1: \documentclass[12pt]{article}
2: \usepackage[dvips]{graphicx}
3: \usepackage{latexsym}
4: \oddsidemargin -0.29cm
5: \textwidth 16.6cm
6: \textheight 21.5cm
7: \topmargin -0.7cm
8:
9: %
10: \def\slashchar#1{\setbox0=\hbox{$#1$}\dimen0=\wd0%
11: \setbox1=\hbox{/}\dimen1=\wd1%
12: \ifdim\dimen0>\dimen1%
13: \rlap{\hbox to
14: \dimen0{\hfil/\hfil}}#1\else
15: \rlap{\hbox to \dimen1{\hfil$#1$\hfil}}/\fi}
16: %
17:
18: \newcommand{\br}{\mbox{Br}\,}
19: \newcommand{\tr}{\mbox{Tr}\,}
20: \newcommand{\tppp}{\tau^-\to\pi\pi\pi\nu_\tau}
21: \newcommand{\tpppc}{\tau^-\to\pi^+\pi^-\pi^-\nu_\tau}
22: \newcommand{\tpppn}{\tau^-\to\pi^-\pi^0\pi^0\nu_\tau}
23: \newcommand{\kbar}{\overline{K}^0}
24: \newcommand{\amp}{{\cal M}_{\kmm}}
25: \newcommand{\diag}{\mbox{diag}}
26: \newcommand{\gev}{\, \mbox{GeV}}
27: \newcommand{\rms}{\rm\scriptsize}
28: \newcommand{\rmf}{\rm\footnotesize}
29: \newcommand{\beq}{\begin{equation}}
30: \newcommand{\eeq}{\end{equation}}
31: \newcommand{\Frac}[2]{\frac{\displaystyle #1}{\displaystyle #2}}
32: \newcommand{\lsim}{\stackrel{<}{_\sim}}
33: \newcommand{\gsim}{\stackrel{>}{_\sim}}
34: \newcommand{\Oa}{{\cal O} (\alpha_{s}^3)}
35: \def\mapright#1#2{\smash{
36: \mathop{-\!\!\!-\!\!\!-\!\!\!\longrightarrow}\limits^{#1}_{#2}}}
37:
38: \hyphenation{fields s--channel}
39: \hyphenation{a-na-ly-ti-ca-lly}
40:
41: \begin{document}
42: \thispagestyle{empty}
43: \begin{titlepage}
44: \begin{center}
45: \hfill IFIC/02$-$21 \\
46: \hfill FTUV/02$-$0611 \\
47: \vspace*{3.5cm}
48: \begin{Large}
49: {\bf QED box amplitude in heavy fermion production} \\[2.25cm]
50: \end{Large}
51: { \sc J. Portol\'es} \ and { \sc P. D. Ruiz-Femen\'\i a}\\[0.5cm]
52: {\it Departament de F\'\i sica Te\`orica, IFIC, Universitat de Val\`encia -
53: CSIC\\
54: Apt. Correus 22085, E-46071 Val\`encia, Spain }\\[3.5cm]
55:
56: \begin{abstract}
57: \noindent
58: We evaluate the two--photon box contribution to heavy fermion
59: production in electron positron annihilation, that provides
60: ${\cal O}(\alpha^2)$ electromagnetic corrections to the Born cross
61: section. The study of its
62: non--relativistic expansion, relevant at energies close to the
63: threshold of production, is also performed. We also verify that the
64: threshold expansion of the one--loop integrals correctly reproduces
65: our results, thus extending the applicability of this technique to
66: heavy fermion production diagrams.
67:
68: \end{abstract}
69: \end{center}
70: \vfill
71: \hspace*{0.5cm} PACS~: 12.20.Ds, 13.40.-f \\
72: \hspace*{0.5cm} Keywords~: Heavy fermion production, QED, non--relativistic
73: expansion, asymptotic \\ \hspace*{2.75cm} expansion.
74: \eject
75: \end{titlepage}
76:
77: \pagenumbering{arabic}
78:
79: \section{Introduction}
80: \hspace*{0.5cm}
81: Heavy fermion production processes out of electron positron annihilation,
82: $e^+ e^- \rightarrow f \bar{f}$, have become a subject of thorough
83: study in the last years. Their interest embodies multiple features and
84: a wide energy range, from close to threshold production to high--energy
85: colliders. LEP and LEP2 have provided the appropriate tool pushing behind
86: this burst. In addition this is among the scattering processes with
87: higher expected number of events at a future Linear Collider running
88: in the $0.5 \, \mbox{TeV} - 1 \, \mbox{TeV}$ energy region like TESLA and
89: NLC/JLC-X, or CLIC at higher energies. Their interest
90: arises mainly from the possibility of exploring New Physics and, therefore,
91: an accurate description within the Standard Model is necessary for the
92: analyses of data. Projects like ZFITTER \cite{ZFI00} and the ongoing
93: CalcPHEP \cite{Calc02,Calc03} aim to provide the relevant theoretical
94: framework for that purpose.
95: \par
96: QED corrections seem to be of little interest when probing the quantum
97: effects within the Standard Model, but it is obvious that their
98: contribution, however small, should be considered in order to disentangle
99: New Physics effects. Besides, if a deeper understanding on the physical
100: parameters of heavy fermions is intended, electromagnetic $\tau^+ \tau^-$
101: and heavy quark $Q \overline{Q}$ production out of $e^+ e^-$ annihilation
102: at threshold energies supplies the required information.
103: \par
104: From a theoretical point of view $e^+ e^- \rightarrow f \bar{f}$
105: cross sections close to threshold evaluated within perturbation theory
106: are mislead due to the presence, in the physical system, of a kinematical
107: variable of the same order than the gauge theory coupling~: the velocity
108: of the heavy fermion pair in the center of mass of the colliding system,
109: $\beta = \sqrt{1-4 M^2/s}$, with $M$ the mass of the $f$ fermion. Hence,
110: when $\beta \sim \alpha$, care has to be taken in order to resummate terms
111: as $(\alpha/\beta)^n$ or $(\alpha \ln \beta)^n$ that can give potentially large
112: contributions \cite{JUAN}. Recently the development of non--relativistic
113: effective field theories of QED and QCD \cite{CP86} implements the
114: suitable systematic procedure to follow. Facilities as the proposed
115: Tau--Charm Factory, a high--luminosity $e^+ e^-$ collider with a
116: center--of--mass energy near the $\tau^+ \tau^-$ production threshold
117: \cite{TAUC}, would provide excellent information on the mass of this
118: lepton \cite{taus}. Moreover an accurate determination of the mass of
119: the top quark (difficult to get at the next hadron colliders) requires
120: a future lepton collider at the $t \overline{t}$ threshold \cite{TOP}.
121: Consequently a thorough study of the non--relativistic contribution
122: to $\sigma (e^+ e^- \rightarrow f \bar{f})$ both from
123: electromagnetic and strong interactions is mandatory.
124: \par
125: In Ref.~\cite{taus} a detailed study of the threshold behaviour of
126: $\sigma(e^+ e^- \rightarrow \tau^+ \tau^-)$ was performed, and it was
127: pointed out that, within the ${\cal O}(\alpha^2)$ electromagnetic
128: corrections to the Born cross section, the squared amplitude of the
129: box diagram involving two--photon $\tau^+ \tau^-$ production
130: (see Fig.~\ref{fig:box}) had not been considered yet. The electroweak
131: one--loop contributions to the $e^+ e^- \rightarrow f \bar{f}$
132: process were evaluated in Ref.~\cite{BMH91}. Here this box contribution
133: was already taken into account, though an explicit expression was only
134: given for the $M=0$ case. In this paper we provide the amplitude of
135: this diagram for a final massive fermion. \footnote{While writing this
136: article Ref.~\cite{Calc03} appeared. In this preprint a full
137: expression for the QED box diagram amplitude is also given.}
138: \par
139: Once the explicit result is worked out we perform its non--relativistic
140: expansion in terms of the $\beta$ velocity and we find that the
141: contribution of this diagram to the cross section is of
142: ${\cal O}(\alpha^4 \beta^3)$, that is ${\cal O}(\alpha^2 \beta^2)$
143: over the Born cross section. The additional suppression driven by
144: the velocity squared indicates that the contribution of the
145: two--photon box diagram to the production of heavy fermions at threshold
146: is negligible compared to the precision foreseen in the next future.
147: \par
148: In Section 2 we detail the calculation of the box diagram contributing
149: to $e^+ e^- \rightarrow f \bar{f}$ in the limit when
150: $m_e \ll M$, and we provide the full analytical result. Section 3 is
151: dedicated to the study of the threshold behaviour of the box amplitude
152: as obtained directly from our previous result. We confirm the features of this
153: threshold amplitude by performing an alternative analysis of the integrals
154: through the asymptotic expansion method in Section 4.
155: Our conclusions are collected in Section 5. Finally,
156: two Appendices contain the
157: basic scalar integrals appearing in the article and a comment on the
158: infrared divergent part of the box amplitude.
159:
160: \section{Two--photon box diagram}
161: \hspace*{0.5cm}
162: The contribution to the $S$-matrix of the process
163: $e^-(p) e^+(p^{\prime}) \rightarrow f(k) \bar{f}(k^{\prime})$
164: of the two--photon box amplitudes is depicted
165: in Fig.~\ref{fig:box} and it is defined by
166: \begin{equation}
167: \label{eq:smatx}
168: \langle \, f \bar{f} \, | \, i \, {\cal T} \, | \, e^+ e^- \, \rangle_{box}
169: =(2\pi)^4\,\delta(p+p^{\prime}-k-k^{\prime})\,i\,{\cal M}_{box} \;
170: \; .
171: \end{equation}
172:
173: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
174: \begin{figure}[tb]
175: \begin{center}
176: \hspace*{-0.5cm}
177: \includegraphics[angle=0,width=1.0\textwidth]{fig1.ps}
178: \caption[]{\label{fig:box} \it Direct (a) and crossed (b)
179: box diagrams for $e^+e^-\to f\bar{f}$.}
180: \end{center}
181: \end{figure}
182: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
183:
184: As we are interested in heavy fermion production we will perform
185: the evaluation for $k^2=k^{\prime 2}=M^2$ and
186: $p^2 = p^{\prime 2} = m^2 \, \ll M^2$ (we neglect the electron
187: mass where possible). The two--photon box amplitude is gauge
188: invariant and, consequently, we perform the calculation by
189: taking the Feynman choice.
190: The direct box amplitude, Fig.~\ref{fig:box}(a),
191: is written down following QED Feynman rules as~:
192: \begin{equation}
193: {\cal M}_a = e^4 Q_f^2 \int\frac{d^4\ell}{i(2\pi)^4}\,
194: \frac{\{\bar{v}_e(p^{\prime})\,\gamma^{\mu}\,\slashchar{\ell}\,
195: \gamma^{\nu}u_e(p)\}
196: \,\{\bar{u}_f(k)\,\gamma_{\nu}\,
197: (\slashchar{k}-\slashchar{p}+\slashchar{\ell}+M)\,
198: \gamma_{\mu}\,v_f(k^{\prime})\}}{(\ell^2-m^2)[(\ell+k-p)^2-M^2]
199: [(\ell-p)^2-\lambda^2]
200: [(\ell+p^{\prime})^2-\lambda^2 ]}\,\,,
201: \label{eq:amplitude}
202: \end{equation}
203: where we have introduced a photon mass $\lambda$ in order to
204: regularize the infrared divergences known to be present in this
205: amplitude.
206: The crossed box diagram in Fig.~\ref{fig:box}(b)
207: can be obtained from (\ref{eq:amplitude}) by adding an overall minus
208: sign, reversing the order of the
209: $\gamma_{\mu}$, $\gamma_{\nu}$ matrices in the heavy fermion bilinear,
210: and performing the
211: substitutions $k \rightarrow k^{\prime}$ everywhere (except for the
212: spinors) and $M \rightarrow - M$. Hence, in
213: Eq.~(\ref{eq:smatx}), ${\cal M}_{box} \, = \, {\cal M}_a + {\cal M}_b$.
214: The evaluation of the integrals is slightly
215: cumbersome but straightforward and the details are given in the Appendix A.
216: \par
217: With the definition of the Mandelstam variables $s = (p+p^{\prime})^2$
218: and $t = (p-k)^2$, the spinorial structure of ${\cal M}_{box}$ is decomposed
219: into 4 sets of amplitudes $L_{i}^{\rho \kappa}$ multiplied
220: by corresponding coefficients $w_i^{\rho}$:
221: \begin{equation}
222: {\cal M}_{box} (\kappa;s,t)= e^4Q_f^2\sum_{i=1}^{4}\sum_{\rho = \pm 1}
223: L_i^{\rho \kappa} \,w_i^{\rho} \; \; ,
224: \label{eq:finalM}
225: \end{equation}
226: with the basic amplitudes
227: \begin{eqnarray}
228: L_1^{\rho \kappa} & = & [ \, \bar{v}_e(p^{\prime})\,
229: \gamma_{\mu}\,P_{\kappa}\,u_e(p)\,]
230: \,\,[\, \bar{u}_f(k)\,\gamma^{\mu}\,(1+\kappa\rho\,\gamma_5)\,v_f(k^{\prime})\,]
231: \; ,
232: \nonumber\\[3mm]
233: L_2^{\rho \kappa} & = & [ \, \bar{v}_e(p^{\prime})\,
234: \slashchar{k}\,P_{\kappa}\,u_e(p) \,]
235: \,\,[\, \bar{u}_f(k)\,\slashchar{p}\,(1+\kappa\rho\,\gamma_5)\,v_f(k^{\prime}) \,]
236: \; ,
237: \nonumber\\[3mm]
238: L_3^{\rho \kappa} & = & [ \, \bar{v}_e(p^{\prime})\,
239: \slashchar{k}\,P_{\kappa}\,u_e(p) \,]
240: \,\,[\, \bar{u}_f(k)\,(1+\kappa\rho\,\gamma_5)\,v_f(k^{\prime}) \,] \; ,
241: \nonumber\\[3mm]
242: L_4^{\rho \kappa} & = & [ \, \bar{v}_e(p^{\prime})\,
243: \gamma_{\mu}\,P_{\kappa}\,u_e(p) \,]
244: \,\,[\, \bar{u}_f(k)\gamma^{\mu}\,\slashchar{p}\,(1+\kappa\rho\,\gamma_5)\,v_f(k^{\prime}) \,]
245: \,\,.
246: \label{eq:spinorbasis}
247: \end{eqnarray}
248: The latter have been written in terms of the initial state $e^+e^-$
249: chiral projectors
250: \begin{equation}
251: P_{\kappa}=\frac{1}{2}\Big( 1+\kappa \,\gamma_5 \Big)\,\,\,,\,\,\,\kappa =\pm 1
252: \,\,,
253: \end{equation}
254: which, as we are considering massless initial fermions, satisfy
255: $P_{\kappa} u_e(p) = u_e(p)$, being $\kappa$ the initial
256: electron helicity; in the massless limit, positron helicity is forced to
257: be $-\kappa$ to have a non vanishing amplitude. The dependence of
258: ${\cal M}_{box}$ on the spin state of the final state fermions
259: has not been explicitly stated.
260: \par
261: The $w_i^{\rho}$ coefficients can be written in terms
262: of four auxiliary functions ${\cal F}_{i}, \; \, i=0,1,2,3$~:
263: \begin{eqnarray}
264: w_1^+ & = & \Frac{1}{2}{\cal F}_0(s,t)\,\,, \nonumber \\[2mm]
265: w_1^- & = & - \, \Frac{1}{2} {\cal F}_0(s,u)\,\,, \nonumber \\[2mm]
266: w_2^+ & = & {\cal F}_1(s,t)+{\cal F}_2(s,t)\,\,, \nonumber \\[2mm]
267: w_2^- & = & {\cal F}_1(s,u)+{\cal F}_2(s,u)\,\,, \nonumber \\[2mm]
268: w_3^+ & = & M\Big({\cal F}_1(s,u)-{\cal F}_1(s,t)+
269: {\cal F}_3(s,u)-{\cal F}_3(s,t) \Big)\,\,,
270: \label{eq:www}\\[2mm]
271: w_3^- & = & M\Big({\cal F}_3(s,u)-{\cal F}_3(s,t) \Big) \,\,,
272: \nonumber \\[2mm]
273: w_4^+ & = & - \, \Frac{1}{2} M\Big({\cal F}_2(s,t)-{\cal F}_2(s,u)\Big)\,\,,
274: \nonumber \\[2mm]
275: w_4^- & = & \, \Frac{1}{2} M\Big({\cal F}_2(s,t)-{\cal F}_2(s,u)\Big)\,\,,
276: \nonumber
277: \end{eqnarray}
278: that read
279: \begin{eqnarray}
280: {\cal F}_0(s,t) &=& \,{\cal F}_0^{\lambda}(s,t) \, + \,
281: \frac{M^2-t}{(M^2-t)^2+st}
282: \bigg\{ \, t \, \left( \, s D_0 \, - \, 2 C_t \, \right)
283: - M^2 \, \frac{M^2-s-t}{M^2-t} \left( \, s \overline{D}_0 \, - \, 2
284: \overline{C}_t \, \right) \label{eq:fifunc1}\\[3mm] & &
285: \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \;
286: \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \;\; \; \; \; \;
287: - \, \left( 2M^2-s-2t \right) \left( C_s + C_M \right) \bigg\}
288: \,\,,\nonumber\\[6mm]
289: {\cal F}_1(s,t) &=&
290: \,\frac{1}{(M^2-t)^2+st} \,
291: \bigg\{ \, 2 (B_t - B_s) + \Frac{4 M^2}{M^2-t} \, (B_M - B_t) \,
292: \label{eq:fifunc2}\\[3mm]
293: && \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \;
294: + \, \frac{M^2-t}{(M^2-t)^2+st} \bigg[ \, (2M^2-s-2t) \,
295: \left((M^2-t)(s D_0 - 2 C_t)
296: + s \, C_s \, \right) \nonumber \\[3mm]
297: && \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \;
298: \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \;
299: \; + \, \left( \, 2 (M^2-t)^2+s(2t+s-4M^2) \, \right)
300: C_M \, \bigg] \, \bigg\} \; \; , \nonumber \\[6mm]
301: {\cal F}_2(s,t) &=& \, {\cal F}_2^{\lambda}(s,t) \, - \,
302: \,\frac{1}{(M^2-t)^2+st}\, \bigg\{ \, (M^2+t) \, \left( \, s D_0 \, - \,
303: 2 C_t \, \right) \, - \, (s-4M^2) \, C_M
304: \label{eq:fifunc3}\\[3mm]
305: && \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \;
306: \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \;\; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \;
307: - \, (2M^2-s-2t) \, C_s \bigg\}\,\,,\nonumber\\[6mm]
308: {\cal F}_3(s,t) &=&
309: \,\frac{1}{(M^2-t)^2+st} \,
310: \bigg\{ \, \Frac{2t}{M^2-t} \, (B_t - B_M) \, + \,
311: \Frac{2(M^2+t)}{4M^2-s} \, (B_s - B_M) \,
312: \label{eq:fifunc4}\\[3mm]
313: && \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \;
314: - \, \frac{(M^2-t)^2}{(M^2-t)^2+st} \bigg[ \, (M^2-t) \, ( s D_0 - 2 C_t)
315: \, + \, s \, C_s \,
316: \bigg]
317: \nonumber \\[3mm]
318: && \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \;
319: + \,
320: \Frac{1}{(4M^2-s)((M^2-t)^2+st)}
321: \left[-4\, M^8 \, + \, 6(s+2t)\, M^6 \right. \nonumber \\
322: && \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \;
323: \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \;
324: \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \;\; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \;\;
325: \left. - \, (s+2t)\, (s+6t) \, M^4 \right. \nonumber \\
326: && \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \;
327: \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \;
328: \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \;\; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \;\;
329: \left. + \,2t \, (s^2+ts+2t^2) \, M^2 \, +
330: \, s^2t^2 \, \right]
331: C_M \, \bigg\} \; \; . \nonumber
332: \end{eqnarray}
333: Full expressions for the scalar functions $B_s$, $B_t$, $B_M$, $C_s$,
334: $C_t$, $\overline{C}_t$, $C_M$, $D_0$ and $\overline{D}_0$ can be
335: found in Eqs.~(\ref{eq:D0}-\ref{eq:BM}) of the Appendix A. It
336: can be seen from ${\cal F}_1(s,t)$ and ${\cal F}_3(s,t)$ that the
337: two--point functions $B_t$, $B_s$ and $B_M$ only appear in non--divergent
338: combinations while the rest of scalar integrals in ${\cal F}_i(s,t)$
339: are UV finite. Clearly ${\cal M}_{box}(\kappa; s,t)$
340: is ultraviolet finite.
341: Scalar integrals $D_0$ ($\overline{D}_0$) and $C_t$
342: ($\overline{C}_t$) are
343: infrared divergent for vanishing photon mass $\lambda$, however the
344: combinations $s D_0 - 2 C_t$ and $s \overline{D}_0 - 2 \overline{C}_t$
345: are divergenceless. Hence all the divergences
346: in the ${\cal F}_i(s,t)$ functions are collected in ${\cal F}_0^{\lambda}(s,t)$
347: and ${\cal F}_2^{\lambda}(s,t)$, given by~:
348: \begin{eqnarray} \label{eq:f02IR}
349: {\cal F}_0^{\lambda}(s,t) \, & = & \, 2 \, \left( M^2 - s - t
350: \right) \, \overline{D}_0 \; \; , \nonumber \\[3mm]
351: {\cal F}_2^{\lambda}(s,t) \, & = & \, 2 \, D_0 \; \; ,
352: \end{eqnarray}
353: and we get for the infrared divergent part of the box amplitude~:
354: \begin{equation} \label{eq:boxIR}
355: {\cal M}_{box}^{IR} \, = \, \Frac{e^4 Q_f^2}{8 \pi^2 \, s} \, \left(
356: L_1^{+ \kappa} \, + \, L_1^{- \kappa} \right) \,
357: \ln \left( \Frac{M^2-u}{M^2-t} \right) \, \ln \left(
358: \Frac{-s-i \delta}{\lambda^2} \right) \; \; \; .
359: \end{equation}
360: A more complete discussion on the infrared structure of the QED box diagram
361: and the determination of ${\cal M}_{box}^{IR}$ is relegated to Appendix B.
362: \par
363: Incidentally our result can be used to evaluate the similar
364: two--gluon box contribution to the heavy quark production out
365: of light quarks, $q(A) \bar{q}(B) \rightarrow Q(C) \overline{Q}(D)$
366: (between parentheses we label the colour quantum numbers). In order
367: to get this amplitude we need to substitute the $e^4 Q_f^2$ factor
368: in Eq.~(\ref{eq:finalM}) by
369: $g_s^4 (t^b t^a)_{BA} \{t^a,t^b\}_{CD}$ (a sum over repeated indices is
370: implied). \footnote{In this colour factor $t^i = \lambda^i/2$, where
371: $\lambda^i$ are the $SU(3)$ Gell--Mann matrices and
372: $Tr(t^i t^j) = \delta^{ij}/2$.}
373: \par
374: We have checked that our amplitude in Eq.~(\ref{eq:finalM}),
375: when summed over polarizations,
376: coincides with a recent result found in
377: Ref.~\cite{Calc03},
378: though these authors use a different basis of spinor operators.
379: Moreover, from our calculation for ${\cal M}_{box}$, we can recover
380: the case where the final fermions are massless.
381: The limit $M\to 0$ can be
382: directly applied to the $w_i^{\pm}$ coefficients, Eqs.~(\ref{eq:www}),
383: and to the scalar integrals quoted in the Appendix A. Within this limit
384: our result agrees with the earlier calculation in Ref.~\cite{BMH91}.
385:
386: \section{Heavy fermion production at threshold}
387: \hspace*{0.5cm}
388: Close to $f\bar{f}$ threshold, it is more convenient to
389: expand the production
390: amplitude in terms of the fermions velocity in the
391: center--of--mass of the colliding system $\beta=\sqrt{1-4M^2/s}$.
392: Hence production amplitudes are written in a combined
393: expansion in powers of $\alpha$ and $\beta$, and the importance
394: of each contribution is estimated taking $\alpha\sim \beta$. This
395: feature spoils the perturbative expansion in QED due to the
396: appearance of ${\cal O}(\alpha^n/\beta^n)$ and
397: ${\cal O} (\alpha^m ln^n \beta)$ terms that diverge as $\beta \rightarrow 0$.
398: As a consequence, a resummation of such terms is necessary to avoid
399: a breakdown of the perturbative series, and
400: well-known results from the familiar non-relativistic
401: quantum mechanics are obtained. Nevertheless
402: it is somewhat misleading to associate the
403: appearance of these Coulomb terms to the non-relativistic
404: motion of the fermion pair, as the scattering amplitude calculated
405: from quantum mechanics does not show any kinematic singularity close
406: to threshold: their ultimate origin is the inadequacy of
407: the diagrammatic QED expansion in powers of $\alpha$ to account for
408: the correct non-relativistic dynamics. Keeping this in mind, one should
409: not discard, a priori, divergent terms in the velocity appearing
410: in any QED diagram involving fermions with small velocities.
411: \par
412: In Ref.~\cite{taus} it was pointed out that the contribution at threshold
413: of the two--photon box diagram should be analysed in a NNLO calculation
414: of $\sigma(e^+e^-\to \tau^+\tau^-)$.
415: In this Section we proceed to perform the expansion on
416: ${\cal M}_{box}$ as given in Eq.~(\ref{eq:finalM}).
417: The leading terms in the velocity expansion
418: of the coefficients $w_i^{\pm}$ can be obtained by taking into account
419: the dependence of the Mandelstam
420: invariants $s,t,u$ on the velocity $\beta$ and the angle $\theta$
421: between the momenta of the heavy fermion and the electron in the
422: colliding center--of--mass system. The relation is given by~:
423: \begin{equation}
424: s= \frac{4M^2}{1-\beta^2}\,\,\,\; \; , \; \; \,\,\,t=M^2-\frac{2M^2}{1-\beta^2}
425: (1-\beta\cos \theta)\,\,\; \; \,,\,\; \; \,\,u=M^2-\frac{2M^2}{1-\beta^2}
426: (1+\beta\cos \theta)\,\,.
427: \label{eq:inv}
428: \end{equation}
429: Carrying these expressions to the $w_i^{\pm}$ coefficients displayed in
430: Eq.~(\ref{eq:www}) and neglecting ${\cal O}(\beta^2)$ terms
431: we obtain~:
432: \begin{eqnarray}
433: w_1^+ & = &\frac{1}{384M^2\pi^2} \bigg[
434: -\pi^2 + 3 \ln^2
435: \frac{4 M^2}{\lambda^2} -3 \ln^2 \frac{m^2}{\lambda^2}
436: \nonumber\\[3mm]
437: && \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \;
438: +\, \bigg(8-14 i \pi -8 \ln 2 +
439: 12 \ln \frac{4 M^2}{\lambda^2} \bigg)\,\beta\,\cos\theta \,\bigg]
440: \, + \, {\cal O}(\beta^2) \; \; ,
441: \nonumber \\[4mm]
442: w_1^- & = & -w_1^+(\beta \to -\beta)\,\, \; ,
443: \nonumber\\[4mm]
444: w_2^+ & = &\ \frac{1}{384M^4\pi^2} \bigg[\,
445: \pi^2-8+8 i \pi + 8 \ln 2 - 3 \ln^2
446: \frac{4 M^2}{\lambda^2} + 3 \ln^2 \frac{m^2}{\lambda^2} \,\,
447: \nonumber\\[3mm]
448: && \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \;
449: + \, \bigg( \pi^2 - 34 + 4 i \pi + 16 \ln 2 +
450: 12 \ln \Frac{4 M^2}{\lambda^2}
451: - 3 \ln^2
452: \frac{4 M^2}{\lambda^2} + 3 \ln^2 \frac{m^2}{\lambda^2} \bigg) \,
453: \beta \cos\theta \, \bigg]
454: \nonumber\\[3mm]
455: && \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \;
456: + \; {\cal O}(\beta^2)\,\,,
457: \nonumber \\[4mm]
458: w_2^- & = & w_2^+(\beta \to -\beta)\,\,,
459: \label{eq:wbeta}\\[4mm]
460: w_3^+ & = & \frac{1}{240M^3\pi^2} \,\bigg(
461: 37+2 i \pi -64 \ln 2 \,\bigg)\,\beta\cos\theta \, + \, {\cal O}(\beta^2)\,\,,
462: \nonumber\\[4mm]
463: w_3^- & = & \frac{-1}{480M^3\pi^2} \,\bigg(
464: 11+ i\pi -32 \ln 2 \,\bigg)\,\beta\cos\theta \, + \, {\cal O}(\beta^2) \,\,,
465: \nonumber\\[4mm]
466: w_4^+ & = & \frac{-1}{384M^3\pi^2} \,\bigg(
467: \pi^2+6i\pi -48 \ln 2 +
468: 12 \ln \Frac{4 M^2}{\lambda^2}
469: - 3 \ln^2
470: \frac{4 M^2}{\lambda^2} + 3 \ln^2 \frac{m^2}{\lambda^2} \bigg) \, \beta
471: \cos\theta \, + \, {\cal O}(\beta^2) \, ,
472: \nonumber\\[4mm]
473: w_4^- & = &-w_4^+\,\,.
474: \nonumber
475: \end{eqnarray}
476: The amplitudes $L_i^{\rho \kappa}$, containing fermion wave functions,
477: must also be
478: expanded in terms of $\beta$ to fulfill the expansion of ${\cal M}_{box}$
479: at small velocities. We shall not give the full result of such expansion, but
480: just quote their leading behaviour, which can be easily obtained by choosing an
481: explicit representation of the gamma matrices and spinors. We thus get:
482: \begin{equation}
483: L_1^{\rho \kappa}={\cal O}(1)\, ,\,\; \; \; \, \; \; \;
484: \,\,\,L_2^{\rho \kappa}={\cal O}(\beta)\, ,
485: \; \; \; \,\,\,\,\; \; \; \,
486: L_3^{\rho \kappa}={\cal O}(\beta)\,,\,\; \; \; \,\,\; \; \;
487: \,\, \,L_4^{\rho \kappa}={\cal O}(1)
488: \,\,.
489: \label{eq:Ls}
490: \end{equation}
491: The terms quoted in Eqs.~(\ref{eq:wbeta}) together
492: with the expansion in Eq.~(\ref{eq:Ls}) allow us to obtain the leading
493: near threshold contribution to the cross section
494: of the box amplitude ${\cal M}_{box}$.
495: Recall that, by virtue of Furry's theorem, the interference of the QED
496: box amplitude
497: with other one-loop amplitudes for the process $e^+e^-\to f\bar{f}$
498: vanishes and, consequently, $|{\cal M}_{box}|^2$
499: adds incoherently to the rest of ${\cal O}(\alpha^4)$
500: corrections to $\sigma(e^+e^-\to f\bar{f})$,
501: as studied in Ref.~\cite{taus}.
502: The final result for the squared and averaged box amplitude is~:
503: \begin{eqnarray}
504: \frac{1}{4}\sum_{pol.}|{\cal M}_{box}|^2 = \left( Q_f \,\alpha \right)^4
505: \!\!\!\!&\Bigg\{&\!\!\!\! \frac{16}{9}\Big( \pi^2+(1-\ln 2)^2 \Big)
506: \label{eq:M2}\\[3mm]
507: \!\!\!\! \!+ &&\!\!\!\! \! \! \! \, \! \! \! \! \! \! \!
508: \Bigg[-\frac{1}{2}L_M^4-4L_M^3 -2L_M^3 \ell_m +
509: \bigg(-2\ell_m^2-12\ell_m+
510: \frac{8}{3} \ln 2 +\frac{\pi^2}{3}+\frac{160}{3}\bigg)\,L_M^2
511: \nonumber\\[3mm]\!\!\!\!&&\!\!\!\! \!\!\! +
512: \,\bigg(\!\! -8\ell_m^2+\Big(\frac{16}{3} \ln 2+\frac{2}{3} \pi^2
513: +\frac{320}{3}\Big)\ell_m
514: -288\ln 2+\frac{4}{3} \pi^2+32\bigg)\,L_M
515: \nonumber\\[3mm]\!\!\!\!&&\!\!\!\! \!\!\!+ \,
516: 56 \, \ell^2_m+\Big(-288\ln 2 +\frac{4}{3} \pi^2+32\Big)\ell_m
517: +\frac{3088}{9}\ln^2 2 -\frac{800}{9}\ln 2
518: \nonumber\\[3mm]\!\!\!\!&&\!\!\!\!\!\!\!
519: -\frac{\pi^4}{18}
520: -\frac{8}{9}\pi^2 \ln 2-\frac{14}{3} \pi^2+\frac{16}{9}\,\Bigg]
521: \cos^2\theta \, \Bigg\}\,\beta^2
522: \, + \, {\cal O}(\beta^3)\,\,,
523: \nonumber
524: \end{eqnarray}
525: with
526: \begin{equation}
527: L_M\equiv\ln \frac{4M^2}{m^2}\qquad\qquad
528: \mbox{and}\qquad\qquad
529: \ell_m\equiv\ln \frac{m^2}{\lambda^2}
530: \qquad.
531: \label{eq:Lm}
532: \end{equation}
533: Hence we conclude that
534: the result in Eq.~(\ref{eq:M2}), proportional to $ \alpha^4\beta^2$,
535: represents a N$^4$LO correction with respect the LO result
536: (the tree level $e^+e^-\to f \bar{f}$ amplitude squared, which
537: is already of ${\cal O}(\alpha^2)$). In Ref.~\cite{taus},
538: box amplitudes were not included with the rest of the one-loop
539: diagrams to complete the NNLO calculation of
540: $\sigma(e^+e^-\to \tau^+\tau^-)$ at threshold, their behaviour with
541: $\beta$ being unknown. Our evaluation
542: of $|{\cal M}_{box}|^2$ has proven that this is, indeed, $\beta^2$
543: suppressed with respect the NNLO contributions considered in
544: \cite{taus}.
545:
546: \section{Threshold amplitude by asymptotic expansion of integrals}
547: \hspace*{0.5cm}
548: The counting of powers of the velocity appearing in a defined
549: amplitude is not straight because $\beta$ is not a parameter in the
550: Lagrangian, but rather a dynamic scale which is driven by the
551: propagators inside loop integrals. In recent years, this
552: issue made awkward to define a non-relativistic effective theory
553: suitable for describing quarks and leptons at low velocities.
554: Important progress was made after the development of the
555: threshold expansion by Beneke and Smirnov \cite{threshold}. This
556: technique allows for an asymptotic expansion of Feynman integrals
557: near threshold, providing a set of much simpler integrals which
558: are manifestly homogeneous in the expansion parameter and so
559: have a definite power counting in the velocity. The procedure
560: should confirm that the two--photon box amplitude is not
561: enhanced at low $\beta$, as we have found by explicit evaluation.
562: This we discuss in the following.
563: \par
564: The expansion method, described in Ref.~\cite{threshold}, begins by identifying
565: the relevant momentum regions in the loop integrals, which follow from the
566: singularity structure of the Feynman propagators dictated by the
567: relevant scales that appear in the problem. For on-shell
568: scattering amplitudes of heavy fermions, three scales are identified: the
569: heavy fermions mass, $M$, their relative 3-momentum,
570: $|{\mbox{\boldmath $k$}}|\sim M\beta$ and their energy $k_0\sim M\beta^2$.
571: Accordingly, the loop
572: four momentum near the singularities can be in any of the following
573: regimes:
574: \begin{eqnarray}
575: hard\ :&& \ell_0 \, \sim \, |{\mbox{\boldmath $\ell$}}| \, \sim \, M\,,
576: \nonumber\\[3mm]
577: soft\ :&& \ell_0 \, \sim \, |{\mbox{\boldmath $\ell$}}| \, \sim \, M\beta\,,
578: \nonumber\\[3mm]
579: potential\ :&& \ell_0 \, \sim \, M\beta^2\; \, , \, \;
580: |{\mbox{\boldmath $\ell$}}| \, \sim M\beta\,,
581: \nonumber\\[3mm]
582: ultrasoft\ :&& \ell_0 \, \sim \,
583: |{\mbox{\boldmath $\ell$}}| \, \sim \, M\beta^2\,.
584: \label{eq:regimes}
585: \end{eqnarray}
586: The original integral is then decomposed into a set
587: of integrals, one for every region, and a Taylor
588: expansion in the parameters, which are small in each regime, is performed.
589: Every integral, containing just one scale, will thus contribute
590: only to a single power in the velocity
591: expansion. The procedure requires the use of dimensional regularization
592: in handling the integrals,
593: even if they are finite, in order to assure that the result from
594: each regime just picks up the corresponding pole contribution and
595: vanishes outside. Following this heuristic rules, the authors of
596: Ref.~\cite{threshold} reproduce the exact $\beta$ expansion of some one-loop
597: and two-loop examples. Although a formal proof of the validity of
598: the asymptotic expansion close to threshold has not been given, the perfect
599: agreement in the examples supports their use in general one-loop diagrams.
600: We provide a new test by addressing the rules to the QED box amplitude with
601: $e^+e^-$ in the initial state, extending the use of the threshold
602: expansion to diagrams with heavy and massless fermions in the external legs
603: (i.e. production-like diagrams). We will keep the electron mass finite along
604: the procedure, although much smaller than any other scale, to keep track
605: of the logarithms of $m$ present in the box amplitude.
606: \par
607: Our amplitude ${\cal M}_{box}$ is characterized, as shown in the
608: Appendix A, by the four point
609: integrals $D_0,D_{\mu},D_{\mu\nu}$ in (\ref{eq:Ds}). If
610: present, inverse powers of the velocity in ${\cal M}_{box}$ can only originate
611: from these integrals. In addition, we can focus on the behaviour of the scalar
612: integral $D_0$, as the $\ell_{\mu},\ell_{\mu}\ell_{\nu}$ vectors in
613: $D_{\mu}$ and $D_{\mu\nu}$ will produce factors
614: of one of the scales of the problem ($M,M\beta$ or $M\beta^2$) in the
615: numerator of the amplitude without affecting the leading singular behaviour
616: in $\beta$.
617: Let us change the routing of momenta
618: in $D_0$ (\ref{eq:Ds}) in order to make the scaling arguments more
619: transparent:
620: \begin{equation}
621: \! \! \! \! \! \, D_0 = \int \Frac{d^D \ell}{i (2 \pi)^D} \,
622: \frac{1}{[(Q/2+T/2-\ell)^2-m^2][(Q/2+R/2-\ell)^2-M^2]
623: [\ell^2-\lambda^2]
624: [(Q-\ell)^2-\lambda^2 ]}\,,
625: \label{eq:D0routed}
626: \end{equation}
627: where the standard $+i\delta$ prescriptions are implicitly understood in the
628: propagators, the $Q$ and $R$ vectors are defined in
629: relation with Eq.~(\ref{eq:Ds}) and $T = p - p^{\prime}$.
630: The external four vectors $Q$ and $R$ scale as $M$ and $M\beta$
631: respectively, while
632: $T^2=-s+4m^2 \sim M^2$.
633: Using momentum $T$ is preferred to the electron (positron) momentum $p$
634: ($p^{\prime}$) because, the spatial and time components
635: of the latter, although scale as $M$, cancel out in the total momentum squared
636: $p^2=m^2\sim 0$.
637: The infrared regularization of the integrals is automatically guaranteed
638: by dimensional regularization and, therefore, we will not longer retain
639: a fictitious mass for the photon.
640: \par
641: In the potential region $\ell_0 \ll |{\mbox{\boldmath $\ell$}}| \ll M$ and,
642: accordingly, we can expand terms in the propagators.
643: The leading contribution is
644: \begin{equation}
645: D_0^p = \int \Frac{d^D \ell}{i (2 \pi)^D} \,
646: \frac{1}{({\mbox{\boldmath $\ell$}}\cdot{\mbox{\boldmath $T$}})\,
647: (-{\mbox{\boldmath $\ell$}^2}+{\mbox{\boldmath $\ell$}}
648: \cdot{\mbox{\boldmath $R$}}-Q_0\ell_0)\,
649: (-{\mbox{\boldmath $\ell$}^2})\,
650: (Q_0^2)}\,\,,
651: \label{eq:potential}
652: \end{equation}
653: where we have also dropped the term $-{\mbox{\boldmath $\ell$}^2}$ in the
654: electron propagator to be compared to
655: ${\mbox{\boldmath $\ell$}}\cdot{\mbox{\boldmath $T$}}\sim
656: M^2\beta$.
657: The overall scaling of the potential integration is easily estimated to be of
658: order $M^4\beta^5/M^8\beta^5\sim 1/M^4$, so no velocity enhancement is this
659: region is expected. In fact, the integral above is zero because,
660: closing the $\ell_0$ integration contour in the lower half-plane, the pole at
661: $\ell_0=({\mbox{\boldmath $\ell$}}\cdot{\mbox{\boldmath $R$}}
662: -{\mbox{\boldmath $\ell$}}^2)/Q_0+i\delta$ lies outside
663: \footnote{Notice that the $\ell_0$--integration in $D_0^p$ does not
664: vanish in the outer semicircle. Rigorously we should keep the $\ell_0^2$
665: term in the heavy fermion propagator, so $D_0^p$ is well defined. Poles would
666: then be located at $\ell_0^{\pm} = \frac{1}{2}\Big( Q_0 \pm
667: \sqrt{Q_0^2-4({\mbox{\boldmath $\ell$}}
668: \cdot{\mbox{\boldmath $R$}}-{\mbox{\boldmath $\ell$}}^2)-i \delta
669: }\Big)$. The root $\ell_0^+$ scales as $M$ and is taken into account
670: in the hard region
671: while $\ell_0^-
672: =({\mbox{\boldmath $\ell$}}\cdot{\mbox{\boldmath $R$}}
673: -{\mbox{\boldmath $\ell$}}^2)/Q_0+i\delta$ once we consider that
674: $|{\mbox{\boldmath $\ell$}}| \ll M$ in the potential region, and we recover the
675: above result.}. Similarly, subleading
676: terms in the expansion of propagators in this region are vanishing, as they
677: share the same pole structure.
678: \par
679: When the loop momentum $\ell$ is soft or ultrasoft, the assumption
680: $\ell_0\sim |{\mbox{\boldmath $\ell$}}| \ll M$ leads to the same expansion
681: of the propagators in $D_0$:
682: \begin{equation}
683: D_0^{s,us} = \int \Frac{d^D \ell}{i (2 \pi)^D} \,
684: \frac{1}{({\mbox{\boldmath $\ell$}}\cdot{\mbox{\boldmath $T$}}-Q_0\ell_0)\,
685: (-Q_0\ell_0)\,
686: (\ell_0^2-{\mbox{\boldmath $\ell$}^2})\,
687: (Q_0^2)}\,\, .
688: \label{eq:soft-us}
689: \end{equation}
690: It scales as $1/M^4$ in both the soft and ultrasoft regimes and, indeed,
691: vanishes in dimensional regularization because, after picking up the residue
692: in the lower plane, $\ell_0=|{\mbox{\boldmath $\ell$}}|-i\delta$,
693: the remaining $D-1$ dimension integral is scaleless:
694: \begin{eqnarray}
695: D_0^{s,us} &=& \frac{1}{2Q_0^3}
696: \int \Frac{d^{D-1} \ell}{(2 \pi)^{D-1}} \,
697: \frac{1}{|{\mbox{\boldmath $\ell$}}|^2}
698: \frac{1}{(Q_0|{\mbox{\boldmath $\ell$}}|-
699: {\mbox{\boldmath $T$}}\cdot{\mbox{\boldmath $\ell$}})}
700: \nonumber\\[3mm]
701: &=&\frac{1}{2Q_0^3}
702: \int \frac{d\Omega_{D-1}}{(2 \pi)^{D-1}}\frac{1}
703: {(Q_0-|{\mbox{\boldmath $T$}}|\cos {\varphi})}
704: \int d|{\mbox{\boldmath $\ell$}}| |{\mbox{\boldmath $\ell$}}|^{D-2}
705: \frac{1}{|{\mbox{\boldmath $\ell$}}|^3}\,=\,0 \,\,,
706: \label{eq:soft-usvanish}
707: \end{eqnarray}
708: with ${\varphi}$ the angle between the vectors ${\mbox{\boldmath $T$}}$
709: and ${\mbox{\boldmath $\ell$}}$. The same argument holds for subleading
710: terms in this region.
711: \par
712: Finally, the integral in
713: the hard region is obtained by dropping out terms involving
714: non-relativistic fermion three-momenta from propagators. Hence, the
715: only scale which
716: remains is the hard parameter $M$, and so there is no additional
717: velocity dependence in the denominators. More explicitly,
718: the expanded integral in the
719: hard regime, at leading order in $\beta$, is
720: \begin{equation}
721: D_0^{h,{\cal O}(1)} = \,\int \Frac{d^D \ell}{i (2 \pi)^D} \,
722: \frac{1}{(\ell^2- \ell \cdot T -Q\cdot\ell)\,
723: (\ell^2-Q\cdot\ell)\,
724: \ell^2 \,
725: (Q-\ell)^2}\,\,,
726: \label{eq:hard}
727: \end{equation}
728: and there is no need to separate time from spatial components in the
729: integration. The above integral trivially scales a $1/M^4$, and its explicit
730: calculation in $D=4-2\epsilon$ dimensions
731: has been performed following Ref.~\cite{kosower}:
732: \begin{equation}
733: D_0^{h,{\cal O}(1)} \, = \, \frac{\mu^{-2\epsilon}}{8\pi s^2}\,
734: \ln\frac{s}{m^2} \,\left[ \frac{1}{\epsilon}
735: -\ln \left(\Frac{-s-i\delta}{\mu^2} \right) +
736: \ln (4\pi) - \gamma_E \right]\,\,,
737: \label{eq:hardeval}
738: \end{equation}
739: where
740: $\gamma_E$ is the Euler-Mascheroni constant. Terms proportional to the
741: electron mass $m$ have been dropped. The pole in Eq.~(\ref{eq:hardeval})
742: is of infrared origin, and
743: it is the analogous to the $\ln \lambda^2$ term in the full result of $D_0$,
744: Eq.~(\ref{eq:D0}). Indeed, Eq.~(\ref{eq:hardeval}) reproduces the leading term
745: in the velocity expansion of $D_0$, after the usual replacement
746: $\ln \lambda^2 \to (4\pi)^{\epsilon}/\Gamma(1-\epsilon)/\epsilon$.
747: \par
748: The following order in the expansion within the
749: hard region would have a $\ell \cdot R=-{\mbox{\boldmath $\ell$}}
750: \cdot{\mbox{\boldmath $R$}}$ term in the numerator, and it would behave
751: as $\beta/M^4$:
752: \begin{eqnarray}
753: D_0^{h,\,{\cal O}(\beta)} & = & \, \int \Frac{d^D \ell}{i (2 \pi)^D} \,
754: \frac{\ell\cdot R}{(\ell^2- \ell \cdot T -Q\cdot\ell)\,
755: (\ell^2-Q\cdot\ell)^2\,
756: \ell^2 \,
757: (Q-\ell)^2}
758: \nonumber\\[3mm]
759: & = & \frac{R\cdot T}{T^2}\,\left( D_0^h-
760: \int \Frac{d^D \ell}{i (2 \pi)^D} \,
761: \frac{1}{(\ell^2-Q\cdot\ell)^2\,\ell^2 \,(Q-\ell)^2}\right)
762: \nonumber\\[3mm]
763: & = & \frac{\beta\cos\theta}{8\pi^2 s^2}\,\mu^{-2 \epsilon}
764: \left(\ln\frac{s}{m^2}-2 \right)
765: \left[\frac{1}{\epsilon}
766: -\ln \left(\Frac{-s-i\delta}{\mu^2} \right) +
767: \ln (4\pi) - \gamma_E \right]\,\,,
768: \label{eq:hard2eval}
769: \end{eqnarray}
770: which agrees with the second term in the velocity expansion
771: of $D_0$. The series expansion in $\beta$ of
772: the scalar function $D_0$ is thus reproduced by that
773: of $D_0^h$, while the rest of integration regions does not
774: contribute at all.
775: \par
776: Therefore we have seen, by asymptotic expanding the integral before its
777: computation,
778: that the box amplitude receives
779: no contributions from the regions of potential,
780: soft and ultrasoft loop momentum,
781: and it is then preserved from Coulomb type singularities, as it was shown
782: by explicit calculation.
783: This fact reveals that, as expected, the box production graph is a
784: process dominated by the high scale, as it involves annihilating
785: photons which carry energies of the order of the mass of the non-relativistic
786: fermions.
787: \par
788: Let us finally note that, although we have reproduced the
789: (logarithmic) electron mass
790: dependence of $D_0$ through the threshold expansion technique, we could, a
791: priori, need to consider new regions
792: to successfully obtain the subleading terms
793: ${\cal O}(m^2/M^2)\,$, ${\cal O}(m^2/(q^2-4M^2))\,$, etc. This is
794: what happens, for example, if one considers the 1-loop two-point scalar
795: function with one heavy mass $M$ and one light mass $m$ at values of
796: $q^2\gsim M^2$~: Keeping $m$ finite but smaller than any other
797: scale present (i.e.
798: $m\ll (q^2-M^2)/M\ll\sqrt{q^2-M^2}\ll M$), the integration region
799: where $\ell^2\sim m^2$ gives
800: a non-vanishing contribution proportional to $m^2/(q^2-M^2)$. A new
801: pattern of integration regimes should then be considered to make each
802: integral homogeneous also in the $m^2$ scale.
803:
804: \section{Conclusions}
805: \hspace*{0.5cm}
806: The interest in the study of electron positron annihilation into heavy fermions
807: has been ushered by the multiple features foreseen both in high--energy
808: colliders and production at threshold. These include all--important
809: aspects of the phenomenology like an accurate measurement of the heavy fermion
810: masses (like $\tau$ or $t$) and, the possibility, of exploring
811: New Physics beyond the Standard Model.
812: This goal requires the computation and implementation of complete perturbative
813: orders within the Standard Model.
814: \par
815: We have evaluated the QED two--photon box diagrams of Fig.~\ref{fig:box}
816: contributing to $\sigma (e^+ e^- \rightarrow f \bar{f})$ with massive
817: final fermions ($m_e \ll M$), and we have provided a full analytical
818: expression for the amplitude. Its contribution at the
819: production threshold has also been studied and we have found that it is
820: negligible because of the high velocity suppression. This non--relativistic
821: analysis complements the one carried out in Ref.~\cite{taus} and shows
822: that the conclusions reached in that reference are not modified by the
823: QED box amplitude.
824: \par
825: Finally we have analysed this low velocity behaviour
826: using the strategy of regions to expand the Feynman integrals near threshold,
827: confirming that such expansion can also be applied to diagrams involving
828: heavy and light fermions. This feature allows to identify and
829: evaluate, at a fixed order in the heavy fermion velocity, contributions to
830: heavy fermion production or annihilation diagrams triggered by light fermions.
831:
832:
833:
834: %\newpage
835: \vspace*{1cm}
836: \noindent
837: {\large \bf Acknowledgements}\par
838: \vspace{0.2cm}
839: \noindent
840: We wish to thank A. Pich for relevant discussions on the subject of this
841: paper and for a careful reading of the manuscript.
842: The work of P.~D. Ruiz-Femen\'\i a has been partially supported by a FPU
843: scholarship of the Spanish {\it Ministerio de Educaci\'on y Cultura}.
844: J. Portol\'es is supported by a \lq \lq Ram\'on y Cajal" contract with CSIC
845: funded by MCYT.
846: This work has been supported in part by TMR, EC Contract No.
847: ERB FMRX-CT98-0169, by MCYT (Spain) under grant FPA2001-3031, and
848: by ERDF funds from the European Commission.
849:
850: \newpage
851:
852: \appendix
853: \newcounter{erasmo}
854: \renewcommand{\thesection}{\Alph{erasmo}}
855: \renewcommand{\theequation}{\Alph{erasmo}.\arabic{equation}}
856: \renewcommand{\thetable}{\Alph{erasmo}}
857: \setcounter{erasmo}{1}
858: \setcounter{equation}{0}
859: \setcounter{table}{0}
860:
861: \section*{Appendix~A : Integrals in the box amplitude}
862: \hspace*{0.5cm}
863: In this Appendix we outline several features of the integration procedure,
864: followed to evaluate the QED box diagrams, and we collect the explicit
865: expressions for
866: the relevant scalar integrals that appear in our results.
867: \par
868: The general structure of the two--photon box amplitude in
869: Fig.~\ref{fig:box}(a), ${\cal M}_a$ takes the form
870: ${\cal M}_a = a_0 D_0 + a^{\mu}D_{\mu} + a^{\mu \nu} D_{\mu \nu}$,
871: where $a_0, a_{\mu}, a_{\mu \nu}$ contain Dirac algebra $\gamma$'s and spinors,
872: and $D_0,D_{\mu},D_{\mu \nu}$ are the integrals over the loop momentum
873: $\ell$~:
874: \begin{equation}
875: D_0;D_{\mu};D_{\mu \nu} = \int\frac{d^4\ell}{i(2\pi)^4}\,
876: \frac{1;\,\ell_{\mu};\,\ell_{\mu}\ell_{\nu}}{(\ell^2-m^2)[(\ell+k-p)^2-M^2]
877: [(\ell-p)^2-\lambda^2]
878: [(\ell+p^{\prime})^2-\lambda^2 ]}\,\,,
879: \label{eq:Ds}
880: \end{equation}
881: which depend on three independent four-vectors and where $+i \delta$
882: prescriptions are understood in the propagators . Let us define
883: our basis as $P=p-k,\, Q=p+p^{\prime}$ and $R=k-k^{\prime}$, with
884: scalar products
885: $$
886: P^2=t\,\,\,\; \,\,,\,\, \; \,\,\,Q^2=s\,\,\,\; \,\,,\,\,\,\; \,\,R^2=4M^2-s \, ,
887: $$
888: $$
889: P\cdot Q = 0 \,\,\; \,\,\,,\,\; \,\,\,\,P\cdot R=m^2-M^2-t\,\,\; \,\,\,,\,\; \,\,\,\,
890: Q\cdot R =0\,\,\,.
891: $$
892: The integrals in Eq.~(\ref{eq:Ds}) are invariant under the interchange
893: $\{ p\,;k \} \leftrightarrow \{-p^{\prime}\,;-k^{\prime}\}$.
894: Under the same transformation $P\to P$, $Q\to -Q$ and $R\to R$, and thus
895: the tensor integrals $D_{\mu},D_{\mu \nu}$ do not contain terms linear
896: in $Q$, justifying our choice of basis. Tensor decomposition of
897: $D_{\mu},D_{\mu \nu}$ then reads
898: \begin{equation}
899: D_{\mu} = D_P\, P_{\mu} +D_R \,R_{\mu}
900: \label{eq:Dvector}
901: \end{equation}
902: \begin{equation}
903: D_{\mu\nu} = D_{PP}\,P_{\mu}P_{\nu}+D_{PR}
904: \Big( P_{\mu}R_{\nu}+ R_{\mu}P_{\nu}\Big)+D_{RR}\,R_{\mu}R_{\nu}+
905: D_{QQ}\,Q_{\mu}Q_{\nu}+s\,D_{00}\,g_{\mu\nu}\,\,.
906: \label{eq:Dtensor}
907: \end{equation}
908: Further reduction of the coefficient functions appearing in
909: Eqs.~(\ref{eq:Dvector},\ref{eq:Dtensor}) has been performed with
910: the help of $\it FeynCalc$ \cite{FeynCalc}. These coefficients
911: are thus expressed as a linear combination of a set of
912: scalar integrals: $D_0,\,C_s,\,C_t,\,C_M,\,B_s,\,B_t$ and $B_M$, with
913: four ($D_0$), three ($C_a$, $a=s,t,M$) and two ($B_a$, $a=s,t$) propagators
914: that we collect next.
915: \par
916: The relevant scalar integrals have been
917: evaluated following the method described in \cite{tHooft}, except
918: for the rather cumbersome 4-point function $D_0$. In the latter case
919: we have first calculated its imaginary part in the $s$-channel,
920: following the optical theorem, and then the real part has been
921: reconstructed through the t--fixed unsubtracted dispersion relation that
922: satisfies $D_0$~:
923: \begin{equation}
924: \mbox{Re} D_0(s,t) \, = \, \Frac{1}{\pi} \, \int_{4 \lambda^2}^{\infty}
925: \! \! \! \!\! \! \! \! \! \! \! {\mbox{\boldmath $-$}} \; \; \; \, \;
926: \, dx \, \Frac{\mbox{Im} D_0(x,t)}{x-s} \; \, ,
927: \end{equation}
928: where the Principal Value of the integral is understood.
929: We have performed its calculation in the
930: $\lambda \ll m \ll M$ limit and, therefore, we have neglected
931: photon masses when possible. As emphasized in Ref.~\cite{infrared},
932: the limit $\lambda \to 0$ is not trivial for the occurrence of
933: terms like $\lambda^2 / (x-4\lambda^2)$, which diverge for finite
934: $\lambda$ as $x \rightarrow 4 \lambda^2$ but vanish for $\lambda \to 0$
935: at fixed $x \neq 4 \lambda^2$. As a consequence the photon
936: mass should be kept finite until the final stages.
937: \par
938: The scalar integrals that appear in the two--photon box amplitude
939: result in Eq.~(\ref{eq:finalM}) through the ${\cal F}_i$ functions
940: of Eqs.~(\ref{eq:fifunc1}-\ref{eq:fifunc4}) have been evaluated
941: in the limit where $\lambda \, \ll \, m \, \ll \, M$ and for the
942: specific cases $p^2 = p^{\prime 2} = m^2$, $k^2= k^{\prime 2} = M^2$,
943: $(p+p^{\prime})^2 = (k+k^{\prime})^2 = s$, $(p-k)^2=t$.
944: They read~:
945:
946:
947: \begin{eqnarray}
948: D_0 &=& \int\frac{d^4\ell}{i(2\pi)^4}\,
949: \frac{1}{[\ell^2-\lambda^2]\,[(\ell+p)^2-m^2)]\,
950: [(\ell+p+p^{\prime})^2-\lambda^2]\,
951: [(\ell+k)^2-M^2 ]}
952: \nonumber\\[3mm]
953: &=& \frac{-1}{8\pi^2s\,(M^2-t)}\,\ln \frac{M^2-t}{mM} \, \ln
954: \frac{-s-i\delta}{\lambda^2} \, \, ,
955: \label{eq:D0}\\[6mm]
956: \overline{D}_0 & = & D_0 \, ( t \rightarrow u ) \, \, ,
957: \label{eq:D0b}\\[6mm]
958: C_s &=& \int\frac{d^4\ell}{i(2\pi)^4}\,
959: \frac{1}{[\ell^2-\lambda^2]\,[(\ell+p)^2-m^2]\,
960: [(\ell+p+p^{\prime})^2-\lambda^2]}
961: \nonumber\\[3mm]
962: &=& \frac{1}{32\pi^2s} \left[ \,\ln^2\left(\frac{-s-i\delta}{m^2}\right)+
963: \frac{\pi^2}{3} \,\right] \, \, ,
964: \label{eq:Cs}\\[6mm]
965: C_t &=& \int\frac{d^4\ell}{i(2\pi)^4}\,
966: \frac{1}{[\ell^2-M^2]\,[(\ell-k)^2-\lambda^2]\,
967: [(\ell+p-k)^2-m^2]}
968: \nonumber\\[3mm]
969: \! &=& \! \! \!
970: \frac{-1}{16\pi^2 (M^2-t)}\left[ \,\mbox{Li}_2\left( \frac{t}{M^2}\right)
971: + \ln^2\left( \frac{M^2-t}{M m}\right)
972: + \ln \left( \frac{M^2-t}{M m} \right) \, \ln \left( \frac{m^2}{\lambda^2}
973: \right) \, \right] \! ,
974: \label{eq:Ct}\\[6mm]
975: \overline{C}_t & = & C_t \, ( t \rightarrow u ) \, \, ,
976: \label{eq:Ctb}\\[6mm]
977: C_M &=& \int\frac{d^4\ell}{i(2\pi)^4}\,
978: \frac{1}{[\ell^2-\lambda^2]\,[(\ell+k)^2-M^2]\,
979: [(\ell+k+k^{\prime})^2-\lambda^2]}
980: \nonumber\\[3mm]
981: &=& \frac{1}{16\pi^2 s\,\beta}\bigg[\,-2\,\mbox{Li}_2(1-\beta)
982: +2\,\mbox{Li}_2\left( \frac{1-\beta}{1+\beta}\right)
983: +\frac{1}{2}\ln^2\left(\frac{1-\beta}{1+\beta}\right)
984: -2\,\mbox{Li}_2(-\beta)
985: \nonumber\\[3mm]
986: && \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \, \, \; \, \; \;
987: -2\ln\beta\,\ln(1+\beta)+i\pi\,
988: \ln \frac{1-\beta}{1+\beta}\, \bigg] \, \, ,
989: \label{eq:CM}\\[6mm]
990: B_s &=& \int\frac{d^D\ell}{i(2\pi)^D}\,
991: \frac{1}{[\ell^2-\lambda^2]\,
992: [(\ell+p+p^{\prime})^2-\lambda^2]}
993: \nonumber\\[3mm]
994: &=& \frac{-1}{16\pi^2}\left(\,\Delta +
995: \ln\frac {-s-i\delta}{\mu^2}-2\, \right) \, \, ,
996: \label{eq:Bs}\\[6mm]
997: B_t &=& \int\frac{d^D\ell}{i(2\pi)^D}\,
998: \frac{1}{[\ell^2-M^2]\,
999: [(\ell+p-k)^2-m^2]}
1000: \nonumber\\[3mm]
1001: &=& \frac{-1}{16\pi^2}\left(\,\Delta +\ln\frac {-t}{\mu^2}
1002: +\ln\bigg(1-\frac {M^2}{t}\bigg)
1003: -\frac{M^2}{t}\,\ln \frac {M^2-t}{M^2}-2\, \right)
1004: \label{eq:Bt}\\[6mm]
1005: B_M &=& \int\frac{d^D\ell}{i(2\pi)^D}\,
1006: \frac{1}{[\ell^2-\lambda^2]\,
1007: [(\ell+k)^2-M^2]}
1008: \nonumber\\[3mm]
1009: &=& \frac{-1}{16\pi^2}\left(\,\Delta +\ln\frac {M^2}{\mu^2}
1010: -2\, \right)
1011: \,\,,
1012: \label{eq:BM}
1013: \end{eqnarray}
1014: where Li$_2(x)$ is the dilogarithm function.
1015: The two--point functions have been
1016: regularized within dimensional regularization in $D$ dimensions and
1017: $\Delta = 2 \mu^{D-4} /(D-4) + \gamma_E - \ln (4\pi)$,
1018: with $\mu$ the renormalization scale.
1019: From the full expressions above we see that only the integrals
1020: $C_t$, $\overline{C}_t$, $D_0$ and $\overline{D}_0$ are infrared
1021: divergent for vanishing photon mass ($\lambda \to 0$).
1022: However, as remarked in the main text, the combinations
1023: $s D_0 - 2 C_t$ (or $s \overline{D}_0 - 2 \overline{C}_t$) are
1024: infrared finite; accordingly all the infrared divergent contribution
1025: is provided by $D_0$ and $\overline{D}_0$ in Eq.~(\ref{eq:f02IR}) that
1026: carry a $\ln \lambda^2$ factor.
1027:
1028: \vspace*{0.6cm}
1029: \newcounter{yago}
1030: \renewcommand{\thesection}{\Alph{yago}}
1031: \renewcommand{\theequation}{\Alph{yago}.\arabic{equation}}
1032: \renewcommand{\thefigure}{\Alph{figure}}
1033: \setcounter{yago}{2}
1034: \setcounter{equation}{0}
1035: \setcounter{figure}{0}
1036:
1037:
1038: \section*{Appendix~B : Infrared divergence of the QED box diagram}
1039: \hspace*{0.5cm}
1040: There are several well-known facts on the structure of infrared
1041: divergences in QED that are relevant for our discussion \cite{IR2001}~:
1042: \begin{itemize}
1043: \item[-] Virtual photon radiative corrections between the external legs
1044: of a divergenceless root diagram generate an infrared divergent
1045: contribution that follows a specific pattern in the perturbative
1046: expansion. Such a structure provides a factorization of the resummation
1047: of the divergences at all orders.
1048: \item[-] All the infrared divergence in virtual photon radiative
1049: corrections commented above, arises from the eikonal approach in the
1050: propagator of the radiating external legs. For spin $1/2$, for example,
1051: with $k$ the outgoing soft photon momentum of $\varepsilon_{\mu}(k)$
1052: polarization
1053: and $p$ the ingoing external momentum, the modification of the fermion
1054: wave function reads~:
1055: \begin{equation}
1056: u(p) \; \; \; \mapright{photon}{} \; \; \;
1057: \Frac{1}{p \! \! \!/ \, - \,
1058: k \! \! \! / \, - \, m \, + \, i \, \delta} \; \varepsilon \! \! \! / \; u(p) \,
1059: = \, \Frac{(2p-k)\cdot \varepsilon \, - \, \frac{1}{2} \,
1060: [k \! \! \! / \, , \varepsilon \! \! \! / \, ]}{k^2 - 2 k\cdot p
1061: \, + \, i \delta} \, u(p) \; ,
1062: \end{equation}
1063: that, in the eikonal approximation reduces to
1064: \begin{equation}
1065: u(p) \; \; \; \mapright{soft}{photon} \; \; \;
1066: \Frac{2p \cdot \varepsilon}{k^2 - 2 k \cdot p \, + i \delta} \, u(p)
1067: \; ,
1068: \end{equation}
1069: neglecting, essentially, the spin of the radiating field.
1070: \end{itemize}
1071: Hence to extract the infrared divergent part of the QED box diagram in
1072: Fig.~\ref{fig:box} we need to implement the eikonal approximation into
1073: the amplitude ${\cal M}_a$ in Eq.~(\ref{eq:amplitude}) and the crossed
1074: ${\cal M}_b$. This corresponds to evaluate the four diagrams in
1075: Fig.~\ref{fig:soft}. These are built from the tree--level
1076: diagram for $e^+ e^- \rightarrow f \bar{f}$ through one photon
1077: annihilation, by attaching a soft photon between an ingoing and
1078: an outgoing external leg in all possible ways. Their
1079: evaluation gives~:
1080:
1081: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1082: \begin{figure}[tb]
1083: \begin{center}
1084: \hspace*{-0.5cm}
1085: \includegraphics[angle=0,width=0.65\textwidth]{fig2.ps}
1086: \caption[]{\label{fig:soft} \it Diagrams contributing to the infrared
1087: divergence of the QED box diagram. The wavy line corresponds to a
1088: hard photon and the dashed line to a soft photon. As explained in
1089: the text the infrared divergence factorizes and the spinor structure
1090: is the one of the hard diagram (without radiative corrections).}
1091: \end{center}
1092: \end{figure}
1093: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1094:
1095: \begin{equation} \label{eq:weinberg}
1096: {\cal M}_{box}^{IR} \, = \,
1097: \overline{v}_e(p^{\prime}) \, \gamma_{\mu} \, u_e(p) \, \Frac{e^2 Q_f}{s} \,
1098: \overline{u}_f(k) \, \gamma^{\mu} \, v_f(k^{\prime}) \,
1099: \left[ \Frac{e^2 Q_f}{4 \pi^2} \,
1100: \ln \left( \Frac{M^2-u}{M^2-t} \right) \,
1101: \ln \left( \Frac{m^2}{\lambda^2} \right) \, \right] \; ,
1102: \end{equation}
1103: where infrared finite terms have not been written. In fact this result
1104: has been obtained by integrating over the full range of momentum of a massive
1105: photon. Rigorously we should define the infrared contribution by
1106: imposing an upper limit on its momentum
1107: $|{\mbox{\boldmath ${q}_{\gamma}$}}| < \Lambda$, and $m^2$ would then be
1108: replaced by $\Lambda^2$ in the logarithm
1109: of ${\cal M}_{box}^{IR}$. In Eq.~(\ref{eq:weinberg}) we have explicitly
1110: stated the factorization between the hard gluon exchange, on the
1111: left, and the soft
1112: photon exchange inside the square brackets.
1113: \par
1114: Alternatively we can evaluate ${\cal M}_{box}^{IR}$ from our result in
1115: Eq.~(\ref{eq:finalM}) and we obtain~:
1116: \begin{eqnarray} \label{eq:rawIR}
1117: {\cal M}_{box}^{IR} \, & = & \, \Frac{e^4 Q_f^2}{8 \pi^2 \, s} \,
1118: \left\{ \, \Frac{ (M^2-t) L_1^{- \kappa} \, + \, 2 \, L_2^{+ \kappa} \,
1119: - \, M \left( L_4^{+ \kappa} - L_4^{- \kappa} \right)}{M^2-t} \,
1120: \ln \left( \Frac{M^2-t}{M m} \right) \, \right. \nonumber \\[4mm]
1121: & & \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \;
1122: \left. - \, \Frac{ (M^2-u) L_1^{+ \kappa} \, - \,
1123: 2 \, L_2^{- \kappa} \, - \, M \left( L_4^{+ \kappa} - L_4^{- \kappa}
1124: \right)}{M^2-u} \, \ln \left( \Frac{M^2-u}{M m} \right) \,
1125: \right\}
1126: \nonumber \\[4mm]
1127: & & \; \;\; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \;
1128: \times \, \ln \left( \Frac{\lambda^2}{-s-i \delta} \right)
1129: \, ,
1130: \end{eqnarray}
1131: where the spinor operators $L_i^{\rho \kappa}$ have been defined in
1132: Eq.~(\ref{eq:spinorbasis}). Then, using the following relations~:
1133: \footnote{Relations between spinor operators like these
1134: can be obtained by explicit evaluation in
1135: a particular reference frame or transforming the operators into
1136: traces in the spinor basis, hence working with Lorentz invariant
1137: expressions.}
1138: \begin{eqnarray} \label{eq:tricky}
1139: (M^2-t) \, L_1^{+ \kappa} \, & = & \, 2 \, L_2^{+ \kappa} \,
1140: - \, M \, \left( L_4^{+ \kappa} - L_4^{- \kappa} \right) \; \; ,
1141: \nonumber \\[3mm]
1142: (M^2-u) \, L_1^{- \kappa} \, & = & \, - \, 2 \, L_2^{- \kappa} \,
1143: - \, M \, \left( L_4^{+ \kappa} - L_4^{- \kappa} \right) \; \; ,
1144: \end{eqnarray}
1145: we finally get~:
1146: \begin{equation} \label{eq:IRdacord}
1147: {\cal M}_{box}^{IR} \, = \, \Frac{e^2 Q_f}{2 \, s} \,
1148: \left( L_1^{+ \kappa} \, + \, L_1^{- \kappa} \right) \,
1149: \left[ \Frac{e^2 Q_f}{4 \pi^2} \, \ln \left( \Frac{M^2-u}{M^2-t}
1150: \right) \, \ln \left( \Frac{-s-i \delta}{\lambda^2} \right) \right]
1151: \, \, ,
1152: \end{equation}
1153: whose infrared logarithm coincides with our previous result in
1154: Eq.~(\ref{eq:weinberg}), since $P_{\kappa} u_e(p) = u_e(p)$ in
1155: $L_1^{\pm \kappa}$, being
1156: $\kappa$ the massless electron helicity.
1157: \par
1158: We conclude that the infrared divergence of the QED box
1159: diagram satisfies the expected features \cite{IR2001} and hence its
1160: cancellation should take place when real soft photon radiation
1161: contributions, at a fixed $\alpha$ perturbative order, are taken into
1162: account.
1163:
1164: \newpage
1165: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
1166:
1167: \bibitem{ZFI00} D.~Y.~Bardin, P.~Christova, M.~Jack, L.~Kalinovskaya,
1168: A.~Olchevski, S.~Riemann and T.~Riemann,
1169: Comput.\ Phys.\ Commun.\ {\bf 133} (2001) 229
1170: [arXiv:hep-ph/9908433].
1171: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9908433;%%
1172:
1173: \bibitem{Calc02} D.~Y.~Bardin, L.~Kalinovskaya and G.~Nanava,
1174: ``An electroweak library for the calculation of EWRC to
1175: e+ e- $\to$ f anti-f within the topfit project,''
1176: arXiv:hep-ph/0012080.
1177: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0012080;%%
1178:
1179: \bibitem{Calc03} A.~Andonov, D.~Bardin, S.~Bondarenko, P.~Christova,
1180: L.~Kalinovskaya and G.~Nanava,
1181: ``Further study of the e+ e- $\to$ f anti-f process with
1182: the aid of CalcPHEP system,''
1183: arXiv:hep-ph/0202112.
1184: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0202112;%%
1185:
1186: \bibitem{JUAN} R.~Barbieri, P.~Christillin and E.~Remiddi, Phys. Rev. A
1187: {\bf 8} (1973) 2266.
1188:
1189: \bibitem{CP86} W.~E.~Caswell and G.~P.~Lepage,
1190: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 167} (1986) 437; \\
1191: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B167,437;%%
1192: A.~Pineda and J.~Soto,
1193: Nucl.\ Phys.\ Proc.\ Suppl.\ {\bf 64} (1998) 428
1194: [arXiv:hep-ph/9707481]; \\
1195: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9707481;%%
1196: M.~E.~Luke, A.~V.~Manohar and I.~Z.~Rothstein,
1197: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 61} (2000) 074025
1198: [arXiv:hep-ph/9910209].
1199: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9910209;%%
1200:
1201: \bibitem{TAUC} J.~M.~Jowett, ``Initial Design Of The Cern Tau Charm Factory,''
1202: CERN-LEP-TH/87-56; \\
1203: A.~Pich,``Perspectives on tau charm factory physics,''
1204: arXiv:hep-ph/9312270.
1205: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9312270;%%
1206:
1207: \bibitem{taus} P.~Ruiz-Femenia and A.~Pich,
1208: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 64} (2001) 053001
1209: [arXiv:hep-ph/0103259].
1210: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0103259;%%
1211:
1212: \bibitem{TOP} A.~H.~Hoang, A.~V.~Manohar, I.~W.~Stewart and T.~Teubner,
1213: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 86} (2001) 1951
1214: [arXiv:hep-ph/0011254].
1215: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0011254;%%
1216:
1217: \bibitem{BMH91} W.~Beenakker, S.~C.~van der Marck and W.~Hollik,
1218: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 365} (1991) 24.
1219: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B365,24;%%
1220:
1221:
1222: \bibitem{threshold} M.~Beneke and V.~A.~Smirnov,
1223: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 522} (1998) 321
1224: [arXiv:hep-ph/9711391].
1225: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9711391;%%
1226:
1227: \bibitem{kosower} Z.~Bern, L.~J.~Dixon and D.~A.~Kosower,
1228: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 302} (1993) 299,
1229: [Erratum-ibid.\ B {\bf 318} (1993) 649],
1230: [arXiv:hep-ph/9212308].
1231: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9212308;%%
1232:
1233:
1234: \bibitem{FeynCalc} R.~Mertig, M.~Bohm and A.~Denner,
1235: Comput.\ Phys.\ Commun.\ {\bf 64} (1991) 345,
1236: http://www.feyncalc.org.
1237: %%CITATION = CPHCB,64,345;%%
1238:
1239:
1240: \bibitem{tHooft} G.~t'~Hooft and M.~Veltman,
1241: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 153} (1979) 365.
1242: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B153,365;%%
1243:
1244: \bibitem{infrared} R.~Barbieri, J.~A.~Mignaco and E.~Remiddi,
1245: Nuovo Cim.\ A {\bf 11} (1972) 824.
1246: %%CITATION = NUCIA,A11,824;%%
1247:
1248:
1249: \bibitem{IR2001} D.~R.~Yennie, S.~C.~Frautschi and H.~Suura,
1250: Annals Phys.\ {\bf 13} (1961) 379; \\
1251: %%CITATION = APNYA,13,379;%%
1252: N.~Meister and D.~R.~Yennie,
1253: Phys. Rev. {\bf 130} (1963) 1210; \\
1254: S.~Weinberg,
1255: Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf 140} (1965) B516.
1256: %%CITATION = PHRVA,140,B516;%%
1257:
1258: \end{thebibliography}
1259: \end{document}
1260: