in this paper new results from the theory of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a bunch of ultra - relativistic positrons channeling through a periodically deformed crystal ( a crystalline undulator ) are reported .
we formulate the approximation for effective analytical and numerical analysis of the characteristics of the undulator radiation with account for the influence of two main parasitic effects , the positron dechanneling and the photon attenuation .
the developed formalism is applied to calculate the number of the emitted photons and the brilliance of the radiation formed in crystalline undulators .    in a crystalline undulator there
appears , in addition to a well - known channeling radiation , the radiation of an undulator type which is due to the periodic motion of channeling particles which follow the bending of the crystallographic planes .
the parameters of the undulator radiation can be easily varied by changing the energy of beam particles and the parameters of crystal bending .
the feasibility of this scheme was explicitly demonstrated for in refs .  .
in these papers as well as in the subsequent publications @xcite the idea of this new type of radiation , the essential conditions and limitations which must be fulfilled to make possible the observation of the effect were formulated in an adequate form for the first time . a number of corresponding numerical results were presented to illustrate the developed theory .
the importance of the ideas suggested and discussed in the cited papers has also been realized by other authors resulting in a significant increase of the number of publications in the field during last years @xcite but , unfortunately , often without proper citation @xcite .
a detailed review of the results obtained in this newly arisen field as well as a historical survey of the development of all principal ideas and related phenomena can be found in ref .  .
) which are periodically bent .
the centerline of this channel ( solid line ) is described by a harmonic function @xmath0 .
its period @xmath1 and amplitude @xmath2 satisfy the condition @xmath3 .
the dashed curve represents the trajectory of a projectile trapped in the channel .
, width=491,height=207 ]    the mechanism of the photon emission by means of a crystalline undulator is illustrated in fig .
[ figure1_jpg ] .
the @xmath4-plane in the figure is a cross section of an initially linear crystal , and the @xmath5-axis represents the cross section of a midplane of two neighbouring non - deformed crystallographic planes ( not drawn in the figure ) spaced by the interplanar distance @xmath6 .    under certain conditions the ultra - relativistic positrons will channel in the periodically bent channel .
the trajectory of a particle contains two elements .
firstly , there are channeling oscillations due to the action of the interplanar potential .
their typical frequency @xmath7 depends on the positron energy @xmath8 and the parameters of the interplanar potential .
secondly , there are oscillations related to the periodicity of the distorted midplane , - the undulator oscillations , whose frequency is @xmath9 .
the spontaneous emission of photons is associated with both of these oscillations .
the typical frequency of the channeling radiation is @xmath10 where @xmath11 is the relativistic lorenz factor .
the undulator oscillations give rise to the photons with frequency @xmath12 where @xmath13 is the undulator parameter , @xmath14 @xcite . if strong inequality @xmath15 is met than the frequencies of the channeling radiation and the undulator radiation are also well separated , @xmath16 . in this case
the characteristics of the undulator radiation are practically independent on the channeling oscillations but depend on the shape of the periodically bent midplane @xcite .
there are essential features which distinguish a crystalline undulator from a conventional one based on the action of the periodic magnetic ( or electric ) field on the projectile . in the latter
the beam of particles and the photon flux move in vacuum whereas in the proposed scheme they propagate through a crystalline media .
therefore , to prove that the crystalline undulator is feasible , it is necessary to analyze the influence of the interaction of both beams with the crystal constituents . on the basis of such analysis
one can formulate the conditions which must be met and define the ranges of parameters ( which include @xmath8 , @xmath2 , @xmath1 and also the crystal length @xmath17 and the photon energy @xmath18 ) within which all the criteria are fulfilled . in full
this analysis was carried out very recently and the feasibility of the crystalline undulator was demonstrated in an adequate form for the first time in refs .   and in refs .  .
for further referencing let us briefly mention the conditions which must be met in a crystalline undulator .
a stable planar channeling of an ultra - relativistic positron in a periodically bent crystal occurs if the maximum centrifugal force , @xmath19 , is less than the maximal force due to the interplanar field , @xmath20 . notating the ratio @xmath21 as @xmath22 one formulates this condition as follows @xcite : @xmath23    there are two essentially different regimes of the radiation formation in a periodically bent crystals
they are defined by the magnitude of the ratio @xmath24 . in the case of low amplitudes , @xmath25 ,
the characteristic frequencies of the channeling radiation and the undulator radiation become compatible @xmath26 .
this results in the loss of the monochromaticity of the radiation , since the channeling radiation is essentially non - monochromatic due to noticeable deviations of the interplanar potential from a harmonic form .
additionally , in this case the intensity of undulator radiation is small compared with that of the channeling radiation @xcite .    on the contrary , in the limit
@xmath27 not only the characteristic frequencies are well separated , @xmath28 , but also the undulator radiation intensity is higher than the intensity of the channeling radiation @xcite . as a result ,
if one is only interested in the spectral distribution of the undulator radiation , one may disregard the channeling oscillations and assume that the projectile moves along the centerline of the bent channel .
therefore , the criterion which is imposed on the relative magnitudes of @xmath6 , @xmath2 and @xmath1 is as follows @xmath29 the second inequality ensures that the crystal is deformed elastically , and its structure and symmetry are not affected by the deformation .
the term undulator implies that the number of undulator periods , @xmath30 , is large . only in this limit
does the radiation formed during the passage of a bunch of relativistic particles through a periodic system bear the features of undulator radiation ( narrow , well - separated peaks in spectral - angular distribution ) rather than those of synchrotron radiation .
hence , the following strong inequality , which entangles the period @xmath1 and the length of a crystal @xmath17 must be met in the crystalline undulator @xcite : @xmath31    the coherence of the radiation , emitted in the crystalline undulator , takes place if the energy of the channeling particle does not change noticeably during with the penetration distance . for ultra - relativistic projectiles the main source of energy losses are the radiative losses .
therefore , it is important to establish the range of energies for which the parameters of undulator radiation formed in a perfect periodic crystalline structure are stable . in ref .
a comprehensive quantitative analysis of the radiative loss of energy , @xmath32 , due to the channeling and the undulator radiation was carried out .
it was established that the relative radiative losses @xmath33 become large if the initial energy of the positron bunch is @xmath34 gev . for lower energies of positrons @xmath35 the radiative losses are small , @xmath36 .    as was pointed out refs .
two phenomena , the dechanneling effect and the photon attenuation , lead to severe limitation on the length of a crystalline undulator .
if the dechanneling effect is neglected , one may unrestrictedly increase the intensity of the undulator radiation by considering larger @xmath30-values .
in reality , random scattering of the channeling particle by the electrons and nuclei of the crystal leads to a gradual increase of the particle energy associated with the transverse oscillations in the channel . as a result ,
the transverse energy at some distance from the entrance point exceeds the depth of the interplanar potential well , and the particle leaves the channel . the mean penetration distance covered by a channeling particle
is called the dechanneling length . for given crystal and projectile the dechanneling length @xmath37 depends on the energy @xmath8 and on the parameter @xmath22 ( see ( [ condition.1 ] ) ) . to calculate the dechanneling length
one can either apply the diffusion theory to describe the multiple scattering @xcite or carry out a computer simulation of the scattering process of the projectile from the crystal constituents @xcite .
alternatively , to estimate @xmath38 one can use the approximate formulae @xcite . for an ultra - relativistic positron
the dechanneling length in straight channels ( i.e. @xmath39 ) in various crystals lies within the interval @xmath40 @xcite , i.e. does not exceed several millimeters at gev energies of a positron .
for a periodically bent channel the dechanneling length decreases as @xmath22 grows following , approximately , the law @xmath41 @xcite .    the propagation of photons emitted in a crystalline undulator is strongly influenced by the atomic and the nuclear photoeffects , the coherent and incoherent scattering on electrons and nuclei , the electron - positron pair production .
all these processes lead to the decrease in the intensity of the photon flux as it propagates through the crystal . a quantitative parameter , which accounts for all these effects and defines the scale within which the intensity of a photon flux decreases by a factor of @xmath42 , is called the attenuation length , @xmath43 .
it is related to the mass attenuation coefficient @xmath44 as @xmath45 @xcite .
the coefficients @xmath44 are tabulated for all elements and for a wide range of photon frequencies @xcite .
the magnitude of @xmath46 depends on @xmath47 and on the type of the constituent atoms .
for low-@xmath48 crystals ( e.g. , diamond ) the magnitude of @xmath46 exceeds that for a tungsten crystal taken for the same @xmath47 by a factor of @xmath49 . in the case of a diamond crystal
the value of @xmath46 varies from @xmath50 cm at @xmath51 kev up to several cm for @xmath52 ev .
the simplest way to account for the dechanneling and the attenuation is to consider the case when the crystal length satisfies the condition @xmath53 $ ] , and to assume that within the chosen @xmath17 scale neither the number of channeled particles nor the flux of emitted photons do decrease .
such approach was utilized in most of the papers devoted to the crystalline undulator problem .
more consistent treatment of the dechanneling process and of its influence on the parameters of the undulator radiation was carried out in refs .  , where a simple analytic expression for the spectral - angular distribution was derived which contains , as a parameter , the dechanneling length .    in the present work
we make another step in developing the theory of the crystalline undulator .
the following problems are solved and discussed below in the paper .
* we propose the scheme for accurate quantitative treatment of the radiation from a crystalline undulator in presence of the dechanneling and the photon attenuation ( sect .
[ crystallineundulator ] ) . as a result
, we evaluate an analytic expression for the spectral - angular distribution and the number of emitted photons which contains , as parameters , three quantities @xmath17 , @xmath38 , and @xmath54 . *
we demonstrate that for given type of the crystal and crystallographic plane , and for given values of @xmath8 , @xmath2 , @xmath1 and @xmath47 there exists an optimal length of the crystal which ensures the largest number of the emitted photons . * using ( a ) and ( b ) we carry out the calculation of the number of emitted photons and the brilliance of the crystalline undulator radiation ( sect .  [ numericalresults ] ) .
the calculations , which account for the conditions ( [ condition.1])-([condition.4 ] ) , are performed for several crystals and by using the parameters of positron bunches used in modern colliders @xcite .
prior to the discussion of the radiation formed in a crystalline undulator , in sect .
[ idealundulator ] we briefly summarize the results from the general theory of undulator radiation ( see , e.g. refs .  ) .
we use the term ` ideal undulator ' to indicate that the propagation of positrons and photons occurs in vacuum .
the spectral - angular distribution of the energy @xmath55 emitted by an ultra - relativistic projectile in a planar undulator can be written in the following form @xmath56 here @xmath57 and @xmath58 are the emission angles with respect to the undulator axis , @xmath59 is the solid angle of the emission . the function @xmath60 , which does not depend on the undulator length , is given by @xmath61 \right ) , \qquad m=0,1\ , .
\label{dspectral.3}\end{aligned}\ ] ] here @xmath62 , @xmath63 , @xmath13 is the undulator parameter and the parameter @xmath64 is given by @xmath65 the factor @xmath66 on the right - hand side of ( [ dspectral.1 ] ) is defined as follows @xmath67 where @xmath68 and @xmath69 is a positive integer such that @xmath70 .    for @xmath71 the function
@xmath72 has a sharp and powerful maximum in the point @xmath73 , where @xmath74 .
the width of the peak @xmath75 is equal to @xmath76 .
this behaviour of @xmath72 results in a peculiar form of the spectral - angular distribution of undulator radiation which clearly distinguishes it from other types of electromagnetic radiation formed by a charge moving in external fields .
namely , for each value of the emission angle @xmath77 the spectral distribution consists of a set of narrow and equally spaced peaks ( harmonics ) .
the peak intensity is proportional to @xmath78 .
this factor reflects the constructive interference of radiation emitted from each of the undulator periods and is typical for any system which contains @xmath30 coherent emitters .
the values @xmath79 of the harmonics frequencies follow from the condition that parameter @xmath64 becomes an integer ( this corresponds to @xmath73 ) . in particular , in the case of the forward emission , @xmath80 ,
the harmonics frequencies are defined from the relation @xmath81 for @xmath80 the integrals ( [ dspectral.3 ] ) can be evaluated analytically and the spectral - angular distribution calculated for @xmath82 ( for @xmath83 ) acquires the form @xcite : @xmath84 ^ 2\ , , \label{numberphotonscollection.5a}\end{aligned}\ ] ] where @xmath85 and @xmath86 is the bessel function .
the finite width of the central peak of @xmath72 defines the emission cone @xmath87 and the bandwidth @xmath88 of the @xmath69th harmonic . using @xmath89 and accounting for ( [ centralline.1 ] )
one derives @xmath90    formulae ( [ numberphotonscollection.5a])-([numberphotonscollection.3 ] ) allow one to calculate the number of photons @xmath91 of energy @xmath92 $ ] emitted by a beam particle within the cone @xmath87 : @xmath93 where @xmath94 ^ 2 $ ] .
let us introduce two other quantities which characterize the radiation formed in an undulator and are closely related to the number of the emitted photons , but also take into account the properties of the beam of ultra - relativistic particles .
these quantities are the _ flux _ and the _ brilliance _ ( see , e.g. ref .  ) .
the flux @xmath95 describes the number of photons per second of the @xmath69th harmonic emitted in the cone @xmath87 and in a given bandwidth . a quantitative definition of this quantity , measured in @xmath96 ( the abbreviation bw stands for the bandwidth @xmath97 ) , is given by the following formula @xcite : @xmath98 } \
, , \label{b&b.4}\end{aligned}\ ] ] where @xmath99 is the electric current of the beam . in the latter expression @xmath99
is measured in amperes .
the general definition of brilliance of the photon source of a finite size is given in terms of the number of photons of energy @xmath18 emitted in the cone @xmath100 per unit time interval , unit source area , unit solid angle and per bandwidth @xcite .
to calculate this quantity is it necessary to know the beam sizes @xmath101 , @xmath102 and angular divergencies @xmath103 , @xmath104 in two perpendicular directions , as well as the divergency angle of the radiation and the size of the photon beam . the brilliance of undulator radiation can be related to the flux @xmath95 as follows @xcite : @xmath105 here @xmath106 are the total emittance of the photon source in the @xmath107 and @xmath108 directions , with @xmath109 being the angular width of the @xmath69th harmonic and @xmath110 is the apparent source size taken in the diffraction limit @xcite .    to obtain brilliance in the units @xmath111 the quantities @xmath112 and @xmath113 must be measured in millimeters whereas the angular variables @xmath114 and @xmath115 - in milliradians .
in an ideal undulator the beam of particles and the emitted photons propagate in vacuum . in a crystalline undulator , due to the interactions with crystal atoms ,
the particles can dechannel , and thus be lost for further motion through the undulator .
additionally , the photons emitted inside the crystal can be absorbed or scattered while making their way out from the crystal .
therefore , it is necessary to account for the processes of dechanneling and photon attenuation . in what follows
we carry out the qualitative analysis of the influence of these two processes on the characteristics of the radiation formed in a crystalline undulator .
let the crystal length , the amplitude and period of bending and the energy @xmath8 satisfy the conditions ( [ condition.1])-([condition.4 ] ) .
a positron , which enters the crystal at small incident angle with respect to the curved crystallographic plane , penetrates through the crystal following the bending of its channel .
however , due to random scattering by the electrons and nuclei of the crystal the energy of the transverse oscillations of the positron in the channel increases , and finally the particle leaves the channel , becoming lost for the crystalline undulator .
although the rigorous treatment of the dechanneling process can not be implemented by analytical means only , it is possible to develop a model approach based on the assumption that the probability @xmath116 for a particle to penetrate at a distance @xmath5 along the undulator axis ( @xmath117 $ ] ) can be described by the exponential decay law @xmath118 in intermediate formulae when referring to the dechanneling length we omit its arguments @xmath8 and @xmath22 .    with the effect of dechanneling taken into account the spectral - angular distribution of the radiated energy per one particle can be written as follows : @xmath119 the first term is the contribution to from all the processes in which the particle dechannels somewhere inside the crystal . to calculate this term one
notices that the quantity @xmath120 defines the probability of a particle to channel through the distance @xmath5 and then dechannel within the interval @xmath121 .
such a particle emits the radiation which corresponds to the undulator of the length @xmath5 and the number of periods @xmath122 .
therefore @xmath123 where @xmath124 denotes the spectral - angular distribution from the undulator of the length @xmath5 .
the superscript ` ( att ) ' indicates that to calculate this quantity one has to account for the photon attenuation .
the second term on the right - hand side of ( [ dechannelinginundulator.6a ] ) is due the process when the projectile channels through the whole length @xmath17 .
its probability is given by the factor @xmath125 .
therefore one can write @xmath126    if the photon attenuation is neglected , then to calculate ( [ dechannelinginundulator.5 ] ) one uses ( [ dspectral.1 ] ) instead of @xmath127 .
the integral in ( [ dechannelinginundulator.4 ] ) is also evaluated with the help of ( [ dspectral.1 ] ) where one substitutes @xmath30 with @xmath122 .
such approach was applied ref .   with the only difference that in the cited paper to calculate ( [ dechannelinginundulator.4 ] ) and ( [ dechannelinginundulator.5 ] ) we used the discrete probabilities instead of the continuous distribution function ( [ dechannelinginundulator.1 ] ) .
the use of the latter implies that the dechanneling effect is small over the scale of one undulator period and , therefore , @xmath128 .
now let us turn to the derivation of the quantity @xmath129 which is the spectral - angular distribution of radiation formed in the undulator of the length @xmath130 in presence of the attenuation . in the intermediate formulae we assume that the ratio @xmath131 is an integer number which corresponds to the number of periods in this undulator . in the final formula this limitation will be omitted . throughout the text the notations @xmath17 and @xmath30
are reserved for the length of the crystal and the number of undulator periods within @xmath17 .    as mentioned above , if one neglects the photon attenuation effect , the distribution @xmath129 is described by ( [ dspectral.1 ] ) where one substitutes @xmath30 with @xmath132 . the only quantity in ( [ dspectral.1 ] ) which depends on
the number of undulator periods is the factor @xmath133 defined in ( [ idealundulator.2a ] ) .
this factor appears in the formula for spectral - angular distribution as a result of squaring the modulus of a coherent sum of the amplitudes of electromagnetic waves emitted from spatially different but similar parts of the undulator . in more detail , @xmath133 is given by @xmath134 .
the argument @xmath135 ( @xmath136 is the wavenumber ) stands for the phase of the electromagnetic wave emitted within the @xmath137th period of the undulator and detected at some distant point @xmath138 from the undulator .
it is assumed that the quantities @xmath17 , @xmath5 and @xmath138 satisfy the relations : @xmath139 .
th period of the undulator of the length @xmath5 , can be absorbed ( or scattered ) in the part of crystal of thickness @xmath140 on its way to a distant detection point @xmath138 ( @xmath141).,width=377,height=207 ]    in a crystalline undulator a photon emitted within the @xmath137th period in the direction of the point @xmath138 can be absorbed within the distance @xmath140 while propagating through the crystal , see fig .
[ fordn.eps.fig ] . to account for
this possibility one can assume that the wavenumber becomes complex , @xmath142 .
the quantity @xmath143 defines the attenuation length @xmath144 within which the photon flux is reduced by a factor of @xmath42 . for a complex @xmath145 the phase factor @xmath146 , which in an ideal undulator is the same for all periods @xmath147 ,
is replaced with @xmath148 , and a proper expression for @xmath149 is @xmath150 the spectral - angular distribution of radiation in presence of the photon attenuation acquires the form @xmath151 in the limit @xmath152 ( i.e. , when there is no attenuation ) the factor @xmath153 becomes equal to @xmath133 from ( [ idealundulator.2a ] ) , and the right - hand side of ( [ attenuationinundulator.8 ] ) reduces to that of eq .
( [ dspectral.1 ] ) .    to derive the explicit expression for the spectral - angular distribution of the radiated energy from a crystalline undulator one uses ( [ attenuationinundulator.8 ] ) in ( [ dechannelinginundulator.6a])([dechannelinginundulator.5 ] ) .
let us note here , that although the expression ( [ attenuationinundulator.3 ] ) was obtained for the case when the ratio @xmath122 is an integer , its use in the integral from ( [ dechannelinginundulator.4 ] ) can be justified by the above mentioned conditions , that the undulator period @xmath1 is small compared to the dechanneling length @xmath154 , the attenuation length , @xmath155 , and the length of crystal , @xmath17 .
hence , the relative error , which appears when one uses ( [ attenuationinundulator.8 ] ) in ( [ dechannelinginundulator.4 ] ) , is small , being of the order of magnitude @xmath156 . carrying out the integration one represents the total spectral - angular distribution ( [ dechannelinginundulator.6a ] ) of radiation formed in the crystalline undulator in the form similar to ( [ dspectral.1 ] ) @xmath157 where the function @xmath60 , defined by ( [ dspectral.2a ] ) , does not depend on @xmath17 , @xmath154 and @xmath155 .
these parameters enter the factor @xmath158 which is given by the expression : @xmath159\ , , \label{dechannelingandattenuation.2}\end{aligned}\ ] ] where the following notations are used : @xmath160    despite a cumbersome form of the right - hand side of ( [ dechannelingandattenuation.2 ] ) its main features can be easily understood .
firstly , we notice that if the dechanneling is neglected , @xmath161 ( or @xmath162 ) , the function @xmath158 reproduces @xmath163 from ( [ attenuationinundulator.3 ] ) . in another limit @xmath164 ( i.e. , no attenuation and dechanneling ) eq . ( [ dechannelingandattenuation.2 ] ) reduces to the definition of the factor @xmath72 which characterizes the ideal undulator . in the case
when only the attenuation effect is neglected the limit of @xmath158 can also be easily evaluated . in either of these cases
the main maximum of @xmath158 is located in the point @xmath73 , i.e. when the parameter @xmath64 reduces to an integer , and , therefore , the harmonics frequencies are still defined by ( [ centralline.1 ] ) .
the maximum value @xmath165 can be presented as follows : @xmath166 , \label{dechannelingandattenuation.5}\end{aligned}\ ] ] where the quantity @xmath167 stands for the number of undulator periods within @xmath154 , and the ratio @xmath168 does not depend on the crystal length @xmath17 .
the width of the central peak @xmath169 , which in the case of an ideal undulator equals to @xmath76 , is increased due to the photon attenuation and the dechanneling .
formally , the additional widths are due to the factors @xmath170 and @xmath171 which enter ( [ dechannelingandattenuation.2 ] ) .
the widths associated with these factors are , respectively , @xmath172 and @xmath173 .
thus , the total width of the peak is : @xmath174 the additional widths lead to the enlargement of the solid angle @xmath87 of the emission cone in the forward direction .
in accordance with ( [ dechannelingandattenuation.6 ] ) one derives @xmath175    the formulae for the number of photons @xmath176 emitted in the cone @xmath87 as well the corresponding flux of radiation @xmath177 one derives similarly to how it was done in sect .
[ idealundulator ] for an ideal undulator .
the result is : @xmath178 } \ , .
\label{cucharacteristics.4b}\end{aligned}\ ] ] the difference between these equations and formulae ( [ numberphotonscollection.1 ] ) and ( [ b&b.4 ] ) is that the number of undulator periods @xmath30 , met in the latter , is substituted with the effective number of periods , @xmath179 , which is defined as follows : @xmath180 \sqrt { 1 + { { \kappa}}_{\rm d}^2\,{(x-1)^2 + 1 \over 4\pi^2 }   } \ , .
\label{cucharacteristics.6}\end{aligned}\ ] ] we use these equations in the subsequent section to define the optimal length of a crystalline undulator .      in the case of an ideal undulator one
can , in principle , increase infinitely the length of the undulator .
this will result in the increase of the number of photons , the photon flux , and the brilliance since they are proportional to the number of periods .
the limitations on the values of @xmath17 and @xmath30 are mainly of a technological nature .
the situation is different for a crystalline undulator , where the number of channeling particles and the number of photons which can emerge from the crystal decrease with the growth of @xmath17 .
it is seen from ( [ cucharacteristics.6 ] ) that if @xmath181 then the parameters @xmath182 and @xmath183 also become infinitely large , and the effective number of periods goes to zero leading to @xmath184 .
this is quite natural result , since in the limit @xmath185 all particles leave the channeling mode and , thus , do not undulate in the most part of the crystal , whereas all emitted photons are absorbed inside the crystal if @xmath186 .
another formal ( and physically trivial ) fact , which follows from ( [ cucharacteristics.5 ] ) and ( [ cucharacteristics.6 ] ) , is that @xmath187 also for a zero - length undulator , when @xmath188 .
vanishing of a positively defined quantity @xmath179 at two extreme boundaries suggests that there exists the length @xmath189 for which the effective number of periods ( taken for fixed values of @xmath155 , @xmath154 and @xmath1 ) attains the maximum .    to define the value of @xmath189 or , what is equivalent
, the quantity @xmath190 , one carries out the derivative of @xmath191 with respect to @xmath192 and equalizes it to zero .
the analysis of the resulting equation shows that for each value of @xmath193 there is only one root @xmath194 .
hence , the equation defines , in an inexplicit form , a single - valued function @xmath190 which ensures the maximum of @xmath179 for given @xmath155 , @xmath154 and @xmath1 .
it is important to note that the crystal length enters eqs .
( [ cucharacteristics.4a])-([cucharacteristics.4b ] ) only via the ratio @xmath192 .
all other quantities , met in these formulae as well as in ( [ cucharacteristics.5 ] ) and ( [ cucharacteristics.6 ] ) , are independent on the length of the crystal .
therefore , the quantity @xmath189 ensures the highest values of @xmath176 and @xmath177 for the radiation formed in the crystalline undulator . in this sense @xmath189
can be called the _ optimal length _ of the undulator which corresponds to a given value of @xmath107 .     and @xmath195 on @xmath196.,width=340,height=340 ]    the dependences of @xmath190 and of the ratio @xmath197 on @xmath107
are presented in fig .
[ optimalundnom.eps.fig ] . for a given crystalline structure
, the dechanneling length @xmath154 is uniquely defined by the energy @xmath8 and the parameters of bending @xmath2 and @xmath1 . on the other hand ,
the attenuation length @xmath155 is the function of @xmath47 .
therefore , fixing @xmath8 , @xmath2 , @xmath1 and @xmath47 one calculates @xmath196 and , then , using the dashed curve in the figure finds the optimal length of the crystalline undulator @xmath189 which accounts for the dechanneling effect and the photon attenuation .
simultaneously , from the solid curve one finds the effective number of the undulator periods @xmath198 which defines the number of emitted photons , the flux and the brilliance of radiation .
from ( [ cucharacteristics.4a ] ) follows , that to find the number of photons @xmath176 emitted in a crystalline one has to calculate two factors .
the factor @xmath199 ( see ( [ numberphotonscollection.1 ] ) ) depends on the harmonic number @xmath69 and on the undulator parameter @xmath13 which , in turn , is defined by the values of @xmath8 , @xmath2 and @xmath1 through the relation @xmath200 . the second factor , @xmath179 depends on @xmath17 , @xmath1 , @xmath37 and @xmath201 .
it was explained in sect .
[ optimallength ] that once the quantities @xmath1 , @xmath38 and @xmath46 are known the length of the crystal can be fixed by the condition @xmath202 which results in the maximum values of @xmath179 and @xmath177 with respect to @xmath17 . the numerical data presented below in this section was obtained for the optimal length of undulator .
therefore , to calculate @xmath176 one fixes , in addition to the crystallographic plane , the values of @xmath69 , @xmath8 , @xmath2 and @xmath1 ( the three latter are subject to the conditions ( [ condition.1])([condition.4 ] ) ) which uniquely define the quantities @xmath13 , @xmath22 , @xmath79 , @xmath46 . however , there is some uncertainty with respect to the magnitude of the dechanneling length .
this uncertainty is not intrinsic to the case of a periodically bent crystal but rather reflects the stochastic nature of the interaction of a channeling particle with crystal constituents . as mentioned above to calculate the dechanneling length one can apply the diffusion theory to describe the multiple scattering or carry out numerical simulations of the scattering process .
alternatively , one can use model - dependent analytic expressions for @xmath38 . in the present paper
we utilize the approach , presented in ref . , and approximate @xmath38 with @xmath203 here where @xmath204 cm is the electron classical radius , @xmath205 mev is the electron rest energy , @xmath206 is the thomas - fermi radius of the crystal atom . the parameter @xmath22 is defined by eq .
( [ condition.1 ] ) . the quantity @xmath207 stands for the dechanneling length of a positron in a straight crystal@xcite .
the quantity @xmath208 , with @xmath99 denoting the ( average ) ionization potential of the crystal atom , is the coulomb logarithm characterizing the ionization losses of an ultra - relativistic particle in amorphous media . for a quick estimation of @xmath207 ( in cm ) one can re -
write the right - hand side of the second equation from ( [ dechannnelingattenuation.3 ] ) as @xmath209 , with @xmath206 and @xmath6 measured in  and @xmath8 in gev .
the values of @xmath206 and @xmath6 , are presented in table  [ crystals.table ] .    .
parameters @xmath6 , @xmath206 and @xmath210 for different crystals and channels . [ cols="<,<,<,<,<",options="header " , ]     the results of our calculations are presented in figs .
[ s_si_ge_w.eps.fig ] and [ bril_c_si_ge_w.eps.fig ] .
the choice of the crystals was motivated by the fact that c , si , ge and w crystals are frequently used in channeling experiments ( see , e.g. , ref .  ) .
an additional reason is that for a given photon frequency the magnitude of @xmath46 rapidly decreases with the growth of atomic number of the constituent atoms .
therefore , by comparing the results obtained for different crystals one can investigate the influence of the photon attenuation on the formation of the radiation in a crystalline undulator .    ) per a bandwidth @xmath211 and per a positron as a function of the ratio @xmath24 calculated for the positron energies in various colliders ( see table [ particledatagroup2004.table1 ] ) as indicated .
graphs ( b ) : the corresponding values of the fundamental harmonic energy ( see eq .
( [ centralline.1 ] ) with @xmath212 ) .
see also explanations in the text .
each vertical pair of the graphs ( a ) and ( b ) correspond to the positron channeling in the particular periodically bent channel as indicated in the graphs ( a ) .
the legend refers to all graphs in the figure.,title="fig:",width=548,height=396 ] + ) per a bandwidth @xmath211 and per a positron as a function of the ratio @xmath24 calculated for the positron energies in various colliders ( see table [ particledatagroup2004.table1 ] ) as indicated
. graphs ( b ) : the corresponding values of the fundamental harmonic energy ( see eq .
( [ centralline.1 ] ) with @xmath212 ) .
see also explanations in the text .
each vertical pair of the graphs ( a ) and ( b ) correspond to the positron channeling in the particular periodically bent channel as indicated in the graphs ( a ) .
the legend refers to all graphs in the figure.,title="fig:",width=548,height=396 ]    graphs ` ( a ) ' in fig .
[ s_si_ge_w.eps.fig ] present the dependence of the _ maximal _ number of emitted photons of the first harmonic ( @xmath212 ) per bandwidth @xmath211 and per a positron versus the ratio @xmath24 .
the curves were calculated for the positron energies indicated in table [ particledatagroup2004.table1 ] ( for bepc - ii and pep - ii colliders we used the values @xmath213 gev and @xmath214 gev , respectively ) . for each crystal and for each @xmath8 value
the dependences @xmath215 were obtained as follows .
there are two independent variables , @xmath1 and @xmath2 , which , ( for fixed crystal , energy and harmonic number @xmath69 ) define all other quantities on the right - hand side of ( [ cucharacteristics.4a ] ) . for practical purposes
it is more convenient to chose the ratio @xmath216 and the parameter @xmath217 ( see eq .
( [ condition.1 ] ) ) as the independent variables .
then , for each pair @xmath218 one finds @xmath1 , @xmath219 , @xmath220 , the dechanneling length @xmath38 and the number of periods @xmath221 , the fundamental harmonic frequency @xmath222 ( see eq .
( [ centralline.1 ] ) ) and the attenuation length @xmath223 , and the value of @xmath198 which corresponds to the optimal undulator length calculated for @xmath224 ( see ( [ cucharacteristics.5])-([cucharacteristics.6 ] ) and fig .
[ optimalundnom.eps.fig ] and sect .
[ optimallength ] ) . as a result ,
one finds the magnitude of @xmath225
. finally , scanning through all @xmath218 values one determines the highest possible value of the number of photons per bw , @xmath215 , as a function of @xmath24 .
having done this one also finds the dependence @xmath226 ( graphs ` ( b ) ' in fig .
[ s_si_ge_w.eps.fig ] ) as well all other characteristics of the undulator as functions of @xmath24 .
let us briefly discuss the behaviour of obtained dependences .
firstly , as it is seen from the graphs ( a ) , for a fixed amplitude @xmath2 the quantity @xmath215 is an increasing function of a positron energy @xmath8 .
this feature becomes clear if one analyzes the @xmath8 dependence of the product @xmath227 which defines the number of emitted photons ( see eqs .
( [ cucharacteristics.4a ] ) and ( [ cucharacteristics.5 ] ) ) .
all three factors are increasing functions of energy ( although it is not too obvious for @xmath228 ) .
another feature of the curves @xmath215 is that they are decreasing function of @xmath24 in the region @xmath229 . to a great extent
this is a consequence of the photon attenuation in the crystal . indeed , as the ratio @xmath24 increases the undulator period @xmath1 increases too , in order to maintain the inequality @xmath230 ( see eq .  ( [ condition.1 ] ) ) .
larger values of @xmath1 results in lowering of the emitted photon energy ( see eq .
( [ centralline.1 ] ) and the graphs ( b ) in fig .
[ s_si_ge_w.eps.fig ] ) and , consequently , to the decrease of the attenuation length , @xmath46 .
this , in turn , leads to the increase of the ratio @xmath196 which defines the magnitude of @xmath228 .
this factor , as it is seen from fig .
[ optimalundnom.eps.fig ] , rapidly falls off for @xmath231 , and this feature manifests itself in the dependence of @xmath215 on @xmath24 . in the case of crystals consisting of heavy atoms the dependence acquires additional features , which are due to the fact that the ionization potentials , @xmath232 , of the inner atomic subshells of such atoms lie within the energy range @xmath233 kev .
the photons with the energy just above the threshold are absorbed much more efficiently than those with the lower energies . as a result ,
the dependence of @xmath46 in the vicinity of the threshold becomes a saw - like . for @xmath234 the attenuation length noticeably ( up to the order of magnitude ) exceeds @xmath46 for @xmath235 .
this effect results in the irregularities of the dependence @xmath215 on @xmath24 , which in figs .
[ optimalundnom.eps.fig ] are mostly pronounced for diamond and tungsten crystals .    in the opposite limit ,
when @xmath25 the number of the emitted photons goes to zero .
this tendency , which is seen explicitly for all the curves ( but the cers - c one ) in the case of c and si crystals , is also clear and is due to the fact that the case @xmath236 corresponds to the linear crystal , i.e. the absence of the crystalline undulator .    in fig .
[ bril_c_si_ge_w.eps.fig ] we present the peak brilliance of the crystalline undulators based on different crystals ( as indicated ) and calculated using the parameters of the positron beams from table [ particledatagroup2004.table1 ] .
the data refer to the emission in the first and the third harmonics in the forward direction .
it is seen that in contrast to the number of the emitted photons which is the same , by the order of magnitude , for all colliders , the magnitudes of the peak brilliance for different beams differ by orders of magnitude . to the largest extent
this is due to the quality of the beam , which includes , apart from the beam current @xmath99 , its size and angular divergency , see .
( [ b&b.4 ] ) and ( [ b&b.7 ] ) . for all crystals and over the whole range of photon energies
the product @xmath237 of the photon source emittances is the smallest for the kekb collider ( labeled as ` 5 ' in the graphs in fig .
[ bril_c_si_ge_w.eps.fig ] ) . as a result , this beam , which does not lead to the highest values of @xmath215 , ensures the largest peak brilliance of the crystalline undulator radiation .
the peak brilliance for the kekb positron beam is on the level of @xmath238 for the photon energies within @xmath239 mev range .
these values can be compared with the peak brilliance of the light sources of the third generation @xcite .
the peak brilliance on the level @xmath240 in the 100 kev range of photon energies by means of the undulators based on the action of magnetic field is planned to be achieved within several projects @xcite .
the data from fig .  [ bril_c_si_ge_w.eps.fig ] ) demonstrate that it is feasible to produce the radiation of the same level of brilliance but for much higher energies by means of crystalline undulators .
, the dashed curves refer to @xmath241 . in each graph
the enumerated sets of the solid and the dashed curves correspond to the parameters of the positron beams in different colliders ( see table [ particledatagroup2004.table1 ] ) . 1 : da@xmath242ne , 2 : vepp-2000 , 3 : bepc - ii , 4 : pep - ii , 5 : kekb , 6 : cers - c.,title="fig:",width=566,height=377 ] + , the dashed curves refer to @xmath241 .
in each graph the enumerated sets of the solid and the dashed curves correspond to the parameters of the positron beams in different colliders ( see table [ particledatagroup2004.table1 ] ) . 1 : da@xmath242ne , 2 : vepp-2000 , 3 : bepc - ii , 4 : pep - ii , 5 : kekb , 6 : cers - c.,title="fig:",width=566,height=377 ]
theoretical investigations show that it is entirely realistic to use a crystalline undulator for generating spontaneous radiation in a wide range of photon energies .
the parameters of such an undulator , being subject to the restrictions mentioned in sect .
[ introduction ] , can be easily tuned by varying the parameters of the bending , the positron energy and by choosing different channels .
the large range of energies available in modern colliders together with the wide range preparation of periodically bent crystalline structures allow one to generate the crystalline undulator radiation with energies from hundreds of kev up to tens of mev region .
the brilliance of the undulator radiation within this energy range is comparable to that of conventional light sources of the third generation but for much lower photon energies .
the experimental efforts are needed for the verification of numerous theoretical predictions .
such efforts will certainly make this field of endeavor even more fascinating than as it is already and will possibly lead to the practical development of a new type of tunable and monochromatic radiation sources .
99 a. v.  korol , a. v.  solovyov , w.  greiner , _ j. phys .
g : nucl . part .
* 24 * , pp .
l45-l53 , 1998 .
a. v.  korol , a. v.  solovyov , w.  greiner , _ int . j. mod
* 8 * , pp .
49 - 100 , 1999 .
a. v.  korol , a. v.  solovyov , w.  greiner , _ int .
* 9 * , pp .
77 - 105 , 2000 .
w.  krause , a. v.  korol , a. v.  solovyov , w.  greiner , _ j. phys .
g : nucl . part .
* 26 * , pp .
l87-l95 , 2000 .
a. v.  korol , a. v.  solovyov , w.  greiner , _ j. phys .
g : nucl . part .
* 27 * , pp .
95 - 125 , 2001 .
w.  greiner , a. v.  korol , a. v.  solovyov , _ aip conf .
_ , * 576 * , pp.17 - 20 , 2001
. w.  krause , a. v.  korol , a. v.  solovyov , w.  greiner , _ nucl .
methods _ a * 475 * , pp .
441 - 444 , 2001 .
a. v.  korol , w.  krause , a. v.  solovyov , w.  greiner , _ nucl .
methods _ a * 483 * , pp .
455 - 460 , 2002 .
r. o.  avakian , et .
al . , _ jetp lett . _ * 68 * , pp .
467 - 471 , 1998 .
u.  mikkelsen , e.   uggerhj , _ nucl .
b * 160 * , pp .
435 - 439 , 2000 .
r. o.  avakian , et .
al . , _ nucl .
instrum . methods _
b * 173 * , pp .
112 - 120 , 2001 .
r. o.  avakian , et .
al . , _ nucl .
methods _ a * 492 * , pp .
11 - 13 , 2002 .
r. o.  avakian , et .
al . , _ nucl .
methods _ a * 508 * 496 - 499 , 2003 .
s.  bellucci , s.  bini , v. m.  biryukov , et .
al . , _ phys .
* 90 * , 034801 , 2003 .
s.  bellucci , s.  bini , s.  giannini , et .
al . , _ phys . rev .
beams _ * 7 * , 023501 , 2004 . n. a.  korhmazyan , n. n.  korhmazyan , n. e.  babadjanyan , _ tech .
phys . _ * 49*(4 ) , pp .
499 - 501 , 2004 .
r. o.  avakian , et .
al . , _ nucl . instrum
. methods _
b * 227 * , pp .
104 - 109 , 2005 .
h.  kudo , _ nucl .
instrum . methods _
b * 189 * 609 - 614 , 1981 . j. a.  ellison , s. t.  picraux , _ phys .
lett . _ a * 83 * , p. 271
v. m.  biruykov , yu .
a.  chesnokov , v. i.  kotov , _ crystal channeling and its application at high - energy accelerators _ , springer , berlin , 1996 . j. h.  hubbel , s. m.  seltzer , `` tables of x - ray mass attenuation coefficients '' , nistir 5632 - web version 1.02 , http://physics.nist.gov/physrefdata/xraymasscoef/cover.html
. s.  eidelman , et .
al . , ` review of particle physics ' , _ phys . lett . _ * b 592 * , pp . 1 - 1109 , 2004 .
d. f.  alferov , yu . a.  bashmakov , p. a.  cherenkov , _ sov .
 uspekhi _ * 32 * , p. 200
kim , ` characteristics of synchrotron radiation ' , in _ aip conference proceedings _ * 189 * , pp .
565 - 632 , 1989 .
p.  rullhusen , x.  artru , p.  dhez , _ novel radiation sources using relativistic electrons _ , world scientific , singapore , 1998 .
kim , ` characteristics of synchrotron radiation ' , in _ x - ray data booklet _ , lawrence berkeley laboratory , berkley , ca , ch . 4 - 1 , 1986 .
kim , _ nucl .
methods _ * 246 * , pp .
71 - 76 , 1986 .
m.  altarelli , a.   salam , _ europhysicsnews _ * 35 * , no .
2 , pp.47 - 50 , 2004 .
`` the european x - ray laser project xfel '' , http://xfel.desy.de/content/e169/index_eng.html k. balewski , et.al .
`` petra iii : a third generation synchrotron radiation source at desy . ''
technical design report '' , http://tesla.desy.de/new_pages/tdr_cd/start.html .


at long last , the experimental exploration of the higgs sector of the electroweak theory has begun .
the discovery of a scalar boson with a mass of approximately @xmath8 gev at the large hadron collider ( lhc ) is a spectacular triumph of the standard model ( sm ) @xcite .
the hints of a larger than expected branching fraction for @xmath9 , although they have recently weakened , could suggest possible extensions of the scalar sector @xcite or of other sectors .
( for some vector - like fermion extension examples , see refs .  @xcite . ) certainly , detailed analyses of these extensions are worthwhile and might provide guidance to experimenters searching for physics beyond the sm .    the simplest and most studied such extension is the two higgs doublet model ( 2hdm ) , recently reviewed in ref .
a potential problem for such models are tree - level flavor changing neutral currents ( fcnc ) which will occur whenever fermions of a given charge couple to more than one higgs multiplet @xcite . while it is possible to ameliorate the constraints by assumptions about the flavor - changing couplings @xcite , the usual solution to
the problem is eliminating the tree - level fcnc altogether by using a discrete @xmath1 symmetry . depending on the transformation properties of the right - handed fermions under the @xmath1 ,
several different models can be obtained @xcite .
the most familiar two models are the type i model , in which all of the fermions couple to a single higgs multiplet , and the type ii model , in which the down - type quarks and charged leptons couple to one higgs multiplet and the up - type quarks couple to the other .
a @xmath1 symmetry can be promoted to a gauged @xmath0 symmetry as discussed in refs .
@xcite . in ref .
@xcite , the sm fermions do not have charges of the new @xmath0 gauge symmetry and a type i 2hdm model results .
( see ref .
@xcite for another example in the fourth generation context . ) in ref .
@xcite , the sm fermions have charges under the @xmath0 gauge symmetry , resulting in various types of 2hdms . as emphasized in ref .
@xcite , one of the interesting features in this kind of model is the absence of the pseudoscalar @xmath10 . it is a common effect @xcite of a spontaneously broken @xmath0 gauge symmetry that the pseudoscalar is eaten to become the longitudinal component of the new gauge boson @xmath2 .
of course , one could restore the pseudoscalar by adding a complex higgs singlet to the model .    in our paper
, we will closely follow the scenario of ref .
@xcite . in this model ,
all sm fermions are neutral under the new abelian gauge group @xmath11 , yet the @xmath2 coupling to the sm fermions can be mediated by mixing with the sm neutral gauge bosons . the @xmath2 can communicate with the sm fermions only through kinetic and/or mass mixing with the sm neutral gauge bosons .
the fact that the @xmath2 does not directly interact with fermions eliminates the numerous constraints on @xmath2 masses , and allows the @xmath2 to be extremely light , with mass allowed below @xmath12 .
( for a review on a complementary heavy @xmath2 , see ref .
@xcite . )    this model in ref .
@xcite was not originally proposed in the context of 2hdms .
it was first proposed as a generalization of the so - called dark photon model whose coupling is of the same form as the photon coupling .
while the two models both adopt kinetic mixing of the @xmath13 and the @xmath11 , the difference comes from the fact that the @xmath2 gets its mass only from a higgs singlet in the dark photon model while it gets the mass from a higgs doublet ( and also from a higgs singlet if a higgs singlet exists ) in the dark @xmath3 model . as a result ,
the dark @xmath3 can couple to the weak neutral current as well .
when the @xmath2 is very light , it can explain @xcite the astrophysical anomalies such as the @xmath14 gamma - ray from the galactic center observed by the integral satellite @xcite or the positron excess observed by atic @xcite and pamela experiments @xcite , depending on the property of the dark matter .
it can also explain the @xmath15 deviation of the measured muon @xmath4 from the sm prediction @xcite .
( for some discussions about non - abelian dark gauge sectors , see refs .
see also ref .
@xcite for a discussion on @xmath16-@xmath17 mixing . )
it is remarkable that a very light gauge boson , introduced to provide a dark matter explanation to some astrophysical anomalies , can also provide an explanation for the absence of tree - level fcnc in a 2hdm .
it leads to a very different phenomenology from the ordinary 2hdms .
some of the implications for the dark @xmath3 boson as well as the @xmath5 sm - like higgs state , @xmath6 , of this model have been discussed in refs .
@xcite . in this paper
, we will mainly discuss the phenomenology of the other higgs bosons of the model , and refer to this model as the `` dark 2hdm '' to emphasize that our study of this model focuses on the comparison to the ordinary 2hdms .
we particularly focus on the scenario that the other higgs , @xmath7 , is lighter than the sm - like higgs , @xmath6 , of @xmath5 , which was a subject of the study in ref .
@xcite for the ordinary 2hdms .
we will see that various constraints force one to add a singlet to the model .
the decay of the @xmath7 to @xmath18 will provide a dramatic signature that could be on the verge of discovery at the lhc , and the decay of the charged higgs to @xmath19 would also lead to striking signatures .    in sec .
[ sec : model ] , we describe the model and the particle masses and couplings . in sec .
[ sec : constraints ] , we consider the constraints from lep and the lhc on the neutral higgs bosons , and in sec .
[ sec : lighthiggs ] study the remarkable signature of the light higgs and the implications for lhc experiments looking for multi - lepton jets . in sec .
[ sec : chargedhiggs ] , we discuss the properties of the charged higgs boson and in sec .  [
sec : conclusion ] , we present our conclusions .
a discussion of the properties of the @xmath2 boson is in the appendix .
in this section , we describe the dark 2hdm proposed by davoudiasl , lee , and marciano @xcite .
the scalar sector is composed of two doublets and a singlet under the @xmath20 .
as we will see , the model with just two doublets and no singlet is not compatible with various constraints . including
a singlet can avoid this issue .
the gauge group is @xmath21 , and the sm fermions are assumed to be neutral under the extra @xmath11 .
the gauge part of the kinetic lagrangian includes kinetic mixing between the @xmath13 and @xmath11 @xcite and is given by _
gauge = - b _
b^ + b _ z^ - z _ z^ [ eq : kineticmixing ] where @xmath22 and @xmath23 .
the hat notation indicates the states before diagonalization . as discussed in various places , for examples
see refs .
@xcite , one can redefine the fields to remove the kinetic mixing term parametrized by @xmath24 , which is experimentally constrained to be small .
when there is one higgs doublet and the @xmath2 gets the mass from a higgs singlet , this leads to an induced coupling of the @xmath2 to the electromagnetic current _
= -e j^_em z_(j^_em q_f |f ^f ) and the induced coupling of the @xmath2 to the weak neutral current is negligibly small because of the suppression by high orders of @xmath24 .
this gauge boson is widely called the `` dark photon '' , since fermions couple to the @xmath2 with a very small effective electric charge ( @xmath25 ) for a given electric charge ( @xmath26 ) of the fermion @xmath27 .    the model in ref .
@xcite added an additional higgs doublet charged by the @xmath11 which introduces mixing in the @xmath3-@xmath2 mass matrix .
the @xmath3-@xmath2 mass mixing , parametrized by @xmath28 , is also taken to be small .
the value of @xmath28 will be determined by parameters in the scalar potential . because of this mixing , the @xmath2 couples to both electromagnetic current and weak neutral current as _
= -(e j^_em + _ z g_z j^_nc ) z_(j^_nc |f ^f - [ t_3f ] |f ^_5 f ) with @xmath29 , @xmath30 and the weak mixing angle @xmath31 .
the @xmath2 with more general coupling ( compared to the dark photon ) in this model was named the `` dark @xmath3 '' to emphasize that it couples to the weak neutral current . in particular , when the @xmath32 limit is taken , the @xmath2 couples only to the weak neutral current as the sm @xmath3 boson does with a suppressed coupling ( @xmath33 ) .
the definition of @xmath28 and constraints on @xmath34 , @xmath24 , @xmath28 can be found in the appendix .
we use a similar but slightly different notation from ref .
was chosen to couple to the sm fermions rather than @xmath35 , with definitions of @xmath36 , @xmath37 .
this leads to different typical values of @xmath38 and @xmath39 .
care must be taken in defining the heavy higgs vs. the light higgs , which also amounts to a definition of @xmath40 .
we provide a comparison of notations in the following .
reference  @xcite : @xmath41 couples to the sm fermions , which requires typically small @xmath38 ( as @xmath42 ) .
@xmath43 corresponds to the heavy higgs @xmath44 sm - like higgs limit .
this paper : @xmath35 couples to the sm fermions , which requires typically large @xmath38 ( as @xmath45 ) .
@xmath46 corresponds to the heavy higgs @xmath47 sm - like higgs limit .
( @xmath43 corresponds to the light higgs @xmath47 sm - like higgs limit . )
the higgs to gauge boson couplings in eqs .   - can be read for ref .
@xcite by @xmath48 , @xmath49 ( or @xmath50 ) , and overall sign flips for @xmath51 , @xmath52 , @xmath53 . ] in conventional 2hdms , one defines @xmath35 to be the doublet that couples to the top quark ( or , in the type i 2hdm , to all fermions ) . following this notation , we assume the @xmath11 charges @xmath54 = q'[\phi_s ] = 1 $ ] , @xmath55 = 0 $ ] with the hypercharges @xmath56 = y[\phi_2 ] = 1/2 $ ] , @xmath57 = 0 $ ] .
the @xmath11 is spontaneously broken when @xmath41 or @xmath58 gets a vacuum expectation value ( vev ) .
the scalar part of the kinetic lagrangian is given by _ & = & | d__1 |^2 +    & = & l _ + l _ + where d__i = ( _ + i g y[_i ] b_+ i g t_3[_i ] w_3 + i g_z q[_i ] z^0 _ ) _ i and two doublets @xmath59 with vevs @xmath60 ( @xmath61 ) , and a singlet @xmath62 with a vev @xmath63 .
the @xmath64 limit corresponds to the doublets only case .
the @xmath3 and @xmath2 masses , with @xmath65 and @xmath36 , @xmath66 are given by _
= m_z^0 ^ 2 z^0 z^0 - ^2 z^0 z^0 + m_z^0 ^ 2 z^0 z^0 + where m_z^0 ^ 2 & = & g_z^2 v^2 , + m_z^0 ^ 2 & = & g_z^2 ( v^2 ^2 + v_s^2 ) + g_z g v^2 ^2 + ( ) ^2 g^2 v^2 , [ eq : mzprime0 ] + ^2 & = & g_z g_z v^2 ^2 + g_z g v^2 .
this leads to the @xmath3-@xmath2 mixing angle ( @xmath67 ) as 2=    (    ccccc z + z +    )    =    (    ccccc & - + & +    )    (    ccccc z^0 + z^0 +    )    [ eq : massmixing ] where @xmath3 and @xmath2 are the mass eigenstates .
the @xmath3-@xmath2 mixing angle is constrained to be very small ( @xmath68 few @xmath69 ) by precision @xmath3 pole measurement at lep @xcite .
we are primarily interested in a very light @xmath2 [ @xmath70 .
we will work in the @xmath71 limit throughout this paper , which requires @xmath72 as @xmath73 is very small . in this limit
we have m_z^2 & & m_z^0 ^ 2 = g_z^2 v^2 , [ eq : mz ] + m_z^2 & & m_z^0 ^ 2 - = g_z^2 ( v^2 ^2 ^ 2 + v_s^2 ) = g_z^2 v^2 ( 1 - ^2 ^ 2_d ) , [ eq : mzprime ] + & & = ^2 + _ w .
[ eq : xi ] the @xmath2 approaches the massless limit as @xmath74 or @xmath75 . with the @xmath76 notation defined in the appendix
, we can use @xmath77 ( the doublets only limit corresponds to @xmath78 ) , and have m_z .    for simplicity ,
we assume no mixing between the doublets and singlet and allow mixing only between the doublets .
the pure doublets case can be reached if we take @xmath79 ( corresponding to @xmath80 ) in eqs .   and , and it would not change the following couplings in eqs .   - as well as the approximations in eqs .   - .
the relevant couplings of vector bosons to heavy higgs ( @xmath6 ) and light higgs ( @xmath7 ) , with no mixing between the doublets and singlet , are _ & = & _ hzz hzz + c_hzz hzz+ _
hzz hzz + & + & _ hzz hzz + c_hzz hzz+ _
hzz hzz + where _ hzz & = & c_hzz^ ( ^2 + ^2 ) [ eq : chzz ] + c_hzz & = & c_hzz^ ( .
+ ) + c_hzz & = & c_hzz^ ( ^2 + ^2 ) and _ hzz & = & c_hzz^ ( ^2 - ^2 ) + c_hzz & = & c_hzz^ ( . + & & .
- ) + c_hzz & = & c_hzz^ ( ^2 - ^2 ) [ eq : chzz ] with the sm higgs-@xmath3-@xmath3 coupling @xmath81 . note that , unlike ref .
@xcite , we include couplings with a general mixing angle @xmath40 .
since @xmath82 , @xmath83 , we can get approximations , using eq .
, _ hzz & & c_hzz^ ( - ) [ eq : chzzapprox ] + c_hzz & & - c_hzz^ ( 2 g_z / g_z ) ( - ) [ eq : chzzapprox ] + c_hzz & & c_hzz^ ( 2 g_z / g_z)^2 ( ^3 + ^3 ) [ eq : chzzapprox ] and _ hzz & & c_hzz^ ( - ) [ eq : chzzapprox ] + c_hzz & & c_hzz^ ( 2 g_z / g_z ) ( - ) [ eq : chzzapprox ] + c_hzz & & c_hzz^ ( 2 g_z / g_z)^2 ( ^3- ^3 ) [ eq : chzzapprox ] giving the expected 2hdm couplings of the two neutral higgs bosons to the @xmath3 in eqs .   and . in the @xmath84 limit , we can reproduce the relation shown in ref .
@xcite , i.e. @xmath85 .    the scalar potential is v & = & v_1 + v_2 + v_1 & = & m_11 ^ 2 _ 1^_1 + m_22 ^ 2 _ 2^_2 + ( _ 1^_1 ) ^2 + ( _ 2^_2 ) ^2 + _ 3 ( _ 1^_1 ) ( _ 2^_2 ) + _ 4 ( _ 1^_2 ) ( _ 2^_1 ) + v_2 & = & m_33 ^ 2 _ s^_s + ( _ s^_s ) ^2 with all coefficients real .
interestingly , the terms @xmath86 and @xmath87 $ ] whose coefficients are generally complex are forbidden by the @xmath11 gauge symmetry .
we assume the terms @xmath88 are negligible ( no mixing between the doublets and singlet ) .
the charged higgs mass is given by m_h^^2 = - v^2 which requires @xmath89 .
the higgs singlet mass is given by m_s^2 = _ 6 v_s^2 and the neutral doublet higgs mass - squared matrix is given by m_^2 =    (    ccccc _
1 v_1 ^ 2 & ( _ 3
+ _ 4 ) v_1 v_2 + ( _ 3 + _ 4 ) v_1 v_2 & _ 2 v_2 ^ 2 +    )    .
[ eq : higgsmatrix ] the mass eigenstates of the doublets are @xmath6 and @xmath7 ( with @xmath90 ) with m_h^2 = ( _ 1 v_1
^ 2 + _ 2 v_2 ^ 2 + ) + m_h^2 = ( _ 1 v_1 ^ 2 + _ 2 v_2 ^ 2 - ) and the @xmath6-@xmath7 mixing angle is given by 2=    (    ccccc h + h +    )    =    (    ccccc & + - & +    )    (    ccccc _
1 + _ 2 +    )    .    since only @xmath35 couples to the sm fermions in this model , the @xmath91 limit provides the heavier higgs ( @xmath6 ) as the sm - like higgs ( @xmath92 , @xmath93 up to a sign ) , which is the case of interest in the subsequent sections in this paper . the other limit , @xmath94 , would have provided the light higgs ( @xmath7 ) as the sm - like higgs ( @xmath95 , @xmath96 up to a sign ) .
note that the sm - like limit for the @xmath6 is achieved for @xmath97 instead of @xmath98 which would be true when the light higgs @xmath7 is the sm - like one .
the relative coupling of the higgses to the sm fermions and @xmath16 boson in the dark 2hdm is the same as the type i 2hdm as following .
htt ,   hbb ,   h :   , & & hww :   ( - )   [ eq : hcoupling ] + htt ,   hbb ,   h :   , & & hww :   ( - )   [ eq : hcoupling ] the relative coupling of @xmath99 ( @xmath100 ) is the same as that of the @xmath101 ( @xmath102 ) to a good approximation since the @xmath3 mixing is very small [ eq .  , eq .  ] .
+   ( a )   ( b )    in this section , we consider various constraints / predictions on the neutral higgs bosons in the dark 2hdm .
they include ( i ) lep limits on associated production of the light higgs ( @xmath103 ) , ( ii ) lep limits on the marginal @xmath3 width for @xmath104 decay , ( iii ) lhc measured branching ratios in various modes ( @xmath105 , @xmath106 , @xmath107 , @xmath108 ) including the most precisely measured @xmath9 .
we will focus on the case in which the mass of the light higgs is @xmath109 , i.e. roughly , @xmath110 range .
if it is lighter than @xmath111 , then the fact that @xmath112 decays do not dominate restricts @xmath113 to be infinitesimally close to @xmath114 @xcite .
if it is heavier than @xmath115 , then the @xmath116 channel opens up although our results may not change qualitatively .
a sm higgs of less than @xmath117 gev was ruled out long ago by lep experiments looking for associated production with a @xmath3 . in 2hdms , however , the @xmath102 and @xmath100 ( neglecting small @xmath3 mixing ) couplings are suppressed by @xmath118 , possibly making the @xmath7 quite gaugephobic .
lep published upper bounds on this factor as a function of the higgs mass , assuming the higgs would decay into @xmath119 quarks or @xmath120 s @xcite .
however , as we will discuss in sec .
[ sec : lighthiggs ] , @xmath7 can mainly decay into @xmath18 in the dark 2hdm . since the lep searches did not cover fermions from a very light @xmath2 [ @xmath121
, one must look at lep bounds on invisible higgs decays .
these bounds at @xmath122 cl from aleph @xcite , delphi @xcite , l3 @xcite , opal @xcite collaborations are given in fig .
[ fig : lep ]  ( a ) .
there are also updated aleph results , which covers the higgs mass from @xmath123 @xcite , but this is beyond our range of interest . for simplicity , we will take only l3 data , which is roughly close to average values of the lep data in the @xmath124 range we consider in this paper ( @xmath110 ) .    for a given @xmath7 mass , this
bound is given as a band in @xmath125 plane in fig .
[ fig : lep ]  ( b ) .
the apparent asymmetry between the @xmath126 and @xmath127 regions originates from @xmath128 , which makes the region near @xmath127 ( or @xmath129 ) preferable . as the @xmath7 mass increases from around @xmath130 ,
the bands quickly converge as the lep excluded region vanishes [ fig .
[ fig : lep ]  ( a ) ] .
this is illustrated as a sudden departure of @xmath131 curve from the @xmath132 curve in fig .
[ fig : lep ] ( b ) .
the @xmath7 can be produced directly from @xmath3 decays into an @xmath7 and a @xmath2 , if kinematically allowed .
it will appear as a contribution to the invisible @xmath3 width .
for a sufficiently light @xmath2 , using eq .  , we have ( z h z ) & & ( c_hzz)^2 ( 1 - ) ^3 + & & ( ) ^2 ^2 ( - ) ( 1 - ) ^3 . as was discussed in ref .
@xcite , the boosted @xmath2 shows the divergent nature as @xmath133 due to the enhancement from the longitudinal component of the @xmath2 .
the limit on the new physics contribution to the undetected width of the @xmath3 , which can be obtained by subtracting the sm prediction from the measured width , is @xmath134 ( 95% cl ) from lep data @xcite . for @xmath7 masses below the @xmath3 mass
, we can see from fig .
[ fig : lep ]  ( a ) that @xmath135 is always greater than @xmath136 for l3 .
the lower bound on @xmath124 is given as a function of @xmath137 in fig .
[ fig : mhbound ] for two extreme values of @xmath135 .        in the doublets only case ( @xmath138 )
, we would have had @xmath139 . since the @xmath124 and @xmath140
would then be of similar size , @xmath141 and @xmath142 would be also of similar size , unless some of the @xmath143 values in the higgs mass - squared matrix in eq .
are larger than @xmath144 , violating perturbativity .
the requirement of perturbativity then gives a limit of @xmath145 ( or @xmath146 ) .
as discussed in the appendix , experimental constraints provide a tight bound on @xmath76 in the doublets only case which conflicts with this limit . with a presence of the higgs singlet ,
@xmath147 can be lower than @xmath148 , and the @xmath124 bound gets relaxed , as fig .
[ fig : mhbound ] shows . for @xmath149
, there is essentially no bound on @xmath124 from the lep invisible decay width .
thus , we find that the doublets only case is unacceptable in the scenario we consider .
we see that for sufficiently small @xmath147 , one can have @xmath150 , leading to the possibility of @xmath151 . as shown in ref .
@xcite , this decay would unacceptably dominate @xmath6 decays unless @xmath113 was infinitesimally close to @xmath148 .
we will not consider this possibility in this paper .      the discovery of a higgs boson , @xmath6 , at @xmath8 gev with roughly sm branching ratios will imply stringent constraints on additional decays of the @xmath6 . in particular , the new decays @xmath152 and @xmath153 should be sufficiently small .
for a sufficiently light @xmath2 , using eqs .   and , we have ( h z z ) ( ) ^2 ^2 ( - ) and ( h z z ) ( ) ^4 ( ) ^2 .    in fig .
[ fig : darkdecays ] , we show the region in which their partial decay widths are within @xmath154 of the sm total decay widths ( @xmath155 for the @xmath5 higgs ) , illustrating the sensitive parameter - space for each decay for a few values of @xmath156 , @xmath157 , @xmath158 . in the region between the colored bands ,
the partial decay widths are more than @xmath154 of the sm total decay width .
a very light @xmath2 at the lhc could be found by a narrow resonance search after appropriate cuts as studied in refs .
constraints on the model from these decay modes need a dedicated lhc data analysis .
figure  [ fig : moreconstraints ] ( a ) shows the parameter - space where the total decay width of the heavy higgs @xmath6 is close to the sm width ( within @xmath159 ) .
we have used a modified version of the code of ref .
@xcite for some of the plots in this section .
it shows that for a relatively large @xmath147 , the @xmath160 would be quite different from the sm prediction except for a very narrow region of parameter - space .
+   ( a )   ( b )       +   ( a )   ( b )    the scenario that the heavy higgs is the sm - like higgs in ordinary 2hdms were discussed in ref .
we follow their parametrization to measure the event rate ratio compared to the sm predictions . for the @xmath9 , _ h ( ) = ( )
^2 with @xmath161 being our calculated value , instead of the precise value of the sm @xcite .
similarly , @xmath162 , etc . are defined for other decay modes .
the prefactor comes from the relative yukawa coupling of the @xmath6 and sm quarks [ eq .
] , which is relevant for the dominant gluon fusion @xmath163 through quark loops .    as noted in ref .
@xcite , the number of events ( production cross section times branching ratio ) of the @xmath6 into many modes can vary up a factor of two , given currently available data . figure  [ fig : moreconstraints ] ( b ) shows the parameter - space in the dark 2hdm where the branching ratios of the @xmath164 , @xmath165 , @xmath107 and @xmath108 are consistent with the sm prediction up to a factor of two ( @xmath166 ) . in the region between the bands ,
at least one of these event rate ratios is more than a factor of two different from the sm prediction .
the @xmath167 mode is the decay mode that drove the recent discovery of the @xmath5 higgs boson at the lhc .
we plot the allowed region corresponding to @xmath168 in fig .
[ fig : diphoton ] .
the exact @xmath169 is not achievable with given choices of @xmath137 ( @xmath170 , @xmath157 , @xmath158 ) , and requires much smaller values to reach this limit . in the ordinary type i model
, it is well known that one can not substantially exceed @xmath169 .
one can expand the allowed parameter - space considerably by going to smaller @xmath137 values .
we also note the parameter - space of the diphoton constraint in fig .
[ fig : diphoton ] is covered , except for a very little portion at the edge , by the parameter - space of less stringent other modes in fig .
[ fig : moreconstraints ] ( b ) .
the effect of the charged higgs that can contribute to diphoton signals may depend on the parameters of the scalar potential , and it is ignored ( which is valid when the charged higgs is heavy enough ) .
we will consider relatively light charged higgs scenario later in this paper though , which can change the diphoton rate .
it is worth mentioning that @xmath171 may not be a decisive constraint as additional vector - like leptons can increase the diphoton decay rate although they can also alter other decays @xcite .
+   ( a )   ( b )
the most interesting decay of the @xmath7 would be @xmath172 .
( for simplicity , we consider only the @xmath173 case to avoid @xmath116 decay . )    for a sufficiently light @xmath2 , using eq .
, we have ( h z z ) ( ) ^4 ( ) ^2 .
we can compare this to the typically dominant decay channel , @xmath164 , ( h b|b ) ( ) ^2 which gives = ( ) ^2 ( ) ^2 .
[ eq : lighthiggsratio ]    figure  [ fig : lighttodark ] shows the parameter region for @xmath174 and @xmath175 in which @xmath172 dominates the light higgs decay with @xmath176 , @xmath177 of the total @xmath7 decay .
the @xmath18 mode can dominate the light higgs decay in a similar manner in which the higgs decay to the weak vector bosons would dominate in the sm if the higgs mass were sufficiently heavy .
this originates from the enhancement from the longitudinal polarization of vector bosons when they are boosted .    in accordance with expectation from eq .  ,
[ fig : lighttodark ] shows that the @xmath172 dominates in a larger region of parameter - space with larger @xmath124 and larger @xmath147 .
especially , in the @xmath178 and sufficiently large @xmath38 region , the @xmath7 decay is almost entirely into @xmath18 as indicated by @xmath177 dashed curves .
+   ( a )   ( b )    we note that for @xmath179 case , in which the lighter one would be the sm - like higgs , the heavier one would dominantly decay into @xmath180 . for
some discussions of a higgs decaying into @xmath18 in different contexts , see refs .
@xcite .
the @xmath2 will then decay into fermions with a partial decay width , when fermion masses are neglected @xcite .
( z f |f )
_ z^2 g_z^2 ( g^2_v f + g_a f^2 ) m_z , where @xmath181 and @xmath182 .
@xmath183 for quarks ( leptons )
. the branching ratio of @xmath2 into the charged leptons ( which we call @xmath184 and @xmath185 ) depends on @xmath186 as well as nontrivial hadronic decays .
it was shown in ref .
@xcite that the individual lepton branching ratios for dark photons ( i.e. a model with only kinetic mixing @xmath24 for the interaction ) vary , roughly , between @xmath154 and @xmath187 over most of the mass range . this branching ratio would change if there are other light hidden sector particles that @xmath2 can decay into . also , our dark @xmath3 ( i.e. a model with both kinetic mixing and @xmath3-@xmath2 mass mixing parametrized by @xmath28 ) has different branching ratios in general .
we assume no displaced vertex and take @xmath188 in the following sketchy analysis
.    the light higgs might be detectable by a similar resonance search for the heavier higgs decaying into @xmath2 in sec .
[ sec:125bounds ] although a feasibility study might be necessary .
very recently , atlas has looked for prompt `` lepton - jets '' at @xmath189 @xcite .
a lepton - jet is a final state consisting of collimated muons or electrons . in one of their analyses , with results consistent with the sm
, they look for pairs of lepton - jets , each with two or more muons ( the rest of the event is ignored ) .
although they do consider a specific hidden valley model as an example , their results will apply to our case .
they only consider @xmath2 masses of @xmath190 and @xmath191 , and the results are relatively insensitive to the choice of masses .
the resulting @xmath192 cl upper bound on the cross section times branching ratio is @xmath193 for @xmath194 and @xmath195 for a @xmath196 . for our ballpark estimate , we will take the bound to be @xmath197 without specifying the @xmath2 mass .
the sm cross section for higgs production through gluon fusion is about @xmath198 for the higgs mass of @xmath199 at @xmath189 @xcite . in our case , the rate is multiplied by the factor @xmath200 of eq .  .
as shown in fig .
[ fig : lighttodark ] , the @xmath7 can decay into @xmath18 dominantly in most of the parameter - space of interest .
if we ignore the @xmath38 and @xmath113 dependence and take @xmath201 , the light higgs @xmath7 will appear as two muon - jets in the atlas analysis @xcite .
taking @xmath202 , the cross section times branching ratio for @xmath203 is bounded as ( 37  pb ) ( ) ^2 x_^2    20  fb .
for relatively large @xmath38 , this gives @xmath204 for a choice of @xmath205 .
as @xmath38 approaches @xmath148 , this changes to @xmath206 .
as the @xmath7 mass varies , these numbers change slightly , but it is clear that one is forced into a fairly small area of parameter - space . although these values of @xmath113 might seem fine - tuned , one should note that it varies from @xmath207 to @xmath208 in terms of @xmath209 as @xmath113 varies from @xmath210 to @xmath211 .
given the level of our rather sketchy estimate , we do not take these bounds too seriously , but it is indicative that a sophisticated analysis can potentially shrink the allowed region considerably ( unless the effect was discovered ) .
, with the upper ( lower ) line corresponding to @xmath213 .
the dotted lines are similar for the decay @xmath214 .
the solid line is for @xmath215 , which is either virtual or real , assuming @xmath202 and @xmath216 .
the dot - dashed line is for @xmath217 with the @xmath5 sm - like higgs .
the dominance of @xmath218 decay mode is persistent for all @xmath219 values allowed by the lep over the mass range of interest : @xmath110 .
, scaledwidth=32.5% ]    we have noted that the dark 2hdm is unusual in that there is no pseudoscalar higgs boson ( it becomes the longitudinal component of the @xmath2 ) associated with the doublets .
however , it certainly does have a charged scalar , @xmath212 , which is orthogonal to the longitudinal component of the @xmath220 .
the phenomenology of the charged higgs in the ordinary type i model was recently discussed in ref .
@xcite .    in the type i model as well as in this dark 2hdm ,
the coupling of the charged higgs to fermions is suppressed by a factor of @xmath38 .
( thus @xmath221 decay data , which pushes the charged higgs mass above @xmath222 in the type ii model , is not stringent in the type i model and in fact gives no bound for @xmath223 @xcite . )
direct bounds on the charged higgs mass from lep @xmath224 searches give @xmath225 assuming the charged higgs decays only into @xmath226 and @xmath227 @xcite .
if a charged higgs is light enough , one can look for it in top quark decays , but as atlas data shows , the lower bound on @xmath38 in the type i model is fairly weak , varying from @xmath148 to @xmath207 in the mass range of @xmath228 when the dominant decay mode is @xmath227 @xcite . for charged higgs masses above about @xmath229 , its primary decay mode
is generally given by @xmath230 , which is very difficult to detect .
for some discussion of relatively light charged higgs ( @xmath231 ) in ordinary 2hdms , see ref .
@xcite .    in the type i model
, one can also look for the decays @xmath232 where @xmath233 is either @xmath7 , @xmath6 or @xmath10 . in the dark 2hdm considered in this paper ,
however , there is a new and dramatic signature .
we have seen that the primary decay mode of the @xmath7 in most of the relevant parameter - space of our interest is into @xmath18 . in this case , one can have @xmath234 .
much of the time , the @xmath2 will decay into lepton pairs .
this will certainly be the dominant decay if the @xmath235 decay is kinematically a two - body decay , and would still be dominant even if the decay is kinematically three - body , since the competing decay will be suppressed by two powers of the @xmath120 mass .
the widths for the two and three - body decays of @xmath235 can be found in refs .
the two - body decay width is ( h^h w^ ) = ^3/2(m_h^^2,m_h^2,m_w^2 ) [ eq : hhw ] with @xmath236 .
it decreases with @xmath124 and increases with @xmath135 .
similarly , the decay width into the heavy higgs ( @xmath5 ) is given by ( h^h w^ ) = ^3/2(m_h^^2,m_h^2,m_w^2 ) , and the decay width into @xmath237 is given by ( h^t |b ) ( 1 - ) ^2 when @xmath238 is ignored and @xmath239 is taken , and a similar expression is given for @xmath227 mode .
figure  [ fig : chargedhiggs ] shows the partial decay widths based on the above formulas for @xmath240 , @xmath241 , @xmath242 , @xmath243 assuming that @xmath202 and @xmath244 .
( the @xmath245 has a smaller contribution than @xmath246 as in the ordinary type i model because of the small mass at the higgs mass scale as the rg running is faster with color . ) for @xmath247 region , the three - body decay @xmath248 ( and similarly for @xmath6 ) is shown in the plot .
we see that the decay into @xmath249 completely dominates for the entire range of @xmath212 masses in the plot ( @xmath250 ) .
we checked that , for all our interested range of @xmath110 and @xmath251 that we discussed in sec .
[ sec : constraints ] , the @xmath235 decay mode keeps dominating over the other @xmath212 decay modes for the mass range of @xmath252 .
while the decay rate of the charged higgs is the same as in ordinary type i model , the difference comes from how the @xmath7 can decay , leading to more dramatic signatures .
the production cross section for charged higgs bosons , for fairly large @xmath38 , is dominated by drell - yan pair production .
each of these charged higgs can mainly decay into @xmath253 , giving four @xmath2s in the relevant parameter - space .
this may be looked for with lepton - jet searches @xcite in a similar fashion we discussed in the previous section for @xmath254 channel , with appropriate cuts and selections .
note that the lepton - jet searches only require at least two muon - jets . with four @xmath2s and a @xmath255 branching ratio for @xmath256
, a substantial fraction of charged higgs pairs will give a signal .
one can estimate that the current atlas bound of 20 fb is already covering a region of parameter - space , but it is clear that a much more detailed analysis is needed .
given the unique signature of the model , with four @xmath2s and two @xmath16 s , a more targeted search could cover much more of the parameter - space .    in the dark 2hdm ,
there is no tree - level vertex @xmath257 for the same reason that there is no @xmath258 vertex at tree level .
namely , if one goes into a basis in which only one higgs doublet gets a vev , then the charged higgs is entirely in the other doublet . as a result , it can have no vev - dependent vertices .
since @xmath20 is broken , this result will break down at one - loop , and thus @xmath259 and @xmath260 can occur at one - loop .
the effect of the goldstone boson equivalence theorem , with a boosted @xmath2 , would enhance this loop - suppressed decay potentially at meaningful level .
we discussed , in this paper , only the case of @xmath261 .
it will be interesting and important to study how low the charged higgs mass can be in this model while satisfying all the experimental and theoretical constraints , in view of the fact that most of the lower bounds on the @xmath262 were obtained based on the typical @xmath237 , @xmath245 and @xmath227 modes .
it is also noteworthy that other variants of the dark 2hdm [ for example , with some of the sm fermions carrying nonzero @xmath11 charges ] would give the similar @xmath218 dominance since eq .
is valid for all types of 2hdms .
although experiments at the lhc have recently found the sm - like higgs boson with a mass of @xmath5 , it is still important to search for other higgs bosons , which occur in most extensions of the standard model . in this paper , we considered a 2hdm with a new @xmath0 gauge symmetry under which the sm particles are not charged ( the dark 2hdm ) , and discussed the physics of the other higgs bosons , namely , the non - sm - like neutral higgs and the charged higgs scalar .
the additional higgs doublet of this dark 2hdm is charged by the @xmath0 gauge symmetry , and this @xmath0 plays the role of the @xmath1 parity of the ordinary 2hdms , thus forbidding tree - level fcnc .
kinetic mixing between the @xmath0 gauge groups will generally occur , as will mixing in the @xmath3-@xmath2 mass matrix .
the possibility of a very light @xmath2 gauge boson has attracted increasing interest of late .
such a light @xmath2 has been a subject of active experimental searches including the fixed target experiments at jlab in virginia and at mainz in germany .
there are also searches using the decays from mesons at kloe , babar , and belle experiments .
the physics connecting the higgs to a heavy @xmath2 ( for example , the @xmath2 decays into the higgs boson @xcite ) has been extensively studied , but connection of the higgs to a very light @xmath2 has not been .
the light @xmath2 allows a very interesting scenario as the various higgs boson decays can involve a light gauge boson which can decay into leptons with @xmath263 branching ratio along with possible enhancement from the longitudinal polarization .
interestingly , in this model , the most important predictions / constraints on higgs properties come from the properties of the @xmath2 .
the @xmath2 is assumed to have a mass of @xmath264 or less .
such a light mass is the region most high energy collider analyses discard to avoid large sm backgrounds .
we considered the case in which the @xmath5 sm - like higgs is the heavier scalar , and studied the light higgs and charged higgs in the dark 2hdm . after describing the complete model , we studied constraints arising from lep bounds for invisible higgs decays and width of the @xmath3 as well as the @xmath265 sm - like higgs state seen at the lhc .
we found that a model with just two higgs doublets is excluded by the lep invisible higgs decay bounds combined with the precision electroweak physics , rare @xmath221 decay , etc .
this issue can be resolved by introducing an additional higgs singlet .
we then considered the production and detection of the light higgs boson ( @xmath7 ) whose dominant decay is into @xmath18 .
this leads to a remarkable and unusual signature
. the @xmath2 will decay with an appreciable branching fraction into a lepton pair , which ( since the @xmath2 is so light ) will form a collimated lepton jet .
a recent atlas experiment looked for events with two or more such `` muon - jets '' , and their results show that significant constraints on the model would be possible if a sophisticated analysis with larger statistics were to follow .
the atlas muon - jets experiment also constrains the charged higgs boson , which decays predominantly into @xmath249 ( either as a two - body or a three - body decay ) .
the charged higgs in the dark 2hdm can be very light compared to those in the ordinary 2hdms .    in this paper , we limited ourselves to the case in which the @xmath5 sm - like higgs is the heavier neutral higgs , no mixing is present between the higgs doublets and a singlet , and we focused on the region in which the light higgs mass is in the range of @xmath109
. relaxing these limits will allow more studies .
acknowledgments : this work was supported in part by the u.s .
doe under grant no .
de - ac05 - 06or23177 ( jlab ) and in part by the nsf under grant no .
phy-1068008 ( w&m ) .
we thank p. ferreira and r. santos for useful discussions about the code that was used , after modification , to generate some numerical results , and atlas experimenters a. hass , e. strauss , and g. watts for discussions about their muon - jet analysis .
hl thanks h. davoudiasl , i. lewis , and w. marciano for many helpful discussions during the dark @xmath3 projects .
in the @xmath71 limit , as shown in sec .  [ sec : model ] , the @xmath3-@xmath2 mass - squared matrix is given by m_zz^2 =                  .
we take the parametrization @xmath266 which helps separate the @xmath2 interactions with @xmath267 and @xmath268 .
the @xmath24 comes from the kinetic mixing term , and the @xmath28 originates from the @xmath3-@xmath2 mass mixing from the higgs ( @xmath41 ) that is charged under both @xmath269 and @xmath11 .
taking @xmath270 which is realized for @xmath271 . the @xmath3-@xmath2 mass mixing parameter @xmath28 is further parametrized by _ z with , from eqs .   - , & &
this would have been @xmath272 in the doublets only case ( @xmath80 ) .
the approximation @xmath273 would be valid in the limit where both @xmath38 and @xmath39 are large , and partly because of this reason , we use @xmath147 as our input instead of @xmath76 in the numerical analysis of this paper , which helps in estimating the higgs singlet contribution .    ignoring the higher order terms for small @xmath24 and @xmath28 parameters ( and their combination )
, we get _ & = & - e j^_em a_- g_z j^_nc z^0 _ + & & - e j^_em ( a_+ z^0 _ ) - g_z j^_nc ( z^0_- _ w z^0 _ ) [ eq : kinetic ] + & & - e j^_em ( a_+ z _ ) - g_z j^_nc ( z_+ _ z z _ ) [ eq : mass ] where eq .
is obtained after field redefinition to remove kinetic mixing term [ eq .  ] at leading order and eq .
is after the @xmath3-@xmath2 mass - squared matrix diagonalization [ eq .  ] .
we can see that , because of cancellation , there is no net @xmath2 coupling to the weak neutral current induced by the kinetic mixing @xmath274 .    for a very light @xmath2 ,
the kinetic mixing @xmath24 is constrained by various experiments including the electron beam dump , electron anomalous magnetic moment , and narrow resonance searches .
in particular , there are active searches using fixed target experiments at jlab ( in virginia ) and at mainz ( in germany ) as well as the searches using the heavy meson decays at kloe , babar , belle experiments .
very roughly , for the @xmath275 range , the experimental bounds of @xmath276 are present . with some combination of @xmath24 and @xmath34 (
roughly , @xmath277 and @xmath278 ) , the @xmath2 can explain the @xmath15 deviation of the muon @xmath4 .
( see ref .
@xcite for details . )
the @xmath24 basically parametrizes the vector coupling of the @xmath2 as it dominates the coupling to the electromagnetic current .
a good summary of the constraints and sensitivities from various experiments in the @xmath279 parameter - space can be found in ref .
@xcite .
the @xmath2 interaction to the weak neutral current is enabled by the @xmath3-@xmath2 mass mixing @xmath28 , and it controls the axial coupling of the @xmath2 as it dominates the coupling to the weak neutral current .
the axial couplings expand the phenomenology of the light @xmath2 into more areas including the low energy parity violation and the enhancement of the production for the boosted @xmath2 .
they were studied in refs .
they include low - energy parity violation , rare @xmath280 decays , and rare @xmath221 decays . also , bounds from the higgs decay exists as the presence of the @xmath281 and @xmath282 modes should be still consistent with the lhc data which is consistent with the @xmath5 sm higgs property .
typically , @xmath283 , depending on various conditions , is expected to satisfy all the constraints .
there are some caveats and dependencies on other parameters about this bounds , and we will take @xmath284 as a firm upper bound that we should satisfy in this paper .
this is quite a small quantity that can not be achieved with the pure doublets case as @xmath285 can not be too small ( as discussed in sec .  [ sec:3b ] ) , which is an important reason that this model needs a higgs singlet .    99 g.  aad _ et al . _ [ atlas collaboration ] , phys .  lett .
b * 716 * , 1 ( 2012 ) [ arxiv:1207.7214 [ hep - ex ] ] .
s.  chatrchyan _ et al . _
[ cms collaboration ] , phys .
b * 716 * , 30 ( 2012 ) [ arxiv:1207.7235 [ hep - ex ] ] .
for example , see p.  m.  ferreira , r.  santos , m.  sher and j.  p.  silva , phys .
d * 85 * , 077703 ( 2012 ) [ arxiv:1112.3277 [ hep - ph ] ] .
s.  dawson and e.  furlan , phys .
d * 86 * , 015021 ( 2012 ) [ arxiv:1205.4733 [ hep - ph ] ] .
m.  carena , i.  low and c.  e.  m.  wagner , jhep * 1208 * , 060 ( 2012 ) [ arxiv:1206.1082 [ hep - ph ] ] .
n.  bonne and g.  moreau , phys .
b * 717 * , 409 ( 2012 ) [ arxiv:1206.3360 [ hep - ph ] ] .
h.  an , t.  liu and l.  -t .
wang , phys .  rev .
d * 86 * , 075030 ( 2012 ) [ arxiv:1207.2473 [ hep - ph ] ] .
a.  joglekar , p.  schwaller and c.  e.  m.  wagner , jhep * 1212 * , 064 ( 2012 ) [ arxiv:1207.4235 [ hep - ph ] ] .
n.  arkani - hamed , k.  blum , r.  t.  dagnolo and j.  fan , jhep * 1301 * , 149 ( 2013 ) [ arxiv:1207.4482 [ hep - ph ] ] .
l.  g.  almeida , e.  bertuzzo , p.  a.  n.  machado and r.  z.  funchal , jhep * 1211 * , 085 ( 2012 ) [ arxiv:1207.5254 [ hep - ph ] ]
. j.  kearney , a.  pierce and n.  weiner , phys .
d * 86 * , 113005 ( 2012 ) [ arxiv:1207.7062 [ hep - ph ] ] .
m.  a.  ajaib , i.  gogoladze and q.  shafi , phys .
d * 86 * , 095028 ( 2012 ) [ arxiv:1207.7068 [ hep - ph ] ] .
h.  davoudiasl , h .- s .
lee and w.  j.  marciano , phys .
d * 86 * , 095009 ( 2012 ) [ arxiv:1208.2973 [ hep - ph ] ] .
s.  dawson , e.  furlan and i.  lewis , phys .
d * 87 * , 014007 ( 2013 ) [ arxiv:1210.6663 [ hep - ph ] ] .
h.  davoudiasl , i.  lewis and e.  ponton , phys .
d * 87 * , 093001 ( 2013 ) [ arxiv:1211.3449 [ hep - ph ] ] .
g.  c.  branco , p.  m.  ferreira , l.  lavoura , m.  n.  rebelo , m.  sher and j.  p.  silva , phys .
* 516 * , 1 ( 2012 ) [ arxiv:1106.0034 [ hep - ph ] ] .
s.  l.  glashow and s.  weinberg , phys .
d * 15 * ( 1977 ) 1958 .
e.  a.  paschos , phys .
d * 15 * ( 1977 ) 1966 .
t.  p.  cheng and m.  sher , phys .
d * 35 * ( 1987 ) 3484 .
a.  pich and p.  tuzon , phys .
d * 80 * , 091702 ( 2009 ) [ arxiv:0908.1554 [ hep - ph ] ] .
h.  davoudiasl , h .- s .
lee and w.  j.  marciano , phys .
d * 85 * , 115019 ( 2012 ) [ arxiv:1203.2947 [ hep - ph ] ] .
p.  ko , y.  omura and c.  yu , phys .
b * 717 * , 202 ( 2012 ) [ arxiv:1204.4588 [ hep - ph ] ] .
lee and a.  soni , phys .
lett .   * 110 * , 021802 ( 2013 ) [ arxiv:1206.6110 [ hep - ph ] ] .
for example , see v.  barger , p.  langacker , h .- s .
lee and g.  shaughnessy , phys .
d * 73 * , 115010 ( 2006 ) [ hep - ph/0603247 ] .
p.  langacker , rev .
phys .   * 81 * , 1199 ( 2009 ) [ arxiv:0801.1345 [ hep - ph ] ] . c.  boehm , d.  hooper , j.  silk , m.  casse and j.  paul , phys .
lett .   * 92 * , 101301 ( 2004 ) [ astro - ph/0309686 ] . c.  boehm , p.  fayet and j.  silk , phys .
d * 69 * , 101302 ( 2004 ) [ hep - ph/0311143 ] .
n.  arkani - hamed , d.  p.  finkbeiner , t.  r.  slatyer and n.  weiner , phys .
d * 79 * , 015014 ( 2009 ) [ arxiv:0810.0713 [ hep - ph ] ] .
p.  jean , j.  knoedlseder , v.  lonjou , m.  allain , j .-
roques , g.  k.  skinner , b.  j.  teegarden and g.  vedrenne _ et al .
_ , astron .
astrophys .   * 407 * , l55 ( 2003 ) [ astro - ph/0309484 ] .
j.  chang , j.  h.  adams , h.  s.  ahn , g.  l.  bashindzhagyan , m.  christl , o.  ganel , t.  g.  guzik and j.  isbert _ et al .
_ , nature * 456 * , 362 ( 2008 ) . o.  adriani _ et al .
_ [ pamela collaboration ] , nature * 458 * , 607 ( 2009 ) [ arxiv:0810.4995 [ astro - ph ] ] . g.  w.  bennett _ et al . _ [ muon g-2 collaboration ] , phys .
d * 73 * , 072003 ( 2006 ) [ hep - ex/0602035 ] .
j.  beringer _
[ particle data group collaboration ] , phys .
d * 86 * , 010001 ( 2012 ) .
m.  baumgart , c.  cheung , j.  t.  ruderman , l.  -t .
wang and i.  yavin , jhep * 0904 * , 014 ( 2009 ) [ arxiv:0901.0283 [ hep - ph ] ] .
f.  chen , j.  m.  cline and a.  r.  frey , phys .
d * 80 * , 083516 ( 2009 ) [ arxiv:0907.4746 [ hep - ph ] ] .
h.  zhang , c.  s.  li , q .- h .
cao and z.  li , phys .
d * 82 * , 075003 ( 2010 ) [ arxiv:0910.2831 [ hep - ph ] ] . c.  d.  carone , phys .
b * 721 * , 118 ( 2013 ) [ arxiv:1301.2027 [ hep - ph ] ] .
t.  alanne , s.  di chiara and k.  tuominen , arxiv:1303.3615 [ hep - ph ] .
h.  davoudiasl , h .- s .
lee and w.  j.  marciano , phys .
lett .   * 109 * , 031802 ( 2012 ) [ arxiv:1205.2709 [ hep - ph ] ] .
h.  davoudiasl , h .- s .
lee , i.  lewis and w.  j.  marciano , arxiv:1304.4935 [ hep - ph ] .
m.  ferreira , r.  santos , m.  sher and j.  p.  silva , phys .
d * 85 * , 035020 ( 2012 ) [ arxiv:1201.0019 [ hep - ph ] ] .
b.  holdom , phys .
b * 166 * , 196 ( 1986 ) .
s.  gopalakrishna , s.  jung and j.  d.  wells , phys .
d * 78 * , 055002 ( 2008 ) [ arxiv:0801.3456 [ hep - ph ] ] .
r.  barate _
[ lep working group for higgs boson searches and aleph and delphi and l3 and opal collaborations ] , phys .
b * 565 * , 61 ( 2003 ) [ hep - ex/0306033 ] .
s.  schael _ et al . _
[ aleph and delphi and l3 and opal and lep working group for higgs boson searches collaborations ] , eur .  phys .
j.  c * 47 * , 547 ( 2006 ) [ hep - ex/0602042 ] .
m.  ferreira and d.  r.  t.  jones , jhep * 0908 * , 069 ( 2009 ) [ arxiv:0903.2856 [ hep - ph ] ] .
r.  barate _
[ aleph collaboration ] , phys .
b * 466 * , 50 ( 1999 ) .
j.  abdallah _ et al .
_ [ delphi collaboration ] , eur .
j.  c * 32 * , 475 ( 2004 ) [ hep - ex/0401022 ] .
p.  achard _ et al .
_ [ l3 collaboration ] , phys .
b * 609 * , 35 ( 2005 ) [ hep - ex/0501033 ] .
g.  abbiendi _ et al . _
[ opal collaboration ] , phys .
b * 682 * , 381 ( 2010 ) [ arxiv:0707.0373 [ hep - ex ] ] .
a.  heister _ et al .
_ [ aleph collaboration ] , phys .
b * 526 * , 191 ( 2002 ) [ hep - ex/0201014 ] .
m.  s.  carena , a.  de gouvea , a.  freitas and m.  schmitt , phys .
d * 68 * , 113007 ( 2003 ) [ hep - ph/0308053 ] .
a.  denner , s.  heinemeyer , i.  puljak , d.  rebuzzi and m.  spira , eur .
j.  c * 71 * , 1753 ( 2011 ) [ arxiv:1107.5909 [ hep - ph ] ] .
o.  lebedev , h.  m.  lee and y.  mambrini , phys .
b * 707 * , 570 ( 2012 ) [ arxiv:1111.4482 [ hep - ph ] ] .
s. thomas , `` dark forces : searches for new forces at the gev - scale , '' slac national accelerator lab , 2009 ( unpublished ) .
m.  jung , a.  pich and p.  tuzon , jhep * 1011 * , 003 ( 2010 ) [ arxiv:1006.0470 [ hep - ph ] ] .
[ lep higgs working group for higgs boson searches and aleph and delphi and l3 and opal collaborations ] , hep - ex/0107031 .
g.  aad _ et al . _ [ atlas collaboration ] , jhep * 1206 * , 039 ( 2012 ) [ arxiv:1204.2760 [ hep - ex ] ] .
m.  aoki , r.  guedes , s.  kanemura , s.  moretti , r.  santos and k.  yagyu , phys .
d * 84 * , 055028 ( 2011 ) [ arxiv:1104.3178 [ hep - ph ] ] .
a.  djouadi , j.  kalinowski and p.  m.  zerwas , z.  phys .
c * 70 * , 435 ( 1996 ) [ hep - ph/9511342 ] .
a.  g.  akeroyd , nucl .
b * 544 * , 557 ( 1999 ) [ hep - ph/9806337 ] .
k.  agashe , h.  davoudiasl , s.  gopalakrishna , t.  han , g .- y .
huang , g.  perez , z .- g .
si and a.  soni , phys .
d * 76 * , 115015 ( 2007 ) [ arxiv:0709.0007 [ hep - ph ] ] .
v.  barger , p.  langacker and h .- s .
lee , phys .
lett .   * 103 * , 251802 ( 2009 ) [ arxiv:0909.2641 [ hep - ph ] ] .
r.  d.  mckeown , aip conf .
proc .   * 1423 * , 289 ( 2012 ) [ arxiv:1109.4855 [ hep - ex ] ] .