1: \documentclass[aps,prd,preprint,showpacs,nofootinbib]{revtex4}

2: \usepackage{epsfig}

3: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% TITLE PAGE %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

4: \begin{document}

5: \title{ Next-to-leading order QCD predictions for $A^0Z^0$

6: associated production at the CERN Large Hadron Collider}

7: \author{\center{Qiang Li, Chong Sheng Li\footnote{\hspace{-0.1cm}

8: Electronics address: csli@pku.edu.cn},

9: and Jian Jun Liu }} \affiliation{\small Department of Physics,

10: Peking University, Beijing 100871, China}

11: \author{Li Gang Jin}

12:  \affiliation{\small Institute of Theoretical Physics, Academia

13: Sinica, Beijing 100080, China}

14: \author{C.-P.Yuan}

15: \email{yuan@pa.msu.edu}

16:  \affiliation{\small

17: Department of Physics and Astronomy, Michigan State University,

18: East Lansing, MI 48824, USA}

19: 

20: \begin{abstract}

21: We present the calculations of the complete next-to-leading order

22: (NLO) QCD corrections (including supersymmetric QCD) to the

23: inclusive total cross sections of the associated production

24: processes $pp\rightarrow A^0Z^0+X$ in the Minimal Supersymmetric

25: Standard Model at the CERN Large Hadron Collider. Both the

26: dimensional regularization scheme and the dimensional reduction

27: scheme are used to organize the calculations which yield the same

28: NLO rates. The NLO correction can either enhance or reduce the

29: total cross sections, but it generally efficiently reduces the

30: dependence of the total cross sections on the

31: renormalization/factorization scale. We also examine the

32: uncertainty of the total cross sections due to the parton

33: distribution function uncertainties.

34: \end{abstract}

35: 

36: \pacs{12.38.Bx, 12.60.Jv, 14.70.Hp, 14.80.Cp}

37: 

38: \maketitle

39: \section{Introduction}

40: The search for one or more Higgs bosons is the central task of the

41: CERN Large Hadron Collider (LHC), with $\sqrt{S}=14$ TeV and a

42: luminosity of 100 ${\rm fb^{-1}}$ per year. In the Standard Model

43: (SM), the Higgs boson mass is a free parameter with an upper bound

44: of $m_H\leq600$ --- 800\,GeV \cite{massh}. Beyond the SM, the

45: Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM), whose Higgs sector

46: is a special case of the Two Higgs Doublet Model (2HDM)

47: \cite{mssm}, is of particular theoretical interest, and contains

48: five physical Higgs bosons: two neutral CP-even bosons $h^0$ and

49: $H^0$, one neutral CP-odd boson $A^0$, and two charged bosons

50: $H^\pm$. The $h^0$ is the lightest, with a mass $m_{h^0}\leq140$\,

51: GeV when including the radiative corrections \cite{massh0}, and is

52: a SM-like Higgs boson especially in the decoupling region

53: ($m_{A^0}\gg m_{Z^0}$). The other four are non-SM-like ones, and the

54: discovery of them may give the direct evidence of the MSSM. It has

55: been shown in \cite{detect,LHCHiggs} that the $h^0$ boson of MSSM

56: cannot escape detection at the CERN Large Hadron Collider (LHC)

57:  and that more than one neutral Higgs particle can be

58: found in large area of the supersymmetry (SUSY) parameter space

59: 

60: At the LHC, the neutral Higgs bosons can be produced through

61: following mechanisms: gluon fusion $gg \rightarrow \phi$

62: \cite{gg2h,gg2hnlo,gg2hnnlo,gg2hresum}, weak boson fusion $qq

63: \rightarrow qqV^*V^* \rightarrow qqh^0/qqH^0$ \cite{vv2h},

64: associated production with weak bosons \cite{wzh,v2vh,v22},

65: associated production with a heavy quark-antiquark pair

66: $gg,q\bar{q} \rightarrow t\bar{t}\phi/b\bar{b}\phi$ \cite{ttbbh}

67: and pairs production \cite{hpair}. Studying the associated

68: production process of a neutral Higgs boson and a vector boson at

69: future hadron colliders may be an interesting way in searching for

70: neutral Higgs bosons, since the total cross section may be large

71: and also the leptonic decay of the vector boson can be used as a

72: spectacular event trigger. In the SM, the process

73: $q\bar{q}^{(\prime )}\rightarrow W/Z^0 h^0_{SM}$ has been studied

74: both at the leading order (LO) \cite{wzh} and the

75: next-to-leading order (NLO) \cite{v22,wzhnlo}

76: in QCD. In the 2DHM and

77:  MSSM, the associated production of $h^0(H^0)Z^0$ and

78: $A^0Z^0$ has been studied only at tree level for Drell-Yan process

79: and at one-loop level for gluon fusion in \cite{hHZLO} and

80: \cite{AZLO,KaoAZLO,Kao}, respectively.

81: 

82: It was shown in Ref.~\cite{AZLO} that the $A^0Z^0$ associated

83: production rate at the LHC strongly depends on the SUSY parameters

84: $\tan{\beta}$ (the ratio of two vacuum expectation values) and

85: $m_A$ (the mass of $A^0$). The total cross section increases with

86: increment of $\tan{\beta}$, and decreases with increment of $m_A$.

87: In this paper, we present the complete NLO QCD, including

88: supersymmetric QCD, calculation for the cross section of the

89: associated production of $A^0Z^0$ through $b\bar{b}$ annihilation

90: process at the LHC. For simplicity, in our calculation, we neglect

91: the bottom quark mass except in the Yukawa couplings. Such

92: approximations are valid in all diagrams, in which the bottom

93: quark appears as an initial state parton, according to the

94: simplified Aivazis-Collins-Olness-Tung (ACOT) scheme \cite{acot}.

95: To regularize the ultraviolet (UV), soft and collinear

96: divergences, two regularization schemes are used in our

97: calculations for cross check, i.e. the dimensional regularization

98: (DREG) scheme \cite{DREG} (with naive $\gamma_5$ scheme

99: \cite{gamma5}) and the dimensional reduction (DRED) scheme

100: \cite{DRED}, and their results are compared.

101: 

102: The arrangement of this paper is as follows. In Sect.~II, we show

103: the LO results and define the notations. In Sect.~III, we present

104: the details of the calculations of both the virtual and real parts

105: of the NLO QCD corrections, and compare the results in DREG with

106: those in DRED. In Sect.~IV, by a detailed numerical analysis, we

107: present the predictions for the inclusive and differential cross

108: sections of the $A^0Z^0$ associated production

109: at the LHC. Sec.~V contains a brief conclusion.

110: For completeness, the relevant Feynman rules are collected in

111: Appendix~A, and the lengthy analytic expressions of the result

112: of our calculation are

113: summarized in Appendices B and C.

114: 

115: \section{Leading order calculations }

116: The related Feynman diagrams which contribute to the LO amplitude

117: of the partonic process $b(p_1) \bar{b}(p_2) \rightarrow

118: Z^0(p_3)A^0(p_4)$ are shown in Fig.~1. The LO amplitude in

119: $n=4-2\epsilon$ dimensions is

120: \begin{eqnarray}

121: &&M^{B}=\delta_{i_1i_2}\mu_r^{4-n}[M^{(s)}_0+M^{(t)}_0+M^{(u)}_0]\nonumber

122: \end{eqnarray}

123: with

124: \begin{eqnarray}

125: &&M^{(s)}_0=2im_b\bigg(\frac{A_1F_1}{s-m^2_{h^0}}+\frac{A_2F_2}{s-m^2_{H^0}}\bigg)\overline{v}(p_2)u(p_1)p_4.

126: \varepsilon_\rho(p_3) \, ,\nonumber\\

127: &&M^{(t)}_0=\frac{im_bA_3}{t}\overline{v}(p_2)\gamma^5(\not{\!p}_1-\not{\!p}_3)

128: \not{\!\varepsilon}(p_3)(C_V+C_A\gamma^5)u(p_1) \, ,\nonumber\\

129: &&M^{(u)}_0=\frac{im_bA_3}{u}\overline{v}(p_2)\not{\!\varepsilon}(p_3)(C_V+C_A\gamma^5)

130: (\not{\!p}_1-\not{\!p}_4)\gamma^5u(p_1),

131: \nonumber

132: \end{eqnarray}

133: where $\delta_{i_1i_2}$ is the color tensor ($i_1,i_2$ are color

134: indices for the initial state quarks), $\mu_r$ is a mass parameter

135: introduced to keep the couplings dimensionless,  $s,t$ and $u$ are

136: Mandelstam variables, which are defined as

137: \begin{eqnarray}

138: && s=(p_1+p_2)^2, \qquad t=(p_1-p_3)^2, \qquad

139: u=(p_2-p_3)^2,\nonumber

140: \end{eqnarray}

141:  $A_{i=1,2,3}$, $F_{i=1,2}$ and $C_{V,A}$

142:  denote the coefficients appearing in the relevant

143: $h^0(H^0,A^0)b\bar{b}$, $h^0(H^0)Z^0A^0$ and $Z^0b\bar{b}$

144: couplings, respectively, and their explicit expressions are given

145: in Appendix A.

146: 

147: In order to simplify the expressions, we further introduce the

148: following Mandelstam variables:

149: \begin{eqnarray}

150:  &&  t'=t-m_{Z^0}^2,\ \ \ u'=u- m_{Z^0}^2.

151: \end{eqnarray}

152: 

153: After the $n$-dimensional phase space integration, the LO partonic

154: differential cross sections are given by

155: \begin{eqnarray}

156: && \frac{d^2 \hat{\sigma}^B}{dt' du'} = \frac{\pi

157: S_{\epsilon}}{s^2\Gamma(1-\epsilon)} \bigg(\frac{t'u' - s

158: m_{Z^0}^2}{\mu_r^2s}\bigg)^{-\epsilon} \Theta(t'u' -s m_{Z^0}^2)

159: \Theta[s- (m_{Z^0} +m_{A^0})^2] \nonumber \\

160: && \hspace{1.8cm} \times \delta (s+ t +u - m_{Z^0}^2 -m_{A^0}^2)

161: \overline{\sum}|M^B|^2

162: \end{eqnarray}

163: with

164: \begin{eqnarray}

165: && \overline{\sum}{|M^B|}^2 =\frac{m^2_b}{6}

166: \Bigg\{\bigg[4m^2_{A^0}s-\frac{ (s-m_{Z^0}^2

167: -m_{A^0}^2)^2s}{m^2_{Z^0}}\bigg]\bigg(\frac{A_1F_1}{s-m^2_{h^0}}+\frac{A_2F_2}{s-m^2_{H^0}}\bigg)^2\nonumber

168: \\&&\hspace{2.0cm}

169: +A_3^2(|C_V|^2+|C_A|^2)\frac{2m^2_{Z^0}(1-\epsilon)(tu-m^2_{Z^0}m^2_{A^0})+st^2}{m^2_{Z^0}t^2}

170: \nonumber\\&&\hspace{2.0cm}+A_3^2(|C_V|^2+|C_A|^2)\frac{2m^2_{Z^0}(1-\epsilon)(tu-m^2_{Z^0}m^2_{A^0})+su^2}{m^2_{Z^0}u^2}\nonumber

171: \\&&\hspace{2.0cm}+\frac{4A_3C_As(t+u)(tu-m^2_{Z^0}m^2_{A^0})}{tum^2_{Z^0}}\bigg[\frac{A_1F_1}{(s-m^2_{h^0})}

172: +\frac{A_2F_2}{(s-m^2_{H^0})}\bigg]

173: \nonumber\\&&\hspace{2.0cm}+2A_3^2(|C_V|^2-|C_A|^2)\frac{2(1-\epsilon)m^2_{Z^0}(tu-m^2_{Z^0}m^2_{A^0})+s(2m^2_{Z^0}m^2_{A^0}-tu)}{m^2_{Z^0}tu}\Bigg\},

174: \end{eqnarray}

175: where $S_\epsilon=(4\pi)^{-2+\epsilon}$ and the $\Theta$ function

176: is the Heaviside step function. $\overline{\sum}{|M^B|}^2$ is the

177: LO squared matrix element of $b(x_1p_1) \bar{b}(x_2p_2)

178: \rightarrow Z^0(p_3)A^0(p_4)$, in which the colors and spins of

179: the outgoing particles have been summed, and the colors and spins

180: of the incoming ones have been averaged over.

181: 

182: The LO total cross section at the LHC is obtained by convoluting

183: the partonic cross section with the parton distribution

184: functions (PDFs) $G_{b,\bar{b}/p}$ in the proton:

185: \begin{eqnarray}

186: \sigma^B=\int dx_1dx_2

187: [G_{b/p}(x_1,\mu_f)G_{\bar{b}/p}(x_2,\mu_f)+ (x_1\leftrightarrow

188: x_2)]\hat{\sigma}^{B},\label{Born0}

189: \end{eqnarray}

190: where $\mu_f$ is the factorization scale and $\hat{\sigma}^{B}$ is

191: the Born level constituent cross section of $b(x_1p_1)

192: \bar{b}(x_2p_2) \rightarrow Z^0(p_3)A^0(p_4)$. Obviously, the

193: above LO results in the DREG scheme are equal to the ones in the

194: DRED scheme since the LO calculations are finite and free of any

195: singularity.

196: 

197: \section{Next-to-Leading order calculations}

198: 

199: The NLO contributions to the associated production of $A^0$ and

200: $Z^0$ can be separated into the virtual corrections arising from

201: loop diagrams of colored particles and the real corrections

202: arising from the radiation of a real gluon or a massless

203: (anti)quark. For both the virtual and real corrections, we will first

204: present the results in the DREG scheme, and then compare them with

205: the ones obtained in the DRED scheme.

206: 

207: \subsection{Virtual corrections}

208: The virtual corrections to $b\bar{b}\rightarrow A^0Z^0$ arise from

209: the Feynman diagrams shown in Fig.~2 and Fig.~3. They consist of

210: self-energy, vertex and box diagrams, which represent the SM QCD

211: corrections, arising from quarks and gluons, and supersymmetric QCD

212: corrections,

213: arising from squarks and gluinos. We carried out the calculation

214: in t'Hooft-Feynman gauge and used the dimensional regularization

215: in $n=4 -2\epsilon$ dimensions to regularize the ultraviolet (UV),

216: soft and collinear divergences in the virtual loop corrections. In

217: order to remove the UV divergences, we renormalize the

218: bottom quark masses in the Yukawa couplings and the wave function

219: of bottom quark, adopting the on-shell renormalization scheme

220: \cite{onmass}.

221: 

222: Denoting $m_{b0}$ and $\psi_{b0}$ as the bare bottom quark mass

223: and the bare wave function, respectively, the relevant

224: renormalization constants $\delta m_b, \delta Z_{bL}$ and $\delta

225: Z_{bR}$ are then defined as

226: \begin{eqnarray}

227: && m_{b0}=m_b +\delta m_b,\\

228:  && \psi_{b0}=(1+\delta Z_{bL})^{\frac{1}{2}}\psi_{bL}+(1+\delta

229:  Z_{bR})^{\frac{1}{2}}\psi_{bR}.

230: \end{eqnarray}

231: After calculating the self-energy diagrams in Fig.~2, we obtain the

232: explicit expressions of all the renormalization constants as

233: follows:

234: \begin{eqnarray}

235: && \frac{\delta m_b}{m_b} =  -\frac{\alpha_s}{4\pi} C_F

236: \bigg\{3B_0(m_b^2,0,m_b^2) - 2

237: \nonumber \\

238: && \hspace{1.2cm} + \sum_{i=1}^2 \bigg[B_1

239: -\frac{m_{\tilde{g}}}{m_b} \sin2\theta_{\tilde{b}} (-1)^i

240: B_0\bigg](m_b^2,m_{\tilde{g}}^2,m_{\tilde{b}_i}^2)\bigg\},\nonumber

241: \\

242: && \delta Z_{bL}= -\frac{\alpha_s}{2\pi}C_F\sum_{i=1}^2(R^{\tilde

243: b}_{i1})^2

244: (B_0+B_1)(0,m_{\tilde{b}_i}^2,m_{\tilde{g}}^2),\nonumber

245: \\

246: && \delta Z_{bR}= -\frac{\alpha_s}{2\pi}C_F\sum_{i=1}^2(R^{\tilde

247: b}_{i2})^2

248: (B_0+B_1)(0,m_{\tilde{b}_i}^2,m_{\tilde{g}}^2),\nonumber

249: \end{eqnarray}

250: where $C_F=\frac{4}{3}$, $B_0,B_1$ are the scalar two-point

251: integrals \cite{denner}, $m_{\tilde{b}_{1,2}}$ are the sbottom

252: masses, $m_{\tilde{g}}$ is the gluino mass, and $R^{\tilde b}$ is

253: a $2\times 2$ matrix shown as below, which is defined to transform

254: the sbottom current eigenstates to the mass eigenstates

255: \cite{rotMa}:

256: \begin{equation}

257: \left(\begin{array}{c} \tilde{b}_1 \\ \tilde{b}_2 \end{array}

258: \right)= R^{\tilde{b}}\left(\begin{array}{c} \tilde{b}_L \\

259: \tilde{b}_R \end{array} \right), \ \ \ \ \

260: R^{\tilde{b}}=\left(\begin{array}{cc} \cos\theta_{\tilde{b}} &

261: \sin\theta_{\tilde{b}} \\ -\sin\theta_{\tilde{b}} &

262: \cos\theta_{\tilde{b}}

263: \end{array} \right)

264: \end{equation}

265: with $0 \leq \theta_{\tilde{b}} < \pi$, by convention.

266: Correspondingly, the mass eigenvalues $m_{\tilde{b}_1}$ and

267: $m_{\tilde{b}_2}$ (with $m_{\tilde{b}_1}\leq m_{\tilde{b}_2}$) are

268: given by

269: \begin{eqnarray}\label{Mq2}

270: \left(\begin{array}{cc} m_{\tilde{b}_1}^2 & 0 \\ 0 &

271: m_{\tilde{b}_2}^2 \end{array} \right)=R^{\tilde{b}}

272: M_{\tilde{b}}^2 (R^{\tilde{b}})^\dag, \ \ \ \ \

273: M_{\tilde{b}}^2=\left(\begin{array}{cc} m_{\tilde{b}_L}^2 & a_bm_b

274: \\ a_bm_b & m_{\tilde{b}_R}^2 \end{array} \right)

275: \end{eqnarray}

276: with

277: \begin{eqnarray}

278: m^2_{\tilde{b}_L} &=& M^2_{\tilde{Q}} +m_b^2

279: +m_Z^2\cos2\beta(I_{3L}^b -e_b\sin^2\theta_W), \\

280: m^2_{\tilde{b}_R} &=& M^2_{\tilde{D}} +m_b^2

281: +m_Z^2\cos2\beta e_b\sin^2\theta_W, \\

282: a_b &=& A_b -\mu\tan\beta.

283: \end{eqnarray}

284: Here, $M_{\tilde{b}}^2$ is the sbottom mass matrix.

285: $M_{\tilde{Q},\tilde{D}}$ and $A_{b}$ are soft

286: SUSY breaking

287: parameters and $\mu$ is the higgsino mass parameter . $I_{3L}^b$

288: and $e_b$ are the third component of the weak isospin (i.e. $-1/2$)

289: and the

290: electric charge of the bottom quark $b$ (i.e. $-1/3$), respectively.

291: 

292: The renormalized virtual amplitudes can be written as

293: \begin{eqnarray}

294: M^{V}=M^{unren}+M^{con}.

295: \end{eqnarray}

296: Here, $M^{unren}$ contains the radiative corrections

297: from the one-loop self-energy, vertex and box

298: diagrams, as shown in Fig.~2,

299: and $M^{con}$ is the corresponding counterterm.

300: Moreover, $M^{unren}$ can be separated into two parts:

301: \begin{eqnarray}

302: M^{unren}=\sum_{\alpha=a}^g M^\alpha + \sum_{\beta=a}^d M^{{\rm

303: box} (\beta)},

304: \end{eqnarray}

305: where $\alpha$ and $\beta$ denote the corresponding diagram

306: indexes in Fig.~2 and Fig.~3, respectively.

307: They can be further expressed as

308: \begin{eqnarray}

309: && M^\alpha= \sum_{l=1}^{12} f_l^{\alpha} M_l,\label{fvertex}

310: \\

311: && M^{box (\beta)}= \sum_{l=1}^{12} f_l^{box (\beta)}

312: M_l,\label{fbox}

313: \\

314: && M^{unren}= \sum_{l=1}^{12} f_l^{unren} M_l, \hspace{1.0cm}

315: (f_l^{unren}=f_l^{\alpha}+f_l^{box (\beta)}) \, ,

316: \end{eqnarray}

317: where $f_l^\alpha$ and $f_l^{box(\beta)}$ are the form factors,

318: which are given explicitly in Appendix B, and the $M_l$ are the

319: standard matrix elements defined as

320: \begin{eqnarray}

321: &&M_{1(2)}=\bar{v}(p_2)u(p_1)p_{1(2)}.\epsilon(p_3),\nonumber

322: \\&&

323: M_{3(4)}=\bar{v}(p_2)P_{R}u(p_1)p_{1(2)}.\epsilon(p_3),\nonumber

324: \\&&

325: M_{5}=\bar{v}(p_2)\not{\!p}_3\not{\!

326: \epsilon}(p_3)u(p_1),\nonumber

327: \\&&

328: M_{6}=\bar{v}(p_2)\not{\!p}_3\not{\!

329: \epsilon}(p_3)P_Ru(p_1),\nonumber

330: \\&&

331: M_{7(8)}=\bar{v}(p_2)\not{\!p}_3P_Ru(p_1)p_{1(2)}.\epsilon(p_3),\nonumber

332: \\&&

333: M_{9}=\bar{v}(p_2)\not{\! \epsilon}(p_3)u(p_1),\nonumber

334: \\&&

335: M_{10}=\bar{v}(p_2)\not{\! \epsilon}(p_3)P_Ru(p_1),\nonumber

336: \\&&M_{11(12)}=\bar{v}(p_2)\not{\!p}_3u(p_1)p_{1(2)}.\epsilon(p_3).

337: \end{eqnarray}

338: The counterterm contribution

339: $M^{con}$ is separated into $M^{con(s)}$, $M^{con(t)}$ and

340: $M^{con(u)}$, i.e. the counterterms for s, t and u channels,

341: respectively, which are given by

342: \begin{eqnarray}

343: && M^{con}= M^{con(s)} + M^{con(t)}+M^{con(u)},\nonumber

344: \\

345: &&

346: M^{con(s)}=2i\bigg(\frac{A_1F_1}{s-m^2_{h^0}}+\frac{A_2F_2}{s-m^2_{H^0}}\bigg)

347: \bigg[\delta m_b+\frac{m_b}{2}(\delta Z_{bL}+\delta

348: Z_{bR})\bigg](M_1+M_2) \, ,\nonumber\\

349: && M^{con(t)}=\frac{-iA_3}{t} \bigg[\delta

350: m_b+\frac{m_b}{2}(\delta Z_{bL}+\delta

351: Z_{bR})\bigg][2(C_V-C_A)M_1-4C_VM_3\nonumber\\

352: &&\hspace{4.3cm}-(C_V-C_A)M_5+2C_VM_6] \, ,\nonumber

353: \\&& M^{con(u)}=\frac{iA_3}{u} \bigg[\delta

354: m_b+\frac{m_b}{2}(\delta Z_{bL}+\delta

355: Z_{bR})\bigg][2(C_V+C_A)M_2-4C_VM_4\nonumber\\

356: &&\hspace{4.3cm}+(C_V+C_A)M_5-2C_VM_6] \, .\nonumber

357: \end{eqnarray}

358: 

359:   The ${\cal O} (\alpha_s)$ virtual corrections to the differential

360: cross section can be expressed as

361: \begin{eqnarray}

362: && \frac{d^2 \hat{\sigma}^V}{dt' du'} = \frac{\pi

363: S_{\epsilon}}{s^2\Gamma(1-\epsilon)}\bigg (\frac{t'u' - s

364: m_{Z^0}^2}{\mu_r^2s}\bigg)^{-\epsilon} \Theta(t'u' -s m_{Z^0}^2)

365: \Theta[s- (m_{Z^0} +m_{A^0})^2] \nonumber \\

366: && \hspace{1.8cm} \times \delta (s+ t +u - m_{A^0}^2 -m_{Z^0}^2) \

367: 2 \ {\rm Re} \bigg[\overline{\sum}{(M^V M^{B\ast})}\bigg],

368: \end{eqnarray}

369: where the renormalized amplitude $M^V$ is UV finite, but it still

370: contains the infrared (IR) divergences:

371: \begin{eqnarray}

372: M^V|_{IR} =\frac{\alpha_s}{2\pi}

373: \frac{\Gamma(1-\epsilon)}{\Gamma(1-2\epsilon)}

374: \bigg(\frac{4\pi\mu_r^2}{s}\bigg)^\epsilon

375: \bigg(\frac{A_2^V}{\epsilon^2} +\frac{A_1^V}{\epsilon}\bigg)M^B,

376: \end{eqnarray}

377: where \begin{eqnarray} A_2^V=-C_F,\qquad  A_1^V=-\frac{3}{2}C_F.

378: \end{eqnarray}

379: Here, the infrared divergences include the soft divergences and the

380: collinear divergences. The soft divergences are cancelled after

381: adding the real emission corrections, and the remaining collinear

382: divergences can be absorbed into the redefinition of PDF

383: \cite{altarelli}, which will be discussed in the following

384: subsections. Note that the coefficients $A_2^V$ and $A_1^V$ of the

385: infrared divergence terms are constants, similar to the Drell-Yan

386: type processes.

387: Needless to say that the SUSY QCD corrections do not

388: generate infrared divergences, for squarks and gluinos are massive

389: particles.

390: 

391: In the above calculation, we have adopted the naive $\gamma_5$

392: prescription in the DREG scheme to calculate the $A^0Z^0$

393: associated production rate. To cross check the above calculation,

394: we shall also adopt the DRED scheme to carefully treat the

395: $\gamma_5$ factor in the amplitude calculation. We shall show that

396: the total inclusive rate is independent of the regularization

397: scheme, though the individual contributions, from either virtual

398: or real emission corrections, can be scheme-dependent.

399: 

400: In the DRED scheme, $\delta Z_{bL}$

401: and $\delta Z_{bR}$ remain unchanged, however, $\delta m_b$ is

402: different, and

403: \begin{eqnarray}

404:  \bigg(\frac{\delta m_b}{m_b}\bigg)_{DREG}- \bigg(\frac{\delta m_b}{m_b}\bigg)_{DRED}

405:  = \frac{\alpha_s}{4\pi}

406:  C_F.\label{v1}

407: \end{eqnarray}

408: Similarly,

409:  the form factors are found to be different, and

410: \begin{eqnarray}

411:  &&{f_i^{unren}}_{DREG}-{f_i^{unren}}_{DRED}

412:  =-\frac{\alpha_s}{2\pi} C_F \,,

413:  \hspace{0.6cm} {\rm for} \quad i=1,2...6,\\

414:  &&{f_i^{unren}}_{DREG}-{f_i^{unren}}_{DRED} = 0  \,,

415:  \hspace{0.6cm} {\rm for} \quad i=7,8...12.

416: \end{eqnarray}

417: Thus, it is easy to obtain the following relations from the above

418: results:

419: \begin{eqnarray}

420: &&{M^V}_{DREG}-{M^V}_{DRED} = -\frac{\alpha_s}{4\pi}

421:  C_FM^B,\\

422: &&{\sigma^V}_{DREG}-{\sigma^V}_{DRED} = -\frac{\alpha_s}{2\pi}

423:  C_F\sigma^B+{\cal O}(\alpha^2_s).\label{0}

424: \end{eqnarray}

425: 

426: \subsection{Real gluon emission}

427: 

428: The Feynman diagrams for the real gluon emission process

429: $b(p_1)\bar{b}(p_2)\rightarrow Z^0(p_3)A^0(p_4)+g(p_5)$ are shown

430: in Fig.~4.

431: 

432:  The phase space integration for the real gluon emission

433: will produce infrared singularities, which can be either soft or

434: collinear and can be conveniently isolated by slicing the phase

435: space into different regions defined by suitable cut-offs. In this

436: paper, we use the two-cutoff phase space slicing method

437: \cite{cutoff} which introduces two small cut-offs to decompose the

438: three-body phase space into three regions.

439: 

440: First, the phase space can be separated into two regions by an

441: arbitrary small soft cut-off $\delta_s$, according to whether the

442: energy  ($E_5$) of the emitted gluon is soft, i.e. $E_5\leq

443: \delta_s\sqrt{s}/2$, or hard, i.e. $E_5> \delta_s\sqrt{s}/2$.

444: Correspondingly, the partonic real cross section can be written as

445: \begin{eqnarray}

446: \hat{\sigma}^{R}= \hat{\sigma}^{S} +\hat{\sigma}^{H},

447: \end{eqnarray}

448: where $\hat{\sigma}^{S}$ and $\hat{\sigma}^{H}$ are the

449: contributions from the soft and hard regions, respectively.

450: $\hat{\sigma}^{S}$ contains all the soft divergences, which can be

451: explicitly obtained after analytically

452: integrating over the phase space of

453: the emitted soft gluon. Second, in order to isolate the remaining

454: collinear divergences from $\hat{\sigma}^{H}$, we should introduce

455: another arbitrary small cut-off, called collinear cut-off

456: $\delta_c$, to further split the hard gluon phase space into two

457: regions, according to whether the Mandelstam variables satisfy the

458: collinear condition $-\delta_c s< u_{1,2}\equiv (p_{1,2}-p_5)^2<

459: 0$ or not. Thus, we have

460: \begin{eqnarray}

461: \hat{\sigma}^{H}= \hat{\sigma}^{HC}+ \hat{\sigma}^{\overline{HC}},

462: \end{eqnarray}

463: where the hard collinear part $\hat{\sigma}^{HC}$ contains the

464: collinear divergences, which can be explicitly obtained after

465: analytically

466: integrating over the phase space of the emitted collinear gluon. The

467: hard non-collinear part $\hat{\sigma}^{\overline{HC}}$ is finite

468: and can be numerically computed using standard Monte-Carlo

469: integration techniques \cite{Monte}, and can be written in the

470: form:

471: \begin{eqnarray}

472: d\hat{\sigma}^{\overline{HC}}=\frac{1}{2s}

473: \overline{\sum}{|M^{b\bar{b}}|}^2 d\overline{\Gamma}_3.

474: \label{nonHC}

475: \end{eqnarray}

476: Here, $d\overline{\Gamma}_3$ is the hard non-collinear region of

477: the three-body phase space.

478: 

479: In the next two subsections, we will discuss in detail the soft

480: and hard collinear gluon emission.

481: 

482: \subsubsection{Soft gluon emission}

483: 

484: In the soft limit, i.e. when the energy of the emitted gluon is small,

485: with $E_5\leq \delta_s\sqrt{s}/2$, the matrix element squared

486: $\overline{\sum}{|M^{R}|}^2$

487: for the process

488: $b(p_1)\bar{b}(p_2)\rightarrow Z^0(p_3)A^0(p_4)g(p_5)$

489: can be simply factorized into the

490: Born matrix element squared times an eikonal factor $\Phi_{eik}$:

491: \begin{eqnarray}

492: \overline{\sum}{|M^{R}(b\bar{b}\rightarrow A^0Z^0 +g)|}^2

493: \stackrel{soft}{\rightarrow} (4\pi\alpha_s\mu_r^{2\epsilon})

494: \overline{\sum}{|M^{B}|}^2 \Phi_{eik},

495: \end{eqnarray}

496: where the eikonal factor $\Phi_{eik}$ is given by

497: \begin{eqnarray}

498: \Phi_{eik}= C_F\frac{s}{(p_1\cdot p_5)(p_2\cdot p_5)} .

499: \end{eqnarray}

500: Moreover, the phase space in the soft limit can also be factorized

501: as

502: \begin{eqnarray}

503: d\Gamma_3(b\bar{b}\rightarrow A^0Z^0 +g)

504: \stackrel{soft}{\rightarrow} d\Gamma_2(b\bar{b}\rightarrow A^0Z^0

505: ) dS,

506: \end{eqnarray}

507: where $dS$ is the integration over the phase space of the soft

508: gluon, which is given by \cite{cutoff}

509: \begin{eqnarray}

510: dS =\frac{1}{2(2\pi)^{3- 2\epsilon}} \int_0^{\delta_s \sqrt{s}/2}

511: dE_5 E_5^{1 -2\epsilon} d \Omega_{2-2 \epsilon}.

512: \end{eqnarray}

513: Hence, the parton level cross section in the soft region can be

514: expressed as

515: \begin{eqnarray}\label{soft}

516: &&\hat{\sigma}^S =(4\pi\alpha_s\mu_r^{2\epsilon})\int

517: d\Gamma_2\overline{\sum}{|M^{B}|}^2 \int dS \Phi_{eik}.

518: \end{eqnarray}

519: Using the approach of Ref.~\cite{cutoff}, after analytically

520:  integrating

521: over the soft gluon phase space, Eq.~(\ref{soft}) becomes

522: \begin{eqnarray}

523: &&\hat{\sigma}^S =\hat{\sigma}^B \left [\frac{\alpha_s}{2\pi}

524: \frac{\Gamma(1-\epsilon)}{\Gamma(1-2\epsilon)}

525: \bigg(\frac{4\pi\mu_r^2}{s}\bigg)^\epsilon \right]

526: \bigg(\frac{A_2^s}{\epsilon^2} +\frac{A_1^s}{\epsilon}

527: +A_0^s\bigg)

528: \end{eqnarray}

529: with

530: \begin{eqnarray}

531: A_2^s=2C_F,\qquad A_1^s= -4C_F\ln\delta_s, \qquad

532: A_0^s=4C_F\ln^2\delta_s.

533: \end{eqnarray}

534: 

535: \subsubsection{Hard collinear gluon emission}

536: In the hard collinear region, i.e. $E_5> \delta_s\sqrt{s}/2$ and

537: $-\delta_c s< u_{1,2} < 0$, the emitted hard gluon is collinear to

538: one of the incoming partons. As a consequence of the factorization

539: theorems \cite{factor1}, the squared matrix element for

540: $b\bar{b}\rightarrow A^0Z^0 +g$ can be factorized into the product

541: of the Born squared matrix element and the Altarelli-Parisi

542: splitting function for $b(\bar{b})\rightarrow b(\bar{b})g$

543:  \cite{altarelli1,factor2}, i.e.

544: \begin{eqnarray}

545: \overline{\sum}{|M^{R}(b\bar{b}\rightarrow A^0Z^0 +g)|}^2

546: \stackrel{collinear}{\rightarrow} (4\pi\alpha_s \mu_r^{2\epsilon})

547: \overline{\sum}{|M^{B}|}^2 \bigg(\frac{-2P_{bb}(z,\epsilon)}{zu_1}

548: +\frac{-2P_{\bar{b}\bar{b}}(z,\epsilon)}{zu_2}\bigg),

549: \end{eqnarray}

550: where $z$ denotes the fraction of incoming parton $b(\bar{b})$'s

551: momentum carried by parton $b(\bar{b})$ with the emitted gluon

552: taking a fraction $(1-z)$, and $P_{ij}(z,\epsilon)$ are the

553: unregulated splitting functions in $n=4-2\epsilon$ dimensions for

554: $0<z<1$, which can be related to the usual Altarelli-Parisi

555: splitting kernels \cite{altarelli1} as

556: $P_{ij}(z,\epsilon)=P_{ij}(z) +\epsilon P_{ij}'(z)$. Explicitly

557: \begin{eqnarray}

558: && P_{bb}(z)=P_{\bar{b}\bar{b}}(z)=C_F \frac{1

559: +z^2}{1-z}+C_F\frac{3}{2}\delta(1-z), \\

560: &&P_{bb}'(z)=P_{\bar{b}\bar{b}}'(z)= -C_F

561: (1-z)+C_F\frac{1}{2}\delta(1-z).\label{pp1}

562: \end{eqnarray}

563: Moreover, the three-body phase space can also be factorized in the

564: collinear limit, and, for example, in the limit $-\delta_c s< u_1

565: < 0$ it has the following form \cite{cutoff}:

566: \begin{eqnarray}

567: d\Gamma_3(b\bar{b}\rightarrow A^0Z^0 +g)

568: \stackrel{collinear}{\rightarrow} d\Gamma_2(b\bar{b}\rightarrow

569: A^0Z^0; s'=zs) \frac{(4\pi)^\epsilon}{16\pi^2\Gamma(1-\epsilon)}

570: dzdu_1[(z -1)u_1]^{-\epsilon}.

571: \end{eqnarray}

572: Here, the two-body phase space should be evaluated at the squared

573: parton-parton energy $zs$. Thus, the three-body cross section in

574: the hard collinear region is given by \cite{cutoff}

575: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:40}

576: && d\sigma^{HC} =\hat{\sigma}^B \bigg[\frac{\alpha_s}{2\pi}

577: \frac{\Gamma(1-\epsilon)} {\Gamma(1-2\epsilon)}

578: (\frac{4\pi\mu_r^2}{s})^\epsilon\bigg] (-\frac{1}{\epsilon})

579: \delta_c^{-\epsilon}

580: \bigg[P_{bb}(z,\epsilon)G_{b/p}(x_1/z)G_{\bar{b}/p}(x_2) \nonumber

581: \\ && \hspace{1.4cm} + P_{\bar{b}\bar{b}}

582: (z,\epsilon)G_{\bar{b}/p}(x_1/z) G_{b/p}(x_2) +(x_1\leftrightarrow

583: x_2)\bigg] \frac{dz}{z} (\frac{1 -z}{z})^{-\epsilon} dx_1 dx_2,

584: \end{eqnarray}

585: where $G_{b(\bar{b})/p}(x)$ is the bare PDF.

586: 

587: \subsection{Massless (anti)quark emission}

588: 

589: In addition to the real gluon emission, a second set of real

590: emission corrections to the inclusive production rate of

591: $pp\rightarrow A^0Z^0$ at the NLO involves the processes with an

592: additional  massless (anti)quark in the final states:

593: \begin{eqnarray}

594: && gb\rightarrow bA^0Z^0, \quad g\bar{b}\rightarrow

595: \bar{b}A^0Z^0 \, .\nonumber

596: \end{eqnarray}

597: The relevant Feynman diagrams for massless (anti)quark emission

598: (the diagrams for the antiquark emission are similar  and omitted

599: here) are shown in Fig.~5

600: 

601: Since the contributions from the real massless (anti)quark

602: emission contain the initial state collinear singularities, we

603: also need to use the two-cutoff phase space slicing method

604: \cite{cutoff} to isolate those collinear divergences.

605: Because there is no soft divergence in the splitting of

606: $g \to b \bar b$, we only need to separate the

607: phase space into two regions: the collinear region and the

608: hard non-collinear region.

609:  Thus, according to the approach shown in

610: Ref.~\cite{cutoff}, the cross sections for the processes with an

611: additional massless (anti)quark in the final states can be

612: expressed as

613: \begin{eqnarray}\label{accd}

614: && d\sigma^{add}= \sum_{(\alpha=g,\beta=b,\bar{b})}

615: \hat{\sigma}^{\overline{C}}(\alpha\beta\rightarrow A^0Z^0 +X)

616: [G_{\alpha/p}(x_1) G_{\beta/p}(x_2) +(x_1\leftrightarrow x_2)]

617: dx_1dx_2 \nonumber

618: \\&& \hspace{1.0cm}

619: +\hat{\sigma}^B \bigg[\frac{\alpha_s}{2\pi}

620: \frac{\Gamma(1-\epsilon)} {\Gamma(1-2\epsilon)}

621: (\frac{4\pi\mu^2_r}{s})^\epsilon\bigg] (-\frac{1}{\epsilon})

622: \delta_c^{-\epsilon}

623: \bigg[P_{bg}(z,\epsilon)G_{g/p}(x_1/z)G_{\bar{b}/p}(x_2) \nonumber

624: \\ && \hspace{1.0cm} +G_{b/p}(x_1)P_{\bar{b}g}(z,\epsilon)G_{g/p}(x_2/z)+(x_1\leftrightarrow

625: x_2)\bigg] \frac{dz}{z} \bigg(\frac{1 -z}{z}\bigg)^{-\epsilon}

626: dx_1 dx_2,

627: \end{eqnarray}

628: where

629: \begin{eqnarray}

630: && P_{bg}(z) =P_{\bar{b}g}(z)=\frac{1}{2}[z^2 +(1-z)^2],

631: \hspace{2.0cm} P_{bg}'(z)=P_{\bar{b}g}'(z)=-z(1-z).\label{pp2}

632: \end{eqnarray}

633: The first term in Eq.~(\ref{accd}) represents the non-collinear

634: cross sections for the two processes, which can be written in

635: the form:

636: \begin{eqnarray}

637: d\hat{\sigma}^{\overline{C}}=\frac{1}{2s}

638: \overline{\sum}{|M^{\alpha\beta}|}^2 d\overline{\Gamma}_3,

639: \label{qHC}

640: \end{eqnarray}

641: where $\alpha$ and $\beta$ denote the incoming partons in the

642: partonic processes, and $d\overline{\Gamma}_3$ is the three body

643: phase space in the non-collinear region. The second term in

644: Eq.~(\ref{accd}) represents the collinear singular cross sections.

645: 

646: \subsection{Mass factorization}

647: As mentioned above, after adding the renormalized virtual

648: corrections and the real corrections, the partonic cross sections

649: still contain the collinear divergences, which can be absorbed

650: into the redefinition of the PDF at NLO, in general called mass

651: factorization \cite{altarelli}. This procedure in practice means

652: that first we convolute the partonic cross section with the bare

653: PDF $G_{\alpha/p}(x)$, and then rewrite

654: $G_{\alpha/p}(x)$

655: in terms of the renormalized PDF

656: $G_{\alpha/p}(x,\mu_f)$in the numerical calculations. In the

657: $\overline{\rm MS}$ scheme, the scale dependent PDF

658: $G_{\alpha/p}(x,\mu_f)$ is given by \cite{cutoff}

659: \begin{eqnarray}

660: G_{\alpha/p}(x,\mu_f)= G_{\alpha/p}(x)+

661: \sum_{\beta}(-\frac{1}{\epsilon})\bigg [\frac{\alpha_s}{2\pi}

662: \frac{\Gamma(1 -\epsilon)}{\Gamma(1 -2\epsilon)} \bigg(\frac{4\pi

663: \mu_r^2}{\mu_f^2}\bigg)^\epsilon\bigg]  \int_x^1 \frac{dz}{z}

664: P_{\alpha\beta} (z) G_{\beta/p}(x/z).

665: \end{eqnarray}

666: After replacing the bare PDF by the renormalized $\overline{\rm MS}$

667: PDF and integrating out the collinear region of the phase space defined

668: in the two-cutoff phase space slicing method~\cite{cutoff}, the

669: resulting sum of Eq.~(\ref{eq:40}) and the collinear part (the second term) of

670: Eq.~(\ref{accd}) yields the remaining ${\cal O}$ collinear contribution

671: as~\cite{cutoff}:

672: \begin{eqnarray}

673: && \sigma^{coll}= \int \hat{\sigma}^B\bigg[\frac{\alpha_s}{2\pi}

674: \frac{\Gamma(1-\epsilon)} {\Gamma(1-2\epsilon)}

675: \bigg(\frac{4\pi\mu^2_r}{s}\bigg)^\epsilon \bigg]

676: \{\tilde{G}_{b/p}(x_1,\mu_f) G_{\bar{b}/p}(x_2,\mu_f) +

677: G_{b/p}(x_1,\mu_f) \tilde{G}_{\bar{b}/p}(x_2,\mu_f) \nonumber

678: \\ && \hspace{1.2cm}

679: +\sum_{\alpha=b,\bar{b}}\bigg[\frac{A_1^{sc}(\alpha\rightarrow

680: \alpha g)}{\epsilon} +A_0^{sc}(\alpha\rightarrow \alpha

681: g)\bigg]G_{b/p}(x_1,\mu_f) G_{\bar{b}/p}(x_2,\mu_f) \nonumber

682: \\ && \hspace{1.2cm}

683: +(x_1\leftrightarrow x_2)\} dx_1dx_2,\label{11}

684: \end{eqnarray}

685: where

686: \begin{eqnarray}

687: && A_1^{sc}(b\rightarrow bg)=A_1^{sc}(\bar{b}\rightarrow \bar{b}g)=C_F(2\ln\delta_s +3/2), \\

688: && A_0^{sc}=A_1^{sc}\ln(\frac{s}{\mu_f^2}), \\

689: &&

690: \tilde{G}_{\alpha(=b,\bar{b})/p}(x,\mu_f)=\sum_{\beta=g,\alpha}\int_x^{1-

691: \delta_s\delta_{\alpha\beta}} \frac{dy}{y}

692: G_{\beta/p}(x/y,\mu_f)\tilde{P}_{\alpha\beta}(y)

693: \end{eqnarray}

694: with

695: \begin{eqnarray}

696: \tilde{P}_{\alpha\beta}(y)=P_{\alpha\beta}(y) \ln(\delta_c

697: \frac{1-y}{y} \frac{s}{\mu_f^2}) -P_{\alpha\beta}'(y).

698: \end{eqnarray}

699: 

700: The NLO total cross section for $pp\rightarrow A^0Z^0$ in

701: the $\overline{MS}$ factorization scheme is

702: obtained by summing up the

703: Born, virtual, soft, collinear and hard non-collinear

704:  contributions. In terms of the above notations, we have

705: \begin{eqnarray}

706: && \sigma^{NLO}= \int dx_1dx_2 \{

707: \bigg[G_{b/p}(x_1,\mu_f)G_{\bar{b}/p}(x_2,\mu_f)+

708: (x_1\leftrightarrow x_2)\bigg](\hat{\sigma}^{B} +

709: \hat{\sigma}^{V}+ \hat{\sigma}^{S} +\hat{\sigma}^{\overline{HC}})\}

710: +\sigma^{coll} \nonumber

711: \\ && \hspace{0.4cm} +\sum_{(\alpha=g,\beta=b,\bar{b})}\int dx_1dx_2

712: \bigg[G_{\alpha/p}(x_1,\mu_f) G_{\beta/p}(x_2,\mu_f)

713: +(x_1\leftrightarrow x_2)\bigg]

714: \hat{\sigma}^{\overline{C}}(\alpha\beta\rightarrow A^0Z^0

715: +X) \, .\label{t}

716: \end{eqnarray}

717: We note that the above expression contains no singularities, for

718: $2A_2^V +A_2^s =0$ and $2A_1^V +A_1^s +A_1^{sc}(b\rightarrow bg)

719: +A_1^{sc}(\bar{b}\rightarrow \bar{b}g) =0$.

720: Namely, all the $1/{\epsilon^2}$ and $1/{\epsilon}$ terms cancel in

721: $\sigma^{NLO}$. The apparent logarithmic $\delta_s$ and $\delta_c$ dependent terms

722: also cancel with the

723: the hard non-collinear cross section $\hat{\sigma}^{\overline{HC}}$

724: after numerically integrating over its relevant phase space volume.

725: 

726: \subsection{Real emission corrections and NLO total cross sections in the DRED scheme}

727: 

728: In the end of Sec.~III A, cf. Eqs.~(\ref{v1})--(\ref{0}), we

729: discussed the results of virtual corrections in the DRED scheme.

730: Here, we examine the real emission corrections and the NLO total

731: cross section in the DRED scheme and compare them with those

732: obtained in the DREG scheme. We find that the contributions from

733: soft gluon emission remain the same, while the ones from hard

734: collinear gluon emission and massless (anti)quark emission are

735: different due to the difference in the parton

736: splitting functions and the perturbative PDFs.

737: 

738: First, the splitting functions in the DRED scheme contain no

739: $\epsilon$ parts, so that

740: \begin{eqnarray}

741: P_{ij}(z,\epsilon)_{DRED}=P_{ij}(z).\label{12}

742: \end{eqnarray}

743: Thus, from Eqs.~(\ref{11}) and (\ref{12}), we find the difference

744: \begin{eqnarray}

745: &&{\sigma^{coll}}_{DREG} - {\sigma^{coll}}_{DRED} =

746: -\frac{\alpha_s}{2\pi} \int \hat{\sigma}^B

747: \{\sum_{\beta}\int_{x_1}^{1-\delta_s\delta_{b\beta}} \frac{dy}{y}

748: G_{\beta/p}(x_1/y,\mu_f){P^\prime}_{b\beta}(y)

749: G_{\bar{b}/p}(x_2,\mu_f)\nonumber

750: \\&& \hspace{0.2cm}+ \sum_{\beta}\int_{x_2}^{1-\delta_s\delta_{\bar{b}\beta}} \frac{dy}{y}

751: G_{\beta/p}(x_2/y,\mu_f){P^\prime}_{\bar{b}\beta}(y)

752: G_{b/p}(x_1,\mu_f) +(x_1\leftrightarrow x_2)\}

753: dx_1dx_2 \, . \label{1}

754: \end{eqnarray}

755: Secondly, the perturbative PDFs defined in the DRED and DREG schemes are

756: different, and ~\cite{diffPDF}:

757: \begin{eqnarray}

758: G_{\alpha/p}(x,\mu_f)_{DREG}-G_{\alpha/p}(x,\mu_f)_{DRED}

759: =\frac{\alpha_s}{2\pi}\sum_{\beta}

760: \int_{x}^{1}\frac{dy}{y}{P^\prime}_{\alpha\beta}(x/y)G_{\alpha/p}(x,\mu_f)_{DREG}.

761: \end{eqnarray}

762: After substituting them into the formula for calculating the Born level

763: cross sections, cf. Eq.~(\ref{Born0}), we find the difference

764: arising from the perturbative PDFs, at the ${\cal O}(\alpha_s)$

765: level, as:

766: \begin{eqnarray}

767: &&{\sigma^{B}}_{DREG}-{\sigma^{B}}_{DRED}=

768: \frac{\alpha_s}{2\pi} \int \hat{\sigma}^B

769: \{\sum_{\beta}\int_{x_1}^{1} \frac{dy}{y}

770: G_{\beta/p}(x_1/y,\mu_f)_{DRED}{P^\prime}_{b\beta}(y)

771: G_{\bar{b}/p}(x_2,\mu_f)_{DRED}\nonumber

772: \\&& \hspace{0.2cm}+ \sum_{\beta}\int_{x_2}^{1} \frac{dy}{y}

773: G_{\beta/p}(x_2/y,\mu_f)_{DRED}{P^\prime}_{\bar{b}\beta}(y)

774: G_{b/p}(x_1,\mu_f)_{DRED} +(x_1\leftrightarrow

775: x_2)\} dx_1dx_2.\label{2}

776: \end{eqnarray}

777: Except the upper limit of the integral over y, the two expressions in

778: Eqs.~(\ref{1}) and (\ref{2}) are the same. After substituting

779: Eqs.~(\ref{1}), (\ref{2}) and (\ref{0}) into Eq.~(\ref{t}), we

780: find the relation between the two NLO total cross sections,

781: separately calculated in the DREG and DRED schemes, as follows:

782: \begin{eqnarray}

783: &&{\sigma^{NLO}}_{DREG} - {\sigma^{NLO}}_{DRED} =

784: \frac{\alpha_s}{2\pi} \int \hat{\sigma}^B

785: \{\sum_{\beta}\int_{1-\delta_s\delta_{b\beta}}^{1} \frac{dy}{y}

786: G_{\beta/p}(x_1/y,\mu_f){P^\prime}_{b\beta}(y)

787: G_{\bar{b}/p}(x_2,\mu_f)\nonumber

788: \\&& \hspace{1.2cm}+ \sum_{\beta}\int_{1-\delta_s\delta_{\bar{b}\beta}}^{1} \frac{dy}{y}

789: G_{\beta/p}(x_2/y,\mu_f){P^\prime}_{\bar{b}\beta}(y)

790: G_{b/p}(x_1,\mu_f) +(x_1\leftrightarrow x_2)\}

791: dx_1dx_2\nonumber

792: \\&& \hspace{1.2cm}-\frac{\alpha_s}{2\pi} C_F \sigma^B_{DRED}+{\cal O}

793: (\alpha^2_s).

794: \end{eqnarray}

795: Using the explicit expressions of the $\epsilon$ parts of the

796: splitting functions $P^\prime$, cf. Eqs.~(\ref{pp1}) and

797: (\ref{pp2}), we find

798: \begin{eqnarray}

799: \sigma^{NLO}_{DREG}=\sigma^{NLO}_{DRED}+{\cal O} (\alpha^2_s).

800: \end{eqnarray}

801: As expected, both schemes yield the same

802: NLO total cross sections, up to ${\cal O} (\alpha^2_s)$.

803: 

804: \subsection{Differential cross sections in transverse momentum and invariant mass}

805: 

806: In this subsection ,we present the differential cross section in

807: the transverse momentum of $Z^0$ and $A^0$ bosons, respectively,

808: and the invariant mass of the $A^0Z^0$ pair.

809:  Using the

810: notations defined in Ref.~\cite{beenakker2}, the differential

811: distribution of the transverse momentum

812: ($p_T$) and rapidity ($y$ ) of $Z^0$ boson for the

813: processes

814: \begin{eqnarray}

815: p(p_1)+ p(p_2) \rightarrow Z^0 (p_3) +A^0 (p_4) \/  [+

816: g(p_5)/b(p_5)/\bar{b}(p_5)]

817: \end{eqnarray}

818: is given by

819: \begin{eqnarray} \label{integralpt}

820: \frac{d^2\sigma}{dp_T dy} =2 p_T S \sum_{\alpha,\beta}

821: \int_{x_1^-}^1 dx_1 \int_{x_2^-}^1 dx_2 x_1

822: G_{\alpha/p}(x_1,\mu_f) x_2 G_{\beta/p}(x_2,\mu_f) \frac{d^2

823: \hat{\sigma}_{\alpha\beta}}{dt' du'},

824: \end{eqnarray}

825: where $\sqrt{S}$ is the total center-of-mass energy of the

826: collider, and

827: \begin{eqnarray}

828: && p_T^2= \frac{T_2U_2}{S} -m_{Z^0}^2, \hspace{1.8cm}

829: y=\frac{1}{2}\ln(\frac{T_2}{U_2}), \nonumber \\ && x_1^-=

830: \frac{-T_2 -m_{Z^0}^2 +m_{A^0}^2}{S +U_2}, \ \ \ \ \ \ x_2^-=

831: \frac{-x_1U_2 -m_{Z^0}^2 +m_{A^0}^2}{x_1S +T_2}

832: \end{eqnarray}

833: with $T_2=(p_2-p_3)^2 - m_{Z^0}^2$ and $U_2=(p_1-p_3)^2 -

834: m_{Z^0}^2$. The limits of integral over $y$ and $p_T$ are

835: \begin{eqnarray}

836: -y^{max}(p_T)\leq y \leq y^{max}(p_T), \hspace{1.5cm}  0\leq p_T

837: \leq p_T^{max},

838: \end{eqnarray}

839: with

840: \begin{eqnarray}

841: && y^{max}(p_T)={\rm arccosh}\bigg(\frac{S+ m_{Z^0}^2-

842: m_{A^0}^2}{2\sqrt{S (p_T^2 +m_{Z^0}^2)}}\bigg), \nonumber

843: \\ && p_T^{max}=\frac{1}{2\sqrt{S}} \sqrt{(S

844: +m_{Z^0}^2 -m_{A^0}^2)^2 -4m_{Z^0}^2S} \ .

845: \end{eqnarray}

846: The differential distribution with respect to $p_T$ and $y$ of

847: $A^0$ is similar to the one of $Z^0$. The differential

848: distribution with respect to the invariant mass $M_{AZ}$ is given

849: by

850: \begin{eqnarray}

851: \frac{d\sigma}{dM_{AZ}} =

852: \frac{2M_{AZ}}{S}\sum_{\alpha,\beta}\frac{d\cal{L}_{AZ}^{\alpha\beta}}{d\tau}\hat{\sigma}_{\alpha\beta}(\tau

853: S),

854: \end{eqnarray}

855: where $\Large{\frac{d\cal{L}_{AZ}^{\alpha\beta}}{d\tau}}$ is the

856: parton luminosity, defined as:

857: \begin{eqnarray}

858: \frac{d\cal{L}_{AZ}^{\alpha\beta}}{d\tau}=\int^1_\tau

859: \frac{dx}{x}\bigg[G_{\alpha/p}(x,\mu_f)G_{\beta/p}(\tau/x,\mu_f)

860: \bigg],

861: \end{eqnarray}

862: with

863: \begin{eqnarray}

864: &&M_{AZ}\equiv

865: \sqrt{(E_3+E_4)^2-(\overrightarrow{p_3}+\overrightarrow{p_4})^2} \/ \geq (m_{A^0}+m_{Z^0}),\\

866: &&\tau\equiv M^2_{AZ}/S.

867: \end{eqnarray}

868: 

869: \section{Numerical Results}

870: 

871: In the numerical calculations, we used the following set of

872: SM parameters\cite{SM}:

873: \begin{eqnarray}

874: && \alpha_{ew}(m_W)=1/128, \ m_W=80.419 \, {\rm GeV},

875: \ m_Z=91.1882 \,{\rm GeV} \, ,\nonumber\\

876: && m_t=178 \, {\rm GeV}, \ \alpha_s(M_Z)=0.118.

877: \end{eqnarray}

878: The running QCD coupling $\alpha_s(Q)$ is evaluated at the two-loop

879: order~\cite{runningalphas}, and the CTEQ6M PDFs \cite{CTEQ} is used

880: throughout this paper to calculate various cross sections, either at the

881: LO or NLO.

882: As to the Yukawa coupling of the bottom quark, we shall first use the

883: $\overline{\rm MS}$ bottom quark mass, $m_b(m_b)=4.25$\,GeV, to

884: evaluate the event rate, then compare it with the one calculated

885: using the QCD improved running mass to reduce the higher order QCD

886: radiative corrections, therefore improve the perturbative

887: calculations. The QCD improved running mass $m_b(Q)$, evaluated by

888: the NLO formula \cite{runningmb}, is:

889: \begin{equation}

890: m_b(Q)=U_6(Q,m_t)U_5(m_t,m_b)m_b(m_b) \, ,

891: \end{equation}

892: where the evolution factor $U_f$ is

893: \begin{eqnarray}

894: U_f(Q_2,Q_1)=\bigg(\frac{\alpha_s(Q_2)}{\alpha_s(Q_1)}\bigg)^{d^{(f)}}

895: \bigg[1+\frac{\alpha_s(Q_1)-\alpha_s(Q_2)}{4\pi}J^{(f)}\bigg], \nonumber \\

896: d^{(f)}=\frac{12}{33-2f}, \hspace{1.0cm}

897: J^{(f)}=-\frac{8982-504f+40f^2}{3(33-2f)^2} \, ,

898: \end{eqnarray}

899: and $f$ is the number of the active light quarks.

900: For comparison, we list the QCD improved

901: running bottom quark mass in Table~\ref{tc}

902: for various energy scale $Q$.

903: 

904: For large $\tan \beta$, the SUSY threshold correction to the bottom

905: quark Yukawa couplings could be large, and it can be resummed by making the

906: following replacement in the tree-level couplings

907: to improve the perturbation calculations~\cite{runningmb}:

908: \begin{eqnarray}

909: && m_b(Q) \ \ \rightarrow \ \ \frac{m_b(Q)}{1+\Delta

910: m_b(Q=M_{SUSY})}, \label{deltamb}

911: \\

912: && \Delta

913: m_b=\frac{2\alpha_s(Q=M_{SUSY})}{3\pi}M_{\tilde{g}}\mu\tan\beta

914: I(m_{\tilde{b}_1},m_{\tilde{b}_2},M_{\tilde{g}})

915: +\frac{h_t^2}{16\pi^2}\mu A_t\tan\beta

916: I(m_{\tilde{t}_1},m_{\tilde{t}_2},\mu) \nonumber \\

917: && \hspace{1.0cm} -\frac{g^2}{16\pi^2}\mu M_2\tan\beta

918: \sum_{i=1}^2 \bigg[(R^{\tilde{t}}_{i1})^2

919: I(m_{\tilde{t}_i},M_2,\mu) + \frac{1}{2}(R^{\tilde{b}}_{i1})^2

920: I(m_{\tilde{b}_i},M_2,\mu)\bigg] \label{deltamb1} \, ,

921: \end{eqnarray}

922: where

923: \begin{eqnarray}

924: I(a,b,c)=\frac{1}{(a^2-b^2)(b^2-c^2)(a^2-c^2)}

925: (a^2b^2\log\frac{a^2}{b^2} +b^2c^2\log\frac{b^2}{c^2}

926: +c^2a^2\log\frac{c^2}{a^2}) \, ,

927: \end{eqnarray}

928: \begin{eqnarray}

929: h_t=\frac{gm_t}{\sqrt{2}m_W\sin{\beta}},

930: \end{eqnarray}

931: and $R^{\tilde{t}}$ and $R^{\tilde{b}}$ are the rotation matrices

932: for defining the mass eigenstates of ${\tilde{t}}$ and

933: ${\tilde{b}}$, respectively. We set $M_{SUSY}$ in $\Delta m_b$ to

934: $m_{\tilde{g}}$ in our numerical calculations. Needless to say

935: that when using the running bottom quark Yukawa coupling to

936: evaluate cross sections, we shall subtract the corresponding

937: (SUSY-)QCD corrections at the order $\alpha_s$ from the

938: renormalization constant $\delta m_b$ to avoid double counting in

939: perturbative expansion of the strong coupling constant.

940: 

941: The values of the MSSM parameters taken in our numerical

942: calculations were constrained within the minimal supergravity

943: scenario (mSUGRA)~\cite{msugra}, in which there are only five free

944: input parameters at the grand unification (GUT) scale. They are

945: $m_{\frac{1}{2}},m_0,A_0,\tan\beta$ and the sign of $\mu$, where

946: $m_{\frac{1}{2}},m_0,A_0$ are, respectively, the universal gaugino

947: mass, scalar mass and the trilinear soft breaking parameter in the

948: superpotential. Given those parameters, all the MSSM parameters at

949: the weak scale are determined in the mSUGRA scenario by using the

950: program package SUSPECT 2.3 \cite{suspect}. In particular, we used

951: the running Higgs masses at the $m_{Z}$ scale, defined in the

952: modified dimensional reduction ($\overline{DR}$) scheme, which

953: have included the full one-loop corrections, as well as the

954: two-loop corrections controlled by the strong gauge coupling and

955: the Yukawa couplings of the third generation fermions

956: \cite{suspect,susyhiggs}. In our numerical calculations, we used

957: the two-loop renormalization group equations (RGEs) presented in

958: that program for calculating all the gauge couplings, the (third

959: generation) Yukawa couplings and the gaugino masses, while using

960: one-loop RGE for the other supersymmetric parameters. In the

961: following, we shall present our numerical studies based on the

962: five sets of SUSY input parameters listed in Table~\ref{ta}, which

963: are consistent with all the existing experiment data~\cite{SM}. We

964: will also vary $\tan\beta$, $m_0$ and $A_0$ to examine their

965: effects to various cross sections. For completeness, we also show

966: the relevant SUSY output parameters in Table~\ref{tb}. The QCD

967: plus SUSY-QCD and SUSY-EW improved bottom quark running mass are

968: listed in Table\ref{td}, which should be compared with those given

969: in Table~\ref{tc}, in which only QCD running effect is included.

970: For comparison, the QCD plus SUSY-QCD improved bottom quark running mass

971: are separately listed in Table\ref{te}.

972: 

973: \begin{table}[t!]

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

975:   \hline

976:    Q (GeV) & \ \ 250 \ \ \ & \ \ 500 \ \ \ & 750 \\

977:   \hline

978:   $m_b(Q)$ (GeV) \ \  & \ \ 2.68 \ \ & \ \ 2.55 \ \  & \ \ 2.49 \ \ \\

979:   \hline

980:  \end{tabular}\caption{The QCD improved running bottom quark

981:  mass, evaluated at $Q=250, 500$, and $750$\,GeV.

982:  The ${\overline{\rm MS}}$ bottom quark mass is taken to be

983:  $m_b(m_b)=4.25$\,GeV.

984:  }\label{tc}

985:   \end{table}

986:  \begin{table}[h!]

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

988:   \hline

989: set number  & $m_0$(GeV) \ \ & $m_{\frac{1}{2}}$(GeV) & $A_0$(GeV) \ \ & $\tan\beta$ & sign$(\mu)$  \\

990:   \hline

991: 1 & 150  & 180 & 300 & 40 & + \\

992:   \hline

993: 2 & 150  & 400 & 300 & 40 & + \\

994:   \hline

995: 3 & 200  & 160  & 100 & 40 & - \\

996:   \hline

997: 4 & 250  & 160  & 100 & 40 & - \\

998:  \hline

999: 5 & 400 & 160  & 100 & 40 & - \\

1000:   \hline

1001: \end{tabular}\caption{ Five sets of SUSY input parameters studied in

1002: this paper, within the mSUGRA scenario.

1003: }\label{ta}

1004:   \end{table}

1005: \begin{table}[h!]

1006: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}

1007:   \hline

1008:  & $m_{\tilde{b}_{1(2)}}$(GeV) &

1009: $m_{\tilde{t}_{1(2)}}$(GeV) &

1010:   $m_{\tilde{g}}$(GeV) & $m_{A^0(h^0,H^0)}$(GeV) & $A_{t(b)}$(GeV) & $\mu$(GeV)& $\alpha$ & $\cos\theta_{\tilde{t}(\tilde{b})}$ \\

1011:   \hline

1012: 1 & 374.6(429.1)  & 339.7(457.7) & 457.0 & 223.8(107.5,223.9) \ \ & -256.5(-275.8) & 235.3  & -0.032 & 0.97(0.74)\\

1013:   \hline

1014: 2 & 764.3(822.0)  & 673.6(833.8) & 940.0 & 458.3(115.5,458.3) \ \ & -607.5(-750.9) & 498.1  & -0.027 & 0.47(0.71)\\

1015:   \hline

1016: 3 & 314.3(395.1)  & 305.5(425.1) & 416.8 & 133.7(106.7,134.1) \ \ & -263.9(-303.9) & -224.6 & -0.143 & 0.62(-0.69)\ \ \\

1017:   \hline

1018: 4 & 330.8(408.6)  & 317.0(434.3) & 419.9 & 155.0(107.2,155.3) \ \ & -262.7(-303.6) & -228.8 & -0.086 & 0.60(0.71)\\

1019:  \hline

1020: 5 & 396.1(467.5)  & 363.9(476.1) & 431.9 & 233.0(108.4,233.2) \ \ & -261.0(-304.9) & -249.4 & -0.043 & 0.54(0.79)\\

1021:   \hline

1022: \end{tabular}\caption{The SUSY output parameters used in our

1023: numerical calculations, corresponding to the five sets of SUSY input

1024: parameters listed in

1025: Table~\ref{ta}.}\label{tb}

1026:   \end{table}

1027: \begin{table}[h!]

1028: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}

1029:   \hline

1030: set number  & 1 & 2 &

1031:   3 & 4 & 5 \\

1032:   \hline

1033: $m_b(Q=250, M_{SUSY}=m_{\tilde{g}})$(GeV) \ \ & \ \ 2.35 \ \ & \ \ 2.41 \ \ & \ \ 3.18 \ \ & \ \ 3.16 \ \ & \ \ 3.10 \ \ \\

1034:  \hline

1035: $m_b(Q=500, M_{SUSY}=m_{\tilde{g}})$(GeV) \ \ & \ \ 2.24 \ \ & \ \ 2.29 \ \ & \ \ 3.03 \ \ & \ \ 3.01 \ \ & \ \ 2.96 \ \ \\

1036:  \hline

1037: $m_b(Q=750, M_{SUSY}=m_{\tilde{g}})$(GeV) \ \ & \ \ 2.18 \ \ & \ \ 2.23 \ \ & \ \ 2.95 \ \ & \ \ 2.93 \ \ & \ \ 2.88 \ \ \\

1038:   \hline\end{tabular}\caption{The QCD plus SUSY-QCD and SUSY-EW

1039:   improved bottom quark running mass for the five sets of SUSY inputs listed in

1040: Table~\ref{ta}, evaluated at $Q=250,500$ and

1041: $750$\,GeV.}\label{td}

1042:   \end{table}

1043: \begin{table}[h!]

1044: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}

1045:   \hline

1046: set number  & 1 & 2 &

1047:   3 & 4 & 5 \\

1048:   \hline

1049: $m_b(Q=250, M_{SUSY}=m_{\tilde{g}})$(GeV) \ \ & \ \ 2.15 \ \ & \ \ 2.14 \ \ & \ \ 3.71 \ \ & \ \ 3.66 \ \ & \ \ 3.53 \ \ \\

1050:  \hline

1051: $m_b(Q=500, M_{SUSY}=m_{\tilde{g}})$(GeV) \ \ & \ \ 2.04 \ \ & \ \ 2.04 \ \ & \ \ 3.53 \ \ & \ \ 3.49 \ \ & \ \ 3.36 \ \ \\

1052:  \hline

1053: $m_b(Q=750, M_{SUSY}=m_{\tilde{g}})$(GeV) \ \ & \ \ 1.99 \ \ & \ \ 1.98 \ \ & \ \ 3.44 \ \ & \ \ 3.39 \ \ & \ \ 3.27 \ \ \\

1054:   \hline\end{tabular}\caption{The QCD plus SUSY-QCD

1055:   improved bottom quark running mass for the five sets of SUSY inputs listed in

1056: Table~\ref{ta}, evaluated at $M_{SUSY}=m_{\tilde{g}}$, and $Q=250,

1057: 500$, and $750$\,GeV.}\label{te}

1058:   \end{table}

1059: As for the renormalization and factorization scales, we always

1060: chose $\mu_r=m_{\rm av}\equiv(m_{A^0}+m_{Z^0})/2$ and

1061: $\mu_f=m_{\rm av}$, unless specified otherwise.

1062: 

1063: \subsection{LO total cross section}

1064: 

1065:  In Fig.~6 and Fig.~7, we first

1066: compare the LO total cross sections of $pp\rightarrow A^0Z^0$ via

1067: $b\bar{b}$ annihilation with the ones via gluon fusion and

1068: Drell-Yan processes, respectively. Here, we use the $\overline{\rm

1069: MS}$ bottom quark mass $m_b(m_b)=4.25$\,GeV, without including the

1070: effect from QCD running.

1071:  Our numerical results are different from

1072: the ones presented in Ref.~\cite{AZLO}, because the

1073: updated SUSY parameters are used instead of the earlier input parameters

1074: used in Ref.~\cite{AZLO} which have already been ruled out

1075: by recent experiments.

1076: As shown in Figs.~6 and ~7, the LO total cross sections via $b\bar{b}$

1077: annihilation and Drell-Yan processes increase with

1078: $\tan\beta$, while the ones via gluon fusion process are

1079: relatively larger for low and high values of $\tan\beta$,

1080:  but become smaller for intermediate values of

1081: $\tan\beta$. Moreover, all the LO rates decrease when

1082:  $m_{A^0}$ increases. Figs.~6 and ~7 also show that in most of the

1083: chosen parameter range, $b\bar{b}$ contributions are much larger

1084: than the ones from gluon fusion and Drell-Yan processes, especially

1085: for large $\tan\beta$ and small $m_{A^0}$, where the total cross

1086: sections from the $b\bar{b}$ contributions can reach a few hundred

1087: fb.

1088: \subsection{Cutoff dependence}

1089: 

1090: In Fig.~8, we show the dependence of the NLO QCD predictions on

1091: the two arbitrary theoretical cutoff scales $\delta_s$ and

1092: $\delta_c$, introduced in the two-cutoff phase space slicing

1093: method, where we have set $\delta_c=\delta_s/50$ to simplify the

1094: study and used QCD plus SUSY improved bottom quark Yukawa coupling.

1095: The NLO total cross section can be separated into two classes of

1096: contributions. One is the $2 \to 2$ rate contributed by the Born

1097: level, and the ${\cal{O}}(\alpha_s)$ virtual, soft and hard

1098: collinear real emission corrections,

1099: denoted as $\hat{\sigma}^{B}$, $\hat{\sigma}^{V}$, $\hat{\sigma}^{S}$

1100: and $\sigma^{coll}$ in Eq.~(\ref{t}).

1101: Another is the $2 \to 3$ rate

1102: contributed by the ${\cal{O}}(\alpha_s)$ hard non-collinear real

1103: emission corrections, denoted as

1104: $\hat{\sigma}^{\overline{HC}}$ and $\hat{\sigma}^{\overline{C}}$

1105: in Eq.~(\ref{t}).

1106:  As noted in the previous section, the $2 \to

1107: 2$ and $2 \to 3$ rates depend individually on $\delta_s$ and

1108: $\delta_c$, but their sum should not depend on any of the

1109: theoretical cutoff scales. This is clearly illustrated in Fig.~8

1110: for two different sets of SUSY parameters. We find that

1111: $\sigma_{NLO}$ is almost unchanged for $\delta_s$ between $5\times

1112: 10^{-5}$ and $10^{-2}$, which is about 200\,fb and 28\,fb,

1113: respectively for the two different sets of SUSY parameters.

1114: Therefore, we take $\delta_s=10^{-4}$ and $\delta_c=\delta_s/50$

1115: in the numerical calculations below.

1116: 

1117: \subsection{$m_{A^0}$ dependence}

1118: 

1119: In Fig.~9, we show the total cross sections of $pp\rightarrow

1120: A^0Z^0$ at the LHC as a function of $m_{A^0}$ for

1121: $\tan\beta=10$ and $40$, respectively, assuming

1122: $m_{\frac{1}{2}}=160$\,GeV, $A_0=100$\,GeV, and $\mu<0$.

1123: We considered the

1124: LO total cross sections in three different cases, i.e. using (I)

1125: $\overline{\rm MS}$ bottom quark mass at the scale $m_b$,

1126: (II) QCD improved bottom quark running mass

1127: at the scale $m_{A^0}$, and

1128: (III) QCD plus SUSY improved bottom quark running mass

1129: at the scale $m_{A^0}$,

1130: respectively. We also considered the NLO total cross sections for

1131: the cases of (II) and (III). Fig.~9 shows that the LO

1132: and NLO total cross sections get smaller with the increasing

1133: $m_{A^0}$, and the results for $\tan\beta=10$ in Fig.~9(2) are much

1134: smaller than the ones for $\tan\beta=40$ in Fig.~9(1). For small

1135: $m_{A^0}$ ($<160$\,GeV) the LO total cross sections in Fig.~9(1) can be

1136: larger than $100$\,fb. The contributions

1137: from the QCD running $m_b$ mass

1138: effects and the SUSY improved  $m_b$ corrections are

1139: significant, for example, in Fig.~9(1) when $m_{A^0}\simeq 155$\,GeV

1140: and $\tan\beta=40$, the LO total cross sections are about 270\,fb,

1141: 120\,fb and 185\,fb for the three cases, respectively. Moreover, Fig.~9

1142: shows that the NLO QCD corrections can either enhance or suppress

1143:  the total rate, and the ${\cal O}(\alpha_s)$ contribution is

1144:  in general a few tens percent of the total rate, as described below.

1145: Define the K-factor as the ratio of the NLO to LO

1146: total cross sections, calculated using the CTEQ6M PDFs.

1147: We shown in Fig.~10 the dependence of the K factor

1148: on $m_{A^0}$ for $A^0Z^0$ production, based on

1149: the results of case (II) in Fig.~9. Namely, the QCD improved

1150: bottom quark running mass is used for calculating the total cross

1151: section at the LO and the NLO. Fig.~10 shows that in general the K

1152: factor becomes smaller with the increasing $m_{A^0}$. For example,

1153: the curve (a) in Fig.~10(1) shows that when $m_{A^0}$ varies from

1154: 108\,GeV to 900\,GeV, the K factor varies from 1.72 to 0.82, and

1155: the curve (a) in Fig.~10(2) shows that when $m_{A^0}$ varies from

1156: 235\,GeV to 860\,GeV, the K factor varies from 0.91 to 0.68. The

1157: contributions to the K factors, shown as curve (a), in both

1158: Fig.~10(1) and Fig.~10(2) come from the pure QCD corrections,

1159: shown as curve (b), and SUSY QCD corrections, shown as curve (c).

1160: The former includes both the virtual and real emission

1161: contributions originated from pure QCD corrections, while the

1162: latter consists of only virtual corrections. As expected, the

1163: $K$-factor contributed by the pure QCD corrections is under

1164: controlled, of a few tens percent, when the QCD improved bottom

1165: quark running mass is used to evaluate the Yukawa coupling of

1166: the bottom quark. On the other hand, the SUSY QCD

1167: corrections could become large as $m_{A^0}$ decreases, especially

1168: for large $\tan\beta$. For example, in Fig.~10(1), for

1169: $\tan\beta=40$, when $m_{A^0}\simeq108$\,GeV, the $K$ factor of

1170: SUSY QCD corrections is about 0.8 which dominates the overall K

1171: factor. Hence, to improve the convergence of the perturbation

1172: calculations in the case of large $\tan\beta$, we could use the

1173: SUSY improved bottom quark running mass to evaluate the Yukawa

1174: coupling of bottom quark.

1175: More on SUSY QCD corrections will be

1176: discussed below.

1177: We have also examined the contributions

1178: from the box diagrams shown in Fig.~3. The pure QCD box diagram

1179: contribution, arising from Fig.~3(a) and Fig.~3(c), is ultraviolet

1180: finite but not infrared finite. For $\tan\beta=40$ the finite part

1181: of the pure QCD box diagram contribution becomes more important

1182: for large $m_{A^0}$, and its effect is to decreases the total

1183: rate. On the contrary, the SUSY QCD box diagram contribution,

1184: arising from Fig.~3(b) and Fig.~3(d), is free of any singularity,

1185: and is small numerically.

1186: 

1187: Fig.~11 shows the dependence of the K factors on $m_{A^0}$ for

1188: $A^0Z^0$ production, based on the results of case (III) in

1189: Fig.~9. Namely, the QCD plus SUSY improved bottom quark running

1190: Yukawa coupling is used for calculating the total cross

1191: section at the LO and

1192: the NLO. Generally, the K factor decreases with $m_{A^0}$. For

1193: example, for $\tan\beta=40$,

1194:  when $m_{A^0}$ varies from 108\,GeV to 900\,GeV, the K

1195: factor corresponding to curve (a) ranges from 0.98 to 0.61, which

1196: contains two parts: the pure QCD corrections, shown as curve (b),

1197: and SUSY QCD corrections, shown as curve (c). As compared to the

1198: results in Fig.~10(1), we find that the SUSY QCD correction, shown

1199: as curve (c), has been largely suppressed. For instance, the K

1200: factor of SUSY QCD corrections drops from 0.8, in Fig.~10(1), to

1201: 0.05, in Fig.~11, for $m_{A^0}\simeq108$\,GeV, while the other

1202: SUSY parameters are identical in both calculations. This is

1203: because using the SUSY improved running $m_b$ to evaluate the LO

1204: cross section, we have already included the dominant NLO SUSY QCD

1205: corrections.

1206:  Therefore, we shall use the QCD plus SUSY improved bottom

1207: quark running mass in the following numerical analysis

1208: for both the LO and NLO calculations, unless

1209: specified otherwise.

1210: 

1211: \subsection{SUSY QCD corrections in heavy mass limit}

1212: 

1213: It is instructive to examine the results of Figs.~10(1) and

1214: Fig.~11

1215:  in the heavy mass

1216: limit, where all the SUSY mass parameters except $m_{A^0}$ are of

1217: the same size and tend to be heavy, i.e. $M_{\tilde{Q}}$ $=$

1218: $M_{\tilde{D}}$ $=$ $\mu$ $=$ $A_b$ $=$ $M_{\tilde{g}}$ $\equiv

1219: M_{SUSY}$ $ \gg m_Z$.

1220: In the heavy mass limit, the SUSY QCD box diagram contribution,

1221: arising from

1222: Fig.~3(b) and Fig.~3(d), is suppressed by powers of $M_{SUSY}$ and can

1223: be neglected. This is confirmed by our numerical calculation which shows

1224: that the SUSY QCD box contribution is generally below $0.1\%$ of the

1225: total rate.

1226: Hence, we shall examine the effect of

1227: SUSY QCD corrections in the heavy mass limit

1228: to the virtual diagrams shown in Figs.~2(a)--(g),

1229: and compare the analytical result with our numerical

1230: calculations.

1231: 

1232: Since our aim is to examine the NLO SUSY QCD effect in this part

1233: of study, we shall use the LO bottom quark Yukawa coupling (with

1234: $m_b=4.25$\,GeV) to evaluate the relevant tree level vertices.

1235: Keeping only terms at ${\cal O}(\alpha_s)$ that are not suppressed

1236: by negative powers of heavy mass $M_{SUSY}$ in the heavy mass

1237: limit, the one loop SUSY QCD correction to the individual diagram

1238: in Fig.~2 yields the following corrections. After stripping off

1239: the Born level matrix element (including all the vertex and

1240: propagator factors), the multiplicative factor of the s-channel

1241: diagram with the $h^0$ propagator, cf. Fig.~2(a), is given by

1242: \begin{eqnarray}

1243: F_{(a)h^0}=-\frac{g_s^2}{12\pi^2}(1+\cot\alpha) \, \label{haber}

1244: \end{eqnarray}

1245: where $\alpha$ is the mixing angle of the two CP-even Higgs

1246: bosons~\cite{mssm}.

1247: Note that Eq.~(\ref{haber}) is in agreement with the one shown in

1248: Ref.~\cite{anal}.

1249: Similarly, the multiplicative factor of the s-channel diagram with the

1250: $H^0$ propagator, cf. Fig.~2(a), is given by

1251: \begin{eqnarray}

1252: F_{(a)H^0}=-\frac{g_s^2}{12\pi^2}(1-\tan\alpha) \,.

1253: \end{eqnarray}

1254: The multiplicative factor of the t and u-channel diagrams, cf.

1255: Fig.~2(c) or (d), is given by

1256: \begin{eqnarray}

1257: F_{(c)A^0}=F_{(d)A^0}=-\frac{g_s^2}{12\pi^2}(1+\cot\beta)\,.

1258: \end{eqnarray}

1259: The multiplicative factor for the sum of Figs.~2(b) and 2(g) is

1260: zero. This is because after adding the wavefunction

1261: renormalization factor for the external bottom quark line, the

1262: renormalized $Zb{\bar b}$ vertex vanishes in the heavy mass limit.

1263: (Again, we have dropped any term that is suppressed by negative

1264: powers of the heavy mass scale $M_{SUSY}$.) Similarly, the

1265: multiplicative factor for the sum of Figs.~2(e) and 2(f) is zero.

1266: 

1267: Given the above multiplicative factors, we can calculate the SUSY

1268: QCD correction to the total cross section for $pp\rightarrow

1269: A^0Z^0$ production at the LHC, and compare it with the complete

1270: numerical calculation described in Sec. III. The results in the heavy

1271: mass limit are shown

1272: in Fig.~12, which show that the agreement becomes better for

1273: larger value of $M_{SUSY}$.

1274: Hence, this provides a consistent check on our complete numerical

1275: calculations.

1276: 

1277: 

1278: \subsection{$\tan\beta$ dependence}

1279: 

1280: In Figs. 13~(1) and 13~(2), the total cross sections for

1281: $pp\rightarrow A^0Z^0$ at the LHC are plotted as a function of

1282: $\tan\beta$ for two representative values of $m_{\frac{1}{2}}$ and

1283: $m_0$, respectively. In Fig.~13(2), when $\tan\beta$ ranges between

1284: 4 and 40, $m_{A^0}$ varies from 330\,GeV to 223\,GeV,

1285:  and from 660\,GeV

1286: to 458\,GeV for $m_{\frac{1}{2}}=180$\,GeV and $400$\,GeV, respectively.

1287: From Fig.~13(2) we can clearly see that the LO and NLO total cross

1288: sections are enhanced with the increasing $\tan\beta$ and decreased

1289: with the increasing $m_{\frac{1}{2}}$. For large $\tan\beta$

1290: ($>40$) and $m_{\frac{1}{2}}=180$\,GeV, the LO and NLO total cross

1291: sections can be over 30\,fb. The features in Fig.~13(1) are similar

1292: to the ones in Fig.~13(2), but in general the total cross sections

1293: are larger than later. For example, for large $\tan\beta(>40)$ and

1294: $m_{0}=200$\,GeV, both of the LO and NLO total cross sections can

1295: reach about hundreds of fb.

1296: 

1297: Fig.~14 shows the dependence of the K factors on $\tan\beta$,

1298: based on the results in Fig.~13, where the K factor increases with

1299: the increasing $\tan\beta$. For the results of Fig.~13(1), the K

1300: factor varies from 0.69 to 0.90 and from 0.65 to 0.92 for

1301: $m_0=200$\,GeV and $400$\,GeV, respectively. For the results of

1302: Fig.~13(2), the K factor varies from 0.70 to 0.74 and from 0.62 to

1303: 0.63 for $m_{\frac{1}{2}}=180$\,GeV and $400$\,GeV, respectively.

1304: 

1305: \subsection{$\mu_r/\mu_f$ dependence}

1306: 

1307: Fig.~\ref{scale} shows the dependence of the total cross sections

1308: for $pp\rightarrow A^0Z^0$ production at the LHC on the

1309: renormalization scale ($\mu_r$) and the factorization scale

1310: ($\mu_f$), with $\mu_r=\mu_f$. The case (1) is for $\mu<0$, and the

1311: case (2) is for $\mu>0$.

1312: In both cases, the scale dependence of the NLO

1313: total cross section is smaller than that of the LO cross section.

1314: For example, the LO cross sections vary from 65\,fb to 261\,fb and

1315: 25\,fb to 45\,fb when $\mu_r=\mu_f$ ranges between $0.1\,m_{\rm

1316: av}$ and $10\,m_{\rm av}$, while the NLO ones vary from 230\,fb to

1317: 232\,fb and 38\,fb to 39\,fb, in the case (1) and (2),

1318: respectively. Here, the QCD plus

1319: SUSY improved bottom quark Yukawa coupling is used.

1320: For comparison, we also show the results of other two calculations.

1321: The case (3) is similar to the case (1), but in (3) the pure QCD running

1322: bottom quark mass is used instead. The case (4) is

1323: similar to the case (1), but in (4) the contribution from the SUSY-EW

1324: correction in the running bottom quark Yukawa coupling

1325:  is not included, namely,

1326: only the pure QCD and SUYSY-QCD corrections are included.

1327: 

1328: To further investigate the scale dependence in case (1), with $\mu

1329: <0$, we study the scale dependence of the total cross section on

1330: the renormalization scale $(\mu_r)$ and the factorization scale

1331: $(\mu_f)$ seperatedly in Fig.~\ref{scale2}. Here, the QCD plus

1332: SUSY improved bottom quark Yukawa coupling is used. We find that

1333: in either case, whether we fixed $\mu_r$ and let $\mu_f$ vary, or

1334: vice versa, the NLO rate is less dependent on the scale than the

1335: LO rate.

1336: 

1337: Hence, when applying the usual prescription to estimate the scale

1338: dependence, i.e. varying the scale around $m_{av}$ by a factor of

1339: 2, the NLO cross sections vary by around 10\% to 20\%, cf.

1340: Figs.~\ref{scale} and \ref{scale2},

1341: 

1342: 

1343: \subsection{PDF uncertainty}

1344: 

1345: 

1346: To estimate the uncertainties in the total cross sections due to

1347: the uncertainty of PDFs, we take the 41 sets of CTEQ6.1 PDFs to

1348: calculate the LO and NLO rates~\cite{61cteq}. As shown in

1349: Fig.~\ref{cteq}, the LO result of using the CTEQ6M PDF lies

1350: between the maximum ($\sigma_{max}$) and

1351: minimum ($\sigma_{min}$)  LO rates. The NLO total cross

1352: sections are then calculated using three different PDF sets, one

1353: of which is CTEQ6M, the other two are the ones that give the

1354: maximum and minimum LO rates, respectively. The total cross

1355: sections for $pp\rightarrow A^0Z^0$ production at the LHC, as a

1356: function of the trilinear coupling $A_0$, for the above mentioned

1357: PDFs are shown in Fig.~\ref{cteq}, where we have used the QCD

1358: running mass to evaluate the bottom quark Yukawa coupling. It

1359: turns out that the PDF uncertainties (defined here as $\pm

1360: (\sigma_{max}-\sigma_{min}))/(\sigma_{max}+\sigma_{min})$) in the

1361: LO and NLO total cross sections are about the same, when the QCD

1362: running $m_b$ is used. For example, when $A_0=100$\,GeV, the PDF

1363: uncertainties are $\pm 2.9\%$ at the LO, and $\pm 3.0\%$ at the

1364: NLO, respectively.

1365: 

1366: Fig.~\ref{PDFU} shows the PDF uncertainties (defined here as the

1367: Eq.~(3) in Ref.~\cite{PDFUU}) in the LO and NLO total cross

1368: sections for $pp\rightarrow A^0Z^0$ production

1369: at the LHC, as a function of

1370: $m_{A^0}$. Here, we also used the QCD running mass to

1371: evaluate the bottom quark Yukawa coupling. It turns out

1372: that the NLO rate has a slightly larger uncertainty than the LO rate

1373: due to the PDF uncertainties, especially at large $m_{A^0}$.

1374: Also, the uncertainty in the total cross section

1375: at the LHC increases as $m_{A^0}$ increases.

1376: 

1377: \subsection{Differential cross sections}

1378: 

1379: Fig.~\ref{pt1} shows the differential cross section as a

1380: function of the transverse momentum $p_T$ of $Z^0$ and $A^0$ in

1381: the associated production of the $A^0Z^0$ pairs at the LHC.

1382: We find that the NLO QCD correction could change the shape of

1383: transverse momentum distribution. The NLO QCD correction

1384: enhances the LO differential cross section in low and

1385: high $p_T$ region, but reduces in medium $p_T$ region.

1386: 

1387: 

1388: Fig.~\ref{pt2} shows the differential cross section as a

1389: function of the invariant mass $M_{A^0Z^0}$ of the $A^0Z^0$

1390: pairs produced at the LHC. The NLO QCD

1391: corrections reduce the LO differential cross sections

1392: more in the medium values of $M_{A^0Z^0}$, and much less in low or high

1393: values of $M_{A^0Z^0}$.

1394: 

1395: \section{Conclusions}

1396: 

1397: In conclusion, we have calculated the complete NLO QCD corrections

1398: to the inclusive total cross sections of the $A^0Z^0$ pairs

1399: produced at the LHC in the MSSM. We have preformed the

1400: calculations using both the DREG and DRED schemes, and found that

1401: the NLO total cross sections in the above two schemes are the

1402: same, which provides a cross check to our calculations. Our

1403: results show that the LO total cross sections are a few tens fb in

1404: most of the SUSY parameter space, and can exceed 100\,fb for

1405: $m_{A^0}$ below 160\,GeV with large $\tan\beta$($\gtrsim 40$). The

1406: NLO correction can either enhance or reduce the total cross

1407: sections, but it generally efficiently reduces the dependence of

1408: the total cross sections on the renormalization/factorization

1409: scale. For small $m_{A^0}$ and large $\tan\beta$, the $K$-factor

1410: of SUSY QCD corrections could become large, and using the QCD plus

1411: SUSY improved Yukawa coupling in the calculation could reduce the

1412: size of the overall $K$-factor. We have also examined the

1413: uncertainty in total cross sections due to the PDF uncertainties,

1414: and found that the uncertainty in NLO cross sections is slightly

1415: larger than that in LO ones, especially at large $m_{A^0}$.

1416: Finally, we also examined a few differential distributions and

1417: found that the NLO QCD corrections could change the shape of

1418: transverse momentum and invariant mass distributions.

1419: 

1420: 

1421: \begin{acknowledgments}

1422: We thank Qing-Hong Cao and Tao Han for useful discussion. This

1423: work was supported in part by the National Natural Science

1424: Foundation of China and Specialized Research Fund for the Doctoral

1425: Program of Higher Education.

1426: The work of CPY was supported in part by the USA NSF grant

1427: PHY-0244919.

1428: \end{acknowledgments}

1429: 

1430: \section*{Appendix A}

1431: In this appendix, we give the relevant Feynman rules. \\

1432: 1. $h^0(H^0)-b-\bar{b}: \ \ A_{1(2)}m_b$

1433: \begin{eqnarray}

1434: && A_1=\frac{igs_\alpha}{2m_w\cos\beta},\ \

1435: A_2=\frac{-igc_\alpha}{2m_w\cos\beta}, \nonumber\end{eqnarray}

1436: where $\alpha$ is the mixing angle in the CP even neutral Higgs boson

1437: sector~\cite{mssm}. Here, we use the abbreviations $s_\alpha=\sin\alpha$

1438: and

1439: $c_\alpha=\cos\alpha$.\\

1440:  2. $A^0-b-\bar{b}: \ \ A_{3}m_b\gamma_5$

1441: \begin{eqnarray}

1442: && A_3=\frac{-g\tan\beta}{2m_w}. \nonumber\end{eqnarray}\\

1443: 3. $h^0(H^0)-Z^0-A^0: \ \ F_{1(2)}(p_{h^0(H^0)}+p_{A^0})^{\mu}$

1444: \begin{eqnarray}

1445: && F_1=\frac{g\cos(\beta-\alpha)}{2\cos\theta_w},

1446:  F_2=\frac{-g\sin(\beta-\alpha)}{2\cos\theta_w}, \nonumber\end{eqnarray}

1447:  Here, we define the outgoing four-momenta of $h^0(H^0)$ and $A^0$

1448:  to be negative and positive, respectively.

1449:  \\

1450:  4. $Z^0-b-\bar{b}: \ \ \gamma_{\mu}(C_V+C_A\gamma_5)$

1451: \begin{eqnarray}

1452: &&

1453: C_V=\frac{-ig}{2\cos\theta_w}\bigg(-\frac{1}{2}+\frac{2}{3}sin^2\theta_w\bigg),

1454: \ \ C_A=\frac{-ig}{4\cos\theta_w}. \nonumber\end{eqnarray}

1455:  5.

1456: $h^0(H^0,A^0)-\tilde{b}_\alpha-\tilde{b}_\beta: \ \

1457: i[R^{\tilde{b}}\hat{G}^{\tilde{b}}_{1(2,3)}(R^{\tilde{b}})^T]_{\alpha\beta}$

1458: \begin{eqnarray}

1459: \hat{G}^{\tilde{b}}_1= \left(\begin{array}{cc}

1460: \frac{gm_{Z}}{\cos\theta_w}(-\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{3}\sin\theta^2_w)\sin(\alpha+\beta)+\sqrt{2}m_bh_b

1461: s_\alpha & \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}h_b\left[A_b s_\alpha +\mu c_\alpha

1462: \right]\\

1463: \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}h_b \left[A_b s_\alpha +\mu c_\alpha \right] &

1464: \frac{gm_{Z}}{\cos\theta_w}(-\frac{1}{3}\sin\theta^2_w)\sin(\alpha+\beta)+\sqrt{2}m_bh_bs_\alpha

1465:  \end{array} \right),\nonumber

1466: \end{eqnarray}

1467: \begin{eqnarray}

1468: \hat{G}^{\tilde{b}}_2= \left(\begin{array}{cc}

1469: \frac{gm_{Z}}{\cos\theta_w}(\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{3}\sin\theta^2_w)\cos(\alpha+\beta)-\sqrt{2}m_bh_b

1470: c_\alpha & -\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}h_b\left[A_b c_\alpha -\mu s_\alpha  \right] \\

1471: -\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}h_b\left[A_b c_\alpha -\mu s_\alpha \right] &

1472: \frac{gm_{Z}}{\cos\theta_w}(\frac{1}{3}\sin\theta^2_w)\cos(\alpha+\beta)-\sqrt{2}m_bh_b

1473: c_\alpha

1474: \end{array} \right),\nonumber

1475: \end{eqnarray}

1476: \begin{eqnarray}

1477: \hat{G}^{\tilde{b}}_3=i\frac{gm_b}{2m_W} \left(\begin{array}{cc} 0

1478: & -A_b \tan\beta  -\mu \\

1479: A_b \tan\beta +\mu & 0 \end{array} \right),\nonumber

1480: \end{eqnarray}

1481: with

1482: $h_{b}=\frac{gm_{b}}{\sqrt2m_{W}\cos\beta}$.\\

1483: 6. $Z^0-\tilde{b}_\alpha-\tilde{b}_\beta: \ \

1484: \frac{-ig}{cos\theta_w}T_Z(\alpha,\beta)

1485: (p_{\tilde{b}_\alpha}+p_{\tilde{b}_\beta})^\mu$

1486: \begin{eqnarray}

1487: T_Z= \left(\begin{array}{cc}

1488: -\frac{1}{2}\cos^2_{\theta_{\tilde{b}}}+\frac{1}{3}\sin^2_{\theta_w}

1489: & \frac{1}{4}\sin2\theta_{\tilde{b}} \\

1490: \frac{1}{4}\sin2\theta_{\tilde{b}} &

1491: -\frac{1}{2}\sin^2_{\theta_{\tilde{b}}}+\frac{1}{3}\sin^2_{\theta_w}

1492: \end{array} \right),\nonumber

1493: \end{eqnarray}

1494: where $p_{\tilde{b}_\alpha}$ and $p_{\tilde{b}_\beta}$ are the

1495: four-momenta of $\tilde{b}_\alpha$ and $\tilde{b}_\beta$ in

1496: direction of the charge flow.

1497: \section*{Appendix B}

1498: 

1499: In this appendix, we collect the explicit expressions of the

1500: nonzero form factors in Eq.~(\ref{fvertex}) and

1501: Eq.~(\ref{fbox}).

1502: Since

1503: $\overline{\sum}M^0M^\dagger_{j=7,8,...12}=0$, only the form

1504: factors of the first six matrix elements are presented here.

1505: For

1506: simplicity, we introduce the following abbreviations for the

1507: Passarino-Veltman three-point integrals $C_{i(j)}$ and four-point

1508: integrals $D_{i(j)}$, which are defined similar to

1509: Ref.~\cite{denner} except that we take internal masses squared as

1510: arguments:

1511: 

1512: \noindent $C^a_{i(j)}=C_{i(j)}(0,0,s,0,0,0)$,

1513: \\

1514: $C^b_{i(j)}=C_{i(j)}(m^2_{A^0},t,0,0,0,0)$,

1515: \\

1516: $C^c_{i(j)}=C_{i(j)}(m^2_Z,u,0,0,0,0)$,

1517: \\

1518: $C^d_{i(j)}=C_{i(j)}(m^2_{A^0},0,u,0,0,0)$,

1519: \\

1520: $C^e_{i(j)}=C_{i(j)}(m^2_{z},0,t,0,0,0)$,

1521: \\

1522: $C^f_{i(j)}=C_{i(j)}(t,0,m^2_{z},0,0,0)$,

1523: \\

1524: $C^g_{i(j)}=C_{i(j)}(u,0,m^2_{z},0,0,0)$,

1525: \\

1526: $C^h_{i(j)}=C_{i(j)}(u,0,m^2_{A^0},0,0,0)$,

1527: \\

1528: $C^i_{i(j)}=C_{i(j)}(m^2_Z,t,0,0,0,0)$,

1529: \\

1530: $C^j_{i(j)}=C_{i(j)}(u,m^2_{A^0},0,0,0,0)$,

1531: \\

1532: $C^k_{i(j)}=C_{i(j)}(m^2_{A^0},t,0,0,0,0)$,

1533: \\

1534: $C^l_{i(j)}=C_{i(j)}(0,m^2_{Z},u,0,0,0)$,

1535: \\

1536: $C^u_{i(j)}=C_{i(j)}(s,0,0,0,0,0)$,

1537: \\

1538: $C^v_{i(j)}=C_{i(j)}(0,u,m^2_{Z},0,0,0)$,

1539: \\

1540: $C^x_{i(j)}=C_{i(j)}(s,m^2_{A^0},m^2_{Z},0,0,0)$,

1541: \\

1542: $C^y_{i(j)}=C_{i(j)}(0,m^2_{A^0},t,0,0,0)$,

1543: \\

1544: $C^z_{i(j)}=C_{i(j)}(0,t,m^2_{Z},0,0,0)$,

1545: \\

1546: $C^m_{i(j)}(a,b)=C_{i(j)}(0,0,s,m^2_{\tilde{b}_a},m^2_{\tilde{g}},m^2_{\tilde{b}_b})$,

1547: \\

1548: $C^n_{i(j)}(a,b)=C_{i(j)}(m^2_{A^0},t,0,m^2_{\tilde{b}_b},m^2_{\tilde{b}_a},m^2_{\tilde{g}})$,

1549: \\

1550: $C^o_{i(j)}(a,b)=C_{i(j)}(0,u,m^2_{Z},m^2_{\tilde{b}_b},m^2_{\tilde{b}_a},m^2_{\tilde{g}})$,

1551: \\

1552: $C^p_{i(j)}(a,b)=C_{i(j)}(m^2_{A^0},0,u,m^2_{\tilde{b}_b},m^2_{\tilde{b}_a},m^2_{\tilde{g}})$,

1553: \\

1554: $C^q_{i(j)}(a,b)=C_{i(j)}(t,m^2_Z,0,m^2_{\tilde{g}},m^2_{\tilde{b}_b},m^2_{\tilde{b}_a})$,

1555: \\

1556: $C^r_{i(j)}(a,b)=C_{i(j)}(u,0,m^2_{A^0},m^2_{\tilde{b}_b},m^2_{\tilde{b}_a},m^2_{\tilde{g}})$,

1557: \\

1558: $C^s_{i(j)}(a,b)=C_{i(j)}(u,m^2_{A^0},0,m^2_{\tilde{g}},m^2_{\tilde{b}_b},m^2_{\tilde{b}_a})$,

1559: \\

1560: $C^t_{i(j)}(a,b)=C_{i(j)}(0,m^2_{A^0},t,m^2_{\tilde{g}},m^2_{\tilde{b}_b},m^2_{\tilde{b}_a})$,

1561: \\

1562: $D^a_{i(j)}=D_{i(j)}(s,0,t,m^2_{A^0},0,m^2_Z,0,0,0,0)$,

1563: \\

1564: $D^b_{i(j)}=D_{i(j)}(0,t,m^2_Z,s,m^2_{A^0},0,0,0,0,0)$,

1565: \\

1566: $D^c_{i(j)}=D_{i(j)}(s,0,u,m^2_Z,0,m^2_{A^0},0,0,0,0)$,

1567: \\

1568: $D^d_{i(j)}=D_{i(j)}(0,u,m^2_{A^0},s,m^2_z,0,0,0,0,0)$,

1569: \\

1570: $D^e_{i(j)}(a,b,l)=D_{i(j)}(s,0,t,m^2_{A^0},0,m_Z^2,m^2_{\tilde{b}_b},m^2_{\tilde{b}_a},m^2_{\tilde{g}},m^2_{\tilde{b}_l})$,

1571: \\

1572: $D^f_{i(j)}(a,b,l)=D_{i(j)}(0,0,m^2_{Z},m^2_{A^0},s,t,m^2_{\tilde{b}_b},m^2_{\tilde{g}},m^2_{\tilde{b}_a},m^2_{\tilde{b}_l})$,

1573: \\

1574: $D^h_{i(j)}(a,b,l)=D_{i(j)}(s,0,u,m^2_{Z},0,m_{A^0}^2,m^2_{\tilde{b}_b},m^2_{\tilde{b}_a},m^2_{\tilde{g}},m^2_{\tilde{b}_l})$.

1575: \\

1576: Many of the

1577: above functions contain the soft and/or collinear singularities.

1578: Since all the Passarino-Veltman integrals can be written as a

1579: combination of the

1580: scalar functions $A_0$, $B_0$, $C_0$ and $D_0$, we present here the

1581: explicit expressions for the

1582: $C_0$ and $D_0$ functions used in our calculations:

1583: \begin{eqnarray}

1584: &&C^a_0=C^u_0=\frac{C_\epsilon}{s}\bigg[\frac{1}{\epsilon^2}-\frac{\pi^2}{3}\bigg],\nonumber\\

1585: &&

1586: C^d_0=C^h_0=C^j_0=\frac{C_\epsilon}{u-m^2_{A^0}}\bigg[\frac{1}{\epsilon}\ln\bigg(\frac{-u}{m^2_{A^0}}\bigg)

1587:  +\frac{1}{2}\ln^2\bigg(\frac{s}{m^2_{A^0}}\bigg)-\frac{1}{2}\ln^2\bigg(\frac{s}{-u}\bigg)-\frac{\pi^2}{2}\bigg],\nonumber\\

1588: &&

1589: C^c_0=C^g_0=C^l_0=C^v_0=\frac{C_\epsilon}{u-m_Z^2}\bigg[\frac{1}{\epsilon}\ln\bigg(\frac{-u}{m^2_Z}\bigg)

1590:  +\frac{1}{2}\ln^2\bigg(\frac{s}{m_Z^2}\bigg)-\frac{1}{2}\ln^2\bigg(\frac{s}{-u}\bigg)-\frac{\pi^2}{2}\bigg],\nonumber\\

1591: &&

1592: C^e_0=C^f_0=C^i_0=C^y_0=\frac{C_\epsilon}{t-m_Z^2}\bigg[\frac{1}{\epsilon}\ln\bigg(\frac{-t}{m^2_Z}\bigg)

1593:  +\frac{1}{2}\ln^2\bigg(\frac{s}{m_Z^2}\bigg)-\frac{1}{2}\ln^2(\frac{s}{-t})-\frac{\pi^2}{2}\bigg],

1594: \nonumber\\

1595: &&

1596: C^b_0=C^k_0=C^x_0=\frac{C_\epsilon}{t-m^2_{A^0}}\bigg[\frac{1}{\epsilon}\ln\bigg(\frac{-t}{m^2_{A^0}}\bigg)

1597:  +\frac{1}{2}\ln^2\bigg(\frac{s}{m^2_{A^0}}\bigg)-\frac{1}{2}\ln^2\bigg(\frac{s}{-t}\bigg)-\frac{\pi^2}{2}\bigg],\nonumber\\

1598: && D^a_0=D^b_0=

1599:   \frac{C_\epsilon}{st}\bigg[\frac{1}{\epsilon^2}+\frac{2}{\epsilon}\ln\bigg(\frac{m_Zm_{A^0}}{-t}\bigg)+\frac{\pi^2}{3}\bigg]

1600:   -2\frac{C_\epsilon}{st}\Bigg \{{\rm Li}\bigg(\frac{m^2_{A^0}-u}{s}\bigg)

1601:   -{\rm Li}\bigg(\frac{s-m_Z^2}{s}\bigg) \nonumber\\&&

1602:  \ \ \ \ \ \ \ -{\rm Li}\bigg[\frac{-st}{(s-m_Z^2)(m_Z^2-t)}\bigg]

1603:   +{\rm Li}\bigg(\frac{-t}{s-m_Z^2}\bigg)+{\rm Li}\bigg(\frac{m^2_{A^0}}{m^2_{A^0}-t}\bigg)

1604:   -\frac{1}{2}\ln^2\bigg[\frac{-st}{(s-m_Z^2)(m_Z^2-t)}\bigg]\nonumber\\&&

1605:   \ \  \ \ \ \ \

1606:   +\frac{1}{2}\ln^2\bigg(\frac{-t}{s-m_Z^2}\bigg)

1607:   +\ln\bigg(\frac{m_Z^2-t}{s}\bigg)\ln\bigg(\frac{m^2_{A^0}-u}{t}\bigg)

1608:   -\frac{1}{2}\ln\bigg(\frac{m_Z^2-t}{s}\bigg)\ln\bigg(\frac{sm^2_{A^0}}{t^2}\bigg)\nonumber\\&& \ \ \ \ \ \ \

1609:   +\frac{1}{4}\ln^2\bigg(\frac{sm^2_{A^0}}{t^2}\bigg)

1610:   +\frac{1}{4}\ln^2\bigg(\frac{m^2_{Z}}{s}\bigg)

1611:   +\frac{1}{2}\ln\bigg(\frac{m^2_{A^0}}{s}\bigg)\ln\bigg(\frac{m_Z^2-t}{m^2_{Z}}\bigg)

1612:   +\frac{1}{2}\ln^2\bigg(\frac{m^2_{A^0}}{m^2_{A^0}-t}\bigg)

1613:   \Bigg \},\nonumber

1614:  \\

1615: && D^c_0=D^d_0=D^a_0(t\leftrightarrow u,m^2_{A^0}\leftrightarrow

1616: m_Z^2),\nonumber

1617:   \end{eqnarray}

1618: where

1619: $C_\epsilon=(4\pi\mu^2_r/s)^\epsilon\Gamma(1-\epsilon)/\Gamma(1-2\epsilon)$.

1620: \\

1621: For diagrams(a)-(g) in Fig.~2, we get the form factors as

1622: following, respectively,

1623: \begin{eqnarray}

1624: &&

1625: f^a_1=\frac{-4\alpha_s}{3\pi(s-m^2_{h_0})(s-m^2_{H_0})}\{ism_b[A_1F_1(s-m^2_{H_0})

1626: +A_2F_2(s-m^2_{h_0})]C_0^a\nonumber\\

1627: && \hspace{0.6cm}+F_1m_{\tilde g}(s-m^2_{H_0})\hat{G}^{\tilde

1628: b}_1(a,b)R^{\tilde b}_{a,1}R^{\tilde b}_{b,2}C^m_0 +F_2m_{\tilde

1629: g}(s-m^2_{h_0})\hat{G}^{\tilde b}_2(a,b)R^{\tilde

1630: b}_{a,1}R^{\tilde b}_{b,2}C^m_0\}\nonumber

1631: \\&&\hspace{0.6cm}+\frac{4\alpha_s\epsilon}{3\pi(s-m^2_{h_0})(s-m^2_{H_0})}[A_1F_1(s-m^2_{H_0})

1632: +A_2F_2(s-m^2_{h_0})]B_0(s,0,0),\nonumber

1633: \\

1634: && f^a_2=f^a_1,\nonumber

1635: \\

1636: && f^a_3=\frac{4m_{\tilde g}\alpha_s(R^{\tilde b}_{a,2}R^{\tilde

1637: b}_{b,1}-R^{\tilde b}_{a,1}R^{\tilde

1638: b}_{b,2})}{3\pi(s-m^2_{h_0})(s-m^2_{H_0})}[F_1\hat{G}^{\tilde

1639: b}_1(a,b)(s-m^2_{H_0})+F_2\hat{G}^{\tilde

1640: b}_2(a,b)(s-m^2_{h_0})]C^m_0,\nonumber

1641: \\

1642: && f^a_4=f^a_3,\nonumber

1643: \\

1644: && f^b_1=\frac{4im_bA_3(C_V-C_A)\alpha_s}{3\pi

1645: t}[(1-\epsilon)(2C^f_{00}-uC^f_{12}+(t-m_{A_0}^2)C^f_{11}+m^2_ZC^e_1,

1646: \nonumber\\

1647: &&\hspace{0.9cm}-(s-m^2_Z-m^2_{A_0})C^f_{12}+m^2_{A_0}C^f_{11}-B_0(t,0,0))+m_Z^2C^i_0+tC^f_1]

1648: \nonumber\\

1649: &&\hspace{0.9cm}-\frac{4m_bg\alpha_sA_3T_{Z}(a,b)R^{\tilde

1650: b}_{a1}R^{\tilde b}_{b1}}{3\pi tcos\theta_{w

1651: }}[2c^q_{00}+uC^q_2+uC^q_{22}+(t-m^2_{A_0})(C^q_1+C^q_{11}+C^q_2+C^q_{22})\nonumber\\

1652: &&\hspace{0.9cm}

1653: +(s-m^2_Z-m^2_{A_0})(C^q_2+C^q_{22})+m^2_{A_0}(C^q_1+C^q_{11}+C^q_2+C^q_{22})+tC^q_{12}],

1654: \nonumber

1655: \\&&f^b_3=\frac{-4im_bC_VA_3\alpha_s}{3\pi

1656: t}\{(1-\epsilon)[2C^f_{00}-uC^f_{12}+(t-m_{A_0}^2)C^f_{11}+m^2_ZC^e_1

1657: \nonumber\\

1658: &&\hspace{0.9cm}-(s-m^2_Z-m^2_{A_0})C^f_{12}+m^2_{A_0}C^f_{11}-B_0(t,0,0)]+m_Z^2C^i_0+tC^f_1\}

1659: \nonumber\\

1660: &&\hspace{0.9cm}+\frac{4m_bg\alpha_sA_3T_{Z}(a,b)R^{\tilde

1661: b}_{a1}R^{\tilde b}_{b1}}{3\pi tcos\theta_{w

1662: }}[2C^q_{00}+uC^q_2+uC^q_{22}+(t-m^2_{A_0})(C^q_1+C^q_{11}+C^q_2+C^q_{22})\nonumber\\

1663: &&\hspace{0.9cm}

1664: +(s-m^2_Z-m^2_{A_0})(C^q_2+C^q_{22})+m^2_{A_0}(C^q_1+C^q_{11}+C^q_2+C^q_{22})+tC^q_{12}]

1665: ,\nonumber

1666: \\&&f^b_5=\frac{-2im_b\alpha_sA_3(C_V-C_A)}{3\pi

1667: t}\{(1-\epsilon)[2C^f_{00}+(t-m^2_{A_0})C^f_1+m_Z^2C^e_1\nonumber\\

1668: &&\hspace{0.9cm}+(s-m^2_Z-m^2_{A_0})(C^e_1-C^f_2) +

1669: m^2_{A_0}(2C^f_1-C^e_2)-B_0(t,0,0)]+m_Z^2C^i_0\}\nonumber\\

1670: &&\hspace{0.9cm}+\frac{2gm_b\alpha_sA_3T_{Z}(ab)R^{\tilde

1671: b}_{a1}R^{\tilde b}_{b1}}{3\pi cos\theta_{w }t}C^q_{00},\nonumber

1672: \\&&f^b_6=\frac{4im_b\alpha_sC_VA_3}{3\pi

1673: t}\{(1-\epsilon)[2C^f_{00}+(t-m^2_{A_0})C^f_1+m_Z^2C^e_1\nonumber\\

1674: &&\hspace{0.9cm}+(s-m^2_Z-m^2_{A_0})(C^e_1-C^f_2) +

1675: m^2_{A_0}(2C^f_1-C^e_2)-B_0(t,0,0)]+m_Z^2C^i_0\}\nonumber\\

1676: &&\hspace{0.9cm}+\frac{-4gm_b\alpha_sA_3T_{Z}(a,b)R^{\tilde

1677: b}_{a1}R^{\tilde b}_{b1}}{3\pi cos\theta_{w }t}C^q_{00},\nonumber

1678: \\

1679: && f^c_1=\epsilon\frac{-4im_bA_3\alpha_s}{3\pi

1680: }(C_V+C_A)(C^d_1-C^h_2),\nonumber

1681: \\ && f^c_2=\frac{-4im_bA_3\alpha_s}{3\pi

1682: u}(C_V+C_A)[m^2_{A_0}C^j_0-B_0(u,0,0)]+\frac{4m_{\tilde{g}}\alpha_s}{3\pi

1683: u}\hat{G}^{\tilde b }_3(a,b)R^{\tilde b}_{a1}R^{\tilde

1684: b}_{b2}C^s_0,\nonumber\\

1685: &&\hspace{0.9cm}+\epsilon\frac{-4im_bA_3\alpha_s}{3\pi

1686: u}(C_V+C_A)[uC^d_1+uC^d_2-uC^h_1-uC^h_2+(u-m^2_Z)C^h_1\nonumber\\

1687: &&\hspace{0.9cm}-m_Z^2(C^d_2-2C^h_1)

1688: +(s-m_Z^2-m_{A^0}^2)(C^d_1-C^h_2)+m_{A^0}^2C^d_1+B_0(u,0,0)],\nonumber

1689: \\&& f^c_3=\epsilon\frac{8im_bA_3\alpha_s}{3\pi

1690: }C_V(C^d_1-C^h_2),\nonumber

1691: \\&& f^c_4=\frac{8im_bA_3\alpha_sC_V}{3\pi

1692: u}[m^2_{A_0}C^j_0-B_0(u,0,0)]\nonumber\\

1693: &&\hspace{0.9cm}+\frac{4m_{\tilde{g}}\hat{G}^{\tilde b

1694: }_3(a,b)\alpha_s }{3\pi u}[R^{\tilde b}_{a2}R^{\tilde

1695: b}_{b1}(C_V-C_A)C^s_0-R^{\tilde b}_{a1}R^{\tilde

1696: b}_{b2}(C_V+C_A)C^s_0]\nonumber\\

1697: &&\hspace{0.9cm}+\epsilon\frac{8im_bA_3\alpha_s}{3\pi

1698: u}C_V[uC^d_1+uC^d_2-uC^h_1-uC^h_2+(u-m^2_Z)C^h_1\nonumber\\

1699: &&\hspace{0.9cm}-m_Z^2(C^d_2-2C^h_1)

1700: +(s-m_Z^2-m_{A^0}^2)(C^d_1-C^h_2)+m_{A^0}^2C^d_1+B_0(u,0,0)],\nonumber

1701: \\ && f^c_5=\frac{-2im_bA_3\alpha_s}{3\pi

1702: u}(C_V+C_A)[m^2_{A_0}C^j_0-B_0(u,0,0)]+\frac{4m_{\tilde{g}}\alpha_s}{3\pi

1703: u}\hat{G}^{\tilde b }_3(a,b)R^{\tilde b}_{a1}R^{\tilde

1704: b}_{b2}C^s_0\nonumber\\

1705: &&\hspace{0.9cm}+\epsilon\frac{-2im_bA_3\alpha_s}{3\pi

1706: u}(C_V+C_A)[uC^h_1+(s-m_Z^2-m_{A^0}^2)(C^d_1-C^h_2)\nonumber\\

1707: &&\hspace{0.9cm}-m^2_ZC^d_2+m_{A^0}^2C^d_1+B_0(u,0,0)], \nonumber

1708: \\ && f^c_6=\frac{4im_bA_3\alpha_sC_V}{3\pi

1709: u}[m^2_{A_0}C^j_0-B_0(u,0,0)]\nonumber\\

1710: &&\hspace{0.9cm}+\frac{4m_{\tilde{g}}\hat{G}^{\tilde b

1711: }_3(a,b)\alpha_s }{3\pi u}[R^{\tilde b}_{a2}R^{\tilde

1712: b}_{b1}(C_V-C_A)C^s_0-R^{\tilde b}_{a1}R^{\tilde

1713: b}_{b2}(C_V+C_A)C^s_0]\nonumber\\

1714: &&\hspace{0.9cm}+\epsilon\frac{4im_bA_3\alpha_s}{3\pi

1715: u}C_V[uC^h_1+(s-m_Z^2-m_{A^0}^2)(C^d_1-C^h_2)\nonumber\\

1716: &&\hspace{0.9cm}-m^2_ZC^d_2+m_{A^0}^2C^d_1+B_0(u,0,0)], \nonumber

1717: \\

1718: && f^d_1=\frac{4i(C_V-C_A)m_bA_3\alpha_s}{3\pi

1719: t}[C^k_0m^2_{A_0}-B_0(t,0,0)]+\frac{-4(C_V-C_A)m_{\tilde g

1720: }\alpha_s\hat{G}^{\tilde b }_3(a,b)R^{\tilde b}_{a1}R^{\tilde

1721: b}_{b2}}{3\pi t}C^t_0\nonumber\\

1722: &&\hspace{0.9cm}+\epsilon\frac{4i(C_V-C_A)m_bA_3\alpha_s}{3\pi

1723: t}[C^b_1m^2_{A_0}+B_0(t,0,0)],\nonumber

1724: \\&& f^d_3=\frac{-8iC_Vm_bA_3\alpha_s}{3\pi

1725: t}[C^k_0m^2_{A_0}-B_0(t,0,0)]

1726: +\frac{-4(C_V+C_A)m_{\tilde g}\alpha_s\hat{G}^{\tilde b

1727: }_3(a,b)R^{\tilde b}_{a2}R^{\tilde b}_{b1}}{3\pi t}C^t_0\nonumber\\

1728: &&\hspace{0.9cm}+\frac{4(C_A-C_V)m_{\tilde

1729: g}\alpha_s\hat{G}^{\tilde b }_3(a,b)R^{\tilde b}_{a1}R^{\tilde

1730: b}_{b2}}{3\pi

1731: t}C^t_0\nonumber\\

1732: &&\hspace{0.9cm}+\epsilon\frac{-8iC_Vm_bA_3\alpha_s}{3\pi

1733: t}[C^b_1m^2_{A_0}+B_0(t,0,0)],\nonumber\\ &&

1734: f^d_5=\frac{-f^d_1}{2},\nonumber

1735: \\&& f^d_6=\frac{-f^d_3}{2},\nonumber

1736: \\

1737: && f^e_2=\frac{-4i(C_V+C_A)m_bA_3\alpha_s}{3\pi

1738: u}[2C^g_{00}+uC^g_{11}+uC^g_{12}+m^2_Z(C^c_1+C^l_0)]\nonumber\\

1739: &&\hspace{0.9cm}+\frac{4gm_bA_3\alpha_s}{3\pi

1740: ucos\theta_{w}}T_{Z}(a,b)R^{\tilde b}_{a2}R^{\tilde

1741: b}_{b2}(2C^o_{00}-uC^o_{12}),\nonumber\\

1742: && f^e_4=\frac{8iC_Vm_bA_3\alpha_s}{3\pi

1743: u}[2C^g_{00}+uC^g_{11}+uC^g_{12}+m^2_Z(C^c_1+C^l_0)]\nonumber\\

1744: &&\hspace{0.9cm}+\frac{-4gm_bA_3\alpha_s}{3\pi

1745: ucos\theta_{w}}T_{Z}(a,b)(2C^o_{00}-uC^o_{12})(R^{\tilde

1746: b}_{a1}R^{\tilde

1747: b}_{b1}+R^{\tilde b}_{a2}R^{\tilde b}_{b2}),\nonumber\\

1748: && f^e_5=\frac{-2i(C_V+C_A)m_bA_3\alpha_s}{3\pi

1749: u}[2C^g_{00}+uC^g_{11}+uC^g_{12}+m^2_Z(C^c_1+C^l_0)]\nonumber\\

1750: &&\hspace{0.9cm}+\frac{4gm_bA_3\alpha_s}{3\pi

1751: ucos\theta_{w}}T_{Z}(a,b)R^{\tilde b}_{a2}R^{\tilde

1752: b}_{b2}C^o_{00},\nonumber

1753: \\&& f^e_6=\frac{4iC_Vm_bA_3\alpha_s}{3\pi

1754: u}[2C^g_{00}+m^2_Z(C^c_1+C^l_0)] +\frac{-4gm_bA_3\alpha_s}{3\pi

1755: ucos\theta_{w}}T_{Z}(a,b)C^o_{00}(R^{\tilde b}_{a1}R^{\tilde

1756: b}_{b1}+R^{\tilde b}_{a2}R^{\tilde b}_{b2}),\nonumber

1757: \\

1758: && f^f_1=\frac{2i(C_V-C_A)m_bA_3\alpha_s}{3\pi t^2}{R^{\tilde b

1759: }_{a1}}^2[-2m^2_{\tilde g}B_0(0,m^2_{\tilde g},m^2_{\tilde g})

1760: +m^2_{\tilde g}B_0(t,m^2_{\tilde g},m^2_{{\tilde

1761: b}_a})-2m^2_{\tilde g}\nonumber\\

1762: &&\hspace{0.9cm}+ 2m^2_{{\tilde b}_a}B_0(0,m^2_{{\tilde

1763: b}_a},m^2_{{\tilde b}_a})-m^2_{{\tilde b}_a}B_0(t,m^2_{{\tilde

1764: g}},m^2_{{\tilde b}_a}) -2m^2_{{\tilde b}_a}+tB_0(t,m^2_{{\tilde

1765: g}},m^2_{{\tilde b}_a})\nonumber\\

1766: &&\hspace{0.9cm}+ 2m^2_{{\tilde b}_a}B_0(0,m^2_{{\tilde

1767: g}},m^2_{{\tilde b}_a})]+\frac{2i(C_V-C_A)m_bA_3\alpha_s}{3\pi

1768: t^2}(1-\epsilon)tB_0(t,0,0),\nonumber \\

1769: && f^f_3=\frac{-2im_bA_3\alpha_s}{3\pi t^2}[(C_V-C_A){R^{\tilde b

1770: }_{a1}}^2+(C_V+C_A){R^{\tilde b }_{a2}}^2][-2m^2_{\tilde

1771: g}B_0(0,m^2_{\tilde g},m^2_{\tilde g}) +m^2_{\tilde

1772: g}B_0(t,m^2_{\tilde g},m^2_{{\tilde b}_a})\nonumber\\

1773: &&\hspace{0.9cm}+2m^2_{{\tilde b}_a}B_0(0,m^2_{{\tilde

1774: b}_a},m^2_{{\tilde b}_a})-2m^2_{\tilde g}-m^2_{{\tilde

1775: b}_a}B_0(t,m^2_{{\tilde g}},m^2_{{\tilde b}_a}) -2m^2_{{\tilde

1776: b}_a}+tB_0(t,m^2_{{\tilde g}},m^2_{{\tilde b}_a})

1777: \nonumber\\&&\hspace{0.9cm}+ 2m^2_{{\tilde b}_a}B_0(0,m^2_{{\tilde

1778: g}},m^2_{{\tilde b}_a})] +\frac{-2im_bA_3C_V\alpha_s}{3\pi

1779: t^2}(1-\epsilon)tB_0(t,0,0),\nonumber

1780: \\

1781: && f^g_2=\frac{-2i(C_V+C_A)m_bA_3\alpha_s}{3\pi t^2}{R^{\tilde b

1782: }_{a2}}^2[-2m^2_{\tilde g}B_0(0,m^2_{\tilde g},m^2_{\tilde g})

1783: +m^2_{\tilde g}B_0(t,m^2_{\tilde g},m^2_{{\tilde b}_a})+

1784: 2m^2_{{\tilde

1785: b}_a}B_0(0,m^2_{{\tilde b}_a},m^2_{{\tilde b}_a})\nonumber\\

1786: &&\hspace{0.9cm}-2m^2_{\tilde g}-m^2_{{\tilde

1787: b}_a}B_0(u,m^2_{{\tilde g}},m^2_{{\tilde b}_a}) -2m^2_{{\tilde

1788: b}_a}+uB_0(u,m^2_{{\tilde g}},m^2_{{\tilde b}_a})+

1789: 2m^2_{{\tilde b}_a}B_0(0,m^2_{{\tilde g}},m^2_{{\tilde b}_a})] \nonumber\\

1790: &&\hspace{0.9cm}+\frac{-2i(C_V+C_A)m_bA_3\alpha_s}{3\pi

1791: t^2}(1-\epsilon)uB_0(u,0,0),\nonumber \\

1792: && f^g_4=\frac{2im_bA_3\alpha_s}{3\pi u^2}[(C_V-C_A){R^{\tilde b

1793: }_{a1}}^2+(C_V+C_A){R^{\tilde b }_{a2}}^2][-2m^2_{\tilde

1794: g}B_0(0,m^2_{\tilde g},m^2_{\tilde g}) +m^2_{\tilde

1795: g}B_0(u,m^2_{\tilde g},m^2_{{\tilde b}_a})\nonumber\\

1796: &&\hspace{0.9cm}+ 2m^2_{{\tilde b}_a}B_0(0,m^2_{{\tilde

1797: b}_a},m^2_{{\tilde b}_a})-2m^2_{\tilde g}-m^2_{{\tilde

1798: b}_a}B_0(u,m^2_{{\tilde g}},m^2_{{\tilde b}_a}) -2m^2_{{\tilde

1799: b}_a}+uB_0(u,m^2_{{\tilde g}},m^2_{{\tilde

1800: b}_a})\nonumber\\&&\hspace{0.9cm}+ 2m^2_{{\tilde

1801: b}_a}B_0(0,m^2_{{\tilde g}},m^2_{{\tilde b}_a})]

1802: +\frac{2im_bA_3C_V\alpha_s}{3\pi

1803: u^2}(1-\epsilon)uB_0(u,0,0),\nonumber \\

1804: && f^g_5=\frac{-f^g_4}{2},\nonumber \\

1805: && f^f_6=\frac{-f^g_2}{2}.\nonumber

1806: \end{eqnarray}

1807:  For the box diagrams(a)-(d) in Fig.~3, we find, respectively,

1808:  \begin{eqnarray}

1809: &&f^{Box(a)}_1=\frac{-4im_bA_3(C_V-C_A)\alpha_s}{3\pi}[-C^e_2-sD^a_0

1810: +uD^b_2-(t-m^2_{A^0})(D^b_2+D^b_3-D^a_1-D^a_3)\nonumber\\

1811: &&\hspace{1.6cm}+(1+\epsilon)(C^y_0-C^x_0)]\nonumber\\

1812: &&\hspace{1.6cm}+\epsilon\frac{-4im_bA_3(C_V-C_A)\alpha_s}{3\pi}[

1813: C^e_2+C^u_1+(u-m^2_{A^0})(D^a_{11}+D^a_{13})-(t-m^2_{A^0})(D^b_2+D^b_3)\nonumber\\

1814: &&\hspace{1.6cm}

1815: -m^2_{A^0}(D^a_1+D^a_{13}+D^a_3+D^a_{33})],\nonumber\\

1816: &&f^{Box(a)}_2=\frac{4im_bA_3(C_V-C_A)\alpha_s}{3\pi}

1817: [m^2_{A^0}(D^a_0+D^b_2)-(t-m^2_{A^0})(D^a_1+D^a_2+D^a_3)-(u-m^2_{A^0})D^b_3\nonumber\\

1818: &&\hspace{1.6cm}-C^a_0+C^z_0-C^x_0]

1819: \nonumber\\

1820: &&\hspace{1.6cm}+\epsilon\frac{4im_bA_3(C_V-C_A)\alpha_s}{3\pi} [

1821: 2D^a_{00}-(u-m^2_{A^0})(D^a_{11}+D^a_{12}+D^a_{13}+D^b_3)\nonumber\\

1822: &&\hspace{1.6cm}+m^2_{A^0}

1823: (D^a_{13}+D^a_{23}+D^a_{33}+D^b_2)],\nonumber\\ &&

1824: f^{Box(a)}_3=\frac{-2C_Vf^{Box(a)}_1}{C_V-C_A},\nonumber\\ &&

1825: f^{Box(a)}_4=\frac{-2C_Vf^{Box(a)}_2}{C_V-C_A},\nonumber\\ &&

1826: f^{Box(a)}_5=\frac{2im_bA_3(C_V-C_A)\alpha_s}{3\pi}[

1827: -sD^a_0+(u-t)D^a_0+C^y_0+C_0^z-2C_0^x]\nonumber\\

1828: &&\hspace{1.6cm}+\epsilon\frac{2im_bA_3(C_V-C_A)\alpha_s}{3\pi}[

1829: 2D^a_{00}-(t-m^2_{A^0})D^b_2-m^2_{A^0}D^a_3-C^x_0],\nonumber\\ &&

1830: f^{Box(a)}_6=\frac{-2C_Vf^{Box(a)}_5}{C_V-C_A},\nonumber

1831: \\

1832: &&f^{Box(b)}_1=\frac{4igm_{\tilde g}\alpha_s}{3\pi cos\theta_{w}

1833: cos\theta_{w} }T_Z(l,a){\hat G}_3^{\tilde b}(l,b)R^{\tilde

1834: b}_{a1}R^{\tilde b}_{b2}(D^e_1+D^e_3+D^f_0),\nonumber\\

1835: &&f^{Box(b)}_2=\frac{4igm_{\tilde g}\alpha_s}{3\pi cos\theta_{w}

1836: cos\theta_{w} }T_Z(l,a){\hat G}_3^{\tilde b}(l,b)R^{\tilde

1837: b}_{a1}R^{\tilde b}_{b2}(D^e_1+D^e_2+D^e_3+D^f_0),\nonumber\\

1838: &&f^{Box(b)}_3=\frac{4igm_{\tilde g}\alpha_s}{3\pi cos\theta_{w}

1839: cos\theta_{w} }T_Z(l,a){\hat G}_3^{\tilde b}(l,b)(R^{\tilde

1840: b}_{b1}-R^{\tilde b}_{a1}R^{\tilde

1841: b}_{b2})(D^e_1+D^e_3+D^f_0),\nonumber\\

1842: &&f^{Box(b)}_4=\frac{4igm_{\tilde g}\alpha_s}{3\pi cos\theta_{w}

1843: cos\theta_{w} }T_Z(l,a){\hat G}_3^{\tilde b}(l,b)(R^{\tilde

1844: b}_{b1}-R^{\tilde b}_{a1}R^{\tilde

1845: b}_{b2})(D^e_1+D^e_2+D^e_3+D^f_0),\nonumber

1846: \\

1847: &&f^{Box(c)}_1=\frac{-4im_bA_3(C_V+C_A)\alpha_s}{3\pi}[-sD^c_1

1848: +(u-m^2_Z)(D^d_3-D^c_1)-m^2_ZD^d_2-C^v_0]\nonumber\\

1849: &&\hspace{1.6cm}+\epsilon\frac{-4im_bA_3(C_V+C_A)\alpha_s}{3\pi}[

1850: C^d_1-C^u_1-C^x_1-(t-m^2_Z)D^c_{11}+(u-m^2_Z)D^d_3\nonumber\\

1851: &&\hspace{1.6cm}+m^2_Z(D^c_1+D^c_{13})],\nonumber\\

1852: &&f^{Box(c)}_2=\frac{-4im_bA_3(C_V+C_A)\alpha_s}{3\pi}[C^v_1-sD^c_1-sD^c_2

1853: -(t-m^2_Z)D^d_3-(u-m^2_Z)(D^c_1+D^c_2)\nonumber\\

1854: &&\hspace{1.6cm}+m^2_Z(D^c_0+D^d_2)-C^a_0]\nonumber\\

1855: &&\hspace{1.6cm}+\epsilon\frac{-4im_bA_3(C_V+C_A)\alpha_s}{3\pi}[C^d_1+C^d_2-C^x_1

1856: -(t-m^2_Z)(D^c_{11}+D^c_{12}+D^d_{3})\nonumber\\

1857: &&\hspace{1.6cm}+m^2_Z(D^c_{13}+D^c_{23}+D^d_2)+C^v_0],\nonumber

1858: \\ &&

1859: f^{Box(c)}_3=\frac{-2C_Vf^{Box(b)}_1}{C_V+C_A},\nonumber\\ &&

1860: f^{Box(c)}_4=\frac{-2C_Vf^{Box(b)}_2}{C_V+C_A},\nonumber\\ &&

1861: f^{Box(c)}_5=\frac{2im_bA_3(C_V+C_A)\alpha_s}{3\pi}[-sD^c_0+(t-u)D^d_2+C^l_0+C^v_0-2C^x_0]\nonumber\\

1862: &&\hspace{1.6cm}+\epsilon\frac{2im_bA_3(C_V+C_A)\alpha_s}{3\pi}[2D^c_{00}-(u-m^2_{A^0})D^d_2-m^2_ZD^c_{3}-C^x_0],\nonumber

1863: \\ &&

1864: f^{Box(c)}_6=\frac{-2C_Vf^{Box(b)}_5}{C_V+C_A},\nonumber\\

1865: &&f^{Box(d)}_1=\frac{4igm_{\tilde g}\alpha_s}{3\pi cos\theta_{w}

1866: cos\theta_{w} }T_Z(l,a){\hat G}_3^{\tilde b}(l,b)R^{\tilde

1867: b}_{a1}R^{\tilde b}_{b2}D^h_1,\nonumber\\

1868: &&f^{Box(d)}_2=\frac{4igm_{\tilde g}\alpha_s}{3\pi cos\theta_{w}

1869: cos\theta_{w} }T_Z(l,a){\hat G}_3^{\tilde b}(l,b)R^{\tilde

1870: b}_{a1}R^{\tilde b}_{b2}(D^h_1+D^h_2),\nonumber\\

1871: &&f^{Box(d)}_3=\frac{4igm_{\tilde g}\alpha_s}{3\pi cos\theta_{w}

1872: cos\theta_{w} }T_Z(l,a){\hat G}_3^{\tilde b}(l,b)(R^{\tilde

1873: b}_{b1}-R^{\tilde b}_{a1}R^{\tilde

1874: b}_{b2})D^h_1,\nonumber\\

1875: &&f^{Box(b)}_4=\frac{4igm_{\tilde g}\alpha_s}{3\pi cos\theta_{w}

1876: }T_Z(l,a){\hat G}_3^{\tilde b}(l,b)(R^{\tilde b}_{a2}R^{\tilde

1877: b}_{b1}-R^{\tilde b}_{a1}R^{\tilde b}_{b2})(D^h_1+D^h_2).\nonumber

1878: \end{eqnarray}

1879: 

1880: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

1881: 

1882: \bibitem{massh}

1883: T.~Hambye and K.~Riesselmann, Phys. Rev. D55, 7255(1997).

1884: 

1885: \bibitem{mssm}

1886: H.~E.~Haber and G.~L.~Kane, Phys. Rep. 117, 75(1985).

1887: 

1888: \bibitem{massh0}

1889: H.~E.~Haber and R.~Hempfling, Phys. Rev. Lett.66, 1815(1991);

1890: Y.~Okada et al., Prog. Theor. Phys. 85, 1(1991); J.~Ellis et al.,

1891: Phys. Lett. B257, 83(1991); S.~Heinemeyer,

1892: \eprint{hep-ph/0407244}.

1893: 

1894: \bibitem{detect}

1895: A.~Djouadi, Pramana. 62, 191(2004), \eprint{CERN TH/2003-043},

1896: \eprint{hep-ph/0303097}; M.~Dittmar, talk given at WHEPP 1999,

1897: Pramana 55, 151(2000); F.~Gianotti, talk given at the LHC

1898: Committee Meeting, CERN, 5/7/2000.

1899: 

1900: \bibitem{LHCHiggs}F.~Gianotti, et.al., Eur. Phys. J. C39, 293(2005), \eprint{CERN-TH/2002-078}, \eprint{hep-ph/0204087};

1901: D.~Denegri et.al., \eprint{hep-ph/0112045}.

1902: \bibitem{gg2h} H.~Georgi et al.,

1903: Phys. Rev. Lett. 40, 692(1978).

1904: 

1905: \bibitem{gg2hnlo}

1906: M.~Spira et al., Phys. Lett. B318, 347(1993); Nucl. Phys. B453,

1907: 17(1995); S.~Dawson et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 16(1996); Robert

1908: V.~Harlander and Matthias Steinhauser, Phys. Lett. B574,

1909: 258(2003), Phys. Rev. D68, 111701(2003), J. High Energy Phys.

1910: 0409, 066(2004); A.~Djouadi and M.~Spira, Phys. Rev. D62,

1911: 014004(2000).

1912: 

1913: \bibitem{gg2hnnlo}

1914: R.~V.~Harlander and W.~Kilgore, Phys. Rev. Lett.88, 201801(2002);

1915: J. High Energy Phys. 0210, 017(2002); C.~Anastasiou and

1916: K.~Melnikov, Nucl. Phys. B646, 220(2002); Phys. Rev. D67,

1917: 037501(2003); V.~Ravindran et al., Nucl. Phys. B665, 325(2003).

1918: 

1919: \bibitem{gg2hresum}

1920: S.~Catani et al., J. High Energy Phys. 0307, 028(2003); A.~Kulesza

1921: et al., Phys. Rev. D69, 014012(2004).

1922: 

1923: \bibitem{vv2h}

1924: R.~N.~Cahn and S.~Dawson, Phys. Lett. B136, 196(1984);

1925: G.~Altarelli et al., Nucl. Phys. B287, 205(1987); T.~Han et al.,

1926: Phys. Rev. Lett.69, 3274(1992).

1927: \bibitem{wzh} S.~Glashow et al., Phys. Rev. D18, 1724(1978).

1928: \bibitem{v2vh}

1929: R.~Kleiss, Z.~Kunszt and W.~J.~Stirling, Phys. Lett. B253,

1930: 269(1991).

1931: \bibitem{v22}T.~Han and S.~Willenbrock, Phys. Lett. B273, 167(1991).

1932: \bibitem{ttbbh}

1933: Z.~Kunszt, Nucl. Phys. B247, 339(1984); W.~Beenakker et al., Phys.

1934: Rev. Lett.87, 201805(2001); Nucl. Phys. B653, 151(2003); S.~Dawson

1935: et al., Phys. Rev. Lett.87, 201804(2001); Phys. Rev. D67,

1936: 071503(2003); C.~Balazs, et al., Phys. Rev. D59, 055016(1999).

1937: \bibitem{hpair}

1938: A.~A.~Barrientos~Bendez\'{u} and B.~A.~Kniehl, Phys. Rev. D64,

1939: 035006(2001).

1940: \bibitem{wzhnlo} J.~Ohnemus et al.,

1941: Phys. Rev. D47, 2722(1993); H.Baer et al., Phys. Rev. D47,

1942: 2730(1993).

1943: \bibitem{hHZLO} L.~L.~Yang et al., J. Phys. G30, 1821(2004).

1944: \bibitem{AZLO} Y.~Jun et al., Phys. Rev. D66, 095008(2002).

1945: \bibitem{KaoAZLO} Chung Kao and Shankar Sachithanandam,

1946: \eprint{hep-ph/0411331}.

1947: \bibitem{Kao} Chung Kao, Phys. Rev. D46 4907(1992), FSU-HEP-911205.

1948: \bibitem{acot} M.~A.~Aivazis et al., Phys. Rev. D50, 3102(1994); J.~C.~Collins,

1949:    Phys. Rev. D58, 094002(1998); M.~Kr\"amer et al., Phys. Rev. D62, 096007(2000).

1950: \bibitem{DREG} G.~'t Hooft and M.~J.~G.~Veltman, Nucl. Phys. B44, 189(1972).

1951: \bibitem{gamma5} M.~Chanowitz et al., Nucl. Phys. B159, 225(1979).

1952: \bibitem{DRED} Z.~Bern et al., Phys. Rev. D66, 085002(2002).

1953: \bibitem{onmass} A.~Sirlin, Phys. Rev. D22, 971(1980);

1954:    W.~J.~Marciano and A.~Sirlin, Phys. Rev. D22, 2695(1980); Phys. Rev. D31, 213(1985)(E);

1955:    A.~Sirlin and W.~J.~ Marciano, Nucl. Phys. B189, 442(1981);

1956:    K.~I.~Aoki et al., Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl.73, 1(1982).

1957: \bibitem{denner} A.~Denner, Fortschr. Phys. 41, 307(1993).

1958: \bibitem{rotMa} S.~Kraml, PhD thesis, \eprint{hep-ph/9903257}; J.~Ellis and

1959: S.~Rudaz, Phys. Lett. B128, 248(1993).

1960: \bibitem{altarelli} G.~Altarelli et al.,

1961:    Nucl. Phys. B157, 461(1979); J.~C.~Collins et al., in: Perturbative Quantum Chromodynamics,

1962:    ed. A.~H.~Mueller (World Scientific, 1989).

1963: \bibitem{cutoff} B.~W.~Harris and J.~F.~Owens, Phys. Rev. D65, 094032(2002).

1964: \bibitem{Monte} G.~P.~Lepage, J. Comp. Phys. 27, 192(1978).

1965: \bibitem{factor1} J.~C.~Collins et al., Nucl. Phys. B261, 104(1985); G.~T.~Bodwin, Phys. Rev. D31, 2616(1985);

1966:  Phys. Rev. D34, 3932(1986)(E).

1967: \bibitem{altarelli1} G.~Altarelli and G.~Parisi, Nucl. Phys. B126, 298(1977).

1968:    \bibitem{factor2} R.~K.~Ellis et al., Nucl. Phys. B178, 421(1981); L.~J.~Bergmann, in: Next-to-leading-log QCD

1969:    calculation of symmetric dihadron production (Ph.D. thesis,

1970:    Florida State University, 1989); Z.~Kunszt and D.~E.~Soper, Phys. Rev. D46 192(1992);

1971:    M.~L.~Mangano et al., Nucl. Phys. B73, 295(1992).

1972:    \bibitem{diffPDF}B.~kamal, Phys. Rev. D53, 1142(1996).

1973:    \bibitem{beenakker2} W.~Beenakker et al., Nucl. Phys. B492, 51(1997).

1974:    \bibitem{SM} Particle Data Group, S.~Eidelman, et al., Phys. Lett. B592 1(2004).

1975: \bibitem{runningalphas} S.~G.~Gorishny et al., Mod. Phys. Lett. A5, 2703(1990);

1976:    Phys. Rev. D43, 1633(1991); A.~Djouadi et al., Z. Phys. C70, 427(1996);

1977:     A.~Djouadi et al., Comput. Phys. Commun. 108, 56(1998);

1978:    M.~Spira, Fortschr. Phys. 46, 203(1998).

1979: \bibitem{CTEQ} J.~Pumplin et al., J. High Energy phys. 0207, 012(2002).

1980: \bibitem{runningmb} M.~Carena et al., Nucl. Phys. B577, 88(2000).

1981: \bibitem{mb} M.~Beneke and A.~Signer, Phys. Lett. B471, 233(1999);

1982:    A.~H.~Hoang, Phys. Rev. D61, 034005(2000).

1983:    \bibitem{msugra} M.~Drees and S.~P.~Martin,

1984:    MAD-PH-879,UM-TH-95-02, \eprint{hep-ph/9504324}

1985: \bibitem{suspect} A.~Djouadi et al., hep-ph/0211331.

1986: \bibitem{susyhiggs} B.~C.~Allanach et al., J. High Energy phys. 0409, 044(2004).

1987: \bibitem{plehn} Tilman Plehn, Phys. Rev. D67, 014018(2003).

1988: \bibitem{anal} Howard E.~Haber et al., Phys. Rev. D63, 055004(2001).

1989: \bibitem{61cteq} D.~Stump et al., J. High Energy phys. 0310, 046(2003).

1990: \bibitem{PDFUU} J. Pumplin et al., J. High Energy

1991: phys. 0207, 012(2002).

1992: \end{thebibliography}

1993: 

1994: \newpage

1995: 

1996: \begin{figure}[h!]

1997: \vspace{1.0cm} \centerline{\epsfig{file=feynman1.eps,

1998: width=400pt}} \caption[]{Leading order Feynman diagrams for

1999: $b\bar{b}\rightarrow A^0Z^0$.}

2000: \end{figure}

2001: \begin{figure}[h!]

2002: \vspace{1.0cm} \centerline{\epsfig{file=feynman2.eps,

2003: width=380pt}} \caption[]{One-loop virtual diagrams,

2004: including self-energy and vertex corrections for\\

2005: $b\bar{b}\rightarrow A^0Z^0$.}

2006: \end{figure}

2007: \newpage

2008: \begin{figure}[h!]

2009: \vspace{1.0cm} \centerline{\epsfig{file=feynman3.eps,

2010: width=380pt}} \caption[]{Box diagrams

2011:  for

2012: $b\bar{b}\rightarrow A^0Z^0$.}

2013: \end{figure}

2014: \begin{figure}[h!]

2015: \vspace{1.0cm} \centerline{\epsfig{file=feynman4.eps,

2016: width=380pt}} \caption[]{Feynman diagrams

2017:  for the real gluon emission contributions.}

2018: \end{figure}

2019: \begin{figure}[h!]

2020: \vspace{1.0cm} \centerline{\epsfig{file=feynman5.eps,

2021: width=380pt}} \caption[]{Feynman diagrams

2022:  for the emission of a massless bottom

2023: quark contributions.}

2024: \end{figure}

2025: \begin{figure}[h!]

2026: \centerline{\epsfig{file=tree.eps,width=350pt}} \caption[]{ LO total

2027: cross sections of $pp\rightarrow A^0Z^0$ via $b\bar{b}$

2028: annihilation, compared with the ones from gluon fusion and Drell-Yan

2029: processes at the LHC, as a function of $\tan\beta$

2030: with $m_b(m_b)=4.25$\,GeV, assuming: (1)

2031: $m_0=200$\,GeV, $m_{\frac{1}{2}}=160$\,GeV, $A_0=100$\,GeV

2032: and $ \mu<0$; (2)

2033: $m_0=150$\,GeV, $m_{\frac{1}{2}}=180$\,GeV, $A_0=300$\,GeV and $ \mu>0$.

2034: \label{ds}}

2035: \end{figure}

2036: \begin{figure}[h!]

2037: \centerline{\epsfig{file=tree2.eps,width=350pt}} \caption[]{ LO total

2038: cross sections of $pp\rightarrow A^0Z^0$ via $b\bar{b}$

2039: annihilation, compared with the ones from gluon fusion and Drell-Yan

2040: process at the LHC, as a function of $m_{A^0}$ with $m_b(m_b)=4.25$\,GeV,

2041:  assuming:

2042: $m_{\frac{1}{2}}=160$\,GeV, $A_0=100$\,GeV, $\tan\beta=40$ and $\mu<0$.

2043: \label{ds}}

2044: \end{figure}

2045: \begin{figure}[h!]

2046: \centerline{\epsfig{file=ds.eps,width=350pt}}

2047: \caption[]{Dependence of the NLO total cross sections for the $A^0Z^0$

2048: production at the LHC on the theoretical cutoff cale

2049: $\delta_s$ with $\delta_c=\delta_s/50$, assuming: (1)

2050: $m_0=200$\,GeV, $m_{\frac{1}{2}}=160$\,GeV,

2051: $A_0=100$\,GeV, $\tan\beta=40 $ and $

2052: \mu<0$; (2)

2053: $m_0=150$\,GeV, $m_{\frac{1}{2}}=180$\,GeV, $A_0=300$\,GeV,

2054: $\tan\beta=40 $ and $

2055: \mu>0$.

2056: Here, we take $m_b(m_b)=4.25$\,GeV. In (a), the solid and dotted curves

2057: are the results for model (1) and (2), respectively.

2058: \label{ds}}

2059: \end{figure}

2060: \begin{figure}[h!]

2061: %\centerline{\epsfig{file=mA01.eps,width=340pt}}

2062: \centerline{\epsfig{file=mA01.eps,width=300pt}}

2063: \caption[]{Dependence of the total cross section of the $A^0Z^0$

2064: production at the LHC on $m_{A^0}$, assuming

2065: $m_{\frac{1}{2}}=160$\,GeV, $A_0=100$\,GeV, and $\mu<0$ for

2066: $\tan\beta=40$ in Fig.~9(1) and $\tan\beta=10$ in Fig.~9(2).

2067: Three differet calculations were done by using: (I)

2068: $\overline{\rm MS}$ bottom quark mass at the scale $m_b$,

2069: (II) QCD improved bottom quark running mass

2070: at the scale $m_{A^0}$, and

2071: (III) QCD plus SUSY improved bottom quark running mass

2072: at the scale $m_{A^0}$, respectively, to evaluate the

2073: bottom quark Yukawa coupling.

2074: \label{mA0}}

2075: \end{figure}

2076: \begin{figure}[h!]

2077: \centerline{\epsfig{file=mA0ratioqcd2.eps,width=300pt}}

2078:  \caption[]{$K$-factor, defined as

2079: $\sigma_{NLO}/\sigma_{LO}$,

2080:  for the $A^0Z^0$ production at

2081: the LHC as a function of $m_{A^0}$, using the QCD improved running

2082: $m_b$ to evaluate the bottom quark Yukawa coupling,

2083: assuming $m_{\frac{1}{2}}=160$\,GeV, $A_0=100$\,GeV, and

2084: $\mu<0$ for $\tan\beta=40$ in Fig.~10(1) and $\tan\beta=10$ in

2085: Fig.~10(2). The full $K$-factor is shown as curve (a), which includes

2086: the pure QCD corrections, shown as curve (b), and SUSY QCD corrections,

2087: shown as curve (c). The contribution from the

2088: SUSY QCD box diagrams is also separately shown as curve (d)

2089: for comparison.

2090: \label{mA0ratioqcd}}

2091: \end{figure}

2092: \begin{figure}[h!]

2093: \centerline{\epsfig{file=mA0kfactor2.eps,width=450pt}}

2094:  \caption[]{$K$-factor, defined as

2095: $\sigma_{NLO}/\sigma_{LO}$,

2096:  for the $A^0Z^0$ production at

2097: the LHC as a function of $m_{A^0}$, using the

2098: QCD plus SUSY improved bottom quark Yukawa coupling,

2099: assuming $m_{\frac{1}{2}}=160$\,GeV, $A_0=100$\,GeV,

2100: $\mu<0$ and $\tan\beta=40$.

2101:  The full $K$-factor is shown as curve (a), which includes

2102: the pure QCD corrections, shown as curve (b), and SUSY QCD corrections,

2103: shown as curve (c). The contribution from the

2104: SUSY QCD box diagrams is also separately shown as curve (d)

2105: for comparison.

2106:  \label{mA01kfactor}}

2107: \end{figure}

2108: \begin{figure}[h!]

2109: \centerline{\epsfig{file=anal.eps,width=400pt}} \caption[

2110: ]{Comparison of the SUSY QCD corrections, denoted as

2111: $\delta\sigma_{SUSY QCD}/\sigma_{LO}$, for the $A^0Z^0$ production

2112: at the LHC. The results of using the complete numerical

2113: calculation (dashed curves) and the approximate analytical forms

2114: (solid curves) in the heacvy mass limit are separately shown as a

2115: function of $M_{SUSY}$ with $\tan\beta=4$ and $40$, respectively,

2116: assuming $m_{A^0}=150$\,GeV and $M_{\tilde{Q}}$ $=$

2117: $M_{\tilde{D}}$ $=$ $\mu$ $=$ $A_b$ $=$ $M_{\tilde{g}}$ $\equiv

2118: M_{SUSY}$. Here, the LO cross section is calculated by using

2119: the $\overline{\rm MS}$ bottom quark mass. }

2120: \end{figure}

2121: 

2122: \begin{figure}[h!]

2123: \centerline{\epsfig{file=tanb.eps,width=400pt}}

2124: \caption[]{Dependence of the total cross sections for the $A^0Z^0$

2125: production at the LHC on $\tan\beta$, assuming:

2126: (1)$m_0=200$\,GeV

2127: and $400$\,GeV, respectively,

2128: $m_{\frac{1}{2}}=160$\,GeV, $A_0=100$\,GeV, and $ \mu<0$;

2129: (2)$m_0=150$\,GeV, $m_{\frac{1}{2}}=180$\,GeV and $400$\,GeV,

2130: respectively,

2131: $A_0=300$\,GeV, and $ \mu>0$. \label{tanb}}

2132: \end{figure}

2133: \begin{figure}[h!]

2134: \centerline{\epsfig{file=tanbkfactor.eps,width=400pt}}

2135: \caption[]{Dependence of the $K$-factor, defined as

2136: $\sigma_{NLO}/\sigma_{LO}$, on $\tan\beta$

2137: for the $A^0Z^0$ production at the LHC, assuming:

2138: (1)$m_0=200$\,GeV

2139: and $400$\,GeV, respectively,

2140: $m_{\frac{1}{2}}=160$\,GeV, $A_0=100$\,GeV, and $ \mu<0$;

2141: (2)$m_0=150$\,GeV, $m_{\frac{1}{2}}=180$\,GeV and $400$\,GeV,

2142: respectively,

2143: $A_0=300$\,GeV, and $ \mu>0$.

2144: \label{tanbkfactor}}

2145: \end{figure}

2146: \begin{figure}[h!]

2147: \centerline{\epsfig{file=scale.eps,width=400pt}}

2148: \caption[]{Dependence of the total cross sections on the

2149: renormalization/factorization scale $(\mu_r=\mu_f)$ for the

2150: $A^0Z^0$ production at the LHC, assuming: (1) $m_0=200$\,GeV,

2151: $m_{\frac{1}{2}}=160$\,GeV, $A_0=100$\,GeV, $\tan\beta=40$ and $

2152: \mu<0$; (2) $m_0=150$\,GeV, $m_{\frac{1}{2}}=180$\,GeV,

2153: $A_0=300$\,GeV, $\tan\beta=40$ and $ \mu>0$. Here, the QCD plus

2154: SUSY improved bottom quark Yukawa coupling is used. The case of

2155: the curves (3) is similar to (1), but in (3) the pure QCD running

2156: bottom quark mass is used instead. The case of the curves (4) is

2157: similar to (1), but in (4) the contribution from the SUSY-EW

2158: correction in the running bottom quark Yukawa coupling

2159:  is not included, namely,

2160: only the pure QCD and SUYSY-QCD corrections are included.}

2161:  \label{scale}

2162: \end{figure}

2163: \begin{figure}[h!]

2164: \centerline{\epsfig{file=scale2.eps,width=400pt}}

2165: \caption[]{Dependence of the total cross sections on the

2166: factorization scale $(\mu_f)$, labelled as case (1), or

2167: renormalization scale $(\mu_r)$, labelled as case (2),

2168: for the $A^0Z^0$ production at the LHC, assuming: $m_0=200$\,GeV,

2169: $m_{\frac{1}{2}}=160$\,GeV, $A_0=100$\,GeV, $\tan\beta=40$ and $

2170: \mu<0$. Here, the QCD plus SUSY improved bottom quark Yukawa

2171: coupling is used and $m_{av}=( m_{A^0} + m_{Z^0} )/2 $.}

2172:  \label{scale2}

2173: \end{figure}

2174: \begin{figure}[h!]

2175: \centerline{\epsfig{file=cteq.eps,width=400pt}}

2176:  \caption[]{The PDF dependence of the total cross sections for

2177: $pp\rightarrow A^0Z^0$ production at the LHC, as a function of $A_0$, assuming

2178: $m_0=250$\,GeV, $m_{\frac{1}{2}}=160$\,GeV, $\tan\beta=40$ and $

2179: \mu<0$. Here, the QCD running bottom quark mass is used to

2180: evaluate the bottom quark Yukawa coupling.} \label{cteq}

2181: \end{figure}

2182: 

2183: \begin{figure}[h!]

2184: \centerline{\epsfig{file=PDFU.eps,width=400pt}}

2185:  \caption[]{The PDF dependence of the total cross sections for

2186: $pp\rightarrow A^0Z^0$ at the LHC as a function of $m_{A^0}$,

2187: assuming $A_0=100$\,GeV, $m_{\frac{1}{2}}=160$\,GeV,

2188: $\tan\beta=40$ and $ \mu<0$. Here, the QCD running bottom quark

2189: mass is used to evaluate the bottom quark Yukawa coupling.}

2190: \label{PDFU}

2191: \end{figure}

2192: \begin{figure}[h!]

2193: \centerline{\epsfig{file=pt.eps,width=400pt}}

2194: \caption[]{Differential cross sections in the transverse momentum

2195:  ($p_T$) of $Z^0$ and $A^0$ bosons,

2196:   for the $A^0Z^0$ production at the

2197: LHC, assuming: $m_0=200$\,GeV, $m_{\frac{1}{2}}=160$\,GeV,

2198: $A_0=100$\,GeV, $\tan\beta=40 $ and $\mu<0$.} \label{pt1}

2199: \end{figure}

2200: \begin{figure}[h!]

2201: \centerline{\epsfig{file=MAZ.eps,width=400pt}}

2202: \caption[]{Differential cross sections in the invariant mass

2203:  ($M_{A^0Z^0}$), for the $A^0Z^0$ production at the

2204: LHC, assuming: (1) $m_0=200$\,GeV, $m_{\frac{1}{2}}=160$\,GeV,

2205: $A_0=100$\,GeV, $\tan\beta=40 $ and $\mu<0$; (2) $m_0=150$\,GeV,

2206: $m_{\frac{1}{2}}=180$\,GeV, $A_0=300$\,GeV, $\tan\beta=40 $ and $

2207: \mu>0$. \label{pt2}}

2208: \end{figure}

2209: \end{document}

2210: