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{\alt}{\,\rlap{\lower4.5pt\hbox{$\mathchar\sim$}}\raise2.5pt
13: \hbox{$<$}\,}
14: \newcommand{\re}{\mathop{\mbox{Re}}\nolimits}
15: \newcommand{\im}{\mathop{\mbox{Im}}\nolimits}
16: \newcommand{\cl}{\mathop{{\mbox{Cl}}_2}\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 01-203\hfill ISSN 0418-9833}
51: \centerline{\normalsize hep-ph/0112023\hfill}
52: \centerline{\normalsize November 2001\hfill}}
53: \vskip1.5cm
54: Theoretical Aspects of Standard-Model Higgs-Boson Physics at a Future $e^+e^-$
55: Linear Collider}
56: \author{{\sc Bernd A. Kniehl}\\
57: {\normalsize II. Institut f\"ur Theoretische Physik, Universit\"at Hamburg,}\\
58: {\normalsize Luruper Chaussee 149, 22761 Hamburg, Germany}}
59:
60: \date{}
61:
62: \maketitle
63:
64: \thispagestyle{empty}
65:
66: \begin{abstract}
67: The Higgs boson is the missing link of the Standard Model of elementary
68: particle physics.
69: We review its decay properties and production mechanisms at a future $e^+e^-$
70: linear collider and its $e^-e^-$, $e^\pm\gamma$, and $\gamma\gamma$ modes,
71: with special emphasis on the influence of quantum corrections.
72: We also discuss how its quantum numbers and couplings can be extracted from
73: the study of appropriate final states.
74: \end{abstract}
75:
76: \newpage
77:
78: \section{\label{sec:one}Introduction}
79:
80: The SU(2)$_I\times$U(1)$_Y$ structure of the electroweak interactions has been
81: consolidated by an enormous wealth of experimental data during the past three
82: decades.
83: The canonical way to generate masses for the fermions and intermediate bosons
84: without violating this gauge symmetry in the Lagrangian is by the Higgs
85: mechanism of spontaneous symmetry breaking.
86: In the minimal standard model (SM), this is achieved by introducing one
87: complex SU(2)$_I$-doublet scalar field $\Phi$ with $Y=1$.
88: The three massless Goldstone bosons which emerge via the electroweak symmetry
89: breaking are eaten up to become the longitudinal degrees of freedom of the
90: $W^\pm$ and $Z$ bosons, {\em i.e.}, to generate their masses, while one
91: $CP$-even Higgs scalar boson $H$ remains in the physical spectrum.
92: The Higgs potential $V$ contains one mass and one self-coupling.
93: Since the vacuum expectation value is fixed by the relation
94: $v=2^{-1/4}G_F^{-1/2}\approx246$~GeV, where $G_F$ is Fermi's constant, there
95: remains one free parameter in the Higgs sector, namely $M_H$.
96: In fact, one has
97: \begin{equation}
98: V=\lambda H^2\left(v+\frac{H}{2}\right)^2+\cdots,
99: \end{equation}
100: where $\lambda=M_H^2/(2v^2)$.
101: The Higgs boson has the quantum numbers of the vacuum, namely electric
102: charge $Q=0$, spin, parity, and charge conjugation $J^{PC}=0^{++}$.
103: It has tree-level couplings to all massive particles with strengths that are
104: determined by their masses, viz.\ $g_{ffH}=M_f/v$, $g_{VVH}=2M_V^2/v$,
105: $g_{VVHH}=2M_V^2/v^2$, $g_{HHH}=6v\lambda$, and $g_{HHHH}=6\lambda$, where $f$
106: denotes a generic fermion and $V=W,Z$.
107: At a future $e^+e^-$ linear collider (LC), an important experimental task will
108: be to determine of the Higgs quantum numbers and couplings in order to
109: distinguish between the minimal SM and possible extensions.
110: In particular, the measurement of the Higgs self-couplings will allow one to
111: directly test the Higgs mechanism.
112:
113: Roughly speaking, the requirement that the running Higgs self-coupling
114: $\lambda(\mu)$, where $\mu$ is the renormalization scale, stays finite
115: (positive) for all values $\mu<\Lambda$, where $\Lambda$ is the cutoff beyond
116: which new physics operates, leads to the triviality upper bound
117: (vacuum-stability lower bound) on $M_H$ \cite{cab}.
118: Assuming the SM to be valid up to the grand-unified-theory scale
119: $\Lambda\approx10^{16}$~GeV, one thus obtains $130\alt M_H\alt185$~GeV
120: \cite{ham} [see Fig.~\ref{fig:blue}(a)].
121: This range comfortably lies between the lower bound on $M_H$ from direct
122: searches at CERN LEP2, 113~GeV, and the 95\% confidence level upper bound from
123: electroweak precision tests \cite{ewwg}, 212~GeV, based on
124: $\Delta\alpha_{\rm had}^{(5)}(M_Z^2)=0.02738\pm0.00020$ \cite{mar}, and it is
125: compatible with the $1\sigma$ range $76<M_H<181$~GeV resulting from the latter
126: \cite{ewwg} [see Fig.~\ref{fig:blue}(b)].
127: \begin{figure}[ht]
128: \begin{center}
129: \begin{tabular}{cc}
130: \parbox{7.5cm}{
131: \epsfig{file=tdrtriv.eps,width=7.5cm,bbllx=94pt,bblly=356pt,bburx=502pt,%
132: bbury=720pt}}
133: &
134: \parbox{7.5cm}{
135: \epsfig{file=blueband.eps,width=7.5cm,bbllx=17pt,bblly=36pt,bburx=542pt,%
136: bbury=565pt}}\\
137: (a) & (b)
138: \end{tabular}
139: \caption{(a) Triviality and vacuum-stability bounds on $M_H$
140: \protect\cite{ham} and (b) $\Delta\chi^2=\chi^2-\chi_{\rm min}^2$ as a
141: function of $M_H$ from fits to electroweak precision data from LEP taking into
142: account the direct determinations of $M_W$ and $M_t$ \protect\cite{ewwg}.}
143: \label{fig:blue}
144: \end{center}
145: \end{figure}
146:
147: It is interesting to consider a hypothetical scenario in which the Higgs boson
148: is absent and to constrain the mass scale $\Lambda$ of the new physics that
149: would take its place.
150: Using recent measurements of $\sin^2\theta_{\mathrm{eff}}^{\mathrm{lept}}$ and
151: $M_W$ \cite{ewwg}, one finds that, in a class of theories characterized by
152: simple conditions, the upper bound on $\Lambda$ is close to or smaller than
153: the upper bound on $M_H$, while in the complementary class $\Lambda$ is not
154: restricted by such considerations \cite{kni}.
155:
156: This review is organized as follows.
157: In Sects.~\ref{sec:two} and \ref{sec:three}, we discuss the decay properties
158: of the Higgs boson and its main production mechanisms in $e^+e^-$, $e^-e^-$,
159: $e^\pm\gamma$, and $\gamma\gamma$ collisions, emphasizing the influence of
160: radiative corrections.
161: In Sect.~\ref{sec:four}, we explain how to extract its quantum numbers and
162: couplings from the study of final states.
163: Sect.~\ref{sec:five} contains our conclusions and a brief outlook.
164:
165: \section{\label{sec:two}Decay properties}
166:
167: At the tree level, the Higgs boson decays to pairs of massive fermions and
168: gauge boson, the partial widths being
169: \begin{eqnarray}
170: \Gamma\left(H\to f\bar f\right)&=&\frac{g_{ffH}^2}{4\pi}\,\frac{N_cM_H}{2}
171: \left(1-\frac{1}{r_f}\right)^{3/2},
172: \nonumber\\
173: \Gamma(H\to VV)&=&\frac{g_{VVH}^2}{4\pi}\,\frac{3\delta_V}{8M_H}
174: \left(1-\frac{4}{3}r_V+\frac{4}{3}r_V^2\right)
175: \left(1-\frac{1}{r_V}\right)^{1/2},
176: \end{eqnarray}
177: respectively, where $N_c=1$ (3) for leptons (quarks), $\delta_{W,Z}=2,1$, and
178: $r_i=M_H^2/(4M_i^2)$.
179: If $1/4<r_i<1$ ($r_i<1/4$), then one of the (both) final-state particles are
180: forced to be off shell, so that one is dealing with three-particle
181: (four-particle) decays \cite{hzgg}.
182: The Higgs boson also couples to photons (gluons), through loops involving
183: charged (coloured) massive particles, and one is led to consider the
184: loop-induced decays $H\to Z\gamma$ \cite{HZp}, $H\to\gamma\gamma$ \cite{Hpp},
185: $H\to gg$ \cite{Hgg}, {\it etc.}
186:
187: In order to match the high experimental precision to be achieved with a future
188: $e^+e^-$ LC, it is indispensable to take radiative corrections into account.
189: A review of radiative corrections relevant for SM Higgs-boson phenomenology
190: may be found in Refs.~\cite{pr,fp}.
191: At one loop, the electroweak corrections to $\Gamma\left(H\to f\bar f\right)$
192: \cite{fle,hff}, $\Gamma(H\to VV)$ \cite{fle,hzz,hww}, and
193: $\Gamma\left(H\to Zf\bar f\right)$ \cite{pr} and the QCD ones to
194: $\Gamma(H\to q\bar q)$ \cite{hqq} are well established, including the
195: dependence on all particle masses.
196: Beyond one loop, only dominant classes of corrections were investigated,
197: sometimes only in limiting cases.
198: These include corrections enhanced by the strong-coupling constant $\alpha_s$,
199: the top Yukawa coupling $g_{ttH}$, and the Higgs self-coupling $\lambda$.
200: Specifically, the two-loop QCD corrections were found for
201: $\Gamma(H\to l^+l^-)$ \cite{hll}, $\Gamma(H\to q\bar q)$ ($q\ne t$)
202: \cite{gor,lar}, $\Gamma\left(H\to t\bar t\,\right)$ \cite{har},
203: $\Gamma(H\to Z\gamma)$ \cite{spi}, $\Gamma(H\to\gamma\gamma)$ \cite{zhe},
204: and $\Gamma(H\to gg)$ \cite{lar,ina}.
205: Even three-loop QCD corrections were calculated, namely for
206: $\Gamma(H\to q\bar q)$ ($q\ne t$) \cite{che}, $\Gamma(H\to\gamma\gamma)$
207: \cite{ste}, and $\Gamma(H\to gg)$ \cite{cks}.
208: In the last case, they are quite significant, the correction factor being
209: \cite{cks}
210: \begin{equation}
211: K_{gg}=1+\frac{215}{12}\,\frac{\alpha_s^{(5)}(M_H)}{\pi}
212: +\left(\frac{\alpha_s^{(5)}(M_H)}{\pi}\right)^2
213: \left(156.808-5.708\,\ln\frac{M_t^2}{M_H^2}\right),
214: \end{equation}
215: which approximately amounts to $1+0.66+0.21$ for $M_H=100$~GeV.
216:
217: An efficient way of obtaining corrections leading in
218: $X_t=g_{ttH}^2/(4\pi)^2$ to processes involving low-mass Higgs bosons is to
219: construct an effective Lagrangian by integrating out the top quark.
220: This may be conveniently achieved by means of a low-energy theorem \cite{let},
221: which relates the amplitudes of two processes which differ by the insertion of
222: an external Higgs-boson line carrying zero four-momentum.
223: A na\"\i ve version of it may be derived by observing the following two
224: points:
225: (i) the interactions of the Higgs boson with the massive particles in the SM
226: emerge from their mass terms by substituting $M_i\to M_i(1+H/v)$; and
227: (ii) a Higgs boson with zero four-momentum is represented by a constant
228: field.
229: This immediately implies that a zero-momentum Higgs boson may be attached
230: to an amplitude, ${\cal M}(A\to B)$, by carrying out the operation
231: \begin{equation}
232: \label{let}
233: \lim_{p_H\to0}{\cal M}(A\to B+H)={1\over v}\sum_i
234: {M_i\partial\over\partial M_i}{\cal M}(A\to B),
235: \end{equation}
236: where $i$ runs over all massive particles which are involved in the transition
237: $A\to B$.
238: This low-energy theorem comes with two caveats:
239: (i) the differential operator in Eq.~(\ref{let}) does not act on the $M_i$
240: appearing in coupling constants, since this would generate tree-level vertices
241: involving the Higgs boson that do not exist in the SM; and
242: (ii) Eq.~(\ref{let}) must be formulated for bare quantities if it is to be
243: applied beyond the leading order.
244:
245: In this way, the effective Lagrangian describing the $l^+l^-H$, $W^+W^-H$, and
246: $ZZH$ interactions is found to be
247: \begin{equation}
248: {\cal L}_{\rm eff}=\frac{H}{v}\left[-\sum_lm_l\bar ll(1+\delta_u)
249: +2M_W^2W_\mu^-W^{+\mu}(1+\delta_{WWH})
250: +M_Z^2Z_\mu Z^\mu(1+\delta_{ZZH})\right],
251: \label{eq:eff}
252: \end{equation}
253: with \cite{hll,was,fer,gam}
254: \begin{eqnarray}
255: \delta_u&=&X_t\left\{\frac{7}{2}+3\left[\frac{149}{8}-6\zeta(2)\right]X_t
256: -[3+2\zeta(2)]A-56.703\,A^2\right\},
257: \nonumber\\
258: \delta_{WWH}&=&X_t\left\{-\frac{5}{2}+\left[\frac{39}{8}-18\zeta(2)\right]X_t
259: +[9-2\zeta(2)]A+27.041\,A^2\right\},
260: \nonumber\\
261: \delta_{ZZH}&=&X_t\left\{-\frac{5}{2}-\left[\frac{177}{8}+18\zeta(2)\right]X_t
262: +[15-2\zeta(2)]A+17.117\,A^2\right\},
263: \label{eq:del}
264: \end{eqnarray}
265: where $\zeta$ is Riemann's zeta function, with value $\zeta(2)=\pi^2/6$, and
266: $A=\alpha_s^{(6)}(M_t)/\pi$.
267: Notice that $\delta_u$ is universal in the sense that it comprises just the
268: renormalizations of the Higgs-boson wave function and vacuum expectation
269: value.
270: The analytic expressions of the $O(A^2)$ terms may be found in
271: Ref.~\cite{fer}.
272: In $O\left(X_t^2\right)$, also the full $M_b$ dependence is available
273: \cite{gam}.
274: From Eq.~(\ref{eq:eff}), one reads off that $\Gamma(H\to l^+l^-)$,
275: $\Gamma(H\to W^+W^-)$, and $\Gamma(H\to ZZ)$ receive the correction factors
276: \begin{eqnarray}
277: K_{ll}&=&(1+\delta_u)^2,
278: \nonumber\\
279: K_{WW}&=&(1+\delta_{WWH})^2,
280: \nonumber\\
281: K_{ZZ}&=&(1+\delta_{ZZH})^2,
282: \end{eqnarray}
283: respectively.
284: The $O(X_t)$, $O\left(X_t^2\right)$, and $O(X_tA)$ corrections to
285: $\Gamma(H\to q\bar q)$, where $q\ne b,t$, coincide with those for
286: $\Gamma(H\to l^+l^-)$.
287: The $O(X_tA^2)$ corrections to $\Gamma(H\to q\bar q)$ were found in
288: Ref.~\cite{cks1}.
289: The effective-Lagrangian method in connection with the low-energy theorem was
290: also employed to obtain the $O(X_tA)$ \cite{hbb} and $O(X_tA^2)$ \cite{cks1}
291: corrections to $\Gamma(H\to b\bar b)$, the $O(X_t)$ corrections to
292: $\Gamma(H\to\gamma\gamma)$ \cite{gam}, and the $O(X_t)$ \cite{gam,cks1,dg} and
293: $O(X_tA)$ \cite{mat} corrections to $\Gamma(H\to gg)$.
294:
295: The expansion of $\Delta\rho=1-1/\rho$, which measures the deviation of the
296: electroweak $\rho$ parameter from unity, analogous to Eq.~(\ref{eq:del}) reads
297: \cite{djo,avd,bij}
298: \begin{equation}
299: \Delta\rho=X_t\{3+3[19-12\zeta(2)]X_t-2[1+2\zeta(2)]A-43.782\,A^2\}.
300: \label{eq:rho}
301: \end{equation}
302: The analytic expression of the $O(A^2)$ term and the full $M_b$ dependence in
303: $O\left(X_t^2\right)$ may be found in Refs.~\cite{avd,bij}, respectively.
304: The $O\left(X_t^2\right)$ term exhibits a strong dependence on $M_H$, so that
305: its value for $M_H=0$ does not provide a useful approximation for realistic
306: values of $M_H$ \cite{bar}.
307: Furthermore, subleading electroweak two-loop corrections, of
308: $O\left(X_tG_FM_W^2\right)$, for $e\nu_\mu$ scattering and muon decay are not
309: actually suppressed in magnitude against the $O\left(X_t^2\right)$ one
310: \cite{deg}.
311: Thus, the approximations by the $O\left(X_t^2\right)$ terms for $M_H=0$ in
312: Eq.~(\ref{eq:del}) should be taken with a grain of salt.
313: The coefficients of $X_tA$ and $X_tA^2$ in Eqs.~(\ref{eq:del}) and
314: (\ref{eq:rho}) are all negative and sizeable relative to the one of $X_t$.
315: This is related to the use of the pole mass $M_t$.
316: In fact, the convergence behaviour of these expansions may be considerably
317: improved \cite{fer} by expressing them in terms of the scale-invariant
318: $\overline{\rm MS}$ mass, $\mu_t=m_t(\mu_t)$, which is related to $M_t$ by
319: \cite{gra}
320: \begin{equation}
321: \mu_t=M_t\left(1-\frac{4}{3}A-6.459\,A^2\right).
322: \end{equation}
323:
324: The electroweak corrections for processes involving high-mass Higgs bosons,
325: with $M_H\gg2M_Z$, are dominated by powers of the Higgs self-coupling
326: $\lambda$.
327: These terms may be conveniently obtained by applying the Goldstone-boson
328: equivalence theorem \cite{cor}.
329: This theorem states that the leading high-$M_H$ electroweak contribution to a
330: Feynman diagram may be calculated by replacing the intermediate bosons $W^\pm$
331: and $Z$ with the respective would-be Goldstone bosons $w^\pm$ and $z$ of the
332: symmetry-breaking sector.
333: In this limit, the gauge and Yukawa couplings may be neglected against
334: $\lambda$.
335: By the same token, the Goldstone bosons may be taken to be massless, and the
336: fermion loops may be omitted.
337: In this way, $\Gamma\left(H\to f\bar f\,\right)$ \cite{vel,dur},
338: $\Gamma(H\to W^+W^-)$, and $\Gamma(H\to ZZ)$ \cite{wil,ghi,fri} were studied
339: through $O(\lambda^2)$.
340: The resulting correction factor $K_{ff}$ for
341: $\Gamma\left(H\to f\bar f\,\right)$ is independent of the fermion flavour $f$.
342: Similarly, $\Gamma(H\to W^+W^-)$ and $\Gamma(H\to ZZ)$ receive the same
343: correction factor $K_{VV}$.
344: In the on-mass-shell (OS) renormalization scheme, the results read
345: \cite{vel,dur,wil,ghi,fri}
346: \begin{eqnarray}
347: K_{ff}&=&1+\left(13-2\pi\sqrt3\right)\hat\lambda
348: +\left[12-169\pi\sqrt3
349: +170\zeta(2)-252\zeta(3)+12\left(13\pi+19\sqrt3\right)\right.
350: \nonumber\\
351: &&{}\times\left.\cl\left(\frac{\pi}{3}\right)\right]\hat\lambda^2
352: \nonumber\\
353: &\approx&1+11.1\%\left(\frac{M_H}{\mbox{TeV}}\right)^2
354: -8.9\%\left(\frac{M_H}{\mbox{TeV}}\right)^4,
355: \nonumber\\
356: K_{VV}&=&1+\left[19-6\pi\sqrt3-10\zeta(2)\right]\hat\lambda
357: +62.0\,\hat\lambda^2
358: \nonumber\\
359: &\approx&1+14.6\%\left(\frac{M_H}{\mbox{TeV}}\right)^2
360: +16.9\%\left(\frac{M_H}{\mbox{TeV}}\right)^4,
361: \label{eq:gbet}
362: \end{eqnarray}
363: where $\hat\lambda=\lambda/(4\pi)^2$ and $\cl{}$ is Clausen's integral.
364: The $O(\lambda)$ terms in Eq.~(\ref{eq:gbet}) have been known for a long time
365: \cite{vel,wil}.
366: $K_{ff}$ and $K_{VV}$ are displayed as functions of $M_H$ in
367: Fig.~\ref{fig:frink}.
368: The $O(\lambda^2)$ terms of $K_{ff}$ and $K_{VV}$ start to exceed the
369: $O(\lambda)$ ones in magnitude at $M_H=1114$~GeV and 930~GeV, respectively.
370: These values mark a perturbative upper bound on $M_H$.
371: The nonperturbative value of $K_{VV}$ at $M_H=727$~GeV may be extracted from a
372: recent lattice simulation of elastic $\pi\pi$ scattering in the framework of
373: the four-dimensional O(4)-symmetric nonlinear $\sigma$ model in the broken
374: phase, where the $\sigma$ resonance was observed \cite{goe}.
375: \begin{figure}[ht]
376: \begin{center}
377: \centerline{\epsfig{figure=frink5.ps,width=12cm,angle=90}}
378: \caption{$K_{VV}$ and $K_{ff}$ to $O(\lambda)$ and $O(\lambda^2)$ as functions
379: of $M_H$ \protect\cite{fri}.
380: The crosses indicate the tree-level, one-loop, two-loop, and nonperturbative
381: values of $K_{VV}$ at $M_H=727$~GeV.}
382: \label{fig:frink}
383: \end{center}
384: \end{figure}
385:
386: At one loop in the conventional OS renormalization scheme, the production and
387: decay rates of the Higgs boson exhibit singularities proportional to
388: $(2M_V-M_H)^{-1/2}$ as $M_H$ approaches $2M_V$ from below \cite{hww}.
389: This problem is of phenomenological interest because the values $2M_W$ and
390: $2M_Z$, corresponding to the $W$- and $Z$-boson pair production thresholds,
391: lie within the $M_H$ range favoured by the arguments presented in
392: Sect.~\ref{sec:one}.
393: We recall that the OS mass $M$ and total decay width $\Gamma$ of an unstable
394: boson are defined as
395: \begin{eqnarray}
396: M^2&=&M_0^2+\re A(M^2),
397: \nonumber\\
398: M\Gamma&=&-Z\im A(M^2),
399: \nonumber\\
400: Z&=&\left[1-\re A^\prime(M^2)\right]^{-1},
401: \end{eqnarray}
402: where $M_0$ and $A(s)$ are the bare mass and unrenormalized self-energy,
403: respectively, appearing in the propagator $i\left[s-M_0^2-A(s)\right]^{-1}$.
404: However, $A(s)$ possesses a branch point if $s$ is at a threshold.
405: If the threshold is due to a two-particle state with zero orbital angular
406: momentum, then $\re A^\prime(s)$ diverges as $1/\beta$, where $\beta$
407: is the relative velocity common to the two particles, as the threshold is
408: approached from below \cite{hww,bha}.
409: These threshold singularities are eliminated when the definitions of mass and
410: total decay width are based on the complex-valued position $\bar s$ of the
411: propagator's pole \cite{bha,pal}, as \cite{pal}
412: \begin{eqnarray}
413: \bar s&=&M_0^2+A(\bar s)=m_2^2-im_2\Gamma_2,
414: \nonumber\\
415: m_2\Gamma_2&=&-Z_2\im A\left(m_2^2\right),
416: \nonumber\\
417: Z_2&=&\left[1-\frac{\im A\left(m_2^2\right)-\im A(\bar s)}{m_2\Gamma_2}
418: \right]^{-1}.
419: \end{eqnarray}
420: This is illustrated in Figs.~\ref{fig:thr} (a) and (b) for
421: $\Gamma(H\to W^+W^-)$ in the vicinity of $M_H=2M_Z$.
422: \begin{figure}[ht]
423: \begin{center}
424: \begin{tabular}{cc}
425: \parbox{7.5cm}{\epsfig{file=caesar2.ps,width=7.5cm}}
426: &
427: \parbox{7.5cm}{\epsfig{file=caesar1.ps,width=7.5cm}}\\
428: (a) & (b)
429: \end{tabular}
430: \caption{$\Gamma(H\to W^+W^-)$ as a function of $M_H$ \protect\cite{pal}.
431: (a) The threshold singularity at $M_H=2M_Z$ in the OS scheme (dotted line) is
432: regularized by adopting the pole scheme (dashed line), allowing for the
433: $Z$-boson width to be finite (dot-dashed line), or both (solid line).
434: (b) The one-loop results in the OS scheme (dotted line) and in the pole
435: scheme with $\Gamma_Z\ne0$ (solid line) are compared with the tree-level
436: result (dashed line).}
437: \label{fig:thr}
438: \end{center}
439: \end{figure}
440:
441: It is fair to say that radiative corrections for Higgs-boson decays have been
442: explored to a similar degree as those for $Z$-boson decays.
443: Unfortunately, this does not necessarily lead to similarly precise theoretical
444: predictions.
445: In fact, the errors on the latter are dominated by parametric uncertainties,
446: mainly by those in $\alpha_s^{(5)}(M_Z)$ and the quark masses (see
447: Fig.~\ref{fig:br}) \cite{gro,dsz}.
448: \begin{figure}[ht]
449: \begin{center}
450: \centerline{\epsfig{file=hbr.ps,width=12cm,bbllx=8pt,bblly=264pt,bburx=573pt,%
451: bbury=812pt,clip=}}
452: \caption{Higgs-boson decay branching fractions, including theoretical
453: uncertainties, as functions of $M_H$ \protect\cite{dsz}.}
454: \label{fig:br}
455: \end{center}
456: \end{figure}
457:
458: \boldmath
459: \section{\label{sec:three}Production in $e^+e^-$ collisions}
460: \unboldmath
461:
462: The dominant mechanisms of Higgs-boson production in $e^+e^-$ collisions are
463: Higgs-strah\-lung and $W^+W^-$ fusion, which, at the tree level, proceed
464: through the Feynman diagrams depicted in Fig.~\ref{fig:fey}.
465: \begin{figure}[ht]
466: \begin{center}
467: \centerline{
468: \epsfig{figure=tdrfeyn.ps,width=12cm,bbllx=84pt,bblly=620pt,bburx=503pt,%
469: bbury=718pt}}
470: \caption{Feynman diagrams for Higgs-strahlung and $W^+W^-$ fusion
471: \protect\cite{tdr}.}
472: \label{fig:fey}
473: \end{center}
474: \end{figure}
475: The cross section of $ZZ$ fusion, $e^+e^-\to e^+e^-H$, is approximately one
476: order of magnitude smaller than the one of $W^+W^-$ fusion, because of weaker
477: couplings.
478: The total cross section of Higgs-strahlung reads
479: \begin{equation}
480: \sigma(e^+e^-\to ZH)=\frac{g_{ZZH}^2}{4\pi}\,
481: \frac{G_F\left(v_e^2+a_e^2\right)}{96\sqrt2}\,
482: \frac{\sqrt\lambda\left(\lambda+12sM_Z^2\right)}{s^2D},
483: \end{equation}
484: where $v_f=2I_f-4s_w^2Q_f$ and $a_f=2I_f$ are the $Zf\bar f$ vector and
485: axial-vector couplings, respectively, $\sqrt s$ is the centre-of-mass energy,
486: $\lambda=\left[s-(M_Z+M_H)^2\right]\left[s-(M_Z-M_H)^2\right]$, and
487: $D=\left(s-M_Z^2\right)^2+M_Z^2\Gamma_Z^2$.
488: Here, $I_f$ is the third component of weak isospin of the left-handed
489: component of $f$, $Q_f$ is the electric charge of $f$, and
490: $c_w^2=1-s_w^2=M_W^2/M_Z^2$.
491: The one of $VV$ fusion may expressed as a one-dimensional integral \cite{ffzh}.
492: They are both shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:xs} as functions of $M_H$ for
493: $\sqrt s=350$, 500, and 800~GeV \cite{tdr}.
494: \begin{figure}[ht]
495: \begin{center}
496: \centerline{
497: \epsfig{figure=tdrprod.eps,width=12cm,bbllx=137pt,bblly=485pt,bburx=475pt,%
498: bbury=702pt}}
499: \caption{Total cross sections of Higgs-strahlung and $W^+W^-$ fusion as
500: functions of $M_H$ \protect\cite{tdr}.}
501: \label{fig:xs}
502: \end{center}
503: \end{figure}
504:
505: As for the Higgs-strahlung process, the electromagnetic \cite{ffzh,ber} and
506: weak \cite{ffzh,den} corrections are fully known at one loop.
507: The latter is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:rc} as a function of $M_H$ for
508: $\sqrt s=192$~GeV, 500~GeV, 1~TeV, and 2~TeV.
509: \begin{figure}[ht]
510: \begin{center}
511: \centerline{
512: \epsfig{figure=eezh2.ps,height=12cm,bbllx=27pt,bblly=54pt,bburx=532pt,%
513: bbury=765pt,angle=-90}}
514: \caption{Weak correction to $\sigma(e^+e^-\to ZH)$ as a function of $M_H$
515: \protect\cite{ffzh}.}
516: \label{fig:rc}
517: \end{center}
518: \end{figure}
519:
520: The electroweak corrections for $VV$ fusion, a $2\to3$ process, are not yet
521: available.
522: However, the leading effects can be conveniently included as follows.
523: The bulk of the initial-state bremsstrahlung can be taken into account in the
524: so-called leading logarithmic approximation provided by the structure-function
525: method, by convoluting the tree-level cross section with a radiator function,
526: which is known through $O(\alpha^2)$ and can be further improved by
527: soft-photon exponentiation \cite{bee}.
528: The residual dominant corrections of fermionic origin can be incorporated in a
529: systematic and convenient fashion by invoking the so-called improved Born
530: approximation (IBA) \cite{iba}.
531: These are contained in $\Delta\rho$ and
532: $\Delta\alpha=1-\alpha/\overline\alpha$, which parameterizes the running of
533: Sommerfeld's fine-structure constant from its value $\alpha$ defined in
534: Thomson scattering to its value $\overline\alpha$ measured at the $Z$-boson
535: scale.
536: The recipe is as follows.
537: Starting from the Born formula expressed in terms of $c_w$, $s_w$, and
538: $\alpha$, one substitutes
539: \begin{eqnarray}
540: \alpha&\to&\overline\alpha={\alpha\over1-\Delta\alpha},
541: \nonumber\\
542: c_w^2&\to&\overline c_w^2=1-\overline s_w^2=c_w^2(1-\Delta\rho).
543: \end{eqnarray}
544: One then eliminates $\overline\alpha$ in favour of $G_F$ by exploiting the
545: relation
546: \begin{equation}
547: {\sqrt2\over\pi}G_F={\overline\alpha\over\overline s_w^2M_W^2}
548: ={\overline\alpha\over\overline c_w^2\overline s_w^2M_Z^2}(1-\Delta\rho),
549: \end{equation}
550: which correctly accounts for the leading fermionic corrections.
551: Finally, one includes the corrections enhanced by $X_t$ that are generated by
552: Eq.~(\ref{eq:eff}).
553: One thus obtains the correction factors
554: \begin{eqnarray}
555: K_{ffH}&=&1+2\delta_{ZZH}
556: +2\left[1-4c_w^2\left(\frac{Q_ev_e}{v_e^2+a_e^2}+\frac{Q_fv_f}{v_f^2+a_f^2}
557: \right)\right]\Delta\rho,
558: \nonumber\\
559: K_{\nu_e\nu_eH}&=&1+2\delta_{WWH},
560: \nonumber\\
561: K_{eeH}&\approx&K_{ffH},
562: \end{eqnarray}
563: for Higgs-strahlung, $W^+W^-$ fusion, and $ZZ$ fusion, respectively
564: \cite{fer}.
565: The interference of the scattering amplitudes for $\nu_e\bar\nu_eH$ and
566: $e^+e^-H$ production by Higgs-strahlung with those for $W^+W^-$ and $ZZ$
567: fusion, respectively, is negligible for $\sqrt s>M_Z+M_H$ \cite{kil}.
568: It is important to keep in mind that the IBA is only reliable if
569: $\sqrt s,M_H\ll2M_t$.
570:
571: It may be possible to operate a future $e^+e^-$ LC in $e^-e^-$, $e^\pm\gamma$,
572: or $\gamma\gamma$ modes.
573: In $e^-e^-$ collisions, Higgs bosons will be mainly produced via $ZZ$ fusion,
574: $e^-e^-\to e^-e^-H$ \cite{heu}.
575: Its cross section emerges from the one of $e^+e^-\to e^+e^-H$ by crossing
576: symmetry, as explained in Ref.~\cite{ffzh}, and it has a size very similar to
577: the latter.
578: The dominant Higgs-boson production mechanisms in $e^\pm\gamma$ collisions
579: include the processes $e^\pm\gamma\to\nu_eW^\pm H$ \cite{boo,hwz},
580: $e^\pm\gamma\to e^\pm ZH$ \cite{boo}, and
581: $e^\pm\gamma\to e^\pm\gamma\gamma\to e^\pm H$ \cite{ebo}, which proceeds via
582: charged-fermion and $W$-boson loops.
583: In $\gamma\gamma$ collisions, Higgs bosons will be chiefly created through
584: $\gamma\gamma$ fusion, $\gamma\gamma\to H$ \cite{tel}, which is mediated by
585: the same types of loops.
586: Cutting open the $W$-boson loops leads to the process
587: $\gamma\gamma\to W^+W^-H$ \cite{bai}, which benefits from the huge cross
588: section of the parent process $\gamma\gamma\to W^+W^-$.
589: The process $\gamma\gamma\to t\bar tH$ \cite{gin} is sensitive to the top
590: Yukawa coupling $g_{ttH}$, but it suffers from phase-space suppression.
591:
592: \section{\label{sec:four}Quantum numbers and couplings from final states}
593:
594: The spin, parity, and charge-conjugation quantum numbers $J^{PC}$ of Higgs
595: bosons can be determined at a future $e^+e^-$ LC in a model-independent way.
596: The observation of the decay or fusion processes
597: $H\rightleftharpoons\gamma\gamma$ would rule out $J=1$ by the Landau-Yang
598: theorem and, at the same time, fix $C$ to be positive \cite{ver}.
599:
600: The angular distribution of $e^+e^-\to ZH$ depends on $J$ and $P$.
601: The SM Higgs boson is a $0^{++}$ state, and its couplings to two $Z$ bosons is
602: proportional to $\vec\epsilon\cdot\vec{\epsilon^\prime}$ in the laboratory
603: frame, where $\vec\epsilon$ and $\vec{\epsilon^\prime}$ are the polarization
604: three-vectors of the $Z$ bosons.
605: In order to distinguish the SM Higgs boson from a $CP$-odd $0^{-+}$ state $A$,
606: or a $CP$-violating mixture of the two, which will be generically denoted by
607: $\Phi$, one may consider a $ZZ\Phi$ coupling of the form \cite{DK}
608: \begin{equation}
609: \Gamma_{ZZ\Phi}=ig_{ZZH}\left(g^{\mu\mu^\prime}+i\frac{\eta}{M_Z^2}
610: \epsilon^{\mu\mu^\prime\nu\nu^\prime}p_\nu p_{\nu^\prime}^\prime\right),
611: \label{eq:zzp}
612: \end{equation}
613: where $p,p^\prime$ and $\mu,\mu^\prime$ are the incoming four-momenta and
614: Lorentz indices of the two $Z$ bosons, respectively, and $\eta$ is a
615: dimensionless factor.
616: In the case $\eta=0$, we recover the SM Higgs boson, while the absence of the
617: first term in Eq.~(\ref{eq:zzp}) corresponds to an $A$ boson.
618: In the laboratory frame, the $ZZA$ coupling is proportional to
619: $(\vec\epsilon\times\vec{\epsilon^\prime})\cdot(\vec p-\vec{p^\prime})$.
620: The $CP$-odd case is realized in the minimal supersymmetric extension of the
621: SM and in two-Higgs-doublet models (2HDM) without $CP$ violation, in which the
622: $ZZA$ couplings are induced at the level of quantum loops.
623: However, in a more general scenario, $\eta$ need not be loop suppressed, and
624: it is useful to allow for $\eta$ to be arbitrary in the experimental data
625: analysis.
626: In a general 2HDM, the three neutral Higgs bosons correspond to arbitrary
627: mixtures of $CP$ eigenstates, and their production and decay processes exhibit
628: $CP$ violation.
629: The differential cross section of $e^+e^-\to Z\Phi$ that results from the
630: coupling of Eq.~(\ref{eq:zzp}) reads
631: \begin{eqnarray}
632: \frac{d\sigma(e^+e^-\to Z\Phi)}{d\cos\theta}&=&\frac{g_{ZZH}^2}{4\pi}\,
633: \frac{G_F\left(v_e^2+a_e^2\right)}{16\sqrt2}\,\frac{M_Z^2\sqrt\lambda}{sD}
634: \left[1+\frac{\lambda}{8sM_Z^2}\sin^2\theta
635: +\eta\frac{2v_ea_e}{v_e^2+a_e^2}\,\frac{\sqrt\lambda}{M_Z^2}\cos\theta\right.
636: \nonumber\\
637: &&+\left.\eta^2\frac{\lambda}{8M_Z^4}(1+\cos^2\theta)\right],
638: \label{eq:cos}
639: \end{eqnarray}
640: where $\theta$ is the polar angle of the $Z$ boson w.r.t.\ to the beam axis
641: in the laboratory frame.
642: Thus, the angular distribution of $e^+e^-\to ZA$, namely
643: $(1/\sigma)d\sigma(e^+e^-\to ZA)/d\cos\theta=(3/8)(1+\cos^2\theta)$, is very
644: distinct from the SM one, which is
645: $(1/\sigma)d\sigma(e^+e^-\to ZH)/d\cos\theta\approx(3/4)\sin^2\theta$ for
646: $\sqrt s\gg M_Z$ \cite{ver}.
647: The presence of the interference term (linear in $\eta$) in
648: Eq.~(\ref{eq:cos}), would generate a forward-backward asymmetry, which would
649: be a clear signal for $CP$ violation.
650: Another discriminator between the $CP$-even and $CP$-odd cases is provided by
651: the threshold behaviour of the cross section, which is proportional to
652: $\beta=\sqrt\lambda/s$ and $\beta^3$, respectively \cite{ver}.
653: In the most general situation, where the particle produced in association with
654: the $Z$ boson corresponds to a $J^P$ state, the threshold behaviour is
655: $\sigma(e^+e^-\to Z\Phi)\propto\beta^n$, where $n$ is listed in
656: Table~\ref{tab:jp} \cite{mil}.
657: We conclude that the observation of a threshold behaviour linear in $\beta$
658: would rule out the assignments $J^P=0^-,1^-,2^-,3^\pm,4^\pm,\ldots$.
659: \begin{table}
660: \begin{center}
661: \caption{Values of $n$ characterizing the threshold behaviour of
662: $\sigma(e^+e^-\to Z\Phi)$, where $\Phi$ is a $J^P$ state.}
663: \label{tab:jp}
664: \smallskip
665: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|}
666: \hline\hline
667: $J^P$ & $n$ \\
668: \hline
669: $0^+$, $1^+$, $2^+$ & 1 \\
670: $0^-$, $1^-$, $2^-$ & 3 \\
671: $3^-$, $4^+$, $5^-$, \dots & $2J-3$ \\
672: $3^+$, $4^-$, $5^+$, \dots & $2J-1$ \\
673: \hline\hline
674: \end{tabular}
675: \end{center}
676: \end{table}
677:
678: The angular distribution of $e^+e^-\to Z\Phi$ can also be exploited to
679: establish the $J=0$ nature of the Higgs bosons.
680: To this end, it should be compared with the one of $e^+e^-\to ZZ$, which
681: exhibits a distinctly different angular momentum structure.
682: Owing to the electron exchange in the $t$-channel, the $e^+e^-\to ZZ$
683: amplitude is built up by many partial waves, which peak in the forward and
684: backward directions.
685: In Fig.~\ref{fig:za}, the angular distributions of $ZH$, $ZA$, and $ZZ$
686: production are shown for $\sqrt s=500$~GeV, assuming a Higgs-boson mass of
687: 120~GeV.
688: \begin{figure}[ht]
689: \begin{center}
690: \centerline{\epsfig{figure=tdrza.eps,width=12cm}}
691: \caption{$\sigma(e^+e^-\to ZH)$, $\sigma(e^+e^-\to ZA)$, and
692: $\sigma(e^+e^-\to ZZ)$ as functions of $\cos\theta$ \protect\cite{ver}.}
693: \label{fig:za}
694: \end{center}
695: \end{figure}
696:
697: The angular distribution of the $Z\to f\bar f$ decay products of the secondary
698: $Z$ boson in the Higgs-strahlung process will also help us to distinguish a
699: $CP$-even Higgs boson from a $CP$-odd one or a spin-one boson.
700: In fact, at high energies, the $Z$ bosons from $e^+e^-\to ZH$ are dominantly
701: longitudinally polarized, while the ones from $e^+e^-\to ZA$ and
702: $e^+e^-\to ZZ$ are fully and dominantly transversely polarized, respectively
703: \cite{ver}.
704: Calling the polar angle enclosed between the flight direction of the decay
705: fermion $f$ in the $Z$-boson rest frame and the $Z$-boson flight direction in
706: the laboratory frame $\theta^*$ and the corresponding azimuthal angle w.r.t.\
707: the plane spanned by the beam axis and the $Z$-boson flight direction
708: $\phi^*$, longitudinal [transverse] $Z$ bosons lead to a distribution
709: proportional to $\sin^2\theta^*$ [$(1\pm\cos\theta^*)^2$] after integrating
710: over $\phi^*$ \cite{ver}.
711: On the other hand, after integrating over $\theta$ and $\theta^*$, we have
712: \begin{eqnarray}
713: \frac{d\sigma(e^+e^-\to ZH)}{d\phi^*}
714: &\propto&1+a_1\cos\phi^*+a_2\cos(2\phi^*),
715: \nonumber\\
716: \frac{d\sigma(e^+e^-\to ZA)}{d\phi^*}&\propto&1-\frac{1}{4}\cos(2\phi^*),
717: \end{eqnarray}
718: where the coefficients $a_i$ depend on $\sqrt s$ and $f$ \cite{ver}.
719: The distribution of
720: $e^+e^-\to Z\Phi\to\left(f\bar f\right)\left(f^\prime\bar f^\prime\right)$ in
721: $\theta$, $\theta^*$, and $\phi^*$ for the coupling of Eq.~(\ref{eq:zzp}) may
722: be found in Ref.~\cite{DK}.
723:
724: The determination of the $J^{PC}$ quantum numbers of the Higgs bosons can be
725: refined by taking the angular distributions of their decay products into
726: account.
727: The $J=0$ property manifests itself in the complete absence of angular
728: correlations between the initial- and final-state particles.
729: The criteria to distinguish between $CP$-even and $CP$-odd Higgs bosons or
730: mixtures thereof include the polarization of the vector bosons $V=W,Z$ in the
731: decay $\Phi\to VV$, the distribution in the mass $M_*$ of the virtual boson
732: $V^*$ in the decay $\Phi\to VV^*$, and characteristic features of the
733: angular distribution of the decay
734: $\Phi\to V^*V^*\to\left(f\bar f\right)\left(f^\prime\bar f^\prime\right)$
735: \cite{ver,DK}.
736:
737: In the effective-Lagrangian approach, the $ZZ\Phi$ coupling in
738: Eq.~(\ref{eq:zzp}) is not the most general one \cite{sto,hag,grz}.
739: In fact, the first term may come with a fudge factor different from unity, and
740: there may be two more independent $CP$-even terms.
741: Similarly, there may be an effective $Z\gamma\Phi$ coupling, involving two
742: $CP$-even and one $CP$-odd terms.
743: The most general effective $ZV\Phi$ interaction Lagrangian reads
744: \cite{sto,hag}
745: \begin{eqnarray}
746: {\cal L}_{\rm eff}&=&\frac{g_{ZZH}}{2}(1+a_Z)HZ_\mu Z^\mu
747: +\frac{g_{ZZH}}{M_Z^2}\sum_{V=Z,\gamma}\left[b_VHZ_{\mu\nu}V^{\mu\nu}+
748: c_V\left(\partial_\mu HZ_\nu-\partial_\nu HZ_\mu\right)V^{\mu\nu}\right.
749: \nonumber\\
750: &&{}+\left.\tilde{b}_VHZ_{\mu\nu}\tilde{V}^{\mu\nu}\right],
751: \end{eqnarray}
752: where $V_{\mu\nu}=\partial_\mu V_\nu-\partial_\nu V_\mu$ and
753: $\tilde{V}_{\mu\nu}=\epsilon_{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}V^{\alpha\beta}$.
754: Here, we have neglected the scalar components of the vector bosons, by putting
755: $\partial_\mu Z^\mu=\partial_\mu V^\mu=0$.
756: The couplings $a_Z$, $b_Z$, $c_Z$, $b_\gamma$, and $c_\gamma$ are $CP$-even,
757: while $\tilde b_Z$ and $\tilde b_\gamma$ are $CP$-odd.
758:
759: With sufficiently high luminosity, it should be possible to determine, by
760: means of the optimal-observable method \cite{oom,gun}, most of these couplings
761: from the angular distribution of $e^+e^-\to Z\Phi\to\left(f\bar f\right)\Phi$.
762: The achievable bounds can be significantly improved by measuring the
763: tau-lepton helicities, identifying the bottom-hadron charges, polarizing the
764: electron and positron beams, and running at two different values of $\sqrt s$
765: \cite{hag}.
766: The results for energy $\sqrt s=500$~GeV, luminosity $L=300$~fb$^{-1}$,
767: efficiencies $\epsilon_\tau=50\%$ and $\epsilon_b=60\%$, and polarizations
768: $P_{e^-}=\pm80\%$ and $P_{e^+}=\mp45\%$ are summarized in
769: Table~\ref{tab:hag} and visualized in Figs.~\ref{fig:hag}(a) and (b).
770: Here, the couplings are assumed to be real, and $a_Z$ is fixed.
771: In order to also determine $a_Z$, one needs to perform the experiment at two
772: different values of $\sqrt s$.
773: We observe that the $ZZ\Phi$ couplings are generally well constrained, even
774: for $\epsilon_\tau=\epsilon_b=P_{e^-}=P_{e^+}=0$, while the $Z\gamma\Phi$
775: couplings are not.
776: The constraints on the latter may be significantly improved by the above-named
777: options, especially by beam polarization.
778: \begin{table}[ht]
779: \begin{center}
780: \caption{Optimal errors on general $ZZ\Phi$ and $Z\gamma\Phi$ couplings for
781: 300~fb$^{-1}$ of data at $\protect\sqrt s=500$~GeV \protect\cite{hag}.}
782: \label{tab:hag}
783: \smallskip
784: \begin{tabular}{|c|ccc|}
785: \hline\hline
786: $\epsilon_\tau$ & --- & 0.5 & 0.5 \\
787: $\epsilon_b$ & --- & 0.6 & 0.6 \\
788: $|P_{e^-}|$ & --- & --- & 0.8 \\
789: $|P_{e^+}|$ & --- & --- & 0.6 \\
790: \hline
791: $b_Z$ & 0.00055 & 0.00029 & 0.00023 \\
792: $c_Z$ & 0.00065 & 0.00017 & 0.00011 \\
793: $b_\gamma$ & 0.01232 & 0.00199 & 0.00036 \\
794: $c_\gamma$ & 0.00542 & 0.00087 & 0.00008 \\
795: $\tilde b_Z$ & 0.00104 & 0.00097 & 0.00055 \\
796: $\tilde b_\gamma$ & 0.00618 & 0.00101 & 0.00067 \\
797: \hline\hline
798: \end{tabular}
799: \end{center}
800: \end{table}
801: \begin{figure}[ht]
802: \begin{center}
803: \begin{tabular}{cc}
804: \parbox{7.5cm}{\epsfig{file=tdrbzcz.eps,width=7.5cm}}
805: &
806: \parbox{7.5cm}{\epsfig{file=tdrbgcg.eps,width=7.5cm}}\\
807: (a) & (b)
808: \end{tabular}
809: \caption{Contours of $\chi^2=1$ in the (a) $(b_Z,c_Z)$ and (b)
810: $(b_\gamma,c_\gamma)$ planes for 300~fb$^{-1}$ of data at
811: $\protect\sqrt s=500$~GeV \protect\cite{hag}.
812: In each case, the other degrees of freedom are integrated out.}
813: \label{fig:hag}
814: \end{center}
815: \end{figure}
816:
817: Once $g_{ZZH}$ has been pinned down, the top Yukawa coupling $g_{ttH}$ can be
818: extracted by studying the process $e^+e^-\to t\bar tH$ \cite{kal}.
819: The QCD correction to its cross section can be of either sign, depending on
820: $\sqrt s$, and reach a magnitude of several ten percent \cite{daw,dit}.
821: This may be seen from Fig.~\ref{fig:tth}, where the Born and QCD-corrected
822: cross sections are shown as functions of $M_H$ for $\sqrt s=500$~GeV, 1~TeV,
823: and 2~TeV.
824: Anomalous top Yukawa couplings may be extracted from the angular distribution
825: of $e^+e^-\to t\bar t\Phi$ with the help of the optimal-observable method
826: \cite{gun}.
827: \begin{figure}[ht]
828: \begin{center}
829: \centerline{
830: \epsfig{figure=tth.eps,width=12cm,bbllx=26pt,bblly=16pt,bburx=323pt,%
831: bbury=290pt}}
832: \caption{$\sigma(e^+e^-\to t\bar tH)$ with and without QCD corrections as a
833: function of $M_H$ \protect\cite{dit}.}
834: \label{fig:tth}
835: \end{center}
836: \end{figure}
837:
838: The analysis of double Higgs-strahlung, $e^+e^-\to ZHH$, and $W^+W^-$
839: double-Higgs fusion, $e^+e^-\to\bar\nu_e\nu_eHH$, offers the possibility to
840: extract the trilinear Higgs self-coupling $g_{HHH}$ \cite{mmm}.
841: The cross sections of these two processes are relatively modest, but they can
842: be enhanced by factors 2 and 4, respectively, by using beam polarization.
843: They are shown as functions of $M_H$ for $\sqrt s=500$~GeV, 1~TeV,
844: and 1.6~TeV in Figs.~\ref{fig:mmm}(a) and (b), respectively.
845: The sensitivity to $g_{HHH}$ is strongest close to the production thresholds.
846: \begin{figure}[ht]
847: \begin{center}
848: \begin{tabular}{cc}
849: \parbox{7.5cm}{
850: \epsfig{file=sm1.eps,width=7.5cm,bbllx=0pt,bblly=0pt,bburx=567pt,%
851: bbury=340pt}}
852: &
853: \parbox{7.5cm}{
854: \epsfig{file=sm2.ps,width=7.5cm,bbllx=52pt,bblly=455pt,bburx=538pt,%
855: bbury=741pt}}\\
856: (a) & (b)
857: \end{tabular}
858: \caption{(a) $\sigma(e^+e^-\to ZHH)$ and (b)
859: $\sigma(e^+e^-\to\nu_e\bar\nu_eHH)$ as functions of $M_H$ \protect\cite{mmm}.
860: The vertical arrows indicate the shifts in cross section induced by the
861: variation of $g_{HHH}$ by $\pm50\%$.}
862: \label{fig:mmm}
863: \end{center}
864: \end{figure}
865:
866: \section{\label{sec:five}Conclusions and outlook}
867:
868: We reviewed theoretical results that are relevant for the phenomenology of the
869: SM Higgs boson at a future $e^+e^-$ LC, putting special emphasis on radiative
870: corrections to its partial decay widths and production cross sections, and on
871: the logistics of extracting its quantum numbers and couplings from the
872: analysis of appropriate final states.
873: It is fair to say that theoretical predictions for partial decay widths and
874: production cross sections are generally in good shape.
875: However, the precision on the partial decay widths is limited by parametric
876: uncertainties, mainly by those in $\alpha_s^{(5)}(M_Z)$ and the quark masses.
877: The strategies for the determination of the Higgs profile are also well
878: elaborated.
879:
880: The list of urgent tasks left to be done includes the calculation of the full
881: $O(\alpha)$ corrections for important $2\to3$ processes, such as $W^+W^-$
882: fusion, $ZZ$ fusion, and $t\bar tH$ associated production, and the inclusion
883: of background processes and detector simulation.
884:
885: \vspace{1cm}
886: \begin{center}
887: {\bf Acknowledgements}
888: \end{center}
889: \smallskip
890:
891: We thank Matthias Steinhauser for carefully reading this manuscript.
892: This work was supported in part by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft through
893: Grant No.\ KN~365/1-1, by the Bundesministerium f\"ur Bildung und Forschung
894: through Grant No.\ 05~HT1GUA/4, and by the European Commission through the
895: Research Training Network {\it Quantum Chromodynamics and the Deep Structure
896: of Elementary Particles} under Contract No.\ ERBFMRX-CT98-0194.
897:
898: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
899:
900: \bibitem{cab} N. Cabibbo, L. Maiani, G. Parisi, and R. Petronzio,
901: Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B158}, 295 (1979);
902: M. Lindner,
903: Z. Phys.\ C {\bf31}, 295 (1986).
904:
905: \bibitem{ham} T. Hambye and K. Riesselmann,
906: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf55}, 7255 (1997).
907:
908: \bibitem{ewwg} The LEP Collaborations ALEPH, DELPHI, L3, OPAL, the LEP
909: Electroweak Working Group and the SLD Heavy Flavour and Electroweak Groups,
910: D. Abbaneo {\it et al.},
911: Report No.\ LEPEWWG/2001-01, ALEPH 2001-041PHYS 2001-015, DELPHI 2001-109 PHYS
912: 897, L3 Note 2669, and OPAL Technical Note TN 692 (31 May 2001).
913:
914: \bibitem{mar} M. Davier and A. H\"ocker,
915: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf435}, 427 (1998);
916: J. H. K\"uhn and M. Steinhauser,
917: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf437}, 425 (1998);
918: S. Groote, J. G. K\"orner, K. Schilcher, N. F. Nasrallah,
919: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf440}, 375 (1998);
920: J. Erler,
921: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf59}, 054008 (1999);
922: A. D. Martin, J. Outhwaite, and M. G. Ryskin,
923: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf492}, 69 (2000).
924:
925: \bibitem{kni} B. A. Kniehl and A. Sirlin,
926: Eur.\ Phys.\ J. C {\bf16}, 635 (2000).
927:
928: \bibitem{hzgg} B. A. Kniehl,
929: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf244}, 537 (1990);
930: A. Grau, G. Panchieri, and R. J. N. Phillips,
931: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf251}, 293 (1990);
932: R. Decker, M. Nowakowski, and A. Pilaftsis,
933: Z. Phys.\ C {\bf57}, 339 (1993).
934:
935: \bibitem{HZp} R. N. Cahn, M. S. Chanowitz, and N. Fleishon,
936: Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf82B}, 113 (1979);
937: L. Bergstr\"om and G. Hulth,
938: Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B259}, 137 (1985); {\bf B276}, 744(E) (1986);
939: A. Barroso, J. Pulido, and J. C. Rom\~ao,
940: Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B267}, 509 (1986);
941: J. C. Rom\~ao and A. Barroso,
942: Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B272}, 693 (1986);
943: J. F. Gunion, G. L. Kane, and J. Wudka,
944: Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B299}, 231 (1988).
945:
946: \bibitem{Hpp} J. R. Ellis, M. K. Gaillard, and D. V. Nanopoulos,
947: Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B106}, 292 (1976);
948: B. L. Ioffe and V. A. Khoze,
949: Fiz.\ Elem.\ Chastits At.\ Yadra {\bf9}, 118 (1978)
950: [Sov.\ J. Part.\ Nucl.\ {\bf9}, 50 (1978)].
951:
952: \bibitem{Hgg} F. Wilczek,
953: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf39}, 1304 (1977);
954: H. M. Georgi, S. L. Glashow, M. E. Machacek, and D. V. Nanopoulos,
955: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf40}, 692 (1978);
956: J. R. Ellis, M. K. Gaillard, D. V. Nanopoulos, and C. T. Sachrajda,
957: Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf83B}, 339 (1979);
958: T. G. Rizzo,
959: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf22}, 178 (1980); {\bf22}, 1824(A) (1980).
960:
961: \bibitem{pr} B. A. Kniehl,
962: Phys.\ Rep.\ {\bf240}, 211 (1994).
963:
964: \bibitem{fp} M. Spira,
965: Fortsch.\ Phys.\ {\bf46}, 203 (1998).
966:
967: \bibitem{fle} J. Fleischer and F. Jegerlehner,
968: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf23}, 2001 (1981).
969:
970: \bibitem{hff} D. Yu.\ Bardin, B. M. Vilenski\u\i, P. Kh.\ Khristova,
971: Yad.\ Fiz.\ {\bf53}, 240 (1991) [Sov.\ J. Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf53}, 152 (1991)];
972: B. A. Kniehl,
973: Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B376}, 3 (1992);
974: A. Dabelstein and W. Hollik,
975: Z. Phys.\ C {\bf53}, 507 (1992).
976:
977: \bibitem{hzz} B. A. Kniehl,
978: Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B352}, 1 (1991);
979: D. Yu.\ Bardin, B. M. Vilenski\u\i, P. Kh.\ Khristova,
980: Yad.\ Fiz.\ {\bf54}, 1366 (1991) [Sov.\ J. Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf54}, 833 (1991)].
981:
982: \bibitem{hww} B. A. Kniehl,
983: Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B357}, 439 (1991).
984:
985: \bibitem{hqq} E. Braaten and J. P. Leveille,
986: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf22}, 715 (1980);
987: N. Sakai,
988: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf22}, 2220 (1980);
989: T. Inami and T. Kubota,
990: Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B179}, 171 (1981);
991: M. Drees and K. Hikasa,
992: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf240}, 455 (1990); {\bf262}, 497(E) (1991).
993:
994: \bibitem{hll} B. A. Kniehl and A. Sirlin,
995: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf318}, 367 (1993);
996: B. A. Kniehl,
997: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf50}, 3314 (1994);
998: A. Djouadi and P. Gambino,
999: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf51}, 218 (1995), {\bf53}, 4111(E) (1996).
1000:
1001: \bibitem{gor} S. G. Gorishny, A. L. Kataev, S. A. Larin, and L. R. Surguladze,
1002: Mod.\ Phys.\ Lett.\ A {\bf5}, 2703 (1990);
1003: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf43}, 1633 (1991);
1004: A. L. Kataev and V. T. Kim,
1005: Mod.\ Phys.\ Lett.\ A {\bf9}, 1309 (1994);
1006: L. R. Surguladze,
1007: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf341}, 60 (1994);
1008: B. A. Kniehl,
1009: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf343}, 299 (1995);
1010: K. G. Chetyrkin and A. Kwiatkowski,
1011: Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B461}, 3 (1996).
1012:
1013: \bibitem{lar} S. A. Larin, T. van Ritbergen, and J. A. M. Vermaseren,
1014: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf362}, 134 (1995).
1015:
1016: \bibitem{har} R. Harlander and M. Steinhauser,
1017: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf56} 3980 (1997).
1018:
1019: \bibitem{spi} M. Spira, A. Djouadi, and P. M. Zerwas,
1020: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf276}, 350 (1992).
1021:
1022: \bibitem{zhe} H. Zheng and D. Wu,
1023: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf42}, 3760 (1990);
1024: A. Djouadi, M. Spira, J. J. van der Bij, and P. M. Zerwas,
1025: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf257}, 187 (1991);
1026: S. Dawson and R. P. Kauffman,
1027: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf47}, 1264 (1993);
1028: A. Djouadi, M. Spira, and P. M. Zerwas,
1029: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf311}, 255 (1993);
1030: K. Melnikov and O. I. Yakovlev,
1031: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf312}, 179 (1993);
1032: M. Inoue, R. Najima, T. Oka, and J. Saito,
1033: Mod.\ Phys.\ Lett.\ A {\bf9}, 1189 (1994);
1034: J. Fleischer and O. V. Tarasov,
1035: Z.\ Phys.\ C {\bf64}, 413 (1994).
1036:
1037: \bibitem{ina} T. Inami, T. Kubota, and Y. Okada,
1038: Z. Phys.\ C {\bf18}, 69 (1983);
1039: A. Djouadi, M. Spira, and P. M. Zerwas,
1040: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf264}, 440 (1991).
1041:
1042: \bibitem{che} K. G. Chetyrkin,
1043: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf390}, 309 (1997);
1044: K. G. Chetyrkin and M. Steinhauser,
1045: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf408}, 320 (1997).
1046:
1047: \bibitem{ste} M. Steinhauser,
1048: in {\it Proceedings of the Ringberg Workshop: The Higgs Puzzle---What Can We
1049: Learn From LEP2, LHC, NLC And FMC?}, Ringberg Castle, Germany, 1996, edited by
1050: B. A. Kniehl (World Scientific, Singapore, 1997), p.~177.
1051:
1052: \bibitem{cks} K. G. Chetyrkin, B. A. Kniehl, and M. Steinhauser,
1053: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf79}, 353 (1997);
1054: Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B510}, 61 (1998).
1055:
1056: \bibitem{let} A. I. Va\u\i nshte\u\i n, M. B. Voloshin, V. I. Zakharov, and
1057: M. A. Shifman,
1058: Yad.\ Fiz.\ {\bf30}, 1368 (1979) [Sov.\ J. Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf30}, 711 (1979)];
1059: A. I. Va\u\i nshte\u\i n, V. I. Zakharov, and M. A. Shifman,
1060: Usp.\ Fiz.\ Nauk {\bf131}, 537 (1980) [Sov.\ Phys.\ Usp.\ {\bf23}, 429
1061: (1980)];
1062: M. B. Voloshin,
1063: Yad.\ Fiz.\ {\bf44}, 738 (1986) [Sov.\ J. Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf44}, 478 (1986)];
1064: M. A. Shifman,
1065: Usp.\ Fiz.\ Nauk {\bf157}, 561 (1989) [Sov.\ Phys.\ Usp.\ {\bf32}, 289 (1989)];
1066: B. A. Kniehl and M. Spira,
1067: Z. Phys.\ C {\bf69}, 77 (1995);
1068: W. Kilian,
1069: Z.\ Phys.\ C {\bf69}, 89 (1995);
1070: M. Spira, A. Djouadi, D. Graudenz, and P. M. Zerwas,
1071: Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B453}, 17 (1995).
1072:
1073: \bibitem{was} B. A. Kniehl and M. Spira,
1074: Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B443}, 37 (1995);
1075: B. A. Kniehl,
1076: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf53}, 6477 (1996).
1077:
1078: \bibitem{fer} B. A. Kniehl and M. Steinhauser,
1079: Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B454}, 485 (1995);
1080: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf365}, 297 (1996).
1081:
1082: \bibitem{gam} A. Djouadi, P. Gambino, and B. A. Kniehl,
1083: Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B523}, 17 (1998).
1084:
1085: \bibitem{cks1} K. G. Chetyrkin, B. A. Kniehl, and M. Steinhauser,
1086: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf78}, 594 (1997);
1087: Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B490}, 19 (1997).
1088:
1089: \bibitem{hbb} A. Kwiatkowski and M. Steinhauser,
1090: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf338}, 66 (1994); {\bf342}, 455(E) (1995);
1091: B. A. Kniehl and M. Spira,
1092: Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B432}, 39 (1994).
1093:
1094: \bibitem{dg} A. Djouadi and P. Gambino,
1095: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf73}, 2528 (1994).
1096:
1097: \bibitem{mat} M. Steinhauser,
1098: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf59}, 054005 (1999).
1099:
1100: \bibitem{djo} A. Djouadi and C. Verzegnassi,
1101: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf195}, 265 (1987);
1102: A. Djouadi,
1103: Nuovo Cim.\ {\bf100A}, 357 (1988);
1104: B. A. Kniehl, J. H. K\"uhn, and R. G. Stuart,
1105: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf214}, 621 (1988);
1106: B. A. Kniehl,
1107: Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B347}, 86 (1990);
1108: A. Djouadi and P. Gambino,
1109: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf49}, 3499 (1994); {\bf53}, 4111(E) (1996);
1110: {\bf49}, 4705 (1994).
1111:
1112: \bibitem{avd} L. Avdeev, J. Fleischer, S. Mikhailov, and O. Tarasov,
1113: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf336}, 560 (1994); {\bf349}, 597(E) (1995);
1114: K. G. Chetyrkin, J. H. K\"uhn, and M. Steinhauser,
1115: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf351}, 331 (1995).
1116:
1117: \bibitem{bij} J. J. van der Bij and F. Hoogeveen,
1118: Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B283}, 477 (1987);
1119: M. Consoli, W. Hollik, and F. Jegerlehner,
1120: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf227}, 167 (1989).
1121:
1122: \bibitem{bar} R. Barbieri, M. Beccaria, P. Ciafaloni, G. Curci, and
1123: A. Vicer\'e,
1124: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf288}, 95 (1992); {\bf312}, 511(E) (1993);
1125: Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B409}, 105 (1993);
1126: J. Fleischer, O. V. Tarasov, and F. Jegerlehner,
1127: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf319}, 249 (1993).
1128:
1129: \bibitem{deg} G. Degrassi, S. Fanchiotti, and P. Gambino,
1130: Int.\ J. Mod.\ Phys.\ A {\bf10}, 1377 (1995);
1131: G. Degrassi, S. Fanchiotti, F. Feruglio, P. Gambino, and A. Vicini,
1132: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf350}, 75 (1995);
1133: G. Degrassi, P. Gambino, and A. Vicini,
1134: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf383}, 219 (1996).
1135:
1136: \bibitem{gra} N. Gray, D. J. Broadhurst, W. Grafe, and K. Schilcher,
1137: Z. Phys.\ C {\bf48}, 673 (1990).
1138:
1139: \bibitem{cor} J. M. Cornwall, D. N. Levin, and G. Tiktopoulos,
1140: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf10}, 1145 (1974); {\bf11}, 972(E) (1975);
1141: C. E. Vayonakis,
1142: Lett.\ Nuovo Cimento {\bf17}, 383 (1976);
1143: M. S. Chanowitz and M. K. Gaillard,
1144: Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B261}, 379 (1985);
1145: G. J. Gounaris, R. K\"ogerler, and H. Neufeld,
1146: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf34}, 3257 (1986);
1147: Y.-P. Yao and C.-P. Yuan,
1148: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf38}, 2237 (1988);
1149: J. Bagger and C. Schmidt,
1150: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf41}, 264 (1990);
1151: H. Veltman,
1152: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf41}, 2294 (1990);
1153: H.-J. He, Y.-P. Kuang, and X. Li,
1154: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf69}, 2619 (1992);
1155: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf49}, 4842 (1994);
1156: H.-J. He, Y.-P. Kuang, and C.-P. Yuan,
1157: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf51}, 6463 (1995);
1158: D. Espriu and J. Matias,
1159: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf52}, 6530 (1995).
1160:
1161: \bibitem{vel} M. Veltman,
1162: Acta Phys.\ Polonica B {\bf8}, 475 (1977).
1163:
1164: \bibitem{dur} L. Durand, B. A. Kniehl, and K. Riesselmann,
1165: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf72}, 2534 (1994); {\bf74}, 1699(E) (1995);
1166: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf51}, 5007 (1995);
1167: A. Ghinculov,
1168: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf337}, 137 (1994); {\bf346}, 426(E) (1995);
1169: V. Borodulin and G. Jikia,
1170: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf391}, 434 (1997).
1171:
1172: \bibitem{wil} W. J. Marciano and S. S. D. Willenbrock,
1173: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf37}, 2509 (1988).
1174:
1175: \bibitem{ghi} A. Ghinculov,
1176: Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B455}, 21 (1995).
1177:
1178: \bibitem{fri} A. Frink, B. A. Kniehl, D. Kreimer, and K. Riesselmann,
1179: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf54}, 4548 (1996).
1180:
1181: \bibitem{goe} M. G\"ockeler, H. A. Kastrup, J. Westphalen, and F. Zimmermann,
1182: Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B425}, 413 (1994).
1183:
1184: \bibitem{bha} T. Bhattacharya and S. Willenbrock,
1185: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf47}, 4022 (1993).
1186:
1187: \bibitem{pal} B. A. Kniehl, C. P. Palisoc, and A. Sirlin,
1188: Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B591}, 296 (2000);
1189: B. A. Kniehl and A. Sirlin,
1190: Report No.\ DESY 01-146 and hep-ph/0110296.
1191:
1192: \bibitem{gro} E. Gross, B. A. Kniehl, and G. Wolf,
1193: Z. Phys.\ C {\bf63}, 417 (1994); {\bf66}, 321(E) (1995).
1194:
1195: \bibitem{dsz} A. Djouadi, M. Spira, and P. M. Zerwas,
1196: Z. Phys.\ C {\bf70}, 427 (1996).
1197:
1198: \bibitem{tdr} J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra {\it et al.},
1199: in {\it TESLA Technical Design Report, Part III: Physics at an $e^+e^-$ Linear
1200: Collider},
1201: edited by R.-D. Heuer, D. Miller, F. Richard, and P. Zerwas,
1202: Report No.\ DESY 2001-011, ECFA 2001-209, TESLA Report 2001-23,
1203: TESLA-FEL 2001-05 (March 2001), p.~11.
1204:
1205: \bibitem{ffzh} B. A. Kniehl,
1206: Z. Phys.\ C {\bf55}, 605 (1992).
1207:
1208: \bibitem{ber} F. A. Berends and R. Kleiss,
1209: Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B260}, 32 (1985).
1210:
1211: \bibitem{den} J. Fleischer and F. Jegerlehner,
1212: Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B216}, 469 (1983);
1213: A. Denner, J. K\"ublbeck, R. Mertig, and M. B\"ohm,
1214: Z. Phys.\ C {\bf56}, 261 (1992).
1215:
1216: \bibitem{bee} W. Beenakker, F. A. Berends, and S. S. van der Marck,
1217: Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B349}, 323 (1991).
1218:
1219: \bibitem{iba} W. F. L. Hollik,
1220: Fortschr.\ Phys.\ {\bf38}, 165 (1990);
1221: F. Halzen, B. A. Kniehl, and M. L. Stong,
1222: Z. Phys.\ C {\bf58}, 119 (1993).
1223:
1224: \bibitem{kil} W. Kilian, M. Kr\"amer, and P. M. Zerwas,
1225: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf373}, 135 (1996).
1226:
1227: \bibitem{heu} C. A. Heusch,
1228: Int.\ J. Mod.\ Phys.\ A {\bf15}, 2347 (2000).
1229:
1230: \bibitem{boo} E. Boos, M. Dubinin, V. Ilin, A. Pukhov, G. Jikia, and
1231: S. Sultanov,
1232: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf273}, 173 (1991).
1233:
1234: \bibitem{hwz} K. Hagiwara, I. Watanabe, and P. M. Zerwas,
1235: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf278}, 187 (1992);
1236: K. Cheung,
1237: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf48}, 1035 (1993).
1238:
1239: \bibitem{ebo} O. J. P. \'Eboli, M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, and S. F. Novaes,
1240: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf49}, 91 (1994).
1241:
1242: \bibitem{tel} V. Telnov,
1243: in {\it Physics and Experiments with Linear Colliders},
1244: Saariselk\"a, Finland, 9--14 September 1991,
1245: edited by R. Orava, P. Eerola, and M. Nordberg
1246: (World Scientific, Singapore, 1992), Vol.~II, p.~739;
1247: D. Bowser-Chao and K. Cheung,
1248: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf48}, 89 (1993);
1249: O. J. P. \'Eboli, M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, F. Halzen, and D. Zeppenfeld,
1250: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf48}, 1430 (1993);
1251: D. L. Borden, D. A. Bauer, and D. O. Caldwell,
1252: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf48}, 4018 (1993);
1253: H. Veltman,
1254: Z. Phys.\ C {\bf62}, 235 (1994).
1255:
1256: \bibitem{bai} M. Baillargeon and F. Boudjema,
1257: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf317}, 371 (1993).
1258:
1259: \bibitem{gin} E. Boos, I. Ginzburg, K. Melnikov, T. Sack, and S. Shichanin,
1260: Z. Phys.\ C {\bf56}, 487 (1992);
1261: K. Cheung,
1262: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf47}, 3750 (1993).
1263:
1264: \bibitem{ver} V. Barger, K. Cheung, A. Djouadi, B. A. Kniehl, and
1265: P. M. Zerwas,
1266: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf49}, 79 (1994).
1267:
1268: \bibitem{DK} A. Djouadi and B. A. Kniehl,
1269: in {\it Proceedings of the Workshop on $e^+e^-$ Collisions At 500~GeV: The
1270: Physics Potential}, Part C, Munich, Annecy, Hamburg, November 1992 to April
1271: 1993, edited by P. M. Zerwas, Report No.\ DESY 93-123C (December 1993), p.~51.
1272:
1273: \bibitem{mil} D. J. Miller, S. Y. Choi, B. Eberle, M. M. M\"uhlleitner, and
1274: P. M. Zerwas,
1275: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf505}, 149 (2001).
1276:
1277: \bibitem{sto} K. Hagiwara and M. L. Stong,
1278: Z. Phys.\ C {\bf62}, 99 (1994).
1279:
1280: \bibitem{hag} K. Hagiwara, S. Ishihara, J. Kamoshita, and B. A. Kniehl,
1281: Eur.\ Phys.\ J. C {\bf14}, 457 (2000).
1282:
1283: \bibitem{grz} B. Grzadkowski, J. F. Gunion, and J. Pliszka,
1284: Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B583}, 49 (2000);
1285: T. Han and J. Jiang,
1286: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf63}, 096007 (2001).
1287:
1288: \bibitem{oom} D. Atwood and A. Soni,
1289: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf45}, 2405 (1992);
1290: M. Davier, L. Duflot, F. Le Diberder, and A. Roug\'e,
1291: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf306}, 411 (1993);
1292: M. Diehl and O. Nachtmann,
1293: Z.\ Phys.\ C {\bf62}, 397 (1994).
1294:
1295: \bibitem{gun} J. F. Gunion, B. Grzadkowski, and X.-G. He,
1296: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf77}, 5172 (1996).
1297:
1298: \bibitem{kal} A. Djouadi, J. Kalinowski, and P. M. Zerwas,
1299: Z. Phys.\ C {\bf54}, 255 (1992); Mod.\ Phys.\ Lett.\ A {\bf7}, 1765 (1992).
1300:
1301: \bibitem{daw} S. Dawson and L. Reina,
1302: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf57}, 5851 (1998); {\bf59}, 054012 (1999).
1303:
1304: \bibitem{dit} S. Dittmaier, M. Kr\"amer, Y. Liao, M. Spira, and P. M. Zerwas,
1305: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf441}, 383 (1998).
1306:
1307: \bibitem{mmm} A. Djouadi, W. Kilian, M. M\"uhlleitner, and P. M. Zerwas,
1308: Eur.\ Phys.\ J. C {\bf10}, 27 (1999).
1309:
1310: \end{thebibliography}
1311:
1312: \end{document}
1313: