text:
# Theoretical study of quasiparticle states near the surface of a quasi-one-dimensional organic superconductor ("TMTSF")₂"PF"₆

## Abstract

Quasiparticle states near the surface of a quasi-one-dimensional organic superconductor $`(\text{TMTSF})_2\text{PF}_6`$ are studied based on an extended Hubbard model on a quasi-one dimensional lattice at quarter-filling. Three types of pairing symmetries, (i) $`p`$-wave, (ii) $`d`$-wave, or (iii) $`f`$-wave are assumed. The resulting surface density of states has characteristic features for each pairing symmetry: i) a zero-energy peak (ZEP) in a U-shaped structure, ii) a V-shaped structure without ZEP, and iii) a ZEP in a V-shaped structure. From these results, we propose that the tunneling spectroscopy serves as a strong method to identify the the pairing symmetry in $`(\text{TMTSF})_2\text{PF}_6`$.

In recent years, pairing symmetry in various unconventional superconductors, such as the high-$`T_c`$ cuprates, heavy fermion systems, $`\text{Sr}_2\text{RuO}_4`$, organic superconductors, and so on, has been extensively studied both experimentally and theoretically. In particular, quasi-one-dimensional (Q1D) organic superconductors $`(\text{TMTSF})_2\text{X}`$ (X=PF6, ClO4, etc.) have recently attracted much attention as a possible spin-triplet superconductor. Experimentally, the observation of a large critical magnetic field $`H_{c2}`$ exceeding Pauli paramagnetic limit, as well as an unchanged Knight shift across $`T_c`$, strongly suggest spin-triplet pairing. As for the orbital part of the pair wave function, the presence of nodes in the pair potential on the Fermi surface has been suggested from NMR measurements for $`(\text{TMTSF})_2\text{ClO}_4`$ and $`(\text{TMTSF})_2\text{PF}_6`$, which exhibit the absence of Hebel-Slichter peak as well as a power-law decay of $`T_1^1`$ below $`T_c`$. On the other hand, a thermal conductivity measurement has suggested the absence of nodes on the Fermi surface in $`(\text{TMTSF})_2\text{ClO}_4`$.

Theoretically, several previous studies have proposed a triplet $`p`$-wave pairing state,  for which the nodes of the pair potential do not intersect the Fermi surface. On the other hand, a spin-singlet $`d`$-wave-like pairing mediated by spin fluctuations has been proposed by several authors. This is because superconductivity lies right next to the $`2k_\mathrm{F}`$ spin density wave (SDW) phase in the pressure-temperature phase diagram. Moreover, one of the present authors have recently proposed that triplet $`f`$-wave-like pairing may dominate over $`d`$\- and $`p`$-wave in $`(\text{TMTSF})_2\text{PF}_6`$ due to a combination of Q1D Fermi surface, coexistence of $`2k_\mathrm{F}`$ SDW and $`2k_\mathrm{F}`$ charge density wave (CDW) suggested from diffuse X-ray scattering, and an anisotropy in the spin fluctuations.

Thus, the situation is not settled either experimentally or theoretically. The purpose of the present study is to propose an experimental method to determine which one of the pairing symmetries is realized in $`(\text{TMTSF})_2\text{PF}_6`$.

Now, for the high-$`T_c`$ cuprates, which has a singlet $`d`$-wave pair potential, it has been clarified that the internal phase causes a drastic interference effect in the quasiparticle states near surfaces or interfaces, enabling us to detect the sign change in the pair potential. Namely, a zero-energy bound state (ZES) at a (110) surface of a $`d`$-wave superconductor reflects the sign-change of the effective pair potential in the process of the reflection of quasiparticle at the surface . The formation of ZES results in a peak in the surface density of states (SDOS) at the Fermi energy (zero-energy) and manifests itself as a so-called zero-bias conductance peak (ZBCP) observed in scanning tunneling spectroscopy,  which is considered as a strong evidence for a sign change in the pair potential.

Recently, Sengupta $`et`$ $`al.`$ have proposed that the pairing symmetry in $`(\text{TMTSF})_2\text{X}`$  can be determined from the presence/absence of the ZES on the surface. Although their study points out an important aspect, their argument is mainly restricted to the absence/presence of ZEP, from which the $`p`$-wave and $`f`$-wave pairings cannot be distinguished. In fact, as we shall see, one has to look into the overall line shape of the SDOS to distinguish $`p`$\- and $`f`$-wave pairings. Since the detailed line shape of the SDOS is significantly influenced by the actual shape of the Fermi surface, we have to consider a more realistic lattice structure, in which the quasi one-dimensionality (warping) of the Fermi surface is taken into account.

In order to meet this requirement, we consider an extended Hubbard model on a Q1D lattice at quarter-filling, extending the previous study on a 2D square lattice. We concentrate on $`(\text{TMTSF})_2\text{PF}_6`$ because there is no complexity (unit cell doubling) due to anion ordering like in $`(\text{TMTSF})_2\text{ClO}_4`$.  Three types of physically plausible pairings (i) triplet ’$`p`$-wave’ (ii) singlet ’$`d`$-wave’ and (iii) triplet ’$`f`$-wave’ are studied. The spatial dependence of the pair potentials is determined self-consistently, and the SDOS is calculated using the self-consistently determined pair potentials. We propose from the calculation results that the quasiparticle tunneling spectroscopy should serve as a strong method to identify the pairing symmetry in $`(\text{TMTSF})_2\text{PF}_6`$.

The extended Hubbard model is given as

$`=`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{𝐢,𝐣_a,\alpha }{}}(t_ac_{𝐢,\alpha }^{}c_{𝐣,\alpha }+\mathrm{H}.\mathrm{c}.)`$ (1)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{𝐢,𝐣_b,\alpha }{}}(t_bc_{𝐢,\alpha }^{}c_{𝐣,\alpha }+\mathrm{H}.\mathrm{c}.)`$ (2)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{V}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{(𝐢,𝐣)_m,\alpha ,\beta }{}}c_{𝐢,\alpha }^{}c_{𝐣,\beta }^{}c_{𝐣,\beta }c_{𝐢,\alpha }\mu {\displaystyle \underset{𝐢,\alpha }{}}c_{𝐢,\alpha }^{}c_{𝐢,\alpha },`$ (3)
where $`c_{𝐢\alpha }`$ \[$`c_{𝐢\alpha }^{}`$\] is the annihilation \[creation\] operator of an electron with spin $`\alpha =,`$ at site $`𝐢=(i_a,i_b)`$. Here $`t_a[_b]`$ is the hopping integral, and $`𝐢,𝐣_a[_b]`$ stands for summation over nearest neighbor pairs in the $`a[b]`$-axis direction, respectively. $`V`$ is the inter-electron potential between sites separated by $`m`$ lattice spacings in the $`a`$-direction, and $`(𝐢,𝐣)_m`$ represents summation over pairs of sites separated by $`m`$ lattice spacings. $`m`$ depends on the choice of the pairing considered. We choose $`t_b/t_a=0.1`$ in order to take into account the Q1D Fermi surface of $`(\text{TMTSF})_2\text{PF}_6`$, which is open in the $`k_b`$-direction. The chemical potential $`\mu `$ is determined so that the band is quarter-filled.

By applying a mean-field approximation, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{𝐢𝐣}}^{\alpha \beta }=\frac{V}{2}c_{𝐢\alpha }c_{𝐣\beta }`$ is introduced, which represents the superconducting pair potential for pairs formed by $`\alpha `$-spin electron on the $`𝐢`$th site and $`\beta `$-spin electron on the $`𝐣`$th site. We assume that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{𝐢𝐣}}^{\alpha \beta }`$ is proportional to $`\delta _{i_b,j_b}`$, where $`i_b`$ and $`j_b`$ are coordinates in the $`b`$-direction. Thus the unit cell contains $`N_\mathrm{L}`$ sites in the $`a`$-direction and one site in the $`b`$-direction. We consider three pairing symmetries shown in Fig. 1. Namely, (i) $`p`$-wave: $`S_b=0`$ ($`S_b`$ is the $`b`$-component of the total spin of a pair) triplet pairing between sites separated by 2 lattice spacings ($`m_p=2`$). This is a ‘$`p`$-wave’ pairing because the pair potential has a $`2\mathrm{\Delta }_p\mathrm{sin}2k_aa`$, $`k`$-dependence in the bulk state, so that the pair potential changes its sign as $`+`$ along the Fermi surface (see Fig. 1). (ii) $`d`$-wave: singlet pairing between sites separated by 2 lattice spacings ($`m_d=2`$). This is a ‘$`d`$-wave’ pairing in the sense that the pair potential changes its sign as $`++`$ along the Fermi surface due to its $`2\mathrm{\Delta }_d\mathrm{cos}2k_aa`$ $`k`$-dependence in the bulk state. (iii) $`f`$-wave: $`S_b=\pm 1`$ triplet pairing between sites separated by 4 lattice spacings ($`m_f=4`$). This is an ‘$`f`$-wave’ pairing in the sense that the pair potential changes its sign as $`+++`$ along the Fermi surface due to its $`2\mathrm{\Delta }_f\mathrm{sin}4k_aa`$ $`k`$-dependence in the bulk state. These three pairings are physically plausible in the sense that they are consistent with the spin alignment of the $`2k_\mathrm{F}`$ SDW phase of a quarter filled $`(k_\mathrm{F}=\frac{\pi }{4a})`$ system with an easy axis in the $`b`$-direction. In other words, the $`2k_\mathrm{F}`$ spin fluctuations can favor pairing in these channels.

In order to represent $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{𝐢𝐣}}^{\alpha \beta }`$ in a more convenient way, we introduce a new coordinate $`j`$ along the $`a`$-direction. The original coordinate $`𝐣`$ is represented as $`𝐣=(j,j_b)`$ with $`j=1,\mathrm{},N_\mathrm{L}`$. In the $`b`$-direction, we assume $`N_b`$ unit cells, and the electrons are Fourier transformed as $`C_{j\alpha }(k_b)=_{j_b=1}^{N_b}c_{𝐣\alpha }e^{ik_bj_ba}`$, and $`C_{j\beta }(k_b)=_{j_b=1}^{N_b}c_{𝐣\beta }e^{ik_bj_ba}`$, where $`\pi /a<k_b\pi /a`$, $`k_b=\frac{2\pi }{N_b}n`$ with $`n`$ being an integer.

After the Fourier transformation, the mean-field Hamiltonian becomes

$`_{\mathrm{MF}}`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{k_b,i,j}{}}\left[\begin{array}{cccc}C_i^{}(k_b)& C_i^{}(k_b)& C_i(k_b)& C_i(k_b)\end{array}\right]`$ (5)
$`\times `$ $`\left[\begin{array}{cccc}H_{ij}(k_b)& 0& \mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}^{}& \mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}^{}\\ 0& H_{ij}(k_b)& \mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}^{}& \mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}^{}\\ \mathrm{\Delta }_{ji}^{}& \mathrm{\Delta }_{ji}^{}& H_{ji}(k_b)& 0\\ \mathrm{\Delta }_{ji}^{}& \mathrm{\Delta }_{ji}^{}& 0& H_{ji}(k_b)\end{array}\right]`$ (10)
$`\times `$ $`\left[\begin{array}{c}C_j(k_b)\\ C_j(k_b)\\ C_j^{}(k_b)\\ C_j^{}(k_b)\end{array}\right],`$ (15)
$`H_{ij}(k_b)`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{\pm }{}}\left[t_a\delta _{i,j\pm 1}+2t_b\mathrm{cos}(k_ba)\delta _{i,j}\mu \delta _{i,j}\right].`$ (16)
Here, for simplicity, the off diagonal part in Eq.(5) is assumed in the following forms. For the $`p`$-wave state,

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}^{}=\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}^{}={\displaystyle \underset{\pm }{}}\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}^p\delta _{i,j\pm 2},\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}^{}=\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}^{}=0,`$ (17)
for the $`d`$-wave state,

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}^{}={\displaystyle \underset{\pm }{}}\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}^d\delta _{i,j\pm 2},\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}^{}=\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}^{}=0,`$ (18)
and for the $`f`$-wave state,

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}^{}={\displaystyle \underset{\pm }{}}\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}^f\delta _{i,j\pm 4},\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}^{}=\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}^{}=0.`$ (19)
We have taken the total number of sites as $`N_\mathrm{L}=500`$ and $`N_b=50`$. The value of the pair potential and the chemical potential in the bulk with $`V/t_a=4.0`$ are (i) $`\mathrm{\Delta }_p/t_a=0.280`$, $`\mu /t_a=1.39`$, (ii) $`\mathrm{\Delta }_d/t_a=0.164`$, $`\mu /t_a=1.39`$, and (iii) $`\mathrm{\Delta }_f/t_a=0.244`$, $`\mu /t_a=1.38`$, respectively.

In the actual numerical calculation, the above Hamiltonian $`_{\mathrm{MF}}`$ is diagonalized by Bogoliubov transformation  given by $`C_{i\alpha }(k_b)=_\nu 𝒰_{i,\nu }\gamma _\nu (k_b)`$, and $`C_{j\beta }(k_b)=_\nu \gamma _\nu ^{}(k_b)𝒰_{N_\mathrm{L}+j,\nu }^{}`$, where $`\nu `$ is the index which specifies the eigenstates. Then, the mean-field Hamiltonian described in Eq. (5) is rewritten as $`_{\mathrm{MF}}=_{k_b,\nu }E_\nu (k_b)\gamma _\nu ^{}(k_b)\gamma _\nu (k_b)`$, where the operator $`\gamma _\nu (k_b)`$ satisfies the fermion’s anticommutation relation. The spatial dependence of the pair potential with $`l`$-wave pairing symmetry is determined self-consistently as

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{j,j\pm m_l}^l={\displaystyle \frac{V}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{k_b,\nu }{}}𝒰_{j\pm m_l,\nu }𝒰_{N_\mathrm{L}+j,\nu }^{}\left\{1f[E_\nu (k_b)]\right\},`$ (20)
where $`f[E_\nu (k_b)]`$ denotes the Fermi distribution function. The procedure is iterated until the pair potential $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}^l`$ is obtained fully self-consistently. We calculate the SDOS using the pair potential determined self-consistently. In order to compare our theory with scanning tunneling microscopy (STM) experiments, we assume that the STM tip is metallic with a flat density of states (DOS), and that the tunneling probability is finite only for the nearest site from the tip. This assumption has been verified through the study of tunneling conductance of unconventional superconductors. This is because the magnitude of the tunneling probability of an electron is sufficiently low in the actual STM experiments. The resulting tunneling conductance spectrum converges to the normalized SDOS

$`\overline{\rho }(E)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}d\omega \rho _{1,\mathrm{S}}(\omega )\mathrm{sech}^2({\displaystyle \frac{\omega E}{2k_\mathrm{B}T}})}{{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}d\omega \rho _\mathrm{N}(\omega )\mathrm{sech}^2({\displaystyle \frac{\omega +2\mathrm{\Delta }_l}{2k_\mathrm{B}T}})}}`$ (21)
$`\rho _{1,\mathrm{S}}(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`2{\displaystyle \underset{k_b}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\nu }{}}|𝒰_{1,\nu }|^2\delta \{\omega E_\nu (k_b)\}.`$ (22)
at low temperatures, where $`\rho _{i,\mathrm{S}}(\omega )`$ denotes the SDOS at the $`i`$-th site from the surface in the superconducting state and $`\rho _\mathrm{N}(\omega )`$ denotes the DOS in the normal state. In this paper, $`\rho _\mathrm{N}(\omega )`$ is obtained from the DOS at the $`N_\mathrm{L}/2`$-th site far away from the surface.

The obtained spatial dependences of the $`p`$-, $`d`$-, and $`f`$-wave pair potentials and the corresponding SDOS are plotted in Fig. 2. Since the spatial dependence of the pair potential is complex, we define the following quantities given by

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{j,\pm a}^p`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{Re}[\mathrm{\Delta }_{j,j\pm 2}^p]/\mathrm{\Delta }_p,\mathrm{Im}[\mathrm{\Delta }_{j,j\pm 2}^p]=0,`$ (23)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{j,\pm a}^d`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{Re}[\mathrm{\Delta }_{j,j\pm 2}^d]/\mathrm{\Delta }_d,\mathrm{Im}[\mathrm{\Delta }_{j,j\pm 2}^d]=0,`$ (24)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{j,\pm a}^f`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{Im}[\mathrm{\Delta }_{j,j\pm 4}^f]/\mathrm{\Delta }_f,\mathrm{Re}[\mathrm{\Delta }_{j,j\pm 4}^f]=0.`$ (25)
to visualize the spatial dependences clearly. The left panels of Fig. 2 is the obtained result for the spatial dependence of the pair potential near a surface normal to the $`a`$-axis, and the right panels show the SDOS at the surface normal to the $`a`$\- or the $`b`$-axis along with the bulk DOS.

First, let us look into the results for the triplet $`p`$-wave pairing state shown in the upper panels of Fig. 2 \[see Fig. 2(a) and 2(b)\]. Since triplet Cooper pair is formed between two electrons with 2 lattice spacings, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{j,a}^p=\mathrm{\Delta }_{j+2,a}^p`$ is satisfied. Both the magnitude of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{j,a}^p`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{j,a}^p`$ is suppressed near the surface and approaches $`1`$ and $`1`$ in the middle of superconductor, respectively. As shown in Fig. 2(b), the corresponding DOS has a U-shaped gap structure similar to that of the conventional $`s`$-wave pairing due to the fact that the nodes of the pair potential do not intersect the Fermi surface. The ZEP shows up in SDOS at the surface normal to $`a`$-axis due to the formation of ZES, since an injected and reflected quasiparticle feel different sign of the pair potential . On the other hand, at the surface normal to the $`b`$-axis, since an injected and reflected quasiparticle feel the same pair potential, the ZES is not formed and the resulting SDOS has no ZEP, resulting in a overall line shape similar to that of the bulk DOS. These results for the $`p`$-wave pairing are consistent with those in Ref. .

Next, we look into the corresponding quantities in singlet $`d`$-wave pairing case \[see Fig. 2(c) and 2(d)\]. Since the pair is formed between sites separated by 2 lattice spacings, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{j,a}^d=\mathrm{\Delta }_{j+2,a}^d`$ is satisfied. The obtained spatial dependence of the pair potential exhibits a atomic-scale spatial oscillation near the surface and converges to the bulk value toward the middle of the lattice. These features are similar to the previous results for the extended Hubbard model on a 2D square lattice . The corresponding SDOS (and bulk DOS) has a V-shaped structure due to the existence of nodes of the pair potential on the Fermi surface. However, since an injected and reflected quasiparticle feel the same pair potential both at the surfaces normal to $`a`$\- and $`b`$-axis, no ZEP appears at the SDOS \[see Fig. 2(d)\]. Due to the absence of the pair potential along the $`b`$-axis, the ZEP never appears for arbitrary orientation of the surface which is strikingly different from the case of the high-$`T_c`$ cuprates .

Finally, we move on to the case of the triplet $`f`$-wave pairing. The $`f`$-wave pair \[see Fig. 1(a) (iii)\] is formed between sites separated by 4 lattice spacings, so the resulting pair potential satisfies $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{j,a}^f=\mathrm{\Delta }_{j+4,a}^f`$. As seen from Fig. 2(e), the obtained pair potential has a complex spatial dependence as compared to that of the $`p`$-wave pairing. Comparing Fig. 2(b) and Fig. 2(f), it can be seen that the $`f`$-wave pairing belongs to the same class as that of the $`p`$-wave pairing as far as the absence/presence of the ZEP is concerned, as has been pointed out in Ref. . However, since the $`f`$-wave pair potential has nodes on the Fermi surface, the resulting SDOS (and bulk DOS) has a V-shaped structure similar to that for the $`d`$-wave case in sharp contrast with the case of $`p`$-wave pairing.

In total, as summarized in Table I, the $`p`$-,$`d`$-,and $`f`$-wave pairings can be clearly distinguished from the combination of the overall line shape of the SDOS and the presence/absence of the $`a`$-axis ZEP.

In summary, we have studied the quasiparticle SDOS of an organic superconductor $`(\text{TMTSF})_2\text{PF}_6`$ based on an extended Hubbard model on a Q1D lattice at quarter filling. The non-local feature of the pair potential and the atomic-scale geometry of the surface are explicitly taken into account in the present calculation. Three types of pairing symmetries, (i) $`p`$-wave, (ii) $`d`$-wave, and (iii) $`f`$-wave have been considered. The calculation results suggest that we can clearly distinguish the present three pairing symmetries from tunneling spectroscopy. We believe our theoretical prediction can be verified experimentally in the near future. It is an interesting future problem to investigate how our results will be modified for $`(\text{TMTSF})_2\text{ClO}_4`$, in which a unit cell doubling due to anion ordering takes place.  It is also an interesting future problem to study Josephson effect in Q1D organic superconductors since it has been clarified in the previous studies that Josephson effect are crucially influenced by unconventional pair potentials.

First author (Y. T.) acknowledges the financial support of Research Fellowships of Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JPSJ) for Young Scientists. K.K. acknowledges Hideo Aoki for discussions and pointing out Ref.. The computational aspect of this work has been performed at the facilities of the Supercomputer Center, Institute for Solid State Physics, University of Tokyo and the Computer Center.


format: text

text:
# Comment on paper “Extremely Low Frequency Plasmons in Metallic Mesostructures” [J.B. Pendry, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 76, 4773 (1996)]

In a seminal paper  Pendry, et al. show that in metallic mesostructures the effective dielectric permittivity $`\epsilon _e`$ can be negative, even in the GHz range, which makes possible the excitation of extremely low-frequency plasmons. The building blocks of the new material are thin metallic wires with radius $`r`$ in $`\mu m`$ scale, which are arranged in a cubic lattice, with lattice constant $`a`$ in mm scale. The authors suggest that the effective electron mass can increase by $`10^4`$ times. This dramatic change in the mass, along with a decrease of the effective electron density (because of the small fraction of the space occupied by the wires) result in a depression of the plasma frequency $`\omega _p`$ by 6 orders of magnitude. Recently, the negative $`\epsilon _e`$ in the GHz range was experimentally verified . In calculations of $`\epsilon _e`$, Pendry et al. used the Drude formula, where the original plasma frequency was replaced by its low frequency counterpart. In the course of calculations, it was implied that the EM vector potential is constant inside the wires. If the vector potential inside the wires was $`𝐑`$-dependent, the effective electron mass would also be $`𝐑`$-dependent and thus, we believe, meaningless.

In our recent papers  we developed a first-principle theory for $`\epsilon _e`$ in mesostructures. Our approach is based on the direct solution of the Maxwell equations and it does not involve mass renormalization. For the orthorhombic wire lattice with lattice constants $`a_x,`$ $`a_y,`$ $`a_z`$ and wire radius $`ra_x,`$ $`a_y,`$ $`a_z`$ we obtain the dielectric tensor in the following form

$$\epsilon _{e,xx}=\epsilon {}_{d}{}^{}\frac{\pi r^2}{S_{yz}}\frac{ϵ_d[1+\pi (S_{yz}/\lambda ^2)\epsilon _d]\stackrel{~}{\epsilon }_m}{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}(\pi r/\lambda )^2(_{yz}+1)\stackrel{~}{\epsilon }_m}$$
(1)
where $`\lambda `$ is the wavelength, $`\epsilon _d`$ is the dielectric constant of the host material, $`S_{yz}=a_ya_z`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\epsilon }_m=\epsilon {}_{m}{}^{}F(2\pi r\sqrt{\epsilon _m}/\lambda )`$ is the renormalized metal permittivity, with $`F(x)=2J_1\left(x\right)/\left[xJ_0\left(x\right)\right]`$ expressed in terms of the Bessel functions $`J_0`$ and $`J_1`$, and

$`_{yz}`$ $`=`$ $`2\mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{a_y\sqrt{1+e^2}}{2r}}\right)+`$ (3)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{e\pi }{2}}\left(e{\displaystyle \frac{1}{e}}\right)\mathrm{arctan}e3,`$
where $`e=a_y/a_z`$. Components $`\epsilon _{e,yy}`$ and $`\epsilon _{e,zz}`$ of the dielectric tensor can be obtained from Eqs. (1) and (2) by corresponding interchange of indices $`x,y,z`$. For a cubic lattice, $`a_x=a_y=a_z=a,`$ and Eq. (1) reduces to

$$\epsilon _e=\epsilon {}_{d}{}^{}\frac{\pi r^2}{a^2}\frac{\epsilon {}_{d}{}^{}[1+\pi (a/\lambda )^2\epsilon {}_{d}{}^{}]\stackrel{~}{\epsilon }_m}{1(\pi r/\lambda )^2(+1)\stackrel{~}{\epsilon }_m},$$
(4)
where $`=2\mathrm{ln}(a/\sqrt{2}r)+\pi /23`$.

In Fig. 1 we show the “loss”-factor $`\kappa =|\epsilon _e^{\prime \prime }/\epsilon _e^{}|`$ for $`\epsilon _e`$ obtained from Eq. (3) and from the Drude-like Eq. (15) of  for $`Al`$ wire cubic crystal. In Fig.1a, the crystal parameters are the same as in : $`r=1\mu m`$ and $`a=5mm`$. The difference between the two approaches, although not dramatic, is still significant. One might think that for thicker wires, with $`r`$ much larger than the penetration (skin) depth $`\delta =c/(\omega \mathrm{Im}\sqrt{\epsilon _m})`$ Pendry’s formula works better because the effective electron mass is nearly $`𝐑`$-independent \[for $`Al`$, $`\delta (2.5/\sqrt{\nu })\mu m`$, with $`\nu `$ given in $`\mathrm{GHz}`$\]. However, for $`r=10\mu m`$, the difference between the formulae becomes even larger (Fig.1b). This is because Eq. (15) of  does not properly take into account the skin effect (which increases with $`r`$). In particular, for $`\delta /r1`$, Eq. (15) predicts that $`\kappa =(\delta /r)^2/|\mathrm{ln}(a/r)(1\omega ^2/\omega _p^2)|`$, whereas for strong skin effect the dependence must be $`\delta /r`$ ; this is the case for Eq. (3) giving $`\kappa (\delta /r)/|(1\omega ^2/\omega _p^2)|`$ (for $`|\omega \omega _p|\omega _p`$). We also note that Eq. (3) gives for the “plasma” frequency $`\omega _p^2=4c^2\pi /(a^2\epsilon _d)`$, which differs from the $`\omega _p`$ from Eq. (14) of  by a factor of $`2\mathrm{ln}(a/r)/(\epsilon _d)`$ \[$`\omega _p`$ is defined through $`\epsilon _e^{}(\omega _p)=0`$ for $`\epsilon _e^{\prime \prime }0`$\]. The difference in $`\epsilon _e`$ given by Pendry’s formula and Eq. 3 decreases with increasing $`\delta /r`$. However, for $`r`$ significantly smaller than $`\delta `$ (small skin effect), $`\epsilon _e`$ is almost purely imaginary, so that the low-$`\omega `$ plasmons cannot be excited because of large losses; also, the vector potential inside the wires, in this case, has a non-negligible dependence on $`𝐑`$ so that the effective mass of the electron has questionable meaning. In general, for potential applications of metal mesostructures it is crucial to have small losses, which is possible only when the skin effect is large; in this case, we believe, formula (1) should be used.


text:
# IFT-2001/5hep-ph/0103223 updated version The new (𝑔-2)_𝜇 measurement and limits on the light Higgs bosons in 2HDM (II)

## I Introduction

The precision measurement of $`g2`$ for the muon is expected to shed light on ”new physics”. The new E821 result based on 1999 data Brown:2001mg  leads to a current mean of experimental results for $`(g2)_\mu `$ (from Brown:2001mg )

$$a_\mu ^{exp}\frac{(g2)_\mu ^{exp}}{2}=11659203(15)10^{10},$$

where the accuracy of this result (in parentheses) approaches the size of electro-weak contribution, $`a_\mu ^{EW}`$. The ultimate accuracy of the E821 experiment is 4 $`10^{10}`$.

The QED and EW contributions to $`a_\mu ^{SM}`$ are well under control. The predictions for the hadronic contribution $`a_\mu ^{had}`$, which is more than forty times larger than $`a_\mu ^{EW}`$, differ considerably among themselves both for the central value and its uncertainty. This uncertainty is presently of order $`(710)10^{10}`$, with the dominant error coming from the $`\alpha ^2`$ vacuum polarization contribution. Useful discussion of various estimations of $`a_\mu ^{had}`$ can be found in Czarnecki:2001pv , see also more recent papers Yndurain:2001qw ; Marciano:2001qq ; nar2001 ; jeg2001 ; mel ; DeTroconiz:2001wt ; Prades:2001zv .

The difference between the experimental data, $`a_\mu ^{exp}`$, and the Standard Model (SM) prediction \[2-47\], $`a_\mu ^{SM}`$, defines the room for ”new physics”. Obviously the uncertainties of the hadronic contributions influence the estimation of a size of new effects. To illustrate the present situation we calculate 95% CL intervals ($`lim(95\%)`$) for an allowed new contribution, $`\delta a_\mu `$, using two representative SM predictions Czarnecki:2001pv : one based on calculation of $`a_\mu ^{had}`$ with the $`\alpha ^2`$ vacuum polarization estimation by Davier and Höcker Davier:1998si ; davier  and the other by Jegerlehner Eidelman:1995ny ; jeg2000 . We derive also intervals which may be relevant for models leading to a positive contribution only (lim$`{}_{+}{}^{}(95\%)`$).

The obtained intervals we apply to constrain the parameters of the CP conserving 2HDM (’Model II’) hunter ; Ginzburg:2001ss . This model is based on the two doublets of complex scalar fields, and predicts existence of five Higgs particles: two neutral Higgs scalars $`h`$ and $`H`$, one neutral pseudoscalar $`A`$, and a pair of charged Higgses $`H^\pm `$. In MSSM, which has a Model II Higgs sector, the mass limits (95%CL) from LEP experiments are, e.g. for a maximal Mh scan: $`M_h(M_A)`$ greater than 90.0 (91.9) GeV and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta <0.5`$ or $`\mathrm{tan}\beta >2.4`$ MSSM . The present 95 % CL limit on the SM Higgs mass is: $`M_h>114.1`$ GeV MSSM . The SM Higgs particle with mass around 115 GeV (corresponding to a maximum likelihood ratio from LEP data MSSM ) contributes to the $`a_\mu ^{SM}`$ at the level of 10-11 (two-loop result Czarnecki:1996sz ).

In the non-supersymmetric 2HDM (II), which we study here, one light neutral Higgs boson $`h`$ or $`A`$ with mass below 50 GeV is still allowed by data \[50-77\], see e.g. the LEP results from Higgs-strahlung and $`hA`$ pair production Abbiendi:2001ug ; abreu , from the Yukawa processes $`Zf\overline{f}h(A)`$ with $`f=\tau \mathrm{or}b`$ bib-Ayuk ; bib-Dyuk  and the process $`Zh(A)\gamma `$ Krawczyk:1999kk , see also OPAL-new ; Yu . The dedicated fit to the EW precision LEP data performed within this model, even with masses of $`h`$ or $`A`$ below 20 GeV, is equally good as the corresponding fit in the SM or MSSM Chankowski:1999ta . Unfortunately a potential of the HERA collider, discussed in Bawa:1995fp ; Krawczyk:1996ed , has never been explored to put limits on very light Higgs bosons of the 2HDM (II). Future Linear Collider experiments are not expected either to close a light Higgs window in the 2HDM (II) Choudhury:1997vc , even these planned to run with a very high luminosity, once more at the Z-peak (GigaZ) Krawczyk:2001kf . On the other hand one should keep in mind that some theoretical arguments disfavor the Higgs scalar $`h`$ with mass below 90 GeV in 2HDM(II) Kanemura:1999xf .

A light Higgs ’could conceivable evade discovery at LEP and yet show up in a analysis of a low energy data’ as $`(g2)_\mu `$, as it was pointed out in paper Carlson:1988dp . We have used previous experimental data and the SM prediction(s) to constrain 2HDM (II) in Krawczyk:1997sm . That one-loop analysis led to a very small improvement in comparison to LEP limits. It was expected that with increasing precision the $`(g2)_\mu `$ measurements would lead to more stringent constraints. As we have pointed out in Krawczyk:1997sm , the sign of the one-loop 2HDM (II) contributions to $`a_\mu `$ is correlated with the type of the lightest particle: $`h,A`$ or $`H^\pm `$. We have described the condition which would lead to the exclusion at 95 % CL of a light $`h`$ or $`A`$. This condition is presently fulfilled for a pseudoscalar if the DH result for $`a_\mu ^{had}`$ is used in the one-loop approach, see alsoDedes:2001nx ; Larios:2001ma . However, as it was pointed out in Chang:2001ii ; Cheung:2001hz , the two-loop calculation leads to very different results.

In this study we constrain 2HDM (II) by the new data Brown:2001mg  using the two-loop calculation. We apply two different hadronic contributions $`a_\mu ^{had}`$ as mentioned above (DH=case A and J2000=case B) and two types of 95% CL intervals ($`lim`$ and $`lim_+`$). Obtained constraints we combine with constraints from other processes.

The one-loop analysis of the 2HDM(II) with results which partly overlap with results of this paper can be found in Dedes:2001nx , see also Larios:2001ma . The two-loop analysis, which we follow here, is given in Chang:2001ii ; Cheung:2001hz . Related study can be found in Wu:2001vq . Studies of $`g2`$ for muon within the context of supersymmetric models were performed earlier MSSM-old1 ; MSSM-old2 , many new analyses have appeared recently MSSM-new ; Chen:2001kn ; Arhrib:2001xx ; fl-MSSM . Dark matter problem in supersymmetric models is discussed in dark . Relations to neutrino masses and mixing are studied within supersymmetric and non-supersymmetric models in neutrino . Other new analyses made recently are newn , analyses based on the general 2HDM (Model III) are presented in modelIII ; Wu:2001vq . Analyses of some aspects of cosmic rays can be found in cosmic . Relations between the electric and magnetic dipole moments are studied in edm . An model-independent analysis was done in Einhorn:2001mf .

In Sec.II we discuss the new $`(g2)_\mu `$ data and derive limits for a new contribution which can be used in any model beyond the SM. In Sec. III we apply the obtained limits to 2HDM (II) and derive constraints on the parameters of the model. Next we combine these constraints with other experimental information. We study separately the one-loop and two-loop results. Sec. IV contains conclusions.

## II New g-2 data for the muon

### II.1 New $`(g2)_\mu `$ results

The current world average experimental data on $`(g2)`$ for muon averaged over the sign of the muon electric charge is given by ( from Czarnecki:2001pv ):

$$a_\mu ^{exp}=11659202310^{11},\mathrm{with}\sigma _{exp}=15110^{11}.$$

The Standard Model prediction for this quantity consists of the QED, hadronic and EW contributions:

$$a_\mu ^{SM}=a_\mu ^{QED}+a_\mu ^{had}+a_\mu ^{EW}.$$

The QED results can be found in qed ; ki . Hadronic contributions were obtained in: the leading vacuum polarization term (v.p.1) nar-old ; Barkov:1985ac ; Kinoshita:1985it ; km ; mar ; re ; Eidelman:1995ny ; jeg2000 ; Alemany:1998tn ; Davier:1998si ; davier ; Adel:1995bf ; wort ; nar2001 ; jeg2001 ; DeTroconiz:2001wt  and Erler:2001nx ; Cirigliano:2001er , the higher order vacuum polarization term (v.p.2) nar-old ; Kinoshita:1985it ; Krause:1997rf ; Alemany:1998tn , the light-on-light term (lbl) re ; hayakawa ; ll ; Hayakawa:1998rq ; nar2001 ; DeTroconiz:2001wt ; Prades:2001zv ; lbl-new . The EW results are given in EW-old ; hhh ; lu ; Marciano:1988vm ; Marciano:1992pr ; Kukhto:1992qv ; Czarnecki:1995wq ; Czarnecki:1996sz ; Peris:1995bb ; Degrassi:1998es . A useful compilation of recent results is given in Czarnecki:2001pv , see also mohr ; Studenikin:1999dw .

The error of the hadronic contribution dominates the total error of the SM predictions. Moreover the hadronic contributions calculated by various authors as discussed in Czarnecki:2001pv ; Yndurain:2001qw ; Marciano:2001qq ; nar2001 ; jeg2001 ; mel ; DeTroconiz:2001wt ; Prades:2001zv  differ strongly leading to distinct estimations of a size of the SM contribution and therefore also of the ’beyond SM’ effect. All of these estimations can be divided into two classes, depending on whether the SM prediction for $`(g2)_\mu `$ is or is not in agreement with the data. We think that it is sensible to study separately consequences of these two classes of the SM predictions. It allows to illustrate the present sensitivity to $`a_\mu ^{had}`$, (see Krawczyk:1997sm  for previous results based on a similar approach,) moreover it may serve as a guide for the future results, which obviously will belong to one of these two classes.

In the analysis we consider two representative cases: case A based on Davier and Höcker calculation of the leading vacuum polarization diagram (v.p.1) Davier:1998si ; davier  and case B based on the corresponding Jegerlehner calculation Eidelman:1995ny ; jeg2000 , with a smaller and larger hadronic contribution (and its uncertainty), respectively. In the DH analysis the $`e^+e^{}`$ and $`\tau `$-decay data are used, while J2000 uses only the $`e^+e^{}`$ data. The higher order hadronic (v.p.2) contribution and the light-on-light contribution are taken from Krause:1997rf ; Kinoshita:1985it  and ll ; Hayakawa:1998rq , respectively. In the table below we collect, following Czarnecki:2001pv , the corresponding SM contributions (and their uncertainties).

$$\begin{array}{ccc}case\hfill & \hfill \mathrm{A}[\mathrm{in}10^{11}]& \hfill \mathrm{B}[\mathrm{in}10^{11}]\\ & & \\ \mathrm{QED}\hfill & \hfill 116584706(3)& \hfill 116584706(3)\\ \mathrm{had}\hfill & \hfill 6739(67)& \hfill 6803(114)\\ \mathrm{EW}\hfill & \hfill 152(4)& \hfill 152(4)\\ & & \\ \mathrm{tot}\hfill & \hfill 116591597(67)& \hfill 116591661(114)\end{array}$$

The difference between two predictions of the SM, case A and case B, is 64 $``$ 10-11, with the corresponding difference in accuracies equal to 47 $``$ 10-11. It is worthwhile to compare these numbers to the ultimate accuracy of the E821 experiment 40 $``$ 10-11.

Results based on other estimations of the hadronic contribution, can be easily obtained from results for considered cases, see discussion below.

### II.2 The room for new physics

Here we present results of calculation of the difference between the experimental and theoretical SM results for $`(g2)_\mu `$, which can be used for any model going beyond the SM. First we derive $`\mathrm{\Delta }a_\mu `$, equal to the difference of the central values, $`a_\mu ^{exp}a_\mu ^{SM}\mathrm{\Delta }a_\mu `$, and the error $`\sigma `$ for this quantity. Knowing $`\mathrm{\Delta }a_\mu `$ and $`\sigma `$ one can calculate an allowed, at chosen confidence level (CL), interval of an additional contribution. For the purpose of this study it is enough to obtain $`\sigma `$ by adding in quadrature the corresponding experimental and theoretical errors ($`\sigma _{exp}`$ and $`\sigma _{tot}`$) and to assume a Gaussian distribution. Under these assumptions we calculate in both cases, A and B, the $`\delta a_\mu `$ regions, symmetric around $`\mathrm{\Delta }a_\mu `$, allowed at 95% CL.

$$\begin{array}{ccc}case\hfill & \hfill \mathrm{A}[\mathrm{in}10^{11}]& \hfill \mathrm{B}[\mathrm{in}10^{11}]\\ & & \\ \mathrm{\Delta }a_\mu (\sigma )\hfill & \hfill 426(165)& \hfill 362(189)\\ & & \\ lim(95\%)\hfill & \hfill 102\delta a_\mu 750& \hfill 8.65\delta a_\mu 733\\ & & \\ \mathrm{positive}\delta a_\mu \hfill & \hfill 99.5\%& \hfill 97.2\%\\ & & \\ lim_+(95\%)\hfill & \hfill 109\delta a_\mu 744& \hfill 28.5\delta a_\mu 696\end{array}$$

In the standard approach one obtains intervals called lim(95%), see the above table for results. We see that although at the one sigma level, i.e. for the interval $`\mathrm{\Delta }a_\mu \pm \sigma `$, the allowed additional contribution to $`a_\mu `$ in cases A and B are of a positive sign only, at the 2 $`\sigma `$ level or 95 %CL the more conservative estimation of the hadronic contribution to $`a_\mu ^{SM}`$ (case B) makes the negative $`\delta a_\mu `$ possible. The SM prediction lies within the 95% CL interval for case B, while for case A it is outside the corresponding interval.

This difference leads to different forms of the limits for a new contribution. The 95 %CL interval leads in case A to an allowed positive contribution (an allowed band) and at the same time to the exclusion of the negative contribution (at the higher CL level, see below). For the case B, the positive (negative) contribution is only bounded from above (below) (upper limits for the absolute value of the new contribution). That means that presently the accuracy of the theoretical predictions for the hadronic contribution (both $`a_\mu ^{had}`$ and $`\sigma _{had}`$ matter !) influences in qualitative way the constraints on the new physics 111In our analysis from 1996 Krawczyk:1997sm  the corresponding differences between the case A and B had only a quantitative character..

Now we discuss consequences of the present $`(g2)_\mu `$ data for models which can give contribution of only one sign. We see (the table above) that for both A and B cases a negative $`\delta a_\mu `$ contribution is very unlikely: a positive (negative) contribution corresponds to 99.5 (0.5) % CL for A, while for case B to 97.2 (2.8) % CL. At this level models leading to only negative $`\delta a_\mu `$ can be excluded or saying differently, within models which give a definite sign contribution to $`a_\mu `$ only these which give a positive $`\delta a_\mu `$ can be realized at 95% (or higher) CL.

To obtain the allowed range of parameters of such a model we calculate the corresponding 95% CL intervals normalized to the positive contributions only data . Results for these intervals, called $`lim_+(95\%)`$, are presented in the last row of the table above 222We found it difficult to apply the $`lim_{}(95\%)`$ method to the negative contribution, which is outside (or almost outside in case B) the 95% region around $`\mathrm{\Delta }a_\mu `$.. Of course, these two types of 95 % CL intervals, lim or lim+, will lead to very similar constraints of parameters of the model for case A, since they will be obtained from only slightly different, due to the 0.5% change in normalization, allowed $`\delta a_\mu `$. However, significantly different constraints will arise for case B. Instead of upper limits obtained in the lim(95%) approach, in the lim$`{}_{+}{}^{}(95\%)`$ method an allowed band for a positive contribution is obtained.

We observe that the maximal positive $`\delta a_\mu `$ values differ less than 10 % for all discussed cases (696 to 750 in 10-11). The minimal positive $`\delta a_\mu `$ obtained using $`lim_+(95\%)`$ method differ by a factor 3 in cases A and B, 109 and 28.5 in 10-11, respectively.

Other recent estimations of the hadronic contributions lead to the following $`\mathrm{\Delta }a_\mu (\sigma )`$ and intervals $`\delta a_\mu `$ in \[10-11\]:

$$\begin{array}{cccc}Reference\hfill & & \mathrm{\Delta }a_\mu (\sigma )& lim(95\%)\\ & & & \\ \mathrm{Jegerlehner}[6]\hfill & \mathrm{J2001}\hfill & 376(186)& 12\delta a_\mu 740\\ \mathrm{Narison}[5]\hfill & \mathrm{N}\hfill & 375(170)& 41.8\delta a_\mu 708\\ \mathrm{Melnikov}[7]\hfill & \mathrm{M}\hfill & 377(216)& 47.2\delta a_\mu 801\\ & & & \\ \mathrm{DeTroconiz}\hfill & & & \\ \mathrm{Yndurain}[8]\hfill & \mathrm{TY1}\hfill & 363(184)& 2.52\delta a_\mu 723\\ & \mathrm{TY2}\hfill & 338(171)& 3.08\delta a_\mu 673\\ \mathrm{Prades}[9]\hfill & \mathrm{P}\hfill & 403(169)& 71.8\delta a_\mu 734\end{array}$$

Note similarities in the obtained $`\mathrm{\Delta }a_\mu `$ values and at the same time large differences in estimated uncertainties $`\sigma `$ for the first three analyses 333for the M analysis we added errors in quadrature. The first two analyses are similar to case A, while the third one has properties of the case B. The maximal $`\delta a_\mu `$ differ from the corresponding numbers for cases A and B within 10% , the minimal $`\delta a_\mu `$ differ much more.

The results of the newer analyses also are presented in the above table. The TY1 analysis which corresponds to a (v.p.1) calculation based on the (new) $`e^+e^{}`$ data, and TY2 where both the $`e^+e^{}`$ and $`\tau `$ decay data are included DeTroconiz:2001wt , the P results are based on the weighted average (for v.p.1) of the averaged estimation of (J2001 and TY1) and (DH and TY2) Prades:2001zv . Note that all these estimations of $`a_\mu ^{had}`$ are based on a Chiral Model for the light-by-light contribution ll ; Hayakawa:1998rq . The Quark Model gives very different results. The corresponding limits were derived in DeTroconiz:2001wt : the estimations TY3 and TY4 (analogous to TY1 and TY2, $`i.e.`$ without and with $`\tau `$ decay data) leading to -177 $`\delta a_\mu `$ 547 and -177$`\delta a_\mu `$ 497 in \[10-11\], respectively.

In the following analysis we will apply intervals obtained for case A and B, a simple rescaling allows to translate the final constraints to results relevant for any other present or future estimations of $`\delta a_\mu `$.

## III Constraining the 2HDM (II)

### III.1 A model

In the non-supersymmetric CP conserving 2HDM the Higgs sector contains the two neutral scalars, $`h`$ and $`H`$, pseudoscalar $`A`$ and charged Higgs bosons $`H^\pm `$. Beside their masses, three parameters: $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, which is the ratio of the vacuum expectation values of the Higgs doublets $`v_2/v_1`$, the mixing angle in the neutral Higgs sector $`\alpha `$, and in addition one more parameter, e.g. the Higgs self-coupling $`g_{hH^+H^{}}`$, specify the model.

In the Model (II) implementation of the 2HDM, one doublet of fundamental scalar fields couples to the $`u`$-type quarks, the other to the $`d`$-type quarks and charged leptons (this way FCNC processes are avoided at the tree level) hunter . The ratios, relative to the SM values, of the direct coupling constants of the Higgs boson $`h`$ or $`H`$ to the massive gauge bosons $`V=W`$ or $`Z`$, and to fermions ( i.e. Yukawa couplings) can be determined via angles $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ hunter ; Ginzburg:2001ss . For $`\chi _i^hg_i^h/(g_i^h)_{SM}`$ (and similarly for $`H`$) we have, in form suitable for discussion simultaneously of $`h`$ and $`H`$:

$`\chi _V^h=\mathrm{sin}(\beta \alpha ),`$ $`\chi _V^H=\mathrm{cos}(\beta \alpha ),`$ (1)
$`\chi _u^h=\chi _V^h+\mathrm{cot}\beta \chi _V^H,`$ $`\chi _u^H=\chi _V^H\mathrm{cot}\beta \chi _V^h,`$ (2)
$`\chi _d^h=\chi _V^h\mathrm{tan}\beta \chi _V^H,`$ $`\chi _d^H=\chi _V^H+\mathrm{tan}\beta \chi _V^h,`$ (3)
with $`(\chi _V^h)^2+(\chi _V^H)^2=1`$Ginzburg:2001ss . A very useful pattern relation among these couplings holds for both $`h`$ and $`H`$ Ginzburg:2001ss :

$$(\chi _u+\chi _d)\chi _V=1+\chi _u\chi _d.$$
(4)
For $`\chi _V^h=1`$ all couplings of $`h`$ have the SM values, couplings of $`H`$ to gauge bosons are equal to zero while couplings of $`H`$ to fermions may differ considerably from the SM values, for small or large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ 444even for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =1`$ they may differ by sign from the SM value, 555The perturbativity arguments constrain the $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ range between $``$ 0.2 and 200-300 limit .. For $`\chi _V^H=1`$ the $`H`$ is SM-like while $`h`$ has different properties (1-3), $`e.g.`$ $`\chi _d^h`$ can be very large for large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. From (2) and (3) or (4) it follows that for $`\chi _V=0`$ one obtains $`\chi _u\chi _d=1`$.

For the pseudoscalar there is no coupling to $`W/Z`$. The Yukawa couplings to fermions $`\chi _d^A(\chi _u^A)`$ contain $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ ($`\mathrm{cot}\beta `$) factor. The $`\chi _d^A`$ is large (small) for large (small) $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ value, respectively, with the opposite pattern for $`\chi _u^A`$.

In this analysis the Yukawa coupling $`\chi _d`$, relevant for a Higgs boson coupling to a muon, plays a basic role. It is equal to $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ for a pseudoscalar and $`H^+`$ and, if in addition $`\chi _V=\mathrm{sin}(\beta \alpha )`$=0, also for a scalar (more precisely $`\chi _d^h=\pm \mathrm{tan}\beta `$).

At the two-loop level there appears a possibility of having a charged Higgs boson in a loop (see below). A coupling of $`H^+`$ to a scalar $`h`$ has a form:

$$\chi _{H^+}^h=(1\frac{M_h^2}{2M_{H^+}^2})\chi _V^h+\frac{M_h^2\mu ^2}{2M_{H^+}^2}(\chi _d^h+\chi _u^h),$$
(5)
with the normalization as for an elementary charged scalar particle in the SM. For $`\chi _V^h=0`$ one gets

$$\chi _{H^+}^h=\frac{M_h^2\mu ^2}{2M_{H^+}^2}(\chi _d^h+\chi _u^h)=\frac{M_h^2\mu ^2}{2M_{H^+}^2}\chi _d^h(1(\frac{1}{\chi _d^h})^2).$$
(6)
### III.2 Existing constraints

Main constraints of the parameters of the 2HDM (II) come from LEP experiments, see also a discussion in where . From the $`ZZh`$ process upper limits on $`\mathrm{sin}^2(\beta \alpha )`$ were derived Abbiendi:2001ug ; abreu ; bib-sine2LEP . From the tightest limits bib-sine2LEP  it follows that $`\mathrm{sin}^2(\beta \alpha )`$ should be smaller than 0.1 for the $`0\stackrel{<}{}M_h\stackrel{<}{}`$ 50 GeV, and even below 0.01 for a lighter scalar. The data for the cross section for the pair ($`h,A`$) production, proportional to $`\mathrm{cos}^2(\beta \alpha )`$, when combined with the $`ZZh`$ data leads to an exclusion of a small mass region in the ($`M_h,M_A`$) planeAbbiendi:2001ug ; abreu . According to these data the 2HDM (II) may accommodate a very light ($`\stackrel{<}{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}45}\mathrm{GeV}`$) neutral scalar $`h`$, with small $`\mathrm{sin}(\beta \alpha )`$, or a very light pseudoscalar $`A`$ as long as: $`M_h+M_A\stackrel{>}{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}50}`$ Abbiendi:2001ug ; abreu , see also the newest results OPAL-new .

A neutral Higgs particle at LEP I has also been searched for in the Yukawa process, $`e^+e^{}f\overline{f}h(A)`$, where $`f`$ means here b quark or $`\tau `$ lepton. For a light scalar this is an additional, and if $`\beta =\alpha `$, the most important source of information. A (still preliminary) ALEPH analysis of the Yukawa process for a pseudoscalar bib-Ayuk  led to the exclusion at 95% CL for the ($`\mathrm{tan}\beta ,M_A`$) plane, allowing for a large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, above 20, for mass larger than 2 GeV. Similar analysis was performed by DELPHI for the $`b`$ quark-couplings to a scalar $`h`$ and pseudoscalar $`A`$. New measurements of Yukawa process at LEP by OPAL and DELPHI groups Yu , improve slightly these results, see discussion in Sec. IV.

A measurements of $`Zh(A)\gamma `$ performed by all experimental groups at LEP I was used to obtain upper limits (however weaker than from the Yukawa processes) and lower limits on the Yukawa couplings $`\chi _d`$ Krawczyk:1999kk . Still large part of the parameter space remains unconstrained.

Also the dedicated global fit to the EW precision data in the 2HDM (II) framework allows for an existence of very light scalar or pseudoscalar Chankowski:1999ta , for a partly constrained the heavy Higgs boson sector, including the $`H`$ and $`H^\pm `$ bosons. Note that the lower mass limit of $`H^\pm `$ estimated from the direct search at LEP is 78.6 GeV MSSM . The $`bs\gamma `$ data interpreted in the 2HDM (II) give, according to the newest results bib-bsg , $`M_{H^\pm }>320`$ GeV or even higher misiak2001 . One of the important message from the global fit based on the EW precision data Chankowski:1999ta  is that for a light $`h`$ and large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, and for mass of $`M_H`$ below 1 TeV, an upper limit for $`M_{H^\pm }`$ can be derived. In order to agree with the above lower mass limit based on $`bs\gamma `$ data, $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ should be smaller than 22 (28) for a light $`h`$ with mass 10(20) GeV. For the upper mass of $`H`$ equal to 5 TeV, these maximal value of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ increases by $`3`$.

In light of the above results one can conclude that there is still a possibility of the existence of one light neutral Higgs particle $`h`$ or $`A`$ with mass even below $``$ 40–50 GeV. Since for a very light $`h`$ the limit $`\mathrm{sin}^2(\beta \alpha )1`$ should hold, the second scalar, $`H`$, is expected to mimic the SM Higgs boson couplings, as discussed in Sec.III A. Therefore it is reasonable to expect that its mass is equal to $``$ 115 GeV (or slightly higher).

Other low energy measurements do not contradict such scenarios. The $`\eta `$ decay data pich  exclude only a very light $`h`$, with mass below 280 MeV. The Wilczek process, $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}h(A)\gamma `$ Wilczek:1977zn  666also a decay $`J/\psi h(A)\gamma `$ wil , has been measured by few groups wil ; keh ; narain ; lee . Unfortunately the corresponding predictions have large theoretical uncertainties both due to the QCD and relativistic corrections, see hunter ; wil-cor . In addition, in some experimental analyses the production of the Higgs boson was treated according to the general 2HDM while for a decay of such Higgs boson the SM rates were assumed, e.g. narain . All of these measurements of the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ decays give only upper limits for a coupling of the Higgs boson to $`b`$ quark. Although for mass below 10 GeV these limits seem to be stronger than others mentioned above, large uncertainties of various sources make difficult to use these limits on a similar footing as the LEP ones. In the present analysis on $`g2`$ data , in which as we will see below also lower limits for the Yukawa coupling appear, the data for the Wilczek process, even with large uncertainties, will play an important role in closing low mass (below 10 GeV) part of a parameter space for 2HDM (II). In this analysis we apply three different constraints from the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}h(A)\gamma `$ process, from keh  (denoted in figures as K), narain  (N) and lee  (L).

Unfortunately there are no limits from the HERA collider on very light Higgs bosons Bawa:1995fp ; Krawczyk:1996ed . There are important upper limits for the Yukawa couplings $`\chi _d`$ for $`h`$ and $`A`$ from the TEVATRON data in the large mass region. They were obtained originally for the Higgs bosons in MSSM TEV : for mass say 70 (120) GeV $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ should be above 34 (60) TEV . These limits, rescaled by a factor $`\sqrt{2}`$, should hold also for $`h`$ and $`A`$ in context of the 2HDM (II).

In Fig. 1 we present the existing 95% CL limits for a Yukawa coupling $`\chi _d`$ for $`h`$ (solid line) and $`A`$ (dashed line) in the 2HDM (II). Upper limits are from the Yukawa process (data from ALEPH bib-Ayuk  for $`A`$ and DELPHI bib-Dyuk  for $`h`$ and $`A`$). Lower limits from the $`Zh(A)\gamma `$ processes Krawczyk:1999kk  measured at LEP are also shown. In addition the upper 90% CL constraints from the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ decay from keh  (K) are shown, rescaled by a factor 2 to take into account the preference of the Higgs boson to decay into tau leptons (It occurs in 2HDM (II) for the considered mass range, for $`\chi _d`$ bigger than 2.). The TEVATRON limits TEV  (with a factor $`\sqrt{2}`$) are displayed as well.

The one-loop analysis based on the previous $`g2`$ for the muon results Krawczyk:1997sm  led to a slight improvement of the upper limits of $`\chi _d`$ as compared to the Yukawa processes, for $`M_{h(A)}`$ 2 GeV (not shown). The new data improve constraints of the 2HDM(II) considerably, what will be shown below.

### III.3 2HDM(II) contribution to $`a_\mu `$

In the 2HDM (II) neutral scalars $`h`$ and $`H`$, pseudoscalar $`A`$, as well the charged Higgs boson $`H^\pm `$ can contribute to $`a_\mu `$. There exist relevant calculations at the one-loop level hhh ; lu ; haber  and the two-loop level Chang:2001ii ; Cheung:2001hz ; Arhrib:2001xx ; hhhc , see also earlier papers BW ; Barr:1990vd . In contrast to the one-loop approach where each Higgs boson exchange is given by a separate diagram (Fig. 2), various Higgs particles may appear in the same two-loop diagram, see Fig. 5(right).

We assume that the lightest Higgs boson, $`h`$ or $`A`$, dominates the full 2HDM (II) contribution, $`i.e.`$ $`a_\mu ^{2HDM}a_\mu ^h`$, or $`a_\mu ^A`$ (a simple approach, see also Krawczyk:1997sm ). This approach should hold for masses below 50 GeV, as discussed in Sec. III.B. For higher masses, which also are considered here, this should be treated as an assumption of a large gap between Higgs bosons masses. Since the charged Higgs boson mass should be bigger than 320 GeV misiak2001 , we do not consider $`H^+`$ to be a lightest particle of the model.

We calculate separately the one-loop and two-loop contributions to both $`a_\mu ^h`$ and $`a_\mu ^A`$. This way the importance of the two-loop diagrams can be seen, moreover our results can be easily compared with other one-loop calculation , $`e.g.`$ Dedes:2001nx . For a pseudoscalar $`A`$ the two-loop contributions are due to diagrams with fermion loops only. For a scalar the fermionic, $`W`$ and a charged Higgs boson loops can contribute. However, the $`W`$ and charged Higgs boson contributions are expected to be strongly suppressed for a small mass of $`h`$, where, according to the LEP data, the coupling $`\chi _V^h`$ should be small (see discussion in Sec. III.B). For a simplicity in calculating of the two-loop contribution for $`h`$ we explicitly assume for a whole mass range $`\chi _V^h=\mathrm{sin}(\beta \alpha )`$=0, what means a domination of the fermionic loops in $`a_\mu ^h`$. The more extensive consideration will be given elsewhere chkz .

For one- and two-loop approach we derive constraints on Yukawa coupling for $`h`$ and $`A`$ obtained from the estimated $`\delta a_\mu `$ intervals (Sec. II.B), by taking $`a_\mu ^{2HDM}=\delta a_\mu `$.

#### III.3.1 One-loop calculation

The set of the relevant diagrams is presented in Fig. 2.

##### Individual contributions.

The relevant one-loop formulae from the Appendix of paper Krawczyk:1997sm , based on results hhh ; haber ; lu , are given by ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }=h,A\mathrm{or}H^\pm `$)

$$a_\mu ^\mathrm{\Lambda }|_{oneloop}=\frac{f_\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{8\pi ^2}L_\mathrm{\Lambda },f_\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{gm_\mu }{2M_W}\chi _d^\mathrm{\Lambda }.$$

If $`\beta =\alpha `$, the coupling $`\chi _d^\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is universal for $`h,A`$ and $`H^\pm `$, and it is equal to $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ (see sec. III. A).

The integral $`L_{h(A)}`$ for the neutral Higgs boson contribution is given by (with $`z=(m_\mu /M_\mathrm{\Lambda })^2`$):

$$L_{h(A)}(z)=z_0^1𝑑x\frac{Q_{h(A)}(x)}{x^2z+(1x)}.$$

with:$`Q_h(x)=x^2(2x),Q_A(x)=x^3.`$ The charged Higgs particle exchange is described by:

$$_\pm (z)=z_0^1𝑑x\frac{x(1x)}{(x1)z+1}.$$

The scalar contribution $`a_\mu ^h`$ 777For a larger mass it also can be used to represent $`H`$. Note, that the SM Higgs boson contribution (with mass $``$ 150 GeV) is included in the (two-loop) prediction for $`a_\mu ^{SM}`$ .  is positive whereas the pseudoscalar and the charged Higgs boson give negative contributions. Each one-loop contribution $`a_\mu ^\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ disappears in the limit of large mass like $`m_\mu ^2/M_\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\mathrm{ln}(M_\mathrm{\Lambda }^2/m_\mu ^2)`$, see also Carlson:1988dp ; Dedes:2001nx . At small mass each contribution reaches its maximum (or minimum if negative) value.

The individual (absolute value of) contributions, with couplings as in the SM, i.e. with $`\chi _d^\mathrm{\Lambda }=1`$ , are shown in Fig.3. For mass above 0.2 GeV the charged Higgs contribution is much smaller than the contributions due to neutral Higgs bosons $`h`$ and $`A`$. One observes that the $`h`$ and $`A`$ give practically the same contribution for mass larger than few GeV, only difference being in sign. In principle one should take into account a possible cancellation of these contributions, especially for masses above 50 GeV, see chkz .

##### Constraints.

First we present constraints based on the standard 95% CL intervals, lim(95%). For case B this approach leads to the upper limits on the Yukawa coupling $`\chi _d`$ for a pseudoscalar ($`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$) and for a scalar ($`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ if $`\beta =\alpha `$). Results are shown in Fig. 1 (upper) as lines denoted “$`g2`$(B):one-loop”. For case A one obtains an allowed band for the Yukawa coupling of a scalar only (only $`h`$ gives a positive contribution). It can be found in Fig. 4 (only lower edge is shown) and in Fig.6 (upper), as a region between lines denoted A/B and A. A pseudoscalar is excluded in this case.

Both for B and A case, the limits for $`\chi _d`$ rise with mass of the Higgs particle, what reflects the decrease of the corresponding $`a_\mu ^{h,A}`$ terms with increasing mass. For case A, only large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ (for $`\beta =\alpha `$) greater than 10 is allowed for mass of $`h`$ above 5 GeV, see Fig. 4.

Next we discuss results based on $`lim_+(95\%)`$ interval. For case A one obtains the allowed band for the Yukawa coupling $`\chi _d^h`$, which practically overlap with the considered above lim(95%) band, presented in Figs.4 and 6(upper). Now, also for case B instead of the upper limits an allowed band for the Yukawa coupling appears for $`h`$ (only). In Fig. 6 (upper) these two allowed bands for $`h`$ are compared: a region between lines A/B and A, and a wider region between lines A/B and B+. For both cases, A and B, one can exclude the negative contribution, as they may be realized at the level 0.5 % or 2.8%, respectively. This means an exclusion of a pseudoscalar.

#### III.3.2 Two-loop calculation

The two-loop diagrams, see Fig. 5, can give large contributions since they allow to avoid one small Yukawa coupling with muon in favor of the coupling with other, potentially heavy, particles circulating in the loop BW ; Barr:1990vd ; Chang:2001ii ; Cheung:2001hz ; Arhrib:2001xx . In addition to the mass effect, such contribution can be enhanced further by an additional factors (eqs. 1-3,5).

In principle diagrams with a $`Z`$ boson, instead of the exchanged photon, may appear. However they are expected to be small Chang:2001ii  and are neglected in this analysis.

Below we consider the diagrams with fermionic loops Fig. 5 (left), which are the only two-loop contributions for a pseudoscalar $`A`$. For $`h`$ in addition also a charged Higgs boson loop (Fig. 5 (right)) is taken into account. In calculation of the two-loop contributions we take $`\chi _V^h`$=0, as discussed above. With this condition one can neglect a $`W`$-loop contribution.

##### Individual contributions.

The contributions from diagrams with fermionic loops presented in Fig.5 (left) are given by the following formulae for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=h,A`$ Chang:2001ii ; Cheung:2001hz ; Arhrib:2001xx  888The two-loop contribution for a charged Higgs boson can be found in hhhc .:

$$a_\mu ^\mathrm{\Lambda }|_{twoloop}=\frac{f_\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{8\pi ^2}\frac{e^2}{\pi }\xi \kappa \stackrel{~}{L}_\mathrm{\Lambda }^f,f_\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{gm_\mu }{2M_W}\chi _d^\mathrm{\Lambda }.$$
(7)
The $`\kappa `$ parameter is equal to 1 for a pseudoscalar $`A`$, for a scalar $`h`$ we have

$`\kappa ={\displaystyle \frac{\chi _u^h}{\chi _d^h}}\mathrm{for}f=\mathrm{"}utypequarks\mathrm{"},`$ (8)
$`\kappa =1\mathrm{for}f=\mathrm{"}dtypequarks\mathrm{"}`$
$`\mathrm{for}f=\mathrm{"}chargedleptons\mathrm{"}.`$
The $`\xi `$ parameter is equal to 1 for leptons and to $`N_cQ_q^2`$ for a quark $`q`$ with the electric charge $`Q_qe`$, $`N_c=3`$.

The integral $`\stackrel{~}{L}_{h(A)}^f`$ for the neutral Higgs boson contribution with a fermionic loop is given by:

$$\stackrel{~}{L}_{h(A)}^f(z)=\frac{z}{2}_0^1𝑑x\frac{\stackrel{~}{Q}(x)_{h(A)}}{x(1x)z}\mathrm{ln}\frac{x(1x)}{z},$$
(9)
$$z=(\frac{m_f}{M_{h/A}})^2,$$

and $`\stackrel{~}{Q}_h(x)=(12x(1x)),\stackrel{~}{Q}_A(x)=1.`$ A diagram with the $`H^+`$ loop presented in Fig.5 (right) contributes to $`a_\mu ^h`$ with the integral $`\stackrel{~}{L}_h^{H^+}(x)`$ given by a similar expression as for fermionic loop (eq.11), with $`\stackrel{~}{Q}_h^{H^+}(x)=(x(1x))`$ Arhrib:2001xx . The corresponding coefficients for its contribution to $`a_\mu ^h`$ are: $`\xi =1`$ and $`\kappa =\chi _{H^+}^h/\chi _d^h`$.

The integrals describing two-loop contribution with a fermionic loop is negative for $`h`$, while positive for $`A`$, on contrary to the one-loop results. In Fig. 3 the (absolute value of) two-loop fermionic contributions, with $`\mu ,\tau ,b`$ loops for $`h`$ (denoted “1”, solid line) and $`A`$ (dashed line), are presented for $`\chi _d=1`$. These two-loop contributions dominate for masses above few GeV over the corresponding (absolute value of) one-loop terms for both $`h`$ and $`A`$. They have a milder than the one-loop contribution dependence on the mass of $`h`$ (or $`A`$), namely $`\mathrm{ln}(m_f^2/M_h^2)`$. From the figure one can read that the change of the sign of the sum of the one- and two-loop terms appears at mass of $`A`$ ($`h`$) equal to 3 (5) GeV.

The $`top`$ contribution dominates for $`\chi _u=1`$ in the large mass region, being of order $`110^{11}`$ (not shown). However it does not play an important role in the present analysis, since its contribution is proportional to $`\chi _d\chi _u`$ equal to -1 for the pseudoscalar $`A`$ and (if $`\chi _V^h`$=0) also for $`h`$. So, the $`top`$-loop contribution has no additional enhancement factor, and for large $`\chi _d`$ the $`d`$-type fermion loops dominate, both in $`a_\mu ^h`$ and $`a_\mu ^A`$.

The charged Higgs boson loop contribution gives, for $`\chi _V^h`$=0 and $`\kappa =\frac{M_h^2\mu ^2}{2M_{H^+}^2}>`$ 0, a negative contribution to $`a_\mu ^h`$. This contribution (absolute value of) rises with a mass of $`h`$ like $`M_h^2/M_{H^+}^2(\mathrm{ln}M_{H^+}^2/M_h^2+5/3)`$. Its effect can be seen at $`M_h`$ above 100 GeV. In Fig.3 these results for $`a_\mu ^h`$ are presented for $`\mu =0`$ (lines “2”for $`M_{H^+}=`$800 GeV and “3” (400 GeV)). It is clear that a charged Higgs boson loop with the parameters as described above leads to a small modification at large mass of $`h`$ only. More detailed discussion will be given elsewhere chkz .

##### Constraints.

A full two-loop calculation, with both one- and two-loop diagrams included, leads to results which differ significantly from the ones based on the one-loop diagrams only. The main difference is related to the fact that for masses above 5 (3) GeV, a scalar (pseudoscalar) contribution to $`a_\mu `$ has opposite sign as compared to the corresponding one-loop contribution. It means that now for each scenario, with a light $`h`$ and a light $`A`$, the contribution can be positive or negative depending on mass. It is not the case for the one-loop terms where the corresponding contributions have a fixed sign.

In the derivation of the constraints in two-loop approach we take also into account the non-leading terms, namely the $`top`$ contribution and for $`h`$ also a term $`\chi _u\chi _d`$ due to the charged Higgs boson loop (6). The results are as follows.

The case B allows in the standard approach for a negative and positive contributions to $`a_\mu `$. Therefore the upper limits for $`\chi _d`$ exist for the whole mass ranges for both $`h`$ and $`A`$. In Fig. 1 (lower ) we present the obtained limits (lines denoted “g-2(B):two-loop”) for a mass region above 5 GeV. Here the upper limit for pseudoscalar was obtained from the maximal positive $`\delta a_\mu `$ value, while for a scalar – from a maximal negative one, see the first table in Sec. II.B. This explains why a scalar is now constrained more tightly than a pseudoscalar, contrary to limits based on the one-loop calculation (Fig. 1 (upper)). For a scalar results obtained with only down-type fermions $`\mu ,\tau ,b`$ included in the two-loop calculation are represented by the line denoted “1” . Lines “2” and “3” are obtained if in addition one takes into account the charged Higgs boson-loop, as described above. Note that if one compares the two-loop constraints for a scalar to the one-loop constraints for a pseudoscalar these for a scalar are more tight for mass above few GeV, due to a weaker mass dependence of the $`a_\mu ^h|_{twoloop}`$, see Fig. 3.

The case A leads to an allowed band for a positive contribution to $`a_\mu `$, $`i.e.`$ for a scalar $`h`$ with mass below 5 GeV, and for a pseudoscalar $`A`$ with mass above 3 GeV, similar results were found in Chang:2001ii ; Cheung:2001hz . Obtained constraints are presented in Fig.6 (lower) and in Fig. 7 as the regions between lines A/B and A. In the same figures also results for case B obtained with $`lim_+(95\%)`$ are shown (regions between lines A/B and B+). It is not clear however whether this approach should be used here, as for both, a light $`A`$ and a light $`h`$, scenarios, both positive and negative contributions to $`a_\mu `$ are possible, as discussed in Sec. III. C.

### III.4 Combined 95% CL constraints of the 2HDM (II)

When the above constraints obtained from a new $`g2`$ for the muon measurement are added to the existing constraints from other processes discussed in Sec. III. B. (and also in Yu ) interesting conclusions can be reached in the 2HDM (II) for both scenarios: with a scalar $`h`$ and a pseudoscalar $`A`$ being the lightest particles in the model. We start discussion of the results based on one-loop calculation which can be compared with similar analysis Dedes:2001nx , then results of the two-loop analysis are presented.

The constraints are obtained for (absolute value of) $`\chi _d`$, which is equivalent to $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ for pseudoscalar and for scalar, provided in the latter case $`\chi _V^h`$ is equal or close to zero. Only in the calculation of the two-loop contribution we explicitly use the assumption $`\chi _V^h`$= 0. For a simplicity of the discussion we will use below the $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ to represent the Yukawa coupling $`\chi _d^h`$ for a scalar in all cases.

#### III.4.1 Allowed regions from one-loop results.

The upper limits for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ for a pseudoscalar $`A`$ which were obtained from $`g2`$ data for case B are much tighter than the limits from other experiments for mass above 10 GeV. Still a window with a light $`A`$ is open for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ below $``$ 10 (Fig. 1(upper)). For a scalar $`h`$ a weak improvement is observed only for a mass range between 60-70 GeV where $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ has to be lower than $``$ 300.

The $`(g2)_\mu `$ results for case A rule out a pseudoscalar, for a scalar they improve considerably existing limits. The obtained an allowed band in the ($`\mathrm{tan}\beta ,M_h`$) plane, is equivalent to existance of both the upper (as above) and also the lower limits for the Yukawa coupling. An allowed by all experiments region appears for a scalar $`h`$ with mass between 40 and 70 GeV at $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ above 80 (Fig. 6 (upper)). In addition a small region of mass of $`h`$ around 10 GeV and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ between 25 and 35 remains allowed (Fig. 4), see also Dedes:2001nx  where the same result was obtained. Note, however, that this small allowed area can be closed by taking into account the mentioned in Sec. III.B constraint from the global fit Chankowski:1999ta . This constraint, for the charged Higgs boson mass above 300 GeV, forbids $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ to be larger than 22 for $`M_h`$=10 GeV 999see Fig.9a from Chankowski:1999ta  101010The newest data on the Yukawa process Yu  support this finding..

At the one-loop level it is sensible to study $`lim_+(95\%)`$ intervals, since two scenarios of the 2HDM(II), with a light $`h`$ or $`A`$, give contributions of a definite sign independently on mass. Pseudoscalar, giving a negative contribution, is ruled out. An allowed $`lim_+(95\%)`$ band for case B obtained for a scalar is wider than for discussed above case A (compare the region between lines A/B and B+ with the region between A/B and A in Fig.6 (upper)). Therefore also the allowed region in the ($`\mathrm{tan}\beta ,M_h`$) plane is much larger for case B than for case A. It starts at mass 10 GeV and stops at 70 GeV with $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ between 10 and $``$ 300.

In Fig. 6 (upper) we plot also an the expected upper 95 % CL limits from process $`ggh\tau \tau `$ at the $`ep`$ collider HERA (dotted lines for lower and higher luminosity), from Bawa:1995fp ; Krawczyk:1996ed . These measurements may help to cover the low mass region for $`h`$ and $`A`$ at the intermediate Yukawa coupling $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$.

#### III.4.2 Allowed regions from two-loop results.

The two-loop diagrams give dominant contributions to $`a_\mu ^{2HDM}`$ for mass above 3 GeV (5 GeV) for a pseudoscalar (scalar) and these contributions have reversed signs relative to the one-loop results. Two-loop analysis for these regions (based on a sum of the one- and two-loop diagram contributions) leads to similar conclusions as the one-loop one, with a reversed role of a scalar and a pseudoscalar. In particular now the (standard 95% CL) upper limits obtained for case B for scalar, for $`M_h>`$ 10 GeV, are much tighter in comparison with limits from other experiments (Fig. 1 (lower)). Still a window with a light $`h`$ is open for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ below 10. For a pseudoscalar the improvement is weak , being limited to a mass region between 40-70 GeV with $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ 100.

The constraints obtained in case A in a form of allowed bands improve considerably the existing up to now limits for both scalar and pseudoscalar since in addition to the mentioned above upper limits also the lower limits appear (Fig. 6 (lower) and Fig.7). The allowed by $`(g2)_\mu `$ data bands for a scalar $`h`$ is situated now below $`M_h`$=5 GeV. This region is however excluded by the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ decay data (Fig. 6 (lower)). On the other hand a pseudoscalar with mass above 10 GeV and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ larger than 20 is still in agreement with existing data (see Fig.7). The TEVATRON data close practically the region of the mass above 70 GeV for a case A.

If for case B the $`lim_+`$ interval is applied this region of mass $`M_A`$ above 70 GeV is still open.

#### III.4.3 Discussion

As $`(g1)_\mu `$ data favor a positive additional contribution it is clear that at one-loop level the most stringent limits of the new $`g2`$ data for the muon can be driven for a pseudoscalar, the case A leads even to its exclusion.

The two-loop calculation leads to a radical change of the picture. The two-loop diagrams give the dominant contributions for mass above 3 GeV (5 GeV) for a pseudoscalar (scalar) and with a reversed sign as compared to the one-loop results. Constraints are now tighter for a scalar.

We point out a role in the present analysis of the low energy measurement of the Wilczek process $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}h/A\gamma `$ in closing the window for mass below 10 GeV for both a scalar and pseudoscalar. The TEVATRON results close a part of the large mass and large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ region. The global fit adds an important constraints for $`h`$ with mass around 10 GeV. New measurements of Yukawa process at LEP by OPAL and DELPHI Yu , which were presented recently do not change our qualitatively our conclusions, see also below.

## IV Conclusion

We described the room for a new effects as follows from the recent $`(g2)_\mu `$ measurements and from new theoretical estimations of $`a_\mu ^{SM}`$. For two SM predictions arising from different values of $`a_\mu ^{had}`$, case A (DH) and case B (J2000), we evaluate 95% CL intervals for a new contribution. They can be used to constrain parameters of any model beyond the Standard Model.We show how these constraints depend on the size of the $`a_\mu ^{had}`$ (case A and B), and on the type of limits ($`lim`$ or $`lim_+`$). The upper limits for the negative and positive contributions, obtained if the prediction B and the lim(95%) are used in the analysis, are to be contrasted with the allowed band, obtained in case A for a positive contribution only. For both A and B cases a negative $`\delta a_\mu `$ contribution is very unlikely: a positive (negative) contribution corresponds to 99.5 (0.5) % CL for A, while for case B to 97.2 (2.8) % CL. At this level models leading to only negative $`\delta a_\mu `$ can be excluded, and vice versa models which lead to the positive contribution only should be accepted as possible models. For such models the derived $`lim_+(95\%)`$ estimations differ from those based on $`lim(95\%)`$ considerably for case B.

We applied the obtained intervals to constrain parameters of the 2HDM (II) using a simple approach, where only one Higgs boson, $`h`$ or $`A`$, contributes. In the one-loop calculation a light scalar scenario leads to the positive, whereas the one with a light pseudoscalar to the negative contribution to $`a_\mu `$, independently of mass. In the two-loop analysis, based on a sum of the one- and two-loop diagram contributions, the situation changes drastically. Now the positive contribution can be ascribed to a scalar $`h`$ with mass below 5 GeV or a pseudoscalar $`A`$ with mass above 3 GeV. In both, one- and two-loop, approaches we derive tight constraints on the Yukawa couplings to muon of $`h`$ and $`A`$. When these constraints are combined with constraints arising from other experiments, especially the Wilczek process and the Yukawa processes at LEP and TEVATRON, large part of the parameter space for light $`h`$ or light $`A`$ can be excluded.

Our results obtained for the case B lead to an improved upper limits for both $`h`$ and $`A`$. For a more constraining case A our results including all other existing constraints are as follows (in parenthesis the limits obtained if the newest DELPHI data Yu  are included ):

The one-loop calculation excludes a pseudoscalar while allows for an existance of a light scalar $`h`$ with mass above 40 GeV (50 GeV) and below 70 GeV, and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ larger than 90.

The two-loop analysis allows for an existance of a pseudoscalar with mass between $``$ 10 GeV (25 GeV) and 70 GeV, and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ above 20 (30). A light scalar being excluded by combining the $`(g2)_\mu `$ and the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ decay data.

## V Acknowledgments.

I am grateful to Jan Żochowski for his collaboration at the early stage of this work, and to Piotr Zalewski for his important suggestions. I thank Marek Szczekowski, Piotr Chankowski and Stefan Pokorski for helpful discussions on this analysis and Andrzej Czarnecki and William Marciano for clarification of the newest results for $`g2`$ for muon. I am grateful to Bohdan Grzadkowski and Wai-Tee Keung for a discussion on two-loop calculation and to Fred Jegerlehner for useful information. I am indebted also to T. and P-M.Krawczyk for their help in preparation of this paper. Supported in part by the Polish Committee for Scientific Research, Grants 5 P03B 121 20 i 2 P03B 05119, and the European Commission 50th framework contract HPRN-CT-2000-00149.