1:
2: \documentclass{JHEP3}
3: \usepackage{psfrag,epsf,amsmath,amssymb,graphicx,cite}
4: \usepackage{scalefnt}
5: \parindent0cm
6: \parskip.2cm
7: \newcommand{\note}[1]{{\tiny (note)}\marginpar {\scriptsize #1}}
8: \newcommand{\tht}{\theta}
9: \newcommand{\hpl}{{\abbrev HPL}}
10: \newcommand{\code}{\sc}
11: \newcommand{\abbrev}{\scalefont{.9}}
12: \newcommand{\dred}{{\abbrev DRED}}
13: \newcommand{\dreg}{{\abbrev DREG}}
14: \newcommand{\ep}{\epsilon}
15: \newcommand{\vep}{\varepsilon}
16: \newcommand{\api}{\frac{\alpha_s}{\pi}}
17: \newcommand{\eqn}[1]{Eq.\,(\ref{#1})}
18: \newcommand{\fig}[1]{Fig.\,\ref{#1}}
19: \newcommand{\tab}[1]{Tab.\,\ref{#1}}
20: \newcommand{\sct}[1]{Sect.\,\ref{#1}}
21: \newcommand{\dd}{{\rm d}}
22: \newcommand{\ddoverdd}[1]{\frac{\dd}{\dd #1}}
23: \newcommand{\doverd}[1]{\frac{\partial}{\partial #1}}
24: \newcommand{\order}[1]{{\cal O}(#1)}
25: \newcommand{\lo}{{\abbrev LO}}
26: \newcommand{\nlo}{{\abbrev NLO}}
27: \newcommand{\nnlo}{{\abbrev NNLO}}
28: \newcommand{\msbar}{\mbox{$\overline{\mbox{\abbrev MS}}$}}
29: \newcommand{\bld}[1]{\boldmath{$#1$}}
30: \newcommand{\bsym}{\boldsymbol}
31: \newcommand{\bare}{{\abbrev B}}
32: \newcommand{\qcd}{{\abbrev QCD}}
33: \newcommand{\sm}{{\abbrev SM}}
34: \newcommand{\mssm}{{\abbrev MSSM}}
35: \renewcommand{\Re}{{\rm Re}}
36: \renewcommand{\Im}{{\rm Im}}
37: \newcommand{\susy}{{\abbrev SUSY}}
38: \newcommand{\ibe}{{\abbrev E{\scalefont{.9}\&}I}}
39: \newlength{\figwid}
40: \newcommand{\feynsl}[1]{
41: \setbox0=\hbox{/} \setbox1=\hbox{$#1$}
42: \dimen0=\wd0 \advance\dimen0 by -\wd1 \divide\dimen0 by 2
43: \ifdim\wd0>\wd1 \lower.15ex
44: \copy0\kern-\wd0\kern\dimen0\copy1\kern\dimen0
45: \else \kern-\dimen0\lower.15ex
46: \copy0\kern-\dimen0\kern-\wd1\copy1\fi}
47:
48: \DeclareMathOperator{\Snp}{S}
49: \DeclareMathOperator{\Li}{Li}
50: \DeclareMathOperator{\HPL}{H}
51: \newcommand{\abs}[1]{{\ensuremath{\left| #1 \right|}}}
52:
53: \title{Higgs production and decay: Analytic results at next-to-leading
54: order QCD}
55: \author{Robert V. Harlander and Philipp Kant\\
56: {\it Institut f\"ur Theoretische Teilchenphysik,
57: Universit\"at Karlsruhe\\
58: D-76128 Karlsruhe, Germany}\\
59: E-mail: \email{robert.harlander@cern.ch},
60: \email{kantp@particle.uni-karlsruhe.de}\\
61: }
62:
63: \preprint{\sf TTP05--18, SFB/CPP-05-49 --- September 2005}
64:
65: \abstract{ The virtual two-loop corrections for Higgs production in
66: gluon fusion are calculated analytically in QCD for arbitrary Higgs and
67: quark masses. Both scalar and pseudo-scalar Higgs bosons are
68: considered. The results are obtained by expanding the known
69: one-dimensional integral representation in terms of $m_H/m_q$, and
70: matching it with a suitably chosen ansatz of Harmonic
71: Polylogarithms. This ansatz is motivated by the known analytic result
72: for the Higgs decay rate into two photons. The method also allows us to
73: check this result and to extend it to the pseudo-scalar decay rate.}
74: \keywords{Higgs Physics, NLO Computations, Hadronic Colliders}
75: \begin{document}
76: \setlength{\figwid}{7em}
77:
78:
79:
80: \section{Introduction}
81: The gluon fusion process for Higgs production at a hadron collider has
82: been studied in great detail over the last few years (for a recent
83: review, see Ref.\,\cite{Djouadi:2005gi}). It is well-known to be the
84: dominant mode in the Standard Model and also in most of the usually
85: considered supersymmetric parameter space. The fact that the
86: next-to-leading order QCD
87: corrections~\cite{Dawson:1990zj,Djouadi:1991tk,Spira:1995rr} increase
88: the cross section by more than 70\% triggered more detailed studies of
89: higher order effects. In particular, the
90: \nnlo{}\cite{Harlander:2002wh,Anastasiou:2002yz,Harlander:2002vv,
91: Anastasiou:2002wq,Ravindran:2003um} and quite recently even the leading
92: threshold-enhanced {\abbrev N$^3$LO}~\cite{Moch:2004pa} corrections were
93: evaluated in the heavy-top limit, indicating a well-behaved perturbative
94: expansion of the total cross section. Meanwhile, the \nnlo{} effects are
95: known also for differential quantities in terms of a partonic \nnlo{}
96: Monte Carlo program~\cite{Anastasiou:2004xq,Anastasiou:2005qj}, allowing
97: to simulate experimental cuts, for example.
98:
99: In contrast to the \nnlo{} calculations which currently all rely on the
100: heavy-top limit, the inclusive \nlo{} effects were calculated for
101: arbitrary values of the Higgs boson mass and the mass of the quark that
102: mediates the gluon-Higgs
103: coupling~\cite{Graudenz:1992pv,Spira:1995rr,Spira:1997dg}. In fact, it
104: is this calculation that justifies the use of the heavy-top limit at
105: \nnlo{}, because it explicitely demonstrates the excellent quality of
106: this limit even at Higgs masses close to the quark threshold $m_H\approx
107: 2m_q$ and beyond. Probably the most important application of the
108: general $m_H/m_q$ dependence currently is supersymmetry, where bottom
109: quarks can contribute significantly to the gluon-Higgs coupling due to a
110: potential enhancement proportional to $\tan\beta$ of their Yukawa
111: coupling to Higgs bosons. For bottom quarks, an analogous
112: ``heavy-quark'' approximation would certainly be very doubtful in this
113: context~\cite{Spira:1995rr,Kramer:1996iq,Spira:1997dg,Harlander:2003xy}.
114:
115: Considering the importance of the full mass dependence, it is somewhat
116: surprising that the status of the \nlo{} calculation is still at the
117: level of more than ten years ago. By then, the result was obtained in
118: terms of a rather lengthy one-dimensional integral representation and
119: implemented in a {\abbrev FORTRAN} routine. On the one hand, this makes
120: it rather difficult to import the result into other programs, of course.
121: On the other hand, it is practically impossible to further manipulate
122: the result.
123:
124: The lack of an analytical result is also surprising in view of the great
125: technical progress since the original work of Ref.\,\cite{Spira:1995rr}.
126: In fact, the corresponding Feynman integrals belong to a class that
127: currently receives great attention due to its importance for
128: electro-weak precision observables (see, e.g.,
129: Refs.\,\cite{Bonciani:2004dz,Pozzorini:2004rm,Jantzen:2005az} and references
130: therein). It turns out indeed that all integrals needed for a
131: representation of the 2-loop virtual terms in closed form have been
132: evaluated in the literature.
133:
134: In this paper we derive this analytic formula. Let us stress though that
135: we did not evaluate the corresponding Feynman diagrams; rather, we used
136: the integral representation given in Ref.\,\cite{Spira:1995rr} and
137: evaluated it analytically. The method we followed is rather
138: unconventional but not new. For the sake of brevity, we will refer to it
139: as {\it Expansion and Inversion (\ibe{})} in what follows. It relies on
140: the identity theorem for power series: Two analytic functions are the
141: same if their Taylor series are the same. A more detailed description
142: of the method and its realization will be given in
143: Section\,\ref{sec::method}.
144:
145:
146: \section{Discussion of the method; calculation of the decay rates}%
147: \label{sec::method}
148:
149:
150: The idea behind our approach is that, if two physical processes
151: correspond to a similar set of Feynman diagrams (kinematics, mass
152: assignment), their cross sections should be described by a common set of
153: analytical functions. Thus, if one processes is known, one can establish
154: an ansatz for the other one by a linear combination of these functions,
155: with unknown coefficients. In the \ibe{} method, one then evaluates the
156: power series of the unknown cross section in a certain limit and
157: compares it with the corresponding expansion of the ansatz. This leads
158: to a system of linear equations for the unknown coefficients which can
159: be solved uniquely if the depth of the expansion matches the number of
160: unknowns. In general, it is advisable to overdetermine the system in
161: order to confirm that the ansatz is complete. The identity theorem for
162: power series ensures that the solution obtained in this way is indeed
163: the analytical result for the cross section.
164:
165: It is important to realize that, while the intermediate power series
166: approximates the full result only within the radius of convergence, the
167: final result is valid for arbitrary values of the parameters. Thus, the
168: comparison of the final result with a numerical evaluation of the
169: original integral {\it outside} the radius of convergence provides one
170: of the most powerful checks on the calculation.
171:
172: The main advantage of the \ibe{} approach is that, in most cases, the
173: power series of the cross section can be obtained in a rather simple
174: manner. A powerful tool for this goal is provided by asymptotic
175: expansions of Feynman diagrams (see
176: Refs.~\cite{Smirnov:1994tg,Smirnovbook,Harlander:1998dq} and references
177: therein). This method works directly at the level of Feynman integrals
178: and has been fully automated for the case of Euclidean external
179: momenta~\cite{Seidensticker:1999bb,Harlander:1997zb}.
180:
181: Very often, however, one can derive one-dimensional integral
182: representations over finite integration regions. This can be achieved by
183: introducing Feynman parameters, for example, and performing all but one
184: integral analytically. If the interchange of integration and
185: differentiation is possible, the power series expansion can be performed
186: directly on the integrand, and the resulting integrals are in general
187: much simpler than the original ones.
188:
189: Another example where the integrations are over finite regions is given
190: by phase space integrals, and in fact, the \ibe{} method has been used
191: for the evaluation of the three-particle phase space integration in the
192: case of Higgs production and the Drell-Yan process, both at
193: \nnlo{}~\cite{Harlander:2002wh,Harlander:2002vv,
194: Kilgore:2002sk,Harlander:2003ai}.
195:
196: In this paper, we apply the \ibe{} method to obtain analytic formulae
197: for the \nlo{} predictions of the Higgs decay rate into two photons, as
198: well as to the virtual two-loop corrections for Higgs production in
199: gluon fusion. We consider both scalar and pseudo-scalar Higgs bosons
200: such that our results are relevant also in supersymmetric scenarios or
201: other extensions of the \sm{}.
202:
203: For all these quantities, a one-dimensional integral representation is
204: known~\cite{Spira:1995rr}. By interchanging differentiation and
205: integration, we can derive their power series in terms of $m_H/m_q$. A
206: closed analytical result is only known for the \nlo{} decay rate of a
207: scalar Higgs boson into photons~\cite{Fleischer:2004vb}. We use it as
208: the main motivation of our ansatz in order to derive closed analytical
209: expressions for the other quantities as well. It will be useful for the
210: rest of this paper to quote the explicit result at this point.
211:
212:
213: \subsection[Decay rate $H\to \gamma\gamma$]{%
214: Decay rate \bld{H\to \gamma\gamma}}\label{sec::hgamgam}
215:
216: The decay rate of a Higgs boson into two photons through \nlo{} can be
217: written as (see, e.g., Ref.\,\cite{Spira:1995rr})
218: \begin{equation}
219: \Gamma(H\to\gamma\gamma) =
220: \frac{G_F \alpha^2 m_H^3}{128 \sqrt{2} \pi^3}
221: \abs{
222: \sum_l Q_l^2 A_l^H(\tau_l)
223: + 3\sum_q Q_q^2 A_q^H(\tau_q)
224: + A_W^H(\tau_W)}^2,
225: \label{eq::hgamgam}
226: \end{equation}
227: where $G_F$ is the Fermi constant, $\alpha$ is the electromagnetic
228: fine-structure constant, $m_H$ denotes the Higgs mass, and $Q_{q,l}$ the
229: electric charge of quark $q$ and lepton $l$ in units of the proton
230: charge.
231: The variables $\tau_{i}$ are defined as
232: \begin{equation}\label{def:tau}
233: \tau_{i} := \frac{m_H^2}{4 m_i^2},
234: \end{equation}
235: where $m_i$ denotes the mass of particle $i$. Here and in what follows,
236: $m_q\equiv m_q(\mu)$ denotes the $\msbar$ quark mass renormalized at a
237: mass scale $\mu$.
238:
239:
240: \FIGURE{%
241: \begin{tabular}{c}
242: \includegraphics[width=.7\textwidth]{figs/hgamgam_dia.eps}\\[0em]
243: (a)\hspace{15em}(b)
244: \end{tabular}
245: \parbox{.9\textwidth}{
246: \caption[]{\sloppy
247: Feynman diagrams contributing to the decay rate for $H/A\to
248: \gamma\gamma$ at \lo{}.
249: \label{fig::hgamgam_dia.eps}
250: }}
251: }
252:
253:
254: The amplitudes $A_l^H(\tau)$ and
255: $A_W^H(\tau)$ arise from closed lepton and $W$-boson loops,
256: respectively (cf.\,\fig{fig::hgamgam_dia.eps}), and do not receive \qcd{}
257: corrections. They are given by~\cite{Ellis:1975ap,Shifman:1979eb}
258: \begin{equation}
259: \begin{split}
260: A_l^{H}(\tau)
261: & = \frac{2}{\tau^2} \bigl[ \tau + (\tau-1)f(\tau)
262: \bigr]
263: \equiv \frac{4}{3}\,F_0^H(\tau)
264: \,,
265: \\
266: A_W^{H}(\tau)
267: & = -\frac{1}{\tau^2} \bigl[ 2\tau^2 + 3\tau
268: + 3(2\tau-2) f(\tau)\bigr],
269: \label{eq::alhawh}
270: \end{split}
271: \end{equation}
272: where
273: \begin{equation}\label{eq:higgs:f}
274: f(\tau) = \begin{cases} \arcsin^2\bigl( \sqrt{\tau} \bigr), &
275: \tau \leq 1 \\ \displaystyle -\frac{1}{4}\biggl[
276: \ln\frac{ 1 + \sqrt{1-\tau^{-1}} } { 1 -
277: \sqrt{1-\tau^{-1}} } - i \pi \biggr]^2, & \tau > 1.
278: \end{cases}
279: \end{equation}
280:
281:
282: \FIGURE{%
283: \begin{tabular}{c}
284: \includegraphics[width=.7\textwidth]{figs/hgamgam_nlo.eps}\\[0em]
285: (a)\hspace{15em}(b)
286: \end{tabular}
287: \parbox{.9\textwidth}{
288: \caption[]{\sloppy
289: Sample Feynman diagrams contributing to the decay rate for
290: $H/A\to \gamma\gamma$ at \nlo{}.
291: \label{fig::hgamgam_nlo.eps}
292: }}
293: }
294:
295:
296: $A_q^H(\tau)$ originates from the quark mediated photon-Higgs coupling,
297: \fig{fig::hgamgam_dia.eps}\,(a) and \fig{fig::hgamgam_nlo.eps}. Through
298: \nlo{} \qcd{}, one can write it as
299: \begin{equation}
300: \begin{split}
301: A_q^H(\tau) &= \frac{4}{3}\,F_0^{H}(\tau)\,\left[ 1 + \api\left(
302: C_1^H(\tau) + C_2^H(\tau)\ln\frac{4\tau\mu^2}{m_H^2} \right)\right]\,,
303: \label{eq::aqh}
304: \end{split}
305: \end{equation}
306: with $F_0^{H}(\tau)$ from \eqn{eq::alhawh}. $C_2^H$ follows directly
307: from the \nlo{} renormalization group equation
308: \begin{equation}
309: \begin{split}
310: \left(\mu^2\frac{\partial}{\partial\mu^2} +
311: 2\,\api\,\tau\frac{\partial}{\partial \tau}\right) A_q^H(\tau) &=
312: \order{\alpha_s^2}\,.
313: \label{eq::rge}
314: \end{split}
315: \end{equation}
316: It reads
317: \begin{equation}
318: \begin{split}
319: F_0^H\,C_2^H &= \frac{3}{\tau^2}\left[
320: \tau + \left(\tau - 2\right)f(\tau) - (\tau-1)\tau\,f'(\tau)\right]\,.
321: \label{eq::c2h}
322: \end{split}
323: \end{equation}
324:
325:
326: The analytical expression for $C_1^H$ has been obtained in
327: Ref.\,\cite{Fleischer:2004vb}:\footnote{Eqs.\,(10) and (12) of
328: Ref.\,\cite{Fleischer:2004vb} contain typos; thanks to O.~Tarasov for
329: immediate confirmation. Note that in order to compare \eqn{eq::c1h} with
330: the formula in Ref.\,\cite{Fleischer:2004vb}, one needs to use the
331: identity $\Li_3(\theta^2)=4\bigl[\Li_3(\theta)+\Li_3(-\theta)\bigr]$.}
332:
333: \begin{equation}
334: \begin{split}
335: F_0^H\,&C_1^H =\\&
336: - \frac{ \theta \left(1+\theta+\theta^2+\theta^3\right) }
337: {{\left(1-\theta\right)}^5}
338: \biggl[
339: 108\Li_4(\theta)
340: + 144\Li_4(-\theta)
341: - 64\Li_3(\theta)\ln\theta
342: \\&\qquad
343: - 64\Li_3(-\theta)\ln\theta
344: + 14\Li_2(\theta)\ln^2\theta
345: + 8\Li_2(-\theta)\ln^2\theta
346: + \frac{1}{12}\ln^4\theta
347: \\&\qquad
348: + 4\,\zeta_2\ln^2\theta
349: + 16\,\zeta_3\ln\theta
350: + 18\,\zeta_4
351: \biggr]
352: \\&
353: +\frac{\theta {\left(1+\theta\right)}^2}{{\left(1-\theta\right)}^4}
354: \biggl[
355: -32\Li_3(-\theta)
356: + 16\Li_2(-\theta)\ln\theta
357: -4\,\zeta_2\ln\theta
358: \biggr]
359: \\&
360: - \frac{4\, \theta \left(7-2\,\theta+7\,\theta^2\right) }
361: {{\left(1-\theta\right)}^4}
362: \Li_3(\theta)
363: +\frac{8\, \theta \left(3-2\,\theta+3\,\theta^2\right) }
364: {{\left(1-\theta\right)}^4}
365: \Li_2(\theta)\ln\theta
366: \\&
367: +\frac{2\, \theta \left(5-6\,\theta+5\,\theta^2\right) }
368: {{\left(1-\theta\right)}^4}
369: \ln(1-\theta)\ln^2\theta
370: +\frac{\theta \left(3+25\,\theta-7\,\theta^2+3\,\theta^3\right) }
371: {3 {\left(1-\theta\right)}^5}
372: \ln^3\theta
373: \\&
374: +\frac{4\, \theta \left(1-14\,\theta+\theta^2\right) }
375: {{\left(1-\theta\right)}^4}
376: \zeta_3
377: +\frac{12\, \theta^2 }
378: {{\left(1-\theta\right)}^4}
379: \ln^2\theta
380: -\frac{12\, \theta \left(1+\theta\right) }
381: {{\left(1-\theta\right)}^3}
382: \ln\theta
383: -\frac{20\, \theta}
384: {{\left(1-\theta\right)}^2}
385: \,,
386: \end{split}
387: \label{eq::c1h}
388: \end{equation}
389:
390: with Riemann's zeta function
391: \begin{equation}
392: \begin{split}
393: \zeta_n \equiv \zeta(n)\,,\qquad\mbox{i.e.}\quad
394: \zeta_2 = \frac{\pi^2}{6}\,,\quad
395: \zeta_3 = 1.20206\ldots\,,\quad
396: \zeta_4 = \frac{\pi^4}{90}\,,
397: \end{split}
398: \end{equation}
399: and
400: \begin{equation}
401: \begin{split}
402: \theta\equiv\theta(\tau) =
403: \frac{\sqrt{1-\tau^{-1}}-1}{\sqrt{1-\tau^{-1}}+1}\,.
404: \label{eq::thetadef}
405: \end{split}
406: \end{equation}
407: For analytic continuation, it is always understood that $\tau
408: \to \tau+i0$.
409:
410: The products of logarithms and polylogarithms in \eqn{eq::c1h} can be
411: expressed in terms of Harmonic Polylogarithms~\cite{Remiddi:1999ew} of
412: the form $\HPL(\vec{n};\theta)$, where $\vec n$ is an $n$-tuple with
413: entries (``indices'') $\pm 1$ or 0. One finds that $n\leq 4$, and that
414: at most one index is different from zero.
415:
416: This suggests to construct our ansatz from Harmonic Polylogarithms of
417: this form, multiplied by rational functions
418: \begin{equation}
419: \begin{split}
420: R_{n,k}(\theta) &= \frac{P_n(\theta)}{(1-\theta)^k}\,,
421: \end{split}
422: \end{equation}
423: where $P_n(\theta)$ is a polynomial in $\theta$ of degree $n$ with
424: unknown coefficients. In order to solve the resulting system of linear
425: equations, one has to adjust the integer parameters $n,k$ such that a
426: suitable balance is obtained between the universality of the ansatz and
427: the depth of the power series expansion that is required to determine
428: the unknown coefficients.
429:
430: As a warm-up, we may try to reproduce \eqn{eq::c1h} from the
431: one-dimensional integral representation of Ref.\,\cite{Spira:1995rr}
432: using our approach. To this aim, we expand the integrands of
433: $I_1,\ldots,I_5$, defined in Eqs.\,(A.9) to (A.13) of
434: Ref.\,\cite{Spira:1995rr},\footnote{ Thanks to M.~Spira for
435: clarification concerning some typos in the formulas of
436: Ref.\,\cite{Spira:1995rr}.} around the limit $\tau=0$, keeping terms
437: through order $\tau^{100}$.
438:
439: It is clear that due to the complexity of the integrands and the
440: required depth of the expansion we need to use efficient computer
441: algebra tools. We found that the {\code Taylor} package~\cite{taylor}
442: for {\code Reduce}~\cite{reduce} is particularly well suited for this
443: kind of operations. In most cases, the results obtained from {\code
444: Taylor} were checked against our own implementation of the relevant
445: power series in {\code Form}~\cite{Vermaseren:2000nd}. The capabilities
446: of {\code Mathematica}~\cite{Mathematica}, on the other hand, are
447: clearly not suited for expanding expressions of this
448: complexity.\footnote{We remark that {\code Mathematica 5.1} even
449: produces a wrong result when expanding $\Li_2(1-x)$ around $x=0$ (also
450: for $\Li_3$ etc.); a bug report has been submitted and acknowledged.}
451:
452: For illustration of the method, let us consider the simplest one of the
453: relevant integrals:
454: \begin{equation}\label{eq:i5}
455: I_5 = \int_0^1 \frac{\dd x}{1-\rho x} \biggl\{
456: \alpha_+ \ln\Bigl( 1 - \frac{x}{\alpha_+} \Bigr)
457: + \alpha_- \ln\Bigl( 1 - \frac{x}{\alpha_-} \Bigr)
458: \biggr\} \ln\Bigl( \frac{1-\rho x(1-x)}{x} \Bigr),
459: \end{equation}
460: where
461: \begin{equation}
462: \begin{split}
463: \nonumber \rho & = 4 \tau = m_H^2/m_q^2, \\
464: \alpha_\pm & = (1 \pm \sqrt{1-\tau^{-1}} )/2.
465: \end{split}
466: \end{equation}
467: Expanding the integrand around $\tau=0$ leads to very simple integrations
468: in $x$,
469: \begin{equation}
470: \begin{split}
471: I_5 &= \int_0^1\dd x \Biggl\{
472: 2\,x\,\ln x
473: + \tau \, \biggl[ 8\,x^2 - 8\,x^3
474: + \ln x\Bigl(10\,x^2 - \frac{8}{3}\,x^3
475: \Bigr)\biggr]
476: \\&
477: + \tau^2 \, \biggl[ 56\,x^3 - \frac{248}{3}\,x^4 +
478: \frac{80}{3}\,x^5
479: + \ln x\Bigl( \frac{136}{3}\,x^3 - \frac{68}{3}\,x^4 +
480: \frac{32}{5}\,x^5 \Bigr)\biggr]
481: \\&
482: + \tau^3 \, \biggl[ 304\,x^4 - \frac{1744}{3}\,x^5 +
483: \frac{5504}{15}\,x^6 - \frac{448}{5}\,x^7
484: \\&\mbox{\hspace{3em}}
485: + \ln x\Bigl(\frac{592}{3}\,x^4 - \frac{2128}{15}\,x^5 +
486: \frac{1184}{15}\,x^6 - \frac{128}{7}\,x^7\Bigr) \biggr]
487: \\&
488: + \tau^4 \, \biggl[ \frac{4480}{3}\,x^5 -
489: \frac{156256}{45}\,x^6 +
490: \frac{16192}{5}\,x^7 - \frac{164704}{105}\,x^8 +
491: \frac{97408}{315}\,x^9
492: \\&\mbox{\hspace{3em}}
493: + \ln x\Bigl(\frac{12608}{15}\,x^5 - \frac{3904}{5}\,x^6
494: + \frac{67712}{105}\,x^7 - \frac{2080}{7}\,x^8 +
495: \frac{512}{9}\,x^9\Bigr) \biggr]\Biggr\}
496: + \ldots\,,
497: \end{split}
498: \end{equation}
499: such that
500: \begin{equation}
501: \begin{split}
502: I_5 &=
503: - \frac{1}{2}
504: - \frac{5}{18}\tau
505: - \frac{29}{150}\tau^{2}
506: - \frac{4882}{33075}\tau^{3}
507: - \frac{11786}{99225}\tau^{4}
508: - \frac{3564004}{36018675}\tau^{5}
509: \\&
510: - \frac{95238032}{1127251125}\tau^{6}
511: - \frac{745588736}{10145260125}\tau^{7}
512: - \frac{190175733376}{2931980176125}\tau^{8}
513: + \ldots\,.
514: \end{split}
515: \end{equation}
516: The remaining integrals in Ref.\,\cite{Spira:1995rr} are more complex,
517: but the integration of their expansion in $\tau$ can always be evaluated
518: in an elementary way.
519:
520: We note in passing that for the coefficient of $\tau^{100}$, as it is
521: required by our general ansatz, the integers in the numerator and the
522: denominator are roughly of order $10^{180}$; this should give an
523: idea of the intermediate expressions' complexity.
524:
525: Nevertheless, this expression, together with the corresponding expansion
526: of the ansatz, can be fed into {\code Mathematica} in order to solve the
527: resulting system of linear equations. One finds
528: \begin{equation}
529: \begin{split}
530: I_5 &=
531: \frac{ \theta }{{\left(1-\theta\right)}^2}\biggl[
532: 4\Li_3(\theta)
533: +8\Li_3(-\theta)
534: -3\Li_2(\theta)\ln\theta
535: -4\Li_2(-\theta)\ln\theta
536: \\&\qquad
537: -\ln(1-\theta){\ln^2\theta}
538: +\zeta_2\ln\theta
539: + 2\zeta_3
540: \biggr]
541: +\frac{{\theta}^2 }{2
542: {\left(1-\theta\right)}^3}{\ln^3\theta}.
543: \end{split}
544: \end{equation}
545:
546: Needless to say that the result obtained for $C_1^H$ in this way is in
547: agreement with \eqn{eq::c1h}, thus proving the consistency of the
548: analytical result of Ref.\,\cite{Fleischer:2004vb} and the integral
549: representation of Ref.\,\cite{Spira:1995rr}.
550:
551:
552: Let us add a few more remarks concerning the construction of the system
553: of linear equations. It happens that the structure of the ansatz can be
554: restricted already from general considerations:
555: The expansions of the entities calculated in this paper all consist
556: only of integer powers of $\tau$ multiplied by rational coefficients.
557: The expansions of Harmonic Polylogarithms of argument $\theta$, on the
558: other hand, contain noninteger powers of $\tau$, irrational numbers like
559: $\zeta_n$, logarithms of $\tau$, and have a non-vanishing imaginary
560: part. The fact that such terms do not appear in the expansions of the
561: integrals to be matched produces a lot of equations that constrain our
562: ansatz, regardless of the specific integral to be calculated.
563:
564:
565: \subsection[Decay rate $A\to \gamma\gamma$]{%
566: Decay rate \bld{A\to \gamma\gamma}}
567:
568: After confirming the analytical result for $\Gamma(H\to \gamma\gamma)$
569: through \nlo{}, we are now ready to apply the method to the pseudo-scalar
570: case. Assuming the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (\mssm{}) as
571: underlying theory, we write, in analogy to \eqn{eq::hgamgam}:
572: \begin{equation}\label{def:gammaa}
573: \Gamma(A\to\gamma\gamma) = \frac{G_F \alpha^2 m_A^3}{32 \sqrt{2}
574: \pi^3}
575: \abs{ \sum_l Q_l^2 g_l^A A_l^A(\tau_l)
576: + 3\sum_q Q_q^2 g_q^A A_q^A(\tau_q)
577: + \sum_{\tilde{\chi}^\pm} g_{\tilde{\chi}^\pm}^A
578: A_{\tilde{\chi}^\pm}^A(\tau_{\tilde{\chi}^\pm})},
579: \end{equation}
580: with the lepton ($l$) and chargino $(\chi^\pm)$ induced amplitudes
581: \begin{equation}
582: A_l^{A}(\tau)
583: = A_{\tilde{\chi}^\pm}^{A}(\tau)
584: = \frac{f(\tau)}{\tau} \equiv F_0^A(\tau)\,,
585: \label{eq::f0a}
586: \end{equation}
587: where $f(\tau)$ has been defined in \eqn{eq:higgs:f}. Note that there
588: is no contribution from the $W$ as loop particle due to CP
589: invariance. In \eqn{def:gammaa}, $m_A$ is the mass of the pseudo-scalar
590: Higgs, and the $\tau$-variables are defined according to \eqn{def:tau},
591: with $m_A$ instead of $m_H$. The specific values of the couplings
592: $g_{l,q,\tilde{\chi}^\pm}^A$ are irrelevant for our analysis; they can be
593: found in Ref.\,\cite{Spira:1995rr}.
594:
595: In analogy to \eqn{eq::aqh}, the quark-induced amplitude is written as
596: \begin{equation}
597: A_q^{A}(\tau) = F_0^A(\tau) \biggl[
598: 1 + \api \bigl(
599: C_1^{A}(\tau) + C_2^{A}(\tau) \ln\frac{4\tau\mu^2}{m_A^2}
600: \bigr)\biggr],
601: \end{equation}
602: where again $C_2^{A}$ can be derived through a renormalization group
603: equation analogous to \eqn{eq::rge}:
604: \begin{equation}
605: \begin{split}
606: F_0^A\,C_2^A &= \frac{2}{\tau}\left[
607: f(\tau) - \tau\, f'(\tau)\right]\,.
608: \label{eq::c2a}
609: \end{split}
610: \end{equation}
611:
612:
613: Remarkably, when using the same ansatz as in the scalar case of
614: \sct{sec::hgamgam}, the resulting system of linear equations has no
615: solution. The necessary generalization is to allow for terms $\sim
616: (1+\theta)^{-1}$ multiplying the \hpl{}s, reflecting the well-known
617: threshold singularity in the pseudo-scalar case at $m_A=2m_q$. Once
618: this is done, the \ibe{} approach yields
619: \begin{equation}
620: \begin{split}
621: F_0^A\,& C_1^A =\\&
622: -\frac{ \theta \left(1+\theta^2\right) }
623: {{\left(1-\theta\right)}^3\left(1+\theta\right)}
624: \biggl[
625: 72\Li_4(\theta)
626: + 96\Li_4(-\theta)
627: -\frac{128}{3}\Big[\Li_3(\theta) + \Li_3(-\theta)\Big]\ln \theta
628: \\&\qquad
629: +\frac{28}{3}\Li_2(\theta) \ln^2 \theta
630: +\frac{16}{3}\Li_2(-\theta) \ln^2 \theta
631: +\frac{1}{18} \ln^4 \theta
632: \\&\qquad
633: +\frac{8}{3}\zeta_2 \ln^2 \theta
634: +\frac{32}{3}\zeta_3\ln \theta
635: +12\zeta_4
636: \biggr]
637: \\&
638: +\frac{ \theta }{ {\left(1-\theta\right)}^2}
639: \biggl[
640: -\frac{56}{3}\Li_3(\theta)
641: -\frac{64}{3}\Li_3(-\theta)
642: +16\Li_2(\theta)\ln \theta
643: \\&\qquad
644: +\frac{32}{3}\Li_2(-\theta)\ln \theta
645: +\frac{20}{3}\ln(1-\theta)\ln^2 \theta
646: -\frac{8}{3}\zeta_2\ln \theta
647: +\frac{8}{3}\zeta_3
648: \biggr]
649: \\&
650: +\frac{ 2\,\theta \left(1+\theta\right) }{
651: {3\left(1-\theta\right)}^3}\, \ln^3 \theta
652: \,.
653: \end{split}
654: \end{equation}
655:
656:
657:
658: \section{Virtual corrections for \bld{gg\to H/A}}
659:
660: An interesting application of our method is the analytical evaluation of
661: the virtual two-loop corrections for Higgs production in gluon fusion
662: for arbitrary values of the quark and Higgs boson mass.
663:
664: Following Ref.\,\cite{Spira:1995rr}, we write the inclusive \nlo{} cross
665: section as
666: \begin{equation}
667: \begin{split}
668: \sigma(pp\to \Phi+X) &= \sigma_0^\Phi\left[1 +
669: C^\Phi\,\api\right]\tau_\Phi\frac{\dd{\cal L}^{gg}}{\dd\tau_\Phi}
670: + \Delta\sigma^\Phi_{gg}
671: + \Delta\sigma^\Phi_{gq}
672: + \Delta\sigma^\Phi_{q\bar q}\,,\\
673: \qquad \Phi&\in\{H,A\}\,,
674: \label{eq::sigma}
675: \end{split}
676: \end{equation}
677: where $\tau_\Phi = m_\Phi^2/s$ with the center-of-mass energy $s$, and
678: \begin{equation}
679: \begin{split}
680: \frac{\dd{\cal L}^{gg}}{\dd\tau} &= \int_\tau^1\frac{\dd x}{x}
681: g(x,\mu_F)\,g(\tau/x,\mu_F)\,,
682: \end{split}
683: \end{equation}
684: with the gluon density functions $g(x,\mu_F)$, depending on the
685: factorization scale $\mu_F$. The normalization factors are
686: \begin{equation}
687: \begin{split}
688: \sigma_0^H &= \frac{G_F\alpha_s^2}{288\sqrt{2}\pi}
689: \left|\sum_q g_q^H F_0^H(\tau_q)\right|\,,\qquad
690: \sigma_0^A = \frac{G_F\alpha_s^2}{128\sqrt{2}\pi}
691: \left|\sum_q g_q^A F_0^A(\tau_q)\right|\,,
692: \end{split}
693: \end{equation}
694: with $F_0^{H/A}$ defined in Eqs.\,(\ref{eq::alhawh}), (\ref{eq::f0a}).
695: $C^\Phi$ denotes the contributions from the virtual two-loop
696: corrections, regularized by the infrared singular part of the cross
697: section for real gluon emission (see Ref.\,\cite{Spira:1995rr} for details).
698: It can be decomposed into
699: \begin{equation}
700: \begin{split}
701: C^\Phi &= \pi^2 + c^\Phi +
702: 2\,\beta_0\,\ln\frac{\mu^2}{m_\Phi^2}\,,
703: \label{eq::cphi}
704: \end{split}
705: \end{equation}
706: where $\beta_0 = 11/4-n_f/6$ is the lowest-order $\beta$ function of
707: \qcd{} for $n_f$ active quark flavors. The $\Delta\sigma^\Phi_{ij}$
708: denote the contributions from radiation of quarks and gluons with
709: initial state partons $i,j\in\{q,\bar q,g\}$. At \nlo{} perturbation
710: theory, they correspond to massive one-loop three- and four-point
711: functions which can be evaluated analytically using standard
712: techniques~\cite{Passarino:1978jh} (see also Ref.\,\cite{Denner:1991kt}).
713: They shall not be considered any further in this paper.
714:
715: The coefficient $c^\Phi$ of the virtual corrections in \eqn{eq::cphi}
716: is parameterized as
717: \begin{equation}
718: \begin{split}
719: c^\Phi &= \Re\left\{
720: \frac{\sum_q g_q^\Phi F_0^\Phi(\tau_q)\left( B_1^\Phi(\tau_q)
721: + B_2^\Phi(\tau_q)\,\ln\frac{\mu^2}{m_q^2} \right)}{%
722: \sum_q g_q^\Phi F_0^\Phi(\tau_q)}
723: \right\}\,.
724: \end{split}
725: \end{equation}
726: Similar to the decay rates, $B_2^\Phi$ follows from renormalization group
727: considerations:
728: \begin{equation}
729: \begin{split}
730: B_2^\Phi(\tau) &= 2\,C_2^\Phi(\tau)\,,\qquad \Phi\in\{H,A\}\,,
731: \end{split}
732: \end{equation}
733: with $C_2^\Phi$ from Eqs.\,(\ref{eq::c2h}) and (\ref{eq::c2a}). The
734: factor of 2 arises from the fact that $C^\Phi$ in \eqn{eq::sigma} is
735: defined at the level of the cross section rather than the amplitude.
736:
737: $B_1^\Phi$ is known again in terms of one-dimensional integrals, filling
738: several pages ($I_1,\ldots, I_8$ in App.\,A,B of
739: Ref.\,\cite{Spira:1995rr}). Following the method described in
740: \sct{sec::method}, we expanded the integrands for $B_1^\Phi(\tau)$
741: around $\tau=0$ up to order $\tau^{100}$ and mapped them onto a set of
742: suitably chosen basis functions.
743:
744:
745: \FIGURE{%
746: \begin{tabular}{cc}
747: \includegraphics[width=.3\textwidth]{figs/fig-momenta.eps}\qquad &\qquad
748: \raisebox{.3em}{\includegraphics[width=.3\textwidth]{figs/fig-ggh.eps}}
749: \\[0em]
750: (a) & (b)
751: \end{tabular}
752: \parbox{.9\textwidth}{
753: \caption[]{\sloppy
754: (a) Feynman integral contributing to the production rate $gg\to
755: H/A$ but not to the decay rate $H/A\to\gamma\gamma$; it arises
756: due to the self-coupling of gluons, see (b).
757: \label{fig::p126}
758: }}
759: }
760:
761:
762: In the case of gluonic Higgs production, a new class of integrals occurs
763: that cannot be expressed in terms of the functions used for the decay
764: rates. The corresponding scalar diagram is shown in
765: \fig{fig::p126}\,(a); it arises from the physical process due to the
766: self-interaction of gluons, see \fig{fig::p126}\,(b). The scalar
767: integral has been evaluated in Ref.\,\cite{Davydychev:2003mv}. The
768: result contains a Harmonic Polylogarithm of weight four with two indices
769: different from zero. We therefore enlarge our basis to include this
770: kind of functions. Apart from that, the method works exactly like in the
771: case of the decay rates, described in \sct{sec::method}.
772:
773: With $\theta$ defined in \eqn{eq::thetadef}, we find for the scalar case
774: \begin{equation}
775: \begin{split}
776: F_0^H\,&B_1^H =\\&
777: \frac{ \theta {\left(1+\theta\right)}^2 }{{\left(1-\theta\right)}^4}
778: \biggl[ 72 \HPL(1,0,-1,0;\theta)
779: + 6\ln(1-\theta)\ln^3\theta
780: - 36\,\zeta_2\Li_2(\theta)
781: \\&\qquad
782: - 36\,\zeta_2\ln(1-\theta)\ln\theta
783: -108\,\zeta_3\ln(1-\theta)
784: \\&\qquad
785: - 64\Li_3(-\theta)
786: + 32\Li_2(-\theta)\ln\theta
787: - 8\,\zeta_2\ln\theta
788: \biggr]
789: \\&
790: -\frac{ 36\,\theta \left(5+5\,\theta+11\,{\theta}^2+11\,{\theta}^3\right)
791: }{{\left(1-\theta\right)}^5}\Li_4(-\theta)
792: -\frac{ 36\,\theta \left(5+5\,\theta+7\,{\theta}^2+7\,{\theta}^3\right)
793: }{{\left(1-\theta\right)}^5}\Li_4(\theta)
794: \\&
795: +\frac{ 4\,\theta \left(1+\theta\right) \left(23+41\,
796: {\theta}^2\right)}{{\left(1-\theta\right)}^5}
797: \biggl[
798: \Li_3(\theta)
799: +\Li_3(-\theta)
800: \biggr] \ln\theta
801: \\&
802: -\frac{ 16\,\theta \left(1+\theta+{\theta}^2+{\theta}^3\right)
803: }{{\left(1-\theta\right)}^5}\Li_2(-\theta)\ln^2\theta
804: -\frac{ 2\,\theta \left(5+5\,\theta+23\,{\theta}^2+23\,{\theta}^3\right)
805: }{{\left(1-\theta\right)}^5}\Li_2(\theta)\ln^2\theta
806: \\&
807: +\frac{ \theta \left(5+5\,\theta-13\,{\theta}^2-13\,{\theta}^3\right)
808: }{24 {\left(1-\theta\right)}^5}\ln^4\theta
809: +\frac{ \theta \left(1+\theta-17\,{\theta}^2-17\,{\theta}^3\right)
810: }{{\left(1-\theta\right)}^5}\zeta_2\ln^2\theta
811: \\&
812: +\frac{ 2\,\theta \left(11+11\,\theta-43\,{\theta}^2-43
813: {\theta}^3\right) }{{\left(1-\theta\right)}^5}\zeta_3\ln\theta
814: + \frac{ 36\,\theta \left(1+\theta-3\,{\theta}^2-3\,{\theta}^3\right)
815: }{{\left(1-\theta\right)}^5}\zeta_4
816: \\&
817: -\frac{ 2\,\theta \left(55+82\,\theta+55\,{\theta}^2\right)
818: }{{\left(1-\theta\right)}^4}\Li_3(\theta)
819: +\frac{ 2\,\theta \left(51+74\,\theta+51\,{\theta}^2\right)
820: }{{\left(1-\theta\right)}^4}\Li_2(\theta)\ln\theta
821: \\&
822: +\frac{ \theta \left(47+66\,\theta+47\,{\theta}^2\right)
823: }{{\left(1-\theta\right)}^4}\ln(1-\theta)\ln^2\theta
824: +\frac{ \theta \left(6+59\,\theta+58\,{\theta}^2+33\,{\theta}^3\right)
825: }{3 {\left(1-\theta\right)}^5}\ln^3\theta
826: \\&
827: +\frac{ 2\,\theta \left(31+34\,\theta+31\,{\theta}^2\right)
828: }{{\left(1-\theta\right)}^4}\zeta_3
829: +\frac{ 3\,\theta \left(3+22\,\theta+3\,{\theta}^2\right) }{
830: 2{\left(1-\theta\right)}^4}\ln^2\theta
831: \\&
832: -\frac{ 24\,\theta \left(1+\theta\right)
833: }{{\left(1-\theta\right)}^3}\ln\theta
834: -\frac{ 94\,\theta}{{\left(1-\theta\right)}^2}\,.
835: \end{split}
836: \end{equation}
837:
838: For the pseudo-scalar case we get
839: \begin{equation}
840: \begin{split}
841: F_0^A\,&B_1^A =\\&
842: \frac{ \theta }{ {\left(1-\theta\right)}^2}\biggl[
843: 48\HPL(1,0,-1,0;\theta)
844: + 4\ln(1-\theta)\ln^3\theta
845: - 24\,\zeta_2 \Li_2(\theta)
846: \\&\qquad
847: - 24\,\zeta_2 \ln(1-\theta)\ln\theta
848: - 72\,\zeta_3 \ln(1-\theta)
849: - \frac{220}{3}\Li_3(\theta)
850: - \frac{128}{3}\Li_3(-\theta)
851: \\&\qquad
852: + 68\Li_2(\theta)\ln\theta
853: + \frac{64}{3}\Li_2(-\theta)\ln\theta
854: + \frac{94}{3}\ln(1-\theta)\ln^2\theta
855: \\&\qquad
856: - \frac{16}{3}\zeta_2\ln\theta
857: + \frac{124}{3}\zeta_3
858: + 3\ln^2\theta
859: \biggr]
860: \\&
861: - \frac{ 24\,\theta \left(5+7\,{\theta}^2\right)
862: }{{\left(1-\theta\right)}^3 \left(1+\theta\right)}\Li_4(\theta)
863: -\frac{ 24\,\theta \left(5+11\,{\theta}^2\right)
864: }{{\left(1-\theta\right)}^3 \left(1+\theta\right)}\Li_4(-\theta)
865: \\&
866: +\frac{ 8\,\theta \left(23+41\,{\theta}^2\right) }
867: {3{\left(1-\theta\right)}^3 \left(1+\theta\right)}
868: \biggl[
869: \Li_3(\theta)
870: +\Li_3(-\theta)
871: \biggr] \ln\theta
872: -\frac{ 4\,\theta \left(5+23\,{\theta}^2\right) }{
873: 3{\left(1-\theta\right)}^3
874: \left(1+\theta\right)}\Li_2(\theta)\ln^2\theta
875: \\&
876: -\frac{ 32\,\theta \left(1+{\theta}^2\right) }{
877: 3{\left(1-\theta\right)}^3
878: \left(1+\theta\right)}\Li_2(-\theta)\ln^2\theta
879: +\frac{ \theta \left(5-13\,{\theta}^2\right) }{36
880: {\left(1-\theta\right)}^3 \left(1+\theta\right)}\ln^4\theta
881: \\&
882: +\frac{ 2\,\theta \left(1-17\,{\theta}^2\right) }{
883: 3{\left(1-\theta\right)}^3 \left(1+\theta\right)}\zeta_2\ln^2\theta
884: +\frac{ 4\,\theta \left(11-43\,{\theta}^2\right) }{
885: 3{\left(1-\theta\right)}^3 \left(1+\theta\right)}\zeta_3\ln\theta
886: \\&
887: +\frac{ 24\,\theta \left(1-3\,{\theta}^2\right)
888: }{{\left(1-\theta\right)}^3 \left(1+\theta\right)}\zeta_4
889: +\frac{ 2\,\theta \left(2+11\,\theta\right) }{
890: 3{\left(1-\theta\right)}^3}\ln^3\theta \,.
891: \end{split}
892: \end{equation}
893:
894: One may notice that the Harmonic Polylogarithm appearing in
895: Ref.\,\cite{Davydychev:2003mv} is different from the one contributing to
896: $B_1^H$ and $B_1^A$. However, this is only due to an arbitrariness when
897: choosing a basis of Harmonic Polylogarithms. In fact,
898: \begin{equation}
899: \begin{split}
900: 8\HPL(1,0,-1,0;\theta) &=
901: -8\HPL(-1,0,0,1;-\theta)
902: - 2\Snp_{2,2}\bigl(\theta^2\bigr)
903: + 8\Snp_{2,2}(\theta)
904: + 8\Snp_{2,2}(-\theta)
905: \\&
906: + 4\ln \theta \Snp_{1,2}\bigl(\theta^2\bigr)
907: - 8\ln \theta \Snp_{1,2}(\theta)
908: - 8\ln \theta \Snp_{1,2}(-\theta)
909: \\&
910: - 8\ln(1-\theta) \Li_3(-\theta)
911: + 8\ln(1-\theta) \ln \theta \Li_2(-\theta),
912: \end{split}
913: \end{equation}
914: as can be seen using Appendix B of Ref.\,\cite{Czakon:2004wm}, for
915: example. Using $\HPL(1,0,-1,0;\theta)$, all $\Snp_{2,2}$ and
916: $\Snp_{1,2}$ cancel in our final result.
917:
918:
919:
920: \section{Numerical Results}
921:
922: As already mentioned in \sct{sec::method}, the comparison of the
923: final result with a numerical evaluation of the original integral
924: provides one of the most important checks of the calculation.
925:
926: \FIGURE{%
927: \begin{tabular}{c}
928: \includegraphics[width=.8\textwidth]{figs/c1hf0hplot.eps}\\
929: (a)\\[1em]
930: \includegraphics[width=.8\textwidth]{figs/c1af0aplot.eps}\\
931: (b)
932: \end{tabular}
933: \caption[]{ Two-loop contributions to the (a) scalar and (b)
934: pseudo-scalar Higgs decay rate into photons. The solid and dashed
935: lines show the real and the imaginary part, respectively. The
936: dotted lines correspond to the power series expansion up to order
937: $\tau^n$ with $n=10,30,90$.
938: \label{fig::c1}}
939: }
940:
941: \FIGURE{%
942: \begin{tabular}{c}
943: \includegraphics[width=.8\textwidth]{figs/b1hf0hplot.eps}\\
944: (a) \\[1em]
945: \includegraphics[width=.8\textwidth]{figs/b1af0aplot.eps}\\
946: (b)
947: \end{tabular}
948: \caption[]{ Infrared regularized virtual two-loop corrections to
949: the (a) scalar and (b) pseudo-scalar Higgs production rate through
950: gluon fusion. The solid and dashed lines show the real and the
951: imaginary part, respectively. The dotted lines correspond to the
952: power series expansion up to order $\tau^n$ with $n=10,30,90$.
953: \label{fig::b1}}
954: }
955:
956: The solid and dashed lines of \fig{fig::c1}\,(a) and (b) show the real
957: and imaginary part of $C_1^HF_0^H$ and $C_1^AF_0^A$, respectively. The
958: dotted lines in \fig{fig::c1} show the results obtained from the
959: intermediate power series when keeping terms of order $\tau^{n}$ with
960: $n=10,30,90$. Note that, as expected, the power series does not converge
961: towards the analytic result beyond the radius of convergence, given by
962: $\tau=1$. In particular, the imaginary part is always zero. Thus, for
963: $\tau\geq 1$, the result arises solely from analytic continuation of the
964: terms reconstructed through \ibe{}.
965:
966: In addition, we were able to reproduce Figs.\,5 and~18 of
967: Ref.\,\cite{Spira:1995rr}, using our results, to perfect agreement. We
968: find a similar picture for the virtual corrections to gluon fusion,
969: shown in \fig{fig::b1}\,(a) and (b) for the scalar and the pseudo-scalar
970: case, respectively. The numerical evaluation of $\HPL(1,0,-1,0;\theta)$
971: was done with the help of the {\code Mathematica} file {\tt HPL4.m} in
972: \cite{hpl4}.
973:
974:
975: \section{Conclusions}
976:
977: The two-loop \qcd{} results for the decay rate of a scalar or
978: pseudo-scalar Higgs boson into photons, $H/A\to \gamma\gamma$, as well
979: as for the virtual corrections to the production modes $gg\to H/A$ were
980: presented in closed analytical form. In order to obtain these result, we
981: first expanded the known one-dimensional integral representations in
982: terms of small Higgs masses, and subsequently mapped this expansion onto
983: a set of analytic functions. The final results, both for their real and
984: imaginary part, are valid for arbitrary values of the quark and Higgs
985: boson mass. They contain only polylogarithms or simpler functions and,
986: in the case of $gg\to H/A$, one Harmonic Polylogarithm.
987:
988: Our formulas should be useful for implementations into physics analysis
989: programs, or for quickly obtaining analytical limits to arbitrary accuracy.
990:
991: Let us finish by pointing out that the \ibe{} method, in various
992: flavors, has been quite useful already in the past (see
993: Refs.\,\cite{Czarnecki:1995jt,Fleischer:1998nb,vanRitbergen:1999fi,
994: Baikov:2001aa,Harlander:2002vv,Kilgore:2002sk},
995: for example). Its combination with asymptotic expansions may even carry
996: the potential for an algorithmic evaluation of Feynman integrals.
997: However, this not only requires much more efficient computer algebra
998: tools for the expansion of Feynman diagrams. The more important task is
999: to find suitable bases for certain classes of Feynman integrals. We
1000: believe that this is certainly a task worth pursuing.
1001:
1002:
1003:
1004: \paragraph{Acknowledgments.}
1005:
1006: We are indebted to P.~Baikov and A.~Grozin for valuable advice
1007: concerning {\code Form}, {\code Reduce} and the {\code Taylor} package,
1008: to O.~Tarasov for encouragement and useful conversations, to M.~Spira
1009: for communications concerning Ref.\,\cite{Spira:1995rr} and for
1010: providing us with an unpublished {\tt FORTRAN} routine for numerical
1011: checks, and to O.~Veretin for sharing his experience with Harmonic
1012: Polylogarithms and the \ibe{} method. Special thanks go to J.H.~K\"uhn
1013: for encouragement and advice.
1014:
1015: We kindly acknowledge financial support by {\it Deutsche
1016: Forschungsgemeinschaft}
1017: (contract HA\,2990/2-1, {\it Emmy Noether program}).
1018:
1019:
1020: \input{journals}
1021: \newcommand{\jref}[3]{{\bf #1}, #3 (#2)}
1022: \newcommand{\bibentry}[4]{#1, #3.}
1023: \newcommand{\arxiv}[1]{{\tt arXiv:#1}}
1024: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
1025: \input{ibe_ref}
1026: \end{thebibliography}
1027:
1028:
1029: \end{document}
1030: