1: 

2: % this was the late eps2.09 stuff

3: %\documentstyle[12pt,epsfig]{article}

4: % replace it with

5: 

6: \documentclass[12pt]{article}

7: \usepackage{epsfig}

8: %\usepackage{revtex}

9: %\usepackage{aipproc}

10: 

11: % need aipproc to get Appendix and Acknowledgments

12: % doesn't seem to work with documentclass

13: 

14: % Lynne's settings for the hard gluon paper

15: \topmargin -.5cm

16: \textwidth 16.5cm

17: \textheight 22.5cm

18: \oddsidemargin 0cm

19: \evensidemargin 0cm

20: 

21: 

22: \newcommand{\bec}[1] {\begin{equation}\label{#1} }

23: \newcommand{\eec} {\end{equation} }

24: 

25: \newcommand{\beq}{\begin{equation} }

26: \newcommand{\eeq}{\end{equation}}

27: 

28: \newcommand{\bea}{\begin{eqnarray}}

29: \newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}}

30: 

31: \newcommand{\at}{\bar{t}}

32: \newcommand{\ab}{\bar{b}}

33: 

34: \def\TeV{{\rm TeV}}

35: \def\GeV{{\rm GeV}}

36: 

37: \newcommand{\la}{\mbox{$\lambda$}}

38: 

39: \begin{document}

40: 

41: \vspace*{-0.5cm}

42: \begin{flushright}

43: UR-1646\\

44: OSU-HEP-01-13

45: \end{flushright}

46: \vspace{0.5cm}

47: 

48: \begin{center}

49: {\Large

50: {\bf QCD Loop Corrections to Top Production and Decay at

51: $e^+ e^-$ Colliders  } }

52: 

53: \vspace*{1.cm}

54:  Cosmin Macesanu 

55: \footnote{Email address:  mcos@pas.rochester.edu}

56: 

57: \vspace*{0.5cm}

58: {\it Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester\\

59: Rochester, NY~14627-0171, USA\\}

60: {\it Department of Physics, Oklahoma State University

61: \footnote{Current address.}\\

62: Stillwater, OK~74078, USA\\}

63: \end{center}

64: 

65: \begin{abstract}

66: 

67: We present a computation of QCD next-to-leading order virtual corrections

68: to the top production and decay process at linear colliders. The 

69: top quarks are allowed to be off-shell and

70: the production and decay subprocesses are treated together, thus

71: allowing for interference effects.  The framework employed for our computation

72: is the double pole approximation (DPA). We describe the implementation of

73: this approximation for the top production and decay process

74: and compare it with the implementation of DPA for the evaluation

75: of QED corrections to the $W$ pair production at LEP II. Similarities

76: and differences between the two cases are pointed out. One result

77: of interest is the incomplete cancelation of interference corrections.

78: Other results include

79: values for the total NLO top production cross section, and the impact

80: the nonfactorizable (interference) corrections have on the top invariant

81: mass distribution.

82: 

83: \end{abstract}

84: 

85: 

86: \section{Introduction}

87: 

88: The top quark might prove to be one of the most interesting elementary particles discovered so far. Since its mass is so large (close

89: to the electroweak symmetry breaking scale), it can be assumed

90:  that study of top properties will allow us to learn new things about the

91: physics at the next energy scale. So far, though, 

92: due to low statistics in the Run I at Tevatron, our knowledge

93: of the top quark is rather limited.

94: %we don't really know

95: %much about it, beside the fact that it exists and its mass.

96: Future runs at the Tevatron and the LHC will provide more information, 

97: but the analysis of this new data 

98: will be complicated by large QCD backgrounds. 

99: 

100:  An $e^+ e^-$ collider with center-of-mass energy at and above the top 

101: threshold promises to provide a clean environment in which to perform

102: precision studies of the top quark \cite{orange}.

103:  Indeed,

104: it is conceivable that at such a machine the study of top can be performed

105: with a precision similar to that 

106: aquired in the study the $W$ boson at LEP II.

107: This means order \%  (and better) measurements of 

108: differential cross sections for processes involving the top quark. 

109: Such a precision in measuring experimental quantities implies the need

110: for a like precision in our theoretical understanding of these processes.

111: This in turn requires 

112: %going beyond leading order

113: the inclusion of radiative corrections in our 

114: predictions.

115: 

116: 

117: A wealth of information about the top quark (like its mass, width, 

118: strong and Yukawa coupling constants) can be extracted from 

119: measurements performed at the production threshold.

120: For this region, comprehensive theoretical

121: studies (NNLO computation with resummation of large logarithms,

122: careful treatment of the renormalon ambiguity) have already been performed

123: (\cite{top_thres} and references therein). Going to higher energies, 

124: we can study the V-A structure of the top quark 

125: couplings to the gauge bosons ($ \gamma, Z$ and $W$) \cite{anom_coup}.

126: The information about couplings can be obtained by using spin correlations:

127: the top quarks are produced in certain spin states, as dictated by the

128: top - $ \gamma, Z$ couplings. Since the top decays before hadronization,

129: the spin states of the top directly influence the angular 

130: distributions of its decay products. Simulations show that by analyzing

131: kinematic variables of final state particles it is possible to measure

132: the top-gauge boson couplings at the several percent level \cite{orange}.

133: 

134: 

135: %We are interested in 

136: The subject of this paper is the evaluation of

137: NLO QCD corrections to the top production and decay process above threshold

138: at a Linear Collider. 

139: %The subject is not new; a lot of work has already 

140: %been done on this topic. Particularly, the QCD radiative corrections to 

141: % individual subprocesses have been comprehensively studied :

142:  Previous work in this area includes the study of corrections

143: to the top production subprocess, with virtual and soft gluons

144:  \cite{jersak} 

145: as well as with hard gluon radiation

146: (\cite{korner1}, \cite{parke1}, \cite{arndt1} are just some examples),

147: and to the top decay subprocess with virtual and

148: hard gluons together (\cite{jeza1}, \cite{andrej}, \cite{oakes}).

149:  

150: 

151: Using these results, one can try to understand the top production and

152: decay process by assuming that the intermediate top quarks

153: are on-shell (narrow

154: width approximation)  and treating the subprocesses separately

155: \cite{schmidt}. This assumption is usually reasonable;

156: the result for the total cross section is valid up to terms of 

157: order $\Gamma_t/m_t \sim 1 \%$. 

158: However, the effects of finite top width can be

159: important in some differential cross sections; and if precision

160: better than percent level is needed, the production and decay processes

161: have to be considered  together,

162: by allowing the top quark to go off-shell.

163: %** interference **

164: These corrections can be thought as being due to interference between

165: production and decay, and are also known as nonfactorizable corrections.

166: Some results concerning the nonfactorizable corrections for the top

167: production process have already been published \cite{bbc_top}; 

168: we present here a more complete analysis.

169: 

170: 

171:  We shall perform this computation and present the results at the parton 

172: level only.  

173: We assume that the issues related to jet reconstruction and 

174: identification can been solved, and the final state contains two $W$ bosons

175: \footnote{ At the Monte Carlo level, we actually allow the on-shell $W$'s

176: to decay, either semileptonically or into a pair of massless quarks, but 

177: in the latter case we do not take 

178: into consideration QCD corrections to the W decay.}

179: and two $b$ quarks (the real gluon radiation case has been analyzed in 

180: \cite{hardglu}, \cite{mrst98}).

181: Even at this level, the complete computation of all the diagrams contributing

182: to this final state (Born and next to leading order) is a very difficult

183: task. Therefore, we shall employ the double pole approximation (DPA) which

184: means taking into account only the diagrams which contain a top - antitop pair.

185: 

186: 

187: %Throrough the paper, a paralel has been made 

188: Here, it is worth mentioning the strong similarities 

189: between the evaluation of QCD corrections to the process of interest to us:

190: \bec{tree_p}

191:  e^+ e^- \rightarrow t\ \bar{t}\ \rightarrow b\ W^+\ \bar{b}\ W^- 

192: \eec

193: and the evaluation of QED corrections to the $W$ pair production and 

194: decay process ($e^+ e^- \rightarrow W^+\ W^- \rightarrow 4f) $ at LEP.

195: The issues which arise in the two computations are similar,

196: because in both cases we are dealing with the production and

197: decay of heavy unstable particles.

198: Our treatment is largely similar to the one used for the electroweak 

199: process \cite{racoon}, \cite{ddr}, \cite{BBC}. But there are

200: some differences, both in the implementation of the DPA approximation

201: and  in the number and type of terms which contribute to the final result

202: (the latter being due to the fact that in our case the

203: intermediate off-shell particles are fermions, and not bosons).  

204: These differences will be pointed out in the course of our discussion.

205: 

206:  The outline of the paper is as follows. In sect. 2 we lay out in some detail

207: the theoretical framework in which we perform our computation.

208: This includes a short description of the DPA method, with examples 

209: of evaluation of NLO amplitudes in this approximation. The main point 

210: of this section is that the results for the amplitudes

211: corresponding to interference diagrams are similar to results 

212: previously obtained

213: for the $W$ pair production process, while for the vertex corrections and

214: fermion self-energy diagrams there are differences between the two cases.

215: In order to facilitate comparisons with the on-shell approach, we also

216: formulate our results in terms of corrections to the production and 

217: decay subprocesses and interference contributions. The gauge invariance

218: of the total and partial amplitudes in DPA is manifest in this formulation.

219: Sect. 3 contains some details on the design of the Fortran code we used

220: to obtain our numerical results, which are presented in sect. 5.

221:  A short discussion of a slighty

222: different approach in evaluating the non-factorizable corrections 

223: (used in \cite{bbc_top})

224: is presented in sect. 4. We end with the conclusions.

225: 

226: 

227: %\vspace{4.cm}

228: 

229: \section{Amplitudes in DPA}

230: 

231: Since it decays very fast, the top quark is not studied directly,

232: but through its decay products. 

233: In top pair production at linear colliders,

234: the relevant process is: 

235: \bec{proc1}

236:  e^+ e^- \rightarrow\ b\ W^+\ \bar{b}\ W^- 

237: \eec

238: At tree level, the diagrams contributing to this process can be split

239: into 3 classes: diagrams which contain a top-antitop

240: pair (Fig. \ref{tree_level}), diagrams which contain either one top quark

241: or a top antiquark (Fig. \ref{sin_res_diag} and charge conjugates),

242:  and diagrams which 

243: do not contain any top (there are about 50 such diagrams).  

244: The evaluation of all these amplitudes can be performed using 

245:  one of the automated tree level amplitude computation programs,

246: like MADGRAPH (\cite{madgraph}, see also \cite{treetop}).

247:  The computation of QCD corrections to all

248: tree level diagrams, however, increases the

249:  degree of complexity by quite a lot, and is probably not feasible yet.

250: 

251: \begin{figure}[ht!] % fig 2

252: \centerline{\epsfig{file=eett.eps,height=2.in,width=2.5in}}

253: \caption{The top-antitop diagrams contributing to the process (\ref{proc1}).}

254: \label{tree_level}

255: \end{figure}

256: 

257: Hence the need to use some methods which will simplify 

258: the computation, but will provide approximate results for the 

259: virtual corrections. One such method is the {\it double pole approximation} 

260: (DPA), which makes use of the fact that, looking

261: for top pair production, we are interested in a specific region

262: of the final state phase space of (\ref{proc1}). This region 

263: is defined by the requirement that the invariant mass of the $W\ b$

264: pair is close to the top mass: 

265: $ p_t^2,\ p_{\bar{t}}^2  \approx m_t^2$, where

266: $ p_t = p_{W^+} + p_b  $ and $ p_{\bar{t}} =  p_{W^-} + p_{\bar{b}} $.

267: In this region, the amplitudes corresponding to the top-antitop diagrams

268: are enhanced by the two resonant propagators coming from the two intermediate

269: top quarks\footnote{We

270: use the notation $\bar{m}_t^2 = m_t^2 - i m_t \Gamma_t$}: 

271: \bec{fdask} {\cal{M}} \sim  \frac{1}{p_t^2 - \bar{m}_t^2}\ 

272: \frac{1}{p_{\bar{t}}^2 - \bar{m}_t^2}\ 

273: \eec

274: (the diagrams in (Fig. \ref{tree_level}) are therefore called

275: doubly resonant) and we can neglect the contributions coming from

276: the singly resonant diagrams (Fig. \ref{sin_res_diag}) or nonresonant ones,

277: which are {\it reduced}

278: by factors of ($\Gamma_t/m_t$) or $(\Gamma_t/m_t)^2$

279:  with respect to the doubly resonant contributions.

280: 

281: 

282: \begin{figure}[t!] % fig 3

283: \centerline{\epsfig{file=sinres.eps,height=2.in,width=4.5in}}

284: \caption{Single top diagrams contributing to the process (\ref{proc1}).}

285: \label{sin_res_diag}

286: \end{figure}

287: 

288: 

289: The real gluon corrections to the doubly resonant diagrams have been computed

290: in \cite{hardglu}.

291: The aim of this paper is the DPA evaluation of the virtual corrections

292: to the top production and decay process.

293: Some of Feynman diagrams contributing to these corrections

294: are presented in Figure \ref{vir_diag}. These diagrams can be roughly 

295: divided into

296: two classes : corrections to particular subprocesses -- the vertex and 

297: fermion self-energy diagrams in Fig. \ref{vir_diag} a) and b) 

298: respectively -- and 

299: interference type corrections (Fig. \ref{vir_diag} c) and d)). Strictly

300: speaking, the vertex and self-energy diagrams also contribute to interference

301: between subprocesses; but, for the sake of brevity,

302: we shall refer to the diagram in Fig. \ref{vir_diag} a) as the production

303: vertex correction diagram, and so on. Also, in the following, we will denote

304: the tree level amplitude (Fig. \ref{tree_level}) by ${\cal{M}}^0$, and

305: the amplitude for the first order virtual corrections by ${\cal{M}}^{vg}$:

306: \bec{mvg_amp}

307:  {\cal{M}}^{vg} = {\cal{M}}_{t\bar{t}} + {\cal{M}}_{t b} +

308:   {\cal{M}}_{\bar{t}\bar{b}} + 

309: {\cal{M}}_{b\bar{t}} + {\cal{M}}_{t\bar{b}} + {\cal{M}}_{b\bar{b}} 

310: \eec 

311: Here, the  first three terms correspond to the three off-shell vertex

312: corrections (which include in a suitable way the fermion self-energies,

313: as described in section 2.4), 

314: and the last three terms come from the interference diagrams.

315: 

316: \begin{figure}[tb] % virtual corrections diagrams

317: \centerline{\epsfig{file=et_vir.eps,height=8.cm,width=11cm}}

318: \caption{Feynman diagrams for virtual gluon corrections to top production and decay.}

319: \label{vir_diag}

320: \end{figure}

321: 

322: \subsection{Interference diagrams}

323: 

324: 

325: We start by discussing the evaluation of interference diagrams in 

326: Figs. 3c), 3d). Technically, this is one of the more involved  

327: computations we have to perform. The full evaluation of the 

328: $\at - b$ interference amplitude\footnote {The

329: Feynman gauge is used for the gluon propagator.}:

330: {\small

331: $$ {\cal{M}}_{b\bar{t}} =

332:  \bar{u}(b) \left[ (-i g_s^2)

333:  \int \frac{d^4 k}{2\pi^4}\ \frac{1}{k^2 + i\epsilon}\

334: \gamma^\mu \ \frac{\not{p}_b-\not{k} + m_b}{(p_b-k)^2 - m_b^2}\

335: \not{\epsilon}_{W^+} \ \frac{\not{p}_t-\not{k} + m_t}{(p_t-k)^2 - \bar{m}_t^2}\

336: {\Gamma}_{\gamma,Z_0}\ \right.

337: $$

338: \bec{mbbart}

339: \left. \times\

340: \frac{-\not{p}_{\bar{t}} - \not{k} + m_t}{(p_{\bar{t}}+k)^2 - \bar{m}_t^2}\

341: \gamma_\mu \right] \ 

342: \frac{-\not{p}_{\bar{t}} + m_t}{p_{\bar{t}}^2 - \bar{m}_t^2}\

343: \not{\epsilon}_{W^-} \ v(\bar{b})

344: \eec }

345: is, for example, quite a difficult task.

346: However, the only terms of interest to us in DPA are those which

347: have resonances at the top and antitop quark propagator poles. This

348: simplifies our task greatly. 

349: The doubly resonant terms can be extracted with the help of the following

350: observation: if the virtual gluon in the loop is hard, then 

351: the quantity in  brackets does not have any singularity, and the overall

352: resonant structure for this diagram is given only by the pole due to 

353: the antitop propagator:

354: $ {\cal{M}}_{b\bar{t}}(\hbox{hard gluon}) \propto 1/(p_{\bar{t}}^2 - \bar{m}_t^2)$.

355: This means that any doubly resonant terms contribution to

356: $ {\cal{M}}_{b\bar{t}}$ are entirely due to soft 

357: virtual gluons. 

358: Therefore, we can neglect the $\not{k}$ terms in 

359: the numerator of (\ref{mbbart}).

360: Following \cite{ddr}, we shall call this approximation 

361: the {\it extended soft gluon approximation} (ESGA)

362: \footnote{In the standard soft gluon approximation, $k^2$

363: terms in the denominator of top quark propagators would also

364: be neglected; we do not do this here for computational reasons

365:  (see also \cite{ddr}, \cite{kos}).}.

366: 

367: 

368:  With the help of the transformations:

369: \bec{trans_1}

370: \gamma^\mu \ (\not{p}_b + m_b) = ( -\not{p}_b + m_b)\ \gamma^\mu + 2p_b^\mu

371: \rightarrow 2p_b^\mu

372: \eec

373: $$ 

374: (-\not{p}_{\bar{t}} + m_t)\ \gamma_\mu = \gamma_\mu \ (\not{p}_{\bar{t}} + m_t)

375: - 2 p_{\bar{t} \mu} \rightarrow - 2 p_{\bar{t} \mu}

376: $$

377: (the term  $(\not{p}_{\bar{t}} + m_t)$ 

378: on the second line is neglected, since 

379: it would lead to a singly resonant contribution),

380: the following result is  obtained for the amplitude (\ref{mbbart}):

381: $$ {\cal{M}}_{b\bar{t}}(DPA+ESGA) = 

382: \frac{\alpha_s}{4\pi}\

383:  {\cal{M}}_0 \ \times \ (-4 p_b p_{\bar{t}})( p_t^2-\bar{m}_t^2 ) 

384: $$

385: \bec{mbbtr}

386: %\left[ 

387: \times\

388: \int \frac{d^4 k}{i\pi^2}\ \frac{1}{k^2+ i\epsilon}\ \frac{1}{k^2-2kp_b}\  

389: \frac{1}{(p_t-k)^2 - \bar{m}_t^2}\ \frac{1}{(p_{\bar{t}}+k)^2 - \bar{m}_t^2}\

390: %\right]

391: \eec

392: The result is proportional to the tree level amplitude --

393:  in the DPA, the virtual corrections 

394: due to interference factorize.

395: The proportionality factor includes the scalar 4-point function

396: (the integral on the second line of Eq. (\ref{mbbtr})) 

397: ${\cal{D}}^0_{b\bar{t}} = {\cal{D}}^0(-p_b,-p_t,p_{\bar{t}},0,m_b,\bar{m}_t,\bar{m}_t)$.

398: \footnote{

399:  For the scalar one-loop integrals appearing here

400:  we use the following notation:

401: $$ {\cal{D}}^0(p_1,p_2,p_3,m_0,m_1,m_2,m_3) = 

402: \int \frac{d^4 k}{i \pi^2}\ \frac{1}{N_0\ N_1\ N_2\ N_3}\ 

403: $$

404: $$ {\cal{E}}^0(p_1,p_2,p_3,p_4,m_0,m_1,m_2,m_3,m_4) = 

405: \int \frac{d^4 k}{i \pi^2}\ \frac{1}{N_0\ N_1\ N_2\ N_3\ N_4}\ 

406: $$

407: with the denominators :

408: $$ N_0 = k^2 - m_0^2 + i\epsilon, \hbox{~~~~~} 

409: N_i = (k+p_i)^2 - m_i^2 + i\epsilon, \hbox{~~~~~} i=1,...,4

410: $$

411: }

412: 

413: 

414: Let's discuss shortly the resonant behavior of the DPA amplitude

415: in (\ref{mbbtr}). 

416: Apparently, the result for ${\cal{M}}_{b\bar{t}}$ has a single pole at 

417: $p_{\bar{t}}^2 = m_t^2$ (the other pole  being canceled 

418: by the multiplicative term $ p_t^2-m_t^2 $).

419:  However, if the

420: top (or antitop) goes on-shell, the ${\cal{D}}^0$ function 

421: acquires an infrared singularity (in the zero top width limit;

422: this singularity is regularized by the top width). 

423: Since the infrared singular type terms have 

424: a logarithmic structure (this can also be reasoned from power 

425: counting arguments), this indicates that ${\cal{D}}^0$ has the 

426: following behavior close to the top resonances:

427: \bec{res_beh}

428:  {\cal{D}}^0_{b\bar{t}} \sim a_1 \hbox{log}(p_t^2 - \bar{m}_t^2) + 

429: a_2 \hbox{log}(p_{\bar{t}}^2 - \bar{m}_t^2) 

430: \eec

431: Here $a_1$ and $a_2$ are terms which are finite when {\it either}

432: the top or antitop quark go on-shell.

433: Formally, then, the overall resonant behavior of the 

434: interference amplitude $ {\cal{M}}_{b\bar{t}}$

435: in DPA is of type $pole \times logarithm$: 

436: $$ {\cal{M}}_{b\bar{t}} \sim \tilde{{\cal{M}}}_0\ \hbox{log}(p_t^2 - \bar{m}_t^2) \ 

437: \frac{1}{p_{\bar{t}}^2 - \bar{m}_t^2} $$

438: rather than $pole \times pole$,

439: as it is for the tree level amplitude or for the 

440: corrections to production or decay subprocesses.

441: 

442: 

443: %

444: %5 point function\\

445: 

446: Using the same techniques, similar results are easily obtained for the

447: other two interference diagrams.

448: In the soft gluon approximation (and DPA):

449: \bec{mtbbr}

450: {\cal{M}}_{t\ab}(DPA+ESGA) = 

451: \frac{\alpha_s C_F}{4\pi}\

452:  {\cal{M}}_0 \ \times \ (-4 p_t p_{\ab})( p_{\at}^2-\bar{m}_t^2 ) \

453:  {\cal{D}}^0_{t\ab}

454: \eec

455: \bec{mbbbr}

456:  {\cal{M}}_{b\bar{b}}(DPA+ESGA) = 

457: \frac{\alpha_s C_F}{4\pi}\ {\cal{M}}_0 \ \times \ (-4 p_b p_{\bar{b}})( p_t^2-\bar{m}_t^2 )

458: ( p_{\bar{t}}^2-\bar{m}_t^2 ) \ {\cal{E}}^0_{b\ab}

459: \eec

460: where ${\cal{D}}^0_{t\ab} = {\cal{D}}^0 (-p_{\ab},-p_{\at},p_t,0,m_b,\bar{m}_t,\bar{m}_t)$ and

461: \bec{e0}

462: {\cal{E}}^0_{b\ab} = {\cal{E}}^0

463: (-p_b,-p_t,p_{\bar{t}},p_{\bar{b}},\mu,m_b,\bar{m}_t,\bar{m}_t,m_b)

464: \eec

465: is the scalar 5-point function (here $\mu$ is the infinitesimally small

466: gluon mass  needed for the regularization of infrared divergent

467: behavior of ${\cal{E}}^0_{b\ab}$).

468: 

469: % It can also be shown that the resonant behavior of this

470: %function is 

471: %$$ {\cal{E}}^0_{b\ab} \sim 

472: %b_1\ \hbox{log}(p_t^2 - \bar{m}_t^2) \ \frac{1}{p_{\bar{t}}^2 - \bar{m}_t^2}

473: %+ b_2\ \hbox{log}(p_{\bar{t}}^2 - \bar{m}_t^2) \  \frac{1}{p_t^2 - \bar{m}_t^2} $$

474: %hence we get

475: %$$  {\cal{M}}_{b\bar{b}} \sim \tilde{{\cal{M}}_0} \left(

476: %b_1\ \hbox{log}(p_t^2 - \bar{m}_t^2) \ \frac{1}{p_{\bar{t}}^2 - \bar{m}_t^2}

477: %+ b_2\ \hbox{log}(p_{\bar{t}}^2 - \bar{m}_t^2) \  \frac{1}{p_t^2 - \bar{m}_t^2}

478: %\right)

479: %$$

480: 

481: We end this section with some comments on the numerical magnitude

482: of interference terms. Since the resonant behavior of these terms is

483: of $pole \times log$ type, it might be expected that they are less important

484: numerically that the double pole terms. However, 

485: analytic expressions for the ${\cal{D}}_0$ function (\cite{ddr},

486: \cite{mel_yak}, \cite{BBC})

487: show that, although the 

488: coefficients $ a_1, a_2$ in (\ref{res_beh}) are finite when one of 

489: the top or antitop quark goes on shell, they will diverge when both particles

490: go on-shell simultaneously:

491: $$ a_i\ \sim \ 

492: \frac{1}{c_{1i} (p_t^2 - \bar{m}_t^2) + c_{2i} (p_{\bar{t}}^2 - \bar{m}_t^2)}

493: $$

494: Therefore, the leading logarithms in the scalar 4 and 5-point functions

495: will be enhanced

496: by factors of order $m_t/\Gamma_t$ near the top, antitop quark mass resonances.

497: 

498:  

499: %--------------------------------------------------------------------------

500: %\newpage

501: 

502: \subsection{Vertex corrections}

503: 

504:  The results for the interference diagrams

505: %(Eq. (\ref{mbbtr}) and Eq. (\ref{mbbbr})) 

506: are completely analogous to

507: results obtained in the $W$ pair production computation.

508: However, for the off-shell vertex and self-energy

509: corrections diagrams, the results in the top case are different.

510: Consider for example, the amplitude for the general vertex correction

511: in Figure \ref{ver_cor}: 

512: $$ \delta \Gamma^{\mu} = \frac{\alpha_s}{4 \pi} \

513: \int \frac{d^4 k}{i \pi^2}\ \frac{1}{k^2}\ \gamma^{\nu}\

514: \frac{\not{p}_1 - \not{k} + m_1}{(p_1 - k)^2 - \bar{m}_1^2}\

515: \gamma^{\mu}(C_V + C_A \gamma^5 ) \

516: \frac{-\not{p}_2 - \not{k} + m_2}{(p_2 + k)^2 - \bar{m}_2^2}\

517: \gamma_{\nu}

518: $$

519: Upon evaluation (and keeping only the vector part)

520: % the tensorial structure of this expression is :

521: the result can be written in terms of eight form factors, each

522: of them multiplying a different tensor quantity:

523: $$

524: \delta \Gamma^{\mu}_V = \frac{\alpha_s}{4 \pi} C_V\

525: \left[ {\gamma^{\mu}} {F_2} + { (\not{p}_1 - m_1)\gamma^{\mu}} {F_4}

526:  + {\gamma^{\mu}(-\not{p}_2 - m_2)} {F_6} 

527: \right.

528: $$

529: %\nopagebreak[15]

530: \bec{vertex}

531:  \left. + {(\not{p}_1 - m_1)\gamma^{\mu}(-\not{p}_2 - m_2)} {F_8} + 

532: {p_1^{\mu}} {F_1} +  

533: (\not{p}_1 - m_1) p_1^{\mu} F_3   +\ldots \right]

534: \eec

535: (expressions for the scalar form factors $F_1,\ldots, F_8$ can be found

536: in the Appendix).

537: In the on-shell case, only the $F_2$ (electric dipole) and $F_1$ (magnetic dipole momentum) form factors contribute. It might be expected that in the 

538: double pole approximation we can drop the other terms, too, since

539: they  have a zero at 

540: $\not{p}_1 = m_1$ (or $\not{p}_2 = -m_2$) which will

541: cancel one pole (or both) in the amplitude. 

542: However, the 

543: form factors themselves

544: may have a resonant structure when the  particles go on shell.

545: 

546: \begin{figure}[t!] % the general vertex

547: \centerline{\epsfig{file=vertex.eps,height=1.6in,width=1.6in}}

548: \caption{General vertex correction diagram.}

549: \label{ver_cor}

550: \end{figure}

551: 

552: Consider the top decay vertex correction. In this case,

553: $p_1 \rightarrow p_b , p_2 \rightarrow -p_t$, and only four terms survive

554: in Eq. (\ref{vertex}); the corresponding form factors

555: contain terms which are proportional to the scalar 3-point function:

556: $$ F_i \ \sim \ C^0_{tb} \ =

557: \int \frac{d^4 k}{i \pi^2}\ \frac{1}{k^2}\ 

558: \frac{1}{(p_b - k)^2 - m_b^2}\

559: \frac{1}{(p_t - k)^2 - \bar{m}_t^2}\

560: \hbox{~~~~~~~} i= 1,2, 5,6 $$

561: which has 

562: a logarithmic resonant behavior:

563: $$C^0_{tb} \ \sim \ \hbox{log}(p_t^2 - \bar{m_t}^2).$$ 

564: Therefore, the contribution 

565: of $i=5,6$ terms to the top decay vertex correction is doubly

566: resonant, although of type $pole \times log$ rather than double pole.

567: Because these logarithms are not multiplied by large factors (as in the

568: case of the interference diagrams), these terms can be expected to be

569: numerically small; for consistency reasons it is still desirable to 

570: include them in the final result.

571: 

572: Similar results are obtained for the correction to the antitop decay 

573: vertex (we keep the $i=1,2,3,4$ terms in this case). In the case of the 

574: $t \ - \ \bar{t}$ vertex, though, both fermions are off-shell; as a consequence,

575: there are no resonant logarithms when either the top or antitop 

576: quark goes on-shell, and we keep only the $i=1,2$ terms.

577:  

578:  It follows that in the general expression (\ref{vertex})

579: it is necessary to keep the terms which contain $F_1$ to $F_6$  

580: (the $F_7$ and $F_8$ terms can be dropped),

581: and we don't have factorization for the interference part anymore. This is 

582: different from what happens in the $W$ pair production process,

583: where the DPA factorization holds even for the vertex corrections. This

584: difference between the two cases is due to the fact that in one 

585: process the intermediate particles

586: are fermions, while in the other they are bosons.

587: 

588: %--------------------------------------------------------------------------

589: 

590: \subsection{Renormalization and fermion self-energy}

591: 

592: %Since we are performing a next-to-leading order computation, we have to 

593: %deal with the issue of ultraviolet divergences and renormalization. 

594: 

595: For the renormalization of the ultraviolet divergences appearing

596: in the evaluation of the vertex and fermion self-energy corrections

597: we use the counterterm method. What

598: this amounts to is replacing the bare vertex 

599: correction in Fig. \ref{ver_cor} (which is UV divergent) with a 

600: finite renormalized vertex correction (Fig. \ref{ren_vert}):

601: %$$ \delta \Gamma^{\mu} \ \rightarrow \  \delta \Gamma^{\mu}_{ren}$$

602: \bec{ver_ren}

603: \delta \Gamma^{\mu}_{ren} \ = \

604: \delta \Gamma^{\mu} + \Gamma^{\mu} \delta Z_2 + 

605: \frac{1}{2}(-i  

606: \hat{\Sigma}_2(\not{p}_1) ) \frac{i}{\not{p}_1 - m_1} \Gamma^{\mu}

607: + 

608: \frac{1}{2}\Gamma^{\mu}\frac{i}{-\not{p}_2 - m_2} (-i  

609: \hat{\Sigma}_2 ) (\not{p}_2)

610: \eec

611: which also includes the contributions of the fermion self-energy

612: diagram.

613: 

614: \begin{figure}[t!] % the renormalized vertex

615: \centerline{\epsfig{file=ren_vert.eps,height=1.4in,width=5.in}}

616: \caption{Terms contributing to the renormalized vertex; the dots

617:  represent counterterm insertions.}

618: \label{ren_vert}

619: \end{figure}

620: 

621:  The first two terms in Eq. (\ref{ver_ren}) are what is usually defined

622: as the renormalized vertex. The last two terms are one half of the 

623: renormalized fermion and antifermion self-energy:

624: \bec{ren_se}

625:   \hat{\Sigma}_2(\not{p}) = \Sigma_2(\not{p}) - 

626: (\pm \not{p} - m) \delta Z_2 -\Delta m

627: \eec

628: where $ \delta Z_2$ and $ \Delta m$ are coefficients of the counterterms

629: in the Lagrangian density 

630: (the $\pm$ sign corresponds to the particle/antiparticle case).

631: In the above 

632: equation, $\Sigma_2$ stands for the {\it bare} fermion self-energy:

633: \bec{bare_fse}

634:  \Sigma_2(\not{p}) = \frac{\alpha_s}{4 \pi} \

635: \int \frac{d^4 k}{i \pi^2}\ \frac{1}{k^2}\ \gamma^{\mu}\

636: \frac{\not{p} -\not{k} + m }{(p-k)^2 - \bar{m}^2}\ \gamma_{\mu}

637: \eec

638: Upon evaluation, the result for Eq. (\ref{bare_fse}) can be 

639: separated into a scalar and a spinorial component:

640: $$ \Sigma(\not{p}) = (\pm \not{p} - m) \Sigma_a(p^2) \ + \ m \Sigma_b(p^2)$$

641: With these

642: notations, the renormalized vertex correction can be written as:

643: \bec{ren_ver2}

644: \delta \Gamma^{\mu}_{ren} \ = \

645: \delta \Gamma^{\mu} \ + \ \frac{1}{2}\ \Delta Z_2(p_1)\ \Gamma^{\mu}

646: \ + \ \frac{1}{2}\ \Gamma^{\mu}\ \Delta Z_2(p_2) 

647: \eec

648: with

649: \bec{del_Z2}

650:  \Delta Z_2(p)\ = \ \Sigma_a(p^2) + 

651: \frac{ m \Sigma_b(p^2) - \Delta m}{\pm \not{p} - m}

652: \eec

653: The counterterm coefficient $\Delta m$ is fixed by the 

654: on-shell renormalization condition: 

655: \bec{del_m}

656:  \hat{\Sigma}_2(\not{p}= m) \ = \ 0 \ \Rightarrow \ 

657: \Delta m =  m \Sigma_b(m^2)

658: \eec

659: Also, in the on-shell limit,

660: \bec{del_Z2_os}

661:  \Delta Z_2(p) \arrowvert_{\not{p}\rightarrow m}

662: = \left( \Sigma_a(p^2) + \left.

663: \frac{ \partial \Sigma_b(\not{p}\cdot\not{p})}{\partial\not{p}} 

664: \right\arrowvert_{\not{p}\rightarrow m}

665:  \right) =  \left. \frac{ \partial \Sigma_2(\not{p})}{\partial\not{p}} 

666: \right\arrowvert_{\not{p}\rightarrow m} = \delta Z_2

667: \eec

668: where for the last equality we have used the renormalization

669: condition

670: $$  \left.

671: \frac{ \partial \hat{\Sigma_2}(\not{p})}{\partial\not{p}} 

672: \right\arrowvert_{\not{p}\rightarrow m}

673:  = 0

674: $$

675: 

676: It is convenient to write the contribution of the fermion self-energy

677: diagrams in a form similar to that of Eq. (\ref{vertex}). Using the resummed

678: top quark propagator:

679: \bec{top_prop}

680: \frac{i}{\pm \not{p} - m} \ \longrightarrow \

681: \frac{i(\pm \not{p} + m)}{ p^2 - \bar{m}^2}

682: \eec

683: we obtain the following result for $\Delta Z_2$ :

684: \bec{del_Z2_fin}

685: \Delta Z_2(p) =  \left( [\Sigma_a(p^2) + 2 \Sigma_{ir}(p^2)] \ + \

686: \frac{\Sigma_{ir}(p^2)}{m}( \pm \not{p} - m ) \right)

687: \eec

688: with 

689: $$  \Sigma_{ir}(p^2) = 

690: m \frac{ \Sigma_b(p^2) - \Sigma_b(m^2)}{p^2 - \bar{m}^2}. $$

691: The term in square brackets in Eq. (\ref{del_Z2_fin}) will multiply the 

692: Born cross section. The term proportional to $ ( \pm \not{p} - m )$ is 

693: identical to the like terms appearing in the expression for the 

694: vertex correction Eq. (\ref{vertex}). Since $  \Sigma_{ir}$ is the part 

695: of the self-energy correction which would be infrared divergent on-shell

696: (which means that it has a logarithmic resonant behavior

697: $$ \Sigma_{ir}(p^2) \sim \hbox{log}(p^2 - \bar{m}^2)$$

698: in the off-shell case), this term is also kept.

699: 

700: %--------------------------------------------------------------------

701: %\section{Gauge invariance and corrections to particular subprocesses}

702: \subsection{Gauge invariance and corrections to particular subprocesses}

703: 

704: The partial amplitudes appearing in Eq. (\ref{mvg_amp}) can be directly related 

705: to Feynman diagrams and are straightforward to evaluate. 

706: However, as mentioned before, they cannot be directly identified with 

707: corrections to particular subprocesses. For example, the top - antitop

708: production vertex diagram (Figure \ref{vir_diag}a)) contributes to the

709: correction to production vertex, as well as to interference between

710: production and decay and even to interference between top decay and 

711: antitop decay, depending on when the top quark propagators are closer

712: to the resonances. Moreover, the amplitudes in Eq. (\ref{mvg_amp})

713: are not gauge invariant one by one, although their sum is.

714: 

715: For  purposes related to gauge invariance, and in order to be able to perform 

716: comparisons with the on-shell computation,

717:  it is desirable to 

718: decompose the total amplitude into gauge invariant corrections to 

719: particular subprocesses, and interference between these. 

720: The aim is to rewrite  Eq. (\ref{mvg_amp}) as:

721: \bec{m1a_gi}

722: {\cal{M}}^{vg} = {\cal{M}}_{prod} + {\cal{M}}_{tdec} + {\cal{M}}_{\bar{t}dec} +

723: {\cal{M}}_{prod-tdec}^{intf} + {\cal{M}}_{prod-\bar{t}dec}^{intf} + 

724: {\cal{M}}_{tdec-\bar{t}dec}^{intf}

725: \eec

726: with each term being gauge invariant by itself.

727: 

728:  To this end, it is necessary to decompose the amplitudes ${\cal{M}}_{tt}, {\cal{M}}_{tb} ...$

729: into parts which contribute solely to corrections to production, decay, or

730: interference. 

731: This decomposition will be based on the top and antitop

732: propagator structure of the matrix element. 

733: Following the prescription used in \cite{hardglu},

734: products of propagators

735: which go on-shell in different regions of the phase space can be decomposed 

736: as follows:

737: \bec{gi_dec}

738: \frac{1}{D(p_t)}\ \frac{1}{D(p_t-k)} \ = \

739: \frac{1}{D_0(p_t-k)}\ \frac{1}{D(p_t)}\ - 

740: \frac{1}{D_0(p_t-k)}\ \frac{1}{D(p_t-k)}

741: \eec

742: with 

743: \bec{prop_def}

744:  D(p) = p^2 - \bar{m}^2 \ , \ D_0(p-k) = (p-k)^2 - p^2

745: \eec

746: In Eq. (\ref{gi_dec}) the first term on the right hand side

747: is considered as a contribution to the production 

748: process and the second one a contribution to the decay process.

749: Furthermore, it is convenient to write the result in term of products

750: of gauge invariant currents (in a manner similar to \cite{ddr}).

751: For example, the ${\cal{M}}_{b\bar{t}}$ amplitude can be written

752: (using the extended soft gluon approximation):

753: \bec{gfgds}

754: {\cal{M}}_{b\bar{t}}(ESGA) = \frac{\alpha_s}{4\pi}\ {\cal{M}}_0 

755: \int \frac{d^4k}{i\pi^2}\ G_{\mu \nu}(k)\

756: \frac{ -2p_{\bar{t}}^{\mu} } { D(p_{\bar{t}}+k) }\

757: \frac{2p_b^{\nu}}{D_0(p_b-k)}\ \frac{D(p_t)}{D(p_t-k)}

758: \eec

759: where $G_{\mu \nu}(k)$ is the gluon propagator in an arbitrary gauge.

760: By using the currents:

761: \bec{gkfd}

762: j_{tdec}^{\ b ,\ \mu} = \frac{2p_b^{\mu}}{D_0(p_b-k)}\ \frac{D(p_t)}{D(p_t-k)}

763: \eec

764: $$

765: j_{prod}^{\ \bar{t},\ \mu} = \frac{-2p_{\bar{t}}^{\mu}}{D_0(p_{\bar{t}}+k)}\

766: \hbox{~~~,~~~}

767: j_{\bar{t}dec}^{\ \bar{t},\ \mu} = 

768: \frac{ -2p_{\bar{t}}^{\mu} }{ D_0(p_{\bar{t}}+k) }\

769: \frac{ D(p_{\bar{t}}) }{ D(p_{\bar{t}}+k) }

770: $$

771: the expression (\ref{gfgds}) can be written as:

772: \bec{mbbart_intf}

773: {\cal{M}}_{b\bar{t}}(ESGA) = \frac{\alpha_s}{4\pi}\ {\cal{M}}_0 

774: \int \frac{d^4k}{i\pi^2}\ G_{\mu \nu}(k)\

775: (\ j_{prod}^{\ \bar{t},\ \mu} - j_{\bar{t}dec}^{\ \bar{t},\ \mu} \ )

776: j_{tdec}^{\ b ,\ \nu} 

777: \eec

778: where the first term in parentheses contributes to production-decay

779: interference, and the second one contributes to decay-decay interference.

780: 

781: We can similarly define the currents:

782: \bec{glkvd}

783: j_{\bar{t}dec}^{\ \bar{b} ,\ \mu} = 

784: \frac{-2p_{\bar{b}}^{\mu}}{D_0(p_{\bar{b}}+k)}\ 

785: \frac{D(p_{\bar{t}})}{D(p_{\bar{t}}+k)}

786: \eec

787: $$

788: j_{prod}^{\ t,\ \mu} = \frac{2p_t^{\mu}}{D_0(p_t-k)}\

789: \hbox{~~~,~~~}

790: j_{tdec}^{\ t,\ \mu} = \frac{2p_t^{\mu}}{D_0(p_t-k)}\

791: \frac{ D(p_t) }{ D(p_t-k) }

792: $$

793: and the amplitudes for the other two interference diagrams can be written like:

794: \bec{mtbarb_intf}

795: {\cal{M}}_{t\bar{b}}(ESGA) = \frac{\alpha_s}{4\pi}\ {\cal{M}}_0 

796: \int \frac{d^4k}{i\pi^2}\ G_{\mu \nu}(k)\

797: (\ j_{prod}^{\ t,\ \mu} - j_{tdec}^{\ t,\ \mu} \ )

798: j_{\bar{t}dec}^{\ \bar{b} ,\ \nu}

799: \eec

800: \bec{mbbarb_intf}

801: {\cal{M}}_{b\bar{b}}(ESGA) = \frac{\alpha_s}{4\pi}\ {\cal{M}}_0 

802: \int \frac{d^4k}{i\pi^2}\ G_{\mu \nu}(k)\

803: j_{tdec}^{\ b ,\ \mu} \ j_{\bar{t}dec}^{\ \bar{b} ,\ \nu} \ \ .

804: \eec

805: 

806: Contributions to interference between subprocesses do not come solely

807: from the manifestly non-factorizable diagrams. The diagrams in which

808: the gluon contributes to vertex or self-energy corrections (Fig. 3a))

809: also contain interference terms. 

810: Since the decomposition into purely vertex (or self-energy) corrections

811: and interference corrections is not unique, we shall 

812: present our approach in some detail.

813: 

814: %These terms can be separated by using the following arguments :

815: The amplitude for the vertex correction diagram with off-shell particles

816: can be written as:

817: \bec{kaglkad}

818:  (\delta \Gamma)_{12} = \frac{\alpha_s}{4 \pi} \

819: \int \frac{d^4 k}{i \pi^2}\ G_{\mu \nu}(k)\ \gamma^{\nu}\

820: \frac{A(p_1,p_2) + k^{\alpha}B_{\alpha}(p_1,p_2) + 

821: k^{\alpha}k^{\beta} C_{\alpha \beta}(p_1,p_2)}

822: {( (p_1 - k)^2 - m_1^2 )\ (p_2 + k)^2 - m_2^2 )}\

823: \gamma_{\nu}

824: \eec

825: A corresponding on-shell approximation for this amplitude would be 

826: \bec{kfgg}

827:  (\delta \Gamma)_{os} = \frac{\alpha_s}{4 \pi} \

828: \int \frac{d^4 k}{i \pi^2}\ G_{\mu \nu}(k)\ \gamma^{\nu}\

829: \frac{A(p'_1,p'_2) + k^{\alpha}B_{\alpha}(p'_1,p'_2) + 

830: k^{\alpha}k^{\beta} C_{\alpha \beta}(p'_1,p'_2)}

831: {( -2p'_1 k + k^2  )\ ( 2 p'_2 k + k^2 )}\

832: \gamma_{\nu}

833: \eec

834: where $p'_1$ and $p'_2$ are some on-shell approximations for 

835: $p_1$ and $p_2$ ($p_1^2 = p_2^2 = m^2$).

836:  Now, we can define the interference contribution through:

837: \bec{jdhgdso}

838: (\delta \Gamma)_{12} = (\delta \Gamma)_{12}^{os} + 

839: (\delta \Gamma)_{12}^{intf}

840: \eec

841: Note, however, that $(\delta \Gamma)_{12}^{os}$ is not unique, 

842: since $p'_1,p'_2$

843: are not unique; different choices for these momenta would yield different

844: results for $(\delta \Gamma)_{12}^{os}$.

845:  The uncertainty which arises is, of course, of order

846: $p^2-m^2$, so it can be neglected in the DPA. However, it allows us to 

847: choose the following definition for $(\delta \Gamma)_{12}^{os}$:

848: $$

849: (\delta \Gamma)_{12}^{os} = \frac{\alpha_s}{4 \pi} 

850: \int \frac{d^4 k}{i \pi^2}\ G_{\mu \nu}(k) \left[

851: \frac{(2p_1^{\mu}) \ {\Gamma}\ (-2p_2^{\nu})}{ D_0(p_1-k) D_0(p_2+k)}

852: \right.

853: $$

854: \bec{ga_os} \left. +\

855: \gamma^{\mu} \frac{ k^{\alpha}B_{\alpha}(p_1,p_2) + 

856: k^{\alpha}k^{\beta} C_{\alpha \beta}(p_1,p_2)}

857: { D(p_1 - k) D(p_2 + k) } \gamma^{\nu} \right] .

858: \eec

859: This choice means that the purely vertex correction (factorizable) part of the 

860: vertex diagram can be obtained by simply replacing the off-shell 

861: $C_0(p_1,p_2,0,m_1,m_2)$

862: function appearing in the expression for $(\delta \Gamma)_{12}$

863: with the on-shell, infrared divergent function 

864: $C_0(p_1,p_2,\mu,\sqrt{p_1^2},\sqrt{p_2^2})$.

865: 

866: Conversely, the interference part of the off-shell vertex correction diagram

867: is:

868: \bec{kohdsi}

869: (\delta \Gamma)_{12}^{intf} = 

870: \frac{\alpha_s}{4 \pi} 

871: \int \frac{d^4 k}{i \pi^2}\ G_{\mu \nu}(k) \left[

872: \gamma^{\mu} \frac{ A(p_1,p_2) }{ D(p_1 - k) D(p_2 + k) }

873: \gamma^{\nu} - 

874: \frac{(2p_1^{\mu}) \ {\Gamma}\ (-2p_2^{\nu})}{ D_0(p_1 - k) D_0(p_2 + k)}\right]

875: \eec

876: with $ A(p_1,p_2) = (\not{p_1} + m_1)  {\Gamma} (-\not{p_2} + m_2)$.

877: For the $t \bar{t}$ production diagram, \nolinebreak[5] in \nolinebreak[5]

878:  DPA 

879: $$ \gamma^{\mu} (\not{p_t} + \bar{m}_t) \ {\Gamma_{t \at}}\ 

880: (-\not{p}_{\bar{t}} + \bar{m}_t) \gamma^{\nu} \rightarrow

881: (2p_t^{\mu}) \ {\Gamma_{t \at}}\ (-2p_{\bar{t}}^{\nu})

882: $$

883: leading to 

884: {\small \bec{lgdvkj}

885: {\cal{M}}_{t\bar{t}}^{intf} = \frac{\alpha_s}{4\pi}\ {\cal{M}}_0 

886: \int \frac{d^4k}{i\pi^2}\ G_{\mu \nu}(k)\ \left[

887: (- j_{tdec}^{\ t,\ \mu} )\ j_{prod}^{\ \bar{t},\ \nu}\ +

888: j_{prod}^{\ t,\ \mu} (- j_{\bar{t}dec}^{\ \bar{t},\ \mu} )\ +

889: (- j_{tdec}^{\ t,\ \mu} )\ (- j_{\bar{t}dec}^{\ \bar{t},\ \mu} )

890: \right] .

891: \eec }

892: 

893: Things are  different for the decay vertex corrections, since

894: we have doubly resonant contributions which are not proportional

895: to the tree level matrix element. In the 

896: top decay case, the transformation:

897: $$ \gamma^{\mu} (\not{p_b} + \bar{m}_b) \ \not{\epsilon}_{W^+}\ 

898:  (\not{p_t} + \bar{m}_t) \gamma^{\nu} \rightarrow

899: (2p_b^{\mu}) \  \not{\epsilon}_{W^+}\  \left[ 2p_t^{\nu}

900: + \gamma^{\nu} (-\not{p_t} + \bar{m}_t) \right]

901: $$

902: will lead to:

903: \bec{vhgdsj}

904: {\cal{M}}_{t b}^{intf} = \frac{\alpha_s}{4\pi}\

905: \int \frac{d^4k}{i\pi^2}\ G_{\mu \nu}(k)\ 

906: j_{tdec}^{\ b ,\ \mu}\ \left[ (-j_{prod}^{\ t,\ \nu}) {\cal{M}}_0 +

907: M_1^{t, \ \nu} \right]

908: \eec

909: where

910: \bec{gkfdsah}

911: M_1^{t, \ \mu}\ = \ 

912: \frac{-1}{D(p_t)\ D(p_{\bar{t}})}\ \left[

913: \bar{u}(b) \not{\epsilon}_{W^+}\

914: \gamma^{\mu}\ {\Gamma_{\gamma,Z_0}}\  (-\not{p}_{\bar{t}} + \bar{m}_t)

915: \not{\epsilon}_{W^-} v(\bar{b}) \right]

916: \eec

917: In a similar manner, the interference term ${\cal{M}}_{\bar{t} \bar{b}}^{intf}$ 

918: coming from the antitop vertex correction diagram can be written in terms 

919: of the currents $j_{\bar{t}dec}^{\ \bar{b} ,\ \mu},\ 

920: -j_{prod}^{\ \bar{t},\ \nu}$, and the matrix element $M_1^{\bar{t}, \ \nu}$.

921: 

922: Finally, the last diagrams to be split into on-shell and interference 

923: contribution are the top, antitop self-energy diagrams. Using the same 

924: approach as in the vertex case, we define:

925: $$ 

926: (\Delta Z)_{t}^{intf} = \frac{\alpha_s}{4\pi}\  \left\{

927: \int \frac{d^4k}{i\pi^2}\ G_{\mu \nu}(k)\ \left[

928: \gamma^{\mu} \frac{\not{p_t} + \bar{m}_t}{D(p_t-k)} \gamma^{\nu}\

929: -\ \frac{2p_t^{\mu} \gamma^{\nu}}{ D_0(p_t-k)} \right] \right\}\ 

930: \frac{\not{p_t} + \bar{m}_t}{D(p_t)}\ 

931: % - (\delta Z)_{t}

932: $$

933: \bec{jhvdsj}

934: %(\delta Z)_{t} = 

935: -\ (-1)\frac{\alpha_s}{4\pi}\ 

936: \int \frac{d^4k}{i\pi^2}\ G_{\mu \nu}(k)\

937: \frac{2p_t^{\mu}}{D_0(p_t-k)} \frac{2p_t^{\nu}}{D_0(p_t-k)}

938: \eec

939: where the quantity in the the curly brackets is the renormalized top

940: self-energy, and the quantity on the second line is the on-shell limit

941: of the quantity on the first line. 

942: %and $(\delta Z)_{t}$ is the on-shell limit of the first term :

943: This will lead to the following result for the interference 

944: contribution coming from the top self-energy diagram:

945: \bec{lkjgds}

946: {\cal{M}}_{tt}^{intf} = \frac{\alpha_s}{4\pi}\ 

947: \int \frac{d^4k}{i\pi^2}\ G_{\mu \nu}(k)\

948: \left[ j_{prod}^{\ t,\ \mu}\ {\cal{M}}_0\ -\ M_1^{t, \ \mu} \right]

949: j_{tdec}^{\ t,\ \nu}

950: \eec

951: and a similar one from the antitop self-energy diagram.

952: 

953: Now we have all the pieces needed to write down the interference terms.

954: The final result is:

955: $$

956: {\cal{M}}^{intf} = \frac{\alpha_s}{4\pi}\ 

957: \int \frac{d^4k}{i\pi^2}\ G_{\mu \nu}(k)\ \left[

958: (j_{prod}^{\ \mu} {\cal{M}}_0 + M_1^{t, \ \mu}) j_{tdec}^{\ \nu} - 

959: (j_{prod}^{\ \mu} {\cal{M}}_0 - M_1^{\bar{t}, \ \mu}) j_{\bar{t}dec}^{\ \nu}

960: \right.

961: $$

962: \bec{gi_intf_dec}

963: \left.

964: + j_{tdec}^{\ \mu} j_{\bar{t}dec}^{\ \nu} {\cal{M}}_0 \right]

965: \eec

966: It is easy in this formula to identify the production-decay or decay-decay

967: interference terms. The currents:

968: \bec{dkscdsa} j_{prod} = j_{prod}^{\bar{t}} - j_{prod}^{t} \mbox{~~,~~}

969: j_{tdec} = j_{tdec}^b - j_{tdec}^t \mbox{~~,~~}

970: j_{\bar{t}dec} = j_{\bar{t}dec}^{\bar{b}} - j_{\bar{t}dec}^{\bar{t}}

971: \eec

972: are conserved, and gauge invariant in DPA.

973:  Therefore, the total interference contribution

974: as well as the interference between subprocesses parts are gauge invariant

975: in the approximation used.

976: 

977: 

978: 

979: 

980: %--------------------------------------------------------------------------

981: \section{Computational Approach}

982: 

983: Once a consistent scheme for evaluating the virtual corrections 

984: to the top production and decay process (\ref{tree_p}) has been set up

985: (as described in the previous sections),

986: the next step is the implementation of this scheme

987: in a Monte Carlo program.  

988: In this section we give some details about the technical issues 

989: arising in the design of such a program, and how we choose to solve them.

990: 

991: There are two types of quantities involved in the evaluation of the

992: NLO amplitude: scalar quantities (form factors), which encode 

993: the contribution of loops, and spinorial quantities,

994: built from Dirac spinors and operators.

995: For example,

996: the contribution coming from the $t \bar{t}$ vertex correction can be written:

997: \bec{cdsa}

998: \tilde{\cal{M}}_{t \bar{t}} = 

999: \bar{u}(p_b) \not{\epsilon}_{W^+}  (\not{p}_t + m_t) \

1000: \delta \Gamma^{t\at}_{ren} (-\not{p}_{\bar{t}} + m_t) 

1001: \not{\epsilon}_{W^-}  v(p_{\bar{b}})

1002: \eec

1003: or, using the decomposition in Eq. (\ref{vertex}) :

1004: \bec{prod_cont}

1005: \tilde{\cal{M}}_{t \bar{t}}

1006:  = \frac{\alpha_s}{4 \pi} \sum_{i = 1,2} \left[

1007: C_V\ F_i^V\ T_i^V\ + C_A\ F_i^A\ T_i^A \right] 

1008: \eec

1009: %(definitions for the quantities appearing in the above equation

1010: %can be found in Appendix {\bf B}).

1011: (for more details see \cite{thesis}).

1012: 

1013: Let's start by discussing the evaluation of the scalar form factors $F_i$.

1014: Rather than compute analytic expressions for each form factor, we have

1015: chosen to evaluate them in terms of Passarino-Veltman (PV)

1016: functions \cite{passa}. This approach has the

1017: advantage that we have to compute only a

1018:  few quantities which contain logarithms 

1019: and dilogarithms: the ${\cal{B}}_0$ two-point and ${\cal{C}}_0$ three-point 

1020: scalar functions (all the rest can be

1021: written as linear combinations of these functions). In turn, for evaluating

1022: the  PV 2 and 3-point scalar functions, we use the FF routines \cite{old}. 

1023: 

1024: To compute the amplitudes corresponding to the interference diagrams, we 

1025: need to be able to evaluate the 4-point and 5-point scalar integrals in 

1026: Eqs. (\ref{mbbtr}), (\ref{mtbbr}), (\ref{mbbbr}).

1027:  There are no published results (or routines) for the

1028: general (complex masses) 4-point scalar integrals. We have build such

1029: routines for the infrared finite ${\cal{D}}_0$

1030:  function by using the general methods

1031: described in \cite{thooft_si}. The results of these routines have been checked 

1032: against analytical results in the soft gluon approximation published in 

1033: \cite{BBC}. 

1034: 

1035: The 5-point scalar function ${\cal{E}}_0$

1036:  has been computed by reduction to 4-point

1037: functions, following the recipe in \cite{ddr}. The resulting infrared divergent

1038: 4-point functions have been evaluated using the analytic results published

1039: in \cite{denner_ir4pt}.

1040: 

1041: Some comments on the treatment of the top width are needed here. One way of 

1042: evaluating the scalar form factors in Eq. (\ref{prod_cont}) is to compute the

1043: gluon integrals in the zero top width limit and introduce the finite width only 

1044: in terms which are divergent on-shell (that is, replace $m_t^2$ with 

1045: $\bar{m}_t^2 = m_t^2 - i m_t \Gamma_t$ in terms like log$(p_t^2 - m_t^2)$;

1046: see for example \cite{ddr}).

1047: The difference between this result and the one obtained by using

1048: the complex top mass in all the terms is of order $\Gamma_t/m_t$, therefore

1049: at about 1\% level. This would be acceptable if the radiative corrections 

1050: would be small with respect with the tree level result (as is the case for the

1051: $W$ production process), but in our case it turns out that the one-loop

1052: QCD corrections are of the same order of magnitude as the tree level 

1053: result\footnote{The reason the {\it total } QCD corrections are of 

1054: order 10 - 20\%

1055: is because of large cancellations between the virtual corrections and

1056: soft gluon real corrections.}. Therefore, order \% terms are important. Since

1057: in the case of real gluon radiation the top width appears in all terms, for 

1058: reasons of consistency we need to keep the width 

1059: in all terms in the evaluation of the virtual corrections too. 

1060: 

1061:  The other elements needed in the evaluation of the amplitude (\ref{prod_cont})

1062: are the spinor sandwiches $T_i$. We compute these quantities using

1063: spinor techniques, as for the real gluon radiation case. Since 

1064: this part of the computation is quite complex, and hence prone to errors, we 

1065: have two different ways of performing it. In one approach, we express the

1066: $T_i$'s in terms of basic spinor products

1067: $ \bar{u}(p_i,s_i) u(p_j,s_j)$; this is the more involved

1068: case (in terms of the work done by the programmer), geared  for

1069: implementation in a Fortran routine, and which allows fast computation. 

1070: The other approach uses C++ routines which allow the 

1071: automated evaluation of general spinor sandwiches like 

1072: $$ \bar{u}(p,s)(\not{p}_1 + m_1)(\not{p}_2 +m_2) \ldots u(p',s')$$

1073: (To this purpose, we have 

1074: constructed classes that describe $<bra|$ and $|ket>$ spinors,

1075: and operators of type $ \not{p}_i \pm m_i $; in turn, 

1076: these classes use the basic classes - 4-vector, complex number - 

1077: defined in the 

1078: Pandora event generator \cite{peskin}).

1079: This method allows easy evaluation of $T_i$ expressions

1080: (again from the programmer's viewpoint)

1081: and is much more resistant to programming errors;

1082:  but the computation is slower than in the previous method. Therefore, 

1083: the main use of the results obtained from  the C++ routines is 

1084: to check the Fortran results.

1085: 

1086: %--------------------------------------------------------------------------

1087: \section{On-shell DPA}

1088: 

1089: The issue of interference effects in the production and decay 

1090: of heavy unstable particles has been the subject of extensive

1091: studies in the past decade. One of the main results

1092: is the theorem, due to Fadin, Khoze and Martin \cite{FKM_0}, which states

1093: that these interference effects are suppressed

1094: (see also a more recent discussion in \cite{CKSS}).  A stronger version

1095: of this theorem \cite{FKM_1} claims that NLO interference effects

1096: cancel in inclusive quantities up to terms of order $\alpha \Gamma/M$.

1097: As in \cite{FKM_1}, it is possible to 

1098: define and use a framework

1099: for the computation of interference corrections in which the total 

1100: interference contribution to inclusive quantities is zero.

1101: 

1102: %In this section we shall discuss this alternative approach 

1103: %(which we shall call on-shell DPA) to the computation

1104: %of NLO corrections to the production and decay of unstable particles.

1105: %This approach has been initially used for the $W$ pair production case

1106: %Results obtained using this approach have been presented for 

1107: %the $W$ pair production case

1108: %at LEP II (\cite{ddr}, \cite{BBC}); recently, 

1109: %this approach has been also applied in the 

1110: %computation of interference (non-factorizable) 

1111: %corrections to the top production and decay process at $e^+ e^-$ as well

1112: %as at hadron colliders \cite{bbc_top}. 

1113: 

1114: In order to facilitate a comparision with our results (where the interference

1115: contributions do not cancel completely), 

1116: we shall discuss this alternative approach 

1117: (which we shall call on-shell DPA) in some detail.

1118: Results obtained using on-shell DPA have been obtained for 

1119: the $W$ pair production case

1120: at LEP II (\cite{ddr}, \cite{BBC}), as well as, more recently,

1121: for the evaluation of interference (non-factorizable) 

1122: corrections to the top production and decay process at $e^+ e^-$ 

1123: and hadron colliders \cite{bbc_top}.

1124: 

1125: The relevant features of this approach are two: first, the amplitudes

1126: for corrections to subprocesses are computed in the on-shell approximation

1127: for the top quarks.

1128: For example, the correction to the production process can be written in 

1129: terms of the on-shell amplitude:

1130: \bec{os_prod}

1131: \tilde{\cal{M}}_{prod}^{os} \ = \ \sum_{\la,\la'}

1132: {\cal{M}}_{\la,\la'}(e^+e^- \to t \at (g))\

1133: {\cal{M}}_{\la}(t \to b W^+)\ {\cal{M}}_{\la'}(\at \to \ab W^-)

1134: \eec

1135: where $\la,\la'$ are the spins of the top quarks.

1136: The difference between the above amplitudes and the ones used in this 

1137: paper (Eqs. (\ref{m1a_gi}), (\ref{ga_os})) is due to non-doubly 

1138: resonant terms, therefore acceptable in DPA.

1139: 

1140: The other characteristic feature of the on-shell DPA method

1141: is that the interference due to real gluon radiation is computed

1142: by using a semianalytic approach. This approach rests on

1143: the observation that interference is due mainly to gluons of energies

1144: of order $\Gamma_t$; therefore, the (extended)

1145: soft gluon approximation can be employed for

1146: the evaluation of interference terms.

1147: 

1148: There are two stages where this approximation comes into play. First,

1149: it is used at the matrix element evaluation level. For example,

1150: consider interference between the diagrams where the gluon is radiated

1151: from the bottom quark and from the antitop quark:

1152: \bec{tbb_intf}

1153: d\sigma^{rg}_{\at b}(p_b,p_W,\ldots,k) \sim 

1154: 2 \hbox{Re}\left[

1155: \sum_{\epsilon_g}\ {\cal{M}}_{b}^{sg}\ ({\cal{M}}_{\at}^{sg})^* \right]

1156: \eec

1157: $$

1158: \ = \ |{\cal{M}}_0(p_b,p_W,\ldots)|^2 \

1159: 2 \hbox{Re} \left[ \ \frac{4p_{\at} p_{b}}{2kp_{b}+i\epsilon}\

1160: \frac{p_{t}^2 - \bar{m}_t^2}{(p_{t}+k)^2 - \bar{m}_t^2}\

1161: \frac{1}{(p_{\at}+k)^2 - \bar{m}_t^{2*}} \ \right].

1162: $$

1163: 

1164:  The second stage is the treatment of the final state phase space. In the 

1165: soft gluon approximation, it factorizes: 

1166: $d\Omega_{b,W,\ldots,g} = d\Omega_{b,W,\ldots} \times d\Omega_g$ , and

1167: the integration over the gluon momenta is performed separately:

1168: $$

1169: d\sigma^{rg}_{\at b}(p_b',p_W',\ldots)\ = \  

1170: |{\cal{M}}_0(p_b',p_W',\ldots)|^2 \ 

1171: $$

1172: \bec{tbb_sig} \times \

1173: \frac{\alpha_s}{\pi} \hbox{Re} \left[ \int \ \frac{d^3k}{2\pi \omega}

1174: \ \frac{4p_{\at} p_{b}}{2kp_{b}+i\epsilon}\

1175: \frac{p_{t}^2 - \bar{m}_t^2}{(p_{t}+k)^2 - \bar{m}_t^2}\

1176: \frac{1}{(p_{\at}+k)^2 - \bar{m}_t^{2*}} \ \right]

1177: \eec

1178: where $p_b',p_W',\ldots$ are given by a suitable projection of the

1179: off-shell momenta  $ p_b,p_W,\ldots $ onto the on-shell phase space (for

1180: an example of how this projection might be accomplished see \cite{bbc_details}).

1181: In the above equation  $p_t = p_b' + p_{W^+}', \ 

1182: p_{\at} = p_{\ab}' + p_{W^-}'$, and the integral over gluon momenta

1183: is allowed to go to infinity (since hard gluons contribute nonresonant

1184: terms to the result).

1185: 

1186: The quantity on the second line of Eq. (\ref{tbb_sig}) can be evaluated 

1187: analytically, through methods similar to those used to evaluate the

1188: virtual 4-point functions. We will not give the results here 

1189: (they can be found in \cite{ddr}, \cite{BBC}),

1190: but there is an important comment to

1191: make. Using this procedure to compute the real gluon interference,

1192: the total interference obtained by adding the virtual diagram contribution

1193: (Eq. (\ref{mbbtr})) to the above result and integrating over the top invariant

1194: mass parameter is zero \cite{FKM_1}.

1195: This cancellation works also for the other interference diagrams; therefore,

1196: in this approach, the contribution of non-factorizable corrections is 

1197: zero to the total cross section. However, this result depends on two 

1198: things. First, it requires an inclusive treatment of real gluon radiation, with 

1199: phase space integration extending to infinity. Second, both the virtual

1200: and the real interference terms have to be treated in the soft gluon

1201: approximation.

1202: 

1203: But, is the use of the soft gluon approximation justified in this case?

1204: At the amplitude level (Eq. (\ref{tbb_intf})), the answer is yes; the relevant 

1205: gluon energy, being of order $\Gamma_t$, is much smaller than the other

1206: momenta involved. However, this approximation does not seem to be acceptable

1207: for the phase space factorization stage of the above approach. Here, problems

1208: might arise when projecting 

1209: the off-shell momenta onto the on-shell phase space. The reason is that

1210: there is no single way to perform this projection; therefore, in the 

1211: determination of the on-shell momenta $p_b', p_W', \ldots$ there is an 

1212: uncertainty of the order of the gluon energy, or $\Gamma_t$. Now, 

1213: being close to the top resonances,

1214: we are in a region of the phase space where the cross section varies

1215: greatly over a range of energy of order $\Gamma_t$

1216: (due to the top quark propagators); therefore such an 

1217: uncertainty is not acceptable.

1218: 

1219: To illustrate the dependence of the result for real gluon interference

1220: on the choice of the on-shell momenta $ p_b', p_W', \ldots$, let's presume

1221: that instead of projecting $p_b$ into $p_b'$, we also take into account

1222: the gluon momentum: $p_b + k \to p_b'$ (physically, this might be justified by 

1223: the inclusion of the gluon jet in the bottom quark jet). 

1224: Then, Eq. (\ref{tbb_sig}) becomes:

1225: \bec{tbb_sig1}

1226: d\sigma^{rg}_{\at b}(p_b',p_W',\ldots)\ = \  

1227: |{\cal{M}}_0(p_b',p_W',\ldots)|^2 \ 

1228: \frac{\alpha_s}{\pi} \hbox{Re} \left[ \int \frac{d^3k}{2\pi \omega}

1229: \ \frac{4p_{\at} p_{b}}{2kp_{b}+i\epsilon}\

1230: \frac{1}{(p_{\at}+k)^2 - \bar{m}_t^{2*}} \right]

1231: \eec

1232: The result for the above expression is different from the result 

1233: for Eq. (\ref{tbb_sig}), and the difference contains doubly resonant terms.

1234: Therefore, in the on-shell DPA approach, the result for the interference

1235: terms depends on the choice of the implementation of the

1236:  phase space factorization. A discussion

1237: of this dependence for the $W$ pair production case can be found in \cite{ddr}.

1238: 

1239: 

1240: 

1241: %----------------------------------------------------------------------

1242: \section{Results for virtual corrections and the total cross section}

1243:  

1244: In this section, we present some results on the total cross section

1245: for the top production and decay process at linear colliders. We take into 

1246: account the virtual corrections as well as contributions coming from 

1247: real gluon radiation. Furthermore, we study the effect of 

1248: interference (nonfactorizable)

1249: terms on invariant top mass distributions and  we perform comparisons

1250: with results previously published \nolinebreak[3] \cite{bbc_top}.

1251: 

1252: In obtaining the results presented in this section, 

1253: the following set of parameters is used:

1254: $$ m_t = 175\ \mbox{GeV,} \mbox{~~~~}

1255: \alpha_s = 0.1, \mbox{~~~~}

1256: \Gamma_{t}^0 = 1.55\ \mbox{GeV,} \mbox{~~~~}

1257: \Gamma_{t} = 1.42\ \mbox{GeV,} \mbox{~~~~}

1258: $$

1259: where $\Gamma_{t}^0$ is the top width at the tree level, while

1260: $\Gamma_{t}$ includes the NLO QCD radiative corrections.

1261: 

1262: \vspace{0.3cm}

1263: We start by looking at the total cross section for our process. 

1264: Table 1 presents results for the following quantities:

1265: \begin{itemize}

1266: \item 

1267: $\sigma_0$ : cross section for the tree level process (\ref{proc1});

1268: computed in the on-shell (narrow width) approximation,

1269: using the zero-order top width $\Gamma_{t}^0$.

1270: \item 

1271: $\sigma_1^{os}$ : cross section for the NLO process in the on-shell 

1272: approximation; computed using the NLO top width $\Gamma_{t}$. 

1273: %For this quantity, we use the same definition as \cite{schmidt};

1274: %by construction, the total cross section in this approximation is

1275: %equal to the NLO result for

1276: %the production process $\sigma[e^+ e^- \rightarrow t \bar{t} (g)] $ 

1277: \item 

1278: $\sigma_1^{fact}$ : the main (factorizable) part of the DPA approximation

1279: to the NLO process.

1280: This quantity contains corrections to production and decay as defined

1281: in section 2.4. 

1282: 

1283: \item 

1284: $\sigma_1^{intf}$ : the interference (non-factorizable) part of the DPA

1285: approximation to the NLO process, as defined in section 2.4.

1286: \end{itemize} 

1287: 

1288: \begin{table}[!h]

1289: \begin{center}

1290: \begin{tabular}{|c|r @{.} l|r @{.} l| r @{.} l c|}

1291: \hline

1292:  	& \multicolumn{2}{c}{360 GeV} &  \multicolumn{2}{c}{500 GeV} & 

1293:  	\multicolumn{2}{c}{1000 GeV} &\\

1294: \hline

1295:  $\sigma_0 (pb)$       & 0 & 386& 0 & 570 & 0&172 &\\

1296:  $\sigma_1^{os}(pb)$   & 0 & 700(1)& 0 & 660(2) & 0&1839(7) &\\

1297:  $\sigma_1^{fact}(pb)$ & 0 & 676(2)& 0 & 664(2)  & 0&1920(8) &\\

1298:  $\sigma_1^{intf}(pb)$ & -0 & 032(1)& -0 & 0116(3) & -0&0061(2) &\\

1299: \hline

1300: \end{tabular}

1301: \end{center}

1302: \caption{Total cross sections for top production at linear colliders 

1303: with no cuts on phase space (numbers in parantheses are errors due to 

1304: numerical integration).}

1305: \label{table1}

1306: \end{table}

1307: 

1308: We present results for three values of collision center-of-mass energies:

1309: 360 GeV, just above the $t \at$ production threshold, 500 GeV, the most 

1310: common value used in linear collider studies, and 1 TeV, which is relevant

1311: for higher energy machines. The 360 GeV  result

1312: is probably not good; this close to the threshold, resummation

1313: of large logarithms appearing in the $t \at$ interaction 

1314: is needed \cite{top_thres}. However, 

1315: it is interesting to see the magnitude of the nonfactorizable corrections 

1316: at fixed order in this energy range.

1317: 

1318: The NLO cross sections contain contributions from the virtual corrections as

1319: well as from real gluon radiation (evaluated as in \cite{hardglu}).

1320: The phase space splicing method is 

1321: used for the treatment of infrared singularities.

1322: The value of the technical cut which separates the infrared from the real 

1323: gluons is $\epsilon = 0.1$ GeV;

1324: the results are independent

1325: of the choice of this parameter\footnote{Taking its value much 

1326: smaller than the top width allows the use of the 

1327: soft gluon approximation and phase space factorization 

1328: in the evaluation of the infrared integrals.}.

1329: No physical cuts have been imposed on the final phase space.

1330: 

1331: 

1332: The results in Table 1 prompt several comments.

1333: First, the difference between $\sigma_1^{os}$ and $\sigma_1^{fact}$ 

1334: is due to non-doubly-resonant terms, therefore it could be expected 

1335: to be small. This is indeed the case at 500 GeV; but at 1 TeV, this difference

1336: is about 4\% of the cross section. The reason is that in obtaining these

1337:  results, we have integrated over the complete kinematic range available for

1338: the top quark invariant mass (that is, 

1339: $ m_b + m_W < \sqrt{p_t^2} < W - (m_b + m_W)$), so 

1340: the cross-sections include contributions 

1341: from regions of the phase space where the top quarks 

1342: are far off-shell and non-resonant

1343: terms are important. 

1344: 

1345: \begin{table}[!ht]

1346: \begin{center}

1347: \begin{tabular}{|c|r @{.} l|r @{.} l| r @{.} l c|}

1348: \hline

1349:  	& \multicolumn{2}{c}{360 GeV} &  \multicolumn{2}{c}{500 GeV} & 

1350:  	\multicolumn{2}{c}{1000 GeV} &\\

1351: \hline

1352:  $\sigma_1^{os}(pb)$   & 0 & 682(1)& 0 & 627(2) & 0&1742(7) &\\

1353:  $\sigma_1^{fact}(pb)$ & 0 & 670(2)& 0 & 629(2)  & 0&1781(5) &\\

1354:  $\sigma_1^{intf}(pb)$ & -0 & 034(1)& -0 & 0068(2) & -0&0017(1) &\\

1355: \hline

1356: \end{tabular}

1357: \end{center}

1358: \label{table2}

1359: \caption{Total cross sections for top production at linear colliders

1360: with cuts on the top, antitop invariant mass.}

1361: \end{table}

1362: 

1363:  

1364:  In Table 2 we present the cross section results obtained 

1365: with a cut on the $t, \bar{t}$ invariant mass 

1366: $ | \sqrt{p_t^2},\sqrt{p_{\bar{t}}^2} - m_t | < 15$ GeV. The difference

1367: between the two results for the main terms $\sigma_1^{os}$ and

1368: $\sigma_1^{fact}$ is smaller in this case. Note 

1369: that, since in the on-shell approach $p_t^2, p_{\bar{t}}^2 = m_t^2$,

1370:  $\sigma_1^{os}$ in Table 1 and 2

1371: contains a factor which simulates 

1372: the effect of cuts (either from kinematic constraints or imposed ones)

1373: on the top invariant mass. Note also that these cuts are not imposed

1374: {\it ad hoc}, but they arise rather naturally in the process of defining 

1375: a $t, \bar{t}$ production event; it makes sense to require that the reconstructed mass of the $b, W$ pairs is close to the top mass in the definition of such an event. In this context, it is also worth noting that

1376: the contribution coming from the phase space region where

1377: either the $t$ or $\bar{t}$ is far off-shell (more that ten times 

1378: the width) is quite sizable (around 5\% of the total cross section 

1379: for center-of-mass energies greater than 500 GeV).   

1380: 

1381: 

1382: \vspace{0.3cm}

1383: Another quantity of interest is the differential interference cross section

1384: as a function of the top invariant mass. Even if the total interference 

1385: contribution to the cross section is small (at about 1\% level),

1386:  it can have larger effects in differential distributions since

1387: it can be positive in certain regions of the phase space and negative 

1388: in others. In 

1389: particular, it can be important in the reconstruction of the top invariant

1390: mass; since $d \sigma_1^{intf}$ tends to decrease as $\sqrt{p_t^2}$ increases,

1391: %$d \sigma_1^{intf} < 0$ for $\sqrt{p_t^2}>m_t^2$, and

1392: %$d \sigma_1^{intf} > 0$ for $\sqrt{p_t^2}<m_t^2$, 

1393: the net effect

1394: would be to shift the position of the Breit-Wigner peak to smaller invariant

1395: mass values. This effect can be quantified by the following equation:

1396: the shift in the mass is

1397: \bec{mass_shift}

1398: \Delta M_t \ =\ \left. \left( \frac{d \delta_{nf}}{dM_t} \right)

1399: \right|_{M_t = m_t}

1400: \frac{\Gamma_t^2}{8}

1401: \eec  

1402: where $M_t = \sqrt{p_t^2}$, and $\delta_{nf}$ is the ratio of the 

1403: non-factorizable (interference) part of the cross section to the

1404: Born cross section:

1405: $$ \delta_{nf} \ =\ \frac{d\sigma_1^{intf}}{d\sigma_0}$$

1406: 

1407: \begin{figure}[!ht] % interference

1408: \centerline{\epsfig{file=rat2.eps,height=2.5in,width=3.in}}

1409: \caption{ The relative nonfactorizable correction to the invariant

1410: mass distribution; the solid line is the contribution of terms proportional

1411: to the tree level amplitude, while the dashed line contains also the 

1412: $M_1$ terms in Eq. (\ref{gi_intf_dec}). }

1413: \label{interf_rat}

1414: \end{figure}

1415: 

1416: In Figure \ref{interf_rat} we present the differential distribution

1417: for the relative non-factorizable correction $\delta_{nf}(M_t)$ at center

1418: of mass energy 500 GeV. The dashed line is the result which takes into 

1419: account the full interference corrections in Eq. (\ref{gi_intf_dec}); the 

1420: solid line is obtained by taking into account only the terms

1421: proportional to the Born amplitude. Note that,

1422:  although the contribution of the 

1423: $M_1$ terms in Eq. (\ref{gi_intf_dec}) to the total cross section

1424: is very close to zero, they have 

1425: a sizable effect on the differential distribution in Fig. \ref{interf_rat}. 

1426: Using Eq. (\ref{mass_shift}), we conclude that the shift 

1427: in the position of the peak in the top invariant mass distribution 

1428: due to interference effects is very small (of order of a few MeV -- 

1429: in agreement with \cite{bbc_top}).

1430: 

1431: \begin{figure}[!b] % real interference

1432: \centerline{\epsfig{file=r_intf2.eps,height=2.5in,width=3.in}}

1433: \caption{ Real gluon interference: the $\sigma_{b\at}$ term. The

1434: solid line corresponds to the semianalytic approach; the dashed line

1435: is obtained through numerical evaluation with $M_t = \sqrt{p_{bW}^2}$;

1436: the dotted line is obtained through numerical evaluation with $M_t$

1437: given by Eq. (\ref{recomb}).}

1438: \label{real_interf}

1439: \end{figure}

1440: 

1441: The results in Table 1 and 2 indicate that

1442: the contribution of interference terms to the total cross section is

1443: of order 1\%, in agreement with the $\Gamma_t/m_t$ order

1444: of magnitude  expected from naive arguments. However, it is not zero, as 

1445: implied by results presented in \cite{bbc_top}, which use the on-shell

1446: DPA method.

1447: We have argued in section 4 that this difference is due to the way

1448: in which the radiation of real gluon with energies of order $\Gamma_t$

1449: is treated. In Figure \ref{real_interf},

1450: we present the results for the real interference 

1451: between the diagram where the gluon is radiated from the bottom quark

1452: and the diagram where the gluon is radiated from the antitop quark.

1453: The solid line is the result of the semianalytical approach described

1454: in section 4. The other two lines are the result of the exact off-shell

1455: computation (where the integration over the gluon momenta is performed

1456: numerically). The two lines correspond to two different ways in which

1457: the gluon momentum is treated in the reconstruction of the 

1458: invariant top mass. For the dashed line, the gluon momentum is ignored

1459: in the top mass reconstruction: $M_t = \sqrt{p_{bW}^2}$. Note that in this 

1460: case, the result is quite close to that of the semianalytical computation, 

1461: which is natural, since the gluon momentum is treated in both cases the same

1462: way. 

1463: 

1464: 

1465: To obtain the dotted line, we have followed a more realistic approach, in 

1466: which the gluon is included in the top mass reconstruction if

1467: it happens to be radiated close enough to the top quark:

1468: \bec{recomb} M_t \ = \ \left\{

1469: \begin{array}{ll}

1470: \sqrt{p_{bWg}^2} & \hbox{if }\ \hbox{cos}\theta_{tg}<\pi/3 \\

1471: \sqrt{p_{bW}^2} & \hbox{otherwise}

1472: \end{array} \right.

1473: \eec

1474: Although the total cross section is the same as for the other exact 

1475: evaluation case, the differential cross section differs by quite a bit.

1476: 

1477: \begin{figure}[!b] % interference comparison

1478: \centerline{\epsfig{file=rat1.eps,height=2.5in,width=3.in}}

1479: \caption{ The relative nonfactorizable correction to the invariant

1480: mass distribution; comparison between the semianalytical (dashed line) 

1481: and the numerical (solid line) approach. }

1482: \label{ir_comp}

1483: \end{figure}

1484: 

1485: The total cross section corresponding to the 

1486:  interference term presented in

1487: Figure \ref{real_interf} has the value $\sigma_{b\at} = 0.121\ pb$ for the

1488: semianalytical result, and $\sigma_{b\at} = 0.124\ pb$ for the numerical one.

1489: Note that, since the diagram set contributing to this interference term is not

1490: gauge invariant, this result has no physical meaning by itself. However, 

1491: from these numbers we can get some insight  concerning the 

1492: evaluation of interference corrections. First, note that the contribution

1493: of this single diagram is much bigger (about two orders of magnitude) than

1494: the total result for the interference terms. This means that there

1495: are large cancellations taking place between the real and virtual interference 

1496: contributions. This is quite natural, in accordance 

1497: with the discussion in section 4; however, this also means that small

1498: uncertainty (order percent) in evaluating one of this contributions

1499: (the one coming from the real gluon interference, for example) can lead 

1500: to large uncertainties in the evaluation of the total interference

1501: contribution.  

1502: 

1503: 

1504: In Figure \ref{ir_comp} we present the comparison between the 

1505: relative non-factorizable corrections computed in the semianalytical

1506: approximation (dashed line) and the complete off-shell approach (solid line).

1507: For the purpose of this comparison, we consider only the terms 

1508: proportional to the Born amplitude in the exact computation, since

1509: only these terms are taken into account in the semianalytical approach.

1510: Note that the total interference cross section integrates to zero in the

1511: latter case, and, as discussed above, the complete off-shell distribution

1512: contains contributions that do not cancel in the total cross section. 

1513: 

1514: %----------------------------------------------------------------------

1515: 

1516: \section{Conclusions}

1517: 

1518: In this paper, we have discussed in some detail the evaluation of 

1519: next to leading order QCD corrections to the top production and decay

1520: process at a linear collider.

1521: Since a full computation of the NLO amplitudes contributing to the 

1522: process $e^+ e^- \rightarrow\ b\ W^+\ \bar{b}\ W^-$ is not feasible,

1523:  the double pole approximation (DPA) has been employed. In our case this 

1524: means taking into account only the diagrams which contain two intermediate top

1525: quarks. Unlike most of the previous treatments, we allow for the two top

1526: quarks to be off-shell, and include also the corrections due to 

1527: interference between the top production and decay processes.

1528: 

1529: A parallel is drawn between our computation and the DPA evaluation 

1530: of QED corrections to the $W$ pair production and decay process at LEP.

1531: While there are many similarities between the two computations, 

1532: there are also some differences; the most striking one is that

1533: there are nonfactorizable (interference) corrections no longer proportional

1534: to the Born amplitude in the top quark case.

1535: Although the contribution of these terms to the total cross section (or other

1536: inclusive quantities) is 

1537: consistent with zero, they contribute to differential distributions. 

1538: 

1539:  Previous results obtained using a semianalytical approach 

1540: state that the interference

1541: terms cancel out completely in inclusive quantities 

1542: (like the total cross section). We discuss the evaluation of the 

1543: real gluon interference terms using analytic methods and we point out

1544: the shortcomings of this approach.

1545: The total magnitude of nonfactorizable corrections in our computation 

1546: is found to be of order 1\% of the cross section.

1547: We also present results for the total cross section

1548: and the relative nonfactorizable correction to the top invariant 

1549: mass distribution. The effect of nonfactorizable corrections on the 

1550: top mass reconstruction is found to be very small.  

1551: 

1552: The results presented in this paper are relevant at collision energies

1553: above the top -antitop production threshold.

1554: % Near threshold,inclusion of resummed  

1555: Since we are interested in differential distributions of final state kinematic

1556: variables, the approach used to obtain cross section distributions

1557: %the results presented throughout the paper

1558: is that of numerical

1559: simulations. The amplitudes are evaluated using spinor techniques,

1560: and the integration over the final state variables is performed using

1561: Monte Carlo techniques. This approach has the added advantage

1562: that it allows for the inclusion of experimentally relevant 

1563: selection criteria on the final state phase space.

1564: 

1565: The calculation presented here is entirely at the parton level. For more

1566: realistic simulations, it is necessary to take into account 

1567: initial state related issues, like initial state radiation (ISR), beam

1568: energy spread and beamstrahlung. The hadronization of the final 

1569: state partons also has to be modeled.

1570: Further extensions of interest include taking into account singly-resonant

1571: diagrams (tree level as well as NLO in the on-shell approximation) and

1572: the evaluation of electroweak corrections. 

1573: 

1574: 

1575: %For the future, we plan to extend our computations by including

1576: %all the lowest order diagrams contributing to our process. Also,

1577: %the evaluation of NLO corrections to the singly resonant diagrams

1578: %in the on-shell approximation should prove feasible. Beyond QCD,

1579: %we plan to take into account electroweak radiative corrections to the 

1580: %top production and decay process. 

1581: %The computational framework used is flexible enough 

1582: %to build on the results presented

1583: %in this paper with the final goal of constructing a comprehensive Monte 

1584: %Carlo for top related issues at future linear colliders.

1585: 

1586: %----------------------------------------------------------------------

1587: 

1588: \vspace{0.7cm}

1589: \noindent

1590: {\Large \bf{Acknowledgments}}

1591: \vspace{0.5cm}

1592: 

1593: I would like to thank Prof. L.H. Orr for support during the completion of this

1594: work and for suggesting the topic in the first place. 

1595: Also, many thanks to D. Wackeroth for discussions about the evaluation of

1596: elecroweak corrections to the W pair production and decay process, to

1597: A.P. Chapovsky for help with the numerical comparisions with previous results,

1598: and to O.I. Yakovlev for clarifying some issues related to the DPA.  

1599: 

1600: This work was supported in part by the U.S. Department of Energy,

1601: under grants DE-FG02-91ER40685 and DE-FG03-98ER-41076, 

1602: and by the U.S. National Science Foundation, 

1603: under grant PHY-9600155.

1604: 

1605: 

1606: \vspace{0.7cm}

1607: \noindent

1608: {\Large \bf{Appendix} }

1609: 

1610: \appendix

1611: 

1612: 

1613: \vspace{0.5cm}

1614: 

1615: In this appendix we shall give some details about  

1616: the evaluation of vertex corrections and

1617: fermion self energies. For a more extensive description, 

1618: we refer the reader to \cite{thesis}. 

1619: 

1620: The amplitude for the general vertex correction in Figure \ref{ver_cor}

1621:  can be written as: 

1622: \bec{gen_gam}

1623:  \delta \Gamma^{\mu} = \frac{\alpha_s}{4 \pi} \

1624: \int \frac{d^4 k}{i \pi^2}\ \frac{1}{k^2}\ \gamma^{\nu}\

1625: \frac{\not{p}_1 - \not{k} + m_1}{(p_1 - k)^2 - \bar{m}_1^2}\

1626: \gamma^{\mu}(C_V + C_A \gamma^5 ) \

1627: \frac{-\not{p}_2 - \not{k} + m_2}{(p_2 + k)^2 - \bar{m}_2^2}\

1628: \gamma_{\nu}

1629: \eec

1630: Upon evaluation of the integral, the result can be written in terms of two

1631: sets of form-factors; one for the vectorial part of the vertex correction, one

1632: for the axial part. The number of form factors needed depends on the specific 

1633: constraints on the process; in the general case, 

1634: when the momenta $p_1, p_2$ are 

1635: off-shell, eight$\times 2$ form factors are involved:

1636: \bec{gen_gam_res}

1637: \delta \Gamma^{\mu} = \frac{\alpha_s}{4 \pi}\

1638: \sum _{i=1,8} \left( C_V F_i^V T_i^{V \mu} \ + \ C_A F_i^A T_i^{A \mu} \right)

1639: \eec

1640: 

1641: The definition of these form factors depends on the choice of the spinorial

1642: elements in terms of which the result is written. We

1643: define:

1644: \bec{del_gam_res}

1645: \delta \Gamma^{\mu}_V = \frac{\alpha_s}{4 \pi} C_V\ \times

1646: \eec

1647: $$

1648: \begin{array}{rclcccccl}

1649:           [        & p_1^\mu & & F_1^V &  + 

1650:  		&                   &  \gamma^{\mu} & & F_2^V \ + \\

1651: (\not{p}_1 - m_1) & p_1^\mu & & F_3^V &  + 

1652: 		& (\not{p}_1 - m_1) &  \gamma^{\mu} & & F_4^V \ + \\

1653:                   & p_1^\mu & (-\not{p}_2 - m_2) & F_5^V &  + 

1654:  		& &  \gamma^{\mu} & (-\not{p}_2 - m_2) & F_6^V \ + \\

1655: (\not{p}_1 - m_1) & p_1^\mu & (-\not{p}_2 - m_2) & F_7^V &  + 

1656: & (\not{p}_1 - m_1) &  \gamma^{\mu} & (-\not{p}_2 - m_2)& F_8^V \ ]

1657: \end{array}

1658: $$

1659: for the vectorial part of the vertex correction; for the axial one, replace

1660: $p_1^\mu, \ \gamma^\mu$ with 

1661: $p_1^\mu \gamma^5, \ \gamma^\mu \gamma^5$ in the expression above. This

1662: definition has the advantage that when the particle $i$ is on-shell, the

1663: terms which contain the $ \pm \not{p}_i + m_i$ drop out. Also, we have 

1664: made use of the fact that, if $\delta \Gamma^{\mu}$ multiplies $A_{\mu}$ in 

1665: the full matrix element ($A_{\mu}$ can be thought of as the polarization

1666: vector of the gauge boson in diagram \ref{ver_cor}), then 

1667: $(p_1+p_2)^{\mu} A_{\mu} = 0$.

1668: 

1669:  We shall evaluate and write the results for the form factors 

1670: in terms of Passarino - Veltman functions

1671: (for the definition of these see below):

1672: 

1673: \bec{f_vect}

1674: F_1^V = 4[\ m_1(C_{12}-C_{11}+C_{23}-C_{21}) - m_2(C_{12}+C_{23}) \ ]

1675: \eec

1676: $$ F_2^V = -2[\ 2 p_1 p_2(C_0 + C_{11}) + 2(C_{24}-1/4) + 2B_0^{12} -1  

1677: $$

1678: $$

1679: - m_1 m_2 C_{11}

1680: + p_1^2(-C_{11}+C_{12}) - p_2^2 C_{12} \ ] $$

1681: $$ F_3^V = -4 ( C_0 + 2C_{11} - C_{12} + C_{21} - C_{23} ) \ \ , \ \ 

1682:  F_4^V =  2 m_2 (C_0 + C_{11}) $$

1683: $$ F_5^V = -4 ( C_0 + C_{11} + C_{23} + C_{12} ) \ \ , \ \ 

1684:  F_6^V = 2 m_1 (C_0 + C_{11}) $$

1685:  $$

1686: F_7^V = 0 \ \ , \ \ F_8^V = 2 ( C_0 + C_{11} )

1687:  $$

1688: 

1689: 

1690: In the computation of the axial form factors,  $\gamma^5$ can be shifted

1691: to the right in  Eq. (\ref{gen_gam}).

1692: In the result for the form factors, this amounts to changing the sign of $m_2$,

1693: $ m_2 \rightarrow -m_2$, and multiplying the $F_5, \ldots, F_8$

1694:  with $(-1)$.

1695:  Then :

1696: \bec{f_axial}

1697:  F_1^A = F_1^V + 8 m_2 (C_{12}+C_{23}) \ \ , \ \ 

1698:  F_2^A = F_2^V - 4m_1 m_2 C_{11}

1699: \eec

1700: $$ F_3^A = \ \ F_3^V \ \ , \ \ 

1701:  F_4^A = -F_4^V $$

1702: $$ F_5^A = -F_5^V \ \ , \ \ 

1703:  F_6^A = -F_6^V $$

1704: $$ F_7^A = -F_7^V \ \ , \ \ F_8^A = -F_8^V$$

1705: 

1706: The result (\ref{del_Z2_fin}) for the fermion self-energy corrections

1707:  can be similarly written in terms of Passarino-Veltman functions:

1708: \bec{f_fse}

1709: \Sigma_a(p^2) = \frac{\alpha_s}{4 \pi} (1 + 2B_1(p^2,\bar{m}^2))

1710: \eec

1711: $$

1712: \Sigma_{ir}(p^2) = \frac{\alpha_s}{4 \pi} \frac{m^2}{p^2 - \bar{m}^2}

1713: \left[ 4 \Delta B_0(p^2,\bar{m}^2) + 4 \Delta B_1(p^2,\bar{m}^2) \right]

1714: $$

1715: with 

1716: $$ \Delta B_n(p^2,\bar{m}^2) = B_n(p^2,\bar{m}^2) - B_n(\bar{m}^2,\bar{m}^2)

1717: \ , \ n = 0,1$$

1718: If we further define the $X_0, X_1$ form factors through:

1719: \bec{del_Z2_fin3}

1720: \Delta Z_2(p) = 2\ \frac{\alpha_s}{4 \pi} \left[ X_0(p^2) \ + \ X_1(p^2)

1721: ( \pm \not{p} - m ) \right]

1722: \eec

1723: the renormalized vertex correction in Eq. (\ref{ren_ver2})

1724: can be obtained by making the following redefinitions of form-factors in 

1725: Eqs. (\ref{f_vect}), (\ref{f_axial}):

1726: \bec{ren_f_fact}

1727: F_2^{V,A} \ \to \ F_2^{V,A} + X_0(p_1^2) + X_0(p_2^2)

1728: \eec

1729: $$ F_4^{V,A} \ \to \ F_4^{V,A} + X_1(p_1^2)$$

1730: $$ F_6^{V,A} \ \to \ F_6^{V,A} + X_1(p_2^2)$$

1731: 

1732: 

1733: These general results are easily translated for the specific cases which

1734: appear in our computation.  For corections to the production,

1735: top decay and antitop decay vertices we have, respectively:

1736: 

1737: \bea

1738:  F_{i,t \at}^{V,A} & \ = &\ F_i^{V,A}(

1739:  p_1 = p_t, \ p_2 = p_{\bar{t}}, \ m_1 = m_2 = m_t )  \\

1740:  F_{i,t b}^{V,A} & \ = &\ F_i^{V,A}(

1741: p_1 = p_b, \ p_2 = -p_t ,\ m_1 = m_b, \ m_2 = m_t ) \nonumber\\

1742:  F_{i,\at \ab}^{V,A} &\ = &\ F_i^{V,A}(

1743: p_1 = -p_{\bar{t}}, \ p_2 = p_{\bar{b}} ,\ m_1 = m_t, \ m_2 = m_b ) \nonumber

1744: \eea

1745:  

1746: 

1747: \vspace{0.5cm}

1748: 

1749: The statndard definition for the (3-point) Passarino-Veltman functions is:

1750: \bec{c_tensor}

1751: {\cal{C}}^{ \{0,\mu,\mu \nu \} } =  

1752: \int \frac{d^4 k}{i \pi^2}\ \frac{ \{1,k^\mu,k^\mu k^\nu \} }

1753: {(k^2 - m_1^2)\ ((k+p_1)^2 - m_2^2)\ ((k+p_1+p_2)^2-m_3^2)}\

1754: \eec

1755: with the  scalar functions ${\cal{C}}_{ij}(p_1^2,p_2^2,m_1^2,m_2^2,m_3^2)$

1756:  given by:

1757: \bea

1758: \label{c_decom}

1759: {\cal{C}}^{\mu} & = & p_1^{\mu} {\cal{C}}_{11} + p_2^{\mu} {\cal{C}}_{12} \\

1760: {\cal{C}}^{\mu \nu}& = & p_1^{\mu} p_1^{\nu} {\cal{C}}_{21} + 

1761: p_2^{\mu} p_2^{\nu} {\cal{C}}_{22} + 

1762: \left(p_1^{\mu} p_2^{\nu} + p_2^{\mu} p_1^{\nu}\right){\cal{C}}_{23}

1763: + g^{\mu \nu} {\cal{C}}_{24} \nonumber

1764: \eea

1765: The expressions for the reduction of  ${\cal{C}}_{ij}$ functions 

1766: in terms of the scalar one-, two- and three-point

1767: integrals ${\cal{A}}^0, {\cal{B}}^0 $

1768: $ {\cal{C}}^0$ are standard, and we do not give them here 

1769: (see \cite{thesis} or \cite{hagiwara}).

1770: 

1771: 

1772: The $C$ function used in Eqs. (\ref{f_vect}), (\ref{f_axial}) are defined by:

1773: \bec{cc_decom}

1774: C^{ \{0,\mu,\mu \nu \} } =  

1775: \int \frac{d^4 k}{i \pi^2}\ \frac{ \{1,k^\mu,k^\mu k^\nu \} }

1776: {(k^2 + i\epsilon)\ ((k - p_1)^2 - m_1^2)\ ((k + p_2)^2-m_2^2)}\

1777: \eec

1778: \bea

1779: C^{\mu} & = & -p_1^{\mu} C_{11} + (p_2-p_1)^{\mu} C_{12}  \\ 

1780: C^{\mu \nu}& = & p_1^{\mu} p_1^{\nu} C_{21} + 

1781: (p_2-p_1)^{\mu} (p_2-p_1)^{\nu} C_{22} - 

1782: \left[p_1^{\mu} (p_2-p_1)^{\nu} + (p_2-p_1)^{\mu} p_1^{\nu}\right]C_{23}

1783: \nonumber\\ 

1784:  & & +\ g^{\mu \nu} C_{24} \nonumber

1785: \eea

1786: therefore:

1787: \bec{a}

1788: C_0,C_{ij} = {\cal{C}}^0, {\cal{C}}_{ij}(p_1^2,(p_2 - p_1)^2,0,m_1^2,m_2^2)

1789:  .

1790: \eec

1791: Moreover, the function $B_0^{12}$ in Eq. (\ref{f_vect}) is given by:

1792: \bec{jfdg}

1793: B_0^{12} \ = \ {\cal{B}}^0((p_1+p_2)^2,m_1^2,m_2^2)

1794: \eec 

1795: and in Eqs. (\ref{f_fse}):

1796: \bec{fhgkh}

1797: B_n(p^2,m^2) = {\cal{B}}_n(p^2,0,m^2) \ , \ \hbox{for  } n = 0 , 1.

1798: \eec

1799: 

1800: %----------------------------------------------------------------------

1801: 

1802: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

1803: 

1804: \bibitem{orange}

1805: T.~Abe  et al.,  [American Linear Collider Working Group

1806: Collaboration],

1807: {\it Resource book for Snowmass 2001, 30 Jun - 21 Jul 2001, Snowmass,

1808: Colorado} SLAC-570, hep-ex/0106057, hep-ex/0106058

1809: 

1810: \bibitem{top_thres} A. H. Hoang et al., Eur. Phys. J. Direct {\bf C3}

1811: (2000) 1

1812: 

1813: \bibitem{anom_coup}

1814: B. Grzadkowski and Z. Hioki, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B585} (2000) 3,

1815: Phys. Rev. {\bf D 61} (2000) 014013, and 

1816: Phys. Lett. {\bf B476} (2000) 87

1817: 

1818: 

1819: \bibitem{jersak} J. Jersak, E. Laerman, and P. Zerwas, {Phys. Rev.}

1820:  {\bf D 25} (1982) 1218

1821: 

1822: \bibitem{korner1} J.G.Korner, A.Pilaftsis, and M.M. Tung, Z. Phys. C 

1823: {\bf 63} (1994) 575

1824: 

1825: \bibitem{parke1} J. Kodaira, T. Nasuno, and S. Parke Phys. Rev. {\bf D 59}

1826: (1999) 014023

1827: 

1828: \bibitem{arndt1} A. Brandenburg, M. Flesch, and P. Uwer, Phys. Rev.  

1829: {\bf D 59} (1999) 014001

1830: 

1831: \bibitem{jeza1} M. Jezabeck and J.H. Kuhn, Nucl. Phys {\bf B314} (1989) 1

1832: 

1833: \bibitem{andrej} A.~Czarnecki, Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B252} (1990) 467

1834: 

1835: \bibitem{oakes} C.S. Li, R.J. Oakes, and T.C. Yuan, Phys. Rev. {\bf D 43}

1836: (1991) 3579

1837: 

1838: \bibitem{schmidt}C. R. Schmidt, {Phys. Rev.}

1839: {\bf D  54} (1996) 3250 

1840: 

1841: \bibitem{bbc_top} W. Beenakker, F. A. Berends, and A. P. Chapovsky, 

1842: Phys. Lett. {\bf B454} (1999) 129

1843: 

1844: \bibitem{hardglu} C. Macesanu and L. H. Orr, Phys. Rev. {\bf D 65}

1845: (2002) 014004

1846: 

1847: \bibitem{mrst98} C. Macesanu and L.H. Orr, in '{\it Montreal 1998:

1848: Toward the Theory of Everything }', MRST'98 conference proceedings, p. 28-36; 

1849: C. Macesanu and L.H. Orr, talk given at the APS Meeting of the 

1850: Division of Particles and Fields (DPF 99), Los Angeles, CA, 5-9 Jan 1999,

1851: hep-ph/9906326 

1852: 

1853: \bibitem{racoon}

1854: A. Denner, S. Dittmaier, M. Roth and D. Wackeroth,

1855:  Nucl. Phys. {\bf B560} (1999) and Nucl. Phys. {\bf B587} (2000) 67

1856: 

1857: \bibitem{ddr} A. Denner, S. Dittmaier, and M. Roth, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B519}

1858: (1998) 39

1859: 

1860: \bibitem{mel_yak} K. Melnikov and O. I. Yakovlev, 

1861: Nucl. Phys. {\bf B471} (1996) 90

1862: 

1863: \bibitem{BBC} W. Beenakker, F. A. Berends, and A. P. Chapovsky, 

1864: Phys. Lett. {\bf B411} (1997) 203 and Nucl. Phys. {\bf B508} (1997) 17

1865: 

1866: % ------------------- cited in introductory section

1867: 

1868: \bibitem{madgraph}

1869: T. Stelzer and W. F. Long, Comp. Phys. Comm. {\bf 81} (1994) 357

1870: 

1871: \bibitem{treetop}

1872: K. Kolodziej, hep-ph/0110063

1873: 

1874: % -------------- some stuff

1875: 

1876: \bibitem{kos}  V.A.~Khoze, L.H.~Orr, and W.J.~Stirling, 

1877: Nucl. Phys. {\bf B378} (1992) 413

1878: 

1879: \bibitem{thesis} C. Macesanu, University

1880: of Rochester, Ph. D. dissertation  (2001), hep-ph/0112035

1881: 

1882: % ------  cited in comp methods

1883: \bibitem{passa} G. Passarino and M. Veltman, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B160}

1884: (1979) 151

1885: 

1886: \bibitem{old} G.J. van Oldenborgh, Comp. Phys. Comm. {\bf 66} (1991) 1

1887: 

1888: \bibitem{thooft_si} G. 't Hooft and M. Veltman, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B153}

1889: (1979) 365.

1890: 

1891: \bibitem{denner_ir4pt} W. Beenakker and A. Denner, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B338}

1892: (1990) 349

1893: 

1894: \bibitem{peskin} M.E. Peskin, SLAC-PUB-8290, hep-ph/9910519 

1895: 

1896: % ------- cited in on-shell DPA:

1897: 

1898: \bibitem{FKM_0} V.S. Fadin, V.A. Khoze and A.D. Martin, 

1899: Phys. Lett. {\bf B320} (1994) 141

1900: 

1901: \bibitem{CKSS} A.P. Chapovsky, V.A. Khoze, A. Signer and W.J. Stirling,

1902: hep-ph/0108190

1903: 

1904: \bibitem{FKM_1} V.S. Fadin, V.A. Khoze and A.D. Martin,

1905: Phys. Rev. {\bf D 49} (1994) 2247

1906: 

1907: 

1908: \bibitem{bbc_details}

1909: W. Beenakker, F. A. Berends, and  A. P. Chapovsky, 

1910: Nucl. Phys. {\bf B548} (1999) \nolinebreak[3] 3

1911: 

1912: % ---------------------------------

1913: 

1914: \bibitem{hagiwara} K. Hagiwara, C.S. Kim, D. Haidt and S. Matsumoto,

1915: Z. Phys. C {\bf 64} (1994) 559

1916: 

1917: \end{thebibliography}

1918: 

1919: % ----------------------------------------------------------------------

1920: 

1921: \end{document}

1922: