1: \documentstyle[12pt,epsfig]{article}
2:
3: \voffset0cm
4: \hoffset0cm
5: \oddsidemargin0cm
6: \evensidemargin0cm
7: \topmargin0cm
8: \textwidth16.cm
9: \textheight22.cm
10: \setlength{\arraycolsep}{0.5mm}
11:
12: \newcommand{\re}{\mathop{\mathrm{Re}}\nolimits}
13: \newcommand{\im}{\mathop{\mathrm{Im}}\nolimits}
14: \newcommand{\sign}{\mathop{\mathrm{sign}}\nolimits}
15: \newcommand{\arsinh}{\mathop{\mathrm{arsinh}}\nolimits}
16: \newcommand{\arcosh}{\mathop{\mathrm{arcosh}}\nolimits}
17:
18: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
19: %The following macro is from world_sci.sty, originally written for DPF91
20:
21: \catcode`@=11
22: % Collapse citation numbers to ranges. Non-numeric and undefined labels
23: % are handled. No sorting is done. E.g., 1,3,2,3,4,5,foo,1,2,3,?,4,5
24: % gives 1,3,2-5,foo,1-3,?,4,5
25: \newcount\@tempcntc
26: \def\@citex[#1]#2{\if@filesw\immediate\write\@auxout{\string\citation{#2}}\fi
27: \@tempcnta\z@\@tempcntb\m@ne\def\@citea{}\@cite{\@for\@citeb:=#2\do
28: {\@ifundefined
29: {b@\@citeb}{\@citeo\@tempcntb\m@ne\@citea\def\@citea{,}{\bf
30: ?}\@warning
31: {Citation `\@citeb' on page \thepage \space undefined}}%
32: {\setbox\z@\hbox{\global\@tempcntc0\csname b@\@citeb\endcsname\relax}%
33: \ifnum\@tempcntc=\z@ \@citeo\@tempcntb\m@ne
34: \@citea\def\@citea{,}\hbox{\csname b@\@citeb\endcsname}%
35: \else
36: \advance\@tempcntb\@ne
37: \ifnum\@tempcntb=\@tempcntc
38: \else\advance\@tempcntb\m@ne\@citeo
39: \@tempcnta\@tempcntc\@tempcntb\@tempcntc\fi\fi}}\@citeo}{#1}}
40: \def\@citeo{\ifnum\@tempcnta>\@tempcntb\else\@citea\def\@citea{,}%
41: \ifnum\@tempcnta=\@tempcntb\the\@tempcnta\else
42: {\advance\@tempcnta\@ne\ifnum\@tempcnta=\@tempcntb \else
43: \def\@citea{--}\fi
44: \advance\@tempcnta\m@ne\the\@tempcnta\@citea\the\@tempcntb}\fi\fi}
45: \catcode`@=12
46: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
47:
48: \begin{document}
49: \title{\vskip-3cm{\baselineskip14pt
50: \centerline{\normalsize DESY 00-079\hfill ISSN 0418-9833}
51: \centerline{\normalsize hep-ph/0007002\hfill}
52: \centerline{\normalsize July 2000\hfill}}
53: \vskip1.5cm
54: Higgs-Boson Production and Decay Close to Thresholds}
55: \author{{\sc Bernd A. Kniehl,$^1$ Caesar P. Palisoc,$^2$
56: Alberto Sirlin$^{1,3}$}\\
57: {\normalsize $^1$ II. Institut f\"ur Theoretische Physik, Universit\"at
58: Hamburg,}\\
59: {\normalsize Luruper Chaussee 149, 22761 Hamburg, Germany}\\
60: {\normalsize $^2$ National Institute of Physics, University of the
61: Philippines,}\\
62: {\normalsize Diliman, Quezon City 1101, Philippines}\\
63: {\normalsize $^3$ Department of Physics, New York University,}\\
64: {\normalsize 4 Washington Place, New York, New York 10003, USA}}
65:
66: \date{}
67:
68: \maketitle
69:
70: \thispagestyle{empty}
71:
72: \begin{abstract}
73: At one loop in the conventional on-mass-shell renormalization scheme, the
74: production and decay rates of the Higgs boson $H$ exhibit singularities
75: proportional to $(2M_V-M)^{-1/2}$ as the Higgs-boson mass $M$ approaches from
76: below the pair-production threshold of a vector boson $V$ with mass $M_V$.
77: This problem is of phenomenological interest because the values $2M_W$ and
78: $2M_Z$, corresponding to the $W$- and $Z$-boson thresholds, lie within the $M$
79: range presently favoured by electroweak precision data.
80: We demonstrate how these threshold singularities are eliminated when the
81: definitions of mass and total decay width of the Higgs boson are based on the
82: complex-valued pole of its propagator.
83: We illustrate the phenomenological implications of this modification for the
84: partial width of the $H\to W^+W^-$ decay.
85:
86: \medskip
87:
88: \noindent
89: PACS numbers: 11.15.Bt, 12.15.Lk, 14.80.Bn
90: \end{abstract}
91:
92: \newpage
93:
94: \section{Introduction}
95:
96: The conventional definitions of the mass $M$ and the total decay width
97: $\Gamma$ of an unstable boson are given by
98: \begin{eqnarray}
99: M^2&=&M_0^2+\re A(M^2),
100: \label{eq:mos}\\
101: M\Gamma&=&-\frac{\im A(M^2)}{1-\re A^\prime(M^2)},
102: \label{eq:gos}
103: \end{eqnarray}
104: where $M_0$ is the bare mass and $A(s)$ is the self-energy in the case of
105: scalar bosons and the transverse self-energy in the case of vector bosons.
106: In fact, most calculations of the total decay rates are based on
107: Eq.~(\ref{eq:gos}).
108: $M$ and $\Gamma$ are conventionally referred to as the on-shell mass and width,
109: respectively.
110:
111: However, over the last decade it has been shown that, in the context of gauge
112: theories, $M$ and $\Gamma$ become gauge dependent in $O(g^4)$ and $O(g^6)$,
113: respectively, where $g$ is a generic gauge coupling \cite{sir,wil,kni}.
114: A solution to this problem can be achieved by defining the mass and width in
115: terms of the complex-valued position of the propagator's pole:
116: \begin{equation}
117: \bar s=M_0^2+A(\bar s),
118: \label{eq:sba}
119: \end{equation}
120: an idea that goes back to well-known postulates of scattering ($S$) matrix
121: theory \cite{pei}.
122: An important advantage of Eq.~(\ref{eq:sba}) is that $\bar s$ is gauge
123: independent to all orders in perturbation theory \cite{sir,wil,kni}.
124: A frequently employed parameterization is \cite{sir,con}
125: \begin{equation}
126: \bar s=m_2^2-im_2\Gamma_2,
127: \end{equation}
128: where we use the notation of Ref.~\cite{sir}.
129: Identifying $m_2$ and $\Gamma_2$ with the gauge-independent definitions of
130: mass and width, we have
131: \begin{eqnarray}
132: m_2^2&=&M_0^2+\re A(\bar s),
133: \label{eq:mpo}\\
134: m_2\Gamma_2&=&-\im A(\bar s).
135: \label{eq:gpo}
136: \end{eqnarray}
137: Alternative, gauge-independent definitions of mass and width based on
138: $\bar s$, with particular merits, have been discussed in the literature
139: \cite{sir,wil,kni,boh}.
140: A phenomenologically relevant application of the $S$-matrix approach is to
141: observables at the $Z$-boson resonance \cite{lei}.
142:
143: Over a period of two decades, the on-shell renormalization scheme
144: \cite{oms,fle,kra} has provided a very convenient framework for the
145: calculation of quantum corrections in electroweak perturbation theory.
146: In fact, many important calculations have been performed in this scheme.
147: One of its principal aims is the parameterization of $S$-matrix elements in
148: terms of physical masses and coupling constants.
149: For most calculations at the one-loop level, Eqs.~(\ref{eq:mos}) and
150: (\ref{eq:gos}) are satisfactory and, in fact, the original papers
151: \cite{oms,fle} employed such definitions.
152: In higher orders, the gauge dependence of $M$ and $\Gamma$ precludes their
153: identification with physical quantities.
154: It is then natural to remedy this deficiency by replacing Eqs.~(\ref{eq:mos})
155: and (\ref{eq:gos}) by Eqs.~(\ref{eq:mpo}) and (\ref{eq:gpo}), respectively.
156: In this way, the calculations are parameterized in terms of constants, such as
157: $m_2$ and $\Gamma_2$, that can be identified with physical observables to all
158: orders in perturbation theory.
159: In particular, we observe from Eq.~(\ref{eq:mpo}) that the mass counterterm, a
160: basic quantity in the renormalization procedure, is given by
161: $\re A\left(\bar s\right)$, rather than $\re A(M^2)$.
162: We shall refer to this improved formulation, based on Eqs.~(\ref{eq:mpo}) and
163: (\ref{eq:gpo}), as the pole scheme.
164:
165: There is another significant pitfall of Eqs.~(\ref{eq:mos}) and
166: (\ref{eq:gos}), which has gone almost unnoticed so far.
167: At the one-loop order, the production cross sections and total and partial
168: decay widths of the Higgs boson $H$ exhibit singularities proportional to
169: $(2M_V-M)^{-1/2}$ as the Higgs-boson mass $M$ approaches from below the
170: pair-production threshold of a vector boson $V$ with mass $M_V$
171: \cite{fle,bff,bvv,hww,hff,pr}.
172: This problem is of phenomenological interest because the values $2M_W$ and
173: $2M_Z$, corresponding to the $W$- and $Z$-boson thresholds, lie within the $M$
174: range presently favoured by electroweak precision data \cite{ewwg,nh}.
175: On the other hand, there is no such singularity at the pair-production
176: threshold of a fermion $f$ \cite{fle,bff,bvv,hww,hff,pr}.
177: This circumstance may be related, by the use of an appropriate dispersion
178: relation, to the different threshold behaviours of the lowest-order partial
179: widths of the decays $H\to VV$ and $H\to f\bar f$, which are proportional to
180: $(M-2M_V)^{1/2}$ and $(M-2M_f)^{3/2}$, respectively \cite{hww}.
181: In the case of a two-body threshold, this kind of singularity generally occurs
182: if the two particles form an $S$-wave state and the sum of their masses is
183: degenerate with that of the primary particle \cite{bha}.
184: For example, it would also occur in $Z$-boson production and decay if the
185: mass relation $M_Z=2M_t$, where $t$ denotes the top quark, were satisfied
186: \cite{jeg}, since in this case the $t\bar t$ pair can be in an $S$-wave state.
187: By the same token, it would occur for an extra neutral vector boson $Z^\prime$
188: with mass $M_{Z^\prime}=2M_t$.
189: For definiteness, in the following, we focus our attention on the Higgs boson
190: $H$ of the standard model (SM).
191:
192: As explained in Refs.~\cite{hww,hff,pr}, the threshold singularity is an
193: artifact of treating an unstable particle, such as the Higgs boson, as an
194: asymptotic state of the $S$ matrix.
195: Detailed inspection \cite{hww,hff,pr} reveals that it originates from the
196: wave-function renormalization constant in the on-shell scheme,
197: \begin{equation}
198: Z=\frac{1}{1-\re A^\prime(M^2)},
199: \label{eq:zos}
200: \end{equation}
201: which also appears in the definition of $\Gamma$ in Eq.~(\ref{eq:gos}).
202: One way to obtain Eq.~(\ref{eq:zos}) is to consider the Taylor expansion of
203: the inverse propagator $s-M_0^2-A(s)$ about $s=M^2$.
204: This procedure tacitly assumes that $A(s)$ is analytic near $s=M^2$, so that
205: the Taylor expansion can be performed.
206: In most cases, this assumption is valid.
207: However, $A(s)$ possesses a branch point if $s$ is at a threshold.
208: If the threshold is due to a two-particle state with zero orbital angular
209: momentum, then $\re A^\prime(s)$ diverges as $1/\beta$, where $\beta$
210: is the relative velocity common to the two particles, as the threshold is
211: approached from below \cite{bha}.
212: Another case where the non-analyticity of $A(s)$ in the neighbourhood of
213: $s=M^2$ leads to serious problems in the on-shell formalism is the behaviour
214: of the resonant amplitude when the unstable particle is coupled to massless
215: quanta, such as photons and gluons \cite{pas}.
216:
217: The purpose of this paper is to show how the threshold singularities are
218: rigorously removed by adopting the pole scheme.
219: The salient point is that $Z$ is redefined in such a way that the derivative
220: term $\re A^\prime(M^2)$ is replaced by an appropriate ratio of differences,
221: where the increment of the argument is of order mass times width.
222: In this way, the threshold singularities are regularized by the very width of
223: the primary particle.
224: This mechanism was illustrated for a toy model, consisting of a real scalar
225: particle coupled to two stable, complex scalar particles, through a numerical
226: simulation in Ref.~\cite{bha}.
227: Here, we analytically elaborate the underlying formalism in a general,
228: model-independent way and apply it to a case of phenomenological interest,
229: namely the thresholds of the SM Higgs boson at $M=2M_V$, with $V=W,Z$.
230:
231: If the threshold particles are unstable, an alternative way of eliminating
232: the threshold singularities in a physically meaningful way is to incorporate
233: their widths in the one-loop calculation \cite{mel}.
234: Notice that the on-shell and pole formulations are equivalent through the
235: one-loop order, as may be seen, for example, by Taylor expanding
236: Eq.~(\ref{eq:gpo}) about $m_2^2$ \cite{sir,kni}.
237: Furthermore, as will become apparent later on, threshold singularities only
238: appear in connection with physical thresholds.
239: Therefore, this regularization procedure does not spoil the gauge
240: independence of the physical predictions.
241: If the widths of the threshold particles are much larger than the one of the
242: primary particle, then it appears plausible to adopt this method.
243: In general, however, the two regularizing effects, associated with the widths
244: of the primary and threshold particles, should be combined in a unified
245: analysis.
246: We explain how this can be achieved.
247:
248: This paper is organized as follows.
249: In Section~\ref{sec:os}, we present the one-loop expressions for the
250: Higgs-boson self-energy in $R_\xi$ gauge \cite{rxi} and in the
251: pinch-technique (PT) framework \cite{cor,deg}, explicitly exhibit the
252: threshold singularities at $M=2M_V$, and show that the latter are gauge
253: independent.
254: In Section~\ref{sec:pol}, starting from the definition of $\Gamma_2$ in
255: Eq.~(\ref{eq:gpo}), we derive the counterpart of Eq.~(\ref{eq:zos}) in the
256: pole scheme and show that it is devoid of threshold singularities.
257: We also present a simple substitution rule which allows us to translate
258: existing results for Higgs-boson observables from the on-shell scheme to the
259: pole scheme if the threshold particles are stable.
260: In Section~\ref{sec:uns}, we generalize this substitution rule to the general
261: case of unstable threshold particles and discuss in detail the situation when
262: the widths of the latter are much larger than the one of the primary particle.
263: In Section~\ref{sec:dis}, we present a numerical analysis for the
264: $H\to W^+W^-$ partial decay widths of the Higgs boson, based on the results
265: from Ref.~\cite{hww}.
266: In Section~\ref{sec:con}, we summarize our conclusions.
267:
268: \section{On-shell formulation
269: \label{sec:os}}
270:
271: In this section, we pin down the origin of the threshold singularities in
272: Higgs-boson observables at $M=2M_V$ by inspecting the corresponding expression
273: of $Z$ in Eq.~(\ref{eq:zos}).
274: The relevant ingredient is the Higgs-boson self-energy $A(s)$.
275: Since we wish to clarify if the threshold singularities give rise to spurious
276: gauge dependence, we consider the one-loop expressions for $A(s)$ in $R_\xi$
277: gauge \cite{rxi} and in the PT framework \cite{cor,deg}.
278:
279: In $R_\xi$ gauge, we have to consider the Feynman diagrams depicted in
280: Fig.~\ref{fig:one}.
281: They yield
282: \begin{eqnarray}
283: A(s)&=&\frac{G}{\pi}\left\{-\left(\frac{s}{2}+3M_W^2\right)
284: A_0\left(M_W^2\right)
285: +\frac{1}{2}(s-M^2)A_0\left(\xi_WM_W^2\right)\right.
286: \nonumber\\
287: &&{}-\left(\frac{s^2}{4}-sM_W^2+3M_W^4\right)B_0\left(s,M_W^2,M_W^2\right)
288: \nonumber\\
289: &&{}+\frac{1}{4}(s^2-M^4)B_0\left(s,\xi_WM_W^2,\xi_WM_W^2\right)
290: +\frac{1}{2}(W\to Z)
291: \nonumber\\
292: &&{}-\frac{3}{4}M^2A_0(M^2)-\frac{9}{8}M^4B_0(s,M^2,M^2)
293: \nonumber\\
294: &&+\left.\sum_fN_fM_f^2\left[2A_0\left(M_f^2\right)
295: -\left(\frac{s}{2}-2M_f^2\right)B_0\left(s,M_f^2,M_f^2\right)\right]
296: \right\},
297: \label{eq:hxi}
298: \end{eqnarray}
299: where the sum is over fermion flavours $f$, $N_f=1$ (3) for leptons (quarks),
300: $G$ is related to Fermi's constant $G_\mu$ by
301: $G=G_\mu/\left(2\pi\sqrt2\right)$, $\xi_W$ is the gauge parameter associated
302: with the $W$ boson, and the term $(W\to Z)$ signifies the contribution
303: involving the $Z$ boson, which is obtained from the one involving the $W$
304: boson by replacing $M_W$ and $\xi_W$ with $M_Z$ and $\xi_Z$, respectively.
305: In dimensional regularization, the scalar one-loop one- and two-point
306: integrals are defined as
307: \begin{eqnarray}
308: A_0\left(m_0^2\right)&=&-\frac{(2\pi\mu)^{4-D}}{i\pi^2}
309: \int\frac{d^Dq}{q^2-m_0^2+i\varepsilon},
310: \nonumber\\
311: B_0\left(p^2,m_0^2,m_1^2\right)&=&\frac{(2\pi\mu)^{4-D}}{i\pi^2}
312: \int\frac{d^Dq}{\left(q^2-m_0^2+i\varepsilon\right)
313: \left[(q+p)^2-m_1^2+i\varepsilon\right]},
314: \end{eqnarray}
315: where $\mu$ is the 't~Hooft mass scale and $D=4-2\epsilon$ is the space-time
316: dimensionality.
317: Their solutions in the physical limit $D\to4$ may, for example, be found in
318: Ref.~\cite{pr}.
319: The absorptive part of Eq.~(\ref{eq:hxi}) was already presented in
320: Ref.~\cite{kni}.
321: In the 't~Hooft-Feynman gauge, with $\xi_W=\xi_Z=1$, Eq.~(\ref{eq:hxi})
322: agrees with the corresponding result given in Eqs.~(B.2) and (B.3) of
323: Ref.~\cite{hzz}.
324: Notice that $A(s)$ is gauge independent at $s=M^2$.
325: From Eqs.~(\ref{eq:mos}) and (\ref{eq:gos}) it hence follows that the one-loop
326: expression for $M$ and the tree-level one for $\Gamma$ are gauge independent,
327: too, as expected.
328: We note in passing that the gauge independence of $\re A(M^2)$ requires the
329: inclusion of the tadpole contribution in Eq.~(\ref{eq:hxi}).
330:
331: Next, we present the PT expression for $A(s)$.
332: We recall that the PT is a prescription that combines the conventional
333: self-energies with so-called pinch parts from vertex and box diagrams in such
334: a manner that the modified self-energies are gauge independent and exhibit
335: desirable theoretical properties \cite{cor,deg}.
336: We calculate the pinch part $\Delta A(s)$ in $R_\xi$ gauge by means of the
337: $S$-matrix PT framework elaborated in Ref.~\cite{deg}.
338: We choose the elastic scattering of two fermions via a Higgs boson in the $s$
339: channel as the reference process.
340: Our result is independent of this choice \cite{cor,deg}.
341: The relevant Feynman diagrams are depicted in Fig.~\ref{fig:two}.
342: In the formulation of Ref.~\cite{deg}, the corresponding amplitudes reflecting
343: the interactions of the vector bosons with the external fermions are described
344: in terms of matrix elements of Fourier transforms of time-ordered products of
345: current operators.
346: Through successive current contractions with the longitudinal four-momenta
347: found in the propagators and vertices of the massive vector bosons, Ward
348: identities are triggered, after which the relevant pinch contributions are
349: identified with amplitudes involving appropriate equal-time commutators of
350: currents.
351: Setting aside the details, the pinch contribution is found to be
352: \begin{eqnarray}
353: \Delta A(s)&=&\frac{G}{\pi}(s-M^2)
354: \left\{\frac{1}{2}\left[A_0\left(M_W^2\right)-A_0\left(\xi_WM_W^2\right)
355: \right]\right.
356: \nonumber\\
357: &&{}+\left[\frac{1}{4}(s+M^2)+M_W^2\right]B_0\left(s,M_W^2,M_W^2\right)
358: \nonumber\\
359: &&{}-\left.\frac{1}{4}(s+M^2)B_0\left(s,\xi_WM_W^2,\xi_WM_W^2\right)
360: +\frac{1}{2}(W\to Z)\right\}.
361: \label{eq:hpt}
362: \end{eqnarray}
363: The second and third lines of Eq.~(\ref{eq:hpt}) agree with Eq.~(2.21) of
364: Ref.~\cite{pap}, where the seagull and tadpole diagrams were omitted because
365: they were not needed for the purpose of that paper.
366: As expected, the PT self-energy of the Higgs boson,
367: \begin{equation}
368: a(s)=A(s)+\Delta A(s),
369: \label{eq:hpi}
370: \end{equation}
371: is independent of $\xi_W$ and $\xi_Z$ for all values of $s$.
372: Furthermore, $\Delta A(s)$ vanishes at $s=M^2$, so that the one-loop
373: expression for $M$ and the tree-level one for $\Gamma$ are not affected by the
374: application of the PT.
375:
376: The one-loop radiative corrections to physical observables characterizing the
377: production or decay of a real Higgs boson involve its wave-function
378: renormalization constant $Z$.
379: The on-shell definition of the latter, given in Eq.~(\ref{eq:zos}), contains
380: the term $\re A^\prime(M^2)$, which is the source of the threshold
381: singularities at $M=2M_V$.
382: To see that, let us consider the expression
383: \begin{equation}
384: \left.\frac{\partial}{\partial s}B_0\left(s,M_V^2,M_V^2\right)
385: \right|_{s=M^2}=\left\{
386: \begin{array}{ll}
387: -\frac{\displaystyle 1}{\displaystyle M^2}
388: \left(1+\frac{\displaystyle {\cal A}}{\displaystyle \sqrt{1-{\cal A}}}
389: \arsinh\sqrt{-\frac{\displaystyle 1}{\displaystyle {\cal A}}}\right),
390: & \quad {\cal A}<0, \\
391: & \\
392: -\frac{\displaystyle 1}{\displaystyle M^2}
393: \left[1+\frac{\displaystyle {\cal A}}{\displaystyle \sqrt{1-{\cal A}}}
394: \left(\arcosh\sqrt{\frac{\displaystyle 1}{\displaystyle {\cal A}}}
395: -i\frac{\displaystyle \pi}{\displaystyle 2}\right)\right],
396: & \quad 0<{\cal A}<1, \\
397: & \\
398: -\frac{\displaystyle 1}{\displaystyle M^2}
399: \left(1-\frac{\displaystyle {\cal A}}{\displaystyle \sqrt{{\cal A}-1}}
400: \arcsin\sqrt{\frac{\displaystyle 1}{\displaystyle {\cal A}}}\right),
401: & \quad {\cal A}>1,
402: \end{array}\right.
403: \label{eq:bp1}
404: \end{equation}
405: where ${\cal A}=4M_V^2/M^2$,\footnote{In Eq.~(\ref{eq:bp1}), we also consider
406: the case ${\cal A}<0$, which provides a convenient starting point for the
407: analytic continuation to be performed in Section~\ref{sec:uns}.}
408: which appears in $A^\prime(M^2)$ with the prefactor
409: $-(G/\pi)\left(M^4/4\right.$\break $\left.-M^2M_V^2+3M_V^4\right)$.
410: Equation~(\ref{eq:bp1}) follows from \cite{pr}
411: \begin{equation}
412: B_0\left(s,M_V^2,M_V^2\right)=\frac{1}{\epsilon}-\gamma_E+\ln
413: \frac{4\pi\mu^2}{M_V^2}+2-2\sqrt{1-\frac{4\left(M_V^2-i\varepsilon\right)}{s}}
414: \arsinh\sqrt{-\frac{s}{4\left(M_V^2-i\varepsilon\right)}}+O(\epsilon),
415: \end{equation}
416: where $\gamma_E$ is Euler's constant.
417: As $M$ approaches $2M_V$ from below, Eq.~(\ref{eq:bp1}) develops a real
418: singularity proportional to $(2M_V-M)^{-1/2}$.
419: In a one-loop calculation, one expands $Z$ as $Z=1+\re A^\prime(M^2)+O(g^4)$,
420: which then exhibits the same threshold singularity.
421: As $M$ surpasses $2M_V$, this threshold singularity is shifted from the real
422: part to the imaginary one and, therefore, it does not affect $Z$.
423: Since the prefactors of $B_0\left(s,\xi_VM_V^2,\xi_VM_V^2\right)$ in
424: Eq.~(\ref{eq:hxi}) vanish at $s=M^2$, there are no threshold singularities at
425: the unphysical thresholds $M=2\sqrt{\xi_V}M_V$ in $R_\xi$ gauge.
426: On the other hand, in the PT framework, there are no gauge-dependent
427: thresholds, and Eq.~(\ref{eq:bp1}) appears in $a^\prime(M^2)$ with the same
428: prefactor as in $A^\prime(M^2)$.
429: In conclusion, the threshold singularities are gauge independent and only
430: affect physical thresholds.
431:
432: \section{Pole formulation
433: \label{sec:pol}}
434:
435: We now explain how the threshold singularities are avoided in the pole
436: scheme.
437: Throughout this section, we assume that the threshold particles are stable.
438: The general case of unstable threshold particles will be discussed in
439: Section~\ref{sec:uns}.
440: As is well known \cite{sir,kni}, the on-shell and pole definitions of mass and
441: widths, given in Eqs.~(\ref{eq:mos}), (\ref{eq:gos}), (\ref{eq:mpo}), and
442: (\ref{eq:gpo}), are equivalent through next-to-leading order, i.e.\ through
443: $O(g^2)$ and $O(g^4)$, respectively.
444: In particular, this implies that the perturbative expansion of $m_2\Gamma_2$
445: through $O(g^4)$ resembles the one of $M\Gamma$,
446: \begin{equation}
447: M\Gamma=-\im A^{(1)}(M^2)\left[1+\re A^{(1)\prime}(M^2)\right]
448: -\im A^{(2)}(M^2)+O(g^6),
449: \label{eq:os1}
450: \end{equation}
451: where the superscripts refer to the number of quantum loops, and thus also
452: suffers from threshold singularities.
453: In fact, Taylor expanding the right-hand side of Eq.~(\ref{eq:gpo}) about
454: $m_2$ and retaining only terms through $O(g^4)$, we obtain
455: \begin{eqnarray}
456: m_2\Gamma_2&=&-\im A^{(1)}\left(m_2^2\right)
457: +m_2\Gamma_2\re A^{(1)\prime}\left(m_2^2\right)
458: -\im A^{(2)}\left(m_2^2\right)+O(g^6)
459: \nonumber\\
460: &=&-\im A^{(1)}\left(m_2^2\right)\left[1+\re A^{(1)\prime}\left(m_2^2\right)
461: \right]-\im A^{(2)}\left(m_2^2\right)+O(g^6),
462: \label{eq:po1}
463: \end{eqnarray}
464: which is equivalent to Eq.~(\ref{eq:os1}) through $O(g^4)$ and thus also prone
465: to threshold singularities.
466: In order to avoid the latter, we have to undo the Taylor expansion in
467: Eq.~(\ref{eq:po1}), i.e.\ we have to substitute
468: \begin{eqnarray}
469: \re A^{(1)\prime}\left(m_2^2\right)&=&
470: \frac{\im A^{(1)}\left(m_2^2\right)-\im A^{(1)}\left(\bar s\right)}
471: {m_2\Gamma_2}
472: +O(g^4)
473: \nonumber\\
474: &=&-1
475: -\frac{\im A^{(1)}\left(m_2^2-im_2\Gamma_2^{(0)}\right)}{m_2\Gamma_2^{(0)}}
476: +O(g^4),
477: \label{eq:sub}
478: \end{eqnarray}
479: where, consistent with our approximation, we have replaced $\Gamma_2$ with the
480: tree-level width $\Gamma_2^{(0)}=-\im A^{(1)}\left(m_2^2\right)/m_2$.
481: By the same token, the substitution rule of Eq.~(\ref{eq:sub}) allows us to
482: eliminate, in the spirit of the pole scheme, the threshold singularities
483: which have been encountered in the on-shell scheme
484: \cite{fle,bff,bvv,hww,hff,pr,jeg}.
485: To that end, we abandon Eq.~(\ref{eq:bp1}) and instead substitute
486: \begin{equation}
487: \left.\re\frac{\partial}{\partial s}B_0\left(s,m_{2,V}^2,m_{2,V}^2\right)
488: \right|_{s=m_2^2}=\frac{\im B_0\left(m_2^2,m_{2,V}^2,m_{2,V}^2\right)
489: -\im B_0\left(\bar s,m_{2,V}^2,m_{2,V}^2\right)}{m_2\Gamma_2}+O(g^2),
490: \label{eq:bp2}
491: \end{equation}
492: where $m_{2,V}$ is the pole mass of the threshold particles, together with
493: \begin{eqnarray}
494: \im B_0\left(m_2^2,m_{2,V}^2,m_{2,V}^2\right)&=&\pi\sqrt{1-a}\theta(1-a),
495: \label{eq:im1}\\
496: \im B_0\left(\bar s,m_{2,V}^2,m_{2,V}^2\right)&=&
497: f(a,\gamma)+2\pi\sqrt{1-a}\theta(1-a)\theta(\gamma),
498: \label{eq:im2}
499: \end{eqnarray}
500: where $a=4m_{2,V}^2/m_2^2$ and $\gamma=\Gamma_2/m_2$.
501: Here, we have used the auxiliary function
502: \begin{eqnarray}
503: f(a,\gamma)&\equiv&-2\im\left(\sqrt{1-\bar a}
504: \arsinh\sqrt{-\frac{1}{\bar a}}\right)
505: \nonumber\\
506: &=&\sign(\gamma)
507: \frac{\sqrt2}{b}\left\{\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{b(c-b)+a}\right.
508: \nonumber\\
509: &&{}\times\ln\left[\frac{1}{a}\left(b+c+\sqrt{(b-1)(c+a-1)}
510: +\sqrt{(b+1)(c-a+1)}\right)\right]
511: \nonumber\\
512: &&{}-\left.\sqrt{b(c+b)-a}
513: \arctan\frac{\sqrt{b+1}+\sqrt{c-a+1}}{\sqrt{b-1}+\sqrt{c+a-1}}\right\},
514: \label{eq:f}
515: \end{eqnarray}
516: where $\bar a=4m_{2,V}^2/\bar s$, $b=\sqrt{1+\gamma^2}$,
517: $c=\sqrt{(a-1)^2+\gamma^2}$, and $\sign(x)=\theta(x)-\theta(-x)$.
518: The term proportional to $\theta(1-a)$ in Eq.~(\ref{eq:im2}) guarantees that
519: Eqs.~(\ref{eq:im1}) and (\ref{eq:im2}) refer to the same Riemann sheet, so
520: that their difference appearing in Eq.~(\ref{eq:bp2}) vanishes in the limit
521: $\Gamma_2\to0$ and the derivative expression on the left-hand side of that
522: equation is recovered if $m_2\ne2m_{2,V}$.
523: The factors $\theta(\gamma)$ and $\sign(\gamma)$ in Eqs.~(\ref{eq:im2}) and
524: (\ref{eq:f}), respectively, make sure that the case $\gamma<0$ is covered,
525: too, a generalization that will be useful in Section~\ref{sec:uns}.
526: At threshold, where $m_2=2m_{2,V}$, Eq.~(\ref{eq:bp2}) leads to
527: \begin{equation}
528: \left.\re\frac{\partial}{\partial s}B_0\left(s,m_{2,V}^2,m_{2,V}^2\right)
529: \right|_{s=m_2^2}
530: =\frac{1}{m_2^2}\left[\frac{\pi}{\sqrt{2\gamma}}\left(1+\frac{\gamma}{2}
531: \right)-2+O\left(\gamma^{3/2}\right)\right]+O(g^2),
532: \end{equation}
533: i.e.\ the threshold singularity of the on-shell scheme is automatically
534: regularized in the pole scheme by the width $\Gamma_2$ of the primary
535: particle.
536:
537: Finally, we explain how Eq.~(\ref{eq:sub}) is generalized to higher orders.
538: For that purpose, we rewrite Eq.~(\ref{eq:gpo}) as
539: \begin{equation}
540: m_2\Gamma_2=-\frac{\im A\left(m_2^2\right)}
541: {1-\left[\im A\left(m_2^2\right)-\im A\left(\bar s\right)\right]/
542: (m_2\Gamma_2)}.
543: \label{eq:ide}
544: \end{equation}
545: Solving Eq.~(\ref{eq:ide}) for $m_2\Gamma_2$, we recover Eq.~(\ref{eq:gpo}),
546: so that the two expressions are equivalent.
547: The usefulness of Eq.~(\ref{eq:ide}) may be appreciated by observing that, in
548: order to calculate $\Gamma_2$ to $O(g^{2n+2})$, we only need to insert the
549: $O(g^{2n})$ expression for $\Gamma_2$ on the right-hand side of that equation.
550: Comparing Eq.~(\ref{eq:ide}) with Eq.~(\ref{eq:gos}), we see that
551: \begin{equation}
552: Z_2=\frac{1}
553: {1-\left[\im A\left(m_2^2\right)-\im A\left(\bar s\right)\right]/
554: (m_2\Gamma_2)}
555: \label{eq:zpo}
556: \end{equation}
557: plays the r\^ole of the wave-function renormalization constant for unstable
558: particles in the pole scheme.
559: This is to be compared with its counterpart in the on-shell scheme, given in
560: Eq.~(\ref{eq:zos}).
561:
562: \section{Unstable threshold particles
563: \label{sec:uns}}
564:
565: So far, we have assumed the threshold particles to be stable.
566: We now allow for them to have a finite pole width $\Gamma_{2,V}$.
567: This can be achieved by replacing in the loop amplitude $A(m_2^2)$ the square
568: of their mass $m_{2,V}^2$ by the complex position
569: $\bar s_V=m_{2,V}^2-im_{2,V}\Gamma_{2,V}$ of the pole of their propagator.
570: In this way, the substitution rule given in Eq.~(\ref{eq:bp2}) becomes
571: \begin{equation}
572: \left.\re\frac{\partial}{\partial s}B_0\left(s,\bar s_V,\bar s_V\right)
573: \right|_{s=m_2^2}=\frac{\im B_0\left(m_2^2,\bar s_V,\bar s_V\right)
574: -\im B_0\left(\bar s,\bar s_V,\bar s_V\right)}{m_2\Gamma_2}+O(g^2).
575: \label{eq:bp3}
576: \end{equation}
577: The expression for $\im B_0\left(\bar s,\bar s_V,\bar s_V\right)$ has a
578: structure analogous to Eq.~(\ref{eq:im2}).
579: Comparing
580: $4\bar s_V/\bar s=\left[a\left(1+\gamma_V^2\right)/(1+\gamma\gamma_V)\right]/
581: \left[1-i(\gamma-\gamma_V)/(1+\gamma\gamma_V)\right]$, where
582: $\gamma_V=\Gamma_{2,V}/m_{2,V}$, with $\bar a=a/(1-i\gamma)$, we see that in
583: Eq.~(\ref{eq:f}) $a$ and $\gamma$ are to be replaced by
584: $a\left(1+\gamma_V^2\right)/(1+\gamma\gamma_V)$ and
585: $(\gamma-\gamma_V)/(1+\gamma\gamma_V)$, respectively.
586: This leads to
587: \begin{equation}
588: \im B_0\left(\bar s,\bar s_V,\bar s_V\right)
589: =f\left(a\frac{1+\gamma_V^2}{1+\gamma\gamma_V},
590: \frac{\gamma-\gamma_V}{1+\gamma\gamma_V}\right)
591: +2\pi\sqrt{1-a}\theta(1-a)\theta(\gamma-\gamma_V).
592: \label{eq:im3}
593: \end{equation}
594: Setting $\gamma=0$ in Eq.~(\ref{eq:im3}), we obtain
595: \begin{equation}
596: \im B_0\left(m_2^2,\bar s_V,\bar s_V\right)
597: =f\left(a\right(1+\gamma_V^2\left),-\gamma_V\right).
598: \label{eq:im4}
599: \end{equation}
600: The second term on the right-hand side of Eq.~(\ref{eq:im3}) ensures that
601: Eqs.~(\ref{eq:im3}) and (\ref{eq:im4}) refer to the same Riemann sheet, so
602: that Eq.~(\ref{eq:bp3}) reduces to Eq.~(\ref{eq:bp2}) in the limit
603: $\Gamma_{2,V}\to0$.
604:
605: In a situation when the threshold particles are much more unstable than the
606: primary particle, i.e.\ if $\Gamma_2/m_2\ll\Gamma_{2,V}/m_{2,V}$, we may take
607: the limit $\Gamma_2\to0$ on the right-hand side of Eq.~(\ref{eq:bp3}) and thus
608: effectively return to the derivative expression on the left-hand side of that
609: equation, which reads
610: \begin{eqnarray}
611: \left.\re\frac{\partial}{\partial s}B_0\left(s,\bar s_V,\bar s_V\right)
612: \right|_{s=m_2^2}&=&-\frac{1}{m_2^2}\re\left(1+
613: \frac{\bar a_V}{\sqrt{1-\bar a_V}}\arsinh\sqrt{-\frac{1}{\bar a_V}}\right)
614: \nonumber\\
615: &=&-\frac{1}{m_2^2}\left\{1+\frac{a}{\sqrt2c_V}\left\{\frac{1}{2}
616: \left(\sqrt{c_V-a+1}-\gamma_V\sqrt{c_V+a-1}\right)\right.\right.
617: \nonumber\\
618: &&{}\times
619: \ln\left[\frac{1}{ab_V^2}\left(b_V+b_Vc_V
620: +\sqrt{(b_V-1)\left(b_Vc_V+ab_V^2-1\right)}\right.\right.
621: \nonumber\\
622: &&{}+\left.\left.\sqrt{(b_V+1)\left(b_Vc_V-ab_V^2+1\right)}\right)\right]
623: \nonumber\\
624: &&{}-\left(\sqrt{c_V+a-1}+\gamma_V\sqrt{c_V-a+1}\right)
625: \nonumber\\
626: &&{}\times\left.\left.
627: \arctan\frac{\sqrt{b_V+1}+\sqrt{b_Vc_V-ab_V^2+1}}
628: {\sqrt{b_V-1}+\sqrt{b_Vc_V+ab_V^2-1}}\right\}\right\},
629: \label{eq:bp4}
630: \end{eqnarray}
631: where $\bar a_V=4\bar s_V/m_2^2$, $b_V=\sqrt{1+\gamma_V^2}$, and
632: $c_V=\sqrt{(a-1)^2+a^2\gamma_V^2}$.
633: At threshold, we have
634: \begin{equation}
635: \left.\re\frac{\partial}{\partial s}B_0\left(s,\bar s_V,\bar s_V\right)
636: \right|_{s=m_2^2}
637: =\frac{1}{m_2^2}\left[\frac{\pi}{2\sqrt{2\gamma_V}}(1+\gamma_V)-2
638: +O\left(\gamma_V^2\right)\right]+O(g^2),
639: \end{equation}
640: i.e.\ the threshold singularity is now entirely regularized by the width
641: $\Gamma_{2,V}$ of the threshold particles.
642:
643: \section{Discussion
644: \label{sec:dis}}
645:
646: We are now in a position to investigate the phenomenological implications of
647: our results.
648: The SM Higgs boson with mass $m_2$ in the vicinity of $2m_{2,Z}$ dominantly
649: decays to a pair of $W$ bosons, with a branching fraction of about 90\%
650: \cite{pr}.
651: Therefore, we choose the partial width of this decay as an example to
652: illustrate the threshold singularity and its removal.
653:
654: The complete one-loop radiative correction to this observable was obtained
655: within the on-shell scheme in Refs.~\cite{fle,bvv,hww}.
656: Its structure is exhibited in Eq.~(\ref{eq:os1}) if we include in
657: $\im A^{(1)}(M^2)$ and $\im A^{(2)}(M^2)$ only intermediate states containing
658: a $W^+W^-$ pair.
659: Specifically, $-\im A^{(1)}(M^2)$ represents the tree-level result, written
660: with $G_\mu$, $Z=1+\re A^{(1)\prime}(M^2)$ is the Higgs-boson wave-function
661: renormalization constant of Eq.~(\ref{eq:zos}), and $-\im A^{(2)}(M^2)$
662: comprises the proper $HW^+W^-$ vertex correction, the $HW^+W^-$ coupling and
663: $W$-boson wave-function renormalization constants, and the real-photon
664: bremsstrahlung correction.
665: As we have seen in Section~\ref{sec:os}, the Taylor expansion of
666: Eq.~(\ref{eq:gpo}), given in Eq.~(\ref{eq:po1}), is equivalent to
667: Eq.~(\ref{eq:os1}).
668: In the following, we work in the pole scheme, on the basis of
669: Eq.~(\ref{eq:po1}).
670: All the ingredients of Eq.~(\ref{eq:po1}) may be found, in analytic form, in
671: Ref.~\cite{hww}.
672:
673: As explained in the context of Eq.~(\ref{eq:bp1}), the threshold singularities
674: arise from the term
675: $\left.\re\partial B_0\left(s,m_{2,V}^2,m_{2,V}^2\right)/\partial s
676: \right|_{s=m_2^2}$, which is contained in
677: $\re A^{(1)\prime}\left(m_2^2\right)$.
678: If the threshold particles are stable, these threshold singularities are
679: regularized by $\Gamma_2$ according to the substitution rule of
680: Eq.~(\ref{eq:bp2}).
681: In the case of unstable threshold particles, this substitution rule is
682: generalized by including $\Gamma_{2,V}$ as described in Eq.~(\ref{eq:bp3}).
683: In the limiting case $\Gamma_2/m_2\ll\Gamma_{2,V}/m_{2,V}$, we recover the
684: derivative expression of Eq.~(\ref{eq:bp4}), in which the threshold
685: singularity is regularized by $\Gamma_{2,V}$.
686: In the case under consideration, we have $V=Z$ and
687: $(\Gamma_2/m_2):(\Gamma_{2,V}/m_{2,V})\approx1:7$, so that the second method
688: of regularization, which incorporates both $\Gamma_2$ and $\Gamma_{2,V}$,
689: should be most appropriate, while the third one, which is solely based on
690: $\Gamma_{2,V}$, should provide a good approximation.
691: On the other hand, the first scheme, which only includes $\Gamma_2$, should be
692: unrealistic in this particular case.
693:
694: In our numerical analysis, we use $m_{2,W}=80.391$~GeV, $m_{2,Z}=91.153$~GeV,
695: and $\Gamma_{2,Z}=2.493$~GeV \cite{ewwg}, and adopt the residual input
696: parameters from Ref.~\cite{pdg}.
697: We remind the reader that $m_2^2=m_1^2/\left(1+\Gamma_1^2/m_1^2\right)$ and
698: $\Gamma_2^2=\Gamma_1^2/\left(1+\Gamma_1^2/m_1^2\right)$, where $m_1$ and
699: $\Gamma_1$ can be identified with the measured values \cite{sir}.
700: We evaluate the Higgs-boson total decay width $\Gamma_2$, which enters
701: Eqs.~(\ref{eq:bp2}) and (\ref{eq:bp3}), in the Born approximation.
702: In Fig.~\ref{fig:three}, we show the $H\to W^+W^-$ partial decay width at one
703: loop in the pole scheme as a function of $m_2$ in the vicinity of the
704: threshold at $m_2=2m_{2,Z}$.
705: The evaluation from the Taylor-expanded expression given in
706: Eq.~(\ref{eq:po1}) on the basis of Eq.~(\ref{eq:bp1}) (dotted line), which
707: exhibits a threshold singularity, is compared with the one where this
708: threshold singularity is jointly regularized by $\Gamma_2$ and $\Gamma_{2,Z}$
709: according to the substitution rule of Eq.~(\ref{eq:bp3}) (solid line).
710: For comparison, we also display the tree-level result (dashed line).
711: We observe that the regularized result smoothly interpolates across the
712: threshold region and merges with the unregularized result sufficiently far
713: away from the threshold.
714: Below (above) threshold, the regularization leads to an increase (decrease) of
715: the result relative to the unregularized case.
716: In the threshold region, the regularized correction increases the Born result
717: by about 7\%.
718: In Fig.~\ref{fig:four}, we compare the regularized result shown in
719: Fig.~\ref{fig:three} (solid line) with the results based on the
720: regularizations by $\Gamma_2$ according to Eq.~(\ref{eq:bp2}) (dashed line)
721: and by $\Gamma_{2,Z}$ according to Eq.~(\ref{eq:bp4}) (dot-dashed line).
722: For reference, we also show the unregularized result (dotted line).
723: Comparing the dashed and solid lines, we observe that $\Gamma_{2,Z}$ plays a
724: crucial r\^ole in the regularization of the threshold singularity, as
725: anticipated above.
726: On the other hand, we infer from the closeness of the dot-dashed and solid
727: lines that the relative importance of $\Gamma_2$ in the combined
728: regularization approach is minor, due to the smallness of $\Gamma_2/m_2$ as
729: compared to $\Gamma_{2,V}/m_{2,V}$.
730:
731: \section{Conclusions
732: \label{sec:con}}
733:
734: As explained in the text, the threshold singularity, associated with the
735: conventional on-shell wave-function renormalization constant, affects the
736: production and decay rates of the unstable particle whenever its mass is
737: degenerate with the sum of masses of an interacting pair of virtual particles
738: that form an $S$-wave state.
739: It is important to realize that, since the wave-function renormalization
740: constant is a universal prefactor in all decay and production amplitudes, the
741: associated singularity affects all production and decay processes of the
742: unstable particle.
743:
744: For definiteness, we focussed our analysis on a case of phenomenological
745: interest, namely the $H\to W^+W^-$ decay of the SM Higgs boson when its mass
746: $M$ is very close to $2M_Z$.
747: By examining the one-loop Higgs-boson self-energy in $R_\xi$ gauge, we showed
748: that the threshold singularity is gauge independent and, for that reason, also
749: affects the conventional wave-function renormalization constant in the PT
750: framework.
751: We then demonstrated how the one-loop threshold singularity is removed in the
752: pole formulation.
753: In particular, the conventional on shell wave-function renormalization
754: constant given in Eq.~(\ref{eq:zos}) is replaced by Eq.~(\ref{eq:zpo}), which
755: plays the r\^ole of the wave-function renormalization for the unstable
756: particle in the pole scheme.
757: When the virtual particles in the mass-degenerate pair are themselves
758: unstable, their widths can also be used to tame the threshold singularity.
759: We then showed how the two regularizing effects, associated with the widths of
760: the primary and threshold particles, can be combined in a unified analysis.
761: The various effects are illustrated for the $H\to W^+W^-$ decay width in
762: Figs.~\ref{fig:three} and \ref{fig:four}.
763: As a byproduct, we presented in Eqs.~(\ref{eq:hxi}) and (\ref{eq:hpi}) the
764: complete Higgs-boson self-energies at one loop in $R_\xi$ gauge and in the
765: PT framework, respectively.
766:
767: \vspace{1cm}
768: \begin{center}
769: {\bf Acknowledgements}
770: \end{center}
771: \smallskip
772:
773: B.A.K. thanks Oleg Yakovlev for fruitful discussions concerning
774: Ref.~\cite{mel}.
775: A.S. is grateful to the Theory Group of the 2$^{\rm nd}$ Institute for
776: Theoretical Physics for the hospitality extended to him during a visit when
777: this manuscript was prepared.
778: The work of B.A.K. was supported in part by the Deutsche
779: Forschungsgemeinschaft through Grant No.\ KN~365/1-1, by the
780: Bundesministerium f\"ur Bildung und Forschung through Grant No.\ 05~HT9GUA~3,
781: and by the European Commission through the Research Training Network
782: {\it Quantum Chromodynamics and the Deep Structure of Elementary Particles}
783: under Contract No.\ ERBFMRX-CT98-0194.
784: The work of C.P.P. was supported by the German Academic Exchange Service
785: (DAAD) through Grant No.\ A/97/00746.
786: The work of A.S. was supported in part by the Alexander von Humboldt
787: Foundation through Research Award No.\ IV~USA~1051120~USS, and by the
788: National Science Foundation through Grant No.\ PHY-9722083.
789:
790: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
791:
792: \bibitem{sir}
793: A. Sirlin,
794: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ 67 (1991) 2127;
795: Phys.\ Lett.\ B 267 (1991) 240.
796:
797: \bibitem{wil}
798: S. Willenbrock, G. Valencia,
799: Phys.\ Lett.\ B 259 (1991) 373;
800: R.G. Stuart,
801: Phys.\ Lett.\ B 262 (1991) 113;
802: Phys.\ Lett.\ B 272 (1991) 353;
803: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ 70 (1993) 3193;
804: H. Veltman,
805: Z. Phys.\ C 62 (1994) 35;
806: M. Passera, A. Sirlin,
807: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ 77 (1996) 4146;
808: P. Gambino, P.A. Grassi,
809: Phys.\ Rev.\ D 62 (2000) 076002.
810:
811: \bibitem{kni}
812: B.A. Kniehl, A. Sirlin,
813: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ 81 (1998) 1373;
814: Phys.\ Lett.\ B 440 (1998) 136.
815:
816: \bibitem{pei}
817: R.E. Peierls,
818: in {\it The Proceedings of the 1954 Glasgow Conference on Nuclear and Meson
819: Physics}, edited by E.H. Bellamy and R.G. Moorhouse (Pergamon Press, London
820: and New York, 1955), p.~296;
821: M. L\'evy,
822: Nuovo Cimento XIII (1959) 115;
823: R.J. Eden, P.V. Landshoff, D.I. Olive, J.C. Polkinghorne,
824: {\it The Analytic S-Matrix} (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England,
825: 1966), p.~247.
826:
827: \bibitem{con}
828: M. Consoli, A. Sirlin,
829: in {\it Physics at LEP}, CERN Yellow Report No.\ 86-02 (February 1986),
830: Vol.\ 1, p.\ 63.
831:
832: \bibitem{boh}
833: A.R. Bohm, N.L. Harshman,
834: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B 581 (2000) 91.
835:
836: \bibitem{lei}
837: A. Leike, T. Riemann, J. Rose,
838: Phys.\ Lett.\ B 273 (1991) 513;
839: T. Riemann,
840: Phys.\ Lett.\ B 293 (1992) 451.
841:
842: \bibitem{oms}
843: A. Sirlin,
844: Phys.\ Rev.\ D 22 (1980) 971;
845: S. Sakakibara,
846: Phys.\ Rev.\ D 24 (1981) 1149;
847: K-I. Aoki, Z. Hioki, R. Kawabe, M. Konuma, T. Muta,
848: Prog.\ Theor.\ Phys.\ Suppl.\ 73 (1982) 1;
849: M. B\"ohm, H. Spiesberger, W. Hollik,
850: Fortschr.\ Phys.\ 34 (1986) 687;
851: W.F.L. Hollik,
852: Fortschr.\ Phys.\ 38 (1990) 165;
853: A. Denner,
854: Fortschr.\ Phys.\ 41 (1993) 307.
855:
856: \bibitem{fle}
857: J. Fleischer, F. Jegerlehner,
858: Phys.\ Rev.\ D 23 (1981) 2001.
859:
860: \bibitem{kra}
861: E. Kraus,
862: Ann.\ Phys.\ (N.Y.) 262 (1998) 155;
863: P.A. Grassi,
864: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B 560 (1999) 499.
865:
866: \bibitem{bff}
867: D.Yu.\ Bardin, B.M. Vilenski\u\i, P.Kh.\ Khristova,
868: Sov.\ J. Nucl.\ Phys.\ 53 (1991) 152 [Yad.\ Fiz.\ 53 (1991) 240].
869:
870: \bibitem{bvv}
871: D.Yu.\ Bardin, B.M. Vilenski\u\i, P.Kh.\ Khristova,
872: Sov.\ J. Nucl.\ Phys.\ 54 (1991) 833 [Yad.\ Fiz.\ 54 (1991) 1366].
873:
874: \bibitem{hww}
875: B.A. Kniehl,
876: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B 357 (1991) 439.
877:
878: \bibitem{hff}
879: B.A. Kniehl,
880: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B 376 (1992) 3;
881: Z. Phys.\ C 55 (1992) 605.
882:
883: \bibitem{pr}
884: B.A. Kniehl,
885: Phys.\ Rep.\ 240 (1994) 211.
886:
887: \bibitem{ewwg}
888: The LEP Collaborations ALEPH, DELPHI, L3, OPAL, the LEP Electroweak Working
889: Group and the SLD Heavy Flavour and Electroweak Groups, D. Abbaneo et al.,
890: Report No.\ CERN-EP-2000-016, January 2000
891: (URL: http://lepewwg.web.cern.ch/LEPEWWG/).
892:
893: \bibitem{nh}
894: B.A. Kniehl, A. Sirlin,
895: Eur.\ Phys.\ J. C 16 (2000) 635.
896:
897: \bibitem{bha}
898: T. Bhattacharya, S. Willenbrock,
899: Phys.\ Rev.\ D 47 (1993) 4022.
900:
901: \bibitem{jeg}
902: J. Fleischer, F. Jegerlehner,
903: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B 216 (1983) 469.
904:
905: \bibitem{pas}
906: M. Passera, A. Sirlin,
907: Phys.\ Rev.\ D 58 (1998) 113010.
908:
909: \bibitem{mel}
910: K. Melnikov, M. Spira, O. Yakovlev,
911: Z. Phys.\ C 64 (1994) 401.
912:
913: \bibitem{rxi}
914: K. Fujikawa, B.W. Lee, A.I. Sanda,
915: Phys.\ Rev.\ D 6 (1972) 2923.
916:
917: \bibitem{cor}
918: J.M. Cornwall,
919: in {\it The 1981 French-American Seminar ``Theoretical Aspects of Quantum
920: Chromodynamics''}, Marseille, France, 1981, edited by J.W. Dash,
921: Report No.\ CPT-81/P.1345, p.~95;
922: Phys.\ Rev.\ D 26 (1982) 1453;
923: J.M. Cornwall, J. Papavassiliou,
924: Phys.\ Rev.\ D 40 (1989) 3474;
925: J. Papavassiliou,
926: Phys.\ Rev.\ D 41 (1990) 3179.
927:
928: \bibitem{deg}
929: G. Degrassi, A. Sirlin,
930: Phys.\ Rev.\ D 46 (1992) 3104.
931:
932: \bibitem{hzz}
933: B.A. Kniehl,
934: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B 352 (1991) 1.
935:
936: \bibitem{pap}
937: J. Papavassiliou, A. Pilaftsis,
938: Phys.\ Rev.\ D 58 (1998) 053002.
939:
940: \bibitem{pdg}
941: Particle Data Group, D.E. Groom et al.,
942: Eur.\ Phys.\ J. C 15 (2000) 1.
943:
944: \end{thebibliography}
945:
946: \newpage
947: \begin{figure}[ht]
948: \begin{center}
949: \centerline{\epsfig{figure=fig1.ps,width=16cm,bbllx=131pt,bblly=372pt,%
950: bburx=466pt,bbury=735pt,clip=}}
951: \caption{Feynman diagrams pertinent to the conventional self-energy of the SM
952: Higgs boson in $R_\xi$ gauge.}
953: \label{fig:one}
954: \end{center}
955: \end{figure}
956:
957: \newpage
958: \begin{figure}[ht]
959: \begin{center}
960: \centerline{\epsfig{figure=fig2.ps,width=16cm,bbllx=158pt,bblly=351pt,%
961: bburx=478pt,bbury=742pt,clip=}}
962: \caption{Feynman diagrams pertinent to the pinch parts of the self-energy of
963: the SM Higgs boson in $R_\xi$ gauge.}
964: \label{fig:two}
965: \end{center}
966: \end{figure}
967:
968: \newpage
969: \begin{figure}[ht]
970: \begin{center}
971: \centerline{\epsfig{figure=fig3.ps,width=16cm}}
972: \caption{$H\to W^+W^-$ partial decay width at one loop in the pole scheme as a
973: function of the Higgs-boson pole mass $m_2$ in the vicinity of the threshold
974: at $m_2=2m_{2,Z}$.
975: The evaluation from the Taylor-expanded expression given in
976: Eq.~(\ref{eq:po1}) on the basis of Eq.~(\ref{eq:bp1}) (dotted line), which
977: exhibits a threshold singularity, is compared with the one where this
978: threshold singularity is jointly regularized by $\Gamma_2$ and $\Gamma_{2,Z}$
979: according to the substitution rule of Eq.~(\ref{eq:bp3}) (solid line).
980: For comparison, also the tree-level result is shown (dashed line).}
981: \label{fig:three}
982: \end{center}
983: \end{figure}
984:
985: \newpage
986: \begin{figure}[ht]
987: \begin{center}
988: \centerline{\epsfig{figure=fig4.ps,width=16cm}}
989: \caption{$H\to W^+W^-$ partial decay width at one loop in the pole scheme as a
990: function of the Higgs-boson pole mass $m_2$ in the vicinity of the threshold
991: at $m_2=2m_{2,Z}$.
992: The threshold singularity is (a) not regularized (dotted line) or regularized
993: (b) by $\Gamma_2$ according to Eq.~(\ref{eq:bp2}) (dashed line), (c) by
994: $\Gamma_{2,Z}$ according to Eq.~(\ref{eq:bp4}) (dot-dashed line), or (d) by
995: $\Gamma_2$ and $\Gamma_{2,Z}$ according to Eq.~(\ref{eq:bp3}) (solid line).}
996: \label{fig:four}
997: \end{center}
998: \end{figure}
999:
1000: \end{document}
1001: