1: \documentclass[12pt]{article}
2: \usepackage{epsfig,amssymb}
3: \usepackage{latexsym}
4:
5:
6:
7:
8: \hoffset=-1.46truecm
9: \voffset=-2.8truecm
10: \textwidth 16cm
11: \textheight 22cm
12: \setlength{\topmargin}{1.5cm}
13:
14:
15:
16:
17: \newcommand{\bq}{\begin{equation}}
18: \newcommand{\eq}{\end{equation}}
19: \newcommand{\bqa}{\begin{eqnarray}}
20: \newcommand{\eqa}{\end{eqnarray}}
21: \newcommand{\ben}{\begin{enumerate}}
22: \newcommand{\een}{\end{enumerate}}
23: \newcommand{\bc}{\begin{center}}
24: \newcommand{\ec}{\end{center}}
25: \newcommand{\bqb}{\begin{eqnarray*}}
26: \newcommand{\eqb}{\end{eqnarray*}}
27:
28:
29: \def\gsim{\gtrsim}
30: \def\lsim{\lesssim}
31:
32: % -----------------------------------------------------------------------
33: % Journal abbreviations
34: %
35: % -------------------------------------------------------------------
36: \def\pr#1#2#3{ Phys. Rev. ${\bf{#1}}$,#2 (#3)}
37: \def\prl#1#2#3{ Phys. Rev. Lett. ${\bf{#1}}$: #2 (#3)}
38: \def\pl#1#2#3{ Phys. Lett. ${\bf{#1}}$,#2 (#3)}
39: \def\prep#1#2#3{ Phys. Rep. ${\bf{#1}}$,#2 (#3)}
40: \def\rmp#1#2#3{ Rev. Mod. Phys. ${\bf{#1}}$:#2 (#3)}
41: \def\np#1#2#3{ Nucl. Phys. ${\bf{#1}}$,#2 (#3)}
42: \def\zp#1#2#3{ Z. f. Phys. ${\bf{#1}}$,#2 (#3)}
43: \def\epj#1#2#3{ Eur. Phys. J. ${\bf{#1}}$,#2 (#3)}
44: \def\ijmp#1#2#3{ Int. J. Mod. Phys. ${\bf{#1}}$,#2 (#3)}
45: \def\mpl#1#2#3{ Mod. Phys. Lett. ${\bf{#1}}$,#2 (#3)}
46: \def\fortp#1#2#3{ Fortsch. Phys. ${\bf{#1}}$,#2 (#3)}
47: \def\cpc#1#2#3{Comput. Phys. Commun. ${\bf{#1}}$,#2 (#3)}
48: \def\nuovo#1#2#3{ Nuovo Cim. ${\bf{#1}}$,#2 (#3)}
49: \def\arnps#1#2#3{Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. ${\bf{#1}}$,#2 (#3) }
50:
51: % -----------------------------------------------------------------------
52: % Useful abbreviations
53:
54: \def\ie{{\it i.e. ~}}
55: \def\eg{{\it e.g. ~}}
56: \def\etc{{\it etc. ~}}
57: \def\etal{{\it et.al.~}}
58:
59:
60: \global\nulldelimiterspace = 0pt
61:
62:
63: \def\dd#1#2{{{\mathrm{d} #1} \over {\mathrm{d} #2}}} % derivative
64: \def\ppartial#1#2{{{\partial #1} \over {\partial #2}}}
65: \def\grad{\nabla}
66: \def\vb#1{{\bf #1}}
67: \def\scr#1{{\cal #1}}
68: \def\what#1{\widehat {#1}}
69: \def\wtil#1{\widetilde{#1}}
70: \def\ol#1{\overline{#1}}
71:
72:
73:
74:
75: \def\L{ {\cal L }}
76: \def\Bcal{\tilde {\cal B}}
77: \def\Del{\tilde { \Delta}}
78: \def\sw{s_W}
79: \def\cw{c_W}
80: \def\swd{s^2_W}
81: \def\cwd{c^2_W}
82: \def\ed{e^2}
83: \def\mwd{m_W^2}
84: \def\mw{m_W}
85: \def\mz{m_Z}
86: \def\mzd{m_Z^2}
87: \def\mf{m_f}
88: \def\mh{m_h}
89: \def\vtau{\mbox{\boldmath $\tau$}}
90: \def\vW{\mbox{\boldmath $W$}}
91: \def\Sn#1{\mathrm{Sign} #1 }
92: \def\tchi{\tilde \chi}
93: \def\stop{\tilde t}
94: \def\cbeta{\cos\beta}
95: \def\sbeta{\sin \beta}
96: \def\ssf{s_{\tilde \theta_f}}
97: \def\csf{c_{\tilde \theta_f}}
98: \def\ssu{s_{\tilde \theta_u}}
99: \def\csu{c_{\tilde \theta_u}}
100: \def\ssd{s_{\tilde \theta_d}}
101: \def\csd{c_{\tilde \theta_d}}
102:
103:
104: \begin{document}
105: \pagenumbering{arabic}
106: \thispagestyle{empty}
107: \def\thefootnote{\fnsymbol{footnote}}
108: \setcounter{footnote}{1}
109:
110: %\begin{center}
111: %een22.tex, July 6th.
112: %\end{center}
113:
114: \begin{center}
115: Short version of the paper hep-ph/0207273\\
116: November 2002\\
117: to appear in Phys.Rev.D\\
118:
119:
120: \end{center}
121: \vspace{2cm}
122: %---------------------titre ---------------------------------------
123: \begin{center}
124: {\Large\bf The processes
125: $e^-e^+\to\gamma\gamma, Z \gamma, ZZ$ in SM and
126: MSSM\footnote{Programme d'Actions Int\'egr\'ees Franco-Hellenique,
127: Platon 04100 UM}}
128: \vspace{1.5cm} \\
129: %-----------------------------------------------------------------
130: {\large G.J. Gounaris$^a$, J. Layssac$^b$ and F.M. Renard$^b$}\\
131: \vspace{0.2cm}
132: $^a$Department of Theoretical Physics, Aristotle
133: University of Thessaloniki,\\
134: Gr-54124, Thessaloniki, Greece.\\
135: \vspace{0.2cm}
136: $^b$Physique
137: Math\'{e}matique et Th\'{e}orique,
138: UMR 5825\\
139: Universit\'{e} Montpellier II,
140: F-34095 Montpellier Cedex 5.\\
141:
142:
143:
144:
145: \vspace*{1.cm}
146:
147: {\bf Abstract}
148: \end{center}
149: %
150: We present the results of a complete analysis of the one loop
151: electroweak corrections to $e^-e^+\to\gamma\gamma, ~Z\gamma, ~ZZ$
152: in the Standard (SM) and the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard
153: Model (MSSM). A special emphasis is put on the high energy behaviour
154: of the various helicity amplitudes and the way the logarithmic
155: structure is generated. The large magnitude of these effects,
156: which induce striking differences between the SM and MSSM cases
157: at high energies, offers the possibility of making global tests
158: which could check the consistency of these models,
159: and even decide whether any additional new physics
160: is required.
161:
162: \vspace{0.5cm}
163: PACS 12.15.-y, 12.15.Lk, 14.70.-e
164:
165:
166:
167: %
168: %
169: \def\thefootnote{\arabic{footnote}}
170: \setcounter{footnote}{0}
171: \clearpage
172:
173:
174:
175:
176: \section{Introduction}
177:
178:
179: Several projects of high energy and high luminosity $e^-e^+$
180: colliders (LC, CLIC) are under consideration \cite{LC, CLIC},
181: possibly with a photon-photon option \cite{ggcoll}.
182: They should allow not only to produce new particles but also,
183: to make very precise tests of the fundamental interactions.\par
184: It is by now well-known that the electroweak radiative corrections
185: to several standard processes strongly increase with the energy.
186: This arises due to the presence already at the 1-loop level,
187: of large double (DL) and single (SL) logarithm terms behaving like
188: $(\alpha/\pi) \ln^2s$, $(\alpha/\pi) \ln s$,
189: \cite{Sud1, Sud2, log}. In the TeV range such terms reach the
190: several tens of percent level.
191: They are no more "small corrections"
192: of order $\alpha/\pi$ as in the LEP/SLC energy range; they are
193: essential parts of the dynamics.\par
194:
195: A very important property of these large DL and SL logarithmic
196: terms is that their coefficients
197: reflect the gauge and Higgs structure
198: of the basic interactions. Thus, they offer a striking signature
199: for studying the underlying dynamics and differentiate between
200: the Standard (SM), and the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard
201: Model (MSSM), \cite{class, reality}.
202: Compared with the high level of the experimental accuracy
203: (few per mille), that is expected for future colliders,
204: this should allow deep tests of the
205: basic electroweak interactions.
206:
207: This has been illustrated recently by showing the relevance
208: of the SL and DL terms
209: at high energy colliders in the case of light and heavy fermion
210: pair production in $e^+e^-$
211: \cite{log,MSSMlog} and $\gamma\gamma$ \cite{LR} collisions,
212: and also for sfermion pair production \cite{BMRV}.
213: Corrections including higher order contributions have also
214: been computed \cite{BMRV, resum}.\par
215:
216:
217:
218: Alternatively, these large logarithmic effects
219: may also appear as large background contributions to possible
220: NP signals. It will therefore be essential to have full control
221: on them, which necessitates
222: a precise analysis of the various virtual contributions
223: induced from each dynamical sector. This will be particularly important
224: in case a departure is observed
225: and hints for its origin are examined. \par
226:
227:
228: The aim of this paper is to discuss these aspects in the
229: case of neutral gauge boson pair production in
230: $e^+e^-\to \gamma\gamma, ~Z \gamma, ~ZZ$. One loop effects
231: in SM have already been computed some time ago
232: \cite{oldgg}. The additional step here is to
233: analyze in detail the high energy behaviour,
234: and consider also the complete set of MSSM contributions.
235: We examine how the asymptotic
236: (double log (DL) and single log (SL)) contributions are generated
237: using the complete expressions in each of the gauge and
238: Higgs sectors, in SM and MSSM.
239: This should also be useful for
240: discussing possible modifications due to NP, and
241: proposing strategies for comparing with experimental
242: results.\par
243:
244:
245: Incidentally, the neutral gauge boson production processes
246: $e^+e^-\to Z \gamma,~ZZ$, received recently considerable
247: theoretical \cite{NAGCt, NAGCt1, NAGCt2} and experimental \cite{NAGCe}
248: interest motivated by the search for anomalous neutral gauge boson
249: self couplings (NAGC). At tree level in SM and MSSM no couplings
250: exist among three neutral gauge bosons. Such couplings only appear
251: at one loop, through fermion triangles
252: involving leptons and quarks in SM, and also
253: charginos and neutralinos in MSSM \cite{NAGCt1}.
254: These contributions are of course part of the complete
255: one loop corrections mentioned above.
256: The interest in them though is that additional
257: such contributions may appear, induced
258: from NP forms containing \eg heavier fermions, non perturbative structures,
259: or even direct neutral boson couplings. To experimentally study such
260: couplings, it is essential to have full control of the
261: "normal" SM or MSSM corrections;
262: we will devote a special discussion to this point.\par
263:
264:
265:
266: Finally, we consider the role of longitudinal $Z$ production.
267: At high energy the $Z_L$ production in SM and MSSM is strongly
268: depressed; but the depression is stronger at the Born level,
269: than after radiative corrections are included. As a result,
270: the Born contribution to \eg $Z_LZ_L$ production above 1TeV,
271: is negligible compared to the 1-loop one.
272: Such a channel may be
273: a suitable place to search for forms of
274: anomalous NP contribution generated by \eg
275: a strongly interacting Higgs sector. \\
276:
277:
278:
279:
280: The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 we describe the
281: method used for the computation of the one loop contributions
282: and we give the explicit expressions of the asymptotic amplitudes.
283: The numerical results are presented in Section 3 and we conclude
284: in Section 4. In Appendix A we define our notations and give
285: the expression of the Born terms.
286:
287:
288:
289:
290:
291:
292:
293:
294: \section{The one loop contributions}
295:
296: In the present work, the complete 1-loop effects in
297: $e^-e^+ \to \gamma \gamma, ~ Z\gamma, ~ ZZ$
298: have been computed, using the on-shell renormalization
299: formalism \cite{Hollik}. The relevant diagrams
300: are depicted in Fig.1. The results are expressed in terms
301: of invariant amplitudes $N_j$ defined in Appendix A.
302: We refrain from giving the
303: explicit expressions of the invariant amplitudes in
304: this short paper, since they can
305: be found in the archives \cite{ourpaper}.
306: The structure of these amplitudes is
307: %
308: %
309: \bq
310: N_j(s,t,u) =N^{\rm ren+Born}_j+N^{\rm Tri}_j+N_j^{\rm Box} ~ ~,
311: \label{Nj}
312: \eq
313: \noindent
314: where $N^{\rm ren+Born}_j$ represent
315: the Born amplitudes modified by renormalization counter terms and
316: the gauge and electron self-energy functions.
317: The other two terms in (\ref{Nj}) describe
318: the triangular and box diagram contributions.
319: The SM contribution is then fully determined
320: by diagrams involving only standard particle exchanges;
321: while in the MSSM case additional diagrams arise involving
322: SUSY contributions to self-energies and the triangle and box
323: diagrams containing chargino, neutralino, slepton, squark
324: and charged and neutral Higgs exchanges.
325: The couplings and masses are
326: taken from \cite{Rosiek}, and the neutralino
327: mixing formalism of \cite{LeMouel} is used.
328:
329:
330: In the illustrations we use the specific benchmark MSSM models
331: corresponding to typical cases with either low or high masses
332: for the inos or the sfermions \cite{Ellis-bench, Snowmass}.
333: These models are constructed in the context of the constrained
334: MSSM SUGRA framework, with universal soft
335: supersymmetry-breaking masses, assuming
336: R-parity conservation. They have been selected to be consistent with
337: all present particle physics and cosmological constraints, and
338: provide a rough indication of all available
339: possibilities in the SUGRA framework \cite{Ellis-bench}.
340:
341:
342:
343:
344:
345:
346: The 1-loop amplitudes are quite involved.
347: They become simple and intuitive though at
348: very high energies, whenever $(s,~|t|,~ |u|)$ are much
349: larger than all masses of the particles exchanged
350: in the various diagrams.
351: Under such conditions, the dominant radiative corrections are
352: described by single (SL) and double-log DL corrections
353: affecting only those $N_j$ which
354: receive non -vanishing Born-level
355: contributions; (these Born amplitudes are given in
356: ( \ref{N3-N9-Born}- \ref{Nj-Born-Zg})).
357:
358:
359: Thus, to the leading-log approximation,
360: the radiatively corrected invariant amplitudes are given by
361: %
362: %
363: \bqa
364: N_j& \simeq &N^{ Born,L}_j~[1+c_L]
365: +N^{ Born,R}_j~[1+c_R] +d^{(W)}_{j,L}~,
366: \label{Nj-asym}
367: \eqa
368: %
369: where only the invariant amplitudes $N_j$ for which the
370: Born contribution is non-vanishing, appear.
371: The $c_{L,R}$ coefficients are process, model and $j$-independent.
372: In the \underline{ SM} case, they are given by
373: %
374: \bqa
375: && c_L=
376: {\alpha (1+2c^2_W)\over 16\pi s^2_Wc^2_W}
377: \Big [3 \ln{s\over \mwd}-\ln^2{s\over \mwd} \Big]
378: -{\alpha a^{(W)}\over8\pi s^2_W} \ln^2{s\over \mwd} ~~,
379: \label{cL-SMasym} \\
380: && c_R=
381: {\alpha\over 4\pi c^2_W}~
382: \Big [3 \ln{s\over \mwd}-\ln^2{s\over \mwd}\Big ] ~~,
383: \label{cR-SMasym}
384: \eqa
385: while in the \underline{ MSSM} case by
386: \bqa
387: && c_L=
388: {\alpha (1+2c^2_W) \over 16 \pi s^2_Wc^2_W}
389: \Big [2 \ln{s\over \mwd}-\ln^2{s\over \mwd}\Big ]
390: -{\alpha a^{(W)}\over 8\pi s^2_W} \ln^2{s\over \mwd} ~,
391: \label{cL-MSSMasym} \\
392: &&c_R=
393: {\alpha\over4\pi c^2_W}~
394: \Big [2 \ln{s\over \mwd}-\ln^2{s\over \mwd}\Big ]~~, \label{cR-MSSMasym}
395: \eqa
396: %
397: %
398: where in the right hand part of (\ref{cL-SMasym}) and (\ref{cL-MSSMasym})
399: %
400: \bq
401: a^{(W)}=-2 ~~~~,~~~~ \frac{3-4s^2_W}{1-2s^2_W}~~~~,~~~~
402: \frac{4c^2_W}{1-2s^2_W}~~~, \label{aW} \\
403: \eq
404: %
405: should be used for $\gamma\gamma$, ~$\gamma Z$ and $ZZ$
406: respectively.
407:
408:
409: As seen from (\ref{Nj-asym}), $(c_L, ~c_R)$ provide
410: angular-independent universal corrections to the Born amplitudes.
411: In addition to them though, the additive
412: W-box contributions $d_{j,L}^{(W)}$ appear in (\ref{Nj-asym}),
413: which are discussed below.\par
414:
415:
416: The $c_{L,R}$ correction in (\ref{Nj-asym})
417: are (a least partly) induced by vertex
418: diagrams involving photon, $Z$, $W$ and
419: MSSM partner exchanges.
420: In particular, the first terms for $c_L$
421: and the complete $c_R$ terms
422: (compare (\ref{cL-SMasym}-\ref{cR-MSSMasym}) ), which have the
423: structure
424: \bq
425: \Big [3\ln \Big (\frac{s}{\mwd}\Big )-\ln^2\Big (\frac{s}{\mwd}\Big ) \Big ]
426: ~~{\rm in ~~ SM}~~~,~~~
427: \Big [2\ln \Big (\frac{s}{\mwd}\Big )-\ln^2\Big (\frac{s}{\mwd}\Big ) \Big ]
428: ~~{\rm in ~~ MSSM}~~,
429: \eq
430: are generated by diagrams involving an
431: electron line and satisfy the same rules as those
432: established in \cite{reality,LR} for fermion and scalar pair
433: production in $e^-e^+$ annihilation. In agreement with
434: \cite{reality,LR},
435: we find that their coefficients are independent of the
436: SM or MSSM scales, depending only on the $e_L, ~e_R$ weak
437: isospin $I_e$ and hypercharge $Y_e\equiv 2(Q_e-I_e^{(3)})$, through
438: \bq
439: \frac{\alpha}{4\pi} \Big [\frac{I_e(I_e+1)}{s^2_W}
440: +\frac{Y_e^2}{4c^2_W} \Big ] ~~ .
441: \eq
442: %
443: Thus, (as far as the electron-line terms are concerned),
444: at energies much larger than the masses of all standard and
445: supersymmetric particles, the only difference between SM and
446: MSSM dynamics
447: is concentrated in changing the SL coefficient from 3 to 2, obviously
448: because of the different number of degrees of freedom in the two
449: models. On the contrary, the double-log term DL is the same in
450: both, the SM and MSSM dynamics \cite{reality,LR}.
451:
452:
453:
454: The last $a^{(W)}$ terms in (\ref{cL-SMasym}, \ref{cL-MSSMasym}),
455: come from sub-graphs involving the final gauge bosons, and only
456: contain DL terms. As in the electron-line case, the coefficients
457: of these DL terms are insensitive to the differences
458: between the SM and MSSM dynamics; they are given in (\ref{aW}).
459:
460:
461:
462:
463:
464:
465: The $d^{(W)}_{j,L}$ term in (\ref{Nj-asym}) is a specific
466: purely standard W-box contribution, whose coefficient is fixed
467: by the $\gamma WW$ and $ZWW$ couplings.
468: It is angular dependent and of course,
469: insensitive to supersymmetric particle exchanges. It is given by
470: %
471: \bqa
472: && d^{(W)}_{j,L}= {\alpha^2b^{(W)} \over s^2_W}P_L~\Big \{\eta^j_t
473: \Big [2 \ln{s\over m^2_W} \ln {1-\cos\theta\over 2} +
474: \ln^2 {1-\cos\theta\over 2}\Big ]\nonumber\\
475: && +\eta^j_u~
476: \Big [2 \ln{s\over m^2_W}\ln{1+\cos\theta\over 2}
477: +\ln^2{1+\cos\theta\over 2}\Big ]\Big \} ~~, \label{d-asym-gg}
478: \eqa
479: \noindent
480: %
481: where again the index $j$ runs over the $N_j$ amplitudes that receive
482: non-vanishing Born contribution. For $\gamma\gamma$ production,
483: the parameters to be used in (\ref{d-asym-gg}) are
484: %
485: \bqa
486: && b^{(W)}=1 ~~, \nonumber \\
487: && \eta^{1,2}_t={1\over t}~~,~~\eta^{4}_t={1\over t}+{2\over s}
488: ~~, ~~\eta^{1,2}_u={1\over u}~~,~~\eta^{4}_u=-~{1\over u}-~{2\over s}
489: ~~ ;
490: \eqa
491: %
492: while for $\gamma Z$
493: %
494: \bqa
495: b^{(W)}=1/4s_Wc_W ~~ , & & \nonumber \\
496: \eta^{1,2}_t=-{s\over2}\eta^{6}_t={3-4s^2_W\over t}-{1\over u} &,&
497: \eta^{1,2}_u=-{s\over2}\eta^{6}_u={3-4s^2_W\over u}-{1\over t}
498: ~, \nonumber \\
499: \eta^{4}_t={3-4s^2_W\over t}+{1\over u}+{8c^2_W\over s} &,&
500: \eta^{4}_u=-~{3-4s^2_W\over u}-{1\over t}-~{8c^2_W\over s}
501: ~, \nonumber \\
502: \eta^{5}_t={1\over u}+{4c^2_W\over s} &,&
503: \eta^{5}_u=-~{3-4s^2_W\over u}-~{4c^2_W\over s} ~;
504: \label{d-asym-Zg}
505: \eqa
506: %
507: and for $ZZ$
508: %
509: \bqa
510: b^{(W)}=1/2s^2_W ~~ , && \nonumber \\
511: \eta^{1,2}_t={1-2s^2_W\over t}-{1\over u} &,&
512: \eta^{1,2}_u={1-2s^2_W\over u}-{1\over t} ~, \nonumber \\
513: \eta^{4}_t={1-2s^2_W\over t}+{1\over u}+{4c^2_W\over s} &,&
514: \eta^{4}_u=-~{1-2s^2_W\over u}-{1\over t}-~{4c^2_W\over s}
515: ~, \nonumber \\
516: \eta^{5}_t={1\over u}+{2c^2_W\over s} &,&
517: \eta^{5}_u=-~{1-2s^2_W\over u}-~{2c^2_W\over s}
518: ~, \nonumber \\
519: \eta^{6}_t=-\eta^{8}_t=-~{2\over s}\Big [{1-2s^2_W\over t}
520: -~{1\over u}\Big ] &,&
521: \eta^{6}_u=-\eta^{8}_u=-~{2\over s}
522: \Big [{1-2s^2_W\over u}-~{1\over t}\Big ] ~, \nonumber \\
523: \eta^{7}_t={2s^2_W-1\over t}-~{2c^2_W\over s} &,&
524: \eta^{7}_u={1\over t}+~{2c^2_W\over s} ~. \label{d-asym-ZZ}
525: \eqa
526:
527:
528:
529: When the helicity amplitudes generated by the
530: $N_j$ ones are computed, it is found that the
531: above structure of mainly
532: multiplicative corrections to
533: the Born contributions is only preserved for the
534: TT amplitudes, where both final gauge bosons are transverse.
535: It is only in this case that
536: the 1-loop asymptotic amplitudes are given by
537: the Born ones, multiplied by the various leading-log coefficients.
538: Such a factorization form
539: does not work for the TL, LT and LL helicity amplitudes, which are
540: mass suppressed; thereby forcing
541: the difference between the high energy
542: behaviour of the 1-loop helicity amplitude, and its Born
543: contribution, to be not simply logarithmic, but to also have a
544: power-law part.
545:
546:
547:
548: As an example we recall that due to "gauge cancellations",
549: the Born $e^-e^+ \to ZZ$ TT amplitudes behave like a constant
550: at asymptotic energies, the Born TL and LT ones vanish
551: like $m_Z/\sqrt{s}$, and the Born LL amplitudes diminish like
552: $m^2_Z/s$. This latter property can
553: be explicitly seen in
554: \bqa
555: F^{Born}_{\lambda 00}& \simeq &-~(2\lambda){16m^2_Z\over
556: s}~ {\cos\theta\over\sin\theta} \Big \{{(2s^2_W-1)^2
557: \over4s^2_Wc^2_W}P_L+{s^2_W\over c^2_W}P_R\Big \}~~.
558: \label{born-asym-ZZ00}
559: \eqa
560:
561:
562:
563: When the 1-loop effects are included, the TL and LT amplitudes
564: receive, apart from the logarithmic factors,
565: additional mass dependent terms of the type
566: $M/\sqrt{s}$, where $M$ is some mass involved in the one loop diagrams.
567: For $Z_LZ_L$ amplitudes, these 1-loop modification leads
568: to a strikingly different high energy structure, where the rapidly
569: vanishing $\sim m^2_Z/s$ Born behaviour is replaced by a
570: logarithmically increasing one
571: involving $\ln^2{|t|/ M^2}$ and $\ln^2{|u|/ M^2}$ terms.
572: This structure is induced by Higgs sector box
573: diagrams, whose asymptotic contribution dominates the
574: tree-level one.\par
575:
576: The simplest way to obtain it,
577: is by using the equivalence theorem and considering the processes
578: $e^+e^-\to G^0 G^0$ ($G^0$ being the Goldstone state supplying
579: the longitudinal $Z_L$ component).
580: Since in the $m_e=0$ limit this later process has no Born term,
581: its only possible contribution comes from boxes with internal $(eZHZ)$
582: and $(\nu WGW)$ lines; where $H$ stands for the
583: standard Higgs boson in SM, while in
584: MSSM it represents a suitable mixture of the CP-even
585: $H^0$ and the $h^0$ states.
586: The resulting asymptotic helicity amplitudes is then
587: %
588: \bqa
589: && F_{\lambda 00}
590: \simeq
591: (2\lambda){\alpha^2 \sin\theta\over4}
592: \Big \{[\ln^2{|t|\over m^2_W}-\ln^2{|u|\over m^2_W}]\Big \}
593: \Big \{\Big ({1\over s^4_W}+{(2s^2_W-1)^2\over2s^4_Wc^4_W}\Big )P_L
594: +\Big ({2\over c^4_W}\Big )P_R\Big \} \nonumber \\
595: && \simeq (2\lambda){\alpha^2 \sin\theta\over 2}
596: \ln \Big ({s\over \mwd}\Big )
597: \ln\Big ({1-cos\theta\over 1+cos\theta}\Big )
598: \Big \{\Big ({1\over s^4_W}+{(2s^2_W-1)^2\over2s^4_Wc^4_W}\Big )P_L
599: +\Big ({2\over c^4_W}\Big )P_R\Big \}, \label{goldsm}
600: \eqa
601: %
602: in both, SM and MSSM. Thus, at sufficiently high energy,
603: the order $\alpha^2$ contribution of (\ref{goldsm}),
604: becomes larger than the (suppressed) Born LL contribution
605: of (\ref{born-asym-ZZ00}).
606: The cross-over of these two terms
607: is around 1TeV.
608:
609:
610: Contrary to the TT case induced by (\ref{Nj-asym}),
611: asymptotically there is no
612: difference between the SM and the MSSM predictions for
613: longitudinal $Z_LZ_L$ production. This is due to the fact
614: that the $H^0$ contribution is proportional to $\cos^2(\beta-\alpha)$
615: and the $h^0$ one proportional
616: to $\sin^2(\beta-\alpha)$, producing a result identical to
617: the SM one.\\
618:
619:
620: \noindent
621: {\bf The NAGC effects}\\
622: As mentioned in the Introduction, the full 1-loop results for
623: $e^-e^+\to Z\gamma, ~ZZ$ in SM or MSSM may be viewed as an
624: irreducible background in the search of possible
625: anomalous neutral gauge boson
626: couplings NAGC. The general form of such couplings
627: has been written in \cite{NAGCt}. Here, we restrict the analysis
628: to the on-shell couplings $h^{\gamma, Z}_3$ and
629: $f^{\gamma, Z}_5$, which should be the dominant ones \cite{NAGCt1}.
630: Their contributions to the helicity amplitudes have been given
631: in \cite{NAGCt}. As shown there, $h^{\gamma, Z}_3$ contribute to the TT and
632: TL $e^+e^-\to Z \gamma $ amplitudes, and $f^{\gamma, Z}_5$ to the
633: TL $e^+e^-\to ZZ$ one. There is no contribution
634: to $e^+e^-\to \gamma\gamma$.\par
635:
636:
637:
638: In \cite{NAGCt1}, dynamical models for generating NAGC couplings
639: have been considered. The conclusions of that work was that
640: the contributions to
641: $h^{\gamma, Z}_3$ and $f^{\gamma, Z}_5$ arising from 1-loop
642: effects induced by new higher fermions of mass $M$ pertaining to the NP
643: scale, diminish faster than $1/s$, for $s \gg M^2$.
644: So they cannot modify the leading-log SM or MSSM structure, and they are
645: always part of the subleading contributions.
646: But there may exist more general types of NAGC
647: leading to appreciable tree level
648: $h^{\gamma, Z}_3$ and $f^{\gamma, Z}_5$ couplings.
649:
650: In any case, the processes $e^-e^+\to Z\gamma, ~ZZ$ may be used to
651: constrain such NAGC couplings, and for this purpose, knowledge of the
652: complete 1-loop effects is essential.
653: Such constraints are presented in
654: the next Section, assuming LC energies of 0.5 or 5 TeV.
655:
656:
657:
658:
659:
660: \section{Numerical Results}
661:
662: Here we present the numerical prediction for observables like
663: angular distributions, integrated cross sections and
664: asymmetries, defined in Appendix A.
665: Most of these observables do not refer to the final gauge
666: boson polarizations. But some remarks concerning the production
667: of specifically transverse or longitudinal $Z$-bosons are also given.
668: \par
669:
670:
671:
672: Due to the electron exchange diagrams in the $t$ and $u$ channels,
673: the angular distribution is strongly peaked in the forward and
674: backward directions. Because of detection difficulties
675: along the beam directions, we only consider c.m.
676: scattering angles in the region $30^o< \theta < 150^o$.
677: The integrated cross sections are thus defined
678: by integrating in this angular region.\par
679:
680:
681: The 1-loop radiative correction effects
682: to the differential and integrated cross sections
683: are described by the ratios to the corresponding Born
684: contributions.
685: Thus, the differential cross sections are described
686: in Figs.\ref{gg-differential-fig}-\ref{ZZ-differential-fig}
687: for SM and a representative set of MSSM SUGRA models
688: suggested in \cite{Ellis-bench}, which are consistent
689: with all present particle and cosmological constraints.
690: The effects are always negative
691: and increase with energy and the scattering angle.
692: In SM at 0.5 TeV, they are of about $-7\%$, $-8\%$ and $-15\%$
693: for $\gamma \gamma$, $Z\gamma $ and $ZZ$ production respectively;
694: while at 5 TeV they correspondingly
695: reach the level of $-27\%$, $-40\%$, $-58\%$.\par
696:
697: The differences between the SM and the various
698: MSSM cases for the differential cross sections, especially
699: at large angles,
700: are within $1.5\%$ for $e^+e^-\to \gamma\gamma$, and
701: increase to $10\%$ and $20\%$ for
702: $Z \gamma $ and $ZZ$ production
703: respectively. \par
704:
705:
706: The radiative corrections effects to the integrated
707: \underline{unpolarized} (summed over all final polarization)
708: cross sections are described in
709: Figs.\ref{gg-sig-fig}-\ref{ZZ-sig-fig}.
710: The above 1TeV behaviour of these cross sections
711: agrees (apart from a model dependent constant term)
712: with the asymptotic leading log expressions
713: (\ref{cL-SMasym}-\ref{cR-MSSMasym}), for SM and MSSM
714: respectively. As pointed out in Section 2,
715: the main difference between the SM and MSSM predictions
716: at high energy, stems from the respective factors
717: $(3\ln s-\ln^2 s)$ and $(2\ln s-\ln^2 s)$,
718: which depend only on the overall structure of the theory and are totally
719: independent of any other MSSM parameter. So, an
720: experimental measurement of the coefficient of
721: the linear log term, could check the agreement with SM or with
722: MSSM, and even provide hints if any additional NP contribution
723: is needed.\par
724:
725:
726: Another interesting quantity is the Left-Right polarization asymmetry
727: $A_{LR}$, which is not affected by normalization
728: uncertainties, and its measurement may be
729: extremely interesting experimentally.
730: In this case the Born contribution is constant in energy
731: and satisfies
732: $A_{LR}(Born)=0,~0.2181,~0.4164$ for $\gamma\gamma,~\gamma Z,~ZZ$
733: respectively. The radiative corrections can then conveniently described
734: by the 1-loop induced departure from these values. Since the effects are
735: similar to those for the integrated cross sections, we
736: do not present them explicitly.
737:
738:
739:
740:
741: The above behaviour of the unpolarized cross section (or $A_{LR}$ asymmetry)
742: is ensured by the dominance of the TT amplitudes. In $\gamma\gamma$,
743: where only such amplitudes occur, we have checked that by putting
744: an additional constant to the expression for the asymptotic
745: cross section fitted at 5 TeV, we get agreement with the
746: exact 1-loop result at the permille
747: level, for energies as low as 0.2 TeV.
748:
749: In $\gamma Z$ production, the presence of TL amplitudes,
750: which are negligible in the several
751: TeV range\footnote{The TL cross section behaves
752: like $M^2/s^2$ at high energies, whereas the TT one behaves
753: like $1/s$, apart from log factors.},
754: generate corrections below 1 TeV which are at the
755: several percent level and sensitive to the MSSM model considered.
756:
757:
758: The case of $ZZ$ production is more
759: interesting, because, in addition to the TL and LT components
760: which behave like the ones in $\gamma Z$, there are also LL
761: components. The Born LL component, which contributes
762: about $10\%$ close to threshold, is strongly
763: depressed at higher energies, behaving like
764: $\sigma_{Born}^{LL} \sim 1/s^3$. But because of
765: large contributions generated by the Higgs
766: sector\footnote{Compare the
767: Goldstone contributions given in (\ref{goldsm}). },
768: a logarithmic increase arises above 1 TeV, illustrated
769: in Fig.\ref{ZZLL-sig-fig}.
770: This happens at a level which is hardly observable,
771: except with very high luminosity colliders. Nevertheless we
772: show it, because of its exceptional behaviour
773: in the very high energy range. Its dependence on the Higgs mass is
774: rather weak; the relative differences between the cross
775: sections for $m_H=0.3$ TeV or $m_H=1$ TeV,
776: and the one for $m_H=0.113$ TeV being at the
777: permille level. \\
778:
779: \vspace{1cm}
780:
781: \noindent
782: {\bf Constraints on NAGC contributions}\\
783: We first look at the "normal" NAGC contributions arising
784: from fermionic triangular loops, both in SM and MSSM.
785: Since these
786: decrease faster than $1/s$ with energy \cite{NAGCt1},
787: one can only look for NAGC at energies not higher than 1 TeV.
788: In $e^+e^-\to Z \gamma $ the effects are due to the TT and TL
789: amplitudes; while in $e^+e^-\to ZZ$ only TL (and LT) amplitudes
790: contribute.
791: However, in the $Z \gamma $ case there is no interference between the
792: NAGC and Born TT amplitudes; since the final gauge boson helicities
793: are equal for the NAGC amplitudes, and opposite for the Born ones.
794: So in both the $\gamma Z$
795: and $ZZ$ cases, the effects will mainly
796: come from the interference with the weaker Born
797: LT amplitudes, and should be at the permille
798: level around (or below) 1 TeV.
799: We conclude therefore that new NAGC contributions
800: generated by \eg triangles
801: involving higher mass fermions, will be marginally
802: observable; unless very high luminosities are available.
803:
804:
805:
806:
807: We next look at the sensitivity to the "true" NAGC amplitudes,
808: described in a model independent way by the phenomenological
809: coupling constants $h^{\gamma, Z}_3$ for $Z \gamma $,
810: and $f^{\gamma, Z}_5$ for $ZZ$ \cite{NAGCt}.
811: Assuming a given experimental accuracy (for example a
812: conservative $1\%$)
813: on the unpolarized integrated cross sections $\sigma_{unp}$
814: and the Left-Right asymmetry $A_{LR}$, we then obtain the
815: NAGC observability limits for such contributions.
816: This is illustrated in Figs.9a,b for
817: $Z \gamma $ and $ZZ$ production, at energies of 0.5TeV and 1TeV.
818:
819:
820: Note from Figs.9a,b, that the $\sigma_{unp}$ and
821: $A_{LR}$ constraints are almost
822: orthogonal, allowing a good limitation of both the
823: photon- and $Z$-NAGC couplings. This arises because, in $\gamma Z$,
824: $\sigma_{unp}$ mainly depends on $h^{\gamma}_3$,
825: whereas $A_{LR}$ is more sensitive to $h^{Z}_3$. In $ZZ$
826: the roles of the photon and $Z$ are interchanged,
827: $\sigma_{unp}$ mainly depending on $f^{Z}_5$, and
828: $A_{LR}$ on $f^{\gamma}_5$,
829: due to the different chirality structure of the
830: Born terms. All this can be traced off from the fact that
831: the photon couples vectorialy, while the $Zee$ coupling
832: is essentially purely axial.
833:
834:
835:
836: As seen from Figs.9a,b,
837: the implied sensitivity is likely to increase with energy.
838: We conclude therefore
839: that NP forms inducing the NAGC couplings
840: $h^{\gamma, Z}_3$, $f^{\gamma, Z}_5$ at the level
841: of $10^{-3}$ to $10^{-4}$, should be observable
842: around 1 TeV.
843:
844:
845:
846:
847: \section{Physics issues and Conclusions}
848:
849: In this paper we have analyzed the behaviour of the
850: electroweak corrections to the processes
851: $e^+e^-\to\gamma\gamma, ~Z \gamma, ~ZZ$ at the one loop level,
852: in the context of the SM and the MSSM.\par
853:
854:
855: These processes are particularly interesting in various aspects.
856: Their final gauge bosons are easy to detect experimentally,
857: while their theoretical structure provides clean tests
858: of the electroweak interactions.
859: The Born terms are only due to electron exchanges in the
860: $t$ and $u$ channels; contrary to the $WW$ case, there is no
861: s-channel tree level term. Since there are no QCD or Yukawa
862: contributions,
863: the identification of the electroweak corrections
864: should be very clean. \par
865:
866:
867:
868: We have completely computed the 1-loop SM and MSSM corrections, in
869: order to analyze the contents of the
870: gauge, Higgs and Goldstone sectors, as well
871: as their supersymmetric counterparts. We have studied how
872: these contributions vary with energy, and how they
873: conspire to generate asymptotically the leading logarithmic
874: terms, and in particular
875: the remarkable difference between the SM combination
876: $(3\ln s-\ln^2 s)$ and the MSSM one $(2\ln s-\ln^2 s)$.
877: This contribution fixes the asymptotic form of
878: the transverse-transverse final gauge boson (TT) amplitudes.
879: At moderate energies, we have also
880: found that the mass-suppressed TL and LL amplitudes play a non negligible
881: role.\par
882:
883:
884:
885:
886:
887: The structures of the angular distributions,
888: integrated cross sections and Left-Right asymmetries, for both
889: unpolarized and polarized final states, have also been studied numerically.
890: It was found in particular that the $A_{LR}$ asymmetry shows essentially
891: the same effects as the unpolarized cross section,
892: a feature which may be experimentally
893: interesting in reducing the normalization uncertainties.\par
894:
895:
896:
897:
898: In addition to studying the standard and supersymmetric
899: effects,
900: we have considered possible additional NP NAGC contributions,
901: as described by Effective Lagrangians. We have shown that
902: the corresponding coupling constants could be constrained
903: at an interesting level.\par
904:
905:
906: Summarizing, we can say that the electroweak radiative
907: corrections are large and growing
908: with energy. Starting from a few percent at the
909: energy range of a few hundreds of GeV, they reach $10\%$ already at
910: 1 TeV, and continue growing according to the logarithmic
911: rules. So, in the high energy range they are no more
912: "small corrections". They are essential parts of the dynamics,
913: which can be experimentally analyzed at the
914: future colliders, whose accuracy
915: should reach the percent level or even better. For more accurate
916: theoretical predictions, computations of higher orders
917: may be attempted; it has already been claimed that
918: several logarithmic terms exponentiate \cite{resum},
919: so that all the features that we have observed at the one loop
920: level, remain true for higher orders also.\par
921:
922:
923: We have also shown that measurements of the three processes
924: $e^+e^-\to\gamma\gamma,~\gamma Z$ and $ZZ$ should provide
925: global tests of the basic interactions.
926: A strategy for these tests could be the following.
927: One could first try to compare the high energy behaviour of
928: the cross sections and Left-Right asymmetries with
929: the SM predictions, (containing in particular the
930: $(3\ln s-\ln^2 s)$ term). If there is no new particle produced,
931: SM may seem a reasonable assumption, and one would either
932: check its consistency or, if the check
933: fails\footnote{\ie A disagreement with the predicted
934: high energy behaviour is identified.},
935: we would be led to anticipate some form
936: of NP.
937:
938:
939: Another situation may be that
940: many candidates for supersymmetric particles are found,
941: with masses considerably
942: smaller than the highest collider energy attainable.
943: One should then compare the high energy behaviour
944: with the MSSM prediction (containing in particular the
945: $(2\ln s-\ln^2 s)$ term) and again we could check whether
946: a global agreement appears.
947: If there are still some departures indicating the need
948: for additional NP effects, a comparison of the three processes
949: $\gamma\gamma$, $Z \gamma $, $ZZ$ may provide a
950: hint for their origin; particularly if
951: NP is related to NAGC couplings or to some other anomalous
952: properties of the $Z$ boson.
953: We also note that a measurement of the coefficient of the
954: double log term could check if there are no higher gauge bosons
955: acting.\par
956: In conclusion the three processes studied here, present a large
957: panel of interesting properties. They are extremely
958: simple at Born level, but extremely rich in the supplied information
959: at the radiative corrections level.
960: The $\gamma\gamma$, $Z\gamma$ and $ZZ$ final states
961: are complementary for the study of the gauge (gaugino) sector in
962: the MSSM models, the Higgs sector and the search for
963: Neutral Anomalous Gauge Couplings.\par
964:
965: We have thus seen one more aspect of the fact that in
966: the several TeV domain the electroweak interactions start
967: becoming strong.
968: The processes studied here illustrate this property and
969: should be considered as part of the research program
970: at the future high energy colliders, demanding for
971: the highest luminosities. In some respect, the
972: tests supplied by $(e^-e^+\to \gamma \gamma, ~ Z\gamma, ~ ZZ)$,
973: are in the same spirit
974: as the high precision tests performed with $g-2$
975: measurements, or with $Z$ peak physics. They should provide global
976: checks of the validity of the SM or MSSM theory.\par
977:
978:
979:
980:
981:
982:
983: \newpage
984:
985: \renewcommand{\theequation}{A.\arabic{equation}}
986: \renewcommand{\thesection}{A.\arabic{section}}
987: \setcounter{equation}{0}
988: \setcounter{section}{0}
989:
990:
991: {\large \bf Appendix A: Kinematical details.}\\
992:
993: The considered process is
994: \bq
995: e^-(\lambda, l)~+~e^+(\lambda', l')
996: \to V(e,p)+ V'(e',p') ~~ , \label{process}
997: \eq
998: where $(l,~l')$ are the incoming electron and positron momenta,
999: and $(\lambda,~\lambda')$ their helicities.
1000: The outgoing neutral gauge bosons $Z$ or $\gamma$ are generally
1001: denoted as $V$ and $V'$, their momenta as $(p,~p')$ respectively,
1002: the complex conjugate of their polarization vectors
1003: as $(e, ~ e')$, and their corresponding helicities as
1004: $(\mu, \mu')$. We also define
1005: \bqa
1006: && q=l-p=p'-l' ~~~~ ,~~~~ q'=l-p'=p-l' ~~
1007: \nonumber \\
1008: && s=(l+l')^2=(p+p')^2~~,~~t=q^2~~,~ ~
1009: u=q'^2~ .
1010: \nonumber
1011: \eqa
1012: %
1013: The c.m. scattering angle between $\vec l$ and $\vec p$ is denoted
1014: by $\theta$.\par
1015:
1016:
1017: The electron mass is throughout neglected, implying
1018: $\lambda'= - \lambda= \pm 1/2 $. Consequently there are at most
1019: 18 helicity amplitudes written as
1020: %
1021: \bqa
1022: F_{\lambda,\mu,\mu'}&\equiv&
1023: F[ e^-( \lambda , l )~ e^+(\lambda'=-\lambda,
1024: ~ l')~ \to ~V (e(\mu),p) ~V'(e'(\mu'),p') ]\nonumber\\
1025: &&=\sum_{j=1,9} \bar{v}(\lambda', l')~I_j~N_j(s,t,u, \lambda)
1026: ~u(\lambda, l)~~, \label{helicity-amplitudes}
1027: \eqa
1028: in terms of nine Lorentz invariant forms
1029: $I_j$, ~($j=1,9$) defined below.
1030: %
1031: \bqa
1032: I_1=(e \cdot l)(\gamma \cdot e') &,~~
1033: I_2=(e' \cdot l)(\gamma \cdot e) & ,
1034: ~~ I_3=(e\cdot l)(e'\cdot l)(\gamma\cdot p),~~
1035: \nonumber \\
1036: I_4=(e\cdot e')(\gamma \cdot p) & , ~~
1037: I_5=(e \cdot p')(\gamma \cdot e') & ,~~
1038: I_6=(e \cdot p')(e'\cdot l)(\gamma \cdot p)~~,
1039: \nonumber \\
1040: I_7=(e' \cdot p)(\gamma \cdot e) &,~~ I_8=(e'\cdot p)(e\cdot l)
1041: (\gamma \cdot p)&,
1042: ~~ I_9=(e \cdot p')(e'\cdot p)(\gamma \cdot p) ~. \label{Ij}
1043: \eqa
1044: %
1045: Their coefficients, split according to the electron-helicity,
1046: define the invariant amplitudes as
1047: \bq
1048: N_j(s,t,u,\lambda )
1049: \equiv N^L_j(s,t,u)P_L+N^R_j(s,t,u)P_R ~~, \label{NjLR}
1050: \eq
1051: \noindent
1052: where
1053: \bq
1054: P_L=\frac{1}{2} -\lambda ~~~,~~~P_R=\frac{1}{2} +\lambda ~~.
1055: \label{proj}
1056: \eq \\
1057:
1058:
1059:
1060: In the specific case of the process
1061: \underline{$e^-e^+\to\gamma\gamma$},
1062: only 4 transverse-transverse amplitudes appear,
1063: which are described through the invariant functions
1064: $N_1$, $N_2$, $ N_3$, $N_4$.\par
1065:
1066: In the case of \underline{$e^-e^+\to Z \gamma $},
1067: where the gauge boson polarization and momenta are
1068: defined by $Z(e,p)$ and $\gamma(e',p')$,
1069: the process is most generally described by the 6 invariant amplitudes
1070: $N_1, ...~ N_6$.\par
1071:
1072:
1073: Finally, for \underline{$e^-e^+\to ZZ$}, the complete set of
1074: the $N_1, ... ~N_9$ amplitudes is needed for a complete description.\\
1075:
1076:
1077:
1078:
1079: \noindent
1080: {\bf Observables}\\
1081: The polarized differential cross sections is written as
1082: %
1083: \bq
1084: {d\sigma(\lambda,\mu,\mu')\over d\cos\theta}
1085: ={\beta\over 32 \pi s}~C_{stat}
1086: ~|F_{\lambda,\mu,\mu'}|^2~~, \label{polarized-dsigma}
1087: \eq
1088: \noindent
1089: where $C_{stat}=1/2,~1/2,~1$ for $\gamma\gamma,~ZZ,~\gamma Z$,
1090: respectively. The integrated cross sections for definite polarizations
1091: are
1092: %
1093: \bq
1094: \sigma(\lambda,\mu,\mu')=\int^{c}_{-c} d\cos\theta~~
1095: {d\sigma(\lambda,\mu,\mu')\over d\cos\theta} ~~,
1096: \eq
1097: \noindent
1098: where $c\equiv \cos\theta_{min}$ is an angular cut (fixed
1099: at $\theta_{min}=30^0$ in the numerical applications).
1100: %
1101:
1102:
1103: For longitudinally polarized $e^{\pm}$ beams, the Left-Right
1104: polarization asymmetry is defined as
1105: %
1106: \bq
1107: A_{LR}(\mu,\mu')=
1108: \frac{\sigma(-{1\over2},\mu,\mu')-\sigma(+{1\over2},\mu,\mu')}
1109: {\sigma(-{1\over2},\mu,\mu')+\sigma(+{1\over2},\mu,\mu')} ~~~.
1110: \label{ALR-definition}
1111: \eq \\
1112:
1113:
1114:
1115: \noindent
1116: {\bf The Born terms}
1117:
1118: These are due to electron exchange in the $t$ and $u$ channels.
1119: In terms of the invariant amplitudes defined in (\ref{NjLR}),
1120: they are written as
1121: %
1122: \bq
1123: N_j^{\rm Born} = N_j^{\rm Born,~t} +N_j^{\rm Born,~u} ~~,
1124: \label{Nj-Born}
1125: \eq
1126: and for all processes it is found that
1127: \bq
1128: N^{\rm Born,~t}_{3,9}=N^{\rm Born,~u}_{3,9} =0 ~~ .
1129: \label{N3-N9-Born}
1130: \eq
1131: The rest of the invariant amplitudes are:
1132:
1133:
1134:
1135:
1136: %
1137: $\bullet$~ \underline{$e^-e^+\to\gamma\gamma$.}
1138: %
1139: \bqa
1140: && N^{\rm Born,~t}_1=N^{\rm Born,~t}_2=N^{\rm Born,~t}_4
1141: = -~\frac{e^2}{t}P_L
1142: -~\frac{e^2}{t}P_R
1143: ~~ , \nonumber \\
1144: && N^{\rm Born,~u}_1=N^{\rm Born,~ u}_2=
1145: - N^{\rm Born,~ u}_4
1146: = -~\frac{e^2}{u}P_L
1147: -~\frac{ e^2}{u}P_R
1148: ~~. \label{Nj-Born-gg}
1149: \eqa
1150:
1151:
1152: %
1153: \noindent
1154: $\bullet$~ \underline{$e^-e^+\to Z Z$.}
1155: %
1156: \bqa
1157: && N^{\rm Born,~t}_1
1158: = N^{\rm Born,~t}_2=N^{\rm Born,~t}_4
1159: =-\, \frac{s}{t-\mzd} \, N^{\rm Born,~t}_5
1160: = -\, \frac{s}{2}\, N^{\rm Born,~t}_6\nonumber \\
1161: &&
1162: =-\, \frac{s}{s-t+\mzd }\, N^{\rm Born,~t}_7=
1163: \, \frac{s}{2}\, N^{\rm Born,~t}_8=
1164: -\, \frac{g^2_{ZL}}{t}\,-
1165: \, \frac{g^2_{ZR}}{t}\, ,
1166: \nonumber \\
1167: && N^{\rm Born,~u}_1
1168: = N^{\rm Born,~u}_2=-N^{\rm Born,~u}_4
1169: = \frac{-s}{s-u +\mzd} \, N^{\rm Born,~u}_5
1170: \nonumber \\
1171: && = \frac{-s}{2}\, N^{\rm Born,~u}_6=
1172: \, \frac{-s}{u -\mzd }\, N^{\rm Born,~u}_7=
1173: \frac{s}{2}~ N^{\rm Born,~u}_8=
1174: -\, \frac{g^2_{ZL}}{u}\, -\,
1175: \frac{g^2_{ZR}}{u}~ ,
1176: \label{Nj-Born-ZZ}
1177: \eqa
1178: \noindent
1179: with
1180: \bq
1181: g_{ZL}=e ~{(2s^2_{W}-1)\over2s_{W}c_{W}}~~~~~, ~~~~~~
1182: g_{ZR}=e ~{s_{W}\over c_{W}} ~~.
1183: \label{gZLR}
1184: \eq
1185: %
1186: \noindent
1187: $\bullet$~ \underline{$e^-e^+\to Z \gamma $.}
1188: %
1189: \bqa
1190: &&\frac{s}{s-\mzd} ~ N^{\rm Born,~ t}_1
1191: = \frac{s}{s +\mzd}~ N^{\rm Born,~ t}_2= N^{\rm Born,~t}_4
1192: \nonumber \\
1193: &&
1194: =-~ \frac{s}{t-\mzd}~ N^{\rm Born,~t}_5
1195: = - ~ \frac{s}{2}~ N^{\rm Born,~t}_6=
1196: \frac{eg_{ZL}}{t}P_L
1197: +~ \frac{e g_{ZR}}{t}P_R ~~ ,
1198: \nonumber \\
1199: &&
1200: \left (\frac{s}{s-\mzd}\right ) N^{\rm Born,~u}_1
1201: = \left (\frac{s}{s +\mzd}\right ) N^{\rm Born,~u}_2
1202: = - N^{Born,~u}_4\nonumber \\
1203: &&
1204: = \left (\frac{-s}{s -u}\right ) N^{\rm Born,~u}_5
1205: = \frac{-s}{2}~ N^{\rm Born,~u}_6=
1206: \frac{eg_{ZL}}{u}P_L ~ +~\frac{ e g_{ZR}}{u}P_R ~~ .
1207: \label{Nj-Born-Zg}
1208: \eqa
1209:
1210:
1211:
1212: \clearpage
1213: \newpage
1214:
1215: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
1216:
1217:
1218:
1219: \bibitem{LC} Opportunities
1220: and Requirements for Experimentation at a Very High Energy
1221: $e^{+}e^{-}$ Collider, SLAC-329(1928); Proc. Workshops on Japan
1222: Linear Collider, KEK Reports, 90-2, 91-10 and 92-16;
1223: P.M. Zerwas, DESY 93-112, Aug. 1993; Proc. of the Workshop on
1224: $e^{+}e^{-}$ Collisions at 500 GeV: The Physics Potential, DESY
1225: 92-123A,B,(1992), C(1993), D(1994), E(1997) ed. P. Zerwas;
1226: E. Accomando \etal\@ \prep{C299}{1}{1998}.
1227: %
1228: \bibitem{CLIC} " The CLIC study of a multi-TeV $e^+e^-$ linear
1229: collider", CERN-PS-99-005-LP (1999).
1230: %
1231: \bibitem{ggcoll}
1232: I.F. Ginzburg, G.L. Kotkin, V.G. Serbo
1233: and V.I. Telnov, Nucl. Instr. and Meth. {\bf 205}, 47 (1983);
1234: I.F. Ginzburg, G.L. Kotkin, V.G. Serbo,
1235: S.L. Panfil and V.I. Telnov,
1236: Nucl. Instr. and Meth. {\bf 219},5 (1984);
1237: J.H. K\"{u}hn, E.Mirkes
1238: and J. Steegborn, Zeit.f.Phys.{bf C57},615(1993).
1239: V. Telnov, hep-ex/0003024, hep-ex/0001029,
1240: hep-ex/9802003, hep-ex/9805002, hep-ex/9908005;
1241: I.F. Ginzburg, hep-ph/9907549; R. Brinkman hep-ex/9707017.
1242: V. Telnov, talk at the International
1243: Workshop on High Energy Photon Colliders,
1244: http://www.desy.de/\protect{ ~ }gg2000, June 14-17, 2000,
1245: DESY Hamburg, Germany, to appear in Nucl.Instr. \& Meth. A.;
1246: D.S. Gorbunov, V.A. Illyn, V.I. Telnov, hep-ph/0012175.
1247: %
1248: \bibitem{Sud1}
1249: V.~V.~Sudakov,
1250: Sov.~Phys.~JETP~3, 65 (1956);
1251: Landau-Lifshits:
1252: Relativistic Quantum Field theory IV tome (MIR, Moscow) 1972.%
1253: \bibitem{Sud2}
1254: M. Kuroda, G. Moultaka and D. Schildknecht, \np{B350}{25}{1991};
1255: G.Degrassi and A Sirlin, \pr{D46}{3104}{1992};
1256: W.~Beenakker et al, Nucl.~Phys.~{\bf B410}, 245 (1993),
1257: Phys.~Lett.~{\bf B317}, 622 (1993);
1258: A.~Denner, S.~Dittmaier and R.~Schuster,
1259: Nucl.~Phys.~{\bf B452}, 80 (1995);
1260: A.~Denner, S.~Dittmaier and T.~Hahn, Phys.~Rev.~{\bf D56}, 117 (1997);
1261: P.~Ciafaloni and D.~Comelli, Phys.~Lett.~{\bf B446}, 278 (1999);
1262: A.~Denner, S.Pozzorini; Eur.~Phys.~J.~{\bf C18}, 461 (2001);
1263: Eur.Phys.J.~{\bf C21}, 63 (2001).
1264: %
1265: \bibitem{log}
1266: M. Beccaria, P. Ciafaloni, D. Comelli, F. Renard, C. Verzegnassi,
1267: Phys.Rev. {\bf D 61}, 073005 (2000);
1268: Phys.Rev. {\bf D 61}, 011301 (2000)
1269: %
1270: \bibitem{class}
1271: M. Beccaria, F.M. Renard and C. Verzegnassi,
1272: Phys.Rev.{\bf D64}, 073008 (2001).
1273: %
1274: \bibitem{reality}
1275: M. Beccaria, F.M. Renard and C. Verzegnassi,
1276: hep-ph/0203254.
1277: %
1278: \bibitem{MSSMlog}
1279: M. Beccaria, F.M. Renard and C. Verzegnassi,
1280: Phys. Rev. {\bf D63}, 095010 (2001);
1281: Phys.Rev.{\bf D63}, 053013 (2001).
1282: %
1283: \bibitem{LR} J. Layssac and F.M. Renard,
1284: Phys.Rev.{\bf D 64},053018 (2001).
1285: %
1286: \bibitem{BMRV} M. Beccaria, M. Melles, F.M. Renard and C. Verzegnassi,
1287: Phys.Rev.{\bf D65}, 093007 (2002).
1288: %
1289: \bibitem{resum}
1290: M.~Ciafaloni, P.~Ciafaloni and D.~Comelli,
1291: Nucl.~Phys.~{\bf B589}, 4810 (2000);
1292: V.~S.~Fadin, L.~N.~Lipatov, A.~D.~Martin and M.~Melles,
1293: Phys.~Rev.~{\bf D61}, 094002 (2000);
1294: J.~H.~K\"uhn, A.~A.~Penin and V.~A.~Smirnov,
1295: Eur.~Phys.~J~{\bf C17}, 97 (2000);
1296: M.~Melles, hep-ph/0104232;
1297: J.~H.~K\"uhn, S.~Moch, A.~A.~Penin and V.~A.~Smirnov,
1298: Nucl.~Phys.~{\bf B616}, 286 (2001).
1299: M.~Melles, Eur. Phys. J. {\bf C24},193(2002).
1300: M.~Melles Phys.~Rev.~{\bf D63}, 034003 (2001); Phys.~Rev.~{\bf D64}, 014011 (2001),
1301: Phys.~Rev.~{\bf D64}, 054003 (2001).
1302: M.~Melles, Phys.~Lett.~{\bf B495}, 81 (2000);
1303: W.~Beenakker, A.~Werthenbach, Phys.~Lett.~{\bf B489}, 148 (2000); hep-ph/0112030;
1304: M.~Hori, H.~Kawamura and J.~Kodaira, Phys.~Lett.~{\bf B491}, 275
1305: (2000).
1306: %
1307: \bibitem{oldgg} M. Bohm, T. Sack, Z.Phys. {\bf C33},157(1986);
1308: Z.Phys. {\bf C35},119(1987); A. Denner, T. Sack, Nucl.Phys. {\bf
1309: B306},221(1988).
1310: %
1311: \bibitem{NAGCt}
1312: K. Hagiwara, R.D. Peccei and D. Zeppenfeld,
1313: \np{B282}{253}{1987};
1314: G.J. Gounaris, J. Layssac and F.M. Renard,
1315: \pr{D61}{073013}{2000}.
1316: %
1317: \bibitem{NAGCt1}
1318: G.J. Gounaris, J. Layssac and F.M. Renard,
1319: \pr{D62}{073013}{2000}; \pr{D62}{073012}{2000}.
1320: %
1321: \bibitem{NAGCt2}
1322: D. Choudhury, S. Dutta, S. Rakshit and S. Rindani,
1323: Int.J.Mod.Phys.{\bf A16},4891(2001).
1324: %
1325: \bibitem{NAGCe}
1326: ALEPH, DELPHI, L3, OPAL, LEP Electroweak Working
1327: Group and SLD Heavy Flavor and Electroweak Groups (D. Abbaneo et al.),
1328: hep-ex/0112021;
1329: P. Bambade et al, ``Study of Trlinear Gauge Boson Couplings
1330: $ZZZ$, $ZZ\gamma $ and $Z\gamma \gamma$'', DELPHI 2001-097 CONF 525,
1331: contributed to EPS HEP 2001 Conference in Budapest;
1332: L3 (M. Acciarri et al.), \pl{B497}{23}{2001},
1333: hep-ex/0010004; J. Alcaraz \pr{D65}{075020}{2002}, hep-ph/0111283.
1334: %
1335: \bibitem{Hollik} See \eg W. Hollik, in "Precision Tests of the Standard
1336: Electroweak Model", edited by P. Langacker (1993) p.37; MPI-Ph-93-021,
1337: BI-TP-93-16.
1338: %
1339: \bibitem{ourpaper} G.J. Gounaris, J. Layssac and F.M. Renard,
1340: hep-ph/0207273.
1341: %
1342: \bibitem{Rosiek} J. Rosiek, \pr{D41}{3464}{1990},
1343: hep-ph/9511250 (E).
1344: %
1345: \bibitem{LeMouel}M.M. El Kheishen, A.A. Shafik and A.A. Aboshousha,
1346: \pr{D45}{4345}{1992}; V. Barger, M.S. Berger and P. Ohman,
1347: \pr{D49}{4908}{1994}; G.J. Gounaris, C. Le Mou\"{e}l and
1348: P.I. Porfyriadis, \pr{D65}{035002}{2002}, hep-ph/0107249;
1349: G.J. Gounaris and C. Le Mou\"{e}l,
1350: \pr{D66}{055007}{2002}, hep-ph/0204152.
1351: %
1352: \bibitem{Ellis-bench} M. Battaglia, A. De Roeck, J. Ellis, F.
1353: Giannotti, K.T. Matchev, K.A. Olive, L. Pape and G. Wilson,
1354: hep-ph/01006204; S. P. Martin,
1355: http:/zippy.physics.niu.edu/modellines.html;
1356: S. P. Martin, S. Moretti, J. Qian and G. W. Wilson,
1357: Snowmass P3-46.
1358: %
1359: \bibitem{Snowmass}"The Snowmass Points and Slopes", B.C. Allanach
1360: \etal, hep-ph/0202233.
1361: %
1362:
1363:
1364:
1365:
1366: \end{thebibliography}
1367:
1368:
1369:
1370:
1371: \clearpage
1372: \newpage
1373:
1374:
1375: \begin{figure}[th]
1376: %\vspace*{-4cm}
1377: \[
1378: \epsfig{file=fig1a.eps,height=8.5cm,width=13cm}
1379: \]
1380: %\vspace*{0.5cm}
1381: \[
1382: \epsfig{file=fig1b.eps,height=8.5cm,width=13cm}
1383: \]
1384: %\vspace*{0.5cm}
1385: \caption[1]{Diagrams at one loop}
1386: %\label{diag1}
1387: \end{figure}
1388:
1389: \clearpage
1390: \newpage
1391:
1392:
1393: \begin{figure}[p]
1394: \vspace*{-3cm}
1395: \[
1396: \hspace{-0.5cm}\epsfig{file=fig2a.eps,height=7cm}\hspace{0.5cm}
1397: \epsfig{file=fig2b.eps,height=7cm}
1398: \]
1399: \vspace*{-0.5cm}
1400: \caption[1]{The ratio of the unpolarized differential
1401: cross section $e^-e^+ \to \gamma \gamma $ to the Born
1402: contributions, at 0.5TeV (a) and 5TeV (b), for SM and
1403: a representative subset
1404: of the benchmark MSSM models of \cite{Ellis-bench}.}
1405: \label{gg-differential-fig}
1406: \end{figure}
1407:
1408:
1409:
1410: \newpage
1411:
1412: \begin{figure}[p]
1413: \vspace*{-3cm}
1414: \[
1415: \hspace{-0.5cm}\epsfig{file=fig3a.eps,height=7cm}\hspace{0.5cm}
1416: \epsfig{file=fig3b.eps,height=7cm}
1417: \]
1418: \vspace*{-0.5cm}
1419: \caption[1]{The ratio of the unpolarized differential
1420: cross section $e^-e^+ \to Z \gamma $ to the Born contribution,
1421: at 0.5TeV (a) and 5TeV (b), for SM and
1422: a representative subset
1423: of the benchmark MSSM models of \cite{Ellis-bench}.}
1424: \label{Zg-differential-fig}
1425: \end{figure}
1426:
1427:
1428:
1429: \clearpage
1430: \newpage
1431:
1432:
1433:
1434:
1435:
1436: \begin{figure}[p]
1437: \vspace*{-3cm}
1438: \[
1439: \hspace{-0.5cm}\epsfig{file=fig4a.eps,height=7cm}\hspace{0.5cm}
1440: \epsfig{file=fig4b.eps,height=7cm}
1441: \]
1442: \vspace*{-0.5cm}
1443: \caption[1]
1444: {The ratio of the unpolarized differential
1445: cross section $e^-e^+ \to Z Z $ to the Born contribution,
1446: at 0.5TeV (a) and 5TeV (b), for SM and
1447: a representative subset
1448: of the benchmark MSSM models of \cite{Ellis-bench}.}
1449: \label{ZZ-differential-fig}
1450: \end{figure}
1451:
1452:
1453:
1454:
1455: \clearpage
1456: \newpage
1457:
1458: \begin{figure}[b]
1459: \vspace*{-2cm}
1460: \[
1461: \epsfig{file=fig5.eps,height=14cm}
1462: \]
1463: \vspace*{-0.5cm}
1464: \caption[1]{The ratio of the unpolarized integrated
1465: $\sigma(e^-e^+\to \gamma \gamma)$ cross section
1466: to the Born contribution for SM and a representative subset
1467: of the benchmark MSSM models of \cite{Ellis-bench}.}
1468: \label{gg-sig-fig}
1469: \end{figure}
1470:
1471: \clearpage
1472: \newpage
1473:
1474: \begin{figure}[p]
1475: \vspace*{-2cm}
1476: \[
1477: \hspace{-0.5cm}\epsfig{file=fig6.eps,height=14cm}
1478: \]
1479: \vspace*{-0.5cm}
1480: \caption[1]{The ratio of the integrated unpolarized
1481: $\sigma(e^-e^+\to Z \gamma )$ cross section to the Born contribution,
1482: for SM and a set of MSSM models of \cite{Ellis-bench}.}
1483: \label{Zg-sig-fig}
1484: \end{figure}
1485:
1486:
1487: \clearpage
1488: \newpage
1489:
1490:
1491:
1492: \begin{figure}[p]
1493: \vspace*{-2cm}
1494: \[
1495: \hspace{-0.5cm}\epsfig{file=fig7.eps,height=14cm}
1496: \]
1497: \vspace*{-0.5cm}
1498: \caption[1]{The ratio of the integrated unpolarized
1499: cross section $\sigma(e^-e^+\to Z Z )$ to the Born contribution,
1500: for SM, and a representative subset
1501: of the benchmark MSSM models of \cite{Ellis-bench}.}
1502: \label{ZZ-sig-fig}
1503: \end{figure}
1504:
1505: \clearpage
1506: \newpage
1507:
1508:
1509:
1510: \begin{figure}[p]
1511: \vspace*{-2cm}
1512: \[
1513: \epsfig{file=fig8.eps,height=14cm}
1514: \]
1515: \vspace*{-0.5cm}
1516: \caption[1]{The integrated
1517: cross section for $\sigma(e^-e^+\to Z _LZ_L )$,
1518: as a function of the energy for
1519: SM and a representative subset
1520: of the benchmark MSSM models of \cite{Ellis-bench}.
1521: For comparison the Born contribution is also given.}
1522: \label{ZZLL-sig-fig}
1523: \end{figure}
1524:
1525: \clearpage
1526: \newpage
1527:
1528:
1529: \begin{figure}[p]
1530: \vspace*{-2cm}
1531: \[
1532: \hspace{0.1cm}\epsfig{file=fig9a.eps,height=8cm}
1533: \]
1534: \vspace*{0.5cm}
1535: \[
1536: \hspace{0.1cm}\epsfig{file=fig9b.eps,height=8cm}
1537: \]
1538: \vspace*{0.5cm}
1539: \caption[1]{The NAGC limits from $\sigma_{\rm unp}$ and $A_{LR}$
1540: measurements assuming an accuracy of $1\%$,
1541: for the processes $e^+e^-\to Z\gamma$ (a), and
1542: $e^+e^-\to ZZ$ (b).}
1543: \label{NAGClim-fig}
1544: \end{figure}
1545:
1546:
1547:
1548: \end{document}
1549: #!/bin/csh -f
1550: # Uuencoded gz-compressed .tar file created by csh script uufiles
1551: # For more info (11/95), see e.g. http://xxx.lanl.gov/faq/uufaq.html
1552: # If you are on a unix machine this file will unpack itself: strip
1553: # any mail header and call resulting file, e.g., figsh.uu
1554: # (uudecode ignores these header lines and starts at begin line below)
1555: # Then say csh figsh.uu
1556: # or explicitly execute the commands (generally more secure):
1557: # uudecode figsh.uu ; gunzip figsh.tar.gz ;
1558: # tar -xvf figsh.tar
1559: # On some non-unix (e.g. VAX/VMS), first use editor to change filename
1560: # in "begin" line below to figsh.tar-gz , then execute
1561: # uudecode figsh.uu
1562: # gzip -d figsh.tar-gz
1563: # tar -xvf figsh.tar
1564: #
1565: uudecode $0
1566: chmod 644 figsh.tar.gz
1567: gunzip -c figsh.tar.gz | tar -xvf -
1568: rm $0 figsh.tar.gz
1569: exit
1570:
1571: