1: \documentclass[12pt]{article}
2: \usepackage{epsf,latexsym}
3: \voffset0cm
4: \hoffset0cm
5: \oddsidemargin0cm
6: \evensidemargin0cm
7: \topmargin0cm
8: \textwidth16.cm
9: \textheight22.cm
10: \setlength{\arraycolsep}{0.5mm}
11:
12: \renewcommand{\textfraction}{0}
13: \renewcommand{\topfraction}{1}
14: \renewcommand{\bottomfraction}{1}
15:
16: \newcommand{\gsim}{\;\rlap{\lower 3.5 pt \hbox{$\mathchar \sim$}} \raise 1pt
17: \hbox {$>$}\;}
18: \newcommand{\lsim}{\;\rlap{\lower 3.5 pt \hbox{$\mathchar \sim$}} \raise 1pt
19: \hbox {$<$}\;}
20: \newcommand{\re}{\mathop{\mathrm{Re}}\nolimits}
21: \newcommand{\tr}{\mathop{\mathrm{tr}}\nolimits}
22: \newcommand{\li}{\mathop{\mathrm{Li}_2}\nolimits}
23:
24: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
25: %The following macro is from world_sci.sty, originally written for DPF91
26:
27: \catcode`@=11
28: % Collapse citation numbers to ranges. Non-numeric and undefined labels
29: % are handled. No sorting is done. E.g., 1,3,2,3,4,5,foo,1,2,3,?,4,5
30: % gives 1,3,2-5,foo,1-3,?,4,5
31: \newcount\@tempcntc
32: \def\@citex[#1]#2{\if@filesw\immediate\write\@auxout{\string\citation{#2}}\fi
33: \@tempcnta\z@\@tempcntb\m@ne\def\@citea{}\@cite{\@for\@citeb:=#2\do
34: {\@ifundefined
35: {b@\@citeb}{\@citeo\@tempcntb\m@ne\@citea\def\@citea{,}{\bf
36: ?}\@warning
37: {Citation `\@citeb' on page \thepage \space undefined}}%
38: {\setbox\z@\hbox{\global\@tempcntc0\csname b@\@citeb\endcsname\relax}%
39: \ifnum\@tempcntc=\z@ \@citeo\@tempcntb\m@ne
40: \@citea\def\@citea{,}\hbox{\csname b@\@citeb\endcsname}%
41: \else
42: \advance\@tempcntb\@ne
43: \ifnum\@tempcntb=\@tempcntc
44: \else\advance\@tempcntb\m@ne\@citeo
45: \@tempcnta\@tempcntc\@tempcntb\@tempcntc\fi\fi}}\@citeo}{#1}}
46: \def\@citeo{\ifnum\@tempcnta>\@tempcntb\else\@citea\def\@citea{,}%
47: \ifnum\@tempcnta=\@tempcntb\the\@tempcnta\else
48: {\advance\@tempcnta\@ne\ifnum\@tempcnta=\@tempcntb \else
49: \def\@citea{--}\fi
50: \advance\@tempcnta\m@ne\the\@tempcnta\@citea\the\@tempcntb}\fi\fi}
51: \catcode`@=12
52: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
53:
54: \begin{document}
55: \title{\vskip-3cm{\baselineskip14pt
56: \centerline{\normalsize CERN-TH/2002-095\hfill ISSN 0418-9833}
57: \centerline{\normalsize DESY 02-057\hfill}
58: \centerline{\normalsize hep-ph/0205312\hfill}
59: \centerline{\normalsize May 2002\hfill}}
60: \vskip1.5cm
61: QCD Corrections to $t\overline{b}H^-$ Associated Production in $e^+e^-$
62: Annihilation}
63: \author{{\sc Bernd A. Kniehl}\thanks{Permanent address: II. Institut f\"ur
64: Theoretische Physik, Universit\"at Hamburg, Luruper Chaussee 149, 22761
65: Hamburg, Germany.}\\
66: {\normalsize CERN, Theoretical Physics Division, 1211 Geneva 23, Switzerland}\\
67: \\
68: {\sc Fantina Madricardo, Matthias Steinhauser}\\
69: {\normalsize II. Institut f\"ur Theoretische Physik, Universit\"at
70: Hamburg,}\\
71: {\normalsize Luruper Chaussee 149, 22761 Hamburg, Germany}}
72:
73: \date{}
74:
75: \maketitle
76:
77: \thispagestyle{empty}
78:
79: \begin{abstract}
80: We calculate the QCD corrections to the cross section of
81: $e^+e^-\to t\overline{b}H^-$ and its charge-conjugate counterpart within the
82: minimal supersymmetric extension of the Standard Model.
83: This process is particularly important if $m_t<m_H+m_b$ and $\sqrt s<2m_H$, so
84: that $t\to bH^+$ and $e^+e^-\to H^+H^-$ are not allowed kinematically.
85: Large logarithmic corrections that arise in the on-mass-shell scheme of quark
86: mass renormalization, especially from the $t\overline{b}H^-$ Yukawa coupling
87: for large values of $\tan\beta$, are resummed by adopting the modified
88: minimal-subtraction scheme, so that the convergence behavior of the
89: perturbative expansion is improved.
90: The inclusion of the QCD corrections leads to a significant reduction of the
91: theoretical uncertainties due to scheme and scale dependences.
92:
93: \medskip
94:
95: \noindent
96: PACS numbers: 12.38.Bx, 12.60.Jv, 13.10.+q
97: \end{abstract}
98:
99: \newpage
100:
101: \section{Introduction}
102:
103: One of the prime objectives of a future $e^+e^-$ linear collider (LC) will be
104: the detailed study of spin-zero particles which remain in the physical
105: spectrum after the elementary-particle masses have been generated through the
106: Higgs mechanism of electroweak symmetry breaking.
107: Should the world be supersymmetric, then the Higgs sector is more complicated
108: than in the Standard Model (SM), which predicts just one neutral CP-even Higgs
109: boson $H$.
110: The Higgs sector of the minimal supersymmetric extension of the SM (MSSM)
111: consists of a two-Higgs-doublet model (2HDM) and accommodates five physical
112: Higgs bosons:
113: the neutral CP-even $h^0$ and $H^0$ bosons, the neutral CP-odd $A^0$ boson,
114: and the charged $H^\pm$-boson pair.
115: The 2HDM has six free parameters, which are usually taken to be the masses
116: $m_{h^0}$, $m_{H^0}$, $m_{A^0}$, and $m_{H^\pm}$, the ratio
117: $\tan\beta=v_2/v_1$ of the vacuum expectation values of the two Higgs
118: doublets, and the weak mixing angle $\alpha$ that relates the weak and mass
119: eigenstates of $h^0$ and $H^0$.
120: At the tree level, the MSSM Higgs sector has just two free parameters, which
121: are usually taken to be the $m_{A^0}$ and $\tan\beta$.
122:
123: The discovery of the $H^\pm$ bosons would prove the SM wrong and, at the same
124: time, give strong support to the 2HDM and the MSSM.
125: If the $H^\pm$ bosons have mass $m_H<m_t-m_b$, they will be mainly produced
126: through the $t\to bH^+$ decays of top quarks, which are copiously generated
127: singly or in pairs at an $e^+e^-$ LC \cite{kom}.
128: On the other hand, if there is sufficient center-of-mass (c.m.) energy
129: available, $\sqrt s>2m_H$, then charged-Higgs-boson pair production,
130: $e^+e^-\to H^+H^-$, will be the dominant production mechanism \cite{kom}.
131: Otherwise, if $m_H>\max(m_t-m_b,\sqrt s/2)$, the $H^\pm$ bosons can still be
132: produced singly.
133: There are various mechanisms of single-charged-Higgs-boson production
134: \cite{kan}.
135: The most important of them are $e^+e^-\to W^+H^-$, which proceeds through
136: quantum loops involving SM \cite{shi,arh} and possibly supersymmetric
137: \cite{shi} particles, $e^+e^-\to\tau^+\nu_\tau H^-$ \cite{kan,mor}, and
138: $e^+e^-\to t\overline{b}H^-$ \cite{kan,djo}.
139:
140: \begin{figure}[ht]
141: \begin{center}
142: \leavevmode
143: \epsfxsize=14.cm
144: \epsffile[75 245 525 515]{ee2tbh_born.ps}
145: \caption[]{\label{fig:born}Tree-level Feynman diagrams pertinent to the
146: process $e^+ e^-\to t\overline{b}H^-$.}
147: \end{center}
148: \end{figure}
149:
150: In the following, we are concerned with the latter process.
151: At the tree level, it proceeds through the Feynman diagrams depicted in
152: Fig.~\ref{fig:born}.
153: It is kinematically allowed if $\sqrt s>m_t+m_b+m_H$.
154: Hence, we are most interested in a situation where
155: $m_t+m_b<\sqrt s/2<m_H<\sqrt s-m_t-m_b$.
156: For $\sqrt s=500$~GeV (800~GeV), this implies that $250\lsim m_H\lsim320$~GeV
157: ($400\lsim m_H\lsim620$~GeV).
158: In such a situation, none of the virtual particles appearing in
159: Fig.~\ref{fig:born} can be resonating.
160: We note in passing that the absence of resonances is also guaranteed if
161: $m_t-m_b<m_H<m_t+m_b$ \cite{djo}.
162: However, this process is then of minor interest because we always have
163: $\sqrt s>2m_H$, so that $e^+e^-\to H^+H^-$ will take place.
164: In the presence of a resonance, the cross section approximately factorizes.
165: Specifically, we have
166: $\sigma(e^+e^-\to t\overline{b}H^-)\approx\sigma(e^+e^-\to t\overline{t})
167: B(\overline{t}\to\overline{b}H^-)$ when the virtual top quark gets on its mass
168: shell, while we have
169: $\sigma(e^+e^-\to t\overline{b}H^-)\approx\sigma(e^+e^-\to H^+H^-)
170: B(H^+\to t\overline{b})$ when the virtual $H^+$ boson gets on its mass shell.
171:
172: The purpose of this paper is to investigate the dominant quantum corrections
173: to the cross section of $e^+e^-\to t\overline{b}H^-$, which arise from quantum
174: chromodynamics (QCD).
175: The relevant Feynman diagrams emerge by attaching one gluon line in all
176: possible ways to each of the diagrams shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:born}.
177: This leads to $2\to3$ diagrams with one closed loop (see Fig.~\ref{fig:virt}),
178: which yield the virtual corrections, and to $2\to4$ diagrams of the tree-level
179: type (see Fig.~\ref{fig:real}), which give rise to the real corrections.
180: The loop diagrams involve two, three, or four virtual particles.
181:
182: While the QCD corrections to the cross sections of the related processes
183: $e^+e^-\to q\overline{q}\Phi$, where $q=t,b$ and $\Phi=H$ \cite{dit,daw} or
184: $\Phi=h^0,H^0,A^0$ \cite{rei}, are available in the literature, the
185: corresponding analysis for $e^+e^-\to t\overline{b}H^-$ has been lacking so
186: far.
187: The present paper fills this gap.
188:
189: The cross section of the SM process $e^+e^-\to q\overline{q}H$ via a virtual
190: photon and its QCD corrections can be recovered from our results as a special
191: case, involving only a subclass of the Feynman diagrams shown in
192: Figs.~\ref{fig:born}--\ref{fig:real}.
193: As a by-product of our analysis, we confirm the numerical results for this
194: cross section obtained in Refs.~\cite{dit,daw}.
195: We also perform the complete calculation for this process, which involves
196: Feynman diagrams where the $H$ boson is radiated off a virtual $Z$-boson line,
197: and find good agreement with Ref.~\cite{dit}.
198:
199: This paper is organized as follows.
200: In Sec.~\ref{sec:ana}, we list a compact Born formula for the cross section of
201: $e^+e^-\to t\overline{b}H^-$ and give details of our analytical calculation of
202: its virtual and real QCD corrections.
203: Lengthy expressions are relegated to Appendices~\ref{app:tree} and
204: \ref{app:four}, where the Born form factors and the parameterization of the
205: four-particle phase space, respectively, may be found.
206: In Sec.~\ref{sec:num}, we present our numerical results.
207: In Sec.~\ref{sec:con}, we conclude with a summary of our analysis.
208:
209: \section{\label{sec:ana}Analytical results}
210:
211: In this section, we list a compact Born formula for the cross section of
212: $e^+e^-\to t\overline{b}H^-$ and give details of our analytical calculation of
213: its virtual and real QCD corrections.
214: By charge-conjugation invariance, the results for
215: $e^+e^-\to \overline{t}bH^+$ are the same.
216:
217: \subsection{Born cross section}
218:
219: We start by defining the kinematics.
220: We call the four-momenta of the incoming electron and positron $k_1$ and $k_2$
221: and those of the outgoing $t$ quark, $\overline{b}$ quark, and $H^-$ boson
222: $p_1$, $p_2$, and $p_3$, respectively.
223: We neglect the electron mass, but retain the $b$-quark mass, so that the
224: on-mass-shell (OS) conditions read $k_1^2=k_2^2=0$, $p_1^2=m_t^2$,
225: $p_2^2=m_b^2$, and $p_3^2=m_H^2$.
226: The virtual photon and $Z$ boson have four-momentum $p=k_1+k_2=p_1+p_2+p_3$,
227: and we define $s=p^2$.
228: It is convenient to introduce the dimensionless Lorentz scalars $a_i=p_i^2/s$,
229: $x_i=2p\cdot p_i/s$, and $y_i=\sqrt{x_i^2-4a_i}$ ($i=1,2,3$).
230: In the c.m.\ frame, $x_i=2p_i^0/\sqrt s$ and
231: $y_i=2|\mbox{\boldmath$p_i$}|/\sqrt s$ carry the meaning of scaled energies
232: and absolute three-momenta, respectively.
233: By four-momentum conservation, we have $x_1+x_2+x_3=2$.
234:
235: The differential Born cross section may be evaluated as
236: \begin{equation}
237: d\sigma_{\rm Born}=\frac{1}{2s}\,\frac{1}{4}|{\cal T}_{\rm Born}|^2
238: d{\rm PS}_3(p;p_1,p_2,p_3),
239: \label{eq:tree}
240: \end{equation}
241: where the first and second factors on the right-hand side stem from the flux
242: and the average over the lepton spins, respectively, ${\cal T}_{\rm Born}$ is
243: the transition-matrix element corresponding to the Feynman diagrams of
244: Fig.~\ref{fig:born}, and the summation over the lepton and quark spins is
245: implied.
246: We assume that the incoming leptons are unpolarized.
247: Here and in the following, we define the Lorentz-invariant $n$-particle
248: phase-space measure as
249: \begin{equation}
250: d{\rm PS}_n(p;p_1,\ldots,p_n)
251: =(2\pi)^4\delta^{(4)}\left(p-\sum_{i=1}^np_i\right)\prod_{i=1}^n
252: \frac{d^3p_i}{(2\pi)^32p_i^0}.
253: \end{equation}
254:
255: We now discuss the parameterization of the three-particle phase space.
256: We wish to express the Born cross section differential with respect to the
257: scaled energies of the final-state quarks, $x_1$ and $x_2$.
258: For convenience, we work in the c.m.\ frame, define the $z$ axis of the
259: coordinate system to point along
260: $\mbox{\boldmath$k_1$}=-\mbox{\boldmath$k_2$}$, and fix the $x$ axis in an
261: arbitrary way.
262: We then have
263: \begin{equation}
264: d{\rm PS}_3(p;p_1,p_2,p_3)
265: =\frac{4}{(4\pi)^5}dp_1^0\,d\cos\theta_1\,d\phi_1\,dp_2^0\,d\phi_2,
266: \end{equation}
267: where $\theta_1$ and $\phi_1$ are the polar and azimuthal angles of
268: $\mbox{\boldmath$p_1$}$, respectively, and $\phi_2$ is the azimuthal angle of
269: $\mbox{\boldmath$p_2$}$ with respect to the axis pointing along
270: $\mbox{\boldmath$p_1$}$ measured from the plane spanned by
271: $\mbox{\boldmath$k_1$}$ and $\mbox{\boldmath$p_1$}$.
272: Due to the azimuthal symmetry of the problem at hand, the integration over
273: $\phi_1$ is trivial, and we may take $\mbox{\boldmath$p_1$}$ to lie in the
274: $x$-$z$ plane.
275: If we now rotate the coordinate system in such a way that
276: $\mbox{\boldmath$p_1$}$ points along the $z$ axis and $\mbox{\boldmath$p_2$}$
277: lies in the $x$-$z$ plane, then $\theta=\theta_1$ and $\phi=\pi-\phi_2$ define
278: the direction of $\mbox{\boldmath$k_1$}$.
279: We thus have
280: \begin{equation}
281: d{\rm PS}_3(p;p_1,p_2,p_3)=\frac{s}{2(4\pi)^4}dx_1\,dx_2\,d\cos\theta\,d\phi.
282: \end{equation}
283: Next, we observe that $|{\cal T}_{\rm Born}|^2$ can be written as a
284: contraction of two rank-two tensors, a leptonic one involving $k_1$ and $k_2$
285: and a quarkonic one involving $p_1$, $p_2$, and $p_3$.
286: The leptonic one has the form
287: \begin{equation}
288: L^{\mu\nu}=\tr\not k_1\gamma^\nu\left(v_e^\prime-a_e^\prime\gamma_5\right)
289: \not k_2\gamma^\mu(v_e-a_e\gamma_5),
290: \label{eq:lep}
291: \end{equation}
292: where $v_e$, $v_e^\prime$, $a_e$, and $a_e^\prime$ are generic vector and
293: axial-vector couplings of the electron to the photon or $Z$ boson.
294: Performing the integrations over $\cos\theta$ and $\phi$, we obtain
295: \begin{equation}
296: \int\frac{d\Omega}{4\pi}L^{\mu\nu}=\frac{4}{3}
297: \left(v_ev_e^\prime+a_ea_e^\prime\right)(p^\mu p^\nu-sg^{\mu\nu}).
298: \label{eq:int}
299: \end{equation}
300: The fact that Eq.~(\ref{eq:int}) just depends on $p$ dramatically simplifies
301: the remaining phase-space integrations, since scalar products of the type
302: $k_i\cdot p_j$ are precluded.
303: The residual scalar products are $p_i\cdot p_j=(s/2)(z_k-a_i-a_j)$, where
304: $z_k=1+a_k-x_k$, with $i,j,k=1,2,3$ and $i\ne j\ne k\ne i$.
305:
306: We thus find the doubly-differential Born cross section to be
307: \begin{equation}
308: \frac{d\sigma_{\rm Born}}{dx_1\,dx_2}=\frac{G_F^3m_Z^4}{32\pi^3\sqrt 2}
309: \left[{\cal Q}_e^2f_{\gamma\gamma}(x_1,x_2)
310: +{\cal Q}_e{\cal V}_ef_{\gamma Z}(x_1,x_2)
311: +\left({\cal V}_e^2+{\cal A}_e^2\right)f_{ZZ}(x_1,x_2)\right],
312: \label{eq:born}
313: \end{equation}
314: where $G_F$ is Fermi's constant,
315: \begin{equation}
316: {\cal Q}_e=-2c_ws_wQ_e,\qquad
317: {\cal V}_e=\frac{I_e-2s_w^2Q_e}{1-m_Z^2/s},\qquad
318: {\cal A}_e=\frac{I_e}{1-m_Z^2/s},
319: \end{equation}
320: and $f_{\gamma\gamma}(x_1,x_2)$, $f_{\gamma Z}(x_1,x_2)$, and
321: $f_{ZZ}(x_1,x_2)$ are form factors listed in Appendix~\ref{app:tree}.
322: Here, $s_w^2=1-c_w^2=1-m_W^2/m_Z^2$ is the sine square of the weak mixing
323: angle, $m_W$ and $m_Z$ are the masses of the $W$ and $Z$ bosons, respectively,
324: $Q_e=-1$ is the electric charge of the electron, and $I_e=-1/2$ is the third
325: component of weak isospin of its left-handed component.
326:
327: The boundaries of integration are
328: \begin{eqnarray}
329: 2\sqrt{a_1}&<&x_1<1+a_1-\left(\sqrt{a_2}+\sqrt{a_3}\right)^2,
330: \nonumber\\
331: x_2^-&<&x_2<x_2^+,
332: \end{eqnarray}
333: with
334: \begin{equation}
335: x_2^\pm=\frac{1}{2z_1}\left[(2-x_1)(z_1+a_2-a_3)
336: \pm y_1\sqrt{\lambda(z_1,a_2,a_3)}\right],
337: \end{equation}
338: where $\lambda(x,y,z)=x^2+y^2+z^2-2(xy+yz+zx)$ is K\"all\'en's function.
339: We perform the integrations over $x_1$ and $x_2$ numerically with the aid of
340: the multi-dimensional Monte Carlo integration routine {\tt VEGAS}
341: \cite{vegas}.
342:
343: \subsection{Virtual corrections}
344:
345: \begin{figure}[ht]
346: \begin{center}
347: \leavevmode
348: \epsfxsize=14.cm
349: \epsffile[100 325 505 730]{ee2tbh_virt.ps}
350: \caption[]{\label{fig:virt}One-loop Feynman diagrams pertinent to the process
351: $e^+ e^-\to t\overline{b}H^-$.
352: They are classified according to the number of propagators in the loop.}
353: \end{center}
354: \end{figure}
355:
356: We now turn to the virtual QCD corrections, which arise from the one-loop
357: Feynman diagrams shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:virt}.
358: Specifically, they include $t$- and $b$-quark self-energy corrections;
359: $t\overline{t}\gamma$, $t\overline{t}Z$, $b\overline{b}\gamma$,
360: $b\overline{b}Z$, and $t\overline{b}H^-$ vertex corrections; and
361: $t\overline{b}\gamma H^-$ and $t\overline{b}ZH^-$ box corrections.
362: These corrections suffer both from infrared (IR) and ultraviolet (UV)
363: divergences.
364: We regularize the former by endowing the gluon with an infinitesimal mass,
365: $m_g$.
366: In our case, this does not spoil gauge invariance, since the non-abelian
367: nature of QCD does not yet emerge at next-to-leading order (NLO).
368: This leads to terms logarithmic in $m_g$, which combine with similar terms
369: arising from soft-gluon emission, to be discussed below, to give a
370: $m_g$-independent result.
371: We establish this cancellation analytically.
372:
373: UV divergences only occur in the self-energy and vertex corrections.
374: We extract them using dimensional regularization, with $D=4-2\epsilon$
375: space-time dimensions and 't~Hooft mass scale $\mu$.
376: They are removed by renormalization.
377: Specifically, we need to renormalize the quark masses and wave functions
378: appearing in ${\cal T}_{\rm Born}$.
379: Notice that the quark masses enter not only through the quark propagators, but
380: also through the $t\overline{b}H^-$ coupling.
381: To this end, we substitute $m_q\to m_q^0=m_q+\delta m_q$ and
382: $\psi_q\to\psi_q^0=\psi_q\sqrt{1+\delta Z_2^q}$ ($q=t,b$), where bare
383: quantities are denoted by the superscript 0.
384: In the OS scheme, the renormalization constants read
385: \begin{eqnarray}
386: \delta m_q&=&-\frac{\alpha_s}{4\pi}C_F\left[3\Delta+3\ln\frac{\mu^2}{m_q^2}
387: +4+{\cal O}(\epsilon)\right],
388: \label{eq:dm}\\
389: \delta Z_2^q&=&-\frac{\alpha_s}{4\pi}C_F\left[\Delta+\ln\frac{\mu^2}{m_q^2}
390: +2\ln\frac{m_g^2}{m_q^2}+4+{\cal O}(\epsilon)\right],
391: \end{eqnarray}
392: with $C_F=(N_c^2-1)/(2N_c)=4/3$ for $N_c=3$ quark colors and
393: \begin{equation}
394: \Delta=\frac{1}{\epsilon}-\gamma_E+\ln(4\pi),
395: \end{equation}
396: where $\gamma_E$ is the Euler-Mascheroni constant.
397: Notice that $Z_2^q$ is also IR divergent.
398: The expression for $\delta m_q$ in the modified minimal-subtraction
399: ($\overline{\rm MS}$) scheme \cite{bar} emerges from Eq.~(\ref{eq:dm}) by
400: retaining only the first term contained within the square brackets.
401:
402: The virtual QCD corrections may be evaluated as
403: \begin{equation}
404: d\sigma_{\rm virt}=d\sigma_{\rm Born}\delta_{\rm virt}(m_g),
405: \end{equation}
406: with
407: \begin{equation}
408: \delta_{\rm virt}(m_g)=\frac{2}{|{\cal T}_{\rm Born}|^2}
409: \re\left\{{\cal T}_{\rm Born}^*\left[\sum_{q=t,b}\left(\delta m_q
410: \frac{\partial}{\partial m_q}+\frac{1}{2}\delta Z_2^q\right)
411: {\cal T}_{\rm Born}+{\cal T}_{\rm loop}\right]\right\},
412: \label{eq:virt}
413: \end{equation}
414: where ${\cal T}_{\rm loop}$ is the transition-matrix element corresponding to
415: the Feynman diagrams of Fig~\ref{fig:virt}.
416: Notice that the quark masses that appear in the squares of the quark spinors
417: and in the boundaries of the phase-space integration correspond to
418: renormalized ones from the outset.
419: As mentioned above, $\delta_{\rm virt}(m_g)$ is UV finite, but IR divergent.
420: Notice that Eq.~(\ref{eq:int}), which refers to the physical case $D=4$, can
421: still be used at the one-loop level, since the quarkonic tensor is by itself
422: UV finite upon renormalization.
423:
424: We generate ${\cal T}_{\rm loop}$ and reduce it to standard one-loop scalar
425: integrals in two independent ways:
426: one is based on the combination of the program packages {\tt FeynArts}
427: \cite{feynarts} and {\tt FormCalc} \cite{formcalc} and the other one on
428: custom-made routines written in the program language {\tt FORM} \cite{form}.
429: We then evaluate the standard one-loop scalar integrals, the IR-divergent ones
430: analytically using the results of Ref.~\cite{bee} and the IR-finite ones
431: numerically with the help of the program package {\tt LoopTools}
432: \cite{formcalc}.
433: Our analytic result for $\delta_{\rm virt}(m_g)$ is too lengthy to be
434: presented here.
435:
436: \subsection{Real corrections}
437:
438: \begin{figure}[ht]
439: \begin{center}
440: \leavevmode
441: \epsfxsize=14.cm
442: \epsffile[70 155 540 605]{ee2tbh_real.ps}
443: \caption[]{\label{fig:real}Tree-level Feynman diagrams pertinent to the
444: process $e^+ e^-\to t\overline{b}gH^-$.}
445: \end{center}
446: \end{figure}
447:
448: We now proceed to the real QCD corrections, which arise from the $2\to4$
449: tree-level Feynman diagrams shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:real}.
450: We denote the gluon four-momentum by $q$.
451: As mentioned above, the emission of soft gluons generates IR divergences.
452: For consistency with the evaluation of the virtual QCD corrections, the latter
453: must also be regularized by the gluon mass $m_g$.
454: It is convenient to work in the c.m.\ frame and to introduce an unphysical
455: gluon-energy cutoff, $E_{\rm cut}$, with $m_g\ll E_{\rm cut}\ll E_{\rm max}$,
456: where $E_{\rm max}$ is the maximum gluon energy allowed by kinematics, so as
457: to separate the gluon phase space into soft and hard regions, defined by
458: $m_g<q^0<E_{\rm cut}$ and $E_{\rm cut}<q^0<E_{\rm max}$, respectively.
459: This has two technical advantages, since soft gluons with infinitesimal mass
460: $m_g$ do not affect the kinematics of the underlying process, while hard
461: gluons with zero mass do not produce IR divergences.
462: On the one hand, the soft-gluon bremsstrahlung may be treated analytically in
463: the eikonal approximation, which is independent of the underlying process and
464: results in a multiplicative correction to the Born result.
465: On the other hand, $m_g$ may be safely neglected in the treatment of the
466: hard-gluon bremsstrahlung, which facilitates the phase-space integration.
467: In turn, the soft- and hard-gluon contributions both depend on $E_{\rm cut}$,
468: while their combined contribution is, of course, independent of $E_{\rm cut}$,
469: which we checked numerically.
470: As mentioned above, the $m_g$ dependence of the soft-gluon contribution
471: analytically cancels against the one of the virtual QCD corrections.
472:
473: The soft-gluon contribution is given by
474: \begin{equation}
475: d\sigma_{\rm soft}=d\sigma_{\rm Born}\delta_{\rm soft}(m_g,E_{\rm cut}),
476: \end{equation}
477: with
478: \begin{equation}
479: \delta_{\rm soft}(m_g,E_{\rm cut})
480: =-\frac{\alpha_sC_F}{(2\pi)^2}
481: \int_{|\mbox{\scriptsize\boldmath$q$}|<E_{\rm cut}}
482: \frac{d^3q}{q^0}\left(\frac{p_1}{p_1\cdot q}-\frac{p_2}{p_2\cdot q}\right)^2,
483: \label{eq:soft}
484: \end{equation}
485: where $q^0=\sqrt{\mbox{\boldmath$q$}^2+m_g^2}$ is the gluon energy.
486: The integration in Eq.~(\ref{eq:soft}) can be performed analytically as
487: described in Ref.~\cite{tho}, the result being
488: \begin{eqnarray}
489: \lefteqn{\delta_{\rm soft}(m_g,E_{\rm cut})=\frac{\alpha_s}{\pi}C_F\left\{
490: \left(\frac{\alpha}{2}\,\frac{z_3-a_1-a_2}{\alpha^2a_1-a_2}
491: \ln\frac{\alpha^2a_1}{a_2}-1\right)\ln\frac{4E_{\rm cut}^2}{m_g^2}\right.}
492: \nonumber\\
493: &&{}+\alpha\frac{z_3-a_1-a_2}{\alpha^2a_1-a_2}
494: \left[\li\left(1-\alpha\frac{x_1+y_1}{v}\right)
495: +\li\left(1-\alpha\frac{x_1-y_1}{v}\right)\right.
496: \nonumber\\
497: &&{}-\left.\li\left(1-\frac{x_2+y_2}{v}\right)
498: -\li\left(1-\frac{x_2-y_2}{v}\right)
499: +\frac{1}{4}\left(\ln^2\frac{x_1-y_1}{x_1+y_1}
500: -\ln^2\frac{x_2-y_2}{x_2+y_2}\right)\right]
501: \nonumber\\
502: &&{}-\left.\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{x_1}{y_1}\ln\frac{x_1-y_1}{x_1+y_1}
503: +\frac{x_2}{y_2}\ln\frac{x_2-y_2}{x_2+y_2}\right)\right\},
504: \label{eq:tho}
505: \end{eqnarray}
506: where $\li(x)=-\int_0^xdy\,\ln(1-y)/y$ is the Spence function,
507: \begin{eqnarray}
508: \alpha&=&\frac{1}{2a_1}\left[z_3-a_1-a_2+\sqrt{\lambda(z_3,a_1,a_2)}\right],
509: \nonumber\\
510: v&=&2\frac{\alpha^2a_1-a_2}{\alpha x_1-x_2}.
511: \end{eqnarray}
512: Notice that Eq.~(\ref{eq:tho}) is invariant under the interchange of the
513: indices 1 and 2.
514:
515: The hard-gluon contribution may be evaluated by integrating
516: \begin{equation}
517: d\sigma_{\rm hard}(E_{\rm cut})=\frac{1}{2s}\,\frac{1}{4}
518: |{\cal T}_{\rm real}|^2\theta(q^0-E_{\rm cut})d{\rm PS}_4(p;p_1,p_2,p_3,q),
519: \label{eq:hard}
520: \end{equation}
521: where ${\cal T}_{\rm real}$ is the transition-matrix element corresponding to
522: the Feynman diagrams of Fig.~\ref{fig:real}, over the full four-particle phase
523: space, imposing the condition $q^0>E_{\rm cut}$.
524: We use the parameterization of the four-particle phase space presented in
525: Appendix~\ref{app:four}.
526: It involves five nontrivial integrations, which we perform numerically using
527: the Monte Carlo routine {\tt VEGAS} \cite{vegas}.
528: Our formula for $|{\cal T}_{\rm real}|^2$ is too lengthy to be listed here.
529:
530: We performed several checks for our implementation of the four-particle
531: phase-space integration.
532: We numerically verified the analytical formula for the total cross section of
533: $e^+e^-\to q\overline{q}g^*\to q\overline{q}Q\overline{Q}$, where $q$ and $Q$
534: represent massless and massive quarks, respectively, and $g^*$ denotes a
535: virtual gluon, given in Eq.~(2) of Ref.~\cite{hoa}.
536: In this case, IR singularities do not appear in intermediate steps, so that no
537: separation into soft-gluon and hard-gluon contributions is required.
538: We also found excellent agreement with a numerical result for a similar
539: process involving four different quark masses obtained using the democratic
540: multi-particle phase-space generator {\tt RAMBO} \cite{rambo}.
541:
542: Our final result for the QCD-corrected differential cross section reads
543: \begin{equation}
544: d\sigma_{\rm QCD}=d\sigma_{\rm Born}[1+\delta_{\rm virt}(m_g)
545: +\delta_{\rm soft}(m_g,E_{\rm cut})]+d\sigma_{\rm hard}(E_{\rm cut}),
546: \end{equation}
547: where $d\sigma_{\rm Born}$, $\delta_{\rm virt}(m_g)$,
548: $\delta_{\rm soft}(m_g,E_{\rm cut})$, and $d\sigma_{\rm hard}(E_{\rm cut})$
549: are defined in Eqs.~(\ref{eq:tree}), (\ref{eq:virt}), (\ref{eq:soft}), and
550: (\ref{eq:hard}), respectively.
551: It is manifestly independent of $m_g$ and insensitive to the choice of
552: $E_{\rm cut}$, as long as $m_g\ll E_{\rm cut}\ll E_{\rm max}$, as we verified
553: numerically.
554: We also checked that the QCD-corrected total cross section is finite in the
555: limit $m_b\to0$, in compliance with the Kinoshita-Lee-Nauenberg theorem
556: \cite{kln}.
557:
558: The QCD-corrected cross section of the SM process $e^+e^-\to q\overline{q}H$
559: via a virtual photon can be obtained from our results as a special case,
560: involving only a subclass of the Feynman diagrams shown in
561: Figs.~\ref{fig:born}--\ref{fig:real}.
562: As a by-product of our analysis, we confirmed the numerical results for this
563: cross section obtained in Refs.~\cite{dit,daw}.
564: We also performed the complete calculation for this process, which involves
565: Feynman diagrams where the $H$ boson is radiated off a virtual $Z$-boson line,
566: and found good agreement with Ref.~\cite{dit}.
567: In turn, this provides a nontrivial check for all parts of our analysis.
568:
569: \section{\label{sec:num}Numerical results}
570:
571: We are now in a position to present our numerical results.
572: We first specify our input parameters.
573: We use $m_W=80.419$~GeV, $m_Z=91.1882$~GeV, $m_t=174.3$~GeV, $m_b=4.6$~GeV,
574: $G_F=1.16639\times10^{-5}$~GeV${}^{-2}$ \cite{pdg}, and the present world
575: average $\alpha_s^{(5)}(m_Z)=0.1180$ \cite{kkp}.
576: We consistently evaluate $\alpha_s^{(n_f)}(\mu)$ and
577: $\overline{m}_q^{(n_f)}(\mu)$ to lowest order (LO) in the $\overline{\rm MS}$
578: scheme with $n_f=6$ active quark flavors performing the matching with $n_f=5$
579: QCD at scale $m_t$.
580: For the reader's convenience, we collect the relevant formulas here
581: \cite{kni}:
582: \begin{eqnarray}
583: \frac{1}{\alpha_s^{(5)}(\mu)}&=&\frac{1}{\alpha_s^{(5)}(m_Z)}
584: +\frac{\beta_0^{(5)}}{\pi}\ln\frac{\mu^2}{m_Z^2},
585: \\
586: \frac{1}{\alpha_s^{(6)}(\mu)}&=&\frac{1}{\alpha_s^{(5)}(m_t)}
587: +\frac{\beta_0^{(6)}}{\pi}\ln\frac{\mu^2}{m_t^2},
588: \\
589: \overline{m}_t^{(6)}(\mu)&=&m_t\left[1-\frac{\alpha_s^{(6)}(m_t)}{\pi}C_F
590: \right]\left[\frac{\alpha_s^{(6)}(\mu)}{\alpha_s^{(6)}(m_t)}\right]
591: ^{\gamma_0/\beta_0^{(6)}},
592: \label{eq:mt}\\
593: \overline{m}_b^{(6)}(\mu)&=&m_b\left[1-\frac{\alpha_s^{(5)}(m_b)}{\pi}C_F
594: \right]\left[\frac{\alpha_s^{(5)}(m_t)}{\alpha_s^{(5)}(m_b)}\right]
595: ^{\gamma_0/\beta_0^{(5)}}
596: \left[\frac{\alpha_s^{(6)}(\mu)}{\alpha_s^{(6)}(m_t)}\right]
597: ^{\gamma_0/\beta_0^{(6)}},
598: \end{eqnarray}
599: where
600: \begin{eqnarray}
601: \beta_0^{(n_f)}&=&{1\over4}\left({11\over3}C_A-{4\over3}T_Fn_f\right),
602: \nonumber\\
603: \gamma_0&=&{3\over4}C_F,
604: \end{eqnarray}
605: with $C_A=N_c$ and $T_F=1/2$, are the first coefficients of the
606: Callan-Symanzik beta function and the quark-mass anomalous dimension,
607: respectively.
608: For simplicity, we use a common renormalization scale $\mu$ in
609: $\alpha_s^{(6)}(\mu)$ and $\overline{m}_q^{(6)}(\mu)$.
610: We study the cases $\sqrt s=500$~GeV and 800~GeV.
611: As for the MSSM input parameters, we consider the ranges
612: $1<\tan\beta<40\approx m_t/m_b$ and $250<m_H<320$~GeV if $\sqrt s=500$~GeV or
613: $400<m_H<620$~GeV if $\sqrt s=800$~GeV.
614:
615: We now discuss the influence of the QCD corrections on the total cross
616: sections of $e^+e^-\to t\overline{b}H^-$ and its charge conjugate counterpart,
617: which we add.
618: We start by selecting the renormalization scheme and scale that are most
619: appropriate for the problem under consideration.
620: For this purpose, we study the $\mu$ dependence of the Born and QCD-corrected
621: results in two different renormalization schemes.
622: The first one uses the pole masses $m_t$ and $m_b$ as basic parameters (OS
623: scheme), while the second one uses $m_t$ and the $\overline{\rm MS}$ mass
624: $\overline{m}_b^{(6)}(\mu)$ as basic parameters (mixed scheme).
625: Both schemes employ the $\overline{\rm MS}$ definition of
626: $\alpha_s^{(6)}(\mu)$.
627: We refrain from utilizing $\overline{m}_t^{(6)}(\mu)$, which, in general,
628: significantly deviates from $m_t$, as may be seen from Eq.~(\ref{eq:mt}).
629: For, if we were to include the weak decays of the $t$ and $\overline{t}$
630: quarks in our analysis, then, during the propagation of these quarks between
631: their production and decay vertices, configurations near their {\it physical}
632: mass shells would be kinematically favored.
633: As a matter of fact, the experimentally measured invariant masses of their
634: decay products are very close to $m_t$.
635: In turn, the phase space of $e^+e^-\to t\overline{b}H^-$ would undergo a
636: significant, yet artificial change of size if it were parameterized in terms
637: of $\overline{m}_t^{(6)}(\mu)$ rather than $m_t$.
638: On the other hand, the use of $\overline{m}_b^{(6)}(\mu)$ is predicated on the
639: grounds that it automatically resums large logarithmic corrections that arise
640: if the $t\overline{b}H^-$ Yukawa coupling is expressed in terms of $m_b$.
641: A similar feature is familiar from the $H\to b\bar b$ decay in the SM
642: \cite{bra}.
643: This effect is particularly pronounced for large values of $\tan\beta$ because
644: the $t\overline{b}H^-$ Yukawa coupling is then approximately proportional to
645: the $b$-quark mass.
646:
647: \begin{figure}[ht]
648: \begin{center}
649: \leavevmode
650: \epsfxsize=14.cm
651: \epsffile[45 240 550 470]{ee2tbh_scheme.ps}
652: \caption[]{\label{fig:scheme}
653: Total cross section of $e^+e^-\to t\overline{b}H^-,\overline{t}bH^+$ as a
654: function of $\mu$ for $\sqrt s=500$~GeV, $\tan\beta=40$, and $m_H=260$~GeV.
655: The dashed and solid curves correspond to the Born and QCD-corrected results,
656: respectively.
657: The upper and lower sets of curves refer to the OS and mixed schemes,
658: respectively.}
659: \end{center}
660: \end{figure}
661:
662: As a typical example, we consider in Fig.~\ref{fig:scheme} the case of
663: $\sqrt s=500$~GeV, $\tan\beta=40$, and $m_H=260$~GeV.
664: We allow $\mu$ to vary over two orders of magnitude, from 10 to 1000~GeV.
665: In the OS scheme, the Born result is $\mu$ independent, while the
666: QCD-corrected one depends on $\mu$ via $\alpha_s^{(6)}(\mu)$.
667: In the mixed scheme, the $\mu$ dependence enters at LO via
668: $\overline{m}_b^{(6)}(\mu)$ and at NLO via $\alpha_s^{(6)}(\mu)$ and
669: $\overline{m}_b^{(6)}(\mu)$.
670: Obviously, the theoretical uncertainties due to scheme and typical scale
671: variations are significantly reduced as we pass from LO to NLO.
672: On the one hand, the OS-scheme to mixed-scheme ratio is brought down to the
673: vicinity of unity, from 1.46--2.92 to 0.78--1.43, depending on the value of
674: $\mu$.
675: On the other hand, the $\mu$ dependence within the mixed scheme is reduced by
676: a factor of 5, from 0.020~fb to 0.004~fb in absolute terms.
677: Furthermore, we observe that, in the OS scheme, the QCD corrections lead to a
678: dramatic reduction of the cross section, by 36--67\%.
679: As explained above, this is because they contain large logarithmic terms of
680: the form $\alpha_s^{(6)}(\mu)\ln\left(M^2/m_b^2\right)$, where $M$ is a
681: generic mass scale in the ball park of some suitable average of the
682: final-state-particle masses, $m_b$, $m_t$, and $m_H$.
683: In the mixed scheme with $\mu$ of order $M$, such terms are shifted from the
684: QCD corrections to the Born result, where they are absorbed into the running
685: of $\overline{m}_b^{(6)}(\mu)$ from $\mu=m_b$ to $\mu=M$.
686: This is reflected in Fig.~\ref{fig:scheme} by the fact that, in the mixed
687: scheme, the QCD corrections are relatively modest, ranging from $-39\%$ to
688: $+30\%$.
689: Unless otherwise stated, we shall henceforth work in the mixed scheme, which,
690: for plausible values of $\mu$, is superior to the OS scheme as far as the
691: convergence properties are concerned.
692:
693: Let us now turn to the question of how to fix the value of $\mu$ in a
694: reasonable way.
695: Scale-setting procedures frequently discussed in the literature include the
696: concept of fastest apparent convergence (FAC) \cite{fac}, the principle of
697: minimal sensitivity (PMS) \cite{pms}, and the proposal by Brodsky, Lepage, and
698: Mackenzie (BLM) \cite{blm} to resum the leading light-quark contribution to
699: the renormalization of the strong-coupling constant.
700: The latter is not yet applicable to the problem under consideration, which is
701: of LO in the strong-coupling constant.
702: The FAC and PMS prescriptions lead us to select the values of $\mu$ where the
703: Born and QCD-corrected results intersect and where the latter exhibits a local
704: extremum, respectively.
705: We observe from Fig.~\ref{fig:scheme} that these two $\mu$ values
706: approximately coincide, at about 60~GeV.
707: Incidentally, in the close vicinity of these two $\mu$ values, also the
708: QCD-corrected results in the OS and mixed schemes cross over, so that also the
709: scheme dependence at NLO vanishes in this neighborhood, at least as for the
710: two schemes considered here.
711: Since the $\mu$ dependence is logarithmic, a democratic way of combining the
712: three scales $m_b$, $m_t$, and $m_H$ is by taking their geometric means,
713: $\mu=\sqrt[3]{m_bm_tm_H}$.
714: In the present case, this educated guess yields $\mu\approx60$~GeV, which
715: nicely agrees with the triply distinguished point identified above.
716: We checked that this choice works similarly well for the case of
717: $\sqrt s=800$~GeV, $\tan\beta=40$, and $m_H=410$~GeV.
718: We shall henceforth employ it, with the understanding that
719: Fig.~\ref{fig:scheme} provides us with a useful estimate of the theoretical
720: uncertainties due to scheme and typical scale variations, both at LO and NLO.
721:
722: \begin{figure}[ht]
723: \begin{center}
724: \leavevmode
725: \epsfxsize=14.cm
726: \epsffile[55 240 540 570]{ee2tbh_mh_500.ps}
727: \caption[]{\label{fig:mh_500}
728: Total cross section of $e^+e^-\to t\overline{b}H^-,\overline{t}bH^+$ without
729: (dotted curves) and with (solid curves) QCD corrections in the mixed scheme as
730: a function of $m_H$ for $\sqrt s=500$~GeV and various values of $\tan\beta$.
731: The middle, lower, and upper sets of curves correspond to $\tan\beta=2$, 6,
732: and 40, respectively.}
733: \end{center}
734: \end{figure}
735:
736: \begin{figure}[ht]
737: \begin{center}
738: \leavevmode
739: \epsfxsize=14.cm
740: \epsffile[45 240 540 570]{ee2tbh_tb_500.ps}
741: \caption[]{\label{fig:tb_500}Total cross section of
742: $e^+e^-\to t\overline{b}H^-,\overline{t}bH^+$ without (dotted curves) and with
743: (solid curves) QCD corrections as a function of $\tan\beta$ for
744: $\sqrt s=500$~GeV and $m_H=260$~GeV.
745: The upper and lower dotted curves refer to the OS and mixed schemes,
746: respectively.
747: The two solid curves referring to the OS and mixed schemes lie on top of each
748: other.}
749: \end{center}
750: \end{figure}
751:
752: \begin{figure}[ht]
753: \begin{center}
754: \leavevmode
755: \epsfxsize=14.cm
756: \epsffile[55 240 545 565]{ee2tbh_mh_800.ps}
757: \caption[]{\label{fig:mh_800}Same as in Fig.~\ref{fig:mh_500}, for
758: $\sqrt s=800$~GeV.}
759: \end{center}
760: \end{figure}
761:
762: \begin{figure}[ht]
763: \begin{center}
764: \leavevmode
765: \epsfxsize=14.cm
766: \epsffile[50 240 540 565]{ee2tbh_tb_800.ps}
767: \caption[]{\label{fig:tb_800}
768: Same as in Fig.~\ref{fig:tb_500}, for $\sqrt s=800$~GeV and $m_H=410$~GeV.}
769: \end{center}
770: \end{figure}
771:
772: Figures~\ref{fig:mh_500} and \ref{fig:tb_500} refer to $\sqrt s=500$~GeV,
773: while Figs.~\ref{fig:mh_800} and \ref{fig:tb_800} refer to $\sqrt s=800$~GeV.
774: We investigate the $m_H$ dependence for various values of $\tan\beta$ in
775: Figs.~\ref{fig:mh_500} and \ref{fig:mh_800} and the $\tan\beta$ dependence
776: for typical values of $m_H$ in Figs.~\ref{fig:tb_500} and \ref{fig:tb_800}.
777: In each figure, we present the Born and QCD-corrected results in the mixed
778: scheme with $\mu=\sqrt[3]{m_bm_tm_H}$.
779: For comparison, in Figs.~\ref{fig:tb_500} and \ref{fig:tb_800}, we also
780: present the corresponding results in the OS scheme with the same scale choice.
781: We observe that the total cross sections exhibit minima close to
782: $\tan\beta\approx\sqrt{m_t/m_b}\approx6$, independently of order and scheme.
783: This may be understood by observing that the average strength of the
784: $t\overline{b}H^-$ coupling, which is proportional to
785: $\sqrt{m_t^2\cot^2\beta+m_b^2\tan^2\beta}$, is then minimal \cite{kra}.
786: Depending on $\sqrt s$, $\tan\beta$, and $m_H$, the QCD corrections may be of
787: either sign.
788: By construction, they are generally rather modest in the mixed scheme,
789: although they may reach a magnitude of 50\% for specific values of
790: $\sqrt s$, $\tan\beta$, and $m_H$, as may be seen from Fig.~\ref{fig:mh_800}.
791: On the other hand, in the OS scheme, the QCD corrections lead to a substantial
792: reduction in cross section at large values of $\tan\beta$, by up to 50\%.
793: As explained above, this may be attributed to large logarithms arising from
794: the $t\overline{b}H^-$ Yukawa coupling.
795: Finally, we notice that Figs.~\ref{fig:tb_500} and \ref{fig:tb_800} support
796: the observations made in connection with Fig.~\ref{fig:scheme}.
797: In fact, owing to our judicious scale choice, the Born and QCD-corrected
798: results in the mixed scheme and the QCD-corrected result in the OS scheme all
799: approximately coincide, which nicely demonstrates the perturbative stability
800: in the mixed scheme and the feeble scheme dependence at NLO.
801: By contrast, the perturbative stability in the OS scheme is rather poor at
802: large values of $\tan\beta$.
803:
804: It is interesting to investigate the relative importance of the contributions
805: due to photon and $Z$-boson exchanges.
806: To this end, we evaluate the photon-induced part of the total cross section by
807: putting ${\cal V}_e={\cal A}_e=0$ and compare it with the full result.
808: We find that the bulk of the total cross section is due to photon exchange.
809: In fact, for the typical values $\sqrt s=500$~GeV and $m_H=260$~GeV, the
810: photon-induced part exhausts 78\%, 80\%, and 82\% of the full result if
811: $\tan\beta=2$, 6, and 40, respectively.
812:
813: \section{\label{sec:con}Summary}
814:
815: We considered the process $e^+e^-\to t\overline{b}H^-$ and its
816: charge-conjugate counterpart in the MSSM, which are among the dominant
817: charged-Higgs-boson production mechanisms at a future $e^+e^-$ LC if
818: $m_t+m_b<\sqrt s/2<m_H<\sqrt s-m_t-m_b$, so that $t\to bH^+$ and
819: $e^+e^-\to H^+H^-$ are not allowed kinematically.
820: For $\sqrt s=500$~GeV and 800~GeV, this corresponds to the $m_H$ windows
821: $250\lsim m_H\lsim320$~GeV and $400\lsim m_H\lsim620$~GeV, respectively.
822: We presented a compact Born formula for the cross sections of these processes
823: and evaluated their dominant radiative corrections, which arise from QCD.
824:
825: We regularized the IR singularities by introducing an infinitesimal gluon mass
826: $m_g$ and the UV ones by using dimensional regularization.
827: The IR singularities cancelled when the virtual and soft real QCD corrections
828: were combined and the UV ones upon renormalizing the masses and wave functions
829: of the quarks in the Born transition-matrix element.
830: We established these cancellations analytically.
831: We separated the soft-gluon and hard-gluon contributions by introducing an
832: unphysical gluon-energy cutoff $E_{\rm cut}$ and verified that their sum is
833: insensitive to the choice of $E_{\rm cut}$ as long as
834: $m_g\ll E_{\rm cut}\ll E_{\rm max}$ is satisfied.
835:
836: We worked in a mixed renormalization scheme, where the strong-coupling
837: constant and the $b$-quark mass are defined in the $\overline{\rm MS}$ scheme,
838: while the $t$-quark mass is defined in the OS scheme.
839: In this way, large logarithmic corrections that arise if the
840: $t\overline{b}H^-$ Yukawa coupling is expressed in terms of the $b$-quark pole
841: mass are automatically resummed, so that the convergence behaviour of the
842: perturbative expansion is improved.
843: On the other hand, the use of the $t$-quark $\overline{\rm MS}$ mass does not
844: entail such an improvement, but it rather appears somewhat unnatural from the
845: physical point of view.
846: The inclusion of the QCD corrections significantly reduces the theoretical
847: uncertainties due to scheme and typical scale variations.
848: We found that the QCD corrections to the total cross section may be of either
849: sign, depending on the values of $\sqrt s$, $\tan\beta$, and $m_H$, and that
850: they may reach a magnitude of up to 50\%.
851:
852: The $e^+e^-$ LC TESLA, which is being developed at DESY, has a design
853: luminosity of $3.4\times10^{34}$~cm${}^{-2}$s${}^{-1}$
854: ($5.8\times10^{34}$~cm${}^{-2}$s${}^{-1}$) at $\sqrt s=500$~GeV (800~GeV),
855: which corresponds to 340~fb${}^{-1}$ (580~fb${}^{-1}$) per year \cite{tdr}.
856: Thus, a total cross section of typically 0.03~fb (0.07~fb) will yield about
857: 10 (40) signal events per year.
858:
859: As a by-product of our analysis, we confirmed the numerical results for the
860: QCD-corrected total cross section of the SM process $e^+e^-\to q\overline{q}H$
861: obtained in Refs.~\cite{dit,daw}.
862:
863: \bigskip
864:
865: \noindent
866: {\bf Acknowledgements}
867:
868: \smallskip
869:
870: \noindent
871: We thank Stefan Dittmaier for providing us with numerical results from
872: Ref.~\cite{dit}, Thomas Hahn for helpful communications concerning
873: {\tt FormCalc} \cite{formcalc}, and Tao Han for a beneficial discussion
874: preceding our work.
875: F. M. thanks Stefan Berge for technical assistance regarding {\tt LoopTools}
876: \cite{formcalc}.
877: B.A.K. is grateful to the CERN Theoretical Physics Division for its
878: hospitality during a visit when this paper was finalized.
879: This work was supported in part by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft through
880: Grant No.\ KN~365/1-1, by the Bundesministerium f\"ur Bildung und Forschung
881: through Grant No.\ 05~HT1GUA/4, and by Sun Microsystems through Academic
882: Equipment Grant No.~EDUD-7832-000332-GER.
883:
884: \renewcommand{\theequation}{\Alph{section}.\arabic{equation}}
885: \begin{appendix}
886: \setcounter{equation}{0}
887:
888: \section{\label{app:tree}Born form factors}
889:
890: In this Appendix, we list compact expressions for the form factors
891: $f_{\gamma\gamma}(x_1,x_2)$, $f_{\gamma Z}(x_1,x_2)$, and $f_{ZZ}(x_1,x_2)$
892: appearing in Eq.~(\ref{eq:born}).
893: It is possible to combine the propagators of the $t$ quark, $b$ quark, and
894: $H^-$ boson with their couplings to the photon and $Z$ boson by defining the
895: effective couplings
896: \begin{eqnarray}
897: {\cal Q}_q&=&-\frac{2c_ws_wQ_q}{1-x_q},\qquad
898: {\cal V}_q=\frac{I_q-2s_w^2Q_q}{1-x_q},\qquad
899: {\cal A}_q=\frac{I_q}{1-x_q},
900: \nonumber\\
901: {\cal H}_\gamma&=&\frac{2c_ws_w}{1-x_3},\qquad
902: {\cal H}_Z=\frac{s_w^2-c_w^2}{1-x_3},
903: \end{eqnarray}
904: where $q=t,b$ and we have identified $x_t=x_1$ and $x_b=x_2$.
905: The $t\overline{b}H^-$ coupling introduces $\tan\beta$ dependence through the
906: combinations
907: \begin{equation}
908: T_\pm=a_1\cot^2\beta\pm a_2\tan^2\beta.
909: \end{equation}
910:
911: We find
912: \begin{eqnarray}
913: f_{Z Z}&=&
914: 2{\cal V}_t^2\{4a_1a_2(2+2a_1-x_1)
915: +T_+[(1+2a_1)(1+a_1+a_2-a_3-x_1)-x_2(1-x_1)]\}
916: \nonumber\\&&{}
917: +4{\cal V}_t{\cal V}_b\{2a_1a_2(4+2a_1+2a_2-2a_3-x_1-x_2)
918: \nonumber\\&&{}
919: +T_+[(1+a_2-a_3-x_1)(1+a_1-a_3-x_2)+(a_1+a_2)(1+a_1+a_2-a_3)-a_1a_2]\}
920: \nonumber\\&&{}
921: +2{\cal V}_b^2\{4a_1a_2(2+2a_2-x_2)
922: +T_+[(1+2a_2)(1+a_1+a_2-a_3-x_2)-x_1(1-x_2)]\}
923: \nonumber\\&&{}
924: -4{\cal V}_t{\cal A}_tT_-[(1-x_2)(1+2a_1-x_1)-a_1+a_2-a_3]
925: \nonumber\\&&{}
926: +4{\cal V}_t{\cal A}_bT_-[(1+a_2-a_3-x_1)(1+a_1+2a_2-a_3-x_2)
927: \nonumber\\&&{}
928: +(a_1-a_2)(1+a_1+a_2-a_3)-3a_1a_2]
929: \nonumber\\&&{}
930: -4{\cal V}_b{\cal A}_tT_-[(1+a_1-a_3-x_2)(1+2a_1+a_2-a_3-x_1)
931: \nonumber\\&&{}
932: -(a_1-a_2)(1+a_1+a_2-a_3)-3a_1a_2]
933: \nonumber\\&&{}
934: +4{\cal V}_b{\cal A}_bT_-[(1-x_1)(1+2a_2-x_2)+a_1-a_2-a_3]
935: \nonumber\\&&{}
936: -2{\cal A}_t^2\{4a_1a_2(2+6a_1-3x_1)
937: -T_+[(1-6a_1)(1+a_1+a_2-a_3-x_1)-x_2(1-x_1)]\}
938: \nonumber\\&&{}
939: -4{\cal A}_t{\cal A}_b\{2a_1a_2(4+6a_1+6a_2-6a_3-3x_1-3x_2)
940: +T_+[(1+2a_1+a_2-a_3-x_1)
941: \nonumber\\&&{}
942: \times(1+a_1+2a_2-a_3-x_2)-(a_1+a_2)(1+a_1+a_2-a_3)+7a_1a_2]\}
943: \nonumber\\&&{}
944: -2{\cal A}_b^2\{4a_1a_2(2+6a_2-3x_2)
945: -T_+[(1-6a_2)(1+a_1+a_2-a_3-x_2)-x_1(1-x_2)]\}
946: \nonumber\\&&{}
947: +2{\cal V}_t{\cal H}_Z\{4a_1a_2(1-2a_1+2a_2-2a_3-x_2)
948: +T_+[(1+2a_2-2a_3-x_1)
949: \nonumber\\&&{}
950: \times(1-a_1-a_2-a_3-x_1-x_2)-2a_1(a_1+a_3)+2a_2(1+a_1+2a_2-2a_3)]\}
951: \nonumber\\&&{}
952: -2{\cal V}_b{\cal H}_Z\{4a_1a_2(1+2a_1-2a_2-2a_3-x_1)
953: +T_+[(1+2a_1-2a_3-x_2)
954: \nonumber\\&&{}
955: \times(1-a_1-a_2-a_3-x_1-x_2)-2a_2(a_2+a_3)+2a_1(1+2a_1+a_2-2a_3)]\}
956: \nonumber\\&&{}
957: -2{\cal A}_t{\cal H}_ZT_-[(1+2a_1+2a_2-2a_3-x_1)(1+a_1-a_2-a_3-x_1-x_2)
958: \nonumber\\&&{}
959: +2a_2(1-2a_1+2a_2-2a_3)]
960: \nonumber\\&&{}
961: -2{\cal A}_b{\cal H}_ZT_-[(1+2a_1+2a_2-2a_3-x_2)(1-a_1+a_2-a_3-x_1-x_2)
962: \nonumber\\&&{}
963: +2a_1(1+2a_1-2a_2-2a_3)]
964: \nonumber\\&&{}
965: -{\cal H}_Z^2[4a_1a_2(3-4a_3-2x_1-2x_2)
966: \nonumber\\&&{}
967: +T_+(3-4a_3-2x_1-2x_2)(1+a_1+a_2-a_3-x_1-x_2)].
968: \label{eq:zz}
969: \end{eqnarray}
970: The formulas for $f_{\gamma\gamma}(x_1,x_2)$ and $f_{\gamma Z}(x_1,x_2)$ may
971: be obtained from Eq.~(\ref{eq:zz}) by adjusting the coupling constants.
972: Specifically, one has to substitute
973: \begin{equation}
974: {\cal V}_q\to{\cal Q}_q,\qquad
975: {\cal A}_q\to0,\qquad
976: {\cal H}_Z\to{\cal H}_\gamma
977: \end{equation}
978: in the first case and
979: \begin{eqnarray}
980: {\cal V}_q{\cal V}_{q^\prime}&\to&
981: {\cal Q}_q{\cal V}_{q^\prime}+{\cal Q}_{q^\prime}{\cal V}_q,\qquad
982: {\cal V}_q{\cal A}_{q^\prime}\to{\cal Q}_q{\cal A}_{q^\prime},\qquad
983: {\cal A}_q{\cal A}_{q^\prime}\to0,
984: \nonumber\\
985: {\cal V}_q{\cal H}_Z&\to&
986: {\cal Q}_q{\cal H}_Z+{\cal V}_q{\cal H}_\gamma,\qquad
987: {\cal A}_q{\cal H}_Z\to{\cal A}_q{\cal H}_\gamma,\qquad
988: {\cal H}_Z^2\to2{\cal H}_\gamma{\cal H}_Z
989: \end{eqnarray}
990: in the second one ($q,q^\prime=t,b$).
991:
992: \section{\label{app:four}Four-particle phase space}
993:
994: In this Appendix, we present the parameterization of the four-particle phase
995: space that we use to evaluate the hard-gluon contribution.
996: We generically denote the four-momenta and masses of the final-state particles
997: as $p_i$ and $m_i$ ($i=1,\ldots,4$), respectively.
998: Similarly as in Sec.~\ref{sec:ana}.1, we define $p=\sum_{i=1}^4p_i$, $s=p^2$,
999: $a_i=m_i^2/s$, $x_i=2p\cdot p_i/s$, and $y_i=\sqrt{x_i^2-4a_i}$.
1000: Due to four-momentum conservation, we have $\sum_{i=1}^4x_i=2$.
1001: We decompose the four-particle phase space into three nested two-particle
1002: phase spaces as \cite{byk}
1003: \begin{equation}
1004: d{\rm PS}_4(p;p_1,p_2,p_3,p_4)=\frac{ds_{12}ds_{34}}{(2\pi)^2}
1005: d{\rm PS}_2(p;p_{12},p_{34})\,
1006: d{\rm PS}_2(p_{12};p_1,p_2)\,d{\rm PS}_2(p_{34};p_3,p_4),
1007: \end{equation}
1008: where $p_{ij}=p_i+p_j$ and $s_{ij}=p_{ij}^2$, with $(i,j)=(1,2),(3,4)$.
1009: As in Sec.~\ref{sec:ana}.1, we work in the c.m.\ frame, take the $z$ axis of
1010: the coordinate system to point along
1011: $\mbox{\boldmath$k_1$}=-\mbox{\boldmath$k_2$}$, and choose the $x$ axis
1012: arbitrarily.
1013: We have $\mbox{\boldmath$p_{12}$}=-\mbox{\boldmath$p_{34}$}$ and
1014: $|\mbox{\boldmath$p_{12}$}|=(1/2)\sqrt{\lambda(s,s_{12},s_{34})/s}$.
1015: Using
1016: \begin{eqnarray}
1017: d{\rm PS}_2(p;p_{12},p_{34})
1018: &=&\frac{|\mbox{\boldmath$p_{12}$}|}{(4\pi)^2\sqrt{s}}d\cos\theta_{12}\,
1019: d\phi_{12},
1020: \nonumber\\
1021: d{\rm PS}_2(p_{ij};p_i,p_j)
1022: &=&\frac{1}{(4\pi)^2|\mbox{\boldmath$p_{ij}$}|}dp_i^0\,d\phi_i,
1023: \end{eqnarray}
1024: where $\theta_{12}$ and $\phi_{12}$ are the polar and azimuthal angles of
1025: $\mbox{\boldmath$p_{12}$}$, respectively, and $\phi_i$ is the azimuthal angle
1026: of $\mbox{\boldmath$p_i$}$ with respect to the axis pointing along
1027: $\mbox{\boldmath$p_{ij}$}$ measured from the plane spanned by
1028: $\mbox{\boldmath$k_1$}$ and $\mbox{\boldmath$p_{ij}$}$, we obtain
1029: \begin{equation}
1030: d{\rm PS}_4(p;p_1,p_2,p_3,p_4)
1031: =\frac{8}{(4\pi)^8\sqrt{\lambda(s,s_{12},s_{34})}}ds_{12}\,ds_{34}\,
1032: d\cos\theta_{12}\,d\phi_{12}\,dp_1^0\,d\phi_1\,dp_3^0\,d\phi_3.
1033: \end{equation}
1034: Owing to the azimuthal symmetry of the problem under consideration, the
1035: integration over $\phi_{12}$ is trivial, and we may choose
1036: $\mbox{\boldmath$p_{12}$}$ to lie in the $x$-$z$ plane.
1037: If we now rotate the coordinate system in such a way that
1038: $\mbox{\boldmath$p_{12}$}$ points along the $z$ axis and
1039: $\mbox{\boldmath$p_1$}$ lies in the $x$-$z$ plane, then $\theta=\theta_{12}$
1040: and $\phi=\pi-\phi_1$ define the direction of $\mbox{\boldmath$k_1$}$.
1041: Introducing $z_{ij}=s_{ij}/s$, we thus have
1042: \begin{equation}
1043: d{\rm PS}_4(p;p_1,p_2,p_3,p_4)
1044: =\frac{s^2}{(4\pi)^7\sqrt{\lambda(1,z_{12},z_{34})}}
1045: dz_{12}\,dz_{34}\,dx_1\,dx_3\,d\phi_3\,d\cos\theta\,d\phi.
1046: \end{equation}
1047: As explained in Eq.~(\ref{eq:int}), the integrations over $\cos\theta$ and
1048: $\phi$ can be exploited to transform the leptonic tensor $L^{\mu\nu}$ defined
1049: by Eq.~(\ref{eq:lep}), which depends on $k_1$ and $k_2$, into one depending
1050: only on $p$, so as to preclude scalar products of the type $k_i\cdot p_j$.
1051: The residual scalar products read
1052: \begin{eqnarray}
1053: p_1\cdot p_2&=&\frac{s}{2}(z_{12}-a_1-a_2),
1054: \nonumber\\
1055: p_3\cdot p_4&=&\frac{s}{2}(z_{34}-a_3-a_4),
1056: \nonumber\\
1057: p_1\cdot p_3&=&\frac{s}{4}[x_1x_3-y_1y_3(\sin\theta_1\sin\theta_3\cos\phi_3
1058: -\cos\theta_1\cos\theta_3)],
1059: \nonumber\\
1060: p_1\cdot p_4&=&\frac{s}{2}(x_1-z_{12}-a_1+a_2)-p_1\cdot p_3,
1061: \nonumber\\
1062: p_2\cdot p_3&=&\frac{s}{2}(x_3-z_{34}-a_3+a_4)-p_1\cdot p_3,
1063: \nonumber\\
1064: p_2\cdot p_4&=&\frac{s}{2}(1-x_1-x_3+a_1-a_2+a_3-a_4)+p_1\cdot p_3,
1065: \end{eqnarray}
1066: where $\theta_i$ is the angle enclosed between $\mbox{\boldmath$p_{ij}$}$ and
1067: $\mbox{\boldmath$p_i$}$.
1068: It is determined by
1069: \begin{equation}
1070: \cos\theta_i=\frac{x_i(1+z_{ij}-z_{kl})-2(z_{ij}+a_i-a_j)}
1071: {y_i\sqrt{\lambda(1,z_{ij},z_{kl})}},
1072: \end{equation}
1073: with $(i,j),(k,l)=(1,2),(3,4)$ and $(i,j)\ne(k,l)$.
1074: Furthermore, we have
1075: \begin{equation}
1076: x_j=1-x_i+z_{ij}-z_{kl}.
1077: \end{equation}
1078:
1079: The limits of integration are
1080: \begin{eqnarray}
1081: (\sqrt{a_1}+\sqrt{a_2})^2&<&z_{12}<\left(1-\sqrt{a_3}-\sqrt{a_4}\right)^2,
1082: \nonumber\\
1083: (\sqrt{a_3}+\sqrt{a_4})^2&<&z_{34}<(1-\sqrt{z_{12}})^2,
1084: \nonumber\\
1085: x_i^-&<&x_i<x_i^+,
1086: \nonumber\\
1087: 0&<&\phi_3<2\pi,
1088: \label{eq:lim}
1089: \end{eqnarray}
1090: where
1091: \begin{equation}
1092: x_i^\pm=\frac{1}{2z_{ij}}\left[(1+z_{ij}-z_{kl})(z_{ij}+a_i-a_j)
1093: \pm\sqrt{\lambda(1,z_{ij},z_{kl})\lambda(z_{ij},a_i,a_j)}\right].
1094: \end{equation}
1095:
1096: For the application in Sec.~\ref{sec:ana}.3, it is convenient to assign the
1097: indices 1, 2, 3, and 4 to the $t$ quark, $\overline{b}$ quark, gluon, and
1098: $H^-$ boson, respectively.
1099: Then, the hard-gluon condition $q^0>E_{\rm cut}$ may be implemented by
1100: substituting $x_3^-\to\max\left(x_3^-,2E_{\rm cut}/\sqrt s\right)$ in
1101: Eq.~(\ref{eq:lim}).
1102: Furthermore, we have $a_3=0$ throughout this appendix.
1103:
1104: \end{appendix}
1105:
1106: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1107:
1108: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
1109:
1110: \bibitem{kom} S. Komamiya,
1111: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf38}, 2158 (1988).
1112:
1113: \bibitem{kan} S. Kanemura, S. Moretti, and K. Odagiri,
1114: JHEP {\bf0102}, 011 (2001).
1115:
1116: \bibitem{shi} S. Kanemura,
1117: Eur.\ Phys.\ J. C {\bf17}, 473 (2000);
1118: H. E. Logan and S. Su,
1119: Report No.\ CALT-68-2375, FERMILAB-Pub-02/046-T, and hep-ph/0203270;
1120: Report No.\ CALT-68-2392, FERMILAB-Pub-02/110-T, and hep-ph/0206135.
1121:
1122: \bibitem{arh} A. Arhrib, M. Capdequi Peyranere, W. Hollik, and G. Moultaka,
1123: Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B581}, 34 (2000).
1124:
1125: \bibitem{mor} S. Moretti,
1126: Report No.\ CERN-TH/2002-137, IPPP/02/30, DCPT/02/60, and hep-ph/0206208.
1127:
1128: \bibitem{djo} A. Djouadi, J. Kalinowski, and P. M. Zerwas,
1129: Z. Phys.\ C {\bf54}, 255 (1992).
1130:
1131: \bibitem{dit} S. Dittmaier, M. Kr\"amer, Y. Liao, M. Spira, and P. M. Zerwas,
1132: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf441}, 383 (1998).
1133:
1134: \bibitem{daw} S. Dawson and L. Reina,
1135: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf59}, 054012 (1999).
1136:
1137: \bibitem{rei} S. Dawson and L. Reina,
1138: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf60}, 015003 (1999);
1139: S. Dittmaier, M. Kr\"amer, Y. Liao, M. Spira, and P. M. Zerwas,
1140: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf478}, 247 (2000).
1141:
1142: \bibitem{vegas} G. P. Lepage,
1143: J. Comput.\ Phys.\ {\bf27}, 192 (1978).
1144:
1145: \bibitem{bar} W. A. Bardeen, A. J. Buras, D. W. Duke, and T. Muta,
1146: Phys.\ Rev.\ D 18, 3998 (1978).
1147:
1148: \bibitem{feynarts} J. K\"ublbeck, M. B\"ohm, and A. Denner,
1149: Comput.\ Phys.\ Commun.\ {\bf60}, 165 (1990);
1150: T. Hahn,
1151: Comput.\ Phys.\ Commun.\ {\bf140}, 418 (2001);
1152: T. Hahn and C. Schappacher,
1153: Comput.\ Phys.\ Commun.\ {\bf143}, 54 (2002).
1154:
1155: \bibitem{formcalc} T. Hahn and M. Perez-Victoria,
1156: Comput.\ Phys.\ Commun.\ {\bf118}, 153 (1999);
1157: T. Hahn,
1158: Acta Phys.\ Polon.\ B {\bf30}, 3469 (1999);
1159: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B (Proc.\ Suppl.) {\bf89}, 231 (2000).
1160:
1161: \bibitem{form} J. A. M. Vermaseren,
1162: {\it Symbolic Manipulation with FORM},
1163: (Computer Algebra Netherlands, Amsterdam, 1991).
1164:
1165: \bibitem{bee} W. Beenakker and A. Denner,
1166: Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B338}, 349 (1990).
1167:
1168: \bibitem{tho} G.~'t Hooft and M. Veltman,
1169: Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B153}, 365 (1979);
1170: A. Denner,
1171: Fortschr.\ Phys.\ {\bf41}, 307 (1993).
1172:
1173: \bibitem{hoa} A. H. Hoang, M. Jezabek, J. H. K\"uhn, and T. Teubner,
1174: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf338}, 330 (1994).
1175:
1176: \bibitem{rambo} S. D. Ellis, R. Kleiss, and W. J. Stirling,
1177: RA(NDOM) M(OMENTA) B(EAUTIFULLY) O(RGANIZED) (unpublished).
1178:
1179: \bibitem{kln} T. Kinoshita,
1180: J. Math.\ Phys.\ {\bf3}, 650 (1962);
1181: T. D. Lee and M. Nauenberg,
1182: Phys.\ Rev.\ B {\bf133}, 1549 (1964).
1183:
1184: \bibitem{pdg} Particle Data Group, D. E. Groom {\it et al.},
1185: Eur.\ Phys.\ J. C {\bf15}, 1 (2000).
1186:
1187: \bibitem{kkp} B. A. Kniehl, G. Kramer, and B. P\"otter,
1188: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf85}, 5288 (2000).
1189:
1190: \bibitem{kni} B. A. Kniehl,
1191: Z. Phys.\ C {\bf72}, 437 (1996).
1192:
1193: \bibitem{bra} E. Braaten and J. P. Leveille,
1194: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf22}, 715 (1980).
1195:
1196: \bibitem{fac} G. Grunberg,
1197: Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf95B}, 70 (1980); {\bf110B}, 501(E) (1982);
1198: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf29}, 2315 (1984).
1199:
1200: \bibitem{pms} P. M. Stevenson,
1201: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf23}, 2916 (1981); Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf100B}, 61 (1981);
1202: Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B203}, 472 (1982); Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf231}, 65 (1984).
1203:
1204: \bibitem{blm} S. J. Brodsky, G. P. Lepage, and P. B. Mackenzie,
1205: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf28}, 228 (1983);
1206: S. J. Brodsky and H. J. Lu,
1207: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf51}, 3652 (1995).
1208:
1209: \bibitem{kra} A. Krause, T. Plehn, M. Spira, and P. M. Zerwas,
1210: Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B519}, 85 (1998).
1211:
1212: \bibitem{tdr} J. Andruszkow {\it et al.},
1213: TESLA Technical Design Report, Part II,
1214: edited by R. Brinkmann, K. Fl\"ottmann, J. Rossbach, P. Schm\"user, N. Walker,
1215: and H. Weise,
1216: Report No.\ DESY 2001-011, ECFA 2001-209, TESLA Report 2001-23, and
1217: TESLA-FEL 2001-05 (March 2001).
1218:
1219: \bibitem{byk} E. Byckling and K. Kajantie,
1220: {\it Particle Kinematics},
1221: (John Wiley and Sons, London, 1973).
1222:
1223: \end{thebibliography}
1224:
1225: \end{document}
1226: