1: \section{Introduction}
2: Understanding the mechanism of electroweak symmetry breaking (EWSB) is
3: one of the main quests of the whole high energy physics community.
4: The electroweak precision data collected at LEP and SLD in combination
5: with the direct top-quark mass measurement at the Tevatron, have
6: strongly constrained the range of possible scenarios and hinted to the
7: existence of a light scalar particle. Both in the standard model (SM)
8: and in its minimal supersymmetric extensions (MSSM), the $W$ and $Z$
9: bosons and fermions acquire masses by coupling to the vacuum
10: expectation value(s) of scalar SU(2) doublet(s), via the so-called
11: Higgs mechanism. The striking prediction of such models is the
12: existence of at least one scalar state, the Higgs boson. Within the
13: SM, LEP has put a very strong lower bound to the Higgs mass, $\mh >
14: 114$ GeV~\cite{unknown:2003ih}, and has contributed to build up the
15: indirect evidence that the Higgs boson should be relatively light with
16: a high probability for its mass to be below 250 GeV. In the MSSM the
17: experimental lower mass bounds for the lightest state are somewhat
18: weaker but internal consistency of the theory predicts an upper bound
19: of 140-150 GeV at most~\cite{Allanach:2004rh}.
20:
21: In this mass intermediate range,
22: $80 \lesssim m_H \lesssim 130$ GeV, coupling to
23: photons even though loop-suppressed and therefore small, is
24: phenomenologically of great importance. At hadron colliders, the decay
25: into two photons provides a very clean signature for the discovery in
26: the gluon-gluon fusion production~\cite{H2gQCD}, for the measurements
27: of the couplings in the vector-boson fusion
28: channel~\cite{Rainwater:1997dg} and, depending on the achievable
29: integrated luminosity, also in the $WH, ZH$, and $t\bar t H$ associated
30: productions. While none of the above measurements alone can provide
31: information on the partial width (what is measured is $\sigma(pp \to H)
32: \cdot$ Br$(H\to \gamma\gamma)$), their combination with signals in other
33: decay modes, will allow a determination of the total width of the
34: Higgs and of the couplings with a precision of
35: 10-40\%~\cite{Duhrssen:2004cv}. A much better determination of the
36: Higgs width into two photons could be achieved at a $e^+e^-$ linear
37: collider, via the fusion process $\gamma \gamma \to H$, with the
38: photons generated by Compton-back scattering of laser
39: light~\cite{Jikia:1999en,Asner:2001ia}. In this case,
40: it has been shown that
41: $\sigma(\gamma \gamma \to H) \cdot$ Br$(H\to b \bar b) $
42: could be measured to a precision of a few percents~\cite{Niezurawski:2003iu},
43: providing an almost direct determination of the width of $H\to \gamma\gamma$
44: (the Br$(H\to b \bar b)$ is large for intermediate Higgs
45: masses and therefore quite insensitive to the total width).
46:
47: In view of a precise experimental determination of the
48: $H \to \gamma \gamma$ coupling, it is legitimate to ask how well the width can
49: be predicted in the SM and how sensitive to the effects of new physics
50: this quantity might be. The latter question has been the subject of
51: several studies~\cite{Kane:1995ek,Djouadi:1996pb,Han:2003gf}.
52: In general, it is found that corrections to the Higgs width into photons due
53: to physics beyond the SM are moderate, ranging up to tens of
54: percent.\footnote{This is at variance with the branching ratio into two
55: photons which can be drastically modified, due to variations of the total
56: Higgs width.}
57:
58: The SM prediction for $ \Gamma (H \to \gamma \gamma)$ includes the original
59: one-loop computation~\cite{oneloop} supplemented by the
60: complete two-loop QCD corrections to one-loop top
61: contribution~\cite{QCD2loop} and the two-loop electroweak
62: corrections evaluated in the large top-mass~\cite{EW2lmt,EW2lkn} and
63: large Higgs-mass scenarios~\cite{EW2lmh}.
64: Recently, also the two-loop contribution
65: to $ \Gamma (H \to \gamma \gamma)$ induced by the light fermion
66: has been computed~\cite{ABDV}.
67:
68: In this work we present the calculation of the two-loop electroweak
69: corrections involving the weak bosons and the top quark
70: which, together with the previously known contributions
71: due to the light fermions~\cite{ABDV}, completes the two-loop determination of
72: the $H \to \gamma \gamma$ coupling. Our investigation applies to
73: the Higgs mass range up to the $2 \,\mw$ threshold covering
74: the by far most interesting $\mh$ region
75: from a phenomenological point of view.
76: The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we illustrate the
77: technical details of the calculation focusing on the renormalization procedure
78: employed. In Section 3 we discuss the numerical results and combine them
79: with the known two-loop EW light fermion~\cite{ABDV} and two-loop QCD
80: corrections~\cite{QCD2loop}. We collect our conclusions in Section 4.
81:
82:
83:
84:
85:
86: \section{Outline of the calculation}
87: The general structure of the amplitude for the decay of a Higgs particle
88: into two photons of polarization vectors
89: $\epsilon_\mu (q_1)$ and $\epsilon_\nu (q_2)$,
90: can be written as:
91: \be
92: T^{\mu \nu} = q_1^\mu \, q_1^\nu\, T_1 + q_2^\mu \, q_2^\nu\, T_2 +
93: q_1^\mu \, q_2^\nu\, T_3 + q_1^\nu \, q_2^\mu\, T_4 +
94: (q_1\cdot q_2) \,g^{\mu \nu} \,T_5 +
95: \epsilon^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma} \,q_{1 \rho} \,q_{2 \sigma}\, T_6 \, .
96: \label{eq:T}
97: \ee
98: Abelian gauge invariance requires that $T_1 = T_2 =0$ and $T_4 = -T_5$;
99: the form factor $T_3$ does not contribute for on-shell photons.
100: $T_6$ can be generated at the two-loop level, but it has vanishing
101: interference with the one-loop result.
102: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
103: \begin{figure}[t]
104: %
105: \begin{center}
106: \hspace*{0cm}
107: \epsfig{file=dia1.eps,width=10cm}
108: \vspace*{0cm}
109: \end{center}
110: %
111: \caption{Representative diagrams of the one-loop contributions to
112: $H\to \gamma \gamma$. Diagram (a) represents the bosonic
113: contributions where the photons couple to charged bosons,
114: unphysical scalars and ghosts. In diagram
115: (b) the Higgs couples to the fermion line so that only heavy quarks
116: give a non-negligible contribution.}
117: \label{fig:one-loop}
118: \end{figure}
119: The corresponding partial decay width can be written as:
120: \bea
121: \Gamma \left( H \rightarrow \gamma \, \gamma \right) &=&
122: \frac{G_\mu \alpha^2 \, \mh^3}{128\, \sqrt{2} \, \pi^3}
123: \left| {\cal F} \right|^2 \, .
124: \label{eq:G}
125: \eea Due to the absence of a tree-level Higgs-photon-photon coupling
126: the lowest order contribution arises at one-loop via $W$ boson and
127: fermion virtual effects, see Fig.~\ref{fig:one-loop}, the latter almost
128: entirely due to the top quark with a small correction from the bottom.
129: The lowest order contribution was computed several years
130: ago~\cite{oneloop}. Neglecting the bottom part it is given by:
131: \bea
132: {\cal F}^{1l} &=& {\cal F}^{1l}_\smallw + {\cal F}^{1l}_t~,
133: \label{eq:1loop} \\
134: {\cal F}^{1l}_\smallw &=& 2\, (1 + 6 \,\wh) - 12\, \wh \,(1 - 2\, \wh)\,
135: H \left(-r,-r; -\frac1{\wh} \right)~, \label{eq:oneloopw} \\
136: {\cal F}^{1l}_t &=& - 4 Q_t^2 N_c \,\toh \, \left[ 2 -
137: (1 - 4\, \toh )\,
138: H \left( -r,-r; -\frac1\toh \right) \right] ~,
139: \label{eq:onelooptop}
140: \eea
141: where $\wh \equiv \mw^2/\mh^2$, $\toh \equiv \mt^2/\mh^2 $,
142: $N_c$ is the color factor
143: and\footnote{All the analytic continuations are obtained with the replacement
144: $x \rightarrow x -i\,\epsilon$.}
145: \be
146: H (-r,-r; x ) = \frac12
147: \log^2 \left( \frac{\sqrt{x+4}-\sqrt{x}}{\sqrt{x+4}+\sqrt{x}}
148: \right)~.
149: \label{eq:C0}
150: \ee
151: In Eqs.~(\ref{eq:oneloopw}-\ref{eq:C0}) we have expressed the result of the
152: loop integration in terms of one of the Generalized Harmonic Polylogarithms
153: (GHPLs)~\cite{RV} of weight two employing the notation of Ref.~\cite{AB2}.
154: At one loop the contribution of light fermions is suppressed by the
155: smallness of both the Yukawa coupling and the kinematical mass.
156: When the Higgs is light, the top
157: and the bosonic contributions can be expanded
158: in $\h4w \equiv m_H^2/(4\, \mw^2)$ and $h_{4t} \equiv m_H^2/(4\, \mt^2)$
159: with the result
160: \be
161: {\cal F}^{1l}_{\smallw} =
162: 7 + \frac{22}{15} \h4w
163: + \frac{76}{105} \h4w^2
164: + \frac{232}{525} \h4w^3
165: + {\cal O}(\h4w^4)\,,
166: \label{eq:bos-exp}
167: \ee
168: and
169: \be
170: {\cal F}^{1l}_{t} = - Q_t^2 N_c
171: \left( \frac43
172: + \frac{14}{45} h_{4t}
173: + \frac{8}{63} h_{4t}^2
174: + \frac{104}{1575} h_{4t}^3
175: + {\cal O}(h_{4t}^4)\right)\,.
176: \label{eq:top-exp}
177: \ee
178: From the above expansions it is manifest that both contributions
179: approach constant values (${\cal F}^{1l}_\smallw
180: \rightarrow 7, \, {\cal F}^{1l}_t \rightarrow -4/3 Q_t^2 N_c $)
181: for mass of the particle inside the loop much heavier than $\mh$.
182: Furthermore, the $W$ and top one-loop parts are of opposite sign and
183: therefore interfere destructively, the former giving the dominant contribution
184: for light Higgs masses.
185: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
186: \begin{figure}[t]
187: %
188: \begin{center}
189: \vspace*{-.2cm}
190: \epsfig{file=dia3.eps,width=15cm}
191: \end{center}
192: %
193: \caption{The three classes of two-loop diagrams contributing to $H\to
194: \gamma \gamma$. Diagram (a) represents purerely bosonic
195: contributions, which are the corrections to the corresponding diagram
196: (a) of Fig.~\ref{fig:one-loop}. Diagrams (b) and (c) are both
197: corrections to the diagram (b) of Fig.~\ref{fig:one-loop}. Leptons and
198: light quarks start contributing at two loops through diagrams of type
199: (c).}
200: \label{fig:two-loop}
201: \end{figure}
202: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
203:
204: At the two-loop level the electroweak corrections to
205: $H \rightarrow \gamma \gamma $ can be divided in two subsets:
206: the corrections induced by the light (assumed massless) fermions and the rest
207: which involves heavy particles in the loops that can
208: be further divided in a purely bosonic contribution and a contribution
209: involving third generation quarks:
210: \bea
211: {\cal F}^{2l} &=& {\cal F}^{2l}_{heavy} + {\cal F}^{2l}_{lf}\nn\\
212: &=& {\cal F}^{2l}_\smallw + {\cal F}^{2l}_t
213: + {\cal F}^{2l}_{lf}.
214: \label{eq:F}
215: \eea
216: In Fig.~\ref{fig:two-loop} we draw one representative diagram for
217: each type of contribution in $ {\cal F}^{2l}$. We notice that diagrams
218: of type (c) can also contribute to $ {\cal F}^{2l}_t$ when in the internal
219: lines a top quark is exchanged. In Eq.~(\ref{eq:F})
220: the last contribution is very different from the others two because
221: it involves particles that do not appear in the one-loop
222: calculation. Instead, as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:two-loop}c,
223: at the two-loop level, the light fermions may couple
224: to the $W$ or $Z$ bosons which in turn can directly couple to the Higgs
225: particle. The light fermion corrections form a gauge invariant subset of
226: ${\cal F}^{2l}$ and have been computed exactly in Ref.~\cite{ABDV},
227: where the analytic result has been expressed in
228: terms of GHPLs. In that analysis diagrams where
229: the bottom quark, which is assumed massless,
230: is present together with the $Z$ boson were also included.
231: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
232: \begin{figure}[t]
233: %
234: \begin{center}
235: \vspace*{-.1cm}
236: \epsfig{file=dia2.eps,width=5cm}
237: \vspace*{-.5cm}
238: \end{center}
239: %
240: \caption{Diagram for studying the cut structure of the amplitude.}
241: \label{fig:topology}
242: \end{figure}
243: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
244:
245: As anticipated, in this paper we present the result for ${\cal
246: F}^{2l}_\smallw$ and ${\cal F}^{2l}_t$ for Higgs mass values in the
247: intermediate region. Before discussing in detail the structure of the
248: calculation we notice that for such a values of the Higgs mass the
249: computation of the one-particle irreducible (1PI) two-loop diagrams
250: can be obtained via an ordinary Taylor expansion in the variable $\q4w
251: \equiv q^2/(4\, \mw^2)$ where $q$ is the momentum carried by the
252: Higgs. To appreciate this point, we discuss the structure of the cuts
253: in the Feynman diagrams that contribute to ${\cal F}^{2l}_{heavy}$.
254: As an example we take the topology drawn in Fig.~\ref{fig:topology},
255: that is actually present in both sets. In the ${\cal F}^{2l}_\smallw$
256: part, the diagrams corresponding to Fig.~\ref{fig:topology} exhibit a
257: first cut through lines (1,2), (4,5) and (1,3,5) (or (2,3,4)) at $q^2
258: = 4 \mw^2$ because the only massless particle in the purely bosonic
259: contribution is the photon (we work in the Feynman gauge) that in this
260: specific example can only appear in position 3 (see
261: Fig.~\ref{fig:two-loop}(a) ). With respect to ${\cal F}^{2l}_t$ it
262: seems that the diagrams of Fig.~\ref{fig:topology} can develop a cut
263: at $q^2 = 0$ through lines (4,5) when they represent a bottom quark
264: (see Fig.~\ref{fig:two-loop}(c)). However, as discussed in detail in
265: Ref.~\cite{DM} this cut is actually not present because of the
266: helicity structure of the diagram. Then, in this set the first cut
267: arises again at $q^2 = 4 \mw^2$ through lines (1,2). We notice that
268: the same topology is actually present also in the light fermion
269: contribution. In this case because lines 3 and 5 should be taken both
270: massless the diagrams develop a cut at $q^2 = \mw^2$ through lines
271: (1,3,5). Indeed the explicit expression for ${\cal F}^{2l}_{lf}$ given
272: in Ref.~\cite{ABDV} in terms of the GHPLs contains an imaginary part
273: when $q^2 > \mw^2$.
274:
275: To evaluate ${\cal F}^{2l}_\smallw $ and ${\cal F}^{2l}_t$
276: we find it convenient to employ the Background
277: Field Method (BFM) quantization framework.
278: The BFM is a technique for quantizing gauge theories~\cite{BFM,abbott} that
279: avoids the complete explicit breaking of the gauge symmetry.
280: One of the salient features of this approach is that all fields are
281: split in two components: a classical background field $\hat{V}$
282: and a quantum field $V$ that appears only in the loops.
283: The gauge-fixing procedure is achieved through a non linear term in the
284: fields that breaks the gauge invariance only of the quantum part of the
285: lagrangian, preserving the gauge symmetry of the effective action with respect
286: to the background fields. Thus, in the BFM framework
287: some of the vertices in which background fields are present are modified
288: with respect to the standard $R_\xi$ gauge ones. The complete set of
289: BFM Feynman rules for the SM can be found in Ref.~\cite{ddw}.
290:
291: In the BFM Feynman gauge (BFG) the heavy two-loop contributions
292: to the Higgs decay into two photons can be organized as
293: \bea
294: {\cal F}^{2l}_{heavy} &=& K_r {\cal F}^{1l} + {\cal F}^{2l}|_{\rm 1PI}\,,
295: \label{eq:F2}
296: \eea
297: where each individual term is finite. In Eq.~(\ref{eq:F2})
298: the factor $K_r$, whose explicit expression is given in Ref.~\cite{DM},
299: takes into account the reducible contribution, i.e.,\ the Higgs
300: wave function renormalization plus the expansion of the bare coupling
301: $g_0/m_{\smallw_0}$ ($g$ being the $SU(2)$ coupling) in terms of $\mu$-decay
302: constant, or
303: \be
304: K_{r} \equiv \frac12 \left[ \frac{A_{\smallw \smallw}(0)}{\mw} - V -B +
305: \delta Z_\smallh\, \right]\,,
306: \label{Kew}
307: \ee where $A_{\smallw \smallw}(0)$ is the transverse part of the $W$
308: self-energy at zero momentum transfer, the quantities $V$ and $B$
309: represent the vertex and box corrections in the $\mu$-decay amplitude
310: and $\delta Z_\smallh$ is related to the Higgs field wave function
311: renormalization through \be H_0 = \sqrt{Z_\smallh} H \simeq \left( 1 +
312: \frac12\,\delta Z_\smallh \right) H~~. \ee It is known~\cite{ddw,papa}
313: that the BFG self-energies coincide with those
314: obtained in the standard $R_\xi$ gauges via the pinch technique (PT)
315: procedure~\cite{pinch}. The PT is a prescription that combines the
316: conventional self-energies with specific parts of the
317: vertex and box diagrams, the so-called pinch parts, such that the
318: resulting PT self-energies are gauge-independent in the class of
319: $R_\xi$ gauges. Once in Eq.~(\ref{Kew}) the Higgs wave-function
320: term $ \delta Z_\smallh$ is intended as the corresponding PT
321: quantity~\cite{KPS}, then
322: the two terms in Eq.~(\ref{eq:F2}) are actually
323: finite and gauge-invariant in the $R_\xi$ gauges.
324: Eq.~(\ref{eq:F2}) can be further divided into a purely bosonic (no
325: fermionic line present) and a top part
326: \bea {\cal F}^{2l}_{\smallw}
327: &=& K_\smallw {\cal F}^{1l}_\smallw + {\cal F}^{2l}_{\smallw}|_{\rm
328: 1PI}\,,
329: \label{eq:fw}\\
330: {\cal F}^{2l}_{t} &=& ( K_t {\cal F}^{1l} +
331: K_\smallw {\cal F}^{1l}_{t}) + {\cal F}^{2l}_{t}|_{\rm 1PI}\,,
332: \label{eq:ft}
333: \eea
334: where each term is separately finite and gauge
335: independent. $K_{\smallw,t}$ are the purely bosonic and the top part
336: of $K_r$ respectively, with\footnote{
337: In the expression for $K_r$ in Ref.~\cite{DM} $K_t$ corresponds
338: to the first line and $K_\smallw$ to the rest.}
339: $K_\smallw + K_t= K_r$, and ${\cal
340: F}^{2l}_{\smallw,t}|_{\rm 1PI}$ are the two-loop 1PI corrections plus
341: the counterterms contribution (apart from the $g_0/m_{\smallw_0}$
342: factor).
343:
344: The evaluation of ${\cal F}^{2l}|_{\rm 1PI}$ has been performed via a Taylor
345: series in $\q4w$ through $O(\q4w^4)$ terms. The 1PI diagrams
346: ($\sim 1700)$ have been generated using the program
347: FeynArts\footnote{We thanks T. Hahn for
348: useful communications.}~\cite{FA}. The relevant form factor, $T_5$, has been
349: extracted via the use of a standard projector.
350: The Taylor expansion of the scalar amplitudes has been obtained
351: employing an algorithm developed by O.V.~Tarasov~\cite{Tara}. The resulting
352: two-loop vacuum integrals have been analytically evaluated using the
353: expressions of Ref.~\cite{DT}. As a check of our computation we have verified
354: the abelian gauge invariance, i.e., $T_1=T_2 =0$. We notice that while
355: in the standard $R_\xi$ gauges this property is verified only by the on-shell
356: amplitude, i.e., when $q^2 = \mh^2$, in the BFG it is satisfied also in the
357: off-shell case, i.e., for arbitrary value of $q^2$.
358:
359: The tadpole diagrams and the counterterm contribution in
360: ${\cal F}^{2l}|_{\rm 1PI}$ deserve a detailed discussion.
361: In Eq.~({\ref{eq:G}), the width is expressed in
362: terms of $G_\mu$ and $\alpha(0)=1/137.036\dots$, a choice that fixes the
363: renormalization of $g$ and of the photon coupling. The other parameters that
364: require a renormalization prescription are the mass of
365: $W$ boson, of its unphysical counterpart, $\phi$, and the corresponding
366: ghost particle, $c$, as well as that of the top quark. Furthermore,
367: the quartic coupling in the scalar potential, $\lambda$, should also be
368: renormalized. In fact $\lambda$ enters in the $\phi^+ \phi^- h$ coupling
369: that is given by $2 \lambda v$, $v$ being the v.e.v.\ of Higgs field.
370:
371: We employ on-shell masses for the physical particles. Then $\delta v$ is
372: fixed in terms of $\delta g$ and $\delta \mw^2$. In the Feynman gauge we
373: use, the mass renormalization for the $c$ and $\phi$ fields can be chosen to
374: be equal to that of the $W$ mass, i.e.,
375: $\delta m^2_c = \delta \mw^2,\: \delta m^2_\phi = \delta \mw^2$.
376:
377: We eliminate the tadpole diagrams by fixing the tadpole counterterm to
378: cancel them. This implies that the renormalization of the $\phi$ mass
379: should be augmented by the tadpole contribution, $\delta \tau$, i.e.,
380: \be
381: \delta m^2_\phi = \delta \mw^2 + \delta \tau =
382: {\rm Re}\, A_{\smallw \smallw}(\mw^2) -\frac{T}v\,,
383: \label{eq:phimass}
384: \ee
385: where $i\, T$ is the sum of 1PI tadpole diagrams with external leg extracted.
386:
387: The renormalization of $\lambda$ is achieved following the prescription
388: given in Ref.~\cite{SZ} for the renormalization of the Higgs sector.
389: However, once the factor $g/m_{\smallw}$ is extracted and its renormalization
390: included in the $K_r$ term, the relevant coupling becomes
391: $ ( m_{\smallw}/g)\, 2 \lambda v = \lambda v^2 $ whose counterterm is equal to
392: \be
393: \delta ( \lambda v^2) = \frac12 \left( \delta \mh^2 - \delta \tau \right)
394: = \frac12 \left( {\rm Re} \,\Pi_{HH}(\mh^2) + \frac{T}v \right)\,,
395: \ee
396: where $\Pi_{HH}$ is the Higgs self-energy.
397:
398: The structure of the counterterms discussed above is sufficient to
399: obtain finite results at the S-matrix level, namely when the amplitude
400: is evaluated on shell, i.e., $q^2 = \mh^2$. We are, instead,
401: evaluating ${\cal F}^{2l}|_{\rm 1PI} $ via a Taylor series in $\q4w$
402: and therefore actually computing an off-shell amplitude that only at
403: the end will be taken on the mass-shell, i.e., only at the end we are
404: going to let $\q4w \to \h4w$. The set of counterterms specified above
405: is not sufficient to make each of the individual term in the $\q4w$
406: expansion finite although the total sum is (to the order of the
407: expansion) as it should be. Indeed it is known that, beyond one-loop,
408: in order to obtain finite background-field vertex functions the
409: renormalization of the quantum gauge parameter, $\xi_Q$ is also
410: needed~\cite{abbott}. Clearly, for S-matrix elements, which are
411: independent upon the gauge parameter, this renormalization is
412: irrelevant. It should be said that the renormalization of the gauge
413: parameter can be avoided if one employs the Landau gauge, $\xi_Q
414: =0$. However, this gauge is not very practical in the BFM because of
415: the presence in the three and four gauge-boson vertices of terms
416: proportional to $1/\xi_Q$~\cite{ddw}. Then in this gauge an arbitrary
417: gauge parameter should be retained until all the $1/\xi_Q$ terms have
418: been canceled.
419: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
420: \begin{figure}[t]
421: %
422: \begin{center}
423: \vspace*{0cm}
424: \epsfig{file=dia4.eps,width=5cm}
425: \vspace*{0cm}
426: \end{center}
427: %
428: \caption{A two-loop diagram containing a
429: quadratically divergent subdiagram (self-energy)
430: associated to the unphysical scalars $\phi$.}
431: \label{fig:self}
432: \end{figure}
433: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
434: The renormalization of the gauge parameter is needed to obtain the
435: finiteness of each of the individual terms in the $\q4w$ expansion. In
436: fact, diagrams where the quantum $\phi$ field is exchanged can contain
437: quadratically divergent subdiagrams associated to the $\phi$
438: self-energy where the Higgs field is present,
439: see Fig.~\ref{fig:self}. To make these diagrams finite
440: one needs a further subtraction proportional to the derivative of the
441: quantum $\phi$ field self-energy. The counterterm for the gauge
442: parameter that makes each individual term of the Taylor expansion
443: finite is
444: \be
445: \delta \xi_Q = -{\delta \mw^2 \over \mw^2} + \delta Z_\phi\,,
446: \label{eq:xicont}
447: \ee
448: where $ \delta Z_\phi$ is the derivative of the $\phi$ self-energy
449: evaluated at zero momentum transfer. Few observations are now in order.
450: i) As always only the divergent part of $\delta \xi_Q$ is fixed. Our choice in
451: Eq.~(\ref{eq:xicont}) specifies the finite term. As said before,
452: S-matrix elements are insensitive to the renormalization of the
453: gauge parameter and
454: therefore to the prescription used for it. However, in our actual calculation
455: the expansion in $\q4w$ includes some higher order terms in $\h4w$
456: and therefore our result contains a residual dependence on the
457: prescription for $\delta \xi_Q$. ii) We notice that the first term in the
458: r.h.s.~of Eq.~(\ref{eq:xicont}) has the effect to cancel the Feynman gauge
459: mass renormalization for the $c$ and
460: $\phi$ we have previously introduced, or
461: \be
462: \left. \delta m^2_c = \delta (\xi_Q \mw^2) \right|_{\xi_Q =1} =
463: \left. \mw^2 \,\delta \xi_Q + \xi_Q \,\delta \mw^2 \right|_{\xi_Q =1} =
464: \delta Z_\phi \mw^2~.
465: \ee
466: Similarly, the $W$ boson propagator is
467: renormalized, a part longitudinal terms proportional to $ \delta Z_\phi$,
468: as if we were employing in the one-loop part the Landau gauge expression for
469: it.
470:
471: \section{Numerical Results}
472: In this section we present the result of our computation.
473: As explained in the previous section the evaluation of the 1PI contributions
474: ${\cal F}^{2l}_{t,\smallw} |_{1PI}$ has been obtained by expanding the
475: two-loop diagrams in terms of the variable $\q4w$, or
476: \be
477: {\cal F}^{2l}_{t,\smallw} |_{1PI} = \frac{\alpha}{4 \pi s^2}
478: \left( c_0 + c_1 \q4w + c_2 \q4w^2 + c_3 \q4w^3 + {\cal O}(\q4w^4) \right) \,.
479: \label{eq:exp}
480: \ee
481: The coefficients $c_i,\, (i=0,..,3)$ depend on $\mh$. Their
482: analytic expressions are too long to be reported here, therefore
483: we present them in a numerical form.
484: The $c_i$ coefficients for
485: 100 GeV $< \mh<$ 150 GeV are very well described by a linear fit in $\h4w$.
486: Choosing $\mt= 178$ GeV, $\mw = 80.4$ GeV and $\mz= 91.18$ GeV,
487: $s^2=1-\mw^2/\mz^2$, we obtain for the heavy-quark contribution,
488: ${\cal F}^{2l}_{t}|_{1PI}$,
489: \bea
490: c_0 &=&-54.4 + 6.07 \, \h4w \nn \\
491: c_1 &=&-13.3 + 3.02 \, \h4w \nn \\
492: c_2 &=&-7.00 + 1.84 \, \h4w \nn\\
493: c_3 &=&-4.35 + 1.18 \, \h4w \nn~,
494: \eea
495: while for the purely bosonic one, ${\cal F}^{2l}_{\smallw}|_{1PI}$, we have
496: \bea
497: c_0 &=&16.3 - 1.72 \, \h4w \nn \\
498: c_1 &=&25.7 - 2.64 \, \h4w \nn \\
499: c_2 &=&15.5 - 2.05 \, \h4w \nn \\
500: c_3 &=&10.2 - 1.46 \, \h4w \nn~.
501: \eea
502: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
503: \begin{table}[t]
504: \addtolength{\arraycolsep}{0.1cm}
505: \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.4}
506: \begin{center}
507: \begin{tabular}[4]{c|cc|cc}
508: \hline
509: \hline
510: $m_h$ & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{${\cal F}^{2l}_{\smallw}|_{1PI}$} &
511: \multicolumn{2}{c}{${\cal F}^{2l}_{t}|_{1PI}$} \\
512: & truncated & Pad\'e & truncated & Pad\'e \\
513: \hline
514: 100 & 27.8 & 27.9 & -57.9 & -57.9 \\
515: 105 & 29.3 & 29.6 & -58.3 & -58.4 \\
516: 110 & 31.1 & 31.5 & -58.8 & -59.0 \\
517: 115 & 32.9 & 33.6 & -59.3 & -59.6 \\
518: 120 & 35.0 & 35.9 & -59.9 & -60.2 \\
519: 125 & 37.2 & 38.5 & -60.5 & -61.0 \\
520: 130 & 39.6 & 41.5 & -61.2 & -61.9 \\
521: 135 & 42.2 & 45.0 & -62.0 & -62.9 \\
522: 140 & 45.1 & 48.9 & -62.8 & -64.1 \\
523: 145 & 48.1 & 53.6 & -63.7 & -65.5 \\
524: 150 & 51.4 & 59.2 & -64.7 & -67.2 \\
525: \hline
526: \hline
527: \end{tabular}
528: \end{center}
529: \caption{Comparison between normal truncated Taylor expansions of
530: ${\cal F}^{2l}_{t,\smallw}|_{1PI}$ and Pad\'e improved values obtained using
531: Eq.~(\ref{eq:pade}). Numbers are given in units of $\alpha/(4 \pi s^2)$.}
532: \label{tab:one}
533: \end{table}
534: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
535: From the above expressions it is clear that the heavy-quark
536: contribution shows a very good convergence for Higgs masses in the
537: intermediate region while the purely bosonic expansion has a slightly
538: worse behaviour. In both cases, however, the series behave better
539: than a geometric series. In order to improve the convergence of our
540: expansion close to the $2 m_\smallw$ threshold, i.e., to estimate the
541: impact of the higher order terms, we employ a Pad\'e approximant.
542: This method has been shown to be a very powerful tool to obtain an
543: approximation to an analytic function $f(x)$ which cannot be computed
544: directly, but it is known for small (and/or large) argument.\footnote{
545: For a short review see Ref.~\cite{Harlander:2001sa}.} The
546: generic Pad\'e approximant, $P_{[n/m]}(x)$ is the ratio between two
547: polynomials of degree $n$ and $m$, respectively. It is known that
548: best convergence is achieved when the polynomial in the numerator has
549: degree equal to or greater by one than the polynomial in the
550: denominator, so we choose\footnote{In order to gain confidence in
551: our method we checked our procedure on the one-loop expansions,
552: Eqs.~(\ref{eq:bos-exp},\ref{eq:top-exp}), and compared with the exact
553: results, Eqs.~(\ref{eq:oneloopw},\ref{eq:onelooptop}). We also checked
554: that other choices for the degrees of the polynomials give similar
555: results.} \be P_{[2/1]}(x)= \frac{a_0 + a_1 x + a_2 x^2}{1+ b_1 x}
556: \label{eq:pade}\,. \ee The coefficients $a_i$ and $b_i$ are found by
557: matching the Taylor expansion of Eq.~(\ref{eq:pade}) to the
558: coefficients $c_i$ of the expansion of Eq.~(\ref{eq:exp}). This
559: procedure yields the following set of equations:
560: \bea
561: &&c_0 = + a_0 \nn \\
562: &&c_1 = - a_0 b_1 + a_1 \nn \\
563: &&c_2 = + a_0 b_1^2 - a_1 b_1 + a_2 \nn\\
564: &&c_3 = - a_0 b_1^3 + a_1 b_1^2 - a_2 b_1 \nn\,,
565: \label{eq:matching}
566: \eea
567: which can be easily solved in terms of $a_{0,1,2}$ and $b_1$.
568: Numerical results are shown in Tab.~\ref{tab:one}, where the fixed order
569: Taylor expansion and the Pad\'e approximants are given for different
570: Higgs masses. As expected the impact of the improvement is larger close to the
571: $2 m_\smallw$ threshold entailing a $15\%$ enhancement for the bosonic
572: expansion and only a $4\%$ for the heavy-quark one. Note that
573: the size of these effects is consistent with estimating the error
574: of the results by using the last coefficient in the Taylor expansion.
575:
576: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
577: \begin{table}[t]
578: \addtolength{\arraycolsep}{0.1cm}
579: \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.4}
580: \begin{center}
581: \begin{tabular}[4]{c|ccccc|c}
582: \hline
583: \hline
584: $m_h$ & leptons & lq & $3^{\rm rd}$ gen & YM & 2-loop &
585: $\delta_{EW} (\%)$ \\
586: \hline
587: 100 & -8.04 & -10.9 & -30.9 & 13.5 & -36.3 & -3.44\\
588: 105 & -8.07 & -10.6 & -31.3 & 15.5 & -34.5 & -3.22\\
589: 110 & -8.07 & -10.3 & -31.7 & 17.6 & -32.4 & -2.97\\
590: 115 & -8.04 & -9.86 & -32.1 & 20.0 & -30.0 & -2.70\\
591: 120 & -7.95 & -9.29 & -32.6 & 22.5 & -27.2 & -2.40\\
592: 125 & -7.82 & -8.59 & -33.1 & 25.4 & -24.1 & -2.07\\
593: 130 & -7.62 & -7.75 & -33.6 & 28.5 & -20.4 & -1.71\\
594: 135 & -7.35 & -6.73 & -34.2 & 32.0 & -16.2 & -1.32\\
595: 140 & -6.98 & -5.47 & -34.7 & 35.8 & -11.3 & -0.88\\
596: 145 & -6.48 & -3.89 & -35.2 & 40.0 & -5.61 & -0.42\\
597: 150 & -5.78 & -1.78 & -35.5 & 44.1 & 1.022 & 0.072\\
598: \hline
599: \hline
600: \end{tabular}
601: \end{center}
602: \caption{Contributions to ${\cal F}$
603: at two loops, in units of $\alpha/(4 \pi s^2)$, for various Higgs masses.
604: Starting from the second column, the two-loop contributions
605: of the following classes of diagrams are shown,
606: as listed in Eq.~(\ref{eq:2-loop-contributions}):
607: sum of three lepton families,
608: light quarks ($u,d,c,s$),
609: third generation quarks,
610: purely bosonic. The sixth column shows the sum of all the
611: 2-loop EW contribution, ${\cal F}^{2l}$. The last column gives
612: the total EW correction to the decay rate as plotted in Fig.~\ref{fig:delta}.}
613: \label{tab:two}
614: \end{table}
615: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
616: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
617: \begin{figure}[t!]
618: %
619: \begin{center}
620: \vspace*{-1.7cm}
621: \hspace*{-1cm}\epsfig{file=fig2.eps,angle=-90,width=18cm}
622: \vspace*{-1.2cm}
623: \end{center}
624: %
625: \caption{Various contributions to $\delta_{EW}$ as a function of the
626: Higgs mass. Lepton (summed over three families) and light quark
627: contributions ($u,d,c,s$) are the two central curves. Purely bosonic
628: (YM) and third generation quarks are the top and the bottom curves
629: respectively. The large top-mass approximation ($\mt^2$), which is a
630: subset of the third generation contribution, is also shown (dotted
631: line). }
632: \label{fig:EWcontributions}
633: \end{figure}
634: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
635:
636: Our result on the heavy corrections can be put together with the
637: result of Ref.~\cite{ABDV} on the light fermion contribution to obtain
638: a complete prediction for the two-loop electroweak correction to the
639: decay width, \vskip0.5cm
640: \begin{tabular}{cll}
641: ${\cal F}^{2l} = \frac{\alpha}{4 \pi s^2}\{$&
642: $+ 3 (\wh C_W^{l} A_2[0 ,\wh]+ z_H C_Z^{l} A_1[\zh])$ & leptons\\[10pt]
643: &$+ 2 (\wh C_W^{q} A_2[-2/9,\wh]+ z_H C_Z^{q} A_1[\zh])$ & light quarks\\[10pt]
644: &$+ \zh C_Z^{b} A_1[\zh] + {\cal F}^{2l}_t $ & third generation quarks\\[10pt]
645: &$+ {\cal F}^{2l}_\smallw \left\} \right. $ & YM\,,
646: \end{tabular}
647: \vskip-0.5cm
648: \be
649: ~
650: \label{eq:2-loop-contributions}
651: \ee
652: where $A_1[x]$ and $A_2[q,x]$ are defined in Ref.~\cite{ABDV},
653: $\zh \equiv \mz^2/\mh^2$ and
654: \bea
655: C_Z^{q} &=& \frac{4N_c}{c^2}
656: \left[ Q_u^2 ( {z_-^u}^2 + {z_+^u}^2 )
657: + Q_d^2 ( {z_-^d}^2 + {z_+^d}^2 )\right] \nn \\
658: C_Z^{l} &=& \frac{4}{c^2} ( {z_-^l}^2 + {z_+^l}^2 )\nn \\
659: C_Z^{b} &=& \frac{4N_c}{c^2} Q_d^2 ( {z_-^d}^2 + {z_+^d}^2 ) \\
660: C_W^{q} &=& 2 N_c\nn \\
661: C_W^{l} &=& 2 \nn\,,
662: \eea
663: with $z_+^i = T_3 - Q_i s^2$ and $z_-^i = - Q_i s^2$.
664: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
665: \begin{figure}[t!]
666: %
667: \begin{center}
668: \vspace*{-1.7cm}
669: \hspace*{-1cm} \epsfig{file=fig1.eps,angle=-90,width=18cm}
670: \vspace*{-1.2cm}
671: \end{center}
672: %
673: \caption{Corrections to the decay rate of $\Gamma(H \to \gamma \gamma)$ for
674: various Higgs masses.
675: The upper curve corresponds to the QCD corrections,
676: the lower curve represents the complete electroweak corrections.
677: Their sum is given by the intermediate curve. }
678: \label{fig:delta}
679: \end{figure}
680: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
681: The numerical impact of each of the contributions in
682: Eq.~(\ref{eq:2-loop-contributions}) is shown in Tab.~\ref{tab:two} .
683: As a generic feature we note that the two-loop contributions involving
684: fermions in the loop are negative, while purely bosonic contributions
685: are positive, in analogy to the one-loop calculation. For Higgs masses
686: around 100 GeV the dominant effect comes from the third generation
687: quarks, with the purely bosonic canceling most of the lepton and
688: light quarks contributions. For higher values of the Higgs mass, the
689: purely bosonic term increases and becomes comparable to the top
690: contribution but with opposite sign. In this region a strong
691: cancellation between the two leading terms takes place, leaving a very
692: small correction as a final result. The corresponding corrections to
693: the width $\Gamma (H \to \gamma \gamma ) = \Gamma_0 \cdot ( 1 +
694: \delta_{EW})$ can be calculated as
695: \be
696: \delta_{EW} = \frac{2 {\rm
697: Re}({\cal F}^{1l} {\cal F}^{2l})}{|{\cal F}^{1l}|^2} \,,
698: \ee
699: and are
700: shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:EWcontributions}.
701:
702: From our expansions it is easy to extract the leading term in $G_\mu m_t^2$,
703: which was calculated in Refs.~\cite{EW2lkn}. We find
704: \be
705: \lim_{m_t \to \infty}
706: {\cal F}^{2l}_t = -\frac{\alpha}{4 \pi s^2} N_c Q_t^2 \frac{\mt^2}{\mw^2}
707: \left(
708: \frac{367}{96}
709: +\frac{11}{16} \h4w
710: +\frac{19}{56} \h4w^2
711: +\frac{29}{140} \h4w^3 + {\cal O}(\h4w^4) \right)\,.
712: \ee
713: The contribution from this (gauge invariant) class of electroweak
714: corrections is also shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:EWcontributions}.
715: The first important observation is that indeed
716: the leading term in $G_\mu m_t^2$ approximates quite well the contribution
717: from the third generation quarks in the whole range of Higgs masses between
718: 100 GeV and 150 GeV. However, as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:EWcontributions},
719: this contribution is never the dominant one. The fact that it approximately
720: reproduces the total electroweak corrections for Higgs masses around 120 GeV
721: is due to a fortuitous cancellation between the purely bosonic and the
722: light quark and lepton terms. In fact, for Higgs masses above 140 GeV,
723: the $G_\mu m_t^2$ contribution is mostly canceled by the purely bosonic one
724: and therefore it is much larger than the total electroweak correction.
725:
726: Finally, it is interesting to compare and combine the
727: total electroweak correction with the QCD one.
728: As a check of our techniques we have recomputed it
729: as an expansion in terms of $h_{4t}$, obtaining
730: \be
731: {\cal F}^{2l}_{QCD} = \frac{\alpha_S}{\pi} \frac{4 Q_t^2 N_c}{3}
732: \left( 1 - \frac{122}{135} h_{4t}
733: - \frac{8864}{14175} h_{4t}^2
734: - \frac{209186}{496125} h_{4t}^3 + {\cal O}(h_{4t}^4)\right)\,,
735: \ee
736: in complete agreement with the known results~\cite{QCD2loop}. We use the above
737: expansion in our numerical analysis, since it converges very rapidly
738: for Higgs masses in the range we are interested in. The impact of the
739: QCD corrections, shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:delta}, is small and amounts
740: to an increase of about 2\% of the decay width. Such a small
741: contribution is expected since for intermediate Higgs masses, the
742: one-loop result is dominated by the bosonic loop, which is unaffected by
743: QCD effects. Due the difference in sign between the EW and QCD
744: contributions, the total correction $\delta_{EW+QCD}$ turns out to be very
745: small, ranging between $-1.5 \%$ for $m_H=100$ GeV to $1.5 \%$ for $m_H=150$
746: GeV and reaching an almost perfect cancellation around $\mh=130$ GeV.
747:
748: \section{Conclusions}
749: We have computed the two-loop electroweak corrections to the decay
750: width of the Higgs into two photons induced by the weak bosons and
751: third generation quarks. By combining our results with those of
752: Ref.~\cite{ABDV}, involving light fermions in the loops, we have found
753: that the total electroweak corrections to the decay rate are moderate
754: and negative. For Higgs masses between 100 GeV $\lesssim \mh \lesssim$
755: 150 GeV they range $-4 \% \lesssim \delta_{EW} \lesssim 0 \% $. Once
756: QCD corrections, which are also small but positive, are added, one
757: finds that $|\delta_{EW+QCD}|$ is always less than $1.5 \%$. This
758: shows that the perturbative expansions in $\alpha_S$ and $\alpha_{EW}$
759: for the decay rate are extremely well behaved and a next-to-leading
760: calculation already gives a very reliable prediction. If a similar
761: precision could be matched experimentally, one would have an
762: interesting and powerful test of the standard model.
763:
764:
765: \section{Acknowledgments}
766: We are grateful to Alessandro Vicini for useful discussions.
767: