1: \documentstyle[12pt,epsf]{article}

2: \setlength{\textwidth}{16.3cm}

3: \setlength{\textheight}{21.5cm}

4: \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-0.2cm}

5: \setlength{\evensidemargin}{1cm}

6: \setlength{\headheight}{0cm}

7: \setlength{\headsep}{0cm}

8: \setlength{\topmargin}{0.5cm}

9: \setlength{\footskip}{1.5cm}

10: %

11: \makeatletter

12: \renewcommand{\theequation}{\thesection.\arabic{equation}}

13: \@addtoreset{equation}{section}

14: \makeatother

15: %\bskip{4}

16: %

17: \begin{document}

18: \baselineskip 0.8cm

19: 

20: \newcommand{\gsim}{ \mathop{}_{\textstyle \sim}^{\textstyle >} }

21: \newcommand{\lsim}{ \mathop{}_{\textstyle \sim}^{\textstyle <} }

22: \newcommand{\vev}[1]{ \left\langle {#1} \right\rangle }

23: \newcommand{\EV}{ {\rm eV} }

24: \newcommand{\KEV}{ {\rm keV} }

25: \newcommand{\MEV}{ {\rm MeV} }

26: \newcommand{\GEV}{ {\rm GeV} }

27: \newcommand{\TEV}{ {\rm TeV} }

28: \newcommand{\DS}{\displaystyle}

29: %

30: \def\tr{\mathop{\rm tr}\nolimits}

31: \def\Tr{\mathop{\rm Tr}\nolimits}

32: \def\Re{\mathop{\rm Re}\nolimits}

33: \def\Im{\mathop{\rm Im}\nolimits}

34: \def\simgt{\mathop{>}\limits_{\displaystyle{\sim}}}

35: \def\simlt{\mathop{<}\limits_{\displaystyle{\sim}}}

36: \setcounter{footnote}{0}

37: 

38: \begin{titlepage}

39: 

40: \begin{flushright}

41: UT-ICEPP 03-04\\

42: KEK-TH-888\\

43: \end{flushright}

44: 

45: \vskip 2cm

46: \begin{center}

47: {\large \bf  Probing the CP nature of the Higgs bosons \\

48: by $t\overline{t}$ production at photon linear colliders}

49: \vskip 1.2cm

50: Eri Asakawa$^{a, b}$, and Kaoru Hagiwara$^{b}$

51: 

52: \vskip 0.4cm

53: 

54: $^{a}$ {\it International Center for Elementary Particle Physics, \\

55:         University of Tokyo, Tokyo 113-0033, Japan}\\

56: $^{b}$ {\it Theory Group, KEK, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305-0801, Japan}

57: \vskip 1.5cm

58: 

59: \abstract{

60: We study effects of heavy Higgs bosons on the $t \overline{t}$

61: production process at photon linear colliders.

62: The interference patterns between the resonant Higgs-production

63: amplitudes and the continuum QED amplitudes are examined.

64: The patterns tell us not only the

65: CP nature of the Higgs bosons but also the phase of the 

66: $\gamma\gamma$--Higgs vertex 

67: which gives new information about the Higgs couplings 

68: to new charged particles.

69: We point out that it is necessary to use circularly polarized

70: photon beams to produce efficiently heavy Higgs bosons whose

71: masses exceed the electron beam energy, and show that the above

72: interference patterns of the production amplitudes can be studied

73: by observing

74: $t$ and $\overline{t}$ decay angular distributions.

75: Analytic expressions for the helicity amplitudes

76: for the sequential process $\gamma\gamma \rightarrow t

77: \overline{t} \rightarrow (bW^+) (\overline{b}W^-) \rightarrow

78: (b f_1 \overline{f}_2)  (\overline{b} f_3 \overline{f}_4)$ are

79: presented in terms of the generic $\gamma\gamma \rightarrow

80: t \overline{t}$ production amplitudes.

81: }

82: 

83: \end{center}

84: \end{titlepage}

85: 

86: \renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\arabic{footnote}}

87: \setcounter{footnote}{0}

88: 

89: %

90: %

91: %       *** Main Part ***

92: %

93: %

94: \section{Introduction}

95: 

96: The scalar sector of

97: the Standard Model (SM) consists of one $SU(2)_{\rm w}^{}$ doublet.

98: After the electroweak symmetry breaking (EWSB),

99: a neutral CP-even Higgs boson remains as a physical state.

100: Although the SM is consistent with the current experimental

101: data, 

102: new physics will be indispensable

103: if we consider the hierarchy

104: between the electroweak scale and the Planck scale,

105: a failure of the gauge coupling unification etc.

106: as serious problems.

107: It is natural that new physics modify the mechanism

108: of the EWSB. Such modification may lead to appearance of

109: Higgs bosons with various CP properties.

110: In the case that an extra doublet extends

111: the scalar sector of the SM, extra two neutral and

112: two charged Higgs bosons should be observed.

113: If CP is a good symmetry of the scalar sector, 

114: one additional neutral boson is CP-even and the other is CP-odd.

115: Therefore, probing the CP property as well as the

116: masses, the decay widths and the couplings of all the Higgs bosons 

117: is  necessary for exploring the Higgs sector.

118: 

119: One of colliders which can play an important role in

120: studying the Higgs sector is a photon linear collider (PLC),

121: an option of $e^+ e^-$ linear colliders~\cite{JLC,TESLA,NLC}.

122: The energy of the colliding photons, which are

123: obtained by the backward Compton scattering of laser light

124: on high-energy electrons, reaches about $80$\% of 

125: the energy of the original electron beam~\cite{polarization}. 

126: Since neutral Higgs bosons are produced 

127: as $s$-channel resonances via loops of charged massive particles,

128: we can detect the Higgs bosons whose masses are less than

129: about 80\% of the collision energy of a parent $e^+ e^-$

130: collider. Thus, a PLC has a great advantage of 

131: detecting heavy neutral Higgs bosons 

132: whose masses exceed the reach of the LHC and an $e^+ e^-$ LC

133: especially for those of the minimal supersymmetric

134: SM (MSSM)~\cite{MM}.

135: For light Higgs bosons, it has been well known that

136: the $\gamma\gamma$ decay widths of the Higgs

137: bosons can be accurately measured~\cite{ggwidth}. 

138: The measurement is important because the contribution from

139: heavy charged particles which couple to the Higgs bosons

140: does not decouple from the vertex if their masses originate

141: from the EWSB.

142: As for CP nature of Higgs bosons,

143: CP-even and CP-odd Higgs bosons can be 

144: clearly distinguished by utilizing the linear polarization 

145: of colliding photons~\cite{Gunion}. This powerful

146: technique, however, is effective to

147: probe the CP nature of relatively light

148: Higgs bosons only, because the linear polarization transfer

149: of the Compton back-scattered laser light decreases 

150: significantly when the photon energy is more than

151: half the electron beam energy~\cite{polarization, DESYtalk}.

152: For the heavier Higgs bosons whose masses exceed the electron

153: beam energy, $t\overline{t}$ production

154: process with circularly polarized photons is useful

155: to study their CP properties~\cite{AKSW, ACHL, GRS}. 

156: 

157: In this paper, we revisit the study of the CP nature of neutral Higgs

158: bosons through the $t \overline{t}$ production process at a PLC.

159: Such study has been performed in \cite{AKSW}, \cite{ACHL} 

160: and \cite{GRS}.

161: It has been shown in Sec.~4.4 of \cite{AKSW} that;

162: if we observe

163: sizable interference between the Higgs-resonant and QED-continuum

164: amplitudes for the two helicity combinations of the

165: top pairs produced

166: by circularly polarized colliding photons,

167: we can determine the CP parity of the Higgs bosons.

168: In \cite{ACHL}, the observables which are useful for

169: complete determination of

170: the $\gamma\gamma$-Higgs and $t\overline{t}$-Higgs

171: couplings have been presented,

172: in the presence of CP non-conserving interactions.

173: The accuracy of the determination of those couplings

174: has been studied in \cite{GRS}, by using the combined asymmetries

175: involving the circular polarization of colliding photons

176: and the charge of charged leptons in top decays with

177: a cut off on the lepton angle.

178: 

179: In this paper, we extend the study of \cite{AKSW},

180: and study the interference patterns of the resonant and the

181: continuum amplitudes in more detail for the $\gamma\gamma \rightarrow

182: t \overline{t}$ process by using the circularly polarized colliding

183: photons. We find that not only the squares of the helicity amplitudes

184: but also the real and imaginary parts of the interference between

185: the two helicity amplitudes can be measured by studying the angular

186: correlations of $t$ and $\overline{t}$ decay products

187: They are useful for deriving the information

188: on the CP nature of Higgs bosons.

189: It will also be shown that

190: these interference effects allow us to observe the complex phase of 

191: the $\gamma\gamma$-Higgs vertices. 

192: 

193: This paper is organized as follows. In Sect.~2 helicity amplitudes 

194: for the process $\gamma\gamma \rightarrow t \overline{t}$ are

195: given. In Sect.~3 observables which are sensitive to the CP-parity

196: of the Higgs bosons as well as the complex phase of the

197: $\gamma\gamma$-Higgs vertex

198: are discussed. Numerical estimates of

199: the observables which are introduced in Sect.~3 are 

200: performed in Sect.~4.

201: We give conclusions in the last section.

202: Analytic expressions for the helicity amplitudes

203: for the sequential process $\gamma\gamma \rightarrow t

204: \overline{t} \rightarrow (bW^+)(\overline{b}W^-) \rightarrow

205: (b f_1 \overline{f}_2)(\overline{b} f_3 \overline{f}_4$) are

206: presented in appendix A.

207: 

208: \section{Helicity amplitudes for the process $\gamma \gamma 

209: \rightarrow t \overline{t}$}

210: 

211: When the $\gamma\gamma$ collision energy reaches around 

212: mass of a spinless boson $\phi$ ($\phi=H$ or $A$ where $H$ and 

213: $A$ are the CP-even and CP-odd Higgs bosons respectively.),

214: the process 

215: %

216: \begin{eqnarray}

217: \gamma (k_1, \lambda_1) + \gamma (k_2, \lambda_2) \rightarrow

218: t (p, \sigma) + \overline{t} (\overline{p}, \overline{\sigma})

219: \end{eqnarray}

220: %

221: receives leading contributions from the diagrams 

222: in which the spinless 

223: boson is exchanged in the $s$-channel 

224: and the top quark is exchanged in the $t$- and $u$-channels.

225: The four-momenta and the helicities

226: of the participating particles in the colliding $\gamma \gamma$

227: center-of-mass frame are given in parentheses.

228: We adopt the notation~\cite{HZ1986} where the photon (fermion)

229: helicities are denoted by the signs in units of $\hbar$ ($\hbar$/2)

230: \footnote{For fermion helicities we often use the notation

231: $L$ and $R$ instead of $-$ and $+$}.

232: The helicity amplitudes of the process can be expressed as

233: \begin{eqnarray}

234: \label{ampeq}

235: {\cal M}_{\lambda_1 \lambda_2}^{\sigma \overline{\sigma}} =

236: \left[ {\cal M}_\phi \right]

237: _{\lambda_1 \lambda_2}^{\sigma \overline{\sigma}} +

238: \left[ {\cal M}_t \right]

239: _{\lambda_1 \lambda_2}^{\sigma \overline{\sigma}} ,

240: \end{eqnarray}

241: where the first term ${\cal M}_\phi$ stands for the $s$-channel

242: $\phi$-exchange amplitudes and the latter term ${\cal M}_t$

243: stands for the $t$- and $u$-channel top-quark-exchange amplitudes.

244: The resonant helicity amplitudes are calculated by using

245: the lowest-dimensional effective

246: Lagrangian of the form

247: %

248: \begin{eqnarray}

249: {\cal L}_{\phi \gamma \gamma} &=& \frac{1}{m_\phi}

250: \left( b_\gamma^H A_{\mu\nu} A^{\mu\nu} +

251: b_{\gamma}^A \widetilde{A}_{\mu\nu} A^{\mu\nu} \right) \phi ,

252: \\

253: {\cal L}_{\phi t \overline{t}} &=&

254: \overline{t} \left( d_t^H + i d_t^A \gamma_5 \right) t \phi,

255: \end{eqnarray}

256: %

257: where $A_{\mu \nu}= \partial_\mu A_\nu - \partial_\nu A_\mu$

258: and $\widetilde{A}_{\mu \nu} = \frac{1}{2}

259: \epsilon_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma}

260: A^{\rho \sigma}$ (where $\epsilon_{0123}=1$) are the photon field

261: strength tensor and its dual tensor, respectively.

262: The resonant amplitudes are then expressed as products

263: of the $\gamma \gamma \phi$

264: vertex function $A_{\phi}^{\lambda_1 \lambda_2}$,

265: the Higgs propagator factor $B_{\phi}$ and the decay vertex

266: $C_{\phi}^{\sigma \overline{\sigma}}$,

267: %

268: \begin{eqnarray}

269: \label{phieq}

270: \left[ {\cal M}_\phi \right]

271: _{\lambda_1 \lambda_2}^{\sigma \overline{\sigma}}

272: = A_\phi^{\lambda_1 \lambda_2} B_\phi C_\phi^{\sigma \overline{\sigma}}

273: \end{eqnarray}

274: %

275: where

276: %

277: \begin{eqnarray}

278: A_\phi^{\lambda_1 \lambda_2}= 

279: \left( b_\gamma^H + i \lambda_1 b_\gamma^A \right)

280: \frac{\hat{s}}{m_\phi}~ \delta_{\lambda_1 \lambda_2},

281: \end{eqnarray}

282: %

283: %

284: \begin{eqnarray}

285: B_\phi = \frac{1}{m_\phi^2-\hat{s}-i m_\phi \Gamma_\phi},

286: \end{eqnarray}

287: %

288: %

289: \begin{eqnarray}

290: C_\phi^{\sigma \overline{\sigma}}=

291: \left( \beta ~\sigma d_t^H -i d_t^A \right) 

292: \sqrt{\hat{s}}~\delta_{\sigma \overline{\sigma}}.

293: \end{eqnarray}

294: %

295: In the CP-conserving limit, the $H$- and $A$-exchange 

296: amplitudes are \cite{AKSW}

297: %

298: \begin{eqnarray}

299: \left[ {\cal M}_H \right]

300: _{\lambda_1 \lambda_2}^{\sigma \overline{\sigma}}

301: &= & \sigma~\beta~b_\gamma^H d_t^H~

302: \frac{\hat{s}}{m_H^2-\hat{s}-im_H^{} \Gamma_H}~

303: \frac{\sqrt{\hat{s}}}{m_H^{ }}~

304: \delta_{\lambda_1, \lambda_2}

305: \delta_{\sigma, \overline{\sigma}} , \label{Heq}\\

306: \left[ {\cal M}_A \right]

307: _{\lambda_1 \lambda_2}^{\sigma \overline{\sigma}}

308: &= & \lambda_1~~b_\gamma^A ~d_t^A~

309: \frac{\hat{s}}{m_A^2-\hat{s}-im_A^{} \Gamma_A}~

310: \frac{\sqrt{\hat{s}}}{m_A^{ }}~

311: \delta_{\lambda_1, \lambda_2}

312: \delta_{\sigma, \overline{\sigma}} , \label{Aeq}

313: \end{eqnarray}

314: %

315: where 

316: $\beta$ is the velocity of the top quarks and

317: $\hat{s}$ is the total energy-squared in the rest frame of 

318: $\gamma \gamma$ collisions.

319: The masses and the total decay widths

320: of the Higgs bosons are denoted by $m_{\phi}$ and $\Gamma_{\phi}$.

321: 

322: In the following, we sometimes use the predictions of the MSSM

323: as examples. The effective couplings are expressed in the MSSM as

324: % 

325: \begin{eqnarray}

326: d_t^H&=&-\frac{gm_t}{2m_W}\frac{\sin\alpha}{\sin\beta},

327: \\ \nonumber

328: d_t^A&=&\frac{gm_t}{2m_W}\cot\beta,

329: \end{eqnarray}

330: %

331: for the $ttH$ and $ttA$ couplings, where $g$ is the SU(2) gauge

332: coupling, $\tan\beta=\langle v_u \rangle / \langle v_d \rangle$ 

333: is the ratio of the two Higgs 

334: vacuum expectation values, and $\alpha$ is the mixing angle between

335: the neutral real components of the two Higgs doublets and 

336: the two CP-even Higgs bosons.

337: The $\gamma \gamma H$ and $\gamma \gamma A$ couplings are

338: induced in the one loop level:

339: %

340: \begin{eqnarray}

341: b_\gamma^H(\hat{s})&=&\frac{\alpha g}{8\pi} \frac{m_H^{ }}{m_W}

342: \sum_i I_H^i \left( \frac{\hat{s}}{m_i^2} \right),

343: \\ \nonumber

344: b_\gamma^A(\hat{s})&=&- \frac{\alpha g}{8\pi} \frac{m_A^{ }}{m_W}

345: \sum_i I_A^i \left( \frac{\hat{s}}{m_i^2} \right).

346: \end{eqnarray}

347: %

348: The dimensionless loop functions $I_H^i$ and $I_A^i$ for all

349: the MSSM diagrams (labeled by the index $i$, where the masses of 

350: particles in the loops are expressed by $m_i$)

351: are found e.g. in \cite{HHG}. As long as the SUSY particles are

352: heavier than the top quark, the top quark contribution dominates

353: over all the other contributions. The effective couplings 

354: $b_\gamma^H$ and $b_\gamma^A$ are real when all the particles

355: in the loops are heavy, and become complex above the thresholds. 

356: 

357: The irreducible background to the resonant $\phi$-production

358: process is the non-resonant top-quark-exchange processes, whose

359: amplitudes are expressed in the tree level of QED as \cite{AKSW}

360: %

361: \begin{eqnarray}

362: \label{treeeq}

363: \left[ {\cal M}_t \right]

364: _{\lambda_1 \lambda_2}^{\sigma \overline{\sigma}}

365: &=& \frac{8 \pi \alpha Q_t^2}{1-\beta^2 \cos^2 \Theta} \times

366: \\ \nonumber

367: &~&

368: \huge\{ (\beta \sigma + \lambda_1) /\gamma

369: ~\delta_{\lambda_1, \lambda_2} \delta_{\sigma, \overline{\sigma}}

370: - \beta /\gamma ~\sigma \sin^2 \Theta~

371: \delta_{\lambda_1, -\lambda_2} \delta_{\sigma, \overline{\sigma}}

372: \\ \nonumber

373: &~& - \beta (\sigma \lambda_1 + \cos\Theta) \sin\Theta~

374: \delta_{\lambda_1, -\lambda_2} \delta_{\sigma, -\overline{\sigma}}

375: \huge\}.

376: \end{eqnarray}

377: %

378: Here $1/\gamma = \sqrt{1-\beta^2} = 2m_t/\sqrt{\hat{s}}$

379: and $\Theta$ is the polar angle of the top-quark momentum

380: in the colliding $\gamma \gamma$ c.o.m.~frame.

381: %

382: In Table 1, the amplitudes in units of the common factor

383: $8\pi\alpha Q_t^2/(1-\beta^2 \cos^2 \Theta)$

384: are summarized. In the table, the photon helicities

385: $\lambda_1\lambda_2$ are given in the first column, and

386: the $t \overline{t}$ helicities $\sigma \overline{\sigma}$ 

387: are denoted as $RR$, $LL$, $RL$, $LR$ for

388: $(\sigma\overline{\sigma})=(++),~(--),~(+-),~(-+)$, respectively,

389: in the first row.

390: It should be noted that the four amplitudes in the

391: left top column of Table~\ref{treehelamp}, those for 

392: $\lambda_1=\lambda_2$ and $\sigma=\overline{\sigma}$,

393: interfere with the resonant amplitudes of 

394: eq.~(\ref{phieq}).

395: Furthermore, at high energies ($\beta\rightarrow 1$, $\gamma\gg 1$)

396: all the $\sigma=\overline{\sigma}$ amplitudes are suppressed by 

397: $1/\gamma$, among which the amplitudes for $\sigma=\overline{\sigma}=

398: -\lambda=-\overline{\lambda}$ are suppressed by $1/\gamma^3$.

399: These properties as well as the relative signs of 

400: the top-quark-exchange

401: amplitudes will be found useful in probing the CP nature of the

402: Higgs bosons in the following sections.  

403: %

404: \begin{table}[h]

405: \begin{center}

406: \caption[Tree helicity amplitudes]{\small

407:  The tree-level helicity amplitudes of $\gamma\gamma$ $\rightarrow

408: t\overline{t}$,

409: $\left[{\cal M}_t \right]_{\lambda_1 \lambda_2}

410: ^{\sigma \overline{\sigma}}$, in eq.~(\ref{treeeq}).

411:  The common factor $8 \pi \alpha Q_t^2/(1-\beta^2 \cos^2\Theta)$ is

412: omitted in the table. The two photon helicities $\lambda_1 \lambda_2$

413: are given in the first column, and

414: the $t \overline{t}$ helicities $\sigma \overline{\sigma}$ 

415: are denoted as $RR$, $LL$, $RL$, $LR$ for

416: $(\sigma\overline{\sigma})=(++),~(--),~(+-),~(-+)$, respectively,

417: in the first row.

418: \label{treehelamp} }

419: \vspace{7mm}

420: \begin{tabular}{|c||c|c|c|c|}

421: \hline

422:  & $RR$ & $LL$ & $RL$ & $LR$ \\

423: \hline \hline

424: $++$ & $(1+\beta)/\gamma$ & $(1-\beta)/\gamma$ & $0$ & $0$ \\

425: \hline

426: $--$ & $-(1-\beta)/\gamma$ & $-(1+\beta)/\gamma$ & $0$ & $0$ \\

427: \hline

428: $+-$ & $-\beta/\gamma~\sin^2\Theta$ 

429: & $\beta/\gamma~\sin^2\Theta $ &

430: $ -\beta\sin\Theta(1+\cos\Theta) $ &

431: $ \beta\sin\Theta(1-\cos\Theta) $ \\

432: \hline

433: $-+$ & $-\beta/\gamma~\sin^2\Theta$ 

434: & $\beta/\gamma~\sin^2\Theta $ &

435: $ \beta\sin\Theta(1-\cos\Theta) $ &

436: $ -\beta\sin\Theta(1+\cos\Theta) $ \\

437: \hline

438: \end{tabular}

439: \label{tree}

440: \end{center}

441: \end{table}

442: %

443: 

444: \section{Determining the CP parity of the Higgs bosons}

445: 

446: \subsection{Overview}

447: 

448: The helicity dependence of the amplitudes discussed in the 

449: previous section is summarized in Table~\ref{helamp}.

450: We note here that the individual ($H$-exchange, $A$-exchange, and

451: $t$-exchange) amplitudes for the helicities 

452: $\lambda=\overline{\lambda}=-$ and $\lambda=\overline{\lambda}=

453: -\sigma=-\overline{\sigma}$ are obtained from 

454: the $\lambda=\overline{\lambda}=\sigma=\overline{\sigma}=+$

455: amplitudes $\left[ {\cal M}_{H,A,t} \right]^{++}_{++}$

456: by multipling the appropriate sign-factor representing the

457: CP transformation property and the kinematical factor

458: for the top-quark-exchange amplitudes. Here

459: $\left[ {\cal M}_{H,A,t}\right]^{++}_{++}$ are denoted by

460: ${\cal M}_{H,A,t}$ for simplicity.

461: %

462: \begin{table}[h]

463: \caption{The helicity dependence of the amplitudes of

464: $\gamma(\lambda) \gamma(\lambda) \rightarrow 

465: t(\sigma) \bar{t}(\sigma)$, 

466: $[{\cal M}]_{\lambda \lambda}^{\sigma \sigma}$.

467: We denote $[{\cal M}]_{++}^{RR}$ as ${\cal M}$ for

468: ${\cal M}_t$, ${\cal M}_H$ and ${\cal M}_A$, which denote the

469: top-, $H$- and $A$-exchange amplitudes, respectively.

470: The two photon helicities $\lambda \lambda$

471: are given in the first column, and

472: the $t \overline{t}$ helicities $\sigma \sigma$ 

473: are denoted as $RR$, $LL$ for

474: $(\sigma\overline{\sigma})=(++),~(--)$, respectively,

475: in the first row.

476: \label{helamp}}

477: \vspace{0.4cm}

478: \begin{center}

479: \begin{tabular}{|c||c|c|}

480: \hline

481:  & RR & LL \\

482: \hline \hline

483:  $++$ &

484: \begin{minipage}{1.0in}

485: \begin{center}

486: $~~~~~~{\cal M}_t $\\

487: $~~~~~~{\cal M}_H $\\

488: $~~~~~~{\cal M}_A $

489: \end{center}

490: \end{minipage}

491: &

492: \begin{minipage}{1.0in}

493: \begin{center}

494: $\frac{1-\beta}{1+\beta} {\cal M}_t $\\

495: $~-{\cal M}_H $\\

496: $~~~~{\cal M}_A$

497: \end{center}

498: \end{minipage}

499: \\

500: \hline

501: $--$&

502: \begin{minipage}{1.0in}

503: \begin{center}

504: $-\frac{1-\beta}{1+\beta}{\cal M}_t$

505: $~~~~~~~{\cal M}_H $\\

506: $~~~-{\cal M}_A$

507: \end{center}

508: \end{minipage}

509: &

510: \begin{minipage}{1.0in}

511: \begin{center}

512: $~-{\cal M}_t $\\

513: $~-{\cal M}_H $\\

514: $~-{\cal M}_A$

515: \end{center}

516: \end{minipage}

517: \\

518: \hline

519: \end{tabular}

520: \end{center}

521: \end{table}

522: %

523: When the polarization of the colliding beams is fixed,

524: e.g. as $\lambda=\overline{\lambda}=+$,

525: the sign of the $H$-production amplitude

526: changes when the helicities of final top pairs are flipped.

527: On the other hand,

528: the sign of the $A$-production amplitude

529: does not depend on the helicities of final top pairs.

530: The sign of the top-quark-exchange amplitudes does not depend on

531: the $t\overline{t}$ helicities, just like the $A$-exchange

532: amplitudes, but the amplitude is reduced  by a factor of

533: $(1-\beta)/(1+\beta)=1/[\gamma^2(1+\beta)^2]$ when the 

534: top-quark-helicity is opposite to the photon helicity,

535: $\lambda_1=\lambda_2=-\sigma=-\overline{\sigma}$.

536: Therefore, the top-quark-helicity dependence of the interference pattern

537: between the resonant amplitudes and the top-quark-exchange amplitudes

538: can be used to determine the CP parity of the Higgs resonance

539: \cite{AKSW}. 

540: It should further be noted that within the given helicity amplitude

541: the interference pattern below and above the resonance is also

542: a good probe the CP parity. In our phase connection,

543: ${\cal M}_t$ is positive

544: at all $\hat{s}$, whereas the $\phi$-exchange amplitude

545: ${\cal M}_\phi$ is

546: positive at low $\hat{s}$ where the absorptive part of the

547: $\phi\gamma\gamma$ vertex can be neglected for the dominant

548: top-quark loop contribution.

549: We should hence expect constructive interference

550: below the resonance when $\lambda_1=\lambda_2

551: =\sigma=\overline{\sigma}$. The above statements are valid for

552: both $H$ and $A$, or their arbitrary mixture when CP is violated.

553: The interference pattern for the $\lambda_1=\lambda_2

554: =-\sigma=-\overline{\sigma}$ amplitude

555: is expected to reverse for $H$, whereas it remains the same for

556: $A$. Both signs are possible when the resonance $\phi$ does not 

557: have a definite CP parity. 

558: 

559: Based on the above observation, we study carefully the 

560: interference patterns between the helicity amplitudes, 

561: that receive contribution from

562: the $s$-channel spin-0 resonance production.

563: In general, four types of observables can be studied in the

564: process $\gamma\gamma \rightarrow t\overline{t}$ where the

565: initial photon polarization can be controlled by 

566: the backward Compton scattering 

567: of the laser light and the $t\overline{t}$

568: polarization are measured through the angular distributions of

569: the correlated cascade decays, $t\rightarrow bW^+ \rightarrow 

570: b f_1 \overline{f}_2$ and $\overline{t} \rightarrow \overline{b}W^-

571: \rightarrow \overline{b}f_3 \overline{f}_4$.

572: All the observables which are sensitive to the spin-0

573: resonance contributions are listed below;

574: %

575: \begin{eqnarray}

576: &\bullet&~~|{\cal M}_{\lambda \lambda}^{RR}|^2,~~

577: |{\cal M}_{\lambda \lambda}^{LL}|^2~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

578: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ {\rm for}~~\lambda=+,-; \label{A}

579: \\ 

580: &\bullet&~~\Re,\Im[{\cal M}_{\lambda \lambda}^{RR}

581: \left({\cal M}_{\lambda \lambda}^{LL}\right)^*]~~~~~~~~~~~

582: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ {\rm for}~~\lambda=+,-; \label{B}~~

583: \\ 

584: &\bullet&~~\Re,\Im[{\cal M}_{++}^{\sigma \sigma}

585: \left({\cal M}_{--}^{\sigma \sigma}\right)^*]~~~~~~~~~~~

586: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ {\rm for}~~\sigma=R,L; \label{C}

587: \\

588: &\bullet&~~\Re,\Im[{\cal M}_{++}^{\sigma \sigma}

589: \left({\cal M}_{--}^{-\sigma, -\sigma}\right)^*]~~~~~~~~~~~

590: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ {\rm for}~~\sigma=R,L. \label{D}

591: \end{eqnarray}

592: % 

593: The observables (\ref{A}) have been studied in \cite{AKSW} and

594: they are found to be useful in distinguishing $A$ from $H$.

595: The observables (\ref{C}) have been studied in \cite{ACHL} and

596: are found to be effective in probing the CP nature of the neutral

597: Higgs sector, including the case of CP-violation. Unfortunately,

598: the observables (\ref{C}) require

599: linear polarization of the colliding

600: photon beams, whose magnitude is small for $z \equiv 

601: \sqrt{\hat{s}}/\sqrt{s} \gsim 0.5$ where $\sqrt{s}$ is the c.o.m.~energy

602: of a parent $e^- e^-$ collider~\cite{polarization, DESYtalk}.

603: In this article,

604: we concentrate on the observables (\ref{A}) and (\ref{B}), 

605: which can take

606: advantage of the high $\gamma\gamma$ luminosity at large

607: $z$ with high level of 

608: monochromaticity, that are obtained from the backward

609: Compton scattering

610: of circularly polarized laser lights on longitudinally polarized

611: electron beams. The CP-violating cases will be studied elsewhere

612: \cite{AHfuture}.

613: To our knowledge, the observables of the type (\ref{D}),

614: whose observation requires both the linearly polarized photons

615: and the angular correlations of $t$ and $\overline{t}$ decays,

616: have not been studied. 

617: 

618: \subsection{Observables}

619: 

620: Because the top quark polarizations are 

621: measured through its decay angular distribution~\cite{HMW, lepton}, 

622: we study the cascade process 

623: %

624: \begin{eqnarray}

625: \gamma(k_1, \lambda_1) + \gamma(k_2, \lambda_2) &\rightarrow&

626: t(p,\sigma) + \overline{t}(\overline{p},\overline{\sigma})

627: \label{a} \\

628: &\rightarrow& b(p_b,L)~W^+(p_W,\Lambda)+\overline{b}(\overline{p}_b,R)

629: ~W^-(\overline{p}_W,\overline{\Lambda})

630: \label{b} \\

631: &\rightarrow& b(p_b,L)~f_1(p_1,L)~\overline{f}_2(p_2,R)

632: +\overline{b}(\overline{p}_b,R)~f_3(p_3,L)~\overline{f}_4(p_4,R)

633: \nonumber\\

634: \label{c}

635: \end{eqnarray}

636: %

637: where we assume the SM amplitudes for the decays, and neglect

638: masses of all final fermions including $b$ and $\overline{b}$.

639: The helicity amplitudes for the full process (\ref{c}),

640: ${\bf M}_{\lambda_1 \lambda_2}$, are

641: given in appendix A. The differential cross section for 

642: arbitrary initial photon helicities

643: %

644: \begin{eqnarray}

645: \label{comdiffcross}

646: \frac{d\hat{\sigma}_{\lambda_1 \lambda_2}}{d\cos\Theta~d\cos\theta

647: ~d\phi~d\cos\overline{\theta}~d\overline{\phi}~d\cos\theta^*

648: ~d\phi^*~d\cos\overline{\theta}^*~d\overline{\phi}^*}

649: \\ \nonumber

650: = \frac{3 \beta}{32\pi \hat{s}}

651: \left| {\bf M}_{\lambda_1 \lambda_2}

652: (\Theta; \theta,\phi; \overline{\theta},\overline{\phi} ;

653: \theta^*,\phi^*; \overline{\theta}^*,\overline{\phi}^*) \right|^2

654: \times B_{12} B_{34}

655: \end{eqnarray}

656: %

657: is readily obtained in the zero-width limit of the top quarks and

658: the $W$ bosons. Here $B_{12}$ is the branching fraction 

659: of $W^+ \rightarrow f_1 \overline{f}_2$ decays, 

660: and $B_{34}$ is that of $W^- \rightarrow f_3 \overline{f}_4$,

661: $\hat{s}=(k_1+k_2)^2$ is the total-energy

662: squared in the colliding $\gamma\gamma$ c.o.m.~system,

663: $\Theta$ is the polar angle of the top-quark momentum

664: in this frame measured from the direction of the photon beam with

665: the momentum $k_1$, $\theta$ and $\phi$ ($\overline{\theta}$ and 

666: $\overline{\phi}$) are the polar and azimuthal angles, respectively,

667: of the $W^+$ ($W^-$) momentum in the $t$ ($\overline{t}$) rest-frame.

668: The polar angles ($\theta$ and $\overline{\theta}$) are

669: measured from the top-quark momentum direction 

670: in the $\gamma\gamma$ c.o.m.~frame and the azimuthal angles 

671: ($\phi$ and $\overline{\phi}$) are measured from the $\gamma\gamma

672: \rightarrow t\overline{t}$ scattering plane.

673: Here we choose the common polar axis and the $\phi=\overline{\phi}=0$

674: plane to describe the $t \rightarrow bW^+$ and $\overline{t} \rightarrow

675: \overline{b}W^-$ decays, so that our coordinate frame for

676: $\overline{t} \rightarrow \overline{b}W^-$ decays is obtained from the

677: frame used for $t \rightarrow bW^+$ decays by a single boost along

678: the top-quark momentum direction.

679: Finally, $\theta^*$ and $\phi^*$ ($\overline{\theta}^*$ and 

680: $\overline{\phi}^*$) are the polar and azimuthal angles, respectively,

681: of the $\overline{f_2}$ ($f_3$) momentum in the $W^+$ ($W^-$) rest-frame.

682: The polar angle $\theta^*$ ($\overline{\theta}^*$) is

683: measured from the $W^+$ ($W^-$) momentum direction in the

684: $t$ ($\overline{t}$) restframe, and the azimuthal angle 

685: $\phi^*$ ($\overline{\phi}^*$) is measured from the

686: $W^+b$ ($W^- \overline{b}$)

687: decay plane in the $\gamma\gamma$ collision c.o.m.~frame.

688: The origins of the azimuthal angles are chosen such that the y-axis

689: for $\phi=\overline{\phi}=\frac{\pi}{2}$ is along 

690: the $\vec{k_1} \times \vec{p}$ direction in the $\gamma\gamma$

691: c.o.m.~frame, that for $\phi^*=\frac{\pi}{2}$

692: ($\overline{\phi}^*=\frac{\pi}{2}$) is along the

693: $\vec{p} \times \vec{p}_{W^+}$ 

694: ($\vec{\overline{p}} \times \vec{p}_{W^-}$)

695: direction also in the $\gamma\gamma$ c.o.m.~frame. 

696: 

697: If we assume that the top-quark decays are essentially 

698: described by the SM amplitudes as above, it is straightforward

699: to extract all the four observables (\ref{A}) and (\ref{B}),

700: for a given initial photon polarization ($\lambda_1=\lambda_2=+$ or $-$),

701: by studying the $t$ and $\overline{t}$ decay angular distributions.

702: Optimal accuracy of such measurements can readily be estimated

703: by using the exclusive distributions \cite{NGHIKK} for a given

704: range of the scattering angle $\Theta$. Such measurements should be 

705: especially effective near the $t\overline{t}$ threshold where

706: the $\Theta$-dependence of the background amplitude is moderate.

707: In this article, we present a primitive version of such analysis

708: where we assume that the exclusive distributions of the 

709: $\gamma\gamma \rightarrow t\overline{t} \rightarrow

710: bW^+ \overline{b}W^-$

711: process (\ref{b}) are measured for transverse and longitudinally

712: polarized $W$'s ($W_T$ and $W_L$, respectively) separately.

713: We assume that the $W^+$ ($W^-$) helicity is measured in the

714: $t$ ($\overline{t}$) rest frame. Such distributions are in

715: principle  measurable when the $W$-pair decays hadronically or

716: semi-leptonically. When both $W$'s decay leptonically,

717: presence of two energetic neutrinos in the final state makes it

718: impossible to reconstruct the $W$ momenta uniquely.

719: It should further be noted that $W_T$ and $W_L$ can be distinguished

720: experimentally even when the $W$ decays hadronically,

721: though less efficiently than the leptonic-decay case.

722: 

723: The differential cross sections for polarized $W$'s are now 

724: expressed compactly as follows:

725: %

726: \begin{eqnarray}

727: \frac{d \hat{\sigma}_{\lambda_1 \lambda_2}

728: ^{\Lambda \overline{\Lambda}}}{d\cos\Theta~d\cos\theta~d\phi~

729: d\cos\overline{\theta}~d\overline{\phi}} =

730: \frac{3 \beta}{32 \pi \hat{s}} \left|

731: {\bf M}_{\lambda_1 \lambda_2}^{\Lambda \overline{\Lambda}}

732: (\Theta; \theta,\phi,\overline{\theta},\overline{\phi})

733: \right|^2 .

734: \end{eqnarray}

735: %

736: Explicit forms of the helicity amplitude

737: ${\bf M}_{\lambda_1 \lambda_2}^{\Lambda

738: \overline{\Lambda}}$ appear in appendix~B.

739: Here, we consider the case of $\lambda_1=\lambda_2=\lambda$,

740: because high luminosity and high degree of polarization for

741: energetic two photon pairs can be achieved at a PLC.

742: The four relevant squared matrix elements for 

743: $\lambda_1=\lambda_2=\lambda$ are

744: %

745: \begin{eqnarray}

746: \label{ggbwbwLL}

747: |{\bf M}_{\lambda \lambda}^{LL}|^2 = \frac{B_L^2}{16\pi^2}

748: &\{&

749: |{\cal M}_{\lambda \lambda}^{RR}|^2 (1+\cos\theta)

750: (1+\cos\overline{\theta})

751: \\ \nonumber

752: &+&

753: |{\cal M}_{\lambda \lambda}^{LL}|^2 (1-\cos\theta)

754: (1-\cos\overline{\theta})

755: \\ \nonumber

756: &+&2\Re \left[ {\cal M}_{\lambda \lambda}^{RR} \cdot 

757: \left( {\cal M}_{\lambda \lambda}^{LL} \right)^* \right]

758: \sin\theta \sin\overline{\theta} \cos(\phi-\overline{\phi})

759: \\ \nonumber

760: &-&2\Im \left[ {\cal M}_{\lambda \lambda}^{RR} \cdot 

761: \left( {\cal M}_{\lambda \lambda}^{LL} \right)^* \right]

762: \sin\theta \sin\overline{\theta} \sin(\phi-\overline{\phi})\},

763: \\

764: %%%

765: \label{ggbwbwLT}

766: |{\bf M}_{\lambda \lambda}^{LT}|^2 = \frac{B_L B_T}{16\pi^2} 

767: &\{&

768: |{\cal M}_{\lambda \lambda}^{RR}|^2 (1+\cos\theta)

769: (1-\cos\overline{\theta})

770: \\ \nonumber

771: &+&

772: |{\cal M}_{\lambda \lambda}^{LL}|^2 (1-\cos\theta)

773: (1+\cos\overline{\theta})

774: \\ \nonumber

775: &-&2\Re \left[ {\cal M}_{\lambda \lambda}^{RR} \cdot 

776: \left( {\cal M}_{\lambda \lambda}^{LL} \right)^* \right]

777: \sin\theta \sin\overline{\theta} \cos(\phi-\overline{\phi})

778: \\ \nonumber

779: &+&2\Im \left[ {\cal M}_{\lambda \lambda}^{RR} \cdot 

780: \left( {\cal M}_{\lambda \lambda}^{LL} \right)^* \right]

781: \sin\theta \sin\overline{\theta} \sin(\phi-\overline{\phi})\},

782: \\

783: %%%

784: \label{ggbwbwTL}

785: |{\bf M}_{\lambda \lambda}^{TL}|^2 = \frac{B_L B_T}{16\pi^2} 

786: &\{&

787: |{\cal M}_{\lambda \lambda}^{RR}|^2 (1-\cos\theta)

788: (1+\cos\overline{\theta})

789: \\ \nonumber

790: &+&

791: |{\cal M}_{\lambda \lambda}^{LL}|^2 (1+\cos\theta)

792: (1-\cos\overline{\theta})

793: \\ \nonumber

794: &-&2\Re \left[ {\cal M}_{\lambda \lambda}^{RR} \cdot 

795: \left( {\cal M}_{\lambda \lambda}^{LL} \right)^* \right]

796: \sin\theta \sin\overline{\theta} \cos(\phi-\overline{\phi})

797: \\ \nonumber

798: &+&2\Im \left[ {\cal M}_{\lambda \lambda}^{RR} \cdot 

799: \left( {\cal M}_{\lambda \lambda}^{LL} \right)^* \right]

800: \sin\theta \sin\overline{\theta} \sin(\phi-\overline{\phi})\},

801: \\

802: %%%

803: \label{ggbwbwTT}

804: |{\bf M}_{\lambda \lambda}^{TT}|^2 = \frac{B_T^2}{16\pi^2}

805: &\{&

806: |{\cal M}_{\lambda \lambda}^{RR}|^2 (1-\cos\theta)

807: (1-\cos\overline{\theta})

808: \\ \nonumber

809: &+&

810: |{\cal M}_{\lambda \lambda}^{LL}|^2 (1+\cos\theta)

811: (1+\cos\overline{\theta})

812: \\ \nonumber

813: &+&2\Re \left[ {\cal M}_{\lambda \lambda}^{RR} \cdot 

814: \left( {\cal M}_{\lambda \lambda}^{LL} \right)^* \right]

815: \sin\theta \sin\overline{\theta} \cos(\phi-\overline{\phi})

816: \\ \nonumber

817: &-&2\Im \left[ {\cal M}_{\lambda \lambda}^{RR} \cdot 

818: \left( {\cal M}_{\lambda \lambda}^{LL} \right)^* \right]

819: \sin\theta \sin\overline{\theta} \sin(\phi-\overline{\phi})\},

820: \end{eqnarray}

821: %

822: where $B_L=m_t^2/(m_t^2+2m_W^2)$ and $B_T=2m_W^2/(m_t^2+2m_W^2)$

823: are the branching ratios of the decays $t \rightarrow b W_L^+$

824: ($\overline{t} \rightarrow \overline{b} W_L^-$) and 

825: $t \rightarrow b W_T^+$

826: ($\overline{t} \rightarrow \overline{b} W_T^-$), respectively.

827: It is clear that $|{\cal M}_{\lambda \lambda}^{RR}|^2$ and

828: $|{\cal M}_{\lambda \lambda}^{LL}|^2$ are obtained by

829: integrating out the $\phi-\overline{\phi}$ azimuthal angle

830: distributions, and they can be distinguished by using the

831: $W^+$ and $W^-$ polar angle ($\theta$ and $\overline{\theta}$)

832: distributions. Since it is necessary to distinguish $\theta$

833: from $\overline{\theta}$ ($W^+$ from $W^-$), semi-leptonic

834: decay modes should be used for the discrimination.

835: $\Re[{\cal M}_{\lambda_1 \lambda_2}^{RR} \cdot 

836: \left( {\cal M}_{\lambda_1 \lambda_2}^{LL} \right)^*]$ and $\Im

837: [{\cal M}_{\lambda_1 \lambda_2}^{RR} \cdot 

838: \left( {\cal M}_{\lambda_1 \lambda_2}^{LL} \right)^*]$ are obtained simply by

839: projecting out the $\cos(\phi-\overline{\phi})$ and

840: $\sin(\phi-\overline{\phi})$ distributions. Both $\phi$ and

841: $\overline{\phi}$ are observable when the $W^+ W^-$ pair decays

842: semi-leptonically. Because the above four distributions can be

843: measured independently, consistency among the four measurements 

844: can be checked.

845: 

846: We note here that the cross section for $\lambda_1=\lambda_2=\lambda$

847: without observing the $W$ polarization

848: can be written compactly as follows:

849: %

850: \begin{eqnarray}

851: \label{ggbwbw}

852: &&\frac{d \hat{\sigma}_{\lambda \lambda}}

853: {

854: d\cos\Theta~d\cos\theta~d\cos\overline{\theta}~d\phi~d\overline{\phi}}

855: = \frac{3 \beta}{32 \pi \hat{s}} \times \frac{1}{16\pi^2} \times

856: \\ \nonumber

857: &&~~~\{ |{\cal M}_{\lambda \lambda}^{RR}|^2 

858: \left[(B_L^2+B_T^2)(1+\cos\theta \cos\overline{\theta})

859:      +2 B_L B_T(1-\cos\theta \cos\overline{\theta})

860:      +(B_L^2-B_T^2)(\cos\theta + \cos\overline{\theta}) \right]

861: \\ \nonumber

862: &&~~~+ |{\cal M}_{\lambda \lambda}^{LL}|^2 

863: \left[(B_L^2+B_T^2)(1+\cos\theta \cos\overline{\theta})

864:      +2 B_L B_T(1-\cos\theta \cos\overline{\theta})

865:      -(B_L^2-B_T^2)(\cos\theta + \cos\overline{\theta}) \right]

866: \\ \nonumber

867: &&~~~+ 2 \Re \left[{\cal M}_{\lambda \lambda}^{RR} 

868:  ({\cal M}_{\lambda \lambda}^{LL})^*\right]

869: \left[(B_L-B_T)^2 

870: \sin\theta \sin\overline{\theta} \cos(\phi-\overline{\phi})

871: \right]

872: \\ \nonumber

873: &&~~~+ 2 \Im \left[{\cal M}_{\lambda \lambda}^{RR} 

874: ({\cal M}_{\lambda \lambda}^{LL})^*\right]

875: \left[-(B_L-B_T)^2 

876: \sin\theta \sin\overline{\theta} \sin(\phi-\overline{\phi})

877: \right] \}.

878: \end{eqnarray}

879: %

880: Because $B_L$ and $B_T$ have different numerical values,

881: $B_L \simeq 0.7$ and $B_T \simeq 0.3$,

882: we can obtain the

883: four observables $|{\cal M}_{\lambda \lambda}^{RR}|^2$,

884: $|{\cal M}_{\lambda \lambda}^{LL}|^2$, 

885: $\Re[{\cal M}_{\lambda \lambda}^{RR}

886: ({\cal M}_{\lambda \lambda}^{LL})^*]$ and

887: $\Im[{\cal M}_{\lambda \lambda}^{RR}

888: ({\cal M}_{\lambda \lambda}^{LL})^*]$

889: even without observing the $W$ polarization.

890: In the following discussions, we adopt the simple expression

891: eq.~(\ref{ggbwbw}) in order to avoid repeating similar equations

892: four times. It should be understood that the measurements can

893: be improved significantly by using the $W$ polarization information,

894: as shown in eqs. (\ref{ggbwbwLL}) to (\ref{ggbwbwTT}).

895: 

896: \section{Numerical Estimates}

897: \subsection{Convoluted cross sections with energy distribution of 

898: photon beams}

899: 

900: The Compton back-scattered photons have broad energy distribution

901: with the maximal value $E_\gamma^{max}=\frac{x}{x+1}E_e$

902: with $x \equiv 4E_e \omega_L/m_e^2$, in the zero angle limit

903: of the Compton scattering. $E_e$ and $\omega_L$ are the electron

904: and laser photon energy. The circularly polarized laser photons

905: and longitudinally polarized electrons help the broad distribution

906: to peak near the high-energy end point

907: where the colliding photons are highly polarized.

908: 

909: Fig.~\ref{luminosity} shows the $\gamma\gamma$ 

910: collision energy distribution 

911: which is calculated by the tree-level formula of the backward Compton 

912: scattering~\cite{polarization} for $x=4.8$

913: assuming complete polarization for laser photons 

914: ($P_l=-1.0$) and 90\% polarization for electrons ($P_e=0.9$).

915: The distributions are shown for each combination

916: of $\gamma\gamma$ helicities.

917: The horizontal axis indicates the 

918: $\gamma\gamma$ collision energy ($\sqrt{\hat{s}}$) normalized by

919: the $ee$ c.o.m.~energy ($\sqrt{s}$), 

920: that is, $z=\sqrt{\hat{s}}/\sqrt{s}$.

921: The large $z$ region where the energy distribution is peaked

922: and dominated by the $++$ combination ($\lambda_1=\lambda_2=+$)

923: is most useful for the study

924: of $J_z=0$ mode in the $\gamma\gamma$ collision.

925: %

926: \begin{figure}[h]

927: \begin{center}

928: \epsfxsize=15cm

929: \epsfysize=10cm

930: \epsffile{lumi.ps}

931: \caption{The $\gamma \gamma$ liminosity functions 

932: normalized by ${\cal L}_{0.8}$,

933: the luminosity integrated over the region $z \geq 0.8z_m$

934: where $z=\sqrt{s}_{\gamma\gamma}/\sqrt{s}_{ee}$ and

935: $z_m=x/(x+1)$ is the maximum energy fraction.

936: The distributions of different $\gamma\gamma$ helicity

937: combinations, (++), ($--$), ($+-$) and ($-+$), are

938: shown separately for $P_l=-1.0$, $P_e=0.9$ and $x=4.8$.

939: }\label{luminosity}

940: \end{center}

941: \end{figure}

942: %

943: It is expected that the $\gamma\gamma$ luminosity in the region

944: $z \geq 0.8z_m=0.8\frac{x}{x+1}$ will account for about 10\% of

945: the geometric luminosity of electron-electron collisions,

946:  $L_{ee}^{geom}$ \cite{polarization}, 

947: %

948: \begin{eqnarray}

949: {\cal L}_{0.8} \equiv \sum_{\lambda_1,~\lambda_2}

950: \int_{0.8z_m}^{z_m} dz \frac{d{\cal L}^{\lambda_1 \lambda_2}}{dz}

951: \approx 0.1 {\cal L}_{ee}^{geom}.

952: \end{eqnarray}

953: %

954: In the lower energy region, $z \lsim 0.8 z_m$, both the spectrum

955: and the polarization receive significant non-linear corrections

956: so that the Compton scattering becomes a poor approximation.

957: We therefore normalized the $\gamma\gamma$ luminosity distributions

958: by ${\cal L}_{0.8}$ in Fig.~\ref{luminosity}.

959: All our convoluted cross sections are calculated for the 

960: $\gamma\gamma$ luminosity distributions normalized by 

961: ${\cal L}_{0.8}$. The expected number of events is hence

962: obtained by multiplying the convoluted cross sections by

963: ${\cal L}_{0.8} \approx 0.1{\cal L}_{ee}^{geom}$. Though

964: our luminosity functions based on Compton scattering are

965: not reliable at $z \lsim 0.8 z_m$ or $z \lsim 0.66$ for 

966: $x=4.8$, in this report we consider $t \overline{t}$ production

967: at a $\sqrt{s}_{ee}=500$ GeV collider, and hence our study is limited

968: to the region $z \geq 2m_t /\sqrt{s} \approx 0.7$.

969: 

970: Because of the above broad $\gamma\gamma$ energy distributions,

971: we cannot observe the $\gamma\gamma \rightarrow t\overline{t}$

972: production cross section at a given $\gamma\gamma$ energy,

973: $\sqrt{s}_{\gamma\gamma} \equiv \sqrt{\hat{s}}$. Instead we should

974: use the invariant mass of the final $t\overline{t}$ pair system,

975: $m_{t\overline{t}}$, as a measure of the colliding $\gamma\gamma$

976: energy. Although $m_{t\overline{t}}$ can in principle measured

977: event by event when a produced $t\overline{t}$ pair decays

978: hadronically or semi-leptonically, we should expect uncertainties

979: due to finite resolutions and non-Hermiticity of a detector.

980: We introduce a smearing function 

981: %

982: \begin{eqnarray}

983: G(\sqrt{\hat{s}}-m_{t\overline{t}},\Delta)

984: = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi} \Delta} 

985: \exp\left[ -\frac{1}{2} \left( \frac{\sqrt{\hat{s}}-m_{t\overline{t}}}

986: {\Delta}\right)^2 \right],

987: \end{eqnarray}

988: %

989: between the true

990: $m_{t\overline{t}}=\sqrt{\hat{s}}$ and the $m_{t\overline{t}}$.

991: The observable cross sections can then be approximated as  

992: %

993: \begin{eqnarray}

994: \frac{d\sigma}{d m_{t\overline{t}}}

995: \equiv \int_{0}^{z_m \sqrt{s}} d \sqrt{\hat{s}}

996: \sum_{\lambda_1,~\lambda_2} \frac{1}{{\cal L}_{0.8}}

997: \frac{d {\cal L}^{\lambda_1 \lambda_2}}{d\sqrt{\hat{s}}}

998: \hat{\sigma}_{\lambda_1 \lambda_2}(\sqrt{\hat{s}})

999: ~G(\sqrt{\hat{s}}-m_{t\overline{t}},\Delta).

1000: \label{obscross}

1001: \end{eqnarray}

1002: %

1003: When we set $\Delta=0$ GeV, the $m_{t\overline{t}}$ distributions

1004: reproduce the $\sqrt{s}_{\gamma\gamma}$ distributions.

1005: 

1006: In eq.~(\ref{obscross}),

1007: the $\gamma\gamma$ luminosity integrated over $z \geq 0.8z_m$ 

1008: is denoted by

1009: ${\cal L}_{0.8}$ and the luminosity distribution for each

1010: $\gamma\gamma$ helicity combination is expressed by 

1011: $d{\cal L}^{\lambda_1 \lambda_2}/d \sqrt{\hat{s}}$.

1012: Thus, the expected number of events with 

1013: $m_{min}\leq m_{t\overline{t}}\leq m_{max}$

1014: is estimated by the formula;

1015: %

1016: \begin{eqnarray}

1017: N(m_{min}\leq m_{t\overline{t}} \leq m_{max}) 

1018: = 0.1 L_{ee}^{geom} \times

1019: \int_{m_{min}}^{m_{max}} dm_{t\overline{t}} 

1020: \frac{d\sigma}{dm_{t\overline{t}}}.

1021: \end{eqnarray}

1022: %

1023: It is notable that

1024: the geometric $ee$ luminosity $L_{ee}^{geom}$

1025: can be larger than the nominal $e^+ e^-$

1026: luminosity $L_{ee}$. According to the TESLA design~\cite{TESLA},

1027: %

1028: \begin{eqnarray}

1029: L_{ee}=3\times10^{34} {\rm cm}^{-2}{\rm s}^{-1},~~~

1030: L_{ee}^{geom}=12\times10^{34} {\rm cm}^{-2}{\rm s}^{-1}

1031: \end{eqnarray}

1032: %   

1033: at $\sqrt{s}=500$ GeV have been reported.

1034: 

1035: %

1036: \subsection{Results}

1037: 

1038: We consider the decay angular distribution of $t\overline{t}$

1039: pairs produced via $\gamma\gamma$ collisions,

1040: and express the convoluted cross section in terms of

1041: four observables, $\Sigma_1$ to $\Sigma_4$, which 

1042: contain all the information about the $\gamma\gamma

1043: \rightarrow t\overline{t}$ helicity amplitudes.

1044: When we do not study $W^+$ and $W^-$ decay angular distributions,

1045: the differential cross sections is expressed as

1046: %

1047: \begin{eqnarray}

1048: \label{diffcross}

1049: &&\frac{d\sigma}{dm_{t\overline{t}}~d\cos\theta~ d\phi~

1050: d\cos\overline{\theta}~ d\overline{\phi}}

1051: \\ \nonumber

1052: &&=

1053: \int d\sqrt{\hat{s}} \sum_{\lambda_1,~\lambda_2} \left(

1054: \frac{1}{{\cal L}_{0.8}} \frac{d{\cal L}^{\lambda_1\lambda_2}}

1055: {d\sqrt{\hat{s}}} \right) \left(

1056: \frac{d\hat{\sigma}_{\lambda_1\lambda_2}

1057: (\sqrt{\hat{s}})}{d\cos\theta~ d\phi~

1058: d\cos\overline{\theta}~ d\overline{\phi}} \right)

1059: G(\sqrt{\hat{s}}-m_{t\overline{t}},\Delta)

1060: \\ \nonumber

1061: &&\equiv \{ \Sigma_1(m_{t\overline{t}})

1062: \left[(B_L^2+B_T^2)(1+\cos\theta \cos\overline{\theta})

1063:      +2B_L B_T(1-\cos\theta \cos\overline{\theta})

1064:      +(B_L^2-B_T^2)(\cos\theta + \cos\overline{\theta}) 

1065:      \right]

1066: \\ \nonumber

1067: &&+ \Sigma_2(m_{t\overline{t}})

1068: \left[(B_L^2+B_T^2)(1+\cos\theta \cos\overline{\theta})

1069:      +2B_L B_T(1-\cos\theta \cos\overline{\theta})

1070:      -(B_L^2-B_T^2)(\cos\theta + \cos\overline{\theta}) 

1071:      \right]

1072: \\ \nonumber

1073: &&+ \Sigma_3(m_{t\overline{t}})

1074: \left[(B_L-B_T)^2 \sin\theta \sin\overline{\theta} 

1075: \cos(\phi-\overline{\phi})\right]

1076: \\ \nonumber

1077: &&+ \Sigma_4(m_{t\overline{t}})

1078: \left[-(B_L-B_T)^2 \sin\theta \sin\overline{\theta} 

1079: \sin(\phi-\overline{\phi})\right] \}/16\pi^2

1080: \\ \nonumber

1081: &&+~~\left[ ( \sigma=-\overline{\sigma})~~ {\rm contributions}\right] .

1082: \end{eqnarray}

1083: %

1084: Here small non-resonant contributions from 

1085: $\sigma=-\overline{\sigma}$ ($RL$ or $LR$) events are

1086: not shown explicitly.

1087: The four coefficients of the distinct decay angular 

1088: distributions are 

1089: %

1090: \begin{eqnarray}

1091: \Sigma_i(m_{t\overline{t}})=

1092: \int d\sqrt{\hat{s}} \sum_{\lambda_1,~\lambda_2}

1093: \left( \frac{1}{{\cal L}_{0.8}} 

1094: \frac{d{\cal L}^{\lambda_1\lambda_2}}

1095: {d\sqrt{\hat{s}}} \right) \left( \frac{3\beta}{32\pi \hat{s}}

1096: \int S^i_{\lambda_1 \lambda_2} (\Theta, \sqrt{\hat{s}})d\cos\Theta

1097: \right)

1098: ~G(\sqrt{\hat{s}}-m_{t\overline{t}},\Delta),

1099: \\ \nonumber

1100: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~{\rm for}~~i=1-4,

1101: \end{eqnarray}

1102: %

1103: where the functions $S_{\lambda_1 \lambda_2}^i$ contain

1104: all the information about the $\gamma\gamma \rightarrow 

1105: t\overline{t}$ helicity amplitudes:

1106: %

1107: \begin{eqnarray}

1108: \label{S1toS4}

1109: S^1_{\lambda_1 \lambda_2} &=& \left| {\cal M}_{\lambda_1\lambda_2}^{RR} \right|^2,

1110: \\ \nonumber

1111: S^2_{\lambda_1 \lambda_2} &=& \left|{\cal M}_{\lambda_1\lambda_2}^{LL}\right|^2,

1112: \\ \nonumber

1113: S^3_{\lambda_1 \lambda_2} &=&

1114: 2\Re\left[{\cal M}_{\lambda_1\lambda_2}^{RR} \left({\cal M}

1115: _{\lambda_1\lambda_2}^{LL}\right)^*\right],

1116: \\ \nonumber

1117: S^4_{\lambda_1 \lambda_2} &=&

1118: 2\Im\left[{\cal M}_{\lambda_1\lambda_2}^{RR} \left({\cal M}

1119: _{\lambda_1\lambda_2}^{LL}\right)^*\right].

1120: \end{eqnarray}

1121: %

1122: A few remarks about eq.~(\ref{diffcross}) are in order.

1123: The compact expression for the differential cross section in

1124: terms of the observable $m_{t\overline{t}}$, the

1125: $t \rightarrow bW^+$ decay angles $\theta$ and $\phi$,

1126: and the $\overline{t} \rightarrow \overline{b} W^-$

1127: decay angles $\overline{\theta}$ and $\overline{\phi}$ are

1128: obtained by integrating out the 

1129: $\gamma\gamma \rightarrow t\overline{t}$ scattering angle

1130: $\Theta$, the $W^+$ decay angles $\theta^*$ and $\phi^*$,

1131: and the $W^-$ decay angles $\overline{\theta^*}$ and 

1132: $\overline{\phi^*}$; see eq.~(\ref{comdiffcross}). 

1133: We do not lose much information by the integration

1134: over $\cos\Theta$ because the resonant $J=0$ amplitudes

1135: do not depend on $\cos\Theta$ and because the $\cos\Theta$

1136: dependences of the interfering QED amplitudes are mild

1137: near the $t\overline{t}$ threshold; $\beta=0.48$ at

1138: $\sqrt{s}_{\gamma\gamma}=400$ GeV. As explained in

1139: Sec.~3.2, a careful study of $W^+$ and $W^-$ decay

1140: angular distributions should give us independent

1141: measurements of the observables $\Sigma_1$ to $\Sigma_4$,

1142: and should therefore reduce errors.

1143: 

1144: The four observables $\Sigma_1$ to $\Sigma_4$ of 

1145: eq.~(\ref{diffcross}) are shown in Fig.~\ref{tcross09} for

1146: $\Delta=0$ GeV (no smearing by

1147: detector resolution), Fig.~\ref{tcross39} for $\Delta=3$ GeV and 

1148: in Fig.~\ref{tcross69} for $\Delta=6$ GeV. The predictions of

1149: the $A$ and $H$ productions are shown by thick-solid and 

1150: thick-dashed curves, respectively.

1151: The QED predictions are shown by the thin-solid lines.

1152: The quantity

1153: $\Sigma_1 + \Sigma_2$ is simply the total $t\overline{t}$

1154: production cross section, smeared by the resolution factor

1155: of $\Delta$. We show $\Sigma_2$ instead of $\Sigma_1$ because

1156: the $A$ and $H$ production amplitudes interfere with the QED

1157: amplitudes differently in the $\lambda_1=\lambda_2=+$ to

1158: $\sigma=\overline{\sigma}=L$ amplitudes.

1159: 

1160: When we draw the predictions of $A$ and $H$ productions in

1161: Figs.~\ref{tcross09}, \ref{tcross39} and \ref{tcross69},

1162: we adopt a MSSM prediction for the $A$ production, while

1163: the $H$ production curves are drawn by using the amplitudes

1164: ${\cal M}_H$ which are obtained from the ${\cal M}_A$ for

1165: the same mass and width and the same magnitudes for the

1166: partial widths to $\gamma\gamma$ and $t\overline{t}$.

1167: The MSSM parameters used for calculating ${\cal M}_A$

1168: are as follows: $m_A=400$ GeV, $\tan\beta=3$,

1169: $m_{\widetilde{f}}=1$ TeV, $M_2=500$ GeV, $\mu=-500$ GeV.

1170: We find $m_A=400$ GeV, $\Gamma_A=1.75$ GeV,

1171: Br$(A\rightarrow\gamma\gamma)=1.53\times 10^{-5}$ and

1172: Br$(A\rightarrow t\overline{t})$=0.946 for the

1173: above parameters~\cite{HDECAY}. 

1174: The $H$ production amplitudes ${\cal M}_H$

1175: are thus obtained from ${\cal M}_A$ by keeping the mass, 

1176: width and partial widths common in order to show clearly the

1177: sensitivity of the four observables to the CP property of the

1178: produced spinless boson.

1179: For the collider parameters, we use

1180: $E_e=250$ GeV, $P_l=-1.0$, $P_e=0.9$ and $x=4.8$, 

1181: where colliding photons

1182: are highly polarized to be $+$ around $\sqrt{\hat{s}}=400$ GeV;

1183: see Fig.~{\ref{luminosity}}. 

1184: Since the effects from the $(\lambda_1 \lambda_2)=$

1185: ($+-$), ($-+$) and ($- -$) 

1186: combinations on the observables are less than 1\% 

1187: around the peak region, they are neglected here.

1188: In this limit, the quantities $S_{1-4}$ in eq.~(\ref{S1toS4})

1189: can be expressed by 

1190: ${\cal M}_t$ and ${\cal M}_\phi$ as

1191: %

1192: \begin{eqnarray}

1193: S_{++}^1 &=& 

1194: \left| {\cal M}_t \right|^2 + \left| {\cal M}_\phi \right|^2

1195: +2{\cal M}_t \Re\left[{\cal M}_\phi \right],

1196: \label{s1} \\ 

1197: S_{++}^2 &=& 

1198: \left(\frac{1-\beta}{1+\beta}\right)^2 \left|{\cal M}_t\right|^2

1199: +\left| {\cal M}_\phi \right|^2 \pm 2 \frac{1-\beta}{1+\beta}

1200: {\cal M}_t \Re \left[ {\cal M}_\phi \right],

1201: \label{s2} \\

1202: S_{++}^3 &=&

1203: 2\frac{1-\beta}{1+\beta}\left|{\cal M}_t\right|^2 \pm

1204: 2\left|{\cal M}_\phi\right|^2 + 2\left(\frac{1-\beta}{1+\beta}

1205: \pm 1\right){\cal M}_t \Re\left[{\cal M}_\phi\right],

1206: \label{s3} \\

1207: S_{++}^4 &=&

1208: 2\left(\frac{1-\beta}{1+\beta}

1209: \mp 1\right){\cal M}_t \Im\left[{\cal M}_\phi\right]

1210: , \label{s4}

1211: \end{eqnarray}

1212: %

1213: where the upper and lower signs are adopted for $A$ and $H$, 

1214: respectively.

1215: 

1216: Let us now examine carefully the results shown

1217: in Fig.~\ref{tcross09} to \ref{tcross69}.

1218: For the total production cross section

1219: $\Sigma_1 + \Sigma_2$, it can be clearly observed 

1220: in Fig.~{\ref{tcross09}} that

1221: the $A$ production amplitudes receive stronger constructive

1222: (destructive) interference below (above) the resonance peak

1223: than the $H$ production amplitudes. A sharp dip above

1224: the resonance peak for the $A$ production line-shape may

1225: be considered as a signal of a CP-odd resonance production.

1226: However, the difference between the $A$ and $H$ line shapes

1227: diminishes by smearing. A hint of strong destructive interference

1228: survives in Fig.~{\ref{tcross39}} for the smearing with

1229: $\Delta=3$ GeV, but the difference essentially disappears

1230: in Fig.~{\ref{tcross69}} for $\Delta = 6$ GeV.

1231: The two thick curves for $\Sigma_1 + \Sigma_2$ in 

1232: Fig.~\ref{tcross69} can only tell broad enhancement over

1233: the QED prediction, which may be fitted well by both

1234: $A$ and $H$ production assumptions with slightly different

1235: mass and width values.

1236: 

1237: The $\Sigma_2$ shows

1238: not only large contribution of the Higgs production

1239: but also the interference effects which have opposite

1240: contribution for the $A$ and $H$ production. 

1241: The magnitudes of the effects

1242: are small because the QED amplitude which interferes with

1243: the Higgs production amplitudes is suppressed by the factor

1244: of $\frac{1-\beta}{1+\beta}$; see Table~\ref{helamp}.

1245: Here the distinctive signature of

1246: the negative interference below the resonance for the $H$

1247: production may survive even for the resolution of 

1248: $\Delta=6$ GeV in Fig.~\ref{tcross69}.

1249: 

1250: The interference effects we observe in the $\Sigma_3$ 

1251: is larger for $A$ than for $H$ due to 

1252: the factor of $\frac{1-\beta}{1+\beta}\pm 1$ in eq.~(\ref{s3}).

1253: A sharp dip for the $A$ production line-shape and a small excess

1254: for the $H$ produciton line-shape above the resonance peaks

1255: are the effects. The destructive interference effect for $A$

1256: may survive even in Fig.~\ref{tcross69} for $\Delta=6$ GeV,

1257: whereas the small constructive interference effect for $H$

1258: almost disappears in Fig.~\ref{tcross69}.

1259: It is notable that the effects of the Higgs production

1260: has opposite signs for $A$ and $H$ in eq.~(\ref{s3}).

1261: This oppositeness causes that the $A$ production enhances

1262: $\Sigma_3$ above the QED prediction near the peak of the total

1263: cross section $\Sigma_1 + \Sigma_2$, whereas the $H$ 

1264: production predicts smaller $\Sigma_3$ than the QED prediction

1265: around the peak of the cross section. This feature seems to 

1266: persist even with faint $t\overline{t}$ mass resolution,

1267: in Fig.~\ref{tcross39} for $\Delta=3$ GeV and Fig.~\ref{tcross69}

1268: for $\Delta=6$ GeV.

1269: 

1270: As for the $\Sigma_4$, the pure interference effects can be

1271: observed. The QED amplitudes predict $\Sigma_4$=0 because we adopt the

1272: tree-level amplitudes in our analysis \footnote{The continuum

1273: $\gamma\gamma \rightarrow t\overline{t}$ amplitudes should have

1274: imaginary parts of the order of $\alpha_s$ in QCD perturbation

1275: theory.}. The $A$ production predicts negative and the $H$ 

1276: production predicts positive effects for $\Sigma_4$ around

1277: the production peak.

1278: The difference in the magnitudes comes from  

1279: the factor of $\frac{1-\beta}{1+\beta}\mp 1$ in eq.~(\ref{s4}).

1280: These characteristics appear even considering the detector resolution

1281: as is shown in Fig.~\ref{tcross39} for $\Delta=3$ GeV and 

1282: Fig.~\ref{tcross69} for $\Delta=6$ GeV.

1283: The imaginary part of the interference

1284: term, $\Sigma_4$, discriminates between $A$ and $H$ most clearly.

1285: 

1286: \begin{figure}[t]

1287: \begin{center}

1288: \epsfxsize=15cm

1289: \epsfysize=10cm

1290: \epsffile{sek0.ps}

1291: \caption{The observables $\Sigma_1$ to $\Sigma_4$

1292: with no smearing by detector resolution.

1293: The thick solid (dashed) curves show the predictions for

1294: the $A$ ($H$) production. The thin solid curves show the

1295: QED predictions with no Higgs production.

1296: }\label{tcross09}

1297: \end{center}

1298: \end{figure}

1299: 

1300: \begin{figure}[t]

1301: \begin{center}

1302: \epsfxsize=15cm

1303: \epsfysize=10cm

1304: \epsffile{sek3.ps}

1305: \caption{The observables $\Sigma_1$ to $\Sigma_4$

1306: with the $t\overline{t}$ invariant mass measurement

1307: resolution factor $\Delta=3$ GeV.

1308: The thick solid (dashed) curves show the predictions for

1309: the $A$ ($H$) production. The thin solid curves show the

1310: QED predictions with no Higgs production.

1311: } \label{tcross39}

1312: \end{center}

1313: \end{figure} 

1314: %

1315: 

1316: \begin{figure}[t]

1317: \begin{center}

1318: \epsfxsize=15cm

1319: \epsfysize=10cm

1320: \epsffile{sek6.ps}

1321: \caption{The observables $\Sigma_1$ to $\Sigma_4$

1322: with the $t\overline{t}$ invariant mass measurement

1323: resolution factor $\Delta=6$ GeV.

1324: The thick solid (dashed) curves show the predictions for

1325: the $A$ ($H$) production. The thin solid curves show the

1326: QED predictions with no Higgs production.

1327: } \label{tcross69}

1328: \end{center}

1329: \end{figure} 

1330: 

1331: Summing up, we have made the following observation in this

1332: subsection. The $m_{t\overline{t}}$ dependence of the

1333: total production cross section, $\Sigma_1 + \Sigma_2$,

1334: can in principle reveal the difference between

1335: $A$ and $H$ productions, as shown in Fig.~\ref{tcross09}.

1336: However the distinctive signatures of the $A$ productions,

1337: the constructive interference below the resonance and the

1338: pronounced destructive interference above the resonance

1339: diminish as the $m_{t\overline{t}}$ measurement resolution

1340: becomes worse to $\Delta=3$ GeV (Fig.~\ref{tcross39}) and

1341: to $\Delta=6$ GeV (Fig.~\ref{tcross69}).

1342: It is only the tiny destructive interference effects above

1343: the resonance in Fig.~\ref{tcross69} which signals 

1344: the production of $A$ rather than $H$. The situation

1345: slightly improves by observing the $\Sigma_2$ component

1346: by selecting those events where the produced top-quarks

1347: are both left-handed. Here the distinctive signature of

1348: the negative interference below the resonance for the $H$

1349: production may survive even for the resolution of 

1350: $\Delta=6$ GeV in Fig.~\ref{tcross69}.

1351: The cross section for $t_L \overline{t}_L$ production,

1352: however, is rather small as compared to the dominant

1353: $t_R \overline{t}_R$ production, because of the

1354: $(1-\beta)/(1+\beta)$ suppression factor in the corresponding

1355: QED amplitude; see Table~\ref{helamp}.

1356: Further information are obtained by studying the interference

1357: between the $t_R \overline{t}_R$ and the

1358: $t_L \overline{t}_L$ amplitudes in the observables

1359: $\Sigma_3$ and $\Sigma_4$. The real part of the interference

1360: term, $\Sigma_3$, shows that the $A$ production enhances

1361: $\Sigma_3$ above the QED prediction near the peak of the total

1362: cross section, $\Sigma_1 + \Sigma_2$, whereas the $H$ 

1363: production predicts smaller $\Sigma_3$ than the QED prediction

1364: around the peak of the cross section. This feature seems to 

1365: persist even with faint $t\overline{t}$ mass resolution,

1366: in Fig.~\ref{tcross39} for $\Delta=3$ GeV and Fig.~\ref{tcross69}

1367: for $\Delta=6$ GeV. Finally the imaginary part of the interference

1368: term, $\Sigma_4$, discriminates between $A$ and $H$ most clearly.

1369: The $A$ production predicts negative and the $H$ 

1370: production predicts positive effects for $\Sigma_4$ around

1371: the production peak. We therefore propose to use the four

1372: observables $\Sigma_1$ to $\Sigma_4$ in determining the CP

1373: property of the spin zero resonance in the $\gamma\gamma

1374: \rightarrow t\overline{t}$ channel.

1375: 

1376: In the above discussion, we studied four observables separately.

1377: Once they are derived individually, we can obtain their

1378: arbitrary linear combinations.

1379: The most powerful combinations for probing the CP parity

1380: of Higgs bosons are $\Sigma_1 + \Sigma_2 + \Sigma_3$ and

1381: $\Sigma_1 + \Sigma_2 - \Sigma_3$.

1382: The former combination receives contribution only from

1383: the CP-odd resonance, while the latter only from 

1384: the CP-even resonance when CP is conserved.

1385: It is therefore straightforward to separate the CP-even and

1386: CP-odd resonances, even when their masses are degenerate.

1387: 

1388: %

1389: \subsection{Effects of the 

1390: $\gamma\gamma\phi$ phase on the observables}

1391: 

1392: In this subsection, we study the $\arg(b_\gamma^\phi)$

1393: dependence of the four observables studied in the previous

1394: subsection. We first re-parameterize the $J_z=0$ amplitudes of

1395: eq.~(\ref{ampeq}) as follows:

1396: %

1397: \begin{eqnarray}

1398: {\cal M}_{\lambda \lambda}^{\sigma \sigma}=

1399: \left[{\cal M}_t \right]_{\lambda \lambda}^{\sigma \sigma}

1400: + \left( \frac{\sqrt{\hat{s}}}{m_\phi} \right)^3

1401: r_\phi \cdot i \left[ 1+{\rm exp}\left(

1402: 2i \tan^{-1} \frac{s^2-m_\phi^2}{m_\phi \Gamma_\phi} \right)

1403: \right],

1404: \end{eqnarray}

1405: %

1406: where

1407: $r_H=\sigma \beta b_\gamma^H d_t^H m_H/(2\Gamma_H)$

1408: and $r_A=\lambda b_\gamma^A d_t^A m_A/(2\Gamma_A)$.

1409: In this expression, the phase of the Breit-Wigner resonance

1410: amplitude is shifted by the phase of the $r_\phi$ factor

1411: which is essentially the phase of the $\gamma\gamma\phi$ vertex

1412: factor $b_\gamma^\phi$ if we neglect the phase in the 

1413: $t \overline{t} \phi$ vertex $d_t^\phi$.

1414: It should also be noted that 

1415: %

1416: \begin{eqnarray}

1417: |r_\phi|^2 = \frac{32 \pi^2}{3 \beta} {\rm Br}

1418: (\phi \rightarrow \gamma\gamma) {\rm Br}

1419: (\phi \rightarrow t\overline{t}).

1420: \end{eqnarray}

1421: %

1422: 

1423: In the above discussions, we draw the $H$ production curves

1424: by assuming not only $m_H=m_A$, $\Gamma_H=\Gamma_A$ and

1425: ${\rm Br}(H\rightarrow \gamma\gamma) {\rm Br}(H \rightarrow

1426: t\overline{t})={\rm Br}(A\rightarrow \gamma\gamma) {\rm Br}

1427: (A \rightarrow t\overline{t})$, but also that the 

1428: $\gamma\gamma \rightarrow H$ amplitude is proportional to the

1429: $\gamma\gamma \rightarrow A$ amplitude as a complex numbers,

1430: %

1431: \begin{eqnarray}

1432: b_\gamma^H = b_\gamma^A \left[ \frac{\Gamma(H 

1433: \rightarrow \gamma\gamma)}{\Gamma(A \rightarrow \gamma\gamma)}

1434: \right]^{1/2}.

1435: \end{eqnarray}

1436: %

1437: We note here that the phase of the $H\rightarrow\gamma\gamma$

1438: amplitude, $\arg(b_\gamma^H)$, and that of the $A \rightarrow

1439: \gamma\gamma$ amplitude, $\arg(b_\gamma^A)$, depend significantly

1440: in the model parameters. As an example, we show in 

1441: Table~\ref{bpara} the MSSM prediction for the real and imaginary 

1442: parts of $b_\gamma^A$ and $b_\gamma^H$.

1443: Here, we calculate the $A$ and $H$ masses and couplings for the 

1444: MSSM parameters; $m_A=400$ GeV, $\tan\beta=3$,

1445: $m_{\widetilde{f}}=1$ TeV, $M_2=500$ GeV, $\mu=-500$ GeV. 

1446: We find that $\arg(b_\gamma^A)$ is much larger than

1447: $\arg(b_\gamma^H)$ . The large imaginary part of 

1448: $b_\gamma^A$ is a result of the $s$-wave $A \rightarrow

1449: t \overline{t}$ decay near the $t\overline{t}$ production

1450: threshold. The imaginary part of $b_\gamma^H$ is

1451: suppressed by the $p$-wave $H \rightarrow t \overline{t}$

1452: decay and also by the partial cancellation due to the $H

1453: \rightarrow W^+ W^-$ contribution. Therefore, 

1454: in the framework of the two Higgs doublet model without 

1455: any new particles which contribute to the vertex significantly, 

1456: the $A$ boson has relatively large phase and

1457: the $H$ boson has tiny phase.

1458: Because the imaginary part

1459: of the $\phi \rightarrow \gamma \gamma$ amplitude is a sum of

1460: the contribution from the $\phi$ decay modes into charged particles

1461: whereas the real part receives contribution from all the charged 

1462: particles, we expect that $\arg(b_\gamma^\phi)$ is a good probe

1463: of heavy charged particles.

1464: 

1465: Fig.~\ref{argant}

1466: shows plots of the amplitudes ${\cal M}_{\lambda \lambda}

1467: ^{\sigma \sigma}$ on the complex plane where the scattering angle

1468: $\Theta$ is fixed to be zero as a sample.

1469: The amplitudes with the $A$ ($H$) production is 

1470: in the left (right) side.

1471: Since the tree amplitudes $\left[{\cal M}_t \right]_{\lambda\lambda}

1472: ^{\sigma\sigma}$ are real and almost constant around the resonance,

1473: the plots draw a counterclockwise circle 

1474: which have the beginning- and end-points on the real axis

1475: as $\hat{s}$ increases.

1476: The circles which have the beginning points

1477: nearer (further) from the origin correspond to 

1478: ${\cal M}_{\lambda\lambda}

1479: ^{-\lambda, -\lambda}$ (${\cal M}_{\lambda \lambda}^{\lambda\lambda}$).  

1480: Two cases of $arg(b_\gamma^\phi)$

1481: are considered. One is the case where

1482: $b_\gamma^\phi$ has no phase (solid curves), the other is

1483: $arg(b_\gamma^\phi)=\pi/4$ (dashed curves).

1484: The solid and open small circles 

1485: on the trajectories indicate the $\hat{s}=m_\phi^2$ points.

1486: When $m_\phi^2-\hat{s} \gg

1487: m_\phi \Gamma_\phi$, the amplitudes are real positive

1488: numbers that are determined by the QED amplitudes of

1489: Table~\ref{treehelamp}.

1490: As $\hat{s}$ grows,

1491: the amplitudes make counterclockwise trajectories, and

1492: the magnitude of the resonance amplitude hits its 

1493: maximum at $\hat{s}=m_\phi^2$.

1494: At $m_\phi^2-\hat{s} \ll

1495: m_\phi \Gamma_\phi$, the amplitudes reduce to the real

1496: and positive QED amplitude again. The trajectories do not

1497: close because of the mild $\hat{s}$-dependence of the

1498: QED amplitudes.

1499: %

1500: \begin{figure}[h]

1501: \begin{center}

1502: \epsfxsize=18cm

1503: \epsfysize=9cm

1504: \epsffile{argant.ps}

1505: \caption{ The $\hat{s}$-dependence of the $\gamma\gamma

1506: \rightarrow t\overline{t}$

1507: amplitudes ${\cal M}_{\lambda\lambda}^{\sigma\sigma}$

1508: at $\Theta=0^o$. 

1509: The amplitudes with $A$ production are shown

1510: in the left figure, whereas those for $H$ production

1511: are shown in the right. 

1512: The cases of $arg(b_\gamma^\phi)=0$ and

1513: $\pi/4$ are denoted by

1514: the solid and dashed circles, respectively. 

1515: The small arrows indicate

1516: the direction of increasing $\hat{s}$ and

1517: the solid and open small circles on the trajectories show the

1518: $\hat{s}=m_\phi^2$ points. As $\hat{s}$ grows

1519: the amplitudes make counterclockwise trajectories, and

1520: the magnitude of the resonance amplitude hits its 

1521: maximum at $\hat{s}=m_\phi^2$.}\label{argant}

1522: \end{center}

1523: \end{figure}

1524: %

1525: \begin{figure}[h]

1526: \begin{center}

1527: \epsfxsize=15cm

1528: \epsfysize=10cm

1529: \epsffile{phase.ps}

1530: \caption{The observables $\Sigma_1$ to $\Sigma_4$ 

1531: with no smearing by detector resolution.

1532: The solid, dashed, dot-dashed and dotted curves are

1533: $\Sigma_1$, $\Sigma_2, \Sigma_3$ and $\Sigma_4$, respectively.

1534: The observables with $A$ production are in the left

1535: (right) figures whereas those with the

1536: $H$ production are shown in the right. 

1537: The upper and lower figures 

1538: show the case of

1539: $arg(r_\phi)=0$  and $\pi/4$, respectively. }\label{phase}

1540: \end{center}

1541: \end{figure}

1542: %

1543: 

1544: The magnitudes of ${\cal M}_{\lambda\lambda}^{\sigma\sigma}$ 

1545: have peaks at the furthest points

1546: from the origin on the trajectories. 

1547: The $\sqrt{\hat{s}}$ values

1548: at which the amplitudes have the largest magnitude are

1549: almost similar between ${\cal M}_{\lambda\lambda}^{\lambda\lambda}$ 

1550: and ${\cal M}_{\lambda\lambda}^{-\lambda,-\lambda}$

1551: for the $A$ production (slightly below the $\hat{s}=m_A^2$ point),

1552: while they are significantly different

1553: for the $H$ production because the sign of the imaginary parts

1554: are opposite between 

1555: ${\cal M}_{\lambda\lambda}^{-\lambda,-\lambda}$ and

1556: ${\cal M}_{\lambda\lambda}^{\lambda\lambda}$.

1557: The amplitude of ${\cal M}_{\lambda\lambda}^{\lambda\lambda}$

1558: becomes maximum slightly below the $\hat{s}=m_H^2$ point,

1559: but that of ${\cal M}_{\lambda\lambda}^{-\lambda,-\lambda}$

1560: hits the maximum at $\hat{s} > m_H^2$.

1561: 

1562: When we compare the $\arg(b_\gamma^A)=0$ amplitudes

1563: (solid circles) and the $\arg(b_\gamma^A)=\pi/4$ amplitudes

1564: (dashed circles), we notice that the magnitudes of all the

1565: amplitudes are reduced for $\arg(b_\gamma^A)>0$ because

1566: the imaginary parts of the resonant amplitudes are positive

1567: for $\arg(b_\gamma^A)=0$. It is notable that at $\hat{s}=m_A^2$

1568: (solid and open circles along the trajectries), the real part of

1569: the ${\cal M}_{\lambda\lambda}^{-\lambda,-\lambda}$ amplitudes 

1570: become negative when $\arg(b_\gamma^A)=\pi/4$. In case of

1571: the $\phi=H$ amplitudes shown in Fig.~\ref{argant}(b),

1572: the most notable feature is that the magnitude of the

1573: ${\cal M}_{\lambda\lambda}^{-\lambda,-\lambda}$ amplitudes

1574: increases for $\arg(b_\gamma^A)>0$ because the sign of the 

1575: imaginary part of the $H$ resonant amplitude is negative

1576: for these amplitudes. On the other hand, the magnitudes of

1577: the ${\cal M}_{\lambda\lambda}^{\lambda\lambda}$ amplitudes

1578: decreases for $\arg(b_\gamma^A)>0$ as in the case for the $A$

1579: production amplitudes. 

1580: 

1581: We show in Fig.~{\ref{phase}} the four observables

1582: $\Sigma_1$ to $\Sigma_4$ for the $A$ production in the left,

1583: and for the $H$ production in the right-hand side.

1584: The predictions for $arg(b_\gamma^\phi)=0$ are shown in the

1585: top figures, whereas those for $arg(b_\gamma^\phi)=\pi/4$

1586: are shown in the bottom figures.

1587: 

1588: We find that the features which are 

1589: sensitive to the CP parity of the spinless boson $\phi$,

1590: such as the interference pattern of $\Sigma_3$ and $\Sigma_4$

1591: near the resonances, remain stable against varieties of 

1592: $\arg(b_\gamma^\phi)$ between 0 and $\pi/4$.

1593: On the other hand the $\arg(b_\gamma^\phi)$ dependence of

1594: the four observables are significant enough that the phase

1595: of the $\gamma\gamma\phi$ vertex function may be measured

1596: experimentally by a careful study of all the observables. 

1597: 

1598: %

1599: \begin{table}[h]

1600: \caption{The values of $b_\gamma^A$ and $b_\gamma^H$.

1601: The loops of $t$, $b$, $W$, $\widetilde{\chi}_1^-$ 

1602: and $\widetilde{\chi}_2^-$ give

1603: large contribution to $b_\gamma^H$ and $b_\gamma^A$

1604: under our parameterization; $m_A=400$ GeV, $\tan\beta=3$,

1605: $M_2=500$ GeV,

1606: $\mu=-500$ GeV and $M_{\widetilde{f}}=1$ TeV. 

1607: $m_H=403.8$ GeV for the above parameters.

1608: \label{bpara}}

1609: \vspace{0.4cm}

1610: \begin{center}

1611: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|}

1612: \hline

1613: & $b_\gamma^A\times10^4$ & $b_\gamma^H\times10^4$ \\

1614: \hline

1615:  total & $14+12i$  & $11+1.3i$ \\

1616: \hline\hline

1617:  $t$ & $15+12i$ & $12+3.3i$ \\ 

1618: \hline

1619:  $b$ & $-0.19+0.15i$ & $0.18-0.15i$ \\

1620: \hline

1621:  $W$ & 0.0 & $-1.0-1.7i$ \\

1622: \hline

1623: $\widetilde{\chi}_1^-$ & $-1.1$ & $-1.2$ \\

1624: \hline

1625: $\widetilde{\chi}_2^-$ & $0.51$ & $1.0$ \\

1626: \hline 

1627: \end{tabular}

1628: \end{center}

1629: \end{table}

1630: %

1631: 

1632: 

1633: \section{Conclusions}

1634: We have studied the effects of heavy Higgs bosons in $t\overline{t}$

1635: production process at a PLC. We have introduced observables

1636: which include new type of interference by considering

1637: the angular correlation of decay products of top quarks, and

1638: found that they are useful for probing the CP nature of the

1639: produced Higgs boson.

1640: It has also been shown that variation in the complex phase of the

1641: $\gamma\gamma\phi$ vertex modify the magnitudes of the observables

1642: and the $\sqrt{\hat{s}}$ values where the observables

1643: have peaks and bottoms.

1644: 

1645: Further studies on the cases where the Higgs sector has

1646: CP non-conservation and/or a degenerate pair of heavy neutral bosons

1647: will be reported elsewhere~\cite{AHfuture}.

1648: The present study may motivate a careful study of the experimental

1649: resolution of the $t\overline{t}$ invariant mass measurements as 

1650: well as a quantitative study on the accuracy of the resonance

1651: parameters, $m_\phi$, $\Gamma_\phi$, Br$(\phi \rightarrow

1652: \gamma\gamma)$Br$(\phi \rightarrow t\overline{t})$,

1653: $\arg(b_\gamma^\phi d_t^\phi)$, and its CP parity.

1654: \vspace{7mm}

1655: 

1656: {\bf Acknowledgments}

1657: ~The authors would like to thank T.~Takahashi and I.~Watanabe 

1658: for useful comments. The work of EA is supported in part by

1659: the Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research from MEXT, Japan.

1660: 

1661: \newpage

1662: \appendix

1663: \section{Amplitude for the process $\gamma \gamma 

1664: \rightarrow t \overline{t}

1665: \rightarrow b f_1 \overline{f_2} ~ \overline{b} f_3 \overline{f_4}$}

1666: 

1667: We describe the helicity

1668: amplitudes for the process $\gamma \gamma \rightarrow

1669: t \overline{t} \rightarrow b f_1 \overline{f_2} ~ 

1670: \overline{b} f_3 \overline{f_4}$

1671: as 

1672: %

1673: \begin{eqnarray}

1674: &&{\bf M}_{\lambda_1 \lambda_2}

1675: (\Theta; \theta,\phi,\overline{\theta},\overline{\phi};

1676: \theta^*,\phi^*,\overline{\theta}^*,\overline{\phi}^*) 

1677: \\ \nonumber

1678: &&~~~~~~~=

1679: \sum_{\sigma =L,R} \sum_{\Lambda =-,0} \sum_{\overline{\Lambda}=0,+}

1680: {\cal M}_{\lambda_1 \lambda_2}^{\sigma \overline{\sigma}}(\Theta) 

1681: D_{\sigma}^{\Lambda} (\theta,\phi)

1682: \overline{D}_{\overline{\sigma}}^{\overline{\Lambda}}

1683: (\overline{\theta},\overline{\phi})

1684: W_{\Lambda}(\theta^*, \phi^*) \overline{W}_{\overline{\Lambda}}

1685: (\overline{\theta}^*,\overline{\phi}^*),

1686: \end{eqnarray}

1687: %

1688: in the zero-width limit of the top-quark and the $W$ bosons.

1689: Here 

1690: $\lambda_1$, $\lambda_2$ are the helicities of the colliding photons,

1691: ${\cal M}_{\lambda_1 \lambda_2}^{\sigma \overline{\sigma}}(\Theta)$

1692: is the $\gamma(\lambda_1) \gamma(\lambda_2) \rightarrow

1693: t(\sigma) \overline{t}(\overline{\sigma})$ scattering amplitudes

1694: at the scattering angle $\Theta$ in the $\gamma\gamma$ collision

1695: c.o.m.~frame,

1696: $D_{\sigma}^{\Lambda}$ and 

1697: $\overline{D}_{\overline{\sigma}}^{\overline{\Lambda}}$

1698: are the decay amplitudes

1699: for the processes $t_{\sigma} \rightarrow b W^+_{\Lambda}$ 

1700: and $\overline{t}_{\overline{\sigma}} \rightarrow

1701: \overline{b} W^-_{\overline{\Lambda}}$ in the $t$ and $\overline{t}$ 

1702: rest frame, respectively.

1703: $W_{\Lambda}$ and $\overline{W}_{\overline{\Lambda}}$

1704: are the decay amplitudes for  

1705: the processes $W^+_\Lambda \rightarrow f_1 \overline{f_2}$ 

1706: and $W^-_{\overline{\Lambda}}

1707:  \rightarrow f_3 \overline{f_4}$ in the decaying $W$ rest frames,

1708: in the massless fermion limit ($m_{f_i}=0$).

1709: The decay amplitudes have the following simple forms in the phase

1710: connection of Ref.~\cite{HZ1986, HELAS}:

1711: %

1712: \begin{center}

1713: \begin{tabular}{llll}

1714: $D_L^0 = \sqrt{\frac{B_L}{2\pi}} \sin\frac{\theta}{2}$,

1715: &

1716: $D_L^- = \sqrt{\frac{B_T}{2\pi}} \cos\frac{\theta}{2}$,

1717: &

1718: $D_R^0 = \sqrt{\frac{B_L}{2\pi}} \cos\frac{\theta}{2} e^{i\phi}$,

1719: &

1720: $D_R^- = -\sqrt{\frac{B_T}{2\pi}} \sin\frac{\theta}{2} e^{i\phi}$,

1721: \\

1722: $\overline{D}_L^0 = -\sqrt{\frac{B_L}{2\pi}} \sin\frac{\overline{\theta}}{2}$,

1723: &

1724: $\overline{D}_L^+ = \sqrt{\frac{B_T}{2\pi}} \cos\frac{\overline{\theta}}{2}$,

1725: &

1726: $\overline{D}_R^0 = -\sqrt{\frac{B_L}{2\pi}} \cos\frac{\overline{\theta}}{2}

1727: e^{-i \overline{\phi}}$,

1728: &

1729: $\overline{D}_R^+ = -\sqrt{\frac{B_T}{2\pi}} \sin\frac{\overline{\theta}}{2}

1730: e^{-i \overline{\phi}}$,

1731: \end{tabular}

1732: \end{center}

1733: %

1734: \begin{eqnarray}

1735: \end{eqnarray}

1736: %

1737: and

1738: %

1739: \begin{center}

1740: \begin{tabular}{ll}

1741: $W_0 = \sqrt{\frac{3}{8\pi} B_{12}} \sin \theta^*$,

1742: &

1743: $W_- = \sqrt{\frac{3}{8\pi} B_{12}}

1744:     \frac{1- \cos \theta^*}{\sqrt{2}} e^{-i\phi^*}$,

1745: \\

1746: $\overline{W}_0 = \sqrt{\frac{3}{8\pi} B_{34}}

1747:     \sin \overline{\theta}^*$,

1748: &

1749: $\overline{W}_+ = -\sqrt{\frac{3}{8\pi} B_{34}}

1750:     \frac{1- \cos \overline{\theta}^*}{\sqrt{2}} 

1751: e^{i\overline{\phi}^*}$.

1752: \end{tabular}

1753: \end{center}

1754: %

1755: Here the decay amplitudes are normalized as

1756: %

1757: \begin{eqnarray}

1758: \int |D_\sigma^-|^2 d\cos\theta d\phi = \int 

1759: |\overline{D}_{\overline{\sigma}}^+|^2 

1760: d\cos\overline{\theta} d\overline{\phi} = B_T =

1761: \frac{2m_W^2}{m_t^2+2m_W^2},

1762: \\ \nonumber

1763: \int |D_\sigma^0|^2 d\cos\theta d\phi

1764: =\int |\overline{D}_{\overline{\sigma}}^0|^2 

1765: d\cos\overline{\theta} d\overline{\phi} = B_L =

1766: \frac{m_t^2}{m_t^2+2m_W^2},

1767: \end{eqnarray}

1768: %

1769: and 

1770: %

1771: \begin{eqnarray}

1772: \int |W_\Lambda|^2 d\cos\theta^* d\phi^* = B_{12},

1773: \\ \nonumber

1774: \int |\overline{W}_{\overline{\Lambda}}|^2 

1775: d\cos\overline{\theta}^* d\overline{\phi}^* = B_{34},

1776: \end{eqnarray}

1777: %

1778: where $B_{12}$ is the branching fraction of $W^+ \rightarrow

1779: f_1 \overline{f}_2$ decays, and $B_{34}$ is that of

1780: $W^- \rightarrow f_3 \overline{f}_4$.

1781: The angles 

1782: $\theta$ and $\phi$ ($\overline{\theta}$ and $\overline{\phi}$)

1783: are, respectively, the polar and azimuthal angles of $W^+$ ($W^-$)

1784: in the $t$ ($\overline{t}$) rest frame where the common polar axis

1785: is chosen along the $t$-momentum direction in the $\gamma\gamma$

1786: collision c.m. frame, and the azimuthal angles $\phi$ and

1787: $\overline{\phi}$ are measured from the $\gamma\gamma \rightarrow

1788: t\overline{t}$ scattering plane.

1789: $\theta^*$ and $\phi^*$ are, respectively,

1790: the polar and azimuthal angles of $\overline{f}_2$

1791: in the $W^+ \rightarrow f_1 \overline{f}_2$ decay rest frame,

1792: whereas $\overline{\theta}^*$ and $\overline{\phi}^*$ are

1793: those of $f_3$ in the $W^- \rightarrow f_3 \overline{f}_4$

1794: rest frame. We choose the $\overline{f}_2$ and $f_3$ momenta

1795: in the above decays so that the angles are those of the

1796: charged leptons in the decays $W^+ \rightarrow \nu_l l^+$

1797: and $W^- \rightarrow l^- \overline{\nu}_l$.

1798: The polar axis are chosen along the $W^\pm$ momentum in the

1799: parent $t$ or $\overline{t}$ rest frame, while the azimuthal

1800: angles $\phi^*$ and $\overline{\phi}^*$ are measured from the

1801: $t \rightarrow b W^+$ and $\overline{t} \rightarrow \overline{b}

1802: W^-$ decay planes, respectively, in the $\gamma\gamma$

1803: collision c.m. frame.

1804: 

1805: The amplitudes (A.1) can now be expressed solely

1806: in terms of the $\gamma\gamma \rightarrow t\overline{t}$ amplitudes 

1807: ${\cal M}_{\lambda_1 \lambda_2}^{\sigma \overline{\sigma}}(\Theta)$:

1808: %

1809: \begin{eqnarray}

1810: &~&{\bf M}_{\lambda_1 \lambda_2}

1811: (\Theta; \theta,\phi,\overline{\theta},\overline{\phi};

1812: \theta^*,\phi^*,\overline{\theta}^*,\overline{\phi}^*)

1813: /\left(\frac{3}{16\pi^2} \sqrt{B_{12} B_{34}}\right)

1814: \\ \nonumber

1815: &=& {\cal M}_{\lambda_1 \lambda_2}^{LL}(\Theta)

1816: {\Huge \{ } - B_L \sin\frac{\theta}{2}

1817: \sin\frac{\overline{\theta}}{2} \sin\theta^* 

1818: \sin\overline{\theta}^*

1819: \\ \nonumber

1820: &~& ~~~~~~~~~~~~

1821: - \sqrt{B_L B_T} \cos\frac{\theta}{2} 

1822: \sin\frac{\overline{\theta}}{2} 

1823: \frac{1-\cos\theta^*}{\sqrt{2}} \sin\overline{\theta}^*

1824: e^{-i\phi^*} 

1825: \\ \nonumber

1826: &~& ~~~~~~~~~~~~ - \sqrt{B_L B_T} \sin\frac{\theta}{2}

1827: \cos\frac{\overline{\theta}}{2}

1828: \sin\theta^* \frac{1-\cos\overline{\theta}^*}{\sqrt{2}} 

1829: e^{i \overline{\phi}^*}

1830: \\ \nonumber

1831: &~& ~~~~~~~~~~~~

1832: - B_T \cos\frac{\theta}{2} \cos\frac{\overline{\theta}}{2} 

1833: \frac{(1-\cos\theta^*)(1-\cos\overline{\theta}^*)}{2}

1834: e^{-i( \phi^* - \overline{\phi}^* )}  {\Huge \} }

1835: \\ \nonumber

1836: &+& {\cal M}_{\lambda_1 \lambda_2}^{RR}(\Theta)

1837: {\Huge \{ } - B_L \cos\frac{\theta}{2}

1838: \cos\frac{\overline{\theta}}{2} e^{i (\phi - \overline{\phi})} 

1839: \sin\theta^* \sin\overline{\theta}^*

1840: \\ \nonumber

1841: &~& ~~~~~~~~~~~~

1842: + \sqrt{B_L B_T} \sin\frac{\theta}{2} 

1843: \cos\frac{\overline{\theta}}{2} 

1844: e^{i ( \phi - \overline{\phi} ) }

1845: \frac{1-\cos\theta^*}{\sqrt{2}} \sin\overline{\theta}^*

1846: e^{-i\phi^*} 

1847: \\ \nonumber

1848: &~& ~~~~~~~~~~~~ + \sqrt{B_L B_T} \cos\frac{\theta}{2}

1849: \sin\frac{\overline{\theta}}{2} e^{i (\phi - \overline{\phi})}

1850: \sin\theta^* \frac{1-\cos\overline{\theta}^*}{\sqrt{2}} 

1851: e^{i \overline{\phi}^*}

1852: \\ \nonumber

1853: &~& ~~~~~~~~~~~~

1854: - B_T \sin\frac{\theta}{2} \sin\frac{\overline{\theta}}{2} 

1855: e^{i ( \phi - \overline{\phi} ) }

1856: \frac{(1-\cos\theta^*)(1-\cos\overline{\theta}^*)}{2}

1857: e^{-i( \phi^* - \overline{\phi}^* )}  {\Huge \} } 

1858: \\ \nonumber

1859: &+& {\cal M}_{\lambda_1 \lambda_2}^{LR}(\Theta)

1860: {\Huge \{ } - B_L \sin\frac{\theta}{2}

1861: \cos\frac{\overline{\theta}}{2} e^{-i \overline{\phi}}

1862: \sin\theta^* \sin\overline{\theta}^*

1863: \\ \nonumber

1864: &~& ~~~~~~~~~~~~

1865: - \sqrt{B_L B_T} \cos\frac{\theta}{2} 

1866: \cos\frac{\overline{\theta}}{2}

1867: e^{-i \overline{\phi}} 

1868: \frac{1-\cos\theta^*}{\sqrt{2}} \sin\overline{\theta}^*

1869: e^{-i\phi^*} 

1870: \\ \nonumber

1871: &~& ~~~~~~~~~~~~ + \sqrt{B_L B_T} \sin\frac{\theta}{2}

1872: \sin\frac{\overline{\theta}}{2} e^{-i \overline{\phi}}

1873: \sin\theta^* \frac{1-\cos\overline{\theta}^*}{\sqrt{2}} 

1874: e^{i \overline{\phi}^*}

1875: \\ \nonumber

1876: &~& ~~~~~~~~~~~~

1877: + B_T \cos\frac{\theta}{2} \sin\frac{\overline{\theta}}{2} 

1878: e^{-i \overline{\phi}}

1879: \frac{(1-\cos\theta^*)(1-\cos\overline{\theta}^*)}{2}

1880: e^{-i( \phi^* - \overline{\phi}^* )}  {\Huge \} }

1881: \\ \nonumber

1882: &+& {\cal M}_{\lambda_1 \lambda_2}^{RL}(\Theta)

1883: {\Huge \{ } - B_L \cos\frac{\theta}{2}

1884: \sin\frac{\overline{\theta}}{2} e^{i \phi } 

1885: \sin\theta^* \sin\overline{\theta}^*

1886: \\ \nonumber

1887: &~& ~~~~~~~~~~~~

1888: + \sqrt{B_L B_T} \sin\frac{\theta}{2} 

1889: \sin\frac{\overline{\theta}}{2} 

1890: e^{i \phi}

1891: \frac{1-\cos\theta^*}{\sqrt{2}} \sin\overline{\theta}^*

1892: e^{-i\phi^*} 

1893: \\ \nonumber

1894: &~& ~~~~~~~~~~~~ - \sqrt{B_L B_T} \cos\frac{\theta}{2}

1895: \cos\frac{\overline{\theta}}{2} e^{i \phi}

1896: \sin\theta^* \frac{1-\cos\overline{\theta}^*}{\sqrt{2}} 

1897: e^{i \overline{\phi}^*}

1898: \\ \nonumber

1899: &~& ~~~~~~~~~~~~

1900: + B_T \sin\frac{\theta}{2} \cos\frac{\overline{\theta}}{2} 

1901: e^{i \phi}

1902: \frac{(1-\cos\theta^*)(1-\cos\overline{\theta}^*)}{2}

1903: e^{-i( \phi^* - \overline{\phi}^* )}  {\Huge \} }.

1904: \end{eqnarray}

1905: %

1906: The differential cross section of eq.~(\ref{comdiffcross})

1907: is now expressed in terms of the $\gamma\gamma \rightarrow

1908: t \overline{t}$ amplitudes

1909: ${\cal M}_{\lambda_1 \lambda_2}^{\sigma \overline{\sigma}}(\Theta)$.

1910: %

1911: 

1912: \section{Cross section for the process $\gamma \gamma

1913: \rightarrow t \overline{t} \rightarrow bW^+ \overline{b}W^-$}

1914: %

1915: By using the $W^+$ and $W^-$ decay angular distributions of

1916: eq.~(\ref{comdiffcross})

1917: and the appendix A, one can project out the polarized

1918: $W^+ W^-$ production cross sections.

1919: The cross section for the process $\gamma(\lambda_1) 

1920: \gamma(\lambda_2)

1921: \rightarrow t \overline{t} \rightarrow bW^+(\Lambda)

1922: \overline{b}W^-(\overline{\Lambda})$

1923: is expressed as

1924: %

1925: \begin{eqnarray}

1926: \frac{d \hat{\sigma}_{\lambda_1 \lambda_2}}

1927: {d\cos\Theta d\cos\theta d\phi d\cos\overline{\theta} 

1928: d\overline{\phi}}= \frac{\beta}{32\pi \hat{s}}

1929: \sum_{\Lambda=0,-} \sum_{\overline{\Lambda}=0,+}

1930: \left| {\bf M}_{\lambda_1 \lambda_2}

1931: ^{\Lambda \overline{\Lambda}}

1932: (\Theta; \theta,\phi,\overline{\theta},\overline{\phi})

1933: \right|^2,

1934: \end{eqnarray}

1935: %

1936: where

1937: %

1938: \begin{eqnarray}

1939: \left| {\bf M}_{\lambda_1 \lambda_2}

1940: ^{\Lambda \overline{\Lambda}}

1941: (\Theta; \theta,\phi,\overline{\theta},\overline{\phi})

1942: \right|^2

1943: &=& \left| {\cal M}_{\lambda_1 \lambda_2}^{RR} \right|^2

1944: \left| D_R^\Lambda \right|^2

1945: \left| \overline{D}_R^{\overline{\Lambda}} \right|^2 

1946: \\ \nonumber

1947: &+& \left| {\cal M}_{\lambda_1 \lambda_2}^{LL} \right|^2

1948: \left| D_L^\Lambda \right|^2

1949: \left| \overline{D}_L^{\overline{\Lambda}} \right|^2

1950: \\ \nonumber

1951: &+& \left| {\cal M}_{\lambda_1 \lambda_2}^{RL} \right|^2

1952: \left| D_R^\Lambda \right|^2

1953: \left| \overline{D}_L^{\overline{\Lambda}} \right|^2

1954: \\ \nonumber

1955: &+& \left| {\cal M}_{\lambda_1 \lambda_2}^{LR} \right|^2

1956: \left| D_L^\Lambda \right|^2

1957: \left| \overline{D}_R^{\overline{\Lambda}} \right|^2

1958: \\ \nonumber

1959: &+& 2 \Re \left[ {\cal M}_{\lambda_1 \lambda_2}^{RR} \cdot 

1960: {\cal M}_{\lambda_1 \lambda_2}^{LL*} \right]

1961: \Re \left[ D_R^\Lambda \overline{D}_R^{\overline{\Lambda}}

1962: D_L^{\Lambda*} \overline{D}_L^{\overline{\Lambda}*} \right]

1963: \\ \nonumber

1964: &-& 2 \Im \left[ {\cal M}_{\lambda_1 \lambda_2}^{RR} \cdot

1965: {\cal M}_{\lambda_1 \lambda_2}^{LL*} \right]

1966: \Im \left[ D_R^\Lambda \overline{D}_R^{\overline{\Lambda}}

1967: D_L^{\Lambda*} \overline{D}_L^{\overline{\Lambda}*} \right]

1968: \\ \nonumber

1969: &+& 2 \Re \left[ {\cal M}_{\lambda_1 \lambda_2}^{RR} \cdot 

1970: {\cal M}_{\lambda_1 \lambda_2}^{RL*} \right]

1971: \Re \left[ D_R^\Lambda \overline{D}_R^{\overline{\Lambda}}

1972: D_R^{\Lambda*} \overline{D}_L^{\overline{\Lambda}*} \right]

1973: \\ \nonumber

1974: &-& 2 \Im \left[ {\cal M}_{\lambda_1 \lambda_2}^{RR} \cdot

1975: {\cal M}_{\lambda_1 \lambda_2}^{RL*} \right]

1976: \Im \left[ D_R^\Lambda \overline{D}_R^{\overline{\Lambda}}

1977: D_R^{\Lambda*} \overline{D}_L^{\overline{\Lambda}*} \right]

1978: \\ \nonumber

1979: &+& 2 \Re \left[ {\cal M}_{\lambda_1 \lambda_2}^{RR} \cdot 

1980: {\cal M}_{\lambda_1 \lambda_2}^{LR*} \right]

1981: \Re \left[ D_R^\Lambda \overline{D}_R^{\overline{\Lambda}}

1982: D_L^{\Lambda*} \overline{D}_R^{\overline{\Lambda}*} \right]

1983: \\ \nonumber

1984: &-& 2 \Im \left[ {\cal M}_{\lambda_1 \lambda_2}^{RR} \cdot

1985: {\cal M}_{\lambda_1 \lambda_2}^{LR*} \right]

1986: \Im \left[ D_R^\Lambda \overline{D}_R^{\overline{\Lambda}}

1987: D_L^{\Lambda*} \overline{D}_R^{\overline{\Lambda}*} \right]

1988: \\ \nonumber

1989: &+& 2 \Re \left[ {\cal M}_{\lambda_1 \lambda_2}^{LL} \cdot 

1990: {\cal M}_{\lambda_1 \lambda_2}^{RL*} \right]

1991: \Re \left[ D_L^\Lambda \overline{D}_L^{\overline{\Lambda}}

1992: D_R^{\Lambda*} \overline{D}_L^{\overline{\Lambda}*} \right]

1993: \\ \nonumber

1994: &-& 2 \Im \left[ {\cal M}_{\lambda_1 \lambda_2}^{LL} \cdot

1995: {\cal M}_{\lambda_1 \lambda_2}^{RL*} \right]

1996: \Im \left[ D_L^\Lambda \overline{D}_L^{\overline{\Lambda}}

1997: D_R^{\Lambda*} \overline{D}_L^{\overline{\Lambda}*} \right]

1998: \\ \nonumber

1999: &+& 2 \Re \left[ {\cal M}_{\lambda_1 \lambda_2}^{LL} \cdot 

2000: {\cal M}_{\lambda_1 \lambda_2}^{LR*} \right]

2001: \Re \left[ D_L^\Lambda \overline{D}_L^{\overline{\Lambda}}

2002: D_L^{\Lambda*} \overline{D}_R^{\overline{\Lambda}*} \right]

2003: \\ \nonumber

2004: &-& 2 \Im \left[ {\cal M}_{\lambda_1 \lambda_2}^{LL} \cdot

2005: {\cal M}_{\lambda_1 \lambda_2}^{LR*} \right]

2006: \Im \left[ D_L^\Lambda \overline{D}_L^{\overline{\Lambda}}

2007: D_L^{\Lambda*} \overline{D}_R^{\overline{\Lambda}*} \right]

2008: \\ \nonumber

2009: &+& 2 \Re \left[ {\cal M}_{\lambda_1 \lambda_2}^{RL} \cdot 

2010: {\cal M}_{\lambda_1 \lambda_2}^{LR*} \right]

2011: \Re \left[ D_R^\Lambda \overline{D}_L^{\overline{\Lambda}}

2012: D_L^{\Lambda*} \overline{D}_R^{\overline{\Lambda}*} \right]

2013: .

2014: \end{eqnarray}

2015: %

2016: It is helpful to write down the squared amplitudes

2017: in the case where $\lambda_1 = \lambda_2 = \lambda$,

2018: because high luminosity and high degree of $\lambda_1=

2019: \lambda_2=\lambda$ polarization for energetic two photon

2020: pairs can be achieved at a PLC by choosing a right combination

2021: of the laser and the $e^-$ beam polarizations.

2022: We find

2023: %

2024: \begin{eqnarray}

2025: |{\bf M}_{\lambda \lambda}^{00}|^2

2026:           &=& \{ |{\cal M}_{\lambda \lambda}^{RR}|^2 

2027: \cos^2\frac{\theta}{2} 

2028:                                 \cos^2\frac{\overline{\theta}}{2}

2029:            +|{\cal M}_{\lambda \lambda}^{LL}|^2 \sin^2\frac{\theta}{2} 

2030:            \sin^2\frac{\overline{\theta}}{2}

2031: \\ \nonumber

2032:           &~&~~+ \frac{1}{2} \Re[{\cal M}_{\lambda \lambda}^{RR} 

2033: \cdot {\cal M}_{\lambda \lambda}^{LL*}]

2034:            \sin\theta \sin\overline{\theta} \cos(\phi-\overline{\phi})

2035: \\ \nonumber

2036:           &~&~~- \frac{1}{2} \Im[{\cal M}_{\lambda \lambda}^{RR} 

2037: \cdot {\cal M}_{\lambda \lambda}^{LL*}]

2038:            \sin\theta \sin\overline{\theta} 

2039: \sin(\phi-\overline{\phi}) \}

2040:           \times \frac{B_L^2}{4\pi^2},

2041: \\ \nonumber

2042: |{\bf M}_{\lambda \lambda}^{0+}|^2

2043:           &=& \{ |{\cal M}_{\lambda \lambda}^{RR}|^2 

2044: \cos^2\frac{\theta}{2} 

2045:                                  \sin^2\frac{\overline{\theta}}{2}

2046:            +|{\cal M}_{\lambda \lambda}^{LL}|^2 

2047: \sin^2\frac{\theta}{2} 

2048:            \cos^2\frac{\overline{\theta}}{2}

2049: \\ \nonumber

2050:           &~&~~- \frac{1}{2} \Re[{\cal M}_{\lambda \lambda}^{RR} 

2051: \cdot {\cal M}_{\lambda \lambda}^{LL*}]

2052:            \sin\theta \sin\overline{\theta} \cos(\phi-\overline{\phi})

2053: \\ \nonumber

2054:           &~&~~+ \frac{1}{2} \Im[{\cal M}_{\lambda \lambda}^{RR} 

2055: \cdot {\cal M}_{\lambda \lambda}^{LL*}]

2056:           \sin\theta \sin\overline{\theta} 

2057: \sin(\phi-\overline{\phi}) \}

2058:           \times \frac{B_L B_T}{4\pi^2},

2059: \\ \nonumber

2060: |{\bf M}_{\lambda \lambda}^{-0}|^2

2061:           &=& \{ |{\cal M}_{\lambda \lambda}^{RR}|^2 

2062: \sin^2\frac{\theta}{2} 

2063:                                  \cos^2\frac{\overline{\theta}}{2}

2064:            +|{\cal M}_{\lambda \lambda}^{LL}|^2 

2065: \cos^2\frac{\theta}{2} 

2066:            \sin^2\frac{\overline{\theta}}{2}

2067: \\ \nonumber

2068:           &~&~~- \frac{1}{2} \Re[{\cal M}_{\lambda \lambda}^{RR} 

2069: \cdot {\cal M}_{\lambda \lambda}^{LL*}]

2070:            \sin\theta \sin\overline{\theta} \cos(\phi-\overline{\phi})

2071: \\ \nonumber

2072:           &~&~~+ \frac{1}{2} \Im[{\cal M}_{\lambda \lambda}^{RR} 

2073: \cdot {\cal M}_{\lambda \lambda}^{LL*}]

2074:           \sin\theta \sin\overline{\theta} 

2075: \sin(\phi-\overline{\phi}) \}

2076:           \times \frac{B_L B_T}{4\pi^2},

2077: \\ \nonumber

2078: |{\bf M}_{\lambda \lambda}^{-+}|^2

2079:           &=& \{ |{\cal M}_{\lambda \lambda}^{RR}|^2 

2080: \sin^2\frac{\theta}{2} 

2081:                                  \sin^2\frac{\overline{\theta}}{2}

2082:            +|{\cal M}_{\lambda \lambda}^{LL}|^2 

2083: \cos^2\frac{\theta}{2} \cos^2\frac{\overline{\theta}}{2}

2084: \\ \nonumber

2085:           &~&~~+ \frac{1}{2} \Re[{\cal M}_{\lambda \lambda}^{RR} 

2086: \cdot {\cal M}_{\lambda \lambda}^{LL*}]

2087:            \sin\theta \sin\overline{\theta} \cos(\phi-\overline{\phi})

2088: \\ \nonumber

2089:           &~&~~- \frac{1}{2} \Im[{\cal M}_{\lambda \lambda}^{RR} 

2090: \cdot {\cal M}_{\lambda \lambda}^{LL*}]

2091:           \sin\theta \sin\overline{\theta} 

2092: \sin(\phi-\overline{\phi}) \}

2093:           \times \frac{B_T^2}{4\pi^2}.

2094: \end{eqnarray}

2095: %

2096: 

2097: \newpage

2098: %

2099: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2100: %

2101: % NEW COMMANDS FOR THE BIBLIOGRAPHY

2102: %

2103: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2104: \newcommand{\Journal}[4]{{\sl #1} {\bf #2} {(#3)} {#4}}

2105: %\newcommand{\Journal}[4]{{#1} {\bf #2}, {#4} {(#3)}}

2106: \newcommand{\PL}{\sl Phys. Lett.}

2107: \newcommand{\PR}{\sl Phys. Rev.}

2108: \newcommand{\PRL}{\sl Phys. Rev. Lett.}

2109: \newcommand{\NP}{\sl Nucl. Phys.}

2110: \newcommand{\ZP}{\sl Z. Phys.}

2111: \newcommand{\PTP}{\sl Prog. Theor. Phys.}

2112: \newcommand{\NC}{\sl Nuovo Cimento}

2113: \newcommand{\MPL}{\sl Mod. Phys. Lett.}

2114: \newcommand{\PRep}{\sl Phys. Rep.}

2115: \newcommand{\EPJ}{\sl Eur. Phys. J.}

2116: \newcommand{\CPCR}{\sl Comm. Phys. Commun. Res.}

2117: \newcommand{\NEM}{\sl Nucl. Instrum. Meth.}

2118: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2119: 

2120: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

2121: %

2122: \bibitem{JLC}

2123: K.~Abe et al., [ACFA Linear Collider Working Group Collaboration],

2124: `Particle Physics Experiments

2125: at JLC', hep-ph/0109166.

2126: %

2127: \bibitem{TESLA}

2128: J.~Aguilar-Saavedra et al., [ECFA/DESY LC Physics Working Group

2129: Collaboration], 

2130: `Physics at an $e^+ e^-$ Linear Collider',hep-ph/0106315.

2131: %

2132: \bibitem{NLC}

2133: T.~Abe et al., [American Linear Collider Working Group 

2134: Collaboration], in {\sl Proc. of the APS/DPF/DPB Summer Study on

2135: the Future of Particle Physics (Snowmass 2001)} ed. 

2136: R.~Davidson and C.~Quigg, SLAC-R-570 {\sl Resource book for

2137: Snowmass 2001, 30 Jun - 21 Jul 2001, Snowmass, Colorado}.

2138: %

2139: \bibitem{polarization}

2140:     I.F.~Ginzburg, G.L.~Kotkin, S.L.~Panfil, V.G.~Selbo 

2141:     and V.I.~Telnov,

2142:         {\sl Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res.} {\bf A219},

2143:         5 (1984);\\

2144:     V.I.~Telnov, {\it ibid.} {\bf 294}, 72 (1990).

2145: %

2146: \bibitem{MM}

2147:     M.M.~Muhlleitner, M.~Kramer, M.~Spira and P.M.~Zerwas,

2148:         {\PL} {\bf B508}, 311 (2001);\\

2149:     D.M.~Asner, J.B.~Gronberg and J.F.~Gunion,

2150:         {\PR} {\bf D67}, 035009 (2003).

2151: %

2152: \bibitem{ggwidth}

2153:     G.V.~Jikia,

2154: 	{\NP} {\bf B405}, 24 (1993);\\

2155:     M.S.~Berger,

2156: 	{\PR} {\bf D48}, 5121 (1993);\\

2157:     T.~Ohgaki, T.~Takahashi and I.~Watanabe,

2158: 	{\PR} {\bf D56}, 1723 (1997);\\

2159:     G.~Jikia and S.~Soldner-Rembold,

2160:         {\NEM} {\bf A472}, 133 (2001);\\

2161:     P.~Niezurawski, A.F.~Zarnecki and M.~Krawczyk,

2162:         hep-ph/0207294.

2163: %

2164: \bibitem{Gunion}

2165:     B.~Grazadkowski and J.F.~Ginion,

2166:         {\PL} {\bf B294}, 361 (1992);\\

2167:     M.~Kramer, J.~K\"{u}hn, M.L.~Stong and P.M.~Zerwas,

2168:         {\ZP} {\bf C64}, 21 (1994);\\

2169:     J.F.~Gunion and J.G.~Kelly,

2170:         {\PL} {\bf B333}, 110 (1994).

2171: %

2172: \bibitem{DESYtalk}

2173:     K.~Hagiwara,

2174: 	{\sl Nucl. Instrum. Meth.} {\bf A472}, 12 (2001).

2175: %

2176: %

2177: \bibitem{AKSW}

2178:     E.~Asakawa, J.~Kamoshita, A.~Sugamoto and I.~Watanabe,

2179:         {\EPJ} {\bf C14}, 335 (2000).

2180: 

2181: \bibitem{ACHL}

2182:     E.~Asakawa, S.Y.~Choi, K.~Hagiwara and J.S.~Lee,

2183:         {\PR} {\bf D62}, 115005 (2000).

2184: 

2185: \bibitem{GRS}

2186:     R.M.~Godbole, S.D.~Rindani and R.K.~Singh,

2187: 	{\PR} {\bf D67}, 095009 (2003).

2188: %

2189: \bibitem{HZ1986}

2190:     K.~Hagiwara and D.~Zeppenfeld,

2191:         {\NP} {\bf B274}, 1 (1986).

2192: %

2193: \bibitem{HHG}

2194:     J.F.~Gunion, H.E.~Haber, G.~Kane, S.~Dawson,

2195:         Higgs hunter's guide (Addison-Wesley Publishing Company 1990)

2196:         , and references therein.

2197: %

2198: \bibitem{AHfuture}

2199:     E.~Asakawa and K.~Hagiwara, in preparation

2200: %

2201: \bibitem{HMW}

2202:     K.~Hagiwara, H.~Murayama and I.~Watanabe,

2203:         {\NP} {\bf B367}, 257 (1991).

2204: %

2205: \bibitem{lepton}

2206:     M.~Je\.{z}abek and J.H.~K\"{u}hn,

2207:         {\NP} {\bf B320}, 20 (1989);\\

2208:     G.~Mahlon and S.~Parke,

2209:         {\PR} {\bf D53}, 4886 (1996).

2210: %

2211: \bibitem{NGHIKK}

2212:     M.~Diehl and O.~Nachtman,

2213: 	{\ZP} {\bf C62}, 397 (1994);\\

2214:     J.F.~Gunion, B.~Grzadkowski and X.-G.~He,

2215: 	{\PRL} {\bf 77}, 5172 (1996);\\

2216:     K.~Hagiwara, S.~Ishihara, J.~Kamoshita and B.A.~Kniehl,

2217: 	{\EPJ} {\bf C14}, 457 (2000).

2218: %

2219: \bibitem{HDECAY}

2220:         A.~Djouadi, J.~Kalinowski and M.~Spira,

2221:                 {\CPCR} {\bf 108}, 56 (1998).

2222: %

2223: \bibitem{HELAS}

2224:     H.~Murayama, I.~Watanabe and K.~Hagiwara,

2225:         HELAS: HELicity Amplitude Subroutines for

2226:                Feynman Diagram Evaluations,

2227:         KEK Report 91-11 (1992).

2228: %%

2229: \end{thebibliography}

2230: \end{document}

2231: