format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

One of the most promising ways in which one can search for new physics at the LHC, is in $`CP`$ violation in connection with $`t\overline{t}`$ production. It is generally believed that the top quark, since it is very heavy, might be more susceptible to new physics . In the particular case of Higgs-mediated interactions, this is naturally the case, since the Higgs coupling to the top quark is proportional to its mass. This process

$$ppt\overline{t}+X$$
(1.1)
has been explored in considerable detail by Bernreuther and Brandenburg  who identified the different kinematical structures appearing in the $`CP`$-violating part of the interaction, and evaluated them in a generic Two-Higgs-Doublet Model .

Here, we review (and confirm) these calculations, and apply the results to a particular version of the Two-Higgs-Doublet Model, in which the $`CP`$ violation is minimal in structure . This allows us to relate and constrain the couplings and masses of the model. Such relations among parameters are crucial in order to estimate the magnitude of possible signals.

If the Higgs states are not eigenstates under parity, then their couplings to the fermions will violate $`CP`$. In particular, if the $`Ht\overline{t}`$ coupling (for a given Higgs particle) is of the generic form

$$Ht\overline{t}:[a+i\gamma _5\stackrel{~}{a}],$$
(1.2)
then the $`CP`$-violating part of the cross section for the process (1.1), which depends on the $`t`$ and $`\overline{t}`$ spins, will be proportional to the dimensionless model-dependent quantity

$$\gamma _{CP}=a\stackrel{~}{a}$$
(1.3)
where $`a`$, $`\stackrel{~}{a}`$ are the reduced scalar and pseudoscalar Yukawa couplings, respectively.

Here, we restrict ourselves to the subprocess $`ggt\overline{t}`$ since it is the leading $`t\overline{t}`$ production mechanism at the CERN LHC. The $`q\overline{q}`$ initial states, which are important at the Tevatron , contribute at the LHC less than 10% to the total cross section  and give only a numerically negligible contamination of the $`CP`$-violating signal .

The MSSM provides an alternative, very interesting framework for $`CP`$ violation via the Higgs sector . Additional effects in the MSSM include $`CP`$-violating gluino exchange  as well as those due to phases in the bilinear and trilinear couplings, given by the so-called $`\mu `$ and $`A_t`$ parameters. For an application to the process (1.1), see . We here restrict ourselves to the 2HDM, this is already a rich framework.

The paper is organized as follows. After a review of notation and relevant formulas in sect. 2, we give model-independent results in sect. 3, focusing on basic observables discussed in . In sect. 4, we review the physical content of the 2HDM, and in sect. 5, we study the magnitude of the $`CP`$ violation for two distinct neutral Higgs mass spectra: two light and one heavy vs. one light and two heavy. Sect. 6 is devoted to concluding remarks, and an appendix summarizes the basic one-loop results for the $`CP`$-violating amplitudes.

## 2 Preliminaries

A schematic representation of a generic one-loop diagram of the process $`ggt\overline{t}`$ is given in fig. 1.111To produce the figures, the AXODRAW package  was used.

### 2.1 Notation

The momentum and the spin four-vectors of the top (and antitop) quark are denoted by $`p_1`$ and $`s_1`$ (and $`p_2`$ and $`s_2`$), respectively, with $`m_t`$ the mass, whereas the momenta and the Lorentz indices of the initial gluons are represented by $`k_i`$ and $`\mu _i`$ ($`i=1,2`$). We introduce the linearly-independent set of momenta ($`P_g`$, $`Q`$, $`P_t`$):

$$Q=k_1+k_2=p_1+p_2,P_g=k_1k_2,P_t=p_1p_2,$$
(2.1)
with $`QP_t=QP_g=0`$. The non-vanishing scalar products involving the momenta $`(P_g`$, $`Q`$, $`P_t)`$ are given by $`Q^2=P_g^2=\widehat{s}`$, $`P_t^2=\beta ^2\widehat{s}`$ and $`(P_gP_t)=\beta z\widehat{s}`$ where $`\widehat{s}`$ is the gluon–gluon center of mass energy squared, $`\beta =\sqrt{14m_t^2/\widehat{s}}`$ is the top quark velocity and $`z=\mathrm{cos}\theta =(\widehat{𝐏}_g\widehat{𝐏}_t)`$, with $`\theta `$ the scattering angle in the gluon–gluon center of mass frame. Working with the linearly-independent set of momenta ($`P_g`$, $`Q`$, $`P_t`$) simplifies the kinematics, the four-point first- and second-rank tensor loop integrals in particular.

Denoting by $`_0`$ the QCD amplitude corresponding to the diagrams of fig. 2, and by $`_1`$ the one corresponding to the one-loop Higgs-exchange diagrams of fig. 3, we obtain the cross section

$$\sigma |_0+_1|^2.$$
(2.2)
Spin-dependent $`CP`$-violating parts arise from terms linear in $`\gamma _{CP}`$, (1.3). Those originate from interference between $`_0`$ and $`_1`$, and from $`|_1|^2`$.222When calculating linear terms in $`\gamma _{CP}`$ in $`|_1|^2`$, we only considered the contribution from diagram $`h`$ in fig. 3, which is important for $`m_H`$ above the $`t\overline{t}`$ threshold . We write

$$\sigma =\sigma _{\mathrm{even}}+\sigma _{CP},$$
(2.3)
where the non-interesting $`CP`$-even part of the cross section $`\sigma _{\mathrm{even}}`$ results from $`|_0|^2`$ and from the terms in $`|_1|^2`$ that are independent of $`\gamma _{CP}`$ or even in this quantity. The $`CP`$-violating part of the cross section can be written in the most general Lorentz-invariant form as

$`\sigma _{CP}`$ $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1[P_gs_1(12)]+\mathrm{\Phi }_2[P_ts_1(12)]+\mathrm{\Phi }_3[Rs_1(12)]`$
$`+\mathrm{\Psi }_1[(Rs_1)(P_gs_2)(12)]+\mathrm{\Psi }_2[(Rs_1)(P_ts_2)(12)]`$
$`+\mathrm{\Psi }_3[(P_gs_1)(P_ts_2)(12)],`$ (2.4)
with the auxiliary pseudovector

$$R_\sigma =ϵ_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }P_g^\mu Q^\nu P_t^\rho .$$
(2.5)
The coefficients $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1,\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Phi }_3`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_1,\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Psi }_3`$, the structure of which are determined by the actual Higgs exchange diagrams (for details, see ), depend on $`\widehat{s}`$, $`z`$ and the masses of the Higgs boson and the top quark, $`m_H`$ and $`m_t`$.

### 2.2 The Bernreuther–Brandenburg decomposition

Bernreuther and Brandenburg describe the $`CP`$ violation in the process of fig. 1 in terms of the $`t\overline{t}`$ production density matrix, eq. (2.8) in  as:

$$_{CP}=(b_{g1}^{CP}\widehat{k}_i+b_{g2}^{CP}\widehat{p}_i+b_{g3}^{CP}\widehat{n}_i)(\sigma ^i\mathrm{𝟏}\mathrm{𝟏}\sigma ^i)+ϵ_{ijk}(c_{g1}\widehat{k}_i+c_{g2}\widehat{p}_i+c_{g3}\widehat{n}_i)\sigma ^j\sigma ^k,$$
(2.6)
where (in our notation) $`\widehat{𝐤}=\widehat{𝐏}_g`$, $`\widehat{𝐩}=\widehat{𝐏}_t`$ and $`\widehat{𝐧}`$ is the unit vector in the direction of $`𝐧=𝐏_g\times 𝐏_t`$ defined in the gluon–gluon center of mass frame.333For the momenta of the partons involved, we use the notation $`g(k_1)+g(k_2)t(p_1)+\overline{t}(p_2)`$, while in  the notation $`g(p_1)+g(p_2)t(k_1)+\overline{t}(k_2)`$ was used. The $`\sigma ^i`$ are Pauli matrices with $`𝐬_\mathrm{𝟏}=\frac{1}{2}𝝈\mathrm{𝟏}`$ ($`𝐬_\mathrm{𝟐}=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{𝟏}𝝈`$) the spin operator of the top (anti-top) defined in the top (anti-top) rest frame.

The relation of this expansion to our eq. (2.1) is given by:

$`b_{g1}^{CP}`$ $`=\sqrt{\widehat{s}}\mathrm{\Phi }_1,`$
$`b_{g2}^{CP}`$ $`=\sqrt{\widehat{s}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\widehat{s}}}{2m_t}}1\right)z\mathrm{\Phi }_1{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{s}}{2m_t}}\beta \mathrm{\Phi }_2,`$
$`b_{g3}^{CP}`$ $`=\widehat{s}\sqrt{\widehat{s}}\beta \sqrt{1z^2}\mathrm{\Phi }_3,`$
$`c_{g1}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{s}^2\sqrt{\widehat{s}}\beta }{2m_t}}[z\mathrm{\Psi }_1+\beta \mathrm{\Psi }_2],`$
$`c_{g2}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{s}^2\sqrt{\widehat{s}}\beta z}{2m_t}}[z\mathrm{\Psi }_1+\beta \mathrm{\Psi }_2]\widehat{s}^2\beta (1z^2)\mathrm{\Psi }_1,`$
$`c_{g3}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{s}\sqrt{\widehat{s}}}{2m_t}}\beta \sqrt{1z^2}\mathrm{\Psi }_3.`$ (2.7)
The symmetry properties of these functions are given in .

We confirm the results for these functions (2.2) given in the appendix of ref. , up to some misprints mentioned in . Also, we have further reduced the results of the box diagram to the basic four-point function together with three- and two-point functions. This yields a more unique representation, and is also convenient for the use of standard loop function libraries, like the “LoopTools” package . Our results are collected in Appendix A.

## 3 Model-independent results

Before invoking concrete models, we shall first update and review some $`CP`$-violating quantities discussed in , both at the parton level and at the hadronic level.

### 3.1 CP violation at the parton level

We first consider the non-vanishing444The corresponding quantities involving the gluon or beam direction, vanish due to the symmetry properties under $`z`$. parton-level $`CP`$-odd quantities :

$`\widehat{𝐩}(𝒔_1𝒔_2)_g`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{4_1^1𝑑z(zb_{g1}^{CP}+b_{g2}^{CP})}{4_1^1𝑑zA^g}},`$ (3.1)
$`\widehat{𝐩}(𝒔_1\times 𝒔_2)_g`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{2_1^1𝑑z(zc_{g1}^{CP}+c_{g2}^{CP})}{4_1^1𝑑zA^g}},`$ (3.2)
where $`A^g`$ is the spin-independent part of the $`CP`$-even part of the production density matrix given analytically in . We note that these two spin–spin correlations are given by absorptive and dispersive parts of the amplitudes (see Appendix A). Plots of these expectation values vs. the center of mass energy $`\sqrt{\widehat{s}}`$ are shown in fig. 4.

We confirm the results of  for (3.1) (fig. 4, left panel), but differ from their results for (3.2) (fig. 4, right panel), since there were sign misprints in the structure functions $`c_{g_1}^{(f)}`$ and $`c_{g_2}^{(f)}`$ and a wrong factor of $`8\pi `$ in the Higgs width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_Z`$ used in  and corrected in . In our numerical work, we used the “LoopTools” package .

As stressed in , for Higgs masses above the $`t\overline{t}`$ threshold, the quantity (3.1) (and to a lesser extent (3.2)) has a characteristic “resonance–interference” shape, with peaks in the region $`\sqrt{\widehat{s}}m_H`$. As one goes from $`\sqrt{\widehat{s}}<m_H`$ to $`\sqrt{\widehat{s}}>m_H`$ the expectation values (3.1) and (3.2) change sign. Thus, there are cancellations which tend to reduce the CP-violating effects, when folded with the gluon distribution functions, i.e., when integrated over the $`t\overline{t}`$ invariant mass, $`M_{t\overline{t}}=\sqrt{\widehat{s}}`$.

### 3.2 Observables in $`𝒑𝒑\mathbf{}𝒕\overline{𝒕}𝑿\mathbf{}𝒍^\mathbf{+}𝒍^{\mathbf{}}𝑿`$

We consider events where the $`t`$ and/or the $`\overline{t}`$ quarks decay semileptonically:

$$tl^+\nu _lb,\overline{t}l^{}\overline{\nu }_l\overline{b},$$
(3.3)
and denote the lepton laboratory-frame momenta and energies by $`𝐥^\pm `$ and $`E_\pm `$. Following ref. , we neglect any $`CP`$ violation in the top decay. This effect has been found to be small .

For reference, we shall consider the observables

$`A_1`$ $`=E_+E_{},`$ (3.4)
$`A_2`$ $`=𝐩_{\overline{t}}𝐥^+𝐩_t𝐥^{},`$ (3.5)
where $`𝐩_t`$ ($`𝐩_{\overline{t}}`$) is the top (anti-top) three-momentum in the laboratory frame. The lepton energy asymmetry, $`A_1`$, requires events where both the top and the anti-top decay semileptonically. The observable $`A_2`$ requires the top or antitop to decay hadronically, while the other decays semileptonically. From the two-sample scenario discussed in  with sample $`𝒜`$ consisting of events where the $`t`$ decays semileptonically and the $`\overline{t}`$ decays hadronically and sample $`\overline{𝒜}`$ where the $`t`$ decays hadronically and the $`\overline{t}`$ decays semileptonically, one defines the expectation value of the asymmetry $`A_2`$ as

$`A_2`$ $`=𝐩_{\overline{t}}𝐥^+_𝒜𝐩_t𝐥^{}_{\overline{𝒜}}.`$ (3.6)
In fig. 5 we show the expectation value $`A_1`$, together with the ratio555We shall loosely refer to this as “signal-to-noise ratio” .

$$\frac{S}{N}=\frac{A_1}{\sqrt{A_1^2A_1^2}}$$
(3.7)
both as functions of the Higgs mass, and for $`\gamma _{CP}=1`$. The right panel here corresponds to fig. 7 of ref. , but for $`m_t=175\text{GeV}`$.666We reproduce their results for the same choice of $`m_t`$ and the same Higgs widths. Also, we note that a factor of $`\beta `$ is missing in eq. (4.4) of . Here, and throughout this paper, we have used the CTEQ6 parton distribution functions . The fact that $`S/N=𝒪(10^3)`$ means that of the order of a million $`t\overline{t}`$ events are required (in the dilepton channel). Also, it means that the relative lepton energy must be known at (or better than) the per mille level.

Next, we turn to the observable $`A_2`$. We reproduce the analytical result of , their eq. (4.5), but our numerical result, shown in fig. 6, has the opposite sign, and the signal-to-noise ratio is in magnitude smaller than theirs by a factor of $`𝒪(1/10)`$ . Thus, the observable $`A_2`$ may be rather hard to access at the LHC.

The reason for the small signal-to-noise ratio for $`A_2`$ (as compared to $`A_1`$) appears to be a combination of two effects. The main effect is due to the Lorentz transformations. Since it is bilinear in momenta, factors like $`B_2=1/(1\beta _{gg}^2)`$ and $`B_2^{}=\beta _{gg}^2/(1\beta _{gg}^2)`$ are involved, vs. $`B_1=1/\sqrt{1\beta _{gg}^2}`$ for $`A_1`$, with $`\beta _{gg}`$ the gluon–gluon c.m. velocity w.r.t. the laboratory frame. The “signal-to-noise” ratios for these quantities (“quasi-observables”) $`B_2`$ and $`B_2^{}`$ are reduced with respect to that of $`B_1`$ by a factor of 3–4. This is due to the importance of events where the $`t\overline{t}`$ invariant mass is close to threshold, and the relatively light $`t\overline{t}`$ system has a high velocity in the laboratory system. Furthermore, in $`A_2`$, higher powers of cosines of angles are involved, and we note that, for example, $`\mathrm{cos}^2\theta =1/3`$, whereas $`\mathrm{cos}^4\theta =1/5`$. Together, these two effects give a reduction by $`𝒪(1/10)`$.

For values of the Higgs mass above the $`t\overline{t}`$ threshold, there is a fall-off in the absolute value of $`S/N`$. This is in part due to cancellation between the positive and negative parts in $`\widehat{𝐩}(𝐬_1𝐬_2)`$, as shown in fig. 4. One possible way to enhance the signal, would be to consider bins in $`M_{t\overline{t}}`$, centered around the resonant contribution of the (lightest) Higgs particle . It would be worthwhile to perform a detailed simulation study of the gains of such binning in $`M_{t\overline{t}}`$. The value of this technique would depend critically on the mass resolution that can be achieved by a given detector.

We have investigated various other ways to reduce this loss of sensitivity, by studying instead of $`A_1`$, the modified observables (still for events with two leptons):

$`A_1^{(a)}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{M_{t\overline{t}}M_H}{M_{t\overline{t}}+M_H}}A_1,`$ (3.8)
$`A_1^{(b)}`$ $`=\mathrm{sign}(M_{t\overline{t}}M_H)A_1,`$ (3.9)
$`A_1^{(c)}`$ $`=|A_1|.`$ (3.10)
The expectation values and signal-to-noise ratios for these observables are also shown in fig. 5, labeled “a”, “b” and “c”. For $`A_1^{(b)}`$, and for high Higgs masses, a significant improvement is obtained. However, the modified observables $`A_1^{(a)}`$ and $`A_1^{(b)}`$ require precise knowledge of the $`t\overline{t}`$ invariant mass, as well as of the Higgs mass. Of these, presumably the $`t\overline{t}`$ invariant mass will be the most difficult one to determine. We show in fig. 5 the ranges in $`A_1^{(b)}`$ and signal-to-noise ratio that result from errors of 10% in this invariant mass.

If only the magnitude of $`A_1`$ is required, then it can be determined with better sensitivity from $`A_1^{(c)}=|A_1|`$, which in fig. 5 coincides with the lower boundary of the shaded region and hence gives the largest signal enhancement.

## 4 The Two-Higgs-Doublet Model

In the previous discussion, the amount of $`CP`$ violation was given by the Yukawa couplings $`a`$, $`\stackrel{~}{a}`$ (in particular, via the product, $`\gamma _{CP}=a\stackrel{~}{a}`$) and the Higgs mass. In an explicit model, the situation is more complex, since there are several Higgs bosons, whose masses and couplings will be inter-related by the specific model. As an example of such a more complex situation, we shall in this and the next section study a specific Two-Higgs-Doublet Model where the $`CP`$ violation is minimal in structure.

### 4.1 Parametrization

The Two-Higgs-Doublet Model we want to consider, is the one discussed in , where the potential is given by

$`V`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _1}{2}}(\varphi _1^{}\varphi _1)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _2}{2}}(\varphi _2^{}\varphi _2)^2+\lambda _3(\varphi _1^{}\varphi _1)(\varphi _2^{}\varphi _2)+\lambda _4(\varphi _1^{}\varphi _2)(\varphi _2^{}\varphi _1)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[\lambda _5(\varphi _1^{}\varphi _2)^2+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.]{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\{m_{11}^2(\varphi _1^{}\varphi _1)+[m_{12}^2(\varphi _1^{}\varphi _2)+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.]+m_{22}^2(\varphi _2^{}\varphi _2)\}.`$
The parameters $`\lambda _5`$ and $`m_{12}^2`$ are allowed to be complex, subject to the constraint

$$\mathrm{Im}m_{12}^2=\mathrm{Im}\lambda _5v_1v_2,$$
(4.2)
with $`v_1`$ and $`v_2`$ the vacuum expectation values ($`v_1^2+v_2^2=v^2`$, with $`v=246\text{ GeV}`$). It is this quantity, $`\mathrm{Im}m_{12}^2`$ (or $`\mathrm{Im}\lambda _5`$) which leads to $`CP`$ violation, and one may think of $`CP`$ violation as being introduced softly, via the mass term $`m_{12}^2`$ in (4.1). Since the potential has a $`Z_2`$ symmetry that is only broken softly by the $`m_{12}^2`$ term, flavour-changing neutral currents are suppressed .

The neutral-sector mass squared matrix corresponding to the potential (4.1) can be written as (for details, see )

$$=v^2\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\lambda _1c_\beta ^2+\nu s_\beta ^2& (\lambda _{345}\nu )c_\beta s_\beta & \frac{1}{2}\mathrm{Im}\lambda _5s_\beta \\ (\lambda _{345}\nu )c_\beta s_\beta & \lambda _2s_\beta ^2+\nu c_\beta ^2& \frac{1}{2}\mathrm{Im}\lambda _5c_\beta \\ \frac{1}{2}\mathrm{Im}\lambda _5s_\beta & \frac{1}{2}\mathrm{Im}\lambda _5c_\beta & \mathrm{Re}\lambda _5+\nu \end{array}\right)$$
(4.3)
with the abbreviations $`c_\beta =\mathrm{cos}\beta `$, $`s_\beta =\mathrm{sin}\beta `$, $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =v_2/v_1`$, $`\lambda _{345}=\lambda _3+\lambda _4+\mathrm{Re}\lambda _5`$, $`\nu =\mathrm{Re}m_{12}^2/(2v^2\mathrm{sin}\beta \mathrm{cos}\beta )`$ and $`\mu ^2=v^2\nu `$.

For $`\mathrm{Im}\lambda _50`$, the elements $`_{13}`$ and $`_{23}`$ provide mixing between the $`2\times 2`$ upper left part of the matrix and $`_{33}`$. These two sectors would otherwise represent two scalar (usually denoted $`h`$ and $`H`$) and one pseudoscalar Higgs boson (denoted $`A`$). We note that these two “mixing elements” are related via $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$:

$$_{13}=\mathrm{tan}\beta _{23}.$$
(4.4)
It is in this sense that the $`CP`$ violation is minimal in structure. This simple relation is violated in more general models, with so-called $`\lambda _6`$ and $`\lambda _7`$ terms in the potential .

We diagonalize (4.3) with the matrix $`R`$, defined such that

$$RR^\mathrm{T}=\mathrm{diag}(M_1^2,M_2^2,M_3^2),$$
(4.5)
and use for the rotation matrix

$`R=R_cR_bR_{\stackrel{~}{\alpha }}=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 0& 0\\ 0& \mathrm{cos}\alpha _c& \mathrm{sin}\alpha _c\\ 0& \mathrm{sin}\alpha _c& \mathrm{cos}\alpha _c\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{cos}\alpha _b& 0& \mathrm{sin}\alpha _b\\ 0& 1& 0\\ \mathrm{sin}\alpha _b& 0& \mathrm{cos}\alpha _b\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{cos}\stackrel{~}{\alpha }& \mathrm{sin}\stackrel{~}{\alpha }& 0\\ \mathrm{sin}\stackrel{~}{\alpha }& \mathrm{cos}\stackrel{~}{\alpha }& 0\\ 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right)`$
$`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{ccc}c_{\stackrel{~}{\alpha }}c_b& s_{\stackrel{~}{\alpha }}c_b& s_b\\ (c_{\stackrel{~}{\alpha }}s_bs_c+s_{\stackrel{~}{\alpha }}c_c)& c_{\stackrel{~}{\alpha }}c_cs_{\stackrel{~}{\alpha }}s_bs_c& c_bs_c\\ c_{\stackrel{~}{\alpha }}s_bc_c+s_{\stackrel{~}{\alpha }}s_c& (c_{\stackrel{~}{\alpha }}s_c+s_{\stackrel{~}{\alpha }}s_bc_c)& c_bc_c\end{array}\right)`$ (4.6)
with $`c_i=\mathrm{cos}\alpha _i`$, $`s_i=\mathrm{sin}\alpha _i`$. The angular range, beyond which $`R`$ is repeated, can be chosen as $`\pi /2<\stackrel{~}{\alpha }\pi /2`$, $`\pi <\alpha _b\pi `$, and $`\pi /2<\alpha _c\pi /2`$. However, the physical range is more restricted, since we require $`M_1M_2M_3`$.

There are certain symmetries, under which the masses are unchanged, but one or two rows of $`R`$ (i.e., physical Higgs fields) change sign. These symmetries are:

$`\text{A}:`$ $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }\text{ fixed},\alpha _c\alpha _c,\alpha _b\pi +\alpha _b:`$ $`R_{1i}`$ $`R_{1i},`$ $`R_{2i}`$ $`R_{2i},`$ $`R_{3i}`$ $`R_{3i},`$
$`\text{B}:`$ $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }\pi +\stackrel{~}{\alpha },\alpha _b\alpha _b,\alpha _c\alpha _c:`$ $`R_{1i}`$ $`R_{1i},`$ $`R_{2i}`$ $`R_{2i},`$ $`R_{3i}`$ $`R_{3i}.`$ (4.7)
In addition, we have the following symmetry for $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }`$, $`\alpha _c`$ fixed:

$$\text{C}:\alpha _b\pi \alpha _b,\alpha _b>0(\alpha _b\pi \alpha _b,\alpha _b<0):R_{1i}R_{1i},R_{j3}R_{j3},$$
(4.8)
the other elements in $`R`$ being unchanged. Finally, we have, for $`\alpha _b`$, $`\alpha _c`$ fixed:

$$\text{D}:\stackrel{~}{\alpha }\pi +\stackrel{~}{\alpha }:R_{j1}R_{j1},R_{j2}R_{j2},R_{j3}R_{j3}.$$
(4.9)
(The symmetries B and D are of marginal interest, since they only relate the edges of the angular range.)

The $`CP`$-conserving case is obtained by taking $`\alpha _b=0`$ or $`\alpha _b=\pi `$, together with $`\alpha _c=0`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }=\frac{1}{2}\pi +\alpha `$ arbitrary. Here, $`\alpha `$ is the familiar mixing angle of the $`CP`$-even sector. Thus, as alternatives to $`\mathrm{Im}\lambda _5`$, the angles $`\alpha _b`$ and $`\alpha _c`$ parametrize the mixing that leads to $`CP`$ violation. Of course, replacing one parameter by two, constraints are imposed on the mass spectrum.

#### Yukawa couplings

With this notation, and adopting the so-called Model II  for the Yukawa couplings, where the down-type and up-type quarks are coupled only to $`\varphi _1`$ and $`\varphi _2`$, respectively, the $`Ht\overline{t}`$ couplings can be expressed (relative to the SM coupling) as

$$H_jt\overline{t}:\frac{1}{\mathrm{sin}\beta }[R_{j2}i\gamma _5\mathrm{cos}\beta R_{j3}]a+i\stackrel{~}{a}\gamma _5.$$
(4.10)
As mentioned in the Introduction, the product of the scalar and pseudoscalar couplings,

$$\gamma _{CP}=a\stackrel{~}{a}=\frac{\mathrm{cos}\beta }{\mathrm{sin}^2\beta }R_{j2}R_{j3}$$
(4.11)
plays an important role in determining the amount of $`CP`$ violation. We note the following symmetries of $`\gamma _{CP}`$ for any of the three Higgs bosons $`H_j`$ ($`j=1,2,3`$):

* under the symmetries “A” and “B” of (4.1), $`\gamma _{CP}`$ is invariant,
* under the symmetries “C” and “D”, $`\gamma _{CP}`$ changes sign.

As was seen in sect. 3, unless the Higgs boson is resonant with the $`t\overline{t}`$ system, $`CP`$ violation is largest for small Higgs masses. We shall therefore focus on the contributions of the lightest Higgs boson, $`H_1`$. For the lightest Higgs boson, the coupling (4.10) becomes

$$H_1t\overline{t}:\frac{1}{\mathrm{sin}\beta }[\mathrm{sin}\stackrel{~}{\alpha }\mathrm{cos}(\alpha _b)i\gamma _5\mathrm{cos}\beta \mathrm{sin}(\alpha _b)],\text{with}\gamma _{CP}=\frac{1}{2}\frac{\mathrm{sin}\stackrel{~}{\alpha }\mathrm{sin}(2\alpha _b)}{\mathrm{tan}\beta \mathrm{sin}\beta },$$
(4.12)
where $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }`$ and $`\alpha _b`$ are mixing angles of the Higgs mass matrix as defined above.

When the three neutral Higgs bosons are light, they will all contribute to the $`CP`$-violating effects. In fact, in the limit of three mass-degenerate Higgs bosons, the $`CP`$ violation will cancel, since \[cf. eq. (4.11)\]

$$\underset{j=1}{\overset{3}{}}\gamma _{CP}=\frac{\mathrm{cos}\beta }{\mathrm{sin}^2\beta }\underset{j=1}{\overset{3}{}}R_{j2}R_{j3}=0$$
(4.13)
due to the orthogonality of $`R`$.

#### “Maximal $`𝑪𝑷`$ violation”

The $`|\gamma _{CP}|`$ of eq. (4.12) is readily maximized w.r.t. the rotation angles $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }`$ and $`\alpha _b`$:

$$\stackrel{~}{\alpha }^{\mathrm{max}CP}=\pm \frac{1}{2}\pi ,\alpha _b^{\mathrm{max}CP}=\pm \frac{1}{4}\pi \text{ or }\pm \frac{3}{4}\pi ,$$
(4.14)
whereas it increases with decreasing values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. Negative values of $`\alpha _c`$ are related to positive values through the symmetry “A” of eq. (4.1) and need not be considered separately. Similarly, the case of $`\alpha _b=3\pi /4`$ is related to that of $`\alpha _b=\pi /4`$ by the symmetry “C” and just leads to an over-all change of sign for $`\gamma _{CP}`$. We shall somewhat imprecisely (since also $`H_2`$ and $`H_3`$ contribute) refer to these cases (4.14) as “maximal $`CP`$ violation”.

More generally, large $`CP`$-violating effects are expected when $`|\mathrm{Im}\lambda _5|`$ is large, or, when the elements $`_{13}`$ and $`_{23}`$ are large, see (4.3). These can be expressed in terms of the rotation matrix and the mass eigenvalues as

$`_{13}`$ $`=R_{11}R_{13}M_1^2+R_{21}R_{23}M_2^2+R_{31}R_{33}M_3^2,`$
$`_{23}`$ $`=R_{12}R_{13}M_1^2+R_{22}R_{23}M_2^2+R_{32}R_{33}M_3^2.`$ (4.15)
In this description, one measure of “maximal mixing” would be to ignore the lightest mass, and then require the coefficients of $`M_2^2`$ and $`M_3^2`$ to be equal in magnitude. This would require $`|\mathrm{sin}(\stackrel{~}{\alpha })|=0`$ or $`|\mathrm{cos}(\stackrel{~}{\alpha })|=0`$, i.e., $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }=0`$, $`\pm \frac{1}{2}\pi `$ or $`\pi `$, and simultaneously $`|\mathrm{sin}(2\alpha _b)|=|\mathrm{sin}(2\alpha _c)|=1`$. We shall refer to these cases as “maximal mixing”.

The bounds on the electric dipole moments of the neutron and the electron impose restrictions on the allowed magnitude of $`CP`$ violation in the 2HDM. We note that, within a consistent framework, and for maximal $`CP`$ violation in the Higgs–gauge sector  (which amounts to maximizing the product of the three couplings (4.26), and thus is different from the present concept of “maximal $`CP`$ violation”, where we consider Yukawa interactions only), those bounds restrict the mass splitting between $`M_2`$ and $`M_3`$ to be less than $`𝒪(15\%20\%)`$ .

### 4.2 Physical content

Specifying all the parameters of the potential, as well as the structure of the Yukawa couplings, the physical content of the model is fixed. We shall here follow a somewhat different approach: We start out by specifying the masses of two Higgs bosons (the lightest and one other), together with $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ and the three angles that determine $`R`$. Then, unless $`\alpha _b=0`$ or $`\alpha _c=0`$, the third Higgs mass can be determined, as well as all the couplings. This approach gives more “control” of the physical input.

With $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, $`R`$ and the masses of two neutral Higgs bosons fixed, the third one is given by

$$R_{13}(R_{11}R_{12}\mathrm{tan}\beta )M_1^2+R_{23}(R_{21}R_{22}\mathrm{tan}\beta )M_2^2+R_{33}(R_{31}R_{32}\mathrm{tan}\beta )M_3^2=0,$$
(4.16)
where we have assumed $`\mathrm{Im}\lambda _50`$ and made use of the relation (4.4). Invoking the orthogonality of $`R`$, one sees that this relation (4.16) only relates differences of masses squared:

$$R_{23}(R_{21}R_{22}\mathrm{tan}\beta )(M_2^2M_1^2)+R_{33}(R_{31}R_{32}\mathrm{tan}\beta )(M_3^2M_1^2)=0.$$
(4.17)
In general, as two Higgs masses approach each other, also the third mass has to approach the same value, as we can read off eq. (4.17). However, for particular choices of the parameters, this is not the case. For example, if we put the coefficient of $`M_1^2`$ in eq. (4.16) equal to zero, one has $`M_2=M_3`$ for

$$R_{13}(R_{11}R_{12}\mathrm{tan}\beta )=0.$$
(4.18)
This equation is satisfied for (i) $`R_{13}=0`$, or (ii) $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =R_{11}/R_{12}`$ or (iii) $`R_{11}`$ and $`R_{12}`$ each zero. Solution (i) implies $`\alpha _b=0`$, whereas solution (ii) implies $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =\mathrm{cot}\stackrel{~}{\alpha }`$, or $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }=\frac{1}{2}\pi \beta `$. Solution(iii) implies $`|\alpha _b|=\pi /2`$ where, non-interestingly, the three masses are arbitrarily chosen. Following from (ii), for example, we get $`M_2=M_3`$ for arbitrary $`M_1`$, for the choice of parameters $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =1`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }=\pi /4`$.

#### Allowed regions in the parameter space

In fig. 7 we show the allowed regions in the $`\alpha _b`$$`\alpha _c`$ plane for selected values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }`$, subject to the constraint $`M_1M_2M_3`$. Regions of negative $`\alpha _c`$ and $`|\alpha _b|>\pi /2`$ are not shown, they follow by the symmetries “A” and “C”, respectively, of eq. (4.1).

In this analysis, we keep $`M_1`$ and $`M_2`$ fixed, and determine $`M_3`$ from eq. (4.16). Clearly, this breaks down when

$$R_{33}(R_{31}R_{32}\mathrm{tan}\beta )=0,$$
(4.19)
in which case $`M_3`$ is not determined. This occurs deep inside the unphysical region, as explained below.

The dark (blue) regions in fig. 7 are allowed, the white ones are not allowed. Some reasons why a region is physically forbidden are: $`(i)`$ the equation for $`M_3`$ has no solution (for example, when $`M_3^2<0`$, or when eq. (4.19) holds), $`(ii)`$ $`M_3>M_2`$ is violated, $`(iii)`$ positivity of the potential (4.1) is violated, or $`(iv)`$ perturbativity is violated. The requirement to perturbativity is taken as

$$|\lambda _i|<4\pi \xi ,$$
(4.20)
where we somewhat arbitrarily take $`\xi =0.8`$. The lightly shaded (yellow) regions are also allowed, if we use a less stringent condition on perturbativity, $`\xi =1.0`$.777These numbers are of course only order-of-magnitude indicators. For example, one could argue that since $`\lambda _1`$ and $`\lambda _2`$ are accompanied by factors $`1/2`$ in the potential (and hence in all couplings), the relevant limit is $`8\pi `$, not $`4\pi `$. The cut-off against the disallowed region depends on the additional parameters, which we in this figure take as $`M_1=100\text{GeV}`$, $`M_2=300\text{GeV}`$, $`M_{H^\pm }=500\text{GeV}`$, and $`\mu =0`$ (corresponding to Case I, studied in sect. 5.1). This dependence enters via the conversion of the masses of the neutral Higgs bosons, and the rotation angles, to $`\lambda `$’s.

The condition (4.19), which is satisfied for

$$(1)R_{33}=0,\text{ or}(2)R_{31}R_{32}\mathrm{tan}\beta =0,$$
(4.21)
defines borders where $`M_3^2`$ changes sign. We note that these borders are independent of the mass parameters of the model. Thus, they are absolute borders which the physically allowed region can never cross for any choice of mass parameters. Let us now discuss the two cases of eq. (4.21). In the $`\alpha _b`$$`\alpha _c`$ plane, case (1) is satisfied when $`\mathrm{cos}\alpha _b=0`$ or when $`\mathrm{cos}\alpha _c=0`$. When $`\mathrm{cos}\alpha _b=0`$, then eq. (4.16) is trivially satisfied, so this is not interesting. The second subcase, $`\mathrm{cos}\alpha _c=0`$, corresponds to the upper boundary of the plots in fig. 7, $`\alpha _c=\pi /2`$. Since this line represents a border where $`M_3^2`$ changes from $`+\mathrm{}`$ to $`\mathrm{}`$, there is a region next to it where $`M_3`$ is so large that perturbativity breaks down (and hence forbidden), as indeed seen in the figure.

Coming now to the more interesting case (2) of (4.21), which, according to eq. (4.1) is satisfied for

$$\mathrm{tan}(\beta +\stackrel{~}{\alpha })\mathrm{tan}\alpha _c=\mathrm{sin}\alpha _b,$$
(4.22)
we obtain the contours shown in fig. 7 deep inside the unphysical region.

These contours must be in the same “quadrant” in the $`\alpha _b`$$`\alpha _c`$ plane as where the physically allowed region is located. This can be seen as follows. On one side of the contour, $`M_3^2`$ is large and positive. By continuity, moving from the contour toward the line $`\alpha _b=0`$, where $`M_3=M_2`$, the value of $`M_3`$ will inevitably pass through an allowed region where $`M_3>𝒪(M_2)`$.

This observation allows us to determine in which quadrant the physically allowed regions are located. Near the origin, (4.22) can be approximated as

$$\mathrm{tan}(\beta +\stackrel{~}{\alpha })\frac{\alpha _b}{\alpha _c}.$$
(4.23)
Thus, $`\alpha _b\alpha _c>0`$ when

$$0<\beta +\stackrel{~}{\alpha }<\frac{1}{2}\pi ,\text{First (or third) quadrant}$$
(4.24)
whereas $`\alpha _b\alpha _c<0`$ when

$$\frac{1}{2}\pi <\beta +\stackrel{~}{\alpha }<0\text{or}\frac{1}{2}\pi <\beta +\stackrel{~}{\alpha }<\pi ,\text{Second (or fourth) quadrant}$$
(4.25)
in agreement with fig. 7. Finally, we note from (4.23) that the physical region may occupy a large fraction of the actual quadrant when $`|\beta +\stackrel{~}{\alpha }|\pi /2`$, and only a small fraction of the quadrant when $`|\beta +\stackrel{~}{\alpha }|0`$ or $`\pi `$.

#### Higgs–vector–vector couplings

The non-discovery of a Higgs boson at LEP poses constraints on $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ and on the Higgs mass. While SM Higgs masses below 115 GeV are excluded , as well as $`\mathrm{tan}\beta <2`$–3 in the MSSM , these bounds can be eluded in the 2HDM, if the lightest Higgs boson couples with sufficiently reduced strength to the vector bosons. In fact, this coupling is (relative to the corresponding SM coupling) given by

$$H_iZZ:\mathrm{cos}\beta R_{i1}+\mathrm{sin}\beta R_{i2}.$$
(4.26)
Higgs masses down to about 50 GeV are allowed, provided this coupling squared is less than about 0.5 .

We show in fig. 8 the square of the coupling of the lightest Higgs boson to vector bosons, relative to that of the Standard Model, $`g_{VV}^2`$, for low values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. As discussed above, for masses of the lightest Higgs below $`100\text{GeV}`$, this quantity should be well below unity, in order not to be in conflict with the non-observation of a Higgs boson at LEP2 .

It should be noted that this coupling can be expressed in terms of angles only, without any dependence on masses. However, for certain combinations of mass parameters and $`\alpha _c`$ values, some $`\alpha _b`$ ranges might be unphysical, as illustrated for $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }=0`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =0.5`$ in this figure, as well as in fig. 7.

## 5 Case Studies

In order to get a better idea how much $`CP`$ violation the 2HDM can give, we shall here discuss the case of “maximal $`CP`$ violation” in the sense of eq. (4.14), together with small values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ and light Higgs masses.

In the following two subsections, we shall analyze two cases, first (sec. 5.1) the case of two Higgs bosons being light, and then (sec. 5.2) the case of one light and two heavy ones. These are qualitatively different, since in the first case there will be considerable cancellations among the $`CP`$-violating contributions, because of (4.13).

With all mixing angles fixed, and two Higgs masses specified, the third Higgs mass is determined. Thus, the “soft” mass term $`\mu ^2=\mathrm{Re}m_{12}^2/\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$ only enters in converting the masses (and angles) to $`\lambda `$’s. We check that the required $`\lambda `$’s satisfy positivity of the potential and perturbativity, eq. (4.20).

### 5.1 Case 1. Two light and one heavy Higgs bosons

As a first case, we consider $`M_1M_2=300\text{GeV}`$ (below the $`t\overline{t}`$ threshold) with $`M_{H^\pm }=500\text{GeV}`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =0.5`$ and 1.0. (This is well within the limits on $`M_{H^\pm }`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ derived from studies of meson decays and mixings .) Then, for $`\alpha _c=\pi /4`$, $`\pi /3`$ and $`5\pi /12`$, we show in fig. 9 the heaviest Higgs boson mass, $`M_3`$ vs. $`M_1`$, for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =0.5`$, 1.0 and 1.5. We note that, for some of the parameters considered, there is no solution (we take $`\xi =1.0`$), as also follows from fig. 7.

In fig. 10 we show, for this case of “maximal $`CP`$ violation” and low values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ ($`\mathrm{tan}\beta =0.5`$ and 1.0), the corresponding signal-to-noise ratio of the observable $`A_1`$ (3.4), for $`M_1`$ ranging from 80 to 300 GeV, keeping $`M_2=300\text{GeV}`$ fixed and letting $`M_3`$ vary accordingly. We show separately the contributions of only the lightest Higgs boson, and the contributions of all three. Considering only the contribution of the lightest Higgs boson, the $`CP`$-violating effects are seen to be significantly larger than in the “general case” studied in sect. 3, essentially because of the enhancement of $`\gamma _{CP}`$ due to the small values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. We note that, for the parameters considered here ($`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }=\pi /2`$ and $`\alpha _b=\pi /4`$), and for the lightest Higgs boson, $`\gamma _{CP}`$ is negative, contrary to the case studied in sect. 3.

However, in the present case, the inclusion of all three contributions leads to large cancellations. This also implies that, even if no $`CP`$ violation should be observed, it may be difficult to conclude that the Higgs sector conserves $`CP`$, since such cancellations are possible.

As expected, the $`CP`$-violating effects are largest for low values of $`M_1`$. Since the two lightest Higgs bosons are below the $`t\overline{t}`$ resonance, there is a smooth dependence on $`M_1`$. As $`M_1`$ approaches $`M_2`$ (where all three masses are degenerate), the $`CP`$-violating effects cancel. On the whole, the resulting $`CP`$ violation is reduced by a factor of $`1/4`$ compared to the “model-independent” case considered in sect. 3.

Whereas the top Yukawa couplings of the lightest Higgs boson do not depend on $`\alpha _c`$, some dependence on this quantity enters, via the couplings of the two heavier Higgs bosons to the $`t`$ quark. This is also illustrated in fig. 10.

Since the two heavier Higgs bosons can contribute significantly to $`A_1`$, the dependence on $`\alpha _b`$ need not be as simple as discussed in sect. 4.1. In particular, the $`CP`$ violation need not be maximal for $`\alpha _b=\pm \pi /4`$ (or $`\pm 3\pi /4`$). Fig. 11 (left panel) illustrates the dependence on $`\alpha _b`$ for fixed $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }=\pi /2`$, $`\alpha _c=\pi /3`$, and two values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ (0.5 and 1.0). One confirms the general impression from the form of (4.1) and the discussion following (4.1), that $`|\alpha _b|`$ should be sizable, but not necessarily $`\pi /4`$, in order to maximize the $`CP`$ violation.

It is also possible that one Higgs boson does not violate $`CP`$ in its couplings to the $`t`$ quark, and yet the other two do. For example, for $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }=0`$, the lightest Higgs boson has a pure pseudoscalar coupling to the top quark, and hence the $`CP`$ violation is exclusively due to the two heavier Higgs bosons. In this case, the resulting total contribution to the lepton energy correlations $`A_1`$ may even exceed that obtained when the contribution of the lightest Higgs boson is maximal, see fig. 11 (right panel).

### 5.2 Case 2. One light and two heavy neutral Higgs bosons

Next, we let two of the neutral Higgs boson masses be more heavy, taking $`M_3M_2=500\text{GeV}`$, and $`M_{H^\pm }=700\text{GeV}`$. The resulting mass values, $`M_3`$, are shown in fig. 12, for two values of $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }`$, three values of $`\alpha _c=\pi /4`$, $`\pi /3`$ and $`5\pi /12`$, and small values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. For the cases studied in sect. 5.1, solutions could be found with $`\mu =0`$. This is here not the case. For $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }=\pi /2`$ (“maximal $`CP`$ violation”), no value of $`\mu `$ allows a light $`H_1`$ (fig. 12, right panel), so we have included also $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }=\pi /3`$ (left panel), where light $`H_1`$ can be realized for large $`\mu `$.

We show in fig. 13 the corresponding results for the lepton energy asymmetry, $`A_1`$, for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =0.5`$ and 1. In this case, as opposed to the cases considered in sect. 5.1, since $`H_2`$ and $`H_3`$ are heavier, it is a good approximation to consider only $`H_1`$ exchange up to $`M_1450\text{GeV}`$. As a result, the $`CP`$-violating effects are significantly larger than in the low-mass case studied in sect. 5.1. The amount of $`CP`$-violation for one light Higgs boson, $`M_1=𝒪(100\text{GeV})`$, is comparable with, and may exceed that obtained for a mass around the $`t\overline{t}`$ resonance.

We note that there is only a rather weak dependence on $`\alpha _c`$. This is clearly due to the fact that the contribution of $`H_1`$ (which is independent of $`\alpha _c`$) dominates. (However, as $`\alpha _c0`$, the physical range of $`M_1`$ shrinks, cf. fig. 7.)

Fig. 14 is devoted to a study of the dependence of $`\alpha _b`$. As expected (since $`H_1`$ dominates), the $`CP`$ violation is maximized for $`\alpha _b\pi /4`$. As $`\alpha _b0`$, the effect vanishes. There are in fact two reasons for this. First, the contribution of $`H_1`$ to $`\gamma _{CP}`$ vanishes linearly. Secondly, $`M_2`$ and $`M_3`$ become degenerate in this limit. According to the discussion in sect. 4.2, all three masses must then become degenerate, and there is no $`CP`$ violation.

### 5.3 Case 3. The $`𝒕\overline{𝒕}`$ transition region

As is seen from fig. 4, and also from a qualitative comparison of Case 1 and Case 2, there is in general less $`CP`$-violation if two Higgs masses are below the $`t\overline{t}`$ threshold than if two masses are above. We here explore this transition region in a little more detail, by comparing in fig. 15 a few values of the intermediate Higgs boson mass $`M_2`$, below and above the $`t\overline{t}`$ threshold, keeping the mixing angles fixed at $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }=\pi /2`$, $`\alpha _b=\pi /4`$, $`\alpha _c=\pi /3`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =0.5`$. One sees that, for values of $`M_1`$ well below $`M_2`$, there is little dependence on $`M_2`$, unless $`M_2`$ is above the $`t\overline{t}`$ threshold, in which case the $`CP`$-violation (for fixed $`M_1`$) increases rapidly with $`M_2`$.

## 6 Concluding remarks

We have reviewed and confirmed the basic results of  on $`CP`$ violation induced by non-standard Higgs exchange in the production of $`t\overline{t}`$ pairs at the LHC, up to a few misprints. The results for the box diagram have been further reduced to basic loop integrals. Some modifications of their observable $`A_1=E_+E_{}`$ (where $`E_\pm `$ are the lepton energies) have been investigated. These modifications can in some kinematical situations improve the signal-to-noise ratio, provided the $`t\overline{t}`$ invariant mass can be determined with a reasonable precision.

For the observable $`A_2=𝐩_{\overline{t}}𝐥^+𝐩_t𝐥^{}`$, we find a much lower signal-to-noise ratio than was given in . This observable thus appears less suited for a search for $`CP`$ violation at the LHC (for details, see sect. 3.2).

In a minimal, $`CP`$-violating Two-Higgs-Doublet Model, where couplings and masses are constrained and related by the Higgs potential and the Yukawa couplings (“Model II”), the $`CP`$-violating effects can at the LHC be at the per mille level, as given by Bernreuther and Brandenburg  (see also ), provided that (i) $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ is small ($`<1`$), and that (ii) there is only one light Higgs boson. If there are two neutral Higgs bosons below the $`t\overline{t}`$ threshold, the effects are severely reduced by cancellations among different contributions.

Our study does not include QCD corrections. Within pure QCD (no Higgs exchange), next-to-leading-order corrections are known . They are not known for these $`CP`$-violating effects. Since we study ratios, one may hope that the dominant parts of the QCD corrections cancel, but this remains to be seen.

Finally, we recall that there are other observables that we have not studied (see, e.g. ). At the parton level, the basic asymmetries are larger, of the order of $`10^2`$, as compared with the order $`10^3`$ effects discussed here. Thus, for some other choice of observable, it is quite possible that a larger fraction of the 2HDM parameter space could be explored.

Acknowledgments. We would like to thank P.N. Pandita and J. Sjölin for collaboration in early stages of this work. It is also a great pleasure to thank W. Bernreuther and, in particular, A. Brandenburg, for very useful discussions and correspondence. Also, we would like to thank I.F. Ginzburg and M. Krawczyk for discussions on the 2HDM, and W. Hollik and M. Klasen for advice on the “LoopTools” package. This research has been supported by the Research Council of Norway.

## Appendix A

In this appendix we collect complete results for the functions $`b_{g1}^{CP}`$, $`b_{g2}^{CP}`$, $`c_{g1}`$, $`c_{g2}`$ of eq. (2.6), correcting some misprints in  and also reducing completely the contribution from the box diagram to four-, three-, and two-point scalar integrals. We define the following two-point functions:

$`B_0(m_t^2,m_H^2,m_t^2)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{i\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle d^nq\frac{1}{[(q\frac{1}{2}Q)^2m_t^2][(q\frac{1}{2}P_t)^2m_H^2]}},`$ (A.1)
$`B_0(\widehat{s},m_t^2,m_t^2)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{i\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle d^nq\frac{1}{[(q+\frac{1}{2}Q)^2m_t^2][(q\frac{1}{2}Q)^2m_t^2]}},`$ (A.2)
$`B_0(\widehat{t},m_H^2,m_t^2)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{i\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle d^nq\frac{1}{[(q\frac{1}{2}P_g)^2m_t^2][(q\frac{1}{2}P_t)^2m_H^2]}},`$ (A.3)
three-point functions:

$`C_0(\widehat{s},m_t^2,m_t^2,m_t^2)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{i\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle d^nq\frac{1}{[(q+\frac{1}{2}Q)^2m_t^2][(q\frac{1}{2}P_g)^2m_t^2][(q\frac{1}{2}Q)^2m_t^2]}},`$ (A.4)
$`C_0(\widehat{s},m_H^2,m_t^2,m_t^2)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{i\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle d^nq\frac{1}{[(q+\frac{1}{2}Q)^2m_t^2][(q\frac{1}{2}Q)^2m_t^2][(q\frac{1}{2}P_t)^2m_H^2]}},`$ (A.5)
$`C_0(\widehat{t},m_H^2,m_t^2,m_t^2)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{i\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle d^nq\frac{1}{[(q\frac{1}{2}P_g)^2m_t^2][(q\frac{1}{2}Q)^2m_t^2][(q\frac{1}{2}P_t)^2m_H^2]}},`$ (A.6)
and the basic four-point function:

$$D_0(\widehat{t})=\frac{1}{i\pi ^2}d^nq\frac{1}{[(q+\frac{1}{2}Q)^2m_t^2][(q\frac{1}{2}P_g)^2m_t^2][(q\frac{1}{2}Q)^2m_t^2][(q\frac{1}{2}P_t)^2m_H^2]}.$$
(A.7)
Here, $`\widehat{s}=Q^2`$, $`\widehat{t}=Q^2(1\beta z)`$. Furthermore, for $`\widehat{u}=Q^2(1+\beta z)`$, the scalar integrals $`B_0(\widehat{u},m_H^2,m_t^2)`$, $`C_0(\widehat{u},m_H^2,m_t^2,m_t^2)`$ and $`D_0(\widehat{u})`$ are obtained from (A.3), (A.6) and (A.7), respectively, with $`P_gP_g`$ (or $`P_tP_t`$). Note that, in this notation of , the function $`C_0(\widehat{s},m_t^2,m_t^2,m_t^2)`$ can not be obtained from $`C_0(\widehat{s},m_H^2,m_t^2,m_t^2)`$ by a simple substitution.

We also define the abbreviations

$`D_F(\widehat{t})`$ $`=m_H^2D_0(\widehat{t})(1\beta z)C_0(\widehat{t},m_H^2,m_t^2,m_t^2),`$
$`D_F(\widehat{u})`$ $`=m_H^2D_0(\widehat{u})(1+\beta z)C_0(\widehat{u},m_H^2,m_t^2,m_t^2),`$ (A.8)
where $`\beta =(14m_t^2/\widehat{s})^{1/2}`$ and $`z=(\widehat{𝐏}_g\widehat{𝐏}_t)`$, together with the UV-finite combination

$``$ $`=9\beta z[B_0(\widehat{t},m_H^2,m_t^2)B_0(\widehat{u},m_H^2,m_t^2)]+18z^2[B_0(\widehat{s},m_t^2,m_t^2)B_0(m_t^2,m_H^2,m_t^2)]`$
$`+7[B_0(\widehat{t},m_H^2,m_t^2)+B_0(\widehat{u},m_H^2,m_t^2)2B_0(m_t^2,m_H^2,m_t^2)],`$ (A.9)
and (see )

$`C_s(\widehat{t})`$ $`=C_0(\widehat{t},m_H^2,m_t^2,m_t^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{B_0(m_t^2,m_H^2,m_t^2)B_0(\widehat{t},m_H^2,m_t^2)}{m_t^2\widehat{t}}},`$ (A.10)
$`G(\widehat{s})`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{[m_H^2C_0(\widehat{s},m_H^2,m_t^2,m_t^2)+B_0(\widehat{s},m_t^2,m_t^2)B_0(m_t^2,m_H^2,m_t^2)]}{\widehat{s}\beta ^2}}.`$ (A.11)
Furthermore, $`C_s(\widehat{u})`$ is obtained from eq. (A.10) by the replacement $`\widehat{t}\widehat{u}`$. The factor

$$\kappa =\frac{m_t^2\sqrt{2}G_Fg_s^4}{8\pi ^2},$$
(A.12)
where $`g_s`$ is the QCD coupling constant, determines the over-all scale.

The functions $`b_{g1}^{CP}`$ and $`c_{g1}`$ are odd under $`(zz`$, implying $`\widehat{t}\widehat{u}`$) whereas $`b_{g2}^{CP}`$ and $`c_{g2}`$ are even. In the following, the four- and three-point functions are finite in four dimensions, as well as all combinations of two-point functions.

For the box diagram (diagram ($`c`$) in fig. 3), we find:

$`b_{g_1}^{(c)}`$ $`=\kappa \gamma _{CP}{\displaystyle \frac{m_tE_1}{192(1\beta ^2z^2)(1z^2)\widehat{s}\beta }}`$
$`\times [(7+9\beta z)(2z[\widehat{s}(1\beta z)^2+4m_H^2]\mathrm{Im}D_F(\widehat{t})`$
$`+\{\widehat{s}\beta z[\widehat{s}\beta (1\beta z)(12\beta z+z^2)+4m_H^2(\beta z)]`$
$`\widehat{s}^2\beta (1\beta z)(1\beta ^2)\}\mathrm{Im}D_0(\widehat{t}))(zz;\widehat{t}\widehat{u})`$
$`+4\beta ^2z\left[\widehat{s}(718\beta ^2z^2+7z^2)18m_H^2z^2(3z^2)9\widehat{s}(1\beta ^2)\right]\mathrm{Im}C_0(\widehat{s},m_H^2,m_t^2,m_t^2)`$
$`+4z[\widehat{s}(711\beta ^2z^2)+28m_H^2]\mathrm{Im}C_0(\widehat{s},m_t^2,m_t^2,m_t^2)4\beta ^2z(1z^2)\mathrm{Im}],`$ (A.13)
$`b_{g_2}^{(c)}`$ $`=\kappa \gamma _{CP}{\displaystyle \frac{m_t}{192(1\beta ^2z^2)(1z^2)\widehat{s}\beta }}`$
$`\times [(7+9\beta z)(2[\widehat{s}(1\beta z)^2+4m_H^2][(1z^2)m_t+E_1z^2]\mathrm{Im}D_F(\widehat{t})`$
$`+\{\widehat{s}\beta [\widehat{s}\beta (1\beta z)(12\beta z+z^2)+4m_H^2(\beta z)][(1z^2)m_t+E_1z^2]`$
$`\widehat{s}^2E_1\beta z(1\beta z)(1\beta ^2)\}\mathrm{Im}D_0(\widehat{t}))+(zz;\widehat{t}\widehat{u})`$
$`+4\beta ^2\{[\widehat{s}(718\beta ^2z^2+7z^2)18m_H^2z^2(3z^2)][(1z^2)m_t+E_1z^2]`$
$`18z^2m_t[m_H^2(1z^2)+2m_tE_1]\}\mathrm{Im}C_0(\widehat{s},m_H^2,m_t^2,m_t^2)`$ (A.14)
$`+4[\widehat{s}(711\beta ^2z^2)+28m_H^2][(1z^2)m_t+E_1z^2]\mathrm{Im}C_0(\widehat{s},m_t^2,m_t^2,m_t^2)`$
$`4\beta ^2(1z^2)[(2z^2)m_t+E_1z^2]\mathrm{Im}],`$
$`c_{g_1}^{(c)}`$ $`=\kappa \gamma _{CP}{\displaystyle \frac{m_tE_1}{192(1\beta ^2z^2)(1z^2)\widehat{s}\beta }}`$
$`\times [(7+9\beta z)\{2z[\widehat{s}(\beta ^2z^2+2\beta ^22\beta z1)+4m_H^2]\mathrm{Re}D_F(\widehat{t})`$
$`+\{\widehat{s}\beta z[\widehat{s}\beta (1\beta z)(12\beta z+z^2)+4m_H^2(\beta z)]`$
$`+\widehat{s}^2\beta (1\beta z)(1\beta ^2)\}\mathrm{Re}D_0(\widehat{t})\}(zz;\widehat{t}\widehat{u})`$ (A.15)
$`+4\beta ^2z\left[\widehat{s}(718\beta ^2z^2+7z^2)18m_H^2z^2(3z^2)+9\widehat{s}(1\beta ^2)\right]\mathrm{Re}C_0(\widehat{s},m_H^2,m_t^2,m_t^2)`$
$`4z[\widehat{s}(7+11\beta ^2z^2)28m_H^214\widehat{s}\beta ^2]\mathrm{Re}C_0(\widehat{s},m_t^2,m_t^2,m_t^2)4\beta ^2z(1z^2)\mathrm{Re}],`$
$`c_{g_2}^{(c)}`$ $`=\kappa \gamma _{CP}{\displaystyle \frac{m_t}{192(1\beta ^2z^2)(1z^2)\widehat{s}\beta }}`$
$`\times [(7+9\beta z)(2\{[\widehat{s}(\beta ^2z^22\beta z1)+4m_H^2][(1z^2)m_t+E_1z^2]+2\widehat{s}E_1\beta ^2z^2\}\mathrm{Re}D_F(\widehat{t})`$
$`+\{\widehat{s}\beta [\widehat{s}\beta (1\beta z)(12\beta z+z^2)+4m_H^2(\beta z)][(1z^2)m_t+E_1z^2]`$
$`+\widehat{s}^2E_1\beta z(1\beta z)(1\beta ^2)\}\mathrm{Re}D_0(\widehat{t}))+(zz;\widehat{t}\widehat{u})`$
$`+4\beta ^2\{[\widehat{s}(718\beta ^2z^2+7z^2)18m_H^2z^2(3z^2)][(1z^2)m_t+E_1z^2]`$
$`18z^2m_t[m_H^2(1z^2)2m_tE_1]\}\mathrm{Re}C_0(\widehat{s},m_H^2,m_t^2,m_t^2)`$ (A.16)
$`4\{[\widehat{s}(7+11\beta ^2z^2)28m_H^2][(1z^2)m_t+E_1z^2]14\widehat{s}E_1\beta ^2z^2\}\mathrm{Re}C_0(\widehat{s},m_t^2,m_t^2,m_t^2)`$
$`4\beta ^2(1z^2)[(2z^2)m_t+E_1z^2]\mathrm{Re}.]`$
From the vertex diagrams ($`d`$ and $`e`$ in fig. 3):

$`c_{g_1}^{(d+e)}`$ $`=\kappa \gamma _{CP}{\displaystyle \frac{m_tE_1}{96(1\beta ^2z^2)}}[(7+9\beta z)(2(1\beta ^2)C_0(\widehat{t},m_H^2,m_t^2,m_t^2)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\beta z}{1\beta z}}(1+\beta ^2z^22\beta ^2)C_s(\widehat{t}))(zz;\widehat{t}\widehat{u})],`$ (A.17)
$`c_{g_2}^{(d+e)}`$ $`=\kappa \gamma _{CP}{\displaystyle \frac{\beta m_t}{96(1\beta ^2z^2)}}[(7+9\beta z)({\displaystyle \frac{2m_t}{E_1+m_t}}(E_1+m_t\beta zE_1)C_0(\widehat{t},m_H^2,m_t^2,m_t^2)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{m_t+E_1z^2m_tz^2}{E_1^2(1\beta z)}}(E_1^22m_t^2\beta ^2E_1^2z^2)C_s(\widehat{t}))+(zz;\widehat{t}\widehat{u})].`$
From the self-energy diagram (after fixing the signs):

$`c_{g_1}^{(f)}`$ $`=\kappa \gamma _{CP}{\displaystyle \frac{m_t}{192E_1(1\beta ^2z^2)}}`$
$`\times \left[(7+9\beta z){\displaystyle \frac{1\beta ^2}{1\beta z}}\left(B_0(m_t^2,m_H^2,m_t^2)B_0(\widehat{t},m_H^2,m_t^2)\right)(zz;\widehat{t}\widehat{u})\right],`$
$`c_{g_2}^{(f)}`$ $`=\kappa \gamma _{CP}{\displaystyle \frac{\beta m_t}{192(1\beta ^2z^2)}}[(7+9\beta z){\displaystyle \frac{m_t}{E_1+m_t}}{\displaystyle \frac{E_1+m_t\beta zE_1}{E_1^2(1\beta z)}}`$
$`\times (B_0(m_t^2,m_H^2,m_t^2)B_0(\widehat{t},m_H^2,m_t^2))+(zz;\widehat{t}\widehat{u})].`$ (A.18)
From diagram ($`g`$):

$`b_{g_2}^{(g)}`$ $`=\kappa \gamma _{CP}{\displaystyle \frac{3m_t^2\beta ^3z^2\mathrm{Im}G(\widehat{s})}{8(1\beta ^2z^2)}}`$
$`c_{g_2}^{(g)}`$ $`=\kappa \gamma _{CP}{\displaystyle \frac{3m_t^2\beta ^3z^2\mathrm{Re}G(\widehat{s})}{8(1\beta ^2z^2)}}.`$ (A.19)
Finally, from diagram ($`h`$):

$`b_{g_2}^{(h)}`$ $`=\kappa \gamma _{CP}{\displaystyle \frac{m_t^2}{(\widehat{s}m_H^2)^2+\mathrm{\Gamma }_H^2m_H^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{4(1\beta ^2z^2)}}`$ (A.20)
$`\times \left[2m_t^2[\mathrm{\Gamma }_Hm_H\mathrm{Re}C_0(\widehat{s},m_t^2,m_t^2,m_t^2)(\widehat{s}m_H^2)\mathrm{Im}C_0(\widehat{s},m_t^2,m_t^2,m_t^2)]+\mathrm{\Gamma }_Hm_H\right],`$
$`c_{g_2}^{(h)}`$ $`=\kappa \gamma _{CP}{\displaystyle \frac{m_t^2}{(\widehat{s}m_H^2)^2+\mathrm{\Gamma }_H^2m_H^2}}[{\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{16(1\beta ^2z^2)}}(2\widehat{s}(1+\beta ^2)`$ (A.21)
$`\times [(\widehat{s}m_H^2)\mathrm{Re}C_0(\widehat{s},m_t^2,m_t^2,m_t^2)+\mathrm{\Gamma }_Hm_H\mathrm{Im}C_0(\widehat{s},m_t^2,m_t^2,m_t^2)]4(\widehat{s}m_H^2))`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{32}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_t^2\sqrt{2}G_F}{8\pi ^2}}[2\widehat{s}^3\beta \stackrel{~}{a}^2|C_0(\widehat{s},m_t^2,m_t^2,m_t^2)|^2+2\widehat{s}\beta a^2|2\widehat{s}\beta ^2C_0(\widehat{s},m_t^2,m_t^2,m_t^2)|^2]],`$
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_H`$ is the width of the Higgs boson calculated by summing the partial widths for $`HW^+W^{},ZZ,t\overline{t}`$ in the version of 2HDM we considered.