1: \documentclass{JHEP3}
2: \input epsf
3: \usepackage{epsfig}
4: \usepackage{amssymb}
5: \usepackage{amsmath}
6: \usepackage[active]{srcltx}
7:
8: \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{0.75in}
9: \setlength{\evensidemargin}{0.75in} \setlength{\topmargin}{0.75in}
10: \setlength{\textwidth}{7.0in} \setlength{\textheight}{8.5in}
11: \renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.2}
12: \jot=2mm
13:
14:
15: \newcommand{\bea}{\begin{eqnarray}}
16: \newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}}
17: \newcommand{\bean}{\begin{eqnarray*}}
18: \newcommand{\eean}{\end{eqnarray*}}
19: \newcommand{\nn}{\nonumber \\}
20: \newcommand{\mat}[1]{\left( \matrix{#1} \right)}
21: \newcommand{\tmat}[1]{{\scriptsize \mat{#1}}}
22: \newtheorem{theorem}{\sf THEOREM}
23: \def\thetheorem{\thesection.\arabic{theorem}}
24:
25: \def\IZ{\mathbb{Z}}
26: \def\IR{\mathbb{R}}
27: \def\IQ{\mathbb{Q}}
28: \def\IC{\mathbb{C}}
29: \def\IP{\mathbb{P}}
30: \def\O #1{\overline{#1}}
31: \def\D #1{\dot{#1}}
32: \def\W #1{\widetilde{#1}}
33: \def\WH #1{\widehat{#1}}
34:
35: \def\rightaction#1{\stackrel{\rightarrow}{\partial \over \partial #1}}
36: \def\leftaction#1{\stackrel{\lefttarrow}{\partial \over \partial #1}}
37: \def\func#1{\mathop{\rm #1}\nolimits}
38: \def\abs#1{\left| #1\right|}
39: \def\braket#1{\left\langle #1 \right\rangle}
40: \def\bra#1{\left\langle #1\right|}
41: \def\ket#1{\left| #1\right\rangle}
42: \def\bket#1{\left| #1\right]}
43: \def\gb #1{ \left\langle #1 \right]}
44: \def\tgb #1{ \left[ #1 \right\rangle}
45: \def\vev#1{\left\langle #1 \right\rangle}
46:
47:
48: \def\bbar#1{ \overline #1}
49: \def\Tr{\mathop{\rm Tr}}
50: \def\det{\mathop{\rm det}}
51: \newcommand{\fref}[1]{Figure~\ref{#1}}
52: \def\eref#1{(\ref{#1})}
53: \def\bit#1{\begin{array}{c} \\ \\ \end{array} \hspace{#1 cm}}
54: \def\d{{\rm d}}
55: \def\wt{\widetilde}
56: \def\wtl{\widetilde{\lambda}}
57: \def\wh{\widehat}
58: \def\wht{\widehat{x}^0}
59: \def\whx{\widehat{x}^1}
60: \def\th{{\theta}}
61: \def\bth{{\overline{\theta}}}
62: \def\a{{\alpha}}
63: \def\ba{{\overline{\alpha}}}
64: \def\da{{\dot{\alpha}}}
65: \def\b{{\beta}}
66: \def\db{{\dot{\beta}}}
67: \def\c{{\gamma}}
68: \def\dc{{\dot{\gamma}}}
69:
70: \def\d{\partial}
71: \def\rmd{{\rm d}}
72: \def\la{\lambda}
73: \def\eps{\epsilon}
74: \def\lblb{({\bar\la}{\bar\la})}
75: \def\ald{{\dot\alpha}}
76: \def\bed{{\dot\beta}}
77: \def\gad{{\dot\gamma}}
78: \def\sid{{\dot\rho}}
79:
80: \def\Label#1{\label{#1}}
81: %\def\Label#1{\label{#1}%
82: % \smash{\hbox to0pt{\raise1ex\hbox{\tiny[#1]}\hss}}}
83: \newcommand{\bbibitem}[1]{\bibitem{#1}\marginpar{#1}}
84:
85:
86:
87: \preprint{ITFA-2008-10}
88: \title{
89: Polynomial Structures in One-Loop Amplitudes}
90: \author{Ruth Britto$^{\flat}$, Bo Feng$^{\natural}$, Gang Yang$^{\sharp}$\\
91: ~~~~\\
92: $^\natural$Center of Mathematical Science, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China\\
93: $^\flat$Institute for Theoretical Physics, University of Amsterdam \\
94: Valckenierstraat 65, 1018 XE Amsterdam, The Netherlands\\
95: $^\sharp$Institute of Theoretical Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences \\
96: P. O. Box 2735, Beijing 100190, China }
97: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
98: \abstract{ A general one-loop scattering amplitude may be expanded
99: in terms of master integrals. The coefficients of the master
100: integrals can be obtained from tree-level input in a two-step
101: process. First, use known formulas to write the coefficients of
102: $(4-2\eps)$-dimensional master integrals; these formulas depend on
103: an additional variable, $u$, which encodes the dimensional shift.
104: Second, convert the $u$-dependent coefficients of
105: $(4-2\eps)$-dimensional master integrals to explicit coefficients of
106: dimensionally shifted master integrals. This procedure requires the
107: initial formulas for coefficients to have polynomial dependence on
108: $u$. Here, we give a proof of this property in the case of massless propagators. The proof is
109: constructive. Thus, as a byproduct, we produce different algebraic
110: expressions for the scalar integral coefficients, in which the
111: polynomial property is apparent. In these formulas, the box and
112: pentagon contributions are separated explicitly.}
113: %
114: \keywords{NLO Computations, QCD}
115:
116: \begin{document}
117: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
118:
119:
120:
121:
122:
123:
124:
125: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
126: \section{Introduction}
127: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
128:
129: Detailed calculations of multi-particle scattering events are needed in order to analyze new physics at the experiments of the Large Hadron Collider.
130: Computational complexity increases
131: rapidly with the number of legs, even at the amplitude level.
132: New and improved algorithms are being developed to meet these needs.
133: Recent progress at next-to-leading order has been reviewed in \cite{Bern:2008ef}.
134:
135: Scattering amplitudes at one-loop level can be understood in terms
136: of an expansion in master integrals
137: \cite{IntegralRecursion,MasterIntegrals}. The coefficients of the
138: master integrals may be obtained by direct reduction, or
139: alternatively by solving constraint equations derived from singular
140: structures, most notably unitarity cuts
141: \cite{Bern:1994zx,Bern:1994cg,Bern:1997sc,Cachazo:2004by,Bena:2004xu,Cachazo:2004dr,Britto:2004nj,Bern:2004ky,Bidder:2004tx,Britto:2004nc,Britto:2005ha,Brandhuber:2005jw,Britto:2006sj,Ossola:2006us,Anastasiou:2006jv,Mastrolia:2006ki,Britto:2006fc,Anastasiou:2006gt,Ossola:2007bb,Forde:2007mi,Ellis:2007br,BjerrumBohr:2007vu,Ossola:2007ax,Britto:2007tt,Kilgore:2007qr,Giele:2008ve,Ossola:2008xq}.
142: In order to obtain complete physical amplitudes from unitarity cuts,
143: we can work in dimensional regularization, where $D=4-2\eps$
144: \cite{vanNeerven:1985xr,Bern:1995db,Bern:1996je,Bern:1996ja}. By
145: now, explicit analytic formulas for these coefficients are available
146: \cite{Britto:2006fc,Forde:2007mi,Britto:2007tt,Kilgore:2007qr}. The
147: input quantities are taken from the complete tree-level amplitudes
148: involved in unitarity cuts. There are other promising algorithms
149: for finding the coefficients in 4 or $D$ dimensions
150: \cite{delAguila:2004nf,Ossola:2006us,Ellis:2007br,Giele:2008ve}, or
151: specifically the additional ``rational'' parts supplementing a pure
152: 4-dimensional expansion
153: \cite{Bern:2005hs,Bern:2005ji,Bern:2005cq,Berger:2006ci,Berger:2006vq,Xiao:2006vr,Su:2006vs,Xiao:2006vt,Binoth:2006hk,Ossola:2008xq,Badger:2008cm}.
154:
155:
156: The formulas of \cite{Britto:2007tt}, developed in the context of
157: the $D$-dimensional unitarity analysis of \cite{Anastasiou:2006jv,
158: Anastasiou:2006gt}, are coefficients of $(4-2\eps)$-dimensional
159: master integrals; these formulas depend on an additional variable,
160: $u$, which encodes the dimensional shift. To finish the calculation,
161: we convert the $u$-dependent coefficients of
162: $(4-2\eps)$-dimensional master integrals to explicit coefficients of
163: dimensionally shifted master integrals.%
164: \footnote{As an alternative
165: to this last step, complete coefficients of $(4-2\eps)$-dimensional
166: master integrals could be obtained with the recursion and reduction
167: formulas of \cite{Anastasiou:2006jv, Anastasiou:2006gt}.}
168: %This procedure requires the initial formulas for coefficients to have
169: %polynomial dependence on $u$. In previous work, some evidence for this assumption was provided. Now, we give a complete proof. As a byproduct, we offer alternate expressions for the coefficient formulas, in which the $u$-dependence has been simplified.
170:
171: We are presently concerned with the adaptation of the formulas of \cite{Britto:2007tt} to an efficient numerical algorithm. Two particular issues are addressed in this paper:
172: %
173: \begin{itemize}
174:
175: \item Because the coefficients of the $(4-2\eps)$-dimensional integrals are polynomials in the variable $u$, a direct numerical implementation is not obvious.
176:
177: \item The algebraic expression of boxes includes both box and
178: pentagon contributions. The pentagon contribution is signaled by the $(a u+b)$ factor in the denominator.
179:
180: \end{itemize}
181: %
182: Our aim is to solve these two problems. More
183: concretely, in this paper we accomplish the following:
184: %
185: \begin{itemize}
186:
187: \item The proof of the polynomial property of $u$: In previous work, some evidence for this assumption was provided. Now, we give a complete proof.
188:
189: \item Simplifying our previous expressions: The algebraic
190: expressions for coefficients given in \cite{Britto:2007tt}
191: were the full polynomials in $u$, i.e. a sum of terms of the form $c_n u^n$.
192: Here, we give expressions for evaluating
193: $c_n$ directly from
194: input quantities.
195:
196:
197: \item Separating the coefficients of boxes and pentagons: We
198: give explicit, separate expressions for coefficients of boxes and
199: pentagons.
200:
201: \end{itemize}
202: %
203:
204: For simplicity, the results here are specific to amplitudes with
205: massless propagators. Generalization to the massive case is
206: straightforward for the coefficients of master integrals that have
207: nonvanishing cuts.
208: Based on the present paper, the generalization to the massive case has been presented in
209: \cite{Britto:2008vq}. We work within the spinor formalism
210: \cite{SpinorFormalism}, reviewed in \cite{Dixon:2005cf}.
211:
212: The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we organize our
213: input quantities from tree amplitudes, define some key vectors and spinors
214: from the input, and briefly discuss the dimensional shift. Then we
215: proceed to the simplifications of the formulas for coefficients, and
216: the proofs that they are
217: polynomials in $u$. These are given in Sections 3 and 4 for triangles and bubbles, respectively.
218: In Section 5, we address box coefficients, and for the first time we present separate formulas for box and pentagon coefficients.
219: Section 6 contains an application of these formulas, within the example of the 5-gluon amplitude.
220: In Section 7, we close with a discussion and comparison to a couple of other recent approaches to the problem of one-loop amplitudes.
221: Appendix A contains our definitions of master integrals and dimensional shift identities.
222: Appendix B contains alternate, more explicit expressions for the triangle coefficients which may be better suited for numerical evaluation,
223: since the derivatives have been taken analytically in every case that arises in a renormalizable theory.
224: Appendix C contains many of the details of the polynomial proof for bubble coefficients.
225: Appendix D contains analytic expressions used in cuts of pentagons.
226:
227:
228: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
229: \section{Setup and Definitions}
230: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
231:
232: In this section, we set up some key conventions and definitions used in expressing the coefficients of master integrals, and in our proofs of polynomial dependence.
233:
234:
235: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
236: \subsection{Unitarity method}
237: %
238: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
239:
240: The unitarity cut of a one-loop amplitude is its discontinuity
241: across a branch cut in a kinematic region selecting a particular
242: momentum channel.
243: Specifically, we denote the momentum vector by $K$. Then, $K^2$ should be positive, and all
244: other momentum invariants should be negative. The vector $K$ will
245: be a sum of momenta of some of the external legs. The discontinuity
246: is given by \bea
247: \Delta A^{\rm 1-loop} = \int d^D\Phi~~ A^{\rm tree}_{\rm Left} ~\times~
248: A^{\rm tree}_{\rm Right},
249: \label{cutdef} \eea where the Lorentz-invariant phase-space (LIPS)
250: of a double cut is defined by inserting two $\delta$-functions
251: representing the cut conditions:\footnote{The delta functions here
252: should properly be
253: denoted by $\delta^{(+)}$, indicating that they are restricted to
254: the positive light cone. We shall drop the superscript for simplicity.}
255: %
256: \bea d^D\Phi=d^Dp~ \delta(p^2) \delta((p-K)^2) \eea
257:
258: The ``unitarity method'' \cite{Bern:1994zx,Bern:1994cg} combines
259: the unitarity cuts with the results of reduction to an expansion in
260: master integrals $I_i$ \cite{MasterIntegrals} \bea A^{\rm 1-loop} =
261: \sum_i c_i I_i. \label{pvred} \eea The master integrals in $d$
262: dimensions with massless propagators are scalar pentagons, scalar
263: boxes, scalar triangles, and scalar bubbles. In the full
264: $d$-dimensional formalism, there are no cut-free terms.
265:
266: The $n$-point scalar integral with massless propagators is
267: %
268: \bea & & - i (4\pi)^{D/2} \int {d^{D} p \over (2\pi)^{D}}{1\over
269: p^2 (p-K)^2 \prod_{j=1}^{n-2} (p-P_j)^2}. \label{n-scalar}
270: \eea
271: %
272: %
273:
274: The coefficients $c_i$ in (\ref{pvred}) are, by construction,
275: cut-free rational functions. In the unitarity method, we do not
276: derive the coefficients of master integrals by performing any
277: reduction. Rather, we take the coefficients as unknowns and proceed
278: to constrain them by performing cuts on both sides of (\ref{pvred}):
279: \bea \Delta A^{\rm 1-loop} = \sum_i c_i \Delta I_i. \label{method}
280: \eea
281: % \includegraphics[width=7cm]{box3.eps}
282:
283:
284: Any realization of the unitarity method must address the problem of
285: isolating the individual coefficients $c_i$. The unitarity method
286: succeeds because the cuts of master integrals are logarithms of
287: unique functions of the kinematic invariants.
288:
289: %
290:
291: In \cite{Britto:2004nc}, it was shown how to obtain scalar box
292: coefficients directly by cutting four propagators rather than two.
293: Similarly explicit analytic formulas for the other
294: coefficients have recently become available
295: \cite{Britto:2006fc,Forde:2007mi,Britto:2007tt,Kilgore:2007qr}.
296:
297: Here, we refer to the formulas given in \cite{Britto:2007tt}, after
298: setting propagator masses to zero for simplicity. The
299: generalization to the case of massive propagators has now been given
300: in \cite{Britto:2008vq}.
301:
302:
303: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
304: \subsection{Input quantities}
305: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
306:
307: Having present the general picture, in this subsection we can start
308: with the following most general expression for a unitarity cut
309: integral:
310: %
311: \bea C & = & \int d^{4-2\eps} p~ c(\mu^2)\frac{ \prod_{i=1}^{m}
312: (-2 \W\ell \cdot P_i ) }{\prod_{j=1}^k (p-K_j)^2} \delta^{(+)}(p^2)
313: \delta^{(+)}((p-K)^2).
314: ~~~\Label{I-inte}\eea
315: %
316: We work in the
317: four-dimensional helicity scheme, so that all external momenta $K_i$
318: are $4$-dimensional and only the internal momentum $p$ is
319: $(4-2\eps)$-dimensional.
320: We decompose the $(4-2\eps)$-dimensional loop momentum as \cite{Bern:1995ix,Bern:1995db}
321: %
322: \bea
323: p=\W \ell+\vec{\mu},
324: \eea
325: %
326: where $\W \ell$ is $4$-dimensional and $\vec{\mu}$ is
327: $(-2\eps)$-dimensional. With the integrand in the form of (\ref{I-inte}),
328: there is a prefactor $c(\mu^2)$ which depends on the external momenta as
329: well as on $\mu^2$. In this discussion we shall be paying careful
330: attention to all dependence on $\mu^2$.
331:
332:
333: From this starting point, the coefficients of master integrals were
334: listed in \cite{Britto:2007tt}. Now, we would like to be able
335: produce the complete 4-dimensional expression, by performing the
336: integral over $\mu^2$ by the recursion and reduction formulas of
337: \cite{Anastasiou:2006jv, Anastasiou:2006gt}. To get this complete
338: answer, we need to consider the dependence of the prefactor
339: $c(\mu^2)$ on $\mu^2$, along with the power of $\mu^2$ in the
340: coefficient formulas of \cite{Britto:2007tt}. We consider this
341: dependence in terms of the dimensionless parameter $u$, defined by
342: %
343: \bea u={4 \mu^2\over
344: K^2}
345: %,~~~~(1-2z)=\sqrt{1-u}
346: .~~~~\Label{about-u}
347: \eea
348: %
349: With this definition, the cut integral (\ref{I-inte}) can then be
350: rewritten as
351: %
352: \bea %&=& \frac{(4\pi)^\eps}{\Gamma(-\eps)}~\int d\mu^2 ~
353: %(\mu^2)^{-1-\eps} ~ c(\mu^2) \int
354: %\vev{\ell~d\ell}[\ell~d\ell]~(1-2z)~{ (K^2)^{n+1}\over
355: %\gb{\ell|K|\ell}^{n+2}} {\prod_{j=1}^{n+k} \gb{\ell|R_j|\ell}\over
356: %\prod_{i=1}^k \gb{\ell|Q_i|\ell}} \nonumber\\ &=&
357: C = \frac{(4\pi)^\eps}{\Gamma(-\eps)}~ \left( {K^2 \over 4
358: }\right)^{-\eps} \int_0^1 du \ u^{-1-\eps} ~ c(\mu^2) \int
359: \vev{\ell~d\ell}[\ell~d\ell]~\sqrt{1-u}~{ (K^2)^{n+1}\over
360: \gb{\ell|K|\ell}^{n+2}} {\prod_{j=1}^{n+k}
361: \gb{\ell|R_j(u)|\ell}\over \prod_{i=1}^k \gb{\ell|Q_i(u)|\ell}} ~,
362: \qquad \Label{cut-int-form} \eea
363: %
364:
365: The coefficients listed in \cite{Britto:2007tt}, which are summarized
366: below, are the results of the four-dimensional part of the integral
367: (\ref{I-inte}); they are functions of $u$. The ``four-dimensional
368: cut-constructible'' part of the amplitude could be obtained by
369: setting $u\to 0$ in each of these coefficients, inside the expansion
370: of the amplitude in master integrals. The {\em complete
371: $D$-dimensional}
372: amplitude requires dealing with this $u$-dependence. Here it is enough to apply the polynomial
373: reduction identities given in \cite{Anastasiou:2006jv,Anastasiou:2006gt}.
374: These identities assume polynomial structure of the coefficients $C(u)$, which is proven in
375: the present paper, and which may also be deduced within other approaches \cite{delAguila:2004nf}. However, if we desire a result only through
376: ${\cal O}(\eps^0)$,
377: it may be more efficient to use the dimensionally-shifted basis
378: discussed in \cite{Bern:1995ix,Giele:2008ve}. We
379: shall return to this point in the following subsection.
380:
381:
382: From the initial expression (\ref{I-inte}), we extract all the necessary information, as follows. First, notice the
383: triplet of integers
384: %
385: \bea
386: (m, ~k, ~n \equiv m-k)~~~\Label{mkn}
387: \eea
388: %
389: which will play an important
390: role. In particular, the value of $n$ constrains the basis of
391: master integrals \cite{{Bern:1994zx},{Bern:1994cg}}. If $n\leq -2$,
392: there are contributions only from boxes and pentagons. If $n\geq
393: -1$, contributions from triangles will kick in, and finally if
394: $n\geq 0$, bubble contributions show up as well. This pattern is
395: well known from traditional reduction techniques.
396:
397: Second, we use the values of $K$, $P_i$, and $K_j$ from the expression (\ref{I-inte})
398: to define the vectors
399: $Q_j, R_j $, and related important quantities, as follows: \footnote{These
400: definitions apply specifically to the case with massless
401: propagators. Only a slight modification is necessary for massive
402: propagators \cite{Britto:2006fc,Britto:2008vq}. }
403: %
404: \bea
405: q_j & \equiv & K_j - {K_j\cdot K\over K^2}K \\
406: \a_j & \equiv & {K_j^2-K_j\cdot K\over K^2} \\
407: p_j & \equiv & P_j - {P_j\cdot K\over K^2}K \\
408: \b_j & \equiv & - {P_j\cdot K\over K^2}
409: \eea
410: %
411: %
412: \bea
413: Q_j(u) & \equiv & -(\sqrt{1-u}) q_j + \a_j K,~~~
414: \Label{Q-q-def}\\
415: &=& -(\sqrt{1-u})K_j +\left({K_j^2 \over K^2}- (1-\sqrt{1-u}) { K_j \cdot K \over K^2}\right) K ~~~\Label{Q-K-def} \\
416: R_j(u) & \equiv & -(\sqrt{1-u}) p_j + \b_j K ~~~ \Label{R-p-def} \\
417: &=& -(\sqrt{1-u})P_j
418: -(1-\sqrt{1-u}) { P_j \cdot K \over K^2} K ~~~\Label{R-K-def}
419: \eea
420: %
421: One important observation is that
422: %
423: \bea q_j\cdot K= p_j\cdot K =0.~~~~\Label{pk-dot-K}\eea
424: %
425: At this point, we wish to make a few more remarks.
426: %
427: \begin{itemize}
428:
429: \item The input quantities are given by $K,K_j,P_j$. From this we
430: can define $q_j, \a_j, p_j, \b_j$ and $Q_j(u), R_j(u)$. We make
431: reference to the number of these vectors, encoded in the
432: triple of integers $(m,k,n)$.
433:
434: \item To simplify notation when we set $u=0$, we
435: will write expressions such as $Q_j(u=0)$, or just $Q_j$.
436:
437: \item The coefficients of the master integrals are polynomials in
438: $u$. In this paper, we shall find that the maximum degrees of these
439: polynomials are the following.
440: Pentagon: 0. Box: $[(n+2)/2]$. Triangle: $[(n+1)/2]$. Bubble:
441: $[n/2]$.
442: Here, $[d]$ denotes the greatest integer less than or equal to $d$.
443:
444:
445: For a renormalizable theory we have $n\leq 2$; thus we have the maximum
446: degrees of
447: 2 for boxes, 1 for triangles, and 1 for bubbles. These degrees are consistent
448: with \cite{Ossola:2006us,Ossola:2007bb} and \cite{Giele:2008ve}.
449:
450: \item Knowing the maximum value of the degree of the polynomial in $u$, we can then calculate
451: the coefficient of $u^s$ by the formula
452: %
453: \bea
454: c_s = \left. {1\over s!} {d^s C(u)\over du^s}\right|_{u\to
455: 0},~~~\Label{c-n-exp}
456: \eea
457: %
458: so
459: %
460: \bea
461: C(u)=\sum_{s=0}^{s_{max}} \left. {1\over s!} {d^s C(u)\over
462: du^s}\right|_{u\to 0} u^s.
463: \eea
464: %
465: The expression (\ref{c-n-exp}) is central in this paper. Since
466: $c_s$ now has an expression where $u$ does not appear (as indicated
467: by the right-hand-side of expression (\ref{c-n-exp})),
468: it can be evaluated numerically. \footnote{See \cite{Britto:2008vq} for another
469: approach that is possibly more efficient.}
470:
471:
472: \end{itemize}
473: %
474:
475:
476: {\bf Summary of coefficients of 4-dimensional master
477: integrals:\\}
478:
479: For the box coefficient with momenta $K,K_r,K_s$,
480: %
481: \bean C[Q_r,Q_s,K] & = & {(K^2)^{2+n}\over 2}\left({\prod_{j=1}^{k+n}
482: \gb{P_{sr,1}|R_j |P_{sr,2}}\over \gb{P_{sr,1}|K
483: |P_{sr,2}}^{n+2}\prod_{t=1,t\neq i,j}^k \gb{P_{sr,1}|Q_t
484: |P_{sr,2}}}+ \{P_{sr,1}\leftrightarrow P_{sr,2}\}
485: \right).
486: \eean
487: %
488: For the triangle coefficient with momenta $K,K_s$,
489: %
490: \bean
491: C[Q_s,K] & = & { (K^2)^{1+n}\over
492: 2}\frac{1}{(\sqrt{\Delta_s})^{n+1}}\frac{1}{(n+1)!
493: \vev{P_{s,1}~P_{s,2}}^{n+1}} \nonumber
494: \\ & & \times \frac{d^{n+1}}{d\tau^{n+1}}\left.\left({\prod_{j=1}^{k+n}
495: \vev{P_{s,1}-\tau P_{s,2} |R_j Q_s|P_{s,1}-\tau P_{s,2}}\over
496: \prod_{t=1,t\neq s}^k \vev{P_{s,1}-\tau P_{s,2}|Q_t Q_s
497: |P_{s,1}-\tau P_{s,2}}} + \{P_{s,1}\leftrightarrow
498: P_{s,2}\}\right)\right|_{\tau=0}.
499: \eean
500: %
501: For the bubble coefficient with momentum $K$,
502: %
503: \bean
504: C[K] = (K^2)^{1+n} \sum_{q=0}^n {(-1)^q\over q!} {d^q \over
505: ds^q}\left.\left( {\cal B}_{n,n-q}^{(0)}(s)+\sum_{r=1}^k\sum_{a=q}^n
506: \left({\cal B}_{n,n-a}^{(r;a-q;1)}(s)-{\cal
507: B}_{n,n-a}^{(r;a-q;2)}(s)\right)\right)\right|_{s=0}
508: \eean
509: %
510: where we have made the following definitions:
511: %
512: \bean {\cal B}_{n,t}^{(0)}(s)\equiv {d^n\over d\tau^n}\left.\left( {1
513: \over n! [\eta|\W \eta K|\eta]^{n}} {(2\eta\cdot K)^{t+1} \over
514: (t+1) (K^2)^{t+1}}{\prod_{j=1}^{n+k} \vev{\ell|R_j
515: (K+s\eta)|\ell}\over \vev{\ell~\eta}^{n+1} \prod_{p=1}^k \vev{\ell|
516: Q_p(K+s\eta)|\ell}}|_{\ket{\ell}\to |K-\tau \W \eta|\eta]
517: }\right)\right|_{\tau= 0},
518: \eean
519: %
520: %
521: \bean & & {\cal B}_{n,t}^{(r;b;1)}(s) \equiv {(-1)^{b+1}\over
522: b! \sqrt{\Delta_r}^{b+1} \vev{P_{r,1}~P_{r,2}}^b}{d^b \over d\tau^{b}}
523: \left({1\over (t+1)} {\gb{P_{r,1}-\tau
524: P_{r,2}|\eta|P_{r,1}}^{t+1}\over \gb{P_{r,1}-\tau
525: P_{r,2}|K|P_{r,1}}^{t+1}}\right. \nonumber \\ & & \times
526: \left.\left. {\vev{P_{r,1}-\tau P_{r,2}|Q_r \eta|P_{r,1}-\tau
527: P_{r,2}}^{b} \prod_{j=1}^{n+k} \vev{P_{r,1}-\tau P_{r,2}|R_j
528: (K+s\eta)|P_{r,1}-\tau P_{r,2}}\over \vev{P_{r,1}-\tau P_{r,2}|\eta
529: K|P_{r,1}-\tau P_{r,2}}^{n+1} \prod_{p=1,p\neq r}^k
530: \vev{P_{r,1}-\tau P_{r,2}| Q_p(K+s\eta)|P_{r,1}-\tau
531: P_{r,2}}}\right)\right|_{\tau=0},
532: \eean
533: %
534: %
535: \bean & & {\cal B}_{n,t}^{(r;b;2)}(s) \equiv {(-1)^{b+1}\over
536: b! \sqrt{\Delta_r}^{b+1} \vev{P_{r,1}~P_{r,2}}^{b}}{d^{b} \over d\tau^{b}}
537: \left({1\over (t+1)} {\gb{P_{r,2}-\tau
538: P_{r,1}|\eta|P_{r,2}}^{t+1}\over \gb{P_{r,2}-\tau
539: P_{r,1}|K|P_{r,2}}^{t+1}}\right. \nonumber \\ & & \times
540: \left.\left. {\vev{P_{r,2}-\tau P_{r,1}|Q_r \eta|P_{r,2}-\tau
541: P_{r,1}}^{b} \prod_{j=1}^{n+k} \vev{P_{r,2}-\tau P_{r,1}|R_j
542: (K+s\eta)|P_{r,2}-\tau P_{r,1}}\over \vev{P_{r,2}-\tau P_{r,1}|\eta
543: K|P_{r,2}-\tau P_{r,1}}^{n+1} \prod_{p=1,p\neq r}^k
544: \vev{P_{r,2}-\tau P_{r,1}| Q_p(K+s\eta)|P_{r,2}-\tau
545: P_{r,1}}}\right)\right|_{\tau=0}.
546: \eean
547: %. Various variables and functions will be defined later.
548:
549: Note that the prefactor $c(\mu^2)$ has not been included in these
550: formulas for coefficients.
551:
552:
553:
554:
555:
556: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
557: \subsection{Some important constructions from input quantities}
558: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
559:
560: Given two momenta $S,R$, we construct two null momenta. If $R^2=0$ and $S^2=0$, $R,S$ are themselves the two null momenta.
561: If at least one of them is not null, for example $R^2\neq 0$, then we
562: construct two null momenta as follows.
563: %
564: \bea P_{(S,R);i}= S+ x_i R,~~~~~x_1={-2 S\cdot R
565: +\sqrt{\Delta(S,R)}\over 2 R^2},~~x_2={-2 S\cdot R
566: -\sqrt{\Delta(S,R)}\over 2 R^2},~~~\Label{P-RS}\eea
567: %
568: where
569: %
570: \bea \Delta(S,R)\equiv (2R\cdot S)^2-4 R^2
571: S^2.~~~\Label{Delta-def}\eea
572: %
573: %
574: Then, the following quantities necessarily vanish.
575: %
576: \bea
577: 0=\gb{P_{(S,R);1}|S|P_{(S,R);2}}=\gb{P_{(S,R);2}|S|P_{(S,R);1}}
578: =\gb{P_{(S,R);1}|R|P_{(S,R);2}}=\gb{P_{(S,R);2}|R|P_{(S,R);1}}.~~~\Label{P12-0}
579: \eea
580:
581:
582:
583: %Given three generic momenta $K_2, K_3, K_4$, we can construct another
584: %momentum $(\W q_0)_\mu^{(K_2, K_3, K_4)}$ orthogonal to all three:
585: %%
586: %\bea (\W q_0)_\mu^{(K_2, K_3, K_4)}\equiv \eps_{\mu\nu\rho\xi}
587: % K_2^\nu K_3^\rho K_4^\xi,~~~~\Label{W-q-0}\eea
588: %%
589: %One important property of $\W q_0$ is that
590: %%
591: %\bea 0=(\W q_0)^{(K_2, K_3, K_4)}\cdot K_2=(\W q_0)^{(K_2, K_3,
592: %K_4)}\cdot K_3=(\W q_0)^{(K_2, K_3, K_4)}\cdot
593: %K_4,~~~\Label{W-q0-pro}\eea
594: %%
595:
596: We shall use the following identity:
597: %
598: \bea & & \gb{P_1|V|P_2} \gb{P_2|W|P_1} = tr\left( {1-\gamma_5\over
599: 2} \not{P_1} \not{V} \not{P_2} \not{W}\right) \nonumber
600: \\ & = & {1\over 2} ( (2P_1 \cdot V)(2 P_2\cdot W)+(2P_1 \cdot W)(2 P_2\cdot V)
601: -(2P_1\cdot P_2)(2 V \cdot W) -4i\eps_{\mu \nu\sigma \rho}P_1^\mu
602: V^\nu P_2^\sigma W^\rho).
603: \Label{eva-2}\eea
604: %
605:
606: Any four-dimensional momentum $K$ can be expanded in a basis of four
607: other independent
608: momenta $K_i,K_j,K_m,K_n$ by
609: %
610: \bea K=a_m K_m + a_n K_n+ a_i K_i+a_j K_j,~~~\Label{4D-exp} \eea
611: %
612: where the coefficients are given by
613: %
614: \bea a_m & = & {\eps(K_i, K, K_j, K_n)\over \eps(K_i, K_m, K_j,
615: K_n)}, \qquad a_n={\eps(K_i, K_m, K_j, K)\over \eps(K_i, K_m, K_j, K_n)},
616: \nonumber \\
617: a_i
618: &=& {\eps(K, K_m, K_j, K_n)\over \eps(K_i, K_m, K_j,
619: K_n)}, \qquad a_j={\eps(K_i, K_m, K, K_n)\over \eps(K_i, K_m, K_j,
620: K_n)},~~~\Label{a-sol}\eea
621: %
622: with
623: %
624: \bea \eps(K_1,K_2, K_3, K_4)\equiv \eps_{\mu\nu\rho\xi} K_1^\mu
625: K_2^\nu K_3^\rho K_4^\xi.
626: ~~~\Label{eps-def-1}\eea
627: %
628: At times, we will write these coefficients in the form $a_{m}^{(K_i,K_j,K_m,K_n;K)}$ to emphasize
629: the related quantities.
630:
631:
632:
633:
634: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
635: \subsection{The dimensionally shifted basis}
636: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
637:
638: Since, as we shall demonstrate, our coefficients are polynomials in
639: $u$, we can translate this information into the dimensionally
640: shifted basis \cite{Bern:1995ix}. More explicitly, if we define
641: %
642: \bea
643: I_n^D[P^{\a_1}... P^{\a_m}] & = & -i (4\pi)^{D/2} \int {d^D P
644: \over (2\pi)^D} {P^{\a_1}... P^{\a_m}\over (P^2-m^2) ...
645: ((P-\sum_{i=1}^{n-1} k_i)^2-m^2)},~~~~\Label{DIN-def} \eea
646: %
647: then we have
648: %
649: \bea I_n^{(4-2\eps)}[(\mu^2)^k] & = & {\Gamma(k-\eps)\over
650: \Gamma(-\eps)}I_n^{(4-2\eps+2k)}[1].
651: \eea
652: %
653:
654: There are two merits of using this basis. First, we can throw away
655: all ${\cal O}(\eps)$ contributions to make the calculation easier.
656: Second, we improve efficiency. To use the recursion and reduction
657: relations, we first calculated all the contributions by reduction
658: to boxes, triangles and bubbles, and then added them up. With the
659: dimensionally shifted basis, this process of reduction/summation can be
660: done in one step, simplifying calculations. The
661: usefulness of this dimensionally shifted basis has been discussed in
662: \cite{Ossola:2007bb,Giele:2008ve}. Here, for reference, we discuss this
663: evaluation in Appendix \ref{dsb}.
664:
665:
666:
667: %We recall one important fact regarding this dimensionally shifted basis \cite{Ossola:2007bb}. Consider an integral of the form
668: %
669: %\bea I^{(4-2\eps); 2f}_{m;s}=\int d^{4-2\eps} \O q { \W q^{2f}
670: %q_1... q_{s}\over D_0 D_1 ... D_m},~~~\O q= q+\W q. \eea
671: %
672: %For $f>0$ (a very important condition), define $d=
673: %2(f+1-m)+s$. Then if $d<0$, the integral is ${\cal
674: %O}(\eps)$ and can be neglected, but if $d\geq 0$, the integral is ${\cal
675: %O}(1)$ and should be kept.
676:
677: %To apply this conclusion to the unitarity cut integrand (\ref{I-inte}), if
678: %there is a $(\mu^2)^s$ term in the prefactor with $s\geq 1$, we should
679: %check the quantity
680: %
681: %\bea
682: %d=2(s-k)+m.
683: %\eea
684: %
685: % If $d<0$, then the result is
686: %${\cal O}(\eps)$ and can be neglected. This observation can
687: %help with simplification.
688:
689:
690: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
691: \section{Triangle coefficients}
692: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
693:
694: Now that we have the necessary background information, it is simplest to start with the
695: coefficients of triangles. Some features of this discussion will
696: apply to bubbles as well.
697:
698:
699:
700: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%
701: \subsection{Simplifying the formula}
702: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
703:
704: We write the formula for triangle coefficients from
705: \cite{Britto:2007tt} in the notation of the previous section,
706: emphasizing $u$-dependence.
707: %
708: \bea & & C[Q_s(u),K] = {(K^2)^{1+n}\over
709: 2(\sqrt{\Delta(Q_s(u),K)(u)})^{n+1}}\frac{1}{(n+1)!
710: \vev{P_{(Q_s(u),K);1}(u)~P_{(Q_s(u),K);2}(u)}^{n+1}}
711: ~~~~~\Label{beg-tri-exp}
712: \\ & & \quad \times \frac{d^{n+1}}{d\tau^{n+1}}\left({\prod_{j=1}^{k+n}
713: \vev{P_{(Q_s(u),K);1}(u)-\tau P_{(Q_s(u),K);2}(u) |R_j
714: (u)Q_s(u)|P_{(Q_s(u),K);1}(u)-\tau P_{(Q_s(u),K);2}(u)}\over
715: \prod_{t=1,t\neq s}^k \vev{P_{(Q_s(u),K);1}(u)-\tau
716: P_{(Q_s(u),K);2}(u)|Q_t(u) Q_s (u)|P_{(Q_s(u),K);1}(u)-\tau
717: P_{(Q_s(u),K);2}(u)}}\right. \nonumber \\ & & \qquad\qquad\qquad +
718: \{P_{(Q_s(u),K);1}(u)\leftrightarrow
719: P_{(Q_s(u),K);2}(u)\}\Big)\Big|_{\tau\to 0},\nonumber \eea
720: %
721: where the $P_{(Q_s(u),K);1,2}(u)$, as depicted in the indices, are
722: constructed in terms of $Q_s(u), K$, as defined in (\ref{P-RS}), and
723: depend on $u$. In principle we can put (\ref{beg-tri-exp}) into
724: (\ref{c-n-exp}) to take derivatives. However, the $u$-dependence
725: everywhere might be an obstacle to taking stable derivatives in
726: terms of $u$ in (\ref{c-n-exp}). In this subsection, we recast this
727: $u$-dependence in a simpler form.
728:
729:
730: Using the definition of $Q_s$ from (\ref{Q-q-def}), and the property
731: (\ref{pk-dot-K}), we find from (\ref{P-RS}), (\ref{Delta-def}) that
732: %
733: \bean \Delta(Q_s(u),K) (u)& = & (1-u) (- 4 q_s^2 K^2), \\
734: x_{1,2}(u) & = & { -2 \a_s K^2 \pm
735: \sqrt{\Delta(Q_s(u),K)}\over 2 K^2}.\eean
736: %
737: When we take the square root of $\Delta(Q_s(u),K)$, there is a sign
738: ambiguity. It can be shown that the choice of sign does not affect
739: the final result. To be explicit, we choose the minus sign here, i.e.,
740: %
741: \bea \sqrt{\Delta(Q_s(u),K)(u)}& = & - \sqrt{1-u} \sqrt{-
742: 4 q_s^2 K^2}~~~\Label{Delta-tri-z} \\ x_{1,2} (u)& = & -\sqrt{1-u}
743: \left( {\pm \sqrt{- q_s^2 K^2}\over K^2} \right) -\a_s
744: \\ &=& -(\sqrt{1-u}) y_{1,2}-\a_s,\eea
745: %
746: where we have defined new scalar quantities, $y_{1,2}$, as follows:
747: %
748: \bea
749: y_{1,2} \equiv \pm {\sqrt{- q_s^2 K^2}\over K^2}
750: = \pm {\sqrt{(K_s \cdot K)^2 - K_s^2 K^2}\over K^2}.
751: \eea
752: %
753: With these results, we can see that
754: %
755: \bea P_{(Q_s(u),K);i}(u)= -(\sqrt{1-u}) q_s+\a_s K +x_{i}(u) K = -\sqrt{1-u} (
756: q_s+ y_{i} K)=-(\sqrt{1-u})P_{(q_s,K);i}.~~~\Label{Delta-P12-z}\eea
757: %
758: The $u$-dependence has been factored out; here the null momentum
759: $P_{(q_s,K);i}$ does {\em not} depend on $u$, since it is constructed
760: from $q_s, K$--as indicated in the subscript indices.
761:
762:
763: Substituting (\ref{Delta-tri-z}) and (\ref{Delta-P12-z}) back into
764: (\ref{beg-tri-exp}), we find that the factor $\sqrt{1-u}$ has cancelled
765: out. Thus we have
766: %
767: \bea & & C[Q_s,K] = {(K^2)^{1+n}\over 2
768: (-\sqrt{1-u})^{n+1}(\sqrt{\Delta(q_s,K)})^{n+1}}\frac{1}{(n+1)!
769: \vev{P_{(q_s,K);1}~P_{(q_s,K);2}}^{n+1}} \nonumber
770: \\ & & \frac{d^{n+1}}{d\tau^{n+1}}\left({\prod_{j=1}^{k+n}
771: \vev{P_{(q_s,K);1}-\tau P_{(q_s,K);2} |R_j(u)
772: Q_s(u)|P_{(q_s,K);1}-\tau P_{(q_s,K);2}}\over \prod_{t=1,t\neq s}^k
773: \vev{P_{(q_s,K);1}-\tau P_{(q_s,K);2}|Q_t(u) Q_s
774: (u)|P_{(q_s,K);1}-\tau P_{(q_s,K);2}}} +
775: \{P_{(q_s,K);1}\leftrightarrow P_{(q_s,K);2}\}\right)\Bigg|_{\tau\to
776: 0}. \nonumber
777: \eea
778: %
779: To simplify further, apply the identity
780: $\vev{\ell| Q Q |\ell}=0$ to derive
781: %
782: \bea \vev{\ell|Q_t(u) Q_s(u)|\ell} & = & \vev{\ell|(Q_t(u)-
783: {\a_t\over \a_s} Q_s(u)) Q_s(u)|\ell} = -\sqrt{1-u}\vev{\ell|
784: (q_t-{\a_t\over \a_s} q_s) Q_s(u)|\ell} ~~~\Label{QQqt}
785: \\ \vev{\ell|R_j(u)
786: Q_s(u)|\ell} & = & \vev{\ell|(R_j(u)- {\b_j\over \a_s} Q_s(u))
787: Q_s|\ell} = -\sqrt{1-u}\vev{\ell| (p_j-{\b_j\over \a_s} q_s)
788: Q_s(u)|\ell}.~~~\Label{QQpj}
789: \eea
790: %
791: If we define two more vectors $\W q_t,\W p_j$ by
792: %
793: \bea\W q_t=(q_t-{\a_t\over \a_s} q_s),~~~\W p_j=(p_j-{\b_j\over
794: \a_s} q_s),
795: \eea
796: %
797: then we use the identities (\ref{QQqt}), (\ref{QQpj}) to conclude that
798: %
799: \bea
800: & & C[Q_s,K] = {(K^2)^{1+n}\over
801: 2(\sqrt{\Delta(q_s,K)})^{n+1}}\frac{1}{(n+1)!
802: \vev{P_{(q_s,K);1}~P_{(q_s,K);2}}^{n+1}} \nonumber
803: \\ & & \frac{d^{n+1}}{d\tau^{n+1}}\left({\prod_{j=1}^{k+n}
804: \vev{P_{(q_s,K);1}-\tau P_{(q_s,K);2} |\W p_j
805: Q_s(u)|P_{(q_s,K);1}-\tau P_{(q_s,K);2}}\over \prod_{t=1,t\neq s}^k
806: \vev{P_{(q_s,K);1}-\tau P_{(q_s,K);2}|\W q_t Q_s(u)
807: |P_{(q_s,K);1}-\tau P_{(q_s,K);2}}} +
808: \{P_{(q_s,K);1}\leftrightarrow P_{(q_s,K);2}\}\right)\Bigg|_{\tau\to
809: 0}.~~~~~\Label{beg-tri-exp-sim} \eea\\
810: %
811:
812: Compared to (\ref{beg-tri-exp}), the $u$-dependence in
813: (\ref{beg-tri-exp-sim}) is much simpler; all $u$-dependence here
814: comes {\em only} from $Q_s(u)$. Thus, (\ref{beg-tri-exp-sim}) is
815: well suited for use in (\ref{c-n-exp}).\\
816:
817:
818: {\bf How to use the formula (\ref{beg-tri-exp-sim}):}
819: The
820: degree of this polynomial in $u$ will be seen to be $[(n+1)/2]$.
821: Thus we can get the corresponding coefficients by taking derivatives
822: in $u$ first (from $0$ to $[(n+1)/2]$, to get coefficients from each
823: term in the polynomial), and then setting $u=0$.
824:
825: For example when $n=-1, 0$ we can set $u=0$ directly and get
826: %
827: \bea & & C[Q_s,K]_{n \in \{0,-1\}} = {(K^2)^{n+1}\over
828: 2(\sqrt{\Delta(q_s,K)})^{n+1}}\frac{1}{
829: \vev{P_{(q_s,K);1}~P_{(q_s,K);2}}^{n+1}} \nonumber
830: \\ & & \frac{d^{n+1}}{d\tau^{n+1}}\left({\prod_{j=1}^{k+n}
831: \vev{P_{(q_s,K);1}-\tau P_{(q_s,K);2} |\W p_j Q_s|P_{(q_s,K);1}-\tau
832: P_{(q_s,K);2}}\over \prod_{t=1,t\neq s}^k \vev{P_{(q_s,K);1}-\tau
833: P_{(q_s,K);2}|\W q_t Q_s |P_{(q_s,K);1}-\tau P_{(q_s,K);2}}} +
834: \{P_{(q_s,K);1}\leftrightarrow P_{(q_s,K);2}\}\right)\Bigg|_{\tau\to
835: 0},~~~~~\Label{n=0-1}\eea
836: %
837: which is suitable for numerical evaluation. For $n=1,2$ the result
838: will take the form of a linear polynomial, $c_0+c_1 u$. To get $c_1$ we take one derivative, using
839: %
840: \bea
841: \left. {d Q_s(u)\over du} \right|_{u=0}={q_s\over 2}.
842: \eea
843: %
844:
845: In Appendix \ref{explicit}, we have explicit
846: expressions, free of derivatives, for triangle coefficients when
847: $n\leq 2$.
848:
849:
850: The formula (\ref{beg-tri-exp-sim}) contains $u$ in both
851: numerator and denominator, so it is not so obvious that
852: the total result is simply a polynomial in $u$. The proof of this property is given in the next subsection.
853:
854:
855: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
856: \subsection{Proof that the triangle coefficient is a polynomial in $u$}
857: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
858:
859: We start by considering two quantities that arise in our expressions,
860: in the course of taking derivatives:
861: %
862: \bea E_1 & \equiv & \vev{ P_{(q_s,K);2} |\W p_j
863: Q_s(u)|P_{(q_s,K);1}}+\vev{P_{(q_s,K);1} |\W p_j Q_s(u)| P_{(q_s,K);2}} \\
864: E_2 & \equiv & \vev{P_{(q_s,K);1}| \W p_j
865: Q_s(u)|P_{(q_s,K);1}}\vev{P_{(q_s,K);2}|\W p_j
866: Q_s(u)|P_{(q_s,K);2}}\eea
867: %
868: By writing $Q_s(u)$ as a linear
869: combination of the $P_{(q_s,K);i}$,
870: %
871: \bea
872: Q_s(u) = \left( -{\sqrt{1-u} \over 2} +{\a_s \over 2 y_1}\right) P_{(q_s,K);1}
873: - \left( { \sqrt{1-u} \over 2} +{\a_s \over 2 y_1} \right) P_{(q_s,K);2},
874: \eea
875: %
876: and recalling that $q_s\cdot K=\W p_j\cdot K=0$,
877: we find that
878: %
879: %\bean E_1
880: %& = & \vev{ P_{(q_s,K);2} |\W p_j
881: %Q_s(u)|P_{(q_s,K);1}}+\vev{P_{(q_s,K);1} |\W p_j
882: %Q_s(u)| P_{(q_s,K);2}} \\
883: %& = & \vev{P_{(q_s,K);1}~P_{(q_s,K);2}}\left( (-2\W p_j\cdot q_s){
884: %\sqrt{1-u}{-2q_s\cdot K\over K^2}+2\a_s\over {\sqrt{\Delta(q_s,K)}\over
885: %K^2}} +(-2\W p_j\cdot K){ \sqrt{1-u}
886: % 2{q_s^2\over
887: %K^2} +\a_s{-2q_s\cdot K\over K^2}\over {\sqrt{\Delta(q_s,K)}\over
888: %K^2}}\right) \\
889: %& = & {\vev{P_{(q_s,K);1}~P_{(q_s,K);2}}\over
890: %\sqrt{\Delta(q_s,K)}} [\sqrt{1-u} ( (2 q_s\cdot K)(2\W p_j\cdot q_s)- 2
891: %q_s^2 (2\W p_j\cdot K))+ \a_s ((2 q_s\cdot K)(2\W p_j\cdot K)- 2 K^2
892: %(2\W p_j\cdot q_s))]\eean
893: %%
894: %
895: \bea E_1 & = & -{ \a_s K^2 \over
896: \sqrt{- q_s^2 K^2}} (2\W p_j\cdot
897: q_s)\vev{P_{(q_s,K);1}~P_{(q_s,K);2}}.
898: ~~~~\Label{E1}\eea
899: %
900: %where unwanted factor $\sqrt{1-u}=\sqrt{1-u}$ has dropped out.
901: All $u$-dependence has dropped out of this expression.
902:
903: For $E_2$, similar manipulations show that
904: %
905: \bea E_2
906: %& = & -{1 \over 4} \vev{P_{(q_s,K);1}~P_{(q_s,K);2}}^2
907: % \left({K^2 \a_s^2\over q_s^2 (1-u)}+ 1 \right)
908: %\gb{P_{(q_s,K);1}|\W p_j P_{(q_s,K);2}\W p_j |P_{(q_s,K);1}}
909: %\\
910: & = & \vev{P_{(q_s,K);1}~P_{(q_s,K);2}}^2
911: \left(q_s^2 \W p_j^2 - (q_s \cdot \W p_j)^2 \right)
912: \left({K^2 \a_s^2 \over q_s^2}+ 1-u \right),
913: ~~~\Label{E2}\eea
914: %
915: which is a polynomial in $u$.
916:
917:
918: Now we prove that the full expression (\ref{beg-tri-exp-sim}) for the triangle coefficient is a polynomial in $u$. Throughout this proof, let us abbreviate $Q_s$ by $Q$ and $P_{(q_s,K);i}$ by $P_i$.
919:
920: The triangle coefficient is given in terms of derivatives with
921: respect to $\tau$ on an expression where the $\tau$-dependence
922: appears in the factors $\vev{P_{1}-\tau P_{2} |\W p_j
923: Q(u)|P_{1}-\tau P_{2}}$ (in numerator or denominator). After taking
924: the derivatives, we set $\tau=0$. In this process we will produce
925: the following three combinations: $\vev{P_{1}|\W p_j Q(u)|P_{1}}$;
926: $E_1$; $E_2$. It is easy to see how the first two combinations
927: arise. The third combination, $E_2$, appears, for example, in
928: %
929: \bean {d^2 \vev{P_{1}-\tau P_{2} |\W p_j Q(u)|P_{1}-\tau
930: P_{2}}\over d\tau^2}={-2\vev{P_{1}| \W p_j
931: Q(u)|P_{1}}\vev{P_{2}|\W p_j
932: Q(u)|P_{2}}\over \vev{P_{1}| \W p_j
933: Q(u)|P_{1}}} \eean
934: %
935:
936: Consider the $\tau$-dependent factors in the denominator.
937: With each derivative, we effectively add one overall factor of
938: $\vev{P_1- \tau
939: P_2|X Q(u)|P_1-\tau P_2}$ in the denominator and place one new factor, either
940: $(\vev{P_1- \tau P_2|X Q(u)|P_2}+ \vev{P_2|X Q(u)|P_1-\tau P_2})$ or
941: $(-2\vev{P_2|X Q(u)|P_2}\vev{P_1|X Q(u)|P_1})$ in the numerator. After taking $n+1$
942: derivatives, there are $(n+1)$ additional factors $\vev{P_1- \tau P_2|X Q(u)|P_1-\tau
943: P_2}$ in the denominator. Thus, we have exactly $k+n$ factors of $\vev{P_1|X Q(u)|P_1}$ in both numerator and denominator (after taking the $\tau \to 0$
944: limit). The $u$-dependence is
945: exactly cancelled in this part, since we have
946: %
947: \bea \frac{\vev{P_1|X Q(u)|P_1}}{\vev{P_1|X' Q(u)|P_1}}
948: =\frac{\gb{P_1|X|P_2}}{\gb{P_1|X'|P_2}}. \eea
949: %
950: The remaining $u$-dependence comes only through the factor $E_2$ in
951: the numerator. By our previous calculations (\ref{E1}) and
952: (\ref{E2}), we see that indeed our final expression is a polynomial
953: in $u$. Since every sequence of two derivatives in
954: (\ref{beg-tri-exp-sim}) will produce one $E_2$ factor, the degree of
955: the polynomial is $[(n+1)/2]$.
956:
957:
958:
959:
960: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
961: \section{Bubble coefficients}
962: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
963:
964: Our proof that bubble coefficients are polynomials in $u$ is more complicated
965: than the one for triangle coefficients, so many of the details have been relegated to Appendix \ref{bubbleproof}.
966: % The basic idea of the proof is to show that terms
967: %corresponding to $\sqrt{1-u}$ are spurious term so their
968: %contributions are zero.
969: Here we present the simplification of the $u$-dependence in the formula for bubble coefficients. The idea of the proof is consider the bubble coefficients are polynomials in $\sqrt{1-u}$, and show that the odd powers vanish.
970:
971: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
972: \subsection{Simplification}
973: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
974:
975: The coefficient of the
976: bubble integral with momentum $K$ is given by \cite{Britto:2007tt}
977: %
978: \bea
979: C[K] = (K^2)^{1+n} \sum_{q=0}^n {(-1)^q\over q!} {d^q \over
980: ds^q}\left.\left( {\cal B}_{n,n-q}^{(0)}(s)+\sum_{r=1}^k\sum_{a=q}^n
981: \left({\cal B}_{n,n-a}^{(r;a-q;1)}(s)-{\cal
982: B}_{n,n-a}^{(r;a-q;2)}(s)\right)\right)\right|_{s=0},~~~~~\Label{bub-exp}
983: \eea
984: %
985: where {\small
986: %
987: \bea {\cal B}_{n,t}^{(0)}(s)\equiv {d^n\over d\tau^n}\left.\left( {1
988: \over n! [\eta|\W \eta K|\eta]^{n}} {(2\eta\cdot K)^{t+1} \over
989: (t+1) (K^2)^{t+1}}{\prod_{j=1}^{n+k} \vev{\ell|R_j(u)
990: (K+s\eta)|\ell}\over \vev{\ell~\eta}^{n+1} \prod_{p=1}^k \vev{\ell|
991: Q_p(u)(K+s\eta)|\ell}}|_{\ket{\ell}\to |K-\tau \W \eta|\eta]
992: }\right)\right|_{\tau= 0},~~~\Label{cal-B-0}\eea
993: %
994: %
995: \bea & & {\cal B}_{n,t}^{(r;b;1)}(s) \equiv {(-1)^{b+1}\over
996: b! \sqrt{\Delta(Q_r(u),K)}^{b+1} \vev{P_{(Q_r(u),K);1}(u)~P_{(Q_r(u),K);2}(u)}^b}\nonumber \\
997: & & {d^b \over d\tau^{b}}
998: \left({1\over (t+1)} {\gb{P_{(Q_r(u),K);1}(u)-\tau
999: P_{(Q_r(u),K);2}(u)|\eta|P_{(Q_r(u),K);1}(u)}^{t+1}\over
1000: \gb{P_{(Q_r(u),K);1}(u)-\tau
1001: P_{(Q_r(u),K);2}(u)|K|P_{(Q_r(u),K);1}(u)}^{t+1}}\right. \nonumber
1002: \\ & & \times {\vev{P_{(Q_r(u),K);1}(u)-\tau P_{(Q_r(u),K);2}(u)|Q_r
1003: (u)\eta|P_{(Q_r(u),K);1}(u)-\tau P_{(Q_r(u),K);2}(u)}^{b}\over
1004: \vev{P_{(Q_r(u),K);1}(u)-\tau P_{(Q_r(u),K);2}(u)|\eta
1005: K|P_{(Q_r(u),K);1}(u)-\tau P_{(Q_r(u),K);2}(u)}^{n+1}}\nonumber \\ &
1006: & \times \left.\left. {\prod_{j=1}^{n+k}
1007: \vev{P_{(Q_r(u),K);1}(u)-\tau P_{(Q_r(u),K);2}(u)|R_j(u)
1008: (K+s\eta)|P_{(Q_r(u),K);1}(u)-\tau P_{(Q_r(u),K);2}(u)}\over
1009: \prod_{p=1,p\neq r}^k \vev{P_{(Q_r(u),K);1}(u)-\tau
1010: P_{(Q_r(u),K);2}(u)| Q_p(u)(K+s\eta)|P_{(Q_r(u),K);1}(u)-\tau
1011: P_{(Q_r(u),K);2}(u)}}\right)\right|_{\tau=0},~~~\Label{cal-B-r-1}\eea
1012: %
1013: %
1014: \bea & & {\cal B}_{n,t}^{(r;b;2)}(s) \equiv {(-1)^{b+1}\over
1015: b! \sqrt{\Delta(Q_r(u),K)}^{b+1} \vev{P_{(Q_r(u),K);1}(u)~P_{(Q_r(u),K);2}(u)}^{b}}
1016: \nonumber \\ & & {d^{b} \over d\tau^{b}}
1017: \left({1\over (t+1)} {\gb{P_{(Q_r(u),K);2}(u)-\tau
1018: P_{(Q_r(u),K);1}(u)|\eta|P_{(Q_r(u),K);2}(u)}^{t+1}\over
1019: \gb{P_{(Q_r(u),K);2}(u)-\tau
1020: P_{(Q_r(u),K);1}(u)|K|P_{(Q_r(u),K);2}(u)}^{t+1}}\right. \nonumber
1021: \\ & & \times {\vev{P_{(Q_r(u),K);2}(u)-\tau P_{(Q_r(u),K);1}(u)|Q_r(u)
1022: \eta|P_{(Q_r(u),K);2}(u)-\tau P_{(Q_r(u),K);1}(u)}^{b}\over
1023: \vev{P_{(Q_r(u),K);2}(u)-\tau P_{(Q_r(u),K);1}(u)|\eta
1024: K|P_{(Q_r(u),K);2}(u)-\tau P_{(Q_r(u),K);1}(u)}^{n+1} }\nonumber
1025: \\& & \times \left.\left.{ \prod_{j=1}^{n+k}
1026: \vev{P_{(Q_r(u),K);2}(u)-\tau P_{(Q_r(u),K);1}(u)|R_j
1027: (u)(K+s\eta)|P_{(Q_r(u),K);2}(u)-\tau P_{(Q_r(u),K);1}(u)}\over
1028: \prod_{p=1,p\neq r}^k \vev{P_{(Q_r(u),K);2}(u)-\tau
1029: P_{(Q_r(u),K);1}(u)| Q_p(u)(K+s\eta)|P_{(Q_r(u),K);2}(u)-\tau
1030: P_{(Q_r(u),K);1}(u)}}\right)\right|_{\tau=0}.~~~\Label{cal-B-r-2}\eea
1031: %
1032: } In this expression, since $P_{(Q_r(u),K);1}(u)$ and $\Delta(Q_r(u),K)$
1033: depend on $u$, we want to simplify the above expressions
1034: as we did in the triangle case.
1035: Using (\ref{Delta-tri-z}) and
1036: (\ref{Delta-P12-z}), we see that
1037: we can pull out some factors of $\sqrt{1-u}$, giving \footnote{One way to see it is to choose
1038: $\ket{P_{(Q_r(u),K);i}}=\ket{P_{(q_r,K);i}}$ and
1039: $|P_{(Q_r(u),K);i}]=-\sqrt{1-u}|P_{(q_r,K);i}]$; the factor $-\sqrt{1-u}$
1040: cancels out immediately.}
1041: %
1042: \bea & & {\cal B}_{n,t}^{(r;b;1)}(s,u) \equiv {1 \over
1043: b! (\sqrt{1-u})^{b+1}\sqrt{\Delta(q_r,K)}^{b+1} \vev{P_{(q_r,K);1}~P_{(q_r,K);2}}^b}\nonumber \\
1044: & & {d^b \over d\tau^{b}} \left({1\over (t+1)}
1045: {\gb{P_{(q_r,K);1}-\tau P_{(q_r,K);2}|\eta|P_{(q_r,K);1}}^{t+1}\over
1046: \gb{P_{(q_r,K);1}-\tau P_{(q_r,K);2}|K|P_{(q_r,K);1}}^{t+1}}\right.
1047: \nonumber \\ & & \times {\vev{P_{(q_r,K);1}-\tau
1048: P_{(q_r,K);2}|Q_r(u) \eta|P_{(q_r,K);1}-\tau P_{(q_r,K);2}}^{b}\over
1049: \vev{P_{(q_r,K);1}-\tau P_{(q_r,K);2}|\eta K|P_{(q_r,K);1}-\tau
1050: P_{(q_r,K);2}}^{n+1}}\nonumber \\ & & \times
1051: \left.\left.{\prod_{j=1}^{n+k} \vev{P_{(q_r,K);1}-\tau
1052: P_{(q_r,K);2}|R_j (u)(K+s\eta)|P_{(q_r,K);1}-\tau
1053: P_{(q_r,K);2}}\over
1054: \prod_{p=1,p\neq r}^k \vev{P_{(q_r,K);1}-\tau
1055: P_{(q_r,K);2}| Q_p(u)(K+s\eta)|P_{(q_r,K);1}-\tau
1056: P_{(q_r,K);2}}}\right)\right|_{\tau=0},~~~\Label{cal-B-r-1-new}\eea
1057: %
1058: Similarly, for the function ${\cal B}_{n,t}^{(r;b;2)}(s,u)$,
1059: %
1060: \bea & & {\cal B}_{n,t}^{(r;b;2)}(s,u) \equiv {1 \over
1061: b! (\sqrt{1-u})^{b+1}\sqrt{\Delta(q_r,K)}^{b+1} \vev{P_{(q_r,K);1}~P_{(q_r,K);2}}^b}\nonumber \\
1062: & & {d^b \over d\tau^{b}} \left({1\over (t+1)}
1063: {\gb{P_{(q_r,K);2}-\tau P_{(q_r,K);1}|\eta|P_{(q_r,K);2}}^{t+1}\over
1064: \gb{P_{(q_r,K);2}-\tau P_{(q_r,K);1}|K|P_{(q_r,K);1}}^{t+1}}\right.
1065: \nonumber \\ & & \times {\vev{P_{(q_r,K);2}-\tau
1066: P_{(q_r,K);1}|Q_r(u) \eta|P_{(q_r,K);2}-\tau P_{(q_r,K);1}}^{b}\over
1067: \vev{P_{(q_r,K);2}-\tau P_{(q_r,K);1}|\eta K|P_{(q_r,K);2}-\tau
1068: P_{(q_r,K);1}}^{n+1}}\nonumber \\ & & \times
1069: \left.\left.{\prod_{j=1}^{n+k} \vev{P_{(q_r,K);2}-\tau
1070: P_{(q_r,K);1}|R_j (u)(K+s\eta)|P_{(q_r,K);2}-\tau
1071: P_{(q_r,K);1}}\over
1072: \prod_{p=1,p\neq r}^k \vev{P_{(q_r,K);2}-\tau
1073: P_{(q_r,K);1}| Q_p(u)(K+s\eta)|P_{(q_r,K);2}-\tau
1074: P_{(q_r,K);1}}}\right)\right|_{\tau=0},~~~\Label{cal-B-r-2-new}\eea
1075: %
1076:
1077:
1078: So, the bubble coefficient is now given by (\ref{bub-exp}),
1079: (\ref{cal-B-0}), (\ref{cal-B-r-1-new}) and (\ref{cal-B-r-2-new}).
1080: Unlike the triangle, since we now have factors of the form $\vev{\ell|Q(u)
1081: (K+s\eta)|\ell}$ instead of $\vev{\ell|Q(u) K|\ell}$, we cannot
1082: pull out further factors of $\sqrt{1-u}$. In these expressions, the only
1083: $u$-dependence is coming from $R_j(u)$ and $Q_t(u)$, which is much
1084: simpler than the original formula.
1085:
1086:
1087: The best way to use these formulas is
1088: similar to the triangle case.
1089: We can see from the formulas (\ref{cal-B-0}), (\ref{cal-B-r-1-new}), (\ref{cal-B-r-2-new}) that the degree of the polynomial in $u$ is $[n/2]$. Thus we can
1090: get the corresponding coefficients by taking derivatives with respect
1091: to $u$ and then setting $u=0$, as in (\ref{c-n-exp}).
1092:
1093:
1094:
1095:
1096:
1097:
1098:
1099: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1100: \section{The box and pentagon coefficients}
1101: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1102:
1103: Now we consider the box coefficients. This is the most complicated
1104: part, although the formula is the simplest!
1105: There are two reasons for the complexity.
1106: First, the box coefficients contain not only true box
1107: coefficients, but also pentagon contributions, indicated by a linear factor
1108: $(au+b)$ in the denominator. We should be able to separate the box
1109: part from the pentagon part.
1110: The second reason is that the null momenta $P_{(Q_j(u),
1111: Q_i(u));s}$ depend on $u$ in a very nontrivial way (as
1112: $Q_j(u)+ x_a Q_i(u)$), unlike the cases of triangles and bubbles.
1113:
1114:
1115: Given the vectors $Q_i,Q_j, K$ we can construct a vector
1116: $ q_0^{(q_i,q_j,K)}$ orthogonal to all three:
1117: %
1118: \bea (q_0)_\mu^{(q_i,q_j,K)} &\equiv&
1119: {1 \over K^2} \epsilon_{\mu\nu \rho \xi}
1120: q_i^\nu q_j^\rho K^\xi \\
1121: &=&{1 \over K^2}
1122: \epsilon_{\mu\nu \rho \xi} K_i^\nu K_j^\rho
1123: K^\xi.~~~\Label{q-0} \eea
1124: %
1125: %%
1126: %\bea (\W q_0)_\mu^{(q_i,q_j,K)}\equiv \epsilon_{\mu\nu \rho \xi}
1127: %q_i^\nu q_j^\rho K^\xi=\epsilon_{\mu\nu \rho \xi} K_i^\nu K_j^\rho
1128: %K^\xi,~~~q_0^{(q_i,q_j,K)}={\W q_0^{(q_i,q_j,K)}\over
1129: %K^2},~~~~\Label{q-0} \eea
1130: %%
1131: We shall make use of our collection of orthogonality relations:
1132: %Because
1133: %
1134: \bea q_i\cdot K=q_j\cdot K=q_0\cdot K=0\eea
1135: %
1136: %Thus if we have some $q\cdot K=0$, we know that $q$ is in
1137: %three-dimension space and can be expanded using $q_0, q_i, q_j$.
1138: %Furthermore, we have
1139: %
1140: \bea q_0\cdot q_i=q_0\cdot q_j=q_0\cdot K=0~~~~\Label{q-0-pro}\eea
1141: %
1142: Observe the fixed ordering of $q_i, q_j$ in the
1143: definition (\ref{q-0}) of $q_0^{(q_i,q_j,K)}$. Exchanging them leads to a
1144: minus sign difference. The ordering is connected with our definition $P_{ji}=Q_j+x
1145: Q_i$.
1146:
1147:
1148: Because new features arise in different cases, we have divided our
1149: discussion into the three cases
1150: $k=2$, $k=3$, and $k\geq 4$.
1151:
1152: In the process of simplifying our expression, we also demonstrate that
1153: the coefficients are truly polynomials in $u$.
1154: Thus this is a constructive proof.
1155:
1156: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1157: \subsection{The case $k=2$}
1158: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1159:
1160: In this case, there is exactly one box, whose coefficient is given by
1161: %
1162: \bean
1163: {(K^2)^{2+n}\over 2} \left( {\prod_{s=1}^{n+2} \gb{P_{(Q_j(u),
1164: Q_i(u));1}(u)|R_s(u)|P_{(Q_j(u), Q_i(u));2}(u)}\over \gb{P_{(Q_j(u),
1165: Q_i(u));1}(u)|K|P_{(Q_j(u), Q_i(u));2}(u)}^{n+2}}+\{ P_{(Q_j(u),
1166: Q_i(u));1}(u)\leftrightarrow P_{(Q_j(u), Q_i(u));2}(u)\}\right).
1167: \eean
1168: %
1169: Later, we will reduce the other cases to this expression as well.
1170: Now we carry out a detailed calculation to show
1171: that the $u$-dependence is polynomial, and we find an
1172: expression where the $u$-dependence is
1173: easier to see.
1174:
1175: In the numerator, the factors $R_s(u)$ have $u$-dependence in the form $R_s(u)=-(\sqrt{1-u}) p_s+\b_s
1176: K$ (here we do not assume any particular form of $\b_s$), with
1177: $p_s\cdot K=0$.
1178: Thus the vector $p_s$ can be expanded in a basis of the three-dimensional
1179: vectorspace orthogonal to $K$, as follows.
1180: %
1181: \bea p_s & = & a_0^{(q_i,q_j,K; p_s)}
1182: q_0^{(q_i,q_j,K)}+a_i^{(q_i,q_j,K; p_s)} q_i+a_j^{(q_i,q_j,K; p_s)}
1183: q_j. ~~~\Label{ps-exp-k=2}
1184: \eea
1185: %
1186: The coefficients in this expansion are:
1187: %
1188: \bea a_i^{(q_i,q_j,K; p_s)} & = & { (p_s\cdot q_i) q_j^2- (p_s\cdot
1189: q_j) (q_i\cdot q_j)\over q_i^2 q_j^2- (q_i\cdot q_j)^2}
1190: \\a_j^{(q_i,q_j,K; p_s)} & = & { (p_s\cdot q_j) q_i^2- (p_s\cdot
1191: q_i) (q_i\cdot q_j)\over q_i^2 q_j^2- (q_i\cdot q_j)^2} \\
1192: a_0^{(q_i,q_j,K; p_s)} & = & { (p_s\cdot q_0^{(q_i,q_j,K)})\over
1193: (q_0^{(q_i,q_j,K)})^2}={\eps(p_s,q_i,q_j,K)\over
1194: K^2(q_0^{(q_i,q_j,K)})^2}={\eps(P_s,K_i,K_j,K)\over
1195: K^2(q_0^{(q_i,q_j,K)})^2}.~~~\Label{a-0-k=2}\eea
1196: %
1197: Using this expansion, we can write
1198: %
1199: \bea R_s(u) & = & a_0^{(q_i,q_j,K; p_s)} (-(\sqrt{1-u})
1200: q_0^{(q_i,q_j,K)})+a_i^{(q_i,q_j,K; p_s)} Q_i (u)+a_j^{(q_i,q_j,K;
1201: p_s)} Q_j(u)+ \b_s^{(q_i,q_j,K;p_s)} K,~~~\Label{Rs-exp-k=2}\eea
1202: %
1203: %
1204: where we have defined
1205: %
1206: \bea
1207: \b_s^{(q_i,q_j,K;p_s)} \equiv
1208: (\b_s-a_i^{(q_i,q_j,K; p_s)} \a_i
1209: -a_j^{(q_i,q_j,K; p_s)} \a_j).~~~~\Label{beta-package}
1210: \eea
1211: %
1212: Using the result (\ref{P12-0}) that
1213: %
1214: \bea \gb{P_{(Q_j(u), Q_i(u));1}(u)|Q_{i/j}(u)|P_{(Q_j(u),
1215: Q_i(u));2}(u)}=0,\eea
1216: %
1217: we have
1218: %
1219: \bea
1220: & & \gb{P_{(Q_j(u), Q_i(u));1}(u)|R_s(u)|P_{(Q_j(u),
1221: Q_i(u));2}(u)} \nonumber \\
1222: & & = -(\sqrt{1-u})a_0^{(q_i,q_j,K; p_s)}\gb{P_{(Q_j(u),
1223: Q_i(u));1}(u)|q_0^{(q_i,q_j,K)}|P_{(Q_j(u), Q_i(u));2}(u)}\nonumber
1224: \\ & & +\b_s^{(q_i,q_j,K;p_s)}\gb{P_{(Q_j(u), Q_i(u));1}(u)|K|P_{(Q_j(u),
1225: Q_i(u));2}(u)}.
1226: \eea
1227: %
1228: Thus, we can write
1229: %
1230: \bea & & {\prod_{s=1}^{n+2} \gb{P_{(Q_j(u),
1231: Q_i(u));1}(u)|R_s(u)|P_{(Q_j(u), Q_i(u));2}(u)}\over \gb{P_{(Q_j(u),
1232: Q_i(u));1}(u)|K|P_{(Q_j(u), Q_i(u));2}(u)}^{n+2}}
1233: ~~~~\Label{box-u-perm}
1234: \\
1235: & = & \sum_{h=0}^{n+2} C_{h}^{(q_i,q_j,K)}
1236: {(-\sqrt{1-u})^{h}\gb{P_{(Q_j(u),
1237: Q_i(u));1}(u)|q_0^{(q_i,q_j,K)}|P_{(Q_j(u),
1238: Q_i(u));2}(u)}^{h}\over \gb{P_{(Q_j(u),
1239: Q_i(u));1}(u)|K|P_{(Q_j(u), Q_i(u));2}(u)}^{h}}.
1240: \nonumber
1241: \eea
1242: %
1243: Here we have defined
1244: %
1245: \bea C_{h}^{(q_i,q_j,K)} =
1246: \sum_{\stackrel{S \subseteq \{1,2,\ldots,n+2\}}{|S|=h}}
1247: \prod_{s \in S} a_0^{(q_i,q_j,K;p_s)}
1248: \prod_{s \in S^c}\b_s^{(q_i,q_j,K;p_s)},
1249: \eea
1250: %
1251: where $S^c$ denotes the complement of $S$: $S^c \equiv \{1,2,\ldots,n+2\}\backslash S$.
1252:
1253:
1254:
1255: Now we can show that the box coefficients are indeed polynomials in $u$,
1256: in this case where $k=2$. By the above expansion, the coefficients are
1257: given by sum of the following typical terms. (To simplify the formulas in this proof, we shall now write
1258: $P_{ji,a}(u)$ in place of
1259: $P_{(Q_j(u), Q_i(u));a}(u)$.)
1260: %
1261: \bea & & {(-\sqrt{1-u})^h\gb{P_{ji,1}(u)|q_0|P_{ji,2}(u)}^h\over
1262: \gb{P_{ji,1}(u)|K|P_{ji,2}(u)}^h}+{(-\sqrt{1-u})^h\gb{P_{ji,2}(u)|q_0|P_{ji,1}(u)}^h\over
1263: \gb{P_{ji,2}(u)|K|P_{ji,1}(u)}^h}~~~~ \Label{boxpiece} \\
1264: & = &(-\sqrt{1-u})^h
1265: {\gb{P_{ji,1}(u)|q_0|P_{ji,2}(u)}^h\gb{P_{ji,2}(u)|K|P_{ji,1}(u)}^h
1266: +\gb{P_{ji,2}(u)|q_0|P_{ji,1}(u)}^h\gb{P_{ji,1}(u)|K|P_{ji,2}(u)}^h\over
1267: \gb{P_{ji,1}(u)|K|P_{ji,2}(u)}^h\gb{P_{ji,2}(u)|K|P_{ji,1}(u)}^h} \nonumber \\
1268: & = & { (-\sqrt{1-u})^h \left[ \left(2i (1-u){\sqrt{\Delta(Q_i(u),Q_j(u))}}
1269: q_0^2 K^2\right)^h+ \left(-2i
1270: (1-u){\sqrt{\Delta(Q_i(u),Q_j(u))}} q_0^2 K^2 \right)^h \right] \over \left({K^2} (1-u)^2[ (2q_i\cdot
1271: q_j)^2-4 q_i^2 q_j^2]\right)^h }. ~~~\Label{k=2-box-S} \eea
1272: %
1273: We have used the following results (making repeated use of the identity (\ref{eva-2})):
1274: %
1275: \bean \gb{P_{ji,1}(u)|K|P_{ji,2}(u)}\gb{P_{ji,2}(u)|K|P_{ji,1}(u)} &
1276: = & {K^2\over Q_i(u)^2} (1-u)^2[ (2q_i\cdot q_j)^2-4 q_i^2
1277: q_j^2]\eean
1278: %
1279: %
1280: \bean \gb{P_{ji,1}(u)|q_0|P_{ji,2}(u)}\gb{P_{ji,2}(u)|K|P_{ji,1}(u)}
1281: % & = & -2i \eps(P_{ji,1}(u), q_0,P_{ji,2}(u) , K)
1282: &=& 2i
1283: (1-u){\sqrt{\Delta(Q_i(u),Q_j(u))}\over Q_i(u)^2} { q_0^2 K^2}\\
1284: \gb{P_{ji,1}(u)|K|P_{ji,2}(u)}\gb{P_{ji,2}(u)|q_0|P_{ji,1}(u)}
1285: %& = &-2i \eps(P_{ji,1}(u), K,P_{ji,2}(u) , q_0)
1286: &=& -2i
1287: (1-u){\sqrt{\Delta(Q_i(u),Q_j(u))}\over Q_i(u)^2} { q_0^2 K^2}
1288: \eean
1289: %
1290: and
1291: %%
1292: %\bean \eps(P_1, q_0, P_2, K)
1293: %& = & \eps( Q_j+ x_1 Q_i, q_0, Q_j+x _2
1294: %Q_i, K) = (x_1-x_2) \eps( Q_i, q_0, Q_j, K) \\
1295: %& = &
1296: %-(1-u){\sqrt{\Delta(Q_i(u),Q_j(u)}\over Q_i(u)^2}{ \W q_0^2\over
1297: %K^2}\eean
1298: %%
1299: %where
1300: %
1301: \bea \Delta(Q_i(u),Q_j(u)) & = & (1-u)\left\{(1-u)[ (2q_i\cdot
1302: q_j)^2-4 q_i^2 q_j^2]+4K^2[ \a_i\a_j(2q_i\cdot q_j)-\a_i^2
1303: q_j^2-\a_j^2 q_i^2]\right\}. ~~~~\Label{delta-box-u}\eea
1304: %
1305: Equation (\ref{k=2-box-S}) is our most important result in this
1306: subsection. There we can see that when $h$ is odd, we get
1307: zero. When $h$ is even, the factor $(1-u)^{2h}$ in the denominator
1308: is cancelled by corresponding factors in the numerator. (Notice the
1309: overall factor of $(1-u)$ within $\Delta(Q_i(u),Q_j(u))$.)
1310: Thus we see that indeed the expression (\ref{boxpiece}) is a
1311: polynomial in $u$, specifically,
1312: %
1313: \bea
1314: \left\{
1315: \begin{array}{ll}
1316: { 2 (2i)^{h} (q_0^2)^{h}\left\{(1-u)[ (2q_i\cdot q_j)^2-4
1317: q_i^2 q_j^2]+ 4K^2[ \a_i\a_j(2q_i\cdot q_j)-\a_i^2 q_j^2-\a_j^2
1318: q_i^2]\right\}^{h/2} \over [ (2q_i\cdot q_j)^2-4 q_i^2
1319: q_j^2]^{h}}
1320: & {\rm for}~ h~ {\rm even}, \\
1321: 0 & {\rm for}~ h~ {\rm odd}.
1322: \end{array}
1323: \right.~~~\Label{middle-1}
1324: \eea
1325: %
1326: It is clear that the maximum degree of the polynomial is $[{n+2
1327: \over 2}]$.
1328:
1329: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1330: \subsubsection{A simpler expression for $k=2$}
1331: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1332:
1333: The aim of this sub-subsection is to find another expression with the
1334: same value as (\ref{middle-1}), but with more transparent
1335: $u$-dependence. We have just seen that all $u$-dependence has cancelled out, except for the
1336: second factor of $(1-u)$ in the first term of $\Delta_{ij}(u)$, as it
1337: appears in (\ref{delta-box-u}).
1338: Since (\ref{middle-1}) is now an expression in terms of scalar
1339: quantities, we can consider the effect of setting $u=0$ at the
1340: beginning of the calculation. Recovering the expression (\ref{middle-1})
1341: then requires the following single modification:
1342: {\large
1343: %
1344: \bea q_0^{(q_i,q_j,K)}\to \a^{(q_i,q_j)}(u)
1345: q_0^{(q_i,q_j,K)},~~~\a^{(q_i,q_j)}(u)= {\sqrt{1-u+ {4K^2[
1346: \a_i\a_j(2q_i\cdot q_j)-\a_i^2 q_j^2-\a_j^2 q_i^2]\over (2q_i\cdot
1347: q_j)^2-4 q_i^2 q_j^2}}\over \sqrt{1+ {4K^2[ \a_i\a_j(2q_i\cdot
1348: q_j)-\a_i^2 q_j^2-\a_j^2 q_i^2]\over (2q_i\cdot q_j)^2-4 q_i^2
1349: q_j^2}}}.
1350: \eea
1351: %
1352: }
1353: Then,
1354: %
1355: \bea & & {(-\sqrt{1-u})^h\gb{P_{ji,1}(u)|q_0|P_{ji,2}(u)}^h\over
1356: \gb{P_{ji,1}(u)|K|P_{ji,2}(u)}^h}+{(-\sqrt{1-u})^h\gb{P_{ji,2}(u)|q_0|P_{ji,1}(u)}^h\over
1357: \gb{P_{ji,2}(u)|K|P_{ji,1}(u)}^h}\nonumber \\ & = &
1358: {\gb{P_{ji,1}(u=0)|\a^{(q_i,q_j)}(u)(-q_0)|P_{ji,2}(u=0)}^h\over
1359: \gb{P_{ji,1}(u=0)|K|P_{ji,2}(u=0)}^h}+{\gb{P_{ji,2}(u=0)|\a^{(q_i,q_j)}(u)(-q_0)|P_{ji,1}(u=0)}^h\over
1360: \gb{P_{ji,2}(u=0)|K|P_{ji,1}(u=0)}^h}.
1361: \eea
1362: %
1363: Now,
1364: all of the $u$-dependence is concentrated within the $\a^{(q_i,q_j)}(u)$. Going back
1365: to (\ref{box-u-perm}), we can perform a similar operation:
1366: %
1367: \bea & & {\prod_{s=1}^{n+2}\gb{P_{ji,1}(u)|R_s(u)|P_{ji,2}(u)}\over
1368: \gb{P_{ji,1}(u)|K|P_{ji,2}(u)}^{n+2}}+\{ P_{ji,1}(u)\leftrightarrow
1369: P_{ji,2}(u)\}\nonumber \\ &= &
1370: {\prod_{s=1}^{n+2}\gb{P_{ji,1}(u=0)|{\W R}_s(u)|P_{ji,2}(u=0)}\over
1371: \gb{P_{ji,1}(u=0)|K|P_{ji,2}(u=0)}^{n+2}}+\{
1372: P_{ji,1}(u=0)\leftrightarrow
1373: P_{ji,2}(u=0)\}.
1374: ~~~\Label{k=2-box-equiv}\eea
1375: %
1376: where we have defined
1377: %
1378: \bea {\W R}_s(u) \equiv a_0^{(q_i,q_j,K; p_s)}
1379: \a^{(q_i,q_j)}(u)(-q_0)+\b_s^{(q_i,q_j,K;p_s)} K.
1380: ~~~~\Label{wrs-k2}
1381: \eea
1382: %
1383: With the definition (\ref{beta-package}), we can rewrite $ {\W R}_s(u)$ as
1384: %
1385: \bean \W R_s
1386: %& = & a_0^{(q_i,q_j,K; p_s)}
1387: %\a^{(q_i,q_j)}(u)(-q_0)+(\b_s-a_i^{(q_i,q_j,K; p_s)} \a_i
1388: %-a_j^{(q_i,q_j,K; p_s)} \a_j)K \\
1389: & = & a_0^{(q_i,q_j,K; p_s)} (\a^{(q_i,q_j)}(u)-1)(-q_0) -
1390: a_i^{(q_i,q_j,K; p_s)} Q_i(u=0)-a_j^{(q_i,q_j,K; p_s)} Q_j(u=0) +
1391: R_s(u=0). \eean
1392: %
1393: Now we make use of the properties
1394: %
1395: \bean
1396: \gb{P_{ji,1}(u=0)|Q_i(u=0)|P_{ji,2}(u=0)}=\gb{P_{ji,1}(u=0)|Q_j(u=0)|P_{ji,2}(u=0)}=0,\eean
1397: %
1398: and the fact that $\W R_s(u)$ is defined such that the equation
1399: (\ref{k=2-box-equiv}) is satisfied, we can drop the terms with $Q_{i/j}(u=0)$, so that
1400: %
1401: \bea \W R_s(u) \equiv {p_s\cdot q_0^{(q_i,q_j,K)}\over
1402: (q_0^{(q_i,q_j,K)})^2}
1403: (\a^{(q_i,q_j)}(u)-1)(-q_0^{(q_i,q_j,K)})+R_s(u=0).
1404: ~~~\Label{W-R-S}
1405: \eea
1406: %
1407: Equations (\ref{k=2-box-equiv}) and (\ref{W-R-S}) are our final
1408: simplest result. All $u$-dependence has been packaged inside
1409: $(\a^{(q_i,q_j)}(u)-1)$, which is zero when $u=0$. Also, it has now
1410: become clear that the degree of the polynomial in $u$ is
1411: $[(n+2)/2]$.
1412:
1413:
1414: {\bf Summary:} The box coefficient for $k=2$ is given by
1415: %
1416: \bea C[K_i,K_j]_{k=2} & = & {(K^2)^{2+n}\over 2} \left(
1417: {\prod_{s=1}^{n+2} \gb{P_{(Q_j, Q_i);1}|\W R_s(u)|P_{(Q_j,
1418: Q_i);2}}\over \gb{P_{(Q_j, Q_i);1}|K|P_{(Q_j, Q_i);2}}^{n+2}}+\{
1419: P_{(Q_j, Q_i);1}\leftrightarrow P_{(Q_j,
1420: Q_i);2}\}\right),~~\Label{k=2-final} \eea
1421: %
1422: with
1423: %
1424: \bea \W R_s(u) ={p_s\cdot q_0^{(q_i,q_j,K)}\over
1425: (q_0^{(q_i,q_j,K)})^2}
1426: (\a^{(q_i,q_j)}(u)-1)(-q_0^{(q_i,q_j,K)})+R_s(u=0).~~~\Label{W-R-S-2}
1427: \eea
1428: %
1429: Let us emphasize again that $P_{(Q_j, Q_i);a}$ is constructed from
1430: $Q_j(u=0)+x_a Q_i(u=0)$, so it is {\em independent} of $u$.
1431:
1432:
1433: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1434: \subsection{The case $k=3$}
1435: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1436:
1437: In this case, we will see the pentagon show up, and we shall learn how
1438: to separate boxes from pentagons.
1439: Again, we shall abbreviate the notation of the vector $P_{(Q_j, Q_i);a}$
1440: by $P_{ji,a}$.
1441: We evaluate an expression of the form:
1442: %
1443: \bea {\prod_{s=1}^{n+3} \gb{P_{ji,1}(u)|R_s(u)|P_{ji,2}(u)}\over
1444: \gb{P_{ji,1}(u)|K|P_{ji,2}(u)}^{n+2}
1445: \gb{P_{ji,1}(u)|Q_t(u)|P_{ji,2}(u)}}+\{ P_{ji,1}(u)\leftrightarrow
1446: P_{ji,2}(u)\}.
1447: \eea
1448: %
1449: Again, we would like to expand $R_s(u)$, or equivalently $p_s$, in a
1450: suitable basis of the vectorspace orthogonal to $K$. In this case, we
1451: do not need to construct the vector $q_0^{(q_i,q_j,K)}$, because we now have three
1452: vectors $q_i, q_j, q_t$ available already.
1453: %
1454: \bea p_s & = & a_t^{(q_i,q_j,q_t; p_s)} q_t+a_i^{(q_i,q_j,q_t; p_s)}
1455: q_i+a_j^{(q_i,q_j,q_t; p_s)} q_j.~~~\Label{ps-exp-k=3}\eea
1456: %
1457: Thus,
1458: %
1459: \bea \gb{P_{ji,1}(u)|R_s(u)|P_{ji,2}(u)} & = & a_t^{(q_i,q_j,q_t; p_s)}
1460: \gb{P_{ji,1}(u)|Q_t(u)|P_{ji,2}(u)} +\b_s^{(q_i,q_j,q_t;
1461: p_s)}\gb{P_{ji,1}(u)|K|P_{ji,2}(u)},~~~\Label{Rs-exp-k=3}\eea
1462: %
1463: where we have defined
1464: %
1465: \bea\b_s^{(q_i,q_j,q_t; p_s)}\equiv (\b_s-\sum_{h=i,j,k}
1466: a_h^{(q_i,q_j,q_t; p_s)}\a_h).~~~~\Label{big-beta-k-3}
1467: \eea
1468: %
1469: Now we can expand the rational function within the coefficient formula:
1470: %
1471: \bea & & {\prod_{s=1}^{n+3}\gb{P_{ji,1}(u)|R_s(u)|P_{ji,2}(u)}\over
1472: \gb{P_{ji,1}(u)|K|P_{ji,2}(u)}^{n+2}\gb{P_{ji,1}(u)|Q_t(u)|P_{ji,2}(u)}}
1473: \nonumber \\
1474: && = \sum_{h=0}^{n+3} C_h^{(q_i,q_j,q_t)}
1475: {\gb{P_{ji,1}(u)|Q_t(u)|P_{ji,2}(u)}^{h}\over
1476: \gb{P_{ji,1}(u)|K|P_{ji,2}(u)}^{h-1}\gb{P_{ji,1}(u)|Q_t(u)|P_{ji,2}(u)}},
1477: ~~~~\Label{with-pent}
1478: \eea
1479: %
1480: where we have defined
1481: %
1482: \bean C_h^{(q_i,q_j,q_t)} = \sum_{\stackrel{S \subseteq \{1,2,\ldots,n+3\}}{|S|=h}}
1483: \prod_{s \in S} a_t^{(q_i,q_j,q_t; p_s)}
1484: \prod_{s \in S^c}\b_s^{(q_i,q_j,q_t;p_s)}.
1485: \eean
1486: %
1487: Now, break the sum (\ref{with-pent}) into two parts, by separating the
1488: term with $h=0$ from the rest. In every term with $h > 0$, the
1489: factor $\gb{P_{ji,1}(u)|Q_t(u)|P_{ji,2}(u)}$ from the denominator is cancelled by the
1490: numerator. What remains is a term in the form we considered in the
1491: previous subsection, the case $k=2$. That part contributes only to boxes.
1492: We shall return to that part in a moment, to find the exact box
1493: contribution. Notice that we can observe at this point, from the
1494: comparison to the $k=2$ case, that the degree of the polynomial is
1495: again $[(n+2)/2]$.
1496:
1497:
1498: The term in (\ref{with-pent}) with $h=0$ is
1499: %
1500: \bean \prod_{s=1}^{n+3} \b_s^{(q_i,q_j,q_t;p_s)}{
1501: \gb{P_{ji,1}(u)|K|P_{ji,2}(u)}\over \gb{P_{ji,1}(u)|Q_t(u)|P_{ji,2}(u)}
1502: }.
1503: \eean
1504: %
1505: The cut of a pentagon integral has been analyzed in
1506: \cite{Anastasiou:2006gt}. We clarify its $u$-dependent behavior in Appendix \ref{ap:pentagon}. It is directly related to the sum of three
1507: cut-boxes. The part of the cut-pentagon that is related to the
1508: cut-box $C[Q_i,Q_j]$ is
1509: %
1510: \bea {1\over 2K^2} \left( { \gb{P_{ji,1}(u)|K|P_{ji,2}(u)}\over
1511: \gb{P_{ji,1}(u)|Q_t(u)|P_{ji,2}(u)} }+\{ P_{ji,1}(u)\leftrightarrow
1512: P_{ji,2}(u)\}\right).
1513: \eea
1514: %
1515: Thus, we see that this $h=0$ term is exactly a pentagon contribution.
1516: The coefficient of the pentagon integral must
1517: be
1518: %
1519: \bea C[Q_i, Q_j, Q_t] = (K^2)^{3+n} \prod_{s=1}^{n+3}
1520: \b_s^{(q_i,q_j,q_t;p_s)},~~~\Label{Pen-coeff}\eea
1521: %
1522: which is entirely independent of $u$.
1523:
1524: Now let us return to the box coefficients, using our result
1525: (\ref{k=2-final}), along with the definition (\ref{W-R-S}) applied
1526: here to the vector $Q_t(u)$ instead of $R_s(u)$.
1527: %
1528: \bean & & \sum_{h=1}^{n+3} C_h^{(q_i,q_j,q_t)}
1529: {\gb{P_{ji,1}(u)|Q_t(u)|P_{ji,2}(u)}^{h-1}\over
1530: \gb{P_{ji,1}(u)|K|P_{ji,2}(u)}^{h-1}} \\
1531: & \longrightarrow & \sum_{h=1}^{n+3} C_h^{(q_i,q_j,q_t)}
1532: {\gb{P_{ji,1}(u=0)|\W Q_t(u)|P_{ji,2}(u=0)}^{h-1}\over
1533: \gb{P_{ji,1}(u=0)|K|P_{ji,2}(u=0)}^{h-1}} \\
1534: & = & \sum_{h=0}^{n+3} C_h^{(q_i,q_j,q_t)}
1535: {\gb{P_{ji,1}(u=0)|\W Q_t(u)|P_{ji,2}(u=0)}^{h}\over
1536: \gb{P_{ji,1}(u=0)|K|P_{ji,2}(u=0)}^{h-1}\gb{P_{ji,1}(u=0)|\W
1537: Q_t(u)|P_{ji,2}(u=0)}}\\ & & - \prod_{s=1}^{n+3}
1538: \b_s^{(q_i,q_j,q_t;p_s)}{ \gb{P_{ji,1}(u=0)|K|P_{ji,2}(u=0)}\over
1539: \gb{P_{ji,1}(u=0)|\W Q_t(u)|P_{ji,2}(u=0)} }\\
1540: & = & {\prod_{s=1}^{n+3}\gb{P_{ji,1}(u=0)|\W {\W R}_s(u)|P_{ji,2}(u=0)}\over
1541: \gb{P_{ji,1}(u=0)|K|P_{ji,2}(u=0)}^{n+2}\gb{P_{ji,1}(u=0)|\W
1542: Q_t(u)|P_{ji,2}(u=0)}}\\ & & - \prod_{s=1}^{n+3}
1543: \b_s^{(q_i,q_j,q_t;p_s)}{ \gb{P_{ji,1}(u=0)|K|P_{ji,2}(u=0)}\over
1544: \gb{P_{ji,1}(u=0)|\W Q_t(u)|P_{ji,2}(u=0)} }\eean
1545: %
1546: In the last line of this equation, we have defined
1547: %
1548: \bea \W {\W R}_s (u) & \equiv & a_t^{(q_i,q_j,q_t; p_s)} \W Q_t
1549: +\b_s^{(q_i,q_j,q_t; p_s)}K ~~~~\Label{wwr-k3} \\ & = & a_t^{(q_i,q_j,q_t; p_s)}
1550: a_0^{(q_i,q_j,K; q_t)} (\a^{(q_i,q_j)}(u)-1)(-q_0) + R_s(u=0)-
1551: \sum_{\gamma=i,j} a_\gamma^{(q_i,q_j,q_t; p_s)} Q_\gamma(u=0).
1552: \nonumber
1553: \eea
1554: %
1555: The cumbersome double-tilde notation is a temporary inconvenience, to
1556: avoid confusion with ${\W R}_s (u)$, which was defined in (\ref{wrs-k2}) for the case $k=2$.
1557: In fact, we shall discover later that the two quantities are identical.
1558:
1559: Using the property $\gb{P_{ji,1}(u=0)|Q_{i/j}(u=0)|P_{ji,2}(u=0)}=0$, we can
1560: redefine this vector as follows:
1561: %
1562: \bea \W {\W R}_s(u) \equiv a_t^{(q_i,q_j,q_t; p_s)} a_0^{(q_i,q_j,K; q_t)}
1563: (\a^{(q_i,q_j)}(u)-1)(-q_0) + R_s(u=0).~~~\Label{WW-R-S}\eea
1564: %
1565: Finally, the box coefficient is given by
1566:
1567: %
1568: \bea C[Q_i,Q_j]_{k=3} & = & {(K^2)^{2+n}\over 2} \left(
1569: {\prod_{j=1}^{n+3} \gb{P_{(Q_j, Q_i);1}|\W{\W R}_j(u)|P_{(Q_j,
1570: Q_i);2}}\over \gb{P_{(Q_j, Q_i);1}|K|P_{(Q_j,
1571: Q_i);2}}^{n+2}\gb{P_{(Q_j, Q_i);1}|{\W Q}_t(u)|P_{(Q_j, Q_i);2}}}\right.
1572: \nonumber \\
1573: & & \left.- \prod_{s=1}^{n+3} \b_s^{(q_i,q_j,q_t;p_s)}{\gb{P_{(Q_j,
1574: Q_i);1}|K|P_{(Q_j, Q_i);2}}\over \gb{P_{(Q_j, Q_i);1}|{\W
1575: Q}_t(u)|P_{(Q_j, Q_i);2}}}+\{ P_{(Q_j, Q_i);1}\leftrightarrow
1576: P_{(Q_j, Q_i);2}\}\right).~~\Label{k=3-final} \eea
1577: %
1578:
1579:
1580: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1581: %\subsubsection{Another point of view}
1582: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1583:
1584: As an alternative to the expansion (\ref{ps-exp-k=3}) of $p_s$ in the basis $q_i,q_j,q_t$, we consider another expansion:
1585: %
1586: \bea P_s = \sum_{\a=K, K_i, K_j, K_t} a_\a^{(K,K_i,K_j,K_t;P_s)}
1587: K_\a.
1588: ~~~\Label{Ps-exp-k=3} \eea
1589: %
1590: By projecting equation (\ref{Ps-exp-k=3}) onto the vectorspace orthogonal to $K$, and comparing with (\ref{ps-exp-k=3}), we see that
1591: %
1592: \bea a_{w}^{(K,K_i,K_j,K_t;P_s)}=
1593: a_w^{(q_i,q_j,q_t;p_s)},~~~~w=i,j,t.
1594: \eea
1595: %
1596: %Via equation (\ref{Ps-exp-k=3}), we can relate $R_s(u)$ to the vectors $Q_\a(u)$, and derive the following expansion:
1597: %%\footnote{It is important to notice that in following rewriting
1598: %%we have used special form of $\b_s={-P_s\cdot K\over K^2}$.}
1599: %%
1600: %\bean R_s(u) & = & -\sqrt{1-u} P_s+{ -z(2P_s\cdot K)\over K^2} K \\& = &
1601: %\sum_{\a= K_i, K_j, K_t} a_\a^{(K,K_i,K_j,K_t;P_s)} Q_\a(u)-\sum_{\a=K,
1602: %K_i, K_j, K_t} a_\a^{(K,K_i,K_j,K_t;P_s)} {K_\a^2\over K^2} K\eean
1603: %%
1604: %From this we have
1605: %%
1606: %\bea \gb{P_{ji,1}|R_s|P_{ji,2}} & = &
1607: %a_{K_t}^{(K,K_i,K_j,K_t;P_s)}\gb{P_{ji,1}| Q_t|P_{ji,2}}-\sum_{\a=K,
1608: %K_i, K_j, K_t} a_\a^{(K,K_i,K_j,K_t;P_s)} {K_\a^2\over
1609: %K^2}\gb{P_{ji,1}|K|P_{ji,2}}~~~\Label{pen-sep-1}\eea
1610: %%
1611:
1612: The advantage of the expansion (\ref{Ps-exp-k=3}) in four vectors is that we can solve for the coefficients explicitly, as in (\ref{4D-exp}), and find
1613: %
1614: \bea a_t^{(q_i,q_j,q_t;p_s)} &=
1615: &a_{t}^{(K,K_i,K_j,K_t;P_s)}={\eps(K_i,K_j, K, P_s)\over
1616: \eps(K_i,K_j, K, K_t)}. ~~~~\Label{at-1}
1617: \eea
1618: Thus, using (\ref{big-beta-k-3}), we have
1619: \bean
1620: \b_s^{(q_i,q_j,q_t;p_s)}
1621: &=& -{K_i^2 \eps(P_s,K_j,K, K_t)+K_j^2 \eps(K_i,P_s,K, K_t) +K^2
1622: \eps(K_i,K_j,P_s, K_t)+K_t^2 \eps(K_i,K_j,K, P_s)\over K^2
1623: \eps(K_i,K_j,K, K_t)}.
1624: \eean
1625: %
1626: With the formulas (\ref{at-1}) and (\ref{a-0-k=2}) for the expansion coefficients written in terms of input vectors, we can
1627: simplify the following coefficient in the definition (\ref{wwr-k3}) of $\W{\W R}_s(u)$:
1628: %
1629: \bean a_t^{(q_i,q_j,q_t; p_s)} a_0^{(q_i,q_j,K; q_t)} & = &
1630: -{\eps(K_i,K_j, K, P_s)\over \eps(K_t,K_i,K_j, K)}{\eps(K_t,
1631: K_i,K_j,K)\over K^2 (q_0^{(q_i,q_j,K)})^2} ={\eps(P_s,K_i,K_j,
1632: K)\over K^2 (q_0^{(q_i,q_j,K)})^2}=a_0^{(q_i,q_j,K; p_s)}.
1633: \eean
1634: %
1635: We conclude that
1636: %
1637: \bea \W {\W R}_{s}(u)=\W R_s(u),~~~\Label{WWR-WR} \eea
1638: %
1639: where the definition of $\W R_s(u)$ is taken from (\ref{W-R-S-2}).
1640:
1641: %%%%%%%%%%%%%
1642: \subsubsection{Summary of $k=3$}
1643: %%%%%%%%%%%%%
1644:
1645: The pentagon coefficient is given by
1646: %
1647: \bea C[Q_i, Q_j, Q_t] = (K^2)^{3+n} \prod_{s=1}^{n+3}
1648: \b_s^{(q_i,q_j,q_t;p_s)}.
1649: ~~~\Label{Pen-coeff-final}\eea
1650: %
1651: There are three boxes associated with the triplet of vectors $Q_i,Q_j,Q_t$. We give the formula for the box involving $Q_i$ and $Q_j$; the other two may be obtained by exchanging indices.
1652: %
1653: \bea C[Q_i,Q_j]_{k=3} & = & {(K^2)^{2+n}\over 2} \left(
1654: {\prod_{r=1}^{n+3} \gb{P_{(Q_j, Q_i);1}|{\W R}_r(u)|P_{(Q_j,
1655: Q_i);2}}\over \gb{P_{(Q_j, Q_i);1}|K|P_{(Q_j,
1656: Q_i);2}}^{n+2}\gb{P_{(Q_j, Q_i);1}|{\W Q}_t(u)|P_{(Q_j,
1657: Q_i);2}}}\right.
1658: \nonumber \\
1659: & & \left.- \prod_{s=1}^{n+3} \b_s^{(q_i,q_j,q_t;p_s)}{\gb{P_{(Q_j,
1660: Q_i);1}|K|P_{(Q_j, Q_i);2}}\over \gb{P_{(Q_j, Q_i);1}|{\W
1661: Q}_t(u)|P_{(Q_j, Q_i);2}}}+\{ P_{(Q_j, Q_i);1}\leftrightarrow
1662: P_{(Q_j, Q_i);2}\}\right),
1663: ~~\Label{k=3-final-1} \eea
1664: %
1665: where we have made the following definitions:
1666: %
1667: \bea {\W R}_r(u) &=& {p_r\cdot q_0^{(q_i,q_j,K)}\over
1668: (q_0^{(q_i,q_j,K)})^2}
1669: (\a^{(q_i,q_j)}(u)-1)(-q_0^{(q_i,q_j,K)}) + R_r(u=0)~~~\Label{W-R-S-1}\\
1670: \W Q_t(u) &= &{q_t\cdot q_0^{(q_i,q_j,K)}\over
1671: (q_0^{(q_i,q_j,K)})^2}
1672: (\a^{(q_i,q_j)}(u)-1)(-q_0^{(q_i,q_j,K)})+Q_t(u=0),~~~\Label{W-Q-t-1}\eea
1673: %
1674: and
1675: %
1676: \bea & & \b_s^{(q_i,q_j,q_t;p_s)} = \nonumber \\
1677: & & -{K_i^2 \eps(P_s,K_j,K, K_t)+K_j^2
1678: \eps(K_i,P_s,K, K_t) +K^2 \eps(K_i,K_j,P_s, K_t)+K_t^2
1679: \eps(K_i,K_j,K, P_s)\over K^2 \eps(K_i,K_j,K,
1680: K_t)}. ~~~\Label{bs-k=3}\eea
1681: %
1682:
1683: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1684: \subsection{The case $k\geq 4$}
1685: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1686:
1687: If there at least four vectors $K_i$, then we can use four of them as a basis to expand the momentum vector $K$:
1688: %
1689: \bea K= \sum_{i=1}^4 a_i^{(1,2,3,4)} K_i.
1690: ~~~~\Label{K-exp-k=4}\eea
1691: %
1692: Using the expression (\ref{Q-K-def}) for $Q_i(u)$,
1693: we find
1694: %
1695: \bean \sum_{i=1}^4 a_i^{(1,2,3,4)} Q_i(u)
1696: %& = & -\sqrt{1-u} K +
1697: %{\sum_{i=1}^4 a_i^{(1,2,3,4)} K_i^2 -2 z K^2\over K^2} K \\
1698: & = & {\sum_{i=1}^4 a_i^{(1,2,3,4)} K_i^2 -K^2\over K^2} K.
1699: \eean
1700: %
1701:
1702: Use (\ref{P-RS}) to define the two null momenta $P_{i}(u)=Q_2(u)+ x_i Q_1(u)$.
1703: Then, we have
1704: %
1705: \bean {a_4^{(1,2,3,4)}\over \gb{P_1(u)|Q_3(u)|P_2(u)}}+
1706: {a_3^{(1,2,3,4)}\over \gb{P_1(u)|Q_4(u)|P_2(u)}} &=& {\gb{P_1(u)| a_4^{(1,2,3,4)}
1707: Q_4(u)+ a_3^{(1,2,3,4)} Q_3(u)|P_2(u)}\over
1708: \gb{P_1(u)|Q_3(u)|P_2(u)} \gb{P_1(u)|Q_4(u)|P_2(u)}} \\
1709: & = & {\gb{P_1(u)|\sum_{i=1}^4 a_i^{(1,2,3,4)} Q_i(u) |P_2(u)}\over
1710: \gb{P_1(u)|Q_3(u)|P_2(u)} \gb{P_1(u)|Q_4(u)|P_2(u)}} \\
1711: &=& {\sum_{i=1}^4 a_i^{(1,2,3,4)}
1712: K_i^2 -K^2\over K^2} {\gb{P_1(u)|K |P_2(u)}\over \gb{P_1(u)|Q_3(u)|P_2(u)}
1713: \gb{P_1(u)|Q_4(u)|P_2(u)}}.
1714: \eean
1715: %
1716: Therefore, we can derive the following identity:
1717: %
1718: \bea & & {1\over \gb{P_1(u)|Q_3(u)|P_2(u)} \gb{P_1(u)|Q_4(u)|P_2(u)}} = ~~~\Label{b-reduction-1}\\
1719: & & {K^2\over
1720: \sum_{i=1}^4 a_i^{(1,2,3,4)} K_i^2 -K^2} {1\over \gb{P_1(u)|K|P_2(u)}}
1721: \left({a_4^{(1,2,3,4)}\over \gb{P_1(u)|Q_3(u)|P_2(u)}}+ {a_3^{(1,2,3,4)}\over
1722: \gb{P_1(u)|Q_4(u)|P_2(u)}} \right). \nonumber
1723: \eea
1724: %
1725: Generalizing to our case with $k \geq 4$, we have
1726: %
1727: \bea & & {1\over \prod_{t=1,t\neq i,j}^k\gb{P_{ji,1}(u)|Q_t(u)|P_{ji,2}(u)}}
1728: = ~~~\Label{b-reduction-2} \\
1729: & & \sum_{t=1,t\neq i,j}^k {1\over
1730: \gb{P_{ji,1}(u)|K|P_{ji,2}(u)}^{k-3}\gb{P_{ji,1}(u)|Q_t(u)|P_{ji,2}(u)}}\prod_{s=1,s\neq
1731: i,j,t}^k \left( { a_s^{(i,j,t,s)}K^2\over \sum_{\a=i,j,s,t}
1732: a_\a^{(i,j,t,s)} K_\a^2 -K^2}\right). \nonumber
1733: \eea
1734: %
1735: Thus, we can write
1736: %
1737: \bea & & {\prod_{r=1}^{k+n} \gb{P_{ji,1}(u)|R_r(u)
1738: |P_{ji,2}(u)}\over \gb{P_{ji,1}(u)|K |P_{ji,2}(u)}^{n+2}
1739: \prod_{t=1,t\neq i,j}^k\gb{P_{ji,1}(u)|Q_t(u) |P_{ji,2}(u)}}~~~\Label{k=4-exp-1}\\
1740: & = & \sum_{t=1,t\neq i,j}^k \prod_{s=1,s\neq i,j,t}^k \left( {
1741: a_s^{(i,j,t,s)}K^2\over \sum_{\a=i,j,s,t} a_\a^{(i,j,t,s)} K_\a^2
1742: -K^2}\right){\prod_{r=1}^{k+n} \gb{P_{ji,1}(u)|R_r(u)
1743: |P_{ji,2}(u)}\over \gb{P_{ji,1}(u)|K |P_{ji,2}(u)}^{n+k-1}
1744: \gb{P_{ji,1}(u)|Q_t(u) |P_{ji,2}(u)}}.
1745: \nonumber
1746: \eea
1747: %
1748: By this formula, we reduce the case with a given $n$, and $k \geq 4$, to the case with $k_{\rm eff}=3$, and $n_{\rm eff}=n+k-3$.
1749: Using the results of the cases $k=2$ and $k=3$, we see
1750: explicitly that indeed the coefficients of boxes are polynomials in
1751: $u$.
1752:
1753:
1754:
1755: The coefficients in (\ref{k=4-exp-1}) can be given more explicitly
1756: using (\ref{a-sol}). We denote the quantity in parentheses by
1757: $1/\gamma_s^{(K_i,K_j;K_s,K_t)}$, and
1758: %
1759: \bea & & \gamma_s^{(K_i,K_j;K_s,K_t)}\equiv {
1760: \sum_{\a=i,j,s,t} a_\a^{(i,j,t,s)} K_\a^2
1761: -K^2 \over a_s^{(i,j,t,s)}K^2 }
1762: ~~~~\Label{gamma-def}\\
1763: & = & {
1764: K_i^2\eps(K,K_j,K_s,K_t)+K_j^2\eps(K_i,K,K_s,K_t)+K_s^2\eps(K_i,K_j,K,K_t)
1765: +K_t^2\eps(K_i,K_j,K_s,K)-K^2\eps(K_i,K_j,K_s,K_t)
1766: \over K^2 \eps(K_i,K_j,K,K_t) }.
1767: \nonumber \eea
1768: %
1769: The numerator of (\ref{gamma-def}) is symmetric in $K_i,K_j,K_s,K_t$; the denominator
1770: singles out $K_s$, which is why we use the subscript $s$.
1771:
1772:
1773:
1774: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1775: \subsubsection{The total box coefficient}
1776: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1777:
1778: We have just shown that when $k\geq 4$, we can use (\ref{k=4-exp-1}) to
1779: reduce to terms with $k=3$, read out box coefficients for each
1780: of these terms, and eventually add them all up.
1781: This approach was useful to prove the polynomial property. For computing amplitudes, we would like to carry out the summation once and for all.
1782:
1783:
1784: We have used (\ref{b-reduction-1}) and
1785: (\ref{b-reduction-2}) to derive (\ref{k=4-exp-1}). In each term on the right-hand side of
1786: (\ref{k=4-exp-1}), there is one pentagon coefficient and one box
1787: coefficient. The pentagon coefficients are uniquely associated to different pentagons, with the various $Q_t$'s along with $Q_i$ and $Q_j$, but the box
1788: coefficients all contribute to the same box, with only $Q_i$ and $Q_j$, so we must add them up.
1789:
1790:
1791: Upon inspecting the final expression (\ref{k=3-final-1}) for box coefficients in the case $k=3$, we see that our task is to check that
1792: equation (\ref{b-reduction-1}) still holds if we replace $Q_t(u)$ by $\W Q_t(u)$ and $P_i(u)$ by $P_i \equiv P_i(u=0)$. Let us try to copy the derivation.
1793: %
1794: \bea & & {a_4^{(1,2,3,4)}\over \gb{P_1|\W Q_3(u)|P_2}}+
1795: {a_3^{(1,2,3,4)}\over \gb{P_1|\W Q_4(u)|P_2}}
1796: = {\gb{P_1|
1797: a_4^{(1,2,3,4)}\W Q_4(u)+ a_3^{(1,2,3,4)}\W Q_3(u)|P_2}\over
1798: \gb{P_1|\W Q_3(u)|P_2} \gb{P_1|\W Q_4(u)|P_2}} \nonumber \\
1799: & = & {\gb{P_1|\sum_{i=3}^4 a_{i}^{(1,2,3,4)} Q_i(u=0)
1800: +(\a^{(q_i,q_j)}(u)-1)(-q_0)\sum_{i=3}^4 a_{i}^{(1,2,3,4)} {q_i\cdot
1801: q_0\over q_0^2}|P_2}\over \gb{P_1|\W Q_3(u)|P_2} \gb{P_1|\W Q_4(u)|P_2}}.
1802: ~~~\Label{sec-split-k4}
1803: \eea
1804: %
1805: Then second term in the numerator of (\ref{sec-split-k4}) is zero because $q_i\cdot q_0=q_j\cdot
1806: q_0=K\cdot q_0=0$. Further, we can extend the sum in the numerator of the first term to include $i=1,2$, since these terms are individually zero when contracted between spinors for $P_1$ and $P_2$.
1807:
1808: Because
1809: %
1810: \bean \sum_{i=1}^4 a_{i}^{(1,2,3,4)} Q_i(u=0) = \sum_{i=1}^{4}
1811: a_{i}^{(1,2,3,4)} \a_i K,
1812: \eean
1813: %
1814: we have
1815: %
1816: \bean {a_4^{(1,2,3,4)}\over \gb{P_1|\W Q_3(u)|P_2}}+
1817: {a_3^{(1,2,3,4)}\over \gb{P_1|\W Q_4(u)|P_2}}& =& {\gb{P_1|\sum_{i=1}^4
1818: a_{i}^{(1,2,3,4)} \a_i K |P_2}\over \gb{P_1|\W Q_3(u)|P_2} \gb{P_1|\W
1819: Q_4(u)|P_2}}. \eean
1820: %
1821: It is now clear that (\ref{b-reduction-1}) and
1822: (\ref{b-reduction-2}) will still hold, if we replace $P_{ji}(u)\to P_{ji}(u=0)$
1823: and $Q_t(u)\to \W Q_t(u)$.
1824:
1825:
1826:
1827: Now we perform the summation, using (\ref{k=3-final-1}). There are two
1828: terms. The first terms are collected to give
1829: %
1830: \bea{\prod_{r=1}^{k+n} \gb{P_{ji,1}(u=0)| {\W R}_r(u)
1831: |P_{ji,2}(u=0)}\over \gb{P_{ji,1}(u=0)|K |P_{ji,2}(u=0)}^{n+2}
1832: \prod_{t=1,t\neq i,j}^k\gb{P_{ji,1}(u=0)|\W Q_t(u)
1833: |P_{ji,2}(u=0)}}.
1834: \eea
1835: %
1836: The total from the second term from (\ref{k=3-final-1})
1837: cannot be simplified further, since each
1838: $\b_s^{(q_i,q_j,q_t;p_s)}$ depends on both $P_s$ and $K_t$.
1839:
1840:
1841: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1842: \subsubsection{Results for $k\geq 4$}
1843: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1844:
1845: The box coefficients are given by
1846: %
1847: \bea C[Q_i,Q_j]_{k\geq 4} & = & {(K^2)^{2+n}\over
1848: 2}\left\{{\prod_{r=1}^{k+n} \gb{P_{(Q_j,Q_i);1}| {\W R}_r(u)
1849: |P_{(Q_j,Q_i);2}}\over \gb{P_{(Q_j,Q_i);1}|K |P_{(Q_j,Q_i);2}}^{n+2}
1850: \prod_{t=1,t\neq
1851: i,j}^k\gb{P_{(Q_j,Q_i);1}|\W Q_t(u) |P_{(Q_j,Q_i);2}}}\right.\nonumber \\
1852: & & \left.-\sum_{t=1,t\neq i,j}^k
1853: { \prod_{s=1}^{n+k} \b_s^{(q_i,q_j,q_t;p_s)} \over \prod_{w=1,w\neq i,j,t}^k
1854: \gamma_w^{(K_i,K_j;K_w,K_t)} }
1855: {
1856: \gb{P_{(Q_j,Q_i);1}|K|P_{(Q_j,Q_i);2}}\over \gb{P_{(Q_j,Q_i);1}|\W
1857: Q_t(u)|P_{(Q_j,Q_i);2}} }\right\}\nonumber \\ & & +\{
1858: P_{(Q_j,Q_i);1}\leftrightarrow
1859: P_{(Q_j,Q_i);2}\},
1860: ~~~\Label{k=4-box-equiv}\eea
1861: %
1862: where $\W R_r(u), \W Q_t(u),
1863: \b_s^{(q_i,q_j,q_t;p_s)},\gamma_w^{(K_i,K_j;K_w,K_t)}$ are defined
1864: in (\ref{W-R-S-1}), (\ref{W-Q-t-1}), (\ref{bs-k=3}) and
1865: (\ref{gamma-def}), respectively. All $u$-dependence is inside $\W
1866: R(u)$ and $\W Q(u)$. This form makes it easier to take the
1867: derivative in (\ref{c-n-exp}).
1868:
1869:
1870: Pentagon coefficients are given by
1871: %
1872: \bea C[Q_i, Q_j, Q_t] = (K^2)^{3+n} {\prod_{s=1}^{n+k}
1873: \b_s^{(q_i,q_j,q_t;p_s)} \over \prod_{w=1,w\neq i,j,t}^k
1874: \gamma_w^{(K_i,K_j;K_w,K_t)}
1875: }.
1876: ~~~\Label{Pen-coeff-final-2}\eea
1877: %
1878:
1879: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1880: \subsection{The degree of the polynomial}
1881: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1882:
1883: In the cases $k=2$ and $k=3$, we have seen explicitly that the maximum degree of the polynomial is $[(n+2)/2]$. For $k \geq 4$, the logic discussed after (\ref{k=4-exp-1}) implies only that the degree is no greater than $[(n+k-1)/2]$.
1884:
1885: %Now let us discuss the degree of $u$ for the box coefficient. From
1886: %the above discussion we can see that our procedure is that we reduce
1887: %$k\geq 4$ to $k=3$ and finally the case of $k=2$. The degree of
1888: %$k=2$ is given by $[m/2]$ where $m$ is the total number of momenta
1889: %in numerator. By this logic, it seems that the degree of $u$ is
1890: %given by $[m/2]$ for general $k$.
1891:
1892: However, we can make a stronger claim by performing a different reduction. In the previous subsection, we chose a reduction with a symmetric treatment of the factors $(-2\W \ell\cdot P_i)$ in the numerator of (\ref{I-inte}). Alternatively, we could choose not to respect this symmetry in reducing the cases with $k \geq 3$. For example, we can expand $P_s$ in terms of $K_i,K_j, K_t, K$ and use
1893: %
1894: \bea \gb{P_{ji,1}(u)|R_s(u)|P_{ji,2}(u)} & = & a_t^{(q_i,q_j,q_t;
1895: p_1)} \gb{P_{ji,1}(u)|Q_t(u)|P_{ji,2}(u)} +\b_s^{(q_i,q_j,q_t; p_s)}
1896: \gb{P_{ji,1}(u)|K|P_{ji,2}(u)}. \eea
1897: %
1898:
1899: This reduction translates to the following relation:
1900: %
1901: \bea \textrm{Box}[m,k,n] \rightarrow \textrm{Box}[m-1,k-1,n] +
1902: \textrm{Box}[m-1,k,n-1]. \eea
1903: %
1904: Upon iteration, we arrive at $k=2$ for a fixed $n$. Then, the degree of the polynomial is $[(m-k+2)/2]=[(n+2)/2]$, which is what we wanted to show. (It is clear that the second term in
1905: the above reduction will not have a higher degree than the first
1906: term.)
1907:
1908:
1909: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1910: \section{Gluon example: $A(1^+,2^+,3^+,4^+,5^+)$}
1911: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1912:
1913: We now present an application to the five-gluon one-loop amplitude in Yang-Mills theory, which was first presented to all orders in $\eps$ in \cite{Bern:1995db}. By supersymmetry arguments, the computation is equivalent to one with a scalar field circulating in the loop.
1914:
1915:
1916: This configuration is totally symmetric, so we need only consider
1917: any single, representative cut, say $C_{12}$. The others can be obtained by permuting labels.
1918: The cut integrand within (\ref{I-inte}) is the product of two tree amplitudes given in \cite{Bern:1996ja}, with a factor of 2 for the two internal helicity choices:
1919: %
1920: \bean I_{12} & = & 2 A_L(-\ell_2, 1^+,2^+,-\ell_1) A_R
1921: (\ell_1,3^+,4^+,5^+,\ell_2) \\ & = & 2 {\mu^2 [1~2]\over
1922: \vev{1~2}((\ell_1-k_2)^2-\mu^2)} {- \mu^2 [5|k_{34} \ell_1|3]\over
1923: \vev{3~4}\vev{4~5} ((\ell_1+k_3)^2-\mu^2) ((\ell_2+k_5)^2-\mu^2)} \\
1924: & = & -2 {(\mu^2)^2 [1~2]\over \vev{1~2}\vev{3~4}\vev{4~5}} {
1925: [5|k_{34} \W\ell|3]\over ((\W\ell-k_2)^2-\mu^2)
1926: ((\W\ell+k_3)^2-\mu^2) ((\W\ell+k_{34})^2-\mu^2)}
1927: \\
1928: & = & -2 {(\mu^2)^2 [1~2]\over
1929: \vev{1~2}\vev{3~4}\vev{4~5}} { (-2 \W\ell \cdot P_1) \over
1930: ((\W\ell-K_1)^2-\mu^2) ((\W\ell-K_2)^2-\mu^2)
1931: ((\W\ell-K_3)^2-\mu^2)}.
1932: \eean
1933: %
1934: where we have defined
1935: %
1936: \bea \W\ell = \ell_1 = k_{12}-\ell_2, \eea
1937: %
1938: and also that
1939: %
1940: \bean K = k_{12}, ~~~~ K_1 =
1941: k_2,~~~~K_2=-k_3,~~~~K_3=-k_{34},~~~~P_1=[5~3]k_3+[5~4]\lambda_4\tilde\lambda_3.
1942: \eean
1943: %
1944: According to our definitions in (\ref{I-inte}) and (\ref{mkn}), we
1945: have
1946: %
1947: \bea
1948: k=3, \qquad m=1, \qquad n=-2.
1949: \eea
1950: %
1951: Since triangles appear only when $n\geq-1$ and bubbles appear only
1952: when $n\geq0$, we are left with only pentagon and box terms in this
1953: case. Because $m=1$, the degree of the polynomial in $u$ is 0.
1954: Thus, we can set $u=0$ in our formula from the beginning.
1955:
1956: From our formula (\ref{Pen-coeff-final}), we find that the pentagon coefficient is
1957: %
1958: \bea C_{pen} = -{2 (\mu^2)^2 [1~2] s_{12} \over
1959: \vev{1~2}\vev{3~4}\vev{4~5}} \b_1^{(q_1,q_2,q_3;p_1)}. \eea
1960: %
1961: This coefficient is proportional to $(\mu^2)^2$. The integral
1962: $I_5^D[(\mu^2)^2]$ is
1963: $\cal O(\eps)$, which is what we expect of pentagons.
1964:
1965: There are three boxes involved in this cut. Using the formula (\ref{k=3-final-1}), we find that
1966: the box coefficient associated with $Q_1, Q_2$ is
1967: %
1968: \bea C[Q_1,Q_2] & = & {-(\mu^2)^2 [1~2]\over
1969: \vev{1~2}\vev{3~4}\vev{4~5}} \left\{{\gb{P_{(Q_2,Q_1);1}| R_1
1970: |P_{(Q_2,Q_1);2}}\over \gb{P_{(Q_2,Q_1);1}|Q_3 |P_{(Q_2,Q_1);2}}}-
1971: \b_1^{(q_1,q_2,q_3;p_1)} { \gb{P_{(Q_2,Q_1);1}|K|P_{(Q_2,Q_1);2}}
1972: \over
1973: \gb{P_{(Q_2,Q_1);1}|Q_3|P_{(Q_2,Q_1);2}} }\right\}\nonumber \\
1974: & & +\{ P_{(Q_2,Q_1);1}\leftrightarrow P_{(Q_2,Q_1);2}\} \nonumber
1975: \\
1976: %
1977: & = & {-2(\mu^2)^2 [1~2]\over \vev{1~2}\vev{3~4}\vev{4~5}}
1978: a_3^{(q_1,q_2,q_3; p_1)}, \eea
1979: %
1980: in which we have used (\ref{Rs-exp-k=3}) to simplify the expression.
1981:
1982: Similar calculations give
1983: %
1984: \bea C[Q_1,Q_3] &=& {-2(\mu^2)^2 [1~2]\over
1985: \vev{1~2}\vev{3~4}\vev{4~5}}
1986: a_3^{(q_1,q_3,q_2; p_1)}, \\
1987: C[Q_2,Q_3] &=& {-2(\mu^2)^2 [1~2]\over \vev{1~2}\vev{3~4}\vev{4~5}}
1988: a_3^{(q_2,q_3,q_1; p_1)}. \eea
1989: %
1990:
1991: Now we check these coefficients against the result in the literature
1992: \cite{Bern:1996ja, Brandhuber:2005jw}, which is (the factor ${i/
1993: (4\pi)^{2-\eps}}$ is omitted, and we also changed the result to our
1994: convention of the basis definition (\ref{DIN-def}))
1995: %
1996: \bea & & A(1^+,2^+,3^+,4^+,5^+) =
1997: \frac{\eps(1-\eps)}{\vev{12}\vev{23}\vev{34}\vev{45}\vev{51}} \Big(
1998: - 4i(4-2\eps) ~\eps(k_1,k_2,k_3,k_4)I_5^{D+6}[1] +
1999: s_{23}s_{34}I_4^{D+4,(1)}[1] \nonumber\\
2000: %
2001: & & \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \quad \quad +
2002: s_{34}s_{45}I_4^{D+4,(2)}[1] + s_{45}s_{51}I_4^{D+4,(3)}[1] +
2003: s_{51}s_{12}I_4^{D+4,(4)}[1] + s_{12}s_{23}I_4^{D+4,(5)}[1]
2004: \Big) \nonumber\\
2005: %
2006: & & \qquad \qquad \qquad \quad \quad ~~~ =
2007: \frac{1}{\vev{1~2}\vev{2~3}\vev{3~4}\vev{4~5}\vev{5~1}} \Big( 8 i
2008: \eps(k_1,k_2,k_3,k_4) I_5^{D}[\mu^6]
2009: -s_{23}s_{34}I_4^{D,(1)}[\mu^4] \nonumber\\
2010: %
2011: & & \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \quad \quad -
2012: s_{34}s_{45}I_4^{D,(2)}[\mu^4] -s_{45}s_{51}I_4^{D,(3)}[\mu^4]
2013: -s_{51}s_{12}I_4^{D,(4)}[\mu^4] -s_{12}s_{23}I_4^{D,(5)}[\mu^4]
2014: \Big).
2015: \eea
2016: %
2017: We have used $I_4^D[\mu^4]=-\eps(1-\eps)I_4^{D+4}[1]$ and
2018: $I_5^D[\mu^6]=-\eps(1-\eps)(2-\eps)I_5^{D+6}[1]$.
2019: In Appendix \ref{dsb}, we discuss various recursive relations and dimensional shift identities. We now apply the identity (\ref{gen-rec-mu}) to get
2020: %
2021: \bea I_5^D[\mu^6]=\left(-\frac{1}{\Delta_5}\right) I_5^D[\mu^4]
2022: +{1\over2}\sum_{i=1}^5 \left(-\frac{\gamma_{5,i}}{\Delta_5}\right)~
2023: I_4^{D,(i)}[\mu^4] . \eea
2024: %
2025: Then we see that we should be able to reproduce the following correspondences. For $C[Q_1,Q_2]$,
2026: %
2027: \bea {2 [1~2]\over \vev{1~2}\vev{3~4}\vev{4~5}} a_3^{(q_1,q_2,q_3;
2028: p_1)} = \frac{1}{\vev{1~2}\vev{2~3}\vev{3~4}\vev{4~5}\vev{5~1}}
2029: \left(s_{12}s_{23} + 4i\eps(k_1,k_2,k_3,k_4)
2030: \frac{\gamma_{5,5}}{\Delta_5}\right); \eea
2031: %
2032: for the pentagon,
2033: %
2034: \bea {2 [1~2] s_{12} \over \vev{1~2}\vev{3~4}\vev{4~5}}
2035: \b_1^{(q_1,q_2,q_3;p_1)} =
2036: \frac{1}{\vev{1~2}\vev{2~3}\vev{3~4}\vev{4~5}\vev{5~1}}
2037: \left(8i\eps(k_1,k_2,k_3,k_4)\frac{1}{\Delta_5}\right) . \eea
2038: %
2039: We have checked that these equations (as well as the ones derived from the other two boxes) are consistent with our definitions.
2040:
2041: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2042:
2043: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2044: \section{Discussion}
2045: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2046:
2047: From the $u$-dependent formulas for 4-dimensional integral
2048: coefficients given in \cite{Britto:2007tt}, we have now given
2049: simpler versions, explicit proofs that they are polynomials, and the
2050: formula (\ref{c-n-exp}) needed for the final evaluation in $D$
2051: dimensions. In this section, we make some remarks comparing our
2052: results with two recent papers, \cite{Ossola:2008xq} and
2053: \cite{Giele:2008ve}.
2054:
2055: The authors of \cite{Ossola:2008xq} discussed the calculation of
2056: rational terms. The rational
2057: contribution may be split into two parts (eq. (3)
2058: of \cite{Ossola:2008xq}), namely a term depending on $\W q^2$ (which is $\mu^2$ in
2059: our notation) and the 4-dimensional part. For the former term, the
2060: authors of \cite{Ossola:2008xq} reduce the calculation into
2061: effective Feynman diagrams. In our approach, we do not distinguish
2062: these two terms; they are treated on the same footing by using
2063: dimensionally shifted master integrals.
2064: %
2065: To deal with the 4-dimensional terms independent of $\W q^2$,
2066: \cite{Ossola:2008xq}
2067: proposed the mass shifted method (eq. (16) of \cite{Ossola:2008xq})
2068: and following expansion (eqs. (17), (18), (20) of
2069: \cite{Ossola:2008xq}).
2070: In our terminology, these are the coefficients of $u^a$, which we have
2071: discussed. The proposal of \cite{Ossola:2008xq} is to choose different
2072: values of $\W q^2$, while here we use
2073: the derivative. We
2074: could also choose to substitute numerical values of $u$, and
2075: then find the coefficient from a linear equation,
2076: as detailed recently in \cite{Britto:2008vq}.
2077: In another recent paper \cite{Mastrolia:2008jb}, this same numerical approach is implemented
2078: in the context of \cite{Ossola:2008xq}.
2079:
2080: The authors of \cite{Giele:2008ve} treat $s_e^2$ (which is $u$ in
2081: our notation) as an effective dimension. Thus they are able to use
2082: a 5-dimensional cut to read off the pentagon coefficient. To get the
2083: coefficients, they work in two different dimensions, $D_1$ and
2084: $D_2$. The paper \cite{Giele:2008ve} has thus given a way to deal
2085: with the problem of the polarization tensor of a gluon or fermion in
2086: arbitrary dimension $D$. By choosing appropriate loop momenta and
2087: solving a linear system of equations, they can separate the
2088: coefficients into spurious terms and the terms with various powers
2089: of $s_e^2$. As in our approach, the terms with non-zero powers of
2090: $s_e^2$ will contribute to the coefficients of dimensionally shifted
2091: master integrals.
2092:
2093: The methods of \cite{Giele:2008ve,Ossola:2008xq} have been
2094: implemented numerically
2095: \cite{Giele:2008ve,Mastrolia:2008jb,Binoth:2008kt,Giele:2008bc} and
2096: have been shown to be stable and efficient.\footnote{Note added in
2097: revised version: There has recently appeared a numerical implementation of
2098: another technique for getting rational parts of one-loop amplitudes \cite{Badger:2008cm},
2099: based on the generalized-unitarity formalism of \cite{Forde:2007mi,Berger:2008sj} combined with an expansion
2100: in $\mu^2$.} We have not yet attempted
2101: a numerical implementation of the procedure given in this paper, and
2102: we leave its assessment to future work.
2103: Analytically, our algebraic
2104: expressions are the most general, since we have not assumed
2105: renormalizability, and the power of $q$ in the numerator can be
2106: arbitrarily high.
2107:
2108:
2109: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2110: \acknowledgments
2111: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2112: We are grateful to C.-J. Zhu for helpful discussions.
2113: RB is supported by Stichting FOM. BF is
2114: supported by Qiu-Shi Professor Fellowship from Zhejiang University,
2115: China.
2116: GY is supported by funds from the National Natural Science Foundation of China with
2117: grant Nos. 10475104 and 10525522.
2118:
2119: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2120: \appendix
2121: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2122:
2123:
2124: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2125: \section{\label{dsb}The scalar integrals and dimensional shift identities}
2126: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2127: The $\frak D$-dimensional scalar integral is defined to be
2128: %
2129: \bea I_n^{\frak D}[1] & \equiv & -i (4\pi)^{{\frak D}/2} \int \frac{d^{\frak
2130: D}p}{(2\pi)^{\frak D}}
2131: \frac{1}{p^2(p-K_1)^2(p-K_1-K_2)^2\cdots(p+K_{n})^2}. \eea
2132: %
2133: We will use $\frak D$ to denote the dimensionality, so that we can specifically set
2134: %
2135: \bea
2136: D\equiv 4-2\eps.
2137: \eea
2138: %
2139: We also define a very useful symmetric matrix, $S$, as follows:
2140: %
2141: \bea S & \equiv & - {1\over 2} \, \begin{pmatrix} 0 & K_1^2 &
2142: (K_1+K_2)^2 & \cdots & (K_1+K_2+\cdots K_{n-1})^2 \cr
2143: * & 0 & K_2^2 & \cdots & (K_2+K_3+\cdots K_{n-1})^2 \cr
2144: \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots \cr
2145: * & * & * & 0 & K_{n-1}^2 \cr
2146: * & * & * & * & 0
2147: \end{pmatrix} = - {1\over 2} \,
2148: \begin{pmatrix}
2149: 0 & s_1 & s_{12} & \cdots & s_n \cr
2150: * & 0 & s_2 & \cdots & s_{n1} \cr
2151: \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots \cr
2152: * & * & * & 0 & s_{n-1} \cr
2153: * & * & * & * & 0
2154: \end{pmatrix}. ~~~\Label{useful-S}\eea
2155: %
2156: %which is an $n\times n$ symmetric matrix of external kinematic
2157: %variables, and we have defined
2158: %%
2159: %\begin{equation}
2160: %s_{ij\cdots m} \equiv (K_i+K_j+\cdots+K_m)^2
2161: %\end{equation}
2162: %%
2163:
2164: If there are explicit powers of $\mu^2$ in the numerator, we expand in $\eps$ as follows,
2165: %
2166: \bea I_n^D[(\mu^2)^k] = \frac{\Gamma(k-\eps)}{\Gamma(-\eps)}
2167: I_n^{D+2k}[1] = -\eps~\Gamma(k)~I_n^{D+2k}[1]+ {\cal O}(\eps) \eea
2168: %
2169: and deduce that we only need to calculate the coefficient of the $1/\eps$ term of
2170: $I_n^{D+2k}[1]$, in order to get the rational term. For bubbles and triangles,
2171: we need to consider $k\geq1$; for boxes, we need to consider $k\geq2$;
2172: and for pentagons, we need to consider $k\geq3$.
2173: %
2174:
2175: We will use two ways to deal with the higher-dimensional scalar
2176: integral, mainly following \cite{IntegralRecursion}.
2177:
2178: The first way is by calculating the integral directly, using Feynman
2179: parametrization:
2180: %
2181: \bea I_n^{\frak D}[1] & = & (-1)^n\, \Gamma(n-{\frak D}/2) \,
2182: \int_0^1 { d a_1 \cdots d a_n} \, { \delta( 1 - \sum_i a_i) \over (
2183: a \cdot S \cdot a )^{n -{{\frak D}\over 2}} } ~, \eea
2184: %
2185: where
2186: $$a \cdot S \cdot a = \sum_{i,j=1}^n a_i\,a_j\, S_{ij} ~.$$
2187: This integral is easy in the cases of bubbles and one-mass or two-mass triangles. However, for three-mass triangles, boxes and pentagons, the integral is complicated.
2188:
2189:
2190: The second way is by using a recursive relation, which reduces the
2191: higher-dimensional scalar integrals to lower-dimensional and
2192: lower-point scalar integrals \cite{IntegralRecursion}:
2193: %
2194: \bea I^{{\frak D}+2}_n[1] = {1\over (n-1-{\frak D})~ \Delta_n} \,
2195: \left[ 2 \, I_n^{\frak D}[1] + \sum_{i=1}^n \gamma_{n,i} \,
2196: I_{n-1}^{{\frak D},(i)}[1] \right], \label{higherDD} \eea
2197: %
2198: where
2199: %
2200: \bea \gamma_{n,i} = \sum_{j=1}^n S_{ij}^{-1}, \qquad \Delta_n =
2201: \sum_{i=1}^n \gamma_{n,i} . \eea
2202: %
2203: If ${\frak D}=D+2k-2$, then we have
2204: %
2205: \bea I^{D+2k}_n[1] & = & {1\over k-{n-3\over 2}-\eps} \, \left[
2206: \left( -{1 \over \Delta_n} \right) \, I_n^{D+2(k-1)}[1] + {1\over2}
2207: \sum_{i=1}^n \left( -{\gamma_{n,i} \over \Delta_n} \right) \,
2208: I_{n-1}^{{D+2(k-1)},(i)}[1] \right] . \quad \Label{gen-rec} \eea
2209: %
2210: Similarly, we can write
2211: %
2212: \bea I_n^{D}\left[(\mu^2)^k\right] &=&
2213: \frac{k-1-\eps}{k-{n-3\over2}-\eps} \left[ \left( -{1 \over
2214: \Delta_n} \right) I_n^{D}\left[(\mu^2)^{k-1}\right]
2215: +\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i=1}^n \left( -{\gamma_{n,i} \over \Delta_n}
2216: \right)~ I_{n-1}^{D,(i)}\left[(\mu^2)^{k-1}\right]\right] . \quad
2217: \Label{gen-rec-mu} \eea
2218: %
2219: The recursive relations are very convenient in dealing with three-mass
2220: triangle and higher point cases.
2221: For one-mass and two-mass triangles, the matrix $S$ is singular, so these recursive relations are not well defined. However, it is possible to recover the results from massless limits of the three-mass triangle. In practice, then, we can always use these recursive relations, taking a massless limit at the end in special cases (also boxes and pentagons).
2222:
2223: In the following, we give compact recursive formulas for bubble,
2224: triangle, box and pentagon, for convenient automated evaluation.
2225:
2226: \subsection{Bubble}
2227: For the bubble, the matrix $S$ defined in (\ref{useful-S}) becomes
2228: %
2229: \bea S=-{1\over2} \begin{pmatrix} 0 & K^2 \\ K^2 & 0
2230: \end{pmatrix}, \quad S^{-1}=-2 \begin{pmatrix} 0 & \frac{1}{K^2} \\ \frac{1}{K^2} & 0
2231: \end{pmatrix}, \eea
2232: %
2233: so
2234: %
2235: \bea \gamma_{2,1}=\gamma_{2,2}= -\frac{2}{K^2}~, \quad
2236: \Delta_2=-\frac{4}{K^2}~, \eea
2237: %
2238: and
2239: %
2240: \bea a \cdot S \cdot a = -a_1 a_2 K^2 ~. \eea
2241: %
2242:
2243: Using the recursive relation (\ref{gen-rec}), we find
2244: %
2245: \bea I_2^{D+2k}[1] &=& \frac{1}{k+{1\over2}-\eps}
2246: \left(-\frac{1}{\Delta_2}\right) I_2^{D+2(k-1)}[1] \nonumber\\ &=&
2247: \frac{1}{(1+{1\over2})(2+{1\over2})\cdots(k+{1\over2})}
2248: \left(\frac{K^2}{4}\right)^k I_2^D[1]+ {\cal O}(\eps) \nonumber\\
2249: &=& \frac{\sqrt{\pi}/2}{\Gamma(k+\frac{3}{2})}
2250: \left(\frac{K^2}{4}\right)^k \frac{1}{\eps}+ {\cal O}(\eps^0). \eea
2251: %
2252: Alternative, we can use the Feynman parametrization to calculate
2253: it directly.
2254: %
2255: \bea I_2^{D+2k}[1] &=& \Gamma(-k+\eps)\int_0^1 d a_1 d a_2
2256: ~\delta(1-a_1-a_2) ~(-a_1 a_2 K^2)^{k-\eps} \nonumber\\
2257: &=& \Gamma(-k+\eps)\frac{\Gamma(k+1-\eps)^2}
2258: {\Gamma(2k+2-2\eps)}(-K^2)^{k-\eps} \nonumber\\ &=&
2259: \frac{\Gamma(k+1) (K^2)^k}{\Gamma(2k+2)}~\frac{1}{\eps} + {\cal
2260: O}(\eps^0). \eea
2261: %
2262: \subsection{Triangle}
2263: The matrix $S$ is
2264: %
2265: \bea S = -{1\over2} \begin{pmatrix}0 & K_1^2 & K_3^2 \\ K_1^2 & 0 &
2266: K_2^2 \\ K_3^2 & K_2^2 & 0 \end{pmatrix} = -{1\over2}
2267: \begin{pmatrix}0 & s_1 & s_3 \\ s_1 & 0 & s_2
2268: \\ s_3 & s_2 & 0 \end{pmatrix}.
2269: \eea
2270: Its inverse is
2271: \bea \quad S^{-1}
2272: = -\frac{1}{s_1s_2s_3} \begin{pmatrix} -s_2^2 & s_2s_3 & s_1s_2 \\
2273: s_2s_3 & -s_3^2 & s_3s_1 \\ s_1s_2 & s_3s_1 & -s_1^2 \end{pmatrix},
2274: \eea
2275: %
2276: so
2277: %
2278: \bea \gamma_{3,1} &=& \frac{s_2(s_2-s_3-s_1)}{s_3s_1}, \quad
2279: \gamma_{3,2}=\frac{s_3(s_3-s_1-s_2)}{s_1s_2}, \quad
2280: \gamma_{3,3}=\frac{s_1(s_1-s_2-s_3)}{s_2s_3}, \nonumber\\
2281: \Delta_3 &=&
2282: \frac{s_1^2+s_2^2+s_3^2-2(s_1s_2+s_2s_3+s_3s_1)}{s_1s_2s_3}, \eea
2283: %
2284: and
2285: %
2286: \bea a \cdot S \cdot a = -(a_1 a_2 K_1^2 + a_2 a_3 K_2^2 + a_3 a_1
2287: K_3^2). \eea
2288: %
2289:
2290: One-mass and two-mass triangles can be evaluated by
2291: Feynman parametrization. If $K_3^2=0$, then
2292: %
2293: \bea I_{3; 2m}^{D+2k}[1] & = & - \Gamma(-k+1+\eps) \int_0^1 d a_1 d
2294: a_2 d a_3 ~\delta(1-a_1-a_2-a_3) ~(-a_1 a_2 K_1^2 - a_2 a_3
2295: K_2^2)^{k-1-\eps} \nonumber\\ & = & -
2296: \frac{\Gamma(k)}{\Gamma(2k+1)}~
2297: \frac{(K_1^2)^k-(K_2^2)^k}{K_1^2-K_2^2}~\frac{1}{\eps} + {\cal
2298: O}(\eps^0). \eea
2299: %
2300:
2301: If, in addition, $K_2^2=0$, then
2302: %
2303: \bea I_{3; 1m}^{D+2k}[1] = - \frac{\Gamma(k)}{\Gamma(2k+1)}~
2304: (K_1^2)^{k-1}~\frac{1}{\eps} + {\cal O}(\eps^0). \eea
2305: %
2306:
2307: For the three-mass triangle, we use the recursive relation
2308: (\ref{gen-rec}) repeatedly, and obtain
2309: %
2310: \bea I_3^{D+2k}[1] & = & \frac{1}{k-\eps} \left[
2311: \left(-\frac{1}{\Delta_3}\right) I_3^{D+2(k-1)}[1] + \frac{1}{2}
2312: \sum_{i=1}^3 \left(-\frac{\gamma_{3,i}}{\Delta_3}\right) ~
2313: I_2^{D+2(k-1),(i)}[1]\right] \nonumber\\
2314: & = & {1\over2}
2315: \sum_{\ell=0}^{k-1}\frac{\Gamma(\ell+1)}{\Gamma(k+1)}
2316: \left(-\frac{1}{\Delta_3}\right)^{k-\ell} \sum_{i=1}^3 \gamma_{3,i}~
2317: I_2^{D+2\ell,(i)}[1] + {\cal O}(\eps^0), \quad
2318: \Label{triangle-rec}\eea
2319: %
2320: where we make use of our previously derived bubble result.
2321: The first several cases, written explicitly, are
2322: %
2323: \bea I_3^{D+2}[1] &=& - \frac{1}{2 \eps} + {\cal O}(\eps^0) \nonumber\\
2324: I_3^{D+4}[1] &=& - \frac{1}{24 \eps}(s_1+s_2+s_3) + {\cal O}(\eps^0) \nonumber\\
2325: I_3^{D+6}[1] &=& - \frac{1}{360 \eps}
2326: (s_1^2+s_2^2+s_3^2+s_1s_2+s_2s_3+s_3s_1) + {\cal O}(\eps^0) \nonumber\\
2327: I_3^{D+8}[1] &=& - \frac{1}{6720 \eps}\Big(s_1^3+s_2^3+s_3^3
2328: +s_1^2s_2+s_1s_2^2+s_2^2s_3+s_2s_3^2+s_3^2s_1+s_3s_1^2
2329: +{4\over3}s_1s_2s_3\Big) + {\cal O}(\eps^0) \nonumber \eea
2330: %
2331: Note that $\Delta_3$ in (\ref{triangle-rec}) has cancelled out of the numerator and denominator.
2332: % The divergent terms are polynomials in $s_i$, and the power
2333: %can be counted from the integral directly.
2334:
2335: We have verified that the results for one-mass and
2336: two-mass triangles are consistent with the massless limit of the three-mass triangle result.
2337:
2338:
2339: \subsection{Box}
2340:
2341: The matrix $S$ is
2342: %
2343: \bea S= -{1\over2} \begin{pmatrix}0 & K_1^2 & (K_1+K_2)^2 & K_4^2 \\
2344: K_1^2 & 0 & K_2^2 & (K_2+K_3)^2 \\ (K_1+K_2)^2 & K_2^2 & 0 & K_3^2 \\
2345: K_4^2 & (K_2+K_3)^2 & K_3^2 & 0
2346: \end{pmatrix} = -{1\over2}
2347: \begin{pmatrix}0 & s_1 & s_{12} & s_4 \\
2348: s_1 & 0 & s_2 & s_{23} \\ s_{12} & s_2 & 0 & s_3 \\
2349: s_4 & s_{23} & s_3 & 0
2350: \end{pmatrix}. \eea
2351: %
2352:
2353: Using the recursive relation (\ref{gen-rec}) repeatedly, we find
2354: %
2355: \bea I_4^{D+2k}[1] & = & \frac{1}{k-{1\over2}-\eps} \left[
2356: \left(\frac{-1}{\Delta_4}\right) I_4^{D+2(k-1)}[1] +\frac{1}{2}
2357: \sum_{i=1}^4 \left(-\frac{\gamma_{4,i}}{\Delta_4}\right)~
2358: I_{3}^{D+2(k-1),(i)}[1]\right] \nonumber\\ & = & {1\over2}
2359: \sum_{\ell=1}^{k-1}\frac{\Gamma(\ell+{1\over2})}{\Gamma(k+{1\over2})}
2360: \left(\frac{-1}{\Delta_4}\right)^{k-\ell} \sum_{i=1}^4 \gamma_{4,i}~
2361: I_3^{D+2\ell,(i)}[1] + {\cal O}(\eps^0). \quad \Label{box-rec}\eea
2362: %
2363: Here we use the identities for triangles. The first few cases, listed explicitly, are
2364: %
2365: \bea I_4^{D+4}[1] &=&
2366: \frac{1}{6\eps} + {\cal O}(\eps^0) \nonumber\\
2367: I_4^{D+6}[1] &=& \frac{1}{120 \eps}(s_1+s_2+s_3+s_4+s_{12}+s_{23})
2368: + {\cal O}(\eps^0) \nonumber\\
2369: I_4^{D+8}[1] &=& \frac{1}{2520 \eps}\Big(s_1^2+s_2^2+s_3 ^2 +s_4^2
2370: +s_{12}^2+s_{23}^2 +s_1s_2+s_2s_3+s_3s_4+s_4s_1 \nonumber\\
2371: && ~~~~~~~~~+(s_{12}+s_{23})(s_1+s_2+s_3+s_4)
2372: +{1\over2}(s_1s_3+s_2s_4+s_{12}s_{23})\Big) + {\cal O}(\eps^0)
2373: \nonumber \eea
2374: %
2375: Notice that the factor $\Delta_4$ in (\ref{box-rec}) cancels out.
2376:
2377: \subsection{Pentagon}
2378: The matrix $S$ for the pentagon is
2379: %
2380: \bea S= -{1\over2}
2381: \begin{pmatrix}0 & s_1 & s_{12} & s_{45} & s_5 \\
2382: s_1 & 0 & s_2 & s_{23} & s_{51} \\ s_{12} & s_2 & 0 & s_3 & s_{34} \\
2383: s_{45} & s_{23} & s_3 & 0 & s_4 \\ s_5 & s_{51} & s_{34} & s_4 & 0
2384: \end{pmatrix}.
2385: \eea
2386: %
2387:
2388: Using the recursive relation (\ref{gen-rec}) repeatedly, we find
2389: %
2390: \bea I_5^{D+2k}[1] & = & \frac{1}{k-1-\eps} \left[
2391: \left(\frac{-1}{\Delta_5}\right) I_5^{D+2(k-1)}[1]
2392: + \frac{1}{2}\sum_{i=1}^5
2393: \left(\frac{-\gamma_{5,i}}{\Delta_5}\right)~
2394: I_{5-1}^{D+2(k-1),(i)}[1]\right] \nonumber\\ & = & {1\over2}
2395: \sum_{\ell=2}^{k-1}\frac{\Gamma(\ell)}{\Gamma(k)}
2396: \left(\frac{-1}{\Delta_5}\right)^{k-\ell} \sum_{i=1}^5 \gamma_{5,i}~
2397: I_4^{D+2\ell,(i)}[1] + {\cal O}(\eps^0). \quad \Label{pen-rec}\eea
2398: %
2399: The first few identities we derive this way are
2400: %
2401: \bea I_5^{D+6}[1] & = &
2402: - \frac{1}{24 \eps} + {\cal O}(\eps^0) \nonumber\\
2403: I_5^{D+8}[1] & = & - \frac{1}{720 \eps}(s_1+s_2+s_3+s_4+s_5
2404: +s_{12}+s_{23}+s_{34}+s_{45}+s_{51}) + {\cal O}(\eps^0) \nonumber\\
2405: I_5^{D+10}[1] & = & - \frac{1}{20160
2406: \eps}\Big(s_1^2+s_{12}^2+s_1s_2+s_{12}s_{34}
2407: +s_1(s_{12}+s_{23}+s_{45}+s_{51})
2408: +{1\over2}(s_1s_3+s_1s_{34}+s_{12}s_{23}) \nonumber\\ &&
2409: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ + \textmd{four cyclic} \Big) + {\cal O}(\eps^0)
2410: \nonumber \eea
2411: %
2412: The factor $\Delta_5$ in (\ref{pen-rec}) cancels out.
2413:
2414:
2415:
2416: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2417: \section{\label{explicit}Explicit expressions for triangle coefficients}
2418: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2419:
2420: In this appendix we collect some simplified expressions for triangle coefficients
2421: with $n\leq 2$. This is sufficient in renormalizable theories. For
2422: general $n$, we can always go back to the general formula (\ref{n=0-1}).
2423:
2424: For $n=-1$:
2425: %
2426: \bea C[Q_s, K]_{n=-1} & = & {1\over 2}\left(
2427: {\prod_{j=1}^{k-1}\gb{P_{(q_s,K);1}|P_j|P_{(q_s,K);2}}\over
2428: \prod_{t=1,t\neq s}^k \gb{P_{(q_s,K);1}|K_t|P_{(q_s,K);2}}}+
2429: \{P_{(q_s,K);1}\leftrightarrow P_{(q_s,K);2}\}\right).
2430: \eea
2431: %
2432:
2433: For $n=0$:
2434: %
2435: \bea C[Q_s,K]_{n=0} & = & -{\a_s (K^2)^2\over
2436: {\Delta(q_s,K)}}\left\{{\prod_{j=1}^{k} \gb{P_{(q_s,K);1}|P_j
2437: |P_{(q_s,K);2}}\over \prod_{t=1,t\neq s}^k \gb{P_{(q_s,K);1}|K_t
2438: |P_{(q_s,K);2}}}\left( -\sum_{j=1}^{k}{ 2\W p_j\cdot q_s\over
2439: \gb{P_{(q_s,K);1}|P_j |P_{(q_s,K);2}}}\right.\right. \nonumber \\ &
2440: & \left.\left.+\sum_{t=1, t\neq s}^k{ 2\W q_t\cdot q_s\over
2441: \gb{P_{(q_s,K);1}|K_t |P_{(q_s,K);2}}}\right)+\{
2442: P_{(q_s,K);1}\leftrightarrow P_{(q_s,K);2}\} \right\}.
2443: \eea
2444: %
2445:
2446: For $n=1$, we have linear $u$-dependence:
2447: %
2448: \bea C[Q_s,K]_{n=1} & = & { (K^2)^4 \a_s^2 \over \Delta(q_s,K)^2 }
2449: \left( {\prod_{j=1}^{k+1}\gb{P_{(q_s,K);1} |P_j | P_{(q_s,K);2}}
2450: \over \prod_{t=1,t\neq s}^k \gb{P_{(q_s,K);1} |K_t | P_{(q_s,K);2}}}
2451: ({\cal F}_1^2+ {\cal F}_2) +\{P_{(q_s,K);1}\leftrightarrow
2452: P_{(q_s,K);2}\}\right),
2453: \eea
2454: %
2455: where
2456: %
2457: \bea {\cal F}_1 & = & \left(-\sum_{j=1}^{k+1}{ (2\W p_j\cdot
2458: q_s)\over \gb{P_{(q_s,K);1}|P_j|P_{(q_s,K);2}}}+\sum_{t=1, t\neq s}{
2459: (2\W q_t\cdot q_s)\over \gb{P_{(q_s,K);1}|K_t |P_{(q_s,K);2}}}\right) \\
2460: {\cal F}_2 & = & -\sum_{j=1}^{k+1}\left({ (2\W p_j\cdot q_s)\over
2461: \gb{P_{(q_s,K);1}| P_j |P_{(q_s,K);2}}}\right)^2+\sum_{j=1}^{k+1}
2462: {1\over 2}\left( (1-u){q_s^2\over
2463: \a_s^2K^2}+1\right){\gb{P_{(q_s,K);2}|P_j|P_{(q_s,K);1}}
2464: \over \gb{P_{(q_s,K);1}|P_j |P_{(q_s,K);2}}} \nonumber \\
2465: & & +\sum_{t=1, t\neq s}^k\left({(2\W q_t\cdot q_s)\over
2466: \gb{P_{(q_s,K);1}|K_t |P_{(q_s,K);2}}}\right)^2-\sum_{t=1, t\neq
2467: s}^k {1\over 2} \left( (1-u){q_s^2\over
2468: \a_s^2K^2}+1\right){\gb{P_{(q_s,K);2}|K_t|P_{(q_s,K);1}}\over
2469: \gb{P_{(q_s,K);1}|K_t|P_{(q_s,K);2}}}\eea
2470: %
2471:
2472: Finally, for $n=2$, we again have linear $u$-dependence:
2473: %
2474: \bea C[Q_s,K]_{n=2} & = &-{2\over 3} {(K^2)^{6}\over
2475: {\Delta(q_s,K)}^{3}} \left( {\prod_{j=1}^{k+2}\gb{P_{(q_s,K);1} |P_j
2476: | P_{(q_s,K);2}} \over \prod_{t=1,t\neq s}^k \gb{P_{(q_s,K);1} |K_t
2477: | P_{(q_s,K);2}}} ({\cal F}_1^3+ 3{\cal F}_1 {\cal F}_2 +{\cal F}_3)
2478: +\{P_{(q_s,K);1}\leftrightarrow P_{(q_s,K);2}\}\right), \nonumber \eea
2479: %
2480: where
2481: %
2482: \bea {\cal F}_1 & = & \left(-\sum_{j=1}^{k+2}{ (2\W p_j\cdot
2483: q_s)\over \gb{P_{(q_s,K);1}|P_j|P_{(q_s,K);2}}}+\sum_{t=1, t\neq
2484: s}^k{ (2\W q_t\cdot q_s)\over \gb{P_{(q_s,K);1}|K_t |P_{(q_s,K);2}}}\right), \\
2485: {\cal F}_2 & = & -\sum_{j=1}^{k+2}\left({ (2\W p_j\cdot q_s)\over
2486: \gb{P_{(q_s,K);1}| P_j |P_{(q_s,K);2}}}\right)^2+\sum_{j=1}^{k+2}
2487: {1\over 2}\left( (1-u){q_s^2\over
2488: \a_s^2K^2}+1\right){\gb{P_{(q_s,K);2}|P_j|P_{(q_s,K);1}}
2489: \over \vev{P_{(q_s,K);1}|P_j |P_{(q_s,K);2}}} \nonumber \\
2490: & & +\sum_{t=1, t\neq s}^k\left({(2\W q_t\cdot q_s)\over
2491: \gb{P_{(q_s,K);1}|K_t |P_{(q_s,K);2}}}\right)^2-\sum_{t=1, t\neq
2492: s}^k {1\over 2} \left( (1-u){q_s^2\over
2493: \a_s^2K^2}+1\right){\gb{P_{(q_s,K);2}|K_t|P_{(q_s,K);1}}\over
2494: \gb{P_{(q_s,K);1}|K_t|P_{(q_s,K);2}}},
2495: \eea
2496: %
2497: and
2498: %
2499: \bea {\cal F}_3 & = & \left\{ -\sum_{j=1}^{k+2}2\left({ (2\W
2500: p_j\cdot q_s)\over \gb{P_{(q_s,K);1}|P_j |P_{(q_s,K);2}}}\right)^3+
2501: \sum_{t=1, t\neq s}^k 2\left({ (2\W q_t\cdot q_s)\over
2502: \gb{P_{(q_s,K);1}|K_t |P_{(q_s,K);2}}}\right)^3 \right. \nonumber\\
2503: & & +\sum_{j=1}^{k+2} {3\over 2}\left( (1-u){q_s^2\over
2504: \a_s^2K^2}+1\right){\gb{P_{(q_s,K);2}|P_j|P_{(q_s,K);1}} (2\W
2505: p_j\cdot q_s)\over
2506: \gb{P_{(q_s,K);1}|P_j|P_{(q_s,K);2}}^2} \nonumber \\
2507: & & \left. -\sum_{t=1, t\neq s}^k {3\over 2} \left( (1-u){q_s^2\over
2508: \a_s^2K^2}+1\right){\gb{P_{(q_s,K);2}|K_t|P_{(q_s,K);1}} (2\W
2509: q_t\cdot q_s)\over
2510: \gb{P_{(q_s,K);1}|Q_t|P_{(q_s,K);2}}^2}\right\}.
2511: \eea
2512: %
2513:
2514: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2515: \section{\label{bubbleproof}Proof of the polynomial property of bubble coefficients}
2516: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2517:
2518: Here we present a proof that the bubble coefficients are polynomials in $u$.
2519: For this proof, we make use of their derivation from spinor integrals \cite{Britto:2007tt}, along with certain results of Ossola, Papadopoulos and Pittau (OPP) \cite{Ossola:2006us} to analyze the integrand.
2520:
2521: Given the cut integral (\ref{I-inte}), bubble coefficients are given
2522: by the sum of residues at the poles of the following function (see
2523: Appendix B of \cite{Britto:2007tt}). \footnote{In this discussion,
2524: we drop prefactors independent of loop momentum, as well as the
2525: possible prefactor $c(\mu^2)$. Also, we have used $(K-s\eta)$
2526: instead of $(K+s\eta)$ in (\ref{bub-exp}).
2527: This change is compensated by dropping the factor $(-1)^q$.}
2528: %
2529: \bea \sum_{q=0}^n \left. {1\over q!} {d^q B_{n,n-q}(s)\over
2530: ds^q}\right|_{s=0},~~~~\Label{gen-n}\eea
2531: %
2532: where the residues of $B_{n,t}(s)$ are taken before the derivative in $s$, and the function $B_{n,t}(s)$ is defined to be
2533: %
2534: \bea B_{n,t}(s) \equiv {\gb{\ell|\eta|\ell}^t\over
2535: \gb{\ell|K|\ell}^{2+t}}{ \prod_{j=1}^{n+k} \vev{\ell|R_j
2536: (K-s\eta)|\ell}\over \vev{\ell|\eta K|\ell}^n \prod_{p=1}^k
2537: \vev{\ell| Q_p(K-s\eta)|\ell}}~.~~~\Label{Bnt}\eea
2538: %
2539: Bubble contributions in the cut integral (\ref{I-inte}) appear only if $n\geq 0$.
2540: In the case that
2541: $n=0$, it is easy to see that we can simply set $s=0$. Then, $\vev{\ell|Q_p
2542: K|\ell}=-\sqrt{1-u}\vev{\ell|q_p K|\ell}$, and $\vev{\ell|R_j
2543: K|\ell}=-\sqrt{1-u}\vev{\ell|p_j K|\ell}$, so the $u$-dependent factor $\sqrt{1-u}$ cancels out of the numerator and denominator.
2544:
2545: Our strategy is to decompose $B_{n,t}(s)$ as a power series in $\sqrt{1-u}$.
2546: Then we will show that the
2547: terms with odd powers of $\sqrt{1-u}$ correspond to spurious terms
2548: discussed by OPP. Therefore, they will vanish upon integration, and
2549: we will be left with only even powers of $\sqrt{1-u}$, i.e. a polynomial in $u$.
2550:
2551: Note that when we apply the OPP results, we are dealing only with the four-dimensional momentum $q$ (or $\W \ell$ in our notation), so we do not
2552: need any parts of the OPP formulas involving the extra-dimensional variable $\W q^2$. Also, in our case we have
2553: $p_0=0$, and the mass $m_i^2$ should be shifted to $m_i^2+\mu^2$.
2554:
2555:
2556: We emphasize one point which is crucial for our proof:
2557: {\sl the one-to-one correspondence between the form (\ref{I-inte})
2558: and the form (\ref{gen-n}) in $D=4$ dimensions}. That is,
2559: every factor $-2\W\ell\cdot P_j$ in (\ref{I-inte}) corresponds to a factor $\vev{\ell|R_j^{(4D)} (K-s\eta)|\ell}$
2560: in (\ref{gen-n}), and vice versa. It is very important that since now
2561: we are in pure 4D, the $R_j^{(4D)}= -P_j$, i.e.,
2562: $R_j^{(4D)}=R_j(u=0)$. Similarly for the factor $\vev{\ell|
2563: Q_p(u=0)(K-s\eta)|\ell}$ in (\ref{gen-n}) and factor $(p-K_j)^2$ in
2564: (\ref{I-inte}). In the following proof, we go back and
2565: forth freely between these two forms.
2566:
2567: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2568: \subsection{Reducing the number of propagators}
2569: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2570:
2571: The spurious terms of OPP have at most four propagator factors in the denominator. In order to make use of their results, we must begin by reducing our (arbitrary) number of propagators to four or fewer. In our formalism, the corresponding condition on (\ref{Bnt}) is that $k\leq 2$, because we have a unitarity cut.\\ We perform the reduction in (at most) two steps: first, from $k \geq 4 $ to $k\leq 3$, and then from $k=3$ to $k \leq 2$. \\
2572:
2573:
2574:
2575: {\bf Reducing from $k \geq 4$ to $k\leq 3$:}\\
2576:
2577:
2578: If $k\geq 4$, then there are at least 4 $Q_i$'s in the denominator and at least one $R$ in the numerator of (\ref{Bnt}). Therefore, we can expand the vector $R$ in the basis of the $Q_i$, as follows.
2579: %
2580: \bea
2581: R=\sum_i x_i Q_i ~~~\Label{opp-red43}
2582: \eea
2583: %
2584: With this expansion, the original term can be expressed as a sum of four others, in each of which there is a cancellation between numerator and denominator, reducing $k$ to at most 3. Of course, we must be sure that the coefficients $x_i$ are independent of $u$. To see this, expand $Q_i$ and $R$ as in (\ref{Q-q-def}) and (\ref{R-p-def}) by writing $Q_i=-(\sqrt{1-u}) q_i+\a_i K$ and $R=-(\sqrt{1-u}) p+\b K$. Then, we find that (\ref{opp-red43}) becomes
2585: %
2586: \bea p=\sum_{i=1}^4 x_i q_i,~~~~\sum_i x_i \a_i=\b
2587: \eea
2588: %
2589: Here it is clear that the solutions $x_i$ are independent of $u$.
2590: Note that the equation $p=\sum_{i=1}^4 x_i q_i$ has only three
2591: independent components, because the vectors $q_i$ span the
2592: 3-dimensional space orthogonal to $K$. Thus we have four equations
2593: giving a unique solution of $x_i$.
2594: \\
2595:
2596:
2597: {\bf Reducing from $k=3$ to $k\leq 2$:}\\
2598:
2599: Now we reduce further, from $k=3$ to $k\leq 2$. Since $k=3$ (and
2600: we know $n \geq 0$, because we are discussing bubbles)
2601: there is more than one $R$ in the numerator.
2602: Taking any one of the $R$, we expand
2603: %
2604: \bean P=y_K K+ y_1 K_1+ y_2 K_2+y_3 K_3. \eean
2605: %
2606: Then,
2607: %
2608: \bean R &= & -\sqrt{1-u} \left( P - {P\cdot K\over K^2}K\right)+\b K
2609: \\ & = & \sum_{i=1}^3 y_i \left\{-\sqrt{1-u} \left( K_i - {K_i\cdot K\over K^2}K\right)
2610: +\a_i K\right\}+ (\b-\sum_{i=1}^3 y_i \a_i) K \\
2611: & = & \sum_{i=1}^3 y_i Q_i+ (\b-\sum_{i=1}^3 y_i \a_i) K \eean
2612: %
2613: Substituting this expansion into the numerator of (\ref{Bnt}), we obtain
2614: %
2615: \bean {\vev{\ell|R (K-s\eta)|\ell} \over \prod_{i=1}^3 \vev{\ell|Q_i
2616: (K-s\eta)|\ell}}=\sum_{t=1}^3 { y_i\over \prod_{i=1,i\neq t}^3
2617: \vev{\ell|Q_i (K-s\eta)|\ell}}+ (\b-\sum_{i=1}^3 y_i
2618: \a_i){s\vev{\ell|\eta K|\ell} \over \prod_{i=1}^3 \vev{\ell|Q_i
2619: (K-s\eta)|\ell}}\eean
2620: %
2621: The first three terms fall into the case $k=2$. The last term, with
2622: the factor $s\vev{\ell|\eta K|\ell}$ in the numerator, still has
2623: $k=3$, but we see from comparison with (\ref{Bnt}) that we have
2624: effectively reduced $n$ by one. \footnote{There is another way to see
2625: this point. The presence of a term $\vev{\ell|\eta K|\ell}$ implies that there is a
2626: factor $(-2\W\ell\cdot K)$ in the form (\ref{I-inte}). By the
2627: delta-function condition from the 4-dimensional unitarity cut,
2628: this factor is
2629: equivalent to $ K^2$, so we have reduced $n$ by one.} Repeating the
2630: reduction on the last term, $n$ times, we arrive at a term with
2631: $n=0$. As we discussed in the paragraph following (\ref{Bnt}), such
2632: a term is independent of $u$.
2633:
2634: Having accomplished the reduction of our proof to the case $k\leq 2$, we proceed to apply the results of OPP in a case-by-case analysis for $k=0,1,2$.
2635:
2636:
2637: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2638: \subsection{Case-by-case analysis}
2639: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2640:
2641: We now analyze each of the cases $k=0,1,2$ in turn, rearranging our integrand (\ref{Bnt}) so that the terms with odd powers of $\sqrt{1-u}$ take the form of the spurious terms of OPP \cite{Ossola:2006us}, which were proven there to vanish upon integration.\\
2642:
2643:
2644: {\bf The case $k=0$:}\\
2645:
2646: We apply the OPP result directly and make use of their notation.
2647: Recall that we always have $p_0=0$. Use (\ref{R-K-def}), i.e.
2648: $R_j(u)=-\sqrt{1-u} \left( P_j - {P_j\cdot K\over K^2}K\right)+\b_j K$,
2649: and expand $P_j$ as follows (see (2.23) of \cite{Ossola:2006us}):
2650: %
2651: \bea P_j= y_1 K+ y_n n+ y_7 \ell_7+y_8\ell_8.
2652: \eea
2653: %
2654: More concretely,
2655: %
2656: \bea K & = & \ell_5 +2 \ell_6 \\
2657: \ell_5 & = & K-{K^2\over 2K\cdot\eta}
2658: \eta,~~~\ell_6={K^2\over 4K\cdot\eta}\eta \\
2659: \ell_7& = & \la_{\ell_5}\W \la_{\ell_6},~~~~\ell_8= \la_{\ell_6}\W
2660: \la_{\ell_5},~~~~n=\ell_5-2 \ell_6\eea
2661: %
2662: Here $\eta$ is the same null vector $\eta$, chosen arbitrarily, that we used inside $B_{n,t}(s)$. We see immediately that
2663: %
2664: \bea R_j(u)=
2665: -(\b_j-y_n\b_n-y_{\ell_7}\b_{\ell_7}-y_{\ell_8}\b_{\ell_7}) R_K+ y_n
2666: R_n+ y_7 R_{\ell_7}+y_8 R_{\ell_8}~~~\Label{opp-k0-exp} \eea
2667: %
2668: where $R_{\ell_7}=-\sqrt{1-u} \left( \ell_7 - {\ell_7\cdot K\over
2669: K^2}K\right)-{\ell_7\cdot K\over K^2}K$, and the other three vectors are defined similarly from (\ref{R-p-def}).
2670: After accounting for orthogonality properties,
2671: %
2672: \bean n\cdot K=\ell_7\cdot K=\ell_8\cdot
2673: K=0\eean
2674: %
2675: we can see specifically how the $u$-dependence enters:
2676: %
2677: \bea R_K=-K,~~~~R_{n}=-(\sqrt{1-u})n,~~~R_{\ell_7}=-(\sqrt{1-u})
2678: \ell_7,~~~R_{\ell_8}=-(\sqrt{1-u}) \ell_8. \eea
2679: %
2680:
2681: Now we use the one-to-one correspondence between form
2682: (\ref{I-inte}) and form (\ref{Bnt}), that we emphasized at the beginning
2683: of this section. In the present analysis of a term of type (\ref{Bnt})
2684: with $k=0$, and a numerator factor with $R_{\ell_7}$, the
2685: corresponding term in (\ref{I-inte}) will have the factor
2686: $-2\W\ell\cdot \ell_7$.
2687: If we expand every $R_j$ according to (\ref{opp-k0-exp}),
2688: then our general term is of the following form:
2689: %
2690: \bea (-2\W\ell\cdot K)^{s_K}(-2\W\ell\cdot \ell_7)^{s_7}
2691: (-2\W\ell\cdot\ell_8)^{s_8}(-2\W\ell\cdot n)^{s_n}.~~~\Label{k=0-exp}
2692: \eea
2693: %
2694: We have introduced integers $s_i$ to denote the powers.
2695: The $u$-dependence of such a term is precisely the factor $\sqrt{1-u}^{s_7+s_8+s_n}$.
2696:
2697: %Now we analyze each factor. First by our double
2698: %cut we can see that $(-2\W\ell\cdot K)=K^2$, i.e., the role of this
2699: %factor is to reduce the $n$ as we have discussed in previous
2700: %subsection.
2701: We need to show
2702: that if $s_7+s_8+s_n$ is odd, then the term is spurious in the sense of OPP \cite{Ossola:2006us}. First of all, the unitarity cut condition means we can replace $(-2\W\ell\cdot K) \to K^2$, so the value of $n$ is effectively reduced by one, and we can ignore that factor for the rest of the proof.
2703: If either $s_7=0$ or $s_8=0$, then we see immediately from
2704: \cite{Ossola:2006us}-(2.29) that the term is spurious. When both $s_7, s_8$
2705: are nonzero, we use the expression \cite{Ossola:2006us}-(2.33) to reduce to the
2706: case of \cite{Ossola:2006us}-(2.29). If $s_7\neq s_8$, the conclusion is obvious. But
2707: if $s_7=s_8$, then $s_n$ is odd, and so, after applying \cite{Ossola:2006us}-(2.33), $2i+s_n$ is still an odd power, and
2708: we can again conclude with \cite{Ossola:2006us}-(2.29) that the term is spurious. Finally, we must account for the first two terms in \cite{Ossola:2006us}-(2.33).
2709: The first is $\sum_{i=0}^1 {\cal O}(D_i)$, which is zero by the unitarity cut
2710: condition. The second term is ${\cal O}(\W q^2)$, which is zero since our present analysis is purely four-dimensional, as we remarked at the beginning of this section.
2711: \\
2712:
2713: {\bf The case $k=1$:}\\
2714:
2715: We continue using the notation of \cite{Ossola:2006us}, and also its discussion of
2716: 3-point like spurious terms.
2717: Now we use the following expansion involving the single vector $K_i$:
2718: %
2719: \bea P_j= y_K K+ y_i K_i + y_3 \ell_3+y_4\ell_4.
2720: \eea
2721: %
2722: The vectors $\ell_3,\ell_4$ are defined as $\ell_3=\la_{\ell_1}\W \la_{\ell_2}$, $\ell_4=\la_{\ell_2}\W
2723: \la_{\ell_1}$, where $\ell_1, \ell_2$ are constructed from $K,K_i$.
2724: Then,
2725: %
2726: \bean R_j(u) & = & -\sqrt{1-u} \left( P_j - {P_j\cdot K\over
2727: K^2}K\right) +\b_j K \\ & = & -(\b_j-y_i\a_i-y_3
2728: \b_{\ell_3}-y_4\b_{\ell_4}) R_K+ y_i Q_i+ y_3 R_{\ell_3}+y_4
2729: R_{\ell_4}\eean
2730: %
2731:
2732:
2733: Now we substitute this expansion into $\vev{\ell|R_j(u)
2734: (K-s\eta)|\ell}$. The term with $Q_i$ cancels the a factor in the
2735: denominator, returning us to the case of $k=0$, which we have
2736: already addressed. The term with $R_K$ reduces $n$ by one, as
2737: discussed above. For the remaining two terms, we use $\ell_3\cdot
2738: K=\ell_4\cdot K=0$ to write $R_{\ell_3}=-(\sqrt{1-u})\ell_3$ and
2739: $R_{\ell_4}=-(\sqrt{1-u}) \ell_4$, just as in the case of $k=0$.
2740:
2741:
2742: However, unlike the $k=0$ case, when we put $R_{\ell_3}$ and
2743: $R_{\ell_4}$ back in (\ref{Bnt}), the power of
2744: $\sqrt{1-u}$ is not always given by the power of $R_{\ell_3}$ and
2745: $R_{\ell_4}$, so we must be careful. Let us
2746: consider the separate cases for each term in the expansion.
2747: %
2748: \begin{itemize}
2749:
2750: \item (a) If the term contains neither $R_{\ell_3}$ nor
2751: $R_{\ell_4}$, then either $Q_i$ effectively reduces $k=1$ to $k=0$, or $R_K$
2752: reduces $n$ to $n=0$ in $n$ steps. Either way, we know from previous analysis that the odd powers of $\sqrt{1-u}$ drop out.
2753:
2754: \item (b) If the term contains $R_{\ell_3}$ or $R_{\ell_4}$, but not both, i.e.,
2755: %
2756: \bean {(-2\W\ell\cdot \ell_3)^a\over (\W\ell-K_i)^2-\mu^2}~~~or~~{
2757: (-2\W\ell\cdot \ell_4)^b\over (\W\ell-K_i)^2-\mu^2},~~~a, b\neq
2758: 0\eean
2759: %
2760: by \cite{Ossola:2006us}-(2.20), the contribution is zero.
2761:
2762: \item (c) If the term contains both $R_{\ell_3}$ and
2763: $R_{\ell_4}$,i.e.,
2764: %
2765: \bean {(-2\W\ell\cdot \ell_3)^a (-2\W\ell\cdot \ell_4)^b\over
2766: (\W\ell-K_i)^2-\mu^2},~~~a,b\neq 0\eean
2767: %
2768: then we need to use the first equation of \cite{Ossola:2006us}-(2.15) to reduce
2769: the pair. There are three terms on the right hand side of the first
2770: equation (remembering that the ${\cal O}(\W q^2)$ does not exist in
2771: our case). The first two terms reduce $n$ by two (notice that $F$ depends on $\mu^2$ through the mass), and the third
2772: term reduces $k=1$ to $k=0$. By this manipulation, we reduce case (c)
2773: to either case (a) or case (b).
2774:
2775: \end{itemize}
2776: %
2777:
2778:
2779: \vskip0.1in
2780:
2781: {\bf The case $k=2$:}\\
2782:
2783: We use the same expansion of $R_j$ as in the $k=1$ case, and perform a similar analysis. Factors with $R_K$
2784: factor effectively reduce $n$ by one.
2785: Factors with $Q_1$ reduce $k=2$ to $k=1$. For $R_{\ell_3}$ and $R_{\ell_4}$, we need
2786: to use equation \cite{Ossola:2006us}-(2.15) to simplify further. Similar to the case
2787: $k=1$, we have following three cases:
2788:
2789: %
2790: \begin{itemize}
2791:
2792: \item (a) If the term contains neither $R_{\ell_3}$ nor
2793: $R_{\ell_4}$, then either $Q_i$ reduces $k=2$ to $k=1$, or $R_K$
2794: reduces $n$ to $n=0$ in $n$ steps. Either way, we know from previous analysis that the odd powers of $\sqrt{1-u}$ drop out.
2795:
2796:
2797: \item (b) If the term contains $R_{\ell_3}$ or $R_{\ell_4}$, but not both,
2798: i.e.,
2799: %
2800: \bean {(-2\W\ell\cdot \ell_3)^a\over
2801: ((\W\ell-K_i)^2-\mu^2)((\W\ell-K_j)^2-\mu^2)}~~~or~~{ (-2\W\ell\cdot
2802: \ell_4)^b\over ((\W\ell-K_i)^2-\mu^2)((\W\ell-K_j)^2-\mu^2)},~~~a,
2803: b\neq 0\eean
2804: %
2805: then we apply the second equation of \cite{Ossola:2006us}-(2.15)
2806: repeatedly until we reach the form \cite{Ossola:2006us}-(2.18). There are three terms on the
2807: right-hand side of \cite{Ossola:2006us}-(2.18). The first term will depend on $u$
2808: polynomially through the mass, while the third term will reduce
2809: $k=2$ to $k=1$. The second term
2810: is the spurious term, which gives zero contribution.
2811:
2812:
2813:
2814: \item (c) If the term contains both $R_{\ell_3}$ and
2815: $R_{\ell_4}$,i.e.,
2816: %
2817: \bean {(-2\W\ell\cdot \ell_3)^a (-2\W\ell\cdot \ell_4)^b\over
2818: ((\W\ell-K_i)^2-\mu^2)((\W\ell-K_j)^2-\mu^2)},~~~a,b\neq 0\eean
2819: %
2820: then we apply the first equation of \cite{Ossola:2006us}-(2.15) to reduce
2821: the pair. Then we use the second equation of \cite{Ossola:2006us}-(2.15) and finally
2822: reach the form of (2.18). The discussion of this case is parallel to
2823: case (b).
2824:
2825: \end{itemize}
2826: %
2827:
2828: We conclude that the bubble coefficients, as given in
2829: (\ref{bub-exp}), are indeed polynomials in $u$. Knowing this fact,
2830: the degree of the polynomial can then be read off from the formulas of
2831: Section 4; it is seen to be $[n/2]$.
2832:
2833:
2834:
2835:
2836: %
2837:
2838:
2839: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2840: \section{\label{ap:pentagon}Pentagon double cut}
2841: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2842:
2843: The double cut of a pentagon integral, defined according to (\ref{I-inte}) as
2844: %
2845: \bea C[I_5(K;K_1,K_2,K_3)] &=& \int d^{4-2\eps} p~ (\mu^2)\frac{ 1 }{\prod_{j=1}^3 (p-K_j)^2} \delta(p^2)
2846: \delta((p-K)^2)
2847: \eea
2848: %
2849: is given by the following expression \cite{Anastasiou:2006gt}:
2850: %
2851: \bea C[I_5(K;K_1,K_2,K_3)] &=& -\int_0^1 du~ u^{-1-\eps}
2852: {\sqrt{1-u} \over (K^2)^2}~~~\label{Pentagon-gen} \\ & &
2853: \left({ S[Q_3, Q_2, Q_1,K]\over
2854: 4\sqrt{(Q_3\cdot Q_2)^2 -Q_3^2 Q_2^2}} \ln{ Q_3 \cdot Q_2 -
2855: \sqrt{ (Q_3\cdot Q_2)^2 -Q_3^2 Q_2^2}\over Q_3 \cdot Q_2 +
2856: \sqrt{ (Q_3\cdot Q_2)^2 -Q_3^2 Q_2^2}}\right. \\ & & + { S[Q_3,
2857: Q_1, Q_2,K]\over 4\sqrt{(Q_3\cdot Q_1)^2 -Q_3^2 Q_1^2}} \ln{
2858: Q_3 \cdot Q_1 - \sqrt{ (Q_3\cdot Q_1)^2 -Q_3^2 Q_1^2}\over Q_3
2859: \cdot Q_1 + \sqrt{ (Q_3\cdot Q_1)^2 -Q_3^2 Q_1^2}} \\ & &
2860: \left.+ { S[Q_2, Q_1, Q_3,K]\over 4\sqrt{(Q_2\cdot Q_1)^2
2861: -Q_2^2 Q_1^2}} \ln{ Q_2 \cdot Q_1 - \sqrt{ (Q_2\cdot Q_1)^2
2862: -Q_2^2 Q_1^2}\over Q_2 \cdot Q_1 + \sqrt{ (Q_2\cdot Q_1)^2
2863: -Q_2^2 Q_1^2}}\right),
2864: \nonumber \eea
2865: %
2866: where $S[Q_i, Q_j, Q_k,K]$ was defined to be
2867: %
2868: \bea
2869: & & S[Q_i, Q_j, Q_k,K] = {T_1\over T_2},~~~\label{Func-S-sec}
2870: \eea
2871: %
2872: with
2873: %
2874: \bea
2875: T_1 = -8 \det \left( \begin{array}{lcr} K \cdot Q_k & Q_i \cdot K & Q_j \cdot K\\
2876: Q_i \cdot Q_k & Q_i^2 & Q_i \cdot Q_j \\ Q_j \cdot Q_k & Q_i \cdot Q_j &
2877: Q_j^2
2878: \end{array} \right); ~~~~
2879: T_2 = -4 \det \left( \begin{array}{lcr} Q_k^2 & Q_i \cdot Q_k & Q_j \cdot Q_k\\
2880: Q_i \cdot Q_k & Q_i^2 & Q_i \cdot Q_j \\ Q_j \cdot Q_k & Q_i \cdot Q_j &
2881: Q_j^2
2882: \end{array} \right).~~~~\label{T1-T2-sec}
2883: \eea
2884: %
2885: Here we rewrite (\ref{Func-S-sec}) so that the $u$-dependence becomes transparent.
2886: We need to define a few auxiliary quantities. In terms of a particular
2887: matrix
2888: denoted by $S$,
2889: %
2890: \bea S \equiv \left( \begin{array}{ccccc} 0 & K^2 & K_1^2 & K_2^2 & K_3^2
2891: \\ K^2 & 0 & (K_1-K)^2 & (K_2-K)^2 & (K_3-K)^2 \\ K_1^2 & (K_1-K)^2 &
2892: 0 & ( K_2-K_1)^2 & (K_3-K_1)^2 \\ K_2^2 & (K_2-K)^2
2893: & (K_2-K_1)^2 & 0 & (K_3-K_2)^2 \\ K_3^2 & (K_3-K)^2 & (K_3-K_1)^2 &
2894: (K_3-K_2)^2 & 0 \end{array}\right),\eea
2895: %
2896: we define
2897: %
2898: \bea A[K_1; K_2,K_3,K] & = &
2899: -{\rm det}\left( \begin{array}{ccccc}
2900: ~~0~~ & ~~K_2^2~~ & ~~K_3^2~~ & ~~K^2~~ & ~~ K_1^2 ~~ \\ K_2^2 & 0 &
2901: (K_2-K_3)^2 & (K_2-K)^2 & (K_2-K_1)^2 \\ K_3^2 &
2902: (K_3-K_2)^2 & 0 & (K_3-K)^2 & (K_3-K_1)^2 \\ K^2 &
2903: (K-K_2)^2 & (K-K_3)^2 & 0 & (K-K_1)^2 \\ 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1\end{array}\right), \\
2904: B[K_1, K_2, K_3, K] &=&
2905: {\rm det}(S)\sum_{i,j=1}^5 (S^{-1})_{ij}, \\
2906: C[K_1, K_2, K_3, K] & = & 2 {\rm det}(S).
2907: \eea
2908: %
2909: Then,
2910: %
2911: \bea S[Q_2, Q_3, Q_1, K] & = & { 4 K^2 A[K_1; K_2, K_3, K]\over u
2912: K^2 B[K_1,K_2, K_3, K] - C[K_1, K_2, K_3, K]}.~~~\Label{S-ABC}
2913: \eea
2914: %
2915: Now it is evident that the numerator of (\ref{S-ABC}) is independent of $u$, and the denominator is linear in $u$. Furthermore, $B[K_1,K_2, K_3, K]$ and $C[K_1, K_2, K_3, K]$ are totally symmetric in their arguments, indicating fundamental pentagon nature. The quantity $A[K_1; K_2, K_3, K]$ breaks this symmetry for the first argument, $K_1$, indicating that the corresponding propagator is the one that is eliminated in order to show up as part of a {\em box} coefficient.
2916:
2917:
2918:
2919:
2920: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2921: \begin{thebibliography}{999}
2922:
2923: %\cite{Bern:2008ef}
2924: \bibitem{Bern:2008ef}
2925: Z.~Bern {\it et al.},
2926: %``The NLO multileg working group: summary report,''
2927: arXiv:0803.0494 [hep-ph].
2928: %%CITATION = ARXIV:0803.0494;%%
2929:
2930:
2931:
2932: \bibitem{IntegralRecursion}
2933: Z.~Bern, L.~J.~Dixon and D.~A.~Kosower,
2934: %``Dimensionally Regulated One Loop Integrals,''
2935: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 302}, 299 (1993)
2936: [Erratum-ibid.\ B {\bf 318}, 649 (1993)]
2937: [hep-ph/9212308];\\
2938: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B302,299;%%
2939: Z.~Bern, L.~J.~Dixon and D.~A.~Kosower,
2940: %``Dimensionally regulated pentagon integrals,''
2941: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 412}, 751 (1994)
2942: [hep-ph/9306240].\\
2943:
2944: \bibitem{MasterIntegrals}{
2945: L.~M.~Brown and R.~P.~Feynman,
2946: %``Radiative corrections to Compton scattering,''
2947: Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf 85}, 231 (1952);\\
2948: D.~B.~Melrose,
2949: %``Reduction Of Feynman Diagrams,''
2950: Nuovo Cim.\ {\bf 40}, 181 (1965);\\
2951: G.~Passarino and M.~J.~G.~Veltman,
2952: %``One Loop Corrections For E+ E- Annihilation Into Mu+ Mu- In The Weinberg
2953: %Model,''
2954: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 160}, 151 (1979);\\
2955: G.~'t Hooft and M.~J.~G.~Veltman,
2956: %``Scalar One Loop Integrals,''
2957: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 153}, 365 (1979); \\
2958: W.~L.~van Neerven and J.~A.~M.~Vermaseren,
2959: %``Large Loop Integrals,''
2960: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 137}, 241 (1984);\\
2961: R.~G.~Stuart,
2962: %``ALGEBRAIC REDUCTION OF ONE LOOP FEYNMAN DIAGRAMS TO SCALAR INTEGRALS,''
2963: Comput.\ Phys.\ Commun.\ {\bf 48}, 367 (1988);\\
2964: R.~G.~Stuart and A.~Gongora,
2965: %``ALGEBRAIC REDUCTION OF ONE LOOP FEYNMAN DIAGRAMS TO SCALAR INTEGRALS. 2,''
2966: Comput.\ Phys.\ Commun.\ {\bf 56}, 337 (1990);\\
2967: G.~J.~van Oldenborgh and J.~A.~M.~Vermaseren,
2968: %``New Algorithms for One Loop Integrals,''
2969: Z.\ Phys.\ C {\bf 46}, 425 (1990);\\
2970: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B153,365;%%
2971: %Z.~Bern, L.~J.~Dixon and D.~A.~Kosower,
2972: %%``Dimensionally Regulated One Loop Integrals,''
2973: %Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 302}, 299 (1993)
2974: %[Erratum-ibid.\ B {\bf 318}, 649 (1993)]
2975: %[hep-ph/9212308];\\
2976: %%%CITATION = PHLTA,B302,299;%%
2977: %Z.~Bern, L.~J.~Dixon and D.~A.~Kosower,
2978: %%``Dimensionally regulated pentagon integrals,''
2979: %Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 412}, 751 (1994)
2980: %[hep-ph/9306240];\\
2981: %%%CITATION = NUPHA,B412,751;%%
2982: J.~Fleischer, F.~Jegerlehner and O.~V.~Tarasov,
2983: %``Algebraic reduction of one-loop Feynman graph amplitudes,''
2984: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 566}, 423 (2000)
2985: [hep-ph/9907327];\\
2986: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B566,423;%%
2987: T.~Binoth, J.~P.~Guillet and G.~Heinrich,
2988: %``Reduction formalism for dimensionally regulated one-loop N-point
2989: %integrals,''
2990: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 572}, 361 (2000)
2991: [hep-ph/9911342];\\
2992: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B572,361;%%
2993: A.~Denner and S.~Dittmaier,
2994: %``Reduction of one-loop tensor 5-point integrals,''
2995: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 658}, 175 (2003)
2996: [arXiv:hep-ph/0212259];\\
2997: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B658,175;%%
2998: G.~Duplan\v{c}i\'c and B.~Ni\v{z}i\'c,
2999: %``Reduction method for dimensionally regulated one-loop N-point Feynman
3000: %integrals,''
3001: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 35}, 105 (2004)
3002: [hep-ph/0303184]; \\
3003: %%CITATION = EPHJA,C35,105;%%
3004: A.~Denner and S.~Dittmaier,
3005: %``Reduction schemes for one-loop tensor integrals,''
3006: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 734}, 62 (2006)
3007: [arXiv:hep-ph/0509141];\\
3008: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B734,62;%%
3009: R.~K.~Ellis and G.~Zanderighi,
3010: %``Scalar one-loop integrals for QCD,''
3011: arXiv:0712.1851 [hep-ph].
3012: %%CITATION = ARXIV:0712.1851;%%
3013:
3014: }
3015:
3016:
3017: %\cite{Bern:1994zx}
3018: \bibitem{Bern:1994zx}
3019: Z.~Bern, L.~J.~Dixon, D.~C.~Dunbar and D.~A.~Kosower,
3020: %``One loop n point gauge theory amplitudes, unitarity and
3021: % collinear limits,''
3022: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 425}, 217 (1994)
3023: [arXiv:hep-ph/9403226].
3024: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9403226;%%
3025:
3026: %\cite{Bern:1994cg}
3027: \bibitem{Bern:1994cg}
3028: Z.~Bern, L.~J.~Dixon, D.~C.~Dunbar and D.~A.~Kosower,
3029: %``Fusing gauge theory tree amplitudes into loop amplitudes,''
3030: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 435}, 59 (1995)
3031: [arXiv:hep-ph/9409265].
3032: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B435,59;%%
3033:
3034: %\cite{Bern:1997sc}
3035: \bibitem{Bern:1997sc}
3036: Z.~Bern, L.~J.~Dixon and D.~A.~Kosower,
3037: %``One-loop amplitudes for e+ e- to four partons,''
3038: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 513}, 3 (1998)
3039: [arXiv:hep-ph/9708239].
3040: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B513,3;%%
3041:
3042: %\cite{Cachazo:2004by}
3043: \bibitem{Cachazo:2004by}
3044: F.~Cachazo, P.~Svrcek and E.~Witten,
3045: %``Gauge theory amplitudes in twistor space and holomorphic anomaly,''
3046: JHEP {\bf 0410}, 077 (2004)
3047: [arXiv:hep-th/0409245].
3048: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0409245;%%
3049:
3050: %\cite{Bena:2004xu}
3051: \bibitem{Bena:2004xu}
3052: I.~Bena, Z.~Bern, D.~A.~Kosower and R.~Roiban,
3053: %``Loops in twistor space,''
3054: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 71}, 106010 (2005)
3055: [arXiv:hep-th/0410054].
3056: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0410054;%%
3057: %\cite{Cachazo:2004dr}
3058: \bibitem{Cachazo:2004dr}
3059: F.~Cachazo,
3060: % ``Holomorphic anomaly of unitarity cuts and one-loop gauge theory
3061: %amplitudes,''
3062: arXiv:hep-th/0410077.
3063: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0410077;%%
3064:
3065: %\cite{Britto:2004nj}
3066: \bibitem{Britto:2004nj}
3067: R.~Britto, F.~Cachazo and B.~Feng,
3068: %``Computing one-loop amplitudes from the holomorphic anomaly of unitarity
3069: %cuts,''
3070: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 71}, 025012 (2005)
3071: [arXiv:hep-th/0410179].
3072: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0410179;%%
3073:
3074: %\cite{Bern:2004ky}
3075: \bibitem{Bern:2004ky}
3076: Z.~Bern, V.~Del Duca, L.~J.~Dixon and D.~A.~Kosower,
3077: %``All non-maximally-helicity-violating one-loop seven-gluon amplitudes in N
3078: %= 4 super-Yang-Mills theory,''
3079: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 71}, 045006 (2005)
3080: [arXiv:hep-th/0410224].
3081: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0410224;%%
3082:
3083: %\cite{Bidder:2004tx}
3084: \bibitem{Bidder:2004tx}
3085: S.~J.~Bidder, N.~E.~J.~Bjerrum-Bohr, L.~J.~Dixon and D.~C.~Dunbar,
3086: %``N = 1 supersymmetric one-loop amplitudes and the holomorphic anomaly of
3087: %unitarity cuts,''
3088: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 606}, 189 (2005)
3089: [arXiv:hep-th/0410296].
3090: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B606,189;%%
3091:
3092: %\cite{Britto:2004nc}
3093: \bibitem{Britto:2004nc}
3094: R.~Britto, F.~Cachazo and B.~Feng,
3095: %``Generalized unitarity and one-loop amplitudes in N = 4 super-Yang-Mills,''
3096: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 725}, 275 (2005)
3097: [arXiv:hep-th/0412103].
3098: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0412103;%%
3099:
3100: %\cite{Britto:2005ha}
3101: \bibitem{Britto:2005ha}
3102: R.~Britto, E.~Buchbinder, F.~Cachazo and B.~Feng,
3103: %``One-loop amplitudes of gluons in SQCD,''
3104: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 72}, 065012 (2005)
3105: [arXiv:hep-ph/0503132].
3106: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0503132;%%
3107:
3108: %\cite{Brandhuber:2005jw}
3109: \bibitem{Brandhuber:2005jw}
3110: A.~Brandhuber, S.~McNamara, B.~J.~Spence and G.~Travaglini,
3111: %``Loop amplitudes in pure Yang-Mills from generalised unitarity,''
3112: JHEP {\bf 0510}, 011 (2005)
3113: [arXiv:hep-th/0506068].
3114: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0506068;%%
3115:
3116: %\cite{Britto:2006sj}
3117: \bibitem{Britto:2006sj}
3118: R.~Britto, B.~Feng and P.~Mastrolia,
3119: %``The cut-constructible part of QCD amplitudes,''
3120: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 73}, 105004 (2006)
3121: [arXiv:hep-ph/0602178].
3122: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0602178;%%
3123:
3124: %\cite{Ossola:2006us}
3125: \bibitem{Ossola:2006us}
3126: G.~Ossola, C.~G.~Papadopoulos and R.~Pittau,
3127: %``Reducing full one-loop amplitudes to scalar integrals at the integrand
3128: %level,''
3129: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 763}, 147 (2007)
3130: [arXiv:hep-ph/0609007].
3131: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B763,147;%%
3132:
3133: %\cite{Anastasiou:2006jv}
3134: \bibitem{Anastasiou:2006jv}
3135: C.~Anastasiou, R.~Britto, B.~Feng, Z.~Kunszt and P.~Mastrolia,
3136: %``D-dimensional unitarity cut method,''
3137: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 645}, 213 (2007)
3138: [arXiv:hep-ph/0609191].
3139: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B645,213;%%
3140:
3141: %\cite{Mastrolia:2006ki}
3142: \bibitem{Mastrolia:2006ki}
3143: P.~Mastrolia,
3144: %``On triple-cut of scattering amplitudes,''
3145: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 644}, 272 (2007)
3146: [arXiv:hep-th/0611091].
3147: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B644,272;%%
3148:
3149: %\cite{Britto:2006fc}
3150: \bibitem{Britto:2006fc}
3151: R.~Britto and B.~Feng,
3152: %``Unitarity cuts with massive propagators and algebraic expressions for
3153: %coefficients,''
3154: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 75}, 105006 (2007)
3155: [arXiv:hep-ph/0612089].
3156: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D75,105006;%%
3157:
3158: %\cite{Anastasiou:2006gt}
3159: \bibitem{Anastasiou:2006gt}
3160: C.~Anastasiou, R.~Britto, B.~Feng, Z.~Kunszt and P.~Mastrolia,
3161: %``Unitarity cuts and reduction to master integrals in d dimensions for
3162: %one-loop amplitudes,''
3163: JHEP {\bf 0703}, 111 (2007)
3164: [arXiv:hep-ph/0612277].
3165: %%CITATION = JHEPA,0703,111;%%
3166:
3167: %\cite{Ossola:2007bb}
3168: \bibitem{Ossola:2007bb}
3169: G.~Ossola, C.~G.~Papadopoulos and R.~Pittau,
3170: %``Numerical Evaluation of Six-Photon Amplitudes,''
3171: JHEP {\bf 0707}, 085 (2007)
3172: [arXiv:0704.1271 [hep-ph]].
3173: %%CITATION = JHEPA,0707,085;%%
3174:
3175: %\cite{Forde:2007mi}
3176: \bibitem{Forde:2007mi}
3177: D.~Forde,
3178: %``Direct extraction of one-loop integral coefficients,''
3179: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 75}, 125019 (2007)
3180: [arXiv:0704.1835 [hep-ph]].
3181: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D75,125019;%%
3182:
3183: %\cite{Ellis:2007br}
3184: \bibitem{Ellis:2007br}
3185: R.~K.~Ellis, W.~T.~Giele and Z.~Kunszt,
3186: %``A Numerical Unitarity Formalism for Evaluating One-Loop Amplitudes,''
3187: JHEP {\bf 0803}, 003 (2008)
3188: [arXiv:0708.2398 [hep-ph]].
3189: %%CITATION = JHEPA,0803,003;%%
3190:
3191: %\cite{BjerrumBohr:2007vu}
3192: \bibitem{BjerrumBohr:2007vu}
3193: N.~E.~J.~Bjerrum-Bohr, D.~C.~Dunbar and W.~B.~Perkins,
3194: %``Analytic Structure of Three-Mass Triangle Coefficients,''
3195: arXiv:0709.2086 [hep-ph].
3196: %%CITATION = ARXIV:0709.2086;%%
3197:
3198: %\cite{Ossola:2007ax}
3199: \bibitem{Ossola:2007ax}
3200: G.~Ossola, C.~G.~Papadopoulos and R.~Pittau,
3201: %``CutTools: a program implementing the OPP reduction method to compute
3202: %one-loop amplitudes,''
3203: JHEP {\bf 0803}, 042 (2008)
3204: [arXiv:0711.3596 [hep-ph]].
3205: %%CITATION = JHEPA,0803,042;%%
3206:
3207: %\cite{Britto:2007tt}
3208: \bibitem{Britto:2007tt}
3209: R.~Britto and B.~Feng,
3210: %``Integral Coefficients for One-Loop Amplitudes,''
3211: JHEP {\bf 0802}, 095 (2008)
3212: [arXiv:0711.4284 [hep-ph]].
3213: %%CITATION = JHEPA,0802,095;%%
3214:
3215: %\cite{Kilgore:2007qr}
3216: \bibitem{Kilgore:2007qr}
3217: W.~B.~Kilgore,
3218: %``One-loop Integral Coefficients from Generalized Unitarity,''
3219: arXiv:0711.5015 [hep-ph].
3220: %%CITATION = ARXIV:0711.5015;%%
3221:
3222: %\cite{Giele:2008ve}
3223: \bibitem{Giele:2008ve}
3224: W.~T.~Giele, Z.~Kunszt and K.~Melnikov,
3225: %``Full one-loop amplitudes from tree amplitudes,''
3226: arXiv:0801.2237 [hep-ph].
3227: %%CITATION = ARXIV:0801.2237;%%
3228:
3229: %\cite{Ossola:2008xq}
3230: \bibitem{Ossola:2008xq}
3231: G.~Ossola, C.~G.~Papadopoulos and R.~Pittau,
3232: %``On the Rational Terms of the one-loop amplitudes,''
3233: arXiv:0802.1876 [hep-ph].
3234: %%CITATION = ARXIV:0802.1876;%%
3235:
3236:
3237:
3238: %\cite{vanNeerven:1985xr}
3239: \bibitem{vanNeerven:1985xr}
3240: W.~L.~van Neerven,
3241: % ``Dimensional Regularization Of Mass And Infrared Singularities In Two Loop
3242: %On-Shell Vertex Functions,''
3243: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 268}, 453 (1986).
3244: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B268,453;%%
3245:
3246: %\cite{Bern:1995db}
3247: \bibitem{Bern:1995db}
3248: Z.~Bern and A.~G.~Morgan,
3249: %``Massive Loop Amplitudes from Unitarity,''
3250: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 467}, 479 (1996)
3251: [arXiv:hep-ph/9511336].
3252: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9511336;%%
3253:
3254: %\cite{Bern:1996je}
3255: \bibitem{Bern:1996je}
3256: Z.~Bern, L.~J.~Dixon and D.~A.~Kosower,
3257: %``Progress in one-loop QCD computations,''
3258: Ann.\ Rev.\ Nucl.\ Part.\ Sci.\ {\bf 46}, 109 (1996)
3259: [arXiv:hep-ph/9602280].
3260: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9602280;%%
3261:
3262: %\cite{Bern:1996ja}
3263: \bibitem{Bern:1996ja}
3264: Z.~Bern, L.~J.~Dixon, D.~C.~Dunbar and D.~A.~Kosower,
3265: %``One-loop self-dual and N = 4 superYang-Mills,''
3266: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 394}, 105 (1997)
3267: [arXiv:hep-th/9611127].
3268: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9611127;%%
3269:
3270: %\cite{delAguila:2004nf}
3271: \bibitem{delAguila:2004nf}
3272: F.~del Aguila and R.~Pittau,
3273: %``Recursive numerical calculus of one-loop tensor integrals,''
3274: JHEP {\bf 0407}, 017 (2004)
3275: [arXiv:hep-ph/0404120].
3276: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0404120;%%
3277:
3278: %\cite{Bern:2005hs}
3279: \bibitem{Bern:2005hs}
3280: Z.~Bern, L.~J.~Dixon and D.~A.~Kosower,
3281: %``On-shell recurrence relations for one-loop QCD amplitudes,''
3282: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 71}, 105013 (2005)
3283: [arXiv:hep-th/0501240].
3284: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0501240;%%
3285:
3286:
3287: %\cite{Bern:2005ji}
3288: \bibitem{Bern:2005ji}
3289: Z.~Bern, L.~J.~Dixon and D.~A.~Kosower,
3290: %``The last of the finite loop amplitudes in QCD,''
3291: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 72}, 125003 (2005)
3292: [arXiv:hep-ph/0505055].
3293: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0505055;%%
3294:
3295:
3296: %\cite{Bern:2005cq}
3297: \bibitem{Bern:2005cq}
3298: Z.~Bern, L.~J.~Dixon and D.~A.~Kosower,
3299: %``Bootstrapping multi-parton loop amplitudes in QCD,''
3300: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 73}, 065013 (2006)
3301: [arXiv:hep-ph/0507005].
3302: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0507005;%%
3303:
3304: %\cite{Berger:2006ci}
3305: \bibitem{Berger:2006ci}
3306: C.~F.~Berger, Z.~Bern, L.~J.~Dixon, D.~Forde and D.~A.~Kosower,
3307: %``Bootstrapping one-loop QCD amplitudes with general helicities,''
3308: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 74}, 036009 (2006)
3309: [arXiv:hep-ph/0604195].
3310: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0604195;%%
3311:
3312:
3313: %\cite{Berger:2006vq}
3314: \bibitem{Berger:2006vq}
3315: C.~F.~Berger, Z.~Bern, L.~J.~Dixon, D.~Forde and D.~A.~Kosower,
3316: %``All one-loop maximally helicity violating gluonic amplitudes in QCD,''
3317: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 75}, 016006 (2007)
3318: [arXiv:hep-ph/0607014].
3319: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D75,016006;%%
3320:
3321: %\cite{Xiao:2006vr}
3322: \bibitem{Xiao:2006vr}
3323: Z.~Xiao, G.~Yang and C.~J.~Zhu,
3324: %``The rational part of QCD amplitude. I: The general formalism,''
3325: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 758}, 1 (2006)
3326: [arXiv:hep-ph/0607015].
3327: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0607015;%%
3328:
3329: %\cite{Su:2006vs}
3330: \bibitem{Su:2006vs}
3331: X.~Su, Z.~Xiao, G.~Yang and C.~J.~Zhu,
3332: %``The rational part of QCD amplitude. II: The five-gluon,''
3333: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 758}, 35 (2006)
3334: [arXiv:hep-ph/0607016].
3335: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0607016;%%
3336:
3337: %\cite{Xiao:2006vt}
3338: \bibitem{Xiao:2006vt}
3339: Z.~Xiao, G.~Yang and C.~J.~Zhu,
3340: %``The rational part of QCD amplitude. III: The six-gluon,''
3341: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 758}, 53 (2006)
3342: [arXiv:hep-ph/0607017].
3343: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0607017;%%
3344:
3345: %\cite{Binoth:2006hk}
3346: \bibitem{Binoth:2006hk}
3347: T.~Binoth, J.~P.~Guillet and G.~Heinrich,
3348: %``Algebraic evaluation of rational polynomials in one-loop amplitudes,''
3349: JHEP {\bf 0702}, 013 (2007)
3350: [arXiv:hep-ph/0609054].
3351: %%CITATION = JHEPA,0702,013;%%
3352:
3353:
3354: %\cite{Badger:2008cm}
3355: \bibitem{Badger:2008cm}
3356: S.~D.~Badger,
3357: %``Direct Extraction Of One Loop Rational Terms,''
3358: arXiv:0806.4600 [hep-ph].
3359: %%CITATION = ARXIV:0806.4600;%%
3360:
3361:
3362: %\cite{Britto:2008vq}
3363: \bibitem{Britto:2008vq}
3364: R.~Britto, B.~Feng and P.~Mastrolia,
3365: %``Closed-Form Decomposition of One-Loop Massive Amplitudes,''
3366: arXiv:0803.1989 [hep-ph].
3367: %%CITATION = ARXIV:0803.1989;%%
3368:
3369: \bibitem{SpinorFormalism}{
3370: %\cite{Berends:1981rb}
3371: %\bibitem{Berends:1981rb}
3372: F.~A.~Berends, R.~Kleiss, P.~De Causmaecker, R.~Gastmans and T.~T.~Wu,
3373: %``Single Bremsstrahlung Processes In Gauge Theories,''
3374: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 103}, 124 (1981).
3375: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B103,124;%%
3376:
3377: %\cite{De Causmaecker:1981bg}
3378: %\bibitem{De Causmaecker:1981bg}
3379: P.~De Causmaecker, R.~Gastmans, W.~Troost and T.~T.~Wu,
3380: %``Multiple Bremsstrahlung In Gauge Theories At High-Energies. 1. General
3381: %Formalism For Quantum Electrodynamics,''
3382: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 206}, 53 (1982).
3383: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B206,53;%%
3384:
3385: %\cite{Kleiss:1985yh}
3386: %\bibitem{Kleiss:1985yh}
3387: R.~Kleiss and W.~J.~Stirling,
3388: %``Spinor Techniques For Calculating P Anti-P $\to$ W+- / Z0 + Jets,''
3389: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 262}, 235 (1985).
3390: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B262,235;%%
3391:
3392:
3393: %\cite{Gastmans:1990xh}
3394: %\bibitem{Gastmans:1990xh}
3395: R.~Gastmans and T.~T.~Wu,
3396: %``The Ubiquitous Photon: Helicity Method For QED And QCD,''
3397: %\href{http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?irn=2297604}{SPIRES entry}
3398: {\it Oxford, UK: Clarendon (1990) 648 p. (International series of
3399: monographs on physics, 80)}
3400:
3401: %\cite{Xu:1986xb}
3402: %\bibitem{Xu:1986xb}
3403: Z.~Xu, D.~H.~Zhang and L.~Chang,
3404: %``Helicity Amplitudes for Multiple Bremsstrahlung in Massless Nonabelian
3405: %Gauge Theories,''
3406: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 291}, 392 (1987).
3407: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B291,392;%%
3408:
3409: %\cite{Gunion:1985vca}
3410: %\bibitem{Gunion:1985vca}
3411: J.~F.~Gunion and Z.~Kunszt,
3412: %``Improved Analytic Techniques For Tree Graph Calculations And The G G Q
3413: %Anti-Q Lepton Anti-Lepton Subprocess,''
3414: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 161}, 333 (1985).
3415: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B161,333;%%
3416: }
3417:
3418: %\cite{Dixon:2005cf}
3419: \bibitem{Dixon:2005cf}
3420: L.~J.~Dixon,
3421: %``Twistor string theory and QCD,''
3422: PoS {\bf HEP2005}, 405 (2006)
3423: [arXiv:hep-ph/0512111].
3424: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0512111;%%
3425:
3426: %\cite{Bern:1995ix}
3427: \bibitem{Bern:1995ix}
3428: Z.~Bern and G.~Chalmers,
3429: %``Factorization in one loop gauge theory,''
3430: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 447}, 465 (1995)
3431: [arXiv:hep-ph/9503236].
3432: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B447,465;%%
3433:
3434:
3435: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
3436: %\cite{Cachazo:2004kj}
3437: %\bibitem{Cachazo:2004kj}
3438: % F.~Cachazo, P.~Svrcek and E.~Witten,
3439: %``MHV vertices and tree amplitudes in gauge theory,''
3440: % JHEP {\bf 0409}, 006 (2004)
3441: % [hep-th/0403047].
3442: %%CITATION = JHEPA,0409,006;%%
3443:
3444: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
3445:
3446: %\cite{Mastrolia:2008jb}
3447: \bibitem{Mastrolia:2008jb}
3448: P.~Mastrolia, G.~Ossola, C.~G.~Papadopoulos and R.~Pittau,
3449: %``Optimizing the Reduction of One-Loop Amplitudes,''
3450: JHEP {\bf 0806}, 030 (2008)
3451: [arXiv:0803.3964 [hep-ph]].
3452: %%CITATION = JHEPA,0806,030;%%
3453:
3454: %\cite{Binoth:2008kt}
3455: \bibitem{Binoth:2008kt}
3456: T.~Binoth, G.~Ossola, C.~G.~Papadopoulos and R.~Pittau,
3457: %``NLO QCD corrections to tri-boson production,''
3458: JHEP {\bf 0806}, 082 (2008)
3459: [arXiv:0804.0350 [hep-ph]].
3460: %%CITATION = JHEPA,0806,082;%%
3461:
3462: %\cite{Giele:2008bc}
3463: \bibitem{Giele:2008bc}
3464: W.~T.~Giele and G.~Zanderighi,
3465: %``On the Numerical Evaluation of One-Loop Amplitudes: the Gluonic Case,''
3466: arXiv:0805.2152 [hep-ph].
3467: %%CITATION = ARXIV:0805.2152;%%
3468:
3469:
3470: %\cite{Berger:2008sj}
3471: \bibitem{Berger:2008sj}
3472: C.~F.~Berger {\it et al.},
3473: %``An Automated Implementation of On-Shell Methods for One-Loop Amplitudes,''
3474: arXiv:0803.4180 [hep-ph].
3475: %%CITATION = ARXIV:0803.4180;%%
3476:
3477:
3478: \end{thebibliography}
3479:
3480:
3481: \end{document}
3482: