text:
# Galactic bulges from Hubble Space Telescope NICMOS observations: the lack of 𝑟^{1/4} bulges Based on observations made with the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope, obtained at the Space Telescope Science Institute, which is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., under NASA contract NAS 5-26555.

## 1 Introduction

Whether galaxy mergers (e.g. Kauffmann et al. 1996) or instead disk instabilities (Pfenniger & Norman 1990) may be viewed as the dominant process of formation and growth of the central bulges in spiral and S0 galaxies depends to some extent on the shape of the surface brightness profiles of bulges. Simulations of mergers of similar-size galaxies yield spheroidal systems following the $`r^{1/4}`$ law (e.g. Barnes 1988). The accretion of dense satellites onto bulge-disk galaxies also leads to $`r^{1/4}`$ bulges (Aguerri, Balcells & Peletier 2001, herafter ABP01). In contrast, disk instabilities lead to bulges with approximately exponential profiles (Combes et al. 1990).

Over the past decade several studies have stressed that bulges of late- to intermediate-type spiral galaxies are best fit with profiles of exponential to $`r^{1/2}`$ shapes (Andredakis & Sanders 1994; de Jong 1996; Courteau, de Jong & Broeils 1996; Seigar & James 1998; Carollo, Stiavelli & Mach 1998; MacArthur et al. 2002). However, many bulge-disk decompositions are still performed using $`r^{1/4}`$ bulges only, especially at high-$`z`$, e.g. Simard et al. (2002); the $`r^{1/4}`$ law is often cited for massive or early-type bulges: Carollo and collaborators (e.g. Seigar et al. 2002 and references therein) routinely classify bulges into $`r^{1/4}`$ and exponential types. Do massive bulges follow the $`r^{1/4}`$ model? Do bulges come in two flavors, perhaps pointing at massive bulges growing by early mergers and less-massive bulges growing by disk instabilities?

Fitting bulge profiles with the Sérsic model $`\mu (r)r^{1/n}`$ provides an avenue for measuring the true shapes and concentrations of the light distribution of bulges. Various studies that include early-type bulges (Andredakis, Peletier & Balcells 1995, hereafter APB95; Khosroshahi et al. 2000; Graham 2001; Möllenhoff & Heidt 2001) find a continuous distribution of Sérsic shape indices $`n`$ that scales with bulge luminosity from $`n<1`$ to $`n>4`$. At the high-$`n`$ end, these results depend strongly on the innermost regions of the profiles. Inner disks, compact sources and star formation, present in galaxy nuclei (e.g. Phillips et al. 1996; Carollo et al. 2002; Rest et al. 2001; Pizzela et al. 2002), contribute light that cannot be disentangled from the spheroid light at ground-based resolutions (Ravindranath et al. 2001). Extra central light results in higher-$`n`$ profile fits.

Nineteen galaxies from the Balcells & Peletier (1994, BP94) sample were imaged with HST/NICMOS at F160W (Peletier et al. 1999, Paper I). We have performed bulge-disk decompositions, and analyze profiles, global parameter relations and nuclear cusp slopes in a companion paper (Balcells et al. 2002, Paper III). In this Letter, we focus on the shape indices obtained from Sérsic fits to the bulge profiles. The high resolution of the HST data allows one to disentangle nuclear disks/bars and compact sources from the extended spheroid light. Modeling these components, we study Sérsic indices for the bulge profiles and compare them to those obtained from ground-based profiles. We characterize the magnitude distribution of point sources found in the galaxy centers and discuss the relevance of low-$`n`$ profiles for bulge formation models. Preliminary results on nuclear cusps are presented in Balcells et al. (2001).

A key ingredient of the analysis of bulge profiles, overlooked in the HST-based studies of bulges cited above, is the modeling of the extended bulge and disk light distributions when fitting analytic functions to the bulge light. Here, composite profiles linking HST profiles with ground-based $`K`$-band profiles are used so that bulge-disk decompositions can be performed. We assume a Hubble constant of $`H_0=75`$ km s-1 Mpc-1.

## 2 Data

We work with a subset of the BP94 diameter-limited sample of inclined, early-to-intermediate type disk galaxies classified as unbarred in the UGC (Nilson 1973); see Paper I and references therein. None has a Seyfert or starburst nucleus. Ground-based surface brightness profiles in the $`K`$-band for the BP94 sample, derived from ellipse fits to UKIRT/IRCAM3 images, are given in Peletier & Balcells (1997), while two-dimensional bulge-disk decomposition and Sérsic fits to the $`K`$-band bulge profiles are published in APB95.

The subsample studied here comprises 19 galaxies of types S0 to Sbc that were imaged with NICMOS on HST (camera 2, 19″$`\times `$19″, 0.075 arcsec/pixel). Data reduction is described in Paper I, while details of the data analysis are given in Paper III. We derive elliptically-averaged surface brightness profiles and isophotal shapes, from 0.075″to typically 10″, using the galphot package (Jørgensen et al. 1992). We keep the centers fixed and allow the ellipticity and position angles of the isophotes to vary. Linking the HST-F160W and ground-based $`K`$ profiles is done following Paper I, with details given in Paper III.

## 3 Bulge-disk fits

The combined HST plus ground-based profiles, corrected for foreground Galactic extinction (Schlegel et al. 1998), $`(1+z)^4`$ cosmological dimming and $`K`$-correction, were fitted with a PSF-convolved Sérsic-plus-exponential model using the code from Graham (2001) modified to use a Moffat PSF (FWHM=0.19″\[NICMOS Handbook\], $`\beta `$=2.5). No internal extinction corrections were applied. A quasi-Newton algorithm (Kahaner, Moler & Nash 1989) was used to converge on the solution resulting in the smallest r.m.s. scatter, with 5 free parameters (disk $`\mu _0`$, h; bulge $`\mu _e,R_e,n`$). Each fit was individually inspected. When an obvious local minimum was found, the code was run again with new initial conditions; when the apparent global minimum was found, the code was also again run with different initial conditions to provide confirmation. The final fits for every galaxy are shown in Paper III.

Such Sérsic-exponential bulge-disk fits, covering the entire radial range down to 0.075″, tend to show strong residuals, up to 0.3 mag, over the entire bulge. A typical example is shown in Figure LABEL:Fig:ExampleProfilea. The residual profile shows a characteristic wave pattern. This is caused by a strong central light excess, as inferred from fits excluding the central 1-2 arcsec. We then run the fitting code including either an additional central delta function point source (PS); a central exponential; a point source plus an exponential; or a central Gaussian component with free FWHM to the fitting function. In all cases each component is PSF-convolved before fitting. For each galaxy we select the simplest fit, i.e. minimum number of components, for which the residual profile falls below an amplitude of 0.1 mag/(arcsec)2. Figure LABEL:Fig:ExampleProfileb shows the profile from Figure LABEL:Fig:ExampleProfilea fitted with an additional central PS, which yields an excellent fit. The total light in the inner 1-2” can also be approximated with power laws (Balcells et al. 2001; Böker et al. 2002). The Nuker model also fits the inner few arcsec of the early-type galaxy profiles well (Byun et al. 1996). However, these approaches break down further out (e.g. Lauer et al. 1995), do not allow a bulge-disk decomposition, and are not discussed further here. Our fits extend over 2.5 decades in radius, and describe both bulge and disk.

s
Fig. LABEL:Fig:ExampleProfile.— (a) The combined HST+ground-based $`H`$-band surface brightness profile of NGC 5443 (Sb), with PSF-convolved Sérsic bulge and exponential disk components (solid lines). The residuals (data minus model) are shown in the lower panel. (b) The same surface brightness profile fitted with a PSF-convolved Sérsic law, an exponential disk, plus a central point source (dashed line). Residuals are shown in the lower panel.

Of the 19 galaxies, 12 yield a satisfactory fit with the addition of a single PS, 2 with the addition of a single nuclear exponential, 4 with a PS plus an exponential, and one with a pure Sérsic bulge. The frequency of PS is thus $`84\pm 8`$%, and that of inner exponentials is $`32\pm 11`$%. Only one galaxy (NGC 5577, Sbc) does not require an unresolved source and can be fit with a simple Sérsic bulge plus exponential disk; however, the profile for this galaxy has lower S/N than the others owing to its lower surface brightness. Most galaxies with PSs yield a good fit with a Gaussian inner component instead; in those cases, the FWHM of the inner Gaussian, before PSF convolution, is generally well below the PSF FWHM, recovering the PS solution. Some galaxies with inner exponential components also admit a good fit with a marginally resolved Gaussian instead. Because these galaxies show high ellipticity and pointy isophotes in the nuclear region, we choose the PS-plus-exponential fit instead of the Gaussian inner component. Nuclear isophotes are described in Paper III.

The Sérsic index $`n_{hst}`$ for the bulges ranges from 0.5 to 3.0, with a mean of $`<`$n$`>=1.7\pm 0.7`$. The range is significantly lower than that obtained by APB95 using ground-based data alone, which reaches $`n=6`$: Figure 2b shows that $`n_{hst}`$ is systematically lower than $`n_{gb}`$, especially for galaxies with $`n_{gb}>3`$. None of our bulges reaches the de Vaucouleurs $`r^{1/4}`$ behaviour. It appears that fits to ground-based profiles reach Sérsic indices $`n4`$ because the light from HST-unresolved central sources, plus in some instances nuclear disks or bars, when convolved with typical ground-based seeing, link smoothly with the the extended bulge profile and mimic higher-$`n`$ Sérsic profiles.

Figures 2c,d plot the distribution of $`n_{hst}`$ vs. the bulge-to-disk luminosity ratio (B/D) and bulge $`K`$-band absolute magnitude, respectively. B/D are derived from the best-fit parameters. Bulge absolute magnitudes are derived from the galaxy $`K`$-band magnitude given in APB95 and our computed B/D. As noted by APB95, some of the galaxy magnitudes are probably slightly underestimated when the galaxy overfills the frame. Figures 2c,d show that log($`n_{hst}`$) correlates with log(B/D) and with the bulge absolute $`K`$-band magnitude (Spearman rank-order correlation coefficients -0.52 and -0.51, significances 97.8% and 97.4%, respectively). Thus, the correlation of Sérsic index $`n`$ with B/D and bulge luminosity found in ground-based data (APB95; Graham 2001) remains valid when fits including central PS components are used. We compare our HST-based $`n`$ distributions to those obtained by Graham (2001) using the sample of spirals of de Jong (1996) (Figure 2c,d, cross symbols). The loci occupied by the two samples are similar. A trend with morphological type T (Figure 2a) is apparent when our distribution is extended to later types by adding values from the Graham (2001) analysis.

## 4 Point source properties

We showed in §3 that, for 16 out of the 19 galaxies studied, adding a central PS improves the fit to the observed profile. Absolute $`H`$-band magnitudes for the PS are in the range $`14>M_{H,PS}>18`$. The distribution of $`M_{H,PS}`$ with morphological type T is quite flat (Figure 3a). $`M_{H,PS}`$ correlates with $`\mathrm{log}(n)`$ and with $`M_{K,Bul}`$ (Spearman rank-order correlation coefficients of -0.63 and 0.77, significances 99.6% and 99.96%, respectively), see Figures 3b,c. The line in Figure 3c is an orthogonal regression to the $`M_{H,PS}M_{K,Bul}`$ relation, which yields

$$L_{K,PS}/L_{K,}=10^{7.36}(L_{K,Bul}/10^{10}L_{K,})^{0.50\pm 0.14}.$$
(1)
using a constant color $`HK=0.23`$ for the nuclei (Persson, Frogel & Aaronson 1979).

Nuclear sources have been reported in previous studies of early-type galaxy profiles based on HST imaging. Carollo et al. (2002) detect nuclear sources in 43 of their 69 late-type galaxies, with absolute magnitudes $`10>M_{H,PS}>17.7`$. The bright end is similar to ours. The fainter luminosities are consistent with the expected low bulge luminosity of their later type galaxies, although the lack of a bulge-disk decomposition prevents us from comparing theirs and our trends of PS luminosity with spheroid luminosity. Ravindranath et al. (2001), using two-dimensional fits to HST/NICMOS F160W images of an E/S0 sample, report unresolved central components for $``$50% of their targets. Figure 3d shows their distribution of point source magnitude vs. absolute $`B`$-band galaxy magnitude together with our distribution of PS magnitude vs. $`B`$-band absolute bulge magnitude; the latter was computed using the $`B_T`$ galaxy magnitudes from the RC3 and the bulge-disk ratio derived from the HST+ground-based profile fits. Their point source magnitudes are slightly fainter than ours. Their fainter PS magnitudes and their lower detection rate may be consequences of their choice of the Nuker model vs. our use of the Sérsic model to fit the underlying bulge light distribution; the Nuker law is steeper than the Sérsic law near the origin, and diverges at $`r=0`$, whereas the Sérsic law has a finite value of $`\mu (0)`$. Also, using galaxy magnitudes for their sample instead of bulge magnitudes shifts their points to the right in the diagram.

## 5 Discussion

Measuring the correct value of the Sérsic index $`n`$ for bulges is important for several reasons. Overestimating $`n`$ leads to an overestimate of the bulge $`r_e`$ and luminosity. Trujillo et al. (2001) show that fitting an $`r^{1/2}`$ profile with a $`r^{1/4}`$ function yields an overestimate of $`r_e`$ by a factor of 3-5 and of the bulge luminosity by a factor of about 2. The luminosity ratio B/D is further overestimated as more of the light in the bulge-disk transition region is assigned to the bulge. The converse occurs when $`n`$ is underestimated, eg. when exponential fits are forced onto $`n>1`$ Sérsic profiles (Graham 2001). Thus, small luminosity components (typically $`L_{K,PS}/L_{K,Bul}10^{2.8}`$, eqn. 1) may significantly alter the derived global parameters of bulges. Test fits excluding inner profile regions suggest that, in the absence of HST imaging, the effects of central components on the bulge shape index $`n`$ are greatly diminished by excluding the central FWHM of the profile, as done by Stiavelli et al. (2001) for dwarf ellipticals. Point sources should present less of a problem for late-type spirals given the low Sérsic indices, low bulge luminosities and hence low PS luminosities expected from Figure 3c.

The nuclear PSs, amounting to a fraction of order $`10^3`$ of the bulge luminosities, are easy to accomodate within either a merger origin or a secular evolution origin for bulges. The observed scaling of PS and bulge luminosities need not indicate an internal origin for the PS as nuclear gas deposition during a merger may scale with the masses of the merging objects. If bulges are evolved bars, the problem of growing a nuclear star cluster is similar to that of feeding an active galactic nucleus (Maciejewski et al. 2002).

Given the persistent description of bulges as $`r^{1/4}`$ spheroids in galaxy formation models, it is worth pointing out that none of the bulges follow the $`r^{1/4}`$ law. APB95, de Jong (1996), Graham (2001) and MacArthur et al. (2002) have shown that late- to intermediate-type bulges have $`r^{1/n}`$ profiles in the range $`0.5n2.0`$. Our work establishes a similar range, $`0.5n3.0`$, for intermediate- to early-type bulges i.e. those which are still generally described with the $`r^{1/4}`$ model. Extrapolating from the rising envelope of the $`n`$$`M_K`$ relation in Figure 2d, only bulges with $`M_K26`$ may reach $`n=4`$. The $`r^{1/4}`$ law is interpreted as the consequence of violent relaxation during a clumpy collapse (van Albada 1982), and is obtained after mergers of similar-size disk galaxies (Barnes 1988). Simulations of collisionless satellite accretion onto bulge-disk galaxies further show that bulges evolve smoothly from exponential profiles to $`r^{1/4}`$ profiles when doubling their mass due to accretion events (ABP01). At face value then, our distribution of Sérsic shape indices $`n`$ (Figure 2c,d) suggests that the vast majority of bulges did not acquire their present structural properties by growing through collisionless mergers. Kinematic data might show whether, besides a low Sérsic index $`n`$, these bulges show other properties typical of disks (Kormendy 1993; Falcón-Barroso et al. 2002).

Have deviations from the $`r^{1/4}`$ law in $`N`$-body models gone undetected? Sérsic fitting is only starting to be applied in $`N`$-body studies. Hjorth & Madsen (1995) show that violent relaxation in a finite volume, combined with subsequent escape of positive-energy stars, leads to a distribution function with deviations from the $`r^{1/4}`$ law; from their figures, a shallow central potential might possibly fit $`n<4`$ Sérsic profiles. Accretion of low-mass satellites might heat the bulge only moderately and deposite the compact satellite nucleus at the center of the remnant. This could lead to a $`n12`$ bulge with a central brightness spike not unlike what is observed. But very long merger times and slow growth rate for low-mass satellites are a problem for this hypothesis. Recent cosmological SPH simulations of galaxy formation (Scannapieco & Tissera 2002) find $`n1`$ for bulges resulting from secular evolution, while merging rises $`n`$ to about $`n=4`$, again pointing at low-$`n`$ profiles being related to non-merger formation histories.


format: text

text:
# Bounds on charged higgs boson in the 2HDM type III from Tevatron

## Abstract

We consider the Two Higgs Doublet Model (2HDM) of type III which leads to Flavour Changing Neutral Currents (FCNC) at tree level. In the framework of this model we can use an appropriate form of the Yukawa Lagrangian that makes the type II model limit of the general type III couplings apparent. This way is useful in order to compare with the experimental data which is model dependent. The analytical expressions of the partial width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(tH^+b\right)`$ are derived and we compare with the data available at this energy range. We examine the limits on the new parameters $`\lambda _{ij}`$ from the validness of perturbation theory.

The Standard Model (SM) of particle physics based on the gauge group $`SU(3)_c\times SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y`$ accommodates the symmetry breaking by including a fundamental weak doublet of scalar Higgs bosons $`\varphi `$ with a scalar potential $`V(\varphi )=\lambda (\varphi ^{}\varphi \frac{1}{2}v^2)^2`$. However, the SM does not explain the dynamics responsible for the generation of masses. Furthermore, the scalar sector suffers from two serious problems, known as: the gauge hierarchy problem and the triviality problem hunter . The scalars involved in electroweak symmetry breaking should therefore be a party to new physics at some finite energy scale. Thus the SM would be merely a low-energy effective field theory, and the dynamics responsible for generating mass might lie in physics beyond the SM. There is the option of a model like the SM but including a richer scalar sector, which includes one more Higgs doublet, it is called generically the Two Higgs Doublet Model (2HDM).

There are several kinds of such 2HDM models. In the model called type I, one Higgs Doublet provides masses to the up and down quarks, simultaneously. In the model type II, one Higgs doublet gives masses to the up quarks and the other one to the down quarks. These two models have a discrete symmetry to avoid FCNC at tree level gw . However, the discrete symmetry is not necessary in whose case both doublets generate the masses of the quarks of up-type and down-type, simultaneously. In the literature, the latter model is known as the model type III III . It has been used to look for physics beyond the SM and specifically for FCNC at tree level ARS ; Sher ; we . In general, both doublets could acquire a vacuum expectation value (VEV), but one of them can be absorbed redefining the Higgs fields properly. Nevertheless, we have showed that from the case in which both doublets get the VEV is possible to study the models type I and II in an specific limit we . Therefore we consider the model type III in two basis. In the first base, the two Higgs doublets acquire VEV (case (a) in ref.we ). In the second one, only one Higgs doublet acquire VEV (case (b) in refwe )ARS . In the latter case the free parameter $`\mathrm{tan}\beta v_2/v_1`$ is removed from the theory making its phenomenological analysis simpler. But in the former one is possible to get bounds for the model type III using the experimental bounds which have been gotten in the framework of the model type II.

In these kind of models (2HDM) additional degrees of freedom appear, providing a total of five observable Higgs fields: two neutral CP-even scalars $`h^0`$ and $`H^0`$, a neutral CP-odd scalar $`A^0`$, and two charged scalars $`H^\pm `$. Direct searches have carried out by LEP experiments, and report a combined lower limit on $`M_{H^\pm }`$ of 78.6 GeV lep . The CDF collaboration has also reported a direct search for charged Higgs boson, setting an upper limit on $`B(tH^+b)`$ around 0.6 at 95 % C.L. for masses in the range 60-160 GeV cdf . On the other hand, indirect and direct searches have been carried out by D0 looking for a decrease in the $`t\overline{t}W^+W^{}b\overline{b}`$ signal expected from the SM and the direct search for the decay mode $`H^\pm \tau ^\pm \nu `$. They exclude most regions of the plane $`M_{H^\pm }\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ where the $`B(tbH^+)>0.36`$ d0 . We should note that all the bounds have been gotten in the framework of the 2HDM type II. And, in the framework of the 2HDM type II and MSSM a full one loop calculation of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(tbH^+)`$ including all sources for large Yukawa couplings were presented in references qcd ; otros . In what follows we concentrate on the charged sector, with the relevant parameters being its mass $`M_{H^\pm }`$ and the ratio of the VEV’s of the doublets, $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ and the coupling intensities $`\lambda _{tt}`$ and $`\lambda _{bb}`$.

In the present work, we study the process $`tbH^+`$ in the 2HDM type III. If $`m_{H^\pm }<m_tm_b`$ then the charged Higgs boson $`H^\pm `$ can be produced in the decay of the top quark via $`tbH^+`$. This decay can be competitive with the dominant SM decay mode, $`tbW^+`$. The Higgs boson production in top decays has been studied in the framework of the 2HDM type II and under considerations that also apply to the MSSM otros . We are going to work in the Higgs mass range 60-160 GeV, assuming that $`B(tbW^+)+B(tbH^+)=1`$ and the masses of the neutral scalars are assumed to be large enough to be suppressed in $`H^\pm `$ decays. In this way the only available decays of $`H^\pm `$ are fermionic.

The 2HDM type III is an extension of the SM plus a new Higgs doublet and three new Yukawa couplings in the quark and leptonic sectors. The mass terms for the up-type or down-type sector depends on two matrices or two Yukawa couplings. The rotation of the quarks and lepton gauge eigenstates allow us to diagonalize one of the matrices but not both simultaneously, so one of the Yukawa couplings remains non-diagonal, generating the FCNC at tree level.

The Higgs couplings to fermions are model dependent. The most general structure for the Higgs-fermion Yukawa couplings, 2HDM type-III III , is as follow:

$`\mathrm{\pounds }_Y`$ $`=`$ $`\eta _{ij}^{U,0}\overline{Q}_{iL}^0\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_1U_{jR}^0+\eta _{ij}^{D,0}\overline{Q}_{iL}^0\mathrm{\Phi }_1D_{jR}^0+\eta _{ij}^{E,0}\overline{l}_{iL}^0\mathrm{\Phi }_1E_{jR}^0`$ (1)
$`+`$ $`\xi _{ij}^{U,0}\overline{Q}_{iL}^0\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_2U_{jR}^0+\xi _{ij}^{D,0}\overline{Q}_{iL}^0\mathrm{\Phi }_2D_{jR}^0+\xi _{ij}^{E,0}\overline{l}_{iL}^0\mathrm{\Phi }_2E_{jR}^0`$
$`+`$ $`h.c.`$
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{1,2}`$are the Higgs doublets, $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_ii\sigma _2\mathrm{\Phi }_i^{}`$, $`Q_L^0`$ is the weak isospin quark doublet, and $`U_R^0`$, $`D_R^0`$ are weak isospin quark singlets, whereas $`\eta _{ij}^0`$and $`\xi _{ij}^0`$ are non-diagonal $`3\times 3`$non-dimensional matrices and $`i`$, $`j`$ are family indices. The superscript $`0`$ indicates that the fields are not mass eigenstates yet. In the so-called model type I, the discrete symmetry forbids the terms proportional to $`\eta _{ij}^0,`$meanwhile in the model type II the same symmetry forbids terms proportional to $`\xi _{ij}^{D,0},\eta _{ij}^{U,0},\xi _{ij}^{E,0}.`$ We next shift the scalar fields according to their VEV’s, as

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_1_0=\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ v_1/\sqrt{2}\end{array}\right),\mathrm{\Phi }_2_0=\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ v_2/\sqrt{2}\end{array}\right)$$

and we take the complex phase of $`v_2`$equal to zero since we are not interested in CP violation. Then re-express the scalars in terms of the physical Higgs states and would-be Goldstone bosons,

$`\left(\begin{array}{c}G_W^\pm \\ H^\pm \end{array}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cos}\beta & \mathrm{sin}\beta \\ \mathrm{sin}\beta & \mathrm{cos}\beta \end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\varphi _1^\pm \\ \varphi _2^\pm \end{array}\right),`$ (8)
$`\left(\begin{array}{c}G_Z^0\\ A^0\end{array}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cos}\beta & \mathrm{sin}\beta \\ \mathrm{sin}\beta & \mathrm{cos}\beta \end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\sqrt{2}Im\varphi _1^0\\ \sqrt{2}Im\varphi _2^0\end{array}\right),`$ (15)
$`\left(\begin{array}{c}H^0\\ h^0\end{array}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cos}\alpha & \mathrm{sin}\alpha \\ \mathrm{sin}\alpha & \mathrm{cos}\alpha \end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\sqrt{2}Re\varphi _1^0v_1\\ \sqrt{2}Re\varphi _2^0v_2\end{array}\right)`$ (22)
where $`\mathrm{tan}\beta t_\beta =v_2/v_1`$and $`\alpha `$is the mixing angle of the $`h^0`$ , $`H^0`$ CP-even neutral Higgs sector. $`G_{Z(W)}^{0(\pm )}`$are the would-be Goldstone bosons for $`Z^0\left(W^\pm \right)`$, respectively. And $`A^0`$is the CP-odd neutral Higgs. $`H^\pm `$are the charged physical Higgses.

In addition, we diagonalize the quark mass matrices and define the quark mass eigenstates. The resulting Higgs-fermion Lagrangian can be written in several ways we . We choose to display the form that makes the type-II model limit of the general type-III couplings apparent. In the model type-II (where $`\eta _{ij}^{U,0}=\xi _{ij}^{D,0}=0`$) tree-level Higgs mediated flavor-changing neutral currents are automatically absent, whereas these are generally present for type-III couplings. The fermion mass eigenstates are related to the interaction eigenstates by biunitary transformations:

$`U_L=V_L^UU_L^0,U_R=V_R^UU_R^0,`$
$`D_L=V_L^DD_L^0,D_R=V_R^DD_R^0,`$ (23)
and the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa matrix is defined as $`KV_L^UV_L^D`$. It is also convenient to define “rotated” coupling matrices:

$`\eta ^U(\xi ^U)`$ $``$ $`V_L^U\eta ^{U,0}(\xi ^{U,0})V_R^U,`$
$`\eta ^D(\xi ^D)`$ $``$ $`V_L^D\eta ^{D,0}(\xi ^{D,0})V_R^D.`$ (24)
The diagonal quark mass matrices are obtained by replacing the scalar fields with their VEV’s:

$$M_D=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(v_1\eta ^D+v_2\xi ^D),M_U=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(v_1\eta ^U+v_2\xi ^U).$$
(25)
After eliminating $`\eta ^D,\xi ^U`$, the resulting Yukawa couplings are we :

$`_Y`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{v}}\overline{D}M_DD\left({\displaystyle \frac{s_\alpha }{c_\beta }}h^0{\displaystyle \frac{c_\alpha }{c_\beta }}H^0\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{v}}\overline{D}M_D\gamma _5D(t_\beta A^0G_Z^0)`$ (26)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}c_\beta }}\overline{D}(\xi ^DP_R+\xi _{}^{D}{}_{}{}^{}P_L)D(c_{\beta \alpha }h^0s_{\beta \alpha }H^0){\displaystyle \frac{i}{\sqrt{2}c_\beta }}\overline{D}(\xi ^DP_R\xi _{}^{D}{}_{}{}^{}P_L)DA^0`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{v}}\overline{U}M_UU\left({\displaystyle \frac{c_\alpha }{s_\beta }}h^0+{\displaystyle \frac{s_\alpha }{s_\beta }}H^0\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{v}}\overline{U}M_U\gamma _5U(t_\beta ^1A^0+G_Z^0)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}s_\beta }}\overline{U}(\eta ^UP_R+\eta _{}^{U}{}_{}{}^{}P_L)U(c_{\beta \alpha }h^0s_{\beta \alpha }H^0){\displaystyle \frac{i}{\sqrt{2}s_\beta }}\overline{U}(\eta ^UP_R\eta _{}^{U}{}_{}{}^{}P_L)UA^0`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}}{v}}[\overline{U}KM_DP_RD(t_\beta H^+G_W^+)+\overline{U}M_UKP_LD(t_\beta ^1H^++G_W^+)+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.]`$
$`[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{s_\beta }}\overline{U}\eta _{}^{U}{}_{}{}^{}KP_LDH^++{\displaystyle \frac{1}{c_\beta }}\overline{U}K\xi ^DP_RDH^++\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.].`$
where we have used the notation $`s(c)_\alpha =\mathrm{sin}(\mathrm{cos})\alpha `$ and $`\mathrm{sin}(\beta \alpha )=s_{\beta \alpha }`$ and so on.

In the 2HDM type III after using the parameterization proposed by Cheng and Sher Sher  for the couplings $`\xi (\eta )_{ii}=\lambda _{ii}gm_i/(2m_W)`$, we get the following expression for the decay width $`tbH^+`$,

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(tbH^+)={\displaystyle \frac{G_FK_{tb}^2}{4\pi \sqrt{2}}}`$ $`[a^2(m_t^2+m_b^2m_{H^\pm }^2)+4abm_tm_b`$ (27)
$`+`$ $`b^2(m_t^2+m_b^2m_{H^\pm }^2)]|\stackrel{}{p}_H|`$
where

$`|\stackrel{}{p}_H|`$ $`=`$ $`\left[(m_t^2(m_b+m_{H^\pm })^2)(m_t^2(m_{H^\pm }m_b)^2)\right]^{1/2}/(2m_t),`$ (28)
$`a`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cot}\beta {\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _{tt}}{\sqrt{2}}}\mathrm{csc}\beta ,`$
$`b`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_b}{m_t}}\left(\mathrm{tan}\beta {\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _{bb}}{\sqrt{2}\mathrm{cos}\beta }}\right).`$ (29)
Further we have taken the products $`(\eta K)_{33}\eta _{tt}K_{tb}`$ and $`(K\xi )_{33}\xi _{bb}K_{tb}`$, neglecting the off-diagonal terms because they are suppressed by the CKM entries. From the expression (8) is possible to get the decay width in the framework of the 2HDM-II just replacing $`\lambda _{ii}=0`$.

In order to proceed with the numerical evaluations, we wonder about the perturbation regime. First of all, we are calculating a decay width at tree level, therefore we should take into account the possible values of $`\lambda `$ which should be consistent with perturbation theory. Looking at the coupling $`\overline{t}bH^+`$ from (7), we get

$$\frac{m_b^2}{m_t^2}\left|\sqrt{2}\frac{t_\beta }{\sqrt{1+t_\beta ^2}}\lambda _{bb}\right|^2+t_\beta ^2\left|\frac{\sqrt{2}}{\sqrt{1+t_\beta ^2}}\lambda _{tt}\right|^2<\frac{8}{1+t_\beta ^2}.$$
(30)
The allowed region in the plane $`\lambda _{tt}\lambda _{bb}`$ depends on $`t_\beta `$, but for a wide range of $`t_\beta `$, $`\lambda _{bb}`$ is inside the interval (-100 , 100) while $`\lambda _{tt}`$ is in (-2.8 , 2.8).

On the other hand, we can consider the 2HDM-III in a basis where only one Higgs doublet acquire VEV and then it does not have the parameter $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. It is the usual 2HDM type III Sher , where the Lagrangian of the charged sector is given by

$$L_{H^\pm ud}^{III}=H^+\overline{U}[K\xi ^DP_R\xi ^UKP_L]D+h.c.$$
(31)
With the above Lagrangian the model is simpler due to the absence of the $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ parameter, and it can be obtained from a Lagrangian written in a basis where both doublets acquire VEV different from zero we . For the decay width (8), it is reduced because now we have $`a=\frac{\lambda _{tt}}{\sqrt{2}}`$ and $`b=\frac{\lambda _{bb}m_b}{\sqrt{2}m_t}`$. And from the perturbation theory consideration we get

$$\frac{m_b^2}{m_t^2}|\lambda _{bb}|^2+|\lambda _{tt}|^2<8,$$
(32)
which is an ellipse with $`|\lambda _{bb}|100`$ and $`|\lambda _{tt}|\sqrt{8}`$; this constraint might be satisfied. In this context, taking into account the bound from D0 experiment, $`B(tH^+b)0.36`$ d0  we present in figure 1 the plane $`m_{H^\pm }`$ vs $`\lambda _{bb}`$. We are using the constraint from perturbation in order to get the upper limit allowed in this plane. The allowed region is above the curve shown. For small values of $`\lambda _{bb}`$ the charged Higgs boson mass has a lower bound of $`140GeV`$.

But notice that the bounds coming from the experiment (LEP and Tevatron) are really gotten in a model dependent way, specifically they have been gotten in the framework of the 2HDM-II. Then we should use the parameterization given by the Lagrangian (26) which is the 2HDM-II plus new changing flavor interactions. This reason makes useful the Lagrangian (26) in order to do comparisons of 2HDM-III with the experimental values obtained using the 2HDM-II. In figures 2 and 3, we show the fraction $`B(tbH^+)`$ vs $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ for different values of $`\lambda _{bb}`$ and $`\lambda _{tt}`$. The $`B(tbH^+)`$ branching fraction for different values of $`M_{H^\pm }`$ is significant for very small or very large values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, while it is suppressed for intermediate values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. This fact is because the fraction $`B(tbH^+)`$ is proportional to $`(m_b^2+m_t^2m_{H^\pm })(m_t^2\mathrm{cot}^2\beta +m_b^2\mathrm{tan}^2\beta )+4m_t^2m_b^2`$ which has a minimum around $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =\sqrt{m_t/m_b}`$ and is symmetric in $`\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{tan}\beta )`$ about this point. We note that for a charged Higgs 2HDM-II like, lighter than the top quark, it would be detected if $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ is substantially different from $`\sqrt{m_t/m_b}`$, it is because the branching fraction is very suppressed around this point, by around $`10^4`$. In what follows we are going to show that model type III can modify this scenario. For $`\lambda _{ii}=0`$ we obtain the prediction of the 2HDM type II and it is symmetric around $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =6`$, but it is not the case for $`\lambda _{ii}0`$ where the minimum is shifted. In this analysis we are considering two different set of values for the $`\lambda _{ii}`$ parameters. In figure 2, $`\lambda _{tt}`$ is the order of $`\lambda _{bb}`$ and in figure 3 $`\lambda _{tt}`$ is one order of magnitude smaller than $`\lambda _{bb}`$, and in both cases the charged Higss boson mass is fixed to 140 GeV. In figure 2 and 3, it is drawn the most stringent bound coming from D0 collaboration on $`B(tbH^+)`$ in the range of $`0.3\mathrm{tan}\beta 150`$ which should be less than 0.36 (horizontal line).

Finally, in figure 4 we plot $`M_{H^\pm }`$ vs $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ for different $`\lambda _{ii}`$ using the bound from Tevatron $`B(tbH^+)0.36`$. We show the excluded regions at 95 % C.L. by Tevatron from Run I and the limits that will be reached on this plane in Run II using 2 and 10 fb<sup>-1</sup> for the integrated luminosity at $`\sqrt{s}=2`$ TeV. We should clarify that the exclusion regions taken from D0 at Tevatron are a combination of two searches. An indirect search, looking for a decrease in $`t\overline{t}W^+W^{}b\overline{b}`$ signal expected from the SM, this search excludes simultaneously both large and small $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. And a direct search, that look for the $`H^\pm \tau ^\pm \nu `$ in the region $`0.3<\mathrm{tan}\beta <150`$. This is because the fraction rate of the leptonic decay of $`H^\pm `$ is around 0.95 for large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, and the other option $`H^+c\overline{s}`$ is important for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta <0.4`$ and low Higgs boson mass. In our case we could enhanced the influence of $`H^+c\overline{s}`$ channel due to the appearance of new couplings, it does not matter the value of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, but that possibility corresponds to a very unusual set of values of the new couplings $`\lambda _{cc}`$, $`\lambda _{ss}`$ and $`\xi ^E`$, instead of that we conserve the hierarchy of the decay channels according to the value of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ in order to consider a more general and conservative scenario where the experimental limits can be used. The solid line inside the future explored region corresponds to $`\lambda _{ii}=0`$ which is the region for the 2HDM-II with a fraction rate of 0.36. A charged Higgs 2HDM-III like could have different scenarios, as we can see from figure 4 for $`\lambda _{ii}`$ different from zero. Again we are considering two cases: $`\lambda _{tt}`$ of the order of $`\lambda _{bb}`$ and $`\lambda _{tt}`$ one order of magnitude smaller than $`\lambda _{bb}`$. The excluded region is below the curves, and we can see that there are values that cover almost all the plane presented.

To summarize, in the present work we have examined a 2HDM type III which produces FCNC at tree level, in general these new interactions are governed by parameters $`\lambda _{ij}`$. The experimental analysis has been carried out using the 2HDM type II as a framework, so they are model dependent. We have already presented a form of the Yukawa Lagrangian of the 2HDM-III (26) which can be reduced to the 2HDM-II as a limit we , in this way it can be used to compare the model type III with the experimental analysis based on 2HDM type II. We have shown that 2HDM type III can modify the situation for the branching fraction $`B(tbH^+)`$ in the case of a charged Higgs boson in the allowed region from kinematic considerations. For $`\lambda _{ii}=0`$, we obtain the prediction of the 2HDM type II and it is symmetric around $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =\sqrt{m_t/m_b}6`$, but it is not the case for $`\lambda _{ii}0`$. Finally, we have presented the parameter plane $`\mathrm{tan}\beta m_{H^+}`$ showing the experimental limits for Run I and II and, in the same plot we show the solutions obtained in the cases of 2HDM-II ($`\lambda _{ii}=0`$) and 2HDM-III ($`\lambda _{tt}0`$).

We acknowledge to R.A. Diaz for the careful reading of the manuscript, and J. P. Idarraga for his collaboration with numerical calculations. This work was supported by COLCIENCIAS.