b2)M(j_{1}j_{2}b_{1}b_{2}) in the lower-right panel. The signal distributions are depicted as solid lines, while the background distributions are shown as orange histograms. The ΔR\Delta R and ETmiss{E_{T}^{\rm miss}} distributions are presented after applying the basic selection criteria, for the representative case of mH±=130m_{H^{\pm}}=130 GeV. For the M(j1j2b1b2)M(j_{1}j_{2}b_{1}b_{2}) distribution, we show the results for MH±=130GeVM_{H^{\pm}}=130{\;{\rm GeV}} (blue), 150 GeV (green), and 170 GeV (red) after imposing ΔR(b1,b2)<0.6\Delta R(b_{1},b_{2})<0.6, ΔR(ji,bi)|i,i=1,2<0.6\Delta R(j_{i},b_{i^{\prime}})|_{i,i^{\prime}=1,2}<0.6, and ETmiss>500GeV{E_{T}^{\rm miss}}>500{\;{\rm GeV}}.

The ΔR(b1,b2)\Delta R(b_{1},b_{2}) distribution in Figure 8 clearly shows that this variable is highly discriminating for separating the signal from the background. In the signal events, the two bb-jets are typically adjacent, originating from the decay of the same parent H±H^{\pm}. In contrast, the background exhibits a broader distribution with larger angular separations between the two bb-jets. A stringent criterion of ΔR(b1,b2)<0.6\Delta R(b_{1},b_{2})<0.6 is effective in isolating the signal from the background.

Similarly, the angular separation between the leading light jet and the leading bb-jet, ΔR(j1,b1)\Delta R(j_{1},b_{1}), exhibits a distinct pattern for the signal compared to the background. The signal distribution shows a prominent primary peak at ΔR(j1,b1)0.1\Delta R(j_{1},b_{1})\simeq 0.1, reflecting the fact that j1j_{1} and b1b_{1} originate from the same H±H^{\pm} decay. This feature is consistently observed in other combinations, such as ΔR(j1,b2)\Delta R(j_{1},b_{2}), ΔR(j2,b1)\Delta R(j_{2},b_{1}), and ΔR(j2,b2)\Delta R(j_{2},b_{2}), as expected from the kinematics of the signal process. Unexpectedly, a secondary peak is observed at higher values around ΔR3\Delta R\sim 3 in the signal distribution. We found that it arises from occasional misidentification between light jets and tau-jets. Despite the presence of this small secondary peak, a loose cut of ΔR(ji,bi)<0.6\Delta R(j_{i},b_{i^{\prime}})<0.6 for i,i=1,2i,i^{\prime}=1,2 is still effective in enhancing the signal over the background by retaining the prominent primary peak region.

Another crucial discriminating variable is the missing transverse energy, shown in the lower-left panel of Figure 8. The signal exhibits a significantly higher ETmiss{E_{T}^{\rm miss}} distribution compared to the background, attributed to the different production mechanisms and mother particles of the neutrino. In the signal process, the [τν][\tau\nu] system originates from the decay of a charged Higgs boson produced through a 222\rightarrow 2 scattering process at the MuC. The large energy transfer to the H±H^{\pm} results in a highly energetic neutrino from its subsequent decay, leading to substantial missing transverse energy in the final state. In contrast, the background process involves a W±W^{\pm} boson produced through a 242\rightarrow 4 scattering process, which inherently results in a softer energy transfer to the W±W^{\pm} and, consequently, a less energetic neutrino from its decay. As a result, a stringent cut of ETmiss>500{E_{T}^{\rm miss}}>500 GeV is highly effective in enhancing the signal significance.

Finally, we present the invariant mass distribution constructed from the two leading bb-jets and two leading light quark jets in the lower-right panel of Figure 8 for mH±=130m_{H^{\pm}}=130 GeV (blue), 150 GeV (green), and 170 GeV (red). To demonstrate the efficiency of our proposed cuts on ETmiss{E_{T}^{\rm miss}} and ΔR\Delta R in revealing the invariant mass peaks over the background distributions, we show the distributions after imposing the requirements ΔR(b1,b2)<0.6\Delta R(b_{1},b_{2})<0.6, ΔR(ji,bi)<0.6\Delta R(j_{i},b_{i^{\prime}})<0.6 for i,i=1,2i,i^{\prime}=1,2, and ETmiss>500{E_{T}^{\rm miss}}>500 GeV. We observe distinct resonance peaks in the signal distributions, although the peak positions appear slightly below the true charged Higgs boson mass, primarily due to smearing effects in reconstructing the two bb-jets and two light jets from the H±H^{\pm} decays. The background distribution also exhibits a peak marginally above the top quark mass, largely attributable to contributions from top quark pair production.

Cut-flow for μ+μH+Htbτνjjbbτν\mu^{+}\mu^{-}\rightarrow H^{+}H^{-}\rightarrow t^{*}b\tau\nu\rightarrow jjbb\tau\nu at a 3 TeV MuC with tot=1ab1\mathcal{L}_{\text{tot}}=1{\;{\rm ab}^{-1}}
Cut σbg\sigma_{\rm bg} [fb] MH±=130GeVM_{H^{\pm}}=130{\;{\rm GeV}} MH±=150GeVM_{H^{\pm}}=150{\;{\rm GeV}} MH±=170GeVM_{H^{\pm}}=170{\;{\rm GeV}}
σsg\sigma_{\rm sg} [fb] 𝒮1ab110%\mathcal{S}^{10\%}_{1{\rm ab}^{-1}} σsg\sigma_{\rm sg} [fb] 𝒮1ab110%\mathcal{S}^{10\%}_{1{\rm ab}^{-1}} σsg\sigma_{\rm sg} [fb] 𝒮1ab110%\mathcal{S}^{10\%}_{1{\rm ab}^{-1}}
Basic  5.49×1015.49\times 10^{-1}  1.04×1011.04\times 10^{-1} 1.651.65  1.04×1011.04\times 10^{-1} 1.651.65  3.66×1023.66\times 10^{-2} 0.600
ETmiss>500GeV{E_{T}^{\rm miss}}>500{\;{\rm GeV}} 1.67×1011.67\times 10^{-1} 7.49×1027.49\times 10^{-2} 3.193.19 7.36×1027.36\times 10^{-2} 3.143.14 2.61×1022.61\times 10^{-2} 1.19
ΔR(b1,b2)<0.6\Delta R(b_{1},b_{2})<0.6 5.75×1025.75\times 10^{-2} 7.48×1027.48\times 10^{-2} 6.336.33 7.34×1027.34\times 10^{-2} 6.23 2.60×1022.60\times 10^{-2} 2.50
ΔR(j1,b1)<0.6\Delta R(j_{1},b_{1})<0.6 2.97×1022.97\times 10^{-2} 7.19×1027.19\times 10^{-2} 8.488.48 7.08×1027.08\times 10^{-2} 8.38 2.50×1022.50\times 10^{-2} 3.50
ΔR(j1,b2)<0.6\Delta R(j_{1},b_{2})<0.6 2.87×1022.87\times 10^{-2} 7.18×1027.18\times 10^{-2} 8.628.62 7.06×1027.06\times 10^{-2} 8.50 2.50×1022.50\times 10^{-2} 3.57
ΔR(j2,b1)<0.6\Delta R(j_{2},b_{1})<0.6 1.29×1021.29\times 10^{-2} 6.82×1026.82\times 10^{-2} 11.311.3 6.73×1026.73\times 10^{-2} 11.2 2.38×1022.38\times 10^{-2} 4.95
ΔR(j2,b2)<0.6\Delta R(j_{2},b_{2})<0.6 1.22×1021.22\times 10^{-2} 6.79×1026.79\times 10^{-2} 11.411.4 6.66×1026.66\times 10^{-2} 11.3 2.34×1022.34\times 10^{-2} 4.99
M(j1j2b1b2)<mtM(j_{1}j_{2}b_{1}b_{2})<m_{t} 6.61×1036.61\times 10^{-3} 6.74×1026.74\times 10^{-2} 13.713.7 6.61×1026.61\times 10^{-2} 13.5 2.24×1022.24\times 10^{-2} 6.06
Table 3: Cut-flow for the signal μ+μH+Htbτνjjbbτν\mu^{+}\mu^{-}\rightarrow H^{+}H^{-}\rightarrow t^{*}b\tau\nu\rightarrow jjbb\tau\nu with MH±M_{H^{\pm}} = 130, 150, and 170 GeV at the 3 TeV MuC. We set MH=MA=200GeVM_{H}=M_{A}=200{\;{\rm GeV}}, tanβ=10\tan\beta=10, and m122=3.84×103GeV2m_{12}^{2}=3.84\times 10^{3}{\;{\rm GeV}}^{2}. The significance 𝒮1ab110%\mathcal{S}^{10\%}_{1{\rm ab}^{-1}} is calculated considering a 10% background uncertainty and an integrated luminosity of 1 ab-1.

Based on the observations from the key kinematic variable distributions, we propose an effective cut-flow strategy to achieve the high discovery potential at the 3 TeV MuC, as summarized in Table 3. Although we do not present the cut-flow for the negligible μ+μH+Hνν¯/μf+μf{\mu^{+}\mu^{-}}\to H^{+}H^{-}\nu\bar{\nu}/\mu_{\rm f}^{+}\mu_{\rm f}^{-}, their contributions are included in calculating the significance. In the following discussion, the selection efficiency of each specific cut is measured relative to the preceding cut in the cut-flow.

For the signal process, we set MH=MA=200GeVM_{H}=M_{A}=200{\;{\rm GeV}}, tanβ=10\tan\beta=10, and m122=3.84×103GeV2m_{12}^{2}=3.84\times 10^{3}{\;{\rm GeV}}^{2}, and consider three benchmark scenarios with charged Higgs boson masses of MH±=130M_{H^{\pm}}=130, 150, and 170 GeV. After applying the basic selection criteria, the signal cross sections show similar values across the three MH±M_{H^{\pm}} cases, with a slight decrease as MH±M_{H^{\pm}} increases.

The first effective kinematic cut is on the missing transverse energy, with a threshold of ETmiss>500{E_{T}^{\rm miss}}>500 GeV. This cut results in approximately 70% selection efficiency for the signal and only about 30% for the background, providing an initial suppression of the background while retaining a substantial fraction of the signal events.

The most crucial cut is on the angular distance between the leading and subleading bb-jets, ΔR(b1,b2)<0.6\Delta R(b_{1},b_{2})<0.6. Among the events that satisfy the ETmiss{E_{T}^{\rm miss}} cut, almost all the signal events survive under this ΔR(b1,b2)\Delta R(b_{1},b_{2}) cut, while only about 30% of the background events remain. At this stage, we already achieve substantial signal significances: 𝒮6\mathcal{S}\approx 6 for mH±=130m_{H^{\pm}}=130 GeV and 150150 GeV, and 𝒮2.5\mathcal{S}\approx 2.5 for mH±=170m_{H^{\pm}}=170 GeV. The smaller significance for mH±=170m_{H^{\pm}}=170 GeV is attributed to the reduced production cross section due to the heavier charged Higgs boson mass.

Subsequently, we impose a series of angular distance cuts between a bb jet and a light jet, collectively denoted as ΔR(ji,bi)|i,i=1,2<0.6\Delta R(j_{i},b_{i^{\prime}})|_{i,i^{\prime}=1,2}<0.6. Each of these cuts consistently reduces the background while retaining almost all of the signal events. The selection efficiency of this series of cuts is about 20% for the background and about 90% for the signal.

Finally, we impose a condition on the invariant mass of the two bb-jets and two light jets, such that M(b1b2j1j2)<173M(b_{1}b_{2}j_{1}j_{2})<173 GeV. Note that we apply an upper bound on M(b1b2j1j2)M(b_{1}b_{2}j_{1}j_{2}) rather than a mass window. This approach is designed to retain as many signal events as possible, since the signal cross sections after the final selection are only of the order of 𝒪(10)\mathcal{O}(10) ab, resulting in dozens of signal events with a total integrated luminosity of 11 ab-1. Additionally, the relatively broad resonance peak, due to smearing effects in reconstructing the two bb-jets and two light jets, is another reason for not imposing a narrow mass window (see Figure 8). This final selection ensures a significant discovery potential for all three benchmark cases. For MH±=130M_{H^{\pm}}=130, 150, and 170 GeV, the final signal significances are 13.7, 13.5, and 6.06, respectively.

To investigate the impacts of higher collision energy on probing the H±tbH^{\pm}\rightarrow t^{*}b mode, we consider the 10 TeV MuC with a total integrated luminosity of 10ab110{\;{\rm ab}^{-1}}. One might naively expect that the 10 TeV MuC would yield higher signal sensitivity than the 3 TeV MuC, as the 10 TeV MuC benefits from the VBS processes of μ+μH+Hνν¯/μf+μf\mu^{+}\mu^{-}\rightarrow H^{+}H^{-}\nu\bar{\nu}/\mu_{\rm f}^{+}\mu_{\rm f}^{-}, which have parton-level cross sections more than two times larger than that of the Drell-Yan process (see Table 2).

Cut-flow for μ+μH+Htbτνjjbbτν\mu^{+}\mu^{-}\rightarrow H^{+}H^{-}\rightarrow t^{*}b\tau\nu\rightarrow jjbb\tau\nu at a 10 TeV MuC with tot=10ab1\mathcal{L}_{\text{tot}}=10{\;{\rm ab}^{-1}}
Cut σbg\sigma_{\rm bg} [fb] MH±=130GeVM_{H^{\pm}}=130{\;{\rm GeV}} MH±=170GeVM_{H^{\pm}}=170{\;{\rm GeV}}
σsgDY\sigma_{\rm sg}^{\rm DY} [fb] σsgνν¯\sigma_{\rm sg}^{\nu\bar{\nu}} [fb] σsgμfμf\sigma_{\rm sg}^{\mu_{\rm f}\mu_{\rm f}} [fb] 𝒮10ab110%\mathcal{S}^{10\%}_{10{\rm ab}^{-1}} σsgDY\sigma_{\rm sg}^{\rm DY} [fb] 𝒮10ab110%\mathcal{S}^{10\%}_{10{\rm ab}^{-1}}
Basic 6.89×1026.89\times 10^{-2} 9.49×1039.49\times 10^{-3} 5.28×1035.28\times 10^{-3} 2.39×1032.39\times 10^{-3} 2.17 3.14×1033.14\times 10^{-3} 0.677
ETmiss>1TeV{E_{T}^{\rm miss}}>1{\;{\rm TeV}} 3.10×1023.10\times 10^{-2} 7.85×1037.85\times 10^{-3} 6.87×1046.87\times 10^{-4} 5.25×1055.25\times 10^{-5} 2.24 2.62×1032.62\times 10^{-3} 0.773
ΔR(b1,b2)<0.2\Delta R(b_{1},b_{2})<0.2 1.58×1021.58\times 10^{-2} 7.71×1037.71\times 10^{-3} 5.53×1045.53\times 10^{-4} 4.64×1054.64\times 10^{-5} 3.65 2.54×1032.54\times 10^{-3} 1.28
ΔR(ji,bi)<0.2\Delta R(j_{i},b_{i^{\prime}})<0.2 8.95×1048.95\times 10^{-4} 6.25×1036.25\times 10^{-3} 2.11×1042.11\times 10^{-4} 2.38×1052.38\times 10^{-5} 12.2 2.06×1032.06\times 10^{-3} 5.17
M(j1j2b1b2)<mtM(j_{1}j_{2}b_{1}b_{2})<m_{t} 4.21×1044.21\times 10^{-4} 6.19×1036.19\times 10^{-3} 2.10×1042.10\times 10^{-4} 2.38×1052.38\times 10^{-5} 14.8 1.89×1031.89\times 10^{-3} 6.26
Table 4: Cut-flow for the signal μ+μH+Htbτνjjbbτν\mu^{+}\mu^{-}\rightarrow H^{+}H^{-}\rightarrow t^{*}b\tau\nu\rightarrow jjbb\tau\nu at the 10 TeV MuC with the total integrated luminosity of 10 ab-1. For MH±=130GeVM_{H^{\pm}}=130{\;{\rm GeV}}, we present the detailed cut-flow of the cross section of the Drell-Yan process (σsgDY\sigma_{\rm sg}^{\rm DY}), of μ+μH+Hνν¯{\mu^{+}\mu^{-}}\rightarrow H^{+}H^{-}\nu\bar{\nu} (σsgνν¯\sigma_{\rm sg}^{\nu\bar{\nu}}), and of μ+μH+Hμf+μf{\mu^{+}\mu^{-}}\rightarrow H^{+}H^{-}\mu_{\rm f}^{+}\mu_{\rm f}^{-} (σsgμfμf\sigma_{\rm sg}^{\mu_{\rm f}\mu_{\rm f}}). For MH±=170GeVM_{H^{\pm}}=170{\;{\rm GeV}}, we present the cut-flow of the dominant σsgDY\sigma_{\rm sg}^{\rm DY}. The cut of ΔR(ji,bi)<0.2\Delta R(j_{i},b_{i^{\prime}})<0.2 collectively denotes four combinations with i,i=1,2i,i^{\prime}=1,2.

In Table 4, we present the cut-flow of the cross sections for MH±=130GeVM_{H^{\pm}}=130{\;{\rm GeV}} and MH±=170GeVM_{H^{\pm}}=170{\;{\rm GeV}} at the 10 TeV MuC. The results for MH±=150GeVM_{H^{\pm}}=150{\;{\rm GeV}} are omitted as they are very similar to those for MH±=130GeVM_{H^{\pm}}=130{\;{\rm GeV}}, with differences below 1%. The significances are calculated for a total integrated luminosity of 10ab110{\;{\rm ab}^{-1}} and a 10% background uncertainty. For MH±=130GeVM_{H^{\pm}}=130{\;{\rm GeV}}, we present the cut-flow for all three production channels: the Drell-Yan process, μ+μH+Hνν¯{\mu^{+}\mu^{-}}\rightarrow H^{+}H^{-}\nu\bar{\nu}, and μ+μH+Hμf+μf{\mu^{+}\mu^{-}}\rightarrow H^{+}H^{-}\mu_{\rm f}^{+}\mu_{\rm f}^{-}, with their respective cross sections denoted by σsgDY\sigma_{\rm sg}^{\rm DY}, σsgνν¯\sigma_{\rm sg}^{\nu\bar{\nu}}, and σsgμfμf\sigma_{\rm sg}^{\mu_{\rm f}\mu_{\rm f}}. After the basic selection, the cross sections for the three processes are of the same order of magnitude. However, the ETmiss>1TeV{E_{T}^{\rm miss}}>1{\;{\rm TeV}} cut substantially suppresses σsgνν¯\sigma_{\rm sg}^{\nu\bar{\nu}} and σsgμfμf\sigma_{\rm sg}^{\mu_{\rm f}\mu_{\rm f}}, leaving less than 10% of events. In contrast, the Drell-Yan process maintains a high selection efficiency, around 83%. In the case of MH±=170 GeVM_{H^{\pm}}=170\text{ GeV}, we present only the Drell-Yan cross sections since the non-Drell-Yan signal processes are negligible after the final selection. However, the signal significances are calculated based on the total cross section from all three processes.

The most decisive cuts for suppressing the background are the series of ΔR(ji,bi)<0.2\Delta R(j_{i},b_{i^{\prime}})<0.2, which results in a background selection efficiency of about 5.7%. These cuts achieve a significance well above the 5σ5\sigma discovery threshold. Our final selection on the invariant mass of two bb jets and two light jets further enhances the significance. For MH±=130GeVM_{H^{\pm}}=130{\;{\rm GeV}}, 150GeV150{\;{\rm GeV}}, and 170GeV170{\;{\rm GeV}}, the significances are 14.8, 14.4, and 6.26, respectively.

Despite these results, we conclude that the 3 TeV MuC is more efficient than the 10 TeV MuC for probing the new physics signal of H±tbH^{\pm}\rightarrow t^{*}b. Although both the 3 TeV and 10 TeV MuCs achieve similar signal significances, the 3 TeV MuC requires only 1ab11{\;{\rm ab}^{-1}} luminosity, whereas the 10 TeV MuC demands a much higher luminosity of 10ab110{\;{\rm ab}^{-1}}.

V Conclusions

In this study, we explored an unexplored decay channel of the light charged Higgs boson into an off-shell top quark and a bottom quark, H±tbH^{\pm}\rightarrow t^{*}b, within the context of the type-I two-Higgs-doublet model. We focused on the mass range of 130 to 170 GeV, where the decay H±tbH^{\pm}\rightarrow t^{*}b becomes significant. To probe this new physics signal without resorting to specific model parameters, we proposed the pair production of charged Higgs bosons as a golden production channel, followed by the decay H+HtbτνbbjjτνH^{+}H^{-}\rightarrow t^{*}b\tau\nu\rightarrow bbjj\tau\nu.

We conducted a detailed signal-to-background analysis at the High-Luminosity Large Hadron Collider and a prospective 100 TeV proton-proton collider, employing comprehensive cut-flow strategies and the Boosted Decision Tree method. However, we found that the signal significance remains far below the threshold for a confident detection at these colliders, primarily due to the inherent softness of the bb jets in the decay process, which fail to meet the basic threshold for jet clustering.

Recognizing the constraints of hadron colliders, we extended our analysis to explore the discovery potential of a multi-TeV muon collider (MuC) for the H+HtbτνbbjjτνH^{+}H^{-}\rightarrow t^{*}b\tau\nu\rightarrow bbjj\tau\nu signal process. The MuC offers a significant advantage by fully exploiting the beam energy in collisions between fundamental particles. Our analysis demonstrated that the MuC, particularly at a center-of-mass energy of 3 TeV, provides a promising environment for probing the H±tbH^{\pm}\rightarrow t^{*}b decay mode. The cut-flow analysis at the 3 TeV MuC yielded a high signal significance, surpassing the 5σ5\sigma discovery threshold, with a total integrated luminosity of 1 ab-1. Specifically, for MH±=130M_{H^{\pm}}=130, 150, and 170 GeV, the signal significances were 13.7, 13.5, and 6.06, respectively. In contrast, the 10 TeV MuC, despite its higher collision energy, requires a substantially larger integrated luminosity of 10 ab-1 to achieve comparable results. This is due to the reduced signal cross sections of the Drell-Yan production process at higher collision energies.

The results of our study underscore the challenges and potential in searching for the light charged Higgs boson via the tbt^{*}b decay mode. While high-energy hadron colliders face significant obstacles due to the soft bb jets, the multi-TeV MuC emerges as a highly effective platform. The detailed simulation and cut-flow strategy developed in this work provide a robust framework for future experimental searches for this promising new signal, emphasizing the critical role of a multi-TeV MuC in exploring beyond the Standard Model physics.

Acknowledgements.
We thank Kingman Cheung and Chih-Ting Lu for useful discussions. And the work of D.W., J.K., P.S., and J.S. is supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea, Grant No. NRF-2022R1A2C1007583. The work of S.L. is supported by Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea(NRF) funded by the Ministry of Education(RS-2023-00274098).

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. B 716 (2012) 1–29, [1207.7214].
  • (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. B 716 (2012) 30–61, [1207.7235].
  • (3) M. Misiak, A. Rehman and M. Steinhauser, Towards B¯Xsγ\overline{B}\to{X}_{s}\gamma at the NNLO in QCD without interpolation in mc, JHEP 06 (2020) 175, [2002.01548].
  • (4) M. Aoki, S. Kanemura, K. Tsumura and K. Yagyu, Models of Yukawa interaction in the two Higgs doublet model, and their collider phenomenology, Phys. Rev. D 80 (2009) 015017, [0902.4665].
  • (5) 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, [1106.0034].
  • (6) N. Craig, J. Galloway and S. Thomas, Searching for Signs of the Second Higgs Doublet, 1305.2424.
  • (7) L. Wang, J. M. Yang and Y. Zhang, Two-Higgs-doublet models in light of current experiments: a brief review, Commun. Theor. Phys. 74 (2022) 097202, [2203.07244].
  • (8) X.-M. Shen, Y. Hu, C. Sun and J. Gao, Decay of the charged Higgs boson and the top quark in two-Higgs-doublet model at NNLO in QCD, JHEP 05 (2022) 157, [2201.08139].
  • (9) S. Kanemura, M. Kikuchi and K. Yagyu, Next-to-leading order corrections to decays of the heavier CP-even Higgs boson in the two Higgs doublet model, Nucl. Phys. B 983 (2022) 115906, [2203.08337].
  • (10) S. Lee, K. Cheung, J. Kim, C.-T. Lu and J. Song, Status of the two-Higgs-doublet model in light of the CDF mW measurement, Phys. Rev. D 106 (2022) 075013, [2204.10338].
  • (11) A. G. Akeroyd, S. Moretti and M. Song, Light charged Higgs boson with dominant decay to quarks and its search at the LHC and future colliders, Phys. Rev. D 98 (2018) 115024, [1810.05403].
  • (12) H. Abouabid, A. Arhrib, D. Azevedo, J. E. Falaki, P. M. Ferreira, M. Mühlleitner et al., Benchmarking di-Higgs production in various extended Higgs sector models, JHEP 09 (2022) 011, [2112.12515].
  • (13) X.-F. Han, T. Li, H.-X. Wang, L. Wang and Y. Zhang, Lepton-specific inert two-Higgs-doublet model confronted with the new results for muon and electron g-2 anomalies and multilepton searches at the LHC, Phys. Rev. D 104 (2021) 115001, [2104.03227].
  • (14) P. M. Ferreira, B. L. Gonçalves and F. R. Joaquim, The hidden side of scalar-triplet models with spontaneous CP violation, JHEP 05 (2022) 105, [2109.13179].
  • (15) S. Abbaspour, S. M. Moosavi Nejad and M. Balali, Indirect search for light charged Higgs bosons through the dominant semileptonic decays of top quark tb(B/D+X)+H+(τ+ντ)t\to b(\to B/D+X)+H^{+}(\to\tau^{+}\nu_{\tau}), Nucl. Phys. B 932 (2018) 505–528, [1806.02546].
  • (16) G. K. Demir, N. Sönmez and H. Dogan, Deep-Learning in Search of Light Charged Higgs, 1803.01550.
  • (17) ATLAS collaboration, M. Aaboud et al., Search for charged Higgs bosons decaying via H±τ±ντH^{\pm}\to\tau^{\pm}\nu_{\tau} in the τ\tau+jets and τ\tau+lepton final states with 36 fb-1 of pppp collision data recorded at s=13\sqrt{s}=13 TeV with the ATLAS experiment, JHEP 09 (2018) 139, [1807.07915].
  • (18) P. Sanyal, Limits on the Charged Higgs Parameters in the Two Higgs Doublet Model using CMS s=13\sqrt{s}=13 TeV Results, Eur. Phys. J. C 79 (2019) 913, [1906.02520].
  • (19) CMS collaboration, A. M. Sirunyan et al., Search for charged Higgs bosons in the H± \to τ±ντ\tau^{\pm}\nu_{\tau} decay channel in proton-proton collisions at s=\sqrt{s}= 13 TeV, JHEP 07 (2019) 142, [1903.04560].
  • (20) S. Ghosh, Fermionic decay of charged Higgs boson in low mass region in Georgi Machacek Model, 2205.03896.
  • (21) J. Kim, S. Lee, P. Sanyal, J. Song and D. Wang, τ±νγγ\tau^{\pm}\nu\gamma\gamma and ±±γγ /ETX\ell^{\pm}\ell^{\pm}\gamma\gamma\hbox to0.0pt{\,/\hss}{E}_{T}X to probe the fermiophobic Higgs boson with high cutoff scales, JHEP 04 (2023) 083, [2302.05467].
  • (22) S. Kanemura, K. Tsumura and H. Yokoya, Multi-tau-lepton signatures at the LHC in the two Higgs doublet model, Phys. Rev. D 85 (2012) 095001, [1111.6089].
  • (23) L. Duarte, V. P. Goncalves, D. E. Martins and T. B. de Melo, Single charged Higgs pair production in exclusive processes at the LHC, 2403.01953.
  • (24) J. Hernandez-Sanchez, S. Moretti, R. Noriega-Papaqui and A. Rosado, Off-diagonal terms in Yukawa textures of the type-III 2-Higgs doublet model and light charged Higgs boson phenomenology, JHEP 07 (2013) 044, [1212.6818].
  • (25) J. Hernández-Sánchez, C. G. Honorato, S. Moretti and S. Rosado-Navarro, Charged Higgs boson production via cbcb -fusion at the Large Hadron Collider, Phys. Rev. D 102 (2020) 055008, [2003.06263].
  • (26) M. Aiko, S. Kanemura and K. Mawatari, Exploring the global symmetry structure of the Higgs potential via same-sign pair production of charged Higgs bosons, Phys. Lett. B 797 (2019) 134854, [1906.09101].
  • (27) ATLAS collaboration, G. Aad et al., Search for a light charged Higgs boson in the decay channel H+cs¯H^{+}\to c\bar{s} in tt¯t\bar{t} events using pp collisions at s\sqrt{s} = 7 TeV with the ATLAS detector, Eur. Phys. J. C 73 (2013) 2465, [1302.3694].
  • (28) CMS collaboration, V. Khachatryan et al., Search for a light charged Higgs boson decaying to cs¯\mathrm{c}\overline{\mathrm{s}} in pp collisions at s=8\sqrt{s}=8 TeV, JHEP 12 (2015) 178, [1510.04252].
  • (29) CMS collaboration, A. M. Sirunyan et al., Search for a charged Higgs boson decaying to charm and bottom quarks in proton-proton collisions at s=8\sqrt{s}=8 TeV, JHEP 11 (2018) 115, [1808.06575].
  • (30) ATLAS collaboration, Search for a light charged Higgs boson in tH+bt\rightarrow H^{+}b decays, with H+cbH^{+}\rightarrow cb, in the lepton+jets final state in proton-proton collisions at s=13\sqrt{s}=13 TeV with the ATLAS detector, ATLAS-CONF-2021-037.
  • (31) CMS collaboration, A. M. Sirunyan et al., Search for a light charged Higgs boson in the H± \to cs channel in proton-proton collisions at s=\sqrt{s}= 13 TeV, Phys. Rev. D 102 (2020) 072001, [2005.08900].
  • (32) A. G. Akeroyd, S. Moretti and M. Song, Slight excess at 130 GeV in search for a charged Higgs boson decaying to a charm quark and a bottom quark at the Large Hadron Collider, J. Phys. G 49 (2022) 085004, [2202.03522].
  • (33) R. Dermisek, E. Lunghi and A. Raval, Trilepton Signatures of Light Charged and CP-odd Higgs Bosons in Top Quark Decays, JHEP 04 (2013) 063, [1212.5021].
  • (34) A. Arhrib, R. Benbrik, H. Harouiz, S. Moretti, Y. Wang and Q.-S. Yan, Implications of a light charged Higgs boson at the LHC run III in the 2HDM, Phys. Rev. D 102 (2020) 115040, [2003.11108].
  • (35) Y. Hu, C. Fu and J. Gao, Signature of a light charged Higgs boson from top quark pairs at the LHC, Phys. Rev. D 106 (2022) L071701, [2206.05748].
  • (36) C. Fu and J. Gao, Constraint for a light charged Higgs boson and its neutral partners from top quark pairs at the LHC, Phys. Rev. D 108 (2023) 035007, [2304.07782].
  • (37) A. Arhrib, R. Benbrik, R. Enberg, W. Klemm, S. Moretti and S. Munir, Identifying a light charged Higgs boson at the LHC Run II, Phys. Lett. B 774 (2017) 591–598, [1706.01964].
  • (38) T. Mondal and P. Sanyal, Same sign trilepton as signature of charged Higgs in two Higgs doublet model, JHEP 05 (2022) 040, [2109.05682].
  • (39) A. Arhrib, R. Benbrik, M. Krab, B. Manaut, S. Moretti, Y. Wang et al., Light charged Higgs boson in H±hH^{\pm}h associated production at the LHC, in 1st Pan-African Astro-Particle and Collider Physics Workshop, 5, 2022, 2205.14274.
  • (40) J. Kim, S. Lee, P. Sanyal and J. Song, CDF W-boson mass and muon g-2 in a type-X two-Higgs-doublet model with a Higgs-phobic light pseudoscalar, Phys. Rev. D 106 (2022) 035002, [2205.01701].
  • (41) J. Kim, S. Lee, J. Song and P. Sanyal, Fermiophobic light Higgs boson in the type-I two-Higgs-doublet model, Phys. Lett. B 834 (2022) 137406, [2207.05104].
  • (42) D. Bhatia, N. Desai and S. Dwivedi, Discovery prospects of a light charged Higgs near the fermiophobic region of type-I 2HDM, JHEP 06 (2023) 100, [2212.14363].
  • (43) Z. Li, A. Arhrib, R. Benbrik, M. Krab, B. Manaut, S. Moretti et al., Discovering a light charged Higgs boson via W±W^{\pm*} + 4bb final states at the LHC, 2305.05788.
  • (44) T. Mondal, S. Moretti, S. Munir and P. Sanyal, Electroweak Multi-Higgs Production: A Smoking Gun for the type-I Two-Higgs-Doublet Model, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131 (2023) 231801, [2304.07719].
  • (45) A. Arhrib, R. Benbrik, M. Krab, B. Manaut, S. Moretti, Y. Wang et al., New discovery modes for a light charged Higgs boson at the LHC, JHEP 10 (2021) 073, [2106.13656].
  • (46) A. Arhrib, R. Benbrik, M. Krab, B. Manaut, S. Moretti, Y. Wang et al., New Light H±\pm Discovery Channels at the LHC, Symmetry 13 (2021) 2319, [2110.04823].
  • (47) N. Kausar, I. Ahmed, W. Sagheer and A. M. W., Charged Higgs observability via charged Higgs pair production at future lepton collider, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 137 (2022) 603, [2011.11131].
  • (48) A. Arhrib, K. Cheung and C.-T. Lu, Same-sign charged Higgs boson pair production in bosonic decay channels at the HL-LHC and HE-LHC, Phys. Rev. D 102 (2020) 095026, [1910.02571].
  • (49) M. Krab, M. Ouchemhou, A. Arhrib, R. Benbrik, B. Manaut and Q.-S. Yan, Single charged Higgs boson production at the LHC, Phys. Lett. B 839 (2023) 137705, [2210.09416].
  • (50) S. K. Kang, J. Kim, S. Lee and J. Song, Disentangling the high- and low-cutoff scales via the trilinear Higgs couplings in the type-I two-Higgs-doublet model, Phys. Rev. D 107 (2023) 015025, [2210.00020].
  • (51) R. Capdevilla, D. Curtin, Y. Kahn and G. Krnjaic, Discovering the physics of (g2)μ(g-2)_{\mu} at future muon colliders, Phys. Rev. D 103 (2021) 075028, [2006.16277].
  • (52) P. Bandyopadhyay, A. Karan, R. Mandal and S. Parashar, Distinguishing signatures of scalar leptoquarks at hadron and muon colliders, Eur. Phys. J. C 82 (2022) 916, [2108.06506].
  • (53) C. Sen, P. Bandyopadhyay, S. Dutta and A. KT, Displaced Higgs production in type-III seesaw at the LHC/FCC, MATHUSLA and muon collider, Eur. Phys. J. C 82 (2022) 230, [2107.12442].
  • (54) P. Asadi, R. Capdevilla, C. Cesarotti and S. Homiller, Searching for leptoquarks at future muon colliders, JHEP 10 (2021) 182, [2104.05720].
  • (55) G.-y. Huang, F. S. Queiroz and W. Rodejohann, Gauged LμLτL_{\mu}{-}L_{\tau} at a muon collider, Phys. Rev. D 103 (2021) 095005, [2101.04956].
  • (56) S. Y. Choi and J. S. Lee, S-channel production of MSSM Higgs bosons at a muon collider with explicit CP violation, Phys. Rev. D 61 (2000) 111702, [hep-ph/9909315].
  • (57) T. Han, Z. Liu, L.-T. Wang and X. Wang, WIMPs at High Energy Muon Colliders, Phys. Rev. D 103 (2021) 075004, [2009.11287].
  • (58) T. Han, S. Li, S. Su, W. Su and Y. Wu, Heavy Higgs bosons in 2HDM at a muon collider, Phys. Rev. D 104 (2021) 055029, [2102.08386].
  • (59) A. Jueid, J. Kim, S. Lee and J. Song, type-X two-Higgs-doublet model in light of the muon g-2: Confronting Higgs boson and collider data, Phys. Rev. D 104 (2021) 095008, [2104.10175].
  • (60) T. Han, S. Li, S. Su, W. Su and Y. Wu, BSM Higgs Production at a Muon Collider, in Snowmass 2021, 5, 2022, 2205.11730.
  • (61) K. Black, T. Bose, Y. Chen, S. Dasu, H. Jia, D. Pinna et al., Prospects for Heavy WIMP Dark Matter Searches at Muon Colliders, in Snowmass 2021, 5, 2022, 2205.10404.
  • (62) M. Belfkir, A. Jueid and S. Nasri, Boosting dark matter searches at muon colliders with machine learning: The mono-Higgs channel as a case study, PTEP 2023 (2023) 123B03, [2309.11241].
  • (63) A. Jueid and S. Nasri, Lepton portal dark matter at muon colliders: Total rates and generic features for phenomenologically viable scenarios, Phys. Rev. D 107 (2023) 115027, [2301.12524].
  • (64) M. Antonelli and P. Raimondi, Snowmass Report: Ideas for Muon Production from Positron Beam Interaction on a Plasma Target, in Snowmass 2013: Snowmass on the Mississippi, 11, 2013, INFN-13-22/LNF.
  • (65) M. Antonelli, M. Boscolo, R. Di Nardo and P. Raimondi, Novel proposal for a low emittance muon beam using positron beam on target, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 807 (2016) 101–107, [1509.04454].
  • (66) F. Collamati, C. Curatolo, D. Lucchesi, A. Mereghetti, N. Mokhov, M. Palmer et al., Advanced assessment of beam-induced background at a muon collider, JINST 16 (2021) P11009, [2105.09116].
  • (67) D. Ally, L. Carpenter, T. Holmes, L. Lee and P. Wagenknecht, Strategies for Beam-Induced Background Reduction at Muon Colliders, in Snowmass 2021, 3, 2022, 2203.06773.
  • (68) S. L. Glashow and S. Weinberg, Natural Conservation Laws for Neutral Currents, Phys. Rev. D 15 (1977) 1958.
  • (69) E. A. Paschos, Diagonal Neutral Currents, Phys. Rev. D 15 (1977) 1966.
  • (70) J. Song and Y. W. Yoon, WγW\gamma decay of the elusive charged Higgs boson in the two-Higgs-doublet model with vectorlike fermions, Phys. Rev. D 100 (2019) 055006, [1904.06521].
  • (71) 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, [1310.2248].
  • (72) A. Celis, V. Ilisie and A. Pich, LHC constraints on two-Higgs doublet models, JHEP 07 (2013) 053, [1302.4022].
  • (73) K. Cheung, J. S. Lee and P.-Y. Tseng, Higgcision in the Two-Higgs Doublet Models, JHEP 01 (2014) 085, [1310.3937].
  • (74) J. Bernon, J. F. Gunion, H. E. Haber, Y. Jiang and S. Kraml, Scrutinizing the alignment limit in two-Higgs-doublet models: mh=125 GeV, Phys. Rev. D 92 (2015) 075004, [1507.00933].
  • (75) S. Chang, S. K. Kang, J.-P. Lee and J. Song, Higgs potential and hidden light Higgs scenario in two Higgs doublet models, Phys. Rev. D 92 (2015) 075023, [1507.03618].
  • (76) D. Das and I. Saha, Search for a stable alignment limit in two-Higgs-doublet models, Phys. Rev. D 91 (2015) 095024, [1503.02135].
  • (77) S. Kanemura, M. Takeuchi and K. Yagyu, Probing double-aligned two-Higgs-doublet models at the LHC, Phys. Rev. D 105 (2022) 115001, [2112.13679].
  • (78) 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. B 704 (2011) 303–307, [1108.3297].
  • (79) N. Chen, T. Han, S. Li, S. Su, W. Su and Y. Wu, type-I 2HDM under the Higgs and Electroweak Precision Measurements, JHEP 08 (2020) 131, [1912.01431].
  • (80) P. Sanyal and D. Wang, Probing the electroweak [inline-graphic not available: see fulltext] final state in type I 2HDM at the LHC, JHEP 09 (2023) 076, [2305.00659].
  • (81) I. P. Ivanov, General two-order-parameter Ginzburg-Landau model with quadratic and quartic interactions, Phys. Rev. E 79 (2009) 021116, [0802.2107].
  • (82) A. Barroso, P. M. Ferreira, I. P. Ivanov, R. Santos and J. P. Silva, Evading death by vacuum, Eur. Phys. J. C 73 (2013) 2537, [1211.6119].
  • (83) A. Barroso, P. M. Ferreira, I. P. Ivanov and R. Santos, Metastability bounds on the two Higgs doublet model, JHEP 06 (2013) 045, [1303.5098].
  • (84) I. P. Ivanov, Minkowski space structure of the Higgs potential in 2HDM, Phys. Rev. D 75 (2007) 035001, [hep-ph/0609018]. [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 76, 039902 (2007)].
  • (85) A. Arhrib, Unitarity constraints on scalar parameters of the standard and two Higgs doublets model, in Workshop on Noncommutative Geometry, Superstrings and Particle Physics, 12, 2000, hep-ph/0012353.
  • (86) D. Eriksson, J. Rathsman and O. Stal, 2HDMC: Two-Higgs-Doublet Model Calculator Physics and Manual, Comput. Phys. Commun. 181 (2010) 189–205, [0902.0851].
  • (87) J. Oredsson and J. Rathsman, 2\mathbb{Z}_{2} breaking effects in 2-loop RG evolution of 2HDM, JHEP 02 (2019) 152, [1810.02588].
  • (88) J. Oredsson, 2HDME : Two-Higgs-Doublet Model Evolver, Comput. Phys. Commun. 244 (2019) 409–426, [1811.08215].
  • (89) A. Arbey, F. Mahmoudi, O. Stal and T. Stefaniak, Status of the Charged Higgs Boson in Two Higgs Doublet Models, Eur. Phys. J. C 78 (2018) 182, [1706.07414].
  • (90) M. Misiak and M. Steinhauser, Weak radiative decays of the B meson and bounds on MH±M_{H^{\pm}} in the Two-Higgs-Doublet Model, Eur. Phys. J. C 77 (2017) 201, [1702.04571].
  • (91) P. Bechtle, O. Brein, S. Heinemeyer, O. Stål, T. Stefaniak, G. Weiglein et al., 𝖧𝗂𝗀𝗀𝗌𝖡𝗈𝗎𝗇𝖽𝗌4\mathsf{HiggsBounds}-4: Improved Tests of Extended Higgs Sectors against Exclusion Bounds from LEP, the Tevatron and the LHC, Eur. Phys. J. C 74 (2014) 2693, [1311.0055].
  • (92) K. Cheung, A. Jueid, J. Kim, S. Lee, C.-T. Lu and J. Song, Comprehensive study of the light charged Higgs boson in the type-I two-Higgs-doublet model, Phys. Rev. D 105 (2022) 095044, [2201.06890].
  • (93) J. Alwall, M. Herquet, F. Maltoni, O. Mattelaer and T. Stelzer, MadGraph 5 : Going Beyond, JHEP 06 (2011) 128, [1106.0522].
  • (94) D. Kim, S. Lee, H. Jung, D. Kim, J. Kim and J. Song, A panoramic study of K-factors for 111 processes at the 14 TeV LHC, J. Korean Phys. Soc. 84 (2024) no.12, 914-926, [2402.16276].
  • (95) C. Bierlich et al., A comprehensive guide to the physics and usage of PYTHIA 8.3, SciPost Phys. Codeb. 2022 (2022) 8, [2203.11601].
  • (96) DELPHES 3 collaboration, J. de Favereau, C. Delaere, P. Demin, A. Giammanco, V. Lemaître, A. Mertens et al., DELPHES 3, A modular framework for fast simulation of a generic collider experiment, JHEP 02 (2014) 057, [1307.6346].
  • (97) M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam and G. Soyez, FastJet User Manual, Eur. Phys. J. C 72 (2012) 1896, [1111.6097].
  • (98) ATLAS collaboration, Expected performance for an upgraded ATLAS detector at High-Luminosity LHC, ATL-PHYS-PUB-2016-026.
  • (99) ATLAS collaboration, Study of the double Higgs production channel H(bb¯)H(γγ)H(\rightarrow b\bar{b})H(\rightarrow\gamma\gamma) with the ATLAS experiment at the HL-LHC, ATL-PHYS-PUB-2017-001.
  • (100) CMS collaboration, G. L. Bayatian et al., CMS technical design report, volume II: Physics performance, J. Phys. G 34 (2007) 995–1579.
  • (101) G. Bagliesi, Tau tagging at Atlas and CMS, in 17th Symposium on Hadron Collider Physics 2006 (HCP 2006), 7, 2007, 0707.0928.
  • (102) CMS collaboration, A. M. Sirunyan et al., Performance of reconstruction and identification of τ\tau leptons decaying to hadrons and ντ\nu_{\tau} in pp collisions at s=\sqrt{s}= 13 TeV, JINST 13 (2018) P10005, [1809.02816].
  • (103) T. Chen and C. Guestrin, XGBoost: A Scalable Tree Boosting System, 1603.02754
  • (104) 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. D 97 (2018) 072003, [1712.08891].
  • (105) CMS collaboration, A. M. Sirunyan et al., Search for nonresonant Higgs boson pair production in final states with two bottom quarks and two photons in proton-proton collisions at s\sqrt{s} = 13 TeV, JHEP 03 (2021) 257, [2011.12373].
  • (106) ATLAS collaboration, G. Aad et al., Search for Higgs boson pair production in the two bottom quarks plus two photons final state in pppp collisions at s=13\sqrt{s}=13 TeV with the ATLAS detector, Phys. Rev. D 106 (2022) 052001, [2112.11876].
  • (107) CMS collaboration, A. M. Sirunyan et al., Measurements of tt¯H\mathrm{t\bar{t}}H Production and the CP Structure of the Yukawa Interaction between the Higgs Boson and Top Quark in the Diphoton Decay Channel, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125 (2020) 061801, [2003.10866].
  • (108) CMS collaboration, A. Tumasyan et al., Analysis of the CPCP structure of the Yukawa coupling between the Higgs boson and τ\tau leptons in proton-proton collisions at s\sqrt{s} = 13 TeV, JHEP 06 (2022) 012, [2110.04836].
  • (109) ATLAS collaboration, G. Aad et al., Search for dark matter in events with missing transverse momentum and a Higgs boson decaying into two photons in pp collisions at s\sqrt{s} = 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector, JHEP 10 (2021) 013, [2104.13240].
  • (110) S. Dasgupta, R. Pramanick and T. S. Ray, Broad toplike vector quarks at LHC and HL-LHC, Phys. Rev. D 105 (2022) 035032, [2112.03742].
  • (111) A. S. Cornell, A. Deandrea, B. Fuks and L. Mason, Future lepton collider prospects for a ubiquitous composite pseudoscalar, Phys. Rev. D 102 (2020) 035030, [2004.09825].
  • (112) F. Bishara and M. Montull, Machine learning amplitudes for faster event generation, Phys. Rev. D 107 (2023) L071901, [1912.11055].
  • (113) H. Al Ali et al., The muon Smasher’s guide, Rept. Prog. Phys. 85 (2022) 084201, [2103.14043].
  • (114) C. Accettura et al., Towards a muon collider, Eur. Phys. J. C 83 (2023) 864, [2303.08533]. [Erratum: Eur.Phys.J.C 84, 36 (2024)].
  • (115) M. Ruhdorfer, E. Salvioni and A. Wulzer, Invisible Higgs boson decay from forward muons at a muon collider, Phys. Rev. D 107 (2023) 095038, [2303.14202].
  • (116) M. Forslund and P. Meade, Precision Higgs width and couplings with a high energy muon collider, JHEP 01 (2024) 182, [2308.02633].
  • (117) P. Bandyopadhyay, S. Parashar, C. Sen and J. Song, Probing Inert Triplet Model at a multi-TeV muon collider via vector boson fusion with forward muon tagging, 2401.02697.
  • (118) M. Boronat, J. Fuster, I. Garcia, E. Ros and M. Vos, A robust jet reconstruction algorithm for high-energy lepton colliders, Phys. Lett. B 750 (2015) 95–99, [1404.4294].
  • (119) M. Boronat, J. Fuster, I. Garcia, P. Roloff, R. Simoniello and M. Vos, Jet reconstruction at high-energy electron–positron colliders, Eur. Phys. J. C 78 (2018) 144, [1607.05039].
  • (120) International Muon Collider collaboration, N. Bartosik, D. Calzolari, L. Castelli, A. Lechner and D. Lucchesi, Machine-Detector interface for multi-TeV Muon Collider, PoS EPS-HEP2023 (2024) 630.
  • (121) International Muon Collider collaboration, M. Casarsa et al., Higgs physics prospects at a 3 TeV muon collider, PoS EPS-HEP2023 (2024) 408.